The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels Part 15

[51] These were precautions, probably usual, to ensure that the criminals were really dead.

[52] These instructions are contrary to those given to His disciples in His life-time. He told them expressly not to go to the Gentiles (Matt.

X:5) and said nothing about their baptizing either Jews or Gentiles. No time or definite place is a.s.signed for this last appearance of Jesus.

[53] Mark does not tell of any appearance of Jesus to the apostles in Galilee.

[54] The name Cleopas does not appear in the list of the twelve apostles (Matt. X:2-4).

[55] The story of the resurrection and ascension would have even less chance of acceptance by an impartial tribunal, than that of the miraculous conception, or of the birth at Bethlehem. The accounts in the four Gospels, together with that in the Acts, are such a hopeless ma.s.s of confusion and contradiction that scarcely a single fact can be extricated, on which they all agree.

As to the time, the place, and the witnesses of the ascension, they are entirely at variance.

Jesus had, in His lifetime, fixed Galilee as the place of meeting His apostles after His rising from the dead (Matt. XXVI:32; Mark XIV:28). So the angel, or the "young man," at the tomb tells the women that Jesus has gone into Galilee, where His disciples should see Him, "as He said unto you" (Matt. XXVIII:7; Mark XVI:7).

Now, Matthew's account is the only one of the five originals which says anything about Jesus appearing to His disciples in Galilee. And, according to Matthew, this was the only time and place that He did appear to any one, except the two Marys (Matt. XXVIII:9, 10), and their statements were not believed by the apostles (Mark XVI:11; Luke XXIV:11).

According to Matthew, at a time not specified, Jesus appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. XXVIII:16), "and when they saw Him, they worshipped Him; _but some doubted_" (Matt. XXVIII:17). Now, from this it is apparent: first, that Jesus did not appear in His natural, earthly form, for then the eleven would at once have recognized His ident.i.ty; and, second, that we have no means of telling just how many of the eleven would have testified to this being an appearance of the true Jesus, since "some" doubted.

John's original Gospel warrants appearances of Jesus, first, to Mary Magdalene, the other Mary not being with her (John XX:15, 16, 17); second, an appearance on Sunday evening to the apostles, except Thomas (John XX:19); third, an appearance eight days later to all the eleven apostles (John XX:26). Nothing is said about any ascension.

John's Chapter XXI, which, as has been said, appears clearly to have been a later addition to the original Gospel, relates an appearance of Jesus in Galilee, which is materially different from that of Matthew.

The appearance is not on a mountain, but on the sh.o.r.es of the sea of Tiberias, and, instead of the eleven apostles being present, there were, at most, only seven, including Nathaniel of Cana (John XXI:2). All of them have considerable trouble in recognizing Jesus (John XXI:4, 12).

Nothing is said by Jesus about baptizing, or preaching to, the Gentiles, but, on the contrary, Jesus tells Peter to feed "my sheep," or "my lambs" (John XXI:15, 16, 17). Nothing is said about any ascension of Jesus into heaven.

The Gospels of Mark and Luke, the original Gospel of John, and the Acts, all agree in fixing the after-death appearances and ascension of Jesus in Jerusalem or its neighborhood (Luke XXIV:50; Acts I:12). Apparently the apostles remained for some time in Jerusalem after the Crucifixion (possibly for forty days, Acts I:3; II:1), until they separated and "went forth and preached everywhere" (Mark XVI:20). In the Acts it is said that Jesus "commanded" them to remain in Jerusalem, until the gift of the Holy Ghost should be sent to them (Acts I:4).

It is evident, in all these accounts, that the apostles had never understood, or had entirely forgotten, the predictions of Jesus in His lifetime that He would rise from the dead (Matt. XVI:21; XVII:23; XX:19; Mark VIII:31; IX:31; X:34; Luke IX:22; XVIII:33). They were not expecting any resurrection. They were not waiting at the tomb for it to occur, and, by the unanimous testimony of all the writers, they showed the greatest surprise and incredulity at the first reports of Jesus'

appearance alive (Matt. XXVIII:17; Mark XVI:11, 13; Luke XXIV:11, 16, 37, 41; John XX:9, 14, 25).

Furthermore, it is also evident that Jesus, in these appearances, must have a.s.sumed some form or shape different from His natural earthly body.

Otherwise His intimate friends and a.s.sociates could not have been in such uncertainty about recognizing His ident.i.ty.

Thus Matthew says that when He appeared to the eleven "some doubted."

But if He had appeared in His natural form, how could any of the apostles have doubted as to whether the apparition was He or some other person?

According to Mark, the apostles questioned the accuracy of the report by Mary and the two disciples that they had seen Jesus (Mark XVI:13, 14).

Luke relates that Jesus spent a considerable portion of one day with two of the disciples, and joined them at their evening meal. But they did not recognize Him until He blessed some bread, brake it, and gave to them, and then "He vanished out of their sight" (Luke XXIV:13-31). On His first appearance in the midst of the apostles, "they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit." Even after He showed them His hands and feet, their doubts were not dissipated, and, although He ate a piece of fish and some honey comb, it is not explicitly stated that this removed all their uncertainty (Luke XXIV:36-43).

According to John, Mary Magdalene, who was well acquainted with Jesus in His lifetime, when she saw this apparition, "knew not that it was Jesus." She spoke to Him, "supposing Him to be the gardener." He gives her a message to His disciples, and it is implied in the narrative that she then recognizes Him as Jesus, although it is not explained how this change came about (John XX:14-17). On His appearance to the apostles, He shows them His hands and feet, as though that were necessary to confirm their recognition of His ident.i.ty. Thomas, apparently, will not trust to the story of the other apostles; nor even to the personal appearance of Jesus, until he has put his fingers into the prints on Jesus' hands and feet (John XX:19-28). If Jesus had worn His earthly form these prints, which the apostles had never before seen, could not have aided in His identification.

The account in John, Chap. XXI, shows that the seven a.s.sembled at the sea of Tiberias did not at first recognize Jesus, although one of them was Thomas, who had already identified Him in Jerusalem. "But the disciples knew not that it was Jesus" (John XXI:4). A little later it is said: "And none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou? Knowing that it was the Lord" (John XXI:12). No explanation is given as to how this knowledge finally came to them.

Out of this welter of confusion and contradictions, it is impossible to select any one coherent, authoritative story. With equal warrant of authority it may be a.s.serted that He appeared to the apostles only in Galilee (Matt.) or never in Galilee, but only in Jerusalem (Mark, Luke, Acts); that Jesus' first appearance was to the two Marys (Matthew), or was to Mary Magdalene alone (Mark, John), or that He did not appear to them at all, but two men "in shining garments" gave them the message to the apostles (Luke); that He made a special appearance to two of the apostles (Mark, Luke), or that He did not make this appearance (Matthew, John); that He never appeared to the apostles but once (in Galilee according to Matthew, in Jerusalem, according to Mark and Luke), or that He appeared to them twice in Jerusalem (John XX) and once in Galilee (John XXI), or that He was with the apostles in Jerusalem for forty days, apparently in frequent communication with them (Acts I).

As to the ascension, it either occurred at some indefinite time on some unidentified mountain in Galilee and could be testified to by the unspecified number of the eleven who did not "doubt" (Matt.); or it (impliedly) occurred at some indefinite time on some unspecified sh.o.r.e of the sea of Tiberias, in Galilee, and was witnessed only by the seven (John XXI); or it occurred in Jerusalem at some unspecified time or place, and, so far as appears, in the presence of no one (Mark XVI:19); or it occurred at Bethany at some indefinite time in the presence of some unspecified number of His disciples (Luke XXIV:50, 51); or it occurred at least forty days after the Crucifixion on "the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey," in the presence of persons who are only identified as "they" (Acts I); or, so far as the Gospel of John is concerned, even including Chapter XXI, it could fairly be claimed that He did not know of any specific ascension.

While the exact date of the writing of the four Gospels and of the Acts cannot be determined, yet, in any event, they must have been composed when there were many living witnesses to the events of Jesus' life. If such a stupendous miracle as the ascension had occurred shortly after Jesus' death, it is inexplicable that these historians should not have shown some practical unanimity as to the time, place and witnesses of the event.

[56] "The att.i.tude of slave-holders towards freedom in the abstract was grotesque in its lack of logic; but the att.i.tude of many other cla.s.ses of men, both abroad and home, towards it was equally full of a grimly unconscious humor. The southern planters, who loudly sympathized with Kossuth and the Hungarians, were entirely unconscious that their tyranny over their own black bondsmen made their attacks upon Austria's despotism absurd." Roosevelt's Life of Benton, American Statesmen Series, p. 275.

[57] Compare his severe criticism of the abolition revolt from the Whig party in 1844 with his own revolt from the Republican party in 1912.

Life of Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 291.

[58] If this had been written after the Spanish war, he might, with equal logic, have said the same thing of Porto Rico and the Philippines.

[59] It would be interesting if President Roosevelt had cited some international controversies in which one nation did not claim that the matter in dispute was "of great importance" and that there was no "doubt as to which side was right."

[60] From the context he evidently means here any shadow or pretense of t.i.tle.

[61] If, as Mr. Roosevelt concedes, the war with Mexico was unjustifiable, it is rather difficult to understand how the morals of the people of the United States could have been improved by the consciousness that they had unjustly slaughtered many thousands of innocent Mexicans and robbed them of immense areas of their lands.

[62] It is apparent that Matthew uses the word "drinking" in the sense of "drinking wine," and undoubtedly Luke uses the word "drink" in the same sense. In all, or nearly all, instances in the four Gospels where these words are used in connection with eating or fasting, they refer to the drinking of wine. As to the words "wine," or "fruit of the vine,"

when used in the Gospels, meaning some unfermented liquid, the undeviating practice of the early Christian churches in celebrating the Holy Communion with actual wine, stamps this claim as too absurd to merit discussion. Undoubtedly Peter, James, John, Paul and the other founders of the infant churches knew and followed the example of Jesus in prescribing wine as a part of this solemn ceremony. If the "universal tradition of the church" is not to be believed on this point, of what value is it on any other? It would be as sensible to claim that there has never been any difference between Moslems and Christians in the use of wine, because, in truth, the orthodox Christian was never authorized to use anything but some unfermented drink that a Moslem might also have used.