The Historical Actuality of Revelation

§ III. Genuineness and Credibility of the New Testament

Christ Himself left no writing. He taught by word of mouth and commissioned His Apostles to follow His example.⁸²82Luke IX, 2. But it was not long before the need of written documents made itself felt among the faithful. The solicitude of the Apostles to preserve the deposit of faith in its pristine purity and the wish of the various churches to possess the Apostolic preaching in a permanent form, necessarily led to written statements of the more important doctrines of the Christian religion. The selection and arrangement of the materials were governed by the conditions existing in the different congregations at that time. This is the reason why not only the letters of the Apostles (Epistles), but also the Gospels, show each a separate and distinct tendency. Each was written for a specific purpose and manifests this purpose more or less plainly throughout. All the writings of the New Testament were composed for particular occasions and consequently we cannot expect to find in them a systematic account of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The Evangelists themselves call attention to the relative incompleteness of their respective productions.⁸³83John XVI, 12; XX, 30 sq.; XXI, 25. Cfr. J. E. Belser, History of the Passion, tr. by F. A. Marks, ed. by A. Preuss, St. Louis, 1929, Introduction and passim.

From the New Testament, as from the Old, we shall select only those writings which we intend to use as sources of demonstration. The most important of these are the four Gospels.

The word Gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) originally denoted, not a written book, but “good tidings,” namely, the glad news of the Messianic Kingdom brought by Christ and His Apostles.⁸⁴84Matt. IV, 23; Acts XX, 24; Rom. I, 1, 9, 16. The word “Gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον) occurs sixty times in St. Paul; on its meaning in his Epistles and in the other New Testament writings, see F. Prat, S.J., The Theology of St. Paul (tr. by J. L. Stoddard), Vol. II, London, 1927, pp. 396-400. After these events had been recorded in writing, the books containing them were also called “good tidings” or Gospels. The term first occurs in this sense in the writings of St. Justin Martyr.⁸⁵85Apol., I, 66 (Migne, P. G., VI, 429); Dial. c. Tryph., 10, 100 (ibid., VI, 496, 709).

We shall now examine the authenticity and credibility of the four Gospels and of such other books of the New Testament as are of importance for our argument.

1. Genuineness of the New Testament

1. The Gospel of St. Matthew

The Gospel of St. Matthew is a genuine historical document. This can be proved.

a) From External Testimonies.—α) The most ancient and most valuable attestation of the authorship of the first Gospel is that of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (about 130 A.D.) He was a pupil of St. John the Evangelist, a friend of St. Polycarp, and the teacher of St. Irenaeus.⁸⁶86Adv. Haer., V, 33, 4 (P. G., VII, 1214). Eusebius quotes him as saying: “Matthew collected the sayings (τὰ λόγια) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.”⁸⁷87H. E., III, 39: Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος. The emphasis, as the construction of the sentence shows, is not on the contents, but on the language of the logia. Papias assumes his readers to be familiar with the Gospel of St. Matthew and wishes to inform them that this Gospel was originally composed in Hebrew. In conformity with the title of his treatise, ΤΑ ΛΟΓΙΑ, he discusses mainly the discourses of Christ. This appears also from the explanation which he adds to the words of John concerning Mark. Although John had spoken of “the words or deeds of the Lord,” Papias simply employs the term “words of the Lord.”

Finally, if there had existed, under the title Logia, a separate treatise by St. Matthew differing from his Gospel as it has come down to us, it would be difficult to explain how that treatise could have disappeared so completely that no ecclesiastical writer of the early centuries ever mentions it or quotes from it.

β) Date of Composition.—According to St. Irenaeus,⁸⁸88Adv. Haer., III, 1, 1 (P. G., VII, 344). We quote the translation of A. Roberts and W. H. Rambaut in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Writings of St. Irenaeus, Vol. I, pp. 258 sq., Edinburgh, 1868. The Greek text of the passage, as preserved for us by Eusebius, is: ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν· μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον Μάρκος, ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν· καὶ Λουκᾶς δέ, ὁ ἀκόλουθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ’ ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βίβλῳ κατέθετο. Ἔπειτα Ἰωάννης, ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου, ὁ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσών, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκεν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς Ἀσίας διατρίβων. The first sentence, with which we are here concerned, is literally translated by Pope (The Catholic Student’s “Aids” to the Study of the Bible, Vol. II, London, 1918, pp. 175 sq.) as follows: “Matthew indeed among the Hebrews and in their own tongue; and he brought out [with him] the writing of the Gospel when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the Church.” The redundant “and” is passed over in the Latin and English translations of Irenaeus and Eusebius (see the one quoted above from the Ante-Nicene Christian Library). Pope (l.c., p. 176) thinks that a clause has been omitted and that the verb of the first clause of the sentence has vanished. “That this is not an impossible supposition,” he says, “will be clear to anyone who reads carefully the chapter of Eusebius’ History whence this extract is taken, H.E., V, viii; in section 5 in particular we have a very mutilated sentence. We feel justified, then, in inserting some such verb as ‘wrote,’ and thus reading: ‘Matthew indeed wrote among the Hebrews, and in their own tongue.’” On the difficulty arising from the word ἐξήνεγκεν, which is translated in the text above by “issued” and by Pope (supra) by “brought out [with him],” the last-mentioned writer says (ibid.): “According to the above interpretation a verb has to be supplied for the first clause, viz., ‘wrote.’ But if we are justified in this conjecture, then it is practically impossible to translate ἐξήνεγκεν by ‘published,’ as is generally done. The key to the whole passage lies in Irenaeus’ desire to explain how the Apostles were individually furnished with the Gospel when they separated and ‘went forth to the ends of the earth.’ We do not know what Greek word Irenaeus used to express this ‘going forth’; the Latin has exierunt. But it is to this exierunt that Irenaeus seems to refer when he says: ‘But after their departure, ἔξοδον, excessum.’ Thus he would be referring here not to the ‘departure,’ i. e., death, of Peter and Paul, but to the ‘going out’ of the Apostles. If this interpretation is justified, everything will fall into line. For Irenaeus will simply be saying that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Palestine, that he brought it with him when Peter and Paul were at Rome, and that after the separation of the Apostles Mark wrote what Peter was actually preaching.” John Chapman, O. S. B. (Journal of Theological Studies, 1905, pp. 563 sqq.) has given the following interpretative translation of St. Irenaeus’ famous passage, which has been accepted by Harnack (Dates of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, 1911, p. 130): “Matthew among the Hebrews in their own language published a writing also of the Gospel [besides preaching it]. “Peter and Paul preaching the Gospel [not to Jews but] at Rome [without writing it down], and founding the church there [whose testimony I shall give presently, viz. III, iii.] “But [although they died without having written a Gospel] after their death [their preaching has not been lost to us, for] Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, has handed down to us, he also in writing [like Matthew], the things which were preached by Peter. “And Luke besides, the companion of [the other] Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by the Apostle. “Finally, John, the disciple of the Lord, he also published a Gospel while he was living in Ephesus of Asia.” Here is part of Chapman’s comment on the passage: “He [Irenaeus] is simply explaining that the teaching of four of the principal Apostles has not been lost, but has been handed down to us in writing. … This is the development of the first part of the thesis: the Apostles after the resurrection were filled with knowledge of the Gospel, and they went forth and preached the same Gospel in all lands. … The second part of the thesis answers the question, ‘How has this preaching come down to us in writing?’ The reply is that two of the Apostles wrote down their own teaching, while two others were reported by a follower.” “Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church.” This would fix the date of the composition of the First Gospel between 61 and 66 A.D. Eusebius⁸⁹89H. E., III, 24, 6: Ματθαῖός τε γὰρ πρότερον Ἑβραίοις κηρύξας, ὡς ἤμελλεν καὶ ἐφ’ ἑτέρους ἰέναι, πατρίῳ γλώττῃ γραφῇ παραδοὺς τὸ κατ’ αὐτὸν εὐαγγέλιον. says the First Gospel was written in the year in which the Apostles separated (A.D. 42; cfr. Acts XII, 17). “Matthew,” he writes, “had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others, he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself.” There is a discrepancy between these statements of about twenty years. Unless we prefer to assume that the statement of St. Irenaeus concerning the united ministry of SS. Peter and Paul in Rome is a later interpolation, all that we can conclude from the two passages just quoted is that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel before the year 70. Origen positively asserts that, according to tradition, St. Matthew was the first who wrote a gospel.⁹⁰90Quoted by Eusebius, H. E., VI, 14, 5: “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned from tradition that the first was written by Matthew.”

b) Intrinsic Evidence.—α) Neither the identity of the author nor the language in which he wrote can be recognized with certainty from the First Gospel as we now have it. But, on the other hand, there is nothing in it that contradicts the testimonies of the ancient ecclesiastical writers whom we have just quoted. On the contrary, there are indications (as, for example, the way in which the Gospel speaks of the Apostle Matthew⁹¹91Matt. X, 3.) which seem positively to point to him as the author.

β) That St. Matthew wrote his Gospel before the year 70 is evidenced, first, by the fact that he mentions the destruction of Jerusalem as a prophecy, but not as an accomplished fact, and, second, that he fails to indicate clearly the distinction between that dramatic event and the end of the world.⁹²92Matt. XXIV, 29.

In dating the Gospel of St. Matthew from the beginning of the second century, Rationalist exegetes are impelled by subjective religious rather than by objective historical motives. The story told in this document, they argue, is frankly Catholic, and, therefore, cannot possibly have originated in the first Christian century. “Though what is ascribed here (Matth. XVI, 18 sq.) to St. Peter cannot be claimed in favor of the Roman successor of that Apostle,” says O. Pfleiderer, “it is undeniable that those words embody the fundamental view upon which the Catholic ecclesiastical system has been consistently erected. All the more certain it is, therefore, for everyone who can judge events in their true historical light, that the words in question [Mt. XVI, 17 sqq.], far from resting upon an ancient tradition, or coming from the mouth of Jesus, are rather the Evangelist’s own expression of his ecclesiastical consciousness, and consequently the most important testimony to the character and origin of this Gospel. … The idea that the Church is built upon Peter as its foundation is simply unthinkable in the first century.”⁹³93Das Urchristentum, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1902, p. 584. This objection will be considered in Vol. III of this Handbook, where we deal with the Primacy of Peter.

2. The Gospel of St. Mark

In the same manner we can prove that the Gospel of St. Mark is authentic.

a) From External Testimonies.—α) Here again Papias is our oldest witness. He reports what he heard from a certain “Presbyter John” as follows: “This also the Presbyter [John] used to say: Mark, having been Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered, though he did not [record] in order (τάξει) the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed Him; but later on, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter, who used to frame his teaching so as to meet the wants of his hearers, but not as making a connected narrative of the Lord’s discourses. Thus Mark committed no error, for he wrote down some particulars just as he called them to mind; he took heed to one point only—to omit nothing of what he had heard, and to state nothing falsely, in [his narrative of] them.”⁹⁴94Eusebius, H. E., III, 39, 15: Καὶ τοῦθ’ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν· Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα· οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δέ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ· ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν. ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς. (P. G., XX, 300). Cfr. H. Pope, O.P., The Catholic Student’s “Aids” to the Bible, Vol. II, p. 200. With this testimony of the Bishop of Hierapolis, writing in the early part of the second century, the tradition of Christian antiquity agrees in every essential detail, except that the relation of St. Mark’s Gospel to St. Peter is more fully explained by later writers.

β) Date of Composition.—According to Clement of Alexandria, St. Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of many who had heard St. Peter preach in Rome. “When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade it, nor encouraged it.”⁹⁵95Eusebius, loco. cit., P. G., XX, 552; H. Pope, O.P., ibid., p. 199. This passage would seem to indicate that the Second Gospel was composed during St. Peter’s first visit to Rome, about A.D. 42-44, though this assumption cannot be squared with the statement of St. Irenaeus that “after their departure [he is speaking of SS. Peter and Paul] Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he, too, having written what was preached by Peter, delivered it to us.”⁹⁶96Adv. Haer., III, 1. Writings of St. Irenaeus, tr. by Roberts and Rambaut, Vol. I, p. 259; cfr. Pope, op. cit., p. 175. It is possible, however, that St. Mark began the work of compiling his Gospel during the lifetime of St. Peter, but did not complete it until after his death. If this be the case, the Second Gospel was probably written about the year 67. Against this is the testimony of the subscription to later uncial and cursive MSS. of the Greek New Testament, which asserts that the Gospel was written ten or twelve years after the Ascension of Christ.⁹⁷97Pope, ibid., II, 204.

b) Intrinsic Proof of the Authenticity of the Gospel of St. Mark.—α) The Author.—If the Second Gospel is actually a report, compiled for Roman readers, of the sermons delivered in that city by St. Peter, many of its peculiarities can be simply and naturally explained. The special privileges of the Prince of the Apostles are either omitted or but briefly indicated. There is no mention of Peter’s walking upon the water to meet the Lord,⁹⁸98Matt. XIV, 28–33. or of Christ’s promise of the primacy,⁹⁹99Matt. XVI, 17–19. or of the tax laid upon the Jews for the service of the Temple.¹⁰⁰100Matt. XVII, 24–26. St. Peter’s splendid profession of faith in the divinity of Christ¹⁰¹101Matt. XVI, 16. is reported in an abbreviated form,¹⁰²102Mark VIII, 29. whereas his shameful denial of the Master and its prediction are related at length.¹⁰³103Mark XIV, 29–31, 54, 66, 72. The author of the Second Gospel carefully explains Jewish institutions and customs,¹⁰⁴104Mark VII, 3 sq.; XII, 42; XIV, 12. translates Hebrew words,¹⁰⁵105Mark III, 17, 22; V, 41; VII, 11, 34; X, 46; XIV, 36. but assumes his readers to be familiar with Roman institutions,¹⁰⁶106Mark XV, 1, 39, 44, 45. employs Latin phrases more frequently than the other Evangelists,¹⁰⁷107Mark XV, 39, 44 sq.; VI, 27; V, 9, 15. and explains Greek words by their Latin equivalents.¹⁰⁸108Mark XII, 42; XV, 16. Other reasons in Pope, op. cit., pp. 201 sqq. All this presupposes a class of readers conversant with Roman, but not with Hebrew customs and usages.

β) Date of Composition.—The Second Gospel itself does not furnish any clew which might aid us in establishing a more definite date of composition than the one we have obtained from the writings of Clement and Irenaeus. But, on the other hand, it contains nothing that would contradict the testimony of these writers.

3. The Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles

a) Extrinsic Testimonies.—α) The Author.—Luke, the companion and collaborator of St. Paul,¹⁰⁹109Col. IV, 14; Phm. V, 24; 2 Tim. IV, 11. is unanimously designated by ecclesiastical tradition as the author of the Third Gospel as well as of the Acts of the Apostles. The Muratorian Fragment speaks of him as follows: “Tertio [tertium] Evangelii librum secundo Lucan. Lucas iste medicus post acensum [ascensum] XPI, cum eo [eum] Paulus quasi ut iuris studiosum secundum adsumsisset, numeni [nomine] suo ex opinione conscribset [conscripsit]; dum tamen nec ipse dvidit [vidit] in carne, et ide[o] prout asequi [assequi] potuit; ita et ad [ab] nativitate Iohannis ex decipolis [discipulis] incipet [incepit] dicere.”¹¹⁰110Lines 2 sqq.; cfr. Pope, op. cit., p. 224. Text of the Muratorian Fragment, with apparatus criticus and bibliography, in Th. Zahn, Grundriss d. Geschichte d. neutestamentl. Kanons (Leipsic, 1904), pp. 76–81. And in another place: “Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optime Theophile comprehendit, quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur, sicut et semote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.”¹¹¹111Lines 34 sqq.

β) Date of Composition.—We have no definite information as to the time when St. Luke composed his Gospel or the Acts of the Apostles.

b) Intrinsic Criteria.—α) According to an ancient tradition, St. Luke, who was a physician of Antiochian parentage, accompanied St. Paul on his missionary journeys. It is in this twofold capacity that the author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts presents himself to the reader. He employs the technical terminology of Greek medicine in describing diseases and their symptoms,¹¹²112Luke IV, 38; XXII, 44; Acts XXVIII, 8. and dwells with a certain predilection on the origin, duration, peculiarities, and cure of the maladies healed by Jesus.¹¹³113Luke IV, 38–40; VIII, 43–56; Acts III, 2 sqq.; IV, 22; IX, 33 sqq. That the author was a companion of St. Paul can be inferred from those sections of the Acts in which he speaks in the first person plural (the so-called We-sections).¹¹⁴114Acts XVI, 10–17; XX, 4–16; XXI, 1–18; XXVII, 1–28, 16. Besides, the vocabulary of the Third Gospel and that of the Acts are “remarkably Pauline in tone.”¹¹⁵115Pope, “Aids,” Vol. II (1918), pp. 229 sq. Consequently, we are justified in concluding that St. Luke is the author both of the Third Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles.

β) Date of Composition.—According to Acts I, 1, the Third Gospel was written before the Acts. Hence if we can ascertain the date of the composition of the latter, we shall have a definite clue for dating the former. The Acts of the Apostles must have been completed before the destruction of Jerusalem and the death of St. Paul, because the fall of the city is nowhere mentioned, despite the fact that in the last chapter the Jews are threatened with the divine vengeance,¹¹⁶116Acts XXVIII, 25 sqq. and it is reported that St. Paul “remained two whole years in his own hired lodging, … preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, without prohibition.”¹¹⁷117Acts XXVIII, 30 sq. Had St. Luke written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the death of St. Paul, he could not have passed over these two important facts in silence. Consequently, the Acts of the Apostles must have been completed towards the end of the first year of the captivity of St. Paul, i. e., about A.D. 63 or 64, and it is reasonable to conclude that the Third Gospel, which stands in such intimate relation to the Acts, was composed in the early part of that captivity, i. e., about 62 or 63.¹¹⁸118Cfr. L. C. Fillion, S.S., The Life of Christ, tr. by N. Thompson, Vol. I, pp. 57 sqq.

4. The Gospel of St. John

a) Extrinsic Criteria.—α) The Author.—Three mutually independent witnesses of the latter half of the second century—the writer of the Muratorian Fragment, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenaeus—expressly designate John the “beloved disciple,” the son of Zebedee, as the author of the Fourth Gospel. The Muratorian Fragment (middle of the second century) says: “Quarti Evangeliorum Johannis ex decipolis [discipulis] cohortantibus condiscipolis et eps [episcopis] suis dixit: conjejunate mihi: odie [hodie] triduo [triduum], et qui[d] cuique fuerit revelatum, alterutrum nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum andreae ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cun[c]tis Johannis suo nomine cun[c]ta describ[e]ret,”¹¹⁹119Lines 9 sqq.; cfr. Pope, op. cit., pp. 275 sq. etc. Clement of Alexandria, who has preserved for us several traditions about St. John,¹²⁰120Quis Dives Salvetur, XLII; Loeb Classical Library, Clement of Alexandria, tr. by G. W. Butterworth, London, 1919, pp. 357 sqq. reports: “And John, the last of them all [namely, of the four Evangelists], when he noticed that in the Gospels compiled by the others were narrated the things pertaining to the body [i.e., humanity] of Christ, being himself filled with the breath of the Divine Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel at the request of his acquaintances.”¹²¹121Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., VI, XIV, 7; P. G. XX, 552. St. Irenaeus repeatedly speaks of the Fourth Gospel as the work of “John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast,” adding that the Gospel was written “at Ephesus in Asia.”¹²²122Adv. Haer., III, 1, 1; Roberts’ and Rambaut’s translation, Vol. I, p. 259. This testimony is of great importance, for Clement was a native of Asia, and in his boyhood days had known St. Polycarp, a pupil of St. John. How well he remembered this witness of the Apostolic age may be seen from his Letter to Florinus, who was also a disciple of Polycarp, but had shown an inclination to join the Gnostic sect of the Valentinians. “While I was still a boy,” Clement writes, “I knew thee in lower Asia with Polycarp. … I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and discoursed. … as he told of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, … and about his miracles and teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of ‘the Word of Life.’ Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures. These things were told to me by the mercy of God, and I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart.”¹²³123Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., V, xx, 4–7 (P. G., XX, 484 sq.); cfr. Pope, Aids, II, 271.

“Thus,” observes Fr. Pope, “Irenaeus was an attentive hearer of Polycarp, who was over thirty years of age when John died and who survived him another fifty years. Nor is this all; for Irenaeus succeeded in the see of Lyons the venerable Pothinus, who died a martyr at the age of ninety and upwards, A.D. 177, in the persecution at Vienne.”¹²⁴124Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., V, 1, 29. Eusebius tells us that Pothinus, too, had been ‘a hearer of Polycarp in his youth.’¹²⁵125Ibid., V, v, 8. Thus Pothinus would have been about twenty years of age when John died in A.D. 104. Consequently, while a gap of one hundred years separates the death of Irenaeus from that of John, this gap is bridged over in a singularly complete fashion, since Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, and Irenaeus’ immediate predecessor in the see of Lyons was another disciple of Polycarp, and, like him, had lived to an advanced age. Moreover it will have been noticed that in the above extracts St. Irenaeus mentions others who had ‘seen the Lord.’ These are, apparently, the ‘Elders’ to whom he refers so constantly in his writings.”¹²⁶126Adv. Haer., I, Prol., 2; I, xv, 6, 627; II, 22, 5, 785 etc.; Pope, op. cit., pp. 271 sq. See J. Chapman, John the Presbyter, pp. 15 sq.

Truly, as Professor F. Tillmann observes, “concerning none of the other Gospels does the argument from tradition lead through such a brilliant and complete chain of witnesses to the very time of its origin, as in the case of the Fourth Gospel.”¹²⁷127Esser-Mausbach, Religion, Christentum, Kirche, Vol. II, 5th ed., Kempten, 1923, p. 277.

β) Date of Composition.—Concerning the date of this Gospel all we learn from the most ancient witnesses is that John wrote his Gospel after Matthew, Mark, and Luke had written theirs. Clement of Alexandria and St. Irenaeus say so explicitly, and the Muratorian Fragment intimates as much by the sequence in which it lists the Gospels, putting the Johannine Gospel fourth and last.

b) Intrinsic Criteria.—α) The Author.—Judging from the contents of the Fourth Gospel, its author must have been a Jew by birth. This is attested by the numerous Hebrew and Aramaic words and phrases which he employs¹²⁸128ῥαββί (I, 50), ῥαββουνί (XX, 16), Μεσσίας (I, 42), Βηθεσδά (V, 2), μάννα (VI, 31), Γαββαθά (XIX, 13). and by the intimate knowledge of Jewish customs and traditions which he displays.¹²⁹129John II, 6, 13; V, 31 sqq.; VI, 4; VII, 2; XVIII, 28. Though written by a Jew, however, the Fourth Gospel was not intended for Jews, as may be gathered from the explanations it gives of Aramaic terms and Jewish customs.¹³⁰130John I, 38, 41 sq.; IX, 7; XIX, 13, 17; II, 6; XIX, 40 sqq. That the author was a native of Palestine is evident from his familiarity with the geography of the Holy Land.¹³¹131John XI, 18; V, 2; XVIII, 1; XIX, 20. That he was an eye-witness of the events which he narrates is indicated by the thrice repeated “we” of the prologue,¹³²132John I, 14, 16. by the inclusion of many intimate details,¹³³133John I, 35–43. and by the writer’s explicit declaration¹³⁴134John XIX, 35. that he had personally witnessed what he reported. In several passages the author is more definitely described as “that disciple whom Jesus loved.”¹³⁵135John XIII, 23–25; XIX, 26–35; XX, 2–10; John XXI, 20, 24. If we add to this the fact that, where the calling of the first two disciples is described,¹³⁶136John I, 35 sqq. the name of only one of them is mentioned, and that the Fourth Gospel records the calling of Peter and Andrew, but not that of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who are always mentioned together by the Synoptics, we have every reason to conclude that the author of the Fourth Gospel can have been none other than either James or John. Since St. James died a martyr in 42, St. John must have composed the Fourth Gospel.¹³⁷137Acts XII, 2. On the authenticity of the Gospel of St. John there exists a vast literature. The most recent contribution is The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel, by H. P. V. Nunn (London, 1927). This Protestant writer ranges himself on the side of the old orthodox theologians who rightly regard John, the son of Zebedee, as the writer of the Fourth Gospel. He does not approach the problem in the manner of a theologian, but treats it throughout according to the best method of historical criticism. “This,” says W. H. Kent in a review of Nunn’s monograph, “is certainly the surest and most effective method of conducting the discussion. For on this matter at any rate, too many modern critics have practically abandoned their professed principles and adopted an attitude of authority and dogmatism. This point has been very forcibly put by Professor Sanday in a passage which Mr. Nunn takes as an appropriate watchword, to wit: ‘The truth is that the criticism of the Fourth Gospel on the Liberal side has become largely conventional; one writer after another repeats certain stereotyped formulæ without testing them. It is high time that they were really tested and confronted with the facts.’ The evidence brought together [by Mr. Nunn] may well suffice to show that these words are well warranted. And we find some amazing instances of the air of authority assumed by the ‘competent critics’ of the present day, or, to adopt the felicitous phrase of one of that goodly company, ‘those who believe themselves entitled to speak in the name of criticism.’ However appropriate it may be in other fields, this pontifical authority seems singularly out of place in matters of historical criticism, which should surely be decided in the dry light of facts and carefully tested evidence.” (Tablet, London, Dec. 3, 1927.) For an effective defence of the Fourth Gospel against the sophisms of modern Rationalists, see L. C. Fillion, S.S., The Life of Christ, tr. by N. Thompson, Vol. I, St. Louis, 1928, pp. 486–495; F. Godet, Commentaire sur l’Évangile de Saint Jean, 2nd ed., Vol. I, Paris, 1900; J. M. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Jean, Paris, 1925. The best English commentary is that by Westcott (Prot.). A good study of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel will be found in Archbishop McIntyre’s St. John, London, 1899.

β) Date of Composition.—We have but one intimation of the date of composition of the Fourth Gospel. It is John XXI, 20–23, which permits us to infer that the Apostle was far advanced in years when he wrote the so-called supplementary chapter (XXI) of his Gospel. If this chapter was not composed by St. John, but added by another writer, this must have been done while St. John was still alive, because if he had been dead, the explanation of the Lord’s statement given in verse 23 would probably have been different. Consequently, the Fourth Gospel must have been composed towards the end of the first century.

5. The Epistles of St. Paul

a) Extrinsic Criteria.—α) The Author.—The Pauline authorship of all the Epistles attributed to the Apostle Paul, with the exception of that addressed to the Hebrews, is attested by the Muratorian Fragment,¹³⁸138Lines 39 sqq. and confirmed by the second-century Syriac version known as the Peshitto, and the Latin Itala, also of the second century, both of which contain all the canonical Epistles of St. Paul. An indirect proof for the authenticity of these letters is found in the quotations from them scattered through the writings of the Apostolic Fathers at the beginning of the second century. Aside from the short letter to Philemon, there is not one among the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul which is not cited by the early Fathers.

β) Date of Composition.—Tradition has handed down to us no certain information regarding the date of composition of the different Epistles of St. Paul.

b) Intrinsic Criteria.—α) The Author.—All the Pauline Epistles, with the sole exception of that addressed to the Hebrews, begin with the name of the writer (“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ”; “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,” etc.), thus clearly and definitely testifying to their Pauline authorship. All of them, moreover, are so intimately interrelated by their peculiar doctrinal content, that if one is genuine, the rest must necessarily be genuine too. The same agreement appears (aside from the Epistle to the Hebrews) in the external form, the unity of disposition, and the style of all the different letters.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, as we have noted, occupies an exceptional position among the Letters of St. Paul, but its peculiar characteristics are not such as to compel us to deny its Pauline authorship. While the contents are in complete harmony with the ideas set forth in the other Pauline Epistles, the deviations result mainly from the absence of the epistolary form, the peculiar character of the treatise, the manner in which the Old Testament is cited therein, and the purity and perfection of the style. These facts can be satisfactorily accounted for by the assumption, based upon ancient tradition, that this Epistle was outlined by St. Paul, but drawn up by one of his pupils.¹³⁹139F. Prat, S.J., The Theology of St. Paul, tr. by J. L. Stoddard, Vol. I, London, 1926, pp. 355 sqq. This opinion, which can be traced to Origen, is shared by the majority of critics and exegetes at the present day. “Paul would then have furnished the ideas and inspiration, and a disciple of Paul, known only to God, would have collected them into a whole from memory, adding the necessary explanations to them. It is to him that the diction, the arrangement of the parts, in a word the composition, is due. He was the writer of a work of which St. Paul remains the author. It was said formerly in the same sense that the second Gospel was the Gospel of Peter, and the third Gospel that of Paul, because St. Mark and St. Luke were thought to have reproduced respectively the preaching of the two great Apostles. The hypothesis of Origen is sufficiently elastic to yield to all the requirements of criticism. It takes account of the similitudes and the differences, and satisfies the data of tradition. We think it necessary to adhere to this, and to-day the majority of Catholics, with infinite shades of opinion that it is neither possible nor useful to discuss, think the same. Directly or indirectly, the basis of the Epistle is Paul’s; the form is that of an unknown person, whose name is known to God alone.” (Prat, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 362 sq.) Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., VI, 25) has preserved for us the actual words of Origen: Ἐγὼ δὲ ἀποφαινόμενος εἴποιμ’ ἂν ὅτι τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ Ἀποστόλου ἐστὶν ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἡ σύνθεσις ἀπομνημονεύσαντός τινος τὰ ἀποστολικὰ καὶ ὡσπερεὶ σχολιογραφήσαντος τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου. He adds that if any church regards the Epistle as being Paul’s, that Church is to be praised, for the ancients have handed down this opinion to us not without cause. But God only knows who really wrote it (τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς Θεὸς οἶδεν). Some propose Clement of Rome; others Luke. Thus, according to Origen, the editor of the Epistle is not a simple copyist writing under dictation, but a writer, whose is the diction and the composition, but who records the thoughts and words of the Apostle, which he preserved in his memory and which he explains or comments upon, when there is need of it, as formerly grammarians and annotators did in the case of obscure passages of the classic authors.” (Prat, l.c.)

β) Date of Composition.—The time when the different Epistles were written can be inferred from their subject-matter,—quite definitely in the case of some of them, more or less approximately in the case of others. All were written between the end of the forties or the beginning of the fifties and the year 67 A.D. The purpose of the present treatise makes it unnecessary to discuss this problem at length.¹⁴⁰140Prat, op. cit.; J. Belser, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 2nd ed., Freiburg, 1905; M. Seisenberger, Practical Handbook for the Study of the Scripture, new revised edition, N. Y., 1925, pp. 404 sqq.; Brüll-Messmer, Outlines of Bible Knowledge, 2nd ed., Freiburg, 1927, pp. 137 sqq.; J. M. Simon, A Scripture Manual, Vol. II, New York, 1928, pp. 285 sqq.