The dates of these of great importance They are a fraud. Rous no part of our duty to enter into a minute discussion of the New Testament writings, but it is writings are necessary that we have some approximate idea of the date when each of the Gospels was written and in circulation, as a large part of their value as hisObjection: torical evidence depends upon it. Men have not been found wanting who have declared that the seau's reply New Testament writings are a fraud. Rousseau replies: "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 author could have fabricated the tone or the moral teaching of the evangelist. So powerful, so overwhelming and inimitable is the impress of truth stamped upon the Gospel, that its inventor would be a greater marvel than its hero.' "" 1 As Keim has said, “No sane person has ever supposed the Gospels to be based solely on recent legends, or modern inventions"." If it were clearly established that Matthew and John wrote the Gospels which bear their names, their testimony would be that of eye-wit Keim's view 1 Rousseau, Emile, iv. 2 Geschichte Jesu von Nazareth, 1872, p. 140. nesses and of greater value; but as this is under discussion we do not intend to insist upon it. And similarly Mark and Luke if authors of their imputed writings would be second-hand authorities of a value almost equal to those of first hand. Here again we do not insist upon the point. At the same time we cannot refrain from giving our readers some idea of the weight of evidence which can be adduced in favour of the very early character of the Synoptic Gospels, and of their having been written by the authors whose names they bear. Father Sydney Smith, S.J., in an article in the Month for June, 1889, entitled "Professor Huxley on the Resurrection" has stated a powerful and convincing argument. He says. "The Gospel of St. Luke is generally allowed to be the work of a single hand, to have reached us in the form in which it was written, and to be the latest of the Three Synoptics. If then we can assign a date to its composition, Professor Huxley ought to accept an earlier one for Matthew, and a considerably earlier one for Mark. M. Renan, as Professor Huxley now knows, considers 'that one thing at all events is beyond doubt, namely, that the author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is a man who belonged to the second Apostolic generation,' and that the twenty-first chapter of St. Luke, which is inseparable from the rest of the work, was written. certainly after the siege of Jerusalem, but not long after, 'so that according to this testimony, which has the value of testimony wrung from the enemy, the inferior limit of time for the three Synoptic Gospels is about A.D. 70, the date of the siege of Jerusalem. As we do not believe that the correspondence of a prophetic statement with the event is proof positive that the book in which the prediction is found was composed subsequent to the event, we see no objection to assigning a still earlier date than this of about A.D. 70. But for present purposes A.D. 70 is early enough. It shows that there is nothing to prevent us from drawing the inference naturally suggested by the character of the Evangelist's statements, that they obtained them from contemporary and well-informed witnesses.' And so says M. Reuss, one of the 'critics' whom Professor Huxley commends, about St. Luke. 'Luke was able in Palestine itself to receive direct communications from immediate witnesses.'1 Were it possible to dwell longer on this point, the early date of St. Luke would be satisfactorily established from internal evidence furnished by the Acts, which every one acknowledges to be a subsequent composition by the author of the Third Gospel. Still the authority of MM. Reuss and Renan will be sufficient for most readers." 1 Hist. Evangélique, 1re partie, p. 88. But Tatian's the approximate date of these writings is of the highest importance. Now Tatian (died A.D. 180), a native of Assyria and a friend of Justin Martyr, made a harmony of the four Gospels in A.D. 150, which proves that at that time they were generally accepted. As we have already pointed out, the author of Supernatural Religion in his attempt to Evidence of show that the four Gospels were not commonly "Diatessareceived at that early period wrote: "The Dia-ron" tessaron seems never to have been seen for the simple reason that there was no such work". Yet a few years later an Arabic version was found in the Vatican Library by Father Ciasca. It is allowed to represent the original and is found to contain the four Gospels entirely, except the Genealogies. Clearly then in the year A.D. 150 these writings were well known and accepted as the authorised Scriptures. But in order to reach the stage of authority they must have been separated from the numerous apocryphal Gospels and this was a work of many years. We are thus thrown far back for their origin, and as it is allowed that they contain a common tradition which is based on writings that are earlier still, we are driven back to within a few years of the alleged Resurrection, and the value of these New Testament writings as historical evidence is greatly enhanced. Gould's view of the dates Gould, a well-known writer for the Rationalists,1 says of Matthew's Gospel: "no useful result is gained by attempts to find the exact date of this Gospel. Some critics even incline to place sections of it at a period subsequent to Luke. We may infer that, early in the second century, a collection of the memoranda of the life of Jesus took a form which did not differ much from the Matthew document as we now have it." In reference to Luke he says: "In this case again we find it advisable to refrain from useless conjecture at the date of the document, beyond the assumption that it appeared in the early years of the second century ".2 Speaking of Mark he says: "Disputing scholars have set the date down to 70 c.E., 100, 120, etc., all that we can justly conclude is that Mark' preceded Matthew' and 'Luke'. No violence is done to probability by accepting this early Synoptic as a product of the end of the first century". With regard to the Fourth Gospel he says: "Cogent objections from the Rationalist side seem establish the fact that the Gospel did not see the light until about the year 150 C.E".* 'We must content ourselves with the provisional hypothesis that the Fourth Gospel may have appeared towards the close of Hadrian's reign." Thus we have the 1 Concise Hist. of Religion, vol. iii., p. 128. 5 Ib. p. 190. Hadrian died 138. 2 Ib. p. 131. 4 Ib. p. 188. |