By casting an eye over the two genealogies, it will be seen that they differ in all points except at certain nodes, and the usual answer is, that Luke’s is the pedigree of Joseph, and Matthew’s that of Mary. But there is not the slightest indication of this difference in the Gospel text; both profess to give the genealogy of Joseph. Matthew says, “Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born” (i., 16); there cannot be a shadow of doubt that this is meant for the pedigree of Joseph, the husband of Mary. If not, the genealogy was that of Rahab the harlot, for verse 5 tells us that Boaz was the husband of Rahab, of whom Obed was born. So again in verse 6, Bathsheba is given as the wife of David, and mother of Solomon. Luke says (iii., 23), Jesus was [as was supposed] the son of Joseph, the son of Heli; and does not even mention Mary. The three words in brackets are a mere gloss, and could not have been written by Luke, as they would destroy the very thing he was trying to prove: Jesus was the son of Joseph, Joseph of Heli, and Heli was a descendant of David, Abraham, and Seth. If Jesus was not really the son of Joseph, why trouble himself to show that Joseph was in the line of David, Abraham, and Seth?

But it is quite evident that Matthew and Luke supposed Jesus to be the son of Joseph. So did the neighbours of Joseph and Mary, for they said (Matt, xiii., 55), “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” It never oozed out in his native village that Mary’s son was other than her son in the usual course of nature. Even Mary herself says to Jesus “thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing” (Luke ii., 48); Mary calls Joseph the father, and not the reputed father, of Jesus, and never seems to have had a shadow of doubt about it. So was it with the disciples; their adherence to Jesus had nothing to do with his divinity. They none of them ever hint at such a notion. Philip said to Nathaniel “We have found him of whom Moses spoke, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John i., 45); not Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Jehovah, but Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. All were anxious to prove his lineage from David, and none cared to set aside so very important a point. Of course they spoke of him as “Christ,” but Christ was merely an accepted title for “King of the theocracy,” and in order that Jesus might be the “Christ,” it was absolutely essential that he should be a descendant of David. [54] The interpolated legend of the miraculous conception is a fatal blunder, and if accepted would utterly destroy the claim of Jesus to the Messiahship.

Gen., ii., 17.

The Lord God said to Adam, “of the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the daythat thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Gen., iii., 17–19.

Unto Adam God said, “Because thou hast eaten of the treeof which I commanded thee not to eat [not thou shalt surelydie, but] in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, tillthou return unto the ground.”

Two things strike us in reading the latter passage: (1)Adam did not “surely die” on the day he ate ofthe forbidden fruit; and (2) there is not the slightest hint tojustify the common dogma that death was the penaltyincurred by Adam, but simply toil—toil tillhe died. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eatbread till thou return unto the ground.”

On the subject of death it may be here remarked that thescripture makes mention of thousands and hundreds of thousands,who are not to die at all. We have the case of Enoch (Gen.,v., 24), the case of Elijah (2 Kings, ii., 11), and all theinhabitants of the earth who will be alive “at the lastday” (1 Corinthians, xv., 51). Either death is not“the wages of sin,” or these persons are not of therace of Adam. The “curse” is not transmitted tothem; if not to them, why to others? And what becomes ofthe dogma of Adam and Christ as federal heads? The wholetheory is utterly overturned.

1 Kings viii., 9; 2 Chron. v. 10.

The historic books of the Old Testament agree in the fact thatthere was “nothing in the ark save the two tables whichMoses put therein at Horeb.”

Hebrews ix., 4.

The writer of this book affirms that besides the tables of thecovenant, there were in the ark “the golden pot that hadmanna, and Aaron’s rod that budded.”

The pot of manna and Aaron’s rod oughtto have been in the ark, inasmuch as Moses was told to place themthere (Exod. xvi., 33, 34.; Numbers xvii., 10); but this is onlyanother instance of the inconsistency complained of.

1 Kings, xxii., 48, 49.

The writer tells us that “Jehoshaphat made ships ofTarshish [i.e. Spanish galleons] to go to Ophir for gold.. . . Then said Ahaziah to Jehoshaphat, let my servants gowith thy servants in the ships, but he would not.”

2 Chron. xx., 35, 36.

In the Book of Kings we are told that Jehoshaphat would notallow Ahaziah to join in the adventure to Ophir. Thechronicler says that “Jehoshaphat joined Ahaziah” inmaking these galleons.

2 Kings, ix., 11–13.

The royal historian distinctly says that Jehu was expresslyraised by God to the throne of Israel to extirpate the wickedhouse of Ahab, and “avenge the blood of the prophets shedby Jezebel.”

Hosea, i., 4.

Hosea says: “The Lord said I will avenge the blood ofJezreel upon the house of Jehu, and (because he extirpated thehouse of Ahab) I will cause to cease the kingdom of the house ofIsrael.”

2 Kings, ix., 27.

The book of Kings informs us that when Jehu fell on the raceof Ahab, Ahaziah “fled to Megiddo, and theredied.”

2 Chron., xxii., 9.

The chronicler says he was caught by the agents of Jehu“hid in Samaria,” and being taken captive to Jehu,was then slain.

2 Kings, x., 17.

Here the slaughter of the house of Ahab is placed inSamaria.

2 Kings, x., 11, 12.

Here it is placed in Jezreel, and after Jehu had slain“all that remained of the house of Ahab, all his great men,and his kinsfolk, and his priests . . . he arose and departed andcame to Samaria.”

This agrees with Hosea, i., 4, cited above.

1 Chron., xi., 1–3.

On the death of Saul we are here told that “Then allIsrael gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, . .. thou shalt be ruler over . . . Israel . . . and Davidmade a covenant with them in Hebron . . . and they anointed Davidking over Israel.”

2 Sam., ii., 1–11.

Here we are informed that David and his men went to Hebron atthe death of Saul, “and the men of Judah came andanointed him king over the house of Judah.”

But Abner took Ishbosheth, son of Saul, and made him king overall Israel. David was for seven years and six monthsking over the house of Judah only.

2 Chron., xxiv., 22.

Joash, it is said, “remembered not the kindness ofJehoiada [his foster father], but slew his son,”i.e., Zechariah the High Priest, see v. 20.

2 Chron., xxiv., 25.

Here we are told that Joash slew not the son ofJehoiada, but the sons; for the servants of Joashconspired against him not for the blood of Zechariah, but“for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada.”

2 Kings, xii., 13.

When Jehoash repaired the temple he placed a money-box besidethe altar for voluntary contributions, but (says the writer)there was not money enough collected to make “bowls ofsilver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, nor any vessels ofgold or silver.”

2 Chron., xxiv., 14.

The chronicler contradicts this assertion point blank, andaffirms that with the money so collected “were made vesselsfor the house of the Lord, vessels to minister and to offer, andspoons, and vessels of gold and silver.”

2 Chron., xxxiii., 15.

Manasseh is represented as having taken the strange gods andidols out of the house of the Lord . . . and of having“cast them out of the city.”

2 Kings, xxiii., 6.

But in the reign of Manasseh’s grandson, whose name wasJosiah, these strange gods and idols were still in the temple,for Josiah “took them out of the house of the Lord . . .and stamped them to powder.”

Psalm, lxxii., 20.

We read, here “the prayers [i.e., the psalms] ofDavid, the son of Jesse, are ended.”

1 Chron., xvi., 7–36.

Here is given a psalm which the chronicler says “Daviddelivered first.” From verse 8 to 22 is Psalm cv.,1–15; the next 11 verses are Psalm xcvi.; and the remainingverses are Psalm cvi., 1, 47, 48.

In the “headings” 18 of the psalms, after thelxxii., are ascribed to David, viz., ciii., cviii., cix., cx.,cxxii., cxxiv., cxxxi., cxxxiii., cxxxviii., cxxxix.,cxl.–cxlv.

Matt., i., 23.

Matthew says the birth of Jesus fulfilled the prophecy ofIsaiah (vii., 14), “Behold a virgin shall conceive and beara son, and shall call his name Emmanuel” [God with us.]

Matt., i., 16.

The son of Mary was Jesus, called the Christ.

(1) The child referredto by Isaiah was to be still an infant when Rezin and Pekahshould be cut off. Isaiah says, “Before the child[Emmanuel] shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good,[Syria and Israel] shall be [deprived] of both herkings.” It required no great penetration to foretellthat the league of Ahaz with Tiglath-pileser the great king,would soon annihilate the petty princes of Damascus andIsrael.

(2) All scholars, both Jewish andChristian, agree that the child referred to was the expectedinfant of Isaiah himself. Within two years Pekah fell bythe hand of Hoshea, and Resin by the sword of the Assyrians.

(3) The Jews affirm that the word virgin[almah] does not of necessity mean a maiden or unmarriedwoman. If Isaiah in the text referred to his wife, she wasalready mother of at least one child two years old. Joel,i., 8, applies the word to a widow advanced in life:“Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husbandof her youth,” see Prov., xxx., 19.

Matthew, v., 1.

Jesus “seeing the multitude went up into amountain, and when he was set, he opened his mouthand taught the people.” [Here follow thebeatitudes.]

Luke, vi., 17.

Jesus came down with his disciples, and stood in theplain, and said: &c. [Here follow thebeatitudes.]

Matt., viii., 28.

“When [Jesus] was come to the other side [of the lake]into the country of the Gergesenes, there met himtwo possessed with devils, coming out of thetombs.”

Mark, v., 1, 2; Luke, viii.,26, 27.

“When they came over unto the other side of the sea intothe country of the Gadarenes, there met him out of thetombs a certain man which had devils a long time.”

Matt, xx., 20, 21.

“The mother of Zebedee’s children . . .said unto [Jesus], grant that these my two sons may sit, the oneon thy right hand and the other on the left in thykingdom.”

Mark, x., 35–37.

“James and John the sons of Zebedee came unto[Jesus] saying, grant unto us that we may sit one on thy righthand and the other on thy left in thy glory.”

Matt., xxii., 46.

Here we are told that Jesus puzzled the Pharisees with thequestion, “How can Christ be David’s son, seeing thatDavid calls him lord?” “And noman,” adds the writer, “from that day forth, durstask him any more questions.”

Mark, xii., 34.

Mark gives a different version. He says a certain scribeasked Jesus, “Which is the first commandment ofall?” And when Jesus answered the scribe well, adds,“No man after that durst ask him any question.”

Luke, xx., 40.

Luke agrees with neither of his brother evangelists. Hestates the matter thus: The Sadducees tell Jesus of a woman whomarried seven times, and ask whose wife of the seven she would bein the resurrection. After Jesus had replied, some of thescribes remarked, “Master, thou hast well said,” andLuke adds, “after that they durst not ask him anyquestion.” Which is right would be hard to say. Only one can be so.

Matt., xxvi., 6, &c.; Mark,xiv., 3, &c.

Matthew and Mark say that Jesus was banqueting in the house ofSimon the Leper, when a woman came and anointed him withspikenard.

John, xii., 1, &c.

John places this anointing in the house of Lazarus, and saysthe woman’s name was Mary, who took a pound of spikenardfor the purpose.

There cannot be a doubt that all these referto the same event or tradition. It was just prior to the “entryinto Jerusalem” which brought about the trial andcondemnation. It is wholly incredible that this anointingwith spikenard should have been done twice at about the sametime.

Matt., xxvi., 34.

Jesus said to Simon Peter: “Verily I say unto thee thatthis night before the cock crow, thou shalt deny methrice.”

See also Luke, xxii., 34; and John xiii., 38.

Mark, xiv., 30.

Jesus said: “Verily I say unto thee that this day, evenin this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt denyme thrice.”

Matt., xxvi., 73.

Matthew describes the third “denial” thus:“After a while came they that stood by and said toPeter, surely thou art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeththee.”

Mark and Luke give substantially the same account.

John, xviii., 26.

John says it was not “they that stood by,” but“one of the servants of the High Priest, whose ear Peter[had] cut off.” This servant said, “Did not Isee thee in the garden with him,” and not that “thyspeech bewrayeth thee.”

Matt, xxvi., 74.

Matthew, in accordance with his dictum, makes Simon Peter denythrice any knowledge of Jesus, and, having so done,“immediately the cock crew.”

Mark xiv., 68–72.

Mark has another tale to make good, and says that Simon Peterdenied once, and the cock crew once; after this Peter deniedtwice more, and then the cock crew a second time.

Matt, xxvii., 5.

Matthew says that Judas, after he had betrayed his master,“went and hanged himself.”

Acts, i., 18.

Simon Peter says, “This man [Judas] purchased a fieldwith the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burstasunder, and all his bowels gushed out.”

Simon Peter says that Judas bought a fieldwith the money he received from the priests. The evangelistsays he flung the money down in the temple, and the priestsbought with it the potter’s field to bury strangersin. What is meant by “falling headlong” is verydifficult to make out.

Matt, xxviii., 2–5.

Matthew tells us that an angel “rolled back the stonefrom the door of the sepulchre, and sat upon it; and the angelsaid, ‘Fear not . . .’”

John xxi., 1. We are told that Mary saw two angelssitting; one at the head and the other at the feet.

Mark xvi., 4, 5.

Mark says the stone was rolled away, and the visitors on“entering into the sepulchre saw [the angel] sitting on theright side. And he said,” &c. Luke [xxiv.,4] says there were two men who stood. Theyhad “shining garments,” and they said, “Whyseek ye the living among the dead?”

Mark x., 46; Matt, xx., 29.

Mark says, and Matthew agrees with him, that Jesus met withBartimeus, the blind beggar, on leaving Jericho.

Luke xviii., 35.

Luke says it was not on leaving Jericho, but as he was aboutto enter the city.

Mark xiv., 69.

In regard to the second denial of Simon Peter, Mark says“A maid saw him again, and said to them thatstood by, this is one of them.”

Luke xxii., 58.

Luke tells us the person was not a woman, but a man; and Peteranswered “Man, I am not,” i.e., not one of thedisciples.

Luke, ix., 1.

Here we read that Jesus “called his twelve disciplestogether, and gave them power and authority over alldevils, and to cure [all] diseases.”

Luke, ix., 38–40.

We are hardly prepared in the same chapter to hear that thedisciples had not power to cast out devils, and curediseases, for a man says to Jesus, “Master, a spirit takethmy son and teareth him; and I brought him to thy disciples tocast it out, but they could not.”

John xix., 6.

When Jesus was brought before the Roman procurator, Pilatesaid to the Jews, “Take ye him, and crucify him.”

John xviii., 31.

This is very strange, seeing the Jews had just said to Pilate,“It is not lawful for us to put any man todeath.”

Would any Roman procurator have told the Jewsto crucify a criminal, knowing that it was strictly forbidden bythe Roman senate?

CONCLUSION.

The apology that a certain degree of variance is a proof of independent testimony is quite beside the present question, and so is the argument of Dr. Whately about Napoleon. No doubt half-a-dozen correspondents describing any event in the late war would dwell on different incidents, and see matters from different stand-points; one would have a bias towards the French and another towards the Prussians, one would be cast in a Tory mould and another would have Radical proclivities, one would see with military eyes and another with the eyes of a civilian, one would look towards the end and another would limit his vision to the present action; but who claims for these correspondents divine inspiration? who believes that they are all baptized into one spirit, and that the spirit which guides them has guaranteed that they shall speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? They write as human beings, with fallible judgments, and all the prejudices of caste, education, interest, and special advocacy; with so many things to bias judgment, no doubt there will be considerable variety of statement, but all this in no wise applies to the Bible writers—they are not supposed to write from any of these motives, but to be guided and directed by one and the same motive, and all to be led by the Spirit of unerring truth. With such writers there may be considerable verbal difference, but no substantial variety; there may be shades of variety, and different incidents may strike different eye-witnesses, but there can be no positive contradiction, and the same incident cannot be described as two antagonistic facts. If Samuel was right when he affirmed that David took from the king of Zobah 700 horsemen, the chronicler was wrong when he said the number was 7000. If the chronicler was correct in saying that Jehoiachim was only eight when he ascended the throne, his brother chronicler was in error when he declared that he was eighteen. If Jesus was the son of Joseph and Joseph a descendant of David, then Jesus was of the lineage of David; but if he was the son of quite another line he was not of the line of David. If the writer of the book of Kings was right in saying that no vessels of gold and silver were made of the money collected in the temple by Jehoash, the writer of the book of Chronicles could not be correct in saying that all sorts of gold and silver vessels were made therefrom. If Matthew was right in saying that the soldiers arrayed Jesus in a “scarlet robe,” Mark and John were wrong in pronouncing it to be a “purple garment;” and if Jesus said to Peter, before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice, he did not say before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice. If the writers were eye and ear witnesses, and if the guiding Spirit of God brought to their remembrance what Jesus said and did, such discrepancies could not have occurred.

These contradictions, and their number is legion, are not the shades of variety, the verbal differences of independent writers of truth, they are irreconcilable statements, one of which must be wrong, and if both claim to be guided by the Spirit of Infallible Truth, their claim cannot be allowed. It cannot be true that 22 is 42 and 7000 the same as 600; but give up inspiration and place the Bible on the same platform as any other ancient record, then everyone is at liberty to weigh its statements and to hold fast just so much as is consistent with the advanced knowledge of science, the general scope of experience, and the harmony of history.

SUBJECTS OF TWELVE OF THE SERIES.

No. 1.—“On the Identity of the Vital and Cosmical Principle.” By R. Lewins, M.D., Staff Surgeon-Major to Her Majesty’s Forces.

No. 2.—“The Physical Theory of Animal Life.” A Review by Julian.

No. 3.—“The Nature of Man Identical with that of other Animals.” By Julian.