Blue-grass blade., 1895-08-04
COLLINS.W WILLIAMS DEBATE.
Midway, KY, July 80, '9s.

Midway, KY, July 90, 'os.
John Augustus Williams, Esq.
Dear Sir:-I wish to say to you before
proceeding with my reply, that you have
never yet explained satisfactorily the
geographical, chronological and statis-
tical discrepancies in the Gospels. Mat
thew speaks of Judea as If it were on
both sides of the Jordan, when the map
of Palestine in the time of Christ tails to
locate it thus. and when both Mr.. Moore
aid myself fail to find part XXI in An
tiquity of the Jews, 10 which you re-
ferred in order to prove that Judea had
greater breadth than from Joppa to
Jordan. Another argument of yours was
that Matthew did not say that Jesus
journeyed into Judea beyond the Jordan.
You remark: Matthew says simply that
Jesus journeying from Capernaum to Je
rusalem to attend the animal feast there,
came into the trans Jordauic borders of
Judea, by the farther side of the Jordan,
instead Of the central route through Sa-
maria" My rejoinder was that Matthew
did not say that in my Bible, hoping
that you would then explain. To this
you did not reply at all.
Luke tells us that Cyrenius was gov
ernor in the time of Christ. You refer
me to the testimony of Christian writer's
to prove that such was really the case.
In return | cited Josephus as authority,
who places the election of Cyrenius to
the governorship of Cyria after the BAN
ishment of Archelaus, which was in 7,
A. d. In replying, you make no effort
to confuie the important testi-
mony of Josephus. You silently let the
subject drop.
You also remember my reference to
Matthew saying that Jesus and his par
ents were afraid to go to Judea because
1t vas Herods kingdom and son of his
was reigning there, and instead went to
dwell III Galilee, where it is to be sup
NJ - =. . tyers 6~spsed. aanrSs safety.
nv comment was that had often won
dered why they were any the less fearfnl
of going to Galilee; because Galilee as
well as Judea, was Herod's kingdom, and
son of his was reigning there also in
his fathers place. This argument you
entirely overlooked.
Next, "Annas and Caiphus being high
priests, the word of God came unto
John" etc. In reply to my comment
you say that very much mistake the
condition of the priesthood in the time
of Christ, if think that the office of
high priest was held by only one person
at a time, and for life. I was only rely
ing on Jewish history for the assertion
that made. know that such was the
case all through the Mosaic dispensa-
ton, and that the caprice of the people
had nothing to do with it. had no rea-
made in the time of Christ.
<,rr cd To TacoVt,,rc
directed, beginning in Antiquity" with
part XVII, chapter 4, and reading up to
chapter S in part XVIII. am very
much obliged to you, indeed, for max
ing that reference, for find that Annas
was high priest some little time before
Caiphas was elected to that Office. 1t
seems that the Office of high priest, in
the time of the gospel writer's, was more
at the mercy of magisterial caprice than
of popular caprice! Annas, who was de-
prived' of his Office by Valerius Gratus,
was succeeded by Ishmael, the son of
Phati, after which Eleazar, the son of
Annas, was ordained. After Eleazar had
held it year, it was given to Sucion,
the son of Camithus, who was succeed
ed, after another year, by Joseph Cal
phas. We see that three people inter-
vened between Anuas and Caiphas, and
there is not the slightest reason to be-
lieve that Annas and Caiphas held the
Office at the same time or that one was
acting as Sagan, or Vicar, in conjunction
with the other. In fact, historical evi-
dence goes very much to disprove it.
We are told in the fourth chapter of
Antiquity" part XVII, of Caiphas be-
ing deposed by Vitellius, and If Annas
was holding the Office with him and at
the same time, II is peculiar incident
that his name is not mentioned here in
conjunction with caiphss, and that JON
athan was appointed to Office, as If An
mas had nothing whatever to do with it.
We are driven to the inference that the
gospel writer made little blunder that
is scarcely excusable in one who claimed
to be inspired.
Twill next quote the following from
John VII: "Search and look for out of
Galilee arises no prophet" You seem
partly to agree with me in the errors l
point out here, but you say that John is
not responsible for those words, but a
captious Jew.
You did not tell what reason you have
for believing it to be the work of a cap
tious Jew, nor indeed can l understand
why it should be such. any more than a
hundred other passages in tine gospels.
If you are correct in your assertion, how
are we to distinguish between the false
and the true, between the genuine and
the worthless
After making this admission, you then
go ahead to explain this passage away
in a somewhat different fashion, by say
ing that the words quoted above had
nothing to do with the prophets Of the
past, but related to the future alone.
Without meaning any disrespect to your
age and superior scholarship, there is
not the slightest foundation for the
apology you have made for it. Why