April 1, 1887.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGK ♦ 



137 



and a ferment of inquiry which cannot fail to elicit fresh 

 truths upon this difficult line of investigation. It is long 

 since geological literature has bsen enriched by so able, so 

 philosophical, and so profound a work. 



(go sissip* 



By Richard A. Peoctoe. 



A CLERICAL reader asks me to insert these notes on my 

 article on " The Beginning of Christianity." " They do not 

 deal," he remarks, " with debateable matters or interpreta- 

 tions, but with simple facts " : — 



1. The Gospel of St. John does not contain a word bearing on 

 the Qaartodeciman dispute, though, strange to say, it is a not 

 uncommon notion that it does. 



2. In the wholesale rejection of all but five of the books of the 

 Xew Testament too are not dealing with " ascertained facts," but 

 accepting unreservedly the aggregate of theories supported by 

 various critics, who display among themselves huge differences of 

 opinion. 



As to the second note, I remark that, in the article referred 

 to, I have not accepted unreservedly or otherwise the 

 opinion of Baur. I expressly spoke of those five books 

 of the New Testament as proved to have been really 

 written by those whose names are associated with them, 

 which by no means implies any opinion as to the remaining 

 portions of the New Testament. But elsewhere I have 

 undoubtedly conveyed as mine the opinion that the three 

 first Gospels cannot possibly have been written by those 

 whose names they bear. It requires no study of Strauss or 

 Baur, or other kindred critics, to find the clearest traces in 

 the Gospels named after Luke and Mark that they belong to 

 the beginning of the second century. The Gospel according 

 to Matthew may have been in existence nearly in its present 

 form as early as 80 a.d., while those passages in which 

 reference is made to the second coming of Christ must have 

 been written (and possibly by Matthew) shortly before the 

 fall of Jerusalem — say somewhere between GO a.d. and 

 70 A.D. By the time the second Gospel (by which I mean 

 Luke's not Mark's) was written, it had become clear that 

 the expectation of the approaching end of the world which, 

 whether he had held it himself or not, Christ had certainly 

 aroused in the minds of his followers (assuming as much of 

 the narrative as we possibly can to be historical) had been 

 delusive. The Gospel according to Mark is so manifestly 

 compiled from the other two that its date must be set later 

 than theirs. The only reason for setting it before the 

 Gospel according to Luke would seem to have been some 

 idea of explaining the opening words of the last-named 

 narrative — though still leaving those words open to an ex- 

 ception akin to that suggested by BiondeUo, since Matthew 

 and ilark, though they may be more than one, are yet not 

 many. 



ily clerical critic's first note touches as little on what I 

 actually wrot3 as his second. I certainly never suggested 

 that the writer, or (if Arnold is right) the compilers, of the 

 fourth Gospel wrote one word bearing on the Quartodeciman 

 controversy. In the progress of that controversy, as every 

 student of the history of e;irly Christianity knows, many 

 subjects were dealt with besides the altogether paltry 

 Quartodeciman question itself. I write away from my 

 books, being in the midst of the petroleum region of Penn- 

 sylvania on a lecturing tour, and am therefore unable to 

 give details with all the accuracy I should desire. But I 

 think I am right in saying that Polycarp, somewhere about 

 the years 1G.3, 166 (he was killed in 167), took part in the 



Gnostic controversy against Talentinus and Marcion. 

 IreniBus, unless I mistake, mentions that Polyairp quoted 

 against the Gnostics the words of John the Apostle. And 

 it is certain that Justin, somewhat earlier (he was killed in 

 164), did not quote John in favour of Gnosticism. Yet the 

 Gospel according to John is not only obviously not by John, 

 and not in the slightest degree " according to " the intensely 

 anti-Pauline John of the Apocalypse, but is ably and power- 

 fully Gnostic. Throiighout the period during which the 

 Quartodeciman controversy was in progress, the authority 

 of the fourth Gospel in favour of Gnosticism would have 

 been repeatedly quoted had the Gospel then been recognised 

 as canonical — nay, had it even existed. The "Fragment 

 of Muratori " showed that it existed very soon after, and 

 the Gnostics took care that it should quickly be recognised 

 as of authority. But the fact that Polycarp had quoted 

 John the Apostle against the Gnostics can never be recon- 

 ciled with the alleged authorship of the fourth Gospel — 

 apart from the obvious difference between the ideas of its 

 writer and those of the writer of the Apocalypse. 



* * * 



Of course the evidence is also clear that the fourth Gospel 

 could not have been written by a Jew. To mention but one 

 striking proof of the foreign authorship, the three oldest 

 original manuscripts have " Bethany beyond Jordan " where 

 the later writers ingeniously substituted " Bethabara." 

 Now, as Matthew Arnold points out (I think in his " God 

 and the Bible "), a Jew would be about as likely to speak 

 of " Bethany beyond Jordan " as an Englishman to speak 

 of " ^Yillesden beyond Trent," Bethany being a suburb of 

 Jerusalem, and Jerusalem not within twenty miles of the 

 Jordan. 



* * * 



The actual Quartodeciman controvei-sy related, of course, 

 to the absurdly trivial question whether Easter Day should 

 be wholly determined by the Jewish Passover, or so far 

 regulated by Christian rules as to fall always on Sunday. 

 On this matter the Eastern and Western Churches took 

 opposite sides, and adhered to their opposite opinions with 

 a resolution worthy of a better cause. The fourth Gospel 

 only indirectly suggests any opinion on the question. The 

 writer, whoever he may have been, always speaks of Jewish 

 ceremonials like a Gentile, not like a Jew ; and we may 

 infer that his opinion on the great Fourteenth Day con- 

 troversy would have been in favoirr of the decision adopted 

 by the Eastern Church, according to which the strictly 

 Jewish usage was abandoned in favour of a half-Jewish, 

 half-Christian compromise. 



The following letter has been addressed to the publishers 

 of Knowledge by another clerical correspondent : — 



In the last number of Ksowledse there is an article on the 

 " Beginning of Chri-stianity," by Mr. K. A. Proctor, in which the 

 following passage occurs : — 



" Even so strange a circumstance as the crucifying of three per- 

 sons, of whom two died but the third was restored to life, actually 

 happened to the knowledge of Josephus, who describes the event in 

 the most natural manner ; but it happened long after the time of 

 Pontins Pilate, and the three who were crucified were Josephus's 

 personal friends." 



Would you have the goodness to ask Mr. Proctor his authority for 

 saying this ? 



On the event referred to Josephus writes thus : — 



" Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be 

 lawful to call him a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful 

 works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. 

 He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the 

 Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion 

 of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, 

 those that loved him at the first did not forsake him : for he 



