23. Neri
24. Melchi
25. Addi
26. Cosam
27. Elmodam
28. Er
29. Jose
30. Elieze
31. Jorim
32. Matthat
41.From the birth of David to the birth of Christ is upwards of 1080 years; and as the life-time of Christ is not included, there are but 27 full generations. To find therefore the average age of each person mentioned in the list, at the time his first son was born, it is only necessary to divide 1080 by 27, which gives 40 years for each person.
As the life-time of man was then but of the same extent it is now, it is an absurdity to suppose, that 27 following generations should all be old bachelors, before they married; and the more so, when we are told that Solomon, the next in succession to David, had a house full of wives and mistresses before he was twenty-one years of age. So far from this genealogy being a solemn truth, it is not even a reasonable lie.
The list of Luke gives about twenty-six years for the average age, and this is too much.—-Author.
123
33. Levi
34. Simeon
35. Juda
36. Joseph
37. Jonan
38. Eliakim
39. melea
40. Menan
41. Mattatha
42. Nathan
43. David
Now, if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood
between them (as these two accounts shew they do) in the very com-
mencement of their history of Jesus Christ, and of who, and of what he
was, what authority (as I have before asked) is there left for believing the strange things they tell us afterwards? If they cannot be believed in their account of his natural genealogy, how are we to believe them when they
tell us he was the son of God, begotten by a ghost; and that an angel an-
nounced this in secret to his mother? If they lied in one genealogy, why
are we to believe them in the other? If his natural genealogy be manufac-
tured, which it certainly is, why are we not to suppose that his celestial genealogy is manufactured also, and that the whole is fabulous? Can any
man of serious reflection hazard his future happiness upon the belief of a story naturally impossible, repugnant to every idea of decency, and related by persons already detected of falsehood? Is it not more safe that
we stop ourselves at the plain, pure, and unmixed belief of one God,
which is deism, than that we commit ourselves on an ocean of improb-
able, irrational, indecent, and contradictory tales?
The first question, however, upon the books of the New Testament, as
upon those of the Old, is, Are they genuine? were they written by the
persons to whom they are ascribed? For it is upon this ground only that
the strange things related therein have been credited. Upon this point,
there is no direct proof for or against; and all that this state of a case proves is doubtfulness; and doubtfulness is the opposite of belief. The state, therefore, that the books are in, proves against themselves as far as this kind of proof can go.
But, exclusive of this, the presumption is that the books called the
Evangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were not
written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and that they are
124
impositions. The disordered state of the history in these four books, the silence of one book upon matters related in the other, and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are the produc-
tions of some unconnected individuals, many years after the things they
pretend to relate, each of whom made his own legend; and not the writ-
ings of men living intimately together, as the men called apostles are
supposed to have done: in fine, that they have been manufactured, as the
books of the Old Testament have been, by other persons than those
whose names they bear.
The story of the angel announcing what the church calls the immaculate conception, is not so much as mentioned in the books ascribed to Mark, and John; and is differently related in Matthew and Luke. The former
says the angel, appeared to Joseph; the latter says, it was to Mary; but
either Joseph or Mary was the worst evidence that could have been
thought of; for it was others that should have testified for them, and not they for themselves. Were any girl that is now with child to say, and
even to swear it, that she was gotten with child by a ghost, and that an
angel told her so, would she be believed? Certainly she would not. Why
then are we to believe the same thing of another girl whom we never
saw, told by nobody knows who, nor when, nor where? How strange
and inconsistent is it, that the same circumstance that would weaken the
belief even of a probable story, should be given as a motive for believing this one, that has upon the face of it every token of absolute impossibility and imposture.
The story of Herod destroying all the children under two years old, be-
longs altogether to the book of Matthew; not one of the rest mentions
anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the universality of it must have made it known to all the writers, and the thing would have
been too striking to have been omitted by any. This writer tell us, that Jesus escaped this slaughter, because Joseph and Mary were warned by an
angel to flee with him into Egypt; but he forgot to make provision for
John [the Baptist], who was then under two years of age. John, however,
who staid behind, fared as well as Jesus, who fled; and therefore the
story circumstantially belies itself.
Not any two of these writers agree in reciting, exactly in the same
words, the written inscription, short as it is, which they tell us was put over Christ when he was crucified; and besides this, Mark says, He was
crucified at the third hour, (nine in the morning;) and John says it was
the sixth hour, (twelve at noon.)42
The inscription is thus stated in those books:
125
Matthew — This is Jesus the king of the Jews.
Mark — The king of the Jews.
Luke — This is the king of the Jews.
John — Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews.
We may infer from these circumstances, trivial as they are, that those
writers, whoever they were, and in whatever time they lived, were not
present at the scene. The only one of the men called apostles who ap-
pears to have been near to the spot was Peter, and when he was accused
of being one of Jesus's followers, it is said, (Matthew xxvi. 74,) "Then Peter began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man:" yet we are now called to believe the same Peter, convicted, by their own account, of perjury. For what reason, or on what authority, should we do this?
The accounts that are given of the circumstances, that they tell us at-
tended the crucifixion, are differently related in those four books.
The book ascribed to Matthew says there was darkness over all the land from the sixth hour unto the ninth hour-—that the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom—-that there was an earthquake-—that the rocks rent-—that the graves opened, that the bodies of many of the saints that slept arose and came out of their graves after the resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto many. Such is the account which this dashing writer of the book of Matthew gives, but in which he is not supported by
the writers of the other books.
The writer of the book ascribed to Mark, in detailing the circumstances
of the crucifixion, makes no mention of any earthquake, nor of the rocks
rending, nor of the graves opening, nor of the dead men walking out.
The writer of the book of Luke is silent also upon the same points. And
as to the writer of the book of John, though he details all the circum-
stances of the crucifixion down to the burial of Christ, he says nothing
about either the darkness-—the veil of the temple-—the earth-
quake-—the rocks-—the graves-—nor the dead men.
Now if it had been true that these things had happened, and if the
writers of these books had lived at the time they did happen, and had
been the persons they are said to be-—namely, the four men called
apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,-—it was not possible for them,
as true historians, even without the aid of inspiration, not to have
42.According to John, (xix. 14) the sentence was not passed till about the sixth hour
(noon,) and consequently the execution could not be till the afternoon; but Mark (xv.
25) says expressly that he was crucified at the third hour, (nine in the morning,)—-
126
recorded them. The things, supposing them to have been facts, were of
too much notoriety not to have been known, and of too much import-
ance not to have been told. All these supposed apostles must have been
witnesses of the earthquake, if there had been any, for it was not possible for them to have been absent from it: the opening of the graves and resurrection of the dead men, and their walking about the city, is of still greater importance than the earthquake. An earthquake is always possible, and natural, and proves nothing; but this opening of the graves is supernatural, and directly in point to their doctrine, their cause, and
their apostleship. Had it been true, it would have filled up whole
chapters of those books, and been the chosen theme and general chorus
of all the writers; but instead of this, little and trivial things, and mere prattling conversation of he said this and she said that are often tediously detailed, while this most important of all, had it been true, is passed off in a slovenly manner by a single dash of the pen, and that by one writer
only, and not so much as hinted at by the rest.
It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the lie after it is told. The writer of the book of Matthew should have told us who the
saints were that came to life again, and went into the city, and what be-
came of them afterwards, and who it was that saw them; for he is not
hardy enough to say that he saw them himself;-—whether they came out
naked, and all in natural buff, he-saints and she-saints, or whether they came full dressed, and where they got their dresses; whether they went
to their former habitations, and reclaimed their wives, their husbands,
and their property, and how they were received; whether they entered
ejectments for the recovery of their possessions, or brought actions
of crim. con. against the rival interlopers; whether they remained on earth, and followed their former occupation of preaching or working; or
whether they died again, or went back to their graves alive, and buried
themselves.
Strange indeed, that an army of saints should return to life, and
nobody know who they were, nor who it was that saw them, and that
not a word more should be said upon the subject, nor these saints have
any thing to tell us! Had it been the prophets who (as we are told) had
formerly prophesied of these things, they must have had a great deal to say. They could have told us everything, and we should have had
posthumous prophecies, with notes and commentaries upon the first, a
little better at least than we have now. Had it been Moses, and Aaron,
and Joshua, and Samuel, and David, not an unconverted Jew had re-
mained in all Jerusalem. Had it been John the Baptist, and the saints of
127
the times then present, everybody would have known them, and they
would have out-preached and out-famed all the other apostles. But, in-
stead of this, these saints are made to pop up, like Jonah's gourd in the night, for no purpose at all but to wither in the morning.-—Thus much
for this part of the story.
The tale of the resurrection follows that of the crucifixion; and in this as well as in that, the writers, whoever they were, disagree so much as to make it evident that none of them were there.
The book of Matthew states, that when Christ was put in the sepulchre
the Jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be placed over the
sepulchre, to prevent the body being stolen by the disciples; and that in consequence of this request the sepulchre was made sure, sealing the
stone that covered the mouth, and setting a watch. But the other books say nothing about this application, nor about the sealing, nor the guard, nor the watch; and according to their accounts, there were none. Matthew, however, follows up this part of the story of the guard or the
watch with a second part, that I shall notice in the conclusion, as it serves to detect the fallacy of those books.
The book of Matthew continues its account, and says, (xxviii. 1,) that at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.
Mark says it was sun-rising, and John says it was dark. Luke says it was
Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women, that came to the sepulchre; and John states that Mary Magdalene came alone. So well do they agree about their first evidence! They all,
however, appear to have known most about Mary Magdalene; she was a
woman of large acquaintance, and it was not an ill conjecture that she
might be upon the stroll. 43
The book of Matthew goes on to say (ver. 2): "And behold there was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and
came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." But the other books say nothing about any earthquake, nor about the angel
rolling back the stone, and sitting upon it; and, according to their account, there was no angel sitting there. Mark says the angel44 was within the sepulchre, sitting on the right side. Luke says there were two, and they were
43.The Bishop of Llandaff, in his famous "Apology," censured Paine severely for this
insinuation against Mary Magdalene, but the censure really falls on our English ver-
sion, which, by a chapter-heading (Luke vii.), has unwarrantably identified her as the
sinful woman who anointed Jesus, and irrevocably branded her.-—Editor.
44.Mark says "a young man," and Luke "two men."—-Editor.
128
both standing up; and John says they were both sitting down, one at the
head and the other at the feet.
Matthew says, that the angel that was sitting upon the stone on the
outside of the sepulchre told the two Marys that Christ was risen, and
that the women went away quickly. Mark says, that the women, upon seeing the stone rolled away, and wondering at it, went into the sepulchre, and that it was the angel that was sitting within on the right side, that told them so. Luke says, it was the two angels that were standing
up; and John says, it was Jesus Christ himself that told it to Mary Mag-
dalene; and that she did not go into the sepulchre, but only stooped
down and looked in.
Now, if the writers of these four books had gone into a court of justice
to prove an alibi, (for it is of the nature of an alibi that is here attempted to be proved, namely, the absence of a dead body by supernatural
means,) and had they given their evidence in the same contradictory
manner as it is here given, they would have been in danger of having
their ears cropt for perjury, and would have justly deserved it. Yet this is the evidence, and these are the books, that have been imposed upon the
world as being given by divine inspiration, and as the unchangeable
word of God.
The writer of the book of Matthew, after giving this account, relates a
story that is not to be found in any of the other books, and which is the same I have just before alluded to. "Now," says he, [that is, after the conversation the women had had with the angel sitting upon the stone,]
"behold some of the watch [meaning the watch that he had said had been placed over the sepulchre] came into the city, and shewed unto the chief
priests all the things that were done; and when they were assembled
with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the
soldiers, saying, Say ye, that his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept; and if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they
were taught; and this saying [that his disciples stole him away] is com-
monly reported among the Jews until this day."
The expression, until this day, is an evidence that the book ascribed to
Matthew was not written by Matthew, and that it has been manufac-
tured long after the times and things of which it pretends to treat; for the expression implies a great length of intervening time. It would be inconsistent in us to speak in this manner of any thing happening in our own
time. To give, therefore, intelligible meaning to the expression, we must 129
suppose a lapse of some generations at least, for this manner of speaking carries the mind back to ancient time.
The absurdity also of the story is worth noticing; for it shows the
writer of the book of Matthew to have been an exceeding weak and fool-
ish man. He tells a story that contradicts itself in point of possibility; for though the guard, if there were any, might be made to say that the body
was taken away while they were asleep, and to give that as a reason for their not having prevented it, that same sleep must also have prevented
their knowing how, and by whom, it was done; and yet they are made to
say that it was the disciples who did it. Were a man to tender his evid-
ence of something that he should say was done, and of the manner of do-
ing it, and of the person who did it, while he was asleep, and could
know nothing of the matter, such evidence could not be received: it will
do well enough for Testament evidence, but not for any thing where
truth is concerned.
I come now to that part of the evidence in those books, that respects
the pretended appearance of Christ after this pretended resurrection.
The writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel that was sit-
ting on the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, said to the two Marys
(xxviii. 7), " Behold Christ is gone before you into Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you. " And the same writer at the next two verses (8, 9,) makes Christ himself to speak to the same purpose to these women immediately after the angel had told it to them, and that they ran quickly to tell it to the disciples; and it is said (ver. 16), " Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them; and, when they saw him, they worshipped him."
But the writer of the book of John tells us a story very different to this; for he says (xx. 19) "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, [that is, the same day that Christ is said to have risen,] when the doors were shut, where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the
Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst of them."
According to Matthew the eleven were marching to Galilee, to meet Je-
sus in a mountain, by his own appointment, at the very time when, ac-
cording to John, they were assembled in another place, and that not by
appointment, but in secret, for fear of the Jews.
The writer of the book of Luke xxiv. 13, 33-36, contradicts that of Mat-
thew more pointedly than John does; for he says expressly, that the
meeting was in Jerusalem the evening of the same day that he (Christ)
rose, and that the eleven were there.
130
Now, it is not possible, unless we admit these supposed disciples the
right of wilful lying, that the writers of these books could be any of the eleven persons called disciples; for if, according to Matthew, the eleven went into Galilee to meet Jesus in a mountain by his own appointment,
on the same day that he is said to have risen, Luke and John must have
been two of that eleven; yet the writer of Luke says expressly, and John
implies as much, that the meeting was that same day, in a house in Jerus-
alem; and, on the other hand, if, according to Luke and John,
the eleven were assembled in a house in Jerusalem, Matthew must have been one of that eleven; yet Matthew says the meeting was in a mountain
in Galilee, and consequently the evidence given in those books destroy
each other.
The writer of the book of Mark says nothing about any meeting in Ga-
lilee; but he says (xvi. 12) that Christ, after his resurrection, appeared in another form to two of them, as they walked into the country, and that these two told it to the residue, who would not believe them. 45 Luke also tells a story, in which he keeps Christ employed the whole of the day of
this pretended resurrection, until the evening, and which totally invalidates the account of going to the mountain in Galilee. He says, that two of them, without saying which two, went that same day to a village called Emmaus, three score furlongs (seven miles and a half) from Jerusalem,
and that Christ in disguise went with them, and staid with them unto the
evening, and supped with them, and then vanished out of their sight,
and reappeared that same evening, at the meeting of the eleven in
Jerusalem.
This is the contradictory manner in which the evidence of this preten-
ded reappearance of Christ is stated: the only point in which the writers agree, is the skulking privacy of that reappearance; for whether it was in the recess of a mountain in Galilee, or in a shut-up house in Jerusalem, it was still skulking. To what cause then are we to assign this skulking? On the one hand, it is directly repugnant to the supposed or pretended end,
that of convincing the world that Christ was risen; and, on the other
hand, to have asserted the publicity of it would have exposed the writers of those books to public detection; and, therefore, they have been under
the necessity of making it a private affair.
As to the account of Christ being seen by more than five hundred at
once, it is Paul only who says it, and not the five hundred who say it for themselves. It is, therefore, the testimony of but one man, and that too of
45.This belongs to the late addition to Mark, which originally ended with xvi.
131
a man, who did not, according to the same account, believe a word of the
matter himself at the time it is said to have happened. His evidence, supposing him to have been the writer of Corinthians xv., where this ac-
count is given, is like that of a man who comes into a court of justice to swear that what he had sworn before was false. A man may often see
reason, and he has too always the right of changing his opinion; but this liberty does not extend to matters of fact.
I now come to the last scene, that of the ascension into heaven.-—Here
all fear of the Jews, and of every thing else, must necessarily have been out of the question: it was that which, if true, was to seal the whole; and upon which the reality of the future mission of the disciples was to rest for proof. Words, whether declarations or promises, that passed in
private, either in the recess of a mountain in Galilee, or in a shut-up
house in Jerusalem, even supposing them to have been spoken, could not
be evidence in public; it was therefore necessary that this last scene
should preclude the possibility of denial and dispute; and that it should be, as I have stated in the former part of The Age of Reason, as public and as visible as the sun at noon-day; at least it ought to have been as public as the crucifixion is reported to have been.-—But to come to the point.
In the first place, the writer of the book of Matthew does not say a syl-
lable about it; neither does the writer of the book of John. This being the case, is it possible to suppose that those writers, who affect to be even minute in o