Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions Part 126

And, says Mr. Bonwick:

"Besides opinions, we have facts as a basis for arriving at a conclusion, and justifying the a.s.sertion of Dr. Birch, that the work dated from a period long anterior to the rise of Ammon wors.h.i.+p at Thebes."[453:5]

Now, "this most ancient of all holy books," establishes the fact that a virgin-born and resurrected Saviour was wors.h.i.+ped in Egypt thousands of year before the time of Christ Jesus.

P. Le Page Renouf says:

"The _earliest monuments_ which have been discovered present to us the _very same_ fully-developed civilization and the _same religion_ as the later monuments. . . . The G.o.ds whose names appear in the _oldest tombs_ were wors.h.i.+ped down to the Christian times. The same kind of priesthoods which are mentioned in the tablets of Canopus and Rosetta in the Ptolemaic period are as ancient as the pyramids, and more ancient than any pyramid of which we know the date."[453:6]

In regard to the doctrine of the _Trinity_. We have just seen that "the development of the One G.o.d into a Trinity" pervades the oldest religion of Egypt, and the same may be said of India. Prof. Monier Williams, speaking on this subject, says:

"It should be observed that the native commentaries on the Veda often allude to thirty-three G.o.ds, which number is also mentioned in the Rig-Veda. This is a multiple of _three_, which is a sacred number constantly appearing in the Hindu religious system. It is probable, indeed, that although the Tri-murti is not named in the Vedic hymns,[454:1] yet the Veda is the real source of this Triad of personifications, afterwards so conspicuous in Hindu mythology. This much, at least, is clear, that the Vedic poets exhibited a tendency to group all the forces and energies of nature under three heads, and the a.s.sertion that the number of the G.o.ds was thirty-three, amounted to saying that each of the three leading personifications was capable of eleven modifications."[454:2]

The great antiquity of the legends referred to in this work is demonstrated in the fact that they were found in a great measure on the continent of America, by the first Europeans who set foot on its soil.

Now, how did they get there? Mr. Lundy, in his "Monumental Christianity," speaking on this subject, says:

"So great was the resemblance between the two sacraments of the Christian Church (viz., that of Baptism and the Eucharist) and those of the ancient Mexicans; so many other points of similarity, also, in _doctrine_ existed, as to the unity of G.o.d, the Triad, the Creation, the Incarnation and Sacrifice, the Resurrection, etc., that Herman Witsius, no mean scholar and thinker, was induced to believe that Christianity had been preached on this continent by some one of the apostles, perhaps St. Thomas, from the fact that he is reported to have carried the Gospel to India and Tartary, whence he came to America."[454:3]

Some writers, who do not think that St. Thomas could have gotten to America, believe that St. Patrick, or some other saint, must have, in some unaccountable manner, reached the sh.o.r.es of the Western continent, and preached their doctrine there.[454:4] Others have advocated the devil theory, which is, that the devil, being jealous of the wors.h.i.+p of Christ Jesus, set up a religion of his own, and imitated, nearly as possible, the religion of Christ. All of these theories being untenable, we must, in the words of Burnouf, the eminent French Orientalist, "learn one day that all ancient traditions disfigured by emigration and legend, _belong to the history of India_."

That America was inhabited by Asiatic emigrants, and that the American legends are of _Asiatic origin_, we believe to be indisputable. There is an abundance of proof to this effect.[454:5]

In contrast to the great antiquity of the sacred books and religions of Paganism, we have the facts that the Gospels were not written by the persons whose names they bear, that they were written many years after the time these men are said to have lived, and that they are full of interpolations and errors. The first that we know of the four gospels is at the time of Irenaeus, who, in the second century, intimates that he had received four gospels, as authentic scriptures. This pious forger was probably the author of the _fourth_, as we shall presently see.

Besides these gospels there were many more which were subsequently deemed apocryphal; the narratives related in them of Christ Jesus and his apostles were stamped as forgeries.

"The Gospel according to Matthew" is believed by the majority of biblical scholars of the present day to be the oldest of the four, and to be made up princ.i.p.ally of a pre-existing one, called "The Gospel of the Hebrews." The princ.i.p.al difference in these two gospels being that "_The Gospel of the Hebrews_" commenced with giving the genealogy of Jesus from David, through Joseph "_according to the flesh_." The story of Jesus being born of a virgin _was not to be found there_, it being an afterpiece, originating either with the writer of "_The Gospel according to Matthew_," or some one after him, and was evidently taken from "The Gospel of the Egyptians." "_The Gospel of the Hebrews_"--from which, we have said, the _Matthew_ narrator copied--_was an intensely Jewish gospel_, and was to be found--in one of its forms--among the Ebionites, who were the narrowest Jewish Christians of the second century. "_The Gospel according to Matthew_" is, therefore, the most Jewish gospel of the four; in fact, the most Jewish book in the New Testament, excepting, perhaps, the _Apocalypse_ and the _Epistle of James_.

Some of the more conspicuous Jewish traits, to be found in this gospel, are as follows:

Jesus is sent _only_ to the lost sheep of the house of _Israel_. The twelve are forbidden to go among the _Gentiles_ or the _Samaritans_.

They are to sit on twelve thrones, _judging the twelve tribes of Israel_. The genealogy of Jesus is traced back to _Abraham_, and there stops.[455:1] The works of the _law_ are frequently insisted on. There is a superst.i.tious regard for the _Sabbath_, &c.

There is no evidence of the existence of the Gospel of Matthew,--_in its present form_--until the year 173, A. D. It is at this time, also, that it is first ascribed to Matthew, by Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis.

The original oracles of the Gospel of the Hebrews, however,--which were made use of by the author of our present Gospel of Matthew,--were written, likely enough, not long before the destruction of Jerusalem, but the Gospel itself dates from about A. D. 100.[456:1]

"_The Gospel according to Luke_" is believed to come next--in chronological order--to that of Matthew, and to have been written some fifteen or twenty years after it. The author was a _foreigner_, as his writings plainly show that he was far removed from the events which he records.

In writing his Gospel, the author made use of that of Matthew, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and Marcion's Gospel. He must have had, also, still other sources, as there are parables peculiar to it, which are not found in them. Among these may be mentioned that of the "_Prodigal Son_," and the "_Good Samaritan_." Other parables peculiar to it are that of the two debtors; the friend borrowing bread at night; the rich man's barns; Dives and Lazarus; the lost piece of silver; the unjust steward; the Pharisee and the Publican.

Several miracles are also peculiar to the Luke narrator's Gospel, the raising of the widow of Nain's son being the most remarkable. Perhaps these stories were delivered to him _orally_, and perhaps _he is the author of them_,--we shall never know. The foundation of the legends, however, undoubtedly came from the "_certain scriptures_" of the Essenes in Egypt. The princ.i.p.al _object_ which the writer of this gospel had in view was to reconcile _Paulinism_ and the _more Jewish_ forms of Christianity.[456:2]

The next in chronological order, according to the same school of critics, is "The Gospel according to Mark." This gospel is supposed to have been written within ten years of the former, and its author, as of the other two gospels, is unknown. It was probably written at _Rome_, as the Latinisms of the author's style, and the apparent motive of his work, strongly suggest that he was a Jewish citizen of the Eternal City.

He made use of the Gospel of Matthew as his princ.i.p.al authority, and probably referred to that of Luke, as he has things in common with Luke only.

The object which the writer had in view, was to have a neutral go-between, a compromise between Matthew as too Petrine (Jewish), and Luke as too Pauline (Gentile). The different aspects of Matthew and Luke were found to be confusing to believers, and provocative of hostile criticism from without; hence the idea of writing a shorter gospel, that should combine the most essential elements of both. Luke was itself a compromise between the opposing Jewish and universal tendencies of early Christianity, but Mark endeavors by avoidance and omission to effect what Luke did more by addition and contrast. Luke proposed to himself to open a door for the admission of Pauline ideas without offending Gentile Christianity; Mark, on the contrary, in a negative spirit, to publish a Gospel which should not hurt the feelings of either party. Hence his avoidance of all those disputed questions which disturbed the church during the first quarter of the second century. The genealogy of Jesus is omitted; this being offensive to Gentile Christians, and even to some of the more liberal Judaizers. The supernatural birth of Jesus is omitted, this being offensive to the Ebonitish (extreme Jewish) and some of the Gnostic Christians. For every Judaizing feature that is sacrificed, a universal one is also sacrificed. Hard words against the Jews are left out, but with equal care, hard words about the Gentiles.[457:1]

We now come to the fourth, and last gospel, that "_according to John_,"

which was not written until many years after that "according to Matthew."

"It is impossible to pa.s.s from the Synoptic[457:2] Gospels," says Canon Westcott, "to the fourth, without feeling that the transition involves the pa.s.sage from one world of thought to another. No familiarity with the general teachings of the Gospels, no wide conception of the character of the Saviour, is sufficient to destroy the contrast which exists in form and spirit between the earlier and later narratives."

The discrepancies between the fourth and the Synoptic Gospels are numerous. If Jesus was the _man_ of Matthew's Gospel, he was not the _mysterious being_ of the fourth. If his ministry was only _one_ year long, it was not _three_. If he made but _one_ journey to Jerusalem, he did not make _many_. If his method of teaching was that of the Synoptics, it was not that of the fourth Gospel. If he was the _Jew_ of Matthew, he was not the _Anti-Jew_ of John.[457:3]

Everywhere in John we come upon a more developed stage of Christianity than in the Synoptics. The scene, the atmosphere, is different. In the Synoptics Judaism, the Temple, the Law and the Messianic Kingdom are omnipresent. In John they are remote and vague. In Matthew Jesus is always yearning for _his own_ nation. In John he has no other sentiment for it than _hate and scorn_. In Matthew the sanction of the Prophets is his great credential. In John his dignity can tolerate no previous approximation.

"Do we ask," says Francis Tiffany, "who wrote this wondrous Gospel?

Mysterious its origin, as that wind of which its author speaks, which bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof and canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth. As with the Great Unknown of the book of Job, the Great Unknown of the later Isaiah, the ages keep his secret. _The first absolutely indisputable evidence of the existence of the book dates from the latter half of the second century._"

The first that we know of the _fourth_ Gospel, for certainty, is at the time of Irenaeus (A. D. 179).[458:1] We look in vain for an express recognition of the _four_ canonical Gospels, or for a _distinct mention_ of any one of them, in the writings of St. Clement (A. D. 96), St.

Ignatius (A. D. 107), St. Justin (A. D. 140), or St. Polycarp (A. D.

108). All we can find is incidents from the life of Jesus, sayings, etc.

That Irenaeus is the author of it is very evident. This learned and pious forger says:

"John, the disciple of the Lord, wrote his Gospel to confute the doctrine _lately_ taught by Cerinthus, and a great while before by those called Nicolaitans, a branch of the Gnostics; and to show that there is one G.o.d who made all things by his WORD: and not, as they say, that there is one the Creator, and another the Father of our Lord: and one the Son of the Creator, and another, even the Christ, who descended from above upon the Son of the Creator, and continued impa.s.sible, and at length returned to his pleroma or fulness."[458:2]

The idea of G.o.d having inspired _four_ different men to write a history of the _same transactions_,--or rather, of many different men having undertaken to write such a history, of whom G.o.d inspired _four only_ to write correctly, leaving the others to their own unaided resources, and giving us no test by which to distinguish the inspired from the uninspired--certainly appears self-confuting, and anything but natural.

The reasons a.s.signed by Irenaeus for there being _four_ Gospels are as follows:

"It is impossible that there could be more or less than _four_. For there are _four_ climates, and _four_ cardinal winds; but the Gospel is the pillar and foundation of the church, and its breath of life. _The church therefore was to have four pillars, blowing immortality from every quarter, and giving life to man._"[459:1]

It was by this Irenaeus, with the a.s.sistance of Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, one of the Latin Fathers, that the four Gospels were introduced into _general_ use among the Christians.

In these four spurious Gospels, and in some which are considered _Apocryphal_--because the bishops at the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 365) rejected them--we have the only history of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, if all accounts or narratives of Christ Jesus and his Apostles were forgeries, as it is admitted that all the _Apocryphal_ ones were, what can the superior character of the received Gospels prove for them, but that they are merely superiorly executed forgeries? The existence of Jesus is implied in the New Testament outside of the Gospels, _but hardly an incident of his life is mentioned, hardly a sentence that he spoke has been preserved_. Paul, writing from twenty to thirty years after his death, has but a single reference to anything he ever said or did.

Beside these four Gospels there were, as we said above, many others, for, in the words of Mosheim, the ecclesiastical historian:

"Not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and doctrines, full of _pious frauds_ and _fabulous wonders_, were composed by persons whose intentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superst.i.tion and ignorance. Nor was this all; _productions appeared, which were imposed upon the world by fraudulent men, as the writings of the holy apostles_."[459:2]

Dr. Conyers Middleton, speaking on this subject, says:

"There never was any period of time in all ecclesiastical history, in which so many rank heresies were publicly professed, _nor in which so many spurious books were forged_ and published by the Christians, under the names of Christ, and the Apostles, and the Apostolic writers, as in those primitive ages. _Several of these forged books are frequently cited and applied to the defense of Christianity, by the most eminent fathers of the same ages, as true and genuine pieces._"[459:3]

Archbishop Wake also admits that:

"It would be useless to insist on all the spurious pieces which were attributed to St. Paul alone, in the primitive ages of Christianity."[460:1]

Some of the "spurious pieces which were attributed to St. Paul," may be found to-day in our canonical New Testament, and are believed by many to be the word of G.o.d.[460:2]

The learned Bishop Faustus, in speaking of the authenticity of the _New Testament_, says:

"It is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, _by some unknown persons_, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with, affixed to their works the names of the apostles, or of such as were supposed to have been their companions, a.s.serting that what they had written themselves, was written according to these persons to whom they ascribed it."[460:3]

Again he says:

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord, which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since--_as already it has been often proved_--these things were not written by Christ, nor his apostles, but a long while after their a.s.sumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord, or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they mendaciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."[460:4]