The Objections of J. D. Michaelis to the Canonical Authority of the Gospels of Mark and Luke Considered
J. D. Michaelis, in his Introduction to the New Testament, as translated from the German, by Bishop Marsh, in the Third Soction’of the Third Chapter, speaking of the gospels of St. Mark and St Luke, and of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the 2;rounds of placing them in the Canon, says, “I must confess that I am unable to find a satisfactory proof of their inspiration, and the more I investigate the subject, and the oftener I compare their writings with those of St. Matthew, and St. John, the greater are my doubts.” He then goes on to say, that in a former edition of this work, he had stated the arguments on both sides of the question, but although uncertain which he should prefer, yet he had rather inclined to the affirmative. But now, he tells us, that he is strongly inclined to the negative.
The first argument for the inspiration of these gospels, which the learned professor considers, is derived from the fact, that Mark and Luke were companions and assistants of the apostles. This, he can aftord no proof of their inspiration, even if ir could be shown that they were enrlovvcd uiih the extraordinary o;ifts of the Holy Ghost, of which, liov’ovcr, there is no historical proof. Because a disciple might possess these e;ifts, and yet his Writings not he inspired. And if we gr-an.d ihearginn.-nt for their inspinition on th ci aractcr of an apusile’s assistant, then we must rt.’reive as Cawonical the genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome, and Iho writings of other apost’djcul Fathers.
The next argument which he cons:iders, is, that the apostles themselves have recommended these gosj.H’ls lis Canonical, in their fpistlcs. That the passigps depended on for proof do refer to these or any other writtet) gospels, the professor denies: hut even if they did, he considers the evidence unsatisfactory; for he supposes that thty mighr have commendida hook as containing gtnuine historical accounts, without vouching for its inspiration.
The tfsiiuioiiy of the Fathers, that th’-se go>;pels Aver’ approved by Peter and Paul, respectively; and, with Matthew’s gos|)el were shown to the apostle Jnhn, the It-arned professor sets aside with vtTy little ceremony.
And finally, he demurs, in regard to the evidence of the Canonical authority of these books, derived from the testimony of th»^ whole primitive church, by which tluy were undoubtedly received into the Canon; and suggests that the apos’le?^ might have recommended them, and the primitive
9 church have accepted them, as works indispensable to a Christian, on account of the iriipurtance of their contents, and that by insensible dt grees they acquired the character of being; inspired.
On these reasonings and objections, against the inspiration and Canoni( al authority of several important books, which havf hitiicito held an unquestioned place, in the Canon of the New Testament, anti coming from the pen of a man too, of .-uch extensive Biblical learning, I think it necessary to detain the reader with some remarks, which I hope will have the t fleet uf counteracting the periaious influence of the opinions, which have been exhioited above.
1. In the first place, then, I would observe, that it will be admitted, that Mark and Luke were humble, pious men; als’i, that they were intelligent, well-informei] men, and must have known that the committing to writing the facts and doctrines comprehended in the gospel, was not left to the discretion or caprice of every disciple, but became the duty of those only, who were inspired by the Holy Ghost to undertake the wirk. Now, if these two disciples had been uninspired, or not under the immediate direction of apostles who possessed plenary inspiration, it would have argued great presumption in them, without any direction, to write gospels for the instruction of the church. The very fact of their writing is, ttierefore, a strong evidence, that they believed themselves to be inspired.
There is then little force in tlte remark of the learned professor, that neither St. Mark nor St Luke have declared, in any part of their wrltinss, that they were inspired: fbr such a declaration was un” necessary; their conduct in undertikine; to write such books, is the best evidence that they believed themselves callc(^ to this work.
And the objection to this argument, from the writings of other apostolical men, is not valid; for none of them ever undertook to write Gospels, for the use of the church. All attempts at writing ot- er Gospels, than the four, were considered by the primitive church, as impious; because, the writers were uninspired men.
2. But the universal reception of these books by the whole primitive church, as canonical, and that, while some of the apostles were living, is the evidence which to my mind is conclusivci that they were not mere human j)roductions, but composed by divine inspiration. That they were thus universally received, I think is manifest, from th testimonies which have already been adduced. There is not in all the writings of antiquity, a hint, that any Christian belonging to the church, ever suspected that these Gospels were inferior in authority to the others. No books in the Canon appear to have been received with more universal consent, and to have been 1«“Sr disputed. They arc contained in every cainlogue, w’lich has come down to us. They are cited a? Scripture, by all that mention them; and are expressly declared by the Fath’ rs, to be Canonical and inspired hooks. Now, let it be remembered, that this is the best evidence which we can have that any of the books of the New Testament were written by inspiration. I kn“w. indeed, thatMichaelisplace&ihe whole proof of inspiraiion on the promise made by Christ to his aposlle; b’i’ while it is admitted that this is a weighty consideration, it does not appear to us to be fqua! in force lo the testimony of the Universal Church, incluHina; the apostles themselves, that these writings were penned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; for it is not perfectly clear, that the promise referred to was confined to the twelve. Certainly, Paul, who was not of that number, was inspired in a plenary manner, and much the larger part of the twelve never wrote any thing for the Canon. There is nothing in the New Testament which forbids our supposing, that other disciples might have b”en selected to write for the use of the church. We do not wish that this should be believed, in regard to any persons, without evidence, but we think that the proof exists, and arises from the undeniable fact, that the writings of these two men were, frmn the beginning, received as inspired. And this belief must have prevailed before the death of the apostles; for all the testimonies concur in stating, that the gospel of Mark was seen by Peter, and that of Luke by Paul, and approved by them respectively. Now is it credixJ05
ble that those apo«5tlts, and John who survived them many years, would have recommended to the Christiao churfh, th” productions of uninspired men? No doubt, all the churches, at that time, looked up to thf apostles fDr sjuidance, in all matters that related to the rule <»f their faith, and a g’ nerai opinion that these jjospels were CannnicaJ, ctiuld not have obtained, without their concurrence. The hypothesis of Michaclis, that they were rceommen led as useful human productions, and by deojrees came to be considend as inspired writings, is in itself improbable, and repugnant to all the testimony which has come down to us on the subjectr If this had been the fact, they would never have been placed among the books, universally acknowledgerl, hut would have been doubted of, or disputed by some. The difference made between inspired books, and others, in those primitive times, was as great as at any subsequent period; and the line of distinction was not only broad, but great pains were taken to have it drawn accurately; and when the common opinion of the church, respecting the gosjiels, was formed, there was no difficulty in coming to the certain knowledge of the truth. For thirty years and more, before the death of the aposth’ John, these two gospels were in circulation. If any doubt had existed respecting their Canonical authority, would not the churches and their Elders have had recourse to this infallible authority? The general agrt ement of all Christians, 20t>
over the whole world, respecting most of the books of the New Testament, doubtless, should be attributed to the authority of the apostles. If, then, these Gospels had been mere human productions, they mio;ht have been read privately, but never could have found a place in the Sacred Canon. The objection to these books comes entirely too late to be entitled to any weight. The opinion of a modern critic, however learned, is of small consideration, when opposed to the testimony of the whole primitive church; and to the suffrage of the universal church, in every age, since the days of the apostles. The rule of the learned Huet, already cited,; is sound, viz. “That all those books should be deemed Canonical and inspired, which were received as such, by those who lived nearest to the time when they were published.”
8. But if we should, for the sake of argument, concede, that no books should be considered as inspired, but such as were the productions of apostles, still these gospels would not be excluded from the Canon. It is a fact, in which there is a wonderful agreement among the Fathers, that Mark wrote his gospel from the mouth of Peter; that is, he wrote down what he had heard this apostle every day declaring, in his public ministry. And Luke did the same, in regard to Paul’s preaching. These gospels therefore, may, according to this testimony, be considered, as more prabably belonging to these two apostles, than to the Evangelists who pcnncfl tlicm. They were little more, it would scf-m, if we give full credit to the testimony which has been exhibited, than amanuenses to the apostles, on whom they attended. Paul, we know, dictated several of his Pipistles to some of his companions; and if Mark and Luke heard the gospel from Peter and Paul, so often repeated, that they were perfect masters of their respective nan-atives, and then committed the same to writing, are they not, virtually, the productions of these apostles which have been handed down to us? And this was so much the opinion of some o£ the Fathers, that they speak of Mark’s gospel, as Peter’s, and bf Luke’s, as Paul’s.
Bui this is not all. These gospels were shown: to these apostles, and received their approbation. Thus speak the ancients, as with one voice, and if they had been silent, we might be certain, from the circumstances of the case, that these Evangelists would never have ventured to take such an important step, as to write and publish the preaching of these inspired men, without their express approbation. Now, let it be considered, that a. narrative prepared by a man well acquainted with the facts related, may be entirely correct without inspiration; but of this we cannot be sure, and therefore, it is of great importance to have a his’ory of facts from men, who were rendered infallible by the inspiration of t lie Moly Spirit. It. should be remembered, however, that the only
2 OS
advantae;e of inspiration ir jrivina; such a narrative, coiisjsts in thf proper selncfioti of facts and circumstances, and in the infallible certainty of the writing. Suppose, then, that an uninspired man shi’uld prepare an account of such transactions as he had seen, or heard from eve-witnesses, of undoubied veracity, and that his narrative should be submitted to the inspection of an apostle, and receive his full approbation; might not such a book be considered as ins[)lred? If in the origioal composition, there should have crept in some errors, (for to err is human) the inspired reviewer would, of course, point them out and have ihem corrected; now such a book would be, for all important purposes, an inspired volume; and would deserve a place in the Canon of Holy Scripture. If any credit, th»n, is due to the testimony of the Christian Fathers, the gospels of JNIark and Luke, are Canonical books; for, as was before stated, there is a general concurrence among them, that these Evangelists submitted their wiirks to the inspection, and received the approbation, of the apostles Peter and Paul.
4. Fmally, the internal evidence is as strong in favour of the gospels under consideration, as of anyother book-^ of the New Testament. There is no reason to think that Mark or Luke were capable of writing with such perfect simplicity and pr ‘priety, without the aid of inspiration, or the assiinnce of inspired men. If we reject these books irom
;ioy
the Canon, we niu-st a;ive up the argument derived from internal evidence for the inspiration of the Sacreil S(‘ri|)turc.s, altogether. It is true, tiic learned professor, whose opinions we are opposing, has said, “The oftener I compare their writings (Mark’s and Luke’s) with those of St. Matthew and St. John, the greater are my doubts.” And speaking in another place of Mark he says, “In some immaterial instances he seems to have erred,’* and gives it as his opinion, “That they who undertake to reconcile St. Mark wit li St Matthew, or to show that he is nowhere corrected by St. John, experience great difficulty, and have not seldom to resort to ininatural explanations.” But the learned professor has not mentioned any particular cases of irreconciloable discrepancies between this evangeist and St. Mattln;w; nor does he indicate in what statements he is corrected by St. John. Until something of this kind is exhibited, general remarks of this sort are deserving of no consideration. To harmonize the evangelists has always been found a difficidt task, but this docs not prove that they contradict each other, or that their accounts are irreconcilable. Many things, which, at first sight, appear contradictory, arc found, upon closer examination, to be perfectly harmonious; and if there be some things, which commentators have been unable satisfactorily to reconcil’*, it is no more than what mighi be expected, in narratives so concise, and in which, a strict regard to chronological order, did not enter into the plan of the writers. And if this objection be permitted to influence our judgment, in this case, it will operate against the inspiration of the other evangelists as well as Mark; but in our apprehension, when the discrepancies are impartially considered, and all the circumstances of the facts candidly and accurately weighed, there will be found no solid ground of objection to the inspiration of any of the gospels; — certainly nothing, which can counterbalance the strong evidence arising from the style aipd spirit of the writers. In what respects these twoEvangp lists fall short of the others, has never been shown; upon the most thcjrough exammation and fair comparison of these inimitable productions, they appear to be all indited by the same spirit, and to possess the same superiority to all human compositions.
Compare these gospels with those which are acknowledged to have been written by uninspired men, and you will need no nice power of discrimination to see the difference: the first appear in every respect worthy of God; the last betray, in every page, the weakness of man.
I beg leave, here, to use the words of an excellent writer, in a late work: “The gospel of St. Luke was always from the very moment of its publication, received as inspired as well as authentic. It was published durmg the lives of St. John, St. Peter, and St. Paul, and was approved and sanctioned by them as inspired; and received as such by the clnn’chps,in conformity to thoJewi’^hCnnon, which tic’ci I.mI on Uie geiiuiiier.jbS c* >; “.rioni-ntss of ihi ins|;ired books ul theii” own church, by receiviiii;- h ni as a prophet, who was ackou’lfcigctl as sii. ii by the tistiniony of an eslablishtd prophet. On the same grounds Lnkeniust be considered as a true Kvan<;elist: his gospel bei. g dictaled and appr v<:d by ai aposile, of whose authority there can be- iio qucsiii)n. ‘I’hen; is likpvvise sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusions of Whitby — that both St. Mark and St. Luke were of the number of the s<:veniy, who had a commission from li.-ist to preach llie gospel not to the Jews only, bul to the other nations — That the Holy Ghost foil on those among the numbers of the seventy, who formed a part of the hundred and twenty, assembled on the day of Pentecost, and from that time they were guided by the influences of the Holy Spirit, in writing or preaching the gospel. And if the Uuiversal Cluirrh, from the tirsi ages, received this gospel as divinely inspired, on these satisftctory grounds, distance of time cannot weaken the evidences of truth, and we are recpnred to receive it on the same testimoiiy-. That which satisfied those who had much better means of judging, should certainly satisfy us, at this time.”*
There is something reprehensible, not to say
* New Testament, by the Rev. George Townsend. Vol- 1. p. 5.
impioiis,in that bold spirit of modern criticism,whicU has lt’d m:my eminent Biblical schi-lars, especi ily in (lermany, first to attack the authority of particular bioks of Scti[ ture, and next to call in question the inspiration of the whole volume. To what extent this licentiousness of criticism has been carried, I need not say for it is a matter of noiorietv, thit of late, the most dangerous enemies of the FUbie, have been found occupying the places of its afiv icaies; and the critical art, w! ich was intended for the correction of the text, and the interpretation (if the Sacred books, hiS, in a most unnatural way, been turned agamst the; iblf; and finally, the insjiiration of ail the sacred hooks, has not only been questioned, but scornfully rejected, bi, Fro/essnrs of Theology! And these meo, while living on endowments which pious benevolrnce had consecrated for the support of religion, and openly connected with churches whose creeds contain orthodox opinions, have so far forgotten their high rpsponsibilities,and neglected the claims which the church had on them, as to exert all their ingenuity and learning, to sap the foundation of that system, which they were sworn to def nd. They have had the shameless haniihood. to end forth into the world, books under their own names, w’.ich contain fully as much of the poi’^on of infidelity, as ever di.Ntilled from the pens of the most malignant deists, whose writings have fallen, as a curse upon the World. The only effectual security which we have agjainst this new and most danojerous form of inftclclity, is found in the spirit of the age, which is so superticiai and cursory in its reading, that however many elaborate criliical works may be published in foreign languages, very few of them will be read, even by Theological students, in this country.
May God overrule the efforts of these enemies of Christ and the Bible, so that good may come out of evil!
fv