the old prejudice in favour of a late date for any long literary composition, or have fully realised how readily

and familiarly writing was used in extremely remote time, together with all that is implied by that familiar use.

The prejudice still exists, and it affects the study of both Hebrew and Christian literature.

In the first place, there is a general feeling that it is more prudent to bring down the composition of any

ancient work to the latest date that evidence permits. But this feeling rests ultimately on the fixed idea that

people have gradually become more familiar with the art of writing as the world grows older, and that the

composition of a work of literature should not, without distinct and conclusive proof, be attributed to an

early period.

In the second place, there is also a very strong body of opinion that the earliest Christians wrote little or

nothing. It is supposed that partly they were either unable to write, or at least unused to the familiar

employment of writing for the purposes of ordinary life; partly they were so entirely taken up with the idea

of the immediate coming of the Lord that they never thought it necessary to record for future generations

the circumstances of the life and death of Jesus, until lapse of long years on the one hand had shown that

the Lord's coming was not to be expected immediately, and that for the use of the already large Church some

record was required of those events round which its faith and hope centred, while on the other hand it had

obscured the memory and disturbed t he true tradition of those important facts. This opinion also rests on

and derives all its influence from the same inveterate prejudice that, at the period in question, writing was

still something great and solemn, and that it was used, not in the ordinary course of human everyday life

and experience, but only for some grave purpose of legislation, government, or religion, intentionally

registering certain weighty principles or important events for the benefit of future generations. Put aside that

prejudice, and the whole body of opinion which maintains that the Christians at first did not set anything

down in writing about the life and death of Christ--strong and widely accepted as it is, dominating as a

fundamental premise much of the discussion of this whole subject in recent times --is devoid of any support.

But most discussions with regard to the origin, force, and spirit of the New Testament are founded on

certain postulates and certain initial presumptions, which already contain implicit the whole train of

reasoning that follows, and which in fact beg the whole question at starting. If those postulates are true, or

if they are granted by the reader, then the whole series of conclusions follows with unerring and impressive

logical sequence. All the more necessary, then, is it to examine very carefully the character of such

postulates, and to test whether they are really true about that distant period, or are only modern fallacies

springing from the mistaken views about ancient history that were widely accepted in the eighteenth and

most part of the nineteenth century.

One of those initial presumptions, plausible in appearance and almost universally assumed and conceded, is

that there was no early registration of the great events in the beginning of Christian history. This

presumption we must set aside as a mere prejudice, contrary to the whole character and spirit of that age,

and entirely improbable; though, of course, decisive disproof of it is no longer possible, for the only definite

and complete disproof would be the production of the original documents in which the facts were recorded

at the moment by contemporaries. But so much may be said at once, summing up in a sentence the result

which arises from what is stated in the following pages. So far as antecedent probability goes, founded on

the general character of preceding and contemporary Greek or Graeco-Asiatic society, the first Christian

account of the circumstances connected with the death of Jesus must be presumed to have been written in

the year when Jesus died.

But the objection will doubtless be made at once--If that be so, how can you account for such facts as that

Mark says that the Crucifixion was completed by the third hour of the day (9 a.m., according to our modern

reckoning of time), while John says that the sentence upon Jesus was only pronounced about the sixth

hour, i.e. at noon. The reply is obvious and unhesitating. The difference dates from the event itself. Had

evidence been collected that night or next morning, the two diverse o pinions would have been observed

and recorded, already hopelessly discrepant and contradictory.