Transcriber's notes
Variable spelling has been retained. Minor punctuation inconsistencies
have been silently corrected. A list of other corrections can be found
at the end of the book. Footnotes were sequentially numbered and placed
at the end of the text. In the original, the "The Gospel Narratives" are
printed side by side across the page spread. In this e-book version they
are presented individually. The Index was copied from Volume II.
Mark up: _italics_
THE TRIAL OF JESUS
[Illustration: JESUS BOUND (MUNKACSY)]
THE TRIAL OF JESUS
FROM A LAWYER'S STANDPOINT
BY
WALTER M. CHANDLER
OF THE NEW YORK BAR
VOLUME I
THE HEBREW TRIAL
THE EMPIRE PUBLISHING CO.
60 WALL STREET, NEW YORK CITY
1908
Copyright, 1908, by WALTER M. CHANDLER
_All rights reserved_
TO MY MOTHER WITH SENTIMENTS OF LOVE AND VENERATION WHICH NO WORDS
CAN EXPRESS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FACING PAGE
JESUS BOUND (Munkacsy) _Frontispiece_
ST. MATTHEW (Rembrandt) 2
ST. MARK AND ST. PAUL (Dürer) 28
ST. JOHN AND ST. PETER (Dürer) 52
MOSES AND THE LAW (Michael Angelo) 72
THE LAST SUPPER (da Vinci) 174
JESUS IN GETHSEMANE (Hoffman) 240
THE BETRAYING KISS (Scheffer) 282
THE ARREST OF JESUS (Hoffman) 284
CONTENTS OF VOLUME ONE
PAGE
PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE xiii
THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES xxx
PART I
_THE RECORD OF FACT_
AUTHENTICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT NARRATIVES, JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 3
CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL WRITERS, LEGALLY TESTED 9
PART II
_HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW_
CHAPTER
I. THE MOSAIC CODE AND THE TALMUD 73
II. HEBREW CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 91
III. HEBREW COURTS AND JUDGES 102
IV. HEBREW WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE 127
V. MODE OF TRIAL AND EXECUTION IN HEBREW CAPITAL CASES 153
PART III
_THE BRIEF_
WHETHER OR NOT THE GREAT SANHEDRIN EXISTED AT THE TIME OF CHRIST 175
CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF THE GREAT SANHEDRIN, WITH REFERENCE
TO ROMAN AUTHORITY, TO TRY CAPITAL OFFENSES AT THE DATE OF THE
CRUCIFIXION 181
CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF THE GREAT SANHEDRIN, UNDER HEBREW LAW,
TO TRY THE PARTICULAR OFFENSE WITH WHICH JESUS WAS CHARGED 183
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A REGULAR LEGAL TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE THE
GREAT SANHEDRIN 183
WHETHER OR NOT THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN THE
MISHNA WERE IN EXISTENCE AND ACTIVELY IN FORCE IN JUDEA AT THE
TIME OF THE TRIAL OF JESUS 186
THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE BROUGHT AGAINST JESUS AT THE TRIAL BEFORE
THE GREAT SANHEDRIN; AND HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE WITH REFERENCE
THERETO 187
POINT I: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE ARREST OF JESUS IN
GETHSEMANE 219
POINT II: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE PRIVATE EXAMINATION OF
JESUS BY ANNAS (OR CAIAPHAS) BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE REGULAR
TRIAL 238
POINT III: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE INDICTMENT AGAINST
JESUS 248
POINT IV: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF TRYING JESUS AT NIGHT 255
POINT V: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF TRYING JESUS BEFORE THE MORNING
SACRIFICE HAD BEEN OFFERED 260
POINT VI: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF TRYING JESUS ON THE EVE OF A
JEWISH SABBATH AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE
PASSOVER FEAST 263
POINT VII: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF CONCLUDING THE TRIAL OF JESUS
WITHIN ONE DAY 267
POINT VIII: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF CONVICTING JESUS UPON HIS
UNCORROBORATED CONFESSION 271
POINT IX: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF A UNANIMOUS VERDICT AGAINST
JESUS 279
POINT X: CONCERNING CERTAIN IRREGULARITIES OF FORM IN TRYING AND
CONDEMNING JESUS 287
POINT XI: CONCERNING THE LEGAL DISQUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE
GREAT SANHEDRIN, TO TRY JESUS 295
POINT XII: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE REFUSAL OF THE GREAT
SANHEDRIN TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE DEFENSE OF JESUS 309
PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE
Many remarkable trials have characterized the judicial history of
mankind.
The trial of Socrates before the dicastery of Athens, charged with
corrupting Athenian youth, with blaspheming the Olympic gods, and with
seeking to destroy the constitution of the Attic Republic, is still a
sublime and thrilling chapter in the history of a wonderful people,
among the ruins and wrecks of whose genius the modern world still
wanders to contemplate, admire, and study the pride of every master and
the perfection of every model.
The trial and execution of Charles the First of England sealed with
royal blood a new covenant of British freedom, and erected upon the
highway of national progress an enduring landmark to civil liberty. The
entire civilized world stood aghast at the solemn and awful spectacle of
the deliberate beheading of a king. And yet, to-day, the sober, serious
judgment of mankind stamps the act with approval, and deems it a
legitimate and righteous step in the heroic march of a brave and
splendid people toward a complete realization of the inalienable rights
of man. The philosopher of history declares these condemnatory and
executory proceedings against a Stuart king worthy of all the epoch
making movements that have glorified the centuries of English
constitutional growth, and have given to mankind the imperishable
parchments of Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, the Petition of Rights,
and Habeas Corpus.
The trial of Warren Hastings in the hall of William Rufus has been
immortalized by Lord Macaulay. This trial is a virtual reproduction in
English history of the ancient Roman trial of Verres. England is
substituted for Rome; Sicily becomes India; Hastings takes the place of
Verres; and Burke is the orator instead of Cicero. The indictments are
identical: Maladministration in the government of a province. In the
impeachment of Hastings, England served notice upon her colonial
governors and made proclamation to the world that English conquest was
not intended to despoil and enslave, but was designed to carry to the
inhabitants of distant lands her language, her literature, and her laws.
This message to humanity was framed but not inspired by England. It was
prompted by the success of the American Revolution, in which Washington
and his Continentals had established the immortal principle, that the
consent of the governed is the true source of all just powers of
government.
The trial of Aaron Burr, omitting Arnold's treason, is the blackest
chapter in the annals of our republic. Burr was the most extraordinary
man of the first half century of American national history. His powerful
and fascinating personality conquered men and enslaved women. He was
the finest scholar of the Revolution excepting Thomas Jefferson. He was
the greatest orator of the Revolution excepting Patrick Henry. His
farewell address to the United States Senate caused his inveterate
enemies to weep. His arraignment at the bar of public justice on the
charge of high treason--that he had sought to destroy the Country of
Washington, the Republic of Jefferson, which is to-day the Union of
Lincoln--was the sad and melancholy close of a long and lofty life.
The trial of Alfred Dreyfus is still fresh in the minds and memories of
men. Troubled political seas still surge and roll in France because of
the hatred, prejudice, and passion that envelope the mysterious
_bordereau_. The French Republic is still rent by two contending
factions: Dreyfus and anti-Dreyfus. His friends still say that Dreyfus
was a Prometheus who was chained to an ocean-girt rock while the vulture
of exile preyed upon his heart. His enemies still assert that he was a
Judas who betrayed not God or Christ, but France and the Fatherland. His
banishment to the Island of the Devil; his wife's deathless devotion;
the implacable hatred of his enemies; the undying loyalty of friends;
and his own sufferings and woes are the warp and woof of the most
splendid and pathetic epoch of a century.
Other trials--of Mary Stuart, the beautiful and brilliant Scottish
queen; of Robert Emmet, the grand and gifted Irish patriot
martyr--thrilled the world in their day.
But these trials, one and all, were tame and commonplace, compared with
the trial and crucifixion of the Galilean peasant, Jesus of Nazareth.
These were earthly trials, on earthly issues, before earthly courts. The
trial of the Nazarene was before the high tribunals of both Heaven and
earth; before the Great Sanhedrin, whose judges were the master-spirits
of a divinely commissioned race; before the court of the Roman Empire
that controlled the legal and political rights of men throughout the
known world, from Scotland to Judea and from Dacia to Abyssinia.
The trial of Jesus was twofold: Hebrew and Roman; or Ecclesiastical and
Civil. The Hebrew trial took place before the Great Sanhedrin,
consisting of seventy-one members. The Roman trial was held before
Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea, and afterwards before Herod,
Tetrarch of Galilee. These trials all made one, were links in a chain,
and took place within a space of time variously estimated from ten to
twenty hours.
The general order of events may be thus briefly described:
(1) About eleven o'clock on the evening of April 6th, A.D. 30, Jesus and
eleven of the Apostles left the scene of the Last Supper, which had been
celebrated (probably in the home of Mark) on the outskirts of Jerusalem,
to go to the Garden of Gethsemane.
(2) Jesus was arrested about midnight in Gethsemane by a band of Temple
officers and Roman soldiers guided by Judas.
(3) He was first taken to Annas, and was afterwards sent by Annas to
Caiaphas. A private preliminary examination of Jesus was then had before
one of these church dignitaries. St. John describes this examination,
but does not tell us clearly whether it was Annas or Caiaphas who
conducted it.
(4) After His preliminary examination, Jesus was arraigned about two
o'clock in the morning before the Sanhedrin, which had convened in the
palace of Caiaphas, and was formally tried and condemned to death on the
charge of blasphemy against Jehovah.
(5) After a temporary adjournment of the first session, the Sanhedrin
reassembled at the break of day to retry Jesus, and to determine how He
should be brought before Pilate.
(6) In the early morning of April 7th, Jesus was led before Pontius
Pilate, who was then stopping in the palace of Herod on the hill of
Zion, his customary residence when he came up from Cæsarea to Jerusalem
to attend the Jewish national festivals. A brief trial of Jesus by
Pilate, on the charge of high treason against Cæsar, was then had in
front of and within the palace of Herod. The result was an acquittal of
the prisoner by the Roman procurator, who expressed his verdict in these
words: "I find in him no fault at all."
(7) Instead of releasing Jesus after having found Him not guilty,
Pilate, being intimidated by the rabble, sent the prisoner away to
Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, who was then in attendance upon the Passover
Feast, and was at that moment residing in the ancient palace of the
Asmoneans in the immediate neighborhood of the residence of Pilate. A
brief, informal hearing was had before Herod, who, having mocked and
brutalized the prisoner, sent Him back to the Roman governor.
(8) After the return of Jesus from the Court of Herod, Pilate assembled
the priests and elders, announced to them that Herod had found no fault
with the prisoner in their midst, reminded them that he himself had
acquitted Him, and offered to scourge and then release Him. This
compromise and subterfuge were scornfully rejected by the Jews who had
demanded the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate, after much vacillation,
finally yielded to the demands of the mob and ordered the prisoner to be
crucified.
From this brief outline of the proceedings against Jesus, the reader
will readily perceive that there were two distinct trials: a Hebrew and
a Roman. He will notice further that each trial was marked by three
distinct features or appearances. The Hebrew trial was characterized by:
(1) The appearance before Annas.
(2) The trial at the night session of the Sanhedrin.
(3) The examination at the morning sitting of the same court.
The Roman trial was marked by:
(1) The appearance of Jesus before Pilate.
(2) His arraignment before Herod.
(3) His reappearance before Pilate.
The first volume of this work has been devoted to the Hebrew trial of
Jesus, and a distinctively Hebrew impress has been given to all its
pages. The second volume has been devoted to the Roman trial, and a
distinctively Roman impress has been given it. Each exhibits a distinct
view of the subject. Taken together, they comprehend the most important
and famous judicial transaction in history.
It is not the purpose of the author of these volumes to usurp the
functions or the privileges of the ecclesiastic. To priests and
preachers have been left the discussion and solution of theological
problems: the divinity of Jesus, the immortality of the soul and kindred
religious dogmas. "The Trial of Jesus from a _Lawyer's_ Standpoint" is
the expanded title of this work. A strict adherence to a secular
discussion of the theme proclaimed has been studiously observed in the
preparation of these pages. The legal rights of the _man_ Jesus at the
bar of _human_ justice under Jewish and Roman laws have marked the
limitations of the argument. Any digression from this plan has been
temporary and necessary.
A thorough understanding of any case, judicially considered, involves a
complete analysis of the cardinal legal elements of the case: the
element called Fact and the element called Law. Whether in ancient or
modern times, in a Jewish or Gentile court, of civil or criminal
jurisdiction, these elements have always entered into the legal
conception of a case. Whether the advocate is preparing a pleading at
his desk, is summing up before the jury, or addressing himself to the
court, these elements are working forever in his brain. He is constantly
asking himself these questions: What are the facts of this case? What
is the law applicable to the facts? Do the facts and law meet and
harmonize judicially? Do they blend in legal unison according to the
latest decision of the court of last resort? If so, a case is made;
otherwise, not.
Now many sermons might be differently preached; many books might be
differently written. But an intelligent discussion of the trial and
crucifixion of Jesus from a lawyer's point of view must be had upon the
basis of an analytical review of the agreement or nonagreement of law
and fact in the case sought to be made against the Christ.
The first question that naturally suggests itself to the inquiring mind,
in investigating this theme, is this: Upon what facts was the complaint
against Jesus based? A second question then logically follows: What were
the rules and regulations of Hebrew and Roman law directly applicable to
those facts in the trials of Jesus before the Sanhedrin and before
Pilate? It is respectfully submitted that no clear and comprehensive
treatment of the subject can be had without proper answers to these
questions.
Having learned the facts of any case, and having determined what rules
of law are applicable to them in regard to the controversy in hand, a
third step in the proceedings, in all matters of review on appeal, is
this: To analyze the record from the viewpoint of the juristic agreement
or nonagreement of law and fact; and to determine by a process of
judicial dissection and reformation the presence or absence of essential
legal elements in the proceedings, with a view to affirmance in case of
absence, or reversal of the verdict in the event of the discovery of the
presence of error.
In obedience to this natural intellectual tendency and to the usual mode
of legal procedure in reviewing and revising matters on appeal, the
contents of Volume I have been divided into three parts, corresponding,
in a general way, to the successive steps heretofore mentioned.
In Part I, the Record of Fact in the trial of Jesus has been
authenticated; not, indeed, according to the strict provisions of modern
statutes which regulate the authentication of legal documents, but in
the popular sense of the word "authentication." Nevertheless, the
authenticity of the Gospel narratives, which form the record of fact in
the trial of Jesus, and the credibility of the Evangelists who wrote and
published these narratives, have been subjected to the rigorous tests of
rules of evidence laid down by Greenleaf and by Starkie. Such an
authentication has been deemed necessary in a treatise of this kind.
Two main methods may be employed in investigating and proving the
alleged occurrences of Sacred History: (1) The method which is based
upon the evidence of spiritual consciousness and experience, derived
from religious conversion and from communion with God; (2) the method
that rests upon the application of historic facts and legal rules to the
testimony of those who have asserted the existence of such occurrences.
It has been contended by many that the first of these methods is the
supreme test, and the only proper one, in solving religious problems and
in reaching full and final assurance of the existence of spiritual
truths. It is confidently asserted by such persons that the true
Christian who has accepted Jesus as his personal Redeemer and has
thereby found peace with God, needs no assurance from Matthew that the
Christ was the Heaven-begotten and Virgin-born. Such a Christian, it is
said, has positive proof from within that Jesus was divine. It is
further contended that all forms of religious truth are susceptible of
the same kind of proof. It is argued that from despairing hope, born of
the longing and the tears of a mother who, grief-stricken and
broken-hearted, kneels in prayer beside the coffin of her firstborn,
springs stronger evidence of a future life and of an everlasting reunion
with loved ones, than comes from all the assurances of immortality
handed down by saints and sages. The advocates of this theory contend
that the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus should be proved mainly by
the method of spiritual consciousness and experience, and only
incidentally by the historical testimony of the sacred writers. They
boldly maintain that the Resurrection was a spiritual fact born of a
spiritual truth; and that within the soul of each true believer is the
image of the risen Jesus, reflected from Heaven in as perfect form as
that seen by Paul while journeying to Damascus.
It would be decidedly ungenerous and unjust to deny the force of the
contention that spiritual consciousness and religious experience are
convincing forms of proof. To do so would be to offer gratuitous insult
to the intelligence and sincerity of millions of consecrated men and
women who have repeatedly proclaimed and are still proclaiming that the
Spirit of God and Christ within them attests the reality of religion.
But on the other hand the doctrine of religions consciousness, as a mode
of proof, certainly has its limitations. Spiritual proofs are obviously
the very best means of establishing purely spiritual truths. But not
many truths of religion are purely spiritual. The most of them are
encased within historic facts which may themselves be separately
considered as historic truths. In a sense, all spiritual truth is born
of historic truth; that is, historic truths, in the order of our
acquisition of a knowledge of them, antedate and create spiritual
truths. The religious consciousness of the Resurrection of Jesus would
never have been born in our hearts if we had never read the historical
records of the physical Resurrection. Nor could we have ever had a
religious experience of the divinity of Jesus if we had never read the
historical accounts of His miracles, of His Virgin birth, His
fulfillment of prophecy, and His Resurrection from the dead, unless
Jesus had personally communicated to us evidences of His divinity. These
separate and historic facts, of which spiritual truths are born, cannot
be proved by religious consciousness and experience.
The distinctions herein suggested are very aptly and beautifully
expressed by Professor Inge in his Bampton Lectures on Christian
Mysticism, in which he says: "The inner light can only testify to
spiritual truths. It always speaks in the present tense; it cannot
guarantee any historical event, past or future. It cannot guarantee
either the Gospel history or a future judgment. It can tell us that
Christ is risen, and He is alive for evermore, but not that He rose
again the third day."
From the foregoing, then, it is clear that in dealing with the
historical facts and circumstances of the trial and crucifixion of
Jesus, we cannot remotely employ the method of proof which is based upon
religious consciousness and experience, since these events are matters
of the past and not of the present. We have been compelled, therefore,
to resort to the legal and historical method of proof; since we could
not assume the correctness of the record, as such an assumption would
have been lacking in legal requirement and judicial fitness.
It has also been thought not to be within the scope of this treatise, or
consistent with the purpose of the author of these volumes, to enter
into a discussion of the question of inspiration in the matter of the
origin of the New Testament Gospels, as the record of fact in the trial
of Jesus. As secular historians, rather than as inspired writers, must
the Evangelists be regarded in this connection; since the title of this
work suggests and demands a strictly legal treatment of the theme
proclaimed. The author would respectfully suggest, however, that the day
is past for complete reliance upon the theory of inspiration and a total
rejection of all analysis and investigation. That the Scriptures are
sacred and inspired, and neither need nor permit questions involving
doubt and speculation as to origin and authenticity will no longer meet
the challenge or dissipate the fears of the intellectual leaders of the
human race. The Christianity of the future must be a religion of reason
as well as of faith, else it cannot and will not endure the shocks of
time, or survive the onward march of the soul. If the teachings of the
Nazarene are a faithful portrayal and a truthful expression of all the
verities of Heaven and earth, then Christianity has nothing to fear from
the discoveries of Science, from Roman catacombs, Arabian hieroglyphics,
the sands of Egypt, or the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. Science is the
High Priestess of Nature and Nature's oracles, and no single revelation
of Science can disprove or contradict the simplest truth of Nature's
God.
If, on the other hand, Christianity be fundamentally and essentially
false, ignorance and bigotry will not preserve and perpetuate it; all
the prayers of the faithful, all the martyrdom of the centuries, will
not suffice to save it from death and annihilation.
But the Christian need have no fear of the results of scientific
investigation or historic revelation. Assyriology, archæology, and
paleontology, interpreted and applied by the finest scholarship and the
most superb intellects of earth, have spent all their stupendous and
concentrated forces in the direction of the discovery of natural and
historic facts that would confirm or destroy the Christian theory of
things. And yet not one natural or historic fact has been discovered
that seriously disturbs the testimony of the Evangelists or impairs the
evidence of Christianity. A few unlettered fisherman, casting nets for a
livelihood in the waters of Gennesaret, framed a message to humanity
based upon the life and martyrdom of a Galilean peasant, their spiritual
Lord and Master, and proclaimed it to the world; and all the succeeding
centuries of scientific research and skeptical criticism have not shaken
mankind's confidence in its truthfulness and its potency. If eighteen
hundred years of scientific investigation have resulted only in proof
and vindication of the historic asseverations of the Sacred Scriptures,
and further investigation gives promise of still further proof and
vindication, tending to remove all doubts and destroy all fears, nothing
but rank stupidity and crass ignorance will place obstacles in the way
of ultimate analysis and complete revelation.
In Part II of this volume, following the plan heretofore suggested, the
element of Law has been considered. Hebrew criminal jurisprudence, based
upon the Mosaic Code and upon the Talmud, has been outlined and
discussed. A more exhaustive treatment has been given than the subject
would seem to justify, but the writer is convinced that the Criminal
Code of the Jews must be of surpassing interest to the general reader,
regardless of whether certain peculiar rules therein contained have
reference to the trial of Jesus or not. The bulk of this Code has been
inserted in this work because it is felt that a comprehensive view of
any system enables the student of a particular trial under that system
to grasp more fully and to appreciate more keenly the merits of the
proceedings.
In Part III the legal aspects of the trial of Jesus have been reviewed.
The elements of Law and Fact have been combined in the form of a
"Brief," in which "Points" have been made and errors have been
discussed.
During the past decade, the author of this work has delivered
occasionally, in the United States and in the Dominion of Canada, a
lecture upon the subject, "The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's
Standpoint." Numerous requests have been made, from time to time, for
the lecture in printed form. To supply this demand is the purpose of the
publication of these volumes. The voluminous treatment given has been in
response to the demands of those who have asked for a topical treatment
of the subject. Many auditors in his lecture audiences have asked for
special treatment, from a lawyer's standpoint, of the New Testament
Gospels. Many have requested an exhaustive handling of Hebrew criminal
law. Others have asked for the insertion in this work of the Apocryphal
Acts of Pilate. And still others have expressed a desire to have
Græco-Roman Paganism dealt with in its relationship to the trial of
Jesus. In obedience to these various demands, certain chapters have been
incorporated in the general work that may not seem to the average reader
to have any direct bearing upon the subject treated. It is felt,
however, that in every case at least a partial relevancy exists, and
that in a large majority of cases the relevancy is perfect.
The writer wishes, at this time and place, to acknowledge his
indebtedness and to express his thanks, for valuable assistance
rendered, to all those authors mentioned under the title "Bibliography"
at the end of Volume II.
WALTER M. CHANDLER.
NEW YORK CITY, July 1, 1908.
THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
MATTHEW
xxvi. 47-68; xxvii. 1-26
And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and
with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief
priests and elders of the people.... Then came they, and laid hands
on Jesus, and took him.... And they that had laid hold on Jesus led
him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the
elders were assembled.... Now the chief priests, and elders, and
all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to
death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet
found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said,
This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to
build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto
him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against
thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and
said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us
whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him,
Thou has said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see
the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in
the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes,
saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of
witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye?
They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit
in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms
of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he
that smote thee?
When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the
people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: And when
they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius
Pilate the governor.... And Jesus stood before the governor: and
the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And
Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the
chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate
unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against
thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the
governor marvelled greatly. Now at the feast the governor was wont
to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they
had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they
were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I
release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he
knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was set down on
the judgement seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou
nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things
this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and
elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and
destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of
the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is
called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the
governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the
more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could
prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water,
and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of
the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the
people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then
released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he
delivered him to be crucified.
MARK
xiv. 43-65; xv. 1-15.
And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the
twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from
the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. And he that
betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall
kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely. And as
soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith,
Master, Master; and kissed him. And they laid hands on him, and
took him. And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a
servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. And Jesus answered
and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with
swords and staves to take me? I was daily with you in the temple
teaching, and ye took me not; but the scriptures must be fulfilled.
And they all forsook him, and fled. And there followed him a
certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body;
and the young man laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth,
and fled from them naked. And they led Jesus away to the high
priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the
elders and the scribes.... And the chief priests and all the
council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and
found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their
witness agreed not together. And there arose certain, and bare
false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy
this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will
build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness
agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and
asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these
witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.
Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the
Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall
see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming
in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and
saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the
blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty
of death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and
to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did
strike him with the palms of their hands.
And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a
consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and
bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate. And
Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering
said unto him, Thou sayest it. And the chief priests accused him of
many things: but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again,
saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness
against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate
marvelled. Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner,
whomsoever they desired. And there was one named Barabbas, which
lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had
committed murder in the insurrection. And the multitude crying
aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them. But
Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the
King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered
him for envy. But the chief priests moved the people, that he
should rather release Barabbas unto them. And Pilate answered and
said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him
whom ye call the King of the Jews? And they cried out again,
Crucify him. Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he
done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him. And so
Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them,
and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
LUKE
xxii. 47-71; xxiii. 1-24.
And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called
Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto
Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou
the Son of man with a kiss? When they which were about him saw what
would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the
sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and
cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus
far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. Then Jesus said unto
the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders,
which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with
swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the temple, ye
stretched forth no hands against me; but this is your hour, and the
power of darkness. Then took they him, and led him, and brought him
into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.... And
as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief
priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their
council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto
them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye
will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man
sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art
thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves
have heard of his own mouth.
And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And
they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting
the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that he
himself is Christ a King. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou
the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no
fault in this man. And they were the more fierce, saying, He
stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning
from Galilee to this place. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked
whether the man were a Galilæan. And as soon as he knew that he
belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who
himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. And when Herod saw
Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a
long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped
to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him
in many words; but he answered him nothing. And the chief priests
and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. And Herod with his
men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a
gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. And the same day
Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were
at enmity between themselves. And Pilate, when he had called
together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, Said unto
them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the
people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found
no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:
No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy
of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and
release him.... And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with
this man, and release unto us Barabbas.... Pilate therefore,
willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. But they cried,
saying, Crucify him, crucify him. And he said unto them the third
time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death
in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go. And they
were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be
crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests
prevailed. And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they
required.
JOHN
xviii. 3-38; xix. 1-16.
Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the
chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and
torches and weapons.... Then the band and the captain and officers
of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, And led him away to Annas
first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high
priest that same year.... The high priest then asked Jesus of his
disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly
to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple,
whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto
them: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken,
one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of
his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered
him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well,
why smitest thou me? Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the
high priest.... Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of
judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the
judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat
the passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What
accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto
him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him
up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge
him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is
not lawful for us to put any man to death.... Then Pilate entered
into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him,
Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this
thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate
answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have
delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My
kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world,
then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the
Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said
unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I
am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into
the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that
is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is
truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews,
and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the
soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and
they put on him a purple robe, And said, Hail, King of the Jews!
and they smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth
again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that
ye may know that I find no fault in him.... The Jews answered
him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made
himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he
was the more afraid; And went again into the judgment hall, and
saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer....
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews
cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's
friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar.
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth,
and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the
Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation
of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the
Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away
with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your
King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Cæsar. Then
delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took
Jesus, and led him away.
PART I
_THE RECORD OF FACT_
[Illustration: ST. MATTHEW (REMBRANDT)]
CHAPTER I
THE RECORD OF FACT
The Gospels of the New Testament form the record of fact in the trial of
Jesus. There is not a line of authentic history in the literature of the
world, sacred or profane, dealing originally and authoritatively with
the facts and circumstances of the trial and crucifixion of the Christ,
excepting these Gospels. A line from Philo--a dubious passage from
Josephus--a mere mention by Tacitus--a few scattering fragments from the
Talmud--all else is darkness, save the light that streams down through
the centuries from Calvary and the Cross through the books of the
Evangelists.
In dealing with the record of fact contained in the Gospels, in the
trial of Jesus two questions naturally suggest themselves: (1) Are the
Gospel narratives, such as we have them to-day, identical with those
that were given to the world by the Evangelists in Apostolic times? That
is, have these biographies of the Christ by the Evangelical writers been
handed down to us through all the ages substantially uncorrupted and
unimpaired?
(2) Are the Gospel writers--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--credible
witnesses of the facts and circumstances recorded by them in the Gospel
histories? That is, did they tell the truth when they wrote and
published these narratives to the world? Satisfactory affirmative
answers to these questions will establish and authenticate a perfect
record of fact. The pages of Part I of this volume will be devoted to
giving affirmative and satisfactory answers to these questions. And, in
accomplishing this purpose, academic reasoning and metaphysical
speculation will be rejected. Well-established rules of evidence, as
employed in modern courts of law, will be rigorously applied. So-called
"Higher Criticism" has no place in a treatise of this kind, since the
critical niceties and dialectic quibbles of men like Strauss, Renan, and
Baur would not be seriously considered in a modern judicial proceeding.
Reasonable probability, and not mathematical certainty, is the legal
test of adequacy in weighing human testimony with a view to a judicial
determination.
The reader may ask: Why should not a Christian writer, in a Christian
country, assume, without argument, that the testimony of Christian
sacred writers is true? The answer is that such conduct would convert a
purely legal treatise into a religious one, and substitute faith for
logic. The writer of these volumes, as a Christian, believes that the
Gospels relate the truth. As a lawyer, he is compelled to respect the
opinions of a large proportion of mankind who differ with him, and to
employ judicial methods in treating a legal theme.
The two questions above mentioned involve two distinct principles or
features in the Law of Evidence: (1) Admissibility or relevancy of
evidence; (2) Credibility of witnesses who have rendered testimony. All
the pages of Part I will be devoted to a consideration of these features
in their relationship to the testimony of the Evangelists.
The first question that naturally arises is this: Is there a
well-established rule of the modern Law of Evidence under which the
Gospels could be introduced as evidence in a modern judicial proceeding?
Suppose that the question of the Resurrection of Jesus--that is, the
fact of the truthfulness or falsity of the Resurrection--should become a
material fact in issue in a suit in a modern court of law; could the
testimony of the Evangelists relating to the Resurrection be introduced
in evidence? It would probably be objected that their testimony was
hearsay; that they had not been properly subjected to the cardinal tests
of truth: an oath, a cross-examination, and personal demeanor while
testifying. These objections might prevail if another rule of law could
not be successfully invoked. Such a rule exists, and with it we have now
to deal.
The author can conceive of no more satisfactory way of establishing the
principle of the admissibility of the Gospels in evidence under modern
law than by quoting at length from the celebrated treatise on the
"Testimony of the Evangelists," by Mr. Simon Greenleaf, the greatest of
all writers on the Law of Evidence. The opinion of Greenleaf on a
subject of this kind is somewhat in the nature of a decision of a court
of last resort, and his authority in matters of this import is
unquestioned in every land where English law is practiced. _The London
Law Magazine_, a few years ago, paid him the following splendid tribute:
"It is no mean honor to America that her schools of jurisprudence have
produced two of the first writers and best esteemed legal authorities of
this century--the great and good man, Judge Story, and his worthy and
eminent associate, Professor Greenleaf. Upon the existing Law of
Evidence (by Greenleaf) more light has shone from the New World than
from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of Europe."
Concerning the authenticity of the Sacred Scriptures and their
admissibility in evidence, Greenleaf has thus written:
That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are
genuine; that they existed in the time of our Saviour, and were
commonly received and referred to among the Jews as the sacred
books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists
has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally
written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or
falsified, either by heretics or Christians, are facts which we are
entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.
The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt,
and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient
writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is
familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings,
whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order,
in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere
convenience, be designated as our first rule.
_Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper
repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of
forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the
opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise._
An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to
come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place
where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might
naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this
custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If
they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery,
the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to
be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully
to impeach them. The burden of showing them to be false and
unworthy of credit is devolved on the party who makes that
objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It
presumes that every man is innocent until he is proved guilty; that
everything has been done fairly and legally until it is proved to
have been otherwise; and that every document found in its proper
repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this
is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used
in the church from time immemorial, and are thus found in the place
where alone they ought to be looked for. They come to us, and
challenge our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as
Domesday Book, the Ancient Statutes of Wales, or any other of the
ancient documents which have recently been published under the
British Record Commission are received. They are found in familiar
use in all the churches of Christendom, as the sacred books to
which all denominations of Christians refer, as the standard of
their faith. There is no pretense that they were engraven on plates
of gold and discovered in a cave, nor that they were brought from
heaven by angels; but they are received as the plain narratives and
writings of the men whose names they respectively bear, made public
at the time they were written; and though there are some slight
discrepancies among the copies subsequently made, there is no
pretense that the originals were anywhere corrupted. If it be
objected that the originals are lost, and that copies alone are now
produced, the principles of the municipal law here also afford a
satisfactory answer. For the multiplication of copies was a public
fact, in the faithfulness of which all the Christian community had
an interest; and it is a rule of law that
_In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be
presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are
presumed to be conversant with their own affairs._
Therefore it is that, in such matters, the prevailing current of
assertion is resorted to as evidence, for it is to this that every
member of the community is supposed to be privy. The persons,
moreover, who multiplied these copies may be regarded, in some
manner, as the agents of the Christian public, for whose use and
benefit the copies were made; and on the ground of the credit due
to such agents, and of the public nature of the facts themselves,
the copies thus made are entitled to an extraordinary degree of
confidence, and, as in the case of official registers and other
public books, it is not necessary that they should be confirmed and
sanctioned by the ordinary tests of truth. If any ancient document
concerning our public rights were lost, copies which had been as
universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels have been,
would have been received in evidence in any of our courts of
justice, without the slightest hesitation. The entire text of the
Corpus Juris Civilis is received as authority in all the courts of
continental Europe, upon much weaker evidence of its genuineness;
for the integrity of the Sacred Text has been preserved by the
jealousy of opposing sects, beyond any moral possibility of
corruption; while that of the Roman Civil Law has been preserved by
tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing school, to
watch over and preserve it from alteration.
These copies of the Holy Scriptures having thus been in familiar
use in the churches from the time when the text was committed to
writing; having been watched with vigilance by so many sects,
opposed to each other in doctrine, yet all appealing to these
Scriptures for the correctness of their faith; and having in all
ages, down to this day, been respected as the authoritative source
of all ecclesiastical power and government, and submitted to, and
acted under in regard to so many claims of right, on the one hand,
and so many obligations of duty, on the other; it is quite
erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any
further proof of their genuineness or authenticity. It is for the
objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules
of law, lies the burden of proof. If it were the case of a claim to
a franchise, and a copy of an ancient deed or charter were produced
in support of the title, under parallel circumstances on which to
presume its genuineness, no lawyer, it is believed, would venture
to deny either its admissibility in evidence or the satisfactory
character of the proof. In a recent case in the House of Lords,
precisely such a document, being an old manuscript copy, purporting
to have been extracted from ancient Journals of the House, which
were lost, and to have been made by an officer whose duty it was to
prepare lists of the peers, was held admissible in a claim of
peerage.[1]
Having secured the Gospel writings to be admitted in evidence under the
rule laid down by Mr. Greenleaf, we are now ready to consider more at
length the question of the credibility of the witnesses. The reader
should bear in mind that there is a very important difference between
the admission of testimony in evidence and belief in its truthfulness by
the court or jury. Evidence is frequently deemed relevant and
admissible, and goes to the jury for what it is worth. They may or may
not believe it.
We are now ready to consider the credit that should be accorded the
testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John concerning the trial and
crucifixion of Jesus. And at the outset it should be borne in mind that
there is a legal presumption that they told the truth. This presumption
operates in their favor from the very moment that their testimony is
admitted in evidence. Here, again, the opinion of Greenleaf--with all
the weight and authority that such an opinion carries--is directly in
point. In the "Testimony of the Evangelists" he says:
Proceeding further, to inquire whether the facts related by the
Four Evangelists are proved by competent and satisfactory evidence,
we are led, first, to consider on which side lies the burden of
establishing the credibility of the witnesses. On this point the
municipal law furnishes a rule which is of constant application in
all trials by jury, and is indeed the dictate of that charity which
thinketh no evil.
_In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every
witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown,
the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector._
This rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of
the Gospels have ever been treated by infidels; an injustice
silently acquiesced in even by Christians; in requiring the
Christian affirmatively, and by positive evidence, _aliunde_ to
establish the credibility of his witnesses above all others, before
their testimony is entitled to be considered, and in permitting the
testimony of a single profane writer, alone and uncorroborated, to
outweigh that of any single Christian. This is not the course in
courts of chancery, where the testimony of a single witness is
never permitted to outweigh the oath even of the defendant himself,
interested as he is in the case; but, on the contrary, if the
plaintiff, after having required the oath of his adversary, cannot
overthrow it by something more than the oath of one witness,
however credible, it must stand as evidence against him. But the
Christian writer seems, by the usual course of the argument, to
have been deprived of the common presumption of charity in his
favor; and reversing the ordinary rule of administering justice in
human tribunals, his testimony is unjustly presumed to be false,
until it is proved to be true. This treatment, moreover, has been
applied to them all in a body; and without due regard to the fact,
that, being independent historians, writing at different periods,
they are entitled to the support of each other; they have been
treated, in the argument, almost as if the New Testament were the
entire production, at once, of a body of men, conspiring by a joint
fabrication, to impose a false religion upon the world. It is time
that this injustice should cease; that the testimony of the
evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be
disproved by those who would impugn it; that the silence of one
sacred writer on any point should no more detract from his own
veracity or that of other historians, that the like circumstance is
permitted to do among profane writers; and that the Four
Evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each other, as
readily as Josephus and Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy.[2]
The reader will notice from the last extract that the eminent writer
quoted has sought to establish the credibility of the Evangelists by a
legal presumption in favor of their veracity. But it should be borne in
mind that this presumption is a disputable one, and may be overturned by
opposing evidence; that objections may be raised which will destroy the
force of the presumption and shift the burden again to him who asserts
the credibility of the witnesses. Now, let us suppose that such
objections have been made, and that sufficient opposing evidence has
been offered to accomplish this result; what has the Christian then to
say in support of the credibility of the first historians of his faith?
What proofs has he to offer, independent of legal presumption, that the
first biographers of the Master were truthful men? Can he show that the
application of legal tests to their credibility will save them in the
eyes of a critical and unbelieving world? The writer believes that the
Christian can do it, and will at once assume the task.
In "Starkie on Evidence" we find elaborated a rule of municipal law, at
once concise and comprehensive, which furnishes a complete test of the
credibility of witnesses. The various elements of this rule are
constantly operating in the mind of the successful cross-examiner in the
course of any extensive cross-examination.
_The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon,
firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their
number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the
conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the
coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances._[3]
Let us apply these successive tests, in the order above enumerated, to
the Evangelists.
(1) In the first place, let us consider the question of their _honesty_.
The meaning of the word "honesty," used in this connection, is peculiar.
It relates rather to personal sincerity than to personal integrity, and
suggests the idea of perjury rather than theft in criminal law. Were the
witnesses honest? That is, were they sincere? Did they intend to tell
the truth? That is, did they themselves believe what they testified? If
so, they were honest witnesses, though their testimony was false, as a
result of error in judgment or mistake of fact.
In the sense, then, of _sincerity_ is the test of honesty to be applied
to the Evangelists as witnesses of the facts which they relate in the
New Testament narratives. And in making this test let us bear in mind
the nature and scope of this work; that it is not a religious treatise,
and that the question of inspiration must not be allowed to confuse a
purely legal and historical discussion. As secular historians, and not
as inspired writers, must the Evangelists be considered. And in testing
their credibility, the customary standards employed in analyzing the
motives and conduct of ordinary men in the usual experiences and
everyday affairs of life must be applied. To regard them as strange or
supernatural beings, subject to some awful influence, and acting under
the guidance and protection of some god or hero, is decidedly foreign to
the present purpose.
It is felt that only two considerations are needed in applying the test
of sincerity to the Evangelists: (1) Character; (2) Motive. And this for
the reason that honest character and righteous motive are the legitimate
parentage of perfect sincerity. Then, as a primary consideration, in
discussing their sincerity, it may be reasonably contended that the
Gospel writers were either good men or bad. A middle ground is not
possible in their case, since the issues joined and the results attained
were too terrible and stupendous to have been produced by negative or
indifferent forces. Were they good men, then they believed what they
taught and wrote, and were sincere, else they deliberately palmed off
an imposture on the world, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis
that they were good. Were they bad men, then their lives and teachings
furnish a contradiction in principle and an inversion in the nature and
order of cause and effect which history has not elsewhere recorded,
either before or since; for, in their discourses and their writings,
they portrayed the divinest character and proclaimed the sublimest
truths known to the children of men. Every serious, thoughtful mind at
once inquires: Could bad men, conspirators and hypocrites, have painted
such a character--one whose perfect purity and sinless beauty mock and
shame the mental and spiritual attributes of every false prophet and of
all heathen gods? The Olympian Zeus, the sovereign creation of the
superb Greek intellect, was a fierce and vindictive deity--at times a
faithless spouse and a drunken debauchee. Mahomet, whom two hundred
millions of the human race worship as the Inspired of Allah, was cruel
and treacherous in warfare, and base and sensual in private life. The
Great Spirit of the Indian granted immortality to dogs, but denied it to
women. Other hideous and monstrous attributes deformed the images and
blurred the characters of pagan prophets and heathen divinities. But
Jesus of Nazareth was a pure and perfect being who claimed to be
sinless,[4] and whose claims have been admitted by all the world,
believers and unbelievers alike. The great truths taught by the gentle
Nazarene and transmitted by the Evangelists have brought balm and
healing to the nations, have proclaimed and established universal
brotherhood among men. Is it probable that such a character was painted
and such truths proclaimed by dishonest and insincere men? Can Vice be
the mother of Virtue? "Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of
thistles?" If Jesus was not really the pure and holy being portrayed by
the Gospels, then the Evangelists have created a sublime character in a
superb fiction which surpasses anything to be found in profane
literature, and that evil-minded men could neither have conceived nor
executed. It is impossible to derive from these reflections any other
conclusion than the absolute honesty and perfect sincerity of the
Evangelists. Besides, the mere perusal of their writings leaves a deep
impression that they were pure and pious men.
Again, a second and more serious consideration than that of character,
as affecting the sincerity of the Gospel writers, is the question of
motive. If the Evangelists were insincere and did not believe their own
story, what motive prompted them to tell it, to preach it and to die for
it? It is not believed that all men are now or have ever been wholly
selfish, but it is contended that desire for compensation is the main
inducement to human action, mental and manual. Reward is the great
golden key that opens the door of the Temple of Labor, and some form of
recompense, here or hereafter, explains all the bustling activity of
men. The Apostles themselves acted in obedience to this law, for we find
them quarreling among themselves as to place and precedence in the New
Kingdom. They even demanded of the Master the exact nature of their
reward for labors performed and sacrifices endured. To which reply was
made that they should sit on twelve thrones and judge the Twelve Tribes
of Israel.
Now let us apply this principle of expectation of reward to the conduct
of the Evangelists in preaching and publishing the Gospel of the
Nazarene, and let us note particularly the result as it affects the
question of motive in human conduct. But first let us review, for a
moment, the political and religious situation at the beginning of the
Apostolic ministry. The Master and Savior of the first Christians had
just perished as a malefactor on the cross. The religion which the
Apostles began to preach was founded in the doctrine of repentance from
sins, faith in the Crucified One, and belief in His resurrection from
the dead. Christianity, of which these elements were the essentials,
sought to destroy and supplant all other religions. No compromises were
proposed, no treaties were concluded. The followers of the Nazarene
raised a black flag against paganism and every heathen god. No quarter
was asked and none was given. This strange faith not only defied all
other religions, but mocked all earthly government not built upon it.
The small, but devoted, band, thus arrayed against themselves in the
very beginning all the opposing religious and secular forces of the
earth. Judaism branded the new creed as a disobedient and rebellious
daughter. Paganism denounced it as a sham and a fraud, because its
doctrines were unknown to the Portico and the Academy, and because its
teachings were ridiculed by both Stoics and Epicureans. The Roman State
cast a jealous and watchful eye upon the haughty pretensions of a
religious system that taught the impotence of kings and sought to
degrade earthly royalty.
In seeking, then, to establish the new faith and to inculcate its
doctrines, what could and did the Evangelists expect but the bitter
opposition which they met? Did they seriously hope to see the proud and
haughty Sadducee, who despised the common people, or the kingly
aristocracy of Rome, that vaunted a superhuman excellence, complacently
accept a religion that taught the absolute equality and the universal
brotherhood of men? Did they not expect what they actually
received--bitter persecution, horrible torture, and cruel death? Then we
are led to ask: Was this the recompense which they sought? Again, we
pose the question: What was the motive of these men in thus acting, if
they were dishonest and insincere? If they knew that they were preaching
a falsehood, what reward did they expect? Was it of an earthly or a
heavenly kind? It is unreasonable to suppose that they looked forward to
earthly recompense when their teachings arrayed against them every
spiritual and temporal potentate who had honors to grant or favors to
confer. Were they looking for heavenly reward? It is ridiculous to
imagine that they hoped to gain this by preaching a falsehood in this
world. Nothing could be, therefore, more absurd than the proposition
that a number of men banded themselves together, repudiated the ancient
faith of their fathers, changed completely their mode of life, became
austere in professing and practicing principles of virtue, spent their
entire lives proclaiming certain truths to mankind, and then suffered
the deaths of martyrs--all for the sake of a religion which they knew to
be false. If they did not believe it to be false, they were sincere, and
one element of their credibility is established. It is not a question at
this time as to the absolute correctness of their statements. These
statements might have been false, though their authors believed them to
be true--it is a question of sincerity at this point; and the test of
sincerity, as an element of credibility, rests upon the simple basis
that men are more disposed to believe the statement of a witness if it
is thought that the witness himself believes it.
(2) In the second place, let us consider the _ability_ of the
Evangelists as a test of their credibility as witnesses.
The text writers on the Law of Evidence are generally agreed that the
ability of a witness to speak truthfully and accurately depends upon two
considerations: (1) His natural powers of observation, which enable him
to clearly perceive, and his strength of memory, which enables him to
fully retain the matters of fact to which his testimony relates; (2) his
opportunities for observing the things about which he testifies.
To what extent the Gospel writers possessed the first of these
qualifications--that is, power of observation and strength of memory--we
are not informed by either history or tradition. But we are certainly
justified in assuming to be true what the law actually presumes: that
they were at least men of sound mind and average intelligence. This
presumption, it may be remarked, continues to exist in favor of the
witness until an objector appears who proves the contrary by competent
and satisfactory evidence. It is not believed that this proof has ever
been or can ever be successfully established in the case of the
Evangelists.
Aside from this legal presumption in their favor, there are certain
considerations which lead us to believe that they were well qualified to
speak truthfully and authoritatively about the matters relating to
Gospel history. In the first place, the writings themselves indicate
extraordinary mental vigor, as well as cultivated intelligence. The
Gospels of Luke and John, moreover, reveal that the elegance of style
and lofty imagery which are the invariable characteristics of
intellectual depth and culture. The "ignorant fishermen" idea is
certainly not applicable to the Gospel writers. If they were ever very
ignorant, at the time of the composition of the Evangelical writings
they had outgrown the affliction. The fact that the Gospels were written
in Greek by Hebrews indicates that they were not entirely illiterate.
Again, the occupations of two of them are very suggestive. Matthew was a
collector at the seat of customs,[5] and Luke was a physician.[6] Both
these callings required more than ordinary knowledge of men, as well as
accurate powers of observation, discrimination, and analysis.
But it has been frequently urged that, regardless of their natural
endowments, the Evangelists were biased in favor of Jesus and His
teachings, and bitterly prejudiced against all opposing faiths. In other
words, they were at the same moment both enthusiasts and fanatics. For
this reason, it is contended, their testimony is unreliable. This is
without doubt the weakest assault ever made upon the trustworthiness of
the Gospel narratives. That the Gospel writers were neither fanatics nor
enthusiasts is evident from the very tone and style of the Sacred
Writings themselves. The language of fanaticism and enthusiasm is the
language of rant and rage, of vituperation and of censure, on the one
hand, and of eulogy and adulation on the other. The enthusiast knows no
limit to the praise of those whose cause he advocates. The fanatic
places no bounds to his denunciation of those whom he opposes. Now, the
most remarkable characteristic of the New Testament histories is the
spirit of quiet dignity and simple candor which everywhere pervades
them. There is nowhere the slightest trace of bitterness or resentment.
There is enthusiasm everywhere in the sense of religious fervor, but
nowhere in the sense of unbecoming heat or impatient caviling. The three
eventful years of the ministry of Jesus afforded many opportunities for
the display of temper and for the use of invective in the Evangelical
writings. The murder of the Baptist by Herod; his cunning designs
against Jesus; the constant dogging of the footsteps of the Master by
the spies of the Sanhedrin; and His crucifixion by the order of Pontius
Pilate--what more could be desired to make the heart rage and the blood
boil? But nowhere is there the slightest exhibition of violent feeling
or extravagant emotion. A gentle forbearance, a mild equanimity, a
becoming dignity, mark every thought and utterance. The character of
Pilate, as portrayed in the New Testament, is a supreme illustration of
the fairness and magnanimity of the Gospel writers. Philo and Josephus
describe the Roman procurator as stubborn, cruel, and vindictive. The
only kindly suggestion touching the character of Pilate that has come
down from the ancient world, is that contained in the writings of men
who, above all others, would have been justified in describing him as
cowardly and craven. Instead of painting him as a monster, they have
linked conscience to his character and stored mercy in his heart, by
their accounts of his repeated attempts to release Jesus. Fanatics and
enthusiasts would not have done this.
Again, the absence of both bias and prejudice in the minds and hearts of
the Evangelists is shown by the fact that they did not hesitate to
record their own ludicrous foibles and blunders, and to proclaim them to
the world. A disposition to do this is one of the surest indications of
a truthful mind. It is in the nature of "a declaration against
interest," in the phraseology of the law; and such declarations are
believed because it has been universally observed that "men are not
likely to invent anecdotes to their own discredit." "When we find them
in any author," says Professor Fisher in his "Grounds of Theistic and
Christian Belief," "a strong presumption is raised in favor of his
general truthfulness." Many passages of New Testament Scriptures place
Jesus and the Apostles in a most unfavorable light before the world. The
denial of the Master by Peter[7] and His betrayal by Judas;[8] the
flight of the Eleven from the Garden at the time of the arrest;[9] the
ridiculous attempt of Peter to walk upon the sea and his failure because
of lack of faith;[10] the frequent childish contentions among the
disciples for place and precedence in the affections of Jesus and in the
New Kingdom;[11] the embassy from John the Baptist to Jesus asking if
He, Jesus, was the Messiah, after the latter had already visited the
former, and had been baptized by him;[12] the belief of the family of
Jesus that He was mad;[13] and the fact that His neighbors at Nazareth
threatened to kill Him by hurling Him from a cliff[14]--these various
recitals have furnished a handle to skeptical criticism in every age.
They might as well have been omitted from the Gospel histories; and they
would have been omitted by designing and untruthful men.
Again, touching the question of bias and prejudice, it is worthy of
observation that skeptics fail to apply the same rules of criticism to
sacred that they employ in profane literature. It is contended by them
that the Evangelists are unworthy of belief because their writings
record the words and deeds of their own Lord and Master. It is asserted
that this sacred and tender relationship warped and blinded their
Judgment, and disqualified them to write truthfully the facts and
circumstances connected with the life and ministry of the founder of
their faith. But these same critics do not apply the same tests of
credibility to secular writers sustaining similar relationships. The
Commentaries of Cæsar and the Anabasis of Xenophon record the mighty
deeds and brilliant achievements of their authors; but this fact does
not destroy their reliability as historical records in the estimation of
those who insist that the Gospel writers shall be rejected on grounds of
bias and partiality. The Memorabilia of Xenophon, "Recollections of
Socrates," is the tribute of an affectionate and admiring disciple; and
yet, all the colleges and universities of the world employ this work as
a text-book in teaching the life and style of conversation of the great
Athenian philosopher. It is never argued that the intimate relationship
existing between Xenophon and Socrates should affect the credibility of
the author of the Memorabilia. The best biography in the English
language is Boswell's "Life of Johnson." Boswell's admiration for Dr.
Johnson was idolatrous. At times, his servile flattery of the great
Englishman amounted to disgusting sycophancy. In spite of this, his work
is a monumental contribution to historical literature. The "Encyclopedia
Britannica" says that "Boswell has produced the best biography the world
has yet seen"; but why not reject this book because of its author's
spaniel-like devotion to the man whose life he has written? If Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John are to be repudiated on the ground of bias, why not
repudiate Cæsar, Xenophon, and Boswell? It is respectfully submitted
that there is no real difference in logic between the tests of
credibility applicable to sacred, and those required in the case of
profane writers. A just and exact criticism will apply the same rules to
both.
As to the second qualification above mentioned, under the second legal
test of credibility laid down by Starkie, that is, the opportunity of
observing facts and circumstances about which testimony is given, it may
safely be said that the majority of the Evangelists possessed it in the
highest degree. The most convincing testimony that can possibly be
offered in a court of law is that of an eyewitness who has seen or heard
what he testifies. Now, it is reasonably certain that all of the Gospel
writers were eyewitnesses of most of the events recorded by them in the
Gospel histories. Both Matthew and John were numbered among the Twelve
who constantly attended the Master in all His wanderings, heard His
discourses, witnessed the performance of His miracles, and proclaimed
His faith after He was gone. It is very probable that Mark was another
eyewitness of the events in the life and ministry of the Savior. It is
now very generally agreed that the author of the Second Gospel was the
young man who threw away his garment and fled at the time of the arrest
in the Garden.[15] If Mark was actually present at midnight in
Gethsemane peering through the shadows to see what would be done to the
Nazarene by the mob, it is more than probable that he was also a witness
of many other events in the life and ministry of the great Teacher.
But, whether this be true or not, it is very well settled that the
Second Gospel was dictated to Mark by Peter, who was as familiar with
all the acts and words of Jesus as was Matthew or John. The Christian
writers of antiquity unanimously testify that Mark wrote the Gospel
ascribed to him, at the dictation of Peter. If their testimony is true,
Peter is the real author of the Second Gospel. That the Gospel of Mark
was written by an eyewitness is the opinion of Renan, the skeptic, who
says: "In Mark, the facts are related with a clearness for which we seek
in vain amongst the other Evangelists. He likes to report certain words
of Jesus in Syro-Chaldean. He is full of minute observations, coming
doubtless from an eye-witness. There is nothing to prevent our agreeing
with Papias in regarding this eye-witness, who evidently had followed
Jesus, who had loved Him and observed Him very closely, and who had
preserved a lively image of Him, as the Apostle Peter himself."[16] The
same writer declares Matthew to have been an eyewitness of the events
described by him. He says: "On the whole, I admit as authentic the four
canonical Gospels. All, in my opinion, date from the first century, and
the authors are, generally speaking, those to whom they are attributed;
but their historic value is diverse. Matthew evidently merits an
unlimited confidence as to the discourses; they are the Logia, the
identical notes taken from a clear and lively remembrance of the
teachings of Jesus."[16]
That Luke was an eyewitness of many of the things recorded by him, and
that the others were related to him by eyewitnesses, is perfectly clear
from the introductory verses of his Gospel. In addressing his royal
patron, Theophilus, he assures him that those who communicated the
information contained in the Gospel to him were eyewitnesses; and
follows by saying that he himself had had "perfect understanding of all
things from the very first."[17] The evident meaning of this is that,
desiring full information for Theophilus, he had supplemented his own
personal knowledge by additional facts secured from eyewitnesses to
those things which, not being of the Twelve, he himself had not seen.
St. John was peculiarly well qualified to record the sayings and doings
of the Christ. He was called "the disciple whom Jesus loved." He was
admitted into the presence of the Savior, at all times, on terms of the
utmost intimacy and friendship. At the Last Supper, his head reposed
confidingly and lovingly upon the bosom of the Master. Together with
Peter and James, he witnessed the resurrection of Jairus' daughter; was
present at the Transfiguration on the Mount, and at the agony of the
Savior in the Garden. From the cross, Jesus placed upon him the tender
and pathetic burden of caring for His mother; and, running ahead of
Peter, he was the first among the Twelve to arrive at the open
sepulcher. By means of a favorable acquaintanceship with the High
Priest, he was enabled to gain access to the palace and to be present at
the trial of Jesus, as well as to introduce Peter, his friend.
It is thus clearly evident that the Evangelists were amply able, from
any point of view, to truthfully and accurately record the events
narrated in the Gospel histories. As eyewitnesses, being on the ground
and having the situation well in hand, they were certainly better
qualified to write truthful history of the events then occurring than
historians and critics who lived centuries afterwards.
But it is frequently contended that, if the Evangelists were
eyewitnesses of the leading events which they recorded, they committed
them to writing so long afterwards that they had forgotten them, or had
confused them with various traditions that had in the meantime grown up.
There may be some little truth in this contention, but not enough to
destroy the credibility of the witnesses as to events such as the
Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. These are not matters to be
easily forgotten or confused with other things. The date of the
composition and publication of the different Gospels is not known. But
Professor Holtzmann, of Heidelberg (a man who cannot be said to be
favorable to Christianity, since he was for several years the leader of
the freethinkers in the Grand Duchy of Baden), after many years of
careful study of the subject, declared that the Synoptic Gospels, the
first three, were committed to writing between the years 60 and 80 of
our era.[18] This was only from thirty to fifty years after the death of
Jesus. Could men of average memory and intelligence who had been almost
daily preaching the life and deeds of Jesus during these thirty or
fifty years have forgotten them? The testimony of Principal Drummond, of
Oxford, is very pertinent at this point. He says: "If we suppose that
the Synoptic Gospels were written from forty to sixty years after the
time of Christ, still they were based on earlier material, and even
after forty years the memory of characteristic sayings may be perfectly
clear.... I have not a particularly good memory, but I can recall many
sayings that were uttered forty, or even fifty, years ago, and in some
cases can vividly recollect the scene."[19]
If the Evangelists were eyewitnesses, which the records seem clearly to
indicate, they possessed one of the strongest tests of credibility.
(3) In the third place, as to their _number_ and the _consistency_ of
their testimony.
The credibility of a witness is greatly strengthened if his testimony is
corroborated by other witnesses who testify to substantially the same
thing. The greater the number of supporting witnesses, fraud and
collusion being barred, the greater the credibility of the witness
corroborated. But corroboration implies the presence in evidence of due
and reasonable consistency between the testimony of the witness
testifying and that of those corroborating. A radical discrepancy on a
material point not only fails to strengthen, but tends to destroy the
credibility of one or both the witnesses.
Now, the fierce fire of skeptical criticism during all the ages has been
centered upon the so-called discrepancies of the Gospel narratives. It
is asserted by many critics that these inconsistencies are so
numerous and so palpable, that the Gospel records are worthless, even as
secular histories. The authors of these writings, according to the
skeptics, mutually destroy each other.
[Illustration: ST. MARK AND ST. PAUL (DÜRER)]
In considering this phase of the credibility of the Gospel writers, it
must again be remembered that the question of inspiration has no place
in this discussion; and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John must be
regarded simply as secular historians. The reader is urged to consider
the biographers of the Christ as he would consider ordinary witnesses in
a court of law; to apply to them the same tests of credibility; to sift
and weigh their testimony in the same manner; and to subject them to the
same rules of cross-examination. If this is done, it is felt that the
result will be entirely favorable to the veracity and integrity of the
sacred writers.
In considering the subject of discrepancies it should be constantly kept
in mind that contradictions in testimony do not necessarily mean that
there has been falsehood or bad faith on the part of the witnesses.
Every lawyer of experience and every adult citizen of average
intelligence knows that this is true. Men of unquestioned veracity and
incorruptible integrity are frequently arrayed against each other in
both civil and criminal trials, and the record reveals irreconcilable
contradictions in their testimony. Not only do prosecutions for perjury
not follow, but, in many instances, the witnesses are not even suspected
of bad faith or an intention to falsify. Defects in sight, hearing, or
memory; superior advantage in the matter of observation; or a sudden
change in the position of one or both the parties, causing distraction
of attention, at the time of the occurrence of the events involved in
litigation--all or any of these conditions, as well as many others, may
create discrepancies and contradictions where there is a total absence
of any intention to misrepresent. A thorough appreciation of this fact
will greatly aid in a clear understanding of this phase of the
discussion.
Again, an investigation of the charge of discrepancy against the Gospel
writers shows that the critics and skeptics have classified mere
_omissions_ as contradictions. Nothing could be more absurd than to
consider an omission a contradiction, unless the requirements of the
case show that the facts and circumstances omitted were essential to be
stated, or that the omission was evidently intended to mislead or
deceive. Any other contention would turn historical literature
topsy-turvy and load it down with contradictions. Dion Cassius, Tacitus,
and Suetonius have all written elaborately of the reign of Tiberius.
Many things are mentioned by each that are not recorded by the other
two. Are we to reject all three as unreliable historians because of this
fact? Abbott, Hazlitt, Bourrienne, and Walter Scott have written
biographies of Napoleon Bonaparte. No one of them has recited all the
facts recorded by the others. Are these omissions to destroy the merits
of all these writers and cause them to be suspected and rejected?
Grafton's Chronicles rank high in English historical literature. They
comprise the reign of King John; and yet make no mention of the granting
of Magna Charta. This is as if the life of Jefferson had been written
without mention of the Declaration of Independence; or a biography of
Lincoln without calling attention to the Emancipation Proclamation.
Notwithstanding this strange omission, Englishmen still preserve
Grafton's Chronicles as valuable records among their archives. And the
same spirit of generous criticism is everywhere displayed in matters of
profane literature. The opponents of Christianity are never embarrassed
in excusing or explaining away omissions or contradictions, provided the
writer is a layman and his subject secular. But let the theme be a
sacred one, and the author an ecclesiastic--preacher, priest, or
prophet--and immediately incredulity rises to high tide, engulfs the
reason, and destroys all dispassionate criticism. Could it be forgotten
for a moment that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were biographers of the
Christ, a sacred person, no difficulties would arise in the matter of
inconsistencies, no objections would be made to their credibility. The
slight discrepancies that undoubtedly exist would pass unnoticed, or be
forever buried under the weight of an overwhelming conviction that they
are, in the main, accurate and truthful.
But the Evangelists were guided by inspiration, the skeptics say; and
discrepancies are inconsistent with the theory of inspiration. God would
not have inspired them to write contradictory stories. But the
assumption is false that they claimed to be guided by inspiration; for,
as Marcus Dods truthfully says, "none of our Gospels pretends to be
infallible or even _inspired_. Only one of them tells us how its writer
obtained his information, and that was by careful inquiry at the proper
sources."[20]
But whether the Gospel writers were inspired or not is immaterial so far
as the purpose of this chapter is concerned. The rules of evidence
testing their credibility would be the same in either case.
A more pertinent observation upon the Gospel discrepancies has not been
made than that by Paley in his "Evidences of Christianity," where he
says:
I know not a more rash or more unphilosophical conduct of the
understanding than to reject the substance of a story by reason of
some diversity in the circumstances with which it is related. The
usual character of human testimony is substantial truth under
circumstantial variety. This is what the daily experience of courts
of justice teaches. When accounts of a transaction come from the
mouths of different witnesses it is seldom that it is not possible
to pick out apparent or real inconsistencies between them. These
inconsistencies are studiously displayed by an adverse pleader, but
oftentimes with little impression upon the minds of the judges. On
the contrary, a close and minute agreement induces the suspicion of
confederacy and fraud. When written histories touch upon the same
scenes of action, the comparison almost always affords ground for a
like reflection. Numerous, and sometimes important, variations
present themselves; not seldom, also, absolute and final
contradictions; yet neither one nor the other are deemed sufficient
to shake the credibility of the main fact. The embassy of the Jews
to deprecate the execution of Claudian's order to place his statue
in their temple, Philo places in the harvest, Josephus in seed-time;
both contemporary writers. No reader is led by this inconsistency to
doubt whether such an embassy was sent, or whether such an order was
given. Our own history supplies examples of the same kind. In the
account of the Marquis of Argyll's death, in the reign of Charles
II, we have very remarkable contradiction. Lord Clarendon relates
that he was condemned to be hanged, which was performed the same
day; on the contrary, Burnet, Woodrow, Heath, Echard, concur in
stating that he was condemned upon the Saturday and executed upon a
Monday. Was any reader of English history ever skeptic enough to
raise from hence a question, whether the Marquis of Argyll was
executed or not? Yet this ought to be left in uncertainty, according
to the principles upon which the Christian history has sometimes
been attacked.[21]
The reader should most carefully consider the useful as well as the
damaging effect of Gospel inconsistencies in the matter of the
credibility of the Evangelists. A certain class of persons have imagined
the Gospel writers to be common conspirators who met together at the
same time and place to devise ways and means of publishing a false
report to the world. This is a silly supposition, since it is positively
known that the authors of the Evangelical narratives wrote and published
them at different times and places. Moreover, the style and contents of
the books themselves negative the idea of a concerted purpose to
deceive. And, besides, the very inconsistencies themselves show that
there was no "confederacy and fraud"; since intelligent conspirators
would have fabricated exactly the same story in substantially the same
language.
Furthermore, a just and impartial criticism will consider not only the
discrepant but also the corroborative elements in the New Testament
histories. It should not be forgotten that the authors of the Gospels
were independent historians who wrote at different times and places.
Then, in all matters of fact in which there is a common agreement, they
may be said to fully corroborate each other. And it may be contended
without fear of successful contradiction that, when so considered, there
will be found numerous cases of corroboration where there is one of
discord or inconsistency.
The corroborative elements or features in the Evangelical narratives may
be classified under three headings: (1) Instances in which certain
historical events related by one of the Gospel writers are also told by
one or more of the others. These are cases of ordinary corroboration.
(2) Instances in which the recital of a certain fact by one of the
Evangelists would be obscure or meaningless unless explained or
supplemented by another. These may be regarded as examples of internal
confirmation. (3) Instances in which the fact related by one Evangelist
must be true from the nature of the case, regardless of what the others
have said. This is the simple confirmation of logic or reason.
A few illustrations will serve to make clear this classification.
Under the first heading of "ordinary corroboration" may be mentioned the
accounts of the miracle of feeding the five thousand. All the
Evangelists tell us of this event, and each records the fact that the
fragments taken up were _twelve baskets full_.[22]
Under the second heading of "internal confirmation" the following
instances may be cited:
Matt. xxvi. 67, 68: "And others smote him with the palms of their
hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote
thee?"
A caviling criticism would demand: Why ask of the Christ to _prophesy_
to those in His presence? And the obscurity would be damaging, were it
not for an additional sentence in Luke, who records the same
circumstance. "_And when they had blindfolded him_, they struck him on
the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, Who is it that smote
thee?"[23] The fact that Jesus was blindfolded, which is told by Luke,
explains the use of the word "prophesy" by Matthew, which would
otherwise be absurd.
Again, Matt. xiii. 2: "And great multitudes were gathered together with
him, so that he went into the ship, and sat." Here, the definite article
points to a particular ship which Matthew fails to mention. But Mark
comes to his aid and clearly explains the statement: "And he spake to
his disciples, that a small vessel should wait upon him because of the
multitude, lest they should throng him." These two passages taken
together identify the ship.
Again, John vi. 5: "When Jesus lifted up his eyes, and saw a great
company come to him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread
that these may eat?" This is one of the only two places in the Gospel
where Jesus addressed this Apostle. But why ask Philip instead of one of
the others? Two other passages, one from John and one from Luke, furnish
an explanation. In John i. 44 we read that "Philip was of Bethsaida." In
Luke ix. 10 we learn that the scene of the event, the miracle of
feeding the five thousand, was "a desert place belonging to the city
called Bethsaida." The reason, then, for addressing Philip, instead of
one of the other Apostles, is clear. Bethsaida was the home of Philip;
and he would naturally, therefore, be more familiar with the location of
the bread shops than the others. In John vi., where the question is
asked, neither the place of the feeding nor the apostle questioned is
even remotely connected with the city of Bethsaida; and in Luke the
account of the miracle says nothing of Philip or the question put to
him. But when the passages are connected the striking coincidence
appears, and the explanation is complete.
Again, John xviii. 10: "Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and
smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The
servant's name was Malchus." It has been objected that there is nowhere
an account of the arrest or punishment of Peter for this assault and
resistance to armed authority; and that, therefore, there was no such
occurrence. A passage from Luke explains the failure to arrest. "And
Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far, and he touched his ear and
healed him."[24] The healing of the ear explains why no arrest followed;
for, if charges had been made, there would have been no evidence of the
gravity of the offense. Indeed, witnesses against Peter would have been
completely confounded and humiliated by the result of the miracle; and
might have been driven from court as malicious accusers. Then, the
failure to arrest is a silent corroboration of the statement that the
event occurred and that the miracle was performed.
Under the third heading, of the "confirmation of logic or reason," a
single instance will suffice.
John xx. 4: "And the other disciple did outrun Peter and came first to
the sepulchre." The "other disciple" was St. John, who is generally
conceded to have been the youngest of the Apostles. And St. Peter, we
may judge from John xxi. 18, was already past the meridian of life. What
could be more natural than that the younger man should outrun the older
and arrive first at the sepulcher? What better proof could be expected
of the fact of the existence of that sweetness and modesty in youth
which respects old age, and that endeared John to Jesus above all
others, than we have here, where the younger man awaits the arrival of
the older before beginning to explore the deserted tomb?
Examples similar to these might be multiplied at length, since the
Gospel histories are filled with them; but those above mentioned are
deemed sufficient to illustrate the theory of corroboration. The
instances of internal confirmation in the New Testament narratives are
especially convincing. They are arguments and proofs in the nature of
undesigned coincidences which, from the very nature of the case, shut
out all possibility of collusion or fraud. In most cases they are
expressed in a single phrase and represent an isolated thought
corroborative of some other elsewhere expressed. Though small, detached,
and fragmentary, like particles of dynamite, they operate with
resistless force when collected and combined.
Once more attention is called to the fact that these discrepancies
negative completely the idea that the Gospel writers were conspirators,
bent upon the common purpose of deceiving mankind by publishing a false
history to the world. Nothing could be more absurd than to suppose that
men conspiring to perpetrate a fraud, would neglect a fundamental
principle underlying all successful conspiracy; that is, the creation
and maintenance of a due and reasonable consistency between the words
and deeds of the conspirators in formulating plans for carrying out the
common purpose. Then, if there was no previous concert, the fact that
four men, writing at different times and places, concurred in framing
substantially the same history, is one of the strongest proofs of the
credibility of the writers and the truthfulness of their narratives. And
on this point the testimony of a very great writer may be quoted: that
"in a number of concurrent testimonies, where there has been no previous
concert, there is a probability distinct from that which may be termed
the sum of the probabilities resulting from the testimonies of the
witnesses; a probability which would remain, even though the witnesses
were of such a character as to merit no faith at all. This probability
arises from the concurrence itself. That such a concurrence should
spring from chance is as one to infinite; that is, in other words,
morally impossible. If, therefore, concert be excluded, there remains no
cause but the reality of the fact."[25]
Apply the theory of probability, arising from concurrent testimonies,
where there has been no previous concert, to the case of the
Evangelists, and we are at once convinced that they were truthful and
that their histories are true.
(4) Let us now consider the _conformity of the testimony of the
Evangelists with human experience_. This is the fourth legal test of the
credibility of witnesses prescribed by Starkie.
The conformity of testimony with experience is one of the most potent
and universally applied tests of the credibility of witnesses. And it
may be remarked that its application is not confined to judicial
proceedings or to courts of law. It requires no professional attainments
to make it effective. The blacksmith and carpenter, as well as the judge
and jury, employ it in every mental operation where the statements of
others are submitted to analysis and investigation. A new theory being
proposed, the correctness of which is questioned, the test of experience
is at once applied. If it is not in harmony with what we have seen and
heard and felt, we usually reject it; or, at least, doubt it. If an
explorer should return from the Arctic regions and tell us that he had
seen oranges, such as we import from Florida, growing on trees near the
North Pole, we would not believe him. Neither would we credit the
statement of a traveler from South America that he had seen Polar bears
browsing on the banks of the Amazon. These representations would be
utterly inconsistent with what we know to be the essential conditions of
orange culture, and with the well-known habits and climatic nature of
the Polar bear. An ancient document, purporting to date from the time
of Washington and the Revolution, and containing recitals about
railways, telegraphs, telephones, and electric lights, would be
recognized at once as spurious, because our own experience as well as
facts of history would tell us that there were no such things in the
days of Washington and the American Revolution. These are simple
illustrations of the application of the test of experience in the mental
processes of weighing and sifting the testimony of others.
Now, no serious objection to the credibility of the Gospel writers has
been made under the test of the conformity of their statements with
experience, except in the matter of miracles. It is generally admitted,
even by skeptics, that the facts stated in the New Testament narratives
might have happened in the due course of nature and in harmony with
human experience, except where miracles are related.
A few skeptics have declared that a miracle is an impossibility and that
the Evangelists were either deceivers or deceived when they wrote their
accounts of the miraculous performances of the Christ; and that, whether
deceivers or deceived, they are unworthy of belief. The great antagonist
of the theory of miracles among those who assert their impossibility is
Spinoza, who has thus written: "A miracle, whether contrary to or above
nature, is a sheer absurdity. Nothing happens in nature which does not
follow from its laws; these laws extend to all which enters the Divine
mind; and, lastly, nature proceeds in a fixed and changeless
course--whence it follows that the word 'miracle' can only be
understood in relation to the opinions of mankind, and signifies nothing
more than an event, a phenomenon, the cause of which cannot be explained
by another familiar instance.... I might say, indeed, that a miracle was
_that_, the cause of which cannot be explained by our _natural
understanding from the known principles of natural things_."
The radical antagonism of Spinoza to the doctrine of miracles, as taught
in the New Testament scriptures, was the legitimate offspring of his
peculiar philosophy. He was a pantheist and identified God with nature.
He did not believe in a personal God, separate from and superior to
nature. He repudiated the theory of a spiritual kingdom having a
spiritual sovereign to whom earth and nature are subject and obedient.
Therefore, every manifestation of power which he could not identify with
a natural force he believed was unreal, if not actually deceptive and
fraudulent; since he could not imagine anything superior to nature that
could have created the phenomenon. His denial of miracles was, then,
really nothing less than a denial of the existence of a personal God who
spoke the earth into being in the very beginning; and has since, with a
watchful paternal eye, followed its movements and controlled its
destiny.
The question of miracles is really a matter of faith and not a problem
of science. It is impossible to either prove or disprove the nature of a
miracle by physical demonstration. In other words, it is impossible to
analyze a miracle from the standpoint of chemistry or physics. The
performance of a miracle, nevertheless, may be proved by ordinary human
testimony, as any other event may be proved. We may testify to the fact
without being able to understand or to demonstrate the cause.
Those who believe that there are distinct spiritual as well as physical
forces in the universe; that there is somewhere an omniscient and
omnipotent Spiritual Being who has but to will the creation of a planet
or the destruction of matter in order to accomplish the result desired,
can easily believe in the exercise of miraculous power. Those who
believe the Bible account of the creation, that God said in the
beginning, "Let there be light: and there was light"--such persons find
no difficulty in believing that Jesus converted water into wine or
caused the lame to walk, if they believe that He was this same God
"manifest in the flesh." A divinity who, in the morning of creation,
spoke something out of nothing, would certainly not be impotent to
restore life to Lazarus or sight to the blind Bartimeus.
The trouble with the philosophy of Spinoza is that his own high
priestess--Nature--seems to be constantly working miracles under his own
definition; and miracles, too, that very closely resemble the wonders
said to have been wrought by the Christ. Milk is taken into the stomach,
subjected to various processes of digestion, is then thrown into the
blood and finally becomes flesh and bone. The ultimate step in this
process of transformation is unknown and, perhaps, unknowable to
scientists. No deeper mystery is suggested by the New Testament
scriptures. The conversion of water into wine is no stranger, no more
incomprehensible than the transformation of milk into flesh and bone. It
may be admitted that the chemical elements are the same throughout in
one process and different in the other. Nevertheless, the results of
both are perfectly described by Spinoza's definition, "that a miracle
was _that_, the cause of which cannot be explained by our _natural
understanding from the known principles of natural things_."
It may be truthfully remarked that nature is everywhere and at all times
working wonders in harmony with and parallel to the miracles wrought by
the spiritual forces of the universe. God's sovereign miracle may be
described as the changing of a man, with all his sins and imperfections,
into a winged spirit, thus fitting him to leave the coarse and vulgar
earth for life among the stars. Nature, in her feeble way, tries to
imitate the wonder by transforming the caterpillar into a butterfly,
thus fitting it to leave the dunghill for life among the flowers.
Spinoza insists that miracles are impossible because "nature proceeds in
a fixed and changeless course." But is this really true? Are the laws of
nature invariably uniform? Does not nature seem at times tired of
uniformity and resolved to rise to liberty by the creation of what we
call a miracle, or more vulgarly, a "freak"? Moving in what Spinoza is
pleased to call a "fixed and changeless course," nature ordinarily
provides a chicken with two legs and a snake with one head. But what
about chickens with three legs and snakes with two heads, such as are
frequently seen? Was nature moving in a fixed and changeless course when
these things were created? Could Spinoza have explained such phenomena
by his "natural understanding from the known principles of natural
things"? Would he have contented himself with calling them natural
"accidents" or "freaks"? Nevertheless, they are miracles under his
definition; and the entire subject must be discussed and debated with
reference to some standard or definition of a miracle. If nature
occasionally, in moments of sportiveness or digression, upsets her own
laws and creates what we call "freaks," why is it unreasonable to
suppose that the great God who created nature should not, at times,
temporarily suspend the laws which He has made for the government of the
universe, or even devote them to strange and novel purposes in the
creation of those noble phenomena which we call miracles?
Other skeptics, like Renan, do not deny the possibility of miracles, but
simply content themselves with asserting that there is no sufficient
proof that such things ever happened. They thus repudiate the testimony
of the Evangelists in this regard. "It is not," says Renan, "then, in
the name of this or that philosophy, but in the name of universal
experience, that we banish miracle from history. We do not say that
miracles are impossible. We do say that up to this time a miracle has
never been proved." Then the Breton biographer and philosopher gives us
his idea of the tests that should be made in order to furnish adequate
proof that a miracle has been performed. "If to-morrow," he says, "a
thaumaturgus presents himself with credentials sufficiently important to
be discussed and announces himself as able, say, to raise the dead, what
would be done? A commission composed of physiologists, physicists,
chemists, persons accustomed to historical criticism would be named.
This commission would choose a corpse, would assure itself that the
death was real, would select a room in which the experiment should be
made, would arrange the whole system of precautions, so as to leave no
chance of doubt. If, under such conditions, the resurrection were
effected, a probability almost equal to certainty would be established.
As, however, it ought to be possible always to repeat an experiment--to
do over again that which has been done once; and as, in the order of
miracle, there can be no question of ease or difficulty, the
thaumaturgus would be invited to reproduce his marvelous act under other
circumstances, upon other corpses, in another place. If the miracle
should succeed each time, two things would be proved: first, that
supernatural events happen in the world; second, that the power of
producing them belongs or is delegated in certain persons. But who does
not see that no miracle ever took place under these conditions? But that
always hitherto the thaumaturgus has chosen the subject of the
experiment, chosen the spot, chosen the public?"[26]
This is an extract from the celebrated "Life of Jesus" by Renan, and is
intended to demolish the Gospel account of the miracles of the Christ.
It is not too much to say that the great skeptic has failed to exhibit
his usual fairness in argument. He has indirectly compared Jesus to a
thaumaturgus, and has inferentially stated that in the performance of
His miracles He "chose the subject of his experiment, chose the spot,
chose the public." Every student of New Testament history knows that
this is not true of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
performance of miracles by Christ. It is true that vulgar curiosity and
caviling incredulity were not gratified by the presence of specially
summoned "physiologists, physicists, and chemists." But it is equally
true that such persons were not prevented from being present; that there
was no attempt at secrecy or concealment; and that no subject of
experiment, particular spot, or special audience was ever chosen. The
New Testament miracles were wrought, as a general thing, under the open
sky, in the street, by the wayside, on the mountain slope, and in the
presence of many people, both friends and enemies of Jesus. There was no
searching or advertising for subjects for experiment. Far from choosing
the subject, the spot, and the public, Jesus exercised His miraculous
powers upon those who came voluntarily to Him suffering with some
dreadful malady and asking to be cured. In some instances, the case of
affliction was of long standing and well known to the community. The
healing was done publicly and witnessed by many people.
Renan suggests that the thaumaturgus mentioned in his illustration would
be required to repeat his performance in the matter of raising the dead
before he would be fully believed. This reminds us that Jesus wrought
many miracles. More than forty are recorded in the Gospel narratives;
and in the closing verse of St. John, there is a strong intimation that
He performed many that were never recorded. These, it is respectfully
submitted, were amply sufficient to demonstrate His miraculous powers.
Whatever form infidelity may assume in its antagonism to the doctrine of
miracles, it will be found that the central idea is that such things are
not founded in experience; and that this test of credibility fails in
the case of the Gospel writers, because they knowingly recorded
impossible events. It would be idle to attempt to depreciate the value
of this particular test; but it must be observed that nothing is more
fallacious, unless properly defined and limited. It must be remembered
that the experience of one man, nation, or generation is not necessarily
that of another man, nation, or generation. The exact mechanical
processes employed by the Egyptians in raising the pyramids are as much
a mystery to modern scientists as a Marconigram would be to a savage of
New Guinea. The Orient and the Occident present to each other almost
miraculous forms of diversity in manners, habits, and customs, in modes
of thought and life. "The Frenchman says, 'I am the best dyer in Europe:
nobody can equal me, and nobody can surpass Lyons.' Yet in Cashmere,
where the girls make shawls worth $30,000, they will show him three
hundred distinct colors, which he not only cannot make, but cannot even
distinguish." Sir Walter Scott, in his "Tales of the Crusaders,"
thrillingly describes a meeting between the Turkish Saladin and the
English Richard Coeur-de-Lion. Saladin asked Richard to give him an
exhibition of his marvelous strength. The Norman monarch picked up an
iron bar from the floor of the tent and severed it. The Mahometan
crusader was amazed. Richard then asked him what he could do. Saladin
replied that he could not pull iron apart like that, but that he could
do something equally as wonderful. Thereupon, he took an eider-down
pillow from the sofa, and drew his keen, Damascus-tempered blade across
it, which caused it to fall into two pieces. Richard cried in
astonishment: "This is the black art; it is magic; it is the devil: you
cannot cut that which has no resistance!" Here Occidental strength and
Oriental magic met and wrought seeming miracles in the presence of each
other. In his great lecture on "The Lost Arts," Wendell Phillips says
that one George Thompson told him that he saw a man in Calcutta throw a
handful of floss silk into the air, and that a Hindoo severed it into
pieces with his saber. A Western swordsman could not do this.
Objectors to miracles frequently ask why they are not performed to-day,
why we never see them. To which reply may be made that, under Spinoza's
definition, miracles are being wrought every day not only by nature, but
by man. Why call Edison "the magician" and "the wizard," unless the
public believes this? But is it any argument against the miracles of
Jesus that similar ones are not seen to-day? Have things not been done
in the past that will never be repeated? We have referred to the
pyramids of Egypt and to the lost art involved in their construction. A
further illustration may be found in the origin of man. One of two
theories is undoubtedly true: that the first man and woman came into the
world without being born; or that man and woman are the products of
evolution from lower orders of animals. No other theories have ever been
advanced as to the origin of the human race. Now, it is certain that
modern generations have never experienced either of these things, for
all the human beings of to-day were undoubtedly born of other human
beings, and it is certain that the process of evolution stopped long
ago, since men and women were as perfect physically and mentally four
thousand years ago as they are to-day. In other words, the processes
which originated man are things of the past, since we have no Garden of
Eden experiences to-day, nor is there any universal metamorphosis of
monkeys going on. Therefore, to argue that the miracles of Jesus did not
happen, because we do not see such things to-day, is to deny the
undoubted occurrences of history and developments of human life, because
such occurrences and developments are no longer familiar to us and our
generation.
To denounce everything as false that we have not individually seen,
heard, and felt, would be to limit most painfully the range of the
mental vision. The intellectual horizon would not be greatly extended
should we join with our own the experience of others that we have seen
and known. Much information is reported by telegraphic despatch and
many things are told us by travelers that we should accept as true;
although such matters may have no relation to what we have ever seen or
heard. Else, we should be as foolish as the king of Siam who rejected
the story of the Dutch ambassador, that in Holland water was frequently
frozen into a solid mass. In the warm climate of the East Indian tropics
the king had never seen water so congealed and, therefore, he refused to
believe that such a thing had ever happened anywhere.
Experience is a most logical and reasonable test if it is sufficiently
extended to touch all the material phases of the subject under
investigation. It is a most dangerous one if we insist upon judging the
material and spiritual universe, with its infinite variety of forms and
changes, by the limited experience of a simple and isolated life, or by
the particular standards of any one age or race. A progressive
civilization, under such an application of the test, would be
impossible, since each generation of men would have to begin _de novo_,
and be restricted to the results of its own experience. The enforcement
of such a doctrine would prevent, furthermore, the acceptance of the
truths of nature discovered by inventive genius or developed by physical
or chemical research, until such truths had become matters of universal
experience. Every man would then be in the position of the incredulous
citizen who, having been told that a message had been sent by wire from
Baltimore to Washington announcing the nomination of James K. Polk for
the presidency, refused to believe in telegraphic messages until he
could be at both ends of the line at once. The art of telegraphy was a
reality, nevertheless, in spite of his incredulity and inexperience. The
American savages who first beheld the ships of Columbus are said to have
regarded them as huge birds from heaven and to have refused to believe
that they were boats, because, in their experience, they had never seen
such immense canoes with wings. Herodotus tells us of some daring
sailors who crept along the coast of Africa beyond the limits usually
visited at that time. They came back home with a wonderful account of
their trip and told the story that they had actually reached a country
where their shadows fell toward the south at midday. They were not
believed, and their report was rejected with scorn and incredulity by
the inhabitants of the Mediterranean coasts, because their only
experience was that a man's shadow always pointed toward the north; and
they did not believe it possible that shadows could be cast otherwise.
But the report of the sailors was true, nevertheless.[27]
These simple illustrations teach us that beings other than ourselves
have had experiences which are not only different from any that we have
ever had, but are also either temporarily or permanently beyond our
comprehension. And the moral of this truth, when applied to the
statements of the Evangelists regarding miracles, is that the fortunate
subjects and witnesses of the miraculous powers of Jesus might have had
experiences which we have never had and that we cannot now clearly
comprehend.
(5) In the fifth and last place, as to the _coincidence of their
testimony with collateral circumstances_.
This is the chief test of credibility in all those cases where the
witness, whose testimony has been reduced to writing, is dead, absent,
or insane. Under such circumstances it is impossible to apply what may
be termed personal tests on cross-examination; that is, to develop the
impeaching or corroborating features of bias, prejudice, and personal
demeanor to the same extent as when the witness is still living and
testifies orally. When a written narrative is all that we have, its
reliability can only be ascertained by a close inspection of its parts,
comparing them with each other, and then with collateral and
contemporaneous facts and circumstances. The value of this test cannot
be over-estimated, and Greenleaf has stated very fully and concisely the
basis upon which it rests. "Every event," he says, "which actually
transpires, has its appropriate relation and place in the vast
complication of circumstances of which the affairs of men consist; it
owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, is intimately
connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and
often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to
numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable
contexture and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the
fact which really happened tallies exactly with every other
contemporaneous incident related to it in the remotest degree, it is not
possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely
compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may
not be shown to be false."[28]
[Illustration: ST. JOHN AND ST. PETER (DÜRER)]
This principle offers a wide field to the skill of the cross-examiner,
and enables him frequently to elicit truth or establish falsehood when
all other tests have failed. It is a principle also perfectly well known
to the perjurer and to the suborner of witnesses. Multiplicity of
details is studiously avoided by the false witness, who dreads
particularity and feels that safety lies in confining his testimony as
nearly as possible to a single fact, whose attendant facts and
circumstances are few and simple. When the witness is too ignorant to
understand the principle and appreciate the danger, his attorney, if he
consents to dishonor his profession and pollute the waters of justice
with corrupt testimony, may be depended upon to administer proper
warning. The witness will be told to know as few things and to remember
as little as possible concerning matters about which he has not been
previously instructed. The result will be that his testimony, especially
in matters in which he is compelled by the court to testify, will be
hesitating, restrained, unequal, and unnatural. He will be served at
every turn by a most convenient memory which will enable him to forget
many important and to remember many unimportant facts and circumstances.
He will betray a painful hesitancy in the matter of committing himself
upon any particular point upon which he has not been already drilled.
The truthful witness, on the other hand, is usually candid, ingenuous,
and copious in his statements. He shows a willingness to answer all
questions, even those involving the minutest details, and seems totally
indifferent to the question of verification or contradiction. The
texture of his testimony is, therefore, equal, natural, and
unrestrained.
Now these latter characteristics mark every page of the New Testament
histories. The Gospel writers wrote with the utmost freedom, and
recorded in detail and with the utmost particularity, the manners,
customs, habits, and historic facts contemporaneous with their lives.
The naturalness and ingenuousness of their writings are simply
marvelous. There is nowhere any evidence of an attempt to conceal, patch
up, or reconcile. No introductory exclamations or subsequent
explanations which usually characterize false testimony appear anywhere
in their writings. They were seemingly absolutely indifferent to whether
they were believed or not. Their narratives seem to say: These are
records of truth; and if the world rejects them it rejects the facts of
history. Such candor and assurance are always overwhelmingly impressive;
and in every forum of debate are regarded as unmistakable signs of
truth.
The Evangelists, it must be assumed, were fully aware of the danger of
too great particularity in the matter of false testimony, and would have
hesitated to commit themselves on so many points if their statements had
been untrue. We have already noted the opinion of Professor Holtzmann,
of Heidelberg, that the Synoptic Gospels were committed to writing
between the years 60 and 80 of our era. At that time it is certain that
there were still living many persons who were familiar with the events
in the life and teachings of the Savior, as well as with the numerous
other facts and circumstances related by the sacred writers. St. Paul,
in I Cor. xv. 6, speaks of five hundred brethren to whom the risen Jesus
appeared at one time; and he adds, "_of whom the greater part remain
unto this present, but some are fallen asleep_." And it must be
remembered that this particular group of two hundred and fifty or more
were certainly not the only persons then living who had a distinct
remembrance of the Master, His teachings, and His miracles. Many who had
been healed by Him, children who had sat upon His knee and been blessed
by Him, and many members of the Pharisaic party and of the Sadducean
aristocracy who had persecuted Him and had then slain Him, were
doubtless still living and had a lively recollection of the events of
the ministry of the Nazarene. Such persons were in a position to
disprove from their personal knowledge false statements made by the
Evangelists. A consciousness of this fact would have been, within
itself, a strong inducement to tell the truth.
But not only are the Gospels not contradicted by contemporaneous
writers; they are also not impeached or disproved by later scientific
research and historical investigation. And at this point we come to make
a direct application of the test of the coincidence of their testimony
with collateral and contemporaneous history. For this purpose, as a
matter of illustration, only facts in profane history corroborative of
the circumstances attending the trial and crucifixion of the Master
will be cited.
In the first place, the Evangelists tell us that Pontius Pilate sat in
judgment on the Christ. Both Josephus and Tacitus tell us that Pilate
was governor of Judea at that time.[29]
In John xviii. 31 we read: "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and
judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, _It
is not lawful for us to put any man to death._" From many profane
historians, ancient and modern, we learn that the power of life and
death had been taken from the Jews and vested in the Roman governor.[30]
In John xix. 16, 17 occurs this passage: "And they took Jesus, and led
him away; and he, _bearing his cross_, went forth." This corroborative
sentence is found in Plutarch: "Every kind of wickedness produces its
own particular torment; just as every malefactor, when he is brought
forth to execution, _carries his own cross_."[31]
In Matthew xxvii. 26 we read: "When he had scourged Jesus, he delivered
him to be crucified." That scourging was a preliminary to crucifixion
among the Romans is attested by many ancient writers, among whom may be
mentioned Josephus and Livy. The following passages are taken from
Josephus:
Whom, having _first scourged with whips_, he crucified.[32]
Being _beaten_, they were crucified opposite to the citadel.[33]
He was burned alive, _having been first beaten_.[34]
From Livy, a single sentence will suffice:
All were led out, _beaten with rods_, and beheaded.[35]
In John xix. 19, 20 we read: "And Pilate wrote a title and put it on the
cross; and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." That it was
a custom among the Romans to affix the accusation against the criminal
to the instrument of his punishment appears from several ancient
writers, among them Suetonius and Dion Cassius. In Suetonius occurs this
sentence: "He exposed the father of the family to the dogs, with this
_title_, 'A gladiator, impious in speech.'"[36] And in Dion Cassius
occurs the following: "Having led him through the midst of the court or
assembly, _with a writing signifying the cause of his death, and
afterwards crucifying him_."[37]
And finally, we read in John xix. 32: "Then came the soldiers and _brake
the legs_ of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him."
By an edict of Constantine, the punishment of crucifixion was abolished.
Speaking in commendation of this edict, a celebrated heathen writer
mentions the circumstances of _breaking the legs_. "He was pious to such
a degree," says this writer, "that he was the first to set aside that
very ancient punishment, the cross, with the _breaking of legs_."[38]
If we leave the narrow circle of facts attendant upon the trial and
crucifixion of Jesus with its corroborative features of contemporary
history, and consider the Gospel narratives as a whole, we shall find
that they are confirmed and corroborated by the facts and teachings of
universal history and experience. An examination of these narratives
will also reveal a divine element in them which furnishes conclusive
proof of their truthfulness and reliability. A discussion of the divine
or spiritual element in the Gospel histories would be foreign to the
purpose of this treatise. The closing pages of Part I will be devoted to
a consideration of the human element in the New Testament narratives.
This will be nothing more than an elaboration of the fifth legal test of
credibility mentioned by Starkie.
By the human or historical element of credibility in the Gospel
histories is meant that likeness or resemblance in matters of
representation of fact to other matters of representation of fact which
we find recorded in secular histories of standard authority whose
statements we are accustomed to accept as true. The relations of
historic facts to each other, and the connections and coincidences of
things known or believed to be true with still others sought to be
proved, form a fundamental ground of belief, and are, therefore,
reliable modes of proof. The most casual perusal of the New Testament
narratives suggests certain striking resemblances between the events
therein narrated and well-known historical occurrences related by
secular historians whose statements are implicitly believed. Let us
draw a few parallels and call attention to a few of these resemblances.
Describing the anguish of the Savior in the Garden, St. Luke says: "And
being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly: And his sweat was as it
were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."[39]
This strange phenomenon of the "bloody sweat" has been of such rare
occurrence in the history of the world that its happening in Gethsemane
has been frequently denied. The account of it has been ascribed to the
overwrought imagination of the third Evangelist in recording the errors
of tradition. And yet similar cases are well authenticated in the works
of secular writers. Tissot reports a case of "a sailor who was so
alarmed by a storm, that through fear he fell down, and his face sweated
blood which, during the whole continuance of the storm, returned like
ordinary sweat, as fast as it was wiped away."[40] Schenck cites the
case of "a nun who fell into the hands of soldiers; and, on seeing
herself encompassed with swords and daggers threatening instant death,
was so terrified and agitated that she discharged blood from every part
of her body, and died of hemorrhage in the sight of her assailants."[41]
Writing of the death of Charles IX of France, Voltaire says: "The
disease which carried him off is very uncommon; his blood flowed from
all his pores. This malady, of which there are some examples, is the
result either of excessive fear, furious passion, or of a violent and
melancholic temperament."[42] The same event is thus graphically
described by the old French historian, De Mezeray: "After the vigor of
his youth and the energy of his courage had long struggled against his
disease, he was at length reduced by it to his bed at the castle of
Vincennes, about the 8th of May, 1574. During the last two weeks of his
life his constitution made strange efforts. He was affected with spasms
and convulsions of extreme violence. He tossed and agitated himself
continually and his blood gushed from all the outlets of his body, even
from the pores of his skin, so that on one occasion he was found bathed
in a bloody sweat."[43]
If the sailor, the nun, and the king of France were afflicted with the
"bloody sweat," why should it seem incredible that the man Jesus, the
carpenter of Nazareth, should have been similarly afflicted? If Tissot,
Schenck, and Voltaire are to be believed, why should we refuse to
believe St. Luke? If St. Luke told the truth in this regard, why should
we doubt his statements concerning other matters relating to the life,
death, and resurrection of the Son of God? Does not Voltaire, the most
brilliant and powerful skeptic that ever lived, corroborate in this
particular the biographer of the Christ?
Let us pass to another instance of resemblance and corroboration. While
describing the crucifixion, St. John wrote the following: "But one of
the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there
out _blood and water_."[44] Early skeptical criticism denied the account
of the flowing of blood and water from the side of the Savior because,
in the first place, the other Evangelists did not mention the
circumstance; and, in the second place, it was an unscientific fact
stated. But modern medical science has very cleverly demonstrated that
Jesus, according to the Gospel accounts, died of rupture of the heart.
About the middle of the last century, a celebrated English physician and
surgeon, Dr. Stroud, wrote a treatise entitled, "Physical Cause of the
Death of Christ." In this book, he proved very clearly that cardiac
rupture was the immediate cause of the death of Jesus on the cross. Many
arguments were adduced to establish this fact. Among others, it was
urged that the shortness of time during which the sufferer remained upon
the cross and His loud cry just before "He gave up the ghost," tended to
prove that a broken heart was the cause of the death of the Man of
Sorrows. But the strongest proof, according to the author of this work,
was the fact that blood and water flowed from the dead man when a spear
was thrust into His side. This, says Dr. Stroud, has happened frequently
when the heart was suddenly and violently perforated after death from
cardiac rupture. Within a few hours after death from this cause, he
says, the blood frequently separates into its constituent parts or
essential elements: _crassamentum_, a soft clotted substance of deep-red
color, and _serum_, a pale, watery liquid--popularly called blood and
water, which will flow out separately, if the pericardium and heart be
violently torn or punctured. In this treatise numerous medical
authorities are cited and the finished work is indorsed by several of
the most famous physicians and surgeons of England.
It is very probable that St. John did not know the physical cause of the
strange flow of blood and water from the side of Jesus. It seems that he
was afraid that he would not be believed; for, in the following verse,
he was careful to tell the world that he himself had personally seen it.
"And he that _saw it_ bare record, and his record is true: And he
knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe."[45]
Here again modern medical science has corroborated, in the matter of the
flowing of blood and water from the side of Jesus, the simple narrative
of the gentle and loving Evangelist.
Still another illustration of resemblance, coincidence, and
corroboration is furnished by the incident of the arrest of Jesus in the
Garden. St. John says: "As soon, then, as he had said unto them, I am
he, they went backward and fell to the ground."[46]
This is only one of several cases mentioned in history where ordinary
men have been dazed and paralyzed in the presence of illustrious men
against whom they were designing evil. When a Gallic trooper was sent by
Sulla to Minturnæ to put Marius to death, the old Roman lion, his great
eyes flashing fire, arose and advanced toward the slave, who fled in
utter terror from the place, exclaiming, "I cannot kill Caius
Marius!"[47]
Again, we learn from St. Matthew that at the moment of the arrest in
the Garden, "all the disciples forsook him and fled."
This is no isolated case of cowardice and desertion. It is merely an
illustration of a universal truth: that the multitude will follow
blindly and adore insanely the hero or prophet in his hour of triumph
and coronation, but will desert and destroy him at the moment of his
humiliation and crucifixion.
Note the burning of Savonarola. The patriot-priest of the Florentine
Republic believed himself inspired of God; his heroic life and martyr
death seemed to justify his claim. From the pulpit of St. Mark's he
became the herald and evangel of the Reformation, and his devoted
followers hung upon his words as if inspiration clothed them with
messages from the skies. And yet when a wicked Inquisition had nailed
him to the cross and fagots were flaming about him, this same multitude
who adored him, now reviled him and jeered and mocked his martyrdom.
Note the career of Napoleon. When the sun of Austerlitz rose upon the
world the whole French nation grew delirious with love and homage for
their emperor, who was once a subaltern of Corsica. But when the Allies
entered Paris after the battle of Leipsic, this same French nation
repudiated their imperial idol, cast down his images, canceled his
decrees, and united with all Europe in demanding his eternal banishment
from France. The voyage to Elba followed. But the historic melodrama of
popular fidelity and fickleness was not yet completely played. When this
same Napoleon, a few months later, escaped from his islet prison in the
Mediterranean and landed on the shores of France, this same French
nation again grew delirious, welcomed the royal exile with open arms,
showered him with his eagles, and almost smothered him with kisses. A
hundred days passed. On the frightful field of Waterloo, "Chance and
Fate combined to wreck the fortunes of their former king." Again the
fickle French multitude heaped execrations upon their fallen monarch,
declared the Napoleonic dynasty at an end and welcomed with acclamations
of joy the return of the exiled Bourbon Louis XVIII.
And when the Evangelist wrote these words: "All the disciples forsook
him and fled," he simply gave expression to a form of truth which all
history reflects and corroborates.
Again, the parallels and resemblances of sacred and profane history do
not seem to stop with mere narratives of facts. Secular history seems to
have produced at times characters in the exact likeness of those in
sacred history. The resemblance is often so striking as to create
astonishment. For instance, who was St. Peter but Marshal Ney by
anticipation? Peter was the leader of the Apostolic Twelve; Ney was the
chief of the Twelve Marshals of Napoleon. Peter was impulsive and
impetuous; so was Ney. Peter was the first to speak and act in all the
emergencies of the Apostolic ministry; Ney, so Dumas tells us, was
always impatient to open the battle and lead the first charge. Peter was
probably the last to leave the garden in which the great tragedy of his
Master had begun; Ney was the last to leave the horrors of a Russian
winter in which the beginning of the end of the career of his monarch
was plainly seen. Peter denied Jesus; Ney repudiated Napoleon, and even
offered to bring him, at the time of his escape from Elba, in a cage to
Louis XVIII. Peter was afterwards crucified for his devotion to Jesus
whom he had denied; Ney was afterwards shot for loyalty to Napoleon whom
he had once repudiated.
The examples heretofore given involve the idea of comparison and are
based upon resemblance. These illustrations could be greatly extended,
but it is believed that enough has been said in this connection.
However, in closing this brief discussion of the human element in the
sacred writings as evidenced by the coincidences and resemblances of
their narratives to those of profane history, slight mention may be made
of another test of truth which may be applied to the histories of the
Evangelists. This test is not derived from a comparison which is focused
upon any particular group of historic facts. It springs from an
instantaneously recognized and inseparable connection between the
statements made by the Gospel writers and the experience of the human
race. A single illustration will suffice to elucidate this point. When
Jesus was nailed upon the cross, the sad and pathetic spectacle was
presented of the absence of the Apostolic band, with the exception of
St. John, who was the only Apostle present at the crucifixion. The male
members of the following of the Nazarene did not sustain and soothe
their Master in the supreme moment of His anguish. But the women of His
company were with Him to the end. Mary, his mother, Mary Magdalene,
Mary, the wife of Cleophas, Salome, the mother of St. John the
Evangelist, and others, doubtless among "the women that followed him
from Galilee," ministered to His sufferings and consoled Him with their
presence. They were the last to cling to His cross and the first to
greet Him on the morning of the third day; for when the resurrection
morn dawned upon the world, these same women were seen hastening toward
the sepulcher bearing spices--fragrant offerings of deathless love. What
a contrast between the loyalty and devotion of the women and the fickle,
faltering adherence of the men who attended the footsteps of the Man of
Sorrows in His last days! One of His Apostles denied Him, another
betrayed Him, and all, excepting one, deserted Him in His death
struggle. His countrymen crucified Him ignominiously. But "not one woman
mentioned in the New Testament ever lifted her voice against the Son of
God."
This revelation from the sacred pages of the devotion of woman is
reflected in universal history and experience. It is needless to give
examples. Suffice it to say that when Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell
us of this devotion, we simply answer: yes, this has been ever true in
all countries and in every age. We have learned it not only from history
but from our own experience in all the affairs of life, extending from
the cradle to the grave. The night of sorrow never grows so dark that a
mother's love will not irradiate the gloom. The criminal guilt of a
wayward son can never become so black that her arms will not be found
about him. If we pass from loving loyalty to the individual, to
patriotic devotion to the causes of the nations, woman's fidelity is
still undying. The women of France are said to have paid the German war
debt. The message of the Spartan mother to her soldier son is too well
known to be repeated. When the legions of Scipio engirdled the walls of
Carthage and desperation seized the inhabitants of the Punic city,
Carthaginian women cut their long black hair to furnish bowstrings to
the Carthaginian archers. Illustrations might be multiplied; but these
will suffice to show that Mary and Martha and Salome, the women of the
Gospels, are simply types of the consecrated women of the world.
When we come to summarize, we are led to declare that if the Gospel
historians be not worthy of belief we are without foundation for
rational faith in the secular annals of the human race. No other
literature bears historic scrutiny so well as the New Testament
biographies. Not by a single chain, but by three great chains can we
link our Bible of to-day with the Apostolic Bible. The great
manuscripts: the Vatican, the Alexandrian, and the Sinaitic, dating from
the middle of the fourth and fifth centuries, must have been copies of
originals, or at least of first copies. The Bible is complete in these
manuscripts to-day.
The Versions, translations of the original Scriptures from the language
in which they were first written into other languages, form a perfect
connection between the days of the Apostles and our own. The Vulgate,
the celebrated Latin version of St. Jerome, was completed A.D. 385. In
making this translation the great scholar has himself said that he used
"ancient (Greek) copies." Manuscripts that were ancient, A.D. 385, must
have been the original writings, or, at least, first copies. The
Vulgate, then, is alone a perfect historic connection between the Bible
that we read to-day and that studied by the first Christians.
Again, the Writings of the Church Fathers furnish a chain, without a
single missing link, between the Bible of this generation and that of
the first generation of the followers of the Christ. It has been
truthfully said that if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed an
almost perfect Bible could be reconstructed from quotations from these
writings, so numerous and so exact are they. Beginning with Barnabas and
Clement, companions of St. Paul, and coming down through the ages, there
is not a single generation in which some prince or potentate of the
Church has not left convincing evidence in writing that the Books of the
Old and New Testament which we read to-day are identical with those read
by the first propagators of our faith. The chain of proof forged from
the Writings of the early Fathers is made up of a hundred links, each
perfect within itself and yet relinked and welded with a hundred others
that make each and all doubly strong. If these various testimonies, the
Manuscripts, the Versions, and the Writings of the Church Fathers, be
taken, not singly, but collectively, in support and corroboration of
each other, we have, then, not merely a chain but rather a huge
spiritual cable of many wires, stretching across the great sea of time
and linking our Bible of to-day inseparably with that of the Apostolic
Age.
If it be objected that these various writings might have been and
probably were corrupted in coming down to us through the centuries,
reply may be made that the facts of history repel such suggestions. As
Mr. Greenleaf has suggested, the jealousy of opposing sects preserved
them from forgery and mutilation. Besides these sects, it may be added,
there were, even in the earliest times, open and avowed infidels who
assaulted the cardinal tenets of the Christian faith and made the Gospel
histories the targets for their attacks. They, too, would have detected
and denounced any attempt from any source to corrupt these writings.
Another and final, and probably the most cogent reason for the
remarkable preservation of the books of the Bible, is the reverential
care bestowed upon them by their custodians in every age. It is
difficult for the modern world to fully appreciate the meaning and
extent of this reverence and care. Before the age of printing, it must
be remembered, the masses of the people could not and did not possess
Bibles. In the Middle Ages it required a small fortune to own a single
copy. The extreme scarcity enhanced not only the commercial value but
added to the awful sanctity that attached to the precious volume; on the
principle that the person of a king becomes more sacred and mysterious
when least seen in public. Synagogues and monasteries were, for many
centuries, the sole repositories of the Holy Books, and the deliberate
mutilation of any portion of the Bible would have been regarded like
the blaspheming of the Deity or the desecration of a shrine. These
considerations alone are sufficient reason why the Holy Scriptures have
come down to us uncorrupted and unimpaired.
These various considerations are the logical basis of that rule of law
laid down by Mr. Greenleaf, under which the Gospel histories would be
admitted into a modern court of law in a modern judicial proceeding.
Under legal tests laid down by Starkie, we have seen that the
Evangelists should be believed, because: (1) They were honest and
sincere, that is, they believed that they were telling the truth; (2)
they were undoubtedly men of good intelligence and were eyewitnesses of
the facts narrated by them in the New Testament histories; (3) they were
independent historians, who wrote at different times and places and, in
all essential details, fully corroborate each other; (4) excepting in
the matter of miracles, which skepticism has never been able to fully
disprove, their testimony is in full conformity with human experience;
(5) their testimony coincides fully and accurately with all the
collateral, social, historical, and religious circumstances of their
time, as well as with the teachings and experience of universal history
in every age.
Having received from antiquity an uncorrupted message, born of truth, we
have, it is believed, a perfect record of fact with which to discuss the
trial of Jesus.
PART II
_HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW_
[Illustration: MOSES AND THE LAW (MICHAEL ANGELO)]
CHAPTER I
HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW--MOSAIC AND TALMUDIC
The Pentateuch and the Talmud form the double basis of Hebrew
jurisprudence. "The wisdom of the lawgiver," says Bacon, "consists not
only in a platform of justice, but in the application thereof." The
Mosaic Code, embodied in the Pentateuch, furnished to the children of
Israel the necessary platform of justice; ancient tradition and Rabbinic
interpretation contained in the Talmud, supplied needed rules of
practical application. Employing classic terminology, it may be said
that the ordinances of Moses were the substantive and the provisions of
the Talmud were the adjective laws of the ancient Hebrews. These terms
are not strictly accurate, however, since many absolute rights are
declared and defined in the Talmud as well as in the Pentateuch. Another
definition, following the classification of Roman legists, describes
Mosaic injunction as the _lex scripta_ and Talmudic provision as the
_lex non scripta_ of the Commonwealth of Israel. In other words, the
Pentateuch was the foundation, the cornerstone; the Talmud was the
superstructure, the gilded dome of the great temple of Hebrew justice.
Bible students throughout the world are familiar with the provisions of
the Mosaic Code; but the contents of the Talmud are known to few, even
among scholars and literary men. The most appalling ignorance has
existed in every age among the Gentile uninitiated as to the nature and
identity of this gigantic literary compilation. Henricus Segnensis, a
pious monk of the Middle Ages, having heard and read many things about
the despised heretical Talmud, conceived it to be a person and, in a
transport of religious frenzy, declared that he would sooner or later
have _him, the Talmud_, put to death by the hangman![48]
For the benefit of the average reader as well as to illuminate the
general subject, a short description of the Talmud will be given.
_Definition._--Many attempts have been made to define the Talmud, but
all definition of this monumental literary production is necessarily
inaccurate and incomplete because of the vastness and peculiarity of the
matter treated. To describe it as an encyclopedia of the life and
literature, law and religion, art and science of the Hebrew people
during a thousand years would convey only an approximately correct idea
of its true meaning, for it is even more than the foregoing descriptive
terms would indicate. Emanuel Deutsch in his brilliant essay on the
Talmud defines it as "a Corpus Juris, an encyclopedia of law, civil and
penal, ecclesiastical and international, human and divine. It is a
microcosm, embracing, even as does the Bible, heaven and earth. It is as
if all the prose and poetry, the science, the faith and speculation of
the Old World were, though only in faint reflections, bound up in it _in
nuce_."
Benny describes it as "the Talmud--that much maligned and even more
misunderstood compilation of the rabbins; that digest of what Carlyle
would term _allerlei-wissenschaften_; which is at once the compendium of
their literature, the storehouse of their tradition, the exponent of
their faith, the record of their acquirements, the handbook of their
ceremonials and the summary of their legal code, civil and penal."
To speak of the Talmud as a book would be inaccurate. It is a small
library, or collection of books. "Modern editions of the Talmud,
including the most important commentaries, consist of about 3,000 folio
sheets, or 12,000 folio pages of closely printed matter, generally
divided into twelve or twenty volumes. One page of Talmudic Hebrew
intelligibly translated into English would cover three pages; the
translation of the whole Talmud with its commentaries would accordingly
make a library of 400 volumes, each numbering 360 octavo pages."[49]
It would be well to bear in mind that the contents of the Talmud were
not proclaimed to the world by any executive, legislative, or judicial
body; that they were not the result of any resolution or mandate of any
congregation, college, or Sanhedrin; that they were not, in any case,
formal or statutory. They were simply a great mass of traditionary
matter and commentary transmitted orally through many centuries before
being finally reduced to writing. Rabbinism claims for these traditions
a remote antiquity, declaring them to be coeval with the proclamation of
the Decalogue. Many learned doctors among the Jews ascribe this
antiquity to the whole mass of traditional laws. Others maintain that
only the principles upon which Rabbinic interpretation and discussion
are based, can be traced back so far. But it is certain that distinct
traditions are to be found at a very early period in the history of the
children of Israel, and that on their return from Babylonian captivity
these traditions were delivered to them by Ezra and his coadjutors of
the Great Assembly.
This development of Hebrew jurisprudence along lines of written and oral
law, Pentateuch and Talmud, Mosaic ordinance and time-honored tradition,
seems to have followed in obedience to a general principle of juristic
growth. _Lex scripta_ and _lex non scripta_ are classical Roman terms of
universal application in systems of enlightened jurisprudence. A
charter, a parchment, a marble column, a table of stone, a sacred book,
containing written maxims defining legal rights and wrongs are the
beginnings of all civilized schemes of justice. Around these written,
fundamental laws grow and cluster the race traditions of a people which
attach themselves to and become inseparable from the prime organic
structure. These oral traditions are the natural and necessary products
of a nation's growth and progress. The laws of the Medes and Persians,
at once unalterable and irrevocable, represent a strange and painful
anomaly in the jurisprudence of mankind. No written constitution,
incapable of amendment and subject to strict construction, can long
survive the growth and expansion of a great and progressive people. The
ever-changing, perpetually evolving forms of social, commercial,
political, and religious life of a restless, marching, ambitious race,
necessitate corresponding changes and evolutions in laws and
constitutions. These necessary legal supplements are as varied in origin
as are the nations that produce them. Magna Charta, wrung from John at
Runnymede, became the written basis of English law and freedom, and
around it grew up those customs and traditions that--born on the shores
of the German Ocean, transplanted to the Isles of Britain, nurtured and
developed through a thousand years of judicial interpretation and
application--became the great basic structure of the Common Law of
England.
What the Mosaic Code was to the ancient Hebrews, what Magna Charta is to
Englishmen, the Koran is to Mahometans: the written charter of their
faith and law. Surrounding the Koran are many volumes of tradition, made
up of the sayings of Mahomet, which are regarded as equally sacred and
authoritative as the Koran itself. These volumes of Mahometan tradition
are called the Sonna and correspond to the Talmud of the Hebrews. An
analysis of any great system of jurisprudence will reveal the same
natural arrangement of written and oral law as that represented by the
Pentateuch and the Talmud of the Jews.
The word "Talmud" has various meanings, as it appears in Hebrew
traditional literature. It is an old scholastic term, and "is a noun
formed from the verb 'limmed'='to teach.' It therefore means, primarily,
'teaching,' although it denotes also 'learning'; it is employed in this
latter sense with special reference to the Torah, the terms 'Talmud' and
'Torah' being usually combined to indicate the study of the Law, both in
its wider and its more restricted sense."[50] It is thus frequently used
in the sense of the word "exegesis," meaning Biblical exposition or
interpretation. But with the etymological and restricted, we are not so
much interested as with the popular and general signification of the
term "Talmud." Popularly used, it means simply a small collection of
books represented by two distinct editions handed down to posterity by
the Palestinian and Babylonian schools during the early centuries of the
Christian era.
_Divisions of the Talmud._--The Talmud is divided into two component
parts: the Mishna, which may be described as the _text_; and the Gemara,
which may be termed the _commentary_.[51] The Mishna, meaning tradition,
is almost wholly law. It was, indeed, of old, translated as the Second
or Oral Law--the [Greek: deuterôsis]--to distinguish it from the Written
Law delivered by God to Moses. The relationship between the Mishna,
meaning oral law, and the Gemara, meaning commentary, may be illustrated
by a bill introduced into Congress and the debates which follow. In a
general way, the bill corresponds to the Mishna, and the debates to the
Gemara. The distinction, however, is that the law resulting from the
passage of the bill is the effect and culmination of the debate; while
the Mishna was already law when the Gemara or commentary was made.
As we have seen above, Hebrew jurisprudence in its principles and in the
manner of their interpretation was chiefly transmitted by the living
voice of tradition. These laws were easily and safely handed down from
father to son through successive generations as long as Jewish
nationality continued and the Temple at Jerusalem still stood. But, with
the destruction of the Temple and the banishment of the Jews from
Palestine (A.D. 70), the danger became imminent that in the loss of
their nationality would also be buried the remembrance of their laws.
Moved with pity and compassion for the sad condition of his people,
Judah the Holy, called Rabbi for preëminence, resolved to collect and
perpetuate for them in writing their time-honored traditions. His work
received the name Mishna, the same which we have discussed above. But it
must not be imagined that this work was the sudden or exclusive effort
of Rabbi Judah. His achievement was merely the sum total and culmination
of the labors of a long line of celebrated Hebrew sages. "The Oral Law
had been recognized by Ezra; had become important in the days of the
Maccabees; had been supported by Pharisaism; narrowed by the school of
Shammai, codified by the school of Hillel, systematized by R. Akiba,
placed on a logical basis by R. Ishmael, exegetically amplified by R.
Eliezer, and constantly enriched by successive rabbis and their
schools. Rabbi Judah put the coping-stone to the immense structure."[52]
Emanuel Deutsch gives the following subdivisions of the Mishna:
The Mishna is divided into six sections. These are subdivided again
into 11, 12, 7, 9 (or 10), 11, and 12 chapters, respectively, which
are further broken up into 524 paragraphs. We shall briefly
describe their contents:
Section I. Seeds: of Agrarian Laws, commencing with a chapter on
Prayers. In this section, the various tithes and donations due to
the Priests, the Levites, and the poor, from the products of the
lands, and further the Sabbatical year and the prohibited mixtures
in plants, animals, garments, are treated of.