Why a divine revelation? : its nature, meaning and purpose


IT’S NATURE.

"meaning,

AND PURPOSE

^Ph.D.XL.D.



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/whydivinerevelatOOobri



Why a Divine Revelation?
j

Its Nature, Meaning and Purpose

By

JOHN A. O’BRIEN, Ph.D., LL.D.
The University of Notre Dame

JHE PAULIST PRESS
401 West 59th Sireei
New York 19, N. Y.



Nihu Obstai:
T. E. Dillon,

Censor Librorum.

Imprimatur

:

)$( John

March 28, 1949.

F. Noll, D.D.,

Bishop of Fort Wayne.

Copyright, 1949 by the

Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle

in the State of New York

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED IN THE U. S. A.

BY THE PAULIST PRESS, NEW YORK 19
,
N. Y.

OeaddHM



WHY A DIVINE REVELATION?
Its Nature, Meaning and Purpose
%

The goodness and the love of God shine forth in the releva-
tion which He has vouchsafed to mankind. Unwilling to allow
His creatures to be without a knowledge of truths which sur-

pass the capacity of the unaided human mind to discover, the
Creator has mercifully drawn aside the curtain of darkness

from our eyes, permitting us to peer into the radiance of

divine truth. While our minds are finite and cannot penetrate

to the very depths of the mysteries of religion, they can catch

glimmerings of mighty truths which exalt, strengthen and

inspire us. For example, we would never know the great truth
of the Blessed Trinity if it were not revealed to us. Through

revelation God brings us closer to Him in knowledge and in
love.

All the works of creation may be said to constitute a revela-
tion of the mind and the will of the Creator—a natural revela-
tion. By the study of such works, we come to the knowledge of
the truths of natural religion. But the revelation of which we
speak is supernatural one. By a supernatural revelation we
mean the communication of some truth by God to a rational
creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course
of nature.*

Revelation may be supernatural in manner, but not in sub-
stance. For example, man can deduce the existence of God
from a study of the works of creation. This naturally known
truth is also supernaturally revealed. Such revelation is super-
natural only in manner. The revelation of the triune nature of
God, however, is supernatural in substance as well as in

manner.

From the existence of a personal God and of a rational
creature, the possibility of revelation is apparent. To say that
God created man and then cut His creature off from all possi-
bility of receiving a communication from his Maker is mon-

*For a complete exposition of this subject and of other funda-
mental truths of religion the reader is advised to secure Truths Men
Live By, John A. O’Brien, Macmillan Co., New York, $3.50.

— 3 —



strous: as a father can communicate with his children, so the
Creator can speak of His creatures. What would we think of
a father who would never speak to his son? How unnatural
would be the son who would never turn a listening ear to the
tender and kindly voice of his sire?

God’s love for His children far surpasses that of any human
father. He manifests that love and solicitude by communi-
cating to His children the deposit of divine truth in all its

beauty and radiance. Instead of leaving man at the mercy of
his own intellectual faculties, so often impaired by pride, sloth,
and passion, to discover all the truths even of natural religion,
an all-merciful Father has disclosed these to us with a certainty

that removes all vacillation and doubt. The disclosure of super-
natural truths is a further beautiful and touching manifestation
of the Creator’s love for His children, made in His image and
likeness.

Christ—The Bearer of Reyelation
Who was the bearer of this revelation to mankind? It was

His own divine Son, Jesus Christ. Partial revelations had been
delivered to the patriarchs and prophets to prepare the way
for the full and universal revelation which God was to give us
through His Son. Many prophecies had been made concerning
the coming of Christ so that He would bear the credentials of
His messiahship. His mission was to redeem mankind and to

banish the darkness from the souls of men; He was the Light
of the world, the Light that was to illumine the mysteries of

life and death and show men the unfailing path to Heaven.
The revelation which Christ delivered to the world is sup-

ported not by a single miracle or prophecy, but by a multitude

whose cumulative force cannot fail to carry conviction to the

honest mind. That revelation is reinforced by the great web of

Messianic prophecies. It is certified by the manifold miracles

of Christ during His early mission and by the climactic miracle

of His resurrection from the dead. It is supported by the

marvelous spread of Christianity throughout the world, consti-

tuting a miracle of the moral order. It is further authenticated

by the miraculous nature and vitality of the Christian Church

— 4



which has triumphed over the determined efforts of mighty

empires to destroy her.

Thus the Vatican Council teaches: “In order that the obedi-

ence of our faith might be agreeable to reason, God has willed
that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit, there should be

joined external proofs of His revelation, namely, divine works,

especially miracles and prophecy, which inasmuch as they

manifestly display the omnipotence and the omniscience of

God are most certain signs of a divine revelation and are
suited to the understanding of all.’’

How may a revelation be known? By certain marks which
show forth its divine origin. These are as follows: (1) The
message must not be unworthy of its alleged Author. It must

not be ambiguous or trivial. It must be noble, elevating, agree-

able to reason, satisfying to human aspirations, and beneficial
to society. (2) It must be confirmed by miracles or prophecies.

That the good tidings which Christ brought to the world bear

the first mark is evident to all who have read the Christian
gospel. That His message is authenticated abundantly by
prophecies and miracles, we shall now proceed to show.

The Proof from Prophecies

A prophecy may be defined as the definite prediction of
events which depend for their occurrence on the exercise of

free will, whether it be the free will of God or of rational crea-
tures, and which are of such a character as to be beyond the
possibility of guess work or of human prevision.^ It is only
God who knows beforehand what a free agent will do. That is
why a prophecy, if fulfilled, is as conclusive a mark of divine
authority as a miracle. The latter is an expression of God’s
omnipotence, the former of His omniscience: both are seals,

affixed by the hand of God Himself authenticating the work
as His.

The web of prophecies running through the Old and New
Testaments is so extensive as to preclude escape from the con-

1 Cf. Archbishop Sheehan’s Apologetics, Gill & Son, Ltd., Dublin,
1939, p. 70

— 3 —



viction that this is a seal of the divine authority behind the

revelation. The prophecies are numerous, abound in detail and
circumstance, and are literally fulfilled. Thus the date of the
Redeemer’s coming was foretold,^ as was the fact that He was
to be born of a virgin^ of the tribe of the family of Davidf^ at

Bethlehem,^ and that kings would come offering gifts.®
Our wonderment is further increased when we discover

that: the name of the Saviour was foretold; His passion and
death were described; He was to be sold for thirty pieces of
silver; His hands and feet were to be pierced; His garments

were to be distributed and His outer garment assigned by lot;
He was to rise from the dead and found a kingdom that would
not be destroyed. All these detailed facts and a multitude of

others were foretold in the Old Testament from 400 to 800

years before they occurred.

In the New Testament we find prophecies not less striking.
Thus Christ foretold the manner and time of His death, His
resurrection. His ascension. He foretold that Judas would
betray Him, that Peter would deny Him thrice before the cock
would crow twice, that His disciples would forsake Him, that

the Holy Ghost would descend upon the apostles. After peer-
ing into the future to see the events that were to transpire after

His death, Christ foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, the

razing of the Temple, the dispersion of the Jews, the growth of

His Church, and the preaching of the Gospel to all nations.

Thus vividly do these prophecies attest the supernatural and
divine character of the revelation of Christ.

Proof from Miracles

A miracle may be defined as an occurrence outside the
course of nature, perceptible to the senses, and explicable only

as the direct act of God Himself. We might more accurately
term the miracles of which we are here speaking evidential to

^ Daniel ix. 24
3 Isaias vii. 14

4 Jeremias xxiii. 5
^ Michaes v. 2
® Psal. 1 xii. 9

— 6 —



distinguish them from miracles not apparent to the senses.

Thus the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood

of Christ is not perceptible to the senses. It is known only by
faith and cannot, therefore, be used as an evidence of God’s

intervention. A miracle in the strict sense of the term consti-
tutes clear proof of the divine origin of the doctrine in support

of which it is wrought. It is a credential, certifying to the

truthfulness of the doctrine as well as to its divine authority.

No one who admits the existence of a personal God can
question the possibility of miracles. The Creator who fixed the
course of nature can change, suspend or supersede it as He
deems wise. A human legislator can modify or suspend his
law\ Who will deny the Author of the laws of nature the same
power? Indeed, if He could not modify the work of His own
hands, how could He be said to be omnipotent? The question,
then, in regard to miracles is not whether God could work a
miracle, but whether in any given case a miracle has occurred

or not. In other words, the question of miracles boils down to
a matter of evidence.

There is no denying, however, that there has been created

in the minds of many people a prejudice against the possibility
of miracles and a consequent distaste for their use as evidence

in the establishment of the divine character of the Christian

revelation. This is traceable to the oft-repeated assertions of

scientists that the laws of nature are fixed and immutable and

admit of no exceptions: they have created the widespread

impression that science frowns upon the possibility of miracles.
To be in step with the scientists, people generally have felt that
they too must regard the possibility of miracles as disproved by
the advance of modern science.

Let us now examine the line of reasoning of the scientists
that would outlaw the possibility of miracles. Briefly it would
run: Physical science declares that nature acts not capriciously

but uniformly in accordance with definite laws. But the doc-
trine of miracles denies this. Therefore the believer in miracles

must reject the outstanding generalization of modern science.

We reply by pointing out that we do not differ with scien-
tists in regard to the law-abiding character of nature’s opera-

— 7 —



tions. Indeed, we are at one with them in holding to the general
law of nature that the same physical cause in the same circum-

stances will produce the same effect. We maintain, however,
that when God intervenes, the circumstances are no longer the
same, because a new force has been introduced. Even man can
introduce a force which will alter the course of nature’s opera-

tion.

Thus a baseball player who catches a fly ball prevents the
law of gravity from pulling it to the earth. Does he destroy the
law of gravity? Not at all. He simply exercises a force suffi-
cient to counteract the pull of gravity. When an airplane leaves
the ground, is the law of gravity annulled and the uniformity

of nature’s operations impaired? Not at all. A contrary force
sufficient to overcome the pull of gravity is introduced. When
I swim in a stream, am I destroying the law of gravity? No,
I am simply applying a force sufficient to counteract it and
thus keep afloat.

Similarly in the case of miracles, we do not imply that the
laws of nature are destroyed or rendered inoperative: we
simply affirm that a greater force has been introduced, a force

sufficient to bring about a different resultant. Far from nulli-

fying the laws of nature, properly understood, miracles may be
said to attest their validity; for surely it is a law of nature,

and one of the most basic of all her laws that, when two
opposing forces are brought into operation, the greater will

always prevail over the lesser. As God is stronger than any
force, it follows that His force will always prevail. To deny
God the power to apply a force necessary to attain a desired
end is to deny the existence of God as a personal, free agent.

Laws of Nature

Let us penetrate a little more deeply into the meaning of

the laws of nature, a term which scientists use with such fre-

quency. When we investigate what scientists mean when they
speak of the laws of nature, we find that they mean so many
uniform modes of action, invariably observed by natural causes

in the production of their proper effects. Thus they say it is

a law of nature that bodies attract one another, that fire burns,

— 8 —



that the human body, once dead, never revives. According to
scientists, then, the laws of nature are nothing else than the

whole collection of similar uniform acts grouped under a

general proposition.

Yet if we subject that concept to careful analysis we find

that these uniform acts are not laws, strictly speaking, but the

effects produced by laws; for a law is a principle of action, not

the act itself. The fact that in America we drive on the right-
hand side of the road is not a law. It is the result of a law

which exists independently of whether an individual observes

the law or violates it. So it is in nature. The fact that fire
burns is not a law: it is the result of a law from which com-

bustion proceeds as a uniform occurrence. Hence the laws of

nature can only be the will of the divine Lawmaker as
expressed in natural causes.

As these natural causes are devoid of freedom, as B. J.
Otten points out, ^‘the will of the lawgiver can find expression

in them only by means of predetermined forces; so that the
laws of nature are objectively nothing else than the forces with

which God has endowed His creatures, and by reason of which
they must, when left to themselves, always act the same way
if placed under the same circumstances.’’ Hence it is evident
that the uniformity of the so-called laws of nature has its

ultimate reason only in the will of God. When scientists pene-
trate beyond the superficial view of the laws of nature as mere

uniform modes of action to the ultimate principle underlying
all such laws, they will perceive that it is none other than the

will of the divine Legislator who has brought the universe into
being and framed all its laws. Thus may the laws of nature be
said to be the objectified thought of God.

Hume's Objection

We should refer here to the objection of Hume which
caused a considerable stir back in the eighteenth century. “A
miracle,” he says, “is a violation of the laws of nature; and
as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,

~ The Reason Why, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, 1921, p. 152

— 9 —



the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is

as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be

imagined.’’ ^ The explanation which we have just given shows
that a miracle need not, and indeed should not, be viewed as

a violation of the laws of nature. It involves simply the intro-

duction of new force sufficient to change the resultant.
Hume’s objection is vitiated by another fallacy, namely,

the assumption that mankind has no experience of miracles.
This is not only a begging of the point to be proved but is also

a flying in the face of the testimony of both scientists and

layman alike. The only relevant testimony concerning the
occurrence or the non-occurrence of a miracle is that of eye

witnesses. Let us take the incident of Christ’s walking upon the

sea of Galilee. Hume argues that millions of people will testify
that they have never seen anyone walking upon water.
Granted. But that testimony is totally irrevelant and would

be thrown out by any court of evidence.

We are not arguing that people generally walk upon water
or that any appreciable number have ever done so. We are
contending simply that Christ on one specific occasion did so.

Now the only testimony that is relevant to that incident is the
testimony of those who were present and who witnessed such an
occurrence. The testimony of those who lived centuries later
and who never witnessed such an occurrence is completely
beside the point. When carefully analyzed, Hume’s objection
is thus seen to be vitiated by a twofold fallacy. It is little
more than a piece of artful pettifoggery.

Facing the Facts

In recent years something of the old prejudice against

miracles has begun to wane. Many scientists are now willing
to look into the cases of alleged miracles with open minds and

allow the facts to write their own verdict. This change of atti-
tude is due in no small part to the eminent medical scientist,

^Hume's Works, ed. 1770, Vol. iii, p. 178. Cardinal Newman gives a
complete refutation of this objection in his Grammar of Assent, pp. 306,
307

— 10 —



Dr. Alexis Carrel. In his widely read Man—The Unknown,
Dr. Carrel called attention to the impressive and carefully

documented evidence of miracles at Lourdes. He pointed out
that the scientific attitude is not to wave that evidence aside

and formulate a judgment which amounts only to a pre-judg-

ment—the root meaning of prejudice. The scientific attitude is
to investigate the evidence, examine the actual facts, and

arrive at a judgment on the basis of the verified data.

More and more is his wise counsel being followed. The
scoffing of the cynics and the doubting of the incredulous are

vanishing before the impressive evidence so carefully docu-

mented in the Annals of Lourdes by medical authorities of
every shade of religious faith and of no faith at all. In that

work are recorded the sworn testimony of physicians who
examine a patient before he invokes the intercession of Our
Lady of Lourdes, and the sworn testimony of the same physi-
cians after the patient is instantly cured. Their testimony is

corroborated by clinical data, X-ray photographs taken before
and after, and by all the elaborate checks and controls devised
by scientists.

The cures cover the widest assortment of human ills,
including tuberculosis, organic lesions, paralysis, blindness,

running sores, and cancer; some of the miracles involve an

instantaneous lengthening of bone structure—as shown by
actual X-ray pictures. Before recording a cure as miraculous,

physicians and surgeons are enlisted in the endeavor to find

any natural explanation: only when every natural factor has
been ruled out is the case adjudged to involve the expression of

supernatural power. It has been the frank facing of this evi-

dence that has caused an ever-increasing number of scientists
to abandon their attitude of incredulity and to admit not

merely the possibility but the fact of miracles. Many came to
scoff, but remained to pray.

We have beheld the great assemblage of crutches, wheel
chairs, plaster-of-paris casts, and other evidences of invalidism

which patients, miraculously cured, have left at Lourdes as

mute symbols of their gratitude. It is difficult to gaze upon

this tell-tale evidence and to read the sworn testimony of

— 11 —



physicians—Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and non-believers

—

certifying in the Annals of Lourdes to the complete and instan-

taneous cure of maladies deemed incurable, and understood

how any normal mind can question the fact of miracles.
The best cure for skepticism on this subject is not argument,

not theory, but a generous dose of the actual facts. For against

a fact all argument collapses. “The man of theory,^’ observes
Carlyle, “twangs his full bent bow; nature’s fact ought to fall

stricken, but does not; his logic-arrow glances from it as from

a scaly dragon and the obstinate fact keeps walking its way.

How singular!”
While the evidence at Lourdes is most impressive and its

bureau for the scientific investigation of miraculous cures is per-

haps the best organized, the searcher for evidence of this nature

need not travel to Europe. He can find here on our own
continent, at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico,
at the Oratory of St. Joseph at Montreal, and at the Shrine of

St. Anne at Beaupre, Canada, irrefragable and convincing evi-
dence of miracles in our own day.

Christ Appeals to Miracles

After this exposition of the possibility, the nature, and the

fact of miracles, we return now to point out the demonstrative
force of miracles in establishing the divine character of the

Christian relevation. Christ Himself appealed time after time

to His miracles as blinding evidence of His divine mission and

of His divine message. “The works themselves which I do,” He
said, “give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me.” ^

Note the manner in which He appealed to His restoration of
Lazarus to life as convincing evidence of His divine mission.

Lazarus, a man of great virtue, fell sick and died. He was
a close friend of Christ, as were also his two sisters, Martha
and Mary. During his illness, his sisters had sent for Christ.

But he remained away purposely, as the Evangelist St. John
tells us, to deepen the faith of His followers by a striking

miracle. When He finally arrived in Bethania, Lazarus had

9 John V. 36

— 12 —



been dead four days and was already interred: nevertheless

Christ assured the sisters that their brother would rise again.

Going to the grave, Christ ordered them to open the tomb;

they objected on the ground that the body was already under-

going putrefaction. At Christ’s insistence, however, they

opened the grave and exposed the body to the assembled

multitude.

Then Jesus lifting His eyes, said: Tather, I give Thee
thanks that Thou hast heard me. And I know that Thou
hearest me always; but because of the people who stand about
have I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent me.’
When He had said these things. He cried with a loud voice:
Xazarus, come forth.’ And presently he that had been dead
came forth, bound feet and hands with winding bands; and
his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus said to them:

Toose him, and let him go.’ Many therefore of the Jews who
were come to Mary and Martha, and had seen the things that
Jesus did, believed in Him.”

What is to be noted particularly in this case is the explicit
statement of Christ as to why He was about to perform this
miracle: “Father . . . because of the people who stand about
have I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent me.”
Here Christ appeals to the miracle as the unmistakable creden-
tial of His oft-asserted, divine mission. It was God’s seal upon
the divine revelation which He had brought them.

Other miracles He had already wrought. He had fed five
thousand persons with five loaves of bread. By a mere word
He had healed a person who had for thirty-eight years been
sick with an incurable disease. He had given sight to the
man that was born blind. He had walked on the surface of
the storm-tossed sea.^^ These miracles had produced their

effect upon His disciples and upon the people and now He
wished to deepen that effect by a still greater miracle, the rais-

John xi. 41-45

Mat. xiv. 17
12 John V. 7.
13 Mark x. 52
14 Mat. xiv. 26

— 13 —



ing of Lazarus from the dead. Thus it was by the constant
appeal to miracles that Christ drove home to the people the
important truth of His divine mission and the divine character

of the revelation which He was giving to them.
From all this it is evident then that miracles and prophecies

are a seal, placed by God’s own fingers upon the revelation
brought to the world by Jesus Christ, certifying to its super-
natural and divine character. In that communication from on

high there are contained the imperishable truths which will

guide all who believe and live them to the harbor of eternal
life. In bequeathing that revelation to man there is mirrored
the solicitude and the love of God who lights our way through
the valley of life to the mountain peaks of eternity. Like a

good shepherd, He hungers for the safety of all His sheep, and
sends His only-begotten Son to shepherd us on the way lest any
be lost. That deposit of divinely revealed truth is our cloud by
day and our pillar of fire by night, and no one who follows it
will perish in the darkness.

.4



II

GAN WE BELIEVE THE GOSPELS?
Light from Historical Research

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And
this is the word which by the gospel has been
preached unto you.—I Peter i. 25.

The Christian revelation comes to us through two chan-
nels, tradition and the New Testament. By tradition is not
meant the haphazard handing down of a doctrine from father
to son, from generation to generation. It means the word of

God that was not committed to inspired writings, but was
preserved in writings of historical value, in the preaching and

practice of the Apostles, in the sacramental and liturgical life

of the Church. The writings of the Fathers of the Church,
reflecting the teachings and practices of the Apostles and disci-

ples, are rich sources of tradition. They are, of course, supple-
mentary to Holy Scripture.

The New Testament may be viewed from two aspects: (1)
as a collection of ordinary historical documents; (2) as a

group of divinely inspired books, having God as their principal
Author. By inspiration is meant an influence breathed forth by
God on the soul of the writer so that he expresses what God
wishes him to express. It does not imply a divine communica-
tion of knowledge to the writer; it is not perceptible to the

senses; it does not modify the style or manner of expression of
the writer; it moves him to write certain truths which he
already knows and safeguards him from error in his writing.
The fact that certain writings are inspired was made known by
the early Christian Church, divinely appointed to teach all the

nations of the world.

We shall make no further reference to inspiration in this
discussion: we shall treat the four Gospels from a human point
of view and undertake to prove from reason that they are trust-
worthy, historical documents. That is all that is necessary to

— IS —



establish the truth that they present in a reliable manner the

revelation of Christ. While the Acts of the Apostles and

Epistles throw additional light upon the contents of divine

revelation, the Gospels present the good tidings in sufficient

detail for our purposes. We shall accordingly focus our atten-
tion upon them, contenting ourselves with the general observa-.

tion that the historic validity of the other books of the New
Testament can be established by similar lines of reasoning and
of evidence.

A work must be accepted as historical in the sense that it
is a trustworthy record of past events if it meets these three

conditions:

1. It must be genuine in the sense that it is the work of the

author whose name it bears.
2. Its author must be reliable in the sense that he is well

informed and truthful.

3. It must be intact in the sense that the text is substan-

tially as it left the author’s hand.

All these conditions, as we shall show, are fulfilled in the
Gospels, the four fundamental books of the New Testament.

How Written

Before presenting the evidence of the genuineness of the

Gospels, we shall say a word about how the Gospels were
written and copied. The entire New Testament was written
in Greek with the single exception of the original of St. Mat-

thew’s Gospel. This was first composed in Aramaic, a language

similar to Hebrew then current in Palestine, and the tongue
which Christ Himself used. The Gospels, like the other books
of the New Testament, were without punctuation and lacked
the division into chapters and verses which we find in our
modern printed Bibles. The original documents were written
on papyrus, which served as “paper” at that time; the pages

were gummed together into a long roll which was wound on
two cylinders. Some idea of the bulkiness of their written
material may be gained from the fact that the Acts of the
Apostles numbering fifty pages in a modern Bible formed a
roll about thirty feet long.

— 16 —



The Synoptic Gospels

The first three Gospels, ^Matthew, Mark and Luke, are
written along similar lines and cover to a considerable extent

the same general ground: they present more particularly the

ministry of Christ in Galilee. The similarity or parallelism
obtaining among the first three has caused them to be called the
Synoptic Gospels. Synopsis is a Greek term for looking at and

comparing two or more things together. The literary relation-
ship of these Gospels to one another is a highly complicated

technical question which has given rise to an enormous

literature.

Numerous theories have been developed to explain the
degree of dependence on one another, on a common oral tradi-
tion, and on other sources, but much uncertainty still clouds
the picture. In general, critics, both conservative and radical,

hold that the Synoptic Gospels were written somewhat earlier
than the fourth Gospel, that of St. John. While in general

agreement with the first three, the latter stresses for the most

part the acts and utterances of Christ, which are omitted in the

Synoptics, and treats mainly of His ministry in Judea.
If we consider the subject matter in the Synoptic Gospels

as containing one hundred sections, the following percentages
will show the amount of matter common and proper to each: ^

Proper Common
Mark 7% 93%
^latthew 42% 58%
Luke 59% 41%
John 92% 8%

The percentages show that Mark has but little material,
just about one-tenth, that is not contained in Matthew and
Luke. The additional material in the first and third Gospels
consists largely of the utterances of Jesus. In the fourth

Gospel there are few passages which coincide with the narrative

of the other three. In fact, aside from the account of the

Passion, there are but three facts which St. John narrates in

common with the other Evangelists—the feeding of the five
1 Cf. Voste, J., De Synopticorum, 9

— 17 —



thousand, the storm on the Sea of Galilee, and the anointing

of the Lord’s feet by Mary. While the Synoptics depict the

life of Christ chiefly in Galilee, St. John follows Him into
Judea, and relates how Christ journeyed to Jersusalem for the
prescribed feasts. The only satisfactory explanation for this is
that St. John, writing last of all, toward the close of the first

century, was familiar with the other Gospels, and purposely

abstained from writing anew what was recorded in them.

The Genuineness of the Gospels

External Evidence. That the Gospels are genuine is proven

by external and internal evidence. The external evidence
consists of the testimony of Christian and non-Christian writ-

ers of the first two centuries, showing that the Gospels were

widely known, diligently studied and treated with the ut-

most reverence throughout the Christian world. Within one

century following the death of the Apostles, the Gospels

were in practical use in all the churches; wherever Chris-

tians assembled for the celebration of the Holy Mysteries,

selections from the Gospels were read; they constituted the

basis for the instructions and sermons preached to the wor-

shipers.

Is it believable that the Apostles or their successors, who
gave their lives to testify to the truth of all the teachings of the

Gospels, would have permitted a series of forged documents to

be palmed off as the inspired word of God? Is it credible that

Jewish converts, so jealous of the authority of their own Old
Testament, would have accepted without question such forg-

eries? Is it likely that the Gentiles, so many of whom were
philosophers, scholars, and men of culture, would have accepted
a Gospel which inculcated penance and self-denial in place of

sensual gratification without previously assuring themselves of

the genuineness of such a Gospel?

Is it possible that pagan philosophers and heretics, seeking

to refute the Gospel teachings, would have neglected the sim-

plest and easiest way of all, namely, that of showing that the
Gospels themselves were forgeries? Are we to believe that the

faithful, at a time when being a Christian involved the danger

— 18 —



of being martyred for one’s belief, would all have been ready

and willing to lay down their lives for the foisting of an impious

fraud upon their children? To raise these questions is to
answer them. Either the Gospels are genuine, authentic records

of the life and teachings of Jesus or all Christianity is reduced

to a series of ridiculous absurdities—a conclusion which does
violence alike to nineteen hundred years of human history and
to the dictates of human reason.

The existence and use of the Gospels in the earliest days of
the Church is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the

Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius, Clement of Rome,
Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, Papias of Hierapolis, Aris-

tides, the Diatessaron of Tatian, Justin, Irenaeus, the Mura-

torian Fragment, as well as by the writings of the heretics

Basilides, Valentine, Heracleon and Marcion.

The custom of reading the Gospels at Divine Service is
explicity mentioned by St. Justin Martyr about the middle of

the second century. In 441 the First Council of Orange ordered

the Gospel to be read after the Epistle and before the Offertory

for the benefit of the catechumens who had to leave before
the Eucharistic service began. In the early Church the book

of the Gospels was carried in procession to the altar before

Mass; the liturgical rite of incensing the Gospel book is very

ancient, the incense signifying the ‘^good odor of Christ.” For

many centuries the faithful made the Sign of the Cross at the
end as well as at the beginning of the Gospel; formerly all

the clergy present were accustomed to kiss the book of the

Gospels, while now only the celebrant does so, saying: “By
the words of the Gospel may our sins be blotted out.”

The Gospel of Matthew

Let us now look at the external evidence of the authenticity
of each of the Gospels. We shall begin with the first Gospel,
that of St. Matthew. The classic text covering the authorship

of the first Gospel as well as of the other three is from St.

Irenaeus. Born in the first half of the second century in Asia

Minor. Irenaeus was a widely traveled man, familiar with the

territory from Asia Minor to France; his writings reveal an

— 19 —



inquiring type of mind and historical sense; he died about 202.

He writes as follows: “Matthew published his Gospel among
the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were
preaching and founding the Church in Rome. After their

departure [death?] Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,

also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had

preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book

the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the

disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published
his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia.” ^

Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a friend of Poly-

carp and the last disciple of St. John, testifies: “Matthew wrote
the Oracles (Logia) of the Lord in the Hebrew language; but
everyone interpreted them as best as he could.” ^ By the term
Logia (Oracles) Papias does not mean a mere collection of the
utterances of the Saviour, but a work which is substantially

identical with the Gospel of Matthew. The expressions, “Logia
of the Lord” and “words and works of the Lord,” are employed

synonymously by Papias, as is evident from his remark about
St. Luke. It was in this sense that St. Irenaeus understood

him, as is clear from the quotation of his already presented.

Similar is the testimony of Origen, who died 232: “Mat-
thew published the Gospel for the faithful from Judaism in

the tongue of the Hebrews.” ^ Eusebius records for all pos-

terity the testimony of the Fathers and writers of the early

Church concerning the authorship of the first Gospel in the

following words: “Matthew, who had at first preached to the
Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed
his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compen-

sated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his
presence.” ^

St. Jerome, the great Biblical scholar of the early Church,

2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v.8, 2-4

3 Eusebius, op. cit., Ill, 39, 16: '^MaMaiog ... 'EpQaibi 8ia?is-
xx(i) xd 7.6Yia a|Liv8xd^axo.”

4 Eusebius, op. cit., VI, 25, 4

5 Eusebius, op. cit., Ill, 24, 6: ev xoig ^EPpaCoig xu
i8ia 8ia?i£xxcp xai YQaqprjv e^tiveyxev.”

— 20 —



likewise bears witness to this truth.^ The Aramaic Gospel of
Matthew was certainly written before the destruction of Jeru-
salem. While it is impossible to fix the precise date, the most

probable one is a.d. 42—50, the writing being done in Palestine.

The Gospel of Mark

Mark, the author of the second Gospel, is disclosed to us in

the Scriptures as the cousin of Barnabas and the companion

and disciple of Peter. Writing to the Colossians, Paul sends

greetings from “Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner, and from
Mark, the cousin german of Barnabas, touching whom you
have received commandments; if he come unto you, receive
him; and Jesus, that is called Justus: who are of the circum-
cision: these only are my helpers in the kingdom of God, who
have been a comfort to me.”

After the release of St. Paul, probably in 63, St. Peter

claimed the services of Mark. It was to the home of Mark that
St. Peter went after his own miraculous deliverance from
prison. In his First Epistle he sends greetings from Rome in
the name of his “son Mark.” ^ Upon being imprisoned a
second time in Rome, St. Paul desired to have the faithful com-
panion of his first captivity with him again. “Take Mark,” he
writes to Timothy, “and bring him with thee (to Rome), for
he is profitable to me for the ministry.” ^ The early Fathers
of the Church commonly refer to Mark as the disciple and
interpreter of St. Peter.

The historical evidence of St. Mark’s authorship of the
second Gospel is overwhelming. The earliest witness is Papias,
Bishop of Hierapolis and disciple of St. John. When Papias
made inquiries of St. John about Mark, the aged Apostle
replied: “Mark, Peter’s interpreter, wrote down what the Lord
had said or done—so far as he remembered it—accurately, but
not in order. For he had neither heard the Lord nor followed

Him, but later, as I said, he was a follower of Peter, who gave

6 De Vir., 111., iii
Col. iv. 10-11

8 1 Pet. V. 13

9 2 Tim. iv. 11

— 21 —



such instructions as circumstances required, and not an orderly

account of the Lord’s words. Hence Mark was not at fault in
writing some things simply as he remembered them. For his

one care was to omit nothing that he had heard, and to speak

truthfully thereon.”

This explicit testimony is further confirmed by St. Irenaeus,

a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna and later Bishop of Lyons,
whom we have already quoted on this point. An interesting
light is thrown on the origin of St. Mark’s Gospel by Clement
of Alexandria, head of the famous Catechetical School of that

city toward the close of the second century. “When Peter had
preached the word in Rome,” he says, “many there besought
Mark, who had followed him of old and remembered his words,
to write down what he had said; accordingly Mark composed
the Gospel, and gave it to those who had made the request of
him, and Peter, knowing of it, neither hindered nor encour-

aged him.”

In his Prologue to Matthew

^

St. Jerome states that “Mark,

the interpreter of Peter and the first bishop of Alexandria, who
did not indeed see the Lord, narrated of the things which he

had heard his master preach. . . . Asked to Rome by the
brethren he wrote a short gospel.” In these words of St.

Jerome there is mirrored the unanimous voice of the Fathers

and writers of the early Church and of a tradition which goes
back to the Apostolic period. Harnack places the composition
of the Gospel in the period a.d. 65—70.

The Gospel of Luke

The author of the third Gospel and of the Acts of the
Apostles was a companion and disciple of St. Paul. Writing
during his second imprisonment to Timothy, St. Paul says:

“Luke alone is with me.” Ancient tradition unanimously

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii, 39, 14
11 Eusebius, Hist EccL, vi, 14
12 ‘‘Secundus Marcus, interpres apostoli Petri et alexandrinae ecclesiae

primus episcopus, . . . ea quae magistrum audierat praedicantem iuxta
fidem magis gestorum narravit quam ordinem . . . Rogatus Romae a
jratribus breve scripsit evangelium.”

— 22 —



ascribes this Gospel to the ‘^beloved physician, Luke.” St.

Irenaeus thus bears witness: ‘Tuke, the follower of Paul wrote

down the latter’s Gospel—preaching in a book.”
In the seventeenth century Ludovico Muratori discovered

in the Ambrosian Library in Milan a canon or list of books of

the New Testament. While its author is unknown, scholars are
agreed that it goes back to about 170. The notes attached to
each of the books are of the highest importance. Concerning

the third Gospel, the canon, known as the Muratorian Canon,
affirms: ^Xuke, the physician, composed a Gospel in the name
of Paul and in accordance with his teaching.” The authorship
is further confirmed by Tertullian {Adv. Marc., IV, 5) Origen,

{Horn. I, in Luc). Clement of Alexandria {Strom.

,

I, 21), and

by Jerome {De Vir. Ill, VII). Thus Origen mentions the
Gospel of Luke among the four ^^which alone,” says he, ‘‘are
admitted without dispute by the universal Church.”

The Gospel itself confirms in a striking manner the witness
of tradition. Throughout this Gospel we see the hand of a
disciple of St. Paul in style, in vocabulary—eighty-four words
are found in Luke and Paul only—in sentence structure and
especially in the conception of Christ’s mission on earth. In

the Epistles of Paul and in the Gospel of his disciple, the
kingdom of God is world-wide. Jews and Gentiles, publicans
and sinners, rich and poor, bond and free, are all called. “God
will have all men to be saved, and to come to a knowledge of
the truth,” epitomizes the message of both Luke and Paul.

Internal Evidence of Genuineness of Synoptics

Let us now glance at the internal evidence of the genuine-
ness of the Synoptics. A careful study of the texts shows that
the writers were Jews, and were contemporaries, or in close

touch with contemporaries, of the events described. The texts
contain nothing contrary to the laws, usages, institution, tastes,

and customs of the time in which they were composed. They
mirror the religious and social conditions then prevailing in

Palestine with accuracy and precise detail.

Eusebius, op. cit., v, 8, 3
14 1 Tim. ii. 4

— 23 —



The writers were Jews. The Gospel of St. Matthew was
originally written in Aramaic, the language of the country

where our Lord lived. The other three were written in the
colloquial Greek of the period, but show marked traces of

Hebrew idiom. Scholars are agreed that this popular form of
the Greek language was used as a literary medium by Jews
during the first century of the Christian era, but not subse-

quently. Furthermore the authors display no acquaintance

with Greek philosophy or literature, but intimate familiarity

with the religion and customs of the Jewish people.

That the authors were eye-witnesses of the events which

they describe, or were in close touch with them, is evident from

the vividness of the accounts and from the wealth of detail.

Moreover their countless references to topography and to the

political, social, and religious conditions of Palestine at the

time of Christ, are flawless. Such an intimate close-up of those

conditions, peculiarly complicated and transient, could not have

been given by a stranger to Palestine or by a later writer.

For example, the government of Palestine at that time was

administered by a curious medley of elements. There were

Roman officials and native officials, while at the same time, the
Sanhedrin, the great religious council of Jewish judges, still

insisted on carrying out its functions, though this spelled

almost incessant friction with the civil authorities. Roman
money was used in commerce, taxes were paid in Greek money,
while dues to the Temple were paid in Jewish money. This
complicated pattern of Jewish, Grecian, and Roman elements is
vividly portrayed in all its detail in the Gospels, thus stamp-

ing the authors as contemporaries of the events described.

^Tn the first three gospels, observes Weinel, “so much local
colouring attaches to the figure of Christ, and His native lan-

guage, Aramaic, is everywhere so easily traced, that it would

have been absolutely impossible for an Italian Greek of the

second century to invent such a personality. Jesus is at home
in Galilee and in real life, not at the Emperor’s court, not in

Rome during the second century, and not in the brain of some
Hellenistic poet. His native place is near the sea, where the

fishermen let down their nets and on the mountains, where the

— 24 —



lilies blossom and the wind rustles through the corn in the

evening, and the little birds in the thickets sing the praise of

their Creator; there Jesus was at home, there He really
lived.”

The Gospel of John

Let us turn now from the Synoptics to the fourth Gospel
which differs so markedly in style and in content from the

first three.

It has been called the ‘‘universal Gospel” because of its

profound appeal to all humanity. It brings peace and comfort

to the peasants in their humble cottages while at the same time
it grips the minds of the greatest philosophers and theologians

with its sublime conceptions. “I meditate on the Scriptures,”

declared the poet Wordsworth, “especially the Gospel of St.

John, and my creed rises up of itself with the ease of an
exhilaration, yet a fabric of adamant.”

On the one hand, it stresses the relation of the individual
to the Saviour and to God. On the other, it stresses institu-
tional religion, with the establishment of a Church apart from

the world, with emphasis on its unity, a training of the disciples

to carry on their Master’s work of forgiveness and of shep-
herding His sheep with spiritual birth and nourishment pro-

vided by the sacrament. “The book is fighting,” observes von
Hiigel, “more consciously than the Synoptics for that inalien-

able idea of all deepest religion—unity even external and cor-
porate among all believers.”

In short, the fourth Gospel is a singular combination of

simplicity of style and thought with penetrating philosophic

insight and mystical depth. At times the author achieves

heights of sublimity of thought and expression which would do

justice to the greatest of speculative philosophers. The dis-
courses of our Lord are all presented in a solemn, sustained

and majestic style which is in sharp contrast to the simple,

Weinel, Jesus in the Nineteenth Century, 1903
16 “The Gospel According to St. John,” in A New Commentary on

Holy Scripture, edited by Bishop Charles Gore, Macmillan Co., N. Y.,
1928, p. 240

— 25 —



vivid manner of speech which the Synoptics picture Him as
using with the plain people of Galilee.

Every thoughtful reader of the fourth Gospel finds three

questions arising in his mind: (1) Why is this Gospel so differ-
ent from the first three? (2) Is a Gospel of such philosophic

depth and majesty of diction the work of the “beloved Dis-
ciple” or of a philosopher of a later generation? (3) Are the

discourses of Jesus recorded as they were delivered by Him
or do they mirror chiefly the author’s own reflections upon the
original words of Jesus? These are the questions which con-

stitute the Johannine problem. Thousands of books have been

written about it and numerous speculative theories have been
brought forth. In the nineteenth century the pendulum swung
to far-fetched extremes, with fancy substituted for fact. Under
the stress of continued scientific research, the pendulum has
now swung back to reinforce virtually all along the line the
verdict of ancient Christian tradition. Dispassionate scholarly

research enables us to provide satisfactory answers, we think,
to the three preceding questions.

Keys to Understanding Differences

The purpose, which the author of the fourth Gospel had in
mind, is explicitly stated in the concluding verses of the twen-

tieth chapter: “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of
the disciples, that are not written in this book; but these are

written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God, and that, believing, ye may have life in his name.”
Since the author was familiar with the first three Gospels, he

would naturally wish to record such “signs” as bore directly on

the divine Sonship of Christ and to reproduce only such

miracles and discourses as were not already presented by the

Synoptics. This is the key to the understanding of the selec-

tion and organization of his material—all designed for the
achievement of his distinctive end. For this reason he repro-

duces the miracles of the multiplication of the loaves and the

walking upon the sea, since they form the introduction to the

supremely important discourse on the Holy Eucharist which

was omitted by other Evangelists.

— 26 —



So much for the difference in his subject matter. Now ir
regard to the difference of style in which the Saviour’s dis-
courses are presented. The Synoptics present Christ’s ministry
in Galilee. Here the simple, unlettered country folk required
a simple, vivid discourse, abounding with concrete illustra-
tions and parables. In Jerusalem, where the author of the
fourth Gospel so frequently depicts Jesus, it was different. Here
our Lord was constantly engaged ih controversy with the
theologically trained Scribes and Pharisees and doctors of the
law. In this difference of audience is found the key to the
understanding of the change of style, diction and content in
His discourses.

Moreover it must be remembered that the author, faithful
to his avowed purpose, chooses for the most part only such
portions of our Lord’s discourses as bear directly upon His
divinity. Presenting this teaching to a Jerusalem audience,
abounding with Scribes and Pharisees, would fittingly call for
a sustained solemnity of language. The fourth Gospel, with
its greater profundities of thought and its greater majesty of
language, rnay be viewed as carrying the simple instructions of
the Synoptics to a higher and more advanced stage. Christ’*
net must catch not only the simple peasants of Galilee but th»
proud Scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem as well.

While the difference in the audiences to whom Christ speaks
in the Synoptics and in the fourth Gospel explains to a certair
extent the difference in form, language and style, it is to be
admitted with all candor that the respective author’s own style
enters into and colors all that he writes. No one contends that
the Master s discourses are reproduced in their entirety, wore
for word, in modern stenographic form. The brevity of the
recorded sermons indicates that the leading ideas of much
longer speeches are presented in greatly condensed form.

The literary canons of the time allowed much greater free
dom in reporting a discourse than obtains today. “At thaf
time,” observes Cardinal Newman, “the third person was noi
so commonly used in history as now. When a reporter gives one
of Gladstone’s speeches, if he uses the first person, I under-
stand not only the matter, but the style, the words to be Glad-

— 27 —



stone’s; when the third, I consider the style,
etc., to be the

reporter’s own. But in ancient times this
distinction was not

made Thucydides uses the dramatic method,
yet Spartan

and Athenian speak in Thucydidean Greek.
And so every

clause of Our Lord’s speeches in St. John may be St. John
s

Greek, yet every clause may contain the matter
which Our

Lord spoke in Aramaic. Again, St. John
might and did select

or condense (as being inspired for
that purpose) the matter

of Our Lord’s discourses, as that with Nicodemus,
and thereby

the wording might be St. John’s, though
the matter might still

be Our Lord’s.”

External Evidence of Authorship

The most ancient tradition of the Church
ascribes the

fourth Gospel to St. John the Apostle. Most
impressive is the

testimony of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp,
who was a dis-

ciple of St. John himself. “LTien, (i.e., after
the other three

Gospels) John, the disciple of the Lord,
who also leaned on

His breast, himself published also a Gospel,
while he was at

Ephesus in Asia.” The testimony of Irenaeus
is confirmed

by Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (168 a.d.),
who quotes the

fourth Gospel as “inspired Scripture” and
ascribes it to

John.i*
,

Of unusual significance is the testimony
of the learned

Clement of Alexandria, who, writing at
the end of the second

century, tells us that “John, perceiving
that the other Evan-

gelists had set forth the human side of the
Person of Jesus^

at the instance of His disciples composed
a spiritual Gospel.

He styles it spiritual (jivEvuaTixov) because of
its insistence

on the divine Sonship of Jesus.
Similar is the testimony o

Ignatius in numerous places, of Justin,*^
and of the ancien

Muratorian Canon.

17 Quoted by W. S. Reilly, The Gospel
According to St. John, p.

xxxvi
18 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v, 8, 2-4

19 Apology to Autolycus, ii, 22

20 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi, 14, 7

21 1 Apol. Ixi, Dial bcxxviii

— 28 —



Back of these specific witnesses is a tradition dating from

the second century and stretching from Antioch and Ephesus

in the Eastern Mediterranean area over Carthage and Alex-

andria in Africa to Rome and Lyons in Europe that affirms
the fourth Gospel to be the work of John the Apostle. All

the early manuscripts and versions ascribe it to him. Among
the witnesses to his authorship are men close to him personally
or in time, while others are closely associated with the section

of Asia Minor where the Gospel was written. It is the

unanimous verdict of scholars that the Gospel was written

after the destruction of Jerusalem, probably toward the close

of the first century. Irenaeus reports that it was written at

Ephesus.

Internal Evidence of Authorship

The internal evidence strongly supports the external. The
minute details reported by the writer and his complete
familiarity with Jewish customs and the conditions then pre-
vailing in Palestine stamp him as an eye-witness and a Jew
of Palestine. The intimate details within the Apostolic College,
especially the description of the Last Supper show that the
writer must have been one of the Apostles. While the author
writes in Greek, the mode of thought is that of a Palestinian
Jew—as John the Apostle was and in some instances the con-
struction is Aramaic.

The writer, moreover, manifests an intimate familiarity
with Palestine. Thus he speaks of Cana as Cana in Galilee
(ii. 1; iv. 46) to distinguish it from another village of the

same name in near-by Syria. He shows a first-hand acquaint-
ance with the villages around the lake of Genesareth, the size

of the lake, the mountain that borders it on the northeast

(vi. 3, 15). He is aware that Ennon near Salim was a pla^''
which afforded plenty of water for John the Baptist to use \n
baptizing (iii. 23). This very place was rediscovered in 1892.

These and many other details which the writer mentions in
casual, offhand manner show he is speaking as an eyewitness

of the events which he describes. “As one reads the Gospel and

the accompanying Epistle,’^ observes Professor Charles Harrli,

— 29



“the conviction becomes irresistible that the author in all sin-

cerity lays the greatest stress upon his having been an eye-
witness of what he records; and this implies that he was one
of the innermost circle of disciples, and therefore an Apostle,

and also John the son of Zebedee.’’

The frequent reference to an anonymous disciple or “the
disciple whom Jesus loved,^’ “who rested on His breast,’’ leads
to the inference that the author of the Gospel is this disciple.

The correctness of that inference is explicitly confirmed by
the author in the second to the last verse in his Gospel, wherein

he states: “This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these
things, and hath written these things; and we know that his
testimony is true.” Then frankly admitting that his narrative
gives only a partial account of the life of Christ, the author

ends his Gospel: “But there are also many other things which
Jesus did; which, if they were written everyone, the world

itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that

should be written.”

The external and internal evidence, harmonizing so per-
fectly, constitute solid historical ground for the conclusion that

the fourth Gospel is the work of St. John the Apostle. Such is

the unbroken tradition of the Church from the earliest days

down to the present time. That traditional belief has been
powerfully reinforced and substantiated by the findings of

modern Biblical research.

In closing this discussion of the authenticity of the Gospels,

we present the impressive testimony of three Scriptural schol-

ars. The first is Dr. J. P. Arendzen, who writes: “The Gospels
rank among the best attested works of the Graeco-Roman

world. They are better attested than the works of Pindar, or

Xenophon, or Horace; of Pliny, Polybius, or Suetonius; of

Terence or Plautus, Sophocles or Euripides, or of a score of

others, the genuineness and authenticity of whose writings are

cheerfully accepted by every classical scholar in the world.

For instance: Is there a Greek historian more unquestionably

received, more absolutely believed, more respected as an utterly

22 A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Bishop Charles
Gore, Macmillan Co., N. Y., p. 76

— 30 —



reliable source of information than Thucydides? Yet, the first

allusion to Thucydides as author of his works occurs some two

hundred and twenty years after his death, in the pages of

another historian called Polybius!

Similar is the conclusion reached by Renan: “In fine, I

admit as authentic the four canonical Gospels. All, according

to my view, go back to the first century.” Of special signifi-
cance is the conclusion reached after a lifetime of research by
Adolph Harnack of Berlin, whose outstanding scholarship is

acknowledged by all: “All competent men must finally admit
that the chronological order, according to which tradition has

arranged the old monuments and records of Christianity, is
quite accurate in its main lines, and consequently compels the
historian to reject as false all hypotheses that have been devised

in opposition to that order.”

In this connection it is well to point out that, while we have

presented the historical evidence, overwhelming in its massive

cogency, of the authenticity of the four Gospels, this would

not strictly be required to establish their historic validity as

channels of the Christian revelation. All that the latter would

actually demand would be that the writers, whoever they
were, were accepted by their contemporaries as competent

and trustworthy reporters of the teachings of Christ and of the

Apostolic Church. No student of the Scriptures, no matter
how liberal or radical in his views, will hesitate in acknowl-
edging the competency and the trustworthiness of the authors

of the four Gospels. Their acceptance at so early a date by all

the colonies of the infant Church is eloquent and convincing

testimony that the writers were recognized as competent and

trustworthy authorities on the life and teachings of Christ.
As a matter of fact, however, we are able, as has been shown,
to do more—to establish the authors of the Gospels to be none
other than the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

23 The Gospels—Fact, Myth, or Legend? Sands, London, 1923, p. 27
24 Devivier-Sasia, Christian Apologetics, J. F. Watner, Inc., N. Y.,

1924, Vol, I, p. 345

25 Devivier-Sasia, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 340

— 31 —



Well Informed and Truthful

Having demonstrated the authenticity of the Gospels, we
come now to a consideration of the second condition necessary
for the trustworthiness of a record of past events, namely, that

the writer be reliable in the sense that he is well informed and
truthful. It is obvious that since two of the Evangelists, Mat-
thew and John, were Apostles, they were admirably situated
to present eye-witness testimony concerning the life and teach-
ings of their Master. The other two, Mark and Luke, were
companions and disciples of the Apostles.

Over a long period Mark was the disciple and secretary of
Peter, putting down in writing the teachings of his master. He
was likewise in close touch with Paul at various intervals. He
was with both Peter and Paul in Rome before their death. He
was converted at Jerusalem in the first decade of the Church

and was the cousin and companion of Barnabas. Mark’s

mother was a prominent member of the infant Church in
Jerusalem. In her home Peter found refuge after he was
released from prison in the year 42-43 a.d. Traveling with

Peter, Paul, and later with Barnabas alone, Mark was in
intimate personal touch with the Christian colonies in Jeru-

salem, Palestine, Rome and Asia Minor.
Luke was the companion and disciple of Paul. The latter

was converted not later than 35 a.d. and made five visits to
Jerusalem where he conferred with Peter and James. Inti-

mately associated with Barnabas, Paul was in the closest per-

sonal touch with many of the earliest Christian communities,
upon whom he left, by his preaching and writing, a lasting
mark. In addition to his association with Paul, Luke also had
contact with Mark at Rome. About the year 57, he dwelt in
Jerusalem with Mnason, a disciple of our Lord, and had asso-

ciation there with the Apostle James. For a time he lodged in

Caesarea with Philip, one of the seven who were chosen deacons
in 33 A.D. It is significant that Luke mentions explicity in the
beginning of his Gospel that he was in touch with those “who
from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the

word” and that he “diligently attained to all things from the

beginning.”

— 32 —



It is evident, then, that the authors of the four Gospels were

either eyewitnesses themselves or were in close and prolonged

association with eyewitnesses. They wrote for a generation,
hundreds and thousands of whom had seen and heard Christ
in the flesh, and who would have quickly pounced upon any
inaccuracy in the narrative. The Gospels are not therefore
the crystallization of late traditions: they are the records of

events which they either witnessed or learned from witnesses.

Is there any ancient work of secular history which rests so
solidly upon the concordant testimony of so many competent
eyewitnesses and contemporaries as do the Gospels? History

knows of none. No one disputes that Caesar was the author of
the Commentaries on the Gallic Wars. Yet what is the evidence
for it? Merely two scant references about a hundred years

later in the writings of Plutarch and Suetonius.

The authors of the Gospels not only knew the facts but
they reported them truthfully as well. They could have had no
motive to engage in a conspiracy to foist a monstrous false-

hood upon mankind. Men do not endure hardship, suffer
persecution, and risk death for the spreading of a lie that

brings them nothing but hardship in this world and eternal
damnation in the next. Their holy lives and their miracles

testify to their divine ambassadorship and to their truthful-

ness in recording the deeds and utterances of their divine

Master. That the writers of the Gospels were sincere and truth-

ful is denied by no Scriptural scholar, radical, liberal or

conservative.

That the Evangelists wrote accurately and truthfully can be

verified moreover by reference to contemporary historical docu-

ments. The findings of modern historical, archeological, and
ethnological research have enabled us to reconstruct with

amazing accuracy and vividness the life, customs, laws and

culture of the peoples among whom Christ lived and taught.
That period represented the flood time of the great Greco-

Roman civilization. A mass of historical and literary writings
of that period have come down to us and have been studied

with meticulous care and accuracy. So vivid is the light which

modern scientific research has thrown upon the life and customs

— 33 —



of Palestine at the time of our Lord that we probably know
more about its minute details than we do of the life and culture
of our own American colonies prior to the Revolution.

The findings of research corroborate all along the line the
records of events mentioned in the Gospels. It is true that

very slight discrepancies appear at some times in the Gospel
narratives. But these can be harmonized by careful study. If
the Evangelists had been impostors, however, conspiring to
deceive mankind, they would have avoided even the appearance
of such divergences.

Then there is the character of Christ. That character is so
original, so noble, so lovable, so tragic, so surpassingly beauti-

ful, that viewed merely as an artistic creation, it was beyond

the inventive capacity of men such as the Evangelists. That
character ran, moreover, against the grain of their precon-

ceived image of the Messias. The Jews of their day—and the
Evangelists were Jews—thought of the Messias as coming to
restore the kingdom of David: they pictured that kingdom,

not as a spiritual kingdom, but as a temporal one. How dif-
ferent is the Christ of the Gospels from the Messias of their

expectation. Sticking to the facts of His life, the Evangelists

are compelled to portray a character radically different in many
respects from that which they had cherished in their Messianic

expectations. They portray a Christ who teaches meekness,
humility, the love even of one’s enemies, and who leads a life
of poverty and humiliation culminating in the ignominious

death upon Calvary’s Cross.

This truth has been strikingly put by J. J. Rousseau.

“Consider,” he says, “the gentleness of Jesus, the purity of

His morals, the persuasiveness of His teaching. How lofty His
principles! What wisdom in His words! How opportune,
frank and direct His answers! How can the Gospel history be
an invention? My friend, forgeries are not of this kind, and
the acts of Socrates, which no one doubts, are not so well

attested as the acts of Christ. Besides, this only increases the

difficulty. Far more inconceivable is it that several men should
have combined to fabricate this book than that there should

have been one living original whom they described. No Jewish
— 34 —



author could have fabricated the tone or moral teaching of the

Evangelists. So powerful, overwhelming, and inimitable is

the impress of truth stamped upon the gospel, that its inventor

would be a greater marvel than its hero.’’

It is the character of Christ, as portrayed in the Gospels,

that stamps them in the judgment of Harnack with a seal of

indisputable authenticity. Listen to his testimony, both elo-

quent and profound: “Jesus Christ had been their life-experi-

ence, and in Him they had found the Messias. They were
convinced that God had made Him Wisdom and Righteous-
ness, Sanctification and Redemption. No hope but found its
security in Him, no exalted thought but found in Him a living
reality. Hence they brought to Him all they possessed. He was
all that the human mind could conceive as most High. Within
two generations of His death all has been said of Him what-
soever men are capable of predicating of any one. Yea, even
more, they actually experienced Him and knew Him as the
Everlasting One, as the Lord of the World and as the energizing
principle of the life of their own souls. . . . Only now after
Christ had come, were they certain of the Resurrection and of
Eternal Life, and thus the sorrows of this world disappeared

as a cloud is dissolved by the sun, and the remainder of their
earthly life was light as day. This set of facts ushers the
story of the Gospel into this world, and is at the same time the
highest thing and the most unique in kind which meets us in

the history of Christian doctrine. This great fact is as it were

its seal, and makes this history different from the history of any
other of the world’s religions.”

The Integrity of the Gospels

We come now to consider the integrity of the Gospels, in
the sense that they have come down to us substantially intact.
We begin by pointing out the deep attachment of the early
Christians to the Gospel texts. They were read aloud in the
churches, sung in the liturgies, committed to memory, and

treasured in their hearts; holding fast to the four Gospels, the

26 Emile

y

book 4.
26a Arendzen, op. cit., p. 4.

— 35 —



infant Church rejected all others. Gospels ascribed to St.

Peter, St. James, and St. Thomas were in circulation in the
sub-apostolic age, but were suppressed as spurious.

With jealous care, the early Christians guarded their spirit-
ual patrimony. Any attempt to introduce a substantial change
in the text on the part of Christian, Jew, heretic, or pagan

would have provoked instant and violent protests; even

trifling changes aroused opposition and brought rebukes. Thus
Sozomenes tells us that Bishop Spiridion openly rebuked a

fellow-bishop who, in quoting a text, substituted another

word having the same meaning as the original, but which

appeared more elegant.

It was with difficulty that Pope Damasus prevailed upon
St. Jerome to revise the Latin version of the Bible, because of

the latter’s fear that he would be regarded by the people as a
corrupter of the text, should they find some alterations.^'^ That

St. Jerome’s fear was not unfounded was evidenced by a letter

which St. Augustine wrote to him. ^‘A bishop of our province,”

wrote the saint, “having begun to read your translation of the

Bible in his church, came to a passage of the prophet Jonas,
which you have translated differently from what was known to
the memory and ears of every one, and sung during many gen-
erations. Thereupon a great tumult arose among the people,
caused principally by the Greeks, who called out that the text
was falsified. . . . The bishop, not to remain without a flock,
after this great danger, was obliged to correct the passage as
if it were a fault.” What verbal change aroused this protest?
St. Jerome had used the word “ivy” for “gourd.” The incident
illustrates the jealous tenacity with which the early Christians

clung to the exact text of the Scriptures.

We do not wish to imply from the foregoing, however, that
in the many intervening centuries in which the Gospels have
been copied thousands of times and translated into all known
languages, that different readings called variants, have not

appeared. What has happened to all ancient manuscripts,
which have been copied hundreds of times, has likewise hap-

27 Praefat. ad Evang. ad Dam.
28 Epist, 71, ad Hieron.

— 36 —



pened to the Scriptures. Different readings of the works of

Horace have furnished material for three large volumes. No
book has been copied, translated, annotated, so frequently as

the book of the Gospels; it was inevitable that slight diver-

gencies in the thousands of copies would appear in the course

of the centuries. Were we to expect God to work a continuous
series of miracles to preserve the Gospels from a certain

liability to changes in the phraseology of the text, when such

changes do not alter the substantial meaning or message of the

sacred books? By no means. Man has the power to detect
and correct his own mistakes: textual criticism by carefully
studying the variants of the texts can generally eliminate the

defective reading and thus restore the primitive text. In other

words, the substantial tenor of the sacred text has not been

altered and the good tidings of divine revelation have come

down to us in all their essential fullness, even though doubt or
obscurity may cloud here or there a part of the phraseology or
passage in the text.

Let us look a little more closely into the abundant material

by means of which Scriptural scholars arrive at the primitive

text of the Gospel manuscripts and demonstrate their integrity.

The first and most striking aspect of all the Gospel manu-
scripts, which have come down to us, is their substantial
uniformity. There are nearly thirteen hundred manuscripts in

Greek alone, besides many in other languages. Among the
earliest and most important are the Vatican manuscript at
Rome and the Sinaitc at Leningrad, both of the fourth century;
the Alexandrian at London and the Codex Ephraemi rescriptus

at Paris, of the fifth century; and the Codex Bezae at Cam-
bridge, England, of the fifth or sixth century. As the Gospels
were probably written on papyrus which is perishable, the

originals must have worn out from frequent use in the early

Church. The use of copies in the absence of the originals is
true likewise in regard to the great classics of ancient times.

Thus the earliest manuscript of Vergil, in the Vatican Library,

dates from the fourth century a.d., while the earliest copy of

Homer’s Iliady in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, dates back

only to the fifth century.

— 37 —



The extant manuscripts of the Gospels agree as to text and
carry us back to the fourth century. This is about three cen-

turies after the originals were written. How are we to bridge
that gap? We can do so by going to the translations of the
Gospels in other languages, the Syriac and the Latin versions

dating back to the second century. Upon examining these, we
find all in substantial agreement.

Moreover we can further check the text of the Gospel
manuscripts through actual quotations therefrom in the writ-

ings of the Fathers of the infant Church. So numerous are

these quotations that if all the manuscripts and translations of

the Gospels were lost, it would be possible to reconstruct

virtually all the text of the Gospels from the vast multitude of

quotations in the early Patristic literature. The writings of
Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian and
Cyrian, who were active in the second half of the second cen-
tury and in the first half of the third, constitute a mine of

direct quotations. For instance, in the writings of Irenaeus, we
find besides the names of the four Evangelists, 234 texts quoted
from Matthew, 13 from Mark, 125 from Luke, and 94 from

John. In addition, his writings present an analysis of the

Gospel of Luke which corresponds exactly with the third Gospel
as it has come down to us. In the writings of Tertullian, who
was active in Proconsular Africa, we encounter not less than
925 texts taken from the Gospels.

The discourses and writings of Justin, Papias, and Marcion,
active around the middle of the second century, abound in

quotations. We find additional quotations in still earlier Chris-
tian literature, such as the Second Epistle of Clement, the

Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called Gospel of Peter, the Teaching

of the Twelve Apostles, the Pastor of Hermes, and the writings

of SS. Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement, which date back from

the middle of the second century into the fourth quarter of

the first.

The manuscripts, translations, and quotations from the
writers and Fathers of the early Church are in textual agree-

ment and constitute such an impressive bulk of converging and

cumulative evidence as to bring conviction to all. Scholars of

— 38 —



different schools of thought, radical, liberal, and conservative,

find themselves in agreement, except in regard to a rare phrase,

or sentence, or passage, which material would constitute only

about one to two per cent of the entire text. Indeed, in regard

to the whole New Testament, Alfred Durand states that ^‘no
serious doubts exist except concerning about one-sixtieth of the

contents of the New Testament. Perhaps even the number of
passages of which the authenticity has not yet had a sufficient

critical demonstration does not exceed twelve, at least as

regards substantial alterations.’^

We may conclude this discussion of the integrity of the
Gospels with the observation of the great Scriptural scholar.

Cardinal Wiseman: “Though every available source of infor-
mation has been resorted to: though all the interpretations

and explanations of scriptural texts given by the Fathers of

the first ten centuries, as well as the versions of nearly all

languages, the Arabian, the Syrian, the Coptic, the Armenian,

the Ethiopian, have been consulted, with the purpose of ascer-

taining the true meaning of those texts; though the manuscript

copies of all countries and of all times, from the sixteenth cen-

tury up to the third, have been diligently scrutinized by a
multitude of learned scholars, anxious to seize on their hidden

treasures; though many critics, after having exhausted the
riches of Western lore, traveled to distant countries in search

of new testimonies; though they fathomed, as it is said of
Scholz and Sebastiani, the depths of Mount Athos and the
libraries of the desert of Egypt and Syria, yet, notwithstanding
all these scrupulous researches of past records, they have not

been able to discover one single version or copy, duly authen-

ticated, that might throw even the shadow of a doubt on any
passage, that, before all these minute investigations, was held
as certain and decisive in favor of this or that part of sacred
doctrine.” Hence we are forced to conclude that the histori-
cal value of the Gospels cannot be questioned by anyone fa-
miliar with the evidence.

29 Catholic Encyclopedia, ‘‘New Testament,” p. 534

30 Oriental Studies, Lecture 10. Quoted by Devivier-Sasia, op. cit.,
pp. 344-345

— 39 —



Viewed simply as historical documents, the Gospels present

in a trustworthy and reliable manner the revelation of Jesus
Christ to mankind. They should be read and meditated upon
daily by all who wish to grow in spiritual insight and in holi-
ness of life. They should be reverenced and loved as consti-
tuting not only the heart of the greatest book in the world but

also a most important part of the spiritual patrimony of

mankind.



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. How does God's goodness shine forth in revelation?

2. What is meant by a natural revelation? By a super-
natural revelation?

3. How may revelation be supernatural in manner but
not in substance? Illustrate.

4. Why is supernatural revelation possible? Illus-
trate.

5. Who is the bearer of supernatural revelation to
mankind?

6. What were the credentials of Christ's Messiahship?

7. Christ's revelation is supported by what?

8. What does the Vatican Council declare?

9. How may a revelation be known?

10.

How would you define a prophecy?
— 41 —



II

1. Is a prophecy as conclusive a mark of divine author-

ity as a miracle? Why?

2. Mention some of the prophecies of the Old Testa-

ment concerning Christ.

3. State the prophecies mentioned in the New Testa-

ment concerning Christ.

4. How would you define a miracle? Illustrate.

5. Why are miracles possible to God?

6. Why does the question of miracles boil down to a

matter of evidence?

7. Outline the reasoning advanced by some scientists

to outlaw the possibility of miracles.

8. State the fallacy in such reasoning and give illus-

trations.

9. Does a miracle destroy a law of nature? Why?

10.

What do scientists usually mean when they speak of

the laws of nature?

Ill

1. Criticize that concept of the scientists.

— 42 —



2. The uniformity of the laws of nature has its ulti-
mate reason where?

3. How may the laws of nature be said to be the ob-
jectified thought of God?

4. State Hume’s objection to miracles.

5. Indicate the fallacy in his argument. Illustrate you)
answer.

6. What did Dr. Carrel declare to be the scientifii
attitude toward the question of miracles?

7. What evidence is offered in the Annals of Lourdes!

8. Did Christ appeal to miracles? How?

9. Why was Lazarus restored to life?

10. Mention some of the other miracles of Christ.

11. How do miracles and prophecies prove the super-
natural and divine character of revelation?

Gospels—Port II

I

1. The Christian revelation comes through what I'^o
channels?

2. What is meant by tradition?

—43 —



be viewed from what two
3. The New Testament may

aspects?

4. What is meant by inspiration?

5. To be accepted as historical and
trustworthy a

work must meet what three conditions?

6. Describe the manner in which
the Gospels were

written.

7. What is meant by the synoptic
Gospels?

8. Give the percentages showing
the amount of mat-

ter (1) common and (2) proper
to each Gospel.

9. What is the external evidence
that the Gospels are

genuine?

10. Prove the use of the Gospels
in the earliest days of

the Church.

11. Cite the external
evidence of the authenticity of

St. Matthew’s Gospel.

12. Who were the associates of the
Evangelist Mark?

II

1. Cite the historical
evidence of St. Mark’s author-

ship of the second Gospel.

2. The Evangelist Luke was the
disciple of whom?

— 44 —



3. What is the Muratorian Canon and explain its
significance.

4. What is the internal evidence of the genuineness
of the Synoptics?

5. In what language was the Gospel of St. Matthew

originally written? The other three Gospels?

6. Prove that the authors of the Gospels were eye-

witnesses of the evidence described or were in

close touch with such happenings.

7. Why has the Gospel of John been termed “the uni-
versal Gospel”?

8. The fourth Gospel combines what?

9. What three questions are raised by St. John’s
Gospel?

10. What was the chief purpose of John in writing his
Gospel?

11. Why is his style so different from the other three
Evangelists?

12. Did the literary canons of the time allow greater

freedom in reporting than those of today? Illus-

trate.

Ill

1. What is the external evidence of authorship of the
fourth Gospel?

— 45 —



2. What is the internal evidence o£ such authorship?

3. What light is thrown upon the identity o£ the au-
thor in the concluding verses o£ the £ourth

Gospel?

4. What is the testimony o£ Dr. J. P. Arendzen on
this point?

5. What is the testimony o£ Harnack and its signifi-

cance?

6. What would be sufficient to establish the historic
validity o£ Gospels as channels o£ Christian Reve-

lation?

7. How were Matthew and John well situated as eye-
witnesses? Why were Mark and Luke likewise
well qualified to give testimony?

8. Prove that the authors o£ the Gospels spoke truth-

£ully.

9. What is the significance o£ the slight discrepancies

£ound in the Gospel narratives?

10. Describe the character o£ Christ.

11. What does Rousseau say about Christ?

12. Give the substance o£ Harnack’s testimony and ex-

plain its significance.

— 46 —



IV

1. What is meant by the integrity of the Gospels?

2. What evidence can you cite to establish the integ-

rity of the Gospels?

3. State the incident which Augustine related to St.

Jerome.

4. What are ‘‘variants” and are they found among the

Gospel manuscripts?

5. How do Scriptural scholars arrive at the primitive
text of the Gospel manuscripts?

6. The extant manuscripts of the Gospels carry us

back to what century?

7. How do we bridge the gap of three centuries?

8. What constitutes converging and cumulative evi-
dence of the integrity of the Gospels?

9. Give the substance of Cardinal Wiseman’s testi-

mony.

10. Viewed simply as historical documents the Gos-

pels present a trustworthy revelation of what?

11. Why should the Gospels be read frequently and
reverenced greatly?

— 47 —



dl





A STORY OF HABITS
AND IDEALS

• Character Formation is a pamphlet
which was written to be sold—and
sold big—for it reaches out and ap-
peals to each one of us. It is un-

questionably Father O^Brien’s best
pamphlet and he has written many.

Rev, John A, O'Brien, Ph,D,

presenting his new pamphlet says:

“If ever there was sounded an S O S
for character, for ethical insight and
moral stamina, a world in chaos and
in agony is gasping that call now.

The folly of trying to build a new
world if we do not likewise improve
the builder finds apt expr*ession in the
lines of Edwin H. Markham:

“We are all blind until we see
That in the human plan,
Nothing is worth the making
If it does not make the man.

“Why build these cities glorious
If man unbuilded goes?
In vain we build the world unless
The builder also grows.”

• What do we mean by character? How can I build a strong character? How
can I improve my character? How can I eliminate defects which are causing
it to sag under the pressure of temptation and the strain of adversity? Father
O’Brien answers these questions and others and shows the effect of heredity,
environment, ideals and habit on the molding of character.

• An eight-lesson discussion club questionnaire is appended for the use of study
clubs and classes. Single copy 15c, 100 copies $12.50 postpaid. Published by

THE PAULIST PRESS
401 West 59th Street

New York 19, N. Y.