The Genealogy Of Jesus 137who had the temerity to write accounts of his hero (Jesus). As a
physician, as against fishermen and tax collectors, he was no
doubt better equipped to create a literary masterpiece. This he did,
because “ IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME A L SO ” to “ PUT IN
ORDER.” These are his prominent justifications over his pre
decessors.
In the introduction to his translation of the “ Gospel of St.
Luke,” A Christian scholar, J.B. Phillips, has this to say — “ON
HIS OWN ADMISSION LUKE HAS CAREFULLY COMPARED AND
EDITED EXISTING MATERIAL, BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT HE
HAD ACCESS TO A GOOD DEAL OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL,
AND WE CAN REASONABLY GUESS AT SOME OF THE
SOURCES FROM WHICH HE DREW." And yet you call this the
Word of God?! Obtain “ The Gospels in Modem English,” in
soft cover by ‘FONTANA' publications. It is a cheap edition. Get it
quickly before the Christians decide to have Phillips’ invaluable
notes expunged from his translation! And do not be surprised if
the authors of the RSV also decide to eliminate the “Preface"'
from their translation. It is an old, old habit. As soon as those
who have vested interests in Christianity realize that they have
inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, they quickly make
amends. They make my current references "past" history overnight!
THE REMAINING GOSPELWho is the author of “ The Gospel of St. John?” Neither God
nor St. John! See what “he” (?) says about it “himself' (?) on page
138 — John 19:35 and 21:24-25. Who is his “ H E” and “ H IS”
and “ THIS?” A-N-D, his “WE KNOW” and "I SUPPOSE.” Could it
be the fickle one who left him in the lurch in the garden, when he
was most in need, or the fourteenth man at the table, at the “Last
Supper," the one that "Jesus loved?” Both were Johns. It was a
popular name among the Jews in the time of Jesus, and among
Christians even now. Neither of these two was the author of this
Gospel. That it was the product of an anonymous hand, is crystal-
clear.
- See page 85,