UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. TMK SLOSS COLLECTION OF THE SEMITIC UBKAKY OK THE UNIVERSITY OKvCAUKOKMA. Accession GII-T 01 LOUIS SLOSS. FEBRUARY. 1897. Class No. Origin of Christianity AND A COMMENTARY TO THE ACTS Q;CHE APOSTLES, ' -22 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, BY ISAAC M. WISE, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. THIS VOLUME is RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED TO THE FREE RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION, jSy the Author. Truth is the Redeemer of Mankind. The Apostles of Truth and Char- ity are the Angels of the Most High, and the High Priests of Humanity. P RE F ACE. " TRUTH only, in the name of God," this is the object of this volume. With the ut- most respect for religion itself and for the Bible, with due reverence for Christianity, the important factor in the history of civil- ization, and with a profound regard for the religious feelings of all good men, the fol- lowing pages were written to contribute to the religious literature of our age the re- sults of twenty years of individual re- search. The four Gospels, the origin of which is discussed in this volume, can not be taken as the main sources for the origin of Chris- tianity. They represent it in the second and third stages of its development. The authors were Christians before they wrote their books ; hence Christianity preceded them. In the form as these Gospels are now before us, they prove that their re- spective authors were fully acquainted with the dissentions among the Jewish Christians on the one side and the Gentile Christians on the other. They contain polemics of those parties, and conciliatory attempts ; consequently they are secondary sources for our purpose. Besides, it is next to an impossibility to ascertain from them PIIEFACE. V the religion taught by Jesus of Nazareth himself. The Jesus represented in John's Gospel is radically different in character, actions, speeches and pretensions from the Jesus of the Synoptics; while with these, Luke again differs widely in essential points from his two predecessors who are themselves by no means a unity on the narrative, or the speeches and parables. A careful investigation into the Gospels proves that not only no part of the narra- tive can be fully relied upon as being his- torically certain, but also no speech, parable or sentence supposed to have been uttered by Jesus himself will stand the test of historical criticism. What Jesus himself did, suffered, opposed or tauaht, hence what influence he exercised upon the origin of Christianity, or what religious principles he laid clown for his disciples, is next to an impossibility to ascertain. Every bio- graphy of Jesus, every life of Christ must necessarily be considered an individual conception footing upon uncertainties ; and the expression the religion of Christ is simply a misnomer. The epistles are the oldest Christian liter- ature and the most unquestionable sources for the origin of Christianity. They were known to the Gospel writers, and were used by them. We learn from the epistles what the apostles taught. It is from the teach- ings of the apostles that one mi!> CHAPTER V. On the Miracles,.... 84 CHAPTER VI. The Persecution of the Apostles, 133 CHAPTER VII. The Aposiles'' Creed, 170 CHAPTER VIII. CHAPTER IX. Paul-Acher, 311 CHAPTER X. The Creed of Paid, 351 CHAPTER XI. The Conversion of the Gentiles, 425 CHAPTER XII. The Voyages of -Paul. 417 CHAPTER XIII. Capture, Trial and Deportation of PauZ,.476 CHAPTER XIV. Thelast Days of Paul 511 OIF CHRISTIANITY. INTBODUCTION. The book next to the fourth Gospel in the Christian canon is called, " The Acts of the Apostles," or also, "The Acts." It begins with a brief sketch of the resurrec- tion, post mortem communications for forty days with the disciples, and the ascension of Jesus, contradictory not only to the ac- counts of the same events by Paul, John, Mark and Matthew, but also to Luke's ac- count, notwithstanding the undisputed fact, that the Luke oi the third Gospel was also the author ot " The Acts." The entire book, after those introductory remarks, is devoted to the transactions of the apostles and the fate of the first con- gregations, after the demise of Jesus. Its author, as remarked already, is identical with him who wrote the third Gospel. The introductory verse points expressly to that Gospel as " the former treatise " of the author, in which the same Theophilus is addressed. The character and style of both works, favorite phrases and crystalized prejudices for Romans and Samaritans, the 2 10 ORIGIN OF want of knowledge of the Hebrew, the laws and customs of the Jews, and of the geography of Palestine common to both books, proves their origin from one author a fact, which the church early admitted. (Antiq.Ital.iii, 854). The authors of the Gospels being un- known, the author of Acts can not be pointed out with any degree of certainty. The author of the third Gospel, in the in- troduction, states that many before him had undertaken to write down the Chris- tian story. This entitles us to the hypothe- sis that the Gospels according to Matthew and Mark, and probably also apocryphal works of this nature, were written previ- ously to Luke's, who knew them, quoted from them, changed and added, both stories and words. In "The Acts," however, he refers to no predecessors in this task, and leads us to believe he was the first writer on this topic. This leads us to the inquiry, from what sources did the author of " The Acts" take the stories which he narrates ? It is certain that the author had two dif- ferent sources before him. In the history of Paul, which occupies the largest portion of the book, the author uses the pronoun " we," (chapters 16, 20, 21, 27, 28) so that the narrator suddenly includes himself in the narrative, which is not the ease in any other portion of the book. The character of these two sources is entirely different, not only in style, but in the very object of the stories. The one i full of tendency, CHRISTIANITY. 11 miracles and long speeches, and the other, on the contrary, is simple, natural and clear; he narrates what occurs to Paul, whose companion he pretends to be. The author of the " We " portion of " The Acts " can not be identified with the author of the other portions ; because he presents himself as the companion of Paul, hence one acquainted with the transactions and the life of that apostle. He could not have reported Paul's conversion in three different and contradictory manners; nor could he place words and speeches in the mouth of Paul which, 'as we shall fully ascertain hereafter, he could not possibly have spoken ; nor is it likely that he could be so ignorant of Hebrew, if a disciple of Paul, as the writer of " The Acts " actually was. Besides, it is not well possible that the author of Acts was a cotemporary of Paul at all. Criticism ascertained beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Gospels accord- ing to Matthew and Mark were written after the Epistles of Paul, against which they contain various polemics. The very fact of the polemical nature of these Gos- pels shows that they originated years after Paul preached, after his views and doc- trines had gained so much of a reputation, that polemics became necessary in the opinion of those writers. The Gospel ac- cording to Luke was composed long after the above, as we have seen before, at a time when the Paulites considered it necessary to vindicate their system of Christianity 12 ORIGIN OP against the Jew-Christians. This was cer- tainly long after the death of Paul and his cotemporaries. "The Acts" having been written by the same author, years after he had written his Gospel, with the avowed tendency of conciliation between Jew- Christians and Gentile-Christians, it could not possibly have been composed by a co- temporary or disciple of Paul. The author of the "We" portion of "The Acts" appears to have been a com- panion or disciple of Paul. The final au- thor of "The Acts" re-produced literally portions of those traveling notes, omitted much, changed passages to suit his pur- poses, and inserted his own productions taken from tradition and invention. Where he quoted literally from that diary heretained the "We;" elsewhere hechanged it. The simple accounts from that diary were too simple and plain for the author's conception; he embellished them to suit his fancy and the traditional stories of the congregation. The history of the congre- gation of Jerusalem together with Peter and the other apostles, which he narrates in the first part of his book, being full of miracles and extraordinary events ; the life of Paul grouped at the side of the for- mer could not possibly be left so soberly human, as the notes of his companion repre- sented it, and HO changes and additions were necessary. It is not well possible to point with cer- tainty to any particular companion of Paul, CHRISTIANITY. 13 as being the author of those notes. The expounders are of different opinions and point respectively to Titus, Timotheus, Silas and Luke, all named as companions of Paul. Timotheus, it appears, was a special favorite of Paul. He calls him (I Corin. iv, 17) " the beloved and faithful child in the Lord," who would call to their minds " the way in Christ," as he every- where "in each congregation teacheth." This Timotheus (Acts xvi, 1) was the son of a Greek father and a Hebrew mother. It appears, however, from the sum of the tes- timony, that Luke, or Lucanus, was the author of those notes. The second author, namely, the one who wrote the third Gos- pel and "The Acts," therefore, adopted this name. As the other Gospels were written according to Matthew, Mark or John, so he wrote his according to Luke, i. e. according to traditions and dogmas of congregations established by Luke, the disciple of Paul. He calls that material, " those things which are most surely be- lieved among us." "The Acts" is a very deficient book. Peter and Paul are not only the principal heroes of the narrative; they are the only apostles of whom that author has anything to communicate. The other apostles are either not mentioned at all, or they occupy the places of side figures, entirely in the back ground of the picture. No mention is made of the demise of any of the disciples, ex- cept Stephen. The book closes abruptly, 14 ORIGIN OF leaving Paul in his hired house in Rome, so that it appears the closing chapters of the book were lost. Its dates are confused, its quotations from the Bible full of errors, and taken almost exclusively from the Samaritan version. The object of " The Acts " is not simply to give an account of the apostles, their lives and transactions, and the fate of the first congregations, as he ascertained it in traditional or written sources ; the author had a particular object in view. Among all the movements parallel to or imitative of Christianity as Peter and his co-laborers preached it, one was most successful among the Gentiles ; it was the work of the zeal- ous, fanatical, inflexible and powerful Paul, Saul of Tarbis, who preached a Gos- pel of his own, one vrhich he received not of the apostles ; one which was entirely in opposition to their teachings. It was a new theology, and he was the only theo- logian among the apostles with the bold innovation that the laws of Moses, both ritual, ceremonial and political were abro- gated by Jesus. He held only one point in common with the apostles, viz : that Jesus was. the Messiah, who died for the sins of all, and rose from the dead to demonstrate his divine mission and nature. The apostles themselves maintained that Jesus only protested against the rabbinical laws and the traditions of the Pharisees, and had not come to abrogate an iota or a tittle of >the Laws of Moses. Therefore they ob- CHRISTIANITY. 15 served Sabbath and holidays, circumcision and sacrifice, temple worship and Levitical purity in common with all orthodox Jews. They considered the political laws of Moses as binding upon the Israelite and as divine in their origin^ as the religious portion of the divine dispensation. Paul, in one bold stroke, abrogated everything in the name of the master, which was in the way of the new system of religion, to be promulgated among the Gentiles, ready then for a change of religion. These two different schools are known in the early history of Chris- tianity as Jewish and Gentile Christianity; Petex was the representative man of the former system, and Paul the founder of the latter. Our inquiry into "The Acts" will show that this difference was important and ex- citing; that it gave birth to a sharp con- flict between Jew-Christians and Gentile- Christians ; and that this controversy con- tinued after the death of the apostles into the second century, till finally the Jew- Ghristians were ex communicated, and Gen- tile Christianity maintained the whole field. These two diverging systems, in the be- ginning, considerably agitated the Chris- tian congregation. Its Internal develop- ment was by no means as peaceable, as was always supposed. Besides the glorification of the apostles, the author of "The Acts " had also in view the settlement of this vexatious question. 16 ' ORIGIN OF In favor of his attempt, he substituted a similarity of views and notions to Peter and Paul, far beyond the lacts of their respec- tive histories. He would sometimes let Peter act in a manner as Paul only could have done and vice versa. He let them re- ciprocally approve of doctrines and actions which actually must have been censured. In this manner the author effects his pur- pose; the opposite views gradually give way to an amalgamation of both. Tho main points of these differences are preserved in the Epistles. They afford proper means to ascertain the differences of opinion. They supply us with parallel passages to control the statements of the author of "The Acts." Besides, there are other sources whicn serve the same purpose in many instances. Josephus, the rabbi- nical scriptures, and the classics throw con- siderable light on some passages of the book. CHAPTER I. THK NASCENT CHURCH AT JERUSALEM. The author of "The Acts" opens his nar- rative with a new version of the resurrec- tion and ascension of Jesus. In the Gospels these events follow almost simultaneously ; in "The Acts" Jesus appears "through fortvdays" to his disciples, to give them extensive instructions "in the kingdom of heaven." Everything connected with those CHRISTIANITY. 17 events, persons, speeches, locality and phe- nomena, are changed, and differ also from the first account of the same author, Luke. However this strange method may be ex- plained; to the critical reader it can only suggest the premise that the stories of the resurrection and ascension were not con- sidered, by the authors themselves, a de- scription of matters of fact. They consid- ered them legends and treated them accord- ingly. Every writer produced them agree- ably to the traditions of the congregation in which he lived, and suitable to the dog- mas which he advocated. In regard to the book before us the sug- gestion is precisely the same. We can not expect authentic and accurate history. It is a book which employs a number of his- torical facts in vindication of certain dog- ma* based upon alleged miracles, the alle- gations and dogmas being the main object. The Gospels contain contradictory ac- counts concerning the locality of the apos- tles after the death of their master. Mat- thew leads them to Galilee, where the ascension takes place, and John brings them as far -west as Lake Tiberias, while the others let them remain in Jerusalem altogether; each, however, chronicles the express command of Jesus for his favorite locality, so that all harmonizing efforts are in vain. Luke, both in his Gospel and "The Acts," maintains that the disciples and apostles remained in Jerusalem. Jesus there and then, at Bethany, to which place 18 ORIGIN OF he had led them, appeared to them in his body, and there ascended to heaven. " Then returned they unto Jerusalem," our author says, " from the Mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath-day's journey." Then they began their congre- gational devotions "in an upper room," with the women, the mother and the broth- ers of Jesus. This author flatly denies that the disciples went to Galilee after the death of Jesus, whatever Matthew or John may maintain to the contrary. The fact is, that neither of them vras certain on this point, nor did they intend to state a fact. They chronicled legendary traditions as such, as they had received them. The author of " The Acts," however, had a particular reason to have the apostles and disciples remain in Jerusalem. The three Evangelists only intend to glorify Jesus and not the apostles ; therefore the men, terrified by the tragical fate of their master, naturally left the city, and the ap- paritions of Jesus must have taken place at the homes of the disciples, in Galilee. This consternation and flight, however, would have betrayed doubt hi the Messia- ship of Jesus, and cowardice on the part of his disciples. Luke, whose task it was also to glorify the apostles, could not admit that. Therefore he mentions the valorous conduct of the disciples, when the multi- tude came to arrest Jesus (Luke xxii, 49). "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" the disciples ask specially with Luke, while CHRISTIANITY. 19 his predecessors, Matthew and Mark, know nothing about this question. Therefore the apostles, who must not conduct themselves cowardly, must not doubt for a moment the Messiahship of Jesus, could not well leave Jerusalem ; and so our author re- tains them there contrary to the united testimony of his predecessors, because it appeared so best to him. The number of disciples, we are told, was about 120 (Acts i, 15). This number is no less uncertain than the place. All the numbers almost are imitations of some Scriptural event. The twelve apostles were to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. The seventy disciples mentioned in the Gospel represent the seventy elders, or the Sanhedrin of Israel. But this body having originally, in the days of Ezra, consisted of one hundred and twenty persons, who were called the great synod, and constructed the second commonwealth with all its re- ligious and civil institutions; it is quite natural that, in the estimation of Luke, the first great synod of the Church must also have consisted of one hundred and twenty persons. As a decisive testimony, however, that Luke had not the intention to chronicle facts, we only need quote what he puts in the mouth of Peter concerning Judas, the traitor (Acts i, 18, 19, 20). Luke informs us that Peter "in those days," addressing the disciples on a certain topic said, concern- ing Judas, "Now this man purchased a 20 ORIGIN OF field with the reward of iniquity ; and fall- ing headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers in Jer- usalem ; inasmuch as that field is called in their proper tongue Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein : and his bishoprick let another take." In the first place, Peter here contradicts Matthew, who states expressly that the end of Judas was so: "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself." The priests, Matthew continues, bought a field with this money (Matthew xxvii, 5). Had Luke supposed that Matthew, whose state- ment he must have seen, intended to state a fact, he could not have thus flatly contra- dicted him. In this, and all similar cases, we are forced to admit either one of the narrators stated a falsehood, or each told the legend as such, in a manner best suit- ing his purpose. In the second place, Peter could not pos- sibly say to his cotemporaries, " And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusa- lem ;" nor could he say that the field was called "In their proper tongue, Aceldama," which he must translate for them " the field of blood," if he addressed the eye- witnesses of that event in the very city of Jerusalem whose language was familiar to them. Therefore, we must suppose, Luke CHRISTIANITY. 21 added those two verses (19 and 20) in expla- nation of the alleged statement of Peter. But here again he betrays his intention not to write history, for he shows us the origi- nal sources from which the story sprung, namely, the name of a place near Jerusa- lem, where deceased strangers were buried, Aceldama ; and the passages from Psalms, which were understood to have been spoken against the enemies of David. Had Luke intended to state a fact, he could not call to his aid two points whi^h render the fact itself suspicious. He narrates a legend as he had heard it, and informs us honestly, on what basis it rests. The address of Peter to the disciples, to which we alluded, concerns the appoint- ment of an apostle in the place of Judas the traitor, to fill up the number twelve. On his suggestion two were appointed, Barsabas and Matthew. After prayer, " they gave forth their lots," and Matthew was elected. The prayer which Luke re- cords on this occasion can not be authentic; it is certainly his own composition. The words in verse 25, "That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship," like the word " bishoprick " in verse 20, cannot be supposed to have been uttered at so early a stage of the apostolic history, before the existence of any episcopacy. They point distinctly to a time when the Church had already an episcopalian organization with ministers or deacons, apostles and bishop- ricks or episcopacies. It is interesting to 22 ORIGIN OP know that Luke took the liberty to add not only explanatory notes, but also a prayer of his own, and put it in the mouths of the eleven apostles. Of course, this is not history. Matthew, the apostle elected, like many others, is mentioned no more. But we meet again with the rejected Barsabas (Acts xv, 22), who was one of the " chief men among the brethren." In conclusion of this chapter we must call attention to a mistake of Adam Clarke. In his commentary to Acts i, 16, he re- marks : " The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David. This is a strong attestation to the divine inspiration of the book of Psalms. They were dictated by the Holy Spirit ; and spoken by the mouth of David." If Mr. Clarke had paid more attention to the Gos- pels and the Acts, he would have found that the writers quoting from Moses or the prophets, mention no Holy Ghost. They do this only when quoting from Psalms or other books ol the Hiography, agreeable to an ancient rule tsmpn nn3 no&U D'2irO " The Hiography (to which also the Psalms belong) were said in a holy spirit," i. e., they are no prophecies. This " holy spirit" which was a quality of the poet, was turned into a "Holy Ghost," a divine being out- side of the poet. Anyhow the authors of the Gospels and Acts started from that ancient rule of the Hebrews which places the Hiography, hence also the Psalms, below the prophets in point of divinity. CHRISTIANITY. 23 The expression of Peter says exactly the contrary to what Mr. Clarke understood it. CHAPTER H. THE HOLY GHOST. Previous to public preaching by the apos- tles, and after the first church had been organized at Jerusalem, Luke, in the sec- ond chapter of " The Acts," tells us of two miracles which happened to the apostles : They received the Holy Ghost and spoke in foreign tongues. The age of miracles was long gone by. The last miracle nar- rated in the Old Testament was the protec- tion of Daniel in the lion's den, which hap- pened at least five hundred years before the Christian miracles. The great pro- phets, whose words are preached in all churches, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and eleven of the twelve minor prophets, never experienced or wrought a miracle. The kings of Israel, from Saul, David and Solo- mon down to the last of the Davidians, wrought no miracles, and saw but one or two. So that the age of miracles was well passed, and the Maccabees themselves, with their intense piety and patriotism, expected no miracles, and wrought none, in aid of their cause. Outside of the Christian ac- counts, we read of no miracle wrought any- where in the world five hundred years before and after that time. Therefore it is certainly strange that just at that time and that point all the laws of nature should 24 ORIGIN OF have been suspended, and the Almighty arbitrarily wrought miracles on some illit- erate fishermen, tent makers, and other tradesmen of very limited knowledge; when the very idea of arbitrariness and. lawlessness is incompatible to supreme reason. Again, the age of miracles must be one of childlike simplicity, when the force of argument and testimony is inefficient to produce conviction, and intelligence stands upon so low a scale that occular demon- stration suffices to impress it with abstract truths. The age of the apostles, however, was one of high culture, of wonderful genius even, in Rome, Greece, Egypt and Syria. It was neither necessary nor profi- table then to work miracles. Furthermore, if indeed such miracles had been wrought as recorded in the New Testament, how could it happen that the Jews of Palestine were not converted after all; the few who were converted, the Ebio- nites and Nazarenes, were afterwards ex- communicated as heretics; and how could it come to pass that the Roman writers, and Rome was then the mistress of Syria, knew nothing of it? Therefore the miracles of the New Testa- ment cannot be received as facts. They can only serve as a testimony that the books in their present form were written in the age- when learning und philosophy had been reduced almost to zero, as this was the case in the third century, and peo- CHRISTIANITY. 25 pie were satisfied again with the marvelous and extraordinary without appeal to reason. Although the Gospels and "The Acts " were written at a much earlier date than the third century, still they must have undergone several change* in that century, before the construction of the Christian canon by the council of Nice. Before we can proceed with the main nar- rative, we must make some remarks on the " Holy Ghost." The Old Testament makes frequent mention of the "spirit," or the " spirit of God," or also "an impure spirit." God bestows this spirit on man, especially on the prophet ; but it was also given to the seventy elders under Moses, to Eldad and Medad, to heroes on the field of battle, to inventive artists and artizans, and Saul was infatuated by an impure spirit. The holy spirit as well as the impure one is subjective. By a divine influence this dor- mant capacity in the human mind is roused to activity, and it is either a nKUj Till Ru- ach Nebuahj " a spirit of prophecy," the power of predicting future events in evi- dence of the prophet's divine mission ; or it is unipn nn Ruach Hakodesh, a " holy spirit " without the gift of prophecy, to inspire one to lofty deeds or sublime works of art. The former is a higher degree than the latter. So, for instance, Isaiah is of the former and David of the latter class. The "Holy Ghost" of the New Testa- ment is not a translation of the Ruach Hakodesh; it is the translation of Ruach 1 3 26 ORIGIN OF Hakadosh. Kodesh is the adjective *' holy" for persons or things ; while Kadosh is the adjective " holy " for God or the people of Israel as a totality. In the Old Testament the holy spirit is subjective, a quality of man roused by divine influence ; therefore it is a Roach Hakodesh. In the New Testa- ment the " Holy Ghost " is God's altogether; it is objective. He comes down upon Jesus having been baptized by John ; and it is fre- quently remarked that, during his public career, the Holy Ghost wrought in him. The disciples, as long as the master lived, ihad no Holy Ghost; but they received it after .his death, as Luke tells us. This is theview common to the Evangelists. John states expressly (vii, 39), " For the Holy Ghost was not yet given ; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." Jesus, how- ever, on his last evening, promised his dis- ciples (ibid, xvi, 16), " And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever ; even the spirit of truth, whom the world can not receive." So far John, who wrote later than Luke, agreed with his pre- decessor ; but now he chooses his own way to impart the Holy Ghost to the disciples. The resurrected Jesus, before leaving his disciples (ibid, xx, 22), ".He breathed on them, and said unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost." Here John contradicts the narrative of Luke, which we shall narrate after this. The other Gospels observe silence on this topic. Luke lets the resur- CHRISTIANITY. 27 rected Jesus bid the disciples: "I send the promise of my Father upon you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endowed with power from on high." In the Acts the same author lets Jesus say, " Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not long after these days." Then he nar- rates in the second chapter, how the Holy Ghost came down upon the disciples. The two oldest Gospels, Matthew and Mark, do not admit that the disciples or apostles were promised or given the Holy Ghost by Jesus. Matthew's account, (xxviii, 10), contains a simple charge of Jesus to his followers, to baptize and teach. Mark adds to this the promise that all be- lievers (and they only) should be saved and work miracles (xvi, 15). But 110 prom- ise of the Holy Ghost is made by either. Therefore we know the following points : 1. The " Holy Ghost " of the New Testa- ment is entirely different from the " holy spirit" of the Old Testament; the former is objective and the latter subjective. 2. Matthew and Mark did not know, that the Holy Ghost was given to the apos- tles, and had them fully ordained for their apostolic mission before the ascension of Jesus; and John, who must have known the narrative of Luke, admits that the apostles received the Holy Ghost, but de- nies the Pentecost miracle of Luke, and has the Holy Ghost given to the apostles by Jesus himself previous to his ascension. We are now prepared to examine into 28 ORIGIN OF the Pentecost miracle. The author of " The Acts " narrates it thus : " And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were "all with one accord in one place. " And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house whero they were sit- ting. " And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Here the Holy Ghost comes down in a hurricane, with John he eomes in a gentle breath ; still both ideas are taken from one passage in I Kings xix, 11 and 12, where it is narrated, that a voice from on high was to speak to the prophet Elijah. " And, be- hold, the Lord passed by, and a wind, great and strong, rending the mountains, and breaking in pieces the rocks, went before the Lord ; but not in the wind was the Lord ; and after the earthquake was a fire; but not in the fire wa^the Lord ; and after the fire was a sound of soft whisper." In this sound of soft whisper, Elijah per- ceived the voice of the Lord. Luke took from this passage literally the rushing mighty wind and the fire. The coming down of God and imparting the oracle to Elijah was merely changed by Luke into " And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." " The tongues like as of fire," is no original simile with Luke ; he unskillfully changed the metaphor of CHRISTIANITY. .29 Isaiah (v, 24) "a tongue of fire." John most likely perceiving how Luke destroyed the poetical beauty of the/passage in Kings, rejected the whole story, and took only the conclusion of the .passage, "the sound of a soft whisper," and lets Jesus "breathe" the Holy Ghost on the apostles. The question is now, why did Luke write this passage, and why did he take the wind and fire and not rather the sound of a soft whisper as the demonstration of the Holy Ghost, as John and the author of Kings did? The twenty-fifth day of December was adopted by the Church as the birth-day of Jesus. This was an accommodation to a pagan festival. The Saturnalia, with all their licentiousness and debauchery, were celebrated on the 25th day of December among the Greco-Roman pagans. Early Christians, with the best of intention, most likely, changed the cause and character of the day. It became the birth-day of Jesus, for which not the least historical data ex- ist. Precisely the same is the case with the day of his death. At a very early stage of the Christian history it was already uncer- tain when Jesus was crucified. According to the Synoptics, this event must have taken place on the first day of the Pass- over feast ; because Jesus ate of the paschal lamb the night before his death. This sacrificial meal was partaken of accord- ing to the law the evening preceding and opening the feast. But this is impossible, 30 ORIGIN OF because in the first place the Jews did no public business on that day, had no court sessions, no trials, and certainly no execu- tion on any Sabbath or feast-day ; and in the second place, the first day of the Pass- over never was on a Friday, and never can be, according to established principles of the Jewish calendar. John, in consideration of these and several other objections, omits the paschal meal and the " Lord's supper " altogether, and adopts the day before the feast as the day of crucifixion. If it had been certain at all when Jesus was cruci- fied, John could not set aside the state- ments of the Synoptics and adopt another day. The Synoptics adopted the first day of Passover because they taught the dogma that Jesus died to redeem all sinners. The fact, concerning the day, was shaped to suit the dogma. Israel was redeemed from, the Egyptian bondage on the da^ celebra- ted ever after that event as the feast of the Passover ; therefore the death of Jesus, the second redemption, must have taken place on the self-same day. The Pentecost, the sixth day of the third month, was known to the Jews as the day when the revelation of the decalogue on Mount Sinai took place, and it is considered so to this day. In the phraseology of the primitive Christians, the revelation on Mount Sinai was " the pouring out of the Holy Ghost." As Jesus died on Passover, to effect the second redemption precisely CHRISTIANITY. 31 on the same day when the first took place, so also the second revelation, the pouring out of the Holy Ghost had to come, and on the precise day when the first occurred, the Pentecost. The Jew -Christians selected these days without reference to fact ; there- fore John paid no regard to either, and states that Jesus himself, before Pentecost, breathed the Holy Ghost on the disciples. The author of " The Acts " tells us, that Peter, in an address to the multitude, stated the reason why the " Holy Ghost " was poured out on the disciples. " But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, " And it carne to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh : and your sons and your daugh- ters shall prophesy r and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams-: " And on my servants, and on my hand- maidens, I will pour out in those days of rny Spirit; and they shall prophesy: ''And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke. " The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come. " And it shall come to pass, that whoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved." The author did not quote right the words of Joel. Joel speaks not of " the last days;" he says p nrux "after this," viz: after the happy times which he in the previous pass- age prophesied to his people. He says not 32 OBIGIN OF "God will pour out OF his spirit on all flesh;" he says, ^nn rK "my spirit," without any limitation. The prophet says not " on MY servants and on MY hand-maid- ens I will pour out OF my spirit;" he says plainly, " And also on the servants and on the hand-maidens, in those days, I will pour out my spirit," to which Luke adds, " and they shall prophesy." He stops in the midst of the verse because the prophet concludes thus : " For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and among the rem- nant whom the Lord calleth." It appears that the author of " The Acts" felt that the passage quoted from Joel did not suit his case, and he made the arbitrary changes in the Scriptural text as we have noted. But even then it will not do, for the prophet says, God would pour out his spirit " upon all flesh "; he predicts " your sons and your daughters shall prophesy," &c.; and Luke claims that the Holy Ghost was poured only on some persons, and not "on all flesh." Joel predicts that event after he had said: "And ye shall know that I am among Israel, and I am God, your Lord, and none beside ; and my peo- ple shall never again be put to shame." After this time, so the prophet continues, God will pour out his spirit on all flesh, &c. This was not the case in the days of the ape sties; for a few years later Israel suffered the worst shame, the most painful humiliation which can be inflicted on a CHRISTIANITY. 33 people: its capital and its sanctuary were destroyed by Titus, its armies slain, its land laid waste, and the people dragged into exile. Luke or Peter could not possibly have read that passage in Joel without perceiv- ing instantly that it had not the least ref- erence to their case. The mistranslations, additions and omissions, are not accidental; they are intentional. This is most strik- ingly betrayed in the passage, "And on MY servants and on MY hand-maidens I will pour out in those days OF my spirit, AND THEY SHALL PROPHESY," when the prophet said none of the capitalized words. Luke added the " my " to suit the primi- tive Christian congregations, for whom he claimed the power of prophesy, of which the prophet said nothing. If Luke had in- tended to narrate a fact, which he believed, he could not have resorted to the illigiti- inate means of changing a Scriptural pass- age to suit his case, when he must have known that, by this very method, he rouses the suspicion of the reader. Again, if Luke had been certain that the Holy Ghost came down upon the disciples, it was unnecessary to bring in Peter as a witness and put speeches in his mouth which he could never have made. If it sounds strange that the first words which Peter spoke, after he had received the Holy Ghost, were a falsification of Scriptures; and if it sounds stranger still that Peter with the Holy Ghost, did not know what 34 the prophet Joel said (aiid the quotation from Joel occurs in Peter's speech), it is beyond all reasonable probability that, in that scene of tumultuous agitation, amaze- ment and ecstacy,as Luke describes it, one was cool and composed enough to write down what Peter said, or that he himself could afterwards even write down what he had said in a state of nameless trance. The scene is depicted in " The Acts " thus : A miracle is wrought, the Holy Ghost comes down in a rushing mighty wind which fills the house, and cloven tongues " like as of fire," sat upon each of the dis- ciples. It affects them so powerfully that they speak with other tongues, in a state of such fiery excitement and feverish ecstaey, that some of the spectators said, " these men are full of new wine." The noise of the miracle and of the voices is so strong that it attracts a multitude of people so great that " about three thousand " of them were baptized. Under this amazement, noise, confusion, excitement and excogi- tation, so much everybody knows of hu- man nature, nobody could have written- down what Peter said, nor could he have done it in an hour of sober thought. Besides all this, Peter is supposed, in the same speech, to have misquoted from a Psalm of David. He quotes from the six- teenth Psalm with the following mistakes : Verse 25, he makes of TDH HJ3 1 ? HIIT 'JVW "I foresaw the Lord always before my face," which he expounds in the next follow- CHRISTIANITY. 35 ing verses that David spoke " of the resur- rection of Christ." Anybody having any knowledge of the Hebrew, which Peter could not help having, knows that Shivveh signifies not " to foresee; " it signifies " to make level, to put, to set." (See Gesenius.) King James' translators of the Old Testa- ment knew this and in Psalm xvi, 8, which is the quoted passage, translated " I have set the Lord always before me." This translation, which is the 1 correct one, does away altogether with Peter's asser- tion connected therewith, that David "fore- saw" the resurrection of Jesus. David set the Lord before his eyes, i. e., he looked up to God with fearless confidence, and there- fore he did not fear death or corruption. It is not well possible that Peter, in the presence of so many Jews, should have interpreted the word Jehovah to signify " Christ," as the author of "The Acts " re- ports him to have done in this speech ; because this mnst certainly hafe appeared blasphemy in the eyes of his audience, who would nois allow even to pronounce the ineffable name of the Most High, much less to apply it to any being, living or dead. Any attentive reader of the New Testa- ment and the history of primitive Christi- anity knows, that neither Peter nor the Jew Christians ever thought of associating Jesus with Jehovah. Jesus was to thm plainly the Messiah, a human being of a higher order, who had come to redeem Israel and restore the throne of David. 36 ORIGIN OF Therefore Peter could not have spoken the words which Luke puts in his mouth. Having commenced with a misrepresen- tation of the sixteenth Psalm, the author of " The Acts" continues in the same strain, and says (verses 27 and 28), " Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (Sheol), neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known unto me the ways of life ; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance." The correct translation of these two verses (Psalm xvi, 10, 11) is thus : "For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol ; Thou wilt not suffer thy pious ones to see corruption. Thou wilt make known to me the path of life, The fulness of joy (which is) in thy pres- ence, The pleasantness (which is) at thy right hand forever." The author of "The Acts" changed tfS into " neither " because he must have another subject in the second member of the verse. He changed yrm into " thy Holy One," when the word is in the plural num- ber and has not the least relation to the word "holy; " it admits no other trans- lation beside " thy pious ones." And he does all this with the avowed intention to misguide the reader to believe that David prophesied the resurrection of Jesus, when the Psalmist actually speaks of the immortality of all pious ones, as the cause CHRISTIANITY. 37 why he feared not death and corruption. The author then changes "Jjnin the plain future tense into " Thou hast made known to me," and adds to. the second member of the verse "Thou shalt make me" (full of joy), so that there can not be the least mis- take, that he knowingly and wilfully changed this Psalm to apply to the resur- rection of Jesus, when it says nothing be- sides the doctrine of immortality, which David says was his consolation. Again, Peter is supposed to have said in that speech (verse 34), " For David is not ascended into the heavens;" but he saith himself, " The Lord saith unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand." This argu- ment is absurd, as none can sit on the right hand of God, God having neither hands nor limits, and no body can ascend to heaven, it being contrary to the laws of gravity. If the words " sit on my right hand " must be understood to be seated or placed on a choice spot under God's espe- cial protection, anKol de- cided the controversy in legal matters, be- tween the schools of Hillel and Shammai, in favor of the former. The passage in Talmud Erubin readsjhus : " The House of Shammai and the House of* Hillel dis- cussed the question for three years ; the one maintained our interpretation of the law is correct, and the other claimed the same preference. Then went forth a Bath Kol and told them, this and that are the words of the Living God, yet the law shall be practiced according to the interpretations of the House of Hillel. If both are the words of the Living God, why did the Bath Kol decide in favor of the House of Hillel ? Because thay were mild and meek ; they not only repeated the words of the 44 ORIGIN OF Shammaites with theirs, but even placed them always in advance * * * # * to teach thee: whosoever lowers himself, God will elevate ; and whosoever elevates him- self, God will lower. Who is eager after greatness, greatness will flee him ; and who- soever flees greatness, greatness will seek him. Whosoever presses the hour for wealth (time is money), time will press him; and whosoever leaves the hour in the hands of Providence, the hour will favor him." The Talmud Jerushalmi gives great authority to this decision of the Bath Kol. It is stated in Berachoth: " Before this Bath Kol went forth, whosoever wished could do like the House of Hillel or like the House of Shammai; but after this Bath Kol went forth, whosoever transgressed the words of the House of Hillel was guilty of death." The Jerushalmi supposes that this decis- ion by the Bath Kol was proclaimed in the Academy of Jamnia. In the same acade- my, however, and a short time afterwards, the Bath Kol was forever rejected as a le- gitimate decision in points of legal contro- versy, and the voice of the majority was adopted instead. The passage occurs in Baba Mezia, 59 6. There was a hot contro- versy carried on between Rabbi Elieser and Hiibbi Joshua, the two heads of the acade- my. The audience did not know how to decide. Two astounding miracles were wrought in favor of the opinion of Rabbi JSUejaar , but they did neither con- vince nor b.%nge the opinion of Rabbi CHRISTIANITY. 45 Joshua. Then Rabbi Eliezer rose and said: " If I am right let the walls of the academy decide." The walls bent, it says there, and began to fall. Then Rabbi Joshua rose and rebuked the Avails to stand erect, and erect they stood. Then Rabbi Eliezer said, let heaven himself decide. " There came forth a Bath Kol and said : Why are you against Rabbi Eliezer, whose decisions are always correct? Rabbi Joshua rose upon his feet and said: 'It is not in heaven,' i. e., we pay no attention to the Bath Kol; the law given on Sinai ordains ' Thou shalt decide according to the ma- jority.' " The miracles and the Bath Kol were set aside, and Rabbi Joshua was sus- tained. We must quote two more passages : The Bath Kol afterwards became a common superstition. The Talmud informs us that Samuel, head of a Babylonian academy, fell sick. Resh Lakish and Rabbi Jocha- nan went to pay him a visit. They resolved te ask the Bath Kol how Samuel was. Passing a schoolhouse they heard a boy reading from the Bible: "And Samuel died," and they understood the Bath Kolto have informed them, that Samuel died, and they returned to their respective homes. The Bath Kol of the Talmud is also ex- ternally like the "Holy Ghost" of the New Testament. It is the dove in which the "Holy Ghost" comes down from heaven upon Jesus, as in the following passage of 46 ORIGIN ^OF the Talmud (Berachoch, 3 a): "Rabbi Jose says, being once under way I went into one of the ruins of Jerusalem to pray there * * * * # and I heard there a Bath Kol COOING LIKE A DOVE and saying, Wo to the children, on account of whose sins I have destroyed my house, have burnt my temple, and have dispersed them among the Gentiles." Without multiplying quotations, we be- lieve to be fairly entitled to the conclusion, that the apostles claimed the same com- munication with the Bath Kol as the rabbis of the Pharisees did. Bath Kol could not be .rendered into the Greek literally, and the "-Holy Ghost " was adopted in its place. But the two things are identical. It was a great >tep in advance on the part of the apostles if they, the humble and illiterate men, the Amai Haarez, whom the rab- bis neglected and contemned, claimed com- munication with the Bath Kol, as well as ithe learned and high-toned rabbis. It is mot at all likely that the pretensions of the apostles were above the highest of their age or different from them. The Pentecost miracle is an embellishing addition of the author of " The Acts," or of one who tran- scribed and enriched the book in the third century. In the academy of Jamnia is the turning point, where Christianity and rabbinical Judaism separated in opposite directions. The apostles, like Rabbi Eliezer ben Hork- inos, clung to the Bath Kol and miracles ; CHRISTIANITY, 47 while the rabbis, like Rabbi Joshua, re- jected both and held to their laws of exe- gese and the decisions of the majority. This is the first historical point in the ori- gin of Christianity. Here, however, begins the difficulty of the honest critic. The authors of the Tal- mud, as well as the authors of the New Testament claim, that certain persons stood in direct communication with the Deity through the Bath Kol or the " Holy Ghost ;" that such persons prophesied and wrought miracles. Both point to the same time and place, and have the same object in view, the support of religious precepts. The critic must either decide that both are right, or both are wrong, or one side is right and the other wrong ; or he must find another way of explaining the matter. The claims are presented with equal force and authority, at least to the critic who looks upon books with the eye of reason and not with the predelictions of religious faith. No side produces any particular evidence hi substantiation of its claims ; the allegations are made and presented to us without any proof; hence there is no ground for a decision that the one side is right and the other wrong. Where, with equal pretensions or allegations, no proof is offered on any side, caprice only, and not criticism, can accredit the one and re- ject the other. The comparatively intrinsic value of the New Testament and the Tal- mud, as products of the human mind, is 48 ORIGIN or not finally decided by any means ; some maintain the Body of Doctrine contained in the New Testament is chiefly taken from the sources where the Talmud took the same. Aside, of this, however, the intrinsic value of a book is no evidence for all the statements made therein ; or else the alleged miracles and divine communi- cations of Mohammet and Zoroaster must also be accepted as truths, since the intrinsic value of the Koran and the Zen- davesta can not reasonably be denied. Neither the Christian nor the Jew can be willing to admit, that the pretensions to supernatural communication of both the apostles and the rabbis are correct ; for in this case the Christian must em- brace the largest portion of the Talmud, and the Jew, of the New Testament, as divine revelations. Nevertheless both might be true notwithstanding the opposi- tion of either party; if it were not that these oracles from the same Deity radically differ and contradict each other in vital points. To mention one instance which covers the whole ground, the Bath Kol de- cided in favor of the interpretation of the law as the House of Hillel advocated it ; at the same time and in the same country the " Holy Ghost " decided that all rabinnical and biblical laws are abolished. Therefore both can not be right. Nor have we a right to maintain that both are impostors, and alleged to have direct communication with God, when they knew CHRISTIANITY. 49 it was not true ; for we have no more proof for one than the other decision. There are before us statements of men. We know not the men, hence we can not impeach their statements from personal reasons. All we have a right to maintain is, that the statements are not true ; but we can not prove that the authors knew them to be false. Therefore we are forced to accept the in- terpretation adopted by Mr. Wislicenus and also by Mr. Renan, viz: that the apos- tles (as well as the rabbis we add) in a state of intense ecstacy, believed that they re- ceived direct communications from the Deity, through the "Holy Ghost" or the Bath Kol, and stated so in cool moments. The revelations were altogether subjective in the imagination and not in reality. This view of the matter is by no means new, or original with either Mr. Wislice- nus or Mr. Renan, or the German rational- ists ; it has been advanced by Moses Mai- monides, at the beginning of the 13th cen- tury. He states in his philosophical work, Moreh Nebuchim, Pa-rt ii. Chapter 42; "Wherever, in Sacred Scriptures, the ap- pearing or speaking of an angel is men- tioned, it is a prophetical vision or dream only, whether it is explained or not, it is always the same." After applying this doctrine to different passages of Scriptures, he concludes: " Hagar, the Egyptian, was 110 prophetess, nor were Menoah and his wife prophets. The w r ords which they 50 ORIGIN OF heard, or imagined to have heard, are like the Bath Kol which the sages of old fre- quently mention; it is the attribution of spoken matter to a person who is not actu- ally present, and the error in the matter is its connection with God." The listener, paying attention, actu- ally to his own internal discourse be- lieves to be addressed by an angel or another creature which only exists in the imagination of that person. The Bath Kol connects no speaking person with the words spoken, so doth the "Holy Ghost," and imagines words only. It is no error to imagine the speaking angel or per- son, who is after all an imagined reality ; the error is in the belief that the being is an angel or the Deity, CHAPTER III. THE GLOSSOLOGY. How did the Bath Kol, or " Holy Ghost," manifest himself, to render his oracles in- telligible to the human ear ? The author of "The Acts" answers this question by an additional miracle. He narrates, when the apostles and disciples had been gifted with the "Holy Ghost," they "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." The tongues of the vari- ous persons, according to this statement, were the mere instruments of the " Ho^y CHRISTIANITY. 51 Ghost." He moved them, and caused them to express sentiments and concepts which originated not in those human minds, and in this or that language which the speaking persons had not known be- fore. This is the second part of the Pente- cost miracle. The same author repeats twice, that the "Holy Ghost" demonstrated his presence in a favored person by this phenomenon. Acts x, 46, he narrates as a proof that the "Holy Ghost" was poured also on the Gentiles, " for they heard them speak with tongues," u d be invented and smuggled into " The Acts " by some dishonest tran- scriber. The government of the nascent congre- gation, in imitation of the Essenees, was certainly mild and patriarchal. The mem- bers living together, eating their frugal meals from the same store and at the same table, for a long time expected the imme- diate return of the crucified Messiah, the restoration of the Davidian throne and the redemption of Israel. With this expecta- tion and hope, it was natural to them that they sold all they had and sacrificed it to the sustenance of the congregation. We have seen the same thing done here, when the end of the world was predicted. After they had sold all they had and it was all spent, the communistic and cenobitical or- ganization was perfected, alms came from abroad, and they continued in this state for many years, most likely to the time when they were expelled altogether from Jerusa- lem during the Roman war. So far we be- lieve to have extracted all the facts from 84 ORIGIN OP our sources relating to the origin of Chris- tianity.* CHAPTER V. ON THE MIRACLES. The author of " The Acts" in the pro- gress of the story narrates that the apostles, especially Peter and John, wrought mir- acles. He states first in general, "And many signs and wonders were done by the apostles," (Acts ii, 43.) He repeats this statement (Ibid, v, 12,) "And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and won- ders wrought among the people." He then gives some details of these signs and won- ders thus: "Inasmuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that ^at least the shadow of Peter passing might overshadow some of them. There came also a multi- tude out of the cities round about Jerusa- lem, bringing sick folks, and those which were vexed with unclean spirits; and tluy were healed every one." The superstition that the shadow of Peter healed the sick is not ascribed to the apostles, nor is it maintained that cures were effected thereby ; the author only in- forms us that Peter's reputation was so great among the people that' many were *The ancient Jews had a tradition, that the number of disciples altogether consisted of 320 uncircumcised persons. See Ibn Ezra to Daniel xii, 2, and Kashi to Sanhedrin 65 b, Amsterdam edition. CHRISTIANITY. . 85 led to credit the superstition, that even the passing shadow of Peter was sufficient to cure diseases and to banish unclean spirits. This is Hyperbolic, of course, and intended to glorify Peter. Had Peter, indeed, en- joyed so extraordinary a reputation among so superstitious a class of people, the cause of Christianity must necessarily have met with much better success in and about Je- rusalem than was actually the case. A special cure by Peter and John is men- tioned in Acts iii, 2. A man, lame "from his mother's womb," was carried daily to the gate of the temple, " to ask alms." One day, on seeing Peter and John, he asked alms of them ; but Peter cured him, so that " he leaping up, stood and walked, and en- tered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God." This miracle created great astonishment among the multitude, for the man vtas already forty years old. The crowd gathered about the apostles " in the porch that is called Solomon's." Peter embraced this oppor- tunity to preach his doctrines to them, -which increased the number of believers to " five thousand, and led to the arrest of the two apostles." The speech put in the mouth of Peter on this occasion belongs again to the author of " The Acts." This is evident from the use of the terms " Son of God" and " the Holy One," in connection with Jesus, of which neither Peter nor the Ebionites knew any thing, nor did they ever admit any such 86 ORIGIN OF doctrine. Jesus was to them the Messiah, or the Christ, as it is called in Greek. With Peter, as is evident almost from the same passage, Jesus, was a prophet like Moses (iii, 22, 23, 24.) But as we shall dwell on this point at some length, we pass over here to another. The highpriest Anaiiias, a Sadducee, is mentioned in connection with this scene. This can only be the same highpriest who had the apostle James stoned, viz.: Ananias, the son of Ananias. He, according to Josephus (Antiqu. xx, ix, 1) was appointed to his office by King Agrippa II, and exercised stern severity, because " he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders above all the rest of the Jews," as Josephus says. The highpriest slew James, the brother of Jesus, when Festus was dead, and the new procurator of Judea, Albinus, "was but upon the road." This Albinus came to Judea in the year 62, A. 0. In " The Acts," however, this scene and speech and the subsequent arrest of Peter and John are represented as following shortly after the Pentecost miracle, hence about two months or so after the crucifixion. We merely call attention here to this utter confusion of dates, on which we must treat at length hereafter, to show that neither the miracle, nor the scene, the speech and subsequent arrest of Peter and John are historical. Peter also healed a man of the palsy. His came was Eneas. He had kept his bed CHRISTIANITY. 87 eight years. In the same chapter we are also informed in a little story that a certain pious woman from Joppa, whose name was Tabitha or Dorcas, died after a brief illness. Peter then at Lydda was sent for. He came, prayed, and said, "Tabitha, arise." The dead woman obeyed; she rose and lived, "and many believed in the Lord."* Paul worked no miracles. It is narrated of him, indeed (Acts xxviii, 3) that a viper fastened to his hand without doing him any harm ; but he says not that he per- formed a miracle. He speaks of " mighty signs and wonders by the power of the spirit of God," (Romans xv, 19); but he may have imagined them in the power of his eloquence which enabled him to preach the Gospel " from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum," especially as he says (I. Corinthians i, 22,) " For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom." Again he says (Ibid, ii, 4) that his preaching " was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power ; " but this points to no miracles; it points much more to mighty appeals to the sentiments and feel- ings in preference to logical evidence. He speaks of visions and revelations (II. Corin- thians xii, 1,) but not of miracles performed on others,like those of Jesus, Peter or John. * A similar story (Acts xx, 7, tfcc.,) of Paul, while at Troas, is not narrated as a miracle. Eutychus fell down from the third loft, " and was taken up dead." Bui he was not dead, for Paul said, " Trouble not yourselves, for his liie is in him." It was no miracle. 88 ORIGIN OF The same is the case in the passage I. Thes- sal. (i, 5) and in II. Thesal. (ii, 9.) These are the passages on which Mr. Kenan bases his allegation that Paul believed in mi nicies.! No critical reader will find therein any inference even entitling him to such an al- legation as a matter of history. The only passage which might possibly commit Paul as a believer in miracles is 1. Cor. xii, where he speaks of the gifts of grace. "For to one is given by the spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same spirit ; to another faith by the same spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same spirit; to an- other the working of miracles ; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits ; to another diverse kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues." But in the same chapter (verses 23. 29, 30,) he evidently ascribes wisdom to the apostles, knowledge to the prophets, faith to the teachers, and below these three classes lie places those who work miracles, heal the sick, speak with diverse tongues, or inter- pret, so that neither of these lower func- tions belonged to the apostles. This passage proves only that Paul admitted the Gentile Christians' pretensions to work miracles, heal the sick, H mi Ruah Raah, "the evil spirit ;" all of which have the generic name of DHiV Shcdim, " demons." Besides, there are mentioned VS Lilin, " fe- t Soai.so R>?velat'"on.s of Jo'i ) ; ) CHRISTIANITY. 93 male demons." Tho origin of these demons is not certain. In one place of the Talmud they are said to be descendants of Adam at a time between the birth of Abel and Seth (Erubin 18 a and elsewhere.) But other- wise it is maintained God created them Friday evening in the last hour, when the Sabbath set in, creation was closed and the demons received no bodies. Still they were supposed by some to have a hairy body and the legs of birds. The mother of the demons is the Lilith (Nbcturna,) the primitive night of Egyp- tian mythology. She is like the Grecian Proserpine; only that the Lilith of the Talmud is depicted as a beautiful and las- civious woman. Later writers mention four mothers of the demons, viz.: Lilith, Naamahj Aggweth and Mahelah, which ap- pear synonymous with Prosei'pine, Venus, Hekate and Lamia. The husband of Naamah or Venus was fihomcron, Vulcain, whose son was Ashinedai, the prince of demons. Harman, the Persian Ahriman, is mentioned as a son of Lilith. The souls of wicked persons after death are also changed to demons. As regards the nature of the demons, the rabbis, it appears, were well informed. Tiey state (Chagiga 16 a) "Six things are said of the demons ; in three things they ars like angels and in three like men. They ar like angels in this ; they have wings liki angels, fly from one end of the world to Another, and know future events like 96 ORIGIN OF the angels. How can they know this? They hear it behind the curtain like the angels. In these three tilings they are like men ; they eat and drink, propagate their species and die like men." It is also known that they are very intelligent and inquisi- tive. It is said of their prince Ashmedai that " he daily ascends to heaven to learn in the school of heaven, and then he de- scends to the earth to learn in the school on earth," (Guitin 68 a.) Elsewhere it is nar- rated that Rabbi Hauina bar Papa went out at night to distribute charity, when he was met by " the chief demon," viz.: Ashme- dai who threatened to do him harm for im- posing on his domain, night ; but the Rabbi discussed Scriptural passages with the de- mon and proved to him that he had no right to injure one who was ut at night to distribute charity. Of course, finally the Rabbi drove the demon to flight (Jeru- shalmi, Shekalim v.) Again Raba informs us that the demons every Sabbath crowded the academy to listen to the lectures, and the torn garments of the students must be ascribed to the same cause the demons press themselves so close to them. (Ber- achoth 6 a.} These passages will suffice to show a peculiar characteristic of the de- mons among the ancient Hebrews; they were looked upon as superior intellects, as sagacious and heartless beings, prudent an