{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_46986/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_46986","id":"gutenberg_46986","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46986","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jesus Christ -- Historicity","Jesus Christ -- Rationalistic interpretations","Rationalism"],"text":"THE\n                                 CHRIST\n\n                   A Critical Review and Analysis of\n                     the Evidences of His Existence\n\n\n                                   By\n                            JOHN E. REMSBURG\n\n\n                            \"We must get rid of that Christ.\"\n                                                        --Emerson\n\n\n                                New York\n                        THE TRUTH SEEKER COMPANY\n                        Forty-nine Vesey Street.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               To My Wife\n                            Nora M. Remsburg\n                        This Volume is Inscribed\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Humbly he came,\n                Veiling his horrible Godhead in the shape\n                Of man, scorned by the world, his name unheard\n                Save by the rabble of his native town,\n                Even as a parish demagogue. He led\n                The crowd; he taught them justice, truth, and peace,\n                In semblance; but he lit within their souls\n                The quenchless flames of zeal, and blessed the sword\n                He brought on earth to satiate with the blood\n                Of truth and freedom his malignant soul.\n                At length his mortal frame was led to death.\n                I stood beside him; on the torturing cross\n                No pain assailed his unterrestrial sense;\n                And yet he groaned. Indignantly I summed\n                The massacres and miseries which his name\n                Had sanctioned in my country, and I cried\n                        \"Go! Go!\" in mockery.\n\n                                                            --Shelley.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\n\"We must get rid of that Christ, we must get rid of that Christ!\" So\nspake one of the wisest, one of the most lovable of men, Ralph Waldo\nEmerson. \"If I had my way,\" said Thomas Carlyle, \"the world would\nhear a pretty stern command--Exit Christ.\" Since Emerson and Carlyle\nspoke a revolution has taken place in the thoughts of men. The more\nenlightened of them are now rid of Christ. From their minds he has made\nhis exit. To quote the words of Prof. Goldwin Smith, \"The mighty and\nsupreme Jesus, who was to transfigure all humanity by his divine wit\nand grace--this Jesus has flown.\" The supernatural Christ of the New\nTestament, the god of orthodox Christianity, is dead. But priestcraft\nlives and conjures up the ghost of this dead god to frighten and\nenslave the masses of mankind. The name of Christ has caused more\npersecutions, wars, and miseries than any other name has caused. The\ndarkest wrongs are still inspired by it. The wails of anguish that\nwent up from Kishenev, Odessa, and Bialystok still vibrate in our ears.\n\nTwo notable works controverting the divinity of Christ appeared in\nthe last century, the Leben Jesu of Strauss, and the Vie de Jesus of\nRenan. Strauss in his work, one of the masterpieces of Freethought\nliterature, endeavors to prove, and proves to the satisfaction of a\nmajority of his readers, that Jesus Christ is a historical myth. This\nwork possesses permanent value, but it was written for the scholar\nand not for the general reader. In the German and Latin versions, and\nin the admirable English translation of Marian Evans (George Eliot),\nthe citations from the Gospels--and they are many--are in Greek.\n\nRenan's \"Life of Jesus,\" written in Palestine, has had, especially in\nits abridged form, an immense circulation, and has been a potent factor\nin the dethronement of Christ. It is a charming book and displays\ngreat learning. But it is a romance, not a biography. The Jesus\nof Renan, like the Satan of Milton, while suggested by the Bible,\nis a modern creation. The warp is to be found in the Four Gospels,\nbut the woof was spun in the brain of the brilliant Frenchman. Of\nthis book Renan's fellow-countryman, Dr. Jules Soury, thus writes:\n\n\"It is to be feared that the beautiful, the 'divine,' dream, as he\nwould say, which the eminent scholar experienced in the very country\nof the Gospel, will have the fate of the 'Joconda' of Da Vinci, and\nmany of the religious pictures of Raphael and Michael Angelo. Such\ndreams are admirable, but they are bound to fade.... The Jesus who\nrises up and comes out from those old Judaizing writings (Synoptics)\nis truly no idyllic personage, no meek dreamer, no mild and amiable\nmoralist; on the contrary, he is very much more of a Jew fanatic,\nattacking without measure the society of his time, a narrow and\nobstinate visionary, a half-lucid thaumaturge, subject to fits of\npassion, which caused him to be looked upon as crazy by his own\npeople. In the eyes of his contemporaries and fellow-countrymen he\nwas all that, and he is the same in ours.\"\n\nRenan himself repudiated to a considerable extent his earlier views\nregarding Jesus. When he wrote his work he accepted as authentic the\nGospel of John, and to this Gospel he was indebted largely for the\nmore admirable traits of his hero. John he subsequently rejected. Mark\nhe accepted as the oldest and most authentic of the Gospels. Alluding\nto Mark he says:\n\n\"It cannot be denied that Jesus is portrayed in this gospel not as\na meek moralist worthy of our affection, but as a dreadful magician.\"\n\nThis volume on \"The Christ\" was written by one who recognizes in the\nJesus of Strauss and Renan a transitional step, but not the ultimate\nstep, between orthodox Christianity and radical Freethought. By\nthe Christ is understood the Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus\nof the New Testament is the Christ of Christianity. The Jesus of\nthe New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ,\na myth. He is the Christ myth. Originally the word Christ, the Greek\nfor the Jewish Messiah, \"the anointed,\" meant the office or title of a\nperson, while Jesus was the name of the person on whom his followers\nhad bestowed this title. Gradually the title took the place of the\nname, so that Jesus, Jesus Christ, and Christ became interchangeable\nterms--synonyms. Such they are to the Christian world, and such,\nby the law of common usage, they are to the secular world.\n\nIt may be conceded as possible, and even probable, that a religious\nenthusiast of Galilee, named Jesus, was the germ of this mythical\nJesus Christ. But this is an assumption rather than a demonstrated\nfact. Certain it is, this person, if he existed, was not a realization\nof the Perfect Man, as his admirers claim. There are passages in\nthe Gospels which ascribe to him a lofty and noble character, but\nthese, for the most part, betray too well their Pagan origin. The\ndedication of temples to him and the worship of him by those who deny\nhis divinity is as irrational as it will prove ephemeral. One of the\nmost philosophic and one of the most far-seeing minds of Germany,\nDr. Edward von Hartmann, says:\n\n\"When liberal Protestantism demands religious reverence for the man\nJesus, it is disgusting and shocking. They cannot themselves believe\nthat the respect in which Jesus is held by the people and which they\nhave made use of in such an unprotestant manner, can be maintained for\nany length of time after the nimbus of divinity has been destroyed, and\nthey may reflect on the insufficiency of the momentary subterfuge. The\nProtestant principle in its last consequences, disposes of all kinds\nof dogmatic authority in a remorseless manner, and its supporters must,\nwhether they like it or not, dispense with the authority of Christ.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.                                             PAGE\n\nChrist's Real Existence Impossible                       13\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nSilence of Contemporary Writers                          24\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nChristian Evidence                                       50\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nInfancy of Christ                                        65\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nMinistry of Christ                                      120\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nCrucifixion of Christ                                   213\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nResurrection of Christ                                  296\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nHis Character and Teachings                             340\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nThe Christ a Myth                                       433\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nSources of the Christ Myth--Ancient Religions           444\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nSources of the Christ Myth--Pagan Divinities            499\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nSources of the Christ Myth--Conclusion                  566\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRIST.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nCHRIST'S REAL EXISTENCE IMPOSSIBLE.\n\n\nThe reader who accepts as divine the prevailing religion of our land\nmay consider this criticism on \"The Christ\" irreverent and unjust. And\nyet for man's true saviors I have no lack of reverence. For him who\nlives and labors to uplift his fellow men I have the deepest reverence\nand respect, and at the grave of him who upon the altar of immortal\ntruth has sacrificed his life I would gladly pay the sincere tribute\nof a mourner's tears. It is not against the man Jesus that I write,\nbut against the Christ Jesus of theology; a being in whose name an\nAtlantic of innocent blood has been shed; a being in whose name the\nwhole black catalogue of crime has been exhausted; a being in whose\nname five hundred thousand priests are now enlisted to keep\n\n\n            \"Truth forever on the scaffold,\n            Wrong forever on the throne.\"\n\n\nJesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of\nwhose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of\nmillions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus\nof Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character\nand does not exist.\n\nFrom the beginning to the end of this Christ's earthly career he\nis represented by his alleged biographers as a supernatural being\nendowed with superhuman powers. He is conceived without a natural\nfather: \"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When, as\nhis mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,\nshe was found with child of the Holy Ghost\" (Matt. i, 18).\n\nHis ministry is a succession of miracles. With a few loaves and\nfishes he feeds a multitude: \"And when he had taken the five loaves\nand the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and brake\nthe loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and\nthe two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and\nwere filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments,\nand of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about\nfive thousand men\" (Mark vi, 41-44).\n\nHe walks for miles upon the waters of the sea: \"And straightway Jesus\nconstrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him\nunto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away. And when he\nhad sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to\npray; and when the evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship\nwas now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves; for the wind was\ncontrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them,\nwalking on the sea\" (Matt. xiv, 22-25).\n\nHe bids a raging tempest cease and it obeys him: \"And there arose\na great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it\nwas now full.... And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the\nsea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm\"\n(Mark, iv, 37-39).\n\nHe withers with a curse the barren fig tree: \"And when he saw a\nfig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but\nleaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee, henceforth,\nforever. And presently the fig tree withered away\" (Matt. xxi, 19).\n\nHe casts out devils: \"And in the synagogue there was a man, which\nhad a spirit of an unclean devil.... And Jesus rebuked him, saying,\nHold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him\nin the midst, he came out of him and hurt him not\" (Luke iv, 33, 35).\n\nHe cures the incurable: \"And as he entered into a certain village,\nthere met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off; and\nthey lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy\non us. And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go show yourselves\nunto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were\ncleansed\" (Luke xvii, 12-14).\n\nHe restores to life a widow's only son: \"And when he came nigh to the\ngate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only\nson of his mother, and she was a widow; and much people of the city\nwere with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her,\nand said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier; and\nthey that bore him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto\nthee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he\ndelivered him to his mother\" (Luke vii, 12-15).\n\nHe revivifies the decaying corpse of Lazarus: \"Then said Jesus unto\nthem plainly, Lazarus is dead.... Then when Jesus came, he found that\nhe had lain in the grave four days already.... And when he had thus\nspoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that\nwas dead came forth\" (John xi, 14-44).\n\nAt his crucifixion nature is convulsed, and the inanimate dust of\nthe grave is transformed into living beings who walk the streets of\nJerusalem: \"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded\nup the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain\nfrom the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks\nrent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints, which\nslept, arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and\nwent into the holy city, and appeared unto many\" (Matt. xxvii, 50-53).\n\nHe rises from the dead: \"And when Joseph had taken the body, he\nwrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb,\nwhich he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to\nthe door of the sepulchre, and departed.... And, behold, there was a\ngreat earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven,\nand came and rolled back the stone from the door.... And as they\nwent to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail\"\n(Matt. xxvii, 59, 60; xxviii, 2, 9).\n\nHe ascends bodily into heaven: \"And he led them out as far as to\nBethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to\npass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up\ninto heaven\" (Luke xxiv, 50, 51).\n\nThese and a hundred other miracles make up to a great extent this\nso-called Gospel History of Christ. To disprove the existence of\nthese miracles is to disprove the existence of this Christ.\n\nCanon Farrar makes this frank admission: \"If miracles be incredible,\nChristianity is false. If Christ wrought no miracles, then the Gospels\nare untrustworthy\" (Witness of History to Christ, p. 25).\n\nDean Mansel thus acknowledges the consequences of the successful\ndenial of miracles: \"The whole system of Christian belief with its\nevidences, ... all Christianity in short, so far as it has any title\nto that name, so far as it has any special relation to the person or\nthe teaching of Christ, is overthrown\" (Aids to Faith, p. 3).\n\nDr. Westcott says: \"The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and\nif it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible,\nall further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous\"\n(Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 34).\n\nA miracle, in the orthodox sense of the term, is impossible\nand incredible. To accept a miracle is to reject a demonstrated\ntruth. The world is governed, not by chance, not by caprice, not by\nspecial providences, but by the laws of nature; and if there be one\ntruth which the scientist and the philosopher have established, it\nis this: THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE. If the laws of Nature are\nimmutable, they cannot be suspended; for if they could be suspended,\neven by a god, they would not be immutable. A single suspension of\nthese laws would prove their mutability. Now these alleged miracles\nof Christ required a suspension of Nature's laws; and the suspension\nof these laws being impossible the miracles were impossible, and not\nperformed. If these miracles were not performed, then the existence of\nthis supernatural and miracle-performing Christ, except as a creature\nof the human imagination, is incredible and impossible.\n\nHume's masterly argument against miracles has never been refuted:\n\"A miracle is a violation of the laws of Nature; and as a firm and\nunalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a\nmiracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument\nfrom experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable\nthat all men must die; that lead cannot of itself remain suspended in\nthe air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless\nit be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of Nature,\nand there is required a violation of these laws, or, in other words,\na miracle, to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever\nhappens in the common course of Nature. It is no miracle that a man,\nseemingly in good health, should die suddenly; because such a kind\nof death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently\nobserved to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to\nlife; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There\nmust, therefore, be a uniform experience against any miraculous event,\notherwise the event would not merit the appellation. And as a uniform\nexperience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof,\nfrom the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle\"\n(Essay on Miracles).\n\nAlluding to Christ's miracles, M. Renan, a reverential admirer of\nJesus of Nazareth, says: \"Observation, which has never been once\nfalsified, teaches us that miracles never happen but in times and\ncountries in which they are believed, and before persons disposed to\nbelieve them. No miracle ever occurred in the presence of men capable\nof testing its miraculous character..... It is not, then, in the name\nof this or that philosophy, but in the name of universal experience,\nthat we banish miracles from history\" (Life of Jesus, p. 29).\n\nChristianity arose in what was preeminently a miracle-working\nage. Everything was attested by miracles, because nearly everybody\nbelieved in miracles and demanded them. Every religious teacher was\na worker of miracles; and however trifling the miracle might be when\nwrought, in this atmosphere of unbounded credulity, the breath of\nexaggeration soon expanded it into marvelous proportions.\n\nTo show more clearly the character of the age which Christ\nillustrates, let us take another example, the Pythagorean teacher,\nApollonius of Tyana, a contemporary of the Galilean. According to his\nbiographers--and they are as worthy of credence as the Evangelists--his\ncareer, particularly in the miraculous events attending it, bore a\nremarkable resemblance to that of Christ. Like Christ, he was a divine\nincarnation; like Christ his miraculous conception was announced before\nhis birth; like Christ he possessed in childhood the wisdom of a sage;\nlike Christ he is said to have led a blameless life; like Christ his\nmoral teachings were declared to be the best the world had known; like\nChrist he remained a celibate; like Christ he was averse to riches;\nlike Christ he purified the religious temples; like Christ he predicted\nfuture events; like Christ he performed miracles, cast out devils,\nhealed the sick, and restored the dead to life; like Christ he died,\nrose from the grave, ascended to heaven, and was worshiped as a god.\n\nThe Christian rejects the miraculous in Apollonius because it is\nincredible; the Rationalist rejects the miraculous in Christ for\nthe same reason. In proof of the human character of the religion of\nApollonius and the divine character of that of Christ it may be urged\nthat the former has perished, while the latter has survived. But this,\nif it proves anything, proves too much. If the survival of Christianity\nproves its divinity, then the survival of the miracle-attested faiths\nof Buddhism and Mohammedanism, its powerful and nourishing rivals, must\nprove their divinity also. The religion of Apollonius languished and\ndied because the conditions for its development were unfavorable; while\nthe religions of Buddha, Christ, and Mohammed lived and thrived because\nof the propitious circumstances which favored their development.\n\nWith the advancement of knowledge the belief in the supernatural\nis disappearing. Those freed from Ignorance, and her dark sister,\nSuperstition, know that miracles are myths. In the words of Matthew\nArnold, \"Miracles are doomed; they will drop out like fairies and\nwitchcraft, from among the matter which serious people believe\"\n(Literature and Dogma).\n\nWhat proved the strength of Christianity in an age of ignorance is\nproving its weakness in an age of intelligence. Christian scholars\nthemselves, recognizing the indefensibility and absurdity of miracles,\nendeavor to explain away the difficulties attending their acceptance\nby affirming that they are not real, but only apparent, violations\nof Nature's laws; thus putting the miracles of Christ in the same\nclass with those performed by the jugglers of India and Japan. They\nresolve the supernatural into the natural, that the incredible may\nappear credible. With invincible logic and pitiless sarcasm Colonel\nIngersoll exposes the lameness of this attempt to retain the shadow\nof the supernatural when the substance is gone:\n\n\"Believers in miracles should not try to explain them. There is\nbut one way to explain anything, and that is to account for it by\nnatural agencies. The moment you explain a miracle it disappears. You\nshould not depend upon explanation, but assertion. You should\nnot be driven from the field because the miracle is shown to be\nunreasonable. Neither should you be in the least disheartened if it\nis shown to be impossible. The possible is not miraculous.\"\n\nMiracles must be dismissed from the domain of fact and relegated to\nthe realm of fiction. A miracle, I repeat, is impossible. Above all\nthis chief of miracles, The Christ, is impossible, and does not,\nand never did, exist.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nSILENCE OF CONTEMPORARY WRITERS.\n\n\nAnother proof that the Christ of Christianity is a fabulous and not\na historical character is the silence of the writers who lived during\nand immediately following the time he is said to have existed.\n\nThat a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of\nthis fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years\nago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has\nnot been written. E. Renan and others have attempted to write it,\nbut have failed--have failed because no materials for such a work\nexist. Contemporary writers have left us not one word concerning\nhim. For generations afterward, outside of a few theological epistles,\nwe find no mention of him.\n\nThe following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time,\nor within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived\nand performed his wonderful works:\n\n\n        Josephus,                 Statius,\n        Philo-Judaeus,            Ptolemy,\n        Seneca,                   Hermogones,\n        Pliny the Elder,          Valerius Maximus,\n        Arrian,                   Appian,\n        Petronius,                Theon of Smyrna,\n        Dion Pruseus,             Phlegon,\n        Paterculus,               Pompon Mela,\n        Suetonius,                Quintius Curtius\n        Juvenal,                  Lucian,\n        Martial,                  Pausanias,\n        Persius,                  Valerius Flaccus,\n        Plutarch,                 Florus Lucius,\n        Justus of Tiberius,       Favorinus,\n        Apollonius,               Phaedrus,\n        Pliny the Younger,        Damis,\n        Tacitus,                  Aulus Gellius,\n        Quintilian,               Columella,\n        Lucanus,                  Dio Chrysostom,\n        Epictetus,                Lysias,\n        Silius Italicus,          Appion of Alexandria.\n\n\nEnough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list\nremains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan\nliterature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish\nauthor, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers,\nthere is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.\n\nPhilo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived\nuntil long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account\nof the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have\nexisted on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's\nmiraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when\nChrist made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the\ncrucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and\nresurrection of the dead took place--when Christ himself rose from the\ndead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These\nmarvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had\nthey really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed\nthe doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate\ndwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed\nhimself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.\n\nJosephus, the renowned Jewish historian, was a native of Judea. He\nwas born in 37 A. D., and was a contemporary of the Apostles. He was,\nfor a time, Governor of Galilee, the province in which Christ lived\nand taught. He traversed every part of this province and visited\nthe places where but a generation before Christ had performed his\nprodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said\nto have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage\nof Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there\nduring the first seventy years of the Christian era. But Christ was\nof too little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line\nfrom this historian's pen.\n\nJustus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He\nwrote a history covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This\nwork has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of\nthe ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: \"He [Justus]\nmakes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what\nthings happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did\"\n(Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).\n\nJudea, where occurred the miraculous beginning and marvelous ending of\nChrist's earthly career, was a Roman province, and all of Palestine\nis intimately associated with Roman history. But the Roman records\nof that age contain no mention of Christ and his works. The Greek\nwriters of Greece and Alexandria who lived not far from Palestine\nand who were familiar with its events, are silent also.\n\n\n\nJosephus.\n\nLate in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work,\n\"The Antiquities of the Jews,\" giving a history of his race from\nthe earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work\ncontain the following passage:\n\n\"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful\nto call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher\nof such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him\nboth many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ;\nand when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us,\nhad condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first\ndid not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third\nday, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other\nwonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named\nfrom him, are not extinct at this day\" (Book XVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).\n\nFor nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this\npassage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence,\nbut to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery\nwas never penned.\n\nIts language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a\nChristian writer. \"If it be lawful to call him a man.\" \"He was the\nChrist.\" \"He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine\nprophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things\nconcerning him.\" These are the words of a Christian, a believer in\nthe divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the\nJewish faith--the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity\nof Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized,\nand Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance\n(360 A. D.) offers the following explanation, which only a theologian\ncould frame: \"If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least,\nbelieve their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man,\nhath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner;\nand so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he\nwas not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake,\nin order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not\nlawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of\nthe hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention.\"\n\nIts brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous\nand exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted\nto petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters\nare devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being,\nthe greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold\nten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king,\nis dismissed with a dozen lines.\n\nIt interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it\ngives an account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate\nwith great slaughter. The account ends as follows: \"There were a\ngreat number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran\naway wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.\" Section 4,\nas now numbered, begins with these words: \"About the same time also\nanother sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.\" The one section\nnaturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two\nclosely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed;\nthus making the words, \"another sad calamity,\" refer to the advent\nof this wise and wonderful being.\n\nThe early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr,\nTertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted\nthis passage had it existed in their time. The failure of even one\nof these fathers to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt\nupon its genuineness; the failure of all of them to notice it proves\nconclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in existence during\nthe second and third centuries.\n\nAs this passage first appeared in the writings of the ecclesiastical\nhistorian, Eusebius, as this author openly advocated the use of\nfraud and deception in furthering the interests of the church, as\nhe is known to have mutilated and perverted the text of Josephus in\nother instances, and as the manner of its presentation is calculated\nto excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been charged to\nhim. In his \"Evangelical Demonstration,\" written early in the fourth\ncentury, after citing all the known evidences of Christianity, he thus\nintroduces the Jewish historian: \"Certainly the attestations I have\nalready produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However,\nit may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the\nJew for a further witness\" (Book III, p. 124).\n\nChrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a reader\nof Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth\ncentury, in his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but\nwas too honest or too wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision\nof Josephus, writing five hundred years after the time of Eusebius,\nignores the passage, and admits that Josephus has made no mention\nof Christ.\n\nModern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a\nforgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity,\nadduces the following arguments against its genuineness:\n\n\"I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to\nJesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors\nbefore Eusebius.\n\n\"Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or\nword Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned,\nand the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.\n\n\"It interrupts the narrative.\n\n\"The language is quite Christian.\n\n\"It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus,\nand could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text.\n\n\"It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning\nJosephus.\n\n\"Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly\nstates that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the\nleast notice of Christ.\n\n\"Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens\nAlexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor\nOrigen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony.\n\n\"But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that\nwork, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John\nthe Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ\" (Answer to Dr. Chandler).\n\nAgain Dr. Lardner says: \"This passage is not quoted nor referred to by\nany Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning\nof the fourth century. If it had been originally in the works of\nJosephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their\ndisputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin\nMartyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men\nof great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It\nwas certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also\nhave been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable\nto Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior,\nwho was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country,\nwho had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be\noverlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist\" (Lardner's Works,\nvol. I, chap. iv).\n\nBishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: \"If a Jew owned the\ntruth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore,\ncertainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much\na Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge\nJesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a\nrank forgery, and a very stupid one, too\" (Quoted by Lardner, Works,\nVol. I, chap. iv).\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:\n\n\"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus,\nand the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning\nthis passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third\ncentury by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a\nwriter as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of\nChrist, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun\nhis discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from\nthorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among\nthe Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author\nwas a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of\nhis countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the\nChrist? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian\nhimself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long\nfor a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new\nreligion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel,\ncontrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had\nbeen genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and\nChrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews,\nand that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius,\nthe ecclesiastical historian (I, 11), is the first who quotes it,\nand our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is\nnot so great as to allow our considering everything found in his\nworks as undoubtedly genuine\" (Christian Records, p. 30).\n\nThe Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his \"Lost and Hostile Gospels,\" says:\n\n\"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two\nplaces (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii);\nbut it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A. D. 140), Clement of\nAlexandria (fl. A. D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A. D. 193), and Origen\n(fl. A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by\nJustin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it\nexisted in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen\nis still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity,\nintroduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his\nJew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose\nwritings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He,\nindeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ\n(Contr. Cels. i).\"\n\nDr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding\nChrist. He says: \"The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of\nChristianity, though he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and\ngives us the history of that period in which Christ and his Apostles\nlived, is certainly a very striking circumstance\" (Kneeland's Review,\np. 169).\n\nReferring to this passage, Dean Milman, in his \"Gibbon's Rome\"\n(Vol. II, p. 285, note) says: \"It is interpolated with many additional\nclauses.\"\n\nCanon Farrar, who has written the ablest Christian life of Christ\nyet penned, repudiates it. He says: \"The single passage in which he\n[Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious\"\n(Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).\n\nThe following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the\n\"Encyclopedia Britannica\": \"That Josephus wrote the whole passage as\nit now stands no sane critic can believe.\"\n\n\"There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove\nthat the whole passage is spurious--one that it was unknown to Origen\nand the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is\nuncertain\" (Ibid).\n\nTheodor Keim, a German-Christian writer on Jesus, says: \"The passage\ncannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the\nCatholic church of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the\nFourth Gospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before\nEusebius, and after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may\nhave given cause for it\" (Jesus of Nazara, p. 25).\n\nConcerning this passage, Hausrath, another German writer, says it\n\"must have been penned at a peculiarly shameless hour.\"\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: \"Flavius Josephus, the\nwell known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A. D. 37,\nonly two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of\ninestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the\ntimes in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not\nseem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his\n'Jewish Antiquities' that refers to him is certainly spurious, and\nwas inserted by a later and a Christian hand\" (Bible for Learners,\nVol. III, p. 27). This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the\neminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.\n\nDr. Alexander Campbell, one of America's ablest Christian apologists,\nsays: \"Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the\nApostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and\nhabits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise\nof the Christian religion.\n\n\"Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit\nto be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one\npassage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes\nto him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace\nChristianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until\nthe beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other\nreasons, generally accounted spurious\" (Evidences of Christianity,\nfrom Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).\n\nAnother passage in Josephus, relating to the younger Ananus, who was\nhigh priest of the Jews in 62 A. D., reads as follows:\n\n\"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the\nhigh priesthood, was a bold man in his temper and very insolent; he was\nalso of the sect of Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders,\nabove all of the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when,\ntherefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a\nproper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the\nroad; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges and brought before them\nthe brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,\nand some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them\nas breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned\" (Antiquities,\nBook XX, chap. ix, sec. 1).\n\nThis passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause,\n\"who was called Christ,\" which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and\nis generally regarded as such. Nearly all the authorities that I have\nquoted reject it. It was originally probably a marginal note. Some\nChristian reader of Josephus believing that the James mentioned was the\nbrother of Jesus made a note of his belief in the manuscript before\nhim, and this a transcriber afterward incorporated with the text,\na very common practice in that age when purity of text was a matter\nof secondary importance.\n\nThe fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus,\nand who would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christ's\nexistence, do not cite it, while Origen expressly declares that\nJosephus has not mentioned Christ, is conclusive proof that it did\nnot exist until the middle of the third century or later.\n\nThose who affirm the genuineness of this clause argue that the James\nmentioned by Josephus was a person of less prominence than the Jesus\nmentioned by him, which would be true of James, the brother of Jesus\nChrist. Now some of the most prominent Jews living at this time were\nnamed Jesus. Jesus, the son of Damneus, succeeded Ananus as high\npriest that very year; and Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, a little later\nsucceeded to the same office.\n\nTo identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother\nof Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church\nwhich declares that James the Just died in 69 A. D., seven years\nafter the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim.\n\nWhiston himself, the translator of Josephus, referring to the event\nnarrated by the Jewish historian, admits that James, the brother of\nJesus Christ, \"did not die till long afterward.\"\n\nThe brief \"Discourse Concerning Hades,\" appended to the writings of\nJosephus, is universally conceded to be the product of some other\nwriter--\"obviously of Christian origin\"--says the \"Encyclopedia\nBritannica.\"\n\n\n\nTacitus.\n\nIn July, 64 A. D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is\na tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an\nincendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the\nincendiary. Modern editions of the \"Annals\" of Tacitus contain the\nfollowing passage in reference to this:\n\n\"Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed it to those people who\nwere abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These\nhe punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who,\nin the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator,\nPontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile,\nbroke out again; and spread not only over Judea, the source of this\nevil, but reached the city also: whither flow from all quarters\nall things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and\nencouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed\nthemselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected\nby them, all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of\nburning the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their executions were\nso contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were\ncovered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs;\nsome were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with combustible\nmaterials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned\nto death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this\noccasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes\nstanding in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer;\nat other times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men,\nthough really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began\nto be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard\nto the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man\"\n(Annals, Book XV, sec. 44).\n\nThis passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful,\nif not spurious, for the following reasons:\n\n1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.\n\n2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his\narguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.\n\n3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century,\nmade a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity\nthat had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of\nTacitus furnished no recognition of them.\n\n4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have\nused it had it existed.\n\n5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century,\ncites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and\nPagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.\n\n6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth\ncentury.\n\n7. At this time but one copy of the \"Annals\" existed, and this copy,\nit is claimed, was made in the eighth century--600 years after the\ntime of Tacitus.\n\n8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the\ninsertion of a forgery was easy.\n\n9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove\nits Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than\nTacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection\ncertain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.\n\n10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus\nhave not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In\nthe writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings\nof Quintilian.\n\n11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads\nlike some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.\n\n12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the\nreference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius\nSeverus, a Christian of the fifth century.\n\n13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says\nthat in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human\nlives should be sacrificed, \"not even those of condemned criminals.\"\n\n14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself\ndeclares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.\n\nMany who accept the authenticity of this section of the \"Annals\"\nbelieve that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished\nin the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is\nan interpolation. Whatever may be said of the remainder of this\npassage, this sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian\nforgery. It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely\nrelated statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break\nin the narrative. In all the Roman records there was to be found no\nevidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence,\nif genuine, is the most important evidence in Pagan literature. That\nit existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman\nhistorians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists\nfor 1,360 years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not\nwrite this sentence.\n\n\n\nPliny the Younger.\n\nThis Roman author, early in the second century, while serving as a\npro-consul under Trajan in Bithynia, is reputed to have written a\nletter to his Emperor concerning his treatment of Christians. This\nletter contains the following:\n\n\"I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought\nbefore me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians;\nif they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening\nthem with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be\nexecuted.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this,\nthat they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was\nlight, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as\nto a god, and to bind themselves by an oath--not to do anything that\nwas wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery,\nnor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to\nthem when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the\nmore necessary to enquire of two servant maids, who were said to be\nattendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture. But\nI found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.\"\n\nNotwithstanding an alleged reply to this letter from Trajan, cited\nby Tertullian and Eusebius, its genuineness may well be questioned,\nand for the following reasons:\n\n1. The Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all, and the Roman\ngovernment tolerated and protected every religious belief. Renan says:\n\"Among the Roman laws, anterior to Constantine, there was not a single\nordinance directed against freedom of thought; in the history of the\nPagan emperors not a single persecution on account of mere doctrines\nor creeds\" (The Apostles). Gibbon says: \"The religious tenets of the\nGalileans, or Christians, were never made a subject of punishment,\nor even of inquiry\" (Rome, Vol. II, p. 215).\n\n2. Trajan was one of the most tolerant and benevolent of Roman\nemperors.\n\n3. Pliny, the reputed author of the letter, is universally conceded\nto have been one of the most humane and philanthropic of men.\n\n4. It represents the distant province of Bithynia as containing,\nat this time, a large Christian population, which is improbable.\n\n5. It assumes that the Emperor Trajan was little acquainted with\nChristian beliefs and customs, which cannot be harmonized with the\nsupposed historical fact that the most powerful of primitive churches\nflourished in Trajan's capital and had existed for fifty years.\n\n6. Pliny represents the Christians as declaring that they were in\nthe habit of meeting and singing hymns \"to Christ as to a god.\" The\nearly Christians did not recognize Christ as a god, and it was not\nuntil after the time of Pliny that he was worshiped as such.\n\n7. \"I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked\nthem a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment;\nif they persevered I ordered them to be executed.\" That this wise and\ngood man rewarded lying with liberty and truthfulness with death is\ndifficult to believe.\n\n8. \"I therefore deemed it more necessary to inquire of two servant\nmaids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and\nto apply the torture.\" Never have the person and character of woman\nbeen held more sacred than they were in Pagan Rome. That one of the\nnoblest of Romans should have put to torture young women guiltless\nof crime is incredible.\n\n9. The declaration of the Christians that they took a solemn obligation\n\"not to do anything that was wicked; that they would commit no theft,\nrobbery, or adultery, nor break their word,\" etc., looks like an\ningenious attempt to parade the virtues of primitive Christians.\n\n10. This letter, it is claimed, is to be found in but one ancient\ncopy of Pliny.\n\n11. It was first quoted by Tertullian, and the age immediately\npreceding Tertullian was notorious for Christian forgeries.\n\n12. Some of the best German critics reject it. Gibbon, while not\ndenying its authenticity, pronounces it a \"very curious epistle\";\nand Dr. Whiston, who considers it too valuable to discard, applies to\nits contents such epithets as \"amazing doctrine!\" \"amazing stupidity!\"\n\nJosephus, Tacitus, Pliny--these are the disinterested witnesses adduced\nby the church to prove the historical existence of Jesus Christ;\nthe one writing nearly one hundred years, the others one hundred\nand ten years after his alleged birth; the testimony of two of them\nself-evident forgeries, and that of the third a probable forgery.\n\nBut even if the doubtful and hostile letter of Pliny be genuine,\nit was not written until the second century, so that there is not to\nbe found in all the records of profane history prior to the second\ncentury a single allusion to the reputed founder of Christianity.\n\nTo these witnesses is sometimes, though rarely, added a fourth,\nSuetonius, a Roman historian who, like Tacitus and Pliny, wrote in the\nsecond century. In his \"Life of Nero,\" Suetonius says: \"The Christians,\na race of men of a new and villainous superstition, were punished.\" In\nhis \"Life of Claudius,\" he says: \"He [Claudius] drove the Jews, who at\nthe instigation of Chrestus were constantly rioting, out of Rome.\" Of\ncourse no candid Christian will contend that Christ was inciting\nJewish riots at Rome fifteen years after he was crucified at Jerusalem.\n\nSignificant is the silence of the forty Jewish and Pagan writers named\nin this chapter. This silence alone disproves Christ's existence. Had\nthis wonderful being really existed the earth would have resounded\nwith his fame. His mighty deeds would have engrossed every historian's\npen. The pages of other writers would have abounded with references to\nhim. Think of going through the literature of the nineteenth century\nand searching in vain for the name of Napoleon Bonaparte! Yet Napoleon\nwas a pigmy and his deeds trifles compared with this Christ and the\ndeeds he is said to have performed.\n\nWith withering irony Gibbon notes this ominous silence: \"But how shall\nwe excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world,\nto those evidences which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence,\nnot to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ,\nof his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they\npreached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the\nblind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were\nexpelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the\nbenefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside\nfrom the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of\nlife and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral\nor physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius,\nthe whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman\nempire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even\nthis miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the\ncuriosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in\nan age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of\nSeneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate\neffects, or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of\nthese philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great\nphenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses,\nwhich his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and\nthe other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which\nthe mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe\"\n(Rome, Vol. I, pp. 588-590).\n\nEven conceding, for the sake of argument, both the authenticity and\nthe credibility of these passages attributed to the Roman historians,\nwhat do they prove? Do they prove that Christ was divine--that he was a\nsupernatural being, as claimed? No more than do the writings of Paine\nand Voltaire, which also contain his name. This evidence is favorable\nnot to the adherents, but to the opponents, of Christianity. If these\npassages be genuine, and their authors have penned historical truths,\nit simply confirms what most Rationalists admit, that a religious sect\ncalled Christians, who recognized Christ as their founder, existed\nas early as the first century; and confirms what some have charged,\nbut what the church is loath to admit, that primitive Christians,\nwho have been declared the highest exemplars of human virtue, were\nthe most depraved of villains.\n\nAn unlettered and credulous enthusiast, named Jones, imagines that he\nhas had a revelation, and proceeds to found a new religious sect. He\ngathers about him a band of \"disciples\" as ignorant and credulous as\nhimself. He soon gets into trouble and is killed. But the Jonesists\nincrease--increase in numbers and in meanness--until at length they\nbecome sufficiently notorious to receive a paragraph from an annalist\nwho, after holding them up to ridicule and scorn, accounts for their\norigin by stating that they take their name from one Jones who,\nduring the administration of President Roosevelt, was hanged as a\ncriminal. The world contains two billions of inhabitants--mostly fools,\nas Carlyle would say--and as the religion of this sect is a little\nmore foolish than that of any other sect, it continues to spread until\nat the end of two thousand years it covers the globe. Then think of\nthe adherents of this religion citing the uncomplimentary allusion\nof this annalist to prove that Jones was a god!\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nCHRISTIAN EVIDENCE.\n\n\nThe Four Gospels.\n\nFarrar, in his \"Life of Christ,\" concedes and deplores the dearth\nof evidence concerning the subject of his work. He says: \"It is\nlittle short of amazing that neither history nor tradition should\nhave embalmed for us one certain or precious saying or circumstance\nin the life of the Savior of Mankind, except the comparatively few\nevents recorded in four very brief biographies.\"\n\nWith these four brief biographies, the Four Gospels, Christianity\nmust stand or fall. These four documents, it is admitted, contain\npractically all the evidence which can be adduced in proof of the\nexistence and divinity of Jesus Christ. Profane history, as we have\nseen, affords no proof of this. The so-called apocryphal literature\nof the early church has been discarded by the church itself. Even\nthe remaining canonical books of the New Testament are of little\nconsequence if the testimony of the Four Evangelists be successfully\nimpeached. Disprove the authenticity and credibility of these documents\nand this Christian deity is removed to the mythical realm of Apollo,\nOdin, and Osiris.\n\nIn a previous work, \"The Bible,\" I have shown that the books of the\nNew Testament, with a few exceptions, are not authentic. This evidence\ncannot be reproduced here in full. A brief summary of it must suffice.\n\nThe Four Gospels, it is claimed, were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke,\nand John, two of them apostles, and two companions of the apostles\nof Christ. If this claim be true the other writings of the apostles,\nthe writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and the writings of the early\nChristian Fathers, ought to contain some evidences of the fact.\n\nTwenty books--nearly all of the remaining books of the New\nTestament--are said to have been written by the three apostles, Peter,\nJohn, and Paul, a portion of them after the first three Gospels were\nwritten; but it is admitted that they contain no evidence whatever\nof the existence of these Gospels.\n\nThere are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers,\nClement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written,\nfor the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain\nno mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian\nscholars. Dr. Dodwell says: \"We have at this day certain most authentic\necclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas,\nHermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I\nhave named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But\nin Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New\nTestament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named\"\n(Dissertations upon Irenaeus).\n\nThe Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin\nMartyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle\nof the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ\ndemanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He\nmakes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old\nTestament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New\nTestament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says:\n\"The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,\nare never mentioned by him [Justin]--do not occur once in all his\nwritings\" (Christian Records, p. 71).\n\nPapias, another noted Father, was a contemporary of Justin. He\nrefers to writings of Matthew and Mark, but his allusions to them\nclearly indicate that they were not the Gospels of Matthew and\nMark. Dr. Davidson, the highest English authority on the canon, says:\n\"He [Papias] neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired\nGospels\" (Canon of the Bible, p. 123).\n\nTheophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second\ncentury, mentions the Gospel of John, and Irenaeus, who wrote a little\nlater, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from\nthem. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the\ntime of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus,\nthe Four Gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled.\n\nThese books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written\nby Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They\nsimply imply that they are \"according\" to the supposed teachings of\nthese Evangelists. As Renan says, \"They merely signify that these were\nthe traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming\ntheir authority.\" Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas\nsays: \"They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in\nour Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which\ndeserves no confidence whatever\" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).\n\nIt is claimed that the Gospel of Matthew originally appeared in\nHebrew. Our version is a translation of a Greek work. Regarding this\nSt. Jerome says: \"Who afterwards translated it into Greek is not\nsufficiently certain.\" The consequences of this admission are thus\nexpressed by Michaelis: \"If the original text of Matthew is lost,\nand we have nothing but a Greek translation; then, frankly, we cannot\nascribe any divine inspiration to the words.\"\n\nThe contents of these books refute the claim that they were written\nby the Evangelists named. They narrate events and contain doctrinal\nteachings which belong to a later age. Matthew ascribes to Christ the\nfollowing language: \"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build\nmy church\" (xvi, 18). This Gospel is a Roman Catholic Gospel, and was\nwritten after the beginning of the establishment of this hierarchy to\nuphold the supremacy of the Petrine Church of Rome. Of this Gospel\nDr. Davidson says: \"The author, indeed, must ever remain unknown\"\n(Introduction to New Testament, p. 72).\n\nThe Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus, Bishop of\nAntioch, who is believed to be the person addressed, flourished in\nthe latter half of the second century.\n\nDr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany's greatest theologians, after a\ncritical analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation,\nmade up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall's\nSchleiermacher says: \"He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than\nthe compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence\"\n(p. 313).\n\nThe basis of this Gospel is generally believed to be the Gospel of\nMarcion, a Pauline compilation, made about the middle of the second\ncentury. Concerning this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his\n\"Lost and Hostile Gospels,\" says: \"The arrangement is so similar that\nwe are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or\nthat it was his original composition. If he used it then his right\nto the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the ground,\nas what he added was of small amount.\"\n\nMark, according to Renan, is the oldest of the Gospels; but Mark,\naccording to Strauss, was written after the Gospels of Matthew and\nLuke were written. He says: \"It is evidently a compilation, whether\nmade from memory or otherwise, from the first and third Gospels\"\n(Leben Jesu, p. 51). Judge Waite, in his \"History of Christianity,\"\nsays that all but twenty-four verses of this Gospel have their\nparallels in Matthew and Luke. Davidson declares it to be an anonymous\nwork. \"The author,\" he says, \"is unknown.\"\n\nOmitting the last twelve verses of Mark, which all Christian critics\npronounce spurious, the book contains no mention of the two great\nmiracles which mark the limits of Christ's earthly career, his\nmiraculous birth and his ascension.\n\nConcerning the first three Gospels, the \"Encyclopedia Britannica\"\nsays: \"It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form\nonly by degrees.\" Of these books Dr. Westcott says: \"Their substance\nis evidently much older than their form.\" Professor Robertson Smith\npronounces them \"unapostolic digests of the second century.\"\n\nThe internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel\nis conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle,\nwas a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was\nborn at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know\nwhere Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman;\nthe author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the\nmost important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare,\nwere witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these\nevents. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of\nthis Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to\nbe a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.\n\nRegarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. Davidson says: \"The\nJohannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism,\nand though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible\"\n(Canon of the Bible, p. 127).\n\nThat the authenticity of the Four Gospels cannot be maintained is\nconceded by every impartial critic. The author of \"Supernatural\nReligion,\" in one of the most profound and exhaustive works on\nthis subject ever written, expresses the result of his labors in\nthe following words: \"After having exhausted the literature and the\ntestimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct\ntrace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half\nafter the death of Jesus\" (Supernatural Religion, Vol. II, p. 248).\n\nFifteen hundred years ago, Bishop Faustus, a heretical Christian\ntheologian, referring to this so-called Gospel history, wrote: \"It\nis allowed not to have been written by the son himself nor by his\napostles, but long after by some unknown men who, lest they should\nbe suspected of writing things they knew nothing of, gave to their\nbooks the names of the Apostles.\"\n\nThe following is the verdict of the world's greatest Bible critic,\nBaur: \"These Gospels are spurious, and were written in the second\ncentury.\"\n\n\n\nActs, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles is supposed to have been written by the\nauthor of the Third Gospel. Like this book it is anonymous and of late\norigin. It contains historical inaccuracies, contradicts the Gospel of\nMatthew, and conflicts with the writings of Paul. Concerning the last,\nthe \"Bible for Learners\" (Vol. III, p. 25) says: \"In the first two\nchapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, he [Paul] gives us several\ndetails of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story\nside by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this\nbook contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not\nthe result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design.\"\n\nThis book purports to be the product chiefly of three minds: that\nof the author who gives a historical sketch of the early church,\nand those of Peter and Paul whose discourses are reported. And yet\nthe three compositions are clearly the products of one mind--that\nof the author. The evident purpose of the work is to heal the bitter\ndissensions which existed between the Petrine and Pauline churches,\nand this points unmistakably to the latter part of the second century\nas the date of its appearance, when the work of uniting the various\nChristian sects into the Catholic church began. Renan considers this\nthe most faulty book of the New Testament.\n\nThe seven Catholic Epistles, James, First and Second Peter, First,\nSecond and Third John, and Jude, have never been held in very high\nesteem by the church. Many of the Christian Fathers rejected them,\nwhile modern Christian scholars have generally considered them of\ndoubtful authenticity. The first and last of these were rejected by\nMartin Luther. \"St. James' Epistle,\" says Luther, \"is truly an epistle\nof straw\" (Preface to Luther's New Testament, ed. 1524). Jude, he says,\n\"is an abstract or copy of St. Peter's Second, and allegeth stories\nand sayings which have no place in Scripture\" (Standing Preface).\n\nThe First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John have generally\nbeen accorded a higher degree of authority than the others; but even\nthese were not written by apostles, nor in the first century. Dr. Soury\nsays that First Peter \"dates, in all probability, from the year 130\nA. D., at the earliest\" (Jesus and the Gospels, p. 32). Irenaeus, the\nfounder of the New Testament canon, rejected it. The Dutch critics,\nwho deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and assign\nits composition to the second century, say: \"The First Epistle of\nJohn soon issued from the same school in imitation of the Gospel\"\n(Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 692).\n\nSecond Peter is a forgery. Westcott says there is no proof of its\nexistence prior to 170 A. D. Smith's \"Bible Dictionary\" says \"Many\nreject the epistle as altogether spurious.\" The brief epistles of\nSecond and Third John are anonymous and of very late origin. They do\nnot purport to be the writings of John. The superscriptions declare\nthem to be from an elder, and this precludes the claim that they are\nfrom an apostle. The early Fathers ignored them.\n\nRevelation is the only book in the Bible which claims to be the word of\nGod. At the same time it is the book of which Christians have always\nbeen the most suspicious. It is addressed to the seven churches\nof Asia, but the seven churches of Asia rejected it. Concerning\nthe attitude of ancient churchmen toward it, Dionysius, Bishop of\nAlexandria, says: \"Divers of our predecessors have wholly refused and\nrejected this book, and by discussing the several parts thereof have\nfound it obscure and void of reason and the title forged.\"\n\n\"The most learned and intelligent of Protestant divines,\" says the\nEdinburgh Review, \"almost all doubted or denied the canonicity\nof the book of Revelation.\" It is a book which, Dr. South said,\n\"either found a man mad or left him so.\" Calvin and Beza both forbade\ntheir clergy to attempt an explanation of its contents. Luther says:\n\"In the Revelation of John much is wanting to let me deem it either\nprophetic or apostolical\" (Preface to N. T., 1524).\n\nConsidered as evidences of Christ's historical existence and divinity\nthese nine books are of no value. They are all anonymous writings or\nforgeries, and, with the possible exception of Revelation, of very\nlate origin. While they affirm Christ's existence they are almost\nentirely silent regarding his life and miracles.\n\n\n\nThe Epistles of Paul.\n\nOf the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul, seven--Ephesians,\nColossians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus,\nand Hebrews--are conceded by nearly all critics to be spurious, while\nthree others--Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon--are\ngenerally classed as doubtful.\n\nThe general verdict concerning the first seven is thus expressed by\nthe Rev. Dr. Hooykaas: \"Fourteen epistles are said to be Paul's;\nbut we must at once strike off one, namely, that to the Hebrews,\nwhich does not bear his name at all. ... The two letters to Timothy\nand the letter to Titus were certainly composed long after the death\nof Paul.... It is more than possible that the letters to the Ephesians\nand Colossians are also unauthentic, and the same suspicion rests,\nperhaps, on the first, but certainly on the second of the Epistles\nto the Thessalonians\" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 23).\n\nThe author of Second Thessalonians, whose epistle is a self-evident\nforgery, declares First Thessalonians to be a forgery. Baur and the\nTubingen school reject both Epistles. Baur also rejects Philippians:\n\"The Epistles to the Colossians and to the Philippians ... are\nspurious, and were written by the Catholic school near the end of the\nsecond century, to heal the strife between the Jew and the Gentile\nfactions\" (Paulus). Dr. Kuenen and the other Dutch critics admit that\nPhilippians and Philemon, as well as First Thessalonians, are doubtful.\n\nThat the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries is now conceded by all\ncritics. According to the German critics they belong to the second\ncentury. Hebrews does not purport to be a Pauline document. Luther\nsays: \"The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul, nor, indeed,\nby any apostle\" (Standing Preface to Luther's N. T.).\n\nFour Epistles--Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and\nGalatians--while rejected by a few critics, are generally admitted\nto be the genuine writings of Paul. These books were written, it is\nclaimed, about a quarter of a century after the death of Christ. They\nare the only books of the New Testament whose authenticity can be\nmaintained.\n\nAdmitting the authenticity of these books, however, is not\nadmitting the historical existence of Christ and the divine origin of\nChristianity. Paul was not a witness of the alleged events upon which\nChristianity rests. He did not become a convert to Christianity until\nmany years after the death of Christ. He did not see Christ (save in\na vision); he did not listen to his teachings; he did not learn from\nhis disciples. \"The Gospel which was preached of me is not after man,\nfor I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it\" (Gal. i,\n11, 12). Paul accepted only to a very small extent the religion\nof Christ's disciples. He professed to derive his knowledge from\nsupernatural sources--from trances and visions. Regarding the value of\nsuch testimony the author of \"Supernatural Religion\" (p. 970) says:\n\"No one can deny, and medical and psychological annals prove, that\nmany men have been subject to visions and hallucinations which have\nnever been seriously attributed to supernatural causes. There is not\none single valid reason removing the ecstatic visions and trances of\nthe Apostle Paul from this class.\"\n\nThe corporeal existence of the Christ of the Evangelists receives\nslight confirmation in the writings of Paul. His Christ was not the\nincarnate Word of John, nor the demi-god of Matthew and Luke. Of the\nimmaculate conception of Jesus he knew nothing. To him Christ was the\nson of God in a spiritual rather than in a physical sense. \"His son\nJesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according\nto the flesh; and declared to be the son of God with power, according\nto the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead\" (Rom. i,\n3, 4). \"God sent forth his son, made of a woman [but not of a virgin],\nmade under the law\" (Gal. iv, 4).\n\nWith the Evangelists the proofs of Christ's divinity are his\nmiracles. Their books teem with accounts of these. But Paul evidently\nknows nothing of these miracles. With him the evidences of Christ's\ndivine mission are his resurrection and the spiritual gifts conferred\non those who accept him.\n\nThe Evangelists teach a material resurrection. When the women visited\nhis tomb \"they entered in and found not the body of Jesus\" (Luke xxiv,\n3). The divine messengers said to them, \"He is not here, but is risen\"\n(6). \"He sat at meat\" with his disciples; \"he took bread, and blessed\nit, and brake, and gave to them\" (30). \"Then he said to Thomas, Reach\nhither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and\nthrust it into my side\" (John xx, 27). This is entirely at variance\nwith the teachings of Paul. \"But now is Christ risen from the dead,\nand become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came\ndeath, by man came also the resurrection of the dead\" (1 Cor. xv, 20,\n21). \"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with\nwhat body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not\nquickened, except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest\nnot that body that shall be\" (35-37). \"It is sown a natural body;\nit is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there\nis a spiritual body\" (44). \"Now this I say brethren, that flesh and\nblood cannot inherit the kingdom of God\" (50).\n\nThe Christ that Paul saw in a vision was a spiritual being--an\napparition; and this appearance he considers of exactly the\nsame character as the post mortem appearances of Christ to his\ndisciples. \"He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that\nhe was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; ... after that,\nhe was seen of James; then of all the Apostles. And last of all,\nhe was seen of me also\" (1 Cor. xv, 5-8).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE INFANCY OF CHRIST.\n\n\nWe have seen that the Four Gospels are not authentic, that they are\nanonymous writings which appeared late in the second century. If their\ncontents seemed credible and their statements harmonized with each\nother this want of authenticity would invalidate their authority,\nbecause the testimony of an unknown witness cannot be accepted\nas authoritative. On the other hand, if their authenticity could\nbe established, if it could be shown that they were written by the\nauthors claimed, the incredible and contradictory character of their\ncontents would destroy their authority.\n\nAs historical documents these books are hardly worthy of credit. The\n\"Arabian Nights\" is almost as worthy of credit as the Four Gospels. In\nboth are to be found accounts of things possible and of things\nimpossible. To believe the impossible is gross superstition; to believe\nthe possible, simply because it is possible, is blind credulity. These\nbooks are adduced as the credentials of Christ. A critical analysis of\nthese credentials reveals hundreds of errors. A presentation of these\nerrors will occupy the five succeeding chapters of this work. If it\ncan be shown that they contain errors, however trivial some of them\nmay appear, this refutes the claim of inerrancy and divinity. If\nit can be shown that they abound with errors, this destroys their\ncredibility as historical documents. Destroy the credibility of the\nFour Gospels and you destroy all proofs of Christ's divinity--all\nproofs of his existence.\n\n\n\n1\n\nWhen was Jesus born?\n\nMatthew: \"In the days of Herod\" (ii, 1).\n\nLuke: \"When Cyrenius was governor of Syria\" (ii, 1-7).\n\nNearly every biographer gives the date of his subject's birth. Yet not\none of the Evangelists gives the date of Jesus' birth. Two, Matthew\nand Luke, attempt to give the time approximately. But between these two\nattempts there is a discrepancy of at least ten years; for Herod died\n4 B. C., while Cyrenius did not become governor of Syria until 7 A. D.\n\nA reconciliation of these statements is impossible. Matthew clearly\nstates that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. Luke states\nthat Augustus Caesar issued a decree that the world should be taxed,\nthat \"this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria,\"\nand that Jesus was born at the time of this taxing.\n\nThe following extracts from Josephus, the renowned historian of the\nrace and country to which Jesus belonged, give the date of this taxing\nand the time that elapsed between the death of Herod and the taxing,\nand which reckoned backward from this gives the date of Herod's death:\n\n\"And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind;\nfor he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left his kingdom,\nto be tetrarch of Galilee and Berea, and granted the kingdom to\nArchelaus.... When he had done these things he died\" (Antiquities,\nB. xvii, ch. 8, sec. 1).\n\n\"But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren,\nand the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear\nhis barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before\nCaesar.... And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what\ncertain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make,\nboth banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the\nplace of his habitation, and took his money away from him\" (Ibid,\nch. 13, sec. 2).\n\n\"Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius,\none that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of\npeople's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus\"\n(Ib. sec. 5).\n\n\"When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when\nthe taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the\nthirty-seventh of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium,\" etc. (Ib.,\nB. xviii, ch. 2, sec. 1).\n\nThe battle of Actium was fought September 2, B. C. 31. The\nthirty-seventh year from this battle comprehended the time elapsing\nbetween September 2, A. D. 6, and September 2, A. D. 7, the mean\nof which was March 2, A. D. 7. The mean of the tenth year preceding\nthis--the year in which Herod died--was September 2, B. C. 4.\n\nIt has been suggested by some unacquainted with Roman history that\nCyrenius [Quirinus] may have been twice governor of Syria. Cyrenius\nwas but once governor of Syria, and this not until 7 A. D. During the\nlast years of Herod's reign, and during all the years of Archelaus's\nreign, Sentius Saturninus and Quintilius Varus held this office. Even\nif Cyrenius had previously held the office the events related by Luke\ncould not have occurred then because Judea prior to 7 A. D. was not\na part of Syria.\n\nThe second chapter of Luke which narrates the birth and infancy of\nJesus, conflicts with the first chapter of this book. In this chapter\nit is expressly stated that Zacharias, the priest, lived in the time\nof Herod and, inferentially, that the conceptions of John and Jesus\noccurred at this time.\n\nChristian chronology, by which events are supposed to be reckoned\nfrom the birth of Christ, agrees with neither Matthew nor Luke, but\ndates from a point nearly intermediate between the two. According to\nMatthew, Christ was born at least five years before the beginning\nof the Christian era; according to Luke he was born at least six\nyears after the beginning of the Christian era. This is 1907: but\naccording to Matthew Christ was born not later than 1912 years ago;\nwhile according to Luke he was born not earlier than 1901 years ago.\n\nAt least ten different opinions regarding the year of Christ's birth\nhave been advanced by Christian scholars. Dodwell places it in 6 B. C.,\nChrysostom 5 B. C., Usher, whose opinion is most commonly received,\n4 B. C., Irenaeus 3 B. C., Jerome 2 B. C., Tertullian 1 B. C. Some\nmodern authorities place it in 1 A. D., others in 2 A. D., and still\nothers in 3 A. D.; while those who accept Luke as infallible authority\nmust place it as late as 7 A. D.\n\n\n\n2\n\nIt is generally assumed that Jesus was born in the last year of\nHerod's reign. How long before the close of Herod's reign was he born?\n\nMatthew: At least two years (ii, 1-16).\n\nMatthew says that when the wise men visited Herod he diligently\ninquired of them the time when the star which announced the birth of\nJesus first appeared. When he determined to destroy Jesus and massacred\nthe infants of Bethlehem and the surrounding country, he slew those\n\"from two years old and under, according to the time which he had\ndiligently inquired of the wise men,\" clearly indicating that Jesus\nwas nearly or quite two years old at this time.\n\nIn attempting to reconcile Matthew's visit of the wise men to Jesus\nat Bethlehem with the narrative of Luke, which makes his stay there\nless than six weeks, it has been assumed that this visit occurred\nimmediately after his birth, whereas, according to Matthew, it did\nnot occur until about two years after his birth.\n\n\n\n3\n\nIn what month and on what day of the month was he born?\n\nNot one of his biographers is prepared to tell; primitive Christians\ndid not know; the church has never been able to determine this. A\nhundred different opinions regarding it have been expressed by\nChristian scholars. Wagenseil places it in February, Paulius in\nMarch, Greswell in April, Lichtenstein in June, Strong in August,\nLightfoot in September, and Newcome in October. Clinton says that he\nwas born in the Spring; Larchur says that he was born in the Fall. Some\nearly Christians believed that it occurred on the 5th of January;\nothers the 19th of April; others still on the 20th of May. The Eastern\nchurch believed that he was born on the 7th of January. The church of\nRome, in the fourth century, selected the 25th of December on which\nto celebrate the anniversary of his birth; and this date has been\naccepted by the greater portion of the Christian world.\n\n\n\n4\n\nWhat determined the selection of this date?\n\n\"There was a double reason for selecting this day. In the first place\nit had been observed from a hoary antiquity as a heathen festival,\nfollowing the longest night of the winter solstice, and was called\n'the Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun.' It was a fine thought\nto celebrate on that day the birth of him whom the Gospel called\n\"the light of the world\".... The second reason was, that at Rome the\ndays from the 17th to the 23d of December were devoted to unbridled\nmerrymaking. These days were called the Saturnalia.... Now the church\nwas always anxious to meet the heathen, whom she had converted or\nwas beginning to convert, half-way, by allowing them to retain the\nfeasts they were accustomed to, only giving them a Christian dress,\nor attaching a new and Christian signification to them\" (Bible for\nLearners, vol. iii, pp. 66, 67).\n\nGibbon says: \"The Roman Christians, ignorant of the real time of the\nbirth of Jesus, fixed the solemn festival on the 25th of December,\nthe winter solstice when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of\nthe sun.\"\n\n\n\n5\n\nWhat precludes the acceptance of this date?\n\nLuke: At the time of his birth \"there were in the same country\nshepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by\nnight\" (ii, 8).\n\nShepherds did not abide in the field with their flocks at night in\nmid-winter. The Rev. Cunningham Geikie, D. D., a leading English\northodox authority on Christ, says:\n\n\"One knows how wretched even Rome is in winter and Palestine is much\nworse during hard weather. Nor is it likely that shepherds would\nlie out through the night, except during unseasonably fine weather\"\n(Christmas at Bethlehem, in Deems' Holydays and Holidays, p. 405).\n\n\"The nativity of Jesus in December should be given up.\"--Dr. Adam\nClarke.\n\nIn regard to the date of Christ's birth Dr. Farrar says: \"It\nmust be admitted that we cannot demonstrate the exact year of the\nnativity.... As to the day and month of the nativity it is certain\nthat they can never be recovered; they were absolutely unknown to the\nearly fathers, and there is scarcely one month of the year which has\nnot been fixed upon as probable by modern critics.\"\n\nThe inability of Christians to determine the date of Christ's birth\nis one of the strongest proofs of his non-existence as a historical\ncharacter. Were the story of his miraculous birth and marvelous life\ntrue the date of his birth would have been preserved and would be\ntoday, the best authenticated fact in history.\n\n\n\n6\n\nWhere was Jesus born?\n\nMatthew and Luke: In Bethlehem of Judea (Matt. ii, 1; Luke ii, 1-7).\n\nAside from these stories in Matthew and Luke concerning the nativity,\nwhich are clearly of later origin than the remaining documents\ncomposing the books and which many Christian scholars reject, there\nis not a word in the Four Gospels to confirm the claim that Jesus was\nborn in Bethlehem. Every statement in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,\nas well as Acts, concerning his nativity, is to the effect that he was\nborn in Nazareth of Galilee. He is never called \"Jesus of Bethlehem,\"\nbut always \"Jesus of Nazareth.\" According to modern usage \"Jesus of\nNazareth\" might merely signify that Nazareth was the place of his\nresidence and not necessarily the place of his birth. But this usage\nwas unknown to the Jews. Had he been born at Bethlehem, he would,\naccording to the Jewish custom, have been called \"Jesus of Bethlehem,\"\nbecause the place of birth always determined this distinguishing\nadjunct, and the fact of his having removed to another place would\nnot have changed it.\n\nPeter (Acts ii, 22; iii, 6); Paul (Acts xxvi, 9), Philip (John i,\n45), Cleopas and his companion (Luke xxiv, 19), Pilate (John xix,\n19), Judas and the band sent to arrest Jesus (John xviii, 5, 7), the\nHigh Priest's maid (Mark xiv, 67), blind Bartimaeus (Mark x, 47),\nthe unclean spirits (Mark i, 24; Luke iv, 34), the multitudes that\nattended his meetings (Matt. xxi, 11; Luke xviii, 37), all declared\nhim to be a native of Nazareth.\n\nTo the foregoing may be added the testimony of Jesus himself. When\nPaul asked him who he was he answered: \"I am Jesus of Nazareth\"\n(Acts xxii, 8).\n\nMany of the Jews rejected Christ because he was born in Galilee and\nnot in Bethlehem. \"Others said, This is the Christ. But some said,\nShall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scriptures said,\nThat Christ cometh out of the seed of David, and out of the town of\nBethlehem, where David was?\" (John vii, 41, 42).\n\nConcerning this subject the \"Bible for Learners\" says: \"The primitive\ntradition declared emphatically that Nazareth was the place from\nwhich Jesus came. We may still see this distinctly enough in our\nGospels. Jesus is constantly called the Nazarene, or Jesus of\nNazareth. This was certainly the name by which he was known in his\nown time; and of course such local names were given to men from the\nplace of their birth, and not from the place in which they lived,\nwhich might constantly be changing. Nazareth is called in so many\nwords his own, that is his native city, and he himself declares it so\"\n(vol. iii, pp. 39, 40).\n\nThat Jesus the man, if such a being existed, was not born at Bethlehem\nis affirmed by all critics. That he could not have been born at\nNazareth is urged by many. Nazareth, it is asserted, did not exist\nat this time. Christian scholars admit that there is no proof of its\nexistence at the beginning of the Christian era outside of the New\nTestament. The Encyclopedia Biblica, a leading Christian authority,\nsays: \"We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was\na city called Nazareth in Jesus' time.\"\n\n\n\n7\n\nHis reputed birth at Bethlehem was in fulfillment of what prophecy?\n\n\"And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among\nthe princes of Juda; for out of thee shall come a governor that shall\nrule my people Israel\" (Matthew ii, 6).\n\nThis is a misquotation of Micah v, 2. The passage as it appears in\nour version of the Old Testament is itself a mistranslation. Correctly\nrendered it does not mean that this ruler shall come from Bethlehem,\nbut simply that he shall be a descendant of David whose family belonged\nto Bethlehem.\n\nConcerning this prophecy it may be said, 1. That Jesus never became\ngovernor or ruler of Israel; 2. That the ruler referred to was to be\na military leader who should deliver Israel from the Assyrians. \"And\nthis man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into the\nland ... thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian\" (Micah v, 5, 6).\n\n\n\n8\n\nJesus is called the Son of David. Why?\n\nMatthew and Luke: Because Joseph, who was not his father, but merely\nhis guardian or foster father, was descended from David.\n\nThe Jews expected a Messiah. This expectation was realized, it is\nclaimed, in Jesus Christ. His Messianic marks, however, were not\ndiscernible and the Jews, for the most part, rejected him. This\nMessiah must be a son of David. Before Jesus' claims could even be\nconsidered his Davidic descent must be established. This Matthew and\nLuke attempt to do. Each gives what purports to be a genealogy of\nhim. If these genealogies agree they may be false; if they do not\nagree one must be false.\n\n\n\n9\n\nHow many generations were there from David to Jesus?\n\nMatthew: Twenty-eight (i, 6-16).\n\nLuke: Forty-three (iii, 23-31).\n\nLuke makes two more generations from David to Jesus in a period of\none thousand years than Matthew does from Abraham to Jesus in a period\nof two thousand years.\n\n\n\n10\n\nHow many generations were there from Abraham to Jesus?\n\nMatthew: \"From Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from\nDavid until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations;\nand from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen\ngenerations\"--in all, forty-two generations (i, 17).\n\nHere Matthew contradicts his own record given in the preceding sixteen\nverses; for, including both Abraham and Jesus, he names but forty-one\ngenerations: 1. Abraham, 2. Isaac, 3. Jacob, 4. Judas, 5. Phares,\n6. Ezrom, 7. Aram, 8. Aminadab, 9. Naason, 10. Salmon, 11. Booz,\n12. Obed, 13. Jesse, 14. David, 15. Solomon, 16. Roboam, 17. Abia,\n18. Asa, 19. Josaphat, 20. Joram, 21. Ozias, 22. Joatham, 23. Achaz,\n24. Ezekias, 25. Manasses, 26. Amon, 27. Josias, 28. Jechonias,\n29. Salathiel, 30. Zorobabel, 31. Abiud, 32. Eliakim, 33. Azor,\n34. Sadoc, 35. Achim, 36. Eliud, 37. Eleazer, 38. Matthan, 39. Jacob,\n40. Joseph, 41. Jesus Christ.\n\n\n\n11\n\nDoes Luke's genealogy agree with the Old Testament?\n\nIt does not. Luke gives twenty generations from Adam to Abraham,\nwhile Genesis (v, 3-32; xi, 10-26) and Chronicles (1 Ch. i, 1-4;\n24-27) each gives but nineteen.\n\n\n\n12\n\nHow many generations were there from Abraham to David?\n\nMatthew: \"From Abraham to David are fourteen generations\" (i, 17).\n\nFrom Abraham to David are not fourteen, but thirteen generations;\nfor David does not belong to this period. The genealogical table of\nMatthew naturally and logically comprises three divisions which he\nrecognizes. The first division comprises the generations preceding\nthe establishment of the Kingdom of David, beginning with Abraham;\nthe second comprises the kings of Judah, beginning with David the\nfirst and ending with Jechonias the last; the third comprises the\ngenerations following the kings of Judah, from the Captivity to Christ.\n\n\n\n13\n\nHow many generations were there from David to the Captivity?\n\nMatthew: \"From David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen\ngenerations\" (i, 17).\n\nIn order to obtain a uniformity of numbers--three periods of double\nseven (seven was the sacred number of the Jews) each--Matthew\npurposely falsifies the records of the Old Testament. A reference\nto the Davidic genealogy (1 Chronicles iii) shows that he omits the\ngenerations of Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim, four Jewish\nkings, lineal descendants of David, whose combined reigns amount to\nover eighty years.\n\n\n                       Matthew.     Chronicles.\n\n                       David,       David,\n                       Solomon,     Solomon,\n                       Reboam,      Rehoboam,\n                       Abia,        Abia,\n                       Asa,         Asa,\n                       Josaphat,    Jehoshaphat,\n                       Joram,       Joram,\n                                    Ahaziah,\n                                    Joash,\n                                    Amaziah,\n                       Ozias,       Azariah,\n                       Joatham,     Jotham,\n                       Achaz,       Ahaz,\n                       Ezekias,     Hezekiah,\n                       Manasses,    Manasseh,\n                       Amon,        Amon,\n                       Josias,      Josiah,\n                                    Jehoiakim,\n                       Jechonias.   Jechoniah.\n\n\nThe first three omissions are thus explained by Augustine: \"Ochozias\n[Ahaziah], Joash, and Amazias were excluded from the number, because\ntheir wickedness was continuous and without interval.\"\n\nAs if the exclusion of their names from a genealogical list would\nexpunge their records from history and drain their blood from the veins\nof their descendants. But aside from the absurdity of this explanation,\nthe premises are false. Those whose names are excluded from the list\nwere not men whose \"wickedness was continuous and without interval,\"\nwhile some whose names are not excluded were. Ahaziah reigned but one\nyear. Joash reigned forty years and both Kings and Chronicles affirm\nthat \"He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord\" (2 Kings\nxii, 2; 2 Chron. xxiv, 2). Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years, and he,\ntoo, \"did that which was right in the sight of the Lord\" (2 Kings xiv,\n3). On the other hand, Rehoboam, Joram and Jechonias, whose names are\nretained in Matthew's table, are represented as monsters of wickedness.\n\n\n\n14\n\nName the generations from David to the Captivity.\n\n\n                         Matthew.     Luke.\n\n                         David,       David,\n                         Solomon,     Nathan,\n                         Roboam,      Mattatha,\n                         Abia,        Menan,\n                         Asa,         Melea,\n                         Josaphat,    Eliakim,\n                         Joram,       Jonan,\n                         Ozias,       Joseph,\n                         Joatham,     Juda,\n                         Achas,       Simeon,\n                         Ezekias,     Levi,\n                         Manasses,    Matthat,\n                         Amon,        Jorim,\n                         Josias,      Eliezer,\n                         Jechonias.   Jose,\n                                      Er,\n                                      Elmodam,\n                                      Cosam,\n                                      Addi,\n                                      Melchi,\n                                      Neri.\n\n\n\n15\n\nHow many generations were there from the Captivity to Christ?\n\nMatthew: \"From the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen\ngenerations\" (i, 17).\n\nMatthew is again guilty of deception. A reference to his table shows\nthat there were but thirteen generations. In order to carry out his\nnumerical system of fourteen generations to each period he counts the\ngeneration of Jechonias in this period which he has already counted\nin the preceding period; thus performing the mathematical feat of\ndividing 27 by 2 and obtaining 14 for a quotient.\n\nHad Matthew given a true summary of this genealogy, assuming the\ngenerations from the close of the Old Testament record to Christ to\nbe correct, instead of these periods of double seven each, we would\nhave the following: \"So all the generations from Abraham to David\nare thirteen generations; and from David until the carrying away\ninto Babylon are nineteen generations; and from the carrying away\ninto Babylon unto Christ are thirteen generations.\"\n\n\n\n16\n\nName the generations from the Captivity to Christ.\n\n\n      Matthew.     Luke.         Chronicles.\n\n      Salathiel,   Salathiel,    Pediah,\n      Zorobabel,   Zorobabel,    Zerubabel,\n      Abiud,       Rhesa,        Hananiah,\n      Eliakim,     Joanna,       Schecania,\n      Azor,        Juda,         Shemaiah,\n      Sadoc,       Joseph,       Neariah,\n      Achim,       Semei,        Elioenai,\n      Eliud,       Mattathias,   Hodaiah,\n      Eleazer,     Maath,        (Here the genealogy of Chronicles\n                                 ends.)\n      Matthan,     Nagge,\n      Jacob,       Esli,\n      Joseph,      Naum,\n      Jesus.       Amos,\n                   Mattathias,\n                   Joseph,\n                   Janna,\n                   Melchi,\n                   Levi,\n                   Heli,\n                   Matthat,\n                   Joseph,\n                   Jesus.\n\n\n\n17\n\nAccording to the accepted chronology, what was the average age of\neach generation from David to Jesus?\n\nLuke: Twenty-five years.\n\nMatthew: Forty years.\n\n\n\n18\n\nWhat was the average age from David to the Captivity?\n\nMatthew: Thirty-seven years.\n\nAccording to Chronicles the average age of the same line for the same\nperiod was but twenty-six years.\n\n\n\n19\n\nWhat was the average age from the Captivity to Jesus?\n\nLuke: Twenty-eight years.\n\nMatthew: Fifty years.\n\nWhile the average age from David to the Captivity by way of Solomon\nwas but twenty-six years the average age from the Captivity to Jesus\nby the same line, according to Matthew, was fifty years. This proves\nthe falsity of Matthew's genealogy from the Captivity to Jesus.\n\n\n\n20\n\nWhat was the average length of each generation from Abraham to David?\n\nMatthew and Luke: Seventy years.\n\nSeventy years is said to constitute the natural life of man. According\nto these Evangelists Christ's Pre-Davidic ancestors only reached\nmaturity at seventy. How slow was man's development then--a babe\nin his mother's arms at twenty; a playful child at forty; at sixty\nan ardent youth wooing a blushing maiden of half a hundred years;\nat three score years and ten a fond young father rejoicing at the\nbirth of his first-born!\n\n\n\n21\n\nWhat was the average length of each generation from Adam to Abraham?\n\nLuke: One hundred years.\n\n\n\n22\n\nHow many generations were there from Adam to Abraham?\n\nLuke: Twenty (iii, 34-38).\n\nLuke makes less than half as many generations from Adam to Abraham\nin a period of two thousand years as he does from David to Jesus in\na period of one thousand years.\n\n\n\n23\n\nHow many generations were there between Rachab, the mother of Booz,\nand David?\n\nMatthew: Three--Booz, Obed and Jesse (i, 5, 6).\n\nRachab lived at Jericho when it was taken by the Israelites. Jericho\nwas taken 1451 B. C., the year that Moses died. David was born 1085\nB. C.--nearly four centuries later.\n\n\n\n24\n\nAssuming the generations following the Captivity in Matthew and\nChronicles to run parallel, how many generations were there between\nthe last generation named in Chronicles and Jesus?\n\nMatthew: Four.\n\nYet Chronicles was written, it is claimed, from 458 to 604 years\nbefore Christ.\n\n\"If the Chronicles were written by Ezra, the date of their\ncomposition was not far from B. C. 458, the year of the return from\nthe Captivity. If by Daniel, the earlier period of from 604 to 534\nmust be adopted.\"--Rev. Dr. Hitchcock.\n\n\n\n25\n\nName the first ten ancestors of Jesus.\n\nLuke: Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Maleleel, Jared, Enoch, Mathusala,\nLamech, Noe (iii, 36-38).\n\nArcheological researches have shown these to be ten Babylonian kings.\n\n\n\n26\n\nWho was Sala?\n\nLuke: \"Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of\nArphaxad\" (iii, 35, 36).\n\n\"And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begat Salah\" (Genesis\nxi, 12).\n\nAccording to Luke Sala was the grand-son of Arphaxad; according to\nGenesis he was the son of Arphaxad.\n\n\n\n27\n\nWho begat Ozias?\n\nMatthew: \"Joram begat Ozias\" (i, 8).\n\n\"Ahaziah his [Joram's] son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah\n[Ozias] his son\" (1 Chronicles iii, 11, 12).\n\nAccording to the New Testament Ozias was the son of Joram; according\nto the Old Testament he was the great great-grandson of Joram.\n\n\n\n28\n\nWho was Josiah's successor?\n\nMatthew: Jechonias (i, 11).\n\n\"Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, and\nmade him king in his father's stead\" (2 Chronicles xxxvi, 1).\n\n\"For thus saith the Lord touching Shallum, the son of Josiah, king\nof Judah, which reigned instead of Josiah, his father\" (Jeremiah\nxxii, 11).\n\n\"And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room\nof Josiah, his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim\" (2 Kings\nxxiii, 34).\n\nAccording to Matthew, Josiah's successor was Jechonias; according to\nChronicles, Jehoahaz; according to Jeremiah, Shallum; according to\nKings, Jehoiakim.\n\n\n\n29\n\nWho was the father of Jechonias?\n\nMatthew: \"Josias begat Jechonias\" (i, 11).\n\nJosias was not the father but the grandfather of Jechonias. \"And the\nsons of Josiah were, ... the second Jehoiakim.... And the sons of\nJehoiakim: Jechoniah, his son\" (1 Chron. iii, 15, 16).\n\n\n\n30\n\nWhen did Josias beget Jechonias?\n\nMatthew: \"And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time\nthey were carried away into Babylon\" (i, 11).\n\nJosiah became king 641 B. C. and died 610 B. C. Jechonias was carried\nto Babylon 588 B. C., 22 years after Josiah died.\n\n\n\n31\n\nDid Jechonias have a son?\n\nMatthew: \"And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat\nSalathiel\" (i, 12).\n\n\"As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah [Jechonias], the son\nof Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet upon my right hand,\nyet would I pluck thee thence.... O earth, earth, earth, hear the\nword of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless,\na man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall\nprosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling no more in Judah\"\n(Jeremiah xxii, 24-30).\n\nThis curse was pronounced upon Jechonias before he was taken to\nBabylon. By this divine oath Jesus is precluded from becoming an heir\nto the throne of David. God swears that Jechonias shall be childless,\nand that no descendant of his shall ever sit upon the throne. Yet\nMatthew, in the face of this oath, declares that Jechonias did not\nremain childless, that he begat a son, Salathiel, the progenitor of\nJesus. In attempting to make Jesus an heir to David's throne Matthew\nmakes God a liar and perjurer.\n\n\n\n32\n\nMatthew says that Salathiel was the son of Jechonias. Who does Luke\ndeclare him to be?\n\n\"The son of Neri\" (iii, 27).\n\n\n\n33\n\nWho was the father of Zorobabel?\n\nMatthew: \"And Salathiel begat Zorobabel\" (i, 12).\n\nLuke: \"Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel\" (iii, 27).\n\nHere both Evangelists agree--agree to disagree with Chronicles\nwhich says that Zorobabel was the son of Pedaiah, the brother of\nSalathiel. \"And the sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei\"\n(1 Chron. iii, 19).\n\n\n\n34\n\nWho was the son of Zorobabel?\n\nMatthew: \"And Zorobabel begat Abiud\" (i, 13).\n\nLuke: \"Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel\" (iii, 27).\n\nEach contradicts the other, and both contradict the Old Testament\n(1 Chron. iii, 19, 20).\n\n\n\n35\n\nWho was the father of Joseph?\n\nMatthew: \"And Jacob begat Joseph\" (i, 16).\n\nLuke: \"Joseph, which was the son of Heli\" (iii, 23).\n\n\n\n36\n\nIf Jesus was descended from David, the descent was through one of\nDavid's sons. Which one?\n\nMatthew: Solomon (i, 6-16).\n\nLuke: Nathan (iii, 23-31).\n\nLuke reaches the same person by way of one brother that Matthew does\nby way of the other.\n\n\n\n37\n\nMany commentators attempt to reconcile these discordant genealogies by\nassuming that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives\nthe genealogy of Mary. What do the Evangelists themselves declare?\n\nMatthew: \"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was\nborn Jesus, who is called Christ,\" etc. (i, 16).\n\nLuke: \"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being\n(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,\"\netc. (iii, 23).\n\nDr. Geikie, in his \"Life of Christ\" (vol. i, p. 531, note), says:\n\"The genealogies given by both Matthew and Luke seem unquestionably\nto refer to Joseph.\"\n\nRegarding this the Rev. Dr. McNaught says: \"Let the reader bear\nin mind how Matthew states that 'Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of\nMary,' and how Luke's words are 'Joseph which was the son of Heli,'\nand then let him say whether it is truthful to allege that these\ndifferent genealogies belong to different individuals. Is it not\nplain that each of them professes to trace the lineal descent of one\nand the same man, Joseph?\"\n\nWilliam Rathbone Greg says: \"The circumstance that any man could\nsuppose that Matthew when he said, 'Jacob begat Joseph,' or Luke, when\nhe said, 'Joseph was the son of Heli,' could refer to the wife of the\none, or the daughter-in-law of the other, shows to what desperate\nstratagems polemical orthodoxy will resort in order to defend an\nuntenable position.\"\n\nSmith's \"Bible Dictionary\" offers the following explanation:\n\"They are both the genealogies of Joseph, i. e., of Jesus Christ,\nas the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary. The genealogy of\nSt. Matthew is Joseph's genealogy as legal successor to the throne of\nDavid. St. Luke's is Joseph's private genealogy, exhibiting his real\nbirth, as David's son, and thus showing why he was heir to Solomon's\ncrown. The simple principle that one Evangelist exhibits that genealogy\nwhich contained the successive heirs to David's and Solomon's throne,\nwhile the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir,\nexplains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees.\"\n\nThis \"simple principle\" necessitates three disagreeable\npostulates. 1. That the lineage of Nathan, who is not the recorded\npossessor of even one wife, survived, while that of Solomon who had\nseven hundred wives became extinct. 2. That Joseph was legal successor\nto the throne of David, when Heli, his father, was not. 3. That the\nfirst chapter of Matthew contains more than a score of errors. That\nlittle word \"begat\" is fatal to the above theory. Matthew declares that\nJacob begat Joseph. If Jacob begat Joseph, then Jacob, and not Heli,\nwas the father of Joseph. According to Matthew, the royal line descends\nfrom David to Joseph unbroken; each heir begetting the succeeding one,\nthus precluding the possibility of a collateral branch inheriting\nthe throne.\n\nThe hypothesis that Jesus was merely the adopted son and legal\nheir of Joseph and yet fulfilled the Messianic requirements is\nuntenable. Strauss says: \"Adoption might indeed suffice to secure to\nthe adopted son the reversion of certain external family rights and\ninheritances; but such a relationship could in no wise lend a claim\nto the Messianic dignity, which was attached to the true blood and\nlineage of David\" (Leben Jesu, p. 122).\n\nThe Messiah must be a natural and lineal descendant of David, which\nPeter expressly declares Jesus to be: \"God had sworn with an oath to\nhim [David], that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh,\nhe would raise up Christ to sit on his throne\" (Acts ii, 30).\n\nIt is assumed by some that a Levirate marriage had taken place between\nthe parents of Joseph, and that the one genealogy belonged to the\nnatural, the others to the legal father of Joseph. By a Levirate\nmarriage if a man died without heirs his remaining brother married his\nwidow and raised up heirs to him. But in this case the brothers would\nhave the same father, and the genealogies would differ only in the\nfather of Joseph. It is only by a succession of Levirate marriages\nand a juggling of words, which no intelligent critic can seriously\nentertain, that such a hypothesis can be considered possible, even\nwaiving the Old Testament writers, and the Evangelists themselves,\nwhose language forbids it.\n\nEusebius advances an explanation characteristic of this ecclesiastical\nhistorian and of the early church whose history he professes\nto record. The Jews, it is said, were divided in their opinions\nregarding the descent of the Messiah. While some contended that his\ndescent must be through the royal line, others believed that because\nof the excessive wickedness of the kings the descent would be through\nanother line. Eusebius says: \"Matthew gives his opinion, Luke repeats\nthe common opinion of many, not his own.... This last view Luke takes,\nthough conscious that Matthew gives the real truth of the genealogy.\"\n\nMatthew's genealogy is self-evidently false; while Luke's according\nto the admission of the historian of the primitive church, is merely\na fabrication of early Christians, designed to influence those who\nrejected Matthew's genealogy of the Messiah.\n\n\n\n38\n\nIf the miraculous conception be true the Davidic descent could only\nbe through Mary. Was Mary descended from David?\n\n\"We are wholly ignorant of the name and occupation of St. Mary's\nparents. She was, like Joseph, of the tribe of Judah, and of the\nlineage of David (Ps. cxxxii, 11; Luke i, 32; Rom. i, 3).\"--Smith's\nBible Dictionary.\n\nThree passages are cited in support of this claim:\n\n1. \"The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from\nit. Of the fruit of thy body will I sit upon thy throne. If thy\nchildren will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach\nthem, their children shall also sit upon thy throne forevermore\"\n(Ps. cxxxii, 11, 12).\n\n2. \"He shall be great, and shall be called the son of the Highest;\nand the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David\"\n(Luke i, 32).\n\n3. \"Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the\nseed of David according to the flesh\" (Rom. i, 3).\n\nThe second and third passages do not refer to Mary; the first passage\nrefers neither to Jesus nor Mary. There is no evidence to prove that\nMary was descended from David. On the contrary there is evidence to\nprove that she was not descended from him.\n\n1. \"The angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city in Galilee, called\nNazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the\nhouse of David; and the virgin's name was Mary\" (Luke i, 27). Joseph,\nand not Mary is declared to be of the house of David.\n\n2. It is stated that Joseph went to Bethlehem \"to be taxed with Mary,\"\nnot because they, but \"because he was of the house and lineage of\nDavid\" (Luke ii, 4, 5).\n\n3. Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth (Luke i, 3), and Elizabeth \"was\nof the daughters of Aaron\" (i, 5), i. e., descended from Levi, while\nthe house of David was descended from Judah.\n\nThis desperate, yet ineffectual, effort to establish the Davidic\ndescent of Mary is virtually an abandonment of the genealogical tables\nof Matthew and Luke, and a falling back upon this pitiable argumentum\nin circulo: Mary was descended from David because the Messiah was to\nbe descended from David, and Jesus was the Messiah because Mary was\ndescended from David.\n\nThese genealogies do not give the lineage of Mary who is said to\nhave been his only earthly parent, but the lineage of Joseph who,\nit is claimed, was not his father. But if Joseph was not the father\nof Jesus, what is the use of giving his pedigree? If Joseph was not\nthe father of Jesus how does proving that he was descended from David\nprove that Jesus was descended from David? If these genealogies run\nthrough Joseph to Jesus, as stated by Matthew and Luke, then Joseph\nmust have been the father of Jesus; and if he was the father of Jesus\nthe story of the miraculous conception is false.\n\nThe Synoptics, as we have seen, are for the most part, mere\ncompilations, made up of preexisting documents. These documents\nbelonged to different ages of the primitive church. In the first ages\nof the church Christians believed that Jesus was simply a man--the\nson of Joseph and Mary. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke, which\ntrace his descent from David through Joseph, belonged to this age. The\nstory of the miraculous conception was the product of a later age.\n\nIf the dogma of the miraculous conception be true, if God, and not\nJoseph, was the father of Jesus as taught, these genealogies, being\ngenealogies of Joseph, fail to prove what they are intended to prove,\nthe royal descent of Jesus from David. The genealogies of Matthew\nand Luke and their accounts of the miraculous conception mutually\nexclude each other.\n\n\n\n39\n\nDid Jesus believe himself to be descended from David?\n\nSynoptics: He did not (Matt. xxii, 41-46; Mark xii, 35-37; Luke xx,\n41-44).\n\nA principal objection to accepting Jesus as the Messiah by the Jews\nwas the fact that he was not descended from David. He tacitly admitted\nthat he was not, and the whole burden of his argument was to convince\nthem that it was not necessary that he should be.\n\n\n\n40\n\nThe miraculous conception was in fulfillment of what prophecy?\n\nMatthew: \"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was\nspoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be\nwith child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name\nEmmanuel\" (i, 22, 23).\n\nThis is esteemed the \"Gem of the Prophecies,\" and may be found in the\nseventh chapter of Isaiah. The facts are these: Rezin, king of Syria,\nand Pekah, king of Israel, had declared war against Ahaz, king of\nJudah. God assured Ahaz that they should not succeed, but that their\nown kingdoms should be destroyed by the Assyrians. To convince him of\nthe truth of this he requested Ahaz to demand a sign. \"But Ahaz said,\nI will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.... Therefore the Lord\nhimself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and\nbear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.... Before the child\nshall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that\nthou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.\"\n\nIn the succeeding chapter the fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded:\n\"And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a\nson. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For\nbefore the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother,\nthe riches of Damascus [the capital of Rezin's kingdom] and the spoils\nof Samaria [the capital of Pekah's kingdom] shall be taken away before\nthe king of Assyria.\" Rezin and Pekah were overthrown by the Assyrians\nabout 720 B. C.\n\nOne of the most convincing proofs of Christ's divinity, with many,\nis the supposed fact that he was born of a virgin and that his\nmiraculous birth was foretold by a prophet seven hundred years\nbefore the event occurred. Now, there is not a passage in the Jewish\nScriptures declaring that a child should be born of a virgin. The\nword translated \"virgin\" does not mean a virgin in the accepted sense\nof the term, but simply a young woman, either married or single. The\nwhole passage is a mistranslation. The words rendered \"a virgin shall\nconceive and bear a son\" should read, \"a young woman is with child and\nbeareth a son.\" In this so-called prophecy there is not the remotest\nreference to a miraculous conception and a virgin-born child. The\nJews themselves did not regard this passage as a Messianic prophecy;\nneither did they believe that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin.\n\nNext to the preceding the following is most frequently cited as\na Messianic prophecy: \"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,\n... until Shiloh come\" (Genesis xlix, 10).\n\nIf Shiloh refers to Christ the prophecy was not fulfilled, for the\nsceptre did depart from Judah 600 years before Christ came. But Shiloh\ndoes not refer to a Messiah, nor to any man. Shiloh was the seat of the\nnational sanctuary before it was removed to Jerusalem. This so-called\nprophecy, like the preceding, is a mistranslation. The correct reading\nis as follows: \"The preeminence shall not depart from Judah so long\nas the people resort to Shiloh.\"\n\n\"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the\ngovernment shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be declared\nWonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the\nPrince of Peace\" (Isaiah ix, 6).\n\nProf. Cheyne, the highest authority on Isaiah, pronounces this a\nforgery. Every honest Christian scholar must admit this. It is a\nself-evident forgery. No Jewish writer could have written it. To\nhave declared even the Messiah to be \"The mighty God, the everlasting\nFather\" would have been the rankest blasphemy, a crime the punishment\nof which was death.\n\nThese alleged Messianic prophecies are, in their present form,\nChristian rather than Jewish. Christian translators and exegetists\nhave altered their language and perverted their meaning to make them\nappear to refer to Christ. The following is an example:\n\n\"I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign\nand prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In\nhis days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this\nis his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS\"\n(Jeremiah xxiii, 5, 6).\n\nThe correct rendering of this passage is as follows:\n\n\"I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign\nand prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land. In\nhis days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely; and\nthis is the name whereby they shall call themselves: The Eternal is\nour righteousness.\"\n\nTo make a Messianic prophecy of this passage and give it effect no\nless than eight pieces of deception were employed by the editors of\nour Authorized Version:\n\n1. The word \"branch\" is made to begin with a capital letter.\n\n2. The word \"king\" also begins with a capital.\n\n3. \"The name\" is rendered \"his name.\"\n\n4. The pronoun \"they,\" relating to the people of Judah and Israel,\nis changed to \"he.\"\n\n5. The word \"Eternal\" is translated \"Lord.\"\n\n6. \"The Lord our righteousness\" is printed in capitals.\n\n7. In the table of contents, at the head of the chapter, are the words\n\"Christ shall rule and save them.\"\n\n8. At the top of the page are the words \"Christ promised.\"\n\nAnother example of this Messianic prophecy making is the following:\n\n\"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the\ncommandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince,\nshall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks\" (Daniel ix, 25).\n\nThe term \"week,\" it is claimed, means a period of seven years,\nand assumed that by Messiah is meant Christ. Seven weeks and three\nscore and two weeks are sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, the time that\nwas to elapse from the command to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming\nof Christ, if the prophecy was fulfilled. The decree of Cyrus to\nrebuild Jerusalem and the temple was made 536 B. C. According to the\naccepted chronology Christ was born 4 B. C. From the decree of Cyrus,\nthen, to the coming of Christ was 532 years instead of 483 years,\na period of seven weeks, or forty-nine years, longer than that named\nby Daniel. Ezra, the priest, went to Jerusalem 457 B. C. This event,\nhowever, had nothing whatever to do with the decree for rebuilding\nJerusalem and the temple. It occurred 79 years after the decree was\nissued, and 58 years after the temple was finished. But a searcher\nfor Messianic prophecies found that from the time of Ezra to the\nbeginning of Christ's ministry was about 483 years, or sixty-nine\nprophetic weeks; and notwithstanding there was a deficiency of 79\nyears at one end of the period, and an excess of 30 years at the other,\nit was declared to fit exactly.\n\nChristian theologians pretend to recognize in the Old Testament two\nkinds of Messianic prophecies: 1. Specific predictions concerning\nChrist which were literally fulfilled; 2. Passages in which the writer\nrefers to other persons or events, but which God, without the writer's\nknowledge, designed as types of Christ. The fallaciousness of the\nformer having been exposed--it having been shown that there is not a\ntext in the Jewish Scriptures predicting the coming of Christ--they\nnow rely chiefly upon the latter to support their claims. These\n\"prophecies\" are almost limitless; for a firm believer in prophecy\ncan, with a vivid imagination, take almost any passage and point out\na fancied resemblance between the thing it refers to and the thing he\nwants confirmed; apparently oblivious to the fact that the passage\nis equally applicable to a thousand other things. Had the Mormons\naccepted Joe Smith as a Messiah instead of a prophet they would have\nno lack of prophecies to support their claims; and by translating\nand revising the Scriptures to suit their views, as Christians did,\nthese prophecies would fit him as well as they do the Christ.\n\n\n\n41\n\nWhat name was to be given the child mentioned in Isaiah's prophecy?\n\n\"They shall call his name Emmanuel\" (Matthew i, 23).\n\nWhat name was to be given Mary's son?\n\n\"Thou shalt call his name Jesus\" (Matt. i, 21).\n\nIn the naming of the Christian Messiah Isaiah's prophecy was not\nfulfilled. He was never called Emmanuel, but Jesus.\n\n\n\n42\n\nTo whom did the angel announcing the miraculous conception appear?\n\nMatthew: To Joseph (i, 20, 21).\n\nLuke: To Mary (i, 26-38).\n\n\"An angel did not appear, first to Mary, and also afterwards\nto Joseph; he can only have appeared either to the one or to the\nother. Consequently, it is only the one or the other relation which\ncan be regarded as historical. And here different considerations\nwould conduct to opposite decisions.... Every criticism which might\ndetermine the adoption of the one, and the rejection of the other,\ndisappears; and we find ourselves, in reference to both accounts,\ndriven back by necessity to the mythical view.\"--Strauss.\n\n\n\n43\n\nFor what purpose was the Annunciation made?\n\nLuke: Simply to acquaint Mary with the heavenly decree that she had\nbeen chosen to become the mother of the coming Messiah (i, 26-33).\n\nMatthew: To allay the suspicions of Joseph respecting Mary's chastity\nand prevent him from putting her away (i, 18-20).\n\n\n\n44\n\nDid the Annunciation take place before or after Mary's conception?\n\nLuke: Before (i, 26-31).\n\nMatthew: After (i, 18-20).\n\n\n\n45\n\nWho was declared to be the father of Jesus?\n\nMatthew: The Holy Ghost (i, 18, 20).\n\nWith the Jews the Holy Ghost (Spirit) was of feminine gender; with\nthe Greeks, of masculine gender. The belief that the Holy Ghost was\nthe father of Jesus originated, not with the Jewish Christians of\nPalestine, as claimed, but with the Greek Christians of Alexandria.\n\n\n\n46\n\nWhat prediction did the angel Gabriel make to Mary concerning Jesus?\n\n\"The Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David\" (Luke\ni, 32).\n\nRespecting this prediction the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says:\n\"If a messenger from Heaven had really come to bring a divine\nrevelation to Mary, the result must have confirmed his prediction;\nand since Jesus never fulfilled these expectations it is obvious that\nthe revelation was never made.\"\n\n\n\n47\n\nWhen Mary visited Elizabeth what did she do?\n\nLuke: She uttered a hymn of praise (i, 46-55).\n\nHad Mary uttered such a hymn we would suppose that it would have been\noriginal and inspired by the Almighty Father of her unborn child. Yet\nthe hymn which Luke puts into her mouth was borrowed from the song\nof Hannah.\n\n\nHannah.                               Mary.\n\n\"My heart rejoiceth in the Lord\" (1   \"My spirit hath rejoiced in God\"\nSam. ii, 1).                          (Luke i, 47).\n\"If thou wilt indeed look on the      \"For he hath regarded the low\naffliction of thine handmaid\" (i,     estate of his handmaiden\" (48).\n11).\n\"Talk no more so exceeding proudly\"   \"He hath scattered the proud\"\n(ii, 3).                              (51).\n\"The bows of the mighty men are       \"He hath put down the mighty from\nbroken, and they that stumbled are    their seats and exalted them of\ngirded with strength (4).             low degree\" (52).\n\"They that were full hath hired out   \"He hath filled the hungry with\nthemselves for bread; and they that   good things; and the rich he hath\nwere hungry ceased\" (5).              sent empty away\" (53).\n\n\n\n48\n\nWhat decree is said to have been issued by Caesar Augustus immediately\npreceding the birth of Christ?\n\nLuke: \"That all the world should be taxed\" (ii, 1).\n\nNo such decree was issued by Augustus, nor even one that the Roman\nworld should be taxed. The taxation of different provinces of the\nempire was made at various times, no general decree ever having\nbeen issued and no uniform assessment ever having been attempted by\nAugustus. An enrollment of Roman citizens for the purpose of taxation\nwas made in Syria 7 A. D.\n\n\n\n49\n\nOf what king was Joseph a subject when Jesus was born?\n\nMatthew: Of Herod.\n\nIf Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, Joseph, whether a resident\nof Judea or of Galilee, could not have been taxed by Augustus, for\nneither province was then a part of Syria. Both provinces belonged\nto Herod's kingdom and Herod's subjects were not taxed by the Roman\ngovernment.\n\n\n\n50\n\nOf what province was Joseph a resident?\n\nMatthew: Of Judea.\n\nLuke: Of Galilee.\n\nIf he was a resident of Galilee he could not have been taxed by\nAugustus, even in the time of Cyrenius, for Galilee was not a Roman\nprovince, but an independent state, and had no political connection\nwith Syria.\n\nAgain, this decree could not have applied to Judea prior to the\nbanishment of Archelaus, ten years after the time of Herod; for Judea\ndid not become a Roman province until that time; and while Archelaus\nhad paid tribute to Rome the assessments of the people were made by\nhim and not by Augustus.\n\n\n\n51\n\nWhy was Joseph with his wife obliged to leave Galilee and go to\nBethlehem of Judea to be enrolled?\n\nLuke: \"Because he was of the house and lineage of David,\" and Bethlehem\nwas the \"city of David\" (ii, 4).\n\nEven if he had been subject to taxation there was no law or custom\nrequiring him to leave his own country and go to that of his ancestors\nto be enrolled. The assessment, according to the Roman custom,\nwas made at the residence of the person taxed. Nothing surpasses in\nabsurdity this story of Luke, that a woman, on the eve of confinement,\nand the subject of another ruler, was dragged across two provinces\nto be enrolled for taxation.\n\nIn regard to this taxation Dr. Hooykaas says: \"But here again we\nare met by overwhelming difficulties. In itself, the Evangelist's\naccount of the manner in which the census was carried out is entirely\nincredible. Only fancy the indescribable confusion that would have\narisen if every one, through the length and breadth of the land of\nthe Jews, had left his abode to go and enroll himself in the city\nor village from which his family originally came, even supposing he\nknew where it was. The census under David was conducted after a very\ndifferent fashion. But it is still more important to note that the\nEvangelist falls into the most extraordinary mistakes throughout. In\nthe first place history is silent as to a census of the whole (Roman)\nworld ever having been made at all. In the next place, though Quirinus\n[Cyrenius] certainly did make such a register in Judea and Samaria,\nit did not extend to Galilee; so that Joseph's household was not\naffected by it. Besides it did not take place till ten years after the\ndeath of Herod, when his son Archelaus was deposed by the Emperor,\nand the districts of Judea and Samaria were thrown into a Roman\nprovince. Under the reign of Herod nothing of the kind took place,\nnor was there any occasion for it. Finally, at the time of the birth\nof Jesus the governor of Syria was not Quirinus, but Quintus Sentius\nSaturninus\" (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, pp. 55, 56).\n\n\n\n52\n\nWas Jesus born in a house or in a stable?\n\nMatthew: \"And when they were come into the house, they saw the young\nchild with Mary his mother\" (ii, 11).\n\nLuke: \"And she brought forth her first born son, and wrapped him in\nswaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger\" (ii, 7).\n\nNothing can be clearer than that the author of Matthew supposes\nthat Jesus was born in a house. The author of Luke, on the other\nhand, expressly declares that he was born in a stable. Luke's story\nconcerning the place of Mary's accouchement has been received, while\nthat of Matthew has been ignored.\n\nChrist's birth in a manger and death on the cross are the lodestones\nthat have attracted the sympathies of the world, and kept him on the\nthrone of Christendom; for sentiment rather than reason dominates\nmankind. Referring to Luke's story, the \"Bible for Learners\" says:\n\"Such is the well-known story of the birth of Jesus, one of the\nsweetest and most deeply significant of all the legends of the\nBible. That it is a legend, without even the smallest historical\nfoundation, we must, of course, admit\" (vol. iii, p. 54).\n\nJustin Martyr states that Jesus was born in a cave, and this statement\nFarrar is disposed to accept: \"Justin Martyr, the Apologist, who,\nfrom his birth at Shechem, was familiar with Palestine, and who lived\nless than a century after the time of our Lord, places the scene of\nthe nativity in a cave. This is, indeed, the ancient and constant\ntradition both of the Eastern and the Western churches, and it is\none of the few to which, though unrecorded in the Gospel history,\nwe may attach a reasonable probability\" (Life of Christ, p. 3).\n\n\n\n53\n\nWhy did Joseph and his wife take shelter in a stable?\n\nLuke: \"Because there was no room for them in the inn\" (ii, 7).\n\nLuke states that there was an inn at Bethlehem. There was no inn in\nthe place. Dr. Geikie says: \"We must not moreover think of Joseph\nseeking an inn at Bethlehem, for inns were unknown among the Jews\"\n(Christmas at Bethlehem).\n\n\n\n54\n\nWhat celestial phenomenon attended Christ's birth?\n\nMatthew: A new star appeared and stood in the heavens above him\n(ii, 1-9).\n\nLuke: An angelic choir appeared and sang praises to God (ii, 13, 14).\n\nMatthew's story of the star and the Magi, even to the language itself,\nwas borrowed from the writings of the Persians; Luke's story of the\ncelestial visitants was taken from Pagan mythology.\n\n\n\n55\n\nWho visited him after his birth?\n\nMatthew: Wise men from the East (ii, 1-11).\n\nLuke: Shepherds from a neighboring field (ii, 8-20).\n\nMatthew makes no mention of the shepherds' visit; Luke is evidently\nignorant of the visit of the wise men.\n\n\n\n56\n\nFrom where did the wise men come?\n\nMatthew: \"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of\nHerod the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem,\nsaying: Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen\nhis star in the East, and are come to worship him\" (ii, 1, 2).\n\nBy the \"East\" was meant Persia or India, and from one of these\ncountries the Magi are popularly supposed to have come.\n\nJustin Martyr says: \"When a star rose in heaven at the time of his\nbirth, as is recorded in the 'Memoirs' of his Apostles, the Magi\nfrom Arabia, recognizing the sign by this, came and worshiped him\"\n(Dialogues, cvi).\n\nIf they came from Arabia, as this Christian father declares, they\ncame not from the East, but from the South.\n\n\n\n57\n\nWhat announcement did the angel make to the shepherds?\n\n\"For behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to\nall people\" (Luke ii, 10).\n\nAccording to Luke the visit of the angels is to proclaim to the\nworld the birth of the new-born Messiah. Had the celestial phenomenon\nreported by this Evangelist really occurred the news of it would have\nquickly spread over Palestine. Yet the people of Jerusalem, only\na few miles away, learn nothing of it; for, according to Matthew,\nthe first intimation that Herod has of Christ's birth is from the\nwise men who visit him at a much later period. The inhabitants of\nBethlehem themselves are ignorant of it. Could they have discovered to\nHerod this wonderful babe, or the place where his parents abode while\nthere if they had departed, it would have saved their own children\nfrom the wrath of this monarch. But they knew nothing of him.\n\n\n\n58\n\nWhat effect had the announcement of Christ's birth upon Herod and\nthe people of Jerusalem?\n\nMatthew: \"When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled,\nand all Jerusalem with him\" (ii, 3).\n\nAccording to Matthew the announcement filled with alarm the entire\npopulace, and the most diligent efforts were made to discover and\ndestroy the babe. In strange contrast to this statement of Matthew is\nLuke's narrative (ii, 22-27), which declares that Jesus, when forty\ndays old, was brought to Jerusalem and publicly exhibited in Herod's\nown temple, without exciting any alarm or provoking any hostility.\n\n\n\n59\n\nWhat did his parents do with him?\n\nMatthew: They fled with him into Egypt (ii, 13, 15).\n\nLuke: They remained with him in Palestine (ii, 22-52).\n\n\"All attempts to reconcile these two contradictory statements, seem\nonly elaborate efforts of art.\"--Dr. Schleiermacher.\n\n\n\n60\n\nWhen unable to discover Jesus what did Herod do?\n\nMatthew: \"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,\nwas exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that\nwere in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old\nand under\" (ii, 16).\n\nIf this statement be true hundreds of innocent babes (the Greek\nCalendar says fourteen thousand) must have perished, a crime the\nenormity of which is almost without a parallel in the annals of\nhistory. It is strange that Mark, Luke, and John make no mention of\nthis frightful tragedy. Luke's silence is especially significant. It\nis passing strange that the Roman historians and Rabbinical writers of\nthat age, who wrote of Herod, should be silent regarding it. Josephus\ndevotes nearly forty chapters to the life of Herod. He narrates with\nmuch particularity every important event in his life. He detested\nthis monarch and dwells upon his crimes and errors. Yet Josephus knew\nnothing of this massacre.\n\nIn this silence of Josephus Dr. Farrar recognizes a difficulty too\ndamaging to ignore. He says: \"Why then, it has been asked, does\nJosephus make no mention of so infamous an atrocity? Perhaps because\nit was performed so secretly that he did not even know of it. Perhaps\nbecause, in those terrible days, the murder of a score of children,\nin consequence of a transient suspicion, would have been regarded as\nan item utterly insignificant in the list of Herod's murders. Perhaps\nbecause it was passed over in silence by Nikolaus of Damascus, who,\nwriting in the true spirit of those Hellenizing courtiers, who wanted\nto make a political Messiah out of a corrupt and blood-stained usurper,\nmagnified all his patron's achievements, and concealed or palliated\nall his crimes. But the more probable reason is that Josephus, whom,\nin spite of all the immense literary debt which we owe to him, we\ncan only regard as a renegade and a sycophant, did not choose to\nmake any allusion to facts which were even remotely connected with\nthe life of Christ\" (Life of Christ, pp. 22, 23).\n\nA more absurd reason than the first advanced by Farrar it is difficult\nto conceive. The second, that it was a matter of too little consequence\nto record, an explanation which other Christian apologists have\nassigned, is as unreasonable as it is heartless. The silence of\nNikolaus, who wrote of Herod after his death, is also significant,\nand the excuse offered by Farrar that he omitted it because he was\nthe friend of Herod, even if admitted, cannot apply to Josephus, who\nabhorred the memory of this monarch. The contention that Josephus\npurposely ignored the existence of Christ because he saw in him a\nmenace to his faith is childish. Jesus Christ, admitting his existence,\nhad made no history to record. His birth was attended by no prodigies,\nand there was nothing in his advent to excite the fear or envy of\na king. Josephus mentions no Herodian massacre at Bethlehem because\nnone occurred. Had Herod slain a single child in the manner stated\nthe fact would be attested by a score of authors whose writings are\nextant. Herod did not slay one babe. This story is false.\n\nHerod's massacre of the infants of Bethlehem and the escape of Jesus\nwas probably suggested by Kansa's massacre of the infants of Matura\nand the escape of Krishna. Pharaoh's slaughter of the first born in\nEgypt may also have suggested it.\n\n\n\n61\n\nWhat was the real cause of Herod's massacre?\n\nMatthew: The visit of the wise men and the disclosures made by them\n(ii, 1-16).\n\nThese wise men, it is claimed, were under divine guidance. In view\nof this terrible slaughter their visit must be regarded as a divine\nblunder.\n\n\n\n62\n\nIn the massacre of the innocents what prophecy was fulfilled?\n\nMatthew: \"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the\nprophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation,\nand weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children,\nand would not be comforted, because they are not\" (ii, 17, 18).\n\nThis so-called prophecy is in Jeremiah xxxi, 15. It was written at the\ntime of the Babylonian captivity and refers to the captive Jews. In\nthe next verse Jeremiah says: \"They shall come again from the land\nof the enemy.\"\n\n\n\n63\n\nWhen Herod died what did the Lord command Joseph to do?\n\n\"Arise, and take the young child and his mother and go into the land\nof Israel, for they are dead which sought the young child's life\"\n(Matthew ii, 20).\n\n\"And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return to Egypt: for\nall the men are dead which sought thy life\" (Exodus iv, 19).\n\n\n\n64\n\nThe sojourn of Joseph and Mary with Jesus in Egypt was in fulfillment\nof what prophecy?\n\nMatthew: That \"spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of\nEgypt have I called my son\" (ii, 15).\n\nThis may be found in Hosea xi, 1, and clearly refers to the exodus\nof the Israelites from Egypt.\n\n\n\n65\n\nJesus was subsequently taken to Nazareth. Why?\n\nMatthew: \"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,\nHe shall be called a Nazarene\" (ii, 23).\n\nThe Bible contains no such prophecy. Fleetwood admits that \"the words\nare not to be found\" in \"the prophetical writings,\" and Farrar says,\n\"It is well known that no such passage occurs in any extant prophecy\"\n(Life of Christ, p. 33). The only passage to which the above can\nrefer is Judges xiii, 5. Here the child referred to was not to be\ncalled a Nazarene, but a Nazarite, and Matthew knew that \"Nazarene\"\nand \"Nazarite\" were no more synonymous than \"Jew\" and \"priest.\" A\nNazarene was a native of Nazareth; a Nazarite was one consecrated\nto the service of the Lord. Matthew likewise knew that this Nazarite\nreferred to in Judges was Samson.\n\n\n\n66\n\nHad Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth previous to the birth of Jesus?\n\nLuke: They had.\n\nMatthew: They had not.\n\n\"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth,\nunto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, ... to be taxed\nwith Mary his espoused wife.... And when they had performed all\nthings according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee,\nto their own city Nazareth\" (Luke ii, 4, 5, 39).\n\n\"When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by\nnight, and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of\nHerod.... But when Herod was dead, ... he arose, and took the young\nchild and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. And when\nhe heard that Archelaus did reign in the room of his father Herod,\nhe was afraid to go thither; notwithstanding, being warned of God in\na dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and\ndwelt in a city called Nazareth\" (Matthew ii, 14-23).\n\nAccording to Luke their home was in Nazareth of Galilee; according to\nMatthew their home was in Bethlehem of Judea. Luke states that they\nmerely visited Bethlehem to be enrolled for taxation and fulfill\na certain Messianic prophecy. Matthew states that after the flight\ninto Egypt and the death of Herod they were returning to Judea when\nfearing Archelaus they turned aside into Galilee to avoid this ruler\nand fulfill another Messianic prophecy.\n\n\n\n67\n\nHow did the parents of Jesus receive the predictions of Simeon\nconcerning him?\n\nLuke: \"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were\nspoken of him\" (ii, 33).\n\nWhy should they marvel at the predictions of Simeon when long before\nthey had been apprised of the same thing by the angel Gabriel?\n\n\n\n68\n\nDoes the name \"Joseph\" belong in the text quoted above?\n\nIt does not. The correct reading is: \"And his father and his mother\nwere marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him.\" It\ndeclares Joseph to be the father of Jesus, and as this did not\nharmonize with the story of the miraculous conception the makers of\nour version substituted \"Joseph\" for \"father.\"\n\n\n\n69\n\nWhat does Luke say regarding the infancy of John and Jesus?\n\n\"And the child [John] grew and waxed strong in spirit\" (i, 80).\n\n\"And the child [Jesus] grew and waxed strong in spirit\" (ii, 40).\n\nBetween the growth of the man John and the growth of the God Jesus\nthere is, according to the Evangelist, no difference, and the growth\nof each is identical with that of the demi-god Samson.\n\n\n\n70\n\nWhat custom did Jesus's parents observe?\n\nLuke: \"His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the\npassover\" (ii, 41).\n\nThe preceding verse (40) shows that Luke means every year following\nthe birth of Jesus. In the succeeding verse (42) it is clearly implied\nthat Jesus always accompanied them. It is impossible to reconcile\nthis statement of Luke, who evidently knows nothing of the enmity of\nHerod and Archelaus, with the statements of Matthew who declares them\nto have been his mortal enemies.\n\n\n\n71\n\nOn one of these occasions where did they find him?\n\nLuke: \"They found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the\ndoctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions\" (ii, 46).\n\nNot until the time of Gamaliel, who lived as late as the middle of\nthe first century, was a child allowed to sit in the presence of\nthe rabbis. He was always required to stand, and those acquainted\nwith the Jewish history of that age know that the rabbis were the\nmost rigid sticklers for ecclesiastical formalities, the slightest\nbreach of which was never tolerated. The author of the third Gospel\nis familiar with the later, but not with the earlier custom.\n\n\n\n72\n\nWhat was the medium of communication through which the will of Heaven\nwas revealed to the participants in this drama?\n\nMatthew: A dream (i, 20; ii, 12, 13, 19, 22).\n\nLuke: An angel (i, 11, 26; ii, 9).\n\nIn Matthew every message respecting the child Jesus is communicated by\nmeans of a dream; in Luke every announcement is made through the agency\nof an angel. Yet, after all, these Evangelists differ only in terms;\nfor Luke's angels are created out of the same stuff that Matthew's\ndreams are made of, and the world is fast coming to a realization of\nthe fact that this whole theological structure, founded on sleepers'\ndreams and angels' tales, is but \"The baseless fabric of a vision.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE MINISTRY OF CHRIST.\n\n\n73\n\nWhen, and at what age, did Jesus begin his ministry?\n\nLuke: \"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar\" (iii,\n1). \"Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age\" (23).\n\nIn the fifteenth year of Tiberius, who began his reign in August,\n14 A. D., Jesus, according to Matthew, was at least thirty-three\nyears of age; according to Luke, about twenty-two.\n\nRegarding this subject, Dr. Geikie writes as follows: \"The age of Jesus\nat his entrance on his public work has been variously estimated. Ewald\nsupposes that he was about thirty-four, fixing his birth three years\nbefore the death of Herod. Wieseler, on the contrary, believes him\nto have been in his thirty-first year, setting his birth a few months\nbefore Herod's death. Bunsen, Anger, Winer, Schurer, and Renan agree\nwith this. Lichtenstein makes him thirty-two. Hausrath and Keim, on\nthe other hand, think that he began his ministry in the year A. D. 34,\nbut they do not give any supposed date for his birth, though if that\nof Ewald be taken as a medium he must have been forty years old,\nwhile, if Wieseler's date be preferred, he would only have been\nthirty-seven.... Amidst such difference, exactness is impossible\"\n(Life of Christ, vol. i, pp. 455, 456).\n\n\n\n74\n\nJohn the Baptist is said to have been the person sent to announce\nthe mission of Christ. Who was John the Baptist?\n\nJesus: \"This is Elias, which was for to come\" (Matthew xi, 14).\n\nJohn: \"And they asked him [John], what then? Art thou Elias? And he\nsaith, I am not\" (i, 21).\n\nA question of veracity between Jesus and John.\n\n\n\n75\n\nThe advent of John was in fulfillment of what prophecy?\n\nMark: \"As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger\nbefore thy face, which shall prepare the way before thee\" (i, 2).\n\nThis passage is quoted from Malachi (iii, 1): God threatens to\ndestroy the world, and says (iv, 5), \"Behold I will send you Elijah\nthe prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the\nLord.\" John expressly declared that he was not Elijah (Elias), and\nthe destruction of the world did not follow his appearance.\n\n\n\n76\n\nWhat was predicted concerning John?\n\n\"He shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither\nwine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost,\neven from his mother's womb\" (Luke i, 15).\n\nFor the above Luke was indebted to the biographer of Samson. \"Both\n[Samson and John] were to be consecrated to God from the womb, and\nthe same diet was prescribed for both.\"--Strauss.\n\n\n\n77\n\nWhen the conception of John was announced what punishment was inflicted\nupon Zacharias for his doubt?\n\nLuke: \"And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that\nstand in the presence of God; ... And behold, thou shalt be dumb,\nand not able to speak, until the day that these things be performed\"\n(i, 19, 20).\n\nThis was evidently suggested by a passage in Daniel: \"And when he\n[Gabriel] had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the\nground, and I became dumb\" (x, 15).\n\n\n\n78\n\nWhere was John baptizing when he announced his mission to the Jews?\n\nJohn (New Ver.): \"In Bethany beyond Jordan\" (i, 28).\n\nBethany was a suburb of Jerusalem and was not beyond Jordan.\n\nThe Authorized Version reads \"Bethabara,\" conceded to be an\ninterpolation, regarding which Geikie says: \"The most ancient MSS. read\nBethany instead of Bethabara, but no site of that name is now known\non the Jordan. Bethabara was introduced into the text by Origen\"\n(Life of Christ, vol. i, p. 566).\n\n\n\n79\n\nHow old was Jesus when John began his ministry?\n\nLuke: \"About thirty years of age\" (iii, 2, 3, 23).\n\nMatthew: \"In those days [when Jesus' parents brought him out of Egypt\nand settled in Nazareth, he being then about two years of age] came\nJohn the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea\" (ii, 19-23;\niii, 1).\n\nMatthew, it is claimed, was written only ten or twenty years after\nJesus' baptism. If so, the phrase \"in those days\" clearly implies\nthat he was but a child when John began his ministry. If the phrase\nwas intended to comprehend a period of thirty years this gospel,\nit must be admitted, was written at least one hundred years after\nthe event described.\n\n\n\n80\n\nWere Jesus and John related?\n\nLuke: They were, their mothers being cousins (i, 36).\n\nMary had visited the mother of John, and each was acquainted with\nthe character of the other's child. John before his birth is declared\nto have recognized and acknowledged the divinity of the unborn Jesus\n(Luke i, 41-44). Yet, according to the Fourth Gospel, at the beginning\nof Jesus' ministry John said, \"I know him not\" (i, 33).\n\n\n\n81\n\nWhen Jesus desired John to baptize him, what did the latter do?\n\nMatthew: \"John forbade him saying, I have need to be baptized of thee\"\n(iii, 14).\n\nAccording to Matthew, John was not only acquainted with Jesus, but\ncognizant of his divine mission, which cannot be harmonized with his\nstatement in the Fourth Gospel.\n\nDr. Geikie admits that John and Jesus were strangers to each other. He\nsays: \"Though cousins, the Baptist and the Son of Mary had never seen\neach other\" (Life of Christ, vol. i, p. 389).\n\nThis is not only a rejection of Matthew's statement, but a repudiation\nof the first chapter of Luke, one of the most important chapters of the\nNew Testament; for it is utterly impossible for reason to harmonize\nthese alleged revelations concerning the miraculous conceptions\nand divine missions of John and Jesus to their parents and the fact\nthat John remained for thirty years in absolute ignorance of Jesus'\nexistence.\n\n\n\n82\n\nWhat did John say regarding Jesus?\n\n\"He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not\nworthy to bear\" (Matthew iii, 11).\n\n\"There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose\nshoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose\" (Mark i, 7).\n\n\n\n83\n\nWhat other testimony did he bear concerning Jesus?\n\n\"And of his fulness have all we received\" (John i, 16).\n\nThis was uttered prior to the beginning of Jesus' ministry, and before\nhe had been baptized with the Holy Ghost. At this time \"his fulness\"\nhad not been received, and the words are an anachronism.\n\n\n\n84\n\nAt Jesus' baptism there came a voice from heaven. To whom were its\nwords addressed?\n\nMatthew: To those who stood by. \"This is my beloved Son, in whom I\nam well pleased\" (iii, 17).\n\nLuke: To Jesus himself. \"Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well\npleased\" (iii, 22).\n\n\n\n85\n\nJohn heard this voice from heaven; did he believe it?\n\nMatthew: He evidently did not; for he afterwards sent two of his\ndisciples to ascertain if Jesus were the Christ. \"Now when John had\nheard in prison the words of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,\nand said unto him, Art thou he that should come or do we look for\nanother?\" (xi, 2, 3).\n\n\n\n86\n\nDo all the Evangelists record Jesus' baptism by John?\n\nThey do not. According to the Synoptics, John's baptism of Jesus was\nthe initial act in his ministry, and one of the most important events\nin his career. But of this baptism the author of the Fourth Gospel\nknows nothing. In regard to this omission the author of \"Supernatural\nReligion\" says: \"According to the Synoptics, Jesus is baptized by John,\nand as he goes out of the water the Holy Ghost descends upon him like\na dove. The Fourth Gospel knows nothing of the baptism, and makes\nJohn the Baptist narrate vaguely that he saw the Holy Ghost descend\nlike a dove and rest upon Jesus, as a sign previously indicated to\nhim by God by which to recognize the Lamb of God\" (p. 681).\n\n\n\n87\n\nWith what did John say Jesus would baptize?\n\nMark and John: \"He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost\" (Mark i,\n8; John i, 33).\n\nMatthew and Luke: \"He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with\nfire\" (Matt. iii, 11; Luke iii, 16).\n\n\n\n88\n\nHow many were baptized by John?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"Jerusalem and all Judea\" (Matt. iii, 5; Mark i, 5).\n\nJohn, if the account in Josephus is to be credited, made some converts;\nbut all the inhabitants of Judea were not baptized by him.\n\nIs John the Baptist a historical character? Aside from the anonymous\nand apocryphal writings of the church, which appeared in the second\ncentury, the only evidence of his existence is a passage in Josephus\n(Antiquities, B. xviii, ch. v, sec. 2). The language of this passage,\nwhile not avowedly Christian like the passage pertaining to Christ,\nis yet of such a character as to excite suspicion regarding its\ngenuineness. Its position strongly suggests an interpolation. Josephus\ngives an account of the troubles that arose between Herod Antipas,\ntetrarch of Galilee, and Aretas, king of Arabia Petrea. Herod\nhad married the daughter of Aretas; but becoming infatuated with\nHerodias, his sister-in-law, he resolved to put her away and marry\nHerodias. Discovering his intentions his wife obtained permission to\nvisit her father, who when he had been informed of Herod's perfidy,\nmade war upon him and defeated him in battle. Herod appealed to the\nEmperor Tiberius, who was his friend, and who ordered Vitellius,\ngovernor of Syria, to invade the dominions of Aretas and capture\nor slay him. I quote the concluding portion of section 1 and the\nopening sentence of section 3 of the chapter containing this history,\nseparating the two with an ellipsis:\n\n\"So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who, being very angry\nat the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him,\nand either to take him alive, and bring him in bonds, or to kill him,\nand send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the\npresident of Syria.... So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas,\nhaving with him two legions of armed men.\"\n\nIt will be readily observed that the two sections are closely\nconnected, the one naturally and logically following the other. Yet\nbetween these two closely connected sections, the section containing\nthe account of John the Baptist is inserted.\n\n\n\n89\n\nWho held the office of high priest at the time Jesus began his\nministry?\n\nLuke: \"Annas and Caiaphas\" (iii, 2).\n\nIf the writer were to declare that Washington and Monroe were\npresidents of the United States at the same time it would be no more\nerroneous than the declaration of Luke that Annas and Caiaphas were\nhigh priests at the same time. Two priests never held this office\njointly. Caiaphas was high priest at this time, and three others had\nheld the office previous to him and subsequent to Annas. Referring\nto Pontius Pilate's predecessor, Gratus, who was procurator of Judea\nfrom 15 to 26 A. D., Josephus says:\n\n\"This man deprived Ananus [Annas] of the high priesthood, and appointed\nIshmael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in\na little time, and ordained Eleazer, the son of Ananus, who had been\nhigh priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held\nfor a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to\nSimon, the son of Camithus, and, when he had possessed the dignity\nno longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor\"\n(Antiquities B. xviii, ch. ii, sec. 2).\n\n\n\n90\n\nWho was tetrarch of Abilene at this time?\n\nLuke: Lysanias (iii, 1).\n\nLysanias was put to death at the instigation of Cleopatra sixty years\nbefore Jesus began his ministry. \"She [Cleopatra] hurried Antony on\nperpetually to deprive others of their dominions, and give them to\nher; and as she went over Syria with him, she contrived to get it\ninto her possession; so he slew Lysanias\" (Josephus, Antiq., B. xv,\nch. iv, sec. 1).\n\nAt the time mentioned by Luke the territory of Abila, or Abilene,\nwas no longer a tetrarchy.\n\n\n\n91\n\nWhere was Jesus three days after he began his ministry?\n\nSynoptics: In the wilderness fasting (Matt. iv, 1; Mark i, 9-13;\nLuke iv, 1).\n\nJohn: At a wedding in Cana, feasting (i, ii).\n\n\n\n92\n\nWas he led, or driven by the spirit into the wilderness?\n\nMatthew and Luke: \"Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the\nwilderness\" (Matt. iv, 1; Luke iv, 1).\n\nMark: \"And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness\"\n(i, 12).\n\n\n\n93\n\nWhen did the temptation take place?\n\nMark: During the forty days' fast. \"And he was there in the wilderness\nforty days tempted of Satan\" (i, 13).\n\nMatthew: After the fast. \"And when he had fasted forty days and forty\nnights ... the tempter came to him\" (iv, 2, 3).\n\n\n\n94\n\nDuring the temptation the devil is said to have set him on the\ntemple. On what part of the temple did he set him?\n\nMatthew and Luke: \"On a pinnacle\" (Matt. iv, 5; Luke iv, 9).\n\nThe indefinite article \"a\" clearly implies that the temple had several\npinnacles, whereas it had but one. After eighteen hundred years the\nHoly Ghost discovered his mistake and moved the Oxford revisers to\nsubstitute \"the\" for \"a.\"\n\n\n\n95\n\nWhat did the devil next do?\n\nMatthew: \"The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain,\nand sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world\" (iv, 8). It must have\nbeen \"an exceedingly high mountain\" to have enabled him to see the\nkingdoms of the opposite hemisphere.\n\n\n\n96\n\nWhat did the devil propose?\n\n\"All these things will I give thee [Jesus], if thou wilt fall down\nand worship me\" (Matthew iv, 9).\n\nIf Jesus was the Christ, and Christ was God, as claimed, who owned\n\"these things,\" he or the devil? Think of a tramp offering you a\nquit-claim deed to your home for a meal.\n\n\n\n97\n\nWhere did the devil take him first, to the temple, or to the mountain?\n\nMatthew: To the temple (iv, 5-8).\n\nLuke: To the mountain (iv, 5-9).\n\nConcerning this discrepancy, Farrar says: \"The order of the temptation\nis given differently by St. Matthew and St. Luke, St. Matthew placing\nsecond the scene on the pinnacle of the temple, and St. Luke the\nvision of the kingdoms of the world. Both orders cannot be right\"\n(Life of Christ, p. 70).\n\nSome of the ablest Christian scholars have refused to accept\nthe Temptation as historical. Farrar says: \"From Origen down to\nSchleiermacher some have regarded it as a vision or allegory--the\nsymbolic description of a purely inward struggle; and even so literal\na commentator as Calvin has embraced this view\" (Ibid, p. 65).\n\n\n\n98\n\nHad John been cast into prison when Jesus began his ministry?\n\nMatthew: He had.\n\nJohn: He had not.\n\nMatthew says that immediately after his temptation, and before he\nbegan his ministry, \"Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison\"\n(iv, 12). Then \"he departed into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he\ncame and dwelt in Capernaum\" (12, 13). \"From that time Jesus began\nto preach\" (17). This was the beginning of his ministry.\n\nAccording to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus had called his disciples;\nhad traveled over Galilee and Judea; had baptized (iii, 22); had\nperformed miracles (ii, 1-11, 23; iii, 2); had held controversies\nwith the Jews (ii, 18-21; iii, 1-21); had attended the Passover (ii,\n13-23); had purged the temple (ii, 13-16); and after all these things\n\"John was not yet cast into prison\" (iii, 24).\n\n\n\n99\n\nName the Twelve Apostles.\n\n\n            Matthew.         Mark.            Luke.\n\n            Simon Peter      Simon Peter      Simon Peter\n            Andrew           Andrew           Andrew\n            James            James            James\n            John             John             John\n            Philip           Philip           Philip\n            Bartholomew      Bartholomew      Bartholomew\n            Thomas           Thomas           Thomas\n            Matthew          Matthew          Matthew\n            James Less       James Less       James Less\n            LEBBEUS          THADDEUS         JUDAS\n            Simon            Simon            Simon\n            Judas Iscariot   Judas Iscariot   Judas Iscariot\n\n\nJohn does not name the Twelve Apostles and this important omission\nis admitted to be a grave defect in the Fourth Gospel.\n\n\n\n100\n\nRelate the circumstances attending the calling of Peter.\n\nMatthew: \"And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren,\nSimon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the\nsea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I\nwill make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets,\nand followed him\" (iv, 18-20).\n\nLuke: \"He [Jesus] stood by the lake of Gennesaret, and saw two ships\nstanding by the lake; but the fishermen were gone out of them and were\nwashing their nets. And he entered into one of the ships, which was\nSimon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the\nland. And he sat down and taught the people out of the ship. Now when\nhe had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep,\nand let down your nets for a draught\" (v, 1-4).\n\n\"And when they had this done they inclosed a great multitude of fishes\"\n(6).\n\n\"And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt\ncatch men. And when they [Peter, James and John] had brought their\nships to land, they forsook all, and followed him\" (10, 11).\n\nJohn: \"Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;\nand looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of\nGod! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus\"\n(i, 35-37).\n\n\"They came and saw where he [Jesus] dwelt, and abode with him that\nday.... One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was\nAndrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon,\nand saith unto him, We have found the Messias.... And he brought him\nto Jesus\" (40-42).\n\nHere are three accounts of the calling of Peter, each entirely at\nvariance with the others.\n\n\n\n101\n\nIn what country were they when Peter was called?\n\nSynoptics: In Galilee.\n\nJohn (Old Ver.): In Perea (i, 28-42).\n\nBethabara and the territory beyond Jordan were in Perea.\n\nJohn (New Ver.): In Judea.\n\nBethany and all the country surrounding it were in Judea.\n\n\n\n102\n\nWho did Jesus declare Peter to be?\n\n\"Thou art Simon the son of Jona\" (John i, 42).\n\n\"Simon, son of Jonas\" (John xxi, 15).\n\n\"Thou art Simon the son of John\" (John, New Ver., i, 42; xxi, 15).\n\nThere is no relation whatever between \"Jona,\" or \"Jonas,\" and\n\"John.\" Jona (Jonah), or Jonas, means a dove; John means the grace\nof God.\n\n\n\n103\n\nJesus gave Simon (Peter) the name of Cephas. What meaning did he\nattach to the word Cephas?\n\n\"Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone\"\n(John i, 42).\n\n\"Thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter)\"\n(Ibid, New Ver.).\n\nHere Jesus is represented as interpreting the meaning of an Aramaic\nword, with which his hearers were familiar, by the use of a Greek\nword of whose meaning they were ignorant, the incongruity of which\nmust be apparent to every reader.\n\n\n\n104\n\nWhen were James and John called?\n\nMatthew: After Peter was called.\n\nAfter giving an account of the calling of Peter and Andrew, Matthew\nsays: \"And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the\nson of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their\nfather, mending their nets; and he called them. And they immediately\nleft the ship and their father, and followed him\" (iv, 21, 22).\n\nLuke: At the time that Peter was called.\n\nLuke states that James and John were partners of Peter, and with him\non the lake, in another boat, when the miraculous draught of fishes\nwas made, that both boats were filled with the fish, \"And when they\n[Peter, James and John] had brought their ships to land, they forsook\nall, and followed him\" (v, 1-11).\n\n\n\n105\n\nWhere was Jesus when he called Peter, James and John?\n\nMatthew: \"Walking by the sea of Galilee\" (iv, 18-21).\n\nLuke: On the lake in a ship (v, 1-11).\n\nIn regard to Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the calling of Peter,\nJames and John, Strauss says: \"Neither will bear the other to precede,\nor to follow it--in short, they exclude each other\" (Leben Jesu,\np. 337).\n\n\n\n106\n\nWas Andrew called when Peter was called?\n\nMatthew and Mark: He was (Matt. iv, 18-20; Mark i, 16-18).\n\nAccording to Luke, Andrew was not called when Peter was called,\nbut after he was called. According to John (i, 35-42) Andrew was the\nfirst to follow Jesus.\n\n\n\n107\n\nWho was called from the receipt of custom?\n\nMatthew: \"A man named Matthew\" (ix, 9).\n\nLuke: \"A publican named Levi\" (v, 27).\n\nOrthodox scholars claim that Matthew and Levi are the same\nperson. Dr. Hooykaas does not believe that they are the same, and\ndoes not believe that any one of the Apostles was called from the\nreceipt of custom. He says: \"It is in reality very unlikely that\nLevi and Matthew are the same man, or that one of the Twelve was a\ntax-gatherer\" (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 201).\n\n\n\n108\n\nWho was the mother of James the Less and Joses?\n\nIn the earlier parts of their narratives, Matthew (xiii, 55) and\nMark (vi, 3) declare them to be sons of the Virgin Mary and brothers\nof Jesus. Paul (Gal. i, 19) affirms that James was the brother of\nJesus. Later Matthew (xxvii, 56) and Mark (xv, 40) state that James\nand Joses were sons of Mary, the sister of the Virgin.\n\n\n\n109\n\nWho was their father?\n\nIf they were sons of the Virgin Mary, Joseph must have been their\nfather. But Matthew (x, 3) and Mark (iii, 18) state that James the\nLess was \"the son of Alpheus.\" According to John (compare John xix,\n25 with Matthew xxvii, 56) Cleophas was their father.\n\nReferring to this and the preceding discrepancy, Smith's \"Bible\nDictionary\" says: \"This is one of the most difficult questions in\nthe Gospel history.\"\n\n\n\n110\n\nWere Matthew and James the Less brothers?\n\nIt is not admitted that they were. Yet it is claimed that Matthew\nand Levi were the same; Mark (ii, 14) declares that Levi was \"the\nson of Alpheus\"; while both Matthew and Mark (Matt. x, 3; Mark iii,\n18) declare that James was \"the son of Alpheus.\"\n\n\n\n111\n\nTo what city did John belong, and where was it located?\n\nJohn: \"Bethsaida of Galilee\" (xii, 21).\n\nJohn states that Peter was a resident of Bethsaida (i, 44), and as John\nand Peter were partners (Luke v, 10), they must have belonged to the\nsame city. But Bethsaida was not in Galilee, but in Gaulonitis. Hence\nif John wrote the Gospel ascribed to him, he did not know the location\nof his own city.\n\nIt is remarkable with what ease theologians harmonize the most\ndiscordant statements. In this case the only thing required was,\nin drawing the map of Palestine, to make two dots instead of one and\nwrite the word Bethsaida twice.\n\n\n\n112\n\nWho was the tenth apostle?\n\nMark: Thaddeus (iii, 18).\n\nMatthew: \"Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus\" (x, 3).\n\nIn the earlier manuscripts of Matthew, the words, \"whose surname was\nThaddeus,\" are not to be found. Subsequent transcribers added them\nto reconcile his Gospel with Mark.\n\n\n\n113\n\nHow many of the apostles bore the name of Judas?\n\nMatthew and Mark: But one (Matt. x, 1-4; Mark iii, 14-19).\n\nLuke: Two (vi, 16).\n\n\n\n114\n\nOne of these was Judas Iscariot. Who was the other?\n\nLuke (Old Ver.): \"The brother of James\" (vi, 16).\n\nLuke (New Ver.): \"The son of James.\"\n\n\n\n115\n\nName the chief apostles.\n\nSynoptics: Peter, James and John.\n\nJohn: Peter and John.\n\nIn the Synoptics, Peter, James and John constitute an inner circle\nor group who are with their master on every important occasion. In\nJohn this group is limited to Peter and John.\n\n\n\n116\n\nWho was Jesus' favorite apostle?\n\nSynoptics: Peter.\n\nJohn: John.\n\nFrom the Synoptics the conclusion is inevitable that if there was one\ndisciple whom Jesus esteemed higher than the others it was Peter whom\nhe is declared to have chosen for the head of his church. John, on\nthe other hand, assuming that he wrote the Fourth Gospel, as claimed,\ntakes frequent occasion to impress us with the idea that he was the\nbright particular star in the Apostolic galaxy. Four times (xiii, 23;\nxix, 26; xx, 2; xxi, 20) he declares himself to be \"the disciple whom\nJesus loved.\"\n\nIf John wrote the Fourth Gospel this self-glorification proves him to\nhave been a despicable egotist; if he did not write it the book is a\nforgery. The first assumption, if correct, impairs its credibility;\nthe latter destroys its authenticity.\n\n\n\n117\n\nIs the Apostle James mentioned in John?\n\nHe is not. This omission is the more remarkable when we remember that\nJames was not only one of the chief apostles, but the brother of John.\n\nRespecting this omission, Strauss says: \"Is it at all probable that\nthe real John would so unbecomingly neglect the well-founded claims\nof his brother James to special notice? and is not such an omission\nrather indicative of a late Hellenistic author, who scarcely had\nheard the name of the brother so early martyred?\" (Leben Jesu, p. 353.)\n\n\n\n118\n\nWhat other disciples besides the Twelve did Jesus send out?\n\nLuke: \"After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also,\nand sent them two and two before his face into every city and place,\nwhither he himself would come\" (x, 1).\n\nIn not one of the other twenty-six books of the New Testament is this\nimportant feature of Christ's ministry mentioned. The seventy elders\nof Moses doubtless suggested it. \"And the Lord came down in a cloud,\nand spoke unto him [Moses], and took of the spirit that was upon him,\nand gave it unto the seventy elders\" (Num. xi, 25).\n\nSeventy was a sacred number with the Jews and is of frequent occurrence\nin their writings. \"And all the souls that came out of the loins of\nJacob were seventy souls\" (Ex. i, 5). Abimelech had \"seventy brethren\"\n(Jud. ix, 56). \"Ahab had seventy sons\" (2 K. x. 1). Isaiah prophesied\nthat \"Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years\" (xxiii, 15). Jeremiah\nprophesied that the Jews were to \"serve the king of Babylon seventy\nyears\" (xxv, 11). In Ezekiel's vision there stood before the idols\nof Israel \"seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel\" (viii,\n11). In Daniel's vision \"seventy weeks are determined upon thy people\nand upon the holy city [Jerusalem]\" (ix, 24).\n\n\n\n119\n\nWhat charge did Jesus make to his disciples?\n\n\"Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the\nSamaritans enter ye not\" (Matt. x, 5).\n\n\"Then cometh he [with his disciples] to a city of Samaria\" (John iv,\n5). \"And he abode there two days\" (40).\n\n\n\n120\n\nDid Jesus have a habitation of his own?\n\nMatthew: \"And leaving Nazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum\"\n(iv, 13).\n\nMark: \"Jesus sat at meat in his [Jesus'] house\" (ii, 15).\n\nLuke: \"And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the\nair have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head\"\n(ix, 58).\n\n\n\n121\n\nHis residence in Capernaum was in fulfillment of what prophecy?\n\nMatthew: \"The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthali, by way of\nthe sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat\nin darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and\nshadow of death is light sprung up\" (iv, 15, 16).\n\nThe \"prophecy\" which Matthew pretends to quote is in Isaiah (ix, 1,\n2), and reads as follows: \"Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such\nas was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the\nland of Zebulon, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more\ngrievously afflict her by way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee\nof the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great\nlight; they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them\nhath the light shined.\"\n\nMatthew both misquotes and misapplies this passage. He eliminates\nthe facts and alters the language to make a Messianic prophecy. The\nwords were not intended as a prophecy. The events mentioned by Isaiah\nhad occurred when he wrote. The \"great light,\" which they had already\nseen, referred to his own work in destroying witchcraft and idolatry.\n\n\n\n122\n\nWere Zebulon and Nephthali situated \"beyond Jordan,\" as stated?\n\nThey were not. \"Beyond Jordan\" means east of the Jordan, which formed\nthe eastern boundary of Palestine. Zebulon and Nephthali were both\nsituated west of the Jordan.\n\n\n\n123\n\nWere Peter, Andrew, James and John with Jesus when he taught in the\nsynagogue at Capernaum?\n\nMark: They were (i, 16-21).\n\nLuke: They were not; for they had not yet been called (iv, 31;\nv, 1-11).\n\n\n\n124\n\nDid Jesus perform many miracles in Galilee at the beginning of his\nministry?\n\nMatthew: \"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their\nsynagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all\nmanner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And\nhis fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought unto him all\nsick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and\nthose which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic,\nand those that had the palsy; and he healed them\" (iv, 23, 24).\n\nMark: \"He healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast\nout many devils\" (i, 34).\n\nLuke: \"All they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them\nunto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed\nthem. And devils also came out of many\" (iv, 40, 41).\n\nJohn declares that his curing the nobleman's son (iv, 46-54), which\nwas not until the second mission in Galilee, was the second miracle he\nperformed there, his miracle at Cana being the only one he performed\nduring the first period of his ministry. According to this Evangelist\n(iv, 45) all the notoriety he had at this time in Galilee, had been\nachieved, not by any miracles he had performed in that country,\nbut through the reports of some Galileans who had seen his works at\nJerusalem in Judea.\n\nIn regard to these conflicting statements of the Evangelists,\nFarrar says: \"At this point we are again met by difficulties in the\nchronology, which are not only serious, but to the certain solution\nof which there appears to be no clew\" (Life of Christ, p. 124).\n\n\n\n125\n\nDid he perform any miracles before he called his disciples?\n\nLuke: He did (iv, 40, 41; v, 1-11).\n\nJohn: \"And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage\n[at Cana, where he turned the water into wine].... This beginning of\nmiracles did Jesus in Cana\" (ii, 1-11)\n\nLuke declares that he had performed many miracles before the first\ndisciples were called; John declares that his disciples had been\ncalled and were with him when he performed his first miracle.\n\n\n\n126\n\nWhen was the miraculous draught of fishes made?\n\nLuke: At the beginning of his ministry (v, 6).\n\nJohn: Not until after his death and resurrection (xxi, 11).\n\n\n\n127\n\nWhat accident was caused by the enormous draught of fishes?\n\nLuke: \"Their net brake\" (v, 6).\n\nJohn: \"For all there were so many, yet was not the net broken\"\n(xxi, 11).\n\nIn Luke and John we have two different versions of a Pythagorian\nlegend. After comparing and noting the agreements and variations of\nthe three versions of the legend, Strauss says:\n\n\"If there be a mind that, not perceiving in the narratives we have\ncompared the finger-marks of tradition, and hence the legendary\ncharacter of these evangelical anecdotes, still leans to the historical\ninterpretation, whether natural or supernatural; that mind must be\nalike ignorant of the true character both of legend and of history,\nof the natural and the supernatural\" (Leben Jesu, p. 339).\n\n\n\n128\n\nHow long did the Jews say it took to build the temple?\n\n\"Forty and six years was this temple in building\" (John ii, 20).\n\nOne year and six months was this temple in building.\n\nJosephus (B. xv, ch. xi) gives a full account of the building of the\ntemple. Of its commencement, he says: \"And now Herod, in the eighteenth\nyear of his reign, and after the acts already mentioned, undertook\na very great work--that is, to build of himself the temple of God\"\n(sec. 1). Concerning its completion, he says: \"But the temple itself\nwas built by the priests in a year and six months--upon which all the\npeople were full of joy; and presently they returned thanks, in the\nfirst place, to God; and in the next place, for the alacrity the king\nhad shown. They feasted and celebrated this rebuilding of the temple\"\n(sec. 6).\n\nThe building of the temple was begun in 19 B. C.; it was finished\nand dedicated in 17 B. C.\n\n\n\n129\n\nWhere did Jesus deliver his so-called Sermon on the Mount?\n\nMatthew: \"He went up into a mountain\" (v, 1).\n\nLuke: \"He came down with them, and stood in the plain\" (vi, 17).\n\nBoth Matthew and Luke represent him as being on a mountain; but while\nMatthew has him go up into the mountain to deliver his sermon, Luke\nhas him come down out of the mountain to deliver it.\n\nIn regard to this discrepancy, the Dutch theologian, Dr. Hooykaas,\nsays: \"The Evangelist [Matthew] had a special motive for fixing upon\na mountain for this purpose. He intended to represent Jesus laying\ndown the fundamental laws of the kingdom of heaven as the counterpart\nof Moses who promulgated the constitution of the Old Covenant from\nMount Sinai. Luke, on the other hand, not wishing Jesus to be regarded\nas a second Moses, or another lawgiver, just as deliberately makes\nthe Master deliver this discourse on a plain\" (Bible for Learners,\nVol. III, p. 141, 142).\n\n\n\n130\n\nDid he deliver his sermon sitting or standing?\n\nMatthew: \"He was set\" (v, 1).\n\nLuke: He \"stood\" (vi, 17).\n\n\n\n131\n\nRepeat the Beatitudes which are common to both Evangelists.\n\n\"Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven\"\n(Matthew v, 3).\n\n\"Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the kingdom of God\" (Luke vi, 20).\n\n\"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted\" (Matthew).\n\n\"Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh\" (Luke).\n\n\"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness:\nfor they shall be filled\" (Matthew).\n\n\"Blessed are ye which hunger now: for ye shall be filled\" (Luke).\n\n\"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you,\nand shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake\"\n(Matthew).\n\n\"Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate\nyou from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your\nname as evil for the Son of man's sake\" (Luke).\n\n\"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven:\nfor so persecuted they the prophets which were before you\" (Matthew).\n\n\"Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward\nis great in heaven: for in like manner did their fathers unto the\nprophets\" (Luke).\n\nThe agreements between the two versions of this sermon, of which\nthe foregoing are a part, are ample to prove them to be reports of\nthe same discourse; while the variations are certainly sufficient to\ndisprove the infallibility of the evangelistic reporters.\n\nWhether it be historical or fabricated--whether Jesus delivered the\nsermon or not--Matthew and Luke have given merely different versions\nof the same composition. The exordiums are the same; the perorations\nare the same--both end with the illustration of the men, one of\nwhom built his house on a frail, the other on a firm foundation;\nthe doctrines enunciated are substantially the same; while the words\nin which they are clothed proclaim a common origin. Matthew's version\nis longer than Luke's; either Matthew has added to, or Luke has taken\nfrom the original report of the sermon.\n\n\n\n132\n\nRepeat the Golden Rule.\n\n\"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even\nso to them: for this is the law and the prophets\" (Matthew vii, 12;\nLuke vi, 31).\n\nSeventy years before Christ, Hillel, the Jewish rabbi, said:\n\n\"Do not to others what you would not have them do to you. This is\nthe substance of the law.\"\n\nRabbi Hirsch says: \"Before Jesus, the Golden Rule was one of the\nhousehold sayings of Israel.\"\n\n\n\n133\n\nRepeat the Lord's Prayer.\n\nAccording to Matthew.\n\n\nOld Version.                           New Version.\n\n\"Our Father which art in heaven,       \"Our Father which art in heaven,\nHallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom      Hallowed be thy name. Thy\ncome. Thy will be done in earth, as    kingdom come. Thy will be done,\nit is in heaven. Give us this day      as in heaven, so on earth. Give\nour daily bread. And forgive us our    us this day our daily bread. And\ndebts as we forgive our debtors. And   forgive us our debts, as we also\nlead us not into temptation, but       have forgiven our debtors. And\ndeliver us from evil: For thine is     bring us not into temptation,\nthe kingdom, and the power, and the    but deliver us from the evil\nglory, for ever. Amen\" (vi, 9-13).     one.\"\n\n\nAccording to Luke.\n\n\nOld Version.                            New Version.\n\n\"Our Father which art in heaven,        \"Father, Hallowed be thy name.\nHallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom       Thy kingdom come. Give us day\ncome. Thy will be done, as in heaven,   by day our daily bread. And\nso in earth. Give us day by day our     forgive us our sins; for we\ndaily bread. And forgive us our sins;   ourselves also forgive every\nfor we also forgive every one that is   one that is indebted to us. And\nindebted to us. And lead us not into    bring us not into temptation.\"\ntemptation: but deliver us from evil\"\n(xi, 2-4).\n\n\nThe commonly accepted version of the Lord's Prayer is the Authorized\nVersion of Matthew. This version is admitted to be grossly\ninaccurate. It contains sixty-six words. The Revised Version of\nMatthew contains but fifty-five. Twenty-four words either do not\nbelong to the prayer, or have been misplaced; while words which do\nbelong to it have been omitted. If the custodians of the Christian\nScriptures have permitted the prayer of their Lord to be corrupted\nto this extent, what reliance can be placed upon the genuineness of\nthe remainder of these writings?\n\nThe Lord's Prayer, like so many more of the precepts and discourses\nascribed to Jesus, is borrowed. Dr. Hardwicke, of England, says: \"The\nso-called 'Lord's Prayer' was learned by the Messiah as the 'Kadish'\nfrom the Talmud.\" The Kadish, as translated by a Christian scholar,\nRev. John Gregorie, is as follows:\n\n\"Our Father which art in heaven, be gracious to us, O Lord, our God;\nhallowed be thy name, and let the remembrance of thee be glorified\nin heaven above and in the earth here below. Let thy kingdom reign\nover us now and forever. The holy men of old said, Remit and forgive\nunto all men whatsoever they have done against me. And lead us not\ninto temptation, but deliver us from the evil thing. For thine is\nthe kingdom, and thou shalt reign in glory for ever and for evermore.\"\n\nThe eminent Swiss theologian, Dr. Wetstein, says: \"It is a curious\nfact that the Lord's Prayer may be constructed almost verbatim out\nof the Talmud.\"\n\nThe Sermon on the Mount is derived largely from the teachings of\nthe Essenes, a Jewish sect to which Jesus is believed by many to\nhave belonged.\n\n\n\n134\n\nWhen and where was the Lord's Prayer delivered?\n\nMatthew: During his Sermon on the Mount, before the multitude.\n\nLuke: At a later period, before the disciples alone (xi, 1).\n\n\n\n135\n\nWas the Sermon on the Mount delivered before Matthew (Levi in Mark\nand Luke) was called from the receipt of custom?\n\nMatthew: It was (v, 7; ix, 9).\n\nLuke: It was not (v, 27; vi, 20).\n\n\n\n136\n\nWhen did Jesus cleanse the leper?\n\nMatthew: After the Sermon on the Mount (v, 1; viii, 1-4).\n\nLuke: Before the Sermon on the Mount (v, 12-14; vi, 20-49).\n\n\n\n137\n\nWhen did he cure Peter's mother-in-law?\n\nMatthew: After he cleansed the leper (viii, 2, 3; 14, 15).\n\nMark and Luke: Before he cleansed the leper (Mark i, 29-31; 40-42;\nLuke iv, 38, 39; v, 12, 13).\n\n\n\n138\n\nWas this before or after Peter was called to the ministry?\n\nLuke: Before (iv, 38, 39; v, 10).\n\nMatthew and Mark: After (Matt. iv, 18, 19; viii, 14, 15; Mark i, 16,\n17; 30, 31).\n\n\n\n139\n\nWere James and John with Jesus when he performed this cure?\n\nMark: They were (i, 29).\n\nLuke: They were not. They had not yet been called (iv. 38, 39; v,\n10, 11).\n\n\n\n140\n\nWhen was the centurion's servant healed?\n\nMatthew: Between the cleansing of the leper and the curing of Peter's\nmother-in-law (viii, 2-14).\n\nLuke: Not until after both these cures had been performed (iv, 38,\n39; v, 12, 13; vii, 1-10).\n\n\n\n141\n\nWho came for Jesus?\n\nMatthew: The centurion came himself (viii, 5).\n\nLuke: The centurion did not come himself, but sent the Jewish elders\nfor him (vii, 2-4).\n\n\n142\n\nWhere was he when he performed this miracle?\n\nMatthew and Luke: In Capernaum (Matt. viii, 5; Luke vii, 1).\n\nJohn: In Cana (iv, 46).\n\nAccording to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was in Capernaum while the\npatient lived elsewhere; according to John, Jesus was in Cana while\nthe patient lived in Capernaum. John says he was a nobleman's son,\nbut all critics (as well as the Archbishop of York, in his \"Harmony\nof the Gospels\") agree that he refers to the same miracle.\n\n\n\n143\n\nWhen did he still the tempest?\n\nMatthew: Before Matthew was called from the receipt of custom (viii,\n23-27; ix, 9).\n\nMark: After Matthew (Levi) was called (ii, 14; iv, 35-41).\n\n\n\n144\n\nWhen did he cast out the devils that entered into the herd of swine?\n\nMatthew: Before Matthew was called to the ministry (viii, 28, 33;\nix, 9).\n\nMark and Luke: Not until after he was called (Mark ii, 14; v, 1-13;\nLuke v, 27; viii, 26-33).\n\n\n\n145\n\nHow many were possessed with devils?\n\nMatthew: \"There met him two possessed with devils coming out of the\ntombs\" (viii, 28).\n\nMark and Luke: \"There met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean\nspirit\" (Mark v, 2; Luke viii, 27).\n\n\n\n146\n\nWhen asked his name what did the demoniac answer?\n\n\"My name is Legion\" (Mark v, 9).\n\nConcerning this the Rev. Dr. Giles says: \"The Four Gospels are\nwritten in Greek, and the word 'legion' is Latin; but in Galilee\nand Perea the people spoke neither Latin nor Greek, but Hebrew, or\na dialect of it. The word 'legion' would be perfectly unintelligible\nto the disciples of Christ, and to almost everybody in the country\"\n(Christian Records, p. 197).\n\n\n\n147\n\nHow many swine were there?\n\nMark: \"They were about two thousand\" (v, 13).\n\nIf each hog received a devil there must have been two thousand\ndevils. Legion must have been a very large man, or they were very\nlittle devils.\n\n\n\n148\n\nWhere did this occur?\n\nMatthew: In \"the country of the Gergesenes\" (viii, 28).\n\nMark and Luke: In \"the country of the Gadarenes\" (Mark v, 1; Luke\nviii, 26).\n\nIt is generally conceded by orthodox critics that it occurred neither\nin the country of the Gergesenes nor in the country of the Gadarenes,\nbut in the country of the Gerasenes. It could not have occurred in\nthe country of the Gadarenes because it is said to have occurred on\nthe sea shore and Gadara was situated several miles from the sea.\n\nVoltaire says the story is disproved by the fact that the event is\nalleged to have taken place in a country where no swine were kept.\n\n\n\n149\n\nDo the Evangelists all agree in regard to the expulsion of demons\nby Jesus?\n\nThe Synoptics abound with these miracles: Matthew viii, 28-34; ix,\n32-34; xv, 22-28; xvii, 14-21; Mark i, 21-28; v, 1-20; vii, 24-30;\nix, 20-29; Luke iv, 31-37; viii, 26-39; ix, 37-42. John never\nmentions them.\n\n\n\n150\n\nWhat great miracle did Jesus perform at Nain?\n\nLuke: \"Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there\nwas a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was\na widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord\nsaw her he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he\ncame and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he\nsaid, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up,\nand began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother\" (vii, 12-15).\n\nThe other Evangelists were certainly ignorant of this miracle; for if\nthey had known of it they could not have omitted it, as it is the most\nimportant miracle related by a Synoptist, and, with one exception,\nthe most important of all Christ's miracles.\n\nA miracle almost identical with this is related of\nApollonius. Referring to the two, Baur says: \"As according to Luke,\nit was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being carried\nout of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden already\nbetrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down the\nbier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as there,\nto bring the dead to life\" (Apollonius of Tyana and Christ, p. 145).\n\n\n\n151\n\nIn their accounts of his curing the paralytic what parenthetical\nclause is to be found in each of the Synoptics?\n\n\"(Then saith he to the sick of the palsy)\" (Matthew ix, 6; Mark ii,\n10; Luke v, 24).\n\nAs the clause is superfluous, this agreement, instead of furnishing\nproof of divine inspiration, tends to prove what has already been\naffirmed, that these books are not original, but copied, for the most\npart, from older documents.\n\n\n\n152\n\nWhat effect had the teachings of Jesus upon the people?\n\nMatthew: \"They were astonished at his doctrine\" (xxii, 33).\n\nMark: \"They were astonished at his doctrine\" (i, 22).\n\nLuke: \"They were astonished at his doctrine\" (iv, 32).\n\n\n\n153\n\nWhat did he say to the people in regard to letting their light shine?\n\n\"No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place,\nneither under a bushel, but on a candle stick\" (Luke, Old Ver.,\nxi, 33).\n\n\"No man, when he hath lighted a lamp, putteth it in a cellar, neither\nunder the bushel, but on the stand\" (New Ver.).\n\n\n\n154\n\nWhat did he say concerning the way that leads to life?\n\n\"Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life\"\n(Matthew, Old Ver., vii, 14).\n\n\"Narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life\"\n(New Ver.).\n\nThe Old Version has a strait gate and a narrow way; the New Version\na narrow gate and a strait way.\n\n\n\n155\n\nQuote the words which relate the calling of Peter.\n\nJohn: \"He [Andrew] first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto\nhim, We have found the Messias, which is being interpreted the Christ.\n\n\"And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said,\nThou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which\nis by interpretation, A stone\" (i, 41, 42).\n\nThe last clause of each is an interpolation.\n\n\n\n156\n\nWhere was John baptizing when Jesus and his disciples came into Judea?\n\nJohn: \"In Aenon near to Salim\" (iii, 22, 23).\n\nThis is declared by nearly all critics to be a geographical error. No\nplace corresponding to this existed in Judea.\n\n\n\n157\n\nWhat city of Samaria did Jesus visit?\n\nJohn: \"Then cometh he to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar\"\n(iv, 5).\n\nSamaria contained no city of this name. Bible commentators believe\nthat Shechem is intended.\n\n\n\n158\n\nWhat did his disciples say to him when about to leave Bethany?\n\n\"Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee\" (John xi, 8).\n\nThe disciples were themselves Jews, and the above is not the language\nof a Jew speaking of his own people, but of a foreigner.\n\n\n\n159\n\nWhere was he when he dined with publicans and sinners?\n\nMark: At his own house. \"As Jesus sat at meat in his house, many\npublicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples\"\n(ii. 15).\n\nLuke: At the house of Levi. \"And Levi made him a great feast in his\nown house; and there was a great company of publicans and of others\nthat sat down with them\" (v, 29).\n\n\n\n160\n\nWhat did the Pharisees say to his disciples, because they, with Jesus,\ndined with publicans and sinners?\n\n\"Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?\" (Luke v, 30.)\n\n\"Why eateth your master with publicans and sinners?\" (Matthew ix, 11.)\n\n\n\n161\n\nWho inquired of Jesus the reason for his disciples not fasting?\n\nMatthew: \"Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we\nand the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?\" (ix, 14.)\n\nLuke: \"And they [the scribes and Pharisees] said unto him, why do\nthe disciples of John fast often, ... and likewise the disciples of\nthe Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?\" (v, 33.)\n\n\n\n162\n\nWhat did he say when reproved for plucking the ears of corn on the\nSabbath?\n\n\"Have ye never read what David did?... How he went into the house of\nGod in the days of Abiathar, the high priest, and did eat the shew\nbread?\" (Mark ii, 25, 26.)\n\nDavid did not do this \"in the days of Abiathar,\" but in the days of\nAhimelech. \"Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest.... So the\npriest gave him hallowed bread; for there was no bread there but the\nshew bread\" (1 Sam. xxi, 1, 6).\n\n\n\n163\n\nWhat did he claim regarding Moses?\n\n\"He [Moses] wrote of me\" (John v, 46).\n\nThe passage referred to is quoted in Acts iii, 22, and may be found\nin Deuteronomy xviii, 15. It alludes to Joshua, the successor of\nMoses. \"The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from\nthe midst of thee, of thy brethren like unto me; unto him ye shall\nhearken.\"\n\nHad Jesus been omniscient he would have known that Moses did not write\nthis; that it was not written until nearly 800 years after the time\nof Moses.\n\n\n\n164\n\nJesus is credited with having raised the daughter of Jairus from the\ndead. Was she really dead?\n\nMatthew: Jairus said, \"My daughter is even now dead\" (ix, 18).\n\nMark: He said, \"My little daughter lieth at the point of death\"\n(v, 23).\n\nLuke: It was reported that \"she lay a dying\" (viii, 42).\n\nAccording to Matthew, in this miracle he restored the dead to life;\naccording to Mark and Luke, he merely healed the sick.\n\n\n\n165\n\nWho of Christ's disciples witnessed the raising of Jairus' daughter?\n\nMark and Luke: Peter, James and John (Mark v, 37-40; Luke viii, 51).\n\nJohn, who alone of his alleged biographers is said to have witnessed\nthis miracle, is the only one who fails to mention it.\n\n\"A proper witness is silent, while an improper witness\ntestifies.\"--Bishop Faustus.\n\n\n\n166\n\nWhat did Jesus say when sending out his Twelve Apostles?\n\n\"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth\nhim that sent me\" (Matthew x, 40; Luke x, 16).\n\nAccording to John (xiii, 20) these words were uttered not at the\nbeginning of his ministry as stated by Matthew and Luke, but at the\nLast Supper; regarding which \"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"It is\nclear that its insertion here is a mistake.\"\n\n\n\n167\n\nWhat command did he give them respecting the provision of staves?\n\nMatthew and Luke: They were not to provide themselves with\nstaves. \"Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,\nnor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor\nyet staves\" (Matt. x, 9, 10; Luke ix, 3).\n\nMark: \"Commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey,\nsave a staff only\" (vi, 8).\n\n\n\n168\n\nWhen the Samaritans refused to receive him what was said?\n\nLuke: \"And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said,\nLord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and\nconsume them even as Elias did?\n\n\"But he turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner\nof spirit ye are of.\n\n\"For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save\nthem. And they went to another village\" (ix, 54-56).\n\nIt is conceded by the best Christian scholars that the words \"as Elias\ndid\" and all that follow, excepting \"he turned and rebuked them,\"\nare spurious.\n\n\n\n169\n\nWhat did Jesus say to the multitude concerning John the Baptist?\n\n\"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven\nsuffereth violence\" (Matthew xi, 12).\n\nThe words, \"from the days of John the Baptist until now,\" signify that\na long period of time had elapsed since the days of John. Yet, on the\nvery day that Jesus is said to have uttered them, he received a visit\nfrom the disciples of John, who was still living (Matthew xi, 2, 3).\n\n\n\n170\n\nWhose rejection of him provoked the declaration, \"A prophet is not\nwithout honor, save in his own country\"?\n\nMatthew: \"And when he came into his own country [Galilee], he taught\nthem in their synagogue, ... and they were offended in him. But\nJesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his\nown country\" (xiii, 54-57).\n\nJohn: \"He departed thence, [he had come from Judea and Samaria] and\nwent into Galilee. For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath\nno honor in his own country. Then when he was come into Galilee,\nthe Galileans received him\" (iv, 43-45).\n\nAccording to Matthew, he was without honor in Galilee; according\nto John, he went to Galilee because he was without honor in\nJudea. According to Matthew the Galileans rejected him; according to\nJohn \"the Galileans received him.\" According to Matthew, Galilee was\n\"his own country\"; according to John, Judea was \"his own country.\"\n\nRegarding these contradictory statements, Scott, in his \"English Life\nof Jesus\" (p. 114), says: \"The Synoptists in every case give a special\nreason for his leaving Galilee, while the fourth gospel is equally\ncareful in specifying the reason for his leaving Jerusalem. According\nto the former, Jesus would not have left Galilee if he could have\navoided it; according to the latter, he would have remained at\nJerusalem if he could have done so with safety. The inconsistency\nis glaring.\"\n\n\n\n171\n\nWhen he came into his own country and taught in the synagogue what\ndid the people say?\n\nMark: \"Is not this the carpenter?\" (vi, 3.)\n\nMatthew: \"Is not this the carpenter's son?\" (xiii, 55.)\n\n\n\n172\n\nWhen Herod heard of his wonderful works, what did he say?\n\n\"This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead\" (Matthew xiv, 2).\n\nHere, early in Christ's ministry, the tetrarch of Galilee is\nrepresented as entertaining the Christian doctrine of a bodily\nresurrection.\n\n\n\n173\n\nWhen and for what reason was John beheaded?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter\nof Herodias [Salome] danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon\nhe promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And\nshe, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John\nBaptist's head in a charger. And the king was sorry: nevertheless for\nthe oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it\nto be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. And\nhis head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she\nbrought it to her mother\" (Matt. xiv, 6-11; Mark vi, 21-28).\n\nThis account of the death of John is utterly at variance with that\ngiven in Josephus. This historian, assuming the passage relating to\nJohn to be genuine, says:\n\n\"Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people\nmight put it into his power and inclination to raise rebellion\n(for they seemed to do anything he should advise), thought it best\nby putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause,\nand not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might\nmake him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was\nsent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the\ncastle I before mentioned, and was there put to death\" (Antiquities,\nB. xviii, ch. v, sec. 2).\n\nMacherus, where Josephus states that John was executed, was a place\nfar removed from Herod's capital--was outside of his dominions--in\nArabia Petrea.\n\nReferring to the Evangelistic account of John's death, Dr. Hooykaas\nsays: \"This eminently dramatic story certainly cannot be accepted\nas it stands. It betrays too much art in its striking contrasts\nbetween the manners of the court and the person of the prophet. We\nhave already seen that the occasion of John's imprisonment is not\ncorrectly given by the Gospels. That such a man as Herod 'delighted\nin hearing' John is, to say the least, an exaggeration. The ghastly\nscene in which the prophet's head is carried into the festive hall\nmay not be quite impossible in such an age and at such a court, but\nit is hardly probable. It is easy to see that Herodias is drawn after\nthe model of Ahab's wife, who hated and persecuted the first Elijah;\nand Salome is evidently copied from Esther, for she, too, visits the\nprince by surprise, captivates him by her beauty, obtains a promise\nof anything up to the half of his kingdom, and at the festive board\ndemands the death of her enemy as the royal boon\" (Bible for Learners,\nvol. iii, p. 272).\n\n\n\n174\n\nWho was Herodias?\n\nSynoptics: \"His [Herod's] brother Philip's wife\" (Matt. xiv, 3;\nMark vi, 17; Luke iii, 19).\n\nHerodias was a grand-daughter of Herod the Great, and married\nher uncle Herod, the disinherited son of Herod the Great. She\nsubsequently married Antipas, the Herod who is said to have put\nJohn to death. Herod's brother Philip (Tetrarch of Trachonitis and\nGaulonitis) was not the son of Marianne, as the first husband of\nHerodias was, but the son of Cleopatra. Philip's wife was Salome,\nthe daughter of Herodias. The daughter of Herodias, instead of\nbeing a damsel dancing at the court of Herod, as the Synoptics\ndeclare, was at this time the wife of an aged ruler of a foreign\nprovince. According to Whiston, she became a widow in the very year\nin which John died. Herodias was not the wife, but the mother-in-law\nof Herod's brother Philip. Whiston, in his translation of Josephus,\nattempts to gloss over the Synoptics' error by inserting in brackets\nafter Herod the word \"Philip.\" Scribners' \"Bible Dictionary\" concedes\nthe error and accounts for it \"By supposing that there is a confusion\nbetween the first husband and the son-in-law of Herodias, for her\ndaughter Salome married Philip the tetrarch.\"\n\n\n\n175\n\nWhat is said of the numbers baptized by Jesus and his disciples as\ncompared with those baptized by John?\n\nJohn: \"The Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more\ndisciples than John. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his\ndisciples.)\" (iv, 1, 2.)\n\nMatthew (iii, 5) and Mark (i, 5) declare that John had baptized\n\"Jerusalem and all Judea.\" It is admitted, both in the New Testament\nand by Christians, that Jesus made but few converts during his\nlifetime, and to assert or intimate that he and his disciples baptized\nmore than John is preposterous.\n\n\n\n176\n\nWho furnished the loaves and fishes with which the multitude in the\ndesert was fed?\n\nSynoptics: The disciples (Matt. xiv, 15-17; Mark vi, 35-38; Luke ix,\n12, 13).\n\nJohn: \"A lad\" (vi, 9).\n\n\n\n177\n\nHow many were fed?\n\nMark: \"And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand\nmen\" (vi, 44).\n\nMatthew: \"And they that had eaten were about five thousand men,\nbeside women and children\" (xiv, 21).\n\n\n\n178\n\nWhere did this miracle occur?\n\nLuke: \"In a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida\"\n(ix, 10).\n\nMark says that after the miracle \"He constrained his disciples to\nget into a ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida\"\n(vi, 45).\n\nIf the miracle was performed in a place belonging to the city of\nBethsaida, as stated by Luke, they did not cross the sea to reach\nBethsaida, as stated by Mark.\n\n\n\n179\n\nAfter feeding the five thousand what did Jesus do?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"He sent the multitudes away\" (Matt. xiv, 22;\nMark vi, 45).\n\nJohn: He did not send the multitude away, but withdrew himself into\na mountain (vi, 15).\n\n\n\n180\n\nFor what purpose did he go to the mountain?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went\nup into a mountain, apart to pray\" (Matt. xiv, 23; Mark vi, 46).\n\nJohn: \"When Jesus therefore perceived that they [the multitude]\nwould come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed\nagain into a mountain alone\" (vi, 15).\n\nMatthew and Mark say nothing about the attempt to make him king;\nJohn says nothing about his praying.\n\n\n\n181\n\nWere his disciples with him?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to\nget into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he\nsent the multitude away. And when he had sent the multitudes away, he\nwent up into a mountain apart to pray; and when the evening was come,\nhe was there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of the sea\"\n(Matt. xiv, 22-24; Mark vi, 45-47).\n\nLuke: \"And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples\nwere with him\" (ix, 18).\n\nMatthew and Mark send his disciples ahead in a ship to make room\nfor his miracle of walking on the sea, a miracle that Luke knows\nnothing of.\n\n\n\n182\n\nTo what port did he command his disciples to sail?\n\nMark: \"Unto Bethsaida\" (vi, 45).\n\nPursuant to this command toward what place did they steer?\n\nJohn: \"Toward Capernaum\" (vi, 17).\n\nWhere did this bring them?\n\nMatthew: \"Into the land of Gennesaret\" (xiv, 34).\n\n\n\n183\n\nJesus himself is said to have followed them on foot. Where did he\novertake them?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"In the midst of the sea\" (Matt. xiv, 24-26; Mark\nvi, 47, 48).\n\nJohn: As they were nearing the land (vi, 19-21).\n\nAccording to John, he walked entirely across the sea; according to\nMatthew and Mark, but half way across.\n\nChrist's walking on the sea was probably suggested by Job (ix, 8),\nwho says God \"treadeth upon the waves of the sea,\" or, according to\nthe Septuagint, \"walking upon the sea as upon a pavement.\"\n\n\n\n184\n\nWhat remarkable feat was attempted on the trip?\n\nMatthew: \"And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked\non the water, to go to Jesus. And when he saw the wind boisterous,\nhe was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord save\nme. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him\"\n(Matt. xiv, 29-31).\n\nMark and John, who relate with much particularity the events of this\nvoyage, do not mention Peter's adventure.\n\n\"Probably they had good reason for omitting it. A profane mind might\nmake a jest of an apostle 'half seas over,' and ridicule an apostolic\ngate-keeper who couldn't keep his head above water.\"--Bradlaugh.\n\n\n\n185\n\nWhat did the Jews say to Jesus respecting his Messianic mission?\n\n\"Search and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet\" (John vii,\n52).\n\nSearch and look; for out of Galilee arose some of their greatest\nprophets, Jonah, Hosea, Nahum and Elijah. It may be urged that it\nis the Jews who give expression to the error; but it is plain the\nEvangelist accepts the statement as true.\n\n\n\n186\n\nWhat notable incident occurred at Jerusalem?\n\nJohn: The release by Jesus of the woman taken in adultery (vii, 53;\nviii, 1-11).\n\nThis is popularly regarded as one of the most admirable acts in\nChrist's ministry. In the New Version the twelve verses relating it\nare declared by the Oxford revisers to be an interpolation.\n\n\n\n187\n\nIn the miracle of restoring the sight of the man born blind, what\ndid he tell the man to do?\n\n\"Go wash in the pool of Siloam\" (John ix, 7).\n\n\"The Lord sent the blind man to wash, not in, as our version has it,\nbut at the pool of Siloam; for it was the clay from his eyes that\nwas to be washed off.\"--Smith's Bible Dictionary.\n\n\n\n188\n\nWhat is the meaning of the word \"Siloam\"?\n\nJohn: \"Which is by interpretation, 'Sent'\" (ix, 7).\n\nWhich is not by interpretation \"sent,\" but \"aqueduct.\"\n\n\n\n189\n\nWho provoked the displeasure of the Pharisees by eating with unwashed\nhands?\n\nMatthew and Mark: The disciples of Jesus (Matt. xv, 1, 2; Mark vii,\n1, 2).\n\nLuke: Jesus himself (xi, 37, 38).\n\n\n\n190\n\nOf what nationality was the woman who desired Jesus to cast the devil\nout of her daughter?\n\nMatthew: \"A woman of Canaan\" (xv, 22).\n\nMark: \"The woman was a Greek\" (vii, 26).\n\n\n\n191\n\nWhat did his disciples say when he expressed his intention of feeding\nthe four thousand?\n\nMark: \"And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy\nthese men with bread here in the wilderness? And he asked them,\nHow many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven\" (viii, 4, 5).\n\nWhy should they be surprised at his intention of feeding four thousand\nwith seven loaves when but a few weeks before he had fed five thousand\nwith five loaves?\n\nIn regard to this miracle Rev. William Sanday, of England, author\nof \"Jesus Christ,\" the most important article in Scribners' \"Bible\nDictionary,\" says: \"Are the two Feedings of Mark to be regarded as\ntwo events or one? Besides the general resemblance between the two\nnarratives, a weighty argument in favor of the latter hypothesis is,\nthat in the second narrative the disciples' question implies that\nthe emergency was something new. They could hardly have put this\nquestion as they did if a similar event had happened only a few weeks\nbefore.\" This is also the opinion of Dr. Schleiermacher.\n\n\n\n192\n\nAfter feeding the four thousand where did he come?\n\nMatthew (Old Ver.): \"Came into the coasts of Magdala\" (xv, 39).\n\nMatthew (New Ver.): \"Came into the borders of Magadan.\"\n\n\n\n193\n\nWhere does Mark say he came?\n\n\"Came into the parts of Dalmanutha (viii, 10).\n\nCriticising this statement, the \"Bible for Learners\" says: \"Mark\nmakes him journey still farther north, through the district of Sidon,\nand then turn southeast to the lake of Galilee, pass some way down\nits eastern shore apparently, and finally take ship and cross in\na southwesterly direction to Dalmanutha, where we meet him once\nagain. But the Evangelist's geography is open to suspicion, and we\nare inclined to lay these apparently purposeless wanderings of Jesus\nto the account of Mark's want of accuracy\" (Vol. iii, p. 282).\n\n\n\n194\n\nWhat did he say to the Pharisees who asked for a sign?\n\n\"There shall no sign be given unto this generation\" (Mark viii, 12).\n\n\"There shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet\nJonas\" (Matthew xvi, 4).\n\n\n\n195\n\nOn the way to Caesarea Philippi what remarkable discovery was made\nby Peter?\n\nMatthew: \"He [Jesus] asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that\nI the Son of Man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the\nBaptist: some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He\nsaith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered\nand said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus\nanswered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for\nflesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which\nis in heaven\" (xvi, 13-17).\n\nAccording to Matthew, Jesus is astonished at the discovery of Peter\nand attributes it to a revelation from Heaven. Yet previous to this,\nand in the presence of Peter, according to the same writer, the other\ndisciples had declared him to be \"the Son of God\" (Matthew xiv, 33).\n\n\n\n196\n\nThe Synoptics all declare that the Messiahship of Jesus was not\nrevealed to his disciples until late in his ministry. Is this true?\n\nJohn: It is not. It was known to them at the beginning of his\nministry. Before Peter was called Andrew said, \"We have found the\nMessias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ\" (i, 41). On the\nfollowing day Nathanael said to Jesus, \"Thou art the Son of God;\nthou art the King of Israel\" (49).\n\n\n\n197\n\nWhen did the Transfiguration take place?\n\nMatthew and Mark: Six days after the discourse in which he announced\nhis second coming (Matt. xvii, 1; Mark ix, 2).\n\nLuke: \"About an eight days after these sayings\" (ix, 28).\n\n\n\n198\n\nWas the countenance of Jesus changed?\n\nMatthew and Luke: It was. \"And his face did shine as the sun, and his\nraiment was white as the light\" (Matt. xvii, 2). \"The fashion of his\ncountenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistening\"\n(Luke ix, 29).\n\nMark: The appearance of his raiment only was changed. \"And his raiment\nbecame shining, exceeding white as snow\" (ix, 3).\n\n\n\n199\n\nWhen did Peter propose building the three tabernacles to Jesus,\nMoses and Elias?\n\nMatthew and Mark: While Moses and Elias were yet with them (Matt. xvii,\n3, 4; Mark ix, 4-8).\n\nLuke: After they had departed (ix, 33).\n\n\n\n200\n\nWhat did the voice from the clouds declare?\n\nMark and Luke: \"This is my beloved Son; hear ye him\" (Mark ix, 7;\nLuke ix, 35).\n\nMatthew: \"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye\nhim\" (xvii, 5).\n\nLuke's account of the Transfiguration differs in many respects from\nthat of Matthew and Mark. Luke says that Jesus went up into the\nmountain to pray; Matthew and Mark make no mention of this. Luke says\nthe disciples were asleep when Moses and Elias appeared. According to\nMatthew and Mark they were awake. Luke says that Moses and Elias \"spake\nof his decease.\" Matthew and Mark do not know what they talked about.\n\n\n\n201\n\nWho witnessed the Transfiguration?\n\nSynoptics: Peter, James and John (Matt. xvii, 1; Mark ix, 2; Luke\nix, 28).\n\nIt is remarkable that Matthew, Mark and Luke, who did not witness\nthe Transfiguration, are the only ones to report it; while John, who\nis declared to have witnessed it, knows nothing about it. Concerning\nthis and other events which John is said to have witnessed, Greg says:\n\"All the events said to have been witnessed by John alone are omitted\nby John alone. This fact seems fatal either to the reality of the\nevents in question or to the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel.\"\n\nRegarding this subject Scott says: \"By some singular fatality the\nwriter of the fourth gospel seems incapable of describing any one\nincident in the life of Jesus as the Synoptics have described it.... It\nis hard to believe that we are reading narratives which profess to\nrelate the life of the same person.... If then in these particulars,\nthe Synoptic Gospels are correct, the Johannine version of the events\nis pure fiction; and if the latter be taken as the true account, no\ndependence whatever can be placed upon the former\" (Life of Jesus,\npp. 259-263).\n\n\n\n202\n\nCompare the account of the Transfiguration of Jesus with the account\nof Moses at Mount Sinai.\n\n\nMatthew.                             Exodus.\n\n\"And after six days Jesus taketh     \"Then went up Moses, and Aaron,\nPeter, James, and John his           Nadab and Abihu\" (xxiv, 9).\nbrother, and bringeth them up into\na high mountain apart,               \"And Moses went up into the mount,\n                                     and a cloud covered the mount.\n\"And was transfigured before them,\nand his face did shine as the sun,   \"And the glory of the Lord abode\nand his raiment was white as the     upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud\nlight\" (xvii, 1, 2).                 covered it six days; and the\n                                     seventh day he called unto Moses\n\"While he yet spake, behold, a       out of the midst of the cloud.\nbright cloud overshadowed them;\nand behold a voice out of the        \"And the sight of the glory of the\ncloud,\" etc. (5).                    Lord was like devouring fire\"\n                                     (15-17).\n\n\nWe have in each account a prophet and three companions; in each\nthe persons mentioned go up into a mountain; in each there is a\nsupernatural brightness; in each an overshadowing cloud; in each\na celestial voice speaking out of the cloud; in each Moses is a\nprominent figure; in each a period of six days is mentioned.\n\n\n\n203\n\nWhat occurred immediately after the Transfiguration?\n\nMatthew: \"His disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes\nthat Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them,\nElias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto\nyou, that Elias is come already and they know him not.... Then the\ndisciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist\"\n(xvii, 10-13).\n\nIt is quite natural that the writing of one story concerning Elias\nshould suggest another; but reason forbids the acceptance of both as\ntrue. If Elias was seen and recognized at the mountain, as stated,\nthe above conversation did not follow that appearance.\n\n\n\n204\n\nWhat ailed the man's son whom Jesus cured after the Transfiguration?\n\nMatthew (Old Ver.): He was a lunatic (xvii, 15).\n\nMatthew (New Ver.): He was an epileptic.\n\nMark: He had \"a dumb spirit\" (ix, 17).\n\n\n\n205\n\nWhen the authorities at Capernaum demanded tribute of Jesus what did\nhe command Peter to do?\n\n\"Go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that\nfirst cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt\nfind a piece of money; that take, and give unto them for me and thee\"\n(Matthew xvii, 27).\n\nMatthew does not venture to say that Peter was successful, doubtless\nrecognizing the fact that there ought to be limits even to a fish\nstory.\n\nRegarding this story Archbishop Trench says: \"It is remarkable, and is\na solitary instance of the kind, that the issue of this bidding is not\ntold us.\" Dr. Farrar says: \"I agree with the learned and thoughtful\nOlshausen in regarding this as the most difficult to comprehend of\nall the gospel miracles\" (Life of Christ, p. 288).\n\n\n\n206\n\nWhat was the nature of the tribute demanded?\n\nIt was an annual tax, known as the temple service tax, a tax from\nwhich no Jew, rich or poor, was exempt. Regarding the time and manner\nof its collection, Farrar says: \"On the 1st of Adar, the demand\nwas made quietly and civilly; if, however, it had not been paid\nby the 25th, then it seems that the collectors of the contribution\n(tobhin shekalim) might take a security for it from the defaulter\"\n(Life of Christ, p. 285).\n\nThe tax was always collected in the early spring. Yet according to\nMatthew it was collected from Jesus in the autumn, just before the\nfeast of tabernacles. Either Matthew was ignorant of the time of its\ncollection, or Jesus was a defaulter.\n\nNor is this the only difficulty needing explanation. It is assumed\nthat Peter secured the coin in the manner directed. If so, how did\nit come into existence? Did Jesus miraculously create it? If so,\nhe was a counterfeiter. Was it a lost coin? In this case, if he was\nomniscient, as claimed, he knew the owner and should have restored it.\n\n\n\n207\n\nAfter leaving Galilee where did Jesus go?\n\nMatthew: \"Into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan\" (xix, 1).\n\nThe Jordan being the eastern boundary of Judea, no \"coasts of Judea\"\nexisted beyond it.\n\n\n\n208\n\nIn going to Jerusalem to attend his last Passover, what route did\nhe take?\n\nLuke: \"He passed through the midst of Samaria\" (xvii, 11).\n\nMark: He \"cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of the\nJordan\" (x, 1).\n\nTwo entirely different routes. As the province of Samaria lay between\nthose of Galilee and Judea, the direct route from Galilee to Jerusalem\nwas \"through the midst of Samaria.\" The orthodox Jews, however,\nin order to avoid the Samaritans, whom they thoroughly despised,\nusually crossed the Jordan, which formed the boundary of the three\nprovinces, came down on the east side of the river through Perea,\nrecrossed the river, and thus entered \"into the coasts of Judea from\nthe farther side of Jordan.\"\n\n\n\n209\n\nWhat city did he pass through on his way to Jerusalem?\n\nLuke: \"And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho\" (xix, 1).\n\nLuke here contradicts his previous statement that \"he passed through\nthe midst of Samaria,\" for Jericho was not on the route from Samaria,\nbut on the route from Perea by way of \"the farther side of Jordan,\"\nthe route which Mark declares he took.\n\n\n\n210\n\nWhat miracle did he perform on the way?\n\nLuke: \"As he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that\nwere lepers, which stood afar off; and they lifted up their voices,\nand said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And when he saw them,\nhe said unto them, Go shew yourselves to the priests. And it came to\npass, that, as they went, they were cleansed\" (xvii, 12-14).\n\nThe other Evangelists do not mention this miracle. Concerning it the\n\"Bible for Learners\" says: \"It is an unsuccessful imitation of the\naccount we have already examined of the healing of a leper. It is\nabsolutely unhistorical\" (Vol. iii, p. 310).\n\n\n\n211\n\nWas it one or two blind men that sat by the wayside beseeching him\nto heal them?\n\nMark: \"Blind Bartimeus, the son of Timeus, sat by the highway side\nbegging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began\nto cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me\"\n(x, 46, 47).\n\nLuke: \"A certain blind man sat by the wayside begging: ... And he\ncried, saying, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me\" (xviii,\n35, 38).\n\nMatthew: \"Two blind men sitting by the wayside, when they heard that\nJesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou\nson of David\" (xx, 30).\n\n\n\n212\n\nWhat inquiry did the disciples make regarding the cause of the man's\nblindness?\n\n\"Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born\nblind?\" (John ix, 2).\n\nRegarding this, Mrs. Evans, in her \"Christ Myth\" (p. 55), says:\n\"Such a suggestion has no meaning when uttered by a Jew, but to a\nbeliever in the transmigration of souls the query would be natural and\npertinent, and the story appears to be a modification of a well-known\nBuddhistic parable.\"\n\n\n\n213\n\nWhen did this occur?\n\nLuke: \"As he was come nigh into Jericho\" (xviii, 35).\n\nMatthew: \"As they separated from Jericho\" (xx, 29).\n\nMark: \"As he went out of Jericho\" (x, 46).\n\nMark agrees with Luke and disagrees with Matthew as to the number of\nmen, and agrees with Matthew and disagrees with Luke as to the time\nof its occurrence.\n\n\n\n214\n\nWhat did Jesus say regarding divorce?\n\nMark: \"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife\nand marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman\nshall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth\nadultery\" (x, 11, 12).\n\nThis was written by one acquainted with the Roman, but not with the\nJewish law. The Jewish law did not recognize the right of a wife\nto put away her husband for any cause whatever. Matthew (v, 31, 32)\nand Luke (xvi, 18) knew better.\n\n\n\n215\n\nAccording to Mark he said, \"Whosoever shall put away his wife,\nand marry another, committeth adultery.\" What did he say according\nto Matthew?\n\n\"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,\nand shall marry another, committeth adultery\" (xix, 9).\n\nThis is a notable discrepancy. According to Mark if a husband\ndivorce his wife for any cause whatever he cannot lawfully marry\nanother. According to Matthew if he divorce his wife for fornication\nhe can lawfully marry again.\n\n\n\n216\n\nIn his conversation with the rich man what commandments did he\nprescribe?\n\n\"Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false\nwitness, Honor thy father and thy mother\" (Luke xviii, 20).\n\n\"Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false\nwitness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and thy mother\" (Mark x, 19).\n\n\"Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt\nnot steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy\nmother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself\" (Matthew xix,\n18, 19).\n\nNo two of the Synoptics agree. Mark and Matthew each give a commandment\nnot given by either of the others.\n\n\n\n217\n\nWhat great miracle did he perform at Bethany?\n\nJohn: The raising of Lazarus from the dead. \"Then said Jesus unto them\nplainly, Lazarus is dead\" (xi, 14). \"Jesus therefore again groaning\nin himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon\nit. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that\nwas dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh; for he hath\nbeen dead four days\" (38, 39). \"Then they took away the stone from the\nplace where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said,\nFather, I thank thee that thou hast heard me\" (41). \"And when he thus\nhad spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he\nthat was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes\"\n(43, 44).\n\nThe Synoptics make no mention of this miracle; and as it is the\ngreatest miracle ascribed to Jesus it was certainly unknown to them.\n\nCommenting on the doubtful character of alleged events narrated by one\nEvangelist and omitted by the others, Strauss says: \"But this ground\nof doubt falls with incomparably greater weight, on the narrative of\nthe resurrection of Lazarus in the fourth gospel. If the authors or\ncollectors of the three first gospels knew of this, they could not, for\nmore than one reason, avoid introducing it into their writings. For,\nfirst, of all the resuscitations effected by Jesus, nay, of all his\nmiracles, this resurrection of Lazarus, if not the most wonderful, is\nyet the one in which the marvelous presents itself the most obviously\nand strikingly, and which, therefore, if its historical reality can\nbe established, is a preeminently strong proof of the extraordinary\nendowments of Jesus as a divine messenger; whence the evangelists,\nalthough they had related one or two other instances of the kind,\ncould not think it superfluous to add this also. But, secondly, the\nresurrection of Lazarus had, according to the representation of John,\na direct influence in the development of the fate of Jesus; for we\nlearn from xi, 47 ff., that the increased resort to Jesus, and the\ncredit which this event procured him, led to that consultation of\nthe Sanhedrim in which the sanguinary counsel of Caiaphas was given\nand approved. Thus the event had a double importance--pragmatical\nas well as dogmatical; consequently, the synoptical writers could\nnot have failed to narrate it, had it been within their knowledge\"\n(Leben Jesu, p. 548).\n\nReferring to this miracle and the restoration of the sight of the man\nborn blind, Prof. Newman says: \"That the three first narrators should\nhave been ignorant of them is simply impossible; that they should not\nhave felt their preeminent value is incredible\" (Religion not History,\np. 27).\n\nThere are three alleged instances in the Gospels of Christ restoring\nthe dead to life.\n\n1. The raising of the daughter of Jairus from her death bed, related\nby Matthew.\n\n2. The raising of the son of the widow of Nain from his bier as they\nwere carrying him to the grave, related by Luke.\n\n3. The raising of Lazarus from his grave after he had lain four days,\nrelated by John.\n\nEven if these miracles were possible one fact disproves them: the\nsilence of the other Evangelists. Of these three stories not one is\nconfirmed by another Evangelist. His less important miracles, such as\nhealing the sick, are, many of them, recorded in all of the gospels,\nor at least in all of the Synoptics; yet each of these, his greatest\nmiracles, stands alone, unnoticed by the other writers. Mark and\nLuke mention the daughter of Jairus, but only to deny the miracle\nby declaring that she was not dead. Had these miracles really been\nperformed, all of the Evangelists would have had a knowledge of them,\nand all would have recorded them. These writers do not complement\neach other, as claimed: they exclude each other. There are many Lives\nof Napoleon; but not one of his biographers has seen fit to omit his\ngreatest victories because some other biographer has narrated them.\n\n\n\n218\n\nWho was it requested that James and John might sit, one on the right\nand the other on the left hand of Jesus in his kingdom?\n\nMatthew: \"She [their mother] said unto him, Grant that these my two\nsons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left,\nin thy kingdom\" (xx, 21).\n\nMark: \"They [James and John] said unto him, Grant unto us that we may\nsit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy glory\"\n(x, 37).\n\n\n\n219\n\nWho occupies a seat at the left hand of Jesus?\n\nMark: God (xvi, 19).\n\nThe modesty of the foregoing request is apparent. Zebedee's family\nwere evidently trying to play a sharp game on Jesus, and get a first\nmortgage on his Father's throne.\n\n\n\n220\n\nWhat did Jesus affirm in regard to the mustard seed?\n\n\"Which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown is the\ngreatest among the herbs\" (Matthew xiii, 32).\n\nA mustard seed is not \"the least of all seeds;\" neither is the plant\n\"the greatest among herbs.\"\n\n\n\n221\n\nWith faith as large as a grain of mustard seed, what did he say his\ndisciples could do?\n\n\"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto\nthis mountain, Remove hence to yonder place and it shall remove\"\n(Matthew xvii, 20).\n\n\"If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this\nsycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted\nin the sea; and it should obey you\" (Luke xvii, 6).\n\n\n\n222\n\nIn the parable of the Great Feast what was the character of the feast?\n\nMatthew: A wedding \"dinner\" (xxii, 4).\n\nLuke: \"A great supper\" (xiv, 16).\n\n\n\n223\n\nWhom did the giver of the feast send to invite the guests?\n\nMatthew: \"His servants\" (3).\n\nLuke: \"His servant\" (17).\n\nSuch errors may be considered trivial and their notice captious;\nbut infallible writings do not contain even trivial errors.\n\n\n\n224\n\nWhat befell the servants, or servant?\n\nMatthew: \"And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them\nspitefully, and slew them\" (6).\n\nLuke: The servant returned unharmed (21).\n\n\n\n225\n\nWhat did the giver of the feast declare respecting those who refused\nto attend?\n\n\"That none of those men which were bidden shall taste my supper\"\n(xiv, 24).\n\nAs they had already declined to do so, the force of the interdiction\nis not apparent.\n\n\n\n226\n\nRelate the circumstances connected with the attendance of the guest\nwho wore no wedding garment.\n\nMatthew: \"Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but\nthey which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the\nhighways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.... And\nwhen the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had\nnot on a wedding garment; and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest\nthou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless\"\n(xxii, 8-12).\n\nThe relator of this incident, which is omitted by Luke, would have\nus suppose that the frequenters of the highways went clad in wedding\ngarments.\n\nThe parables of Jesus are declared to be perfect models of Literary\ncomposition, and filled with lessons of divine wisdom. A few of them\npossess some literary merit; but the most of them are faulty. They\ncontain many questionable ethical teachings; they are illogically\nconstructed; the imagery is unnatural, and the language crude.\n\n\n\n227\n\nIn the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen did the owner of the vineyard\nsend one servant, or more than one, each time to collect the rent?\n\nMark and Luke: He sent but one (Mark xii, 2-5; Luke xx, 10-12).\n\nMatthew: He sent more than one (xxi, 33-36).\n\n\n\n228\n\nWhat happened to the servants?\n\nMatthew and Mark: Some of them were killed.\n\nLuke: They were beaten and sent away, but none were killed.\n\n\n\n229\n\nIn the parable of the Talents how did the master apportion his money?\n\nMatthew: He gave to the first servant five talents, to the second two,\nto the third, one (xxv, 15).\n\nLuke: He gave to each one pound (xix, 13).\n\n\n\n230\n\nWhat was their gain?\n\nMatthew: Each doubled his money (16, 17).\n\nLuke: The first increased his tenfold, the second fivefold (16, 18).\n\n\n\n231\n\nWhat did the unprofitable servant do with the money entrusted to him?\n\nMatthew: He \"digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money\" (xxv, 18).\n\nLuke: He said, \"Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept\nlaid up in a napkin\" (xix, 20).\n\n\n\n232\n\nWhat are the concluding words of Jesus in this parable?\n\n\"For unto every one that hath shall be given: ... but from him that\nhath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the\nunprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and\ngnashing of teeth\" (Matthew xxv, 29, 30).\n\n\"That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath\nnot, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine\nenemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither,\nand slay them before me\" (Luke xix, 26, 27).\n\n\n\n233\n\nIn the lawyer's interview with Jesus, who was it, the lawyer, or Jesus,\nthat stated the two great commandments?\n\nMatthew and Mark: Jesus. \"Then one of them, which was a lawyer,\nasked him a question, tempting him, saying, Master which is the great\ncommandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord\nthy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy\nmind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like\nunto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself\" (xxii, 35-39).\n\nLuke: The lawyer. \"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted\nhim, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He\nsaid unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he\n[the lawyer] answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with\nall thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength,\nand with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself\" (x, 25-27).\n\n\n\n234\n\n\"And after that they durst not ask him any questions.\" After what?\n\nMatthew: After his controversy with the Pharisees respecting David\nand Christ (xxii, 41-46).\n\nMark: After his conversation with the scribe regarding the commandments\n(xii, 28-37).\n\nLuke: After confuting the Sadducees in regard to the resurrection\n(xx, 27-40).\n\n\n\n235\n\nDid his controversy concerning David and Christ take place with the\nPharisees, as stated by Matthew?\n\nLuke: It did not. It was with \"certain of the scribes\" (xx, 39).\n\n\n\n236\n\nWhere was Jesus on the day preceding his triumphal entry into\nJerusalem?\n\nJohn: With Lazarus at Bethany (three miles from Jerusalem) (xii, 1-15).\n\nLuke: With Zaccheus near Jericho (twenty miles from Jerusalem)\n(xix, 1-40).\n\n\n\n237\n\nPreparatory to his triumphal entry what command did he give his\ndisciples?\n\n\"Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering\nye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him,\nand bring him hither\" (Luke xix, 30).\n\n\"Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find\nan ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me\"\n(Matthew xxi, 2).\n\n\n\n238\n\nDid he ride both animals?\n\nMatthew: He did. \"And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded\nthem, and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes,\nand they set him thereon\" (6, 7).\n\nThe equestrian feat of his riding two asses, a large one and a\nsmall one, at the same time, must have heightened the effect of this\nsublime pageant.\n\nMatthew is continually seeing double. In the demoniac of Gadara he\nsees two demoniacs; in the blind man by the wayside he sees two men;\nand in other instances where the other Evangelists see but one person\nor thing he sees two.\n\n\n\n239\n\nThe riding of two asses by Jesus was in fulfillment of what prophecy?\n\nMatthew: \"And this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was\nspoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold,\nthy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt\nthe foal of an ass\" (xxi, 4, 5).\n\nMatthew's rendering of this passage (Zechariah ix, 9) arises from a\nmisunderstanding of the meaning of its words. The prophet, or poet,\ndoes not mean two asses, but one; the clause \"a colt the foal of\nan ass,\" is merely a poetical repetition or qualification of the\npreceding clause.\n\nThis blunder of Matthew is significant. It exposes the fictitious\ncharacter of this so-called Gospel history. It proves that Christ's\ntriumphal entry into Jerusalem is not a historical event--that this\nstory is a pure fabrication, suggested by this alleged prophecy.\n\n\n\n240\n\nWhen did Jesus purge the temple?\n\nSynoptics: At the close of his ministry, a few days before his death\n(Matthew xxi, 12-16; Mark xi, 15-18; Luke xix, 45-48).\n\nJohn: At the beginning of his ministry, three years before his death\n(ii, 13-22).\n\nOrigen doubted the occurrence of this event, believing it to be a\nmere allegory.\n\n\n\n241\n\nWhen did he curse the fig tree?\n\nMatthew: After he purged the temple (xxi, 12-19).\n\nMark: Before he purged the temple (xi, 12-15).\n\n\n\n242\n\nWhen was the tree discovered by his disciples to be withered?\n\nMatthew: As soon as cursed (19).\n\nMark: Not until the next morning (13-20).\n\n\n\n243\n\nMark says that he visited the tree for the purpose of obtaining\nfigs. Why did the tree contain no fruit?\n\nMark: \"Because the time of figs was not yet\" (13).\n\nThis was before the Passover which occurred in March or April. In that\npart of Palestine where the miracle is said to have been performed the\nbocore, or early fig, ripened its first crop during the latter part\nof June; while the kermus, or fig proper, ripened in August. What\na spectacle! An omniscient God searching for figs in March, and\ndisappointed at not finding them--creating a tree to bear fruit in\nthe summer and cursing it for not bearing in the spring!\n\n\n\n244\n\nWhat did Jesus accuse the Jews of doing?\n\nMatthew: Of having slain prophets and wise men, among them \"Zacharias\nson of Barachias\" (xxiii, 35).\n\nThe Zacharias mentioned was slain in Jerusalem, 69 A. D.; so that\nMatthew makes Jesus refer to an event that occurred forty years after\nhis death.\n\nReferring to this passage, the Catholic scholar, Dr. Hug, says:\n\"There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its\ncircumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the\nsame Zacharias Barouchos, who, according to Josephus, a short time\nbefore the destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the temple.\"\n\nCommenting on this passage, Prof. Newman says: \"There is no other\nman known in history to whom the verse can allude. If so, it shows\nhow late, how ignorant, how rash, is the composer of a text passed\noff on us as sacred truth\" (Religion not History, p. 46).\n\n\n\n245\n\nRepeat his lamentation concerning Jerusalem's rejection of him.\n\n\"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest\nthem which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy\nchildren together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her\nwings, and ye would not!\" (Matthew xxiii, 37; Luke xiii, 34.)\n\nWhere was he when he uttered this lamentation?\n\nMatthew: During his visit at Jerusalem.\n\nLuke: In Galilee before he went to Jerusalem.\n\nNot only are these writers at variance with each other as to the time\nand place of utterance, but the lamentation itself, which declares\nthat he had made repeated efforts to convert Jerusalem, is at variance\nwith both of them. For according to Matthew he had just arrived on his\nfirst visit to Jerusalem, while according to Luke he had never yet,\nduring his ministry, visited Jerusalem.\n\n\n\n246\n\nWho anointed Jesus?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"A woman\" (Matt. xxvi, 7; Mark xiv, 3).\n\nLuke: \"A sinful woman\" (vii, 37).\n\nJohn: Mary, the sister of Lazarus (xii, 3).\n\nLuke's \"sinful woman\" is recognized as Mary Magdalene. Farrar says:\n\"In the popular consciousness she will till the end of time be\nidentified with the Magdalene.\" Matthew and Mark's \"woman\" may be\nharmonized with either Mary Magdalene or Mary the sister of Lazarus;\nbut Luke and John are irreconcilable.\n\n\n\n247\n\nWhere did she put the ointment?\n\nMatthew and Mark: On his head (Matt. xxvi, 7; Mark xiv, 3).\n\nLuke and John: On his feet (Luke vii, 38-46; John xii, 3).\n\n\n\n248\n\nWhere did this occur?\n\nMatthew, Mark and John: In Bethany (Matt. xxvi, 6; Mark xiv, 3;\nJohn xii, 1).\n\nLuke: In Nain (vii, 11-37).\n\n\n\n249\n\nAt whose house did it occur?\n\nSynoptics: At the house of Simon (Matt. xxvi, 6, 7; Mark xiv, 3;\nLuke vii, 36-40).\n\nJohn: At the house of Lazarus (xii, 1-3).\n\n\n\n250\n\nWho was Simon?\n\nMatthew and Mark: A leper (Matt. xxvi, 6; Mark xiv, 3).\n\nLuke: A Pharisee (vii, 39-40).\n\n\n\n251\n\nAt what time during his ministry did this anointing occur?\n\nMatthew, Mark and John: At the close of his ministry (Matt. xxvi,\nxxvii; Mark xiv; John xii).\n\nLuke: Early in his ministry (vii, 36-50).\n\n\n\n252\n\nDid it occur before or after his triumphal entry?\n\nMatthew and Mark: After (Matt. xxi, 1-11, xxvi, 6-13; Mark xi, 1-11,\nxiv, 3-9).\n\nJohn: Before (xii, 1-15).\n\n\n\n253\n\nHow many days before the Passover did it occur?\n\nMark: Two days (xiv, 1-3).\n\nJohn: Six days (xii, 1-3).\n\n\"The prima facie view would certainly be that the anointing at\nBethany was placed by Mark two days and by John six days before the\nPassover.\"--Scribner's Bible Dictionary.\n\n\n\n254\n\nWho objected to this apparent waste of the ointment?\n\nMatthew: \"His disciples\" (xxvi, 8, 9).\n\nJohn: \"Judas Iscariot\" (xii, 4, 5).\n\nThese different versions of the anointing of Jesus present so many\ndiscrepancies that some have supposed that two or more anointings were\nmade. The Archbishop of York, the most popular of Gospel harmonists,\nconcedes that but one anointing was made.\n\nAfter an exhaustive review of the case, Strauss says: \"Without doubt,\nwe have here but one history under three various forms; and this\nseems to have been the real conclusion of Origen, as well as recently\nof Schleiermacher.\"\n\n\n\n255\n\nWhile Jesus was at Jerusalem there came a voice from heaven. For what\npurpose was the voice sent?\n\nJohn: For the sake of those who stood by. \"Jesus answered and said,\nThis voice came not because of me, but for your sakes\" (xii, 30).\n\nOf what benefit was the voice when those who heard it were unable\nto distinguish it from thunder? \"The people therefore, that stood by\nand heard it, said that it thundered\" (29).\n\nThe Evangelists relate several instances of celestial voices being\nheard. As there is, in nearly every instance, a disagreement in\nregard to the message conveyed, it is probable that an electrical\ndisturbance inspired the voice, while a vivid imagination interpreted\nits meaning. Regarding these voices, the Duke of Somerset says:\n\"A belief in these heavenly voices was a common superstition among\nthe Jews.\"\n\n\n\n256\n\nWhen did the Last Supper take place?\n\nSynoptics: On the Passover (Matt. xxvi, 18-20; Mark xiv, 16-18;\nLuke xxii, 13-15).\n\nJohn: On the day preceding the Passover.\n\nLuke says: \"And they made ready the passover. And when the hour was\ncome, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto\nthem, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before\nI suffer.\"\n\nJohn, in his account of the Last Supper, says it was \"before\nthe feast of the passover\" (xiii, 1). The Evangelists all agree\nthat his trial and execution took place on the day following the\nLast Supper. John says the Jews \"went not into the judgment hall,\nlest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover\"\n(xviii, 28). After narrating the events of the trial, John says:\n\"And it was the preparation of the passover\" (xix, 14).\n\nAccording to the Synoptics, the Last Supper was eaten on the 14th\nNisan, and, by our mode of reckoning time, on Thursday evening;\naccording to John, it was eaten on the 13th Nisan, and, by our mode of\nreckoning, on Wednesday evening. The Synoptics declare that this supper\nwas the regular Paschal meal; according to John, it was an ordinary\nmeal, the Paschal meal not being eaten until after Christ's death.\n\n\"The Synoptics represent most clearly that Jesus on the evening\nof the 14th Nisan, after the custom of the Jews, ate the Passover\nwith his disciples, and that he was arrested in the first hours of\nthe 15th Nisan, the day on which he was put to death. Nothing can be\nmore distinct than the statement that the last supper was the Paschal\nfeast.... The fourth Gospel, however, in accordance with the principle\nwhich is dominant throughout, represents the last repast which Jesus\neats with his disciples as a common supper, which takes place, not\non the 14th, but on the 13th Nisan, the day 'before the feast of the\nPassover.'\"--Supernatural Religion.\n\nThousands of pages have been written in vain attempts to reconcile\nthis grave discrepancy. Scribner's \"Bible Dictionary,\" which contains\nthe best fruits of orthodox scholarship, both of England and America,\nconcedes a contradiction. It says: \"The Synoptics seem to identify\nthe two [the Last Supper and the Paschal meal], whereas St. John\nexpressly places the Last Supper before the Passover.\"\n\nAfter an exhaustive review of the subject, Strauss voices the\nconclusion of German scholars in the following words: \"Our only\ncourse is to acknowledge an irreconcilable contradiction between the\nrespective accounts, without venturing a decision as to which is the\ncorrect one\" (Leben Jesu, p. 702).\n\n\n\n257\n\nThe Synoptics state that the Last Supper was the Paschal meal. Describe\nthe Paschal meal.\n\n\"All leaning upon the cushions around the table, the first cup of wine\nwas served, and grace pronounced over the same and the feast. This\ncup of wine being disposed of, vegetables and sauce were placed on\nthe table, and the vegetables, dipped in the sauce, were blessed and\neaten. Next the unleavened bread, the bitter herb, and a piquant\nsauce called Haroseth were served, and the bitter herb, dipped in\nthe Haroseth, was blessed and eaten. Then the Paschal lamb was placed\non the table with portions of another sacrifice. One of the company\nasked the question why all this was done, during which the second\ncup of wine was served. The head of the table explaining narrated the\nstory of the Exodus, closed with a hymn, spoke the second time grace\nover the wine, and all disposed of the same. Now came the breaking of\nthe bread and the eating and drinking. This finished, the third cup\nof wine was served, and grace after meal was pronounced. After which\nthe fourth cup was served, and the ceremonies closed with hymns and\npsalms, and disposing of the fourth cup of wine\" (Mishna).\n\nThis was the Paschal meal as it was observed in the reputed time\nof Christ and up to 70 A. D. After the fall of Jerusalem and the\ndestruction of the temple the great Passover feast retained but\nthe shadow of its former glory. The Paschal meal and the ceremonies\nattending it were generally shortened. The fact that the Evangelists\nwere unacquainted with the regular Paschal meal, that the Synoptics\nwere familiar only with the ceremonies of later times, shows that\nthe Last Supper is a myth, and the Gospels the products of a later age.\n\nCriticising the Synoptics' accounts of the Paschal meal, Dr. Isaac\nWise, an able Jewish scholar, says:\n\n\"If any evidence is required that neither Mark nor Matthew had ever\nseen the Paschal meal, or described that of Jesus, it is furnished\nhere. They do not mention any one point connected with the Paschal\nsupper, the ceremonies of which were established. They mention only\none ceremony, viz., the breaking of the bread, and the cup of wine\nafter the meal, which is not only a mistake, but shows conclusively,\nthat either of them had seen the Paschal supper, after the destruction\nof Jerusalem, in some Jewish house, and the ceremonies connected\ntherewith, called the Seder. Therefore, no mention whatsoever is\nmade of the main thing--the Paschal lamb--and the bread is broken\nafter the meal, which was done by the Jews after closing the Paschal\nmeal, outside of Jerusalem, when the altar had been destroyed; and\nno Paschal lamb was eaten\" (Martyrdom of Jesus, pp. 36, 37).\n\n\"Luke begins correctly, but makes a mistake in having the bread broken\nright after the first cup of wine was handed round, which was done so\nat every festive meal, except at the one described, and has but two\ncups of wine instead of four. So we know that Luke did not describe\nwhat actually happened that evening. He had seen the Jewish custom\nof opening the festive meals with grace over the wine and bread,\nand made of it an introduction to the Last Supper, without knowing\nthat just that evening the custom was changed\" (Ibid. p. 38).\n\n\n\n258\n\nWhat ceremony was instituted at the Last Supper?\n\nSynoptics: The Eucharist (Matt. xxvi, 26-28; Mark xiv, 22-24; Luke\nxxii, 19, 20).\n\nJohn: The washing of feet (xiii, 4-9).\n\nJohn does not mention the former ceremony, and the Synoptics do not\nmention the latter; yet each is said to have been performed immediately\nafter supper.\n\n\n\n259\n\nHe told his disciples that he would no more drink of the fruit of\nthe vine until he drank it in his Father's kingdom. When was this?\n\nMatthew: After instituting the Eucharist.\n\n\"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and\nbrake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is\nmy body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them,\nsaying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament,\nwhich is shed for many for the remission of sins.\n\n\"But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of\nthe vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's\nkingdom\" (xxvi, 26-29).\n\nLuke: Before instituting the Eucharist.\n\n\"For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,\nuntil the kingdom of God shall come.\n\n\"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them,\nsaying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance\nof me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the\nnew testament in my blood, which is shed for you\" (xxii, 18-20).\n\n\n\n260\n\nAt the Last Supper did Jesus pass the cup once, or twice?\n\nMatthew and Mark: Once (Matt. xxvi, 26-30; Mark xiv, 16-26).\n\nLuke: Twice (xxii, 13-20).\n\nRegarding this discrepancy, Scribners' \"Bible Dictionary\" says:\n\"The temptation to expand was much stronger than to contract; and\nthe double mention of the cup raises real difficulties of the kind\nwhich suggest interpolation.\"\n\n\n\n261\n\nWhere was Jesus when he uttered his last prayer?\n\nSynoptics: In the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi, 36-39; Mark xiv,\n32-36; Luke xxii, 39-42).\n\nJohn: In Jerusalem before he retired to the garden (xvii, xviii, 1).\n\n\n\n262\n\nWhat is said of his agony at Gethsemane?\n\nLuke: \"His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to\nthe ground\" (xxii, 44).\n\nWhatever was the character of this so-called \"bloody sweat,\" it may be\nremarked that Matthew, who was an apostle; Mark, who is claimed to be\nthe interpreter of Peter, an apostle who was with Jesus at the time;\nand John who was not only an apostle, but present also, do not refer\nto it. Luke, who was not an eye-witness--who was not an apostle--is\nthe only one who mentions it.\n\n\n\n263\n\nHow many times did Jesus visit Jerusalem during his ministry?\n\nJohn: At least four times (ii, 13; v, 1; x, 22, 23; xii, 12).\n\nThe Synoptics record but one visit.\n\n\n\n264\n\nTo what country was his ministry chiefly confined?\n\nSynoptics: To Galilee.\n\nJohn: To Judea.\n\nAccording to the Synoptics nearly his entire ministry was confined to\nGalilee. It was only at the close of his ministry, a few days before\nhis death, that he visited Judea to attend the Passover. According\nto John his ministry was confined chiefly to Judea. It requires\nbut three or four of his twenty-one chapters to record his work in\nGalilee. Farrar says: \"The Synoptists almost confine themselves to\nthe Galilean, and St. John to the Judean ministry\" (Life of Christ,\np. 361).\n\n\n\n265\n\nHow long did his ministry last?\n\nSynoptics: One year.\n\nJohn: At least three years.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Giles says: \"According to the first three Gospels,\nChrist's public life lasted only one year\" (Christian Records, p. 11).\n\nReferring to this and the preceding discrepancy, the author of\n\"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"The Synoptics clearly represent the\nministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his\npreaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career\nculminates at the fatal Passover. The fourth Gospel distributes the\nteaching of Jesus between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it\nextend over at least three years, and refers to three Passovers spent\nby Jesus at Jerusalem\" (p. 681).\n\nIrenaeus, the greatest of the early Christian Fathers, and who lived\nin the century following Jesus, declares that his ministry lasted\ntwenty years. In his principal work, \"Against Heresies,\" he combats\nthe heresy of a one-year ministry of Jesus. He says:\n\n\"They however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding\nthat which is written, 'To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,'\nmaintain that he preached for one year only, and then suffered in the\ntwelfth month. They are forgetful of their own disadvantage, destroying\nhis whole work, and robbing him of that age which is both more\nnecessary and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age,\nI mean, during which also, as a teacher, he excelled all others. For\nhow could he have had disciples if he did not teach? And how could he\nhave taught, unless he had reached the age of a master? For when he\ncame to be baptized, he had not yet completed his thirtieth year,\nbut was beginning to be about thirty years of age.... Now, that\nthe first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this\nextends onward to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the\nfortieth and fiftieth year, a man begins to decline toward old age;\nwhich our Lord possessed, while he still fulfilled the office of a\nteacher.... He did not therefore preach for only one year, nor did\nhe suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included\nbetween the thirtieth and fiftieth year can never be regarded as one\nyear\" (Book ii, ch. xxii, secs. 5, 6).\n\n\n\n266\n\nWhat is said regarding the extent of his works?\n\nJohn: \"If they should be written every one, I suppose that even the\nworld itself could not contain the books\" (xxi, 25).\n\nIn the very next verses of the Bible (Acts i, 1, 2) Luke declares that\nhis brief Gospel contains a record \"of all that Jesus began both to\ndo and teach, until the day in which he was taken up.\"\n\n\n\n267\n\nCan the alleged teachings of Jesus be accepted as authentic?\n\nThree facts disprove, for the most part, their authenticity.\n\n1. The most important teachings ascribed to him by the Synoptics\nwere borrowed, either by him or his biographers, from other teachers\nand writers.\n\n2. His teachings as presented by the Synoptics, and as presented by\nJohn, exclude each other. No critic can seriously contend that the\ndiscourses and sayings of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics and those\ngiven in the Fourth Gospel emanated from the same mind. They are\nwholly dissimilar, both in doctrine and phraseology. Dr. Westcott\nsays: \"It is impossible to pass from the Synoptic Gospels to that\nof St. John without feeling that the transition involves the passage\nfrom one world of thought to another. No familiarity with the general\nteaching of the Gospels, no wide conception of the character of the\nSavior, is sufficient to destroy the contrast which exists in form\nand spirit between the earlier and later narratives\" (Introduction\nto Study of Gospels, p. 249).\n\n3. The discourses attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel were\nevidently composed by the author of that Gospel. This is apparent to\nevery careful reader.\n\nThe teachings ascribed to Jesus in John, then, are spurious; while\nthose ascribed to him in Matthew, Mark and Luke are of doubtful\nauthenticity. If any of the teachings of Jesus have been preserved\nthey exist in the first three Gospels, but the unauthentic character\nof the Gospels themselves, renders it impossible to ascribe to him\nwith certainty a single teaching.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST.\n\n\n268\n\nWhen did Jesus first foretell his passion?\n\nSynoptics: Not until late in his ministry (Matt. xvi, 21; Mark viii,\n31; Luke ix, 21-27).\n\nAccording to John (ii, 19-22) he referred to it at the beginning of\nhis ministry.\n\n\n\n269\n\nWhen did he announce his betrayal?\n\nMatthew and Mark: At the Last Supper, while they were eating. \"Now\nwhen the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did\neat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me\"\n(Matt. xxvi, 20, 21; Mark xiv, 18).\n\nLuke and John: Not until after supper (Luke xxii, 20, 21; John xiii,\n2-21). John says that after supper he washed his disciples' feet and\ndelivered a discourse to them, after which he said, \"Verily, verily,\nI say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.\"\n\n\n\n270\n\nDid Jesus say who should betray him?\n\nMatthew and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 25; John xiii, 26).\n\nMark and Luke: He did not.\n\n\n\n271\n\nHow did he disclose his betrayer?\n\nMatthew: By an implied affirmative answer to Judas' question, \"Is\nit I?\" \"Then Judas which betrayed him, answered and said, Master,\nis it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said\" (xxvi, 25).\n\nJohn: By giving Judas a sop. \"Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall\ngive a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop,\nhe gave it to Judas Iscariot.\"\n\n\n\n272\n\nWhen did Satan enter into Judas?\n\nLuke: Before the Last Supper (xxii, 3-7).\n\nJohn: After the Last Supper (xiii, 1-27).\n\n\n\n273\n\nHow did Judas betray Jesus?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"Now he that betrayed him, gave them a sign, saying,\nWhomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; hold him fast. And forthwith\nhe came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master, and kissed him\" (Matt. xxvi,\n48, 49; Mark xiv, 44, 45).\n\nAccording to John, Judas did not betray him with a kiss.\n\n\n\n274\n\nWhat did Jesus say to Judas when he betrayed him?\n\n\"Friend, wherefore art thou come?\" (Matthew xxvi, 50.)\n\n\"Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?\" (Luke xxii, 48.)\n\n\n\n275\n\nWhat was Judas, and what office did he hold?\n\nJohn: \"He was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein\"\n(xii, 6).\n\nJudas was thus the first Christian treasurer. But why did Jesus,\nif omniscient, as claimed, select a thief for this office? Was he\nunable to conduct his ministry without the aid of one?\n\n\n\n276\n\nWhat did Judas receive for betraying his master?\n\nMatthew: \"And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver\"\n(xxvi, 15).\n\n\"It is strange that a man who kept the purse, and knew what he would\nlose by the death of his chief, should abandon the profits of his\noffice for so small a sum.\"--Renan.\n\n\n\n277\n\nWhat did he do with the money?\n\nMatthew: \"Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he\nwas condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces\nof silver to the chief priests and elders.... And he cast down the\npieces of silver in the temple and departed\" (xxvii, 3-5).\n\nPeter: \"Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of\niniquity\" (Acts i, 18).\n\n\n\n278\n\nThe purchase of the potter's field was in fulfillment of what prophecy?\n\nMatthew: \"That which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they\ntook the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued,\n... and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me\"\n(xxvii, 9, 10).\n\nThis was not spoken by Jeremiah, but by Zechariah. \"And the Lord said\nunto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized\nat of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to\nthe potter in the house of the Lord\" (xi, 13).\n\nIt is evident that the account of the betrayal was inspired,\nnot by a historical fact, but by a desire to \"fulfill\" a Messianic\nprophecy. Zechariah did not predict an event, but his words did suggest\na fiction. This is the more probable from the fact that Matthew is\nthe only Evangelist who mentions the thirty pieces of silver.\n\nThe story of Christ's last visit to Jerusalem and the story of his\nbetrayal exclude each other. According to the Evangelists he was\nnot arrested for any offense he had committed during this visit,\nbut for offenses he had committed prior to this. Yet during this\nvisit he is said to have appeared openly with his disciples, making\na triumphal entry into the city, visiting the temple and teaching in\npublic. In the face of this the story that the Jews were obliged to\nbribe one of his disciples in order to apprehend him is absurd. One of\nthese stories must be false. Regarding them Lord Amberley observes:\n\"The representation of the Gospels, that Jesus went on teaching in\npublic to the very end of his career, and yet that Judas received a\nbribe for his betrayal, is self-contradictory\" (Life of Jesus, p. 214).\n\nTo those who believe the accounts of the betrayal of Jesus to be\nhistorical, the ecclesiastical historian, Neander, in his \"Life of\nChrist,\" advances a suggestion that is worthy of consideration. The\nbetrayal of Jesus by Judas, it is suggested, was intended as a\ntest of his Messiahship. If Jesus was the Messiah, Judas reasoned,\nhe could save himself; if he was not the Messiah he was an impostor\nand deserved death.\n\n\n\n279\n\nWhat became of Judas?\n\nMatthew: He \"went and hanged himself\" (xxvii, 5).\n\nPeter: \"Falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his\nbowels gushed out\" (Acts i, 18).\n\nPapias, bishop of Hierapolis, one of the chief Christian authorities\nof the second century, and who wrote before the books of Matthew and\nActs were written, gives the following account of the fate of Judas:\n\n\"Judas walked about in the world a great example of impiety; for his\nbody having swollen so that, on an occasion, when a wagon was moving\non its way, he could not pass it, he was crushed by the chariot and\nhis bowels gushed out.\"\n\nThe German commentator, Dr. Hase, attempts to reconcile his suicide,\nas related by Matthew, with his death by accident, as related by\nPeter, by supposing that he attempted to hang himself, but that the\nrope broke, causing him to fall with such force as to disembowel\nhimself. This harmonist apparently forgets to note that Peter says\nhe fell \"headlong,\" which makes it necessary to suppose that he hung\nhimself by the feet.\n\n\n\n280\n\nTo whom did Peter deliver his speech describing the fate of Judas?\n\n\"Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples\" (Acts i, 15).\n\nIs it not reasonable to suppose that the alleged information conveyed\nin his speech was as familiar to the disciples whom he addressed as\nto himself? Regarding this De Wette aptly says: \"In the composition\nof this speech the author has not considered historical decorum.\"\n\n\n\n281\n\nWhat did Peter say in regard to the name of the field?\n\n\"And it was known unto all the dwellers of Jerusalem; insomuch as\nthat field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say,\nThe field of blood\" (Acts i, 19).\n\nHere Peter is represented as interpreting in Greek a Jewish word to\nhis Jewish brethren.\n\n\n\n282\n\nWere there more than one of Jesus' disciples concerned in his betrayal?\n\nJohn: There were. \"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were [of\nhis disciples] that believed not, and who should betray him\" (vi, 64).\n\n\n\n283\n\nWhen the Jewish council met to plan the arrest of Jesus, to what\nconclusion did they come?\n\nMatthew and Mark: Not to arrest him on the feast day (Matt. xxvi,\n3-5; Mark xiv, 1, 2).\n\nYet this was the very day on which Matthew and Mark declare that he\nwas arrested.\n\n\n\n284\n\nWho arrested him?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"A great multitude ... from the chief priests and\nelders of the people\" (Matt. xxvi, 47; Mark xiv, 43).\n\nLuke: \"The chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders\"\nthemselves (xxii, 47-52).\n\n\n\n285\n\nWho does John say was sent to arrest him?\n\nA \"band of soldiers and officers\" (xviii, 3, New Ver.).\n\nThis contradicts the Synoptics, who declare that it was a mob of\ncivilians.\n\n\n\n286\n\nWhat is said regarding the multitude sent out to apprehend him?\n\nSynoptics: They were armed \"with swords and staves\" (Matt. xxvi, 47;\nMark xiv, 43; Luke xxii, 52).\n\nWere the disciples armed?\n\nAll: They were, or one of them at least (Matt. xxvi, 51; Mark xiv,\n47; Luke xxii, 38, 50; John xviii, 10).\n\nThis is incredible, for Jews were never allowed to carry arms on a\nholy day.\n\n\n\n287\n\nHow did they go out to capture him?\n\nJohn: \"With lanterns and torches\" (xviii, 3).\n\nHis enemies are represented as believing that his arrest could be\nsecured only by strategy and stealth. Under these circumstances is\nit reasonable to suppose that the chief priests would send out a\ntorchlight procession to apprehend him? Besides, as it was at the\nfull of the moon, what need had they of lanterns and torches? Again,\nlanterns were unknown in Palestine.\n\n\n\n288\n\nWhen the band sent to capture him first came up to him what did\nthey do?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"They laid hands on him and took him\" (Matt. xxvi,\n47-50; Mark xiv, 43-46).\n\nJohn: \"They went backward and fell to the ground\" (xviii, 3-6).\n\n\n\n289\n\nWhat did Peter do when Jesus was arrested?\n\nJohn: \"Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high\npriest's servant, and cut off his right ear\" (xviii, 10).\n\nYet no efforts were made to arrest and punish Peter, notwithstanding he\nwas recognized and pointed out by the kinsman of the wounded man. It\nmay be urged that Jesus had healed the servant's ear. This, even if\ntrue, would not have removed the guilt of the militant disciple. Had\nPeter really committed the deed, it is not probable that he would have\nvisited the house of the high priest and remained in the presence of\nhis enemies.\n\n\n\n290\n\nWhen was Jesus bound?\n\nJohn: When he was arrested (xviii, 12).\n\nMatthew and Mark: Not until after his trial before the Sanhedrim when\nhe was taken to Pilate (Matt. xxvii, 2; Mark xv, 1).\n\nAccording to Luke he was not bound.\n\n\n\n291\n\nWhat did they do with Jesus when he was taken?\n\nMatthew: \"Led him away to Caiaphas\" (xxvi, 57).\n\nJohn: \"Led him away to Annas first\" (xviii, 13).\n\n\n\n292\n\nDid he have an examination before his trial?\n\nJohn: He did (xviii, 13-23).\n\nOur laws provide for what is known as a preliminary examination before\na magistrate. This was forbidden by the Jewish law, and his alleged\nexamination before a priest could not have taken place.\n\n\n\n293\n\nBefore whom did his preliminary examination take place?\n\nJohn: Before Annas (xviii, 13-23).\n\nThe Synoptics state that he was examined and tried before Caiaphas.\n\n\n\n294\n\nRepeat John xviii, 24.\n\n\"Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest\"\n(Old Ver.).\n\n\"Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest\"\n(New Ver.).\n\nThis verse follows the account of Jesus' preliminary examination\nand shows clearly that this examination took place before Annas,\nand that he was not sent to Caiaphas until its conclusion. The King\nJames translators, in order to hide the discrepancy, prefixed the word\n\"now\" and changed the tense of the verb, substituting \"had sent\" for\n\"sent,\" so that it might appear that Annas had sent him to Caiaphas\nbefore the examination commenced.\n\nConcerning this corruption of the text, Scott says: \"There is no\nconjunction 'now,' and an aorist cannot mark a definite time. If\na hiatus is suspected, it may be indicated by an asterisk; but to\ninsert words and alter the force of a tense in order to get over\na grave historical difficulty is sheer dishonesty\" (Life of Jesus,\np. 289, note).\n\n\n\n295\n\nMatthew and John state that Caiaphas was high priest at this time. Who\ndoes the author of Acts state was high priest?\n\n\"And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander,\nand as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered\ntogether at Jerusalem\" (iv, 6).\n\nLuke (iii, 2), who is declared to be the author of Acts, says that\nAnnas and Caiaphas were both high priests.\n\nCriticizing John's account of the examination before Annas, the\nauthor of \"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"The Synoptics know nothing\nof the preliminary examination before Annas, and the reason given by\nthe writer of the fourth Gospel why the soldiers first took Jesus to\nAnnas: 'for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas who was first high priest\nthat year,' is inadmissible. The assertion is a clear mistake, and it\nprobably originated in a stranger writing of facts and institutions\nwith which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an error\nequally committed by the author of the third Gospel, and of the Acts\nof the Apostles.... Such statements, erroneous in themselves and not\nunderstood by the author of the fourth Gospel, may have led to the\nconfusion in the narrative. Annas had previously been high priest,\nas we know from Josephus, but nothing is more certain than the fact\nthat the title was not continued after the office was resigned;\nand Ishmael, Eleazar, and Simon, who succeeded Annas and separated\nhis term of office from that of Caiaphas, did not subsequently bear\nthe title. The narrative is a mistake, and such an error could not\nhave been committed by a native of Palestine, and much less by an\nacquaintance of the high priest\" (p. 660).\n\n\n\n296\n\nWhat is said regarding the tenure of Caiaphas' office?\n\nJohn: He was \"high priest that year\" (xi, 49).\n\nJohn's language implies that the high priest was appointed annually,\nwhereas he held his office for life, or until removed. Caiaphas had\nbeen high priest for many years.\n\n\n\n297\n\nWhat had Caiaphas prophesied concerning Jesus?\n\nJohn: \"He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not\nfor that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one\nthe children of God that were scattered abroad\" (xi, 51, 52).\n\nA high priest did not assume the role of prophet, much less would\nhe have given utterance to the prophecy ascribed to Caiaphas. The\nRoman procurator might have expressed such a sentiment, for according\nto Roman law and ethics an individual could be sacrificed for the\nwelfare of the state. The high priest, on the other hand, could\nnot have uttered such a sentiment, because it was abhorrent to the\nJewish mind. If all Israel could have been saved, and could have been\nsaved only by the death of one of its innocent members, that member\ncould not have been put to death, because, according to Jewish law,\nit would have made of every Jew concerned in it a murderer. It was\na fundamental principle of the Jewish code that, \"No human life must\nbe abandoned on account of any other life.\"\n\n\n\n298\n\nDid Jesus have a trial before the Sanhedrim?\n\nSynoptics: He had (Matt. xxvi, 57-75; Mark xiv, 53-72; Luke xxii,\n54-71).\n\nIt was about this time (30 A. D.), that the Sanhedrim ceased to have\njurisdiction over capital offenses. After its jurisdiction ceased\nJesus could not have been tried before it; and before its jurisdiction\nceased he would not have had a subsequent trial before Pilate.\n\n\n\n299\n\nWhere was his trial held?\n\nMatthew and Mark: At the palace of the high priest.\n\nNo trial was ever held at the residence of the high priest. All\nmeetings of the Sanhedrim were held in the hall adjoining the temple. A\ntrial at any other place would have been illegal.\n\n\n\n300\n\nWhat was the charge preferred against him?\n\nAll: Blasphemy.\n\nJesus, it was charged, had declared himself to be the son of\nGod. This, if true, would not have constituted blasphemy. It was\nno offense against the law for a man to claim that he was the son\nof God. All men, and especially all good men, were recognized as\nthe sons of God. Referring to Christ's claim, a Jewish writer says:\n\"No law, no precedent, and no fictitious case in the Bible or the\nrabbinical literature, can be cited to make of this expression a case\nof blasphemy.\" And even if he had been proven guilty of blasphemy,\nhe could not have been put to death, for blasphemy, at this time,\nhad ceased to be a capital offense. And is it reasonable to suppose\nthat the Romans would have condemned a man to death for an offense\nagainst a religion in which they did not themselves believe, but\nwhich they regarded as one of the vilest of superstitions? It may\nbe urged that in his trial before Pilate the charge was changed to\nsedition. This charge was not sustained.\n\n\n\n301\n\nWhat is said regarding witnesses?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the\ncouncil, sought false witnesses against Jesus, to put him to death;\nbut found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they\nnone\" (Matt. xxvi, 59, 60; Mark xiv, 55, 56).\n\nWhen every step thus far taken by the council had been illegal, why\nshould it have been so particular in regard to the witnesses? The\nfact is the Evangelists were ignorant of Jewish laws. They believed\nthat while the prosecution of Jesus was unjust it was yet conducted\naccording to the established rules of Jewish courts. Referring to\nMark, Dr. Wise says: \"In his ignorance of Jewish law, he imagined the\ntrial which he described was lawful among the Jews. He proves this,\nin the first place, by the very statement that witnesses were sought\nand produced. A court convoked and acting in rebellion to law and\ncustom can be considered only a band of rebels. What use have such men\nof witnesses? Being lawless from the beginning, no legal restraint\nmakes the presence of witnesses necessary.... He certainly thought\nof an honest, lawful trial, in the legal form; an honest and legal\nexamination of witnesses, a fair consideration of the testimony,\nand after mature reflection the rejection thereof on account of\ninsufficiency\" (Martyrdom of Jesus, pp. 69, 70).\n\n\n\n302\n\nWhat did the so-called false witnesses that appeared against him\ntestify that he had said?\n\n\"I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days\"\n(Matthew xxvi, 61).\n\n\"I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three\ndays I will build another made without hands\" (Mark xiv, 58).\n\n\n\n303\n\nWhat had Jesus said?\n\n\"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up\" (John\nii, 19).\n\nPassing over the discrepancies of Matthew and Mark, if they have given\nthe substance of these witnesses' testimony, then they were not false,\nbut truthful witnesses; for Jesus, it is seen, had given utterance to\nsuch a declaration. If he referred to the temple of his body, as John\naffirms, and the Jews misunderstood him, the fault was his, not theirs.\n\nJosephus gives an account of a so-called prophet who, a few years\nlater, boasted of his supernatural powers in much the same manner\nthat Jesus is said to have done:\n\n\"There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem, one that\nsaid that he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common\npeople to go along to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay\nover against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said\nfurther, that he would show them from hence, how, at his command, the\nwalls of Jerusalem would fall down\" (Antiquities, Book xx, chap. viii,\nsec. 6).\n\n\n\n304\n\nWas he questioned by the Sanhedrim?\n\nSynoptics: He was. They tried to convict him by his own testimony\n(Matt. xxvi, 62-64; Mark xiv, 60-63; Luke xxii, 66-71).\n\nA Jewish court did not question a prisoner. A prisoner could not even\nplead guilty.\n\n\n\n305\n\nTo the priest's question, \"Art thou the Christ?\" what answer did\nhe give?\n\nMark: \"Jesus said, I am\" (xiv, 61, 62).\n\nLuke: \"He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe\"\n(xxii, 67).\n\n\n\n306\n\nWhen did his trial before the Sanhedrim take place?\n\nMatthew and Mark: During the night. After his arrest, which probably\noccurred not later than midnight, they at once \"led him away to\nCaiaphas the high priest, where ... the chief priests, and elders,\nand all the council [Sanhedrim]\" had assembled, when his trial\nimmediately began (Matt. xxvi, 57-68; Mark xiv, 58-65).\n\nLuke: Not until the next morning. During the night he was held in\ncustody at the house of the high priest. \"As soon as it was day,\nthe elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came\ntogether, and led him into the council\" (xxii, 66).\n\nThis, according to Luke, was his first and only appearance before the\nSanhedrim. Matthew and Mark, in addition to the night trial mentioned\nby them, also mention an adjourned session in the morning corresponding\nto the meeting of Luke.\n\n\n\n307\n\nCould this trial have been held in the night as stated by Matthew\nand Mark?\n\nIt could not. The Jewish law prohibited the opening of a trial at\nnight. The Sanhedrim could not hold a session before 6 a. m. or after\n3 p. m. Luke was seemingly acquainted with this law; Matthew and Mark\nwere not.\n\n\n\n308\n\nDuring what religious festivities was his trial held?\n\nSynoptics: During the feast of the Passover.\n\nIt could not have been held during the Passover, for no trials were\nheld by the Jews during this feast.\n\n\n\n309\n\nOn what day of the week was it held?\n\nSynoptics: On Friday, the day preceding the Sabbath.\n\nNo trial for a capital offense was ever allowed to begin on the day\npreceding the Sabbath.\n\n\n\n310\n\nHow long did this trial last?\n\nAll: But a few hours.\n\nThe Jewish law required at least two days for a capital trial--one\nfor prosecution, and one for the defense.\n\n\n\n311\n\nDid he have a defender or counselor in the Sanhedrim?\n\nSynoptics: He did not.\n\nAccording to the Synoptics he had no counsel, and the Sanhedrim\nwere unanimous in their condemnation of him. This was contrary to\nJewish law. The Sanhedrim might be unanimous in their belief that he\nwas guilty, but it was the duty of at least one of them to defend\nhim. This was the law: \"If none of the judges defend the culprit,\ni. e., all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court,\nthe verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could\nnot be executed\" (Maimonides).\n\nDr. Geikie admits that the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim, as\nrelated in the Gospels, was in nearly every particular contrary to\nJewish law. He says:\n\n\"The accused was in all cases to be held innocent, till proved\nguilty. It was an axiom, that 'the Sanhedrim was to save, not to\ndestroy life.' No one could be tried and condemned in his absence, and\nwhen a person accused was brought before the court, it was the duty of\nthe president, at the outset, to admonish the witnesses to remember\nthe value of human life, and to take care that they forgot nothing\nthat would tell in the prisoner's favor. Nor was he left undefended;\na Baal-Rib, or counsel, was appointed, to see that all possible was\ndone for his acquittal. Whatever evidence tended to aid him was to\nbe freely admitted, and no member of the court who had once spoken in\nfavor of acquittal could afterwards vote for condemnation. The votes\nof the youngest of the judges were taken first, that they might not be\ninfluenced by their seniors. In capital charges, it required a majority\nof at least two to condemn, and while the verdict of acquittal could\nbe given at once, that of guilty could only be pronounced the next\nday. Hence, capital trials could not begin on the day preceding a\nSabbath, or public feast. No criminal trial could be carried through\nin the night; the judges who condemned any one to death had to fast\nall the day before, and no one could be executed on the same day on\nwhich the sentence was pronounced.\" (Life of Christ, vol. ii, p. 487.)\n\n\n\n312\n\nHad Jesus been tried, convicted and executed by the Jews would he\nhave been crucified?\n\nHe would not. Crucifixion was a mode of punishment never employed by\nthe Jews. Had the Jews executed him he would have been stoned.\n\nIt is impliedly stated in the Synoptics, and expressly stated in\nJohn, that the Sanhedrim's jurisdiction over capital crimes had\nceased. \"It is not lawful for us to put any man to death\" (xviii,\n31). The Sanhedrim's authority ceased in 30 A. D., and it is generally\nclaimed by Christians that the crucifixion occurred from one to five\nyears after this time.\n\n\n\n313\n\nWhat does Peter say in regard to the mode of punishment employed in\nhis execution?\n\n\"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on\na tree\" (Acts v, 30).\n\n\"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of\nthe Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom ye slew and hanged on a tree\" (x, 39).\n\nConcerning this, Mrs. Evans says: \"With regard to his death, it\nwas said that the Jews slew him and hanged him on a tree; and again\nthat he was taken down from the tree; expressions which do not imply\ncrucifixion, but rather the legal execution for such crimes as the\none alleged, that is, stoning to death and the exposure of the dead\nbody upon a stake, or a tree\" (Christ Myth, p. 79).\n\n\n\n314\n\nHow was he treated by the Sanhedrim?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"They spit in his face, and buffeted him; and\nothers smote him with the palms of their hands\" (Matt. xxvi, 67;\nMark xiv, 65).\n\nEvery Jew, and every other person acquainted with the Jewish history\nof that age, knows that this is false. The Sanhedrim was composed of\nthe wisest and the best men of that race. Superstitious, bigoted and\nfanatical some of them doubtless were, but in that august court law\nand dignity and decorum reigned.\n\nThese accounts of the trial of Christ before the Sanhedrim afford\noverwhelming proof that they were not written by apostles nor by\nresidents of Palestine. They were written by Gentile Christians,\nor by Jewish converts living in foreign lands, and presumably the\nformer, for even foreign Jews must have possessed a better knowledge\nof Jewish laws and customs than the Evangelists display.\n\n\n\n315\n\nDuring the trial Peter denied his master. What had Jesus predicted\nconcerning his denial?\n\nMatthew, Luke and John: \"Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee,\nthat this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice\"\n(Matt. xxvi, 34; Luke xxii, 34; John xiii, 38).\n\nMark: \"And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this\nday, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny\nme thrice\" (xiv, 30).\n\n\n\n316\n\nDid Peter deny him three times before the cock crew?\n\nMatthew, Luke and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 69-75; Luke xxii, 54-62;\nJohn xviii, 15-27).\n\nMark: He did not; he had denied him but once when the cock crew\n(xiv, 66-68).\n\n\n\n317\n\nWhere were they when Jesus foretold Peter's denial?\n\nMatthew and Mark: At the Mount of Olives (Matt. xxvi, 30-35; Mark\nxiv, 26-30).\n\nLuke: In Jerusalem, at supper, before they went out to the Mount of\nOlives (xxii, 7-39).\n\n\n\n318\n\nWhat did Peter do when he entered the palace?\n\nLuke: \"Peter sat down among them\" (xxii, 55).\n\nJohn: \"Peter stood with them\" (xviii, 18).\n\n\n\n319\n\nWhen was he first accused of being the friend of Jesus?\n\nJohn: As he entered the room (xviii, 16, 17).\n\nMark and Luke: As he sat by the fire (Mark xiv, 66, 67; Luke xxii,\n54-57).\n\n\n\n320\n\nWhen was he accused the second time?\n\nJohn: In the house as he \"stood and warmed himself\" (xviii, 25).\n\nMatthew: \"When he was gone out into the porch\" (xxvi, 71).\n\n\n\n321\n\nBy whom was he accused the second time?\n\nMatthew and Mark: By a \"maid\" (Matt. xxvi, 71; Mark xiv, 69).\n\nLuke: By a \"man\" (xxii, 59, 60).\n\n\n\n322\n\nWho accused him the third time?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"They that stood by\" (Matt. xxvi, 73; Mark xiv, 70).\n\nJohn: \"One of the servants of the high priest\" (xviii, 26).\n\n\n\n323\n\nWas Jesus present when Peter denied him?\n\nMatthew and Mark: He was not.\n\nLuke: He was. \"The Lord turned and looked upon Peter\" (xxii, 60, 61).\n\n\n\n324\n\nWhere was Jesus next sent for trial?\n\nLuke: To Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, who was attending the Passover\nat Jerusalem (xxiii, 6-11).\n\nIn the matter of trials the Evangelists, as in everything else,\nhave overdone things. Notwithstanding no trial was ever held during\nthe Passover they give him four trials in one day, and not finding\ncourts enough in Judea for the purpose, they import one from Galilee.\n\nThere is nothing more improbable than this alleged examination of\nJesus by Herod. Imagine the Governor General of Canada sitting in\njudgment on a criminal at Washington, because the criminal is a\nCanadian, or an Ohio court holding a session in New York because\nthe prisoner arraigned once lived in Ohio. The offenses with which\nJesus was charged were committed, not in Herod's province, Galilee,\nbut in Pilate's province, Judea.\n\nIt is strange that John, who pretends to relate every important\nevent connected with the trial of Jesus, should omit his trial\nbefore Herod. Concerning this Strauss says: \"The conjecture, that\nit may probably have appeared to him [John] too unimportant, loses\nall foundation when it is considered that John does not scorn to\nmention the leading away to Annas, which nevertheless was equally\nindecisive; and in general, the narrative of these events in John is,\nas Schleiermacher himself confesses, so consecutive that it nowhere\npresents a break in which such an episode could be inserted. Hence even\nSchleiermacher at last takes refuge in the conjecture that possibly\nthe sending to Herod may have escaped the notice of John, because\nit happened on an opposite side to that on which the disciple stood,\nthrough a back door; and that it came to the knowledge of Luke because\nhis informant had an acquaintance in the household of Herod, as John\nhad in that of Annas; the former conjecture, however, is figuratively\nas well as literally nothing more than a back door; the latter, a\nfiction which is but the effort of despair\" (Leben Jesu, pp. 764, 765).\n\n\n\n325\n\nWhat was the result of Pilate's sending Jesus to Herod?\n\nLuke: \"And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together,\nfor before they were at enmity between themselves\" (xxiii, 12).\n\nPilate and Herod did not become friends. To the day of Pilate's recall\nthey were enemies. Herod was continually plotting and striving to\nunite with his tetrarchy the province of Judea which belonged to his\nfather's kingdom, and which his father had promised to give him.\n\n\n\n326\n\nDid Jesus's trial before Pilate take place in the presence of his\naccusers?\n\nLuke: It did (xxiii, 1-4, 13, 14).\n\nJohn: It did not (xviii, 28).\n\n\n\n327\n\nDid Pilate go out of the judgment hall to consult with those who were\nprosecuting Jesus?\n\nLuke: He did not (xxiii, 1-25).\n\nJohn: He did. \"Pilate then went out unto them [the Jews], and said,\nWhat accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto\nhim, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up\nunto thee.... Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and\ncalled Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus\nanswered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell\nit thee of me?\" (xxiii, 29, 30, 33, 34.)\n\nThe prosecution and the defense are both declared to have returned\ninsolent answers to the questions of Pilate. The Jewish priests\nwere too wise for this, and Christians will be loath to admit that\ntheir Savior was so indiscreet and so impolite as to indulge in\nsuch insolence.\n\n\n\n328\n\nWhat was the result of his trial before Pilate?\n\nAll: Pilate declared him innocent and sentenced him to death.\n\n\"And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the\nrulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man\nunto me, as one that perverteth the people; and, behold, I, having\nexamined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching\nthose things whereof ye accuse him.... And Pilate gave sentence that\nit should be as they required.... He delivered Jesus to their will\"\n(Luke xxiii, 13, 14, 24, 25).\n\n\"Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him; for I find no\nfault in him\" (John xix, 6).\n\nIt is impossible to believe that the highest court of a country would\npronounce a prisoner innocent and then condemn him to death. Judicial\nmurders are sometimes committed, but the murderers do not confess\ntheir guilt.\n\nIt is declared that Pilate desired to release Jesus but could not. Who\nruled Judea, Pilate or the Sanhedrim? According to the Evangelists,\nthe Romans ruled Judea, while the Jews ruled the Romans.\n\nBetween the Pilate of the New Testament and the Pilate of history there\nis nothing in common. The Pilate of the New Testament is subservient to\nthe Jews, acceding to their every wish, even to murdering an innocent\nprisoner. The Pilate of history is noted for his hatred of the Jews\nand his cruelties to them. It was these which provoked his recall.\n\n\n\n329\n\nWhen Pilate could not prevail upon the Jews to allow him to release\nJesus, what did he do?\n\nMatthew: \"He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude,\nsaying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person\" (xxvii, 24).\n\nMatthew does not appear to realize the absurdity of supposing that\na Roman official would adopt a custom peculiar to a people whom he\nheld in contempt.\n\n\"And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man\nshall wash their hands ... and they shall answer and say, Our hands\nhave not shed this blood\" (Deuteronomy xx, 6, 7).\n\n\n\n330\n\nWhat indignities were heaped upon Jesus during his trial before Pilate?\n\nJohn: \"Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the\nsoldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and\nthey put on him a purple robe, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and\nthey smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth again,\nand saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may\nknow that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the\ncrown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,\nBehold the man!\" (xix, 1-5.)\n\nThese indignities Jesus is said to have suffered, not at the hands of\na Jewish mob, but at the hands of a Roman court, from which the Jews\nhad absented themselves and whose proceedings they could not witness\nnor directly influence. Every lawyer knows that for more than two\nthousand years the Roman court has been the world's model for dignity\nand fairness. That an innocent and defenseless prisoner was subjected\nto these insults and brutalities in a Roman court, presided over by\na Roman governor, none but a slave of superstition can believe.\n\n\n\n331\n\nWhen was he scourged?\n\nMatthew and Mark: Before he was executed. \"And when he [Pilate] had\nscourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified\" (Matt. xxvii, 26;\nMark xv, 15).\n\nJohn: Before the termination of his trial (xix, 1-16).\n\nScourging was frequently inflicted by the Romans before execution,\nbut never before the prisoner was convicted and sentenced. The\n\"Bible Dictionary\" concedes the illegal and unusual character\nof the scourging mentioned by John. \"In our Lord's case, however,\nthis infliction seems neither to have been the legal scourging after\nsentence nor yet the examination by torture\" (Acts xxii, 24).\n\n\n\n332\n\nWhat custom is said to have been observed at the Passover?\n\nAll: The release of a prisoner by the Roman governor (Matt. xxvii,\n15; Mark xv, 6; Luke xxiii, 17; John xviii, 39).\n\n\"Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people\na prisoner, whom they would.\"\n\nThere is no historical authority whatever for this alleged custom. It\nwas a custom that the Roman government in Judea could not with\nsafety adopt. The Jews were a subject people, waiting and hoping\nfor an opportunity to throw off the Roman yoke. To release to them\n\"whomsoever they desired\" (Mark xv, 6) might be to release a political\nprisoner whose liberty would endanger the government itself. This\nstory was probably suggested by a custom of the Roman emperors who\nreleased a prisoner at their birthday festivals.\n\n\n\n333\n\nThey demanded and obtained the release of Barrabas. Who was Barrabas?\n\nJohn: A robber. \"Now Barrabas was a robber\" (xviii, 40).\n\nMark and Luke: A murderer. \"Barrabas (who for a certain sedition made\nin the city, and for murder, was cast into prison)\" (Luke xxiii, 18,\n19; Mark xv, 7).\n\n\n\n334\n\nBy whom was Jesus clad in mockery?\n\nMatthew, Mark and John: By Pilate's soldiers (Matt. xxvii, 27, 28;\nMark xv, 16, 17; John xix, 1, 2).\n\nLuke: By Herod and his soldiers. \"And Herod with his men of war set\nhim at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe\"\n(xxiii, 11).\n\n\n\n335\n\nWhat was the color of the robe they put on him?\n\nMatthew: \"They stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe\" (xxvii,\n28).\n\nMark and John: \"They put on him a purple robe\" (John xix, 2; Mark\nxv, 17).\n\n\n\n336\n\nWhen did this occur?\n\nJohn: During his trial (xix, 1, 2, 12-16).\n\nMatthew and Mark: After Pilate had delivered him to be crucified\n(Matt. xxvii, 26-28; Mark xv, 15-17).\n\n\n\n337\n\nDescribe the mocking of Jesus.\n\nMatthew: \"Then released he Barrabas unto them; and when he had scourged\nJesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the\ngovernor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him\nthe whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a\nscarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put\nit upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they bowed the\nknee before him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!\" (xxvii, 26-29.)\n\nThe original of this account of the mocking of Jesus is to be found in\nPhilo's \"Adversus Flaccum,\" written more than one hundred years before\nthe Gospels made their appearance. Herod Agrippa was on his way from\nRome to Palestine to assume the government of that country. When he\nstopped at Alexandria his enemies, to annoy him, instituted a mock\ncoronation, which Philo relates as follows:\n\n\"There was a certain poor wretch named Carrabas, who spent all his\ndays and nights in the roads, the sport of idle children and wanton\nyouths; and the multitude, having driven him as far as the public\ngymnasium, and having set him up there on high, that he might be\nseen of everybody, flattening out a papyrus leaf, put it on his head\ninstead of a crown, and clothed the rest of his body with a common mat\nin place of a robe, and in lieu of a sceptre thrust into his hand a\nreed, which they found lying by the wayside. And when he had received\nall the insignia of royalty, and had been dressed and adorned like a\nking, young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side\nof him in imitation of guards, while others came up, some as if to\nsalute him, and others pretending to plead their causes before him\"\n(Philo's Works, vol. iv, pp. 68, 69).\n\n\n\n338\n\nWho smote Jesus after his trial?\n\nMark: \"The servants did strike him with the palms of their hands\"\n(xiv, 65).\n\nJohn: \"One of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm\nof his hand\" (xviii, 22).\n\nThe stories of these mockings, revilings, and brutal assaults cannot\nbe accepted as historical. They are self-evidently false. Were they\nalleged to have been committed by an irresponsible Jewish or Roman\nmob they might be credited; but when they are declared to have been\ncommitted by, or while in the custody of the highest Jewish and Roman\nofficials they must be rejected.\n\n\n\n339\n\nTo whom did Pilate deliver him to be crucified?\n\nMatthew and Mark: To the Roman soldiers. \"And when he had scourged\nJesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the\ngovernor took Jesus.... And when they were come unto a place called\nGolgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, ... they crucified him\"\n(Matt. xxvii, 26-35; Mark xv, 15-24).\n\nJohn: He delivered him to the Jews. \"And he saith unto the Jews, Behold\nyour King! But they cried out, Away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith\nunto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We\nhave no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to\nbe crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away. And he bearing his\ncross went forth into a place called the place of the skulls, which\nis called in Hebrew Golgotha; where they crucified him\" (xix, 14-18).\n\nMatthew and Mark plainly state that Jesus was delivered to the Roman\nsoldiers; John just as plainly states that he was delivered to the\nJews. Matthew and Mark declare that he was crucified by the soldiers;\nJohn declares that he was crucified by the Jews. Were it not that\nJohn elsewhere (xix, 23) contradicts himself and states that the\nsoldiers crucified him, the conclusion would be, after reading John,\nthat he was crucified by the Jews.\n\nPeter declares that the Jews executed him. Addressing the Sanhedrim,\nhe says: \"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and\nhanged on a tree\" (Acts v, 30).\n\n\n\n340\n\nWho was compelled to carry the cross?\n\nSynoptics: \"And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon\nby name; him they compelled to bear his cross\" (Matt. xxvii, 32;\nMark xv, 21; Luke xxiii, 26).\n\nJohn: The cross was borne by Jesus himself (xix, 17).\n\n\n\n341\n\nWhere was Simon when they compelled him to carry the cross?\n\nMark: \"Coming out of the country\" (xv, 21).\n\nThe correct reading of this is, \"coming from the field,\" i. e.,\n\"coming from his work.\" This is improbable as they did not work on\nthe Passover.\n\n\n\n342\n\nThe Synoptics agree in stating that Simon was compelled to carry the\ncross. Is this probable?\n\nIt is not. In executions of this kind the criminal was always required\nto carry it himself as a mark of disgrace.\n\n\n\n343\n\nIt is inferred from the Synoptics that the cross was too heavy for\nJesus to bear, and Christian writings and paintings represent him\nbending with fatigue beneath the burden of the entire cross. What\nwas the burden he was required to carry?\n\nSimply the patibulum, or cross piece, which was not heavy. The upright\nportion of the cross was a permanent fixture.\n\n\n\n344\n\nOn his way to execution he made a speech to the women of Jerusalem who\nbewailed his fate. Alluding, as is alleged, to the coming destruction\nof Jerusalem, what did he declare they would say?\n\n\"To the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us\" (Luke\nxxiii, 30).\n\nLuke attempts to put into the mouth of Jesus a quotation from Hosea,\nbut his memory was defective. What the prophet said was as follows:\n\n\"To the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us\" (Hosea\nx, 8).\n\nRenan pronounces this speech spurious. He says: \"The speech to the\nwomen of Jerusalem could scarcely have been conceived except after\nthe siege of the year 70.\"\n\n\n\n345\n\nWhere was he crucified?\n\nMatthew and Mark: At \"a place called Golgotha, that is to say,\na place of a skull\" (Matt. xxvii, 33; Mark xv, 22).\n\nLuke: At Calvary (xxiii, 33).\n\nCalvary, like Golgotha, means a place of skulls in the vicinity of\nJerusalem. The explanation given by Christian commentators is that\n\"it was a spot where executions ordinarily took place, and therefore\nabounded in skulls.\" Fleetwood says it \"was called Golgotha, or\nPlace of Skulls, from the criminals' bones which lay scattered there\"\n(Life of Christ, p. 416). Where Jewish customs prevailed--and it is\nadmitted that they did prevail in Jerusalem and Judea at this time,\nand had for hundreds of years--a human skull or bone was not allowed\nto be exposed for even a moment.\n\n\n\n346\n\nWhat was the inscription on the cross?\n\nMark: \"The King of the Jews\" (xv, 26).\n\nLuke: \"This is the King of the Jews\" (xxiii, 38).\n\nMatthew: \"This is Jesus the King of the Jews\" (xxvii, 37).\n\nJohn: \"Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews\" (xix, 19).\n\nThere was placed on the cross a certain inscription. According to\nLuke and John it appeared in Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Four divinely\ninspired historians attempt to report in Greek the exact words of\nthis inscription. Yet no two of their reports agree.\n\n\n\n347\n\nDid the name of Jesus appear on the cross?\n\nMatthew and John: It did.\n\nMark and Luke: It did not.\n\n\n\n348\n\nDid the word \"Nazareth\" appear in the inscription?\n\nJohn: It did.\n\nSynoptics: It did not.\n\n\n\n349\n\nWhat did they offer him to drink before crucifying him?\n\nMatthew: \"Vinegar mingled with gall\" (xxvii, 34).\n\nMark: \"Wine mingled with myrrh\" (xv, 23).\n\nLuke: \"Vinegar\" alone (xxiii, 36).\n\nThe draughts mentioned by Matthew and Mark refer to a Jewish mixture\nintended to produce stupefaction and lessen pain. Had the Romans\ncrucified him it is not probable that they would have observed this\nJewish custom.\n\n\n\n350\n\nHow was he fastened on the cross?\n\nLuke and John: His hands and feet were nailed to it (Luke xxiv, 39;\nJohn xx, 25, 27).\n\nThe Evangelists do not say that he was nailed to the cross; but it\nhas been inferred from the texts mentioned in Luke and John that he\nwas. In crucifixion the victim was usually bound to the cross. Nails\nwere sometimes driven through the hands, but never through the\nfeet. The allusions to the supposed wounds on his hands and feet were\nevidently inserted in the accounts for the purpose of establishing his\nidentity after the resurrection. Great prominence has been given them\nby Christians in order to make Christ's crucifixion appear especially\ncruel and create sympathy for him.\n\n\n\n351\n\nAt what hour of the day was he crucified?\n\nMark: \"It was the third hour [nine o'clock in the morning]\" (xv, 25).\n\nLuke: \"It was about the sixth hour [noon]\" (xxiii, 44).\n\nJohn: At the sixth hour he had not been sentenced and delivered to\nthe executioners; hence he was not crucified until the afternoon\n(xix, 14-16).\n\nDr. Geikie admits that three hours may have elapsed between the\ntermination of his trial and his crucifixion. Hence, according to\nJohn, the crucifixion may have occurred as late as three o'clock in\nthe afternoon.\n\nIt has been attempted to explain the discrepancy between Mark and\nJohn by supposing that John used a different method of reckoning\ntime. Concerning this, Prof. Sanday, one of England's highest orthodox\nauthorities, says: \"The writer of this was at one time inclined to\nlook with favor on these attempts. If the premise could be proved,\nthe data would work out satisfactorily.... But it must definitely be\nsaid that the major premise cannot be proved, and that the attempt\nto reconcile the two statements on this basis breaks down.\"\n\n\n\n352\n\nHow did the soldiers divide the garments?\n\nMatthew: \"And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting\nlots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They\nparted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots\"\n(xxvii, 35).\n\nJohn: \"Then the soldiers when they had crucified Jesus, took\nhis garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and\nalso his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top\nthroughout. They said, therefore, among themselves, Let us not rend it,\nbut cast lots for it, whose it shall be; that the scripture might be\nfulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for\nmy vesture they did cast lots\" (xix, 23, 24).\n\nAccording to Matthew they cast lots for all the garments; according\nto John they cast lots for the coat alone. John here makes the same\nerror in regard to the garments that Matthew does in regard to the\nass on which Jesus made his triumphal entry. In the verse cited from\nPsalms garments and vesture are the same thing--the clothing of the\nwriter. One of the chief characteristics of Hebrew poetry, or much\nof it at least, is that each successive thought is stated twice,\nbut in different words.\n\n\n\n353\n\nWho were crucified with Jesus?\n\nMark and Matthew: \"And with him they crucify two thieves\" (Mark xv,\n27; Matt. xxvii, 38).\n\nThieves were not crucified. Crucifixion, or death in any form, for\ntheft was contrary to both Jewish and Roman law. Theft was not a\ncapital offense.\n\n\n\n354\n\nHis crucifixion between two thieves fulfilled what prophecy?\n\nMark: \"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he shall be\nnumbered with the transgressors\" (xv, 28).\n\n\"The same thing might be said of the thieves.\"--Paine.\n\nThis passage is not to be found in the earlier manuscripts of Mark,\nand Westcott declares it to be an interpolation.\n\n\n\n355\n\nHow long did Jesus survive after being placed upon the cross?\n\nLuke: About three hours (xxiii, 44).\n\nA Jamaica negro slave, crucified in 1760, lived two hundred and\nten hours.\n\nKitto says: \"We may consider thirty-six hours to be the earliest\nperiod at which crucifixion would occasion death in a healthy adult\"\n(Biblical Cyclopedia, Art. Crucifixion).\n\n\n\n356\n\nWhat were his last words?\n\nMatthew: \"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God,\nwhy hast thou forsaken me?\" (xxvii, 46).\n\nMark: \"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, which is, being interpreted,\nMy God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" (xv, 34.)\n\nLuke: \"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit\" (xxiii, 46).\n\nJohn: \"It is finished\" (xix, 30).\n\nWith the Four Gospels before them, Christians do not know what his\nlast words were. The two most popular English Lives of Christ are\nthose of Dr. Farrar and Dr. Geikie. These writers were contemporaries\nand friends, and both were adherents of the same church. Both, with\nthese Gospels for their authorities, attempt to portray the closing\nscene. I quote from each:\n\nDr. Farrar: \"And now the end was come. Once more, in the words of the\nsweet Psalmist of Israel, but adding to them that title of trustful\nlove which, through Him, is permitted to the use of all mankind,\n'Father,' he said, 'into Thy hands I commend my spirit.' Then with one\nmore great effort he uttered the last cry--the one victorious word,\n'It is finished.'\"\n\nDr. Geikie: \"A moment more, and all was over. The cloud had passed as\nsuddenly as it rose. Far and wide, over the vanquished throngs of his\nenemies, with a loud voice, as if uttering his shout of eternal victory\nbefore entering into his glory, he cried, 'It is finished!' Then, more\ngently, came the words, 'Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.'\"\n\n\n\n357\n\nIn what language were his last words uttered?\n\nMatthew: In Hebrew.\n\nMark: In Aramaic and Hebrew.\n\nThe language spoken by Jesus and by the people of Palestine at this\ntime was the Aramaic. Mark attempts to give the words of Jesus in\nthis language. But while the first two words are Aramaic, the last\ntwo are Hebrew. The words Mark attempts to give are \"Elohi, Elohi,\nmetul mah shabaktani?\" This Gospel was written by one ignorant of\nthe language of Palestine.\n\n\n\n358\n\nMatthew interprets the Hebrew words quoted by him to mean, \"My God,\nmy God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" Is this correct?\n\nIt is not. The words mean, \"My God, my God, why hast thou sacrificed\nme?\"\n\nThe Gospel of Matthew, it is claimed, originally appeared in\nHebrew. But this shows that the author of Matthew did not understand\nthe Hebrew language.\n\n\n\n359\n\nWhat are the words given by Matthew and Mark?\n\nThe first words of the 22d Psalm. In the words of Farrar, \"He borrowed\nfrom David's utter agony the expression of his own.\"\n\nIs it probable that a man in the agonies of a terrible death would\ndevote his expiring breath to a recital of Hebrew poetry? When even\nthe dying words of this Christ are borrowed, is it not evident that\nthe whole story of his life is fabulous?\n\nThe accounts of the crucifixion given by the Evangelists are to a\nlarge extent reproductions of the 22d Psalm, even to the language\nitself, the poetical allusions of the psalmist being transformed into\nalleged historical facts. The devout Christian who is familiar with\nthis Passion Psalm sees in the Evangelists' account of the crucifixion\na wonderful fulfillment of prophecy. But the critic sees merely the\nborrowed embellishments of a legend.\n\n\n\n360\n\nWhat expression did his words, \"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,\" provoke?\n\nMatthew: \"Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said,\nThis man calleth for Elias\" (xxvii, 47).\n\nThis is additional proof of Matthew's ignorance of Hebrew. He\nsupposes a similarity of sound between the two words, whereas they\nwere utterly unlike in pronunciation. Eli was pronounced Ali (long\na), while Elias was pronounced Eleeyahu. But even had they been so\nmuch alike in sound that one might have been mistaken for the other,\nas Matthew supposes, the alleged incident is disproved by the fact\nthat the Jews were not allowed to attend the execution, while to the\nRomans the words were meaningless.\n\n\n\n361\n\nWho was it bade them see whether Elias would come to his rescue?\n\nMark: The one who gave him the sponge filled with vinegar. \"And one\nran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and\ngave him to drink, saying, Let alone, let us see whether Elias will\ncome to take him down\" (xv, 36).\n\nMatthew: It was not this person, but those who were with him. \"And\nstraightway one of them ran, and took a sponge and filled it with\nvinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said,\nLet be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him\" (xxvii,\n48, 49).\n\nIn regard to these alleged last words of Jesus, Dr. Hooykaas says:\n\"It seems to us far more probable that these words of the Messianic\npassion-psalm were put into the mouth of Jesus by tradition than\nthat he really uttered them. The sequel, too, throws great suspicion\non the report; for the Jews were not allowed to approach the cross,\nand what did the Roman soldiers know about Elijah? Besides, if the\nJews had really heard him cry \"Eli!\" or \"Eloi!\" they would hardly\nhave mistaken the words of the twenty-second Psalm for a cry to the\nprecursor of the Messianic kingdom--a mistake upon which their raillery\nis made to depend. We must, therefore, put aside these words, as in\nall probability unhistorical\" (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 454).\n\n\n\n362\n\nDid the thieves between whom he was crucified both revile him?\n\nMatthew and Mark: They did. \"And they that were crucified with him\nreviled him\" (Mark xv, 32; Matt. xxvii, 44).\n\nLuke: They did not; but one reviled him. \"And one of the malefactors\nwhich were hanged railed on him.... But the other answering rebuked\nhim, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same\ncondemnation?\" (xxiii, 39, 40.)\n\nIf these men were crucified with Jesus, as claimed, neither reviled\nhim. Reason rejects the statement that a dying man, suffering\nunutterable agony, reviled a fellow sufferer.\n\n\n\n363\n\nWhat request did the penitent thief make of Jesus?\n\nLuke: \"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest\ninto thy kingdom\" (xxiii, 42).\n\nHere the dying thief is represented as being familiar with a subject\nwhich the disciples themselves did not at this time comprehend.\n\n\n\n364\n\nWhat did Jesus say to the thief?\n\n\"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise\" (Luke xxiii, 43).\n\nInstead of going to the Christian Heaven above, they went to the\nJewish-Pagan Sheol (Hell) below. Did Jesus recant on the cross? Did\nhe renounce the Kingdom of God when God deserted him? Concerning this\nremarkable passage, Smith's \"Bible Dictionary\" says:\n\n\"The Rabbis in the time of our Savior taught there was a region of\nthe world of the dead, of Sheol, in the heart of the earth. Gehenna\nwas on one side, with its flames and torments; Paradise on the other,\nthe intermediate home of the blessed.... It is significant, indeed,\nthat the word 'paradise' nowhere occurs in the public teaching of\nour Lord, or in his intercourse with his disciples. Connected as it\nhad been with the thoughts of a sensuous happiness, it was not the\nfittest nor the best word for those whom he was training to rise out\nof sensuous thoughts to the higher regions of the spiritual life. For\nthem, accordingly, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God, are the\nwords most dwelt on. With the thief dying on the cross the case was\ndifferent. We can assume nothing in the robber-outlaw but the most\nrudimentary forms of the popular belief. The answer to his prayer gave\nhim what he needed most, the assurance of immediate rest and peace.\"\n\nThe explanation of the apologist is as lame as the story of the\nEvangelist. Did Jesus go to Hell with the thief because the thief was\nunfit to go to Heaven with him? This apologist says that Jesus used\nthese words--gave expression to a false doctrine--because the thief\nwas incapable of comprehending the true doctrine. But this conflicts\nwith the alleged words of the thief himself which show that he did\ncomprehend the nature of the kingdom of Heaven. It was this, and not\nthe peace of the grave, for which he prayed.\n\n\n\n365\n\nWhat were the centurion's words?\n\nLuke: \"Certainly this was a righteous man\" (xxiii, 47).\n\nMatthew: \"Truly this was the Son of God\" (xxvii, 54).\n\nWe have here the anomaly of a Roman officer--a Pagan--entertaining\na Jewish doctrine of a Messiah, and accepting the Christian claim\nthat Jesus was the Messiah. If this be true it is strange that he\npermitted his soldiers to insult and abuse Jesus.\n\n\n\n366\n\nAfter Jesus expired what did one of the soldiers do?\n\nJohn: \"One of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side\" (xix, 34).\n\nIt is remarkable that the Synoptics, who pretend to relate every\nimportant incident connected with the crucifixion, make no mention\nof the spear thrust.\n\n\n\n367\n\nWhat is said to have issued from the wound?\n\nJohn: \"And forthwith came there out blood and water\" (xix, 34).\n\nAccording to a well known physiological fact, if Jesus was still\nalive or had but recently expired, not blood and water, but blood\nalone would have flowed from the wound. If he was dead, and it is\nstated that he was, then neither blood nor water would have flowed\nfrom it. When blood is drawn from a living body it becomes separated\ninto two parts, a thick substance known as febrine, and a watery\nfluid known as serum. John was familiar with this fact and supposed\nthat this also took place in a corpse, which is not the case.\n\nDr. Cabanes, a noted physician of Paris, writes as follows regarding\nthe crucifixion of Jesus:\n\n\"It appears that crucifixion alone could not have produced the death\nof Jesus, and in reference to the wounds produced by the nails, these\nwounds being the result of crushing, the hemorrhage was small. A\nburning fever might possibly occur which would be manifested by an\nintense thirst, but the flow of blood could not be sufficient to\ncause death. Death in this case is preceded by a comatose condition\nwhich would be inconsistent with the cry uttered in a loud voice by\nJesus shortly before his last breath. All the commentators of the\ngospels further agree that Jesus did not remain more than three to\nsix hours on the cross, and death cannot be produced by an exposure\nof this duration to this mode of torture.\n\n\"The generally accepted version of the lance wound received by Jesus\nis that the blow was struck on the left side and that there flowed from\nthe wound water mingled with blood. It has been correctly remarked that\nblood does not flow from a corpse, and therefore if blood followed the\nlance stroke, Jesus must have been alive; further, in order that the\nblow might have killed the dying man, it must have injured a vital\norgan. It must be observed that a lance directed upward and from\nright to left could not reach the right-hand cavities of the heart\nwithout first opening the peritoneal cavity, traversing the liver,\nthe pericardium and perhaps the pleura. We must therefore ask how the\nfew hundred grams of blood which a right ventricle could contain, could\npenetrate to the exterior of the body after such a great wound. Also\nwith those who die slowly there is found a distended heart in which\nthe blood has very rapidly coagulated, and it must follow that if a\nflood of the liquid appeared on the side of Jesus it could not have\ncome from the heart. With regard to the vena cava, its situation is\ntoo far back to have allowed it to be touched by the lance. If the\nwound had been in the stomach a lesion of the digestive tube would\nhave been disclosed by an ejection of blood mingled with alimentary\nmatter, either from the mouth or the opening of the wound, or at\nleast by a discharge of blood into the abdominal cavity. Had the liver\nbeen touched the symptoms of an internal hemorrhage would have been\nobserved, as in the case of President Carnot, in whose case the blow of\nthe poignard, directed downward, perforated the liver and the portal\nvein, inducing a state of coma, whereas Jesus, we have been told,\ncried out with a loud voice. We thus see that death was not due to\nthe lance wound or to the torture of crucifixion, as so often stated.\"\n\n\n\n368\n\nWas Christ's suffering foretold by the prophets?\n\nPeter: \"But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth\nof all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled\"\n(Acts iii, 18).\n\nGod had not showed by the mouth of all his prophets, nor by the\nmouth of even one of his prophets, that Christ should suffer. The\nprophets know nothing of a suffering Messiah. There is not a text in\nthe Old Testament referring to such a Messiah. The passages relating\nto suffering cited by the Evangelists and applied to Christ have no\nreference whatever to a Messiah. The Encyclopedia Britannica says:\n\"That the Jews in the time of Christ believed in a suffering and\natoning Messiah is, to say the least, unproved and highly improbable.\"\n\n\n\n369\n\nWhat marvelous events occurred at the time of the crucifixion?\n\nMatthew: \"There was darkness over all the land\" (xxvii, 45). \"The\nveil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and\nthe earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened;\nand many bodies of the saints which slept arose\" (51, 52).\n\nMark and Luke: \"There was darkness over the whole land\" (Mark xv,\n33). \"And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to\nthe bottom\" (38).\n\nMark and Luke know nothing of two of the important events related by\nMatthew; John is ignorant of all of them. Had these events really\nhappened, the naturalists and chroniclers of that age would have\nrecorded them. As they make no mention of them, we know that they\ndid not occur.\n\nIf we accept the claims of their followers, nearly all the gods and\nheroes of antiquity expired amid the convulsions of Nature. The soul\nof Romulus went out amid the battling of her elements; \"the sun was\ndarkened and the sky rained fire and ashes\" when the Hindu Krishna\nleft his saddened followers; \"the earth shook, the rocks were rent,\nthe graves opened, and in a storm which threatened the dissolution of\nthe universe,\" Prometheus closed his earthly career; a pall of darkness\nsettled over Egypt when her Osiris died; the death of Alexander was\nsucceeded by six hours of preternatural gloom; and--\n\n\n                          \"Ere the mighty Julius fell,\n        The grave stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead\n        Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets.\"\n\n\n\n370\n\nHow long did the darkness last?\n\nSynoptics: From the sixth to the ninth hour (Matt. xxvii, 45; Mark xv,\n33; Luke xxiii, 44).\n\nAccording to Matthew and Luke this darkness lasted from the time that\nhe was suspended upon the cross until he died. Yet his executioners\nare ignorant of it. Luke says: \"His acquaintances, and the women that\nfollowed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things\n[the crucifixion]\" (xxiii, 49), which they could not have done had\nthis darkness really occurred.\n\nIf this darkness occurred, and began at the sixth hour, as stated by\nthe Synoptics, then, according to John, the conclusion of the trial,\nthe sentencing of Jesus, the preparations for his execution, and the\njourney to Golgotha, all took place during the darkness, a conclusion\nwhich the nature of the narrative utterly precludes.\n\nChristian apologists have cited Phlegon who notices an eclipse which\noccurred about this time. But there is a variance of at least six\nyears in regard to the time that Jesus was crucified. Besides an\neclipse could not have occurred within two weeks of a Passover, on\nthe occurrence of which he is declared to have been executed. Farrar\nsays: \"It could have been no darkness of any natural eclipse, for\nthe Paschal moon was at the full\" (Life of Christ, p. 505). Geikie\nsays: \"It is impossible to explain the origin of this darkness. The\nPassover moon was then at the full, so that it could not have been an\neclipse. The earlier fathers, relying on a notice of an eclipse that\nseemed to coincide in time, though it really did not, fancied that the\ndarkness was caused by it, but incorrectly\" (Life of Christ, Vol. ii,\np. 624, Notes). \"The celebrated passage of Phlegon,\" says Gibbon,\n\"is now wisely abandoned\" (Rome, Vol. i, p. 589, Note).\n\n\n\n371\n\nWas the veil of the temple rent, as our Gospel of Matthew declares?\n\nThe Gospel of Matthew, it is affirmed, originally appeared in Hebrew,\nSt. Jerome, who had this original version, says: \"In that Gospel which\nis written in Hebrew letters, we read, not that the veil of the temple\nwas rent, but that a lintel (or beam) of a prodigious size fell down.\"\n\nCommenting on this alleged prodigy, the rending of the veil,\nStrauss says: \"Now the object of the divine Providence in effecting\nsuch a miracle could only have been this: to produce in the Jewish\ncontemporaries of Jesus a deep impression of the importance of his\ndeath, and to furnish the first promulgators of the gospel with a\nfact to which they might appeal in support of their cause. But, as\nSchleiermacher has shown, nowhere else in the New Testament, either\nin the apostolic epistles or in Acts, or even in the Epistle to the\nHebrews, in connection with the subject of which it could scarcely\nfail to be suggested, is this event mentioned: on the contrary,\nwith the exception of this bare Synoptical notice, every trace of it\nis lost; which could scarcely have been the case if it had really\nformed a ground of apostolical argument. Thus the divine purpose\nin ordaining this miracle must have totally failed, or, since this\nis inconceivable, it cannot have been ordained for this object--in\nother words, since neither any other object of the miracle, nor yet\na mode in which the event might happen naturally can be discovered,\nit cannot have happened at all\" (Leben Jesu, p. 789).\n\n\n\n372\n\nMatthew declares that the dead arose on the day of the\ncrucifixion. When did they come out of their graves?\n\nNot until after Christ's resurrection, which did not occur until the\nfollowing week. \"And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and\ncame out of the graves after his resurrection\" (Matt. xxvii, 52, 53).\n\n\"They were polite enough to sit in their open graves and wait for\nChrist to rise first.\"--Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n373\n\nFrom what source was Matthew's story regarding these marvelous\nevents derived?\n\nFrom Zechariah: \"And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount\nof Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the East, and the Mount\nof Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof ... and half of the\nmountain shall remove toward the North, and half of it toward the\nSouth.... Ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake\nin the days of Uzziah King of Judah; and the Lord my God shall come,\nand all the saints with thee. And it shall come to pass in that day,\nthat the light shall not be clear\" (xiv, 4-6).\n\nConcerning this Dr. Wise says: \"God who comes, according to Zachariah,\nto fight for Jerusalem, will stand upon Mount Olivet. Therefore,\nJesus, during his fight against Pharisees, Sadducees and priests, had\nto make his principal home on Mount Olivet. But he could not split the\nmountain, as Zachariah imagined God would, and move one part North and\nthe other South; therefore, the curtain of the temple had to be torn in\ntwain when Jesus died, although none has ever mentioned the fact. The\ncurtain was there some thirty-five years after the death of Jesus; had\nit been torn, somebody must have noticed it. The earthquake mentioned\nby Zachariah, of course, was borrowed to embellish Calvary.... Because\nZachariah states God coming to Jerusalem, 'And the Lord my God cometh,\nall the saints with thee,' therefore the saints and not the sinners\nhad to resurrect and visit the city on that particular day. But in\nthe fertile imagination of Zachariah, the day of that terrible combat\nmust be dark.... This darkness was transported over to Calvary to\nembellish the scene.... So these miracles were not wrought, but the\nentire outer embellishment of Calvary is taken from Zachariah; not\nbecause it was believed this prophecy referred to Jesus, but simply\nbecause the evangelical writers were incompetent to invent original\npoetry\" (Martyrdom of Jesus, p. 116).\n\n\n\n374\n\nWhat request did the Jews make of Pilate concerning Jesus and the\nmalefactors?\n\nJohn: They \"besought Pilate that their legs might be broken\" (xix, 31).\n\nThis punishment, known as crurifragium, was a distinct mode of\nexecution and was never united with crucifixion. Crucifixion, we have\nseen, was not employed to punish theft. Neither was crurifragium. Yet\nwe are asked to believe that both modes of execution, two of\nthe cruelest forms of punishment, were combined to punish these\noffenders. The Synoptics do not mention this punishment.\n\n\n\n375\n\nWhen the soldiers broke the legs of the thieves, why did they spare\nthose of Jesus?\n\nJohn: \"That the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall\nnot be broken\" (xix, 36).\n\nThis refers to Exodus xii, 46, and relates to the disposition to be\nmade of the lamb used at the Passover. Nearly the entire chapter from\nwhich John quotes is devoted to this subject. Among other things it\nstates that \"They shall eat the flesh in that night, ... his head with\nhis legs, and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing\nof it remain until the morning\" (8-10). If a part of this prophecy\nwas fulfilled, may not all of it have been fulfilled? And if all of\nit was fulfilled, will not this account for the empty sepulchre?\n\nRegarding the failure of the soldiers to break the legs of Jesus,\nas ordered, \"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"An order having been given\nto the Roman soldiers, in accordance with the request of the Jews, to\nbreak the legs of the crucified, we are asked to believe that they did\nnot execute it in the case of Jesus. It is not reasonable to suppose,\nhowever, that Roman soldiers either were in the habit of disregarding\ntheir orders, or could have any motive for doing so in this case,\nand subjecting themselves to the severe punishment for disobedience\ninflicted by Roman military law. It is argued that they saw that Jesus\nwas already dead, and, therefore, that it was not necessary to break\nhis legs; but soldiers are not in the habit of thinking in this way;\nthey are disciplined to obey\" (p. 993).\n\n\n\n376\n\nWhat demand was made by the Jews on the evening of the crucifixion?\n\nJohn: That their bodies be taken down from the cross (xix, 31).\n\nJohn was evidently familiar with the Mosaic law (Deut. xxi, 22, 23)\nwhich, in cases of hanging, enjoined the burial of the body on the\nday of execution, but seemingly ignorant of the Roman law under which\nthey were executed, which, in cases of crucifixion, prohibited burial,\nrequiring the body to remain upon the cross until decayed, or birds\nand beasts had devoured it. The Jews esteemed it sinful to allow a\ncriminal to \"remain all night upon the tree;\" but the Jewish law was\ninapplicable to the Roman mode of punishment which presupposed that\nthe criminal would remain on the cross several days and nights before\ndeath ensued.\n\n\n\n377\n\nWhat additional reason was there for having the bodies taken down?\n\nMark: \"Because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the\nSabbath\" (xv, 42).\n\nThe Sabbath began at sunset on the day that he is declared to have\nbeen crucified. The Jewish law would not permit his body, whether dead\nor alive, to be exposed on the Sabbath. Crucifixion, as we have seen,\nwas a lingering death; several days usually elapsing before the victim\nexpired. Now, is it reasonable to suppose that the Jews would demand,\nas claimed, a punishment lasting several days when they knew that he\nmust be taken down from the cross in a few hours?\n\n\n\n378\n\nWhat did Pilate do when Joseph solicited the body of Jesus?\n\nMark: \"Pilate marveled if he were already dead\" (xv, 44).\n\nWhy should Pilate marvel if he were already dead when previous to this,\naccording to John (xix, 31-33), he had, at the request of the Jews,\nordered his soldiers to dispatch him if alive and take his body away?\n\n\n\n379\n\nWere the disciples present at the crucifixion?\n\nJohn: They were, or one, at least (xix, 26).\n\nAccording to the Synoptics, all were absent; all had forsaken their\nMaster, all had fled. The Twelve Apostles at this time, unless Judas\nhad already hung himself, as Matthew declares, numbered one traitor\nand eleven cowards.\n\n\n\n380\n\nWhat women followed Jesus and witnessed his execution?\n\nMatthew and Mark: Women of Galilee (Matt. xxvii, 55; Mark xv, 40, 41).\n\nLuke: \"Daughters of Jerusalem,\" that is, women of Judea (xxiii, 28).\n\n\n\n381\n\nWhere were Mary Magdalene and her companions during the crucifixion?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"Looking on afar off\" (Mark xv, 40; Matt. xxvii,\n55, 56).\n\nJohn: They \"stood by the cross\" (xix, 25).\n\n\n\n382\n\nWas Mary, the mother of Jesus, present?\n\nJohn: She was (xix, 25).\n\nSynoptics: She was not.\n\nThe Synoptics do not expressly state that she was absent, but if she\nwas present, as John affirms, is it possible that they would ignore\nthe fact when they mention \"the strolling Magdalene\" no less than\nseven times?\n\n\n\n383\n\nWho stood by the cross with the mother of Jesus?\n\nJohn: \"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his\nmother's sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas\" (xix, 25).\n\nMary must have been a very popular name to be given to two daughters\nof the same family. It is not probable that these sisters were both\nnamed Mary. John never mentions the name of Jesus' mother, and it is\nevident that he did not suppose her name was Mary. Were John the only\nGospel, Christians would be ignorant of the Virgin's name. Mariolatry\ndid not originate in the Johannine church.\n\n\n\n384\n\nTo whom was entrusted the care of Jesus' mother?\n\nJohn: \"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing\nby whom he loved [John], he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy\nson! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that\nhour that disciple took her unto his own house\" (xix, 26, 27).\n\n\"The teacher who had been to him as a brother leaves to him a brother's\nduty. He is to be as a son to the mother who is left desolate.\"--Bible\nDictionary.\n\nVery touchingly expressed. But why was this duty imposed upon John\nwhen the Apostle James (the Less) was a brother of Jesus and a son\nof Mary? Was he a worthless ingrate, unable and unwilling to care\nfor her? And what of Joses, and Juda, and Simon, and her daughters\nwho remained at home? Had they turned their mother out of doors?\n\n\n\n385\n\nIn whose sepulcher was the body of Jesus placed?\n\nMatthew: Joseph \"laid it in his own new tomb which he had hewn out\nin the rock\" (xxvii, 60).\n\nJohn: \"Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and\nin the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was never man yet laid. There\nlaid they Jesus therefore because of the Jew's preparation day;\nfor the sepulcher was nigh at hand\" (xix, 41, 42).\n\nIt is evident from John that the sepulcher did not belong to Joseph,\nbut that it was one which happened to be convenient to the place of\ncrucifixion; for, as Strauss justly argues: \"The vicinity of the grave,\nwhen alleged as a motive, excludes the fact of possession.\"\n\n\n\n386\n\nWas his body embalmed when it was laid in the sepulcher?\n\nJohn: It was. \"He [Joseph] came therefore, and took the body of\nJesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to\nJesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an\nhundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it\nin linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury\"\n(xix, 38-40).\n\nMark and Luke: It was not embalmed. \"The women also, which came with\nhim from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his\nbody was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments\"\n(Luke xxiii, 55, 56); intending to embalm it \"when the Sabbath was\npast\" (Mark xvi, 1).\n\n\n\n387\n\nWhat is said in regard to wrapping the body of Jesus by Joseph?\n\nMark: \"He bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in\nthe linen\" (xv, 46).\n\nThis statement is rejected by critics. A member of the Sanhedrim\nwould not desecrate the Passover by making a purchase on it.\n\n\n\n388\n\nWhat was the amount of the material used in embalming Jesus?\n\nJohn: A hundred pounds (xix, 39).\n\nThis was sufficient to embalm a dozen bodies. Yet after seeing\nhis body literally buried in the material, the women, we are told,\nprocured more.\n\n\n\n389\n\nWhen did the women procure materials for embalming Jesus?\n\nLuke: \"They returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested\nthe Sabbath Day\" (xxiii, 56).\n\nMark (New Ver.): \"And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and\nMary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices that they might\ncome and anoint him\" (xvi, 1).\n\nAccording to Luke they prepared the spices before the Sabbath began,\nthat is, before the end of the sixth day; according to Mark, they\ndid not procure them until \"the Sabbath was past,\" that is, not until\nthe beginning of the first day.\n\n\n\n390\n\nWhen did they go to embalm the body?\n\nMark and Luke: \"When the Sabbath was past, ... the first day of the\nweek\" (Mark xvi, 1, 2; Luke xxiv, 1).\n\nIs it reasonable to suppose that in that warm spring climate\n(Dr. Geikie speaks of the fierce heat that prevailed at the time),\nthey would let a wounded body lie two days, until decomposition had\ncommenced, and then attempt to embalm it?\n\n\n\n391\n\nWhen was the sepulcher closed?\n\nAll: When the body was placed in it (Matt. xxvii, 60; Mark xv, 46;\nLuke xxiii, 53, xxiv, 1, 2; John xix, 41, 42, xx, 1).\n\nAccording to the Evangelists, the stone was rolled to the door of\nthe sepulcher as soon as the body was deposited, and according to\nMark and Luke, the women were troubled as to who should roll away\nthe stone when they went to embalm the body.\n\nIn sepulture of this kind, the tomb was not closed until the third day,\nand when once closed it was not to be opened. This deviation from the\ncustomary mode is evidently for the purpose of establishing faith in\nthe doctrine of the resurrection, by shutting off all means of escape\nor removal without supernatural aid. The Evangelists are particular\nto state that Joseph \"rolled a great stone to the door.\"\n\nIn a single paragraph, Scribner's \"Bible Dictionary\" concedes no less\nthan seven Synoptical errors regarding the trial, crucifixion and\nburial of Jesus: \"The Synoptists make the Sanhedrim say beforehand that\nthey will not arrest Jesus 'on the feast day,' and then actually arrest\nhim on that day; that not only the guards, but one of the disciples\ncarries arms, which on the feast day was not allowed; that the trial\nwas also held on the feast day, which would be unlawful; that the\nfeast day would not be called 'Preparation'; that the phrase 'coming\nfrom the field' (Mk. xv, 21) means properly 'coming from work'; that\nJoseph of Arimathea is represented as buying a linen cloth (Mk. xv,\n46), and the women as preparing spices and ointments (Lk. xxiii, 56),\nall of which would be contrary to law and custom.\"\n\n\n\n392\n\nIn what year was Jesus crucified?\n\nNot one of the Evangelists knows. They agree that he was crucified\nduring the time that Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea, and Joseph\nCaiaphas was high priest of the Jews. But this, so far as Matthew,\nMark and John are concerned, may have been any time from 26 to 36 A. D.\n\nLuke, while he does not state the particular year, nor furnish data\nfor determining it, is more definite. He says that Jesus began his\nministry in \"the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,\"\nand his narrative clearly implies that he was crucified at the\nfollowing Passover. Tiberius commenced his reign in August, 14\nA. D. The fifteenth year of his reign, then, extended from August,\n28 A. D., to August, 29 A. D. If Jesus began his ministry during the\nfirst months of this year, he might have been crucified as early as\nthe spring of 29. But it is generally conceded that the time which\nthis would allow for his ministry was far too brief, and that he\ncould not have been crucified before 30 A. D.\n\nThe Christian Fathers who, for the most part, accepted the tradition\nof Luke and affirmed that his ministry lasted but one year, or less,\nheld that the crucifixion occurred in 29 A. D.\n\nScribner's \"Bible Dictionary\" gives preference to 29 A. D. Cuthbert\nHamilton Turner, M.A., Oxford, the New Testament chronologist of\nthat work, after a lengthy review of the subject, says: \"To sum up\nbriefly, the separate results of five lines of enquiry harmonize with\none another beyond expectation, so that each in turn supplies fresh\nsecurity for the rest. The nativity in B. C. 7-6; the age of our\nLord at the baptism, 30 years, more or less; the baptism in A. D. 26\n(26-27); the duration of the ministry between two and three years;\nthe crucifixion in A. D. 29.\"\n\nThis authority states that his ministry lasted two or three years. It\nwas necessary to do this or reject John. By taking a year or more from\nJohn's ministry of Jesus and adding it to the one year ministry of the\nSynoptics--by assuming that the Synoptics omit to mention one or more\nPassovers, and that one of the Passovers mentioned by John was some\nother feast--it pretends to have reconciled the discrepancy regarding\nthe length of Christ's ministry. But if his ministry lasted two or\nthree years, as affirmed, he could not have been crucified in 29 A. D.\n\nWith orthodox commentators, a favorite method of reconciling Old\nTestament dates, as I have noted in a previous work, is to assume that\na king, concerning the date of whose accession, or length of reign,\na discrepancy appears, reigned in consort with his predecessor for a\nnumber of years sufficient to cover the discrepancy. This dishonest\nmethod of explanation--for it is a dishonest trick, intended to\ndeceive the reader and hide from him an error--has been employed\nto reconcile Luke and John. By assuming that Tiberius divided the\ngovernment with Augustus for two years preceding his accession to\nthe throne, an assumption for which there is no credible authority,\nand that Luke accordingly reckons the fifteenth year from 12 A. D.,\ninstead of 14 A. D., when he really became emperor, it is possible\nto give Jesus a ministry of two or three years and still have\nhim crucified in 29 A. D. But another irreconcilable difficulty\nremains. The Synoptics state that he was crucified on the Passover\nand on the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, on Friday. If so,\nhe could not have been crucified in 29 A. D., for the Passover did\nnot fall on Friday that year.\n\nDr. Farrar says it is \"highly probable that the crucifixion took\nplace at the passover of March, 30 A. D.\"\n\nJustice Bradley of the United States Supreme Court, who made an\nexhaustive examination of all the evidence and arguments bearing on\nthe question, decided in favor of 30 A. D. He says: \"There were only\nthree years from A. D. 27 to A. D. 36, inclusive, in which the 1st\nof Nisan, and consequently the 15th of Nisan, happened on Friday, and\nthese were A. D. 27, 30 and 33, the last of which is very doubtful. But\nthe crucifixion could not have happened before A. D. 28, and probably\nnot later than A. D. 31. Therefore the year 30 is the only one which\nsatisfies all the conditions of the problem.... Now, since in A. D. 30,\nthe 1st of Nisan fell on Friday, the 24th of March, the 15th fell on\nFriday, the 7th of April, which was the day of the crucifixion.\"\n\nDr. Farrar and Justice Bradley are agreed in regard to the year of\nthe crucifixion, but they are not agreed in regard to the calendar\nmonth in which it occurred. Dr. Farrar says it occurred in March;\nJustice Bradley says it occurred in April.\n\nJustice Bradley says that 30 A. D. satisfies all the conditions. It\ndoes satisfy the conditions of the Synoptics, but it does not satisfy\nthe conditions of John, as claimed. To satisfy the conditions of John\nit is necessary to adopt the untenable hypothesis of 12 A. D. as\nthe date of Tiberius Caesar's accession. But whatever satisfies\nthe conditions of John must necessarily conflict with those of the\nSynoptics.\n\nSome Christian scholars place the crucifixion in 31 A. D., others in 32\nA. D. But neither year can be harmonized with the Synoptics' statement\nthat he was put to death on the Passover, or with John's that he\nsuffered on the day of Preparation. Neither can they be harmonized with\neither the Synoptics or John in regard to the duration of his ministry.\n\nIt is probable that a majority of Christian scholars today believe\nthat Jesus was crucified in 33. Renan accepted this date. He says:\n\"According to the calculation we adopt, the death of Jesus happened in\nthe year 33 of our era. It could not, at all events, be either before\nthe year 29, the preaching of John and Jesus having commenced in the\nyear 28, or after 35, since in the year 36, and probably before the\nPassover, Pilate and Kaiapha both lost their offices.\"\n\nThe adoption of 33 allows for the four years' ministry ascribed to\nJesus by John, but it cannot be reconciled with the brief ministry\nascribed to him by the Synoptics. As for Renan, who in the first\nedition of his \"Jesus\" accepted the authenticity of John, but\nsubsequently rejected it and accepted only the Synoptics, he has no\nEvangelistic authority for 33.\n\nThe Dutch theologians, Kuenen, Oort and Hooykaas, and many other\nRationalists, give 35 A. D. the preference. To accept this year,\nhowever, it is necessary to reject the Passover crucifixion, and to\nassign to Jesus a much longer ministry than even John assigns.\n\nOf one hundred Christian authorities who attempt to name the year in\nwhich Christ was crucified, twenty-three say 29, eighteen 30, nine 31,\nseven 32, thirty-seven 33, and six 35 A. D.\n\nThus it will be seen that not a year that can be named can be\nharmonized with the accounts of the crucifixion given in the four\ngospels. The result is that there is as great a lack of agreement\nin regard to the time of Christ's death as there is in regard to the\ntime of his birth. Christians do not know when he was born, they do\nnot know when he died, they cannot prove that he lived.\n\n\n\n393\n\nOn what day of the month was he crucified?\n\nSynoptics: On the 15th of Nisan.\n\nJohn: On the 14th of Nisan.\n\nThis discrepancy is conceded by Scribner's \"Bible Dictionary.\" It says:\n\n\"It is the Last Supper which the Synoptics appear to fix by identifying\nit with the Passover. They say expressly that on the morning of the\n'first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover'\n(Mk. xiv, 12), the disciples asked where the Passover was to be\neaten. This would be on the morning of Nisan 14. In the evening,\nwhich from twilight onwards would belong to Nisan 15, would follow\nthe Last Supper, and on the next afternoon (still, on the Jewish\nreckoning, Nisan 15) the crucifixion. St. John, on the other hand, by\na number of clear indications (John xiii, 1, xviii, 28, xix, 14, 31)\nimplies that the Last Supper was eaten before the time of the regular\nPassover, and that the Lord suffered on the afternoon of Nisan 14,\nabout the time of the slaying of the Paschal lamb. We are thus left\nwith a conflict of testimony.\"\n\n\n\n394\n\nOn what day of the week was he crucified?\n\nSynoptics: On Friday.\n\nJohn: On Thursday.\n\nThe Synoptics agree that he was crucified on the day following the\nPreparation, that is, on the day of the Passover, and the day preceding\nthe Sabbath. As the Jewish Sabbath fell on Saturday, he was, therefore,\ncrucified on Friday.\n\nJohn repeatedly declares that his trial and crucifixion occurred on\n\"the preparation of the passover.\" If the Passover occurred on Friday,\nas the Synoptics state, he was crucified on the preceding day, or\nThursday. It is claimed by some, though the claim is disputed, that\nthe Synoptics are in error, that the Passover was never held on Friday.\n\n\n\n395\n\nOn what day of the feast did the crucifixion occur?\n\nSynoptics: On the Passover.\n\nJohn: On the day of Preparation.\n\nIt is expressly stated in the Synoptics that he celebrated the\nPassover before his death. \"Then came the day of unleavened bread,\nwhen the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying,\nGo and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.... And they made\nready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the\ntwelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have\ndesired to eat this passover with you before I suffer\" (Luke xxii,\n7-15; Matt. xxvi, 17-20; Mark xiv, 12-18).\n\nThe author of the Fourth Gospel declares that the Last Supper was not\nthe Paschal meal, and that Jesus was crucified on the day preceding\nthe Passover, that is, on the day of Preparation. He refers to the\nevents connected with the Last Supper as having taken place \"before\nthe passover\" (xiii, 1); after supper, when Jesus bade Judas do quickly\nwhat he proposed to do, he states that the disciples \"thought because\nJudas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that\nwe have need of against the feast\" (xiii, 29); at the trial, he says,\nthe Jews \"themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they might\nbe defiled, but that they might eat the passover\" (xviii, 28); when\nPilate is about to deliver him up to be crucified, he even goes out\nof the way to repeat that \"It was the preparation of the passover\"\n(xix, 14).\n\nThis discrepancy is not, like many other Bible discrepancies, an\nunintentional error. It represents a conflict between two dogmas. The\nprimitive church was rent with dissensions regarding this question,\nsome contending that Christ suffered on the 14th Nisan, others that\nit was on the 15th. During the second century--the century in which\nour gospels appeared--this controversy was especially bitter.\n\nAccording to John (i, 29, xix, 33, 36) Jesus was the Paschal Lamb, and\nas such, must be slain on the day of Preparation. The slaying of the\nlambs began at three o'clock in the afternoon, the hour at which Jesus\nis said to have expired. The Synoptics, on the other hand, in order to\nenable him to partake of the Paschal meal and institute the Eucharist,\nwhich is a survival and perpetuation of the Passover, must prolong\nhis existence until after this meal, and consequently his crucifixion\ncannot take place until the following day. It was impossible for him\nto be the Paschal Lamb and at the same time partake of the Paschal\nmeal. This necessarily produced a schism. The Fourth Gospel was written\nin support of the one side, the Synoptics in support of the other.\n\nIt is declared by the most eminent fathers of the second century\nthat the Apostle John, whom some of them had known, was accustomed\nto observe the Paschal meal. This is another argument against the\nJohannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel.\n\nReferring to the Lord's Supper, as recorded in John, the \"Bible for\nLearners\" says: \"It was not the Paschal meal. The Passover did not\nbegin until the following evening; for he himself who was the true\nPaschal Lamb, and as such made an end of all sacrifices, must be\nput to death at the very day and hour ordained for the slaughter of\nthe lamb--not twenty-four hours later as the Synoptic Gospels say\"\n(Vol. iii, p. 684).\n\nAdmitting the discrepancy, but without determining which is correct,\nSmith's \"Bible Dictionary\" says: \"The crowning application of the\nPaschal rites to the truths of which they were the shadowy promises\nappears to be that which is afforded by the fact that our Lord's\ndeath occurred during the festival. According to the Divine purpose,\nthe true Lamb of God was slain at nearly the same time as 'the Lord's\nPassover,' in obedience to the letter of the law.\"\n\nIt was not \"according to the Divine purpose\" that Jesus was slain at\nthe Passover, but it was according to a human invention that he is\ndeclared to have been slain at this time. These attempts to connect\nthe crucifixion with the Passover afford the strongest proof that it\nis a myth.\n\n\n\n396\n\nWhat led to the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus?\n\nJohn: His miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead. On learning of\nit the Jewish council met, and \"from that day forth they took counsel\ntogether for to put him to death\" (xi, 47, 53).\n\nThis is more difficult to believe than the miracle itself. It is the\nmost improbable statement ever penned--the one that does most violence\nto human reason. The crudest savages on earth would not have slain\nnor even harmed a man who had proved himself the Conqueror and King\nof Death.\n\n\n\n397\n\nWhat did Christ say during his ministry concerning the cross?\n\n\"He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy\nof me\" (Matthew x, 38; Luke xiv, 27).\n\n\"Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his\ncross, and follow me\" (Mark viii, 34).\n\n\"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up\nhis cross daily and follow me\" (Luke ix, 23).\n\nThese utterances are alleged to have been made early in his\nministry. Now, the cross as a Christian symbol is supposed to have\nbeen adopted after, and not until after, the crucifixion. Its\nintroduction in the passages quoted suggests one of two things:\neither that the Synoptics put into the mouth of Jesus words that he\nnever uttered, or that the cross, as a religious symbol, was used\nbefore the crucifixion, in which case its adoption by the church is\nno proof of the crucifixion.\n\n\n\n398\n\nThe so-called historical books of the New Testament, the Four Gospels\nand the Acts of the Apostles, declare that Christ was crucified. Do\nthe remaining books of the New Testament confirm it?\n\nIn the first four Pauline Epistles, known as the genuine Epistles\nof Paul, the verb crucify--crucified appears in ten different texts,\nas follows:\n\n\"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body\nof sin might be destroyed\" (Romans vi, 6).\n\n\"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?\" (1 Corinthians,\ni, 13.)\n\n\"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block,\nand unto the Greeks foolishness\" (23).\n\n\"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ,\nand him crucified\" (ii, 2).\n\n\"For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of\nglory\" (8).\n\n\"For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the\npower of God\" (2 Corinthians xiii, 4).\n\n\"I am crucified with Christ\" (Galatians ii, 20).\n\n\"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not\nobey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently\nset forth, crucified among you?\" (iii, 1.)\n\n\"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the\naffections and lusts\" (v, 24).\n\n\"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord\nJesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the\nworld\" (vi, 14).\n\nWebster defines this word as follows: \"1. To nail to a cross; to put to\ndeath by nailing the hands and feet to a cross or gibbet, sometimes,\nanciently, by fastening a criminal to a tree with cords. 2. In\nscriptural language, to subdue; to mortify; to destroy the power or\nruling influence of. 3. To reject and despise. 4. To vex or torment.\"\n\nThe first, only, denotes a physical crucifixion, which, it is claimed,\nChrist suffered. The word, as used by Paul, in most instances, clearly\ndenotes a crucifying of the passions and carnal pleasures, and the\nexceptions, when taken in connection with Paul's well known teachings,\nand allowing for the probable corruption of the original text, do\nnot confirm the Evangelistic accounts of the crucifixion. Besides\nthis it is admitted that Paul did not witness the crucifixion, and\nthat these Epistles, even if authentic, were not written until nearly\nthirty years after it is said to have occurred.\n\nIn the eighteen books which follow, the word crucify appears but\ntwice--in Hebrews (vi, 6) and in Revelation (xi, 8). The word\ncrucifixion does not appear once in the Bible.\n\nConcerning the books we have been considering in this criticism,\nPaine writes as follows: \"Whether the fourteen epistles ascribed to\nPaul were written by him or not, is a matter of indifference; they are\neither argumentative or dogmatical; and as the argument is defective\nand the dogmatical part is merely presumptive, it signifies not who\nwrote them. And the same may be said for the remaining parts of the\nTestament. It is not upon the Epistles, but upon what is called the\nGospel, contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke,\nand John, and upon the pretended prophecies, that the theory of the\nchurch calling itself the Christian Church is founded. The Epistles\nare dependent upon those, and must follow their fate; for if the\nstory of Jesus Christ be fabulous, all reasoning founded upon it as\na supposed truth must fall with it\" (Age of Reason).\n\n\n\n399\n\nHow old was Jesus at the time of his death?\n\nLuke: He was but little more than thirty years old.\n\nJohn: He was nearly fifty. In a controversy with the Jews, during\nhis ministry, he said: \"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:\nand he saw, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art\nnot yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?\" (viii, 56,\n57.) This implies that he was nearly fifty at this time.\n\nDiscussing the question of Jesus' age, St. Irenaeus, the most renowned\nof the early Christian Fathers, and the founder of the New Testament\ncanon, who lived in the century immediately following Jesus, says:\n\n\"He [Christ] came to save all through means of himself--all I say,\nwho through him are born again to God--infants and children, and\nboys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age;\nbecoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child\nfor children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at\nthe same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness and\nsubmission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and\nthus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise, he was an old man\nfor old men, that he might be a perfect master for all; not merely\nas respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age;\nsanctifying at the same time, the aged also, and becoming an example\nto them likewise. Then, at last, he came on to death itself, that he\nmight be the first born from the dead, that in all things he might\nhave the pre-eminence; the Prince of Life, existing before all,\nand going before all\" (Against Heresies, Book iv, ch. xxii, sec. 4).\n\nCommenting on the passage quoted from John, Irenaeus says: \"But besides\nthis, those very Jews who thus disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ,\nhave most closely indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said\nto them, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it,\nand was glad;' they answered him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old;\nand hast thou seen Abraham?' Now, such language is fittingly applied\nto one who has already passed the age of forty, without having yet\nreached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But\nto one who is only thirty years old, it would unquestionably be said,\n'Thou art not yet forty years old.' For those who wished to convict\nhim of falsehood, would certainly not extend the number of his years\nfar beyond the age which they saw he had attained.... It is altogether\nunreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when\nthey wished to prove him younger than the times of Abraham.... He\ndid not then want much of being fifty years old\" (Ibid. sec. 6).\n\nNor did Irenaeus depend upon the Fourth Gospel alone for his\nauthority. He was the companion of the aged Polycarp, whom Christians\nclaim to have been the companion of the Apostle John. Concerning\nthe testimony of Polycarp and others, he writes: \"Those who were\nconversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [testify]\nthat John conveyed to them that information. And he (John) remained\namong them up to the times of Tragan. Some of them, moreover, saw not\nonly John, but the other apostles also, and heard the same account\nfrom them, and bear testimony to the statement\" (Ib., sec. 5).\n\nIn regard to this testimony of the \"divine Irenaeus,\" as he is called,\nGodfrey Higgins says: \"The church has been guilty of the oversight of\nletting this passage from Irenaeus escape. One of the earliest, most\nrespected, and most quoted of its ancient bishops, saints and martyrs,\ntells us in distinct words that Jesus was not crucified under Herod\nand Pontius Pilate, but that he lived to be turned fifty years of\nage. This he tells us on the authority of his master, St. Polycarp,\nalso a martyr, who had it from St. John himself, and from all the\nold people of Asia\" (Anacalypsis).\n\nOf this testimony and its consequences, Judge Waite, in his \"History of\nChristianity\" (pp. 329, 330) says: \"It must be remembered that Irenaeus\nhad been a companion of Polycarp and others who had seen John, and\nthat he was speaking of what had come to his personal knowledge from\nthe elders in Asia. If, then, Irenaeus tells the truth, the evidence\nin favor of the fact is almost overwhelming. If, on the other hand,\nhe would deliberately falsify in a matter of this importance, what is\nhis testimony worth as to the origin of the four gospels? Against this\nevidence, we have only the silence of the gospels. But if the silence\nof the Synoptics is consistent with a ministry of three or four years,\nwhy is not the further silence of all the gospels consistent with a\nministry of twenty years?\n\n\"How would such a theory affect the received chronology concerning\nChrist? The date of the crucifixion at not later than A. D. 36,\nor when Christ was, by the received chronology, forty years old, is\nsettled by the fact, that in that year, Pontius Pilate was removed\nfrom his government.... If, then, it be accepted as a historical fact\nthat Christ was about fifty years old at this crucifixion, the date\nof his birth would have to be set back at least ten years.\"\n\nEvery line of these accounts of the trial and crucifixion of Christ\nbears the ineffaceable stamp of fiction. There was no Christ to\ncrucify, and Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed, was not crucified\nas claimed.\n\nFor more than fifteen centuries an inoffensive, industrious and moral\npeople have been persecuted, robbed and butchered by Christians,\nbecause their forefathers are said to have slain a mythical God.\n\nSupposing that from the myth of Prometheus had sprung a popular\nreligion, which, in its day, had, like the religions of Osiris,\nBacchus, Krishna and Christ, overspread the earth. Then think of\nthe devotees of this religion massacring the Hellenists because Zeus\nhad crucified Prometheus! How long must our mythology, with all its\nattendant evils, rule and curse the world? How long must an innocent\npeople suffer for an alleged crime that was never committed?\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.\n\n\n400\n\nHow long did Jesus say he would remain in the grave?\n\n\"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;\nso shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart\nof the earth\" (Matthew xii, 40).\n\nHow long did he remain in the grave?\n\nSynoptics: Being buried on Friday evening, and having risen on or\nbefore Sunday morning, he was in the grave, at the most, but two\nnights and one day.\n\n\n\n401\n\nWhat occurred on the morning of the resurrection?\n\nMatthew: \"There was a great earthquake\" (xxviii, 2).\n\nThe other Evangelists know nothing of this earthquake. They not\nonly omit it, but their accounts of the resurrection preclude the\npossibility of its occurrence.\n\n\n\n402\n\nWho were the first to visit the tomb on the morning of the\nresurrection?\n\nJohn: \"Mary Magdalene\" (xx, 1).\n\nMatthew: \"Mary Magdalene and the other Mary\" (xxviii, 1).\n\nMark: \"Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome\"\n(xvi, 1, 2).\n\nLuke: \"Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James,\nand other women\" (xxiv, 1-10).\n\n\n\n403\n\nWho was Salome?\n\n\"The wife of Zebedee, as appears from comparing Matt. xxvii, 56,\nwith Mark xv, 40.\"--Smith's Bible Dictionary.\n\nMatthew says that the women who witnessed the crucifixion were \"Mary\nMagdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of\nZebedee's children.\" Mark says the women were \"Mary Magdalene, and\nMary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.\" This is a\ndiscrepancy that can be reconciled only by supposing that the mother\nof Zebedee's children (James and John) was Salome. But the Gospel\nof the Egyptians, older than either Matthew or Mark, and accepted by\nearly Christians as authentic, states that Salome was a single woman.\n\n\n\n404\n\nAt what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?\n\nMark: \"At the rising of the sun\" (xvi, 2).\n\nJohn: \"When it was yet dark\" (xx, 1).\n\nIf they came \"at the rising of the sun,\" or \"when the sun was risen\"\n(New Ver.), it was not yet dark.\n\n\n\n405\n\nWhen does Matthew say they came?\n\n\"In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day\nof the week\" (xxviii, 1).\n\nIf they came \"in the end of the Sabbath,\" and Jesus had already risen,\nthen his resurrection took place, not on the first day of the week, as\nclaimed, but on the seventh day. Matthew was a Jew; yet the author of\nthis Gospel was seemingly ignorant of the Jewish method of computing\ntime, according to which the Sabbath began and ended at sunset. He\nevidently supposed that the night preceding their visit to the tomb\nbelonged to the seventh day, whereas it belonged to the first day.\n\n\n\n406\n\nWas the tomb open, or closed, when they came?\n\nLuke: \"They found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre\" (xxiv, 2).\n\nMatthew: The tomb was closed. The stone was not rolled from the door\nuntil after they came (xxviii, 1, 2).\n\nThis, in the opinion of most critics, is the meaning of Matthew's\nlanguage.\n\n\n\n407\n\nWhom did they meet at the tomb?\n\nMatthew: \"The angel\" (xxviii, 2-5).\n\nMark: \"A young man\" (xvi, 5).\n\nLuke: \"Two men\" (xxiv, 4).\n\nJohn: \"Two angels\" (xx, 12).\n\n\n\n408\n\nWere these men or angels in the sepulchre or outside of it?\n\nMatthew: Outside of it (xxviii, 2).\n\nMark, Luke and John: Inside of it (Mark xvi, 5; Luke xxiv, 3, 4;\nJohn xx, 11, 12).\n\n\n\n409\n\nWere they sitting or standing?\n\nLuke: Standing (xxiv, 4).\n\nMatthew, Mark and John: Sitting (Matt. xxviii, 2; Mark xvi, 1; John\nxx, 12).\n\n\n\n410\n\nWhat were the first words they spoke to the women?\n\nMatthew and Mark: \"Be not affrighted\" (Mark xvi, 6; Matt. xxviii, 5).\n\nLuke: \"Why seek ye the living among the dead?\" (xxiv, 5.)\n\nJohn: \"Woman, why weepest thou?\" (xx, 13.)\n\n\n\n411\n\nDid Mary Magdalene observe the divine messengers when she first came\nto the tomb?\n\nSynoptics: She did (Matt. xxviii, 1-5; Mark xvi, 1-5; Luke xxiv, 1-4).\n\nJohn: She did not (xx, 1, 2, 11, 12).\n\n\n\n412\n\nWho became frightened at the messengers?\n\nMatthew: \"The keepers did shake, and became as dead men\" (xxviii, 4).\n\nMark and Luke: \"They [the women] were affrighted\" (Mark xvi, 5;\nLuke xxiv, 5).\n\n\n\n413\n\nWhat did the women do when they became frightened?\n\nMark: \"They went out quickly and fled\" (xvi, 8).\n\nLuke: \"They bowed down their faces to the earth\" (xxiv, 5).\n\n\n\n414\n\nDid the women see Jesus?\n\nMatthew: They did. \"As they went to tell his disciples, behold,\nJesus met them\" (xxviii, 9).\n\nLuke: They did not see him (xxiv).\n\n\n\n415\n\nDid the women tell the disciples what they had seen?\n\nLuke: They \"returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things\nunto the eleven, and to all the rest\" (xxiv, 9).\n\nMark: \"Neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid\"\n(xvi, 8).\n\nWith these words the Gospel of Mark ends, the words that follow being\nan interpolation. In this appended passage Mary Magdalene is declared\nto have seen Jesus and informed them of it, but they \"believed not.\"\n\n\n\n416\n\nHow many disciples visited the tomb?\n\nLuke: But one, Peter (xxiv, 12).\n\nJohn: Two, Peter and John (xx, 3).\n\n\n\n417\n\nWho looked into the sepulchre and beheld the linen clothes?\n\nLuke: \"Then arose Peter, and ran into the sepulchre; and stooping down,\nhe beheld the linen clothes\" (xxiv, 12).\n\nJohn: \"So they ran both together; and the other disciple [John] did\noutrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down,\nand looking in, saw the linen clothes\" (xx, 4, 5).\n\n\n\n418\n\nDid Peter enter into the sepulchre?\n\nJohn: He did. \"Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into\nthe sepulchre\" (xx, 6).\n\nLuke: He did not. He looked into the sepulchre \"and departed\"\n(xxiv, 12).\n\n\n\n419\n\nState all of the appearances of Jesus mentioned by the Evangelists.\n\nMatthew.\n\n1. To the two Marys (xxviii, 9).\n2. To the eleven in Galilee (17).\n\n\nMark.\n\n1. To Mary Magdalene (xvi, 9).\n2. To two of his disciples (12).\n3. To the eleven at meat (14).\n\n\nThe appearances of Jesus mentioned in Mark are all in the apocryphal\nsupplement. The Gospel of Mark proper does not record a single\nappearance of Jesus.\n\n\nLuke.\n\n1. To Cleopas and his companion (xxiv, 13-31).\n2. To Simon (Peter) (34).\n3. To the eleven and others (36).\n\n\nJohn.\n\n1. To Mary Magdalene (xx, 14-18).\n2. To ten (?) disciples (19-24).\n3. To the eleven (26-29).\n4. To Peter, John and others (xxi).\n\n\nThe last chapter of this Gospel which contains the account of his\nfourth appearance, and which ascribes the authorship of the Gospel\nto the \"beloved disciple\" (John), is a forgery.\n\nNo two of the Evangelists agree. No two of them are fully agreed in\nregard to a single appearance. Each not only omits the appearances\nmentioned by the others, but his narrative in nearly every instance\nexcludes them. As Strauss says, \"The designation of the locality in\none excludes the appearances narrated by the rest; the determination\nof time in another leaves no space for the narratives of his\nfellow-evangelists; the enumeration of a third is given without any\nregard to the events reported by his predecessors; lastly, among\nseveral appearances recounted by various narrators, each claims to\nbe the last, and yet has nothing in common with the others. Hence\nnothing but wilful blindness can prevent the perception that no one\nof the narrators knew and presupposed what another records.\"\n\nReferring to the different accounts of the resurrection given by the\nEvangelists, Dr. Westcott says: \"They contain difficulties which it\nis impossible to explain with certainty\" (Introduction to Study of\nGospels, p. 329).\n\nDr. Farrar makes the following admission: \"Any one who will attentively\nread side by side the narratives of these appearances on the first day\nof the resurrection, will see that they have only been preserved for\nus in general, interblended, and scattered notices, which, in strict\nexactness, render it impossible, without many arbitrary suppositions,\nto produce from them a certain narrative of the order of events. The\nlacunae, the compressions, the variations, the actual differences,\nthe subjectivity of the narrators as affected by spiritual revelations,\nrender all harmonies at the best uncertain\" (Life of Christ, vol. ii,\np. 432, note).\n\n\n\n420\n\nState the appearances mentioned by Paul.\n\n\n1. \"He was seen of Cephas.\"\n2. \"Then of the twelve.\"\n3. \"After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once.\"\n4. \"After that he was seen of James.\"\n5. \"Then of all the apostles.\"\n6. \"And last of all he was seen of me also.\"\n\n\nPaul says that his first appearance was to Peter. This contradicts\nall of the Evangelists. His next appearance, Paul declares, was to\nthe twelve. But there were no twelve at this time; for Judas had\ndeserted them and his successor had not been elected. Paul evidently\nknew nothing of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. He says Jesus was seen\nby five hundred brethren at once. The Evangelists are all ignorant\nof this appearance, while the author of Acts states that there were\nbut one hundred and twenty \"brethren\" in all, and even this number is\nconsidered too large by critics. He says that he appeared to James,\nan appearance of which the Evangelists know nothing. After this\nhe states that he was seen of all the apostles. This is the only\nappearance mentioned by Paul which can be reconciled with any of the\nEvangelists, and this cannot be reconciled with all of them.\n\n\"Last of all he was seen of me also.\" Paul's belief in the resurrection\nwas based solely upon Jesus' supposed appearance to him; for the other\nalleged appearances he had rejected. Not until he imagined that he\nhad seen Jesus did he believe that the disciples had seen him, and\nthe appearance of Jesus to him, which occurred several years after the\nresurrection and ascension, is represented as an occurrence of exactly\nthe same character as his appearances to the disciples. Paul's vision\nwas clearly a delusion, and if so the other appearances, measured by\nPaul's criterion, were delusions also. The Rev. John W. Chadwick truly\nsays: \"Paul's witness to the resurrection is the ruin of the argument.\"\n\n\n\n421\n\nTo whom did Jesus first appear?\n\nMatthew: To Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (xxviii, 1, 9).\n\nMark and John: To Mary Magdalene alone (Mark xvi, 9; John xx, 14-18).\n\nLuke: To Cleopas and his companion (xxiv, 13-31).\n\nPaul: To Cephas (Peter) (1 Cor. xv, 5).\n\n\n\n422\n\nWhere was Mary Magdalene when Jesus first appeared to her?\n\nJohn: At the sepulchre (xx, 11-14).\n\nMatthew: On her way home from the sepulchre (xxviii, 8, 9).\n\n\n\n423\n\nDid Mary know Jesus when he first appeared to her?\n\nMatthew: She did (xxviii, 9).\n\nJohn: \"She ... knew not that it was Jesus\" (xx, 14).\n\n\n\n424\n\nWas she permitted to touch him?\n\nMatthew: \"They [Mary Magdalene and her companion] came and held him\nby the feet\" (xxviii, 9).\n\nJohn: \"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not\" (xx, 17).\n\n\n\n425\n\nWhere did he appear to his disciples?\n\nMatthew: In Galilee.\n\nLuke: In Jerusalem.\n\nMatthew says that when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary visited the\ntomb an angel appeared to them and said: \"Go quickly, and tell his\ndisciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before\nyou into Galilee; there shall ye see him\" (xxviii, 7). As they ran\nto convey this intelligence, Jesus himself met them and repeated the\ncommand: \"Go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there\nshall they see me\" (10). \"Then the eleven disciples went away into\nGalilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when\nthey saw him they worshiped him\" (16, 17).\n\nLuke (xxiv, 13-35) states that on the day of the resurrection Jesus\njourneyed to Emmaus, a village some distance from Jerusalem, with\nCleopas and his companion. They did not recognize him until after\ntheir arrival there, when they returned at once to Jerusalem and\ninformed the disciples. \"As they thus spake Jesus himself stood in the\nmidst of them\" (36). He conversed with them for a time, after which\n\"he led them out as far as to Bethany\" where he took his final leave\nof them and ascended to heaven (38-51). Instead of bidding them go\nto Galilee, a three days journey from Jerusalem, as Matthew states,\nhis command was \"Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued\nwith power from on high,\" which, according to Acts (ii, 1-13), was\nnot until the day of Pentecost, seven weeks later.\n\nMatthew's narrative forbids the supposition of any meeting in Judea,\nwhile Luke's precludes the possibility of a meeting in Galilee.\n\nRegarding this discrepancy Dean Alford says: \"We must be content to\nwalk by faith, and not by sight\" (Greek Testament, p. 905).\n\n\n\n426\n\nHow far from Jerusalem was Emmaus, where Jesus made his first\nappearance?\n\nLuke: \"Which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs\" (xxiv, 13).\n\nThreescore furlongs was seven and one-half Roman, or about seven\nAmerican miles. Emmaus of Judea was about twenty-five miles, or two\nhundred furlongs from Jerusalem. There was an Emmaus in Galilee,\nabout seventy miles from Jerusalem. It is believed by some that the\nlegend related to the latter place and was subsequently transferred\nby Luke to Judea.\n\n\n\n427\n\nHow many disciples were present when he first appeared to them?\n\nMatthew and Luke: Eleven (Matt. xxviii, 16, 17; Luke xxiv, 33-36).\n\nJohn: But ten, Thomas being absent (xx, 19-24).\n\nPaul: Twelve (1 Cor. xv, 5).\n\n\n\n428\n\nWhat effect had his presence when he first appeared to them?\n\nLuke: \"They were terrified and affrighted\" (xxiv, 36, 37).\n\nJohn: \"Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord\" (xx, 20).\n\n\n\n429\n\nHow many of the disciples doubted the reality of his appearance?\n\nMatthew: \"Some doubted\" (xxviii, 17).\n\nJohn: But one doubted--Thomas (xx, 24, 25).\n\n\n\n430\n\nWere they all finally convinced of his resurrection?\n\nJohn: They were.\n\nMatthew: They were not.\n\n\n\n431\n\nWhen he appeared to them did they know that he must rise from the dead?\n\nJohn: \"For as yet they knew not that he must rise from the dead\"\n(xx, 9).\n\nThis cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics, who state that during his\nministry he had acquainted them with it. \"From that time forth began\nJesus to shew unto his disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem,\nand suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes,\nand be killed, and be raised again the third day\" (Matthew xvi, 21;\nMark viii, 31; Luke ix, 22).\n\n\n\n432\n\nPaul says that the last appearance of Jesus was to him. What did his\ncompanions do when they saw the light which attended the appearance?\n\nActs: \"The men which journeyed with him stood speechless\" (ix, 7).\n\nPaul: \"We were all fallen to the earth\" (Acts xxvi, 14).\n\n\n\n433\n\nDid Paul's companions see Jesus?\n\nActs: They did not. \"The men which journeyed with him stood speechless,\nhearing a voice, but seeing no man\" (ix, 7).\n\nThis shows that Jesus' alleged appearance to Paul was an imaginary\nand not a real appearance.\n\n\n\n434\n\nThe author of Acts says that his companions heard a voice. Is this\ntrue?\n\nPaul: \"They that were with me ... heard not the voice\" (Acts xxii, 9).\n\n\n\n435\n\nWas Jesus seen by woman after his resurrection?\n\nMatthew, Mark and John: He was.\n\nLuke and Paul: He was not.\n\nAccording to Luke and Paul his most faithful followers were not honored\nby a visit from their Lord, but were neglected and ignored. The\nresurrection was not for woman. Nowhere is sex prejudice more\nconspicuous than in the accounts of the resurrection written by Paul\nand the Pauline Evangelist. To ignore the testimony of Mary Magdalene\nis to ignore the testimony of the chief witness for the resurrection.\n\n\n\n436\n\nFrom where did Jesus rise?\n\nAll: From the dead. \"He is risen from the dead\" (Matt. xxviii, 7). \"It\nbehooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead\" (Luke xxiv,\n46). \"He was risen from the dead\" (John xxi, 14).\n\nAccording to the Evangelists Jesus rose, not from the grave--not\nfrom the place where the bodies of the dead were deposited--but from\nthe lower world--from the realm of the dead--where the shades of the\ndeparted were supposed to repose. Regarding this Dr. Hooykaas says:\n\n\"Let us begin by considering what that word 'resurrection' really\nmeant, whether applied to Jesus or to others. Later representations,\ndown to our own times, have regarded it as equivalent to a rising\nfrom the grave; but the question is, what it meant in the faith\nand preaching of the Apostles, in the genuine, original, primitive\ntradition that Jesus had risen. Now, 'resurrection' means elsewhere\na return from the realm of shades to the human life on earth; and\nJesus too had left the underworld, but not, in this case, to return\nat once to life upon the earth, but to be taken up provisionally\ninto heaven. Originally the resurrection and ascension of Jesus were\none. It was only later that the conception sprang up of his having\npaused upon earth, whether for a single day or for several weeks,\non his journey from the abyss to the height.\n\n\"We may, therefore, safely assert that if the friends of Jesus had\nthought as we do of the lot of those that die, they would never have\nso much as dreamed of their Master's resurrection or ascension. For\nto the Christian belief of today it would be, so to speak, a matter\nof course that Jesus, like all good and noble souls--and indeed above\nall others--would go straight 'to a better world,' 'to heaven,' 'to\nGod,' at the instant of his death; but in the conception of the Jews,\nincluding the Apostles, this was impossible. Heaven was the abode\nof the Lord and his angels only; and if an Enoch or an Elijah had\nbeen caught up there alive, to dwell there for a time, it was certain\nthat all who died, without exception, even the purest and most holy,\nmust go down as shades into the realms of the dead in the bowels of\nthe earth--and thence, of course, they would not issue excepting by\n'rising again.' And this is why we are never told that Jesus rose\n'from death,' far less 'from the grave,' but always 'from the dead'\"\n(Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 463).\n\n\n\n437\n\nWas he readily recognized by his friends?\n\nMatthew, Luke and John: He was not.\n\nMatthew says that when his disciples met him in Galilee, after having\ngone there for the express purpose of meeting him, \"some doubted\"\n(xxviii, 17). Luke says that two of his friends journeyed with\nhim from Jerusalem to Emmaus, conversing with him on the way, and\nnotwithstanding they had been informed of his resurrection, they did\nnot recognize him until after they had reached the village. John says\nthat when Mary Magdalene met him she \"knew not that it was Jesus,\n... supposing him to be the gardener\" (xx, 14, 15); and when he met\nhis disciples at the Lake of Tiberius they \"knew not that it was Jesus\"\n(xxi, 4).\n\n\n\n438\n\nDid his appearances indicate a corporeal, or merely a spiritual\nexistence?\n\nThe Evangelists declare that he was not only seen by his disciples and\nothers, but that he conversed with them. Matthew says the two Marys\nheld him by the feet, Luke says he invited the disciples to handle\nhim, and John says that Thomas examined his wounds; while both Luke\nand John state that he partook of nourishment.\n\nOn the other hand, Luke says that while he sat at meat with Cleopas\nand his companion at Emmaus \"He vanished out of their sight\" (xxiv,\n31). John says that while the disciples were assembled in a room\nin Jerusalem, \"when the doors were shut,\" Jesus came \"and stood in\nthe midst\" (xx, 19). Eight days later the appearance was repeated:\n\"Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst\"\n(26). Mark says that after he appeared to Mary Magdalene \"he appeared\nin another form\" to two of his disciples (xvi, 12).\n\nWhile the first named appearances can be reconciled with so-called\nspiritual manifestations, the latter cannot be reconciled with a\ncorporeal existence.\n\nIn the preceding chapter we have shown that the alleged crucifixion\nof Jesus is unworthy of belief. If he was not crucified the story of\nhis resurrection is, of course, a fiction. But conceding, for the sake\nof argument, that he was crucified; does this make his resurrection\nprobable, or even possible? The crucifixion of a man is a possible\noccurrence; but the corporeal resurrection of a man who has suffered\ndeath is impossible. These reputed appearances of Jesus, if they have\na historical foundation, were evidently mere subjective impressions\nor apparitions. Although he is declared to have remained on earth\nforty days, he made, at the most, but two or three brief visits to\nhis disciples, appearing and disappearing like a phantom. Instead of\nabiding with them, teaching them the doctrines of his religion--of\nwhich they professed to be ignorant--and preparing them for their\ncoming ministry he is represented as keeping in seclusion, or\nroaming aimlessly along the country highways, like some demented\ncreature. Referring to his appearance to his disciples, Jerome says:\n\"The apostles supposed him to be a spirit, or according to the\nGospel which the Nazarenes receive [the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew]\nan incorporeal demon.\"\n\nThe possibility, and even prevalency, of apparitions similar to those\nrelated of Jesus are recognized by every student of psychology. Sir\nBenjamin Brodie, in his \"Psychological Inquiries\" (p. 78), says:\n\"There are abundant proofs that impressions may be made in the brain\nby other causes simulating those which are made on it by external\nobjects through the medium of the organs of sense, thus producing\nfalse perceptions, which may, in the first instance, and before we\nhave had time to reflect on the subject, be mistaken for realities.\"\n\nThe appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene was not believed even by\nthe disciples. If the disciples believed that Mary was deluded, is it\nunreasonable to believe that they were deluded also? Illusions are\ncontagious and may affect many minds as well as one. Dr. Carpenter,\none of the highest English authorities on mental science, says: \"If not\nonly a single individual, but several persons should be 'possessed'\nby one and the same idea or feeling, the same misinterpretation\nmay be made by all of them; and in such a case the concurrence of\ntheir testimony does not add the least strength to it\" (Principles\nof Mental Physiology, p. 208). In confirmation of this is cited\nthe following from a work on \"The Philosophy of Apparitions,\" by\nDr. Hibbert, F.R.S.E.: \"A whole ship's company was thrown into the\nutmost consternation by the apparition of a cook who had died a few\ndays before. He was distinctly seen walking ahead of the ship, with\na peculiar gait by which he was distinguished when alive, through\nhaving one of his legs shorter than the other. On steering the ship\ntowards the object, it was found to be a piece of floating wreck.\"\n\nThese supposed appearances of Jesus were, at the most, only\napparitions, and \"Apparitions,\" to quote Dr. Hibbert again, \"are\nnothing more than morbid symptoms, which are indicative of an intense\nexcitement of the renovated feelings of the mind\" (Philosophy of\nApparitions, p. 375).\n\nLord Amberley advances a psychological explanation of the reputed\nappearances of Jesus from which I quote the following: \"Whatever other\nqualities Jesus may have possessed or lacked, there can be no question\nthat he had one--that of inspiring in others a strong attachment to\nhimself. He had in his brief career surrounded himself with devoted\ndisciples; and he was taken from their midst in the full bloom of\nhis powers by a violent and early death. Now there are some who have\nbeen taught by the bitter experience of their lives how difficult,\nnay, how impossible it is to realize in imagination the fact that a\nbeloved companion is in truth gone from them forever.... We fondly\nconceive that in some way the dead must still exist; and if so, can\none, who was so tender before, listen to our cry of pain and refuse\nto come? Can one, who soothed us in the lesser troubles of our lives,\nlook on while we are suffering the greatest agony of all and fail to\ncomfort? It cannot be. Imagination declines to picture the long future\nthat lies before us. We cannot understand that we shall never again\nlisten to the tones of the familiar voice; never feel the touch of\nthe gentle hand; never be encouraged by the warm embrace that tells\nus we are loved, or find a refuge from miserable thoughts and the\nvexations of the world in the affectionate and ever-open heart. All\nthis is too hard for us. We long for a resurrection; we should believe\nin it if we could; we do believe in it in sleep, when our feelings\nare free to roam at pleasure, unrestrained by the chilling presence\nof the material world. In dreams the old life is repeated again and\nagain. Sometimes the lost one is beside us as of old and we are quite\nuntroubled by the thought of parting. Sometimes there is a strange and\nconfusing consciousness that the great calamity has happened, or has\nbeen thought to happen, but that now we are again together, and that\na new life has succeeded upon death.... Granting only a strong emotion\nand a lively phantasy, we may comprehend at once how, in many lands, to\nmany mourners, the images of their dreams may also become the visions\nof their waking hours\" (Analysis of Religious Belief, pp. 275, 276).\n\nRenan says: \"For the historian, the life of Jesus finishes with his\nlast sigh. But such was the impression he had left in the heart of his\ndisciples, and of a few devoted women, that during some weeks more\nit was as if he were living and consoling them. Had his body been\ntaken away, or did enthusiasm, always credulous, create afterwards\nthe group of narratives by which it was sought to establish faith in\nthe resurrection? In the absence of opposing documents this can never\nbe ascertained. Let us say, however, that the strong imagination of\nMary Magdalene played an important part in the circumstance. Divine\npower of love! Sacred moments in which the passion of one possessed\ngave to the world a resuscitated God\" (Life of Jesus, p. 296).\n\n\n\n439\n\nIf Jesus appeared in a material body, was he naked, or clothed?\n\nThis is not a vital, but it is a pertinent question. It is stated that\nhe appeared to Mary Magdalene immediately after the resurrection. Did\nhe appear to her naked, or was he clothed? As she mistook him for\nthe gardener, and as the gardener undoubtedly went clad, it may be\npresumed that Jesus was clad also. If so, where did he procure his\nclothes? His own garments were divided among the soldiers, and his\ngrave clothes were left in the sepulchre. If it be assumed that he\nwas taken from the tomb by his friends, as some critics believe,\nthe difficulty vanishes.\n\n\n\n440\n\nWhat is said of the saints who arose on the day of the crucifixion?\n\nMatthew: They \"came out of the graves after the resurrection, and\nwent into the holy city, and appeared unto many\" (xxvii, 53).\n\nBefore Matthew's wholesale resurrection of the saints the\nresurrection of Jesus pales into insignificance. In the opinion\nof many supernaturalists Matthew has mixed too large a dose of the\nmiraculous for even Christian credulity to swallow, and they would\ngladly omit this portion of it. Regarding this story Dr. Farrar says:\n\"An earthquake shook the earth and split the rocks, and as it rolled\naway from their places the great stones which closed and covered the\ncavern sepulchres of the Jews, so it seemed to the imaginations of\nmany to have disimprisoned the spirits of the dead, and to have filled\nthe air with ghostly visitants, who after Christ had risen appeared\nto linger in the Holy City\" (Life of Christ, vol. ii, p. 419). Dean\nMilman dismisses it in much the same way. Referring to the earthquake,\nhe says: \"The same convulsion would displace the stones which covered\nthe ancient tombs and lay open many of the innumerable rock-hewn\nsepulchres which perforated the hills on every side of the city, and\nexpose the dead to public view. To the awe-struck and depressed minds\nof the followers of Jesus, no doubt, were confined these visionary\nappearances of the spirits of their deceased brethren\" (History of\nChristianity, vol. i, p. 336).\n\nIf the minds of the disciples were so greatly affected that they\nimagined they beheld the resurrected bodies of strangers whom they\nhad never met and of whom they had probably never heard--for they\nwere nearly a hundred miles from the graves of their own kindred--is\nit strange that they should imagine they saw the resurrected Master\nwith whom they had daily associated for months and perhaps years? To\ncharacterize these resurrected saints as \"ghostly visitants\" and\n\"visionary appearances,\" and the resurrected Christ as a real being,\nis a distinction without a scintilla of evidence to support it. Both\nappearances, if they be historical, belong to the same class of mental\nphenomena; and are, indeed, the offspring of the same minds.\n\n\n\n441\n\nWhen did the resurrection take place?\n\nAll: In the night.\n\nWho witnessed it?\n\nAll: No one.\n\nThe author of \"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"The remarkable fact is,\ntherefore, absolutely undeniable, that there was not, and that it is\nnot even pretended that there was, a single eye-witness to the actual\nResurrection. The empty grave, coupled with the supposed subsequent\nappearances of Jesus, is the only evidence of the Resurrection\"\n(p. 1004).\n\n\n\n442\n\nIt is said that a guard was stationed at the tomb. Why was this done?\n\nMatthew: \"The chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,\nsaying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet\nalive, After three days I will rise again. Command, therefore, that\nthe sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples\ncome by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is\nrisen from the dead\" (xxvii, 62-64).\n\nIs it not strange that his enemies should be cognizant of this when\nhis disciples \"knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from\nthe dead?\" (John xx, 9.)\n\nRegarding this the \"Bible for Learners\" says: \"Was such a foolish\nreport really circulated among the Jews? In any case this story,\nwhich is worked out elaborately in the Gospel of Nicodemus, is quite\nabsurd. Is it likely that the enemies of Jesus would have heard a\nprophecy of his rising again when his very friends never dreamed of it\nfor a moment, and when he had never once spoken of his 'resurrection'\nin public?\" (Vol. iii, p. 480.)\n\n\n\n443\n\nOn what day did the Sanhedrim visit Pilate for the purpose of obtaining\na guard?\n\nMatthew: On the Sabbath (xxvii, 62).\n\nMatthew, after describing the death and burial of Jesus, says: \"Now the\nnext day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests\nand Pharisees came together unto Pilate.\" It is generally conceded by\nChristian commentators that by \"the next day\" Matthew refers to the\nSabbath, for if Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday, no other\nday can be meant. To avoid the disagreeable consequences of such an\nadmission a few have contended that by \"the day of preparation\" is\nmeant the Preparation of the Passover. But this renders the passage\nunintelligible. By \"preparation\" Matthew means, not the Preparation of\nthe Passover, but the preparation of the Sabbath. This is made clear\nby the other Synoptics. After relating the events of the crucifixion,\nMark begins his account of the burial with these words: \"And now when\nthe even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day\nbefore the Sabbath\" (xv, 42). Luke, after giving an account of the\ncrucifixion and burial, says: \"And that day was the preparation and\nthe Sabbath drew on\" (xxiii, 54).\n\nIt is claimed by the Evangelists that the Jewish priests of that\nperiod were such rigid observers of the Sabbath that they sought to\nput Jesus to death for simply healing the sick on that day. That the\nSanhedrim desecrated the Sabbath, and especially the Passover Sabbath,\nby visiting and transacting business with a heathen ruler cannot be\naccepted as possible.\n\n\n\n444\n\nWhen was the guard placed at the tomb?\n\nMatthew: Not until the second night.\n\nIt is argued that Jesus must have risen because a guard was placed\nat his tomb so that it was impossible for his disciples to \"come\nby night, and steal him away.\" But had his body really been left in\nthe tomb, as claimed, they would have taken it the first night had\nthey desired it. The passage cited from Matthew in the preceding\ncriticism declares that a guard was not requested of Pilate until\nthe day following the crucifixion, so that the tomb was without a\nguard the first night. The sepulchre was not opened and examined\nwhen the guard was placed there on the following day. \"So they went\nand made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch\"\n(Matt. xxvii, 66). Had the seal been found unbroken at the end of\nthree days it would not have proved that Jesus' body still remained\nin the tomb. It would merely have proved that the body had not been\nremoved after the seal was placed on it.\n\nIt may be urged that Jesus had prophesied that he would not rise until\nthe third day, and that an earlier disappearance of the body could\nnot be harmonized with a strict fulfillment of the prophecy. But of\nthis prophecy the disciples, we have seen, were ignorant.\n\n\n\n445\n\nWhat is said in regard to the opening of the tomb?\n\nMatthew: \"In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the\nfirst day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see\nthe sepulchre. And behold there was a great earthquake; for the angel\nof the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone\nfrom the door, and sat upon it.... And the angel answered and said\nunto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which\nwas crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come,\nsee the place where the Lord lay\" (xxviii, 1-6).\n\nMatthew's story of the guard was evidently inserted for the express\npurpose of establishing a belief in the resurrection by making it\nappear impossible for his friends to have removed the body from the\nsepulchre. Yet this story suggests, if it does not prove, the very\nthing that he attempts to prove impossible. The sepulchre was opened\nin the presence of witnesses--the guards and the women. Jesus did\nnot emerge from it, nor did it contain his body. It was empty when\nopened. This renders probable, if not certain, one of two things:\neither his body was not deposited there, or it was removed before\nthe watch was set.\n\nCommenting on the empty tomb L. K. Washburn says: \"If Jesus got out of\nthe grave alive, he was put into it alive. If he was put into it dead,\nhe was taken out dead. A depopulated sepulchre is not proof that its\nformer tenant has moved to heaven. It is merely proof that somebody\nhas stolen a dead body.\"\n\n\n\n446\n\nWhat did the guards do when they left the tomb?\n\nMatthew: \"Some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the\nchief priests all the things that were done\" (xxviii, 11).\n\nTo one acquainted with the discipline of the Roman army this story of\nthe soldiers leaving their post thirty-six hours before the expiration\nof the watch assigned and going into the city and telling the Jews\nwhat had transpired is incredible.\n\n\n\n447\n\nWhat did the chief priests do?\n\nMatthew: \"They gave large sums of money unto the soldiers, saying,\nSay ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept\"\n(12, 13).\n\nThe penalty for sleeping while on duty was death, and no bribe could\nhave induced them to declare that they were guilty of this offense\neven if the priests had promised to intercede for them. Again, had\nthis transaction really occurred it would have been known only by\nthe parties concerned in it, and when disclosure meant the direst\npunishment to both the bribe-givers and the bribe-takers, neither\nwould have divulged the crime.\n\nStrauss, criticising the alleged action of the Jewish priests, says:\n\"Their conduct, when the guards returning from the grave apprised them\nof the resurrection of Jesus, is truly impossible. They believe the\nassertion of the soldiers that Jesus had arisen out of his grave in\na miraculous manner. How could the council, many of whose members\nwere Sadducees, receive this as credible? Even the Pharisees in\nthe Sanhedrim, though they held in theory the possibility of a\nresurrection, would not, with the mean opinion they entertained\nof Jesus, be inclined to believe in his resurrection, especially\nas the assertion in the mouth of the guards sounded just like a\nfalsehood invented to screen a failure in duty. The real Sanhedrists,\non hearing such an assertion from the soldiers, would have replied\nwith exasperation: You lie! you have slept and allowed him to be\nstolen; but you will have to pay dearly for this, when it comes to be\ninvestigated by the procurator. But instead of this, the Sanhedrists\nin our gospel speak them fair, and entreat them thus: Tell a lie,\nsay that you have slept and allowed him to be stolen; moreover,\nthey pay them richly for the falsehood, and promise to exculpate\nthem to the procurator. This is evidently spoken entirely on the\nChristian presupposition of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus;\na presupposition, however, which is quite incorrectly attributed to\nthe Sanhedrim\" (Leben Jesu, pp. 806, 807).\n\n\n\n448\n\nWhat is said of the resurrection by Peter?\n\n\"Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all the\npeople, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did\neat and drink with him after he rose from the dead\" (Acts x, 40, 41).\n\nIf God really wished to convince all the people why did he not show\nhim to all the people? It is said that more than two millions of Jews\nattended the Passover. Had he desired to prove to them that Jesus was\nthe Christ he would have assembled this multitude at midday and in\ntheir presence raised his crucified and buried Son. Yet not a single\nhuman being witnessed the resurrection, and not a single disinterested\nwitness is said to have seen him after his death. Like a thief he\nescapes from his prison in the night and avoids publicity. This story\nof the resurrection is clearly a priestly invention and the composer\nof the speech ascribed to Peter was conscious of the fact.\n\n\n\n449\n\nWhat did Paul teach regarding the resurrection of Christ?\n\n\"That Christ should suffer and that he should be the first that should\nrise from the dead\" (Acts xxvi, 23).\n\nIf Christ was the first to rise from the dead what becomes of the\nmiracles of Lazarus, of the widow of Nain's son, and of the daughter\nof Jairus? What becomes of Matthew's saints who rose from the dead\non the day of the crucifixion, two days before Christ rose?\n\n\n\n450\n\nWhat did Paul teach regarding the resurrection of the dead in general?\n\n\"If the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised\" (1 Corinthians\nxv, 16).\n\n\"He that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more\" (Job vii, 9).\n\n\n\n451\n\nWhen did the disciples receive the Holy Ghost?\n\nJohn: \"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto\nthem, Receive ye the Holy Ghost\" (xx, 22).\n\nThis was on the evening of the resurrection. Forty days after this\nhe said to them: \"Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many\ndays hence\" (Acts i, 5).\n\nActs: \"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come ... they were\nall filled with the Holy Ghost\" (ii, 1-4).\n\nThis was seven weeks after the resurrection.\n\n\n\n452\n\nOn what day of the week did it occur?\n\nJohn: \"The first day of the week\" (xx, 19).\n\nJohn, like the author of the first Gospel, is evidently ignorant of the\nJewish method of reckoning time. He makes the evening (it was night)\nfollowing the first day a part of that day instead of the next day\nto which it belonged.\n\n\n\n453\n\nDid Thomas receive the Holy Ghost?\n\nJohn: He did not. He was absent when the disciples received it\n(xx, 19-25).\n\n\n\n454\n\nWho had Jesus said would send the Holy Ghost to his disciples?\n\n\"The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send\"\n(John xiv, 26).\n\n\"I [Jesus] will send him unto you\" (xvi, 7).\n\n\n\n455\n\nWhat effect had the Holy Ghost upon them?\n\nActs: They \"began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave\nthem utterance\" (ii, 4).\n\nConcerning this \"gift\" Greg says: \"Ignorance and folly too often became\nthe arbiters of wisdom--and the ravings of delirium were listened to\nas the words of inspiration, and of God. If Jesus could have returned\nto earth thirty years after his death, and sat in the midst of an\nassembly of his followers, who were listening in hushed and wondering\nprostration of mind to a speaker in the 'unknown tongue,' how would\nhe have wept over the humiliating and disappointing spectacle! how\nwould he have grieved to think that the incoherent jargon of delirium\nor hysteria should be mistaken for the promptings of his Father's\nspirit!\" (Creed of Christendom, p. 250.)\n\n\n\n456\n\nWho heard them speak in new tongues?\n\nActs: \"Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in\nMesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia\nand Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene,\nand strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians\"\n(ii, 9-11).\n\nDid representatives of all these nations really assemble to hear\nthe disciples, or was this merely an imaginary gathering of the\nwriter? Evidently the latter.\n\n\n\n457\n\nTo the charge of drunkenness what reply did Peter make?\n\n\"These are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third\nhour of the day\" (Acts ii, 15).\n\nA profane mind, unacquainted with Jewish customs, might infer from\nthis that the disciples were not in the habit of becoming intoxicated\nbefore nine o'clock in the morning.\n\n\n\n458\n\nWhat inquiry did Paul make of John's disciples?\n\n\"Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?\"\n\nWhat did they say in reply?\n\n\"We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost\"\n(Acts xix, 2).\n\nThis was many years after the death of Jesus. Either this colloquy\nis false, or the story of John the Baptist is false. If John was the\nforerunner of Christ, as claimed, his disciples became followers of\nChrist; and if they became followers of Christ they were acquainted\nwith the doctrine of the Holy Ghost--if it existed at this time.\n\n\n\n459\n\nWhen did Jesus' disciples begin to baptize?\n\nMatthew and Mark: Not until after his resurrection (Matt. xxviii,\n18, 19; Mark xvi, 15, 16).\n\nJohn: At the beginning of his ministry. \"After these things came Jesus\nand his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with\nthem, and baptized\" (iii, 22). \"The Pharisees had heard that Jesus\nmade and baptized more disciples than John. (Though Jesus himself\nbaptized not, but his disciples.)\" (iv, 1, 2).\n\n\n\n460\n\nWhat form of baptism is Jesus said to have prescribed for the use of\nhis apostles?\n\n\"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost\"\n(Matthew xxviii, 19).\n\nThe apostles did not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son,\nand of the Holy Ghost, but in the name of Christ alone.\n\n\"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you\nin the name of Jesus Christ\" (Acts ii, 38).\n\n\"They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus\" (viii, 16).\n\n\"He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord\" (x, 48).\n\n\"They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus\" (xix, 5).\n\nConcerning this Greg says: \"That this definite form of baptism\nproceeded from Jesus, is opposed by the fact that such an allocation\nof the Father, Son, and Spirit, does not elsewhere appear, except\nas a form of salutation in the epistles; while as a definite form of\nbaptism it is nowhere met with throughout the New Testament. Moreover,\nit was not the form used, and could scarcely, therefore, have been the\nform commanded; for in the apostolic epistles, and even in the Acts,\nthe form always is 'baptizing into Christ Jesus,' or, 'into the name\nof the Lord Jesus'\" (Creed of Christendom, p. 191).\n\nThis ecclesiastical formula was not adopted by the church until late in\nthe second century, and then, not for baptism, but for admission into\nthe church. In regard to this the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: \"Baptism into\nthe name of God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy\nSpirit, means baptism into the confession of or faith in these three,\nand is a short epitome of Christian doctrine of which Jesus certainly\nnever dreamed; nay, it is obvious from all accounts that, even in\nthe apostolic age, it was as yet quite unknown; and the still later\nage which drew up the words by no means intended them as a baptismal\nformula, but rather as a statement of the conditions of admission\ninto the community. In making the utterance of these words, instead\nof the imposition of these conditions, the first act of admission into\nthe community of Christ, the Church has confounded words with things\"\n(Bible for Learners, vol. iii, pp. 472, 473).\n\n\n\n461\n\nWhat was his final command to the apostles?\n\n\"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature\"\n(Mark xvi, 15).\n\nThis is utterly irreconcilable with Acts (xi, 1-18). Eight years\nafter the death of Jesus, Peter is condemned for preaching to the\nGentiles. \"And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that\nthe Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come\nto Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him\"\n(1, 2). How does he meet the accusation and justify his conduct? By\nreminding them that it was the express will of their Master? No; he\ntells them that while in a trance at Joppa he had a vision instructing\nhim to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. \"When they heard these things,\nthey held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also\nto the Gentiles granted repentance unto life\" (18).\n\n\n\n462\n\nHow long did Jesus remain on earth?\n\nLuke: One day (xxiv).\n\nJohn: At least ten days (xx, xxi).\n\nActs: He was \"seen of them forty days\" (i, 3).\n\nThe greatest discrepancy is between Luke and Acts, two books which\nit is claimed were written by the same author.\n\n\n\n463\n\nWhere did the ascension take place?\n\nMark: In Jerusalem (xvi, 14, com. Luke xxiv, 33).\n\nLuke: At Bethany (xxiv, 50, 51).\n\nActs: At Mount Olivet (i, 9-12).\n\n\n\n464\n\nDescribe the ascension.\n\nLuke: \"And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from\nthem and carried up into heaven\" (xxiv, 51).\n\nThe ascension of Romulus doubtless suggested the story of the ascension\nof Jesus.\n\n\n\n465\n\nWhat occurred at the ascension?\n\nActs: \"While they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up,\nbehold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye\nmen of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus,\nwhich is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner\nas ye have seen him go into heaven\" (i, 10, 11).\n\nIt is remarkable that the Evangelists who find space to record the\nsayings of lunatics and devils, have not room to record the words of\nangels, or even note their presence.\n\n\n\n466\n\nFor what purpose did Jesus ascend to heaven?\n\n\"I go to prepare a place for you\" (John xiv, 2).\n\nWhat was the need of this when the place had already been \"prepared\n... from the foundation of the world\" (Matthew xxv, 34)?\n\n\n\n467\n\nDid Jesus ascend bodily into heaven?\n\nLuke: He ascended to heaven in a body of flesh and blood (xxiv, 36-43,\n50, 51).\n\nPaul: \"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with\nwhat body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not\nquickened except it die; and that which thou sowest thou sowest not\nthat body that shall be\" (1 Corinthians xv, 35-37).\n\n\"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is\na natural body, and there is a spiritual body\" (44).\n\n\"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the\nKingdom of God\" (50).\n\nThe whole theology of Paul is opposed to the bodily resurrection\nand ascension of Jesus. The \"Bible for Learners\" says: \"In speaking\nof the resurrection, he [Paul] does not mean the reanimation of the\nbody of Jesus; and indeed he expressly excludes such a thought by\nascribing to the Christ a glorified and spiritual body not made of\nflesh and blood. It is equally certain that he thinks of the Christ\nas having appeared from heaven; and his ranking the appearance to\nhimself--unquestionably the product of his own fervid imagination--as\nparallel with those which preceded it [his appearances to the\ndisciples], seems to indicate that they were all visions alike\"\n(Vol. iii, p. 467).\n\n\n\n468\n\nDo all the Evangelists record the ascension?\n\nMatthew and John, both of whom are declared to have been apostles,\nand the only Evangelists who are supposed to have witnessed the\nascension, know nothing of it. The last twelve verses of Mark, it is\nadmitted, are spurious; while the words, \"carried up into heaven,\"\nof Luke do not appear in the Sinaitic version, the oldest version of\nthe New Testament extant. With this forged appendix to Mark and this\ninterpolated passage in Luke eliminated, the Four Gospels contain no\nmention of the ascension.\n\n\n\n469\n\nHad any man ever ascended to heaven before Jesus?\n\nJesus: \"No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from\nheaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven\" (John iii, 13).\n\nThen that story about Elijah is a fiction, is it?\n\nIn regard to the resurrection and ascension Thomas Paine says:\n\"As to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was\nthe necessary counterpart of his birth. His historians having brought\nhim into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him\nout again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have\nfallen to the ground. The wretched contrivance with which this latter\npart is told exceeds every thing that went before it. The first part,\nthat of the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of\npublicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this\nadvantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be\ndetected.... But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave,\nand his ascension through the air, is a thing very different as to\nthe evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in\nthe womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken\nplace, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the\nascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at\nleast. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that\nthe proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal;\nand as the public visibility of this last related act was the only\nevidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it\nfalls to the ground, because that evidence never was given.... It is\nin vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The story,\nso far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud\nand imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of\nit is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be assured\nthat the books in which the account is related were written by the\npersons whose names they bear; the best surviving evidence we now have\nrespecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from\nthe people who lived in the times this resurrection and ascension\nis said to have happened, and they say, it is not true. It has long\nappeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of\nthe truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say,\nI will prove the truth of what I have told you by producing the people\nwho say it is false\" (Age of Reason, pp. 10, 11).\n\n\"The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of\nan apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision,\nand credulity believe\" (Ibid, 161).\n\n\"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"The whole of the evidence for the\nResurrection reduces itself to an undefined belief on the part of\na few persons, in a notoriously superstitious age, that after Jesus\nhad died and been buried they had seen him alive. These visions, it is\nadmitted, occurred at a time of the most intense religious excitement,\nand under circumstances of wholly exceptional mental agitation and\ndistress. The wildest alternations of fear, doubt, hope and indefinite\nexpectation, added their effects to oriental imaginations already\nexcited by indignation at the fate of their Master, and sorrow or\ndespair at such a dissipation of their Messianic dreams. There was\npresent every element of intellectual and moral disturbance. Now\nmust we seriously ask again whether this bare and wholly unjustified\nbelief can be accepted as satisfactory evidence for so astounding\na miracle as the Resurrection? Can the belief of such men, in such\nan age, establish the reality of a phenomenon which is contradicted\nby universal experience? We have no evidence as to what actually\noccurred. We do not even know the facts upon which they based their\ninferences. We only know that they thought they had seen Jesus and that\nthey, therefore, concluded that he had risen from the dead. It comes\nto us as bare belief from the Age of Miracles, unsupported by facts,\nuncorroborated by evidence, unaccompanied by proof of investigation,\nand unprovided with material for examination. What is such belief\nworth? We have no hesitation in saying that it is absolutely worth\nnothing\" (pp. 1048, 1049).\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Phillip Schaff, one of the most eminent evangelical\nChristian scholars of this country, in his \"History of the Christian\nChurch,\" makes this candid admission regarding the resurrection and\nascension of Christ:\n\n\"Truth compels us to admit that there are serious difficulties\nin harmonizing the accounts of the Evangelists, and in forming a\nconsistent conception of Christ's resurrection body hovering as it\nwere between heaven and earth, and a supernatural state, of a body\nclothed with flesh and blood and bearing the wound prints, and yet\nso spiritual as to appear and disappear through closed doors and to\nascend visibly to heaven.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nCHARACTER AND TEACHINGS.\n\n\n470\n\nWho was Jesus Christ?\n\nMark: He was the son of man.\n\nMatthew and Luke: He was the Son of God.\n\nJohn: He was God himself.\n\nIn the Four Gospels are presented three entirely different\nconceptions of the Christ. In Mark he is represented as the son of\nhuman parents--the Messiah--but simply a man. In Matthew and Luke we\nhave the story of the miraculous conception--he is represented as the\nSon of God. In John he is declared to be God himself. \"In the beginning\nwas the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God\"\n(i, 1).\n\nAccording to Mark Christ is a man; according to Matthew and Luke,\na demi-god; according to John, a God.\n\nVoltaire thus harmonizes these discordant conceptions: \"The son of\nGod is the same as the son of man; the son of man is the same as the\nson of God. God, the father, is the same as Christ, the son; Christ,\nthe son, is the same as God, the father. This language may appear\nconfused to unbelievers, but Christians will readily understand it.\"\n\nThis is quite as intelligible as the Christian Confession of Faith,\nArticle II of which reads as follows: \"The Son, which is the Word\nof the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and\neternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature\nin the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two\nwhole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood,\nwere joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is\none Christ, very God, and very Man.\"\n\n\"The theological Christ is the impossible union of the human and\ndivine--man with the attributes of God, and God with the limitations\nand weaknesses of man.\"--Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n471\n\nIs God a visible Being?\n\nJacob: \"I have seen God face to face\" (Genesis xxxii, 30).\n\nJohn: \"No man hath seen God at any time\" (i, 18).\n\n\n\n472\n\nHow many Gods are there?\n\nMark: One.\n\nJohn: Three.\n\nMark teaches the doctrine of Unitarianism (Monotheism), or one\nGod. John teaches, not the doctrine of Unitarianism or one God,\nnor yet the doctrine of Trinitarianism or three Gods in one, but the\ndoctrine of Tritheism or three distinct Gods, separate and independent\nof each other.\n\n\n\n473\n\nIs the doctrine of the Trinity taught in the New Testament?\n\n\"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,\nand the Holy Ghost: and these three are one\" (1 John v, 7).\n\nThis is the only passage in the New Testament which clearly teaches\nthe doctrine of the Trinity, and this passage is admitted by all\nChristian scholars to be an interpolation.\n\nWhen the modern version of the New Testament was first published\nby Erasmus it was criticised because it contained no text teaching\nthe doctrine of the Trinity. Erasmus promised his critics that if\na manuscript could be found containing such a text he would insert\nit. The manuscript was \"found,\" and the text quoted appeared in a later\nedition. Concerning this interpolation Sir Isaac Newton, in a letter\nto a friend, which was afterward published by Bishop Horsley, says:\n\"When the adversaries of Erasmus had got the Trinity into his edition,\nthey threw by their manuscript as an old almanac out of date.\"\n\nAlluding to the doctrine of the Trinity, Thomas Jefferson says: \"It is\ntoo late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the\nPlatonic mysticism that three are one and one is three, and yet, that\nthe one is not three, and the three not one.... But this constitutes\nthe craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their\ngossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more\nflies\" (Jefferson's Works, vol. iv, p. 205, Randolph's ed.).\n\nAgain Jefferson says: \"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another\nCerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in\nthe blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs\" (Ibid, p. 360).\n\n\n\n474\n\nWas Christ the only begotten Son of God?\n\nJohn: He was \"the only begotten Son of God\" (iii, 18).\n\n\"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,\nwhen the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare\nchildren unto them\" (Genesis vi, 4).\n\n\n\n475\n\nBy what agency and when was the Christ begotten?\n\nMatthew and Luke: By the Holy Ghost at the time of his conception by\nthe Virgin Mary.\n\nAccording to Justin the Holy Ghost begat the Christ, not at the\nconception of Jesus, as claimed by these Evangelists, but at his\nbaptism. At his baptism the voice from heaven said: \"Thou art my son;\nthis day have I begotten thee\" (Dialogues 88).\n\nThe correctness of Justin's statement is corroborated by Hebrews:\n\"Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he\nthat said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee\"\n(v, 5). Christ's priesthood began at his baptism.\n\n\n\n476\n\nOf what gender is the Holy Ghost?\n\nMatthew (Greek Ver.): Masculine gender.\n\nMatthew (Hebrew Ver.): Feminine gender.\n\nThe Holy Ghost (Spirit), as was noted in a previous chapter, was\nwith the Greeks of masculine gender, with the Jews of feminine\ngender. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, which, it is claimed,\nwas the original Gospel of Matthew, represented Jesus as saying,\n\"Just now my mother, the Holy Ghost, laid hold on me.\"\n\nIf the Holy Ghost was the mother of Jesus did he have two\nmothers? According to our Greek version of Matthew, as well as that\nof Luke, he had one mother and three reputed fathers--God, the Holy\nGhost, and Joseph.\n\n\n\n477\n\nChrist, it is affirmed, was born of Mary. If so, what relation did\nshe bear to him?\n\n1. If he was born of Mary she was his mother.\n\n2. She \"being with child by the Holy Ghost,\" and Father, Son and Holy\nGhost being one, she bore to him the relation of wife.\n\n3. God being the Father of all mankind, and God and Christ being one,\nshe was his daughter.\n\n4. She being the daughter of God, and Christ being the Son of God,\nshe was therefore his sister.\n\nConsequently Mary bore to him the relation of mother, wife, daughter\nand sister.\n\n\n\n478\n\nThe greater portion of the Christian church affirms the perpetual\nvirginity of Mary. It is claimed that Jesus was her only child and\nthat the conception and birth of him did not destroy her virginity. Is\nthis confirmed by the Evangelists?\n\nIt is not. Matthew and Mark say: \"Is not his mother called Mary? and\nhis brethren, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters,\nare they not all with us?\" (Matt. xiii, 55, 56; Mark vi, 3). Luke\n(viii, 19) and John (vii, 3) both declare that he had brothers.\n\nTo maintain this dogma it is affirmed that by \"brethren and sisters\"\nis meant cousins. Dr. Farrar, who in regard to this as in regard\nto most disputed points, assumes a non-committal or conciliatory\nattitude, concedes that \"the natural supposition that, after the\nmiraculous conception of our Lord, Joseph and Mary lived together in\nthe married state, and that James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon,\nwith daughters, whose names are not recorded, were subsequently born\nto them,\" is \"in accordance certainly with the prima facie evidence\nof the Gospels\" (Life of Christ, p. 51).\n\n\n\n479\n\nWho did Mary say was the father of Jesus?\n\nLuke: When he remained behind in Jerusalem, and they found him in the\ntemple, \"his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with\nus? behold, thy father [Joseph] and I have sought thee sorrowing\"\n(ii, 48).\n\nTo believe that a Jewish virgin was overshadowed by a spirit, and\nmiraculously conceived and bore a child, requires more convincing\nproof than the dream of a credulous lover. We ought at least to have\nthe testimony of the mother. But we have it not. She testifies that\nJoseph is his father.\n\n\n\n480\n\nWhat did Jesus' neighbors say regarding his paternity?\n\nMatthew: They said, \"Is not this the carpenter's [Joseph's]\nson?\" (xiii, 55.)\n\nLuke: \"They said, Is not this Joseph's son?\" (iv, 22.)\n\nJohn: \"They said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph?\" (vi, 42.)\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Crapsey, of the Episcopal church, in his work on \"Religion\nand Politics\" (p. 289), makes this significant admission regarding\nthe divine origin of Jesus: \"The fact of his miraculous birth was\nunknown to himself, unknown to his mother, and unknown to the whole\nChristian community of the first generations.\"\n\nThomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, wrote: \"The day will come\nwhen the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his\nfather, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of\nthe generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter\" (Jefferson Works,\nvol. iv, p. 365, Randolph's ed.).\n\n\n\n481\n\nWho did Peter declare him to be?\n\n\"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God\" (Acts ii, 22).\n\nWho did Paul declare him to be?\n\n\"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man\nChrist Jesus\" (1 Timothy ii, 5).\n\nThe Christ of Peter and Paul was not a God, but a man--a man upon\nwhom had been bestowed divine gifts--but yet a man.\n\n\n\n482\n\nWhat testimony is ascribed to Paul?\n\n\"Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh\"\n(1 Timothy iii, 16).\n\nThis is a gross perversion of Scripture for the purpose of making\nPaul a witness to Christ's divinity. Regarding this text and the\nTrinitarian text inserted in 1 John, Sir Isaac Newton, in his letter\npreviously quoted from, says:\n\n\"What the Latins have done in this text (1 John v, 7) the Greeks\nhave done to Paul (1 Tim. iii, 16). They now read, 'Great is the\nmystery of godliness; God manifest in the flesh'; whereas all the\nchurches for the first four or five hundred years, and the authors of\nall the ancient versions, Jerome as well as the rest, read, 'Great\nis the mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh.' Our\nEnglish version makes it yet a little stronger. It reads, 'Great is\nthe mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.'\"\n\nIn conclusion Newton says: \"If the ancient churches, in debating and\ndeciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these\ntwo texts, I understand not why we should be so fond of them now the\ndebate is over.\"\n\n\n\n483\n\nChrist is declared by the Christian creed to be \"the very and eternal\nGod.\" God, it is claimed, is omnipotent. Was Christ omnipotent?\n\n\"The Son can do nothing of himself\" (John v, 19).\n\n\"I can of mine own self do nothing\" (30).\n\n\n\n484\n\nGod is omniscient. Was Christ omniscient?\n\nReferring to his second advent he says: \"Of that day and hour knoweth\nno man, ... neither the Son\" (Mark xiii, 32).\n\n\n\n485\n\nGod is omnipresent. Was Christ omnipresent?\n\n\"I am glad for your sakes that I was not there\" (John xi, 15).\n\n\"Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye\ncannot come\" (vii, 36).\n\n\"And now I am no more in the world\" (xvii, 11).\n\n\n\n486\n\nGod is self-existent. Was Christ self-existent?\n\n\"I live by the Father\" (John vi, 57).\n\n\"He liveth by the power of God\" (2 Corinthians xiii, 4).\n\n\n\n487\n\nDid Christ have a preexistence?\n\n\"Before Abraham was, I am\" (John viii, 58).\n\nAccording to the Synoptics his existence began with his life on earth.\n\n\n\n488\n\nWas he infinite in wisdom?\n\nLuke: He \"increased in wisdom\" (ii, 52).\n\nIf he increased in wisdom his knowledge was limited, and limitation\nof knowledge is not an attribute of an infinite God.\n\n\n\n489\n\nWas he infinite in goodness?\n\n\"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God\"\n(Mark x, 18).\n\n\n\n490\n\nWas he infinite in mercy?\n\n\"He that believeth not shall be damned\" (Mark xvi, 16).\n\n\"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire\" (Matthew xxv, 41).\n\n\"Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works\nwere done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe\nunto thee, Bethsaida!... It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and\nSidon at the day of Judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum,\nwhich art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell\"\n(Matthew xi, 20-23).\n\n\n\n491\n\nHis resurrection is adduced as the chief argument in proof of his\ndivinity. Did he raise himself from the dead?\n\nPeter: He did not. God raised him. \"Jesus Christ of Nazareth, ... whom\nGod raised from the dead\" (Acts iv, 10).\n\nIf Christ, then, did not rise from the dead by his own volition,\nwas his resurrection any proof of his divinity? No more than the\nresurrection of Lazarus was proof of Lazarus's divinity.\n\n\n\n492\n\nHis miraculous conception is adduced as another proof of his\ndivinity. Is this the only miraculous conception claimed in the Bible?\n\nIt is not. Isaac, Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist are all claimed\nto have been miraculously conceived (Genesis xviii, 10, 11; xxi, 1-3;\nJudges xiii, 2, 3, 24; 1 Samuel i, 9-11, 20; Luke i, 7-13).\n\n\n\n493\n\nHis miracles, it is claimed, attest his divinity. Were he and his\ndisciples the only ones who performed miracles?\n\nThese alleged miracles were performed before his time--the Old\nTestament abounds with them--and they have been performed since his\ntime. They were performed by others in his own time--were performed by\nthose who ignored and rejected him--were performed by the disciples\nof Satan himself (Matthew vii, 22; xii, 27; Mark ix, 38; xiii, 22;\nLuke ix, 49).\n\n\"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"The supposed miraculous evidence for the\ndivine revelation, moreover, is without any special divine character,\nbeing avowedly common also to Satanic agency, but it is not original\neither in conception or details. Similar miracles to those which are\nsupposed to attest it are reported long antecedent to the promulgation\nof Christianity, and continued to be performed for centuries after\nit. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has flowed through\nall human history, deep and broad as it has passed through the\ndarker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has entered days\nof enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and commonplace to\nmake any impression upon those before whom the Christian miracles are\nsaid to have been performed, and it altogether failed to convince the\npeople to whom the revelation was primarily addressed. The selection\nof such evidence, for such a purpose, is much more characteristic of\nhuman weakness than of divine power\" (p. 699).\n\nArchbishop Trench says: \"Side by side with the miracles which\nserve for the furthering of the kingdom of God runs another line of\nwonders, the counter-workings of him who is ever the ape of the Most\nHigh.... This fact that the kingdom of lies has its wonders no less\nthan the kingdom of truth, is itself sufficient evidence that miracles\ncannot be appealed to absolutely and finally, in proof of the doctrine\nwhich the worker of them proclaims\" (Miracles of Our Lord, p. 22).\n\nThe miracles of Christ, like the miracles of Satan, existed only in\nthe minds of his credulous and deluded followers.\n\n\n        \"Ye shall have miracles, aye, sound ones too,\n        Seen, heard, attested, everything but true.\"\n\n                                            --Thomas Moore.\n\n\n\n494\n\nProphecy is appealed to in support of his divinity. It is claimed\nthat the writers of the Old Testament predicted his coming. Do such\npredictions exist?\n\nIn his work on \"The Bible,\" as well as in a previous chapter of this\nwork, the writer has shown that there is not a single passage in\nthe Old Testament that, in the original text, refers in the remotest\ndegree to Jesus Christ.\n\nGreg shows that much of Old Testament history, like Deuteronomy, is\npresented in the form of anticipatory narrative. To the Christian\nargument that the Messianic predictions, at least, were written\nlong anterior to the time of Christ, he replies: \"This is true,\nand the argument would have all the force which is attributed to it,\nwere the objectors able to lay their fingers on a single Old Testament\nprediction clearly referring to Jesus Christ, intended by the utterers\nof it to relate to him, prefiguring his character and career, and\nmanifestly fulfilled in his appearance on earth. This they cannot\ndo. Most of the passages usually adduced as complying with these\nconditions, referred, and were clearly intended to refer, to eminent\nindividuals in Israelitish history; many are not prophecies at all;\nthe Messiah, the anointed deliverer, expected by the Jews, hoped\nfor and called for by their poets and prophets, was of a character\nso different, and a career so opposite, to those of the meek, lowly,\nlong-suffering Jesus, that the passages describing the one never could\nhave been applied to the other, without a perversion of ingenuity,\nand a disloyal treatment of their obvious signification, which, if\nemployed in any other field than that of theology, would have met with\nthe prompt discredit and derision they deserve\" (Creed of Christendom,\npp. 135, 136).\n\n\n\n495\n\nHis own prescience is cited in proof of his divinity. The destruction\nof the temple by the Romans, it is claimed, was a wonderful instance\nof the fulfillment of prophecy. But did his so-called prophecy have\nreference to this event?\n\nNo one can read this prophecy (Matthew xxiv, 1-3) and then honestly\ncontend that it did. He clearly refers to his second coming and the\nend of the world when the temple, in common with all sublunary things,\nshall be destroyed. In the verse immediately following this prediction,\nhis disciples say: \"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what\nshall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?\"\n\nBut even if this so-called prophecy had referred to this event it\nis rendered nugatory by the fact that the book containing it was not\ncomposed until a hundred years after the destruction of the temple.\n\n\n\n496\n\nWhen was Christ's second coming and the end of terrestrial things to\ntake place?\n\n\"There be some standing here that shall not taste of death till they\nsee the Son of man coming in his kingdom\" (Matthew xvi, 28).\n\n\"This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled\" (Luke\nxxi, 32).\n\nSeventy-five generations have passed, and still the world rolls on,\nunmoved by Christ's and Mother Shipton's prophecies.\n\n\n\n497\n\nDid the Apostles believe that the second coming of Christ and the\nend of the world were at hand?\n\nPeter: \"The end of all things is at hand\" (1 Peter iv, 7).\n\nJames: \"The coming of the Lord draweth nigh\" (James v, 8).\n\nJohn: \"Ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there\nmany antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last time\" (1 John\nii, 18).\n\nPaul: \"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,\nwith the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the\ndead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain\nshall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord\nin the air\" (1 Thessalonians iv, 16, 17).\n\nRenan, ever ready to palliate or overlook the errors of his hero,\nfrankly admits that the predictions concerning his second advent and\nthe end of the world were a dismal failure. \"It is evident, indeed,\" he\nsays, \"that such a doctrine, taken by itself in a literal manner, had\nno future. The world, in continuing to exist, caused it to crumble. One\ngeneration of man at the most was the limit of its endurance. The\nfaith of the first Christian generation is intelligible, but the faith\nof the second generation is no longer so. After the death of John,\nor of the last survivor, whoever he might be, of the group which\nhad seen the master, the word of Jesus was convicted of falsehood\"\n(Life of Jesus, pp. 203, 204).\n\n\n\n498\n\nTo what extent was the gospel to be preached before his second coming?\n\n\"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of\nman be come\" (Matthew x, 23).\n\n\"The gospel must first be published among all nations\" (Mark xiii, 10).\n\n\n\n499\n\nDid Jesus claim to be the Christ or Messiah from the first?\n\nJohn: He did. Early in his ministry \"The woman [of Samaria] saith\nunto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when\nhe is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that\nspeak unto thee am he\" (iv, 25, 26).\n\nSynoptics: He did not announce his Messiahship until late in his\nministry.\n\n\n\n500\n\nWho where the first to recognize his divinity?\n\nSynoptics: Devils and unclean spirits (Matthew viii, 28, 29; Mark iii,\n11, 12; Luke iv, 41).\n\n\n\n501\n\nWhat is said of Jesus in Hebrews?\n\n\"Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels\" (ii, 9).\n\n\"Being made so much better than the angels\" (i, 4).\n\n\n\n502\n\nWhat did he say respecting his identity with God?\n\n\"My Father and I are one\" (John x, 30).\n\n\"My Father is greater than I\" (xiv, 28).\n\n\n\n503\n\nHow did he attempt to establish his claims?\n\n\"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is\ntrue. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent\nme beareth witness of me\" (John viii, 17, 18).\n\nBut if \"I and my Father are one,\" how does that fulfill the law?\n\n\n\n504\n\nWhat did he say regarding the truthfulness of his testimony concerning\nhimself?\n\n\"Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true\" (John viii,\n14).\n\n\"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true\" (v. 31).\n\n\n\n505\n\nDid Jesus' neighbors believe in his divinity?\n\nMatthew: \"When he was come into his own country,\" and to his own home,\n\"He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief\" (xiii,\n54, 58).\n\n\n\n506\n\nWhat opinion did his friends entertain of him?\n\nMark: \"And when his friends heard of it [his work], they went out to\nlay hold on him; for they said, He is beside himself\" (iii, 21).\n\n\n\n507\n\nDid even his brothers believe in him?\n\nJohn: \"Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren\ntherefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy\ndisciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no\nman that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be\nknown openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For\nneither did his brethren believe in him\" (vii, 2-5).\n\nThese three passages are fatal to the claim of Christ's divinity. If\nhe was unable to convince his neighbors, his friends, or even his\nown family of his divinity he was not divine. Much less was he the\n\"very God,\" as claimed.\n\nAccording to the Christian scheme, man by his disobedience fell--was\nlost. God desired to save him. Christ--God manifest in the flesh--came\non earth for this purpose. What was required of man to secure\nsalvation? Simply to believe that Jesus was the Christ. In order for\nhim to believe this what was necessary? That Jesus should convince him\nthat he was divine. If he was all-powerful he could have done this; if\nhe was all-just he would have done this. Did he do this? His own race\nrejected him. Disbelief in Christ's divinity disproves his divinity.\n\n\n\n508\n\nThe writings of the New Testament are adduced as the evidences of\nChrist's divinity and the divine character of Christianity. Do the\nwriters of the New Testament claim to be inspired?\n\nWith the possible exception of the author of Revelation, they do\nnot. Paul says, \"All scripture is given by inspiration of God.\" But\nthe \"scripture\" of Paul was the scripture of the Old Testament. His\nwords have no reference whatever to the writings of the New which\ndid not exist in his time.\n\nIf the New Testament is not inspired and infallible, what follows?\n\n\"If the New Testament is defective the church itself is in error,\nand must be given up as a deception.\"--Dr. Tischendorf.\n\n\"It is not a word too much to say that the New Testament abounds with\nerrors.\"--Dean Alford.\n\n\n\n509\n\nWhat is said of the Apocryphal Gospels which appeared in the early\nages of the church?\n\n\"Several histories of his [Christ's] life and doctrines, full of\npious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose\nintentions perhaps were not bad, but whose writings discovered the\ngreatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all; productions\nappeared which were imposed upon the world by fraudulent men, as the\nwritings of the holy Apostles.\"--Mosheim.\n\nIs the above less true of the books we are reviewing? Are not these\nwritings \"full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders\"? Do not these\nwritings display \"the greatest superstition and ignorance\"? Have\nnot these writings been \"imposed upon the world by fraudulent men,\nas the writings of the holy (?) Apostles\"?\n\nIf some of these apocryphal Gospels had been accepted as canonical,\nand the canonical Gospels had been rejected as apocryphal, these\ncanonical Gospels would appear as untruthful and foolish to Christians\nas the apocryphal Gospels do.\n\n\n\n510\n\nLet us examine the religious teachings ascribed to Christ. For what\npurpose was his blood shed?\n\n\"This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many\"\n(Mark xiv, 24).\n\n\"This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you\"\n(Luke xxii, 20).\n\n\"This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many FOR\nTHE REMISSION OF SINS\" (Matthew xxvi, 28).\n\nThe above is one of the most significant discrepancies in the\nBible. The Atonement is the chief doctrine connected with Christ\nand orthodox Christianity. The text quoted from Matthew is the only\ntext in the Four Gospels which clearly teaches this doctrine. Two\nother texts (Matthew xx, 28; John i, 29) are adduced in support of\nit, but do not clearly teach it. Now Matthew has falsely ascribed\nto Jesus the revelation of the Atonement, or Mark and Luke have\neither ignorantly or intentionally omitted this greatest of Christian\ndoctrines. They contain no mention of the Atonement as understood by\northodox Christians.\n\n\n\n511\n\nFor whom did he say his blood was shed?\n\n\"This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many\n[interpreted by the church to mean all mankind]\" (Mark xiv, 24).\n\n\"This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you\n[addressed to his disciples alone]\" (Luke xxii, 20).\n\n\n\n512\n\nWas his blood really shed?\n\nThe crucifixion was not a bloody death, and aside from the\nself-confuted story of John about blood and water flowing from his\ncorpse, the Evangelists do not state that a drop of blood was shed.\n\n\n\n513\n\nChrist, it is affirmed, was both God and man. Was it the human,\nor the divine part of him that suffered death?\n\nIf only the human, this sacrifice was not an exceptional one, for\nthousands have died for their fellow men. If the divine part was\nsacrificed does God cease to exist?\n\n\n\n514\n\nHis death is called an infinite sacrifice. If only the man died can\nthis be true?\n\nThe offering of a finite being, it must be admitted, would not\nconstitute an infinite sacrifice.\n\n\n\n515\n\nIf the God was crucified does he suffer endless pain?\n\nIf not, then his suffering was not infinite, and the sacrifice in\nthis case was not an infinite one.\n\n\n\n516\n\nIf God died, but subsequently rose from the dead, was there not an\ninterregnum when the universe was without a ruler?\n\nIf so, then it must be conceded that the existence of the universe\nis not dependent upon the existence of God.\n\n\n\n517\n\nAre all mankind to be saved by Christ?\n\n\"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me\"\n(John xii, 32).\n\n\"Many be called but few chosen\" (Matthew xx, 16).\n\n\n\n518\n\nWhat does Paul affirm concerning the Atonement?\n\n\"Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures\" (1 Corinthians\nxv, 3).\n\nBy \"scriptures\" Paul means the Old Testament, and according to the\nscriptures of the Old Testament, \"Every man shall be put to death\nfor his own sins\" (Deuteronomy xxiv, 16).\n\nLike nearly all the doctrines ascribed to Christ, the atonement is\nin the highest degree unjust and absurd. Referring to this doctrine,\nLord Byron says: \"The basis of your religion is injustice. The Son of\nGod, the pure, the immaculate, the innocent, is sacrificed for the\nguilty. This proves his heroism, but no more does away with man's\nsin than a schoolboy's volunteering to be flogged for another would\nexculpate a dunce from negligence.\"\n\nGreg justly charges Christians with \"holding the strangely\ninconsistent doctrine that God is so just that he could not let sin\ngo unpunished, yet so unjust that he could punish it in the person\nof the innocent.\" \"It is for orthodox dialectics,\" he says, \"to\nexplain how Divine Justice can be impugned by pardoning the guilty,\nand yet vindicated by punishing the innocent!\" (Creed of Christendom,\npp. 338, 339.)\n\n\n\n519\n\nIt is claimed that the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for our\nsalvation. Through whom was this sacrifice secured?\n\nAll: Judas Iscariot procured it, and Pilate and the Jews offered it.\n\nAre not Christians, then, in condemning these men, ungrateful to their\ngreatest benefactors? A man is dangerously ill. The druggist provides a\nremedy, the physician administers it and saves his life. When restored\ndoes he show his gratitude by praising the drug and damning the doctor?\n\n\n\n520\n\nIn permitting the crucifixion of Jesus, who committed the greater sin,\nPilate or God?\n\nJohn: \"Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me,\nexcept it were given thee from above: therefore he [God] that delivered\nme unto thee hath the greater sin\" (xix, 11).\n\nHon. Allan L. McDermott, in his memorable speech in Congress, in\n1906, protesting against the persecution of Jews by Christians, said:\n\"If an omnipotent God orders anything done, the human instruments\nselected to carry out his orders cannot be charged with the acts\ncommanded. The doctrine of repondeat superior applies. If what\nhappened could have been prevented by the Romans or by the Jews,\nthen the New Testament is worthless. Let us assume that the Jews\ncrucified Christ. Could they have done otherwise? Were they greater\nthan God? According to the Bible, the crucifixion was arranged for by\nthe Father. Why blame the Jews or the Romans or any other mortals? They\ndid not know what they were doing. The Roman soldiers did not believe\nthat they were crucifying the son of God; they did not know they were\ncrucifying God himself. Why blame the instruments? Why persecute the\ndescendants? According to the Synoptic Gospels and according to John,\nthe arrangements for the crucifixion--every detail--were made by\nAlmighty God, and were known to Christ.\"\n\n\n\n521\n\nWhat was the character of his death?\n\nHomicide. \"Jesus of Nazareth, a man ... ye have taken, and by wicked\nhands have crucified and slain\" (Acts ii, 22, 23).\n\nRegicide. \"The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father\nDavid\" (Luke i, 32). \"This is the King of the Jews\" (xxiii, 38). \"There\nthey crucified him\" (33).\n\nDeicide. \"The Word [Christ] was God\" (John i, 1). \"I and my Father\nare one\" (x, 30). \"They crucified him\" (xix, 18).\n\nSuicide. \"I [Christ] lay down my life, that I might take it again. No\nman taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself\" (John x, 17, 18).\n\n\n\n522\n\nWhat did Jesus teach respecting the resurrection of the dead and the\ndoctrine of immortality?\n\n\"For the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall\nhear his voice, and shall come forth\" (John v, 28, 29).\n\n\"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life\"\n(39).\n\n\"As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down\nto the grave shall come up no more.\"--Job (vii, 9).\n\n\"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day\nhis thoughts perish.\"--Psalms (cxlvi, 4).\n\n\"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts.... As\none dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, so that\nman hath no preeminence over a beast.\"--Ecclesiastes (iii, 19).\n\n\n\n523\n\nHis resurrection is accepted by Christians as a proof and type of man's\nresurrection and immortality. What was the nature of his resurrection?\n\nAccording to all of the Evangelists it was merely a reanimation of\nhis undecayed body. Other bodies supposedly dead have been revived,\nbut neither these resuscitations nor the supposed reanimation of Jesus'\ncorpse affords proof that bodies which ages ago crumbled into dust and\nwhose particles subsequently entered into the composition of myriads\nof other bodies will be reunited into the original beings. And as\nJesus almost immediately disappeared after his alleged resurrection\nand has never since been seen this resurrection did not evince his\nown immortality, much less that of mankind in general.\n\n\n\n524\n\nDid Christ descend into hell?\n\nPeter: He did (Acts ii, 31; 1 Peter iii, 19).\n\nPeter states that \"his soul was not left in hell,\" which necessitates\nthe assumption of his having gone there. He also declares that after\nhis death he \"went and preached unto the spirits in prison [hell].\"\n\nThe Confession of Faith (Art. III) says: \"As Christ died for us, and\nwas buried; so also is it to be believed that he went down into hell.\"\n\nFor what purpose did Christ descend into hell and preach to its\ninhabitants? If it was to redeem them his mission was fruitless;\nif it was not to redeem them his mission was useless.\n\nEarly Christian writers almost uniformly spelled the name of Christ,\nnot \"Christos\" (the Anointed), but \"Chrestos.\" Chrestos was a Pagan\nname given to the judge of Hades in the lower world.\n\n\n\n525\n\nWhat is taught regarding justification by faith and justification\nby works?\n\nPaul: \"A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the\nfaith of Jesus Christ, ... for by the works of the law shall no flesh\nbe justified\" (Galatians ii, 16). \"If righteousness come by the law\nthen Christ is dead in vain\" (21). \"To him that worketh not, but\nbelieveth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted\nfor righteousness\" (Romans iv, 5). \"Therefore, we conclude that a\nman is justified by faith without the deeds of the law\" (iii, 28).\n\nJames: \"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is\ndead?\" (ii, 20). \"Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified,\nand not by faith only\" (24).\n\nThe church accepts the teachings of Paul and condemns or ignores\nthe teachings of James. Martin Luther, in his \"Table Talk,\" thus\ndefines the position of the Protestant church: \"He that says the\ngospel requires works for salvation, I say flat and plain he is a\nliar.\" \"Every doer of the law and every moral worker is accursed,\nfor he walketh in the presumption of his own righteousness.\" \"If men\nonly believe enough in Christ they can commit adultery and murder\na thousand times a day without periling their salvation.\" Luther\nrejected and denounced the book of James because it teaches the\nefficacy of good works.\n\nThe English \"Confession of Faith\" affirms the following: \"That we\nare justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very\nfull of comfort\" (Art. XI). \"Works done before the grace of Christ,\nand the inspiration of the Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch\nas they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ.... Yea rather, for that\nthey are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done,\nwe doubt not but they have the nature of sin\" (Art. XIII).\n\n\n          \"Morality! thou deadly bane,\n        Thy tens o' thousands thou hast slain!\n        Vain is his hope, whose stay and trust is\n        In moral mercy, truth and justice!\n\n          \"No--stretch a point to catch a plack;\n        Abuse a brother to his back;\n\n        Be to the poor like onie whunstane,\n        And haud their noses to the grunstane;\n        Ply ev'ry art o' legal thieving:\n        No matter, stick to sound believing.\n\n          \"Learn three-mile prayers, and half-mile graces,\n        Wi weel-spread loaves, and lang wry faces,\n        Grunt up a solemn, lengthen'd groan,\n        And damn a' parties but your own:\n        I'll warrant, then, ye're nae deceiver,\n        A steady, sturdy, staunch believer.\"\n\n                                                --Robert Burns.\n\n\n\n526\n\nWhat does Christ teach regarding salvation?\n\n\"Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die\" (John xi, 26).\n\n\"He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth\nnot is condemned already\" (iii, 18).\n\n\"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that\nbelieveth not on the Son shall not see life\" (36).\n\nA demand so preposterous could have been made only in support of claims\nthat were realized to be untenable. Credulity was appealed to because\nconvincing evidence could not be adduced. Claims which reason rejects\nare manifestly false, and it is only by a renunciation of reason that\nthey can be accepted as true.\n\nThe absurdity of this requirement of Christ is thus exposed by\nthe poet Shelley: \"This is the pivot upon which all religions turn;\nthey all assume that it is in our power to believe or not to believe:\nwhereas the mind can only believe that which it thinks true. A human\nbeing can only be supposed accountable for those actions which are\ninfluenced by his will. But belief is utterly distinct from and\nunconnected with volition: it is the apprehension of the agreement\nor disagreement of the ideas that compose any proposition. Belief\nis a passion or involuntary operation of the mind, and, like other\npassions, its intensity is precisely proportionate to the degree\nof excitement. Volition is essential to merit or demerit. But the\nChristian religion attaches the highest possible degree of merit\nand demerit to that which is worthy of neither, and which is totally\nunconnected with the peculiar faculty of the mind whose presence is\nessential to their being\" (Notes to Queen Mab).\n\n\n\n527\n\nDid Christ abrogate the Mosaic law?\n\n\"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise\npass from the law\" (Matthew v, 18).\n\n\"The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the Kingdom\nof God is preached\" (Luke xvi, 16).\n\nPaul: \"The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that\nwe might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are\nno longer under a schoolmaster\" (Galatians iii, 24, 25). \"But now we\nare delivered from the law\" (Romans vii, 6).\n\n\"Christ certainly did come to destroy the law and the prophets.\"--Henry\nWard Beecher.\n\n\n\n528\n\nWhat is taught regarding the forgiveness of sin?\n\n\"He [God] is faithful and just to forgive sins\" (1 John i, 9).\n\n\"The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins\" (Mark ii, 10).\n\n\"Today I offer you the pardon of the gospel--full pardon, free\npardon. I do not care what your crime has been. Though you say you\nhave committed a crime against God, against your own soul, against\nyour fellow-man, against your family, against the day of judgment,\nagainst the cross of Christ--whatever your crime has been, here\nis pardon, full pardon, and the very moment you take that pardon\nyour heavenly Father throws his arms about you and says: 'My son,\nI forgive you. It is all right. You are as much in my favor now as\nif you never had sinned.'\"--Dr. Talmage.\n\nThis doctrine of forgiveness of sin is a premium on crime. \"Forgive\nus our sins\" means \"Let us continue in our iniquity.\" It is one of the\nmost pernicious of doctrines, and one of the most fruitful sources of\nimmorality. It has been the chief cause of making Christian nations the\nmost immoral of nations. In teaching this doctrine Christ committed\na sin for which his death did not atone, and which can never be\nforgiven. There is no forgiveness of sin. Every cause has its effect;\nevery sinner must suffer the consequences of his sins.\n\n\n\n529\n\nWhat is taught regarding future rewards and punishments?\n\n\"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that\nbelieveth not shall be damned\" (Mark xvi, 16).\n\nThese words, while appearing in the unauthentic appendix to Mark, yet\nexpress clearly the alleged teachings of Jesus. Above all they have\nformed the key note of orthodox Christianity in all ages of the church.\n\nBetween the lines of this passage the eye of the unfettered mind\ndiscerns in large capitals the word FRAUD. These words are the words\nof an impostor. Had Jesus been divine he would not have been compelled\nto resort to bribes and threats to secure the world's adherence. Had\nhe even been a sincere man he would not have desired converts on\nsuch terms. These words are either the utterance of a false Messiah,\nconscious of his impotency, or the invention of priests who intended\nthem to frighten the ignorant and credulous into an acceptance of\ntheir faith.\n\nConcerning this teaching Col. Ingersoll says: \"Redden your hands\nwith human blood; blast by slander the fair fame of the innocent;\nstrangle the smiling child upon its mother's knees; deceive, ruin,\nand desert the beautiful girl who loves and trusts you, and your\ncase is not hopeless. For all this, and for all these, you may\nbe forgiven. For all this, and for all these, that bankrupt court\nestablished by the gospel will give you a discharge; but deny the\nexistence of these divine ghosts, of these gods, and the sweet and\ntearful face of Mercy becomes livid with eternal hate. Heaven's\ngolden gates are shut, and you, with an infinite curse ringing in\nyour ears, with the brand of infamy upon your brow, commence your\nendless wanderings in the lurid gloom of hell--an immortal vagrant,\nan eternal outcast, a deathless convict.\"\n\n\"A gloomy heaven above opening its jealous gates to the\nnineteen-thousandth part of the tithe of mankind! And below an\ninexorable Hell expanding its leviathan jaws for the vast residue of\nmortals! O doctrine comfortable and healing to the weary wounded soul\nof man!\"--Robert Burns.\n\n\n\n530\n\nDid he teach the doctrine of endless punishment?\n\n\"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment\" (Matthew xxv,\n46).\n\nThat is the most infamous passage in all literature. It is the\nlanguage, not of an incarnate God, but of an incarnate devil. The\nbeing who gave utterance to those words deserves not the worship,\nbut the execration of mankind. The priests who preach this doctrine\nof eternal pain are fiends. There is misery enough in this world\nwithout adding to it the mental anguish of this monstrous lie.\n\nLess than a hundred years ago, when Christ was yet believed to\nbe divine, in nearly every pulpit, to frighten timid and confiding\nmothers, dimpled babes were consigned to the red flames of this eternal\nhell. Then came the preachers of humanity--the Ballous, the Channings,\nthe Parkers and the Beechers--preachers with hearts and brains, who\nsought to humanize this heavenly demon, to make of him a decent man,\nand civilize his fiendish priests. To these men is due the debt of\neverlasting gratitude. With the return of every spring the emancipated\nof the race should build above their sacred dust a pyramid of flowers.\n\nNot by the sects known as Universalists and Unitarians, small in\nnumbers, though in the character of their adherents the greatest of\nthe Christian sects, must we estimate the importance of the work of\nBallou and Channing and other Liberal ministers. The influence of\ntheir teachings has permeated every Christian sect, and quickened\nevery humane conscience. In the minds of all intelligent Christians,\nlargely as the result of their labors, this heartless demon and this\ncruel dogma are dead. In their creeds they still survive. They are\nashamed of the dogma; they abhor it. They should abhor its author,\nand banish both.\n\n\n\"What! I should call on that Infinite Love that has served us so well?\nInfinite cruelty rather, that made everlasting hell,\nMade us, foreknew us, foredoom'd us, and does what he will with his own;\nBetter our dead brute mother who never has heard us groan.\"\n\n                                                             --Tennyson.\n\n\n\n531\n\nIs it possible to fall from grace?\n\nPeter: \"If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through\nthe knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again\nentangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them\nthan the beginning\" (2 Peter ii, 20).\n\n\"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and\nI give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither\nshall any man pluck them out of my hand\" (John x, 27, 28).\n\n\"There is no condemnation for them that believe and are\nbaptized.\"--Confession of Faith, Art. IX.\n\n\n\n532\n\nIs baptism essential to salvation?\n\n\"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved\" (Mark xvi, 16).\n\n\"Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter\nthe Kingdom of God\" (John iii, 5).\n\n\"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them\" (Matthew\nxxviii, 19).\n\nWas the penitent thief baptized?\n\nPaul says: \"I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and\nGaius.... For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel\"\n(1 Corinthians i, 14, 17).\n\n\n\n533\n\nWhat constitutes Christian baptism, immersion or sprinkling?\n\nWith millions of Bibles in circulation, the Christian does not\nknow. If he affirms, as many scholars affirm, that immersion is the\nmode authorized by the Bible, then he must admit that the greater\nportion of Christendom has rejected this mode and adopted one not\nauthorized by the Scriptures.\n\nTo whom is this rite to be administered, to both adults and infants,\nor to adults alone?\n\nAfter eighteen centuries of controversy; after employing millions of\npriests to interpret the Scriptures; after Anabaptists and Pedobaptists\nhave baptized their swords in each others' blood, the church is not\nprepared to answer.\n\n\n\n534\n\nDid Christ command his disciples to repeat and perpetuate the\nobservance of the Eucharist?\n\nLuke: He did. \"This do in remembrance of me.\"\n\nMatthew, Mark and John: He did not.\n\nIt is admitted by Dr. Westcott and others that the earlier versions\nof Luke did not contain the injunction quoted. Christ, then, according\nto the Four Gospels did not institute the Eucharist as a sacrament to\nbe observed by his disciples and the church. Referring to the Twelve\nApostles, the Rev. Dr. Minot J. Savage says: \"They knew nothing about\nany sacraments; they had not been instituted\" (What is Christianity?).\n\n\n\n535\n\nWhat did he teach in regard to the efficacy of prayer?\n\n\"All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall\nreceive\" (Matthew xxi, 22).\n\nThis is one of the cardinal doctrines of his religion. He is\ncontinually impressing upon the minds of his hearers the necessity\nand the efficacy of prayer. Referring to this doctrine, Greg says:\n\n\"This doctrine has in all ages been a stumbling block to the\nthoughtful. It is obviously irreconcilable with all that reason and\nrevelation teach us of the divine nature; and the inconsistency has\nbeen felt by the ablest of the Scripture writers themselves. Various\nand desperate have been the expedients and suppositions resorted to,\nin order to reconcile the conception of an immutable, all-wise,\nall-foreseeing God, with that of a father who is turned from his\ncourse by the prayers of his creatures. But all such efforts are,\nand are felt to be, hopeless failures. They involve the assertion and\nnegation of the same proposition in one breath. The problem remains\nstill insoluble; and we must either be content to leave it so, or we\nmust abandon one or other of the hostile premises.\n\n\"The religious man, who believes that all events, mental as well as\nphysical, are pre-ordered and arranged according to the decrees of\ninfinite wisdom, and the philosopher, who knows that, by the wise\nand eternal laws of the universe, cause and effect are indissolubly\nchained together, and that one follows the other in inevitable\nsuccession--equally feel that this ordination--this chain--cannot be\nchanged at the cry of man. To suppose that it can is to place the\nwhole harmonious system of nature at the mercy of the weak reason\nand the selfish wishes of humanity. If the purposes of God were not\nwise, they would not be formed: if wise, they cannot be changed,\nfor then they would become unwise. To suppose that an all-wise Being\nwould alter his designs and modes of proceeding at the entreaty of\nan unknowing creature, is to believe that compassion would change\nhis wisdom into foolishness.... If the universe is governed by fixed\nlaws, or (which is the same proposition in different language), if all\nevents are pre-ordained by the foreseeing wisdom of an infinite God,\nthen the prayers of thousands of years and generations of martyrs and\nsaints cannot change or modify one iota of our destiny. The proposition\nis unassailable by the subtlest logic. The weak, fond affections of\nhumanity struggle in vain against the unwelcome conclusion\" (Creed\nof Christendom, pp. 322, 323).\n\n\n\n536\n\nWhere are we commanded to pray?\n\n\"When thou prayest enter into thy closet\" (Matthew vi, 6).\n\nHow long ought we to continue in prayer?\n\n\"Men ought always to pray\" (Luke xviii, 1).\n\n\n\n537\n\nDid Christ assume for himself the power of answering petitions?\n\n\"Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do\" (John xiv, 13). But\nsoon realizing that his capital was too small to conduct a business\nof such magnitude, he was compelled to announce that, \"Whatsoever ye\nshall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you\" (xv, 16).\n\n\n\n538\n\nDoes God know our wants?\n\n\"Your father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him\"\n(Matthew vi, 8).\n\nThen what is the use of prayer? Is God a mischievous urchin taunting\nhis hungry dog with a morsel of bread, and shouting, \"Beg, Tray, beg!\"?\n\n\n\n539\n\nWhat portion of their goods did he require the rich to give the poor\nto obtain salvation?\n\nRich Ruler, No. 1: \"Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal\nlife?\" (Luke xviii, 18.)\n\nJesus: \"Sell all that thou hast and distribute unto the poor\" (22).\n\nRich Ruler, No. 2: \"Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor\"\n(Luke xix, 8).\n\nJesus: \"This day is salvation come to this house\" (9).\n\n\n\n540\n\nWhat did he teach respecting the publicity of good works?\n\n\"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works\"\n(Matthew v, 16).\n\n\"Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men to be seen\nof them\" (vi, 1, New Ver.).\n\n\n\n541\n\nWhat original rules of table observance did he teach his disciples?\n\nMatthew: To abstain from washing their hands before eating. \"They\nwash not their hands when they eat bread\" (xv, 2).\n\nJohn: To wash their feet after eating. \"He riseth from supper, and laid\naside his garments; and took a towel and girded himself. After that\nhe poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet,\nand to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded\" (xiii, 4, 5).\n\nThe proneness of Christ's followers to neglect his ordinances and\nprecepts which require some sacrifice or effort to obey, and the\nreadiness with which they observe those which do not, find a fitting\nillustration in the reception accorded these teachings. While the\nearly Christians, many of them, accepted the first as a religious\nobligation not to be violated, the second was ignored. Writing\nof Christian monks and nuns, Lecky says: \"The cleanliness of the\nbody was regarded as a pollution of the soul, and the saints\nwho were most admired had become one hideous mass of clotted\nfilth. St. Athanasius relates with enthusiasm how St. Antony, the\npatriarch of monachism, had never, to extreme old age, been guilty of\nwashing his feet.... St. Abraham the hermit, however, who lived for\nfifty years after his conversion, rigidly refused from that date to\nwash either his face or feet.... St. Euphraxia joined a convent of one\nhundred and thirty nuns, who never washed their feet, and who shuddered\nat the mention of a bath\" (European Morals, Vol. II, pp. 109, 110).\n\n\n\n542\n\nWhat religious formula is to be found in the New Testament?\n\n\"In the name of Jesus.\"\n\n\"In the name of Jesus\" the disciples cast out devils and performed\nother miracles; \"In the name of Jesus\" they baptized their converts;\n\"In the name of Jesus\" salvation was secured. This formula, with\nvarious modifications, is in general use in the church today. It\nbetrays the heathen origin of Christianity. Referring to its use\nProf. Meinhold of Bonn University says: \"Name and person were at one\ntime closely combined, and elementary religious ideas were connected\nwith the words. He who knew the name of a divinity and could pronounce\nit was in this way able to secure a blessing. It was the use of the\nname of Jesus in the sacraments that made them effective, in the\nspirit of sorcery. This idea came from the lowest type of religious\nthought, reflected in religious mysteries in the days of Jesus,\nand was embodied in the earliest Christianity.\"\n\n\n\n543\n\nWhat is taught respecting the use of oaths?\n\nGod: \"Swear by my name\" (Jeremiah xii, 16).\n\nChrist: \"Swear not at all\" (Matthew v, 34).\n\n\n\n544\n\nWhat opposing rules of proselytism did Christ promulgate?\n\n\"He that is not with me is against me\" (Luke xi, 23).\n\n\"He that is not against us is for us\" (Luke ix, 50).\n\n\n\n545\n\nWhat is to befall him that hath nothing?\n\n\"Whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath\"\n(Matthew xiii, 12).\n\nEx nihilo nihil fit.\n\n\n\n546\n\nWhat did he say would be the fate of those who took up the sword?\n\n\"They that take the sword shall perish with the sword\" (Matthew\nxxvi, 52).\n\nHe evidently considered this commendable, for he immediately issued\nthe following command to his disciples:\n\n\"He that hath no sword let him sell his garments and buy one\" (Luke\nxxii, 36).\n\n\n\n547\n\nWhat did he say regarding the fear of death?\n\n\"Be not afraid of them that kill the body\" (Luke xii, 4).\n\n\"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk\nin Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him\" (John vii, 1).\n\n\n\n548\n\nWhat is to be the earthly reward of those that follow Christ?\n\n\"There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or\nfather, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and\nthe gospel's, but he shall receive a hundred fold now in this time\"\n(Mark x, 29, 30).\n\n\"Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is\ngood?\" (1 Peter iii, 13.)\n\n\"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light\" (Matthew xi, 30).\n\n\"In the world ye shall have tribulation\" (John xvi, 33).\n\n\"Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake\" (Luke xxi, 17).\n\n\"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer\npersecution\" (2 Tim. iii, 12).\n\n\"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom\nhe receiveth\" (Hebrews xii, 6).\n\n\n\n549\n\nWhat promise did Christ make to Paul at the commencement of his\nministry?\n\n\"I am with thee and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee\" (Acts\nxviii, 10).\n\n\"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice\nwas I beaten with rods, once was I stoned\" (2 Corinthians xi, 24, 25).\n\n\n\n550\n\nHow are Christ's true followers to be distinguished from those of\nthe devil?\n\n\"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin\" (1 John iii, 9).\n\n\"He that committeth sin is of the devil\" (8).\n\nJudged by this standard what is the comparative strength of these\nsovereigns' subjects?\n\n\"There is no man that sinneth not\" (1 Kings viii, 46).\n\n\"There is not a just man upon earth\" (Ecclesiastes vii, 20).\n\n\"There is none righteous, no, not one\" (Romans iii, 10).\n\n\n\n551\n\nGreat stress is placed upon the moral teachings of Jesus. What did\nhe teach? Did he advocate industry and frugality?\n\n\"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth\" (Matthew vi, 19).\n\n\"Take no thought for your life what ye shall eat or what ye shall\ndrink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on\" (25).\n\n\"Take therefore no thought for the morrow\" (34).\n\n\n\n552\n\nWhat were the early Christians?\n\nActs: They were Communists. \"They had all things common.... For as many\nas were possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the prices\nof the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet;\nand distribution was made unto every man according as he had need\"\n(iv, 32-35).\n\nMost Christians condemn Communism; but was the Communism of nineteen\nhundred years ago better than the Communism of today? To condemn\nCommunism is to condemn primitive Christianity. Yet, Christians profess\nto abhor the Communistic ideas of modern teachers, while they worship\nas a God the founder of this Communistic sect of Palestine.\n\n\n\n553\n\nWhat did he teach respecting poverty and wealth?\n\n\"Blessed be ye poor\" (Luke vi, 20).\n\n\"Woe unto you that are rich\" (24).\n\nPoverty is a curse; wealth honestly acquired and wisely used is a\nblessing. \"The rich man's wealth is his strong city: the destruction\nof the poor is their poverty\" (Proverbs x, 15).\n\n\n\n554\n\nIn the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, what befell the\nrepresentatives of vagrancy and respectability?\n\n\"The beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom\"\n(Luke xvi, 22).\n\n\"The rich man also died, ... and in hell he lifted up his eyes\"\n(22, 23).\n\n\n            \"See the red flames around him twine\n            Who did in gold and purple shine!\n\n            \"While round the saint so poor below,\n            Full rivers of salvation flow.\n\n            \"Jesus, my Lord, let me appear\n            The meanest of thy creatures here.\"\n\n\n\n555\n\nWhy was Dives' request that his brothers be informed of their impending\nfate refused?\n\n\"They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them\" (Luke xvi, 29).\n\nMoses and the prophets do not teach the doctrine of endless punishment,\nnor even that of a future existence, much less that the mere possession\nof wealth, acquired perhaps by honest industry, is a crime which can\nbe expiated only by the sufferings of an endless hell.\n\nChrist's Kingdom was a kingdom of vagrants and paupers. \"A rich\nman shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven\" (Matthew xix,\n23). \"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,\nthan for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God\" (24).\n\n\n\n556\n\nWhile at the temple with his disciples what act did he commend?\n\nMark and Luke: That of the poor widow who threw two mites into the\ntreasury (Mark xii, 43; Luke xxi, 3).\n\nThis widow's offering illustrates the characteristic generosity of the\npoor and the heartless greed of the church. This text has enabled a\nhorde of indolent priests to prey upon widows and orphans; to filch\nthe scanty earnings of the poor, and live like parasites upon the\nweak and sickly calves of humanity.\n\n\n\n557\n\nDid he practice the virtue of temperance?\n\n\"The Son of Man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a\ngluttonous man and a winebibber\" (Luke vii, 34).\n\n\n\n558\n\nWhat was his first miracle?\n\nJohn: \"There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee.... And both Jesus\nwas called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted\nwine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.... And\nthere were set there six water pots of stone, ... containing two or\nthree firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots with\nwater. And they filled them up to the brim\" (ii, 1-7). This water he\nturned into wine.\n\nHere is Christ supplying a party already \"well drunk\" with more\nthan one hundred gallons of wine. As they were intoxicated when he\nperformed the miracle, would it not have been better for them and\nbetter for the millions who have accepted him as a moral guide,\nif at the beginning of the feast he had turned the wine into water?\n\nThe morality taught by Jesus suffers in comparison with that taught\nby Mohammed. Mohammed prohibited the use of intoxicating drink, and\nthe Mohammedans are a temperate people; Jesus sanctioned the use of\nintoxicating drink, and the Christian world abounds with drunkenness.\n\nReferring to the miracle at Cana, Strauss says: \"Not only, however,\nhas the miracle been impeached in relation to possibility, but also\nin relation to utility and fitness. It has been urged both in ancient\nand modern times, that it was unworthy of Jesus that he should not only\nremain in the society of drunkards, but even further their intemperance\nby an exercise of his miraculous power\" (Leben Jesu, p. 584).\n\n\n\n559\n\nDid he oppose slavery?\n\nAll: He did not.\n\n\"Slavery was incorporated into the civil institutions of Moses; it was\nrecognized accordingly by Christ and his apostles.\"--Rev. Dr. Nathan\nLord, President of Dartmouth College.\n\n\"At the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst\nforms prevailed over the world. The Savior found it around him in\nJudea; the apostles met with it in Asia, Greece and Italy. How did\nthey treat it? Not by denunciation of slave-holding as necessarily\nsinful.\"--Prof. Hodge of Princeton.\n\n\"I have no doubt if Jesus Christ were now on earth that he would, under\ncertain circumstances, become a slaveholder.\"--Rev. Dr. Taylor of Yale.\n\nRousseau says: \"Christ preaches only servitude and dependence.... True\nChristians are made to be slaves.\"\n\n\n\n560\n\nWhat did the apostles teach?\n\nPeter: \"Servants [slaves], be subject to your masters with all fear;\nnot only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward\" (1 Peter\nii, 18).\n\nPaul: \"Let as many servants [slaves] as are under the yoke count\ntheir own masters worthy of all honor\" (1 Timothy vi, 1). \"Servants,\nbe obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh,\nwith fear and trembling\" (Ephesians vi, 5).\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Wilbur Fisk, president of Wesleyan University, says:\n\"The New Testament enjoins obedience upon the slave as an obligation\ndue to a present rightful authority.\"\n\n\n\n561\n\nDid he favor marriage?\n\nMatthew: He advocated celibacy, and even self-mutilation as preferable\nto marriage (xix, 10-12).\n\nFollowing this teaching of their Master, Christians, many of them,\nhave condemned marriage. A Christian pope, Siricius, branded it as \"a\npollution of the flesh.\" St. Jerome taught that the duty of the saint\nwas to \"cut down by the axe of Virginity the wood of Marriage.\" Pascal\nsays: \"Marriage is the lowest and most dangerous condition of the\nChristian.\"\n\nG. W. Foote of England says: \"Jesus appears to have despised the union\nof the sexes, therefore marriage, and therefore the home. He taught\nthat in heaven, where all is perfect, there is neither marrying nor\ngiving in marriage.\"\n\n\"Monks and nuns innumerable owe to this evil teaching their shriveled\nlives and withered hearts.\"--Mrs. Besant.\n\n\n\n562\n\nWhat did he encourage women to do?\n\nLuke: To leave their husbands and homes, and follow and associate\nwith him and his roving apostles--\"Mary, called Magdalene, out of whom\nwent seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and\nSusanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance\"\n(viii, 2, 3).\n\n\n\n563\n\nWhat did he say respecting children?\n\n\"Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not.\"\n\nBut it was only the children of Jews he welcomed. The afflicted child\nof a Gentile he spurned as a dog. When the woman of Canaan desired\nhim to heal her daughter, he brutally replied: \"It is not meet to\ntake the children's bread and cast it to the dogs\" (Matthew xv,\n26). The soldiers who spit on Jesus in Pilate's hall did not do a\nmeaner thing than Jesus did that day. And if he afterwards consented\nto cure the child it was not as an act of humanity to the sufferer,\nbut as a reward for the mother's faith in him.\n\nConcerning this brutal act of Jesus, Helen Gardener says: \"Do you think\nthat was kind? Do you think it was godlike? What would you think of a\nphysician, if a woman came to him distressed and said, 'Doctor, come\nto my daughter; she is very ill. She has lost her reason, and she is\nall I have!' What would you think of the doctor who would not reply\nat all at first, and then, when she fell at his feet and worshiped\nhim, answered that he did not spend his time doctoring dogs? Would\nyou like him as a family physician? Do you think that, even if he\nwere to cure the child then, he would have done a noble thing? Is\nit evidence of a perfect character to accompany a service with an\ninsult? Do you think that a man who could offer such an indignity to\na sorrowing mother has a perfect character, is an ideal God?\"\n\n\n\n564\n\nHe enjoined the observance of the commandment, \"Honor thy father and\nthy mother.\" Did he respect it himself?\n\nMore striking examples of filial ingratitude are not to be found than\nare exhibited in the Gospel history of Jesus Christ. When visiting\nJerusalem with his parents, he allows them to depart for home without\nhim, thinking that he is with another part of the company; and when\nthey return to search for him and find him, he manifests no concern\nfor the trouble he has caused; when during his ministry his mother and\nbrothers are announced, he receives them with a sneer; at the marriage\nfeast, when his mother kindly speaks to him, he brutally exclaims,\n\"Woman, what have I to do with thee?\" Throughout the Four Gospels\nnot one respectful word to that devoted mother is recorded. Even\nin his last hours, when the mental anguish of that mother must have\nequaled his own physical suffering, not one word of comfort or farewell\ngreeting escapes from his lips; but the same studied disrespect that\nhas characterized him all his life is exhibited here.\n\n\n\n565\n\nDid he not promote domestic strife?\n\n\"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay;\nbut rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one\nhouse divided, three against two, and two against three. The father\nagainst the son, and the son against the father; the mother against\nthe daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law\nagainst her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her\nmother-in-law\" (Luke xii, 51-53).\n\n\"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send\npeace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his\nfather, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law\nagainst her mother-in-law\" (Matthew x, 34, 35).\n\n\n\n566\n\nWhat did he require of his disciples?\n\n\"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,\nand children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also,\nhe cannot be my disciple\" (Luke xiv, 26).\n\nIt is scarcely possible in this age of enlightenment and unbelief\nto realize what sorrows and miseries these accursed teachings of\nChrist once caused. The eminent historian Lecky, in his \"History\nof European Morals,\" has attempted to describe some of their awful\nconsequences. From his pages I quote the following:\n\n\"To break by his ingratitude the heart of the mother who had borne him,\nto persuade the wife who adored him that it was her duty to separate\nfrom him forever, to abandon his children, uncared for and beggars,\nto the mercies of the world, was regarded by the true hermit as the\nmost acceptable offering he could make to his God. His business was\nto save his own soul. The serenity of his devotion would be impaired\nby the discharge of the simplest duties to his family. Evagrius,\nwhen a hermit in the desert, received, after a long interval, letters\nfrom his father and mother. He could not bear that the equable tenor\nof his thought should be disturbed by the recollection of those who\nloved him, so he cast the letters unread into the fire. A man named\nMutius, accompanied by his only child, a little boy of eight years old,\nabandoned his possessions and demanded admission into a monastery. The\nmonks received him, but they proceeded to discipline his heart. 'He\nhad already forgotten that he was rich; he must next be taught to\nforget that he was a father.' His little child was separated from\nhim, clothed in rags, subjected to every form of gross and wanton\nhardship, beaten, spurned and ill-treated. Day after day the father\nwas compelled to look upon his boy wasting away with sorrow, his once\nhappy countenance forever stained with tears, distorted by sobs of\nanguish. But yet, says the admiring biographer, 'though he saw this day\nby day, such was his love for Christ, and for the virtue of obedience,\nthat the father's heart was rigid and unmoved' (Vol. ii, 125, 126).\n\n\"He [St. Simeon Stylites] had been passionately loved by his parents,\nand, if we may believe his eulogist and biographer, he began his\nsaintly career by breaking the heart of his father, who died of grief\nat his flight. His mother, however, lingered on. Twenty-seven years\nafter his disappearance, at a period when his austerities had made\nhim famous, she heard for the first time where he was and hastened\nto visit him. But all her labor was in vain. No woman was admitted\nwithin the precincts of his dwelling, and he refused to permit her\neven to look upon his face. Her entreaties and tears were mingled with\nwords of bitter and eloquent reproach. 'My son,' she is represented\nas having said, 'why have you done this? I bore you in my womb, and\nyou have wrung my soul with grief. I gave you milk from my breast,\nyou have filled my eyes with tears. For the kisses I gave you, you\nhave given me the anguish of a broken heart; for all that I have\ndone and suffered for you, you have repaid me by the most cruel\nwrongs.' At last the saint sent a message to her to tell her that\nshe would soon see him. Three days and three nights she had wept and\nentreated in vain, and now, exhausted with grief and age and privation,\nshe sank feebly to the ground and breathed her last sigh before that\ninhospitable door. Then for the first time the saint, accompanied by\nhis followers, came out. He shed some pious tears over the corpse of\nhis murdered mother, and offered up a prayer consigning her soul to\nheaven\" (Ibid, 130).\n\n\n\n567\n\nDid he not indulge in vituperation and abuse?\n\n\"Ye fools and blind\" (Matthew xxiii, 17).\n\n\"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites\" (14).\n\n\"All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers\" (John x, 8).\n\n\"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation\nof hell?\" (Matthew xxiii, 33.)\n\nRegarding these abusive epithets of Christ, Prof. Newman says: \"The\nJewish nation may well complain that they have been cruelly slandered\nby the gospels. The invectives have been burnt into the heart of\nChristendom, so that the innocent Jews, children of the dispersion,\nhave felt in millennial misery--yes, and to this day feel--the deadly\nsting of these fierce and haughty utterances\" (Jesus Christ, p. 25).\n\n\n\n568\n\nRelate his treatment of the Pharisee who invited him to dine with him.\n\nLuke: \"And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with\nhim; and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw\nit, he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner. And the\nLord said unto him, now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of\nthe cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening\nand wickedness. Ye fools ... hypocrites!\" (xi, 37-44.)\n\nWas such insolence of manners on the part of Jesus calculated to\npromote the interest of the cause he professed to hold so dear at\nheart? Supposing a Freethinker were to receive an invitation to dine\nwith a Christian friend and were to repay the hospitality of his\nhost with rudeness and abuse, interrupting the ceremony of \"grace\"\nwith an oath or a sneer, and showering upon the head of his friend\nsuch epithets as \"hypocrite\" and \"fool.\" Would such insolent behavior\nhave a tendency to gain for him the world's esteem or aid the cause\nhe represents? And are we to approve in a God conduct that we regard\nas detestable in a man? It may be urged that God is not subject to\nthe rules of human conduct. Grant it; but is it necessary for him in\norder to exhibit his divine character to assume the manners of a brute?\n\n\n\n569\n\nDo the Pharisees deserve the sweeping condemnation heaped upon them\nby Christ and his followers?\n\nIn marked contrast to the diatribes of Jesus is the testimony of\nJosephus: \"Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly [plainly], and\ndespise delicacies in diet, and they follow the conduct of reason;\nand what that prescribes to them as good for them, they do; and they\nthink they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason's dictates for\npractice.... The cities give great attestations to them on account\nof their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives,\nand their discourses also\" (Antiquities, Book xviii, chap. i, sec. 3).\n\nPaul, the Christian, when arraigned before Agrippa, believed that no\nloftier testimonial to his character could be adduced than the fact\nthat he had been a Pharisee (Acts xxvi, 4, 5).\n\n\n\n570\n\nWhat is said in regard to his purging the temple?\n\nJohn: \"And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to\nJerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep\nand doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when he had made\na scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple,\nand the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money,\nand overthrew the tables\" (ii, 13-15).\n\nNo currency but the Jewish was accepted in the temple, while doves,\nlambs, and other animals were required for offerings. These persons\nperformed the very necessary office of supplying the Jews with\nofferings and exchanging Jewish coins for the Roman money then in\ngeneral circulation. What right he had to interfere with the lawful\nbusiness of these men, and especially in the manner in which he did,\nit is difficult to understand.\n\n\n\n571\n\nDescribe the cursing of the fig tree.\n\nMatthew: \"Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he\nhungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it,\nand found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no\nfruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree\nwithered away\" (xxi, 18, 19).\n\nJesus cursed a living tree and it died; Mohammed blessed a dead tree\nand it lived.\n\nThe alleged conduct of Jesus on many occasions, notably his harsh\ntreatment of his mother, his abuse of the Pharisees, his purging the\ntemple and his cursing the fig tree, is not the conduct of a rational\nbeing, but rather that of a madman. If these stories be historical\nthey would indicate that he was not wholly responsible for his words\nand acts. Dr. Jules Soury, of the University of France, believes that\nhe was the victim of an incurable mental disorder. In a work on morbid\npsychology, entitled \"Studies on Jesus and The Gospels,\" Dr. Soury\ncites a long array of seemingly indisputable facts in support of his\ntheory. From his preface to the work, I quote the following:\n\n\"Jesus the God, gone down in his glory, like a star sunk beneath the\nhorizon but still shedding a few faint rays on the world, threw a halo\nround the brow of Jesus the Prophet. In the dull glow of that twilight,\nin the melancholy but charming hour when everything seemed wrapped in\nvague, ethereal tints, Jesus appeared to Strauss and Renan such as he\nhad shown himself to his first disciples, the Master par-excellence,\na man truly divine. Then came the night; and as darkness descended\non those flickering gospel beginnings there remained nought to be\ndescried through the obscurity of dubious history, but dimly looming,\nthe portentous outline of the gibbet and its victim.\n\n\"In the present work Jesus makes his appearance, perhaps for the\nfirst time, as a sufferer from a grave malady, the course of which\nwe have attempted to trace.\n\n\"The nervous, or cerebral disorder, at first congestive and then\ninflammatory, under which he labored, was not only deep-seated and\ndangerous--it was incurable. Among us at the present time that\naffection may be seen daily making kings, millionaires, popes,\nprophets, saints, and even divinities of poor fellows who have lost\ntheir balance; it has produced more than one Messiah.\n\n\"If we be right in the interpretation of data which has been followed\nin the study of morbid psychology, Jesus, at the time of his death,\nwas in a somewhat advanced stage of this disorder, He was, to all\nappearance, cut off opportunely; the gibbet saved him from actual\nmadness.\n\n\"The diagnosis which we have ventured to draw is based on three sets\nof facts which are attested by the most ancient and trustworthy of\nthe witnesses of his career.\n\n\"1. Religious excitement, then general in Palestine, drove Jesus to\nthe wilderness, where he lived some time the life of a recluse, as\nthose who considered themselves to have the prophetic mission often\ndid. Carried away with the idea that he was divinely inspired to\nproclaim the coming of the Messiah, he left his own people and his\nnative place, and, attended by a following of fishermen and others\nof the same class, went about among the towns and villages of Galilee\nannouncing the speedy approach of the Kingdom of Heaven.\n\n\"2. After having proclaimed the coming of the Messiah, like other\ncontemporary Jewish prophets, Jesus gradually came to look upon himself\nas the Messiah, the Christ. He allowed himself to be called the Son of\nDavid, the Son of God, and had among his followers one, if not more,\nof those fanatical Sicarii, so graphically described by Josephus,\nwho were waiting for the deliverance of Israel from the yoke of\nRome. Progressive obliteration of the consciousness of his personal\nidentity marks the interval between the somewhat vague revelation\nwhich he made to his disciples at the foot of Mount Hermon and the\nday when, before Caiaphas and before Pilate, he openly declared that\nhe was the Messiah, and by that token the King of the Jews.\n\n\"3. The cursing of the fig tree whereon there were no figs, because\n'the time of figs was not yet,' the violent conduct toward the dealers\nand changers at the temple, were manifestly foolish acts. Jesus had\ncome to believe that everything was permitted him, that all things\nbelonged to him, that nothing was too hard for him to do. For a\nlong time he had given evident signs of perversion of the natural\naffections, especially with respect to his mother and brethren. To\nthe fits of anger against the priests and religious ministers of\nhis nation, to the ambitious extravagance of his words and acts, to\nthe wild dream of his Messianic grandeur, there rapidly supervened\na characteristic depression of the mental faculties and strength,\na giving way of the intellectual and muscular powers.\n\n\"Each of those periods in the career of Jesus corresponds to a certain\npathological state of his nervous system.\n\n\"By reacting on the heart, the religious excitement he labored under\nand the attendant functional exacerbations had the immediate effect\nof accelerating the circulation, unduly dilating the blood vessels,\nand producing cerebral congestion.\n\n\"Chronic congestion of the brain, subjectively considered, is always\nattended in the initial stage with great increase of the moral\nconsciousness, extraordinary activity of the imagination, often\nleading to hallucinations, and later on with absurdly exaggerated,\nfrequently delirious ideas of power and greatness. That stage is also\nusually characterized by irritability and fits of passion.\n\n\"Objectively considered what is observable is hypertrophy of the\ncellules and nerve-tubes, excessive cerebral plethora and vascularity\ndue to the great efflux of blood and superabundant nutrition of\nthe encephalon. Inflammation of the meningeal covering, and of the\nbrain itself, is, sooner or later, a further result of the chronic\ncongestion. The vessels, turgid and loaded with blood, permit the\ntransudation of the blood globules; the circulation becomes impeded,\nthen arrested, with the result of depriving the cortical cerebral\nsubstance of arterial blood, which is its life; the histological\nelements undergo alteration, degenerate, become softened, and as the\ndisorganization proceeds are finally reduced to inert detritus.\n\n\"The brain may remain capable more or less well of performing its\nfunctions when deprived to a large extent of its necessary food,\nbut not so when the cerebral cellules are disorganized. Dementia\nconsequently is the natural sequel of the congestive stage. To the\ndestruction of the cortical substance supervenes partial or total\nloss of consciousness, according to the extent of the lesion. Such\nportions of the encephalon as continue capable of performing any duty\nbeing in a state of hyperaemia, there is often delirium more or less\nintense up to the last.\n\n\"The process of the disorder is irregular; remissions occur during\nwhich the reasoning faculties seem to be recovered. But whether\nthe duration extends only to a few months or to several years, the\nincreasing weakness of the patient, the intellectual and muscular\ndecay, the cachetic state into which he falls, the lesions of other\norgans performing essential functions which ensue, bring life to a\nclose, and frequently without suffering.\n\n\"This is how Jesus would have ended had he been spared the violent\ndeath of the cross.\"\n\nNearly all the religious founders have been affected, to a greater\nor less extent, with insanity. Genius itself is closely allied to\ninsanity--is indeed, in many cases, a form of insanity. Moreau de\nTours in his \"La Psychologie Morbide\" (p. 234) says: \"The mental\ndisposition which causes a man to be distinguished from his fellows\nby the originality of his mind and conceptions, by his eccentricity,\nand the energy of his affective faculties, or by the transcendence of\nhis intelligence, take their rise in the very same organic conditions\nwhich are the source of the various mental perturbations whereof\ninsanity and idiocy are the most complete expressions.\" Buddha,\nMohammed, and probably Jesus, united with certain strong mental and\nmoral characteristics, a form of insanity which manifested itself in\na sort of religious madness--a madness that was contagious and which\nhas attacked and afflicted the greater portion of the human race.\n\n\n\n572\n\nDid he not teach the doctrine of demoniacal possession and exorcism?\n\nSynoptics: He did.\n\nAfter alluding to the prevalency of superstition among the Jews of\nthis period, Renan says: \"Jesus on this point differed in no respect\nfrom his companions. He believed in the devil, whom he regarded as\na kind of evil genius, and he imagined, like all the world, that\nnervous maladies were produced by demons who possessed the patient\nand agitated him\" (Life of Jesus, p. 59). Dr. Geikie says: \"The New\nTestament leaves us in no doubt of the belief, on the part of Jesus\nand the Evangelists, in the reality of these demoniacal possessions\"\n(Life of Christ, vol. ii, p. 573).\n\nDemonology was born of ignorance and superstition. In this debasing\nsuperstition Jesus believed. It was a part of his religion, and has\nremained a part of Christianity; for while the more intelligent of\nhis professed disciples have outgrown this superstition they have to\nthe same extent outgrown Christianity. The more ignorant, the more\ndepraved, and, at the same time, the more devout of his followers,\nstill accept it.\n\nRegarding this superstition, the author of \"Supernatural Religion\"\nsays: \"The diseases referred to by the gospels, and by the Jews of\nthat time, to the action of devils, exist now, but they are known to\nproceed from purely physical causes. The same superstition and medical\nignorance would enunciate the same diagnosis at the present day. The\nsuperstition and ignorance, however, have passed away, and, with them,\nthe demoniacal theory. In that day the theory was as baseless as in\nthis. It is obvious that, with the necessary abandonment of the theory\nof 'possession' and demoniacal origin of disease, the largest class\nof miracles recorded in the gospels is at once exploded. The asserted\ncause of the diseases of this class, said to have been miraculously\nhealed, must be recognized to be a mere vulgar superstition\" (p. 159).\n\nProf. Huxley, in one of his essays, discussing the Gadarene miracle,\nsays: \"When such a story as that about the Gadarene swine is placed\nbefore us, the importance of the decision, whether it be accepted or\nrejected, cannot be overestimated. If the demonological part of it\nis to be accepted, the authority of Jesus is unmistakably pledged to\nthe demonological system current in Judea in the first century. The\nbelief in devils who possess men and can be transferred from men\nto pigs becomes as much a part of Christian dogma as any article of\nthe creeds.\"\n\n\n\n573\n\nWhat became of the swine into which Jesus ordered the devils to go?\n\nMatthew: \"And behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a\nsteep place into the sea, and perished in the waters\" (viii, 32).\n\nIt may be pertinent to inquire what these inoffensive animals had\ndone that they should merit such cruelty, or what their owner had\ndone that his property should be thus wantonly destroyed.\n\nIn his narrative of this miracle Fleetwood says: \"The spectators\nbeheld, at a distance, the torments these poor creatures suffered;\nwith what amazing rapidity they ran to the confines of the lake,\nleaped from the precipices into the sea, and perished in the waters\"\n(Life of Christ, p. 121).\n\nIn striking contrast to the religion of Buddha, the religion of Christ\nhas made its adherents cruel and unmerciful. To this Christian writer\nthe torture and destruction of these domestic animals is no more than\nthe burning of a field of stubble. In this miracle he sees only a\nmanifestation of love and kindness on the part of his Savior. Referring\nto the request of the inhabitants that he depart from their country,\nhe says: \"The stupid request of the Gadarenes was complied with by\nthe blessed Jesus, who, entering the ship, returned to the country\nfrom whence he came, leaving them a valuable pledge of his love,\nand us a noble pattern of perseverance in well-doing, even when our\nkindnesses are condemned or requited with injuries\" (Ibid, p. 122).\n\n\n\n574\n\nWhat did Jesus say to the strange Samaritan woman whom he met at\nthe well?\n\n\"Thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy\nhusband\" (John iv, 18).\n\n\"Christ here makes himself a wandering gypsy, or Bohemian fortune\nteller, and I much wonder that our gypsies do not account themselves\nthe genuine disciples of Jesus, being endowed with like gifts, and\nexercising no worse arts than he himself practiced.\"--Woolston.\n\n\n\n575\n\nWas he not an egotist and given to vulgar boasting?\n\nSpeaking of himself, he said: \"Behold, a greater than Solomon is here\"\n(Matthew xii, 41, 42).\n\n\n\n576\n\nDid he not practice dissimulation?\n\nJohn: \"And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee\nthat thou hast heard me. And I know that thou hearest me always,\nbut because of the people which stand by I said it\" (xi, 41, 42).\n\nLuke: After his resurrection when he intended to stop at Emmaus\nwith his companions, \"He made as though he would have gone further\"\n(xxiv, 28).\n\n\n\n577\n\nAfter performing one of his miraculous cures, what charge did he make\nto those who witnessed it?\n\nMark: \"He charged them that they should tell no man: but the more\nhe charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it\"\n(vii, 36).\n\nDid he desire them to disregard his commands? If he did he was a\nhypocrite; if he did not he was an impotent--in either case a fallible\nman instead of an omnipotent God.\n\n\n\n578\n\nOn the approach of the Passover what did he say to his brethren?\n\n\"Go ye up unto this feast; I go not up yet unto this feast\" (John\nvii, 8).\n\nThe correct reading of the last clause is, \"I go not up unto the\nfeast.\" The American revisers, to their credit, urged the adoption of\nthis reading; but the Oxford revisers retained the error. In uttering\nthese words, Jesus, if omniscient, uttered an untruth; for John says:\n\"But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the\nfeast, not openly, but as it were in secret\" (10).\n\n\n\n579\n\nWhy did he teach in parables?\n\n\"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may\nhear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted,\nand their sins should be forgiven them\" (Mark iv, 12).\n\nHe deceived the people that he might have the pleasure of seeing\nthem damned.\n\n\n\n580\n\nWhat immoral lesson is inculcated in the parable of the Steward?\n\nHe commends as wise and prudent the action of the steward, who,\nto provide for his future welfare, causes his master's creditors\nto defraud him. \"There was a certain rich man, which had a steward;\nand the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And\nhe called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of\nthee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer\nsteward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for\nmy lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg\nI am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of\nthe stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called\nevery one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first,\nHow much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of\noil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and\nwrite fifty. Then said he unto another, And how much owest thou? And\nhe said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy\nbill and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward,\nbecause he had done wisely; for the children of this world are in\ntheir generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you,\nMake to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that,\nwhen ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations\"\n(Luke xvi, 1-9).\n\n\n\n581\n\nIn the parable of the Laborers what unjust doctrine is taught?\n\nThe assignment of equal rewards for unequal burdens. He justifies\nthe dishonest bargaining of the householder who received twelve hours\nof labor for a penny, when he paid the same amount for one (Matthew\nxx, 1-16).\n\nRegarding the parables of Jesus, W. P. Ball, an English writer, says:\n\n\"With one single exception, the parables attributed to Jesus are\nthoroughly religious and decidedly inferior in their moral tone,\nbesides possessing minor faults. The God who is to be the object of our\nadoration and imitation is depicted to us as a judge who will grant\nvengeance in answer to incessant prayer, as a father who loves and\nhonors the favorite prodigal and neglects the faithful and obedient\nworker, as an employer who pays no more for a life-time than for the\nnominal service of a death-bed repentance, as an unreasonable master\nwho reaps where he has not sown and punishes men because he made them\ndefective and gave them no instructions, as a harsh despot who delivers\ndisobedient servants to tormentors and massacres those who object to\nhis rule, as a judge who is merciful to harlots and relentless towards\nunbelievers, as a petulant king who drives beggars and outcasts into\nthe heaven which is ignored by the wise and worthy, as a ruler of\nthe universe who freely permits his enemy the devil to sow evil and\nthen punishes his victims, as a God who plunges men in the flames of\nhell and calmly philosophizes over the reward of the blest who from\nAbraham's bosom behold the sight and are not permitted to bestow even\nso much as a drop of cold water to cool the parched tongues of their\nfellow-creatures amidst hopeless and unending agonies, in comparison\nwith which all earthly sufferings are but momentary dreams.\"\n\n\n\n582\n\nWhat did he teach regarding submission to theft and robbery?\n\n\"Of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again\" (Luke vi, 30).\n\n\n\n583\n\nWhy was the woman taken in adultery released without punishment?\n\nJohn: Because those having her in custody were not without sin\nthemselves (viii, 3-11).\n\nThe adoption of this principle would require the liberation of every\ncriminal, because all men are fallible.\n\nIf man cannot punish crime because not free from sin himself, is it\njust in God, the author of all sin, to punish man for his sins?\n\n\n\n584\n\nWhom did he pronounce blessed?\n\n\"Blessed are the poor in spirit\" (Matthew v, 3).\n\n\"Is poverty of spirit a blessing? Surely not. Manliness of spirit,\nhonesty of spirit, fulness of rightful purpose, these are virtues;\nbut poverty of spirit is a crime.\"--Bradlaugh.\n\n\n\n585\n\nDid he teach resistance to wrong?\n\n\"Unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other\"\n(Luke vi, 29).\n\n\"He who courts oppression shares the crime.\"\n\nLord Amberley, referring to this teaching of Jesus, says: \"A doctrine\nmore convenient for the purposes of tyrants and malefactors of every\ndescription it would be difficult to invent\" (Analysis of Religious\nBelief, p. 355).\n\n\n\n586\n\nHe taught his hearers to return good for evil. Did he do this himself?\n\n\"I pray for them [his followers], I pray not for the world\" (John\nxvii, 9).\n\n\"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my\nFather\" (Matthew x, 33).\n\n\n\n587\n\nThe Golden Rule has been ascribed to Christ. Was he its author?\n\nFive hundred years before the time of Christ Confucius taught: \"What\nyou do not like when done to yourself do not to others.\" Centuries\nbefore the Christian era Pittacus, Thales, Sextus, Isocrates and\nAristotle taught the same.\n\n\n\n588\n\nWhat maxim does Paul attribute to Jesus?\n\n\"Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed\nto give than to receive\" (Acts xx, 35).\n\nThese are not \"the words of the Lord Jesus,\" but of the Pagan Epicurus,\na man whose character Christians have for centuries defamed.\n\nConcerning the teachings of Jesus, Col. Thomas W. Higginson says:\n\"When they tell me that Jesus taught a gospel of love, I say I\nbelieve it. Plato taught a gospel of love before him, and you deny\nit. If they say, Jesus taught that it is better to bear an injury\nthan to retaliate, I say, yes, but so did Aristotle before Jesus was\nborn. I will accept it as the statement of Jesus if you will admit\nthat Aristotle said it too. I am willing that any man should come\nbefore us and say, Jesus taught that you must love your enemies, it\nis written in the Bible; but, if he will open the old manuscript of\nDiogenes Laertus, he may there read in texts that have never been\ndisputed, that the Greek philosophers, half a dozen of them, said\nthe same before Jesus was born.\"\n\nBuckle says: \"That the system of morals propounded in the New Testament\ncontained no maxim which had not been previously enunciated, and that\nsome of the most beautiful passages in the apostolic writings are\nquotations from Pagan authors, is well known to every scholar.... To\nassert that Christianity communicated to man moral truths previously\nunknown, argues on the part of the asserter either gross ignorance\nor wilful fraud\" (History of Civilization, vol. i, p. 129).\n\nJohn Stuart Mill says: \"It can do truth no service to blind the fact,\nknown to all who have the most ordinary acquaintance with literary\nhistory, that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral\nteaching has been the work not only of men who did not know, but of\nmen who knew and rejected the Christian faith\" (Liberty).\n\n\n\n589\n\nWe are told that Christ manifested \"a strong and enduring courage\nwhich never shrank or quailed before any danger however formidable.\" Is\nthis true?\n\nIt is not. When he heard that John was imprisoned, he retreated to\nthe Sea of Galilee (Matthew iv, 12, 13); when John was beheaded, he\ntook a ship and retired to a desert (xiv, 13); in going from Galilee\nto Judea, he went beyond the Jordan to avoid the Samaritans; when his\nbrethren went up to Jerusalem he refused to accompany them for fear of\nthe Jews (John vii, 8, 9); when the Jews took up stones to stone him he\n\"hid himself\" (viii, 59); when the Pharisees took council against him\nhe fled (Matthew xii, 14, 16): at Gethsemane, in the agonies of fear,\nhe prayed that the cup might pass from him; at Calvary, he frantically\nexclaimed, \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!\"\n\nCommenting on this dying exclamation of Christ, Dr. Conway says:\n\"That cry could never be wrung from the lips of a man who saw in his\nown death a prearranged plan for the world's salvation, and his own\nreturn to divine glory temporarily renounced for transient misery on\nearth. The fictitious theology of a thousand years shrivels beneath\nthe awful anguish of that cry.\"\n\n\n\n590\n\nWhat was the character of Christ's male ancestors?\n\nAssuming Matthew's genealogy to be correct, nearly all of those whose\nhistories are recorded in the Old Testament were guilty of infamous\ncrimes or gross immoralities. Abraham married his sister and seduced\nher handmaid; Jacob, after committing bigamy, seduced two of his\nhousemaids; Judah committed incest with his daughter-in-law; David\nwas a polygamist, an adulterer, a robber and a murderer; Solomon had\na thousand wives and concubines; Rehoboam, Abijam, Joram, Ahaziah,\nJotham, Ahaz, Manasseh, Amon and Jehoiachin, are all represented as\nmonsters of iniquity; while others are declared to have been too vile\nto even name in his genealogy.\n\n\n\n591\n\nWhat female ancestors are named in his genealogy?\n\nMatthew: Thamar, Rachab, Ruth and Bathsheba.\n\nRegarding these women the Rev. Dr. Alexander Walker says: \"It is\nremarkable that in the genealogy of Christ, only four women have been\nnamed: Thamar, who seduced the father of her late husband; Rachab, a\ncommon prostitute; Ruth, who, instead of marrying one of her cousins,\nwent to bed with another of them; and Bathsheba, an adulteress,\nwho espoused David, the murderer of her first husband\" (Woman, p. 330).\n\nMatthew Henry, a noted Christian commentator, says: \"There are\nfour women, and but four, named in this genealogy, ... Rachab, a\nCanaanitess, and a harlot besides, and Ruth, the Moabitess.... The\nother two were adulteresses, Tamar and Bathsheba\" (Commentary, Vol. v).\n\n\n\n592\n\nWho was his favorite female attendant?\n\nLuke: \"Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils\" (viii, 2).\n\nReferring to this woman, Dr. Farrar says: \"This exorcism is not\nelsewhere alluded to, and it would be perfectly in accordance with\nthe genius of Hebrew phraseology if the expression had been applied to\nher in consequence of a passionate nature and an abandoned life. The\nTalmudists have much to say respecting her--her wealth, her extreme\nbeauty, her braided locks, her shameless profligacy, her husband\nPappus, and her paramour, Pandera\" (Life of Christ, p. 162).\n\nIn a chapter on \"Sanctified Prostitution,\" Dr. Soury writes:\n\"The Jewess is full of naive immodesty, her lip red with desire,\nher eye moist and singularly luminous in the shade. Yearning with\nvoluptuousness, superb in her triumphs, or merely feline and caressing,\nshe is ever the 'insatiable,' the woman 'with seven devils' of whom\nthe scripture speaks, a kind of burning furnace in which the blond\nTeuton melts like wax. So far as in her lay, the Syrian woman, with\nher supple and nervous arms, drew into the tomb the last exhausted\nsons of Greece and Rome. But who can describe the grace and the\nsoft languor of these daughters of Syria, their large black eyes,\nthe warm bistre tints of their skin? All the poets of the decadence,\nCatullus, Tibullus, Propercius, have sung this wondrous being. With\nsoft and humble voice, languid and as though crushed by some hidden\nill, dragging her limbs over the tiles of a gynaecium, she might have\nbeen regarded as a stupid slave. Often, her gaze lost in long reveries,\nshe seemed dead, save that her bosom began to swell, her eye lighted\nup, her breath quickened, her cheeks became covered with crimson. The\nreverie becoming a reality by a matchless power of invovation and\ndesire, such is the sacred disease which, thanks to Mary Magdalene,\ngave birth to Christianity\" (Religion of Israel, pp. 70, 71).\n\n\n\n593\n\nWho were his apostles?\n\n\"A dozen knaves, as ignorant as owls and as poor as church\nmice.\"--Voltaire.\n\n\"Palestine was one of the most backward of countries; the\nGalileans were the most ignorant of the inhabitants of Palestine;\nand the disciples might be counted among the most simple people of\nGalilee.\"--Renan.\n\n\"His followers were 'unlearned and ignorant men,' chosen from the\nhumblest of the people.\"--Farrar.\n\n\n\n594\n\nWhat power is Christ said to have bestowed on Peter?\n\n\"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:\nand whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:\nand whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven\"\n(Matthew xvi, 19).\n\nOn this remarkable bestowal of power, which has exerted such a\nmighty influence in the government of the church, but of which Mark,\nLuke and John know nothing, Greg comments as follows: \"Not only\ndo we know Peter's utter unfitness to be the depositary of such a\nfearful power, from his impetuosity and instability of character,\nand Christ's thorough perception of this unfitness, but we find\nimmediately after it is said to have been conferred upon him, his\nLord addresses him indignantly by the epithet of Satan, and rebukes\nhim for his presumption and unspirituality; and shortly afterwards\nthis very man thrice denied his master. Can any one maintain it\nto be conceivable that Jesus should have conferred the awful power\nof deciding the salvation or damnation of his fellow-men upon one\nso frail, so faulty, and so fallible? Does any one believe that he\ndid?\" (Creed of Christendom, p. 189).\n\n\n\n595\n\nWhen Peter discovered that Jesus was the Christ what did he do?\n\nMark: \"And Peter took him [Christ] and began to rebuke him\" (viii, 32).\n\nWhat did Jesus do in turn?\n\nMark: \"He rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me Satan\" (33).\n\nWhat a spectacle! The incarnate God of the universe and his vicegerent\non earth indulging in a petty quarrel!\n\n\n\n596\n\nGive an account of Peter's denial of his Master.\n\nMatthew: \"Now when Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came\nunto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied\nbefore them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he was\ngone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them\nthat were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And\nagain he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a\nwhile came up to him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely\nthou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began\nhe to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man\" (xxvi, 69-74).\n\n\n\n597\n\nWhat did Peter say to Jesus in regard to compensation for his services?\n\n\"Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have\ntherefore?\" (Matthew xix, 27).\n\nWhat request was made by James and John?\n\nMark: \"They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy\nright hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory\" (x, 37).\n\nThis shows that self-aggrandizement inspired the actions of his\nfollowers then as it does today.\n\n\n\n598\n\nWhat is said of John in the Gospel of John?\n\n\"There was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom he loved\"\n(xiii, 23).\n\n\"The disciple standing by whom he [Jesus] loved\" (xix, 26).\n\n\"The other disciple whom Jesus loved\" (xx, 2).\n\n\"Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved\nfollowing; which also leaned on his breast at supper.... This is the\ndisciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things\"\n(xxi, 20, 24).\n\nIf the Apostle John wrote this Gospel, as claimed by Christians and\nas declared in the Gospel, he was a vulgar egotist.\n\n\n\n599\n\nWhat is said regarding the conduct of his Apostles on the evening\npreceding the crucifixion?\n\nLuke: \"And there was also a strife among them, which of them should\nbe accounted the greatest\" (xxii, 24).\n\nThis was immediately after he had announced his speedy betrayal\nand death and when his disciples, if sincere, must have manifested\nthe deepest sadness and humility. If the Evangelist is not a base\ncalumniator the Apostles were a set of heartless knaves.\n\n\n\n600\n\nWhen the Jews came to arrest Jesus what did the disciples do?\n\nMatthew: \"Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled\" (xxvi, 56).\n\nMark: \"And they all forsook him, and fled\" (xiv, 50).\n\nJustin says: \"All his friends [the Apostles] stood aloof from him,\nhaving denied him\" (Apology i, 50).\n\nOne scarcely knows which to detest the more, the treachery of Judas\nin betraying his Master, or the imbecility and cowardice of the other\napostles who took no measures to prevent it and who forsook him in\nthe hour of danger.\n\n\n\n601\n\nWhat became of the Twelve Apostles?\n\nThe New Testament, a portion of which is admitted to have been written\nas late as the latter part of the first century and nearly all of\nwhich was really written in the second century, is silent regarding\nthem. Christian martyrology records their fates as follows:\n\nSt. Peter was crucified, at his own request head downward, and buried\nin the Vatican at Rome.\n\nSt. Andrew, after having been scourged seven times upon his naked body,\nwas crucified by the proconsul of Achaia.\n\nSt. James was beheaded by Herod Antipas in Palestine.\n\nSt. John was \"thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil\" by Domitian,\nbut God \"delivered him.\"\n\nSt. Philip was scourged and crucified or hanged by the magistrates\nof Hierapolis.\n\nSt. Bartholomew was put to death by a Roman governor in Armenia.\n\nSt. Matthew suffered martyrdom at Naddabar in Ethiopia.\n\nSt. Thomas was shot to death with arrows by the Brahmans in India.\n\nSt. James the Less was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple at\nJerusalem and dispatched with a club where he fell.\n\nSt. Simon was \"crucified and buried\" in Britain.\n\nSt. Jude was \"cruelly put to death\" by the Magi of Persia.\n\nSt. Matthias, the successor of Judas Iscariot, if Christian tradition\nis to be credited, was put to death three times, crucified, stoned,\nand beheaded.\n\nNothing can be more incredible than these so-called traditions\nregarding the martyrdom of the Twelve Apostles, the most of them\noccurring in an empire where all religious sects enjoyed as perfect\nreligious freedom as the different sects do in America today. Whatever\nopinion may be entertained respecting the existence of Jesus, the\nTwelve Apostles belong to the realm of mythology, and their alleged\nmartyrdoms are pure inventions. Had these men really existed Christian\nhistory at least would contain some reliable notice of them, yet all\nthe stories relating to them, like the story of Peter at Rome, and\nJohn at Ephesus, are self-evident fictions. In the significant words of\nthe eminent Dutch theologians, Dr. Kuenen, Dr. Oort and Dr. Hooykaas,\n\"All the Apostles disappear without a trace.\"\n\n\n\n602\n\nWhat are Paul's teachings regarding woman and marriage?\n\n\"It is good for a man not to touch a woman\" (1 Corinthians vii, 1).\n\n\"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them\nif they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry;\nfor it is better to marry than to burn\" (8, 9).\n\n\"Art thou loose from a wife? seek not a wife\" (27).\n\n\"He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord,\nhow he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for the\nthings that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is\ndifference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman\ncareth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy in body and\nspirit; but she that is married careth for the things of the world,\nhow she may please her husband\" (32-34).\n\n\"So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth\nnot in marriage doeth better\" (38).\n\n\"This coarse and insulting way of regarding women, as though they\nexisted merely to be the safety-valves of men's passions, and that\nthe best men were above the temptation of loving them, has been the\nsource of unnumbered evils.\"--Annie Besant.\n\n\"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands\" (Colossians iii, 18).\n\n\"As the church is subject unto Christ so let the wives be to their\nown husbands in everything\" (Ephesians v, 24).\n\n\"Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted\nunto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience,\nas also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask\ntheir husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in\nthe church\" (1 Corinthians xiv, 34, 35).\n\n\"Let women learn in silence with all subjection\" (1 Timothy ii, 11).\n\n\"That she [woman] does not crouch today where St. Paul tried to bind\nher, she owes to the men who are grand and brave enough to ignore\nSt. Paul, and rise superior to his God.\"--Helen Gardener.\n\n\n\n603\n\nDid Paul encourage learning?\n\n\"The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God\" (1 Corinthians\niii, 19).\n\n\"Knowledge puffeth up\" (viii, 1).\n\n\"If any man be ignorant let him be ignorant\" (xiv, 38).\n\n\"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy\" (Colossians ii, 8).\n\n\"The clergy, with a few honorable exceptions, have in all modern\ncountries been the avowed enemies of the diffusion of knowledge, the\ndanger of which to their own profession they, by a certain instinct,\nseem always to have perceived.\"--Buckle.\n\n\"We know the clerical party; it is an old party. This it is which\nhas found for the truth those two marvelous supporters, ignorance and\nerror. This it is which forbids to science and genius the going beyond\nthe Missal and which wishes to cloister thought in dogmas. Every step\nwhich the intelligence of Europe has taken has been in spite of it. Its\nhistory is written in the history of human progress, but it is written\non the back of the leaf. It is opposed to it all. This it is which\ncaused Prinelli to be scourged for having said that the stars would\nnot fall. This it is which put Campanella seven times to torture for\nsaying that the number of worlds was infinite and for having caught a\nglimpse of the secret of creation. This it is which persecuted Harvey\nfor having proved the circulation of the blood. In the name of Jesus\nit shut up Galileo. In the name of St. Paul it imprisoned Christopher\nColumbus. To discover a law of the heavens was an impiety, to find a\nworld was a heresy. This it is which anathematized Pascal in the name\nof religion, Montaigne in the name of morality, Moliere in the name\nof both morality and religion. There is not a poet, not an author,\nnot a thinker, not a philosopher, that you accept. All that has been\nwritten, found, dreamed, deduced, inspired, imagined, invented by\ngenius, the treasures of civilization, the venerable inheritance of\ngenerations, you reject.\"--Victor Hugo.\n\n\"There is in every village a lighted torch, the schoolmaster; and a\nmouth to blow it out, the parson.\"--Ibid.\n\n\n\n604\n\nWhat admissions are made by Paul regarding his want of candor and\nhonesty?\n\n\"Being crafty, I caught you with guile\" (2 Corinthians xii, 16).\n\n\"Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews\"\n(1 Corinthians ix, 20).\n\n\"I am made all things to all men\" (22).\n\n\"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his\nglory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?\" (Romans iii, 7.)\n\n\"I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service\"\n(2 Corinthians xi, 8).\n\n\n\n605\n\nWhat is said of the persecutions of Paul?\n\n\"And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the\ndisciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and desired of him\nletters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this\nway, whether they were men or women he might bring them bound unto\nJerusalem\" (Acts ix, 1, 2).\n\nThis was Saul the Jew.\n\n\"But there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel\nof Christ.... If any man preach any other gospel than that ye have\nreceived, let him be accursed\" (Galatians i, 7, 9).\n\n\"I would they were even cut off which trouble you\" (v, 12).\n\nThis was Paul the Christian.\n\nThe leopard changed his name but did not change his spots.\n\nThe alleged cause of Paul's sudden conversion and the transference of\nhis hatred from Christianity to Judaism may well be questioned. The\nstory of the apparition will not account for it. A genuine change\nof belief is not usually effected suddenly. Men sometimes change\ntheir religion for gain or revenge. It has been charged that Paul\ntwice changed his, the first time for the hope of gain, the second\nfrom a desire for revenge. The Ebionites, one of the earliest of the\nChristian sects, claimed that Paul was originally a Gentile, that\nbecoming infatuated with the daughter of the high priest he became\na convert to Judaism for the purpose of winning her for a wife, but\nbeing rejected, he renounced the Jewish faith and became a vehement\nopponent of the law, the Sabbath, and circumcision (Epiphanius Against\nHeresies, chapter xxx, sec. 16).\n\n\n\n606\n\nWhat was Christ's final command to his disciples?\n\n\"Love one another\" (John xiii, 34).\n\nChristian writers prate about brotherly love, and yet from the very\nbeginning the church of Christ has been filled with dissensions. Christ\nhimself quarreled with his apostles. Paul opposed the teachings of\nJames (Galatians ii, 16-21); James condemned the teachings of Paul\n(ii, 20). Paul proclaimed himself the divinely appointed apostle to\nthe Gentiles: \"The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me\"\n(Galatians ii, 7). Peter contended that the mission had been assigned\nto him: \"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and\nsaid unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago\nGod made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear\nthe word of the gospel\" (Acts xv, 7).\n\nPaul declared Peter to be a dissembler. \"But when Peter was come to\nAntioch, I withstood him face to face, because he was to be blamed. For\nbefore that certain came from James, he did eat with Gentiles; but\nwhen they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them\nwhich were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise\nwith him\" (Galatians ii, 11-13).\n\nJohn denounced Paul as a liar. \"Thou hast tried them which say they are\napostles, and are not, and hast found them liars\" (Revelation ii, 2).\n\nFrom these seeds of dissension death has reaped a bloody\nharvest. Dr. Talmage says: \"A red line runs through church history\nfor nearly nineteen hundred years--a line of blood; not by hundreds,\nbut by millions we count the slain.\"\n\nLord Byron says: \"I am no Platonist; I am nothing at all. But I would\nsooner be a Paulician, Manichean, Spinozist, Gentile, Pyrrhonian,\nZoroastrian, than one of the seventy-two villainous sects who are\ntearing each other to pieces for the love of the Lord and hatred of\neach other.\"\n\n\n\n607\n\nQuote Paul's characterization of Christians.\n\n\"Not many wise ... not many noble are called\" (1 Corinthians i, 26).\n\n\"Base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God\nchosen\" (28).\n\n\"We are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of\nall things\" (iv, 13).\n\n\"We are fools for Christ's sake\" (10).\n\n\n\n608\n\nWhat did Christ say respecting the intellectual character of his\nconverts?\n\n\"I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast\nhid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them\nunto babes\" (Matthew xi, 25; Luke x, 21).\n\nCommenting on this expression of thanks, Celsus, who lived at the\ntime the Four Gospels made their appearance, says: \"This is one of\ntheir [the Christians'] rules: Let no man that is learned, wise,\nor prudent come among us; but if they be unlearned, or a child,\nor an idiot, let him freely come. So they openly declare that none\nbut the ignorant, and those devoid of understanding, slaves, women,\nand children, are fit disciples for the God they worship.\"\n\nConcerning the Christian teachers of that age Celsus writes as follows:\n\"You may see weavers, tailors, fullers, and the most illiterate of\nrustic fellows, who dare not speak a word before wise men, when they\ncan get a company of children and silly women together, set up to\nteach strange paradoxes among them.\"\n\n\n\n609\n\nWhom did Christ declare to be among the first to enter the Kingdom\nof Heaven?\n\nHarlots and thieves.\n\n\"The harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you\" (Matthew xxi, 31).\n\n\"Today shalt thou [the thief] be with me in paradise\" (Luke xxiii, 43).\n\n\n\n610\n\nWhat promise did he make to his followers?\n\n\"In my Father's house are many mansions.... I go to prepare a place\nfor you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again,\nand receive you unto myself\" (John xiv, 2, 3).\n\n\"Christians believe themselves to be the aristocracy of heaven upon\nearth, they are admitted to the spiritual court, while millions of\nmen in foreign lands have never been presented. They bow their knees\nand say they are 'miserable sinners,' and their hearts rankle with\nabominable pride. Poor infatuated fools! Their servility is real and\ntheir insolence is real but their king is a phantom and their palace\nis a dream.\"--Winwood Reade.\n\nThe Christ is a myth. The Holy Ghost Priestcraft overshadowed the\nharlot Superstition; this Christ was born; and the Joseph of humanity,\nbeguiled by the Gabriel of credulity, was induced to support the\nfamily. But the soldiers of Reason have crucified the illegitimate\nimpostor; he is dead; and the ignorant disciples and hysterical women\nwho still linger about the cross should take his body down and bury it.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE CHRIST A MYTH.\n\n\nThe conceptions regarding the nature and character of Christ, and the\nvalue of the Christian Scriptures as historical evidence, are many,\nchief of which are the following:\n\n1. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is a historical character,\nsupernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives,\nwhich purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain\nnothing but infallible truth.\n\n2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan, and the Unitarians,\nbelieve that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that\nthese narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they\nregard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.\n\n3. Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which\nJesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so\nlegendary and contradictory as to be almost, if not wholly, unworthy\nof credit.\n\n4. Other Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth--that\nhe never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary\nsolar deity.\n\nThe first of these conceptions must be rejected because the existence\nof such a being is impossible, and because the Bible narratives which\nsupport it are incredible. The second cannot be accepted because,\noutside of these incredible narratives, there is no evidence to confirm\nit. One of the two last is the only true and rational conception of\nthe Christ.\n\nJesus Christ is a myth. But what do we understand by the term\nmyth? Falsehood, fable, and myth, are usually considered synonymous\nterms. But a falsehood, a fable, and a myth, while they may all be\nfictions and equally untrue, are not the same. A falsehood is the\nexpression of an untruth intended to deceive. A fable is an avowed\nor implied fiction usually intended to instruct or entertain. A myth\nis a falsehood, a fable, or an erroneous opinion, which eventually\nbecomes an established belief. While a falsehood and a fable are\nintentional and immediate expressions of fiction, a myth is, in most\ncases, an unconscious and gradual development of one.\n\nMyths are of three kinds: Historical, Philosophical, and Poetical.\n\nA Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow\nhis language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which\nconfounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The\nevent may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true,\nor it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but\na small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially\nfalse. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical\nnarratives, are historical myths. The earliest records of all nations\nand of all religions are more or less mythical. \"Nothing great has been\nestablished,\" says Renan, \"which does not rest on a legend. The only\nculprit in such cases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived.\"\n\nA Philosophical myth is an idea clothed in the dress of historical\nnarrative. When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form\nof a man or a god it is called a pure myth. Many of the gods and\nheroes of antiquity are pure myths. John Fiske refers to a myth as\n\"a piece of unscientific philosophizing,\" and this is a fairly good\ndefinition of the philosophical myth.\n\nA Poetical myth is a blending of the historical and philosophical,\nembellished by the creations of the imagination. The poems of Homer\nand Hesiod, which were the religious text books of the ancient Greeks,\nand the poetical writings of the Bible, which helped to form and\nfoster the Semitic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism,\nbelong to this class.\n\nIt is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical\nfrom a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in\nregard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a\nphilosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose\nthe deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?\n\nThe following hypothesis, written by Mrs. Besant, of England, is,\nto a considerable extent, an epitome of the views of Strauss, who,\nin his masterly \"Leben Jesu,\" adopts the historical myth:\n\n\"The mythic theory accepts an historical groundwork for many\nof the stories about Jesus, but it does not seek to explain the\nmiraculous by attenuating it into the natural.... It attributes\nthe incredible portions of the history to the Messianic theories\ncurrent among the Jews. The Messiah would do this and that; Jesus\nwas the Messiah; therefore, Jesus did this and that--such, argue the\nsupporters of the mythical theory, was the method in which the mythus\nwas developed.... Thus, Jesus is descended from David, because the\nMessiah was to come of David's lineage; his birth is announced by an\nangelic visitant, because the birth of the Messiah must not be less\nhonored than that of Isaac or of Samson; he is born of a virgin,\nbecause God says of the Messiah, 'this day have I begotten thee,'\nimplying the direct paternity of God, and because the prophecy in\nIs. vii, 14, was applied to the Messiah by the later Jews; born at\nBethlehem, because there the Messiah was to be born (Micah v, 2);\nannounced to shepherds, because Moses was visited among the flocks,\nand David taken from the sheepfolds at Bethlehem; heralded by a star,\nbecause a star should arise out of Jacob (Num. xxiv, 17), and 'the\nGentiles shall come to thy light' (Is. lx, 3); worshiped by Magi,\nbecause the star was seen by Balaam, the magus, and astrologers would\nbe those who would most notice a star; presented with gifts by these\nEastern sages, because kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer gifts\n(Ps. lxxii, 10); saved from the destruction of the infants by a\njealous king, because Moses, one of the great types of the Messiah,\nwas so saved; flying into Egypt and thence returning, because Israel,\nagain a type of the Messiah, so fled and returned, and 'out of Egypt\nhave I called my son' (Hos. xi, 1); at twelve years of age found\nin the temple, because the duties of the law devolved on the Jewish\nboy at that age, and where should the Messiah then be found save in\nhis Father's temple? recognized at his baptism by a divine voice,\nto fulfil Is. xlii, 1; hovered over by a dove, because the brooding\nspirit (Gen. i, 2) was regarded as dove-like, and the spirit was to be\nespecially poured on the Messiah (Is. xlii, 1); tempted by the devil to\ntest him, because God tested his greatest servants, and would surely\ntest the Messiah; fasting forty days in the wilderness, because the\ntypes of the Messiah--Moses and Elijah--thus fasted in the desert;\nhealing all manner of disease, because Messiah was to heal (Is. xxxv,\n5-6); preaching, because Messiah was to preach (Is. lxi, 1-2);\ncrucified, because the hands and feet of Messiah were to be pierced\n(Ps. xxii, 16); mocked, because Messiah was to be mocked (Ib. 6-8);\nhis garments divided, because thus it was spoken of Messiah (Ib. 18);\nsilent before his judges, because Messiah was not to open his mouth\n(Is. liii, 7); buried by the rich, because Messiah was thus to find\nhis grave (Ib. 9); rising again, because Messiah could not be left\nin hell (Ps. xvi, 10); sitting at God's right hand, because there\nMessiah was to sit as king (Ps. cx, 1). Thus the form of the Messiah\nwas cast, and all that had to be done was to pour in the human metal;\nthose who alleged that the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus\nof Nazareth, adapted his story to the story of the Messiah, pouring\nthe history of Jesus into the mould already made for the Messiah,\nand thus the mythus was transformed into a history.\"\n\nThe foregoing theory, with various modifications, is accepted by a\nmajority of Freethinkers at the present time.\n\nThe hypothesis that Christ is a philosophical myth, based, like\nthe preceding one, upon the Messianic idea, is thus presented by\nT. B. Wakeman:\n\n\"Never was there an example of a word becoming a believed person,\nunder this law of materialization, more plainly and evolutionally\nthan the 'Messiah' and 'Son of Man' of the Hebrew prophecies.... The\nChrist, 'Jesus,' was no man, for the reason that he was prophesied\nand visionated into this world and life to do a work that it would\nbe utterly absurd to suppose a man could ever do. The Romans had\nkilled, and could easily kill, every man who had tried to resist\ntheir oppression. Now the God Yahweh by his 'eternally begotten son,'\nspiritized as the 'Son of Man,' that is the 'Soul of the State,' as\nShakespeare makes Ulysses say it, must, in order to be of any avail\nappear with supernatural powers. He was the personified people, Israel;\nhe had been crucified alive, in their subjection and massacre even to\nthe death and Hades. But by supernatural power he, the Israel, would\nrise again and bring the final judgment backed by the infinite power\nof the nation's Father, Yahweh. It was only a Spirit-God who could do\nthis--nothing less could be originated, or thought of, or provided,\nfor such a superhuman purpose. A person, a man, a reformer, a weak\nedition of Socrates, or Savonarola or Bruno! How absurd! The human\nheart in its despair by its imagination, brought a God into the world\nto do a God's work. 'No man,' said Napoleon; 'nor a God,' says Science,\nexcept the idea. Such it was that finally united the millions of Asia,\nAfrica, Europe, and America, in a dream so intoxicating that it dares\nnot to be awakened though the dawn of Science is here.\"\n\nMr. Wakeman argues that the silence of history for one hundred years\nafter the alleged appearance of Christ can be explained only upon this\nhypothesis of an ideal Christ. To this the advocate of the historical\nmythus may, I think, very properly reply: History, for the most part,\ntakes cognizance only of noted men and important events; and while\nthis silence precludes the existence of the supernatural Christ of\nChristians, and even that of the human Jesus of Renan, it does not\nnecessarily preclude the existence of an obscure religious teacher\nand an insignificant sect which subsequently, by a chain of fortuitous\ncircumstances, became the mightiest among the religions of the world.\n\nAgain, this hypothesis presupposes a considerable degree of\nintellectuality on the part of those who evolved this ideal Christ,\nwhile tradition represents the founders of the Christian religion\nas grossly ignorant. Had this Christ originally sprung from the\nHellenistic Jews of intellectual Alexandria instead of from the Jewish\ndregs of illiterate Galilee, Mr. Wakeman's theory would appeal with\nsurprising force. Still it must be admitted that some of the earliest\nChristian sects denied the material existence of Christ.\n\nAnother philosophical hypothesis, the astronomical, which regards\nChrist as a solar myth, is advanced by Volney.\n\n\"These mythological traditions recounted that, 'in the beginning,\na woman and a man had, by their fall, introduced into the world sin\nand misery.'\n\n\"By this was denoted the astronomical fact that the celestial virgin\nand the herdsman (Bootes), by setting heliacally at the autumnal\nequinox, delivered the world to the wintry constellations, and seemed,\non falling below the horizon, to introduce into the world the genius\nof evil (Ahrimanes), represented by the constellation of the serpent.\n\n\"These traditions related that the woman had decoyed and seduced\nthe man.\n\n\"And, in fact, the virgin setting first seems to draw the herdsman\nafter her.\n\n\"That the woman tempted him by offering him fruit fair to the sight,\nand good to eat, which gave the knowledge of good and evil.\n\n\"And, in fact, the virgin holds in her hand a branch of fruit which\nshe seems to offer to the herdsman; and the branch, emblem of autumn,\nplaced in the picture of Mithra between winter and summer seems to\nopen the door and give knowledge, the key to good and evil.\n\n\"That this couple had been driven from the celestial garden, and that\na cherub with a flaming sword had been placed at the gate to guard it.\n\n\"And, in fact, when the virgin and the herdsman fall beneath the\nwestern horizon, Perseus rises on the other side; and this genius,\nwith a sword in his hand, seems to drive them from the summer heaven,\nthe garden and dominion of fruits and flowers.\n\n\"That of the virgin should be born, spring up, an offspring, a child,\nwho should bruise the head of the serpent, and deliver the world\nfrom sin.\n\n\"This denotes the sun, which, at the moment of the winter solstice,\nprecisely when the Persian magi drew the horoscope of the new year,\nwas placed on the bosom of the virgin, rising heliacally in the eastern\nhorizon. On this account he was figured in their astrological pictures\nunder the form of a child suckled by a chaste virgin, and became\nafterward, at the vernal equinox, the ram, or lamb, triumphant over\nthe constellation of the serpent, which disappeared from the skies.\n\n\"That, in his infancy, the restorer of divine and celestial nature\nwould live abased, humble, obscure and indigent.\n\n\"And this, because the winter sun is abased below the horizon and that\nthis first period of his four ages or seasons is a time of obscurity,\nscarcity, fasting and want.\n\n\"That being put to death by the wicked, he had risen gloriously; that\nhe had reascended from hell to heaven, where he would reign forever.\n\n\"This is a sketch of the life of the sun, who, finishing his career\nat the winter solstice, when Typhon and the rebel angels gain the\ndominion, seems to be put to death by them; but who soon after is\nborn again, and rises into the vault of heaven, where he reigns.\"\n\nCount Volney's portraiture of the second member of the Christian\ngodhead is, for the most part, accurate. Numerous other analogies\nbetween him and the ancient sun gods might be named.\n\nIt is the belief of many, however, that these solar attributes of\nChrist are later accretions borrowed by the Roman Catholic church\nfrom the Pagan religions which it supplanted.\n\nWhile all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New\nTestament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never\nwill be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe\nthat he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some\nbelieve that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom\nsubsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the\nman Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human\nimagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in\nsupport of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing\na dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the\nformer as the more probable.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nSOURCES OF THE CHRIST MYTH--ANCIENT RELIGIONS.\n\n\nChrist and the religion he is said to have founded are composite\nproducts, made up, to a great extent, of the attributes, the doctrines,\nand the customs of the gods and the religions which preceded them and\nexisted around them. The Christian believes that Christ is coexistent\nwith his father, Jehovah--that he has existed from the foundations\nof the world. This is in a measure true. The years that have elapsed\nsince his alleged incarnation are few compared with the years of his\ngestation in the intellectual womb of humanity.\n\nTo understand the origin and nature of Christ and Christianity it is\nnecessary to know something of the religious systems and doctrines\nfrom which they were evolved. The following, some in a large and\nothers in but a small degree, contributed to mold this supposed\ndivine incarnation and inspire this supposed revelation: 1. Nature\nor Sex Worship. 2. Solar Worship. 3. Astral Worship. 4. Worship\nof the Elements and Forces of Nature. 5. Worship of Animals and\nPlants. 6. Fetichism. 7. Polytheism. 8. Monotheism. 9. The Mediatorial\nIdea. 10. The Messianic Idea. 11. The Logos. 12. The Perfect Man.\n\n\n\n1. Nature or Sex Worship.\n\nThe deification and worship of the procreative organs and the\ngenerative principles of life is one of the oldest and one of the\nmost universal of religions. It has been called the foundation\nof all religions. In some nations the worship of the male energy,\nPhallic worship, predominated; in others the worship of the female\nenergy, Yoni worship, prevailed. But in all both elements were\nrecognized. Mrs. Besant says: \"Womanhood has been worshiped in all\nages of the world, and maternity has been deified by all creeds:\nfrom the savage who bowed before the female symbol of motherhood, to\nthe philosophic Comtist who adores woman 'in the past, the present,\nand the future,' as mother, wife, and daughter, the worship of the\nfemale element in nature has run side by side with that of the male;\nthe worship is one and the same in all religions, and runs in an\nunbroken thread from the barbarous ages to the present time.\"\n\nAmong the life generating gods may be named Vishnu, Osiris,\nZeus, Priapus, Adonis, Bacchus, Saturn, Apollo, Baal, Moloch, and\nJehovah. Among the receptive life producing goddesses were Isis, Rhea,\nCeres, Venus, Istar, Astarte, Aschera, Devaki, Eve, and Mary. Where\nthe worship of the female element largely prevailed the Virgin\nand Child was a favorite deity. Isis and Horus, Rhea and Quirinus,\nLeto and Apollo, Devaki and Krishna, Mary and Christ, all had their\ninception in the sex worship of primitive man.\n\nThe symbol of Phallic worship, the cross, has become the emblem of\nChristianity. I quote again from our English authoress: \"We find\nthe cross in India, Egypt, Thibet, Japan, always as the sign of\nlife-giving power; it was worn as an amulet by girls and women, and\nseems to have been specially worn by the women attached to the temples\n[sacred prostitutes], as a symbol of what was, to them, a religious\ncalling. The cross is, in fact, nothing but the refined phallus,\nand in the Christian religion is a significant emblem of its Pagan\norigin; it was adored, carved in temples, and worn as a sacred emblem\nby sun and nature worshipers, long before there were any Christians\nto adore, carve, and wear it. The crowd kneeling before the cross in\nRoman Catholic and in High Anglican churches is a simple reproduction\nof the crowd who knelt before it in the temples of ancient days,\nand the girls who wear it amongst ourselves are--in the most innocent\nunconsciousness of its real significance--exactly copying the Indian\nand Egyptian women of an elder time.\"\n\nThe \"American Cyclopedia\" says: \"The crux ansata, so common on Egyptian\nmonuments, symbolizes the union of the active and passive principles of\nnature. In the Etruscan tombs have been found crosses of four phalli.\"\n\nRegarding this subject, McClintock and Strong's \"Cyclopedia of\nBiblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature,\" a standard\northodox Christian authority, says: \"The sign of the cross is found\nas a holy symbol among several ancient nations.... Sometimes it is\nthe phallus\" (Art. Cross). The same authority says that the Tau or\nsign of life (one form of the Phallic cross) \"was adopted by some of\nthe early Christians in lieu of the cross.... Christian inscriptions\nat the great oasis are headed by this symbol; it has been found on\nChristian monuments at Rome\" (Art. Egypt).\n\nDr. Thomas Inman, of England, one of the foremost authorities on\nancient symbolism, says: \"It has been reserved for Christian art to\ncrowd our churches with the emblems of Bel and Astarte, Baalim and\nAshtoreth, linga and yoni, and to elevate the phallus to the position\nof the supreme deity\" (Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,\np. 16).\n\nDescribing the chasuble, worn by Christian priests, Dr. Inman says:\n\"Its form is that of the vesica piscis, one of the most common emblems\nof the yoni. It is adorned by the Triad. When worn by the priest,\nhe forms the male element, and with the chasuble completes the sacred\nfour. When worshiping the ancient goddesses, whom Mary has displaced,\nthe officiating ministers clothed themselves in feminine attire. Hence\nthe use of the chemise, etc. Even the tonsured head, adopted from\nthe priests of the Egyptian Isis, represents 'l'anneau'; so that on\nhead, shoulders, breast and body, we may see on Christian priests\nthe relics of the worship of Venus, and the adoration of woman! How\nhorrible all this would sound if, instead of using veiled language,\nwe had employed vulgar words. The idea of a man adorning himself,\nwhen ministering before God and the people, with the effigies of those\nparts which nature as well as civilization teaches us to conceal,\nwould be simply disgusting, but when all is said to be mysterious\nand connected with hidden signification, almost everybody tolerates\nand many eulogize or admire it!\" (Ibid, p. 104).\n\nWestropp and Wake, in their \"Ancient Symbol Worship,\" state that\nJudaism and Christianity have been largely derived from Phallic\nworship. Westropp says: \"Circumcision was in its inception a purely\nPhallic ordinance.\" Our Christian marriage ceremonies, he says, are\nrelics of this worship. Wake says: \"In the recognition of God as the\nuniversal father, the great Parent of mankind, there is a development\nof the fundamental idea of Phallism. In the position assigned to Mary\nas the mother of God the paramount principle of the primitive belief\nis again predominant. The nimbus, the aureole, the cross, the fish,\nand even the spires of churches, are symbols retained from the old\nPhallic worship.\"\n\nDr. Alexander Wilder says: \"There is not a fast or festival, procession\nor sacrament, social custom or religious symbol, existing at the\npresent day which has not been taken bodily from Phallism, or from\nsome successive system of Paganism.\"\n\nAschera, the voluptuous goddess of fertility, was a Hebrew goddess\nand was worshiped, along with Jehovah, in the temple itself at\nJerusalem. Jules Soury, of France, in his \"Religion of Israel\"\n(p. 68), says: \"Under the kings of Judah and Israel, the symbol of\nAschera [the phallus] became an object of general piety which was\nfound in every house. Thus in the provinces of France, we still find\ngigantic crosses on the high roads, on the crossways of the woods which\nserve as resting places at the Fete Dieu, while, under the porches\nof churches, vendors of religious toys still sell little Christs\nin wood or metal for a few half-pence. The rich women of Israel,\nthe bourgeoises of Jerusalem, wore the symbols of Aschera in gold\nand silver, a sort of medals of the Virgin of the time, which were at\nonce jewels and objects of devotion.\" Dulaure, another French author,\ntells us that the worship of Priapus, the god of procreation, under\nthe name of St. Fontin, with rites of the most indelicate character,\nprevailed in the Catholic church in several provinces of France and\nItaly up to the middle of the eighteenth century, or later.\n\nThe sex worship of the Semitic tribes of Western Asia had its origin,\nit is believed, in India, where, under the name of Sakti worship, it\nprevails today, three-fourth of the Hindoos, it is claimed, belonging\nto this sect. The worship is thus described by the \"Encyclopedia\nBritannica's\" chief authority on the subject, Prof. H. H. Wilson:\n\"The ceremonies are mostly gone through in a mixed society, the\nSakti being personified by a naked female, to whom meat and wine are\noffered and then distributed amongst the company. These eat and drink\nalternately with gesticulations and mantras--and when the religious\npart of the business is over, the males and females rush together\nand indulge in a wild orgy.\"\n\nThe foregoing is almost an exact description of the Agapae, or Love\nFeasts, as they were observed for a time in the early Christian church.\n\nAssociated with the worship of Aschera and other goddesses of this\ncharacter was what is known as sacred prostitution. Thousands of women,\nthe fairest and best bred of their race, and also men (sodomites),\nprostituted themselves for the support of their religion. John\nClark Ridpath, in his \"History of the World,\" dwells upon this\ninstitution. It was practiced for centuries among the Hebrews,\nconstituting a part of the temple worship, the Jewish kings, with\nthe exception of a few, like Hezekiah and Josiah, sanctioning\nit. Solomon's temple was largely a Pagan temple. Before it stood\ntwo Phallic pillars, while its doors were ornamented with symbols of\nPhallic and Solar worship. Solomon worshiped, in addition to other\nPagan deities, Astarte (Ashtoreth), the Sidonian Aschera (1 Kings xi,\n5, 7). The pietistic writers of the Bible condemn it, but in spite\nof a few spasmodic efforts to suppress the worship, it continued to\nflourish until long after the Captivity. From Soury's account of the\nsanctified prostitution of Israel I quote the following: \"The tents of\nthe sacred prostitutes were generally erected on the 'high places,'\nwhere sacrifices were offered, beside the tablet of Baal or Iahveh\n[Jehovah] and the symbol of Aschera (Isaiah lvii, 7, et seq.; Ezekiel\nxxiii, 14; Hosea iv, 17). These tents were woven and ornamented with\nfigures by the priestesses of Aschera. Robed in splendid garments,\ntheir tresses dripping with perfumes, their cheeks painted with\nvermilion, their eyes black-circled with antimony, their eyelashes\nlengthened with a compound of gums, musk and ebony, the priestesses\nawaited the worshipers of the goddess within these tents (Numbers xxv,\n8) on spacious beds (Isaiah lvii, 8); they fixed their own price and\nconditions, and poured the money into the treasury of the temple\"\n(Religion of Israel, p. 71). After describing the temple of Zarpanit,\nwhich was furnished with cells for the use of the Babylonian women,\nDr. Soury says: \"Cells of the same kind, serving the same purpose,\nexisted at Jerusalem in the very temple of Jehovah, wherein Aschera\nhad her symbol and was adored\" (Ibid 72). \"Prostitutes,\" says this\nwriter, \"were of both sexes. The men were called kedeschim, the women\nkedeschoth--that is 'holy, vowed, consecrated.' Deuteronomy bears\nwitness that both the one and the other brought the hire of their\nprostitution into the treasury of the temple of Jehovah. This paid\nin part the expenses of worship at Jerusalem\" (Ib. 73).\n\n\"If then, in Hebrew law and practice,\" says Dr. Inman, \"we find such\na strong infusion of the sexual element, we cannot be surprised if\nit should be found elsewhere, and gradually influence Christianity\"\n(Ancient Symbolism). \"The worship of God the Father has repeatedly\nclashed with that of God the Mother, and the votaries of each\nrespectively have worn badges characteristic of the sex of their\ndeity.... Our sexual sections are as well marked as those in ancient\nJerusalem, which swore by Jehovah and Ashtoreth respectively\" (Ibid).\n\nIt is well known that religious prostitution has been practiced\nin some form by Christ's devotees from the earliest ages of the\nchurch down to the present time. Writing of the middle ages, Lecky,\nthe historian of European morals, says: \"We may not lay much stress\non such isolated instances of depravity as that of Pope John XXIII.,\nwho was condemned, among many other crimes, for incest and adultery;\nor the abbot-elect of St. Augustine, at Canterbury, who in 1171 was\nfound, on investigation, to have seventeen illegitimate children in\na single village; or an abbot of St. Pelayo, in Spain, who in 1130\nwas proved to have kept no less than seventy concubines; or Henry\nIII., Bishop of Liege, who was deposed in 1274 for having sixty-five\nillegitimate children; but it is impossible to resist the evidence of\na long chain of Councils and ecclesiastical writers, who conspire in\ndepicting far greater evils than simple concubinage.... The writers\nof the middle ages are full of accounts of nunneries that were like\nbrothels, of the vast multitude of infanticides within their walls,\nand of that inveterate prevalence of incest among the clergy, which\nrendered it necessary again and again to issue the most stringent\nenactments that priests should not be permitted to live with their\nmothers or sisters\" (History of European Morals, Vol. II, P. 331).\n\nFor centuries the worship of the Virgin Mary, the Christian goddess\nof reproduction and motherhood, was supreme; the worship of God and\nChrist being subordinated to it. During these centuries, Hallam tells\nus, chastity was almost unknown. In every land, every class ignored\nthe seventh commandment, because it was taught and believed that all\noffenses of this character were condoned by the Virgin. Hallam cites\nnumerous instances of her alleged interventions in behalf of those who\nindulged in illegitimate practices. The following is one: \"In one tale\nthe Virgin takes the shape of a nun, who had eloped from the convent,\nand performs her duties ten years, till, tired of a libertine life,\nshe returns unsuspected. This was in consideration of her having never\nomitted to say an Ave as she passed the Virgin's image\" (Middle Ages,\np. 604).\n\nChristian chivalry, so much lauded in our day, was simply a form of\nsex worship. Hallam characterizes it as unbridled libertinism. The\nwritings of that age, like those of Boccaccio, he says, indicate\n\"a general dissoluteness in the intercourse of the sexes.... The\nviolation of marriage vows passes in them for an incontestable\nprivilege of the brave and the fair\" (Ibid, p. 666).\n\nHoly pilgrimages to the shrines of saints were usually pilgrimages to\nthe shrine of Venus. \"Some of the modes of atonement which the church\nmost approved, were particularly hostile to public morals. None was\nso usual as pilgrimage; whether to Jerusalem or Rome, which were the\ngreat objects of devotion, or to the shrine of some national saint,\na James of Compostella, a David, or a Thomas Becket. This licensed\nvagrancy was naturally productive of dissoluteness, especially among\nthe women. Our English ladies, in their zeal to obtain the spiritual\ntreasures of Rome, are said to have relaxed the necessary caution\nabout one that was in their own custody\" (Ib., p. 607).\n\nThe prelates of the church, being equally culpable, winked at the\nlicentiousness of the lower orders of the clergy. \"In every country,\"\nsays Hallam, \"the secular and parochial clergy kept women in their\nhouses, upon more or less acknowledged terms of intercourse, by\na connivance of their ecclesiastical superiors\" (Ib., p. 353). \"A\nwriter of respectable authority asserts that the clergy frequently\nobtained a bishop's license to cohabit with a mate\" (Ib., p. 354).\n\nAnother form of \"sanctified\" sexual indulgence, and which received the\nsanction of the church, was what is known as Marquette. Concerning\nthis custom Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, in her \"Woman, Church and\nState,\" says: \"The law known as Marchetta, or Marquette, compelled\nnewly-married women to a most dishonorable servitude. They were\nregarded as the rightful prey of the Feudal Lord from one to three days\nafter their marriage, and from this custom the eldest son of the serf\nwas held as the son of the Lord.... Marquette was claimed by the Lord's\nSpiritual, as well as by the Lord's Temporal. The Church, indeed,\nwas the bulwark of this base feudal claim.\" This is affirmed by the\nFrench historian, Michelet. He says: \"The lords spiritual (clergy) had\nthis right no less than the lords temporal. The parson, being a lord,\nexpressly claimed the first fruits of the bride\" (La Sorcerie, p. 62).\n\nThe brazen lewdness of medieval Christianity has been driven into\nprivacy. But it still exists, and it is still religious. The Italian\npatriot, Garibaldi, bears this testimony: \"In Rome, in 1849, I myself\nvisited every convent. I was present at all the investigations. Without\na single exception we found instruments of torture, and a cellar with\nthe bodies of infant children.\" Referring to the priests connected\nwith certain convents, Dr. Inman says: \"Their practice was to instruct\ntheir victims that whatever was said or done must be accompanied by a\npious sentence. Thus, 'I love you dearly' was a profane expression;\nbut 'I desire your company in the name of Jesus,' and 'I embrace in\nyou the Holy Virgin,' was orthodox.\"\n\nProtestant readers, generally, will accept this testimony as\ntrue of Catholic countries. But have Protestant countries a purer\nrecord? Lecky, classed as a Protestant historian, says: \"The two\ncountries which are most thoroughly pervaded by Protestant theology\nare probably Scotland and Sweden; and if we measure their morality\nby the common though somewhat defective test that is furnished by\nthe number of illegitimate births, the first is well known to be\nconsiderably below the average morality of European nations, while\nthe second, in this as in general criminality, has been pronounced by\na very able and impartial Protestant witness, who has had the fullest\nmeans of judging, to be very far below every other Christian nation\"\n(European Morals, Vol. I, p. 391).\n\nThe religion of Christ as it exists today is not only in its external\nforms, but in its very essence, largely a survival of the nature\nworship of old. That it is closely allied to it is admitted by\nChristian ministers themselves. The Rev. Frederick Robertson says:\n\"The devotional feelings are often singularly allied to the animal\nnature. They conduct the unconscious victim of feelings that appear\ndivine, into a state of life at which the world stands aghast;\nfanaticism is always united with either excessive lewdness or\ndesperate asceticism\" (Essays). The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in \"Freaks\nof Fanaticism,\" says: \"The religious passion verges so closely on\nthe sexual passion that a slight additional pressure given to it\nbursts the partition, and both are confused in a frenzy of religious\ndebauch.\" The Rev. J. H. Noyes says: \"Religious love is a very near\nneighbor to sex love, and they always get mixed in the intimacies\nand social excitement of [religious] revivals.\"\n\n\n\n2. Solar Worship.\n\nScarcely less prevalent than sex worship was the worship of the\nsun. While sex worship was confined chiefly to the generation of human\nlife, sun worship comprehended the generation of all life. The sun\nwas recognized as the generative power of the universe. He overshadows\nthe receptive earth from whom all life is born. I quote from M. Soury:\n\"Amid all these forces, the mightiest is, without contradiction, the\nsun, the fire of heaven, father of earthly fire, unique and supreme\ncause of motion and life on our planet. There is no need or reason\nto understand that the very life, and as it were the blood of our\ncelestial father flows in the veins of the Earth, our mother. In\nthe time of love, when the luminous heaven embraces her, from her\nfertilized womb springs forth a world. It is she who quivers on\nthe plains where the soft moist air waves gently on the grasses;\nit is she who climbs in the bush, who soars in the oak, who fills\nthe solitude with the joyous twitter of birds beneath the cloudlet,\nor from the leaf-lined nests; it is she who in seas and in running\nwaters, or mountains and in woods, couples the gorgeous male with\nthe ardent female, throbs in every bosom, loves in every life. But\nall this terrestrial life, all this warmth and all this light are\nbut effluents from the sun.\" (Religion of Israel, pp. 3, 4.)\n\nProf. Tyndall says: \"We are no longer in a poetical but in a purely\nmechanical sense, the children of the sun.\" \"The sun,\" said Napoleon\nBonaparte, \"gives all things life and fertility. It is the true God\nof the earth.\"\n\nJohn Newton, M.R.C.S., of England, says: \"The glorious sun, that 'god\nof this world,' the source of life and light to our earth, was early\nadored, and an effigy thereof used as a symbol. Mankind watched with\nrapture its rays gain strength daily in the Spring, until the golden\nglories of Midsummer had arrived, when the earth was bathed during\nthe longest days in his beams, which ripened the fruits that his\nreturning course had started into life. When the sun once more began\nits course downwards to the winter solstice, his votaries sorrowed,\nfor he seemed to sicken and grow paler at the advent of December,\nwhen his rays scarcely reached the earth, and all nature, benumbed\nand cold, sunk into a death-like sleep. Hence feasts and fasts were\ninstituted to mark the commencement of the various phases of the\nsolar year, which have continued from the earliest known period,\nunder various names, to our own times\" (The Assyrian Grove).\n\nThe most prominent deities in the pantheons of the gods were solar\ndeities. Among these were Osiris, Vishnu, Mithra, Apollo, Hercules,\nAdonis, Bacchus, and Baal. In the worship of some of these gods sex\nand solar worship were united.\n\nThe early Israelites were mostly sun worshipers. And even in later\ntimes, the sun god, Baal, divided with Jehovah the worship of the\nJews. Saul, Jonathan, and David named their children in honor of this\ngod. \"Saul begat Jonathan, ... and Esh-baal. And the son of Jonathan\nwas Merib-baal\" (1 Chron. viii, 33, 34). David named his last son,\nsave one, Beeliada, \"Baal Knows,\" (1 Chron. xiv, 7). Solomon's worship\nincluded not merely the worship of Jehovah, but that of Baal and other\ngods. His temple was filled with Pagan ornaments and emblems pertaining\nto solar worship. Regarding this the Rev. Dr. Oort of Holland says:\n\"Solomon's temple had much in common with heathen edifices, and slight\nmodifications might have made it a suitable temple for Baal. This need\nnot surprise us, for the ancient religion of the Israelitish tribes\nwas itself a form of Nature-worship just as much as the religions\nof the Canaanites, Phenicians, Philistines, and other surrounding\npeoples were. Most of the Israelites certainly saw no harm in these\nornaments, since they were not aware of any very great difference\nbetween the character of Yahweh [Jehovah] and that of Baal, Astarte,\nor Moloch\" (Bible for Learners, vol. ii, p. 88). Long after the time\nof Solomon the horses and chariots of the Sun were kept in the temple\n(2 Kings xxiii, 11). Many of the stories concerning Moses, Joshua,\nJonah, and other Bible characters are solar myths. Samson was a sun\ngod. Dr. Oort says: \"Sun-worship was by no means unknown to the\nIsraelites.... The myths that were circulated among these people\nshow that they were zealous worshipers of the sun. These myths\nare still preserved, but, as in all other cases, they are so much\naltered as to be hardly recognizable. The writer who has preserved\nthem for us lived at a time when the worship of the sun had long ago\ndied out. He transforms the sun god into an Israelite hero [Samson]\"\n(Ibid i, p. 414). St. Augustine believed that Samson and the sun god\nHercules were one.\n\nCharles Francois Dupuis, in his \"Origin of Worship,\" one of the most\nelaborate and remarkable works on mythology ever penned, shows that\nnearly all the religions of the world, including Christianity, were\nderived largely from solar worship. All the solar deities, he says,\nhave a common history. This history, summarized, is substantially\nas follows: \"The god is born about December 25th, without sexual\nintercourse, for the sun, entering the winter solstice, emerges in the\nsign of Virgo, the heavenly Virgin. His mother remains ever-virgin,\nsince the rays of the sun, passing through the zodiacal sign,\nleave it intact. His infancy is begirt with dangers, because the\nnew-born Sun is feeble in the midst of the winter's fogs and mists,\nwhich threaten to devour him; his life is one of toil and peril,\nculminating at the spring equinox in a final struggle with the\npowers of darkness. At that period the day and night are equal,\nand both fight for the mastery. Though the night veil the Sun and he\nseems dead; though he has descended out of sight, below the earth,\nyet he rises again triumphant, and he rises in the sign of the Lamb,\nand is thus the Lamb of God, carrying away the darkness and death of\nthe winter months. Henceforth he triumphs, growing ever stronger and\nmore brilliant. He ascends into the zenith, and there he glows, on\nthe right hand of God, himself God, the very substance of the Father,\nthe brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,\nupholding all things by his life-giving power.\"\n\nDr. G. W. Brown, author of \"Researches in Oriental History,\" says:\n\"Strange as it may seem, whilst Mithras and Osiris, Dionysos and\nBacchus, Apollo and Serapis, with many others [including Christ] in\nname, all masculine sun gods, and all interblended, a knowledge of one\nis generally a knowledge of the whole, wherever located or worshiped.\"\n\nIf Christ was not originally a solar god he wears today the livery\nof one. His mother, the Virgin, was the mother of the solar gods;\nhis birthday, Christmas, is the birthday of all the gods of the sun;\nhis Twelve Apostles correspond to the twelve signs of the Zodiac;\naccording to the Gospels, at his crucifixion the sun was eclipsed, he\nexpired toward sunset, and rose again with the sun; the day appointed\nfor his worship, the Lord's day, is the die solis, Sunday, of the sun\nworshipers; while the principal feasts observed in memory of him were\nonce observed in honor of their gods. \"Every detail of the Sun myth,\"\nsays the noted astronomer, Richard A. Proctor, \"is worked into the\nrecord of the Galilean teacher.\"\n\nThe cross we have seen was a symbol of Phallic worship. The cross, and\nespecially the crucifix, was also an emblem of solar worship. It was\ncarved or painted on, or within, a circle representing the horizon,\nthe head and feet and the outstretched arms of the sacrificial\noffering or crucified Redeemer pointing toward the four quarters\nof the horizon. The Lord's Supper, observed in memory of Christ,\nwas observed in memory of Mithra, Bacchus, and other solar gods. The\nnimbus, or aureola, surrounding the head of Jesus in his portraits\nrepresents the rays of the sun. It was thus that the ancient adorers\nof the sun adorned the effigies of their god. There still exists a\npillar erected by the sun worshipers of Carthage. On this pillar is\ncarved the sun god, Baal, with a nimbus encircling his head.\n\nThe Christian doctrine of the resurrection had its origin in sun\nworship. As the sun, the Father, rose from the dead, so it was believed\nthat his earthly children would also rise from the dead. \"The daily\ndisappearance and the subsequent rise of the sun,\" says Newton,\n\"appeared to many of the ancients as a true resurrection; thus,\nwhile the east came to be regarded as the source of light and warmth,\nhappiness and glory, the west was associated with darkness and chill,\ndecay and death. This led to the custom of burying the dead so as\nto face the east when they rose again, and of building temples and\nshrines with an opening toward the east. To effect this, Vitruvius,\ntwo thousand years ago, gave precise rules, which are still followed\nby Christian architects.\"\n\nMax Mueller, in his \"Origin of Religion,\" (pp. 200, 201), says:\n\"People wonder why so much of the old mythology, the daily talk,\nof the Aryans was solar: what else could it have been? The names of\nthe sun are endless and so are his stories; but who he was, whence\nhe came and whither he went, remained a mystery from beginning to\nend.... Man looked up to the sun, yearning for the response of a soul,\nand though that response never came, though his senses recoiled,\ndazzled and blinded by an effulgence which he could not support,\nyet he never doubted that the invisible was there, and that, where\nhis senses failed him, where he could neither grasp nor comprehend,\nhe might still shut his eyes and trust, fall down and worship.\"\n\nThis worship of old survives in the worship of today. A knowledge\nof the location, the limits and the nature of the sun has gradually\nconvinced the world that this is not God's dwelling place; but\nsomewhere in the infinite expanse of the blue beyond they fancy\nhe has his throne. To this imaginary being is rendered the same\nadoration that was rendered to him by primitive man--the adoration\nof childish ignorance.\n\n\n\n3. Astral Worship.\n\nThe worship of the planets and stars was probably a later development\nthan sex and solar worship. It flourished for a time in nearly\nevery part of the world, and left its impress on the religions that\nsucceeded it.\n\nIn Chaldea, one of the principal sources of Judaism and Christianity,\nthe worship of the stars prevailed. I quote from Dr. Ridpath: \"In their\naspirations for communion with the higher powers, the yearning of the\nancient Chaldeans turned upwards to the planets and the stars. The\nhorizon of the Babylonian plain was uniform and boundless. It was the\nheaven above rather than the earth beneath, which exhibited variety and\nlife. The Zodiac was ever new with its brilliant evolutions. Through\nthe clear atmosphere the tracks of the shining orbs could be traced\nin every phase and transposition. With each dawn of morning light,\nwith each recurrence of the evening twilight, a new panorama spread\nbefore the reverent imagination of the dreamer, and he saw in the\nmoving spheres not only the abode but the manifested glory of his gods\"\n(History of the World, vol. 1, p. 138).\n\n\"Until today, in the high light of civilization, the idea of some\nkind of domination of the stars over the affairs of human life has\nhardly released its hold on the minds of men; and the language of\nthe old Chaldean ritual of signs has still a familiar sound in the\nears of the credulous\" (Ibid, p. 140).\n\nAfter alluding to the ancient Vedic religion, which recognized in\nthe stars the souls of our departed ancestors, Prof. John Fiske says:\n\"The Christianized German peasant, fifty centuries later, tells his\nchildren that the stars are angels' eyes, and the English cottager\nimpresses it on the youthful mind that it is wicked to point to the\nstars, though why he cannot tell\" (Myths and Myth Makers, p. 76).\n\nIn the Zodiac the Sun had twelve palaces. Each palace had a star\nfor a god, and each was subject to the Sun. Each day of the week was\ngoverned by a planet, and each hour of the day had its controlling\nstar. Many scholars, including Jefferson, have held that Christ and\nhis Twelve Apostles relate to the Zodiac and were derived from this\nstellar worship. The seven days of the week are still dedicated to the\nold planetary gods, and, with a few modifications, bear their names.\n\n\"Chambers' Encyclopedia\" says: \"The Jews, as well as the early\nChristians, had no special names for the single days, but counted\ntheir number from the previous Sabbath, beginning with Sunday, as the\nfirst after the Sabbath, and ending with Friday, as the sixth after the\nprevious, or eve (Ereb) of the next Sabbath. After a very short time,\nhowever, young Christianity, which in the same manner had endeavored\nto count from the feria secunda, or second day after Sunday, to the\nSeptima (or Saturday), had to fall back again upon the old heathen\nnames\" (Art. Week).\n\nThe planetary gods Nardouk (Jupiter), Adar (Saturn), Istar (Venus),\nNergal (Mars), and Nebo (Mercury), were all worshiped by the ancient\nIsraelites. Istar was called \"Queen of the Stars.\" Moloch, the rival\nof Jehovah, who shared for centuries the worship of the Hebrews,\nhad his blazing star, the emblem of his implacable cruelty. The\nworship of Astarte, daughter of the moon, and \"Queen of Heaven,\"\nwhose emblem was a star, was introduced by Solomon himself (1 Kings\nxi, 5; 2 Kings xxiii, 13). For more than three hundred years she had\nher temple in Jerusalem. And even today devout Jews address orizons\nto the new moon, a relic of the worship of Astarte. The rosary is a\nsurvival of astral worship. It was once a symbol of the stars.\n\nThe author of \"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"The belief that sun,\nmoon and stars were living entities possessed of souls was generally\nheld by the Jews at the beginning of our era.\"\n\nThe same belief was entertained by the Christian Fathers. Origen\nsays: \"As the stars move with so much order and method that under\nno circumstances whatever do their course seem to be disturbed,\nis it not the extreme of absurdity to suppose that so much order,\nso much observance of discipline and method could be demanded from\nor fulfilled by irrational beings?\"\n\nOut of astral worship grew the so-called science of astrology. Of this\n\"Chambers's Encyclopedia\" says: \"Astrology is one of the most ancient\nforms of superstition, and is found prevailing among the nations of\nthe East at the very dawn of history. The Jews became much addicted\nto it after the Captivity.\"\n\nOne of the so-called Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament reads:\n\"There shall come a star out of Jacob\" (Num. xxiv, 17). \"Now when Jesus\nwas born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King, behold,\nthere came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he\nthat is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east,\n... and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them,\ntill it came and stood over where the young child was\" (Matt. ii, 1,\n2, 9). This marvelous event at the advent of the Christian Messiah\nwas a complete \"fulfillment\" of what had been predicted centuries\nbefore concerning the appearance of the expected Persian Messiah,\nthe original of the expected Messiah of the Jews.\n\nGraves says that the language of Matthew clearly betrays the\nastrological origin of his story: \"The practice of calculating\nnativities by the stars was in vogue in the era and country of\nChrist's birth, and had been for a long time previously in various\ncountries. 'We have seen his star in the east, and have come to\nworship him.' Now mark, here, it was not the star, nor a star, but\n'his star'; thus disclosing its unmistakable astrological features\"\n(Sixteen Crucified Saviors, p. 53).\n\nAfter referring to the prevalency of astrology at the beginning of,\nand anterior to, the Christian era, Strauss says: \"When such ideas\nwere afloat, it was easy to imagine that the birth of the Messiah\nmust be announced by a star, especially as, according to the common\ninterpretation of Balaam's prophecy, a star was there made the symbol\nof the Messiah. It is certain that the Jewish mind effected this\ncombination; for it is a rabbinical idea that at the time of the\nMessiah's birth a star will appear in the east and remain for a long\ntime visible.... In the time of Jesus it was the general belief that\nstars were always the forerunners of great events.\"\n\nJesus in the Apocalypse declares himself to be \"the bright and\nmorning star\" (xxii, 16). He \"had in his right hand seven stars\"\n(i, 16). \"The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches\"\n(20). His second coming will be heralded by \"signs in the sun, and\nin the moon, and in the stars\" (Luke xxi, 25).\n\nThe star of the Magi which pointed so unerringly to the cradle of\nChrist points not less unerringly to one of the sources from which\nChrist came.\n\n\n\n4. Worship of the Elements and Forces of Nature.\n\nThe elements and forces of nature, Volney believes, inspired the\nfirst ideas of God and religion:\n\n\"Man, reflecting on his condition, began to perceive that he was\nsubjected to forces superior to his own, and independent of his\nwill. The sun enlightened and warmed him, fire burned him, thunder\nterrified him; the wind beat upon him, and water drowned him.\"\n\n\"Considering the action of the elements on him, he conceived the idea\nof weakness and subjection on his part, and of power and domination\non theirs; and this idea of power was the primitive and fundamental\ntype of every idea of the Divinity.\"\n\n\"The action of these natural existences excited in him sensations of\npleasure and pain, of good or evil; and by a natural effect of his\norganization he conceived for them love or aversion; he desired or\ndreaded their presence; and fear or hope gave rise to the first idea\nof religion.\"\n\nFrom this elemental worship Indra, Agni, Zeus, Odin, Jehovah and other\ngods were evolved. Jehovah was originally a god of the atmosphere. He\nmanifested himself in the tempest; he unchained the waves of the sea;\nthe wind was his breath; the thunder was his voice, the lightning his\nmessenger. He filled the air with frost; he precipitated the hail;\nhe blanketed the earth with snow; he deluged the land with rain;\nhe congealed the water of the stream, and parched the verdure of\nthe field.\n\nFire worship overspread Asia, and Jehovah, like Moloch, became a\ngod of fire. \"There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire\nout of his mouth devoured; coals were kindled by it\" (2 Sam. xxii,\n9). He appeared to Abram as \"a smoking furnace and a burning lamp\"\n(Gen. xv, 17). He revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush. \"The\nbush burned with fire, but the bush was not consumed\" (Ex. iii,\n2). When David called to him \"he answered him from heaven by fire\"\n(1 Ch. xxi, 26). To the fleeing Israelites he was a \"pillar of fire\"\n(Ex. xiv, 24). \"The Lord descended upon\" Sinai \"in fire\" (xix,\n18). When he appeared upon Horeb \"the mountain burned with fire\nunto the midst of heaven\" (Deut. iv, 11), \"and the Lord spake out\nof the midst of the fire\" (12). \"The cloud of the Lord was upon the\ntabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night\" (Ex. xl, 38). On the\nJewish altar for centuries the sacred fire was kept burning. When\nAaron, Gideon, Solomon and Elijah made offerings to Jehovah \"there\ncame a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed\" the offerings\n(Lev. ix, 24; Jud. vi, 21; 2 Ch. vii, 1; 1 K. xviii, 38). Elijah was\ntranslated in \"a chariot of fire\" (2 K. ii, 11). Elisha was surrounded\nby \"horses and chariots of fire\" (vi, 17). With fire he consumed his\nenemies. \"The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire\"\n(Gen. xix, 24). When Nadab and Abihu \"offered strange fire before\nthe Lord\" (Lev. x, 1), \"there went out fire from before the Lord and\ndevoured them\" (2). When the Israelites displeased him at Taberah,\n\"the fire of the Lord burnt among them and consumed them\" (Num. xi,\n1). When the hosts of Satan encompassed the Christian saints, \"fire\ncame down from God out of heaven and devoured them\" (Rev. xx, 9).\n\n\"It is now a matter of demonstration,\" says M. Soury, \"that at the\ntime of the Exodus from Egypt, in the desert, and even in the time\nof Judges, light and fire were not to the Israelites mere symbols of\nthe deity, but were the deity himself.\"\n\nChrist inherited the fiery nature of his Father. He baptized his\ndisciples with fire. \"He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,\nand with fire\" (Matt. iii, 11). \"And there appeared unto them cloven\ntongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them\" (Acts ii, 3). He\nconsigned his enemies to everlasting punishment in the unquenchable\nfires of hell. \"The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they\nshall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which\ndo iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire\" (Matt. xiii,\n41, 42). \"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire\" (xxv,\n41). \"To be cast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and\nthe fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire\"\n(Mark ix, 47-49). His disciples were imbued with the same spirit and\nbelief. \"And they (the Samaritans) did not receive him.... And when\nhis disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that\nwe command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?\" (Luke ix,\n53, 54.)\n\nSome vestiges of ancient fire worship have been transmitted to\nour time. John Newton says: \"A sacred fire, at first miraculously\nkindled, and subsequently kept up by the sedulous care of priests\nand priestesses, formed an important part of the religion of Judea,\nBabylonia, Persia. Greece and Rome, and the superstition lingers\namongst us still. So late as the advent of the Reformation, a sacred\nfire was kept ever burning on a shrine at Kildare, in Ireland,\nand attended by virgins of high rank, called 'inghean au dagha,' or\ndaughters of fire. Every year is the ceremony repeated at Jerusalem\nof the miraculous kindling of the Holy Fire at the reputed sepulchre,\nand men and women crowd to light tapers at the sacred flame\" (The\nAssyrian Grove).\n\n\n\n5. Worship of Animals and Plants.\n\nIn the infancy of the world animals were deified and adored, and\ntrees and plants were regarded as sentient beings and received the\nhomage of man.\n\nNearly every animal has been an object of worship. This worship\nflourished for ages in Egypt and India. In Egypt the worship of the\nbull (Apis) was associated with that of Osiris (Serapis). The cow is\nstill worshiped in India. Serpent worship has existed in every part\nof the world.\n\nRemnants of animal worship survived in Judaism and Christianity. Satan\nwas a serpent; Jehovah, like Osiris, was worshiped as a bull; Christ\nwas the lamb of God, and the Holy Ghost appeared in the form of a dove.\n\nClosely allied to this worship, and to some extent a part of it, is\nthe doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Some of the Jews believed\nin this. So did many of the early Christians, including Origen.\n\nThe leek, the lotus, and other plants were held as sacred or\ndivine. The rose was the divine flower of Greece. Its petals had been\ndyed with the blood of her favorite goddess. In many nations the lily\nwas the sacred emblem of virginity. Christians still attach a sort\nof sacredness to it.\n\n\"The groves were God's first temples,\" says Bryant. The groves, too,\nwere among man's first gods. Volumes have been written on the ancient\nworship of trees. Not only the Druids of Britain, but the Greeks,\nand the Semitic races of Asia were worshipers of trees. The giant\noaks and the symmetrical evergreens were gods. The rustling of the\naspen and the moaning of the pines were the audible whisperings of\nDivinity which the prophets interpreted.\n\n\"The worship of trees,\" says Soury, \"only disappeared in Syria at a\nvery late date.... The largest and tallest trees, and the evergreen\nones, were adored as gods. A great many Semitic myths were connected\nwith the vegetable world. Thus the pomegranate, famous for the richness\nof its fruit, was sacred to Adonis and Aphrodite. The almond, which,\nwhile nature seems inanimate, comes forth first from winter's sleep,\nthe amygdalis, the 'great mother,' gave birth to a crowd of Semitic\nlegends\" (Religion of Israel, pp. 66, 67).\n\nThe tree, like the serpent, was an emblem of immortality. The Garden\nof Eden had its Tree of Life. Newton says: \"'I am come that they\nmight have Life, and that they might have it abundantly' (John x,\n10). Life is the reward which has been promised under every system,\nincluding that of the founder of Christianity. A Tree of Life stood in\nthe midst of that Paradise which is described in the book of Genesis;\n... and in a second Paradise, which is promised to the blessed by the\nauthor of the book of Revelation, a tree of life shall stand once more\n'for the healing of the nations.'\"\n\nThere still exist in Palestine venerable trees which receive not merely\nthe reverence, but the worship of Mussulmans and Christians. Some of\nthese trees they believe possess divine curative powers. Travelers\nhave observed them covered with strips of cloth or strings, which are\ntied to the twigs. This is done to induce the spirit of the tree to\nheal or drive away disease.\n\nSex worship, as we have seen, bequeathed some of its doctrines and\nrites to nearly every religion that has existed since its time. It\nbecame associated with tree worship. The Bible abounds with \"sacred\ngroves.\" In Palestine hundreds of them were consecrated to Aschera,\nthe favorite goddess of the ancient Jews. These groves were devoted\nto sacred prostitution. In some of them the worship of Baal and\nAschera were combined; in others that of Jehovah and Aschera. \"These\nsanctuaries of Aschera,\" says M. Soury, \"were charming spots, shady\ngroves of green trees, often watered by running streams, mysterious\nretreats where all was silence save the cooing of the doves sacred\nto the goddess. The symbol of Aschera, a simple pillar, or the trunk\nof a tree, perhaps with its leaves and branches, was the emblem of\ngenerative power.\" The spots once occupied by these groves are still\ndeemed holy ground. Many of them are marked by Mohammedan mosques\nand Christian chapels.\n\nThe sacred groves of Palestine where devout and voluptuous Jews mingled\nthe worship of Jehovah and Aschera live, too, in the Protestant camp\nmeetings of our western world, where, in shady bowers, Christians\nworship fervently at the altar of Christ, and then, not infrequently,\nmeet clandestinely and pay their vows to Aschera.\n\nThe palm tree, and where the palm did not grow, the pine, both symbols\nof the phallus, were worshiped. Newton says: \"Palm-branches have\nbeen used in all ages as emblems of life, peace, and victory. They\nwere strewn before Christ. Palm-Sunday, the feast of palms, is still\nkept. Even within the present [19th] century, on this festival, in\nmany towns of France, women and children carried in procession at\nthe end of their palm-branches a phallus made of bread, which they\ncalled, undisguisedly, 'la pine,' whence the festival was called\n'La Fete des Pinnes.' The 'pine' having been blest by the priest, the\nwomen carefully preserved it during the following year as an amulet\"\n(The Assyrian Grove).\n\n\n\n6. Fetichism.\n\nClosely related to the foregoing worship is fetichism, the worship\nof idols and images. This is popularly supposed to be the religion\nonly of savages and barbarians; but it also prevails to some extent\namong people who are considered civilized and enlightened.\n\nWhile it was opposed by some of the kings, priests, and prophets,\nidolatry flourished among the Jews from the earliest ages down\nalmost to the Christian era. Abraham's father, Terah, was an idolater\n(Josh. xxv, 2). Jacob's wives were daughters of an idolater. Rachel\nstole and hid her father's images (Gen. xxxi, 30-34). Jacob's family\nwere, for a time at least, idolaters. \"Then Jacob said unto his\nhousehold, and all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that\nare among you.... And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods that\nwere in their hands, ... and Jacob hid them under the oak which was\nby Shechem\" (Gen. xxxv, 2-4). The kingdoms of Israel and Judah were\nsteeped in idolatry. Israel \"set them up images\" and \"served idols\"\n(2 Kings xvii, 10, 11), and \"did offer sweet savor to their idols\"\n(Ezek. vi, 13). Judah was \"full of idols\" (Is. ii, 8).\n\nThe fetichism of Christ's ancestors reappeared in the image worship\nof his devotees. The Christians of the middle ages, Dr. Draper says,\n\"were immersed in fetichism.\" \"The worship of images, of fragments of\nthe cross, or bones, nails and other relics, a true fetich worship,\nwas cultivated\" (Conflict, p. 49). \"A chip of the true cross, some\niron filings from the chain of St. Peter, a tooth or bone of a martyr,\nwere held in adoration; the world was full of the stupendous miracles\nwhich these relics had performed. But especially were painted or\ngraven images of holy personages supposed to be endowed with such\npowers. They had become objects of actual worship\" (Intellectual\nDevelopment of Europe, vol. i, p. 414).\n\nConcerning the fetichism of the church, \"Chambers's Encyclopedia\"\nsays: \"It was usual not only to keep lights and burn incense before\nthe images, to kiss them reverently; and to kneel down and pray before\nthem, but some went so far as to make the images serve as godfathers\nand godmothers in baptism, and even to mingle the dust of the coloring\nmatter scraped from the images with the Eucharist elements in the\nHoly Communion.... In many foreign churches, especially in Italy, in\nsouthern Germany, and in France [at the present time], are to be found\nimages which are popularly reputed as especially sacred, and to which,\nor to prayers offered before which, miraculous effects are ascribed.\"\n\nBishop Newton, of England, admits and deplores the existence of\nChristian fetichism. He says: \"The consecrating and bowing down to\nimages; the attributing of miraculous powers and virtues to idols;\nthe setting up of little oratories, altars and statues in the streets\nand highways and on the tops of mountains; the carrying of images\nand relics in pompous procession, ... all these are equally parts of\npagan and popish superstition.\"\n\nGreek, Lutheran, and Anglican churches are not free from fetichism, and\neven the Evangelical churches of this country make a fetich of a book.\n\n\n\n7. Polytheism.\n\nPolytheism, the doctrine of a plurality of gods, has prevailed in\nevery part of the world. The most interesting pantheons of the gods\nwere those of India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome. The Hebrews, who were\npolytheists, borrowed their gods from Assyria and Babylonia. The\npantheon of these nations comprised twelve principal gods and nearly\na thousand minor deities. The chief of these gods was El. His consort\nwas Elath. The Hebrews worshiped El under the name of El Shaddai and\nvarious other names. Elohim of the Bible, translated God, denotes the\nplural and included El and the minor gods who surrounded him. Yahweh,\nIahveh, Jehovah, etc., as he is variously called--for Jews and\nChristians cannot spell and do not even know the name of their\nprincipal deity--is a god of Assyro-Babylonian origin. In addition\nto their national god, Jehovah, many of the Jews worshiped Baal,\nMoloch, and Tammouz, male deities, and Astarte, Aschera, and Istar,\nfemale deities.\n\nThat the writers of the Bible recognized a plurality of gods--were\npolytheists--is proved by the following: \"And the Lord God said,\nBehold, the man is become as one of us\" (Gen. iii, 22). \"Who is like\nunto thee, O Lord, among the gods?\" (Ex. xv, 11.) \"Among the gods,\nthere is none like unto thee, O Lord\" (Ps. lxxxvi, 8). \"The Lord is\na great God, and a great king above all gods\" (Ps. xcv, 3). \"Thou\nshalt not revile the gods\" (Ex. xxii, 28).\n\nMonotheism, the doctrine of one god, is not merely the worship of\none god, but the belief in the existence of one god only. Many were\nmonotheistic in worship--worshiped one god, their national deity--while\nat the same time they were polytheistic in belief--believed in the\nexistence of many gods. The Jews who worshiped Jehovah have been called\nmonotheists. And yet, for a thousand years, they believed in the\nexistence of Kemosh, Baal, Moloch, Tammouz, and other deities. They\nbelieved that Jehovah was their national god and that they owed\nallegiance to him; just as the subjects of an earthly king profess\ntheir loyalty to him without denying the existence of other kings.\n\nWhile Christians profess Monotheism they are really\npolytheists--worship three gods--Father (Jehovah), Son (Christ),\nand Holy Ghost; and recognize a god of Evil, Satan. To these must\nalso be added a female deity, the Virgin Mary, who is to the devout\nCatholic as much of a divinity as Isis and Venus were to ancient\npolytheists. The canonization and adoration of the saints, too,\nare analogous to the worship of the inferior deities of ancient times.\n\nAfter recounting what he believes to be the salutary influences exerted\nby the medieval conception of the Virgin, Lecky says: \"But the price,\nand perhaps the necessary price, of this was the exaltation of the\nVirgin as an omnipresent deity of infinite power as well as infinite\ncondescension. The legends represented her as performing every kind\nof prodigy.... The painters depicted her invested with the divine\naureole, judging men on equal terms with her Son, or even retaining her\nascendancy over him in heaven. In the devotions of the people she was\naddressed in terms identical with those employed to the Almighty. A\nreverence similar in kind but less in degree was soon bestowed upon\nthe other saints, who speedily assumed the position of the minor\ndeities of Paganism\" (History of Rationalism, Vol. I, pp. 226, 227).\n\nRegarding the deification and worship of saints Hallam says:\n\"Every cathedral or monastery had its tutelar saint, and every\nsaint his legend, fabricated in order to enrich the churches under\nhis protection, by exaggerating his virtues, his miracles, and\nconsequently his power of serving those who paid liberally for his\npatronage. Many of those saints were imaginary persons; sometimes a\nblundered inscription added a name to the calendar; and sometimes,\nit is said, a heathen god was surprised at the company to which he\nwas introduced, and the rites with which he was honored\" (Middle Ages,\np. 603).\n\nThe church historian Mosheim admits and deplores the truth of this:\n\"It is, at the same time, as undoubtedly certain, as it is extravagant\nand monstrous, that the worship of the martyrs was modeled, by degrees,\naccording to the religious services that were paid to the gods before\nthe coming of Christ\" (Ecclesiastical History, p. 98).\n\nBishop Newton says: \"The very same temples, the very same images,\nwhich were once consecrated to Jupiter and the other demons [gods],\nare now consecrated to the Virgin Mary and the other saints.\"\n\nMilman says that at an early period \"Christianity began to approach to\na polytheistic form, or at least to permit what it is difficult to call\nby any other name than polytheistic, habits and feelings of devotion\"\n(History of Christianity, Vol. III, p. 424).\n\n\n\n8. Monotheism.\n\nMonotheism, as previously stated, is the doctrine of one god\nonly. It has gradually displaced, to a great extent, the fetichism\nand polytheism of earlier times.\n\nComte's law of human development is as follows:\n\n\n1. Theological, or fictitious,\n2. Metaphysical, or abstract,\n3. Scientific, or positive.\n\n\n\"In the Theological state, the human mind, seeking the essential\nnature of things, the first and final causes (the origin and purpose)\nof all effects--in short Absolute knowledge--supposes all phenomena\nto be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings.\n\n\"In the Metaphysical state, which is only a modification of the first,\nthe mind supposes, instead of supernatural beings, abstract forms,\nveritable entities (that is, personified abstractions) inherent in\nall things, and capable of producing all phenomena.\n\n\"In the final, the Positive state, the mind has given over the vain\nsearch after Absolute notions, the origin and destination of the\nuniverse, and the causes of phenomena, and applies itself to the study\nof their laws--that is, their invariable relations of succession and\nresemblance\" (Positive Philosophy, pp. 26, 27).\n\nThe lowest state of human development is the theological. Here the\nmasses of mankind still repose. Only the scholars and thinkers have\nadvanced beyond this and many of these have only reached the second\nor metaphysical state.\n\nThe highest point in the theological state is monotheism. To Judaism\nChristians ascribe the glory of having been the first religion to\nteach a pure monotheism. But monotheism existed long before the Jews\nattained to it. Zoroaster and his earliest followers were monotheists,\ndualism being a later development of the Persian theology. The adoption\nof monotheism by the Jews, which occurred only at a very late period\nin their history, was not, however, the result of a divine revelation,\nor even of an intellectual superiority, for the Jews were immeasurably\ninferior intellectually to the Greeks and Romans, to the Hindus and\nEgyptians, and to the Assyrians and Babylonians, who are supposed to\nhave retained a belief in polytheism. This monotheism of the Jews was\nchiefly the result of a religious intolerance never before equaled\nand never since surpassed, except in the history of Christianity\nand Mohammedanism, the daughters of Judaism. Jehovistic priests and\nkings tolerated no rivals of their god and made death the penalty\nfor disloyalty to him. The Jewish nation became monotheistic for the\nsame reason that Spain, in the clutches of the Inquisition, became\nentirely Christian.\n\nJesus of Nazareth and his disciples, if they existed, were\nprobably monotheists, believed that Jehovah was the only God,\nand neither believed nor claimed that Jesus was other than the son\nof man. As generations passed the man became obscured, his deeds\nwere magnified until at length he was accepted as the Son of God,\nand a God himself. The deification of Jesus, then, together with the\napotheosis of other mortals, cannot be regarded as an evolution from\nJewish monotheism to a higher plane, but rather as a relapse from\nmonotheism to polytheism.\n\n\n\n9. The Mediatorial Idea.\n\nThis idea had its origin chiefly in the worship of the elements and\nforces of nature by primitive man. He believed that these elements and\nforces were intelligent beings. He realized that in their presence he\nwas in a measure helpless. He therefore sought to win their favor and\nappease their wrath. He made offerings to them; he prayed to them;\nhe worshiped them. But other men, more wise, more cunning, and more\nfortunate, appeared to have greater influence with these deities. He\nemployed them to intercede for him; and thus the priesthood was\nestablished. The priest was the first mediator.\n\nMore complex religious systems were in time evolved, and in some of\nthem mediatorial gods appeared. The mediatorial idea was prominent in\nthe Persian system. Mithra was the Persian mediator. The worship of\nMithra was carried to Rome and the Romans became acquainted with the\nmediatorial idea. In an exposition of Philo's philosophy, Mrs. Evans\nsays: \"The most exalted spirits are able to raise themselves to the\npure essence and find peace and joy which earthly conditions cannot\ndisturb; but weaker natures need a helper in a Being, who, coming from\nabove, can dwell below and lift their souls to God. The majority of\nmankind, in their passage along the slippery path of life, are sure to\nfall, and would perish if it were not for a mediator between themselves\nand God.... The power of the Caesars, culminating in Augustus, enabled\nthem to claim divine honors from the people, already disposed to see\nin them chosen agents of celestial sovereignty. Rome, according to\nthe expression of Valerius Maximus, recognized in the Caesars the\nmediators between heaven and earth. And that was before Christianity\nintroduced its anointed mediator\" (The Christ Myth, pp. 90, 92).\n\nThe God of the Jews, to quote the words of Jefferson, was \"cruel,\nvindictive, capricious and unjust.\" He had cursed his creation; he had\ndrowned a world; he had imposed the sentence of death--spiritual as\nwell as physical--upon his children. To placate this monster, to induce\nhim to remit this sentence, the priests were powerless. Millions of\nanimals, and even human beings, had been sacrificed to him in vain. At\nlength his \"only begotten son,\" Jesus Christ, offered himself as\na sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. The sacrifice was\naccepted, and a reconciliation was effected between God and man. Thus\nChrist became the great mediator of Christianity. \"There is one\nGod, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus\"\n(1 Tim. ii, 5). \"He is the mediator of the new testament\" (Heb. ix,\n15). From Persia and from Rome this mediatorial God has come.\n\n\n\n10. The Messianic Idea.\n\nThe desire for a deliverer naturally arises in the minds of a people\nwho are in subjection and bondage. This desire was the germ of the\nMessianic idea. While there are traces of this idea in the earlier\nwritings of the Hebrews, it reached its highest development during and\nimmediately following the Captivity, and again in the Maccabean age.\n\nThe Messiah of Judaism and the Messiah, or Christ, of Christianity,\nwere derived from the Persian theology, the adherents of each system\nmodifying the doctrine to suit their respective notions. In its article\non Zoroaster, \"Chambers's Encyclopedia\" says: \"There is an important\nelement to be noticed, viz., the Messiah, or Sosiosh, from whom the\nJewish and Christian notions of a Messiah are held by many to have\nbeen derived.... Even a superficial glance at this sketch will show our\nreaders what very close parallels between Jewish and Christian notions\non the one hand, and the Zoroastrian on the other, are to be drawn.\"\n\nChristians cite numerous passages from the writings of the Old\nTestament which they claim foretold the advent of Jesus. Not one of\nthese passages, as originally penned, refers in the remotest degree\nto him, though many of them do refer to the office he is said to have\nfilled. The Jews hoped for a deliverer, for a national leader who\nwould reestablish the kingdom of Israel, and restore to it the glory\nof David's reign. They were loyal to the house of David and believed\nthat this deliverer would be a descendant, a son, of David. Pietists,\ntoo, in the fervor of their religious enthusiasm dreamed of universal\nconversion to the Jehovistic theocracy. In the writings of their\nprophets and poets these hopes and dreams found expression. \"I have\nmade a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David, my servant,\nthy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all\ngenerations\" (Ps. xxxix, 3, 4). \"And the kingdom and dominion, and the\ngreatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the\npeople of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting\nkingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him\" (Dan. vii, 27).\n\nWhile the Messianic idea was originally a Persian idea, the materials\nused in the formation of the Christian Messiah were drawn largely from\nthe Jewish Scriptures. There are passages in the Old Testament, as we\nhave seen, which predict the coming of a Messiah. These furnished a\nportion of the materials out of which this Messianic deity, Christ,\nwas formed. There are many more which have no reference whatever to\na Messiah which have been made to serve as Messianic prophecies. The\nOld Testament, as we have it, is alleged to be a Jewish work. It is,\nrather, a Christian work. It is a Christian version of ancient Jewish\nwritings, every book of which has been more or less Christianized. Much\nof it is scarcely recognizable to a Jewish scholar. This is especially\ntrue of so-called Messianic prophecies.\n\nThe Christian Messiah was, on the one hand, modeled, to a considerable\nextent, after the Jewish ideal, while the Jewish materials, on the\nother hand, were freely altered to fit the new conception. Referring\nto the work of the Evangelists, M. Renan says: \"Sometimes they\nreasoned thus: 'The Messiah ought to do such a thing; now Jesus is\nthe Messiah, therefore Jesus has done such a thing.' At other times,\nby an inverse process, it was said: 'Such a thing has happened to\nJesus; now Jesus is the Messiah; therefore such a thing was to happen\nto the Messiah.'\" (Jesus, p. 27).\n\nThat the so-called Messianic prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures\nwere the immediate source of the Christ is apparent. That he was,\nhowever, merely a borrowed idea and not a historical realization\nof these prophecies is equally apparent. The Jews were expecting\na Messiah. Had Jesus realized these expectations they would have\naccepted him. But he did not realize them. These prophecies were not\nfulfilled in him. He was not a son of David; he did not deliver his\nrace from bondage; he did not become a king; the important events\nthat were to attend and follow Messiah's advent form no part even\nof his alleged history. His rejection by the Jews proves him to be\neither a false Messiah, or an imaginary being--a historical myth,\nor a pure myth--in either case a myth.\n\nThe Jewish argument against Jesus as the Messiah is unanswerable:\n\"We do not find in the present comparatively imperfect stage of human\nprogress the realization of that blessed condition of mankind which the\nprophet Isaiah associates with the era when Messiah is to appear. And\nas our Hebrew Scriptures speak of one Messianic advent only, and not\nof two advents; and as the inspired Book does not preach Messiah's\nkingdom as a matter of faith, but distinctly identifies it with\nmatters of fact which are to be made evident to the senses, we cling\nto the plain inference to be drawn from the text of the Bible, and we\ndeny that Messiah has yet appeared, and upon the following grounds:\nFirst, because of the three distinctive facts which the inspired seer\nof Judah inseparably connects with the advent of the Messiah, viz.,\n(1) the cessation of war and the uninterrupted reign of peace, (2)\nthe prevalence of a perfect concord of opinion on all matters bearing\nupon the worship of the one and only God, and (3) the ingathering of\nthe remnant of Judah and of the dispersed ten tribes of Israel--not one\nhas, up to the present time, been accomplished. Second, we dissent from\nthe proposition that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah announced by the\nprophets, because the church which he founded, and which his successors\ndeveloped, has offered, during a succession of centuries, most singular\ncontrast to what is described by the Hebrew Scriptures as the immediate\nconsequence of Messiah's advent, and of his glorious kingdom. The\nprophet Isaiah declares that when the Messiah appears, peace, love,\nand union will be permanently established; and every candid man must\nadmit that the world has not realized the accomplishment of this\nprophecy. Again, in the days of Messiah, all men, as Scripture saith,\n'are to serve God with one accord'; and yet it is very certain that\nsince the appearance of him whom Christians believe to be Messiah,\nmankind has been split into more hostile divisions on the ground of\nreligious belief, and more antagonistic sects have sprung up, than\nin any historic age before Christianity was preached.\"\n\nWith orthodox Jews the belief in a Messiah is a deep rooted\nconviction. For 2500 years there has been displayed in front of the\nsynagogue this sign: \"Wanted--a Messiah.\" During this time many,\nincluding Jesus, Bar-Cocheba, Moses of Candia, and Sabatai Zevi,\nhave applied for the place, but all applicants have been rejected,\nand the Messianic predictions of the Jewish prophets are yet to be\nfulfilled. So, too, are those of the Persian prophet. In the meantime\nthe followers of Jesus--turning from the Jews to the Gentiles--have\nfrom this borrowed idea evolved a deity who divides with Brahma,\nBuddha, and Allah, the worship of the world.\n\n\n\n11. The Logos (Word).\n\nThe exaltation and deification of Jesus is thus described by the Dutch\ntheologian, Dr. Hooykaas: \"When Jesus was gone, those who had known\nhim personally insensibly surrounded him with a glory that shone at\nlast with a more than human splendor. The spiritual blessings which\nflowed in ever rich measure from his person and his gospel compelled\nthe Christians to exalt him ever more and more. The title of Son\nof God, which his followers had given him as the future Messiah,\nwas elastic and ambiguous enough to lend itself very readily to this\nprocess. The idea of his being the Messiah now no longer sufficed; he\nwas something other and something far more than the Jewish Messiah. The\nphilosophy and theology of the day were laid under contribution;\nand nothing could so well indicate his significance for all humanity\nand his unapproachable exaltation as the idea that he was the Word\"\n(Bible for Learners, Vol. III, pp. 670, 671).\n\nThe doctrine of the Logos, or Word, as an emanation or essence of\ndivine wisdom is very old. It is found in the ancient religions of\nEgypt and India. It was recognized in the Persian theology, and was\nincorporated into the Jewish theology by the Babylonian exiles. It\nconstitutes an important element in the Platonic philosophy. It\nreceived its highest development and exposition in the writings of\nthe Jewish philosopher Philo, a contemporary of Jesus.\n\nConcerning the Logos, Dean Milman, in his \"History of Christianity,\"\nsays: \"This Being was more or less distinctly impersonated, according\nto the more popular or more philosophic, the more material or the more\nabstract, notions of the age of the people. This was the doctrine from\nthe Ganges, or even the shores of the Yellow Sea, to the Ilissus: it\nwas the fundamental principle of the Indian religion and the Indian\nphilosophy; it was the basis of Zoroastrianism; it was pure Platonism;\nit was the Platonic Judaism of the Alexandrian school.\" Another\nEnglish clergyman, Mr. Lake, says: \"We can trace its [the Word's]\nbirthplace in the philosophic speculations of the ancient world;\nwe can note its gradual development and growth; we can see it in its\nearly youth passing (through Philo and others), from Grecian philosophy\ninto the current of Jewish thought\" (Philo, Plato, and Paul, p. 71).\n\nThe presentation of Jesus as an incarnation of the Logos belongs to\nthe second century and is prominent in the Fourth Gospel. The ideas\nare chiefly those of Plato and Philo. Plato's trinity was Thought,\nWord and Deed. The Word occupies the second place in the Platonic\ntrinity as it does in the Christian trinity. That the author of the\ngospel of John, written more than a century after the time of Philo,\nborrowed largely from that philosopher, is shown by the following\nparallels drawn from their writings:\n\nPhilo.--\"The Logos is the Son of God\" (De Profugis).\n\nJohn.--\"This [the Word] is the Son of God\" (i, 34).\n\nPhilo.--\"The Logos is considered the same as God\" (De Somniis).\n\nJohn.--\"The Word was God\" (i, 1).\n\nPhilo.--\"He [the Logos] was before all things\" (De Leg. Allegor).\n\nJohn.--\"The same [the Word] was in the beginning with God\" (i, 2).\n\nPhilo.--\"The Logos is the agent by whom the world was made\" (De\nLeg. Allegor).\n\nJohn.--\"All things were made by him [the Word]\" (i, 3).\n\nPhilo.--\"The Logos is the light of the world\" (De Somniis).\n\nJohn.--\"The Word was the true light\" (i, 9).\n\nPhilo.--\"The Logos only can see God\" (De Confus. Ling.).\n\nJohn.--\"No man hath seen God.... He [the Word] hath declared him\"\n(i, 18).\n\n\n\n12. The Perfect Man.\n\nThe New Testament contains at least five different mythical types\nor conceptions of Jesus Christ: 1. The Messiah of the synoptics,\nomitting the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke. 2. The Son of God,\nor demi-god, introduced in these opening chapters. 3. The incarnate\nLogos or God of John. 4. The Christ of Paul. 5. Eliminating these\nmore or less supernatural types, there remains in these writings, in\naddition to the purely natural and purely human Jesus of Nazareth,\na type known as the Ideal or Perfect Alan. This type is not only\nmythical, but, in the stricter sense, supernatural and superhuman;\nfor the perfect man must always remain an ideal rather than a real\ntype of man.\n\nThe last type is believed by many to represent the primal stage in\nthe deification of Jesus. This conception of Jesus has been held by\nmany Rationalistic Christians, and by some conservative Rationalists\nin all ages. This, too, forms a part of the dualistic conception\nof Christ entertained by orthodox Christians, a conception which\nsupposes him to have combined in his incarnation both a human and a\ndivine element which made him both man and God. The portrayal of the\nvicarious suffering and death of this man has been one of the most\npowerful agents in the propagation of Christianity.\n\nThe molders of primitive Christianity were greatly influenced by\nvarious philosophical speculations--by the teachings of Pythagoras and\nPlato among the earlier, and by the writings of Philo and Seneca among\nthe later philosophers. To Philo, we have seen, they were indebted\nlargely for the Logos; to Seneca they were indebted chiefly for the\nIdeal or Perfect Man. The following extracts are from \"The Christ Myth\"\nof Mrs. Evans:\n\n\"Seneca advises the cherishing of a hope that victory in the form of\na wise man will finally appear, because humanity requires that the\nexemplification of perfection should be visible.\"\n\n\"Seneca's conception of perfect humanity was a combination of the\nwise man of the Platonists and Stoics and the gentle sufferer who\nendures insult and sorrow.\"\n\n\"The Logos of Philo was too ethereal to answer all the demands of\nfeeble humanity. The God-man must live and suffer and die among and\nfor the people in order to make the sacrifice complete.\"\n\n\"Philo endowed the Logos of Heraclitus with the authority of a priestly\nmediator, who, floating between earth and heaven, brings God and\nman together; Seneca places this mediator as a suffering man among\nmen. Philo, from his Jewish standpoint, made the Logos the priestly\nintercessor; Seneca, from the standpoint of his Stoical society,\nbelieved in the possibility of a perfect man as savior and guide of\nweaker men.\"\n\nCognizant of the striking resemblance between some of the writings\nof the New Testament and the writings of the Stoics, particularly\nof Seneca, modern Christian apologists affect to believe that\nthis philosopher was acquainted with the history and the gospel of\nChrist. But the Stoical philosophy propounded by Seneca had been\nforming ever since the time of Zeno, three centuries before the time\nof Christ. Seneca himself was born before the Christian era, and no\npart of the New Testament was in existence when he wrote. Relative\nto this contention Lecky writes: \"It is admitted that the greatest\nmoralists of the Roman empire either never mentioned Christianity, or\nmentioned it with contempt.... The Jews, with whom the Christians were\nthen identified, he (Seneca) emphatically describes as 'an accursed\nrace.'\" (European Morals, vol. 1, pp. 340, 342). During the second\nand third centuries Christian scholars ransacked Pagan literature for\nrecognitions of Christ and Christianity. Regarding this, Lecky says:\n\"At the time, when the passion for discovering these connections\nwas most extravagant, the notion of Seneca and his followers being\ninspired by the Christians was unknown\" (Ibid, p. 346). Gibbon says:\n\"The new sect [Christians] is totally unnoticed by Seneca\" (Rome,\nvol. i, 587, note).\n\nOut of all these various religious systems and doctrines--out of\nsex worship and sun worship--out of the worship of the stars and\nthe worship of the elements--out of the worship of animals and\nthe worship of idols--out of Polytheism and Monotheism--out of the\nMediatorial and Messianic ideas--out of the Logos and the Ideal Man\nof the philosophers--this Christ has come.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nSOURCES OF THE CHRIST MYTH--PAGAN DIVINITIES.\n\n\nIn the preceding chapter I have noticed some of the typical religious\nsystems and beliefs from which Christ and Christianity were to a\ngreat extent derived. I shall next notice more particularly some\nof the so-called divine beings--some of the gods, and some of the\nmortals endowed with supernatural gifts, belonging to these systems. I\nshall show that there were many sons of gods besides Jehovah's \"only\nbegotten Son\"; that each of them possessed some attribute possessed\nby him; that all of them lived or existed in the minds of men,\ncenturies before his time; and that many of them were prototypes\nof him, and furnished in a large degree the ideas which suggested\nhim, or which are associated with him and his religion. My list will\ncomprise the following, all of whom were believed by their worshipers\nor followers to be of divine descent: Krishna, Buddha, Confucius,\nLaou-tsze, Zoroaster, Mithra, Sosiosh, Adonis, Osiris, Horus, Zeus,\nApollo, Perseus, Hercules, Dionysos, Prometheus, Esculapius, Plato,\nPythagoras, Bacchus, Saturn, Quirinus, Odin, Thor, and Baldur.\n\n\n\nKrishna.\n\nKrishna was the eighth Avatar or incarnation of the god Vishnu,\none of the Hindoo Trinity. In this incarnation Vishnu, it is said,\n\"appeared in all the fullness of his power and glory.\" His mother\nwas Devaki. He is believed to be a historical character, but his real\nhistory, like that of Jesus, is almost entirely obscured by myths. He\nlived from 900 to 1,200 years before the Christian era. The story\nof his life is to be found in the \"Bhagavat,\" one of the \"Puranas,\"\nwhile his religious teachings are given in the \"Bhagavad-Gita,\"\na poem belonging to the \"Mahabarata.\"\n\nThe points of resemblance between Krishna and Christ that have\nbeen printed would fill a volume. Some of these are apocryphal,\nand not confirmed by the canonical scriptures of India. The limits\nof this chapter preclude an extended list even of the undoubtedly\ngenuine. I shall confine myself chiefly to a presentation of the\nmost important ones relating to their births. These, according to the\nChristian translator of the \"Bhagavat Purana,\" Rev. Thomas Maurice,\nare as follows:\n\n1. Both were miraculously conceived.\n\n2. Both were divine incarnations.\n\n3. Both were of royal descent.\n\n4. Devatas or angels sang songs of praise at the birth of each.\n\n5. Both were visited by neighboring shepherds.\n\n6. In both cases the reigning monarch, fearing that he would be\nsupplanted in his kingdom by the divine child, sought to destroy him.\n\n7. Both were saved by friends who fled with them in the night to\ndistant countries.\n\n8. Foiled in their attempts to discover the babes both kings issued\ndecrees that all the infants should be put to death.\n\nWriting of Krishna in the eighteenth century, Sir William Jones says:\n\"In the Sanscrit dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago,\nwe have the whole history of the incarnate deity, born of a virgin,\nand miraculously escaping in infancy from the reigning tyrant of his\ncountry\" (Asiatic Researches, Vol. I, p. 273).\n\nThe subsequent careers of these deities are analogous in many\nrespects. Their missions were the same--the salvation of mankind. Both\nperformed miracles--healed the sick and raised the dead. Both died\nfor man by man. There is a tradition, though not to be found in the\nHindoo scriptures, that Krishna, like Christ, was crucified.\n\nVarious incidents recorded in the life of Christ were doubtless\nsuggested by similar incidents in the life of Krishna. He washed\nthe feet of his disciples because Krishna had washed the feet of\nthe Brahmins. He taught his disciples the possibility of removing a\nmountain, because Krishna, to protect his worshipers from the wrath\nof Indra, raised Mount Goverdhen above them. His parents in their\nflight with him, as related in the Gospel of the Infancy, stopped at\na place called Maturea. Krishna was born at Mathura.\n\nThe earliest followers of each were from the lower classes of society,\nthose of Krishna being herdsmen and milkmaids. Christ's most ardent\nworshipers have from the first been women. \"Chrishna,\" to quote the\nauthority last mentioned, \"continues to this hour the darling god of\nthe women of India.\"\n\nMcClintock and Strong's \"Cyclopedia\" notes the following events in\nthe history of Krishna which correspond with those related of Christ:\n\"That he was miraculously born at midnight of a human mother, and\nsaluted by a chorus of Devatas [angels]; that he was cradled among\ncowherds, during which period of life he was persecuted by the giant\nKansa, and saved by his mother's flight; the miracles with which\nhis life abounds, among which were the raising of the dead and the\ncleansing of the leprous\" (Art. Krishna).\n\nThe celebrated missionary and traveler, Pere Huc, who made a journey\nof several thousand miles through China and Thibet, says: \"If we\naddressed a Mogul or Thibetan this question, Who is Krishna? the\nreply was instantly, 'The savior of men.'\" \"All that converting\nthe Hindoos to Christianity does for them,\" says Robert Cheyne,\n\"is to change the object of their worship from Krishna to Christ.\" Of\nKrishna's gospel, the \"Bhagavad-Gita,\" \"Appleton's Cyclopedia\" says:\n\"Its correspondence with the New Testament is indeed striking.\"\n\nThe parallels between Krishna and Christ to be found in the Hindoo\nscriptures and the Christian Gospels are too numerous and too exact to\nbe accidental. The legends of the one were borrowed from the other. It\nis admitted by Christian scholars that Krishna lived many centuries\nbefore Christ. To admit the priority of the Krishna legends is to deny,\nto this extent, the originality of the Gospels. To break the force of\nthe logical conclusion to be drawn from this some argue that while\nKrishna himself antedated Christ, the legends concerning him are\nof later origin and borrowed from the Evangelists. Regarding this\ncontention Judge Waite, in his \"History of the Christian Religion,\"\nsays: \"Here then, we have the older religion and the older god. This,\nin the absence of any evidence on the other side, ought to settle\nthe question. To assume without evidence that the older religion has\nbeen interpolated from the later, and that the legends of the older\nhero have been made to conform to the history of a later character,\nis worse than illogical--it is absurd.\"\n\nSir William Jones, one of the best Christian authorities on Sanscrit\nliterature, and the translator of the \"Bhagavad-Gita,\" says: \"That\nthe name of Krishna, and the general outline of his history, were\nlong anterior to the birth of our Savior, and probably to the time\nof Homer [950 B. C.], we know very certainly\" (Asiatic Researches,\nVol. I, p. 254).\n\n\n\nBuddha.\n\nThe ninth incarnation of Vishnu was Buddha. The word Buddha, like the\nword Christ, is not a name, but a title. It means \"the enlightened\none.\" The name of this religious founder was Siddhartha Gautama. He was\nborn about 643 B. C., and died 563 B. C. His mother, Mahamaya, was a\nvirgin. Dean Milman, in his \"History of Christianity,\" says: \"Budh,\naccording to a tradition known in the West, was born of a virgin\"\n(Vol. I, p. 99, note). Devaki, Mary, and Mahamaya, all gave birth to\ntheir children among strangers. Krishna was born in a prison, Christ\nin a stable, and Buddha in a garden. \"Werner's Encyclopedia,\" in its\narticle on Buddha, speaks of \"the marvelous stories which gathered\nround the belief in his voluntary incarnation, the miracles at his\nbirth, the prophecies of the aged saint at his formal presentation\nto his father, and how nature altered her course to keep a shadow\nover his cradle, whilst the sages from afar came and worshiped him.\"\n\nThe \"Tripitaka,\" the principal Bible of the Buddhists, containing\nthe history and teachings of Buddha, is a collection of books written\nin the centuries immediately following Buddha. The canon was finally\ndetermined at the Council of Pataliputra, held under the auspices of\nthe Emperor Asoka the Great, 244 B. C., more than 600 years before the\nChristian canon was established. The \"Lalita Vistara,\" the sacred book\nof the Northern Buddhists, was written long before the Christian era.\n\nBuddha was \"about 30 years old\" when he began his ministry. He fasted\n\"seven times seven nights and days.\" He had a \"band of disciples\"\nwho accompanied him. He traveled from place to place and \"preached\nto large multitudes.\" Bishop Bigandet calls his first sermon the\n\"Sermon on the Mount.\" At his Renunciation \"he forsook father and\nmother, wife and child.\" His mission was \"to establish the kingdom of\nrighteousness.\" \"Buddha,\" says Max Muller, \"promised salvation to all;\nand he commanded his disciples to preach his doctrine in all places and\nto all men.\" \"Self-conquest and universal charity\" are the fundamental\nprinciples of his religion. He enjoined humility, and commanded his\nfollowers to conceal their charities. \"Return good for evil\"; \"overcome\nanger with love\"; \"love your enemies,\" were some of his precepts.\n\nBuddha formulated the following commandments: \"Not to kill; not\nto steal; not to lie; not to commit adultery; not to use strong\ndrink.\" Christ said: \"Thou knowest the commandments, do not commit\nadultery; do not kill; do not steal; do not bear false witness;\nhonor thy father and thy mother (Luke xviii, 20). Christ ignored\nthe Decalogue of Moses and, like Buddha, presented a pentade which,\nwith the exception of one commandment, is the same as that of Buddha.\n\nProf. Seydel, of the University of Leipsic, points out fifty analogies\nbetween Christianity and Buddhism. Dr. Schleiden calls attention to\nover one hundred. Baron Harden-Hickey says: \"Countless analogies exist\nbetween the Buddhistic and Christian legends--analogies so striking\nthat they forcibly prove to an impartial mind that a common origin\nmust necessarily be given to the teachings of Sakay-Muni and those\nof Jesus.\"\n\nConcerning the biographical accounts of the two religious teachers\nHarden-Hickey says: \"One account must necessarily be a copy of the\nother, and since the Buddhist biographer, living long before the\nbirth of Christ, could not have borrowed from the Christian one,\nthe plain inference is that the early creed-mongers of Alexandria\nwere guilty of an act of plagiarism.\" The following are some of the\nparallels presented by this writer:\n\nBoth have genealogies tracing their descent from ancestral kings.\n\nBoth were born of virgin mothers.\n\nThe conception of each was announced by a divine messenger.\n\nThe hymns uttered at the two annunciations resemble each other.\n\nBoth were visited by wise men who brought them gifts.\n\nBoth were presented in the temple.\n\nThe aged Simeon of the one account corresponds to the aged Asita of\nthe other.\n\nAs \"the child (Jesus) grew and waxed strong in spirit,\" so \"the child\n(Sakay-Muni) waxed and increased in strength.\"\n\nBoth in childhood discoursed before teachers.\n\nBoth fasted in the wilderness.\n\nBoth were tempted.\n\nAngels or devatas ministered to each.\n\nBuddha bathed in the Narajana, and Christ was baptized in the Jordan.\n\nThe mission of each was proclaimed by a voice from heaven.\n\nBoth performed miracles.\n\nBoth sent out disciples to propagate their faiths.\n\nIn calling their disciples the command of each was, \"Follow me.\"\n\nBuddha preached on the Holy Hill, and Christ delivered his sermon on\nthe Mount.\n\nThe phraseology of the sermons of Buddha and the sermon ascribed to\nChrist is, in many instances, the same.\n\nBoth Buddha and Christ compare themselves to husbandmen sowing seed.\n\nThe story of the prodigal son is found in both Scriptures.\n\nThe account of the man born blind is common to both.\n\nIn both the mustard seed is used as a simile for littleness.\n\nChrist speaks of \"a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand\";\nBuddha says, \"Perishable is the city built of sand.\"\n\nBoth speak of \"the rain which falls on the just and on the unjust.\"\n\nThe story of the ruler, Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, has\nits parallel in the story of the rich man who came to Buddha by night.\n\nA converted courtezan, Magdalena, followed Jesus, and a converted\ncourtezan, Ambapali, followed Buddha.\n\nThere is a legend of a traitor connected with each.\n\nBoth made triumphal entries, Christ into Jerusalem, and Buddha into\nRajagriba.\n\nBoth proclaimed kingdoms not of this world.\n\nThe eternal life promised by Christ corresponds to the eternal peace,\nNirvana, promised by Buddha.\n\nBoth religions recognize a trinity.\n\n\"Catholic and Protestant missionaries,\" to quote Max Muller again,\n\"vie with each other in their praises of Buddha.\" Bishop Bigandet,\none of the leading Christian writers on Buddha, says: \"In reading\nthe particulars of the life of Buddha it is impossible not to feel\nreminded of many circumstances relating to our Savior's life as\nsketched by the evangelists. It may be said in favor of Buddhism\nthat no philosophic-religious system has ever upheld to an equal\ndegree the notions of a savior and deliverer, and the necessity of\nhis mission for procuring the salvation of man.\" St. Hilaire says:\n\"He [Buddha] requires humility, disregard of worldly wealth, patience\nand resignation in adversity, love to enemies ... non-resistance to\nevil, confession of sins and conversion.\" The bishop of Ramatha says:\n\"There are many moral precepts equally commanded and enforced in\ncommon by both creeds. It will not be rash to assert that most of\nthe moral truths prescribed in the gospel are to be met with in the\nBuddhistic scriptures.\" Writing of Buddhism, Mrs. Spier, in her \"Life\nin Ancient India,\" says: \"Before God planted Christianity upon earth,\nhe took a branch from the luxuriant tree, and threw it down to India.\"\n\nThe external forms of Christianity, especially of Catholic\nChristianity, are modeled in a large degree after those of Buddhism. Of\nNorthern Buddhism (Lamaism) the \"Encyclopedia Britannica\" says:\n\"Lamaism, with its shaven priests, its bells and rosaries, its images\nand holy water, its popes and bishops, its abbots and monks of many\ngrades, its processions and feast days, its confessional and purgatory,\nand its worship of the double Virgin, so strongly resembles Romanism\nthat the first Catholic missionaries thought it must be an imitation\nby the devil of the religion of Christ.\" The central object in every\nBuddhist temple is an image of Buddha. The central object in every\nCatholic church is an image of Christ. Holy relics and the veneration\nof saints are prominent in both.\n\nBuddha commanded his disciples to preach his gospel to all men. Christ\ncommanded his disciples to do the same. In obedience to these\ncommands the world was filled with missionaries, and largely as the\nresult of this the adherents of these religious systems outnumber\nthose of all others combined. Christian tradition says that Thomas\nvisited India. Some believe that it was in this way that the early\nChristians became acquainted with the history and teachings of Krishna\nand Buddha. This may be true, but so far as the Buddhistic element\nin Christianity is concerned it is quite as reasonable to suppose\nthat Buddhist missionaries had previously carried their religion\nto Alexandria and Rome, where the molders of the Christian creed\nobtained their knowledge of it. \"That remarkable missionary movement,\nbeginning 300 B. C.,\" says Max Muller, \"sent forth a succession of\ndevoted men who spent their lives in spreading the faith of Buddha\nover all parts of Asia.\" Harden-Hickey says: \"It is not doubted at the\npresent day that Indian religious ideas, and indeed more particularly\nthose of Buddhism, reached and were even propagated as far as Egypt,\nAsia Minor, and Palestine, long before the Christian era.\"\n\nConnected with the triumphs of these religious faiths there is a\nhistorical analogy deserving mention. Three centuries after the time\nof Buddha, Asoka the Great, emperor of India, became a convert to the\nBuddhist faith, made it the state religion of the empire, and did\nmore than any other man to secure its supremacy in the East. Three\ncenturies after Christ, Constantine the Great, emperor of Rome,\nbecame a convert to the Christian faith, made it the state religion\nof his empire, and won for it the supremacy of the West.\n\nRemuset says: \"Buddhism has been called the Christianity of the\nEast.\" It would be more appropriate to call Christianity the Buddhism\nof the West. Buddha, and not Christ, was \"The Light of Asia.\" At\nthis torch Christians lighted their taper and called it \"The Light\nof the World.\"\n\n\n\nConfucius.\n\nThis great Chinese sage and religious founder was born 551 B. C. His\nfollowers believed him to be divine. His birth was attended by\nprodigies. Magi and angels visited him, while celestial music filled\nthe air. His disciples invented a genealogy for him, giving him\na princely descent from Hoang-ti, a Chinese monarch, just as the\nChristian Evangelists at a later period invented genealogies for\nChrist, giving him a princely pedigree from David. Concerning his\ndeification the \"International Encyclopedia\" says: \"By the irony of\nfate he was deified after his death, and, like Buddha, Confucius,\nwho had little belief in the supernatural, became a divinity.\"\n\nAs Boulger states, \"His name and his teachings were perpetuated by a\nband of devoted disciples, and the book which contained the moral and\nphilosophical axioms of Confucius passed into the classical literature\nof the country and stood in the place of a Bible for the Chinese\"\n(History of China, p. 16).\n\nOf all the great religious systems which have appeared since the dawn\nof history Buddhism and Confucianism, as originally presented, from\na rational standpoint, stand pre-eminent. In both the supernatural\nis almost entirely absent. Both are godless religions, and both\nhave been, for the most part, bloodless religions. The adherents\nof both have practiced in the highest degree what the adherents of\ntheir great rival have only professed: \"On earth peace, good will\ntoward men.\" Both systems, like primitive Christianity, have been\ncorrupted; but the system of Confucius has suffered less than that of\nBuddha. The religious, or rather ethical, system taught by Confucius,\nis the religion of the intellectual aristocracy of China, and, to a\ngreat extent, the religion of the most enlightened everywhere.\n\nChristian scholars have been surprised to find in the writings of\nConfucius some of the best teachings attributed to Christ. The Golden\nRule has been ascribed to the Christian founder. And yet this rule\nis the very essence of Confucianism and was borrowed from it. In a\npresentation of the teachings of the Chinese sage, Rev. James Legge\nof Oxford University, the highest European authority on China and\nConfucius, says: \"Foremost among these we must rank his distinct\nenunciation of the Golden Rule, deduced by him from his study of man's\nmental condition. Several times he gave that rule in express words:\n'What you do not like when done to yourself do not to others.'\"\n\nTo retain for Christ a portion of the credit due Confucius, Christians\nassert that the Chinese moralist merely taught the negative form of\nthis rule, the abstaining from doing to others what we dislike to have\nthem do to us, while Christ taught the positive form, the doing to\nothers what we desire them to do to us. Regarding this Mr. Legge says:\n\"It has been said that he only gave the rule in a negative form; but\nhe understood it also in its positive and most comprehensive form,\nand deplored on one occasion at least, that he had not himself always\nattained to taking the initiative in doing to others as he would have\nthem do to him.\"\n\nAnother analogy may be noticed. The religion of Confucius enjoins\nabsolute obedience to national rulers. This, too, is a prominent tenet\nof the Christian religion. As the result of this, Confucianism became\nand has remained the state religion of China, while Christianity\nbecame and has remained the state religion of Europe.\n\n\n\nLaou-tsze.\n\nLaou-tsze, the other great religious founder of China, was born 604\nB. C. His entry into the world and his exit from it were attended by\nmiracles. Like Christ he was miraculously conceived; like Christ he\nascended bodily into heaven. He was believed to be an incarnation of\nan astral god.\n\nHis gospel, the \"Tao Teh King,\" was written by him. \"Tao\" means \"the\nway.\" Christ was called \"the Way.\" Man, according to this gospel, is\nboth a material and a spiritual being. By the renunciation of riches\nand worldly enjoyments the soul attains to immortality. The most divine\nof mortals are, like Enoch and Elijah, translated to heaven without\nsuffering death. Laou-tsze taught that men to be righteous must become\n\"as little children.\" Christ said: \"Except ye be converted and become\nas little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven\"\n(Matt. xviii, 3).\n\nThe more ignorant followers of Laou-tsze, like the more ignorant\nfollowers of Christ, believe that many diseases are caused by evil\nspirits, and their priests, like Christ, practice exorcism to expel\nthem. Like the Catholics, they have monasteries and convents.\n\nOf Laou-tsze's writings Prof. Montuci, the Italian philologist, says:\n\"Many things about a triune God are so clearly expressed that no\none who has read this book can doubt that the mystery of the Holy\nTrinity was revealed to the Chinese five centuries before the coming\nof Christ.\"\n\nThere is one element in Christianity which was not borrowed from\nPaganism--religious intolerance. Referring to Buddhism, Confucianism,\nand Taouism, a writer on China says: \"Between the followers of\nthe three national religions there is not only a total absence of\npersecution and bitter feeling, but a very great indifference as to\nwhich of them a man may belong.... Among the politer classes, when\nstrangers meet, the question is asked: 'To what sublime religion\ndo you belong?' and each one pronounces a eulogium, not on his own\nreligion, but on that professed by the others, and concludes with\nthe oft-repeated formula: 'Religions are many; reason is one; we are\nall brothers.'\"\n\n\n\nZoroaster.\n\nThe Persian prophet Zoroaster lived and wrote at least 1200 years\nbefore the Christian era. From his teachings some of the most important\ndoctrines of Christianity, as well as of Judaism, were derived.\n\nAccording to the Persian theology the universe is ruled by two great\npowers, Ormuzd (God) and Ahrimanes (Satan). The one represents light,\nthe other darkness; the one is good, the other evil. Between these\ntwo powers there is perpetual war. The center of battle is man, each\nstriving for his soul. God created man with a free will to choose\nbetween good and evil. Those who choose the good are rewarded with\neverlasting life in heaven; those who choose the evil are punished\nwith endless misery in hell; while those in whom the good and evil\nare balanced pass into an intermediate state (purgatory), to remain\nuntil the last judgment.\n\nTo save mankind God sent a savior in the person of Zoroaster with a\ndivine revelation, the \"Zend Avesta.\" Like Christ, Zoroaster was of\nsupernatural origin and endowed with superhuman powers. Like Christ,\nhe believed that Satan would be dethroned and cast into hell; like\nChrist he believed that the end of the world and the kingdom of God\nwere at hand; like Christ, he taught his followers to worship God;\nlike Christ he declared that God heard and answered prayer; like\nChrist he was tempted by Satan; like Christ he performed miracles;\nlike Christ he was slain by those whom he had come to save.\n\nMcClintock and Strong's \"Cyclopedia\" gives a summary of the principal\ndoctrines of Zoroaster among which are the following:\n\n\"The principal duty of man in this life is to obey the word and\ncommandments of God.\n\n\"Those who obey the word of God will be free from all defects and\nimmortal.\n\n\"God exercises his rule in the world through the works prompted by\nthe Divine Spirit, who is working in man and nature.\n\n\"Men should pray to God and worship him. He hears the prayers of\nthe good.\n\n\"All men live solely through the bounty of God.\n\n\"The soul of the pure will hereafter enjoy everlasting life;\nthat of the wicked will have to undergo everlasting punishment\"\n(Art. Zoroaster).\n\nDevils and angels are of Persian origin. Dr. Kalisch, the eminent\nJewish scholar, says: \"When the Jews, ever open to foreign influence in\nmatters of faith, lived under Persian rule, they imbibed, among many\nother religious views of their masters, their doctrines of angels and\nspirits, which, in the region of the Euphrates and Tigris, were most\nluxuriantly developed\" (Leviticus, part II, p. 287). \"The belief in\nspirits and demons was not a concession made by educated men to the\nprejudices of the masses, but a concession which all--the educated\nas well as the uneducated--made to Pagan polytheism\" (Ibid).\n\nStrauss says: \"It is in the Maccabean Daniel and in the Apocryphal\nTobit that this doctrine of angels, in the most precise form, first\nappears; and it is evidently a product of the influence of the Zend\nreligion of the Persian on the Jewish mind. We have the testimony of\nthe Jews themselves that they brought the names of the angels with\nthem from Babylon\" (Leben Jesu, p. 78).\n\nBaptism, communion, and even confirmation, are rites that\nwere performed in Persia a thousand years before the advent of\nChrist. Dr. Hyde, in his \"Religion of the Ancient Persians,\" says:\n\"They do not use circumcision for their children, but only baptism\nor washing for the inward purification of the soul.... After such\nwashing, or baptism, the priest imposes on the child the name given\nby his parents. Afterwards, in the fifteenth year of his age, when\nhe begins to put on the tunic, the sudra, and the girdle, that he\nmay enter upon religion, and is engaged in the articles of belief,\nthe priest bestows upon him confirmation.\"\n\nThe following, from the \"Britannica,\" was written by England's leading\nauthority on Zoroaster, Professor Gildner: \"Like John the Baptist and\nthe Apostles of Jesus, Zoroaster also believed that the fullness of\ntime was near, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Through the\nwhole of the Gathas (the Psalms of Zoroaster) runs the pious hope\nthat the end of the present world is not far off. He himself hopes\nalong with his followers to live to see the decisive turn of things,\nthe dawn of the new and better aeon. Ormuzd will summon together all\nhis powers for a final struggle and break the power of evil forever;\nby his help the faithful will achieve the victory over their detested\nenemies, the daeva worshipers, and render them powerless. Thereupon\nOrmuzd will hold a judicium universale upon all mankind and judge\nstrictly according to justice, punish the wicked, and assign to the\ngood the hoped-for reward. Satan will be cast, along with all those\nwho have been delivered over to him to suffer the pains of hell,\ninto the abyss, where he will thenceforward lie powerless. Forthwith\nbegins the one undivided kingdom of God in heaven and on earth.\"\n\nSubstitute \"Christ\" for \"Zoroaster,\" \"God\" for \"Ormuzd,\" and \"Gospels\"\nfor \"Gathas,\" in the above, and we have almost an exact exposition\nof the teachings of Christ. And Zoroaster taught at least 1200 years\nbefore Christ taught, and wrote his \"Gathas\" more than 1300 years\nbefore the Gospels were written. The writings of Zoroaster were the\nprincipal source of the most important theological doctrines ascribed\nto Christ, as the Buddhistic writings were of his ethical teachings.\n\n\n\nMithra.\n\nThis god was the offspring of the Sun, and, next to Ormuzd and\nAhrimanes, held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He\nwas represented as a beautiful youth. He is the Mediator. From the\nRev. J. W. Lake I quote the following: \"Mithras is spiritual light\ncontending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom\nof darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will\nreceive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to\nGod. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the\nmediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras\nis the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the\nsource of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator\"\n(Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).\n\nThe \"International Encyclopedia\" says: \"Mithras seems to have owed his\nprominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could\nalso redeem the souls of the dead into the better world.... The\nceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing,\nand a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine,\nbelieved to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part.\"\n\nConcerning Mithra \"Chambers's Encyclopedia\" says: \"The most important\nof his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of\nDecember, the day subsequently fixed--against all evidence--as the\nbirthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into\nRome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox,\nwere famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies\nobserved in the initiation to these mysteries--symbolical of the\nstruggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil)--were\nof the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous\ncharacter. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting\nof flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas,\nwere among the inauguration acts.\"\n\nIn the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic\nworship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of\nhis virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi\nadoring him and offering gifts.\n\nProf. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows\nconcerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ:\n\"The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified\nthemselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the\npower necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a\nLord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also\nheld Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th\nof December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics,\nregarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal\nvirtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their\nconceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They\nboth admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones,\nsituate in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons,\nsituate in the bowels of the earth. They both placed a flood at\nthe beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their\ncondition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the\nimmortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection\nof the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe\"\n(The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).\n\nThe Rev. Charles Biggs, D.D., says: \"The disciples of Mithra formed an\norganized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas\nof Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine,\nand not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had\na Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be\npointed out between their system and the church of Christ\" (The\nChristian Platonists, p. 240).\n\nI quote again from McClintock and Strong: \"In modern times Christian\nwriters have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion\nthat some of our ecclesiastical usages (e. g., the institution of\nthe Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some\nwriters who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural\norigin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with\nthe founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond\nthis, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of\nMithraism\" (Art. Mithra).\n\nThe Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as\nManicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching,\naccording to Mosheim, was as follows: \"Christ is that glorious\nintelligence which the Persians called Mithras.... His residence is\nin the sun\" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).\n\nThe Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient\nworld. It flourished as late as the second century, but finally went\ndown before its young and invincible rival which appropriated, to a\ngreat extent, its doctrines, rites and customs.\n\n\n\nSosiosh.\n\nThe Messianic idea, as we have seen, came from Persia. The expected\nMessiah of the Jews and the Christ of Christians are of Persian\norigin. Sosiosh, the Messiah of the Persians, is the son of Zoroaster,\n\"begotten in a supernatural way.\" He constitutes a part of the\nPersian Trinity. He exists, as yet, only in a spiritual form. His\nincarnation and advent on earth are yet to be. When he comes he will\nbring with him a new revelation. He will awaken the dead and preside\nat the last judgment. Zoroaster, it is claimed, predicted his coming,\ndeclaring that he would be born of a virgin, and that a star would\nindicate the place of his birth. \"As soon, therefore,\" said Zoroaster,\n\"as you shall behold the star, follow it whithersoever it shall lead\nyou and adore that mysterious child, offering your gifts to him with\nprofound humility.\" \"And, lo, the star, which they saw in the east,\nwent before them till it came and stood over where the young child\nwas.... And when they were come into the house, they saw the young\nchild with Mary, his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him; and\nwhen they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts\"\n(Matthew ii, 9, 11).\n\n\n\nAdonis.\n\nFrom Babylonia, including Accadia, Chaldea, and Assyria, much\nof Christianity has come. Christ himself was descended from the\nBabylonian pantheon; his father, Jehovah, being originally a Babylonian\ngod. Adonis, Tammouz, Tam-zi, or Du-zi, as he was variously called,\nwas a Babylonian deity whose worship gradually spread over Syria,\nPhoenicia and Greece. He was one of the most ancient of the sons of\ngods. His origin may be traced to that fertile, and perhaps earliest,\nsource of gods and religions, Accadia. His worship was a combination\nof sun worship and sex worship. He was the god of light, and life,\nand love. Associated with his worship in Babylonia and Syria was the\nworship of Istar; and in Phoenicia and Greece the worship of Venus.\n\nUnder the name of Tammouz, Adonis was worshiped by the Jews. At the\nvery gates of the temple, Ezekiel tells us, \"There sat women weeping\nfor Tammouz\" (\"Adonis\" in Catholic ver.) (viii, 14). In the Bible\nhe is frequently referred to as \"the only son.\" One of the months\nof the Hebrew calendar was named in honor of him. The abstaining\nfrom the use of pork by the Jews had its origin in the legend of the\nslaying of Adonis by the wild boar. And the eating of fish on Friday\nby Christians is doubtless due to the fact that Friday was consecrated\nto Venus by her Asiatic worshipers and fish was eaten in her honor.\n\nIn a citation of Babylonian and Biblical analogies, the \"Encyclopedia\nBritannica\" says: \"The resemblance is still more striking when we\nexamine the Babylonian mythology. The sacred tree of Babylonia, with\nits guardian cherubs--a word, by the way, which seems of Accadian\norigin--as well as the flaming sword or thunderbolt of fifty points\nand seven heads, recall Biblical analogies, while the Noachian deluge\ndiffers but slightly from the Chaldean one. Indeed, the Jehovistic\nversion of the flood story in Genesis agrees not only in details, but\neven in phraseology with that which forms the eleventh lay of the great\nBabylonian epic. The hero of the latter is Tam-zi or Tammuz, 'the sun\nof life,' the son of Ubaratutu, 'the glow of sunset,' and denotes the\nrevivifying luminary of day, who sails upon his 'ark' behind the clouds\nof winter to reappear when the rainy season is past. He is called\nSisuthrus by Berosus, that is, Susru 'the founder,' a synonym of Na\n'the sky.' The mountain on which his ark rested was placed in Nisir,\nsouthwest of Lake Urumiyeh. Its peak, whereon the first altar was built\nafter the deluge, was the legendary model after which the zigurats or\ntowers of the Babylonian temples were erected. Besides the account of\nthe flood, fragments have been met with of stories resembling those\nof the tower of Babel or Babylon, of the creation, of the fall, and\nof the sacrifice of Isaac--the latter, by the way, forming the first\nlay of the great epic. The sixth lay we possess in full. It describes\nthe descent of Istar into Hades in pursuit of her dead husband Du-zi,\n'the off-spring,' the Babylonian Adonis. Du-zi is but another form\nof Tam-zi and denotes the sun when obscured by night and winter.\"\n\nConcerning the two lays of this Babylonian or Assyrian epic which\npertain to Adonis, Dr. Soury says: \"The two important episodes\nof this epic hitherto discovered, 'The Deluge,' and 'The Descent\nof Istar into Hell,' yield the best commentary on the Biblical\nstories of the deluge and hell (sheol). We have henceforth the\nepigraphic proof, confirming the valuable testimony of Berosus, that\nthese legends--like those of the creation, of the Tower of Babel,\netc.--did not originate in Palestine, but were carried thither by\nthe Hebrews with the civilization and worship of the people of the\nvalley of the Tigris and Euphrates, amid whom they had sojourned for\ncenturies.... The Babylonian deluge is also a chastisement from the\ndeity; it is the consequence of man's corruption (Assyrian poem,\nline 22). The details of the building of the Babylonian ark (line\n24), into which are introduced the various pairs of male and female\nanimals (line 80), of the shutting of the doors of the ark (line 89),\nof the duration, increase and decrease of the flood (lines 123-129),\nof the sending out of a dove, a swallow and a raven (lines 140-144),\netc., leave no doubt as to the origin of the legend of Genesis\"\n(Religion of Israel, p. 10).\n\nThe noted Assyriologist, George Smith, of the British Museum, who\ndiscovered the tablets containing these fragments of the Babylonian\nepic, says that the original text of these legends cannot be later\nthan the 17th century B. C., and may be much earlier, thus antedating\nthe oldest books of the Bible nearly 1,000 years. From these and\nother Babylonian and Persian legends the most of the Old Testament\nlegends were borrowed. This fact disproves the existence of the\northodox Christ. If the accounts of the creation, the fall of man,\nand the Noachian deluge, as given in the Bible, are not authentic,\nbut merely borrowed fables, then there remains no foundation for an\natoning Savior.\n\nDescribing the worship of Adonis, \"Chambers's Encyclopedia\" says: \"His\nfestivals were partly the expressions of joy, partly of mourning. In\nthe latter the women gave themselves up to the most unmitigated grief\nover the 'lost Adonis.'... This period was followed by a succession of\nfestive and joyful days, in honor of the resurrection of Adonis.\" These\nfestivals correspond to the Good Friday and Easter of Christians,\ncommemorating the death and resurrection of Christ.\n\nThe most ardent worshipers of Adonis were women. No other character,\nreal or imaginary, has so stirred the passions and the emotions\nof woman as this beautiful young lover of Venus. His tragic death\nbathed with immortal sadness the hearts of his devotees, and from the\nremotest ages down to a very late period moved to tears the daughters\nof men who adored him. Writing of Bethlehem at the close of the fourth\ncentury, St. Jerome says: \"The lover of Venus is mourned in the grotto\nwhere Christ wailed as an infant.\" Along with the \"Holy Sepulchre\"\nof Christ, there still exists the \"Tomb of Adonis,\" where \"the women\nof the ancient mysteries, in the intoxication of a voluptuous grief,\ncame to cover with tears and kisses the cenotaph of the beautiful\nyouth.\" \"Even at the present time,\" says Renan, \"the Syrian hymns\nsung in honor of the Virgin are a kind of tearful sigh, a strange sob.\"\n\nMoved by the same passions and the same emotions that thrilled\nthe hearts of the female worshipers of Adonis, it is the women of\nChristendom, who, more than any other cause, keep alive the memory\nand the religion of Christ. Thus writes a Carmelite nun describing\nthe passionate adoration of her Christian sisters:\n\n\"One day they have raised their eyes to an adorable face. A horrible\ndiadem of interlaced branches binds the august forehead; rubies of\nblood roll slowly upon the livid pallor of the cheeks; the mouth has\nforgotten how to smile. It is a man of sorrows. They have looked upon\nhim and found him more beautiful, more noble, more loyal than any\nspouse. They have felt a stronger heart-beat in his divine breast;\nthey have understood that death no more dare touch his emaciated\nfigure, and that his conjugal fidelity is eternal.\n\n\"Captivated, ravished, enamoured, enraptured, they have loved\nhim. Rendered insensible by love, they have trampled cruelly upon the\nbroken hearts of fathers and desolate mothers; they have listened,\ntearless, to the woeful beseechings of those who desire them for\ncompanions; they have followed to Carmel the unique lover, the\nimmortal husband.\"\n\nThe ancient adoration of Adonis survives in this modern adoration of\nJesus. We see here the same strange commingling of superstition and\nfanaticism, of love and sorrow, of ecstasy and agony, of chastity\nand lust. The religion is the same; the worship is the same. The\ndivine lovers only have been changed. The beautiful Pagan has been\nsupplanted by the Ideal Man.\n\nWriting of the Protestant women of his day, Thomas Jefferson says:\n\"In our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but chiefly among the\nwomen. They have their night meetings and praying parties, where,\nattended by their priests, ... they pour forth their love to Jesus in\nterms as amatory and carnal as their modesty would permit to a mere\nearthly lover\" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. IV, p. 358, Randolph's ed.).\n\n\n\nOsiris.\n\nOne of the most ancient and one of the most renowned of all the gods\nwas Osiris, the Savior of Egypt. He was the son of Seb (earth) and Nu\n(heaven). He appears in the hieroglyphics of Egypt as early as 3427\nB. C. Two thousand years before Christ his worship was universal in\nEgypt, and during the succeeding centuries spread over much of Asia\nand Europe, including Greece and Rome. Its priests looked confidently\nforward to the time when all men would be brought to Osiris, just as\nChristian priests today look forward to the time when all men will\nbe brought to Christ.\n\nOsiris was slain by Typhon (Satan), but rose again and became the\nruler of the dead. He presides at the judgment of the departed where\nthe good are rewarded with everlasting life, and the wicked are\ndestroyed. The Osirian Bible is called the \"Book of the Dead.\"\n\nChristians are indebted to this religion largely for their views\nconcerning immortality and a bodily resurrection. They believe that\nthrough the death and resurrection of Christ they have inherited\neternal life, that when their earthly career is ended they will live\nagain in him. Regarding the Egyptians' belief, the \"International\nEncyclopedia\" says: \"Just as Osiris died and lived again, so the\nspiritual personality of the deceased lived again and was merged in\nOsiris.\" Of Osiris the Rev. Dr. Charles Gillett, of Union Theological\nSeminary, says: \"The belief in him and in the immortality which he\nsymbolized was the deepest in Egyptian religious thought.\" Sir John\nGardner Wilkinson, one of the most eminent Egyptologists, says: \"The\npeculiar character of Osiris, his coming upon earth for the benefit\nof mankind, with the titles of 'Manifester of Good' and 'Revealer\nof Truth'; his being put to death by the malice of the Evil One;\nhis burial and resurrection, and his becoming the judge of the dead,\nare the most interesting features of the Egyptian religion.\" John\nStuart Glennie, another English writer, notes the following analogies\nbetween the religion of Osiris and the religion of Christ: \"In\nancient Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, we find the worship\nof a divine mother and child. In ancient Osirianism as in modern\nChristianism, there is a doctrine of atonement. In ancient Osirianism,\nas in modern Christianism, we find the vision of a last judgment,\nand resurrection of the body. And finally, in ancient Osirianism,\nas in modern Christianism, the sanctions of morality are a lake of\nfire and torturing demons on the one hand, and on the other, eternal\nlife in the presence of God\" (Christ and Osiris, p. 14).\n\nReferring to Osiris, McClintock and Strong's \"Cyclopedia\" says: \"He\nwas regarded as the personification of moral good. He is related to\nhave been on earth instructing mankind in useful arts; to have been\nslain by his adversary Typhon by whom he was cut in pieces; to have\nbeen bewailed by his wife and sister Isis; to have been embalmed;\nto have risen again, and to have become the judge of the dead, among\nwhom the righteous were called by his name and received his form--a\nwonderful fore-feeling of the Gospel narrative\" (Art. Egypt).\n\nIsis, the sister and wife of Osiris, was the greatest of female\ndivinities. Her worship was coexistent and coextensive with that\nof her divine brother and husband. We have the following picture of\nher in the Apocalypse: \"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;\na woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon\nher head a crown of twelve stars\" (Revelation xii, 1). The worship\nof Isis existed in Rome and Alexandria during the formative period\nof Christianity and Christians borrowed much from it.\n\n\n\nHorus.\n\nThis popular Egyptian god was the son of Osiris and Isis. Osiris and\nHorus were both solar deities; Osiris was the setting sun, Horus the\nrising sun. Christ, it is claimed, existed before his incarnation;\nand Horus, it was claimed, existed even before the incarnation of\nhis father. Christ when an infant was carried into Egypt to escape\nthe wrath of Herod; Horus when an infant was carried out of Egypt\nto escape the wrath of Typhon. To avenge the death of his father he\nafterward vanquished Typhon. He was the last of the gods who reigned\nin Egypt. Festivals and movable feasts similar to those celebrated\nin honor of Christ were held in his honor.\n\nIn India and Egypt, ages before the appearance of Christianity,\nthe doctrine of the Trinity prevailed. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva\nconstituted the principal trinity of India, while the most important\nTrinity of Egypt was Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Even the Christian\ndoctrine of a Trinity in Unity, an absurdity which Christianity alone\nis supposed to have taught, was an Egyptian doctrine. Samuel Sharp,\nin his \"Egyptian Mythology\" (p. 14), says: \"We have a hieroglyphical\ninscription in the British Museum as early as the reign of Sevechus of\nthe eighth century before the Christian era, showing that the doctrine\nof Trinity in Unity already formed part of their religion and that *\n* * the three gods only made one person.\"\n\nDr. Draper says: \"For thirty centuries the Egyptians had been familiar\nwith the conception of a triune God. There was hardly a city of\nany note without its particular triads. Here it was Amum, Maut, and\nKhonso; there Osiris, Isis, and Horus\" (Intellectual Development,\nVol. I, p. 191).\n\nDr. Inman affirms the Egyptian origin of the Christian trinity:\n\"The Christian trinity is of Egyptian origin, and is as surely a\nPagan doctrine as the belief in heaven and hell, the existence of a\ndevil, of archangels, angels, spirits and saints, martyrs and virgins,\nintercessors in heaven, gods and demigods, and other forms of faith\nwhich deface the greater part of modern religions\" (Ancient Pagan\nand Modern Christian Symbolism, p. 13).\n\nThere are two myths connected with Horus analogous to stories found\nin the Old Testament, and which were old when these stories were\nwritten. The hiding of Horus in a marsh by his mother undoubtedly\nsuggested the myth of the hiding of Moses in a marsh by his\nmother. When Horus died Isis implored Ra, the sun, to restore him to\nlife. Ra stopped his ship in mid-heaven and sent down Thoth, the moon,\nto bring him back to life. The stopping of the sun and moon by Isis\nrecalls the myth of the stopping of the sun and moon by Joshua.\n\nThe deification and worship of the Virgin had its origin in the worship\nof Isis, and the adoration of the Virgin and Child is but the adoration\nof Isis and Horus transferred to Mary and Jesus. Describing the\nPaganization of Christianity Dr. Draper says: \"Views of the Trinity,\nin accordance with Egyptian tradition, were established. Not only was\nthe adoration of Isis under a new name restored, but even her image\nstanding on the crescent moon reappeared. The well-known effigy of\nthat goddess, with the infant Horus in her arms, has descended to our\ndays in the beautiful artistic creations of the Madonna and Child\"\n(Conflict, p. 48).\n\nThat the Virgin Mary of the Roman Catholic church was borrowed\nfrom Egypt is shown by the fact that in the earlier representations\nof her, she was, like Isis, veiled. Concerning this Draper, in his\n\"Intellectual Development\" (Vol. I, p. 361), says: \"Of the Virgin Mary,\ndestined in later times to furnish so many beautiful types of female\nloveliness, the earliest representations are veiled. The Egyptian\nsculptors had thus depicted Isis; the first form of the Virgin and\nChild was the counterpart of Isis and Horus.\"\n\nDr. G. W. Brown, author of \"Researches in Oriental History,\" writes:\n\"Mural illustrations of this mother and child are not confined to\nEgypt, but are scattered all over Asia Minor, and are numerous in\nItaly, while many temples and shrines are yet found which were erected\nto their memory. Matthew ii, 15, claims to be a quotation from one\nof the prophets: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son.'\"\n\nWriting of the ancient Gnostics, C. W. King, a noted English author,\nsays: \"To this period belongs a beautiful sard in my collection,\nrepresenting Serapis, * * * whilst before him stands Isis, holding\nin one hand the sistrum, in the other a wheatsheaf, with the legend:\n'Immaculate is our lady Isis,' the very term applied afterwards to\nthat personage who succeeded to her form, her symbols, rites, and\nceremonies\" (Gnostics and Their Remains, p. 71).\n\nRegarding the transference of the attributes of Isis to Mary, Newton,\nin his \"Assyrian Grove and Other Emblems,\" says: \"When Mary, the\nmother of Jesus, took the place in Christendom of 'the great goddess,'\nthe dogmas which propounded her immaculate conception and perpetual\nvirginity followed as a matter of course.\"\n\n\"The 'Black Virgins,'\" says King, \"so highly reverenced in certain\nFrench cathedrals during the middle ages, proved, when critically\nexamined, basalt figures of Isis.\"\n\nMrs. Besant believes that Christianity was derived chiefly from Egypt:\n\"It grew out of Egypt; its gospels came from thence [Alexandria];\nits ceremonies were learned there; its Virgin is Isis; its Christ\nOsiris and Horus.\"\n\nOf the antiquity of Egypt's religion, and the mutability of the\ngods, that brilliant young Englishman, Winwood Reade, thus writes:\n\"Buried cities are beneath our feet; the ground on which we tread is\nthe pavement of a tomb. See the pyramids towering to the sky, with\nmen, like insects, crawling round their base; and the Sphinx, couched\nin vast repose, with a ruined temple between its paws. Since those\ngreat monuments were raised the very heavens have been changed. When\nthe architects of Egypt began their work, there was another polar\nstar in the northern sky, and the southern cross shone upon the\nBaltic shores. How glorious are the memories of those ancient men,\nwhose names are forgotten, for they lived and labored in the distant\nand unwritten past. Too great to be known, they sit on the height\nof centuries and look down on fame. * * * The men are dead, and the\ngods are dead. Naught but their memories remain. Where now is Osiris,\nwho came down upon earth out of love for man, who was killed by the\nmalice of the evil one, who rose again from the grave and became\nthe judge of the dead? Where now is Isis the mother, with the child\nHorus in her lap? They are dead; they are gone to the land of the\nshades. To-morrow, Jehovah, you and your son shall be with them.\"\n\n\n\nZeus.\n\nZeus, Jove, or Jupiter, as he is variously called, was the greatest\nof the sons of gods and held the highest place in the pantheons of\nGreece and Rome. He was the son of the god Kronos and the goddess Rhea.\n\nThe gods of Greece, while mostly pure myths, were yet intensely\nhuman. In these gods human vices sank to the lowest depths and human\nvirtues rose to the loftiest heights. Zeus was one of the most puerile,\none of the most sublime, one of the most depraved and one of the most\nbeneficent of deities. In the words of Andrew Lang, \"He is the sum of\nthe religious thought of Hellas, found in the numberless ages between\nsavagery and complete civilization.\"\n\nZeus, like Christ, assumed the form of man. The life of the\ninfant Pagan deity, like that of the infant Christian deity, was\nimperiled. Kronos tried to destroy him, but he was secreted in a\ncave and saved. There was a widely accepted tradition among primitive\nChristians, before the myth of the shepherd's manger gained credence,\nthat Christ was cradled in a cave. Concerning these myths, Strauss\nsays: \"The myths of the ancient world more generally ascribed divine\napparitions to countrymen and shepherds; the sons of the gods, and\nof great men were frequently brought up among shepherds. In the same\nspirit of the ancient legend is the apocryphal invention that Jesus\nwas born in a cave, and we are at once reminded of the cave of Jupiter\n(Zeus) and the other gods\" (Leben Jesu, p. 154).\n\nThis god, like Jehovah, became the ruler of heaven and earth. Like\nJehovah he became dissatisfied with the human race, and with the aid\nof Pandora, who brought death into the world, tried to destroy it\nthat he might create a new race.\n\nSeneca refers to Zeus as \"the guardian and ruler of the universe,\nthe soul and spirit, the lord and master of this mundane sphere * *\n* from whom all things proceed, by whose spirit we live.\" Lecky says:\n\"The language in which the first Greek dramatists asserted the supreme\nauthority and universal providence of Zeus was so emphatic that the\nChristian fathers commonly attributed it either to direct inspiration\nor to a knowledge of the Jewish writings\" (European Morals, Vol. I,\np. 161).\n\nOne of the daughters of Zeus was Persephone, Life. Her mother was\nDemeter, the Earth. Hades seized Persephone and carried her to his\nregions in the lower world where she became his wife. Then Earth became\ndisconsolate and could not be consoled. To assuage the grief of the\nsorrowing mother Hades agreed to give her back to Earth for half the\nyear. While Life dwells with her mother, Earth, we have summer, and\nflowers, and fruits, and joy. When Life returns to her husband, Hades,\nwinter and desolation return to Earth. Of this goddess Ridpath says:\n\"Persephone is close to Eve. Eve means Life, and should have been so\nrendered, and would have been but for the blundering of the English\ntranslators\" (History of the World, Vol. II, p. 501).\n\nThe realm of Hades was called by his name. The term was borrowed by the\nwriters of the New Testament but has been translated \"hell.\" Christians\ntook possession of Hades' kingdom; but Hades was dethroned to make\nroom for the Oriental Satan, and the sad yet peaceful abode of\ndeparted spirits was transformed into a lake of fire, the habitation\nof the damned.\n\nThe inhabitants of Crete, who believed in the incarnation and death\nof Zeus, guarded for centuries with zealous care what they alleged\nto be the tomb of their god.\n\n\n\nApollo.\n\nThis god, one of the principal solar deities, was the son of Zeus. His\nmother was Leto. Like Mary, Leto had no hospitable place for her\naccouchement, and brought her child forth on the barren isle of Delos,\nwhere female divinities ministered to them. The isle was illuminated by\na flood of light, the prototype of a later scene where \"the glory of\nthe Lord shone round about\" the shepherds in the field at Bethlehem;\nwhile sacred swans, like the celestial visitants of Luke, made joyous\ngyrations in the air above them.\n\nApollo was the best beloved god of Greece, and was represented as\none of the most perfect types of manly beauty. Like Christ he led\non earth a lowly life, following for a time the humble avocation of\na herdsman. Like Christ he came to reveal the will of his father. He\nchose for his disciples a crew of sailors or fishermen. These, like the\ndisciples of Christ, were endowed with miraculous powers. Apollo was\nregarded as a savior. He rescued the people from the deadly python,\nwhich was desolating the land. Numerous festivals, similar to those\nheld in honor of Christ, were held in honor of Apollo.\n\nIn its article on this god McClintock and Strong's \"Cyclopedia\" says:\n\"Towards the later period of the supremacy of paganism in the Roman\nEmpire, Apollo, as the deity of the sun, had assumed the chief place\nin heathen worship. As indicating that Christ was the true 'light of\nthe world,' the 'Sun of righteousness'--the most favorite figure used\nin speaking of the Savior in the early centuries--this very figure\nof Apollo was often introduced as indicating Christ.\"\n\nLeto, the mother of Apollo, was believed to be, like Mary, the mother\nof Christ, a mortal raised to divinity. Her worship, like that of Mary,\nwas widespread and lasted for centuries.\n\n\n\nPerseus.\n\nThe Virgin myth, the Holy Ghost myth, and the Herodian myth all have\ntheir prototypes in Perseus. Long before his birth it was prophesied\nthat he would be born of the virgin Danae, and that he would supplant\nAcrisius in his kingdom. To prevent this Acrisius confined Danae in\na tower. Here she was overshadowed by Zeus in \"a shower of gold,\"\nand Perseus was born. To destroy him Acrisius placed him with his\nmother in a chest and cast them into the sea. They drifted to an\nisland and the child was saved. He grew to manhood, performed many\nwonderful works, vanquished his enemy and ascended the throne.\n\n\n\nHercules.\n\nThis god was the son of Zeus and the virgin Alcmeni. His mother,\nlike the mother of Jesus, retained her virginity after the birth of\nher child. The Greek babe, like the Jewish babe, had an enemy. Hera\nattempted to destroy the former, just as Herod afterward attempted\nto destroy the latter. Like Christ he died a death of agony. When\nhis labors were finished, he closed his earthly career by mounting\na funeral pyre from which, surrounded by a dark cloud, amid thunder\nand lightning, he ascended to heaven.\n\nThe Tyrian Hercules was worshiped by the Jews, and Jason, the Jewish\nhigh-priest, sent a religious embassy with an offering of 300 drachms\nof silver to this god.\n\nProf. Meinhold, of the University of Bonn, says: \"The transfiguration\nand ascension of Christ may be compared to the heathen apotheosis of\nsuch heroes as Hercules, while the story of the descent into Hades\nis modeled after such narratives as those describing the visit of\nHercules and Theseus to the lower world.\"\n\nMax Muller pronounces Hercules a solar god. His twelve labors, like\nthe twelve apostles of Christ, correspond to the twelve signs of\nthe Zodiac. Christians have admitted the resemblance of this god to\nChrist. Parkhurst's \"Hebrew Lexicon\" says: \"The labors of Hercules\nseem to have had a still higher view and to have been originally\ndesigned as emblematical memorials of what the real son of God and\nsavior of the world was to do and suffer for our sakes.\"\n\nThe Rev. Heinrich Rower says: \"We are all acquainted with the fact\nthat in their mythological legends the Greeks and the Romans and\nother nations of antiquity speak of certain persons as the sons of the\ngods. An example of this is Hercules, the Greek hero, who is the son\nof Jupiter, and an earthly mother. * * * All those men who performed\ngreater deeds than those which human beings usually do are regarded\nby antiquity as of divine origin. This Greek and heathen notion has\nbeen applied to the New Testament and churchly conception of the\nperson of Jesus. We must remember that at the time when Christianity\nsprang into evidence, Greek culture and Greek religion spread over the\nwhole world. It is accordingly nothing remarkable that the Christians\ntook from the heathens the highest religious conceptions that they\npossessed, and transferred them to Jesus. They accordingly called\nhim the son of God, and declared that he had been supernaturally\nborn of a virgin. This is the Greek and heathen influence which has\ndetermined the character of the account given by Matthew and Luke\nconcerning the birth of Jesus.\"\n\n\n\nDionysos.\n\nZagreus was the son of Zeus. He was slain by the Titans, buried at\nthe foot of Mount Parnassus, and rose from the dead as Dionysos. He\nwas the god of fruit and wine. Like those of Christ his most devoted\nfollowers were women. He is the beloved son and occupies a throne at\nthe right hand of his father, Zeus. His empty tomb at Delphi was long\npreserved by his devotees as proof of his death and resurrection.\n\nThe stories of the resurrection of Adonis in Phoenicia, of Osiris\nin Egypt and of Dionysos in Greece were old when Christ was born,\nand paved the way for the origin and acceptance of the story of his\nresurrection.\n\nJustin Martyr recognized the analogies between Christianity and\nPaganism. Addressing the Pagans, he writes: \"When we say that the\nWord, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union,\nand that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and\nrose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different\nfrom what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter\n(Zeus)\" (First Apology, ch. xxi).\n\nFestivals, called Lenaea and the Greater Dionysia, corresponding in\na measure to the Christmas and Easter of Christians, were celebrated\nin honor of this god. Prof. Gulick, professor of Greek in Harvard\nUniversity, describing these festivals, says: \"In the winter came\nvarious celebrations in honor of Dionysos, god of nature and the vine,\nthe object of which was to wake the sleeping spirit of generation\nand render him propitious for the coming of spring and the sowing\nof crops * * * The wine-casks were opened, and all, even slaves,\nwere allowed perfect holiday and liberty to drink in honor of the\ngod. The last day of the festival was a sort of All Souls' Day, being\ndevoted to the gods of the underworld and the spirits of the dead\"\n(Life of the Ancient Greeks, pp. 274, 275). \"The Great Dionysia,\"\nsays Prof. Gulick, \"held in the spring, was the occasion of display\nand magnificence\" (Ibid, p. 113).\n\nSo-called Christian burial is identical with Greek burial. Ancient\nGreek sepulture is thus described by Ridpath: \"To the dead were due\nthe sacred rites of sepulture * * * When a Greek fell into his last\nslumber, the friends immediately composed the body * * * The corse\nwas clad in white and laid upon a bier. Flowers were brought by the\nmourning friends, who put on badges of sorrow * * * Cemeteries were\narranged outside the city walls * * * Over each [grave] was raised\na mound of earth, and on this were planted ivy and roses. * * * Over\nthe grave was erected a memorial stone or monument, and on this was\nan inscription giving the name of the dead, an effigy perhaps of his\nperson, a word of praise for his virtues, and an epigram composed\nfor his memory\" (History of the Word, Vol. II, p. 497).\n\n\n\nPrometheus.\n\nThe Titan god, Prometheus, was the son of Iapetus and Asia. He is one\nof the most sublime creations of the human imagination. When Zeus,\nlike Jehovah, became enraged at mankind and sought to destroy it,\nPrometheus, like Christ, came on earth to intercede and suffer for\nthe race. Hurled to Tartarus by the thunderbolts of Zeus he came\nagain to endure, if need be, eternal agony for man.\n\nFor centuries Greeks and Romans believed the story of this vicarious\ngod to be historical. Grote, the historian, says: \"So long and\nso firmly did this belief continue, that the Roman general Pompey,\nwhen in command of an army in Kolchis, made with his companion, the\nliterary Greek Theophanes, a special march to view the spot in Caucasus\nwhere Prometheus had been transfixed\" (Greek Mythology, pp. 92, 93).\n\nReferring to the Greeks and their great tragedy, \"Prometheus Bound,\"\nA. L. Rawson says: \"Its hero was their friend, benefactor, creator,\nand savior, whose wrongs were incurred in their behalf, and whose\nsorrows were endured for their salvation. He was wounded for their\ntransgressions, and bruised for their iniquities; the chastisement of\ntheir peace was upon him, and by his stripes they were healed\" (Isaiah\nliii, 5), (Evolution of Israel's God, p. 30). Alluding to this subject,\nDr. Westbrook writes: \"The New Testament description of the crucifixion\nand the attending circumstances, even to the earthquake and darkness,\nwas thus anticipated by five centuries\" (Bible: Whence and What?).\n\nThe dying Christ shares with the dying Prometheus the sympathies\nof men. But how trivial the crucifixion, how light the suffering,\nand how weak the courage of the Christian god appear compared with\nthe cruel crucifixion, the infinite suffering, and the deathless\ncourage of the immortal Pagan! Transfixed to the rock on Caucasus,\nthe Golgotha of Greek mythology, with the devouring eagle feeding\nforever on his vitals, there falls from his lips no murmur of pain,\nno Sabachthani of despair. What lofty heroism, what enduring patience,\nwhat unselfish love, this tragic story has inspired!\n\n\n       \"To suffer woes which hope thinks infinite;\n        To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;\n          To defy power which seems omnipotent;\n        To love and bear; to hope till hope creates\n        From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;\n          Neither to change, to falter, nor repent;\n        This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be\n        Good, great, and joyous, beautiful and free.\"\n\n                                                --Shelley.\n\n\n\nEsculapius.\n\nEsculapius was the illegitimate son of the nymph Coronis, by\nApollo. The mother, at the instigation of Apollo, was slain by Diana;\nbut the child was spared. He became noted for his wonderful curative\npowers. He healed all diseases, and even restored the dead to life. He\nwas called \"The Good Physician.\" He was struck by a thunderbolt and\nascended to heaven. The Greeks worshiped him.\n\nThe miraculous cures ascribed to Christ, many of them, doubtless,\nhad their origin in the legends of Esculapius. Justin Martyr says:\n\"In that we say he [Christ] made whole the lame, the paralytic, and\nthose born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds\nsaid to have been done by Esculapius\" (First Apology, ch. xxi).\n\n\n\nPlato.\n\nOne of the most gifted of mortals was Plato. His followers believed\nhim to be of divine descent. Concerning his parentage, Dr. Draper says:\n\"Antiquity has often delighted to cast a halo of mythical glory around\nits illustrious names. The immortal works of this great philosopher\nseemed to entitle him to more than mortal honors. A legend into\nthe authenticity of which we will abstain from inquiring, asserted\nthat his mother, Perictione, a pure virgin, suffered an immaculate\nconception through the influence of Apollo. The god declared to\nAriston, to whom she was about to be married, the parentage of the\nchild\" (Intellectual Development, Vol. I, p. 151).\n\nConcerning this myth, McClintock and Strong's \"Cyclopedia\" says:\n\"Legend, which is traced back to Spensipus, the nephew of Plato,\nascribed the paternity of Plato to the god Apollo; and, in the form in\nwhich the story is told by Olympiodorus, closely imitates the record\nin regard to the nativity of Christ\" (Art. Plato).\n\nImmaculate conceptions were common in Greece. \"The furtive pregnancy\nof young women, often by a god,\" says Grote, \"is one of the most\nfrequently recurring incidents in the legendary narratives of the\ncountry.\" The Christian story of the miraculous conception has not\neven the merit of originality. With the Platonic legend before him,\nall that the Evangelist had to do was to substitute Jehovah for Apollo,\nJoseph for Ariston, Mary for Perictione, and Jesus for Plato.\n\nThe philosophy of Plato is a strange compound of profound wisdom\nconcerning the known and of vague speculations respecting the\nunknown. The latter form no inconsiderable portion of the religion\nascribed to Christ. The Christian religion is supposed to be of\nSemitic origin; but its doctrines are, many of them, the work of\nGreek theologians; its incarnate God bears a Greek name, and its\nearly literature was mostly Greek. Draper recognizes three primitive\nmodifications of Christianity: 1. Judaic Christianity; 2. Gnostic\nChristianity; 3. Platonic Christianity. Platonic Christianity, he says,\nendured and is essentially the Christianity of to-day.\n\nThe following are some of the principles of Plato's philosophy:\n\nThere is but one God, and we ought to love and serve him.\n\nThe Word formed the world and rendered it visible.\n\nA knowledge of the Word will make us happy.\n\nThe soul is immortal, and the dead will rise again.\n\nThere will be a final judgment; the righteous will be rewarded,\nand the wicked punished.\n\nThe design argument, the chief argument relied upon by Christians to\nprove the divine origin of the universe, is a Platonic argument.\n\nIn a letter to the author twenty-five years ago, James Parton wrote:\n\"Read carefully over the dialogue, Phaedo. You will see what you\nwill see: the whole Christian system and the entire dream of the\ncontemplative monk.\"\n\nPhaedo deals chiefly with the soul--its nature and destiny. The\nfollowing quotations are from the translation of Henry Cary, M.A.,\nof Oxford:\n\nDeath is defined by Plato as \"the separation of the soul from the\nbody.\"\n\n\"Can the soul, which is invisible, and which goes to another place\nlike itself, excellent, pure, and invisible, and therefore truly called\nthe invisible world, to the presence of a good and wise God, (whither\nif God will, my soul also must shortly go), can this soul of ours, I\nask, being such and of such a nature, when separated from the body, be\nimmediately dispersed and destroyed, as most men assert? Far from it.\"\n\n\"If that which is immortal is imperishable, it is impossible for the\nsoul to perish, when death approaches it.\"\n\n\"When, therefore, death approaches a man, the mortal part of him, as\nit appears, dies, but the immortal part departs safe and uncorrupted,\nhaving withdrawn itself from death.\"\n\nAfter death, Plato says, the souls are conducted to a place where they\n\"receive sentence and then proceed to Hades.\"\n\nIf the soul \"arrives at the place where the others are, impure,\n... every one shuns it, and will neither be its fellow traveler\nor guide, but it wanders about oppressed with every kind of\nhelplessness.... But the soul which has passed through life with\npurity and moderation, having obtained the gods for its fellow\ntravelers and guides, settles each in the place suited to it.\"\n\n\"If the soul is immortal, it requires our care not only for the present\ntime, which we call life, but for all time; and the danger would now\nappear to be dreadful, if one should neglect it. For if death were a\ndeliverance from everything, it would be a great gain for the wicked,\nwhen they die, to be delivered at the same time from the body, and\nfrom their vices together with the soul; but now, since it appears\nto be immortal, it can have no other refuge from evils, nor safety,\nexcept by becoming as good and wise as possible.\"\n\nChrist, it is claimed, \"brought immortality to light.\" Yet Phaedo\nwas written nearly four centuries before Christ came.\n\nMcClintock and Strong's \"Cyclopedia\" concedes Plato's \"near\napproximation to the doctrines of Christianity--some of\nwhich,\" it says, \"he announces almost in the language of the\nApostles.\" Continuing, this authority says: \"We know no more\nterrible and sublime picture than the passage in which he depicts\nthe dead presenting themselves for judgment in the other world,\nscarred and blotched and branded with the ineradicable marks of their\nearthly sins. Yet this is but one of many analogous passages. This\napproximation to revealed truth is among the most insoluble problems\nbequeathed to us by antiquity.... We offer no solution of the enigma,\nwhich awaits its Oedipus. We only note the existence of the riddle\"\n(Plato).\n\nProf. Gunkel, of Berlin, says: \"'Christianity is a syncretistic\nreligion. It is providential that it passed safely over from the Orient\ninto the Greek world. It imbibed both influences, and acquired many\nfeatures that were foreign to the original gospel.'\"\n\n\n\nPythagoras.\n\nThis religio-philosophical teacher lived in the sixth century B. C.,\nthe century in which flourished Buddha, Laou-tsze, and Confucius, three\nof the world's greatest religious founders. Greece was his native,\nand Italy his adopted, country. His history is largely obscured by\nmyths. He was claimed to be, like Plato, the son of Apollo. He was\nsaid to have performed miracles and to have been endowed with the gift\nof prophecy. He traveled in Egypt and India, and his system contains\nsome elements of the Egyptian and Buddhist religions.\n\nThere was a small Jewish sect, known as the Essenes, which adopted\nto a large extent the teachings of Pythagoras. Jesus is believed to\nhave belonged to this sect. There is an Essene element in the New\nTestament which is especially prominent in the teachings ascribed\nto Christ. Josephus, in his \"Wars of the Jews,\" describes at length\nthe doctrines and customs of this sect. From Josephus and the New\nTestament I cite a few of the parallels between the religion of the\nEssenes and the religion of Christ.\n\n\n\"These men are despisers of         \"A rich man shall hardly enter into\nriches\" (Wars, B. II, ch. viii,     the kingdom of heaven\" (Matt. xix,\nsec. 3).                            23).\n\n\"It is a law among them, that       \"Neither said any of them that\nthose who come to them must let     aught of the things which he\nwhat they have be common to the     possessed was his own; but they had\nwhole order\" (Ibid).                all things common\" (Acts iv, 32).\n\n\"They carry nothing at all with     \"Provide neither gold, nor silver,\nthem when they travel into remote   nor brass in your purses, nor scrip\nparts\" (Sec. 4).                    for your journey\" (Matt. x, 9, 10).\n\n\"Every one of them gives what he    \"Give to him that asketh thee\"\nhath to him that wanteth it\"        (Matt. v, 42.)\n(Ib).\n                                    \"And he took bread, and gave\n\"A priest says grace before meat\"   thanks\" (Luke xxii, 19).\n(Sec. 5).\n                                    \"Blessed are the peace-makers\"\n\"They ... are the ministers of      (Matt. v, 9).\npeace\" (Sec. 6).\n                                    \"But I say unto you, Swear not at\n\"Whatsoever they say also is        all; ... but let your communication\nfirmer than an oath; but swearing   be, yea, yea; nay, nay\" (Matt. v,\nis avoided by them\" (Sec. 6).       34, 37).\n\n\nClosely allied to the Essenes and the primitive Christians is another\nPythagorian sect, known as the Therapeuts of Egypt. Regarding this\nsect, four different theories are held: 1. That they were a Jewish\nsect. 2. That they were a Jewish Christian sect. 3. That they were\nPagans, many of whose teachings were incorporated into the Christian\ncreed. 4. That they are a myth, that the \"De Vita Contemplativa\"\nof Philo, which contains the only account of them, is a Christian\nforgery, written for the purpose of extolling the monastic life,\nthe celibacy, and the asceticism of the church.\n\n\n\nBacchus.\n\nBacchus was a Roman god, or rather a Roman modification of the\nGreek god, Dionysos. He was the god of wine. He cultivated the vine,\nmade wine, and encouraged its use. His worship extended over nearly\nthe whole of the ancient world. It consisted largely of protracted\nfestivals, where wine flowed freely, and joyous and noisy ceremonies\nwere indulged in.\n\nThis god and his worship have survived in Christ and\nChristianity. Christ was called a \"winebibber\" (Luke vii, 34); he\nmade wine--his first miracle was the conversion of water into wine\n(John ii, 1-10); he blessed the winecup, and commanded his disciples\nto drink in remembrance of him (Luke xxii, 17), just as the devotees\nof Bacchus drank in remembrance of their god. Christianity, more\nthan all other religions combined, has contributed to keep alive the\nBacchanalian feasts and revelries.\n\n\"Bacchus,\" says Volney, \"in the history of his whole life, and even\nof his death, brings to mind the history of the god of Christians\"\n(Ruins, p. 169). The cabalistic names of Bacchus and Jesus, Volney\nsays, were the same.\n\nUnited with the worship of Bacchus, and similar to it, was the\nworship of the goddess Ceres (Demeter). Her rites were known as the\nEleusinian mysteries. Cakes were eaten in her honor. And thus in the\nbread of Ceres and the wine of Bacchus we have the bread and wine\nof the Christian Eucharist. \"It is well known,\" says Dr. Westbrook,\n\"that the Athenians celebrated the allegorical giving of the flesh to\neat of Ceres, the goddess of corn, and in like manner the giving his\nblood to drink by Bacchus, the god of wine.\" This worship, like the\nMithraic worship, which also included the communion, had its origin\nin the East, and was one of the first, as well as one of the last,\nof the religions of ancient Greece and Rome.\n\nAnother rite connected with the mysteries was the use of holy\nwater. Lempriere, in his \"Classical Dictionary,\" describing the\nEleusinian mysteries as they existed in Greece centuries before the\nChristian era, says: \"As the candidates for initiation entered the\ntemple, they purified themselves by washing their hands in holy water.\"\n\nThe mysteries comprehended the origin of life, and nature worship was\nincluded in the ceremonies. At the festivals women carried the phallus\nin their processions. Regarding the worship of Bacchus and Ceres at\nRome, \"Chambers' Encyclopedia\" says: \"These rites degenerated, and came\nto be celebrated with a licentiousness that threatened the destruction\nof morality and of society itself. They were made the occasion of\nthe most unnatural excesses. At first, only women took part in these\nmysterious Bacchic rites, but latterly men also were admitted.\"\n\nThe Roman government suppressed the later Bacchanalian and Eleusinian\nfeasts, together with the Christian Agapae, because of their\ndebaucheries, obscenities, and supposed infant sacrifices. Meredith,\nin \"The Prophet of Nazareth\" (pp. 225-231), institutes an examination\nto ascertain \"how far the Eleusinian and Bacchanalian feasts resembled\nthe Christian Agapae.\" His conclusion is that the facts \"show clearly\nthat the Christian Agapae were of pagan origin--were identically the\nsame as the pagan feasts.\" Gibbon says: \"The language of that great\nhistorian [Tacitus, in his allusion to Christians] is almost similar\nto the style employed by Livy, when he relates the introduction and\nthe suppression of the rites of Bacchus\" (Rome, vol. 1, P. 579).\n\nReferring to the Agapae, Dr. Cave says it was commonly charged\nthat Christians \"exercised lust and filthiness under a pretense of\nreligion, promiscuously calling themselves brothers and sisters, that\nby the help of so sacred a name their common adulteries might become\nincestuous\" (Primitive Christianity, Part II, chap. v). Describing\nthe Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, Dr. Cave says: \"Both men\nand women used to meet at supper (which was called their love-feast),\nwhen after they had loaded themselves with a plentiful meal, to prevent\nall shame, if they had any remaining, they put out the lights, and\nthen promiscuously mixed in filthiness with one another\" (Ibid).\n\nThe \"International Cyclopedia\" says: \"With the increase of wealth and\nthe decay of religious earnestness and purity in the Christian church,\nthe Agapae became occasions of great riotousness and debaucheries.\"\n\nThe Agapae, with their excesses eliminated, survive in the love-feasts\nof modern Christians. Webster defines \"love-feast\" as \"a religious\nfestival, held quarterly by the Methodists, in imitation of the Agapae\nof the early Christians.\"\n\nThat these mysteries of Bacchus and Ceres were adopted by the\nearly Christians is largely admitted by the great church historian\nhimself. Writing of the second century, Mosheim says: \"The profound\nrespect paid to the Greek and Roman mysteries, and the extraordinary\nsanctity that was attributed to them, was a further circumstance\nthat induced the Christians to give their religion a mystic air, in\norder to put it upon an equal foot, in point of dignity, with that\nof the Pagans. For this purpose they gave the name of 'mysteries' to\nthe institutions of the gospel, and decorated particularly the holy\nSacrament with that solemn title. They used in that sacred institution,\nas also in that of baptism, several of the terms employed in the\nheathen mysteries and proceeded so far at length as even to adopt\nsome of the rites and ceremonies of which these renowned mysteries\nconsisted.\" (Ecclesiastical History, p. 56.)\n\nEngland's highest authority on early Christian history, Dean Milman,\nsays: \"Christianity disdained that its God and its Redeemer should be\nless magnificently honored than the demons (gods) of Paganism. In the\nservice it delighted to breathe, as it were, a sublimer sense into the\ncommon appellations of the Pagan worship, whether from the ordinary\nceremonial or the more secret mysteries. The church became a temple;\nthe table of the communion an altar; the celebration of the Eucharist,\nthe appalling, or unbloody sacrifice.... The incense, the garlands,\nthe lamps, all were gradually adopted by zealous rivalry, or seized\nas the lawful spoils of vanquished Paganism and consecrated to the\nservice of Christ.\n\n\"The church rivaled the old heathen mysteries in expanding by slow\ndegrees its higher privileges.... Its preparatory ceremonial of\nabstinence, personal purity, ablution, secrecy, closely resembled\nthat of the Pagan mysteries (perhaps each may have contributed to\nthe other)\" (History of Christianity, Vol. III, pp. 312, 313).\n\nSmith's \"Dictionary of Antiquities\" says: \"The mysteries occupied a\nplace among the ancients analogous to that of the holy sacraments\nin the Christian church.\" The \"Encyclopedia Britannica\" makes the\nsame statement.\n\nJames Anthony Froude, in a letter to Prof. Johnson, of England, says:\n\"I have long been convinced that the Christian Eucharist is but a\ncontinuation of the Eleusinian mysteries. St. Paul, in using the word\nteleiois, almost confirms this.\"\n\n\n\nSaturn.\n\nOne of the oldest and most renowned of the European gods was Saturn,\nwhose name was given by the ancients to one of the planets and to\none of the days of the week. He was worshiped by the inhabitants of\nItaly more than a thousand years before Christ came, and centuries\nbefore Rome took her place among the nations of the earth. His temples\nwere located in various parts of Italy, the latest and the principal\none being at Rome. His chief festival, and the greatest of all the\nRoman festivals, was the Saturnalia celebrated at the time of the\nwinter solstice. This festival survives in the Christian festival\nof Christmas.\n\nThe following description of the Saturnalia is from the pen of\nRidpath: \"The most elaborate of all the celebrations of Rome was\nthat of Saturn, held at the winter solstice, and afterwards extended\nso as to include the twenty-fifth of December.... The festival was\ncalled the Saturnalia. Labor ceased, public business was at an end,\nthe courts were closed, the schools had holiday. Tables, laden with\nbounties, were spread on every hand, and at these all classes for the\nnonce sat down together. The master and the slave for the day were\nequals. It was a time of gift-giving and innocent abandonment. In\nthe public shops every variety of the present, from the simplest\nto the most costly, could be found. Fathers, mothers, kinspeople,\nfriends, all hurried thither to purchase, according to their fancy,\nwhat things soever seemed most tasteful and appropriate as presents\"\n(History of the World, Vol. III, p. 97).\n\nConcerning this festival the \"Encyclopedia Britannica\" says: \"All\nclasses exchanged gifts, the commonest being wax tapers and clay\ndolls. These dolls were especially given to children, and the makers\nof them held a regular fair at this time.\" One of the principal rites,\nthe \"Britannica\" says, was the burning of many candles. \"The modern\nItalian carnival,\" says \"Chambers' Encyclopedia,\" \"would seem to be\nonly the old pagan Saturnalia baptized into Christianity.\"\n\n\n\nQuirinus.\n\nNearly every reader is familiar with the story of the founding of\nRome. Rhea Silvia, a vestal virgin, bears twins by the god Mars. As\nthey are heirs to the throne which Amulius has usurped, he attempts to\ndestroy them by drowning. They are miraculously preserved and finally\nrescued by a shepherd. One of them, Romulus, becomes the founder\nand king of Rome. After a reign of 37 years he is translated by his\nfather, and eventually becomes the tutelary god of the Romans, under\nthe name of Quirinus. The following account of his translation is from\n\"Chambers' Encyclopedia\": \"While he was standing near the 'Goat's Pool'\nin the Campus Martius, reviewing his militia, the sun was eclipsed,\nand a dark storm swept over the plain and hills. When it had passed,\nthe people looked round for their king, but he was gone. His father,\nMars, had carried him up to heaven (like the prophet Elijah) in a\nchariot of fire. Some time after he reappeared in a glorified form to\nProculus Julius, announced the future greatness of the Roman people,\nand told him that henceforth he would watch over them as their guardian\ngod, under the name of Quirinus\" (Art. Romulus).\n\nNext to the Saturnalia, the most important religious festival of Pagan\nRome was the Quirinalia, which celebrated the ascension of Quirinus. It\ncorresponds to Ascension Day, one of the principal religious festivals\nof the Christian church, which celebrates the ascension of Christ.\n\nThe supernatural darkness of the Roman myth, it is believed, suggested\nthe supernatural darkness of the crucifixion myth. The reappearance\nof Quirinus in a glorified form is also believed by some to have\nsuggested the transfiguration.\n\n\n\nOdin.\n\nOdin, the All-Father, held the highest rank in the Northern\npantheon. He was the son of Boer and Bestla. Freya was his queen. His\nreligion prevailed among the Scandinavians and among the Goths, the\nSaxons, and other ancient German tribes. Some believe that he was\nan ancient hero who with a horde of Goths or Scythians conquered the\nNorth a thousand years or more before the Christian era. The prevailing\nopinion, however, is that the Norse mythology had its birth in Asia--in\nIndia, Persia, or Accadia--and was carried by the Aryans to northern\nEurope, where it underwent many modifications.\n\nThis mythology recognized as existing in the beginning, two worlds--one\nthe warm South, the other the icy North. The entrance to the Southland\nwas guarded by a flaming sword. Between heat and cold, as between\ngood and evil, there was perpetual strife. From heat Ymir (Chaos),\nthe father of giants, was evolved. Odin and his brothers slew Ymir\nand from his body created the earth, his flesh forming the land, his\nblood the sea. Out of two trees Odin made man and woman, and breathed\ninto them the breath of life. For the abode of man a fruitful garden\nwas planted in the center of the earth and called Midgard. Beneath\nthe earth dwells Hel, the goddess of the dead.\n\nLoki is the god of evil. He will be chained for a time and then\nreleased. A bloody war will follow. On one side, led by Loki, will\nfight the hosts of Hel; on the other Odin and his followers. Loki\nwill triumph for a while, mankind will be destroyed, and heaven and\nearth will be consumed by fire. But Odin will be victorious in the\nend. He will create a new heaven and a new earth. He will be the\nruler of all things, and will dwell in heaven, where the best and\nbravest of his followers are to be received after death.\n\nThe Norse, the Persian, and the Christian doctrines, regarding the\ndestruction of the world by fire, all had a common origin.\n\n\n\nThor.\n\nThor was the son of Odin and the virgin Earth. He was called the first\nborn son of God. His worship was more widespread than that of any other\nNorthern god. In the temple at Upsala he occupied the same place in the\nScandinavian Trinity that Christ does in the Christian Trinity. Like\nChrist he died for man and was worshiped as a Savior. Midgard had a\nserpent, more formidable if not more wily than that of Eden, which\nthreatened to destroy the human race. Thor attacked and slew the\nmonster, but was himself killed by the venom which was exhaled from\nit. The slaying of the serpent of Midgard by Thor, the slaying of the\npython by the Greek god, and the bruising of the head of the serpent\nof Hebrew mythology by Christ, are analogous myths.\n\nThor dwells in a mansion in the clouds. The thunder we hear in the sky\nis the noise of his chariot wheels, and the flashes of lightning are\nfrom his hammer which he dashes against the mountains. The \"Britannica\"\nsays: \"Some of the monks of a later period endeavored to persuade\nthe Northmen that in Thor their forefathers had worshiped Christ, the\nstrong and mighty Savior of the oppressed, and that his mallet was the\nrude form of the cross.\" \"The sign of the hammer,\" says \"Chambers,\"\n\"was analogous to that of the cross among Christians.\"\n\n\n\nBaldur.\n\nOne of the purest, one of the gentlest, and one of the best beloved of\nall the gods was Baldur, the beautiful son of Odin and Freya. In him\nwere combined all things good and noble. The envious gods, inspired\nby Loki, shot their arrows at him in vain until the blind god Hoder\npierced his body with an arrow of mistletoe and he passed into the\npower of Hel, the pallid goddess of death. Sometime--when the old\norder of things has passed away--in another and better world, where\nenvy, and hatred, and war are unknown, Baldur will live again.\n\n\"The death of Baldur,\" says Prof. Rasmus B. Anderson, the highest\nauthority on Norse mythology, \"forms the turning point in the great\ndrama.... While he lived the power of the asas (gods) was secure,\nbut when Baldur, at the instigation of Loki, was slain, the fall of\ncreation could not be prevented.\"\n\nWriting of Norse mythology, Andrew Lang says: \"There is, almost\nundoubtedly, a touch of Christian dawn on the figure and myth of the\npure and beloved and ill-fated god Baldur, and his descent into hell.\"\n\nOdin, and Thor, and Baldur, and their divine companions are\nworshiped no longer; but their religion has left a deep impress on\nthe religion that supplanted it. The Christianity of Scandinavia, of\nnorthern Germany, of England, and of America, the whole of Protestant\nChristianity, in short, and to some extent Catholicism itself, has been\nmodified by this strange and fascinating faith. Regarding this subject\n\"Chambers' Encyclopedia\" says: \"So deep-rooted was the adhesion to\nthe faith of Odin in the North, that the early Christian teachers,\nunable to eradicate the old ideas, were driven to the expedient of\ntrying to give them a coloring of Christianity.\"\n\nThe selection of December 25th as the date of the Nativity was\ndoubtless suggested by the Mithraic or some other solar worship of the\nEast, but the Protestant Christmas came from the North. The mistletoe\nwith which Baldur was slain reappears in this festival. The fire\nwheel, a remnant of the old Norse sun worship, existed among German\nChristians until the nineteenth century. The burning of the Yule log\nstill survives. In some provinces of Germany the festival is still\ncalled by its Pagan name.\n\nRev. Samuel M. Jackson, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church History,\nNew York University, says: \"The Romans had, like other Pagan nations,\na nature festival, called by them Saturnalia, and the Northern peoples\nhad Yule; both celebrated the turn of the year from the death of\nwinter to the life of spring--the winter solstice. As this was an\nauspicious change the festival was a very joyous one.... The giving\nof presents and the burning of candles characterized it. Among the\nnorthern people the lighting of a huge log in the houses of the great\nand with appropriate ceremonies was a feature. The Roman church finding\nthis festival deeply intrenched in popular esteem, wisely adopted it\"\n(Universal Cyclopedia).\n\nThe festival of Easter belongs to this religion. It was observed in\nhonor of the Saxon goddess Eastre, or Ostara, the goddess of Spring. It\ncelebrated, not the resurrection of Christ, but the resurrection of\nSpring and flowers. It still retains the name of this goddess. Nearly\nevery festival of the church--and the Catholic and English churches\nhave many--are of Pagan origin. Every day of the week bears a Pagan\nname--four of them the names of Scandinavian gods--Tuesday the name\nof Tiu (Tyr), Wednesday the name of Woden (Odin), Thursday the name\nof Thor, and Friday that of Freya. Even the Christian \"hell\" was\nderived from \"Hel,\" the name of the Norse goddess of the lower world.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nSOURCES OF THE CHRIST MYTH--CONCLUSION.\n\n\nIn each of these divinities we find some element or lineament of\nChrist. And all of them existed, either as myths or mortals, long\nanterior to his time. Plato, the latest of them to appear, was born\nin the fifth century B. C. These Pagan divinities and deified sages,\ntogether with the religious systems and doctrines previously noticed,\nwere the sources from which Christ and Christianity were, for the\nmost part, derived.\n\nThe following religious elements and ideas, nearly all of which\nChristians believe to have been divinely revealed, and to belong\nexclusively to their religion, are of Pagan origin:\n\n\n    Son of God,\n    Messiah,\n    Mediator,\n    The Word,\n    The Ideal Man,\n    Annunciation,\n    Immaculate conception,\n    Divine incarnation,\n    Genealogies showing royal descent,\n    Virgin mother,\n    Angelic visitants,\n    Celestial music,\n    Visit of shepherds,\n    Visit of Magi,\n    Star of Magi,\n    Slaughter of innocents,\n    Temptation,\n    Transfiguration,\n    Crucified Redeemer,\n    Supernatural darkness,\n    Resurrection,\n    Ascension,\n    Descent into Hell,\n    Second advent,\n    Unity of God,\n    Trinity in Unity,\n    Holy Ghost (Spirit),\n    Devil,\n    Angels,\n    Immortality of the soul,\n    Last judgment,\n    Future rewards and punishments,\n    Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory,\n    Fatherhood of God,\n    Brotherhood of man,\n    Freedom of the will,\n    Fall of man,\n    Vicarious atonement,\n    Kingdom of God,\n    Binding of Satan,\n    Miracles,\n    Prophecies,\n    Obsession,\n    Exorcism,\n    The priesthood,\n    Pope and bishops,\n    Monks and nuns,\n    Worship of Virgin,\n    Adoration of Virgin and Child,\n    Worship of saints,\n    Worship of relics,\n    Image worship,\n    Inspired Scriptures,\n    The cross as a religious symbol,\n    Crucifix,\n    Rosary,\n    Holy water,\n    Lord's Day (Sunday),\n    Christmas,\n    Easter,\n    Baptism,\n    Eucharist,\n    Washing of feet,\n    Anointing,\n    Confirmation,\n    Masses for the dead,\n    Fasting,\n    Prayer,\n    Auricular confession,\n    Penance,\n    Absolution,\n    Celibacy,\n    Poverty,\n    Asceticism,\n    Tithes,\n    Community of goods,\n    Golden Rule and other precepts.\n\n\nThe Old Testament consists largely of borrowed myths. Nearly everything\nin Genesis, and much of the so-called history which follows, are but a\nrecital of Assyrian, Babylonian, Chaldean and other legends. Dr. Draper\nsays: \"From such Assyrian sources, the legends of the creation of the\nearth and heaven, the garden of Eden, the making of man from clay,\nand of woman from one of his ribs, the temptation by the serpent,\nthe naming of animals, the cherubim and flaming sword, the Deluge and\nthe ark, the drying up of the waters by the wind, the building of the\nTower of Babel, and the confusion of tongues, were obtained by Ezra\"\n(Conflict, p. 223).\n\nThe ten antediluvian patriarchs, Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel,\nJared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah, whom Luke presents as the\nfirst ten progenitors of Christ, are now known to have been a dynasty\nof Babylonian kings. Abram, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, whom both Matthew\nand Luke declare to have been ancestors of Christ, and whom Matthew\nplaces at the head of his genealogy, were not persons at all, but\nmerely tribes of people. In regard to this Rev. Dr. Oort, professor\nof Oriental languages at Amsterdam, says: \"They do not signify men,\nso much as groups of nations or single tribes. Abram, for instance,\nrepresents a great part of the Terachites; Lot, the Moabites and\nAmmonites, whose ancestor he is called; Ishmael, certain tribes\nof Arabia; Isaac, Israel and Edom together; Jacob, Israel alone;\nwhile his twelve sons stand for the twelve tribes of Israel. * * *\nHere and there the writers of the old legend themselves point out,\nas it were, that the patriarchs whom they bring upon the scene as\nmen are personifications of tribes\" (Bible for Learners, Vol. I,\npp. 100-102). Moses, the reputed founder of Judaism and archetype of\nChrist, doubtless existed; but nearly all the Bible stories concerning\nhim are myths. David and Solomon, from whose house Christ is said\nto have been descended, are historical characters; but the accounts\nrespecting the greatness of their kingdom and the splendor of their\nreigns are fabulous.\n\nChrist and Christianity are partly creations and partly\nevolutions. While the elements composing them were mostly derived\nfrom preexisting and contemporary beliefs, they were not formed as a\nnovelist creates a hero and a convention frames a constitution. Their\ngrowth was gradual. Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion,\nwith a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his\napotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow;\nbut during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his\nreligion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements,\none by one, were incorporated into the new faith.\n\nRegarding the establishment of this religion Lecky says: \"Christianity\nhad become the central intellectual power of the world, but it\ntriumphed not so much by superseding rival faiths as by absorbing and\ntransforming them. Old systems, old rites, old images were grafted\ninto the new belief, retaining much of their ancient character but\nassuming new names and a new complexion\" (Rationalism, Vol. I. p. 223).\n\nIts origin is thus traced by Mrs. Besant: \"From the later Jews comes\nthe Unity of God; from India and Egypt the Trinity in Unity; from\nIndia and Egypt the crucified Redeemer; from India, Egypt, Greece, and\nRome, the virgin mother and the divine son; from Egypt its priests and\nits ritual; from the Essenes and the Therapeuts its asceticism; from\nPersia, India, and Egypt, its sacraments; from Persia and Babylonia\nits angels and devils; from Alexandria the blending into one of many\nlines of thought.\" (Freethinkers' Text Book, p. 392.)\n\nConcerning this, Judge Strange, another English writer, says: \"The\nJewish Scriptures and the traditionary teachings of their doctors,\nthe Essenes and Therapeuts, the Greek philosophers, the Neo-Platonism\nof Alexandria and the Buddhism of the East, gave ample supplies\nfor the composition of the doctrinal portion of the new faith; the\ndivinely procreated personages of the Grecian and Roman pantheons,\nthe tales of the Egyptian Osiris, and of the Indian Rama, Krishna,\nand Buddha, furnished the materials for the image of the new Savior\nof mankind.\" (Portraiture and Mission of Jesus, p. 27.)\n\nDr. G. W. Brown, previously quoted, says: \"The Eclectics formed\nthe nucleus into which were merged all the various religions of\nthe Orient. Mithra, of the Zoroastrians; Krishna and Buddha, of the\nBrahmans; Osiris, of the Egyptians, and Bacchus, of the Greeks and\nRomans, all disappeared and were lost in the new God Jesus, each of\nthe predecessors contributing to the conglomerate religion known as\nChristian, Buddha and probably Bacchus contributing the most.\"\n\nDr. John W. Draper, recognized on both sides of the Atlantic as one\nof the most erudite, one of the most philosophic, and one of the most\nimpartial of historians, in the following paragraphs tells the story\nof the rise and triumph of this ever-changing faith:\n\n\"In a political sense, Christianity is the bequest of the Roman Empire\nto the world.\"\n\n\"Not only as a token of the conquest she had made, but also as a\ngratification to her pride, the conquering republic brought the gods\nof the vanquished peoples to Rome. With disdainful toleration, she\npermitted the worship of them all. That paramount authority exercised\nby each divinity in his original seat disappeared at once in the\ncrowd of gods and goddesses among whom he had been brought. Already,\nas we have seen, through geographical discoveries and philosophical\ncriticism, faith in the religion of the old days had been profoundly\nshaken. It was, by this policy of Rome, brought to an end.\"\n\n\"In one of the Eastern provinces, Syria, some persons in very humble\nlife had associated themselves together for benevolent and religious\npurposes. The doctrines they held were in harmony with that sentiment\nof universal brotherhood arising from the coalescence of the conquered\nkingdoms. They were doctrines inculcated by Jesus.\"\n\n\"From this germ was developed a new, and as the events proved,\nall-powerful society--the Church; new, for nothing of the kind had\nexisted in antiquity; powerful, for the local churches, at first\nisolated, soon began to confederate for their common interest. Through\nthis organization Christianity achieved all her political triumphs.\"\n\n\"After the abdication of Diocletian (A. D., 305), Constantine, one of\nthe competitors for the purple, perceiving the advantages that would\naccrue to him from such a policy, put himself forth as the head of\nthe Christian party. This gave him, in every part of the empire,\nmen and women ready to encounter fire and sword in his behalf; it\ngave him unwavering adherents in every legion of the armies. In\na decisive battle, near the Milvian bridge, victory crowned his\nschemes. The death of Maximian, and subsequently that of Licinius,\nremoved all obstacles. He ascended the throne of the Caesars--the\nfirst Christian emperor.\"\n\n\"Place, profit, power--these were in view of whoever now joined the\nconquering sect. Crowds of worldly persons, who cared nothing about\nits religious ideas, became its warmest supporters. Pagans at heart,\ntheir influence was soon manifested in the paganization of Christianity\nthat forthwith ensued.\"\n\n\"As years passed on, the faith described by Tertullian was transmuted\ninto one more fashionable and more debased. It was incorporated with\nthe old Greek mythology. Olympus was restored, but the divinities\npassed under other names. The more powerful provinces insisted on\nthe adoption of their time-honored conceptions. Views of the Trinity,\nin accordance with Egyptian traditions, were established.\"\n\n\"Heathen rites were adopted, a pompous and splendid ritual, gorgeous\nrobes, mitres, tiaras, wax-tapers, processional services, lustrations,\ngold and silver vases, were introduced. The Roman lituns, the chief\nensign of the augurs, became the crozier. Churches were built over\nthe tombs of martyrs, and consecrated with rites borrowed from the\nancient laws of the Roman pontiffs. Festivals and commemorations\nof martyrs multiplied with the numberless fictitious discoveries of\ntheir remains. Fasting became the grand means of repelling the devil\nand appeasing God; celibacy the greatest of the virtues. Pilgrimages\nwere made to Palestine and the tombs of the martyrs. Quantities of\ndust and earth were brought from the Holy Land and sold at enormous\nprices, as antidotes against devils. The virtues of consecrated water\nwere upheld. Images and relics were introduced into the churches,\nand worshiped after the fashion of the heathen gods.... The apotheosis\nof the old Roman times was replaced by canonization; tutelary saints\nsucceeded to local mythological divinities.\"\n\n\"As centuries passed, the paganization became more and more complete.\"\n\n\"The maxim holds good in the social as well as the mechanical world,\nthat, when two bodies strike, the form of both is changed. Paganism\nwas modified by Christianity; Christianity by Paganism\" (Conflict,\npp. 34-52).\n\nWhile affirming the divine origin of Christianity, the church\nhistorian Mosheim admits its early paganization. He says: \"The rites\nand institutions, by which the Greeks, Romans, and other nations had\nformerly testified their religious veneration for fictitious deities,\nwere now adopted, with some slight alterations, by Christian bishops,\nand employed in the service of the true God.... Hence it happened that\nin these times the religion of the Greeks and Romans differed very\nlittle in its external appearance from that of the Christians. They\nhad both a most pompous and splendid ritual. Gorgeous robes, mitres,\ntiaras, wax-tapers, crosiers, processions, lustrations, images,\ngold and silver vases, and many such circumstances of pageantry, were\nequally to be seen in the heathen temples and the Christian churches\"\n(Ecclesiastical History, p. 105).\n\nThe Rev. Dr. R. Heber Newton, in an article which appeared in the\nNorth American Review, says: \"There is, in fact, as we now see,\nnothing in the externals of the Christian church which is not a\nsurvival from the churches of paganism.... The sacramental use of\nwater and bread and wine, the very sign of the cross--all are ancient\nhuman institutions, rites and symbols. Scratch a Christian and you come\nupon a Pagan. Christianity is a rebaptized paganism.\" \"Christendom,\"\nsays Dr. Lyman Abbott, \"is only an imperfectly Christianized paganism.\"\n\nThe creeds of old are dead or dying, and the celestial kings, who\nseemed so real to their worshipers, are mostly crownless phantoms\nnow. Buddha, Laou-tsze, and Confucius, the wise men of the East,\ncommand the reverence of nearly half the world, and the Persian\nprophet has a few followers; but from these faiths the supernatural\nis vanishing. Millions yet believe that Krishna, the Christ of India,\nis the son of God; but this faith, too, is waning. The intellectual\noffspring of Plato's brilliant brain survive, but all that remains\nof his divine father is a mutilated effigy. The genial Sun still\nwarms and lights the earth, but centuries have flown since Mithra,\nhis beloved, received the adoration of mankind. The fire still glows\nupon the hearth, but the great Titan who brought it down from Heaven\nlives only in a poet's dream. The crimson nectar of the vine moves men\nto mirth and madness now as when the swan of Teos sang its praise,\nbut Bacchus and the ancient mysteries are dead. Above storm-wrapped\nOlympus, as of old, is heard the thunder's awful peal, but it is not\nthe voice of Zeus. The voice of this, the mightiest of all the gods,\nis hushed forever. The populous and ever-growing empire of the dead\nstill flourishes, but in its solemn court Osiris no longer sits as\njudge. The mother, as of yore, presses to her loving heart her dimpled\nbabe and fondly gazes into its azure eyes to woo its artless smile;\nbut Egypt's star-crowned virgin and her royal child, who once received\nthe homage of a world, are now but mythic dust. Manly beauty thrills\nour daughters' hearts with love's strange ecstasy, and the feigned\nsuffering of the dying hero on the mimic stage moistens their eyes\nwith tears; but Adonis sleeps in his Phoenician tomb, his slumbers\nundisturbed by woman's sobs. The purple flower, substance of his\ndear self, which Venus carried in her bosom, withered long ago. When,\nat eve, the summer shower bathes with its cooling drops the verdure\nof the fields, across the sun-kissed cloud which veils the Orient\nsky may still be seen the gorgeous bridge of Bifrost; but over its\nmajestic arch the dauntless Odin rides no more.\n\n\n        \"The fair humanities of old religions,\n        The power, the beauty, and the majesty,\n        That had their haunts in dale, or piny mountain,\n        Or forest by slow stream, or pebbly spring,\n        Or chasms and watery depths; all these have vanished;\n        They live no longer in the faith of reason.\"\n\n                                                    --Schiller.\n\n\nWhat has been the fate of the Pagan gods will be the fate of the\nChristian deity. Christianity, which supplanted the ancient faiths,\nwill, in turn, be supplanted by other religions. On two continents\nalready the cross has gone down before the crescent. The belief\nin Christ as a divine being is passing away. The creeds, as of old,\naffirm his divinity, but in the minds of his more enlightened followers\nthe divine elements are disappearing. What was formerly believed to be\nsupernatural is now known to be natural. What were once living verities\nare now dead formalities. Slowly and painfully, but surely and clearly,\nmen are becoming convinced that there are no divine beings and no\nsupernatural religions--that all the gods, including Christ, are myths,\nand all the religions, including Christianity, human productions. In\nthe words of Jules Soury, \"Time, which condenses nebulae, lights up\nsuns, brings life and thought upon planets theretofore steeped in\ndeath, and gives back ephemeral worlds to dissolution and the fertile\nchaos of the everlasting universe--time knows nought of gods nor of\nthe dim and fallacious hopes of ignorant mortals.\"\n\nWith these sublime pictures--a retrospect and a prophecy--from the\ngallery of the great master, I close this long-drawn subject:\n\n\"When India is supreme, Brahma sits upon the world's throne. When\nthe sceptre passes to Egypt, Isis and Osiris receive the homage\nof mankind. Greece, with her fierce valor, sweeps to empire, and\nZeus puts on the purple of authority. The earth trembles with the\ntread of Rome's intrepid sons, and Jove grasps with mailed hand the\nthunderbolts of Heaven. Rome falls, and Christians, from her territory,\nwith the red sword of war, carve out the ruling nations of the world,\nand now Christ sits upon the old throne. Who will be his successor?\"\n\n\"I look again. The popes and priests are gone. The altars and the\nthrones have mingled with the dust. The aristocracy of land and\ncloud have perished from the earth and air. The gods are dead. A new\nreligion sheds its glory on mankind.... And as I look Life lengthens,\nJoy deepens, Love intensifies, Fear dies--Liberty at last is God,\nand Heaven is here.\"","title":"The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":124597}