textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/forg5.xml

<xml><p> 48 page printout, pages 148 to 195 of 322
CHAPTER V</p>

<p> THE "GOSPEL" FORGERIES</p>

<p>"Whether a <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> which stands convicted of having forged its
<ent type='PERSON'>Creed</ent>, would have any scruple of forging its Gospels, is a problem
that the reader will solve according to the influence of prejudice
or probability on his mind." <ent type='PERSON'>Taylor</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Diegesis</ent>, p. 10.</p>

<p> LET us now take up the holy <ent type='ORG'>Evangels</ent> and Epistles of Christ-propaganda. After even our cursory examination of the welter of
Gospels, Acts, Epistles and other pious frauds of <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>
missionary-work, all admittedly forged by holy hands in the early
<ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> "age of apocryphal literature" in the names of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
Christ himself, of the Twelve pseudo-apostles and other <ent type='ORG'>Worthies</ent>,
including Mother Eve, even the most credulous and uncritical
<ent type='PERSON'>Bel</ent>iever must feel the intrusion of some question: How came the
four "Gospels according to" <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, to be
sometime accepted as genuine and inspired? and, Why are there only
Four out of so much greater a number, as we have seen in
circulation and acceptance? The questions are pertinent, and shall
be given fair answer.</p>

<p> This entire aggregation of forged religious writings, under
the guise of genuine Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Apocalypses, falsely
attributed to apostolic writers, is know together as "Old <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>
Literature," whether now called "canonical" or apocryphal. Of it
EB. says that this present distinction "does not, in point of fact,
rest upon any real difference in the character or origin of the
writings concerned, but only upon the assumption of their differing
values as sacred or non-sacred books." (EB. iii, 3481.)
Furthermore, the common characteristic and motive of them all is
thus described, or explained: "To compose 'letters' under another
name, especially under the name of persons whose living
presentment, or real or supposed spiritual equipment, it, was
proposed to set before the reader, was then just us usual as was
the other practice of introducing the same persons into narratives
and reporting their 'words' in the manner of which we have
examples, in the case of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, in the Gospels, and, in the case of
<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, and other apostles, in the Acts." (EB. iii, 3481.)</p>

<p> "The Gospel has come down to us," says Bishop Irenaeus (about
185 A.D.), which the apostles did at one time proclaim in public,
and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in
the <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ... For,
after our Lord rose from the dead [the apostles] departed to the
ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things
sent from God to us, who indeed do equally and individually possess
the Gospel of God." (Iren., Adv. Haer, Bk. III, ch. i; <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>. i,
414.) Bishop Irenaeus and Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent> have both averred that the
Christ lived to old age (even as late as 98-117 A.D.), flatly
denying thus as "heresy" the Gospel stories as to his crucifixion
at about thirty years of age. In any event, the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>, according
to the record, scattered "to the ends of the earth, preaching,"
orally, before they wrote anything at all.</p>

<p> But, says CE., although "<ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent> was not written all
at once, the books that compose it appeared one after another in
the space of fifty years, i.e., in the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond half of the first </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
148
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>century." (CE. xiv, 530.) That this last clause is untrue will be
fully and readily demonstrated. This statement, too, contradicts
Bishops <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent> and Irenaeus, who are, positively, the only two of
the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century Fathers who up to their times at all mention
written Gospels or their supposed authors, as we have seen and
shall more particularly notice.</p>

<p> And CE. says, as is true, of the earliest existing manuscripts
of any <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent> books: "We have <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent> <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>. written not
much more than 300 years after the composition of the books"; and
it admits (though with much diminution of truth, as we shall see):
"And in them we find numerous differences, though but few of them
are important." (CE. xiv, 526.) In this CE. at another place, and
speaking much more nearly the truth, contradicts itself, saying:
"The existence of numerous and, at times, considerable differences
between the four canonical Gospels is a fact which has long been
noticed and which all scholars readily admit. ... Those evangelical
records (SS. <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>) whose mutual resemblances are
obvious and striking, and ... the narrative (that of St. <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>)
whose relation with the other three is that of dissimilarity rather
than that of likeness." (CE. vi, 658.)</p>

<p> But the so-called "canonical" books of <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent>, as
of the Old, are a mess of contradictions and confusions of text, to
the present estimate of 150000 and more "variant readings," as is
well known and admitted. Thus CE.: "It is easy to understand how
numerous would be the readings of a text transcribed as often as
the Bible, and, as only one reading can represent the original, it
follows that all the others are necessarily faulty. <ent type='ORG'>Mill</ent> estimated
the variants of <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent> at 30000, and since the
discovery of so many <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>. unknown to <ent type='ORG'>Mill</ent>, this number has greatly
increased." (CE. iv, 498.) Who, then, is "inspired" to distinguish
true from false readings, and thus to know what <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ and
his entourage really said and did, or what some copyist's error or
priest's forgery make them say or do, falsely? Of the chaos and
juggling of sacred texts in the Great Dioceses of <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent>, CE. says:
"There never existed in early <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent> an official <ent type='NORP'>Latin</ent>
text known to all the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es, or used by the faithful to the
exclusion of all others. The <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent>n bishops willingly allowed
corrections to be made in a copy of the Sacred <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s, or even
a reference, when necessary, to the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> text. With some
exceptions, it was the Septuagint text that prevailed, for the
O.T., until the fourth century. In the case of the New, the <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>.
were of the <ent type='NORP'>Western</ent> type. On this basis there arose a variety of
translations and interpretations. ... Apart from the discrepancies
to be found in two quotations from the same text in the works of
two different authors, and sometimes of the same author, we now
know that of several books of <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent> there were versions wholly
independent of each other." (CE. i, 193.)</p>

<p> Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Victor</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Tunnunum</ent>, who died about 569 A.D. and whose
work, says CE., "is of great historical value," says that in the
fifth century, "In the consulship of <ent type='GPE'>Messala</ent>, at the command of the
Emperor <ent type='PERSON'>Anastasius</ent>, the Holy Gospels, as written Idiotis
<ent type='NORP'>Evangelists</ent>, are corrected and amended." (<ent type='PERSON'>Victor</ent> of T., Chronica,
p. 89-90; cited by Dr. <ent type='ORG'>Mill</ent>s, Prolegom. to R.V., p. 98.) This would
indicate some very substantial tinkering with Holy Writ; which </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
149
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>process was a continuing one, for, says CE., "Under Sixtus V (1585-1590) and Clement VIII (1592-1605) the <ent type='NORP'>Latin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Vulgate</ent> after years of
revision attained its present shape." (CE., xii, 769.) And the
<ent type='PERSON'>Vulgate</ent>, which was fiercely denounced as fearfully corrupt, was
only given sanction of divinity by <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> of Trent in 1546,
under the Curse of God against any who questioned it. Though this
amendatory tinkering of their two Holinesses was after <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent>
of Trent had put the final Seal of the Holy Ghost on the <ent type='PERSON'>Vulgate</ent> in
1546!</p>

<p> STILL TINKERING AT IT!</p>

<p> The ancient clerical trick of tempering with the "Word of God"
and amending its plenary Divine Inspiration and Inerrancy, goes on
apace today, even to the extent of putting a veneer of civilization
on the barbarian Hebrew God, and warping his own barbarian words so
as to make a semblance of a "God of Mercy" out of the self-styled
"Jealous God" of Holy Writ.</p>

<p> In 1902, after the sacred <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> of Trent, in 1546, had put
the Curse of God on any further tinkering with the Inerrant Bible,
His Holiness <ent type='PERSON'>Leo XIII</ent> appointed a <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent> of Cardinals, known as
<ent type='ORG'>the Pontifical</ent> Biblical <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent>, to further amend Divine
Inspiration; in 1907, "the <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent>, with the approval of the
sovereign pontiff, invited the Benedictine Order to undertake a
collection of the variant readings of the <ent type='NORP'>Latin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Vulgate</ent> as a remote
preparation for a thoroughly amended edition." (CE. ii, 557.) This
august body has recently laid before His Holiness, after all these
years of labor, the revised text of the revelations of <ent type='PERSON'>Moses</ent> in the
Book of <ent type='ORG'>Genesis</ent>; and is now worrying with Exodus and the "Ten
Commandments" in chapter XX thereof.</p>

<p> Associated Press dispatches published to the world today,
relate that "<ent type='ORG'>the Vatican</ent>'s International <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent> on the revision
of the Bible [is] taking steps to correct one of the most famous
Biblical passages, Exodus xx, 5, now believed to have been
mistranslated"! (N.Y. <ent type='PERSON'>Tim</ent>es, May 18, 1930.) The actual text, and
"what <ent type='ORG'>the Vatican</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent> thinks it should read," are here
quoted so that all may judge of the immense farce and fraud of this
capital falsification; -- the material tampering being indicated by
italics.</p>

<p> Exodus xx, 5 -- as is.</p>

<p> "For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God, visiting the
iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of then that hate me"; ...</p>

<p> Ditto -- as falsified.</p>

<p> "For I, the Lord thy God, am a God of loving-kindness and
mercy, considering the errors of the fathers as mitigating
circumstances in judging the children unto the third and
fourth generation"!</p>

<p> Even a fool knows that no set of words, humanly or divinely
devisable, could bear such enormity of contrary translation; this </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
150
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>is self-evident. The simple Hebrew words of verse 5 do not admit of
a word of tampering in translation. Even the present translations
into modern languages make apparent the correctness of the familiar
rendering. The words of verse 5 -- "visiting the iniquities ... of
them that hate me," close with a semicolon, followed immediately by
their antithesis: -- "And showing mercy [Heb. chesed] unto
thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (v. 6;
Deut. v. 9, 10.) The "Jealous God" pursues the progeny of those
"that hate" him, and "shows mercy ... to them that love" him. The
inspired "correction" of the "mistranslation" leaves verse 6
meaningless and redundant.</p>

<p> But the two simple Hebrew words chiefly involved make this
fraudulent "correction" ridiculous and impossible. In Hebrew,
<ent type='PERSON'>Yahweh</ent> says from <ent type='GPE'>Sinai</ent>: "<ent type='PERSON'>Anoki yahweh</ent> elohe-ka EL QANNA -- I <ent type='PERSON'>Yahweh</ent>
thy God [am a] Jealous God." The only false translation in this
verse is "Lord thy God" for the 6000-times falsified "<ent type='PERSON'>Yahweh</ent> thy
God," as elsewhere noted. Always "qanna" means "jealous' -- and is
used of the "jealous god," husband, wife, etc. The "joker" in this
false "correction" is apparent from the word "chesed -- mercy,"
hundreds of times used in Holy Writ. There is no Hebrew word
meaning "loving-kindness"; this is a fanciful rendering given by
the pious translators to the same old word "chesed -- mercy." Even
the Infallible One knows -- or can look in a Hebrew dictionary or
concordance and see -- that "el qanna ... visiting iniquity" --
cannot be twisted into "et chesed and chesed ... showing chesed --
mercy" to only those that love him. And how many thousands of
"corrections" of words "now believed mistranslated," would be
necessary to whitewash the barbarian <ent type='PERSON'>Yahweh</ent> of Holy Writ into a
"whited sepulchre" of civilized deity!</p>

<p> SOME TESTS FOR FORGERY</p>

<p> We have seen the debauchery of forgery out of which the Four
Gospels were born. This makes pertinent the critical statement of
one of the latest authorities on the subject: "Few genuine texts
have come down to us from beyond <ent type='LOC'>the Middle Ages</ent> -- most documents
reaching us in the form of later copies made by scribes in
monasteries"; and he adds: "The mere fact that documents have been
accepted for centuries does not itself protect them from the tests
of historical criticism." (<ent type='ORG'>Shotwell</ent>, See of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, Gen. Introd.
xix, xxii.) It is pertinent to add here a paragraph from CE. which
states with entire accuracy the elementary principles upon which
literary criticism rests; due to the application of just these
principles by honest and fearless critics, the Bible has been
stripped of every clerical pretense of inspired inerrancy and of
even common literary and historical honesty; so that even the
inerrant <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> has been driven to confess countless errors and
forgeries; even, as we have seen, to <ent type='ORG'>the frank</ent> repudiation of the
fables of Creation, the <ent type='ORG'>Mosaic</ent> authorship of the <ent type='PERSON'>Pentateuch</ent>, and
the divine revelation of the Hebrew religion, which is thus shown
to be a very human evolution. These critical principles have
destroyed the vast mass of Hebrew and <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> apocrypha; and may
now be applied to <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent> booklets which yet make false
pretense to divine inspiration of truth. Says CE.:</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
151
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> "Some broad principles [of literary criticism] are
universally admitted by critical scholars. A fundamental one
is that a literary work always betrays the imprint of the age
and environment in which it was produced; another is that a
plurality of authors is proved by well-marked differences of
diction and style, at least when they coincide with
distinctions of viewpoint or discrepancies in a double
treatment of the same subject. A third received canon holds to
a radical dissimilarity between ancient <ent type='NORP'>Semitic</ent> and modern
<ent type='ORG'>Occidental</ent>, or <ent type='NORP'>Aryan</ent>, methods of composition." (CE. iv. 492.)</p>

<p> The lines last above in italics point to the most fatal of all
proofs -- that of "double treatment" or forged "interpolations,"
than which nothing is clearer evidence of tampering and later
fraudulent alterations of text. The most radical dissimilarity
between the ancient <ent type='NORP'>Semitic</ent> methods of religious composition and
our modern <ent type='ORG'>Occidental</ent> notions of literary honesty -- or even of
intelligent forgery -- is, that the Hebrew and <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> religious
forgers were so ignorant or careless of the principles of
criticism, that they "interpolated" their fraudulent new matter
into old manuscripts without taking care to erase or suppress the
previous statements glaringly contradicted by the new
interpolations. Though, as the great masses of the ignorant
Faithful couldn't read, it may have suited the design of the
priests to retain both contradictory matters, either of which might
be used according to occasion to impose on their credulous Flocks.</p>

<p> When, therefore, in the same document, two statements of
alleged fact or doctrine are found, one of which is in glaring
contradiction of the other, one or the other is inevitably false
and to a moral certainty the work of a later and different hand.
When, furthermore, one of the statements is consonant with the time
and conditions under which it was supposedly written, or to which
it refers, and the contradictory "betrays the imprint of the age
and environment in which it was written," later and different from
that of the original, and/or betrays "distinctions of viewpoint or
discrepancies" from the earlier version, inevitably the latter
convicts itself of being forged. With these established and
admitted principles in mind, we may now look a bit closely at these
questioned documents of the Four Gospels.</p>

<p> THE GOSPEL TITLES</p>

<p> These Four are themselves forgeries and apocryphal "in. the
sinister sense of bearing names to which they have no right," as
well as by their contents being false, with many forged
"interpolations" or spurious additions. Even if the Four Gospels
were themselves genuine, as we shall see they are not, yet
admittedly their present titles are not original and given to them
by the writers. The present clerical position, seeking to save the
works, is that, like the Acts of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>, "the name was
subsequently attached to the book, just as the headings of the
several Gospels were affixed to them." (CE. i, 117.) More
particularly speaking of the Gospel titles, the same authority
says: "The first four historical books of <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent> are
supplied with titles (Gospel According to [Gr. kata] <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>,
According to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, etc.) which, however ancient, do not go back to </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
152
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>the respective authors of those sacred writings. ... That, however,
they do not go back to the first century of the <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> era, or
at least that they are not original, is a position generally held
at the present day. ... It thus appears that the titles of the
Gospels are not traceable to the <ent type='NORP'>Evangelists</ent> themselves." (CE. vi,
655, 656.) The very fact that the late <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century Gospel-titles
are of Gospels "according to" this or that alleged apostle, rather
than "The Gospel of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" etc., is itself confession and plenary
proof that "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," et als., were not -- and were not intended to be
represented as -- the real authors of those "according to" Gospels.
The form of the titles to the Epistles -- also later tagged to
them, -- as "The Epistle of St. <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> to the <ent type='NORP'>Romans</ent>," etc. makes
this clear and convincing, that no <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> wrote the "according
to" Gospel-biographies of the Christ.</p>

<p> It is obvious, too, from an attentive reading of the Four
Gospels, that they are not arranged in our present collection in
their order of composition; "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>" certainly is not first in
order, and is only put first because it begins with the "Book of
the Generation of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ." The Gospel "according to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" is
now well established as the earliest of the first three, the
"<ent type='ORG'>Synoptic</ent>s," and "<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>" is clearly the latest. There has been much
dispute on this point: "The ancient lists, versions, and
ecclesiastical writings are far from being at one with regard to
the order of these (4) sacred records of Christ's words and deeds.
In early <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> literature the canonical Gospels are given in no
less than eight orders, besides the one (<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>)
with which we are familiar." (CE. vi, 657.)</p>

<p> Let us pause a moment to catch the full force of these
admissions by CE. and note their consequences fatal to the pretense
of Apostolic authorship or origin of these Gospels. We shall
shortly see <ent type='ORG'>amplest</ent> proofs that none of the Four existed until well
into the last half of the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century after so-called Christ and
<ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>; but here we have, by clearest inference, an admission
that the Gospels were not written by <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> or their
contemporaries. These titles "do not go back to the respective
authors of those sacred writings; ... do not go back to the first
century; ... are not original; ... are not traceable to the
<ent type='NORP'>Evangelists</ent>." What an anomaly, in all literature! most especially
in apostolic "sacred records of Christ's words and deeds"!</p>

<p> Here we have these wonderful and "only true" inspired writings
of the companions of the Christ, eye-witnesses to his mighty
career, written for the conversion and salvation of the world,
floating around loose and anonymous for a century and a half,
without the slightest indication of their divine source and
sanction! All the flood of forged and spurious gospels, epistles,
acts and revelations -- "the apocryphal and pseudo-Biblical
writings with which the <ent type='LOC'>East</ent> especially had been flooded" (CE. iii,
272), bore the names of the pretended writers, from the false <ent type='ORG'>Books</ent>
of <ent type='PERSON'>Adam</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Enoch</ent> to the forged "Gospel of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ" and the
"Apocalypse of St. <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>." But the authentic and true Gospels of
the genuine <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> of Christ, are nameless and dateless scraps of
papyrus! Imagine the great Fathers and Bishops of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es, the
inspired and all-wise "<ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent>s" of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> at <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>, rising in
their pulpits before the gaping Faithful; taking up an anonymous
roll of manuscript, and announcing: "Our lesson today is from, </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
153
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>(ahem!) one of the wonderful Gospels of our Lord and Savior <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
Christ; but, (ahem!) I don't really know which one. It is by either
<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, or <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, or <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, or <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, I'm sure; but the writer forgot
to sign or insert his name. We will, however, worship God by
reading it anonymously in faith. No, here is one with a name to it;
we will now read from the inspired 'Gospel of <ent type='PERSON'>Barnabas</ent>,' or the
sacred 'Shepherd of Hermas.' Let us sing that grand and reassuring
old Hymn, 'How firm a foundation, ye Saints of the Lord, Is laid
for your faith in His wonderful Word!' Let us pray for more faith;
and remember to believe what I have told you. <ent type='ORG'>Ite</ent>, missa est --
It's all over, beat it!"</p>

<p> <ent type='ORG'>Books</ent>, evidently, do not go the rounds of readers nor of
inspired <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es for over a century without a title or name. The
first mention of the names or titles, as of the "Gospels" to which
they were "supplied" was, as we shall see, not until about 185
A.D., when the "Gospels according to" the Four first appear in
ecclesiastical literature, and thereupon began their career in the
current use of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es, and therefore, evidently, then first
came into existence. The Four Gospels thus, self-evidently, did not
-- could not for more than a century exist anonymous, without the
Apostolic titles certifying their origin and authenticity. To
pretend otherwise is sheer deceit and false pretense.</p>

<p> THE "CANONICITY" OF THE FOUR GOSPELS</p>

<p> The only possible pretext whereby generations of men should be
persuaded or cozened or compelled to accept and believe the Gospels
(as well as the other N.T. books), even under the genial threat "he
that believeth not shall be damned," is that these books were
written by immediate companions and apostles of the Christ,
faithful eye-witnesses to his work and word, commanded and inspired
by Christ, God, or the Holy Ghost (which one is not explicit), to
write and publish these wonderful biographies of the Christ. This
is explicitly the teaching and dogma of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>: no real
Apostolic author, no true Gospel.</p>

<p> Through pious <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> fraud and forgery, there were
fraudulently in vogue some couple of hundred "books current under
an Apostle's name in the Early <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>, such as the Epistle of
<ent type='PERSON'>Barnabas</ent> and the Apocalypse of St. <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>," as CE. (iii, 274) admits
of these fraudulent "sacred writings" -- with Apostolic titles. Our
Ecclesiastical authority then states the "certain indubitable
marks" whereby true Apostolic authenticity, essential to validity
and credence, must be known: "For the primitive <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>, evangelical
character was the test of Scriptural sacredness. But to guarantee
this character it was necessary that a book should be known as
composed by the official witnesses and organs of the <ent type='ORG'>Evangel</ent>; hence
to certify the Apostolic authorship, or at least sanction, of a
work purporting to contain the Gospel of Christ." (CE. iii, 274.)
All purported "Gospels" as to which Apostolic authorship or
sanction could not be guaranteed and certified were, of course,
spurious, as is natural and proper. Yet, for centuries, false and
forged "Gospels," etc., as the two just named, bore the Apostolic
certificates of authenticity -- now confessed to be false.</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
154
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> THE "MARK" FABLE BELIES "CANONICITY"</p>

<p> The impossibility of the pretense that the precious Four
Gospels circulated nondescript and anonymous in the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es for a
century and a half, is patently belied by the specific instance of
the "Gospel according to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," of which Gospel we have the precise
"history" recorded three centuries after the alleged notorious
event. Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Eusebius</ent> is our witness, in his celebrated <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Hist</ent>ory. He relates that <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> preached orally in <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> being
his "disciple" and companion. The people wanted a written record of
Peter's preachments, and (probably because <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> couldn't write),
they importuned <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> to write down "that history which is called
the Gospel according to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>." <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> having done so, "the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent>
(<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>) having ascertained what was done by revelation of the
<ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>, was delighted ... and that history obtained his authority
for the purpose of being read in the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es." (HE. Bk. II, ch.
15.) Thus <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> was dead at the time, but his ghost got the news
and somehow communicated its delight and approval for the document
to be a "Gospel" for the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es. But in a later <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tion the
Bishop gives another version: the people who heard <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> "requested
<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, who remembered well what he [<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>] had said, to reduce these
things to writing. ... Which, when <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> understood, he directly
neither hindered nor encouraged it." (HE. Bk. VI, ch. 14.) <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>,
thus, was alive, but wholly indifferent about his alleged Gospel.</p>

<p> The impossibilities of these contradictory fables need not
detain us now. But both join in declaring that the "Gospel
according to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" was publicly given to the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es, at <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>,
just before or after the death of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, 64-67 A.D. The moment,
then, that this famous manuscript fell from the inspired pen --
(but it was not inspired: <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> only "remembered well"), -- the
Great Seal of the Holy Ghost was upon it, and it bore before the
world the notorious crown of Canonicity, -- And this fact was of
course known to all the <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>. And so, of course, of the
other three; every papyrus containing these precious productions of
Divine Inspiration must ipso facto be "canonized" and notoriously
sacred and of Divine sanction from the very day they were written.
Every <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>, Father, Bishop, and <ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent> must certainly have known
the fact, and have glorified in their precious possession.</p>

<p> But so it was -- not. <ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> evidently did not and could
not know it; he was "martyred in <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>" 64-67, the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> tells us;
and the earliest date clerically claimed for "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" is some years
after the fall of <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent> in 70 A.D. The great <ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent> Clement I
(died 97 A.D.?), first-to-fourth "successor" to <ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, knew
nothing of his great Predecessor's "Gospel according to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>"; for,
admits the CE.: "The <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent> he never quotes verbally.
Sayings of Christ are now and then given, but not in the words of
the Gospels. It cannot be proved, therefore, that he used any one
of the <ent type='ORG'>Synoptic</ent> Gospels." (CE. iv, 14.) Of course, he did not,
could not; they were not then written. And no other <ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent>, Bishop or
Father (except <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent> and until Irenaeus), for nearly a century
after "<ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent> Clement," ever mentions or quotes a Gospel, or names
<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> or <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>. So for a century and a half -- until
the books bobbed up in the hands of Bishop St. Irenaeus and were
tagged as "Gospels according to" this or that <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent>, there exists
not a word of them in all the tiresome tomes of the Fathers. It is </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
155
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>humanly and divinely impossible that the "Apostolic authorship" and
hence "canonicity" or divine inspiration of these Sacred Four
should have remained, for a century and a half, unknown and
unsuspected by every <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>, Father, <ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent> and Bishop of Christendom
-- if existent. Even had they been somewhat earlier in existence,
never an inspired hint or human suspicion was there, that they were
"Divine" or "Apostolic," or any different from the scores of
"apocryphal or pseudo-Biblical writings with which the <ent type='LOC'>East</ent>
especially had been flooded," -- that they were indeed "Holy
<ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>." Hear this notable admission: "It was not until about
the middle of the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century that under the rubric of <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>
<ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent> writings were assimilated to the Old"! (CE. iii,
275), -- that is, became regarded as apostolic, sacred, inspired
and canonical, -- or "<ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s."</p>

<p> To argue and prove that the Four were regarded as "Apostolic"
and hence "canonical" after the middle of the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century,
argues and proves that until that late date they were not so
regarded, -- which we have seen is impossible if they had been
written by <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> a hundred years and more previously and
authorized by them "for the purpose of being read in the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es,"
as the very ground and pillar of their foundation and faith.</p>

<p> Follow the proofs and argument of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> to its own
undoing: "From the testimony of St. Irenaeus (A.D. 185) alone there
can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was
inalterably fixed in the <ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> by the last quarter of the
<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century ... to the exclusion of any pretended <ent type='ORG'>Evangels</ent>.
[<ent type='LOC'>Sundry</ent> writings mentioned] presuppose <ent type='ORG'>the authority</ent> enjoyed by the
Fourfold Gospel towards the middle of the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century. ... Even
Rationalistic scholars like <ent type='PERSON'>Harnack</ent> admit the canonicity of the
quadriform Gospel between the years 140-175." (CE. iii, 275.) Even
CE. does not prove or claim that it was any earlier; so here the
<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> and the <ent type='NORP'>Rationalists</ent> are in accord on this fatal fact!
Certainly <ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent>s <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> and Clement I, not to review the silent
others, would have "inalterably fixed" <ent type='ORG'>the Divine Canonicity</ent> of the
Four a century before, if they had known about these precious
productions of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>; -- if, in fact, they had existed, the
known works of Holy <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> and apostolic men! But until "towards
the middle of the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century" there was no "canon" or notion of
divinely inspired Apostolic Gospels -- simply for the reason that
until just about that period they were not in existence.</p>

<p> The sudden appearance at a certain late date, of a previously
unknown document, which is then attributed to an earlier age and
long since dead writers, is one of the surest earmarks of forgery.
Thus CE. speaking of another monumental <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> forgery -- (the
"False Decretals" of <ent type='PERSON'>Isidore</ent>, hereafter noticed) -- urges this very
fact as one of the most cogent grounds of the detection of that
forgery: "These documents appeared suddenly in the ninth century
and are nowhere mentioned before that time. ... Then again there
are endless anachronisms," -- just as in the Gospels and Epistles.
(CE. vi, 773.) More ample and compelling proofs of this destroying
fact will soon be made.</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
156
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> THE GOSPELS "ACCORDING TO" GREEK PRIESTS</p>

<p> According to the names "supplied" to the Four Gospels, as to
the other <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent> books, the "Apostolic" authors were all of
them <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>; the same is supposedly true of most of the now confessed
apocrypha. All these were forgeries in the names of <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> pseudo-apostles. But all of the Gospels, the other <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Books</ent>,
and the forged apocrypha, were written in <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>. Self-evidently,
these "ignorant and unlearned" peasant <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>, speaking a vulgar
<ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent>-<ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> dialect, could neither speak nor write <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>, -- if
they could write at all. The Old Testament books were written
mostly in Hebrew, which was a "dead language," which only the
priests could read; thus in the synagogues of <ent type='GPE'>Palestine</ent> the rolls
were read in Hebrew, and then "expounded" to the hearers in their
<ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent> dialect. But these Hebrew "<ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s" had been translated
into <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>, in the famous Septuagint version which we have admired.
Here is another significant admission by CE.: it speaks of "the
supposed wholesale adoption and approval, by the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>, of the
<ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>, and therefore larger Old Testament," that is, the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>
version containing the <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> apocrypha; and then admits the fact:
"The <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent> undoubtedly shows a preference for the
Septuagint; out of about 350 texts from the Old Testament [in the
New], 300 favor the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> version rather than the Hebrew." (CE.
iii, 271.) It was also the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> Septuagint and <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> forged
<ent type='NORP'>Oracles</ent>, that were exclusively used by the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> Fathers and
priests in all the Gospel-propaganda work of the first three
centuries. Obviously, the Gospels and other <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent> booklets,
written in <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> and quoting 300 times the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> Septuagint, and
several <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent> authors, as <ent type='ORG'>Aratus</ent>, and <ent type='ORG'>Cleanthes</ent>, were
written, not by illiterate <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> peasants, but by <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>-speaking
ex-<ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent> Fathers and priests far from <ent type='LOC'>the Holy Land</ent> of the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>.</p>

<p> There is another proof that the Gospels were not written by
<ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>. Traditionally, <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> and all the "<ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>" were <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>; all
their associates and the people of their country with whom they
came into contact, were <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>. But throughout the Gospels, scores of
times, "the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>" are spoken of, always as a distinct and alien
people from the writers, and mostly with a sense of racial hatred
and contempt. A few instances only need be given; they all betray
that the writers were not <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> speaking of their fellow <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>. The
<ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> writer of "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>" says: "this saying is commonly reported
among the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> until this day" (Mt. <ent type='ORG'>xxv</ent>iii, 15), -- showing, too,
that it was written long afterwards; a <ent type='NORP'>Jew</ent> must have said "among
our people," or some such. It is recorded by "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>": "For the
Pharisees, and all the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>, except they wash their hands of it,
eat not, holding to the tradition of the elders" (Mk. vii, 3); no
<ent type='NORP'>Jew</ent> writing for his fellow-<ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> would explain or need to explain
this <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> custom, known to and practiced by "all the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>." <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>
names a <ent type='NORP'>Jew</ent> and locates geographically his place of residence:
"<ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>, of <ent type='PERSON'>Arimathea</ent>, a city of the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>"; an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> writer,
speaking of <ent type='GPE'>Hoboken</ent>, could not say "a city of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s" nor
did <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> need to be told by a <ent type='NORP'>Jew</ent> that <ent type='PERSON'>Arimathea</ent> was a "city of the
<ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>." The <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> priest who wrote "<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>" is the most prolific in
telling his <ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent> readers about <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> customs and personalities;
absurd in a <ent type='NORP'>Jew</ent> writing for <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>: "After the manner of the
purifying of the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>" (ii, 6); "And the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>' passover was at
hand" (ii, 13) "Then answered the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>, and said unto <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>" (iii, </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
157
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>1); "Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples
-- [all <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>] -- and the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> about purifying" (iii, 25); "And
therefore did the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> per<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ute <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>" (v, 16); "Therefore the
<ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> sought the more to kill him" (v, 18). More: "And the passover,
a feast of the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>, was nigh" vi, 4); no <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> would say "the
Fourth of July, a holiday of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s," though a <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> writer
might properly so explain. "After these things <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> would not walk
in <ent type='NORP'>Jew</ent>ry, because the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> sought to kill him" (vii, 1); "for they
feared the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>: for the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> had agreed already" (ix, 22); "His
disciples said unto him, Master, the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> of late sought to stone
thee with stones" (xi, 8); "As the manner of the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> is to bury"
(xix, 40), which need be explained to no <ent type='NORP'>Jew</ent>. These and many like
passages prove that no <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> wrote the Gospels; that they were
written by foreigners for foreigners; these foreigners were <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>-speaking aliens unfamiliar with <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> customs; the writers were
therefore ex-<ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> priests who were zealously "selling" the
"glad tidings of great joy" to the ignorant and superstitious <ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent>
populace.</p>

<p> THE FOUR GOSPELS -- "CHOSEN"</p>

<p> The Four Gospels are thus demonstrated as: not written by
<ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>; not written by any of the "Twelve <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>"; not written nor
in existence for over a century after the supposed <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>. When
finally the Gospel "according to" <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> came to be written, already,
as "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>" affirms, there were "many" other like pseudo-Apostolic
Gospel-biographies of the Christ afloat (<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, i, 1); he added just
another. In his Commentary on <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, Father <ent type='ORG'>Origen</ent> confirms this
fact as well known: "And not four Gospels, but very many, out of
which these we have chosen and delivered to the churches, we may
perceive." (<ent type='ORG'>Origen</ent>, In Proem. Luc., Hom. 1, vol. 2, p. 210.) How,
and why, out of half a hundred of other lying forgeries of Gospels,
were these sacred Four finally "chosen" as truly "Apostolic,"
inspired, and canonical? Nobody knows, as CE. confesses.</p>

<p> It is a very strange and fatal confession, in view of the
insistent false pretense of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> for centuries of the patent
Divinity of the Four Gospels, and of its own infallible inspiration
and Divine guidance against all doubt and error; but it confesses:</p>

<p> "It is indeed impossible, at the present day, to describe
the precise manner in which out of the numerous works ascribed
to some <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent>, or simply bearing the name of gospel, only
four, two of which are not ascribed to <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>, came to be
considered as sacred and canonical. It remains true, however,
that all the early testimony which has a distinct bearing on
the number of the canonical Gospels recognizes four such
Gospels and none besides. Thus, <ent type='PERSON'>Eusebius</ent> (d. 340) ... Clement
of <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent> (d. about 220), ... and <ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent> (d. 220),
were familiar with our four Gospels, frequently quoting and
commenting on them." (CE. vi, 657.)</p>

<p> The statement as to "all the early testimony" in favor of
these Four only, is not only untrue, but it is contradicted by a
true statement on the same page as the last above; it is, too, a
further humiliating confession of blind and groping uncertainty
with respect to the very foundation stones on which the Infallible </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
158
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p><ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> is built, and makes a bit less confident the forged
assurance that the Gates of Hell -- to say nothing of human Reason
-- shall not yet prevail against the ill-founded structure. Here is
the destructive admission:</p>

<p> "In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers one does not,
indeed, meet with unquestionable evidence in favor of only
four canonical gospels. ... The canonical Gospels were
regarded as of Apostolic authority, two of them being ascribed
to the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> St. <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> and St. <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, respectively, and
two to St. <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> and St. <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, the respective companions of St.
<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> and St. <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>. Many other gospels indeed claimed
Apostolic authority, but to none of them was this claim
universally allowed in the early <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>. The only apocryphal
work which was at all generally received, and relied upon, in
addition to our four canonical Gospels, is the 'Gospel
according to the Hebrews.' It is a well-known fact that St.
<ent type='PERSON'>Jerome</ent> regards it as the Hebrew original of our <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>
Canonical Gospel according to St. <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>." (CE. vi, 657.)</p>

<p> Thus, admittedly, "numerous works" of pretended and false
"gospels," some fifty, were forged and falsely "ascribed to some
apostle" by devout <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>s; after a century and a half only four
"came to be considered" and were finally "chosen" -- selected -- as
of divine utterance and sanction. Why? one may well wonder.</p>

<p> WHY FOUR GOSPELS?</p>

<p> Why Four Gospels, then, -- when only one would have been
aplenty and much safer, as fewer contradictions -- out of the fifty
ascribed by pious forging hands to the Holy Twelve? The pious
Fathers are ready here, as ever, with fantastic reasons to explain
things whereof they are ignorant or are not willing to give honest
reasons for. "The saintly Bishop of <ent type='PERSON'>Lyons</ent>," says CE. with
characteristic clerical solemnity when anyone else would laugh,
"Irenaeus (died about 202), who had known <ent type='PERSON'>Polycarp</ent> in <ent type='LOC'>Asia</ent> Minor,
not only admits and quotes our four Gospels, [he is the very first
to mention them!] -- but argues that there must be just four, no
more and no less. He says: 'It is not possible that the Gospels be
either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones
of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the
<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> is scattered throughout the world. ... and the pillar and
ground of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> is the Gospel. ... it is fitting that we
should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side
and vivifying our flesh. ... The living creatures are quadriform,
and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by our
Lord"! (CE. vi, 659.) Thus far CE. quoting the good Bishop; but we
may follow the Bishop a few lines further in his very innocent
<ent type='ORG'>ratiocinations</ent> from ancient Hebrew mythology, in proof of the
divine Four:</p>

<p> "For this reason were four principal covenants given to
the human race: One prior to the deluge, under <ent type='PERSON'>Adam</ent>; the
<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond, that after the deluge, under <ent type='PERSON'>Noah</ent>; the third, the
giving of the law, under <ent type='PERSON'>Moses</ent>; the fourth, that which
renovates man, and sums up all things by means of the Gospel,
raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
159
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> <ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent>. ... But that these Gospels alone are true and
reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the
aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such arguments.
For, since God made all things in due proportion and
adaptation, it was fit also that the outward aspect of the
Gospel should be well arranged and harmonized. The opinion of
those men, therefore, who handed the Gospel down to us, having
been investigated, from their very fountainheads, let us
proceed also [to the remaining apostles), and inquire into
their doctrine with regard to God." (Iren. Adv. Haer. III, xi,
8, 9; <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>. i, 428-29.)</p>

<p> The true reason, however, for four finally "chosen" and
accepted Gospels, is that stated by <ent type='ORG'>Reinach</ent>, after quoting Irenaeus
and other authorities: "The real reason was to satisfy each of the
four principal <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es each of which possessed its Gospel: <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>
at <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> at <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>, or <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> at <ent type='GPE'>Antioch</ent>, and
<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> at <ent type='LOC'>Ephesus</ent>." (<ent type='ORG'>Reinach</ent>, Orpheus, p. 217.) This reason for the
use of a different Gospel by each of the principal and independent
<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es, -- for the special uses of each of which the respective
Gospels were no doubt worked up by forging Fathers in each Fold, --
is confirmed by Bishop Irenaeus himself in this same argument. Each
of the four principal <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ts of heretics, he says, makes use in
their <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es of one or the other of these Four for its own uses,
for instance: <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> by the <ent type='NORP'>Ebionites</ent>; <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> by "those who separate
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> from Christ"; <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> by the <ent type='ORG'>Marcionites</ent>; and <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> by the
<ent type='ORG'>Valentinians</ent>; and this heretical use of the Four, argues the
Bishop, confirms their like acceptance and use by the True
<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es: "So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest,
that the very heretics bear witness to them, and starting from
these documents, each of them endeavors to establish his own
peculiar doctrine [citing the use by each <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>t of a different
Gospel as above named]. Since, then, our opponents do bear
testimony to us, and make use of these documents, our proof derived
from them is firm and true." (Iren., op. cit. <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>. 7.) The
"canonical Four," verily, as CE. confesses, were manufactured
precisely for the purpose of meeting and confuting the heretics, as
were the gradually developed and defined sacred dogmas of the
<ent type='NORP'>Orthodox</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>, even that of the <ent type='ORG'>Trinity</ent>. The fabrication of the
Four can be seen working out under our very eyes, in the light of
the foregoing statement of Irenaeus, and of that of CE. to be
quoted.</p>

<p> In the next <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tion we shall see proven, that no written,
Gospels existed until shortly before 185 A.D., when Irenmus wrote;
they are first mentioned in <ent type='ORG'>chapter xxii</ent> of his Book II; the above
quotation is from Book III, when use of them became constant.
Evident we see it to be, from what Irenaeus has just said, that the
<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ts of heretics named were making use, each of them of one of the
just-published Four as well as of other "spurious gospels"; the
<ent type='NORP'>Orthodox</ent> claimed the Four as their own, and finally established the
claim. The "gospel" up to about this time, a century and a half
after <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, was entirely oral and "traditional"; the
Gnostics and other heretics evidently were first to reduce some
"gospels" to writing; the <ent type='NORP'>Orthodox</ent> quickly followed suit, in order
to combat the heretics by "apostolic" writings. This is clear from
the following, that "the spurious gospels of the Gnostics prepared </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
160
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>the way for the canon of <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>," -- meaning, for the now
"canonical <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>"; for, as the "canon" was not dogmatically
established until 1546, the Four were not "canonized" when Irenaeus
wrote in 185, -- when the "way was prepared" for them by the
earlier heretical "spurious gospels." Thus CE. writes:</p>

<p> "The endless controversies with heretics have been
indirectly the cause of most important doctrinal developments
and definitions formulated by councils to the edification of
the body of Christ. Thus the spurious gospels of the Gnostics
prepared the way for the canon of <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>: the Patripassian, <ent type='NORP'>Sabellian</ent>, <ent type='NORP'>Arian</ent>, and <ent type='NORP'>Macedonian</ent> heresies drew out a
clearer concept of the <ent type='ORG'>Trinity</ent>; the <ent type='NORP'>Nestorian</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Eutychian</ent>
errors led to definite dogmas on the nature and Person of
Christ. And so on down to Modernism, which has called forth a
solemn assertion of the claims of the supernatural in
history." (CE. vii, 261.)</p>

<p> <ent type='ORG'>Heresy</ent> means "Choice"; heretics are those who choose what they
will believe, or whether they will believe at all. It was to
foreclose all choice on the part of believers, that the divinely-inspired, apostolic fictions of the Four Gospels were drawn up for
the first time to combat the "spurious gospels" of the free
choosers. <ent type='ORG'>Heresy</ent> could not exist in the time of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, for
he laid down nothing for belief, except "He that believeth on me
shall be saved" against his immediate "<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond coming" and end of
the world. The gospels are thus anti-heretical documents of the
<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century, after Gnosticism first appeared.</p>

<p> In this connection it may be mentioned, as complained by
<ent type='PERSON'>Augustine</ent>, that there were some 93 <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ts of heretics during the
first three centuries of the <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> Faith; all these were
<ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ts, believing in the tales of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ and him
crucified, but each of them as rivals struggling for the profits
and power of religion and warring to suppress all others, and make
itself master in <ent type='PERSON'>pelf</ent> and power. Hence the Fathers thundered
against the heretics. The inspired Four Gospels, contradictory at
every point, were impossible to believe in all points; they left
every one free to disbelieve all, or to believe such as he could.</p>

<p> So incredible, even on their face, were one and all of these
canonical Four Gospels, that the fanatic Father <ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent> thus
stated the grounds of his holy faith in them: "<ent type='ORG'>Credo</ent> quia
incredibilis est -- I believe because it is unbelievable"; and St.
<ent type='PERSON'>Augustine</ent>, greatest of the Fathers, declared himself in these
terms: "Ego vero <ent type='ORG'>Evangel</ent>io non crederem, nisi me <ent type='NORP'>Catholicae</ent>
Ecclesiae conmoveret Auctoritas. ... Ego me ad eos teneam, quibus
<ent type='ORG'>praecipientibus</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Evangel</ent>io credidi -- I would not believe the Gospel
true, unless <ent type='ORG'>the authority</ent> of the <ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> constrained me.
... I hold myself bound to those, through whose teachings I have
believed the Gospel." (<ent type='PERSON'>Augustine</ent>, On the Foundation, <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>. 5, Ed.
Vives, vol. <ent type='ORG'>xxv</ent>, p. 435; Orpheus, p. 223.)</p>

<p> In the work often cited, Bishop Irenaeus either falsely quotes
the Gospel of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, or the sacred text has been seriously altered
in our present copies; he says: "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> commences with a reference to
the prophetical spirit, saying, 'The beginning of the Gospel of </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
161
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p><ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, as it is written in <ent type='PERSON'>Esaias</ent> the prophet"' (<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>. 8, p.
428), as if <ent type='PERSON'>Isaiah</ent> testified to the Gospel. The Bishop also quotes
two long passages, one a written letter of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> "unto those
brethren from among the <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent> who are in <ent type='GPE'>Antioch</ent>, and <ent type='GPE'>Syria</ent>, and
<ent type='ORG'>Silicia</ent>, greeting," -- which are not in the Acts of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> or
any other <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent> book as we now have them. (Iren., Adv.
Maer. III, xi, 14; p. 436.) The good Bishop seems either to have
fabricated this alleged Epistle and passage, or other pious hands
falsified the sacred <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s by forging them out of its pages.
So it is evident that these inspired booklets, as we now know them,
at least differ in very many material respects from the
"traditional Gospel" and from the form in which the Four Gospels
were first reduced to writing. Many other instances exist, of which
some of the most notorious will be shown in the course of the
chapter.</p>

<p> INSPIRATION AND PLAGIARISM</p>

<p> In this connection a few words may be said as to the
chronological order and manner of composition of the first three or
<ent type='ORG'>Synoptic</ent> Gospels. "<ent type='ORG'>Hist</ent>orically <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> is the earliest, and its study
the foundation of critical enquiry. But the ordinary <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> is
not a historical critic." (<ent type='ORG'>New Commentary</ent>, Pt. III, p. 126; ef. pp.
33, 45.) With the latter statement all will agree; with the first
CE. is in agreement with the leading critics, though holding to the
exploded "tradition" that one <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> wrote "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," or, in its words:
"If, then, a consistent and widespread early tradition is to count
for anything, St. <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> wrote a work based upon St. Peter's
Preaching." (CE. ix, 676.) The later writers of "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>" and
"<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>" copied bodily from "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," with the utmost literality in
many places, but with the greatest freedom of changes, additions
and suppressions at others, to suit their own purposes. But one
comparison, that between "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" and "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>," can here be given;
the method extends quite as notably to "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>." Thus CE. discloses
the process: "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> is found complete in <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, with the exception
of numerous slight omissions and the following periscopes. ... In
all, 31 verses are omitted"; and so with respect to the "analogies"
with the other two. "Parts peculiar to <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> are numerous, as
<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> has 330 verses that are distinctly his own." (CE,. x, 60,
61; cf. for thorough examination, <ent type='ORG'>New Comm</ent>. Pt. III, pp. 33, seq.)
"These '<ent type='NORP'>Matthean</ent> additions,' as they are called. ... seem to be
authentic when they relate our Lord's words; but, when they relate
incidents, they are extremely questionable." (<ent type='ORG'>New Comm</ent>. Pt. III, p.
127-128.)</p>

<p> We have just seen the same authority admit the want of
authenticity of one set of words imputed by <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> to his Lord;
our next <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tion will demonstrate another famous "<ent type='NORP'>Matthean</ent>
addition" to be a gross and bungling forgery. This bodily copying
from <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, with so many "additions and suppressions," implies, as
we have seen, "a very free treatment of the text of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> in <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>
and <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> (a freedom which reaches a climax in the treatment of Mk.
x, 17f. in Mt. xix, 16f.). ... Just as the latter (<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>)
tampered more with the <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>an order than St. <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> did." (<ent type='ORG'>New Comm</ent>.
Pt. III, 36, 40.) But this textual tampering is well explained, for
clerical apologists: "Nor need such freedom surprise us. <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, at
the time when the others used it, had not attained anything like </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
162
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>the status of <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>, and an evangelist using it would feel
free, or might indeed feel bound, to bring its contents into line
with the traditions of the particular <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> in which he lived and
worked"! (Ib. p. 36.)</p>

<p> This perfectly confirms the position taken in the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tion "Why
Four Gospels?" that these Gospels were framed up each in a
different <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>, to meet its own uses and special purposes, and in
answer to the "gospels" of the <ent type='ORG'>Heretics</ent>. "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," being first in
order, was probably in the hands of several <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es, some of whose
"traditions" did not accord with the "gospel" narratives therein
retailed; the local gospel-mongers, therefore, taking "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" as
good "copy" for a start, took their blue-pencil styluses in hand
and "edited" its text by profuse "tampering" until they produced,
severally, the "gospels according to" <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, for use in
more "orthodox" and approved form according to the local
traditions. The "<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>" gospel-fabrication alone of the Four quite
disregarded the "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" document, and is in the most complete
contradiction with it, and with all the first three. The "Big Four"
gradually won their way against and were "chosen" from all the
other fifty or more in circulation, which then became "apocrypha,"
or admitted forgeries.</p>

<p> GOSPELS LATE FORGERIES</p>

<p>We have seen the admissions of CE. that the earliest notice of the
Four Gospel's now known to us was towards the close of the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond
century, quoting as the earliest witnesses the <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent>n Bishops,
Clement of <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent> and <ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent>, both of whom died about 220
A.D. It presents, however, one earlier witness to Gospels going in
the name of the Four: "Irenrus, in his work Against Heresies (A.D.
182-188), testified to the existence of a Tetramorph or Quadriform
Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>," (CE. iii,
275), -- of which we have just had occasion to admire his quaint
and cogent proofs. This first mention, by Irenaeus, of Four
Gospels, with the names of their supposed writers, we shall in a
moment quote; first we will get the record in honest and correct
form by citing an even earlier partial naming of something like
Gospels, and their reputed writers.</p>

<p> 1. Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent>, about 145 A.D., is the very first name of
something like written "Gospels" and writers; and this is what he
says, quoting his anonymous gossipy old friends, the presbyters:</p>

<p> "And the presbyter said this. MARK having become the
interpreter of <ent type='ORG'>PETER</ent>, wrote down accurately whatsoever he
remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he
related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard
the Lord, nor accompanied him. ... For one thing he took
especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to
put anything fictitious into the statements. <ent type='ORG'>MATTHEW</ent> put the
<ent type='NORP'>Oracles</ent> (of the Lord) in the Hebrew language, and each one
interpreted them as best he could." (<ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent>, quoted by
<ent type='PERSON'>Eusebius</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Hist</ent>. Eccles. iii, 39; <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>. i, 154-5.)</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
163
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> Here, then, over one hundred years after Christ, we have the
first mention of written gospels and of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, and the recital, by
hearsay on hearsay, that he wrote down "whatsoever he remembered"
that <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> had said the Lord had said and done. This is rather a
far cry from divine inspiration of inerrant truth in this first
hearsay by memory recital of the supposed Gospel-writers. Thus
"<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" is admittedly not "inspired," but is hearsay, haphazard
"traditions," pieced together a generation and more afterwards by
some unknown priestly scribe. But note well, even if <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> may have
written some things, alleged as retailed by <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, yet this is not,
and is not an intimation even remotely, that this by-memory record
of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> is the "Gospel according to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" which half a century
after <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent> came to be known. Indeed, such an idea is expressly
excluded; Mark's notes were "not in exact order," but here and
there, as remembered; while the "Gospel according to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" is, or
purports to be, very orderly, proceeding from "The beginning of the
gospel of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ" orderly and con<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>utively through to his
death, resurrection and ascension. It includes the scathing rebuke
administered by the Christ to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>: "Get thee behind me, <ent type='PERSON'>Satan</ent>:
for thou savourest not the things that be of God" (Mk. viii, 33) ;
one may be sure that <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> never related these eminently deserved
"sayings of Christ" to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> or to anyone.</p>

<p> Moreover, the present "Gospel according to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" relates the
crucifixion of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> at about thirty years of age, after one year's
ministry; which is wholly false, as <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> died at home in bed of
old age, in effect says Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent>, on the "tradition" of these
same presbyters. So, every other consideration here aside, <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent>
is not a witness to "The Gospel according to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>." As for <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>,
<ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent> simply reports the elders as saying that <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> wrote down
the "ORACLES" or words of the Lord, and in Hebrew; the "Gospel
according to <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>" is much more than mere "words of the Lord";
it is the longest and most palpably fictitious of the "Lives" of
the Christ; it was written in <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>, and very obviously by a <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>
priest or Father, many years after the reputed time of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
Christ. And Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent>, more than a century after Christ, did
not have in his important church, and had never seen, these alleged
apostolic writings, and only knew of some such by the gossip of the
elders at <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond or third hand. So we must count <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent> out as a
witness for these two of our written Gospels. None of the present
Four Gospels was thus in existence in about A.D. 145. And it is
obvious that, even by "tradition," the Gospels in the names of <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>
and <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> did not exist in the time of <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent>.</p>

<p> 2. <ent type='ORG'>Justin</ent> Martyr (145-149) quotes sundry "sayings" of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
which we find here and there in the present Four, -- just as like
alleged "sayings" identically are to be found in almost any of the
<ent type='ORG'>confessedly</ent> forged or apocryphal gospels; but he names no names nor
Gospels, but only says "memoirs of the apostles," or simply "it is
said." (See all instances cited, in EB. ii, 1819.) So <ent type='ORG'>Justin</ent> is no
witness to our present Four Gospels, which evidently did not exist
in his time about 150 years after <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, -- though he
assiduously quotes the <ent type='PERSON'>Sibyl</ent> and the heathen gods as proofs of
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, as we have seen.</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
164
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> 3. Irenaeus (182-188) makes the very first mention of Four
Gospels and names the reputed authors. These are textually the
interesting, and as we shall see, at least in part, spurious words
of Bishop Irenaeus:</p>

<p> "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> also issued a Gospel -- [see it grow -- <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent>
said only "oracles of the Lord"] among the Hebrews in their
own dialect, while <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> were preaching at <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>, and
laying the foundations of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>. After their departure,
<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, the disciple and interpreter of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, did also hand
down to us in writing what had been preached by <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>
also, the companion of <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, recorded in a book the Gospel
preached by him. Afterwards, <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, the disciple of the Lord,
who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a
Gospel during his residence at <ent type='LOC'>Ephesus</ent> in <ent type='LOC'>Asia</ent>." (Iren. Adv.
Haer. Bk. III, Ch. 1, i; <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>. i, 414.)</p>

<p> Irenaeus, therefore, about the year 185 of our Lord, to use a
medium date, or some one hundred and fifty years after his death,
is the first of all the zealous Christ-bearers to record the fact
that, at the time he wrote, there were in existence four wonderful
biographies or histories of the Lord and Savior <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, two
under the names of holy <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>, and, he "implies that the Gospels
of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> were, in effect, apostolic, as being written by
companions of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>." (EB. i, 1830.) If any such apostolic
and authentic works had been in existence before the years, we will
say, 150-180 A.D., it is beyond comprehension and possibility that
the zealous Fathers, who so eagerly quoted, and misquoted, the Old
Testament and its apocrypha, the forged <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent> apocrypha,
and the heathen <ent type='NORP'>Oracles</ent>, in proof of their Christ, should have been
silent as clams about the apostolic <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>-histories "according to"
<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>. Even all the later Fathers, and
ecclesiastical writers, and the CE., admittedly are unable to trace
their genealogy further back into "the age of apocryphal
literature" than about 150 A.D. or later. It is impossible,
therefore, to believe or to pretend, that these Four Gospels were
written by apostles and their personal disciples, some hundred
years and more before they were ever heard of by the zealous and
myth-mongering Fathers. A confused medley of alleged words and
wonderful deeds of the Christ, handed down by ancient tradition or
new-invented for any occasion, existed in oral "tradition," and
were worn threadbare by rote repetition; but never a written word
of the Four for a century and a half after the apostles had their
say, and had handed down that wonderful and inexhaustible "Deposit
of Faith," which, oral and unedited, is yet drawn upon until this
day by the inspired Successors of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> for their every new <ent type='GPE'>Dogma</ent>.</p>

<p> One may turn the thousands of pages of the Ante-Niacin Fathers
before Irenaeus in vain to find a direct word of quotation from
written Gospels, nor (except as above, recorded) even bare mention
of the names of <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> or <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, as writers of Gospels.
The above words of Irenaeus are registered in his Book III, chapter
i; in the first two <ent type='ORG'>Books</ent>, while, like <ent type='ORG'>Justin</ent>, he quotes "sayings"
which are to be found in our present texts, as in the apocryphas,
he does not mention "Gospel" or any of the four reputed
evangelists, until <ent type='ORG'>chapter xxii</ent> of Book II, where he mentions the
word "Gospels" and those of <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, and assails their record</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
165
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>of the early death of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> as "heresy." But beginning with chapter
x of Book III, he bristles with the names of and direct quotations
from all Four; and so with all the following Fathers. It seems,
therefore, a fair inference that Irenaeus had just heard of these
Four Gospels at the time the last chapters of the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond of the two
<ent type='ORG'>Books</ent> were composed; and that they came into existence, or to his
knowledge, just before the time be began to compose Book III. And
certainly these Four Gospels could not have been in existence and
circulation very long before they would come to the eager hands of
the active and prolific Bishop of <ent type='PERSON'>Lyons</ent>, who had recently come from
the tutelage of his friend <ent type='PERSON'>Polycarp</ent>, -- "disciple of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>" -- venerable Bishop of <ent type='GPE'>Smyrna</ent>, who sent him to <ent type='PERSON'>Lyons</ent>, and
who, for his part, shows not a suspicion of knowledge of them. And
these Gospels, just now come into existence, were immediately and
fiercely attacked by Bishop Irenaeus as false and "heresy" in the
vital points of the crucifixion and early death of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, who, says
the Bishop, lived to very old age, even maybe till the times of
Trajan, 98-117, as vouched for by the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> and other
apostles and by the [oral] "Gospel." This, too, casts discredit on
these Gospels as containing authentic record of the apostolic
"traditions," condemned in this vital particular by the only two
Bishops, <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent> and Irenaeus, who -- for a century and a half --
mention any Gospel-writings at all.</p>

<p> "LURE" <ent type='ORG'>DISCREDITS</ent> APOSTOLICITY</p>

<p> Moreover, at the time that the Gospel bearing the name of <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>
was published, already many Gospels or purported histories and
sayings of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ were in active circulation: "For as much as
many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of
those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they
delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses
and ministers of the word; it has seemed to me good also, having
had a perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to
write unto thee, in order, most excellent <ent type='PERSON'>Theophilus</ent>, that thou
mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been
instructed." (<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, i, 1-4). Now, these "many" Gospels were clearly
not by any of the apostles, else <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> would certainly have so
stated; they were not "inspired" writings, but they were by sundry
anonymous "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word"; they are
either totally lost to posterity, or are among the fifty admittedly
forged and apocryphal Gospels which we have previously noticed.
Thus we see two of the "Four," i.e., "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," and "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>" are, on
their face, uninspired, hear-say, and long ex post facto.</p>

<p> That neither apostle nor contemporary of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> wrote a line of
"gospel" is thus perfectly evidenced by <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>: "According to the
prologue of <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, no eye-witness of the life of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> took pen in
hand -- none at least appear to have produced any writings which
<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> would have called a 'narrative.'" (EB. ii, 1892.) These
conclusions are confirmed by the learned clerical translators and
editors of the <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>, respectively, as follows:</p>

<p> "Though a few of the Apocryphal Gospels are of
comparatively early origin, there is no evidence that any
Gospels purporting to be what our Four Gospels are, existed in
the first century, or that any other than fragmentary </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
166
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> literature of this character existed even in the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond
century." (Ed. note to Apocrypha of <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>.
viii, 349.) -- "There is abundant evidence of the existence of
many of these traditions in the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century, though it
cannot be made out that any of the books were then in
existence in their present form." (Translator's Introductory
Notice to Apocryphal Gospels. <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>. viii, 351.)</p>

<p> Such apocryphal gospels would naturally contain -- as they do
-- many of the same reputed words and deeds of the Christ as those
now reported by <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> and the others; many are indeed in large
<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tions in the very same words. <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> does not say or imply that
these "many" were false, but, on the contrary, being by alleged
"eye-witnesses" they were necessarily more or less the same things
which <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> undertook, not to belie or correct, but simply to repeat
in good order for the edification of his friend <ent type='PERSON'>Theophilus</ent>. It is
very significant, for the date of the authorship of "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>," to note
the fact that the only <ent type='PERSON'>Theophilus</ent> known to early <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> history is
a certain ex-<ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent> by that name, who, after becoming <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>, and
very probably before being instructed in the certainty of the faith
by "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>," himself turned <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> instructor and Father, and
wrote the Tract, in three <ent type='ORG'>Books</ent>, under the title Epistle to
<ent type='PERSON'>Antolychus</ent>, preserved in the Collection of Ante-Niacin Fathers,
vol. ii, pp. 89-121. This <ent type='PERSON'>Theophilus</ent> became Bishop of <ent type='GPE'>Antioch</ent> about
169-177 A.D. (CE. xiv, 625); and thus illuminates the date of
"<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>."</p>

<p> That these Four Gospels, then, are forgeries, falsely ascribed
to <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> and their companions, a century and a half after Christ
and the apostles, and were compounded of very conflicting
"traditions" and out of the existing 50 or more forgeries
circulating in apostolic names -- is proven as positively as
negative proofs permit, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- which is
proof ample for conviction of capital crime.</p>

<p> Most people, says Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent>, took pleasure in "voluminous
falsehoods" in reporting or writing of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ and his life
and deeds, for which reason, says the Bishop, he was driven to "the
living voice of tradition" for his own accounts, -- samples of
which we have seen. These fanciful and distorted oral traditions,
finally reduced into some fifty fantastic written records of
"voluminous falsehoods," were later, about the time of Book III of
Bishop Irenaeus, crystallized into four documents, one each of
which was held by one of the principal churches as its
authoritative biography of the Christ, or "gospel"; to which, the
titles "According to" <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, were tacked for
pretended apostolic sanction.</p>

<p> The truth of the late <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century origin of the Gospels and
Epistles may be garnered from the guarded words of a standard
theological textbook on <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> Evidences: "The <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>
literature which has survived from the latter part of the first
century and the beginning of the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond is scanty and fragmentary
-- [which could not be true if the Gospels and Epistles had then
existed]. But when we come into the light of the last quarter of
the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century, we find the Gospels of the canon in undisputed
possession of the field.". (The Grounds of Theistic and <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Bel</ent>ief, by <ent type='PERSON'>George Parker Fisher</ent>, D.D., LL.D.; 1902.)</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
167
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> Summarizing the results of critical study of the four Gospels,
upon all the evidences, internal and external, which are there
fully reviewed, the conclusions of modern Biblical scholarship are
thus recorded by the Encyclopedia Biblica:</p>

<p> As to <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>: "The employment of various sources, the
characteristic difference of the quotations from the LXX
(Septuagint) and the original (Hebrew), the indefiniteness of
the determinations of time and place, the incredibleness of
the contents, the introduction of later conditions, as also
the artificial arrangement, and so forth, have long since led
to the conclusion that for the authorship of the first Gospel
the apostle <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> must be given up." (EB. ii, 1891.)</p>

<p> As to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>: "According to <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent>, the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond gospel was
written by <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>. ... In what <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent> says the important point
is not so much the statement that <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> wrote the gospel as the
further statement that <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> supplied the contents orally. ...
The supposition that the gospel is essentially a repetition of
oral communications by <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, will at once fall to the ground.
... Should <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> have written in <ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent> then he cannot be held
to have been the author of canonical <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, which is certainly
not a translation, nor yet, in view of the LXX quotations
which have passed over into all three gospels, can he be held
to have been the author of the original <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>." (EB. ii, 1891.)</p>

<p> As to <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>: "This tradition [that <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> was the author of
the third gospel and of Acts] cannot be traced farther back
than towards the end of the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century (Irenaeus,
<ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent>, Clement of <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>, and the Muratorian
fragment). ... It has been shown that it is impossible to
regard <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> with any certainty as the writer even of the 'we'
<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tions of Acts, not to speak of the whole book of Acts, or
of the Third Gospel. ... If <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> cannot have been the author
of Acts, neither can he have been the author of the Third
Gospel." (EB. ii, 1893, 2831.)</p>

<p> As to <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>: "No mention of the Fourth Gospel which we can
recognize as such carries us further than to 140 A.D. As late
as 152, <ent type='ORG'>Justin</ent>, who nevertheless lays so great value upon the
'Memorabilia of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>, regards <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> -- if indeed he
knows it at all -- with distrust, and appropriates from it a
very few sayings. ... If on independent grounds some period
shortly before 140 A.D. can be set down as the approximate
date of the production of the gospel [a certain statement in
it is explained]. ... The Apostolic authorship of the gospel
remains impossible, and that not merely from the consideration
that it cannot be the son of <ent type='PERSON'>Zebedee</ent> who has introduced
himself as writer in so remarkable a fashion, but also from
the consideration that it cannot be an eye-witness of the
facts of the life of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> who has presented, as against the
synoptists, an account so much less credible, nor an original
apostle who has shown himself so readily accessible to
<ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>n and Gnostic ideas, nor a contemporary of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> who
survived so late into the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century and yet was capable
of composing so profound a work." (EB. ii, 2550, 2553.)</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
168
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> None of these Four Gospels, then, being of apostolic
authorship or even of the apostolic age, but anonymous productions
of over a century after the apostles, all are exactly of like
origin and composition as all the other fifty apocryphal <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>-writings: the Four "do not, in point of fact, rest upon any real
difference in the character or origin of the writings concerned,"
from all the other fifty admittedly apocryphal and forged gospels
dating about the middle of the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond century, at the height of the
<ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> age of apocryphal literature. They are therefore late
<ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> forgeries of the <ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>.</p>

<p> FORGERIES IN THE FORGED GOSPELS</p>

<p> That the Four Gospels, as we have them, are very late
productions, issued in the names of apostles a century and more
dead, and are therefore forgeries, is now proven beyond
peradventure. That they are not, even in the form that Bishop
Irenaeus first knew them, each the work of one inspired mind and
pen, is as readily and conclusively provable. They are, each and
all Four, clumsy compilations framed by different persons and at
very different times, as is patent on their face; they are thus
concatenations of forgeries within forgeries. This we shall now
demonstrate.</p>

<p> The <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> claims these Four Gospels to be apostolic and
divine works, and together with all the other books of the Trentine
Bible, to be throughout divinely inspired, having God himself for
their Author. This 1546 <ent type='GPE'>Dogma</ent> of the Infallible <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> has been
thus reaffirmed by <ent type='ORG'>the Sacred <ent type='GPE'>Vatican</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent></ent> (A.D. 1870):</p>

<p> "These books are sacred and canonical because they
contain revelation without error, and because, written by the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their
Author." (CE. fi, 543.)</p>

<p> More recently, <ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Leo XIII</ent>, in his Encyclical Prov. Deus.
(1893), thus reaffirms the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of
Holy Writ:</p>

<p> "It will never be lawful to restrict inspiration merely
to certain portions of the Holy <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s, or to grant that
the sacred writers could have made a mistake. ... They render
in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God
commanded, and nothing else"! (Ib.)</p>

<p> For the Protestant <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ts the notion of divine inspiration and
inerrant truth of <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent> -- excepting always the dozen and more
of Old Testament "apocryphap' <ent type='ORG'>Books</ent> and parts, as <ent type='PERSON'>Tobias</ent> and the
history of the <ent type='NORP'>Assyrian</ent> great god <ent type='PERSON'>Bel</ent> and the Dragon, -- a typical
profession is that of the first Article of the <ent type='ORG'>Baptist</ent> Declaration
of Faith: "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and
is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction. ... It has God for
its Author, and truth without any admixture of error for its
matter."</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
169
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> All this priestly "confidence stuff" must remind one of what
<ent type='PERSON'>Cicero</ent> said of the <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> augurs. Even CE., valiant but often
perplexed defender of the orthodox Faith, can not give full credit
to that inspired canard, which even the infallible authors of it
could not have themselves believed. <ent type='PERSON'>Tim</ent>orously "reasoning in
chains" and minimizing the truth, the orthodox apologist, forced by
scholarly criticism, confesses -- utterly belying <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> and
Holiness:</p>

<p> "In all the Bible, where the same event is several times
narrated by the same writer, or narrated by several writers,
there is some slight [sic] divergency, as it is natural there
should be with those who spoke or wrote from memory. Divine
inspiration covers the substance of the narration." (CE. i,
122.)</p>

<p> Those sacred writers, putting on papyrus rolls from errant and
therefore necessarily uninspired "memory," their intimate
familiarities with the thoughts and desires, purposes and
providence of God, make not "some slight divergences" from accurate
recording of the promptings of the <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent> to them; they committed
incessant contradictions of so gross a nature as to impeach and
destroy the possibility of truth and credibility of Virtually every
word they said or wrote "in all the Bible," Old and <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent>s
alike. I have so fully exposed some thousands of these glaring and
self-destroying contradictions in my previous work, that here I
simply notice only those most vital ones which are pertinent and
incidental to our present subject of apostolic forgeries.</p>

<p> In a work accompanying the Revised Version of the Bible, in
which the <ent type='PERSON'>Revisers</ent> pointed out some 30000 (now over 150000)
variant readings in <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent>, the reverend author makes
this naive explanation: "In regard to <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent>, no miracle
has been wrought to preserve the text as it came from the pens of
the inspired writers. That would have been a thing altogether out
of harmony with God's method of governing the world"! (Dr. Alex.
Roberts, Companion to the Revised Version, p. 4.) One may wonder at
the writer's intimacy with God's governmental methods, as well as
at God's indifference to the preservation of his miraculously-revealed Holy Word, so awfully necessary to save us from eternal
damnation; when, as we shall see, by special miraculous
intervention and providence he has, the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> vouches, preserved
wholly "incorrupt" through the Ages of Faith countless whole
cadavers and ghastly scraps and miraculous relics galore of the
unwashed Saints of Holy <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>.</p>

<p> CONTRADICTIONS AND TRUTH</p>

<p> No more compelling proofs of forgery in a document can well be
than the glaring contradictions between two parts of the text.
Remember that in the "age of apocryphal literature" there were no
printed books, thus fixing the text, and no "copyright" existed.
All books, sacred and profane, were manuscripts, tediously written
by hand on rolls of papyrus or sheets of parchment-skin; like the
manuscripts of the Gospels, Epistles, etc., they were usually
unsigned and undated, and frequently gave no clue to the anonymous
writers. When one man came into possession of a manuscript which he</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
170
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>desired, he sat down and copied it by hand, or employed slaves or
professional copyists to do the labor. There was absolutely no
check against errors of copying, or intentional omissions,
alterations or insertions into the text, to suit the taste or
purpose of the copyist. Religious books were written, and copied,
by priests, monks or Fathers; religious notions and doctrines were
very diversely held, and developed or were modified incessantly.
Traditions of what was said or done by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ and the
apostles were, as we have seen, very variant and conflicting. Very
often, as we shall see, conflicting traditions or accounts are
found in the same book. As no honest writer of intelligence and
care would put into one short work which he is writing, two totally
contradictory statements regarding the same fact, the only way in
which such contradictions can occur in what purports to be an
original or genuine manuscript, is by the intentional insertion by
a later copyist of the new and contradictory material, euphoniously
called "interpolations" (CE. iv, 498, post), -- without the
critical sense to perceive the contradiction, and omit the original
statement with which his addition conflicts.</p>

<p> Father <ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent>, in his work Against Heresies, denying that
'<ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>s do such things -- do not need to, he says, because the
<ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s are favorable to the <ent type='NORP'>Orthodox</ent> -- accuses the <ent type='ORG'>Heretics</ent> of
such practices, and naively explains how such interpolations or
forgeries of text are done, and why they needs must be:</p>

<p> "All interpolation must be believed to be a later process. ...
One man perverts the <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s with his hand, another their
meaning by his exposition. ... Unquestionably, the Divine
<ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s are more fruitful in resources of all kinds for this
sort of facility [of introducing interpolations]. Nor do I risk
contradiction in saying that the very <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s were even arranged
by the will of God in such a manner as to furnish materials for
heretics, inasmuch as I read that 'there must be heresies' (I Cor.
xi, 19), which there cannot be without <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s"! (<ent type='PERSON'>Praes</ent>.
x<ent type='ORG'>xxv</ent>iii-xxxix; <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>. iii, 262.) Speaking of instances related to the
birth of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, EB. makes a remark, which it extends to
others, and is generally applicable to the conflicting Gospel
narratives:</p>

<p> "From the nature of the case both canonical narratives
were accepted by faith and incorporated with each other. The
gospels themselves supply ample justification of a criticism
of the gospel narratives. In spite of all the revisions which
the gospels received before they became canonically fixed,
they still not infrequently preserve references to conditions
which are irreconcilable with the later additions." (EB. iii,
3343, 3344.)</p>

<p> "For <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> orthodoxy," says the same authority,
"reconcilability of the two canonical accounts was always a
necessary dogma"; and on this point, the orthodox CE. makes a
quaint but typically clerical argument, in effect that the
confessed contradictions of Holy Writ make it all the more
credible: "As can readily be seen, variations are naturally to be
expected in four distinct, and in many ways independent, accounts
of Christ's words and deeds, so that their presence, instead of </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
171
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>going against, rather makes for the substantial value of the
evangelical narratives"! (CE. vi, 659.) Fanciful and disingenuous
as this is, and derogatory of the Papal theory that it is not
possible that "the sacred writers could have made a mistake," the
argument loses even its rhetorical force when we find the most
monumental contradictions in the inspired words of the same writer
in the same inspired little book. We will notice some of the most
obvious and fatal forgeries by "interpolations" into the Gospel
Christ-tales.</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>JESUS</ent> -- MAN OR <ent type='PERSON'>GOD</ent>?</p>

<p> The <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>, in their "canonical," more definitely in their
apocryphal or admittedly forged <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s, expected a "Messiah,"
or anointed King of the race and lineage of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, who should
deliver them from the rule of their enemies, -- at the time of the
Gospel tales, the <ent type='NORP'>Romans</ent>; previously, the <ent type='NORP'>Assyrian</ent>s, <ent type='NORP'>Persians</ent>, and
<ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>s, successively. This King, says <ent type='PERSON'>Isaiah</ent>, shall sit and reign
"upon the throne of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, and upon his kingdom, to establish it"
(Isa. ix, 7); and that this prophecy was in order of fulfillment,
<ent type='ORG'>Gabriel the Angel</ent> announced to <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent> the Ever-<ent type='ORG'>Virgin</ent> Mother of eight
sons and daughters: "Thou shalt bring forth a son, and shalt call
his name <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of
his father <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>: And he shall reign over the house of <ent type='GPE'>Jacob</ent>
forever." (Lk. i, 32, 33.) There is not a word of "prophecy"
anywhere that this King should be divine, a <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of the God of
<ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>; he was to be a human king of the house of <ent type='GPE'>Jacob</ent>, of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>.
There were many false pretenders to the still vacant <ent type='GPE'>Messiahship</ent>,
and even <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> was not the last to proclaim himself the Messiah or
Christ: "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and
shall deceive many." (Mt. xxiv, 4, 23, 24; Mk. xiii, 6, 21, 22.)</p>

<p> That this Messiah <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> who was come was mere man, but
instinct with the spirit of God, is positively avowed by both <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>
and <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>. Says <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> in his first sermon at <ent type='GPE'>Pentecost</ent>: "Ye men of
<ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>, hear these words: <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Nazareth</ent>, a man approved of God
among you [etc.]. The patriarch <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> ... therefore being a
prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that
of the fruit of his loam according to the flesh, he would raise up
Christ to sit upon his throne." (Acts, ii, 22, 29, 30.) And <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>:
"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>" (1 <ent type='PERSON'>Tim</ent>. ii, 5); and again: "<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ of the seed
of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>" (2 <ent type='PERSON'>Tim</ent>. ii, 8); Therefore, in the times when the two
cited sacred books were, by whomever, written, <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> was at that
time regarded simply as a man, a "son" or descendant of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>. So,
when, many years later, the Gospels "according to" <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>
came to be by whomever written, in their original form <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ
was mere man.</p>

<p> Matthew's first chapter begins very humanly and explicitly:
"The book of the generation of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, the son of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, the
son of <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent>"; and <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> gives an unbroken line of human
begettings, father of son, until "And <ent type='GPE'>Jacob</ent> begat <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> the
husband of <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent>, of whom was born <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, who is called Christ"!
(<ent type='PERSON'>Matt</ent>. i, 1-16.) And <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> names and catalogues twenty-eight
generations between <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, to-wit: <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, Solomon ...
<ent type='GPE'>Jacob</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>, -- <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, -- a purely human ancestry. Also <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
172
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>still reflected the belief, held at the time he wrote, that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
was of human ancestry; he gives his human genealogy all the way
back to <ent type='PERSON'>Adam</ent>, and through many mythical patriarchs who assuredly
never existed. This human genealogy by <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> vastly differs,
however, from that of <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>; instead of twenty-eight generations
from <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, through Solomon ... <ent type='GPE'>Jacob</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>, our <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>
genealogist makes out in detail forty-two generations, to wit:
<ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, Nathan. ... <ent type='GPE'>Heli</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>; and only three of the
intermediate names are the same in the two lists. So one or the
other of the two inspired genealogies is fictitious, false and
forged, necessarily: both are, of course, if <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> was not the son
of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, but the immediate "<ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of God." The truth is thus stated:
"The genealogy could not have been drawn up after <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> ceased to
be regarded as the real father of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>." (EB. iii, 2960.)</p>

<p> And CE. thus 'Scraps the inspired genealogy of <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>: "The
artificial character of Luke's genealogy may be seen in the
following table [copying Luke's list] ... The artificial character"
is shown by details cited. (CE. vi, 411.) It also explodes the
seventeenth century clerical pretense, -- heard often today -- in
attempted explanation of these glaring contradictions, that one or
the other of these sacred genealogies, preferably that of <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, was
the genealogy, not of <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>, but of <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent>: "It may be safely said
that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as
representing the genealogy of <ent type='ORG'>the Blessed Virgin</ent>." (CE. vi, 411.)
And, as CE. itself points out, <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent> is not mentioned as in the line
of descent from <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> in either list. To bring her into the
genealogy, in one list or the other, it must have been written:
"And <ent type='GPE'>Jacob</ent> begat <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent> the wife of <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>," instead of "And, <ent type='GPE'>Jacob</ent>
begat <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> the husband of <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent>": or "And <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> ... being the son
of <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent>, which was the daughter of <ent type='GPE'>Heli</ent>," instead of the recorded
"the son of <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> (as was supposed), which was the son of <ent type='GPE'>Heli</ent>"
(<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> iii, 22-31). Both the genealogies are false and forged lists
of mostly fictitious names, in the original Gospel-forgeries,
fabricated to prove <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> a direct son or descendant of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, and
thus to fulfill the terms of the pretended prophecies that the
human Messiah should be of the race and lineage of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> the king.</p>

<p> Moreover, <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent> both knew nothing of the Holy-Ghostly paternity of their child <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>. The celebrated Angelic
"Annunciation" of this Fable to the "prolific yet ever-virgin
Mother of God," recorded by Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> (i, 28), is itself a forgery,
admits CE.: "The words: 'Blessed art thou among women' (v. 28) are
spurious and taken from verse 42, the account of <ent type='ORG'>the Visitation</ent> ...
[Adding] The opinion that <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> at the time of the Annunciation
was an aged widower and <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent> 12 or 15 years of age, is founded only
upon apocryphal documents" -- like all the rest of these Fables of
Christ. (CE. i, 542.) <ent type='PERSON'>Simon</ent> came into the temple when <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent> had brought the child there "to do for him after the custom of
the law," and indulged in some ecstasies which would have been
quite intelligible if <ent type='PERSON'>Gabriel</ent> had made the revelations attributed
to him; but, hearing them, "<ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> and his mother marvelled at
those things which were spoken of him" (Lk. ii, 33). It is false,
the original says: "His father and his mother marvelled." etc. Here
is another holy forgery stuck into <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> ii, as is the later verse,
"and <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> and his mother knew not of it" (v. 43). The true
original reads "and his parents knew not of it," -- just as in </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
173
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>verse 41; "Now his parents went to <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent> every year at the
feast of the passover"; and as in verse 48, "thy father and I have
sought thee sorrowing." In "<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>," <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> is twice: expressly called
the son of <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>; Philip say's to <ent type='PERSON'>Nathaniel</ent>, "We have found him of
whom <ent type='PERSON'>Moses</ent> in the law, and the prophets, did write, <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> of
<ent type='GPE'>Nazareth</ent>, the son of <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>" (i, 45); and again: "Is not this
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, the son of <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>, whose father and mother we know'?" (vi,
42) all which "convincingly proves that in the mind of the narrator
<ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent> were and knew themselves to be, in the natural
sense of the words, the parents of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>." (EB. iii, 3344.) The
same authority thus sums up the whole of <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent> evidence
prior to the "interpolations" of miraculous birth: "The remark has
long ago and often been made that, like <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, even the Gospels
themselves know nothing of the miraculous birth of our Savior. On
the contrary, their knowledge of his natural filial relationship to
<ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> the carpenter, and to <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent>, his wife, is still explicit."
(<ent type='PERSON'>Ibid</ent>.) And if <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> had been a God he could hardly have been
crazy; yet his own family thought him so and sent to arrest him as
a madman, as above noticed. It is therefore self-evident, that the
original <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> "tradition," down as late as <ent type='PERSON'>Papias</ent> and Irenaeus,
regarded <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> simply as a man, and as a very old man when he died
a peaceful and natural death. But the zeal to Combat and win the
<ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent>s, when, after the failure with the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>, the Gospel "turned
to the <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent>," and to exalt the man <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> into a God, as was
<ent type='PERSON'>Perseus</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>Apollo</ent>, grew with the Fathers; by the same token <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
was now made to be the son of the Hebrew God Yahveh: we have heard
the Fathers so argue. So later pious tampering grafted the "<ent type='ORG'>Virgin</ent>-birth" and "son of God" <ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent> myths onto the simple original
"traditions" of merely human origin as the "son of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>,"
carelessly letting the primitively forged <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>ic genealogies
remain to contradict and refute them. These "interpolations" are
self-apparent forgeries for Christ's sake, in two of the Gospels.</p>

<p> But if <ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent> spoke truly (if the passage is genuine with
him), the other Gospels have been yet further tampered with; for
<ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent> explicitly says: "Of the apostles, <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, and
apostolic men, <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, these all start with the same
principles of the faith ... how that He was born of the <ent type='ORG'>Virgin</ent>, and
came to fulfill the law and the prophets." (Adv. Marcion, IV, ii;
<ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>. iii, 347.) As these Gospels now stand, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> say not
a word of the <ent type='ORG'>Virgin</ent>-birth, but throughout assume <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> to have
been of human birth, and only "son of God" in a popular religious
sense; for "son of God" was in current usage to mean any person
near and dear to God. Indeed, the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> text of the Gospels makes
this plain, that no supernatural progeneration and actual God-sonship was intended. In most instances the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> texts read simply
"son of God -- huios <ent type='NORP'>Theou</ent>," not "the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> -- o huious": the
definite article is a clerical falsification.</p>

<p> "UPON THIS <ent type='GPE'>ROCK</ent> I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH"</p>

<p> Of transcendent importance as the sole basis of the Church's
most presumptuous False Pretense -- its Divine founding by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
Christ -- this <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>-Rock imposture, the most notorious, and in its
evil consequences the most far-reaching and fatal of them all, will
now be exposed to its deserved infamy and destruction.</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
174
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> Upon a forged, and forced, <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Pun</ent> put into the mouth of the
<ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent>-speaking <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, speaking to <ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent> peasants, the
<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> of Christ is falsely founded. "The proof that Christ
constituted St. <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> the head of His <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> is found in the two
famous <ent type='ORG'>Petrine</ent> texts, <ent type='PERSON'>Matt</ent>. xvi, 17-19, and <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> xxi, 15-19." (CE.
xii, 261.) The text in <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> is that about "Feed my Lambs"; but this
forgery is not of present interest. The more notorious "proof" is
Matthew's forged punning passage: "Thou art <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, and upon this
rock I will build my church," etc.</p>

<p> It may first be noticed, that "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>" is the only one of the
three "<ent type='ORG'>Synoptic</ent>" gospelers to record this "famous <ent type='ORG'>Petrine</ent> text."
And he records this pun as made in <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>, by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> -- just before
his crucifixion, under very exceptional circumstances, and upon the
inspiration of a "special divine revelation" then and there first
made by God to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, as below to be noted. But in this, "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>"
is flatly contradicted by "<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>," who ascribes this as an <ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent>
pun by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> in the very first remark that he made to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, upon
his being introduced by his brother <ent type='PERSON'>Andrew</ent>, on the self-same day of
the baptism of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>; when "<ent type='PERSON'>Andrew</ent> first findeth his brother <ent type='PERSON'>Simon</ent>
... and brought him to <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>"; whereupon, "when <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> beheld him,
he said, Thou art <ent type='PERSON'>Simon</ent> son of <ent type='PERSON'>Jona</ent>: thou shalt be called <ent type='PERSON'>Cephas</ent>,
which is by interpretation, A stone." (<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> i, 42.) Thus was <ent type='PERSON'>Simon</ent>
Barjona nick-named "<ent type='PERSON'>Cephas</ent> -- Rock" by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> on the very first day
of the public appearance and mission both of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> and of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>,
and not a year or more later, towards the close of the career of
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>! So the famous <ent type='ORG'>Petrine</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Pun</ent>, if ever made by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> -- as it
was not -- was made in the <ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent> speech spoken by these Galilean
peasants; the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> Father who forged the "Gospel according to
<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>" had to attach the translation into <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> of the <ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent>
"<ent type='PERSON'>Cephas</ent>," into "<ent type='ORG'>Petros</ent>, a stone," for the benefit of his <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>
readers.</p>

<p> After this first explosion of the famous <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> "Rock" pun on
which the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> is founded, and as the matter is of highest
consequence, let us expose the "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>" forgery of the whole
"<ent type='ORG'>Petrine</ent> text" by arraying the three <ent type='ORG'>Synoptic</ent>s in sequence in the
order of their composition and evolution from simple to complex
fabrication:</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> (viii, 27-38).</p>

<p> "And <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> went out, and his disciples, into the towns of
<ent type='GPE'>Caesarea</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Philippi</ent>: and by the way he asked his disciples,
saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?</p>

<p> "And they answered, <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> the <ent type='ORG'>Baptist</ent>: but some say,
<ent type='PERSON'>Elias</ent>; and others, One of the prophets.
"And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And
<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
"And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
"And he began to teach them, that the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of man must
suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the
chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three
days rise again.
"And he spak that saying openly. And <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> took him, and
began to rebuke him.</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
175
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> "But when he had turned about and looked on his
disciples, he rebuked <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, saying, Get thee behind me,
<ent type='PERSON'>Satan</ent>: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but
the things that be of men."</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> (ix, 18-22).</p>

<p> "And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his
disciples were with him; and he asked them, saying, Whom say
the people that I am?
"They answering said, <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> the <ent type='ORG'>Baptist</ent>; but some say,
<ent type='PERSON'>Elias</ent>; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen
again.
"He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>
answering said, The Christ of God.
"And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell
no man that thing.
"Saying, The <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of man must suffer many things, and be
rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be
slain, and be raised the third day."</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> (xvi, 13-22).</p>

<p> "When <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> came into the coasts of <ent type='GPE'>Caesarea</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Philippi</ent>, he
asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of
man am?
"And they said, Some say that thou art <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> the <ent type='ORG'>Baptist</ent>:
some, <ent type='PERSON'>Elias</ent>; and others, <ent type='PERSON'>Jeremias</ent>, or one of the prophets.
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And <ent type='PERSON'>Simon</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> answered and said, Thou are the Christ, the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of the
living God.
"And <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou,
<ent type='PERSON'>Simon</ent> Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
"And I say unto thee, That thou art <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, and upon this
rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. [Here about the Keys, and "binding and
loosing"].
"Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no
man that he was <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> the Christ.
"From that time forth began <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> to <ent type='PERSON'>shew</ent> unto his
disciples, how that he must go unto <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent>, and suffer many
things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be
killed, and be raised again the third day.
"Then <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be
it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
"But he turned and said unto <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, Get thee behind me.
<ent type='PERSON'>Satan</ent>: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the
things that be of God, but those that be of men."</p>

<p> Let it be noted, in passing, that all three of the <ent type='NORP'>Synoptists</ent>
expressly aver in the above narration, as elsewhere in their texts,
that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> positively declared and predicted, that he should be put
to death, and after three days rise again: distinctly, his
Resurrection from the dead. All three on this important point are
liars, if <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> be believed; for after the crucifixion and burial of
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, and the discovery on the third day of his empty grave by the</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
176
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>Magdalene, which she immediately reported to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, they
ran doubting to the grave, looked in, and "saw, and believed"; and
<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> positively avers: "For as yet they knew not the scripture,
that he must rise again from the dead." (<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> xx, 9.) But this
inspired assertion contains a grave anachronism: for "as yet" there
was, of course, no "scripture" about the death and resurrection at
all, nor for well over a century afterwards, as in this chapter is
proven.</p>

<p> Let us examine for a moment into the context of this "famous
<ent type='ORG'>Petrine</ent> text" and into its antecedents, in order to get the "stage
setting of this dramatic climacteric <ent type='PERSON'>Pun</ent> of such vast and serious
consequences unto this day.</p>

<p> The original simple narrative is told in the earlier writer,
"<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," and copied almost verbatim into "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>." There <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> is
reported to have put a sort of conundrum to the Twelve, "saying
unto them, Whom do men say that I am?" The answer showed a very
superstitious belief in reincarnations or "<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond comings" of dead
persons to earth; for "they answered, <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> the <ent type='ORG'>Baptist</ent>: but some
say, <ent type='PERSON'>Elias</ent>; and others, One of the prophets, or <ent type='PERSON'>Jeremias</ent>," to fuse
the somewhat disparate replies. <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> himself shared this
reincarnation superstition, for he had positively asserted that
<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> the <ent type='ORG'>Baptist</ent> was <ent type='PERSON'>Elijah</ent> redivivus: "This is <ent type='PERSON'>Elias</ent>, which was
for to come," (<ent type='PERSON'>Matt</ent>. xi, 14; xvii, 11-13); though <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, being
questioned about it, "Art thou <ent type='PERSON'>Elias</ent>?" contradicted the Christ,
"and he saith, I am not." (<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> i, 20, 21.)</p>

<p> After hearing the disciples report what others said about him,
who he was, <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> then "saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he
charged them that they should tell no man of him" (Mk. viii, 27-30;
Lk. ix, 18-22). There was certainly nothing novel or unexpected in
this alleged reply of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>; it was exactly the proclaimed mission
of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> as the "promised Messiah," as the precedent texts of
"<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" verify. On the day of his baptism by <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, before all the
people, "the heavens opened ... And there came a voice from heaven,
saying, Thou art my beloved <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent>" (i, 2); what the devils cried out
in the synagogue, "I know thee who thou art, the Holy one of God"
(i, 24) just what all the devils unanimously proclaimed before the
disciples and all hearers, "And unclean spirits, when they saw him.
... cried, saying, Thou art the son of God" (iii, 2); just what the
possessed man with the legion of devils cried out before all the
disciples, "What have I to do with thee, <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, thou <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of the
most high God" (v, 7); -- all as recorded by "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" prior to the
above reply by <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>. So, naturally, Peter's "confession" caused no
surprise; it was the expected thing: so <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> made no remark on
hearing it, except the peculiar injunction that "they should tell
no man" -- what all men and devils already knew by much-repeated
hearsay. So <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> at once proceeded to speak of his coming
per<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ution, death, and resurrection; "And <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> took him, and
began to rebuke him. But when he had turned about and looked on his
disciples, he rebuked <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, saying, Get thee behind me, <ent type='PERSON'>Satan</ent>: for
thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that
be of men" (Mk. viii, 31-33). The identical story in its same
simple form, minus the <ent type='PERSON'>Satan</ent> colloquy, is told also in <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> (ix,
18-22). This is the round, unvarnished tale of the first <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
177
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>Father "gospel" writers, a century after the reputed conversation,
and long before the "primacy of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>" idea dawned as a "good
thing" upon the Fathers of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>. There is not a word about
"church" in the passage, nor in the entire "gospel according to
<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," nor in <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, nor in even the much later "<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>."</p>

<p> The later <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> Father who wrote up the original of the
"gospel according to <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>," copied Mark's story substantially
verbatim, Mark's verses 27-33, being nearly word for word
reproduced in Matthew's 13-16, 20-24 of chapter xvi; the only
material verbal difference being in Peter's answer, in verse 16,
where Peter's words are expanded: "Thou art the Christ, the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of
the Living God," -- obviously padded in by the "interpolator" of
verses 17-19, which we now examine.</p>

<p> As the years since "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>" rolled by, the zeal of the Fathers
to exalt <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> increased; we have seen many admitted forgeries of
documents having that purpose in view. So it was, obviously, a new
forging Father who took a manuscript of "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>," and turning to
the above verses copied from "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," added in, or made a new
manuscript copy containing, the notable forgery of verses 17-19.
There, onto the commonplace and unnoticed reply of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, "Thou art
the Christ," the pious interpolator tacked on:</p>

<p> "the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of the living God. And <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> answered and said
unto him, Blessed art thou, <ent type='PERSON'>Simon</ent> Barjona: for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, and
upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the
keys of <ent type='GPE'>the Kingdom</ent> of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (<ent type='PERSON'>Matt</ent>. xvi,
16b-19.)</p>

<p> It is impossible that the original writer of "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>" should
have written those remarkable and preposterous verses, in which
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> is made to take Peter's commonplace announcement, "Thou art
the Christ," as a "special revelation from heaven" to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> and a
great <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ret mystery here first "revealed"; -- this matter of
common notoriety and even devil-gossip throughout <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>, as we
have seen from "Mark's" numerous Christ-texts; the same is true in
<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>. These avowals that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> was the Christ are even more
numerous and explicit in "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>" up to the interpolation. That
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> was "Christ" is the identical disclosure and announcement,
which had been declared by <ent type='PERSON'>Gabriel</ent> to <ent type='PERSON'>Mary</ent>; by a dream to the
suspicious <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>; by wicked <ent type='PERSON'>Herod</ent>, who "demanded of them where
Christ should be born" (ii, 4); by the voice from heaven
proclaiming to the world, "This is my beloved <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent>" (iii, 17); that
was declared by the Devil in the wilderness, "If thou be the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of
God" (iv, 6); that <ent type='ORG'>the Legion</ent> of Devils cried aloud, "What have we
to do with thee, <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, thou son of God" (viii, 29); that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
himself avowed of himself time and again, "All things are delivered
unto me by my Father, Lord of heaven and earth" (xi, 25-27) that
all the crew of Peter's fishing-boat acclaimed when they
"worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of God" (xiv,
33). 'Just two chapters earlier in <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, is the fable of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
178
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>and <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> "walking on the water," as "foretold" by the <ent type='PERSON'>Sibyl</ent>s; when
<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> began to sink, he was rescued and dragged aboard the little
fishing boat by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>; -- "and they that were in the ship came and
worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the son of God." (Mt.
xiv, 29-33.) So that Peter's wonderful information was no novelty
and special divine revelation, to himself, but was the common
credulity and gossip of the whole crew of fishermen, devils and
<ent type='NORP'>Palestinian</ent> peasantry. And long before, on the very next day after
his baptism by <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, and before <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> was "called" or even found,
and when his brother <ent type='PERSON'>Andrew</ent> went and found him to bring him to
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Andrew</ent> declared to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>. "We have found the Messiah, which
is, being interpreted, the Christ"! (<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> i, 41.) And, on the next
day <ent type='PERSON'>Nathaniel</ent> said to <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>: "Rabbi, thou art the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of God; thou
art the King of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>"! (<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> i, 49.) Peter's wonderful "special
revelation" and confession thus lose an originality and are without
merit of the great "reward" which CE. (xii, 261) says <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
bestowed upon him for this pretended original and inspired
discovery, as we shall in due order notice.</p>

<p> That <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ never spoke the words of those forged
verses, that they are a late <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> forgery, is beyond any
intelligent or honest denial. The first mention of them in
"patristic literature," and that only a reference to the "keys," is
this scant line of Father <ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent>, in a little tract called
<ent type='PERSON'>Scorpiace</ent> or "The Scorpion's Sting," written about 211 A.D., in
which he says: "For, though you think heaven is still shut,
remember that the Lord left to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> and through him to the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>,
the keys of it." (<ent type='PERSON'>Scorpiace</ent>, x; <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>. iii, 643.) That <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> did not
use the words of those verses, interpolated into a paragraph of
<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> copied bodily and verbatim by the original "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>" writer
from "<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," and repeated in their original form by "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>,"' is
thus conclusive from "internal" evidences; the later and
embroidered form is a visible interpolation and forgery. That this
is true, is demonstrated, moreover, by the inherent impossibility
of the thing itself.</p>

<p> THE "CHURCH" FOUNDED ON THE "<ent type='GPE'>ROCK</ent>"</p>

<p> First of all, in proof that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ never made this <ent type='PERSON'>Pun</ent>,
did not establish any <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> -- nor even a <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent>
reformed synagoguel, -- are his own alleged positive statements to
be quoted in refutation of the other forged "missionary" passage in
<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>: "Go ye into all the world, and teach all nations." The
avowed mission of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, as we have seen from his reputed words,
was exclusively to his fellow <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>: "I am not sent but to the lost
sheep of the house of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>"; and he expressly commanded his
disciples not to preach to the <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent>, nor even to the near-<ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> Samaritans. He proclaimed the immediate end of the world,
and his quick <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond coming to establish the exclusively <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent>
<ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent> of Heaven, even before all the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> of little <ent type='GPE'>Palestine</ent>
could be warned of the event -- that "<ent type='GPE'>the Kingdom</ent> of Heaven is at
hand." It is impossible, therefore, that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> could have so
flagrantly contradicted the basic principles of his exclusive
mission as the <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> promised Messiah, and could have commanded
the institution of a permanent and perpetual religious organization
an ecclesia" or "<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>," to preach his exclusively <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
179
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>Messianic doctrines to all nations of the earth, which was to
perish within that generation. This is a conclusive proof of the
later "interpolation" or forgery of this punning passage.</p>

<p> On this point says EB.:</p>

<p> "It would be a great mistake to suppose that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
himself founded a new religious community" (c. 3103). -- "A
further consideration which tells against the genuineness of
Mt. xvi, 18b, is the occurrence in it of the word ecclesia. It
has been seen to be impossible to maintain that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> founded
any distinct religious community. ...</p>

<p> "As for the word itself, it occurs elsewhere in the
Gospels only in Mt. xviii, 17. There, however, it denotes
simply the <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> local community to which every one belongs;
for what is said relates not to the future but to the present,
in which a <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> ecclesia cannot, of course, be thought
of." (c. 3105) ... "It is impossible to regard as historical
the employment of the word ecclesia by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> as the
designation of the <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> community." (EB. iii, 3103, 3105,
3117.)</p>

<p> Indeed, as said by a contemporary wit, the truth is that
"<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ did not found the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> -- he is its Foundling. His
parent, the <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> church, abandoned the child; the <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> church
took it in, adopted it, and gave his mother a certificate of good
character." (The Truth Seeker, 10/23/26.)</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> spoke <ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent>, a dialect of the ancient and "dead"
Hebrew. The true name of the fisherman "Prince of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>,"
just repudiated by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> as "<ent type='PERSON'>Satan</ent>," was <ent type='NORP'>Shimeon</ent>, or in its <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>
form, <ent type='PERSON'>Simon</ent>, who was later "surnamed <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>." He attained somehow
the <ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent> nickname <ent type='GPE'>Kepha</ent>, or in its <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> form, <ent type='PERSON'>Cephas</ent>, meaning
a rock; this evidently furnished to the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> punster the cue for
his play on words: "Thou art <ent type='ORG'>Petro</ent>, [<ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>, petros, a rock; cf.
Eng. petrify, petroleum, etc.), and upon this petros [rock] I will
build my ecclesia [church]." <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> could not have made this <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>
play on words; neither <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> nor any of the other "ignorant and
unlearned" <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> peasant disciples could have understood it. Much
less could <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> have said, or the apostles have understood, this
other <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> word "ecclesia," even had it been possible for <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>,
facing the immediate end of the world -- proclaimed by himself --
to have dreamed of founding any permanent religious <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>t. There was
nothing like ecclesia known to the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>; it was a technical <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>
term designating the free political assemblies of the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>
republics. This is illustrated by one sentence from the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>
Father <ent type='ORG'>Origen</ent>, about 245 A.D., when the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> had taken over the
<ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> political term ecclesia to denote its own religious
organization. Says <ent type='ORG'>Origen</ent>, using the word in both its old meaning
and in its new <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> adaptation: "For the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> [ecclesia] of
God, e.q., which is at <ent type='GPE'>Athens</ent>; ... Whereas the assembly [ecclesia]
of the <ent type='NORP'>Athenians</ent>," etc. (<ent type='ORG'>Origen</ent>, Contra Celsum, iii, 20; <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>. iv,
476.) The <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> Fathers who, a century later, founded the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>
among the <ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>-speaking <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent>, adopted the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> word
ecclesia for their organizations because the word was familiar for
popular assemblies, and because the translators of the Septuagint </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
180
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>had used ecclesia as the nearest <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> term for the translation of
the two Hebrew words <ent type='ORG'>qahal</ent> and edah used in the Old Testament for
the "congregation" or "assembly" of all <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent> at the tent of
meeting.</p>

<p> These Hebrew words (<ent type='ORG'>qahal</ent>, edah) had also a more general use,
as signifying any sort of gathering or crowd, religious or <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ular.
Thus "sinners shall not stand in the congregation [Heb. edah] of
the righteous" (Ps. i, 5); or of a mob of wicked ones: "I have
hated the congregation [Heb. <ent type='ORG'>qahal</ent>] of evil doers" (Ps. <ent type='ORG'>xxv</ent>i, 5);
and even of the great assemblage of the dead: "The man that --
[etc.], shall remain in the congregation [Heb. <ent type='ORG'>qahal</ent>] of the dead"
(Prov. xxi, 16); all these various senses being rendered "ecclesia"
in the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> Septuagint translation.</p>

<p> Thus no established and permanent organization of disciples of
the Christ is implied by the term ecclesia, even if <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> could
have used the <ent type='NORP'>Aramaic</ent> equivalent of that <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> term; at most it
would have only meant the small group of <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> which might adopt the
"<ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent> of Heaven" watchword and watchfully wait until the speedy
end of the world and the expected quick consummation of the
proclaimed <ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent>, -- not yet come to be, these 2000 years.</p>

<p> This only possible meaning is made indisputable by the one
other instance of the use of the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> word ecclesia attributed to
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, -- and that also by the myth-mongering "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>." Here <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
is made to lay down some rules for settling the incessant discords
among his peasant believers in <ent type='GPE'>the Kingdom</ent>: "Moreover, if thy
brother shall trespass against thee ... tell it to the church
[ecclesia] but if he neglect to hear the ecclesial let him be unto
thee as an heathen man and a publican" (<ent type='PERSON'>Matt</ent>. xviii, 15-17); --
that is, kick him like a dog out of your holy company and exclude
him from share in the coming <ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent>. There was, of course, no
organized <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> "<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>" in the lifetime of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>; he could
only have meant -- (if he said it), that disputes were to be
referred to the others of the little band of <ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent>-watchers, who
should drop the "trespasser" out of their holy group if he proved
recalcitrant and insisted upon the right of his opinion or action.
But <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> never said even this; it is a forged later companion-piece to the "Rock and Keys" forgery, as is proven by the following
verse 18 -- (a repetition of xvi, 19) -- regarding the "binding and
loosing" powers given to itself by the later forging <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> when it
assumed this preposterous prerogative of domination.</p>

<p> The "On this Rock" forgery of <ent type='PERSON'>Matt</ent>. xvi, says <ent type='ORG'>Reinach</ent>, "is
obviously an interpolation, made at a period when a church,
separated from the synagogue, already existed. In the parallel
passages in <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> (vii, 27, 32) and in <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> (ix, 18-22), there is
not a word of the primacy of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, a detail which <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, the
disciple of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, could hardly have omitted if he had known of it.
The interpolation is posterior to the compilation of Luke's
gospel." (Orpheus, pp. 224-225.)</p>

<p> As aptly said by Dr. McCabe; "It [the word ecclesia] had no
meaning whatever as a religious institution until decades after the
death of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ. In the year 30 A.D. no one on earth would
have known what <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> meant if he had said that he was going to </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
181
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>'found' an ecclesia or church, and that the powers of darkness
would not prevail against it, and so on. It would sound like the
talk of the Mad Hatter in <ent type='GPE'>Alice</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Wonderland</ent>." (The Story of
Religious Controversy, p. 294.) Indeed, it may be remarked, it is
the "powers of darkness" of mind which have so far prevailed to
perpetuate this fraud; the powers of the light of reason are
hastening to its final overthrow.</p>

<p> <ent type='ORG'>PETER</ent>-<ent type='GPE'>ROCK</ent>-CHURCH" DENIED AB SILIENCIO</p>

<p> "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>" was not present when this monumental pronouncement of
the "Rock and Keys" was allegedly made; <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> may have forgotten to
tell him of it, or "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>" may have forgotten that <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> told him.
And <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> may have forgotten to tell of it and of his peerless
"primacy" to his own "companion" and "interpreter" <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, or <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>
may have forgotten that <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> told him, and thus have failed to
record so momentous an event. But <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, the "<ent type='PERSON'>Bel</ent>oved Disciple" was
right there, with <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, himself, one of the speakers and hearers
in the historic colloquy, -- and <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> totally ignores it. The
silence of all three discredits and repudiates it. Moreover, and
most significantly, <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> himself, in his two alleged Epistles, has
not a word of his tremendous dignity and importance conferred on
him by his Master; never once does he describe himself in the pride
of priestly humility, "<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, Servant of the servants of God," or
"Prince of <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>: or even "Bishop of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> which sojourns
at <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>," or any such to distinguish himself from the common herd
of peasant apostles. <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> must have been very modest, even more so
than his "Successors."</p>

<p> Furthermore, the official "Acts of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>" never once
notes this divinely commissioned "primacy" of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>; and every
other book of <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent> utterly ignores it. <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> is said to
have written a sententious "Epistle to the <ent type='NORP'>Romans</ent>," and to have
written two or three Epistles from <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>, where <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> is supposed to
have been, enthroned as divine Vicar of God and Head of the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>
Universal; and yet never a word of this tremendous fact; <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> did
not know it, or ignores it. The "Epistles of <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>," fourteen of
them, and the "Acts," are replete with defiances of <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>,
-- "I withstood him to his face"; and in all the disputes between
them, over matters of the faith and the fortunes of the new
"<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>," not a single one of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> rises in his place and
suggests that <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> is Prince and Primate, and that Peter's view of
the matters was ex-cathedra the voice of God, and he, having
spoken, the matter was settled. <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, in all his Epistles, never
gives a suspicion that he had ever heard, even from <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, of the
latter's superior authority.</p>

<p> Thus the admitted principal, if not only "proof" which the
<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> urges for its Divine and "<ent type='ORG'>Petrine</ent>" foundation is found to be
-- like every other <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> muniment and credential, a clerical
forgery, a priestly imposture. We shall glance at some other like
examples of the <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> art of "<ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>" falsification.</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
182
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> "GO, TEACH ALL NATIONS" FORGERY</p>

<p> Applying Tertullian's test of authenticity, that contradictory
passages betray a later "interpolation," the closing verses, 16-20,
of the last chapter of <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> -- as of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> 9-20, -- are
themselves late interpolations or forged passages.</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> previously quotes <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> as declaring: "I am not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>" (xv, 24; x, 6); and
his command to the Twelve: "Go not into the way of the <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent>.
... but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>" (x, 5,
6). Also <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> (as <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>) has reiterated the assurance of the
immediacy of the end of the world and the "<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond coming" in glory:
"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>, till the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent> of
Man be come." (Mt. x, 23; cf. x, 7; <ent type='ORG'>xxv</ent>i, 28, 34, passim.) So that
neither in reason nor in truthful statement could it be possible
for <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> to have met the Eleven a few days after his resurrection,
in Galilee, and commanded them in this wonderful language: "Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent>, and of the Holy Ghost: ... and, lo, I am
with you always, even unto the end of the world" -- which he had
just, and repeatedly, averred should happen in the life-time of his
hearers and before they could preach even to the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> of little
<ent type='GPE'>Palestine</ent>. (Mt. <ent type='ORG'>xxv</ent>iii, 18, 20; cf. Mk. xvi, 15-16.) This "command"
could only have been "interpolated" into the forged ending of
<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> long after the original form of the tradition of
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> had been first written, and when the "<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond coming" in the
"<ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent> of God" and the immediate "end of the world" had become
impossible of further credit by lapse of long years of time and
disappointed expectation. It could also only have been written
after the gospel of the "<ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent>" for the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> had failed, and the
apostles had "turned to the <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent>," which was not, even on the
face of <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>, until after the so-called "<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> of
<ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent>," when the <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> apostles, after bitter quarrel with the
interloper <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, had recognized Paul's pretended "revelation" of
mission to the <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent> and had parcelled out the propaganda work,
<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> to the uncircumcised <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent>, all the others, <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> included,
to "the circumcision" only; though the entire story of <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent>
is itself a contradictory fabrication, as demonstrated by EB. (i,
916, et seq.)</p>

<p> ACTS BELIES THE "GO, TEACH ALL NATIONS" FORGERY</p>

<p> Culminating proof that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ never uttered this
command, to "Go, teach all nations," of <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, and that
it is a forgery long after interpolated into the original forged
texts, is found in the positive "history" of the inspiredly forged
Acts of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>, in Holy Writ itself. If <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, just
arisen from the dead, had given that ringing and positive command
to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> and the Eleven, utterly impossible would it have been for
the remarkable "history" recorded in Acts to have occurred. Acts,
too, disproves the assertion of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> that, straightway, after the
command was given to the Eleven, "they went forth, and preached
everywhere" (Mk. xvi, 20), -- that is, to all nations thereabouts,
the <ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent>. A further contradiction may he noted: <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>
says that the command was given to the Eleven in Galilee, on "a
mountain where <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> had appointed them" (Mt. <ent type='ORG'>xxv</ent>iii, 16-19), -- </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
183
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>and some days after the resurrection; whereas <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> records that the
command was given to the Eleven "as they sat at meat," evidently in
a house in <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent>, through the roof of which <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> immediately
afterwards ascended into heaven (Mk. xvi, 14-19); after which they
immediately "went forth, and preached everywhere" (verse 20). But
they did not, as the silence of the other two Gospels, and the
positive evidence of Acts and several of the Epistles, proves;
together with the promised disproof of the "Go, teach all nations"
command, for preaching <ent type='GPE'>the Kingdom</ent> to the <ent type='GPE'>Gentile</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent>s, now to be
produced.</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Cornelius</ent>, the leader of <ent type='ORG'>the Italian Band</ent> at <ent type='ORG'>Coesarea</ent>, a <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent>
<ent type='GPE'>Gentile</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent>, had a "revelation" that he should go to <ent type='PERSON'>Joppa</ent> to
find <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, evidently with a view to "conversion" and admission
into the new all-<ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>t. A companion vision in a trance was
awarded to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, seemingly to prepare him for the novel notion of
community with <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent>; though "<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> doubted in himself what this
vision which he had seen should mean"; but at this juncture the
messengers came from <ent type='PERSON'>Cornelius</ent>, and related to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> the vision of
<ent type='PERSON'>Cornelius</ent>, and his request that <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> come to see him. Evidently,
<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> had never heard of the Master's command alleged to have been
given by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> himself, and the others: "Go, teach all
nations" of the uncircumcised, for he said to the messengers: "Ye
know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a <ent type='NORP'>Jew</ent> to keep
company, or come unto one of another nation"; but recalling the
vision from which he had just awaked, be added: "but God hath
showed me" that it was permissible now to deal with "one of another
nation." So, <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> went along to <ent type='PERSON'>Cornelius</ent>, and he asked "For what
intent ye have sent for me?" <ent type='PERSON'>Cornelius</ent> repeated the vision, and
said, "Now we are all here present before God, to hear all things
that are commanded thee by God." At this, <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> was evidently
greatly surprised, and "opened his mouth, and replied; Of a truth
I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But that in every
nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted
with him." Thus clearly <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> had never heard his <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> command:
"Go, teach all nations"; it required this new "revelation" -- some
years later -- for him to tardily and finally "perceive" that God
accepted even "one of another nation." <ent type='ORG'>Clearer</ent> yet is this, that up
to this time salvation is of the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>" only, by Peter's next words:
"The word which God sent unto the children of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent> ... which was
published throughout <ent type='ORG'>Judaea</ent> -- [not to "all nations"], and began in
Galilee, after the baptism which <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> preached -- [not baptism "in
the name" of the <ent type='ORG'>Trinity</ent>]. ... And be [<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>] commanded us to
preach unto all the people" -- of the children of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>. And now
for proof positive: <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> was now "showed" the new dispensation: a
visitation of the Holy Ghost came upon the <ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent>s present, who
thereupon all "spake with tongues," to the great amazement of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>
and his <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> companions: "They of the circumcision which believed
were astonished, as many as came with <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, because that on the
<ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent> was also poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost," which had
been promised only to all believing <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>. Ignorant thus of the
Christ's preascension command to him and the Eleven, to teach all
men, but now convinced that "one of another nation" was acceptable
with God, and should be baptized, <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> yielded, and argued for his
companions to consent: "Then answered <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, Can any man forbid
water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the
Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
184
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>the name of the Lord" (Acts x), -- not in the name of the <ent type='ORG'>Trinity</ent>,
as <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> alleges that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> himself had commanded <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> himself
to do. So this bit of <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent> "history" is positive refutation of
the "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent>, and of the Holy Ghost" forgery.</p>

<p> And none of the others of the Twelve had ever heard the
command. For immediately that they learned of this flagrant
"heresy" of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, "that the <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent> have also received the word
of God," they were piously outraged and furious against <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>: "And
when <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> had come up to <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent>, they that were of the
circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men
uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> put up a long
argument in defense, urging the "revelation" to <ent type='PERSON'>Cornelius</ent> and his
own trance vision, quoted the gospels of <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> -- (not
yet in existence!), -- and wound up: "For as much then as God gave
them the like gift as he did unto us, ... what am I, that I could
withstand God?" This line of argument pacified the other apostles;
"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified
God, saying, Then hath God also to the <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent> granted repentance
unto life." (Acts xi.) Perfect proof is this, that the alleged "Go,
teach all nations" command of the Christ to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> and the other
apostles, is a falsification, a late forgery into <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>:
for if <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> had so commanded these same apostles, the special
revelations would not have been necessary; Peter's doubt and
hesitation, and the row of the others with <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> for baptizing
<ent type='PERSON'>Cornelius</ent> and his Band could not have occurred, would have been
impossible and absurd; as would have been the apostolic rows of the
"<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent>," recorded in Acts xv and belied by <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> in
Galatians ii, as is made evident in EB. (i, 916.)</p>

<p> This incontrovertible fact, that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ never uttered
that command, "Go, teach all nations," and that the texts so
reciting are later forgeries to serve the <ent type='ORG'>Gentilic</ent> propaganda of
the Faith after the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> had rejected it, -- is confessed by CE. in
these destructive words: "The <ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent> of God had special reference
to <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> beliefs. ... A still further expansion resulted from the
revelation directing St. <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> to admit to baptism <ent type='PERSON'>Cornelius</ent>, a
devout <ent type='GPE'>Gentile</ent>." (CE. iii, 747.) If <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, preaching the
exclusive <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent>, had revised and reversed his God-ordained
program, and had commanded "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them,"
the "expansion" would have resulted then and there from the command
itself, -- not from the "revelation" and apostolic row some years
later, which would have been unnecessary and supererogatory -- as
it was unseemly. Thus another pious lie and forgery is exposed and
confessed.</p>

<p> Even more plain and comprehensive are the words of this same
divine forged command of the Christ, as recorded by <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>: "Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. And he
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned." (Mk. xvi, 15-16.) It should be a
relief to many pious Hell-fearing <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>s to know that their
Christ did not utter these damning words, and that they may
disbelieve with entire impunity; that they are priestly forgeries
to frighten credulous persons into belief and submission to
priestcraft. The proofs of this from the Bible itself we see
confirmed by clerical admissions under compulsion from exposure of
the fraud.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
185
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> Thus this whole <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tion, says <ent type='ORG'>Reinach</ent>, is a "late addition" to
<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, ."and is not found in the best manuscripts." (Orpheus, p.
221.) We have seen that CE. includes this <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tion among those
rejected as spurious up to the time that the Holy Ghost belatedly
vouched for it at <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> of Trent in 1546, putting the seal of
divine truth upon this lie. Both these parallel but exceedingly
contradictory closing <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tions of <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, are spurious
additions made after the "end of the world" and "<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond coming"
predictions had notoriously failed, in order to give pretended
divine sanction to the "turning to the <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent>," after the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>,
to whom alone the Christ was sent and had expressly and repeatedly
limited his mission, had rejected his claim to be Messiah.</p>

<p> The <ent type='GPE'>Gentile</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> of Christ has therefore no divine sanction;
was never contemplated nor created by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ. The <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> is thus founded on a forgery of pretended words of the
pretended Christ. This proposition is of such immense significance
and importance, that I array here the admissions of the forgery, in
addition to the demonstration of its falsity above given. The
virtual admissions of CE. totally destroy the authenticity of the
entire spurious <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tion, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> xvi, 9-20, together with the
correlated passages of the equally spurious "<ent type='NORP'>Matthean</ent> addition,"
copied from <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, with embellishments into <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>.</p>

<p> THE FORGED GOSPEL ENDINGS</p>

<p> "The conclusion of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> (xvi, 9-20) is admittedly not genuine.
Still less can the shorter conclusion lay claim to genuineness. ...
Almost the entire <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tion is a compilation, partly even from the
fourth gospel and Acts." (EB. ii, 1880; 1767, n. 3; 1781, and n. 1,
on "the evidence of its spuriousness.") "The longer form ... has
against it the testimony of the two oldest Uncial <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>. (<ent type='NORP'>Siniatic</ent>
and <ent type='GPE'>Vatican</ent>) and one of the two earliest of the <ent type='GPE'>Syria</ent>c Versions
(<ent type='NORP'>Siniatic</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Syria</ent>c), all of which close the chapter at verse 8. In
addition to this, is the very significant silence of <ent type='NORP'>Patristic</ent>
literature as to anything following verse 8." (New Standard Bible
Dictionary, p. 551.) The acute and careful critical reasonings and
evidences upon which the foregoing conclusions are based, I have
omitted from these extracts, to present them in full in the
following ample review from CE., which, "reasoning in chains"
fettered upon it by the Trentine Decree, yet fully establishes the
impeaching facts and substantially confesses the forgery into
"<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>," while "saving its face" for the "inspiration" of the
forgery by clerical assumption of "some other inspired pen" as the
source of the text, which makes it "just as good" as any other,
when invested with the sanctity of the sanction of <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> of
Trent. Says CE.:</p>

<p> "But the great textual problem of the Gospel (<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>)
concerns the genuineness of the last twelve verses. Three
conclusions of the Gospel are known: the long: conclusion, as
in our Bibles, containing verses 9-20, the short one ending
with verse 8, and an intermediate form [described]. ... Now
this third form way be dismissed at once -- [as an admitted
Bible forgery]. No scholar regards this intermediate
conclusion as having any title to acceptance.</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
186
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> "We may pass on, then, to consider how the case stands
between the long conclusion and the short, i.e. between
accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of the original
Gospel, or making the original end with xvi, 8. <ent type='PERSON'>Eusebius</ent> ...
pointing out that the passage in <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> beginning with verse 9
is not contained in all the <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>. of the Gospel. The historian
then goes on himself to say that in nearly all the <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>. of
<ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>, at least in the accurate ones, the Gospel ends with xvi,
8. ... St. <ent type='PERSON'>Jerome</ent> also says in one place that the passage was
wanting in nearly all <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>. ... As we know, he
incorporated it in the <ent type='PERSON'>Vulgate</ent>. ... If we add to this that the
Gospel ends with xvi, 8, in the two oldest <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>. -- [
<ent type='NORP'>Siniatic</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Vatican</ent>] -- [also in the <ent type='NORP'>Siniatic</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Syria</ent>c, some
<ent type='NORP'>Ethiopic</ent>, <ent type='NORP'>Armenian</ent>, and other <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>.] indicate doubt as to
whether the true ending is at verse 8 or verse 20. (p. 678.)
. . .</p>

<p> "Much has been made of the silence of some of the third
and fourth century Fathers, their silence being interpreted to
mean that they either did not know the passage or rejected it.
Thus <ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent>, SS. Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil the Great,
Gregory of <ent type='PERSON'>Nazianzus</ent>, and <ent type='PERSON'>Cyril</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>.</p>

<p> "When we turn to the internal evidence, the number, and
still more the character, of the peculiarities is certainly
striking [citing many instances from the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> text]. ... But,
even when this is said, the cumulative force of the evidence
against the <ent type='ORG'>Marcan</ent> origin of the passage is considerable. (p.
678.) ... The combination of so many peculiar features, not
only of vocabulary, but of matter and construction, leaves
room for doubt as to the <ent type='ORG'>Marcan</ent> authorship of the verses. (p.
679.) ...</p>

<p> "Whatever the fact be, it is not at all certain that <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> did
not write the disputed verses. It may be that he did not; that they
are from the pen of some other inspired writer [!], and were
appended to the Gospel in the first century or the beginning of the
<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond. ... <ent type='NORP'>Catholics</ent> are not bound to hold that the verses were
written by St. <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>. But they are canonical <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>, for the
<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> of Trent (Sess. IV), in defining that all parts of the
Sacred <ent type='ORG'>Books</ent> are to be received as sacred and canonical, had
especially in view the disputed parts of the Gospels, of which this
conclusion of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> is one. Hence, whoever wrote the verses, they
are inspired, and must be received as such by every <ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent>." (CE.
ix, 677, 678, 679.)</p>

<p> The <ent type='ORG'>New Commentary</ent> on the Holy <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent> has a special <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tion
entitled "The Ending of St. Mark's Gospel," in which it reviews the
evidences in much the same manner as CE., with additional new and
able criticism; it thus concludes, -- not being fettered by the
dogmatic decision of <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> of Trent, which CE. so clerically
yields to in the letter but evades in the spirit:</p>

<p> "It is practically certain that neither <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> nor <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>
found it in their copies of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> [from which they copied in
making up the gospels under those names: see pp. 33, 45). ...
The Last Twelve Verses are constructed as an independent </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
187
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> summary with total neglect of the contents of xvi, 1-8. ... It
is as certain as anything can be in the domain of criticism
that the Longer Ending did not come from the pen of the
evangelist <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent>. ... We conclude that it is certain that the
Longer Ending is no part of the Gospel." (<ent type='ORG'>New Commentary</ent>, Pt.
III, pp. 122, 123.)</p>

<p> More shaming proofs and confessions of forgery of pretended
words of the Christ there could not be, than of this falsified
command to preach a forged Gospel to the credulous dupes of
<ent type='NORP'>Pagan</ent>ism. <ent type='GPE'>Gentile</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>ity collapses upon its forged
foundations.</p>

<p> THE BAPTISMAL FORGERY</p>

<p> The contradictory "baptismal formulas," the simple "in the
name of the Lord" of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> in Acts, and the elaborated forgery of
<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, "in the name of the Father, and of the <ent type='PERSON'>Son</ent>, and of the
Holy Ghost," are sufficiently branded with falsity in the preceding
paragraphs, and may be dismissed without further notice. This
"<ent type='NORP'>Trinitarian</ent> Formula" is most palpably a late forgery, never
uttered by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ; for the Holy "<ent type='ORG'>Trinity</ent>" was not itself
officially invented until <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> of Constantinople, in 381
A.D. Admittedly, "of all revealed truths this is the most
impenetrable to reason"; it is therefore called a "mystery." (CE.
xv, 52.) Of this Baptism-formula of <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, the ex-priest scholar,
McCabe, says: "It was fraudulently added to the gospel when the
priesthood was created." (LBB. 1121, p. 4.) Bishop Gore's English
Divines thus cautiously confess the fraud: "Matthew's witness to
the teaching of the risen Lord in these verses is widely rejected
on two grounds. The witness of Acts makes it almost certain that
baptism at first was into the name of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, and not
formally into the name of the Blessed <ent type='ORG'>Trinity</ent>. ... It is quite
likely that <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> here expresses our Lord's teaching in language
which the Lord Himself did not actually use." (<ent type='ORG'>New Comm</ent>., Pt. III,
p. 204; ef. EB. i, 474.) Another blasting priestly fraud of
"<ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>" forgery is thus exposed and confessed!</p>

<p> A MEDLEY OF FORGERIES</p>

<p> After the foregoing colossal forgeries within the originally
forged Gospels of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, there yet remain many other
viciously dishonest falsifications of text. A little trinity of
them only will be noted.</p>

<p> THE "WOMAN IN ADULTERY" FORGERY</p>

<p> The CE. has admitted that the so-called <ent type='PERSON'>pericope adulterae</ent>,
was regarded as spurious until <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> of Trent, in 1546,
declared it divine truth; but <ent type='ORG'>Reinach</ent> says: "The episode of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
and the woman taken in adultery, which was inserted in John's
gospel in the fourth century, was originally in the [apocryphal]
'Gospel according to the Hebrews.'" (Orpheus, p. 235.)</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
188
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> THE <ent type='PERSON'>JOHN XXI</ent> FORGERY</p>

<p> The entire chapter xxi of <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> is likewise a surcharge of
forgery in that gospel; it may be disposed of with this terse
comment of EB.: "As xx, 30-31 constitutes a formal and solemn
conclusion, xxi is beyond question a later appendix. We may go on
to add that it does not come from the same author with the rest of
the book." (EB. ii, 2543.)</p>

<p> THE "LORD'S PRAYER" FORGERY</p>

<p> As may be seen by mere comparison, the "Doxology" at the end
of the Lord's Prayer in <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent> (vi, 13): "For thine is the
kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen," is an
interpolation into the original text, and is omitted as spurious by
the Revised Version; it is not in the <ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> "True" Version. But,
it may be remarked, the whole of the so-called Lord's Prayer is not
the Lord's at all; it is a late patch-work of pieces out of the Old
Testament, as readily shown by the marginal cross-references, --
just as we have seen that the "<ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Creed</ent>" was said to have
been patched up by inspired lines from each apostle. The Sermon on
the Mount, in which its most used form is found, is a concatenation
of supposed logia or "sayings" of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, drawn out through three
chapters of "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>"; it was delivered before "the multitudes"
which surrounded the Master and his disciples, and in the middle of
the fictitious discourse. This is not true, according to "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>,"
who makes it out a private talk in reply to a question by one of
the Twelve: "And it came to pass, that, as (<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>) was praying in
a certain place, when he ceased one of his disciples said to him,
Lord, teach us to pray, as <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> also taught his disciples. And be
said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father," etc. (<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> xi, 1-228 2.) Indeed, the entire "Lord's Prayer" in <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, copied from
<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> and expanded with considerable new material, is as to such new
matter a forgery, confesses CE.: "Thus it is that the shorter form
of the Lord's Prayer in <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, xi, 2-4, is in almost all <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>
manuscripts lengthened out in accordance with <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, vi, 9-13.
Most errors of this kind proceed," etc. (CE. iv, 498.) I shall
quote now the whole of CE.'s paragraph, admitting this and other
"deliberate corruptions" of <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent> texts, with clerical
apologetic reasons therefor:</p>

<p> "(b) Errors Wholly or Partly Intentional. -- Deliberate
corruption of the Sacred Text has always been rather rare,
Marcion's case being exceptional. <ent type='ORG'>Hort</ent> (Introduction (1896),
p. 282) is of the opinion that 'even among the unquestionably
spurious readings of <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent> there are no signs of
deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes.'
Nevertheless it is true that the scribe often selects from
various readings that which favors either his own individual
opinion or the doctrine that is just then more generally
accepted. It also happens that, in perfectly good faith, he
changes passages which seem to him corrupt because he fails to
understand them, that he adds a word which he deems necessary
for the elucidation of the meaning, that he substitutes a more
correct grammatical expression, and that he harmonizes
parallel passages. Thus it is that the shorter form of the
Lord's Prayer in <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>, xi, 2-4, is in almost all <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
189
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> manuscripts lengthened out in accordance with <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, vi,
9-13. Most errors of this kind proceed from inserting in the
text marginal notes which, in the copy to be transcribed, were
but variants, explanations, parallel passages, simple remarks,
or perhaps the conjectures of some studious reader. All
readers have observed the predilection of copyists for the
most verbose texts and their tendency to complete citations
that are too brief; hence it is that an interpolation stands
a far better chance of being perpetuated than an omission."
(CE. iv, 498.)</p>

<p> Thus, as to the "Lord's Prayer" in <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>, its "variants"
from <ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent> are confessed forgeries; every circumstance of the two
origins is in contradiction. Like the whole "Sermon on the Mount,"
the Prayer is a composite of ancient sayings of the <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>
strung together to form it, as the marginal cross-references show
throughout.</p>

<p> THE "UNKNOWN <ent type='PERSON'>GOD</ent>" FORGERY</p>

<p> At this point I may call attention to a notable instance in
Acts of a fraudulent perversion of text; Paul's use of the
pretended inscription on the statue on <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent>' Hill, "To the Unknown
God," on which is based his famous harangue to the <ent type='NORP'>Athenians</ent>: "Whom
therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." This
omits the truth, for the whole inscription would have been fatal to
his cause. The actual words of the inscription, together with some
uncomplimentary comment on "Paul's" manipulation of the truth, are
presented by the famous <ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> "Humanist" Erasmus. First he
states the chronic clerical propensity to warp even <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent> to
their deceptive schemes: "In general it is the public charter of
all divines, to mould and bend the sacred oracles till they comply
with their own fancy, spreading them (as Heaven by its Creator)
like a curtain, closing together, or drawing them back as they
please." Then he discloses the dishonest dodge of the great <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent>
of Per<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ution: "Indeed, St. <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> minces and mangles some citations
which he makes use of, and seems to wrest them to a different sense
from that for which they were first intended, as is confessed by
the great linguist St. <ent type='PERSON'>Jerome</ent>. Thus when that apostle saw at <ent type='GPE'>Athens</ent>
the inscription of an altar, he draws from it an argument for the
proof of the <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> religion; but leaving out a great part of
the sentence, which perhaps if fully recited might have prejudiced
his cause, he mentions only the last two words, viz., 'To the
Unknown God'; and this, too, not without alteration, for the whole
inscription runs thus: 'TO THE <ent type='PERSON'>GOD</ent>S OF ASIA, EUROPE, AND AFRICA, TO
ALL FOREIGN AND UNKNOWN <ent type='PERSON'>GOD</ent>S'"! (Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, p.
292.) That the original <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> text of Acts used the plural "gods"
is shown by the marginal note to Acts xvii, 23, in the King <ent type='PERSON'>James</ent>
Version. From this dreary, exposure of "Gospel" forgeries we pass
to the forged "Epistles of the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostles</ent>."</p>

<p> THE FORGED <ent type='ORG'>EPISTLE</ent>S, <ent type='ORG'>ETC</ent>.</p>

<p> There are 21 so-called Epistles or Letters found in the New
Testament under the names of five different "apostles" of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
Christ. Making a significant reservation which seems to question
the plenary inspiration of <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> of Trent, "There are," says </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
190
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p>CE., "thirteen Epistles of St. <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, and perhaps fourteen, if, with
<ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> of Trent, we consider him the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews." (CE. xiv, 530.) If <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, the "apostle of the
<ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent>," didn't write the Letter to the Hebrews, some <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>
Father must have forged it in his name. This was admitted by the
early Fathers: "<ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent> ascribed it to <ent type='PERSON'>Barnabas</ent>, and <ent type='ORG'>Origen</ent>
confessed that the author was not known." (<ent type='ORG'>Reinach</ent>, Orpheus, p.
235; CE. xiv, 525; <ent type='ORG'>New Comm</ent>. Pt. III, p. 596.) "The Epistle to the
Hebrews," says EB., "had already been excluded from the group [of
then supposed <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>ine Epistles] by <ent type='ORG'>Carlstadt</ent> (1520), and among
those who followed him in this were Luther, Calvin, Grotius, etc."
(EB. iii, 3605.) So CE.'s cautious clerical reservation is
justified, and the forgery of Hebrews in the name of <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> may be
taken as established, the inspired <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> of Trent to the contrary
notwithstanding.</p>

<p> But the entire "<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>ine group" is in the same forged class
with Hebrews, says EB. after exhaustive consideration of the
proofs, internal and external:</p>

<p> "With respect to the canonical <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>ine Epistles, ...
there are none of them by <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>; neither fourteen, nor
thirteen, nor nine or eight, nor yet even the four so long
'universally' regarded as unassailable. They are all, without
distinction, pseudographia [false-writings, forgeries]; -- [it
adds, with a typical clerical striving after saving something
from the wreckage] this, of course, not implying the least
depreciation of their contents. ... The group ... bears
obvious marks of a certain unity -- of having originated in
one circle, at one time, in one environment; but not of unity
of authorship." (EB. iii, 3625, 3626.) They are thus all
uninspired anonymous church forgeries for Christ's sweet sake!</p>

<p> Besides the so-called <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>ine Epistles, another group, i.e.
those attributed to <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, Jude and <ent type='PERSON'>James</ent>, is known as
"<ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> Epistles," so called because addressed to the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> at
large; "not one of them is authentic." (<ent type='ORG'>Reinach</ent>, Orpheus, p. 239;
cf. EB., under the various titles.) A third small group, Titus and
2 <ent type='PERSON'>Tim</ent>othy, are called Pastoral Epistles" because they are addressed
to pastors of churches. These, with Acts and the Book of
Revelation, complete the tale of the Old-<ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> Literature
finally approved, in 1546, by <ent type='ORG'>the Council</ent> of Trent as divinely
inspired, along with the inspired nonsense of <ent type='PERSON'>Tobias</ent>, Judith, <ent type='PERSON'>Bel</ent>
and the Dragon, and like late Hebrew pious forgeries. With respect
to the Apocalypse Revelation, attributed to the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, this
has long been held to be impossible; nor is Revelation by the same
writer as the Fourth Gospel falsely attributed to <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, as we have
seen. The results of ancient patristic denials and of modern
critical scholarship are thus summed up: "<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> ... is not the
author of the Fourth Gospel; so, in like manner, in the Apocalypse
we may have here and there a passage that may be traced to him, but
the book as a whole is not from his pen. Gospel, Epistles, and
Apocalypse all come from the same school." (EB. i, 199.) "The
author of Revelation calls himself <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent>. As he was not
<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> the <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent>, who died perhaps in <ent type='GPE'>Palestine</ent> about 66, he was a
forger." (Orpheus p. 240.) The same can truly be said as to all the
others.</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
191
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> It is impossible here to review the criticism of the twenty-three booklets individually. The comment of EB. on the Epistle to
the <ent type='PERSON'>Philippi</ent>ans, as not written by <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, is, fairly applicable to
them all: "What finally puts an end to all doubt is the presence of
unmistakable traces of the conditions of a later period. ... More
particularly, everything that points to a considerably advanced
stage in the development of doctrine." (EB. iii, 3709.) This
principle of criticism will be admitted by anyone; we have read it
from CE. as "universally admitted" to wit: "A fundamental one is
that a literary work always betrays the imprint of the age and
environment in which it was produced." (CE. iv, 492.) <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> are reputed to have died together in <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent> under <ent type='PERSON'>Nero</ent>, in 64
(67) A.D. We have shown the impossibility of the existence of "New
Testament" writings, and of a "church" during the first several
generations which daily expected the end of the world and the
sudden <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond coming of the Christ to set up the supernatural
<ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent> of God, among, of, and for <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> only. More especially
impassible is it, that a <ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> or "universal" <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> among the
far-scattered cities and nations of the <ent type='GPE'>Gentiles</ent> should have
existed even in embryo within the scant, say 35 years between the
reputed death of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> about 30 A.D. and the deaths of <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> in 64 (67) A.D. Most impossible would it have been for such
<ent type='GPE'>Gentile</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> then to have had the intricate hierarchical
organization of Bishops, presbyters, deacons, priests, and
"damnable heresies," portrayed as actually existing and in active
function, by these apocryphal Epistles. They are self-evidently the
product of an elaborately organized church, -- just as they are
more elaborately laid out and their several jurisdictions and
functions defined in the admittedly forged Apostolic Constitutions
and <ent type='ORG'>Canons</ent>, forged in the names of the apostles in the following
centuries. Nothing from ancient times can be or is more positively
proven false and forged than every book and text of the New
Testament, attributed to apostles. Who can now deny this?</p>

<p> THE "<ent type='ORG'>EPISTLE</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>PETER</ent>" FORGERIES</p>

<p> Owing to the peculiar importance attributed to them by the
<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>, as among the most unquestionable of its "proofs" of
authentic divine foundation and sanction, the so-called Epistles I
and II of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> call for a few words of special refutation. These
two <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> books were, in truth, questioned and denied from the
early days. Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Eusebius</ent>, the first <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Hist</ent>orian, (HE. III,
iii, 25), says of II <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> that it was "controverted and not
admitted into the canon"; and, says EB., "The tardy recognition of
II <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> in the early church supports the judgment of the critical
school as to its un-apostolic origin." (EB. iii, 3684.)</p>

<p> The critical considerations which lead to the rejection of
both Epistles as "not <ent type='ORG'>Petrine</ent>" and "not of the apostolic age," may
be very briefly summarized: That I <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> is addressed to the
"Sojourners of the Dispersion" in <ent type='LOC'>Asia</ent> Minor, which was Paul's
reserved territory. "There is no trace of the questions mooted in
the apostolic age. ... The historical conditions and circumstances
implied in the Epistle indicate, moreover, a time far beyond the
probable duration of Peter's life. ... The history of the spread of
<ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>ity imperatively demands for I <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> a later date than 64
A.D.," the alleged date of Peter's death. The <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond Epistle, II </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
192
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p><ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, is vaguely addressed to <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>s in general (i, 1), yet in
iii, 1, the writer inconsistently assumes that the First Epistle
was addressed to the same readers; and he tells them (i, 6 and iii,
15) that they had already received instructions from him
(ostensibly <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>), and also letters from <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>. "The relation of II
<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> to I <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> renders a common authorship extremely doubtful.
The name and title of the author are different. ... The style of
the two epistles is different. ... It is late and un-apostolic."
(EB. <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, Epistles of, iii, 3678-3685; cf. <ent type='ORG'>New Comm</ent>. Pt. III, pp.
639, 653, 654.) "The genuineness of I <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> cannot be maintained.
Most probably it was not written before 112 A.D." (EB. 2940.) The
two letters of <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> are <ent type='ORG'>Graeco</ent>-<ent type='NORP'>Egyptian</ent> forgeries." (<ent type='ORG'>Reinach</ent>,
Orpheus, p. 240.) The <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> pretense that I <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> was written at
<ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent> ("<ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent>") will be judged in its more appropriate place. In
the early list of supposedly apostolic <ent type='ORG'>Books</ent> drawn up by <ent type='NORP'>Tertullian</ent>
as accepted and read in the several <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>es, while he "cites the
Book of <ent type='PERSON'>Enoch</ent> as inspired, ... also recognizes IV <ent type='PERSON'>Esdras</ent>, and the
<ent type='PERSON'>Sibyl</ent>, ... he does not know <ent type='PERSON'>James</ent> and II <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>. ... He attributes
Hebrews to St. <ent type='PERSON'>Barnabas</ent>." (CE. xiv, 525.) Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Dionysius</ent>
complains that his own writings "had been falsified by the apostles
of the devil; no wonder, he adds, 'that the <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s were
falsified by such persons.'" (CE. v, 10.) The "<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>" <ent type='ORG'>Books</ent> are
other instances.</p>

<p> THE "<ent type='PERSON'>GOD</ent> MANIFEST" FORGERY</p>

<p> In the King <ent type='PERSON'>James</ent> or "Authorized" Version we read: "Great is
the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh," etc. (1
<ent type='PERSON'>Tim</ent>. iii, 16.) In the "Revised Version" this "God manifest" forged
interpolation is shamed out of the text, which there honestly
reads: "He who was manifested in the flesh," etc. Thus the great
"mystery of godliness," premised in the text, is no longer a
mystery; and the fraudulent insertion into the text by some over-zealous <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> forger, seeking to bolster up an "apostolic"
pedigree for the later "tradition" of the divinity of the Christ,
is confessed. This pious "interpolation" was probably made at the
time and by the same holy hands which forged the "<ent type='ORG'>Virgin</ent>-birth"
interpolations into "<ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>" and "<ent type='PERSON'>Luke</ent>." This passage is but one
of a whole series of "Spurious Passages in <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent>,"
catalogued by <ent type='PERSON'>Taylor</ent>, in the appendix to his <ent type='PERSON'>Diegesis</ent>, (p. 421).
This pious fraud was first detected and exposed by Sir Isaac
Newton.</p>

<p> THE "THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES" FORGERY</p>

<p> Bishop Clement of <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>, writing around 200 A.D., thus
quotes a comparatively trivial and innocuous passage from the
forged First Epistle of St. <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> (v, 7), -- which, through
fraudulent tampering later became one of the "chief stones of the
corner" of the Holy <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> that the Fathers built: "<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> says: 'For
there are three that bear witness, the spirit, and the water, and
the blood: and these three are one.'" (Clem. Alex., Fragment from
<ent type='ORG'>Cassiodorus</ent>, ch. iii; <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>. iii, 576.) This is self-evidently the
original text of this now famous, or infamous, passage. Turning now
to the Word of God as found in the "Authorized" Protestant and in
the Chaloner-Douay Version of the <ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Vulgate</ent>, we read with
wonder:</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
193
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> "7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
"8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in
one." (I <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, v, 7, 8.)</p>

<p> Let us now turn to the same text, or what is left of it, in
the Revised Version. Here we read, with more wonder (if we do not
know the story of pious fraud behind it), what seems to be a
garbled text:</p>

<p> "8. For there are three who bear witness, the <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>, and
the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one."</p>

<p> Erasmus first detected the fraud and omitted the forged verse
in his edition of the <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent> Testament in 1516. (<ent type='ORG'>New Comm</ent>. Pt. III,
p. 718-19.) This verse 7, bluntly speaking, is a forgery: "It had
been wilfully and wickedly interpolated, to sustain the <ent type='NORP'>Trinitarian</ent>
doctrine; it has been entirely omitted by the <ent type='PERSON'>Revisers</ent> of the New
Testament." (Roberts, Companion to the Revised Versions p. 72.)
"This memorable text," says <ent type='PERSON'>Gibbon</ent>, "is condemned by the silence of
the Fathers, ancient versions, and authentic manuscripts, of all
the manuscripts now extant, above four score in number, some of
which are more than 1200 years old." (Ch. <ent type='ORG'>xxv</ent>ii, p. 598.) Speaking
of this and another, <ent type='ORG'>Reinach</ent> says: "One of these forgeries (I <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>
v, 7) was subjected to interpolation of a later date. ... If these
two verses were Authentic, they would be an affirmation of the
doctrine of the <ent type='ORG'>Trinity</ent>, at a time when the gospels, and Acts and
St. <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> ignore it. It was first pointed out in 1516 that these
verses were an interpolation, for they do not appear in the best
manuscripts down to the fifteenth century. The <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> refused
to bow to the evidence. ... The Congregation of the Index, on
January 13, 1897, with the approbation of <ent type='PERSON'>Leo XIII</ent>, forbade any
question of the authenticity of the text relating to the 'Three
Heavenly Witnesses.' It showed in this instance a wilful ignorance
to which St. Gregory's rebuke is specially applicable: "God does
not need our lies."' (Orpheus, p. 239.) But His <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> does; for
without them it would not be; and without the forged "Three
Heavenly Witnesses," and the forged "Baptism Formula" of <ent type='PERSON'>Matthew</ent>
(<ent type='ORG'>xxv</ent>iii, 19), there would be not a word in the entire <ent type='ORG'>New Testament</ent>
hinting the existence of the Three-in-One God of <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>ity. The
Holy <ent type='ORG'>Trinity</ent> is an unholy Forgery!</p>

<p> Lest it be thought by some pious but uninformed persons that
the foregoing imputation may be either false or malicious, we shall
let CE. make the confession of shame, with the usual clerical
evasions to "save the face" of Holy <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> confronted with this
proven forgery and fraud. From a lengthy and detailed review, under
separate headings, of all the ancient <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>., <ent type='NORP'>Greek</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Syria</ent>c,
<ent type='GPE'>Ethiopia</ent>, <ent type='NORP'>Armenian</ent>, Old <ent type='NORP'>Latin</ent>, and of the Fathers, the following is
condensed, but in the exact words of the text:</p>

<p> "The famous passage of the Three Witnesses [quoting I
<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>, v, 7]. Throughout the past three hundred years, effort
has been made to expunge from our Clementine <ent type='PERSON'>Vulgate</ent> edition
of the canonical <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>s the words that are bracketed. Let
us examine the facts of the case. [Here follows the thorough </p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
194
.
FORGERY IN <ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIANITY</ent></p>

<p> review of the <ent type='ORG'>MSS</ent>, closed in each instance by such words as:
"The disputed part is found in none"; "no trace"; "no
knowledge until the twelfth century," etc. etc.] The silence
of the great and voluminous St. <ent type='PERSON'>Augustine</ent>, [etc.] are admitted
facts that militate against the canonicity of the Three
Witnesses. St. <ent type='PERSON'>Jerome</ent> does not seem to know the text, --
[<ent type='PERSON'>Jerome</ent> made the <ent type='PERSON'>Vulgate</ent> Official Version].</p>

<p> "Trent's is the first certain ecumenical decree, whereby
the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> established the Canon of <ent type='PERSON'>Scripture</ent>. We cannot say
that the Decree of Trent necessarily included the Three
Witnesses" -- [for reasons elaborately stated, and upon two
conditions discussed, saying): "Neither condition has yet been
verified with certainty; quite the contrary, textual criticism
seems to indicate that the Comma Johanninum was not at all
times and everywhere wont to be read in the <ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>,
and it is not contained in the Old <ent type='NORP'>Latin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Vulgate</ent>. However, the
<ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> theologian must take into account more than textual
criticism"! (CE. viii, 436.)</p>

<p> A confessed forgery of Holy Writ consciously kept in the
"canonical" text as a fraudulent voucher for a false <ent type='ORG'>Trinity</ent> --
such is "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" -- to the shame and ignominy
of the Holy <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> of Christ, which "has never deceived any one,"
and which "has never made an error, and never shall err to all
eternity"! This is not an error, however; it is but one more
deliberate clerical "lie to the glory of God."</p>

<div> **** ****</div>

<p> Abbreviations for most often used sources:</p>

<p> The libraries of <ent type='ORG'>the Union Theological Seminary</ent> and of
<ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent> University, in <ent type='GPE'>New York City</ent>, were the places of the finds
here recorded. Cited so often, space will be saved for more
valuable uses by citing by their initials, -- which will become
very familiar -- my chief ecclesiastical authorities, towit:</p>

<p> The Ante-Nicene Fathers, cited as <ent type='ORG'>ANF</ent>.; A Collection of the
extant Writings of all the Founders of <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>ity down to the
<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> of Nicaea, or Nice, in 325 A.D. <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Reprint, eight
volumes. The <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> Literature Publishing Co., <ent type='GPE'>Buffalo</ent>, N.Y.,
1885. [xxx]</p>

<p> The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&amp;PNF.; First and
Second Series; many volumes; same publishers.</p>

<p> The <ent type='NORP'>Catholic</ent> Encyclopedia, cited as CE.; fifteen volumes and
index, published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop <ent type='PERSON'>Farley</ent>; New
York, <ent type='ORG'>Robert Appleton</ent> Co., 1907-9.</p>

<p> The Encyclopedia Biblica, cited as EB., four volumes; <ent type='PERSON'>Adam</ent> &amp;
Charles Black, London, 1899; <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Reprint, The Macmillan Co.,
<ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>, 1914.</p>

<div> **** ****</div>

<p> Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.</p>

<p> Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, <ent type='GPE'>Louisville</ent>, KY 40201
195
</p></xml>