W. S. Bell

“Matthew (1: 17) says, ‘So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.’

“Luke (3: 23–38) relates Christ’s genealogy, and gives forty-three generations between David and Christ, these two persons being included. Here then in the genealogy of the same person is an utterly irreconcilable discrepancy of fifteen generations. This is truly a bad beginning. Although these two accounts may both be false they cannot possibly both be true. If ‘all the generations,’ from David to Jesus, were only ‘twenty-eight,’ as given by Matthew, there could not possibly have been at the same time, ‘forty-three’ of them as given by Luke. The case becomes much worse, however, when we discover that, with the exception of Jesus, Joseph, and David, these two authors give entirely different sets of men. Since it is utterly impossible for the same individual to have descended through both of these lines of ancestors, it is equally impossible for both of these accounts to be true.” (J. R. Kelso’s “Bible Analyzed.”)

“On the first glance these genealogies, as given by Matthew and Luke, are so evidently different that it has been the ordinary, if not invariable practice of Christian harmonists and commentators to represent the former Evangelist as recording the descent of Joseph, while the latter Evangelist is said to have given the pedigree of Mary. We will say nothing of the plausibility of this explanation, which acknowledges the genealogies to be wholly different, and supposes they belong to two persons. Our questions must rather effect the truthfulness of this mode of explaining away the difficulty. Let the reader bear in mind how Matthew states that ‘Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,’ and how Luke’s words are ‘Joseph which was the son of Heli,’ and then let the reader say whether it is truthful to allege that these different genealogies belong to different individuals. Is it not plain that each of them professes to trace the lineal descent of one and the same man, Joseph? If we are still to be told that when Matthew professes to give the descent of Joseph, he is to be understood as giving the descent of Mary, then we simply rejoin that such an explanation is nothing more nor less than an abandonment of the idea of inspirational infallibility; for it represents the Bible as saying one thing and meaning another.” (McNaught, “Doctrine of Inspiration.”)

As to the time when Jesus was born, we have no positive information. Matthew says he was born in Herod’s time, and that Herod caused all the little children to be killed on account of him. Luke says Jesus was born in the time of Cyrenius, when Augustus CÆsar gave orders that all the people should be taxed. Now, Cyrenius succeeded Archelaus, who reigned ten years after the death of Herod. Here is a contradiction that cannot be explained away. The exact day of Herod’s death can be almost arrived at, as shown by Josephus, who says that on the night preceding the death of Herod there was an eclipse of the moon. In calculating back to the time of this eclipse, it is found to have occurred on the fourth of March, four years before Christ; another perplexing discrepancy. Matthew says he was born in the days of Herod, and John says it was in the days of Cyrenius, fourteen years afterward. Again, Mark and Luke say Jesus began to be thirty years of age in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, the very day of whose accession is known; and by counting back, we find that Jesus must have been born four years before the Christian era, which disagrees entirely with the statement of Matthew.

Professor John Fiske remarks that while the Jesus of the dogma is the best known, the Jesus of history is the least known of all the eminent names in history. “Persons who had given much attention to the subject affirmed that there were not less than one hundred and thirty-two different opinions as to the year in which the Messiah appeared.” (“Conflict Between Religion and Science,” p. 184.)

Dr. Adam Clarke, on observations of Luke 2: 8, in his Commentary says: “The nativity of Jesus in December should be given up. The Egyptians placed it in January; Wagenseil in February; Bochart in March. Some mentioned by Clemens Alexandrine in April; others in May. Epiphanius speaks of some who placed it in June, and others supposed it to have been in July. Wagenseil, who was not sure of February, fixed it as probably in August; Lightfoot on the fifteenth of September. But the Latin church [Catholic], supreme in power and infallible in judgment, placed it on the twenty-fifth of December, the very day on which the ancient Romans celebrated the feast of their goddess, Bruma. Pope Julius I. (in the fourth century) made the first alteration, and it appears to have been done for this reason.” The Christians often aim to make an argument that the chronology of the Christian era is established by the confirmation that is given by the years being numbered from the supposed birth of Jesus, but it is no proof at all. The idea of counting the years from the advent of Jesus was not thought of for several centuries after the time when the vague legends said he was supposed to have lived. The plan of numbering the years from that apocryphal event was first invented by a monk, Dionysius Exiguus, about 530 after Christ. It was introduced into Italy not long afterward, and was propagated by Bede, who died in 735. It was ordered to be used by the bishops in the Council of Chalcedon in 816, but it was not generally employed for several centuries afterward. It was not legalized until the year 1000. Charles III. of Germany was the first sovereign who added “In the year of our Lord” to his reign, in 879. (See Haydn’s Dictionary of Dates, and Encyclopedia of Chronology.)

Now, in recapitulation, let us see how much, by the common sense method of interpreting the gospels, we have been forced to reject as incredible.

First, we have seen that Joseph’s dream concerning the immaculate conception was, after all, only a dream, and that wonderful dreams are not uncommon; Samson’s mother having had one which is so identical with Joseph’s, that we are persuaded that the dream of the latter is but a copy of the dream of the former; that almost all men of distinction in ancient times were reported to have had wonderful prodigies attending their conception and birth,—and that there is no evidence in the gospels of the resurrection of Jesus. Paul saw him in a vision, that is, in his mind’s eye, but does not claim to have seen him in the flesh. And of the ascension, it is a self-evident fiction.

The miracles are not only incredible from their being incompatible with and contrary to human experience, but the manner in which they are related proves that they never were performed. (See “Miracles.”) And concerning the moral teachings of Jesus we find great imperfection. He did not come to save all men, but only the lost sheep of the house of Israel; he taught that the end of the world was nigh at hand, when a great physical revolution should usher in the kingdom of heaven, but it did not come. We find also that Jesus did not respect the rights of property; that he despised this world; that he condemned the rich because they were rich, and made great promises to the poor because they were poor; that he professed to pardon sin, and on one occasion pardoned a person’s sins for washing his feet; that he exhibited an imperfect sense of justice in a great many instances; and, lastly, we find that there is no history of him excepting the gospels, and in these there is no unquestionable record of the time when or the place where he was born. We are forced to conclude that if ever there was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, we have no trustworthy sources of positive knowledge concerning him.

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” (Mat. 1: 18–20.)

“Before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost.”

1. How could any one but Mary say who the father of the child was?

2. If the conception was miraculous then neither Mary nor any one else could know ought of the paternity of the child.

3. Mary says nothing about the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost.

4. Who found out that Joseph had had such a dream?

5. Was it duly reported and verified then and there?

6. The book that relates the dream is anonymous and does not appear in history until A. D. 180–182.

7. The writers of the other three gospels know nothing of this dream.

8. There is no evidence that the writer of the first gospel ever personally knew Mary.

9. Luke (1: 30) says that it was to Mary that the angel of the Lord appeared.

10. Only a dream! The corner-stone of Christianity rests upon a dream! Take away this dream and Christianity has nothing left.

The moral teachings of the Bible are not original. Back of the pyramids in pre-historic times mothers taught their children to be kind to each other. Not from heaven but out of the human heart came the golden rule. A mother’s love was sufficient to reveal this best rule of life. Human inspiration is the only inspiration needed to call forth the expression—“Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you.”

Sixty years before the Christian era, Hellel, a Jewish rabbi wrote: “Do not do to others, what you would not like others to do to you.”

Two hundred and eighty years before Christ, Epicurus said: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Three hundred and fifty years before Christ, Socrates said: “Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you.”

Three hundred and seventy years before Christ, Aristippus said: “Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another’s welfare as your own.”

Three hundred and eighty-five years before Christ, Aristotle wrote: “We should conduct ourselves toward others, as we would have them act toward us.”

Four hundred years before Christ, Sextus said: “What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them.”

Four hundred and twenty years before Christ, Plato wrote: “May I do to others as I would have them do to me.”

Five hundred years before Christ, Confucius taught: “Do unto another what you would have him do to you, and do not to another what you would not have him do unto you: it is the foundation principle of all the rest.” (24th Maxim Confucius.) Jesus concludes by saying, “For this is the law and the prophets,” and Confucius closes his rule by observing, “Thou only needst this law alone; it is the foundation and principle of all the rest.”

And it should not be overlooked that Jesus, in thus attributing the golden rule to “the law and the prophets,” disclaims its authorship. Confucius does the same.

Six hundred years before Christ, Thales said: “Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.”

Six hundred and fifty years before Christ, Pittacus taught: “Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.”

“That the system of morals propounded in the New Testament contains no maxim which had not been previously enunciated, and that some of the most beautiful passages in the apostolic writings are quotations from Pagan authors, are well known to every scholar; and so far from supplying, as some suppose, an objection against Christianity, it is a strong recommendation of it, as indicating the intimate relation between the doctrines of Christ and the moral sympathies of mankind in different ages. But to assert that Christianity communicated to man moral truths previously unknown, argues on the part of the assertor, either gross ignorance or else wilful fraud.” (Buckle, “History of Civilization,” vol. 1, p. 129.)

“Did space admit, I could cite numerous passages from Enoch in close correspondence with the New Testament scripture, in many cases almost word for word. In that book, as in the Talmud, and as was held by the Jews in general (saving the Sadducees), may be found the exact doctrines taught by Jesus relative to the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, the resurrection of the dead, the day of judgment, the punishment of the wicked in everlasting fire, and the reward of the righteous in heaven. The eschatology of Jesus is borrowed in toto from that prevalent in Judea during his lifetime. Not one single new idea respecting the ‘four final things,’ death, judgment, heaven, and hell, can be found in Jesus’ teachings as embodied in the gospels.”—Wm. Emmette Coleman.

“Of the resemblance between the Essenes and the followers of Christ in their principles and practices, I will let a Christian writer speak—Christian D. Ginsburg, LL. D., who is a leading contributor to Alexander’s new edition of Kitto’s Cyclopedia, the most orthodox of the chief English Bible dictionaries. I will read a few extracts from an essay entitled, ‘The Essenes Their History and Doctrines.’ Dr. Ginsburg says: ‘The identity of many of the precepts and practices of Essenism and Christianity is unquestionable. Essenism urged on its disciples to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; so did Christ. (Mat. 6: 33, and Luke 12: 31.) The Essenes forbade the laying up of treasures upon earth; so did Christ. (Mat. 6: 19, 21.) The Essenes demanded of those who wished to join them, to sell all their possessions, and to divide it among the poor brethren; so Christ. (Mat. 19: 21, and Luke 12: 33.) The Essenes had all things in common, and appointed one of the brethren as steward to manage the common bag; so the primitive Christians. (Acts 2: 44, 45; 4: 32, 34, and John 12: 6; 13: 29.) Essenism regarded all its members on the same level, forbidding the exercise of authority of one over the other, and enjoining mutual service; so Christ. (Mat. 20: 25–28, and Mark 9: 35, 37; 10: 42, 45.) Essenism commanded its disciples to call no man master upon the earth; so Christ. (Mat. 23: 8, 9.) Essenism laid the greatest stress on being meek and lowly in spirit; so Christ. (Mat. 5: 5, 29.)

‘Christ commended the poor in spirit, those who hunger after righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart and the peacemakers; so the Essenes.... Christ combined the healing of the body with that of the soul; so the Essenes. Like the Essenes, Christ declared that the power to cast out evil spirits, to perform miraculous cures, etc., should be possessed by his disciples as signs of their belief. (Mark 16: 17; comp. also Mat. 10: 8, and Luke 9: 1, 2; 10: 9.) Like the Essenes, Christ commanded his disciples not to swear at all, but to say yea, yea, and nay, nay. The manner in which Christ directed his disciples to go on their journey (Mat. 10: 9, 10) is the same which the Essenes adopted when they started on a mission of mercy. The Essenes, though repudiating offensive war, yet took weapons with them when they went on a perilous journey: Christ enjoined his disciples to do the same thing. (Luke 22: 36.) Christ commended that elevated spiritual life, which enables a man to abstain from marriage for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, and which cannot be attained by all men save those to whom it is given (Mat. 19: 10–12; comp. also 1 Cor. 8); so the Essenes, who, as a body, in waiting for the kingdom of heaven, abstained from connubial intercourse. The Essenes did not offer animal sacrifices, but strove to present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable, unto God, which they regarded as a reasonable service; the apostle Paul exhorts the Romans to do the same. (Rom. 12: 1.) It was the great aim of the Essenes to live such a life of purity and holiness as to be the temples of the holy spirit and to be able to prophesy; the apostle Paul urges the Corinthians to covet to prophesy. (1 Cor. 14: 1, 39.) When Christ pronounced John to be Elias (Mat. 11: 14), he declared that the Baptist had already attained to that spirit and power which the Essenes strove to obtain in their highest stage of purity. It will therefore hardly be doubted that our Savior himself belonged to this holy brotherhood. This will especially be apparent when we remember that the whole Jewish community, at the advent of Christ, was divided into three parties, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, and that every Jew had to belong to one of these sects. Jesus, who in all things conformed to Jewish law, who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, would naturally associate himself with that order of Judaism which was most congenial to his holy nature. Moreover, the fact that Christ, with the exception of once, was not heard of in public till his thirtieth year, implying that he lived in seclusion with this fraternity, and that though he frequently rebuked the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, he never denounced the Essenes, strongly confirms this conclusion.... The accounts given by Josephus first mentioned their existence in the days of Jonathan the Maccabaean, B. C. 166; and they most unquestionably show that the Essenes existed at least two centuries before the Christian era, and that they at first lived among the Jewish community at large. Their residence at Jerusalem is also evident from the fact that there was a gate named after them. When they ultimately withdrew themselves from the rest of the Jewish nation, the majority of them settled on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, sufficiently distant to escape its noxious exhalations, and the rest lived in scattered communities throughout Palestine and Syria. Both Philo and Josephus estimated them to be above four thousand in number. This must have been exclusive of women and children. We hear very little of them after this period (that is, 40 A. D.); and there can hardly be any doubt that, owing to the great similarity which existed between their precepts and practices, and those of the primitive Christians, the Essenes, as a body, must have embraced Christianity.’”—Underwood, in Underwood-Marples Debate.

1. Jesus failed to explicitly teach any of the cardinal human virtues. If he taught kindness and forgiveness it was usually at the expense of justice.

2. He nowhere explains and inspires self-reliance and individual liberty.

3. He nowhere condemns kingcraft, priestcraft and tyranny. He opposes their abuses, but not the radical evils out of which they spring.

4. He has no just ideas of marriage and divorce.

5. He nowhere explains the nature of heaven and hell.

6. He does not teach the value of economy and thrift, but turns people loose with the notion that they must take no thought for the morrow.

The following saying of Jesus exhibits the lack of a high moral sense of justice, and also the fact that he does not pretend to be the savior of the whole human race. He said to his own countrymen: “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them. (Mark 4: 11.)

From this we learn that Jesus did not desire to save the Gentiles; the parabolical style was used in order to prevent them from becoming converted and having their sins pardoned.

In addition to this imperfection of the moral sense, Jesus was sometimes unforgiving in his spirit and practice. He says on one occasion: “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my father which is in heaven.” (Mat. 10: 33.)

It is true that he taught his disciples to love their enemies, but it is a precept he did not observe himself; he allowed himself to speak of those who did not accept his teachings as, “fools,” “hypocrites,” “thieves,” “serpents,” “vipers,” and many other abusive epithets, which clearly exhibit on his part anger and hatred. We have another instance of his unforgiving spirit in that myth of the dying thief on the cross. It is there recorded that Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of his enemies, but had he been consistent with that prayer, he would not have pardoned one thief without also pardoning the other. When he could ask God to forgive his enemies, it would have been demanded by his own rule, that he also forgive them; but, on the contrary, he only forgives the malefactor who spoke words in his praise. This spirit is carried out in the doctrine of future rewards and punishments.

In failing to recognize the rights of property; in his denunciation of the rich; in his teachings of submission to wrong; in his professing to pardon sin, even before it is asked for, Jesus errs. This moral sense is lacking in his teachings concerning God. Take this as an illustration: “Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him. And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.” (Luke 11: 15.)

And so it is with God, he leads us to believe, for though he is our friend he will not grant our requests; but if we annoy and tease him, at last, worn out, he will answer our prayers to get rid of us. Therefore, “Ask and it shall be given you; for every one that asketh receiveth.”

The parable of the unfortunate widow is another instance in point: “There was in a city a judge who feared not God, neither regarded man [same kind of judges in our cities now]. And there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while; but afterwards he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.” (Luke 18: 2–6.) It is just so in praying to God. He may not hear you or heed you at first, yet by a “continual coming and troubling him,” he must of necessity at last become weary and grant you the desires of your heart, in order to escape being troubled.

At one time the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus who had been taken in the act of adultery, and asked for his judgment. He said: “He that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her.” This was a well-directed rebuke, and they felt it, and they “went out one by one, beginning at the eldest even unto the last.” Then Jesus, standing alone with the woman, asks, “Woman where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more.” (John 8: 7–11.)

In all parts of the Bible adultery is condemned, and by all civil laws it is now prohibited, and all religious teaching forbids it, and there is no reason in this case why Jesus should not have condemned the act, even while he showed mercy to the actor. Here as elsewhere Jesus shows mercy at the expense of justice. Were these principles carried out in life, the criminal would go untried and unpunished.

“Go into the village over against you, and straightway you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them and bring them unto me. And if any man say aught unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them, and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass. And the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on their clothes, and set him thereon.” (Mat. 21: 2–7.)

The writer would have us believe that Jesus rode upon two asses at once; but the prophet who could invent such a story must have been an ass himself to suppose that Jesus could ride upon two donkeys of such unequal size at one time. It was not the prophet, however, who perpetrated this outrage upon common sense, but the writer of Matthew, whoever he was. Mark, Luke, and John mentioned the affair, and all agree in speaking of one ass only. Had the writer read the prophet aright, he would have quoted it differently, “Behold thy King cometh unto thee, ... lowly, and sitting upon an ass; even a colt, the foal of an ass.” (Zech. 9: 9.)

Another instance of this disregard of the interests of others is exhibited by Jesus where he casts the devils out of two men and permits them to enter the swine, “and the swine ran down a steep place into the sea and perished in the waters.” Mark (5: 12) says there were about two thousand head, but there is not a word said about the equity of the proceeding. In this case Jesus does not offer any compensation for the destruction of property which had been caused by him.

He does not make even an apology or an explanation. No wonder, then, that the people became alarmed at this and asked him to go on his journey with as little delay as possible: “The whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.” (Mat. 8: 34.)

Another instance of this lack of the sense of justice is displayed in the parable of Dives and Lazarus. The one goes to heaven, that is, to Abraham’s bosom, because he was poor, and the other to hell, because he was rich. Say what we may our civilization is built upon wealth. Civilization, the highest and noblest estate of man, is achieved by the utter repudiation of poverty. The legitimate love of money is the spur of all human progress. Civilization would speedily degenerate into barbarism if this respect for property was removed.

His views of poverty are in harmony with his teachings on other human interests: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth;” “Take no thought for the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.” How evident it is that one of the most essential virtues of life is here repudiated.

Thoughtfulness about the future is a distinguishing trait of a wise man. To take no thought for the morrow would be as foolish as for one to bind himself hand and foot on the approach of his enemy. Science inspires man with earnest inquiry about the morrow, and also enables him by his perception of it how better to live to-day.

“Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away.” (Mat. 5: 42.) Society as it now exists would not last a single day if his command were obeyed. Borrowing and lending is poor business, even as it is now carried on, but what it would become under the universal practice it would be impossible to guess.

“And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again.” (Luke 6: 34.) So impracticable a precept is this, that no people have ever practiced it, nor could it be carried out without the demoralization and overthrow of civilization.

The general doctrines of resignation and contentment are incompatible with strength of character and progress in life. The most worthy members of society everywhere are just those people who have the least resignation and contentment. Jesus does not seem to have cherished these conditions himself. He was neither contented nor resigned to the social status about him. “The powers that be” did not seem to him to be from above, but from beneath, and he accordingly waged war upon the existing social evils. But Jesus also teaches the duty of submission to wrong: “And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again.” (Luke 6: 29, 30.) Just think of it! “And of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again.” Society would be overthrown in a day if this command was carried out. We should have no commerce, no law protecting our various interests, no civilized society. Paul echoes the same notion when he says, “Now, therefore, there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” (1 Cor. 6: 7.)

Suffer yourselves to be defrauded! If human life has any virtue at all, it surely consists in some degree in doing the very opposite, that is, in not suffering ourselves to be defrauded. It is true that love seems at first sight to be an all-important virtue, and one incapable of abuse; but such love as induces us to submit to wrong is spurious. In the world as it exists about us, we are culpable when we suffer ourselves to be defrauded. The common virtues which are recognized by all men are courage and resistance to wrong. Everywhere our eyes turn, we look to see the hero who nobly resists the wrongs and frauds which the powerful perpetrate upon the weak and helpless. “Resistance to tyrants is the will of God” is the modern conception of duty. And in accordance therewith we have laws prohibiting wrong and fraud. Besides there is no manliness, self-reliance, or self-respect compatible with such craven submission, which is spiritless and purposeless. John Stuart Mill observes of Christianity: “Its ideal is negative rather than positive; passive rather than active; innocence rather than nobleness; abstinence from evil rather than energetic pursuit of good. In its precepts (as has been well said), ‘thou shalt not’ predominates over ‘thou shalt.’”

“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you nay; but rather division.” (Luke 12: 51.)

“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” (Mat. 10: 35.)

“I am come to send fire on earth; and what will I, that it be already kindled.” (Luke 12: 49.)

“For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

“The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law.” (Luke 12: 52, 53.)

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14: 26.)

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace, but a sword.” (Mat. 10: 34.)

“And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” (Mat. 10: 21.)

“And they said unto him, Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” (Luke 22: 38.)

“He that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one.” (Luke 22: 36.)

“All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers.” (John 10: 8.)

“Ye are of your father, the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” (John 8: 44.)

“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Mat. 23: 33.)

“O, generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?” (Mat. 12: 34.)

“But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan.” (Mat. 16: 23.)

“Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels.” (Mat. 25: 41.)

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16: 16.)

“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come.” (Mat. 10: 23.)

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Mat. 16: 28.)

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.

“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

“And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

“Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.” (Mat. 24: 29–34.)

“But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9: 27.)

“And he said unto them, Verily, I say unto you, That there be some of them, that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” (Mark 9: 1.)

“Now learn a parable of the fig tree: When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, Ye know that the summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily, I say unto you, That this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.” (Mark 13: 28–30.)

“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud, with power and great glory.

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads: for your redemption draweth nigh.

“And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your ownselves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand.” (Luke 21: 25–31.)

“If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee?” (John 21: 23.)

It is unnecessary to call attention to the fact that the foregoing passages imply that the end of the world was at hand. Jesus was a false prophet.

“The Jesus of the four gospels is alleged to have been God, all-wise; being hungry, he went to a fig tree, when the season of figs was not yet come. Of course there were no figs on the tree, and Jesus then caused the tree to wither away. This is an interesting account to a true orthodox trinitarian. Such a one will believe: first, that Jesus was God, who made the tree and prevented it from bearing figs; second, that, God the all-wise, who is not subject to human passions being hungry went to the fig tree, on which he knew there were no figs, expecting to find some there; third, that God the all-just then punished the tree because it did not bear figs in opposition to God’s eternal ordination.”—Charles Bradlaugh.

Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Pliny the elder, and Pliny the younger, Diogenes, Socrates, Pausanias, Suetonius, Tacitus, Adrian, Marcus Aurelius, Lucian, and others have not one word to say about it.

In answer to this a certain minister replies that: “Seneca, Diogenes, Laertes, Pausanias, Tacitus, and Marcus Aurelius, were Pagans, who certainly in works of stoic philosophy, travels, and geography would not discourse of Jesus.” In answer to this I maintain that it is altogether probable, if not certain, that some of these writers would have recorded the “darkness over all the earth,” which lasted some three hours (Luke 23: 44) and the opening of the graves out of which many of the dead came and went into the city and showed themselves unto many: besides, there were several earthquakes. (Mat. 27: 51, and 28: 2, also Acts 16: 26.) Such marvels, especially the darkness over all the earth, and the earthquakes could not have escaped the pen of all such historians and philosophers.

“Each of these philosophers (Pliny the Second and Seneca) in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses which his indefatigable curiosity could collect; neither of them has mentioned or even alluded to the miraculous darkness at the crucifixion.”—Gibbon.

Comparing now the several narratives of the resurrection with one another, we find this general result:

In Mark Jesus is said to have appeared three times.

1. To Mary Magdalene.

2. To two disciples.

3. To the disciples at meat.

Two such appearances only are recorded in Matthew:

1. To the women.

2. To the eleven in Galilee.

In Luke he appears:

1. To Cleopas and his companion.

2. To Peter.

3. To the eleven and others.

In the last chapters of John the appearances amount to four:

1. To Mary Magdalene.

2. To the disciples without Thomas.

3. To the disciples with Thomas.

4. To several disciples on the Tiberias lake.

Paul extends them to six:

1. To Peter.

2. To the twelve.

3. To more than five hundred.

4. To James.

5. To all the apostles.

6. To Paul.

“Upon this most momentous question every one of the Christian writers is at variance with every other.” (Amberley’s “Analysis of Religious Belief,” p. 273.)

They differ as to the number of women who visited the sepulcher. John mentions only one; Matthew names two, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark says there were three, the two Marys and Salome. Luke says there were more than three, the two Marys, Joanna, and certain others with them. They differ as to the number of persons in white seen at the sepulcher. Mark mentions one, “a young man.” Matthew speaks of one, an angel. Luke says there were two men, and John that there were two angels. They disagree us to what was said by the persons in white. According to Matthew and Mark, they spoke of the resurrection of Jesus and his departure into Galilee, and sent a message to his disciples commanding them to follow him thither. In Luke they simply said that he was risen, and referred to a former prediction of his to this effect. In John they simply asked Mary, “Woman! why weepest thou?”

Discrepancies as to where Jesus went after his resurrection. Matthew, dismissing Jesus from history with these words, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” (28: 19), seems to know nothing of the ascension; for it in utterly incompatible with the assumption that he is an honest and faithful historian. He could not possibly neglect recording so important an event had he known it, and the plain inference—the irresistible conclusion is that if he did not record it, it was because no such thing had occurred.

See with what brevity Mark concludes the career of Jesus. Mark gives these as the parting words of Jesus: “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” (16: 19.)

How brief is the description of this wonderful scene! No writer that had witnessed such a sight could possibly condense his thoughts and feelings concerning it into one sentence. He would have had much to say; namely, of his own thoughts and emotions on the occasion, and what other witnesses said and did at the time the event occurred. Writers who go into particulars on less marvelous affairs would not be likely to dash off the most wonderful event that had ever happened before human eyes in one sentence. The thing is utterly improbable and incredible. “He was received up into heaven” reveals the credulity and superstition of the times. How could the writer know where he had gone, if he had once passed away from his sight? Moreover, he knew nothing of a local heaven or of a personal God, yet he says that Jesus “sat (down) on the right hand of God,” as though the Infinite Power which pervades the universe had two hands and was made in the image of man!

The only rational explanation we can put upon such language is to suppose it written by one who was not present at the time referred to, but had heard of it and had undertaken to give his version of what he heard, perhaps in the attempt trying to reconcile two or three different versions of the story, and at the same time weave in his own opinion on the subject. At any rate, whoever wrote it, the writer does not claim to have been an eye-witness, and the legendary character of the account proves that the myth had been handed down to him.

Luke (24: 50, 51) says: “And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them; and it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven.” This version leaves out the sitting on the right hand of God—yet it has the same superstition of a local heaven—of which the writer speaks as if he had as positive and distinct knowledge as he claims to have of Jesus and his resurrection.

If Matthew closes without giving us anything of the after life and death of Jesus—if he breaks off abruptly without giving us any insight into the feelings of the disciples, Luke does not. He says that after they had witnessed the departure of Jesus they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. (24: 52.) But this is totally unnatural. We cannot imagine disciples rejoicing in the loss of their friend. It is not human nature to be glad on such occasions. We always grieve in parting with friends. The father grieves when he parts with his son, the mother weeps when she gives the parting kiss to her daughter. It may be said in reply that the disciples had faith that Jesus had gone to heaven. But this will not meet the difficulty, for Christian mothers believe when they part with their sweet, innocent babes that they go straight to heaven, but does this belief dry their tears or soothe their anguished hearts? No, those mothers are frequently tormented to frenzy and even madness by the intense grief occasioned by loss of their dear ones. It is human nature to grieve upon the loss of friends, but here we find disciples who do not mourn when their dearest friend has departed from them. They were glad of it, and so they “returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” Such a paragraph as this could have been inserted in the story by some subsequent writer, but never could have been written by one who had witnessed such an event. Another feature of this description, as given by Luke, is that it seems to be a slightly varied copy of the account given of Elijah. “And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that behold there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (2 Kings 2: 11.)

How closely Luke’s account seems to resemble this! “And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from them and carried up into heaven.” (Luke 24: 50, 51.) “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.” (Acts 1: 9.)

How suggestive is the fact that the writers do not undertake to tell how he was translated! The writer of the book of Kings gives us a “chariot of fire” and “a whirlwind” as the modus operandi of translating Elijah from one world to the other (?), but here there are no agencies mentioned, and so far as the writers are concerned, there seems to be nothing incomplete or unreasonable in the statements that he “was carried up into heaven,” and “was taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight.” We must suppose that persons witnessing such an extraordinary event would have some notions as to the means used in translating Jesus above the clouds, and that they could not fail to express them in giving an account of what they had seen. Their silence on this point, and the utter incredibility of the story make it apparent that the writer is merely recording myths.

The last chapters of John are silent concerning the ascension. Now, as it is generally admitted by the best biblical critics that the last twelve verses of the last chapter of Mark are spurious, we have then only one of the four biographers of Jesus who mentions the ascension. It is utterly improbable that these three other writers should deliberately refuse to give an account of the greatest event they had ever seen. We must consider the discrepancies of the writers concerning the number of days that Jesus remained on earth after his resurrection.

According to Luke’s account, he did not remain on earth one day. “To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23: 43)—that is, in heaven; see 2 Cor. 12: 4. In this same twenty-third chapter of Luke, Jesus does not ascend until the third day after his crucifixion; and in Acts 1: 3, it is recorded that he was “seen of them forty days.”

Another slight discrepancy occurs in relation to the length of time Jesus was in the grave. Matthew says (12: 40), “For as Jonas was 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.” But as Jesus was only two nights and one day in the grave there is no analogy between the two, hence the statement is radically erroneous.

An orthodox clergyman critic explains this seeming contradiction in this way: “In regard to Jesus being only one day and two nights in the grave, the very same quantity of time ‘three days and three nights,’ and which according to our computation was one whole day, parts of two others and two whole nights, is termed three days and three nights in the book of Esther. There is no impropriety in this interpretation.” The word “interpretation” as here used is slightly equivocal, as is also the phrase “according to our computation.” It is peculiar to mathematics that it does not change according to our computation or any kind of interpretation. It is always true that two and two make four whether the book of Esther acknowledges the fact or not. And it not only damages the gospels to bring forth this sort of evidence, but it seriously derogates from the inspiration of the book of Esther, which thus attempts in defiance of arithmetic to make one day and two nights into three days and three nights.

No one saw Jesus come from the grave. When Mary Magdalene came to the sepulcher, “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. His countenance was like lightning and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the keepers did shake and become as dead men. 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.” (Mat. 28: 2–6.)

We have here the stone at the door of the sepulcher, and yet the body of Jesus had risen and departed from the tomb. There would seem to be no need in closing the grave after he had risen. But a more serious criticism must be made upon the fact that it is not pretended that there was any eye-witness of Jesus coming from the sepulcher. We have only the word of an angel, but as a story abounding with conversations of angels is legendary we are not permitted to take their testimony. Besides, we have serious contradictions concerning the number of angels seen. Matthew says there was one angel, and that he rolled back the stone from the door and sat upon it. Mark says that when Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him; and very early in the morning, etc. “And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away, for it was very great. And entering, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were affrighted.” (16: 1–3.)

Luke also says the stone was rolled away when the women came to the sepulcher, and upon entering in, behold “two men” stood by them in shining garments. John says Mary saw two angels in white sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain. Besides, she sees the stone rolled away from the door. Matthew records the descent of an angel from heaven; the other biographers of Jesus know nothing of this starting point of the angel. Matthew here says that the angel rolled away the stone from the door, but Mark, Luke, and John say that the stone was rolled from the door of the sepulcher when Mary Magdalene came to it. Matthew here relates that Mary Magdalene saw an angel sitting upon the stone at the door outside of the sepulcher, but Mark says she saw a young man sitting down inside the sepulcher. Luke avers that she saw two men standing inside of it, and John affirms that Mary Magdalene sees two men sitting, “one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain;” but they do not tell her that Jesus had risen, as did the angel in Matthew, and the young man in Mark, and the two men in Luke.

According to John, Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene. But according to Luke Jesus did not first appear to Mary Magdalene, but to two persons traveling from Jerusalem to Emmaus: the name of one of them we are told was Cleopas. (Luke 24: 13.) But this appearance of Jesus to brethren who were not apostles is clearly legendary. The other synoptics seem to know nothing of it. It is wholly improbable that Jesus should, after his resurrection, appear first of all to two unknown Christians after this manner and accompany them upon such a journey.

Now all the attendant circumstances of this event are mysterious, inexplicable, and improbable; and the closing paragraph removes the account beyond sober history. “And it came to pass as he sat at meat with them, he took bread and blessed it and broke and gave to them. And their eyes were opened and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight.” (Luke 24: 30, 31.)

“Their eyes were holden,” is superstitious, and as for his vanishing out of sight, we have the most unmistakable traces of legend—the fruit of ignorance and childish imagination.

We are called upon to believe that with feet, the bones of which were broken and crushed with the spikes driven through them on the cross, he traveled back to Jerusalem about as rapidly as did the two persons with whom he journeyed to Emmaus. How could he walk upon feet thus crippled? His hands were yet unhealed, although his fellow-travelers did not perceive such wounds, nor did they notice that he stepped haltingly.

He possessed the same material body which he had before his death. He could be seen and touched. All of which shows that he not only possessed a physical organization, but that it was the same body he had before his death. And yet this body could vanish from the two unknown brethren at Emmaus, it could travel rapidly, it could come in through closed doors, it could ascend from earth out of sight contrary to the laws of gravitation; he had flesh and bones, and could eat and drink. “And when he had thus spoken he showed them his hands and his feet, and while they believed not for joy and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye any meat? And they took and gave him a piece of broiled fish and honeycomb, and he took it and did eat before them.” (Luke 24: 41–43.)

It is useless to attempt any explanation of this difficulty by calling his body a spiritual body. The disciples on this occasion, when Jesus suddenly appeared among them, thought they had seen a spirit, but Jesus wishing to disabuse their minds, said, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24: 39.)

If we accept this plain declaration, then, we are forced to enquire what became of this physical body. It surely must have died. It is certain that if he ate and drank, he had a nutritive system—a human organism—subject to death. And what became of this “corruptible body?” Matthew and John do not pretend to know anything about the matter. Mark has no knowledge of the final disposition of his body, for the last twelve verses of Mark are generally regarded as spurious. Why should not all these writers have possessed the same information that Luke pretends to have? They do not write to complement and supplement the writings of one another, but each claims to give the important features of Jesus’ biography independently. Is not the end of Jesus’ career on earth important, in order to understand his life and character? Three of the four biographers by their silence say either that there is no importance to be attached to the ascension of Jesus, or that it was unknown to them; in other words, that it did not occur.

Passing this, we encounter irreconcilable contradictions between different writers as to the locality where Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection. Matthew says the angel at the sepulcher informed the woman to “go quickly and tell his disciple that he is risen from the dead, and behold he goeth before you into Galilee; there ye shall see him.” (28: 7.) “And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them and said, All hail!” (28: 9.) But as the angel had instructed them to go into Galilee, so also does Jesus give the same command, “Go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.” (28: 10.)

Mark gives a very similar account of the woman coming to the tomb and seeing the “young man,” who said, “Be not affrighted; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified; he is risen; he is not here; behold the place where they laid him. But go your way and tell his disciples that he goeth before you into Galilee, there ye shall see him, as he said unto you.” (16: 6, 7.)

The writers of the third and fourth gospels know nothing of any command to go into Galilee; but on the contrary, Luke relates the command of Jesus to his disciples to remain where they were until they should receive blessings from God. “Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high.” (24: 49.) Here is manifestly an entire unconsciousness of any necessity of the disciples for going into Galilee. For, after giving this command, Luke goes on to say, “He led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.” (24: 50, 51.)

The two gospels of Mark and Luke make no mention of any journey; but on the contrary, the immediate ascension of Jesus precludes the possibility of it. Matthew, who knows nothing of any ascension, gives this very equivocal statement of the affair: “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them, and when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.” (28: 16, 17.) But this is too vague; the point which would most interest us to know is what they doubted and who it was that doubted. Another equally vague expression is found in the fourth gospel, where it is related of Peter and John that they went into the sepulcher, “Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulcher, and they saw and believed” (20: 8); but what they saw and believed is not made plain, except that they saw an empty tomb, or at least one which contained only the “linen clothes;” but what they believed concerning this empty grave we are not informed. If their belief maintained any correspondence with what they saw, they believed that they had seen an empty grave. But our difficulties do not cease; we are surprised that these early visitors of sepulchers do not see anything of the material in which Jesus was embalmed. It is recorded that “there came also Nicodemus which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.” (John 19: 39.)

It is but natural to suppose that if the linen clothes were laid off, the myrrh and aloes also would be found lying with them, for there is no probability that Jesus would go abroad a la mummy. We might ask where the clothes came from that he wore after coming out of the sepulcher. His own garments had been taken by the soldiery when he died, that the scripture might be fulfilled (?), but where is the scripture fulfilled which informs us whence came his resurrection garments? He did not go into society nude, and yet we have no evidence that any provisions were made for a new suit of clothes. Some have supposed that when Mary saw him and mistook him for the gardener her mistake arose from the fact that he may have been clothed in the garments of the gardener. But how did he get possession of them?

We must return to the contradictions in regard to the embalmment of Jesus. Matthew’s version excludes the myrrh and aloes. He says, “And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his own new tomb.” (27: 59, 60.)

The fourth gospel, as we have seen, relates that when Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had received the body of Jesus, they embalmed it in “a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.” Mark knows nothing of this, and his account wholly excludes it. Joseph “bought fine linen and took him down and wrapped him in the linen and laid him in the sepulcher.” (15: 46.) “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint him.” (16: 1.) If the women came on the third day to embalm the body, they certainly knew nothing of its embalmment on the day of his death. Luke’s version also excludes the version of the fourth gospel. As in Mark, so in Luke, they came on the first day of the week to perform this rite of embalmment. “And they [the women] returned and prepared spices and ointments ... and upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared.” (23: 56, and 24: 1.)

Some exegetes have interpreted this, by saying that “the women came to embalm the body of Jesus, being wholly ignorant of what Joseph and Nicodemus had done.” This might be sufficient if it were not for the fact that the women saw Jesus after he was put in the tomb. “And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus beheld where he was laid.” (Mark 15: 47.) Matthew corroborates this: “And there was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulcher” (27: 61) when Jesus was placed in it.

The obvious meaning of these texts is that they saw him wrapped in “the fine linen” and laid away in the tomb. Here, then, are the contradictory statements. The writer of the fourth gospel relates how Jesus was embalmed on the day of his death; the writers of the second and third gospels state that the women came on the third day to perform this service, wholly unconscious of such embalmment having taken place on the day of Jesus’ death; while the writer of the first gospel knows nothing of the embalmment on the day of his death, nor of the intended embalmment on the third day. He speaks of the early visit of the women as coming merely to see the grave. “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 sepulcher.” (28: 1.)

Further contradictions are found in the statements of the writers as to the time when the women prepared the spices. Mark says (16: 11), that when the “Sabbath was past” the women bought spices with which to anoint the body of Jesus. Luke says they bought them before the Sabbath; “And they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested on the Sabbath day.” (23: 56.)

There are a number of passages in the gospels which show that Jesus told his disciples over and over again that he should rise on the third day, and there are other passages which as plainly show that they had no thought of any such resurrection when the third day came. If he repeatedly told his followers that he was to be put to death in Jerusalem and rise again the third day, we must conclude that his disciples would remember his sayings and that at least some of them would wait for the third day to come, expecting to see the miracle transpire. But we are astounded to read over and over again of this “rising again the third day,” and yet find no friend remembering or expecting the event when the third day came. It is urged that Jesus’ followers did not understand his words, but this will not meet the case. If several of these disciples were intelligent enough to write the biography of their Master they could not have been so stupid as not to understand such plain words; besides, we must remember that his enemies understood him.

The Pharisee said to Pilate, “Sir, we remember that the deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.”

Pilate said, “Ye have a watch, go your way, make it sure as ye can.” The disciples could not have failed to understand him, because it was a special effort on the part of Jesus to show that he must die and rise again on the third day.

“But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.” (Luke 24: 16.)

This miraculous blindness is too irrational to discuss. It is certain that if their eyesight was good enough to see what was in the tomb “when it was yet dark” (John 20: 1), they would surely recognize an intimate friend if they journeyed with him in the highway in the middle of the afternoon.

“From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples how that he must go up to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” (Mat. 16: 21.)

“And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall rise again.” (Mat. 27: 22, 23.)

“And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way and said unto them, Behold we go up to Jerusalem and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chiefs and priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.” (Mat. 20: 17–19.)

“And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spoke that saying openly.” (Mark 8: 31.)

There is not a chance to refer this prediction to the esoteric teachings of Jesus, for he “spake that saying openly.”

“For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and after that he is killed he shall rise the third day.” (Mark 9: 31.)

“And he took again the twelve and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles, and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him; and shall spit upon him; and the third day he shall rise again.” (Mark 10: 32, 33.)

“The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.” (Luke 9: 22.)

“Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked and spitefully entreated and spitted upon; and they shall scourge him, and put him to death, and the third day he shall rise again.” (Luke 18: 31–33.)

These teaching are so plain and repeated so often that it is inconceivable that his disciples should not comprehend his meaning. If these passages had been as enigmatical as the following, there might have been some grounds for the claim of ignorance or dullness on the part of the disciples: “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.” (Mat. 12: 40.)

But the above predictions have nothing dark or obscure about them. The time of his resurrection is always specified as the third day.

With these numerous predictions of his resurrection before us, let us see whether they can be made to harmonize with other statements on the subject. When immediately after the transfiguration Jesus warns his disciples not to reveal what they had seen until after he had risen from the dead, we are told that they questioned among themselves “what rising from the dead should mean.” (Mark 9: 2.)

How is it possible that such doubt and surprise could be expressed by men who had first witnessed the resurrection of Moses and Elias, and who had also seen the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus, the son of the widow of Nain and Lazarus!

Now it is plain that if they had ever witnessed these miraculous resurrections, they could not possibly have wondered “what the rising from the dead should mean.” Both statements cannot be true, for if they thus wondered, it is proof enough that they had never seen the dead raised to life; and if they did not so express themselves, then the gospels are unhistorical. That they never queried in this manner among themselves is evident from the fact that the resurrection from the dead was at that time a doctrine generally accepted by the Jews. It is evident that those who undertook the embalmment of Jesus had no thought of his resurrection within forty-eight hours. But suppose it conceded that Jesus was deserted by his immediate friends, and his body handed over to Joseph and Nicodemus, who embalmed it in “a mixture of myrrh and olives about one hundred pound,” possibly being ignorant of the repeated predictions of his resurrection on the third day, which were made to the disciples; still this is unavailing, as the disciples are also ignorant of any rising from the dead to take place on the third day. The women undertook the task of embalming the body of Jesus, but they seem not to have got fully prepared for the task until the third day. When his body was taken down from the cross and wrapped in linen and put in the sepulcher, “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, and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared.” (Luke 23: 55, 56, and 24: 1.)

“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 sepulcher.” (Mat. 27: 61.)

These two writers, while not agreeing on the object of the women’s visiting the sepulcher, nevertheless do agree that they did not go expecting to see the sepulcher empty.

This early visit was made ostensibly to anoint or embalm the body of Jesus. Mary Magdalene and the other women did not even dream of a resurrection—she did not come expecting to find the tomb empty, but was concerned to know how they should remove the stone from the mouth of the tomb. It is evident that if she had heard Jesus say repeatedly that on the third day after his death he would rise again, she would not have forgotten it; and if she had, she must have recollected his predictions when she found the grave empty. In fact she never once thinks of a resurrection, but when she sees the empty grave, exclaims, “They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him.” (John 20: 2.)

Luke says that, “As the women were much perplexed thereabout, behold two men stood by them in shining garments, and as they were afraid, and bowed themselves to the earth [people usually run away when they are frightened] they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen; remember how he spoke unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying: The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words.” (Luke 24: 5–8.)

This is evidently an afterthought, an effort to fill out an imperfect record, but the patch is too perceptible; for had it been that the women needed only to have their memory jogged to recollect the prediction of Jesus concerning his rising from the dead on the third day, we may infer that a similar reminder would refresh the memory of the eleven, but on the contrary they scouted the idea of such a thing. The women “returned from the sepulcher and told all these things unto the eleven, and the rest ... And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.” (24: 9, 11.)

Mark also says that the eleven did not believe the story of Mary Magdalene: “She went out and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.” (16: 10, 11.)

They also had not so much as a dream of the resurrection of Jesus. They were not waiting and watching for the third day to come that they might see the predictions of Jesus fulfilled and their hearts filled to overflowing with joy at the sight. They were not at the sepulcher, as we might naturally expect. True, it was not too early for the women impelled by human love to be there with ointments and spices; but the eleven who were baptized with heavenly love (John 20: 22), entertained not the first thought of visiting the grave. And even when the marvelous scenes witnessed by the women are clearly stated to the eleven who had heard him teach that he must go up to Jerusalem and be killed and the third day rise again—who had heard this teaching and prediction repeatedly and openly, and in the plainest language, and yet did not believe anything in it or in the report of the women—all this is simply incredible. We are forced to conclude that if they were not at the tomb on the third day, and scouted the story of the women—for “their words seemed to them as idle tales”—they had never once heard Jesus say he would rise from the dead on the third day.

Luke says, that of the eleven only Peter went to the sepulcher, and that stooping down “he saw the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed wondering in himself at that which had come to pass.” (24: 12.)

He wonders, but expresses no thought of a resurrection. The writer of the fourth gospel contradicts Luke in saying that there were two persons who went to the sepulcher on that occasion. “Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulcher.... Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcher, and he saw and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” (John 20: 3, 9, 10.)

“He saw and believed,” but we are not told what he believed. He did not certainly believe in the resurrection of Jesus. “For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again.” This passage is plainly legendary. It belongs to a later age when the dogma began to control the minds of Christians; for it is true that the early Christians did not insist so much upon the evidence of miracles as they did upon the prophecies. It must have been written long after that time, for it is not the “scriptures” they needed to know to be informed concerning his resurrection, but the plain language of Jesus which he had with special effort, and in an open manner uttered in their ears but a few days before. It was wholly needless for them to know the scriptures in order to recollect these prophetic predictions. Regard these statements as we may, they are certainly unhistorical. For if Jesus so frequently spoke of his death and subsequent resurrection, then it is certain that they would have remembered his words, and if they had not cherished them with faith, yet when they had heard from the women of the empty grave, they would without doubt, have recalled his predictions, and claimed their fulfillment. But they do no such thing. They said of the women’s story what was probably true, that “their words seemed to them as idle tales, and [therefore] they believed them not.”

He gives his testimony in this form: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. And that he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then by all the Apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” (1 Cor. 15: 4–8.)

In this statement Paul does not pretend to have witnessed the event himself, but preaches it as a doctrine which he had “received.” He speaks of it as a tradition, “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”

This language betrays the influence of the dogma of a later date; for the writer in speaking of the five hundred by whom Jesus was said to have been seen says, “of whom the greater part remain unto this present [day] but some are fallen asleep.” “Unto this present” [day] shows that the writer is making his record long after the event.

Paul wrote probably about twenty-five years after the date of the events he records. And the writers of the gospels also wrote at a late date. Matthew says, “And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.” (28: 15.)

The phrase “until this day” points out the fact that the gospel records were not completed until long after the time of their occurrence. In addition to this, there were many gospels recording the life and doings of Jesus. “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.” (Luke 1: 1.) “Believed among us”—he did not know, but merely believed these things. Now suppose we had these other gospels, what harmony could we expect to find among the imaginary five hundred if they had left a record of what was “most surely believed.”

“He was seen by Cephas.” It is significant of Paul’s independence, that while the writers of the four gospels all explicitly declare that Jesus first appeard to Mary Magdalene, Paul knows nothing of such an appearance. That he makes no mention of this first appearance of Jesus is evidence that he wrote independently of others, as he said he did, and also that he wrote before the evangelists wrote. He had no honors to bestow upon women, as his writings show, and if he had ever heard of this appearance to Mary Magdalene, he concluded that it was “an idle tale.” (Luke 24: 11.)

It is noticeable also that although this doctrine is “received” as a prediction of the scriptures, yet no one is recorded in either of the gospels or writings of Paul as having seen Jesus rise from the sepulcher. Even though it is affirmed that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary had seen the angel from heaven roll back the stone from the mouth of the sepulcher, yet they did not witness any resurrection.

All that Paul “received” on this subject was the current traditions. As a Pharisee, he believed in the doctrine of a general resurrection, and it was most natural for him to accept such tradition into his belief. That he wrote under the influence of a later age, when the dogma began to assume character, is manifest in the recourse he has to scripture evidences. “And that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Cor. 15: 4.) But the passages usually cited as proof-predictions that Jesus should rise from the dead, when examined, cannot be regarded as Messianic at all; for the idea of a suffering Messiah was wholly foreign to the Jewish mind. The scriptures usually cited are Isaiah 53; Psalms 22 and 69; Psalms 16: 10; Hosea 6: 2.

As illustrating the free use made of the scriptures, we have only to compare Matthew 12: 40 with parallel passages of Mark and Luke. Mark (8: 11), says, “And the Pharisees came forth and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, there shall no sign be given unto this generation.”

Luke (11: 29–31) states that “when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation; they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall the Son of man be to this generation.”

Matthew gives two versions of this incident, “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall be no sign but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” (16: 4.) “Certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. 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.” (Mat. 12: 38–41.)

Here it will be observed is an illustration of the growth of the dogma and myth in adding this reference to Jonas. And it is highly significant that the application of the myth of Jonas is wholly fanciful, as the passage referred to (Jonah 1: 17.) has not the slightest character of prophecy. That the scriptures are evidently tortured is obvious from the fact that Jesus was only one day and two nights in the heart of the earth, and, as before said, the passage is not prophetic; besides, its varied form in the gospels plainly shows it to be a myth.

“He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, and after that he was seen by above five hundred brethren at once.” But there were only eleven Apostles until after the ascension, when Matthias was elected to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Judas. “And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1: 26.)

This election of Matthias took place after the ascension. He could not therefore have been seen by the “twelve” after his ascension (and there were not twelve until after the ascension), only by the “eye of faith.”

That Jesus was seen by above five hundred is nothing more than naked statement. Paul does not claim to have been one of that number. This episode, moreover, is not mentioned in any of the four gospels. It is remarkable that so great an event should be passed over by other writers also, for not a trace of it can be found elsewhere. It is difficult for us to understand how this marvelous scene could so completely perish out of sight of all writers except one who was not present, but merely heard of it afterward. That Paul may have believed the story we do not deny—and that he believed that the greater part of the witnesses “remain unto this present” time. Now if these survivors remained he does not mention the names of any of them. And besides, they were not within reach of the Corinthians who might wish to hear and investigate their testimony, for the Corinthians did not accept the resurrection of Jesus as a matter of fact.

How could five hundred disciples come together immediately at one time, when some time after the ascension the number of disciples at Jerusalem was only one hundred and twenty? (Acts 1: 15.)

We need to know something of the character of those who gave Paul this information, and the sources of their knowledge. For it is all-important to our inquiry to know from whom Paul received these traditions and what evidences his informants had of the truth of the story they told. To believe in the reality of these appearances simply because Paul states that he has “received” his information from others and believes it to be true, without inquiring as to the character of his informers, is the blindest credulity. Who were the five hundred? What did they think of the event? How did Paul or any other person know what they thought, if there were no written statements by them? Where and when did the five hundred see the risen Jesus?

“Last of all he was seen by me.” In another place he says, “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9: 1.)

Elsewhere he relates: “But when he was pleased, God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace to reveal his son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus.” (Gal. 1: 15–17.)

“For neither did I receive it from men nor was taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 1: 11.) We shall find as we proceed that Paul saw Jesus subjectively. It is quite natural to so understand his words, “reveal his son in me.” Especially does this seem obvious when we remember that Paul was a man who firmly believed in visions and revelations. In relating his own experience he states this fact plainly. “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body I cannot tell—God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell—God knoweth) how that he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man to utter. Of such an one will I glory.” (2 Cor. 12: 2–4.)

In Acts there are three contradictory accounts of his seeing Jesus in a vision. “And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven. And he fell to the earth and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it will be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” (Acts 9: 3–7.)

A second version is in this form: “And it came to pass that as I made my journey and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. And I said, Lord, what wilt thou have me do? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee of all the things which are appointed for thee to do.” (Acts 22: 6–10.)

The third account of the affair is given thus: “Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at mid-day, O king, I saw in the way alight from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, saying, in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.... Whereupon, O king, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” (Acts 26: 9–19.)

According to the first account the companions of Paul “stood speechless” (9: 7); in the third they “all fall to the earth.” (26: 14.) Then again, in the first account it is said that the men “stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one.” In the second it is stated that “they that were with me saw indeed the light, but they heard not the voice.” These contradictions do not seem to clothe the vision of Paul with the acceptable form of harmony.

It will be observed that even in this vision Paul is not described as seeing Jesus. He sees a light and falls to the ground, and when he rises he is blind. “And they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus. And he was three days without sight.” (9: 8.)

In the continuation of this account Paul has another vision: “And it came to pass that when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste and get thee out of Jerusalem.” (22: 17, 18.)

In connection with these visions and revelations it is highly significant that Paul never claims to have seen Jesus in the flesh, and he never speaks of the resurrection as material, but as spiritual. “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15: 44.) “Who shall change our vile bodies that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,” (Phil. 3: 21.) Evidently there is no claim for seeing Jesus in the body made by Paul in any of his writings. He preaches the doctrine of the resurrection, but this doctrine he, as a Pharisee, believed before he became a Christian. Paul claims that in a vision he saw Jesus. Luke says that this was also the manner in which Mary Magdalene and the other women saw Jesus. “And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.” (24: 2, 3.)

This gives force to the claim of Paul, that his seeing or vision of Jesus was of the same class as the visions of all the others who had seen him.

Thus, after a careful examination of the writings attributed to the immediate followers of Jesus, we find that not one of them says, “I saw Jesus rise from the grave;” or “I saw Jesus in the flesh after his resurrection.” In legendary style it is frequently repeated that he “appeared” first to this and then to that one, but there is not the slightest evidence that any one saw him. And in this connection it is worthy of remark that Jesus did not appear to any persons except his friends. This gives better occasion for suspicion that the story is mythical.

“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.” (Acts 10: 41.) To appear to a few private friends for one day does not seem much like bringing life and immortality to light to the whole world. The method is too narrow and exclusive. And even of these few friends not one has left the record for us of what he saw. The writers who have recorded the current traditions of their time, agree in saying that Mary Magdalene found the grave empty: further than this the writers do not corroborate one another.

How soon the resurrection of the physical body became popular we have no means of knowing. It was not certainly until some time after the writings of Paul were given to the churches, for he, as we have seen, speaks, of it as a spiritual resurrection. So also does Peter (1 Peter 3: 13), speak of Jesus “being slain in the flesh, but made alive again in the spirit.”

The legend became more and more marvelous as it spread abroad. Enthusiasm inflamed the minds of the ignorant and superstitious until the subjective visions of Paul became crystalized into objective realities. His visions, and the visions, revelations and messages of the angels of others were reduced in popular belief to historical facts.