Page images
PDF
EPUB

CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.

145

---his appearance after it, first to Peter, then to the rest of his apostles-the commission which he gave to the latter to preach his gospel in all the world and baptize such as believed in his name, with a promise that he would be with his servants alway, even to the end of time--his ascension into heaven, where he took his seat at the right hand of God—and lastly his designation to be the future judge of mankind: and here their narrative ends. It is true that all these particulars are not noticed by each evangelist; but that fact or doctrine which is omitted by one is supplied by another.

The book called the Acts of the Apostles was written by the evangelist Luke, as must be obvious to every one who will take the trouble to compare Luke i. 3 with Acts i. 1, and it is demonstrably a continuation of the same subject, commencing with the downpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, which was the fulfilment of a promise that Jesus had made before he left the world, and the setting up of his kingdom, agreeably to ancient prophecy. The subject is continued throughout the book, which contains the history of Christianity from the year of our Lord 33 to A. D. 63 of our present chronology-a period of thirty years. Of the precise time in which the four evangelists wrote the history of their Lord's life and ministry, with the order in which the gospels appeared, as well as some particulars of the writers, I shall have occasion to speak presently: in the mean time it is not unimportant to observe, in this place, that many heathen writers mention, either as matter of fact or of controversy, various circumstances of the life and death of Christ, which have been remarked and collected by the ancient fathers and historians. Amongst these writers are Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Phlegon, Marcus Aurelius, Lucian, Lampridius, Porphyry, Celsus, Numenius, and Julian. A few testimonies are also drawn from the Talmudists, who throw some light upon the Gospel history. Extracts from them have been made and are found in the writings of several eminent authors: but there are many fables and falsities interwoven with them concerning Christ.

We have, however, a more credible witness than any of these, in Josephus, the Jewish historian, who confirms many parts of the Gospel history. For instance, he corroborates the history of John the Baptist, the harbinger of Jesus. He mentions his

[blocks in formation]

sanctity, his calling the people to repentance, his baptism, the concourse of his hearers, his imprisonment and death by Herod. He also furnishes a clear testimony in favour of Christ. I know, indeed, that a shade of doubt has been cast upon this testimony, arising from numerous instances of pious fraud-the style-variation of manuscripts-the silence of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen---the splendid eulogy which the Jewish historian is supposed to pass upon our Lord, with the acknowledgment of his divinity, miracles, and resurrection. Hence, not only the Jews think these passages spurious, but some Christian writers also are of the same opinion. On the other hand some very strong arguments are produced to prove these passages to be genuine. They have obtained the suffrages of such respectable authors as Eusebius, Ruffinus, Jerome, Sozomen, Whiston, and others, and have been esteemed genuine by many eminent divines-among whom are Suidas, Trithemius, Galatinus, Gaudentius, Baronius, Bellarmine, Casaubon, archbishop Usher, J. and G. Vossius, Reinesius, &c. There is also

* To such of my readers as are disposed to doubt the authenticity of this testimony of Josephus, I would particularly recommend the candid perusal of a pamphlet under the following title: "Vindicia Flaviana; a Tract on the much disputed testi'mony of Josephus to Christ," Lond. 1789, 8vo., by JACOB BRYANT, an author of uncommon learning and research. As the pamphlet is very scarce, I subjoin an extract for my reader's information. After examining, with his usual critical acumen, the evidence pro and con, relating to this controverted point, Mr. Bryant thus concludes the argument:

"

"It was never presumed that any external proof existed in opposition to this memorable passage. For the space of nearly 1500 years, it was transmitted unimpeached; and so far were writers from imagining that there was any deceit, that they esteemed it of the greatest consequence. From the time of Eusebius to that of Platina and Trithemius, it was quoted at large, and justly valued: nor was there a single writer in all that space, or before, who afforded the least hint to its disadvantage. And, when the people began in the sixteenth century to entertain suspicions, these were not warranted by any real evidence; but proceeded merely from doubts and surmises, which were unjustly entertained. They raised imaginary difficulties, and suffered themselves to be too easily disquieted. They presumed that the whole was an interpolation, founding their notion on the internal evidence; it being to them inconceivable that a Jewish writer could afford a testimony so much in favour of Christianity. This internal evidence I have abundantly examined; and to me it appears manifest that thousands of the Jews, at that time, believed every thing which is there said, and would have afforded the same evidence if required. In consequence of this I am persuaded that our hesitation and diffidence arises from prejudice, and that we have formed wrong ideas both of the people and the times.

TESTIMONY OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS.

147

to be considered the dispersion of the manuscripts when this addition is said to have been made, the substance of which is notwithstanding to be found in them all-add to which that there is no conviction of any other fraud in the text of Josephus. Besides, the candour, fidelity, and care of Josephus in writing the history---the fitness of the place for introducing the mention of Jesus of Nazareth-the nature of the testimony, being only such as might be expected from an impartial historian, though no friend to Christianity-are all circumstances in favour of its authenticity.

With respect to the writers of the Evangelical history, and the order of time in which their narratives appeared, it is by the consent of almost all antiquity that that of Matthew takes the lead. He was one of the twelve apostles, and is mentioned both by Mark and Luke under the name of Levi (Mark ii. 14, and Luke v. 27, 29). The time when this Gospel was composed is not fully ascertained by the learned. Some contend that it was written only eight years after our Lord's ascension, while others say it was not written until fifteen years after. That he wrote it in the Hebrew, and for the use of the Jews, are points generally admitted, as they are strongly supported by the testimony of some of the earliest Christian Fathers, and also by internal evidence. It is quoted or referred to in the epistle of Barnabas, the companion of Paul, by Clement of Rome, and by Hermas, all writers of the first century. By Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in

We do not seem to admit of any medium between a zealous disciple and a deter · mined adversary. But in this we do not make ajust estimate of persons and things, and dwell too much on the extremes. There was, doubtless, an interval of many degrees, in which might be perceived a gradual descent from full conviction to a partial and limited belief; from thence to a state of suspended wonder and admiration; and so on to doubt, indifference, and coldness; and finally to disaffection, bitterness, and obdurate hatred. I do not mention disbelief of the miracles; for that could not in those times have happened. They were allowed long after, even by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian. Those then, who saw them must have believed them, and must have attested what they knew, though their inferences may have been different. In consequence of this, we may allow the truth to be sometimes witnessed by people who are not perfectly attached to it. We are told that the very Devils believe and tremble. We must not, therefore, expect even infidelity to be uniform, nor apostacy consistent. We find that scoffers have their scruples: Rousseau reveres the Mass, and Voltaire has his Confessor."

Cæsarea, and by Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, writers of the second century; and by Origen, in the early part of the third. Its authenticity, therefore, cannot reasonably be doubted.

The next of the four Gospels that made its appearance was that of Mark. This fact also rests upon the authority of Papias, who tells us that the writer of it was a disciple, or follower of Peter, and that the latter dictated to him what he should write. The subject is also mentioned by Irenæus, who says that " Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things which had been preached by Peter." And, indeed, Tertullian says, that the gospel of Mark was ascribed to Peter, even as that of Luke was to Paul; these evangelists being the disciples of those apostles.

"The

It has been supposed by some that the evangelist Mark is the same individual who is several times mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles under the title of John, whose surname is Mark, and who accompanied Paul and Barnabas in their first journey; but Dr. Campbell has shown the improbability of this. accounts given of Paul's attendant, and those of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, which is a circumstance too slight to evince the sameness of the person." That Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek is admitted by all antiquity, and he seems to have abridged that of Matthew. According to some accounts he wrote it in Egypt; but others affirm that it was written at Rome. According to Eusebius, he went into Egypt in the second year of the reign of the emperor Claudius; or the ninth, according to Eutychius of Alexandria, at which time the apostle Peter was yet in Palestine. The publication of Mark's Gospel is dated by some writers only two years later than that of Matthew; but this is a point on which there is no certainty.

Luke was the disciple and companion of the apostle Paul. Originally he had been a physician, and, as some say, resided at Antioch, in Syria. Though, like the other evangelists, he has not named himself as the author, he sufficiently intimates that he was not an apostle, nor himself an eye-witness of what he attests, but that he had his information from apostles, and others who attended our Lord's ministry upon the earth. In compiling his Gospel, he is supposed to have drawn his materials chiefly from the apostle Paul, whom he faithfully attended, as Mark did the

CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.

149

and "the labourer is worThe former of these sayings The latter is found no where

apostle Peter: but, as he declares that the chief source of his intelligence, as to the facts related in the Gospel, was from those who had been eye and ear witnesses of what our Lord both did and taught, it seems to militate against that opinion; for Paul was evidently not of that number. As to the time when Luke's gospel was written, and the place of its first publication, the learned are quite divided. It is obvious that it was written some time prior to the writing of the Acts of the Apostles, because he refers to it, Acts i. 1, as to a treatise which he had formerly composed, and which was then well known. It is a remarkable circumstance that the apostle Paul appears to have been the first writer upon record who has quoted this gospel, and he has thereby fully established its authenticity. In writing to Timothy he makes use of the following words, "for the Scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," thy of his reward," 1 Tim. v. 18. is a quotation from Deut. xxv. 4. else in these terms, but in Luke x. 7, where we have the very words the apostle has adopted. Dr. Lardner has taken notice of several allusions to certain passages in the gospel of Luke which are to be found in some of the apostolic fathers; and there are manifest quotations from it in Justin Martyr, and the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, written about the year 177. About the same time Tatian, one of the Fathers, composed a Harmony of the Gospels, the first of the kind that had been attempted, which he called DIATESSARON (dia Teoσapwv), of the four, and which demonstrates that, at that time, there were four gospels, and no more, of established authority in the church. Not long after this, Irenæus mentions all the evangelists by name, arranging them according to the order in which they wrote, and which is the same with that universally given them throughout Christendom to this day. When he speaks of Luke, he recites many particulars which are peculiar to that Gospel. And, indeed, if you will take the pains to examine the matter narrowly, you will be struck with the number of interesting particulars which he has supplied, that had been omitted by both his predecessors, Matthew and Mark.

The last of the four Gospels was written by John, one of the twelve apostles. He had been a fisherman of Bethsaida, in Galilee, and was the younger brother of James, called the

« PreviousContinue »