পাতা:তত্ত্ববোধিনী পত্রিকা (দশম কল্প দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড).pdf/৭৯

अॉद१ sw*९ ।। rest of the apostles by the little ceremony of the sop, in order to fulfil an Old Testament prediction. But when we refer to the original prediction we find that the person indicated does not correspond to Judas at all; and that Jesus has been forced, as on another occasion. to alter the words of the original to make it applicable at all to his purpose. Psalm XLI. : " I said, Lord, be merciful into me : heal my soul, for I have sinned øya inst thee” (words which the Christians would not like to apply to Christ). “Mino enemies speak evil of me. When shall be die and his name perish All they that hate me whisper together against me : against me do thgy d evsie misehief yett, muiıle own famitiar frieud whom I trusted, which did eat of only brotd, hath lifted up his heel against me. Brit thou, Lord be merciful unto me, and roise une up that I may requite them.” Was Judas really the familiar friend of Jesus, in whom Jesus trusted Was he not invariałdy mentioned with rebuke and suspicion Already Jesus had 3. the opposite of trust 2 called hini “ the Son of perdition ;” and If he was God, ("hrist conlú not have trusted the inau who, foreknown, would betray hinu to death. Tho words who did cott of my bread. refer monostly to a dependent or member of the Psalmists' household, and would uot $unt, i]re design of Jesus so well as his owm new version of thein. “ he thott cu feth bretul } with me.” The whole seene and dialogue are manifestly inade up, and that by an evangelist who forgot, or did not know, that Jesus had prophesied coworwing this very Judas that he “should sit on one of the twelve throues in his new kingdom judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (See Matt. XIX. 28, and Luke XXII. 28-30.) There is a great deal to be said about this Judas in connection with the Gospel maratives and the Acts of the Apostles which we have not time to state. It is, however, not generally known and therefore ought to be stated hero, that all that long story about the potter's field is based upon a mistranslation of one word owing to the change of one letter. The Hebrew for potter is hajotser, but hajotsar, means the treasure-chest.' The latter is what the prophet doubtless meant 1I] Zech xi. 414 : " And I took the thirty THE EVIDENCE OF JESUS מדף sheckels of silver, and threw them awoy in the house of Jehovah to the treasure chest.” 1 will not hore dilate on the utter inapplicability of the passage to Judas and to the closing incidents of his life ; this can all be found on pp. 476-478 of Dr. Kneuen's work. But it is to him that is owing the discovery of the mistranslation and substitution in the authorised version of the Old Testan, nt of the word “potter” for “treasure cinest” Of courso all the New Testament romances built on the error are hereby completely blown away. One more qnotation l antist motke fi om the fourth Gospel, as illustrating the artificial and ungenuine character too often astonited by its author to Jesus. As Jesus hung oil the cross almost at his last hour, it is thus written of him : " After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, thirt tho Seripture might be fulfiiled saith f ti;irst Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar : and they filled a sponge with wincor, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his month.” This is a supposed reference to Psalm lxix., in which these words occur, “They gave no also gall for my neat and my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” The evangelist here wants us to believe that the thirst was not natural but cither feigned or supernatural, in order to accomplish another prophecy. 1t is poverbial that the loss of blood from wounds is accornpanied by thirst. The battle plains, and those who know their horrors, bear sad wit. ness to this physiological "fact. So, unless Jesus were superhuman, he could not help being thirsty. Moreover it was a Roman custom to place by the cross a jar of sour wine, such as the soldiers themselves drank, for the relief of the thirst of the crucified ones. It was in order not to torment but to refresh them. But by reference to the Psalm, John wants us to regard it as adding insult to injury, like offering “gall for meat.” Over and above all this artifice anul fietion stands the fact that the psalm which an “inspired” writer says was quoted by a “ Divine” man as a prophecy of himself, will not only not apply at all to his case, but if it did, no one would be more sorry than the Christians themselves. Here are a