Farrar, in his “Life of Christ,” concedes and deplores the dearth of evidence concerning the subject of his work. He says: “It is little short of amazing that neither history nor tradition should have embalmed for us one certain or precious saying or circumstance in the life of the Savior of Mankind, except the comparatively few events recorded in four very brief biographies.”

With these four brief biographies, the Four Gospels, Christianity must stand or fall. These four documents, it is admitted, contain practically all the evidence which can be adduced in proof of the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ. Profane history, as we have seen, affords no proof of this. The so-called apocryphal literature of the early church has been discarded by the church itself. Even the remaining canonical books of the New Testament are of little consequence if the testimony of the Four Evangelists be successfully impeached. Disprove the authenticity and credibility of these documents [51]and this Christian deity is removed to the mythical realm of Apollo, Odin, and Osiris.

In a previous work, “The Bible,” I have shown that the books of the New Testament, with a few exceptions, are not authentic. This evidence cannot be reproduced here in full. A brief summary of it must suffice.

The Four Gospels, it is claimed, were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, two of them apostles, and two companions of the apostles of Christ. If this claim be true the other writings of the apostles, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and the writings of the early Christian Fathers, ought to contain some evidences of the fact.

Twenty books—nearly all of the remaining books of the New Testament—are said to have been written by the three apostles, Peter, John, and Paul, a portion of them after the first three Gospels were written; but it is admitted that they contain no evidence whatever of the existence of these Gospels.

There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, [52]Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Dissertations upon Irenaeus).

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin]—do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71).

Papias, another noted Father, was a contemporary of Justin. He refers to writings of Matthew and Mark, but his allusions to them clearly indicate that they were not the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Dr. Davidson, the highest English authority on the canon, says: “He [Papias] neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired Gospels” (Canon of the Bible, p. 123). [53]

Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John, and Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled.

These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are “according” to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, “They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority.” Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: “They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).

It is claimed that the Gospel of Matthew originally appeared in Hebrew. Our version is a translation of a Greek work. Regarding this St. Jerome says: “Who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain.” The consequences of this admission are thus expressed by Michaelis: “If the original text of Matthew is lost, and we have nothing but a Greek translation; [54]then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the words.”

The contents of these books refute the claim that they were written by the Evangelists named. They narrate events and contain doctrinal teachings which belong to a later age. Matthew ascribes to Christ the following language: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (xvi, 18). This Gospel is a Roman Catholic Gospel, and was written after the beginning of the establishment of this hierarchy to uphold the supremacy of the Petrine Church of Rome. Of this Gospel Dr. Davidson says: “The author, indeed, must ever remain unknown” (Introduction to New Testament, p. 72).

The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who is believed to be the person addressed, flourished in the latter half of the second century.

Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany’s greatest theologians, after a critical analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation, made up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall’s Schleiermacher says: “He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence” (p. 313).

The basis of this Gospel is generally believed to be the Gospel of Marcion, a Pauline compilation, made about the middle of the second century. Concerning this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, [55]in his “Lost and Hostile Gospels,” says: “The arrangement is so similar that we are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or that it was his original composition. If he used it then his right to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the ground, as what he added was of small amount.”

Mark, according to Renan, is the oldest of the Gospels; but Mark, according to Strauss, was written after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written. He says: “It is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory or otherwise, from the first and third Gospels” (Leben Jesu, p. 51). Judge Waite, in his “History of Christianity,” says that all but twenty-four verses of this Gospel have their parallels in Matthew and Luke. Davidson declares it to be an anonymous work. “The author,” he says, “is unknown.”

Omitting the last twelve verses of Mark, which all Christian critics pronounce spurious, the book contains no mention of the two great miracles which mark the limits of Christ’s earthly career, his miraculous birth and his ascension.

Concerning the first three Gospels, the “Encyclopedia Britannica” says: “It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form only by degrees.” Of these books Dr. Westcott says: “Their substance is evidently much older than their form.” Professor Robertson Smith pronounces them “unapostolic digests of the second century.” [56]

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

Regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. Davidson says: “The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible” (Canon of the Bible, p. 127).

That the authenticity of the Four Gospels cannot be maintained is conceded by every impartial critic. The author of “Supernatural Religion,” in one of the most profound and exhaustive works on this subject ever written, expresses the result of his labors in the following words: “After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those [57]Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus” (Supernatural Religion, Vol. II, p. 248).

Fifteen hundred years ago, Bishop Faustus, a heretical Christian theologian, referring to this so-called Gospel history, wrote: “It is allowed not to have been written by the son himself nor by his apostles, but long after by some unknown men who, lest they should be suspected of writing things they knew nothing of, gave to their books the names of the Apostles.”

The following is the verdict of the world’s greatest Bible critic, Baur: “These Gospels are spurious, and were written in the second century.”

The Acts of the Apostles is supposed to have been written by the author of the Third Gospel. Like this book it is anonymous and of late origin. It contains historical inaccuracies, contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, and conflicts with the writings of Paul. Concerning the last, the “Bible for Learners” (Vol. III, p. 25) says: “In the first two chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, he [Paul] gives us several details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design.”

This book purports to be the product chiefly [58]of three minds: that of the author who gives a historical sketch of the early church, and those of Peter and Paul whose discourses are reported. And yet the three compositions are clearly the products of one mind—that of the author. The evident purpose of the work is to heal the bitter dissensions which existed between the Petrine and Pauline churches, and this points unmistakably to the latter part of the second century as the date of its appearance, when the work of uniting the various Christian sects into the Catholic church began. Renan considers this the most faulty book of the New Testament.

The seven Catholic Epistles, James, First and Second Peter, First, Second and Third John, and Jude, have never been held in very high esteem by the church. Many of the Christian Fathers rejected them, while modern Christian scholars have generally considered them of doubtful authenticity. The first and last of these were rejected by Martin Luther. “St. James’ Epistle,” says Luther, “is truly an epistle of straw” (Preface to Luther’s New Testament, ed. 1524). Jude, he says, “is an abstract or copy of St. Peter’s Second, and allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture” (Standing Preface).

The First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John have generally been accorded a higher degree of authority than the others; but even these were not written by apostles, nor in the first century. Dr. Soury says that First [59]Peter “dates, in all probability, from the year 130 A. D., at the earliest” (Jesus and the Gospels, p. 32). Irenaeus, the founder of the New Testament canon, rejected it. The Dutch critics, who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and assign its composition to the second century, say: “The First Epistle of John soon issued from the same school in imitation of the Gospel” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 692).

Second Peter is a forgery. Westcott says there is no proof of its existence prior to 170 A. D. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says “Many reject the epistle as altogether spurious.” The brief epistles of Second and Third John are anonymous and of very late origin. They do not purport to be the writings of John. The superscriptions declare them to be from an elder, and this precludes the claim that they are from an apostle. The early Fathers ignored them.

Revelation is the only book in the Bible which claims to be the word of God. At the same time it is the book of which Christians have always been the most suspicious. It is addressed to the seven churches of Asia, but the seven churches of Asia rejected it. Concerning the attitude of ancient churchmen toward it, Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, says: “Divers of our predecessors have wholly refused and rejected this book, and by discussing the several parts thereof have found it obscure and void of reason and the title forged.” [60]

“The most learned and intelligent of Protestant divines,” says the Edinburgh Review, “almost all doubted or denied the canonicity of the book of Revelation.” It is a book which, Dr. South said, “either found a man mad or left him so.” Calvin and Beza both forbade their clergy to attempt an explanation of its contents. Luther says: “In the Revelation of John much is wanting to let me deem it either prophetic or apostolical” (Preface to N. T., 1524).

Considered as evidences of Christ’s historical existence and divinity these nine books are of no value. They are all anonymous writings or forgeries, and, with the possible exception of Revelation, of very late origin. While they affirm Christ’s existence they are almost entirely silent regarding his life and miracles.

Of the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul, seven—Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews—are conceded by nearly all critics to be spurious, while three others—Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon—are generally classed as doubtful.

The general verdict concerning the first seven is thus expressed by the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas: “Fourteen epistles are said to be Paul’s; but we must at once strike off one, namely, that to the Hebrews, which does not bear his name at all. [61]... The two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus were certainly composed long after the death of Paul.... It is more than possible that the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians are also unauthentic, and the same suspicion rests, perhaps, on the first, but certainly on the second of the Epistles to the Thessalonians” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 23).

The author of Second Thessalonians, whose epistle is a self-evident forgery, declares First Thessalonians to be a forgery. Baur and the Tubingen school reject both Epistles. Baur also rejects Philippians: “The Epistles to the Colossians and to the Philippians ... are spurious, and were written by the Catholic school near the end of the second century, to heal the strife between the Jew and the Gentile factions” (Paulus). Dr. Kuenen and the other Dutch critics admit that Philippians and Philemon, as well as First Thessalonians, are doubtful.

That the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries is now conceded by all critics. According to the German critics they belong to the second century. Hebrews does not purport to be a Pauline document. Luther says: “The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul, nor, indeed, by any apostle” (Standing Preface to Luther’s N. T.).

Four Epistles—Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians—while rejected by a few critics, are generally admitted to be the genuine writings of Paul. These books were written, it [62]is claimed, about a quarter of a century after the death of Christ. They are the only books of the New Testament whose authenticity can be maintained.

Admitting the authenticity of these books, however, is not admitting the historical existence of Christ and the divine origin of Christianity. Paul was not a witness of the alleged events upon which Christianity rests. He did not become a convert to Christianity until many years after the death of Christ. He did not see Christ (save in a vision); he did not listen to his teachings; he did not learn from his disciples. “The Gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it” (Gal. i, 11, 12). Paul accepted only to a very small extent the religion of Christ’s disciples. He professed to derive his knowledge from supernatural sources—from trances and visions. Regarding the value of such testimony the author of “Supernatural Religion” (p. 970) says: “No one can deny, and medical and psychological annals prove, that many men have been subject to visions and hallucinations which have never been seriously attributed to supernatural causes. There is not one single valid reason removing the ecstatic visions and trances of the Apostle Paul from this class.”

The corporeal existence of the Christ of the Evangelists receives slight confirmation in the writings of Paul. His Christ was not the incarnate [63]Word of John, nor the demi-god of Matthew and Luke. Of the immaculate conception of Jesus he knew nothing. To him Christ was the son of God in a spiritual rather than in a physical sense. “His son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. i, 3, 4). “God sent forth his son, made of a woman [but not of a virgin], made under the law” (Gal. iv, 4).

With the Evangelists the proofs of Christ’s divinity are his miracles. Their books teem with accounts of these. But Paul evidently knows nothing of these miracles. With him the evidences of Christ’s divine mission are his resurrection and the spiritual gifts conferred on those who accept him.

The Evangelists teach a material resurrection. When the women visited his tomb “they entered in and found not the body of Jesus” (Luke xxiv, 3). The divine messengers said to them, “He is not here, but is risen” (6). “He sat at meat” with his disciples; “he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them” (30). “Then he said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side” (John xx, 27). This is entirely at variance with the teachings of Paul. “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become [64]the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. xv, 20, 21). “But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be” (35–37). “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (44). “Now this I say brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (50).

The Christ that Paul saw in a vision was a spiritual being—an apparition; and this appearance he considers of exactly the same character as the post mortem appearances of Christ to his disciples. “He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; ... after that, he was seen of James; then of all the Apostles. And last of all, he was seen of me also” (1 Cor. xv, 5–8). [65]

When, and at what age, did Jesus begin his ministry?

Luke: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (iii, 1). “Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age” (23).

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius, who began his reign in August, 14 A. D., Jesus, according to Matthew, was at least thirty-three years of age; according to Luke, about twenty-two.

Regarding this subject, Dr. Geikie writes as follows: “The age of Jesus at his entrance on his public work has been variously estimated. Ewald supposes that he was about thirty-four, fixing his birth three years before the death of Herod. Wieseler, on the contrary, believes him to have been in his thirty-first year, setting his birth a few months before Herod’s death. Bunsen, Anger, Winer, Schurer, and Renan agree with this. Lichtenstein makes him thirty-two. Hausrath and Keim, on the other hand, think that he began his ministry in the year A. D. 34, but they do not give any supposed date for his birth, though if that of Ewald [121]be taken as a medium he must have been forty years old, while, if Wieseler’s date be preferred, he would only have been thirty-seven.... Amidst such difference, exactness is impossible” (Life of Christ, vol. i, pp. 455, 456).

John the Baptist is said to have been the person sent to announce the mission of Christ. Who was John the Baptist?

Jesus: “This is Elias, which was for to come” (Matthew xi, 14).

John: “And they asked him [John], what then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not” (i, 21).

A question of veracity between Jesus and John.

The advent of John was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Mark: “As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare the way before thee” (i, 2).

This passage is quoted from Malachi (iii, 1): God threatens to destroy the world, and says (iv, 5), “Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” John expressly declared that he was not Elijah (Elias), and the destruction of the world did not follow his appearance.

What was predicted concerning John? [122]

“He shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke i, 15).

For the above Luke was indebted to the biographer of Samson. “Both [Samson and John] were to be consecrated to God from the womb, and the same diet was prescribed for both.”—Strauss.

When the conception of John was announced what punishment was inflicted upon Zacharias for his doubt?

Luke: “And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; ... And behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things be performed” (i, 19, 20).

This was evidently suggested by a passage in Daniel: “And when he [Gabriel] had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I became dumb” (x, 15).

Where was John baptizing when he announced his mission to the Jews?

John (New Ver.): “In Bethany beyond Jordan” (i, 28).

Bethany was a suburb of Jerusalem and was not beyond Jordan.

The Authorized Version reads “Bethabara,” conceded to be an interpolation, regarding which [123]Geikie says: “The most ancient MSS. read Bethany instead of Bethabara, but no site of that name is now known on the Jordan. Bethabara was introduced into the text by Origen” (Life of Christ, vol. i, p. 566).

How old was Jesus when John began his ministry?

Luke: “About thirty years of age” (iii, 2, 3, 23).

Matthew: “In those days [when Jesus’ parents brought him out of Egypt and settled in Nazareth, he being then about two years of age] came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea” (ii, 19–23; iii, 1).

Matthew, it is claimed, was written only ten or twenty years after Jesus’ baptism. If so, the phrase “in those days” clearly implies that he was but a child when John began his ministry. If the phrase was intended to comprehend a period of thirty years this gospel, it must be admitted, was written at least one hundred years after the event described.

Were Jesus and John related?

Luke: They were, their mothers being cousins (i, 36).

Mary had visited the mother of John, and each was acquainted with the character of the other’s child. John before his birth is declared to have recognized and acknowledged the divinity of the [124]unborn Jesus (Luke i, 41–44). Yet, according to the Fourth Gospel, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry John said, “I know him not” (i, 33).

When Jesus desired John to baptize him, what did the latter do?

Matthew: “John forbade him saying, I have need to be baptized of thee” (iii, 14).

According to Matthew, John was not only acquainted with Jesus, but cognizant of his divine mission, which cannot be harmonized with his statement in the Fourth Gospel.

Dr. Geikie admits that John and Jesus were strangers to each other. He says: “Though cousins, the Baptist and the Son of Mary had never seen each other” (Life of Christ, vol. i, p. 389).

This is not only a rejection of Matthew’s statement, but a repudiation of the first chapter of Luke, one of the most important chapters of the New Testament; for it is utterly impossible for reason to harmonize these alleged revelations concerning the miraculous conceptions and divine missions of John and Jesus to their parents and the fact that John remained for thirty years in absolute ignorance of Jesus’ existence.

What did John say regarding Jesus?

“He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear” (Matthew iii, 11). [125]

“There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose” (Mark i, 7).

What other testimony did he bear concerning Jesus?

“And of his fulness have all we received” (John i, 16).

This was uttered prior to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and before he had been baptized with the Holy Ghost. At this time “his fulness” had not been received, and the words are an anachronism.

At Jesus’ baptism there came a voice from heaven. To whom were its words addressed?

Matthew: To those who stood by. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (iii, 17).

Luke: To Jesus himself. “Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased” (iii, 22).

John heard this voice from heaven; did he believe it?

Matthew: He evidently did not; for he afterwards sent two of his disciples to ascertain if Jesus were the Christ. “Now when John had heard in prison the words of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come or do we look for another?” (xi, 2, 3). [126]

Do all the Evangelists record Jesus’ baptism by John?

They do not. According to the Synoptics, John’s baptism of Jesus was the initial act in his ministry, and one of the most important events in his career. But of this baptism the author of the Fourth Gospel knows nothing. In regard to this omission the author of “Supernatural Religion” says: “According to the Synoptics, Jesus is baptized by John, and as he goes out of the water the Holy Ghost descends upon him like a dove. The Fourth Gospel knows nothing of the baptism, and makes John the Baptist narrate vaguely that he saw the Holy Ghost descend like a dove and rest upon Jesus, as a sign previously indicated to him by God by which to recognize the Lamb of God” (p. 681).

With what did John say Jesus would baptize?

Mark and John: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Mark i, 8; John i, 33).

Matthew and Luke: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matt. iii, 11; Luke iii, 16).

How many were baptized by John?

Matthew and Mark: “Jerusalem and all Judea” (Matt. iii, 5; Mark i, 5). [127]

John, if the account in Josephus is to be credited, made some converts; but all the inhabitants of Judea were not baptized by him.

Is John the Baptist a historical character? Aside from the anonymous and apocryphal writings of the church, which appeared in the second century, the only evidence of his existence is a passage in Josephus (Antiquities, B. xviii, ch. v, sec. 2). The language of this passage, while not avowedly Christian like the passage pertaining to Christ, is yet of such a character as to excite suspicion regarding its genuineness. Its position strongly suggests an interpolation. Josephus gives an account of the troubles that arose between Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, and Aretas, king of Arabia Petrea. Herod had married the daughter of Aretas; but becoming infatuated with Herodias, his sister-in-law, he resolved to put her away and marry Herodias. Discovering his intentions his wife obtained permission to visit her father, who when he had been informed of Herod’s perfidy, made war upon him and defeated him in battle. Herod appealed to the Emperor Tiberius, who was his friend, and who ordered Vitellius, governor of Syria, to invade the dominions of Aretas and capture or slay him. I quote the concluding portion of section 1 and the opening sentence of section 3 of the chapter containing this history, separating the two with an ellipsis:

“So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, [128]who, being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.... So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men.”

It will be readily observed that the two sections are closely connected, the one naturally and logically following the other. Yet between these two closely connected sections, the section containing the account of John the Baptist is inserted.

Who held the office of high priest at the time Jesus began his ministry?

Luke: “Annas and Caiaphas” (iii, 2).

If the writer were to declare that Washington and Monroe were presidents of the United States at the same time it would be no more erroneous than the declaration of Luke that Annas and Caiaphas were high priests at the same time. Two priests never held this office jointly. Caiaphas was high priest at this time, and three others had held the office previous to him and subsequent to Annas. Referring to Pontius Pilate’s predecessor, Gratus, who was procurator of Judea from 15 to 26 A. D., Josephus says:

“This man deprived Ananus [Annas] of the [129]high priesthood, and appointed Ishmael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazer, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus, and, when he had possessed the dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor” (Antiquities B. xviii, ch. ii, sec. 2).

Who was tetrarch of Abilene at this time?

Luke: Lysanias (iii, 1).

Lysanias was put to death at the instigation of Cleopatra sixty years before Jesus began his ministry. “She [Cleopatra] hurried Antony on perpetually to deprive others of their dominions, and give them to her; and as she went over Syria with him, she contrived to get it into her possession; so he slew Lysanias” (Josephus, Antiq., B. xv, ch. iv, sec. 1).

At the time mentioned by Luke the territory of Abila, or Abilene, was no longer a tetrarchy.

Where was Jesus three days after he began his ministry?

Synoptics: In the wilderness fasting (Matt. iv, 1; Mark i, 9–13; Luke iv, 1).

John: At a wedding in Cana, feasting (i, ii). [130]

Was he led, or driven by the spirit into the wilderness?

Matthew and Luke: “Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness” (Matt. iv, 1; Luke iv, 1).

Mark: “And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness” (i, 12).

When did the temptation take place?

Mark: During the forty days’ fast. “And he was there in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan” (i, 13).

Matthew: After the fast. “And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights ... the tempter came to him” (iv, 2, 3).

During the temptation the devil is said to have set him on the temple. On what part of the temple did he set him?

Matthew and Luke: “On a pinnacle” (Matt. iv, 5; Luke iv, 9).

The indefinite article “a” clearly implies that the temple had several pinnacles, whereas it had but one. After eighteen hundred years the Holy Ghost discovered his mistake and moved the Oxford revisers to substitute “the” for “a.”

What did the devil next do?

Matthew: “The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all [131]the kingdoms of the world” (iv, 8). It must have been “an exceedingly high mountain” to have enabled him to see the kingdoms of the opposite hemisphere.

What did the devil propose?

“All these things will I give thee [Jesus], if thou wilt fall down and worship me” (Matthew iv, 9).

If Jesus was the Christ, and Christ was God, as claimed, who owned “these things,” he or the devil? Think of a tramp offering you a quit-claim deed to your home for a meal.

Where did the devil take him first, to the temple, or to the mountain?

Matthew: To the temple (iv, 5–8).

Luke: To the mountain (iv, 5–9).

Concerning this discrepancy, Farrar says: “The order of the temptation is given differently by St. Matthew and St. Luke, St. Matthew placing second the scene on the pinnacle of the temple, and St. Luke the vision of the kingdoms of the world. Both orders cannot be right” (Life of Christ, p. 70).

Some of the ablest Christian scholars have refused to accept the Temptation as historical. Farrar says: “From Origen down to Schleiermacher some have regarded it as a vision or allegory—the symbolic description of a purely inward struggle; and even so literal a commentator [132]as Calvin has embraced this view” (Ibid, p. 65).

Had John been cast into prison when Jesus began his ministry?

Matthew: He had.

John: He had not.

Matthew says that immediately after his temptation, and before he began his ministry, “Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison” (iv, 12). Then “he departed into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum” (12, 13). “From that time Jesus began to preach” (17). This was the beginning of his ministry.

According to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus had called his disciples; had traveled over Galilee and Judea; had baptized (iii, 22); had performed miracles (ii, 1–11, 23; iii, 2); had held controversies with the Jews (ii, 18–21; iii, 1–21); had attended the Passover (ii, 13–23); had purged the temple (ii, 13–16); and after all these things “John was not yet cast into prison” (iii, 24).

Name the Twelve Apostles.

John does not name the Twelve Apostles and this important omission is admitted to be a grave defect in the Fourth Gospel.

Relate the circumstances attending the calling of Peter.

Matthew: “And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him” (iv, 18–20).

Luke: “He [Jesus] stood by the lake of Gennesaret, and saw two ships standing by the lake; but the fishermen were gone out of them and were washing their nets. And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people out of the ship. Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught” (v, 1–4). [134]

“And when they had this done they inclosed a great multitude of fishes” (6).

“And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. And when they [Peter, James and John] had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him” (10, 11).

John: “Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus” (i, 35–37).

“They came and saw where he [Jesus] dwelt, and abode with him that day.... One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias.... And he brought him to Jesus” (40–42).

Here are three accounts of the calling of Peter, each entirely at variance with the others.

In what country were they when Peter was called?

Synoptics: In Galilee.

John (Old Ver.): In Perea (i, 28–42).

Bethabara and the territory beyond Jordan were in Perea.

John (New Ver.): In Judea.

Bethany and all the country surrounding it were in Judea. [135]

Who did Jesus declare Peter to be?

“Thou art Simon the son of Jona” (John i, 42).

“Simon, son of Jonas” (John xxi, 15).

“Thou art Simon the son of John” (John, New Ver., i, 42; xxi, 15).

There is no relation whatever between “Jona,” or “Jonas,” and “John.” Jona (Jonah), or Jonas, means a dove; John means the grace of God.

Jesus gave Simon (Peter) the name of Cephas. What meaning did he attach to the word Cephas?

“Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone” (John i, 42).

“Thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter)” (Ibid, New Ver.).

Here Jesus is represented as interpreting the meaning of an Aramaic word, with which his hearers were familiar, by the use of a Greek word of whose meaning they were ignorant, the incongruity of which must be apparent to every reader.

When were James and John called?

Matthew: After Peter was called.

After giving an account of the calling of Peter and Andrew, Matthew says: “And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the [136]son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him” (iv, 21, 22).

Luke: At the time that Peter was called.

Luke states that James and John were partners of Peter, and with him on the lake, in another boat, when the miraculous draught of fishes was made, that both boats were filled with the fish, “And when they [Peter, James and John] had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him” (v, 1–11).

Where was Jesus when he called Peter, James and John?

Matthew: “Walking by the sea of Galilee” (iv, 18–21).

Luke: On the lake in a ship (v, 1–11).

In regard to Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of the calling of Peter, James and John, Strauss says: “Neither will bear the other to precede, or to follow it—in short, they exclude each other” (Leben Jesu, p. 337).

Was Andrew called when Peter was called?

Matthew and Mark: He was (Matt. iv, 18–20; Mark i, 16–18).

According to Luke, Andrew was not called when Peter was called, but after he was called. [137]According to John (i, 35–42) Andrew was the first to follow Jesus.

Who was called from the receipt of custom?

Matthew: “A man named Matthew” (ix, 9).

Luke: “A publican named Levi” (v, 27).

Orthodox scholars claim that Matthew and Levi are the same person. Dr. Hooykaas does not believe that they are the same, and does not believe that any one of the Apostles was called from the receipt of custom. He says: “It is in reality very unlikely that Levi and Matthew are the same man, or that one of the Twelve was a tax-gatherer” (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 201).

Who was the mother of James the Less and Joses?

In the earlier parts of their narratives, Matthew (xiii, 55) and Mark (vi, 3) declare them to be sons of the Virgin Mary and brothers of Jesus. Paul (Gal. i, 19) affirms that James was the brother of Jesus. Later Matthew (xxvii, 56) and Mark (xv, 40) state that James and Joses were sons of Mary, the sister of the Virgin.

Who was their father?

If they were sons of the Virgin Mary, Joseph must have been their father. But Matthew (x, 3) and Mark (iii, 18) state that James the Less was “the son of Alpheus.” According to John (compare [138]John xix, 25 with Matthew xxvii, 56) Cleophas was their father.

Referring to this and the preceding discrepancy, Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says: “This is one of the most difficult questions in the Gospel history.”

Were Matthew and James the Less brothers?

It is not admitted that they were. Yet it is claimed that Matthew and Levi were the same; Mark (ii, 14) declares that Levi was “the son of Alpheus”; while both Matthew and Mark (Matt. x, 3; Mark iii, 18) declare that James was “the son of Alpheus.”

To what city did John belong, and where was it located?

John: “Bethsaida of Galilee” (xii, 21).

John states that Peter was a resident of Bethsaida (i, 44), and as John and Peter were partners (Luke v, 10), they must have belonged to the same city. But Bethsaida was not in Galilee, but in Gaulonitis. Hence if John wrote the Gospel ascribed to him, he did not know the location of his own city.

It is remarkable with what ease theologians harmonize the most discordant statements. In this case the only thing required was, in drawing the map of Palestine, to make two dots instead of one and write the word Bethsaida twice. [139]

Who was the tenth apostle?

Mark: Thaddeus (iii, 18).

Matthew: “Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus” (x, 3).

In the earlier manuscripts of Matthew, the words, “whose surname was Thaddeus,” are not to be found. Subsequent transcribers added them to reconcile his Gospel with Mark.

How many of the apostles bore the name of Judas?

Matthew and Mark: But one (Matt. x, 1–4; Mark iii, 14–19).

Luke: Two (vi, 16).

One of these was Judas Iscariot. Who was the other?

Luke (Old Ver.): “The brother of James” (vi, 16).

Luke (New Ver.): “The son of James.”

Name the chief apostles.

Synoptics: Peter, James and John.

John: Peter and John.

In the Synoptics, Peter, James and John constitute an inner circle or group who are with their master on every important occasion. In John this group is limited to Peter and John.

Who was Jesus’ favorite apostle? [140]

Synoptics: Peter.

John: John.

From the Synoptics the conclusion is inevitable that if there was one disciple whom Jesus esteemed higher than the others it was Peter whom he is declared to have chosen for the head of his church. John, on the other hand, assuming that he wrote the Fourth Gospel, as claimed, takes frequent occasion to impress us with the idea that he was the bright particular star in the Apostolic galaxy. Four times (xiii, 23; xix, 26; xx, 2; xxi, 20) he declares himself to be “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”

If John wrote the Fourth Gospel this self-glorification proves him to have been a despicable egotist; if he did not write it the book is a forgery. The first assumption, if correct, impairs its credibility; the latter destroys its authenticity.

Is the Apostle James mentioned in John?

He is not. This omission is the more remarkable when we remember that James was not only one of the chief apostles, but the brother of John.

Respecting this omission, Strauss says: “Is it at all probable that the real John would so unbecomingly neglect the well-founded claims of his brother James to special notice? and is not such an omission rather indicative of a late Hellenistic author, who scarcely had heard the [141]name of the brother so early martyred?” (Leben Jesu, p. 353.)

What other disciples besides the Twelve did Jesus send out?

Luke: “After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come” (x, 1).

In not one of the other twenty-six books of the New Testament is this important feature of Christ’s ministry mentioned. The seventy elders of Moses doubtless suggested it. “And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spoke unto him [Moses], and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders” (Num. xi, 25).

Seventy was a sacred number with the Jews and is of frequent occurrence in their writings. “And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls” (Ex. i, 5). Abimelech had “seventy brethren” (Jud. ix, 56). “Ahab had seventy sons” (2 K. x. 1). Isaiah prophesied that “Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years” (xxiii, 15). Jeremiah prophesied that the Jews were to “serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (xxv, 11). In Ezekiel’s vision there stood before the idols of Israel “seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel” (viii, 11). In Daniel’s vision “seventy weeks are determined [142]upon thy people and upon the holy city [Jerusalem]” (ix, 24).

What charge did Jesus make to his disciples?

“Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not” (Matt. x, 5).

“Then cometh he [with his disciples] to a city of Samaria” (John iv, 5). “And he abode there two days” (40).

Did Jesus have a habitation of his own?

Matthew: “And leaving Nazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum” (iv, 13).

Mark: “Jesus sat at meat in his [Jesus’] house” (ii, 15).

Luke: “And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (ix, 58).

His residence in Capernaum was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Matthew: “The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthali, by way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death is light sprung up” (iv, 15, 16).

The “prophecy” which Matthew pretends to [143]quote is in Isaiah (ix, 1, 2), and reads as follows: “Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulon, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict her by way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”

Matthew both misquotes and misapplies this passage. He eliminates the facts and alters the language to make a Messianic prophecy. The words were not intended as a prophecy. The events mentioned by Isaiah had occurred when he wrote. The “great light,” which they had already seen, referred to his own work in destroying witchcraft and idolatry.

Were Zebulon and Nephthali situated “beyond Jordan,” as stated?

They were not. “Beyond Jordan” means east of the Jordan, which formed the eastern boundary of Palestine. Zebulon and Nephthali were both situated west of the Jordan.

Were Peter, Andrew, James and John with Jesus when he taught in the synagogue at Capernaum?

Mark: They were (i, 16–21). [144]

Luke: They were not; for they had not yet been called (iv, 31; v, 1–11).

Did Jesus perform many miracles in Galilee at the beginning of his ministry?

Matthew: “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them” (iv, 23, 24).

Mark: “He healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many devils” (i, 34).

Luke: “All they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them. And devils also came out of many” (iv, 40, 41).

John declares that his curing the nobleman’s son (iv, 46–54), which was not until the second mission in Galilee, was the second miracle he performed there, his miracle at Cana being the only one he performed during the first period of his ministry. According to this Evangelist (iv, 45) all the notoriety he had at this time in Galilee, had been achieved, not by any miracles [145]he had performed in that country, but through the reports of some Galileans who had seen his works at Jerusalem in Judea.

In regard to these conflicting statements of the Evangelists, Farrar says: “At this point we are again met by difficulties in the chronology, which are not only serious, but to the certain solution of which there appears to be no clew” (Life of Christ, p. 124).

Did he perform any miracles before he called his disciples?

Luke: He did (iv, 40, 41; v, 1–11).

John: “And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage [at Cana, where he turned the water into wine].... This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana” (ii, 1–11)

Luke declares that he had performed many miracles before the first disciples were called; John declares that his disciples had been called and were with him when he performed his first miracle.

When was the miraculous draught of fishes made?

Luke: At the beginning of his ministry (v, 6).

John: Not until after his death and resurrection (xxi, 11).

What accident was caused by the enormous draught of fishes? [146]

Luke: “Their net brake” (v, 6).

John: “For all there were so many, yet was not the net broken” (xxi, 11).

In Luke and John we have two different versions of a Pythagorian legend. After comparing and noting the agreements and variations of the three versions of the legend, Strauss says:

“If there be a mind that, not perceiving in the narratives we have compared the finger-marks of tradition, and hence the legendary character of these evangelical anecdotes, still leans to the historical interpretation, whether natural or supernatural; that mind must be alike ignorant of the true character both of legend and of history, of the natural and the supernatural” (Leben Jesu, p. 339).

How long did the Jews say it took to build the temple?

“Forty and six years was this temple in building” (John ii, 20).

One year and six months was this temple in building.

Josephus (B. xv, ch. xi) gives a full account of the building of the temple. Of its commencement, he says: “And now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign, and after the acts already mentioned, undertook a very great work—that is, to build of himself the temple of God” (sec. 1). Concerning its completion, he says: “But the temple itself was built by the priests [147]in a year and six months—upon which all the people were full of joy; and presently they returned thanks, in the first place, to God; and in the next place, for the alacrity the king had shown. They feasted and celebrated this rebuilding of the temple” (sec. 6).

The building of the temple was begun in 19 B. C.; it was finished and dedicated in 17 B. C.

Where did Jesus deliver his so-called Sermon on the Mount?

Matthew: “He went up into a mountain” (v, 1).

Luke: “He came down with them, and stood in the plain” (vi, 17).

Both Matthew and Luke represent him as being on a mountain; but while Matthew has him go up into the mountain to deliver his sermon, Luke has him come down out of the mountain to deliver it.

In regard to this discrepancy, the Dutch theologian, Dr. Hooykaas, says: “The Evangelist [Matthew] had a special motive for fixing upon a mountain for this purpose. He intended to represent Jesus laying down the fundamental laws of the kingdom of heaven as the counterpart of Moses who promulgated the constitution of the Old Covenant from Mount Sinai. Luke, on the other hand, not wishing Jesus to be regarded as a second Moses, or another lawgiver, just as deliberately makes the Master [148]deliver this discourse on a plain” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 141, 142).

Did he deliver his sermon sitting or standing?

Matthew: “He was set” (v, 1).

Luke: He “stood” (vi, 17).

Repeat the Beatitudes which are common to both Evangelists.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew v, 3).

“Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke vi, 20).

“Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted” (Matthew).

“Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh” (Luke).

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled” (Matthew).

“Blessed are ye which hunger now: for ye shall be filled” (Luke).

“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake” (Matthew).

“Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out [149]your name as evil for the Son of man’s sake” (Luke).

“Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew).

“Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in like manner did their fathers unto the prophets” (Luke).

The agreements between the two versions of this sermon, of which the foregoing are a part, are ample to prove them to be reports of the same discourse; while the variations are certainly sufficient to disprove the infallibility of the evangelistic reporters.

Whether it be historical or fabricated—whether Jesus delivered the sermon or not—Matthew and Luke have given merely different versions of the same composition. The exordiums are the same; the perorations are the same—both end with the illustration of the men, one of whom built his house on a frail, the other on a firm foundation; the doctrines enunciated are substantially the same; while the words in which they are clothed proclaim a common origin. Matthew’s version is longer than Luke’s; either Matthew has added to, or Luke has taken from the original report of the sermon.

Repeat the Golden Rule.

“All things whatsoever ye would that men [150]should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew vii, 12; Luke vi, 31).

Seventy years before Christ, Hillel, the Jewish rabbi, said:

“Do not to others what you would not have them do to you. This is the substance of the law.”

Rabbi Hirsch says: “Before Jesus, the Golden Rule was one of the household sayings of Israel.”

Repeat the Lord’s Prayer.

According to Matthew.

[151]

According to Luke.

The commonly accepted version of the Lord’s Prayer is the Authorized Version of Matthew. This version is admitted to be grossly inaccurate. It contains sixty-six words. The Revised Version of Matthew contains but fifty-five. Twenty-four words either do not belong to the prayer, or have been misplaced; while words which do belong to it have been omitted. If the custodians of the Christian Scriptures have permitted the prayer of their Lord to be corrupted to this extent, what reliance can be placed upon the genuineness of the remainder of these writings?

The Lord’s Prayer, like so many more of the precepts and discourses ascribed to Jesus, is borrowed. Dr. Hardwicke, of England, says: “The so-called ‘Lord’s Prayer’ was learned by the [152]Messiah as the ‘Kadish’ from the Talmud.” The Kadish, as translated by a Christian scholar, Rev. John Gregorie, is as follows:

“Our Father which art in heaven, be gracious to us, O Lord, our God; hallowed be thy name, and let the remembrance of thee be glorified in heaven above and in the earth here below. Let thy kingdom reign over us now and forever. The holy men of old said, Remit and forgive unto all men whatsoever they have done against me. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil thing. For thine is the kingdom, and thou shalt reign in glory for ever and for evermore.”

The eminent Swiss theologian, Dr. Wetstein, says: “It is a curious fact that the Lord’s Prayer may be constructed almost verbatim out of the Talmud.”

The Sermon on the Mount is derived largely from the teachings of the Essenes, a Jewish sect to which Jesus is believed by many to have belonged.

When and where was the Lord’s Prayer delivered?

Matthew: During his Sermon on the Mount, before the multitude.

Luke: At a later period, before the disciples alone (xi, 1).

Was the Sermon on the Mount delivered before [153]Matthew (Levi in Mark and Luke) was called from the receipt of custom?

Matthew: It was (v, 7; ix, 9).

Luke: It was not (v, 27; vi, 20).

When did Jesus cleanse the leper?

Matthew: After the Sermon on the Mount (v, 1; viii, 1–4).

Luke: Before the Sermon on the Mount (v, 12–14; vi, 20–49).

When did he cure Peter’s mother-in-law?

Matthew: After he cleansed the leper (viii, 2, 3; 14, 15).

Mark and Luke: Before he cleansed the leper (Mark i, 29–31; 40–42; Luke iv, 38, 39; v, 12, 13).

Was this before or after Peter was called to the ministry?

Luke: Before (iv, 38, 39; v, 10).

Matthew and Mark: After (Matt. iv, 18, 19; viii, 14, 15; Mark i, 16, 17; 30, 31).

Were James and John with Jesus when he performed this cure?

Mark: They were (i, 29).

Luke: They were not. They had not yet been called (iv. 38, 39; v, 10, 11).

When was the centurion’s servant healed?

Matthew: Between the cleansing of the leper [154]and the curing of Peter’s mother-in-law (viii, 2–14).

Luke: Not until after both these cures had been performed (iv, 38, 39; v, 12, 13; vii, 1–10).

Who came for Jesus?

Matthew: The centurion came himself (viii, 5).

Luke: The centurion did not come himself, but sent the Jewish elders for him (vii, 2–4).

Where was he when he performed this miracle?

Matthew and Luke: In Capernaum (Matt. viii, 5; Luke vii, 1).

John: In Cana (iv, 46).

According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was in Capernaum while the patient lived elsewhere; according to John, Jesus was in Cana while the patient lived in Capernaum. John says he was a nobleman’s son, but all critics (as well as the Archbishop of York, in his “Harmony of the Gospels”) agree that he refers to the same miracle.

When did he still the tempest?

Matthew: Before Matthew was called from the receipt of custom (viii, 23–27; ix, 9).

Mark: After Matthew (Levi) was called (ii, 14; iv, 35–41). [155]

When did he cast out the devils that entered into the herd of swine?

Matthew: Before Matthew was called to the ministry (viii, 28, 33; ix, 9).

Mark and Luke: Not until after he was called (Mark ii, 14; v, 1–13; Luke v, 27; viii, 26–33).

How many were possessed with devils?

Matthew: “There met him two possessed with devils coming out of the tombs” (viii, 28).

Mark and Luke: “There met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit” (Mark v, 2; Luke viii, 27).

When asked his name what did the demoniac answer?

“My name is Legion” (Mark v, 9).

Concerning this the Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The Four Gospels are written in Greek, and the word ‘legion’ is Latin; but in Galilee and Perea the people spoke neither Latin nor Greek, but Hebrew, or a dialect of it. The word ‘legion’ would be perfectly unintelligible to the disciples of Christ, and to almost everybody in the country” (Christian Records, p. 197).

How many swine were there?

Mark: “They were about two thousand” (v, 13).

If each hog received a devil there must have [156]been two thousand devils. Legion must have been a very large man, or they were very little devils.

Where did this occur?

Matthew: In “the country of the Gergesenes” (viii, 28).

Mark and Luke: In “the country of the Gadarenes” (Mark v, 1; Luke viii, 26).

It is generally conceded by orthodox critics that it occurred neither in the country of the Gergesenes nor in the country of the Gadarenes, but in the country of the Gerasenes. It could not have occurred in the country of the Gadarenes because it is said to have occurred on the sea shore and Gadara was situated several miles from the sea.

Voltaire says the story is disproved by the fact that the event is alleged to have taken place in a country where no swine were kept.

Do the Evangelists all agree in regard to the expulsion of demons by Jesus?

The Synoptics abound with these miracles: Matthew viii, 28–34; ix, 32–34; xv, 22–28; xvii, 14–21; Mark i, 21–28; v, 1–20; vii, 24–30; ix, 20–29; Luke iv, 31–37; viii, 26–39; ix, 37–42. John never mentions them.

What great miracle did Jesus perform at Nain?

Luke: “Now when he came nigh to the gate [157]of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother” (vii, 12–15).

The other Evangelists were certainly ignorant of this miracle; for if they had known of it they could not have omitted it, as it is the most important miracle related by a Synoptist, and, with one exception, the most important of all Christ’s miracles.

A miracle almost identical with this is related of Apollonius. Referring to the two, Baur says: “As according to Luke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as there, to bring the dead to life” (Apollonius of Tyana and Christ, p. 145).

In their accounts of his curing the paralytic what parenthetical clause is to be found in each of the Synoptics? [158]

“(Then saith he to the sick of the palsy)” (Matthew ix, 6; Mark ii, 10; Luke v, 24).

As the clause is superfluous, this agreement, instead of furnishing proof of divine inspiration, tends to prove what has already been affirmed, that these books are not original, but copied, for the most part, from older documents.

What effect had the teachings of Jesus upon the people?

Matthew: “They were astonished at his doctrine” (xxii, 33).

Mark: “They were astonished at his doctrine” (i, 22).

Luke: “They were astonished at his doctrine” (iv, 32).

What did he say to the people in regard to letting their light shine?

“No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candle stick” (Luke, Old Ver., xi, 33).

“No man, when he hath lighted a lamp, putteth it in a cellar, neither under the bushel, but on the stand” (New Ver.).

What did he say concerning the way that leads to life?

“Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, [159]which leadeth unto life” (Matthew, Old Ver., vii, 14).

“Narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life” (New Ver.).

The Old Version has a strait gate and a narrow way; the New Version a narrow gate and a strait way.

Quote the words which relate the calling of Peter.

John: “He [Andrew] first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is being interpreted the Christ.

“And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone” (i, 41, 42).

The last clause of each is an interpolation.

Where was John baptizing when Jesus and his disciples came into Judea?

John: “In Aenon near to Salim” (iii, 22, 23).

This is declared by nearly all critics to be a geographical error. No place corresponding to this existed in Judea.

What city of Samaria did Jesus visit?

John: “Then cometh he to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar” (iv, 5).

Samaria contained no city of this name. Bible [160]commentators believe that Shechem is intended.

What did his disciples say to him when about to leave Bethany?

“Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee” (John xi, 8).

The disciples were themselves Jews, and the above is not the language of a Jew speaking of his own people, but of a foreigner.

Where was he when he dined with publicans and sinners?

Mark: At his own house. “As Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples” (ii. 15).

Luke: At the house of Levi. “And Levi made him a great feast in his own house; and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them” (v, 29).

What did the Pharisees say to his disciples, because they, with Jesus, dined with publicans and sinners?

“Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?” (Luke v, 30.)

“Why eateth your master with publicans and sinners?” (Matthew ix, 11.)

Who inquired of Jesus the reason for his disciples not fasting? [161]

Matthew: “Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?” (ix, 14.)

Luke: “And they [the scribes and Pharisees] said unto him, why do the disciples of John fast often, ... and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?” (v, 33.)

What did he say when reproved for plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath?

“Have ye never read what David did?... How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar, the high priest, and did eat the shew bread?” (Mark ii, 25, 26.)

David did not do this “in the days of Abiathar,” but in the days of Ahimelech. “Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest.... So the priest gave him hallowed bread; for there was no bread there but the shew bread” (1 Sam. xxi, 1, 6).

What did he claim regarding Moses?

“He [Moses] wrote of me” (John v, 46).

The passage referred to is quoted in Acts iii, 22, and may be found in Deuteronomy xviii, 15. It alludes to Joshua, the successor of Moses. “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.”

Had Jesus been omniscient he would have known that Moses did not write this; that it [162]was not written until nearly 800 years after the time of Moses.

Jesus is credited with having raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead. Was she really dead?

Matthew: Jairus said, “My daughter is even now dead” (ix, 18).

Mark: He said, “My little daughter lieth at the point of death” (v, 23).

Luke: It was reported that “she lay a dying” (viii, 42).

According to Matthew, in this miracle he restored the dead to life; according to Mark and Luke, he merely healed the sick.

Who of Christ’s disciples witnessed the raising of Jairus’ daughter?

Mark and Luke: Peter, James and John (Mark v, 37–40; Luke viii, 51).

John, who alone of his alleged biographers is said to have witnessed this miracle, is the only one who fails to mention it.

“A proper witness is silent, while an improper witness testifies.”—Bishop Faustus.

What did Jesus say when sending out his Twelve Apostles?

“He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” (Matthew x, 40; Luke x, 16). [163]

According to John (xiii, 20) these words were uttered not at the beginning of his ministry as stated by Matthew and Luke, but at the Last Supper; regarding which “Supernatural Religion” says: “It is clear that its insertion here is a mistake.”

What command did he give them respecting the provision of staves?

Matthew and Luke: They were not to provide themselves with staves. “Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves” (Matt. x, 9, 10; Luke ix, 3).

Mark: “Commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only” (vi, 8).

When the Samaritans refused to receive him what was said?

Luke: “And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them even as Elias did?

“But he turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

“For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village” (ix, 54–56).

It is conceded by the best Christian scholars [164]that the words “as Elias did” and all that follow, excepting “he turned and rebuked them,” are spurious.

What did Jesus say to the multitude concerning John the Baptist?

“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence” (Matthew xi, 12).

The words, “from the days of John the Baptist until now,” signify that a long period of time had elapsed since the days of John. Yet, on the very day that Jesus is said to have uttered them, he received a visit from the disciples of John, who was still living (Matthew xi, 2, 3).

Whose rejection of him provoked the declaration, “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country”?

Matthew: “And when he came into his own country [Galilee], he taught them in their synagogue, ... and they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country” (xiii, 54–57).

John: “He departed thence, [he had come from Judea and Samaria] and went into Galilee. For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honor in his own country. Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him” (iv, 43–45). [165]

According to Matthew, he was without honor in Galilee; according to John, he went to Galilee because he was without honor in Judea. According to Matthew the Galileans rejected him; according to John “the Galileans received him.” According to Matthew, Galilee was “his own country”; according to John, Judea was “his own country.”

Regarding these contradictory statements, Scott, in his “English Life of Jesus” (p. 114), says: “The Synoptists in every case give a special reason for his leaving Galilee, while the fourth gospel is equally careful in specifying the reason for his leaving Jerusalem. According to the former, Jesus would not have left Galilee if he could have avoided it; according to the latter, he would have remained at Jerusalem if he could have done so with safety. The inconsistency is glaring.”

When he came into his own country and taught in the synagogue what did the people say?

Mark: “Is not this the carpenter?” (vi, 3.)

Matthew: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” (xiii, 55.)

When Herod heard of his wonderful works, what did he say?

“This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead” (Matthew xiv, 2).

Here, early in Christ’s ministry, the tetrarch [166]of Galilee is represented as entertaining the Christian doctrine of a bodily resurrection.

When and for what reason was John beheaded?

Matthew and Mark: “But when Herod’s birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias [Salome] danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist’s head in a charger. And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. And his head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother” (Matt. xiv, 6–11; Mark vi, 21–28).

This account of the death of John is utterly at variance with that given in Josephus. This historian, assuming the passage relating to John to be genuine, says:

“Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise rebellion (for they seemed to do anything he should advise), thought it best by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too [167]late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death” (Antiquities, B. xviii, ch. v, sec. 2).

Macherus, where Josephus states that John was executed, was a place far removed from Herod’s capital—was outside of his dominions—in Arabia Petrea.

Referring to the Evangelistic account of John’s death, Dr. Hooykaas says: “This eminently dramatic story certainly cannot be accepted as it stands. It betrays too much art in its striking contrasts between the manners of the court and the person of the prophet. We have already seen that the occasion of John’s imprisonment is not correctly given by the Gospels. That such a man as Herod ‘delighted in hearing’ John is, to say the least, an exaggeration. The ghastly scene in which the prophet’s head is carried into the festive hall may not be quite impossible in such an age and at such a court, but it is hardly probable. It is easy to see that Herodias is drawn after the model of Ahab’s wife, who hated and persecuted the first Elijah; and Salome is evidently copied from Esther, for she, too, visits the prince by surprise, captivates him by her beauty, obtains a promise of anything up to the half of his kingdom, and at the festive board demands the death of her enemy as the royal boon” (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 272). [168]

Who was Herodias?

Synoptics: “His [Herod’s] brother Philip’s wife” (Matt. xiv, 3; Mark vi, 17; Luke iii, 19).

Herodias was a grand-daughter of Herod the Great, and married her uncle Herod, the disinherited son of Herod the Great. She subsequently married Antipas, the Herod who is said to have put John to death. Herod’s brother Philip (Tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulonitis) was not the son of Marianne, as the first husband of Herodias was, but the son of Cleopatra. Philip’s wife was Salome, the daughter of Herodias. The daughter of Herodias, instead of being a damsel dancing at the court of Herod, as the Synoptics declare, was at this time the wife of an aged ruler of a foreign province. According to Whiston, she became a widow in the very year in which John died. Herodias was not the wife, but the mother-in-law of Herod’s brother Philip. Whiston, in his translation of Josephus, attempts to gloss over the Synoptics’ error by inserting in brackets after Herod the word “Philip.” Scribners’ “Bible Dictionary” concedes the error and accounts for it “By supposing that there is a confusion between the first husband and the son-in-law of Herodias, for her daughter Salome married Philip the tetrarch.”

What is said of the numbers baptized by [169]Jesus and his disciples as compared with those baptized by John?

John: “The Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.)” (iv, 1, 2.)

Matthew (iii, 5) and Mark (i, 5) declare that John had baptized “Jerusalem and all Judea.” It is admitted, both in the New Testament and by Christians, that Jesus made but few converts during his lifetime, and to assert or intimate that he and his disciples baptized more than John is preposterous.

Who furnished the loaves and fishes with which the multitude in the desert was fed?

Synoptics: The disciples (Matt. xiv, 15–17; Mark vi, 35–38; Luke ix, 12, 13).

John: “A lad” (vi, 9).

How many were fed?

Mark: “And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men” (vi, 44).

Matthew: “And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children” (xiv, 21).

Where did this miracle occur?

Luke: “In a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida” (ix, 10).

Mark says that after the miracle “He constrained [170]his disciples to get into a ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida” (vi, 45).

If the miracle was performed in a place belonging to the city of Bethsaida, as stated by Luke, they did not cross the sea to reach Bethsaida, as stated by Mark.

After feeding the five thousand what did Jesus do?

Matthew and Mark: “He sent the multitudes away” (Matt. xiv, 22; Mark vi, 45).

John: He did not send the multitude away, but withdrew himself into a mountain (vi, 15).

For what purpose did he go to the mountain?

Matthew and Mark: “And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain, apart to pray” (Matt. xiv, 23; Mark vi, 46).

John: “When Jesus therefore perceived that they [the multitude] would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain alone” (vi, 15).

Matthew and Mark say nothing about the attempt to make him king; John says nothing about his praying.

Were his disciples with him?

Matthew and Mark: “And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he [171]sent the multitude away. And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray; and when the evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of the sea” (Matt. xiv, 22–24; Mark vi, 45–47).

Luke: “And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him” (ix, 18).

Matthew and Mark send his disciples ahead in a ship to make room for his miracle of walking on the sea, a miracle that Luke knows nothing of.

To what port did he command his disciples to sail?

Mark: “Unto Bethsaida” (vi, 45).

Pursuant to this command toward what place did they steer?

John: “Toward Capernaum” (vi, 17).

Where did this bring them?

Matthew: “Into the land of Gennesaret” (xiv, 34).

Jesus himself is said to have followed them on foot. Where did he overtake them?

Matthew and Mark: “In the midst of the sea” (Matt. xiv, 24–26; Mark vi, 47, 48).

John: As they were nearing the land (vi, 19–21).

According to John, he walked entirely across [172]the sea; according to Matthew and Mark, but half way across.

Christ’s walking on the sea was probably suggested by Job (ix, 8), who says God “treadeth upon the waves of the sea,” or, according to the Septuagint, “walking upon the sea as upon a pavement.”

What remarkable feat was attempted on the trip?

Matthew: “And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. And when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him” (Matt. xiv, 29–31).

Mark and John, who relate with much particularity the events of this voyage, do not mention Peter’s adventure.

“Probably they had good reason for omitting it. A profane mind might make a jest of an apostle ‘half seas over,’ and ridicule an apostolic gate-keeper who couldn’t keep his head above water.”—Bradlaugh.

What did the Jews say to Jesus respecting his Messianic mission?

“Search and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” (John vii, 52).

Search and look; for out of Galilee arose some [173]of their greatest prophets, Jonah, Hosea, Nahum and Elijah. It may be urged that it is the Jews who give expression to the error; but it is plain the Evangelist accepts the statement as true.

What notable incident occurred at Jerusalem?

John: The release by Jesus of the woman taken in adultery (vii, 53; viii, 1–11).

This is popularly regarded as one of the most admirable acts in Christ’s ministry. In the New Version the twelve verses relating it are declared by the Oxford revisers to be an interpolation.

In the miracle of restoring the sight of the man born blind, what did he tell the man to do?

“Go wash in the pool of Siloam” (John ix, 7).

“The Lord sent the blind man to wash, not in, as our version has it, but at the pool of Siloam; for it was the clay from his eyes that was to be washed off.”—Smith’s Bible Dictionary.

What is the meaning of the word “Siloam”?

John: “Which is by interpretation, ‘Sent’” (ix, 7).

Which is not by interpretation “sent,” but “aqueduct.”

Who provoked the displeasure of the Pharisees by eating with unwashed hands?

Matthew and Mark: The disciples of Jesus (Matt. xv, 1, 2; Mark vii, 1, 2). [174]

Luke: Jesus himself (xi, 37, 38).

Of what nationality was the woman who desired Jesus to cast the devil out of her daughter?

Matthew: “A woman of Canaan” (xv, 22).

Mark: “The woman was a Greek” (vii, 26).

What did his disciples say when he expressed his intention of feeding the four thousand?

Mark: “And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness? And he asked them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven” (viii, 4, 5).

Why should they be surprised at his intention of feeding four thousand with seven loaves when but a few weeks before he had fed five thousand with five loaves?

In regard to this miracle Rev. William Sanday, of England, author of “Jesus Christ,” the most important article in Scribners’ “Bible Dictionary,” says: “Are the two Feedings of Mark to be regarded as two events or one? Besides the general resemblance between the two narratives, a weighty argument in favor of the latter hypothesis is, that in the second narrative the disciples’ question implies that the emergency was something new. They could hardly have put this question as they did if a similar event had happened only a few weeks before.” This is also the opinion of Dr. Schleiermacher. [175]

After feeding the four thousand where did he come?

Matthew (Old Ver.): “Came into the coasts of Magdala” (xv, 39).

Matthew (New Ver.): “Came into the borders of Magadan.”

Where does Mark say he came?

“Came into the parts of Dalmanutha (viii, 10).

Criticising this statement, the “Bible for Learners” says: “Mark makes him journey still farther north, through the district of Sidon, and then turn southeast to the lake of Galilee, pass some way down its eastern shore apparently, and finally take ship and cross in a southwesterly direction to Dalmanutha, where we meet him once again. But the Evangelist’s geography is open to suspicion, and we are inclined to lay these apparently purposeless wanderings of Jesus to the account of Mark’s want of accuracy” (Vol. iii, p. 282).

What did he say to the Pharisees who asked for a sign?

“There shall no sign be given unto this generation” (Mark viii, 12).

“There shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas” (Matthew xvi, 4).

On the way to Caesarea Philippi what remarkable discovery was made by Peter? [176]

Matthew: “He [Jesus] asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (xvi, 13–17).

According to Matthew, Jesus is astonished at the discovery of Peter and attributes it to a revelation from Heaven. Yet previous to this, and in the presence of Peter, according to the same writer, the other disciples had declared him to be “the Son of God” (Matthew xiv, 33).

The Synoptics all declare that the Messiahship of Jesus was not revealed to his disciples until late in his ministry. Is this true?

John: It is not. It was known to them at the beginning of his ministry. Before Peter was called Andrew said, “We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ” (i, 41). On the following day Nathanael said to Jesus, “Thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel” (49).

When did the Transfiguration take place? [177]

Matthew and Mark: Six days after the discourse in which he announced his second coming (Matt. xvii, 1; Mark ix, 2).

Luke: “About an eight days after these sayings” (ix, 28).

Was the countenance of Jesus changed?

Matthew and Luke: It was. “And his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light” (Matt. xvii, 2). “The fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistening” (Luke ix, 29).

Mark: The appearance of his raiment only was changed. “And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow” (ix, 3).

When did Peter propose building the three tabernacles to Jesus, Moses and Elias?

Matthew and Mark: While Moses and Elias were yet with them (Matt. xvii, 3, 4; Mark ix, 4–8).

Luke: After they had departed (ix, 33).

What did the voice from the clouds declare?

Mark and Luke: “This is my beloved Son; hear ye him” (Mark ix, 7; Luke ix, 35).

Matthew: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him” (xvii, 5).

Luke’s account of the Transfiguration differs in many respects from that of Matthew and Mark. Luke says that Jesus went up into the [178]mountain to pray; Matthew and Mark make no mention of this. Luke says the disciples were asleep when Moses and Elias appeared. According to Matthew and Mark they were awake. Luke says that Moses and Elias “spake of his decease.” Matthew and Mark do not know what they talked about.

Who witnessed the Transfiguration?

Synoptics: Peter, James and John (Matt. xvii, 1; Mark ix, 2; Luke ix, 28).

It is remarkable that Matthew, Mark and Luke, who did not witness the Transfiguration, are the only ones to report it; while John, who is declared to have witnessed it, knows nothing about it. Concerning this and other events which John is said to have witnessed, Greg says: “All the events said to have been witnessed by John alone are omitted by John alone. This fact seems fatal either to the reality of the events in question or to the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel.”

Regarding this subject Scott says: “By some singular fatality the writer of the fourth gospel seems incapable of describing any one incident in the life of Jesus as the Synoptics have described it.... It is hard to believe that we are reading narratives which profess to relate the life of the same person.... If then in these particulars, the Synoptic Gospels are correct, the Johannine version of the events is pure fiction; and if the latter be taken as the true account, [179]no dependence whatever can be placed upon the former” (Life of Jesus, pp. 259–263).

Compare the account of the Transfiguration of Jesus with the account of Moses at Mount Sinai.

We have in each account a prophet and three companions; in each the persons mentioned go up into a mountain; in each there is a supernatural brightness; in each an overshadowing cloud; in each a celestial voice speaking out of the cloud; in each Moses is a prominent figure; in each a period of six days is mentioned. [180]

What occurred immediately after the Transfiguration?

Matthew: “His disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias is come already and they know him not.... Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist” (xvii, 10–13).

It is quite natural that the writing of one story concerning Elias should suggest another; but reason forbids the acceptance of both as true. If Elias was seen and recognized at the mountain, as stated, the above conversation did not follow that appearance.

What ailed the man’s son whom Jesus cured after the Transfiguration?

Matthew (Old Ver.): He was a lunatic (xvii, 15).

Matthew (New Ver.): He was an epileptic.

Mark: He had “a dumb spirit” (ix, 17).

When the authorities at Capernaum demanded tribute of Jesus what did he command Peter to do?

“Go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of [181]money; that take, and give unto them for me and thee” (Matthew xvii, 27).

Matthew does not venture to say that Peter was successful, doubtless recognizing the fact that there ought to be limits even to a fish story.

Regarding this story Archbishop Trench says: “It is remarkable, and is a solitary instance of the kind, that the issue of this bidding is not told us.” Dr. Farrar says: “I agree with the learned and thoughtful Olshausen in regarding this as the most difficult to comprehend of all the gospel miracles” (Life of Christ, p. 288).

What was the nature of the tribute demanded?

It was an annual tax, known as the temple service tax, a tax from which no Jew, rich or poor, was exempt. Regarding the time and manner of its collection, Farrar says: “On the 1st of Adar, the demand was made quietly and civilly; if, however, it had not been paid by the 25th, then it seems that the collectors of the contribution (tobhin shekalim) might take a security for it from the defaulter” (Life of Christ, p. 285).

The tax was always collected in the early spring. Yet according to Matthew it was collected from Jesus in the autumn, just before the feast of tabernacles. Either Matthew was ignorant of the time of its collection, or Jesus was a defaulter.

Nor is this the only difficulty needing explanation. It is assumed that Peter secured the coin [182]in the manner directed. If so, how did it come into existence? Did Jesus miraculously create it? If so, he was a counterfeiter. Was it a lost coin? In this case, if he was omniscient, as claimed, he knew the owner and should have restored it.

After leaving Galilee where did Jesus go?

Matthew: “Into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan” (xix, 1).

The Jordan being the eastern boundary of Judea, no “coasts of Judea” existed beyond it.

In going to Jerusalem to attend his last Passover, what route did he take?

Luke: “He passed through the midst of Samaria” (xvii, 11).

Mark: He “cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of the Jordan” (x, 1).

Two entirely different routes. As the province of Samaria lay between those of Galilee and Judea, the direct route from Galilee to Jerusalem was “through the midst of Samaria.” The orthodox Jews, however, in order to avoid the Samaritans, whom they thoroughly despised, usually crossed the Jordan, which formed the boundary of the three provinces, came down on the east side of the river through Perea, recrossed the river, and thus entered “into the coasts of Judea from the farther side of Jordan.” [183]

What city did he pass through on his way to Jerusalem?

Luke: “And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho” (xix, 1).

Luke here contradicts his previous statement that “he passed through the midst of Samaria,” for Jericho was not on the route from Samaria, but on the route from Perea by way of “the farther side of Jordan,” the route which Mark declares he took.

What miracle did he perform on the way?

Luke: “As he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off; and they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves to the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed” (xvii, 12–14).

The other Evangelists do not mention this miracle. Concerning it the “Bible for Learners” says: “It is an unsuccessful imitation of the account we have already examined of the healing of a leper. It is absolutely unhistorical” (Vol. iii, p. 310).

Was it one or two blind men that sat by the wayside beseeching him to heal them?

Mark: “Blind Bartimeus, the son of Timeus, [184]sat by the highway side begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me” (x, 46, 47).

Luke: “A certain blind man sat by the wayside begging: ... And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me” (xviii, 35, 38).

Matthew: “Two blind men sitting by the wayside, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David” (xx, 30).

What inquiry did the disciples make regarding the cause of the man’s blindness?

“Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John ix, 2).

Regarding this, Mrs. Evans, in her “Christ Myth” (p. 55), says: “Such a suggestion has no meaning when uttered by a Jew, but to a believer in the transmigration of souls the query would be natural and pertinent, and the story appears to be a modification of a well-known Buddhistic parable.”

When did this occur?

Luke: “As he was come nigh into Jericho” (xviii, 35).

Matthew: “As they separated from Jericho” (xx, 29).

Mark: “As he went out of Jericho” (x, 46). [185]

Mark agrees with Luke and disagrees with Matthew as to the number of men, and agrees with Matthew and disagrees with Luke as to the time of its occurrence.

What did Jesus say regarding divorce?

Mark: “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (x, 11, 12).

This was written by one acquainted with the Roman, but not with the Jewish law. The Jewish law did not recognize the right of a wife to put away her husband for any cause whatever. Matthew (v, 31, 32) and Luke (xvi, 18) knew better.

According to Mark he said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery.” What did he say according to Matthew?

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (xix, 9).

This is a notable discrepancy. According to Mark if a husband divorce his wife for any cause whatever he cannot lawfully marry another. According to Matthew if he divorce his wife for fornication he can lawfully marry again. [186]

In his conversation with the rich man what commandments did he prescribe?

“Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother” (Luke xviii, 20).

“Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and thy mother” (Mark x, 19).

“Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew xix, 18, 19).

No two of the Synoptics agree. Mark and Matthew each give a commandment not given by either of the others.

What great miracle did he perform at Bethany?

John: The raising of Lazarus from the dead. “Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead” (xi, 14). “Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh; for he hath been dead four days” (38, 39). “Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that [187]thou hast heard me” (41). “And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes” (43, 44).

The Synoptics make no mention of this miracle; and as it is the greatest miracle ascribed to Jesus it was certainly unknown to them.

Commenting on the doubtful character of alleged events narrated by one Evangelist and omitted by the others, Strauss says: “But this ground of doubt falls with incomparably greater weight, on the narrative of the resurrection of Lazarus in the fourth gospel. If the authors or collectors of the three first gospels knew of this, they could not, for more than one reason, avoid introducing it into their writings. For, first, of all the resuscitations effected by Jesus, nay, of all his miracles, this resurrection of Lazarus, if not the most wonderful, is yet the one in which the marvelous presents itself the most obviously and strikingly, and which, therefore, if its historical reality can be established, is a preeminently strong proof of the extraordinary endowments of Jesus as a divine messenger; whence the evangelists, although they had related one or two other instances of the kind, could not think it superfluous to add this also. But, secondly, the resurrection of Lazarus had, according to the representation of John, a direct influence in the development of the fate of Jesus; [188]for we learn from xi, 47 ff., that the increased resort to Jesus, and the credit which this event procured him, led to that consultation of the Sanhedrim in which the sanguinary counsel of Caiaphas was given and approved. Thus the event had a double importance—pragmatical as well as dogmatical; consequently, the synoptical writers could not have failed to narrate it, had it been within their knowledge” (Leben Jesu, p. 548).

Referring to this miracle and the restoration of the sight of the man born blind, Prof. Newman says: “That the three first narrators should have been ignorant of them is simply impossible; that they should not have felt their preeminent value is incredible” (Religion not History, p. 27).

There are three alleged instances in the Gospels of Christ restoring the dead to life.

1. The raising of the daughter of Jairus from her death bed, related by Matthew.

2. The raising of the son of the widow of Nain from his bier as they were carrying him to the grave, related by Luke.

3. The raising of Lazarus from his grave after he had lain four days, related by John.

Even if these miracles were possible one fact disproves them: the silence of the other Evangelists. Of these three stories not one is confirmed by another Evangelist. His less important miracles, such as healing the sick, are, many of [189]them, recorded in all of the gospels, or at least in all of the Synoptics; yet each of these, his greatest miracles, stands alone, unnoticed by the other writers. Mark and Luke mention the daughter of Jairus, but only to deny the miracle by declaring that she was not dead. Had these miracles really been performed, all of the Evangelists would have had a knowledge of them, and all would have recorded them. These writers do not complement each other, as claimed: they exclude each other. There are many Lives of Napoleon; but not one of his biographers has seen fit to omit his greatest victories because some other biographer has narrated them.

Who was it requested that James and John might sit, one on the right and the other on the left hand of Jesus in his kingdom?

Matthew: “She [their mother] said unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom” (xx, 21).

Mark: “They [James and John] said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy glory” (x, 37).

Who occupies a seat at the left hand of Jesus?

Mark: God (xvi, 19).

The modesty of the foregoing request is apparent. Zebedee’s family were evidently trying [190]to play a sharp game on Jesus, and get a first mortgage on his Father’s throne.

What did Jesus affirm in regard to the mustard seed?

“Which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown is the greatest among the herbs” (Matthew xiii, 32).

A mustard seed is not “the least of all seeds;” neither is the plant “the greatest among herbs.”

With faith as large as a grain of mustard seed, what did he say his disciples could do?

“If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place and it shall remove” (Matthew xvii, 20).

“If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you” (Luke xvii, 6).

In the parable of the Great Feast what was the character of the feast?

Matthew: A wedding “dinner” (xxii, 4).

Luke: “A great supper” (xiv, 16).

Whom did the giver of the feast send to invite the guests?

Matthew: “His servants” (3).

Luke: “His servant” (17). [191]

Such errors may be considered trivial and their notice captious; but infallible writings do not contain even trivial errors.

What befell the servants, or servant?

Matthew: “And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them” (6).

Luke: The servant returned unharmed (21).

What did the giver of the feast declare respecting those who refused to attend?

“That none of those men which were bidden shall taste my supper” (xiv, 24).

As they had already declined to do so, the force of the interdiction is not apparent.

Relate the circumstances connected with the attendance of the guest who wore no wedding garment.

Matthew: “Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.... And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment; and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless” (xxii, 8–12).

The relator of this incident, which is omitted [192]by Luke, would have us suppose that the frequenters of the highways went clad in wedding garments.

The parables of Jesus are declared to be perfect models of Literary composition, and filled with lessons of divine wisdom. A few of them possess some literary merit; but the most of them are faulty. They contain many questionable ethical teachings; they are illogically constructed; the imagery is unnatural, and the language crude.

In the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen did the owner of the vineyard send one servant, or more than one, each time to collect the rent?

Mark and Luke: He sent but one (Mark xii, 2–5; Luke xx, 10–12).

Matthew: He sent more than one (xxi, 33–36).

What happened to the servants?

Matthew and Mark: Some of them were killed.

Luke: They were beaten and sent away, but none were killed.

In the parable of the Talents how did the master apportion his money?

Matthew: He gave to the first servant five talents, to the second two, to the third, one (xxv, 15). [193]

Luke: He gave to each one pound (xix, 13).

What was their gain?

Matthew: Each doubled his money (16, 17).

Luke: The first increased his tenfold, the second fivefold (16, 18).

What did the unprofitable servant do with the money entrusted to him?

Matthew: He “digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money” (xxv, 18).

Luke: He said, “Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin” (xix, 20).

What are the concluding words of Jesus in this parable?

“For unto every one that hath shall be given: ... but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew xxv, 29, 30).

“That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke xix, 26, 27).

In the lawyer’s interview with Jesus, who was [194]it, the lawyer, or Jesus, that stated the two great commandments?

Matthew and Mark: Jesus. “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, saying, Master which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (xxii, 35–39).

Luke: The lawyer. “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he [the lawyer] answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself” (x, 25–27).

“And after that they durst not ask him any questions.” After what?

Matthew: After his controversy with the Pharisees respecting David and Christ (xxii, 41–46).

Mark: After his conversation with the scribe regarding the commandments (xii, 28–37).

Luke: After confuting the Sadducees in regard to the resurrection (xx, 27–40). [195]

Did his controversy concerning David and Christ take place with the Pharisees, as stated by Matthew?

Luke: It did not. It was with “certain of the scribes” (xx, 39).

Where was Jesus on the day preceding his triumphal entry into Jerusalem?

John: With Lazarus at Bethany (three miles from Jerusalem) (xii, 1–15).

Luke: With Zaccheus near Jericho (twenty miles from Jerusalem) (xix, 1–40).

Preparatory to his triumphal entry what command did he give his disciples?

“Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither” (Luke xix, 30).

“Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me” (Matthew xxi, 2).

Did he ride both animals?

Matthew: He did. “And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon” (6, 7).

The equestrian feat of his riding two asses, [196]a large one and a small one, at the same time, must have heightened the effect of this sublime pageant.

Matthew is continually seeing double. In the demoniac of Gadara he sees two demoniacs; in the blind man by the wayside he sees two men; and in other instances where the other Evangelists see but one person or thing he sees two.

The riding of two asses by Jesus was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Matthew: “And this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass” (xxi, 4, 5).

Matthew’s rendering of this passage (Zechariah ix, 9) arises from a misunderstanding of the meaning of its words. The prophet, or poet, does not mean two asses, but one; the clause “a colt the foal of an ass,” is merely a poetical repetition or qualification of the preceding clause.

This blunder of Matthew is significant. It exposes the fictitious character of this so-called Gospel history. It proves that Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem is not a historical event—that this story is a pure fabrication, suggested by this alleged prophecy.

When did Jesus purge the temple?

Synoptics: At the close of his ministry, a few [197]days before his death (Matthew xxi, 12–16; Mark xi, 15–18; Luke xix, 45–48).

John: At the beginning of his ministry, three years before his death (ii, 13–22).

Origen doubted the occurrence of this event, believing it to be a mere allegory.

When did he curse the fig tree?

Matthew: After he purged the temple (xxi, 12–19).

Mark: Before he purged the temple (xi, 12–15).

When was the tree discovered by his disciples to be withered?

Matthew: As soon as cursed (19).

Mark: Not until the next morning (13–20).

Mark says that he visited the tree for the purpose of obtaining figs. Why did the tree contain no fruit?

Mark: “Because the time of figs was not yet” (13).

This was before the Passover which occurred in March or April. In that part of Palestine where the miracle is said to have been performed the bocore, or early fig, ripened its first crop during the latter part of June; while the kermus, or fig proper, ripened in August. What a spectacle! An omniscient God searching for figs in March, and disappointed at not finding them—[198]creating a tree to bear fruit in the summer and cursing it for not bearing in the spring!

What did Jesus accuse the Jews of doing?

Matthew: Of having slain prophets and wise men, among them “Zacharias son of Barachias” (xxiii, 35).

The Zacharias mentioned was slain in Jerusalem, 69 A. D.; so that Matthew makes Jesus refer to an event that occurred forty years after his death.

Referring to this passage, the Catholic scholar, Dr. Hug, says: “There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its circumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the same Zacharias Barouchos, who, according to Josephus, a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the temple.”

Commenting on this passage, Prof. Newman says: “There is no other man known in history to whom the verse can allude. If so, it shows how late, how ignorant, how rash, is the composer of a text passed off on us as sacred truth” (Religion not History, p. 46).

Repeat his lamentation concerning Jerusalem’s rejection of him.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her [199]chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew xxiii, 37; Luke xiii, 34.)

Where was he when he uttered this lamentation?

Matthew: During his visit at Jerusalem.

Luke: In Galilee before he went to Jerusalem.

Not only are these writers at variance with each other as to the time and place of utterance, but the lamentation itself, which declares that he had made repeated efforts to convert Jerusalem, is at variance with both of them. For according to Matthew he had just arrived on his first visit to Jerusalem, while according to Luke he had never yet, during his ministry, visited Jerusalem.

Who anointed Jesus?

Matthew and Mark: “A woman” (Matt. xxvi, 7; Mark xiv, 3).

Luke: “A sinful woman” (vii, 37).

John: Mary, the sister of Lazarus (xii, 3).

Luke’s “sinful woman” is recognized as Mary Magdalene. Farrar says: “In the popular consciousness she will till the end of time be identified with the Magdalene.” Matthew and Mark’s “woman” may be harmonized with either Mary Magdalene or Mary the sister of Lazarus; but Luke and John are irreconcilable.

Where did she put the ointment? [200]

Matthew and Mark: On his head (Matt. xxvi, 7; Mark xiv, 3).

Luke and John: On his feet (Luke vii, 38–46; John xii, 3).

Where did this occur?

Matthew, Mark and John: In Bethany (Matt. xxvi, 6; Mark xiv, 3; John xii, 1).

Luke: In Nain (vii, 11–37).

At whose house did it occur?

Synoptics: At the house of Simon (Matt. xxvi, 6, 7; Mark xiv, 3; Luke vii, 36–40).

John: At the house of Lazarus (xii, 1–3).

Who was Simon?

Matthew and Mark: A leper (Matt. xxvi, 6; Mark xiv, 3).

Luke: A Pharisee (vii, 39–40).

At what time during his ministry did this anointing occur?

Matthew, Mark and John: At the close of his ministry (Matt. xxvi, xxvii; Mark xiv; John xii).

Luke: Early in his ministry (vii, 36–50).

Did it occur before or after his triumphal entry?

Matthew and Mark: After (Matt. xxi, 1–11, xxvi, 6–13; Mark xi, 1–11, xiv, 3–9).

John: Before (xii, 1–15). [201]

How many days before the Passover did it occur?

Mark: Two days (xiv, 1–3).

John: Six days (xii, 1–3).

“The prima facie view would certainly be that the anointing at Bethany was placed by Mark two days and by John six days before the Passover.”—Scribner’s Bible Dictionary.

Who objected to this apparent waste of the ointment?

Matthew: “His disciples” (xxvi, 8, 9).

John: “Judas Iscariot” (xii, 4, 5).

These different versions of the anointing of Jesus present so many discrepancies that some have supposed that two or more anointings were made. The Archbishop of York, the most popular of Gospel harmonists, concedes that but one anointing was made.

After an exhaustive review of the case, Strauss says: “Without doubt, we have here but one history under three various forms; and this seems to have been the real conclusion of Origen, as well as recently of Schleiermacher.”

While Jesus was at Jerusalem there came a voice from heaven. For what purpose was the voice sent?

John: For the sake of those who stood by. [202]“Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes” (xii, 30).

Of what benefit was the voice when those who heard it were unable to distinguish it from thunder? “The people therefore, that stood by and heard it, said that it thundered” (29).

The Evangelists relate several instances of celestial voices being heard. As there is, in nearly every instance, a disagreement in regard to the message conveyed, it is probable that an electrical disturbance inspired the voice, while a vivid imagination interpreted its meaning. Regarding these voices, the Duke of Somerset says: “A belief in these heavenly voices was a common superstition among the Jews.”

When did the Last Supper take place?

Synoptics: On the Passover (Matt. xxvi, 18–20; Mark xiv, 16–18; Luke xxii, 13–15).

John: On the day preceding the Passover.

Luke says: “And they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.”

John, in his account of the Last Supper, says it was “before the feast of the passover” (xiii, 1). The Evangelists all agree that his trial and execution took place on the day following the Last Supper. John says the Jews “went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but [203]that they might eat the passover” (xviii, 28). After narrating the events of the trial, John says: “And it was the preparation of the passover” (xix, 14).

According to the Synoptics, the Last Supper was eaten on the 14th Nisan, and, by our mode of reckoning time, on Thursday evening; according to John, it was eaten on the 13th Nisan, and, by our mode of reckoning, on Wednesday evening. The Synoptics declare that this supper was the regular Paschal meal; according to John, it was an ordinary meal, the Paschal meal not being eaten until after Christ’s death.

“The Synoptics represent most clearly that Jesus on the evening of the 14th Nisan, after the custom of the Jews, ate the Passover with his disciples, and that he was arrested in the first hours of the 15th Nisan, the day on which he was put to death. Nothing can be more distinct than the statement that the last supper was the Paschal feast.... The fourth Gospel, however, in accordance with the principle which is dominant throughout, represents the last repast which Jesus eats with his disciples as a common supper, which takes place, not on the 14th, but on the 13th Nisan, the day ‘before the feast of the Passover.’”—Supernatural Religion.

Thousands of pages have been written in vain attempts to reconcile this grave discrepancy. Scribner’s “Bible Dictionary,” which contains the best fruits of orthodox scholarship, both of England [204]and America, concedes a contradiction. It says: “The Synoptics seem to identify the two [the Last Supper and the Paschal meal], whereas St. John expressly places the Last Supper before the Passover.”

After an exhaustive review of the subject, Strauss voices the conclusion of German scholars in the following words: “Our only course is to acknowledge an irreconcilable contradiction between the respective accounts, without venturing a decision as to which is the correct one” (Leben Jesu, p. 702).

The Synoptics state that the Last Supper was the Paschal meal. Describe the Paschal meal.

“All leaning upon the cushions around the table, the first cup of wine was served, and grace pronounced over the same and the feast. This cup of wine being disposed of, vegetables and sauce were placed on the table, and the vegetables, dipped in the sauce, were blessed and eaten. Next the unleavened bread, the bitter herb, and a piquant sauce called Haroseth were served, and the bitter herb, dipped in the Haroseth, was blessed and eaten. Then the Paschal lamb was placed on the table with portions of another sacrifice. One of the company asked the question why all this was done, during which the second cup of wine was served. The head of the table explaining narrated the story of the Exodus, closed with a hymn, spoke the second [205]time grace over the wine, and all disposed of the same. Now came the breaking of the bread and the eating and drinking. This finished, the third cup of wine was served, and grace after meal was pronounced. After which the fourth cup was served, and the ceremonies closed with hymns and psalms, and disposing of the fourth cup of wine” (Mishna).

This was the Paschal meal as it was observed in the reputed time of Christ and up to 70 A. D. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple the great Passover feast retained but the shadow of its former glory. The Paschal meal and the ceremonies attending it were generally shortened. The fact that the Evangelists were unacquainted with the regular Paschal meal, that the Synoptics were familiar only with the ceremonies of later times, shows that the Last Supper is a myth, and the Gospels the products of a later age.

Criticising the Synoptics’ accounts of the Paschal meal, Dr. Isaac Wise, an able Jewish scholar, says:

“If any evidence is required that neither Mark nor Matthew had ever seen the Paschal meal, or described that of Jesus, it is furnished here. They do not mention any one point connected with the Paschal supper, the ceremonies of which were established. They mention only one ceremony, viz., the breaking of the bread, and the cup of wine after the meal, which is not only a [206]mistake, but shows conclusively, that either of them had seen the Paschal supper, after the destruction of Jerusalem, in some Jewish house, and the ceremonies connected therewith, called the Seder. Therefore, no mention whatsoever is made of the main thing—the Paschal lamb—and the bread is broken after the meal, which was done by the Jews after closing the Paschal meal, outside of Jerusalem, when the altar had been destroyed; and no Paschal lamb was eaten” (Martyrdom of Jesus, pp. 36, 37).

“Luke begins correctly, but makes a mistake in having the bread broken right after the first cup of wine was handed round, which was done so at every festive meal, except at the one described, and has but two cups of wine instead of four. So we know that Luke did not describe what actually happened that evening. He had seen the Jewish custom of opening the festive meals with grace over the wine and bread, and made of it an introduction to the Last Supper, without knowing that just that evening the custom was changed” (Ibid. p. 38).

What ceremony was instituted at the Last Supper?

Synoptics: The Eucharist (Matt. xxvi, 26–28; Mark xiv, 22–24; Luke xxii, 19, 20).

John: The washing of feet (xiii, 4–9).

John does not mention the former ceremony, and the Synoptics do not mention the latter; yet [207]each is said to have been performed immediately after supper.

He told his disciples that he would no more drink of the fruit of the vine until he drank it in his Father’s kingdom. When was this?

Matthew: After instituting the Eucharist.

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

“But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (xxvi, 26–29).

Luke: Before instituting the Eucharist.

“For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (xxii, 18–20).

At the Last Supper did Jesus pass the cup once, or twice? [208]

Matthew and Mark: Once (Matt. xxvi, 26–30; Mark xiv, 16–26).

Luke: Twice (xxii, 13–20).

Regarding this discrepancy, Scribners’ “Bible Dictionary” says: “The temptation to expand was much stronger than to contract; and the double mention of the cup raises real difficulties of the kind which suggest interpolation.”

Where was Jesus when he uttered his last prayer?

Synoptics: In the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi, 36–39; Mark xiv, 32–36; Luke xxii, 39–42).

John: In Jerusalem before he retired to the garden (xvii, xviii, 1).

What is said of his agony at Gethsemane?

Luke: “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (xxii, 44).

Whatever was the character of this so-called “bloody sweat,” it may be remarked that Matthew, who was an apostle; Mark, who is claimed to be the interpreter of Peter, an apostle who was with Jesus at the time; and John who was not only an apostle, but present also, do not refer to it. Luke, who was not an eye-witness—who was not an apostle—is the only one who mentions it.

How many times did Jesus visit Jerusalem during his ministry? [209]

John: At least four times (ii, 13; v, 1; x, 22, 23; xii, 12).

The Synoptics record but one visit.

To what country was his ministry chiefly confined?

Synoptics: To Galilee.

John: To Judea.

According to the Synoptics nearly his entire ministry was confined to Galilee. It was only at the close of his ministry, a few days before his death, that he visited Judea to attend the Passover. According to John his ministry was confined chiefly to Judea. It requires but three or four of his twenty-one chapters to record his work in Galilee. Farrar says: “The Synoptists almost confine themselves to the Galilean, and St. John to the Judean ministry” (Life of Christ, p. 361).

How long did his ministry last?

Synoptics: One year.

John: At least three years.

The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “According to the first three Gospels, Christ’s public life lasted only one year” (Christian Records, p. 11).

Referring to this and the preceding discrepancy, the author of “Supernatural Religion” says: “The Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his preaching is confined to Galilee and [210]Jerusalem, where his career culminates at the fatal Passover. The fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over at least three years, and refers to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem” (p. 681).

Irenaeus, the greatest of the early Christian Fathers, and who lived in the century following Jesus, declares that his ministry lasted twenty years. In his principal work, “Against Heresies,” he combats the heresy of a one-year ministry of Jesus. He says:

“They however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, ‘To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,’ maintain that he preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. They are forgetful of their own disadvantage, destroying his whole work, and robbing him of that age which is both more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also, as a teacher, he excelled all others. For how could he have had disciples if he did not teach? And how could he have taught, unless he had reached the age of a master? For when he came to be baptized, he had not yet completed his thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age.... Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onward to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and [211]fiftieth year, a man begins to decline toward old age; which our Lord possessed, while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher.... He did not therefore preach for only one year, nor did he suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year” (Book ii, ch. xxii, secs. 5, 6).

What is said regarding the extent of his works?

John: “If they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books” (xxi, 25).

In the very next verses of the Bible (Acts i, 1, 2) Luke declares that his brief Gospel contains a record “of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up.”

Can the alleged teachings of Jesus be accepted as authentic?

Three facts disprove, for the most part, their authenticity.

1. The most important teachings ascribed to him by the Synoptics were borrowed, either by him or his biographers, from other teachers and writers.

2. His teachings as presented by the Synoptics, and as presented by John, exclude each other. No critic can seriously contend that the discourses and sayings of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics and those given in the Fourth Gospel [212]emanated from the same mind. They are wholly dissimilar, both in doctrine and phraseology. Dr. Westcott says: “It is impossible to pass from the Synoptic Gospels to that of St. John without feeling that the transition involves the passage from one world of thought to another. No familiarity with the general teaching of the Gospels, no wide conception of the character of the Savior, is sufficient to destroy the contrast which exists in form and spirit between the earlier and later narratives” (Introduction to Study of Gospels, p. 249).

3. The discourses attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel were evidently composed by the author of that Gospel. This is apparent to every careful reader.

The teachings ascribed to Jesus in John, then, are spurious; while those ascribed to him in Matthew, Mark and Luke are of doubtful authenticity. If any of the teachings of Jesus have been preserved they exist in the first three Gospels, but the unauthentic character of the Gospels themselves, renders it impossible to ascribe to him with certainty a single teaching. [213]

When did Jesus first foretell his passion?

Synoptics: Not until late in his ministry (Matt. xvi, 21; Mark viii, 31; Luke ix, 21–27).

According to John (ii, 19–22) he referred to it at the beginning of his ministry.

When did he announce his betrayal?

Matthew and Mark: At the Last Supper, while they were eating. “Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me” (Matt. xxvi, 20, 21; Mark xiv, 18).

Luke and John: Not until after supper (Luke xxii, 20, 21; John xiii, 2–21). John says that after supper he washed his disciples’ feet and delivered a discourse to them, after which he said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.”

Did Jesus say who should betray him?

Matthew and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 25; John xiii, 26). [214]

Mark and Luke: He did not.

How did he disclose his betrayer?

Matthew: By an implied affirmative answer to Judas’ question, “Is it I?” “Then Judas which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said” (xxvi, 25).

John: By giving Judas a sop. “Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot.”

When did Satan enter into Judas?

Luke: Before the Last Supper (xxii, 3–7).

John: After the Last Supper (xiii, 1–27).

How did Judas betray Jesus?

Matthew and Mark: “Now he that betrayed him, gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master, and kissed him” (Matt. xxvi, 48, 49; Mark xiv, 44, 45).

According to John, Judas did not betray him with a kiss.

What did Jesus say to Judas when he betrayed him?

“Friend, wherefore art thou come?” (Matthew xxvi, 50.) [215]

“Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” (Luke xxii, 48.)

What was Judas, and what office did he hold?

John: “He was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein” (xii, 6).

Judas was thus the first Christian treasurer. But why did Jesus, if omniscient, as claimed, select a thief for this office? Was he unable to conduct his ministry without the aid of one?

What did Judas receive for betraying his master?

Matthew: “And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver” (xxvi, 15).

“It is strange that a man who kept the purse, and knew what he would lose by the death of his chief, should abandon the profits of his office for so small a sum.”—Renan.

What did he do with the money?

Matthew: “Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.... And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed” (xxvii, 3–5).

Peter: “Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity” (Acts i, 18). [216]

The purchase of the potter’s field was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Matthew: “That which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, ... and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me” (xxvii, 9, 10).

This was not spoken by Jeremiah, but by Zechariah. “And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord” (xi, 13).

It is evident that the account of the betrayal was inspired, not by a historical fact, but by a desire to “fulfill” a Messianic prophecy. Zechariah did not predict an event, but his words did suggest a fiction. This is the more probable from the fact that Matthew is the only Evangelist who mentions the thirty pieces of silver.

The story of Christ’s last visit to Jerusalem and the story of his betrayal exclude each other. According to the Evangelists he was not arrested for any offense he had committed during this visit, but for offenses he had committed prior to this. Yet during this visit he is said to have appeared openly with his disciples, making a triumphal entry into the city, visiting the temple and teaching in public. In the face of this the story that the Jews were obliged to bribe one [217]of his disciples in order to apprehend him is absurd. One of these stories must be false. Regarding them Lord Amberley observes: “The representation of the Gospels, that Jesus went on teaching in public to the very end of his career, and yet that Judas received a bribe for his betrayal, is self-contradictory” (Life of Jesus, p. 214).

To those who believe the accounts of the betrayal of Jesus to be historical, the ecclesiastical historian, Neander, in his “Life of Christ,” advances a suggestion that is worthy of consideration. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas, it is suggested, was intended as a test of his Messiahship. If Jesus was the Messiah, Judas reasoned, he could save himself; if he was not the Messiah he was an impostor and deserved death.

What became of Judas?

Matthew: He “went and hanged himself” (xxvii, 5).

Peter: “Falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts i, 18).

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, one of the chief Christian authorities of the second century, and who wrote before the books of Matthew and Acts were written, gives the following account of the fate of Judas:

“Judas walked about in the world a great example of impiety; for his body having swollen [218]so that, on an occasion, when a wagon was moving on its way, he could not pass it, he was crushed by the chariot and his bowels gushed out.”

The German commentator, Dr. Hase, attempts to reconcile his suicide, as related by Matthew, with his death by accident, as related by Peter, by supposing that he attempted to hang himself, but that the rope broke, causing him to fall with such force as to disembowel himself. This harmonist apparently forgets to note that Peter says he fell “headlong,” which makes it necessary to suppose that he hung himself by the feet.

To whom did Peter deliver his speech describing the fate of Judas?

“Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples” (Acts i, 15).

Is it not reasonable to suppose that the alleged information conveyed in his speech was as familiar to the disciples whom he addressed as to himself? Regarding this De Wette aptly says: “In the composition of this speech the author has not considered historical decorum.”

What did Peter say in regard to the name of the field?

“And it was known unto all the dwellers of Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood” (Acts i, 19). [219]

Here Peter is represented as interpreting in Greek a Jewish word to his Jewish brethren.

Were there more than one of Jesus’ disciples concerned in his betrayal?

John: There were. “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were [of his disciples] that believed not, and who should betray him” (vi, 64).

When the Jewish council met to plan the arrest of Jesus, to what conclusion did they come?

Matthew and Mark: Not to arrest him on the feast day (Matt. xxvi, 3–5; Mark xiv, 1, 2).

Yet this was the very day on which Matthew and Mark declare that he was arrested.

Who arrested him?

Matthew and Mark: “A great multitude ... from the chief priests and elders of the people” (Matt. xxvi, 47; Mark xiv, 43).

Luke: “The chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders” themselves (xxii, 47–52).

Who does John say was sent to arrest him?

A “band of soldiers and officers” (xviii, 3, New Ver.).

This contradicts the Synoptics, who declare that it was a mob of civilians. [220]

What is said regarding the multitude sent out to apprehend him?

Synoptics: They were armed “with swords and staves” (Matt. xxvi, 47; Mark xiv, 43; Luke xxii, 52).

Were the disciples armed?

All: They were, or one of them at least (Matt. xxvi, 51; Mark xiv, 47; Luke xxii, 38, 50; John xviii, 10).

This is incredible, for Jews were never allowed to carry arms on a holy day.

How did they go out to capture him?

John: “With lanterns and torches” (xviii, 3).

His enemies are represented as believing that his arrest could be secured only by strategy and stealth. Under these circumstances is it reasonable to suppose that the chief priests would send out a torchlight procession to apprehend him? Besides, as it was at the full of the moon, what need had they of lanterns and torches? Again, lanterns were unknown in Palestine.

When the band sent to capture him first came up to him what did they do?

Matthew and Mark: “They laid hands on him and took him” (Matt. xxvi, 47–50; Mark xiv, 43–46).

John: “They went backward and fell to the ground” (xviii, 3–6). [221]

What did Peter do when Jesus was arrested?

John: “Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear” (xviii, 10).

Yet no efforts were made to arrest and punish Peter, notwithstanding he was recognized and pointed out by the kinsman of the wounded man. It may be urged that Jesus had healed the servant’s ear. This, even if true, would not have removed the guilt of the militant disciple. Had Peter really committed the deed, it is not probable that he would have visited the house of the high priest and remained in the presence of his enemies.

When was Jesus bound?

John: When he was arrested (xviii, 12).

Matthew and Mark: Not until after his trial before the Sanhedrim when he was taken to Pilate (Matt. xxvii, 2; Mark xv, 1).

According to Luke he was not bound.

What did they do with Jesus when he was taken?

Matthew: “Led him away to Caiaphas” (xxvi, 57).

John: “Led him away to Annas first” (xviii, 13).

Did he have an examination before his trial? [222]

John: He did (xviii, 13–23).

Our laws provide for what is known as a preliminary examination before a magistrate. This was forbidden by the Jewish law, and his alleged examination before a priest could not have taken place.

Before whom did his preliminary examination take place?

John: Before Annas (xviii, 13–23).

The Synoptics state that he was examined and tried before Caiaphas.

Repeat John xviii, 24.

“Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest” (Old Ver.).

“Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest” (New Ver.).

This verse follows the account of Jesus’ preliminary examination and shows clearly that this examination took place before Annas, and that he was not sent to Caiaphas until its conclusion. The King James translators, in order to hide the discrepancy, prefixed the word “now” and changed the tense of the verb, substituting “had sent” for “sent,” so that it might appear that Annas had sent him to Caiaphas before the examination commenced.

Concerning this corruption of the text, Scott says: “There is no conjunction ‘now,’ and an aorist cannot mark a definite time. If a hiatus [223]is suspected, it may be indicated by an asterisk; but to insert words and alter the force of a tense in order to get over a grave historical difficulty is sheer dishonesty” (Life of Jesus, p. 289, note).

Matthew and John state that Caiaphas was high priest at this time. Who does the author of Acts state was high priest?

“And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem” (iv, 6).

Luke (iii, 2), who is declared to be the author of Acts, says that Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests.

Criticizing John’s account of the examination before Annas, the author of “Supernatural Religion” says: “The Synoptics know nothing of the preliminary examination before Annas, and the reason given by the writer of the fourth Gospel why the soldiers first took Jesus to Annas: ‘for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas who was first high priest that year,’ is inadmissible. The assertion is a clear mistake, and it probably originated in a stranger writing of facts and institutions with which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an error equally committed by the author of the third Gospel, and of the Acts of the Apostles.... Such statements, erroneous in themselves and not understood by the author of the fourth Gospel, may have led to the [224]confusion in the narrative. Annas had previously been high priest, as we know from Josephus, but nothing is more certain than the fact that the title was not continued after the office was resigned; and Ishmael, Eleazar, and Simon, who succeeded Annas and separated his term of office from that of Caiaphas, did not subsequently bear the title. The narrative is a mistake, and such an error could not have been committed by a native of Palestine, and much less by an acquaintance of the high priest” (p. 660).

What is said regarding the tenure of Caiaphas’ office?

John: He was “high priest that year” (xi, 49).

John’s language implies that the high priest was appointed annually, whereas he held his office for life, or until removed. Caiaphas had been high priest for many years.

What had Caiaphas prophesied concerning Jesus?

John: “He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (xi, 51, 52).

A high priest did not assume the role of prophet, much less would he have given utterance to the prophecy ascribed to Caiaphas. The Roman procurator might have expressed such a [225]sentiment, for according to Roman law and ethics an individual could be sacrificed for the welfare of the state. The high priest, on the other hand, could not have uttered such a sentiment, because it was abhorrent to the Jewish mind. If all Israel could have been saved, and could have been saved only by the death of one of its innocent members, that member could not have been put to death, because, according to Jewish law, it would have made of every Jew concerned in it a murderer. It was a fundamental principle of the Jewish code that, “No human life must be abandoned on account of any other life.”

Did Jesus have a trial before the Sanhedrim?

Synoptics: He had (Matt. xxvi, 57–75; Mark xiv, 53–72; Luke xxii, 54–71).

It was about this time (30 A. D.), that the Sanhedrim ceased to have jurisdiction over capital offenses. After its jurisdiction ceased Jesus could not have been tried before it; and before its jurisdiction ceased he would not have had a subsequent trial before Pilate.

Where was his trial held?

Matthew and Mark: At the palace of the high priest.

No trial was ever held at the residence of the high priest. All meetings of the Sanhedrim were held in the hall adjoining the temple. A trial at any other place would have been illegal. [226]

What was the charge preferred against him?

All: Blasphemy.

Jesus, it was charged, had declared himself to be the son of God. This, if true, would not have constituted blasphemy. It was no offense against the law for a man to claim that he was the son of God. All men, and especially all good men, were recognized as the sons of God. Referring to Christ’s claim, a Jewish writer says: “No law, no precedent, and no fictitious case in the Bible or the rabbinical literature, can be cited to make of this expression a case of blasphemy.” And even if he had been proven guilty of blasphemy, he could not have been put to death, for blasphemy, at this time, had ceased to be a capital offense. And is it reasonable to suppose that the Romans would have condemned a man to death for an offense against a religion in which they did not themselves believe, but which they regarded as one of the vilest of superstitions? It may be urged that in his trial before Pilate the charge was changed to sedition. This charge was not sustained.

What is said regarding witnesses?

Matthew and Mark: “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witnesses against Jesus, to put him to death; but found none; yea, though many false witnesses [227]came, yet found they none” (Matt. xxvi, 59, 60; Mark xiv, 55, 56).

When every step thus far taken by the council had been illegal, why should it have been so particular in regard to the witnesses? The fact is the Evangelists were ignorant of Jewish laws. They believed that while the prosecution of Jesus was unjust it was yet conducted according to the established rules of Jewish courts. Referring to Mark, Dr. Wise says: “In his ignorance of Jewish law, he imagined the trial which he described was lawful among the Jews. He proves this, in the first place, by the very statement that witnesses were sought and produced. A court convoked and acting in rebellion to law and custom can be considered only a band of rebels. What use have such men of witnesses? Being lawless from the beginning, no legal restraint makes the presence of witnesses necessary.... He certainly thought of an honest, lawful trial, in the legal form; an honest and legal examination of witnesses, a fair consideration of the testimony, and after mature reflection the rejection thereof on account of insufficiency” (Martyrdom of Jesus, pp. 69, 70).

What did the so-called false witnesses that appeared against him testify that he had said?

“I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days” (Matthew xxvi, 61).

“I will destroy this temple that is made with [228]hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands” (Mark xiv, 58).

What had Jesus said?

“Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” (John ii, 19).

Passing over the discrepancies of Matthew and Mark, if they have given the substance of these witnesses’ testimony, then they were not false, but truthful witnesses; for Jesus, it is seen, had given utterance to such a declaration. If he referred to the temple of his body, as John affirms, and the Jews misunderstood him, the fault was his, not theirs.

Josephus gives an account of a so-called prophet who, a few years later, boasted of his supernatural powers in much the same manner that Jesus is said to have done:

“There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem, one that said that he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence, how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down” (Antiquities, Book xx, chap. viii, sec. 6).

Was he questioned by the Sanhedrim?

Synoptics: He was. They tried to convict him [229]by his own testimony (Matt. xxvi, 62–64; Mark xiv, 60–63; Luke xxii, 66–71).

A Jewish court did not question a prisoner. A prisoner could not even plead guilty.

To the priest’s question, “Art thou the Christ?” what answer did he give?

Mark: “Jesus said, I am” (xiv, 61, 62).

Luke: “He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe” (xxii, 67).

When did his trial before the Sanhedrim take place?

Matthew and Mark: During the night. After his arrest, which probably occurred not later than midnight, they at once “led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where ... the chief priests, and elders, and all the council [Sanhedrim]” had assembled, when his trial immediately began (Matt. xxvi, 57–68; Mark xiv, 58–65).

Luke: Not until the next morning. During the night he was held in custody at the house of the high priest. “As soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into the council” (xxii, 66).

This, according to Luke, was his first and only appearance before the Sanhedrim. Matthew and Mark, in addition to the night trial mentioned by them, also mention an adjourned [230]session in the morning corresponding to the meeting of Luke.

Could this trial have been held in the night as stated by Matthew and Mark?

It could not. The Jewish law prohibited the opening of a trial at night. The Sanhedrim could not hold a session before 6 a. m. or after 3 p. m. Luke was seemingly acquainted with this law; Matthew and Mark were not.

During what religious festivities was his trial held?

Synoptics: During the feast of the Passover.

It could not have been held during the Passover, for no trials were held by the Jews during this feast.

On what day of the week was it held?

Synoptics: On Friday, the day preceding the Sabbath.

No trial for a capital offense was ever allowed to begin on the day preceding the Sabbath.

How long did this trial last?

All: But a few hours.

The Jewish law required at least two days for a capital trial—one for prosecution, and one for the defense. [231]

Did he have a defender or counselor in the Sanhedrim?

Synoptics: He did not.

According to the Synoptics he had no counsel, and the Sanhedrim were unanimous in their condemnation of him. This was contrary to Jewish law. The Sanhedrim might be unanimous in their belief that he was guilty, but it was the duty of at least one of them to defend him. This was the law: “If none of the judges defend the culprit, i. e., all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court, the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could not be executed” (Maimonides).

Dr. Geikie admits that the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim, as related in the Gospels, was in nearly every particular contrary to Jewish law. He says:

“The accused was in all cases to be held innocent, till proved guilty. It was an axiom, that ‘the Sanhedrim was to save, not to destroy life.’ No one could be tried and condemned in his absence, and when a person accused was brought before the court, it was the duty of the president, at the outset, to admonish the witnesses to remember the value of human life, and to take care that they forgot nothing that would tell in the prisoner’s favor. Nor was he left undefended; a Baal-Rib, or counsel, was appointed, to see that all possible was done for his acquittal. [232]Whatever evidence tended to aid him was to be freely admitted, and no member of the court who had once spoken in favor of acquittal could afterwards vote for condemnation. The votes of the youngest of the judges were taken first, that they might not be influenced by their seniors. In capital charges, it required a majority of at least two to condemn, and while the verdict of acquittal could be given at once, that of guilty could only be pronounced the next day. Hence, capital trials could not begin on the day preceding a Sabbath, or public feast. No criminal trial could be carried through in the night; the judges who condemned any one to death had to fast all the day before, and no one could be executed on the same day on which the sentence was pronounced.” (Life of Christ, vol. ii, p. 487.)

Had Jesus been tried, convicted and executed by the Jews would he have been crucified?

He would not. Crucifixion was a mode of punishment never employed by the Jews. Had the Jews executed him he would have been stoned.

It is impliedly stated in the Synoptics, and expressly stated in John, that the Sanhedrim’s jurisdiction over capital crimes had ceased. “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (xviii, 31). The Sanhedrim’s authority ceased in 30 A. D., and it is generally claimed by Christians that [233]the crucifixion occurred from one to five years after this time.

What does Peter say in regard to the mode of punishment employed in his execution?

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree” (Acts v, 30).

“And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom ye slew and hanged on a tree” (x, 39).

Concerning this, Mrs. Evans says: “With regard to his death, it was said that the Jews slew him and hanged him on a tree; and again that he was taken down from the tree; expressions which do not imply crucifixion, but rather the legal execution for such crimes as the one alleged, that is, stoning to death and the exposure of the dead body upon a stake, or a tree” (Christ Myth, p. 79).

How was he treated by the Sanhedrim?

Matthew and Mark: “They spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands” (Matt. xxvi, 67; Mark xiv, 65).

Every Jew, and every other person acquainted with the Jewish history of that age, knows that this is false. The Sanhedrim was composed of the wisest and the best men of that race. Superstitious, bigoted and fanatical some of them [234]doubtless were, but in that august court law and dignity and decorum reigned.

These accounts of the trial of Christ before the Sanhedrim afford overwhelming proof that they were not written by apostles nor by residents of Palestine. They were written by Gentile Christians, or by Jewish converts living in foreign lands, and presumably the former, for even foreign Jews must have possessed a better knowledge of Jewish laws and customs than the Evangelists display.

During the trial Peter denied his master. What had Jesus predicted concerning his denial?

Matthew, Luke and John: “Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Matt. xxvi, 34; Luke xxii, 34; John xiii, 38).

Mark: “And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice” (xiv, 30).

Did Peter deny him three times before the cock crew?

Matthew, Luke and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 69–75; Luke xxii, 54–62; John xviii, 15–27).

Mark: He did not; he had denied him but once when the cock crew (xiv, 66–68). [235]

Where were they when Jesus foretold Peter’s denial?

Matthew and Mark: At the Mount of Olives (Matt. xxvi, 30–35; Mark xiv, 26–30).

Luke: In Jerusalem, at supper, before they went out to the Mount of Olives (xxii, 7–39).

What did Peter do when he entered the palace?

Luke: “Peter sat down among them” (xxii, 55).

John: “Peter stood with them” (xviii, 18).

When was he first accused of being the friend of Jesus?

John: As he entered the room (xviii, 16, 17).

Mark and Luke: As he sat by the fire (Mark xiv, 66, 67; Luke xxii, 54–57).

When was he accused the second time?

John: In the house as he “stood and warmed himself” (xviii, 25).

Matthew: “When he was gone out into the porch” (xxvi, 71).

By whom was he accused the second time?

Matthew and Mark: By a “maid” (Matt. xxvi, 71; Mark xiv, 69).

Luke: By a “man” (xxii, 59, 60). [236]

Who accused him the third time?

Matthew and Mark: “They that stood by” (Matt. xxvi, 73; Mark xiv, 70).

John: “One of the servants of the high priest” (xviii, 26).

Was Jesus present when Peter denied him?

Matthew and Mark: He was not.

Luke: He was. “The Lord turned and looked upon Peter” (xxii, 60, 61).

Where was Jesus next sent for trial?

Luke: To Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, who was attending the Passover at Jerusalem (xxiii, 6–11).

In the matter of trials the Evangelists, as in everything else, have overdone things. Notwithstanding no trial was ever held during the Passover they give him four trials in one day, and not finding courts enough in Judea for the purpose, they import one from Galilee.

There is nothing more improbable than this alleged examination of Jesus by Herod. Imagine the Governor General of Canada sitting in judgment on a criminal at Washington, because the criminal is a Canadian, or an Ohio court holding a session in New York because the prisoner arraigned once lived in Ohio. The offenses with which Jesus was charged were committed, not in Herod’s province, Galilee, but in Pilate’s province, Judea. [237]

It is strange that John, who pretends to relate every important event connected with the trial of Jesus, should omit his trial before Herod. Concerning this Strauss says: “The conjecture, that it may probably have appeared to him [John] too unimportant, loses all foundation when it is considered that John does not scorn to mention the leading away to Annas, which nevertheless was equally indecisive; and in general, the narrative of these events in John is, as Schleiermacher himself confesses, so consecutive that it nowhere presents a break in which such an episode could be inserted. Hence even Schleiermacher at last takes refuge in the conjecture that possibly the sending to Herod may have escaped the notice of John, because it happened on an opposite side to that on which the disciple stood, through a back door; and that it came to the knowledge of Luke because his informant had an acquaintance in the household of Herod, as John had in that of Annas; the former conjecture, however, is figuratively as well as literally nothing more than a back door; the latter, a fiction which is but the effort of despair” (Leben Jesu, pp. 764, 765).

What was the result of Pilate’s sending Jesus to Herod?

Luke: “And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together, for before they were at enmity between themselves” (xxiii, 12). [238]

Pilate and Herod did not become friends. To the day of Pilate’s recall they were enemies. Herod was continually plotting and striving to unite with his tetrarchy the province of Judea which belonged to his father’s kingdom, and which his father had promised to give him.

Did Jesus’s trial before Pilate take place in the presence of his accusers?

Luke: It did (xxiii, 1–4, 13, 14).

John: It did not (xviii, 28).

Did Pilate go out of the judgment hall to consult with those who were prosecuting Jesus?

Luke: He did not (xxiii, 1–25).

John: He did. “Pilate then went out unto them [the Jews], and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.... Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?” (xxiii, 29, 30, 33, 34.)

The prosecution and the defense are both declared to have returned insolent answers to the questions of Pilate. The Jewish priests were too wise for this, and Christians will be loath to admit that their Savior was so indiscreet and so impolite as to indulge in such insolence. [239]

What was the result of his trial before Pilate?

All: Pilate declared him innocent and sentenced him to death.

“And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people; and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him.... And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.... He delivered Jesus to their will” (Luke xxiii, 13, 14, 24, 25).

“Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him; for I find no fault in him” (John xix, 6).

It is impossible to believe that the highest court of a country would pronounce a prisoner innocent and then condemn him to death. Judicial murders are sometimes committed, but the murderers do not confess their guilt.

It is declared that Pilate desired to release Jesus but could not. Who ruled Judea, Pilate or the Sanhedrim? According to the Evangelists, the Romans ruled Judea, while the Jews ruled the Romans.

Between the Pilate of the New Testament and the Pilate of history there is nothing in common. The Pilate of the New Testament is subservient to the Jews, acceding to their every [240]wish, even to murdering an innocent prisoner. The Pilate of history is noted for his hatred of the Jews and his cruelties to them. It was these which provoked his recall.

When Pilate could not prevail upon the Jews to allow him to release Jesus, what did he do?

Matthew: “He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person” (xxvii, 24).

Matthew does not appear to realize the absurdity of supposing that a Roman official would adopt a custom peculiar to a people whom he held in contempt.

“And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man shall wash their hands ... and they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood” (Deuteronomy xx, 6, 7).

What indignities were heaped upon Jesus during his trial before Pilate?

John: “Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and [241]the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!” (xix, 1–5.)

These indignities Jesus is said to have suffered, not at the hands of a Jewish mob, but at the hands of a Roman court, from which the Jews had absented themselves and whose proceedings they could not witness nor directly influence. Every lawyer knows that for more than two thousand years the Roman court has been the world’s model for dignity and fairness. That an innocent and defenseless prisoner was subjected to these insults and brutalities in a Roman court, presided over by a Roman governor, none but a slave of superstition can believe.

When was he scourged?

Matthew and Mark: Before he was executed. “And when he [Pilate] had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified” (Matt. xxvii, 26; Mark xv, 15).

John: Before the termination of his trial (xix, 1–16).

Scourging was frequently inflicted by the Romans before execution, but never before the prisoner was convicted and sentenced. The “Bible Dictionary” concedes the illegal and unusual character of the scourging mentioned by John. “In our Lord’s case, however, this infliction seems neither to have been the legal [242]scourging after sentence nor yet the examination by torture” (Acts xxii, 24).

What custom is said to have been observed at the Passover?

All: The release of a prisoner by the Roman governor (Matt. xxvii, 15; Mark xv, 6; Luke xxiii, 17; John xviii, 39).

“Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.”

There is no historical authority whatever for this alleged custom. It was a custom that the Roman government in Judea could not with safety adopt. The Jews were a subject people, waiting and hoping for an opportunity to throw off the Roman yoke. To release to them “whomsoever they desired” (Mark xv, 6) might be to release a political prisoner whose liberty would endanger the government itself. This story was probably suggested by a custom of the Roman emperors who released a prisoner at their birthday festivals.

They demanded and obtained the release of Barrabas. Who was Barrabas?

John: A robber. “Now Barrabas was a robber” (xviii, 40).

Mark and Luke: A murderer. “Barrabas (who for a certain sedition made in the city, and [243]for murder, was cast into prison)” (Luke xxiii, 18, 19; Mark xv, 7).

By whom was Jesus clad in mockery?

Matthew, Mark and John: By Pilate’s soldiers (Matt. xxvii, 27, 28; Mark xv, 16, 17; John xix, 1, 2).

Luke: By Herod and his soldiers. “And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe” (xxiii, 11).

What was the color of the robe they put on him?

Matthew: “They stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe” (xxvii, 28).

Mark and John: “They put on him a purple robe” (John xix, 2; Mark xv, 17).

When did this occur?

John: During his trial (xix, 1, 2, 12–16).

Matthew and Mark: After Pilate had delivered him to be crucified (Matt. xxvii, 26–28; Mark xv, 15–17).

Describe the mocking of Jesus.

Matthew: “Then released he Barrabas unto them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. [244]And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they bowed the knee before him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!” (xxvii, 26–29.)

The original of this account of the mocking of Jesus is to be found in Philo’s “Adversus Flaccum,” written more than one hundred years before the Gospels made their appearance. Herod Agrippa was on his way from Rome to Palestine to assume the government of that country. When he stopped at Alexandria his enemies, to annoy him, instituted a mock coronation, which Philo relates as follows:

“There was a certain poor wretch named Carrabas, who spent all his days and nights in the roads, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; and the multitude, having driven him as far as the public gymnasium, and having set him up there on high, that he might be seen of everybody, flattening out a papyrus leaf, put it on his head instead of a crown, and clothed the rest of his body with a common mat in place of a robe, and in lieu of a sceptre thrust into his hand a reed, which they found lying by the wayside. And when he had received all the insignia of royalty, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him in imitation of guards, while others came up, some as if to [245]salute him, and others pretending to plead their causes before him” (Philo’s Works, vol. iv, pp. 68, 69).

Who smote Jesus after his trial?

Mark: “The servants did strike him with the palms of their hands” (xiv, 65).

John: “One of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand” (xviii, 22).

The stories of these mockings, revilings, and brutal assaults cannot be accepted as historical. They are self-evidently false. Were they alleged to have been committed by an irresponsible Jewish or Roman mob they might be credited; but when they are declared to have been committed by, or while in the custody of the highest Jewish and Roman officials they must be rejected.

To whom did Pilate deliver him to be crucified?

Matthew and Mark: To the Roman soldiers. “And when he had scourged Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus.... And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, ... they crucified him” (Matt. xxvii, 26–35; Mark xv, 15–24).

John: He delivered him to the Jews. “And he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But [246]they cried out, Away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away. And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of the skulls, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha; where they crucified him” (xix, 14–18).

Matthew and Mark plainly state that Jesus was delivered to the Roman soldiers; John just as plainly states that he was delivered to the Jews. Matthew and Mark declare that he was crucified by the soldiers; John declares that he was crucified by the Jews. Were it not that John elsewhere (xix, 23) contradicts himself and states that the soldiers crucified him, the conclusion would be, after reading John, that he was crucified by the Jews.

Peter declares that the Jews executed him. Addressing the Sanhedrim, he says: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree” (Acts v, 30).

Who was compelled to carry the cross?

Synoptics: “And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; him they compelled to bear his cross” (Matt. xxvii, 32; Mark xv, 21; Luke xxiii, 26).

John: The cross was borne by Jesus himself (xix, 17). [247]

Where was Simon when they compelled him to carry the cross?

Mark: “Coming out of the country” (xv, 21).

The correct reading of this is, “coming from the field,” i. e., “coming from his work.” This is improbable as they did not work on the Passover.

The Synoptics agree in stating that Simon was compelled to carry the cross. Is this probable?

It is not. In executions of this kind the criminal was always required to carry it himself as a mark of disgrace.

It is inferred from the Synoptics that the cross was too heavy for Jesus to bear, and Christian writings and paintings represent him bending with fatigue beneath the burden of the entire cross. What was the burden he was required to carry?

Simply the patibulum, or cross piece, which was not heavy. The upright portion of the cross was a permanent fixture.

On his way to execution he made a speech to the women of Jerusalem who bewailed his fate. Alluding, as is alleged, to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, what did he declare they would say? [248]

“To the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us” (Luke xxiii, 30).

Luke attempts to put into the mouth of Jesus a quotation from Hosea, but his memory was defective. What the prophet said was as follows:

“To the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us” (Hosea x, 8).

Renan pronounces this speech spurious. He says: “The speech to the women of Jerusalem could scarcely have been conceived except after the siege of the year 70.”

Where was he crucified?

Matthew and Mark: At “a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull” (Matt. xxvii, 33; Mark xv, 22).

Luke: At Calvary (xxiii, 33).

Calvary, like Golgotha, means a place of skulls in the vicinity of Jerusalem. The explanation given by Christian commentators is that “it was a spot where executions ordinarily took place, and therefore abounded in skulls.” Fleetwood says it “was called Golgotha, or Place of Skulls, from the criminals’ bones which lay scattered there” (Life of Christ, p. 416). Where Jewish customs prevailed—and it is admitted that they did prevail in Jerusalem and Judea at this time, and had for hundreds of years—a human skull or bone was not allowed to be exposed for even a moment. [249]

What was the inscription on the cross?

Mark: “The King of the Jews” (xv, 26).

Luke: “This is the King of the Jews” (xxiii, 38).

Matthew: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (xxvii, 37).

John: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (xix, 19).

There was placed on the cross a certain inscription. According to Luke and John it appeared in Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Four divinely inspired historians attempt to report in Greek the exact words of this inscription. Yet no two of their reports agree.

Did the name of Jesus appear on the cross?

Matthew and John: It did.

Mark and Luke: It did not.

Did the word “Nazareth” appear in the inscription?

John: It did.

Synoptics: It did not.

What did they offer him to drink before crucifying him?

Matthew: “Vinegar mingled with gall” (xxvii, 34).

Mark: “Wine mingled with myrrh” (xv, 23).

Luke: “Vinegar” alone (xxiii, 36). [250]

The draughts mentioned by Matthew and Mark refer to a Jewish mixture intended to produce stupefaction and lessen pain. Had the Romans crucified him it is not probable that they would have observed this Jewish custom.

How was he fastened on the cross?

Luke and John: His hands and feet were nailed to it (Luke xxiv, 39; John xx, 25, 27).

The Evangelists do not say that he was nailed to the cross; but it has been inferred from the texts mentioned in Luke and John that he was. In crucifixion the victim was usually bound to the cross. Nails were sometimes driven through the hands, but never through the feet. The allusions to the supposed wounds on his hands and feet were evidently inserted in the accounts for the purpose of establishing his identity after the resurrection. Great prominence has been given them by Christians in order to make Christ’s crucifixion appear especially cruel and create sympathy for him.

At what hour of the day was he crucified?

Mark: “It was the third hour [nine o’clock in the morning]” (xv, 25).

Luke: “It was about the sixth hour [noon]” (xxiii, 44).

John: At the sixth hour he had not been sentenced and delivered to the executioners; [251]hence he was not crucified until the afternoon (xix, 14–16).

Dr. Geikie admits that three hours may have elapsed between the termination of his trial and his crucifixion. Hence, according to John, the crucifixion may have occurred as late as three o’clock in the afternoon.

It has been attempted to explain the discrepancy between Mark and John by supposing that John used a different method of reckoning time. Concerning this, Prof. Sanday, one of England’s highest orthodox authorities, says: “The writer of this was at one time inclined to look with favor on these attempts. If the premise could be proved, the data would work out satisfactorily.... But it must definitely be said that the major premise cannot be proved, and that the attempt to reconcile the two statements on this basis breaks down.”

How did the soldiers divide the garments?

Matthew: “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots” (xxvii, 35).

John: “Then the soldiers when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said, therefore, among [252]themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be; that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots” (xix, 23, 24).

According to Matthew they cast lots for all the garments; according to John they cast lots for the coat alone. John here makes the same error in regard to the garments that Matthew does in regard to the ass on which Jesus made his triumphal entry. In the verse cited from Psalms garments and vesture are the same thing—the clothing of the writer. One of the chief characteristics of Hebrew poetry, or much of it at least, is that each successive thought is stated twice, but in different words.

Who were crucified with Jesus?

Mark and Matthew: “And with him they crucify two thieves” (Mark xv, 27; Matt. xxvii, 38).

Thieves were not crucified. Crucifixion, or death in any form, for theft was contrary to both Jewish and Roman law. Theft was not a capital offense.

His crucifixion between two thieves fulfilled what prophecy?

Mark: “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he shall be numbered with the transgressors” (xv, 28). [253]

“The same thing might be said of the thieves.”—Paine.

This passage is not to be found in the earlier manuscripts of Mark, and Westcott declares it to be an interpolation.

How long did Jesus survive after being placed upon the cross?

Luke: About three hours (xxiii, 44).

A Jamaica negro slave, crucified in 1760, lived two hundred and ten hours.

Kitto says: “We may consider thirty-six hours to be the earliest period at which crucifixion would occasion death in a healthy adult” (Biblical Cyclopedia, Art. Crucifixion).

What were his last words?

Matthew: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (xxvii, 46).

Mark: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (xv, 34.)

Luke: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (xxiii, 46).

John: “It is finished” (xix, 30).

With the Four Gospels before them, Christians do not know what his last words were. The two most popular English Lives of Christ are those of Dr. Farrar and Dr. Geikie. These writers were contemporaries and friends, and both [254]were adherents of the same church. Both, with these Gospels for their authorities, attempt to portray the closing scene. I quote from each:

Dr. Farrar: “And now the end was come. Once more, in the words of the sweet Psalmist of Israel, but adding to them that title of trustful love which, through Him, is permitted to the use of all mankind, ‘Father,’ he said, ‘into Thy hands I commend my spirit.’ Then with one more great effort he uttered the last cry—the one victorious word, ‘It is finished.’”

Dr. Geikie: “A moment more, and all was over. The cloud had passed as suddenly as it rose. Far and wide, over the vanquished throngs of his enemies, with a loud voice, as if uttering his shout of eternal victory before entering into his glory, he cried, ‘It is finished!’ Then, more gently, came the words, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.’”

In what language were his last words uttered?

Matthew: In Hebrew.

Mark: In Aramaic and Hebrew.

The language spoken by Jesus and by the people of Palestine at this time was the Aramaic. Mark attempts to give the words of Jesus in this language. But while the first two words are Aramaic, the last two are Hebrew. The words Mark attempts to give are “Elohi, Elohi, metul mah shabaktani?” This Gospel was written [255]by one ignorant of the language of Palestine.

Matthew interprets the Hebrew words quoted by him to mean, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Is this correct?

It is not. The words mean, “My God, my God, why hast thou sacrificed me?”

The Gospel of Matthew, it is claimed, originally appeared in Hebrew. But this shows that the author of Matthew did not understand the Hebrew language.

What are the words given by Matthew and Mark?

The first words of the 22d Psalm. In the words of Farrar, “He borrowed from David’s utter agony the expression of his own.”

Is it probable that a man in the agonies of a terrible death would devote his expiring breath to a recital of Hebrew poetry? When even the dying words of this Christ are borrowed, is it not evident that the whole story of his life is fabulous?

The accounts of the crucifixion given by the Evangelists are to a large extent reproductions of the 22d Psalm, even to the language itself, the poetical allusions of the psalmist being transformed into alleged historical facts. The devout Christian who is familiar with this Passion Psalm sees in the Evangelists’ account of [256]the crucifixion a wonderful fulfillment of prophecy. But the critic sees merely the borrowed embellishments of a legend.

What expression did his words, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” provoke?

Matthew: “Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias” (xxvii, 47).

This is additional proof of Matthew’s ignorance of Hebrew. He supposes a similarity of sound between the two words, whereas they were utterly unlike in pronunciation. Eli was pronounced Ali (long a), while Elias was pronounced Eleeyahu. But even had they been so much alike in sound that one might have been mistaken for the other, as Matthew supposes, the alleged incident is disproved by the fact that the Jews were not allowed to attend the execution, while to the Romans the words were meaningless.

Who was it bade them see whether Elias would come to his rescue?

Mark: The one who gave him the sponge filled with vinegar. “And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone, let us see whether Elias will come to take him down” (xv, 36).

Matthew: It was not this person, but those [257]who were with him. “And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him” (xxvii, 48, 49).

In regard to these alleged last words of Jesus, Dr. Hooykaas says: “It seems to us far more probable that these words of the Messianic passion-psalm were put into the mouth of Jesus by tradition than that he really uttered them. The sequel, too, throws great suspicion on the report; for the Jews were not allowed to approach the cross, and what did the Roman soldiers know about Elijah? Besides, if the Jews had really heard him cry “Eli!” or “Eloi!” they would hardly have mistaken the words of the twenty-second Psalm for a cry to the precursor of the Messianic kingdom—a mistake upon which their raillery is made to depend. We must, therefore, put aside these words, as in all probability unhistorical” (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 454).

Did the thieves between whom he was crucified both revile him?

Matthew and Mark: They did. “And they that were crucified with him reviled him” (Mark xv, 32; Matt. xxvii, 44).

Luke: They did not; but one reviled him. “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him.... But the other answering [258]rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?” (xxiii, 39, 40.)

If these men were crucified with Jesus, as claimed, neither reviled him. Reason rejects the statement that a dying man, suffering unutterable agony, reviled a fellow sufferer.

What request did the penitent thief make of Jesus?

Luke: “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom” (xxiii, 42).

Here the dying thief is represented as being familiar with a subject which the disciples themselves did not at this time comprehend.

What did Jesus say to the thief?

“Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke xxiii, 43).

Instead of going to the Christian Heaven above, they went to the Jewish-Pagan Sheol (Hell) below. Did Jesus recant on the cross? Did he renounce the Kingdom of God when God deserted him? Concerning this remarkable passage, Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says:

“The Rabbis in the time of our Savior taught there was a region of the world of the dead, of Sheol, in the heart of the earth. Gehenna was on one side, with its flames and torments; Paradise on the other, the intermediate home of the [259]blessed.... It is significant, indeed, that the word ‘paradise’ nowhere occurs in the public teaching of our Lord, or in his intercourse with his disciples. Connected as it had been with the thoughts of a sensuous happiness, it was not the fittest nor the best word for those whom he was training to rise out of sensuous thoughts to the higher regions of the spiritual life. For them, accordingly, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God, are the words most dwelt on. With the thief dying on the cross the case was different. We can assume nothing in the robber-outlaw but the most rudimentary forms of the popular belief. The answer to his prayer gave him what he needed most, the assurance of immediate rest and peace.”

The explanation of the apologist is as lame as the story of the Evangelist. Did Jesus go to Hell with the thief because the thief was unfit to go to Heaven with him? This apologist says that Jesus used these words—gave expression to a false doctrine—because the thief was incapable of comprehending the true doctrine. But this conflicts with the alleged words of the thief himself which show that he did comprehend the nature of the kingdom of Heaven. It was this, and not the peace of the grave, for which he prayed.

What were the centurion’s words? [260]

Luke: “Certainly this was a righteous man” (xxiii, 47).

Matthew: “Truly this was the Son of God” (xxvii, 54).

We have here the anomaly of a Roman officer—a Pagan—entertaining a Jewish doctrine of a Messiah, and accepting the Christian claim that Jesus was the Messiah. If this be true it is strange that he permitted his soldiers to insult and abuse Jesus.

After Jesus expired what did one of the soldiers do?

John: “One of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side” (xix, 34).

It is remarkable that the Synoptics, who pretend to relate every important incident connected with the crucifixion, make no mention of the spear thrust.

What is said to have issued from the wound?

John: “And forthwith came there out blood and water” (xix, 34).

According to a well known physiological fact, if Jesus was still alive or had but recently expired, not blood and water, but blood alone would have flowed from the wound. If he was dead, and it is stated that he was, then neither blood nor water would have flowed from it. When blood is drawn from a living body it becomes separated into two parts, a thick substance [261]known as febrine, and a watery fluid known as serum. John was familiar with this fact and supposed that this also took place in a corpse, which is not the case.

Dr. Cabanes, a noted physician of Paris, writes as follows regarding the crucifixion of Jesus:

“It appears that crucifixion alone could not have produced the death of Jesus, and in reference to the wounds produced by the nails, these wounds being the result of crushing, the hemorrhage was small. A burning fever might possibly occur which would be manifested by an intense thirst, but the flow of blood could not be sufficient to cause death. Death in this case is preceded by a comatose condition which would be inconsistent with the cry uttered in a loud voice by Jesus shortly before his last breath. All the commentators of the gospels further agree that Jesus did not remain more than three to six hours on the cross, and death cannot be produced by an exposure of this duration to this mode of torture.

“The generally accepted version of the lance wound received by Jesus is that the blow was struck on the left side and that there flowed from the wound water mingled with blood. It has been correctly remarked that blood does not flow from a corpse, and therefore if blood followed the lance stroke, Jesus must have been alive; further, in order that the blow might have killed the dying man, it must have injured a vital organ. [262]It must be observed that a lance directed upward and from right to left could not reach the right-hand cavities of the heart without first opening the peritoneal cavity, traversing the liver, the pericardium and perhaps the pleura. We must therefore ask how the few hundred grams of blood which a right ventricle could contain, could penetrate to the exterior of the body after such a great wound. Also with those who die slowly there is found a distended heart in which the blood has very rapidly coagulated, and it must follow that if a flood of the liquid appeared on the side of Jesus it could not have come from the heart. With regard to the vena cava, its situation is too far back to have allowed it to be touched by the lance. If the wound had been in the stomach a lesion of the digestive tube would have been disclosed by an ejection of blood mingled with alimentary matter, either from the mouth or the opening of the wound, or at least by a discharge of blood into the abdominal cavity. Had the liver been touched the symptoms of an internal hemorrhage would have been observed, as in the case of President Carnot, in whose case the blow of the poignard, directed downward, perforated the liver and the portal vein, inducing a state of coma, whereas Jesus, we have been told, cried out with a loud voice. We thus see that death was not due to the lance wound or to the torture of crucifixion, as so often stated.” [263]

Was Christ’s suffering foretold by the prophets?

Peter: “But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled” (Acts iii, 18).

God had not showed by the mouth of all his prophets, nor by the mouth of even one of his prophets, that Christ should suffer. The prophets know nothing of a suffering Messiah. There is not a text in the Old Testament referring to such a Messiah. The passages relating to suffering cited by the Evangelists and applied to Christ have no reference whatever to a Messiah. The Encyclopedia Britannica says: “That the Jews in the time of Christ believed in a suffering and atoning Messiah is, to say the least, unproved and highly improbable.”

What marvelous events occurred at the time of the crucifixion?

Matthew: “There was darkness over all the land” (xxvii, 45). “The veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose” (51, 52).

Mark and Luke: “There was darkness over the whole land” (Mark xv, 33). “And the veil [264]of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom” (38).

Mark and Luke know nothing of two of the important events related by Matthew; John is ignorant of all of them. Had these events really happened, the naturalists and chroniclers of that age would have recorded them. As they make no mention of them, we know that they did not occur.

If we accept the claims of their followers, nearly all the gods and heroes of antiquity expired amid the convulsions of Nature. The soul of Romulus went out amid the battling of her elements; “the sun was darkened and the sky rained fire and ashes” when the Hindu Krishna left his saddened followers; “the earth shook, the rocks were rent, the graves opened, and in a storm which threatened the dissolution of the universe,” Prometheus closed his earthly career; a pall of darkness settled over Egypt when her Osiris died; the death of Alexander was succeeded by six hours of preternatural gloom; and—

How long did the darkness last?

Synoptics: From the sixth to the ninth hour (Matt. xxvii, 45; Mark xv, 33; Luke xxiii, 44).

According to Matthew and Luke this darkness [265]lasted from the time that he was suspended upon the cross until he died. Yet his executioners are ignorant of it. Luke says: “His acquaintances, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things [the crucifixion]” (xxiii, 49), which they could not have done had this darkness really occurred.

If this darkness occurred, and began at the sixth hour, as stated by the Synoptics, then, according to John, the conclusion of the trial, the sentencing of Jesus, the preparations for his execution, and the journey to Golgotha, all took place during the darkness, a conclusion which the nature of the narrative utterly precludes.

Christian apologists have cited Phlegon who notices an eclipse which occurred about this time. But there is a variance of at least six years in regard to the time that Jesus was crucified. Besides an eclipse could not have occurred within two weeks of a Passover, on the occurrence of which he is declared to have been executed. Farrar says: “It could have been no darkness of any natural eclipse, for the Paschal moon was at the full” (Life of Christ, p. 505). Geikie says: “It is impossible to explain the origin of this darkness. The Passover moon was then at the full, so that it could not have been an eclipse. The earlier fathers, relying on a notice of an eclipse that seemed to coincide in time, though it really did not, fancied that the darkness was caused by it, but incorrectly” (Life of Christ, [266]Vol. ii, p. 624, Notes). “The celebrated passage of Phlegon,” says Gibbon, “is now wisely abandoned” (Rome, Vol. i, p. 589, Note).

Was the veil of the temple rent, as our Gospel of Matthew declares?

The Gospel of Matthew, it is affirmed, originally appeared in Hebrew, St. Jerome, who had this original version, says: “In that Gospel which is written in Hebrew letters, we read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that a lintel (or beam) of a prodigious size fell down.”

Commenting on this alleged prodigy, the rending of the veil, Strauss says: “Now the object of the divine Providence in effecting such a miracle could only have been this: to produce in the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus a deep impression of the importance of his death, and to furnish the first promulgators of the gospel with a fact to which they might appeal in support of their cause. But, as Schleiermacher has shown, nowhere else in the New Testament, either in the apostolic epistles or in Acts, or even in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in connection with the subject of which it could scarcely fail to be suggested, is this event mentioned: on the contrary, with the exception of this bare Synoptical notice, every trace of it is lost; which could scarcely have been the case if it had really formed a ground of apostolical argument. Thus the divine purpose in ordaining this miracle [267]must have totally failed, or, since this is inconceivable, it cannot have been ordained for this object—in other words, since neither any other object of the miracle, nor yet a mode in which the event might happen naturally can be discovered, it cannot have happened at all” (Leben Jesu, p. 789).

Matthew declares that the dead arose on the day of the crucifixion. When did they come out of their graves?

Not until after Christ’s resurrection, which did not occur until the following week. “And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection” (Matt. xxvii, 52, 53).

“They were polite enough to sit in their open graves and wait for Christ to rise first.”—Ingersoll.

From what source was Matthew’s story regarding these marvelous events derived?

From Zechariah: “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the East, and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof ... and half of the mountain shall remove toward the North, and half of it toward the South.... Ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah King of Judah; and the Lord my God shall come, and all the [268]saints with thee. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear” (xiv, 4–6).

Concerning this Dr. Wise says: “God who comes, according to Zachariah, to fight for Jerusalem, will stand upon Mount Olivet. Therefore, Jesus, during his fight against Pharisees, Sadducees and priests, had to make his principal home on Mount Olivet. But he could not split the mountain, as Zachariah imagined God would, and move one part North and the other South; therefore, the curtain of the temple had to be torn in twain when Jesus died, although none has ever mentioned the fact. The curtain was there some thirty-five years after the death of Jesus; had it been torn, somebody must have noticed it. The earthquake mentioned by Zachariah, of course, was borrowed to embellish Calvary.... Because Zachariah states God coming to Jerusalem, ‘And the Lord my God cometh, all the saints with thee,’ therefore the saints and not the sinners had to resurrect and visit the city on that particular day. But in the fertile imagination of Zachariah, the day of that terrible combat must be dark.... This darkness was transported over to Calvary to embellish the scene.... So these miracles were not wrought, but the entire outer embellishment of Calvary is taken from Zachariah; not because it was believed this prophecy referred to Jesus, but simply because the evangelical writers were [269]incompetent to invent original poetry” (Martyrdom of Jesus, p. 116).

What request did the Jews make of Pilate concerning Jesus and the malefactors?

John: They “besought Pilate that their legs might be broken” (xix, 31).

This punishment, known as crurifragium, was a distinct mode of execution and was never united with crucifixion. Crucifixion, we have seen, was not employed to punish theft. Neither was crurifragium. Yet we are asked to believe that both modes of execution, two of the cruelest forms of punishment, were combined to punish these offenders. The Synoptics do not mention this punishment.

When the soldiers broke the legs of the thieves, why did they spare those of Jesus?

John: “That the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken” (xix, 36).

This refers to Exodus xii, 46, and relates to the disposition to be made of the lamb used at the Passover. Nearly the entire chapter from which John quotes is devoted to this subject. Among other things it states that “They shall eat the flesh in that night, ... his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning” (8–10). If a part of this prophecy was fulfilled, may not all of it have been fulfilled? And [270]if all of it was fulfilled, will not this account for the empty sepulchre?

Regarding the failure of the soldiers to break the legs of Jesus, as ordered, “Supernatural Religion” says: “An order having been given to the Roman soldiers, in accordance with the request of the Jews, to break the legs of the crucified, we are asked to believe that they did not execute it in the case of Jesus. It is not reasonable to suppose, however, that Roman soldiers either were in the habit of disregarding their orders, or could have any motive for doing so in this case, and subjecting themselves to the severe punishment for disobedience inflicted by Roman military law. It is argued that they saw that Jesus was already dead, and, therefore, that it was not necessary to break his legs; but soldiers are not in the habit of thinking in this way; they are disciplined to obey” (p. 993).

What demand was made by the Jews on the evening of the crucifixion?

John: That their bodies be taken down from the cross (xix, 31).

John was evidently familiar with the Mosaic law (Deut. xxi, 22, 23) which, in cases of hanging, enjoined the burial of the body on the day of execution, but seemingly ignorant of the Roman law under which they were executed, which, in cases of crucifixion, prohibited burial, requiring the body to remain upon the cross until decayed, [271]or birds and beasts had devoured it. The Jews esteemed it sinful to allow a criminal to “remain all night upon the tree;” but the Jewish law was inapplicable to the Roman mode of punishment which presupposed that the criminal would remain on the cross several days and nights before death ensued.

What additional reason was there for having the bodies taken down?

Mark: “Because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath” (xv, 42).

The Sabbath began at sunset on the day that he is declared to have been crucified. The Jewish law would not permit his body, whether dead or alive, to be exposed on the Sabbath. Crucifixion, as we have seen, was a lingering death; several days usually elapsing before the victim expired. Now, is it reasonable to suppose that the Jews would demand, as claimed, a punishment lasting several days when they knew that he must be taken down from the cross in a few hours?

What did Pilate do when Joseph solicited the body of Jesus?

Mark: “Pilate marveled if he were already dead” (xv, 44).

Why should Pilate marvel if he were already dead when previous to this, according to John (xix, 31–33), he had, at the request of the Jews, [272]ordered his soldiers to dispatch him if alive and take his body away?

Were the disciples present at the crucifixion?

John: They were, or one, at least (xix, 26).

According to the Synoptics, all were absent; all had forsaken their Master, all had fled. The Twelve Apostles at this time, unless Judas had already hung himself, as Matthew declares, numbered one traitor and eleven cowards.

What women followed Jesus and witnessed his execution?

Matthew and Mark: Women of Galilee (Matt. xxvii, 55; Mark xv, 40, 41).

Luke: “Daughters of Jerusalem,” that is, women of Judea (xxiii, 28).

Where were Mary Magdalene and her companions during the crucifixion?

Matthew and Mark: “Looking on afar off” (Mark xv, 40; Matt. xxvii, 55, 56).

John: They “stood by the cross” (xix, 25).

Was Mary, the mother of Jesus, present?

John: She was (xix, 25).

Synoptics: She was not.

The Synoptics do not expressly state that she was absent, but if she was present, as John affirms, is it possible that they would ignore the [273]fact when they mention “the strolling Magdalene” no less than seven times?

Who stood by the cross with the mother of Jesus?

John: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas” (xix, 25).

Mary must have been a very popular name to be given to two daughters of the same family. It is not probable that these sisters were both named Mary. John never mentions the name of Jesus’ mother, and it is evident that he did not suppose her name was Mary. Were John the only Gospel, Christians would be ignorant of the Virgin’s name. Mariolatry did not originate in the Johannine church.

To whom was entrusted the care of Jesus’ mother?

John: “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved [John], he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own house” (xix, 26, 27).

“The teacher who had been to him as a brother leaves to him a brother’s duty. He is to be as a son to the mother who is left desolate.”—Bible Dictionary.

Very touchingly expressed. But why was this [274]duty imposed upon John when the Apostle James (the Less) was a brother of Jesus and a son of Mary? Was he a worthless ingrate, unable and unwilling to care for her? And what of Joses, and Juda, and Simon, and her daughters who remained at home? Had they turned their mother out of doors?

In whose sepulcher was the body of Jesus placed?

Matthew: Joseph “laid it in his own new tomb which he had hewn out in the rock” (xxvii, 60).

John: “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jew’s preparation day; for the sepulcher was nigh at hand” (xix, 41, 42).

It is evident from John that the sepulcher did not belong to Joseph, but that it was one which happened to be convenient to the place of crucifixion; for, as Strauss justly argues: “The vicinity of the grave, when alleged as a motive, excludes the fact of possession.”

Was his body embalmed when it was laid in the sepulcher?

John: It was. “He [Joseph] came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, [275]about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury” (xix, 38–40).

Mark and Luke: It was not embalmed. “The women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments” (Luke xxiii, 55, 56); intending to embalm it “when the Sabbath was past” (Mark xvi, 1).

What is said in regard to wrapping the body of Jesus by Joseph?

Mark: “He bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen” (xv, 46).

This statement is rejected by critics. A member of the Sanhedrim would not desecrate the Passover by making a purchase on it.

What was the amount of the material used in embalming Jesus?

John: A hundred pounds (xix, 39).

This was sufficient to embalm a dozen bodies. Yet after seeing his body literally buried in the material, the women, we are told, procured more.

When did the women procure materials for embalming Jesus?

Luke: “They returned, and prepared spices [276]and ointments; and rested the Sabbath Day” (xxiii, 56).

Mark (New Ver.): “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices that they might come and anoint him” (xvi, 1).

According to Luke they prepared the spices before the Sabbath began, that is, before the end of the sixth day; according to Mark, they did not procure them until “the Sabbath was past,” that is, not until the beginning of the first day.

When did they go to embalm the body?

Mark and Luke: “When the Sabbath was past, ... the first day of the week” (Mark xvi, 1, 2; Luke xxiv, 1).

Is it reasonable to suppose that in that warm spring climate (Dr. Geikie speaks of the fierce heat that prevailed at the time), they would let a wounded body lie two days, until decomposition had commenced, and then attempt to embalm it?

When was the sepulcher closed?

All: When the body was placed in it (Matt. xxvii, 60; Mark xv, 46; Luke xxiii, 53, xxiv, 1, 2; John xix, 41, 42, xx, 1).

According to the Evangelists, the stone was rolled to the door of the sepulcher as soon as the body was deposited, and according to Mark and Luke, the women were troubled as to who should [277]roll away the stone when they went to embalm the body.

In sepulture of this kind, the tomb was not closed until the third day, and when once closed it was not to be opened. This deviation from the customary mode is evidently for the purpose of establishing faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, by shutting off all means of escape or removal without supernatural aid. The Evangelists are particular to state that Joseph “rolled a great stone to the door.”

In a single paragraph, Scribner’s “Bible Dictionary” concedes no less than seven Synoptical errors regarding the trial, crucifixion and burial of Jesus: “The Synoptists make the Sanhedrim say beforehand that they will not arrest Jesus ‘on the feast day,’ and then actually arrest him on that day; that not only the guards, but one of the disciples carries arms, which on the feast day was not allowed; that the trial was also held on the feast day, which would be unlawful; that the feast day would not be called ‘Preparation’; that the phrase ‘coming from the field’ (Mk. xv, 21) means properly ‘coming from work’; that Joseph of Arimathea is represented as buying a linen cloth (Mk. xv, 46), and the women as preparing spices and ointments (Lk. xxiii, 56), all of which would be contrary to law and custom.”

In what year was Jesus crucified?

Not one of the Evangelists knows. They agree [278]that he was crucified during the time that Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea, and Joseph Caiaphas was high priest of the Jews. But this, so far as Matthew, Mark and John are concerned, may have been any time from 26 to 36 A. D.

Luke, while he does not state the particular year, nor furnish data for determining it, is more definite. He says that Jesus began his ministry in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” and his narrative clearly implies that he was crucified at the following Passover. Tiberius commenced his reign in August, 14 A. D. The fifteenth year of his reign, then, extended from August, 28 A. D., to August, 29 A. D. If Jesus began his ministry during the first months of this year, he might have been crucified as early as the spring of 29. But it is generally conceded that the time which this would allow for his ministry was far too brief, and that he could not have been crucified before 30 A. D.

The Christian Fathers who, for the most part, accepted the tradition of Luke and affirmed that his ministry lasted but one year, or less, held that the crucifixion occurred in 29 A. D.

Scribner’s “Bible Dictionary” gives preference to 29 A. D. Cuthbert Hamilton Turner, M.A., Oxford, the New Testament chronologist of that work, after a lengthy review of the subject, says: “To sum up briefly, the separate results of five lines of enquiry harmonize with one another beyond expectation, so that each in turn supplies [279]fresh security for the rest. The nativity in B. C. 7–6; the age of our Lord at the baptism, 30 years, more or less; the baptism in A. D. 26 (26–27); the duration of the ministry between two and three years; the crucifixion in A. D. 29.”

This authority states that his ministry lasted two or three years. It was necessary to do this or reject John. By taking a year or more from John’s ministry of Jesus and adding it to the one year ministry of the Synoptics—by assuming that the Synoptics omit to mention one or more Passovers, and that one of the Passovers mentioned by John was some other feast—it pretends to have reconciled the discrepancy regarding the length of Christ’s ministry. But if his ministry lasted two or three years, as affirmed, he could not have been crucified in 29 A. D.

With orthodox commentators, a favorite method of reconciling Old Testament dates, as I have noted in a previous work, is to assume that a king, concerning the date of whose accession, or length of reign, a discrepancy appears, reigned in consort with his predecessor for a number of years sufficient to cover the discrepancy. This dishonest method of explanation—for it is a dishonest trick, intended to deceive the reader and hide from him an error—has been employed to reconcile Luke and John. By assuming that Tiberius divided the government with Augustus for two years preceding his accession to the throne, an assumption for which there is no credible authority, [280]and that Luke accordingly reckons the fifteenth year from 12 A. D., instead of 14 A. D., when he really became emperor, it is possible to give Jesus a ministry of two or three years and still have him crucified in 29 A. D. But another irreconcilable difficulty remains. The Synoptics state that he was crucified on the Passover and on the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, on Friday. If so, he could not have been crucified in 29 A. D., for the Passover did not fall on Friday that year.

Dr. Farrar says it is “highly probable that the crucifixion took place at the passover of March, 30 A. D.”

Justice Bradley of the United States Supreme Court, who made an exhaustive examination of all the evidence and arguments bearing on the question, decided in favor of 30 A. D. He says: “There were only three years from A. D. 27 to A. D. 36, inclusive, in which the 1st of Nisan, and consequently the 15th of Nisan, happened on Friday, and these were A. D. 27, 30 and 33, the last of which is very doubtful. But the crucifixion could not have happened before A. D. 28, and probably not later than A. D. 31. Therefore the year 30 is the only one which satisfies all the conditions of the problem.... Now, since in A. D. 30, the 1st of Nisan fell on Friday, the 24th of March, the 15th fell on Friday, the 7th of April, which was the day of the crucifixion.”

Dr. Farrar and Justice Bradley are agreed in [281]regard to the year of the crucifixion, but they are not agreed in regard to the calendar month in which it occurred. Dr. Farrar says it occurred in March; Justice Bradley says it occurred in April.

Justice Bradley says that 30 A. D. satisfies all the conditions. It does satisfy the conditions of the Synoptics, but it does not satisfy the conditions of John, as claimed. To satisfy the conditions of John it is necessary to adopt the untenable hypothesis of 12 A. D. as the date of Tiberius Caesar’s accession. But whatever satisfies the conditions of John must necessarily conflict with those of the Synoptics.

Some Christian scholars place the crucifixion in 31 A. D., others in 32 A. D. But neither year can be harmonized with the Synoptics’ statement that he was put to death on the Passover, or with John’s that he suffered on the day of Preparation. Neither can they be harmonized with either the Synoptics or John in regard to the duration of his ministry.

It is probable that a majority of Christian scholars today believe that Jesus was crucified in 33. Renan accepted this date. He says: “According to the calculation we adopt, the death of Jesus happened in the year 33 of our era. It could not, at all events, be either before the year 29, the preaching of John and Jesus having commenced in the year 28, or after 35, since in the year 36, [282]and probably before the Passover, Pilate and Kaiapha both lost their offices.”

The adoption of 33 allows for the four years’ ministry ascribed to Jesus by John, but it cannot be reconciled with the brief ministry ascribed to him by the Synoptics. As for Renan, who in the first edition of his “Jesus” accepted the authenticity of John, but subsequently rejected it and accepted only the Synoptics, he has no Evangelistic authority for 33.

The Dutch theologians, Kuenen, Oort and Hooykaas, and many other Rationalists, give 35 A. D. the preference. To accept this year, however, it is necessary to reject the Passover crucifixion, and to assign to Jesus a much longer ministry than even John assigns.

Of one hundred Christian authorities who attempt to name the year in which Christ was crucified, twenty-three say 29, eighteen 30, nine 31, seven 32, thirty-seven 33, and six 35 A. D.

Thus it will be seen that not a year that can be named can be harmonized with the accounts of the crucifixion given in the four gospels. The result is that there is as great a lack of agreement in regard to the time of Christ’s death as there is in regard to the time of his birth. Christians do not know when he was born, they do not know when he died, they cannot prove that he lived.

On what day of the month was he crucified?

Synoptics: On the 15th of Nisan. [283]

John: On the 14th of Nisan.

This discrepancy is conceded by Scribner’s “Bible Dictionary.” It says:

“It is the Last Supper which the Synoptics appear to fix by identifying it with the Passover. They say expressly that on the morning of the ‘first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover’ (Mk. xiv, 12), the disciples asked where the Passover was to be eaten. This would be on the morning of Nisan 14. In the evening, which from twilight onwards would belong to Nisan 15, would follow the Last Supper, and on the next afternoon (still, on the Jewish reckoning, Nisan 15) the crucifixion. St. John, on the other hand, by a number of clear indications (John xiii, 1, xviii, 28, xix, 14, 31) implies that the Last Supper was eaten before the time of the regular Passover, and that the Lord suffered on the afternoon of Nisan 14, about the time of the slaying of the Paschal lamb. We are thus left with a conflict of testimony.”

On what day of the week was he crucified?

Synoptics: On Friday.

John: On Thursday.

The Synoptics agree that he was crucified on the day following the Preparation, that is, on the day of the Passover, and the day preceding the Sabbath. As the Jewish Sabbath fell on Saturday, he was, therefore, crucified on Friday.

John repeatedly declares that his trial and crucifixion [284]occurred on “the preparation of the passover.” If the Passover occurred on Friday, as the Synoptics state, he was crucified on the preceding day, or Thursday. It is claimed by some, though the claim is disputed, that the Synoptics are in error, that the Passover was never held on Friday.

On what day of the feast did the crucifixion occur?

Synoptics: On the Passover.

John: On the day of Preparation.

It is expressly stated in the Synoptics that he celebrated the Passover before his death. “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.... And they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer” (Luke xxii, 7–15; Matt. xxvi, 17–20; Mark xiv, 12–18).

The author of the Fourth Gospel declares that the Last Supper was not the Paschal meal, and that Jesus was crucified on the day preceding the Passover, that is, on the day of Preparation. He refers to the events connected with the Last Supper as having taken place “before the passover” (xiii, 1); after supper, when Jesus bade Judas do quickly what he proposed to do, he states that [285]the disciples “thought because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast” (xiii, 29); at the trial, he says, the Jews “themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they might be defiled, but that they might eat the passover” (xviii, 28); when Pilate is about to deliver him up to be crucified, he even goes out of the way to repeat that “It was the preparation of the passover” (xix, 14).

This discrepancy is not, like many other Bible discrepancies, an unintentional error. It represents a conflict between two dogmas. The primitive church was rent with dissensions regarding this question, some contending that Christ suffered on the 14th Nisan, others that it was on the 15th. During the second century—the century in which our gospels appeared—this controversy was especially bitter.

According to John (i, 29, xix, 33, 36) Jesus was the Paschal Lamb, and as such, must be slain on the day of Preparation. The slaying of the lambs began at three o’clock in the afternoon, the hour at which Jesus is said to have expired. The Synoptics, on the other hand, in order to enable him to partake of the Paschal meal and institute the Eucharist, which is a survival and perpetuation of the Passover, must prolong his existence until after this meal, and consequently his crucifixion cannot take place until the following day. It was impossible for [286]him to be the Paschal Lamb and at the same time partake of the Paschal meal. This necessarily produced a schism. The Fourth Gospel was written in support of the one side, the Synoptics in support of the other.

It is declared by the most eminent fathers of the second century that the Apostle John, whom some of them had known, was accustomed to observe the Paschal meal. This is another argument against the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

Referring to the Lord’s Supper, as recorded in John, the “Bible for Learners” says: “It was not the Paschal meal. The Passover did not begin until the following evening; for he himself who was the true Paschal Lamb, and as such made an end of all sacrifices, must be put to death at the very day and hour ordained for the slaughter of the lamb—not twenty-four hours later as the Synoptic Gospels say” (Vol. iii, p. 684).

Admitting the discrepancy, but without determining which is correct, Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says: “The crowning application of the Paschal rites to the truths of which they were the shadowy promises appears to be that which is afforded by the fact that our Lord’s death occurred during the festival. According to the Divine purpose, the true Lamb of God was slain at nearly the same time as ‘the Lord’s Passover,’ in obedience to the letter of the law.” [287]

It was not “according to the Divine purpose” that Jesus was slain at the Passover, but it was according to a human invention that he is declared to have been slain at this time. These attempts to connect the crucifixion with the Passover afford the strongest proof that it is a myth.

What led to the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus?

John: His miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead. On learning of it the Jewish council met, and “from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death” (xi, 47, 53).

This is more difficult to believe than the miracle itself. It is the most improbable statement ever penned—the one that does most violence to human reason. The crudest savages on earth would not have slain nor even harmed a man who had proved himself the Conqueror and King of Death.

What did Christ say during his ministry concerning the cross?

“He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy of me” (Matthew x, 38; Luke xiv, 27).

“Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Mark viii, 34).

“If any man will come after me, let him deny [288]himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke ix, 23).

These utterances are alleged to have been made early in his ministry. Now, the cross as a Christian symbol is supposed to have been adopted after, and not until after, the crucifixion. Its introduction in the passages quoted suggests one of two things: either that the Synoptics put into the mouth of Jesus words that he never uttered, or that the cross, as a religious symbol, was used before the crucifixion, in which case its adoption by the church is no proof of the crucifixion.

The so-called historical books of the New Testament, the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, declare that Christ was crucified. Do the remaining books of the New Testament confirm it?

In the first four Pauline Epistles, known as the genuine Epistles of Paul, the verb crucify—crucified appears in ten different texts, as follows:

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed” (Romans vi, 6).

“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?” (1 Corinthians, i, 13.)

“But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness” (23). [289]

“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (ii, 2).

“For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (8).

“For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God” (2 Corinthians xiii, 4).

“I am crucified with Christ” (Galatians ii, 20).

“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” (iii, 1.)

“And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (v, 24).

“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (vi, 14).

Webster defines this word as follows: “1. To nail to a cross; to put to death by nailing the hands and feet to a cross or gibbet, sometimes, anciently, by fastening a criminal to a tree with cords. 2. In scriptural language, to subdue; to mortify; to destroy the power or ruling influence of. 3. To reject and despise. 4. To vex or torment.”

The first, only, denotes a physical crucifixion, which, it is claimed, Christ suffered. The word, as used by Paul, in most instances, clearly denotes a crucifying of the passions and carnal [290]pleasures, and the exceptions, when taken in connection with Paul’s well known teachings, and allowing for the probable corruption of the original text, do not confirm the Evangelistic accounts of the crucifixion. Besides this it is admitted that Paul did not witness the crucifixion, and that these Epistles, even if authentic, were not written until nearly thirty years after it is said to have occurred.

In the eighteen books which follow, the word crucify appears but twice—in Hebrews (vi, 6) and in Revelation (xi, 8). The word crucifixion does not appear once in the Bible.

Concerning the books we have been considering in this criticism, Paine writes as follows: “Whether the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul were written by him or not, is a matter of indifference; they are either argumentative or dogmatical; and as the argument is defective and the dogmatical part is merely presumptive, it signifies not who wrote them. And the same may be said for the remaining parts of the Testament. It is not upon the Epistles, but upon what is called the Gospel, contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and upon the pretended prophecies, that the theory of the church calling itself the Christian Church is founded. The Epistles are dependent upon those, and must follow their fate; for if the story of Jesus Christ be fabulous, all [291]reasoning founded upon it as a supposed truth must fall with it” (Age of Reason).

How old was Jesus at the time of his death?

Luke: He was but little more than thirty years old.

John: He was nearly fifty. In a controversy with the Jews, during his ministry, he said: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?” (viii, 56, 57.) This implies that he was nearly fifty at this time.

Discussing the question of Jesus’ age, St. Irenaeus, the most renowned of the early Christian Fathers, and the founder of the New Testament canon, who lived in the century immediately following Jesus, says:

“He [Christ] came to save all through means of himself—all I say, who through him are born again to God—infants and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age; becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise, he was an old man for old men, that he might be a perfect master for all; not merely [292]as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age; sanctifying at the same time, the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, he came on to death itself, that he might be the first born from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence; the Prince of Life, existing before all, and going before all” (Against Heresies, Book iv, ch. xxii, sec. 4).

Commenting on the passage quoted from John, Irenaeus says: “But besides this, those very Jews who thus disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ, have most closely indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad;’ they answered him, ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old; and hast thou seen Abraham?’ Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old, it would unquestionably be said, ‘Thou art not yet forty years old.’ For those who wished to convict him of falsehood, would certainly not extend the number of his years far beyond the age which they saw he had attained.... It is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove him younger than the times of Abraham.... [293]He did not then want much of being fifty years old” (Ibid. sec. 6).

Nor did Irenaeus depend upon the Fourth Gospel alone for his authority. He was the companion of the aged Polycarp, whom Christians claim to have been the companion of the Apostle John. Concerning the testimony of Polycarp and others, he writes: “Those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [testify] that John conveyed to them that information. And he (John) remained among them up to the times of Tragan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the same account from them, and bear testimony to the statement” (Ib., sec. 5).

In regard to this testimony of the “divine Irenaeus,” as he is called, Godfrey Higgins says: “The church has been guilty of the oversight of letting this passage from Irenaeus escape. One of the earliest, most respected, and most quoted of its ancient bishops, saints and martyrs, tells us in distinct words that Jesus was not crucified under Herod and Pontius Pilate, but that he lived to be turned fifty years of age. This he tells us on the authority of his master, St. Polycarp, also a martyr, who had it from St. John himself, and from all the old people of Asia” (Anacalypsis).

Of this testimony and its consequences, Judge Waite, in his “History of Christianity” (pp. 329, [294]330) says: “It must be remembered that Irenaeus had been a companion of Polycarp and others who had seen John, and that he was speaking of what had come to his personal knowledge from the elders in Asia. If, then, Irenaeus tells the truth, the evidence in favor of the fact is almost overwhelming. If, on the other hand, he would deliberately falsify in a matter of this importance, what is his testimony worth as to the origin of the four gospels? Against this evidence, we have only the silence of the gospels. But if the silence of the Synoptics is consistent with a ministry of three or four years, why is not the further silence of all the gospels consistent with a ministry of twenty years?

“How would such a theory affect the received chronology concerning Christ? The date of the crucifixion at not later than A. D. 36, or when Christ was, by the received chronology, forty years old, is settled by the fact, that in that year, Pontius Pilate was removed from his government.... If, then, it be accepted as a historical fact that Christ was about fifty years old at this crucifixion, the date of his birth would have to be set back at least ten years.”

Every line of these accounts of the trial and crucifixion of Christ bears the ineffaceable stamp of fiction. There was no Christ to crucify, and Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed, was not crucified as claimed.

For more than fifteen centuries an inoffensive, [295]industrious and moral people have been persecuted, robbed and butchered by Christians, because their forefathers are said to have slain a mythical God.

Supposing that from the myth of Prometheus had sprung a popular religion, which, in its day, had, like the religions of Osiris, Bacchus, Krishna and Christ, overspread the earth. Then think of the devotees of this religion massacring the Hellenists because Zeus had crucified Prometheus! How long must our mythology, with all its attendant evils, rule and curse the world? How long must an innocent people suffer for an alleged crime that was never committed? [296]

How long did Jesus say he would remain in the grave?

“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew xii, 40).

How long did he remain in the grave?

Synoptics: Being buried on Friday evening, and having risen on or before Sunday morning, he was in the grave, at the most, but two nights and one day.

What occurred on the morning of the resurrection?

Matthew: “There was a great earthquake” (xxviii, 2).

The other Evangelists know nothing of this earthquake. They not only omit it, but their accounts of the resurrection preclude the possibility of its occurrence.

Who were the first to visit the tomb on the morning of the resurrection? [297]

John: “Mary Magdalene” (xx, 1).

Matthew: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” (xxviii, 1).

Mark: “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome” (xvi, 1, 2).

Luke: “Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women” (xxiv, 1–10).

Who was Salome?

“The wife of Zebedee, as appears from comparing Matt. xxvii, 56, with Mark xv, 40.”—Smith’s Bible Dictionary.

Matthew says that the women who witnessed the crucifixion were “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.” Mark says the women were “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.” This is a discrepancy that can be reconciled only by supposing that the mother of Zebedee’s children (James and John) was Salome. But the Gospel of the Egyptians, older than either Matthew or Mark, and accepted by early Christians as authentic, states that Salome was a single woman.

At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?

Mark: “At the rising of the sun” (xvi, 2).

John: “When it was yet dark” (xx, 1). [298]

If they came “at the rising of the sun,” or “when the sun was risen” (New Ver.), it was not yet dark.

When does Matthew say they came?

“In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week” (xxviii, 1).

If they came “in the end of the Sabbath,” and Jesus had already risen, then his resurrection took place, not on the first day of the week, as claimed, but on the seventh day. Matthew was a Jew; yet the author of this Gospel was seemingly ignorant of the Jewish method of computing time, according to which the Sabbath began and ended at sunset. He evidently supposed that the night preceding their visit to the tomb belonged to the seventh day, whereas it belonged to the first day.

Was the tomb open, or closed, when they came?

Luke: “They found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre” (xxiv, 2).

Matthew: The tomb was closed. The stone was not rolled from the door until after they came (xxviii, 1, 2).

This, in the opinion of most critics, is the meaning of Matthew’s language.

Whom did they meet at the tomb?

Matthew: “The angel” (xxviii, 2–5). [299]

Mark: “A young man” (xvi, 5).

Luke: “Two men” (xxiv, 4).

John: “Two angels” (xx, 12).

Were these men or angels in the sepulchre or outside of it?

Matthew: Outside of it (xxviii, 2).

Mark, Luke and John: Inside of it (Mark xvi, 5; Luke xxiv, 3, 4; John xx, 11, 12).

Were they sitting or standing?

Luke: Standing (xxiv, 4).

Matthew, Mark and John: Sitting (Matt. xxviii, 2; Mark xvi, 1; John xx, 12).

What were the first words they spoke to the women?

Matthew and Mark: “Be not affrighted” (Mark xvi, 6; Matt. xxviii, 5).

Luke: “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” (xxiv, 5.)

John: “Woman, why weepest thou?” (xx, 13.)

Did Mary Magdalene observe the divine messengers when she first came to the tomb?

Synoptics: She did (Matt. xxviii, 1–5; Mark xvi, 1–5; Luke xxiv, 1–4).

John: She did not (xx, 1, 2, 11, 12).

Who became frightened at the messengers? [300]

Matthew: “The keepers did shake, and became as dead men” (xxviii, 4).

Mark and Luke: “They [the women] were affrighted” (Mark xvi, 5; Luke xxiv, 5).

What did the women do when they became frightened?

Mark: “They went out quickly and fled” (xvi, 8).

Luke: “They bowed down their faces to the earth” (xxiv, 5).

Did the women see Jesus?

Matthew: They did. “As they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them” (xxviii, 9).

Luke: They did not see him (xxiv).

Did the women tell the disciples what they had seen?

Luke: They “returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest” (xxiv, 9).

Mark: “Neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid” (xvi, 8).

With these words the Gospel of Mark ends, the words that follow being an interpolation. In this appended passage Mary Magdalene is declared to have seen Jesus and informed them of it, but they “believed not.”

How many disciples visited the tomb? [301]

Luke: But one, Peter (xxiv, 12).

John: Two, Peter and John (xx, 3).

Who looked into the sepulchre and beheld the linen clothes?

Luke: “Then arose Peter, and ran into the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes” (xxiv, 12).

John: “So they ran both together; and the other disciple [John] did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes” (xx, 4, 5).

Did Peter enter into the sepulchre?

John: He did. “Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre” (xx, 6).

Luke: He did not. He looked into the sepulchre “and departed” (xxiv, 12).

State all of the appearances of Jesus mentioned by the Evangelists.

Matthew.

• 1. To the two Marys (xxviii, 9).
• 2. To the eleven in Galilee (17).

Mark.

• 1. To Mary Magdalene (xvi, 9).
• 2. To two of his disciples (12).
• 3. To the eleven at meat (14).

The appearances of Jesus mentioned in Mark are all in the apocryphal supplement. The Gospel [302]of Mark proper does not record a single appearance of Jesus.

Luke.

• 1. To Cleopas and his companion (xxiv, 13–31).
• 2. To Simon (Peter) (34).
• 3. To the eleven and others (36).

John.

• 1. To Mary Magdalene (xx, 14–18).
• 2. To ten (?) disciples (19–24).
• 3. To the eleven (26–29).
• 4. To Peter, John and others (xxi).

The last chapter of this Gospel which contains the account of his fourth appearance, and which ascribes the authorship of the Gospel to the “beloved disciple” (John), is a forgery.

No two of the Evangelists agree. No two of them are fully agreed in regard to a single appearance. Each not only omits the appearances mentioned by the others, but his narrative in nearly every instance excludes them. As Strauss says, “The designation of the locality in one excludes the appearances narrated by the rest; the determination of time in another leaves no space for the narratives of his fellow-evangelists; the enumeration of a third is given without any regard to the events reported by his predecessors; lastly, among several appearances recounted by various narrators, each claims to be the last, and yet has nothing in common with the others. Hence nothing but wilful blindness can prevent the [303]perception that no one of the narrators knew and presupposed what another records.”

Referring to the different accounts of the resurrection given by the Evangelists, Dr. Westcott says: “They contain difficulties which it is impossible to explain with certainty” (Introduction to Study of Gospels, p. 329).

Dr. Farrar makes the following admission: “Any one who will attentively read side by side the narratives of these appearances on the first day of the resurrection, will see that they have only been preserved for us in general, interblended, and scattered notices, which, in strict exactness, render it impossible, without many arbitrary suppositions, to produce from them a certain narrative of the order of events. The lacunae, the compressions, the variations, the actual differences, the subjectivity of the narrators as affected by spiritual revelations, render all harmonies at the best uncertain” (Life of Christ, vol. ii, p. 432, note).

State the appearances mentioned by Paul.

• 1. “He was seen of Cephas.”
• 2. “Then of the twelve.”
• 3. “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once.”
• 4. “After that he was seen of James.”
• 5. “Then of all the apostles.”
• 6. “And last of all he was seen of me also.”

Paul says that his first appearance was to [304]Peter. This contradicts all of the Evangelists. His next appearance, Paul declares, was to the twelve. But there were no twelve at this time; for Judas had deserted them and his successor had not been elected. Paul evidently knew nothing of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. He says Jesus was seen by five hundred brethren at once. The Evangelists are all ignorant of this appearance, while the author of Acts states that there were but one hundred and twenty “brethren” in all, and even this number is considered too large by critics. He says that he appeared to James, an appearance of which the Evangelists know nothing. After this he states that he was seen of all the apostles. This is the only appearance mentioned by Paul which can be reconciled with any of the Evangelists, and this cannot be reconciled with all of them.

“Last of all he was seen of me also.” Paul’s belief in the resurrection was based solely upon Jesus’ supposed appearance to him; for the other alleged appearances he had rejected. Not until he imagined that he had seen Jesus did he believe that the disciples had seen him, and the appearance of Jesus to him, which occurred several years after the resurrection and ascension, is represented as an occurrence of exactly the same character as his appearances to the disciples. Paul’s vision was clearly a delusion, and if so the other appearances, measured by Paul’s criterion, were delusions also. The Rev. John W. Chadwick [305]truly says: “Paul’s witness to the resurrection is the ruin of the argument.”

To whom did Jesus first appear?

Matthew: To Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (xxviii, 1, 9).

Mark and John: To Mary Magdalene alone (Mark xvi, 9; John xx, 14–18).

Luke: To Cleopas and his companion (xxiv, 13–31).

Paul: To Cephas (Peter) (1 Cor. xv, 5).

Where was Mary Magdalene when Jesus first appeared to her?

John: At the sepulchre (xx, 11–14).

Matthew: On her way home from the sepulchre (xxviii, 8, 9).

Did Mary know Jesus when he first appeared to her?

Matthew: She did (xxviii, 9).

John: “She ... knew not that it was Jesus” (xx, 14).

Was she permitted to touch him?

Matthew: “They [Mary Magdalene and her companion] came and held him by the feet” (xxviii, 9).

John: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not” (xx, 17). [306]

Where did he appear to his disciples?

Matthew: In Galilee.

Luke: In Jerusalem.

Matthew says that when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary visited the tomb an angel appeared to them and said: “Go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him” (xxviii, 7). As they ran to convey this intelligence, Jesus himself met them and repeated the command: “Go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me” (10). “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him” (16, 17).

Luke (xxiv, 13–35) states that on the day of the resurrection Jesus journeyed to Emmaus, a village some distance from Jerusalem, with Cleopas and his companion. They did not recognize him until after their arrival there, when they returned at once to Jerusalem and informed the disciples. “As they thus spake Jesus himself stood in the midst of them” (36). He conversed with them for a time, after which “he led them out as far as to Bethany” where he took his final leave of them and ascended to heaven (38–51). Instead of bidding them go to Galilee, a three days journey from Jerusalem, as Matthew states, his command was “Tarry [307]ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high,” which, according to Acts (ii, 1–13), was not until the day of Pentecost, seven weeks later.

Matthew’s narrative forbids the supposition of any meeting in Judea, while Luke’s precludes the possibility of a meeting in Galilee.

Regarding this discrepancy Dean Alford says: “We must be content to walk by faith, and not by sight” (Greek Testament, p. 905).

How far from Jerusalem was Emmaus, where Jesus made his first appearance?

Luke: “Which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs” (xxiv, 13).

Threescore furlongs was seven and one-half Roman, or about seven American miles. Emmaus of Judea was about twenty-five miles, or two hundred furlongs from Jerusalem. There was an Emmaus in Galilee, about seventy miles from Jerusalem. It is believed by some that the legend related to the latter place and was subsequently transferred by Luke to Judea.

How many disciples were present when he first appeared to them?

Matthew and Luke: Eleven (Matt. xxviii, 16, 17; Luke xxiv, 33–36).

John: But ten, Thomas being absent (xx, 19–24).

Paul: Twelve (1 Cor. xv, 5). [308]

What effect had his presence when he first appeared to them?

Luke: “They were terrified and affrighted” (xxiv, 36, 37).

John: “Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord” (xx, 20).

How many of the disciples doubted the reality of his appearance?

Matthew: “Some doubted” (xxviii, 17).

John: But one doubted—Thomas (xx, 24, 25).

Were they all finally convinced of his resurrection?

John: They were.

Matthew: They were not.

When he appeared to them did they know that he must rise from the dead?

John: “For as yet they knew not that he must rise from the dead” (xx, 9).

This cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics, who state that during his ministry he had acquainted them with it. “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day” (Matthew xvi, 21; Mark viii, 31; Luke ix, 22). [309]

Paul says that the last appearance of Jesus was to him. What did his companions do when they saw the light which attended the appearance?

Acts: “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless” (ix, 7).

Paul: “We were all fallen to the earth” (Acts xxvi, 14).

Did Paul’s companions see Jesus?

Acts: They did not. “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (ix, 7).

This shows that Jesus’ alleged appearance to Paul was an imaginary and not a real appearance.

The author of Acts says that his companions heard a voice. Is this true?

Paul: “They that were with me ... heard not the voice” (Acts xxii, 9).

Was Jesus seen by woman after his resurrection?

Matthew, Mark and John: He was.

Luke and Paul: He was not.

According to Luke and Paul his most faithful followers were not honored by a visit from their Lord, but were neglected and ignored. The resurrection was not for woman. Nowhere is sex prejudice more conspicuous than in the accounts [310]of the resurrection written by Paul and the Pauline Evangelist. To ignore the testimony of Mary Magdalene is to ignore the testimony of the chief witness for the resurrection.

From where did Jesus rise?

All: From the dead. “He is risen from the dead” (Matt. xxviii, 7). “It behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead” (Luke xxiv, 46). “He was risen from the dead” (John xxi, 14).

According to the Evangelists Jesus rose, not from the grave—not from the place where the bodies of the dead were deposited—but from the lower world—from the realm of the dead—where the shades of the departed were supposed to repose. Regarding this Dr. Hooykaas says:

“Let us begin by considering what that word ‘resurrection’ really meant, whether applied to Jesus or to others. Later representations, down to our own times, have regarded it as equivalent to a rising from the grave; but the question is, what it meant in the faith and preaching of the Apostles, in the genuine, original, primitive tradition that Jesus had risen. Now, ‘resurrection’ means elsewhere a return from the realm of shades to the human life on earth; and Jesus too had left the underworld, but not, in this case, to return at once to life upon the earth, but to be taken up provisionally into heaven. Originally the resurrection and ascension of Jesus were [311]one. It was only later that the conception sprang up of his having paused upon earth, whether for a single day or for several weeks, on his journey from the abyss to the height.

“We may, therefore, safely assert that if the friends of Jesus had thought as we do of the lot of those that die, they would never have so much as dreamed of their Master’s resurrection or ascension. For to the Christian belief of today it would be, so to speak, a matter of course that Jesus, like all good and noble souls—and indeed above all others—would go straight ‘to a better world,’ ‘to heaven,’ ‘to God,’ at the instant of his death; but in the conception of the Jews, including the Apostles, this was impossible. Heaven was the abode of the Lord and his angels only; and if an Enoch or an Elijah had been caught up there alive, to dwell there for a time, it was certain that all who died, without exception, even the purest and most holy, must go down as shades into the realms of the dead in the bowels of the earth—and thence, of course, they would not issue excepting by ‘rising again.’ And this is why we are never told that Jesus rose ‘from death,’ far less ‘from the grave,’ but always ‘from the dead’” (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 463).

Was he readily recognized by his friends?

Matthew, Luke and John: He was not.

Matthew says that when his disciples met him [312]in Galilee, after having gone there for the express purpose of meeting him, “some doubted” (xxviii, 17). Luke says that two of his friends journeyed with him from Jerusalem to Emmaus, conversing with him on the way, and notwithstanding they had been informed of his resurrection, they did not recognize him until after they had reached the village. John says that when Mary Magdalene met him she “knew not that it was Jesus, ... supposing him to be the gardener” (xx, 14, 15); and when he met his disciples at the Lake of Tiberius they “knew not that it was Jesus” (xxi, 4).

Did his appearances indicate a corporeal, or merely a spiritual existence?

The Evangelists declare that he was not only seen by his disciples and others, but that he conversed with them. Matthew says the two Marys held him by the feet, Luke says he invited the disciples to handle him, and John says that Thomas examined his wounds; while both Luke and John state that he partook of nourishment.

On the other hand, Luke says that while he sat at meat with Cleopas and his companion at Emmaus “He vanished out of their sight” (xxiv, 31). John says that while the disciples were assembled in a room in Jerusalem, “when the doors were shut,” Jesus came “and stood in the midst” (xx, 19). Eight days later the appearance [313]was repeated: “Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst” (26). Mark says that after he appeared to Mary Magdalene “he appeared in another form” to two of his disciples (xvi, 12).

While the first named appearances can be reconciled with so-called spiritual manifestations, the latter cannot be reconciled with a corporeal existence.

In the preceding chapter we have shown that the alleged crucifixion of Jesus is unworthy of belief. If he was not crucified the story of his resurrection is, of course, a fiction. But conceding, for the sake of argument, that he was crucified; does this make his resurrection probable, or even possible? The crucifixion of a man is a possible occurrence; but the corporeal resurrection of a man who has suffered death is impossible. These reputed appearances of Jesus, if they have a historical foundation, were evidently mere subjective impressions or apparitions. Although he is declared to have remained on earth forty days, he made, at the most, but two or three brief visits to his disciples, appearing and disappearing like a phantom. Instead of abiding with them, teaching them the doctrines of his religion—of which they professed to be ignorant—and preparing them for their coming ministry he is represented as keeping in seclusion, or roaming aimlessly along the country highways, like some demented creature. Referring [314]to his appearance to his disciples, Jerome says: “The apostles supposed him to be a spirit, or according to the Gospel which the Nazarenes receive [the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew] an incorporeal demon.”

The possibility, and even prevalency, of apparitions similar to those related of Jesus are recognized by every student of psychology. Sir Benjamin Brodie, in his “Psychological Inquiries” (p. 78), says: “There are abundant proofs that impressions may be made in the brain by other causes simulating those which are made on it by external objects through the medium of the organs of sense, thus producing false perceptions, which may, in the first instance, and before we have had time to reflect on the subject, be mistaken for realities.”

The appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene was not believed even by the disciples. If the disciples believed that Mary was deluded, is it unreasonable to believe that they were deluded also? Illusions are contagious and may affect many minds as well as one. Dr. Carpenter, one of the highest English authorities on mental science, says: “If not only a single individual, but several persons should be ‘possessed’ by one and the same idea or feeling, the same misinterpretation may be made by all of them; and in such a case the concurrence of their testimony does not add the least strength to it” (Principles of Mental Physiology, p. 208). In confirmation [315]of this is cited the following from a work on “The Philosophy of Apparitions,” by Dr. Hibbert, F.R.S.E.: “A whole ship’s company was thrown into the utmost consternation by the apparition of a cook who had died a few days before. He was distinctly seen walking ahead of the ship, with a peculiar gait by which he was distinguished when alive, through having one of his legs shorter than the other. On steering the ship towards the object, it was found to be a piece of floating wreck.”

These supposed appearances of Jesus were, at the most, only apparitions, and “Apparitions,” to quote Dr. Hibbert again, “are nothing more than morbid symptoms, which are indicative of an intense excitement of the renovated feelings of the mind” (Philosophy of Apparitions, p. 375).

Lord Amberley advances a psychological explanation of the reputed appearances of Jesus from which I quote the following: “Whatever other qualities Jesus may have possessed or lacked, there can be no question that he had one—that of inspiring in others a strong attachment to himself. He had in his brief career surrounded himself with devoted disciples; and he was taken from their midst in the full bloom of his powers by a violent and early death. Now there are some who have been taught by the bitter experience of their lives how difficult, nay, how impossible it is to realize in imagination the fact [316]that a beloved companion is in truth gone from them forever.... We fondly conceive that in some way the dead must still exist; and if so, can one, who was so tender before, listen to our cry of pain and refuse to come? Can one, who soothed us in the lesser troubles of our lives, look on while we are suffering the greatest agony of all and fail to comfort? It cannot be. Imagination declines to picture the long future that lies before us. We cannot understand that we shall never again listen to the tones of the familiar voice; never feel the touch of the gentle hand; never be encouraged by the warm embrace that tells us we are loved, or find a refuge from miserable thoughts and the vexations of the world in the affectionate and ever-open heart. All this is too hard for us. We long for a resurrection; we should believe in it if we could; we do believe in it in sleep, when our feelings are free to roam at pleasure, unrestrained by the chilling presence of the material world. In dreams the old life is repeated again and again. Sometimes the lost one is beside us as of old and we are quite untroubled by the thought of parting. Sometimes there is a strange and confusing consciousness that the great calamity has happened, or has been thought to happen, but that now we are again together, and that a new life has succeeded upon death.... Granting only a strong emotion and a lively phantasy, we may comprehend at [317]once how, in many lands, to many mourners, the images of their dreams may also become the visions of their waking hours” (Analysis of Religious Belief, pp. 275, 276).

Renan says: “For the historian, the life of Jesus finishes with his last sigh. But such was the impression he had left in the heart of his disciples, and of a few devoted women, that during some weeks more it was as if he were living and consoling them. Had his body been taken away, or did enthusiasm, always credulous, create afterwards the group of narratives by which it was sought to establish faith in the resurrection? In the absence of opposing documents this can never be ascertained. Let us say, however, that the strong imagination of Mary Magdalene played an important part in the circumstance. Divine power of love! Sacred moments in which the passion of one possessed gave to the world a resuscitated God” (Life of Jesus, p. 296).

If Jesus appeared in a material body, was he naked, or clothed?

This is not a vital, but it is a pertinent question. It is stated that he appeared to Mary Magdalene immediately after the resurrection. Did he appear to her naked, or was he clothed? As she mistook him for the gardener, and as the gardener undoubtedly went clad, it may be presumed that Jesus was clad also. If so, where [318]did he procure his clothes? His own garments were divided among the soldiers, and his grave clothes were left in the sepulchre. If it be assumed that he was taken from the tomb by his friends, as some critics believe, the difficulty vanishes.

What is said of the saints who arose on the day of the crucifixion?

Matthew: They “came out of the graves after the resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many” (xxvii, 53).

Before Matthew’s wholesale resurrection of the saints the resurrection of Jesus pales into insignificance. In the opinion of many supernaturalists Matthew has mixed too large a dose of the miraculous for even Christian credulity to swallow, and they would gladly omit this portion of it. Regarding this story Dr. Farrar says: “An earthquake shook the earth and split the rocks, and as it rolled away from their places the great stones which closed and covered the cavern sepulchres of the Jews, so it seemed to the imaginations of many to have disimprisoned the spirits of the dead, and to have filled the air with ghostly visitants, who after Christ had risen appeared to linger in the Holy City” (Life of Christ, vol. ii, p. 419). Dean Milman dismisses it in much the same way. Referring to the earthquake, he says: “The same convulsion would displace the stones which covered the ancient [319]tombs and lay open many of the innumerable rock-hewn sepulchres which perforated the hills on every side of the city, and expose the dead to public view. To the awe-struck and depressed minds of the followers of Jesus, no doubt, were confined these visionary appearances of the spirits of their deceased brethren” (History of Christianity, vol. i, p. 336).

If the minds of the disciples were so greatly affected that they imagined they beheld the resurrected bodies of strangers whom they had never met and of whom they had probably never heard—for they were nearly a hundred miles from the graves of their own kindred—is it strange that they should imagine they saw the resurrected Master with whom they had daily associated for months and perhaps years? To characterize these resurrected saints as “ghostly visitants” and “visionary appearances,” and the resurrected Christ as a real being, is a distinction without a scintilla of evidence to support it. Both appearances, if they be historical, belong to the same class of mental phenomena; and are, indeed, the offspring of the same minds.

When did the resurrection take place?

All: In the night.

Who witnessed it?

All: No one.

The author of “Supernatural Religion” says: “The remarkable fact is, therefore, absolutely [320]undeniable, that there was not, and that it is not even pretended that there was, a single eye-witness to the actual Resurrection. The empty grave, coupled with the supposed subsequent appearances of Jesus, is the only evidence of the Resurrection” (p. 1004).

It is said that a guard was stationed at the tomb. Why was this done?

Matthew: “The chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead” (xxvii, 62–64).

Is it not strange that his enemies should be cognizant of this when his disciples “knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead?” (John xx, 9.)

Regarding this the “Bible for Learners” says: “Was such a foolish report really circulated among the Jews? In any case this story, which is worked out elaborately in the Gospel of Nicodemus, is quite absurd. Is it likely that the enemies of Jesus would have heard a prophecy of his rising again when his very friends never dreamed of it for a moment, and when he had never once spoken of his ‘resurrection’ in public?” (Vol. iii, p. 480.) [321]

On what day did the Sanhedrim visit Pilate for the purpose of obtaining a guard?

Matthew: On the Sabbath (xxvii, 62).

Matthew, after describing the death and burial of Jesus, says: “Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate.” It is generally conceded by Christian commentators that by “the next day” Matthew refers to the Sabbath, for if Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday, no other day can be meant. To avoid the disagreeable consequences of such an admission a few have contended that by “the day of preparation” is meant the Preparation of the Passover. But this renders the passage unintelligible. By “preparation” Matthew means, not the Preparation of the Passover, but the preparation of the Sabbath. This is made clear by the other Synoptics. After relating the events of the crucifixion, Mark begins his account of the burial with these words: “And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath” (xv, 42). Luke, after giving an account of the crucifixion and burial, says: “And that day was the preparation and the Sabbath drew on” (xxiii, 54).

It is claimed by the Evangelists that the Jewish priests of that period were such rigid observers of the Sabbath that they sought to put Jesus to death for simply healing the sick on that [322]day. That the Sanhedrim desecrated the Sabbath, and especially the Passover Sabbath, by visiting and transacting business with a heathen ruler cannot be accepted as possible.

When was the guard placed at the tomb?

Matthew: Not until the second night.

It is argued that Jesus must have risen because a guard was placed at his tomb so that it was impossible for his disciples to “come by night, and steal him away.” But had his body really been left in the tomb, as claimed, they would have taken it the first night had they desired it. The passage cited from Matthew in the preceding criticism declares that a guard was not requested of Pilate until the day following the crucifixion, so that the tomb was without a guard the first night. The sepulchre was not opened and examined when the guard was placed there on the following day. “So they went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch” (Matt. xxvii, 66). Had the seal been found unbroken at the end of three days it would not have proved that Jesus’ body still remained in the tomb. It would merely have proved that the body had not been removed after the seal was placed on it.

It may be urged that Jesus had prophesied that he would not rise until the third day, and that an earlier disappearance of the body could not be harmonized with a strict fulfillment of the [323]prophecy. But of this prophecy the disciples, we have seen, were ignorant.

What is said in regard to the opening of the tomb?

Matthew: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And behold there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.... And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay” (xxviii, 1–6).

Matthew’s story of the guard was evidently inserted for the express purpose of establishing a belief in the resurrection by making it appear impossible for his friends to have removed the body from the sepulchre. Yet this story suggests, if it does not prove, the very thing that he attempts to prove impossible. The sepulchre was opened in the presence of witnesses—the guards and the women. Jesus did not emerge from it, nor did it contain his body. It was empty when opened. This renders probable, if not certain, one of two things: either his body was not deposited there, or it was removed before the watch was set. [324]

Commenting on the empty tomb L. K. Washburn says: “If Jesus got out of the grave alive, he was put into it alive. If he was put into it dead, he was taken out dead. A depopulated sepulchre is not proof that its former tenant has moved to heaven. It is merely proof that somebody has stolen a dead body.”

What did the guards do when they left the tomb?

Matthew: “Some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all the things that were done” (xxviii, 11).

To one acquainted with the discipline of the Roman army this story of the soldiers leaving their post thirty-six hours before the expiration of the watch assigned and going into the city and telling the Jews what had transpired is incredible.

What did the chief priests do?

Matthew: “They gave large sums of money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept” (12, 13).

The penalty for sleeping while on duty was death, and no bribe could have induced them to declare that they were guilty of this offense even if the priests had promised to intercede for them. Again, had this transaction really occurred it would have been known only by the parties [325]concerned in it, and when disclosure meant the direst punishment to both the bribe-givers and the bribe-takers, neither would have divulged the crime.

Strauss, criticising the alleged action of the Jewish priests, says: “Their conduct, when the guards returning from the grave apprised them of the resurrection of Jesus, is truly impossible. They believe the assertion of the soldiers that Jesus had arisen out of his grave in a miraculous manner. How could the council, many of whose members were Sadducees, receive this as credible? Even the Pharisees in the Sanhedrim, though they held in theory the possibility of a resurrection, would not, with the mean opinion they entertained of Jesus, be inclined to believe in his resurrection, especially as the assertion in the mouth of the guards sounded just like a falsehood invented to screen a failure in duty. The real Sanhedrists, on hearing such an assertion from the soldiers, would have replied with exasperation: You lie! you have slept and allowed him to be stolen; but you will have to pay dearly for this, when it comes to be investigated by the procurator. But instead of this, the Sanhedrists in our gospel speak them fair, and entreat them thus: Tell a lie, say that you have slept and allowed him to be stolen; moreover, they pay them richly for the falsehood, and promise to exculpate them to the procurator. This is evidently spoken entirely on the Christian presupposition [326]of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus; a presupposition, however, which is quite incorrectly attributed to the Sanhedrim” (Leben Jesu, pp. 806, 807).

What is said of the resurrection by Peter?

“Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead” (Acts x, 40, 41).

If God really wished to convince all the people why did he not show him to all the people? It is said that more than two millions of Jews attended the Passover. Had he desired to prove to them that Jesus was the Christ he would have assembled this multitude at midday and in their presence raised his crucified and buried Son. Yet not a single human being witnessed the resurrection, and not a single disinterested witness is said to have seen him after his death. Like a thief he escapes from his prison in the night and avoids publicity. This story of the resurrection is clearly a priestly invention and the composer of the speech ascribed to Peter was conscious of the fact.

What did Paul teach regarding the resurrection of Christ?

“That Christ should suffer and that he should [327]be the first that should rise from the dead” (Acts xxvi, 23).

If Christ was the first to rise from the dead what becomes of the miracles of Lazarus, of the widow of Nain’s son, and of the daughter of Jairus? What becomes of Matthew’s saints who rose from the dead on the day of the crucifixion, two days before Christ rose?

What did Paul teach regarding the resurrection of the dead in general?

“If the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised” (1 Corinthians xv, 16).

“He that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more” (Job vii, 9).

When did the disciples receive the Holy Ghost?

John: “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (xx, 22).

This was on the evening of the resurrection. Forty days after this he said to them: “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence” (Acts i, 5).

Acts: “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come ... they were all filled with the Holy Ghost” (ii, 1–4).

This was seven weeks after the resurrection.

On what day of the week did it occur? [328]

John: “The first day of the week” (xx, 19).

John, like the author of the first Gospel, is evidently ignorant of the Jewish method of reckoning time. He makes the evening (it was night) following the first day a part of that day instead of the next day to which it belonged.

Did Thomas receive the Holy Ghost?

John: He did not. He was absent when the disciples received it (xx, 19–25).

Who had Jesus said would send the Holy Ghost to his disciples?

“The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send” (John xiv, 26).

“I [Jesus] will send him unto you” (xvi, 7).

What effect had the Holy Ghost upon them?

Acts: They “began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (ii, 4).

Concerning this “gift” Greg says: “Ignorance and folly too often became the arbiters of wisdom—and the ravings of delirium were listened to as the words of inspiration, and of God. If Jesus could have returned to earth thirty years after his death, and sat in the midst of an assembly of his followers, who were listening in hushed and wondering prostration of mind to a speaker in the ‘unknown tongue,’ how would he have wept over the humiliating and disappointing [329]spectacle! how would he have grieved to think that the incoherent jargon of delirium or hysteria should be mistaken for the promptings of his Father’s spirit!” (Creed of Christendom, p. 250.)

Who heard them speak in new tongues?

Acts: “Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians” (ii, 9–11).

Did representatives of all these nations really assemble to hear the disciples, or was this merely an imaginary gathering of the writer? Evidently the latter.

To the charge of drunkenness what reply did Peter make?

“These are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day” (Acts ii, 15).

A profane mind, unacquainted with Jewish customs, might infer from this that the disciples were not in the habit of becoming intoxicated before nine o’clock in the morning.

What inquiry did Paul make of John’s disciples? [330]

“Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?”

What did they say in reply?

“We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost” (Acts xix, 2).

This was many years after the death of Jesus. Either this colloquy is false, or the story of John the Baptist is false. If John was the forerunner of Christ, as claimed, his disciples became followers of Christ; and if they became followers of Christ they were acquainted with the doctrine of the Holy Ghost—if it existed at this time.

When did Jesus’ disciples begin to baptize?

Matthew and Mark: Not until after his resurrection (Matt. xxviii, 18, 19; Mark xvi, 15, 16).

John: At the beginning of his ministry. “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized” (iii, 22). “The Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.)” (iv, 1, 2).

What form of baptism is Jesus said to have prescribed for the use of his apostles?

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew xxviii, 19).

The apostles did not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, but in the name of Christ alone. [331]

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts ii, 38).

“They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (viii, 16).

“He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (x, 48).

“They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (xix, 5).

Concerning this Greg says: “That this definite form of baptism proceeded from Jesus, is opposed by the fact that such an allocation of the Father, Son, and Spirit, does not elsewhere appear, except as a form of salutation in the epistles; while as a definite form of baptism it is nowhere met with throughout the New Testament. Moreover, it was not the form used, and could scarcely, therefore, have been the form commanded; for in the apostolic epistles, and even in the Acts, the form always is ‘baptizing into Christ Jesus,’ or, ‘into the name of the Lord Jesus’” (Creed of Christendom, p. 191).

This ecclesiastical formula was not adopted by the church until late in the second century, and then, not for baptism, but for admission into the church. In regard to this the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: “Baptism into the name of God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, means baptism into the confession of or faith in these three, and is a short epitome of Christian doctrine of which Jesus certainly [332]never dreamed; nay, it is obvious from all accounts that, even in the apostolic age, it was as yet quite unknown; and the still later age which drew up the words by no means intended them as a baptismal formula, but rather as a statement of the conditions of admission into the community. In making the utterance of these words, instead of the imposition of these conditions, the first act of admission into the community of Christ, the Church has confounded words with things” (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, pp. 472, 473).

What was his final command to the apostles?

“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark xvi, 15).

This is utterly irreconcilable with Acts (xi, 1–18). Eight years after the death of Jesus, Peter is condemned for preaching to the Gentiles. “And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him” (1, 2). How does he meet the accusation and justify his conduct? By reminding them that it was the express will of their Master? No; he tells them that while in a trance at Joppa he had a vision instructing him to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to [333]the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (18).

How long did Jesus remain on earth?

Luke: One day (xxiv).

John: At least ten days (xx, xxi).

Acts: He was “seen of them forty days” (i, 3).

The greatest discrepancy is between Luke and Acts, two books which it is claimed were written by the same author.

Where did the ascension take place?

Mark: In Jerusalem (xvi, 14, com. Luke xxiv, 33).

Luke: At Bethany (xxiv, 50, 51).

Acts: At Mount Olivet (i, 9–12).

Describe the ascension.

Luke: “And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from them and carried up into heaven” (xxiv, 51).

The ascension of Romulus doubtless suggested the story of the ascension of Jesus.

What occurred at the ascension?

Acts: “While they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (i, 10, 11). [334]

It is remarkable that the Evangelists who find space to record the sayings of lunatics and devils, have not room to record the words of angels, or even note their presence.

For what purpose did Jesus ascend to heaven?

“I go to prepare a place for you” (John xiv, 2).

What was the need of this when the place had already been “prepared ... from the foundation of the world” (Matthew xxv, 34)?

Did Jesus ascend bodily into heaven?

Luke: He ascended to heaven in a body of flesh and blood (xxiv, 36–43, 50, 51).

Paul: “But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die; and that which thou sowest thou sowest not that body that shall be” (1 Corinthians xv, 35–37).

“It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (44).

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God” (50).

The whole theology of Paul is opposed to the bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus. The “Bible for Learners” says: “In speaking of the resurrection, he [Paul] does not mean the reanimation of the body of Jesus; and indeed he expressly excludes such a thought by ascribing [335]to the Christ a glorified and spiritual body not made of flesh and blood. It is equally certain that he thinks of the Christ as having appeared from heaven; and his ranking the appearance to himself—unquestionably the product of his own fervid imagination—as parallel with those which preceded it [his appearances to the disciples], seems to indicate that they were all visions alike” (Vol. iii, p. 467).

Do all the Evangelists record the ascension?

Matthew and John, both of whom are declared to have been apostles, and the only Evangelists who are supposed to have witnessed the ascension, know nothing of it. The last twelve verses of Mark, it is admitted, are spurious; while the words, “carried up into heaven,” of Luke do not appear in the Sinaitic version, the oldest version of the New Testament extant. With this forged appendix to Mark and this interpolated passage in Luke eliminated, the Four Gospels contain no mention of the ascension.

Had any man ever ascended to heaven before Jesus?

Jesus: “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John iii, 13).

Then that story about Elijah is a fiction, is it?

In regard to the resurrection and ascension [336]Thomas Paine says: “As to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart of his birth. His historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground. The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told exceeds every thing that went before it. The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected.... But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given.... It is in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The [337]story, so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be assured that the books in which the account is related were written by the persons whose names they bear; the best surviving evidence we now have respecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from the people who lived in the times this resurrection and ascension is said to have happened, and they say, it is not true. It has long appeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of the truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say, I will prove the truth of what I have told you by producing the people who say it is false” (Age of Reason, pp. 10, 11).

“The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe” (Ibid, 161).

“Supernatural Religion” says: “The whole of the evidence for the Resurrection reduces itself to an undefined belief on the part of a few persons, in a notoriously superstitious age, that after Jesus had died and been buried they had seen him alive. These visions, it is admitted, occurred at a time of the most intense religious excitement, and under circumstances of wholly exceptional mental agitation and distress. The [338]wildest alternations of fear, doubt, hope and indefinite expectation, added their effects to oriental imaginations already excited by indignation at the fate of their Master, and sorrow or despair at such a dissipation of their Messianic dreams. There was present every element of intellectual and moral disturbance. Now must we seriously ask again whether this bare and wholly unjustified belief can be accepted as satisfactory evidence for so astounding a miracle as the Resurrection? Can the belief of such men, in such an age, establish the reality of a phenomenon which is contradicted by universal experience? We have no evidence as to what actually occurred. We do not even know the facts upon which they based their inferences. We only know that they thought they had seen Jesus and that they, therefore, concluded that he had risen from the dead. It comes to us as bare belief from the Age of Miracles, unsupported by facts, uncorroborated by evidence, unaccompanied by proof of investigation, and unprovided with material for examination. What is such belief worth? We have no hesitation in saying that it is absolutely worth nothing” (pp. 1048, 1049).

The Rev. Dr. Phillip Schaff, one of the most eminent evangelical Christian scholars of this country, in his “History of the Christian Church,” makes this candid admission regarding the resurrection and ascension of Christ: [339]

“Truth compels us to admit that there are serious difficulties in harmonizing the accounts of the Evangelists, and in forming a consistent conception of Christ’s resurrection body hovering as it were between heaven and earth, and a supernatural state, of a body clothed with flesh and blood and bearing the wound prints, and yet so spiritual as to appear and disappear through closed doors and to ascend visibly to heaven.” [340]

Who was Jesus Christ?

Mark: He was the son of man.

Matthew and Luke: He was the Son of God.

John: He was God himself.

In the Four Gospels are presented three entirely different conceptions of the Christ. In Mark he is represented as the son of human parents—the Messiah—but simply a man. In Matthew and Luke we have the story of the miraculous conception—he is represented as the Son of God. In John he is declared to be God himself. “In the beginning was the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (i, 1).

According to Mark Christ is a man; according to Matthew and Luke, a demi-god; according to John, a God.

Voltaire thus harmonizes these discordant conceptions: “The son of God is the same as the son of man; the son of man is the same as the son of God. God, the father, is the same as Christ, the son; Christ, the son, is the same as God, the father. This language may appear confused [341]to unbelievers, but Christians will readily understand it.”

This is quite as intelligible as the Christian Confession of Faith, Article II of which reads as follows: “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man.”

“The theological Christ is the impossible union of the human and divine—man with the attributes of God, and God with the limitations and weaknesses of man.”—Ingersoll.

Is God a visible Being?

Jacob: “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis xxxii, 30).

John: “No man hath seen God at any time” (i, 18).

How many Gods are there?

Mark: One.

John: Three.

Mark teaches the doctrine of Unitarianism (Monotheism), or one God. John teaches, not the doctrine of Unitarianism or one God, nor yet the doctrine of Trinitarianism or three Gods in [342]one, but the doctrine of Tritheism or three distinct Gods, separate and independent of each other.

Is the doctrine of the Trinity taught in the New Testament?

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (1 John v, 7).

This is the only passage in the New Testament which clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, and this passage is admitted by all Christian scholars to be an interpolation.

When the modern version of the New Testament was first published by Erasmus it was criticised because it contained no text teaching the doctrine of the Trinity. Erasmus promised his critics that if a manuscript could be found containing such a text he would insert it. The manuscript was “found,” and the text quoted appeared in a later edition. Concerning this interpolation Sir Isaac Newton, in a letter to a friend, which was afterward published by Bishop Horsley, says: “When the adversaries of Erasmus had got the Trinity into his edition, they threw by their manuscript as an old almanac out of date.”

Alluding to the doctrine of the Trinity, Thomas Jefferson says: “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is [343]three, and yet, that the one is not three, and the three not one.... But this constitutes the craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies” (Jefferson’s Works, vol. iv, p. 205, Randolph’s ed.).

Again Jefferson says: “The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs” (Ibid, p. 360).

Was Christ the only begotten Son of God?

John: He was “the only begotten Son of God” (iii, 18).

“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them” (Genesis vi, 4).

By what agency and when was the Christ begotten?

Matthew and Luke: By the Holy Ghost at the time of his conception by the Virgin Mary.

According to Justin the Holy Ghost begat the Christ, not at the conception of Jesus, as claimed by these Evangelists, but at his baptism. At his baptism the voice from heaven said: “Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee” (Dialogues 88).

The correctness of Justin’s statement is corroborated [344]by Hebrews: “Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee” (v, 5). Christ’s priesthood began at his baptism.

Of what gender is the Holy Ghost?

Matthew (Greek Ver.): Masculine gender.

Matthew (Hebrew Ver.): Feminine gender.

The Holy Ghost (Spirit), as was noted in a previous chapter, was with the Greeks of masculine gender, with the Jews of feminine gender. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, which, it is claimed, was the original Gospel of Matthew, represented Jesus as saying, “Just now my mother, the Holy Ghost, laid hold on me.”

If the Holy Ghost was the mother of Jesus did he have two mothers? According to our Greek version of Matthew, as well as that of Luke, he had one mother and three reputed fathers—God, the Holy Ghost, and Joseph.

Christ, it is affirmed, was born of Mary. If so, what relation did she bear to him?

1. If he was born of Mary she was his mother.

2. She “being with child by the Holy Ghost,” and Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one, she bore to him the relation of wife.

3. God being the Father of all mankind, and God and Christ being one, she was his daughter.

4. She being the daughter of God, and Christ [345]being the Son of God, she was therefore his sister.

Consequently Mary bore to him the relation of mother, wife, daughter and sister.

The greater portion of the Christian church affirms the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is claimed that Jesus was her only child and that the conception and birth of him did not destroy her virginity. Is this confirmed by the Evangelists?

It is not. Matthew and Mark say: “Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us?” (Matt. xiii, 55, 56; Mark vi, 3). Luke (viii, 19) and John (vii, 3) both declare that he had brothers.

To maintain this dogma it is affirmed that by “brethren and sisters” is meant cousins. Dr. Farrar, who in regard to this as in regard to most disputed points, assumes a non-committal or conciliatory attitude, concedes that “the natural supposition that, after the miraculous conception of our Lord, Joseph and Mary lived together in the married state, and that James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon, with daughters, whose names are not recorded, were subsequently born to them,” is “in accordance certainly with the prima facie evidence of the Gospels” (Life of Christ, p. 51). [346]

Who did Mary say was the father of Jesus?

Luke: When he remained behind in Jerusalem, and they found him in the temple, “his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father [Joseph] and I have sought thee sorrowing” (ii, 48).

To believe that a Jewish virgin was overshadowed by a spirit, and miraculously conceived and bore a child, requires more convincing proof than the dream of a credulous lover. We ought at least to have the testimony of the mother. But we have it not. She testifies that Joseph is his father.

What did Jesus’ neighbors say regarding his paternity?

Matthew: They said, “Is not this the carpenter’s [Joseph’s] son?” (xiii, 55.)

Luke: “They said, Is not this Joseph’s son?” (iv, 22.)

John: “They said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph?” (vi, 42.)

The Rev. Dr. Crapsey, of the Episcopal church, in his work on “Religion and Politics” (p. 289), makes this significant admission regarding the divine origin of Jesus: “The fact of his miraculous birth was unknown to himself, unknown to his mother, and unknown to the whole Christian community of the first generations.”

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, [347]wrote: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter” (Jefferson Works, vol. iv, p. 365, Randolph’s ed.).

Who did Peter declare him to be?

“Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God” (Acts ii, 22).

Who did Paul declare him to be?

“There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy ii, 5).

The Christ of Peter and Paul was not a God, but a man—a man upon whom had been bestowed divine gifts—but yet a man.

What testimony is ascribed to Paul?

“Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy iii, 16).

This is a gross perversion of Scripture for the purpose of making Paul a witness to Christ’s divinity. Regarding this text and the Trinitarian text inserted in 1 John, Sir Isaac Newton, in his letter previously quoted from, says:

“What the Latins have done in this text (1 John v, 7) the Greeks have done to Paul (1 Tim. iii, 16). They now read, ‘Great is the mystery of godliness; God manifest in the flesh’; whereas all the churches for the first four or five [348]hundred years, and the authors of all the ancient versions, Jerome as well as the rest, read, ‘Great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh.’ Our English version makes it yet a little stronger. It reads, ‘Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.’”

In conclusion Newton says: “If the ancient churches, in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not why we should be so fond of them now the debate is over.”

Christ is declared by the Christian creed to be “the very and eternal God.” God, it is claimed, is omnipotent. Was Christ omnipotent?

“The Son can do nothing of himself” (John v, 19).

“I can of mine own self do nothing” (30).

God is omniscient. Was Christ omniscient?

Referring to his second advent he says: “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, ... neither the Son” (Mark xiii, 32).

God is omnipresent. Was Christ omnipresent?

“I am glad for your sakes that I was not there” (John xi, 15).

“Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come” (vii, 36).

“And now I am no more in the world” (xvii, 11). [349]

God is self-existent. Was Christ self-existent?

“I live by the Father” (John vi, 57).

“He liveth by the power of God” (2 Corinthians xiii, 4).

Did Christ have a preexistence?

“Before Abraham was, I am” (John viii, 58).

According to the Synoptics his existence began with his life on earth.

Was he infinite in wisdom?

Luke: He “increased in wisdom” (ii, 52).

If he increased in wisdom his knowledge was limited, and limitation of knowledge is not an attribute of an infinite God.

Was he infinite in goodness?

“Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God” (Mark x, 18).

Was he infinite in mercy?

“He that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark xvi, 16).

“Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire” (Matthew xxv, 41).

“Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida!... It shall be more [350]tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of Judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell” (Matthew xi, 20–23).

His resurrection is adduced as the chief argument in proof of his divinity. Did he raise himself from the dead?

Peter: He did not. God raised him. “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, ... whom God raised from the dead” (Acts iv, 10).

If Christ, then, did not rise from the dead by his own volition, was his resurrection any proof of his divinity? No more than the resurrection of Lazarus was proof of Lazarus’s divinity.

His miraculous conception is adduced as another proof of his divinity. Is this the only miraculous conception claimed in the Bible?

It is not. Isaac, Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist are all claimed to have been miraculously conceived (Genesis xviii, 10, 11; xxi, 1–3; Judges xiii, 2, 3, 24; 1 Samuel i, 9–11, 20; Luke i, 7–13).

His miracles, it is claimed, attest his divinity. Were he and his disciples the only ones who performed miracles?

These alleged miracles were performed before his time—the Old Testament abounds with them—and they have been performed since his time. [351]They were performed by others in his own time—were performed by those who ignored and rejected him—were performed by the disciples of Satan himself (Matthew vii, 22; xii, 27; Mark ix, 38; xiii, 22; Luke ix, 49).

“Supernatural Religion” says: “The supposed miraculous evidence for the divine revelation, moreover, is without any special divine character, being avowedly common also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or details. Similar miracles to those which are supposed to attest it are reported long antecedent to the promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to convince the people to whom the revelation was primarily addressed. The selection of such evidence, for such a purpose, is much more characteristic of human weakness than of divine power” (p. 699).

Archbishop Trench says: “Side by side with the miracles which serve for the furthering of the kingdom of God runs another line of wonders, the counter-workings of him who is ever the [352]ape of the Most High.... This fact that the kingdom of lies has its wonders no less than the kingdom of truth, is itself sufficient evidence that miracles cannot be appealed to absolutely and finally, in proof of the doctrine which the worker of them proclaims” (Miracles of Our Lord, p. 22).

The miracles of Christ, like the miracles of Satan, existed only in the minds of his credulous and deluded followers.

—Thomas Moore.

Prophecy is appealed to in support of his divinity. It is claimed that the writers of the Old Testament predicted his coming. Do such predictions exist?

In his work on “The Bible,” as well as in a previous chapter of this work, the writer has shown that there is not a single passage in the Old Testament that, in the original text, refers in the remotest degree to Jesus Christ.

Greg shows that much of Old Testament history, like Deuteronomy, is presented in the form of anticipatory narrative. To the Christian argument that the Messianic predictions, at least, were written long anterior to the time of Christ, he replies: “This is true, and the argument would have all the force which is attributed to it, were the objectors able to lay their fingers on a single [353]Old Testament prediction clearly referring to Jesus Christ, intended by the utterers of it to relate to him, prefiguring his character and career, and manifestly fulfilled in his appearance on earth. This they cannot do. Most of the passages usually adduced as complying with these conditions, referred, and were clearly intended to refer, to eminent individuals in Israelitish history; many are not prophecies at all; the Messiah, the anointed deliverer, expected by the Jews, hoped for and called for by their poets and prophets, was of a character so different, and a career so opposite, to those of the meek, lowly, long-suffering Jesus, that the passages describing the one never could have been applied to the other, without a perversion of ingenuity, and a disloyal treatment of their obvious signification, which, if employed in any other field than that of theology, would have met with the prompt discredit and derision they deserve” (Creed of Christendom, pp. 135, 136).

His own prescience is cited in proof of his divinity. The destruction of the temple by the Romans, it is claimed, was a wonderful instance of the fulfillment of prophecy. But did his so-called prophecy have reference to this event?

No one can read this prophecy (Matthew xxiv, 1–3) and then honestly contend that it did. He clearly refers to his second coming and the end of the world when the temple, in common with [354]all sublunary things, shall be destroyed. In the verse immediately following this prediction, his disciples say: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

But even if this so-called prophecy had referred to this event it is rendered nugatory by the fact that the book containing it was not composed until a hundred years after the destruction of the temple.

When was Christ’s second coming and the end of terrestrial things to take place?

“There be some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew xvi, 28).

“This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled” (Luke xxi, 32).

Seventy-five generations have passed, and still the world rolls on, unmoved by Christ’s and Mother Shipton’s prophecies.

Did the Apostles believe that the second coming of Christ and the end of the world were at hand?

Peter: “The end of all things is at hand” (1 Peter iv, 7).

James: “The coming of the Lord draweth nigh” (James v, 8).

John: “Ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists: [355]whereby we know that it is the last time” (1 John ii, 18).

Paul: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians iv, 16, 17).

Renan, ever ready to palliate or overlook the errors of his hero, frankly admits that the predictions concerning his second advent and the end of the world were a dismal failure. “It is evident, indeed,” he says, “that such a doctrine, taken by itself in a literal manner, had no future. The world, in continuing to exist, caused it to crumble. One generation of man at the most was the limit of its endurance. The faith of the first Christian generation is intelligible, but the faith of the second generation is no longer so. After the death of John, or of the last survivor, whoever he might be, of the group which had seen the master, the word of Jesus was convicted of falsehood” (Life of Jesus, pp. 203, 204).

To what extent was the gospel to be preached before his second coming?

“Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come” (Matthew x, 23). [356]

“The gospel must first be published among all nations” (Mark xiii, 10).

Did Jesus claim to be the Christ or Messiah from the first?

John: He did. Early in his ministry “The woman [of Samaria] saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he” (iv, 25, 26).

Synoptics: He did not announce his Messiahship until late in his ministry.

Who where the first to recognize his divinity?

Synoptics: Devils and unclean spirits (Matthew viii, 28, 29; Mark iii, 11, 12; Luke iv, 41).

What is said of Jesus in Hebrews?

“Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels” (ii, 9).

“Being made so much better than the angels” (i, 4).

What did he say respecting his identity with God?

“My Father and I are one” (John x, 30).

“My Father is greater than I” (xiv, 28).

How did he attempt to establish his claims?

“It is also written in your law, that the testimony [357]of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me” (John viii, 17, 18).

But if “I and my Father are one,” how does that fulfill the law?

What did he say regarding the truthfulness of his testimony concerning himself?

“Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true” (John viii, 14).

“If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true” (v. 31).

Did Jesus’ neighbors believe in his divinity?

Matthew: “When he was come into his own country,” and to his own home, “He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief” (xiii, 54, 58).

What opinion did his friends entertain of him?

Mark: “And when his friends heard of it [his work], they went out to lay hold on him; for they said, He is beside himself” (iii, 21).

Did even his brothers believe in him?

John: “Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. [358]If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him” (vii, 2–5).

These three passages are fatal to the claim of Christ’s divinity. If he was unable to convince his neighbors, his friends, or even his own family of his divinity he was not divine. Much less was he the “very God,” as claimed.

According to the Christian scheme, man by his disobedience fell—was lost. God desired to save him. Christ—God manifest in the flesh—came on earth for this purpose. What was required of man to secure salvation? Simply to believe that Jesus was the Christ. In order for him to believe this what was necessary? That Jesus should convince him that he was divine. If he was all-powerful he could have done this; if he was all-just he would have done this. Did he do this? His own race rejected him. Disbelief in Christ’s divinity disproves his divinity.

The writings of the New Testament are adduced as the evidences of Christ’s divinity and the divine character of Christianity. Do the writers of the New Testament claim to be inspired?

With the possible exception of the author of Revelation, they do not. Paul says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” But the “scripture” of Paul was the scripture of the Old Testament. His words have no reference whatever [359]to the writings of the New which did not exist in his time.

If the New Testament is not inspired and infallible, what follows?

“If the New Testament is defective the church itself is in error, and must be given up as a deception.”—Dr. Tischendorf.

“It is not a word too much to say that the New Testament abounds with errors.”—Dean Alford.

What is said of the Apocryphal Gospels which appeared in the early ages of the church?

“Several histories of his [Christ’s] life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose intentions perhaps were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all; productions appeared which were imposed upon the world by fraudulent men, as the writings of the holy Apostles.”—Mosheim.

Is the above less true of the books we are reviewing? Are not these writings “full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders”? Do not these writings display “the greatest superstition and ignorance”? Have not these writings been “imposed upon the world by fraudulent men, as the writings of the holy (?) Apostles”?

If some of these apocryphal Gospels had been accepted as canonical, and the canonical Gospels [360]had been rejected as apocryphal, these canonical Gospels would appear as untruthful and foolish to Christians as the apocryphal Gospels do.

Let us examine the religious teachings ascribed to Christ. For what purpose was his blood shed?

“This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many” (Mark xiv, 24).

“This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke xxii, 20).

“This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Matthew xxvi, 28).

The above is one of the most significant discrepancies in the Bible. The Atonement is the chief doctrine connected with Christ and orthodox Christianity. The text quoted from Matthew is the only text in the Four Gospels which clearly teaches this doctrine. Two other texts (Matthew xx, 28; John i, 29) are adduced in support of it, but do not clearly teach it. Now Matthew has falsely ascribed to Jesus the revelation of the Atonement, or Mark and Luke have either ignorantly or intentionally omitted this greatest of Christian doctrines. They contain no mention of the Atonement as understood by orthodox Christians.

For whom did he say his blood was shed?

“This is my blood of the New Testament, [361]which is shed for many [interpreted by the church to mean all mankind]” (Mark xiv, 24).

“This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you [addressed to his disciples alone]” (Luke xxii, 20).

Was his blood really shed?

The crucifixion was not a bloody death, and aside from the self-confuted story of John about blood and water flowing from his corpse, the Evangelists do not state that a drop of blood was shed.

Christ, it is affirmed, was both God and man. Was it the human, or the divine part of him that suffered death?

If only the human, this sacrifice was not an exceptional one, for thousands have died for their fellow men. If the divine part was sacrificed does God cease to exist?

His death is called an infinite sacrifice. If only the man died can this be true?

The offering of a finite being, it must be admitted, would not constitute an infinite sacrifice.

If the God was crucified does he suffer endless pain?

If not, then his suffering was not infinite, and the sacrifice in this case was not an infinite one. [362]

If God died, but subsequently rose from the dead, was there not an interregnum when the universe was without a ruler?

If so, then it must be conceded that the existence of the universe is not dependent upon the existence of God.

Are all mankind to be saved by Christ?

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me” (John xii, 32).

“Many be called but few chosen” (Matthew xx, 16).

What does Paul affirm concerning the Atonement?

“Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians xv, 3).

By “scriptures” Paul means the Old Testament, and according to the scriptures of the Old Testament, “Every man shall be put to death for his own sins” (Deuteronomy xxiv, 16).

Like nearly all the doctrines ascribed to Christ, the atonement is in the highest degree unjust and absurd. Referring to this doctrine, Lord Byron says: “The basis of your religion is injustice. The Son of God, the pure, the immaculate, the innocent, is sacrificed for the guilty. This proves his heroism, but no more does away with man’s sin than a schoolboy’s [363]volunteering to be flogged for another would exculpate a dunce from negligence.”

Greg justly charges Christians with “holding the strangely inconsistent doctrine that God is so just that he could not let sin go unpunished, yet so unjust that he could punish it in the person of the innocent.” “It is for orthodox dialectics,” he says, “to explain how Divine Justice can be impugned by pardoning the guilty, and yet vindicated by punishing the innocent!” (Creed of Christendom, pp. 338, 339.)

It is claimed that the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. Through whom was this sacrifice secured?

All: Judas Iscariot procured it, and Pilate and the Jews offered it.

Are not Christians, then, in condemning these men, ungrateful to their greatest benefactors? A man is dangerously ill. The druggist provides a remedy, the physician administers it and saves his life. When restored does he show his gratitude by praising the drug and damning the doctor?

In permitting the crucifixion of Jesus, who committed the greater sin, Pilate or God?

John: “Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he [God] that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin” (xix, 11). [364]

Hon. Allan L. McDermott, in his memorable speech in Congress, in 1906, protesting against the persecution of Jews by Christians, said: “If an omnipotent God orders anything done, the human instruments selected to carry out his orders cannot be charged with the acts commanded. The doctrine of repondeat superior applies. If what happened could have been prevented by the Romans or by the Jews, then the New Testament is worthless. Let us assume that the Jews crucified Christ. Could they have done otherwise? Were they greater than God? According to the Bible, the crucifixion was arranged for by the Father. Why blame the Jews or the Romans or any other mortals? They did not know what they were doing. The Roman soldiers did not believe that they were crucifying the son of God; they did not know they were crucifying God himself. Why blame the instruments? Why persecute the descendants? According to the Synoptic Gospels and according to John, the arrangements for the crucifixion—every detail—were made by Almighty God, and were known to Christ.”

What was the character of his death?

Homicide. “Jesus of Nazareth, a man ... ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts ii, 22, 23).

Regicide. “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David” (Luke i, 32)[365]. “This is the King of the Jews” (xxiii, 38). “There they crucified him” (33).

Deicide. “The Word [Christ] was God” (John i, 1). “I and my Father are one” (x, 30). “They crucified him” (xix, 18).

Suicide. “I [Christ] lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself” (John x, 17, 18).

What did Jesus teach respecting the resurrection of the dead and the doctrine of immortality?

“For the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth” (John v, 28, 29).

“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life” (39).

“As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.”—Job (vii, 9).

“His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.”—Psalms (cxlvi, 4).

“For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts.... As one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, so that man hath no preeminence over a beast.”—Ecclesiastes (iii, 19).

His resurrection is accepted by Christians as a proof and type of man’s resurrection and immortality. [366]What was the nature of his resurrection?

According to all of the Evangelists it was merely a reanimation of his undecayed body. Other bodies supposedly dead have been revived, but neither these resuscitations nor the supposed reanimation of Jesus’ corpse affords proof that bodies which ages ago crumbled into dust and whose particles subsequently entered into the composition of myriads of other bodies will be reunited into the original beings. And as Jesus almost immediately disappeared after his alleged resurrection and has never since been seen this resurrection did not evince his own immortality, much less that of mankind in general.

Did Christ descend into hell?

Peter: He did (Acts ii, 31; 1 Peter iii, 19).

Peter states that “his soul was not left in hell,” which necessitates the assumption of his having gone there. He also declares that after his death he “went and preached unto the spirits in prison [hell].”

The Confession of Faith (Art. III) says: “As Christ died for us, and was buried; so also is it to be believed that he went down into hell.”

For what purpose did Christ descend into hell and preach to its inhabitants? If it was to redeem them his mission was fruitless; if it was not to redeem them his mission was useless.

Early Christian writers almost uniformly [367]spelled the name of Christ, not “Christos” (the Anointed), but “Chrestos.” Chrestos was a Pagan name given to the judge of Hades in the lower world.

What is taught regarding justification by faith and justification by works?

Paul: “A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, ... for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Galatians ii, 16). “If righteousness come by the law then Christ is dead in vain” (21). “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans iv, 5). “Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (iii, 28).

James: “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (ii, 20). “Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (24).

The church accepts the teachings of Paul and condemns or ignores the teachings of James. Martin Luther, in his “Table Talk,” thus defines the position of the Protestant church: “He that says the gospel requires works for salvation, I say flat and plain he is a liar.” “Every doer of the law and every moral worker is accursed, for he walketh in the presumption of his own righteousness.” “If men only believe enough in Christ they can commit adultery and murder a thousand [368]times a day without periling their salvation.” Luther rejected and denounced the book of James because it teaches the efficacy of good works.

The English “Confession of Faith” affirms the following: “That we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort” (Art. XI). “Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of the Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ.... Yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin” (Art. XIII).

—Robert Burns.

What does Christ teach regarding salvation?

“Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (John xi, 26).

“He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already” (iii, 18).

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life” (36).

A demand so preposterous could have been made only in support of claims that were realized to be untenable. Credulity was appealed to because convincing evidence could not be adduced. Claims which reason rejects are manifestly false, and it is only by a renunciation of reason that they can be accepted as true.

The absurdity of this requirement of Christ is thus exposed by the poet Shelley: “This is the pivot upon which all religions turn; they all assume that it is in our power to believe or not to believe: whereas the mind can only believe that which it thinks true. A human being can only be supposed accountable for those actions which are influenced by his will. But belief is utterly distinct from and unconnected with volition: it is the apprehension of the agreement or disagreement of the ideas that compose any proposition. [370]Belief is a passion or involuntary operation of the mind, and, like other passions, its intensity is precisely proportionate to the degree of excitement. Volition is essential to merit or demerit. But the Christian religion attaches the highest possible degree of merit and demerit to that which is worthy of neither, and which is totally unconnected with the peculiar faculty of the mind whose presence is essential to their being” (Notes to Queen Mab).

Did Christ abrogate the Mosaic law?