The Secret Vault presents: The Christian and Pagan Creeds Collated. Rev. Robert Taylor, A. B. & M. R. C. S.
By the Rev. Robert Taylor, A. B. & M. R. C. S.
That our three first canonical gospels have a remarkable similarity to each other; and that the three first evangelists (sc. Matthew, Mark, and Luke) frequently agree, not only in relating the same things in the same manner, but likewise in the same words, is a fact of which everyone must be convinced who has read a Greek Harmony of the Gospels. In some cases, all the Evangelists agree word for word, as thus:
Matthew, xxiv. 33.
Now learn a parable
of the fig-tree; when his
branch is yet tender, and
putteth forth leaves, ye
know that summer is
nigh: so likewise, ye,
when ye shall see all
these things, know that
it is near, even at the
doors. Verily, I say unto
you, this generation shall
not pass, till all these
things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass
away, but my words shall
not pass away. Mark, xiii. 20.
Now learn a parable
of the fig-tree; when her
branch is yet tender, and
putteth forth leaves, ye
know that summer is
near: so ye, in like manner, when ye shall see
these things come to
pass, know that it is
nigh, even at the doors.
Verily, I say unto you,
that this generation shall
not pass, till all these
things be done. Heaven
and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not Luke, xxi. 31.
Behold the fig-tree,
and all the trees; when
they now shoot forth, ye
see and know of your
own selves, that summer
is now nigh at hand: so
likewise, ye, when ye
see these things come to
pass, know ye that the
kingdom of God is nigh
at hand. Verily, I say
unto you, this generation shall not pass away,
till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass
away, but my words shall
not pass away.
These phenomena are inexplicable on any other than one of the two following suppositions, either that St. Matthew, St. Mark, and Saint Luke, copied from each other, or that all three drew from a common source.
In Mark 13-13 to 32, there is such a close verbal agreement, for twenty verses together, with the parallel passage in St. Matthew's gospel, that the texts of St. Matthew and St. Mark might pass for one and the same text.
"The most eminent critics are at present decidedly of opinion that one of the two suppositions must necessarily be adopted - either that the three evangelists copied from each other, or that all the three drew from a common source, and that the notion of an absolute independence, in respect to the composition of our three first gospels, is no longer tenable. Yet the question, which of these two suppositions ought to be adopted in preference to the other, is still in agitation; and each of them has such able advocates, that if we were guided by the authority of names, the decision would be extremely difficult." [Bishop Marsh's Michaelis, vol. 3, part 2, p. 170.]
Difficult as the decision may be; to the great end of this general view of the evidence affecting the claims of divine revelation, it is utterly indifferent; since either alternative affords results equally conclusive, and equally militant against the character of those through whose hands these writings have come down to us. In either alternative, they are not original writings; they are not what they purport to be; and the writers stand convicted, at least, of negative imposture, (if indeed the imposture is attributable to them,) in passing their compositions off as original, and attempting to conceal from us the help they borrowed from each other, or what the common source was from which they each of them drew.
Le Clerc, in his Historia Critica, published at Amsterdam, 1716AD, seems to have been the first among modern divines who ventured to put forth the startling supposition that these three gospels were in part derived from either similar or the self-same sources.
This opinion lay dormant upwards of sixty years, till it was revived by Michaelis, in the third edition of his Introduction, published 1777. Dr Semler, however, was the first writer who made it known to the public that our three first evangelists used in common a Hebrew or Syriac document or documents, from which they derived the principal materials of their history; in a treatise published at Halle, in 1783; but he has delivered it only in a cursory manner; and as the thought was then new, he does not appear to have had any very determinate opinion on the subject. The probability is, that he dared not at that time have ventured to put forth a determinate opinion on the subject. [LN., Selmer, Johann Salomo, 1725 to 1791, he was a German church historian, and biblical critic.]. We find Bishop Marsh himself, even in this learned dissertation, the highest authority I could adduce on the subject, confessing "that the easiest and the most prudent part that he could take, would be merely to relate the opinions of others, without hazarding an opinion of his own." There was little fear that so high a dignitary of the church would, for any opinion he might hazard, be liable to be dealt with as a humbler heretic of his communion. The episcopal palace of Peterborough is far enough from Oakham Gaol; yet, for all that, a bishop will never be found wanting of the virtue of prudence.
The express declaration of Eusebius, that Therapeutae described by Philo were Christians, and that their sacred scriptures were our Gospels, after having lain dormant for fourteen hundred years, now at length rises, upon the admissions of these learned divines, into the dimensions of its real importance. From these sacred legends, of a sect so long anterior to the epoch assigned to Christ and his apostles, our Christian scriptures have been plagiarised; and the first position of the Manifesto, a of the Christian Evidence Society, for the public maintenance of which the author of this Diegesis endures the fate of felony and crime, is nothing more than had in other words been previously published, by the learned bishop in whose diocese he is a prisoner. [They commit the same things with a different fate: one hath borne the mitre as the price of his exploit - the other, the cross,]
Eusebius, however, is not alone, even among the ancients, in betraying the fact of this great plagiarism. Hints and innuendoes occur in a thousand places, pointing out the same fact, to those who were entitled by learning and office to be intrusted with what Origen significantly calls the Arcana Imperii, or secrets of the management; while, as the custody of the sacred books was never committed to the people, and they were expressly forbidden to examine into the foundations of their faith, nothing was more facile, nothing more practicable, than for the heads and rulers of the church to modify and adopt those previously existing romances, whose effect in subduing the reason of mankind had been found by long experience, and which were too ancient to be found out, too sacred to be suspected, and too mysterious to be understood.
Epiphanius, as long ago as the fourth century, speaking of the verbal harmony of the gospels, which he calls their preaching harmoniously and alike accounts for it by saying, that they were drawn from the same fountain; though he has not explained what he meant by the same fountain.
Lessing's hypothesis.
But it was in the year 1784, in the posthumous works of Lessing, published at Berlin, that the hypothesis of a common Syriac or Chaldean origin was decidedly maintained, and put forth to the world with much more precision than the fortitude of Sender had ventured. Leasing was dead first. It is not from living authors, or from those who wish to live, that the world has to look for important discoveries in theology. Those who offer truth to the Christian community, must ever provide for their escape from the consequences of doing so. [LN., Lessing Gotthold Ephraim, 1729 to 1781, he was a German writer, philosopher, dramatist, publisher and art critic.]
Niemeyer's hypothesis. 123
Six years afterwards (in 1790), the important truth was taken up, and allowed to be spoken, in consequence of meeting the approbation of Dr Niemeyer, Professor of Divinity in Halle, who, in his Conjectures in illustration of the Silence of most of the Writers of the New Testament, concerning the beginning of the Life of Jesus Christ, says, that "If credit be due to the authority of the Fathers, there existed a most ancient narration of the life of Jesus Christ, written especially for those inhabitants of Palestine who became Christians from among the Jews." [a] - "This narrative is distinguished by various names, as the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles - the Gospel of the Hebrews - the Gospel according to Matthew - the Gospel of the Nazarenes; and this same, unless all things deceive me, is to be considered as the fountain from which other writings of this sort have derived their origin, as streams from the spring." [b]
[a] Jam si fides habenda est patrum auctoritate antiquissima extitit de vita Jesu Christi narratio, in usum eorum, qui e Judaeis Christiani facti erant, Palaestinensium imprimis scripta.]
[b] Haec narratio varus nominibas insignitur, quo pertinent Evangelium duodecim Apostolorum, Hebraeorum, Nazaraeorum, secundum Matthaeum: eademque, nisi me omnia fallunt, pro fonte habenda est, e quo reliqua id genus scripta tanquam rivuli originem suam duxerunt.]
Dr Niemeyer further adds, in a passage to which Bishop Marsh invokes our especial attention, that [c] "Since this book of which we speak contained the narrations of the apostles concerning the life of Christ, not only is it credible from the importance of its argument, that copies of it should have been in the hands of the generality of Christians, whom it ought chiefly to have concerned to behold the divine image of their master, but that in each particular copy, would be written as a sort of supplement, whatever any one had found to be true concerning Christ from other sources: so that indeed, even in the age of the apostles, there might have been several selections of these memoirs: which if it be admitted; many things can be most easily explained, which otherwise render the origin of our gospels very obscure. In the first place, the clear agreement of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in many parts of their gospels, not -only in the resemblance of the subjects of which they treat, but in the use of the same words, is understood. Make a hundred men to have been witnesses of the same fact; make the same hundred to have written accounts of what they saw; they will agree in matter, they will differ in words: - nor will anyone say that it happened by accident, if even three or four out of their number, had so related the story, as to answer word for word, through a course of many periods.
[c] Cum vero contineret hic liber, de quo quaerimus Apostolorum de vita Christi narrationes, non modo propter argumenti gravitatem credibile est, ejus exemplaria in plurimorum christianorum manibus fuisse, quorum maxime debabat interesse divinam magistri sui imaginem intueri, verum etiam singulis exemplaribus ea, quae quisque aliunde de Christo comperta haberet, tanquam auctaria adscripta esse: ita quidem ut vel Apostolorum aevo, plures extiterunt horum memorabilium recensiones.
Quod si sumitur; multa facillime explicari possunt, quae, sublata ista hypothesi, admodum obscuras reddunt evangeliorum nostrorum origines. Primum intelligitur consensus Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, per plures evangeliorum suorum partes, non modo in rerum quas tractunt similitudine, verum etiam verborum conspiratione perspicuus: Fac centum homines ejusdem facti fuisse testes; Fac centum ipsos quod viderint mandasse literis: Consentient re, different verbis: nec quisquam casu factum esse judicabit, si vel tres aut quatuor ex eorum numero rem ita narraverint, ut per plurimarum periodorum seriem, verbum verbo respondeat. Hoc vero quis ignorat sexcenties observari in evangelistarum commentariis? Atqui hoc mirum non est. Nempe ex eodem hauserunt fonte. Memorabilia Christi et dicta et facta Hebraice scripta, in usum Graece loquentium, Graeca fecerunt.
Qui vero factum est, ut Lucas alium sequeretur rerum ordinem, quam Matthaeus; ut in Marco plura desiderentur, in Matthaeo, cujus vestigia premere videtur obvia? Ut in singulis partibus, alter altero verbosior, in observandis rebus minutis, diligentior reperiatur? Quoniam, ut diximus, mira fuit exemplarium, quae ista Apostolorum. [ GK ] complectebantur diversitas. Deinde, quoniam liberum fuit iis, qui ex istis Commentariis sua evangelia con Cinnabant, addere quae sibi aliunde innotuissent, resecare quae vel sublestae fidei, vel minus utilia lectoribus, et a suo scribendi consilio remota judicarent.]
Niemeyer's hypothesis, continued
"But who is ignorant, that such an agreement is to be observed repeatedly in the commentaries of the Evangelists? But this is not wonderful: since they drew from the same fountain. They translated the memorable sayings and actions of Christ, which were written in Hebrew, into Greek, for the use of those who spoke the Greek language. But, how came it that Luke should follow a different arrangement from Matthew? That many things should be wanting in Mark, that are readily to be met with in Matthew, whose steps he seems to follow? That in particular parts, one should be found more-wordy than the other; in observing minute circumstances more diligent? - Why!
Because as we have said, there really was a wonderful diversity in the copies which contained those memoirs of the apostles: and, secondly, because it was optionable for those who composed their gospels, out of those commentaries, to add whatever they knew of the matter from other sources, and to cut off whatever they considered to be of equivocal credibility, or less useful to readers and alien from their object in writing."
The Question Proposed in the University of Gottingen. 1793AD.
In 1793, the theological faculty at Gottingen, proposed for the prize dissertation the question; - What was the origin of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? From what fountains did the authors of those gospels draw? For what readers in particular, and with what aim did they each write, and how, and at what time came it to pass, that those four gospels acquired a greater authority, than that of the gospels which are called apocryphal; and became canonical." The prize was adjudged to Mr. Halfeld, who maintained that the Evangelists extracted their gospels from different documents. For proposing a similar question in London, in the year 1828, the author of this Diegesis obtained the prize, of a year's imprisonment, in Oakham Gaol, in the County of Rutland.
Dr Eichhorn's Hypothesis.
In his dissertation, On the Origin of our Three First Gospels, printed in 1794, in the fifth volume of his Universal Library, of Biblical Literature, [The German title is Allgemeine Bibliothek der Biblischen Literatur; a periodical publication.] [LN., Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried, 1752 to 1827, he was a German Protestant theologian.] by far the most important of all the Essays which have appeared on this subject, Dr Eichhorn, supposes that only one document was used, by all three Evangelists, but he supposes that various additions, had been made in various copies of it, and that three different copies, thus variously enriched, were respectively used by our three first Evangelists, independently of each other. According to Eichhorn's hypothesis, the proprietors of different copies of this document, added in the margin, those circumstances, which had come to their knowledge, but which were unnoticed by the author or authors of the documents; and these marginal additions were taken by subsequent transcribers into the text.
Eichhorn is decidedly of opinion, that the original document, of which the Evangelists used various copies, was written, not in Greek, but in Hebrew, or Chaldean: which alone accounts for the phenomenon of their sometimes using different, but synonymous Greek expressions, in relating the same thing. "We possess, (says he,) in our three first gospels, three translations of the above mentioned short Life of Christ, which were made independently of each other. Examples, (he states,) may be produced, which betray even an inaccuracy of translation.
The phenomena, in the verbal agreement of our three first gospels, are, however, of such a particular description, as to be wholly incompatible with the notion of three independent translations of the same original. They are of such a particular description, that it lay not within the power of transcribers to have produced them. They afford so severe a test, that no other assignable cause than that by which the effects were really produced, can be expected to account for them."
Eichhorn expressly declares that he leaves the question, undecided, whether our three first Evangelists made use of the Hebrew document, or whether they had only translations of it.
Beausobre's hypothesis.
[a] "At the head of the first class [of Scriptures] are to be placed two gospels, [that, according to the Hebrews, and that according to the Egyptians. In my opinion, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is the most ancient of all. This, the Nazarenes pretended, was the original from which that of St. Matthew was taken. It began with these words - "It happened in the days of Herod."
[LN., Beausobre, de Isaac, 1659 to 1738, was a French protestant churchman, now best remembered for his book the History of Manichaeism, 'Histoire de Manicheisme'. Manichaeism or Manes was a major religious movement founded by the Iranian prophet Mani, around 216 to 276AD.]
"It appears from the fragments of it which have been preserved to us, that it contained no heresy, and that with the exception of some circumstances, the history of our Lord, was therein faithfully related. It is in this Gospel that we read the history of the woman taken in adultery, which is told in the 8th chapter of St. John; and since this was not contained in many copies of this latter gospel, some persons have conjectured that it was taken out of the Gospel of the Nazarenes and inserted in that of St. John. If this be true, it is a testimony which the ancients have rendered to the Gospel of the Nazarenes: and if this history was originally contained in St. John's Gospel, it is another proof of the truth of their gospel.
"That which has been called the Gospel according to the Egyptians, is of the same antiquity. Origen has mentioned it; Clemens Alexandrinus had previously quoted it in several places; and if the second epistle of Clemens Romanus be authentic, this Gospel would have a testimony even yet more ancient than that of those two doctors. There is also, in the Library of the Fathers, a commentary on St. Luke, attributed to Titus of Bostra, in which this bishop seems to place the Gospel according to the Egyptians in the rank of those which St. Luke had investigated, and which consequently were anterior to his. Since the Encratites (abstemious monks, Therapeuts) quoted it to defend their error concerning marriage, the priests have not altogether rejected its testimonies. They have endeavoured to explain it in an orthodox sense; which shows that this book had a sort of authority, and that they never even suspected that it had been foisted in by heretics. Upon considering (the unquestionable fact) that it was received by the Christians of Egypt, I have not been able to hinder myself from thinking, that it was written by the Essenes, who had believed in Jesus Christ. The religion of this people contained a great deal of the Christian religion.
The Gospel according to the Egyptians was full of mysticism, parables, enigmas and allegories: this has been attributed to the spirit of the nation; for my part, I impute it rather to the Essene cast of character. There may be found therein sentences which seemed to favour Encratism (Monkery.) Now, the Essenes lived in continence and abstinence; it is, then, very probable, that persons of this Jewish sect, the only one which Jesus Christ never found fault with, attached themselves to the Son of God, followed him, and upon retiring into Egypt after his death, there, composed a history of his life and doctrine, which appeared first in Egypt, and which on that account was called the Gospel according to the Egyptians."
[a] "II faut mettre a la teste de la premiere classe deux Evangiles . . . Le plus ancien de tout est a mon avis, l' Evangile selon les Hebreux, que les Nazareenes Pretendoient etre l'original de S. Matthieu. II commencoit par ces mots [ GK] ap. Epiph. Haer. 30 --------II parait, par les fragmens, qui nous en ont ete conservez qu'il ne contenoit aucune heresie, et qu'a quelques circonstances pres l'Histoire de Notre Seigneur y etoit rapportes fidelement.
C'est dans cet Evangile qu'on lisoit l'histoire de la femme surprise en adultere, laquelle est racontee au Chap, viii, de S. Jean. Et comme elle n'etoit pas dans plusieurs exemplaires de ce dernier Evangile, quelques-uns ont conjecture, qu'elle avoit ete prise de l' Evangile des Nazareens; et inserte dans S. Jean. Si cela est vrai c'est un temoignage que les Anciens rendent a l'Evangile des Nazareens; et si cette histoire a ete originairement dans S. Jean, c'est une autre preuve de la verite de leur Evangile.
Celui, que l'on a nomme selon les Egyptiens est de la mesme antiquite, Origene en a fait mention. Clement d'Alexandrie l'avoit deja allegue en quelques endroits. Et si la Seconde Epitre de Clement Romain est de lui, cet Evangile auroit un temoignage plus ancien que celui de ces deux Docteurs. On a aussi, dans la Bibliotheque des Peres, un Commentaire sur S. Luc qu'on attribue a Tite de Bostres, dans lequel cet Eveque senible mettre l'Evangile selon les Egyptiens au rang de ceux que S. Luc a indiquez, et par consequent anterieurs au sien. Comme les Encratites le citoient pour defendre leur Erreur sur le Marriage, les Beres n'en ont point rejette absolument les temoignages. lls ont tache de les expliquer dans un sens orthodoxe; ce qui montre, que ce Livre avoit une sorte d'autorite, et qu'on ne le soupconnoit pas mesme d'avoir ete suppose par des Heretiques. Quand j'ai considere, qu'il etoit recu par les Chrestiens d'Egypte, je n'ai pu me defendre de la pensee, qu'il avoit ete ecrit par des Esseniens, qui avoient cru en J. Christ. La Religion de ces Gens la tenoient beaucoup de la Religion Chrestienne. L'Evangile des Egyptiens etoit plein de mystique, de paraboles, d'enigmes, d'allegories. On attribue cela a l'esprit de la Nation; pour moi, je l'attribuerois plutot a l'esprit des Esseniens. On y trouvoit des sentences, qui paroissoient favoriser l'Encratisme. Or les Esseniens vivoient dans la continence, et dans l'abstinence. II est donc bien vraisemblable, que des personnes de cette Secte, Judaique, la seule que J. Christ n'ait jamais censuree, s'attacherent au fils de Dieu, le suiviren; et que, s'etant retires en Egypte apres sa mort, ils y composerent une Histoire de sa Vie et de sa Doctrine, qui parut en Egypte, et qui fut appellee a cause de cela, l'Evangile selon les Egyptiens." - Beausoubre, Manich. Tom. 1, p. 455, 456.]
Thus far the most eminent, ingenuous and learned of French divines, Beausobre [b] Let the reader take with him the light of this great critic's admission, quoted page 58, and of his knowledge of the Essenes and Therapeuts, established in our seventh chapter, thereupon following; and cast up the results. He will find that the history of ages so "long ago betide," never gave to any fact whatever a higher degree of certainty, - than the certainty, that this Egyptian Gospel was the Diegesis, or first type, from which our four Gospels are mere plagiarisms; and that it contained the whole story of Jesus Christ, and the general rule of faith professed by a set of Egyptian monks, (from whatever sources those monks themselves had derived it, which we shall hereafter enquire,) many years, probably ages, before the period assigned to the birth of Christ. Consequently, the fallacy of the pretence of the real existence of such a personage in Palestine, and in or about the age of the emperor Augustus, is absolutely demonstrated.
[b] I particularly wish the reader to observe the superior honesty of Beausobre: he alone has the moral courage to utter the name of the original, from which our gospels are derived, the Gospel according to the Egyptians. All the rest, aware of the mighty argument with which it teams, seem to say, "Take any shape but that, and our firm knees should never tremble!"]
Bishop Marsh's Hypothesis.
Bishop Marsh, however, demonstrates that the hypothesis of a common Hebrew document, is incapable, in any shape whatever, of explaining the phenomena; and labours, as it became a bishop to do, to save the credit of divine inspiration, upon the perplexed hypothesis, which his indefatigable ingenuity has excogitated, and then which perhaps there is none more probable, that, "St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, all three used different copies of some common document, which before any of our canonical Greek gospels existed, was known as the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospel ACCORDING TO THE TWELVE APOSTLES; a Gospel, of which the ancients speak with great respect; or the Gospel according to the Nazarenes, or the Gospel according to Matthew. The materials of which, our St. Matthew, loho wrote in Hebrew, retained, in the language in which he found them, Hebrew, Chaldean or Syriac: but St. Mark and St. Luke, beside their copies of that original Hebrew, Chaldean, or Syriac document, used a Greek translation of it, which had been made before any of the additions, which our St. Matthew found in his Hebrew copy, had been inserted. Lastly, the person who translated St. Matthew's Hebrew copy of that original document into Greek, frequently derived assistance from the Greek Translation of St. Mark, where St. Mark had matter in common with St. Matthew; that is, to save his own trouble, he copied the Greek of St. Mark, instead of continuing his own translation, de novo, from Matthew's Hebrew transcript: and in those places, but in those places only, where St. Mark had no matter in common with St. Matthew, he frequently had recourse, with the same view, to the ready-made Greek of St. Luke's Gospel. But though the person who translated St. Matthew's particular Hebrew copy of the common Hebrew document into Greek, did compare and collate those two other gospels with his own, yet Matthew, Mark and Luke, had no knowledge of each other's gospels.
This first or earlier draught of the life and history of Christ, is acknowledged by St. Luke, as the basis of the gospel story, and called the Diegesis, or Declaration, [Luke. 1-1] that is, narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us. In the undistinguished manner of representing, his sense in our English text, it escapes observation, that, what is rendered a declaration, &c. really is the title of the work, of which this gospel professes no more than to be "a setting forth in order," or more methodical arrangement.
The Gnomologne.
But besides this Diegesis, the common basis of the three first gospels, as of many others which many had taken in hand, to reduce and arrange into more consistent order, there existed also a gnomologue, [c] or collection of precepts, parables, and discourses, which were supposed to have been delivered by Christ, at different times, and on different occasions; and this, in addition to the Diegesis, was a common authority to St. Matthew and St. Luke, though it seems to have been unknown to St. Mark.
[c] Such a work seems to be designated under various titles in the Epistles of Paul, as the Form of Sound Words, the Doctrine, the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c"- 1 Tim. 6-3. The Doctrine According to Godliness, &c. - See Syntagma, p 74.
Proceeding steadily upon our principle avowed in the motto of this work, which binds us to view all pretences to anything out of nature, as a surrender of all the stress that is laid on so weak an argument; the reader will know at once in what sense he is to understand the bishop's struggle to bar off the conclusions to which he has thus far marshalled our way. Every step which is here supposed, he tells us, is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of inspiration, not indeed of verbal inspiration, but with that sort of inspiration, in which the Holy Ghost watched over the sacred compilers with so suspended a hand, as left them to the guidance of their own faculties, while they kept clear of error; and only interposed, when without this divine assistance, they would have been in danger of falling. With such an inspiration, (continues this Right Reverend expositor of the divine mysteries,) the opinion that the Evangelists drew a great part of their materials from a written document, is perfectly consistent; for if that document contained anything- erroneous, they had the power of detecting and correcting it."
Such is a succinct but accurate view of Bishop Marsh's Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of the Three First Canonical Gospels, of 249 pages, appended to the third volume of his translation of Michaelis's Introduction, Edit. 2, London 1802.
-o0o-
Next chapter 17. of St. John's gospel in particular.