Evidences of Christianity by William Paley

W >> William Paley >> Evidences of Christianity

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30

There are, moreover, two other correspondencies between Saint John's
history of the transaction and theirs, of a kind somewhat different from
those which we have been now mentioning.

The first three evangelists record what is called our Saviour's agony,
i.e. his devotion in the garden immediately before he was apprehended;
in which narrative they all make him pray "that the cup might pass from
him." This is the particular metaphor which they all ascribe to him.
Saint Matthew adds, "O, my Father, if this cup may not pass away from
me, except I drink it, thy will be done." (Chap, xxvi. 42.) Now Saint
John does not give the scene in the garden: but when Jesus was seized,
and some resistance was attempted to be made by Peter, Jesus, according
to his account, checked the attempt, with this reply: "Put up thy sword
into the sheath; the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not
drink it?" (Chap. xviii. 11.) This is something more than
consistency---it is coincidence; because it is extremely natural that
Jesus, who, before he was apprehended, had been praying his Father that
"that cup might pass from him," yet with such a pious retraction of his
request as to have added, "If this cup may not pass from me, thy will be
done;" it was natural, I say, for the same person, when he actually was
apprehended, to express the resignation to which he had already made up
his thoughts, and to express it in the form of speech which he had
before used, "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink
it?" This is a coincidence between writers in whose narratives there is
no imitation, but great diversity.

A second similar correspondency is the following: Matthew and Mark make
the charge upon which our Lord was condemned to be a threat of
destroying the temple; "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple
made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without
hands:" (Mark xiv. 58.) but they neither of them inform us upon what
circumstance this calumny was founded. Saint John, in the early part of
the history, (Chap. ii. 19.) supplies us with this information; for he
relates, that on our Lord's first journey to Jerusalem, when the Jews
asked him "What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these
things? He answered, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise
it up." This agreement could hardly arise from anything but the truth of
the case. From any care or design in Saint John to make his narrative
tally with the narratives of other evangelists, it certainly did not
arise, for no such design appears, but the absence of it.

A strong and more general instance of agreement is the following.--The
first three evangelists have related the appointment of the twelve
apostles; (Matt. x. 1. Mark iii. 14. Luke vi. 12.) and have given a
catalogue of their names in form. John, without ever mentioning the
appointment, or giving the catalogue, supposes, throughout his whole
narrative, Christ to be accompanied by a select party of disciples; the
number of these to be twelve; (Chap. vi. 70.) and whenever he happens to
notice any one as of that number, (Chap. xx, 24; vi. 71.) it is one
included in the catalogue of the other evangelists: and the names
principally occurring in the course of his history of Christ are the
names extant in their list. This last agreement, which is of
considerable moment, runs through every Gospel, and through every
chapter of each. All this bespeaks reality.

CHAPTER V.

ORIGINALITY OF OUR SAVIOUR'S CHARACTER.

The Jews, whether right or wrong, had understood their prophecies to
foretell the advent of a person who by some supernatural assistance
should advance their nation to independence, and to a supreme degree of
splendour and prosperity. This was the reigning opinion and expectation
of the times. Now, had Jesus been an enthusiast, it is probable that his
enthusiasm would have fallen in with the popular delusion, and that,
while he gave himself out to be the person intended by these
predictions, he would have assumed the character to which they were
universally supposed to relate.

Had he been an impostor, it was his business to have flattered the
prevailing hopes, because these hopes were to be the instruments of his
attraction and success.

But what is better than conjectures is the fact, that all the pretended
Messiahs actually did so. We learn from Josephus that there were many of
these. Some of them, it is probable, might be impostors, who thought
that an advantage was to be taken of the state of public opinion.
Others, perhaps, were enthusiasts, whose imagination had been drawn to
this particular object by the language and sentiments which prevailed
around them. But whether impostors or enthusiasts, they concurred in
producing themselves in the character which their countrymen looked for,
that is to say, as the restorers and deliverers of the nation, in that
sense in which restoration and deliverance were expected by the Jews.

Why therefore Jesus, if he was, like them, either an enthusiast or
impostor, did not pursue the same conduct as they did, in framing his
character and pretensions, it will be found difficult to explain. A
mission, the operation and benefit of which was to take place in another
life, was a thing unthought of as the subject of these prophecies. That
Jesus, coming to them as their Messiah, should come under a character
totally different from that in which they expected him; should deviate
from the general persuasion, and deviate into pretensions absolutely
singular and original--appears to be inconsistent with the imputation of
enthusiasm or imposture, both which by their nature I should expect
would, and both which, throughout the experience which this very subject
furnishes, in fact, have followed the opinions that obtained at the
time.

If it be said that Jesus, having tried the other plan, turned at length
to this; I answer, that the thing is said without evidence; against
evidence; that it was competent to the rest to have done the same, yet
that nothing of this sort was thought of by any.

CHAPTER VI.

One argument which has been much relied upon (but not more than its just
weight deserves) is the conformity of the facts occasionally mentioned
or referred to in Scripture with the state of things in those times, as
represented by foreign and independent accounts; which conformity
proves, that the writers of the New Testament possessed a species of
local knowledge which could belong only to an inhabitant of that country
and to one living in that age. This argument, if well made out by
examples, is very little short of proving the absolute genuineness of
the writings. It carries them up to the age of the reputed authors, to
an age in which it must have been difficult to impose upon the Christian
public forgeries in the names of those authors, and in which there is no
evidence that any forgeries were attempted. It proves, at least, that
the books, whoever were the authors of them, were composed by persons
living in the time and country in which these things were transacted;
and consequently capable, by their situation, of being well informed of
the facts which they relate. And the argument is stronger when applied
to the New Testament, than it is in the case of almost any other
writings, by reason of the mixed nature of the allusions which this book
contains. The scene of action is not confined to a single country, but
displayed in the greatest cities of the Roman empire. Allusions are made
to the manners and principles of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews.
This variety renders a forgery proportionably more difficult, especially
to writers of a posterior age. A Greek or Roman Christian who lived in
the second or third century would have been wanting in Jewish
literature; a Jewish convert in those ages would have been equally
deficient in the knowledge of Greece and Rome. (Michaelis's Introduction
to the New Testament [Marsh's translation], c. ii. sect. xi.)

This, however, is an argument which depends entirely upon an induction
of particulars; and as, consequently, it carries with it little force
without a view of the instances upon which it is built, I have to request
the reader's attention to a detail of examples, distinctly and
articulately proposed. In collecting these examples I have done no more
than epitomise the first volume of the first part of Dr. Lardner's
Credibility of the Gospel History. And I have brought the argument
within its present compass, first, by passing over some of his sections
in which the accordancy appeared to me less certain, or upon subjects
not sufficiently appropriate or circumstantial; secondly, by contracting
every section into the fewest words possible, contenting myself for the
most part with a mere apposition of passages; and, thirdly, by omitting
many disquisitions, which, though learned and accurate, are not
absolutely necessary to the understanding or verification of the
argument.

The writer principally made use of in the inquiry is Josephus. Josephus
was born at Jerusalem four years after Christ's ascension. He wrote his
history of the Jewish war some time after the destruction of Jerusalem,
which happened in the year of our Lord LXX, that is, thirty-seven years
after the ascension; and his history of the Jews he finished in the year
xciii, that is, sixty years after the ascension. At the head of each
article I have referred, by figures included in brackets, to the page of
Dr. Lardner's volume where the section from which the abridgment is made
begins. The edition used is that of 1741.

I. [p. 14.] Matt. ii. 22. "When he (Joseph) heard that Archclaus did
reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go
thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned
aside into the parts of Galilee."

II. In this passage it is asserted that Archclaus succeeded Herod in
Judea; and it is implied that his power did not extend to Galilee. Now
we learn from Josephus that Herod the Great, whose dominion included all
the land of Israel, appointed Archelaus his successor in Judea, and
assigned the rest of his dominions to other sons; and that this
disposition was ratified, as to the main parts of it, by the Roman
emperor (Ant. lib. xvi. c. 8, sect. 1.).

Saint Matthew says that Archclaus reigned, was king, in Judea. Agreeably
to this, we are informed by Josephus, not only that Herod appointed
Archclaus his successor in Judea, but that he also appointed him with
the title of King; and the Greek verb basileuei, which the evangelist
uses to denote the government and rank of Archclaus, is used likewise by
Josephus (De Bell. lib. i. c. 3,3, sect. 7.).

The cruelty of Archelaus's character, which is not obscurely intimated
by the evangelist, agrees with divers particulars in his history
preserved by Josephus:--"In the tenth year of his government, the chief
of the Jews and Samaritans, not being able to endure his cruelty and
tyranny, presented complaints against him to Caesar." (Ant, lib. xii.
13, sect. 1.)

II. [p. 19.] Luke iii. 1. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar--Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip
tetrarch of Iturea, and of the region of Trachonitis--the word of God
came unto John."

By the will of Herod the Great, and the decree of Augustus thereupon,
his two sons were appointed, one (Herod Antipus) tetrarch of Galilee and
Peraea, and the other (Philip) tetrarch of Trachonitis and the
neighbouring countries. (Ant. lib. xvii. c. 8, sect. 1.) We have,
therefore, these two persons in the situations in which Saint Luke
places them; and also, that they were in these situations in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius; in other words, that they continued in
possession of their territories and titles until that time, and
afterwards, appears from a passage of Josephus, which relates of Herod,
"that he was removed by Caligula, the successor of Tiberius;" (Ant. lib.
xviii. c. 8, sect. 2.) and of Philip, that he died in the twentieth year
of Tiberius, when he had governed Trachonitis and Batanea and Gaulanitis
thirty-seven years. (Ant. lib. xviii. c. 5, sect. 6.)

III. [p. 20.] Mark vi. 17. "Herod had sent forth, and laid hold upon
John, and bound him in prison, for Heredias' sake, his brother Philip's
wife: for he had married her." (See also Matt. xiv. 1--13; Luke iii.
19.)

With this compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 6, sect. 1:--"He (Herod
the tetrareh) made a visit to Herod his brother.--Here, failing in love
with Herodias, the wife of the said Herod, he ventured to make her
proposals of marriage."*

_________

* The affinity of the two accounts is unquestionable; but there is a
difference in the name of Herodias's first husband, which in the
evangelist is Philip; in Josephus, Herod. The difficulty, however, will
not appear considerable when we recollect how common it was in those
times for the same persons to bear two names. "Simon, which is called
Peter; Lebbeus, whose surname is Thaddeus; Thomas, which is called
Didymus; Simeon, who was called Niger; Saul, who was also called Paul."
The solution is rendered likewise easier in the present case by the
consideration that Herod the Great had children by seven or eight wives;
that Josephus mentions three of his sons under the name of Herod; that
it is nevertheless highly probable that the brothers bore some
additional name by which they were distinguished from one another.
Lardner, vol. ii. p. 897.
_________

Again, Mark vi. 22. "And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in
and danced."

With this also compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 6, sect. 4. "Herodias
was married to Herod, son of Herod the Great. They had a daughter, whose
name was Salome; after whose birth Herodias, in utter violation of the
laws of her country, left her husband, then living, and married Herod
the tetrarch of Galilee, her husband's brother by the father's side."

IV. [p. 29.] Acts xii. 1. "Now, about that time, Herod the king
stretched forth his hands, to vex certain of the church."

In the conclusion of the same chapter, Herod's death is represented to
have taken place soon after this persecution. The accuracy of our
historian, or, rather, the unmeditated coincidence which truth of its
own accord produces, is in this instance remarkable. There was no
portion of time for thirty years before, nor ever afterwards, in which
there was a king at Jerusalem, a person exercising that authority in
Judea, or to whom that title could be applied, except the last three
years of this Herod's life, within which period the transaction recorded
in the Acts is stated to have taken place. This prince was the grandson
of Herod the Great. In the Acts he appears under his family-name of
Herod; by Josephus he was called Agrippa. For proof that he was a king,
properly so called, we have the testimony of Josephus, in full and
direct terms:--"Sending for him to his palace, Caligula put a crown upon
his head, and appointed him king of the tetrarchie of Philip, intending
also to give him the tetrarchie of Lysanias." (Antiq. xviii. c. 7, sect.
10.) And that Judea was at last, but not until the last, included in his
dominions, appears by a subsequent passage of the same Josephus, wherein
he tells us that Claudius, by a decree, confirmed to Agrippa the
dominion which Caligula had given him; adding also Judea and Samaria, in
the utmost extent, as possessed by his grandfather Herod (Antiq. xix. c.
5, sect. 1.).

V. [p. 32.] Acts xii. 19--23. "And he (Herod) went down from Judea to
Cesarea, and there abode. And on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal
apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them: and the
people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man;
and immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God
the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."

Joseph. Antiq. lib. xix. c. 8, sect. 2. "He went to the city of Cesarea.
Here he celebrated shows in honour of Caesar. On the second day of the
shows, early in the morning, he came into the theatre, dressed in a robe
of silver, of most curious workmanship. The rays of the rising sun,
reflected from such a splendid garb, gave him a majestic and awful
appearance. They called him a god; and intreated him to be propitious to
them, saying, Hitherto we have respected you as a man; but now we
acknowledge you to be more than mortal. The king neither reproved these
persons, nor rejected the impious flattery. Immediately after this he
was seized with pains in his bowels, extremely violent at the very
first. He was carried therefore with all haste to his palace. These
pains continually tormenting him, he expired in five days' time."

The reader will perceive the accordancy of these accounts in various
particulars. The place (Cesarea), the set day, the gorgeous dress, the
acclamations of the assembly, the peculiar turn of the flattery, the
reception of it, the sudden and critical incursion of the disease, are
circumstances noticed in both narratives. The worms mentioned by Saint
Luke are not remarked by Josephus; but the appearance of these is a
symptom not unusually, I believe, attending the disease which Josephus
describes, viz., violent affections of the bowels.

VI. [p. 41.] Acts xxiv. 24. "And after certain days, when Felix came
with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul."

Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. c. 6, sect. 1, 2. "Agrippa gave his sister
Drusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of the Emesenes, when he had
consented to be circumcised.--But this marriage of Drusilla with Azizus
was dissolved in a short time after, in this manner:--When Felix was
procurator of Judea, having had a sight of her, he was mightily taken
with her.--She was induced to transgress the laws of her country, and
marry Felix."

Here the public station of Felix, the name of his wife, and the singular
circumstance of her religion, all appear in perfect conformity with the
evangelist.

VII. [p. 46.] Acts xxv. 13. "And after certain days king Agrippa and
Berenice came to Cesarea to salute Festus." By this passage we are in
effect told that Agrippa was a king, but not of Judea; for he came to
salute Festus, who at this time administered the government of that
country at Cesarea.

Now, how does the history of the age correspond with this account? The
Agrippa here spoken of was the son of Herod Agrippa, mentioned in the
last article; but that he did not succeed to his father's kingdom, nor
ever recovered Judea, which had been a part of it, we learn by the
information of Josephus, who relates of him that when his father was
dead Claudius intended at first to have put him immediately in
possession of his father's dominions; but that, Agrippa being then but
seventeen years of age, the emperor was persuaded to alter his mind, and
appointed Cuspius Fadus prefect of Judea and the whole kingdom; (Antiq.
xi. c. 9 ad fin.) which Fadus was succeeded by Tiberius Alexander,
Cumanus, Felix, Festus. (Antiq. xx. de Bell. lib. ii.) But that, though
disappointed of his father's kingdom, in which was included Judea, he
was, nevertheless, rightly styled King Agrippa, and that he was in
possession of considerable territories, bordering upon Judea, we gather
from the same authority: for, after several successive donations of
country, "Claudius, at the same time that he sent Felix to be procurator
of Judea, promoted Agrippa from Chalcis to a greater kingdom, giving to
him the tetrarchie which had been Philip's; and he added, moreover, the
kingdom of Lysanias, and the province that had belonged to Varus." (De
Bell. lib. li. c. 12 ad fin.)

Saint Paul addresses this person as a Jew: "King Agrippa, believest thou
the prophets? I know that thou believest." As the son of Herod Agrippa,
who is described by Josephus to have been a zealous Jew, it is
reasonable to suppose that he maintained the same profession. But what
is more material to remark, because it is more close and circumstantial,
is, that Saint Luke, speaking of the father (Acts xii. 1--3), calls him
Herod the, king, and gives an example of the exercise of his authority
at Jerusalem: speaking of the son (xxv. 13), he calls him king, but not
of Judea; which distinction agrees correctly with the history.

VIII. [p. 51.] Acts xiii. 6. "And when they had gone through the isle
(Cyprus) to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a
Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus, which was with the deputy of the country,
Sergius Paulus, a prudent man."

The word which is here translated deputy, signifies and upon this word
our observation is founded. The provinces of the Roman empire were of
two kinds; those belonging the emperor, in which the governor was called
proprietor; those belonging to the senate, in which the governor was
proconsul. And this was a regular distinction. Now it appears from Dio
Cassius, (Lib. liv. ad A. U. 732.) that the province of Cyprus, which, in
original distribution, was assigned to the emperor, had transferred to
the senate, in exchange for some others; and after this exchange, the
appropriate title of the Roman was proconsul.

Ib. xviii. 12. [p. 55.] "And when Gallio was deputy (proconsul) of
Achaia."

The propriety of the title "proconsul" is in this still more critical.
For the province of Achaia, after passing from the senate to the
emperor, had been restored again by the emperor Claudius to the senate
(and consequently its government had become proconsular) only six or
seven years before the time in which this transaction is said to have
taken place. (Suet. in Claud. c. xxv. Dio, lib. lxi.) And what confines
with strictness the appellation to the time is, that Achaia under the
following reign ceased to be a Roman province at all.

IX. [p. 152.] It appears, as well from the general constitution of a
Roman province, as from what Josephus delivers concerning the state of
Judea in particular, (Antiq. lib. xx. c. 8, sect. 5; c. 1, sect. 2.) that
the power of life and death resided exclusively in the Roman governor;
but that the Jews, nevertheless, had magistrates and a council, invested
with a subordinate and municipal authority. This economy is discerned in
every part of the Gospel narrative of our Saviour's crucifixion.

X. [p. 203.] Acts ix. 31. "Then had the churches rest throughout all
Judea and Galilee and Samaria."

This rest synchronises with the attempt of Caligula to place his statue
in the temple of Jerusalem; the threat of which outrage produced amongst
the Jews a consternation that, for a season, diverted their attention
from every other object. (Joseph. de Bell lib. Xi. c. 13, sect. 1, 3, 4.)

XI. [p. 218.] Acts xxi. 30. "And they took Paul, and drew him out of the
temple; and forthwith the doors were shut. And as they went about to
kill him, tidings came to the chief captain of the band that all
Jerusalem was in an uproar. Then the chief captain came near, and took
him and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and demanded who he
was, and what he had done; and some cried one thing, and some another,
among the multitude: and, when he could not know the certainty for the
tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle. And when he came
upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the
violence of the people."

In this quotation we have the band of Roman soldiers at Jerusalem, their
office (to suppress tumults), the castle, the stairs, both, as it should
seem, adjoining to the temple. Let us inquire whether we can find these
particulars in any other record of that age and place.

Joseph. de. Ball. lib. v. e. 5, sect. 8. "Antonia was situated at the
angle of the western and northern porticoes of the outer temple. It was
built upon a rock fifty cubits high, steep on all sides.--On that side
where it joined to the porticoes of the temple, there were stairs
reaching to each portico, by which the guard descended; for there was
always lodged here a Roman legion; and posting themselves in their
armour in several places in the porticoes, they kept a watch on the
people on the feast-days to prevent all disorders; for as the temple was
a guard to the city, so was Antonia to the temple."

XII. [p. 224.] Acts iv. 1. "And as they spake unto the people, the
priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon
them." Here we have a public officer, under the title of captain of the
temple, and he probably a Jew, as he accompanied the priests and
Sadducees in apprehending the apostles.

Joseph. de Bell. lib. ii. c. 17, sect. 2. "And at the temple, Eleazer,
the son of Ananias the high priest, a young man of a bold and resolute
disposition, then captain, persuaded those who performed the sacred
ministrations not to receive the gift or sacrifice of any stranger."

XIII. [p. 225.] Acts xxv. 12. "Then Festus, when he had conferred with
the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt
thou go." That it was usual for the Roman presidents to have a council
consisting of their friends, and other chief Romans in the province,
appears expressly in the following passage of Cicero's oration against
Verres:--"Illud negare posses, aut nunc negabis, te, concilio tuo
dimisso, viris primariis, qui in consilio C. Sacerdotis fuerant, tibique
esse volebant, remotis, de re judicata judicasse?"

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30