4. Jesus, son of Sie (Ant., xvii. xiii. 1).

5. Jesus, son of d.a.m.neus (Ant., xx. ix. 1).

6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel (Ant., xx. ix. 4).

7. Jesus, son of Sapphias ( Wars, ii. xx. 4).

8. Jesus, son of Shaphat ( Wars, iii. ix. 7).

9. Jesus, son of Ana.n.u.s ( Wars, iv. iv. 9).

10. Jesus, son of Ana.n.u.s, a plebeian ( Wars, vi. v. 3).

11. Jesus, son of Gamala (Life, 38, 41).

12. Jesus, a high priest ( Wars, vi. ii. 2).

13. Jesus, son of Thebuthi ( Wars, vi. viii. 3).

14. Jesus, father of Elymas.

15. Jesus, surnamed Barabbas.

Josephus also refers to one Judas, a Gaulonite, who was a leader of the people, and whose character and career answer in so many respects to qualities credited to Jesus of Nazareth that it is supposed by many that the name Jesus had been changed to Judas; and he also refers to other Jesuses who are too much like the traditional Jesus of the Gospels in many things to be mere coincidences. Then there was the _meek_ Jesus, mentioned by Josephus, who lived during the reign of Albinus, who prophesied such evil things, and who was scourged until his bones were laid bare, and who uttered no reply, and in so many ways was like the Jesus of tradition ( _Wars of the Jews_, book vi., chap. 5). Then we have the mention of the Jesus, as is well known, who was the friend of Simon and John and the "son of Sapphias," who was the leader of a seditious tumult, _who was betrayed by one of his followers_, and defeated by Josephus himself when he was governor of Galilee, and put to shame and confusion (_Life of Josephus_, sec. 12-14).

This undoubtedly shows that nearly all that is claimed for Jesus of Nazareth _might_ have been said as the substance of what was written by Josephus concerning real historical persons called Jesus. This may account for the conglomerate character and the many inconsistencies ascribed to this Jesus of tradition.

The failure of Jewish writers of the first century to recognize Jesus of Nazareth, even in the most casual way, is a significant fact. Philo, the celebrated writer of his day, was born about twenty years before the Christian era, and spent his time in philosophical studies at that centre of learning, Alexandria in Egypt. He labored diligently and wrote voluminously to reconcile the teachings of Plato with the writings of the Old Testament, and, though in the prime and vigor of manhood when Jesus is said to have lived, and dwelling in the immediate vicinity of Judea, and in the very city where Christianity was early introduced, yet this learned, devout, and honest Jew makes no mention of Jesus of Nazareth.

Even more strange is the silence of Josephus, the Jewish historian, who was born about A. d. 35, and lived and wrote extensively until after the destruction of Jerusalem, and yet he never mentioned the name of Jesus.

The celebrated pa.s.sage regarding Christ is known to be a forgery, and the one respecting "James the brother of Jesus, called the Christ," is by no means worthy of confidence. It must be certain that in the first century of our era Jesus of Nazareth did not attract the attention of these fair and distinguished Jewish writers, if he in fact existed.

In early times the name Jesus, as has been shown, was as common as the names John or James, and when the name is mentioned it is impossible to say who is referred to. The pa.s.sage in Josephus referring to Jesus thus, "About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be right to call him a man," etc., is acknowledged by celebrated Christian writers to be a fraud. Its authenticity was given up as long ago as the time of Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, author of the _Credibility of the Gospel History_, and one of the most highly regarded of Christian writers.

Gibbon, too, decided it to be a forgery. Bishop Warburton, the distinguished defender of Pope's _Essay on Man_ against the charge of atheism, and one of the most distinguished of Christian defenders, agreed with Lardner. The Rev. Robert Taylor quotes many other Christian writers as coinciding. The biographer of Josephus in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ says the pa.s.sage is unanimously regarded as spurious. Drs.

Oort, Hookyaas, and Xuenen, German Christian writers of great repute, in the _Bible for Learners_ declare the pa.s.sage to be "certainly spurious"

and "inserted by a later and a Christian hand."

Gibbon says it was forged between the time of Origen (a. d. 230) and Eusebius (a. d. 315). The credit of the forgery, however, is generally given to Eusebius, who first quoted it. The distinguished authors of the _Bible for Learners_ distinctly state that Josephus never mentioned Jesus, and cite Josephus's close following of the atrocious career of Herod up to the very last moments of his life, without mentioning the slaughter of the innocents, as indubitable proof that Josephus knew nothing of Jesus. Dr. Lardner gives these reasons why he regards the pa.s.sage as a forgery:

"I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

"Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word _Christ_ in any of his works, except the testimony above mentioned and the pa.s.sage concerning James, the Lord's brother.

"It interrupts the narrative.

"The language is quite Christian.

"It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been in the text.

"It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

"Under the article 'Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states that the historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

"Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from Christian authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony.

"But, on the contrary, in chapter x.x.xv. of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ."

The Rev. Dr. Giles, author of the _Christian Records_, adds to the reasons for rejecting the pa.s.sage, as follows:

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus and the style of his writings have no hesitation in condemning this pa.s.sage as a forgery interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the Gospels or of Christ their subject.

But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that _Jesus was the Christ?_ Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the pa.s.sage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion; and thus the pa.s.sage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (i. 11), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment, or even honesty, of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine."

Oxley in his great work 011 Egypt says: "However, I have found in some papers that this discourse _was not written by Josephus, but by one Caius, a presbyter._"

Here, according to their own showing, what had pa.s.sed for centuries as the work of Josephus was a fraud perpetrated by a dignitary of the Church. This is in perfect keeping with ancient custom. In addition to all this, there is not an original ma.n.u.script of Josephus in existence, nor one (that I have heard of) that dates farther back than the tenth or eleventh century A. D.

Another forged reference to Christ is found in the _Antiquities_, book xx. chapter ix. section 1, where Josephus is made to speak of James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." Some theologians who reject the longer reference to Jesus accept this as genuine. But they do it without reconciling the discrepancies between the stories regarding the end of this same James. According to this pa.s.sage, James was put to death under the order of the high priest. But according to Hegesippus, a converted Jew who wrote a history of the Christian Church about A. d.

170, James was killed in a tumult, not by sentence of a court. Clement of Alexandria confirms this, and is quoted by Eusebius accordingly.

Eusebius also quotes the line from Josephus without noticing that the two do not agree. The statement is quoted in various ways in the early writers, and the conclusion is irresistible that the copies of Josephus were tampered with by copyists. Even had Jesus lived and taught as described in the Gospels, Josephus, an orthodox Jew, a priest, and conservative government official, would never have given him the t.i.tle of Christ, or Messiah, a party leader for whom the Jews were looking to free them from their Roman bondage.

Among the great pagan writers of the first century of our era we find absolutely nothing relating to Jesus of Nazareth. There was Seneca, living not far from these times, and then the Elder and the Younger Pliny, Tacitus, Plutarch, Galen, Epictetus, Marcus Antoninus-some of the n.o.blest men of the world. Let us look at some few fragments of testimony that we have. One historian writes that "under a ringleader named Chrestus the Jews raised a tumult." In another place he refers to the Christians as a cla.s.s of men devoted to a "new and mischievous superst.i.tion." And Tacitus speaks of Judea as "the source of this evil."

Another speaks of the Christians as "a sect hated for their crimes," and Suetonius gives Nero special praise for having done the most that he could to wipe them off the face of the earth. In a _Life of Claudius_, another Roman emperor, Christ is spoken of as "a restless, seditious Jewish agitator." Pliny the Younger, writing to the emperor about A. D.

104, when he was governor of Bithynia, says the Christians do not worship the G.o.ds nor the emperors-as most of the people then did-nor could they be induced to curse Christ. He says they met mornings for virtuous vows, and chanted a hymn to Christ as to a G.o.d, and in the evening they ate together a common meal. And after he had put them to torture he said all he could find against them was "a perverse and immoderate superst.i.tion." Lucian, about the middle of the second century, speaks of Jesus as the crucified Sophist. We do not know certainly whether these references to Christ allude to Jesus of Nazareth at all. _Chrestians_ and _Chrestus_ were designations in common use all over the world, and the writers merely mentioned them as a sect well known as creating some noise in the world. Certainly the language used in describing them is not very complimentary. They may have referred to the Essenes, who had their ideal Chrest.

A modern writer has shown that the story of the persecution of Christians by the emperor Nero (a. d. 54-68) is a modern fabrication.

Robert Taylor, in his _Diegesis_ published in 1829, proved that Cornelius Tacitus never could have written the pa.s.sage describing such persecution. It has been demonstrated that the whole of the so-called _Annals of Tacitus_, containing the celebrated pa.s.sage, was forged by a Papal secretary named Poggio Bracciolini. In 1422, while in the receipt of a small salary under Martin V., he was tempted by an offer of five hundred sequins (which would now be equal to fifty thousand dollars) to engage in some mysterious literary work. Seven years later, six books of what are now called the _Annals of Tacitus_ were brought to him by a monk from Saxony. Then all Christendom rejoiced to learn that the heathen Tacitus had mentioned Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Poggio, though a father both spiritually and carnally, was not a husband till the age of fifty-four. At seventy-two he accepted the office of secretary to the republic of Florence, and at seventy-nine he died, leaving five sons of his old age. Up to the last he was a busy student and writer. Fifty-six years after his death his fourth son was secretary to Pope Leo X., at which time the pope's steward, stimulated by a munificent reward, discovered the first six incomplete books of the _Annals_, being the unfinished work of Poggio in his old age.

The finding of ancient MSS. was a very lucrative business for scholars in those days. It began with Petrarch, who died in 1374, and did not end with Poggio, who died in 1459. Poggio discovered several orations of Cicero, a history by Ammia.n.u.s Marcollinus, and several other cla.s.sic works, besides the uncla.s.sic writings of Tertullian, the first Latin Father.

The modern fabrication of many of the ancient Latin and Greek MSS. is now becoming apparent. Jean Hardouin, a French Jesuit, died in 1729, aged eighty-three years. He was deeply versed in history, language, and numismatology. At the age of forty-four he began to suspect that certain writings of the Christian Fathers were spurious, and soon became convinced that none of them were genuine. Then turning his attention to the Greek and Latin cla.s.sics, he found evidence sufficient to convince him that most of those also were forgeries, being fabricated by the Benedictine monks after the middle of the fourteenth century.

Eusebius's _Ecclesiastical History_, first found in Latin in the fifteenth century and then in Greek in the six-teenth century, we have no doubt is a probable forgery. And if so we have really no history of the primitive Church except what may be found in the New Testament and a few uncertain fragments of apocryphal literature, all much corrupted.

The use of the word _Christus_ and _Christia.n.u.s_ by the Latin writers is sufficient evidence of modern fabrication. Ainsworth's Latin Dictionary has not the word Christus nor Christia.n.u.s in the Latin part, but in the part which gives the Latin equivalents of English words we find this:

A Christian = Christia.n.u.s.

Christianism or Christianity = Christianismus.

Christmas = Christianataliam festum.

Now, the words Christus and Christia.n.u.s are used by Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny (the younger), Tertullian, and all the succeeding Latin Fathers.

_Christos_ in Greek is a very proper word, being a translation of the Hebrew _mashiach_, meaning "anointed." Therefore, the Latins would have rendered it _unctus_.

But the Benedictine monks who forged the literature of the pretended Fathers, instead of translating _christos,_ audaciously transferred the word, and thus the new word _Christus_, with a capital C, became an additional name for the man-G.o.d of the Catholic Church.

Now, we respectfully raise the query whether it is rational to suppose that such wonderful things occurred in the little province of Palestine, surrounded by learned sages and philosophers of the most enlightened nations of the world, and not one direct and intelligent reference should have been made to them? Is it not strange that we have no account of the birth, sayings, and doings of this "last Adam," who is said to have come into this world on the most important mission, and yet we hear nothing of him except in four or five little anonymous and dateless pamphlets written a long while after the events are said to have transpired? Since the New Testament contains _all_ that has been written on this subject, is it not our highest duty to subject this book to the most thorough examination? This we shall now proceed to do in the most fearless manner, however startling the conclusions which may be reached.

CHAPTER IX. WHAT IS KNOWN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

_"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me."-John 5: 39._

WE of course use the above pa.s.sage as a motto, as the writer must have referred to the Old-Testament Scriptures, as the New Testament was not yet in existence. As this book is the sole dependence in finding evidence regarding Jesus, we naturally first inquire as to what is known of it. We find this volume to be made up of _twenty-seven_ small tracts or pamphlets, fastened together for the sake of convenience.