Christianity as a religion must, I am told, stand or fall with the
claims that Christ was divine, and that He rose from the dead and
ascended into Heaven. Archdeacon Wilson, in a sermon at Rochdale,
described the divinity and Resurrection of Christ as "the central
doctrines of Christianity." The question we have to consider here is the
question of whether these central doctrines are true.
Christians are fond of saying that the Resurrection is one of the best
attested facts in history. I hold that the evidence for the Resurrection
would not be listened to in a court of law, and is quite inadmissible in
a court of cool and impartial reason.
First of all, then, what is the fact which this evidence is supposed to
prove? The fact alleged is a most marvellous miracle, and one upon which
a religion professed by some hundreds of millions of human beings is
founded. The fact alleged is that nearly two thousand years ago God came
into the world as a man, that He was known as Jesus of Nazareth, that He
was crucified, died upon the cross, was laid in a tomb, and on the third
day came to life again, left His tomb, and subsequently ascended into
Heaven.
The fact alleged, then, is miraculous and important, and the evidence in
proof of such a fact should be overwhelmingly strong.
We should demand stronger evidence in support of a thing alleged to have
happened a thousand years ago than we should demand in support of a fact
alleged to have happened yesterday.
The Resurrection is alleged to have happened eighteen centuries ago.
We should demand stronger evidence in support of an alleged fact which
was outside human experience than we should demand in support of a fact
common to human experience.
The incarnation of a God in human form, the resurrection of a man or a
God from the dead, are facts outside human experience.
We should demand stronger evidence in support of an alleged fact when
the establishment of that fact was of great importance to millions of
men and women, than we should demand when the truth or falsity of the
alleged fact mattered very little to anybody.
The alleged fact of the Resurrection is of immense importance to
hundreds of millions of people.
We should demand stronger evidence in support of an alleged fact when
many persons were known to have strong political, sentimental, or
mercenary motives for proving the fact alleged, than we should demand
when no serious interest would be affected by a decision for or against
the fact alleged.
There are millions of men and women known to have strong
motives--sentimental, political, or mercenary--for proving the verity of
the Resurrection.
On all these counts we are justified in demanding the strongest of
evidence for the alleged fact of Christ's resurrection from the dead.
The more abnormal or unusual the occurrence, the weightier should be the
evidence of its truth.
If a man told a mixed company that Captain Webb swam the English
Channel, he would have a good chance of belief.
The incident happened but a few years ago; it was reported in all the
newspapers of the day. It is not in itself an impossible thing for a man
to do.
But if the same man told the same audience that five hundred years ago
an Irish sailor had swum from Holyhead to New York, his statement would
be received with less confidence.
Because five centuries is a long time, there is no credible record of
the feat, and we _cannot believe_ any man capable of swimming about four
thousand miles.
Let us look once more at the statement made by the believers in the
Resurrection.
We are asked to believe that the all-powerful eternal God, the God
who created twenty millions of suns, came down to earth, was born of a
woman, was crucified, was dead, was laid in a tomb for three days, and
then came to life again, and ascended into Heaven.
What is the nature of the evidence produced in support of this
tremendous miracle?
Is there any man or woman alive who has seen God? No. Is there any man
or woman alive who has seen Christ? No.
There is no human being alive who can say that God exists or that Christ
exists. The most they can say is that they _believe_ that God and Christ
exist.
No historian claims that any God has been seen on earth for nearly
nineteen centuries.
The Christians deny the assertions of all other religions as to divine
visits; and all the other religions deny their assertions about God and
Christ.
There is no reason why God should have come down to earth, to be born
of a woman, and die on the cross. He could have convinced and won over
mankind without any such act. He has _not_ convinced or won over mankind
by that act. Not one-third of mankind are professing Christians to-day,
and of those not one in ten is a true Christian and a true believer.
The Resurrection, therefore, seems to have been unreasonable,
unnecessary, and futile. It is also contrary to science and to human
experience.
What is the nature of the evidence?
The common idea of the man in the street is the idea that the Gospels
were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; that Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John were contemporaries of Christ; and that the Gospels were
written and circulated during the lives of the authors.
There is no evidence to support these beliefs. There is no evidence,
outside the New Testament, that any of the Apostles ever existed. We
know nothing about Paul, Peter, John, Mark, Luke, or Matthew, except
what is told in the New Testament.
Outside the Testament there is not a word of historical evidence of
the divinity of Christ, of the Virgin Birth, of the Resurrection or
Ascension.
Therefore it is obvious that, before we can be expected to believe the
tremendous story of the Resurrection, we must be shown overwhelming
evidence of the authenticity of the Scriptures.
Before you can prove your miracle you have to prove your book.
Suppose the case to come before a judge. Let us try to imagine what
would happen:
COUNSEL: M'lud, may it please your ludship. It is stated by Paul of
Tarsus that he and others worked miracles--
THE JUDGE: Do you intend to call Paul of Tarsus?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud. He is dead.
JUDGE: Did he make a proper sworn deposition?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud. But some of his letters are extant, and I propose to
put them in.
JUDGE: Are these letters affidavits? Are they witnessed and attested?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud.
JUDGE: Are they signed?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud.
JUDGE: Are they in the handwriting of this Paul of Tarsus?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud. They are copies; the originals are lost.
JUDGE: Who was Paul of Tarsus?
COUNSEL: M'lud, he was the apostle to the Gentiles.
JUDGE: You intend to call some of these Gentiles?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud. There are none living.
JUDGE: But you don't mean to, say--how long has this shadowy witness,
Paul of Tarsus, been dead?
COUNSEL: Not two thousand years, m'lud.
JUDGE: Thousand years dead? Can you bring evidence to prove that he was
ever alive?
COUNSEL: Circumstantial, m'lud.
JUDGE: I cannot allow you to read the alleged statements of a
hypothetical witness who is acknowledged to have been dead for nearly
two thousand years. I cannot admit the alleged letters of Paul as
evidence.
COUNSEL: I shall show that the act of resurrection was witnessed by one
Mary Magdalene, by a Roman soldier--
JUDGE: What is the soldier's name?
COUNSEL: I don't know, m'lud.
JUDGE: Call him.
COUNSEL: He is dead, m'lud.
JUDGE: Deposition?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud.
JUDGE: Strike out his evidence. Call Mary Magdalene.
COUNSEL: She is dead, m'lud. But I shall show that she told the
disciples--
JUDGE: What she told the disciples is not evidence.
COUNSEL: Well, m'lud, I shall give the statements of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John. Matthew states very plainly that--
JUDGE: Of course, you intend to call Matthew?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud. He is--he is dead.
JUDGE: It seems to me, that to prove this resurrection you will have to
perform a great many more. Are Mark and John dead, also?
COUNSEL: Yes, m'lud.
JUDGE: Who were they?
COUNSEL: I--I don't know, m'lud.
JUDGE: These statements of theirs, to which you allude: are they in
their own handwriting?
COUNSEL: May it please your ludship, they did not write them. The
statements are not given as their own statements, but only as statements
"according to them." The statements are really copies of translations
of copies of translations of statements supposed to be based upon what
someone told Matthew, and--
JUDGE: Who copied and translated, and re-copied and re-translated, this
hearsay evidence?
COUNSEL: I do not know, m'lud.
JUDGE: Were the copies seen and revised by the authors? Did they correct
the proofs?
COUNSEL: I don't know, m'lud.
JUDGE: Don't know? Why?
COUNSEL: There is no evidence that the documents had ever been heard of
until long after the authors were dead.
JUDGE: I never heard of such a case. I cannot allow you to quote these
papers. They are not evidence. Have you _any_ witnesses?
COUNSEL: No, m'lud.
That fancy dialogue about expresses the legal value of the evidence for
this important miracle.
But, legal value not being the only value, let us now consider the
evidence as mere laymen.