Key of Knowledge

SR No.: 006702
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Champat Rai Jain
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown
Publication Year: 1919
Total Pages: 1204
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 25 MB

Page 237

216
THE KEY OF KNOWLEDGE. • The same is the case with the New Testament whose different portions are no less discrepant with and contradictory of one another than those of the older Bible. None of the Gospels was apparently the work of the apostles; those according to Matthew and Luke seem to be elaborated versions of Mark, which itself was probably based on an unknown and simpler document, designated 'Q' by the critics. The date of Mark has been put somewhere after A. D. 70; and Matthew and Luke may be said to have been published between 80 and 100 A. D. The fourth Gospel is now frankly admitted to be anything but history ; and Matthew and Luke are both acknowledged to have largely drawn upon their imagination concerning the events which they record.
" The evidence which convicts the third evangelist," writes Prof. F. C. Burkitt in The Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics' (Art. Gospels), “ of having used the Antiquities (not always with complete accuracy) is very well brought together by Schmiedel...... The main points are: (1) the mention of Theudas in Gamaliel's speech (Acts 5*) is not only an anachronism, but further it is inexplicable if the author of the Acts drew his information from Josephus ; (2) the introduction of Lysanias of Abilene in Luke 31 as contemporary with the 15th year of Tiberius (A, D. 29) appears to be due to a similarly inaccurate use of Ant. XX. vii, 1."
Some of the many Epistles incorporated in the New Testament have also come to be reckoned as pure forgeries. The Encyclopædia Britannica concedes (Art. Bible):
* It seems on the whole most probable that 2 Peter is not a genuine work, but that it came from the same factory of pseudonymous Petrine writings as the Apocalypse which bears the same name, though the one has, and the other has not, obtained a place within the Canon. This epistle was questioned from the first, and only