The Historical Proofs of Christianity [pp. 223-247]

THE PRINCE TON RE VIEW.
among them, and of the wrangles that ensued. The mother of
John and James petitioned that her sons might have the highest
places of honor in the new kingdom, of the nature of which she
had so poor a conception (Matt. xx. 20). The two apostles
joined in the request (Mark x. 37), having first tried to draw from
their Master a promise that they should have whatever they
might ask for. The other ten disciples were angry with John
and James for preferring such a request (Matt. x. 4I). One day,
on their way to Capernaum, the disciples fell into a dispute on
the same question, who should have the precedence (Mark ix.
34; cf. Luke ix. 46, xxii. 24). Altercations of this sort-so they
themselves related-broke out in their company on different
occasions. Will the reader ponder the fact that all four of the
evangelists give a circumstantial account of the denials of Peter
(Matt. xxvi. 58, seq.; Mark xiv. 54, seq.; Luke xxii. 54, seq.;
John xviii. I5, seq.)? Here was the apostle who had a kind of
leadership among them. It was he whose preaching was most
effective among the Jews everywhere (Gal. ii. 8). Yet this undisguised account of his cowardice, treachery, and falsehood on
a most critical occasion is presented in detail in the evangelical
narrative. It is impossible to doubt that it formed a part of the
story of the crucifixion which the apostles, each and all of
them, told to their converts. Could a more striking proof of
simple candor be afforded? Is it not obvious that the narrators
sank their own personality-merged it, as it were-in the absorbing interest with which they looked back on the scenes
which they had beheld, and in which they had taken part? And
then they relate that at the crucifixion they all forsook Jesus and
fled (Matt. xx'vi. 56; Mark xiv. 5o). They make no attempt to
conceal the fact that they left his burial to be performed by one
who was comparatively a stranger, and by the women whose
devotion overcame their terror, or who considered that their sex
would be their safeguard. Beyond the conscientious spirit which
this portrayal of their own infirmities and misconduct compels
us to attribute to the apostles, these features of the Gospel narrative show that they forgot themselves, so intent were they on
depicting things just as they had occurred. In other words, they
impress on us the objective character of the Gospel history as it is
given on the pages of the evangelists.
228