CHAPTER III
Birthdates confused
At this stage, we cannot help feeling and expressing again our sense of amazement for the disclosures we are about to make, for we are about to invade the sacred precincts of accepted history, and to rudely challenge the asseverations of a widely-believed divine report. We feel that in attempting to demonstrate the stupendous error under which the Christian world has for ages been deceived, we are assuming a bold posture. But our thesis is simply that the Apostolic writings, while not without an ascertainable basis in authentic history, are, because intended to fortify a certain religious interest, fraught with statements of a historical nature that are palpably and outrageously false.
In proof of this position let us call the reader's attention to the two accounts that are given in Matthew and Luke's Gospels respectively of the birth of Christ.
In Matthew 2, we read: — “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying. Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a governor that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo! the star which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down and worshipped him; and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying. Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word; for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my Son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel; for they are dead which sought the young child's life. And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." (KJV)
Here we have a story prima facie of a very fabulous turn, and one not only unauthenticated by the strictly historical narrative of the period, but of which not even a trace or feature is to be found in any of the other traditional accounts. It is substantially this: That the moment of the birth of Jesus was announced by a star to wise men from the East; that by their report of the event not only was Herod troubled, but all Jerusalem along with him; that Herod, to compass the child's death, slew all the innocents about Bethlehem; that the parents of the child, being divinely warned of this, fled with him to Egypt; and that they remained there till Herod's death, and did not return till the accession of Archelaus, his son. Now in this account we first of all have announcements made regarding the child, and then prophecies applied to him which were never fulfilled. He never was king of the Jews; never ruled over Israel; and never, as the angel Gabriel in Luke's account promised, ascended the throne of his father David. And not only was this prophecy never fulfilled, but there is evidence within the traditional accounts themselves to show that Herod's sentence was never executed; for had it been, as is here alleged, John the Baptizer, who was in the district, and the senior of Jesus by only a few months, would have been among the number of the slain innocents.
The truth is, that not only are these statements inconsistent with fact, and stultified by non-fulfilment; but we have Luke's version to show that, notwithstanding the important services alleged to have been rendered by the star, the infant Jesus had not at that time seen the light, and that the whole second chapter of Matthew is as fabulous as the first, in which the author gives a genealogy of Jesus to prove the fulfilment in him of the biblical prophecy that the Messiah was to be born of David, while, after adducing the proof of this to the satisfaction of all Christians, he at the same time, and nearly with the same breath, gravely assures his readers that Jesus had no genealogy at all, but, being born of the Spirit, was without an earthly father.
In Luke 2: 1-7 we read: — "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David): to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling-clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn:" (KJV)
This is a very different version from that of Matthew. Here is no gold, frankincense, or myrrh, however acceptable these might have been in the circumstances, — though one could have wished, for the credit of humanity, that the story had told us how some fellow– sojourner in the inn had had pity and exchanged places with the mother and her baby; but we have angels instead in multitudes, announcing the event to a company of shepherds, “keeping watch over their flocks by night," who accordingly, we are told, were the first to discover and make known to others the birth of the child.
That Luke's, and not Matthew's, is the correct version in this case is rendered more probable, from his reference, by way of date, to what is altogether missing in Matthew's narrative. A tax is always levied by decree, and record kept in the public archives of the date. Without a decree and its publication it would not be lawful to collect it. Now a decree to this effect, with the date of its issue, exists on record, and by it we can verify the period to which Luke's narrative points. Accordingly it so happens, as has been shown by accurate historical research, that the Cyrenian taxation, and, according to Luke, the birth of Christ, took place, not, as Matthew's narrative implies, in the days of Herod, but after the banishment to Gaul by Caesar Augustus of Archelaus, Herod's son and successor, who had already ruled some time as king, and then for ten years more as ethnarch; so that it is no wonder that the shepherds could not be directed to the star that guided the wise men of the East, although it came and stood over where the young child was, for already thirteen years had elapsed since the appearance of that notable portent. Neither could they judge from the gold, frankincense, and myrrh that had been offered; they were guided by an angel to a certain inn, where they would find the child wrapped in swaddling-clothes and lying in a manger. The shepherds could not meet the wise men of the East nor the wise men of the East the shepherds, although both, as is alleged, were supernaturally led by divinely-sent infallible ministers, and both had been bound upon the exact same errand — the worship of the young child who was to bring glory to Israel and peace to the world. Stars and star-gazers, however, have often deluded people, whereas angels and a host of angels have never; and so, of the two, if we must choose, we are inclined to give credibility to Luke's version, the more so that Luke, with some sense of and regard for historical truth, supplies particulars, and mentions not only the period and the region, but the very spot of the occurrence. And if so, what then becomes of the story of the massacre of the innocents in the last days of Herod, when the date Luke gives refers the birth of Jesus to about thirteen years later than the reign of that tyrant? What becomes of the mysterious star which in his time beckoned the wonder- struck Magi out of Persia until it stood over the place where the child lay? And what an anachronism it is to run back the Christian era to the last years of Herod's reign!
In proof that Archelaus reigned as king and ethnarch before the date of the Cyrenian taxation, we call the reader's attention to the following details. By the last testament of Herod, Archelaus, his son, was appointed his successor in the kingdom, and Caesar Augustus was not only nominated the administrator of that instrument, but had the power conferred upon him by the testator of modifying and confirming its provisions. Archelaus succeeded his father in the year one of our common era (1CE), and commenced his reign with an honest desire to commend his rule to the good-will and favor of his subjects. Before long, however — it is not known how long — disaffection arose, and the Jews, or the chief sect of them (the Pharisees,) appealed to Caesar against him, "When," to use the words of Josephus, "Caesar had heard these pleadings, he dissolved the assembly;" but a few days afterwards, he appointed Archelaus, not indeed to be king of the whole country, but ethnarch of one-half of that which had been subject to Herod. In his Jewish Antiquities, Book xv chap. 1 2, § 2, Josephus continues:
— "But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar, and that especially because they knew he had broken the commands of Caesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation among them. Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and called for Archelaus's steward, who took care of his affairs at Rome, whose name was Archelaus also, and thinking it beneath him to write to Archelaus, he bade him sail away as soon as possible, and bring him to Rome; so the man made haste in his voyage, and when he came into Judea, he found Archelaus feasting his friends, so he told him what Caesar had sent him about, and hastened him away. And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him."
After all these events, many years subsequent to the death of Herod, Caesar appoints Cyrenius to make a taxation of Syria and Judea, and we arrive at the time when "Joseph, Mary, his espoused wife, being great with child, went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth unto the city of David, and the days were accomplished that she should be delivered of her child." (KJV)
The historian explains the appointment of Cyrenius as follows: — In Book xviii chap, 1, § 1, we read — "Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who on other accounts was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius, also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Boethus, and high-priest. So they, being over-persuaded by Joazar’s words, gave an account of their estates without any dispute about it; yet there was one Judas a Gaulonite of a city whose name was Gamala, who taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them than upon their joining with one another in such counsels as might be successful and for their own advantage, and this especially if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same. So men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree. One violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends who used to alleviate our pain; there were also very great robberies and murders of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality from the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left), and sometimes on their enemies. A famine also coming upon us reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very Temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal; concerning which I shall discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction."
It thus appears, on the unquestionable authority of Josephus, that the fourth sect of philosophy mentioned by him as founded by Judas of Galilee took its rise at the time and because of the Cyrenian taxation, and we have just seen that Luke assigns to that same period the date of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. If the date assigned by Luke for the birth of Jesus be correct, it will make Jesus to have been about twenty years or less of age when Pilate slew the false prophet of whom mention is made in the pages of Josephus, an event which happened in the year 33 CE.
This new sect sprang into existence before or about the time when, according to Luke, Jesus was born, when the seed which ripened in the ruin of the Jewish state (70CE) had been already sown and had taken root in the community. That the movement thus originated assumed eventually, under modifications in its spirit and aims, the name of Christianity (from the Greek κριστοσ, anointed or Messiah), there is no reason to doubt. It was, as the historical accounts testify, a doctrine which, when it was first introduced, was strongly blended with the politics of the day, had throughout a political significance, and tended rather to subvert than strengthen the Roman authority in Judea. The changed attitude this sect assumed towards Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem, by acknowledging in a general way its supremacy, could not fail to obtain for it respect in place of the hatred that was entertained against it, and to be received with all favor as its first initiation had grown out of a general patriotic feeling of the Judean population against the Roman usurper and their Illegitimate Herodian kinglets (see Le Mensonge Chrétien by Arthur Heulhard, 1908-1910, for a full development of this thesis.)
The explanation of the philosophy of this sect, as described by Josephus, we have given in another place. This description must be received as a historical summary of the original philosophical creed and political bearings of the Christian sect and it follows that Jesus would have been only twenty years old if he was crucified by Pilate, whereas the traditional accounts make him to have been thirty-three; and if he was crucified by Pilate, it follows that there were two conspicuous characters who, during the last years of his procuratorship, fell victims to their religious zeal, of whom authentic history mentions only the one, while the Evangelical reports mention only the other.
According to Josephus, this sect had already an existence at the time Luke alleges Jesus was born, and its tenets were professed by multitudes before he opened his lips to speak, or had even the right to teach. And this is the sect which we venture to assert eventually developed into Christianity, and which, in the course of its development, when there was more of the Judas than the Christian element in its creed, brought about such seditions and tumults as to divide the Jewish people into opposite factions, at internecine feud with each other, and to strengthen the section that could not brook Roman domination, but regarded it as a curse that would one day bring down on the nation the vengeance of Heaven. However much the rest of the people might receive Augustus, Tiberius, or Caligula as deities, each— for it was virtually that, they thought — as a man-god, the Jews as a body preferred to suffer death and dispersion rather than submit to such a degradation and desecration; and all those who have studied the history of the period will allow that they had too good a reason to rebel, considering the rapacity of the Roman procurators of Judea, who vied with each other in their criminal acts of cruelty and oppression. And, indeed, the strife that went on then was the source of an age-long strife; for here we are, after twenty centuries of confusion and debate, arrayed under the same antagonisms that developed then, the Jewish section uncompromisingly repudiating, and the Christian as uncompromisingly maintaining, the worship of a man as God. The modern antithesis between Jew and Christian is radically the same as that which existed of old between the Jewish Establishment and the riotous Galileans.
Let us repeat: The religious delusions which at this time prevailed and spread everywhere, tending to the disintegration of the Jewish state, contributed to intensify the hatred to the domination of the Roman authority, and stir up a determination to overthrow it and cast off its yoke, while the conservative element became gradually weaker and less able to stem the rising tide of lawless violence and vice. And as the Roman procurators, instead of upholding the cause of justice and order, winked at these proceedings, especially when by such connivance they might promote their own fortune, that government appeared to many more a curse than a blessing, and its removal a dire necessity laid on every Judean who loved their land and their religion.
Josephus relates in Wars of the Jews, Book ii cap. 13, §§3, 4:— "When the country was purged of these, there sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the daytime and in the midst of the city. This they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies; and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation against them; by which means they appeared persons of such reputation that they could by no means be discovered. The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the high-priest, after whose death many were slain every day; while the fear men were in of being so served was more afflicting than the calamity itself, and while everybody expected death every hour, as men do in war; so men were obliged to look before them, and to take notice of their enemies at a great distance; nor, if their friends were coming to them, durst they trust them any longer; but, in the midst of their suspicions and guarding of themselves, they were slain. Such was the celerity of the plotters against them, and so cunning was their contrivance.
"There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, who laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty; but Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt, so he sent some horsemen and footmen, both armed, who destroyed a great number of them."
The account by Josephus of the appearance at this juncture, and the political influence, of men who deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, is a notable historical admission, and reveals a condition of things calculated to prepare the mind to receive with less astonishment the Apostolic relation. That the enthusiasm connected with such a state of things should increase and give birth to others was natural under the complicated circumstances and the prodigies which accompanied them. And, accordingly, history records the fanatical excesses that followed, and denounces as deceivers those who, affecting a zealous reverence for liberty, forbade their followers to acknowledge any other authority than the kingdom of God, and excluded all human authority except that of their own sacerdotal order. The recent resurgence of religious fundamentalisms in our modern world help us understand the dimension of the fanaticism that engulfed Palestine at that time.