THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3649, 6 September 1880, Page 2

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

(To the Editor of the Evening Star.) " Surely the pleasure is ?s great in being cheated r.s to cheat."

" Christians have burnt each other. . . . well persuaded that the Apostles would have done sis they did."

Sic, —Of all kinds of deception, self deception is the worst. Almost ail the evils of life, and nearly all the injustice of man to man, owe their origin to .elfdeception. It is born in prejudice, baptised in ignorance, and swathed in dogmas, doctrines, and creeds. It weakens the judgment, and isolates men in their own conceits. To speak charitably, it is self deception that has disgraced the bench and the bar, that has deluded and dishonoured physic, and hindered the progress of theology. Until comparative'y recent times, laws against witchcraft disfigur i our statute book; death followed clous upon the doctor's invariable bleeding. The fire and fagot decided, and ended for the time, theological differences. It would be too "no exceptionable" to attribute all these evils to bad dispositions and sinister purposes. Self deception is answerable for the most part of it. A conspicuous illustration of this occurs in the letters and lectures of the Revs. Messrs Laishley nnd Davies. Abstracted from the subject they would be laughable. Mr Laisbley estimates the Gospels in circulation in the two first centuries at 10.CC3, but says that the author of the " Bridge of History " modestly limits them to I.SCD, while the Rev. Mr Davies says that there must have been upwards of " 60.0 CD," and here, in a small place like the Thames, between two ministers of the same religion an iranreDae difference exists, and seeing that the credibility of statements greatly depends on the length of time that has elapsed since the circumstances related, say 1750 years, I am not surprised to" find this discrepancy —which tends to prove that the things which he states as facts are necessarily from the distance that he is separated from them—unworthy of credibility. Your readers should be informed that the unknown author of IN "Bridge of History " is the notorio ' author of the "Purgatory of Suicidß?,' : and that the modest estimator is Mi 1 Thomas Cooper, who, previous to 1856, was a paid chartist lecturer, also a paid free thought lecturer at the Hall of Science and St. John's Hall, London, and ultimately a convicted fellon and convert. Of course these circumstances do not invalidate the worth of his works upon the credibility of the Gospels, but as he has written quite as ably on the other side, and as he was beneficially interested in being " converted " it may at least be said that his advocacy is neutralised. He tore the hand that fed him, and experienced the penalties of ingratitude. In continuation of my last, I may venture to say that with the exception of St. Luke the time of

the birth of Chri3i is not agreed upon. All authors seem to agree that it was not Christmas day. Matthew's Gospel seeps to make Jesus born in Herod's reign, but according to Luke it was after Herod's time. Following the Oxford system of chronology, we may place the period anywhere between seven or eight years. Such an important event as the birth of the Deity into the world and the infinitely great purpose of it ought to mve seemed at least accuracy of dates. The place of birth seems uncertain. < .-,13 never declares the place of his br.\. "Nathaniel thought him of . aareth. The Jews said lie ought to bavo been born at Bethlehem. Matthew says that the birth took place at Bethlemem to fulfil a prophecy, baton reference to Mich, v.; 2, the prophecy will be found not to apply to Jesus at all. Neither does Matthew quote the words correctly, as any one can see on comparing • the passages. In my previous letter I said that the genealogiesdiffered—agreed and disagreed too. Matthew says that the generations trom Abraham to David are 14 generations, and from David to the carrying away into Babylon ] 4 generations, and unto the carrying away into Babylon unto Chnst 14 generations; but in this last division there are only 13 instead of 14, including Jesus. This is an unaccountable . mistake. Referring to the Old Testament J the generations from David to Zorobabel are 20; Matthew enumerates only 17, but Luke makes 23. Matthew computes 28 generations from David to Christ, and Luke for the same period makes them 43/ Matthew's genealogy arriving at David traces it through to Jesus through Soloman ; Luke from David traces through Nathan. Matthew's names from David are Soloman, fioboam, Abia, Josophat, Joram and Orgias. We find in the Old Testament the" same names from David to Ahaziah, thus being the same as Orgias ; but then Matthew does not mention Jonah xxii.^hroo^^Si^p^^WK^^Ss^ftiii*^ lAt iuu xxiv., 27. of the same book. Amaziah. is mentioned, and in the xzvi. j Wezziah occurs, neither being men' tioned by Matthew, who seems to .pass over three generations. Luke contradicts Matthew as to Abind. The first says the son of Zorobabel was fihesa, the second says it was Abind, but they are both in opposition to the Old Testament, which says the names of Zorobabel's children were Meihullum. Hanauiah and Shelo* meth. Luke and Matthew's genealogies disagree; after David the only names , agreeing are Salathiel, Zorobabel and Joseph, all the others differ. If Luke gives Mary's genealogy, how can he say that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli? Could he have intended to say, " Mary the daughter of Heli ?" If so, we have the infallible word saying and meaning different things. But how can Christ's genealogy be traced to David, through Joseph seeing that really he was not his son. Mary's relationship to Elizabeth rather proves her to hare belonged to Levi than to Jadah. The passage in Mathew, i., 22 and 23, said to be a quotation from Isaiah, xii., 14,16, is incorrect, and incorrect by the very words ' which prove its inapplicability to Christ. Again he was not calld.Emmanuel, he never said that he was born of a pure , t iruin, and further the word .... ', CijME from Isaiah in James' version does not represent immaculate, for which there is an appropriate word .... BrThULe. The part of the passage omitted by Matthew will prove that it cannot in any way apply to C'jrist. Mary receives the annuciation according to one, while according to another it is received by Joseph, and although the object is to obviate doubt on Mary's chastity, it is only made when Joseph does suspect. How could Joseph be ashamed of the work of the Holy Gho«tP Why were Mary and Joseph surpris'd at the terms used by Simeon in speaking of the child? When all had previously announced to them, why were they surprised at the rebuff they expe ienced sl'g finding Je^us in the temple? Astrology, which is saidy to be false is resorted to in connection with the birth of Christ. The wise men, although they saw and were led by the the star, were obliged to seek news from Herod, and he in turn of the Scribe and Priests, who garbled quotations to suit their purposes. Why did the star when no longer required, continue to go on before the wise men ? Any person may test the credibility of this part of the narrative by observing and calculating the number of houses a star appears to be over. The author of the 3rd Gospel seems to have b 3n unacquainted with the particulars. He makes the knowledge of good tidings come through the visit of an Angel to some shepherds but this occurs not in Herod's reign. The flight of Joseph with Jesus and Mary into Egypt is described as a fulfilment of prophecy, Hosea ii., 1. The Jesus of the 3rd Gospel uever went into Egypt in his infancy. Luke says they went to Nazareth, and going to Jerusalem to fulfil the Law, returning to Nazareth, living there and going to Jerusalem until Jesus was 12 yearpyof age. The Hosea prophesy or the Mght are inventions. The first, however refers to the Jewish exodus from Egypt. FelF of occupying too much of your paper prevents me continuing the subject at the present time, but if allowed space to continue and "' finish it I shall do so, X trust, with some satisfaction to your readers, and with some slight aid to the great cause of truth. —I am, &c, Sceptic.