Kitabı oku: «Not Paul, But Jesus», sayfa 26

SECTION 12.
SUPPOSABLE MIRACLE XI. – AT MALTA, A REPTILE SHAKEN OFF BY PAUL WITHOUT HURT. —Acts 28:1-6

A fire of sticks being kindled, a reptile, here called a viper, is represented as "coming out of the heat," and fastening on Paul's hand. On beholding this incident, – "the barbarous people," as the inhabitants are called, whose hospitality kindled the fire for the relief of the shipwrecked company, concluded that Paul was a murderer: and were, accordingly, in expectation of seeing him "swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly." Nothing of this sort happened, their next conclusion was, that he was a God. As such, did these barbarians, as did the civilized inhabitants of Lystra, sacrifice to him, or in any other way worship him? No: these conceptions of theirs reported, there the story ends.

Of this story, what is to be made? At this time of day, among Christians in general, what we should expect to find is, that it passed for a miracle. But, if by miracle is meant, not merely an accident, somewhat singular and extraordinary, – but, by a special act of Almighty power, an effect produced, by means disconformable to the uniform course of nature, – it might be too much to say, that even by the reporter himself, it is for the decided purpose of its being taken for miracle, that it is brought to view.

If, however, the design was not here, that the incident should be taken for a miracle, – the story amounted to nothing, and was not worth the telling. But, if it is to be made into a miracle, where is the matter in it, out of which a miracle can be made?

The reptile – was it really a viper? Neither the barbarians of Malta, nor the reporter of this story, nor in a word, at that time of day, any other persons whatever, were either very complete or very correct, in their conception of matters belonging to the field of natural history. At present, reptiles are crawling creatures. At this time of day, when leeches are excepted, to fasten upon the part they have bitten is not the practice with any reptiles that we know of. If, instead of viper, the Greek word had been one that could have been translated leech, – the story would have been probable enough, but, were it only for that very reason, no miracle could have been made out of it. Shaken down into the fire, that is, into the burning fuel, – a small reptile, such as a leech, how brisk soever in the water, would be very apt to be overpowered by the heat, before it could make its escape: with a reptile of the ordinary size of a viper, this would hardly be the case.

Be this as it may, "he felt," – so says the story, – "he felt no harm." How came it that he felt no harm? Because the Almighty performed a miracle to preserve him from harm? So long as eyes are open, causes out of number – causes that have nothing wonderful in them – present themselves to view before this. "The beast," as it is translated, "was not a viper": – if really a viper, it happened, at that moment, not to be provided with a competent stock of venom: it had already expended it upon some other object: – by some accident or other, it had lost the appropriate tooth. Not to look out for others, – any mind that was not bent upon having a miracle at any price, would lay hold of some such cause as one of these, sooner than give itself any such trouble as that of torturing the incident into a miracle.

To bring under calculation the quantity of supernatural power necessary to the production of a given effect is no very easy task. At any rate, – without more or less of expense in a certain shape, nothing in that way could ever be done. In the case here in question, what could have been the object of any such expense? Was it the saving the self-constituted Apostle the pain of a bite? The expense then, would it not have been less – the operation, so to speak, more economical – had a slight turn been given to Paul's hand, or to the course of the reptile? But, in either case, neither would the name of the Lord, nor – what was rather more material – that of his Apostle, have received that glorification which was so needful to it.

Any such design, as that of giving an unequivocal manifestation of Almighty power, such as should stand the test of scrutiny, testifying the verity of Paul's commission to the end of time, – any such design could the incident have had for its final cause? A more equivocal, – a less conclusive, – proof of the manifestation of supernatural power, seems not very easy to imagine.

Here then comes once more the so often repeated conclusion: – the narrative began to be in want of a miracle, and the miracle was made.

In those days, among that people, miracles were so much in course, that without a reasonable number of them, a history would hardly have obtained credence: at any rate it would not have obtained readers, and without readers no history can ever obtain much credence.

SECTION 13.
SUPPOSABLE MIRACLE XII. – AT MALTA, DEPUTY PUBLIUS'S FATHER CURED. —Acts 28:7-10

"In the same quarters," says the story – it follows immediately upon that of the viper. "In the same quarters were possessions of the chief man of the island, whose name was Publius, who received us and lodged us three days courteously. – And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever, and of a bloody flux, to whom Paul entered in and prayed, and laid his hands on him and healed him. – So when this was done, others also which had diseases in the island, came and were healed. – Who also honoured us with many honours, and when we departed, they laded us with such things as were necessary."

Of the fevers, which, within the compass of any given spot, and any given space of time, have place, it almost always happens, that a certain number go off of themselves. Of, perhaps, all sorts of fever, – at least of almost all sorts at present known, thus much is agreed upon by all physicians: – they have at least two regular courses, one of which terminates in death, the other or others in recovery. Supposing the person in question to have had a fever, – what is pretty clear is – that, if of itself, it would have taken a favourable termination, there was nothing, in the forms employed by Paul, viz., utterance of prayers and imposition of hands, that could have any natural tendency to cause it to take an unfavourable one.

But – the course afterwards taken by the fever, was there anything in it to distinguish it from the ordinary favourable course? If not, in that case, so far from miraculous, there is nothing that is so much as wonderful in the case.

Note here two things – the narrator one of the party; the narrative so loose and uncircumstantial. But to see is one thing; to narrate, another.

Three days, it seems, and no more, did Paul and his suite stay at the house of this Publius. Was it during that time, or not till afterwards, that Paul performed on him those ceremonies, of which healing is represented as having been the consequence? Was it within that same space of time, or not till afterwards, that the healing is supposed to have taken place? As to the English word healing, it cannot be accused of being indecisive. But in some languages they have words, by which a very convenient veil is thrown over the result. In the languages in question, for the endeavour to heal, whether successful or unsuccessful, the word employed is the same. The Latin affords one of these convenient words, curo. The Greek has another, iasato, and in the Greek original of this history, this is the word employed.

In a case where a ceremony and nothing else is trusted to, it being supposed that the patient really has the disease, the safe and prudent course is, so to order times and seasons, that between the time of performing the ceremony, and the time at which restoration to health is expected to take place, the time shall have come for the practitioner to have shifted quarters; for, in this case, this is an interval more or less considerable during which it being taken for granted that the desired result will take place of course, reward, in the shapes of profit and honour, will pour in upon the scientific head.

Here, as elsewhere, not only no symptoms are particularized, but no place is mentioned: no time is particularized, no persons are mentioned as percipient witnesses: even the individual who was the subject of the cure is not mentioned by name.

As to the givers of the supposed honours and presents – persons are indeed mentioned: – mentioned, but no otherwise than by the name of others. One individual alone is particularized: particularized as having received the benefit of these ceremonies. This is the father of Publius. This man, to use the phraseology of the passage, was also healed. But – this man who was he? He was no less a person than the father of the chief man in the island. Well then, what are the honours, what the allotment of "such things as were necessary?" What were the proofs of gratitude, afforded by this man, who was so much better able to afford such presents, than any of those other persons cured? By such proofs of remuneration, some evidence – some circumstantial evidence, – supposing them exhibited at a proper time, would have been afforded, in proof of the reality of the service. But, neither by the person thus spoken of as healed, nor by his son – the chief man in the island, – is it said that any such proofs were afforded. For such a silence when the case of an individual was brought to view, coupled with the express declaration made, of gifts presented by persons unnamed, – three cases cannot but present themselves, as being any one of them more probable, than that, on this occasion, a real miracle was performed. One is – that there was no disease, perhaps no such person: another is, that though there was a disease, it went off of itself: the third is, that it never went off at all.

One thing may be asserted without much fear of contradiction: and that is, that in this country, if in terms such as these, accounts were inserted in the public prints; – accounts of diseases cured without medicine; – diseases cured by nothing but words and gesticulations; – though the accounts given were ever so numerous, not the smallest notice would they be thought worthy of, – not the smallest attention would they receive from anyone, unless it were for the joke's sake.

What is more, – numerous are the publications, in which, encompassed with circumstantiality in all manner of shapes, not only the names of the fortunate patients are mentioned, but under the signatures of those patients declarations made, assuring the public of the reality of the cure, – and yet, when at the same time, by competent persons, due inquiry has been made, it turns out after all that no such cure has been performed.

Accounts, which would not be believed were they to come out at a time of so widely diffused knowledge, are they to be believed, merely because the time they belonged to, – facts and accounts together, – was, as to all such matters, a time of universal ignorance? The less a man understands the subject, the more firmly is he to be believed, as to everything he says of it? Or is it that, between then and now, men and things have undergone a total change? and, if so, when did it take place?

SECTION 14.
CONCLUSION: THE SUPPOSABLE MIRACLES CLASSED AND SUMMED UP

Inferences, – conveying more or less of instruction, – may, perhaps, be found deducible, – at any rate our conception of the whole series taken together, will be rendered so much the clearer, by bringing the same supposed marvels again under review, arranged in the order of time.

For this purpose, the time may be considered as divided into three periods.

In the first are included – those, which are represented as having had place during the time when at the outset of his missionary expedition, Paul had Barnabas for his associate. Of these there are two, viz. 1. At Paphos, A.D. 45, Sorcerer Elymas blinded. 2. At Lystra, A.D. 46, cripple cured. Of this part of the expedition, the commencement, as in the current account, placed in the year 45.

In the second period are included – those, which are represented as having had place, during the time when Paul, after his separation from Barnabas, had Silas for his associate, and the unnamed author of the Acts for an attendant. This ends with his arrival at Jerusalem, on the occasion of his fourth visit – the Invasion Visit.

In the current accounts, this event is placed in the year 60. Within this period, we have the seven following supposed marvels: 1. At Philippi, A.D. 53, divineress silenced. 2. At Philippi, A.D. 53, earthquake: Paul and Silas freed from prison. 3. At Corinth, A.D. 54, Paul comforted by the Lord in an unseen vision. 4. At Ephesus, A.D. 56, diseases and devils expelled by Paul's foul handkerchiefs. 5. At Ephesus, A.D. 55, Exorcist Scevas bedeviled. 6. At Ephesus, A.D. 56, magic books burned by the owners. 7. At Troas, A.D. 59, Eutychus found not to be dead.

In the third period are included – those which are represented as having had place, in the interval between his forced departure from Jerusalem for Rome, and his arrival at Rome.

In the current accounts, this event is placed in the year 62. Within this concluding period, we have the following supposed marvels: 1. On shipboard, A.D. 62, Paul comforted by an angel. 2. At Malta, A.D. 62, a reptile shaken off by Paul without his being hurt. 3. At Malta, A.D. 62, Deputy Publius's father cured by Paul of some disorder. Year of all these three last marvels, the same as that of Paul's arrival at Rome. Total number of supposed marvels, twelve.

To the first of these three periods belong two supposed marvels, which, supposing them to have any foundation in truth, present themselves as being, in a greater degree than most of the others, exposed to the suspicion of contrivance. A moderate sum, greater or less according to the state more or less flourishing of his practice, might suffice to engage a sorcerer, for a few minutes or hours, to declare himself struck blind: a still more moderate sum might suffice to engage an itinerant beggar, to exhibit himself with one leg tied up, and after hearing what was proper to be heard, or seeing what was proper to be seen, to declare himself cured.

This was the period, during which Paul had Barnabas, or Barnabas Paul, for an associate. In these cases, if fraud in any shape had place, – it is not without reluctance, that any such supposition could be entertained, as that Barnabas – the generous, the conciliating, the beneficent, the persevering Barnabas – was privy to it. But, times and temptation considered, even might this supposition be assented to, on rather more substantial grounds, than that which stands in competition with it: namely, that for the production of two effects, – comparatively so inconsiderable, and not represented as having been followed by any determinate effects of greater moment, – the ordinary course of nature was, by a special interposition of Almighty power, broken through and disturbed.

Is it or is it not a matter worth remarking – that, of all these twelve supposed occurrences, such as they are, – in not more than four is the hero represented, – even by his own attendant, historian, and panegyrist, – as decidedly taking any active part in the production of the effect? These are – the blinding of the sorcerer, the cure of the cripple, the silencing of the divineress, the curing of Deputy Publius's father: the three first, at the commencement of this supposed wonder-working part of his career; the last, – with an interval of fifteen years between that and the first, – at the very close of it. In the eight intermediate instances, either the effect itself amounted to nothing, or the hero is scarcely represented as being instrumental in the production of it. These are – the being let out of prison after an earthquake had happened – being comforted, whether by God or man, in a vision or without one – having handkerchiefs, by which, when he had done with them, diseases and devils were expelled – being present when a gang of exorcists were beaten and stripped by a devil, whom they had undertaken to drive out of a man – being in a place, in which some nonsensical books were burned by their owners – being in a house, in which a youth said to be dead, was found not to be so – being comforted by an angel, who had the kindness to come on board ship uninvited – shaking off a reptile, without being hurt by it.

Whatever store may be set at this time of day upon all these marvels, less cannot easily be set upon them by anybody than was by Paul himself. For proof, take the whole tenor of his own Epistles, as well as the whole tenor of his visions, as delivered by his attendant. Numberless as were the scrapes he got himself into, – numberless as were the hosts of enemies he everywhere made himself, – open as all ears were to everything that presented itself as marvellous, – unable as men were to distinguish what could be done from what could not be done, – pressing as was at all times the need he had of evidence, that could arrest the hands of enemies, – on no occasion do we find him calling into his aid, so much as a single one of all these supposed irrefragable evidences.

CHAPTER XIV

Acts, part false, part true: Author not Saint Luke

SECTION 1.
BY THE FALSE PARTS, THE GOSPEL NOT AFFECTED: MOST PARTS TRUE

In regard to the Acts, a notion, generally, not to say universally, received, is – that it had Saint Luke for its author: and that, accordingly, it may with propriety be regarded as a continuation of the Gospel of that Evangelist, written by the same hand. Were this conception a correct one, whatsoever shock were given to the credit of the Acts, would unavoidably extend itself to the Gospel history: at any rate, to that part of it which bears the name of Luke.

Before this chapter is at an end, – the reader, if the author is not much mistaken, will not only be convinced that that opinion is untenable, but see no small ground for wondering, how by any person, by whom any survey had been taken of the two objects in that point of view, any such notion should ever have come to be entertained.

Another memento, of which, if made before, even the repetition may in this place, perhaps, be not without its use, is – that, from nothing that is here said, is any such conception meant to be conveyed, as that the history called The Acts, is from beginning to end, like that of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of Britain, a mere falsity. In a great part, perhaps even by much the greatest, it is here looked upon as true: in great part true, although in no inconsiderable part incorrect, to say no worse: and, in particular, on every point, on which the colour of the marvellous is visible. As to the sort and degree of evidence due to it, one general assumption there is, by which the whole of this inquiry has, from first to last, been guided. This is – that, in relation to one and the same work, whatsoever be the subject of it, credence may, without inconsistency or impropriety, by one and the same person, be given and withholden: given, on this or that occasion; withholden, on this or that other occasion: given, in so far as the truth of the contents seems probable; withholden, as far as it seems improbable.

For the support of this assumption, – all that, on the present occasion, can be offered, is – an appeal to universal experience. As to the general foundations of the law of evidence, – for any excursion into so wide an expanse, neither this chapter nor any other part of this work would, it has been thought, be generally regarded as a proper place. What had been written on that subject has accordingly been discarded.

SECTION 2.
TIME BETWEEN RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION – ACTS CONTRADICTS LUKE

In the first place then, Saint Luke cannot have been the author of the Acts.

The reason is very simple. In respect of the time between Jesus's resurrection and his ascension, – the one of these narratives gives one account, the other, another account: and, so wide is the difference between the two, that by one and the same person they could not have both been given. According to Saint Luke, the time during which, after his resurrection, and before his ascension, Jesus was seen by his disciples, extended not beyond one day: according to the Acts, it extended as far as forty days. By Saint Luke, that the time was not more than a day, is not indeed said in so many words; but upon examination of the text, it will be found, that, consistently with the particulars given, no longer duration can be assigned to it. In the Acts, that the time, during which he continued showing himself after his passion, Acts 1:3,⁸¹ to the Apostles, was "forty days," is affirmed in those very words.

The point here in question, be it observed, is not truth, but consistency: not the truth of either of the two accounts; but their consistency, the one with the other: and, instead of consistency, so palpable is the inconsistency, that the conclusion is, – by no one man, who did not, on one or other of the two occasions, intend thereby to deceive, can both of them, morally speaking, have been penned.

Now for the proof. First, let us hear Saint Luke: it is all of it in his last chapter – the 24th. In verse 10, mention is made of certain women, three named, others not named. In verses 2 and 3, "they entered into," it is said, "the sepulchre," ver. 2, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus." In ver. 9, "they returned," it is said, "from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." Thereupon it is, that, of all them, "two" ver. 13, of whom Cleopas, ver. 18, was one, "went that same day to Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about sixty furlongs: and while they communed together," it was that "Jesus," ver. 15, "drew near, and went with them," whereupon between him and them a conversation therein reported, ensued. The conversation, – the same conversation, as reported in verses from 16 to 27, – continues till their arrival at the village, ver. 28, namely, Emmaus, as per ver. 13. According to the next verse, ver. 29, "the day," namely, that same day, "being far spent," at that same place, "he went in to tarry with them," they having "constrained him." Then also it is that, ver. 30, "he sat at meat with them: " and, ver. 31, "they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight." Moreover, "at that same hour" it is, ver. 33, that "they returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying," ver. 34, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon." Then it is also, that, ver. 36, they reporting what had passed, "as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." Thereupon follows a conversation, reported in verses from 37 to 49, in the course of which he, ver. 43, "did eat before them." Then it is, that, immediately after the last words, which, in ver. 49, he is stated to have uttered, come these words, ver. 50, "And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to pass," says the next verse, ver. 51, "while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him," continues the next verse, ver. 52, "and returned to Jerusalem with great joy." And, with the next verse, which says, "they were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God," – the chapter, and with it the Gospel, ends.

So much for Saint Luke. Now for the author of the Acts, chapter 1, ver. 3, "To whom," says he, namely the Apostles, ver. 2, "he," namely Jesus, ver. 1, "showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days…"

Thus while, according to the author of the Acts the time – during which Jesus was seen by the persons in question was not less than forty days, – according to Saint Luke, the whole time, during which this same Jesus was seen by those same persons, was not more than one day. And who was this historian, who, on the supposition of the identity, speaking of this all-important scene, on one occasion says, that it lasted no more than one day; and, on another occasion, professing, Acts 1:1, to be giving continuance to such his former discourse, declares, in so many words, that it lasted "forty days"? It is Saint Luke, one of the Apostles of Jesus; – one, of the eleven, before whose eyes, everything of that which has just been read, is stated as having passed.

With all this before him, does the editor of the edition of the Bible, called Scholey's Bible, in a note to the commencement of the Acts, very composedly assure us, that "from its style, and other internal marks, it is evidently the production of Luke": quoting for his authority, Bishop of Lincoln's Elements of Christian Theology, vol. 4. Who this same Bishop of Lincoln was, by whose Elements of Christian Theology, instruction such as this is administered, let those inquire, in whose eyes the profit of the inquiry promises payment for the trouble. From any such particular inquiry, the profit will perhaps appear the less, the greater appears the probability, that, in the minds of all Bishops, – from the first that ever committed his instructions in theology to the press, down to those by whom the Christian world is illuminated at this present writing, – the same sort of discernment, or the same sort of sincerity, has all along had place.

When 20,000l, a year – or though it were but 20l, once told – or, though it were but salvation from everlasting torment – is to be gained; gained, by the perception, that two men, the one of whom writes in point-blank contradiction to the other, are one and the same man, – the task is not, naturally speaking, of the number of those, by the performance of which much wonder need be excited.

The sort of improvement, made by the author of the later history, upon the account given in the earlier, has now been seen. Would anyone wish to see the inducement? He will not have far to look for it. For making the impression, which it was his desire to make, – the one day, allotted to the occurrence by one of the company, was not, in the estimation of the anonymous writer, sufficient. To render it sufficient, he calls in the powers of arithmetic: he multiplies the one by forty; and thus, to the unquestionable satisfaction of a host of mathematicians, – Barrow, Newton, and so many other mathematical divines, not to speak of Locke, of the number – thus is done what is required to be done: thus, by so simple an operation, is the probative force of the occurrence multiplied forty-fold.⁸²