MIRACLES OF GREAT ANTIQUITY.

247

heaven. The light of the sun was to be put out, the moon turned to blood, the stars robbed of their brightness, etc.

With regard to the miracles said to have been performed by Jesus, the only accounts of these are those of the N. T.; history, while recording miracles and wonders performed by other persons, is strangely silent with regard to those of Jesus. Justus of Tiberias, who was born about five years after the time assigned for the crucifixion of Jesus, wrote a Jewish History, but it contained no mention of Jesus, of the events' concerning him, nor of the miracles he is supposed to have wrought.

Now, according to the very books which record the miracles of Jesus, he nowhere claims to have performed such deeds. When told that, if he wanted people to believe in him, he must first prove his claim by a miracle, he said: "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign, and no sign shall be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." This answer not satisfying the questioners, they came to him again, and asked: "If the kingdom of God is, as you say, close at hand, show us at least some one of the signs in the heavens which are to precede the coming of the Messiah?" Paul declared that the great reason why Israel did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah was that "the Jews required a sign." "John," in the second century, makes Jesus reproach his fellow-countrymen with "Unless you see signs and wonders you do not believe." And the Baptist, hearing of his wonderful works, sent to him to ask him if he were the Messiah, warned his miracle-loving contemporaries "not to be offended in him" (Matt. xi. 6), which presupposes that he was unable to perform any magical feat out of the ordinary. Why these apologies for him if he could perform real miracles? It is evident that, had he performed the miracles attributed to him, the Jews would have been only too ready to accept him as their Messiah; and that, since he was not accepted by them, we may justly conclude that he performed no miracles.

The Fourth Gospel (John) contains a large number of sayings and doings ascribed to him, which appear to have been altogether unknown to the writers of the other three Gospels. This is to be accounted for by the fact that this Gospel was written at a much later date (second

century), and after the legends had had time to grow and develop in the hands of Irenæus and his assistants.

It is upon the sole and unsupported testimony of the writer of the John Gospel that we are asked to believe that he transformed water into wine, cured instantly a nobleman's son, gave sight to a man born blind, healed a cripple, restored a dead man to life, and caused a wonderful draught of fishes. The writer does not say that he witnessed these wonders, but merely records them for others to believe (John xx. 31). The idea of converting water into wine was an old Pagan idea, represented in the god Bacchus, and derived from the fact of the fermentation of wine from the watery juice of the grape; and we are told that the guests were already drunk. In the legend of the raising of Lazarus, after the sisters had sent to Jesus, informing him of the illness of their brother, he is reported to have said: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby " (xi. 3), etc. Instead of going to heal the sick man, he remained two days in the same place, after which he said to his disciples : "Lazarus is dead! and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent that ye may believe" (xi. 15). Yet he had previously said it was not a mortal sickness! It is pretty evident that this pretended restoration to life (if it ever occurred) was a pre-arranged plan to bring glory to himself. Instead of going at once to relieve the sick man, were he skilful enough, he waited two days, and then announced himself that the man was dead! In the case of the nobleman's son, Jesus is said to have cured him of a fever without seeing him. All he did was to say to the father: Go thy way; thy son liveth " (iv. 50), and he was healed that same hour. Why was this simple method not adopted in the case of Lazarus? The faith of the disciples was evidently failing since the little conjuring feat of converting water into wine, and "his disciples believed on him," and Jesus "manifested his glory"! So a great miracle was needed to strengthen their waning faith. Lazarus was thus made to die for the rekindling of the faith of the disciples, and for the "glory of God"!—the previous statement that it was not a "sickness unto death " being forgotten.

The miracle of restoring the sight to the blind man is thus recorded: "And he saw a man blind from his birth;

THE MIRACLES ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS.

249

and his disciples asked him: Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered: Neither did this man sin nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him......When he had thus spoken, he spat upon the ground, and made clay [mud] of the spittle, and then anointed his eyes with it, and said unto him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloam......He went away, therefore, and washed, and came seeing" (John ix. 1-7). Restoring sight by spittle was an old form of miracleworking. Tacitus tells us that he cured a blind man in Alexandria by means of his spittle. We are not told by the writer whether it was the spittle, the road-dust, or the water of Siloam that worked the cure. If none of them, what was the use of going through such a disgusting performance? The disciples, at one time represented as ignorant men—of the class of poor fishermen-at another as authors in Greek and Latin, and at another as being so woefully ignorant as to ask whether the man born blind was blind because he had sinned-sinned before he was born! Jesus tells us that this poor blind man was doomed to live in darkness from birth to middle age for the sole purpose of being performed upon by him, and to display the "wonderful works of God and bring glory to himself. The selfish cruelty and injustice of this proceeding is obvious. Verily the beneficence of this Jewish God is of a curious order! Another story of healing a blind man by spittle is given in the Mark Gospel (viii. 23), where Jesus is said to have taken a blind man out of the town, away from the crowd, before spitting on his eyes. And what is astonishing is that this only begotten Son," sent into the world because his Father "so loved it," and to save his chosen people—the Jews-told the blind man, whose sight was now restored, not to go into the town, nor tell it to any of the townspeople! This was a strange way of "showing the wonderful works of God," and carrying out his mission to the Jews, still waiting for a sign or miracle! Another example of "the works of God" is the miraculous healing of a cripple of thirty-eight years. It reads as follows: "Now there is in Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool, called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered [waiting for the movement of the water. For an angel went down at a

66

certain season into the pool, and troubled the water; whosoever then, first after the troubling of the water, stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had]. And a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that state, he said to him: Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man answered him : Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me in the pool; but, while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. Jesus said to him: Rise, take up thy bed, and walk; and immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked." The portion in brackets is

omitted in the R. V. because it is not found in the oldest MSS.; but the reply of the sick man would suggest that it formed part of the original story. If ever a story bore upon its face the impress of fabrication, this story is one; for, if it were an undoubted historical fact that at certain seasons a real live angel came down from heaven and "troubled " the water of a pool in Jerusalem, and that whoever stepped in first was cured of any disease or deformity, it would have been known not only in Palestine, but throughout the civilized world, and people from every province of the Roman Empire would have flocked to the Holy City to see the heavenly being descend. But does history record such an occurrence, or mention such a place as Bethesda ? No; there is no such pool, nor is there any record of such a place ever having existed. Josephus mentions the fountain of Siloam and Solomon's pool; also that in the palace grounds there were many porticoes and pillars," with "groves of trees," and "long walks through them, with deep canals and cisterns"; but there is no mention of the Pool of Siloam and its angel.

Then, among the crowd of sick, blind, halt, etc., lying around the pool, waiting for the arrival of the usual angel, Jesus singles out one of the sufferers. One cure would be

sufficient to display his power, and secure that "glory" to the Deity which appears to have been the main object kept in view with regard to all his good works. He healed one, but left all the others to their fate! Yet we told that this omnipotent God "would not that any should suffer," though here are numbers on whom he callously turns his back.

THE MIRACLES ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS.

251

The idea of "glory" which is constantly cropping up in the Bible in connection with the Deity is derived from sunworship--the "glorious" sun of the six summer months; as the idea of " sorrow " is conveyed by the sun in the winter months, from his struggles with the demoniacal powers of darkness. The "glory" of the sun-god was represented by the halo surrounding the heads of gods and saints.

22

Disease and deformity were believed to be sent as punishments for sin committed by the individual or his parents; dumbness and blindness were believed to be caused by invisible demons, who took possession of the body. That Jesus-who is represented as being all-wise-held these ignorant and false notions is undoubted, for he subsequently met this cripple in the temple, and said to him: "Sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee (v. 14). Other instances of his exorcisms are to be found in Matthew (viii. 28; ix. 33; xii. 22, etc.). In the first of these instances the writer says that two men appeared from the tombs, possessed"; whereas the Mark and Luke Gospels say only one; and, by an unfortunate mistake of the fabricator of the story, we are told that, when the poor lunatic was asked his name, he answered, "Legion." Now, legion is a Latin word, which gives a clue to the real author, for this man of the tombs could have had no knowledge of either Greek or Latin.

66

It is not only pretended that Jesus performed miracles himself, but it is said that he left power in the world to all who believe in his name to do the same: "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall ye do" (John xiv. 12). "These signs shall follow them that believe in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mark xvi. 17, 18). The majority of Christians, it is satisfactory to say, are not so credulous as to believe this absurd piece of boasting of the writer of the John Gospel; and we have the curious sight presented to us of Christians prosecuting Christians who believe this nonsense. Devils are not cast out, and exorcism has been banished by modern intelligence; new tongues