In inviting the reader to share the inquiry, I wish to assure him that I have no theory to advocate. In opposing what I believe to be error, I desire simply to offer the evidence which is easily accessible to most, which seems not to have had its due prominence in theological discussion among the masses, and which, if properly appreciated, must result in great changes in religious beliefs.
The writings of the Christian Fathers, the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (the oldest Christian history now extant) and the modern works, On The Canon of the New Testament, by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and The Canon of the Bible, by Prof. Samuel Davidson, D.D., are the main sources from which the information in these articles are chiefly drawn. But we are not limited by these as the sources are in reality almost endless if one chooses to look the the problem of the New Testament. The inexperienced person has little idea of the difficulty which the critical party finds in getting its facts before the public; nor of the systematic suppression used by the Christian media and clergy to prevent unpleasant truths concerning the Christian religion from coming out. There is not an orthodox Christian media source I know of that will publish the facts concerning the origin of the New Testament which are given in these articles. Men who know the Christian theology to be untrue, have to get their audience as best they can. Thus the importance of the Internet for our world today.
One would suppose that the Christian clergy would be familiar with the history of the New Testament and how it came to be compiled (the canonization of the New Testament), the truth is, it is one of the subjects least understood. For our purposes, by "canon" is meant the list of the books composing the New Testament. Among the early Christians it meant the list of the books appointed to be read in the churches, and later, it came to mean the list of books which were sources and test of doctrine.
The reader must bear in mind that most of the books in the New Testament are anonymous. Despite the names appearing at the beginning of your Gospels in the New Testament or over the epistles no one knows who wrote them, or at least most of them, and no one knows when they were written. As to their origin there have been conjectures, but the number of authors named is about equal to the number of commentators engaged in the guessing.
This might come as a shock to you but the books of the New Testament which have no known authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, the Epistle of James, Second Peter, Second John, Third John, Jude, and perhaps Revelation. The genuineness of Paul's Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians is doubted by some scholars, thought the majority accept them as from Paul. But this leaves ten of Paul's Epistles and the First of Peter, the First of John, and it may be Revelation as the only genuine writings in the New Testament!
Prof. Davidson says that the Gospel of Matthew, as we have it now, could not have been written by Matthew (Intro. New Test., i. 484). In his book he goes on to explain why the present Gospel of Mark was not written by Mark, and that its author is unknown (Ibid., ii. 83-84). He also makes a strong case that Luke did not write the Gospel now bearing his name (Ibid., ii. 25). Of the Gospel of John he says:
"Its existence before 140 A.D. is incapable either of decisive or probable showing….The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism; and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible" (Canon, 127).
"No certain trace of existence of the Fourth Gospel can be found till after Justin Martyr, ie., till after the middle of the second century" (Intro. New Test., ii. 520).
Of course, if it were not written till 140 or 150 A.D., the Apostle John could not have been its author, for he was dead long before that.
Again, Prof. Davidson says:
"If it be asked whether all the New Testament writings proceeded from the authors whose names they bear, criticism can not reply in the affirmative" (Canon, 153).
"Textual criticism has been employed to discredit the true dates of the present Gospels (i.e., to make them earlier than they really were), and the most exaggerated descriptions have been given of the frequent transcriptions of the text and its great corruption in the second century (i.e., the believers say the evidence of the late dates are corruptions of the second century)…But the evidence in favor of the authors traditionally assigned to the Gospels and some of the Epistles, is still uncertain. A wide gap intervenes between eye-witnesses of the apostles or apostolic men that wrote the sacred books, and the earliest Fathers who assert such authorship. The traditional bridge between them is a precarious one" (Canon, 159).
The Epistles to Titus, and the First and Second Epistles to Timothy, commonly known as the "Pastoral Epistles," were not written by Paul (Davidson, Canon, 239, 252, 261; Intro. New Test., ii. 193-194). What is of major importance for the reader to understand is that prior to the year 170 A.D., nothing was heard of the Second Epistle of Peter (Westcott, Canon, 227), and it was not generally known till the close of the third century (Ibid., 242). Dr. Westcott says that its canonicity can not even now, on historical grounds, be pronounced certainly authentic, and the most he can say for it is that it is better supported than the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistle of Barnabas (Westcott, Canon, 227), of which we now hear nothing.
There has never been a time when the book of Revelation was not discarded by many persons competent to judge. The churches to which it was addressed, those in Asia, are the very ones which rejected it! It was not in the Bibles of the Eastern Christians for more than one thousand five hundred years, and was incorporated into those Bibles less than three centuries ago. Dionysius said that many of the early Christians denounced it as being without sense or reason, and as the forgery of Cerinthus (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii. 25). Dionysius himself did not believe it was written by John the Apostle (Ibid.), he did not know who did write it, although it another place he intimates that Cerinthus did so, and forged John's name to it (Ibid., iii. 28). Papias suggested that it might have been written by John the presbyter (Ibid., iii. 39). Caius said it was written by Cerinthus (Ibid., iii. 28). So great was the hostility and contempt for it in the East, that there is reason to believe that the bishops would not allow it to be read in the churches (Westcott, Canon, 442, note 2). In the synod of Toledo, a Western church, in 671 A.D., a special decree had to be passed affirming its authority (Ibid., 447, note 4). And so late as the sixteenth century, Beza, the friend of Luther and Calvin, conjectured that it was written by Mark (Prov. Apocalypsis).
Even yet, the Pauline authority of the Epistle of Hebrews, and its right to a place in the New Testament, have been denied by orthodox theologians. The genuine letters have the superscription, "Paul, called to be an Apostle," etc. This Epistle has none. Originally, no one claimed it to have been written by Paul. Tertullian, (202 A.D.), the Christian Father, said it was written by Barnabas (De dic. 20). In the Clermont manuscript it is to this day called the Epistle of Barnabas (Westcott, Canon, 263). The Old Latin version does not contain it (Ibid., 254). It was added subsequently, and then as an anonymous production (Ibid.). The early Latin Fathers, with entire unanimity, ignore it, and exclude it from the Bible. According to Origin some said it was written by Clement of Rome, others by Luke. Origin himself said, "But who it was that really wrote this epistle, God only knows" (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi. 23). Philastrius, of Brescia (387 A.D.), rejected it, saying that in some churches it was not read, and that is authorship was variously attributed to Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Luke and Paul (Haer. lxxxix). Grotius, in the seventeenth century, said it was obviously not written by Paul, and he believed it was written by Luke (Pref. To Hebrews). He also believed that the original title of the Second Epistle of Peter was the "Epistle of Simeon," James' successor as Bishop of Jerusalem (Pref. To 2 Peter). He also believed that the present Epistle was not the original one, but was compiled from two others by Simeon, of which the second begins as the third chapter. Dr. Westcott says that the Epistle to the Hebrews can not be shown to have been written by Paul (Westcott, Canon, 356). Kitto's Cyclopedia of the Bible says that its Pauline authorship, and its canonicity are assumptions, neither of which is admitted on all hands to have conclusive evidence (Art. "Hebrews, Epistle to the"). And yet, in the face of facts like these, certain Christian teachers have told us that we must believe these books, or be damned eternally in a like of literal fire! That is what unbelievers are opposing. They are not trying to tear down public morality. They are protesting against the elevation of stupidity as intelligence!
When the assertion is made that it has been proved that Matthew did not write the Gospel bearing his name, and that a particular book was not written by the person to whom it is usually attributed, the question is asked, "How does scholarship learn these things?" It is by what is known as the "historical method" of criticism. In case of a literary forgery, it is often easy to show that the work was not written by the person claimed as its author, while at the same time it would be utterly impossible to show who did write it. A few evidence that the Gospel of John was not written by the Apostle, will illustrate how the method is used.
These are a few of the evidence that John did not write the Gospel now bearing his name, and they give an idea of how scholars determine the fact that a work is a forgery.
The reader has heard so much from orthodox sources, of the "unanimous testimony of antiquity to the authenticity of the Gospels," that he will be interested in knowing what that testimony is.
The first Christian writer whose works have come to us is Paul, and his Epistles we have in the New Testament. He makes no mention of the Four Gospels, makes no quotations from them, and makes not the slightest reference to them. The First Epistle of Peter, the First of John, which are generally believed to be genuine, and the Revelation of John, whose authenticity is conceded by many unbelievers, do not mention the Gospels, and do not quote from them. Likewise we have the book of Acts, Second John, Third John, James, and Jude, but none of them mentions the Four Gospels, or quotes from them, or gives the slightest indication that its author ever heard of them.
The Apostolic Fathers are they who immediately succeeded the Apostles, and the first of them was Clement of Rome (97 A.D.). We have his Epistle to the Corinthians, but in them there is no mention of either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. After him comes Ignatius (115 A.D.), from whom we have four epistles, believed to be genuine. Neither of them makes the least mention of the Four Gospels. Polycarp (116 A.D.), has an epistle passing under his name. It in there is no mention of any of the Four Gospels. There is an epistle attributed to Barnabas, the companion of Paul, but probably written about 130 A.D. It makes no mention of either of the Four Gospels. And, finally, there is the book called "The Shepherd of Hermas," generally conceded to be the work of Hermas or Rome, about the year 150 A.D. It like all the other books and epistles here referred to, is devoted to doctrinal and ethical ends, but it makes no reference to either of the Four Gospels. This comprises the whole of the existing Christian literature from the death of Jesus to the middle of the second century, and not one writer mentions the Four Gospels, or makes the slightest reference to them. They make quotations from tradition and from other Gospels, but not from our four.
We come to Papias, the Church Father, who lived about 150 A.D. (Davidson, Canon, 123). He says:
"And John the presbyter also said this: 'Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history or our Lord's discourses; wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writing some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts'" (Euseb., Eccl. Hist. iii. 39).
"Such is the account of Papias concerning Mark. Of Matthew, he has stated as follows: 'Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated it as he was able" (Euseb., Eccl. History, iii. 39).
To make the matter short, scholars admit that our Gospel of Matthew and Mark were not referred to. Tischendorf grants it ("When Were Our Gospels Written:" by Constantine Tischendorf; Religious Tract Society's edition, authorized. London, 1869, p. 107), and Prof. Davidson fully concedes it:
"Papias speaks of Matthew and Mark; but it is most probable that he had documents which either formed the basis of our present Matthew and Mark, or were taken into them and written over" (Davidson, Canon of the Bible, p. 124).
"The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark can not be identified with the logia of Matthew, and the things said and done by Jesus which Mark wrote, mentioned by Papias. The writer himself does not identify them" (Into. N.T., ii. 520).
We will continue our study as we pick up with Justin Martyr and what he contributes to our quest for an honest look into the history of the New Testament.