In a recent number of the Jewish Chronicle there appeared an essay by Rabbi Isidor Kalisch, United States, the drift of which is to prove, if possible, that John the Baptist was a fictitious personage. Dr. Benisch also wishes to show thereby that intelligent Jews may and do read the Gospels with a strengthened conviction of their spuriousness. With what success the Rabbi and the editor of the Jewish Chronicle have stepped into the arena of evangelical controversy, our readers may soon judge.
The opening objection is, that “by the accounts given by the evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and John, John the Baptist appeared like a Deus ex machina; nobody knows whence he came, or how old he was when he obtained some influence over the people by preaching to and baptizing them.” Now, if these were the only notices given in the New Testament, such a remark would be captious enough. Let R. I. K. apply the same measure to the “important personage” of Gen. 14. Is not the introduction of the royal priest of Salem more abrupt and less authenticated, as far as human witnesses are concerned, while neither father nor mother is named? Over his beginning and his end there hangs an impenetrable cloud. Nobody knows whence he came, or how old he was when he obtained such paramount influence over the father of the faithful, that he gave him tithes of all. Incomparably more than John the Baptist does Melchizedek resemble a Deus ex machina, yet unlike his unbelieving seed, Abram stumbles not, but bows down for his blessing; and without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the greater. Moses alone recounts the wonderful facts; David long after refers to this mysterious priest as the type of Messiah. There is far more semblance of “meagerness” in their combined references to Melchizedek, than in any one of the New Testament accounts of John the Baptist. Every one of the evangelists implies that the forerunner of the Lord Jesus was notorious to all Judea, and that the effects of his preaching were marked and wide-spread, from Jerusalem throughout all the region round about Jordan. His person and his mode of life, his preaching and his baptizing, his imprisonment and his death, are so narrated as to leave no other conclusion open, unless these modern Jews are prepared to throw overboard their own ancient traditions, and to maintain that Matthew, Mark, and John, with their several histories, are unreal, no less than John the Baptist.
But, besides meagerness, it is alleged that contradictions “appear, partly in each account, and partly by comparing the accounts with each other.” The first is suppose to result from a comparison of Matt. 3:15, 16,15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: (Matthew 3:15‑16) with chap. 11:3. “How could such a question have been put if John had indeed baptized Jesus, and witnessed all that is mentioned in chap. 11:5?” But there is nothing herein save the sad and common lesson of man's failure. Much better might one cry out at the breaking down of the apostles themselves, and especially of Peter somewhat later; and yet the evangelists record this, yea, to their own shame. With equal reason might the Rabbi exclaim about David, Joshua, Aaron, Moses, Jacob, Abraham, and all, in short, from Adam downwards, —all save the Lord Jesus Himself. John, the herald of Messiah, was in prison, insulted and suffering, instead of triumphant. What could be more stumbling to faith, if human feeling wrought for a moment? Doubtless, this was not to believe the Lord, to sanctify Him in the eyes of the children of Israel. John the Baptist faltered under a heavy trial, as the apostle and the high priest of the Jewish profession had done before. Moreover, the Rabbi is mistaken in affirming that John the Baptist witnessed all that is mentioned in chapter 11:5. This does not look like reading the gospels attentively, much less examining them critically, but rather eyeing them with the rash malice of an enemy. On the contrary, Matt. 11:22Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, (Matthew 11:2) tends to show that John had (not seen but) heard in the prison the works of the Messiah. John's disciples were desired to report to their master what they heard and saw. The miracles of Jesus were such and so great as to reassure a wavering heart, not to speak of the glad tidings preached to the poor—the last and best of all. “And blessed is he,” adds the Lord, “whosoever shall not be offended in me.” Jesus of Nazareth is the stumbling stone! Thus, even if John the Baptist had witnessed those miracles, which is contrary to the evidence, it would only show that he was but, too, like his Israelitish fathers, who believed Jehovah's word, sang His praise, and soon forgat all His works.
Still more groundless is the next “contradiction.” It is the fruit of interpreting Matt. 3:1 Perversely, so as to make it clash with Luke 3:2, 32Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. 3And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; (Luke 3:2‑3). The obvious answer is that Matthew does not place the baptism of Jesus under Archelaus; on the contrary, he leaves abundant space for successors, if need were, between chaps. 2:22, 23, and chap. 3:1. “In those days” does not refer to the days of Archelaus, but to the interval during which the Holy Family dwelt in Nazareth. Luke gives the precise date of our Lord's baptism, which Matthew in no way professes to do. Jesus was yet a young child when Joseph left Egypt, and Archelaus reigned over Judea, whereas the baptizing in chap. 3 supposes the lapse of a quarter of a century. Then He who must be spared no shame in life or death, in a dwelling-place, or without one, emerged from the obscure and reproached shelter of so many blameless years, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. The Rabbi's gloss is the evidence of not of intelligent perusal.
The most frivolous assault, perhaps, is that on Luke 1 which is said to be legendary, not historical. The first reason is so obscurely stated, that it is hard to know what is meant, but it seems founded on the improbability of Zechariah's using the same words as Abraham (Gen. 15:88And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? (Genesis 15:8); Luke 1:1313But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. (Luke 1:13)), and this unbelievingly! The second is the absurd pretense that the prophecy of Luke 1:2020And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season. (Luke 1:20) was not fulfilled. The words of the angel did not promise the removal of the sentence when John the Baptist should be born, but made it impossible before. And God chose a most happy and suited moment when those who rejoiced at the child's birth came together for his circumcision, and learned from the mother's word and the father's writing that his name was John. “Thou,” said the angel to Zacharias, “shalt call his name John. . . And, behold, thou shalt be dumb and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed.” Just so, when his father named the child which was a sign of “these things,” his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake and praised God. The angel did not appoint the time eight days before.
The closing observations we are little concerned with, as they are an attack, not on the New Testament, but on the fifth chapter of Josephus' Antiq. Lib. 18, which the Rabbi denounces as “smuggled in by Christian hands.” An idea so much the more unfounded, as Josephus' history, while it wonderfully tallies with the Evangelists as to both Herod and Herodias on the one hand, and John's godliness, preaching, baptizing, and vast influence on the other, differs, nevertheless, from the New Testament account of the cause of John's death. Is it not absurd to argue that Christians would foist into a Jew's writings that which materially varies from their own inspired works?