WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence cover

The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence

Chapter 182: 170
Open in WeRead

About This Book

A skeptical, systematic critique argues that the Christ of the New Testament is a constructed myth rather than a reliably attested historical person. It assesses the silence of contemporary writers, the anonymous and late character of the gospels, and the contradictions within infancy narratives, ministry accounts, crucifixion, and resurrection reports. The author evaluates the moral portrait and teachings attributed to the figure and traces parallels with older pagan religions and divinities as possible sources of the myth. The conclusion asserts that supernatural claims lack sufficient historical support and that veneration rests on literary and theological fabrication rather than firm documentary evidence.

170

Whose rejection of him provoked the declaration, “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country”?

Matthew: “And when he came into his own country [Galilee], he taught them in their synagogue, ... and they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country” (xiii, 54–57).

John: “He departed thence, [he had come from Judea and Samaria] and went into Galilee. For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honor in his own country. Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him” (iv, 43–45).

According to Matthew, he was without honor in Galilee; according to John, he went to Galilee because he was without honor in Judea. According to Matthew the Galileans rejected him; according to John “the Galileans received him.” According to Matthew, Galilee was “his own country”; according to John, Judea was “his own country.”

Regarding these contradictory statements, Scott, in his “English Life of Jesus” (p. 114), says: “The Synoptists in every case give a special reason for his leaving Galilee, while the fourth gospel is equally careful in specifying the reason for his leaving Jerusalem. According to the former, Jesus would not have left Galilee if he could have avoided it; according to the latter, he would have remained at Jerusalem if he could have done so with safety. The inconsistency is glaring.”