by Jean Meslier
18. ON THE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE GOSPELS.
But what will show even more clearly that these sorts of books cannot come from any divine inspiration is that, setting aside the vulgarity and baseness of the style in which the gospels are written, setting aside the lack of order and flow in the narrative of the events reported there, and which are quite badly detailed therein, we find the authors disagreeing with each other, since some report their histories in one way, and others in another. We even find them patently contradicting each other on many points, which clearly shows that they were not inspired by God, and that they lacked even the intellect and natural gifts to be able to write a story properly.
Here are a few examples of these contrarieties and contradictions: Matthew the Evangelist makes Jesus Christ a descendant of King David through his son Solomon, and through all the descendants of said Solomon up to Joseph, the, at least putative, father of Jesus Christ. And Luke the Evangelist makes him descend from the same David through his son Nathan, and through all the descendants of said Nathan up to Joseph; wherein there is a contrariety and manifest error; for it is certain and evident that if this Joseph and Jesus Christ descended from David by his son Solomon and all the descendants of said Solomon, they cannot be also descend from the same David through his other son Nathan and all the descendants of said Nathan, who are obviously different from the descendants of Solomon. Besides, what is the point of these Evangelists giving the genealogy of this Joseph and making him descend from David to present their Christ as the son of David, since their Christ isn’t really the son of Joseph, who might be David’s descendant? It is manifest that neither of these Evangelists can prove that Christ was the son of David, any more than that he was the son of this Joseph, who they make a descendant of this David, albeit through different paths. But our Christ-cultists don’t want their Christ to have been the son of this Joseph; and so, it would be inappropriate for the Evangelists to fabricate the genealogy of this Joseph, to falsely present Jesus Christ as the son of David, or if one of these Gospels does prove that he really was the son of David, we should recognize that he really was the son of said Joseph; by which it seems clear, once again, that there was an error in one of the two. But, be this as it may, there is no doubt about the vanity of those genealogies, as even their St. Paul says to his disciple Timothy[101] that one should not pay heed to fables and endless genealogies, which lend themselves more to dispute than edification, and when he says to his other disciple Titus[102] that he should flee impertinent questions and vain genealogies, disputes and arguments on the law, as vain and useless things.
2. There is contrariety and contradiction in what they say regarding what happened, or with respect to what was done soon after the birth of Christ, for the Evangelist St. Matthew says that immediately after his birth, the rumor spread through Jerusalem that a new King of the Jews had been born, and that when the Magicians came to adore him, King Herod feared that the supposed new King might take his crown away some day, and ordered the slaughter and massacre of all the children born within the past two years in the whole region of Bethlehem, where he had heard that this supposed new King would be born, and that Joseph and the mother of Jesus, having been warned in a dream by an angel of this evil plan of King Herod’s to kill the children, they immediately fled to Egypt, where they remained, says this Evangelist, until the death of King Herod, which only happened many years later. Contrary to that, the Evangelist St. Luke notes that Joseph and the mother of Jesus remained peacefully for six weeks in the place where their child Jesus was born, that he was circumcised there, according to the Law of the Jews, eight days after his birth, and that, when the time prescribed by the Law for the purification of his mother came, she and Joseph her husband brought him to Jerusalem to present him to God in His temple, and also to offer as a sacrifice that which was ordained by the above-mentioned law of God; after which, according to the same Evangelist, Joseph and Mary, the mother of Jesus, returned to Galilee, to their town of Nazareth, where their child Jesus grew every day in age and wisdom, and that his Father and his Mother went every year to Jerusalem on the solemn day of their feast of Passover. In fact, this Evangelist makes no mention of their flight to Egypt or the above-mentioned cruelty of Herod to the children of the province of Bethlehem. By which it is clear and evident that there is contrariety and contradiction in the words of these two Evangelists, not only in what one of them says about the cruelty of Herod and the flight of Joseph and Mary into Egypt with their child Jesus, which the other does not mention, but also because it is necessary that one of these two narrations is false, since it can’t be true that Joseph and Mary returned peacefully to their city of Nazareth and went every year to Jerusalem at the solemn feast of Passover, as one of them says, and also that they were driven to Egypt and stayed there for so long, as the other one says. With respect to the cruelty of Herod towards the children of Bethlehem and its environs, since the Historians of that time say nothing about it, including Josephus, the Jewish historian, who described the life and wickedness of this Herod, says nothing about it, and since the other Evangelists also ignore it in their Gospels, its seems very likely that what is said about the flight into Egypt is simply a lie: for it is not credible that Josephus, the Jewish Historian who criticizes and describes the vices and misdeeds of this King, would have passed over such a dark and detestable deed as the inhumane massacre of so many little innocent children in silence, if what this Evangelist says about it were true.
3. There is contrariety and contradiction between the above-mentioned Evangelists about the duration of the public life of Jesus Christ, for, according to the three first Evangelists, there would seem to have been scarcely more than three months between his baptism and his death, supposing he was 30 or around 30 years old when he was baptized by St. John, as noted in the Gospel of Luke[103], and that he was born on December 25th, following the opinion commonly held by our God-Christ-cultists. For since the baptism, which was in the fifteenth year of the empire of Tiberius Caesar, and the year when Ananias and Caiaphas were High Priests, until the month of March, there were only about three months; and according to what is said by the three first Evangelists, he was crucified on the eve of the first Passover following his baptism and the first time he came to Jerusalem with his disciples, as is noted in the above-mentioned Evangelists. For all they say of his baptism, his travels, his preaching, his miracles, his death, and his passion, must necessarily relate to the same year as his baptism, since these Evangelists don’t mention any later year, and since it even seems, from their telling of his actions, that he did all of them immediately after his baptism, consecutively, one after the other, and in a very short span of time, during which time we find only one interval of six days before his transfiguration, during which time we don’t know what he did, or indeed whether he did anything at all[104]. By which it’s obvious that he would have lived, from the time of his baptism, for around three months, from which three months, if we subtract from this six weeks from the 40 days and 40 nights which he spent in the desert immediately after baptism, it follows that the period of his public life, from his first preaching until his death, lasted no more than six weeks. And according to what John the Evangelist notes, since it’s supposed to have lasted at least three years and three months, since it seems from reading this Apostle’s Gospel, that he would have visited, in the course of his public life, Jerusalem three or even four times at the solemn feast of Passover, which came only once a year, in which there is clearly a contrariety and a manifest contradiction. For if, as the other Evangelists say, it is true that he was crucified on the eve of the first Passover after his baptism, which was, as they mark it, the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and the year Annas and Caiaphas were the High Priests, then it’s false that he was present three or four times after his baptism in Jerusalem at the solemn feast of Passover, since, as I just said, this feast comes only once a year, or if it is true that he was present 3 or 4 times after his baptism, as John the
Evangelist[105] seems to indicate, and as our Christ-cultists usually claim, then it’s false that he lived only three months after his baptism and was crucified the first time he was in Jerusalem after his baptism, as the three first Evangelists testify. If we want to say that these first three Evangelists are effectively talking about one year only, but they don’t distinctly note the other years that elapsed after his baptism, or that John the Evangelist doesn’t actually intend to refer to more than one Passover, even though he seems to mention several, and it’s only by way of anticipation that he said and repeated that the Passover feast of the Jews was near, and that Jesus went to Jerusalem; then, I accept, there is only an apparent contrariety and contradiction on this point between the above-mentioned Evangelists. But it is clear that this contrariety and apparent contradiction would only come from the fact that they fail to explain properly, and don’t sufficiently note all the circumstances which existed or which might have been pointed out in their telling of their histories. But whether they contradict each other or whether they fail to properly explain themselves in the telling of their histories, there is still room to draw this conclusion, that they were not, therefore, inspired of God when they wrote their histories; for if they truly were inspired by God at such times, they would not have contradicted each other, and they would all have been intelligent and enlightened enough to properly explain themselves, and to note, consistently and coherently, all the circumstances and details of their histories, without omitting any of the important ones, and without confusing and twisting proper order, as they have done in many places. Nor can it be denied that they are also contradictor on many other occasions.
1. They contradict each other, first of all, about the first thing that Jesus Christ does immediately after his Baptism: the first three Evangelists[106] say that he was, after his baptism, carried by the Spirit of God into a Desert, where he fasted for 40 days and 40 nights, and where he was tempted by the Devil various times, and, according to what St. John the Evangelist says[107], he departed two days after his baptism to go to Galilee, more than 30 leagues from where he had been, and that 3 days later he was at a wedding feast in Cana of Galilee, where he did, it says, his first miracle by changing water into wine. Here is a contrariety and a rather obvious contradiction, for if he truly fasted in a desert, it’s not credible that he would have been, at the same time, 50 leagues away at a wedding feast; or if he truly came to this wedding feast, it’s not credible that he would have been, at the same time, at the distance of more than 50 leagues away in a desert.
2. They contradict each other about the location of his first retreat after he emerged from the wilderness. For, Matthew[108] the Evangelist says that he had come to Galilee and that, after departing from the city of Nazareth, he came to stay at Capernaum, a maritime city; and Luke[109] the Evangelist says that he came first to Nazareth, and that after this he went to Capernaum.
3. They contradict each other about the time and the manner in which the Apostles first followed him, since the three first Evangelists[110] say that Jesus Christ from the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother who were fishing on the same Sea, and a little further along he saw James and John his brother with their father Zebedee mending their nets, because they were also fishermen and that, when they were called, they immediately left their nets and followed him. And John the Evangelist[111] instead says that it was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, who first joined up with Jesus, along with another disciple of John the Baptist, having seen him walking past them when they were with their master on the banks of the Jordan, and that they joined him because of what John, their master, told them, when he saw Jesus walking by: Behold the Lamb of God, behold he who removes the sins of the world, and that Andrew, having then found his brother Simon, led him to Jesus, and that after this Jesus, wanting to visit Galilee, found Philip and then Nathanael, who came to him: in which there is contrariety and contradiction, for if these disciples of Jesus Christ joined him in the way John the Evangelist says, they didn’t join him in the manner in which the other Evangelists tell the story.
4. They contradict each other on their relation of the Last Supper which Jesus Christ held with his Apostles; for the first three Evangelists note that he instituted, in this last supper, the sacrament of his body and blood under the appearances of the bread and the wine, as our Roman God-Christ-cultists say; and John[112] the Evangelist says that, after this supper, Jesus washed the feet of his Apostles, that he expressly commanded them to do the same thing to each other, and then relates a long speech that he then made. But the other Evangelists say nothing about this washing of feet, or any long speech that he gave at this time. Rather, they testify that, right after supper, he went with his apostles to the Mount of Olives, that there, while at a remove from his Apostles, he began praying alone, that abandoned his soul to sadness, and that he ultimately fell into agony while his Apostles were sleeping a little further on: in which there is a contrariety and a contradiction: for, if what these three Evangelists note is true, there is no likelihood that he had washed their feet, or that he had had time to make such a long speech to them, since it was already nighttime before they had finished the ceremony of their supper, as is noted in St. John 13:30, when they left immediately after grace was said, to the Mount of Olives[113], as Matthew and Mark say. Nor would it seem that he delivered such a long speech to them on said mountain, since, when he was there, he withdrew from them to pray, and that there he was afflicted with sorrow while the disciples were, on the other hand, overcome by sleep, as the other Evangelists note. But how is it that St. John the Evangelist should have remembered so well, after so many years, so many words as are conveyed in this speech, he who makes no mention of many other things which are far more noteworthy, in addition to several parabolic speeches, which he would only have received secondhand, like the other Evangelists? What’s the origin of such great mutual diversity? Unless it wasn’t the spirit of truth that guided them, but the spirit of error and lies. Indeed, it’s clear that the very style of their narrative is only the style of fables, and ill-conceived, inconsistent, and badly told fables at that.
5. They contradict each other on which day this Supper was held; since, on one hand they note that he held it the evening before Passover, that is, the evening of the first day of azymes, i.e., of the use of unleavened bread[114], when they were, according to the Law of the Jews, supposed to eat the Paschal Lamb. For it was on the evening of the eve of this great Feast of Passover that they were supposed to eat the paschal Lamb and the unleavened bread, as noted in Exodus 12:18; Lev. 23:5; Num. 28:16, and on the other hand, they note that he was crucified the day after he held this supper, around midday, after the Jews had held his trial all night and morning. But, according to what they say, the next day, when he held this supper[115] wouldn’t have been the day after Passover, but the same day as the great feast of Passover: therefore, if he died on the eve of Passover around midday, then it wasn’t the evening of the eve of this feast when he held this supper, and if he did hold this supper on the eve of this feast, then he can’t have been crucified on the eve of this feast, but on the same day as this feast, in which there is a clear error on one part or the other, i.e., that he did not hold the supper on the eve of this feast, or that he didn’t hold the supper on the eve of this feast, which was the day when it was supposed to be done, and he was crucified the day after he held it; and the Evangelists clash and contradict each other here.
6. They contradict each other on what they say about the women who followed Jesus from Galilee, since the first three Evangelists say[116] that these women and all those whom he knew, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the children of Zebedee, who watched from afar while he was being hung on and nailed to the cross, and John the Evangelist[117] says, instead, that the mother of Jesus and the sister of his mother, and Mary Magdalene were standing beside the cross with the Apostle John when Jesus, seeing his mother and beside her t
he disciple he loved, he said to his mother: Woman, behold your son, and when he told his disciple: Behold your mother, in which there is contrariety and contradiction, since if these women and this disciple were close to him, as John the Evangelist says, then they were therefore not far away, as the others say, or if they were far away, as these three have it, then they weren’t close, as the latter claims.
7. They contradict each other on the supposed appearances they tell about Jesus Christ after his supposed resurrection; since Matthew[118] only mentions two appearances, once to Mary Magdalene and another woman also named Mary, and another when he appeared to his eleven disciples who had come to Galilee, to the mountain where he had designated for them to see him. Mark[119] speaks of three appearances: first to Mary Magdalene, the second when he appeared to two of his disciples when they were traveling to Emmaus, and the third and final one was when he appeared to his eleven disciples, whose unbelief he criticized. Luke[120] only mentions two appearances, i.e., his visit his two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and when he appeared to his 11 disciples and many others who were assembled with them in Jerusalem. And John[121] the Evangelist speaks of four appearances, that is, first to Mary Magdalene, second to his eleven disciples assembled in Jerusalem in a house with its doors closed, a third appearance 8 days later to the same disciples gathered in a house with its doors shut, and finally, a fourth appearance to 7 or 8 of his disciples who were fishing on the Sea of Galilee[122].
8. They even contradict each other about the setting of these supposed appearances, for Matthew[123] says that his disciples saw him in Galilee, precisely, on a certain mountain. Mark[124] says he appeared to them while they were eating. Luke[125] says he led them outside Jerusalem, as far as Bethany, where he left them by rising into the sky, and John[126] says it was in Jerusalem that he appeared to them in a house with its doors closed, and at another time on the Sea of Galilee.