(1) _The miracles with which they abound._ Paley asks: "Why should we

question the genuineness of these books? Is it for that they contain

accounts of supernatural events? I apprehend that this, at the bottom,

is the real, though secret cause of our hesitation about them; for, had

the writings, inscribed with the names of Matthew and John, related

nothing but ordinary history, there would have been no more doubt

whether these writings were theirs, than there is concerning the

acknowledged works of Josephus or Philo; that is, there would have been

no doubt at all" ("Evidences," pp. 105, 106). There is a certain amount

of truth in this argument. We _do_--openly, however, and not

secretly--doubt any and every book which is said to be a record of

miracles, written by an eye-witness of them; the more important the

contents of a book, the more keenly are its credentials scrutinised; the

more extraordinary the story it contains, the more carefully are its

evidences sifted. In dealing with Josephus, we examine his authenticity

before relying at all on his history; finding there is little doubt that

the book was written by him, we value it as the account of an apparently

careful writer. When we come to passages like one in "Wars of the Jews,"

bk. vi. ch. 5, sec. 3--which tells us among the portents which

forewarned the Jews of the fall of the temple: "A heifer, as she was led

by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst

of the temple"--we do _not_ believe it, any more than we believe that

the devils went into the swine. If such fables, instead of forming

excrescences here and there on the history of Josephus, which may be cut

off without injury to the main record, were so interwoven with the

history as to be part and parcel of it, so that no history would remain

if they were all taken away, then we should reject Josephus as a teller

of fables, and not a writer of history. If it were urged that Josephus

was an eye-witness, and recorded what he saw, then we should answer:

Either your history is not written by Josephus at all, but is falsely

assigned to him in order to give it the credit of being written by a

contemporary and an eye-witness; or else your Josephus is a charlatan,

who pretended to have seen miracles in order to increase his prestige.

If this supposed history of Josephus were widely spread and exercised

much influence over mankind, then its authenticity would be very

carefully examined and every weak point in the evidences for it tested,

just as the Gospels are to-day. We may add, that it is absurd to

parallel the Evangelists and Josephus, as though we knew of the one no

more than we do of the others. Josephus relates his own life, giving us

an account of his family, his childhood, and his education; he then

tells us of his travels, of all he did, and of the books he wrote, and

the books themselves bear his own announcement of his authorship; for

instance, we read: "I, Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth an Hebrew,

a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself,

and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, am the author

of this work" ("Wars of the Jews," Preface, sec. I). To which of the

Gospels is such an announcement prefixed? even in Luke, where the

historian writes a preface, it is not said: "I, Luke," and anonymous

writings must be of doubtful authenticity. Which of the Evangelists has

related for us his own life, so that we may judge of his opportunities

of knowing what he tells? To which of their histories is such external

testimony given as that of Tacitus to Josephus, in spite of the contempt

felt by the polished Roman towards the whole Jewish race? Nothing can be

more misleading than to speak of Josephus and of the Evangelists as

though their writings stood on the same level; every mark of

authenticity is present in the one; every mark of authenticity is absent

in the other.

We shall argue as against the miraculous accounts of the Gospels--first,

that the evidence is insufficient and far below the amount of evidence

brought in support of more modern miracles; secondly, that the power to

work miracles has been claimed by the Church all through her history,

and is still so claimed, and it is, therefore, impossible to mark any

period wherein miracles ceased; and, thirdly, that not only are

Christian miracles unproven, but that all miracles are impossible, as

well as useless if possible.

Paley, arguing for the truth of Christian miracles, _and of these only_,

endeavours to lay down canons which shall exclude all others. Thus, he

excludes: "I. Such accounts of supernatural events as are found only in

histories by some ages posterior to the transaction.... II. Accounts

published in one country of what passed in a distant country, without

any proof that such accounts were known or received at home.... III.

_Transient_ rumours.... IV. _Naked_ history (fragments, unconnected with

subsequent events dependent on the miracles).... V. In a certain way,

and to a certain degree, _particularity_, in names, dates, places,

circumstances, and in the order of events preceding or following.... VI.

Stories on which nothing depends, in which no interest is involved,

nothing is to be done or changed in consequence of believing them....

VII. Accounts which come merely _in affirmance_ of opinions already

formed.... It is not necessary to admit as a miracle, what can be

resolved into a _false perception_ (such miracles as healing the blind,

lame, etc., cannot be reduced under this head), ... or _imposture_ ...

or _tentative_ miracles (where, out of many attempts, one succeeds) ...

or _doubtful_ (possibly explainable as coincidence, or effect of

imagination) ... or exaggeration" ("Evidences," pp. 199-218). Paley then

criticises some miracles alleged by Hume, and argues against them. He

very fairly criticises and disposes of them, but fails to see that the

same style of argument would dispose of his Gospel ones. The Cardinal de

Retz sees, at a church in Saragossa, a man who lighted the lamps, and

the canons told him "that he had been several years at the gate with one

leg only. I saw him with two." Paley urges that "it nowhere appears that

he (the Cardinal) either examined the limb, or asked the patient, or

indeed any one, a single question about the matter" ("Evidences," page

224). Well argued, Dr. Paley; and in the man who sat outside the

beautiful gate of the Temple, who examined the limb, or questioned the

patient? Canons I. and II. exclude the Gospel miracles, unless the

Gospels are proved to be written by those whose names they bear, and

even then there is no proof that either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John,

published their Gospels in Judæa, or that their accounts were "received

at home." The doubt and obscurity hanging over the origin of the Gospels

themselves, throws the like doubt and obscurity on all that they relate.

"Transient rumours," "false perception," "imposture," "doubtful," and

"exaggeration"--there is a door open to all these things in the slow and

gradual putting together of the collection of legends now known as "the

Gospels." We argue that the witness of the Gospels to the miracles

cannot be accepted until the Gospels themselves are authenticated, and

that the evidence in support of the miracles is, therefore,

insufficient. Strauss shows us very clearly how the miracles recorded in

the Gospels became ascribed to Jesus. "That the Jewish people in the

time of Jesus expected miracles from the Messiah is in itself natural,

since the Messiah was a second Moses, and the greatest of the prophets,

and to Moses and the prophets the national legend attributed miracles of

all kinds.... But not only was it pre-determined in the popular

expectation that the Messiah should work miracles in general--the

particular kinds of miracles which he was to perform were fixed, also in

accordance with Old Testament types and declarations. Moses dispensed

meat and drink to the people in a supernatural manner (Ex. xvi. xvii.):

the same was expected, as the rabbis explicitly say, from the Messiah.

At the prayer of Elisha, eyes were in one case closed, in another,

opened supernaturally (2 Kings vi.): the Messiah also was to open the

eyes of the blind. By this prophet and his master, even the dead had

been raised (1 Kings xvii; 2 Kings iv.); hence to the Messiah also power

over death could not be wanting. Among the prophecies, Is. xxxv, 5, 6

(comp. xlii. 7), was especially influential in forming this part of the

Messianic idea. It is here said of the Messianic times: Then shall the

eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then

shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall

sing" ("Life of Jesus," vol. ii., pp. 235, 236.) In dealing with the

alleged healing of the blind, Strauss remarks: "How should we represent

to ourselves the sudden restoration of vision to a blind eye by a word

or a touch? as purely miraculous and magical? That would be to give up

thinking on the subject. As magnetic? There is no precedent of magnetism

having influence over a disease of this nature. Or, lastly, as

psychical? But blindness is something so independent of the mental life,

so entirely corporeal, that the idea of its removal at all, still less

of its sudden removal by means of a mental operation, is not to be

entertained. We must, therefore, acknowledge that an historical

conception of these narratives is more than merely difficult to us; and

we proceed to inquire whether we cannot show it to be probable that

legends of this kind should arise unhistorically.... That these deeds of

Elisha were conceived, doubtless with reference to the passage of

Isaiah, as a real opening of the eyes of the blind, is proved by the

above rabbinical passage [stating that the Messiah would do all that in

ancient times had been done by the hands of the righteous, vol. i., p.

81, note], and hence cures of the blind were expected from the Messiah.

Now, if the Christian community, proceeding as it did from the bosom of

Judaism, held Jesus to be the Messianic personage, it must manifest the

tendency to ascribe to him every Messianic predicate, and, therefore,

the one in question" (Ibid, 292, 293).

Not only, then, are the miracles rendered doubtful by the dubious

character of the records in which they are found, but there is a clear

and reasonable explanation why we should expect to find them in any

history of a supposed Messiah. Christian apologists appear to have

overlooked the statement in the Gospels that Jesus objected to publicity

being given to his supposed miracles; the natural conclusion that

sceptics draw from this assertion, is that the miracles never took place

at all, and that the supposed modesty of Jesus is invented in order to

account for the ignorance of the people concerning the alleged marvels.

Judge Strange fairly remarks: "The appeal to miracles is a very

questionable resort. Now, as Jesus is repeatedly represented to have

exhorted those on whose behalf they were wrought to keep the matter

secret to themselves, and as when such signs, upon being asked for, were

refused to be accorded by him, and the desire to have them was repressed

as sinful, it is to be gathered, in spite of the sayings to the

contrary, that the writers were aware that there was no such public

sense of the occurrence of these marvels as must have attached to them

had they really been enacted, and we are left to the conclusion that

there were in fact no such demonstrations" ("The Portraiture and Mission

of Jesus," p. 23). Clearly, miracles are useless, as evidence, unless

they are publicly performed, and the secresy used by Jesus suggests

fraud rather than miraculous power, and savours of the conjuror rather

than of the "God." But, further, there is far stronger evidence for

later Church miracles than for those of Christ, or of the apostles, and

if evidence in support of miracles is good for anything, these more

modern miracles must command our belief. Eusebius relates the following

miracle of Narcissus, the thirtieth Bishop of Jerusalem, A.D. 180, as

one among many: "Whilst the deacons were keeping the vigils the oil

failed them; upon which all the people being very much dejected,

Narcissus commanded the men that managed the lights to draw water from a

neighbouring well, and to bring it to him. They having done it as soon

as said, Narcissus prayed over the water, and then commanded them, in a

firm faith in Christ, to pour it into the lamps. When they had also done

this, contrary to all natural expectation, by an extraordinary and

divine influence, the nature of the water was changed into the quality

of oil, and by most of the brethren a small quantity was preserved from

that time until our own, as a specimen of the wonder then performed"

("Eccles. Hist," bk. vi., chap. 9). St. Augustine bears personal witness

to more than one miracle which happened in his own presence, and gives a

long list of cures performed in his time. "One thing may be affirmed,

that nothing of importance is omitted, and in regard to essential

details they are as explicit as the mass of other cases reported. In

every instance names and addresses are stated, and it will have been

observed that all these miracles occurred in, or near to, Hippo, and in

his own diocese. It is very certain that in every case the fact of the

miracle is asserted in the most direct and positive terms" ("Sup. Rel.,"

vol. i., pp. 167, 168).

None can deny that miraculous powers have been claimed by Christian

Churches from the time of Christ down to the present day, and that there

is no break which can be pointed to as the date at which these powers

ceased. "From the first of the Fathers to the last of the Popes a

succession of bishops, of saints, and of martyrs, and of miracles, is

continued without interruption; and the progress of superstition was so

gradual, and almost imperceptible, that we know not in what particular

link we should break the chain of tradition. Every age bears testimony

to the wonderful events by which it was distinguished; and its testimony

appears no less weighty and respectable than that of the preceding

generation, till we are insensibly led on to accuse our own

inconsistency, if in the eighth or in the twelfth century we deny to the

venerable Bede, or to the holy Bernard, the same degree of confidence

which, in the second century, we had so liberally granted to Justin or

to Irenæus. If the truth of any of those miracles is appreciated by

their apparent use and propriety, every age had unbelievers to convince,

heretics to confute, and idolatrous nations to convert; and sufficient

motives might always be produced to justify the interposition of heaven.

And yet, since every friend to revelation is persuaded of the reality,

and every reasonable man is convinced of the cessation, of miraculous

powers, it is evident that there must have been _some period_ in which

they were either suddenly or gradually withdrawn from the Christian

Church. Whatever era is chosen for that purpose, the death of the

Apostles, the conversion of the Roman empire, or the extinction of the

Arian heresy, the insensibility of the Christians who lived at that time

will equally afford a just matter of surprise. They still supported

their pretensions after they had lost their power. Credulity performed

the office of faith; fanaticism was permitted to assume the language of

inspiration; and the effects of accident or contrivance were ascribed to

supernatural causes. The recent experience of genuine miracles should

have instructed the Christian world in the ways of Providence, and

habituated their eye (if we may use a very inadequate expression) to the

style of the Divine Artist" (Gibbon's "Decline and Fall," vol. ii.,

chap, xv., p. 145). The miraculous powers were said to have been given

by Christ himself to his disciples. "These signs shall follow them that

believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with

mew tongues; they shall take up serpents; and, if they drink any deadly

thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and

they shall recover" (Mark xvi. 17, 18). This power is exercised by the

Apostles (see Acts throughout), by believers in the Churches (1 Cor.

xii. 9, 10; Gal. iii. 5; James v. 14, 15); at any rate, it was in force

in the time with which these books treat, according to the Christians.

Justus, surnamed Barsabas, drinks poison, and is unhurt (Eusebius, bk.

iii., chap. xxxix.). Polycarp's martyrdom, supposed to be in the next

generation, is accompanied by miracle (Epistle of Church of Smyrna;

Apostolical Fathers, p. 92; see ante, pp. 220, 221). At Hierapolis the

daughters of Philip the Apostle tell Papias how one was there raised

from the dead (Eusebius, bk. iii., ch. xxxix.). Justin Martyr pleads the

miracles worked in his own time in Rome itself (second "Apol.," ch.

vi.). Irenæus urges that the heretics cannot work miracles as can the

Catholics: "they can neither confer sight on the blind, nor hearing on

the deaf, nor chase away all sorts of demons ... nor can they cure the

weak, or the lame, or the paralytic" ("Against Heretics," bk. ii., ch.

xxxi., sec. 2). Tertullian encourages Christians to give up worldly

pleasures by reminding them of their grander powers: "what nobler than

to tread under foot the gods of the nations, to exorcise evil spirits,

to perform cures?" ("De Spectaculis," sec. 29). "Origen claims for

Christians the power still to expel demons, and to heal diseases, in the

name of Jesus; and he states that he had seen many persons so cured of

madness, and countless other evils" (quoted from "Origen against Celsus"

in "Sup. Rel.," vol. i., p. 154. A mass of evidence on this subject will

be found in chap. v. of this work, on "The Permanent Stream of

Miraculous Pretension"). St. Augustine's testimony has been already

referred to. St. Ambrose discovered the bones of SS. Gervasius and

Protasius; and "these relics were laid in the Faustinian Basilic, and

the next morning were translated into the Ambrosian Basilic; during

which translation a blind man, named Severus, a butcher by trade, was

cured by touching the bier on which the relics lay with a handkerchief,

and then applying it to his eyes. He had been blind several years, was

known to the whole city, and the miracle was performed before a

prodigious number of people; and is testified also by St. Austin

[Augustine], who was then at Milan, in three several parts of his works,

and by Paulinus in the Life of St. Ambrose" ("Lives of the Fathers,

Martyrs, etc.," by Rev. Alban Butler, vol. xii., pp. 1001, 1002; ed.

1838; published in two vols., each containing six vols.). The sacred

stigmata of St. Francis d'Assisi (died 1226) were seen and touched by

St. Bonaventure, Pope Alexander IV., Pope-Gregory IX., fifty friars,

many nuns, and innumerable crowds (Ibid, vol. x., pp. 582, 583). This

same saint underwent the operation of searing, and, "when the surgeon

was about to apply the searing-iron, the saint spoke to the fire,

saying: 'Brother fire, I beseech thee to burn me gently, that I may be

able to endure thee.' He was seared very deep, from the ear to the

eyebrow, but seemed to feel no pain at all" (Ibid, p. 575). The miracles

of St. Francis Xavier (died 1552) are borne witness to on all sides, and

resulted in the conversion of crowds of Indians; even so late as 1744,

when the Archbishop of Goa, by order of John V. of Portugal, attended by

the Viceroy, the Marquis of Castel Nuovo, visited the saint's relics,

"the body was found without the least bad smell," and had "not suffered

the least alteration, or symptom of corruption" (Ibid, vol. xii., p.

974). The chain of miracles extends right down to the present day. At

Lourdes, in this year (1876), the Virgin was crowned by the Cardinal

Archbishop of Paris in the presence of thirty-five prelates and one

hundred thousand people. During the mass performed at the Grotto by the

Nuncio, Madeleine Lancereau, of Poictiers, aged 61, known by a large

number of the pilgrims as having been unable to walk without crutches

for nineteen years, was radically cured. Here is a better authenticated

miracle than anyone in the Gospel story; yet no Protestant even cares to

investigate the matter, or believes its truth to be within the limits of

possibility. Thus we see that not a century has, passed since A.D. 30

which has not been thickly sown with miracles, and there is no reason

why we should believe in the miracles of the first century, and reject

those of the following eighteen; nor is the first century even "the

beginning of miracles," for before that date Jewish and Pagan miracles

are to be found in abundance. Why should Bible miracles be severed from

their relations all over the world, so that belief in them is

commendable faith, while belief in the rest is reprehensible credulity?

"The fact is, however, that the Gospel miracles were preceded and

accompanied by others of the same type; and we may here merely mention

exorcism of demons, and the miraculous cure of disease, as popular

instances; they were also followed by a long succession of others, quite

as well authenticated, whose occurrence only became less frequent in

proportion as the diffusion of knowledge dispelled popular credulity.

Even at the present day a stray miracle is from time to time reported in

outlying districts, where the ignorance and superstition which formerly

produced so abundant a growth of them are not yet entirely dispelled"

("Sup. Rel.," vol. i., p. 148). "Ignorance, and its invariable

attendant, superstition, have done more than mere love of the marvellous

to produce and perpetuate belief in miracles, and there cannot be any

doubt that the removal of ignorance always leads to the cessation of

miracles" (Ibid, p. 144).

Special objection has often been raised against one class of

miracles--common to the Gospels and to all miraculous narratives--which

has severely taxed the faith even of the Christians themselves--that

class, namely, which consists of the healing of those "possessed with

devils." Exorcism has always been a favourite kind of miracle, but, in

these days, very few believe in the possibility of possession, and the

language of the Evangelists on the subject has consequently given rise

to much trouble of mind. Prebendary Row, in a work on "The Supernatural

in the New Testament Possible, Credible, and Historical"--one of the

volumes issued by the Christian Evidence Society in answer to

"Supernatural Religion"--deals fully with this difficulty; it has been

urged that possession was simply a form of mania, and on this Mr. Row

say: "Now, on the assumption that possession was simple mania, and

nothing more, the following suppositions are the only possible ones.

First, that our Lord really distinguished between mania and possession;

but that the Evangelists have inaccurately reported his words and

actions, through the media of their own subjective impressions, or, in

short, have attributed to him language that he did not really utter.

Second, that our Lord knew that possession was a form of mania, and

adopted the current notions of the time in speaking of it, and that the

words were really uttered by him. Third, that with similar knowledge, he

adopted the language as part of the curative process. Fourth, that he

accepted the validity of the distinction, and that it was a real one

during those times" ("Supernatural in the New Testament," pp. 251, 252).

Mr. Row argues that: "If possession be mania, there is nothing in the

language which the Evangelists have attributed to our Lord which

compromises the truthfulness of his character. If, on the other hand, we

assume that possession was an objective fact, there is nothing in our

existing scientific knowledge of the human mind which proves that the

possessions of the New Testament were impossible" (Ibid). Mr. Row

rejects the first alternative, and accepts the accuracy of the Evangelic

records. But he considers that if possession were simply mania, Jesus,

knowing the nature of the disease, might reasonably use language suited

to the delusion, as most likely to effect a cure; he could not argue

with a maniac that he was under a delusion, but would rightly use

whatever method was best fitted to ensure recovery. If this idea be

rejected, and the reality of demoniacal possession maintained as most

consonant with the behaviour of Jesus, then Mr. Row argues that there is

no reason to consider it impossible that either good or evil spirits

should be able to influence man, and that psychological science does not

warrant us in a denial of the possibility of such influence.

The utter uselessness of miracles--supposing them to be possible--is

worthy of remembrance. They must not be accepted as proofs of a divine

mission, for false prophets can work them as well as true (Deut. xiii.,

1-5; Matt. xxiv., 24; 2 Thess. ii., 9; Rev. xiii., 13-15, etc.) and it

may be that God himself works them to deceive (Deut. xiii., 3). Satan

can work miracles to authenticate the false doctrines of his

emissaries, and there is no test whereby to distinguish the miracle

worked by God from the miracle worked by Satan. Hence a miracle is

utterly useless, for the credibility of a teacher rests on the morality

that he teaches, and if this is good, it is accepted without a miracle

to attest its goodness, so that the attesting miracle is superfluous. If

it is bad, it is rejected in spite of a miracle to attest its authority,

so that the attesting miracle is deceptive. The only use of a miracle

might be to attest a revelation of otherwise unknowable facts, which had

nothing to do with any moral teaching; and seeing that such revelation

could not be investigated, as it dealt with the unknowable, it would be

highly dangerous--and, perhaps, blasphemous--to accept it on the faith

of the miracle, for it might quite as likely be a revelation made by

Satan to injure, as by God to benefit, mankind. Allowing that God and

Satan exist, it would seem likely--judging Christianity by its

fruits--that the Christian religion is such a malevolent revelation of

the evil one.

The objection we raise is, however, of far wider scope than the

assertion of the lack of evidence for the New Testament miracles; it is

against all, and not only against Christian, miracles. "As far as the

impossibility of supernatural occurrences is concerned, Pantheism and

Atheism occupy precisely the same grounds. If either of them propounds a

true theory of the universe, any supernatural occurrence, which

necessarily implies a supernatural agent to bring it about, is

impossible, and the entire controversy as to whether miracles have ever

been actually performed is a foregone conclusion. Modern Atheism, while

it does not venture in categorical terms to affirm that no God exists,

definitely asserts that there is no evidence that there is one. It

follows that, if there is no evidence that there is a God, there can be

no evidence that a miracle ever has been performed, for the very idea of

a miracle implies the idea of a God to work one. If, therefore, Atheism

is true, all controversy about miracles is useless. They are simply

impossible, and to inquire whether an impossible event has happened is

absurd. To such a person the historical inquiry, as far as a miracle is

concerned, must be a foregone conclusion. It might have a little

interest as a matter of curiosity; but even if the most unequivocal

evidence could be adduced that an occurrence such as we call

supernatural had taken place, the utmost that it could prove would be

that some most extraordinary and abnormal fact had taken place in nature

of which we did not know the cause. But to prove a miracle to any person

who consistently denies that he has any evidence that any being exists

which is not a portion of and included in the material universe, or

developed out of it, is impossible" ("The Supernatural in the New

Testament," by Prebendary Row, pp. 14, 15). We maintain that Nature

includes _everything_, and that, therefore, the _supernatural_ is an

impossibility. Every new fact, however marvellous, must, therefore, be

within Nature; and while our ignorance may for awhile prevent us from

knowing in what category the newly-observed phenomenon should be

classed, it is none the less certain that wider knowledge will allot to

it its own place, and that more careful observation will reduce it under

law, i.e., within the observed sequence or concurrence of phenomena. The

natural, to the unthinking, coincides with their own knowledge, and

supernatural, to them, simply means super-known; therefore, in ignorant

ages, miracles are every-day occurrences, and as knowledge widens the

miraculous diminishes. The books of unscientific ages--that is, all

early literature--are full of miraculous events, and it may be taken as

an axiom of criticism that the miraculous is unhistorical.

(2). _The numerous contradictions of each by the others._--We shall here

only present a few of the most glaring contradictions in the Gospels,

leaving untouched a mass of minor discrepancies. We find the principal

of these when we compare the three synoptics with the Fourth Gospel, but

there are some irreconcilable differences even between the three. The

contradictory genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke--farther

complicated, in part, by a third discordant genealogy in

Chronicles--have long been the despair of Christian harmonists. "On

comparing these lists, we find that between David and Christ there are

only two names which occur in both Matthew and Luke--those of Zorobabel

and of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus. In tracing the list

downwards from David there would be less difficulty in explaining this,

at least, to a certain point, for Matthew follows the line of Solomon,

and Luke that of Nathan--both of whom were sons of David. But even in

the downward line, on reaching Salathiel, where the two genealogies

again come into contact, we find, to our astonishment, that in Luke he

is the son of Neri, whilst in Matthew his father's name is Jechonias.

From Zorobabel downwards, the lists are again divergent, until we reach

Joseph, who in St. Luke is placed as the son of Heli, whilst in St.

Matthew his father's name is Jacob" ("Christian Records," Dr. Giles, p.

101). According to Chronicles, Jotham is the great-great-grandson of

Ahaziah; according to Matthew, he is his son (admitting that the Ahaziah

of Chronicles is the Ozias of Matthew); according to Chronicles,

Jechonias is the grandson of Josiah, according to Matthew, he is his

son; according to Chronicles, Zorababel is the son of Pedaiah, according

to Matthew, he is the son of Salathiel, according to Luke, he is the son

of Neri; according to Chronicles, Zorobabel left eight children, but

neither Matthew's Abiud, nor Luke's Rhesa, are among them. The same

discordance is found when Matthew and Luke again touch each other in

Joseph, the husband of Mary; according to the one, Jacob begat Joseph,

according to the other, Joseph was the son of Heli. To crown the

absurdity of the whole, we are given two genealogies of Joseph, who is

no relation to Jesus at all, if the story of the virgin-birth be true,

while none is given of Mary, through whom alone Jesus is said to have

derived his humanity. We have, therefore, no genealogy at all of Jesus

in the Gospels. Various theories have been put forward to reconcile the

irreconcilable; some say that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, of

which supposition it is enough to remark that "Mary, the daughter of,"

can scarcely be indicated by "Joseph, the son of." It is also said that

Joseph was legally the son of Jacob, although naturally the son of Heli,

it being supposed that Jacob died childless, and that his brother Heli

according to the Levitical law, married the widow of Jacob; but here

Joseph's grand-fathers and great-grand-fathers should be the same, Heli

and Jacob being supposed to be brothers. Besides, if Joseph were legally

the son of Jacob, only the genealogy of Jacob should be given, since

that only would be Joseph's genealogy. No man can reckon his paternal

ancestry through two differing lines. To make matters in yet more

hopeless confusion, we find Chronicles giving twenty-two generations

where Matthew gives seventeen, and Luke twenty-three; while, from David

to Christ, Matthew reckons twenty-eight and Luke forty-three, a most

marvellous discrepancy.

"If we compare the genealogies of Matthew and Luke together, we become

aware of still more striking discrepancies. Some of these differences

indeed are unimportant, as the opposite direction of the two tables....

More important is the considerable difference in the number of

generations for equal periods, Luke having forty-one between David and

Jesus, whilst Matthew has only twenty-six. The main difficulty, however,

lies in this: that in some parts of the genealogy in Luke totally

different persons are made the ancestors of Jesus from those in Matthew.

It is true, both writers agree in deriving the lineage of Jesus through

Joseph from David and Abraham, and that the names of the individual

members of the series correspond from Abraham to David, as well as two

of the names in the subsequent portion: those of Salathiel and

Zorobabel. But the difficulty becomes desperate when we find that, with

these two exceptions about midway, the whole of the names from David to

the foster father of Jesus are totally different in Matthew and in Luke.

In Matthew the father of Joseph is called Jacob; in Luke, Heli. In

Matthew the son of David through whom Joseph descended from that King is

Solomon; in Luke, Nathan; and so on, the line descends, in Matthew,

through the race of known Kings; in Luke, through an unknown collateral

branch, coinciding only with respect to Salathiel and Zorobabel, whilst

they still differ in the names of the father of Salathiel and the son of

Zorobabel.... A consideration of the insurmountable difficulties, which

unavoidably embarrass every attempt to bring these two genealogies into

harmony with one another, will lead us to despair of reconciling them,

and will incline us to acknowledge, with the more free-thinking class of

critics, that they are mutually contradictory. Consequently, they cannot

both be true.... In fact, then, neither table has any advantage over the

other. If the one is unhistorical, so also is the other, since it is

very improbable that the genealogy of an obscure family like that of

Joseph, extending through so long a series of generations, should have

been preserved during all the confusion of the exile, and the disturbed

period that followed.... According to the prophecies, the Messiah could

only spring from David. When, therefore, a Galilean, whose lineage was

utterly unknown, and of whom consequently no one could prove that he was

not descended from David, had acquired the reputation of being the

Messiah; what more natural than that tradition should, under different

forms, have early ascribed to him a Davidical descent, and that

genealogical tables, corresponding with this tradition, should have been

formed? which, however, as they were constructed upon no certain data,

would necessarily exhibit such differences and contradictions as we find

actually existing between the genealogies in Matthew and in Luke" ("Life

of Jesus," by Strauss, vol. i., pp. 130, 131, and 137-139).

The accounts of the several angelic warnings to Mary and to Joseph

appear to be mutually exclusive. Most theologians, says Strauss,

"maintaining, and justly, that the silence of one Evangelist concerning

an event which is narrated by the other, is not a negation of the event,

they blend the two accounts together in the following manner: 1, the

angel makes known to Mary her approaching pregnancy (Luke); 2, she then

journeys to Elizabeth (the same Gospel); 3, after her return, her

situation being discovered, Joseph takes offence (Matthew); whereupon,

4, he likewise is visited by an angelic apparition (the same Gospel).

But this arrangement of the incidents is, as Schliermacher has already

remarked, full of difficulty; and it seems that what is related by one

Evangelist is not only pre-supposed, but excluded, by the other. For, in

the first place, the conduct of the angel who appears to Joseph is not

easily explained, if the same, or another, angel had previously appeared

to Mary. The angel (in Matthew) speaks altogether as if his

communication were the first in this affair. He neither refers to the

message previously received by Mary, nor reproaches Joseph because he

had not believed it; but, more than all, the informing Joseph of the

name of the expected child, and the giving him a full detail of the

reasons why he should be so called (Mat. i. 21), would have been wholly

superfluous had the angel (according to Luke i. 31) already indicated

this name to Mary. Still more incomprehensible is the conduct of the

betrothed parties, according to this arrangement of events. Had Mary

been visited by an angel, who had made known to her an approaching

supernatural pregnancy, would not the first impulse of a delicate woman

have been to hasten to impart to her betrothed the import of the divine

message, and by this means to anticipate the humiliating discovery of

her situation, and an injurious suspicion on the part of her affianced

husband? But exactly this discovery Mary allows Joseph to make from

others, and thus excites suspicion; for it is evident that the

expression [Greek: heurethae en gastri echousa] (Mat. i. 18) signifies a

discovery made independent of any communication on Mary's part, and it

is equally clear that in this manner only does Joseph obtain the

knowledge of her situation, since his conduct is represented as the

result of that discovery [Greek: (euriskesthai)]" ("Life of Jesus," v.

i., pp. 146, 147).

Strauss gives a curious list, showing the gradual growth of the myth

relating to the birth of Jesus (we may remark No. 3 is distinctly out of

place when referred to Olshausen: it should be referred to the early

Fathers, from whom Olshausen derived it):--

"1. Contemporaries of Jesus and composers of the genealogies: Joseph and

Mary man and wife--Jesus the offspring of their marriage.

"2. The age and authors of our histories of the birth of Jesus: Mary and

Joseph betrothed only; Joseph having no participation in the conception

of the child, and, previous to his birth, no conjugal connection with

Mary.

"3. Olshausen and others: subsequent to the birth of Jesus, Joseph,

though then the husband of Mary, relinquishes his matrimonial rights.

"4. Epiphanius, Protevangelium, Jacobi, and others: Joseph a decrepit

old man, no longer to be thought of as a husband; the children

attributed to him are of a former marriage. More especially it is not as

a bride and wife that he receives Mary; he takes her merely under his

guardianship.

"5. Protevang., Chrysostom, and others: Mary's virginity was not only

not destroyed by any subsequent births of children by Joseph, it was not

in the slightest degree impaired by the birth of Jesus.

"6. Jerome: Not Mary only, but Joseph also, observed an absolute

virginity, and the pretended brothers of Jesus were not his sons, hut

merely cousins to Jesus" ("Life of Jesus," vol. i., p. 188).

Thus we see how a myth gradually forms itself, bit after bit being added

to it, until the story is complete.

The account given by Luke of the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary is

clearly mythical, and not historical: "Apart from the intention of the

narrator, can it be thought natural that two friends visiting one

another should, even in the midst of the most extraordinary occurrences,

break forth into long hymns, and that their conversation should entirely

lose the character of dialogue, the natural form on such occasions? By a

supernatural influence alone could the minds of the two friends be

attuned to a state of elevation, so foreign to their every-day life. But

if indeed Mary's hymn is to be understood as the work of the Holy

Spirit, it is surprising that a speech emanating immediately from the

divine source of inspiration should not be more striking for its

originality, but should be so interlarded with reminiscences from the

Old Testament, borrowed from the song of praise spoken by the mother of

Samuel (1 Sam. ii) under analogous circumstances. Accordingly, we must

admit that the compilation of this hymn, consisting of recollections

from the Old Testament, was put together in a natural way; but allowing

its composition to have been perfectly natural, it cannot be ascribed to

the artless Mary, but to him who poetically wrought out the tradition in

circulation respecting the scene in question" ("Life of Jesus," by

Strauss, vol. i., pp. 196, 197).

The notes of time given for the birth of Christ are irreconcilable.

According to Matthew he is born in the reign of Herod the King:

according to Luke, he is born six months after John Baptist, whose birth

is referred to the reign of the same monarch; yet in Luke, he is also

born at the time of the census, which must have taken place at least ten

years later; thus Luke contradicts Matthew, and also contradicts

himself. The discrepancies surrounding the birth are not yet complete;

passing the curious differences between Matthew and Luke, Matthew

knowing nothing about the visit of the shepherds, and Luke nothing of

the visit of the Magi, and the consequent slaughter of the babes, we

come to a direct conflict between the Evangelists; Matthew informs us

that Joseph, Mary, and the child, fled into Egypt from Bethlehem to

avoid the wrath of King Herod, and that they were returning to Judæa,

when Joseph, hearing that Archelaus was ruling there, turned aside to

Galilee, and came and dwelt "in a city called Nazareth." Luke, on the

contrary, says that when the days of Mary's purification were

accomplished they took the child up to Jerusalem, and presented him in

the Temple, and then, after this, returned to Galilee, to "their own

city, Nazareth." Moreover, had Herod wanted to find him, he could have

taken him at the Temple, where his presentation caused much commotion.

In Matthew, the turning into Galilee is clearly a new thing; in Luke, it

is returning home; and in Luke there is no space of time wherein the

flight into Egypt can by any possibility be inserted. We may add a

wonder why Galilee was a safer residence than Judæa, since Antipas, its

ruler, was a son of Herod, and would, _primâ facie_, be as dangerous as

his brother Archelaus.

The conduct of Herod is incredible if we accept Matthew's account:

"Herod's first anxious question to the magi is to ascertain the time of

the appearance of the star. He 'inquires diligently' (ii. 7); and he

must have had a motive for so doing. What was this motive? Could he have

any other purpose than that of determining the age under which no

infants in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem should be allowed to live?

But, according to the narrative, Herod never conceived the idea of

slaughtering the children till he found that he had been 'mocked of the

wise men;' and the mythical nature of the story is betrayed by this

anticipation of motives which, at the time spoken of could have no

existence. Yet, further, Herod, who, though in a high degree cruel,

unjust, and unscrupulous, is represented as a man of no slight sagacity,

clearness of purpose, and strength of will, and who feels a deadly

jealousy of an infant whom he _knows_ to have been recently born in

Bethlehem, a place only a few miles distant from Jerusalem, is here

described not as sending his own emissaries privately to put him to

death, or despatching them with the Magi, or detaining the Magi at

Jerusalem, until he had ascertained the truth of their tale, and the

correctness of the answer of the priests and scribes, but as simply

suffering the Magi to go by themselves, at the same time charging them

to return with the information for which he had shown himself so

feverishly anxious. This strange conduct can be accounted for only on

the ground of a judicial blindness; but they who resort to such an

explanation must suppose that it was inflicted in order to save the

new-born Christ from the death thus threatened; and if they adopt this

hypothesis, they must further believe that this arrangement likewise

ensured the death of a large number of infants instead of one. A natural

reluctance to take up such a notion might prompt the question, Why were

the Magi brought to Jerusalem at all? If they knew that the star was the

star of Christ (ii. 2), and were by this knowledge conducted to

Jerusalem, why did it not suffice to guide them straight to Bethlehem,

and thus prevent the slaughter of the innocents? Why did the star desert

them after its first appearance, not to be seen again till they issued

from Jerusalem? or, if it did not desert them, why did they ask of Herod

and the priests the road which they should take, when, by the

hypothesis, the star was ready to guide?" ("The English Life of Jesus,"

by Thomas Scott, pp. 34, 35; ed. 1872). To these improbabilities must be

added the remarkable fact that Josephus, who gives a very detailed

history of Herod, entirely omits any hint of this stupendous crime.

The story of the temptation of Jesus is full of contradictions. Matthew

iv. 2, 3, implies that the first visit of the tempter was made _after_

the forty days' fast, while Mark and Luke speak of his being tempted for

forty days. According to Matthew, the angels came to him when the Devil

left him; but, according to Mark, they ministered to him throughout.

According to Matthew, the temptation to cast himself down is the second

trial, and the offer of the kingdoms of the world the third: in Luke the

order is reversed. In additions to these contradictions, we must note

the absurdity of the story. The Devil "set him on a pinnacle of the

temple." Did Jesus and the Devil go flying through the air together,

till the Devil put Jesus down? What did the people in the courts below

think of the Devil and a man standing on a point of the temple in the

full sight of Jerusalem? Did so unusual an occurrence cause no

astonishment in the city? Where is the high mountain from which Jesus

and the Devil saw all round the globe? Is it true that the Devil gives

power to whom he will? If so, why is it said that the powers are

"ordained of God"?

Another "discrepancy, concerning the denial of Christ by Peter,

furnishes a still stronger proof that these records have not come down

to us with the exactness of a contemporary character, much less with the

authority of inspiration. The four accounts of Peter's denial vary

considerably. The variations will be more intelligible, exhibited in a

tabular form" (Giles' "Christian Records," p. 228). We present the

table, slightly altered in arrangement, and corrected in some details:--

MATTHEW. MARK. LUKE. JOHN.

1st. Seated without Beneath in In the On entering

in the the palace, by midst of the to the

palace, to a the fire, to a hall where damsel that

damsel. maid. Jesus was kept the

being tried, door.

seated by

the fire, to a

maid.

2nd. Out in the Out in the Still in the In the hall,

porch, having porch, having hall, in standing by

left the room, left the room, answer to a the fire, in

in answer to in answer to man. answer to the

a second a second bystanders.

maid. maid.

3rd. Out in the Out in the Still in the Still in the

porch, to the porch, to the hall, to a man. hall, to a

bystanders. bystanders. man.

In addition to these discrepancies, we find that Jesus prophesies that

Peter shall deny him thrice "before the cock crow," while in Mark the

cock crows immediately after the first denial: in Luke, Jesus and Peter

remain throughout the scene of the denial in the same hall, so that the

Lord may turn and look upon Peter; while Matthew and Mark place him

"beneath" or "without," and make the third denial take place in the

porch outside--a place where Jesus, by the context, certainly could not

see him.

How long did the ministry of Jesus last? Luke places his baptism in the

fifteenth year of Tiberius (iii. 1), and he might have been crucified

under Pontius Pilate at any time within the seven years following. The

Synoptics mention but one Passover, and at that Jesus was crucified,

thus limiting his ministry to one year, unless he broke the Mosaic law,

and disregarded the feast; clearly his triumphal entry into Jerusalem is

his first visit there in his manhood, since we find all the city moved

and the people asking: "Who is this? And the multitude said, This is

Jesus the Prophet of Nazareth of Galilee" (Matt. xxi. 10, 11). His

person would have been well known, had he visited Jerusalem before and

worked miracles there. If, however, we turn to the Fourth Gospel, his

ministry must extend over at least two years. According to Irenæus, he

"did not want much of being fifty years old" when the Jews disputed with

him ("Against Heresies," bk. ii., ch. 22, sec. 6), and he taught for

nearly twenty years. Dr. Giles remarks that "the first three Gospels

plainly exhibit the events of only one year; to prove them erroneous or

defective in so important a feature as this, would be to detract greatly

from their value" ("Christian Records," p. 112). "According to the first

three Gospels, Christ's public life lasted only one year, at the end of

which he went up to Jerusalem and was crucified" (Ibid, p. 11). "Would

this questioning [on the triumphal entry] have taken place if Jesus had

often made visits to Jerusalem, and been well known there? The multitude

who answered the question, and who knew Jesus, consisted of those 'who

had come to the feast,'--St. John indicates this [xii. 12]--but the

people of Jerusalem knew him not, and, therefore, asked 'Who is this?'"

(Ibid, p. 113). The fact is, that we know nothing certainly as to the

birth, life, death, of this supposed Christ. His story is one tissue of

contradictions. It is impossible to believe that the Synoptics and the

fourth Gospel are even telling the history of the same person. The

discourses of Jesus in the Synoptics are simple, although parabolical;

in the Fourth they are mystical, and are being continually misunderstood

by the people. The historical divergences are marked. The fourth Gospel

"tells us (ch. 1) that at the beginning of his ministry Jesus was at

Bethabara, a town near the junction of the Jordan with the Dead Sea;

here he gains three disciples, Andrew and another, and then Simon Peter:

the next day he goes into Galilee and finds Philip and Nathanael, and on

the following day--somewhat rapid travelling--he is present, with these

disciples, at Cana, where he performs his first miracle, going

afterwards with them to Capernaum and Jerusalem. At Jerusalem, whither

he goes for 'the Jews' passover,' he drives out the traders from the

temple and remarks, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise

it up:' which remark causes the first of the strange misunderstandings

between Jesus and the Jews peculiar to this Gospel, simple

misconceptions which Jesus never troubles himself to set right. Jesus

and his disciples then go to the Jordan, baptising, whence Jesus departs

into Galilee with them, because he hears that the Pharisees know he is

becoming more popular than the Baptist (ch. iv., 1, 3). All this happens

before John is cast into prison, an occurrence which is a convenient

note of time. We turn to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as

related by the three. Jesus is in the south of Palestine, but, hearing

that John is cast into prison, he departs into Galilee, and resides at

Capernaum. There is no mention of any ministry in Galilee and Judæa

before this; on the contrary, it is only 'from that time' that 'Jesus

_began_ to preach.' He is alone, without disciples, but, walking by the

sea, he comes upon Peter, Andrew, James, and John, and calls them. Now

if the fourth Gospel is true, these men had joined him in Judæa,

followed him to Galilee, south again to Jerusalem, and back to Galilee,

had seen his miracles and acknowledged him as Christ, so it seems

strange that they had deserted him and needed a second call, and yet

more strange is it that Peter (Luke v. 1-11) was so astonished and

amazed at the miracle of the fishes. The driving out of the traders from

the temple is placed by the Synoptics at the very end of his ministry,

and the remark following it is used against him at his trial: so was

probably made just before it. The next point of contact is the history

of the 5,000 fed by five loaves (ch. vi.); the preceding chapter relates

to a visit to Jerusalem unnoticed by the three: indeed, the histories

seem written of two men, one the 'prophet of Galilee' teaching in its

cities, the other concentrating his energies on Jerusalem. The account

of the miraculous feeding is alike in all: not so the succeeding account

of the multitude. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus and the crowd fall to

disputing, as usual, and he loses many disciples: among the three, Luke

says nothing of the immediately following events, while Matthew and Mark

tell us that the multitudes--as would be natural--crowded round him to

touch even the hem of his garment. This is the same as always: in the

three the crowd loves him; in the fourth it carps at and argues with

him. We must again miss the sojourn of Jesus in Galilee according to the

three, and his visit to Jerusalem according to the one, and pass to his

entry into Jerusalem in triumph. Here we notice a most remarkable

divergence: the Synoptics tell us that he was going up to Jerusalem from

Galilee, and, arriving on his way at Bethphage, he sent for an ass and

rode thereon into Jerusalem: the fourth Gospel relates that he was

dwelling at Jerusalem, and leaving it, for fear of the Jews, he retired,

not into Galilee, but 'beyond Jordan, into a place where John at first

baptised,' i.e., Bethabara, 'and _there he abode_.' From thence he went

to Bethany and raised to life a putrefying corpse: this stupendous

miracle is never appealed to by the earlier historians in proof of their

master's greatness, though 'much people of the Jews' are said to have

seen Lazarus after his resurrection; this miracle is also given as the

reason for the active hostility of the priests, 'from that day forward.'

Jesus then retires to Ephraim near the wilderness, from which town he

goes to Bethany, and thence in triumph to Jerusalem, being met by the

people 'for that they heard that he had done this miracle.' The two

accounts have absolutely nothing in common except the entry into

Jerusalem, and the preceding events of the Synoptics exclude those of

the fourth Gospel, as does the latter theirs. If Jesus abode in

Bethabara and Ephraim, he could not have come from Galilee; if he

started from Galilee, he was not abiding in the south. John xiii.-xvii.

stand alone, with the exception of the mention of the traitor. On the

arrest of Jesus, he is led (ch. xviii. 13) to Annas, who sends him to

Caiaphas, while the others send him direct to Caiaphas, but this is

immaterial. He is then taken to Pilate: the Jews do not enter the

judgment-hall, lest, being defiled, they could not eat the passover, a

feast which, according to the Synoptics, was over, Jesus and his

disciples having eaten it the night before. Jesus is exposed to the

people at the sixth hour (ch. xix. 14), while Mark tells us he was

crucified three hours before--at the third hour--a note of time which

agrees with the others, since they all relate that there was darkness

from the sixth to the ninth hour, i.e., there was thick darkness at the

time when, 'according to St. John,' Jesus was exposed. Here our

evangelist is in hopeless conflict with the three. The accounts about

the resurrection are irreconcilable in all the Gospels, and mutually

destructive. It remains to notice, among these discrepancies, one or two

points which did not come in conveniently in the course of the

narrative. During the whole of the fourth Gospel, we find Jesus

constantly arguing for his right to the title of Messiah. Andrew speaks

of him as such (i. 41); the Samaritans acknowledge him (iv. 42); Peter

owns him (vi. 69); the people call him so (vii. 26, 31, 41); Jesus

claims it (viii. 24); it is the subject of a law (ix. 22); Jesus speaks

of it as already claimed by him (x. 24, 25); Martha recognises it (xi.

27). We thus find that, from the very first, this title is openly

claimed by Jesus, and his right to it openly canvassed by the Jews.

But--in the three--the disciples acknowledge him as Christ, and he

charges them to 'tell _no man_ that he was Jesus the Christ" (Matt. xvi.

20; Mark viii. 29, 30; Luke ix. 20, 21); and this in the same year that

he blames the Jews for not owning this Messiahship, since he had told

them who he was 'from the beginning' (ch. viii. 24, 25): so that, if

'John' was right, we fail to see the object of all the mystery about it,

related by the Synoptics. We mark, too, how Peter is, in their account,

praised for confessing him, for flesh and blood had not revealed it to

him, while in the fourth Gospel, 'flesh and blood,' in the person of

Andrew, reveal to Peter that the Christ is found; and there seems little

praise due to Peter for a confession which had been made two or three

years earlier by Andrew, Nathanael, John Baptist, and the Samaritans.

Contradiction can scarcely be more direct. In John vii. Jesus owns that

the Jews know his birthplace (28), and they state (41, 42) that he comes

from Galilee, while Christ should be born at Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke

distinctly say Jesus was born at Bethlehem; but here Jesus confesses the

right knowledge of those who attribute his birthplace to Galilee,

instead of setting their difficulty at rest by explaining that though

brought up at Nazareth he was born in Bethlehem. But our writer was

apparently ignorant of their accounts ("According to St John," by Annie

Besant. Scott Series, pp. 11-14, ed. 1873). These are but a few of the

contradictions in the Gospels, which compel us to reject them as

historical narratives.

(3) _The fact that the story of the hero, the doctrines, the miracles,

were current long before the supposed dates of the Gospels_, etc. There

are two mythical theories as to the growth of the story of Jesus, which

demand our attention; the first, that of which Strauss is the best known

exponent, which acknowledges the historical existence of Jesus, but

regards him as the figure round which has grown a mythus, moulded by the

Messianic expectations of the Jews: the second, which is indifferent to

his historical existence, and regards him as a new hero of the ancient

sun-worship, the successor of Mithra, Krishna, Osiris, Bacchus, etc. To

this school, it matters not whether there was a Jesus of Nazareth or

not, just as it matters not whether a Krishna or an Osiris had an

historical existence or not; it is _Christ_, the Sun-god, not _Jesus_,

the Jewish peasant, whom they find worshipped in Christendom, and who

is, therefore, the object of their interest.

According to the first theory, whatever was expected of the Messiah has

been attributed to Jesus. "When not merely the particular nature and

manner of an occurrence is critically suspicious, its external

circumstances represented as miraculous and the like; but where likewise

the essential substance and groundwork is either inconceivable in

itself, or is in striking harmony with some Messianic idea of the Jews

of that age, then not the particular alleged course and mode of the

transaction only, but the entire occurrence must be regarded as

unhistorical" (Strauss' "Life of Jesus," vol. i., p. 94). The mythic

theory accepts an historical groundwork for many of the stories about

Jesus, but it does not seek to explain the miraculous by attenuating it

into the natural--as by explaining the story of the transfiguration to

have been developed from the fact of Jesus meeting secretly two men, and

from the brilliancy of the sunlight dazzling the eyes of the

disciples--but it attributes the incredible portions of the history to

the Messianic theories current among the Jews. The Messiah would do this

and that; Jesus was the Messiah; therefore, Jesus did this and

that--such, argue the supporters of the mythical theory, was the method

in which the mythus was developed. The theory finds some support in the

peculiar attitude of Justin Martyr, for instance, who believes a number

of things about Jesus, not because the things are thus recorded of him

in history, but because the prophets stated that such things should

happen to the Messiah. Thus, Jesus is descended from David, because the

Messiah was to come of David's lineage. His birth is announced by an

angelic visitant, because the birth of the Messiah must not be less

honoured than that of Isaac or of Samson; he is born of a virgin,

because God says of the Messiah, "this day have _I_ begotten thee,"

implying the direct paternity of God, and because the prophecy in Is.

vii. 14 was applied to the Messiah by the later Jews (see Septuagint

translation, [Greek: parthenos], _a pure virgin_, while the Hebrew word

[Hebrew: almah] signifies a young woman; the Hebrew word for virgin

[Hebrew: betulah] not being used in the text of Isaiah), the ideas of

"son of God" and "son of a virgin" completing each other; born at

Bethlehem, because there the Messiah was to be born (Micah v. 1);

announced to shepherds, because Moses was visited among the flocks, and

David taken from the sheepfolds at Bethlehem; heralded by a star,

because a star should arise out of Jacob (Num. xxiv. 17), and "the

Gentiles shall come to thy light" (Is. lx. 3); worshipped by magi,

because the star was seen by Balaam, the magus, and astrologers would be

those who would most notice a star; presented with gifts by these

Eastern sages, because kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer gifts (Ps.

lxxii. 10); saved from the destruction of the infants by a jealous king,

because Moses, one of the great types of the Messiah, was so saved;

flying into Egypt and thence returning, because Israel, again a type of

the Messiah, so fled and returned, and "out of Egypt have I called my

son" (Hos. xi. 1); at twelve years of age found in the temple, because

the duties of the law devolved on the Jewish boy at that age, and where

should the Messiah then be found save in his Father's temple? recognised

at his baptism by a divine voice, to fulfil Is. xlii. 1; hovered over by

a dove, because the brooding Spirit (Gen. i. 2) was regarded as

dove-like, and the Spirit was to be especially poured on the Messiah

(Is. xlii. 1); tempted by the devil to test him, because God tested his

greatest servants, and would surely test the Messiah; fasting forty days

in the wilderness, because the types of the Messiah--Moses and

Elijah--thus fasted in the desert; healing all manner of disease,

because Messiah was to heal (Is. xxxv. 5, 6); preaching, because Messiah

was to preach (Is. lxi. 1, 2); crucified, because the hands and feet of

Messiah were to be pierced (Ps. xxii. 16); mocked, because Messiah was

to be mocked (Ibid 6-8); his garments divided, because thus it was

spoken of Messiah (Ibid, 18); silent before his judges, because Messiah

was not to open his mouth (Is. liii. 7); buried by the rich, because

Messiah was thus to find his grave (Ib. 9); rising again, because

Messiah's could not be left in hell (Ps. xvi. 10); sitting at God's

right hand, because there Messiah was to sit as king (Ps. cx. 1). Thus

the form of the Messiah was cast, and all that had to be done was to

pour in the human metal; those who alleged that the Messiah had come in

the person of Jesus of Nazareth, adapted his story to the story of the

Messiah, pouring the history of Jesus into the mould already made for

the Messiah, and thus the mythus was transformed into a history.

This theory is much strengthened by a study of the prophecies quoted in

the New Testament, since we find that they are very badly "set;" take as

a specimen those referred to in Matthew i. and ii. "Now all this was

done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the

prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child," etc (i. 22, 23).

If we refer to Is. vii., from whence the prophecy is taken, we shall see

the wresting of the passage which is necessary to make it into a

"Messianic prophecy." Ahaz, king of Judah, is hard pressed by the kings

of Samaria and Syria, and he is promised deliverance by the Lord, before

the virgin's son, Immanuel, should be of an age to discern between good

and evil. How Ahaz could be given as a sign of a birth which was not to

take place until more than 700 years afterwards, it is hard to say, nor

can we believe that Ahaz was not delivered from his enemies until Jesus

was old enough to know right from wrong. According to the Gospels, the

name "Immanuel" was never given to Jesus, and in the prophecy is

bestowed on the child simply as a promise that, "God" being "with us,"

Judah should be delivered from its foes. The same child is clearly

spoken of as the child of Isaiah and his wife in Is. viii. 3, 4; and in

verses 6-8 we find that the two kings of Samaria and Syria are to be

conquered by the king of Assyria, who shall fill "thy land, O

_Immanuel!_" thus referring distinctly to the promised child as living

in that time. The Hebrew word translated "virgin" does not, as we have

already shown, mean "a pure virgin," as translated in the Septuagint. It

is used for a young woman, a marriageable woman, or even to describe a

woman who is being embraced by a man. Micah's supposed prophecy in Matt.

ii. 5, 6, is as inapplicable to Christ as that of Isaiah. Turning back

to Micah, we find that he "that is to be ruler in Israel" shall be born

in Bethlehem, but Jesus was never ruler in Israel, and the description

cannot therefore be applied to him; besides, finishing the passage in

Micah (v. 5) we read that this same ruler "shall be the peace when the

Assyrian shall come into our land," so that the prophecy has a local and

immediate fulfilment in the circumstances of the time. Matthew ii. 15 is

only made into a prophecy by taking the second half of a historical

reference in Hosea to the Exodus of Israel from Egypt; it would be as

reasonable to prove in this fashion that the Bible teaches a denial of

God, "as is spoken by David the prophet, There is no God." The

fulfilment of the saying of Jeremy the prophet is as true as all the

preceding (verses 17, 18); Jeremy bids Rahel not to weep for the

children who are carried into bondage, "for they shall come again from

the land of the enemy ... thy children shall come again to their own

border" (Jer. xxxi. 16, 17). Very applicable to the slaughtered babes,

and so honest of "Matthew" to quote just so much of the "prophecy" as

served his purpose, leaving out that which altered its whole meaning.

After these specimens, we are not surprised to find that--unable to find

a prophecy fit to twist to suit his object--our evangelist quietly

invents one, and (verse 23) uses a prophecy which has no existence in

what was "spoken by the prophets." It is needless to go through all the

other passages known as Messianic prophecies, for they may all be dealt

with as above; the guiding rule is to refer to the Old Testament in each

case, and not to trust to the quotation as given in the New, and then to

read the whole context of the "prophecy," instead of resting content

with the few words which, violently wrested from their natural meaning,

are forced into a superficial resemblance with the story recorded in the

Gospels.

The second theory, which regards Jesus as a new hero of the ancient

sun-worship, is full of intensest interest. Dupuis, in his great work on

sun-worship ("Origines de Tous les Cultes") has drawn out in detail the

various sun-myths, and has pointed to their common features. Briefly

stated, these points are as follows: the hero is born about Dec. 25th,

without sexual intercourse, for the sun, entering the winter solstice,

emerges in the sign of Virgo, the heavenly virgin. His mother remains

ever-virgin, since the rays of the sun, passing through the zodiacal

sign, leave it intact. His infancy is begirt with dangers, because the

new-born sun is feeble in the midst of the winter's fogs and mists,

which threaten to devour him; his life is one of toil and peril,

culminating at the spring equinox in a final struggle with the powers of

darkness. At that period the day and the night are equal, and both fight

for the mastery; though the night veil the sun, and he seems dead;

though he has descended out of sight, below the earth, yet he rises

again triumphant, and he rises in the sign of the Lamb, and is thus the

Lamb of God, carrying away the darkness and death of the winter months.

Henceforth, he triumphs, growing ever stronger and more brilliant. He

ascends into the zenith, and there he glows, "on the right hand of God,"

himself God, the very substance of the Father, the brightness of his

glory, and the "express image of his person," "upholding all things" by

his heat and his life-giving power; thence he pours down life and warmth

on his worshippers, giving them his very self to be their life; his

substance passes into the grape and the corn, the sustainers of health;

around him are his twelve followers, the twelve signs of the zodiac, the

twelve months of the year; his day, the Lord's Day, is Sunday, the day

of the Sun, and his yearly course, ever renewed, is marked each year, by

the renewed memorials of his career. The signs appear in the long array

of sun-heroes, making the succession of deities, old in reality,

although new-named.

It may be worth noting that Jesus is said to be born at Bethlehem, a

word that Dr. Inman translates as the house "of the hot one" ("Ancient

Faiths," vol. i., p. 358; ed. 1868); Bethlehem is generally translated

"house of bread," and the doubt arises from the Hebrew letters being

originally unpointed, and the points--equivalent to vowel sounds--being

inserted in later times; this naturally gives rise to great latitude of

interpretation, the vowels being inserted whenever the writer or

translator thinks they ought to come in, or where the traditionary

reading requires them (see Part 1., pp. 13, and 31, 32).

Each point in the story of Jesus may be paralleled in earlier tales; the

birth of Krishna was prophesied of; he was born of Devaki, although she

was shut up in a tower, and no man was permitted to approach her. His

birth was hymned by the Devas--the Hindoo equivalent for angels--and a

bright light shone round where he was. He was pursued by the wrath of

the tyrant king, Kansa, who feared that Krishna would supplant him in

the kingdom. The infants of the district were massacred, but Krishna

miraculously escaped. He was brought up among the poor until he reached

maturity. He preached a pure morality, and went about doing good. He

healed the leper, the sick, the injured, and he raised the dead. His

head was anointed by a woman; he washed the feet of the Brahmins; he was

persecuted, and finally slain, being crucified. He went down into hell,

rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven (see "Asiatic

Researches," vol. i.; on "The Gods of Greece, Italy, and India," by Sir

William Jones, an essay which, though very imperfect, has much in it

that is highly instructive). He is pictorially represented as standing

on the serpent, the type of evil; his foot crushes its head, while the

fang of the serpent pierces his heel; also, with a halo round his head,

this halo being always the symbol of the Sun-god; also, with his hands

and feet pierced--the sacred stigmata--and with a hole in his side. In

fact, some of the representations of him could not be distinguished from

the representations of the crucified Jesus.

The name of "Krishna" is by Sir William Jones, and by many others

written "Crishna," and I have seen it spelt "Cristna." The resemblance

it bears, when thus written, to "Christ" is apparent only, there is no

etymological similarity. Krishna is derived from the Sanscrit "Krish,"

to scrape, to draw, to colour. Krishna means black, or violet-coloured;

Christ comes from the Greek [Greek: christos] the anointed. Colonel

Vallancy, Sir W. Jones tells us, informed him that "Crishna" in Irish

means the Sun ("As. Res.," p. 262; ed. 1801); and there is no doubt that

the Hindu Krishna is a Sun-god; the "violet-coloured" might well be a

reference to the deep blue of the summer sky.

If Moses be a type of Christ, must not Bacchus be admitted to the same

honour? In the ancient Orphic verses it was said that he was born in

Arabia; picked up in a box that floated on the water; was known by the

name of Mises, as "drawn from the water;" had a rod which he could

change into a serpent, and by means of which he performed miracles;

leading his army, he passed the Red Sea dryshod; he divided the rivers

Orontes and Hydaspes with his rod; he drew water from a rock; where he

passed the land flowed with wine, milk, and honey (see "Diegesis," pp.

178, 179).

The name Christ Jesus is simply the anointed Saviour, or else Chrestos

Jesus, the good Saviour; a title not peculiar to Jesus of Nazareth. We

find Hesus, Jesous, Yes or Ies. This last name, [Greek: Iaes], was one

of the titles of Bacchus, and the simple termination "us" makes it

"Jesus;" from this comes the sacred monogram I.H.S., really the Greek

[Greek: UAeS]--IES; the Greek letter [Greek: Ae], which is the capital

E, has by ignorance been mistaken for the Latin H, and the ancient name

of Bacchus has been thus transformed into the Latin monogram of Jesus.

In both cases the letters are surrounded with a halo, the sun-rays,

symbolical of the sun-deity to whom they refer. This halo surrounds the

heads of gods who typify the sun, and is continually met with in Indian

sculptures and paintings.

Hercules, with his twelve labours, is another source of Christian fable.

"It is well known that by Hercules, in the physical mythology of the

heathens, was meant the _Sun_, or _solar light_, and his twelve famous

labours have been referred to the sun's passing through the twelve

zodiacal signs; and this, perhaps, not without some foundation. But the

labours of Hercules seem to have had a still higher view, and to have

been originally designed as emblematic memorials of what the real _Son

of God_ and _Saviour of the world_ was to do and suffer for our

sakes--[Greek: Noson Theletaeria panta komixon]--'_Bringing a cure for

all our ills_,' as the Orphic hymn speaks of Hercules" (Parkhurst's

"Hebrew Lexicon," page 520; ed. 1813). As the story of Hercules came

first in time, it must be either a prophecy of Christ, an inadmissible

supposition, or else of the sources whence the story of Christ has been

drawn.

Aesculapius, the heathen "Good Physician," and "the good Saviour,"

healed the sick and raised the dead. He was the son of God and of

Coronis, and was guarded by a goatherd.

Prometheus is another forerunner of Christ, stretched in cruciform

position on the rocks, tormented by Jove, the Father, because he brought

help to man, and winning for man, by his agony, light and knowledge.

Osiris, the great Egyptian God, has much in common with the Christian

Jesus. He was both god and man, and once lived on earth. He was slain by

the evil Typhon, but rose again from the dead. After his resurrection he

became the Judge of all men. Once a year the Egyptians used to celebrate

his death, mourning his slaying by the evil one: "this grief for the

death of Osiris did not escape some ridicule; for Xenophanes, the

Ionian, wittily remarked to the priests of Memphis, that if they thought

Osiris a man they should not worship him, and if they thought him a God

they need not talk of his death and suffering.... Of all the gods Osiris

alone had a place of birth and a place of burial. His birthplace was

Mount Sinai, called by the Egyptians Mount Nyssa. Hence was derived the

god's Greek name Dionysus, which is the same as the Hebrew

Jehovah-Nissi" ("Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity," by

Samuel Sharpe, pp. 10, 11; ed. 1863). Various places claimed the honour

of his burial. "Serapis" was a god's name, formed out of "Osiris" and

"Apis," the sacred bull, and we find (see ante, p. 206) that the Emperor

Adrian wrote that the "worshippers of Serapis are Christians," and that

bishops of Serapis were bishops of Christ; although the stories differ

in detail, as is natural, since the Christian tale is modified by other

myths--Osiris, for instance, is married--the general outline is the

same. We shall see, in Section II., how thoroughly Pagan is the origin

of Christianity.

We find the Early Fathers ready enough to claim these analogies, in

order to recommend their religion. Justin Martyr argues: "When we say

that the word, who is the first birth of God, was produced without

sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and

died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing

different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of

Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribe to

Jupiter; Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius,

who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and

so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from

limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to

escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, the Dioscuri; and Perseus, son

of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to

heaven on the horse Pegasus" ("First Apology," ch. xxi.). "If we assert

that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different

from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary

thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if

anyone objects that he was crucified, in this also he is on a par with

those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now

enumerated.... And if we even affirm that he was born of a virgin,

accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we

say that he made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we

seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by

AEsculapius" (Ibid, ch. xxi.). "Plato, in like manner, used to say that

Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and

we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ"

(Ibid, ch. viii.) In ch. liv. Justin argues that the devils invented all

these gods in order that when Christ came his story should be thought to

be another marvellous tale like its predecessors! On the whole, we can

scarcely wonder that Caecilius (about A.D. 211) taunted the early

Christians with those facts: "All these figments of cracked-brained

opiniatry and silly solaces played off in the sweetness of song by

deceitful poets, by you, too credulous creatures, have been shamefully

reformed, and made over to your own God" (as quoted in R. Taylor's

"Diegesis," p. 241). That the doctrines of Christianity had the same

origin as the story of Christ, and the miracles ascribed to him, we

shall prove under section ii., while section iii. will prove the same as

to his morality. Judge Strange fairly says: "The Jewish Scriptures and

the traditionary teaching of their doctors, the Essenes and Therapeuts,

the Greek philosophers, the neo-platonism of Alexandria, and the

Buddhism of the East, gave ample supplies for the composition of the

doctrinal portion of the new faith; the divinely procreated personages

of the Grecian and Roman pantheons, the tales of the Egyptian Osiris,

and of the Indian Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, furnished the materials for

the image of the new saviour of mankind; and every surrounding mythology

poured forth samples of the 'mighty works' that were to be attributed to

him to attract and enslave his followers: and thus, first from Judaism,

and finally from the bosom of heathendom, we have our matured expression

of Christianity" ("The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus," p. 27). From

the mass of facts brought together above, we contend that the Gospels

_are in themselves utterly unworthy of credit, from (1) the miracles

with which they abound, (2) the numerous contradictions of each by the

others, (3) the fact that the story of the hero, the doctrines, the

miracles, were current long before the supposed dates of the Gospels; so

that these Gospels are simply a patchwork composed of older materials_.

We have thus examined, step by step, the alleged evidences of

Christianity, both external and internal; we have found it impossible to

rely on its external witnesses, while the internal testimony is fatal to

its claims; it is, at once, unauthenticated without, and incredible

within. After earnest study, and a careful balancing of proofs, we find

ourselves forced to assert that THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY ARE

UNRELIABLE.

* * * * *

APPROXIMATE DATES CLAIMED FOR THE CHIEF CHRISTIAN AND HERETICAL

AUTHORITIES.

A.D.

Between 92 and 125 Clement of Rome Very doubtful

Between 90 and 138 Barnabas " "

Said to be martyred 107 Ignatius " "

Between 117 and 138 Quadratus " "

Possibly 138 Hermas " "

About 150-170 Papias " "

About 135-145 Basilides and " "

Valentinus

About 140-160 Marcion

Said to be martyred 166 Polycarp Very doubtful

Said to be martyred 166 Justin Martyr

After 166 Hegesippus

About 177 Epistle of Lyons

and Vienne

Between 150 and 290 Clementines Real date quite unknown

Between 166 and 176 Dionysius of Corinth

About 176 Athenagoras

Between 170 and 175 Tatian

177 to about 200 Irenæus

About 193 Tertullian

About 200 Celsus Very doubtful

205 Clement of Alexandria

succeeded as head of

School.

About 205 Porphyry

205-249 Origen

THE SO-CALLED TEN PERSECUTIONS.

A.D.

61 under Nero

81 " Domitian

107 " Trajan

166 " Marcus Aurelius

193 " Severus

235 under Maximin

249 " Decius

254 " Valerian

272 " Aurelian

303 " Diocletian

DATES OF ROMAN EMPERORS.

AT ALLEGED BIRTH OF CHRIST.

Augustus Cæsar

A.D.

14 Tiberius

33 Caligula

41 Claudius

54 Nero

68 Galba

Otho

69 Vitellius

69 Vespasian

79 Titus

81 Domitian

96 Nerva

98 Trajan associated

117 Hadrian

138 Antoninus Pius

161 Marcus Aurelius

180 Commodus

192 Pertinax

193 Julian

Severus

211 Caracalla and Geta

217 Macrinus

218 Heliogabalus

222 Alexander Severus

235 Maximin

237 The Gordians

Maximus and Galbinus

238 Maximus, Galbinus, and Gordian

238 Gordian alone

244 Philip

249 Decius

251 Gallus

253 Valerian

260 Gallienus

268 Claudius

270 Aurelian

275 Tacitus

276 Florianus

276 Probus

282 Carus

283 Carinus and Numerian

285 Diocletian

286 Maximian associated

305 Galerius and Constantius

305 Severus and Maximin

306 Constantine

Licinius

Maxentius

324 Constantine alone

* * * * *

INDEX TO SECTION I. OF PART II.

* * * * *

INDEX OF BOOKS USED.

Adrian...206

" quoted by Meredith...225

Agbarus, letter of, in Eusebius...243

Akiba, quoted in Keim...315

Alford, Greek Testament...288

Apostolic Fathers...215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 230

Athenagoras, Apology...226

Augustine, Syntagma, quoted in Diegesis...234

Barnabas, Epistle of...233, 302

Besant, According to St. John...337

Butler, Lives of the Fathers, etc...324

Caecilius, quoted in Diegesis...348

Celsus, quoted by Norton...233

Clement, First Epistle...233, 299, 300, 301

Clementine, Homilies...310

" quoted in Supernatural Religion...301

Corpus Ignatianum, quoted in Apostolic Fathers...218

Davidson, Introduction to New Testament...286, 294, 295, 296, 298

Ellicott, quoted in Cowper's Apocryphal Gospels...250

Epictetus...206

Epiphanius, quoted by Norton...297

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History...216, 230, 231, 234, 243, 246, 248

250, 257, 260, 277, 279, 284, 290

291, 292, 294, 321, 323

" quoted in Apostolic Fathers...217

Faustus, quoted in Diegesis...284

Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire...195, 206, 209, 112

213, 227, 322

Giles, Christian Records...197, 207, 230, 259, 261, 263, 265

267, 276, 288, 293, 297, 313, 328

335, 336

Hegesippus, quoted in Supernatural Religion...302

Home, Introduction to New Testament...197, 203

Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans...220

" " Ephesians...233

" " Philippians...302

Inman, Ancient Faiths...344

Irenæus, Against Heresies...258, 291, 323, 336

" quoted in Keim...234

" quoted in Eusebius...258

Jones, The Canon of the New Testament...240, 245, 257

Jones, Sir W., Asiatic Researches...345

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews...195, 198, 315

" Wars of the Jews...317

" Discourse on Hades...198

Justin Martyr, First Apology...231, 253, 302, 347

" Second Apology...226, 323

" Dialogue with Trypho...231, 275, 302, 310

Juvenal...203

Keim, Jesus of Nazara...197, 202, 315

Lardner, Answer to Dr. Chandler, quoted from

Diegesis...196

" Credibility of the

Gospels...209, 210, 211, 216, 218

230, 263, 269

Livy...222

Marcus Aurelius...206

Marsh, quoted in Norton...267

" quoted in Giles...287

Meredith, Prophet of Nazareth...223

Mosheim, Ecclesiastical

History...214, 216, 217, 235, 237, 238, 239

Muratori, Canon of...282

Nicodemus, Gospel of...253

Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels...215, 216, 219, 247,

263, 269, 295

Origen, quoted in Gibbon...213

" " Diegesis...234

" " Supernatural Religion...323

Paley, Evidences of Christianity...198, 202, 203, 205

208, 209, 210, 212, 228, 229, 231

235, 236, 243, 244, 247, 248, 260

262, 269, 273, 281, 290, 309, 317

319

Papias, quoted by Eusebius...291

" Irenæus...291

Parkhurst, Hebrew Lexicon...346

Pliny, Epistles...203

Pilate, Acts of...253

Quadratus, quoted by Eusebius...230

Renan, Vie de Jésus...197

Row, The Supernatural in the New Testament...325, 327

Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century...248, 269, 270

279, 287, 298, 300, 302, 305, 311

Scott, English Life of Jesus...334

Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology...347

Smyrna, Circular Epistle of the Church of...221

Strange, Portraiture and Mission of Jesus...198, 201, 210

321, 348

Strauss, Life of Jesus...289, 312, 320, 330, 331, 332

Suetonius...201, 202, 225

Supernatural Religion... 215, 216, 219, 229, 246, 247, 248

249, 260, 261, 266, 268, 269, 271

276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283

290, 292, 293, 295, 301, 302, 303

304, 322, 325

Tacitus, Annals...199, 222, 225

Taylor, Diegesis...196, 200, 201, 205, 206, 208, 212, 346

Tertullian, Apology...226

" De Spectaculis...323

" quoted in Gibbon...213

" " Meredith...225

Thomas, Gospel of...251

Tischendorf, When were our Gospels Written?...248, 270

Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament...216, 229, 247, 249

256, 268, 270, 274

275, 278, 286

* * * * *

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Analogies of Christian doctrines...347

Apocryphal Gospels, specimens of...250

" Books, recognised...245

Authenticity of Apology of Quadratus...230

" Epistle of Barnabas...229

" " Clement...214

" " Ignatius...217

" " Polycarp...216

" " Smyrna...220

" Vision of Hermas...216

Books read in churches...248

" in volume of Scriptures...249

Christian Agapae...223

Christianity advantageous to tyrants...237

Date of birth of Christ...333

Dates of Fathers, etc...349

Dates of Roman Emperors...350

Diatessaron of Tatian...259

Evidence of Adrian...206

" Apostolic Fathers...263, 267

" Barnabas...268

" Basilides and Valentinus...280

" Canon of Muratori...282

" Clement ...269

" Clementines...279

" Hegesippus...277

" Hermas...269

" Ignatius...270

" Josephus...195

" Justin Martyr...271

" Marcion...281

" Marcus Aurelius...206

" Papias...271

" Pliny...203

" Polycarp...270

" Suetonius...201

" Tacitus...199

Forgeries in Early Church...238

" List of...240

Four Gospels: when recognised...257

" why only four...258

Gospels, changes made in...283

" contradictions in...328

" contradictions between synoptical and fourth...337

" growth of...285, 289

" identity of modern and ancient unproven...262

" many current...266

" of later origin...311

" of Matthew and Mark not those of Papias...290

" original, different from canonical...298

" similarity of canonical and uncanonical...245

" synoptical...286

" time of selection unknown...256

Genealogies of Jesus...328

Greek not commonly known by Jews...314

Ignorance of Early Fathers...232

Krishna, meaning of...345

Length of Jesus' Ministry..336

Life of Christ from Justin Martyr...306

Martyrs, small number of...212

Massacre of infants unlikely...333

Matthew, written in Hebrew...394

Miracles...316

Morality of Early Christians...221

Mythical Theory of Jesus...340

Passages in Fathers, not in canonical Gospels...301

Persecution, absence of...209

Phrase "it is written"...247

Positions laid down as to Gospels...236

Position A...238

" B...245

" C...256

" D...257

" E...261

" F...262

" G...290

" H...298

" I...311

" J...314

" K...316

Prophecies, Messianic...342

Silence of Jewish writers...198, 201, 259

" Pagan " ...193, 206

Story of Christ pre-Christian...340

Son-worship and Christ...343

Temptation of Christ...334

Ten Persecutions...350

Types of Christ...345