Part 127 (1/2)

What had been said to have been done in _India_, was said by these ”half-Jews” to have been done in _Palestine_; the change of names and places, with the mixing up of various sketches of the Egyptian, Persian, Phenician, Greek and Roman mythology, was all that was necessary. They had an abundance of material, and with it they built. The foundation upon which they built was undoubtedly the ”_Scriptures_,” or Diegesis, of the Essenes in Alexandria in Egypt, which fact led Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian--”without whom,” says Tillemont, ”we should scarce have had any knowledge of the history of the first ages of Christianity, or of the authors who wrote in that time”--to say that the sacred writings used by this sect were none other than ”_Our Gospels_.”

We offer below a few of the many proofs showing the Gospels to have been written a long time after the events narrated are said to have occurred, and by persons unacquainted with the country of which they wrote.

”He (Jesus) came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis,” is an a.s.sertion made by the Mark narrator (vii.

31), when there were no coasts of Decapolis, nor was the name so much as known before the reign of the emperor Nero.

Again, ”He (Jesus) departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan,” is an a.s.sertion made by the Matthew narrator (xix. 1), when the Jordan itself was the eastern boundary of Judea, and there were no coasts of Judea beyond it.

Again, ”But when he (Joseph) heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither, notwithstanding, being warned of G.o.d in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee, and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene,” is another a.s.sertion made by the Matthew narrator (ii. 22, 23), when--1. It was a son of Herod who reigned in Galilee as well as Judea, so that he could not be more secure in one province than in the other; and when--2. It was impossible for him to have gone from Egypt to Nazareth, without traveling through the whole extent of Archelaus's kingdom, or making a peregrination through the deserts on the north and east of the Lake Asphalt.i.tes, and the country of Moab; and then, either crossing the Jordan into Samaria or the Lake of Gennesareth into Galilee, and from thence going to the city of Nazareth, which is no better geography, than if one should describe a person as _turning aside_ from Cheapside into the parts of Yorks.h.i.+re; and when--3. There were no prophets whatever who had prophesied that Jesus ”_should be called a Nazarene_.”

The Matthew narrator (iv. 13) states that ”He departed into Galilee, and leaving Nazareth, came and dwelt in Capernaum,” as if he imagined that the city of Nazareth was not as properly in Galilee as Capernaum was; which is much such geographical accuracy, as if one should relate the travels of a hero, who departed into Middles.e.x, and leaving London, came and dwelt in Lombard street.[461:1]

There are many other falsehoods in gospel geography beside these, which, it is needless to mention, plainly show that the writers were not the persons they are generally supposed to be.

Of gospel statistics there are many falsehoods; among them may be mentioned the following:

”Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of G.o.d came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness,” is an a.s.sertion made by the Luke narrator (Luke iii. 2); when all Jews, or persons living among them, must have known that there never was but _one_ high priest at a time, as with ourselves there is but one mayor of a city.

Again we read (John vii. 52), ”Search (the Scriptures) and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,” when the most distinguished of the Jewish prophets--Nahum and Jonah--were both Galileans.

See reference in the Epistles to ”_Saints_,” a religious order, owing its origin to the popes. Also, references to the distinct orders of ”_Bishops_,” ”_Priests_,” and ”_Deacons_,” and calls to a monastic life; to fasting, etc., when, the t.i.tles of ”Bishop,” ”Priest,” and ”Deacon”

were given to the Essenes--whom Eusebius calls Christians--and, as is well known, _monasteries_ were the abode of the Essenes or Therapeuts.

See the words for ”_legion_,” ”_ap.r.o.ns_,” ”_handkerchiefs_,”

”_centurion_,” etc., in the original, not being Greek, but Latin, written in Greek characters, a practice first to be found in the historian Herodian, in the third century.

In Matt. xvi. 18, and Matt. xviii. 17, the word ”_Church_” is used, and its _papistical_ and infallible authority referred to as then existing, which is known not to have existed till ages after. And the pa.s.sage in Matt. xi. 12:--”From the days of John the Baptist until _now_, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence,” etc., could not have been written till a very late period.

Luke ii. 1, shows that the writer (whoever he may have been) lived long after the events related. His dates, about the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and the government of Cyrenius (the only indications of time in the New Testament), are manifestly false. The general ignorance of the four Evangelists, not merely of the geography and statistics of Judea, but even of its language,--their egregious blunders, which no writers who had lived in that age could be conceived of as making,--prove that they were not only no such persons as those who have been willing to be deceived have taken them to be, but that they were not Jews, had never been in Palestine, and neither lived at, or at anywhere near the times to which their narratives seem to refer. The ablest divines at the present day, of all denominations, have yielded as much as this.[463:1]

The Scriptures were in the hands of the clergy only, and they had every opportunity to insert whatsoever they pleased; thus we find them full of _interpolations_. Johann Solomo Semler, one of the most influential theologians of the eighteenth century, speaking of this, says:

”The Christian doctors never brought their sacred books before the common people; although people in general have been wont to think otherwise; during the first ages, they were in the hands of the clergy only.”[463:2]

Concerning the _time_ when the canon of the New Testament was settled, Mosheim says:

”The opinions, or rather the _conjectures_, of the learned concerning the _time_ when the books of the New Testament were collected into one volume; as also about the authors of that collection, are extremely different. This important question is attended with great and almost insuperable difficulties to us in these later times.”[463:3]

The Rev. B. F. Westcott says:

”It is impossible to point to any period as marking the date at which our present canon was determined. When it first appears, it is presented not as a novelty, but as an ancient tradition.”[463:4]

Dr. Lardner says:

”Even so late as the middle of the _sixth century_, the canon of the New Testament had not been settled by any authority that was decisive and universally acknowledged, but Christian people were at liberty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of writings proposed to them as apostolical, and to determine according to evidence.”[464:1]

The learned Michaelis says:

”No ma.n.u.script of the New Testament now extant is prior to the _sixth century_, and what is to be lamented, various readings which, as appears from the quotations of the Fathers, were in the text of the Greek Testament, are to be found in none of the ma.n.u.scripts which are at present remaining.”[464:2]