Sources of the Christ Myth--Conclusion 566
THE CHRIST.
CHAPTER I.
CHRIST'S REAL EXISTENCE IMPOSSIBLE.
The reader who accepts as divine the prevailing religion of our land
may consider this criticism on "The Christ" irreverent and unjust. And
yet for man's true saviors I have no lack of reverence. For him who
lives and labors to uplift his fellow men I have the deepest reverence
and respect, and at the grave of him who upon the altar of immortal
truth has sacrificed his life I would gladly pay the sincere tribute
of a mourner's tears. It is not against the man Jesus that I write,
but against the Christ Jesus of theology; a being in whose name an
Atlantic of innocent blood has been shed; a being in whose name the
whole black catalogue of crime has been exhausted; a being in whose
name five hundred thousand priests are now enlisted to keep
"Truth forever on the scaffold,
Wrong forever on the throne."
Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of
whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of
millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus
of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character
and does not exist.
From the beginning to the end of this Christ's earthly career he
is represented by his alleged biographers as a supernatural being
endowed with superhuman powers. He is conceived without a natural
father: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When, as
his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. i, 18).
His ministry is a succession of miracles. With a few loaves and
fishes he feeds a multitude: "And when he had taken the five loaves
and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and brake
the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and
the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and
were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments,
and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about
five thousand men" (Mark vi, 41-44).
He walks for miles upon the waters of the sea: "And straightway Jesus
constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him
unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away. And when he
had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to
pray; and when the evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship
was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves; for the wind was
contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them,
walking on the sea" (Matt. xiv, 22-25).
He bids a raging tempest cease and it obeys him: "And there arose
a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it
was now full.... And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the
sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm"
(Mark, iv, 37-39).
He withers with a curse the barren fig tree: "And when he saw a
fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but
leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee, henceforth,
forever. And presently the fig tree withered away" (Matt. xxi, 19).
He casts out devils: "And in the synagogue there was a man, which
had a spirit of an unclean devil.... And Jesus rebuked him, saying,
Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him
in the midst, he came out of him and hurt him not" (Luke iv, 33, 35).
He cures the incurable: "And as he entered into a certain village,
there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off; and
they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy
on us. And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go show yourselves
unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were
cleansed" (Luke xvii, 12-14).
He restores to life a widow's only son: "And when he came nigh to the
gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only
son of his mother, and she was a widow; and much people of the city
were with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her,
and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier; and
they that bore him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto
thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he
delivered him to his mother" (Luke vii, 12-15).
He revivifies the decaying corpse of Lazarus: "Then said Jesus unto
them plainly, Lazarus is dead.... Then when Jesus came, he found that
he had lain in the grave four days already.... And when he had thus
spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that
was dead came forth" (John xi, 14-44).
At his crucifixion nature is convulsed, and the inanimate dust of
the grave is transformed into living beings who walk the streets of
Jerusalem: "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded
up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain
from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks
rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints, which
slept, arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and
went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matt. xxvii, 50-53).
He rises from the dead: "And when Joseph had taken the body, he
wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb,
which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to
the door of the sepulchre, and departed.... And, behold, there was a
great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven,
and came and rolled back the stone from the door.... And as they
went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail"
(Matt. xxvii, 59, 60; xxviii, 2, 9).
He ascends bodily into heaven: "And he led them out as far as to
Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to
pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up
into heaven" (Luke xxiv, 50, 51).
These and a hundred other miracles make up to a great extent this
so-called Gospel History of Christ. To disprove the existence of
these miracles is to disprove the existence of this Christ.
Canon Farrar makes this frank admission: "If miracles be incredible,
Christianity is false. If Christ wrought no miracles, then the Gospels
are untrustworthy" (Witness of History to Christ, p. 25).
Dean Mansel thus acknowledges the consequences of the successful
denial of miracles: "The whole system of Christian belief with its
evidences, ... all Christianity in short, so far as it has any title
to that name, so far as it has any special relation to the person or
the teaching of Christ, is overthrown" (Aids to Faith, p. 3).
Dr. Westcott says: "The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and
if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible,
all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous"
(Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 34).
A miracle, in the orthodox sense of the term, is impossible
and incredible. To accept a miracle is to reject a demonstrated
truth. The world is governed, not by chance, not by caprice, not by
special providences, but by the laws of nature; and if there be one
truth which the scientist and the philosopher have established, it
is this: THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE. If the laws of Nature are
immutable, they cannot be suspended; for if they could be suspended,
even by a god, they would not be immutable. A single suspension of
these laws would prove their mutability. Now these alleged miracles
of Christ required a suspension of Nature's laws; and the suspension
of these laws being impossible the miracles were impossible, and not
performed. If these miracles were not performed, then the existence of
this supernatural and miracle-performing Christ, except as a creature
of the human imagination, is incredible and impossible.
Hume's masterly argument against miracles has never been refuted:
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of Nature; and as a firm and
unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a
miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument
from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable
that all men must die; that lead cannot of itself remain suspended in
the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless
it be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of Nature,
and there is required a violation of these laws, or, in other words,
a miracle, to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever
happens in the common course of Nature. It is no miracle that a man,
seemingly in good health, should die suddenly; because such a kind
of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently
observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to
life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There
must, therefore, be a uniform experience against any miraculous event,
otherwise the event would not merit the appellation. And as a uniform
experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof,
from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle"
(Essay on Miracles).
Alluding to Christ's miracles, M. Renan, a reverential admirer of
Jesus of Nazareth, says: "Observation, which has never been once
falsified, teaches us that miracles never happen but in times and
countries in which they are believed, and before persons disposed to
believe them. No miracle ever occurred in the presence of men capable
of testing its miraculous character..... It is not, then, in the name
of this or that philosophy, but in the name of universal experience,
that we banish miracles from history" (Life of Jesus, p. 29).
Christianity arose in what was preeminently a miracle-working
age. Everything was attested by miracles, because nearly everybody
believed in miracles and demanded them. Every religious teacher was
a worker of miracles; and however trifling the miracle might be when
wrought, in this atmosphere of unbounded credulity, the breath of
exaggeration soon expanded it into marvelous proportions.
To show more clearly the character of the age which Christ
illustrates, let us take another example, the Pythagorean teacher,
Apollonius of Tyana, a contemporary of the Galilean. According to his
biographers--and they are as worthy of credence as the Evangelists--his
career, particularly in the miraculous events attending it, bore a
remarkable resemblance to that of Christ. Like Christ, he was a divine
incarnation; like Christ his miraculous conception was announced before
his birth; like Christ he possessed in childhood the wisdom of a sage;
like Christ he is said to have led a blameless life; like Christ his
moral teachings were declared to be the best the world had known; like
Christ he remained a celibate; like Christ he was averse to riches;
like Christ he purified the religious temples; like Christ he predicted
future events; like Christ he performed miracles, cast out devils,
healed the sick, and restored the dead to life; like Christ he died,
rose from the grave, ascended to heaven, and was worshiped as a god.
The Christian rejects the miraculous in Apollonius because it is
incredible; the Rationalist rejects the miraculous in Christ for
the same reason. In proof of the human character of the religion of
Apollonius and the divine character of that of Christ it may be urged
that the former has perished, while the latter has survived. But this,
if it proves anything, proves too much. If the survival of Christianity
proves its divinity, then the survival of the miracle-attested faiths
of Buddhism and Mohammedanism, its powerful and nourishing rivals, must
prove their divinity also. The religion of Apollonius languished and
died because the conditions for its development were unfavorable; while
the religions of Buddha, Christ, and Mohammed lived and thrived because
of the propitious circumstances which favored their development.
With the advancement of knowledge the belief in the supernatural
is disappearing. Those freed from Ignorance, and her dark sister,
Superstition, know that miracles are myths. In the words of Matthew
Arnold, "Miracles are doomed; they will drop out like fairies and
witchcraft, from among the matter which serious people believe"
(Literature and Dogma).
What proved the strength of Christianity in an age of ignorance is
proving its weakness in an age of intelligence. Christian scholars
themselves, recognizing the indefensibility and absurdity of miracles,
endeavor to explain away the difficulties attending their acceptance
by affirming that they are not real, but only apparent, violations
of Nature's laws; thus putting the miracles of Christ in the same
class with those performed by the jugglers of India and Japan. They
resolve the supernatural into the natural, that the incredible may
appear credible. With invincible logic and pitiless sarcasm Colonel
Ingersoll exposes the lameness of this attempt to retain the shadow
of the supernatural when the substance is gone:
"Believers in miracles should not try to explain them. There is
but one way to explain anything, and that is to account for it by
natural agencies. The moment you explain a miracle it disappears. You
should not depend upon explanation, but assertion. You should
not be driven from the field because the miracle is shown to be
unreasonable. Neither should you be in the least disheartened if it
is shown to be impossible. The possible is not miraculous."
Miracles must be dismissed from the domain of fact and relegated to
the realm of fiction. A miracle, I repeat, is impossible. Above all
this chief of miracles, The Christ, is impossible, and does not,
and never did, exist.
CHAPTER II.
SILENCE OF CONTEMPORARY WRITERS.
Another proof that the Christ of Christianity is a fabulous and not
a historical character is the silence of the writers who lived during
and immediately following the time he is said to have existed.
That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of
this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years
ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has
not been written. E. Renan and others have attempted to write it,
but have failed--have failed because no materials for such a work
exist. Contemporary writers have left us not one word concerning
him. For generations afterward, outside of a few theological epistles,
we find no mention of him.
The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time,
or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived
and performed his wonderful works:
Josephus, Statius,
Philo-Judaeus, Ptolemy,
Seneca, Hermogones,
Pliny the Elder, Valerius Maximus,
Arrian, Appian,
Petronius, Theon of Smyrna,
Dion Pruseus, Phlegon,
Paterculus, Pompon Mela,
Suetonius, Quintius Curtius
Juvenal, Lucian,
Martial, Pausanias,
Persius, Valerius Flaccus,
Plutarch, Florus Lucius,
Justus of Tiberius, Favorinus,
Apollonius, Phaedrus,
Pliny the Younger, Damis,
Tacitus, Aulus Gellius,
Quintilian, Columella,
Lucanus, Dio Chrysostom,
Epictetus, Lysias,
Silius Italicus, Appion of Alexandria.
Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list
remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan
literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish
author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers,
there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived
until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account
of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have
existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's
miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when
Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the
crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and
resurrection of the dead took place--when Christ himself rose from the
dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These
marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had
they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed
the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate
dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed
himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, was a native of Judea. He
was born in 37 A. D., and was a contemporary of the Apostles. He was,
for a time, Governor of Galilee, the province in which Christ lived
and taught. He traversed every part of this province and visited
the places where but a generation before Christ had performed his
prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said
to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage
of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there
during the first seventy years of the Christian era. But Christ was
of too little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line
from this historian's pen.
Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He
wrote a history covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This
work has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of
the ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: "He [Justus]
makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what
things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did"
(Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).
Judea, where occurred the miraculous beginning and marvelous ending of
Christ's earthly career, was a Roman province, and all of Palestine
is intimately associated with Roman history. But the Roman records
of that age contain no mention of Christ and his works. The Greek
writers of Greece and Alexandria who lived not far from Palestine
and who were familiar with its events, are silent also.
Josephus.
Late in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work,
"The Antiquities of the Jews," giving a history of his race from
the earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work
contain the following passage:
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful
to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher
of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him
both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ;
and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us,
had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first
did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third
day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named
from him, are not extinct at this day" (Book XVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).
For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this
passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence,
but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery
was never penned.
Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a
Christian writer. "If it be lawful to call him a man." "He was the
Christ." "He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine
prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
concerning him." These are the words of a Christian, a believer in
the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the
Jewish faith--the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity
of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized,
and Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance
(360 A. D.) offers the following explanation, which only a theologian
could frame: "If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least,
believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man,
hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner;
and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he
was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake,
in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not
lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of
the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention."
Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous
and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted
to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters
are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being,
the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold
ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king,
is dismissed with a dozen lines.
It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it
gives an account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate
with great slaughter. The account ends as follows: "There were a
great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran
away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition." Section 4,
as now numbered, begins with these words: "About the same time also
another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder." The one section
naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two
closely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed;
thus making the words, "another sad calamity," refer to the advent
of this wise and wonderful being.
The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted
this passage had it existed in their time. The failure of even one
of these fathers to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt
upon its genuineness; the failure of all of them to notice it proves
conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in existence during
the second and third centuries.
As this passage first appeared in the writings of the ecclesiastical
historian, Eusebius, as this author openly advocated the use of
fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the church, as
he is known to have mutilated and perverted the text of Josephus in
other instances, and as the manner of its presentation is calculated
to excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been charged to
him. In his "Evangelical Demonstration," written early in the fourth
century, after citing all the known evidences of Christianity, he thus
introduces the Jewish historian: "Certainly the attestations I have
already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However,
it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the
Jew for a further witness" (Book III, p. 124).
Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a reader
of Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth
century, in his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but
was too honest or too wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision
of Josephus, writing five hundred years after the time of Eusebius,
ignores the passage, and admits that Josephus has made no mention
of Christ.
Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a
forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity,
adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:
"I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to
Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors
before Eusebius.
"Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or
word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned,
and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.
"It interrupts the narrative.
"The language is quite Christian.
"It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus,
and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text.
"It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning
Josephus.
"Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly
states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the
least notice of Christ.
"Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens
Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor
Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony.
"But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that
work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John
the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ" (Answer to Dr. Chandler).
Again Dr. Lardner says: "This passage is not quoted nor referred to by
any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning
of the fourth century. If it had been originally in the works of
Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their
disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin
Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men
of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It
was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also
have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable
to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior,
who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country,
who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be
overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist" (Lardner's Works,
vol. I, chap. iv).
Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: "If a Jew owned the
truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore,
certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much
a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge
Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a
rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (Quoted by Lardner, Works,
Vol. I, chap. iv).
The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:
"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus,
and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning
this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third
century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a
writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of
Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun
his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from
thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among
the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author
was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of
his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the
Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian
himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long
for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new
religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel,
contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had
been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and
Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews,
and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius,
the ecclesiastical historian (I, 11), is the first who quotes it,
and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is
not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his
works as undoubtedly genuine" (Christian Records, p. 30).
The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his "Lost and Hostile Gospels," says:
"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two
places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii);
but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A. D. 140), Clement of
Alexandria (fl. A. D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A. D. 193), and Origen
(fl. A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by
Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it
existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen
is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity,
introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his
Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose
writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He,
indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ
(Contr. Cels. i)."
Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding
Christ. He says: "The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of
Christianity, though he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and
gives us the history of that period in which Christ and his Apostles
lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance" (Kneeland's Review,
p. 169).
Referring to this passage, Dean Milman, in his "Gibbon's Rome"
(Vol. II, p. 285, note) says: "It is interpolated with many additional
clauses."
Canon Farrar, who has written the ablest Christian life of Christ
yet penned, repudiates it. He says: "The single passage in which he
[Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious"
(Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).
The following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the
"Encyclopedia Britannica": "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as
it now stands no sane critic can believe."
"There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove
that the whole passage is spurious--one that it was unknown to Origen
and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is
uncertain" (Ibid).
Theodor Keim, a German-Christian writer on Jesus, says: "The passage
cannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the
Catholic church of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the
Fourth Gospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before
Eusebius, and after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may
have given cause for it" (Jesus of Nazara, p. 25).
Concerning this passage, Hausrath, another German writer, says it
"must have been penned at a peculiarly shameless hour."
The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: "Flavius Josephus, the
well known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A. D. 37,
only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of
inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the
times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not
seem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his
'Jewish Antiquities' that refers to him is certainly spurious, and
was inserted by a later and a Christian hand" (Bible for Learners,
Vol. III, p. 27). This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the
eminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.
Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America's ablest Christian apologists,
says: "Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the
Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and
habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise
of the Christian religion.
"Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit
to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one
passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes
to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace
Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until
the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other
reasons, generally accounted spurious" (Evidences of Christianity,
from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).
Another passage in Josephus, relating to the younger Ananus, who was
high priest of the Jews in 62 A. D., reads as follows:
"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the
high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper and very insolent; he was
also of the sect of Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders,
above all of the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when,
therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a
proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the
road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges and brought before them
the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,
and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them
as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned" (Antiquities,
Book XX, chap. ix, sec. 1).
This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause,
"who was called Christ," which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and
is generally regarded as such. Nearly all the authorities that I have
quoted reject it. It was originally probably a marginal note. Some
Christian reader of Josephus believing that the James mentioned was the
brother of Jesus made a note of his belief in the manuscript before
him, and this a transcriber afterward incorporated with the text,
a very common practice in that age when purity of text was a matter
of secondary importance.
The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus,
and who would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christ's
existence, do not cite it, while Origen expressly declares that
Josephus has not mentioned Christ, is conclusive proof that it did
not exist until the middle of the third century or later.
Those who affirm the genuineness of this clause argue that the James
mentioned by Josephus was a person of less prominence than the Jesus
mentioned by him, which would be true of James, the brother of Jesus
Christ. Now some of the most prominent Jews living at this time were
named Jesus. Jesus, the son of Damneus, succeeded Ananus as high
priest that very year; and Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, a little later
succeeded to the same office.
To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother
of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church
which declares that James the Just died in 69 A. D., seven years
after the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim.
Whiston himself, the translator of Josephus, referring to the event
narrated by the Jewish historian, admits that James, the brother of
Jesus Christ, "did not die till long afterward."
The brief "Discourse Concerning Hades," appended to the writings of
Josephus, is universally conceded to be the product of some other
writer--"obviously of Christian origin"--says the "Encyclopedia
Britannica."
Tacitus.
In July, 64 A. D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is
a tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an
incendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the
incendiary. Modern editions of the "Annals" of Tacitus contain the
following passage in reference to this:
"Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed it to those people who
were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These
he punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who,
in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator,
Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile,
broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, the source of this
evil, but reached the city also: whither flow from all quarters
all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and
encouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed
themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected
by them, all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of
burning the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their executions were
so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were
covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs;
some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with combustible
materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned
to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this
occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes
standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer;
at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men,
though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began
to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard
to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man"
(Annals, Book XV, sec. 44).
This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful,
if not spurious, for the following reasons:
1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his
arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century,
made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity
that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of
Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have
used it had it existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century,
cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and
Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth
century.
7. At this time but one copy of the "Annals" existed, and this copy,
it is claimed, was made in the eighth century--600 years after the
time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the
insertion of a forgery was easy.
9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove
its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than
Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection
certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus
have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In
the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings
of Quintilian.
11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads
like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the
reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius
Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says
that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human
lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself
declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.
Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals"
believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished
in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is
an interpolation. Whatever may be said of the remainder of this
passage, this sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian
forgery. It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely
related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break
in the narrative. In all the Roman records there was to be found no
evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence,
if genuine, is the most important evidence in Pagan literature. That
it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman
historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists
for 1,360 years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not
write this sentence.
Pliny the Younger.
This Roman author, early in the second century, while serving as a
pro-consul under Trajan in Bithynia, is reputed to have written a
letter to his Emperor concerning his treatment of Christians. This
letter contains the following:
"I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought
before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians;
if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening
them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be
executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this,
that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was
light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as
to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath--not to do anything that
was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery,
nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to
them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the
more necessary to enquire of two servant maids, who were said to be
attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture. But
I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition."
Notwithstanding an alleged reply to this letter from Trajan, cited
by Tertullian and Eusebius, its genuineness may well be questioned,
and for the following reasons:
1. The Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all, and the Roman
government tolerated and protected every religious belief. Renan says:
"Among the Roman laws, anterior to Constantine, there was not a single
ordinance directed against freedom of thought; in the history of the
Pagan emperors not a single persecution on account of mere doctrines
or creeds" (The Apostles). Gibbon says: "The religious tenets of the
Galileans, or Christians, were never made a subject of punishment,
or even of inquiry" (Rome, Vol. II, p. 215).
2. Trajan was one of the most tolerant and benevolent of Roman
emperors.
3. Pliny, the reputed author of the letter, is universally conceded
to have been one of the most humane and philanthropic of men.
4. It represents the distant province of Bithynia as containing,
at this time, a large Christian population, which is improbable.
5. It assumes that the Emperor Trajan was little acquainted with
Christian beliefs and customs, which cannot be harmonized with the
supposed historical fact that the most powerful of primitive churches
flourished in Trajan's capital and had existed for fifty years.
6. Pliny represents the Christians as declaring that they were in
the habit of meeting and singing hymns "to Christ as to a god." The
early Christians did not recognize Christ as a god, and it was not
until after the time of Pliny that he was worshiped as such.
7. "I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked
them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment;
if they persevered I ordered them to be executed." That this wise and
good man rewarded lying with liberty and truthfulness with death is
difficult to believe.
8. "I therefore deemed it more necessary to inquire of two servant
maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and
to apply the torture." Never have the person and character of woman
been held more sacred than they were in Pagan Rome. That one of the
noblest of Romans should have put to torture young women guiltless
of crime is incredible.
9. The declaration of the Christians that they took a solemn obligation
"not to do anything that was wicked; that they would commit no theft,
robbery, or adultery, nor break their word," etc., looks like an
ingenious attempt to parade the virtues of primitive Christians.
10. This letter, it is claimed, is to be found in but one ancient
copy of Pliny.
11. It was first quoted by Tertullian, and the age immediately
preceding Tertullian was notorious for Christian forgeries.
12. Some of the best German critics reject it. Gibbon, while not
denying its authenticity, pronounces it a "very curious epistle";
and Dr. Whiston, who considers it too valuable to discard, applies to
its contents such epithets as "amazing doctrine!" "amazing stupidity!"
Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny--these are the disinterested witnesses adduced
by the church to prove the historical existence of Jesus Christ;
the one writing nearly one hundred years, the others one hundred
and ten years after his alleged birth; the testimony of two of them
self-evident forgeries, and that of the third a probable forgery.
But even if the doubtful and hostile letter of Pliny be genuine,
it was not written until the second century, so that there is not to
be found in all the records of profane history prior to the second
century a single allusion to the reputed founder of Christianity.
To these witnesses is sometimes, though rarely, added a fourth,
Suetonius, a Roman historian who, like Tacitus and Pliny, wrote in the
second century. In his "Life of Nero," Suetonius says: "The Christians,
a race of men of a new and villainous superstition, were punished." In
his "Life of Claudius," he says: "He [Claudius] drove the Jews, who at
the instigation of Chrestus were constantly rioting, out of Rome." Of
course no candid Christian will contend that Christ was inciting
Jewish riots at Rome fifteen years after he was crucified at Jerusalem.
Significant is the silence of the forty Jewish and Pagan writers named
in this chapter. This silence alone disproves Christ's existence. Had
this wonderful being really existed the earth would have resounded
with his fame. His mighty deeds would have engrossed every historian's
pen. The pages of other writers would have abounded with references to
him. Think of going through the literature of the nineteenth century
and searching in vain for the name of Napoleon Bonaparte! Yet Napoleon
was a pigmy and his deeds trifles compared with this Christ and the
deeds he is said to have performed.
With withering irony Gibbon notes this ominous silence: "But how shall
we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world,
to those evidences which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence,
not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ,
of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they
preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the
blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were
expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the
benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside
from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of
life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral
or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius,
the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman
empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even
this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the
curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in
an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of
Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate
effects, or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of
these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great
phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses,
which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and
the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which
the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe"
(Rome, Vol. I, pp. 588-590).
Even conceding, for the sake of argument, both the authenticity and
the credibility of these passages attributed to the Roman historians,
what do they prove? Do they prove that Christ was divine--that he was a
supernatural being, as claimed? No more than do the writings of Paine
and Voltaire, which also contain his name. This evidence is favorable
not to the adherents, but to the opponents, of Christianity. If these
passages be genuine, and their authors have penned historical truths,
it simply confirms what most Rationalists admit, that a religious sect
called Christians, who recognized Christ as their founder, existed
as early as the first century; and confirms what some have charged,
but what the church is loath to admit, that primitive Christians,
who have been declared the highest exemplars of human virtue, were
the most depraved of villains.
An unlettered and credulous enthusiast, named Jones, imagines that he
has had a revelation, and proceeds to found a new religious sect. He
gathers about him a band of "disciples" as ignorant and credulous as
himself. He soon gets into trouble and is killed. But the Jonesists
increase--increase in numbers and in meanness--until at length they
become sufficiently notorious to receive a paragraph from an annalist
who, after holding them up to ridicule and scorn, accounts for their
origin by stating that they take their name from one Jones who,
during the administration of President Roosevelt, was hanged as a
criminal. The world contains two billions of inhabitants--mostly fools,
as Carlyle would say--and as the religion of this sect is a little
more foolish than that of any other sect, it continues to spread until
at the end of two thousand years it covers the globe. Then think of
the adherents of this religion citing the uncomplimentary allusion
of this annalist to prove that Jones was a god!
CHAPTER III.
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE.
The Four Gospels.
Farrar, in his "Life of Christ," concedes and deplores the dearth
of evidence concerning the subject of his work. He says: "It is
little short of amazing that neither history nor tradition should
have embalmed for us one certain or precious saying or circumstance
in the life of the Savior of Mankind, except the comparatively few
events recorded in four very brief biographies."
With these four brief biographies, the Four Gospels, Christianity
must stand or fall. These four documents, it is admitted, contain
practically all the evidence which can be adduced in proof of the
existence and divinity of Jesus Christ. Profane history, as we have
seen, affords no proof of this. The so-called apocryphal literature
of the early church has been discarded by the church itself. Even
the remaining canonical books of the New Testament are of little
consequence if the testimony of the Four Evangelists be successfully
impeached. Disprove the authenticity and credibility of these documents
and this Christian deity is removed to the mythical realm of Apollo,
Odin, and Osiris.
In a previous work, "The Bible," I have shown that the books of the
New Testament, with a few exceptions, are not authentic. This evidence
cannot be reproduced here in full. A brief summary of it must suffice.
The Four Gospels, it is claimed, were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John, two of them apostles, and two companions of the apostles
of Christ. If this claim be true the other writings of the apostles,
the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and the writings of the early
Christian Fathers, ought to contain some evidences of the fact.
Twenty books--nearly all of the remaining books of the New
Testament--are said to have been written by the three apostles, Peter,
John, and Paul, a portion of them after the first three Gospels were
written; but it is admitted that they contain no evidence whatever
of the existence of these Gospels.
There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers,
Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written,
for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain
no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian
scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: "We have at this day certain most authentic
ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas,
Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I
have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But
in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New
Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named"
(Dissertations upon Irenaeus).
The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin
Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle
of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ
demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He
makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old
Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New
Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says:
"The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
are never mentioned by him [Justin]--do not occur once in all his
writings" (Christian Records, p. 71).
Papias, another noted Father, was a contemporary of Justin. He
refers to writings of Matthew and Mark, but his allusions to them
clearly indicate that they were not the Gospels of Matthew and
Mark. Dr. Davidson, the highest English authority on the canon, says:
"He [Papias] neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired
Gospels" (Canon of the Bible, p. 123).
Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second
century, mentions the Gospel of John, and Irenaeus, who wrote a little
later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from
them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the
time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus,
the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled.
These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written
by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They
simply imply that they are "according" to the supposed teachings of
these Evangelists. As Renan says, "They merely signify that these were
the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming
their authority." Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas
says: "They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in
our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which
deserves no confidence whatever" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).
It is claimed that the Gospel of Matthew originally appeared in
Hebrew. Our version is a translation of a Greek work. Regarding this
St. Jerome says: "Who afterwards translated it into Greek is not
sufficiently certain." The consequences of this admission are thus
expressed by Michaelis: "If the original text of Matthew is lost,
and we have nothing but a Greek translation; then, frankly, we cannot
ascribe any divine inspiration to the words."
The contents of these books refute the claim that they were written
by the Evangelists named. They narrate events and contain doctrinal
teachings which belong to a later age. Matthew ascribes to Christ the
following language: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church" (xvi, 18). This Gospel is a Roman Catholic Gospel, and was
written after the beginning of the establishment of this hierarchy to
uphold the supremacy of the Petrine Church of Rome. Of this Gospel
Dr. Davidson says: "The author, indeed, must ever remain unknown"
(Introduction to New Testament, p. 72).
The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus, Bishop of
Antioch, who is believed to be the person addressed, flourished in
the latter half of the second century.
Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany's greatest theologians, after a
critical analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation,
made up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall's
Schleiermacher says: "He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than
the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence"
(p. 313).
The basis of this Gospel is generally believed to be the Gospel of
Marcion, a Pauline compilation, made about the middle of the second
century. Concerning this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his
"Lost and Hostile Gospels," says: "The arrangement is so similar that
we are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or
that it was his original composition. If he used it then his right
to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the ground,
as what he added was of small amount."
Mark, according to Renan, is the oldest of the Gospels; but Mark,
according to Strauss, was written after the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke were written. He says: "It is evidently a compilation, whether
made from memory or otherwise, from the first and third Gospels"
(Leben Jesu, p. 51). Judge Waite, in his "History of Christianity,"
says that all but twenty-four verses of this Gospel have their
parallels in Matthew and Luke. Davidson declares it to be an anonymous
work. "The author," he says, "is unknown."
Omitting the last twelve verses of Mark, which all Christian critics
pronounce spurious, the book contains no mention of the two great
miracles which mark the limits of Christ's earthly career, his
miraculous birth and his ascension.
Concerning the first three Gospels, the "Encyclopedia Britannica"
says: "It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form
only by degrees." Of these books Dr. Westcott says: "Their substance
is evidently much older than their form." Professor Robertson Smith
pronounces them "unapostolic digests of the second century."
The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel
is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle,
was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was
born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know
where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman;
the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the
most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare,
were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these
events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of
this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to
be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.
Regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. Davidson says: "The
Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism,
and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible"
(Canon of the Bible, p. 127).
That the authenticity of the Four Gospels cannot be maintained is
conceded by every impartial critic. The author of "Supernatural
Religion," in one of the most profound and exhaustive works on
this subject ever written, expresses the result of his labors in
the following words: "After having exhausted the literature and the
testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct
trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half
after the death of Jesus" (Supernatural Religion, Vol. II, p. 248).
Fifteen hundred years ago, Bishop Faustus, a heretical Christian
theologian, referring to this so-called Gospel history, wrote: "It
is allowed not to have been written by the son himself nor by his
apostles, but long after by some unknown men who, lest they should
be suspected of writing things they knew nothing of, gave to their
books the names of the Apostles."
The following is the verdict of the world's greatest Bible critic,
Baur: "These Gospels are spurious, and were written in the second
century."
Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation.
The Acts of the Apostles is supposed to have been written by the
author of the Third Gospel. Like this book it is anonymous and of late
origin. It contains historical inaccuracies, contradicts the Gospel of
Matthew, and conflicts with the writings of Paul. Concerning the last,
the "Bible for Learners" (Vol. III, p. 25) says: "In the first two
chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, he [Paul] gives us several
details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story
side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this
book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not
the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design."
This book purports to be the product chiefly of three minds: that
of the author who gives a historical sketch of the early church,
and those of Peter and Paul whose discourses are reported. And yet
the three compositions are clearly the products of one mind--that
of the author. The evident purpose of the work is to heal the bitter
dissensions which existed between the Petrine and Pauline churches,
and this points unmistakably to the latter part of the second century
as the date of its appearance, when the work of uniting the various
Christian sects into the Catholic church began. Renan considers this
the most faulty book of the New Testament.
The seven Catholic Epistles, James, First and Second Peter, First,
Second and Third John, and Jude, have never been held in very high
esteem by the church. Many of the Christian Fathers rejected them,
while modern Christian scholars have generally considered them of
doubtful authenticity. The first and last of these were rejected by
Martin Luther. "St. James' Epistle," says Luther, "is truly an epistle
of straw" (Preface to Luther's New Testament, ed. 1524). Jude, he says,
"is an abstract or copy of St. Peter's Second, and allegeth stories
and sayings which have no place in Scripture" (Standing Preface).
The First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John have generally
been accorded a higher degree of authority than the others; but even
these were not written by apostles, nor in the first century. Dr. Soury
says that First Peter "dates, in all probability, from the year 130
A. D., at the earliest" (Jesus and the Gospels, p. 32). Irenaeus, the
founder of the New Testament canon, rejected it. The Dutch critics,
who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and assign
its composition to the second century, say: "The First Epistle of
John soon issued from the same school in imitation of the Gospel"
(Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 692).
Second Peter is a forgery. Westcott says there is no proof of its
existence prior to 170 A. D. Smith's "Bible Dictionary" says "Many
reject the epistle as altogether spurious." The brief epistles of
Second and Third John are anonymous and of very late origin. They do
not purport to be the writings of John. The superscriptions declare
them to be from an elder, and this precludes the claim that they are
from an apostle. The early Fathers ignored them.
Revelation is the only book in the Bible which claims to be the word of
God. At the same time it is the book of which Christians have always
been the most suspicious. It is addressed to the seven churches
of Asia, but the seven churches of Asia rejected it. Concerning
the attitude of ancient churchmen toward it, Dionysius, Bishop of
Alexandria, says: "Divers of our predecessors have wholly refused and
rejected this book, and by discussing the several parts thereof have
found it obscure and void of reason and the title forged."
"The most learned and intelligent of Protestant divines," says the
Edinburgh Review, "almost all doubted or denied the canonicity
of the book of Revelation." It is a book which, Dr. South said,
"either found a man mad or left him so." Calvin and Beza both forbade
their clergy to attempt an explanation of its contents. Luther says:
"In the Revelation of John much is wanting to let me deem it either
prophetic or apostolical" (Preface to N. T., 1524).
Considered as evidences of Christ's historical existence and divinity
these nine books are of no value. They are all anonymous writings or
forgeries, and, with the possible exception of Revelation, of very
late origin. While they affirm Christ's existence they are almost
entirely silent regarding his life and miracles.
The Epistles of Paul.
Of the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul, seven--Ephesians,
Colossians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus,
and Hebrews--are conceded by nearly all critics to be spurious, while
three others--Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon--are
generally classed as doubtful.
The general verdict concerning the first seven is thus expressed by
the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas: "Fourteen epistles are said to be Paul's;
but we must at once strike off one, namely, that to the Hebrews,
which does not bear his name at all. ... The two letters to Timothy
and the letter to Titus were certainly composed long after the death
of Paul.... It is more than possible that the letters to the Ephesians
and Colossians are also unauthentic, and the same suspicion rests,
perhaps, on the first, but certainly on the second of the Epistles
to the Thessalonians" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 23).
The author of Second Thessalonians, whose epistle is a self-evident
forgery, declares First Thessalonians to be a forgery. Baur and the
Tubingen school reject both Epistles. Baur also rejects Philippians:
"The Epistles to the Colossians and to the Philippians ... are
spurious, and were written by the Catholic school near the end of the
second century, to heal the strife between the Jew and the Gentile
factions" (Paulus). Dr. Kuenen and the other Dutch critics admit that
Philippians and Philemon, as well as First Thessalonians, are doubtful.
That the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries is now conceded by all
critics. According to the German critics they belong to the second
century. Hebrews does not purport to be a Pauline document. Luther
says: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul, nor, indeed,
by any apostle" (Standing Preface to Luther's N. T.).
Four Epistles--Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and
Galatians--while rejected by a few critics, are generally admitted
to be the genuine writings of Paul. These books were written, it is
claimed, about a quarter of a century after the death of Christ. They
are the only books of the New Testament whose authenticity can be
maintained.
Admitting the authenticity of these books, however, is not
admitting the historical existence of Christ and the divine origin of
Christianity. Paul was not a witness of the alleged events upon which
Christianity rests. He did not become a convert to Christianity until
many years after the death of Christ. He did not see Christ (save in
a vision); he did not listen to his teachings; he did not learn from
his disciples. "The Gospel which was preached of me is not after man,
for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it" (Gal. i,
11, 12). Paul accepted only to a very small extent the religion
of Christ's disciples. He professed to derive his knowledge from
supernatural sources--from trances and visions. Regarding the value of
such testimony the author of "Supernatural Religion" (p. 970) says:
"No one can deny, and medical and psychological annals prove, that
many men have been subject to visions and hallucinations which have
never been seriously attributed to supernatural causes. There is not
one single valid reason removing the ecstatic visions and trances of
the Apostle Paul from this class."
The corporeal existence of the Christ of the Evangelists receives
slight confirmation in the writings of Paul. His Christ was not the
incarnate Word of John, nor the demi-god of Matthew and Luke. Of the
immaculate conception of Jesus he knew nothing. To him Christ was the
son of God in a spiritual rather than in a physical sense. "His son
Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according
to the flesh; and declared to be the son of God with power, according
to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. i,
3, 4). "God sent forth his son, made of a woman [but not of a virgin],
made under the law" (Gal. iv, 4).
With the Evangelists the proofs of Christ's divinity are his
miracles. Their books teem with accounts of these. But Paul evidently
knows nothing of these miracles. With him the evidences of Christ's
divine mission are his resurrection and the spiritual gifts conferred
on those who accept him.
The Evangelists teach a material resurrection. When the women visited
his tomb "they entered in and found not the body of Jesus" (Luke xxiv,
3). The divine messengers said to them, "He is not here, but is risen"
(6). "He sat at meat" with his disciples; "he took bread, and blessed
it, and brake, and gave to them" (30). "Then he said to Thomas, Reach
hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and
thrust it into my side" (John xx, 27). This is entirely at variance
with the teachings of Paul. "But now is Christ risen from the dead,
and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came
death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. xv, 20,
21). "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with
what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not
quickened, except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest
not that body that shall be" (35-37). "It is sown a natural body;
it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there
is a spiritual body" (44). "Now this I say brethren, that flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (50).
The Christ that Paul saw in a vision was a spiritual being--an
apparition; and this appearance he considers of exactly the
same character as the post mortem appearances of Christ to his
disciples. "He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that
he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; ... after that,
he was seen of James; then of all the Apostles. And last of all,
he was seen of me also" (1 Cor. xv, 5-8).
CHAPTER IV.
THE INFANCY OF CHRIST.
We have seen that the Four Gospels are not authentic, that they are
anonymous writings which appeared late in the second century. If their
contents seemed credible and their statements harmonized with each
other this want of authenticity would invalidate their authority,
because the testimony of an unknown witness cannot be accepted
as authoritative. On the other hand, if their authenticity could
be established, if it could be shown that they were written by the
authors claimed, the incredible and contradictory character of their
contents would destroy their authority.
As historical documents these books are hardly worthy of credit. The
"Arabian Nights" is almost as worthy of credit as the Four Gospels. In
both are to be found accounts of things possible and of things
impossible. To believe the impossible is gross superstition; to believe
the possible, simply because it is possible, is blind credulity. These
books are adduced as the credentials of Christ. A critical analysis of
these credentials reveals hundreds of errors. A presentation of these
errors will occupy the five succeeding chapters of this work. If it
can be shown that they contain errors, however trivial some of them
may appear, this refutes the claim of inerrancy and divinity. If
it can be shown that they abound with errors, this destroys their
credibility as historical documents. Destroy the credibility of the
Four Gospels and you destroy all proofs of Christ's divinity--all
proofs of his existence.
1
When was Jesus born?
Matthew: "In the days of Herod" (ii, 1).
Luke: "When Cyrenius was governor of Syria" (ii, 1-7).
Nearly every biographer gives the date of his subject's birth. Yet not
one of the Evangelists gives the date of Jesus' birth. Two, Matthew
and Luke, attempt to give the time approximately. But between these two
attempts there is a discrepancy of at least ten years; for Herod died
4 B. C., while Cyrenius did not become governor of Syria until 7 A. D.
A reconciliation of these statements is impossible. Matthew clearly
states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. Luke states
that Augustus Caesar issued a decree that the world should be taxed,
that "this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria,"
and that Jesus was born at the time of this taxing.
The following extracts from Josephus, the renowned historian of the
race and country to which Jesus belonged, give the date of this taxing
and the time that elapsed between the death of Herod and the taxing,
and which reckoned backward from this gives the date of Herod's death:
"And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind;
for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left his kingdom,
to be tetrarch of Galilee and Berea, and granted the kingdom to
Archelaus.... When he had done these things he died" (Antiquities,
B. xvii, ch. 8, sec. 1).
"But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren,
and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear
his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before
Caesar.... And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what
certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make,
both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the
place of his habitation, and took his money away from him" (Ibid,
ch. 13, sec. 2).
"Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius,
one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of
people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus"
(Ib. sec. 5).
"When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when
the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the
thirty-seventh of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium," etc. (Ib.,
B. xviii, ch. 2, sec. 1).
The battle of Actium was fought September 2, B. C. 31. The
thirty-seventh year from this battle comprehended the time elapsing
between September 2, A. D. 6, and September 2, A. D. 7, the mean
of which was March 2, A. D. 7. The mean of the tenth year preceding
this--the year in which Herod died--was September 2, B. C. 4.
It has been suggested by some unacquainted with Roman history that
Cyrenius [Quirinus] may have been twice governor of Syria. Cyrenius
was but once governor of Syria, and this not until 7 A. D. During the
last years of Herod's reign, and during all the years of Archelaus's
reign, Sentius Saturninus and Quintilius Varus held this office. Even
if Cyrenius had previously held the office the events related by Luke
could not have occurred then because Judea prior to 7 A. D. was not
a part of Syria.
The second chapter of Luke which narrates the birth and infancy of
Jesus, conflicts with the first chapter of this book. In this chapter
it is expressly stated that Zacharias, the priest, lived in the time
of Herod and, inferentially, that the conceptions of John and Jesus
occurred at this time.
Christian chronology, by which events are supposed to be reckoned
from the birth of Christ, agrees with neither Matthew nor Luke, but
dates from a point nearly intermediate between the two. According to
Matthew, Christ was born at least five years before the beginning
of the Christian era; according to Luke he was born at least six
years after the beginning of the Christian era. This is 1907: but
according to Matthew Christ was born not later than 1912 years ago;
while according to Luke he was born not earlier than 1901 years ago.
At least ten different opinions regarding the year of Christ's birth
have been advanced by Christian scholars. Dodwell places it in 6 B. C.,
Chrysostom 5 B. C., Usher, whose opinion is most commonly received,
4 B. C., Irenaeus 3 B. C., Jerome 2 B. C., Tertullian 1 B. C. Some
modern authorities place it in 1 A. D., others in 2 A. D., and still
others in 3 A. D.; while those who accept Luke as infallible authority
must place it as late as 7 A. D.
2
It is generally assumed that Jesus was born in the last year of
Herod's reign. How long before the close of Herod's reign was he born?
Matthew: At least two years (ii, 1-16).
Matthew says that when the wise men visited Herod he diligently
inquired of them the time when the star which announced the birth of
Jesus first appeared. When he determined to destroy Jesus and massacred
the infants of Bethlehem and the surrounding country, he slew those
"from two years old and under, according to the time which he had
diligently inquired of the wise men," clearly indicating that Jesus
was nearly or quite two years old at this time.
In attempting to reconcile Matthew's visit of the wise men to Jesus
at Bethlehem with the narrative of Luke, which makes his stay there
less than six weeks, it has been assumed that this visit occurred
immediately after his birth, whereas, according to Matthew, it did
not occur until about two years after his birth.
3
In what month and on what day of the month was he born?
Not one of his biographers is prepared to tell; primitive Christians
did not know; the church has never been able to determine this. A
hundred different opinions regarding it have been expressed by
Christian scholars. Wagenseil places it in February, Paulius in
March, Greswell in April, Lichtenstein in June, Strong in August,
Lightfoot in September, and Newcome in October. Clinton says that he
was born in the Spring; Larchur says that he was born in the Fall. Some
early Christians believed that it occurred on the 5th of January;
others the 19th of April; others still on the 20th of May. The Eastern
church believed that he was born on the 7th of January. The church of
Rome, in the fourth century, selected the 25th of December on which
to celebrate the anniversary of his birth; and this date has been
accepted by the greater portion of the Christian world.
4
What determined the selection of this date?
"There was a double reason for selecting this day. In the first place
it had been observed from a hoary antiquity as a heathen festival,
following the longest night of the winter solstice, and was called
'the Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun.' It was a fine thought
to celebrate on that day the birth of him whom the Gospel called
"the light of the world".... The second reason was, that at Rome the
days from the 17th to the 23d of December were devoted to unbridled
merrymaking. These days were called the Saturnalia.... Now the church
was always anxious to meet the heathen, whom she had converted or
was beginning to convert, half-way, by allowing them to retain the
feasts they were accustomed to, only giving them a Christian dress,
or attaching a new and Christian signification to them" (Bible for
Learners, vol. iii, pp. 66, 67).
Gibbon says: "The Roman Christians, ignorant of the real time of the
birth of Jesus, fixed the solemn festival on the 25th of December,
the winter solstice when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of
the sun."
5
What precludes the acceptance of this date?
Luke: At the time of his birth "there were in the same country
shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by
night" (ii, 8).
Shepherds did not abide in the field with their flocks at night in
mid-winter. The Rev. Cunningham Geikie, D. D., a leading English
orthodox authority on Christ, says:
"One knows how wretched even Rome is in winter and Palestine is much
worse during hard weather. Nor is it likely that shepherds would
lie out through the night, except during unseasonably fine weather"
(Christmas at Bethlehem, in Deems' Holydays and Holidays, p. 405).
"The nativity of Jesus in December should be given up."--Dr. Adam
Clarke.
In regard to the date of Christ's birth Dr. Farrar says: "It
must be admitted that we cannot demonstrate the exact year of the
nativity.... As to the day and month of the nativity it is certain
that they can never be recovered; they were absolutely unknown to the
early fathers, and there is scarcely one month of the year which has
not been fixed upon as probable by modern critics."
The inability of Christians to determine the date of Christ's birth
is one of the strongest proofs of his non-existence as a historical
character. Were the story of his miraculous birth and marvelous life
true the date of his birth would have been preserved and would be
today, the best authenticated fact in history.
6
Where was Jesus born?
Matthew and Luke: In Bethlehem of Judea (Matt. ii, 1; Luke ii, 1-7).
Aside from these stories in Matthew and Luke concerning the nativity,
which are clearly of later origin than the remaining documents
composing the books and which many Christian scholars reject, there
is not a word in the Four Gospels to confirm the claim that Jesus was
born in Bethlehem. Every statement in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
as well as Acts, concerning his nativity, is to the effect that he was
born in Nazareth of Galilee. He is never called "Jesus of Bethlehem,"
but always "Jesus of Nazareth." According to modern usage "Jesus of
Nazareth" might merely signify that Nazareth was the place of his
residence and not necessarily the place of his birth. But this usage
was unknown to the Jews. Had he been born at Bethlehem, he would,
according to the Jewish custom, have been called "Jesus of Bethlehem,"
because the place of birth always determined this distinguishing
adjunct, and the fact of his having removed to another place would
not have changed it.
Peter (Acts ii, 22; iii, 6); Paul (Acts xxvi, 9), Philip (John i,
45), Cleopas and his companion (Luke xxiv, 19), Pilate (John xix,
19), Judas and the band sent to arrest Jesus (John xviii, 5, 7), the
High Priest's maid (Mark xiv, 67), blind Bartimaeus (Mark x, 47),
the unclean spirits (Mark i, 24; Luke iv, 34), the multitudes that
attended his meetings (Matt. xxi, 11; Luke xviii, 37), all declared
him to be a native of Nazareth.
To the foregoing may be added the testimony of Jesus himself. When
Paul asked him who he was he answered: "I am Jesus of Nazareth"
(Acts xxii, 8).
Many of the Jews rejected Christ because he was born in Galilee and
not in Bethlehem. "Others said, This is the Christ. But some said,
Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scriptures said,
That Christ cometh out of the seed of David, and out of the town of
Bethlehem, where David was?" (John vii, 41, 42).
Concerning this subject the "Bible for Learners" says: "The primitive
tradition declared emphatically that Nazareth was the place from
which Jesus came. We may still see this distinctly enough in our
Gospels. Jesus is constantly called the Nazarene, or Jesus of
Nazareth. This was certainly the name by which he was known in his
own time; and of course such local names were given to men from the
place of their birth, and not from the place in which they lived,
which might constantly be changing. Nazareth is called in so many
words his own, that is his native city, and he himself declares it so"
(vol. iii, pp. 39, 40).
That Jesus the man, if such a being existed, was not born at Bethlehem
is affirmed by all critics. That he could not have been born at
Nazareth is urged by many. Nazareth, it is asserted, did not exist
at this time. Christian scholars admit that there is no proof of its
existence at the beginning of the Christian era outside of the New
Testament. The Encyclopedia Biblica, a leading Christian authority,
says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was
a city called Nazareth in Jesus' time."
7
His reputed birth at Bethlehem was in fulfillment of what prophecy?
"And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among
the princes of Juda; for out of thee shall come a governor that shall
rule my people Israel" (Matthew ii, 6).
This is a misquotation of Micah v, 2. The passage as it appears in
our version of the Old Testament is itself a mistranslation. Correctly
rendered it does not mean that this ruler shall come from Bethlehem,
but simply that he shall be a descendant of David whose family belonged
to Bethlehem.
Concerning this prophecy it may be said, 1. That Jesus never became
governor or ruler of Israel; 2. That the ruler referred to was to be
a military leader who should deliver Israel from the Assyrians. "And
this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into the
land ... thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian" (Micah v, 5, 6).
8
Jesus is called the Son of David. Why?
Matthew and Luke: Because Joseph, who was not his father, but merely
his guardian or foster father, was descended from David.
The Jews expected a Messiah. This expectation was realized, it is
claimed, in Jesus Christ. His Messianic marks, however, were not
discernible and the Jews, for the most part, rejected him. This
Messiah must be a son of David. Before Jesus' claims could even be
considered his Davidic descent must be established. This Matthew and
Luke attempt to do. Each gives what purports to be a genealogy of
him. If these genealogies agree they may be false; if they do not
agree one must be false.
9
How many generations were there from David to Jesus?
Matthew: Twenty-eight (i, 6-16).
Luke: Forty-three (iii, 23-31).
Luke makes two more generations from David to Jesus in a period of
one thousand years than Matthew does from Abraham to Jesus in a period
of two thousand years.
10
How many generations were there from Abraham to Jesus?
Matthew: "From Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from
David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations;
and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen
generations"--in all, forty-two generations (i, 17).
Here Matthew contradicts his own record given in the preceding sixteen
verses; for, including both Abraham and Jesus, he names but forty-one
generations: 1. Abraham, 2. Isaac, 3. Jacob, 4. Judas, 5. Phares,
6. Ezrom, 7. Aram, 8. Aminadab, 9. Naason, 10. Salmon, 11. Booz,
12. Obed, 13. Jesse, 14. David, 15. Solomon, 16. Roboam, 17. Abia,
18. Asa, 19. Josaphat, 20. Joram, 21. Ozias, 22. Joatham, 23. Achaz,
24. Ezekias, 25. Manasses, 26. Amon, 27. Josias, 28. Jechonias,
29. Salathiel, 30. Zorobabel, 31. Abiud, 32. Eliakim, 33. Azor,
34. Sadoc, 35. Achim, 36. Eliud, 37. Eleazer, 38. Matthan, 39. Jacob,
40. Joseph, 41. Jesus Christ.
11
Does Luke's genealogy agree with the Old Testament?
It does not. Luke gives twenty generations from Adam to Abraham,
while Genesis (v, 3-32; xi, 10-26) and Chronicles (1 Ch. i, 1-4;
24-27) each gives but nineteen.
12
How many generations were there from Abraham to David?
Matthew: "From Abraham to David are fourteen generations" (i, 17).
From Abraham to David are not fourteen, but thirteen generations;
for David does not belong to this period. The genealogical table of
Matthew naturally and logically comprises three divisions which he
recognizes. The first division comprises the generations preceding
the establishment of the Kingdom of David, beginning with Abraham;
the second comprises the kings of Judah, beginning with David the
first and ending with Jechonias the last; the third comprises the
generations following the kings of Judah, from the Captivity to Christ.
13
How many generations were there from David to the Captivity?
Matthew: "From David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen
generations" (i, 17).
In order to obtain a uniformity of numbers--three periods of double
seven (seven was the sacred number of the Jews) each--Matthew
purposely falsifies the records of the Old Testament. A reference
to the Davidic genealogy (1 Chronicles iii) shows that he omits the
generations of Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim, four Jewish
kings, lineal descendants of David, whose combined reigns amount to
over eighty years.
Matthew. Chronicles.
David, David,
Solomon, Solomon,
Reboam, Rehoboam,
Abia, Abia,
Asa, Asa,
Josaphat, Jehoshaphat,
Joram, Joram,
Ahaziah,
Joash,
Amaziah,
Ozias, Azariah,
Joatham, Jotham,
Achaz, Ahaz,
Ezekias, Hezekiah,
Manasses, Manasseh,
Amon, Amon,
Josias, Josiah,
Jehoiakim,
Jechonias. Jechoniah.
The first three omissions are thus explained by Augustine: "Ochozias
[Ahaziah], Joash, and Amazias were excluded from the number, because
their wickedness was continuous and without interval."
As if the exclusion of their names from a genealogical list would
expunge their records from history and drain their blood from the veins
of their descendants. But aside from the absurdity of this explanation,
the premises are false. Those whose names are excluded from the list
were not men whose "wickedness was continuous and without interval,"
while some whose names are not excluded were. Ahaziah reigned but one
year. Joash reigned forty years and both Kings and Chronicles affirm
that "He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord" (2 Kings
xii, 2; 2 Chron. xxiv, 2). Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years, and he,
too, "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord" (2 Kings xiv,
3). On the other hand, Rehoboam, Joram and Jechonias, whose names are
retained in Matthew's table, are represented as monsters of wickedness.
14
Name the generations from David to the Captivity.
Matthew. Luke.
David, David,
Solomon, Nathan,
Roboam, Mattatha,
Abia, Menan,
Asa, Melea,
Josaphat, Eliakim,
Joram, Jonan,
Ozias, Joseph,
Joatham, Juda,
Achas, Simeon,
Ezekias, Levi,
Manasses, Matthat,
Amon, Jorim,
Josias, Eliezer,
Jechonias. Jose,
Er,
Elmodam,
Cosam,
Addi,
Melchi,
Neri.
15
How many generations were there from the Captivity to Christ?
Matthew: "From the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen
generations" (i, 17).
Matthew is again guilty of deception. A reference to his table shows
that there were but thirteen generations. In order to carry out his
numerical system of fourteen generations to each period he counts the
generation of Jechonias in this period which he has already counted
in the preceding period; thus performing the mathematical feat of
dividing 27 by 2 and obtaining 14 for a quotient.
Had Matthew given a true summary of this genealogy, assuming the
generations from the close of the Old Testament record to Christ to
be correct, instead of these periods of double seven each, we would
have the following: "So all the generations from Abraham to David
are thirteen generations; and from David until the carrying away
into Babylon are nineteen generations; and from the carrying away
into Babylon unto Christ are thirteen generations."
16
Name the generations from the Captivity to Christ.
Matthew. Luke. Chronicles.
Salathiel, Salathiel, Pediah,
Zorobabel, Zorobabel, Zerubabel,
Abiud, Rhesa, Hananiah,
Eliakim, Joanna, Schecania,
Azor, Juda, Shemaiah,
Sadoc, Joseph, Neariah,
Achim, Semei, Elioenai,
Eliud, Mattathias, Hodaiah,
Eleazer, Maath, (Here the genealogy of Chronicles
ends.)
Matthan, Nagge,
Jacob, Esli,
Joseph, Naum,
Jesus. Amos,
Mattathias,
Joseph,
Janna,
Melchi,
Levi,
Heli,
Matthat,
Joseph,
Jesus.
17
According to the accepted chronology, what was the average age of
each generation from David to Jesus?
Luke: Twenty-five years.
Matthew: Forty years.
18
What was the average age from David to the Captivity?
Matthew: Thirty-seven years.
According to Chronicles the average age of the same line for the same
period was but twenty-six years.
19
What was the average age from the Captivity to Jesus?
Luke: Twenty-eight years.
Matthew: Fifty years.
While the average age from David to the Captivity by way of Solomon
was but twenty-six years the average age from the Captivity to Jesus
by the same line, according to Matthew, was fifty years. This proves
the falsity of Matthew's genealogy from the Captivity to Jesus.
20
What was the average length of each generation from Abraham to David?
Matthew and Luke: Seventy years.
Seventy years is said to constitute the natural life of man. According
to these Evangelists Christ's Pre-Davidic ancestors only reached
maturity at seventy. How slow was man's development then--a babe
in his mother's arms at twenty; a playful child at forty; at sixty
an ardent youth wooing a blushing maiden of half a hundred years;
at three score years and ten a fond young father rejoicing at the
birth of his first-born!
21
What was the average length of each generation from Adam to Abraham?
Luke: One hundred years.
22
How many generations were there from Adam to Abraham?
Luke: Twenty (iii, 34-38).
Luke makes less than half as many generations from Adam to Abraham
in a period of two thousand years as he does from David to Jesus in
a period of one thousand years.
23
How many generations were there between Rachab, the mother of Booz,
and David?
Matthew: Three--Booz, Obed and Jesse (i, 5, 6).
Rachab lived at Jericho when it was taken by the Israelites. Jericho
was taken 1451 B. C., the year that Moses died. David was born 1085
B. C.--nearly four centuries later.
24
Assuming the generations following the Captivity in Matthew and
Chronicles to run parallel, how many generations were there between
the last generation named in Chronicles and Jesus?
Matthew: Four.
Yet Chronicles was written, it is claimed, from 458 to 604 years
before Christ.
"If the Chronicles were written by Ezra, the date of their
composition was not far from B. C. 458, the year of the return from
the Captivity. If by Daniel, the earlier period of from 604 to 534
must be adopted."--Rev. Dr. Hitchcock.
25
Name the first ten ancestors of Jesus.
Luke: Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Maleleel, Jared, Enoch, Mathusala,
Lamech, Noe (iii, 36-38).
Archeological researches have shown these to be ten Babylonian kings.
26
Who was Sala?
Luke: "Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of
Arphaxad" (iii, 35, 36).
"And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begat Salah" (Genesis
xi, 12).
According to Luke Sala was the grand-son of Arphaxad; according to
Genesis he was the son of Arphaxad.
27
Who begat Ozias?
Matthew: "Joram begat Ozias" (i, 8).
"Ahaziah his [Joram's] son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah
[Ozias] his son" (1 Chronicles iii, 11, 12).
According to the New Testament Ozias was the son of Joram; according
to the Old Testament he was the great great-grandson of Joram.
28
Who was Josiah's successor?
Matthew: Jechonias (i, 11).
"Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, and
made him king in his father's stead" (2 Chronicles xxxvi, 1).
"For thus saith the Lord touching Shallum, the son of Josiah, king
of Judah, which reigned instead of Josiah, his father" (Jeremiah
xxii, 11).
"And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room
of Josiah, his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim" (2 Kings
xxiii, 34).
According to Matthew, Josiah's successor was Jechonias; according to
Chronicles, Jehoahaz; according to Jeremiah, Shallum; according to
Kings, Jehoiakim.
29
Who was the father of Jechonias?
Matthew: "Josias begat Jechonias" (i, 11).
Josias was not the father but the grandfather of Jechonias. "And the
sons of Josiah were, ... the second Jehoiakim.... And the sons of
Jehoiakim: Jechoniah, his son" (1 Chron. iii, 15, 16).
30
When did Josias beget Jechonias?
Matthew: "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time
they were carried away into Babylon" (i, 11).
Josiah became king 641 B. C. and died 610 B. C. Jechonias was carried
to Babylon 588 B. C., 22 years after Josiah died.
31
Did Jechonias have a son?
Matthew: "And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat
Salathiel" (i, 12).
"As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah [Jechonias], the son
of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet upon my right hand,
yet would I pluck thee thence.... O earth, earth, earth, hear the
word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless,
a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall
prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling no more in Judah"
(Jeremiah xxii, 24-30).
This curse was pronounced upon Jechonias before he was taken to
Babylon. By this divine oath Jesus is precluded from becoming an heir
to the throne of David. God swears that Jechonias shall be childless,
and that no descendant of his shall ever sit upon the throne. Yet
Matthew, in the face of this oath, declares that Jechonias did not
remain childless, that he begat a son, Salathiel, the progenitor of
Jesus. In attempting to make Jesus an heir to David's throne Matthew
makes God a liar and perjurer.
32
Matthew says that Salathiel was the son of Jechonias. Who does Luke
declare him to be?
"The son of Neri" (iii, 27).
33
Who was the father of Zorobabel?
Matthew: "And Salathiel begat Zorobabel" (i, 12).
Luke: "Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel" (iii, 27).
Here both Evangelists agree--agree to disagree with Chronicles
which says that Zorobabel was the son of Pedaiah, the brother of
Salathiel. "And the sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei"
(1 Chron. iii, 19).
34
Who was the son of Zorobabel?
Matthew: "And Zorobabel begat Abiud" (i, 13).
Luke: "Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel" (iii, 27).
Each contradicts the other, and both contradict the Old Testament
(1 Chron. iii, 19, 20).
35
Who was the father of Joseph?
Matthew: "And Jacob begat Joseph" (i, 16).
Luke: "Joseph, which was the son of Heli" (iii, 23).
36
If Jesus was descended from David, the descent was through one of
David's sons. Which one?
Matthew: Solomon (i, 6-16).
Luke: Nathan (iii, 23-31).
Luke reaches the same person by way of one brother that Matthew does
by way of the other.
37
Many commentators attempt to reconcile these discordant genealogies by
assuming that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives
the genealogy of Mary. What do the Evangelists themselves declare?
Matthew: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was
born Jesus, who is called Christ," etc. (i, 16).
Luke: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
etc. (iii, 23).
Dr. Geikie, in his "Life of Christ" (vol. i, p. 531, note), says:
"The genealogies given by both Matthew and Luke seem unquestionably
to refer to Joseph."
Regarding this the Rev. Dr. McNaught says: "Let the reader bear
in mind how Matthew states that 'Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of
Mary,' and how Luke's words are 'Joseph which was the son of Heli,'
and then let him say whether it is truthful to allege that these
different genealogies belong to different individuals. Is it not
plain that each of them professes to trace the lineal descent of one
and the same man, Joseph?"
William Rathbone Greg says: "The circumstance that any man could
suppose that Matthew when he said, 'Jacob begat Joseph,' or Luke, when
he said, 'Joseph was the son of Heli,' could refer to the wife of the
one, or the daughter-in-law of the other, shows to what desperate
stratagems polemical orthodoxy will resort in order to defend an
untenable position."
Smith's "Bible Dictionary" offers the following explanation:
"They are both the genealogies of Joseph, i. e., of Jesus Christ,
as the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary. The genealogy of
St. Matthew is Joseph's genealogy as legal successor to the throne of
David. St. Luke's is Joseph's private genealogy, exhibiting his real
birth, as David's son, and thus showing why he was heir to Solomon's
crown. The simple principle that one Evangelist exhibits that genealogy
which contained the successive heirs to David's and Solomon's throne,
while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir,
explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees."
This "simple principle" necessitates three disagreeable
postulates. 1. That the lineage of Nathan, who is not the recorded
possessor of even one wife, survived, while that of Solomon who had
seven hundred wives became extinct. 2. That Joseph was legal successor
to the throne of David, when Heli, his father, was not. 3. That the
first chapter of Matthew contains more than a score of errors. That
little word "begat" is fatal to the above theory. Matthew declares that
Jacob begat Joseph. If Jacob begat Joseph, then Jacob, and not Heli,
was the father of Joseph. According to Matthew, the royal line descends
from David to Joseph unbroken; each heir begetting the succeeding one,
thus precluding the possibility of a collateral branch inheriting
the throne.
The hypothesis that Jesus was merely the adopted son and legal
heir of Joseph and yet fulfilled the Messianic requirements is
untenable. Strauss says: "Adoption might indeed suffice to secure to
the adopted son the reversion of certain external family rights and
inheritances; but such a relationship could in no wise lend a claim
to the Messianic dignity, which was attached to the true blood and
lineage of David" (Leben Jesu, p. 122).
The Messiah must be a natural and lineal descendant of David, which
Peter expressly declares Jesus to be: "God had sworn with an oath to
him [David], that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh,
he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" (Acts ii, 30).
It is assumed by some that a Levirate marriage had taken place between
the parents of Joseph, and that the one genealogy belonged to the
natural, the others to the legal father of Joseph. By a Levirate
marriage if a man died without heirs his remaining brother married his
widow and raised up heirs to him. But in this case the brothers would
have the same father, and the genealogies would differ only in the
father of Joseph. It is only by a succession of Levirate marriages
and a juggling of words, which no intelligent critic can seriously
entertain, that such a hypothesis can be considered possible, even
waiving the Old Testament writers, and the Evangelists themselves,
whose language forbids it.
Eusebius advances an explanation characteristic of this ecclesiastical
historian and of the early church whose history he professes
to record. The Jews, it is said, were divided in their opinions
regarding the descent of the Messiah. While some contended that his
descent must be through the royal line, others believed that because
of the excessive wickedness of the kings the descent would be through
another line. Eusebius says: "Matthew gives his opinion, Luke repeats
the common opinion of many, not his own.... This last view Luke takes,
though conscious that Matthew gives the real truth of the genealogy."
Matthew's genealogy is self-evidently false; while Luke's according
to the admission of the historian of the primitive church, is merely
a fabrication of early Christians, designed to influence those who
rejected Matthew's genealogy of the Messiah.
38
If the miraculous conception be true the Davidic descent could only
be through Mary. Was Mary descended from David?
"We are wholly ignorant of the name and occupation of St. Mary's
parents. She was, like Joseph, of the tribe of Judah, and of the
lineage of David (Ps. cxxxii, 11; Luke i, 32; Rom. i, 3)."--Smith's
Bible Dictionary.
Three passages are cited in support of this claim:
1. "The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from
it. Of the fruit of thy body will I sit upon thy throne. If thy
children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach
them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne forevermore"
(Ps. cxxxii, 11, 12).
2. "He shall be great, and shall be called the son of the Highest;
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David"
(Luke i, 32).
3. "Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. i, 3).
The second and third passages do not refer to Mary; the first passage
refers neither to Jesus nor Mary. There is no evidence to prove that
Mary was descended from David. On the contrary there is evidence to
prove that she was not descended from him.
1. "The angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city in Galilee, called
Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the
house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary" (Luke i, 27). Joseph,
and not Mary is declared to be of the house of David.
2. It is stated that Joseph went to Bethlehem "to be taxed with Mary,"
not because they, but "because he was of the house and lineage of
David" (Luke ii, 4, 5).
3. Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth (Luke i, 3), and Elizabeth "was
of the daughters of Aaron" (i, 5), i. e., descended from Levi, while
the house of David was descended from Judah.
This desperate, yet ineffectual, effort to establish the Davidic
descent of Mary is virtually an abandonment of the genealogical tables
of Matthew and Luke, and a falling back upon this pitiable argumentum
in circulo: Mary was descended from David because the Messiah was to
be descended from David, and Jesus was the Messiah because Mary was
descended from David.
These genealogies do not give the lineage of Mary who is said to
have been his only earthly parent, but the lineage of Joseph who,
it is claimed, was not his father. But if Joseph was not the father
of Jesus, what is the use of giving his pedigree? If Joseph was not
the father of Jesus how does proving that he was descended from David
prove that Jesus was descended from David? If these genealogies run
through Joseph to Jesus, as stated by Matthew and Luke, then Joseph
must have been the father of Jesus; and if he was the father of Jesus
the story of the miraculous conception is false.
The Synoptics, as we have seen, are for the most part, mere
compilations, made up of preexisting documents. These documents
belonged to different ages of the primitive church. In the first ages
of the church Christians believed that Jesus was simply a man--the
son of Joseph and Mary. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke, which
trace his descent from David through Joseph, belonged to this age. The
story of the miraculous conception was the product of a later age.
If the dogma of the miraculous conception be true, if God, and not
Joseph, was the father of Jesus as taught, these genealogies, being
genealogies of Joseph, fail to prove what they are intended to prove,
the royal descent of Jesus from David. The genealogies of Matthew
and Luke and their accounts of the miraculous conception mutually
exclude each other.
39
Did Jesus believe himself to be descended from David?
Synoptics: He did not (Matt. xxii, 41-46; Mark xii, 35-37; Luke xx,
41-44).
A principal objection to accepting Jesus as the Messiah by the Jews
was the fact that he was not descended from David. He tacitly admitted
that he was not, and the whole burden of his argument was to convince
them that it was not necessary that he should be.
40
The miraculous conception was in fulfillment of what prophecy?
Matthew: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be
with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel" (i, 22, 23).
This is esteemed the "Gem of the Prophecies," and may be found in the
seventh chapter of Isaiah. The facts are these: Rezin, king of Syria,
and Pekah, king of Israel, had declared war against Ahaz, king of
Judah. God assured Ahaz that they should not succeed, but that their
own kingdoms should be destroyed by the Assyrians. To convince him of
the truth of this he requested Ahaz to demand a sign. "But Ahaz said,
I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.... Therefore the Lord
himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.... Before the child
shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that
thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."
In the succeeding chapter the fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded:
"And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a
son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For
before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother,
the riches of Damascus [the capital of Rezin's kingdom] and the spoils
of Samaria [the capital of Pekah's kingdom] shall be taken away before
the king of Assyria." Rezin and Pekah were overthrown by the Assyrians
about 720 B. C.
One of the most convincing proofs of Christ's divinity, with many,
is the supposed fact that he was born of a virgin and that his
miraculous birth was foretold by a prophet seven hundred years
before the event occurred. Now, there is not a passage in the Jewish
Scriptures declaring that a child should be born of a virgin. The
word translated "virgin" does not mean a virgin in the accepted sense
of the term, but simply a young woman, either married or single. The
whole passage is a mistranslation. The words rendered "a virgin shall
conceive and bear a son" should read, "a young woman is with child and
beareth a son." In this so-called prophecy there is not the remotest
reference to a miraculous conception and a virgin-born child. The
Jews themselves did not regard this passage as a Messianic prophecy;
neither did they believe that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin.
Next to the preceding the following is most frequently cited as
a Messianic prophecy: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
... until Shiloh come" (Genesis xlix, 10).
If Shiloh refers to Christ the prophecy was not fulfilled, for the
sceptre did depart from Judah 600 years before Christ came. But Shiloh
does not refer to a Messiah, nor to any man. Shiloh was the seat of the
national sanctuary before it was removed to Jerusalem. This so-called
prophecy, like the preceding, is a mistranslation. The correct reading
is as follows: "The preeminence shall not depart from Judah so long
as the people resort to Shiloh."
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the
government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be declared
Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the
Prince of Peace" (Isaiah ix, 6).
Prof. Cheyne, the highest authority on Isaiah, pronounces this a
forgery. Every honest Christian scholar must admit this. It is a
self-evident forgery. No Jewish writer could have written it. To
have declared even the Messiah to be "The mighty God, the everlasting
Father" would have been the rankest blasphemy, a crime the punishment
of which was death.
These alleged Messianic prophecies are, in their present form,
Christian rather than Jewish. Christian translators and exegetists
have altered their language and perverted their meaning to make them
appear to refer to Christ. The following is an example:
"I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign
and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In
his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this
is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS"
(Jeremiah xxiii, 5, 6).
The correct rendering of this passage is as follows:
"I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign
and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land. In
his days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely; and
this is the name whereby they shall call themselves: The Eternal is
our righteousness."
To make a Messianic prophecy of this passage and give it effect no
less than eight pieces of deception were employed by the editors of
our Authorized Version:
1. The word "branch" is made to begin with a capital letter.
2. The word "king" also begins with a capital.
3. "The name" is rendered "his name."
4. The pronoun "they," relating to the people of Judah and Israel,
is changed to "he."
5. The word "Eternal" is translated "Lord."
6. "The Lord our righteousness" is printed in capitals.
7. In the table of contents, at the head of the chapter, are the words
"Christ shall rule and save them."
8. At the top of the page are the words "Christ promised."
Another example of this Messianic prophecy making is the following:
"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince,
shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks" (Daniel ix, 25).
The term "week," it is claimed, means a period of seven years,
and assumed that by Messiah is meant Christ. Seven weeks and three
score and two weeks are sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, the time that
was to elapse from the command to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming
of Christ, if the prophecy was fulfilled. The decree of Cyrus to
rebuild Jerusalem and the temple was made 536 B. C. According to the
accepted chronology Christ was born 4 B. C. From the decree of Cyrus,
then, to the coming of Christ was 532 years instead of 483 years,
a period of seven weeks, or forty-nine years, longer than that named
by Daniel. Ezra, the priest, went to Jerusalem 457 B. C. This event,
however, had nothing whatever to do with the decree for rebuilding
Jerusalem and the temple. It occurred 79 years after the decree was
issued, and 58 years after the temple was finished. But a searcher
for Messianic prophecies found that from the time of Ezra to the
beginning of Christ's ministry was about 483 years, or sixty-nine
prophetic weeks; and notwithstanding there was a deficiency of 79
years at one end of the period, and an excess of 30 years at the other,
it was declared to fit exactly.
Christian theologians pretend to recognize in the Old Testament two
kinds of Messianic prophecies: 1. Specific predictions concerning
Christ which were literally fulfilled; 2. Passages in which the writer
refers to other persons or events, but which God, without the writer's
knowledge, designed as types of Christ. The fallaciousness of the
former having been exposed--it having been shown that there is not a
text in the Jewish Scriptures predicting the coming of Christ--they
now rely chiefly upon the latter to support their claims. These
"prophecies" are almost limitless; for a firm believer in prophecy
can, with a vivid imagination, take almost any passage and point out
a fancied resemblance between the thing it refers to and the thing he
wants confirmed; apparently oblivious to the fact that the passage
is equally applicable to a thousand other things. Had the Mormons
accepted Joe Smith as a Messiah instead of a prophet they would have
no lack of prophecies to support their claims; and by translating
and revising the Scriptures to suit their views, as Christians did,
these prophecies would fit him as well as they do the Christ.
41
What name was to be given the child mentioned in Isaiah's prophecy?
"They shall call his name Emmanuel" (Matthew i, 23).
What name was to be given Mary's son?
"Thou shalt call his name Jesus" (Matt. i, 21).
In the naming of the Christian Messiah Isaiah's prophecy was not
fulfilled. He was never called Emmanuel, but Jesus.
42
To whom did the angel announcing the miraculous conception appear?
Matthew: To Joseph (i, 20, 21).
Luke: To Mary (i, 26-38).
"An angel did not appear, first to Mary, and also afterwards
to Joseph; he can only have appeared either to the one or to the
other. Consequently, it is only the one or the other relation which
can be regarded as historical. And here different considerations
would conduct to opposite decisions.... Every criticism which might
determine the adoption of the one, and the rejection of the other,
disappears; and we find ourselves, in reference to both accounts,
driven back by necessity to the mythical view."--Strauss.
43
For what purpose was the Annunciation made?
Luke: Simply to acquaint Mary with the heavenly decree that she had
been chosen to become the mother of the coming Messiah (i, 26-33).
Matthew: To allay the suspicions of Joseph respecting Mary's chastity
and prevent him from putting her away (i, 18-20).
44
Did the Annunciation take place before or after Mary's conception?
Luke: Before (i, 26-31).
Matthew: After (i, 18-20).
45
Who was declared to be the father of Jesus?
Matthew: The Holy Ghost (i, 18, 20).
With the Jews the Holy Ghost (Spirit) was of feminine gender; with
the Greeks, of masculine gender. The belief that the Holy Ghost was
the father of Jesus originated, not with the Jewish Christians of
Palestine, as claimed, but with the Greek Christians of Alexandria.
46
What prediction did the angel Gabriel make to Mary concerning Jesus?
"The Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Luke
i, 32).
Respecting this prediction the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says:
"If a messenger from Heaven had really come to bring a divine
revelation to Mary, the result must have confirmed his prediction;
and since Jesus never fulfilled these expectations it is obvious that
the revelation was never made."
47
When Mary visited Elizabeth what did she do?
Luke: She uttered a hymn of praise (i, 46-55).
Had Mary uttered such a hymn we would suppose that it would have been
original and inspired by the Almighty Father of her unborn child. Yet
the hymn which Luke puts into her mouth was borrowed from the song
of Hannah.
Hannah. Mary.
"My heart rejoiceth in the Lord" (1 "My spirit hath rejoiced in God"
Sam. ii, 1). (Luke i, 47).
"If thou wilt indeed look on the "For he hath regarded the low
affliction of thine handmaid" (i, estate of his handmaiden" (48).
11).
"Talk no more so exceeding proudly" "He hath scattered the proud"
(ii, 3). (51).
"The bows of the mighty men are "He hath put down the mighty from
broken, and they that stumbled are their seats and exalted them of
girded with strength (4). low degree" (52).
"They that were full hath hired out "He hath filled the hungry with
themselves for bread; and they that good things; and the rich he hath
were hungry ceased" (5). sent empty away" (53).
48
What decree is said to have been issued by Caesar Augustus immediately
preceding the birth of Christ?
Luke: "That all the world should be taxed" (ii, 1).
No such decree was issued by Augustus, nor even one that the Roman
world should be taxed. The taxation of different provinces of the
empire was made at various times, no general decree ever having
been issued and no uniform assessment ever having been attempted by
Augustus. An enrollment of Roman citizens for the purpose of taxation
was made in Syria 7 A. D.
49
Of what king was Joseph a subject when Jesus was born?
Matthew: Of Herod.
If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, Joseph, whether a resident
of Judea or of Galilee, could not have been taxed by Augustus, for
neither province was then a part of Syria. Both provinces belonged
to Herod's kingdom and Herod's subjects were not taxed by the Roman
government.
50
Of what province was Joseph a resident?
Matthew: Of Judea.
Luke: Of Galilee.
If he was a resident of Galilee he could not have been taxed by
Augustus, even in the time of Cyrenius, for Galilee was not a Roman
province, but an independent state, and had no political connection
with Syria.
Again, this decree could not have applied to Judea prior to the
banishment of Archelaus, ten years after the time of Herod; for Judea
did not become a Roman province until that time; and while Archelaus
had paid tribute to Rome the assessments of the people were made by
him and not by Augustus.
51
Why was Joseph with his wife obliged to leave Galilee and go to
Bethlehem of Judea to be enrolled?
Luke: "Because he was of the house and lineage of David," and Bethlehem
was the "city of David" (ii, 4).
Even if he had been subject to taxation there was no law or custom
requiring him to leave his own country and go to that of his ancestors
to be enrolled. The assessment, according to the Roman custom,
was made at the residence of the person taxed. Nothing surpasses in
absurdity this story of Luke, that a woman, on the eve of confinement,
and the subject of another ruler, was dragged across two provinces
to be enrolled for taxation.
In regard to this taxation Dr. Hooykaas says: "But here again we
are met by overwhelming difficulties. In itself, the Evangelist's
account of the manner in which the census was carried out is entirely
incredible. Only fancy the indescribable confusion that would have
arisen if every one, through the length and breadth of the land of
the Jews, had left his abode to go and enroll himself in the city
or village from which his family originally came, even supposing he
knew where it was. The census under David was conducted after a very
different fashion. But it is still more important to note that the
Evangelist falls into the most extraordinary mistakes throughout. In
the first place history is silent as to a census of the whole (Roman)
world ever having been made at all. In the next place, though Quirinus
[Cyrenius] certainly did make such a register in Judea and Samaria,
it did not extend to Galilee; so that Joseph's household was not
affected by it. Besides it did not take place till ten years after the
death of Herod, when his son Archelaus was deposed by the Emperor,
and the districts of Judea and Samaria were thrown into a Roman
province. Under the reign of Herod nothing of the kind took place,
nor was there any occasion for it. Finally, at the time of the birth
of Jesus the governor of Syria was not Quirinus, but Quintus Sentius
Saturninus" (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, pp. 55, 56).
52
Was Jesus born in a house or in a stable?
Matthew: "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young
child with Mary his mother" (ii, 11).
Luke: "And she brought forth her first born son, and wrapped him in
swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger" (ii, 7).
Nothing can be clearer than that the author of Matthew supposes
that Jesus was born in a house. The author of Luke, on the other
hand, expressly declares that he was born in a stable. Luke's story
concerning the place of Mary's accouchement has been received, while
that of Matthew has been ignored.
Christ's birth in a manger and death on the cross are the lodestones
that have attracted the sympathies of the world, and kept him on the
throne of Christendom; for sentiment rather than reason dominates
mankind. Referring to Luke's story, the "Bible for Learners" says:
"Such is the well-known story of the birth of Jesus, one of the
sweetest and most deeply significant of all the legends of the
Bible. That it is a legend, without even the smallest historical
foundation, we must, of course, admit" (vol. iii, p. 54).
Justin Martyr states that Jesus was born in a cave, and this statement
Farrar is disposed to accept: "Justin Martyr, the Apologist, who,
from his birth at Shechem, was familiar with Palestine, and who lived
less than a century after the time of our Lord, places the scene of
the nativity in a cave. This is, indeed, the ancient and constant
tradition both of the Eastern and the Western churches, and it is
one of the few to which, though unrecorded in the Gospel history,
we may attach a reasonable probability" (Life of Christ, p. 3).
53
Why did Joseph and his wife take shelter in a stable?
Luke: "Because there was no room for them in the inn" (ii, 7).
Luke states that there was an inn at Bethlehem. There was no inn in
the place. Dr. Geikie says: "We must not moreover think of Joseph
seeking an inn at Bethlehem, for inns were unknown among the Jews"
(Christmas at Bethlehem).
54
What celestial phenomenon attended Christ's birth?
Matthew: A new star appeared and stood in the heavens above him
(ii, 1-9).
Luke: An angelic choir appeared and sang praises to God (ii, 13, 14).
Matthew's story of the star and the Magi, even to the language itself,
was borrowed from the writings of the Persians; Luke's story of the
celestial visitants was taken from Pagan mythology.
55
Who visited him after his birth?
Matthew: Wise men from the East (ii, 1-11).
Luke: Shepherds from a neighboring field (ii, 8-20).
Matthew makes no mention of the shepherds' visit; Luke is evidently
ignorant of the visit of the wise men.
56
From where did the wise men come?
Matthew: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of
Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem,
saying: Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen
his star in the East, and are come to worship him" (ii, 1, 2).
By the "East" was meant Persia or India, and from one of these
countries the Magi are popularly supposed to have come.
Justin Martyr says: "When a star rose in heaven at the time of his
birth, as is recorded in the 'Memoirs' of his Apostles, the Magi
from Arabia, recognizing the sign by this, came and worshiped him"
(Dialogues, cvi).
If they came from Arabia, as this Christian father declares, they
came not from the East, but from the South.
57
What announcement did the angel make to the shepherds?
"For behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to
all people" (Luke ii, 10).
According to Luke the visit of the angels is to proclaim to the
world the birth of the new-born Messiah. Had the celestial phenomenon
reported by this Evangelist really occurred the news of it would have
quickly spread over Palestine. Yet the people of Jerusalem, only
a few miles away, learn nothing of it; for, according to Matthew,
the first intimation that Herod has of Christ's birth is from the
wise men who visit him at a much later period. The inhabitants of
Bethlehem themselves are ignorant of it. Could they have discovered to
Herod this wonderful babe, or the place where his parents abode while
there if they had departed, it would have saved their own children
from the wrath of this monarch. But they knew nothing of him.
58
What effect had the announcement of Christ's birth upon Herod and
the people of Jerusalem?
Matthew: "When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled,
and all Jerusalem with him" (ii, 3).
According to Matthew the announcement filled with alarm the entire
populace, and the most diligent efforts were made to discover and
destroy the babe. In strange contrast to this statement of Matthew is
Luke's narrative (ii, 22-27), which declares that Jesus, when forty
days old, was brought to Jerusalem and publicly exhibited in Herod's
own temple, without exciting any alarm or provoking any hostility.
59
What did his parents do with him?
Matthew: They fled with him into Egypt (ii, 13, 15).
Luke: They remained with him in Palestine (ii, 22-52).
"All attempts to reconcile these two contradictory statements, seem
only elaborate efforts of art."--Dr. Schleiermacher.
60
When unable to discover Jesus what did Herod do?
Matthew: "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that
were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old
and under" (ii, 16).
If this statement be true hundreds of innocent babes (the Greek
Calendar says fourteen thousand) must have perished, a crime the
enormity of which is almost without a parallel in the annals of
history. It is strange that Mark, Luke, and John make no mention of
this frightful tragedy. Luke's silence is especially significant. It
is passing strange that the Roman historians and Rabbinical writers of
that age, who wrote of Herod, should be silent regarding it. Josephus
devotes nearly forty chapters to the life of Herod. He narrates with
much particularity every important event in his life. He detested
this monarch and dwells upon his crimes and errors. Yet Josephus knew
nothing of this massacre.
In this silence of Josephus Dr. Farrar recognizes a difficulty too
damaging to ignore. He says: "Why then, it has been asked, does
Josephus make no mention of so infamous an atrocity? Perhaps because
it was performed so secretly that he did not even know of it. Perhaps
because, in those terrible days, the murder of a score of children,
in consequence of a transient suspicion, would have been regarded as
an item utterly insignificant in the list of Herod's murders. Perhaps
because it was passed over in silence by Nikolaus of Damascus, who,
writing in the true spirit of those Hellenizing courtiers, who wanted
to make a political Messiah out of a corrupt and blood-stained usurper,
magnified all his patron's achievements, and concealed or palliated
all his crimes. But the more probable reason is that Josephus, whom,
in spite of all the immense literary debt which we owe to him, we
can only regard as a renegade and a sycophant, did not choose to
make any allusion to facts which were even remotely connected with
the life of Christ" (Life of Christ, pp. 22, 23).
A more absurd reason than the first advanced by Farrar it is difficult
to conceive. The second, that it was a matter of too little consequence
to record, an explanation which other Christian apologists have
assigned, is as unreasonable as it is heartless. The silence of
Nikolaus, who wrote of Herod after his death, is also significant,
and the excuse offered by Farrar that he omitted it because he was
the friend of Herod, even if admitted, cannot apply to Josephus, who
abhorred the memory of this monarch. The contention that Josephus
purposely ignored the existence of Christ because he saw in him a
menace to his faith is childish. Jesus Christ, admitting his existence,
had made no history to record. His birth was attended by no prodigies,
and there was nothing in his advent to excite the fear or envy of
a king. Josephus mentions no Herodian massacre at Bethlehem because
none occurred. Had Herod slain a single child in the manner stated
the fact would be attested by a score of authors whose writings are
extant. Herod did not slay one babe. This story is false.
Herod's massacre of the infants of Bethlehem and the escape of Jesus
was probably suggested by Kansa's massacre of the infants of Matura
and the escape of Krishna. Pharaoh's slaughter of the first born in
Egypt may also have suggested it.
61
What was the real cause of Herod's massacre?
Matthew: The visit of the wise men and the disclosures made by them
(ii, 1-16).
These wise men, it is claimed, were under divine guidance. In view
of this terrible slaughter their visit must be regarded as a divine
blunder.
62
In the massacre of the innocents what prophecy was fulfilled?
Matthew: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the
prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation,
and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children,
and would not be comforted, because they are not" (ii, 17, 18).
This so-called prophecy is in Jeremiah xxxi, 15. It was written at the
time of the Babylonian captivity and refers to the captive Jews. In
the next verse Jeremiah says: "They shall come again from the land
of the enemy."
63
When Herod died what did the Lord command Joseph to do?
"Arise, and take the young child and his mother and go into the land
of Israel, for they are dead which sought the young child's life"
(Matthew ii, 20).