There is a little animal called an aye-aye. This animal hastwo hands. Each hand has five fingers. The peculiar thingabout these hands is that the middle finger is elongated a greatdeal—it is about twice as long as the others. This is to enableit to scoop a special sort of insect out of special cracks inthe special trees it frequents. Now, how did the finger beginto elongate? A little lengthening would be absolutely no good,as the cracks in the trees are 2 inches or 3 inches deep. Itmust have varied from the ordinary length to one twice as longat once. There is no other way. Where does natural selectioncome in? In this, as in scores of other instances, it showsthe infinite goodness of God.
Now, how does the creation of this long finger show the "infinite goodness of God"? The infinite goodness of God to whom? To the animal whose special finger enables him to catch the insect? Then what about the insect? Where does he come in? Does not the long finger of the animal show the infinite badness of God to the insect?
What of the infinite goodness of God in teaching the cholera microbe to feed on man? What of the infinite goodness of God in teaching the grub of the ichneumon-fly to eat up the cabbage caterpillar alive?
I see no infinite goodness here, but only the infinite foolishness of sentimental superstition.
If a man fell into the sea, and saw a shark coming, I cannot fancy him praising the infinite goodness of God in giving the shark so large a mouth. The greyhound's speed is a great boon to the greyhound; but it is no boon to the hare.
But this theory of a merciful, and loving Heavenly Father is vital to the Christian religion.
Destroy the idea of the Heavenly Father, who is Love, and Christianity is a heap of ruins. For there is no longer a benevolent God to build our hopes upon; and Jesus Christ, whose glory is a newer revelation of God, has not revealed Him truly, as He is, but only as Man fain would believe Him to be.
And I claim that this Heavenly Father is a myth: that in face of a knowledge of life and the world we cannot reasonably believe in Him.
There is no Heavenly Father watching tenderly over us, His children. He is the baseless shadow of a wistful human dream.
As to prayer and praise.
Christians believe that God is just, that He is all-wise and all-knowing.
If God is just, will He not do justice without being entreated of men?
If God is all wise, and knows all that happens, will He not know what is for man's good better than man can tell Him?
If He knows better than Man knows what is best for man, and if He is a just God and a loving Father, will He not do right without any advice or reminder from Man?
If He is a just God, will He give us less than justice unless we pray to Him; or will He give us more than justice because we importune Him?
To ask God for His love, or for His grace, or for any worldly benefit seems to me unreasonable.
If God knows we need His grace, or if He knows we need some help or benefit, He will give it to us if we deserve it. If we do not deserve it, or do not need what we ask for, it would not be just nor wise of Him to grant our prayer.
To pray to God is to insult Him. What would a man think if his children knelt and begged for his love or for their daily bread? He would think his children showed a very low conception of their father's sense of duty and affection.
Then Christians think God answers prayer. How can they think that?
In the many massacres, and famines, and pestilences has God answered prayer? As we learn more and more of the laws of Nature we put less and less reliance on the effect of prayer.
When fever broke out, men used to run to the priest: now they run to the doctor. In old times when plague struck a city, the priests marched through the streets bearing the Host, and the people knelt to pray; now the authorities serve out soap and medicine and look sharply to the drains.
And yet there still remains a superstitious belief in prayer, and most surprising are some of its manifestations.
For instance, I went recently to see Wilson Barrett inThe Silver King. Wilfred Denver, a drunken gambler, follows a rival to kill him. He does not kill him, but he thinks he has killed him. He flies from justice.
Now this man Denver leaves London by a fast train for Liverpool. Between London and Rugby he jumps out of the train, and, after limping many miles, goes to an inn, orders dinner and a private room, and asks for the evening paper.
While he waits for the paper he kneels down and prays to God, for the sake of wife and children, to allow him to escape.
And, directly after, in comes a girl with a paper, and Denver reads how the train he rode in caught fire, and how all the passengers in the first three coaches were burnt to cinders.
Down goes Denver on his knees,and thanks God for listening to his prayer.
And not a soul in the audience laughed. God, to allow a murderer to escape from the law, has burnt to death a lot of innocent passengers, and Wilfred Denver is piously grateful. And nobody laughed!
But Christians tell us theyknowthat prayer is efficacious. And to them it may be so in some measure. Perhaps, if a man pray for strength to resist temptation, or for guidance in time of perplexity, and if he havefaith, his prayer shall avail him something.
Why? Not because God will hear, or answer, but for two natural reasons.
First, the act of prayer is emotional, and so calms the man who prays, for much of his excitement is worked off. It is so when a sick man groans: it eases his pain. It is so when a woman weeps: it relieves her overcharged heart.
Secondly, the act of prayer gives courage or confidence, in proportion to the faith of him that prays. If a man has to cross a deep ravine by a narrow plank, and if his heart fail him, and he prays for God's help, believing that he will get it, he will walk his plank with more confidence. If he prays for help against a temptation, he is really appealing to his own better nature; he is rousing up his dormant faculty of resistance and desire for righteousness, and so rises from his knees in a sweeter and calmer frame of mind.
For myself, I never pray, and never feel the need of prayer. And though I admit, as above, that it may have some present advantage, yet I am inclined to think that it is bought too dearly at the price of a decrease in our self-reliance. I do not think it is good for a man to be always asking for help, for benefits, or for pardon. It seems to me that such a habit must tend to weaken character.
"He prayeth best who loveth best all things both great and small." It is better to work for the general good, to help our weak or friendless fellow-creatures, than to pray for our own grace, or benefit, or pardon. Work is nobler than prayer, and far more dignified.
And as to praise, I cannot imagine the Creator of the Universe wanting men's praise. Does a wise man prize the praise of fools? Does a strong man value the praise of the weak? Does any man of wisdom and power care for the applause of his inferiors? We make God into a puny man, a man full of vanity and "love of approbation," when we confer on Him the impertinence of our prayers and our adoration.
While there is so much grief and misery and unmerited and avoidable suffering in the world, it is pitiful to see the Christian millions squander such a wealth of time and energy and money on praise and prayer.
If you were a human father, would you rather your children praised you and neglected each other, or that brother should stand by brother and sister cherish sister? Then "how much more your Father which is in Heaven?"
Twelve millions of our British people on the brink of starvation! In Christian England hundreds of thousands of thieves, knaves, idlers, drunkards, cowards, and harlots; and fortunes spent on churches and the praise of God.
If the Bible had not habituated us to the idea of a barbarous God who was always ravenous for praise and sacrifice, we could not tolerate the mockery of "Divine Service" by well-fed and respectable Christians in the midst of untaught ignorance, unchecked roguery, unbridled vice, and the degradation and defilement and ruin of weak women and little children. Seven thousand pounds to repair a chapel to the praise and glory of God, and under its very walls you may buy a woman's soul for a few pieces of silver.
I cannot imagine a God who would countenance such a religion. I cannot understand why Christians are not ashamed of it. To me the national affectation of piety and holiness resembles a white shirt put on over a dirty skin.
Christianity as a religion must, I am told, stand or fall with the claims that Christ was divine, and that He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Archdeacon Wilson, in a sermon at Rochdale, described the divinity and Resurrection of Christ as "the central doctrines of Christianity." The question we have to consider here is the question of whether these central doctrines are true.
Christians are fond of saying that the Resurrection is one of the best attested facts in history. I hold that the evidence for the Resurrection would not be listened to in a court of law, and is quite inadmissible in a court of cool and impartial reason.
First of all, then, what is the fact which this evidence is supposed to prove? The fact alleged is a most marvellous miracle, and one upon which a religion professed by some hundreds of millions of human beings is founded. The fact alleged is that nearly two thousand years ago God came into the world as a man, that He was known as Jesus of Nazareth, that He was crucified, died upon the cross, was laid in a tomb, and on the third day came to life again, left His tomb, and subsequently ascended into Heaven.
The fact alleged, then, is miraculous and important, and the evidence in proof of such a fact should be overwhelmingly strong.
We should demand stronger evidence in support of a thing alleged to have happened a thousand years ago than we should demand in support of a fact alleged to have happened yesterday.
The Resurrection is alleged to have happened eighteen centuries ago.
We should demand stronger evidence in support of an alleged fact which was outside human experience than we should demand in support of a fact common to human experience.
The incarnation of a God in human form, the resurrection of a man or a God from the dead, are facts outside human experience.
We should demand stronger evidence in support of an alleged fact when the establishment of that fact was of great importance to millions of men and women, than we should demand when the truth or falsity of the alleged fact mattered very little to anybody.
The alleged fact of the Resurrection is of immense importance to hundreds of millions of people.
We should demand stronger evidence in support of an alleged fact when many persons were known to have strong political, sentimental, or mercenary motives for proving the fact alleged, than we should demand when no serious interest would be affected by a decision for or against the fact alleged.
There are millions of men and women known to have strong motives—sentimental, political, or mercenary—for proving the verity of the Resurrection.
On all these counts we are justified in demanding the strongest of evidence for the alleged fact of Christ's resurrection from the dead.
The more abnormal or unusual the occurrence, the weightier should be the evidence of its truth.
If a man told a mixed company that Captain Webb swam the English Channel, he would have a good chance of belief.
The incident happened but a few years ago; it was reported in all the newspapers of the day. It is not in itself an impossible thing for a man to do.
But if the same man told the same audience that five hundred years ago an Irish sailor had swum from Holyhead to New York, his statement would be received with less confidence.
Because five centuries is a long time, there is no credible record of the feat, and wecannot believeany man capable of swimming about four thousand miles.
Let us look once more at the statement made by the believers in the Resurrection.
We are asked to believe that the all-powerful eternal God, the God who created twenty millions of suns, came down to earth, was born of a woman, was crucified, was dead, was laid in a tomb for three days, and then came to life again, and ascended into Heaven.
What is the nature of the evidence produced in support of this tremendous miracle?
Is there any man or woman alive who has seen God? No. Is there any man or woman alive who has seen Christ? No.
There is no human being alive who can say that God exists or that Christ exists. The most they can say is that theybelievethat God and Christ exist.
No historian claims that any God has been seen on earth for nearly nineteen centuries.
The Christians deny the assertions of all other religions as to divine visits; and all the other religions deny their assertions about God and Christ.
There is no reason why God should have come down to earth, to be born of a woman, and die on the cross. He could have convinced and won over mankind without any such act. He hasnotconvinced or won over mankind by that act. Not one-third of mankind are professing Christians to-day, and of those not one in ten is a true Christian and a true believer.
The Resurrection, therefore, seems to have been unreasonable, unnecessary, and futile. It is also contrary to science and to human experience.
What is the nature of the evidence?
The common idea of the man in the street is the idea that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were contemporaries of Christ; and that the Gospels were written and circulated during the lives of the authors.
There is no evidence to support these beliefs. There is no evidence, outside the New Testament, that any of the Apostles ever existed. We know nothing about Paul, Peter, John, Mark, Luke, or Matthew, except what is told in the New Testament.
Outside the Testament there is not a word of historical evidence of the divinity of Christ, of the Virgin Birth, of the Resurrection or Ascension.
Therefore it is obvious that, before we can be expected to believe the tremendous story of the Resurrection, we must be shown overwhelming evidence of the authenticity of the Scriptures.
Before you can prove your miracle you have to prove your book.
Suppose the case to come before a judge. Let us try to imagine what would happen:
COUNSEL: M'lud, may it please your ludship. It is stated by Paul of Tarsus that he and others worked miracles—
THE JUDGE: Do you intend to call Paul of Tarsus?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud. He is dead.
JUDGE: Did he make a proper sworn deposition?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud. But some of his letters are extant, and I propose to put them in.
JUDGE: Are these letters affidavits? Are they witnessed and attested?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud.
JUDGE: Are they signed?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud.
JUDGE: Are they in the handwriting of this Paul of Tarsus?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud. They are copies; the originals are lost.
JUDGE: Who was Paul of Tarsus?
COUNSEL: M'lud, he was the apostle to the Gentiles.
JUDGE: You intend to call some of these Gentiles?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud. There are none living.
JUDGE: But you don't mean to, say—how long has this shadowy witness, Paul of Tarsus, been dead?
COUNSEL: Not two thousand years, m'lud.
JUDGE: Thousand years dead? Can you bring evidence to prove that he was ever alive?
COUNSEL: Circumstantial, m'lud.
JUDGE: I cannot allow you to read the alleged statements of a hypothetical witness who is acknowledged to have been dead for nearly two thousand years. I cannot admit the alleged letters of Paul as evidence.
COUNSEL: I shall show that the act of resurrection was witnessed by one Mary Magdalene, by a Roman soldier—
JUDGE: What is the soldier's name?
COUNSEL: I don't know, m'lud.
JUDGE: Call him.
COUNSEL: He is dead, m'lud.
JUDGE: Deposition?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud.
JUDGE: Strike out his evidence. Call Mary Magdalene.
COUNSEL: She is dead, m'lud. But I shall show that she told the disciples—
JUDGE: What she told the disciples is not evidence.
COUNSEL: Well, m'lud, I shall give the statements of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew states very plainly that—
JUDGE: Of course, you intend to call Matthew?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud. He is—he is dead.
JUDGE: It seems to me, that to prove this resurrection you will have to perform a great many more. Are Mark and John dead, also?
COUNSEL: Yes, m'lud.
JUDGE: Who were they?
COUNSEL: I—I don't know, m'lud.
JUDGE: These statements of theirs, to which you allude: are they in their own handwriting?
COUNSEL: May it please your ludship, they did not write them. The statements are not given as their own statements, but only as statements "according to them." The statements are really copies of translations of copies of translations of statements supposed to be based upon what someone told Matthew, and—
JUDGE: Who copied and translated, and re-copied and re-translated, this hearsay evidence?
COUNSEL: I do not know, m'lud.
JUDGE: Were the copies seen and revised by the authors? Did they correct the proofs?
COUNSEL: I don't know, m'lud.
JUDGE: Don't know? Why?
COUNSEL: There is no evidence that the documents had ever been heard of until long after the authors were dead.
JUDGE: I never heard of such a case. I cannot allow you to quote these papers. They are not evidence. Have youanywitnesses?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud.
That fancy dialogue about expresses the legal value of the evidence for this important miracle.
But, legal value not being the only value, let us now consider the evidence as mere laymen.
As men of the world, with some experience in sifting and weighing evidence, what can we say about the evidence for the Resurrection?
In the first place, there is no acceptable evidence outside the New Testament, and the New Testament is the authority of the Christian Church.
In the second place, there is nothing to show that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses of the alleged fact.
In the third place, the Apostle Paul was not an eye-witness of the alleged fact.
In the fourth place, although there is some evidence that some Gospels were known in the first century, there is no evidence that the Gospels as we know them were then in existence.
In the fifth place, even supposing that the existing Gospels and the Epistles of Paul were originally composed by men who knew Christ, and that these men were entirely honest and capable witnesses, there is no certainty that what they wrote has come down to us unaltered.
The only serious evidence of the Resurrection being in the books of the New Testament, we are bound to scrutinise those books closely, as on their testimony the case for Christianity entirely depends.
Who, then, are the witnesses? They are the authors of the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles of Peter and of Paul.
Who were these authors? Matthew and John are "supposed" to have been disciples of Christ; but were they? I should say Matthew certainly was not contemporary with Jesus, for in the last chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew we read as follows:
Now while they were going behold some of the guard came intothe city, and told unto the chief priests all the things thatwere come to pass. And when they were assembled with the elders,and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,saying, Say yet his disciples came by night and stole him awaywhile we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, wewill persuade him, and rid you of care. So they took the money,and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroadamong the Jews, and continueth until this day.
Matthew tells us that the saying "continueth until this day." Which day? The day on which Matthew is writing or speaking. Now, a man does not say of a report or belief that it "continueth until this day" unless that report or belief originated a long time ago, and the use of such a phrase suggests that Matthew told or repeated the story after a lapse of many years.
That apart, there is no genuine historical evidence, outside the New Testament, that such men as Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ever existed.
Neither can it be claimed that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the Gospels which bear their names. These Gospels are called the Gospel "according to Matthew," the Gospel "according to Mark," the Gospel "according to Luke," and the Gospel "according to John." They were, then, Gospels condensed, paraphrased, or copied from some older Gospels, or they were Gospels taken down from dictation, or composed from the verbal statements of the men to whom they were attributed.
Thus it appears that the Gospels are merely reports or copies of some verbal or written statements made by four men of whom there is no historic record whatever. How are we to know that these men ever lived? How are we to know that they were correctly reported, if they ever spoke or wrote? How can we rely upon such evidence after nineteen hundred years, and upon a statement of facts so important and so marvellous?
The same objection applies to the evidence of Peter and of Paul. Many critics and scholars deny the existence of Peter and Paul. There is no trustworthy evidence to oppose to that conclusion.
That by the way. Let us now examine the evidence given in these men's names. The earliest witness is Paul. Paul does not corroborate the Gospel writers' statements as to the life or the teachings of Christ; but he does vehemently assert that Christ rose from the dead.
What is Paul's evidence worth? He did not see Christ crucified. He did not see His dead body. He did not see Him quit the tomb. He did not see Him in the flesh after He had quitted the tomb. He was not present when He ascended into Heaven. Therefore Paul is not an eye-witness of the acts of Christ, nor of the death of Christ, nor of the Resurrection of Christ, nor of the Ascension of Christ.
If Paul ever lived, which none can prove and many deny, his evidence for the Resurrection was only hearsay evidence.
Paul, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, says that after His Resurrection Christ was "seen of about five hundred persons; of whom the great part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."
But none of the Gospels mentions this five hundred, nor does Paul give the name of any one of them, nor is the testimony of any one of them preserved, in the Testament or elsewhere.
Now, let us remember how difficult it was to disprove the statements of the claimant in the Tichborne Case, although the trial took place in the lifetime of the claimant, and although most of the witnesses knew the real Roger Tichborne well; and let us also bear in mind that many critics and scholars dispute the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, as to which strong contemporary evidence is forthcoming, and then let us ask ourselves whether we shall be justified in believing such a marvellous story as this of the Resurrection upon the evidence of men whose existence cannot be proved, and in support of whose statements there is not a scrap of historical evidence of any kind.
Nor is this all. The stories of the Resurrection as told in the Gospels are full of discrepancies, and are rendered incredible by the interpolation of miraculous incidents.
Let us begin with Matthew. Did Matthew see Christ crucified? Did Matthew see Christ's dead body? Did Matthew see Christ quit the tomb? Did Matthew see Christ in the flesh and alive after His Resurrection? Did Matthew see Christ ascend into Heaven? Matthew nowhere says so. Nor is it stated by any other writer in the Testament that Matthew saw any of these things. No: Matthew nowhere gives evidence in his own name. Only, in the Gospel "according to Matthew" it is stated that such things did happen.
Matthew's account of the Resurrection and the incidents connected therewith differs from the accounts in the other Gospels.
The story quoted above from Matthew as to the bribing of Roman soldiers by the priests to circulate the falsehood about the stealing of Christ's body by His disciples is not alluded to by Mark, Luke, or John.
Matthew, in his account of the fact of the Resurrection, says that there was an earthquake when the angel rolled away the stone. In the other Gospels there is no word of this earthquake.
But not in any of the Gospels is it asserted that any man or woman saw Jesus leave the tomb.
The story of His actual rising from the dead was first told by some woman, or women, who said they had seen an angel, or angels, who had declared that Jesus was risen.
There is not an atom of evidence that these young men who told the story were angels. There is not an atom of evidence that they were not men, nor that they had not helped to revive or to remove the swooned or dead Jesus.
Stress has been laid upon the presence of the Roman guard. The presence of such a guard is improbable. But if the guard was really there, it might have been as easily bribed to allow the body to be removed, as Matthew suggests that it was easily bribed to say that the body had been stolen.
Matthew says that after the Resurrection the disciples were ordered to go to Galilee. Mark says the same. Luke says they were commanded not to leave Jerusalem. John says they did go to Galilee.
So, again, with regard to the Ascension. Luke and Mark say that Christ went up to Heaven. Matthew and John do not so much as mention the Ascension. And it is curious, as Mr. Foote points out, that the two apostles who were supposed to have been disciples of Christ and might be supposed to have seen the Ascension, if it took place, do not mention it. The story of the Ascension comes to us from Luke and Mark, who were not present.
Jesus rose from the dead on the third day. Yet Luke makes Him say to the thief on the cross: "Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." Matthew, Mark, and John do not repeat this blunder.
There are many other differences and contradictions in the Gospel versions of the Resurrection and Ascension; but as I do not regard those differences as important, I shall pass them by.
Whether or not the evidence of these witnesses be contradictory, the facts remain that no one of them states that he knows anything about the matter of his own knowledge; that no one of them claims to have himself heard the story of the woman, or the women, or the angels; that no one of them states that the women saw, or said they saw, Christ leave the tomb.
As for the alleged appearances of Christ to the disciples, those appearances may be explained in several ways. We may say that Christ really had risen from the dead, and was miraculously present; we may say that the accounts of His miraculous appearance are legends; or we may say that His reappearance was not miraculous at all, for He had never died, but only swooned.
As Huxley remarked, when we are asked to consider an alleged case of resurrection, the first essential fact to make sure of is the fact of death. Before we argue as to whether a dead man came to life, let us have evidence that hewasdead.
Considering the story of the crucifixion as historical, it cannot be said that the evidence of Christ's death is conclusive.
Death by crucifixion was generally a slow death. Men often lingered on the cross for days before they died. Now, Christ was only on the cross for a few hours; and Pilate is reported as expressing surprise when told that he was dead.
To make sure that the other prisoners were dead, the soldiers broke their legs. But they did not break Christ's legs.
To be sure, the Apostle John reports that a soldier pierced Christ's side with a spear. But the authors of the three synoptic Gospels do not mention this wounding with the spear. Neither do they allude to the other story told by John, as to the scepticism of Thomas, and his putting his hand into the wound made by the spear. It is curious that John is the only one to tell both stories: so curious that both stories look like interpellations.
But even if we accept the story of the spear thrust, it affords no proof of death, for John adds that there issued from the wound blood and water: and blood does not flow from wounds inflicted after death.
Then, when the body of Christ was taken down from the cross, it was not examined by any doctor, but was taken away by friends, and laid in a cool sepulchre.
What evidence is forthcoming that Christ did not recover from a swoon, and that His friends did not take Him away in the night? Remember, we are dealing with probabilities in the absence of any exact knowledge of the facts, and consider which is more probable—that a man had swooned and recovered; or that a man, after lying for three days dead, should come to life again, and walk away?
Apologists will say that the probabilities in the case of a man do not hold in the case of a God. But there is no evidence at all that Christ was God. Prove that Christ was God, and therefore that He was omnipotent, and there is nothing impossible in the Resurrection, however improbable His death may seem.
Even assuming that the Gospels are historical documents, the evidence for Christ's death is unsatisfactory, and that for His Resurrection quite inadequate. But is there any reason to regard the Gospel stories of the death, Resurrection, and Ascension on of Christ as historical? I say that we have no surety that these stories have come down to us as they were originally compiled, and we have strong reasons for concluding that these stories are mythical.
Some two or three years ago the Rev. R. Horton said: "Either Christ was the Son of God, and one with God, or He was a bad man, or a madman. There is no fourth alternative possible." That is a strange statement to make, but it is an example of the shifts to which apologists are frequently reduced. No fourth alternative possible! Indeed there is; and a fifth!
If a man came forward to-day, and said he was the Son of God, and one with God, we should conclude that he was an impostor or a lunatic.
But if a man told us that another man had said he was a god, we should have what Mr. Horton calls a "fourth alternative" open to us. For we might say that the person who reported his speech to us had misunderstood him, which would be a "fourth alternative"; or that the person had wilfully misrepresented him, which would be a fifth alternative.
So in the Gospels. Nowhere have we a single word of Christ's own writing. His sayings come to us through several hands, and through more than one translation. It is folly, then, to assert that Christ was God, or that He was mad, or an impostor.
So in the case of the Gospel stories of the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ. Many worthy people may suppose that in denying the facts stated in the Gospels we are accusing St. Matthew and St. John of falsehood.
But there is no certainty who St. Matthew and the others were. There is no certainty that they wrote these stories. Even if they did write them, they probably accepted them at second or third hand. With the best faith in the world, they may not have been competent judges of evidence. And after they had done their best their testimony may have been added to or perverted by editors and translators.
Looking at the Gospels, then, as we should look at any other ancient documents, what internal evidence do they afford in support of the suspicion that they are mythical?
In the first place, the whole Gospel story teems with miracles. Now, as Matthew Arnold said, miracles never happen. Science has made the belief in miracles impossible. When we speak of the antagonism between religion and science, it is this fact which we have in our mind: that science has killed the belief in miracles, and, as all religions are built up upon the miraculous, science and religion cannot be made to harmonise.
As Huxley said:
The magistrate who listens with devout attention to the precept,"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," on Sunday, on Mondaydismisses, as intrinsically absurd, a charge of bewitching acow brought against some old woman; the superintendent of alunatic asylum who substituted exorcism for rational modes oftreatment, would have but a short tenure of office; even parishclerks doubt the utility of prayers for rain, so long as thewind is in the east; and an outbreak of pestilence sends men,not to the churches, but to the drains. In spite of prayers forthe success of our arms, andTe Deumsfor victory, our realfaith is in big battalions and keeping our powder dry; inknowledge of the science of warfare; in energy, courage, anddiscipline. In these, as in all other practical affairs, weact on the aphorism,Laborare est orare; we admit thatintelligent work is the only acceptable worship, and that,whether there be a Supernature or not, our business is with Nature.
We have ceased to believe in miracles. When we come upon a miracle in any historical document we feel not only that the miracle is untrue, but also that its presence reduces the value of the document in which it is contained. Thus Matthew Arnold, inLiterature and Dogma, after saying that we shall "find ourselves inevitably led, sooner or later," to extend one rule to all miraculous stories, and that "the considerations which apply in other cases apply, we shall most surely discover, with even greater force in the case of Bible miracles," goes on to declare that "this being so, there is nothing one would more desire for a person or document one greatly values than to make them independent of miracles."
Very well. The Gospels teem with miracles. If we make the accounts of the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ "independent of miracles," we destroy those accounts completely. To make the Resurrection "independent of miracles" is to disprove the Resurrection, which is a miracle or nothing.
We must believe in miracles, or disbelieve in the Resurrection; and "miracles never happen."
We must believe miracles, or disbelieve them. If we disbelieve them, we shall lose confidence in the verity of any document in proportion to the element of the miraculous which that document contains. The fact that the Gospels teem with miracles destroys the claim of the Gospels to serious consideration as historic evidence.
Take, for example, the account of the Crucifixion in the Gospel according to Matthew. While Christ is on the cross "from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour," and when He dies, "behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after His Resurrection, they entered into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
Mark mentions the rending of the veil of the temple, but omits the darkness, the earthquake, and the rising of the dead saints from the tombs. Luke tells of the same phenomena as Mark; John says nothing about any of these things.
What conclusion can we come to, then, as to the story in the first Gospel? Here is an earthquake and the rising of dead saints, who quit their graves and enter the city, and three out of the four Gospel writers do not mention it. Neither do we hear another word from Matthew on the subject. The dead get up and walk into the city, and "are seen of many," and we are left to wonder what happened to the risen saints, and what effect their astounding apparition had upon the citizens who saw them. Did these dead saints go back to their tombs? Did the citizens receive them into their midst without fear, or horror, or doubt? Had this stupendous miracle no effect upon the Jewish priests who had crucified Christ as an impostor? The Gospels are silent.
History is as silent as the Gospels. From the fifteenth chapter of the first volume of Gibbon'sDecline and Fall of the Roman EmpireI take the following passage:
But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Paganand philosophic world to those evidences which were presentedby the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to theirsenses? During the age of Christ, of His Apostles, and oftheir first disciples, the doctrine which they preached wasconfirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, theblind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demonswere expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspendedfor the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece andRome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and pursuing theordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconsciousof any alterations in the moral or physical government of theworld. Under the reign of Tiberius the whole earth, or at leasta celebrated province of the Roman Empire, was involved in apreternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculousevent, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity,and the devotion of all mankind, passed without notice in anage of science and history. It happened during the lifetimeof Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced theimmediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence ofthe prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work,has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes,meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigablecuriosity could collect. But the one and the other haveomitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which mortaleye has been witness since the creation of the globe. Adistinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclipses of anextraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he contentshimself with describing the singular defect of light whichfollowed the murder of Caesar, when, during the greatestpart of the year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and withoutsplendour. This season of obscurity, which surely cannot becompared with the preternatural darkness of the Passion, hadbeen already celebrated by most of the poets and historiansof that memorable age.
No Greek nor Roman historian nor scientist mentioned that strange eclipse. No Jewish historian nor scientist mentioned the rending of the veil of the temple, nor the rising of the saints from the dead. Nor do the Jewish priests appear to have been alarmed or converted by these marvels.
Confronted by this silence of all contemporary historians, and by the silence of Mark, Luke, and John, what are we to think of the testimony of Matthew on these points? Surely we can only endorse the opinion of Matthew Arnold: