756 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



story, as told in the first Gospel, is merely a version of that told in 

 the second and third. Nevertheless, the discrepancies are serious 

 and irreconcilable ; and, on this ground alone, a suspension of 

 judgment, at the least, is called for. But there is a great deal 

 more to be said. From the dawn of scientific biblical criticism 

 until the present day the evidence against the long - cherished 

 notion that the three synoptic gospels are the works of three 

 independent authors, each prompted by divine inspiration, has 

 steadily accumulated, until, at the present time, there is no visible 

 escape from the conclusion that each of the three is a compilation 

 consisting of a groundwork common to all three — the threefold 

 tradition ; and of a superstructure, consisting, firstly, of matter 

 common to it Avith one of the others, and, secondly, of matter spe- 

 cial to each. The use of the terms " groundwork " and " super- 

 structure " by no means implies that the latter must be of later 

 date than the former. On the contrary, some parts of it may be, 

 and probably are, older than some parts of the groundwork.* 



The story of the Gadarene swine belongs to the groundwork ; 

 at least, the essential part of it, in which the belief in demoniac 

 possession is expressed, does ; and therefore the compilers of the 

 first, second, and third gospels, whoever they were, certainly ac- 

 cepted that belief (which, indeed, was universal among both Jews 

 and pagans at that time), and attributed it to Jesus. 



What, then, do we know about the originator, or originators, 

 of this groundwork — of that threefold tradition which all three 

 witnesses (in Paley's phrase) agree upon — that we should allow 

 their mere statements to outweigh the counter-arguments of hu- 

 manity, of common sense, of exact science, and to imperil the 

 respect which all would be glad to be able to render to their 

 Master ? 



Absolutely nothing, f There is no proof, nothing more than a 

 fair presumption, that any one of the gospels existed, in the state 

 in which we find it in the authorized version of the Bible, before 

 the second century, or, in other words, sixty or seventy years after 

 the events recorded. And, between that time and the date of the 

 oldest extant manuscripts of the Gospels, there is no telling what 

 additions and alterations and interpolations may have been made. 

 It may be said that this is all mere speculation, but it is a good 



* See, for an admirable discussion of the whole subject, Dr. Abbott's article on the Gos- 

 pels in the " Encyclopaedia Britannica " ; and the remarkable monograph by Prof. Volkmar, 

 " Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit " (1882). Whether we agree with the con- 

 clusions of these writers or not, the method of critical investigation which they adopt is 

 unimpeachable. 



f Notwithstanding the hard words shot at me from behind the hedge of anon}Tnity by 

 a writer in a recent number of the " Quarterly Review," I repeat, without the slightest fear 

 of refutation, that the four Gospels, as they have come to us, are the work of unknown 



