Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

it, the Father's statement to the contrary notwithstanding. Hence appears the startling fact that the only two evangelists who were apostles, and could have been witnesses of the ascension, say nothing about it.

Here we are astounded at the superficial manner in which the good priest treats the Scriptures.

Ingersoll.—" John corroborates Matthew by saying nothing on the subject."

Lambert." John corroborates St. Matthew by saying: 'And no man hath ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven' (John iii. 13). This is saying something on the subject, is it not? Why did you overlook this text?"

We reply, this is not saying anything of the ascension. John in the passage quoted professes to report the words of Jesus spoken to Nicodemus which were said in the early part of Christ's ministry, and, of course, long before the crucifixion. So, whatever "ascension" was here referred to it could not by possibility have been the one which is said to have occurred after Christ had risen from the dead. What must the Father's readers, who dare compare his statements with the facts, think of the reliability of a book where the plainest words of Scripture are so grossly perverted? But will the Father tell us how he reconciles the words of John: "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven," with 2 Kings ii. II: "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

It would seem that the Old and the New Testaments are at sad variance in regard to this particular. If Jesus was the only man that ever ascended into heaven, Elijah must have reined his fiery steeds in some other direction.

Of Mark xvi. from the eighth verse to the end, the Father says that it is found in "most of the ancient manuscripts and that the most ancient of the Fathers admitted it." The Father should have referred us to those manuscripts, and have quoted to us from the Fathers. If his averments regarding manuscripts and the Fathers are no more trustworthy than his references to Scripture, they cannot be relied on. But granting that the verses in question are found in certain manuscripts, we know that they are not found in others, the most ancient, while some make a different ending to the chapter. The ancient Fathers were a credulous, fanciful set, who recorded miracles as of their own day, such as raising the dead to life by means of the bones of saints! They were also believers in supernatural visions and dreams. We cannot rely on such authority. What are we to believe? Is doubt in such a case a crime, knowing as we do, from the highest authority, that the Scriptural writings have been tampered with and changed to such an extent that very few of either ancient or modern manuscripts agree with each other? I quote from "Beliefs about the Bible," by M. J. Savage, a work of rare perspicuity and power, pp. 128-9.

"Three hundred years had passed since the death of him of whom they (the Gospels) were a biography; and we do not know just when they came into the precise shape in which they are to-day. The names now attached to them we do not find until nearly the last quarter of the second century—that is, perhaps, one hundred and fifty years after the death of Jesus, although the earliest forms of the Gospels may have existed long before that.

"The first question, then, is, whether we have an accurate transcript of these four little books in substantially the same shape in which they were when they first took form. We are obliged to answer this question in the negative; for the dif

ferent manuscripts of the Gospels which are in existence give us some hundreds if not thousands of various renderings. There are differences in words or in phrases, a difference of half a sentence, sometimes differences of whole paragraphs, or sometimes of half a chapter, or even more than that. Then, we know that there were changes through the carelessness of transcribers. There were changes from dogmatic reasons, in order that the persons copying or using them might make them teach what they held to be true. . . . Sometimes they were the result of intentional fraud. . . . It was some time after the New Testament books were written before they took on the character of sacred writings, when a man would not have been regarded as sacrilegious for taking from or adding to them. They were considered as the work of ordinary men, and not too sacred to be touched or changed as yet. But whatever may have been thought of the works of the New Testament in the early church, the entire church of the time professed to regard with almost superstitious sacredness the books of the Old Testament. That was the Scripture before the New Testament became Scripture. Yet we have the authority of Origen, writing in the third century, for the statement that in the heated and angry controversies of that period, people did not scruple to change even the text of the Old Testament for their own purposes. Concerning the Septuagint, he says: 'There are evidently great discrepancies in the copies of the Septuagint, whether attributable to the carelessness of scribes, or to the rash and pernicious alteration of the text by some, and the unauthorized interpolations and omissions of others.' Origen writes in that way about the manner in which the early church dared to treat even the Old Testament Scriptures; so you can imagine with what freedom they would handle the less sacred. and newer books that afterwards came to be the New Testament."

The Father says that the apostles "were inspired to give a narration of the events they witnessed." He has not told us how he knows they were inspired. Mark was not an apostle; nor was Luke. Rev. Albert Barnes says of Mark, that he considers it extremely improbable that he was one of the seventy disciples. He was not an eyewitness of the events he records, and, therefore, must have received his information at second hand. The same may be said of Luke, of whom the same writer observes: “Little is certainly known concerning the time of writing this Gospel; or concerning the author.” It is not known whether he was Jew or Gentile. He lays no claim to inspiration, nor does he profess to write by dictation of any one.

The Father denies that either of the evangelists professes to give the last words of Jesus. Let the reader refer to Mark xvi. 18, 19, and Luke xxiv. 50, 51.

We now approach the famous genealogical question which has perplexed commentators both in past and present time.

Ingersoll." Two of the witnesses, Matthew and Luke, give the genealogy of Christ. Matthew says there were forty-two generations from Abraham to Christ. Luke insists there were forty-two from Christ to David, while Matthew gives the number of twenty-eight."

To explain this discrepancy the Father tells us: "Generation has two meanings. It means first, the actual number of persons in direct line, as father, son, grandson, great-grandson, etc. . . . This kind of generation is therefore of no use whatever, in calculating time or historical epochs. . . . It is however used to prove legitimacy and the right of inheritance. It is generation in this sense that Luke traces, because it was his purpose to show that Christ was of the direct line of the elder branch of the royal family, and that he was the person who, if royalty had continued in the family of David, would have

legally inherited the throne. Luke was dealing with the question in reference to legitimacy and inheritance, and with no reference to historical time or epochs.

"The second meaning of generation has reference to time and denotes the average life of man, which at present is supposed to be thirty-three years. . . . Now Matthew uses the word generation with reference to time-to the average duration of life, when the prophecies concerning the coming of Christ were written-to prove that those prophecies were verified." (You say so, prove it.)

In other words, as we understand the Father, it is affirmed that Luke spoke of generations in regard to individuals without respect to the length of time they lived, or to the average period of human life; while Matthew uses the word according to its second meaning, "which has reference to time, and denotes the average life of man;" and, therefore, as Matthew uses the word in one sense, while Luke traces the genealogical line according to the other meaning of the word generationthey cannot contradict each other. This explanation might seem plausible were it not for three things:

1. It is unsupported by the genealogical tables given by the evangelists.

2. It is in flat contradiction to these tables.

3. It is unsupported, so far as we are informed, by any competent authority (save the Father), while opposed to very high orthodox commentators and critics, and to common and scriptural usage.

I. It is not supported by the tables referred to. Not one word is said either by Matthew or Luke about generation as related to individuals as contradistinguished from generation in respect to time or "the average of the life of man." The statement, therefore, that Matthew referred to one kind of generation and Luke to another kind is a gratuitous assump

« ÎnapoiContinuă »