Five Pebbles from the Brook | Page 5

to me to indicate that the
writers of those Gospels were Gentiles not perfectly acquainted with
Jewish customs, and therefore not Matthew and John.[fn 6]
There are other traces of ignorance of Jewish customs, to be found in
the Gospel called of Matthew, which betray the Gentilism of the author
of it. For instance, he says ch. xxvi. 24[fn7], that Jesus told Peter, that
"before the cock crew he should deny him thrice;" the same is also
found in Mark ch. xiv. 30. in Luke ch. xxii. 54[fn8], and in John ch. xiii.
38. Now it is asserted in the Mishna (i. e the oral law of the Jews.) in
the Bava Kama according to Mr. Everett p. 448. of his work, that cocks
were not permitted in Jerusalem where Peter's denial took place;
[probably because that bird is constantly scratching up the ground with
his feet, and was thereby liable to turn up impurities, by touching which
in passing by, a Jew would be ceremonially defiled, and rendered
incapable of visiting the Temple to perform his devotions, till after the
evening of the day on which the defilement took place], therefore all
the four Gospels which all contain, this story, must have been written
by Gentiles ignorant of the custom which belies the story.

Some Christian writers have endeavoured to get rid of this objection,
by attempting to prove "that the crowing of the cock here mentioned,
does not mean actually the crowing of a cock, but 'the sound of a
trumpet!'" while others, blushing at the hardihood of their brethren,
think it more prudent to maintain, that the author of the Mishna was
ignorant of Jewish customs, and that the writers of the Gospels were
perfectly acquainted with them; and that therefore every good Christian
was bound in conscience not to regard the objection.
But the prohibition of cocks from entering the Holy city is so perfectly
of a piece with many other cautions against defilement observed by the
Jews, and is so perfectly in the taste of the times of the Pharisees, "the
careful washers of plates and platters,"--the "tithers of mint, anise, and
cummin," not to mention the reason above expressed, which perhaps
was, to say truth, according to the regulations against defilement
contained in the Pentateuch a sufficient reason for excluding that bird
from the city, where stood the Temple, that the reader will probably
believe that such a custom might have existed.
Again, it is said Matt. xxvii. 62, that the Chief Priests and Pharisees
went to Pilate; demanded a guard; went to the Sepulchre of Jesus,
sealed the door, and set watch. Now Jesus is said to have arisen on the
day after this, on the first day of the week, i.e. Sunday, of course the
day before was Saturday of the Jewish Sabbath. I maintain that the
Chief Priests and Pharisees, who objected to Jesus curing the sick and
rubbing corn from the ear, in order to satisfy his hunger on the Sabbath
day; I maintain that it is utterly incredible, that these men should have
gone to Pilate on public business, and transacted all this on their
Sabbath. For such an action would have come completely within the
spirit, and the letter of the Laws against breaking the Sabbath contained
in the-Pentateuch, which makes the penalty of such actions as are here
ascribed to the Chief Priests and rigorous Pharisees, nothing less than
stoning to death. I infer therefore, that the author of the Gospel of
Matthew was ignorant of this, and of course not a Jew, and
consequently not Matthew.
I would observe further, in connection with this subject, that Jesus is

represented, Matt. xxiii. 35, as saying, that upon the Jews of this time
should come "the blood of Zecharias the son of Barachias whom ye
slew between the Temple and the altar." Now, I believe that it is
recorded in Josephus' history, that the Jews slew this Zecharias in the
time of the Jewish war, about forty years after Jesus is represented as
saying, that they had killed him already. Of course Jesus never could
have said this, nor would a Jew acquainted with the times, as Matthew
must have been, have been guilty of such an anachronism. The writer
of that Gospel must therefore, have been a Gentile, and not Matthew.
The same mistake is made by Luke xi. 51.
On turning his attention to the external evidence in favour of the
authenticity of the Gospels, the difficulties and objections accumulate.
He will find, that they are not mentioned by any writer earlier than the
latter half of the second century, after the birth of Jesus. The first
writers who name the four Gospels, were Irenaeus, and Tertullian.[fn9]
The competency of the testimony of these Fathers of the church,