| Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
From Bill Restemeyer and the Internet Infidels for The Freethought Web. |
|
Did Jesus Christ Really Live? |
by Marshall J. Gauvin |
Page 6
| Matthew says he was born
when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.
Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as
to the time of Christ's birth.
Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher.
|
If Jesus lived,
he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was
King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not
have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4
B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria
until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus,
Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least
ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had
absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says:
"Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different
authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth." Think of it -- one
hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in
which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty! Towards the close of the eighteenth century, Antonmaria Lupi, a learned Jesuit, wrote a work to show that the nativity of Christ has been assigned to every month in the year, at one time or another. Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually called "Jesus of Nazareth." The New Testament writers have endeavored to leave the impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. The Synoptic Gospels represent that thirty years of his life were spent there. Notwithstanding this, Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher. Matthew's application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that his Gospel is not history, but romance. Luke has it that his birth occurred at Bethlehem, whither his mother had gone with her husband, to make the enrollment called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census mentioned by Luke, nothing is known in Roman history. But suppose such a census was taken. The Roman custom, when an enrollment was made, was that every man was to report at his place of residence. The head of the family alone made report. In no case was his wife, or any dependent, required to be with him. In the face of this established custom, Luke declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming a mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ was born at Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him the Messiah, and the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David; and by what Renan calls a roundabout way, his birth was made to take place there. The story of his birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious.
|