The Religious Situation | Page 3

time to grow.
Though grafts on the same original stock, the Gospels are often at
variance with each other; as in the case of the genealogy of Jesus, upon
which the harmonists labor in vain; in that of the marvels attending his
birth; in that of his Last Supper; in that of the resurrection, which again
baffles the skill of the harmonists. Here, surely, is proof that the pens of
the narrators were not guided by Omniscience.
Concerning the miracles of the casting out of devils generally, and in
particular of the casting out of a legion of devils into a herd of two
thousand swine at Gadara, what is to be said? Are these not clearly
cases of human imagination set at work by a Jewish superstition? Is it
possible that they should have had a place in a divine narrative of the
life of the Saviour of the world? The Fourth Gospel omits them.
Orthodoxy would fain persuade itself that this was to avoid
unnecessary repetition.

Satan from the top of a mountain shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the
earth. This seems to imply belief that the earth is a plane. The
movement of the star of the Nativity seems to imply belief in the
rotation of the heavens.
About the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and, consequently, about its
title to belief, there has been endless controversy among the learned.
But there are pretty plain indications, in the shape of the omission of
demoniac miracles and some lack of local knowledge, that it is not the
work of a Palestinian Jew. Opening with a reference to the Logos, it
strikes the key of Alexandrian philosophy. It is, indeed, rather
theological than historical, so that it has been not inaptly compared to
the Platonic, in contrast to the Xenophontic, account of Socrates, the
theology seems like that of a post-evangelical era. Martineau's
conclusion is that "the only Gospel which is composed and not merely
compiled and edited, and for which, therefore, a single writer is
responsible, has its birthday in the middle of the second century, and is
not the work of a witness at all." Historically, this Gospel is at variance
with the others in its narrative of the Last Supper. "The incidents," says
the highly orthodox Speaker's Commentary, "are parallel with sections
of the Synoptic Gospels; but there are very few points of actual
correspondence in detail between the narratives of the Synoptists and of
St. John." There appears to have been much disputation among critics
and commentators, but no room for disputation surely would have been
left concerning narratives, equally authentic and inspired, of a
momentous crisis in the life of the Saviour.
"At this point, that is to say the beginning of the Galilean ministry, we
are again met by difficulties in the chronology, which are not only
various, but to the certain solution of which there appears to be no clue.
If we follow exclusively the order given by one Evangelist we appear
to run counter to the scattered indications which may be found in
another. That it should be so will cause no difficulty to the candid mind.
The Evangelists do not profess to be guided by chronological
sequences." So writes Dean Farrar in despair. Is it likely that such
confusion would be found in a Divine revelation? Would not the
narratives have been as well arranged and clear as, by the admission of

orthodoxy, they are the reverse? Would the names of the authors of the
Gospels, their warrants and the sources of their information, have been
withheld? Providence surely was not there.
If there was a miraculous revelation on which salvation depended, why
was it not universal? Why has it all this time been withheld from
nations even more in need of it than those to whom it was given? Are
we to suppose that the salvation of these myriads was a matter of
indifference to their Creator, or that Heaven preferred the slow and
precarious working of the missionary to the instantaneous action of its
own fiat? This is the question which scepticism asks, and which the
great author of the "Analogy of Religion" fails to answer.
What did Jesus think of himself and his mission, and of his relation to
Deity? This it seems impossible without more authentic records clearly
to decide. The Gospel of St. John, which is the most theological, would
appear to be the least trustworthy of the four. Its author, apparently,
sees its subject through a theosophic medium of his own. The idea of
the teacher in the mind of the disciples would naturally rise with his
ascendancy; so, perhaps, would his own idea. If Jesus is rightly
reported he believed himself to be the Son of God, exalted to union and
participation in spiritual