CHAPTER III. The alleged Miracles of Jesus.
If Jesus had actually raised Lazarus from the dead, and the act could have been well authenticated, (hardly a supposable case however), it must have been evidence of the strongest character of any that his works had ever furnished, that he possessed miraculous power-and so his disciples must have considered it, if they had possessed common understandings. Yet it was never noised abroad so as that any except John ever heard of it.
Matthew
(26-6 to 15), Mark (14-3 to 9), and Luke (7-37 and 38) also heard of, and related, the circumstance of Mary, whom John says (11-2) was the sister
of Lazarus, annointing the head of Jesus with ointment, yet they neither of them utter a syllable about his raising her brother from the dead. It is difficult to account for this fact, unless we suppose that John was actually dishonest, or that he took up, believed and recorded a flying story, which an occurrence of some kind had given rise to, but which was without any foundation in truth.
Furthermore, John says (11-45, 46 and onward) what is equivalent to saying, that part of the eye-witnesses themselves, not only disbelieved Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but
believed that he was attempting to practise some imposition upon them. He says, "then many of the Jews, which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him, but," he adds, ( and his "but" spoils the
story) "some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done." He then represents that the Pharisees forthwith attempted to apprehend him, on account of the stories that had been told them
by some of those who had witnessed the transaction. It seems hardly possible to vindicate John from the charge of actual dishonesty- for he pretends to relate even the
conversation, which the Pharisees held on this subject, when he certainly could not have known it. He also attributes to them motives and designs, which it is impossible should ever inhabit the breasts of human beings,
viz: such as wishes to take a man's life because he had raised a person from the dead. It is also incredible that they should dare attempt such an act, even if they wished to have it performed.
I think it would not be difficult to show that Johns love of distinction, his hatred of the Pharisees, and his determination to spread Christianity, led him to dishonest lengths in other cases.
He was the one, Mark (10-35 to 41), who was so eager to obtain from Jesus a promise of preference over the rest of his disciples, in heaven, (or more probably in the promise of preference over the rest of his disciples, in
heaven, (or more probably in the earthly kingdom), as that they were offended at him. He shows the same disposition afterwards, in his own narrative, by speaking of himself, in four or five different places, as "that disciple whom
Jesus loved,"- thus pretending that he himself was the favorite over the others. He also equivocates, (21-22 and 28) by pretending that Jesus, or the one whom he supposed to
be Jesus, did not mean what his words more plainly import, and what John acknowledges that the disciples at the time understood him to mean. His motive for his equivocation may be traced to a circumstance related to his
Biography in Lempriere's Biographical Dictionary, where it is said that he wrote his narrative for the purpose of proving that Jesus that Jesus was not a man, and in opposition to what he deemed an error, viz; a belief, at
that time avowed, that he was but a man. This equivocation was necessary on order to make it appear that Jesus did not intend to intimate that certain things would happen, which had not happened, and were not likely to. This purpose, in writing his narrative, accounts for his superior carefulness in relating, in connexion with the supposed miracles, ay circumstance that might tend to discredit their
reality; and also for the conversations
which he relates as attending the; although it is evident that he must either have invented much of them, or adopted them from the mouths of others, without any thing like reasonable evidence of their genuineness- the former of which suppositions appears the more probable, both from his own character, (for he could then invent such conversation as would suit the circumstances of the case), and also from the fact that he could not, forty years afterward, have remembered such full, connected and unbroken conversations as he was pretended to relate.
John also (12-10 to 11) shows his bitter malignity, and his readiness to make the most diabolical charges, against such as did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, by saying that the Chief
Priests "consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death." Finally, he has more unmeaning theological cant in his narrative than all the other three together.
Nevertheless, it is possible that John has told an honest story in this case of Lazarus, and one too that is true in its main features. But if he has done so, he has implicated a man whose
character is of much more consequence to the Christian religion, than his own,; and that man is Jesus. Several circumstances are related in the story, which, if they are considered to have really happened, furnish palpable and
glaring evidence of collusions between and Jesus. For example- Jesus knew, before he went, at this time, to Bethany where Lazarus lived, that Lazarus was dead, (John 11-14). Now he did (being, as appears by the
context, at a considerable distance off) know this fact, unless there had been a previous understanding between them that Lazarus should die about that time? He had previous understanding between them that Lazarus should die about
this time? he had heard (11-3) that he was sick, but there is no evidence that he had heard
of his death. On the contrary, the disciple were utterly ignorant of it (11-11, 12 and 13) until the information [*35] unexpectedly came from Jesus himself. How came Jesus by this information without the knowledge of his disciples? If a messenger had brought it, they must have known it too, for some of them were undoubtedly all this time with him. We have no right to say that he obtained it supernaturally, because it is not yet proved that he had any supernatural power. Yet
he
knows the fact, when they do not, and there is a way by which he may have obtained this knowledge. That way this- Lazarus they have directed his sisters to send this message to Jesus, that he was sick, and this may have been agreed upon as the signal by which Jesus might know that Lazarus was about to die. If such were not the purpose of this message, why was it sent? We are told that Jesus
loved
Lazarus. But why then did he not go to him immediately on hearing that he was sick, instead of waiting, apparently without any necessity, for two or three days? The reason is obvious- he waited for him to die, I repeat that it cannot be said that Jesus knew that he would die. I repeat that it cannot be said that Jesus knew, by means of his
supernatural power, that Lazarus would die; because that would be attempting to defend the miracle, on evidence
of supernatural power, instead of proving the supernatural power by the miracle. Beside, if he could know, by means of his supernatural power, instead of proving the supernatural power by miracle. Besides, of he could know, be means of his supernatural power, either that Lazarus was dead, or that he would die, he could also, in the same way, have known that he was
sick, and it must therefore have been unnecessary to send the information of his sickness to him. Is there then any way, other than by supposing collusion, in which this matter can be explained?
Again. Jesus declared (11-4), when he first heard of the sickness of Lazarus, that one object of this sickness was, "that tile Son of God might be glorified thereby," (that is, that he himself
might get some credit by it). Now, how did he know that it would terminate so as that he should get credit by it? We cannot, I again repeat, say that he knew it by means of his supernatural power, because that would be
assuming him to have supernatural power, and then attempting to prove the miracle by it; whereas the power must first be proved by the miracle. Besides, there are too many cases; of his making inquiries for the
sake of ascertaining what his inquiries imply that he did not know, to leaven any apology for pretending that he knew anything supernaturally. There is then but one answer to the question, how he knew
beforehand the manner in which this sickness would terminate? and that answer is, that it had been agreed between him and Lazarus how it should terminate, and Jesus inferred that he should gain
some credit by it. Again. There is something very suspicious in the manner, in which he communicated to his disciples the fact that Lazarus was dead. He communicates it to them as
if it were something, which he was aware would surprise them, but which nevertheless was not new to him. The manner, in which he introduces the matter, is peculiarly suspicious. He does not at
once come to the point; but speaks allegorically, says Lazarus is asleep; &c., and that he must go and wake him.
Another suspicious circumstance is, that Lazarus was buried neither in a grave, nor a tomb, but in a cave. The man might live very well in a cave; he might himself have deposited provisions
there beforehand, and he might have told his sisters where and how soon to bury him, after he was dead. He seems also to have had a very short sickness; his sisters send word to Jesus that he is sick, and the next thing we
know of him is, that in about two days, (as would appear from the story, although it is not explicitly stated), he is dead. He seems to have been buried in a great hurry; for when Jesus arrived, "he had lain in the grave
four days." Another suspicious circumstance is, that the stone, that lay upon the cave, must be removed, (11-39), by hand too, before the supernatural power could operate so as to
brig the dead man out. A stone, laying over the mouth of the cave, must be a great obstacle in the way of a miracle. Another circumstances of the same import, is, that when Jesus came to
the work of raising Lazarus, "he cried with a loud voice," to call him out. Now it might be necessary to speak loudly to make a living man, who was in a cave, hear; but a dead man could have heard a man less
labored tone equally well. Again. There was an altogether unusual
ostentation about this miracle. Jesus talked a great deal about it beforehand; spoke of it as an affair that was to accomplish great things in the way of glorifying God, and himself too.
Another circumstance against the reality of this resurrection from the dead, is, that Jesus never raised any others from the dead. (I here take it for granted that it has been shown that there is no sort of reason for
pretending that he raised the son of the widow of Nain, or the daughter of Jairus). If he could really raise men from the dead, why did he not show miraculous power again and again, in this way, so as to place it beyond
dispute; instead of curing sick folks, casting out devils, spitting in men's eyes, filling them with clay, touching their tongues, putting his fingers in his ears, and such like disgusting farces, ten thousand of which would be no
evidence of any thing except that he was an imposter or a fool? If he could really raise men from the dead, he could have established himself at once on the credit of his miracles. And yet one solitary case, and that too
surrounded by circumstance of the strongest suspicion, is all the evidence he ever gave, in his whole career, of his power to raise the dead. [*36] Again. judging naturally
of a portion of this story (11-45 and 46) we have abundant evidence that a part of the eye-witnesses themselves detected the hoax on the spot. The story is that some of them believed, but that others went forthwith to the
Pharisees-known enemies of Jesus- and made such representations that measures were immediately taken to have him apprehended. How is this conduct of these witnesses to be accounted for, unless they discovered the cheat ?
It appears also (John 12-10), that the Chief Priests were satisfied- probably by the stories of the same witnesses- that Lazarus also was knave, for they are said to have consulted to put him to
death- a thing, which they never could have dreamed of doing for the cause which John assigns. The world has been full of alleged miracles, but I do not believe another record of
one can be produced, containing such irresistible evidence of fraud as this. To proceed with this examination of the remaining miracles. There are
two cases, where Jesus is said to have fed the multitude miraculously. One case is mentioned by Matthew (14-15 to 21), Mark (6-41 to 44), Luke (9-12 to 17) and John (6-3 to 14), where five thousand (an undoubted exaggeration-
another "great tempest") were said to have been fed from five loaves and two fishes. The other instance where he is said to have fed four thousand is mentioned only by Matthew (15-32 to 38) and Mark, (8-1 to 9). All that is
necessary to reply to such accounts as these, is, first, that neither of those, who tell the story, says that he himself was present, and even if any one of them had said so, they have all been covicted of such exaggeration ad
misrepresentation that they cannot be credited so far as to have a miracle, or any other improbable story believed on their testimony- and secondly, that if Jesus ever had anything to do with distributing food to five
thousand men , who believed in his miraculous power, there were five thousand probable chances; and if he ever had anything to do with distributing food to four thousand of the same sort of believers there were then
four thousand probable chances that , that stories respecting the circumstances would be told, and would get magnified into a miracle, although there were none, and that these stories would be believed by all his followers- these
narrators among the rest- who should not absolutely know the contrary, and who were eager to believe every marvelous story about him of which there was to their minds a possibility of truth.
In the last of these two cases, a very good reason can be conjectured, why the fragments, that remained, should be equal to the amount distributed. It appears (Mat. 15-32, Mark 8-2)
that this company had been in "the wilderness" three days, and it is probable that the loaves and fishes had been there the same length of time. The climate of Judea is warm.
Another case is that of the miraculous drought of fishes. It is related by Luke only (5-4 to 11). He says that fishes enough were caught in one net, at one draught, to fill two "ships" so full that they began to sink. (Mr.
Luke, that's a great story to tell). Matthew (4-18 to 22) and Mark (1-16 to 18) both speak of the same occasion, and of the same incidents related by Luke, yet neither says anything about any fishes being taken- the
probability is, therefore, that Luke was misinformed in this respect. Besides, Luke says (5-9 and 10) that John was there, and that he "was astonished
at the draught of the fishes which they had taken"- yet, for some reason or another, John did not see fit to vouch for his miracle, or even allude to it- perhaps he had a little more discretion than Luke.
One miracle only remains. This is related by Luke only (22-50 and 51). He says that when a servant of the High Priest had his ear cut off, Jesus touched it, and healed it. It is a
sufficient answer to this, to say that Luke was not there, and probably never heard even of the ear being cut off until many years afterward- that during the time of the story about so insignificant an incident as
cutting off a man's ear, would very naturally gain the appendage, which is here attached to it, viz: that it was also healed. But there is another answer, which, if it stood alone, would be sufficient. That is, that although
Matthew, Mark and John (two of whom were of the twelve, and were probably at or near the spot at the time) relate the facts of the ear being cut off, neither of them says a word about it being healed.
Thus much for the reality of those miracles, which have imposed on a larger proportion of enlightened men, in modern times, than at the time when they were supposed to have been performed. If an
hundreth part of the effort, which as been made to prove these events to have been really supernatural, had been directed (as on the plainest principle of reason it should have been) to the accounting, in a natural
manner, for the stories respecting them, the difficulty would have long since vanished. Honesty of intention
may, nevertheless; in general, fairly be accorded to these writers, in circulating these stories about miracles, for the truth of which they do not explicitly vouch as eye-witnesses, some of these transactions were probably supposed by Matthew and John, who were of the twelve, to have occurred when they were absent; and they, having often seen him as they believed, cast out devils, and heal the sick, which, to their minds, were as real miracles as raising the dead, or the removal of a mountain, would not in general doubt in the least the truth of any stories they might her. Mark and Luke, not being [*37] of the twelve, but being, Luke certainly, and Mark probably, subsequent converts, of course depended upon the stories of others for everything they relate. Luke, depending upon this source of information, has gone so far as to relate (Chap. 1), for realities, even the conversations, that
angels
were said to have held with persons on earth fifty or sixty years before the time when he wrote his narrative. Can any stronger evidence be desired to prove that many of those conversations and circumstances, which these narrators recorded so many years after the transactions, were such as their own imaginations, from having long dwelt upon those occurrences, and the imagination of others, among whom the stories had previously circulated, furnished as appendage to the truth? Or can any stronger proof be required of the credulity and superstition of these writers, or of their readiness to adopt any story, however improbable in itself, that should be floating in that community? A community, the very atmosphere of which, it would seem, must have been saturated with reports of the marvelous works of the various Christ's or Messiahs, who each appear to have been attempting to prove their pretensions by the same kind of means. Yet it is almost entirely this kind of hearsay testimony, such as would be scouted at in a Court of justice, if offered for the purpose of proving the most common and natural events, upon which men believe in occurrences vastly more improbable than any that ever resulted from natural causes.
One argument, that is frequently alluded to in support of the reality of the miracle of Jesus, is perhaps worthy of notice here, in addition to what his been said. This
argument is that even the opposers of Jesus acknowledge that he wrought true miracles. One answer to this argument is that, that their admissions are not at all binding upon us: and therefore even if they did make
them, we have an undoubted right to inquire whether they may not have been mistaken. And if we make this inquiry, we shall unquestionably find that they may have been, because among them a miracle was considered to be a very
common occurrence, and capable of being wrought apparently by almost any one who was disposed to attempt it. It would be nothing strange therefore of some of the opposers of Jesus should acknowledge that he wrought
miracles. He himself virtually acknowledges (Mat. 24-24) that the false Christ's could work miracles, and also that the man, who used his name to out devils (Mark 9-38 , 39 and 40), wrought real miracles.
Another answer is, that these admissions generally appear to have been made, if made at all, not upon actual observation, but upon the representations of others. They also appear not to have been
heard, by these writers who relate them, but simply to have been heard of, or inferred, by them; as they evidently must have been in the case or Lazarus (John 11-47),because these disciples could not
have been present at the consultations held on this subject by the Priests and other leading men. What then would a million of such facts be worth to prove miracles? There are a few
additional circumstances tending, so obviously, to confirm the views I have taken of the miracles of Jesus, that they are not to be omitted.
Luke says (23-8 and 9) that when Jesus was brought before Herod, Herod desired to see him work some miracles, and asked him many questions; but that Jesus answered
nothing. It appears that Herod intended to deal uprightly with Jesus, and was also prepared to believe the evidence of miracles. Why then did not Jesus, if he possessed miraculous power, take advantage of such an opportunity, to do
something before this assembly to prove that he was what h had professed to be? At another time the Jews (John 2-18 to 21) asked him to show that some sign (miracle) as an evidence of
his right to attempt to drive them from the temple- and a very reasonable request it was. But the only, that he proposed to work, was to rebuild the temple in three days, provided they would first destroy
it. But they, like rational men, had not sufficient confidence in his power to do it, to induce them to demolish it, for the sake of giving him n opportunity to try the experiment.
John says that Jesus here referred to "the temple of his body." This is evidently another of Johns equivocations, for if he did refer to his body, he was a cheat and an intentional deceiver, since he must have known that
he was, by his language, causing them all to understand him as referring to the temple, in which they then were. In the early part of his preaching, when he was at Nazareth,
(Luke 4-16 to 30), he went into the synagogue, and pretended that he was the one who was prophesied of, but virtually acknowledged that they had a right to expect that he would show them some miracle, by which they might know
that he was what he pretended to be- and the only reason he assigned for not performing one, was this potent one, viz: that a prophet would not be respected in his own county. Those, who heard him, were so offended at what appeared
to them (reasonably too) an attempt to dupe them, that they thrust him out of the city, and led him to the brow of a hill, as if they intended to cast him down headlong; but when they had come there, "he, passing through
the midst of them, went his way"- which language, if we had the true version of the affair , would probably read thus- "when they had frightened him by pretending be about to cast him headlong down the hill, they let him go."
John, speaking of another occasion, says (12-37) "though he had done so many miracles [*38] before them, yet they believed not on him." It appears extremely probable that
God would send a messenger on earth, and, in order to prove him to the world to be his messenger, should give him miraculous power, and that this messenger should not be able to perform miracles of such a kind as would convince
even eye-witnesses. In another instance Matthew says (13-58) "and he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief." Now if it was the great purpose of his
mission to bring men to believe on him, when he found any incredulous, that circumstance, instead of furnishing a reason why he should not work miracles before them, was only an additional reason why he should not fail to
work such as would inevitably convince them. Mark, (6-5 and 6), speaking of the same occurrence, says, "and he could
do there no mighty work, save that he had laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them, and he marveled because of their unbelief." This declaration of Mark virtually denies his miraculous power in lolo, because if
he possessed it, he could certainly, wherever he might be, have found something beside sick folks upon which to exert it. When the Pharisees wished to see some evidence of his being what
he pretended to be (Mark 8-11 to 13), he appeared (to his disciples at least) deeply afflicted that men's hearts should be so hard as not to believe without evidence, and said he would not show them any sign, but
"left them and departed." Mark says the Pharisees asked him the question "tempting him." But the question was certainly a proper one, and what evidence is there, that their motives, in asking it, were not of the same
character? For some reason or another, Jesus was very suspicious of he enlightened part of the community- a little more so; it seems to me, than a genuine Messiah would have any occasion to be. he
was continually apprehending some trap, or design against him. he was also continually laboring to excite the prejudices of his disciples against them- conduct not very consistent with the idea that he was really a superior
being. Again. Jesus told his disciples (Mark 11-23), that of they were to command a mountains to move, and should not doubt in their hearts that it would move at their bidding, it
actually would move. Now why not he himself remove a mountain, if it could be so easily done, and thus present to all future generations a convincing and eternal monument of his Messiahship? One such miracle would be worth a
million performed upon persons that pretended to be sick, or possessed of devils. It would have been worth a million of those pretended miracles, that, like all the other pretended miracles with which the world has been
filled, vanished at the moments, and left no trace behind. But one answer readily occurs to such a question, viz: he could not. Some may say that it did not become him to perform miracles, that
would not accomplish any physical good- but if he were such a being as he pretended to be, and his doctrine were true, it was of more importance to bring men to believe these facts, than it was to cure all the sick people
that ever lived. He ought therefore to have adapted his miracles to the accomplishment of the most important purpose he had in view.
John says (6-30), that on certain occasion, the people asked him directly, "what sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work?" This was
putting the question home to him, and why did he not meet it, if he could, as he evidently ought? Could any request have been more reasonable, or more candid? Or could any combination of circumstances whatever have called
upon him more urgently to display his miraculous power, if he had any, than did those in which he was placed? It appears by the context, that there was an assemblage of people present, who had taken much pains to find where he was,
and to come in, and their question implies a readiness to be convinced by miracles. Yet all the satisfaction, which this man, who went about the country boasting what he could do, gave to these honest, proper and candid
demands, was to evade them, to stand on his reserved rights like one who had nothing else to stand upon, and then to run into a long fanfaronade about his being the bread that came down from heaven, about his being better
bread than the manna that was given to the israelites, about the effect of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood,
John also (6-66), after having related the above affair, adds, "From that time many of his disciples went back," (as well they might) "and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto
the twelve, will ye also go away?" The terms of his question to the twelve seem to imply that all
his disciples, who were present, except the twelve, deserted him at this time. But whether all deserted him, or not, there can be no reasonable doubt, judging from John's account, that a large portion of them did. Now it appears, by the former part of the chapter, that but a short time before, he had five thousand persons following him- and yet he now finds himself so nearly destitute of friends that he is afraid that even his chosen few will desert him also. It has been said by the advocates of Christianity, that we ought not to consider the reality of the miracles of Jesus as resting solely on the testimony of the narrators, but as being supported by the convictions of great number of eye-witnesses. How, let it be asked, [*39] will those advocates pretend to meet the fact above referred to? Here were "many" men, who had followed Jesus so long, that John calls them "his disciples,"- men, who undoubtedly had seen as much evidence of his miraculous power as he was able to exhibit- who were undoubtedly credulous enough to have been easily deceived by pretended miracles, and who yet desert him, and refuse to follow him any longer. The testimony therefore of "many" of his own followers , credulous and simply as they were, instead of being in the favor of the reality of his miracles, is directly and positively against them. The inquiry may now be safely put, whether Christians have it in their power to put into their case, any evidence that can control this otherwise divisive testimony, which comes from those they had all along claimed as their own witnesses?
If any one wish now to determine whether a sufficient answer have been given to the alleged miracles of Jesus, he has but to look back, and see whether he can put his finger upon
any individual case, and say that the evidence relating solely to that case is conclusive that there must have been a miracle. Unless it be conclusive of the fact, it is unreasonable at all to disregard it; because the probability
must always be against the miracle so long as there is a discoverable lack of uncertainty in the evidence. The supernatural occurrences, that are said to have taken place
at the death of Jesus, may properly be referred to in connexion with the miracles. Matthew (27-45), Mark (15-33) and Luke (23-44) say that while Jesus was on the cross, there was, for
three hours previous to his death, "darkness all over the land" the testimony of Mark and Luke to this matter is not worth noticing, because there is no reason to suppose that they state any thing but a hearsay
story. As respects Matthew, he has said enough to prove, that, if there were any darkness at all there was none that was so extraordinary as it must be supposed, from the fact of his mentioning it, that he intended to have
people believe it to be. In the first place, if it had been thus extraordinary, the Jews must have been alarmed, and have desisted from the execution; but the fact that they did not desist, although by so doing, at any time
during these three hours, they might have saved the life of Jesus, is sufficient evidence that there was no such darkness. Matthew (27-36 to 49) says also what is equivalent to saying, that those, who witnessed the
crucifixion felt a curiosity to see whether anything extraordinary, or supernatural would happen, but saw nothing of the kind.- "Sitting down they watched him there." He adds that some of them said, "Thou that destroyest the
temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, com down from the cross." The "Chief Priests, Scribes and elders" also said "he saved others, himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let
him now come down from the cross and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he will have him." And again, but just before his apparent death, when he had cried "Eli, Eli" &c., and one had then
run to put sponge to his mouth, "the rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come and save him." These things show that there was such a curiosity felt as I have mentioned, and that this curiosity continued until
they supposed him dead. Now, is it to be believed that these men would have remained there, on the look-out for marvels, up to the very moment of his last gasp, as they supposed, and would then have so coolly said "Let be, let us
see whether Elias will come and save him," when they had been witnesses, for three hours, of a continued and surprising "darkness over all the land," at mid-day? The thing is incredible- the falsehood is too bare to be disguised
for a moment. John makes no mention of this darkness. Matthew says also (27-50 to 53) that when Jesus died, "the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened, and many bodies of the saints, which slept arose, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." But he does not say that he saw
these things. Now is the man of this man Matthew- a man, nearly half of whose narrative appears to have been the work of a "terrible-accident-maker"- to be taken for such facts as these? Who but he had ever heard of the earth's quaking, the rocks rending, graves opening, dead rising &c.? No human being on earth, that we have any evidence. Besides, even John, who says (19-25 to 27) that he stood by the cross, and that Jesus, while on the cross, spoke to him, says not a word of any such events; yet there is not room for reasonable doubt that he would have done so, had they ever happened.
Besides, it is incredible that the Jews, who knew that Jesus pretended to be the Messiah, and who were among the most superstitious people that ever lived, should not have been appalled by such a
scene, if any such had happened, end have been converted; yet they were not converted; nor did they, although as I have said before, they were on the look out for marvels, see any thing to change their minds in relation to him.
This story again shows the extend of the delusion among the followers of Jesus, and that Matthew was ever ready to relate, for truth, not only everything, however impossible, that he heard
spoken of, but probably also some things which he did not hear spoken of. [*40]