✝ Catholic Treasury Network
Home ›Tracts›Apologetics›Existence of Revelation — Part I: Method and Authorship of the Gospels
T.J. WalsheApologeticsChapter 19

Existence of Revelation — Part I: Method and Authorship of the Gospels

Section VI.—Testimony of Christ

Chapter XIX.—Existence of Revelation

Introduction

§ 1.—On the Method and Division of this Treatise.

I.—Two methods are possible: progressive and regressive.

The religious systems of the present day are chiefly three—Christianity, Islamism and Buddhism. There can be no doubt of the supremacy of the Christian Faith, and if there is a Revelation, it must be first sought in the religion established by Christ. In this religion there are three stages—Primeval, Mosaic, and Christian.

(A) Up to the Nineteenth Century many apologists used the progressive method, and tried to prove the Divine origin of (1) the Primeval stage; (2) the Mosaic, confirmed by the miracles of Moses and prophets, and (3) of the religion of Christ and the Catholic Church. Recently Ottiger has attempted this task. But the long treatment involved, and the many difficulties raised against the Books of the Old Testament (difficulties better and more fully solved by commentators on Holy Scripture) forbid the exclusive use of this method.

(B) Hence during the Nineteenth Century many Apologists had recourse to the regressive method, beginning by an examination of the religion of Christ, and in this way illustrating, by the light of the New Testament and the fulfilment of prophecy, primitive testimonies and documents of the Old Testament. Some (e.g., Brugère) establish the truths of Christianity and of Catholicism separately. Others (e.g., Lacordaire, Card. Deschamps, Didiot, etc.) find in the marks of the Church “a great and perpetual motive of Credibility and irrefragable testimony of its Divine mission. Hence the Church, as ‘a standard to the nations,’ both invites to itself those who have not as yet received the Faith, and makes her own children more certain that the Faith which they possess rests upon a solid foundation” (Vat. Council, D. 1794). These Apologists using the testimony of the Church illustrate with clearer light the historical part of Apologetics—the life, doctrine, miracles of Christ and the Messianic prophecies. Finally the testimony of Christ vouches for the Divine origin of the Mosaic and of the primeval stages. The regressive method, proceeding as it does from the complex fact of the life of the Church to its principles, is analytic in character, whereas the progressive method is more or less synthetic.

II.—Value of the regressive method.

This method is suitable for many reasons, but should not be exclusively used.

(A) Regressive method suitable in many respects. It is:

(1) Easier, as the method sets out from the better known.

(2) Shorter and more convincing inasmuch as the solution of historical and critical questions on the origin of Christianity is strengthened by the tradition of the Church.

(3) More conformable to the idea of “Catholic Apologetics,” as it marshals rational arguments “under the direction of Faith.”

(4) Shews that “Christian Apologetics” and “Catholic Apologetics,” for whatever purpose they may be provisionally distinguished, are really identical.

(5) Seems more in accordance with the words of the Vatican Council, which asserts that the Church is a “perpetual motive of Credibility, and an irrefragable proof of its own Divine mission.”

(6) Is traditional, as the distinction between Christianity and Catholicism arose subsequent to the Reformation.

(B) The regressive method should not be exclusively used.

(1) The Vatican Council affirms the probative force of the miracles and prophecies of Moses and of Christ before it considers the Church.

(2) Leo XIII writes (Encyclical, “Providentissimus Deus”): that since the magisterium of the Church rests on the testimony of Sacred Scripture, belief in Sacred Scripture as authentic and genuine documents must be vindicated.

(3) It is more natural to set forth the historical testimony of Christ regarding His Divine mission, the mysteries to be believed, precepts to be observed, institution of the Church, before motives of Credibility are considered. These motives, especially the life and marks of the Church, confirm such testimony.

III.—Union of both methods.

As in physical science analytical and synthetic methods are united, so, in the science of Apologetics, it is best to unite the regressive and progressive methods. Accordingly the testimony of Christ regarding His own Divine mission will have first place, followed by the motives of Credibility best known to us, namely, life and doctrine of the Church; and finally, the mind of the enquirer will be directed to weigh the evidence of miracles and prophecy in the past. Thus the second part of Catholic Apologetics will be divided as follows:

§ 2.—Historical Authority of the Four Gospels.

Art. I.—Preliminary remarks.

The teaching and history of Christ are found in the New Testament, and especially in the Four Gospels. To prove the existence of Christian Revelation, it is sufficient to prove the historical authority of the Gospels. Many Rationalists no longer question the historical character of the principal epistles of St. Paul, e.g., 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Philippians. Harnack and Jülicher acknowledge that these epistles were written about A.D. 49-59 or A.D. 53-64.

The Inspiration of the Gospels is not considered here; the question to be considered is their historical value: (1) Are they genuine and authentic, i.e., written by the authors to whom they are attributed and therefore authoritative; (2) are they “integral,” i.e., in substantial agreement with the original documents; (3) are they historically trustworthy as to the narration of facts, i.e., is the character of the Evangelists such that they were neither deceived nor themselves guilty of deception. The full and adequate treatment of this question is found in the writings of Biblical scholars (Lepin, Cornely, Durand, Jacquier, etc.).

Only the principal arguments are given here.

I.—Method.

The genuineness, integrity and historicity of a book may be proved by extrinsic arguments (i.e., by the testimony of writers who lived about the same time), or by intrinsic arguments drawn from the books themselves.

(a) Extrinsic arguments give historical certitude of the authenticity of a book, if it is clear that the witnesses are suitable, and that their testimony has not been falsified.

(b) Intrinsic arguments do not, as a rule, sufficiently determine the author and the exact time of composition; they furnish only probability and confirmation of external proofs.

(c) Rationalists exaggerate the value of the intrinsic, and minimise the value of the extrinsic method. They find confirmation of à priori judgments in their examination of intrinsic qualities. Harnack, for example, judged the essence of Christianity to be the conception of God as Father; whereas Loisy found the essence of the Gospel message in the preaching of the Kingdom of God, and the nearness of the end of the world (Parousia). Loisy excludes the institution of the Church as not compatible with the Parousia. Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” points out that by the sole or exaggerated use of the internal method each critic finds confirmation of his own à priori views.

II.—Opinions of Adversaries.

There are four principal adverse systems:

(a) Naturalism: Paulus (1761-1851) admitted the genuineness of the Synoptic Gospels, but characterised the miraculous element as Oriental exaggeration.

(b) Mythism: Strauss (1808-1874), whose book Leben Jesu was translated into English by Miss Marian Evans (known later as George Eliot), maintained that the miraculous element in the Gospels is mythical—invented 150 years after the death of Christ.

(c) Evolutionism: The Tübingen school whose founder was Baur (1792-1860) held that Christianity is the synthesis of two opposite tendencies. “Thesis” and “Antithesis” are (according to the Hegelian idea) rendered compatible in “Synthesis.” The doctrines of Peter and Paul (thesis and antithesis), enshrined respectively in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, are unified in a higher synthesis in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. John. To this school belong Zeller, Schwegler, Ritschl, Pfleiderer.

(d) Modernism: The modern critical school holds that the teaching of Christ was gradually idealised. Hence different stages of judgment regarding Christ. He is (1) Son of God; (2) equal to the Father; (3) miraculously born of a Virgin, etc. The genuineness and historical character of the Gospel of St. John is usually denied. (This school includes Reuss, Renan, Sabatier, A. Réville, J. Réville, Stapfer, Harnack, H. Holtzmann, O. Holtzmann, Jülicher, Cheyne, Loisy, and other Modernists). Of these critics Adolph Harnack is undoubtedly the ablest. His recent judgments are that the Gospel of St. Mark was written about 65-70 by a disciple of Peter; the Gospel of St. Luke 78-83, perhaps earlier, 60-70, and is genuine; the Gospel of St. Matthew (i.e., the Greek version) 70-75 by an unknown author; the Gospel of St. John 80-110 by a priest named John (not the Evangelist).

III.—Teaching of the Church.

The Biblical Commission (June 19th, 1911, and June 26th, 1912) teaches the genuineness, the chronological order of composition (i.e., 1st, Aramaic Gospel of St. Matthew; 2nd, St. Mark; 3rd, St. Luke) and the historical character of the Synoptic Gospels. The Commission allows the hypothesis regarding the priority of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke to the Greek version of St. Matthew to be tenable. The Commission disapproves of the attitude of those who, “resting on no testimony of tradition or historical argument, adopt the hypothesis of two sources to explain the composition of the Greek version of St. Matthew and of the Gospel of St. Luke from their dependence on the Gospel of St. Mark and on the so-called ‘Sayings of the Lord.’”

On May 29th, 1907, the Commission with the approbation of the Pope declared the genuineness and historical character of the Fourth Gospel.

About fifty years ago, the critics of the Tübingen school were accustomed to assign the books of the New Testament to comparatively late dates and to unknown authors. In recent years there has been a reaction led by Harnack. In his Chronology of Ancient Christian Literature, published 1897, he writes: “The most ancient literature of the Church is, on all chief points and in the majority of details, veracious and worthy of belief from the point of view of literary history… . In our criticism of the most ancient sources of Christianity, we are without any doubt in course of returning to tradition” (Chronologie, Leipzig, 1897 Vol. I., pp. viii-ix). The Chronology was followed by his works on St. Luke and the Acts.

Regarding the Gospels:

1.—St. Matthew composed in Aramaic a collection of Our Lord’s discourses with connecting narrative, and some unknown author not long after A.D. 70 used this collection in combination with St. Mark’s narrative and some other material to produce our First Gospel “according to St. Matthew.”

2.—John Mark, author of the second Gospel, lived in his mother’s house at Jerusalem. Some think (it is only conjecture) that the Cenacle was in this house. In his Gospel (xiv. 51-2) the incident is narrated of the young man in a linen cloth, who was a spectator of Our Lord’s arrest. This young man was in all probability Mark himself. He was closely associated with St. Paul and St. Barnabas (Mark was cousin to Barnabas) in the early stages of St. Paul’s first missionary journey. But he left them before they went inland from Perga to Pisidian Antioch. Later a discussion occurred between St. Paul and St. Barnabas as to the advisability of taking Mark with them a second time (Acts xv. 39). St. Barnabas and St. Mark sailed to Cyprus. In the history of St. Mark there is then a gap of about ten years. Mark is next found at Rome—a trusted friend of St. Paul who was a prisoner. In St. Paul’s second captivity he wrote to Timothy, who was at Ephesus, asking him to bring Mark with him to Rome, “for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” St. Peter in his first epistle (1 Pet. v. 12-13) written at Rome speaks of Sylvanus “a faithful brother” and of “my son, Mark,” who is with him. During the ten years’ gap in Mark’s life, just alluded to, Mark followed St. Peter, taking notes of his teaching, and thus preparing material for his Gospel.

The date of the publication of St. Mark’s Gospel (the material most probably existed for some years before publication) is probably about the year of St. Peter’s death, 67 A.D. The suggestion of the Tübingen school of a second-century date is now abandoned.

3.—Concerning the authorship of the third Gospel and of the Acts, the following points are certain:

(1) The Acts is the work of one of St. Paul’s travelling companions, who was often present at the incidents and scenes described.

(2) The Gospel and the Acts were written by the same author.

(3) Amongst St. Paul’s travelling companions Luke, “the beloved physician,” to whom tradition ascribes the books, was pre-eminent.

(4) The language of the book presupposes an educated author, and most probably a physician, because of the use of medical terms.

The Acts terminates at the end of the second year of St. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, A.D. 63. The Gospel was the first of St. Luke’s two books, and consequently was written before A.D. 63, and as it seems to imply knowledge of St. Mark’s Gospel, the material of the latter must have been accessible about A.D. 60.

The conclusion emphasised by Sanday, Harnack, and many others is that the materials of the Synoptic Gospels were practically all in being before the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), and that the after-time had no serious effect upon them.

The Biblical Commission disapproves of the hypothesis of “two sources” adopted on “no testimony of tradition or historical argument” to explain the composition of the Greek version of St. Matthew and of the Gospel of St. Luke. It is well to know the hypothesis to which the Commission alludes. It is claimed that a large part of St. Luke’s narrative, consisting mainly of Our Lord’s sayings, is common to him with St. Matthew. Some critics suppose that both Evangelists (St. Matthew and St. Luke) drew upon a document, which is usually known as Q (Quelle, i.e., source). Besides using St. Mark and Q (which is questionable), St. Luke undoubtedly derived information contained in Chapters I and II from the Blessed Virgin.

In the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (Bk. III., c. 39) it is related that Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, wrote five books entitled Interpretation of oracular utterances of Our Lord, a fragment of which Eusebius preserves. Concerning the first Evangelist, Papias writes: “Matthew compiled the logia in the Hebrew speech.” The word logia in pre-Christian and post-Christian writers meant “oracles,” “Divine utterances,” “Divine Revelation.” Hence Dr. Westcott judged that the sense of this passage is best expressed as follows: “Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew.” The primary meaning of logia is of course “oracles” or “Divine utterances,” but as the distinction between the mental, oral and written word is easily unobserved, in Dr. Westcott’s opinion, the expression in this passage is equivalent to Gospel—a written record chiefly of the words, but, also of the works of Our Lord. Dr. Lightfoot has also given reason to conclude that the word logia (oracles) refers to a Gospel, containing incidents and discourses like our First Gospel.

Of the passage of Papias regarding St. Mark, Westcott gives the following translation: “For he (Mark) neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, attached himself to Peter, who used to frame his teaching to meet the (immediate) wants of his hearers, and not as making a connected narrative of the Lord’s discourses.” Dr. Westcott prefers the reading λόγων to λογίων, i.e., “discourses” instead of “oracles,” whereas in the passage regarding St. Matthew, he judges logia to be the correct reading and to be equivalent to “Gospel” (Cf. Westcott, “A general survey of the history of the Canon of the New Testament,” 3rd edition, 1870, pp. 64, 65n, 66n).