by Jean Meslier
There are definite contradictions in the narrative of these supposed appearances; they can’t all be true at once; for if it’s true, as John the Evangelist says, that he appeared on the evening of the day he was resurrected to his disciples gathered in Jerusalem in a house with its doors shut, how could what Matthew says be true, that it was in Galilee where his apostles saw him on a mountain, where he had told them to go for this purpose, and where they indeed went immediately after the women had told them that he had been resurrected; if it was in Jerusalem where he meant to show himself to them on the very evening of his resurrection, as John the Evangelist says that he effectively appeared, why was it necessary for him to send them so quickly some 30 leagues away to see him? And why did he have them say that there is where they would see him, and that he would even be there before them, in the spot where he’d told them to go, as Matthew relates? For, since it was in Jerusalem itself where he meant to show himself to them, then he would have had no need to send them for that purpose to Galilee, some 30 leagues away from Jerusalem: or if, on the contrary, it was only in Galilee where he had to show himself to them and they departed immediately after his Resurrection to reach the spot he had designated to them, as Matthew has it, then how could he possibly show himself to them at Jerusalem? Since they had departed for Galilee, as Matthew himself holds, it is plain that there’s a contradiction here, and it would take even more miracles to harmonize the matter. But how it that which Matthew himself, who was one of the eleven Apostles and who would, consequently, have been with the other Apostles in the same house in Jerusalem and when Jesus Christ came to show himself in their midst, behind closed doors, how, I ask, could this Apostle, who would have been a witness of this appearance, ever say and note in his Gospel that it was in Galilee where they should see him and that they so quickly departed to go to the place he had told them about, without mentioning that they would have seen him the very same day, by evening, in Jerusalem? And it seems unlikely that this Apostle could have said that without mentioning this supposed appearance in Jerusalem if it had been true. Equally, how is it that St. John the Evangelist, who was also one of the eleven Apostles, and who, consequently, would have also been present with the other Apostles in Galilee, and who would have seen, with the rest, the resurrected Jesus Christ, how is it, I ask, that he would have been present and seen Jesus Christ resurrected without mentioning this voyage or this appearance, which destroys the truth of the one he mentions in his recitation of his history? It certainly seems implausible that he would have made this journey and seen his Master without mentioning the fact in his Gospel, if this trip and this appearance had been true, and thus, there must be an error or a lie on one hand or the other.
9. They also contradict each other on his alleged Ascension to Heaven, for the Evangelists Luke and Mark positively say he rose up to Heaven in the presence of his eleven apostles, but neither Matthew nor John mention this alleged Ascension at all. In addition, Matthew the Evangelist testifies quite clearly that he did not rise up to Heaven, since he positively states that Jesus Christ assured his Apostles in this appearance, that he did, said, would be, and would remain with them forever, until the end of the ages. Go then, he tells them, in this alleged appearance, and teach all the Nations, and be assured that I will always be with you until the end of the ages[127]. And Luke contradicts himself on this subject, for in his Gospel he says that it was in Bethany[128] where he ascended to Heaven in the presence of his Apostles, while in his Acts of the Apostles[129], assuming that he was its author, as they say, he says it was the Mount of Olives. He also contradicts himself on another detail about this Ascension, for he testifies in his Gospel[130] that it was on the same day as his resurrection or the first night afterwards when he ascended to Heaven, but in his Acts of the Apostles[131], he says it was 40 days after his Resurrection: which is clearly out of harmony.
If all the Apostles had indeed seen their Master gloriously ascend to heaven, how is that Matthew and John the Evangelist, who would have seen him like the rest, could have passed in silence over such a glorious mystery, and failed to discuss something so glorious and so advantageous to their Master? Since, moreover, they do relate many other details of his life and deeds which are far less considerable than that, especially, how could Matthew have said, as he does in his Gospel, that Jesus Christ assured his Apostles, when he appeared to them, that he would be with them until the end of ages; if it were true that he had seen him rise into Heaven: for if he had seen him rise to Heaven then he should, as a faithful historian, have expressly mentioned this fact, but also to clearly explain in what manner he would always remain with them, despite visibly taking his leave from them to rise to Heaven, because it was not easy to understand by what secret he would remain with those he was leaving: but this Evangelist does neither thing: which clearly shows an error, a contrariety, and a contradiction in their supposed histories, and that they are only fables. I pass over many other similar contradictions found in these so-called holy and divine books, because it would take too long share them all: but what I just said is enough to clearly show that these books did not come by any divine inspiration, or even any human wisdom, and that they therefore deserve no credence.
But again, by what privilege are these 4 Evangelists, and a few other books like them, able to pass for holy and divine, while many others which bear the title of Gospel just like them, or which, just like them, were once published under the name of certain other Apostles, as I have already said? There are many other Gospels and other texts which once passed for canonical, I mean for sacred and divinely inspired, such as, for example, the Gospel according to the Apostles, which St. Augustine mentions in his first book against Adamantium (chapter 17), which Gospel was accepted by the Manicheans; another by the Nazareans, which was according to St. Peter, as discussed by Theodoret (book 2 of his compendium of the Heretics’ Fables), another one, according to the Apostle Andrew, another according to St. James the Apostle, another according to St. Thomas, another according to St. Matthias, as mentioned by St. Innocent (Ep. 3) and St. Ambrose (in the preface of the Gospel according to St. Luke), one according to the Egyptians, as used by Clement of Alexandria, as he himself says in book 7 of his Stromata. Or another one according to the Hebrews, also mentioned by Theodoret. Or one according to Judas Iscariot, mentioned by the same Theodoret in book 1 of the Heretics’ Fables. Or one according to St. Phillip the Apostle. Or another one according to St. Bartholomew; and finally, another one according St. Basilides, which is mentioned by St. Ambrose, and many other similar books which were once offered as canonical and divine. By what privilege, I ask, are the 4 Evangelists named above preferred to all the others? According to what rule, what place, and what testimony do we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the Evangelist were truly inspired by God when they wrote their Gospels, while the other Apostles were not when they wrote theirs?
If it’s said that these Gospels are accepted and that they are falsely attributed to the Apostles, we also have the right to question by what rule, by what place, and what evidence we know that it’s false that the other Gospels have been attributed to the Apostles, and that the four first ones are not falsely attributed to those whose names they bear? Certainly, if some of these false Apostles boasted of being inspired by God when they wrote their Gospels, the others may be no less falsely boasted of than their companions; and if any of all these other Gospels were falsely attributed to the Apostles, then the four first ones might have been falsely attributed to those whose names they bear; and finally, if any of these Gospels were so easily falsified and corrupted, then this applies equally to the others. And thus, there is no rule, no evidence, no testimony provided by which to discern, on this point, any from the rest.
But it will be replied that it’s the Church herself who makes this distinction and has settled all doubts on this matter, in declaring, as she has done in her councils, which books were inspired of God and which were not, receiving the former as authentic and rejecting t
he latter as apocryphal. This is what she has declared, it’s said, in the third Council of Carthage under Pope Cyril in canon 49, the year 597, where, in the words of the Fathers of this Council,
It has pleased us to ordain that, in Church, only the canonical books, called the Holy and Divine Scriptures, should be read. And the canonical books, say these Fathers, are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and so on. The same thing was made normative in the Council of Trent (Session 4), where a catalog was made of all the books that the Church wants us to see as divine, pronouncing anathemas against all who do not receive them as such. It is true that the Church has judged and determined things in this way; but in all honesty, can anyone say with conviction, why the books she has thus selected, and which she wants us to see as divine, truly were inspired by God, especially since she offers no other proof, no other argument, no other testimony than to say IT PLEASES US, IT HAS PLEASED US to judge and determine thus and thus. Placuit, Censuit, etc. How can anyone fail to see that in all Religions, in all Sects, in all human Societies, men can just as easily make and forge supposedly holy and divine books?
They certainly might, and this is in fact what they do: but as intelligent people know, men will always forge false divinities like the ones they adore, they also know that they can’t help but falsely forge books inspired by God like those which our Christ-cultists consider and want us to regard as divine. Thus, it is vain for them to claim to rely on the authority they accord to these books, and it’s vain for them to claim to find proofs or sure testimonies of the truth of their religion, in them, since they show in themselves no characteristics of divinity, or even any extraordinary mark of human wisdom.
19. THAT THE SUPPOSED MIRACLES, WHICH ARE REPORTED IN THEM, ARE NOT TRUE, AND THE REASON WHY.
I have also said that the supposed miracles which are spoken of in these so-called Holy Scriptures do not agree with what should be thought of as greatness, of wisdom or the justice of a Being who is infinitely perfect, and consequently that these so-called miracles are not credible in themselves. This I will show clearly by the following argument. We should only think of the greatness, goodness, wisdom and justice of a Being who is infinitely perfect, according to what agrees with all those divine perfections. But, for example, could it be proper for a supreme goodness, a supreme wisdom, and a supreme justice, to lust after the flesh and blood of cruel and bloody sacrifices? Would be it proper for them to be eager to make an unjust and odious acceptation of persons, or an unjust and odious acceptation of whole peoples? Would it be proper for these divine Perfections to deliberately destroy some and crush with misery to favor others, without any merit on their part, and pour all manner of blessings on them? No, certainly not, for those Books I’ve mentioned, which are thought holy and divine by our Christ-cultists, expressly forbid all injustice, all iniquity, and especially all sorts of unjust acceptation of persons. “You will not consider”, says the Law[132] “the appearance of the person in your judgments, but you will hear the small equally with the great.” And in another place it is said[133]: “You will not pervert justice, you will have no consideration for the appearance of persons, and will take no present, for presents blind the eyes of the wise and ruin the words of the righteous.” And in Leviticus[134] it says: “You shall not do iniquity in judgment, you do not have to respect the person of the poor, nor the person the rich and the great, but you will judge your neighbor justly.” The same books testify and say in many places that there is no iniquity in God, that He is no respecter of persons, and that he has no regard to any gifts, is which is specifically pointed out in these books. Carefully keep the commandments of your God, says the Law[135] for the Lord your God is the Lord of Lords, God of Gods, the very great, very strong, very mighty and terrible God who shows no partiality and takes no bribes. The same thing is noted in Many other places in these books, such as Proverbs 19:7, Eccles. 35:15, Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11 Gal. 2:6, Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:24; they say, these selfsame holy and sacred books[136], that God does not fear the great or despise the weak, but has equal concern for all. They say He loves all His creatures, and he hates nothing He has made[137].
Indeed, if God were God, that is to say, if there truly were a God, as our Christ-cultists understand Him and say He is, He would be equally the author of all creatures, all men and all peoples; He would not be only the God of the Jews or of the Greeks, but also the God of all peoples and all nations of the Earth, and in all places He would be the protector of all equally, and their universal Benefactor.
But, the supposed miracles reported in these so-called holy books, especially those that are reported in the books of the Old Testament, were only done, according their own report, in order to display an unjust and odious acceptation of peoples and of persons by God Himself, and to deliberately and coldly destroy and crush some with evils and misery, and to favor others quite particularly: for this acceptation of peoples and persons, some in preference to others, is seen clearly in these books of the Old Testament, notably in those which discuss the calling and election they say that God made the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to make, from their posterity, a people unto Himself, which He would sanctify and bless above all other peoples on earth[138], for these books specifically state that God called the first of these Patriarchs, whom He commanded to leave his country, forgetting his family and friends, and go into another country, which He would show him, promising him at the same time to multiply and bless his posterity forever. He appeared a second and a third time to him, these same books say, and told him:
I am the Lord almighty, walk upright before me and be perfect, for I will establish my covenant between me and you, I will amply multiply your posterity, I will make it as numerous as the grains of dust on the earth. Behold, if anyone can count the grains of dust on the Earth, so will be your posterity, for this will be as numerous as the dust of the Earth. You shall be the father of many nations, you will no longer be called Abram, but Abraham, for I have established you father of many nations, and even kings will come from your blood. I will set my covenant between me and you, and your posterity after you, for a perpetual covenant, so that I shall be your God and the God of your descendants after you, and behold the covenant I will make with you, and which you will keep, both you and your posterity after you[139]: you will circumcise all your male children, you will circumcise the foreskin of your flesh, this will be the eternal sign of my covenant with you and with your posterity[140]. Every male child will be circumcised on the eighth day. I will give you, He told him, you and your descendants the land where you are as a stranger[141], I will give you the whole land of Canaan and you will possess the whole country, from the river of Egypt to the great river of the Euphrates, and the whole land from one sea to the other. Rise, cross this whole country, see its length and breadth, for I will give it to you for yourself and your descendants to enjoy it forever, for I will be their God eternally.
God repeated these same promises to the two other Patriarchs Isaac and Jacob, who were the first descendants of this Abraham, and old them, as is recorded in above-mentioned books, that He would make their posterity as numerous as the stars of heaven and the grains of sand of the sea, He told them that He would bless their friends, that He would curse their enemies, and that, in consideration of them, He would bless all the nations of the Earth, which promises were made to them many times by Himself, as is noted in these books[142].
They were even confirmed by the promise and oath of God, as is recorded in these books[143]; and consequent to all these fine, divine promises, the Jewish people, which had descended from these three Patriarchs, is called in many places of these books, the Chosen People, the People of God, the Holy People, and the Blessed People[144]. Moses told the people that:
If you obey the Law of God, and if you faithfully adhere to the covenant, which He has made with you, you will be the most beloved of all people, the most chosen, and the most favored of God; you will be to Him a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; He will send you his
angel to preserve you from all danger and will happily lead you to the place He has prepared for you, He will bless all your labors, there will be no sterility in your country nor contagious disease among you, and He will favorably fulfill the number of your days[145], He will be the declared enemy of those who oppose you; He will cast terror and fear among your enemies, and will make them turn and run, shamefully fleeing before you. You will make no agreement or compact with other nations, and show them no mercy, rather, you must destroy them, break their images and idols, for you are a holy people unto your God, who chose you to be a precious people above all others on earth. ...It is not[146] because you were stronger or more numerous than other peoples that you were chosen, since you were the least numerous of all, but because He loved you and He keeps the oath He made to your fathers to take you under His divine protection and to bless you above all other peoples on earth; eat nothing impure[147], because you are a holy people and a people chosen among all the peoples on earth to be a precious people for Him; ...in fine, God has chosen you[148] to be his own people, and so that you would observe all His commandments[149], He will raise you to honor, renown, and glory above all the nations of the earth, for you to be a holy people, as He has promised your fathers before you.