222 AGNOSTICISM VII 



were, certainly accepted 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 three- 

 fold tradition which all three witnesses (in Paley's 

 phrase) agree upon that we should allow their 

 mere statements to outweigh the counter argu- 

 ments of humanity, 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. 1 There is no proof, no- 

 thing more than a fair presumption, that any one 

 of the Gospels existed, in the state in which we 

 find it in the authorised 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 deal more. As competent scholars and 

 honest men, our revisers have felt compelled to 

 point out that such things have happened even 



1 Notwithstanding the hard words shot at me from behind 

 the hedge of anonymity by a writer in a recent number of the 

 Quarterly Review, I repeat, without the slightest fear of refuta- 

 tion, that the four Gospels, as they have come to us, are the 

 work of unknown writers. 



