253. Miracles and prophecies by which, according to the established principles, the truth of Christian revelation must be proved are chiefly gathered from the books which among us have the authority of Sacred Scripture. Chiefly, I say, because just as other monuments are not lacking which narrate several of those wondrous facts, so other sources are present from which, as we shall see, arguments can be drawn. Therefore, unless we first show the authenticity, or the force for making faith, which is in those books, we cannot use the narratives contained in them for instituting our demonstration. But it will help to remember that a twofold authority of the Scriptures can be considered: one divine, insofar as they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; the other human, insofar as we consider them like other historical monuments which are worthy of faith. Since here we are engaged in inquiring into revelation and defending its existence against unbelievers, we undertake to show not the divine authority, which we showed in the treatise On the Infused Virtues (disp. 4, art. 4), but the human authority of the Scriptures. Wherefore the method of demonstration will be this: The four Gospels of Jesus Christ are truthful; in them are narrated miracles performed and prophecies fulfilled by the event in confirmation of the divine origin of Christian revelation; miracles and prophecies demonstrate that in whose confirmation they are produced; therefore Christian revelation is truly from God (compare the treatise On the Infused Virtues, n. 912 ff.).
254. Now the historical authority of some book, as all know, consists in this, that the things narrated in it are true. But truth of this sort depends especially on the knowledge and truthfulness of the author; and therefore the truth of a historical book would be shown with greater difficulty unless its author, or the epoch in which it was written, were known in some way. Yet it would profit us nothing to know that the author wrote true things unless it were established at the same time that his book has come down to us in the same way as it was first written by him. Therefore to the question concerning the historical authenticity of the Gospels there is joined the question concerning their genuineness and integrity. These things must be unfolded a little, so that the sense of the question may become clearly known.
255. For some, an authentic book is the same as a genuine one; but these two concepts are truly diverse. For a book is called genuine when it has that author whose name it bears, or to whom it is commonly attributed; or at least when it was written around that age to which it is referred. Hence it is plain that genuineness contributes greatly to establishing the authority of a book; for from it can be gathered not only the sincerity of the author, but also his knowledge, if indeed he is an eyewitness; or, if an earwitness, whether he at least received the facts which he narrates from those who themselves saw; and if the facts are public, the public narration of them before those who could easily have discerned a lie, if there had been any, will be a new argument of truth.
256. But the integrity of a book properly means immunity from corruption. Now corruption can occur in a book in three ways: namely, by adding something to the author’s text, and this will properly be interpolation; by taking something away from it, and this will be mutilation; by changing something, so that the sense of the author is depraved, and this will be corruption properly so called. But integrity admits of degrees: it will be enough for us to distinguish a twofold integrity, one substantial, the other absolute. For the first it is required that no interpolation, mutilation, or corruption have intervened which changes the substance of the matters; hence, for example, the Gospels are said to be substantially integral if the things which pertain to faith and morals, to the substance of some fact, and so forth, have not been changed. For the other, however, immunity is required even from accidental corruptions, which, namely, concern words, certain circumstances of lesser moment, and so forth, while the substance of the matter remains safe. Compare what we said in the treatise On the Infused Virtues (nn. 1000-1002). Everyone sees that integrity in some way pertains to the genuineness of a book; for perfect genuineness requires that a book which is attributed to some author or age be such as it first came forth from him; so that, if the corruption is great, the book of that author is no longer possessed.
257. These things having been posited: 1) according to the limits which we have set for ourselves (n. 251), it by no means pertains to us in the present question to vindicate the historical authority of the books of the Old Testament; indeed, neither is it required for the present aim that we demonstrate the truthfulness of all the books of the New Testament. For in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles we find an abundant harvest of facts for undertaking our demonstration. 2) As regards the Gospels themselves, it will be enough for us to defend their substantial integrity; for that suffices to establish their historical authority, which we intend here. Certainly no historical book of approved reliability loses its authority in matters of greater moment, which could easily have been known by the author, from the fact that some error is detected in it concerning certain very slight circumstances. 3) Hence it is clear that we can safely leave to the Introduction to Sacred Scripture the task of treating the remaining books; the harmonizing of certain apparent contradictions among different writers; in a word, a fuller treatment of the matter.
258. Therefore, for understanding our matter, it helps to place before the eyes what St. Jerome has in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers: “Matthew, who is also Levi, from being a publican became an Apostle; he first, in Judaea, on account of those who from the circumcision had believed, composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words. Who later translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. Moreover the Hebrew itself was held even to this day in the library of Caesarea (but now it no longer exists)… It must be observed that wherever the Evangelist, whether in his own person or in the person of the Lord Savior, uses testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the Seventy translators, but the Hebrew; among these are those two: ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son,’ and ‘because he shall be called a Nazarene.’” “Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, according as he had heard Peter recounting, having been asked at Rome by the brethren, wrote a brief Gospel. When Peter had heard it, he approved it, and by his own authority published it to be read in the churches, as Clement writes in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also mentions this Mark; and Peter, in his first epistle, figuratively signifying Rome under the name of Babylon: ‘She who is co-elect in Babylon greets you, and Mark my son.’ Therefore, taking up the Gospel which he himself had composed, he went to Egypt, and, first announcing Christ at Alexandria, established the Church there, with such teaching and continence of life that he compelled all followers of Christ to the example of himself. Finally Philo, the most eloquent of the Jews, seeing at Alexandria the first Church still Judaizing, wrote a book on their manner of life, as though in praise of his own nation. And as Luke narrates that those believing at Jerusalem had all things in common, so he handed this down to memory. But he died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria, Anianus succeeding him.” “Luke, a physician of Antioch, as his writings indicate, was not ignorant of the Greek language; a follower of the Apostle Paul and companion of all his travel, he wrote the Gospel concerning which the same Paul says: ‘We sent with him the brother whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the churches.’ And to the Colossians: ‘Luke, the most dear physician, greets you.’ And to Timothy: ‘Luke alone is with me.’ He also published another excellent volume, which is prefaced with the title The Acts of the Apostles, whose history reaches to the two-year stay of Paul at Rome, that is, to the fourth year of Nero. From this we understand that the book was composed in the same City… Some suspect that whenever Paul says in his epistles, ‘According to my Gospel,’ he signifies the volume of Luke; and that Luke learned the Gospel not only from the Apostle Paul, who had not been with the Lord in the flesh, but also from the other Apostles. This he also declares at the beginning of his volume, saying: ‘as they handed down to us who from the beginning themselves saw and were ministers of the word.’ But the Acts of the Apostles he composed just as he had seen. He was buried at Constantinople, to which city, in the twentieth year of Constantius, his bones were translated together with the relics of Andrew the Apostle.” “John the Apostle, whom Jesus loved exceedingly, son of Zebedee, brother of the apostle James, whom Herod had beheaded after the passion of the Lord, wrote the Gospel last of all, having been asked by the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially against the dogma of the Ebionites then rising up, who assert that Christ did not exist before Mary. Hence he was also compelled to proclaim His divine nativity. But they also report another cause of this Scripture: that when he had read the volumes of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he indeed approved the text of the history, and affirmed that they had said true things, but that they had woven the history of only one year, in which He also suffered, after the imprisonment of John. Therefore, passing over the year whose deeds had been set forth by the three, he narrated the deeds of the earlier time, before John was shut in prison, as will be able to be clear to those who diligently read the volumes of the four Gospels. This matter also removes the discordance which seems to belong to John with the others… Worn out by old age, he died in the sixty-eighth year after the passion of the Lord, and was buried near the same city (Ephesus).” But St. Jerome himself says (Prologue in the Commentary on Matthew): “These four Gospels, therefore, foretold long before, the volume of Ezekiel also proves, in which the first vision is woven thus: ‘And in the midst, as it were, the likeness of four living creatures; and their faces were the face of a man, and the face of a lion, and the face of an ox, and the face of an eagle.’ The first face, of a man, signifies Matthew, who began to write as if concerning a man: ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.’ The second signifies Mark, in whom the voice of a lion roaring in the desert is heard: ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight His paths.’ The third, of an ox, prefigures that the evangelist Luke took his beginning from Zachariah the priest. The fourth signifies John the evangelist, who, having taken up the wings of an eagle and hastening toward higher things, disputes concerning the Word of God.”
259. These things having been laid down: Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved. PROPOSITION XI. That the four Gospels of Jesus Christ are 1. genuine, 2. substantially integral, and 3. truthful, is demonstrated by such force of arguments that no one can deny their historical authenticity, or call it alone into doubt, without rejecting all historical faith and stubbornly contradicting the evident principles of reason.
260. The first part is proved, I, by the argument which they call that of prescription or possession. The constant and universal testimony of Christian society, diffused through the whole world, concerning a matter of great moment done among itself and properly pertaining to itself, must be admitted unless it is clearly proved false from another source. But Christian society, already from the beginning, constantly acknowledged that the books of the New Testament, and especially the four Gospels, had those authors whose names they still bear even now, and that they were written at that time at which it is still commonly handed down. Therefore. The major, which otherwise is evident, is explained by the observation of St. Augustine, who writes (Against Faustus, book 28, chapter 2): “When I shall have begun to recite the Gospel of Matthew… you will immediately say that that narrative is not Matthew’s, which the whole Church says is Matthew’s, conducted from the apostolic sees down to the present bishops by a certain succession. What will you read to me in opposition? Perhaps that there is some book of Manichaeus, where Jesus is denied to have been born of a Virgin. Therefore, just as I believe that book to be Manichaeus’s, because from that very time in which Manichaeus lived in the flesh, through his disciples by a certain succession of your superiors it has been guarded and brought down to your times; so also believe this book to be Matthew’s, since from that time in which Matthew himself lived in the flesh, the Church has brought it down by an uninterrupted sequence of times and a certain succession of connection even to these times.” And in book 33, chapter 6: “Who at last is blinded by such madness, unless he has been overthrown by consenting to the malice and deceit of lying demons, who would say that the Church of the Apostles, so faithful, so numerous a concord of brethren, could not have merited this: that their writings should be faithfully transmitted to posterity, when they have preserved their chairs down to the present bishops by a most certain succession, and when this happens with so great facility in the writings of any sort of men, whether outside the Church or within the Church?” The minor is proved. 1) It is a thoroughly investigated matter, and admitted by all, that in the age of St. Augustine, Jerome, and Eusebius, the books of the New Testament, and especially the four Gospels, were already held as genuine among Christians. Indeed Eusebius, a most accurate historian who had searched through the ancient writers, reporting the traditions of the churches (in book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 25), described the list of the books of the New Testament: “First, therefore,” he says, “the sacred fourfold chariot of the Gospels is to be placed” (which in chapter 24 he had said had been written, the first by Matthew, the second by Mark, the third by Luke, the fourth by John); “after which follow the epistles of Paul” (which in chapter 3 he had asserted to be fourteen). “Then that first epistle of John, and similarly the epistle of Peter, is to be received. Last is to be joined, if it shall so seem, the Revelation of John; concerning which we shall set forth in its own place what the ancients thought. And these indeed have been received by the common consent of all.” Compare the treatise On the Infused Virtues (n. 919). 2) Now St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and all the rest would certainly not have retained the Gospels as genuine unless they had been acknowledged as such in the preceding century. For just as they rejected several books which were falsely ascribed to the Apostles and disciples of Christ, so also they would have rejected the Gospels if they had detected anything apocryphal or supposititious in them. Far from doing this, by their own investigations and examination they rather confirmed the judgment of their predecessors; therefore they found nothing which could weaken the genuineness of the Gospels. 3) In reality, in the third century St. Cyprian (Testimonies, book 3), bringing forth testimonies from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not only names them, but now says, for example, “Concerning this very thing in the Gospel according to Matthew”; now, “Likewise in the Gospel of Matthew”; now, “Concerning this very thing in Matthew”; and in the same way he names the other Evangelists. Tertullian (Against Marcion, book 4, chapter 4) writes: “The same authority of the apostolic Churches also supported the other Gospels, which likewise through them and according to them we have - I mean John’s and Matthew’s - although also that which Mark published is affirmed to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was. For they are also accustomed to ascribe Luke’s digest to Paul; the things which disciples have promulgated can be seen as belonging to their masters,” that is, as Jacob Pamelius observes, those things which disciples have promulgated can be seen as belonging to their masters. The same Tertullian (On Fasting, chapter 10, and elsewhere) cites texts from the Acts of the Apostles. Origen (apud Eusebius, book 6, chapter 25) says: “As I have received by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone in the universal Church of God, which is under heaven, are admitted without controversy: namely, that the first Gospel was written by Matthew, formerly indeed a publican, but afterward an Apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it, composed in the Hebrew language, for the Jews converted to the faith. We have received that the second was the Gospel of Mark, who, according as Peter in the catholic Epistle acknowledges him as his son in these words: The elect Church of God, which is in Babylon, greets you, and Mark my son. The third was the Gospel of Luke, which is commended by Paul, written for the sake of the Gentiles. But the last was the Gospel of John.” And in homily 7 on Joshua he mentions the other books of the New Testament, and “Luke describing the deeds of the apostles” is commemorated. 4) In the second century Clement of Alexandria (apud Eusebius, book 3, chapter 24), after having reviewed the catalogue, adds: “When the three aforesaid Gospels” (of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) “had already been brought to the knowledge of all, and even of John himself” the Evangelist, it is said that John approved them and confirmed the truth of the writings by his testimony; and likewise (Stromata V, 12, and Eusebius book 6, chapters 13-14) he ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to Luke. St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 1) says: “Thus Matthew among the Hebrews, in their own language, published a writing of the Gospel, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome and founding the Church. But after their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also himself handed down to us in writing the things which had been announced by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, put into a book the Gospel which was preached by him. Afterwards John also, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined upon His breast, himself published the Gospel while dwelling at Ephesus.” And in chapters 12-15 he copies out many entire chapters from the Acts of the Apostles. St. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, section 103) says: “For in His memoirs, which I say were written by His Apostles” (Matthew and John), “and by their disciples” (Mark and Luke), “it has been handed down that sweat, like drops of blood, flowed down from Him” (Jesus Christ), “when He prayed and said: If it is possible, let this cup pass.” To these can be added Hegesippus, close to the times of the Apostles, who, coming from Palestine to Rome, lived there until the death of Pope Soter; Dionysius, who was bishop of the Corinthians; Pantaenus, who was the predecessor of Clement of Alexandria in governing the catechetical school, and who, as St. Jerome testifies, published many commentaries on Sacred Scripture (Eusebius, book 5, chapter 10); Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who not only most clearly commemorates or cites the books of the New Testament, but also, as St. Jerome testifies (Catalogue), “joining together into one work the sayings of the four Evangelists, sent forth monuments of his own talent for us.” 5) It is not surprising if we do not have express and explicit testimonies from the Apostolic writers; for all know that only a few of their writings survive. Nevertheless implicit testimonies are not lacking. For they cite the books of the New Testament more often and more expressly than could be expected, either explicitly or equivalently under diverse formulas. Thus Clement of Rome, disciple of Peter and Paul, produces texts from Matthew and from Luke distinctly, and from Mark conjointly with Matthew. Papias, himself also a disciple of the Apostles, names Matthew and Mark as authors of the Gospels which circulate under their names. Sts. Ignatius and Polycarp frequently bring forward texts of those books in their epistles; indeed St. Ignatius writing to the Ephesians and St. Polycarp to the Philippians expressly recall the epistles received from Paul.
261. II. Whether some book was written at a certain time by a certain author is a historical fact, and therefore is to be proved by witnesses. But innumerable witnesses, both among Christians and among the enemies of the Christian name, refer the books of the New Testament, and especially the four Gospels, to the same time and the same authors. Therefore. The major is explained: In passing judgment concerning the genuineness of Christian books, the same rule must be employed which all use in passing judgment concerning the genuineness of the books of any author whatsoever. Now all judge those books genuine which in all centuries have been commonly attributed to the same authors, as is clear concerning Herodotus and Xenophon, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Cicero, and so forth. And St. Augustine vindicates this principle (Against Faustus, book 33, chapter 6), writing: “The books of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other authors of this sort - whence do men know that they are theirs, unless from the continuous attestation of successive times? Many have written many things concerning ecclesiastical letters. Whence is it established what belongs to each one, unless because in those times in which each one wrote those things, he made them known and published them to those to whom he could, and thence the continued knowledge, passing into others and still others and being more widely confirmed, came down to posterity even to our times, so that, when asked whose each book is, we do not hesitate what we ought to answer?” The minor is proved as regards domestic testimonies. It can be noted: 1) innumerable others could be added to those already exhibited, beginning from the fourth century; but the matter is very well known to all. 2) The writers cited, even of the first three centuries, not only enumerate the four Gospels with the name of their authors, but transcribe very many testimonies from them word for word. Thus, for example, St. Irenaeus cites the four Gospels about 350 times; Tertullian, 1550; Clement, 577; the Acts of the Apostles: St. Irenaeus, 38; Tertullian, 97; Clement, 19. Indeed Clement not only frequently cited the sacred books, but also illustrated the individual books with commentaries in a work famous among the ancients, which he entitled Hypotyposeis. 3) All the copies of very many churches throughout the whole world, both manuscript and printed, whether in the original language or in translation, report the same names of authors for the Gospels. Hence, when several writers, especially at different times and places, and therefore without any possible agreement among themselves, bring forth entire texts in the same words, the same structure, the same order and arrangement, without doubt some common source must be admitted from which they drew them. But a common source of this sort cannot be tradition, as certain mythical rationalists contend in order to construct their own system. For although human tradition can transmit truth, nevertheless, when the real condition of human capacity is considered, it is naturally impossible that it transmit that truth from one person to another, and successively into innumerable others through diverse centuries, in the same words, the same structure, the same order. Therefore it is necessary to admit what is denied by the adversaries: namely, that the truth itself was fixed from the beginning in its own form by someone, just as it was fixed, for example, in the poems of Homer, in the orations of Cicero, and so forth. Since, therefore, in the cited writings of St. Irenaeus, St. Clement I, St. Justin, St. Polycarp, Hermas, and so forth, almost innumerable texts are cited from the Gospels, and indeed under the same form, who will not laugh at the absurd hypothesis of Strauss, who seriously says that the Gospels were written after the middle of the second century? In that case not only would the Gospels be supposititious, but so also would be all the works of those writers. 2) The minor is proved as regards the testimonies of external witnesses. There can be cited: a) most of the ancient heretics, Ebion, Cerinthus, Marcion, and others, who used our Gospels just as they used the other writings of the New Testament; for although they attempted to explain or corrupt them in their own way, nevertheless they never dared to remove them from the Apostles. Hence St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 11) says: “So great is the firmness concerning these Gospels that even the heretics themselves bear testimony to them, and each one of them, going forth from them, tries to confirm his own doctrine. For the Ebionites, using that Gospel alone which is according to Matthew, from that very Gospel are convicted of not rightly presuming concerning the Lord. But Marcion, cutting down that which is according to Luke, from those things which are still preserved among him is shown to be blasphemous against the only existing God. But those who separate Jesus from Christ, and say that Christ continued impassible, but that Jesus suffered, preferring that Gospel which is according to Mark, can be corrected if they read it with love of truth. But those who are from Valentinus, using that which is according to John most fully for the display of their conjunctions, from that very Gospel will be uncovered as saying nothing rightly, as we showed in the first book (chapter 9). Since, therefore, those who contradict us bear testimony to us and use these, our demonstration concerning them is firm and true.” 3) The pagans themselves are witnesses for us. For as many of them as wrote against the Christian Religion did not raise even the slightest doubt about the authenticity of the sacred books. Thus Celsus, as Origen testifies (Against Celsus, book 3), never denied that the sacred books of the Christians were genuine; indeed he praises many things from the Gospels, and affirms that he describes those things from the books of the disciples of Christ. The same must be said of Porphyry, although, as St. Jerome testifies, he attempted to refute the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and other books. Likewise the Author of the Dialogue on the Death of Peregrinus mocks the sacred writers; but he does not deny that the Apostles and disciples of Christ are the authors of the books of the New Testament. Julian the Apostate (apud St. Cyril of Alexandria, book 10) clearly expresses the names of the four Evangelists, saying: “For neither did that Jesus, neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, dare to call Him God, but that good John … first dared to disclose this.” Wherefore we rightly conclude with St. John Chrysostom (homily 6 on First Corinthians): “Even those who oppose us are sufficient for attesting the ancient origin of our books, namely the books written by Celsus and the Batanean” (Porphyry, born in Batanea), “who acted with him. For they could not have contradicted books which had been written after themselves.”
262. After these things everyone sees how shamelessly a recent author, frivolous as much as impious, wrote that the formula “according to Matthew, Mark, etc.” does not indicate the authors of the Gospels, but only those according to whose traditions the Gospels were written (1). (1) “It is known that each of the four Gospels bears at its head the name of a person known either in apostolic history or in evangelical history itself. These four persons are not given to us strictly as authors. The formulas, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John, do not imply that in the oldest opinion these narratives had been written from end to end by Matthew, by Mark, by Luke, by John (it is thus that one said: ‘the Gospel according to the Egyptians’); they signify only that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles and covering themselves with their authority.” Renan (Life of Jesus, Introduction). Rosenmueller the Protestant had already answered him (Scholia on Matthew): “Faustus the Manichaean, as Augustine testifies against Faustus, book 17, chapter 2; book 27, chapter 2; book 33, chapter 3, thought that from the titles of the Gospels it could be concluded that they had not been written by those Evangelists whose names they bear, but by others who professed that they had written according to them. But Faustus slipped through ignorance of the Greek language, because he did not know that kata Matthaion, kata Markon, etc., is the same as ‘of Matthew,’ ‘of Mark,’ etc.” He then confirms this by examples drawn from Polybius, from the Acts of the Apostles, and from Aelian.
263. The second part is proved, I, by nearly the same arguments as the preceding part. For 1) all critics regard a book as substantially integral and incorrupt if the most ancient codices of the same book agree entirely, as to substance, with the more recent ones. But if the most ancient codices of the Gospels which have been discovered and are preserved in various libraries are inspected, all, both in the Latin Church and also in the Greek Church, agree entirely as to substance. Those themselves whose interest it was to assert that corruption had been made have never been able to prove it from a comparison of older and more recent codices. 2) The argument increases if translations made in various ages, or from ancient times, in various places, also agree with the original text. But it is established that almost innumerable translations exist, and that some are most ancient; the Syriac and Latin are eminent, which were made already in the first century. Now all these translations, as to substance, agree both among themselves and with the original text. Compare Brian Walton (Prolegomena 5, n. 3). 3) A book is held by critics to be integral and incorrupt if texts are frequently cited from it by ancient writers which are also read in our codices in the same way. But texts from the Gospels are cited most frequently and by the most ancient writers, such as St. Ignatius Martyr, St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and so forth, which are read in the same way in our codices. Indeed similar citations also frequently occur in the genuine Acts of the Martyrs, who, while they publicly professed their faith before pagan judges, very often alleged the deeds and words of Sacred Scripture. But the testimonies of subsequent centuries are innumerable. Wherefore we conclude this argument with the words of Tertullian, who, speaking of the Gospel of Luke corrupted by the Marcionites (Against Marcion, book 4, chapters 4-5), writes: “I say that mine” (the Gospel of Luke) “is true, Marcion says that his is. Who will determine between us, unless the account of time, prescribing authority to that which will be found more ancient, and proclaiming corruption against that which will be proved later? For insofar as falsehood is the corruption of truth, to that extent it is necessary that truth precede falsehood… Therefore I say that among those” (Apostolic Churches), “and not only now among the Apostolic Churches, but among all which are confederated with them by the fellowship of the Sacrament, that Gospel of Luke has stood from the beginning of its publication which we most of all defend; but Marcion’s is not known to most, and is known to none without being thereby condemned… The same authority of the Churches will also support the other Gospels.”
264. II. No time can be assigned at which substantial corruption was possible. For, for the sake of clarity, let us consider three times: 1) the time when the Apostles were still living; 2) the time which immediately followed the death of the Apostles, namely from the end of the first century up to the middle of the second century; 3) the time which from then has proceeded down to us. But: Not while the Apostles were still living. For when there is question of the substantial corruption of the Gospels, the matter is of the gravest moment. Who, moreover, would have dared to attempt this under the very eyes of the Apostles, thinking, namely, that the Apostles would peacefully permit that corruption? Indeed if even by chance and without malice a corruption of this sort had occurred, would not the Apostles have opposed it with all their strength, lest writings which circulated under their name should report the false doctrine of their Master? Who would attribute such indolence to the Apostles, who, for disseminating the true doctrine of Christ, subjected themselves to innumerable dangers and persecutions? Those who poured out their blood for Christ certainly could not permit certain men, abusing their name, to corrupt the doctrine of Christ with impunity. Not immediately after the death of the Apostles. For then the doctrine of the Apostles was still recent; the autographs of the sacred codices, or at least copies approved by the Apostles, were preserved in the Churches. Therefore the disciples and immediate successors of the Apostles would have protested against introduced corruptions. But those disciples whose writings survive, Polycarp, Ignatius, Papias, Clement, not only do not oppose them, but themselves use the same writings as undoubted works of the Apostles; and they report those things which we now read in the Gospels. Their adversaries, the Gnostics and Judaizers, acknowledge the same writings and try to evade the same, not by inventing corruptions, but rather by perverse interpretations. Not in the following centuries. For 1) at that time copies and translations of the Gospels had already been multiplied in the whole world; there already existed many writings of the Fathers, in which almost all the passages of the Gospel were contained. Therefore one who wished, not indeed alone but with the help of others, to corrupt the Gospels substantially, secretly or openly, would have had to bring under his power all the codices, existing not in one place but dispersed through the whole world, all the translations, and all the commentaries of the Fathers; to accomplish an equal change in all; and to force them again, changed, upon the Christian world without any sign of fraud. If it is possible to attempt so great a crime, who will not judge it impossible to accomplish it? For if only some copies had been corrupted, the corruption would immediately have been detected by the other Churches; and, far from being received by these, those copies would rather have been corrected according to the more ancient and integral copies. 2) Moreover it is established that already in the first three centuries, in the East and West, there were many Churches, and in great part founded by the Apostles; and that the books of the New Testament, and especially the Gospels, were preserved among them and publicly read. Therefore, if corruption had been attempted in the East, would not the Western Churches have detected and rebuked it? And if the Western Churches were corrupting the sacred books, would not the Eastern Churches have resisted? 261. III. No author of the corruption can be assigned. For either 1) pagans, or 2) Jews, or 3) heretics, or 4) Christians would have corrupted the Gospels. But: Not pagans. For 1) these men despised Christians and their sacred books; therefore they strove rather to eliminate them than to corrupt them. But Christians prevented, as much as they could, the sacred books from falling into the hands of pagans; how much less, then, would they have allowed themselves to receive them corrupted by them? But if pagans had attempted a substantial corruption, who will persuade himself that it could have happened that they brought all the codices under their own power, depraved all of them, and returned all of them corrupted to Christians, so that these, without murmuring and contradiction, would receive them as sacred books and documents of their own faith? 2) If pagans had corrupted the sacred books, they would especially have changed or deleted those things which are read in them concerning the vanity of idols, concerning the miracles and divinity of Christ, and concerning the necessity of faith in Him, namely, those things which destroy pagan superstition. Not Jews; and this is proved by similar arguments. For Christians above all would have resisted with all their strength; and if indeed the Jews had attempted this, without doubt they would especially have corrupted those things which were contrary and disgraceful to them. They would have omitted or mutilated what is narrated concerning the miracles of Christ, His resurrection and ascension into heaven, the predicted destruction of the temple and the city, the dispersion of the Jewish people, the vain traditions of the Jews, the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the envy of the Priests, the arrogance of the Doctors, and so forth. But all these things are found in all copies of the Gospels. Not heretics. For 1) some heretics in fact attempted corruption, but in vain; for it is established that the attempts of Tatian correcting Paul (Eusebius, book 4, chapter 29), of Marcion mutilating Luke and Paul (Tertullian, On Prescription, chapter 36), and of Artemon and others introducing various innovations in the sacred books (Eusebius, book 5, chapter 26), were immediately repressed. And indeed, from the very beginnings of the Church, copies and translations of the Gospels were diffused everywhere, through Asia, Africa, and Europe. The writings of the Fathers, copied out, report very many passages of the Gospels, as is established from what has been said. Therefore, if anyone had attempted corruption, the rest would immediately have protested, so that the corruption could never have been accomplished. 2) Hence St. Augustine accuses the Manichaeans, who asserted that the sacred letters were held corrupted among Catholics, of falsehood and calumny, and says (Against Faustus, book 11, chapter 2): “O voice fugitive from truth, obstinate in madness! So unconquered are the things which are brought forth against you from the divine codices that there is nothing else for you to say except that they have been falsified.” Indeed, such corruption St. Augustine regards as impossible: “For whoever,” he says (ibid., book 32, chapter 16), “first dared this” (that is, to falsify the sacred codices), “would be refuted by comparison with many older codices, especially because the same Scripture would be contained not in one language, but in many.” Finally, not Christians. For either it is supposed 1) that some Christians depraved the sacred books, or 2) that all conspired in this crime. The second is evidently absurd; for we know from history that Christians, considered universally, were affected with the greatest reverence toward the sacred books, and especially the Gospels; so far were they from wishing to corrupt them. But besides this, how could men innumerable in multitude, unlimited in places, diverse in nation, character, and opinions, agree together at the same time into one fraud? Nor is the first less absurd. For if a few had corrupted the Gospels, would not the Bishops, to whose vigilance and custody they had been entrusted, have resisted them? Indeed the Christian people themselves, to whom the sacred books were publicly read, would never have admitted a corruption of this sort. We have already seen how all resisted Tatian, Marcion, and other heretics attempting the corruption of the sacred books. Did not the Bishops rise up strenuously against the Apocrypha of the New Testament? But, what must not be passed over in silence, when a certain Triphyllus, as Sozomen narrates (Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chapter 11), speaking before several Bishops, wished to change some word, substituting for “bed” another word (skimpodion) more elegant, as it seemed to him, immediately all were moved, and St. Spyridion the Bishop publicly rebuked him and drove him from the church. And St. Augustine, writing to St. Jerome (epistle 71), warns him that he should interpret the Greek Scriptures of the Seventy rather than the Hebrew Scriptures; and he gives this reason, namely, lest, when some dissonance arose, the people should be disturbed. Among other things he writes: “A certain brother of ours, a Bishop, when he had established that your translation should be read in the church over which he presides, was moved by something placed by you in Jonah the prophet far otherwise than it had grown old in the understanding and memory of all, and been sung through the succession of so many ages. So great a tumult arose among the people, especially with the Greeks accusing and crying out the charge of falsity, that the Bishop was compelled” (for that city was involved) “to demand the testimony of the Jews… The man was compelled, as if correcting an error, wishing after great danger not to remain without his people.” But in what did that change consist? In this alone: that in the book of Jonah the prophet, where the Seventy interpreters had rendered “gourd,” St. Jerome with Aquila had rendered “ivy.” Therefore let us conclude with the same Augustine (On the Usefulness of Believing, chapter 3): “Nothing seems to me to be said by them more shamelessly, or, to speak more gently, more carelessly and weakly, than that the divine Scriptures are corrupted, since they could prove this by no copies existing in so recent a memory.”
266. The third part is proved. I. In order that the things which are narrated in the Gospels or in the other books of the New Testament be admitted by all as true, once their genuineness and integrity are supposed, this alone is required: that it be certainly established that their Authors were both endowed with due knowledge and wrote with candid sincerity. But both are established concerning the writers of those books, and especially of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Therefore. The minor is proved as regards the first part, namely, that due knowledge was not lacking. For 1) several of their authors were eyewitnesses of the facts which they narrate. Hence St. John (1 John 1.33) says: “That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, concerning the word of life, … which we have seen and heard, we announce to you.” And St. Peter inculcates the same when he writes (1 Peter 1.16): “For we have not followed learned fables when we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were made beholders of His majesty.” But those who are earwitnesses, insofar as they themselves did not see and hear Christ the Lord, wrote those things which were communicated to them by immediate witnesses most worthy of faith. Thus St. Luke at the beginning of his Gospel gives notice: “Since indeed many have attempted to arrange a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they handed them down to us who from the beginning themselves saw and were ministers of the word, it seemed good also to me, having followed all things diligently from the beginning, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus.” 2) Nor is it an obstacle that the Apostles and Evangelists, except Paul and Luke, were uneducated men. For in those things whose knowledge is obtained by sensible experience, and for the knowing of which nothing is required except healthy senses and their right use, a rude and simple witness is of greater authority than a learned one, who very often mingles his own opinions with the facts observed. Now the miracles, for example, of Christ consisted in external facts of this sort, which could be known by any man, even the most uneducated, through the right use of healthy senses. But that the Apostles and Evangelists, so that they would not be deceived but would acquire certain knowledge for themselves, duly used their senses and observed all things with due attention and diligence, is rightly argued from the gravity of the matter to which, having left the religion of their ancestors, they adhered with their whole soul; from the nature of the extraordinary facts, concerning which all were astonished; and from their narrative, by which they often describe even minute circumstances. 3) Nor can it be said that the Apostles and Evangelists were too credulous. For without any trace of excessive credulity appearing in their history, they frequently showed themselves too incredulous, especially when there was question of Christ’s resurrection; although they expected it from the promises of their Master, nevertheless they were rather slow to believe it. Certainly Thomas did not at all believe the testimony of the other Apostles, who had already seen Christ risen; but he raised doubts against the resurrection of his Master and remained unbelieving until he himself saw and touched the sacred wounds of the risen Christ. But there is no place for excessive credulity when the witnesses are eyewitnesses; and such were most of the Apostles. 4) Are the Apostles and Evangelists said to have been deceived? But there stands against this: a) the sublime character of Christ, who lived so holily that His most hostile adversaries said to Him (Matthew 22.16): “Master, we know that You are truthful, and teach the way of God in truth, and that You have no care about anyone; for You do not regard the person of men.” The adversaries were struck dumb when Christ challenged them, saying (John 8.46): “Which of you will convict Me of sin?” Indeed also, as St. Matthew reports (26.59-60), in a public judgment “the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might deliver Him to death, and they did not find it, although many false witnesses had come forward.” There stands against it: b) the very nature of the facts concerning which the Apostles bear testimony. For since the miracles of Christ, concerning whose historical truth the question is chiefly here, are sensible works, performed without preparation, in full light, with many looking on, deception must be called plainly impossible. There stands against it: c) the character of the enemies of Christ, who, burning with resentment and envy, not only observed all His works most diligently, but sometimes also instituted judicial investigations concerning them. Therefore, if any fraud had lain hidden there, by their own shrewdness they would most certainly have detected it and would have manifested it with the most willing mind. The minor is proved as regards the second part, namely, that sincerity was not lacking. For 1) the life of the Apostles and Evangelists was so entirely upright that none of them could ever be accused of any crime by their most hostile adversaries. Their manner of living exhibited a living example of the most holy doctrine which they preached. This is confessed not only by Christians and all heretics, but by unbelievers themselves, such as Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and among the more recent, Larroque, Salvador, and so forth. 2) Nothing could have induced the authors of the Gospels to deceive. For what advantage could they procure for themselves in this life from false testimony? Indeed the illustrious heralds and writers of the Christian religion, for the truth of their testimonies, endured with unconquered soul not only very many hardships, but even death itself. Nor could they promise themselves a reward for the other life, since they themselves knew and professed that deception in the gravest business of religion must be punished with eternal torments.
267. II. The preceding argument is confirmed from the fact that even if the Apostles and disciples of Christ had wished to deceive, they never could have done so. For: 1) How could men who are called uneducated have fashioned, as if from their own storehouse, so sublime a doctrine as the Christian doctrine? All the more because several writers, dispersed through various regions, narrate the history of Christ in such a way that, without contradicting themselves as to substance, they agree excellently concerning the sayings and deeds of their Master. Is it said that one copied another? But the diversity of style stands against this, and the occurring apparent contradictions, which nevertheless right exegesis shows not to be real (1). (1) Hence Rousseau himself (Emile, book 4) was compelled to write: “Shall we say that the history of the Gospel was invented for pleasure? My friend, it is not thus that one invents; and the facts concerning Socrates, of which no one doubts, are less attested than those concerning Jesus Christ. At bottom, this is to push back the difficulty without destroying it. It would be more inconceivable that several men in agreement had fabricated this book, than that a single one had supplied the subject; and the Gospel has marks of truth so great, so striking, that the inventor would be greater than the Hero.” 2) The facts which the Evangelists narrate were public, performed in the sight of very many contemporaries; they accurately designate place and time; they do not neglect various adjuncts and minute circumstances. If the things had not happened just as they were described, the deception could immediately have been detected, and would have had to turn into the greatest disgrace of the Apostles. All the more because they spoke publicly of the deeds of Christ as of a matter known to all. Thus St. Peter (Acts 2.22) on the day of Pentecost preaches to the Jews “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by powers and prodigies and signs, which God did through Him in the midst of you, as you also know.” And when St. Paul was preaching Christ before Festus and King Agrippa, and Festus exclaimed, “You are mad, Paul; much learning turns you to madness,” the Apostle himself responds (Acts 25.24-26): “I am not mad, most excellent Festus; but I speak words of truth and sobriety. For the king knows of these things, to whom I also speak confidently; for I think none of these things is hidden from him. For none of these things was done in a corner.” Now suppose that the facts which the disciples narrated concerning their Master were false: certainly it would have been easy to accuse them of falsity or falsehood, nor is it to be presumed that the innumerable enemies of Christ, the Jews who perceived that their economy was to be abolished by Christ’s doctrine, abstained from that accusation. Indeed, as is read (Acts 4.18), “they charged them not to speak at all, nor to teach in the name of Jesus”; they afflicted them with insults, calumnies, tortures, and finally death itself; but they were never able to deny or refute the things which the Apostles preached. Everyone sees how firm an argument this is for the truthfulness of the Evangelists. For the most hostile enemies of the Christian religion could easily have freed themselves from that superstition, as they called it, if they could have convicted the disciples of Christ of falsity or falsehood, and thus weakened all their authority. But what if several from among the enemies themselves were converted to the faith and religion of Christ, and persevered in it even to a most cruel death? 3) But even external writers, following closely after, confirm the truth of the miracles of Christ. Thus Flavius Josephus narrates the preaching, baptism, and death of John the Baptist; commemorates the murder of St. James, whom he calls the brother of Jesus Christ; indeed, concerning Christ Himself he has a most clear testimony. Namely, he writes (Jewish Antiquities, book 18, n. 3): “Now at this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call Him a man. For He was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of men who willingly embrace true things. And He drew to Himself very many from the Jews, and also very many from the Gentiles. This was the Christ; and when Pilate had condemned Him to the cross, accused by the leading men of His nation, those who had first begun to love Him did not cease from loving Him. For after the third day He appeared to them living again, since the divine prophets had foretold these things and very many other admirable things concerning Him. Nor has the race of Christians, named from Him, failed down to this day.” See the genuineness of this text vindicated apud Huet (Demonstration of the Gospel, proposition 3, n. 11 ff.). Thus also, as St. Justin testifies (Apology 1, n. 48) and Tertullian (Apology, chapter 21), Pilate narrated the miracles of Christ in the acts sent to the Emperor. Likewise Celsus, an Epicurean philosopher, as Origen testifies (Against Celsus, books 1 and 2), admitted the historical truth of several miracles of Christ. St. Cyril of Alexandria testifies the same concerning Porphyry, a Platonic philosopher (book 10, Against Julian). Plotinus declared all, Hierocles many, of Christ’s miracles as historically true (apud Eusebius, Against Hierocles). Arnobius the African (Against the Gentiles, book 1, n. 43) and Lactantius (Divine Institutes, book 4, chapter 13) allege other pagan philosophers who in no way denied the miracles of Christ, but ascribed them to magic.
268. SCHOLION. The things which we have disputed thus far for vindicating the historical authority of the Gospels not only demonstrate it sufficiently, but also anticipate difficulties, insofar as our matter demands. Nevertheless it will help, for the sake of example, to indicate certain heads of objections, so that each one may judge for himself how much the observations of rationalists are to be valued.
269. I. Against the genuineness of the Gospels, the hypothesis of Eichhorn is well known. For when he noticed the great agreement of the first three Gospels, not only as regards the things narrated, but often also as regards the words, he judged that from the beginning there existed one Gospel, which he called primitive, and that it was publicly read in the assemblies of the faithful. But in the course of time several changes were introduced into it, so that finally in different Churches there obtained three different editions of the Gospel. These began to be ascribed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, not because they themselves had composed them, but because there were diverse opinions concerning the author of the primitive Gospel. Several then adopted this hypothesis fashioned by imagination; and Marsh, an Anglican Bishop, in order, as it were, to perfect it, supposed that the primitive Gospel had perished, and afterward had been restored by different men according as they retained it in memory. But memory is not always faithful; from this diverse Gospels arose.
270. But everyone perceives: 1) that the historical monuments which we have brought forward wholly contradict the hypothesis invented by these authors; but facts must be proved by monuments and witnesses. 2) We then ask on what foundation their hypothesis rests. They assign none, except the agreement of words. But it should be noted that an agreement of this sort is found only in a few places, and that it is present almost solely in reporting the words of Christ and the Apostles. What prevents us, however, from saying that the Apostles retained those words in memory and communicated them to Mark and Luke? This is all the more so because they lived together for a long time, held the words of Our Lord in highest esteem, and more often together treated of the preaching of the Gospel. These things indeed are likely, and they so explain the aforesaid verbal agreement in the first three Evangelists that at the same time the historical truth fully demonstrated concerning the genuineness of the Gospels remains intact.
271. II. Against the integrity of the Gospels they are accustomed to object: 1) that Christians were accused by the Manichaeans, as St. Augustine reports, and by Celsus, as Origen reports (Against Celsus, book 2, chapter 27), of corruption of the codices; 2) indeed that St. Jerome himself (Preface to Damasus on the Gospels) complains that “in our codices error has grown in, while what one Evangelist said more fully in the same matter, they added in another because they thought he had said less”; 3) but especially that, from the testimony of Victor of Tunnuna and St. Isidore of Seville, they say it is established that the text of the Gospels was corrupted by the work of the Emperor Anastasius at the beginning of the sixth century.
272. But it is answered to the first: Origen in the very place objected writes: “Indeed, I know no others who have changed the context of the Gospel except the followers of Marcion, of Valentinus, and perhaps of Lucanus”; namely, only heretics attempted corruption. They attempted it, I say; for St. Augustine proves against Faustus, refuting the calumny of the Manichaeans, by nearly the same arguments which we have used, that it was impossible for them to accomplish it. We say to the second: St. Jerome does not complain about corruption of the Greek text, but of the Latin version; hence he writes against Helvidius (chapter 16): “Most foolishly have you persuaded yourself that the Greek codices have been falsified.” The corruptions themselves in the Latin version, as is clear from the words of Jerome, were for the most part nothing except explanatory annotations taken from the other Gospels; hence St. Jerome found only a few and very slight things that necessarily had to be corrected (compare On the Virtues, nn. 995-1002). We respond to the third: serious reasons for doubting the asserted corruption by the Emperor Anastasius are not lacking; but even if the transmitted historical report is granted as true, we say that from it it follows that Anastasius attempted corruption, not that he accomplished it. This, besides the arguments brought forward in the thesis, is proved both by the many Greek copies and the many versions older than Anastasius, and also by the impossibility of corrupting in the sixth century all codices, all versions, and all citations existing among others, which were innumerable and were not contained within the boundaries of the Greek Empire. Therefore, if there had been corruptions in some codices, they could have been corrected from the others.
273. III. Against the truthfulness of the Gospels they seek arguments especially from the differences among the Evangelists as regards various narratives. Certainly it belongs to the Interpreters to pursue objections of this sort one by one; and St. Augustine himself has already weighed and solved them all in his work On the Harmony of the Evangelists. For us it will suffice to observe: 1) that here there is question not of the divine authority of the Gospels, but of their historical and human authenticity. But this, as is clear in other historical books, is not taken away by certain very slight differences in accidental matters, when all agree as to substance. This observation has the greatest force here, both because here we are defending only the substantial integrity of the Gospels, and because the objected differences do not consist in the Evangelists reporting contrary things, as the Interpreters show. 2) Indeed, from differences of this sort, when account is taken at the same time of the evident agreement as regards very many and principal things, a new argument arises for the truthfulness of the Evangelists. For if each had wished to weave frauds and fables, there would not be so great an agreement; and if all had agreed in one common fraud, there would not be so many differences. 3) Certainly unbelievers in this matter wonderfully contradict themselves; for sometimes they find such agreement, even verbal agreement, in the Gospels, that they say these were written by one author in the second century; but now they find such discrepancy in them that they deny their truthfulness. Truly they have become vain in their thoughts!