Christians claim to have an “unbroken chain of testimony” to the genuineness and credibility of the Four Gospels from the alleged dates of their composition down to the present time. I shall endeavor to show that they have no such chain of testimony—that the most important part of it is wanting.

Twenty books—all of the remaining books of the New Testament but three—are ascribed to the Apostles Paul, Peter, and John. All of these books, it is affirmed, were written after Matthew was written, and about one-half of them after Mark and Luke were written. If this be true, some proofs of the existence of the Synoptic Gospels ought to be found in these books.

Of the fourteen Epistles credited to Paul all have been assigned later dates than Matthew, and a portion of them later dates than Mark and Luke. But there is not a word to indicate that any one of these Gospels was in existence when Paul wrote.

The two Epistles of Peter, it is claimed, were written after Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written. But these Epistles contain no mention of them.

The four remaining books, First, Second, and Third John and Revelation, are said to have been written after these Gospels were composed. Their reputed author, however, knows nothing of these gospels.

The three great Apostles are silent—three links at the very beginning of this chain are missing.

After the Apostles, and contemporary with the oldest of them, come the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Clement wrote about the close of the first century. There are two Epistles credited to him, but in these Epistles are to be found no evidences of the existence of the Four Gospels.

Ignatius is said to have suffered martyrdom in the year 116. There are fifteen Epistles which bear his name. A few of these are believed to be genuine, while the remainder are conceded to be forgeries. But in none of them, neither in the genuine nor in the spurious, is there any evidence that the Gospels had appeared when they were written.

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who is said to have been the companion of John, died at a very advanced age, about the year 167. His Epistle to the Philippians is extant, but it contains no reference to the Gospels.

Hermas and Barnabas are usually classed with the Apostolic Fathers. The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas make no mention of the Evangelists.

That the writings of the Apostolic Fathers contain no proofs of the existence of the Four Gospels is admitted even by Christian writers. Dr. Westcott admits it:

“Reference in the sub-apostolic age to the discourses or actions of our Lord, as we find them recorded in the Gospels, show, as far as they go, that what the Gospels relate was then held to be true; but it does not necessarily follow that they were already in use, and were the actual source of the passages in question. On the contrary, the mode in which Clement refers to our Lord’s teaching—‘the Lord said,’ not ‘saith’—seems to imply that he was indebted to tradition, and not to any written accounts, for words most closely resembling those which are still found in our Gospels. The main testimony of the Apostolic Fathers is, therefore, to the substance, and not to the authenticity of the Gospels” (On the Canon of the New Testament, p. 52).

Bishop Marsh makes the following admission: “From the Epistle of Barnabas, no inference can be deduced that he had read any part of the New Testament. From the genuine Epistle, as it is called, of Clement of Rome, it may be inferred that Clement had read the First Epistle to the Corinthians. From the Shepherd of Hermas no inference whatsoever can be drawn. From the Epistles of Ignatius it may be concluded that he had read St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, and that there existed in his time evangelical writings, though it cannot be shown that he has quoted them. From Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians it appears that he had heard of St. Paul’s Epistle to that community, and he quotes a passage which is in the First Epistle to the Corinthians and another which is in the Epistle to the Ephesians; but no positive conclusion can be drawn with respect to any other epistle, or any of the Four Gospels” (Michaelis, Vol. I., p. 354).

Dr. Dodwell says: “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Dissertations upon IrenÆus).

Professor Norton says: “When we endeavor to strengthen this evidence by appealing to the writings ascribed to Apostolic Fathers we, in fact, weaken its force. At the very extremity of the chain of evidence, where it ought to be strongest, we are attaching defective links which will bear no weight” (Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol I., p. 357).

Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, all refer to the Epistles of Paul, showing that they were in existence when they wrote and that they were acquainted with them. But they never mention the Four Gospels, and this silence affords conclusive evidence that these books as authoritative documents did not exist in their time; for it is unreasonable to suppose that they would use the least important and make no use of the most important books of the New Testament. Three additional and three of the principal links in this “unbroken chain of testimony” are wanting, and must be supplied before the authenticity of the Four Gospels can be established.

The early Christian Fathers had no knowledge of the existence of the Four Gospels. One of the earliest and one of the most eminent of the Christian Fathers was Justin Martyr. He lived and wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings are rather voluminous, and are devoted to the task of proving to both Jews and Gentiles the divinity of Christ and the divine origin of Christianity. If a Christian writer were to attempt to demonstrate this now, where would he go for his authority? To the Four Gospels. These would constitute his chief—almost his entire authority. Now, had these books been extant when Justin wrote, and valued as they are by Christians to-day, he would have used them, he would have quoted from them, he would have named them. But he makes no use of them, he never mentions them. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the Old Testament—Messianic prophecies, etc.—and in nearly two hundred instances he names the books from which he quotes. He makes nearly one hundred quotations from Christian writings that are now considered apocryphal, but he makes none from the Four Gospels.

This silence of Justin is the most damaging argument that has been adduced against the authenticity of the Gospels. This demonstrates one of two things: that these books were not in existence when Justin Martyr wrote, were not in existence at the middle of the second century, or if they were, the foremost Christian scholar of his age rejected them.

Recognizing the significance of this damaging fact, Christian apologists have attempted to show that Justin was acquainted with our Gospels by citing extracts from his writings similar to passages found in them. Westcott adduces seven passages, but admits that two only are wholly identical. He says:

“Of the seven, five agree verbally with the text of St. Matthew or St. Luke, exhibiting, indeed, three slight various readings not elsewhere found, but such as are easily explicable. The sixth is a condensed summary of words related by St. Matthew; the seventh alone presents an important variation in the text of a verse, which is, however, otherwise very uncertain” (Canon of the New Testament, p. 131).

Think of this renowned defender of Christianity, Justin Martyr, attempting to establish the divinity of Christ by citing four hundred texts from the Old Testament and apocryphal books and two only from the Evangelists!

There is really but one passage in the Gospels to be found in Justin. But if it could be shown that they contain many passages similar to, or even identical with, passages found in his writings, this would not prove that he has quoted from them. It is not claimed that these Gospels are mere fabrications of their authors, or that they are composed entirely of original matter. They consist largely of traditions, and these traditions, many of them, were embodied in other and older books which were used by the early Fathers. While the Four Gospels were not extant in Justin’s time, some of the documents of which they are composed, particularly those containing the reputed sayings of Jesus, had already appeared and were frequently cited by the Fathers. These citations, Paley, Lardner, Westcott, and others, in their evidences of Christianity, have adduced as proofs of the early origin of the Four Gospels.

Justin’s quotations are chiefly from what he calls the “Memoirs of the Apostles.” These, it is claimed, were the Four Gospels. If so, then the gospels we have are not genuine, for the quotations from the “Memoirs” are not to be found in our Gospels. Justin says that Mary (not Joseph) was descended from David; that Jesus was born in a cave; that the Magi came from Arabia; that Jesus made ploughs and yokes; that a fire was kindled in the Jordan at his baptism; that he was called a magician. The “Memoirs,” or Gospels, from which Justin quotes are not our Gospels.

The Rev. Dr. Giles repudiates the claim that Justin Martyr recognized the Gospels. He says:

“The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him—do not occur once in all his works. It is, therefore, childish to say that he has quoted from our existing Gospels” (Christian Records, p. 71).

Papias, a Christian bishop and a contemporary of Justin Martyr, is cited as a witness for the Gospels. He is quoted by Eusebius as referring to writings of Matthew and Mark. But the books he mentions are plainly not the gospels of Matthew and Mark.

Of Matthew he says: “Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every one interpreted them as he was able” (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, book iii, p. 39).

This was not the biographical narrative known as “Matthew,” but probably an apocryphal book called the “Oracles of Christ,” which some ascribed to Matthew.

Mark is referred to as follows: “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately whatever he remembered, though he did not arrange in order the things which were either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him; but afterwards, as I said, accompanied Peter, who adapted his teaching to the occasion, and not as making a consecutive record of the Lord’s discourses” (Ecclesiastical History, book iii, p. 39).

This does not describe our Gospel of Mark, which, although a compilation, is a consecutive narrative of events, and not a collection of isolated fragments.

But even if Papias was acquainted with the Gospels, he is a poor witness to their credibility, for he accepted the teachings of tradition in preference to the books which he knew: “I held that what was to be derived from books did not profit me as that from the living and abiding voice [tradition]” (Ecclesiastical History, iii, 39).

Dr. Davidson admits that the books mentioned by Papias were not our Gospels. He says:

“Papias speaks of Matthew and Mark, but it is most probable that he had documents which either formed the basis of our present Matthew and Mark or were taken into them and written over” (Canon of the Bible, p. 124).

“He neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired Gospels” (Ibid, p. 123).

The writings of thirty Christian authors who wrote prior to 170 are still extant. In all these writings there is to be found no mention of the Four Gospels.

In the writings of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, occurs the following: “John says: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.’” This was written in 180, after the middle of the latter half of the second century, and is the earliest proof of the existence of any one of the Four Gospels.

IrenÆus, bishop of Lyons, who wrote about 190, is the earliest writer who mentions all of the Four Gospels. He names them; he declares them to be inspired; he makes four hundred quotations from them. The Four Gospels were in existence when IrenÆus wrote, and they were undoubtedly composed between the time of Justin Martyr and the time of IrenÆus—that is, some time during the latter half of the second century.

Writers on the evidences of Christianity endeavor to establish the genuineness of the Four Gospels by showing that the Fathers who lived and wrote during the two centuries following the ministry and death of Jesus accepted and quoted them as authorities. They credit these Fathers with more than four thousand evangelical quotations. But where are these quotations to be found? Nearly all of them in IrenÆus, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen, while in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr few or none are claimed. The fact that the writings of the Fathers which appeared immediately after 180 contain thousands of evangelical references, while in all the writings which appeared before 170 the evangelists are not even named, affords conclusive evidence that the Four Gospels were composed during or near the decade that elapsed between 170 and 180 A.D.

The Four Gospels do not claim to have been composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The titles are not “The Gospel of Matthew,” “The Gospel of Mark,” “The Gospel of Luke,” and “The Gospel of John,” but “The Gospel According to Matthew,” “The Gospel According to Mark,” “The Gospel According to Luke,” and “The Gospel According to John.” The titles simply imply that they are according to the real or traditional teachings of these Evangelists. So far as the textual authorship is concerned, they are, and do not purport to be other than, anonymous books. Omit these titles, and not one word remains to indicate their authorship. Now, it is admitted that these books did not originally bear these titles. St. Chrysostom, who believes that they are genuine, says (Homilies i) that the authors did not place their names at the head of their Gospels, but that this was afterward done by the church. There is nothing in them to support the claim that they were written by those whose names have been prefixed. On the contrary, their contents furnish conclusive proofs that they were not written by these supposed authors, nor in the apostolic age.

Christians believe that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Hebrew. Our Matthew was written in Greek. An attempt has been made to explain the discrepancy by assuming that Matthew wrote his book in Hebrew, and subsequently rewrote it in Greek, or translated it into this language. But another difficulty remains. The quotations from the Old Testament in Matthew, and there are many, are taken, not from the Hebrew, but from the Septuagint (Greek) version. This proves that it was originally written in Greek and not in Hebrew.

The Gospel According to the Hebrews, it is affirmed, was the Hebrew form of Matthew. If this be true, then our Greek Matthew cannot be a correct translation, for the passages from the Gospel of the Hebrews which have been preserved are not to be found in Matthew. The following quotations are from the Gospel of the Hebrews, this supposed original Gospel of Matthew:

“He who wonders shall reign, and he who reigns shall rest.”

“Then the rich man began to smite his head, and it pleased him not.”

“The Holy Ghost, my mother, lately took me by one of my hairs, and bore me to the great mountain Tabor.”

“I am a mason, who get my livelihood by my hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, that thou wouldst restore to me my strength, that I may no longer thus scandalously beg my bread.”

If these passages are from the original Gospel of Matthew, then the accepted Gospel of Matthew is spurious.

This Hebrew Gospel was the Gospel of the Ebionites and Nazarenes. Eusebius says: “They [the Ebionites] made use only of that which is called the Gospel According to the Hebrews.” Epiphanius says: “They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel of Matthew most entire in the Hebrew language.” St. Jerome refers to it as “the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use.”

Referring to these sects, Dr. Hug, the eminent Catholic critic, says: “The Ebionites denied the miraculous conception of Christ, and, with the Nazarenes, looked upon him only as an ordinary man.” The Gospel which these sects accepted as their authority could not have been our Gospel of Matthew, because the most important part of this Gospel is the story of the miraculous conception.

While the claim that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew is vigorously maintained, the claim that he afterwards translated it into Greek himself is so manifestly untenable that many have conceded its improbability. Jerome says: “Who afterwards translated it [Matthew] into Greek is not sufficiently certain.”

The consequences of this admission are thus reluctantly expressed by Michaelis: “If the original text of Matthew is lost, and we have nothing but a Greek translation: then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the words.”

Two texts may be cited from Matthew which prove a later date for the Gospel than that claimed. Jesus, in upbraiding the Jews, is reported to have used the following language:

“Upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (xxiii, 35).

Zacharias, the son of Baruch (Barouchos), who is undoubtedly meant, was slain in the temple about 69 A.D. Thus Matthew makes Jesus refer to an event that occurred forty years after his death and twenty or thirty years after the Gospel of Matthew is said to have been written.

Dr. Hug admits that this is the Zacharias referred to. He says: “There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its circumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the same Zacharias Barouchos, who, according to Josephus, a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the temple.”

Regarding this passage in Matthew, Professor Newman, of University College, London, says: “There is no other man known in history to whom this verse can allude. If so, it shows how late, how ignorant, how rash, is the composer of a text passed off on us as sacred truth” (Religion Not History, p. 46).

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (xvi, 18, 19).

This passage was written at the beginning of the establishment of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, for the purpose of securing the recognition of the Church of Rome (the founding of which tradition assigned to Peter) as the church of Christ.

Bishop Marsh, in his Michaelis, says: “If the arguments in favor of a late date for the composition of St. Matthew’s Gospel be compared with those in favor of an early date, it will be found that the former greatly outweigh the latter.”

Dr. Davidson admits that Matthew is an anonymous work. He says: “The author, indeed, must ever remain unknown” (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 72).

As to where the Gospel of Mark was written, whether in Asia, in Africa, or in Europe, is unknown. Some believe that it was written at Antioch; Chrysostom states that it was written at Alexandria; IrenÆus says that it was written at Rome. If it was written at Rome it was probably written in Latin instead of Greek. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” concedes that “it abounds in Latin words.” The following is an example:

“And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many” (v. 9).

Commenting on this passage, the Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The Four Gospels are written in Greek, and the word ‘legion’ is Latin; but in Galilee and Perea the people spoke neither Latin nor Greek, but Hebrew, or a dialect of it. The word ‘legion’ would be perfectly unintelligible to the disciples of Christ, and to almost everybody in the country” (Christian Records, p. 197).

If it was written in Latin, then our Greek Mark, like Matthew, instead of being an original Gospel, is simply an unauthenticated translation.

Mark has generally been considered a Petrine Gospel; orthodox Christians claiming that Peter dictated the Gospel to Mark. Discussing this claim, the author of “Supernatural Religion” says: “Throughout the Gospel there is the total absence of anything which is specially characteristic of Petrine influence and teaching” (Vol. I., p. 362). Volkmar and others declare it to be Pauline. One thing can be affirmed with certainty; it was not written by John Mark, neither was it dictated by Peter.

The last twelve verses of Mark, it is claimed, are an interpolation, because they are not to be found in the older manuscripts of the book. The Revision Committee which prepared the New Version of the New Testament pronounced them spurious. If these verses are not genuine, then it must be admitted that the second Gospel is either an unfinished or a mutilated work; for with these verses omitted, it ends abruptly with the visit of the women to the tomb, leaving the most important events at the close of Christ’s career, his appearance and ascension—the proofs of his resurrection—unrecorded.

The greater portion of Mark is to be found in Matthew and Luke, and much of it in the same or similar language. Judge Waite, in his review of the Gospel, says: “Mark has almost a complete parallel in Luke and Matthew taken together. There are but 24 verses which have no parallel in either of the other synoptics” (History of Christianity, p. 350).

Regarding the origin of Mark, Strauss says: “Our second Gospel cannot have originated from recollections of Peter’s instructions, i. e., from a source peculiar to itself, since it is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory or otherwise, from the first and third Gospels” (Life of Jesus, Vol. I., p. 51).

That neither Peter nor Mark had anything to do with the composition of this book is admitted by Davidson. Referring to it he says: “It has therefore no relation to the Apostle, and derives no sanction from his name. The author is unknown” (Introduction to New Testament, Vol. II, p. 84).

In denying the authenticity of Mark and Luke, what I deny is that these books were written by the traditional Mark and Luke, the companions of Peter and Paul. I deny that they were written in the apostolic age and by apostolic authority. As stated by “Chambers’s Encyclopedia,” “the question as to their genuineness is in the main question as to the fact of their existence at this early period; the special authorship of each Gospel is a comparatively less important question.”

The book of Luke is anonymous; it does not claim to be written by Luke. And yet the Fathers may have been correct in ascribing its authorship to him. If so, who was this Luke? Where did he live? When did he write his book? “Chambers’s” says he “was born, according to the accounts of the Church Fathers, at Antioch, in Syria.” Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says, “He was born at Antioch.” The Gospel is addressed to Theophilus. Who was Theophilus? The “Bible Dictionary” says: “From the honorable epithet applied to him in Luke i, 3, it has been argued with much probability that he was a person in high official position.” There is but one Theophilus known to history to whom the writer can possibly refer, and this is Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who lived in the latter part of the second century. Luke and Theophilus, then, both belonged to Antioch, and it is undoubtedly to this Theophilus that Luke’s Gospel is addressed. This proves that it was written more than one hundred years after the date assigned for its composition. When Luke assumed the task of writing a Gospel, Matthew, it has been claimed, was the only Gospel extant. And yet Luke in his introduction declares that many had been written; all of which he admits were genuine. Jerome says that one of the Gospels which Luke refers to was the Gospel of Appelles: “The Evangelist, Luke, declares that there were many who wrote Gospels.... They were such as that according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, and Bartholomew, that of the Twelve Apostles, and Basilides, and Appelles, and others.” The Gospel of Appelles was written about 60 A.D. If Luke’s Gospel was written after the Gospel of Appelles, it was written after the middle of the second century.

Dr. Schleiermacher, one of the greatest of modern theologians, maintains that Luke is a compilation of thirty-three different manuscripts; as follows: Chapter i, 1–4; i, 5–80; ii, 1–20; ii, 21; ii, 22–40; ii, 41–52; iii, iv, 1–15; iv, 16–30; iv, 31–44; v, 1–11; v, 12–16; v, 17–26; v, 27–39, vi, 1–11; vi, 12–49; vii, 1–10; vii, 11–50; viii, 1–21; viii, 22–56; ix, 1–45; ix, 46–50; ix, 51–62; x, 1–24; x, 25–37; x, 38–42; xi, 1–13; xi, 14–54; xii, xiii, 1–9; xiii, 10–22; xiii, 23–35; xiv, 1–24; xiv, 25–35; xv, xvi, xvii, 1–19; xvii, 20–37; xviii, xix, xx; xxi; xxii, xxiii, 1–49; xxiii, 50–56; xxiv.

Bishop Thirlwall’s Schleiermacher contains the following in regard to the composition of Luke: “The main position is firmly established that Luke is neither an independent writer, nor has made a compilation from works which extended over the whole course of the life of Jesus. He is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence, and which he allows to pass unaltered through his hands” (p. 313).

The immediate source of Luke’s Gospel was undoubtedly the Gospel of Marcion, itself a compilation of older documents. Referring to this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould says: “The arrangement is so similar that we are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or that it was his original composition. If he used it, then his right to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the ground, as what he added was of small amount” (Lost and Hostile Gospels).

The Synoptics Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is claimed, are original and independent compositions, and the oldest of all the Gospels, both canonical and apocryphal. This claim is disproved by the form and character of their contents. One of two things is certain: either these writers copied from each other, or all copied from older documents. The following, which are but a few of the many passages that might be adduced, afford unmistakable evidence of this:

Matthew—“They were astonished at his doctrine” (xxii, 33).

Mark—“They were astonished at his doctrine” (i, 22).

Luke—“They were astonished at his doctrine” (iv, 32).

Matthew—“For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (vii, 29).

Mark—“For he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes” (i, 22).

Matthew—“While he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude, with swords and staves, from the chief priests,” etc. (xxvi, 47).

Mark—“While he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests,” etc. (xiv, 43).

Matthew—“And without a parable spake he not unto them” (xiii, 34).

Mark—“But without a parable spake he not unto them” (iv, 34).

Matthew—“Sought opportunity to betray him” (xxvi, 16).

Luke—“Sought opportunity to betray him” (xxii, 6).

Mark—“But they understood not that saying” (ix, 32).

Luke—“But they understood not this saying” (ix, 45).

The theory that the Synoptics borrowed from each other will account for the agreements in their books; but it will not account for the disagreements, and these are quite as numerous as the agreements. The following hypothesis, however, will account for both. When the Synoptics were composed probably fifty gospels, some of recent and others of early origin, were already in existence. In addition to these were a hundred other documents pertaining to Christ and his teachings. From this mass of Gospel literature the Synoptics were compiled. Those portions that agree were taken from a common source; those that do not agree were taken from different documents.

Dean Alford believes that in the early ages of the church there existed what he terms a “common substratum of apostolic teachings,” “oral or partially documentary.” This, he says, “I believe to have been the original source of the common part of our three Gospels.” Canon Westcott admits that “their substance is evidently much older than their form.”

Professor Ladd, of Yale College, says: “In some respects each of the first three Gospels must be regarded as a compilation; it consists of material which the others have in common with it, and which was of a traditional kind more or less prepared before the author of the particular Gospel took it in hand to modify and rearrange it” (What Is the Bible? p. 295).

Bishop Marsh, in his Michaelis, says: “The notion of an absolute independence, in respect to the composition of our three first Gospels, is no longer tenable” (Vol. III, part 2, p. 170).

Prof. Robertson Smith, of Scotland, pronounces them “unapostolic digests of the second century.” Evanson goes further and declares them to be “spurious fictions of the second century.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica concedes the fact that Protestant scholarship in Europe has virtually abandoned the popular orthodox position regarding the origin of these books. It says:

“It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form only by degrees, and that while they have their root in the apostolic age, they are fashioned by later influences and adapted to special wants in the early church. They are the deposits, in short, of Christian traditions handed down first of all in an oral form, before being committed to writing in such a form as we have them; and this is now an accepted conclusion of every historical school of theologians in England no less than in Germany, conservative no less than radical.”

In addition to what has already been adduced against the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, I submit the following:

1. John, the disciple of Jesus, was an unlettered fisherman. The author of the Fourth Gospel was an accomplished scholar and a polished writer. His book is one of the classics of Christian literature.

2. The Apostle John was born at Bethsaida. The author of John says that Bethsaida was in Galilee (xii, 21). Bethsaida was not in Galilee, but in Perea, and to assert that John wrote this Gospel is to assert that he was ignorant of the location of his own town.

3. “In Bethany beyond Jordan” (New Ver. i, 28). “In Enon near to Salim” (iii, 23). “A city of Samaria, called Sychar” (iv, 5). These passages were written by one little acquainted with the geography of Palestine and unfamiliar with the scenes he attempts to describe.

4. John, the son of Zebedee, was a Jew. The manner in which the author of the Fourth Gospel always refers to the Jews is conclusive evidence that he was not a Jew.

5. The Synoptics state that Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples, and was crucified on the following day. The author of John states that he was crucified on the previous day, and therefore did not partake of the Paschal supper. In the second century a great controversy arose in the church regarding this. Those who accepted the account given in the Synoptics observed the feast, while those who accepted the account given in the Fourth Gospel rejected it. Now, we have the testimony of IrenÆus that John himself observed this feast. “For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it, because he had ever observed it with John, the disciple of our Lord” (Against Heresies, iii, 3). As John accepted the account which appears in the Synoptics and rejected that which appears in the Gospel of John, he could not have written the Fourth Gospel.

6. The disciple John is represented as standing at the cross and witnessing the crucifixion. The author of John does not claim to have been present, but appeals to the testimony of an eye-witness in support of his statements: “And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true” (xix, 35).

7. “Now, there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples whom he loved” (xiii, 23). “The disciple standing by, whom he loved” (xix, 26). “To Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved” (xx, 2). This beloved disciple is said to be John. The Synoptics, however, do not represent John as the favorite disciple. If there was one disciple whom Jesus loved more than the others, it was Peter. To ascribe to John the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is to ascribe to him a spirit of self-glorification that is simply disgusting.

8. “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” (xx, 30, 31). Thus concludes the original Gospel According to St. John. This book was not written by John, but it was written by a disciple of John for Johannine Christians. When the Roman Catholic hierarchy was formed and the Gospel of John was admitted to the New Testament canon, there was appended another chapter—a forgery. The hero of this chapter is Peter. A dozen times Jesus calls him by name. To him Jesus gives the oft repeated injunction, “Feed my lambs;” “feed my sheep.” This chapter was added to counteract the Johannine influence and exalt the Petrine teachings so dear to Rome. To give an appearance of genuineness to this forgery, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is again introduced and declared the author of the Gospel, thus making John himself a supporter of Petrine supremacy.

9. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics state, were witnessed by John. The author of the Fourth Gospel knows nothing about them. “All the events said to have been witnessed by John alone are omitted by John alone. This fact seems fatal either to the reality of the events in question or to the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel” (Greg).

10. Even Christians have tacitly admitted the hopelessness of maintaining the authenticity of both the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics. If the Synoptics are authentic, the Fourth Gospel cannot be. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says: “In the Fourth Gospel the narrative coincides with that of the other three in a few passages only. Putting aside the account of the Passion, there are only three facts which John relates in common with the other Evangelists” (Art. Gospels).

11. The author of John declares Jesus to be God. The complete deification of Jesus was the growth of generations. The early Christians, including the Apostles, believed him to be a man. Later, he became a demi-god, and the writings and traditions which represented him as such formed the materials from which the Synoptics were compiled. Not until the latter part of the second century was Jesus placed among the gods, and not until this time was the Fourth Gospel written.

Alluding to the Fourth Gospel, Canon Westcott says: “The earliest account of the origin of the Gospel is already legendary.”

Professor Davidson says: “The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times it is here irresistible” (Canon of the Bible, p. 127).

From a work entitled “The New Bible and Its Uses” Prof. Andrew D. White, our present minister to Germany, in his “Warfare of Science” (vol. ii, p. 306), quotes the following in relation to John, which shows how rapidly the supposed authenticity of Bible books is disappearing before the investigations of the Higher Critics:

“In the period of thirty years ending in 1860, of the fifty great authorities in this line, four to one were in favor of the Johannine authorship.... Of those who have contributed important articles to the discussion from 1880 to 1890, about two to one reject the Johannine authorship of the Gospel in its present shape—that is to say, while forty years ago great scholars were four to one in favor of, they are now two to one against, the claim that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel as we have it.”

The principal reason for rejecting both the reputed authorship and the credibility of the Four Gospels is the contradictory character of their contents. If Jesus Christ was a historical personage, as Christians believe, these alleged biographies were not written by his Apostles and their companions; neither were they compiled from authentic records.

The Greek text of the Gospels disproves their authenticity. Their assigned authors, or two of them at least, were unlearned Jews. Their work was confined chiefly to the lower classes of their countrymen, in a land where Greek was almost unknown. The absurdity of this is shown by Mrs. Besant: “The only parallel for so curious a phenomenon as these Greek Gospels, written by ignorant Jews, would be if a Cornish fisherman and a low London attorney, both perfectly ignorant of German, wrote in German the sayings and doings of a Middlesex carpenter, and as their work was entirely confined to the lower classes of the people, who knew nothing of German, and they desired to place within their reach full knowledge of the carpenter’s life, they circulated it among them in German only, and never wrote anything about him in English.”

The doctrines of the immaculate conception and of a material resurrection, so prominent in the Four Gospels, are proofs of their late origin. These doctrines are not taught in the older books of the New Testament, and were unknown to the Christians of the first century.

The scholarly author of “Supernatural Religion,” after a patient and exhaustive examination of every accessible document relating to the subject, writes as follows:

“After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus” (Vol. II., p. 248).

Bishop Faustus, a heretical theologian of the fifth century, referring to this so so-called Gospel history, says:

“It is allowed not to have been written by the Son himself nor by his Apostles, but long after by some unknown men who, lest they should be suspected of writing things they knew nothing of, gave to their books the names of the Apostles.”

Regarding these four books and their sequel, Acts, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, the noted theologian and critic of Holland, voices the opinion of himself and his renowned associates, Dr. Kuenen and Dr. Oort, in the following words:

“Our interest is more especially excited by the five historical books of the New Testament. If we might really suppose them to have been written by the men whose names they bear, we could never be thankful enough for such precious authorities.... But, alas! not one of these five books was really written by the person whose name it bears—though for the sake of brevity we shall still call the writers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—and they are all of more recent date than their headings would lead us to suppose.... We cannot say that the Gospels and the book of Acts are unauthentic, for not one of them professes to give the name of its author. They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 24).

The Pentateuch was not written by Moses, nor the Four Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The authenticity of the chief books of the New Testament, like that of the chief books of the Old, must be given up. The results of our review of them may be summed up in the words of the great German, Ferdinand Christian Baur: “These Gospels are spurious, and were written in the second century.”