him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He
said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he
[the lawyer] answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength,
and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself" (x, 25-27).
234
"And after that they durst not ask him any questions." After what?
Matthew: After his controversy with the Pharisees respecting David
and Christ (xxii, 41-46).
Mark: After his conversation with the scribe regarding the commandments
(xii, 28-37).
Luke: After confuting the Sadducees in regard to the resurrection
(xx, 27-40).
235
Did his controversy concerning David and Christ take place with the
Pharisees, as stated by Matthew?
Luke: It did not. It was with "certain of the scribes" (xx, 39).
236
Where was Jesus on the day preceding his triumphal entry into
Jerusalem?
John: With Lazarus at Bethany (three miles from Jerusalem) (xii, 1-15).
Luke: With Zaccheus near Jericho (twenty miles from Jerusalem)
(xix, 1-40).
237
Preparatory to his triumphal entry what command did he give his
disciples?
"Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering
ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him,
and bring him hither" (Luke xix, 30).
"Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find
an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me"
(Matthew xxi, 2).
238
Did he ride both animals?
Matthew: He did. "And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded
them, and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes,
and they set him thereon" (6, 7).
The equestrian feat of his riding two asses, a large one and a
small one, at the same time, must have heightened the effect of this
sublime pageant.
Matthew is continually seeing double. In the demoniac of Gadara he
sees two demoniacs; in the blind man by the wayside he sees two men;
and in other instances where the other Evangelists see but one person
or thing he sees two.
239
The riding of two asses by Jesus was in fulfillment of what prophecy?
Matthew: "And this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold,
thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt
the foal of an ass" (xxi, 4, 5).
Matthew's rendering of this passage (Zechariah ix, 9) arises from a
misunderstanding of the meaning of its words. The prophet, or poet,
does not mean two asses, but one; the clause "a colt the foal of
an ass," is merely a poetical repetition or qualification of the
preceding clause.
This blunder of Matthew is significant. It exposes the fictitious
character of this so-called Gospel history. It proves that Christ's
triumphal entry into Jerusalem is not a historical event--that this
story is a pure fabrication, suggested by this alleged prophecy.
240
When did Jesus purge the temple?
Synoptics: At the close of his ministry, a few days before his death
(Matthew xxi, 12-16; Mark xi, 15-18; Luke xix, 45-48).
John: At the beginning of his ministry, three years before his death
(ii, 13-22).
Origen doubted the occurrence of this event, believing it to be a
mere allegory.
241
When did he curse the fig tree?
Matthew: After he purged the temple (xxi, 12-19).
Mark: Before he purged the temple (xi, 12-15).
242
When was the tree discovered by his disciples to be withered?
Matthew: As soon as cursed (19).
Mark: Not until the next morning (13-20).
243
Mark says that he visited the tree for the purpose of obtaining
figs. Why did the tree contain no fruit?
Mark: "Because the time of figs was not yet" (13).
This was before the Passover which occurred in March or April. In that
part of Palestine where the miracle is said to have been performed the
bocore, or early fig, ripened its first crop during the latter part
of June; while the kermus, or fig proper, ripened in August. What
a spectacle! An omniscient God searching for figs in March, and
disappointed at not finding them--creating a tree to bear fruit in
the summer and cursing it for not bearing in the spring!
244
What did Jesus accuse the Jews of doing?
Matthew: Of having slain prophets and wise men, among them "Zacharias
son of Barachias" (xxiii, 35).
The Zacharias mentioned was slain in Jerusalem, 69 A. D.; so that
Matthew makes Jesus refer to an event that occurred forty years after
his death.
Referring to this passage, the Catholic scholar, Dr. Hug, says:
"There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its
circumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the
same Zacharias Barouchos, who, according to Josephus, a short time
before the destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the temple."
Commenting on this passage, Prof. Newman says: "There is no other
man known in history to whom the verse can allude. If so, it shows
how late, how ignorant, how rash, is the composer of a text passed
off on us as sacred truth" (Religion not History, p. 46).
245
Repeat his lamentation concerning Jerusalem's rejection of him.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest
them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy
children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her
wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew xxiii, 37; Luke xiii, 34.)
Where was he when he uttered this lamentation?
Matthew: During his visit at Jerusalem.
Luke: In Galilee before he went to Jerusalem.
Not only are these writers at variance with each other as to the time
and place of utterance, but the lamentation itself, which declares
that he had made repeated efforts to convert Jerusalem, is at variance
with both of them. For according to Matthew he had just arrived on his
first visit to Jerusalem, while according to Luke he had never yet,
during his ministry, visited Jerusalem.
246
Who anointed Jesus?
Matthew and Mark: "A woman" (Matt. xxvi, 7; Mark xiv, 3).
Luke: "A sinful woman" (vii, 37).
John: Mary, the sister of Lazarus (xii, 3).
Luke's "sinful woman" is recognized as Mary Magdalene. Farrar says:
"In the popular consciousness she will till the end of time be
identified with the Magdalene." Matthew and Mark's "woman" may be
harmonized with either Mary Magdalene or Mary the sister of Lazarus;
but Luke and John are irreconcilable.
247
Where did she put the ointment?
Matthew and Mark: On his head (Matt. xxvi, 7; Mark xiv, 3).
Luke and John: On his feet (Luke vii, 38-46; John xii, 3).
248
Where did this occur?
Matthew, Mark and John: In Bethany (Matt. xxvi, 6; Mark xiv, 3;
John xii, 1).
Luke: In Nain (vii, 11-37).
249
At whose house did it occur?
Synoptics: At the house of Simon (Matt. xxvi, 6, 7; Mark xiv, 3;
Luke vii, 36-40).
John: At the house of Lazarus (xii, 1-3).
250
Who was Simon?
Matthew and Mark: A leper (Matt. xxvi, 6; Mark xiv, 3).
Luke: A Pharisee (vii, 39-40).
251
At what time during his ministry did this anointing occur?
Matthew, Mark and John: At the close of his ministry (Matt. xxvi,
xxvii; Mark xiv; John xii).
Luke: Early in his ministry (vii, 36-50).
252
Did it occur before or after his triumphal entry?
Matthew and Mark: After (Matt. xxi, 1-11, xxvi, 6-13; Mark xi, 1-11,
xiv, 3-9).
John: Before (xii, 1-15).
253
How many days before the Passover did it occur?
Mark: Two days (xiv, 1-3).
John: Six days (xii, 1-3).
"The prima facie view would certainly be that the anointing at
Bethany was placed by Mark two days and by John six days before the
Passover."--Scribner's Bible Dictionary.
254
Who objected to this apparent waste of the ointment?
Matthew: "His disciples" (xxvi, 8, 9).
John: "Judas Iscariot" (xii, 4, 5).
These different versions of the anointing of Jesus present so many
discrepancies that some have supposed that two or more anointings were
made. The Archbishop of York, the most popular of Gospel harmonists,
concedes that but one anointing was made.
After an exhaustive review of the case, Strauss says: "Without doubt,
we have here but one history under three various forms; and this
seems to have been the real conclusion of Origen, as well as recently
of Schleiermacher."
255
While Jesus was at Jerusalem there came a voice from heaven. For what
purpose was the voice sent?
John: For the sake of those who stood by. "Jesus answered and said,
This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes" (xii, 30).
Of what benefit was the voice when those who heard it were unable
to distinguish it from thunder? "The people therefore, that stood by
and heard it, said that it thundered" (29).
The Evangelists relate several instances of celestial voices being
heard. As there is, in nearly every instance, a disagreement in
regard to the message conveyed, it is probable that an electrical
disturbance inspired the voice, while a vivid imagination interpreted
its meaning. Regarding these voices, the Duke of Somerset says:
"A belief in these heavenly voices was a common superstition among
the Jews."
256
When did the Last Supper take place?
Synoptics: On the Passover (Matt. xxvi, 18-20; Mark xiv, 16-18;
Luke xxii, 13-15).
John: On the day preceding the Passover.
Luke says: "And they made ready the passover. And when the hour was
come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto
them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before
I suffer."
John, in his account of the Last Supper, says it was "before
the feast of the passover" (xiii, 1). The Evangelists all agree
that his trial and execution took place on the day following the
Last Supper. John says the Jews "went not into the judgment hall,
lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover"
(xviii, 28). After narrating the events of the trial, John says:
"And it was the preparation of the passover" (xix, 14).
According to the Synoptics, the Last Supper was eaten on the 14th
Nisan, and, by our mode of reckoning time, on Thursday evening;
according to John, it was eaten on the 13th Nisan, and, by our mode of
reckoning, on Wednesday evening. The Synoptics declare that this supper
was the regular Paschal meal; according to John, it was an ordinary
meal, the Paschal meal not being eaten until after Christ's death.
"The Synoptics represent most clearly that Jesus on the evening
of the 14th Nisan, after the custom of the Jews, ate the Passover
with his disciples, and that he was arrested in the first hours of
the 15th Nisan, the day on which he was put to death. Nothing can be
more distinct than the statement that the last supper was the Paschal
feast.... The fourth Gospel, however, in accordance with the principle
which is dominant throughout, represents the last repast which Jesus
eats with his disciples as a common supper, which takes place, not
on the 14th, but on the 13th Nisan, the day 'before the feast of the
Passover.'"--Supernatural Religion.
Thousands of pages have been written in vain attempts to reconcile
this grave discrepancy. Scribner's "Bible Dictionary," which contains
the best fruits of orthodox scholarship, both of England and America,
concedes a contradiction. It says: "The Synoptics seem to identify
the two [the Last Supper and the Paschal meal], whereas St. John
expressly places the Last Supper before the Passover."
After an exhaustive review of the subject, Strauss voices the
conclusion of German scholars in the following words: "Our only
course is to acknowledge an irreconcilable contradiction between the
respective accounts, without venturing a decision as to which is the
correct one" (Leben Jesu, p. 702).
257
The Synoptics state that the Last Supper was the Paschal meal. Describe
the Paschal meal.
"All leaning upon the cushions around the table, the first cup of wine
was served, and grace pronounced over the same and the feast. This
cup of wine being disposed of, vegetables and sauce were placed on
the table, and the vegetables, dipped in the sauce, were blessed and
eaten. Next the unleavened bread, the bitter herb, and a piquant
sauce called Haroseth were served, and the bitter herb, dipped in
the Haroseth, was blessed and eaten. Then the Paschal lamb was placed
on the table with portions of another sacrifice. One of the company
asked the question why all this was done, during which the second
cup of wine was served. The head of the table explaining narrated the
story of the Exodus, closed with a hymn, spoke the second time grace
over the wine, and all disposed of the same. Now came the breaking of
the bread and the eating and drinking. This finished, the third cup
of wine was served, and grace after meal was pronounced. After which
the fourth cup was served, and the ceremonies closed with hymns and
psalms, and disposing of the fourth cup of wine" (Mishna).
This was the Paschal meal as it was observed in the reputed time
of Christ and up to 70 A. D. After the fall of Jerusalem and the
destruction of the temple the great Passover feast retained but
the shadow of its former glory. The Paschal meal and the ceremonies
attending it were generally shortened. The fact that the Evangelists
were unacquainted with the regular Paschal meal, that the Synoptics
were familiar only with the ceremonies of later times, shows that
the Last Supper is a myth, and the Gospels the products of a later age.
Criticising the Synoptics' accounts of the Paschal meal, Dr. Isaac
Wise, an able Jewish scholar, says:
"If any evidence is required that neither Mark nor Matthew had ever
seen the Paschal meal, or described that of Jesus, it is furnished
here. They do not mention any one point connected with the Paschal
supper, the ceremonies of which were established. They mention only
one ceremony, viz., the breaking of the bread, and the cup of wine
after the meal, which is not only a mistake, but shows conclusively,
that either of them had seen the Paschal supper, after the destruction
of Jerusalem, in some Jewish house, and the ceremonies connected
therewith, called the Seder. Therefore, no mention whatsoever is
made of the main thing--the Paschal lamb--and the bread is broken
after the meal, which was done by the Jews after closing the Paschal
meal, outside of Jerusalem, when the altar had been destroyed; and
no Paschal lamb was eaten" (Martyrdom of Jesus, pp. 36, 37).
"Luke begins correctly, but makes a mistake in having the bread broken
right after the first cup of wine was handed round, which was done so
at every festive meal, except at the one described, and has but two
cups of wine instead of four. So we know that Luke did not describe
what actually happened that evening. He had seen the Jewish custom
of opening the festive meals with grace over the wine and bread,
and made of it an introduction to the Last Supper, without knowing
that just that evening the custom was changed" (Ibid. p. 38).
258
What ceremony was instituted at the Last Supper?
Synoptics: The Eucharist (Matt. xxvi, 26-28; Mark xiv, 22-24; Luke
xxii, 19, 20).
John: The washing of feet (xiii, 4-9).
John does not mention the former ceremony, and the Synoptics do not
mention the latter; yet each is said to have been performed immediately
after supper.
259
He told his disciples that he would no more drink of the fruit of
the vine until he drank it in his Father's kingdom. When was this?
Matthew: After instituting the Eucharist.
"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and
brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is
my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them,
saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
"But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of
the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's
kingdom" (xxvi, 26-29).
Luke: Before instituting the Eucharist.
"For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,
until the kingdom of God shall come.
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them,
saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance
of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the
new testament in my blood, which is shed for you" (xxii, 18-20).
260
At the Last Supper did Jesus pass the cup once, or twice?
Matthew and Mark: Once (Matt. xxvi, 26-30; Mark xiv, 16-26).
Luke: Twice (xxii, 13-20).
Regarding this discrepancy, Scribners' "Bible Dictionary" says:
"The temptation to expand was much stronger than to contract; and
the double mention of the cup raises real difficulties of the kind
which suggest interpolation."
261
Where was Jesus when he uttered his last prayer?
Synoptics: In the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi, 36-39; Mark xiv,
32-36; Luke xxii, 39-42).
John: In Jerusalem before he retired to the garden (xvii, xviii, 1).
262
What is said of his agony at Gethsemane?
Luke: "His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to
the ground" (xxii, 44).
Whatever was the character of this so-called "bloody sweat," it may be
remarked that Matthew, who was an apostle; Mark, who is claimed to be
the interpreter of Peter, an apostle who was with Jesus at the time;
and John who was not only an apostle, but present also, do not refer
to it. Luke, who was not an eye-witness--who was not an apostle--is
the only one who mentions it.
263
How many times did Jesus visit Jerusalem during his ministry?
John: At least four times (ii, 13; v, 1; x, 22, 23; xii, 12).
The Synoptics record but one visit.
264
To what country was his ministry chiefly confined?
Synoptics: To Galilee.
John: To Judea.
According to the Synoptics nearly his entire ministry was confined to
Galilee. It was only at the close of his ministry, a few days before
his death, that he visited Judea to attend the Passover. According
to John his ministry was confined chiefly to Judea. It requires
but three or four of his twenty-one chapters to record his work in
Galilee. Farrar says: "The Synoptists almost confine themselves to
the Galilean, and St. John to the Judean ministry" (Life of Christ,
p. 361).
265
How long did his ministry last?
Synoptics: One year.
John: At least three years.
The Rev. Dr. Giles says: "According to the first three Gospels,
Christ's public life lasted only one year" (Christian Records, p. 11).
Referring to this and the preceding discrepancy, the author of
"Supernatural Religion" says: "The Synoptics clearly represent the
ministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his
preaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career
culminates at the fatal Passover. The fourth Gospel distributes the
teaching of Jesus between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it
extend over at least three years, and refers to three Passovers spent
by Jesus at Jerusalem" (p. 681).
Irenaeus, the greatest of the early Christian Fathers, and who lived
in the century following Jesus, declares that his ministry lasted
twenty years. In his principal work, "Against Heresies," he combats
the heresy of a one-year ministry of Jesus. He says:
"They however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding
that which is written, 'To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,'
maintain that he preached for one year only, and then suffered in the
twelfth month. They are forgetful of their own disadvantage, destroying
his whole work, and robbing him of that age which is both more
necessary and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age,
I mean, during which also, as a teacher, he excelled all others. For
how could he have had disciples if he did not teach? And how could he
have taught, unless he had reached the age of a master? For when he
came to be baptized, he had not yet completed his thirtieth year,
but was beginning to be about thirty years of age.... Now, that
the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this
extends onward to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the
fortieth and fiftieth year, a man begins to decline toward old age;
which our Lord possessed, while he still fulfilled the office of a
teacher.... He did not therefore preach for only one year, nor did
he suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included
between the thirtieth and fiftieth year can never be regarded as one
year" (Book ii, ch. xxii, secs. 5, 6).
266
What is said regarding the extent of his works?
John: "If they should be written every one, I suppose that even the
world itself could not contain the books" (xxi, 25).
In the very next verses of the Bible (Acts i, 1, 2) Luke declares that
his brief Gospel contains a record "of all that Jesus began both to
do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up."
267
Can the alleged teachings of Jesus be accepted as authentic?
Three facts disprove, for the most part, their authenticity.
1. The most important teachings ascribed to him by the Synoptics
were borrowed, either by him or his biographers, from other teachers
and writers.
2. His teachings as presented by the Synoptics, and as presented by
John, exclude each other. No critic can seriously contend that the
discourses and sayings of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics and those
given in the Fourth Gospel emanated from the same mind. They are
wholly dissimilar, both in doctrine and phraseology. Dr. Westcott
says: "It is impossible to pass from the Synoptic Gospels to that
of St. John without feeling that the transition involves the passage
from one world of thought to another. No familiarity with the general
teaching of the Gospels, no wide conception of the character of the
Savior, is sufficient to destroy the contrast which exists in form
and spirit between the earlier and later narratives" (Introduction
to Study of Gospels, p. 249).
3. The discourses attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel were
evidently composed by the author of that Gospel. This is apparent to
every careful reader.
The teachings ascribed to Jesus in John, then, are spurious; while
those ascribed to him in Matthew, Mark and Luke are of doubtful
authenticity. If any of the teachings of Jesus have been preserved
they exist in the first three Gospels, but the unauthentic character
of the Gospels themselves, renders it impossible to ascribe to him
with certainty a single teaching.
CHAPTER VI.
THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST.
268
When did Jesus first foretell his passion?
Synoptics: Not until late in his ministry (Matt. xvi, 21; Mark viii,
31; Luke ix, 21-27).
According to John (ii, 19-22) he referred to it at the beginning of
his ministry.
269
When did he announce his betrayal?
Matthew and Mark: At the Last Supper, while they were eating. "Now
when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did
eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me"
(Matt. xxvi, 20, 21; Mark xiv, 18).
Luke and John: Not until after supper (Luke xxii, 20, 21; John xiii,
2-21). John says that after supper he washed his disciples' feet and
delivered a discourse to them, after which he said, "Verily, verily,
I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me."
270
Did Jesus say who should betray him?
Matthew and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 25; John xiii, 26).
Mark and Luke: He did not.
271
How did he disclose his betrayer?
Matthew: By an implied affirmative answer to Judas' question, "Is
it I?" "Then Judas which betrayed him, answered and said, Master,
is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said" (xxvi, 25).
John: By giving Judas a sop. "Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall
give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop,
he gave it to Judas Iscariot."
272
When did Satan enter into Judas?
Luke: Before the Last Supper (xxii, 3-7).
John: After the Last Supper (xiii, 1-27).
273
How did Judas betray Jesus?
Matthew and Mark: "Now he that betrayed him, gave them a sign, saying,
Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; hold him fast. And forthwith
he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master, and kissed him" (Matt. xxvi,
48, 49; Mark xiv, 44, 45).
According to John, Judas did not betray him with a kiss.
274
What did Jesus say to Judas when he betrayed him?
"Friend, wherefore art thou come?" (Matthew xxvi, 50.)
"Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" (Luke xxii, 48.)
275
What was Judas, and what office did he hold?
John: "He was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein"
(xii, 6).
Judas was thus the first Christian treasurer. But why did Jesus,
if omniscient, as claimed, select a thief for this office? Was he
unable to conduct his ministry without the aid of one?
276
What did Judas receive for betraying his master?
Matthew: "And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver"
(xxvi, 15).
"It is strange that a man who kept the purse, and knew what he would
lose by the death of his chief, should abandon the profits of his
office for so small a sum."--Renan.
277
What did he do with the money?
Matthew: "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he
was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces
of silver to the chief priests and elders.... And he cast down the
pieces of silver in the temple and departed" (xxvii, 3-5).
Peter: "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of
iniquity" (Acts i, 18).
278
The purchase of the potter's field was in fulfillment of what prophecy?
Matthew: "That which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they
took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued,
... and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me"
(xxvii, 9, 10).
This was not spoken by Jeremiah, but by Zechariah. "And the Lord said
unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized
at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to
the potter in the house of the Lord" (xi, 13).
It is evident that the account of the betrayal was inspired,
not by a historical fact, but by a desire to "fulfill" a Messianic
prophecy. Zechariah did not predict an event, but his words did suggest
a fiction. This is the more probable from the fact that Matthew is
the only Evangelist who mentions the thirty pieces of silver.
The story of Christ's last visit to Jerusalem and the story of his
betrayal exclude each other. According to the Evangelists he was
not arrested for any offense he had committed during this visit,
but for offenses he had committed prior to this. Yet during this
visit he is said to have appeared openly with his disciples, making
a triumphal entry into the city, visiting the temple and teaching in
public. In the face of this the story that the Jews were obliged to
bribe one of his disciples in order to apprehend him is absurd. One of
these stories must be false. Regarding them Lord Amberley observes:
"The representation of the Gospels, that Jesus went on teaching in
public to the very end of his career, and yet that Judas received a
bribe for his betrayal, is self-contradictory" (Life of Jesus, p. 214).
To those who believe the accounts of the betrayal of Jesus to be
historical, the ecclesiastical historian, Neander, in his "Life of
Christ," advances a suggestion that is worthy of consideration. The
betrayal of Jesus by Judas, it is suggested, was intended as a
test of his Messiahship. If Jesus was the Messiah, Judas reasoned,
he could save himself; if he was not the Messiah he was an impostor
and deserved death.
279
What became of Judas?
Matthew: He "went and hanged himself" (xxvii, 5).
Peter: "Falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out" (Acts i, 18).
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, one of the chief Christian authorities
of the second century, and who wrote before the books of Matthew and
Acts were written, gives the following account of the fate of Judas:
"Judas walked about in the world a great example of impiety; for his
body having swollen so that, on an occasion, when a wagon was moving
on its way, he could not pass it, he was crushed by the chariot and
his bowels gushed out."
The German commentator, Dr. Hase, attempts to reconcile his suicide,
as related by Matthew, with his death by accident, as related by
Peter, by supposing that he attempted to hang himself, but that the
rope broke, causing him to fall with such force as to disembowel
himself. This harmonist apparently forgets to note that Peter says
he fell "headlong," which makes it necessary to suppose that he hung
himself by the feet.
280
To whom did Peter deliver his speech describing the fate of Judas?
"Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples" (Acts i, 15).
Is it not reasonable to suppose that the alleged information conveyed
in his speech was as familiar to the disciples whom he addressed as
to himself? Regarding this De Wette aptly says: "In the composition
of this speech the author has not considered historical decorum."
281
What did Peter say in regard to the name of the field?
"And it was known unto all the dwellers of Jerusalem; insomuch as
that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say,
The field of blood" (Acts i, 19).
Here Peter is represented as interpreting in Greek a Jewish word to
his Jewish brethren.
282
Were there more than one of Jesus' disciples concerned in his betrayal?
John: There were. "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were [of
his disciples] that believed not, and who should betray him" (vi, 64).
283
When the Jewish council met to plan the arrest of Jesus, to what
conclusion did they come?
Matthew and Mark: Not to arrest him on the feast day (Matt. xxvi,
3-5; Mark xiv, 1, 2).
Yet this was the very day on which Matthew and Mark declare that he
was arrested.
284
Who arrested him?
Matthew and Mark: "A great multitude ... from the chief priests and
elders of the people" (Matt. xxvi, 47; Mark xiv, 43).
Luke: "The chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders"
themselves (xxii, 47-52).
285
Who does John say was sent to arrest him?
A "band of soldiers and officers" (xviii, 3, New Ver.).
This contradicts the Synoptics, who declare that it was a mob of
civilians.
286
What is said regarding the multitude sent out to apprehend him?
Synoptics: They were armed "with swords and staves" (Matt. xxvi, 47;
Mark xiv, 43; Luke xxii, 52).
Were the disciples armed?
All: They were, or one of them at least (Matt. xxvi, 51; Mark xiv,
47; Luke xxii, 38, 50; John xviii, 10).
This is incredible, for Jews were never allowed to carry arms on a
holy day.
287
How did they go out to capture him?
John: "With lanterns and torches" (xviii, 3).
His enemies are represented as believing that his arrest could be
secured only by strategy and stealth. Under these circumstances is
it reasonable to suppose that the chief priests would send out a
torchlight procession to apprehend him? Besides, as it was at the
full of the moon, what need had they of lanterns and torches? Again,
lanterns were unknown in Palestine.
288
When the band sent to capture him first came up to him what did
they do?
Matthew and Mark: "They laid hands on him and took him" (Matt. xxvi,
47-50; Mark xiv, 43-46).
John: "They went backward and fell to the ground" (xviii, 3-6).
289
What did Peter do when Jesus was arrested?
John: "Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high
priest's servant, and cut off his right ear" (xviii, 10).
Yet no efforts were made to arrest and punish Peter, notwithstanding he
was recognized and pointed out by the kinsman of the wounded man. It
may be urged that Jesus had healed the servant's ear. This, even if
true, would not have removed the guilt of the militant disciple. Had
Peter really committed the deed, it is not probable that he would have
visited the house of the high priest and remained in the presence of
his enemies.
290
When was Jesus bound?
John: When he was arrested (xviii, 12).
Matthew and Mark: Not until after his trial before the Sanhedrim when
he was taken to Pilate (Matt. xxvii, 2; Mark xv, 1).
According to Luke he was not bound.
291
What did they do with Jesus when he was taken?
Matthew: "Led him away to Caiaphas" (xxvi, 57).
John: "Led him away to Annas first" (xviii, 13).
292
Did he have an examination before his trial?
John: He did (xviii, 13-23).
Our laws provide for what is known as a preliminary examination before
a magistrate. This was forbidden by the Jewish law, and his alleged
examination before a priest could not have taken place.
293
Before whom did his preliminary examination take place?
John: Before Annas (xviii, 13-23).
The Synoptics state that he was examined and tried before Caiaphas.
294
Repeat John xviii, 24.
"Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"
(Old Ver.).
"Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"
(New Ver.).
This verse follows the account of Jesus' preliminary examination
and shows clearly that this examination took place before Annas,
and that he was not sent to Caiaphas until its conclusion. The King
James translators, in order to hide the discrepancy, prefixed the word
"now" and changed the tense of the verb, substituting "had sent" for
"sent," so that it might appear that Annas had sent him to Caiaphas
before the examination commenced.
Concerning this corruption of the text, Scott says: "There is no
conjunction 'now,' and an aorist cannot mark a definite time. If
a hiatus is suspected, it may be indicated by an asterisk; but to
insert words and alter the force of a tense in order to get over
a grave historical difficulty is sheer dishonesty" (Life of Jesus,
p. 289, note).
295
Matthew and John state that Caiaphas was high priest at this time. Who
does the author of Acts state was high priest?
"And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander,
and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered
together at Jerusalem" (iv, 6).
Luke (iii, 2), who is declared to be the author of Acts, says that
Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests.
Criticizing John's account of the examination before Annas, the
author of "Supernatural Religion" says: "The Synoptics know nothing
of the preliminary examination before Annas, and the reason given by
the writer of the fourth Gospel why the soldiers first took Jesus to
Annas: 'for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas who was first high priest
that year,' is inadmissible. The assertion is a clear mistake, and it
probably originated in a stranger writing of facts and institutions
with which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an error
equally committed by the author of the third Gospel, and of the Acts
of the Apostles.... Such statements, erroneous in themselves and not
understood by the author of the fourth Gospel, may have led to the
confusion in the narrative. Annas had previously been high priest,
as we know from Josephus, but nothing is more certain than the fact
that the title was not continued after the office was resigned;
and Ishmael, Eleazar, and Simon, who succeeded Annas and separated
his term of office from that of Caiaphas, did not subsequently bear
the title. The narrative is a mistake, and such an error could not
have been committed by a native of Palestine, and much less by an
acquaintance of the high priest" (p. 660).
296
What is said regarding the tenure of Caiaphas' office?
John: He was "high priest that year" (xi, 49).
John's language implies that the high priest was appointed annually,
whereas he held his office for life, or until removed. Caiaphas had
been high priest for many years.
297
What had Caiaphas prophesied concerning Jesus?
John: "He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not
for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one
the children of God that were scattered abroad" (xi, 51, 52).
A high priest did not assume the role of prophet, much less would
he have given utterance to the prophecy ascribed to Caiaphas. The
Roman procurator might have expressed such a sentiment, for according
to Roman law and ethics an individual could be sacrificed for the
welfare of the state. The high priest, on the other hand, could
not have uttered such a sentiment, because it was abhorrent to the
Jewish mind. If all Israel could have been saved, and could have been
saved only by the death of one of its innocent members, that member
could not have been put to death, because, according to Jewish law,
it would have made of every Jew concerned in it a murderer. It was
a fundamental principle of the Jewish code that, "No human life must
be abandoned on account of any other life."
298
Did Jesus have a trial before the Sanhedrim?
Synoptics: He had (Matt. xxvi, 57-75; Mark xiv, 53-72; Luke xxii,
54-71).
It was about this time (30 A. D.), that the Sanhedrim ceased to have
jurisdiction over capital offenses. After its jurisdiction ceased
Jesus could not have been tried before it; and before its jurisdiction
ceased he would not have had a subsequent trial before Pilate.
299
Where was his trial held?
Matthew and Mark: At the palace of the high priest.
No trial was ever held at the residence of the high priest. All
meetings of the Sanhedrim were held in the hall adjoining the temple. A
trial at any other place would have been illegal.
300
What was the charge preferred against him?
All: Blasphemy.
Jesus, it was charged, had declared himself to be the son of
God. This, if true, would not have constituted blasphemy. It was
no offense against the law for a man to claim that he was the son
of God. All men, and especially all good men, were recognized as
the sons of God. Referring to Christ's claim, a Jewish writer says:
"No law, no precedent, and no fictitious case in the Bible or the
rabbinical literature, can be cited to make of this expression a case
of blasphemy." And even if he had been proven guilty of blasphemy,
he could not have been put to death, for blasphemy, at this time,
had ceased to be a capital offense. And is it reasonable to suppose
that the Romans would have condemned a man to death for an offense
against a religion in which they did not themselves believe, but
which they regarded as one of the vilest of superstitions? It may
be urged that in his trial before Pilate the charge was changed to
sedition. This charge was not sustained.
301
What is said regarding witnesses?
Matthew and Mark: "Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the
council, sought false witnesses against Jesus, to put him to death;
but found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they
none" (Matt. xxvi, 59, 60; Mark xiv, 55, 56).
When every step thus far taken by the council had been illegal, why
should it have been so particular in regard to the witnesses? The
fact is the Evangelists were ignorant of Jewish laws. They believed
that while the prosecution of Jesus was unjust it was yet conducted
according to the established rules of Jewish courts. Referring to
Mark, Dr. Wise says: "In his ignorance of Jewish law, he imagined the
trial which he described was lawful among the Jews. He proves this,
in the first place, by the very statement that witnesses were sought
and produced. A court convoked and acting in rebellion to law and
custom can be considered only a band of rebels. What use have such men
of witnesses? Being lawless from the beginning, no legal restraint
makes the presence of witnesses necessary.... He certainly thought
of an honest, lawful trial, in the legal form; an honest and legal
examination of witnesses, a fair consideration of the testimony,
and after mature reflection the rejection thereof on account of
insufficiency" (Martyrdom of Jesus, pp. 69, 70).
302
What did the so-called false witnesses that appeared against him
testify that he had said?
"I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days"
(Matthew xxvi, 61).
"I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three
days I will build another made without hands" (Mark xiv, 58).
303
What had Jesus said?
"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" (John
ii, 19).
Passing over the discrepancies of Matthew and Mark, if they have given
the substance of these witnesses' testimony, then they were not false,
but truthful witnesses; for Jesus, it is seen, had given utterance to
such a declaration. If he referred to the temple of his body, as John
affirms, and the Jews misunderstood him, the fault was his, not theirs.
Josephus gives an account of a so-called prophet who, a few years
later, boasted of his supernatural powers in much the same manner
that Jesus is said to have done:
"There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem, one that
said that he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common
people to go along to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay
over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said
further, that he would show them from hence, how, at his command, the
walls of Jerusalem would fall down" (Antiquities, Book xx, chap. viii,
sec. 6).
304
Was he questioned by the Sanhedrim?
Synoptics: He was. They tried to convict him by his own testimony
(Matt. xxvi, 62-64; Mark xiv, 60-63; Luke xxii, 66-71).
A Jewish court did not question a prisoner. A prisoner could not even
plead guilty.
305
To the priest's question, "Art thou the Christ?" what answer did
he give?
Mark: "Jesus said, I am" (xiv, 61, 62).
Luke: "He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe"
(xxii, 67).
306
When did his trial before the Sanhedrim take place?
Matthew and Mark: During the night. After his arrest, which probably
occurred not later than midnight, they at once "led him away to
Caiaphas the high priest, where ... the chief priests, and elders,
and all the council [Sanhedrim]" had assembled, when his trial
immediately began (Matt. xxvi, 57-68; Mark xiv, 58-65).
Luke: Not until the next morning. During the night he was held in
custody at the house of the high priest. "As soon as it was day,
the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came
together, and led him into the council" (xxii, 66).
This, according to Luke, was his first and only appearance before the
Sanhedrim. Matthew and Mark, in addition to the night trial mentioned
by them, also mention an adjourned session in the morning corresponding
to the meeting of Luke.
307
Could this trial have been held in the night as stated by Matthew
and Mark?
It could not. The Jewish law prohibited the opening of a trial at
night. The Sanhedrim could not hold a session before 6 a. m. or after
3 p. m. Luke was seemingly acquainted with this law; Matthew and Mark
were not.
308
During what religious festivities was his trial held?
Synoptics: During the feast of the Passover.
It could not have been held during the Passover, for no trials were
held by the Jews during this feast.
309
On what day of the week was it held?
Synoptics: On Friday, the day preceding the Sabbath.
No trial for a capital offense was ever allowed to begin on the day
preceding the Sabbath.
310
How long did this trial last?
All: But a few hours.
The Jewish law required at least two days for a capital trial--one
for prosecution, and one for the defense.
311
Did he have a defender or counselor in the Sanhedrim?
Synoptics: He did not.
According to the Synoptics he had no counsel, and the Sanhedrim
were unanimous in their condemnation of him. This was contrary to
Jewish law. The Sanhedrim might be unanimous in their belief that he
was guilty, but it was the duty of at least one of them to defend
him. This was the law: "If none of the judges defend the culprit,
i. e., all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court,
the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could
not be executed" (Maimonides).
Dr. Geikie admits that the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim, as
related in the Gospels, was in nearly every particular contrary to
Jewish law. He says:
"The accused was in all cases to be held innocent, till proved
guilty. It was an axiom, that 'the Sanhedrim was to save, not to
destroy life.' No one could be tried and condemned in his absence, and
when a person accused was brought before the court, it was the duty of
the president, at the outset, to admonish the witnesses to remember
the value of human life, and to take care that they forgot nothing
that would tell in the prisoner's favor. Nor was he left undefended;
a Baal-Rib, or counsel, was appointed, to see that all possible was
done for his acquittal. Whatever evidence tended to aid him was to
be freely admitted, and no member of the court who had once spoken in
favor of acquittal could afterwards vote for condemnation. The votes
of the youngest of the judges were taken first, that they might not be
influenced by their seniors. In capital charges, it required a majority
of at least two to condemn, and while the verdict of acquittal could
be given at once, that of guilty could only be pronounced the next
day. Hence, capital trials could not begin on the day preceding a
Sabbath, or public feast. No criminal trial could be carried through
in the night; the judges who condemned any one to death had to fast
all the day before, and no one could be executed on the same day on
which the sentence was pronounced." (Life of Christ, vol. ii, p. 487.)
312
Had Jesus been tried, convicted and executed by the Jews would he
have been crucified?
He would not. Crucifixion was a mode of punishment never employed by
the Jews. Had the Jews executed him he would have been stoned.
It is impliedly stated in the Synoptics, and expressly stated in
John, that the Sanhedrim's jurisdiction over capital crimes had
ceased. "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" (xviii,
31). The Sanhedrim's authority ceased in 30 A. D., and it is generally
claimed by Christians that the crucifixion occurred from one to five
years after this time.
313
What does Peter say in regard to the mode of punishment employed in
his execution?
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on
a tree" (Acts v, 30).
"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of
the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" (x, 39).
Concerning this, Mrs. Evans says: "With regard to his death, it
was said that the Jews slew him and hanged him on a tree; and again
that he was taken down from the tree; expressions which do not imply
crucifixion, but rather the legal execution for such crimes as the
one alleged, that is, stoning to death and the exposure of the dead
body upon a stake, or a tree" (Christ Myth, p. 79).
314
How was he treated by the Sanhedrim?
Matthew and Mark: "They spit in his face, and buffeted him; and
others smote him with the palms of their hands" (Matt. xxvi, 67;
Mark xiv, 65).
Every Jew, and every other person acquainted with the Jewish history
of that age, knows that this is false. The Sanhedrim was composed of
the wisest and the best men of that race. Superstitious, bigoted and
fanatical some of them doubtless were, but in that august court law
and dignity and decorum reigned.
These accounts of the trial of Christ before the Sanhedrim afford
overwhelming proof that they were not written by apostles nor by
residents of Palestine. They were written by Gentile Christians,
or by Jewish converts living in foreign lands, and presumably the
former, for even foreign Jews must have possessed a better knowledge
of Jewish laws and customs than the Evangelists display.
315
During the trial Peter denied his master. What had Jesus predicted
concerning his denial?
Matthew, Luke and John: "Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee,
that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice"
(Matt. xxvi, 34; Luke xxii, 34; John xiii, 38).
Mark: "And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this
day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny
me thrice" (xiv, 30).
316
Did Peter deny him three times before the cock crew?
Matthew, Luke and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 69-75; Luke xxii, 54-62;
John xviii, 15-27).
Mark: He did not; he had denied him but once when the cock crew
(xiv, 66-68).
317
Where were they when Jesus foretold Peter's denial?
Matthew and Mark: At the Mount of Olives (Matt. xxvi, 30-35; Mark
xiv, 26-30).
Luke: In Jerusalem, at supper, before they went out to the Mount of
Olives (xxii, 7-39).
318
What did Peter do when he entered the palace?
Luke: "Peter sat down among them" (xxii, 55).
John: "Peter stood with them" (xviii, 18).
319
When was he first accused of being the friend of Jesus?
John: As he entered the room (xviii, 16, 17).
Mark and Luke: As he sat by the fire (Mark xiv, 66, 67; Luke xxii,
54-57).
320
When was he accused the second time?
John: In the house as he "stood and warmed himself" (xviii, 25).
Matthew: "When he was gone out into the porch" (xxvi, 71).
321
By whom was he accused the second time?
Matthew and Mark: By a "maid" (Matt. xxvi, 71; Mark xiv, 69).
Luke: By a "man" (xxii, 59, 60).
322
Who accused him the third time?
Matthew and Mark: "They that stood by" (Matt. xxvi, 73; Mark xiv, 70).
John: "One of the servants of the high priest" (xviii, 26).
323
Was Jesus present when Peter denied him?
Matthew and Mark: He was not.
Luke: He was. "The Lord turned and looked upon Peter" (xxii, 60, 61).
324
Where was Jesus next sent for trial?
Luke: To Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, who was attending the Passover
at Jerusalem (xxiii, 6-11).
In the matter of trials the Evangelists, as in everything else,
have overdone things. Notwithstanding no trial was ever held during
the Passover they give him four trials in one day, and not finding
courts enough in Judea for the purpose, they import one from Galilee.
There is nothing more improbable than this alleged examination of
Jesus by Herod. Imagine the Governor General of Canada sitting in
judgment on a criminal at Washington, because the criminal is a
Canadian, or an Ohio court holding a session in New York because
the prisoner arraigned once lived in Ohio. The offenses with which
Jesus was charged were committed, not in Herod's province, Galilee,
but in Pilate's province, Judea.
It is strange that John, who pretends to relate every important
event connected with the trial of Jesus, should omit his trial
before Herod. Concerning this Strauss says: "The conjecture, that
it may probably have appeared to him [John] too unimportant, loses
all foundation when it is considered that John does not scorn to
mention the leading away to Annas, which nevertheless was equally
indecisive; and in general, the narrative of these events in John is,
as Schleiermacher himself confesses, so consecutive that it nowhere
presents a break in which such an episode could be inserted. Hence even
Schleiermacher at last takes refuge in the conjecture that possibly
the sending to Herod may have escaped the notice of John, because
it happened on an opposite side to that on which the disciple stood,
through a back door; and that it came to the knowledge of Luke because
his informant had an acquaintance in the household of Herod, as John
had in that of Annas; the former conjecture, however, is figuratively
as well as literally nothing more than a back door; the latter, a
fiction which is but the effort of despair" (Leben Jesu, pp. 764, 765).
325
What was the result of Pilate's sending Jesus to Herod?
Luke: "And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together,
for before they were at enmity between themselves" (xxiii, 12).
Pilate and Herod did not become friends. To the day of Pilate's recall
they were enemies. Herod was continually plotting and striving to
unite with his tetrarchy the province of Judea which belonged to his
father's kingdom, and which his father had promised to give him.
326
Did Jesus's trial before Pilate take place in the presence of his
accusers?
Luke: It did (xxiii, 1-4, 13, 14).
John: It did not (xviii, 28).
327
Did Pilate go out of the judgment hall to consult with those who were
prosecuting Jesus?
Luke: He did not (xxiii, 1-25).
John: He did. "Pilate then went out unto them [the Jews], and said,
What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto
him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up
unto thee.... Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and
called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus
answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell
it thee of me?" (xxiii, 29, 30, 33, 34.)
The prosecution and the defense are both declared to have returned
insolent answers to the questions of Pilate. The Jewish priests
were too wise for this, and Christians will be loath to admit that
their Savior was so indiscreet and so impolite as to indulge in
such insolence.
328
What was the result of his trial before Pilate?
All: Pilate declared him innocent and sentenced him to death.
"And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the
rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man
unto me, as one that perverteth the people; and, behold, I, having
examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching
those things whereof ye accuse him.... And Pilate gave sentence that
it should be as they required.... He delivered Jesus to their will"
(Luke xxiii, 13, 14, 24, 25).
"Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him; for I find no
fault in him" (John xix, 6).
It is impossible to believe that the highest court of a country would
pronounce a prisoner innocent and then condemn him to death. Judicial
murders are sometimes committed, but the murderers do not confess
their guilt.
It is declared that Pilate desired to release Jesus but could not. Who
ruled Judea, Pilate or the Sanhedrim? According to the Evangelists,
the Romans ruled Judea, while the Jews ruled the Romans.
Between the Pilate of the New Testament and the Pilate of history there
is nothing in common. The Pilate of the New Testament is subservient to
the Jews, acceding to their every wish, even to murdering an innocent
prisoner. The Pilate of history is noted for his hatred of the Jews
and his cruelties to them. It was these which provoked his recall.
329
When Pilate could not prevail upon the Jews to allow him to release
Jesus, what did he do?
Matthew: "He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude,
saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person" (xxvii, 24).
Matthew does not appear to realize the absurdity of supposing that
a Roman official would adopt a custom peculiar to a people whom he
held in contempt.
"And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man
shall wash their hands ... and they shall answer and say, Our hands
have not shed this blood" (Deuteronomy xx, 6, 7).
330
What indignities were heaped upon Jesus during his trial before Pilate?
John: "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the
soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and
they put on him a purple robe, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and
they smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth again,
and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may
know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the
crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,
Behold the man!" (xix, 1-5.)
These indignities Jesus is said to have suffered, not at the hands of
a Jewish mob, but at the hands of a Roman court, from which the Jews
had absented themselves and whose proceedings they could not witness
nor directly influence. Every lawyer knows that for more than two
thousand years the Roman court has been the world's model for dignity
and fairness. That an innocent and defenseless prisoner was subjected
to these insults and brutalities in a Roman court, presided over by
a Roman governor, none but a slave of superstition can believe.
331
When was he scourged?
Matthew and Mark: Before he was executed. "And when he [Pilate] had
scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified" (Matt. xxvii, 26;
Mark xv, 15).
John: Before the termination of his trial (xix, 1-16).
Scourging was frequently inflicted by the Romans before execution,
but never before the prisoner was convicted and sentenced. The
"Bible Dictionary" concedes the illegal and unusual character
of the scourging mentioned by John. "In our Lord's case, however,
this infliction seems neither to have been the legal scourging after
sentence nor yet the examination by torture" (Acts xxii, 24).
332
What custom is said to have been observed at the Passover?
All: The release of a prisoner by the Roman governor (Matt. xxvii,
15; Mark xv, 6; Luke xxiii, 17; John xviii, 39).
"Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people
a prisoner, whom they would."
There is no historical authority whatever for this alleged custom. It
was a custom that the Roman government in Judea could not with
safety adopt. The Jews were a subject people, waiting and hoping
for an opportunity to throw off the Roman yoke. To release to them
"whomsoever they desired" (Mark xv, 6) might be to release a political
prisoner whose liberty would endanger the government itself. This
story was probably suggested by a custom of the Roman emperors who
released a prisoner at their birthday festivals.
333
They demanded and obtained the release of Barrabas. Who was Barrabas?
John: A robber. "Now Barrabas was a robber" (xviii, 40).
Mark and Luke: A murderer. "Barrabas (who for a certain sedition made
in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison)" (Luke xxiii, 18,
19; Mark xv, 7).
334
By whom was Jesus clad in mockery?
Matthew, Mark and John: By Pilate's soldiers (Matt. xxvii, 27, 28;
Mark xv, 16, 17; John xix, 1, 2).
Luke: By Herod and his soldiers. "And Herod with his men of war set
him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe"
(xxiii, 11).
335
What was the color of the robe they put on him?
Matthew: "They stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe" (xxvii,
28).
Mark and John: "They put on him a purple robe" (John xix, 2; Mark
xv, 17).
336
When did this occur?
John: During his trial (xix, 1, 2, 12-16).
Matthew and Mark: After Pilate had delivered him to be crucified
(Matt. xxvii, 26-28; Mark xv, 15-17).
337
Describe the mocking of Jesus.
Matthew: "Then released he Barrabas unto them; and when he had scourged
Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the
governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him
the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a
scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put
it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they bowed the
knee before him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!" (xxvii, 26-29.)
The original of this account of the mocking of Jesus is to be found in
Philo's "Adversus Flaccum," written more than one hundred years before
the Gospels made their appearance. Herod Agrippa was on his way from
Rome to Palestine to assume the government of that country. When he
stopped at Alexandria his enemies, to annoy him, instituted a mock
coronation, which Philo relates as follows:
"There was a certain poor wretch named Carrabas, who spent all his
days and nights in the roads, the sport of idle children and wanton
youths; and the multitude, having driven him as far as the public
gymnasium, and having set him up there on high, that he might be
seen of everybody, flattening out a papyrus leaf, put it on his head
instead of a crown, and clothed the rest of his body with a common mat
in place of a robe, and in lieu of a sceptre thrust into his hand a
reed, which they found lying by the wayside. And when he had received
all the insignia of royalty, and had been dressed and adorned like a
king, young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side
of him in imitation of guards, while others came up, some as if to
salute him, and others pretending to plead their causes before him"
(Philo's Works, vol. iv, pp. 68, 69).
338
Who smote Jesus after his trial?
Mark: "The servants did strike him with the palms of their hands"
(xiv, 65).
John: "One of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm
of his hand" (xviii, 22).
The stories of these mockings, revilings, and brutal assaults cannot
be accepted as historical. They are self-evidently false. Were they
alleged to have been committed by an irresponsible Jewish or Roman
mob they might be credited; but when they are declared to have been
committed by, or while in the custody of the highest Jewish and Roman
officials they must be rejected.
339
To whom did Pilate deliver him to be crucified?
Matthew and Mark: To the Roman soldiers. "And when he had scourged
Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the
governor took Jesus.... And when they were come unto a place called
Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, ... they crucified him"
(Matt. xxvii, 26-35; Mark xv, 15-24).
John: He delivered him to the Jews. "And he saith unto the Jews, Behold
your King! But they cried out, Away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith
unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We
have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to
be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away. And he bearing his
cross went forth into a place called the place of the skulls, which
is called in Hebrew Golgotha; where they crucified him" (xix, 14-18).
Matthew and Mark plainly state that Jesus was delivered to the Roman
soldiers; John just as plainly states that he was delivered to the
Jews. Matthew and Mark declare that he was crucified by the soldiers;
John declares that he was crucified by the Jews. Were it not that
John elsewhere (xix, 23) contradicts himself and states that the
soldiers crucified him, the conclusion would be, after reading John,
that he was crucified by the Jews.
Peter declares that the Jews executed him. Addressing the Sanhedrim,
he says: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and
hanged on a tree" (Acts v, 30).
340
Who was compelled to carry the cross?
Synoptics: "And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon
by name; him they compelled to bear his cross" (Matt. xxvii, 32;
Mark xv, 21; Luke xxiii, 26).
John: The cross was borne by Jesus himself (xix, 17).
341
Where was Simon when they compelled him to carry the cross?
Mark: "Coming out of the country" (xv, 21).
The correct reading of this is, "coming from the field," i. e.,
"coming from his work." This is improbable as they did not work on
the Passover.
342
The Synoptics agree in stating that Simon was compelled to carry the
cross. Is this probable?
It is not. In executions of this kind the criminal was always required
to carry it himself as a mark of disgrace.
343
It is inferred from the Synoptics that the cross was too heavy for
Jesus to bear, and Christian writings and paintings represent him
bending with fatigue beneath the burden of the entire cross. What
was the burden he was required to carry?
Simply the patibulum, or cross piece, which was not heavy. The upright
portion of the cross was a permanent fixture.
344
On his way to execution he made a speech to the women of Jerusalem who
bewailed his fate. Alluding, as is alleged, to the coming destruction
of Jerusalem, what did he declare they would say?
"To the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us" (Luke
xxiii, 30).
Luke attempts to put into the mouth of Jesus a quotation from Hosea,
but his memory was defective. What the prophet said was as follows:
"To the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us" (Hosea
x, 8).
Renan pronounces this speech spurious. He says: "The speech to the
women of Jerusalem could scarcely have been conceived except after
the siege of the year 70."
345
Where was he crucified?
Matthew and Mark: At "a place called Golgotha, that is to say,
a place of a skull" (Matt. xxvii, 33; Mark xv, 22).
Luke: At Calvary (xxiii, 33).
Calvary, like Golgotha, means a place of skulls in the vicinity of
Jerusalem. The explanation given by Christian commentators is that
"it was a spot where executions ordinarily took place, and therefore
abounded in skulls." Fleetwood says it "was called Golgotha, or
Place of Skulls, from the criminals' bones which lay scattered there"
(Life of Christ, p. 416). Where Jewish customs prevailed--and it is
admitted that they did prevail in Jerusalem and Judea at this time,
and had for hundreds of years--a human skull or bone was not allowed
to be exposed for even a moment.
346
What was the inscription on the cross?
Mark: "The King of the Jews" (xv, 26).
Luke: "This is the King of the Jews" (xxiii, 38).
Matthew: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (xxvii, 37).
John: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" (xix, 19).
There was placed on the cross a certain inscription. According to
Luke and John it appeared in Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Four divinely
inspired historians attempt to report in Greek the exact words of
this inscription. Yet no two of their reports agree.
347
Did the name of Jesus appear on the cross?
Matthew and John: It did.
Mark and Luke: It did not.
348
Did the word "Nazareth" appear in the inscription?
John: It did.
Synoptics: It did not.
349
What did they offer him to drink before crucifying him?
Matthew: "Vinegar mingled with gall" (xxvii, 34).
Mark: "Wine mingled with myrrh" (xv, 23).
Luke: "Vinegar" alone (xxiii, 36).
The draughts mentioned by Matthew and Mark refer to a Jewish mixture
intended to produce stupefaction and lessen pain. Had the Romans
crucified him it is not probable that they would have observed this
Jewish custom.
350
How was he fastened on the cross?
Luke and John: His hands and feet were nailed to it (Luke xxiv, 39;
John xx, 25, 27).
The Evangelists do not say that he was nailed to the cross; but it
has been inferred from the texts mentioned in Luke and John that he
was. In crucifixion the victim was usually bound to the cross. Nails
were sometimes driven through the hands, but never through the
feet. The allusions to the supposed wounds on his hands and feet were
evidently inserted in the accounts for the purpose of establishing his
identity after the resurrection. Great prominence has been given them
by Christians in order to make Christ's crucifixion appear especially
cruel and create sympathy for him.
351
At what hour of the day was he crucified?
Mark: "It was the third hour [nine o'clock in the morning]" (xv, 25).
Luke: "It was about the sixth hour [noon]" (xxiii, 44).
John: At the sixth hour he had not been sentenced and delivered to
the executioners; hence he was not crucified until the afternoon
(xix, 14-16).
Dr. Geikie admits that three hours may have elapsed between the
termination of his trial and his crucifixion. Hence, according to
John, the crucifixion may have occurred as late as three o'clock in
the afternoon.
It has been attempted to explain the discrepancy between Mark and
John by supposing that John used a different method of reckoning
time. Concerning this, Prof. Sanday, one of England's highest orthodox
authorities, says: "The writer of this was at one time inclined to
look with favor on these attempts. If the premise could be proved,
the data would work out satisfactorily.... But it must definitely be
said that the major premise cannot be proved, and that the attempt
to reconcile the two statements on this basis breaks down."
352
How did the soldiers divide the garments?
Matthew: "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting
lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They
parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots"
(xxvii, 35).
John: "Then the soldiers when they had crucified Jesus, took
his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and
also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top
throughout. They said, therefore, among themselves, Let us not rend it,
but cast lots for it, whose it shall be; that the scripture might be
fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for
my vesture they did cast lots" (xix, 23, 24).
According to Matthew they cast lots for all the garments; according
to John they cast lots for the coat alone. John here makes the same
error in regard to the garments that Matthew does in regard to the
ass on which Jesus made his triumphal entry. In the verse cited from
Psalms garments and vesture are the same thing--the clothing of the
writer. One of the chief characteristics of Hebrew poetry, or much
of it at least, is that each successive thought is stated twice,
but in different words.
353
Who were crucified with Jesus?
Mark and Matthew: "And with him they crucify two thieves" (Mark xv,
27; Matt. xxvii, 38).
Thieves were not crucified. Crucifixion, or death in any form, for
theft was contrary to both Jewish and Roman law. Theft was not a
capital offense.
354
His crucifixion between two thieves fulfilled what prophecy?
Mark: "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he shall be
numbered with the transgressors" (xv, 28).
"The same thing might be said of the thieves."--Paine.
This passage is not to be found in the earlier manuscripts of Mark,
and Westcott declares it to be an interpolation.
355
How long did Jesus survive after being placed upon the cross?
Luke: About three hours (xxiii, 44).
A Jamaica negro slave, crucified in 1760, lived two hundred and
ten hours.
Kitto says: "We may consider thirty-six hours to be the earliest
period at which crucifixion would occasion death in a healthy adult"
(Biblical Cyclopedia, Art. Crucifixion).
356
What were his last words?
Matthew: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?" (xxvii, 46).
Mark: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, which is, being interpreted,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (xv, 34.)
Luke: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (xxiii, 46).
John: "It is finished" (xix, 30).
With the Four Gospels before them, Christians do not know what his
last words were. The two most popular English Lives of Christ are
those of Dr. Farrar and Dr. Geikie. These writers were contemporaries
and friends, and both were adherents of the same church. Both, with
these Gospels for their authorities, attempt to portray the closing
scene. I quote from each:
Dr. Farrar: "And now the end was come. Once more, in the words of the
sweet Psalmist of Israel, but adding to them that title of trustful
love which, through Him, is permitted to the use of all mankind,
'Father,' he said, 'into Thy hands I commend my spirit.' Then with one
more great effort he uttered the last cry--the one victorious word,
'It is finished.'"
Dr. Geikie: "A moment more, and all was over. The cloud had passed as
suddenly as it rose. Far and wide, over the vanquished throngs of his
enemies, with a loud voice, as if uttering his shout of eternal victory
before entering into his glory, he cried, 'It is finished!' Then, more
gently, came the words, 'Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.'"
357
In what language were his last words uttered?
Matthew: In Hebrew.
Mark: In Aramaic and Hebrew.
The language spoken by Jesus and by the people of Palestine at this
time was the Aramaic. Mark attempts to give the words of Jesus in
this language. But while the first two words are Aramaic, the last
two are Hebrew. The words Mark attempts to give are "Elohi, Elohi,
metul mah shabaktani?" This Gospel was written by one ignorant of
the language of Palestine.
358
Matthew interprets the Hebrew words quoted by him to mean, "My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Is this correct?
It is not. The words mean, "My God, my God, why hast thou sacrificed
me?"
The Gospel of Matthew, it is claimed, originally appeared in
Hebrew. But this shows that the author of Matthew did not understand
the Hebrew language.
359
What are the words given by Matthew and Mark?
The first words of the 22d Psalm. In the words of Farrar, "He borrowed
from David's utter agony the expression of his own."
Is it probable that a man in the agonies of a terrible death would
devote his expiring breath to a recital of Hebrew poetry? When even
the dying words of this Christ are borrowed, is it not evident that
the whole story of his life is fabulous?
The accounts of the crucifixion given by the Evangelists are to a
large extent reproductions of the 22d Psalm, even to the language
itself, the poetical allusions of the psalmist being transformed into
alleged historical facts. The devout Christian who is familiar with
this Passion Psalm sees in the Evangelists' account of the crucifixion
a wonderful fulfillment of prophecy. But the critic sees merely the
borrowed embellishments of a legend.
360
What expression did his words, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," provoke?
Matthew: "Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said,
This man calleth for Elias" (xxvii, 47).
This is additional proof of Matthew's ignorance of Hebrew. He
supposes a similarity of sound between the two words, whereas they
were utterly unlike in pronunciation. Eli was pronounced Ali (long
a), while Elias was pronounced Eleeyahu. But even had they been so
much alike in sound that one might have been mistaken for the other,
as Matthew supposes, the alleged incident is disproved by the fact
that the Jews were not allowed to attend the execution, while to the
Romans the words were meaningless.
361
Who was it bade them see whether Elias would come to his rescue?
Mark: The one who gave him the sponge filled with vinegar. "And one
ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and
gave him to drink, saying, Let alone, let us see whether Elias will
come to take him down" (xv, 36).
Matthew: It was not this person, but those who were with him. "And
straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge and filled it with
vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said,
Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him" (xxvii,
48, 49).
In regard to these alleged last words of Jesus, Dr. Hooykaas says:
"It seems to us far more probable that these words of the Messianic
passion-psalm were put into the mouth of Jesus by tradition than
that he really uttered them. The sequel, too, throws great suspicion
on the report; for the Jews were not allowed to approach the cross,
and what did the Roman soldiers know about Elijah? Besides, if the
Jews had really heard him cry "Eli!" or "Eloi!" they would hardly
have mistaken the words of the twenty-second Psalm for a cry to the
precursor of the Messianic kingdom--a mistake upon which their raillery
is made to depend. We must, therefore, put aside these words, as in
all probability unhistorical" (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 454).
362
Did the thieves between whom he was crucified both revile him?
Matthew and Mark: They did. "And they that were crucified with him
reviled him" (Mark xv, 32; Matt. xxvii, 44).
Luke: They did not; but one reviled him. "And one of the malefactors
which were hanged railed on him.... But the other answering rebuked
him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same
condemnation?" (xxiii, 39, 40.)
If these men were crucified with Jesus, as claimed, neither reviled
him. Reason rejects the statement that a dying man, suffering
unutterable agony, reviled a fellow sufferer.
363
What request did the penitent thief make of Jesus?
Luke: "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest
into thy kingdom" (xxiii, 42).
Here the dying thief is represented as being familiar with a subject
which the disciples themselves did not at this time comprehend.
364
What did Jesus say to the thief?
"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke xxiii, 43).
Instead of going to the Christian Heaven above, they went to the
Jewish-Pagan Sheol (Hell) below. Did Jesus recant on the cross? Did
he renounce the Kingdom of God when God deserted him? Concerning this
remarkable passage, Smith's "Bible Dictionary" says:
"The Rabbis in the time of our Savior taught there was a region of
the world of the dead, of Sheol, in the heart of the earth. Gehenna
was on one side, with its flames and torments; Paradise on the other,
the intermediate home of the blessed.... It is significant, indeed,
that the word 'paradise' nowhere occurs in the public teaching of
our Lord, or in his intercourse with his disciples. Connected as it
had been with the thoughts of a sensuous happiness, it was not the
fittest nor the best word for those whom he was training to rise out
of sensuous thoughts to the higher regions of the spiritual life. For
them, accordingly, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God, are the
words most dwelt on. With the thief dying on the cross the case was
different. We can assume nothing in the robber-outlaw but the most
rudimentary forms of the popular belief. The answer to his prayer gave
him what he needed most, the assurance of immediate rest and peace."
The explanation of the apologist is as lame as the story of the
Evangelist. Did Jesus go to Hell with the thief because the thief was
unfit to go to Heaven with him? This apologist says that Jesus used
these words--gave expression to a false doctrine--because the thief
was incapable of comprehending the true doctrine. But this conflicts
with the alleged words of the thief himself which show that he did
comprehend the nature of the kingdom of Heaven. It was this, and not
the peace of the grave, for which he prayed.
365
What were the centurion's words?
Luke: "Certainly this was a righteous man" (xxiii, 47).
Matthew: "Truly this was the Son of God" (xxvii, 54).
We have here the anomaly of a Roman officer--a Pagan--entertaining
a Jewish doctrine of a Messiah, and accepting the Christian claim
that Jesus was the Messiah. If this be true it is strange that he
permitted his soldiers to insult and abuse Jesus.
366
After Jesus expired what did one of the soldiers do?
John: "One of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side" (xix, 34).
It is remarkable that the Synoptics, who pretend to relate every
important incident connected with the crucifixion, make no mention
of the spear thrust.
367
What is said to have issued from the wound?
John: "And forthwith came there out blood and water" (xix, 34).
According to a well known physiological fact, if Jesus was still
alive or had but recently expired, not blood and water, but blood
alone would have flowed from the wound. If he was dead, and it is
stated that he was, then neither blood nor water would have flowed
from it. When blood is drawn from a living body it becomes separated
into two parts, a thick substance known as febrine, and a watery
fluid known as serum. John was familiar with this fact and supposed
that this also took place in a corpse, which is not the case.
Dr. Cabanes, a noted physician of Paris, writes as follows regarding
the crucifixion of Jesus:
"It appears that crucifixion alone could not have produced the death
of Jesus, and in reference to the wounds produced by the nails, these
wounds being the result of crushing, the hemorrhage was small. A
burning fever might possibly occur which would be manifested by an
intense thirst, but the flow of blood could not be sufficient to
cause death. Death in this case is preceded by a comatose condition
which would be inconsistent with the cry uttered in a loud voice by
Jesus shortly before his last breath. All the commentators of the
gospels further agree that Jesus did not remain more than three to
six hours on the cross, and death cannot be produced by an exposure
of this duration to this mode of torture.
"The generally accepted version of the lance wound received by Jesus
is that the blow was struck on the left side and that there flowed from
the wound water mingled with blood. It has been correctly remarked that
blood does not flow from a corpse, and therefore if blood followed the
lance stroke, Jesus must have been alive; further, in order that the
blow might have killed the dying man, it must have injured a vital
organ. It must be observed that a lance directed upward and from
right to left could not reach the right-hand cavities of the heart
without first opening the peritoneal cavity, traversing the liver,
the pericardium and perhaps the pleura. We must therefore ask how the
few hundred grams of blood which a right ventricle could contain, could
penetrate to the exterior of the body after such a great wound. Also
with those who die slowly there is found a distended heart in which
the blood has very rapidly coagulated, and it must follow that if a
flood of the liquid appeared on the side of Jesus it could not have
come from the heart. With regard to the vena cava, its situation is
too far back to have allowed it to be touched by the lance. If the
wound had been in the stomach a lesion of the digestive tube would
have been disclosed by an ejection of blood mingled with alimentary
matter, either from the mouth or the opening of the wound, or at
least by a discharge of blood into the abdominal cavity. Had the liver
been touched the symptoms of an internal hemorrhage would have been
observed, as in the case of President Carnot, in whose case the blow of
the poignard, directed downward, perforated the liver and the portal
vein, inducing a state of coma, whereas Jesus, we have been told,
cried out with a loud voice. We thus see that death was not due to
the lance wound or to the torture of crucifixion, as so often stated."
368
Was Christ's suffering foretold by the prophets?
Peter: "But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth
of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled"
(Acts iii, 18).
God had not showed by the mouth of all his prophets, nor by the
mouth of even one of his prophets, that Christ should suffer. The
prophets know nothing of a suffering Messiah. There is not a text in
the Old Testament referring to such a Messiah. The passages relating
to suffering cited by the Evangelists and applied to Christ have no
reference whatever to a Messiah. The Encyclopedia Britannica says:
"That the Jews in the time of Christ believed in a suffering and
atoning Messiah is, to say the least, unproved and highly improbable."
369
What marvelous events occurred at the time of the crucifixion?
Matthew: "There was darkness over all the land" (xxvii, 45). "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" (51, 52).
Mark and Luke: "There was darkness over the whole land" (Mark xv,
33). "And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom" (38).
Mark and Luke know nothing of two of the important events related by
Matthew; John is ignorant of all of them. Had these events really
happened, the naturalists and chroniclers of that age would have
recorded them. As they make no mention of them, we know that they
did not occur.
If we accept the claims of their followers, nearly all the gods and
heroes of antiquity expired amid the convulsions of Nature. The soul
of Romulus went out amid the battling of her elements; "the sun was
darkened and the sky rained fire and ashes" when the Hindu Krishna
left his saddened followers; "the earth shook, the rocks were rent,
the graves opened, and in a storm which threatened the dissolution of
the universe," Prometheus closed his earthly career; a pall of darkness
settled over Egypt when her Osiris died; the death of Alexander was
succeeded by six hours of preternatural gloom; and--
"Ere the mighty Julius fell,
The grave stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets."
370
How long did the darkness last?
Synoptics: From the sixth to the ninth hour (Matt. xxvii, 45; Mark xv,
33; Luke xxiii, 44).
According to Matthew and Luke this darkness lasted from the time that
he was suspended upon the cross until he died. Yet his executioners
are ignorant of it. Luke says: "His acquaintances, and the women that
followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things
[the crucifixion]" (xxiii, 49), which they could not have done had
this darkness really occurred.
If this darkness occurred, and began at the sixth hour, as stated by
the Synoptics, then, according to John, the conclusion of the trial,
the sentencing of Jesus, the preparations for his execution, and the
journey to Golgotha, all took place during the darkness, a conclusion
which the nature of the narrative utterly precludes.
Christian apologists have cited Phlegon who notices an eclipse which
occurred about this time. But there is a variance of at least six
years in regard to the time that Jesus was crucified. Besides an
eclipse could not have occurred within two weeks of a Passover, on
the occurrence of which he is declared to have been executed. Farrar
says: "It could have been no darkness of any natural eclipse, for
the Paschal moon was at the full" (Life of Christ, p. 505). Geikie
says: "It is impossible to explain the origin of this darkness. The
Passover moon was then at the full, so that it could not have been an
eclipse. The earlier fathers, relying on a notice of an eclipse that
seemed to coincide in time, though it really did not, fancied that the
darkness was caused by it, but incorrectly" (Life of Christ, Vol. ii,
p. 624, Notes). "The celebrated passage of Phlegon," says Gibbon,
"is now wisely abandoned" (Rome, Vol. i, p. 589, Note).
371
Was the veil of the temple rent, as our Gospel of Matthew declares?
The Gospel of Matthew, it is affirmed, originally appeared in Hebrew,
St. Jerome, who had this original version, says: "In that Gospel which
is written in Hebrew letters, we read, not that the veil of the temple
was rent, but that a lintel (or beam) of a prodigious size fell down."
Commenting on this alleged prodigy, the rending of the veil,
Strauss says: "Now the object of the divine Providence in effecting
such a miracle could only have been this: to produce in the Jewish
contemporaries of Jesus a deep impression of the importance of his
death, and to furnish the first promulgators of the gospel with a
fact to which they might appeal in support of their cause. But, as
Schleiermacher has shown, nowhere else in the New Testament, either
in the apostolic epistles or in Acts, or even in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, in connection with the subject of which it could scarcely
fail to be suggested, is this event mentioned: on the contrary,
with the exception of this bare Synoptical notice, every trace of it
is lost; which could scarcely have been the case if it had really
formed a ground of apostolical argument. Thus the divine purpose
in ordaining this miracle must have totally failed, or, since this
is inconceivable, it cannot have been ordained for this object--in
other words, since neither any other object of the miracle, nor yet
a mode in which the event might happen naturally can be discovered,
it cannot have happened at all" (Leben Jesu, p. 789).
372
Matthew declares that the dead arose on the day of the
crucifixion. When did they come out of their graves?
Not until after Christ's resurrection, which did not occur until the
following week. "And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and
came out of the graves after his resurrection" (Matt. xxvii, 52, 53).
"They were polite enough to sit in their open graves and wait for
Christ to rise first."--Ingersoll.
373
From what source was Matthew's story regarding these marvelous
events derived?
From Zechariah: "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount
of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the East, and the Mount
of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof ... and half of the
mountain shall remove toward the North, and half of it toward the
South.... Ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake
in the days of Uzziah King of Judah; and the Lord my God shall come,
and all the saints with thee. And it shall come to pass in that day,
that the light shall not be clear" (xiv, 4-6).
Concerning this Dr. Wise says: "God who comes, according to Zachariah,
to fight for Jerusalem, will stand upon Mount Olivet. Therefore,
Jesus, during his fight against Pharisees, Sadducees and priests, had
to make his principal home on Mount Olivet. But he could not split the
mountain, as Zachariah imagined God would, and move one part North and
the other South; therefore, the curtain of the temple had to be torn in
twain when Jesus died, although none has ever mentioned the fact. The
curtain was there some thirty-five years after the death of Jesus; had
it been torn, somebody must have noticed it. The earthquake mentioned
by Zachariah, of course, was borrowed to embellish Calvary.... Because
Zachariah states God coming to Jerusalem, 'And the Lord my God cometh,
all the saints with thee,' therefore the saints and not the sinners
had to resurrect and visit the city on that particular day. But in
the fertile imagination of Zachariah, the day of that terrible combat
must be dark.... This darkness was transported over to Calvary to
embellish the scene.... So these miracles were not wrought, but the
entire outer embellishment of Calvary is taken from Zachariah; not
because it was believed this prophecy referred to Jesus, but simply
because the evangelical writers were incompetent to invent original
poetry" (Martyrdom of Jesus, p. 116).
374
What request did the Jews make of Pilate concerning Jesus and the
malefactors?
John: They "besought Pilate that their legs might be broken" (xix, 31).
This punishment, known as crurifragium, was a distinct mode of
execution and was never united with crucifixion. Crucifixion, we have
seen, was not employed to punish theft. Neither was crurifragium. Yet
we are asked to believe that both modes of execution, two of
the cruelest forms of punishment, were combined to punish these
offenders. The Synoptics do not mention this punishment.
375
When the soldiers broke the legs of the thieves, why did they spare
those of Jesus?
John: "That the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall
not be broken" (xix, 36).
This refers to Exodus xii, 46, and relates to the disposition to be
made of the lamb used at the Passover. Nearly the entire chapter from
which John quotes is devoted to this subject. Among other things it
states that "They shall eat the flesh in that night, ... his head with
his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing
of it remain until the morning" (8-10). If a part of this prophecy
was fulfilled, may not all of it have been fulfilled? And if all of
it was fulfilled, will not this account for the empty sepulchre?
Regarding the failure of the soldiers to break the legs of Jesus,
as ordered, "Supernatural Religion" says: "An order having been given
to the Roman soldiers, in accordance with the request of the Jews, to
break the legs of the crucified, we are asked to believe that they did
not execute it in the case of Jesus. It is not reasonable to suppose,
however, that Roman soldiers either were in the habit of disregarding
their orders, or could have any motive for doing so in this case,
and subjecting themselves to the severe punishment for disobedience
inflicted by Roman military law. It is argued that they saw that Jesus
was already dead, and, therefore, that it was not necessary to break
his legs; but soldiers are not in the habit of thinking in this way;
they are disciplined to obey" (p. 993).
376
What demand was made by the Jews on the evening of the crucifixion?
John: That their bodies be taken down from the cross (xix, 31).
John was evidently familiar with the Mosaic law (Deut. xxi, 22, 23)
which, in cases of hanging, enjoined the burial of the body on the
day of execution, but seemingly ignorant of the Roman law under which
they were executed, which, in cases of crucifixion, prohibited burial,
requiring the body to remain upon the cross until decayed, or birds
and beasts had devoured it. The Jews esteemed it sinful to allow a
criminal to "remain all night upon the tree;" but the Jewish law was
inapplicable to the Roman mode of punishment which presupposed that
the criminal would remain on the cross several days and nights before
death ensued.
377
What additional reason was there for having the bodies taken down?
Mark: "Because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the
Sabbath" (xv, 42).
The Sabbath began at sunset on the day that he is declared to have
been crucified. The Jewish law would not permit his body, whether dead
or alive, to be exposed on the Sabbath. Crucifixion, as we have seen,
was a lingering death; several days usually elapsing before the victim
expired. Now, is it reasonable to suppose that the Jews would demand,
as claimed, a punishment lasting several days when they knew that he
must be taken down from the cross in a few hours?
378
What did Pilate do when Joseph solicited the body of Jesus?
Mark: "Pilate marveled if he were already dead" (xv, 44).
Why should Pilate marvel if he were already dead when previous to this,
according to John (xix, 31-33), he had, at the request of the Jews,
ordered his soldiers to dispatch him if alive and take his body away?
379
Were the disciples present at the crucifixion?
John: They were, or one, at least (xix, 26).
According to the Synoptics, all were absent; all had forsaken their
Master, all had fled. The Twelve Apostles at this time, unless Judas
had already hung himself, as Matthew declares, numbered one traitor
and eleven cowards.
380
What women followed Jesus and witnessed his execution?
Matthew and Mark: Women of Galilee (Matt. xxvii, 55; Mark xv, 40, 41).
Luke: "Daughters of Jerusalem," that is, women of Judea (xxiii, 28).
381
Where were Mary Magdalene and her companions during the crucifixion?
Matthew and Mark: "Looking on afar off" (Mark xv, 40; Matt. xxvii,
55, 56).
John: They "stood by the cross" (xix, 25).
382
Was Mary, the mother of Jesus, present?
John: She was (xix, 25).
Synoptics: She was not.
The Synoptics do not expressly state that she was absent, but if she
was present, as John affirms, is it possible that they would ignore
the fact when they mention "the strolling Magdalene" no less than
seven times?
383
Who stood by the cross with the mother of Jesus?
John: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his
mother's sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas" (xix, 25).
Mary must have been a very popular name to be given to two daughters
of the same family. It is not probable that these sisters were both
named Mary. John never mentions the name of Jesus' mother, and it is
evident that he did not suppose her name was Mary. Were John the only
Gospel, Christians would be ignorant of the Virgin's name. Mariolatry
did not originate in the Johannine church.
384
To whom was entrusted the care of Jesus' mother?
John: "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing
by whom he loved [John], he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy
son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that
hour that disciple took her unto his own house" (xix, 26, 27).
"The teacher who had been to him as a brother leaves to him a brother's
duty. He is to be as a son to the mother who is left desolate."--Bible
Dictionary.
Very touchingly expressed. But why was this duty imposed upon John
when the Apostle James (the Less) was a brother of Jesus and a son
of Mary? Was he a worthless ingrate, unable and unwilling to care
for her? And what of Joses, and Juda, and Simon, and her daughters
who remained at home? Had they turned their mother out of doors?
385
In whose sepulcher was the body of Jesus placed?
Matthew: Joseph "laid it in his own new tomb which he had hewn out
in the rock" (xxvii, 60).
John: "Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and
in the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was never man yet laid. There
laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jew's preparation day;
for the sepulcher was nigh at hand" (xix, 41, 42).
It is evident from John that the sepulcher did not belong to Joseph,
but that it was one which happened to be convenient to the place of
crucifixion; for, as Strauss justly argues: "The vicinity of the grave,
when alleged as a motive, excludes the fact of possession."
386
Was his body embalmed when it was laid in the sepulcher?
John: It was. "He [Joseph] came therefore, and took the body of
Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to
Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an
hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it
in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury"
(xix, 38-40).
Mark and Luke: It was not embalmed. "The women also, which came with
him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his
body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments"
(Luke xxiii, 55, 56); intending to embalm it "when the Sabbath was
past" (Mark xvi, 1).
387
What is said in regard to wrapping the body of Jesus by Joseph?
Mark: "He bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in
the linen" (xv, 46).
This statement is rejected by critics. A member of the Sanhedrim
would not desecrate the Passover by making a purchase on it.
388
What was the amount of the material used in embalming Jesus?
John: A hundred pounds (xix, 39).
This was sufficient to embalm a dozen bodies. Yet after seeing
his body literally buried in the material, the women, we are told,
procured more.
389
When did the women procure materials for embalming Jesus?
Luke: "They returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested
the Sabbath Day" (xxiii, 56).
Mark (New Ver.): "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and
Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices that they might
come and anoint him" (xvi, 1).
According to Luke they prepared the spices before the Sabbath began,
that is, before the end of the sixth day; according to Mark, they
did not procure them until "the Sabbath was past," that is, not until
the beginning of the first day.
390
When did they go to embalm the body?
Mark and Luke: "When the Sabbath was past, ... the first day of the
week" (Mark xvi, 1, 2; Luke xxiv, 1).
Is it reasonable to suppose that in that warm spring climate
(Dr. Geikie speaks of the fierce heat that prevailed at the time),
they would let a wounded body lie two days, until decomposition had
commenced, and then attempt to embalm it?
391
When was the sepulcher closed?
All: When the body was placed in it (Matt. xxvii, 60; Mark xv, 46;
Luke xxiii, 53, xxiv, 1, 2; John xix, 41, 42, xx, 1).
According to the Evangelists, the stone was rolled to the door of
the sepulcher as soon as the body was deposited, and according to
Mark and Luke, the women were troubled as to who should roll away
the stone when they went to embalm the body.
In sepulture of this kind, the tomb was not closed until the third day,
and when once closed it was not to be opened. This deviation from the
customary mode is evidently for the purpose of establishing faith in
the doctrine of the resurrection, by shutting off all means of escape
or removal without supernatural aid. The Evangelists are particular
to state that Joseph "rolled a great stone to the door."
In a single paragraph, Scribner's "Bible Dictionary" concedes no less
than seven Synoptical errors regarding the trial, crucifixion and
burial of Jesus: "The Synoptists make the Sanhedrim say beforehand that
they will not arrest Jesus 'on the feast day,' and then actually arrest
him on that day; that not only the guards, but one of the disciples
carries arms, which on the feast day was not allowed; that the trial
was also held on the feast day, which would be unlawful; that the
feast day would not be called 'Preparation'; that the phrase 'coming
from the field' (Mk. xv, 21) means properly 'coming from work'; that
Joseph of Arimathea is represented as buying a linen cloth (Mk. xv,
46), and the women as preparing spices and ointments (Lk. xxiii, 56),
all of which would be contrary to law and custom."
392
In what year was Jesus crucified?
Not one of the Evangelists knows. They agree that he was crucified
during the time that Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea, and Joseph
Caiaphas was high priest of the Jews. But this, so far as Matthew,
Mark and John are concerned, may have been any time from 26 to 36 A. D.