The documents containing the story of Jesus are so unlike
those about Lincoln or any other historical character, that we must
be doubly vigilant in our investigation
The Christians rely mainly on the four Gospels for the
historicity of Jesus. But the original documents of which the books
in the New Testament are claimed to be faithful copies are not in
existence. There is absolutely no evidence that they ever were in
existence. This is a statement which can not be controverted. Is it
conceivable that the early believers lost through carelessness or
purposely every document written by an apostle, while guarding with
all protecting jealousy and zeal the writings of anonymous persons?
Is there any valid reason why the contributions to Christian
literature of an inspired apostle should perish while those of a
nameless scribe are preserved, why the original Gospel of Matthew
should drop quietly out of sight, no one knows how, while a
supposed copy of it in an alien language is preserved for many
centuries? Jesus himself, it is admitted, did not write a single
line. He bad come, according to popular belief, to reveal the will
of God -- a most important mission indeed, and yet he not only did
not put this revelation in writing during his lifetime, and with
his own hand, which it is natural to suppose that a divine teacher,
expressly come from heaven, would have done, but he left this all-
important duty to anonymous chroniclers, who, naturally, made
enough mistakes to split up Christendom into innumerable factions.
It is worth a moment's pause to think of the persecutions, the
cruel wars, and the centuries of hatred and bitterness which would
have been spared our unfortunate humanity, if Jesus himself had
written down his message in the clearest and plainest manner,
instead of leaving it to his supposed disciples to publish it to
the world, when he could no longer correct their mistakes.<P>
Moreover, not only did Jesus not write himself, but he has not
even taken any pains to preserve the writings of his "apostles." It
is well known that the original manuscripts, if there were any, are
nowhere to be found. This is a grave matter. We have only supposed
copies of supposed original manuscripts. Who copied them? When were
they copied? How can we be sure that these copies are reliable? And
why are there thousands upon thousands of various readings in these
numerous supposed copies? What means have we of deciding which
version or reading to accept? Is it possible that as the result of
Jesus' advent into our world, we have only a basketful of nameless
and dateless copies and documents? Is it conceivable, I ask, that
a God would send his Son to us, and then leave us to wander through
a pile of dusty manuscripts to find out why He sent His Son, and
what He taught when on earth?
The only answer the Christian church can give to this question
is that the original writings were purposely allowed to perish.
When a precious document containing the testament of Almighty God,
and inscribed for an eternal purpose by the Holy Ghost, disappears
altogether there is absolutely no other way of accounting for its
disappearance than by saying, as we have suggested, that its divine
author must have intentionally withdrawn it from circulation. "God
moves in a mysterious way" is the last resort of the believer. This
is the one argument which is left to theology to fight science
with. Unfortunately it is an argument which would prove every cult
and "ism" under the heavens true. The Mohammedan, the Mazdaian, and
the Pagan may also fall back upon faith. There is nothing which
faith can not cover up from the light. But if a faith which ignores
evidence be not a superstition, what then is superstition?
I wonder if the Catholic Church, which pretends to believe --
and which derives quite an income from the belief -- that God has
miraculously preserved the wood of the cross, the Holy Sepulchre,
in Jerusalem, the coat of Jesus, and quite a number of other
mementos, can explain why the original manuscripts were lost. I
have a suspicion that there were no "original" manuscripts. I am
not sure of this, of course, but if nails, bones and holy places
could be miraculously preserved, why not also manuscripts? It is
reasonable to suppose that the Deity would not have permitted the
most important documents containing His Revelation to drop into
some hole and disappear, or to be gnawed into dust by the insects,
after having had them written by special inspiration.
Again, when these documents, such as we find them, are
examined, it will be observed that, even in the most elementary
intelligence which they pretend to furnish, they are hopelessly at
variance with one another. It is, for example, utterly impossible
to reconcile Matthew's genealogy of Jesus with the one given by
Luke. In copying the names of the supposed ancestors of Jesus they
tamper with the list as given in book of Chronicles, in the Old
Testament, and thereby justly expose themselves to the charge of
bad faith. One evangelist says Jesus was descended from Solomon,
born of "her that had been the wife of Urias." It will be
remembered that David ordered Urias killed in a cowardly manner,
that may marry his widow, whom he coveted. According to Matthew,
Jesus is one of the offspring of this adulterous relation.
According to Luke, it is not through Solomon, but through
Nathan, that Jesus is connected with the house of David.
Again, Luke tells us that the name of the father of Joseph was
Heli; Matthew says it was Jacob. If the writers of the gospels were
contemporaries of Joseph they could have easily learned the exact
name of his father.
Again, why do these biographers of Jesus give us the genealogy
of Joseph if he was not the father of Jesus? It is the genealogy of
Mary which they should have given to prove the descent of Jesus
from the house of David, and not that of Joseph. These
irreconcilable differences between Luke, Matthew and the other
evangelists, go to prove that these authors possessed no reliable
information concerning the subjects they were writing about. For if
Jesus is a historical character, and these biographers were really
his immediate associates, and were inspired besides, how are we to
explain their blunders and contradictions about his genealogy?
A good illustration of the mythical or unhistorical character
of the New Testament is furnished by the story of John the Baptist.
He is first represented as confessing publicly that Jesus is the
Christ; that he himself is not worthy to unloose the latchet of his
shoes; and that Jesus is the Lamb of God, "who taketh away the sins
of the. world." John was also present, the gospels say, when the
heavens opened and a dove descended on Jesus' head, and he heard
the voice from the skies, crying: "He is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased."
Is it possible that, a few chapters later, this same John
forgets his public confession, -- the dove and the voice from
heaven, -- and actually sends two of his disciples to find out who
this Jesus is. [Matthew xi.] The only way we can account for such
strange conduct is that the compiler or editor in question had two
different myths or stories before him, and he wished to use them
both.
I'm sure out of context does not apply. The verses quoted above are from the bible and not a local group of Christian persecutors.
Now what other lame excuse can you "Devout Christians" answer for bewildered Sam who cannot read both as truth. |
