The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels Part 10

"_For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight; His can't be wrong, whose life is in the right.

In faith and hope the world will disagree; But all mankind's concern is charity._"

_After the death of Mr. At.w.a.ter it developed that he had instructed the Trust Company having his affairs in charge to make money gifts to about one hundred of his friends._

_A few of those so remembered have published the accompanying book for distribution among Mr. At.w.a.ter's intimate acquaintances. The text is that of a pamphlet which he published just before his death._

_Inside this leaflet are reproduced copies of a letter to the Trust Company regarding the gifts and a memorandum, found in his desk, as to the disposition of his remains._

Minneapolis, Minn.

Sept. 1/15

Minneapolis Trust Company, 115 South Fifth Street, City.

Dear Sirs:--

In distributing the property which will come to you under my will, I wish you to exercise a reasonable discretion, since conditions may be quite different at the time of my death from what they are now. I very likely have overlooked some of my old friends who should be remembered, and in such case I should wish you to make the matter right as though they were included in my list.

In case I should die after sickness of some duration, the people who have taken care of me in this sickness should be also remembered.

In case there should be any deficiency of property to fill these bequests, I should prefer that the deficiency should be taken out of the larger amounts to friends who do not really need the money, rather then to reduce all of the bequests pro rata. Under present conditions there should be a surplus of several thousand dollars. This you might hold for some time and if any of my friends came to actual want, you could use it for their benefit or, if not used for that purpose, you could give it to some hospital or asylum.

If you deem it advisable, you may make explanation that the varying amounts of these legacies are not to be taken as indicating the degree of my regard for recipients, since I have considered to a considerable extent the financial condition of my friends. To some of them any amount of money I could leave would be of no account pecuniarily, while in case of others it might be of some real help; I have also given my girl friends largely the advantage in amounts.

I will keep a duplicate of this list, which will be among my papers, and may make changes in it from time to time, which will be of the same effect as though communicated to you.

Yours very truly,

John B. At.w.a.ter.

MEMORANDUM

I wish my remains to be cremated as quietly as possible, and do not care to have a minister hold any services. While I believe in G.o.d the Infinite not ourselves which is eternal I do not believe in any of the man-made G.o.ds and Creeds which now exist and which in my opinion have entirely perverted the simple gospel taught by Christ. As I have no near relatives to be pained by the absence of conventional ceremonies, I might as well be consistent to the end. I have no particular use for flowers at a funeral, and would prefer, if my friends feel it necessary to express their regret in a tangible form, that they would send checks to some Hospital or Asylum in my memory for the amount they would otherwise spend on flowers.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Renan says that "the family of David had, as it seems, been long extinct" before Joseph's birth. Life of Jesus, Chap. XV.

[2] The first verse of Luke's Gospel says that "many" had written about Jesus' life before him. If, as seems probable, he had Matthew's narrative before him when he wrote his Gospel, it is an interesting query why he rejected in his line of ancestry Solomon--the most "glorious" of the Jewish rulers--in favor of the obscure and comparatively unknown Nathan.

[3] It is somewhat curious that Matthew and Luke, who are the only two evangelists to attribute a divine ancestry to Jesus (see heading "Conception"), are the only two to give a genealogy of Joseph. From their point of view, it was entirely immaterial whether Joseph was a descendant of David or not. An attempt to trace Mary's lineage back to David would have had some materiality.

On the other hand, it would seem that Mark and John, who ignore the paternity of the Holy Ghost, would have deemed it of high importance to establish, if possible, one of these genealogies. All Jewry at this time was teeming with expectation of the coming of a Messiah, and their prophets had marked Him out as one of the lineage of David (Psalms Cx.x.xII:2; Jer. XXIII:4; John VII:42). No stronger argument could have been found to win the favor of the Jews to Jesus than the linking of His name with David.

In Cadman's "Harmony of the Gospels," page 39, the author makes an ingenious attempt to "harmonize" these two lines of ancestry--the super-natural and the Davidian. This he does by making Luke's genealogy one of Mary, instead of Joseph. By this means the super-natural fatherhood of Jesus is saved and, at the same time He can claim, through His mother, a descent from David.

The main trouble with this theory is that Cadman is obliged to make Heli the father of Mary, when Luke expressly says that Heli was the father of Joseph (Luke III:23). At another place, Luke speaks of _Joseph,_ not _Mary_, as being of the house of David (Luke II:4).

[4] There was no G.o.d--the Holy Ghost--known to the Jews, and Joseph could not have understood the meaning of the term without some explanation.

[5] It is to be noted that Matthew does not explain why the angel changed the name in the prophecy--Immanuel--to that of Jesus.

[6] Apparently the Angel must have told Mary His name.

[7] Cadman, in the work already referred to, page 37, "harmonizes" these two variant accounts of the angelic announcements by giving Matthew's version in his text, and simply referring to Luke's account in a note.

[8] From Luke's narrative it does not appear that Joseph had any doubts as to Jesus being his child, or, if he did, how these doubts were removed.

[9] The story of the miraculous conception of Jesus would be thrown out of any impartial court upon the evidence of the four Gospels alone.

(a) The two narratives of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on several important details, as is shown above. This discredits each of them as a reliable, accurate authority on this point.

(b) This story is entirely omitted from the narratives of our two first-hand authorities--Mark and John.

Now, it is unthinkable that the authors of these two Gospels, if they knew of this story and believed it to be true, would not have recorded so important a fact in the life of Jesus.

Consequently, they either did not know of the story or, knowing it, did not believe it to be true.

Either hypothesis is equally fatal to the credit of the story.

If they, writing shortly after Jesus' death and, presumably, investigating all sources of information about His prophetic career--probably personally interviewing those persons then living who had seen, heard and known Jesus most intimately--had heard nothing of this story, then it must have been such an obscure legend, buried in the inner consciousness of so few people, as to be unworthy of serious consideration as a fact of history.

If, on the other hand, these writers knew of the story, but, after investigation of the abundant sources of information at their command, rejected it as untrue, what warrant have subsequent historians, not possessing their special means of information, to claim that their decision was wrong?

(c) The story of Jesus' supernatural paternity is most effectually discredited by the fact that no such claim on His behalf was advanced by, nor was the story known to, those nearest to Him during His lifetime.

His nearest friends and neighbors, who had been in daily intercourse with Him at Nazareth for thirty years, had no suspicion of such a claim being made on His behalf, even some time after He had begun his preaching.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. XIII:55; Mark VI:3.) (See also Matt. XII:47.)

Still later, the mult.i.tudes who came to hear Him knew nothing of such a claim.

"Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"

(John VI:42).

Luke himself says that Jesus "was supposed" to be the son of Joseph (Luke III:23).