The Eliminator; or, Skeleton Keys to Sacerdotal Secrets

“And so it is written, the first Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”—1 Cob. 15: 22-45.

THE claim of sacerdotalism is substantially as follows: Adam was the first man and the sole progenitor of the entire human race. When he fell, all his progeny “sinned in him and fell with him in the first transgression.” Death was first introduced in the world by Adam’s sin, and life is restored by Christ. Adam and Christ are the two great representatives of death and life, of the fell and the restoration. The Creator permitted this great calamity to happen, having purposed from all eternity to redeem this degenerate race, or at least a portion of it, from the terrible curse caused by Adam’s sin. In due time he did incarnate himself, became man, human flesh and blood, by impregnating, or “overshadowing,” a Jewish virgin, and so was born, by ordinary generation, a human babe in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who was called the Christ. After about thirty years this human-born God died to make it possible to restore our race to its original moral status. This is called the “redemptive scheme,” and is the sum and substance of Christianity, and is fully set forth in what is very improperly called the “Apostles’ Creed,” which is publicly recited in thousands of churches every Sunday as an epitome of their belief.

The story of this one first man, who sinned by eating an apple from a certain forbidden tree, has been proved to be a fable, a myth, an allegory. The legend may shadow forth certain natural truths, but it is nevertheless a myth. The thing never occurred. The alleged facts are not facts. There was no first Adam. There may have been some one whom certain persons called the last Adam, but it is nevertheless true that what is said of him was founded upon an unreality—a thing which never happened. According to biblical chronology, the last Adam did not make his advent until about four thousand years after the first Adam fell, Even this seems to have been a long period to wait, but if we accept the interpretation of certain modern writers, that which is called “the beginning” in Genesis may have been forty thousand or four hundred thousand years before the advent of Jesus. True, this would show certain events to have been a very long way apart (for instance, the creation of Eve after that of Adam) and would make the work of Christ in the “redemptive act” occur ages and ages after the mischief was done.

It is contended that the promise of the sending of a Saviour was made the very day that the first Adam sinned, and that the salvation of the sinner was conditioned upon man’s faith in, and acceptance of, the promise that in due time, not mentioned, the last Adam should come and repair all the mischief which the first Adam had caused. It is claimed by sacerdotalists that the saying in Genesis 3: 15 is the first promise of a Redeemer: “And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.” But these very words occur in the pagan fables that were written long before the time that I Genesis was written, and in some of these fables, much more consistently with the passage above quoted, the woman is represented as standing with her heel on the serpent’s head. Then it is claimed that the Creator accepted the sacrifice of Abel because it was a bloody sacrifice, prefiguring the shedding of the blood of

Christ, and that he rejected the offering of Cain because there was no blood in it. We have looked in vain through the Old-Testament Scriptures for a promise of the last Adam who was to come and redeem man, but have failed to find it. A system of “redemption” that is based on expressions so enigmatical must have a very flimsy foundation upon which to stand. It is like the assumption that women generally have an aversion to reptiles because a serpent tempted Eve and brought so many curses on the sex. To such miserable subterfuges will sacerdotalists resort to maintain a theory.

One of the first points emphasized in connection with the advent of Jesus is the claim that it was in exact fulfilment of Hebrew prophecy. Certain orthodox Christian writers claim that there are two hundred prophecies in the Old Testament relating to Jesus, while certain other eminent German and English Christian scholars deny that there is even one prophecy which does not admit of another and a more rational explanation. The quotations from Old-Testament prophecies in the Gospels are, to say the least, unfortunate, and rather suggest the hypothesis that certain things, if done at all, were done to make the history fit the prediction.

Learned Bible critics contend that there is not to be found a single example of such redemptive prophecy, even though the theory of the double sense of prophecy be admitted. These predictions or hopes were intended to apply to eminent characters in Hebrew history as deliverers, and can only be applied to Jesus by a forced and unnatural construction; and, though Cyrus and others appeared, the expectations of the Jews have not yet been realized, and some of them are still awaiting their Messiah, spurning the idea that the predictions of their prophets were fulfilled in the humble Man of Nazareth.

One or two examples of so-called Messianic prophecies must suffice. Matthew (27: 9) says the prophecy of “Jeremy the prophet” regarding the thirty pieces of silver was fulfilled in the betrayal of Jesus; whereas no such prophecy is found in Jeremiah, and, though similar words occur in Zechariah, they have another obvious application. Then in Matthew (chap. 2) Hosea is quoted to prove that Jesus dwelt in Egypt to fulfil a prophecy, whereas it is evident (Hos. 11:1) that it was of Israel, not Jesus, that those words were spoken. Again, in Matt. 22:41 the quotation from the Psalms is obviously misapplied—“The Lord said unto my lord,” etc.—as it was not written by David, but Nathan addressed it to David. It was the poet that called David lord, which spoils the prophecy and ruins the argument of the evangelist. Many things recorded in the New Testament are unwittingly admitted to have been done to fulfil a supposed prophecy—“that it might be fulfilled.” There is one very amusing example of an attempt to fulfil an alleged prophecy—that of Jesus dwelling in Nazareth, because it had been prophesied that he should be called a Naz-arene, no such prophecy ever having been uttered.

The Indian Yedas are full of alleged prophecies relating to coming incarnations, and so are the Chinese sacred books. Even Zoroaster, who lived 570 years b. c., prophesied; “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and a star shall appear blazing at midday to announce his appearance. When you behold the star (said he), follow it whithersoever it leads you. Adore the mysterious child, offering him gifts with profound humility. He is indeed the Almighty Word which created the heavens. He is indeed your Lord and everlasting King” (History of Idolatry, Faber, vol. ii. p. 92). It was believed that this prophecy was fulfilled by the advent of the Persian god Sosia. It was common among the ancients to presage the birth of a god by the appearance of a mysterious star, and for astronomers to hasten to adore the new-born deity and present him gifts. Greece, Rome, Arabia, and even Mexico, were all familiar with Messianic prophecies. Bishop Hawes says that “the idea that God should in some extraordinary manner visit and dwell with men is found in a thousand forms among ancient heathens.”

The fact is, there is no promise or prophecy of a “last Adam” in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Jews give a very different interpretation to those utterances alleged to be Messianic, and the alleged types of Jesus in the Old Testament are purely fanciful, and many of them are exceedingly childish. The idea that Solomon and Moses and the scapegoat were types of Jesus is simply absurd, and not creditable to the alleged antetype. There is no Jesus of Nazareth in the Hebrew oracles.

The bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament were antedated by heathen nations centuries before the Jews. The sacrificing of brute beasts was heathenism pure and simple, to conciliate an imaginary anthropomorphic god. Twenty generations of innocent animals slaughtered by divine command in order to notify the world beforehand of the coming of the last Adam, yet never saying so, seem to have failed to prepare the people for the alleged spiritual sacrifice of Jesus. It was a signal failure. If these bloody offerings were types of Jesus, there must have been some resemblance. Wherein did it lie? A bullock was forced to the altar; he died like any beast at the shambles. It made the sanctuary a slaughter-house. The involuntary offering of an innocent lamb or pigeon cannot be a type of a willing offering of a human being. The whole scheme of bloody animal sacrifices is a type of nothing but the cruelty of barbarism, and meant a good dinner and fat priests! It is generally condemned by the Hebrew prophets as useless, and was entirely rejected by those who “professed and called themselves Christians.”

Since we can learn absolutely nothing that is rationally reliable concerning the “last Adam” from the Old Testament, it becomes necessary for us to consult comparatively modern history. The advent of Jesus was made, if made at all within the historic period, scarcely nineteen hundred years ago. If such a person appeared among men at that time, there must be some written record of so wonderful an event by contemporary parties.

In the Jewish Talmud, a perfect wilderness of religious and secular speculations, we find many spiteful and distorted allusions to one Jesus who went into Egypt and learned sorcery and magic, and by such influence raised a tumult among the people and led away a party of deluded followers. Whether this was Jesus of Nazareth it is impossible to say. There were many persons bearing similar names.

There is at the present day much ignorance—or at least indifference—even among intelligent Christians, to the fact that the very name of Jesus is not of Hebrew, but of Greek origin, as indeed is the whole history of his life as related in the four Gospels; and no one but those who have a previous theory to uphold can believe that the people of Jerusalem during the time of Christ spoke any other language than that spoken by their forefathers. From this we will pass to other instances where the name of Jesus is applied to others not named in the Gospels; and it will be a matter of surprise to many to know that no less than fifteen, most of them living at the time of the Christian era, are named by the Jewish historian Josephus as bearing the name of Jesus:

Jesus, son of Josedek (Ant., xi. iii. 10, iv. 1).

Jesus, sumamed Jason, son of Simon (Ant., xi. iii. 10, iv. 1).

Jesus, son of Phabet (Ant., xv. ix. 3).

Jesus, son of Sie (Ant., xvii. xiii. 1).

Jesus, son of Damneus (Ant., xx. ix. 1).

Jesus, son of Gamaliel (Ant., xx. ix. 4).

Jesus, son of Sapphias ( Wars, ii. xx. 4).

Jesus, son of Shaphat ( Wars, iii. ix. 7).

Jesus, son of Ananus ( Wars, iv. iv. 9).

Jesus, son of Ananus, a plebeian ( Wars, vi. v. 3).

Jesus, son of Gamala (Life, 38, 41).

Jesus, a high priest ( Wars, vi. ii. 2).

Jesus, son of Thebuthi ( Wars, vi. viii. 3).

Jesus, father of Elymas.

Jesus, surnamed Barabbas.

Josephus also refers to one Judas, a Gaulonite, who was a leader of the people, and whose character and career answer in so many respects to qualities credited to Jesus of Nazareth that it is supposed by many that the name Jesus had been changed to Judas; and he also refers to other Jesuses who are too much like the traditional Jesus of the Gospels in many things to be mere coincidences. Then there was the meek Jesus, mentioned by Josephus, who lived during the reign of Albinus, who prophesied such evil things, and who was scourged until his bones were laid bare, and who uttered no reply, and in so many ways was like the Jesus of tradition ( Wars of the Jews, book vi., chap. 5). Then we have the mention of the Jesus, as is well known, who was the friend of Simon and John and the “son of Sapphias,” who was the leader of a seditious tumult, who was betrayed by one of his followers, and defeated by Josephus himself when he was governor of Galilee, and put to shame and confusion (Life of Josephus, sec. 12-14).

This undoubtedly shows that nearly all that is claimed for Jesus of Nazareth might have been said as the substance of what was written by Josephus concerning real historical persons called Jesus. This may account for the conglomerate character and the many inconsistencies ascribed to this Jesus of tradition.

The failure of Jewish writers of the first century to recognize Jesus of Nazareth, even in the most casual way, is a significant fact. Philo, the celebrated writer of his day, was born about twenty years before the Christian era, and spent his time in philosophical studies at that centre of learning, Alexandria in Egypt. He labored diligently and wrote voluminously to reconcile the teachings of Plato with the writings of the Old Testament, and, though in the prime and vigor of manhood when Jesus is said to have lived, and dwelling in the immediate vicinity of Judea, and in the very city where Christianity was early introduced, yet this learned, devout, and honest Jew makes no mention of Jesus of Nazareth.

Even more strange is the silence of Josephus, the Jewish historian, who was born about A. d. 35, and lived and wrote extensively until after the destruction of Jerusalem, and yet he never mentioned the name of Jesus. The celebrated passage regarding Christ is known to be a forgery, and the one respecting “James the brother of Jesus, called the Christ,” is by no means worthy of confidence. It must be certain that in the first century of our era Jesus of Nazareth did not attract the attention of these fair and distinguished Jewish writers, if he in fact existed.

In early times the name Jesus, as has been shown, was as common as the names John or James, and when the name is mentioned it is impossible to say who is referred to. The passage in Josephus referring to Jesus thus, “About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be right to call him a man,” etc., is acknowledged by celebrated Christian writers to be a fraud. Its authenticity was given up as long ago as the time of Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, author of the Credibility of the Gospel History, and one of the most highly regarded of Christian writers. Gibbon, too, decided it to be a forgery. Bishop Warburton, the distinguished defender of Pope’s Essay on Man against the charge of atheism, and one of the most distinguished of Christian defenders, agreed with Lardner. The Rev. Robert Taylor quotes many other Christian writers as coinciding. The biographer of Josephus in the Encyclopaedia Britannica says the passage is unanimously regarded as spurious. Drs. Oort, Hookyaas, and Xuenen, German Christian writers of great repute, in the Bible for Learners declare the passage to be “certainly spurious” and “inserted by a later and a Christian hand.”

Gibbon says it was forged between the time of Origen (a. d. 230) and Eusebius (a. d. 315). The credit of the forgery, however, is generally given to Eusebius, who first quoted it. The distinguished authors of the Bible for Learners distinctly state that Josephus never mentioned Jesus, and cite Josephus’s close following of the atrocious career of Herod up to the very last moments of his life, without mentioning the slaughter of the innocents, as indubitable proof that Josephus knew nothing of Jesus. Dr. Lardner gives these reasons why he regards the passage as a forgery:

“I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

“Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ in any of his works, except the testimony above mentioned and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.

“It interrupts the narrative.

“The language is quite Christian.

“It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been in the text.

“It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

“Under the article ‘Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states that the historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

“Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from Christian authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony.

“But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv. of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ.”

The Rev. Dr. Giles, author of the Christian Records, adds to the reasons for rejecting the passage, as follows:

“Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus and the style of his writings have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the Gospels or of Christ their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion; and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (i. 11), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment, or even honesty, of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine.”

Oxley in his great work 011 Egypt says: “However, I have found in some papers that this discourse was not written by Josephus, but by one Caius, a presbyter.”

Here, according to their own showing, what had passed for centuries as the work of Josephus was a fraud perpetrated by a dignitary of the Church. This is in perfect keeping with ancient custom. In addition to all this, there is not an original manuscript of Josephus in existence, nor one (that I have heard of) that dates farther back than the tenth or eleventh century A. D.

Another forged reference to Christ is found in the Antiquities, book xx. chapter ix. section 1, where Josephus is made to speak of James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Some theologians who reject the longer reference to Jesus accept this as genuine. But they do it without reconciling the discrepancies between the stories regarding the end of this same James. According to this passage, James was put to death under the order of the high priest. But according to Hegesippus, a converted Jew who wrote a history of the Christian Church about A. d. 170, James was killed in a tumult, not by sentence of a court. Clement of Alexandria confirms this, and is quoted by Eusebius accordingly. Eusebius also quotes the line from Josephus without noticing that the two do not agree. The statement is quoted in various ways in the early writers, and the conclusion is irresistible that the copies of Josephus were tampered with by copyists. Even had Jesus lived and taught as described in the Gospels, Josephus, an orthodox Jew, a priest, and conservative government official, would never have given him the title of Christ, or Messiah, a party leader for whom the Jews were looking to free them from their Roman bondage.

Among the great pagan writers of the first century of our era we find absolutely nothing relating to Jesus of Nazareth. There was Seneca, living not far from these times, and then the Elder and the Younger Pliny, Tacitus, Plutarch, Galen, Epictetus, Marcus Antoninus—some of the noblest men of the world. Let us look at some few fragments of testimony that we have. One historian writes that “under a ringleader named Chrestus the Jews raised a tumult.” In another place he refers to the Christians as a class of men devoted to a “new and mischievous superstition.” And Tacitus speaks of Judea as “the source of this evil.” Another speaks of the Christians as “a sect hated for their crimes,” and Suetonius gives Nero special praise for having done the most that he could to wipe them off the face of the earth. In a Life of Claudius, another Roman emperor, Christ is spoken of as “a restless, seditious Jewish agitator.” Pliny the Younger, writing to the emperor about A. D. 104, when he was governor of Bithynia, says the Christians do not worship the gods nor the emperors—as most of the people then did—nor could they be induced to curse Christ. He says they met mornings for virtuous vows, and chanted a hymn to Christ as to a god, and in the evening they ate together a common meal. And after he had put them to torture he said all he could find against them was “a perverse and immoderate superstition.” Lucian, about the middle of the second century, speaks of Jesus as the crucified Sophist. We do not know certainly whether these references to Christ allude to Jesus of Nazareth at all. Chrestians and Chrestus were designations in common use all over the world, and the writers merely mentioned them as a sect well known as creating some noise in the world. Certainly the language used in describing them is not very complimentary. They may have referred to the Essenes, who had their ideal Chrest.

A modern writer has shown that the story of the persecution of Christians by the emperor Nero (a. d. 54-68) is a modern fabrication. Robert Taylor, in his Diegesis published in 1829, proved that Cornelius Tacitus never could have written the passage describing such persecution. It has been demonstrated that the whole of the so-called Annals of Tacitus, containing the celebrated passage, was forged by a Papal secretary named Poggio Bracciolini. In 1422, while in the receipt of a small salary under Martin V., he was tempted by an offer of five hundred sequins (which would now be equal to fifty thousand dollars) to engage in some mysterious literary work. Seven years later, six books of what are now called the Annals of Tacitus were brought to him by a monk from Saxony. Then all Christendom rejoiced to learn that the heathen Tacitus had mentioned Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate. Poggio, though a father both spiritually and carnally, was not a husband till the age of fifty-four. At seventy-two he accepted the office of secretary to the republic of Florence, and at seventy-nine he died, leaving five sons of his old age. Up to the last he was a busy student and writer. Fifty-six years after his death his fourth son was secretary to Pope Leo X., at which time the pope’s steward, stimulated by a munificent reward, discovered the first six incomplete books of the Annals, being the unfinished work of Poggio in his old age.

The finding of ancient MSS. was a very lucrative business for scholars in those days. It began with Petrarch, who died in 1374, and did not end with Poggio, who died in 1459. Poggio discovered several orations of Cicero, a history by Ammianus Marcollinus, and several other classic works, besides the unclassic writings of Tertullian, the first Latin Father.

The modern fabrication of many of the ancient Latin and Greek MSS. is now becoming apparent. Jean Hardouin, a French Jesuit, died in 1729, aged eighty-three years. He was deeply versed in history, language, and numismatology. At the age of forty-four he began to suspect that certain writings of the Christian Fathers were spurious, and soon became convinced that none of them were genuine. Then turning his attention to the Greek and Latin classics, he found evidence sufficient to convince him that most of those also were forgeries, being fabricated by the Benedictine monks after the middle of the fourteenth century.