Chapter V: The Ministry of Christ (2)

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).

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."

171

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.)

172

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 of Galilee is represented as entertaining the Christian doctrine of a bodily resurrection.

173

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 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).

174

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."

175

What is said of the numbers baptized by 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.

176

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).

177

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).

178

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 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.

179

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).

180

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.

181

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 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.

182

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).

183

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 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."

184

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.

185

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 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.

186

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.

187

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.

188

What is the meaning of the word "Siloam"?

John: "Which is by interpretation, 'Sent'" (ix, 7).

Which is not by interpretation "sent," but "aqueduct."

189

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).

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

190

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).

191

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.

192

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."

193

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).

194

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).

195

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

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).

196

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).

197

When did the Transfiguration take place?

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).

198

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).

199

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).

200

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 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.

201

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, no dependence whatever can be placed upon the former" (Life of Jesus, pp. 259-263).

202

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

Matthew. Exodus.

"And after six days Jesus taketh "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Peter, James, and John his Nadab and Abihu" (xxiv, 9). brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart, "And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount. "And was transfigured before them, and his face did shine as the sun, "And the glory of the Lord abode and his raiment was white as the upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud light" (xvii, 1, 2). covered it six days; and the seventh day he called unto Moses "While he yet spake, behold, a out of the midst of the cloud. bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold a voice out of the "And the sight of the glory of the cloud," etc. (5). Lord was like devouring fire" (15-17).

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.

203

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.

204

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).

205

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 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).

206

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 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.

207

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.

208

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."

209

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.

210

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).

211

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

Mark: "Blind Bartimeus, the son of Timeus, 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).

212

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."

213

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).

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.

214

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.

215

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.

216

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.

217

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 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; 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 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.

218

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).

219

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 to play a sharp game on Jesus, and get a first mortgage on his Father's throne.

220

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."

221

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).

222

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).

223

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

Matthew: "His servants" (3).

Luke: "His servant" (17).

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

224

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).

225

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.

226

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 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.

227

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).

228

What happened to the servants?

Matthew and Mark: Some of them were killed.

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

229

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).

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

230

What was their gain?

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

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

231

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).

232

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).

233

In the lawyer's interview with Jesus, who was 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).

234

"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).

235

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).

236

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).

237

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).

238

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, 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.

239

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.

240

When did Jesus purge the temple?

Synoptics: At the close of his ministry, a few 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.

241

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).

242

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).

243

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--creating a tree to bear fruit in the summer and cursing it for not bearing in the spring!

244

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).

245

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 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.

246

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.

247

Where did she put the ointment?

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).

248

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).

249

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).

250

Who was Simon?

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

Luke: A Pharisee (vii, 39-40).

251

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).

252

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).

253

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.

254

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."

255

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. "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."

256

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 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 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).

257

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 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 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).

258

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 each is said to have been performed immediately after supper.

259

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.