The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels

by John Birdseye Atwater

Out of this welter of confusion and contradictions, it is impossible to select any one coherent, authoritative story. With equal warrant of authority it may be asserted that He appeared to the apostles only in Galilee (Matt.) or never in Galilee, but only in Jerusalem (Mark, Luke, Acts); that Jesus' first appearance was to the two Marys (Matthew), or was to Mary Magdalene alone (Mark, John), or that He did not appear to them at all, but two men "in shining garments" gave them the message to the apostles (Luke); that He made a special appearance to two of the apostles (Mark, Luke), or that He did not make this appearance (Matthew, John); that He never appeared to the apostles but once (in Galilee according to Matthew, in Jerusalem, according to Mark and Luke), or that He appeared to them twice in Jerusalem (John XX) and once in Galilee (John XXI), or that He was with the apostles in Jerusalem for forty days, apparently in frequent communication with them (Acts I).

As to the ascension, it either occurred at some indefinite time on some unidentified mountain in Galilee and could be testified to by the unspecified number of the eleven who did not "doubt" (Matt.); or it (impliedly) occurred at some indefinite time on some unspecified shore of the sea of Tiberias, in Galilee, and was witnessed only by the seven (John XXI); or it occurred in Jerusalem at some unspecified time or place, and, so far as appears, in the presence of no one (Mark XVI:19); or it occurred at Bethany at some indefinite time in the presence of some unspecified number of His disciples (Luke XXIV:50, 51); or it occurred at least forty days after the Crucifixion on "the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey," in the presence of persons who are only identified as "they" (Acts I); or, so far as the Gospel of John is concerned, even including Chapter XXI, it could fairly be claimed that He did not know of any specific ascension.

While the exact date of the writing of the four Gospels and of the Acts cannot be determined, yet, in any event, they must have been composed when there were many living witnesses to the events of Jesus' life. If such a stupendous miracle as the ascension had occurred shortly after Jesus' death, it is inexplicable that these historians should not have shown some practical unanimity as to the time, place and witnesses of the event.

[56] "The attitude of slave-holders towards freedom in the abstract was grotesque in its lack of logic; but the attitude of many other classes of men, both abroad and home, towards it was equally full of a grimly unconscious humor. The southern planters, who loudly sympathized with Kossuth and the Hungarians, were entirely unconscious that their tyranny over their own black bondsmen made their attacks upon Austria's despotism absurd." Roosevelt's Life of Benton, American Statesmen Series, p. 275.

[57] Compare his severe criticism of the abolition revolt from the Whig party in 1844 with his own revolt from the Republican party in 1912. Life of Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 291.

[58] If this had been written after the Spanish war, he might, with equal logic, have said the same thing of Porto Rico and the Philippines.

[59] It would be interesting if President Roosevelt had cited some international controversies in which one nation did not claim that the matter in dispute was "of great importance" and that there was no "doubt as to which side was right."

[60] From the context he evidently means here any shadow or pretense of title.

[61] If, as Mr. Roosevelt concedes, the war with Mexico was unjustifiable, it is rather difficult to understand how the morals of the people of the United States could have been improved by the consciousness that they had unjustly slaughtered many thousands of innocent Mexicans and robbed them of immense areas of their lands.

[62] It is apparent that Matthew uses the word "drinking" in the sense of "drinking wine," and undoubtedly Luke uses the word "drink" in the same sense. In all, or nearly all, instances in the four Gospels where these words are used in connection with eating or fasting, they refer to the drinking of wine. As to the words "wine," or "fruit of the vine," when used in the Gospels, meaning some unfermented liquid, the undeviating practice of the early Christian churches in celebrating the Holy Communion with actual wine, stamps this claim as too absurd to merit discussion. Undoubtedly Peter, James, John, Paul and the other founders of the infant churches knew and followed the example of Jesus in prescribing wine as a part of this solemn ceremony. If the "universal tradition of the church" is not to be believed on this point, of what value is it on any other? It would be as sensible to claim that there has never been any difference between Moslems and Christians in the use of wine, because, in truth, the orthodox Christian was never authorized to use anything but some unfermented drink that a Moslem might also have used.