The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels Part 1

The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels.

by J. B. At.w.a.ter.

PREFACE

The first part of this work is a collation of all that is said, and just what is said, in each of the four Gospels, regarding the more important incidents of Jesus' life. Every statement in the text, it is thought, is accurate, free from personal coloring or sectarian bias, and may be verified from the pa.s.sages cited. After examining various lives of Jesus, harmonies of the Gospels, etc., there seemed to be need of such a work, which would furnish simply the facts, and leave the reader to form his own conclusions.

Certain notes are appended in elucidation of or comment on the text, and these may be taken for what they are worth. Their underlying idea is, that the true greatness of Jesus lay in His being a human Teacher and not a Divine Redeemer, and therefore the supernatural parts of the Gospel story are not of vital importance.

The King James version has been used, since that has been the Bible of English-speaking peoples up to the present century, and their conceptions of Jesus have been formed from it, and not from the revised version. The differences between the two versions are probably not material to any matter herein discussed.

The second part is an attempt to point out, and comment on, the many and wide divergences that have grown up between the preachings of Jesus and the practices of His professed followers. Its object is not to criticise the short-comings of Christianity, but to bring home to the people of the United States a realization of the practical effect which these divergences have had, and are now having, on political and economic questions of high import to the present and future welfare of mankind.

The REAL JESUS of the FOUR GOSPELS

PART I

GENEALOGY

Mark and John give no genealogy of Jesus, except that He was the son of Joseph and Mary (Mark III:31; VI:3; John I:45; II:1; XIX:25), and is spoken of as the son of David (Mark X:47, 48; XI:10; John VII:42).

Matthew gives a genealogy from Abraham down to Joseph (Chap. I), and Luke gives one from Joseph up to Adam (III:2, 23-28).[1]

These two lines of ancestry are the same from Abraham down to David.

There they diverge into two separate lines. Matthew has the next in descent Solomon, son of David and Bathsheba, former wife of Uriah, the Hitt.i.te (1 Chron. III:5). Luke has, in place of Solomon, his fullblood brother Nathan (1 Chron. III:5).[2]

From this point down, there is little agreement between the two lines of descent.

Even as to the father of Joseph, Matthew has Jacob, while Luke says his name was Heli. They agree as to Joseph's grandfather--Matthan or Matthat--but, as to his great grandfather, Matthew has Eleazar, while Luke has Levi.

As to Matthew's line of descent from Solomon, most of his names will be found in I Chron. Chap. III, although there are several differences.

Where Luke obtained his names of Nathan's descendants, does not appear.[3]

CONCEPTION

Matthew and Luke state that Jesus was conceived of Mary, when a virgin, by the Holy Ghost (Matt. Chap. I, Luke Chap. I).

Mark and John are silent on the subject, except as they speak of Jesus as being the son of Joseph and Mary (Mark III:31; VI:3; John I:45; II:1; XIX:25).

Matthew says that Joseph, after he was "espoused" to Mary and was her "husband", but before they "came together", discovered that she was with child and was "minded to put her away privily." But an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and told him that his "wife" was with child by the Holy Ghost,[4] and would bring forth a son, and that he should call His name Jesus. Matthew adds that this was in fulfillment of an Old Testament prophesy, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel" (Isaiah VII:14).[5]

Luke gives the name of the angel, to-wit: Gabriel,[6] but he appears to _Mary_ instead of to _Joseph_. He also appeared _before_ Mary's conception, instead of _after_, as in Matthew.[7] Apparently Mary, while "espoused" to Joseph, was not yet his "wife", since she asks the angel how she shall conceive, "seeing that I know not a man?" (Luke I:34).[8]

It would also seem that the appearance of the angel was not in a dream, since his conversation with Mary is related as any ordinary conversation between two natural persons.[9]

PRE-NATAL INCIDENTS

Luke gives (Chap. I) a quite lengthy account of the conception of John the Baptist, which is very similar to the story of the conception of Samson in the Old Testament (Judges Chap. XIII). He also tells of a three months' visit of Mary to Elisabeth, mother of John the Baptist and Mary's cousin (Luke I:36), and of Elisabeth's recognition of Mary as the mother of "My Lord" (Luke I:43).[10] While Mary treated the announcement of the angel rather indifferently (Luke I:38), she now, on this salutation of Elisabeth, pours out a grand hymn of invocation and thanksgiving for the blessing that has come upon her (Luke I:46-55).

The three other evangelists are silent as to these incidents and do not mention any relations.h.i.+p between Jesus and John.

BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD

Mark and John furnish no information as to the life of Jesus prior to His baptism by John.

Both Matthew and Luke agree in giving Bethlehem of Judaea as the place of Jesus' birth. Apparently Matthew considered Bethlehem the then residence of Joseph and Mary, for he says nothing of their presence there being temporary, and Joseph, when he returned from Egypt, was going back to Judaea (Bethlehem), but, on being warned of G.o.d in a dream, "he turned aside into the parts of Galilee; and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth" (Matt. II:22, 23). Luke, however, says that Joseph and Mary came down to Bethlehem from Nazareth to be taxed (or enrolled), and, because there was no room for them in the inn, Jesus, when born, was laid in a manger. Matthew does not mention any manger, but, on the other hand, the "wise men of the East" find the family in "the house," as would be natural if Bethlehem was Joseph's residence (Matt. II:11).

Matthew alone tells the story of the visit of the wise men from the East (Matt. II:1-2). He does not tell us the country from which they came, nor how they learned of the approaching birth of Jesus, the usual _deus ex machina_ of Matthew and Luke--an angel in a dream--not being used here, although he appears in warning the wise men not to see Herod on their return (Matt. II:12).

Matthew also relates that it was revealed to the "wise men" that Jesus was to be "king of the Jews" (Matt. II:2). But Jesus never used this t.i.tle as applying to Himself, and, that He did use it, was one of the "false" charges made against Him at His trial (John XVIII:33, 34, 36).

Luke also has a visit to the new born Jesus, but it is of shepherds "in the same country," instead of strangers from the East. To these shepherds appeared, not a star, but first one angel and then "a mult.i.tude of the heavenly host." This gives Luke the opportunity to introduce a beautiful hymn of greeting to the new born Babe, which is entirely lacking in Matthew (Luke II:10-14). The shepherds did their homage by "glorifying and praising G.o.d," instead of by gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh (Matt. II:11).

Matthew is the only one of the evangelists to tell of the slaying by Herod of "all the children that were in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof from two years old and under," and the flight of Joseph and Mary to Egypt (Matt. II:16-23).[11]

Luke alone tells of the visit to the temple when Jesus was twelve years old, and of His meeting the "doctors," "both hearing them and asking them questions" (Luke II:46).[12]

BAPTISM OF JESUS

John's baptism of Jesus is the first event in the latter's life which all four evangelists unite in recording. The earlier events related by Matthew and Luke--Mark and John either do not know, or do not believe, or do not deem worth recording.

John begins his preaching about the year A. D. 26 (Luke III:1).

Apparently Jesus was "about thirty years of age" when He was baptized (Luke III:23). The four Gospels describe at some length, and with substantial agreement, the preaching of John and the incidents of the baptism (Matt. III, Mark I, Luke III, John I).

Matthew's narrative covers seventeen verses, and John recognizes Jesus, for he says, "I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?" (Matt. III:14).

It does not appear that any one but Jesus saw the dove descending from heaven, or heard the voice (Matt. III:16-17).

Mark's narrative is the most concise, covering eleven verses, and omitting one or two points of John's preaching and his recognition of Jesus, as given in Matthew (Mark I:1-11). It does not appear that John knew or greeted Jesus in any way, or that any one but Jesus saw the dove or heard the voice.

Luke expands the story to twenty-two verses (Luke III:1-22), adding some points of John's preaching not given in Matthew or Mark. The baptismal ceremony is condensed into two verses, and, as in Luke, it does not appear that John recognized Jesus, or that any one but Jesus saw the dove or heard the voice.

John's account covers twenty-two verses (John I:15-36), and differs quite markedly from the other three. This Gospel adds a material point to John's preaching not in the others (John I:15-18), and omits certain points appearing in the others. The actual baptism itself is not described, but John speaks of it as an event that had occurred. He did not recognize Jesus on first meeting Him (contrary to Matthew's version): "And I knew Him not" (John I:31, 33). But "I saw the spirit descending from heaven like a dove and it abode upon Him" (John I:32).

And "He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost" (John I:33). On account of this sign, therefore, he accepted Jesus as the "Lamb of G.o.d."[13]