did not say so, and Jesus never had been a king of any sort; by the "Luke" Gospel-"Ye say that I am”—also untrue; by the " John Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it to thee ?" The discrepancies in these three versions are obvious. The John version is clearly a forgery of a later date than are the Matthew and Mark versions, which are second-century work. We are told, too, in Matthew (xxvii. 14) that, when Pilate asked him (Jesus) if he heard all the things that were said against him, “he answered him never a word, insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly." Instead of "marvelling" at a prisoner who had nothing to say in defence of the numerous and clear charges against him-he might have done so had the prisoner had the audacity to defend himself-Pilate, or any other magistrate, would have found him guilty at once. Yet we are told that Pilate found "no fault" with him, though the prisoner had condemned himself, not only by his subsequent silence, but out of his own mouth, by any one of the above three answers. The only alternative that Pilate could have had would be to pronounce him a lunatic. Pilate is next represented as proposing to chastise the prisoner, and then to release him (14-16)—an illegal act, which the Roman law could not have for one moment permitted or even thought of. His blasphemy was clear, and it was not only uttered on one or two occasions, but, according to the N. T., was frequently repeated. "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man......coming in the clouds of heaven -for such blasphemy as this before Jews he would certainly have been stoned to death at once. It was a blasphemous prediction, which has not been fulfilled, though eighteen centuries have passed and gone.

Notwithstanding the strictness with which the Passover feast was kept, we are told by the three first Gospels (Synoptic) that the chief priests and elders "stood before the judgment seat" and accused him of many things! The John writer says that they "remained outside," that "they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover." Which are we to believe? And is it probable that Pilate would try a prisoner inside the Prætorium, and allow the witnesses to remain outside? Had such a state of things occurred, the case would have been adjourned until after the Pass

over.

EXAMINATION OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVE.

223

"Luke "says that, when Pilate heard that Jesus was from Galilee, he sent him to Herod, who happened to be in Jerusalem; and that Herod and his soldiers "set him at nought and mocked him," and then sent him back to Pilate. "John" says that when Pilate found him innocent he scourged him," and then looked on while his soldiers put a purple robe on him, and placed a crown of thorns on his head (xix. 1-4); then that Pilate led him outside to the Jews, who clamoured to have him crucified, and to whom he said: "Take ye him, and crucify him, for I find no fault in him"! Imagine an important and dignified Roman functionary conducting himself in this illegal manner, when he had soldiers at hand to support him in carrying out the law! But it is evident that this was written to make it appear that the Jews, not the Roman Government, hung the Messiah. "Matthew" gives a different story again—that Pilate, finding that the Jews did not want Jesus released, "washed his hands" (a ceremony which was Jewish, not Roman), saying he was innocent of the blood of "this righteous man," and then delivered him up for hanging! Did anyone ever read such nonsense? Here we see a prisoner accused of most serious offences against the Roman law, tried illegally at night, and on an illegal day, with witnesses outside the court; prisoner found not guilty, yet flogged, mocked, insulted, and hung, at the dictation of a few priests and scribes whom the powerful Pilate hated! Then, again, we have a statement invented, that it was customary to release a prisoner at the Passover ; nowhere else is such a custom recorded; and it is absurd on the face of it, for here was no criminal according to the finding of the court, but a man found not guilty.

According to the Synoptics, Simon of Cyrene carried the cross for Jesus; but the John Gospel (xix. 17) says he bore his own cross, and all the way. Another discrepancy!

The death of Jesus is said in three of the gospels to have occurred after the Passover, one stating that he was crucified, died, and was buried before that feast. "Mark" says he was crucified at the third hour (nine o'clock); 'John," that he was under examination at the sixth hour (twelve o'clock). Which are we to believe? If one is right, the other is wrong, and on the most important event of the Christian faith!

We can hardly expect the pious fathers to pass over such an important event as the hanging of Jesus without a prophecy to back it up, and here it is-the Matthew writer says (xxvi. 53) that he had but to pray to his father to receive the assistance of "twelve legions of angels"! But, he said, had he taken this means of deliverance, "how, then, would the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be ?" We are referred to Isaiah liii., the whole of which chapter is a lament on "Israel" and the captivity in Babylon. The statement about the "twelve legions of angels" was simple brag; for, judging by the effect of his prayer three times repeated that the bitter cup might pass from him, "his father" would not, or could not, send him even one angel. The result of his prayer, if it were ever offered, was similar to what is seen every day with regard to the prayers of other people-nil.

The age of the Messiah at death is said by Irenæus to have been fifty, and he comes to this conclusion from the remark of the Jews: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abram ?" According to "Luke," he was thirty-eight; to Matthew," seventeen; to Dionysius Exiguus, thirty-three, the generally received age; according to Eusebius, thirty-one; to Jerome and Scaliger, thirty; and, according to five eminent authorities, twenty-nine, twenty-eight, twenty-three, and eighteen respectively. So that the date of the so-called crucifixion is somewhat uncertain, and the difference between the ages given by "Matthew " and "Luke" and the statement of the Jews are hardly consistent with either "inspiration" or historical accuracy.

66

The place of crucifixion is stated by "Matthew" and "Mark" to have been "Golgotha." The latter adds, “which, being interpreted, is the place of a skull "; the former gives a similar explanation; but the "John" writer copies it without the word Golgotha, and adds, "it was a place near Jerusalem." "Luke" calls the place "Calvary," which is in Latin calvaria = the place of skulls. So that the name did not refer to a hill, but to skulls upon it. Now, there is no such word as Golgotha in Jewish literature, nor near Jerusalem, nor in the whole of Palestine mentioned by any writer. No skulls could be permitted to lie about which could have given a name to a place near that city ;

EXAMINATION OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVE.

225

for, according to Jewish law, criminals had to be buried before night, and the touch or presence of human bodies or bones made the Jew unclean, and when unclean he could not eat of any sacrificial meal or sacred tithe until he had become purified, and whatever he touched became unclean. In and around Jerusalem the law was most rigidly enforced. The word golgotha must have been coined by the Mark writer to translate the Latin calvaria, which, with the crucifixion story, came from Rome; and, as no one understood it, he had to explain its meaning.

We are told in the three Synoptics that the women who followed Jesus from Galilee and "ministered unto him" (whatever that may mean), among whom were Mary his mother, Mary Magdalene, and Salome, beheld his crucifixion "from afar." Yet "John" tells us that his mother and his mother's sister Mary (it is highly improbable that two sisters would be called by the same name), the wife of Cleophas (Clopas), Mary Magdalene, and John the beloved disciple were present at the foot of the cross. How comes it that the Synoptics knew nothing of this? And the Gospel of Peter tells us that the Apostles were "being sought for as evil-doers"!

The John writer, who professes to have been present at the crucifixion, does not record any mocking and reviling of Jesus. Yet " Matthew" (xxvii. 39) and "Luke" (xxiii. 36) state that all mocked and reviled him, the former that the two thieves crucified with him joined in; the latter makes one of the thieves rebuke his fellow criminal, saying: "We suffer justly, but this man hath done nothing amiss” (xxiii. 4). How this man, brought from prison for hanging, found this out is not explained; but it shows the fraudulent nature of the whole narrative. The reply of Jesus to this thief-who had come to such a sudden knowledge that Jesus would 'come in his kingdom "—that "this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise," was somewhat meaningless; for, if by Paradise he meant Heaven, it is opposed to the statement that he went to preach to the departed spirits; and, if he meant Hades, the remark was unnecessary, for belief in Hades was the common belief of the day.

The Gospel of Peter, though not included in the N. T., was in common use in the early ages of the Christian Church, and was the only one used by the Jewish Christians of Syria

Q

and Palestine. A fragment of this has been discovered in an Egyptian tomb at Akhnum. Now, this Gospel says that Jesus "kept silence as feeling no pain." So that no conversation took place, according to this Gospel, between Jesus and the two thieves; and if such a conversation as is related above did take place, he could not have suffered much, which this Gospel admits; so what becomes of the Christian teaching of the sufferings of the Saviour?

The three Synoptic Gospels each give different versions of the cry of the crowd to Jesus when on the gibbet; and the John Gospel is silent on the point. In the two first it is the priests and scribes, and in the third Gospel it is the soldiers, who address him. How are these diverse statements to be reconciled?

In the Canonical Gospels there are eight utterances said to have been made by Jesus while on the gibbet, and one in the uncanonical Gospel of Peter-no two of which agree. The Petrine Gospel says that he cried: "My power, my power, thou hast left me......and was taken up "; which, as the late Samuel Laing said, was more like that of a baffled magician than of a god or a messiah. Now, the statement in this Gospel, that he kept silence till he was actually dying, contradicts the whole of the other eight utterances. The four utterances given by "John" are not mentioned in the Synoptics, and we conclude that they were -like the presence of the women and John at the foot of the cross, in order that Jesus might appear to make provision for his mother-inserted to fulfil alleged prophecies.

Then four different versions are given in the Canonical Gospels of the superscription said to have been placed over the gibbet, and a fifth in the Petrine Gospel, no two of which again agree.

Now, it may be asked, why do we find these discrepancies and contradictions, and in what are represented as being inspired writings? The excuse that each writer wrote what he remembered will not hold good for a moment, for Jesus told his disciples that the holy "ghost" or wind which the father would send would bring all things he had said "to their remembrance" (John xiv. 26).

It cannot but be observed, too, with what extraordinary rapidity all the events connected with the trial and hanging