|
No. II.
To
Rev. M. R. Miller.
Dear Sir:
You are, as it appears, the apologist of the Synod
of the Presbyterian Ministers in the State of New
York, who addressed the Jewish community, in a very
solemn style, to join their Church; but after they
have been answered, I think by the Rev. Isaac Leeser
and Rev. Dr. Schlessinger, you come forth again with
the same ridiculous idea; and as you are an esteemed
friend of mine, I will give you first my reason, why
I call this plan ridiculous.
Your ecclesiastical historian, the talented
Mosheim, tells us, the apocryphal gospels were,
therefore, rejected, because they are “full of pious
frauds and fabulous wonders,” emanating from the
greatest superstition and ignorance (Mosheim, vol. i. p. 109). We have the very same reason to reject
the canonical gospels. Is it not a fabulous wonder,
that Mary conceived of the Holy Ghost, who is an
issue of the Father and of the Son? That the Holy
Ghost came down from heaven in the shape of a dove
to sit on the head of the baptized Jesus? That the
devil (a personage of Persian origin) had, during
forty days, so great a power over the very same
Jesus? That the unclean spirits knew him at the
first sight, and were so sorely afraid of him? That
one man was possessed of a legion of devils, which
were strong enough to drive two thousand swine into
the sea? That he fed an innumerable mass of people
with less than nothing (for the fragments were more
than the food first brought), and that he changed
water into wine? That the sun was darkened, the
rocks split, and many saints revived when he died on
the cross? That he arose with his wounded body, and
ascended to God to sit at his right hand?—for that
Jesus is himself a part of God, is not said in the
Gospels, but is the invention of later philosophers.
<<233>>
Every man, who is not brought up a Christian, must
call these stories “pious (?) frauds and fabulous
wonders,” because they are too inconsistent with
human reason, and contradict the results of modern
sciences.
Concerning the superstition of the authors of the
gospels, I have nothing to say; for men who believed
in the existence of a devil, a hell, and a host of
evil and unclean spirits; who believed in astrology
(Matthew 1, 2) and all the thousand and one stories
which they narrate, must have been very
superstitious indeed. But about their ignorance, I
must make some farther remarks. Matthew in his
genealogy (chap. i.), gives us fourteen generations
from David to the Babylonian exile. He makes a
mistake here, in not mentioning between Joram and
Uzziah, three kings, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (2
Chron. xxvi). Verse eleven, the author says, “And
Josias begat Jechonias,” &c. Here he forgot to
mention Jehoiakim, who was the son of Josias and the
father of Jechonias (2 Chess. xxxvi. 8; 2 Kings
xxiv. 6). Luke, who contradicts altogether the
genealogy of Matthew, having other names and more
generations than the former, calls Salathiel a son
of Neri, when he was a son of Jechonias (1 Chron.
iii. 17-19); between Arphaxsad and Sala he has a
certain Cainan, of whom neither the Bible nor any
Jewish historian makes mention.
Luke (chap. ii.) tells us: “And it came to pass in
those days (?) that there went out a decree from
Caesar Augustus, that all the world (?) should be
taxed.” “And this taxing was first made, when
Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.” But, unfortunately,
his fellow-labourer, Matthew, says, that Jesus was
born under the reign of Herod the Great, when no
Roman census could be undertaken in Judea, it not
being a Roman province; no ancient historian knows
anything about it; and to the greatest misfortune of
the evangelist, there was at the time of the birth
of Jesus (according to Matthew) no Cyrenius
Governor of Syria, but Sentius Saturnius, who was
succeeded by Quintilius Varus. In Matthew i. 16-18,
we are told, that ever so many children were slain
by Herod, in order to kill also Jesus; all which
Luke (chap. ii.) flatly contradicts ; and the other
evangelists not only knew nothing of it, but
Josephus also, <<234>>and the Rabbis, the antagonists
of Herod, who painted him with the darkest colours,
and said all of him that could be said, tell not a
word of that inhuman massacre.
But the author made the slight mistake of calling
the sons of Herod many babes. We read in Luke (iii.
1, 2), “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being Governor of
Judea, and Herod being Tetrarch of Galilee, and his
brother Philip Tetrarch of Ituraea, and of the
region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the Tetrarch of
Abilené.” Here are only the following slight errors:
1.
That Lysanias was never a ruler of Abilené, but of
Chalcis on the Lebanon; and
2.
That this Lysanias was assassinated thirty-four
years before the commencement of the vulgar era (Antiq.
xiii. xvi. 3; and Dio Cass. 49, 32). But Luke knows
it as a certainty that John, of whom he speaks in
this passage, was a few months older than Jesus.
Luke (chap. iii.) tells us “Annas and Caiaphas being
the high-priests.” Anybody, acquainted with the
history of the Jews, must know that two high-priests
never officiated together.
Mark (vii. 31) tells us, “He came unto the sea of
Galilee, and came unto the coasts of Judea beyond
Jordan.” There are again two mistakes:
1.
The Jordan was the eastern boundary of Judea, and
coming from Galilee he could not say “Judea beyond
Jordan,” where Paraea was.
2.
Samaria was between Galilee and Judea.
Matthew (ii. 22) makes Jesus return to Nazareth,
“That it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the
prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene.”
But, unfortunately, no reader of the Bible has ever
yet found such a verse, or one at all like it, in
any of the prophets. Matthew (iii. :3) states: “For
this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias,
saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness.
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths
straight.” No such verse exists in the book of
Esaias, but is the evangelist’s own invention. Luke
(iii. 4, 5, 6) has the same mistake, and makes
Esaias say, in addition, “All flesh shall see the
salvation of <<235>>God,” which words no one can
find; for if they meant to refer to Isaiah xl. 3-5,
they have committed a grievous mistake; for it is
said there: “A voice crieth, In the wilderness
prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the
desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be
raised, and every mountain and hill shall be made
low, and the crooked shall be made a straight path,
and the rough places a plain. And the glory of the
Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh together shall
see that the mouth of the Lord hath spoken.”
Matthew (i. 23) states, that God spoke, through his
prophet, “Behold a virgin shall be with child and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name Emanuel.” No such verse exists in any part of
the Scriptures. If Matthew referred to Isaiah vii.
14, he committed another unpardonable mistake; for
no Hebrew grammarian can translate that passage with
other words than “Behold this young woman is with
child, and thou (in the feminine gender) bringest
forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Imanuel.”
(See Genesis, xvi. 11, where the same words are
used.)
When Mark (xv. 34) lets Jesus say, “Eloi, Eloi,
lama sabachthani,” and Matthew (xxvii. 46) “Eli,
Eli, lama sabachthani,” they display an entire
ignorance of the Hebrew language; for this passage
reads “Eli, Eli, lamah gnasabthani,”
אלי אלי למה עזבתני
(Psalm xxii. 2.)
The most ridiculous mistakes occur in Acts viii.
15,16, where we read, “So Jacob went down into
Egypt, and died, he and our fathers; and were
carried ever into Sychem, and laid into the
sepulchre, that Abraham bought for a sum of money of
the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.” Here are
the following unpardonable mistakes:
1.
Jacob and Joseph only were brought up from Egypt,
and this at different periods of time; wherefore, it
should read “and he was brought up,” instead of “and
were carried over.”
2.
No one was carried “over.” but “up” from Egypt.
3.
Jacob was not buried in Sychem, but in Hebron;
Joseph, only was buried in Shechem.
4.
The sepulchre which Abraham bought was in “Hebron”
and not in “Sychem.”
5.
Abraham bought the sepulchre of “Ephron, the
Hittite,” <<236>>and not of “Emmor, the father of Sychem.” Again (Acts viii. 19): “The same (Pharaoh)
dealt subtly with our kindred, and evil entreated
our fathers, so that they cast out their young
children, to the end they might not live.” Pharaoh
commanded all new born male children to be cast in
the water by any one who might find them; this the
author of the Acts calls “the same dealt subtly.”
The Israelites concealed their children, and saved
them as long as possible; but the author of the Acts
tells us, that they cast out (voluntarily) their
children to save them from the subtlety of Pharaoh.
We
could easily find some dozens of mistakes in the
canonical gospels, but I think those mentioned will
suffice to make a man confess, with the learned
Christian divine Evanson, that though the canonical
gospels are to be received as the compositions of
Jews, contemporaries and even witnesses of the
scenes and actions they describe, these compositions
do, nevertheless, betray so great a degree of
ignorance of the geography, statistics, and
circumstances (history and language) of Judea at the
time supposed, as to put it beyond all question,
that the writers were neither witnesses nor
contemporaries, neither Jews, nor at any time
inhabitants of Judea. (Dissonance of the Four
Gospels, p. 289. See also, Dr. Bretschneider’s
Probabilia de Evangelio Johannis.)
We
are, therefore, entitled, according to Mosheim’s
principle of rejecting the apocryphal gospels, and
according to sound common sense, to reject the
canonical gospels as being neither the result of a
divine revelation, nor a reliable historical source;
since they are full of pious frauds and fabulous
wonders, emanating from the grossest superstition
and ignorance.
I
recommend this letter to the fair consideration of
the learned Synod, and after they have given us
satisfaction on these points (which, however, must
be by sound and calm reasonings), I will then take
the liberty to lay other historical and
philosophical objections, which I have against
Christianity before that reverend body, which to
disqualify, by honest and fair evidence, must be the
first business of the Synod; but before this is
done, I must call the plan to pervert the Jews very
ridiculous.
<<237>>
But be assured of my fraternal feelings towards you,
and towards every good man, whatever he may believe
or disbelieve. “Love thy neighbour as thyself,” is
the biblical command, which conveys my sentiments
towards you and mankind at large.
Fraternally yours,
I. M. WISE, D. D.
Albany, July 8, 5610 A. M. |
