LETTER XIV.

TO DR. ADAM CLARKE. .

SIR

I intend to occupy this letter with those little incidents recorded of Jesus, which I may deem necessary to notice, prior to his resurrection; with an examination of which I shall commence my next. My intention for so doing, is merely to point out the discordance which subsists between the narrators, and to compare it with our ideas of consistency and harmony.

1

2

John informs us, that after Jesus had raised Lazarus, he walked no more openly among the Jews, because the Chief Priests and Pharisees had given a commandment, that if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him. Notwithstanding this declaration, John immediately after states, that he came again to Bethany, where Lazarus was, who had been dead six days before the passover: and that while they were supping together, Mary, the sister of Lazarus, took a pound of ointment of spikenard, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair:3 (a nasty creature!) This was done, according to John, previous to his riding into Jerusalem upon his Jack-ass, in the midst of the Jews. 4 Here then we find that John was plagued with a bad memory, for he had just before told us, that Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews, after he knew that the intention of the Chief Priests was to take him and put him to death. Indeed the whole of this letter, will point out to you such a string of contradictions and inconsistencies, as to make it appear like ocular demonstration, that none of the historians of Jesus knew anything concerning the persons of whom they were writing; or they would never have given such contradictory accounts of those most

remarkable and notorious transactions, if they ever did occur, as are related of him, at this period of his life. Matthew and Mark say, it was not until after his public exhibition of Assmanship, in Jerusalem, when he drove the buyers and sellers out of the temple,5 (which, by-the-bye, John relates as having been performed long before, even the first thing he did after his transforming the water at Cana, 6) that he came to Bethany; and instead of finding Lazarus there, and raising him from the dead, neither Matthew nor Mark so much as mention the names of either he or his sisters. Is not this strange that they should neglect to notice the man whom Jesus loved and honoured in such an extraordinary manner, admitting that the miracle wrought upon him, by Jesus raising him from the dead, was too trifling and unimportant for them to relate? Luke mentions the name of Mary and her sister Martha, who belonged to some village that Jesus entered, where they made a feast for him, but says nothing of their relationship to Lazarus, his death and resurrection, or her anointing Jesus.

The person in Bethany, of whom Matthew speaks, as being acquainted with Jesus, was called Simon the leper, with whom Jesus was sitting at meat, when a woman came and poured a box of alabaster ointment on his head, instead of his feet, as described by John. Query; did she likewise wipe his head with her hair as Mary did his feet? If so their heads and faces must have been most conveniently placed, to answer other purposes! Now, observe the difference of time between these two historians. John says, that it was six days before the passover commenced, to which Jesus rode upon the ass. But Matthew says, that it was not till sometime after his stately ride into Jerusalem; where he staid driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple, cursing the fig-tree, and disputing with the chief Priests and Elders of the people in the temple: the very persons whom John says had given a commandment that if any man knew where he were, he was to shew it, that they might take him! After which, Matthew says, he staid and spake many parables publicly and

openly, to whole multitudes of people before this ceremony of anointing was performed, which occurred about two days, instead of six, as John says, before the passover, in the house of Simon the leper, instead of that of Lazarus. Now, Sir, I appeal to any man possessing common sense, whether it be possible to reconcile these contradictions, or decide upon which to believe? Yet the Priests tell us that we must believe them both, and many more such contrarieties, or we shall surely be damned! But, as though those two different accounts were not sufficient to try our credulity, we have a third to perplex us still more in reconciling to truth and reason; for Luke says that this anointing was performed in the early part of his ministry, about two years, it is supposed, before the passover, at which he was betrayed; and that, moreover, it was in the house of a Pharisee named Simon, 10 (not a leper, nor yet Lazarus) in the city of Naim, instead of Bethany!

Matthew likewise informs us, that when his disciples saw it, they were indignant Mark says only some of them. And John says only one, namely, Judas Iscariot. While Luke says, that it was Simon himself that noticed it, but not with indignation. You may, probably, suppose that these were all different women that annointed Jesus, some his head and some his feet, at different places; one at Bethany, in the house of Lazarus; another in that of Simon the leper; and the other at Naim, in the house of Simon the Pharisee. you will cast out the beam of prejudice from the reason, while you read these several accounts, you will find, notwithstanding their contradictions, respecting the time, place, and persons, by the observations made upon the act, and their concomitant circumstances, that they all refer to one and the same transaction, without my further enlarging upon them: being convinced that you are not like unto some who read and do not understand, or I would demonstrate it beyond a doubt.

But if

eye

of

As I have nearly arrived to his apprehension and death, and wishing to treat his resurrection more elaborately, I shall pass by many other absurdities, improbabilities, and contradictions, which are to be

found in various parts that I have not noticed, lest I should be accused of prolixity: though I believe yourself, and many others beside, have written more largely upon this subject, though not exactly in the same manner as I have done. For you know that it is written, that there are diversities of gifts, and diversities of operations11-every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that!12

Matthew and Mark both say that as soon as the woman had anointed Jesus, Judas Iscariot went and covenanted with the chief priests to deliver to them Jesus, for thirty pieces of silver. 1 3 This to me appears strange, that the chief priests should be necessitated to have recourse to such a clandestine measure, in order to apprehend a man against whom the whole nation, excepting a few poor ignorant and defencless mortals, were at variance. Had not they the same power to arrest him as they had to escort him through the town, and afterwards crucify? The people, John says, were always for stoning him themselves. And who were more eager for his death, in preference to a robber and murderer, than the people? Then why should © the chief priests fear to arrest him in a judicial and public manner? It could not have been through their ignorance of his hiding place, for it appears that he came publicly into the city, and ate the passover! yet, concerning this simple occurrence, we have very different reports.

Matthew says, that Judas brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests, and cast them down in the temple; after which he went out and hanged himself:14 and the chief priests took the silver pieces, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in which they called the field of blood. Peter says, 15 that instead of taking the money back, and casting it into the temple, he went himself and purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, meaning the money which he received for betraying his master, in which field he fell head-long, when he burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out! And this, moreover, Peter says, was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem! yet neither Mark, Luke, nor John knew a word of it, or