RESURRECTION OF JESUS--HIS CONDUCT UNTIL HIS ASCENSION--EXAMINATION OF
THE PROOFS OF THE RESURRECTION.
The history of the life of an ordinary man terminates commonly, with his
death; but it is different with a Man-God who has the power of raising
himself from the dead, or whom his adherents have the faculty of making
rise at will. This happened to Jesus: thanks to his apostles or
evangelists, we see him still playing a considerable part even after his
decease. The moment he was arrested, the disciples of Jesus, as we have
seen, dispersed themselves into Jerusalem and the neighborhood, with the
exception or Simon Peter, who did not lose sight of him during his
examination at the house of the high priest. This apostle was anxious,
for his own sake, to know the result of it. Encouraging themselves on
finding that Jesus had not criminated them in his examinations, the
disciples reassembled, concerted measures, and determined, as their
master was dead, or reputed so, to take advantage of the notions which
he had diffused during his mission. Accustomed for so long a period to
lead a wandering life under his command, and subsist at the expence of
the public by preaching, exorcisms, and miracles, they resolved to
continue a profession more easily exercised, and incomparably more
lucrative than their original occupations. They had enjoyed an
opportunity of observing that it was better to catch men than fish. But
how could the disciples of a man who was punished as an impostor, make
themselves be listened to? It was necessary to give out that their
master during his life having raised others from the dead, had, after
his own death, raised himself in virtue of his omnipotence. Jesus had
predicted it; it was therefore necessary to accomplish the prediction.
The honor of the master and his disciples thereby acquired a new lustre;
and the sect, far from seeing itself annihilated or disgraced, was
enabled to acquire new partizans in this credulous nation.
In consequence of this reasoning, the apostles had only to make the body
of their master, dead or alive, to disappear; whereas if it had remained
in the tomb, it would have borne evidence against them. They did not
even wait till the three days and three nights in the pretended prophecy
were expired. The dead body disappeared on the second day; and thus the
second day after his decease, our hero, triumphing over hell and the
grave, found himself revivified.
If Jesus did not die of his punishment, his resurrection had nothing
surprising in it. If he was actually dead, the cave where his body was
deposited, might have secret passages, through which they could enter
and return without being observed, or stopt by the enormous stone with
which they had affected to block up its entrance, and near which the
guards had been placed. Thus the dead body might have been carried off
either by force or by stratagem; and, perhaps, it had never been
deposited in the tomb at all. In whatever manner the affair was
transacted, a report was circulated that Jesus was risen and his body
not to be found.
Nothing is of more importance to a Christian, than to ascertain
satisfactorily the resurrection of Jesus. Paul tells us, that "if Jesus
be not risen, our hope is vain." Indeed without this miracle of
Omnipotence, intended to manifest the superiority of Jesus over other
men, and the interest Deity took in his success, he must appear only as
an adventurer, or weak fanatic, punished for having given umbrage to the
priests of his country. It is therefore requisite to examine seriously a
fact on which alone the belief of every Christian is founded. In doing
this it is necessary to satisfy ourselves of the quality of the
witnesses who attest the fact; whether they were acute, disinterested,
intelligent persons; and if they agree in their narratives. These
precautions are the more necessary, when it is intended to examine
_supernatural_ facts, which, to be believed, require much stronger
proofs than ordinary facts. On the unanimous testimony of some
historians, we readily believe that Casar made himself master of Gaul.
The circumstances of his conquest would be less established were we to
find them related by himself only, or his adherents; but they would
appear incredible, if we found in them prodigies or facts contrary to
the order of nature. We should then have reason to believe that it was
intended to impose on us; or, if we judged more favorably of the
authors, we would regard them as enthusiasts and fools.
Agreeably to these principles of sound criticism, let us consider who
are the witnesses that attest the marvellous, and, consequently, the
least probable fact which history can produce. They are apostles--But
who are these apostles? they are adherents of Jesus. Were these apostles
_enlightened_ men? Every thing proves that they were ignorant and rude,
and that an indefatigable credulity was the most prominent trait in
their character. Did they behold Jesus rising from the dead?--No:--no
one beheld this great miracle. The apostles themselves did not see their
master coming out of the grave; they merely found that his tomb was
empty; which by no means proves that he had risen. It will, however, be
said, that the apostles saw him afterwards and conversed with him, and
that he showed himself to some women who knew him very well. But these
apostles and these women, did they see distinctly? Did not their
prepossessed imaginations make them see what did not exist? Is it
absolutely certain that their master was dead before they laid him in
the tomb?
In the _second_ place, were these witnesses _disinterested_? The
apostles and disciples of Jesus were, doubtless interested in the glory
of their master. Their interests were closely connected with those of a
man who enabled them to subsist without toil. Several among them
expected to be recompensed for their attachment, by the favors which he
promised to bestow on them in the kingdom he was about to establish.
Finding these hopes destroyed by the death, real or supposed, of their
chief, most of the apostles, persuaded that all was over, lost courage;
but, others, less daunted, conceived that it was not necessary to give
up all hope, but that they might still profit by the impressions which
the preaching and wonders of Jesus had made on the people. They believed
that their master might again return, or, if they supposed him dead,
they could assert that he had foretold he would rise again. They
therefore agreed to circulate the report of his resurrection, and to say
that they had seen him after he had triumphantly come out of the tomb.
This would appear very credible in the case of a personage who had
proved himself capable of raising others from the dead. Knowing the
imbecility of those they had to deal with, they presumed that the people
were prepared long beforehand to believe the marvellous wonder which
they intended to announce. They conceived that it was necessary in order
to subsist, to continue preaching doctrines which would not attract an
audience if it had not been taken for granted that their author was
risen again. They felt that it was necessary to preach the resurrection
of Jesus, or perish with hunger. They foresaw, moreover, that it was
requisite to brave chastisement and even death, rather than renounce an
opinion on which their daily subsistence and welfare absolutely
depended. Hence unbelievers conclude, that the witnesses of the
resurrection were any thing but disinterested, and were spurred on by
the principle, that _he who risks nothing, gains nothing_.
In the _third_ place, are the witnesses of the resurrection unanimous in
their evidence? Much more, are they consistent with themselves in their
narratives? We find neither the one nor the other. Though Jesus,
according to some of the evangelists, had foretold in the most positive
manner, that he would rise again, John makes no mention of this
prediction, but expressly declares, that the disciples of Jesus knew not
that he must rise again from the dead. This denotes in them a total
ignorance of that great event, said, however, to have been announced by
their master; and creates a suspicion that these predictions were
piously invented afterwards. Yet nothing can be more positive than the
manner in which Matthew speaks of the prediction: he supposes it so well
known to the public, that he affirms the priests and pharisees went to
Pilate and told him, "We remember this deceiver said while he was yet
alive, that after three days he would rise again." We do not, however,
find in any of the evangelists a passage where this resurrection is
foretold in so public and decided a manner. Matthew himself relates only
the answer of Jesus to those who demanded a sign; it consisted, as we
have elsewhere remarked, in referring them to "Jonas, who was three days
and three nights in the belly of the whale; so," said he, "shall the Son
of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Now
Jesus, having died on Friday, at the ninth hour, or three o'clock in the
afternoon, and risen again the second day early in the morning, was not
"three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Besides, the
obscure manner in which Jesus expressed himself in this pretended
prediction, could not enable the priests and pharisees to conclude that
he must die and rise again, or excite their alarm; unless it is
pretended, that on this occasion these enemies of Jesus received the
interpretation of the mysterious prediction by a particular revelation.
John tells us, that when Jesus was taken down from the cross by Joseph
of Arimathea, Nicodemus brought a mixture of aloes and myrrh, weighing
about a hundred pounds, to embalm him, and that he afterwards took the
body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, applied the spices according to
the practice of the Jews in their funeral ceremonies, and laid it in the
tomb. Thus was Jesus embalmed, carried away, and buried. On the other
hand, Matthew and Luke tell us that this sepulchre and embalming were
performed in presence of Mary Magdalane and Mary the mother of Jesus,
who consequently must have known what Nicodemus had done; yet Mark,
forgetting all this, tells us that these same women brought sweet spices
(aromatics) in order to embalm his body, and came for that purpose early
in the morning of the day subsequent to the Sabbath. Luke has no better
memory: he informs us that these ladies came also to embalm a dead body,
which, according to John, had already received a hundred pounds weight
of aromatics, and was inclosed in a sepulchre, the entrance of which was
blocked up by a massy stone that embarrassed the women as much at
finding it as the incredulous are with these contradictions of our
evangelists.
The ladies, however, who felt interrupted by the stone, had no dread of
the guard which Matthew placed at the entrance of the tomb. But if these
women knew that Jesus was to rise again at the end of three days, why
were they so careful in embalming his body?--unless indeed we suppose
that Jesus made a secret to his mother and the tender Magdalane, of an
event, which, it is asserted, was publicly predicted, and perfectly well
known not only to his disciples, but to the priests and pharisees.
According to Matthew, the precautions used were founded on the fear the
priests entertained that the disciples should come and carry away the
body, and afterwards say unto the people, that Jesus had risen from the
dead; an error, which, in their opinion, would be more dangerous than
the first. Nevertheless, we find several women and disciples continually
roaming about the tomb, going and coming freely, and offering to embalm
the same dead body twice. It must be acknowledged, that all this
surpasses human understanding.
It is not more easy to conceive the conduct of the guards placed near
the tomb at the solicitation of the priests, or that of the priests
themselves. According to Matthew, these guards, terrified at the
resurrection of Jesus, ran to Jerusalem to tell the priests, "that the
angel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and taken away the stone
which blocked up the tomb; and that at the sight of him they had nearly
expired through fear." On this the priests, not at all doubting the
truth of the relation of the guards, enjoined them to say publicly that
the disciples of Jesus had carried away his body during the night, and
while they were asleep. They also gave the soldiers money to speak in
this manner, and promised to pacify the governor if he intended to
punish them for their negligence.
The guards, it will be observed, did not say they had seen Jesus rise;
they pretended merely to have seen "the angel of the Lord descending
from heaven, and rolling away the stone which was at the entrance of the
tomb." Thus this history announces _an apparition_ only, and not _a
resurrection_. We might explain it in a manner natural enough by
supposing that during the night, while the guards were asleep, the
adherents of Jesus came by the light of flambeaus, with an armed force
to open the tomb and intimidate the soldiers, who, in the alarm imagined
they had seen their prey taken out of their hands by a supernatural
power; and that they afterwards affirmed all this in order to justify
themselves.
The most singular circumstance is the conduct of the priests, who
believed the story of the guards, and consequently gave credit to a
miracle strong enough to convince them of the power of Jesus. But far
from being convinced by the prodigy which they thus believed, they gave
money to the soldiers to engage them to tell, not the incident as it
occurred, but that the disciples of Jesus came by night to take away the
body of their master. On the other hand, the guards, who must have been
more dead than alive through terror at the spectacle they had witnessed,
accepted money for publishing a falsehood; a conduct for which the angel
of the Lord might very properly have punished them. Far, however, from
dreading punishment, these soldiers for a sum of money consented to
betray their consciences. But could the Jewish priests, however base we
may suppose them, be silly enough to imagine that these men, after
having witnessed so striking a miracle, would be very faithful in
preserving the secret? It must have been an insignificant miracle indeed
which could make no impression either on the soldiers who had seen it,
or on the priests who believed it on the relation of these soldiers. If
the priests were convinced of the reality of the miracle, was it not
natural that they should recognize Jesus for the messiah, and that they
should unite with him in laboring to deliver their country from the yoke
of idolaters?
On this occasion, indeed, the angel of the Lord seems to have bungled
the affair, by so terrifying the soldiers that they fled without having
time to see Jesus rising from the dead; whose resurrection, however, was
the object of all this pompous preparation. Very far from allowing it to
be seen by any one, this awkward angel chased away the guards who ought
to have been the witnesses of the mighty wonder. It appears, in fact,
that the transaction or Jesus' resurrection was seen by nobody. His
disciples did not see it; the soldiers, who guarded his tomb, did not
see it; and the priests and Jews did not hold this fact to be so
memorable as some persons who beheld no part of it. It was only after
his resurrection that Jesus showed himself. But to whom did he show
himself? To disciples, interested in saying that he was risen again; to
women, who to the same interest joined also weak minds and ardent
imaginations, disposed to form phantoms and chimeras.
These remarks will enable us to judge of all the pretended appearances
of Jesus after his resurrection. Besides, the evangelists are not
unanimous as to these appearances. Matthew relates, that Jesus showed
himself to Mary Magdalane and the other Mary; John makes mention of Mary
Magdalane singly. Matthew tells us, that Jesus showed himself to the two
Marys on the road whilst returning from the sepulchre on purpose to
apprize the disciples of what they had seen. John informs us, that Mary
Magdalane, after visiting the sepulchre, carried the news to the
disciples, and thereafter returned to this same sepulchre, where she
beheld Jesus in the company of angels. Matthew affirms, that the two
Marys embraced the feet of Jesus. John says, Jesus forbade Mary
Magdalane to touch him. Matthew informs us, that Jesus bade the two
Marys tell his disciples _that he was going into Galilee_. John says,
Jesus ordered Mary to acquaint his disciples, _that he was going to his
Father_; that is, to heaven. But it is more singular still, that,
according to Mark, the disciples themselves were not inclined to credit
the apparition of Jesus to Magdalane. Agreeably to Luke, they treated
all that she told them of angels, as reveries. According to John,
Magdalane herself did not at first believe that she had seen her
adorable lover, whom she took for the gardener.
There is no greater certainty in the apparition of Jesus to Peter and
John. These two apostles went to the sepulchre, but they did not find
their dear master. According to John, he himself saw neither Jesus nor
his angels. From Luke it appears, that these apostles arrived _after_
the angels were gone; and from John, _before_ the angels had arrived.
The witnesses are, indeed, very little unanimous as to these angels, who
seem to have been seen only by the good ladies, whom they charged to
announce to the disciples the resurrection of Jesus. Matthew makes
mention of _one angel_ only, whom Mark calls _a young man_.
John affirms that there were _two_.
It is said that Jesus showed himself again to two disciples of Emaus,
called _Simon_ and _Cleophas_; but they did not recognize him, though
they had lived familiarly with him. They proceeded a long while in his
company without suspecting who he was--a circumstance which,
undoubtedly, evinced a very strange failure of memory. It is true, Luke
tells us that their _eyes were as if shut_. Is it not very singular that
Jesus should show himself in order not to be known again? They, however,
recognized him afterwards; but immediately dreading, as it would seem,
to be seen too nearly, the phantom disappeared. The two disciples went
immediately and announced the news to their brethren assembled at
Jerusalem, where Jesus arrived fully as soon as they.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, agree in telling us, that when the disciples
were informed of the resurrection of Jesus, they saw him for the first
and last time. But the author of the Acts of the Apostles, John and Paul
contradict this assertion, for they speak of several other appearances
which afterwards occurred. Matthew and Mark inform us, that the
disciples received orders to go and join Jesus _in Galilee_; but Luke
and the author of the Acts (i.e. the same Luke) says, that the disciples
were ordered _not to go out of Jerusalem_. As to this last apparition,
Matthew places it on a _mountain in Galilee_, where Jesus had fixed the
rendezvous for the evening of the day of his resurrection; whilst Luke
informs us that it was at Jerusalem, and tells us that immediately
thereafter Jesus ascended into heaven, and disappeared forever. Yet the
author of the Acts of the Apostles is not of this opinion: he maintains,
_against himself_, that Jesus tarried still forty days with his
disciples in order to instruct them.
There still remain to be considered two appearances of Jesus to his
apostles, the one at which Thomas was not present, and refused to
believe those who assured him of their having seen their master, and the
other when Thomas recognized his master, who shewed him his wounds. To
render one of these apparitions more marvellous, they assure us that
Jesus was seen in the midst of his disciples whilst the doors were shut.
But this will not appear surprizing to those who know that Jesus after
his resurrection, had an immaterial or incorporeal body, which could
make itself a passage through the smallest orifices. His disciples took
him for a _spirit_: yet this _spirit_ had wounds, was palpable, and took
food. But, perhaps, all this was only chimerical, and those apparitions
mere illusions. Indeed, how could the apostles be assured of the reality
of what they saw? A being who has the power of changing the course of
nature, can destroy all the rules by which we judge of certainty: how
then could they ever be certain of having seen Jesus after his
resurrection?
John speaks of several appearances of Jesus to his disciples, of which
no mention is made by the other evangelists: hence we see that his
testimony destroys theirs, or that theirs destroy his. As to the
apparitions of Jesus which Paul mentions, he was not a witness of them,
and knew them only by hearsay; we find him accordingly speaking of them
in a manner not very exact. He says that Jesus showed himself "to the
twelve," while it is evident that, by the death of Judas, the apostolic
college was reduced to eleven. We are surprized to see these
inaccuracies in an inspired author; they may render suspicious what he
likewise says of the apparition of Jesus to five hundred of the brethren
at once. As to himself we know, that he never saw his master but in a
_vision_; and considering the testimonies on which the resurrection of
Jesus is founded, perhaps we may say as much of the other apostles and
disciples. They were Jews, enthusiasts, and prophets; and consequently
subject to dreaming even while awake. The incredulous consider this to
be the most favorable opinion they can form of witnesses who attest the
resurrection of the Saviour, on which however the Christian religion is
solely established.
It appears, indeed, most certain from the nature of the testimonies we
have examined, that providence has in a singular manner neglected to
give to an event so memorable and of such great importance, the
authenticity it seemed to require. Laying aside faith, which never
experiences any difficulty about proofs, no man can believe facts, even
the most natural, from vouchers so faulty, proofs so weak, relations so
contradictory, and testimonies so suspicious as those which the
evangelists furnish us on the most incredible and marvellous occurrence
that was ever related. Independent of the visible interest these
historians had in establishing the belief of the resurrection of their
master, and which ought to put us on our guard against them, they seem
to have written merely to contradict one another, and reciprocally
weaken their evidence. To adopt relations in which we have only a tissue
of contradictions, improbable facts, and absurdities, calculated to
destroy all confidence in history, requires indeed grace from above. Yet
Christians do not for a moment doubt the resurrection; and their belief
in this respect is founded on a _rock_; that is on prejudices they have
never examined, and to which from early infancy their spiritual guides
have prudently attached the greatest importance. They teach them to
immolate reason, judgment, and good sense, on the altar of faith. After
this sacrifice, it is no longer difficult to make them acknowledge,
without enquiry, the most palpable absurdities for truths, on which it
is not permitted even to be sceptical.
It is in vain that people of sense demonstrate the falsity of these
pretended truths; it is in vain that an intelligent critic stands up
against interested testimonies, visibly suggested by enthusiasm and
imposture; it is in vain, that humanity exclaims against wars,
massacres, and horrors without number, which absurd disputes on absurd
dogmas have occasioned. They silence the credulous by saying, that "it
is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to
nought the understanding of the prudent.--Where is the wise? Where are
the scribes? (the doctors of the law). Hath not God made foolish the
wisdom of this world by causing the foolishness of the gospel to be
preached?" It is by such declamations against reason and wisdom that
fanatics and impostors have almost banished good sense from the earth,
and formed slaves who make a merit of rejecting reason, of extinguishing
a sacred torch which would conduct them with certainty, on purpose to
lead them astray in the darkness which these interested guides know how
to infuse into minds.
The dogma of the resurrection of Jesus is only attested by men whose
subsistence depended on that absurd romance; and as roguery continually
belies itself, these witnesses could not agree among themselves in their
evidence. They tell us, that Jesus had publicly predicted his own
resurrection. He ought therefore to have risen publicly; he ought to
have shewn himself, not in secret to his disciples, but openly to
priests, pharisees, doctors, and men of understanding, especially after
having intimated, that it was the _only sign which would be given them_.
Was it not acknowledging the falsehood of his mission, to refuse the
sign by which he had solemnly promised to prove the truth of that
mission? Was it reasonable to require the Jews to believe, on the word
of his disciples, a fact which he could have demonstrated before their
own eyes? How is it possible for rational persons of the present age to
believe, after the lapse of eighteen hundred years, on the discordant
testimonies of four interested evangelists, fanatics, or fabulists, a
story which they could not make be believed in their own time; except by
a small number of imbecile people, incapable of reasoning, fond of the
marvellous, and of too limited understandings to escape the snares laid
for their simplicity. A Roman governor, a tetrarch, a Jewish high
priest, converted by the apparition of Jesus, would have made a greater
impression on a man of sense than a hundred secret apparitions to his
chosen disciples. The conversion of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem to the
faith, would have been of greater weight than all the obscure rabble
which the apostles prevailed on to believe their improbable marvels, and
persuaded that they had seen Jesus alive after his death.
If the apparitions of Jesus to his apostles were not obviously fables
invented by roguery, or adopted through enthusiasm and ignorance, the
motive of these clandestine visits cannot be divined. Become incapable
of suffering, and re-established in his divine omnipotence, was he still
afraid of the Jews? Could he dread being put to death a second time? By
again showing himself, had he not better reason to calculate on
converting them than he derived from all his sermons and miracles?
But it is said that the Jews by their opposition deserved to be
rejected; that the views of providence were changed; and that God no
longer wished his chosen people should be converted. These answers are
so many insults to the Divinity. How is it possible for men to withstand
God? Is it not to deny the Divine Omnipotence to pretend that man can
oppose its will? Man, it is asserted, is free; but must not a God who
knew every thing, have foreseen that the Jews would abuse their liberty
by resisting his will? In that case why send them his Son? Why make him
suffer to no purpose an infamous and cruel death? Why not send him at
once to creatures disposed to hear him, and render him homage? To
pretend that the views of providence were changed, is it not to attack
the divine immutability? Unless indeed it be said, that Deity had from
all eternity resolved on this change; which, however, will not shelter
that immutability.
Thus, in whatever point of view we contemplate the matter, it will
remain a decided fact, that the resurrection of Jesus, far from being
founded on solid proofs, unexceptionable testimony, and respectable
authority, is obviously established on falsehood and knavery, which
pervade every page of the discordant relations of those who have
pretended to vouch it.
After having made their hero revive and show himself, we know not how
often, to his trusty disciples, it was necessary in the end to make him
disappear altogether--to send him back to heaven, in order to conclude
the romance. But our story-tellers are not more in union on his
disappearance than on other things. They agree neither as to the time
nor the place of Jesus' ascension. Mark and Luke inform us, that Jesus
after having shown himself to the eleven apostles while they were at
table, and spoken to them, ascended into heaven. Luke adds, that he
conducted them as far as Bethany; lifted up his hands and blessed them,
and was afterwards carried up to heaven. Mark contradicts Luke, and
makes Jesus ascend to heaven from Galilee: and as if he had seen what
passed on high, places him on the right hand of God, who on this
occasion yielded to him the place of honor. Matthew and John do not
speak of this ascension. If we leave it to them, we must say, that Jesus
is still on earth according to the first of these evangelists, his last
words to his disciples gave them to understand, that he would "remain
with them until the end of the world." To fix our ideas on this subject,
Luke tells us, as we have seen, that Jesus ascended into heaven the very
evening of the day of the resurrection. But he afterwards informs us,
that Jesus tarried _forty days after his resurrection_ with his
disciples. Faith only can extricate us from this embarrassment. John
advances nothing in the matter; but leaves us in uncertainty as to the
time which Jesus passed on earth after his resurrection. Some
unbelievers on observing the romantic style of the gospel of this
apostle, have concluded from the manner in which he finishes his
history, that he meant to give free course to the fables which might
afterwards be published about Jesus. He terminates his narrative with
these words; "Jesus did also many other things, and if they should be
written every one, I suppose, that even the world itself could not
contain the books that should be written:" and with this hyperbole, the
well-beloved apostle finishes the Platonic romance which he made about
his master.