Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions Part 43

THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST JESUS.

The biographers of Jesus, although they have placed him in a position the most humiliating in his infancy, and although they have given him poor and humble parents, have notwithstanding made him to be of _royal descent_. The reasons for doing this were twofold. First, because, according to the Old Testament, the expected Messiah was to be of the seed of Abraham,[160:1] and second, because the Angel-Messiahs who had previously been on earth to redeem and save mankind had been of _royal descent_, therefore Christ Jesus must be so.

The following story, taken from Colebrooke's "_Miscellaneous Essays_,"[160:2] clearly shows that this idea was general:

"The last of the Jinas, Vardhamana, was _at first_ conceived by Devananda, a Brahmana. The conception was announced to her by a dream. Sekra, being apprised of his incarnation, prostrated himself and worshiped the future saint (who was in the womb of Devananda); but reflecting that _no great saint was ever born in an indigent or mendicant family_, as that of a Brahmana, Sekra commanded his chief attendant to remove the child from the womb of Devananda to that of Trisala, wife of Siddhartha, _a prince of the race of Jeswaca_, of the Kasyapa family."

In their attempts to accomplish their object, the biographers of Jesus have made such poor work of it, that all the ingenuity Christianity has yet produced, has not been able to repair their blunders.

The genealogies are contained in the first and third Gospels, and although they do not agree, yet, if either is right, then Jesus was _not_ the son of G.o.d, engendered by the "Holy Ghost," but the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary. In any other sense they amount to nothing. That Jesus can be of royal descent, and yet be the Son of G.o.d, in the sense in which these words are used, is a conclusion which can be acceptable to those only who believe in _alleged_ historical narratives on no other ground than that they wish them to be true, and dare not call them into question.

The _Matthew_ narrator states that _all_ the generations from Abraham to David are _fourteen_, from David until the carrying away into Babylon are _fourteen_, and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Jesus are _fourteen_ generations.[161:1] Surely nothing can have a more _mythological_ appearance than this. But, when we confine our attention to the genealogy itself, we find that the generations in the third stage, including Jesus himself, amount to only _thirteen_. All attempts to get over this difficulty have been without success; the genealogies are, and have always been, hard nuts for theologians to crack. Some of the early Christian fathers saw this, and they very wisely put an _allegorical_ interpretation to them.

Dr. South says, in Kitto's Biblical Encyclopaedia:

"Christ's being the true Messiah depends upon his being the son of David and king of the Jews. _So that unless this be evinced the whole foundation of Christianity must totter and fall._"

Another writer in the same work says:

"In these two doc.u.ments (Matthew and Luke), which profess to give us the genealogy of Christ, there is no notice whatever of the connection of his only earthly parent with the stock of David. On the contrary, both the genealogies profess to give us the descent of Joseph, to connect our Lord with whom by natural generation, would be to falsify the whole story of his miraculous birth, and overthrow the Christian faith."

Again, when the idea that one of the genealogies is Mary's is spoken of:

"One thing is certain, that our belief in Mary's descent from David is grounded on inference and tradition and not on any direct statement of the sacred writings. And there has been a ceaseless endeavor, both among ancients and moderns, to gratify the natural cravings for knowledge on this subject."

Thomas Scott, speaking of the genealogies, says:

"It is a favorite saying with those who seek to defend the history of the Pentateuch against the scrutiny of modern criticism, that the objections urged against it were known long ago. The objections to the _genealogy_ were known long ago, indeed; and perhaps nothing shows more conclusively than this knowledge, the disgraceful dishonesty and willful deception of the most ill.u.s.trious of Christian doctors."[161:2]

Referring to the two genealogies, Albert Barnes says:

"No two pa.s.sages of Scripture have caused more difficulty than these, and various attempts have been made to explain them.

. . . Most interpreters have supposed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. _But though this solution is plausible and may be true, yet it wants evidence._"

Barnes furthermore admits the fallibility of the Bible in his remarks upon the genealogies; 1st, by comparing them to _our_ fallible family records; and 2d, by the remark that "the only inquiry which can now be fairly made _is whether they copied these tables correctly_."

Alford, Ellicott, Hervey, Meyer, Mill, Patritius and Wordsworth hold that both genealogies are Joseph's; and Aubertin, Ebrard, Greswell, Kurtz, Lange, Lightfoot and others, hold that one is Joseph's, and the other Mary's.

When the genealogy contained in _Matthew_ is compared with the Old Testament _they are found to disagree_; there are omissions which any writer with the least claim to historical sense would never have made.

When the genealogy of the _third_ Gospel is turned to, the difficulties greatly increase, instead of diminish. It not only contradicts the statements made by the _Matthew_ narrator, but it does not agree with the Old Testament.

What, _according to the three first evangelists_, did Jesus think of himself? In the first place he made no allusion to any miraculous circ.u.mstances connected with his birth. He looked upon himself as belonging to _Nazareth_, not as the child of Bethlehem;[162:1] _he reproved the scribes for teaching that the Messiah must necessarily be a descendant of David,[162:2] and did not himself make any express claim to such descent_.[162:3]

As we cannot go into an extended inquiry concerning the genealogies, and as there is no real necessity for so doing, as many others have already done so in a masterly manner,[162:4] we will continue our investigations in another direction, and show that Jesus was not the only Messiah who was claimed to be of royal descent.

To commence with _Crishna_, the Hindoo Saviour, he was of _royal descent_, although born in a state the most abject and humiliating.[163:1]

Thomas Maurice says of him:

"Crishna, in the _male_ line, was of royal descent, being of the Yadava line, the oldest and n.o.blest of India; and nephew, by his _mother's_ side, to the reigning sovereign; but, though royally descended, he was actually born in a state the most abject and humiliating; and, though not in a stable, yet in a dungeon."[163:2]

_Buddha_ was of _royal descent_, having descended from the house of Sakya, the most ill.u.s.trious of the caste of Brahmans, which reigned in India over the powerful empire of Mogadha, in the Southern Bahr.[163:3]

R. Spence Hardy says, in his "Manual of Buddhism:"

"The ancestry of Gotama Buddha is traced from his father, Sodhodana, through various individuals and races, all of royal dignity, to Maha Sammata, the first monarch of the world.

Several of the names, and some of the events, are met with in the Puranas of the Brahmins, but it is not possible to reconcile one order of statement with the other; and it would appear that the Buddhist historians have introduced races, and invented names, that they may invest their venerated sage with all the honors of heraldry, in addition to the attributes of divinity."

How remarkably these words compare with what we have just seen concerning the genealogies of Jesus!

_Rama_, another Indian _avatar_--the seventh incarnation of Vishnu--was also of _royal descent_.[163:4]

_Fo-hi_; or _Fuh-he_, the virgin-born "Son of Heaven," was of _royal descent_. He belonged to the oldest family of monarchs who ruled in China.[163:5]

_Confucius_ was of _royal descent_. His pedigree is traced back in a summary manner to the monarch _Hoang-ty_, who is said to have lived and ruled more than two thousand years before the time of Christ Jesus.[163:6]

_Horus_, the Egyptian virgin-born Saviour, was of _royal descent_, having descended from a line of kings.[163:7] He had the t.i.tle of "Royal Good Shepherd."[163:8]

_Hercules_, the Saviour, was of _royal descent_.[163:9]

_Bacchus_, although the Son of G.o.d, was of _royal descent_.[164:1]

_Perseus_, son of the virgin Danae, was of _royal descent_.[164:2]

_aesculapius_, the great performer of miracles, although a son of G.o.d, was notwithstanding of _royal descent_.[164:3]

Many more such cases might be mentioned, as may be seen by referring to the histories of the virgin-born G.o.ds and demi-G.o.ds spoken of in Chapter XII.

FOOTNOTES:

[160:1] That is, a pa.s.sage in the Old Testament was construed to mean this, although another and more plausible meaning might be inferred. It is when Abraham is blessed by the Lord, who is made to say: "_In thy seed_ shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice." (Genesis, xxii. 18.)

[160:2] Vol. ii. p. 214.

[161:1] Matthew, i. 17.

[161:2] Scott's English Life of Jesus.

[162:1] Matthew, xiii. 54; Luke, iv. 24.

[162:2] Mark, ii. 35.

[162:3] "There is no doubt that the authors of the genealogies regarded him (Jesus), as did his countrymen and contemporaries generally, as the eldest son of Joseph, Mary's husband, and that they had no idea of anything miraculous connected with his birth. All the attempts of the old commentators to reconcile the inconsistencies of the evangelical narratives are of no avail." (Albert Reville: Hist. Dogma, Deity, Jesus, p. 15.)

[162:4] The reader is referred to Thomas Scott's English Life of Jesus, Strauss's Life of Jesus, The Genealogies of Our Lord, by Lord Arthur Hervey, Kitto's Biblical Encyclopaedia, and Barnes' Notes.

[163:1] See Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. i. p. 130. Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 259, and Allen's India, p. 379.