,,when ,,were ,,our ,,gospels ,,written8
  ,by ,charles ,bradlaugh  ,fourth      
,edition  ,london3 ,freethought         
,publishing ,company1 #bh1 ,stonecutter 
,street ,e4,c4  #ahha4  ,london3        
,printed ,by ,annie ,besant ,and        
,charles ,bradlaugh1  #bh1 ,stonecutter 
,street1 ,e4,c4   ,,prefatory ,,note    
,,to ,,fourth ,,edition4       ,since   
this pamphlet was originally penned in  
#ahfg1 the      author of ,supernatural 
,religion has in his three volumes      
placed a very storehouse of information 
within the easy      reach of every     
student1 and many of ,dr4 ,teschendorf's
      reckless statements have been     
effectively dealt with in that          
masterly work4 ,in the present brief    
pamphlet there is only      the very    
merest index to matters which in        
,supernatural      ,religion are        
exhaustively treated4 ,part ,,ii4 of    
,the      ,freethinkers' ,text-,book1 by
 ,mrs ,besant1 has travelled over       
the same ground with much care1 and has 

given exact      reference to           
authorities on each point4   ,the       
,religious ,tract ,society1 some time   
since1 issued1 prefaced with their high 
commendation1 a translation of a        
pamphlet by ,dr4 ,constantine           
,tischendorf1 entitled ,when were our   
,gospels ,written8 ,in the introductory 
preface we are not unfairly told that on
 the credibility of the four ,gospels   
the whole of ,christianity rests1 as a  
building on its foundations4 ,it is     
proposed in this brief essay to deal    
with the character of ,dr4              
,tischendorf's advocacy1 then to examine
 the genuineness of the four ,gospels1  
as affirmed by the ,religious ,tract    
,society's pamphlet1 and at the same    
time to ascertain1 so far as is possible
 in the space1 how far the ,gospel      
narrative is credible4  ,the ,religious 
,tract ,society state that ,dr4         
,tischendorf's brochure is a repetition 
of arguments for the genuineness and    
authenticity of the four ,gospels1 which

 the erudite ,doctor had previously     
published for the learned classes1 with 
explanations now given in addition1 to  
render the arguments intelligible to    
meaner capacities2 and as the ,infidel  
and ,deist are especially referred to as
 likely to be overthrown by this        
pamphlet1 we may presume that the       
society considers that in the #aai      
pages--which the translated essay       
occupies--they have presented the best  
paper that can be issued on their behalf
 for popular reading on this question4  
,the praise accorded by the society1 and
 sundry laudations appropriated with    
much modesty in his own preface by ,dr4 
,constantine ,tischendorf to himself1   
compel one at the outset to regard the  
,christian manifesto as a most          
formidable production4 ,the ,society's  
translator impressively tells us that   
the pamphlet has been three times       
printed in ,german and twice in ,france2
 that it has been issued in ,dutch and  
,russian1 and is done into ,italian by  

an ,archbishop with the actual          
approbation of the ,pope4 ,the author's 
preface adds an account of his great    
journeyings and heavy travelling        
expenses incurred out of an original    
capital of a few unpaid bills1 ending in
 the discovery of a basketful of old    
parchments destined for the flames by   
the ,christian monks in charge1 but     
which from the hands of ,dr4            
,teschendorf are used by the ,religious 
,tract ,society to neutralise all       
doubts1 and to blow to pieces the       
,rationalistic criticism of ,germany and
 the coarser ,infidelity of ,england4   
,doubtless ,dr4 ,teschendorf and the    
,society consider it some evidence in   
favor of the genuineness and            
authenticity of the four ,gospels that  
the learned ,doctor was enabled to spend
 #e1jjj dollars out of less than        
nothing1 and that the ,pope regards his 
pamphlet with favor1 or they would not  
trouble to print such statements4 ,we   
frankly accord them the full advantage  

of any argument which may fairly be     
based on such facts4 ,an autograph      
letter of endorsement by the ,pope is   
certainly a matter which a ,protestant  
,tract ,society--who regard the scarlet 
whore at ,babylon with horror--may well 
be proud of4  ,dr4 ,tischendorf states  
that he has since #ahci devoted himself 
to the textual study of the ,new        
,testament1 and it ought to be          
interesting to the orthodox to know     
that1 as a result of twenty-seven years'
 labor1 he now declares that it has been
 placed beyond doubt that the original  
text4444 had in many places undergone   
such serious modifications of meaning1  
as to leave us in painful uncertainty as
 to what the apostles had actually      
written1 and that the right course to   
take is to set aside the received text  
altogether and to construct a fresh     
text4  ,this is pleasant news for the   
true believer1 promulgated by authority 
of the managers of the great ,christian 
depot in ,paternoster ,row1 from whence 

many scores of thousands of copies of   
this incorrect received text have       
nevertheless been issued without comment
 to the public1 even since the society  
have published in ,english ,dr4         
,tischendorf s declaration of its       
unreliable character4  ,with the modesty
 and honorable reticence peculiar       
to-great men1 ,dr4 ,tischendorf records 
his successes in reading hitherto       
unreadable parchments1 and we learn that
 he has received approval from several  
learned bodies1 and even from crowned   
heads1 for his wonderful performances4  
,as a consistent ,christian1 who knows  
that the powers that be are ordained of 
,god1 our critic without rival1 for so  
he prints himself1 regards the praise of
 crowned heads as higher in degree than 
that of learned bodies4  ,the ,doctor   
discovered in #ahdd the ,,ms4 on which  
he now relies to confute audacious      
,infidelity1 in the ,convent of ,st4    
,catherine at ,sinai2 he brought away a 
portion1 and handed6 that portion1 on   

his return1 to the ,saxon               
,government--they paying all expenses4  
,the ,doctor1 however1 did not then     
divulge where he had found the ,,ms4 ,it
 was for the advantage of humankind that
 the place should be known at once1 for1
 at least1 two reasons4 ,first1 because 
by aid of the remainder of this         
,,ms4--the most precious ,bible treasure
 in existence--the faulty text of the   
,new ,testament was to be reconstructed2
 and the sooner the work was done the   
better for believers in ,christianity4  
,and1 secondly1 the whole story of the  
discovery might then have been more     
easily confirmed in every particular4   
,for fifteen years1 at least1 ,dr4      
,tischendorf hid from the world the     
precise locality in which his treasure  
had been discovered4 ,nay1 he was even  
fearful when he knew that other         
,christians were trying to find the true
 text1 and he experienced peculiar      
satisfaction when he ascertained that   
his silence had misled some pious       

searchers after reliable copies of      
,god's message to all humankind2        
although all this time he was well aware
 that our received copies of ,god's     
revelation had undergone serious        
modifications since the message had been
 delivered from the ,holy ,ghost by     
means of the ,evangelists4  ,in #ahec1  
nine years after the original discovery1
 ,dr4 ,tischendorf again visited the    
,sinai convent1 but although he had     
enjoined on the monks to take religious 
care of the remains of which they1 on   
the former occasion1 would not yield up 
possession1 he1 on this second occasion1
 and apparently after careful search1   
discovered eleven short lines1 which    
convinced him that the greater part of  
the ,,ms4 had been destroyed4 ,he still1
 however1 kept the place secret1        
although he had no longer any known     
reason for so doing2 and1 having        
obtained an advance of funds from the   
,russian ,government1 he1 in #ahei1     
tried a third time for his pearl of ,st4

 ,catherine1 which1 in #ahec1 he felt   
convinced had been destroyed1 and as to 
which he had nevertheless1 in the       
meantime1 been troubled by fears that   
the good cause might be aided by some   
other than ,dr4 ,teschendorf discovering
 and publishing the priceless treasure1 
which1 according to his previous        
statements1 he must have felt convinced 
did not longer exist4 ,on this third    
journey the ,doctor discovered the very 
fragments which1 fifteen years before1  
he had taken out of the basket1 and also
 other parts of the ,old ,testament1 the
 ,new ,testament complete1 and1 in      
addition1 ,barnabas and part of ,hermas4
  ,with wonderful preciseness1 and with 
great audacity1 ,dr4 ,tischendorf refers
 the transcription of the discovered    
,bible to the first half of the fourth  
century4 ,have ,dr4 ,tischendorf's      
patrons here ever read of ,,mss4        
discovered in the same ,convent of ,st4 
,catherine1 at ,sinai1 of which an      
account was published by ,dr4           

,constantine ,simonides1 and concerning 
which the ,westminster ,review said1 ,we
 share the suspicions1 to use the       
gentlest word which occurs to us1       
entertained1 we believe1 by all         
competent critics and antiquarians4  ,in
 #ahfc ,dr4 ,tischendorf published1 at  
the cost of the ,russian ,emperor1 a    
splendid but very costly edition of his 
,sinaitic ,,ms4 in columns1 with a      
,latin introduction4 ,the book is an    
expensive one1 and copies of it are not 
very plentiful in ,england4 ,perhaps the
 ,religious ,tract ,society have not    
contributed to its circulation so       
liberally as did the pious ,emperor of  
all the ,russias4 ,surely a text on     
which our own is to be re-constructed   
ought to be in the hands at least of    
every ,english clergyman and ,young     
,men's ,christian ,association4         
,christianity1 writes ,dr4 ,tischendorf1
 does not1 strictly speaking1 rest on   
the moral teaching of ,jesus2 it rests  
on his person only4 ,if we are in error 

in believing in the person of ,christ as
 taught in the ,gospels1 then the       
,church herself is in error1 and must be
 given up as a deception4 ,all the world
 knows that our ,gospels are nothing    
else than biographies of ,christ4 ,we   
have no other source of information with
 respect to the life of ,jesus4 ,so     
that1 according to the ,religious ,tract
 ,society and its advocate1 if the      
credibility of the ,gospel biography be 
successfully impugned1 then the         
foundations of ,christianity are        
destroyed4  ,it becomes1 therefore1 of  
the highest importance to show that the 
biography of ,jesus1 as given in the    
four ,gospels1 is absolutely incredible 
and self-contradictory4  ,it is alleged 
in the ,society's preface that all the  
objections of infidelity have been      
hitherto unavailing4 ,this is1 however1 
not true4 ,it is rather the fact that   
the advocates of ,christianity when     
defeated on one point have shuffled to  
another1 either quietly passing the     

topic without further debate1 or loudly 
declaring that the point abandoned was  
really so utterly unimportant that it   
was extremely foolish in the assailant  
to regard it as worthy attack1 and that1
 in any case1 all the arguments had been
 repeatedly refuted by previous writers4
  ,to the following objections to the   
,gospel narrative the writer refuses to 
accept as answer1 that they have been   
previously discussed and disposed of4   
,the ,gospels which are yet mentioned by
 the names popularly associated with    
each do not tell us the hour1 or the    
day1 or the month1 or--save ,luke--the  
year1 in which ,jesus was born4 ,the    
only point on which the critical        
divines1 who have preceded ,dr4         
,teschendorf1 generally agree is1 that  
,jesus was not born on ,christmas day4  
,the ,oxford ,chronology1 collated with 
a full score of recognised authorities1 
gives us a period of more than seven    
years within which to place the dale4   
,so confused is the story as to the time

 of the birth1 that while ,matthew would
 make ,jesus born in the lifetime of    
,herod1 ,luke would fix the period of   
,jesus's birth as after ,herod's death4 
,christmas itself is a day surrounded   
with curious ceremonies of pagan origin1
 and in no way serving to fix the #beth 
,december as the natal day4 ,yet the    
exact period at which ,almighty ,god1 as
 a baby boy1 entered the world to redeem
 long-suffering humanity from the       
consequences of ,adam's ancient sin1    
should be of some importance4  ,nor is  
there any great certainty as to the     
place of birth of ,christ4 ,the ,jews1  
apparently in the very presence of      
,jesus1 reproached him that he ought to 
have been born at ,bethlehem4 ,nathaniel
 regarded him as of ,nazareth4 ,jesus   
never appears to have said to either1 ,i
 was born at ,bethlehem4 ,in ,matthew   
ii41 #f1 we find a quotation from the   
prophet3 ,and thou ,bethlehem1 in the   
land of ,judah1 art not the least       
amongst the princes of ,juda1 for out of

 thee shall come a ,governor that shall 
rule my people ,israel4 ,matthew lays   
the scene of the birth in ,bethlehem1   
and ,luke adopts the same place1        
especially bringing the child to        
,bethlehem for that purpose1 and        
,matthew tells us it is done to fulfil a
 prophecy4 ,micah v41 #b1 the only place
 in which similar words occur1 is not a 
prophecy referring to ,jesus at all4    
,the words are3 ,but thou ,beth-lehem   
,ephratah1 though thou be little among  
the thousands of ,judah1 yet out of thee
 shall he come forth unto me that is to 
be ruler in ,israel1 whose goings forth 
have been from of old1 from everlasting4
 ,this is not quoted correctly in       
,matthew1 and can hardly be said by any 
straining of language to apply to       
,jesus4 ,the credibility of a story on  
which ,christianity rests is bolstered  
up by prophecy in default of            
contemporary corroboration4 ,the        
difficulties are not lessened in tracing
 the parentage4 ,in ,matthew i41 #ag1 it

 is stated that the generations from    
,abraham to ,david are fourteen         
generations1 and from ,david until the  
carrying away into ,babylon are fourteen
 generations1 and from the carrying away
 into ,babylon unto ,christ are fourteen
 generations4 ,why has ,matthew made    
such a mistake in his computation of the
 genealogies--in the last division we   
have only thirteen names instead of     
fourteen1 even including the name of    
,jesus8 ,is this one of the cases of    
painful uncertainty which has induced   
the ,religious ,tract ,society and ,dr4 
,tischendorf to wish to set aside the   
textus receptus altogether8  ,from      
,david to ,zorobabel there are in the   
,old ,testament twenty generations2 in  
,matthew1 seventeen generations2 and in 
,luke1 twenty-three generations4 ,in    
,matthew from ,david to ,christ there   
are twenty-eight generations1 and in    
,luke from ,david to ,christ forty-three
 generations4 ,yet1 according to the    
,religious ,tract ,society1 it is on the

 credibility of these genealogies as    
part of the ,gospel history that the    
foundation of ,christianity rests4 ,the 
genealogy in the first ,gospel arriving 
at ,david traces to ,jesus through      
,solomon2 the third ,gospel from ,david 
traces through ,nathan4 ,in ,matthew the
 names from ,david are ,solomon1        
,roboam1 ,abia1 ,asa1 ,josaphat1 ,joram1
 ,ozias2 and in the ,old ,testament we  
trace the same names from ,david to     
,ahaziah1 whom ,i presume to be the same
 as ,ozias4 ,but in #bnd ,chronicles    
xxii41 #aa1 we find one ,joash1 who is  
not mentioned in ,matthew at all4 ,if   
the genealogy in ,matthew is correct1   
why is the name not mentioned8 ,amaziah 
is mentioned in chap1 xxiv41 v4 #bg1 and
 in chap1 xxvi41 v4 #a1 ,uzziah1 neither
 of whom are mentioned in ,matthew1     
where ,ozias is named as begetting      
,jotham1 when in fact three generations 
of men have come in between4 ,in        
,matthew and ,luke1 ,zorobabel is       
represented as the son of ,salathiel1   

while in #a ,chronicles iii41 #ag--ai1  
,zerubbabel is stated to be the son of  
,pedaiah1 the brother of ,salathiel4    
,matthew says ,abind was the son of     
,zorobabel 7chap1 i41 v4 #ac74 ,luke    
iii41 #bg1 says ,zorobabel's son was    
,rhesa4 ,the ,old ,testament contradicts
 both1 and gives ,meshollam1 and        
,hananiah1 and ,shelomith1 their sister 
7#a ,chronicles iii1 #ai71 as the names 
of ,zorobabel's children4 ,is this      
another piece of evidence in favor of   
,dr4 ,tischendorf's admirable doctrine1 
that it is necessary to reconstruct the 
text8  ,in the genealogies of ,matthew  
and ,luke there are only three names    
agreeing after that of ,david1 viz41    
,salathiel1 ,zorobabel1 and ,joseph--all
 the rest are utterly different4 ,the   
attempts at explanation which have been 
hitherto offered1 in order to reconcile 
these genealogies1 are scarcely         
creditable to the intellects of the     
,christian apologists4 ,they allege that
 ,joseph1 who by nature was the son of  

,jacob1 in the account of the law was   
the son of ,heli4 ,for ,heli and ,jacob 
were brothers by the same mother1 and   
,heli1 who was the elder1 dying without 
issue1 ,jacob1 as the law directed1     
married his widow2 in consequence of    
such marriage1 his son ,joseph was      
reputed in the law the son of ,heli4    
,this is pure invention to get over a   
difficulty--an invention not making the 
matter one whit more clear4 ,for if you 
suppose that these two persons were     
brothers1 then unless you invent a death
 of the mother's last husband and the   
widow's remarriage ,jacob and ,heli     
would be the sons of the same father1   
and the list of the ancestors should be 
identical in each genealogy4 ,but to get
 over the difficulty the pious do this4 
,they say1 although brothers1 they were 
only half-brothers2 although sons of the
 same mother1 they were not sons of the 
same father1 but had different fathers4 
,if so1 how is it that ,salathiel and   
,zorobabel occur as father and son in   

both genealogies8 ,another fashion of   
accounting for the contradiction is to  
give one as the genealogy of ,joseph and
 the other as the genealogy of ,mary4   
,which8  ,luke1 it is said4 ,why ,luke8 
what are ,luke's words8 ,luke speaks of 
,jesus being1 as was supposed1 the son  
of ,joseph1 which was the son of ,heli4 
,when ,luke says ,joseph1 the son of    
,heli1 did he mean ,mary1 the daughter  
of ,heli8 ,does the ,gospel say one     
thing and mean another8 because if that 
argument is worth anything1 then in     
every case where a man has a theory     
which disagrees with the text1 he may   
say the text means something else4 ,if  
this argument be permitted we must      
abandon in ,scriptural criticism the    
meaning which we should ordinarily      
intend to convey by any given word4 ,if 
you believe ,luke meant daughter1 why   
does the same word mean son in every    
other case all through the remainder of 
the genealogy8 ,and if the genealogy of 
,matthew be that of ,joseph1 and the    

genealogy of ,luke be that of ,mary1    
they ought not to have any point of     
agreement at all until brought to       
,david4 ,they1 nevertheless1 do agree   
and contradict each other in several    
places1 destroying the probability of   
their being intended as distinct        
genealogies4 ,there is some evidence    
that ,luke does not give the genealogy  
of ,mary in the ,gospel itself4 ,we are 
told that ,joseph went to ,bethlehem to 
be numbered because he was of the house 
of ,david3 if it had been ,mary it would
 have surely said so4 ,as according to  
the ,christian theory1 ,joseph was not  
the father of ,jesus1 it is not unfair  
to ask how it can be credible that      
,jesus's genealogy could be traced to   
,david in any fashion through ,joseph8  
,so far from ,mary being clearly of the 
tribe of ,judah 7to which the genealogy 
relates7 her cousinship to ,elisabeth   
would make her rather appear to belong  
to the tribe of ,levi4  ,to discuss the 
credibility of the miraculous conception

 and birth would be to insult the human 
understanding4 ,the mythologies of      
,greece1 ,italy1 and ,india1 give many  
precedents of sons of ,gods miraculously
 born4 ,italy1 ,greece1 and ,india1     
must1 however1 yield the palm to ,judea4
 ,the incarnate ,chrishna must give way 
to the incarnate ,christ4 ,a miraculous 
birth would be scouted to-day as        
monstrous2 antedate it #b1jjj years and 
we worship it as miracle4  ,matt1 i41   
#bb1 #bc1 says3 ,now all this was done1 
that it might be fulfilled which was    
spoken of the ,lord by the prophet1     
saying1 ,behold1 a virgin shall be with 
child1 and shall bring forth a son1 and 
they shall call his name ,emmanuel1     
which being interpreted is1 ,god with   
us4 ,this is supposed to be a quotation 
from ,isaiah vii41 #ad--af3 ,therefore  
the ,lord himself shall give you a sign2
 ,behold a virgin shall conceive1 and   
bear a son1 and shall call his name     
,immanuel4 ,butter and honey shall he   
eat1 that he may know to refuse the     

evil1 and choose the good4 ,for before  
the child shall know to refuse the evil 
and choose the good1 the land that thou 
abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her 
kings4  ,but in this1 as indeed in most 
other cases of inaccurate quotation1 the
 very words are omitted which would show
 its utter inapplicability to ,jesus4   
,even in those which are given1 the     
agreement is not complete4 ,jesus was   
not called ,emmanuel4 ,and even if his  
mother ,mary were a virgin1 this does   
not help the identity1 as the word ---- 
,,olme in ,isaiah1 rendered virgin in   
our version1 does not convey the notion 
of virginity1 for which the proper word 
is ------ ,be,th,u,l,e2 ,,olme is used  
of a youthful spouse recently married4  
,the allusion to the land being forsaken
 of both her kings1 omitted in ,matthew1
 shows how little the passage is        
prophetic of ,jesus4  ,the story of the 
annunciation made to ,joseph in one     
,gospel1 to ,mary in the other1 is      
hardly credible on any explanation4 ,if 

you assume the annunciations as made by 
a ,god of all-wise purpose1 the purpose 
should1 at least1 have been to prevent  
doubt of ,mary's chastity2 but the      
annunciation is made to ,joseph only    
after ,mary is suspected by ,joseph4    
,two annunciations are made1 one of them
 in a dream to ,joseph1 when he is      
suspicious as to the state of his       
betrothed wife2 the other made by the   
angel ,gabriel 7whoever that angel may  
be7 to ,mary herself1 who apparently    
conceals the fact1 and is content to be 
married1 although with child not by her 
intended husband4 ,the statement--that  
,mary being found with child by the     
,holy ,ghost1 her husband1 not willing  
to make her a public example1 was minded
 to put her away privily--is quite      
incredible4 ,if ,joseph found her with  
child by the ,holy ,ghost1 how could he 
even think of making a public example of
 her shame when there was nothing of    
which she could be ashamed--nothing1 if 
he believed in the ,holy ,ghost1 of     

which he need have been ashamed himself1
 nothing which need have induced him to 
wish to put her away privily4 ,it is    
clear--according to ,matthew--that ,mary
 was found with child1 and that the     
,holy ,ghost parentage was not even     
imagined by ,joseph until after he had  
dreamed about the matter4  ,although the
 birth of ,jesus was specially announced
 by an angel1 and although ,mary sang a 
joyful song consequent on the           
annunciation1 corroborated by her       
cousin's greeting1 yet when ,simeon     
speaks of the child1 in terms less      
extraordinary1 ,joseph and ,mary are    
surprised at it and do not understand   
it4 ,why were they surprised8 ,is it    
credible that so little regard was paid 
to the miraculous annunciation8 ,or is  
this another case of the painful        
uncertainty alluded to by ,dr4          
,teschendorf8  ,again1 when ,joseph and 
,mary found the child ,jesus in the     
temple1 and he says1 ,wist ye not that  
,i must be about my father's business8  

they do not know what he means1 so that 
either what the angel had said had been 
of little effect1 or the annunciations  
did not occur at all4 ,can any reliance 
be placed on a narrative so             
contradictory8 ,an angel was specially  
sent to acquaint a mother that her son  
about to be born is the ,son of ,god1   
and yet that mother is astonished when  
her son says1 ,wist ye not ,i must be   
about my father's business8  ,the birth 
of ,jesus was1 according to ,matthew1   
made publicly known by means of certain 
wise men4 ,these men saw his star in the
 ,east1 but it did not tell them much1  
for they were obliged to come and ask   
information from ,herod the ,king4 ,is  
astrology credible8 ,herod inquired of  
the chief priests and scribes2 and it is
 evident ,jeremiah was right1 if he     
said1 ,the prophets prophecy falsely and
 the priests bear rule by their means1  
for these chief priests misquoted to    
suit their purposes1 and invented a     
false prophecy by omitting a few words  

from1 and adding a few words to1 a text 
until it suited their purpose4 ,the     
star1 after they knew where to go1 and  
no longer required its aid1 went before 
them1 until it came and stood over where
 the young child was4 ,the credibility  
of this will be better understood if the
 reader notice some star1 and then see  
how many houses it will be over4 ,luke  
does not seem to have been aware of the 
star story1 and he relates about an     
angel who tells some shepherds the good 
tidings1 but this last-named adventure  
does not appear to have happened in the 
reign of ,herod at all4 ,is it credible 
that ,jesus was born twice8 ,after the  
wise men had left ,jesus1 an angel      
warned ,joseph to flee with him and     
,mary into ,egypt1 and ,joseph did fly1 
and remained there with the young child 
and his mother until the death of       
,herod2 and this1 it is alleged1 was    
done to fulfil a prophecy4 ,on referring
 to ,hosea xi41 #a1 we find the words   
have no reference whatever to ,jesus1   

and that1 therefore1 either the tale of 
the flight is invented as a fulfilment  
of the prophecy1 or the prophecy        
manufactured to support the tale of the 
flight4 ,the ,jesus of ,luke never went 
into ,egypt at all in his childhood4    
,directly after the birth of the child  
his parents instead of flying away      
because of persecution into ,egypt1 went
 peacefully up to ,jerusalem to fulfil  
all things according to the law1        
returned thence to ,nazareth1 and       
apparently dwelt there1 going up to     
,jerusalem every year until ,jesus was  
twelve years of age4  ,in ,matthew ii41 
#ae1 we are told that ,jesus remained in
 ,egypt1 ,that it might be fulfilled    
which was spoken of the ,lord by the    
prophet saying1 ,out of ,egypt have ,i  
called my son4 ,in ,hosea ii41 #a1 we   
read1 ,when ,israel was a child1 then ,i
 loved him1 and called my son out of    
,egypt4 ,in no other prophet is there   
any similar text4 ,this not only is not 
a prophecy of ,jesus1 but is1 on the    

contrary1 a reference to the ,jewish    
,exodus from ,egypt4 ,is the prophecy   
manufactured to give an air of          
credibility to the ,gospel history1 or  
how will the ,religions ,tract ,society 
explain it8 ,the ,gospel writings betray
 either a want of good faith1 or great  
incapacity on the part of their authors 
in the mode adopted of distorting       
quotations from the ,old ,testament8    
,when ,jesus began to be about thirty   
years of age he was baptised by ,john in
 the river ,jordan4 ,john1 who1         
according to ,matthew1 knew him1 forbade
 him directly he saw him2 but1          
acccording to the writer of the fourth  
,gospel1 he knew him not1 and had1      
therefore1 no occasion to forbid him4   
,god is an invisible spirit1 whom no man
 hath seen 7,john i41 #ah71 or can see  
7,exodus xxxiii41 #bj72 but the man     
,john saw the spirit of ,god descending 
like a dove4 ,god is everywhere1 but at 
that time was in heaven1 from whence he 
said1 ,this is my beloved son1 in whom  

,i am well pleased4 ,although ,john     
heard this from ,god's own mouth1 he    
some time after sent two of his         
disciples to ,jesus to inquire if he    
were really the ,christ 7,matthew xi41  
#b1 #c74 ,yet it is upon the credibility
 of this story1 says ,dr4 ,teschendorf1 
that ,christianity rests like a building
 on its foundations4  ,it is utterly    
impossible ,john could have known and   
not have known ,jesus at the same time4 
,and if1 as the ,new ,testament states1 
,god is infinite and invisible1 it is   
incredible that as ,jesus stood in the  
river to be baptised1 the ,holy ,ghost  
was seen as it descended on his head as 
a dove1 and that ,god from heaven said1 
,this is my beloved son1 in whom ,i am  
well pleased4 ,was the indivisible and  
invisible spirit of ,god separated in   
three distinct and two separately       
visible persons8 ,how do the ,religious 
,tract ,society reconcile this with the 
,athanasian ,creed8  ,the baptism       
narrative is rendered doubtful by the   

language used as to ,john1 who baptised 
,jesus4 ,it is said1 ,this is he that   
was spoken of by the prophet ,esaias1   
saying1 ,the voice of one crying in the 
wilderness1 prepare ye the way of the   
,lord1 make his paths straight4 ,isaiah 
xl41 #a--e1 is1 ,comfort ye1 comfort ye 
my people1 saith your ,god4 ,speak ye   
comfortably to ,jerusalem1 and cry unto 
her that her warfare is accomplished1   
that her iniquity is pardoned2 for she  
hath received of the ,lord's hand double
 for all her sins4 ,the voice of him    
that crieth in the wilderness1 ,prepare 
ye the way of the ,lord1 make straight  
in the desert a highway for our ,god4   
,every valley shall be exalted1 and     
every mountain and hill shall be made   
low3 and the crooked shall be made      
straight1 and the rough places plain3   
and the glory of the ,lord shall be     
revealed4 ,these verses have not the    
most remote relation to ,john8 ,and this
 manufacture of prophecies for the      
purpose of bolstering up a tale1 serves 

to prove that the writer of the ,gospel 
tries by these to impart an air of      
credibility to an otherwise incredible  
story4  ,immediately after the baptism1 
,jesus is led up of the ,spirit into the
 wilderness to be tempted of the ,devil4
 ,there he fasts forty days and forty   
nights4  ,john says1 in chapter i41 #ce1
 ,again1 the next day after1 ,john stood
 and two of his disciples2 and looking  
upon ,jesus as he walked1 he said1      
behold the ,lamb of ,god4 ,and the two  
disciples heard him speak1 and they     
followed ,jesus4 ,then1 at the #dcrd    
verse1 he says1 ,the day following      
,jesus would go forth into ,galilee1 and
 findeth ,philip1 and saith unto him1   
follow me4 ,and in chapter ii41 #a1 he  
says1 ,and the third day there was a    
marriage in ,cana of ,galilee1 and the  
mother of ,jesus was there2 and both    
,jesus was called and his disciples unto
 the marriage4 ,according to ,matthew1  
there can be no doubt that immediately  
after the baptism ,jesus went into the  

wilderness to be tempted of the ,devil4 
,and we are to believe that ,jesus was  
tempted of the ,devil and fasting in the
 wilderness1 and at the same time       
feasting at marriage in ,cana of        
,galilee8 ,is it possible to believe    
that ,jesus actually did fast forty days
 and forty nights8 ,if ,jesus did not   
fast in his capacity as man1 in what    
capacity did he fast8 ,and if ,jesus    
fasted1 being ,god1 the fast would be a 
mockery2 and the account that he became 
a hungered must be wrong4 ,it is barely 
possible that in some very abnormal     
condition or cataleptic state1 or state 
of trance1 a man might exist1 with very 
slight nourishment or without food1 but 
that a man could walk about1 speak1 and 
act1 and1 doing this1 live forty days   
and nights without food is simply an    
impossibility4  ,is the story that the  
,devil tempted ,jesus credible8 ,if     
,jesus be ,god1 can the ,devil tempt    
,god8 ,a clergyman of the ,church of    
,england writing on this says3 ,that the

 ,devil should appear personally to the 
,son of ,god is certainly not more      
wonderful than that he should1 in a more
 remote age1 have appeared among the    
sons of ,god1 in the presence of ,god   
himself1 to torment the righteous ,job4 
,but that ,satan should carry ,jesus    
bodily and literally through the air1   
first to the top of a high mountain1 and
 then to the topmost pinnacle of the    
temple1 is wholly inadmissable1 it is an
 insult to our understanding1 and an    
affront to our great creator and        
redeemer4 ,supposing1 despite the       
monstrosity of such a supposition1 an   
actual ,devil--and this involves the    
dilemma that the ,devil must either be  
,god-created1 or ,god's co-eternal      
rival2 the first supposition being      
inconsistent with ,god's goodness1 and  
the second being inconsistent with his  
power2 but supposing such a ,devil1 is  
it credible that the ,devil should tempt
 the ,almighty maker of the universe    
with all these will ,i give thee if thou

 wilt fall down and worship me8  ,in the
 very names of the twelve ,apostles     
there is an uncertainty as to one1 whose
 name was either ,lebbaeus1 ,thaddaeus1 
or ,judas4 ,it is in ,matthew x41 #c1   
alone that the name of ,lebbaeus is     
mentioned1 thus--,lebbaeus1 whose       
surname was ,thaddaeus4 ,we are told1 on
 this point1 by certain3 ,biblicists1   
that some early ,,mss4 have not the     
words whose surname was ,thaddaeus1 and 
that these words have probably been     
inserted to reconcile the ,gospel       
according to ,matthew with that         
attributed to ,mark4 ,in the ,english   
version of the ,rheims ,testament used  
in this country by our ,roman ,catholic 
brethren1 the reconciliation between    
,matthew and ,mark is completed by      
omitting the words-,lebbaeus whose      
surname was1 leaving only the name      
,thaddaeus in ,matthew's text4 ,the     
revised version of the ,new ,testament  
now agrees with the ,rheims version1 and
 the omission will probably meet with   

the entire concurrence of ,dr4          
,tischendorf and the ,religious ,tract  
,society1 now they boast autograph      
letters of approval from the infallible 
head of the ,catholic ,church4 ,if      
,matthew x41 #c1 and ,mark hi41 #ah1 be 
passed as reconciled1 although the first
 calls the twelfth disciple ,lebbaeus1  
and the second gives him the name       
,thaddaeus2 there is yet the difficulty 
that in ,luke vi41 #af1 corroborated by 
,john xiv41 #bb1 there is a disciple    
spoken of as ,judas1 not ,iscariot1     
,judas1 the brother of ,james4          
,commentators have endeavored to clear  
away this last difficulty by declaring  
that ,thaddaeus is a ,syriac word1      
having much the same meaning as ,judas4 
,this has been answered by the objection
 that if ,matthew's ,gospel uses        
,thaddaeus in lieu of ,judas1 then he   
ought to speak of ,thaddaeus ,iscariot1 
which he does not2 and it is further    
objected also that while there are some 
grounds for suggesting a ,hebrew        

original for the ,gospel attributed to  
,matthew1 there is not the slightest    
pretence for alleging that ,matthew     
wrote in ,syriac4 ,the ,gospels also    
leave us in some doubt as to whether    
,matthew is ,levi1 or whether ,matthew  
and ,levi are two different persons4    
,the account of the calling of ,peter is
 replete with contradictions4 ,according
 to ,matthew1 when ,jesus first saw     
,peter1 the latter was in a vessel      
fishing with his brother ,andrew1       
casting a net into the sea of ,galilee4 
,jesus walking by the sea said to       
them--,follow me1 and ,i will make you  
fishers of men4 ,the two brothers did   
so1 and they became ,christ's disciples4
 ,when ,jesus called ,peter no one was  
with him but his brother ,andrew4 ,a    
little further on1 the two sons of      
,zebedee were in a ship with their      
father mending nets1 and these latter   
were separately called4 ,from ,john1 we 
learn that ,andrew was originally a     
disciple of ,john the ,baptist1 and that

 when ,andrew first saw ,jesus1 ,peter  
was not present1 but ,andrew went and   
found ,peter who1 if fishing1 must have 
been angling on land1 telling him we    
have found the ,messiah1 and that       
,andrew then brought ,peter to ,jesus1  
who said1 ,thou art ,simon1 the son of  
,jonas2 thou shalt be called ,cephas4   
,there is no mention in ,john of the    
sons of ,zebedee being a little further 
on1 or of any fishing in the sea of     
,galilee4 ,this call is clearly on land4
 ,luke's ,gospel states that when the   
call took place1 ,jesus and ,peter were 
both at sea4 ,jesus had been preaching  
to the people1 who pressing upon him1 he
 got into ,simon's ship1 from which he  
preached4 ,after this he directed ,simon
 to put out into the deep and let down  
the nets4 ,simon answered1 ,master1 we  
have toiled all night and taken nothing2
 nevertheless at thy word ,i will let   
down the net4 ,no sooner was this done1 
than the net was filled to breaking1 and
 ,simon's partners1 the two sons of     

,zebedee1 came to help1 when at the call
 of ,jesus1 they brought their ships to 
land1 and followed him4  ,is it credible
 that there were three several calls1 or
 that the ,gospels being inspired1 you  
could have three contradictory versions 
of the same event8 ,has the story been  
here painfully modified1 or how do ,dr4 
,tischendorf and the ,religious ,tract  
,society clear up the matter8 ,is it    
credible that1 as stated in ,luke1      
,jesus had visited ,simon's house1 and  
cured ,simon's wife's mother1 before the
 call of ,simon1 but did not go to      
,simon's house for that purpose1 until  
after the call of ,simon1 as related in 
,matthew8 ,it is useless to reply that  
the date of ,jesus's visit is utterly   
unimportant1 when we are told that it is
 upon the credibility of the complete   
narrative that ,christianity must rest4 
,each stone is important to the         
building1 and it is not competent for   
the ,christian advocate to regard as    
useless any word which the ,holy ,ghost 

has considered important enough to      
reveal4  ,are the miracle stories       
credible8 ,every ancient nation has had 
its miracle workers1 but modern science 
has relegated all miracle history to    
realms of fable1 myth1 illusion1        
delusion1 or fraud4 ,can ,christian     
miracles be made the exceptions8 ,is it 
likely that the nations amongst whom the
 dead were restored to life would have  
persistently ignored the author of such 
miracles8 ,were the miracles            
purposeless1 or if intended to convince 
the ,jews1 was ,god unable to render his
 intentions effective8 ,that five       
thousand persons should be fed with five
 loaves and two fishes1 and that an     
apparent excess should remain beyond the
 original stock1 is difficult to        
believe2 but that shortly after         
this--,jesus having to again perform a  
similar miracle for four thousand       
persons--his own disciples should ignore
 his recent feat1 and wonder from whence
 the food was to be derived1 is         

certainly startlingly incredible4 ,if   
this exhibition of incredulity were     
pardonable on the part of the twelve    
apostles1 living witnesses of greater   
wonders1 how much more pardonable the   
unbelief of the sceptic of to-day1 which
 the ,religious ,tract ,society seek to 
overcome by a faint echo of asserted    
events all contrary to probability1 and 
with nineteen centuries intervening4    
,the casting out the devils presents    
phenomena requiring considerable        
credulity1 especially the story of the  
devils and the swine4 ,to-day insanity  
is never referable to demoniacal        
possession1 but eighteen hundred years  
ago the subject of lunacy had not been  
so patiently investigated as it has been
 since4 ,that one man could now be      
tenanted by several devils is a         
proposition for which the maintainer    
would in the present generation incur   
almost universal contempt2 yet the      
repudiation of its present possibility  
can hardly be consistent with implicit  

credence in its ancient history4 ,that  
the devils and ,god should hold converse
 together1 although not without parallel
 in the book of ,job1 is inconsistent   
with the theory of an infinitely good   
,deity2 that the devils should address  
,jesus as son of the most high ,god1 and
 beg to be allowed to enter a herd of   
swine1 is at least ludicrous2 yet all   
this helps to make up the narrative on  
which ,dr4 ,tischendorf relies4 ,that   
,jesus being ,god should pray to his    
,father that the cup might pass from him
 is so incredible that even the faithful
 ask us to regard it as mystery4 ,that  
an angel from heaven could strengthen   
,jesus1 the almighty ,god1 is equally   
mysterious4 ,that where ,jesus had so   
prominently preached to thousands1 the  
priests should need any one like ,judas 
to betray the founder of ,christianity  
with a kiss1 is absurd2 his escapade in 
flogging the dealers1 his wonderful     
cures1 and his raising ,lazarus and     
,jairus's daughter should have secured  

him1 if not the nation's love1 faith1   
and admiration1 at least a national     
reputation and notoriety4 ,it is not    
credible if ,judas betrayed ,jesus by a 
kiss that the latter should have been   
arrested upon his own statement that he 
was ,jesus4 ,that ,peter should have had
 so little faith as to deny his divine  
leader three times in a few hours is    
only reconcilable with the notion that  
he had remained unconvinced by his      
personal intercourse with the incarnate 
,deity4 ,the mere blunders in the story 
of the denial sink into insignificance  
in face of this major difficulty4       
,whether the cock did or did not crow   
before the third denial1 whether ,peter 
was or was not in the same apartment    
with ,jesus at the time of the last     
denial1 are comparatively trifling      
questions1 and the contradictions on    
which they are based may be the         
consequence of the errors which ,dr4    
,tischendorf says have crept into the   
sacred writings4  ,jesus said1 as ,jonah

 was three days and three nights in the 
belly of the whale1 so shall the son of 
man be three days and three nights in   
the heart of the earth4 ,jesus was      
crucified on ,friday1 was buried on     
,friday evening1 and yet the first who  
went to the grave on the night of       
,saturday as it began to dawn towards   
,sunday1 found the body of ,jesus       
already gone4 ,did ,jesus mean he should
 be three days and three nights in the  
grave8 ,is there any proof that his body
 remained in the grave for three hours8 
,who went first to the grave8 was it    
,mary ,magdalene alone1 as in ,john1 or 
two ,maries as in ,matthew1 or the two  
,maries and ,salome as in ,mark1 or the 
two ,maries1 ,joanna1 and several       
unnamed women as in ,luke8 ,to whom did 
did ,jesus first appear8 ,was it1 as in 
,mark1 to ,mary ,magdalene1 or to two   
disciples going to ,emmaus1 as in ,luke1
 or to the two ,maries near the         
sepulchre1 as in ,matthew8 ,is the      
eating boiled fish and honeycomb by a   

dead ,god credible8 ,did ,jesus ascend  
to heaven the very day of his           
resurrection1 or did an interval of     
nearly six weeks intervene8  ,is this   
history credible1 contained as it is in 
four contradictory biographies1 outside 
which biographies we have1 as ,dr4      
,tischendorf admits1 no other source of 
information with respect to the life of 
,jesus8 ,this history of an earth-born  
,deity1 descended through a             
crime-tainted ancestry1 and whose       
genealogical tree is traced through one 
who was not his father2 this history of 
an infinite ,god nursed as a baby1      
growing through childhood to manhood    
like any frail specimen of humanity2    
this history1 garnished with bedevilled 
men1 enchanted fig tree1 myriads of     
ghosts1 and scores of miracles1 and by  
such garnishment made more akin to an   
oriental romance than to a sober        
history2 this picture of the infinite   
invisible spirit incarnate visible as   
man2 immutability subject to human      

passions and infirmities2 the creator   
come to die1 yet wishing to escape the  
death which shall bring peace to his    
,god-tormented creatures2 ,god praying  
to himself and rejecting his own prayer2
 ,god betrayed by a divinely-appointed  
traitor2 ,god the immortal dying1 and in
 the agony of the death-throes--stronger
 than the strong man's will--crying with
 almost the last effort of his dying    
breath1 that he being ,god1 is ,god     
forsaken6  ,if all this be credible1    
what story is there any man need        
hesitate to believe8 ,dr4 ,teschendorf  
asks how it has been possible to impugn 
the credibility of the four ,gospels1   
and replies that this has been done by  
denying that the ,gospels were written  
by the men whose names they bear4 ,in   
the preceding pages it has been shown   
that the credibility of the ,gospel     
narrative is impugned because it is     
uncorroborated by contemporary history1 
because it is self-contradictory1 and   
because many of its incidents are prima 

facie most improbable1 and some of them 
utterly impossible4 ,even ,english      
,infidels are quite prepared to admit   
that the four ,gospels may be quite     
anonymous2 and yet1 that their anonymous
 character need be of no weight as an   
argument against their truth4 ,all that 
is urged on this head is that the       
advocates of the ,gospel history have   
sought to endorse and give value to the 
otherwise unreliable narratives by a    
pretence that some of the ,evangelists1 
at least1 were eyewitnesses of the      
events they refer to4 ,dr4 ,teschendorf 
says3 ,the credibility of a writer      
clearly depends on the interval of time 
which lies between him and the events   
which he describes4 ,the farther the    
narrator is removed from the facts which
 he lays before us the more his claims  
to credibility are reduced in value4    
,presuming truthfulness in intention for
 any writer1 and his ability to         
comprehend the facts he is narrating1   
and his freedom from a prejudice which  

may distort the picture he intends to   
paint correctly with his pen3 we might  
admit the correctness of the passage we 
have quoted2 but can these always be    
pre-turned in the case of the authors of
 the ,gospels8 ,on the contrary1 a      
presumption in an exactly opposite      
direction may be fairly raised from the 
fact that immediately after the         
,apostolic age the ,christian world was 
flooded with forged testimonies in favor
 of the biography of ,jesus1 or in favor
 of his disciples4  ,a writer in the    
,edinburgh ,review observes3 ,to say    
nothing of such acknowledged forgeries  
as the ,apostolic constitutions and     
liturgies1 and the several spurious     
,gospels1 the question of the           
genuineness of the alleged remains of   
the ,apostolic fathers1 though often    
overlooked1 is very material4 ,any      
genuine remains of the ',apostle'       
,barnabas1 of ,hermas1 the contemporary 
7,romans xvi41 #ad71 and ,clement1 the  
highly commended and gifted fellow      

laborer of ,st4 ,paul 7,phil1 iv41 #c71 
could scarcely be regarded as less      
sacred than those of ,mark and ,luke1 of
 whom personally we know less4 ,it is   
purely a question of criticism4 ,at the 
present day1 the critics best competent 
to determine it1 have agreed in opinion1
 that the extant writings ascribed to   
,barnabas and ,hermas are wholly        
spurious--the frauds of a later age4    
,how much suspicion attaches to the #ast
 ,epistle of ,clement 7for the fragment 
of the second is also generally         
rejected7 is manifest from the fact1    
that in modern times it has never been  
allowed the place expressly assigned to 
it among the canonical books prefixed to
 the celebrated ,alexandrian ,,ms41 in  
which the only known copy of it is      
included4 ,it must not be forgotten that
 ,ignatius expressly lays claim to      
inspiration1 that ,irenasus quotes      
,hermas as ,scripture1 and ,origen      
speaks of him as inspired1 while        
,polycarp1 in modestly disclaiming to be

 put on a level with the ,apostles1     
clearly implies there would have been no
 essential distinction in the way of his
 being ranked in the same order4 ,but   
the question is1 how are these          
pretensions substantiated8 ,so far the  
,edinburgh ,review1 certainly not an    
,infidel publication4  ,eusebius1 in his
 ,ecclesiastical ,history1 admits the   
existence of many spurious gospels and  
epistles1 and some writings put forward 
by him as genuine1 such as the          
correspondence between ,jesus and       
,agbaras1 have since been rejected as   
fictitious4 ,it is not an unfair        
presumption from this that many of the  
most early ,christians considered the   
then existing testimonies insufficient  
to prove the history of ,jesus1 and good
 reason is certainly afforded for       
carefully examining the whole of the    
evidences they have bequeathed us4 ,on  
p4 #dh1 ,dr4 ,teschendorf quotes        
,irenaeus1 whose writings-belong to the 
extreme end of the second century1 as   

though that ,bishop must be taken as    
vouching the four ,gospels as we now    
have them4 ,yet1 if the testimony of    
,irenaeus be-reliable 7,against         
,heresies1 ,book ,,iii41 cap4 i47 the   
,gospel attributed to ,matthew was      
believed to have been composed in       
,hebrew1 and ,irenaeus says that as the 
,jews desired a ,messiah of the royal   
line of ,david1 ,matthew having the same
 desire to a yet greater degree1 strove 
to give them full satisfaction4 ,this   
may account for some of the genealogical
 curiosities to which we have drawn     
attention1 but hardly renders ,matthew's
 ,gospel more reliable2 and how can the 
suggestion that ,matthew wrote in       
,hebrew prove that ,matthew penned the  
first ,gospel1 which has only existed in
 ,greek8 ,irenaeus1 too1 flatly         
contradicts the ,gospels by declaring   
that the ministry of ,jesus extended    
over ten years and that ,jesus lived to 
be fifty years of age 7,against         
,heresies1 ,book ,,ii41 cap4 #bb74  ,if 

the statement of ,irenaeus 7,against    
,heresies1 ,book ,,iii41 cap4 #aa7 that 
the fourth ,gospel was written to refute
 the errors of ,cerinthus and ,nicolaus1
 have any value1 then the actual date of
 issue of the fourth ,gospel will be    
considerably after the others4 ,dr4     
,tischendorf's statement that ,polycarp 
has borne testimony to the ,gospel of   
,john is not even supported by the      
quotation on which he relies4 ,all that 
is said in the passage quoted           
7,eusebius1 ,ecc4 ,hist41 ,book ,v41    
cap4 #bj7 is that ,irenaeus when he was 
a child heard ,polycarp repeat from     
memory the discourses of ,john and      
others concerning ,jesus4 ,if the       
,gospels had existed in the time of     
,polycarp it would have been at least as
 easy to have read them from the ,,ms4  
as to repeat them from memory4 ,dr4     
,tischendorf might also have added that 
the letter to ,florinus1 whence he takes
 the passage on which he relies1 exists 
only in the writings of ,eusebius1 to   

whom we are indebted for many pieces of 
,christian evidence since abandoned as  
forgeries4 ,dr4 ,tischendorf says3 ,any 
testimony of ,polycarp in favor of the  
,gospel refers us back to the           
,evangelist himself1 for ,polycarp1 in  
speaking to ,irenaeus of this ,gospel as
 the work of his master1 ,st4 ,john1    
must have learned from the lips of the  
apostle himself1 whether he was its     
author or not4 ,now1 what evidence is   
there that ,polycarp ever said a single 
word as to the authorship of the fourth 
,gospel1 or of any ,gospel1 or that he  
even said that ,john had penned a single
 word8 ,in the ,epistle to the          
,philippians 7the only writing          
attributed to ,polycarp for which any   
genuine character is even pretended71   
the ,gospel of ,john is never mentioned1
 nor is there even a single passage in  
the ,epistle which can be identified    
with any passage in the ,gospel of      
,john4  ,surely ,dr4 ,tischendorf       
forgot1 in the eager desire to make his 

witnesses bear good testimony1 that the 
highest duty of an advocate is to make  
the truth clear1 not to put forward a   
pleasantly colored falsehood to deceive 
the ignorant4 ,it is not even true that 
,irenaeus ever pretends that ,polycarp  
in any way vouched our fourth ,gospel as
 having been written by ,john1 and yet  
,dr4 ,tischendorf had the cool audacity 
to say there is nothing more damaging to
 the doubters of the authenticity of ,st
 ,john's ,gospel than this testimony of 
,st4 ,polycarp4 ,do the ,religious      
,tract ,society regard ,english         
,infidels as so utterly ignorant that   
they thus intentionally seek to suggest 
a falsehood1 or are the ,council of the 
,religious ,tract ,society themselves   
unable to test the accuracy of the      
statements put forward on their behalf  
by the able decipherer of illegible     
parchments8 ,it is too much to suspect  
the renowned ,dr4 ,constantino          
,tischendorf of ignorance1 yet even the 
coarse ,english sceptic regrets that the

 only other alternative will be to      
denounce him as a theological charlatan4
  ,dr4 ,mosheim1 writing on behalf of   
,christianity1 says that the ,epistle of
 ,polycarp to the ,philippians is by    
some treated as genuine and by others as
 spurious1 and that it is no easy matter
 to decide4 ,many critics1 of no mean   
order1 class it amongst the apostolic   
,christian forgeries1 but whether the   
,epistle be genuine or spurious1 it     
contains no quotation from1 it makes no 
reference to1 the ,gospel of ,john4  ,to
 what is said of ,irenaeus1 ,tertullian1
 and ,clement of ,alexandria1 it is     
enough to note that all these are after 
a4d4 #aej4 ,irenaeus may be put #agg to 
#bjj1 ,tertullian about #aic1 and       
,clement of ,alexandria as commencing   
the third century4  ,one of ,dr4        
,tischendorf's most audacious flourishes
 is that 7p4 #di7 with reference to the 
,canon of ,muratori1 which we are told  
enumerates the books of the ,new        
,testament which1 from the first1 were  

considered canonical and sacred1 and    
which was written a little after the age
 of ,pius ,i1 about a4d2 #agj4  ,first  
the anonymous fragment contains books   
which were never accepted as canonical2 
next1 it is quite impossible to say when
 or by whom it was written or what was  
its original language4 ,muratori1 who   
discovered the fragment in #agdj1       
conjectured that it was written about   
the end of the second or beginning of   
the third century1 but it is noteworthy 
that neither ,eusebius nor any other of 
the ecclesiastical advocates of the     
third1 fourth1 or fifth centuries1 ever 
refers to it4 ,it may be the compilation
 of any monk at any date prior to #agdj1
 and is utterly valueless as evidence4  
,dr4 ,teschendorf's style is well       
exemplified by the positive manner in   
which he fixes the date a4d4 #aci to the
 first apology of ,justin1 although a   
critic so learned as the unrivalled ,dr4
 ,teschendorf could not fail to be aware
 that more than one writer has supported

 the view that the date of the first    
apology was not earlier than a4d4 #ade1 
and others have contended for a4d4 #aej4
 ,the ,benedictine editors of ,justin's 
works support the latter date4 ,dr4     
,kenn argues for a4d4 #aee--afj4 ,on    
page #fc1 the ,religious ,tract         
,society's champion appeals to the      
testimony of ,justin ,martyr1 but in    
order not to shock the devout while     
convincing the profane1 he omits to     
mention that more than half the writings
 once attributed to ,justin ,martyr are 
now abandoned1 as either of doubtful    
character or actual forgeries1 and that 
,justin's value as a witness is         
considerably weakened by the fact that  
he quotes the acts of ,pilate and the   
,sybilline ,oracles as though they were 
reliable evidence1 when in fact they are
 both admitted specimens of a ,christian
 forgery4 ,but what does ,justin testify
 as to the ,gospels8 ,does he say that  
,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john were  
their writers8 ,on the contrary1 not    

only do the names of ,matthew1-,mark1   
,luke1 and ,john never occur as         
,evangelists in the writings of ,justin1
 but he actually mentions facts and     
sayings as to ,jesus1 which are not     
found in either of the four ,gospels4   
,the very words rendered ,gospels only  
occur where they are strongly suspected 
to be interpolated1 ,justin usually     
speaking of some writings which he calls
 memorials or memoirs of the ,apostles4 
,dr4 ,tischendorf urges that in the     
writings of ,justin the ,gospels are    
placed side by side with the prophets1  
and that this undoubtedly places the    
,gospels in the list of canonical books4
 ,if this means that there is any       
statement in ,justin capable of being so
 construed1 then ,dr4 ,tischendorf was  
untruthful4 ,justin does quote          
specifically the ,sybilline oracles1 but
 never ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 or ,john4
 ,he quotes statements as to ,jesus1    
which may be found in the apocryphal    
,gospels1 and which are not found in    

ours1 so that if the evidence of ,justin
 ,martyr be taken1 it certainly does not
 tend to prove1 even in the smallest    
degree1 that four ,gospels were         
specially regarded with reverence in his
 day4 ,the ,rev4 ,w4 ,sanday thinks that
 ,justin did not assign an exclusive    
authority to our ,gospels1 and that he  
made use also of other documents no     
longer extant4 7,gospels in #bnd        
,century1 p4 #aag47  ,on p4 #id it is   
stated that as early as the time of     
,justin the expression 'the ,evangel'   
was applied to the four ,gospels4 ,this 
statement by ,dr4 ,tischendorf and its  
publication by the ,religious ,tract    
,society call for the strongest         
condemnation4 ,nowhere in the writings  
of ,justin are the words the ,evangel   
applied to the four ,gospels4  ,lardner 
only professes to discover two instances
 in which the word anglicised by        
,tischendorf as ,evangel1 occurs2  1 the
 second being expressly pointed out by  
,schleiermacher as an interpolation1 and

 as an instance in which a marginal note
 has been incorporated with the text2   
nor would one occurrence of such a word 
prove that any book or books were so    
known by ,justin1 as the word is merely 
a compound of good and message2 nor is  
there the slightest foundation for the  
statement that in the time of ,justin   
the word ,evangel was ever applied to   
designate the four ,gospels now         
attributed to ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1   
and ,john4  ,dr4 ,tischendorf 7p4 #df7  
admits that the faith of the ,church4444
 would be seriously compromised if we do
 not find references to the ,gospels in 
writings between a4d4 #ajj and a4d4     
#aej2 and--while he does not directly   
assert--he insinuates that in such      
writings the ,gospels were treated with 
the greatest respect1 or even already   
treated as canonical and sacred         
writings2 and he distinctly affirms that
 the ,gospels did see the light during  
the ,apostolic age1 and before the      
middle of the second century our        

,gospels were held in the highest       
respect by the-,church1 although for the
 affirmation1 he neither has nor        
advances the shadow of evidence4  ,the  
phrases1 ,apostolic age and ,apostolic  
fathers denote the first century of the 
,christian era1 and those-fathers who   
are supposed to have flourished during  
that period1 and who are supposed to    
have seen or heard1 or had the          
opportunity of seeing or hearing1 either
 ,jesus or someone or more of the twelve
 ,apostles4 ,barnabas1 ,clement1        
,hermas1 ,ignatius1 and ,polycarp1 are  
those whose names figure most familiarly
 in ,christian evidences as ,apostolic  
fathers4 ,but the evidence from these   
,apostolic fathers is of a most         
unreliable character4 ,mosheim          
7,ecclesiastical ,history1 cent4 #a1    
cap4 #b1 sec4 #c1ag7 says that the      
,apostolic history is loaded with       
doubts1 fables1 and difficulties1 and   
that not long after ,christ's ascension 
several histories were current of his   

life and doctrines1 full of pious frauds
 and fabulous wonders4 ,amongst these   
were ,the ,acts of ,paul1 ,the          
,revelation of ,peter1 ,the ,gospel of  
,peter1 ,the ,gospel of ,andrew1 ,the   
,gospel of ,john1 ,the ,gospel of       
,james1 ,the ,gospel of the ,egyptians1 
etc4 ,the attempts often made to prove  
from the writings of ,barnabas1         
,ignatius1 etc41 the prior existence of 
the four ,gospels1 though specifically  
unnamed1 by similarity of phraseology in
 quotations1 is a failure1 even         
admitting for the moment the genuineness
 of the ,apostolic ,scriptures1 if the  
proof is intended to carry the matter   
higher than that such and such          
statements were current in some form or 
other1 at the date the fathers wrote4   
,as good an argument might be made that 
some of the ,gospel passages were       
adopted from the fathers4 ,the fathers  
occasionally quote1 as from the mouth of
 ,jesus1 words which are not found in   
any of our four ,gospels1 and make      

reference to events not included in the 
,gospel narratives1 clearly evidencing  
that even if the four documents ascribed
 to ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john1  
were in existence1 they were not the    
only sources of information from which  
some of the ,apostolic fathers derived' 
their knowledge of ,christianity1 and   
evidencing also that the four ,gospels  
had attained no such specific           
superiority as to entitle them to       
special mention by name4  ,of the       
epistle attributed to ,barnabas1 which  
is supposed by its supporters to have   
been written in the latter part of the  
first century1 which1 ,paley says1 is   
probably genuine1 which is classed by   
,eusebius as spurious 7,ecclesiastical  
,history1 book iii41 cap4 #be71 and     
which ,dr4 ,donaldson does not hesitate 
for one moment in refusing to ascribe to
 ,barnabas the ,apostle 7,ante-,nicene  
,fathers1 vol4 i41 p4 #ajj71 it is only 
necessary to say that so far from       
speaking of the ,gospels with the       

greatest respect1 it does not mention by
 name any one of the four ,gospels4     
,there are some passages in ,barnabas   
which are nearly identical in           
phraseology with some ,gospel passages1 
and which it has been argued are        
quotations from one or other of the four
 ,gospels1 but which may equally be     
quotations from other ,gospels1 or from 
writings not in the character of        
,gospels4 ,there are also passages which
 are nearly identical with several of   
the ,new ,testament epistles1 but even  
the great framer of ,christian          
evidences1 ,lardner1 declares his       
conviction that none of these           
last-mentioned passages are quotations1 
or even allusions1 to the ,pauline or   
other epistolary writings4 ,barnabas    
makes many quotations which clearly     
demonstrate that the four ,gospels1 if  
then in existence and if he had access  
to them1 could not have been his only   
source of information as to the         
teachings of ,jesus 7,e4 ,g41 cap4 #g74 

,the ,lord enjoined that whosoever did  
not keep the fast should be put to      
death4 ,he required the goats to be of  
goodly aspect and similar1 that when    
they see him coming they may be amazed  
by the likeness to the goat4 ,says he1  
those who wish to behold me and lay hold
 of my kingdom1 must through tribulation
 and suffering obtain me 7cap4 #ab74    
,and the ,lord saith1 ,when a tree shall
 be bent down and again rise1 and when  
blood shall flow out of the wound4 ,will
 the ,religious ,tract ,society point   
out from which of the ,gospels these are
 quoted8  ,barnabas 7cap4 #aj7 says that
 ,moses forbade the ,jews to eat weasel 
flesh1 because that animal conceives    
with the mouth1 and forbad them to eat  
the hyena because that animal annually  
changes its sex4 ,this father seems to  
have made a sort of melange of some of  
the ,pentateuchal ordinances4 ,he says  
7cap4 #h7 that the ,heifer 7mentioned in
 ,numbers7 was a type of ,jesus1 that   
the three 787 young men appointed to    

sprinkle1 denote ,abraham1 ,isaac1 and  
,jacob1 that wool was put upon a stick  
because the kingdom of ,jesus was       
founded upon the cross1 and 7cap4 #i7   
that the #hah men circumcised by        
,abraham stood for ,jesus crucified4    
,barnabas also declared that the world  
was to come to an end in #f1jjj years   
7,freethinkers' ,text ,book part ii41 p4
 #bfh74 ,in the ,sinaitic ,bible1 the   
,epistle of ,st4 ,barnabas has now1     
happily for misguided ,christians1 been 
discovered in the original ,greek4 ,to  
quote the inimitable style of ,dr4      
,tischendorf1 while so much has been    
lost in the course of centuries by      
the-tooth of time and the carelessness  
of ignorant monks1 an invisible eye had 
watched over this treasure1 and when it 
was on the point of perishing in the    
fire1 the ,lord had decreed             
its-deliverance2 while critics have     
generally been divided between assigning
 it to the first or second decade of the
 second century1 the ,sinaitic ,bible1  

which has for the first time cleared up 
this question1 has led us to throw its  
composition as far back as the last     
decade of the first century4 ,a fine    
specimen of ,christian evidence writing1
 cool assertion without a particle of   
proof and without the slightest         
reason-given4 ,how does the ,siniatic   
,,ms41 even if it be genuine1 clear up  
the question of the date of ,st4        
,barnabas's ,epistle8 ,dr4 ,tischendorf 
does not condescend to tell us what has 
led the ,christian advocate to throw    
back the date of its composition8 ,we   
are left entirely in the dark3 in fact1 
what ,dr4 ,tischendorf calls a throw    
back1 is if you look at ,lardner just   
the reverse4 ,what does the epistle of  
,barnabas prove1 even if it be genuine8 
,barnabas quotes1 by name1 ,moses and   
,daniel1 but never ,matthew1 ,mark1     
,luke or ,john4 ,barnabas specifically  
refers to ,deuteronomy and the prophets1
 but never to either of the four        
,gospels4  ,there is an epistle         

attributed to ,clement of ,rome1 which  
has been preserved in a single ,,ms4    
only where it is coupled with another   
epistle rejected as spurious4 ,dr4      
,donaldson 7,ante-,nicene ,fathers1 vol4
 i41 p4 #c7 declares that who the       
,clement was to whom these writings are 
ascribed cannot with absolute certainty 
be determined4 ,both epistles stand on  
equal authority2 one is rejected by     
,christians1 the other is received4 ,in 
this epistle while there is a distinct  
reference to an ,epistle by ,paul to the
 ,corinthians1 there is no mention-by   
name of the four ,gospels1 nor do any of
 the words attributed by ,clement to    
,jesus agree for any complete quotation 
with anyone of the ,gospels as we have  
them4 ,the ,rev4 ,w4 ,sanday is frank   
enough to concede that ,clement is not  
quoting directly from our ,gospels4  ,is
 it probable that ,clement would have   
mentioned a writing by ,paul1 and yet   
have entirely ignored the four ,gospels1
 if he had known that they had then     

existed8 ,and could they have easily    
existed in the ,christian world in his  
day without his knowledge8 ,if anyone   
takes cap4 xxv4 ef this epistle and sees
 the phoenix given as a historic fact1  
and as evidence for the reality of the  
resurrection1 he will be better able to 
appreciate the value of this so-called  
epistle of ,clement4  ,the letters of   
,ignatius referred to by ,dr4           
,teschendorf are regarded by ,mosheim as
 laboring under many difficulties1 and  
embarrassed with much obscurity4 ,even  
,lardner1 doing his best for such       
evidences1 says1 that if we find matters
 in the ,epistles inconsistent with the 
notion that ,ignatius was the writer1 it
 is better to regard such passages as   
interpolations1 than to reject the      
,epistles entirely1 especially in the   
scarcity of such testimonies4  ,there   
are fifteen epistles of which eight are 
undisputedly forgeries4 ,of the         
remaining seven there are two versions1 
a long and a short version1 one of which

 must be corrupt1 both of which may be4 
,these seven epistles1 however1 are in  
no case to be accepted with certainty as
 those of ,ignatius4 ,dr4 ,cureton      
contends that only three still shorter  
epistles are genuine 7,ante-,nicene     
,fathers1 vol4 i41 pp4 #acg to #adc74   
,the ,rev4 ,w4 ,sanday treats the three 
short ones as probably genuine1 waiving 
the question as to the others 7,gospels 
in ,second ,century1 p4 #gg1 and see    
preface to sixth edition ,supernatural  
,religion74 ,ignatius1 however1 even if 
he be the writer of the epistles        
attributed to him1 never mentions either
 of the four ,gospels4 ,in the          
nineteenth chapter of the ,epistles to  
the ,ephesians1 there is a statement    
made as to the birth and death of       
,jesus1 not to be found in either       
,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 or ,john4  ,if  
the testimony of the ,ignatian ,epistles
 is reliable1 then it vouches that in   
that early age there were actually      
,christians who denied the death of     

,jesus4 ,a statement as to ,mary in cap4
 nineteen of the ,epistle to the        
,ephesians is not to be found in any    
portion of the ,gospels4 ,in his        
,epistle to the ,trallians1 ,ignatius1  
attacking those who denied the real     
existence of ,jesus1 would have surely  
been glad to quote the evidence of eye  
witnesses like ,matthew and ,john1 if   
such evidence had existed in his day4   
,in cap4 eight of the ,epistles to the  
,philadelphians1 ,ignatius says1 ,i have
 heard of some who say3 ,unless ,i find 
it in the archives ,i will not believe  
the ,gospel4 ,and when ,i said it is    
written1 they answered that remains to  
be proved4 ,this is the most distinct   
reference to any ,christian writings1   
and how little does this support ,dr4   
,tischendorf s position4 ,from which of 
our four ,gospels could ,ignatius have  
taken the words1 ,i am not an           
incorporeal demon1 which he puts into   
the mouth of ,jesus in cap4 iii41 the   
epistle to the ,smyrnaeans8 ,dr4        

,tischendorf does admit that the        
evidence of the ,ignatian ,epistles is  
not of decisive value2 might he not go  
farther and say1 that as proof of the   
four ,gospels it is of no value at all8 
,on page #gj1 ,dr4 ,tischendorf quotes  
,hippolytus without any qualification4  
,surely the ,english ,religious ,tract  
,society might have remembered that     
,dodwell says1 that the name of         
,hippolytus had been so abused by       
impostors1 that it was not easy to      
distinguish any of his writings4 ,that  
,mill declares that1 with one exception1
 the pieces extant under his name are   
all spurious4 ,that1 except fragments in
 the writings of opponents1 the works of
 ,hippolytus are entirely lost4 ,yet the
 ,religious ,tract ,society permit      
testimony so tainted to be put forward  
under their authority1 to prove the     
truth of ,christian history4 ,the very  
work which ,dr4 ,tischendorf pretends to
 quote is not even mentioned by         
,eusebius1 in the list he gives of the  

writings of ,hippolytus4  ,on page #id1 
,dr4 ,tischendorf states that           
,basilides1 before a4d4 #ach1 and       
,valentinus1 about a4d4 #adj1 make use  
of three out of four ,gospels1 the first
 using ,john and ,luke1 the second1     
,matthew1 ,luke1 and ,john4 ,what words 
of either ,basilides or ,valentinus     
exist anywhere to justify this reckless 
assertion8 ,was ,dr4 ,tischendorf again 
presuming on the utter ignorance of     
those who are likely to read his        
pamphlet8 ,the ,religious ,tract        
,society are responsible for ,dr4       
,tischendorfs allegations1 which it is  
impossible to support with evidence4    
,the issue raised is not whether the    
followers of ,basilides or the followers
 of ,valentinus may have used these     
gospels1 but whether there is a particle
 of evidence to justify ,dr4            
,tischendorf s declaration1 that        
,basilides and ,valentinus themselves   
used the above-named gospels4 ,that the 
four ,gospels were well known during the

 second half of the first century is    
what ,dr4 ,tischendorf undertook to     
prove1 and statements attributed to     
,basilides and ,valentin us1 but which  
ought to be attributed to their         
followers1 will go but little way as    
such proof 7see ,supernatural ,religion 
vol4 ii41 pp4 #da to #fc74  ,it is      
pleasant to find a grain of wheat in the
 bushel of ,tischendorf chaff4 ,on page 
#ih1 and following pages1 the erudite   
author applies himself to get rid of the
 testimony of ,papias1 which was        
falsified and put forward by ,paley as  
of great importance4 ,paley says the    
authority of ,papias is complete2       
,tischendorf declares that ,papias is in
 error4 ,paley says ,papias was a hearer
 of ,john1 ,tischendorf says he was not4
 ,we leave the champions of the two     
great ,christian evidence-mongers to    
settle the matter as best they can4 ,if1
 however1 we are to accept ,dr4         
,tischendorf's declaration that the     
testimony of ,papias is worthless1 we   

get rid of the chief link between       
,justin ,martyr and the apostolic age4  
,it pleases ,dr4 ,tischendorf to damage 
,papias1 because that father is silent  
as to the gospel of ,john2 but the      
,religious ,tract ,society must not     
forget that in thus clearing away the   
second-hand evidence of ,papias1 they   
have cut away their only pretence for   
saying that any of the ,gospels are     
mentioned by name within #aej years of  
the date clfor the birth of ,jesus4 ,in 
referring to the lost work of           
,theophilus of ,antioch1 which ,dr4     
,tischendorf tells us was a kind of     
harmony of the ,gospels1 in which the   
four narratives are moulded and fused   
into one1 the learned ,doctor forgets to
 tell us that ,jerome1 whom he quotes as
 giving some account of ,theophilus1    
actually doubted whether the so-called  
commentary was really from the pen of   
that writer4 ,lardner says3 ,whether    
those commentaries which ,st4 ,jerome   
quotes were really composed by          

,theophilus may be doubted1 since they  
were unknown to ,eusebius1 and were     
observed by ,jerome to differ in style  
and expression from his other works4    
,however1 if they were not his1 they    
were the work of some anonymous ancient4
 ,but if they were the work of an       
anonymous ancient after ,eusebius1 what 
becomes of ,dr4 ,tischendorf's as early 
as a4d4 #agj8  ,eusebius1 who refers to 
,theophilus1 and who speaks of his using
 the ,apocalypse1 would have certainly  
gladly quoted the ,bishop of ,antioch's 
,commentary on the ,four ,gospels1 if it
 had existed in his day4 ,nor is it true
 that the references we have in ,jerome 
to the work attributed to ,theophilus1  
justify the description given by ,dr4   
,teschendorf1 or even the phrase of     
,jerome1 qui quatuor ,evangelist arum in
 unum opus dicta compingens4 ,theophilus
 seems1 so far as it is possible to     
judge1 to have occupied himself not with
 a connected history of ,jesus1 or a    
continuous discourse as to his          

doctrines1 but rather with mystical and 
allegorical elucidations of occasional  
passages1 which ended1 like many pious  
commentaries on the ,old or ,new        
,testament1 in leaving the point dealt  
with a little less clear with the       
,theophillian commentary than without   
it4 ,dr4 ,tischendorf says that         
,theodoret and ,eusebius speak of       
,tatian in the same way--that is1 as    
though he had1 like his ,syrian         
contemporary1 composed a harmony of the 
four ,gospels4 ,this is also inaccurate4
 ,eusebius talks of ,tatianus having    
found a certain body and collection of  
,gospels1 ,i know not how1 which        
collection ,eusebius does not appear    
even to have ever seen2 and so far from 
the phrase in ,theodoret justifying ,dr4
 ,tischendorf's explanation1 it would   
appear from ,theodoret that ,tatian's   
,diatessaron was1 in fact1 a sort of    
spurious gospel1 ,the ,gospel of the    
,four differing materially from our four
 ,gospels of ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and

 ,john4 ,neither ,irenaeus1 ,clement of 
,alexandria1 or ,jerome1 who refer to   
other works of ,tatian1 make any mention
 of this4 ,dr4 ,tischendorf might have  
added that ,diapente1 or the ,gospel of 
the ,five1 has also been a title applied
 to this work of ,tatian4  ,in the third
 chapter of his essay1 ,dr4 ,tischendorf
 refers to apocryphal writings which    
bear on their front the names of        
,apostles used by obscure writers to    
palm off their forgeries4 ,dr4          
,tischendorf says that these spurious   
books were composed partly to embellish 
scripture narratives1 and partly to     
support false doctrine2 and he states   
that in early times1 the ,church was not
 so well able to distinguish true       
gospels from false ones1 and that       
consequently some of the apocryphal     
writings were given a place they did not
 deserve4 ,this statement of the        
inability of the ,church to judge       
correctly1 tells as much against the    
whole1 as against any one or more of the

 early ,christian writings1 and as it   
may be as fatal to the now received     
gospels as to those now rejected1 it    
deserves the most careful consideration4
 ,according to ,dr4 ,tischendorf1       
,justin ,martyr falls into the category 
of those of the ,church who were not so 
critical in distinguishing the true from
 the false2 for ,justin1 says           
,tischendorf1 treats the ,gospel of ,st4
 ,james and the ,acts of ,pilate1 each  
as a fit source whence to derive        
materials for the life of ,jesus1 and   
therefore must have regarded the ,gospel
 of ,st4 ,james and the ,acts of        
,pilate1 as genuine and authentic       
writings2 while ,dr4 ,tischendorf1      
wiser1 and a greater critic than        
,justin1 condemns the ,gospel of ,st4   
,james as spurious1 and calls the ,acts 
of ,pilate a pious fraud2 but if ,dr4   
,tischendorf be correct in his statement
 that ,justin made use of this ,gospel  
and quotes the ,acts of ,pontius        
,pilate1 then1 according to his own     

words1 ,justin did not know how to      
distinguish the true from the false1 and
 the whole force of his evidence        
previously used by ,dr4 ,tischendorf in 
aid of the four ,gospels would have been
 seriously diminished1 even if it had   
been true1 which it is not1 that ,justin
 ,martyr had borne any testimony on the 
subject4  ,such1 then1 are the weapons1 
say the ,religious ,tract ,society1 by  
their champion1 which we employ against 
unbelieving criticism4 ,and what are    
these weapons8 ,we have shown in the    
preceding pages1 the suppressio veri and
 the suggestio falsi are amongst the    
weapons used4 ,the ,religious ,tract    
,society directors are parties to       
fabrication of evidence1 and they permit
 a learned charlatan to forward the     
cause of ,christ with craft and chicane4
 ,but even this is not enough2 they     
need1 according to their pamphlet1 a new
 weapon2 they want to find out the very 
words the ,apostles used4 ,true         
believers have been in a state of       

delusion2 they were credulous enough to 
fancy that the authorised version of the
 ,scriptures tolerably faithfully       
represented ,god's revelation to        
humankind4 ,but no1 says ,dr4           
,tischendorf1 it has been so seriously  
modified in the copying and re-copying  
that it ought to be set aside           
altogether1 and a fresh text            
constructed4 ,glorious news this for the
 ,bible ,society4 ,listen to it1 ,exeter
 ,hall6 ,glad tidings to be issued by   
the ,paternoster ,row saints6 ,after    
spending hundreds of thousands of pounds
 in giving away ,bibles to soldiers1 in 
placing them in hotels and              
lodging-houses1 and shipping them off to
 negroes and savages1 it appears that   
the wrong text has been sent through the
 world1 the true version being all the  
time in a waste-paper heap at ,mount    
,sinai1 watched over by an invisible    
eye4 ,but1 adds ,dr4 ,tischendorf1 if   
you ask me whether any popular version  
contains the original text1 my answer is

 ,yes and ,no4 ,i say ,yes as far as    
concerns your soul's salvation4 ,if     
these are enough for the soul's         
salvation1 why try to improve the       
matter8 ,if we really need the full and 
clear light of the ,sinaitic ,bible to  
show us what is the ,word written by    
,god1 then most certainly our present   
,bible is not believed by the ,religious
 ,tract ,society to be the ,word written
 by ,god4 ,the ,christian advocates are 
in this dilemma3 either the received1   
text is insufficient1 or the proposed   
improvement is unnecessary4 ,dr4        
,tischendorf says that ,the ,gospels1   
like the only begotten of the ,father1  
will endure as long as human nature     
itself1 yet he says there is a great    
diversity among the texts1 and that the 
,gospel in use amongst the ,ebionites   
and that used amongst the ,nazarenes    
have been disfigured here and there with
 certain arbitrary changes4 ,he admits1 
moreover1 that in early times1 when the 
,church was not so critical in          

distinguishing the true from the false1 
spurious ,gospels obtained a credit     
which they did not deserve4 ,and while  
arguing for the enduring character of   
the ,gospel1 he requests you to set     
aside the received text altogether1 and 
to try to construct a new revelation by 
the aid of ,dr4 ,tischendorf's patent   
,sinaitic invention4  ,we congratulate  
the ,religious ,tract ,society upon     
their manifesto1 and on the victory it  
secures them over ,german ,rationalism  
and ,english ,infidelity4 ,the          
,society's translator1 in his           
introductory remarks1 declares that     
circumstantial evidence when complete1  
and when every link in the chain has    
been thoroughly tested1 is as strong as 
direct testimony2 and1 adds the         
,society's penman1 ,this is the kind of 
evidence which ,dr4 ,tischendorf brings 
for the genuineness of our ,gospels4 ,it
 would be difficult to imagine a more   
inaccurate description of ,dr4          
,tischendorf's work4 ,do we find the    

circumstantial evidence carefully tested
 in the ,doctor's boasting and curious  
narrative of his journeys commenced on a
 pecuniary deficiency and culminating in
 much cash8 ,do we find it in ,dr4      
,tischendorf s concealment for fifteen  
years of the place1 watched over by an  
invisible eye1 in which was hidden the  
greatest biblical treasure in the world8
 ,is the circumstantial evidence shown  
in the sneers at ,renan8 or is each link
 in the chain tested by the strange     
jumbling together of names and          
conjectures in the first chapter8 ,what 
tests are used in the cases of          
,valentinus and ,basilides in the second
 chapter8 ,how is the circumstantial    
testimony aided by the references in the
 third chapter to the ,apocryphal       
,gospels8 ,is there a pretence even of  
critical testing in the chapter devoted 
to the apostolic fathers8 ,all that ,dr4
 ,tischendorf has done is in effect to  
declare that our authorised version of  
the ,new ,testament is so unreliable1   

that it ought to be got rid of          
altogether1 and a new text constructed4 
,and this declaration is circulated by  
the ,religious ,tract ,society1 which   
sends the sixpenny edition of the       
,gospel with one hand1 and in the other 
the shilling ,tischendorf pamphlet1     
declaring that many passages of the     
,religious ,tract ,society's ,new       
,testament have undergone such serious  
modifications of meaning as to leave us 
in painful uncertainty as to what was   
originally written4  ,the very latest   
contribution from orthodox sources to   
the study of the ,gospels1 as contained 
in the authorised version1 is to be     
found in the very candid preface to the 
recently-issued revised version of the  
,new ,testament1 where the ordinary     
,bible receives a condemnation of the   
most sweeping description4 ,here1 on the
 high authority of the revisers1 we are 
told that1 with regard to the ,greek    
text1 the translators of the authorised 
version had for their guides manuscripts

 of late date1 few in number and used   
with little critical skill4 ,the        
revisers add what ,freethinkers have    
long maintained1 and have been denounced
 from pulpits for maintaining1 viz41    
that the commonly received text needed  
thorough revision1 and1 what is even    
more important1 they candidly avow that 
it is but recently that materials have  
been acquired for executing such a work 
with even approximate completeness4 ,so 
that not only ,god's ,word has          
admittedly for generations not been     
,god's ,word at all1 but even now1 and  
with materials not formerly known1 it   
has only been revised with approximate  
completeness1 whatever those two words  
may mean4 ,if they have any significance
 at all1 they must convey the belief of 
the new and at present final revisers of
 the ,gospel1 that1 even after all their
 toil1 they are not quite sure that     
god's revelation is quite exactly       
rendered into ,english4 ,so far as the  
ordinary authorised version of the ,new 

,testament goes--and it is this1 the    
law-recognised1 version which is still  
used in administering oaths--we are told
 that the old translators used          
considerable freedom1 and studiously    
adopted a variety of expressions which  
would now be deemed hardly consistent   
with the requirements of faithful       
translation4 ,this is a pleasant        
euphemism1 but a real and direct charge 
of dishonest translation by the         
authorised translators4 ,the new        
revisers add1 with sadness1 that it     
cannot be doubted that they 7the        
translators of the authorised version7  
carried this liberty too far1 and that  
the studied avoidance of uniformity in  
the rendering of the same words1 even   
when occurring in the same context1 is  
one of the blemishes of their work4     
,these blemishes the new revisers think 
were increased by the fact that the     
translation of the authorised version of
 the ,new ,testament was assigned to two
 separate companies1 who never sat      

together1 which was beyond doubt the    
cause of many inconsistencies1 and1     
although there was a final supervision1 
the new revisers add1 most mournfully3  
,when it is remembered that the         
supervision was completed in nine       
months1 we may wonder that the          
incongruities which remain-are not more 
numerous4  ,nor are the revisers by any 
means free from doubt and misgiving on  
their own work4 ,they had the laborious 
task of deciding between the rival      
claims of various readings which might  
properly affect the translation1 and1 as
 they tell us1 ,textual criticism1 as   
applied to the ,greek ,new ,testament1  
forms a special study of much intricacy 
and difficulty1 and even now leaves room
 for considerable variety of opinion    
among competent critics4 ,next they say3
 the frequent inconsistencies in the    
authorised version have caused us much  
embarrassment1 and that there are       
numerous passages in the authorised     
version in which4444 the studied variety

 adopted by the ,translators of #afaa   
has produced a degree of inconsistency  
that cannot be reconciled with the      
principle of faithfulness4 ,so little   
are the new revisers always certain as  
to what god means that they provide     
alternative readings in difficult or    
debateable passages1 and say the notes  
of this last group are numerous and     
largely in excess of those which were   
admitted by our predecessors4 ,and with 
reference to the pronouns and other     
words in italics we are told that some  
of these cases4444 are of singular      
intricacy1 and make it impossible to    
maintain rigid uniformity4 ,the new     
revisers conclude by declaring that     
through our manifold experience of its  
abounding difficulties we have felt more
 and more as we went onward that such a 
work can never be accomplished by       
organised efforts of scholarship and    
criticism unless assisted by divine     
help4 ,apparently the new revisers are  
conscious that they did not receive this

 divine help in their attempt at        
revision1 for they go on3 ,we know full 
well that defects must have their place 
in a work so long and so arduous as this
 which has now come to an end4          
,blemishes and imperfections there are  
in the noble translation which we have  
been called upon to revise2 blemishes   
and imperfections will assuredly be     
found in our own revision2444 we cannot 
forget how often we have failed in      
expressing some finer shade of meaning  
which we recognised in the original1 how
 often idiom has stood in the way of a  
perfect rendering1 and how often the    
attempt to preserve a familiar form of  
words1 or even a familiar cadence1 has  
only added another perplexity to those  
which have already beset us4  ,,the     
,,end4