II. OPPOSING VIEWS
—
IT IS true that some evil men do not even take the name of Jesus upon their lips except by way of an idle curse, but even so, they pay him an involuntary homage.
Some in their hatred insist that such a man never existed, that he is a pure invention; but the fact of Jesus as a historic personage does not admit of serious question. Such an effect as he has produced in human history cannot be accounted for except by an adequate reality back of it. And, moreover, his historic existence is proved to the satisfaction of mankind from profane as well as from sacred sources. To doubt it is to place oneself among the sophists, who end by doubting everything, even themselves, and who become at length incapable of passing a rational judgment upon any matter.
Other men claim that Jesus uttered nothing new, pointing to Confucius, Gotama, Zoroaster, and other religious teachers whose teachings teem with interesting truths, some of which resemble those enunciated by Jesus. Is not this resemblance a kinship inherent in the nature of the truth? Perhaps for fair-minded men it is needful only to submit the documents in the case and leave them without discussion. Possibly, indeed, the world has already decided this question. It would seem so if we judge from the scant attention which the sayings of Confucius, Gotama, Zoroaster, and others obtain in the world of thought. Are these latter not obsolete and half-forgotten, merely remembered because of an influence they once exerted? The teachings of Jesus are the inspiration of our civilization, the noonday splendor of a sun which illumines with spiritual light every problem of humanity.
Still others, even though they admire the character of Jesus, claim that the story of his life is a gross exaggeration, as well as his reputed claims concerning himself. It is, of course, possible to assert that while such a man as Jesus lived, the accounts given of him in the Bible are highly exaggerated, written by people who lived long afterward and who desired to throw around the founder of their religion a glamour not warranted by the facts as they occurred. If this is true, it is remarkable what success they have had in creating a character and a life so positively unique that the whole world acknowledges it to have been the greatest character and the greatest life in history. If the Bible account of Jesus was invented, herein is a marvel, for it must have been invented in such a case by ignorant fishermen or their unknown successors; if they are the creators of the character and life of Jesus, we should find them out and honor them as we now honor him, for it is Jesus as presented in the Bible we admire and love; if perchance any of us now worship him as Divine, we should honor them instead; for, as some one has said, only Divinity itself could have invented such a character and such a life.
It must suffice here to say that the only documents claiming to be authoritative which we possess concerning Jesus are contained in the Bible. There are traditions, and a few confirmatory references in profane history, enough to establish the general fact of the existence of such a character, but nothing else which claims to be authoritative as a statement of his life and teachings. If the Bible contains exaggeration, it would be an extremely difficult task to separate the exaggeration from the fact. Who that claims there is exaggeration is fitted by his lack of prejudice to do the work of separation?
Is it not true that the claim of exaggeration is merely an assumption, and based entirely upon preconceived theories of critics whose opinions vary with their prejudices? They say in effect: "According to my ideas the thing cannot be true; therefore it is not true." It is the kind of reasoning which forced Galileo to recant and has opposed all progress. These critics have formulated their own theories of the complete truth of the universe, and whatever facts do not accord with their theories they exclude. Is not disbelief sometimes as bigoted and dogmatic, as intolerant of inconvenient facts, as were the opponents of Galileo?
One of these critics has recently rewritten the Gospels without the account of the virgin birth and omitting John altogether. Does any one fancy that this rewriting will fare better than other attempts to discredit the Bible story? It is hard to believe that the world will ever be satisfied with the Bible rewritten by its critics. They do well to leave the original statements alone. They have indeed the right of private interpretation; but the Bible they cannot destroy, nor can we accept their alterations.
The Bible has stood the test of time, It has been chained, locked away from the sight of men, torn to pieces, and burned, but it still endures, and it gives every evidence of possessing a vitality as lasting as the ages. To class it with the folklore, the myths, the traditions, the sacred literature of other nations, is still to place it first.