{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36267/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36267","id":"gutenberg_36267","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36267","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Gospels -- Evidences, authority, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Tischendorf, Constantin von, 1815-1874. Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? English"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?\n\nBy Charles Bradlaugh\n\n[Fourth Edition]\n\nLondon: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter Street E.C.\n\n1881.\n\nLondon:\n\nPrinted By Annie Besant And Charles Bradlaugh,\n\n28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE TO FOURTH EDITION.\n\n     Since this pamphlet was originally penned in 1867, the\n     author of \"Supernatural Religion\" has in his three volumes\n     placed a very storehouse of information within the easy\n     reach of every student, and many of Dr. Teschendorf's\n     reckless statements have been effectively dealt with in that\n     masterly work. In the present brief pamphlet there is only\n     the very merest index to matters which in \"Supernatural\n     Religion\" are exhaustively treated. Part II. of \"The\n     Freethinkers' Text-Book,\" by Mrs Besant, has travelled over\n     the same ground with much care, and has given exact\n     reference to authorities on each point.\n\n\nThe Religious Tract Society, some time since, issued, prefaced with\ntheir high commendation, a translation of a pamphlet by Dr. Constantine\nTischendorf, entitled \"When were our Gospels Written?\" In the\nintroductory preface we are not unfairly told that \"on the credibility\nof the four Gospels the whole of Christianity rests, as a building on\nits foundations.\" It is proposed in this brief essay to deal with the\ncharacter of Dr. Tischendorf's advocacy, then to examine the genuineness\nof the four Gospels, as affirmed by the Religious Tract Society's\npamphlet, and at the same time to ascertain, so far as is possible in\nthe space, how far the Gospel narrative is credible.\n\nThe Religious Tract Society state that Dr. Tischendorf's _brochure_ is\na repetition of \"arguments for the genuineness and authenticity of the\nfour Gospels,\" which the erudite Doctor had previously published for the\nlearned classes, \"with explanations\" now given in addition, to render\nthe arguments \"intelligible\" to meaner capacities; and as the \"Infidel\"\nand \"Deist\" are especially referred to as likely to be overthrown by\nthis pamphlet, we may presume that the society considers that in the 119\npages--which the translated essay occupies--they have presented the best\npaper that can be issued on their behalf for popular reading on this\nquestion. The praise accorded by the society, and sundry laudations\nappropriated with much modesty in his own preface by Dr. Constantine\nTischendorf to himself, compel one at the outset to regard the Christian\nmanifesto as a most formidable production. The Society's translator\nimpressively tells us that the pamphlet has been three times printed\nin German and twice in France; that it has been issued in Dutch and\nRussian, and is done into Italian by an Archbishop with the actual\napprobation of the Pope. The author's preface adds an account of his\ngreat journeyings and heavy travelling expenses incurred out of an\noriginal capital of a \"few unpaid bills,\" ending in the discovery of\na basketful of old parchments destined for the flames by the Christian\nmonks in charge, but which from the hands of Dr. Teschendorf are used\nby the Religious Tract Society to neutralise all doubts, and to \"blow\nto pieces\" the Rationalistic criticism of Germany and the coarser\nInfidelity of England. Doubtless Dr. Teschendorf and the Society\nconsider it some evidence in favor of the genuineness and authenticity\nof the four Gospels that the learned Doctor was enabled to spend 5,000\ndollars out of less than nothing, and that the Pope regards his pamphlet\nwith favor, or they would not trouble to print such statements. We\nfrankly accord them the full advantage of any argument which may fairly\nbe based on such facts. An autograph letter of endorsement by the Pope\nis certainly a matter which a Protestant Tract Society--who regard \"the\nscarlet whore at Babylon\" with horror--may well be proud of.\n\nDr. Tischendorf states that he has since 1839 devoted himself to the\ntextual study of the New Testament, and it ought to be interesting to\nthe orthodox to know that, as a result of twenty-seven years' labor,\nhe now declares that \"it has been placed beyond doubt that the original\ntext.... had in many places undergone such serious modifications of\nmeaning, as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the apostles\nhad actually written,\" and that \"the right course to take\" \"is to set\naside the received text altogether and to construct a fresh text.\"\n\nThis is pleasant news for the true believer, promulgated by authority\nof the managers of the great Christian depot in Paternoster Row, from\nwhence many scores of thousands of copies of this incorrect received\ntext have nevertheless been issued without comment to the public,\neven since the society have published in English Dr. Tischendorf s\ndeclaration of its unreliable character.\n\nWith the modesty and honorable reticence peculiar to-great men, Dr.\nTischendorf records his successes in reading hitherto unreadable\nparchments, and we learn that he has received approval from \"several\nlearned bodies, and even from crowned heads,\" for his wonderful\nperformances. As a consistent Christian, who knows that the \"powers that\nbe are ordained of God,\" our \"critic without rival,\" for so he prints\nhimself, regards the praise of crowned heads as higher in degree than\nthat of learned bodies.\n\nThe Doctor discovered in 1844 the MS. on which he now relies to confute\naudacious Infidelity, in the Convent of St. Catherine at Sinai; he\nbrought away a portion, and handed! that portion, on his return, to the\nSaxon Government--they paying all expenses. The Doctor, however, did\nnot then divulge where he had found the MS. It was for the advantage\nof humankind that the place should be known at once, for, at least, two\nreasons. First, because by aid of the remainder of this MS.--\"the\nmost precious Bible treasure in existence\"--the faulty text of the New\nTestament was to be reconstructed; and the sooner the work was done the\nbetter for believers in Christianity. And, secondly, the whole story\nof the discovery might then have been more easily confirmed in every\nparticular.\n\nFor fifteen years, at least, Dr. Tischendorf hid from the world the\nprecise locality in which his treasure had been discovered. Nay, he was\neven fearful when he knew that other Christians were trying to find\nthe true text, and he experienced \"peculiar satisfaction\" when he\nascertained that his silence had misled some pious searchers after\nreliable copies of God's message to all humankind; although all this\ntime he was well aware that our received copies of God's revelation had\nundergone \"serious modifications\" since the message had been delivered\nfrom the Holy Ghost by means of the Evangelists.\n\nIn 1853, \"nine years after the original discovery,\" Dr. Tischendorf\nagain visited the Sinai convent, but although he had \"enjoined on the\nmonks to take religious care\" of the remains of which they, on the\nformer occasion, would not yield up possession, he, on this second\noccasion, and apparently after careful search, discovered \"eleven short\nlines,\" which convinced him that the greater part of the MS. had been\ndestroyed. He still, however, kept the place secret, although he had no\nlonger any known reason for so doing; and, having obtained an advance of\nfunds from the Russian Government, he, in 1859, tried a third time for\nhis \"pearl of St. Catherine,\" which, in 1853, he felt convinced had been\ndestroyed, and as to which he had nevertheless, in the meantime, been\ntroubled by fears that the good cause might be aided by some other than\nDr. Teschendorf discovering and publishing the \"priceless treasure,\"\nwhich, according to his previous statements, he must have felt convinced\ndid not longer exist. On this third journey the Doctor discovered \"the\nvery fragments which, fifteen years before, he had taken out of the\nbasket,\" \"and also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament\ncomplete, and, in addition, Barnabas and part of Hermas.\"\n\nWith wonderful preciseness, and with great audacity, Dr. Tischendorf\n_refers_ the transcription of the discovered Bible to the first half\nof the fourth century. Have Dr. Tischendorf's patrons here ever read of\nMSS. discovered in the same Convent of St. Catherine, at Sinai, of which\nan account was published by Dr. Constantine Simonides, and concerning\nwhich the _Westminster Review_ said, \"We share the suspicions, to use\nthe gentlest word which occurs to us, entertained, we believe, by all\ncompetent critics and antiquarians.\"\n\nIn 1863 Dr. Tischendorf published, at the cost of the Russian Emperor, a\nsplendid but very costly edition of his Sinaitic MS. in columns, with a\nLatin introduction. The book is an expensive one, and copies of it are\nnot very plentiful in England. Perhaps the Religious Tract Society have\nnot contributed to its circulation so liberally as did the pious\nEmperor of all the Russias. Surely a text on which our own is to be\nre-constructed ought to be in the hands at least of every English\nclergyman and Young Men's Christian Association.\n\n\"Christianity,\" writes Dr. Tischendorf, \"does not, strictly speaking,\nrest on the moral teaching of Jesus;\" \"it rests on his person only.\" \"If\nwe are in error in believing in the person of Christ as taught in the\nGospels, then the Church herself is in error, and must be given up as a\ndeception.\" \"All the world knows that our Gospels are nothing else than\nbiographies of Christ.\" \"We have no other source of information with\nrespect to the life of Jesus.\" So that, according to the Religious Tract\nSociety and its advocate, if the credibility of the Gospel biography\nbe successfully impugned, then the foundations of Christianity are\ndestroyed.\n\nIt becomes, therefore, of the highest importance to show that the\nbiography of Jesus, as given in the four Gospels, is absolutely\nincredible and self-contradictory.\n\nIt is alleged in the Society's preface that all the objections of\ninfidelity have been hitherto unavailing. This is, however, not true. It\nis rather the fact that the advocates of Christianity when defeated on\none point have shuffled to another, either quietly passing the topic\nwithout further debate, or loudly declaring that the point abandoned\nwas really so utterly unimportant that it was extremely foolish in the\nassailant to regard it as worthy attack, and that, in any case, all the\narguments had been repeatedly refuted by previous writers.\n\nTo the following objections to the Gospel narrative the writer refuses\nto accept as answer, that they have been previously discussed and\ndisposed of.\n\nThe Gospels which are yet mentioned by the names popularly associated\nwith each do not tell us the hour, or the day, or the month, or--save\nLuke--the year, in which Jesus was born. The only point on which the\ncritical divines, who have preceded Dr. Teschendorf, generally agree\nis, that Jesus was not born on Christmas day. The Oxford Chronology,\ncollated with a full score of recognised authorities, gives us a period\nof more than seven years within which to place the dale. So confused\nis the story as to the time of the birth, that while Matthew would\nmake Jesus born in the lifetime of Herod, Luke would fix the period of\nJesus's birth as after Herod's death.\n\nChristmas itself is a day surrounded with curious ceremonies of pagan\norigin, and in no way serving to fix the 25th December as the natal day.\nYet the exact period at which Almighty God, as a baby boy, entered the\nworld to redeem long-suffering humanity from the consequences of Adam's\nancient sin, should be of some importance.\n\nNor is there any great certainty as to the place of birth of Christ. The\nJews, apparently in the very presence of Jesus, reproached him that\nhe ought to have been born at Bethlehem. Nathaniel regarded him as of\nNazareth. Jesus never appears to have said to either, \"I was born at\nBethlehem.\" In Matthew ii., 6, we find a quotation from the prophet:\n\"And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least amongst the\nprinces of Juda, for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule\nmy people Israel.\" Matthew lays the scene of the birth in Bethlehem, and\nLuke adopts the same place, especially bringing the child to Bethlehem\nfor that purpose, and Matthew tells us it is done to fulfil a prophecy.\nMicah v., 2, the only place in which similar words occur, is not a\nprophecy referring to Jesus at all. The words are: \"But thou Beth-lehem\nEphratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out\nof thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel,\nwhose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.\" This is not\nquoted correctly in Matthew, and can hardly be said by any straining\nof language to apply to Jesus. The credibility of a story on\nwhich Christianity rests is bolstered up by prophecy in default of\ncontemporary corroboration. The difficulties are not lessened in tracing\nthe parentage. In Matthew i., 17, it is stated that \"the generations\nfrom Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David until\nthe carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the\ncarrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.\"\nWhy has Matthew made such a mistake in his computation of the\ngenealogies--in the last division we have only thirteen names instead of\nfourteen, even including the name of Jesus? Is this one of the cases of\n\"painful uncertainty\" which has induced the Religious Tract Society and\nDr. Tischendorf to wish to set aside the _textus receptus_ altogether?\n\nFrom David to Zorobabel there are in the Old Testament twenty\ngenerations; in Matthew, seventeen generations; and in Luke,\ntwenty-three generations. In Matthew from David to Christ there are\ntwenty-eight generations, and in Luke from David to Christ forty-three\ngenerations. Yet, according to the Religious Tract Society, it is on the\ncredibility of these genealogies as part of the Gospel history that\nthe foundation of Christianity rests. The genealogy in the first Gospel\narriving at David traces to Jesus through Solomon; the third Gospel\nfrom David traces through Nathan. In Matthew the names from David are\nSolomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias; and in the Old\nTestament we trace the same names from David to Ahaziah, whom I presume\nto be the same as Ozias. But in 2nd Chronicles xxii., 11, we find one\nJoash, who is not mentioned in Matthew at all. If the genealogy in\nMatthew is correct, why is the name not mentioned? Amaziah is mentioned\nin chap, xxiv., v. 27, and in chap, xxvi., v. 1, Uzziah, neither of whom\nare mentioned in Matthew, where Ozias is named as begetting Jotham, when\nin fact three generations of men have come in between. In Matthew and\nLuke, Zorobabel is represented as the son of Salathiel, while in 1\nChronicles iii., 17--19, Zerubbabel is stated to be the son of Pedaiah,\nthe brother of Salathiel. Matthew says Abind was the son of Zorobabel\n(chap, i., v. 13). Luke iii., 27, says Zorobabel's son was Rhesa. The\nOld Testament contradicts both, and gives Meshollam, and Hananiah,\nand Shelomith, their sister (1 Chronicles iii, 19), as the names of\nZorobabel's children. Is this another piece of evidence in favor of Dr.\nTischendorf's admirable doctrine, that it is necessary to reconstruct\nthe text?\n\nIn the genealogies of Matthew and Luke there are only three names\nagreeing after that of David, viz., Salathiel, Zorobabel, and\nJoseph--all the rest are utterly different. The attempts at explanation\nwhich have been hitherto offered, in order to reconcile these\ngenealogies, are scarcely creditable to the intellects of the Christian\napologists. They allege that \"Joseph, who by nature was the son of\nJacob, in the account of the law was the son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob\nwere brothers by the same mother, and Heli, who was the elder, dying\nwithout issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow; in\nconsequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law\nthe son of Heli.\" This is pure invention to get over a difficulty--an\ninvention not making the matter one whit more clear. For if you suppose\nthat these two persons were brothers, then unless you invent a death\nof the mother's last husband and the widow's remarriage Jacob and Heli\nwould be the sons of the same father, and the list of the ancestors\nshould be identical in each genealogy. But to get over the difficulty\nthe pious do this. They say, although brothers, they were only\nhalf-brothers; although sons of the same mother, they were not sons\nof the same father, but had different fathers. If so, how is it that\nSalathiel and Zorobabel occur as father and son in both genealogies?\nAnother fashion of accounting for the contradiction is to give one as\nthe genealogy of Joseph and the other as the genealogy of Mary. \"Which?\"\n\n\"Luke,\" it is said. Why Luke? what are Luke's words? Luke speaks of\nJesus being, \"as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of\nHeli.\" When Luke says Joseph, the son of Heli, did he mean Mary, the\ndaughter of Heli? Does the Gospel say one thing and mean another?\nbecause if that argument is worth anything, then in every case where\na man has a theory which disagrees with the text, he may say the text\nmeans something else. If this argument be permitted we must abandon in\nScriptural criticism the meaning which we should ordinarily intend to\nconvey by any given word. If you believe Luke meant daughter, why does\nthe same word mean son in every other case all through the remainder of\nthe genealogy? And if the genealogy of Matthew be that of Joseph, and\nthe genealogy of Luke be that of Mary, they ought not to have any point\nof agreement at all until brought to David. They, nevertheless, do agree\nand contradict each other in several places, destroying the probability\nof their being intended as distinct genealogies. There is some evidence\nthat Luke does not give the genealogy of Mary in the Gospel itself. We\nare told that Joseph went to Bethlehem to be numbered because he was of\nthe house of David: if it had been Mary it would have surely said so. As\naccording to the Christian theory, Joseph was not the father of Jesus,\nit is not unfair to ask how it can be credible that Jesus's genealogy\ncould be traced to David in any fashion through Joseph?\n\nSo far from Mary being clearly of the tribe of Judah (to which the\ngenealogy relates) her cousinship to Elisabeth would make her rather\nappear to belong to the tribe of Levi.\n\nTo discuss the credibility of the miraculous conception and birth would\nbe to insult the human understanding. The mythologies of Greece, Italy,\nand India, give many precedents of sons of Gods miraculously born.\nItaly, Greece, and India, must, however, yield the palm to Judea. The\nincarnate Chrishna must give way to the incarnate Christ. A miraculous\nbirth would be scouted to-day as monstrous; antedate it 2,000 years and\nwe worship it as miracle.\n\nMatt, i., 22, 23, says: \"Now all this was done, that it might be\nfulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a\nvirgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall\ncall his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.\" This\nis supposed to be a quotation from Isaiah vii., 14--16: \"Therefore the\nLord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and\nbear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall\nhe eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For\nbefore the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the\nland that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.\"\n\nBut in this, as indeed in most other cases of inaccurate quotation, the\nvery words are omitted which would show its utter inapplicability to\nJesus. Even in those which are given, the agreement is not complete.\nJesus was not called Emmanuel. And even if his mother Mary were a\nvirgin, this does not help the identity, as the word [----] OLME in\nIsaiah, rendered \"virgin\" in our version, does not convey the notion of\nvirginity, for which the proper word is [------] BeThULE; OLME is used\nof a youthful spouse recently married. The allusion to the land being\nforsaken of both her kings, omitted in Matthew, shows how little the\npassage is prophetic of Jesus.\n\nThe story of the annunciation made to Joseph in one Gospel, to Mary\nin the other, is hardly credible on any explanation. If you assume the\nannunciations as made by a God of all-wise purpose, the purpose should,\nat least, have been to prevent doubt of Mary's chastity; but the\nannunciation is made to Joseph only after Mary is suspected by Joseph.\nTwo annunciations are made, one of them in a dream to Joseph, when he is\nsuspicious as to the state of his betrothed wife; the other made by\nthe angel Gabriel (whoever that angel may be) to Mary herself, who\napparently conceals the fact, and is content to be married, although\nwith child not by her intended husband. The statement--that Mary being\nfound with child by the Holy Ghost, her husband, not willing to make\nher a public example, was minded to put her away privily--is quite\nincredible. If Joseph found her with child _by the Holy Ghost_, how\ncould he even think of making a public example of her shame when there\nwas nothing of which she could be ashamed--nothing, if he believed in\nthe Holy Ghost, of which he need have been ashamed himself, nothing\nwhich need have induced him to wish to put her away privily. It is\nclear--according to Matthew--that Mary was found with child, and that\nthe Holy Ghost parentage was not even imagined by Joseph until after he\nhad dreamed about the matter.\n\nAlthough the birth of Jesus was specially announced by an angel,\nand although Mary sang a joyful song consequent on the annunciation,\ncorroborated by her cousin's greeting, yet when Simeon speaks of the\nchild, in terms less extraordinary, Joseph and Mary are surprised at it\nand do not understand it. Why were they surprised? Is it credible that\nso little regard was paid to the miraculous annunciation? Or is this\nanother case of the \"painful uncertainty\" alluded to by Dr. Teschendorf?\n\nAgain, when Joseph and Mary found the child Jesus in the temple, and he\nsays, \"Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business?\" they do\nnot know what he means, so that either what the angel had said had been\nof little effect, or the annunciations did not occur at all. Can\nany reliance be placed on a narrative so contradictory? An angel was\nspecially sent to acquaint a mother that her son about to be born is the\nSon of God, and yet that mother is astonished when her son says, \"Wist\nye not I must be about my father's business?\"\n\nThe birth of Jesus was, according to Matthew, made publicly known by\nmeans of certain wise men. These men saw his star in the East, but\nit did not tell them much, for they were obliged to come and ask\ninformation from Herod the King. Is astrology credible? Herod inquired\nof the chief priests and scribes; and it is evident Jeremiah was right,\nif he said, \"The prophets prophecy falsely and the priests bear rule by\ntheir means,\" for these chief priests misquoted to suit their purposes,\nand invented a false prophecy by omitting a few words from, and adding a\nfew words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star, after\nthey knew where to go, and no longer required its aid, went before them,\nuntil it came and stood over where the young child was. The credibility\nof this will be better understood if the reader notice some star, and\nthen see how many houses it will be over. Luke does not seem to have\nbeen aware of the star story, and he relates about an angel who tells\nsome shepherds the good tidings, but this last-named adventure does not\nappear to have happened in the reign of Herod at all. Is it credible\nthat Jesus was born twice? After the wise men had left Jesus, an angel\nwarned Joseph to flee with him and Mary into Egypt, and Joseph did fly,\nand remained there with the young child and his mother until the death\nof Herod; and this, it is alleged, was done to fulfil a prophecy. On\nreferring to Hosea xi., 1, we find the words have no reference whatever\nto Jesus, and that, therefore, either the tale of the flight is invented\nas a fulfilment of the prophecy, or the prophecy manufactured to support\nthe tale of the flight. The Jesus of Luke never went into Egypt at all\nin his childhood. Directly after the birth of the child his parents\ninstead of flying away because of persecution into Egypt, went\npeacefully up to Jerusalem to fulfil all things according to the law,\nreturned thence to Nazareth, and apparently dwelt there, going up to\nJerusalem every year until Jesus was twelve years of age.\n\nIn Matthew ii., 15, we are told that Jesus remained in Egypt, \"That it\nmight be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying,\nOut of Egypt have I called my son.\" In Hosea ii., 1, we read, \"When\nIsrael was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.\"\nIn no other prophet is there any similar text. This not only is not a\nprophecy of Jesus, but is, on the contrary, a reference to the Jewish\nExodus from Egypt. Is the prophecy manufactured to give an air of\ncredibility to the Gospel history, or how will the Religions Tract\nSociety explain it? The Gospel writings betray either a want of good\nfaith, or great incapacity on the part of their authors in the mode\nadopted of distorting quotations from the Old Testament?\n\nWhen Jesus began to be about thirty years of age he was baptised by John\nin the river Jordan. John, who, according to Matthew, knew him, forbade\nhim directly he saw him; but, acccording to the writer of the fourth\nGospel, he knew him not, and had, therefore, no occasion to forbid him.\nGod is an \"invisible\" \"spirit,\" whom no man hath seen (John i., 18),\nor can see (Exodus xxxiii., 20); but the man John saw the spirit of\nGod descending like a dove. God is everywhere, but at that time was in\nheaven, from whence he said, \"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well\npleased.\" Although John heard this from God's own mouth, he some time\nafter sent two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were really\nthe Christ (Matthew xi., 2, 3). Yet it is upon the credibility of this\nstory, says Dr. Teschendorf, that Christianity rests like a building on\nits foundations.\n\nIt is utterly impossible John could have known and not have known Jesus\nat the same time. And if, as the New Testament states, God is infinite\nand invisible, it is incredible that as Jesus stood in the river to be\nbaptised, the Holy Ghost was seen as it descended on his head as a dove,\nand that God from heaven said, \"This is my beloved son, in whom I am\nwell pleased.\" Was the indivisible and invisible spirit of God separated\nin three distinct and two separately visible persons? How do the\nReligious Tract Society reconcile this with the Athanasian Creed?\n\nThe baptism narrative is rendered doubtful by the language used as to\nJohn, who baptised Jesus. It is said, \"This is he that was spoken of by\nthe prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,\nprepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.\" Isaiah xl.,\n1--5, is, \"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak\nye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is\naccomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of\nthe Lord's hand double for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth\nin the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the\ndesert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every\nmountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made\nstraight, and the rough places plain: and the glory of the Lord shall be\nrevealed.\" These verses have not the most remote relation to John? And\nthis manufacture of prophecies for the purpose of bolstering up a tale,\nserves to prove that the writer of the Gospel tries by these to impart\nan air of credibility to an otherwise incredible story.\n\nImmediately after the baptism, Jesus is led up of the Spirit into the\nwilderness to be tempted of the Devil. There he fasts forty days and\nforty nights.\n\nJohn says, in chapter i., 35, \"Again, the next day after, John stood\nand two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he said,\nbehold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they\nfollowed Jesus.\" Then, at the 43rd verse, he says, \"The day following\nJesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto\nhim, follow me.\" And in chapter ii., 1, he says, \"And the third day\nthere was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was\nthere; and both Jesus was called and his disciples unto the marriage.\"\nAccording to Matthew, there can be no doubt that immediately after the\nbaptism Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. And\nwe are to believe that Jesus was tempted of the Devil and fasting in\nthe wilderness, and at the same time feasting at marriage in Cana of\nGalilee? Is it possible to believe that Jesus actually did fast forty\ndays and forty nights? If Jesus did not fast in his capacity as man,\nin what capacity did he fast? And if Jesus fasted, being God, the fast\nwould be a mockery; and the account that he became a hungered must be\nwrong. It is barely possible that in some very abnormal condition or\ncataleptic state, or state of trance, a man might exist, with very\nslight nourishment or without food, but that a man could walk about,\nspeak, and act, and, doing this, live forty days and nights without food\nis simply an impossibility.\n\nIs the story that the Devil tempted Jesus credible? If Jesus be God,\ncan the Devil tempt God? A clergyman of the Church of England writing on\nthis says: \"That the Devil should appear personally to the Son of God is\ncertainly not more wonderful than that he should, in a more remote age,\nhave appeared among the sons of God, in the presence of God himself, to\ntorment the righteous Job. But that Satan should carry Jesus bodily and\nliterally through the air, first to the top of a high mountain, and then\nto the topmost pinnacle of the temple, is wholly inadmissable, it is\nan insult to our understanding, and an affront to our great creator and\nredeemer.\" Supposing, despite the monstrosity of such a supposition, an\nactual Devil--and this involves the dilemma that the Devil must either\nbe God-created, or God's co-eternal rival; the first supposition being\ninconsistent with God's goodness, and the second being inconsistent with\nhis power; but supposing such a Devil, is it credible that the Devil\nshould tempt the Almighty maker of the universe with \"all these will I\ngive thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me?\"\n\nIn the very names of the twelve Apostles there is an uncertainty as\nto one, whose name was either Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, or Judas. It is\nin Matthew x., 3, alone that the name of Lebbaeus is mentioned,\nthus--\"Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.\" We are told, on this\npoint, by certain: Biblicists, that some early MSS. have not the words\n\"whose surname was Thaddaeus,\" and that these words have probably\nbeen inserted to reconcile the Gospel according to Matthew with that\nattributed to Mark. In the English version of the Rheims Testament\nused in this country by our Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation\nbetween Matthew and Mark is completed by omitting the words-\"Lebbaeus\nwhose surname was,\" leaving only the name \"Thaddaeus\" in Matthew's text.\nThe revised version of the New Testament now agrees with the Rheims\nversion, and the omission will probably meet with the entire\nconcurrence of Dr. Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society, now\nthey boast autograph letters of approval from the infallible head of\nthe Catholic Church. If Matthew x., 3, and Mark hi., 18, be passed as\nreconciled, although the first calls the twelfth disciple Lebbaeus, and\nthe second gives him the name Thaddaeus; there is yet the difficulty\nthat in Luke vi., 16, corroborated by John xiv., 22, there is a disciple\nspoken of as \"Judas, not Iscariot,\" \"Judas, _the brother_ of James.\"\nCommentators have endeavored to clear away this last difficulty by\ndeclaring that Thaddaeus is a Syriac word, having much the same meaning\nas Judas. This has been answered by the objection that if Matthew's\nGospel uses Thaddaeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to speak of\nThaddaeus Iscariot, which he does not; and it is further objected also\nthat while there are some grounds for suggesting a Hebrew original for\nthe Gospel attributed to Matthew, there is not the slightest pretence\nfor alleging that Matthew wrote in Syriac. The Gospels also leave us in\nsome doubt as to whether Matthew is Levi, or whether Matthew and Levi\nare two different persons.\n\nThe account of the calling of Peter is replete with contradictions.\nAccording to Matthew, when Jesus first saw Peter, the latter was in a\nvessel fishing with his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea of\nGalilee. Jesus walking by the sea said to them--\"Follow me, and I will\nmake you fishers of men.\" The two brothers did so, and they became\nChrist's disciples. When Jesus called Peter no one was with him but his\nbrother Andrew. A little further on, the two sons of Zebedee were in a\nship with their father mending nets, and these latter were separately\ncalled. From John, we learn that Andrew was originally a disciple of\nJohn the Baptist, and that when Andrew first saw Jesus, Peter was not\npresent, but Andrew went and found Peter who, if fishing, must have been\nangling on land, telling him \"we have found the Messiah,\" and that\nAndrew then brought Peter to Jesus, who said, \"Thou art Simon, the son\nof Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.\" There is no mention in John of\nthe sons of Zebedee being a little further on, or of any fishing in the\nsea of Galilee. This call is clearly on land. Luke's Gospel states that\nwhen the call took place, Jesus and Peter were both at sea. Jesus had\nbeen preaching to the people, who pressing upon him, he got into Simon's\nship, from which he preached. After this he directed Simon to put out\ninto the deep and let down the nets. Simon answered, \"Master, we have\ntoiled all night and taken nothing; nevertheless at thy word I will let\ndown the net.\" No sooner was this done, than the net was filled to\nbreaking, and Simon's partners, the two sons of Zebedee, came to help,\nwhen at the call of Jesus, they brought their ships to land, and\nfollowed him.\n\nIs it credible that there were three several calls, or that the Gospels\nbeing inspired, you could have three contradictory versions of the\nsame event? Has the story been here \"painfully modified,\" or how do Dr.\nTischendorf and the Religious Tract Society clear up the matter? Is it\ncredible that, as stated in Luke, Jesus had visited Simon's house, and\ncured Simon's wife's mother, before the call of Simon, but did not go\nto Simon's house for that purpose, until after the call of Simon, as\nrelated in Matthew? It is useless to reply that the date of Jesus's\nvisit is utterly unimportant, when we are told that it is upon the\ncredibility of the complete narrative that Christianity must rest. Each\nstone is important to the building, and it is not competent for the\nChristian advocate to regard as useless any word which the Holy Ghost\nhas considered important enough to reveal.\n\nAre the miracle stories credible? Every ancient nation has had its\nmiracle workers, but modern science has relegated all miracle history\nto realms of fable, myth, illusion, delusion, or fraud. Can Christian\nmiracles be made the exceptions? Is it likely that the nations amongst\nwhom the dead were restored to life would have persistently ignored the\nauthor of such miracles? Were the miracles purposeless, or if intended\nto convince the Jews, was God unable to render his intentions effective?\nThat five thousand persons should be fed with five loaves and two\nfishes, and that an apparent excess should remain beyond the original\nstock, is difficult to believe; but that shortly after this--Jesus\nhaving to again perform a similar miracle for four thousand persons--his\nown disciples should ignore his recent feat, and wonder from whence the\nfood was to be derived, is certainly startlingly incredible. If this\nexhibition of incredulity were pardonable on the part of the twelve\napostles, living witnesses of greater wonders, how much more pardonable\nthe unbelief of the sceptic of to-day, which the Religious Tract Society\nseek to overcome by a faint echo of asserted events all contrary to\nprobability, and with nineteen centuries intervening.\n\nThe casting out the devils presents phenomena requiring considerable\ncredulity, especially the story of the devils and the swine. To-day\ninsanity is never referable to demoniacal possession, but eighteen\nhundred years ago the subject of lunacy had not been so patiently\ninvestigated as it has been since. That one man could now be tenanted\nby several devils is a proposition for which the maintainer would in the\npresent generation incur almost universal contempt; yet the repudiation\nof its present possibility can hardly be consistent with implicit\ncredence in its ancient history. That the devils and God should hold\nconverse together, although not without parallel in the book of Job,\nis inconsistent with the theory of an infinitely good Deity; that the\ndevils should address Jesus as son of the most high God, and beg to be\nallowed to enter a herd of swine, is at least ludicrous; yet all this\nhelps to make up the narrative on which Dr. Tischendorf relies. That\nJesus being God should pray to his Father that \"the cup might pass\"\nfrom him is so incredible that even the faithful ask us to regard it as\nmystery. That an angel from heaven could strengthen Jesus, the almighty\nGod, is equally mysterious. That where Jesus had so prominently preached\nto thousands, the priests should need any one like Judas to betray the\nfounder of Christianity with a kiss, is absurd; his escapade in flogging\nthe dealers, his wonderful cures, and his raising Lazarus and Jairus's\ndaughter should have secured him, if not the nation's love, faith, and\nadmiration, at least a national reputation and notoriety. It is not\ncredible if Judas betrayed Jesus by a kiss that the latter should have\nbeen arrested upon his own statement that he was Jesus. That Peter\nshould have had so little faith as to deny his divine leader three times\nin a few hours is only reconcilable with the notion that he had remained\nunconvinced by his personal intercourse with the incarnate Deity. The\nmere blunders in the story of the denial sink into insignificance in\nface of this major difficulty. Whether the cock did or did not crow\nbefore the third denial, whether Peter was or was not in the same\napartment with Jesus at the time of the last denial, are comparatively\ntrifling questions, and the contradictions on which they are based may\nbe the consequence of the errors which Dr. Tischendorf says have crept\ninto the sacred writings.\n\nJesus said, \"as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of\nthe whale, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the\nheart of the earth.\" Jesus was crucified on Friday, was buried on\nFriday evening, and yet the first who went to the grave on the night\nof Saturday as it began to dawn towards Sunday, found the body of Jesus\nalready gone. Did Jesus mean he should be three days and three nights\nin the grave? Is there any proof that his body remained in the grave for\nthree hours? Who went first to the grave? was it Mary Magdalene alone,\nas in John, or two Maries as in Matthew, or the two Maries and Salome\nas in Mark, or the two Maries, Joanna, and several unnamed women as in\nLuke? To whom did did Jesus first appear? Was it, as in Mark, to Mary\nMagdalene, or to two disciples going to Emmaus, as in Luke, or to the\ntwo Maries near the sepulchre, as in Matthew? Is the eating boiled fish\nand honeycomb by a dead God credible? Did Jesus ascend to heaven the\nvery day of his resurrection, or did an interval of nearly six weeks\nintervene?\n\nIs this history credible, contained as it is in four contradictory\nbiographies, outside which biographies we have, as Dr. Tischendorf\nadmits, \"no other source of information with respect to the life\nof Jesus\"? This history of an earth-born Deity, descended through a\ncrime-tainted ancestry, and whose genealogical tree is traced through\none who was not his father; this history of an infinite God nursed as\na baby, growing through childhood to manhood like any frail specimen\nof humanity; this history, garnished with bedevilled men, enchanted fig\ntree, myriads of ghosts, and scores of miracles, and by such garnishment\nmade more akin to an oriental romance than to a sober history; this\npicture of the infinite invisible spirit incarnate visible as man;\nimmutability subject to human passions and infirmities; the creator come\nto die, yet wishing to escape the death which shall bring peace to his\nGod-tormented creatures; God praying to himself and rejecting his own\nprayer; God betrayed by a divinely-appointed traitor; God the immortal\ndying, and in the agony of the death-throes--stronger than the strong\nman's will--crying with almost the last effort of his dying breath, that\nhe being God, is God forsaken!\n\nIf all this be credible, what story is there any man need hesitate to\nbelieve? Dr. Teschendorf asks how it has been possible to impugn the\ncredibility of the four Gospels, and replies that this has been done by\ndenying that the Gospels were written by the men whose names they bear.\nIn the preceding pages it has been shown that the credibility of\nthe Gospel narrative is impugned because it is uncorroborated by\ncontemporary history, because it is self-contradictory, and because many\nof its incidents are _prima facie_ most improbable, and some of them\nutterly impossible. Even English Infidels are quite prepared to admit\nthat the four Gospels may be quite anonymous; and yet, that their\nanonymous character need be of no weight as an argument against their\ntruth. All that is urged on this head is that the advocates of the\nGospel history have sought to endorse and give value to the otherwise\nunreliable narratives by a pretence that some of the Evangelists, at\nleast, were eyewitnesses of the events they refer to. Dr. Teschendorf\nsays: \"The credibility of a writer clearly depends on the interval\nof time which lies between him and the events which he describes. The\nfarther the narrator is removed from the facts which he lays before\nus the more his claims to credibility are reduced in value.\" Presuming\ntruthfulness in intention for any writer, and his ability to comprehend\nthe facts he is narrating, and his freedom from a prejudice which may\ndistort the picture he intends to paint correctly with his pen: we\nmight admit the correctness of the passage we have quoted; but can these\nalways be pre-turned in the case of the authors of the Gospels? On the\ncontrary, a presumption in an exactly opposite direction may be fairly\nraised from the fact that immediately after the Apostolic age the\nChristian world was flooded with forged testimonies in favor of the\nbiography of Jesus, or in favor of his disciples.\n\nA writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ observes: \"To say nothing of such\nacknowledged forgeries as the Apostolic constitutions and liturgies,\nand the several spurious Gospels, the question of the genuineness of the\nalleged remains of the Apostolic fathers, though often overlooked, is\nvery material. Any genuine remains of the 'Apostle' Barnabas, of Hermas,\nthe contemporary (Romans xvi., 14), and Clement, the highly commended\nand gifted fellow laborer of St. Paul (Phil, iv., 3), could scarcely be\nregarded as less sacred than those of Mark and Luke, of whom personally\nwe know less. It is purely a question of criticism. At the present day,\nthe critics best competent to determine it, have agreed in opinion,\nthat the extant writings ascribed to Barnabas and Hermas are wholly\nspurious--the frauds of a later age. How much suspicion attaches to the\n1st Epistle of Clement (for the fragment of the second is also generally\nrejected) is manifest from the fact, that in modern times it has never\nbeen allowed the place expressly assigned to it among the canonical\nbooks prefixed to the celebrated Alexandrian MS., in which the only\nknown copy of it is included. It must not be forgotten that Ignatius\nexpressly lays claim to inspiration, that Irenasus quotes Hermas as\nScripture, and Origen speaks of him as inspired, while Polycarp, in\nmodestly disclaiming to be put on a level with the Apostles, clearly\nimplies there would have been no essential distinction in the way of\nhis being ranked in the same order. But the question is, how are these\npretensions substantiated?\" So far the _Edinburgh Review_, certainly not\nan Infidel publication.\n\nEusebius, in his \"Ecclesiastical History,\" admits the existence of many\nspurious gospels and epistles, and some writings put forward by him\nas genuine, such as the correspondence between Jesus and Agbaras, have\nsince been rejected as fictitious. It is not an unfair presumption from\nthis that many of the most early Christians considered the then existing\ntestimonies insufficient to prove the history of Jesus, and good reason\nis certainly afforded for carefully examining the whole of the evidences\nthey have bequeathed us. On p. 48, Dr. Teschendorf quotes Irenaeus, whose\nwritings-belong to the extreme end of the second century, as though that\nBishop must be taken as vouching the four Gospels as we now have them.\nYet, if the testimony of Irenaeus be-reliable (\"Against Heresies,\" Book\nIII., cap. i.) the Gospel attributed to Matthew was believed to have\nbeen composed in Hebrew, and Irenaeus says that as the Jews desired a\nMessiah of the royal line of David, Matthew having the same desire to\na yet greater degree, strove to give them full satisfaction. This may\naccount for some of the genealogical curiosities to which we have drawn\nattention, but hardly renders Matthew's Gospel more reliable; and how\ncan the suggestion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew prove that Matthew\npenned the first Gospel, which has only existed in Greek? Irenaeus, too,\nflatly contradicts the Gospels by declaring that the ministry of Jesus\nextended over ten years and that Jesus lived to be fifty years of age\n(\"Against Heresies,\" Book II., cap. 22).\n\nIf the statement of Irenaeus (\"Against Heresies,\" Book III., cap. 11)\nthat the fourth Gospel was written to refute the errors of Cerinthus and\nNicolaus, have any value, then the actual date of issue of the fourth\nGospel will be considerably after the others. Dr. Tischendorf's\nstatement that Polycarp has borne testimony to the Gospel of John is not\neven supported by the quotation on which he relies. All that is said in\nthe passage quoted (Eusebius, \"Ecc. Hist.,\" Book V., cap. 20) is that\nIrenaeus when he was a child heard Polycarp repeat from memory the\ndiscourses of John and others concerning Jesus. If the Gospels had\nexisted in the time of Polycarp it would have been at least as easy\nto have read them from the MS. as to repeat them from memory. Dr.\nTischendorf might also have added that the letter to Florinus, whence\nhe takes the passage on which he relies, exists only in the writings of\nEusebius, to whom we are indebted for many pieces of Christian evidence\nsince abandoned as forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says: \"Any testimony\nof Polycarp in favor of the Gospel refers us back to the Evangelist\nhimself, for Polycarp, in speaking to Irenaeus of this Gospel as the work\nof his master, St. John, must have learned from the lips of the apostle\nhimself, whether he was its author or not.\" Now, what evidence is there\nthat Polycarp ever said a single word as to the authorship of the fourth\nGospel, or of any Gospel, or that he even said that John had penned\na single word? In the Epistle to the Philippians (the only writing\nattributed to Polycarp for which any genuine character is even\npretended), the Gospel of John is never mentioned, nor is there even a\nsingle passage in the Epistle which can be identified with any passage\nin the Gospel of John.\n\nSurely Dr. Tischendorf forgot, in the eager desire to make his witnesses\nbear good testimony, that the highest duty of an advocate is to make\nthe truth clear, not to put forward a pleasantly colored falsehood to\ndeceive the ignorant. It is not even true that Irenaeus ever pretends\nthat Polycarp in any way vouched our fourth Gospel as having been\nwritten by John, and yet Dr. Tischendorf had the cool audacity to say\n\"there is nothing more damaging to the doubters of the authenticity of\nSt John's Gospel than this testimony of St. Polycarp.\" Do the Religious\nTract Society regard English Infidels as so utterly ignorant that they\nthus intentionally seek to suggest a falsehood, or are the Council of\nthe Religious Tract Society themselves unable to test the accuracy of\nthe statements put forward on their behalf by the able decipherer\nof illegible parchments? It is too much to suspect the renowned Dr.\nConstantino Tischendorf of ignorance, yet even the coarse English\nsceptic regrets that the only other alternative will be to denounce him\nas a theological charlatan.\n\nDr. Mosheim, writing on behalf of Christianity, says that the Epistle of\nPolycarp to the Philippians is by some treated as genuine and by others\nas spurious, and that it is no easy matter to decide. Many critics, of\nno mean order, class it amongst the apostolic Christian forgeries, but\nwhether the Epistle be genuine or spurious, it contains no quotation\nfrom, it makes no reference to, the Gospel of John.\n\nTo what is said of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, it is\nenough to note that all these are after a.d. 150. Irenaeus may be put 177\nto 200, Tertullian about 193, and Clement of Alexandria as commencing\nthe third century.\n\nOne of Dr. Tischendorf's most audacious flourishes is that (p. 49) with\nreference to the Canon of Muratori, which we are told \"enumerates\nthe books of the New Testament which, from the first, were considered\ncanonical and sacred,\" and which \"was written a little after the age of\nPius I, about a.d; 170.\"\n\nFirst the anonymous fragment contains books which were never accepted\nas canonical; next, it is quite impossible to say when or by whom it was\nwritten or what was its original language. Muratori, who discovered the\nfragment in 1740, conjectured that it was written about the end of the\nsecond or beginning of the third century, but it is noteworthy that\nneither Eusebius nor any other of the ecclesiastical advocates of the\nthird, fourth, or fifth centuries, ever refers to it. It may be the\ncompilation of any monk at any date prior to 1740, and is utterly\nvalueless as evidence.\n\nDr. Teschendorf's style is well exemplified by the positive manner\nin which he fixes the date a.d. 139 to the first apology of Justin,\nalthough a critic so \"learned\" as the unrivalled Dr. Teschendorf could\nnot fail to be aware that more than one writer has supported the view\nthat the date of the first apology was not earlier than a.d. 145, and\nothers have contended for a.d. 150. The Benedictine editors of Justin's\nworks support the latter date. Dr. Kenn argues for a.d. 155--160. On\npage 63, the Religious Tract Society's champion appeals to the testimony\nof Justin Martyr, but in order not to shock the devout while convincing\nthe profane, he omits to mention that more than half the writings once\nattributed to Justin Martyr are now abandoned, as either of doubtful\ncharacter or actual forgeries, and that Justin's value as a witness is\nconsiderably weakened by the fact that he quotes the acts of Pilate and\nthe Sybilline Oracles as though they were reliable evidence, when in\nfact they are both admitted specimens of \"a Christian forgery.\" But what\ndoes Justin testify as to the Gospels? Does he say that Matthew, Mark,\nLuke, and John were their writers? On the contrary, not only do the\nnames of Matthew,-Mark, Luke, and John never occur as Evangelists in\nthe writings of Justin, but he actually mentions facts and sayings as to\nJesus, which are not found in either of the four Gospels. The very words\nrendered Gospels only occur where they are strongly suspected to be\ninterpolated, Justin usually speaking of some writings which he calls\n\"memorials\" or \"memoirs of the Apostles.\"\n\nDr. Tischendorf urges that in the writings of Justin the Gospels are\nplaced side by side with the prophets, and that \"this undoubtedly places\nthe Gospels in the list of canonical books.\" If this means that there\nis any statement in Justin capable of being so construed, then Dr.\nTischendorf was untruthful. Justin does quote specifically the Sybilline\noracles, but never Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He quotes statements\nas to Jesus, which may be found in the apocryphal Gospels, and which are\nnot found in ours, so that if the evidence of Justin Martyr be taken, it\ncertainly does not tend to prove, even in the smallest degree, that four\nGospels were specially regarded with reverence in his day. The Rev. W.\nSanday thinks that Justin did not assign an exclusive authority to our\nGospels, and that he made use also of other documents no longer extant.\n(\"Gospels in 2nd Century,\" p. 117.)\n\nOn p. 94 it is stated that \"as early as the time of Justin the\nexpression 'the Evangel' was applied to the four Gospels.\" This\nstatement by Dr. Tischendorf and its publication by the Religious Tract\nSociety call for the strongest condemnation. Nowhere in the writings of\nJustin are the words \"the Evangel\" applied to the four Gospels.\n\nLardner only professes to discover two instances in which the word\nanglicised by Tischendorf as \"Evangel,\" occurs; [______ ______],\nthe second being expressly pointed out by Schleiermacher as an\ninterpolation, and as an instance in which a marginal note has been\nincorporated with the text; nor would one occurrence of such a word\nprove that any book or books were so known by Justin, as the word\nis merely a compound of good and message; nor is there the slightest\nfoundation for the statement that in the time of Justin the word\nEvangel was ever applied to designate the four Gospels now attributed to\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John.\n\nDr. Tischendorf (p. 46) admits that the \"faith of the Church.... would\nbe seriously compromised\" if we do not find references to the Gospels in\nwritings between a.d. 100 and a.d. 150; and--while he does not directly\nassert--he insinuates that in such writings the Gospels were \"treated\nwith the greatest respect,\" or \"even already treated as canonical and\nsacred writings;\" and he distinctly affirms that the Gospels \"did see\nthe light\" during the \"Apostolic age,\" \"and before the middle of\nthe second century our Gospels were held in the highest respect by\nthe-Church,\" although for the affirmation, he neither has nor advances\nthe shadow of evidence.\n\nThe phrases, \"Apostolic age\" and \"Apostolic fathers\" denote the first\ncentury of the Christian era, and those-fathers who are supposed to\nhave flourished during that period, and who are supposed to have seen\nor heard, or had the opportunity of seeing or hearing, either Jesus\nor someone or more of the twelve Apostles. Barnabas, Clement, Hermas,\nIgnatius, and Polycarp, are those whose names figure most familiarly in\nChristian evidences as Apostolic fathers. But the evidence from\nthese Apostolic fathers is of a most unreliable character. Mosheim\n(\"Ecclesiastical History,\" cent. 1, cap. 2, sec. 3,17) says that \"the\nApostolic history is loaded with doubts, fables, and difficulties,\" and\nthat not long after Christ's ascension several histories were current\nof his life and doctrines, full of \"pious frauds and fabulous wonders.\"\nAmongst these were \"The Acts of Paul,\" \"The Revelation of Peter,\" \"The\nGospel of Peter,\" \"The Gospel of Andrew,\" \"The Gospel of John,\" \"The\nGospel of James,\" \"The Gospel of the Egyptians,\" etc. The attempts often\nmade to prove from the writings of Barnabas, Ignatius, etc., the\nprior existence of the four Gospels, though specifically unnamed, by\nsimilarity of phraseology in quotations, is a failure, even admitting\nfor the moment the genuineness of the Apostolic Scriptures, if the\nproof is intended to carry the matter higher than that such and such\nstatements were current in some form or other, at the date the fathers\nwrote. As good an argument might be made that some of the Gospel\npassages were adopted from the fathers. The fathers occasionally quote,\nas from the mouth of Jesus, words which are not found in any of our\nfour Gospels, and make reference to events not included in the Gospel\nnarratives, clearly evidencing that even if the four documents ascribed\nto Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were in existence, they were not the\nonly sources of information from which some of the Apostolic fathers\nderived' their knowledge of Christianity, and evidencing also that the\nfour Gospels had attained no such specific superiority as to entitle\nthem to special mention by name.\n\nOf the epistle attributed to Barnabas, which is supposed by its\nsupporters to have been written in the latter part of the first century,\nwhich, Paley says, is _probably_ genuine, which is classed by Eusebius\nas spurious (\"Ecclesiastical History,\" book iii., cap. 25), and which\nDr. Donaldson does not hesitate for one moment in refusing to ascribe\nto Barnabas the Apostle (\"Ante-Nicene Fathers,\" vol. i., p. 100), it is\nonly necessary to say that so far from speaking of the Gospels with\nthe greatest respect, it does not mention by name any one of the four\nGospels. There are some passages in Barnabas which are nearly identical\nin phraseology with some Gospel passages, and which it has been argued\nare quotations from one or other of the four Gospels, but which may\nequally be quotations from other Gospels, or from writings not in the\ncharacter of Gospels. There are also passages which are nearly identical\nwith several of the New Testament epistles, but even the great framer of\nChristian evidences, Lardner, declares his conviction that none of\nthese last-mentioned passages are quotations, or even allusions, to the\nPauline or other epistolary writings. Barnabas makes many quotations\nwhich clearly demonstrate that the four Gospels, if then in existence\nand if he had access to them, could not have been his only source of\ninformation as to the teachings of Jesus (E. G., cap. 7).\n\n\"The Lord enjoined that whosoever did not keep the fast should be put to\ndeath.\" \"He required the goats to be of goodly aspect and similar,\nthat when they see him coming they may be amazed by the likeness to the\ngoat.\" Says he, \"those who wish to behold me and lay hold of my kingdom,\nmust through tribulation and suffering obtain me\" (cap. 12). And the\nLord saith, \"When a tree shall be bent down and again rise, and when\nblood shall flow out of the wound.\" Will the Religious Tract Society\npoint out from which of the Gospels these are quoted?\n\nBarnabas (cap. 10) says that Moses forbade the Jews to eat weasel flesh,\n\"because that animal conceives with the mouth,\" and forbad them to eat\nthe hyena because that animal annually changes its sex. This father\nseems to have made a sort of _melange_ of some of the Pentateuchal\nordinances. He says (cap. 8) that the Heifer (mentioned in Numbers) was\na type of Jesus, that the _three_ (?) young men appointed to sprinkle,\ndenote Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that _wool was put upon a stick_\nbecause the kingdom of Jesus was founded upon the cross, and (cap. 9)\nthat the 818 men _circumcised_ by Abraham stood for Jesus crucified.\nBarnabas also declared that the world was to come to an end in 6,000\nyears (\"Freethinkers' Text Book\" part ii., p. 268). In the Sinaitic\nBible, the Epistle of St. Barnabas has now, happily for misguided\nChristians, been discovered in the original Greek. To quote the\ninimitable style of Dr. Tischendorf, \"while so much has been lost in\nthe course of centuries by the-tooth of time and the carelessness of\nignorant monks, an invisible eye had watched over this treasure, and\nwhen it was on the point of perishing in the fire, the Lord had decreed\nits-deliverance;\" \"while critics have generally been divided between\nassigning it to the first or second decade of the second century, the\nSinaitic Bible, which has for the first time cleared up this question,\nhas led us to throw its composition as far back as the last decade of\nthe first century.\" A fine specimen of Christian evidence writing,\ncool assertion without a particle of proof and without the slightest\nreason-given. How does the Siniatic MS., even if it be genuine, clear up\nthe question of the date of St. Barnabas's Epistle? Dr. Tischendorf does\nnot condescend to tell us what has led the Christian advocate to throw\nback the date of its composition? We are left entirely in the dark:\nin fact, what Dr. Tischendorf calls a \"throw back,\" is if you look at\nLardner just the reverse. What does the epistle of Barnabas prove, even\nif it be genuine? Barnabas quotes, by name, Moses and Daniel, but never\nMatthew, Mark, Luke or John. Barnabas specifically refers to Deuteronomy\nand the prophets, but never to either of the four Gospels.\n\nThere is an epistle attributed to Clement of Rome, which has been\npreserved in a single MS. only where it is coupled with another epistle\nrejected as spurious. Dr. Donaldson (\"Ante-Nicene Fathers,\" vol. i., p.\n3) declares that who the Clement was to whom these writings are ascribed\ncannot with absolute certainty be determined. Both epistles stand on\nequal authority; one is rejected by Christians, the other is received.\nIn this epistle while there is a distinct reference to an Epistle\nby Paul to the Corinthians, there is no mention-by name of the four\nGospels, nor do any of the words attributed by Clement to Jesus agree\nfor any complete quotation with anyone of the Gospels as we have them.\nThe Rev. W. Sanday is frank enough to concede \"that Clement is not\nquoting directly from our Gospels.\"\n\nIs it probable that Clement would have mentioned a writing by Paul, and\nyet have entirely ignored the four Gospels, if he had known that they\nhad then existed? And could they have easily existed in the Christian\nworld in his day without his knowledge? If anyone takes cap. xxv. ef\nthis epistle and sees the phoenix given as a historic fact, and as\nevidence for the reality of the resurrection, he will be better able to\nappreciate the value of this so-called epistle of Clement.\n\nThe letters of Ignatius referred to by Dr. Teschendorf are regarded by\nMosheim as laboring under many difficulties, and embarrassed with much\nobscurity. Even Lardner, doing his best for such evidences, says, that\nif we find matters in the Epistles inconsistent with the notion that\nIgnatius was the writer, it is better to regard such passages as\ninterpolations, than to reject the Epistles entirely, especially in the\n\"_scarcity_\" of such testimonies.\n\nThere are fifteen epistles of which eight are undisputedly forgeries. Of\nthe remaining seven there are two versions, a long and a short version,\none of which must be corrupt, both of which may be. These seven\nepistles, however, are in no case to be accepted with certainty as those\nof Ignatius. Dr. Cureton contends that only three still shorter epistles\nare genuine (\"Ante-Nicene Fathers,\" vol. i., pp. 137 to 143). The Rev.\nW. Sanday treats the three short ones as probably genuine, waiving the\nquestion as to the others (\"Gospels in Second Century,\" p. 77, and see\npreface to sixth edition \"Supernatural Religion\"). Ignatius, however,\neven if he be the writer of the epistles attributed to him, never\nmentions either of the four Gospels. In the nineteenth chapter of the\nEpistles to the Ephesians, there is a statement made as to the birth and\ndeath of Jesus, not to be found in either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.\n\nIf the testimony of the Ignatian Epistles is reliable, then it vouches\nthat in that early age there were actually Christians who denied the\ndeath of Jesus. A statement as to Mary in cap. nineteen of the Epistle\nto the Ephesians is not to be found in any portion of the Gospels. In\nhis Epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius, attacking those who denied\nthe real existence of Jesus, would have surely been glad to quote the\nevidence of eye witnesses like Matthew and John, if such evidence had\nexisted in his day. In cap. eight of the Epistles to the Philadelphians,\nIgnatius says, \"I have heard of some who say: Unless I find it in the\narchives I will not believe the Gospel. And when I said it is written,\nthey answered that remains to be proved.\" This is the most distinct\nreference to any Christian writings, and how little does this support\nDr. Tischendorf s position. From which of our four Gospels could\nIgnatius have taken the words, \"I am not an incorporeal demon,\"\nwhich he puts into the mouth of Jesus in cap. iii., the epistle to the\nSmyrnaeans? Dr. Tischendorf does admit that the evidence of the Ignatian\nEpistles is not of decisive value; might he not go farther and say, that\nas proof of the four Gospels it is of no value at all?\n\nOn page 70, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Hippolytus without any qualification.\nSurely the English Religious Tract Society might have remembered\nthat Dodwell says, that the name of Hippolytus had been so abused by\nimpostors, that it was not easy to distinguish any of his writings. That\nMill declares that, with one exception, the pieces extant under his name\nare all spurious. That, except fragments in the writings of opponents,\nthe works of Hippolytus are entirely lost. Yet the Religious Tract\nSociety permit testimony so tainted to be put forward under their\nauthority, to prove the truth of Christian history. The very work which\nDr. Tischendorf pretends to quote is not even mentioned by Eusebius, in\nthe list he gives of the writings of Hippolytus.\n\nOn page 94, Dr. Tischendorf states that Basilides, before a.d. 138, and\nValentinus, about a.d. 140, make use of three out of four Gospels, the\nfirst using John and Luke, the second, Matthew, Luke, and John. What\nwords of either Basilides or Valentinus exist anywhere to justify this\nreckless assertion? Was Dr. Tischendorf again presuming on the utter\nignorance of those who are likely to read his pamphlet? The Religious\nTract Society are responsible for Dr. Tischendorfs allegations, which it\nis impossible to support with evidence.\n\nThe issue raised is not whether the followers of Basilides or the\nfollowers of Valentinus may have used these gospels, but whether there\nis a particle of evidence to justify Dr. Tischendorf s declaration, that\nBasilides and Valentinus themselves used the above-named gospels. That\nthe four Gospels were well known during the second half of the first\ncentury is what Dr. Tischendorf undertook to prove, and statements\nattributed to Basilides and Valentin us, but which ought to be\nattributed to their followers, will go but little way as such proof (see\n\"Supernatural Religion\" vol. ii., pp. 41 to 63).\n\nIt is pleasant to find a grain of wheat in the bushel of Tischendorf\nchaff. On page 98, and following pages, the erudite author applies\nhimself to get rid of the testimony of Papias, which was falsified and\nput forward by Paley as of great importance. Paley says the authority of\nPapias is complete; Tischendorf declares that Papias is in error. Paley\nsays Papias was a hearer of John, Tischendorf says he was not. We leave\nthe champions of the two great Christian evidence-mongers to settle the\nmatter as best they can. If, however, we are to accept Dr. Tischendorf's\ndeclaration that the testimony of Papias is worthless, we get rid of the\nchief link between Justin Martyr and the apostolic age. It pleases Dr.\nTischendorf to damage Papias, because that father is silent as to the\ngospel of John; but the Religious Tract Society must not forget that\nin thus clearing away the second-hand evidence of Papias, they have\ncut away their only pretence for saying that any of the Gospels are\nmentioned by name within 150 years of the date clfor the birth of\nJesus. In referring to the lost work of Theophilus of Antioch, which\nDr. Tischendorf tells us was a kind of harmony of the Gospels, in which\nthe four narratives are moulded and fused into one, the learned Doctor\nforgets to tell us that Jerome, whom he quotes as giving some account of\nTheophilus, actually doubted whether the so-called commentary was really\nfrom the pen of that writer. Lardner says: \"Whether those commentaries\nwhich St. Jerome quotes were really composed by Theophilus may be\ndoubted, since they were unknown to Eusebius, and were observed by\nJerome to differ in style and expression from his other works. However,\nif they were not his, they were the work of some anonymous ancient.\"\nBut if they were the work of an anonymous ancient after Eusebius, what\nbecomes of Dr. Tischendorf's \"as early as a.d. 170?\"\n\nEusebius, who refers to Theophilus, and who speaks of his using the\nApocalypse, would have certainly gladly quoted the Bishop of Antioch's\n\"Commentary on the Four Gospels,\" if it had existed in his day. Nor is\nit true that the references we have in Jerome to the work attributed to\nTheophilus, justify the description given by Dr. Teschendorf, or even\nthe phrase of Jerome, \"_qui quatuor Evangelist arum in unum opus dicta\ncompingens_.\" Theophilus seems, so far as it is possible to judge,\nto have occupied himself not with a connected history of Jesus, or a\ncontinuous discourse as to his doctrines, but rather with mystical and\nallegorical elucidations of occasional passages, which ended, like many\npious commentaries on the Old or New Testament, in leaving the point\ndealt with a little less clear with the Theophillian commentary than\nwithout it. Dr. Tischendorf says that Theodoret and Eusebius speak\nof Tatian in the same way--that is, as though he had, like his Syrian\ncontemporary, composed a harmony of the four Gospels. This is also\ninaccurate. Eusebius talks of Tatianus having found a certain body and\ncollection of Gospels, \"I know not how,\" which collection Eusebius\ndoes not appear even to have ever seen; and so far from the phrase in\nTheodoret justifying Dr. Tischendorf's explanation, it would appear from\nTheodoret that Tatian's Diatessaron was, in fact, a sort of spurious\ngospel, \"The Gospel of the Four\" differing materially from our four\nGospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Neither Irenaeus, Clement\nof Alexandria, or Jerome, who refer to other works of Tatian, make any\nmention of this. Dr. Tischendorf might have added that Diapente, or\n\"the Gospel of the Five,\" has also been a title applied to this work of\nTatian.\n\nIn the third chapter of his essay, Dr. Tischendorf refers to apocryphal\nwritings \"which bear on their front the names of Apostles\" \"used by\nobscure writers to palm off\" their forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says\nthat these spurious books were composed \"partly to embellish\" scripture\nnarratives, and \"partly to support false doctrine;\" and he states that\nin early times, the Church was not so well able to distinguish true\ngospels from false ones, and that consequently some of the apocryphal\nwritings \"were given a place they did not deserve.\" This statement of\nthe inability of the Church to judge correctly, tells as much against\nthe whole, as against any one or more of the early Christian writings,\nand as it may be as fatal to the now received gospels as to those now\nrejected, it deserves the most careful consideration. According to\nDr. Tischendorf, Justin Martyr falls into the category of those of the\nChurch who were \"not so critical in distinguishing the true from the\nfalse;\" for Justin, says Tischendorf, treats the Gospel of St. James and\nthe Acts of Pilate, each as a fit source whence to derive materials for\nthe life of Jesus, and therefore must have regarded the Gospel of St.\nJames and the Acts of Pilate, as genuine and authentic writings; while\nDr. Tischendorf, wiser, and a greater critic than Justin, condemns the\nGospel of St. James as spurious, and calls the Acts of Pilate \"a pious\nfraud;\" but if Dr. Tischendorf be correct in his statement that \"Justin\nmade use of this Gospel\" and quotes the \"Acts of Pontius Pilate,\" then,\naccording to his own words, Justin did not know how to distinguish the\ntrue from the false, and the whole force of his evidence previously used\nby Dr. Tischendorf in aid of the four Gospels would have been seriously\ndiminished, even if it had been true, which it is not, that Justin\nMartyr had borne any testimony on the subject.\n\nSuch, then, are the weapons, say the Religious Tract Society, by their\nchampion, \"which we employ against unbelieving criticism.\" And what are\nthese weapons? We have shown in the preceding pages, the _suppressio\nveri_ and the _suggestio falsi_ are amongst the weapons used. The\nReligious Tract Society directors are parties to fabrication of\nevidence, and they permit a learned charlatan to forward the cause of\nChrist with craft and chicane. But even this is not enough; they need,\naccording to their pamphlet, \"a new weapon;\" they want \"to find out the\nvery words the Apostles used.\" True believers have been in a state\nof delusion; they were credulous enough to fancy that the authorised\nversion of the Scriptures tolerably faithfully represented God's\nrevelation to humankind. But no, says Dr. Tischendorf, it has been so\nseriously modified in the copying and re-copying that it ought to be set\naside altogether, and a fresh text constructed. Glorious news this for\nthe Bible Society. Listen to it, Exeter Hall! Glad tidings to be issued\nby the Paternoster Row saints! After spending hundreds of thousands of\npounds in giving away Bibles to soldiers, in placing them in hotels and\nlodging-houses, and shipping them off to negroes and savages, it appears\nthat the wrong text has been sent through the world, the true version\nbeing all the time in a waste-paper heap at Mount Sinai, watched over\nby an \"invisible eye.\" But, adds Dr. Tischendorf, \"if you ask me whether\nany popular version contains the original text, my answer is Yes and No.\nI say Yes as far as concerns your soul's salvation.\" If these are enough\nfor the soul's salvation, why try to improve the matter? If we really\nneed the \"full and clear light\" of the Sinaitic Bible to show us \"what\nis the Word written by God,\" then most certainly our present Bible is\nnot believed by the Religious Tract Society to be the Word written by\nGod. The Christian advocates are in this dilemma: either the received,\ntext is insufficient, or the proposed improvement is unnecessary.\nDr. Tischendorf says that \"The Gospels, like the only begotten of the\nFather, will endure as long as human nature itself,\" yet he says \"there\nis a great diversity among the texts,\" and that the Gospel in use\namongst the Ebionites and that used amongst the Nazarenes have been\n\"disfigured here and there with certain arbitrary changes.\" He admits,\nmoreover, that \"in early times, when the Church was not so critical in\ndistinguishing the true from the false,\" spurious Gospels obtained a\ncredit which they did not deserve. And while arguing for the enduring\ncharacter of the Gospel, he requests you to set aside the received text\naltogether, and to try to construct a new revelation by the aid of Dr.\nTischendorf's patent Sinaitic invention.\n\nWe congratulate the Religious Tract Society upon their manifesto, and\non the victory it secures them over German Rationalism and English\nInfidelity. The Society's translator, in his introductory remarks,\ndeclares that \"circumstantial evidence when complete, and when every\nlink in the chain has been thoroughly tested, is as strong as direct\ntestimony;\" and, adds the Society's penman, \"This is the kind of\nevidence which Dr. Tischendorf brings for the genuineness of our\nGospels.\" It would be difficult to imagine a more inaccurate description\nof Dr. Tischendorf's work. Do we find the circumstantial evidence\ncarefully tested in the Doctor's boasting and curious narrative of his\njourneys commenced on a pecuniary deficiency and culminating in much\ncash? Do we find it in Dr. Tischendorf s concealment for fifteen years\nof the place, watched over by an invisible eye, in which was hidden the\ngreatest biblical treasure in the world? Is the circumstantial evidence\nshown in the sneers at Renan? or is each link in the chain tested by the\nstrange jumbling together of names and conjectures in the first chapter?\nWhat tests are used in the cases of Valentinus and Basilides in the\nsecond chapter? How is the circumstantial testimony aided by the\nreferences in the third chapter to the Apocryphal Gospels? Is there\na pretence even of critical testing in the chapter devoted to the\napostolic fathers? All that Dr. Tischendorf has done is in effect\nto declare that our authorised version of the New Testament is so\nunreliable, that it ought to be got rid of altogether, and a new text\nconstructed. And this declaration is circulated by the Religious Tract\nSociety, which sends the sixpenny edition of the Gospel with one hand,\nand in the other the shilling Tischendorf pamphlet, declaring that many\npassages of the Religious Tract Society's New Testament have undergone\nsuch serious modifications of meaning as to leave us in painful\nuncertainty as to what was originally written.\n\nThe very latest contribution from orthodox sources to the study of the\nGospels, as contained in the authorised version, is to be found in the\nvery candid preface to the recently-issued revised version of the New\nTestament, where the ordinary Bible receives a condemnation of the most\nsweeping description. Here, on the high authority of the revisers, we\nare told that, with regard to the Greek text, the translators of the\nauthorised version had for their guides \"manuscripts of late date, few\nin number and used with little critical skill.\" The revisers add what\nFreethinkers have long maintained, and have been denounced from pulpits\nfor maintaining, viz., \"that the commonly received text needed thorough\nrevision,\" and, what is even more important, they candidly avow that \"it\nis but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a\nwork with even approximate completeness.\" So that not only \"God's Word\"\nhas admittedly for generations not been \"God's Word\" at all, but even\nnow, and with materials not formerly known, it has only been revised\nwith \"approximate completeness,\" whatever those two words may mean. If\nthey have any significance at all, they must convey the belief of the\nnew and at present final revisers of the Gospel, that, even after all\ntheir toil, they are not quite sure that god's revelation is quite\nexactly rendered into English. So far as the ordinary authorised version\nof the New Testament goes--and it is this, the law-recognised, version\nwhich is still used in administering oaths--we are told that the old\ntranslators \"used considerable freedom,\" and \"studiously adopted a\nvariety of expressions which would now be deemed hardly consistent with\nthe requirements of faithful translation.\" This is a pleasant euphemism,\nbut a real and direct charge of dishonest translation by the authorised\ntranslators. The new revisers add, with sadness, that \"it cannot be\ndoubted that they (the translators of the authorised version) carried\nthis liberty too far, and that the studied avoidance of uniformity\nin the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same\ncontext, is one of the blemishes of their work.\" These blemishes the new\nrevisers think were increased by the fact that the translation of the\nauthorised version of the New Testament was assigned to two separate\ncompanies, who never sat together, which \"was beyond doubt the cause of\nmany inconsistencies,\" and, although there was a final supervision,\nthe new revisers add, most mournfully: \"When it is remembered that\nthe supervision was completed in nine months, we may wonder that the\nincongruities which remain-are not more numerous.\"\n\nNor are the revisers by any means free from doubt and misgiving on their\nown work. They had the \"laborious task\" of \"deciding between the rival\nclaims of various readings which might properly affect the translation,\"\nand, as they tell us, \"Textual criticism, as applied to the Greek New\nTestament, forms a special study of much intricacy and difficulty, and\neven now leaves room for considerable variety of opinion among competent\ncritics.\" Next they say: \"the frequent inconsistencies in the authorised\nversion have caused us much embarrassment,\" and that there are \"numerous\npassages in the authorised version in which.... the studied\nvariety adopted by the Translators of 1611 has produced a degree\nof inconsistency that cannot be reconciled with the principle of\nfaithfulness.\" So little are the new revisers always certain as to\nwhat god means that they provide \"alternative readings in difficult or\ndebateable passages,\" and say \"the notes of this last group are numerous\nand largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors.\"\nAnd with reference to the pronouns and other words in italics we are\ntold that \"some of these cases.... are of singular intricacy, and make\nit impossible to maintain rigid uniformity.\" The new revisers conclude\nby declaring that \"through our manifold experience of its abounding\ndifficulties we have felt more and more as we went onward that such a\nwork can never be accomplished by organised efforts of scholarship and\ncriticism unless assisted by divine help.\" Apparently the new revisers\nare conscious that they did not receive this divine help in their\nattempt at revision, for they go on: \"We know full well that defects\nmust have their place in a work so long and so arduous as this which has\nnow come to an end. Blemishes and imperfections there are in the noble\ntranslation which we have been called upon to revise; blemishes and\nimperfections will assuredly be found in our own revision;... we cannot\nforget how often we have failed in expressing some finer shade of\nmeaning which we recognised in the original, how often idiom has stood\nin the way of a perfect rendering, and how often the attempt to preserve\na familiar form of words, or even a familiar cadence, has only added\nanother perplexity to those which have already beset us.\"\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"When Were Our Gospels Written?","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":14035}