great difficulties in the way of the mythic theory. It is not easy to convince an unprejudiced mind that legends preserve such harmonies of time, place, and character; that they are so correct in trifles, in the smallest details, and at the same time so free from all extravagancies and unnaturalness. These are the exclusive property of his tory, and actual life; and the narrative possessing them, especially when written by plain, uneducated men, furnishes the most unexceptional proof which can be given, that it is in all essentials correct and true. And here we must bring to a close our examination of Strauss and the mythic system, though we designed reviewing several other points, which want of space compels us to omit. Specially did we purpose to notice his extraordinary assumption respecting the resurrection of Jesus, where it seems, to our judgment, that the theory completely breaks down. The sudden and remarkable change which came over the desponding and discouraged disciples soon after the death of Christ, Strauss is compelled to admit, to account for the continuance and present existence of Christianity. To explain this he supposes that the disciples imagined that the Savior rose from the dead! Why they should imagine, or how they could imagine, such an unlooked for event, after having all hope crushed by his crucifixion, is not so easily explained. It is, however, necessary to complete the theory, and so, without proof, it is unscrupulously asserted. They imagined he had risen, and yet there was his dead body all this while in the tomb (for Strauss does not allow the story of stealing the body), and they might have gone at any hour to that tomb, and ascertained the fact; and so have corrected the error of imagination by the testimony of actual sight and touch! Now can any one in his senses believe such a ridiculously absurd and improbable statement ? and yet this is one of the assumptions on which the whole mythic system hinges. * Had we space enough we should be glad to enter more fully upon this and the other particulars alluded to; but we must forbear. We leave what has been offered to the reader, believing that enough has been said to convince him that it is certainly quite as safe to trust to the histories of Matthew and his companions, as to the criticisms of Dr. Strauss. *It is almost amusing to see how unconsciously Dr. Strauss has let escape him the self-conviction that he had failed to give a satisfactory explanation of this difficulty, and to show whence the disciples could possibly have gotten this imagining that Christ had risen from the dead. He says, speaking of this event, "After his death, the belief in his resurrection, whencesoever it might come, was more than sufficient to convince men that Jesus was the Messiah; so that the residue of what was miraculous in his life ought to be considered, not as a cause, but as a consequence, of a belief in his Messiahship." * This "whencesoever it might come," shows plainly the drift of his thought, and betrays his own consciousness that he had not succeeded in proving whence the belief in the resurrection of Jesus did come, if not from the actual event. He makes this belief the source of the other miraculous accounts in Christ's life; but what was the source of this belief? Faith in his miracles is the result of faith in his resurrection; but what is the faith in his resurrection the result of? Here is where Strauss' speculations stagger and come to the ground again. * Vol. i. p. 83. Introduction, Sect. 14. 33 CHAPTER XI. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. THE DIFFERENCES IN THE ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY. INTRODUCTORY. 1. NOTHING can be more unfair, or betray greater ignorance of the actual events of daily life, than to pronounce a story, told by two or three witnesses, false, because in some unimportant particulars these witnesses differ, or even contradict each other. It is a well known fact, that eye-witnesses do disagree in regard to the details of an event, and this every day, in social life and in our courts of justice, without the reality of the event itself being questioned or doubted for a moment. No two persons ever, probably, saw any single occurrence in precisely the same light, in regard to all its details; and when their observation and narrative extended to the events of several years of personal action and teaching, it would be a miracle if they should not differ or disagree in the smallest particulars of time, place, or arrangement. But no reasonable man would argue from these differences, that the whole story was falsehood or fable, or that they destroyed the credibility of the narrators. So far from this, he would regard these slight discrepancies, or even contradictions, as to the minute details, as sure proof that the witnesses had not compared notes, or consulted together, to make their stories agree, and fit the testimony of one to that of the other. Agreement in substance, or in the main facts, and disagreement in unimportant details, is the most unexceptional evidence of truth and honesty. 2. Applying this universally acknowledged rule to the Gospel narratives, we admit the disagreement in minute circumstances, and accept the fact as proof of their integrity and authenticity. We are not troubled by the pres ence of these discrepancies, but we should have been very greatly troubled by their absence; for then we should have felt that the sceptic would have had good ground for the charge, that there was a combination among the writers to tell the same story. It would be, in this case, much more difficult to disprove such a charge, than to meet the objection based on their disagreement touching the details of their story. Nevertheless, as much account has been made of these differences by those who have written against the Gospels, it is proper that we should examine the condition of the question. But first let us see what is the character of these discrepancies. The following will show this. 3. Matthew says the parents of Jesus fled with him into Egypt; but Luke, not mentioning this, says they went to Jerusalem, and then returned to Galilee. There is also a seeming difference respecting the calling of Andrew, Peter, &c., as related by Matthew and John. Matthew says that Jesus cured the leper before entering the city of Capernaum; but Mark and Luke after he left it. One writer says he healed two Gedarene demoniacs; the other mentions only one. Luke says one of the malefactors crucified with Jesus railed on him, while the other spoke to him reverently; but Matthew says they both reviled him. One evangelist says, the women went to the sepulchre early while it was yet dark; another says at dawn; Matthew says there was an and a third early at sunrise. earthquake at the time of the resurrection; while the So one other writers make no mention of such an event. historian speaks of two angels, another only of one. Luke, in his notice of the taxing under Augustus, Cyrenius being governor of Syria, cannot easily be reconciled And the Theudas named in Acts with profane historians. v, according to Josephus, did not rebel till seven years after the date assigned by Luke-if the same person is intended in both cases. So 4. These examples are sufficient to illustrate the nature of the difficulties in the evangelical narratives, and to show somewhat the force of the argument which attempts to prove from these that the narratives are not historical, or worthy of credit! That Mr. Paine should argue in this way, might be expected; but that one who has studied history as diligently and critically as Strauss has done, should make them ground of labored opposition to the historical character of the Gospels, is truly surprising, and almost mortifying. 5. What is the value of all these discrepancies put together? Do they touch a single important fact in the history of Jesus? Is there any conflict among his biographers respecting his teachings, his miracles, his character, his crucifixion, or his resurrection? Does one say he wrought miracles, and another that he did not? Does Matthew testify that he taught certain doctrines, which Luke denies? Does John say that he rose from the dead, and Mark that he did not? O no; but they differ as to the chronological succession of certain acts and discourses. They do not agree as to the precise hour, or place, |