Existence of Revelation — Part II: Genuineness, Integrity and Historicity of the Gospels

Art. II.—Genuineness and Integrity of the Gospels.

I.—Extrinsic arguments.

First Century:

1.—Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians (A.D. c. 96) contains six texts taken from the Synoptic Gospels. The sense is given, not the literal words.

2.—Didache, doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (A.D. 80-100) discovered in 1873 in the library of Constantinople by Philotheus Bryennius, cites words taken from St. Matthew and St. Luke.

3.—Epistle attributed to St. Barnabas (c. A.D. 98-100) contains allusions to St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke.

4.—St. Ignatius, Martyr (+ c. A.D. 110), borrows sentences from St. Matthew and St. John.

5.—Pastor of Hermas (c. A.D. 140) quotes several texts from each of the four Evangelists.

6.—Epistle of St. Polycarp also mentions passages from the four Gospels.

7.—As already related, Eusebius (Book III., c. 39), quotes a fragment from a work of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (c. 130 A.D.) who was a disciple of St. John, friend of St. Polycarp and master of St. Irenæus. Papias mentions the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark.

Second Century:

(A) Patristic testimony.

1.—St. Justin (Apologia I., 66) narrates that at Christian meetings the Gospels were read. In his Dialogue with Trypho (n. 103) he states that the Gospels were written by Apostles and Disciples. Again in Apologia I., 15, he cites about twenty verses from the Sermon on the Mount; he refers to Messianic prophecies contained in the First Gospel. He describes the Annunciation and many incidents of the birth of Christ contained in St. Luke.

2.—Tatian, disciple of St. Justin, a Syrian, wrote the Diatesseron—a harmony of the four Gospels—about A.D. 170.

3.—The Muratorian Canon (a fragment found by Muratori in the Ambrosian Library in 1740) composed before 200 A.D. mentions St. Luke’s Gospel as the third, and St. John’s Gospel as the fourth.

4.—St. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote his book Adversus Hæreses about A.D. 180. He has the following words: “Matthew published his Gospel (written in the Hebrew tongue) when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the Church. After their death, Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed down in writing to us the truth that Peter taught. And Luke, follower of Paul, wrote in a book the Gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterwards, John, disciple of the Lord, who reclined upon His breast, published a Gospel, whilst he stayed at Ephesus in Asia.” St. Irenæus was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John (Cf. “Adversus Hæreses,” Book III., c. 1, n. 1).

5.—Tertullian (c. A.D. 200) regarded the claim to be beyond controversy that the four Gospels had been in the possession of the Church since the time of the Apostles. “Matthew and John being Apostles; Mark and Luke disciples of Apostles” (Adv. Marcionem, Book IV., c. 2 and 5).

6.—Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata (c. A.D. 200) mentions the names of the four Evangelists, and discriminates their writings from Apocryphal works (“Stromata,” Book III. 13; Book I. 21).

7.—Origen (c. A.D. 200) writes that the four are the only Gospels approved by the Church (Luc. hom. I.).

(B) Testimony of heretics.

Many of the Gnostics admitted the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, from which they tried to deduce their doctrine of “æons” (e.g., Basilides and Valentinus). Marcion chose the Gospel of St. Luke as the expression of the original doctrine rightly set forth by St. Paul. Celsus stated that heretics tried to change the words of the Gospel in defence of their errors (Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum II. 13-16).

Conclusion: It is clear that the four Gospels were in use at the end of the Second Century in churches far apart, and that their genuineness was acknowledged without question. If these four Gospels are not genuine, several morally impossible results, indicated in the following questions, ensue:

(1) Why did Apostolic Fathers, Bishops and faithful receive as their rule of Faith the Gospels if apocryphal?

(2) Why did not heretics and pagans deny their genuineness?

(3) How was it that the different churches received the Gospels as Apostolic?

(4) If the Gospels are not genuine, who are their authors, when and where were they written?

II.—Intrinsic Arguments.

The genuineness of the Gospels is confirmed by intrinsic criteria.

(A) As regards the Synoptic Gospels, examination shews that their authors were illiterate Jews, who knew not Greek and used many Hebraisms. They belong to the First Century, inasmuch as (in their description of places, manners, things and persons) they relate very minute circumstances without error, which would have been impossible for writers of their very moderate ability after the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple. Moreover in the Synoptic Gospels, the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem is associated with the end of the world, which proves that the prophecy was written before A.D. 70.

M. Rackham in his Commentary on the Acts writes: “St. Luke is equally at home with the Sanhedrin and its parties, the priests and the temple guard, and the Herodian princes at Jerusalem, with the proconsul of Cyprus and Achaia, the rulers of the Synagogue and the first men of Antioch in Pisidia, the priest of Zeus at Lystra, the prætors, lictors, and jailer at Philippi, the politarchs of Thessalonica, the Areopagus of Athens, the Asiarchs with the people, assembly and secretary at Ephesus, the centurions, tribune and procurator of Judæa, the first man of Malta, and the captain of the camp at Rome. Such accuracy would have been almost impossible for a writer compiling the history fifty years later. In some cases where his statements had been impugned, St. Luke has been signally vindicated by the discovery of inscriptions, as in the case of the politarch of Thessalonica and the proconsul of Cyprus” (Acts, p. xlv.).

To sum up, Catholic critics conclude (Harnack regards the opinion as probable) that the Synoptic Gospels were written between the years 50 and 70, probably about the year 60, and the fourth Gospel between 80 and 100 A.D.

(B) The Fourth Gospel.

Internal evidence shows that the author was:

(1) A Jew. There are many Hebraisms, and the Jewish customs and Messianic idea are perfectly described.

(2) An eye-witness, because of his vivid descriptions of various characters, e.g., John the Baptist, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Martha, Samaritan woman, man born blind, etc.

(3) An Apostle. He knew minute details of the life of Our Lord, His thoughts and prayers, His secret interview with Nicodemus, with the Samaritan woman, etc.

(4) John, son of Zebedee. He is never “John” in the Fourth Gospel, but the disciple “whom Jesus loved.”

(5) In the last chapter, the authenticity of which is not disproved, it is said of the disciple whom Jesus loved: “This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.”

Differences of arrangement and matter between the Fourth and the Synoptic Gospels prove nothing against its genuineness, but show that:

(1) John wished to supply what was wanting in the other Gospels. Hence he describes the Judean ministry, teaches more explicitly the Divinity of Christ, and for this purpose makes choice of the miracles and words of Our Lord.

(2) Differences are also due to the gifts of the writers, to which St. Paul alludes 1 Cor. xiii. 4. St. John’s special gifts were interpretation of the words of Christ, and the “word of wisdom” mentioned in 1 Cor. ii. 6-10.

(3) Apparent discrepancies are really a proof of the genuineness of the four Gospels. Brugère argues thus: If the books associated with the names of the Apostles are the works of subsequent writers, the books were written either frankly and without intention of fraud, or deceitfully with such intention. If the first, why so many and such minute instances of agreement, if the latter, why differences of arrangement and matter?

III.—Integrity of the Gospels.

In order to establish the Divine origin of Christianity, it is sufficient to defend historically the substantial integrity of the Gospels as to doctrine and principal facts. Nowadays after diligent examination of manuscripts, versions, citations from the Fathers, non-Catholic critics allow that there was no substantial alteration of the text of the Gospels from the time of the last revision, i.e., A.D. 70-90 for the Synoptic Gospels, and A.D. 110-120 for the Fourth Gospel. There are various readings, but most are only verbal transpositions, or synonymous terms, or modifications in orthography. About ten passages¹ refer to doctrine, but these passages contain nothing essential affecting the preaching of Christ, and the principal facts of His life.

Art. III.—Historical character of the Gospels.

Some Rationalists (e.g., Baur) did not hesitate to accuse the Evangelists of deliberate and conscious deceit. Renan and others attributed their views to hallucination. Modernists assert that Christ’s historical person was transfigured by a process of idealisation due to the faith and enthusiasm of His disciples (D. 2076).

I.—Historicity of the Synoptic Gospels.

(a) The hypothesis of hallucination.

How could all the Evangelists in regard to the same facts, throughout their lives, and in the same way have suffered from hallucination? Nay, the deadliest enemies of Christ must have been affected in the same way, as they could not deny, and did not attempt to deny, the miracles. This hypothesis is clearly absurd.

(b) Equally absurd is the hypothesis of wilful deceit. The goodness and simplicity of the Apostles are apparent. They could hope for no gain, temporal or eternal, from falsehood, but on the contrary persecution and suffering. They sealed their testimony with their blood. They died martyrs, i.e., witnesses, shewing no fanaticism, but humility and patience. How has it come to pass that the supposed fraud has been fruitful for nineteen centuries in sanctity and beneficence?

(c) Process of Idealisation.

(1) The supposed process cannot be admitted. The Synoptic writers relate, in a historical and literal way, the political, moral and religious state of the Jews. Why should their narrative of the words and works of Christ be less accurate? Transformation and deformation of the history of Christ appear in the Apocryphal Gospels, in which we read that Christ, as a child, performed countless stupendous miracles. But there is nothing of this idealisation in the simple and grave words of the Evangelists.

(2) Idealisation was morally impossible. Change of the texts of the Synoptic Gospels between the years A.D. 60 and 90 was impossible, inasmuch as witnesses of the facts were still alive. Hence Strauss assigned the composition of the Gospels to the end of the Second Century—a supposition no longer held by any critic. Moreover, as J. J. Rousseau and John Stuart Mill allow, Galilean fishermen, or early Christian writers could not possibly excogitate and write down the words of Christ, or describe His life and character as they appear in the Synoptic Gospels. There is a union of sublimity and simplicity, which postulates a different origin.

(3) The supposed idealisation is contrary to facts. The Synoptic writers do not stress the Divinity of Christ, or the meritorious value of His death as much as St. Paul, and yet St. Paul began to write about the year A.D. 53. The first three Gospels note rather the human side of Christ, His sorrows and sufferings. They do not hide the weaknesses and prejudices of the Apostles. They would have adopted a different method if they intended to transfigure the words and deeds of Christ. When St. Paul refers to His Divinity (e.g. “in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth corporally,” Coloss. ii. 9) he wrote concerning a truth, which was already accepted and believed by the whole Christian community.

II.—Historicity of the Fourth Gospel.

Regarding the Fourth Gospel, Modernists assert: The narrative of John is not really history, but a mystical contemplation; the words attributed to Christ in this Gospel are theological meditations on the mysteries of salvation, and are destitute of historical truth; the Fourth Gospel gives exaggerated prominence to miracles, not that they should appear more extraordinary, but that they might be more apt to signify the works and glory of the Incarnate Word; John claimed to be a witness unto Christ, but in truth he is only a striking witness of Christian life, or of the influence of Christ in the Church at the end of the First Century (D. 2016-2018).

Answer: The principal aim of the Fourth Gospel is dogmatic. The Evangelist wishes to shew clearly that Jesus is the Son of God (Cf. John xx. 31). But it does not follow that the words and works of Christ narrated in this Gospel are not historically true. To prove a truth of such moment, a sincere author will bring forward only deeds and words, absolutely unexceptionable as to truth and weight.

(A) Historicity of the Facts.

The objection has been made: Many facts narrated in this Gospel do not appear in the Synoptic Gospels, and are therefore not historical.

Answer: (a) The facts peculiar to the Fourth Gospel are not narrated as allegories or parables, but as real events.

(b) Some facts common to the Fourth and to the Synoptics are related practically in the same way as they appear in St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke (Cf. Testimony of St. John the Baptist, ejection of sellers from the Temple, walking upon the waters, anointing of Jesus in Bethany, triumphal entry into Jerusalem, history of the Passion).

(c) Moreover, St. John aimed at supplementing the narratives of his predecessors. Accordingly he passes over quickly the Galilean and narrates facts of the Judean ministry. He does not repeat the circumstances of the institution of the Eucharist, but describes the promise of the same. He passes over the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus, and of the widow’s son at Naim, he omits the confession of St. Peter, but he records the miracle at Cana, the secret visit of Nicodemus, the interview with the Samaritan woman, the giving of sight to a man congenitally blind, the cure of the paralytic at the probatic pool, the raising of Lazarus to life. All these facts he describes with details of place and time, noting usage and tradition of the Jews. Allegorical suggestion in regard to these facts is as void of foundation as in regard to incidents narrated by the four Evangelists.

(B) Historicity of the Discourses.

Modernists and Rationalists object that there is a great difference between the discourses recorded in the Fourth Gospel, and those which appear in the Synoptics, both as regards doctrine and style. It is claimed that the Synoptic writers record moral precepts in a simple style, whereas John teaches sublime dogmas in an elevated style.

Answer: (a) In the Synoptics we have often merely the substance of the discourses of Christ. Compare St. Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Mount with that of St. Matthew. This instance suggests that it should not be matter of wonder if John records discourses more at length, especially when he touches on higher mysteries.

(b) Moreover, the dogmatic aim of the Fourth Gospel should be considered. St. John stresses the Divinity of Christ, which at that time was denied by the gnostic Cerinthus and by the Ebionites. To meet this denial, St. John chose for narration words and deeds of Christ in which His glory and power are reflected. The Synoptics, too, express His Divinity, but less explicitly.

(c) Again, St. John’s mode of writing is suitable as an expression of the sublime doctrine which he teaches. His style is more ornate, more vivid; his temperament and special calling are reflected therein; he was the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” who rested his head upon the breast of Christ at the last Supper, to whom Christ, when dying, commended the care of His mother. But in the words attributed to Christ, St. John does not introduce his own ideas; indeed, in some cases, he carefully discriminates his own reflections from the words of Christ. (Cf. ii. 21; xii. 33; vii. 39).

(d) With reference to apparent contradictions between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, even non-Catholic critics, who assume their reality, allow that they are accidental, and do not affect the substance of the history of Christ, or His doctrine, but are concerned with details of chronology, and the number and order of His miracles. In these supposed discrepancies, there is a clear proof of the sincerity of the Evangelists, for if they were not sincere, they would have removed all appearance of contradiction. Interesting corroboration of their accuracy appears in some instances of supposed divergence. For example, the Synoptics write of the Pharisees and Sadducees where St. John mentions High Priests and Pharisees. At that period it can be proved that the High Priests were Sadducees.

Conclusion: Few profane books of antiquity can boast a historicity as well supported as that of the Gospels. The first mention of Herodotus was made by Aristotle one hundred years after the death of the historian; the second mention appears in Cicero, who lived three hundred years later. Thucydides is first mentioned by Cicero. Strauss acknowledged that he did not contest the genuineness of the Gospels on historical grounds (Leben Jesu xxii.). So also writes Renan (Vie de Jésus vi.). Zeller asserted that he would not believe the Resurrection of Christ even if supported by most certain testimonies (“Vorträge und Abhandlungen,” Erste Sammlung, Leipzig, 1875, p. 543). It is not therefore historical considerations which move Rationalists to reject the Gospel testimony regarding the Supernatural.

Notes

Footnotes

1. The authenticity of the following passages has been questioned: (1) Mark xvi. 9-20; (2) Luke xxii. 43-44; (3) John vii. 53—viii. 11; (4) Matthew xxviii. 19; (5) Attribution of Magnificat to Mary, Luke i. 46; (6) John v. 3-4. ↩