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 291: 278
By John E. Remsburg
Open in WeRead

Explore more books like this:

History - ReligiousPhilosophy & EthicsReligion/Spirituality

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.

278

The purchase of the potter’s field was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Matthew: “That which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, ... and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me” (xxvii, 9, 10).

This was not spoken by Jeremiah, but by Zechariah. “And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord” (xi, 13).

It is evident that the account of the betrayal was inspired, not by a historical fact, but by a desire to “fulfill” a Messianic prophecy. Zechariah did not predict an event, but his words did suggest a fiction. This is the more probable from the fact that Matthew is the only Evangelist who mentions the thirty pieces of silver.

The story of Christ’s last visit to Jerusalem and the story of his betrayal exclude each other. According to the Evangelists he was not arrested for any offense he had committed during this visit, but for offenses he had committed prior to this. Yet during this visit he is said to have appeared openly with his disciples, making a triumphal entry into the city, visiting the temple and teaching in public. In the face of this the story that the Jews were obliged to bribe one of his disciples in order to apprehend him is absurd. One of these stories must be false. Regarding them Lord Amberley observes: “The representation of the Gospels, that Jesus went on teaching in public to the very end of his career, and yet that Judas received a bribe for his betrayal, is self-contradictory” (Life of Jesus, p. 214).

To those who believe the accounts of the betrayal of Jesus to be historical, the ecclesiastical historian, Neander, in his “Life of Christ,” advances a suggestion that is worthy of consideration. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas, it is suggested, was intended as a test of his Messiahship. If Jesus was the Messiah, Judas reasoned, he could save himself; if he was not the Messiah he was an impostor and deserved death.