The question of their credibility is before that of their inspiration. If uninspired, they may have given us everything essential to the determination of Christ’s resurrection. If inspired, inspiration may have been bestowed in such a manner as to leave them subject to some of the limitations of human testimony. If reliable accounts of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection, of our Lord, were to be published to the world, it was of the last importance that they should not carry upon their face the appearance of collusion and contrivance. Let any one who is disturbed by any seeming contradictions or errors, consider for a moment what would be the consequence if they did not exist. If each writer narrated the same occurrences and teachings and in the same terms, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to believe that they were independent witnesses. And so, if each should give all of the same occurrences and teachings, although in different terms, or a part of them, but in the same terms, it would be almost as difficult to believe that we have independent witnesses. As it is, no question can arise. Neither of them covers the whole ground, and where the same matters appear, it is, in general, except in brief passages easily remembered, in different terms. We are sure there was no collusion. We are sure we have the testimony of independent writers. This is conceded. Says Judge Waite (pp. 311, 313): That the Gospels “are not merely copied one from the other, with changes, is the almost unanimous verdict of Biblical scholars.” And in this, he expresses the verdict of those who reject, not less than of those who accept the Gospels. Among the limitations attending mere human testimony, are, that, ordinarily, no witness will state the whole of any transaction, and no two witnesses will state it in precisely the same terms, unless there is fraud or collusion, and the testimony of each is but the recital of something that has been committed to memory. Another limitation is, that even with two or more witnesses, errors to some extent will come in. There will be some lack of correct observation, or some misrecollection,—not only the omission of a part, but positive misstatement by one or more of the witnesses. The whole transaction is to be gathered from all the witnesses. And the law, having respect to human infirmities, says it is enough in all cases to prove the substance of words alleged to have been spoken, or the substance of the issue, in any civil or criminal cause; immaterial errors of time, or place, or distance, or other circumstance, will be disregarded. Now it is conceivable that the Evangelists, under the guidance of the Divine Spirit, may have been left (to some extent) subject to these limitations, in order that their testimony, conforming to these laws of observation and memory, be the more credible. Hence, whether the Evangelists, in this stage of the inquiry, be regarded as inspired or uninspired, it is labor lost, to adduce alleged errors[1] or contradictions which, if made out, could not seriously affect their honesty and general competency. In order that a witness receive our confidence, we should be satisfied of his means of knowledge, his capacity to ascertain the facts, and his disposition to give a correct account of them. Two of the writers, Matthew and John, were of the twelve (and John was the beloved disciple) and hence they had the best possible means of knowing the facts. Matthew, from his business of a tax-gatherer, may be presumed to have been sharp, shrewd and observant. John, from his most intimate association, was pre-eminently qualified to give testimony. He gives it with solemnity equal to an oath: “And he that saw bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe” (c. xix. 35). “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name” (c. xx. 30, 31). Again, after stating what Peter asked concerning the disciple “whom Jesus loved,” and what followed, it is said: “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and who wrote these things; and we[2] know that his testimony is true” (c. xxi. 20-24). This Gospel, obviously written later than the others, omits much that is contained in them, and is, so to speak, of higher order. The first incident mentioned in it, is the witness borne to Christ by the Baptist. It gives none of the parables, so abundant in the Synoptics.[3] It relates but two of the miracles recorded in them, i. e. the feeding of the five thousand, and the walking upon the water, (c. vi. 1-21). It adds six miracles not recorded in the Synoptics (among which is the raising of Lazarus), numerous conversations and discourses of the greatest interest, and facts relating to the crucifixion and resurrection, of great weight as evidence. It is written in purer Greek than the others; its style[4] is elegant and graceful; it gives every indication of calm, thoughtful and deliberate composition, and in these respects tends to confirm the uniform tradition that it was the ripe product of a mind and heart, enriched, quickened, and vitalized, by familiar intercourse with our Lord and the truths which he declared, as well as by the Spirit promised to the Apostles. Men with favorable native gifts, become educated fast under such influences.
It affords about the only means for a connected chronological history of our Lord’s ministry, which is seen to have embraced a longer[5] period, than could have been ascertained from the Synoptics.
Although Mark was not one of the twelve, the character of his Gospel in its life-like description of events, and its omitting nothing[A] where Peter was prominent, confirms the tradition, that he was an attendant upon Peter’s ministry, and was his interpreter. Nine-tenths[6] of the incidents related in Mark are also recorded in the other Gospels.
Luke was an educated man, and, as he incidentally discloses, a companion of Paul in a part of his journeyings. His Gospel was evidently drawn up with great care. In the prologue (c. i. 1-5) he gives a reason for his writing, and the sources of his information. “Many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.” These things, he says, “were delivered unto us by those who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the Word.” He was stimulated to give an additional narrative (“having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first”) for the satisfaction of his friend, Theophilus, and in order that he might know “the certainty of those things,” wherein he had been instructed. No historian could enter upon his work in a better spirit, or with more excellent qualifications and opportunities. In a subsequent treatise which in terms refers to the former, he finds nothing to retract or qualify. Can any one tell why Luke, as a historian, is not entitled to as much credit as Josephus?
In comparing the Gospels with each other, or with Josephus, it should be constantly borne in mind, that omission (except under special circumstances) is not contradiction. The facts of history, like the conclusions of a jury, are to be drawn from all credible sources, and the transaction deemed to be as shown upon all the evidence. Positive testimony from a single witness may prove a fact against the negative testimony of any number of witnesses, who are silent upon the subject.
It is also to be remembered that the Gospels are not so much connected histories, as reminiscences of events and teachings, with but little regard (sometimes an utter disregard) to their chronological order. Neither Gospel is, of itself, any approach to a connected history from Christ’s birth to his ascension. The events, so far as known to us, are to be gathered from them all. Mark begins with the Baptist at the river Jordan, and John at about the same time. It is not to be inferred that they knew nothing of the infancy, or childhood, or young manhood of Jesus. Matthew omits the presentation at the temple, the vision to the Shepherds, and other incidents; and Luke omits the visit of the Wise men, the slaying of the children, the flight into Egypt, and other incidents. But in so doing, neither contradicts the other; nor does Josephus, by his silence concerning these events, contradict the Evangelists. He may have been ignorant of some of these events, for he was not born until the year 37, and, being a Jew and not a Christian, he might not choose to mention those which had come to his knowledge.
Luke’s Gospel may or may not have made use of writings then in existence relating to Christ (but which never found general acceptance), and the same is true of the First and Second Gospels. It is no impeachment of their credibility. Every historian makes such use of materials that he deems reliable, as best answers his purpose, and his history is none the less trustworthy on that account. Hence, as a matter of evidence, it is of no consequence how many or how few, previous manuscripts may be traced in our Gospels, or either of them. Such writings had an ephemeral existence, never came into general use, and the Four Gospels and no others were the accepted Gospels in all the churches. Whatever literature of the kind preceded them perished so early that it cannot be told when it disappeared, or what was its character or completeness.
The Evangelists give every mark of honest witnesses. Their story is simple, straightforward and unimpassioned, even under circumstances calculated to arouse resentment. They seem intent upon nothing but the giving of a truthful narrative, not sparing themselves or extenuating their own faults. Their frequent incidental allusions to matters of government, custom, nationality, etc., and minuteness of detail, are such as would never be found in false witnesses. “A false witness,” says Mr. Greenleaf, “will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is danger of being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts equally circumstantial.”
It would detract nothing from the credit of the Evangelists, if, in the multitude of their incidental references, error should be found in a few of them, for some error is inseparable from all human productions; and their inspiration may not have been so circumstantial as to exclude immaterial errors.
With such differences as show most convincingly that the Evangelists are independent witnesses, there is such unity in the character and life of Christ, as exhibited by them, as shows the same original for the likeness. This essential unity of the Gospel is evidenced by the fact that not a single church or communion exists, that does not accept all the Gospels, if either.
From internal evidence, it is extremely probable that the Synoptics were written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke was certainly written before Acts, and the history in Acts is not carried later than the year 62, eight years before that event. As the four undisputed Epistles were all written before the year 60, the logical order will be to present the testimony of Paul to the Resurrection before that of the Evangelists.
[1] President Bartlett believes that notwithstanding its long line of exposure, the outer historical difficulties seem reduced to the solitary question of the taxing under Cyrenius. (The Princeton Review for January, 1880, p. 44.) Aside from any question of inspiration, it is improbable that Luke made a mistake. Justin Martyr, who wrote at a very early period, in his Apology to the Roman Emperor, refers to this taxing as a well known event (Ap., c. 34). He again refers to it in his Dialogue (c. 78) as being the first census taken in Judea under Cyrenius. Celsus, who was not wanting in skill or inclination to attack at all points, found no occasion here. It may well be that a person holding the office which Cyrenius held at the first enrolment was called a “procurator.” Or Luke in speaking of this enrolment may have referred to Cyrenius by the title which he afterwards bore; or Cyrenius may have been in the office twice. President Bartlett also concludes with Warrenton that there is not any instance of a really inapposite quotation from the Old Testament, although the quotations are sometimes inaccurate. He also concludes that the instances of alleged contradictions may be reduced to five, and that there is no insurmountable difficulty in reconciling them. But, for reasons stated in the text, the inquiry is not material to our argument.
[2] Many suppose that the “we” are the Elders at Ephesus. But if so, why did they not sign? The “we” preceded by the unmistakable reference to John and followed by the first person singular, in the closing verse, is as likely to have been John.
[3] “Synoptics”—a word often used by writers at the present day to designate the first three Gospels.
[4] The Apocalypse is quite different in style and in respect to pure Greek. For these reasons and others some of the early Fathers denied that the Apostle wrote it. But such was the early tradition. Justin Martyr refers to him as the author, and as Dr. Sears, in his Heart of Christ, well argues, these differences are sufficiently accounted for by the highly excited state of mind in which the Apocalypse was written; and he points out many agreements both in doctrine and mode of expression.
[5] Three years, and possibly four.
[A] Its omission of Peter’s want of faith, as recorded in Matthew 14-30, is an exception.
[6] Wright’s Logic, etc., p. 210; Norton’s Genuineness, etc., Vol. I., p. 188; Wescott’s Introduction, cc. 3 and 4.