it could not be granted, for their testimony does not agree. The Jesus of the Synoptics differs very widely from the Jesus of John, in his actions, discourses, and general spiritual character, as much as the Socrates of Xenophon from that of Plato. This point was early acknowledged by Christian Fathers. But not to dwell on a general disagreement, nor to come down to the perpetual and well-known disagreement in minute details, there is a most striking difference between the genealogies of Jesus as given by Matthew and Luke. Both agree that Jesus was descended from David by the Father's side; but Matthew counts twenty-five ancestors between David and Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Luke enumerates forty ancestors, of whom thirty-eight are never mentioned by Matthew; one derives his descent from the illustrious Solomon, the other from the obscure Nathan; one makes Nazareth Joseph's dwelling-place, the other Bethlehem. They disagree, likewise, in numerous particulars of the early history, such as the miraculous appearance of the star, the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the songs, the angels, and the dreams.[1] Yet notwithstanding these genealogies both agree that Jesus had no human father, a fact never referred to by Mark or John, by Peter or Paul, nor in the recorded words of Jesus himself, or the people about him, who took him for the son of Joseph the carpenter. If he had no human father, how was he descended from David? Are we to believe a miracle so surprising, on the doubtful statement of two men whom we know nothing of, but who contradict themselves and one another, and relate the strongest marvels? Is it a part of Religion to believe such stories? What else would we believe on such evidence? It were easy to point out other disagreements in the words, and actions, and predictions ascribed to Jesus; in the accounts of his resurrection and the impossible events of his subsequent history, but it is not needed for the present purpose.[2] The book of the Acts, of a my-
- ↑ See these discrepancies ably stated by Mr Norton, ubi sup. p. liii. et seq.; and Strauss, Life of Jesus, § 19–38; and the popular statement in Harwood, ubi sup. p. 20, et seq.; Hennel, ubi sup. ch. iii. v.; Middleton, Reflections; on the Variations in the Gospels, Works, Vol. II. See Weisseler's attempt to reconcile these genealogies, Stud. und Krit. für 1845, p. 361, et seq. Compare the Apocryphal Gospels.
- ↑ See, who will, Evanson, Dissonance of the Evangelists, Gloucester, 1805;
