Part 10

Matthew gives two versions of this incident, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall be no sign but the sign of the prophet Jonas." (16 : 4.) "Certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Mat. 12 : 38-41.)

Here it will be observed is an illustration of the growth of the dogma and myth in adding this reference to Jonas. And it is highly significant that the application of the myth of Jonas is wholly fanciful, as the passage referred to (Jonah 1 : 17.) has not the slightest character of prophecy. That the scriptures are evidently tortured is obvious from the fact that Jesus was only one day and two nights in the heart of the earth, and, as before said, the passage is not prophetic; besides, its varied form in the gospels plainly shows it to be a myth.

"He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, and after that he was seen by above five hundred brethren at once." But there were only eleven Apostles until after the ascension, when Matthias was elected to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Judas. "And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." (Acts 1 : 26.)

This election of Matthias took place after the ascension. He could not therefore have been seen by the "twelve" after his ascension (and there were not twelve until after the ascension), only by the "eye of faith."

That Jesus was seen by above five hundred is nothing more than naked statement. Paul does not claim to have been one of that number. This episode, moreover, is not mentioned in any of the four gospels. It is remarkable that so great an event should be passed over by other writers also, for not a trace of it can be found elsewhere. It is difficult for us to understand how this marvelous scene could so completely perish out of sight of all writers except one who was not present, but merely heard of it afterward. That Paul may have believed the story we do not deny--and that he believed that the greater part of the witnesses "remain unto this present" time. Now if these survivors remained he does not mention the names of any of them. And besides, they were not within reach of the Corinthians who might wish to hear and investigate their testimony, for the Corinthians did not accept the resurrection of Jesus as a matter of fact.

How could five hundred disciples come together immediately at one time, when some time after the ascension the number of disciples at Jerusalem was only one hundred and twenty? (Acts 1 : 15.)

We need to know something of the character of those who gave Paul this information, and the sources of their knowledge. For it is all-important to our inquiry to know from whom Paul received these traditions and what evidences his informants had of the truth of the story they told. To believe in the reality of these appearances simply because Paul states that he has "received" his information from others and believes it to be true, without inquiring as to the character of his informers, is the blindest credulity. Who were the five hundred? What did they think of the event? How did Paul or any other person know what they thought, if there were no written statements by them? Where and when did the five hundred see the risen Jesus?

"Last of all he was seen by me." In another place he says, "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9 : 1.)

Elsewhere he relates: "But when he was pleased, God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace to reveal his son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus." (Gal. 1 : 15-17.)

"For neither did I receive it from men nor was taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1 : 11.) We shall find as we proceed that Paul saw Jesus subjectively. It is quite natural to so understand his words, "reveal his son in me." Especially does this seem obvious when we remember that Paul was a man who firmly believed in visions and revelations. In relating his own experience he states this fact plainly. "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body I cannot tell--God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell--God knoweth) how that he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man to utter. Of such an one will I glory." (2 Cor. 12 : 2-4.)

In Acts there are three contradictory accounts of his seeing Jesus in a vision. "And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven. And he fell to the earth and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it will be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." (Acts 9 : 3-7.)

A second version is in this form: "And it came to pass that as I made my journey and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. And I said, Lord, what wilt thou have me do? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee of all the things which are appointed for thee to do." (Acts 22 : 6-10.)

The third account of the affair is given thus: "Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at mid-day, O king, I saw in the way alight from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, saying, in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.... Whereupon, O king, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision." (Acts 26 : 9-19.)

According to the first account the companions of Paul "stood speechless" (9 : 7); in the third they "all fall to the earth." (26 : 14.) Then again, in the first account it is said that the men "stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one." In the second it is stated that "they that were with me saw indeed the light, but they heard not the voice." These contradictions do not seem to clothe the vision of Paul with the acceptable form of harmony.

It will be observed that even in this vision Paul is not described as seeing Jesus. He sees a light and falls to the ground, and when he rises he is blind. "And they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus. And he was three days without sight." (9 : 8.)

In the continuation of this account Paul has another vision: "And it came to pass that when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste and get thee out of Jerusalem." (22 : 17, 18.)

In connection with these visions and revelations it is highly significant that Paul never claims to have seen Jesus in the flesh, and he never speaks of the resurrection as material, but as spiritual. "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." (1 Cor. 15 : 44.) "Who shall change our vile bodies that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Phil. 3 : 21.) Evidently there is no claim for seeing Jesus in the body made by Paul in any of his writings. He preaches the doctrine of the resurrection, but this doctrine he, as a Pharisee, believed before he became a Christian. Paul claims that in a vision he saw Jesus. Luke says that this was also the manner in which Mary Magdalene and the other women saw Jesus. "And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive." (24 : 2, 3.)

This gives force to the claim of Paul, that his seeing or vision of Jesus was of the same class as the visions of all the others who had seen him.

Thus, after a careful examination of the writings attributed to the immediate followers of Jesus, we find that not one of them says, "I saw Jesus rise from the grave;" or "I saw Jesus in the flesh after his resurrection." In legendary style it is frequently repeated that he "appeared" first to this and then to that one, but there is not the slightest evidence that any one saw him. And in this connection it is worthy of remark that Jesus did not appear to any persons except his friends. This gives better occasion for suspicion that the story is mythical.

"Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us who did eat and drink with him." (Acts 10 : 41.) To appear to a few private friends for one day does not seem much like bringing life and immortality to light to the whole world. The method is too narrow and exclusive. And even of these few friends not one has left the record for us of what he saw. The writers who have recorded the current traditions of their time, agree in saying that Mary Magdalene found the grave empty: further than this the writers do not corroborate one another.

How soon the resurrection of the physical body became popular we have no means of knowing. It was not certainly until some time after the writings of Paul were given to the churches, for he, as we have seen, speaks, of it as a spiritual resurrection. So also does Peter (1 Peter 3 : 13), speak of Jesus "being slain in the flesh, but made alive again in the spirit."

The legend became more and more marvelous as it spread abroad. Enthusiasm inflamed the minds of the ignorant and superstitious until the subjective visions of Paul became crystalized into objective realities. His visions, and the visions, revelations and messages of the angels of others were reduced in popular belief to historical facts.

CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT HISTORICAL BASIS.

1. No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part of the New Testament. [This assuredly would not have been the case had they been the oldest, and the foundation on which the whole was built.]

2. No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting or engraving, no sculpture or other relic of antiquity which may be looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of those gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of the second century. Even the explorations of the Christian catacombs failed to bring to light any evidence of that character.

3. The four gospels were written in Greek, and there was no translation of them into other languages earlier than the third century.

4. No manuscript of the gospels are in existence dating further back than the fourth century. Of that century, or the next, there are three or four, and some twenty or thirty, more than a thousand years old.

5. No autograph manuscript of any of the gospels has ever been known, so far as there is any authentic record, nor has any credible witness ever claimed to have seen such a manuscript. No one has ever claimed to have seen such a manuscript of either of the four gospels in the hand-writing of Luke, Mark, Matthew, or John. If the autograph manuscripts had ever existed they would have been preserved among the most sacred relics of the church.

6. During the first two centuries tradition was esteemed of more value and better evidence of the gospel history, than any written books or manuscripts.

7. The dialect in which the New Testament books were written, a sort of Hebraistic Greek, has been considered evidence of their antiquity. But this dialect prevailed three centuries after Christ, and was in full use during the second century. The same or similar Hebraisms abound in the apocryphal gospels of that age.

8. The canonical gospels were selected by the bishops from a large number then in circulation.

In taking a general review of the first hundred and seventy years of the Christian religion the first thing that strikes the mind is the dearth of material from which to construct a reliable history. It is seen at once how much must rest upon probability in its different degrees--how much must be relegated to the province of speculation. The works of the only church historian who wrote during that period, lost or destroyed the few fragments that are left being of comparatively no value--the writings of Porphyry and others who wrote against Christianity, and those of the heretic Christians, all destroyed--there remain only the works of some of the orthodox fathers, and the text of those in a mutilated and corrupted condition.

Such is the material at the hands of the historian. Of course he cannot rely implicitly upon the unsupported assertion of any such writer for the truth of any historical fact whatever. In every instance he is obliged to scrutinize carefully, and endeavor to ascertain whether any ulterior motives may have prompted whatever statement may be under consideration. If he can find none, and the fact stands uncontradicted by other writers, it is cautiously accepted. Under such circumstances progress is slow and uncertain. The most that any writer can hope to accomplish is to place in proper shape what is already known, and to establish here and there a landmark for the benefit of subsequent historians.

In conclusion, as the result of this investigation, it may be repeated that no evidence is found of the existence in the first century of either of the following doctrines: the immaculate conception--the miracles of Christ--the material resurrection. No one of these gospels is found in the epistles of the New Testament, nor have we been able to find them in other writings of the first century.

As to the four gospels, in coming to the conclusion that they were not written in the first century, we have but recorded the conviction of the most advanced scholars of the present day, irrespective of their religious views in other respects; with whom as now presented, is, How early in the second century were they composed? Discarding as inventions of the second century, having no historical foundation, the three doctrines above named, and much else which must necessarily stand or fall with them, what remains of the Christian religion? (C. B. Waite, "History of the Christian Religion to the year 200.")

The Canon.

"The infancy of the canon was cradled in an uncritical age and rocked with traditional ease. Conscientious care was not directed from the first to the well authenticated testimony of eye-witnesses. Of the three fathers who contributed most to its early growth, Irenæus was credulous and blundering; Tertullian passionate and one-sided; and Clement, of Alexandria, imbued with the treasures of Greek wisdom, was mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics.

"Irenæus agrees that the gospels should be four in number, neither more nor less, because there are four universal winds and four quarters of the world. The Word or Architect of all things gave the gospel in a four-fold shape. According to this father the apostles were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge after their Lord's ascension.

"He says, 'Matthew wrote his gospels while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and founding the church.' Such assertions show both ignorance and exaggeration.

"Tertullian affirms that the tradition of the apostolic churches guarantees the four gospels, and refers his readers to the churches of Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, etc., for the authentic epistles of Paul. What is this but the rhetoric of an enthusiast?

"Clement contradicts himself in making Peter authorize Mark's gospel to be read in the churches, while in another place he says the apostles 'neither forbade nor encouraged it.'

"The three fathers of whom we are speaking had neither the ability nor inclination to examine the genesis of documents surrounded with an apostolic halo. No analysis of their authenticity and genuineness was seriously attempted. In its absence, custom, accident, taste, practical needs, directed the tendency of tradition. All the rhetoric employed to throw the value of their testimony as far back as possible, even up to or very near to the apostle John, is of the vaguest sort. Appeals to the continuity of tradition and of church doctrine, to the exceptional veneration of these fathers for the gospels, to their opinions being formed earlier than the composition of the works in which they are expressed, possess no force.

"The ends which the fathers in question had in view, their polemic motives, their uncritical, inconsistent assertions, their want of sure data, detract from their testimony. Their decisions were much more the result of pious feeling, biased by the theological speculations of the times, than the conclusions of a sound judgment. The very arguments they use to establish certain conclusions show weakness of perception. What are the manifestations of spiritual feeling compared with the result of logical reasoning?" (Davidson on the Canon.)

Thus we have the testimony of one of the ablest and clearest minds that has ever written upon the canon which the fathers most depended upon to establish the authenticity of the small books forming it, were "ignorant," "credulous," "blundering," "passionate," "one-sided," "uncritical," "inconsistent," "possessed undue enthusiasm with contradictions;" "not possessing ability or inclination to examine;" "attempting no analysis of genuineness;" "an unreasonable apostolic reverence." "Custom, accident, taste, and the tendency of tradition taking the place of careful examination;" "a disposition to misrepresent;" "exceptional veneration of the fathers for the gospels older than the composition;" "want of data;" "their decisions the result of pious feeling based upon [incorrect] theological speculations;" "unsound judgment;" "weakness of perception;" "lack of logical reasoning." These are the characteristics of the fathers depended upon to establish the authenticity of a gospel story which has no solid foundation to rest upon and which is clearly of an apocryphal character. ("Answers to Christian Questions" pp. 69-70, by D. M. Bennett.)

"One hundred and seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed before the collection assumed a form that carried with it the idea of holy and inspired." (Davidson on the Canon, p. 106.)

"It is clear that the earliest church fathers did not use the books of the New Testament as sacred documents clothed with divine authority, but followed for the most part, at least till the middle of the second century, apostolic tradition orally transmitted." (Ibid, p. 107.)

"Their decisions (the fathers) were much more the result of pious feeling biased by the theological speculations of the times, than the conclusions of a sound judgment. The very arguments they use to establish certain conclusions show weakness of perception." (Ibid p. 124.)

"The men who first canonized them (the gospels) had no certain knowledge of their authors." (Ibid p. 127.)

"That Luke did not write the gospel of Luke." (Ibid 2, p. 25.)

"The canon was not the work of the Christian Church so much as of the men who were striving to form the church." (Ibid p. 129.)

"Professor Davidson says that the Gospel of Matthew, as we have it now could not have been written by Matthew. Intro. New Test. 1, p. 484. He says that the present Gospel of Mark was not written by Mark and that its author is unknown." (Ibid 2, p. 83, 84.)

Of John's Gospel he says:

"Its existence before 140 A. D. is incapable either of decision or probable showing. The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible.

"No certain traces of the existence of the fourth gospel can be found till after Justin Martyr, that is till after the middle of the second century." (Ibid 2, p. 520.)

The Value of Papias' Testimony.

"Suppose Papias is referring to our present gospel of Mark, what testimony have we to the authenticity of Jesus' words as contained in it? Just this: Eusebius says that Papias said that John the presbyter said that Mark said that Peter said that Jesus said thus and so." (Keeler's "Short History of the Bible," p. 19.)

Ignorance and Dishonesty of the Early Fathers.

That the charge of ignorance justly attaches to many of the fathers of the church, and that of dishonesty as well, there is abundant evidence, but a small portion of this can be given here. Mosheim, in part 2 chapter 3 of his "Ecclesiastical History," says:

"The interest of virtue and true religion suffered yet more grievously by the monstrous errors that were universally adopted in this century, and became a source of innumerable calamities and mischiefs of succeeding ages. The first of these maxims was that it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie when by that means the interest of the church might be promoted; and the second, equally horrible, though in another point of view, was "that errors in religion, when maintained and adhered to after proper admonition were punishable with civil penalties and corporal tortures." The former of these erroneous maxims was now of long standing. It had been adopted for long ages past, and had produced an incredible number of ridiculous fables, fictitious prodigies, and pious frauds to the remarkable detriment to that glorious cause in which they were employed. And it must be frankly confessed that the greatest men and the most eminent saints of this century [the fourth] were more or less tainted with the infection of this corrupt principle, as will appear evident to such as look with an attentive eye to their writings and actions. We would willingly except from this charge Ambrose, and Hiliary Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, and Jerome; but truth, which is more respectable than these venerable fathers, obliges us to involve them in the general accusation."

At another time he says, as translated by Vidal:

"At the time when he [Hermas] wrote, it was an established maxim with many Christians to avail themselves of fraud and deception, if it was likely they would conduce toward the attainment of any considerable good."

He again says:

"It was considered that they who made it their business to deceive, with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather of commendation than censure."

The French Protestant writer, Casaubon, talks in a similar way, thus:

"It mightily affects me to see how many there were in the earliest times of the church who considered it a capital exploit to lend to heavenly truth the help of their own inventions in order that the new doctrine might be received by the wise among the Gentiles. These officious lies, they said, were devised for a good end."

Le Clerc, corroborating these opinions, says:

"Dissemblers of truth are nowhere to be met with in such abundance as among the writers of church history."