The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels Part 11

There is, in fact, no evidence in the four Gospels to show that, during Jesus' lifetime, there was, at any time or place or by any person, a public claim made that He was not as much the son of Joseph, in the natural course of events, as He was the son of Mary.

(d) _Jesus in His lifetime never denied the paternity of Joseph._

On one occasion, in the synagogue at Nazareth, when He had been preaching and the people "wondered" at His "gracious words," "they said, Is not this Joseph's son?" And He said unto them, among other things, "No prophet is accepted in his own country" (Luke IV:22, 23). That is, the people were loath to accept Jesus' teachings because of His lowly birth. But Jesus, instead of claiming a divine parentage, impliedly affirms the fatherhood of Joseph.

On another occasion He is challenged as to His paternity, and does not deny that He is the son of Joseph (John VI:42).

If He had believed that the Holy Ghost was His father, then these two utterances would have been a _suppressio veri_--the equivalent of a falsehood--of which we cannot think Him guilty.

While Jesus never applies to Himself the t.i.tle of "Son of David," yet His claim to this lineage must have been widely circulated, since He is given this t.i.tle not only by the Jews (Matt. IX:27; XII:23; XX:30; XXI:9, 15; Mark X:47; XI:10; Luke I:32; XVIII:38), but also by the Gentiles (Matt. XV:22). His silence and failure to object, when so addressed, certainly const.i.tutes a tacit approval of this description of Himself. But He could only be a descendant of David by reason of the fact that Joseph was His father. Undoubtedly Matthew and Luke inserted in their narratives these two genealogies of Joseph to prove a direct descent of Jesus from David through the paternity of Joseph. The Cadman theory of tracing a descent from David through Mary was not known to the evangelists (Matt. I:16; Luke II:4).

In His meetings with his family, while He seems rather cool and indifferent to them, there is no intimation that His relationship to them is not the ordinary one of son and brother (Matt. XII:47; Mark III:31; Luke VIII:19, 20; XI:28; John II:1, 12).

Jesus never refers to the Holy Ghost as His father, and, on four occasions only, calls Himself the "Son of G.o.d" (John III:16-18; V:20; IX:35; XI:4). None of the events in connection with which the term is used by John, are related in either of the three other Gospels. But this term would convey to His hearers no other significance than that with which they were familiar from the Old Testament, where it is applied to beings inferior to G.o.d (Gen. VI:2; Job I:6; II:1; x.x.xVIII:7; Ps.

Lx.x.xII:6; 2 Sam. VII:14). But this is very far from the attribute ascribed to Jesus through the miraculous conception, of being the equal of, or one with, G.o.d. Jesus Himself refers to others as being the "children of G.o.d" (Luke XX:36; Matt. V:45), and He speaks constantly of G.o.d being the "Father" of His hearers (Matt. V:16, 45; VI:1, 6, 14; XVIII:14 _et pa.s.sim_). Apparently He makes no distinction between this "fatherhood," as related to others, and as related to Himself. For instance, He tells Mary to go to His disciples and say unto them, "I ascend unto my Father, and _your_ Father and to _my_ G.o.d and _your_ G.o.d"

(John XX:17).

Jesus' favorite appellation for Himself is "the Son of _Man_." He uses this name constantly throughout the four Gospels, and uniformly, except in the four instances cited from John. In speaking of the most solemn and important events of His career, He prefers this name to "the Son of G.o.d," or any other. "Of him, also, shall the _Son of Man_ be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (Mark VIII:38; XIII:26; Luke IX:26). In pa.s.sages like these, it seems necessary to eliminate the words "of man," if they are to harmonize with the theory of the paternity of the Holy Ghost. Again, on His trial, when the high priest "adjures" Him: "Tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of G.o.d," Jesus follows His usual noncommittal answer, "Thou hast said," with the statement: "Hereafter shall ye see the _Son of Man_ sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven (Matt. XXVI:64; Luke XXII:69; Mark XIV:62; John VIII:28; XII:23, 34, 35).

(e) Finally, to close all argument on this point, there are the many express statements of Jesus to the effect that He was not the same as, or the equal of, G.o.d (Matt. XIX:17; XX:23; Mark X:18, 40; Luke XVIII:19; John XIV:28; XVII:3).

[10] Evidently Elisabeth never told John of this visit of Mary, since John says of his first meeting with Jesus that "I knew Him not," until he saw "the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him" (John I:31-33; see also Matt. XI:3; Luke VII:19).

[11] Unfortunate as it may be to lose the beautiful story of the birth at Bethlehem, with its poetic imagery of the manger, the visit of the "wise men," and the greeting of the shepherds, the evidence of the four Gospels proves its untruth even more strongly than the story of the miraculous conception.

(a) The contradictory details appearing in the two narratives discredit each as a reliable authority.

Matthew has Jesus born in a house, greeted by "wise men of the East,"

and going to Egypt immediately after His birth, and remaining there until after Herod's death.

Luke has Him born in a manger, greeted by shepherds, remaining in Bethlehem for several weeks, then going to Jerusalem, and from there _returning_ "into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" (Luke II:39). His parents could not have been in Egypt, avoiding the wrath of Herod, because "they went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Pa.s.sover"

(Luke II:41).

Herod's ma.s.sacre of the innocents is, of course, unknown to Luke, because, according to him, no "flight of the holy family to Egypt" ever took place. This ma.s.sacre is not mentioned in the four Gospels, except in this Chapter of Matthew, nor is it recorded by any profane historian of that time, like Josephus. Even supposing that Herod--a Roman tetrarch and not an independent despot--would have dared a wholesale slaughter of Roman subjects without express authority from Augustus Caesar, yet so terrible an event would have left an indelible impression on the Jewish people. If it had occurred, connected as it was with the birth of Jesus, it is incredible that the other evangelists should have omitted all mention of it, as well as Josephus, who records the other cruelties of Herod.

Bethlehem was some six miles south of Jerusalem, and Nazareth some sixty or seventy miles north of Jerusalem. Matthew does not explain why Joseph and Mary should have been in Bethlehem at this time, especially in view of her then approaching confinement. In fact, the inference from Matthew's narrative would be, that they were residents of Bethlehem at this time. But the unvarying testimony of all the Gospels, except in this one pa.s.sage, is that Galilee was the native country of both Joseph and Mary, and that their home, after her marriage, was at Nazareth. Luke states this explicitly (Luke I:26), and Matthew himself, in every other pa.s.sage but this, speaks of Jesus as coming from Nazareth, and a.s.serts that Galilee was "his own country" (Matt. XIII:54; XXI:11; XXVI:71).

Luke, who recognizes Nazareth as the native city of Joseph, explains his presence in Bethlehem on the theory that he, being of the house of David, came to Bethlehem to be enrolled under the census taken by Quirinius, pursuant to a decree of Caesar Augustus (Luke II:1). But the authorities generally agree that this census did not extend to the tetrarchies, like Judaea, and that it was taken at least ten years after the birth of Jesus (Renan, Life of Jesus, Chap. II). Besides, it is taxing one's credulity to the utmost to suppose that the Roman officers would have allowed a citizen of Nazareth to enroll himself in an insignificant village, more than sixty miles distant, on the ground that some problematical ancestor had been anointed with oil in that place a thousand years before (1 Sam. XVI:13).

As to the contradictory accounts of Matthew and Luke concerning Jesus'

movements immediately after His birth, Cadman in his "Harmony of the Gospels" pp. 4, 45, 48, "harmonizes" them by printing each of them without comment, as though both could be true.

(b) The silence of Mark and John as to the birth at Bethlehem is even more significant than in the matter of the miraculous conception.

There were two points most essential for Jesus and His followers to establish in order to convince the Jews that He was truly their expected Messiah: (1) that He was of the "house of David"; (2) that He "came"

from Bethlehem.

The Old Testament prophecies were explicit on these two points (Jer.

XXIII:5; Micah V:2; Ps. Cx.x.xII:11).

This was the general expectancy among the Jews at the time of Jesus'

birth (Matt. II:5, 6; XXII:42; Luke I:32).

"Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John VII:42).

With such importance attaching to a birth at Bethlehem, the argument is irresistible that Mark and John, in not mentioning it, either did not know of the story, or, knowing it, did not believe it to be true. Either hypothesis is equally fatal to the credibility of the story.

It is further to be noted that, while the claim of Jesus' paternity by the Holy Ghost, if publicly a.s.serted, might have stirred up some scandal among the good people of Nazareth, it could not have been absolutely disproved. But, at the time the Gospels were written, it was comparatively easy to absolutely prove whether Jesus was born at Nazareth or at Bethlehem, more than sixty miles distant.

(c) The claim was never publicly made that He was born at Bethlehem, notwithstanding the great support which that fact, if true, would have given to His cause. To His friends and neighbors of thirty years'

standing at Nazareth, and to the "mult.i.tudes" in general, He was known only as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Mark VI:1-4; Matt. XXI:11; XXVI:71; Mark XIV:67, 70; Luke IV:16, 22; XXII:59; XXIII:6; John VII:41, 42; XVIII:5, 7, 8; XX:19).

(d) Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever put forth this claim, even _when the objection was made that He could not be the Messiah, because He came from Nazareth_.

The evidence on this point is, of course, mostly negative, consisting in an entire absence in the four Gospels of any reference to His birth at Bethlehem, except the first account given in Matthew and Luke.

Thereafter it is as though it had never occurred, for anything that the Gospels have to say about it.

But in two or three instances the question was directly raised.

Philip, one of the apostles, finds Nathaniel and says to him: "We have found Him, of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write, _Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph_.

Nathaniel's reply is: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

The only answer which Philip makes is: "Come and see" (John I:45, 46).

On another occasion, Jesus' preaching so impressed His hearers that many of them said: Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? (John VII:40, 41, 42).

In both these instances the obvious answer to the objection made would have been, that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, if that had been a fact.

Again, on the evening of His arrest, Jesus twice affirms that He is "Jesus of Nazareth" (John XVIII:5, 8). It would seem that, in that solemn moment of approaching death, Jesus would have a.s.serted His Messianic claim to a birth at Bethlehem, if it had been a fact. (See also Mark XVI:6; Luke XXIII:6, 7; XXIV:19; John XIX:19).

[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed," and, when he told them that He must be about His Father's business, "they understood not the saying which He spoke unto them" (Luke II:50). Apparently their knowledge of His miraculous conception, and all the predictions of angels, wise men, shepherds, Simeon, Anna and Elisabeth had produced little, if any, effect on their minds.

[13] It is an interesting query why all four evangelists give such full and precise details of this ceremony. Neither John nor Jesus seems to have attached much importance to it. Only a short time after it occurred, John had forgotten it, for, while in prison (Matt. XI:2; Mark VI:17), he sent some of his disciples to inquire of Jesus, "Art Thou He that should come or do we look for another?" (Matt. XI:2-6; Luke VII:19-23).

Jesus never mentions His baptism or His then recognition by John, as giving credence to His claims, although He speaks of him and his mission as His forerunner (Matt. XI:7-13; Luke VII:24-29). When He appeals to John as a witness to the truth of His messianic claims, He does not refer to this baptismal ceremony, but relies on John's statements to messengers sent to Him (John V:32, 33; III:25-36).

Baptism, as it developed into a religious rite after Jesus' death--the first step towards admission into the membership of a church--was unknown to the Jews and to Jesus Himself (Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Bib.

Lit., pp. 282-290).

John seems to have given it a temporary popularity, but its practice among the Jews ceased with his death. Jesus showed as little interest in it as in other rites and ceremonies. Only one of the Gospels mentions baptism by Jesus' disciples, and that allusion is very indefinite (John III:22; IV:1). But it is explicitly added "though Jesus Himself baptized not" (John IV:2).

The strongest evidence on this point is Jesus' failure to enjoin the practice of this rite on His followers. Three of the Gospels give quite fully Jesus' instructions to the apostles and disciples on sending them out in the world to preach, and not one word is said about baptism (Matt. X; Mark VI:7-13; Luke IX:1-6).

Probably the evangelists felt the need (more than Jesus Himself) of fortifying the latter's cause with the aegis of John's popularity. At this time the Jews were filled with expectations of the coming of some ruler (Elias, Christ, the Messiah, "he who shall come," etc.), who should establish an earthly kingdom and give them victory over the heathen. John's preaching appealed to this feeling and won to him great numbers of adherents, who remained faithful to him even in prison (Matt.

III:5; XIV:5; Mark I:5; XI:32; Luke III:3). To identify Jesus with this expectant one, of whom John preached, was to win at once to Jesus' cause all of John's great following.

[14] It is to be noted that the Epistle of James is directed "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James I:1), and contains no allusion whatever to the Gentiles. There is some dispute whether the author of this epistle, who was bishop of Jerusalem for many years, was the brother or cousin-german of Jesus, or the brother of John, "the beloved disciple." There is no doubt, however, that he was an intimate a.s.sociate of Jesus during His life-time, and, presumably, a much more accurate authority on His views than Paul or others who had never seen Jesus or heard Him speak.