# The Collected Works of Theodore Parker/Volume 01/Book 4/Chapter 3

CHAPTER III.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO BE A DIVINE, MIRACULOUS, OR INFALLIBLE COMPOSITION.
Let us look the facts of the New Testament also in the face. Some men are glad to abandon the Old Testament to the Jews, but fear to look into the foundation of the Christian Scriptures, lest it also be found sandy. Does much depend on the New Testament? Then the more carefully must its claims be examined. Truth courts the light, its deeds never evil. Are the writings of the New Testament divine, miraculous, and infallible compositions; if the Old Testament fail—the only infallible rule of religious faith and practice? Such is the prevalent opinion with us. After what was said above respecting the points to be proved before such a conclusion could be admitted, it becomes less difficult to decide this question. The general remarks respecting the inspiration of the Old Testament apply also to the New, and need not be repeated. Bearing these in mind, let us subject these writings to the same test. To do this we must examine the works themselves. This general thesis may be affirmed: All the writings in the New Testament, as well as the Old, contain marks of their human origin, of human weakness and imperfection.
Now in the New Testament, as in the Old, we have spurious works mixed with the genuine. To separate the former from the latter, is not an easy work, perhaps not possible, at this day. However there are some books of ​unquestionable genuineness, and others whose spurious character is almost demonstrated. Modern criticism and ancient authority seem to decide that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not the work of Paul, but of some unknown author; that the second Epistle of Peter is not from that apostle, but from one who, as Scaliger said, “abused his leisure time;” the second and third of John, the Epistles of James and Jude, are not from the apostolic persons whose names they bear; and that the book of the Revelation is not the work of John the Evangelist. Serious objections have been brought against some other epistles, many of which appear to be well founded, and against some of the Evangelists alluded to already.
Then if the above remarks be correct, there are seven works in the New Testament whose claim to apostolical authority was anciently doubted with good reason. These disputed writings may be neglected in the present examination. If the other writings, whose claim to an apostolic origin is supposed to be stronger, are not found miraculous and infallible, still less shall be expected of these. The rest of the New Testament may be divided into the epistolary and the historical writings.
I. Of the Epistolary Writings of the New Testament.
These are the oldest Christian documents; the works of Paul, Peter, and John, the most illustrious of the early disciples, the “chiefest apostles,” and most instrumental in founding the Christian church. If any of the early Christians received miraculous inspiration, it must be the apostles; if any of the apostles, it must be one, or all, of these three. To determine their claims, the works of the three may be examined together, for the sake of brevity.
Now at the first view of these fifteen epistles, it does not appear that any miraculous inspiration was required to write these more than the letters of St Cyprian or Fenelon. They contain nothing above the reach of human faculties, ​and to assume a miraculous agency is contrary to the inductive method, to say the least of it.
Do the writers ever claim a peculiar and miraculous inspiration? The furthest from it possible. Paul speaks of his inspiration, but admits that, of all Christians, “No man can say Jesus is the Lord,” that is, Christianity is true, “but by the Holy Ghost.” He refers wisdom, faith, eloquence, learning, skill in the interpretation of tongues, ability to teach, or heal diseases, to inspiration: “All these worketh that one and selfsame spirit.” The Spirit of Christ was in all Christian hearts; they all received the “Spirit of God.” That was Paul's view of inspiration. He and his fellow-apostles were servants that helped others to believe. He had the gift of teaching in a more eminent degree, and enjoyed a greater “abundance of revelations,” and therefore taught. John carries the doctrine of the universal inspiration of Christians still further.
Now, if the apostles had this miraculous and peculiar inspiration, and through modesty did not state it, they must yet have known the fact. But it is notorious they taught not in the name of any private inspiration, but in that of Jesus.
But even if the apostles claimed miraculous and infallible inspiration, and taught with authority they pretended to derive therefrom, still their claim could not be granted, for, if infallibly inspired, they must be ready for all emergencies. Now a practical question arose in a novel case which was a test of their inspiration: Should they admit the Gentiles to Christianity? The book of Acts relates, that Peter required a special and miraculous vision to enlighten him on this head. He seems surprised to find that “God is no respecter of persons,” but will allow all religious men of any nation to become Christians. Had he been miraculously inspired before, to what purpose the vision?
If the apostles were infallibly inspired, they could not ​disagree on any point. Now another question comes up: Shall the Gentiles keep the old ceremonial Law of Moses, and be circumcised? It would seem that men of common freedom of thought, who had heard the teaching of Jesus, would not need miraculous help to decide so plain a question. If they had the alleged inspiration, each must know at once how to decide, and all would decide in the same way without consultation. But such was not the fact; they were divided on this very question—plain as it is—and held a meeting of the Christians; the “apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.” It was not a plain case, there was “much disputing” about it. Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, spoke against the Law; James, as chairman of the meeting, sums up the matter before putting the question, takes a middle ground, proposes a resolution that all the Mosaic ritual should not be imposed upon the Gentile converts, but only a few of its prohibitions, which he reckons “necessary things.” He comes to this conclusion, not by special inspiration—of which no mention is made in the meeting—but from Peter's statement of facts, and from a passage in the Prophet who says, that “all the Gentiles might seek after the Lord.” The question was put; the chairman's motion prevailed; a circular was drawn up in the name of the Holy Spirit and the assembly, and sent to the Churches. But Paul and Peter seem to have disregarded it, one going beyond, the other falling short of its requisitions.
Then, again, the apostles differed on some points. Paul and Barnabas had a sharp contention, and separated. Could infallible men fall out? Paul had little respect for those “that were apostles before him,” and “withstood Peter to the face.”
These Apostles were mistaken in several things; in their interpretation of the Old Testament, as any one may see by examining the passages cited by Peter in the Acts, or the writings of Paul. They were all mistaken in this capital doctrine: That Jesus would return to Judea, the ​general resurrection and judgment take place, and the world be destroyed within a very few years, during the lifetime of the Apostles. This is a very strongly marked feature in their teaching. From the doubtful epistle ascribed to Peter, it seems that as times went by and the world continued, scoffers very naturally doubted the truth of this opinion, but were assured it would hold good.
II. Of the Historical Writings of the New Testament.
Here we have, apparently, though I think not really, the works of Matthew and John, two of the immediate disciples of Jesus, and of Mark and Luke, the companions of Peter and Paul. The first question is, have we really the works of these four writers? It is a question which can by no means be readily and satisfactorily answered in the affirmative. However, it cannot be entered upon in this place; but admitting, in argument, the works are genuine, at the first view, there seems no need of miraculous inspiration in the case of honest men wishing to relate what they had seen, heard, or felt. It is not easy to see why miraculous and infallible inspiration was needed to write the memoirs of Jesus and the Acts of the Apostles more than the memoirs of Socrates, or the Acts of the Martyrs. The writers never claim such an inspiration. Matthew and Mark never speak of themselves as writers; Luke refers to certain “eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word” as his authority for the facts of the Gospel. John claims it as little as the others, though an unknown writer, at the end of his Gospels, testifies to the truth of the narrative.
But even if they made this claim, so often made for them, ​it could not be granted, for their testimony does not agree. The Jesus of the Synoptics differs very widely from the Jesus of John, in his actions, discourses, and general spiritual character, as much as the Socrates of Xenophon from that of Plato. This point was early acknowledged by Christian Fathers. But not to dwell on a general disagreement, nor to come down to the perpetual and well-known disagreement in minute details, there is a most striking difference between the genealogies of Jesus as given by Matthew and Luke. Both agree that Jesus was descended from David by the Father's side; but Matthew counts twenty-five ancestors between David and Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Luke enumerates forty ancestors, of whom thirty-eight are never mentioned by Matthew; one derives his descent from the illustrious Solomon, the other from the obscure Nathan; one makes Nazareth Joseph's dwelling-place, the other Bethlehem. They disagree, likewise, in numerous particulars of the early history, such as the miraculous appearance of the star, the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the songs, the angels, and the dreams. Yet notwithstanding these genealogies both agree that Jesus had no human father, a fact never referred to by Mark or John, by Peter or Paul, nor in the recorded words of Jesus himself, or the people about him, who took him for the son of Joseph the carpenter. If he had no human father, how was he descended from David? Are we to believe a miracle so surprising, on the doubtful statement of two men whom we know nothing of, but who contradict themselves and one another, and relate the strongest marvels? Is it a part of Religion to believe such stories? What else would we believe on such evidence? It were easy to point out other disagreements in the words, and actions, and predictions ascribed to Jesus; in the accounts of his resurrection and the impossible events of his subsequent history, but it is not needed for the present purpose. The book of the Acts, of a my​thical and legendary character, requires no special examination.
This, however, must be admitted, that the facts of the case will not warrant the claim of miraculous and infallible inspiration that is made for them; and that we are to examine with great caution before we accept their statements, which, in detail, have often but a low degree of historical credibility.
These facts cannot be hushed up, nor put out of sight; we must look them in the face. They have pained already many a breaking heart, which could not separate the truth of Religion from the errors of the Christian record—felt with groans that could not be uttered. It need not be so. Christianity is one thing; the Christian documents a very different matter. In them, as in the Old Testament, there is a mythology; the natural and the supernatural are confounded. The Gospels cannot be taken as historical “authorities,” until a searching criticism has separated their mythological and legendary narratives from what is purely a matter-of-fact. Some attempt to remove the difficulty by striking out the offensive passages, and others by explaining them away, and still claim miraculous infallibility for all the rest, which the writers never claim for themselves nor allow one another. Let us rest on things as they are; not try to base our Church on things that are not.
It may be asked: If there is no foundation of fact for the miraculous part of the narrative, why did the writers dwell so much on this part? The question may be asked in the case of the catholic miracles; those of St Bernard; of witchcraft and possessions before named. It is at least difficult to determine what lay at the bottom of the matter. But this is a fixed point, that Devils, Ghosts, and Witches only appear where they were previously believed in, and there they continually appear; “imagination bodies forth the forms of things not seen.” The Catholic sees the Virgin, and the Mormonite finds miracles to-day. Will ​not the same cause—whatever be it—help to explain the visions of Paul, the angels, and miracles of the New Testament? It is not many years since the divines of New England made collections of accounts of the devil appearing to men. If a religious teacher should appear at the time and place as Jesus appeared, it would be surprising, almost beyond belief, if miraculous tales were not connected with his birth, life, and death. Antiquity is full of sons of God, and wonder-workers. The story of Lazarus, and even that of the Ascension, is not without its parallels.
But if all the charges against the New Testament are true, what then? Why, this: honest men; noble, pious, simple-hearted men; the zealous Apostles of Christianity; the first to espouse it; willing to leave all, comfort, friends, life for its sake, after all, were but men, such as are born in these days, fallible, like ourselves; often in intellectual and moral error; they shared, like us, the ignorance and superstition of the times, and though earnest in looking saw not all things, but, as the wisest of them said, “through a glass darkly,” and made some confusion among things they did see. Do we ask miraculous evidence to prove that Jesus lived a divine life? We can have no such testimony. We know that if he taught Absolute Religion, his Christianity is absolutely true; that if he did not teach it, still Absolute Religion remains, the everlasting Rock of Faith, in spite of the defects of historical evidence, or the limitations of this or that man. Has the New Testament exaggerated the greatness and embellished the beauty of Jesus? Measure his religious doctrine by that of the time and place he lived in, or that of any time and any place! Yes, by the doctrine of eternal truth. Consider what a work his words and deeds have wrought in the world; that he is still the Way, the Truth, and the Life to millions; that he is reckoned a God by the mass of Christians, his Word their standard of truth, his Life the Ideal they see too far above them in the Heavens for their imitation; remember that though other minds have seen farther, and added new truths to his doctrine of Religion, yet the richest hearts have felt no deeper, and added nothing to the sentiment of Religion; have set no loftier aim, no truer method than his of per​fect love to God and man, and then ask, Have the Evangelists overrated him? We can learn but few facts about Jesus; but measure him by the shadow he has cast into the world; no, by the light he has shed upon it, not by things in which Hercules was his equal, and Vishnu his superior. Shall we be told, Such a man never lived; the whole story is a lie? Suppose that Plato and Newton never lived; that their story is a lie. But who did their works, and thought their thought? It takes a Newton to forge a Newton. What man could have fabricated a Jesus? None but a Jesus.
* ↑ See Faustus Socinus, De Auctoritate Sac. Script., Ch. I. where he defends the Scripture against Christians; and Ch. II. against the not Christians.
* ↑ See above, B. IV. ch. i. and ii.
* ↑ The non-apostolical origin of these seven books is by no means fixed and agreed upon by all the critics. There is better evidence for the Johannic origin of the Revelation, than the 4th Gospel. See, who will, the discussions in the Introductions of Michäelis, Hug, De Wette, and the numerous monograms on these points. See above, p. 162, note.
* ↑ Cor. xii. 1, et seq.
* ↑ This point has been ably touched by Spinoza, Tract. theol. polit. chap. xi. ed. Paulus, Vol. I. p. 315, et seq. From him both Leclerc, Sentimens de quelques Théologiens, &c., and Rich. Simon, (Hist. Crit. du V. T.,) seem to have drawn some of their stores. See also the acute remarks of Lessing, Werke, ed. Carlsruhe, 1824, Vol. XXIV. p. 84, et seq.
* ↑ Acts x. 1, et seq.
* ↑ Acts xv. 1, et seq.
* ↑ Acts xv. 39.
* ↑ Gal. i. 11–ii. 14. See Middleton's Reflections on the dispute between Peter and Paul, Works, Vol. II.
* ↑ Acts ii. 14-21, 25-34, iii. 18, 21-24, iv. 25, 26, et al.
* ↑ Gal. iv. 24, et seq.; 1 Cor. x. 4, et seq., et al.
* ↑ See the essay of Mr Norton on this point, in Statement of Reasons, &c., p. 297, et seq., and De Potter, ubi sup. Vol. I. p. cxl. et seq.
* ↑ 2 Pet. iii. 4, et seq.
* ↑ On the affirmative side, see Paley, Evidences, Pt. I.; the masterly Treatise of Mr Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels; Prof. Stuart's Review of it in Bib. Rep. for 1837-8; and Lardner's Credibility, &c. See, on the other side, the popular but important remarks of Hennel, ubi sup. ch. iii.-vi. See also Strauss, Glaubenslehre, § 15; and the Life of Jesus, by Strauss, Theile, Neander, &c. &c.; the Introductions of Hug, De Wette, and Credner. Bruno Baur’s Kritik der evang. Geschichte des Johannes, 1840, and der Synoptiker, 1841. See above, the references B. III. ch. ii. at end.
* ↑ Luke i. 1, et seq. (See Acts i. 1, et seq.) John xxi. 24.
* ↑ See these discrepancies ably stated by Mr Norton, ubi sup. p. liii. et seq.; and Strauss, Life of Jesus, § 19–38; and the popular statement in Harwood, ubi sup. p. 20, et seq.; Hennel, ubi sup. ch. iii. v.; Middleton, Reflections; on the Variations in the Gospels, Works, Vol. II. See Weisseler's attempt to reconcile these genealogies, Stud. und Krit. für 1845, p. 361, et seq. Compare the Apocryphal Gospels.
* ↑ See, who will, Evanson, Dissonance of the Evangelists, Gloucester, 1805; Strauss, § 132-142; Wolfenbüttel, Fragment. Ueber Auferstehungsgeschichte, and the numerous replies.
* ↑ On the Credibility of Historians, see Arnold, Introduct. Lect. on Mod. Hist., Lond. 1843, Lect. VIII. See the valuable remarks of Grote, History of Greece, London, 1849, Vol. I.
* ↑ See Norton, Vol. I. p. liii. et seq.