Historical Authority of the Four Gospels.

The teaching and history of Christ are found in the New Testament, and especially in the Four Gospels. To prove the existence of Christian Revelation, it is sufficient to prove the historical authority of the Gospels.

(1) AUTHENTICITY, i.e., written by the authors to whom they are attributed and therefore authoritative;

(2) INTEGRITY, i.e., are they substantially complete; for, out of context, some statements can create a completely false picture;

(3) VERACITY, i.e. their historical trustworthiness as to the narration of facts, viz. the character of the Evangelists is such that they were neither deceived nor themselves guilty of deception.

(4) ADEQUACY, i.e. whether the information they supply about Our Lord is abundant and complete enough.

The authenticity, integrity and veracity of a book may be proved by extrinsic arguments (i.e., by the testimony of writers who lived about the same time), or by intrinsic arguments drawn from the books themselves.

c) Fragments (contemporary documents) or any archaeological finding confirming a point in the Gospels.

These arguments give historical certitude of the authenticity of a book, if the witnesses are suitable, and that their testimony has not been falsified.

Such arguments are drawn from the writings themselves and then compared to contemporary criteria: e.g., language, style, phraseology etc. Such arguments do not, as a rule, sufficiently determine the author and the exact time of composition; they furnish only probability and need confirmation of external proofs.

Rationalists and Modernists exaggerate the value of the intrinsic arguments, and minimise the value of the extrinsic ones. They find confirmation of a priori judgments in their examination of intrinsic qualities: Harnack, for example, judged the essence of Christianity to be “the conception of God as Father”; whereas Loisy found the essence of the Gospel message in “the preaching of the Kingdom of God, and the nearness of the end of the world” (Parousia), and excludes the institution of the Church as not compatible with the Parousia.

Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” points out that by the sole or exaggerated use of the internal method each critic finds confirmation of his own a priori views.

(a) Naturalism: Paulus (1761-1851) admitted the authenticity of the Synoptic Gospels, but characterised the miraculous element as “Oriental exaggerations.”

(b) Mythism: Strauss (1808-1874) maintained in his book Leben Jesu that the miraculous element in the Gospels was “mythically invented 150 years after the death of Christ.”

(c) Evolutionism: The Tübingen School whose founder was Baur (1792-1860) held that Christianity is “the synthesis of two opposite tendencies.” “Thesis” and “Antithesis” are (according to the Hegelian idea) rendered compatible in “Synthesis.” The doctrines of Peter and Paul (thesis and antithesis), enshrined respectively in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, are unified in a higher synthesis in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. John. To this school belong Zeller, Schwegler, Ritschl, Pfleiderer.

(d) Modernism: The modern critical school holds that the teaching of Christ was “gradually idealised.” Hence “different stages of judgment” regarding Christ. He is (1) Son of God; (2) equal to the Father; (3) miraculously born of a Virgin, etc. The authenticity and veracity of the Gospel of St. John is usually denied. This school includes Reuss, Renan, Sabatier, A. Reville, J. Reville, Stapfer, Harnack, H. Holtzmann, O. Holtzmann, Julicher, Cheyne, Loisy, and other Modernists. Of these critics Adolph Harnack is undoubtedly the ablest. His recent judgments are that the Gospel of St. Mark was written about 65-70 by a disciple of Peter; the Gospel of St. Luke 78-83, perhaps earlier, 60-70, and is authentic; the Gospel of St. Matthew (i.e., the Greek version) 70-75 by an unknown author; the Gospel of St. John 80-110 by a priest named John (but not the Evangelist).

- The History of forms or Formgeschichte (Albertz, Bertram, Baltmann and Dibelius), insisting on forms (borrowing pre-existing documents);

- The History of redaction or Redaktiongeschichte (Willi, Marxen, Bornkamm) based on “tradition“ (a collective work). They affirm that the original Christian community had no preoccupation whatsoever for the historical Christ. They would create a popular doctrinal tradition from their own collective thinking or feelings, and for the sake of literature, present it like a story of actions or words of Christ Himself. Thus the Gospels are not historical, but “Sacred literature.” To justify their claim they are obliged to consider the writing of the Gospels to have taken place at a much later date (2^nd or 3^rd generation of Christians).

These heterodox theories were officially taught by the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Cardinal Bea, in 1964, and still today at the Pontifical Biblical Institute.

- On June 19^th 1911 and June 26^th 1912, this Commission affirmed the authenticity, the chronological order of composition (i.e., 1^st Aramaic Gospel of St. Matthew; 2^nd St. Mark; 3^rd St. Luke) and the veracity of the Synoptic Gospels.

- On May 29^th 1907, with the approbation of the Pope, the Biblical Commission, declared the authenticity and veracity of the Fourth Gospel [St John’s].

2. AUTHENTICITY of the Gospels.

- First Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians (A.D. c. 96) contains six texts taken from the Synoptic Gospels. The sense is given, not the literal words.

- Didache, i.e., Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (A.D. 80-100) discovered in 1873 in the library of Constantinople by Philotheus Bryennius, cites words taken from St. Matthew and St. Luke.

- Epistle attributed to St. Barnabas (c. A.D. 98-100), contains allusions to St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke.

- St. Ignatius, Martyr (+ c. A.D. 110), borrows many sentences from St. Matthew and St. John.

- Pastor of Hermas (c. A.D. 140) quotes several texts from each of the four Evangelists.

- Epistle of St. Polycarp (d. A.D. 156) also mentions passages from the four Gospels.

- Eusebius (Book III, c. 39), quotes a fragment from a work of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (c. 130 A.D.) who was a disciple of St. John, friend of St. Polycarp and master of St. Irenaeus. Papias mentions the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark.

- St. Justin (Apologia I, 66) narrates that at Christian meetings the Gospels were read. In his Dialogue with Trypho (n. 103) he states that the Gospels were written by Apostles and Disciples. Again in Apologia I, 15, he cites about twenty verses from the Sermon on the Mount; he refers to Messianic prophecies contained in the First Gospel. He describes the Annunciation and many incidents of the birth of Christ contained in St. Luke.

- Tatian, disciple of St. Justin, a Syrian, wrote the Diatesseron or harmony of the four Gospels about A.D. 170.

- The Muratorian Canon composed before 200 A.D. mentions St. Luke's Gospel as the third, and St. John's Gospel as the fourth.

- St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote his book Adversus Haereses about A.D. 180. St. Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John. He has the following words: "Matthew published his Gospel (written in the Hebrew tongue) when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the Church. After their death, Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed down in writing to us the truth that Peter taught. And Luke, follower of Paul, wrote in a book the Gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterwards, John, disciple of the Lord, who reclined upon His breast, published a Gospel, whilst he, stayed at Ephesus in Asia." (cf. op. cit. Book III c. 1, n. 1).

- Tertullian (c. A.D. 200) regarded the claim to be beyond controversy that the four Gospels had been in the possession of the Church since the time of the Apostles. "Matthew and John being Apostles; Mark and Luke disciples of Apostles" (Adv. Marcionem, Book IV ch. 2 and 5).

- Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata (c. A.D. 200) mentions the names of the four Evangelists, and discriminates their writings from Apocryphal works (Stromata, Book III; 13: I; 21).

- Origen (A.D. 200) writes that four are the only Gospels approved by the Church (Luc. hom. 1.).

Many of the Gnostics admitted the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, from which they tried to deduce their doctrine of "Aeons" (e.g., Basilides and Vatentinus). Marcion chose the Gospel of St. Luke as the expression of the original doctrine rightly set forth by St. Paul. Origen told Celsus that heretics tried to change the words of the Gospel in defence of their errors (cf. Origen, Contra Celsum II 13-16).

Conclusion: It is clear that the four Gospels were in use at the end of the Second Century in churches far apart and that their authenticity was acknowledged without question. If these four Gospels are not genuine, several morally impossible results, indicated in the following questions:

(1) Why did Apostolic Fathers, Bishops and faithful receive as their rule of Faith the Gospels if apocryphal?

(3) How was it that the different churches received the Gospels as Apostolic?

(4) If the Gospels are not authentic, who are their authors, when and where were they written?

For a historian to be judged trustworthy, he must meet certain requirements, which we can reduce to two principal heads:

- first, he should be competent, that is, well-informed about the matters he relates;

It is easy to prove that the Evangelists possessed these two qualities in a pre-eminent degree.

As regards the Synoptic Gospels, examination shows that their authors were Jews, who used many Hebraisms. They belong to the First Century, inasmuch as (in their description of places, manners, things and persons) they relate very minute circumstances without error, which would have been impossible for writers of their very moderate ability after the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple. They were well-informed and enjoyed a high degree of competence.

As members of the Apostolic College, St. Matthew and St. John were close companions of the Saviour for about three years, constantly seeing and hearing Him, being present at His preaching and miracles, living in intimate association with Him. St. John in his First Epistle sets forth in striking terms this special competence of the Apostles to narrate the life of their Master. He says: “That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life ... that which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you” (1 John 1; 1-3). St. Matthew might justly have uttered a like dictum. Though St. Mark and St. Luke did not have the privilege of being eyewitnesses, yet their authority as historians on Christ was hardly less than that of the two Apostles.

Having become the intimate disciples, respectively, of St. Peter and St. Paul, they faithfully reproduce the Apostles’ preaching in their accounts, as we said above. They were witnesses by hearing. Then, too, it was feasible for them to consult other sources so as to fill out whatever information they needed. St. Luke, announcing his method in the little prologue at the beginning of his Gospel, certifies that he had “diligently attained to all things” (Lk 1:3) regarding the life of Christ, that he consulted the writings which many had already composed for the same purpose, that he also consulted those who had seen the events with their own eyes and these witnesses were still very numerous. What more could one desire? In fact, as, in the final analysis, all historical knowledge rests on the attestation of eyewitnesses, it is comforting to see that what the Gospels teach us about Christ goes back to the most reliable source of history.

It is well to recall here another important fact. Whatever may have been the exact dates of the composition of the Gospels, the first three were published a rather short time subsequent to the events which they relate: ten, fifteen, twenty-five years, according to the most likely estimates. In the matter of competence, we have, then, a valuable guaranty of their exactness. St. John, it is true, wrote later; but the memory of this loving disciple had forgotten nothing, as is evident from the numerous details in his pages, which make Jesus live again before our eyes. Tertullian sums up this argument in two vigorous lines: "Is the truer which is earlier, is that is the earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which was authored by the Apostles" (Contra Marcionem IV 5). The extraordinary competence of the Evangelists cannot be called in question. It would be difficult to find better informed historians.

The elements composing the Gospels are of two kinds: deeds and words. Everybody agrees that the deeds of their own accord stuck in the memory and were unforgettable. Most of the isolated sayings which the Evangelists attribute to Christ are associated with deeds which emphasise them in some way and fix them forever in the memory. As for the discourses, properly so called, the difficulty is only apparent, especially for those related by the Synoptics: so forceful and novel are the thoughts, so incisive and often picturesque is the form, as at once to engrave them indelibly on the mind.

The Gospels themselves constantly and most plainly proclaim that their authors were well informed. Commentators again and again insist on the remarkable exactness of a large number of details they are reckoned by the hundreds referring to circumstances of persons, time, and places.

It is thus we learn to be acquainted with each of the Apostles, St. Peter's mother-in-law, Jairus, Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary, the centurion and his servant, Zacheus, and a score of others. We know that such a particular miracle took place at Naim, that Christ delivered such a discourse in a synagogue at Capharnaum, that at a certain time John was baptising at Bethania on the banks of the Jordan and later at Ennon near Salim. Certain incidents, such as the curing of the paralytic "and that of the blind men of Jericho," are related with a wealth of picturesque details.

Not satisfied with indicating the Saviour's words, the Evangelists now and then also mention His gestures, His looks, and even His inner thoughts or feelings. In this way do they show that they are perfectly informed about what they relate.

We can go still farther and give even more palpable proofs of their competence. We refer to the multiple controls that has been exercised over their accounts, and always to their credit. In the first place, there is the reciprocal control. Since, according to what we have said of their mutual relations, they all set forth the same story, it is not a difficult matter to ascertain whether they are in accord with one another. In spite of the differences in detail (fewer in the Synoptics, more in the Fourth Gospel) this comparison results in a verification of their substantial harmony from the viewpoint of aim, facts, doctrine, the picture of Christ, and secondary portraits, such as those of St. Peter and the other Apostles, John the Baptist, etc. Even the differences (which can be explained without doing violence to the texts), offer an advantage: they show that each Evangelist preserved his own independence as a writer and that there was no servility in the use they made of their written or oral sources. Their undeniable unity is a pledge of their truthfulness.

But a control of greater scope (a very strict control from the outside), has been applied to the Gospel narratives from all possible angles, without ever finding them at fault. In detail as well as in their ensemble, they harmonise with the very complicated historical period which they describe.

Let us bear in mind that, in the first century of our era, archaeological tastes were not much developed, in fact, they scarcely existed. At that time no one would have thought, as is now done with more or less success, of composing a historical novel about some personage of the past. A forger would soon go astray amid the political, social, and religious details of the Jewish world at that time: he would thus betray himself. The Evangelist's on the contrary, are always in agreement with the facts of contemporaneous history. The picture they draw of the surroundings and conditions in which Our Lord lived is one of utmost fidelity. In studying that milieu with the fixed purpose of exercising such control, one is impressed by the strict accuracy of the sacred writers. What they say of Jewish life and thought, of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, of Caiphas and Herod Antipas, of publicans, of customs and usages, etc., always agrees with the reality. The local colouring appears faithful in the smallest details.

Not only is the historical milieu described with most praiseworthy faithfulness, but also the geographical, archaeological, religious, and moral environment. The geographical setting is so correct and so useful for a more complete understanding of Our Lord's life, that some have gone so far as to call it "the fifth Gospel." A rapid survey of Palestine is enough to enable us to recognise that, despite the changes brought about by so many long centuries, the outward characteristics of the country are quite those with which the Gospels acquaint us by the minute topographical details scattered through their pages. The apparently most trifling archaeological data such as the mention of certain Jewish, Greek, or Roman coins, about which it was so easy to be mistaken also prove, in their own way, the writers' truthfulness. Being so exact in these secondary points, the biographers of Christ would be even more so, if that were possible, in the major affairs that constitute the direct subject of their writings: thus we have their honesty as a warranty of the reliability of the Gospels.

This honesty appears on every page. On reading the Gospels, and still more when meditating on them, one is promptly convinced that the writers are sincere, disinterested, impartial. They tell their story simply, objectively, in a wholly impersonal manner, never putting themselves forward, even though they themselves (St. Matthew and St. John) or their teachers (St. Peter for St. Mark, St. Paul for St. Luke), early or late, had taken a considerable part in the Gospel history and the foundation of the Church. Nor is it merely their individuality that they leave completely in the background, but even their innermost feelings. Of course, they have no thought of concealing their belief in Christ, in His mission, His miracles, and His divinity; but nowhere does this turn them into panegyrists. It would seem that they had put a damper on their feelings of tenderness to keep them from bursting forth. The events that most glorify their Divine Hero as well as the saddest, most humiliating and tragic, are set forth with a calmness, we might even say, with an apparent lack of feeling, that is astonishing. Does not St. Luke employ the simplest possible language in recounting the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, (Cf. Luke, 1:26-38) without the slightest allusion to its sublimity? "The angel departed from her": this is all he says at the close of his account, which like the event itself has with good reason been called virginal. When the first biographers of Christ describe the cruel scenes of His Passion or the unspeakable insults inflicted on Him, a superficial reader might be tempted to regard the writers as indifferent and to suppose they were unmoved by Judas' infamous betrayal or the horrors of the scourging or the unutterable agony of the Crucifixion. In all this, the Evangelists appear as true models of literary integrity. On the other hand, with what startling frankness they confess their own weaknesses or those of their dearest friends! They point out, for instance, the lack of understanding shown by the Apostles with regard to certain words or deeds of the Divine Master, (Cf. Matt. 15:16) their feelings of ambition or jealousy, their want of faith and courage, the stern rebukes that Christ addressed to them on various occasions, etc.

After considering these details, which might be multiplied at great length, must we not conclude that the character of the Gospel is its own testimonial? Does it not testify in its own behalf with irresistible force? Origen's saying, based on a text of the Psalms, (Ps. 17:31) is still more striking: "The Gospel accounts are oracles of the Lord Himself, oracles most pure, like silver that has been seven times refined by fire."

To sum up, Catholic critics conclude that the Synoptic Gospels were written between the years 50 and 70, probably about the year 60, and the fourth Gospel a little after that.

- A Jew. There are many Hebraisms, and the Jewish customs and Messianic idea are perfectly described.

- An eyewitness, because of his vivid descriptions of various characters, e.g., John the Baptist, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Martha, Samaritan woman, man born blind, etc.

- An Apostle. He knew minute details of the life of Our Lord, His thoughts and prayers, His secret interview with Nicodemus, with the Samaritan woman, etc.

- John, son of Zebedee. He is never simply “John” in the Fourth Gospel, but the disciple “whom Jesus loved.” (Cf. John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20)

- In the last chapter, it is said of the disciple whom Jesus loved: “This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” (Jn 21:24)

Differences of arrangement and matter between the Fourth and the Synoptic Gospels prove nothing against its authenticity, but show that:

- John wished to supply what was wanting in the other Gospels. Hence he describes the Judean ministry, teaches more explicitly the Divinity of Christ, and for this purpose makes choice of the miracles and words of Our Lord.

- Differences are also due to the gifts of the writers, to which St. Paul alludes in 1 Cor. 13:4. St. John's special gifts were interpretation of the words of Christ, and the "word of wisdom" mentioned in 1 Cor. 2:6-10.

- Apparent discrepancies are really a proof of the authenticity of the four Gospels. Brugère argues thus: “If the books associated with the names of the Apostles are the works of subsequent writers, the books were written either frankly and without intention of fraud, or deceitfully with such intention. If the first, why so many and such minute instances of agreement, if the latter, why differences of arrangement and matter?”

3. INTEGRITY of the Gospels.

This question is closely connected with that of authenticity, integrity being a necessary complement of authenticity. To establish that our four Gospels have an Apostolic origin and are really the work of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John is not enough; we must also prove that they have come down to us without essential alterations, as they left their authors' hands.

In favour of the integrity of the Gospels, considered as a whole, we will first advance what is called a presumption which rests on the duly verified history of the primitive Church. We have had occasion to mention the protests and threats of the early Fathers against those who took the liberty of altering the text of the Sacred Scriptures. It is with indignant vehemence that Tertullian reproaches Marcion for mutilating the Gospel of St. Luke. Such sentiments were shared by all Christians, who clung with all their might to the ancient traditions and showed themselves singularly uncompromising when it seemed to them that the integrity of the Sacred Books was being attacked, even in accidental details.

Beyond this presumption there is the proof drawn from three undeniable facts. It is, in a way, a material demonstration added to the moral proof.

(1) The original manuscripts of the Gospels have unfortunately all disappeared. But copies were made quite early, which increased in number on every side. A relatively large number of them has reached us, and several of these precious manuscripts go back to the second and third centuries. This is a remarkable, nay, an exceptional fact, to which we find nothing comparable in the history of classical literature. Now, comparing the text of these various manuscripts with that which we read today, we observe that, aside from the variants, it is substantially the same. There could be no better proof of the integrity of our Gospels.

(2) The most ancient translations of this text, especially those made into Latin and Syriac in the second century, into Coptic in the third century, into Gothic and Armenian in the fourth and fifth centuries, lead to the same conclusion. Aside from some inconsiderable differences, they reproduce the Greek text as we now have it.

(3) We saw that the early Fathers of the second and third centuries often quote the Gospels, sometimes directly, and again in an indirect manner. By uniting all these fragments we could reconstruct a considerable part of our four Gospels, without other differences than those of which we are about to speak.

It is true that between all these manuscripts, versions, and quotations there exist numerous variants, appearing in almost every verse. It would have required a permanent miracle to preserve, through copies endlessly recopied, the exact primitive text. Mistakes due to the carelessness, distractions, and unskilfulness of copyists slip in everywhere. If it is, even today, morally impossible, notwithstanding the attentiveness of printers and proofreaders, to publish a volume unmarred by typographical errors, with all the more reason must we expect that errors of detail will inevitably creep into copies written by hand. Origen complained of it. In reply to the pagan Celsus, who used these variants as a pretext for attacking the groundwork of the sacred narrative, Origen drew attention to the fact that they were of no importance. As a matter of fact, when these variants are examined one by one, they are generally seen to be of a superficial nature and concern especially spelling, the order of words, the presence or omission of an article or particle, etc.

Those which directly affect the meaning are rather few and none of them effect the doctrinal or moral content of the Gospels.

Everything, therefore, agrees in showing that the Gospel text has suffered no substantial modification through the ages and that, save for slight, accidental changes, it has been handed down to us in its original, authentic form. From the earliest time the Church, by her most illustrious Doctors, such as Origen and St. Augustine, has piously watched over the preservation of the sacred text and has laboured to keep it free from all dross. For the last three quarters of a century, learned men

Catholics, Protestants, and even Rationalists have rivalled one another in their zeal to reproduce this text in a somewhat ideal form by restoring it to its pristine purity.

Manuscripts. Before 1962, the most ancient was the Ryland fragment of St. John, (18; 31-33 & 37-38), found in 1920. This papyrus dated from the year 125 confirmed the perfect identity of the original gospel with our current text, in particular this passage of Jesus before Pilate. Since 1962 we have the 7Q5 dated as early as 50 (like all the fragments of Qumran), proving again the integrity of St. Mark.

4. The VERACITY of the Gospels.

Some Rationalists (e.g., Baur) did not hesitate to accuse the Evangelists of deliberate and conscious deceit. Renan and others attributed their views to hallucination. Modernists assert that Christ's historical person was transfigured by a process of idealisation due to the faith and enthusiasm of His disciples. (Cf. Pascendi Dz. 2076).

How could all the Evangelists in regard to the same facts, throughout their lives, and in the same way have suffered from hallucination? Nay, the deadliest enemies of Christ must have been affected in the same way, as they could not deny, and did not attempt to deny, the miracles. This hypothesis is clearly absurd.

The goodness and simplicity of the Apostles are apparent. They could hope for no gain, temporal or eternal, from falsehood, but on the contrary persecution and suffering. They sealed their testimony with their blood in order to confirm their testimonies. They died martyrs, i.e., witnesses, showing no fanaticism, but humility and patience. How has it come to pass that the supposed fraud has been fruitful for more than twenty centuries in sanctity and beneficence?

(1) The supposed process cannot be admitted. The Synoptic writers relate with accuracy, in a historical and literal way, the political, moral and religious state of the Jews. Why should their narrative of the words and works of Christ be less accurate? Transformation and deformation of the history of Christ appear in the Apocryphal Gospels, in which we read that Christ, as a child, performed countless fantastic and useless miracles. But there is nothing of this idealisation in the simple and grave words of the Evangelists.

(2) Idealisation was morally impossible. To change the texts of the Synoptic Gospels between the years A.D. 60 and 80 was impossible, inasmuch as many witnesses of the facts were still alive! Hence Strauss assigned the composition of the Gospels to the end of the second century (sic) Moreover Galilean fishermen, or early Christian writers, could not possibly excogitate and write down the words of Christ, or describe His life and character as they appear in the Synoptic Gospels. There is a union of sublimity and simplicity, which postulates a non-human origin.

(3) The supposed idealisation is contrary to facts. The Synoptic writers do not overstress the Divinity of Christ, or the meritorious value of His Death. The Synoptic note rather the human side of Christ, His sorrows and sufferings. They do not hide the weaknesses and prejudices of the Apostles. They would have adopted a different method if they intended to transfigure the words and deeds of Christ. When St. Paul refers to the Divinity of Christ (e.g. “in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelleth corporally,” Col. 2:9), he wrote concerning a truth, which was already accepted and believed by the whole Christian community.

Objection: In regard to the Fourth Gospel, Modernists assert that the narrative of John is not really history, but “a mystical contemplation;” the words attributed to Christ in this Gospel are “theological meditations on the mysteries of salvation,” and are “destitute of historical truth.” The Fourth Gospel, they assert, gives “exaggerated prominence to miracles,” not that they should appear more extraordinary, but that they might be “more apt to signify the works and glory of the Incarnate Word.” John, according to them, claimed to be a witness unto Christ, but in truth he is only “a striking witness of Christian life,” or of “the influence of Christ in the Church” at the end of the First Century. (Cf. Lamentabili Dz. 2016-2018).

Answer: The principal aim of the Fourth Gospel is dogmatic. The Evangelist wishes to show clearly that Jesus is the Son of God (cf. John 20:31). But it does not follow that the words and works of Christ narrated in this Gospel are not historically true. To prove a truth of such importance, a sincere author will bring forward only deeds and words absolutely unexceptionable as to truth and weight.

In order to develop our answer we will show the historicity of the facts and the veracity of the discourses narrated in the Fourth Gospel.

An objection has been made: “Many facts narrated in the Fourth Gospel do not appear in the Synoptic Gospels, therefore they are not historical.”

Answer: (a) The facts peculiar to the Fourth Gospel are not narrated as allegories or parables, but as real events.

(b) Some facts common to the Fourth and to the Synoptics are related practically in the same way as they appear in St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke (cf. Testimony of St. John the Baptist, ejection of sellers from the Temple, walking upon the waters, anointing of Jesus in Bethany, triumphal entry into Jerusalem, history of the Passion, etc, etc.).

(c) Moreover, St. John aimed at supplementing the narratives of his predecessors. Accordingly he passes over quickly the Galilean ministry and narrates facts if the Judean ministry. He does not repeat the circumstances of the institution of the Eucharist, but describes the promise of the same. He passes over the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus, and of the widow's son at Naim, he omits the confession of St. Peter, but he records the miracle at Cana, the secret visit of Nicodemus, the meeting with the Samaritan woman, the giving of sight to a man congenitally blind, the cure of the paralytic at the Probatic Pool, the raising of Lazarus to life. All these facts he describes with details of place and time, noting the customs and traditions of the Jews. Allegorical suggestion in regard to these facts is as void of foundation as in regard to incidents narrated by the four Evangelists.

Objection: Modernists and Rationalists object that there is a great difference between the discourses recorded in the Fourth Gospel, and those which appear in the Synoptics, both as regards doctrine and style. It is claimed that the Synoptic writers record moral precepts in a simple style, whereas John teaches sublime dogmas in an elevated style.

Answer: (a) In the Synoptics we have often merely the substance of the discourses of Christ. Compare St. Luke's account of the Sermon on the Mount with that of St. Matthew. This instance suggests that it should not be matter of wonder if John records discourses more at length, especially when he touches on higher mysteries.

(b) Moreover, the dogmatic aim of the Fourth Gospel should be considered. St. John stresses the Divinity of Christ, which at that time was denied by the Gnostic Cerinthus and by the Ebionites. To meet this denial, St. John chose for narration words and deeds of Christ in which His glory and power are reflected. The Synoptics, too, speak about His Divinity, but less explicitly.

(c) Again, St. John's mode of writing is suitable as an expression of the sublime doctrine which he teaches. His style is more ornate, more vivid; his temperament and special calling are reflected therein; he was the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” who rested his head upon the breast of Christ at the last Supper, to whom Christ, when dying, commended the care of His mother. But in the words attributed to Christ, St. John does not introduce his own ideas; indeed, in some cases, he carefully discriminates his own reflections from the words of Christ. (cf. 2:21 : 12:33 : 7:39).

(d) With reference to apparent contradictions between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, they do not affect the substance of the history of Christ, or His doctrine, but are concerned with details of chronology, and the number and order of His miracles. In these supposed discrepancies, there is a clear proof of the sincerity of the Evangelists, for if they were not sincere, they Would have removed all appearance of contradiction. Interesting corroboration of their accuracy appears in some instances of supposed divergence. For example, the Synoptics write of the Pharisees and Sadducees where St. John mentions High Priests and Pharisees. At that period it can be proved that the High Priests were Sadducees.

Conclusion: Few profane books of antiquity (Greek and Roman) can boast a veracity as well supported as that of the Gospels. E.g. the first mention of Herodotus was made by Aristotle one hundred years after the death of the historian; the second mention appears in Cicero, who lived three hundred years later. Even the Rationalist Strauss acknowledged that he did not contest the authenticity of the Gospels on historical grounds (Leben Jesu XXII). So also writes Renan (Vie de Jésus VI). Zeller asserted that he would not believe the Resurrection of Christ even if supported by most certain testimonies. It is not therefore historical considerations which move Rationalists to reject the Gospel testimony regarding the Supernatural, but simply maliciousness.

The testimony of St. Paul has a special value for us. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus in the strict sense of the word.

We find him in Jerusalem at the very time when there broke forth against the nascent Church a persecution of which he was, as he himself avows, one of the most violent instigators. (Cf. Act 7:57; 1 Cor 15:9) Perchance he already lived there for the pursuit of his studies “at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts. 22:3) during Our Lord's public life, and it is quite possible, as has often been supposed, that he knew the Divine Master at least by sight. However that may be, this austere Pharisee, filled with tireless zeal for Judaism, a sworn enemy of the Christian religion, endowed also with a very positive spirit, must surely have devoted himself, either before or after his conversion, to a deep study of Jesus and His work. Eyewitnesses were not wanting to supply him with all desirable information. His very conversion, which changed a blasphemer and persecutor into a wholehearted Apostle of Christ, could not have come about (leaving out of account the power of divine grace) without a profound knowledge of the life of Christ. [1]

As a matter of fact, in what concerns the Saviour’s human history, Paul knew all, as he shows by the numerous allusions to it found at every turn in his discourses and Epistles.

The moral portrait of the Saviour, as St. Paul draws it in his Epistles, is of remarkable exactness and presupposes a more than ordinary acquaintance with the Life of the Divine Model. Paul does not, in any one place or with one stroke, set forth the Saviour’s portrait in its entirety; but, by grouping together the various traits described here and there, we obtain a striking likeness. More than one recent critic has remarked, in concert with believing exegetes: "The general impression that Paul had of Jesus' earthly life, which was, he said, one of abasement, poverty, and servitude, is quite in accord with the Gospel tradition."

The numerous data which St. Paul furnishes on the history of Jesus are supplemented by those of the Acts of the Apostles, the seven so-called Catholic Epistles (Sts Peter, John, James and Jude), and the Apocalypse. Scattered through these nine writings we also meet quite a few details of our Lord's life.

There is mention of His Baptism by the precursor (Acts 1:22), His many miracles (Acts 2:22, etc.), His Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18), His titles of Son of David (Acts 2:30), Son of God (Acts 9:20, etc.), Good Shepherd (1 Peter 2:25), and Saviour of the world (Acts 9:12), the revelations which the ancient Prophets of Israel made regarding Him (Acts 10:43, etc.), His betrayal by Judas (Acts 1:16-19), the outrages inflicted on Him during His Passion by Herod, Pilate, and the Jews (Acts 3:13 f.; 4:27, etc.), His Crucifixion (Acts 2:23, 36, etc.), His burial (Acts 2:19, etc.), His Resurrection (Acts 2:24, etc.), His Ascension (Acts 2:34), and His second coming (James 5; 7 f., etc.).

We have abridged to avoid repetition. But is it not true that these books, like St. Paul's Epistles, contain a complete sketch of the life of Christ? The Apocalypse honours Him especially as the Lamb freely immolated for our salvation, as the Divine Logos, as the eternal Wisdom by which God created the world. What wealth these treasures contain, merely from the biographical point of view! And yet we recognize that this wealth of material is but little, compared with what the canonical Gospels place at our disposal.

5. The ADEQUACY of the Gospels

Now that we know the Gospels and their worth as historical documents, we must inquire whether the information they supply about Our Lord is abundant and complete enough to permit us to use them in our proof that Christ came from God to reveal a divine doctrine.

To answer this question suitably, a distinction must be made. To compose a biography of the Saviour, as the word is understood today, would evidently be impossible, for it is certain that the material supplied by the Gospels and other Christian sources mentioned above, would be insufficient. In fact, the Evangelists, in relating the life of Christ, had no intention of being complete, after the manner of modern chronicles. How many gaps, therefore, are to be noted in their accounts, even if we unite them all together so as to form one narrative.

What do we know of the first thirty years of Our Lord's hidden life? St. Matthew and St. Luke are the only ones to speak of His birth and to mention a few scant incidents of His infancy and boyhood. What do we know of the forty days that elapsed between His Resurrection and His Ascension? What gaps also in the course of His public life, despite the fact that it constitutes the subject matter of the Gospel history! Of this period which, according to the most likely calculations, lasted a little more than three years, we possess only extracts. It is true that the Evangelists record a great variety and number of incidents; but, as St. John says in eloquent hyperbole, they were selected from other episodes much more numerous.

The Evangelists had a much more exalted mission than that of being biographers of Christ. Besides the primitive doctrinal preaching, which they so faithfully reproduce, they chiefly aim to set forth what, from the life of the Redeemer, was most apt to arouse faith in Him and thereby lead souls to salvation.

The real question, therefore, is not: Do the Gospels give us as many details about Christ as our pious curiosity might desire? But, Do the Evangelists give us all the information we need in order to establish sufficient proof as to His revelation?

Thanks to the sacred writers, we possess amply sufficient details for an affirmative answer to the second of these questions. And we can be certain that, even if our knowledge of Christ's earthly life were much more extensive, our knowledge of Him and His revelation would not be different from that which has been so faithfully transmitted to us. All the other deeds and words of the Saviour would nowise modify our knowledge of His revelation which we have received through the accounts of the four Gospels, so admirable and truly providential was the choice of deeds and discourses.

Let it be understood, then, that we are not to ask of the Gospels what it is not their aim to furnish. But, to the best of our ability, let us make use of their beautiful accounts, and we shall be sufficiently acquainted with Christ. A competent critic has well said: "On the subject of Jesus, we are as reliably and abundantly informed as we are about any other great figure of antiquity."

§3. Other Sources.

1. Archaeology.

Archaeology cannot produce any direct evidence from the world of the New Testament, but it is only an indirect witness of the truthfulness of the Gospels.

The task of Archaeology is to find and reconstruct the environment where Jesus lived, worked and died. Such discoveries can be of great help to prove once again the veracity of Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture forms the guide for the work of the Archaeologist and his findings prove it in return. Extensive work in this science has been done - much is still to be done. A few examples will suffice for now.

In 1916, the German archaeologists H. Kohl and C. Watzinger discovered the fragmentary remains of an edifice at the north end, not far from the spot where the fast running waters of the Jordan pour into the lake of Tiberias. Both archaeologists were convinced that they had found the synagogue of Capharnaum, not the one dating from the time of Christ, but another building built about A.D. 200 on top of the ruins and foundations of the synagogue in which Jesus often stood and taught on the Sabbath day: “And they entered into Capharnaum; and forthwith upon the sabbath days going into the Synagogue, he taught them” (Mk 1:21).

- The "Pavement" of Pilate

Its rediscovery was the result of years of work on the part of the archaeologist Father I. H. Vincent. His success was due to the exact description given in St. John's gospel. [2]

This was where Jesus stood before Pilate while the mob howled outside. It was on this Pavement too that the scourging took place (Cf. John 19:1). This always preceded crucifixion, as Flavius Josephus expressly mentions twice. For this horrible punishment, the body was stripped, naked and flogged until the flesh hung down in bloody shreds.

B. In Confirmation of the Acts of the Apostles

■ On the island of Cyprus near the ancient town of Paphos, a Roman inscription made mention of Paulus, the Proconsul who is described as "a prudent man" in the Book of Acts (Cf. 13:7).

■ In 1833, Francis V. J. Arundell, British chaplain in Smyrna, discovered near the Turkish town of Yalovach, the ancient "Antioch in Pisidia", where St. Paul preached on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:14).

■ The Acts say that they “came unto Iconium ... unto Lystra and Derbe, ... and unto the region that lieth round about: and there they preached the gospel” (Acts 14:6). Konia, 60 miles south-east of Antioch and main station on the Anatolian railway, was the Iconium of St. Paul's missionary activity.

■ In 1885 Professor J. R. Sitlington Sterrett discovered the remains of an altar in the mountains 25 miles farther south. A thick stone slab bore a Latin inscription with the name of "Lustra" (ie: Lystra). A day's journey farther on Sterrett also discovered the ancient Derbe. These four cities, Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe belonged in St.Paul's day to the Roman province of Galatia (Cf. Acts 14:6, 20; 14:1).

■ French archaeologists on the strength of the concrete evidence in the Book of Acts excavated the Roman colony of Philippi, near the village of Kavalla, in Macedonia, where St. Paul boarded a sailing ship for his first journey to Europe (Cf. Acts 16:12 ff.) On the banks of the river Gangites, Paul's first convert was Lydia, the seller of purple.

■ By way of Thessalonica and Athens, where St. Paul preached only for a short time, he turned his steps towards Corinth. The archaeologists found a heavy stone lintel on which they were able to decipher the words "Hebrew Synagogue", clearly cut out in Greek letters. The house in which Paul proclaimed the new doctrine must have stood beyond the colonnade in the region of Lechaeum street (Acts 18:1 ff.). Among the ruins of the numerous dwelling houses in the same quarter of the city must certainly be those of the house of the Justus with whom Paul lodged, "whose house was adjoining to the synagogue" (Acts 18:7). Finally it was found in the market place a raised platform, on which a Latin inscription indicated that it had been the rostra, the judgement-seat, where St Paul stood before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, at the accusations of the Jews of the city. (Cf. Acts 18:12-16).

■ The riot at Ephesus, as the New Testament depicts it (Acts 19:24-29), has become a living reality, thanks to the tireless efforts of the archaeologist J. T. Wood. Eventually while digging in the old amphitheatre, the site of the riot, he found a signpost which put him on the right road. An inscription listed several gold and silver images of Artemis (Diana) from two to six pounds in weight which were to be offered as a gift to the goddess and placed in the temple. Wood searched for the Magnesian Gate and found it, followed the prescribed route and found himself a mile north-east of the city the Temple of Artemis.

2. Relics of the Passion

Some relics carry the same weight in Apologetics as Archaeological findings, others less due to the obscurity of their origin.

A. The Holy Cross

A first report tells us that St. Helena, mother of Constantine, went in 326 to Jerusalem to recover the True Cross and the relics of the Passion. St. Paulinus of Nola (353-431) tells that the empress engaged in an extensive investigation, then called both Jews and Christians for consultations. Excavations revealed the tomb and within it the Title that had been nailed to the cross proclaiming Christ as King of the Jews. Here also were found three crosses. Since the title was not attached, the identity of the True Cross of Christ was revealed when a dead man was restored to life by contact with it. After witnessing this event, Judas, a Jew, was thereupon converted, assumed the name of Cyriacus.

Another report claims that Bishop Macarius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, who himself was seeking to locate all the holy places, was present at the excavation site and had the three crosses brought to the bedside of a prominent woman who was then grievously ill. The patient was unaffected when touched by two crosses, but contact with the third caused a complete restoration of health. St. Helena found the True Cross and she and her son Constantine erected a magnificent basilica over the Holy Sepulchre with the exact place of discovery situated beneath the atrium.

A portion of the True Cross was retained here and enclosed in a silver reliquary. According to Socrates the historian, a piece was given to Constantine, who had it enclosed in a statue of himself. Another portion was brought to Rome by St. Helena and for this she erected the basilica named the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, so named because it was built wholly or partially, on a bed of earth brought by St. Helena from Jerusalem.

St. Cyril, in his catechetical lectures before the year 350, assures the candidates for baptism that the Cross of Christ was in the possession of the Church and that "It has been distributed fragment by fragment from this spot and has already nearly filled the world." St. Cyril spoke the words on the site of the Crucifixion some 20 years after the discovery. St. Cyril's words were echoed by St. Ambrose, St. Paulinus of Nola, Sulpicius Severus, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. What is certain is that as early as the second half of the IV century, pieces of the cross were known to be scattered throughout the empire. Before the end of the IV century it is indicated by dated inscriptions that the stem of the cross and the title were both intensely venerated in Jerusalem.

The cult of the cross and its relics during the succeeding centuries was so great that even the iconoclast emperors of the East, in their suppression of the cult of images, nevertheless, respected that of the Cross. The devotion of the cross likewise gave rise to the building of many churches and oratories as a worthy treasury of their relics.

The section of the cross at Jerusalem was seized by the Persian King Chosroes II when he stormed and captured Jerusalem in 614. Emperor Heraclius vainly tried to negotiate peace, then gathered his forces for an attack, and Chosroes was soundly defeated. After being 15 years in captivity, Heraclius triumphantly carried the relic in 629 with him to Constantinople and the following year completed the journey to Jerusalem. The patriarch and clergy finding the seals intact.

Discovered with the three crosses was the Title, which seems to have been divided by St. Helena into three pieces. One portion was given to Constantine, another was either sent or carried by the saint to Santa Croce in Jerusalem, the church she built in Rome as a fitting reliquary for a large portion of the true cross. The third portion of the title remained in Jerusalem.

Of this Jerusalem relic, we are told by the pilgrim Aetheria how in 385 she witnessed an exposition of the cross and the inscription and the methods used by the bishop and his deacons to safeguard it from relic seekers. The title, she has told us, was touched to the foreheads and eyes of pilgrims.

The Crown of Thorns was documented as being in Jerusalem in 409 AD. It was transferred to Constantinople in 1063, although it seems that the thorns were removed and presented to various rulers in Europe at an earlier date. In 1238 Baldwin II, the Latin Emperor of Constantinople, anxious to obtain support for his tottering empire offered the crown of thorns to Louis IX King of France who built the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris to house it. During the French Revolution, the crown was kept in the Bibliotheque Nationale until 1806 when the thornless remains were deposited in the Cathedral of Notre Dame.

The Holy Nails were discovered by Constantine’s mother the Empress Helena about 300 years after the Crucifixion. According to legend, one nail was tossed into the Adriatic to calm a storm. The other two were used by the Empress to protect her son: one was placed in his crown and another formed into a bridle for his horse. The one kept at the Basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome is among those most likely to be one of the True Nails used in the Crucifixion.

Sindonis D.N.J.C (from the burial shroud of Our Lord). There are two Sindon relics, one is the Shroud of Turin itself, and it is the most striking concerning the details of the physical sufferings of Our Lord during his Passion; the other is from the covering of the Face of Christ after his death and it is venerated in Oviedo (Spain). Throughout history, references have been made to this latter practice. Recent comparisons revealed that the imprints of blood coincide in both cloths.

Deduced from the Shroud of Turin:

Blows: Swelling on cheek, nose, and lips indicate at least several hard blows to the face. The Gospels do say he was struck by Roman soldiers during the crowning with thorns.

Scourging: Marks on the back and legs of the Shroudman indicate the use of a Roman flagrum, like a cat-o-nine-tails with small dumbbell shaped pieces tied on the ends. These broke the skin but did not flay it from him. The pattern of the welts indicate two tormentors, possibly of different heights. Tradition permitted 39 lashes – 40 to fulfill the law, less one to show mercy. There are 120 or so impressions.

Crowning with Thorns: There are puncture wounds surrounding the head – not just on the sides but across the top as well. True royal crowns in that era, we are told, were much more like caps than circlets.

Carrying the cross: Abrasions on the shoulders indicate that only the crossbeam was carried, as was likely the typical practice. Men carrying such a beam found that the easiest way would not have been across the shoulders but pointed forward. It should be balanced with the arm draped over the front and the major portion hanging over the back. This matches the placement of scrapes on the upper back and shoulders of the man on the Shroud.

Falling: The Shroudman had fallen several times, according to the injuries shown on his elbows and knees.

Stripped: The Shroudman was completely naked, the humiliation and exposure to the elements being part of the punishment.

Nailing the hands: The most obvious difference between the Shroud and the traditional view is that on the Shroud the wounds are on the wrists and the thumbs are not visible from the back of the hands. Experiments with cadavers have shown that due to the weight of the body, nails would rip out through the flesh between the fingers. But placed through the hollow just beneath the wristbones, the nail could support the weight – plus it would pull the thumb in towards the palm. Ropes, of course, could have helped secure the victim, and are used in many movies, but there is no sign of rope-burn on the arms of the Shroudman.

Nailing the feet: The only remains of a crucified person ever found in the Holy Land has a single nail through both the heels of both feet that hadn't been extracted as it had bent. He would have to had his legs turned to the side as in The Last Temptation of Christ. The Shroudman was nailed through the tops of the feet. It appears that the left foot was placed over the right and two nails used.

Erecting the cross: The crossbeam would likely have a mortise or notch on the bottom. Once he was affixed, the beam would have to be hauled up and lifted over a tenon in the already-standing upright. This would result in a T-shaped configuration. According to the Gospels, however, there was a placard placed above Jesus, so perhaps the upright continued above the crossbeam as it traditional. The Shroud offers no evidence either way.

Stabbed in the side: There is a wound on the side. A spear thrust in such an upward direction would pierce the sack around the heart and release serum along with blood. There is a large stain next to this wound on the Shroud. There is some blood but it appears mostly to be from a clear liquid from the pleural sac surrounding the heart. Once again, just as the Gospels say.

Buried: The body was washed and anointed, carefully laid out on the bottom half of the Shroud, surrounded by flowers, and the top laid over it.

The Holy Column of Flagellation was transported from Jerusalem to Rome by John Cardinal Colonna, one of the leaders of the sixth Crusade, in the year 1223, and was placed in his title church of St. Praxedis.

The veneration of a “Veronice” can be dated back to the pontificate of John VII (705-707), according to the chronicle of Benedetto di Sant’Andrea. In 1011, Pope Sergius IV consecrated a special altar for the veneration of this “sudarium” (veil, sweat cloth). St. Veronica was the woman who wiped the face of Christ with a veil while he was on the way to Calvary. According to tradition, the cloth was imprinted with the image of Christ’s face. The relic is still preserved in St. Peter’s, in Rome and the memory of Veronica’s act of charity is commemorated in one of the Stations of the Cross. ■

[1] Let us endeavour to make a rapid sketch of our Lord's life according to the facts which Paul mentions at different times:

Jesus was truly clothed with human nature: He was born of woman (Rom. 5:15; 8:4;1 Cor. 15:21; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:7). He belonged to the Jewish race (Rom. 4:1; Gal. 3:16), to the tribe of Juda (Heb. 7:14), to the family of David (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). He had "brothers," that is, cousins (1 Cor. 9:5), one of whom, the Apostle St. James the Less, is mentioned by name (Gal. 1:19). He became poor for our sake, to enrich us by His poverty (2 Cor. 8:9). He freely submitted to the Mosaic Law (Gal. 4:4). He never committed the slightest sin (2 Cor. 5:12); the Spirit of holiness filled Him (Rom. 1:4). In His outward ministry, He confined Himself to Israel (Rom. 15:8). He gathered around Him a group of intimate disciples, the Apostles, whom He destined to be bearers of the glad tidings (1 Cor. 9:5; 1:7-9; Gal. 1:17-19). Paul knows that the chief of them were Peter, "Kephas" (1 Cor. 9:5; 15:5; Gal. 1:16; 2:7) and John (Gal. 2:9); that one of them shamefully betrayed his Master (1 Cor. 1:23). He knows and quotes in his Epistles several of Jesus' sayings: notably the one about marriage (1 Cor. 6:10, 25), another about the right of those who preach the Gospel to live by the Gospel (1 Cor. 8:14). Though he does not expressly speak of any of the Saviour’s miracles, he is not unaware that an Apostle can perform miracles in His name (2 Cor. 12:12).

Christ's Passion furnishes St. Paul with especially abundant matter. So familiar is he with the painful and humiliating scenes of the Passion that when he relates them to the faithful, his hearers are present, as it were, at the Saviour’s Crucifixion (Gal. 3:1). Before dying, the Divine Master instituted the Holy Eucharist, and Paul sets forth the principal details of the institution in the same way as do the Synoptic Evangelists (1 Cor. 2:2; 3:25). The Apostle of the Gentiles alludes to the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (Heb. 5:7), the shameful outrages inflicted on Jesus by His cruel enemies (Rom. 15; 3), His wonderful obedience to the will of His heavenly Father (Phil. 2;8; Heb. 12:2), as also His state of profound powerlessness at the hour of His Passion (2 Cor. 13:4). Jesus died on the cross (Gal. 3:1, 13), and two notorious criminals were put to death with Him (Cor. 13:14). His execution took place outside of Jerusalem (Heb. 13:12). He was buried (1 Cor. 15:4). The third day He rose from the dead, as the Prophets had foretold (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:4, etc.). Then He appeared several times to His Apostles and disciples (1 Cor. 15:5-8). Finally, He ascended into Heaven, where He sits at the right hand of the Father (Rom. 8:34 : Eph. 1:20, etc.). On the last day He will come to judge the living and the dead (1 Thess. 1:10; 4:13-16; 2 Thess. 1:6-10, etc.). We scarcely need to add that, for St. Paul, Jesus is not only the Messiah, the new Adam, the head of regenerated humanity (Rom. 5:12 ff.; 1 Cor. 5:32, 45 f., etc.), but the Son of God (Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col 1:15 f.; Phil. 2:5; Heb. 1:4-14, and very frequently in other places), possessing and manifesting all the attributes of divinity.

[2] The word "Lithostroton" could be translated by "Pavement". It means a stone pavement. The Aramaic word "Gabbatha" means raised ground. Just beside the north-west perimeter wall of the Temple, where stood in the time of Jesus the powerful tower of Antonia. It was built upon a rocky eminence. Herod I had built it and called it after a friend. The Roman occupation troops had taken it over as a garrison. In A.D. 70, at the conquest of Jerusalem, Titus had the castle of Antonia demolished. Later buildings arose upon the ruins. On the spot where the courtyard of the Antonia had been, Fr. Vincent was able to establish the existence of a large flat pavement nearly 3,000 square yards built in the Roman Style and typical of the time of Jesus.