Christ. Did those two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might, nevertheless, be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. If Matthew speaks truth, Luke speaks falsehood, and if Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood; and as there is no authority for believing one more than the other, there is no authority for believing either; and if they cannot be believed even in the very first thing they say and set out to prove, they are not entitled to be believed in anything they say afterward...If they cannot be believed in their account of Jesus' genealogy, how are we to believe them when they tell us strange things such as Jesus was the Son of God begotten by a ghost, and that an angel announced this in secret to his mother?..

12. Shorto, Russell, Ibid., pp. 36-41: From the early second century, Jewish writers observing the rapidly spreading Christian religion noted with a sneer that the supposed divinely inspired figure at its center was in fact a bastard. Swirling around the gospel stories, according to some scholars, are whispered cries of “illegitimate”... Technically, even by the traditional rewading, this charge is true, for according to the accepted interpretation, Joseph, Mary’s betrothed, is not the actual father of the child. But a careful reading of Matthew’s account may suggest a more mundane kind of illegitimacy..and that Matthew constructed an elaborate theological architecture to try to transform that nasty reality into a myth he could build a tradition on... One thing about the genealogy that has bothered theologians for centuries is the mention of several women among the men who, in the ancient view, carry the bloodline. Why we are told that “Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob”, and so on, with no mention of the women involved, but then learn that Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah “by Tamar”, and Salmon the father of Boaz b”by Rahab”, and Boaz the father of Obed “by Ruth”, and that David was the father of Solomon “by the wife od Uriah”..? A solution to the puzzle has been worked up over the two past decades by a group of scholars who realized that all of the women mentioned are associated with scandalous sexual behavior. In other word, Matthew is softening the blow of Jesus’ questionable legitimacy by indicating that in several previous instances it was necessary for the royal bloodline of Israel to be passed on via less-than- ordinary means. Bastardy, it may even be suggested, was a badge of honor...

13. Foner, Philip S., Ibid., p. 539: Could we permit ourselves to suppose that the Almighty would distinguish any nation of people by the name of His Chosen People we must suppose that people to have been an example to all the rest of the world of the purest piety and humanity, and not such a nation of ruffians and cut-throats as the ancient Jews were; a people who, corrupted by the copying after such monsters and impostors as Moses and Aaron, Joshua, Samuel and David, had distinguished themselves above all others on the face of the known earth for barbarity and wiskedness.

14. Lockhart, Douglas, The Dark Side of God, Elements Books, Inc., Boston, MA., 1999, p. 47: With the ability to invent history through the forging of imposing- looking documents complete with papal seals, and with the added ability to instantly insert such fabrications into Canon Law, the Catholic Church systematically recreated its past and ended up believing its own lies.

15. Ellerbe, Helen, The Dark Side of Christian History, Morningstar & Lark, Orlando, FL., 1999, p.17: The Catholic Encyclopedia concedes that “In all departments forgery and interpolation as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a grand scale.” Despite Church prohibitions against any further research into the origins of the Gospels, scholars have shown that all four canonized Gospels have