[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

It is a very poor argument too. There is no reason at all {56} why a man should not describe his own
death and burial. (Especially is this so with Moses, who was buried by God himself, so that no man knew
where his tomb was!!! (Deut. XXXIV, 5,6.) As luck would have it, I did it myself some years ago in my
Book of Lies, chapter 65! Would Mr. Shaw quote this as a proof that the book was not written by me, and
not until after my death? It never occured to religious writers of such periods to try to guard themselves
against any rational criticism. The thing practically did not exist; and to this day the vast majority of
Christians are absolutely incapable of understanding any such arguments, which they regard as mere
blasphemy. They do not worry about it, even so much as to say that the text is corrupt or interpolated, or
may be interpreted after another manner. They simply ride over it without seeing it. The most powerful
arguments do not even rock the boat. The type of mind is different, the plane of thought is different. It is
not possible to find a common ground for intellectual discussion between Charles Bradlaugh and Charles
Sprugeon, because Bradlaugh bases everything upon the mind, and Spurgeon merely remarks The carnal
mind is enmity against God.
Moreover, all attempts of this kind to date documents are absolutely unscholarly. A document may be
composite, and incorporate older elements. We might as well try to date Mark Twain's Yankee at the
Court of King Arthur by saying that the author shows so much knowledge of the intimate life of the king
that he must have been a contemporary, or at the very least have been informed by eye-witnesses. There
are fifty possibilities of error in all documents of this class, and Mr. Shaw ignores them in a {57} way that
can only be called beyond amazement.
The only real way to date a book is to possess a dated copy. If I possess among (or rather above) my
treasures a Leaves from the Journal of our life in the Highlands, and that copy contain an indubitable
signature of King Edward VII, authenticated by comparison with that signature in the archives of the state,
one might be justified in believing that the book was genuine. The mere date upon the title-page would
prove nothing. The volume might be a piracy of many years later, and all sorts of liberties might have
been taken with the editing of such a book.
Any one with any knowledge of bibliography knows that this is not only possible but even likely. Witness
the adventures of Burton's Arabian Nights. We have a codex of Matthew which certainly belongs to the
third or fourth century, but there is no real evidence whatever that that codex is derived from any previous
codex. It may have been the first time that the manuscript ever appeared in that form.
Class Type of Matthew's Jesus
Most of the points in this section have been dealt with previously in various places, but we must draw
attention to Mr. Shaw's final admission. All this shows a great power of seeing through vulgar illusions,
and a capacity for higher morality than has yet been established in any civilized community; but it does
not place Jesus above Confucius or Plato, not to mention more modern philosophers and moralists. 'All
this', as has been shown, is by no means admissable. But it leaves us to expect a further revelation {58} in
some other gospel which will place Jesus above Confucius and Plato. We shall see later whether this
expectation is to be realized, or whether it is in the same class of promises as that of the Second Advent.
We now turn to the gospel according to Mark.
Mark
The Women Disciples and the Ascension
There is little need of complaint in this section. Mark, as Mr. Shaw says, is brief, one may add mercifully
brief; and Mr. Shaw also evidently agrees in the general opinion of scholars that Mark is on the whole a
much more genuine document than Matthew. It is still composite, for the reasons already given in the case
of Matthew. Most of the quotations which have been given above as evidence for this way of thinking
have parallel passages in the older gospel.
We need only cavil at one point of interpretation. Mr. Shaw takes Mark's statement with regard to Joseph
of Arimathaea, and not only misquotes it, but interprets it quite unjustifiably. Mr. Shaw says that Joseph is
described by Mark as One who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God as if it were in the text;
which however reads (Mark XV. 43) An honourable counsellor which also waited for the kingdom of [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]