diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/53616-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53616-8.txt | 9674 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 9674 deletions
diff --git a/old/53616-8.txt b/old/53616-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 183c0ac..0000000 --- a/old/53616-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,9674 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Jesus Problem, by J. M. Robertson - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Jesus Problem - A Restatement of the Myth Theory - -Author: J. M. Robertson - -Release Date: November 27, 2016 [EBook #53616] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE JESUS PROBLEM *** - - - - -Produced by Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net/ for Project -Gutenberg (This file was produced from images generously -made available by Cornell University Digital Collections) - - - - - - - - - - THE JESUS PROBLEM - - A RESTATEMENT OF THE MYTH THEORY - - - BY - J. M. ROBERTSON, M.P. - - - [ISSUED FOR THE RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION, LIMITED] - - - London: - WATTS & CO., - 17 JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C. 4 - 1917 - - - - - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - Prefatory Note vii - - Chapter I.--THE APPROACH 1 - Chapter II.--THE CENTRAL MYTH 24 - - § 1. The Ground of Conflict 24 - § 2. The Sacrificial Rite 31 - § 3. Contingent Elements 39 - § 4. The Mock-King Ritual 50 - § 5. Doctrinal Additions 53 - § 6. Minor Ritual and Myth Elements 57 - § 7. The Cross 61 - § 8. The Suffering Messiah 64 - § 9. The Rock Tomb 67 - § 10. The Resurrection 70 - - Chapter III.--ROOTS OF THE MYTH 72 - - § 1. Historical Data 72 - § 2. Prototypes 91 - § 3. The Mystery-Drama 96 - - Chapter IV.--EVOLUTION OF THE CULT 107 - - § 1. The Primary Impulsion 107 - § 2. The Silence of Josephus 121 - § 3. The Myth of the Twelve Apostles 126 - § 4. The Process of Propaganda 135 - § 5. Real Determinants 148 - - Chapter V.--ORGANIZATION AND ECONOMICS 157 - - § 1. The Economic Side 157 - § 2. Organization 162 - - Chapter VI.--EARLY BOOK-MAKING 170 - - § 1. The "Didachê" 170 - § 2. The Apocalypse 173 - § 3. Epistles 176 - - Chapter VII.--GOSPEL-MAKING 182 - - § 1. Tradition 182 - § 2. Schmiedel's Tests 188 - § 3. Tendential Tests 192 - § 4. Historic Summary 202 - - Chapter VIII.--SUPPLEMENTARY MYTH 207 - - § 1. Myths of Healing 207 - § 2. Birth Myths 209 - § 3. Minor Myths 217 - - Chapter IX.--CONCLUSION 223 - - Appendix A.--TRANSLATION OF "THE TEACHING OF - THE TWELVE APOSTLES," WITH NOTES 235 - Appendix B.--THE MYTH OF SIMON MAGUS 248 - - - - - - - - -PREFATORY NOTE - - -Most of the propositions in mythology and anthropology in this -book are founded on bodies of evidence given in the larger works of -the author. It seemed fitting, therefore, to refer to those works -instead of repeating hundreds of references there given. Readers -concerned to investigate the issues are thus invited and enabled to do -so. For brevity's sake, Christianity and Mythology is cited as C.M.; -Pagan Christs as P.C.; and the Short Histories of Christianity and -Freethought as S.H.C. and S.H.F. respectively. In the first three -cases the references are to the second editions; in the last case, -to the third. The Evolution of States is cited as E.S. Another work -often referred to is Sir J. G. Frazer's great thesaurus, The Golden -Bough, which is cited as G.B., the references being to the last -edition. Other new references are given in the usual way. The Ecce -Deus of Professor W. B. Smith is cited in the English edition. - -Passages in brackets, in unleaded type, may be passed at a first -perusal by readers concerned mainly to follow the constructive -theory. Such passages deal controversially with counter-polemic. - - - - - - - - -THE JESUS PROBLEM - -THE APPROACH - - -As was explained in the preamble to The Historical Jesus (1916), -that work was offered as prolegomena to a concise restatement of the -theory that the Gospel Jesus is a mythical construction. That theory -had been discursively expounded by the writer in two large volumes, -Christianity and Mythology and Pagan Christs, and summarily in A Short -History of Christianity, the argument in the two former combining a -negative criticism of the New Testament narrative with an exposition -of the myth-evidence. Criticism having in large part taken the form -of a denial that the records were unhistorical, it was necessary to -clear the ground by showing that all the various attempts of the -past generation to find in the gospels a historical residuum have -entirely failed to meet critical tests. Those attempts, conflicting -as they do with each other, and collapsing as they do in themselves, -give undesigned support to the conclusion that the gospel story is -without historic basis. - -It remains to restate with equal brevity the myth-theory which, long -ago propounded on a very narrow basis, has latterly been re-developed -in the light of modern mythology and anthropology, and has in recent -years found rapidly increasing acceptance. Inevitably the different -lines of approach have involved varieties of speculation; Professors -Drews and W. B. Smith have ably and independently developed the theory -in various ways; and a conspectus and restatement has become necessary -for the sake of the theory itself no less than for the sake of those -readers who call for a condensed statement. - -This in turn is in itself tentative. If the progressive analysis of -the subject matter from the point of view of its historicity has meant -a century and a half of debate and an immense special literature, it -is not to be supposed that the theory which negates the fundamental -assumptions of that literature can be fully developed and established -in one lifetime, at the hands of a few writers. The problem "What -really happened?" is in fact a far wider one for the advocate of the -myth-theory than for the critic who undertakes to extract a biography -from the documents. In its first form, as propounded by Dupuis and -Volney, the myth-theory was confined simply to certain parallelisms -between Christian and Pagan myth, and to the astronomical basis of a -number of these. From this standpoint the actual historic inception of -the cult was little considered. Strauss, again, developed with great -power and precision the view that most of the detail in the gospel -narrative is myth construction on the lines of Jewish prophecy and -dogma. But Strauss never fully accepted the myth-theory, having always -assumed the existence of a teacher as a nucleus for the whole. As -apart from the continuators of Dupuis and Volney, it was Bruno Bauer -who, setting out with the purpose of extracting a biography from the -gospels, and finding no standing ground, first propounded a myth-theory -from that point of view. - -His construction, being the substantially arbitrary one of a -hypothetical evangelist who created a myth and thereby founded the -cultus, naturally made no headway; and its artificiality strengthened -the hands of those who claimed to work inductively on the documents. It -was by reason of a similar failure to find a historic footing where he -had at first taken it for granted that the present writer was gradually -led, on lines of comparative hierology and comparative mythology and -anthropology, to the conception of the evolution of the Jesus-cult from -the roots of a "pre-Christian" one. The fact that this view has been -independently reached by such a student as Professor W. B. Smith, -who approached the problem from within rather than by way of the -comparative method, seems in itself a very important confirmation. - -What is now to be done is to revise the general theory in the light -of further study as well as of the highly important expositions of it -by Professor Smith and other scholars. An attempt is now definitely -made not merely to combine concisely the evidence for a pre-Christian -Jesus-cult, but to show how that historically grew into "Christianity," -thus substituting a defensible historical view for a mythic narrative -of beginnings. And this, of course, is a heavy undertaking. - -The question, "What do you put in its place?" is often addressed -to the destructive critic of a belief, not with any philosophic -perception of the fact that complete removal is effected only by -putting a tested or tenable judgment in place of an untested or -untenable one, but with a sense of injury, as if a false belief -were a personal possession, for the removal of which there must be -"compensation." In point of fact, the destructive process is rarely -attempted without a coincident process of substitution. Even to say -that a particular text is spurious is to say that some one forged or -inserted it where it is, for a purpose. That concept is "something in -its place." Some Comtists, again, are wont to commit the contradiction -of affirming that "no belief is really destroyed without replacement," -and, in the next breath, of condemning rationalists who "destroy -without replacing." Both propositions cannot stand. - -If it be meant merely to insist that explanation is replacement, -and that explanation is a necessary part of a successful or complete -process of destruction, the answer is that it is hardly possible even -to attempt to cancel a belief without putting a different belief in its -place; and that it is nearly always by way of positing a new belief -that an old one is assailed. The old charge against rationalism, of -"destroying without building up," is historically quite false. Almost -invariably, the innovator has offered a new doctrine or conception in -place of the old. True, it might not be ostensibly an equivalent, for -the believer who wanted an equivalent in kind. An exploded God-idea -is not for me replaceable by another God-idea: the only rational -"replacement" is a substitution of a reasoned for an authoritarian -cosmology and ethic. But in the way of reasoned replacements the -innovators have been only too quick, in general, to formulate -new conceptions, new creeds. They have really been too eager to -build afresh, and many untenable formulas and hypotheses are the -consequences. - -These very attempts, naturally, are constantly made the objects of -still more hasty counter-attack. Every form of the myth-theory with -which I am acquainted, whatever its defects, has been the result -of much labour, and even if astray can be fairly pronounced "hasty" -only in the sense that it proves to be inadequate. It is not so with -most of the counter-criticism. The reader may rest assured that -it is not possible for any exposition of the new theory to be as -"hasty" as is usually its rejection. [1] Professional theologians -who cast that epithet are in general recognizably men who believed -their hereditary creed before they were able to think, and have at -no later stage made good the first inevitable omission. - -Myth-theories, sound or unsound, are the attempts of students who find -the record incredible as history to think out, in the light of the -documents and of comparative mythology and hierology, the process by -which it came to be produced; and even as all myth is but a form of -traditionary error, so any attempt to trace its growth runs the risk -of error. It is one thing to show, for instance, that the Pentateuch -cannot have been written by "Moses," seen to be a non-historical -figure: it is another thing to settle how the books were really -made. In such cases, the "something in the place" of the tradition -is to be ascertained only after long and patient investigation and -counter-criticism. So with the investigation of the fabulous history of -early Rome. After several scholars had set forth grounded doubts, the -problem was ably and systematically handled by the French freethinker -Louis de Beaufort in 1738. Early in the nineteenth century, Niebuhr, -confidently undertaking "with the help of God" to get at the truth, -and falsely disparaging Beaufort's work as wholly "sceptical," effected -a reconstruction which has since been found to be in large measure -unsound, though long acquiesced in by English students. [2] In such -matters there is really no finality. If well-documented history must -in every age be rewritten, no less inevitable is the re-writing of -that which is reached only by processes of inference. And the gospel -problem is the hardest of all. Still more than in the case of the -Pentateuch problem, many revisions will probably be needed before a -generally satisfactory solution is reached. - -There is nothing for it but to trace and retrace, consider and -reconsider, the inferrible historic process. Met as he is by -alternate charges of reckless iconoclasm and "hasty" construction, -the proper course for the holder of the myth-theory is to repeat with -dispassionate vigilance both of his processes--to show first that the -progressive effort to extract from the gospels a tenable biography -has ended in complete critical collapse, revealing only a tissue of -myth; and then to attempt to indicate how the pseudo-history came -to be compiled: in other words, how the myth arose. Such has been my -procedure in the preceding volume and in this. - - - -It may of course be argued that the previous negative criticism of -the gospel record is indecisive; that the avowal of Loisy: "If the -trial and condemnation of Jesus, as pretended Messiah, could be put -in doubt, we should have no ground for affirming the existence of the -Christ," does not commit other inquirers, or that the historicity of -the trial story has not really been exploded; that the nullity of -the alleged Evangel has not been established; or that the complete -destruction of previous biographical theories claimed by Schweitzer -for himself and Wrede has not been accomplished. The answer is that -these issues are not re-opened in the following chapters. They were -carefully handled in the previous volume, to which I have seen no -attempt at a comprehensive and reasoned answer. - - -[The latest attack I have seen comes from a former antagonist, who -appears to lay his main complaint against the book on the ground that -it "omits to notice the theory of the synoptic problem which appears in -every modern text-book," that is, "the two-documents hypothesis." And -there emerges this indictment:-- - - - As the theory has a vital bearing on the relative values of - different strata of tradition, Mr. Robertson cannot afford to - ignore it. If we apply to himself the crude principle he applies - to Paul and the evangelists, to wit, that if they don't mention - a thing they don't know it, we must assume that Mr. Robertson is - still ignorant of the very elements of the problem he is professing - to solve. Since he has no clear or tenable view of the documents - and their relations to one another, he obviously cannot answer - the historical questions they raise. [3]... Presumably he omits - to mention it because he does not see its significance. [4] - - -Before coming to the main matter, it is necessary to elucidate -the charge as to a "crude principle" applied to Paul and the -evangelists. The "principle" really applied was this, that if "Paul" in -all his writings, apart from two interpolated passages, shows no real -knowledge whatever of the gospels, and no knowledge whatever either of -the life or the teachings of Jesus as there recorded, we are compelled -to infer either that these details were not in any form known to Paul, -or that, if he knew them, he did not believe them. It is not a matter -of his not knowing "a thing": that is the sophism of the critic; it is -a matter of his not knowing anything on the subject. And so with the -synoptics and the fourth gospel. When one side relates something vital -to the record, of which the other side shows no knowledge whatever -[5]--as, for instance, great miracles--we are bound to infer that -the silent side, when it is the earlier record, either did not know -or did not believe the story. Or, again, when John alleges that the -disciples baptized freely and the synoptics make no mention of it, -it is clear that we cannot suppose them, in the alleged circumstances, -to have been ignorant of such a fact; while, if they are supposed to -have known it and yet to have kept silence, their credit as historians -is gravely shaken. The "principle," in fact, is that of critical -common-sense; and the critic's version of it is a forensic perversion. - -On the next issue, it is perhaps well to explain to the lay reader -that the "two-documents hypothesis" is simply what Schmiedel--with -a very justifiable implication--named "the so-called theory of two -sources," a mere aspect of "the borrowing hypothesis" which constitutes -the main substance of the bulk of the documentary discussion of the -gospels in the last century, and which is simply the most obvious -way of attempting to explain the documentary phenomena. It dates from -Papias. As the critic asseverates, it is the theory of the text-books -in general. And for the main purposes of historic comprehension, it -is neither here nor there. The theory of two sources cannot possibly -cover all the data, even from the biographical point of view. The -effect of Schmiedel's article--a model of critical honesty and general -good sense which his successors might usefully strive to copy in those -regards--is to show that the hypothesis is quite inadequate even as a -documentary theory; and from the point of view of the rational student -it is simply neutral to the vital question, What really did happen, -in the main? He who has realized that the Entry, the Betrayal, the -Last Supper, the Agony, the Trials, and the Crucifixion, are all as -mythical as the Resurrection, is not at that point concerned with the -dispute as to priority among the gospels, or any sections of them. No -documentary hypothesis can possibly make the myth true. - -At the vital point, in fact, the two-documents hypothesis is not even -ostensibly applicable: the synoptic narrative is one primary narrative, -subjected to minor modifications. It is admitted by Harnack to have -been absent from "Q," the Logoi "source" held to have been drawn upon -by Matthew and Luke. And that one narrative, as I have argued, is -not in origin a "gospel" narrative at all, but the simple transcript -of a mystery-drama, with almost the minimum of necessary narrative -insertion. If the exegete could bring himself to contemplate rationally -my hypothesis, he might find his documentary labours lightened. [6] - -It is doubtless true that the determination of the earlier as against -the later form of a minor narrative episode, or of a teaching, is -often essential to the framing of a true notion as to its mode of -entrance; and such determination I have attempted many times. But -the notion that historicity is a matter of priority of documents -is, as Schmiedel sees, the fallacy of fallacies. Prisoned in that -presupposition, exegetes defending the record achieve inevitably the -very failure they impute: they are "ignorant of the very elements -of the problem they are professing to solve"--that is, the problem -of what really happened. They cannot realize the conditions under -which the gospels were compiled. They construct what they think a -"clear or tenable" view of the documents by the process of evading -the considerations which make it untenable or inadequate, and then -demand that their documentary formula shall be met by one in pari -materia. The answer to them is that their psychological as well as -their historical assumptions are false. Things did not happen in -that way. And two versions of a palpable myth do not make for its -historicity. There are two or more versions of most myths. - -The indictment before us, in short, is an illustration of the mode -of theological fence discussed above. You undertake to show that the -most alert presentments of a given historical conception fail to stand -critical tests, and you are met with the reply: "We are not concerned -to discuss the presentments you deal with, which are not generally -accepted: we demand that you discuss instead the documentary theory -which in those presentments is treated as obsolete. If you do not -do this, you show you are incompetent." When on the other hand the -critical significance of an older theory is indicated, the reply is -made that that theory is "obsolete." One theory is too new, another -is too old, for discussion. All the while, the theory founded-on for -the defence is really the oldest of all. It was in fact the obvious -inadequacy of the familiar documentary hypothesis that dictated our -discussion of more up-to-date theories, as it had elicited these. If -our exegete's favourite hypothesis had had any power of satisfying -independent students, we should not have had such treatises as those of -the Rev. Dr. Wright and Dr. Flinders Petrie, or the searching analysis -and commentary of M. Loisy, to say nothing of the vigorous Dr. Blass. - -In dealing with such writers, and particularly in following the -"real" procedure of M. Loisy on the main issues of historical fact, -I took what seemed to me the candid controversial course. To resort -instead to a mere exposure of the obvious insufficiency of the -"two-documents hypothesis" would be like arguing as if Genesis -were the only alternative to the Darwinian theory. Dr. Wright's -"oral hypothesis" is a vivid and interesting revival of what, as -I pointed out, had long ago been the "predominant" view. [7] Our -exegete nevertheless affirms that I regard it "as something new in -England." To the lay reader I would again explain the situation thus -handled. Theological discussion on the gospels has moved in cycles, -by reason of the invariable presupposition as to historicity, which -was a main factor in the partial failure of the mythical theory as -introduced by Strauss. As I expressly stated, the oral hypothesis was -before Strauss "well established." Then ensued the age-long discussion -of documentary hypotheses. At the close of the nineteenth century we -find Schmiedel saying: - - - Lastly, scholars are also beginning to remember that the - evangelists did not need to draw their material from books alone, - but that from youth up they were acquainted with it from oral - narration and could easily commit it to writing precisely in - this form in either case--whether they had it before them in no - written form, or whether they had it in different written form. In - this matter, again, we are beginning to be on our guard against - the error of supposing that in the synoptical problem we have - to reckon merely with given quantities, or with such as can be - easily ascertained. [8] - - -If I had written that, I should doubtless be told that I regarded -the oral hypothesis as "new." Dr. Schmiedel, it is to be hoped, may -escape the aspersive method of my critic. In point of fact, a return -to the oral hypothesis was inevitable in view of the insufficiency -of the other. Unfortunately it has been made on the old and fatal -presupposition of the historicity of the myth; but, as made by -Dr. Wright, it seemed well worth critical consideration. My critic -disparages that and other propaganda as "commanding no large measure of -assent anywhere." My testimony, I fear, will not help Dr. Wright; but I -will say that I found him an honest and extremely interesting writer, -admirably free from theological malice, and above all exhibiting a -thoroughly independent hold of his thesis. What amount of assent he -has secured is an irrelevant issue. I can only say that I found him -very readable. The scholarly and intellectual status of Dr. Flinders -Petrie, again, is such as perhaps to make it unnecessary to say--as -against similar disparagement in his case--that a thesis seriously and -vigorously embraced by him as superseding the older documentary and -oral hypotheses alike, seemed to me well entitled to consideration.] - - -The examination of the recent positions of independent writers -seeking to construct a documentary theory has, I think, sufficed -to safeguard the honest lay student of the myth-theory against the -kind of spurious rebuttal set up by those who, themselves innocent -of all original research, pretend that the fundamental historicity -of the gospels is established by a "consensus of scholarship." There -is no consensus of scholarship. I observe that M. Loisy, to whom I -devoted special study, is journalistically disparaged by the Very -Rev. Dean Inge. That disparagement--which, I also observe, I have the -undeserved honour to share--will not impose upon serious students, -who will realize that Dean Inge, himself transparently unorthodox, -has no resource in such matters but to disparage all who labour -with any measure of rational purpose to put concrete conclusions -where church dignitaries inevitably prefer to maintain rhetorical -mystification. For the purposes of serious students, M. Loisy is an -important investigator, Dean Inge a negligible essayist. - -It is true that one of the positions I discussed--that of the school of -Weiss--is not "new." But in that case the reason for selection was not -merely that it was one of the efforts to reach something less neutral -than the "two-documents hypothesis," but that it is in substance -the position of some of the most recent and most virulent English -critics of the myth-theory. It is in fact the gist of the polemic -of Dr. Conybeare. I have shown, accordingly, that the thesis of a -primary biography is psychologically absurd in itself; and, further, -that like all the other documentary hypotheses it has been left high -and dry by the latest German exegetes, who, expressly assuming the -historicity of a Jesus, and founding on the gospels for their case, -reduce these to a minimum of tradition at which M. Loisy must stand -aghast. It is in England, in short, that the biographical school, -as represented by Dean Inge and Dr. Conybeare, is seen to be most -entirely out of touch with the movement of rational criticism. - -It is in England, too, that we find the most uncritical reliance -put upon the "impression of a personality" said to be set up by -the gospels. This argument is still used without any attempt at -psychological self-analysis, any effort to find out what an impression -is worth. A generation or two ago, exactly the same position was -taken up in regard to the fourth gospel: both the Arnolds, for -instance, were confident that the vision of Jesus there given was -peculiarly real. Critical study has since forced all save the sworn -traditionalists and the mere compromisers to the conclusion that it -cannot be real if there is any substantial truth in the presentment -of the synoptics. Slowly it has been realized that the methods -which produce a vivid impression of "personality" are methods open -to fictive art, and differ only in detail from the methods of the -Bhagavat Gîta or the methods of Homer. If a strong impression of a -personality be a certificate of historicity, what of Zeus and Hêrê, -Athênê and Achilles, Ulysses and Nestor? Most critics who handle the -problem seem to work in vacuo, without regard to the phenomena and -the machinery of fictive literature in general, even when they are -moved to accept a hypothesis of fiction. - -The vision presented in the fourth gospel is prima facie more lifelike -than that of the synoptics, because its main author is more of an -artist than his predecessors. It has been justly affirmed by Professor -W. B. Smith that - - - The received notion that in the early Marcan narratives the - Jesus is distinctly human, and that the process of deification - is fulfilled in John, is precisely the reverse of the truth. In - Mark there is really no man at all: the Jesus is God, or at - least essentially divine, throughout. He wears only a transparent - garment of flesh. Mark historizes only. Matthew also historizes - and faintly humanizes. Luke more strongly humanizes; while John - not only humanizes but begins to sentimentalize. [9] - - -Contemporary German scholars, such as Wellhausen, working on -the synoptics, begin uneasily to note the lack of reality and -verisimilitude in the presentment there given, avowing a deficit -of biographical quality where English amateurs still heedlessly -affirm a veridical naïveté. Wellhausen, tacitly clinging to the -biographical assumption, gives up section after section of Mark, -where our amateurs primitively acclaim as genuine biographic detail -such an item as "asleep on the cushion" (Mk. iv, 38). Following -another will-o'-the-wisp, Wellhausen is moved to claim the episode -of the widow's mite (Lk. xxi, 1-4) as having biographical flavour, -as if the admitted inventor of other Lucan episodes could not have -doctrinally framed this. There is no science in such tentatives. They -do but tell of a search for a subjective basis of belief when criticism -has dissolved the objective bases of the old assumption. - -When it is pretended, as by Dr. Conybeare, that the mythical theory -rests on and grows solely out of the supernaturalist details in -the gospel story, the case is simply falsified. This writer never -seems to master his subject matter. Before Strauss, as by Strauss, -the myth-theory was widely applied to non-supernatural matter; -and to surmise a historical Jesus behind those details has been -the first step in all modern inquiry. The assertion that the -rejection of the historicity of Jesus "is not really the final -conclusion of their [myth-theorists'] researches, but an initial -unproved assumption" [10] is categorically false. Professor Smith's -biographical statement negates it. [11] As I have repeatedly stated, -I began without misgivings by assuming a historical Jesus, and -sought historically to trace him, regarding the birth myth and the -others as mere accretions. But the very first step in the strictly -historical inquiry revealed difficulties which the biographical -school and the traditionalists alike had simply never faced. The -questions whether Jesus was "of Nazareth," "Nazarene" in that sense, -or "the Nazarite"; and why, if he was either of these, he was never -so named in the epistles, stood in the very front of the problem, -wholly unregarded by those who profess to trace a historical Jesus -by historical method. The problem of "the twelve" is to this day -passed with equal heedlessness by critics professing to work on -historico-critical lines; and the question of the authenticity of the -teachings is no more scientifically met. It was because at every step -the effort to find historical foundation failed utterly that after -years of investigation I sought and found in a thorough application -of the myth-theory the solution of the enigma. Invariably that gives -light where the historical assumption yields darkness. - -It is thoroughly characteristic of the spirit in which some champions -of the biographical view work that, in sequel to the falsification -of the problem just noted, we have from them the plea that if we -give up the historicity of Jesus, we must give up that of Solon and -Pythagoras; and that "obviously Jesus has a far larger chance to -have really existed than Solon." [12] Such a use of the conception of -"chance" reveals the kind of dialectic we are dealing with. One recalls -Newman's derision of the Paleyan position that the "chances" were in -favour of there being a God. "If we deny all authenticity to Jesus's -teaching," we are asked, "what of Solon's traditional lore?" Well, -what of it? Is it to be authenticated by the threat that it must -go if we deny that the Sermon on the Mount is a sermon at all? The -fragments of Solon's verse purport to have been written by him: -have we anything purporting to have been written by Jesus? The very -fact that we have only fragments of Solon is in itself an argument -in favour of their genuineness: to Jesus any evangelist could ascribe -any sayings at will. [13] - -As usual, the critic falsifies the debate, affirming that "the stories -of Plutarch about him [Solon] are, as Grote says, 'contradictory as -well as apocryphal.'" What Grote really says [14] is that Plutarch's -stories "as to the way in which Salamis was recovered are contradictory -as well as apocryphal." He makes no such assertion as to the stories -of Solon's life in general, though, like every critical historian, -he recognizes that many things were ultimately ascribed to Solon which -belong to later times. [15] But the genuine fragments of Solon's verse -and laws are sound historical material. As Meyer claims, [16] the -Archon list is as valid as the Roman Fasti. It is precisely because -of the solid elements in the record that Solon stands as a historic -figure, while Lycurgus is given up as a deity Evemerized. [17] On the -principles of Dr. Conybeare, we must give up Solon because we give up -Lycurgus, or accept Lykurgos if we accept Solon. Historical criticism -does no such thing. It decides the cases on their merits by critical -tests, and finds the fact of a Solonian legislation historically as -certain as the Lycurgean is fabulous. The item that Solon's family -claimed to be descended from Poseidon is no ground for doubting -the historicity of Solon, because such claims were normal in early -Greece. Is it pretended that claims to be the Son of God were normal -in later Jewry? - -The device of saying that we must accept the historicity of Jesus if we -accept that of Solon is merely a new dressing of the old claim that we -must believe in the resurrection if we believe in the assassination -of Cæsar. Both theses rest on spurious analogies; and both alike -defeat themselves, the older by carrying the implication that the -prodigies at Cæsar's death are as historical as the assassination; -the newer by involving the consequence that Solon accredits not only -Lycurgus but Herakles and Dionysos, Ulysses and Achilles. - -The argument from Pythagoras is a still more fatal device. Of him -"it is no easy task to give an account that can claim to be regarded -as history." [18] And "of the opinions of Pythagoras we know even -less than of his life." [19] It is held to be certain that he taught -the doctrine of transmigration and originated certain propositions in -mathematics; but while the mathematical element has no analogue in the -gospels, the residual view of Pythagoras as vending in religion only a -"thoroughly primitive" set of taboos [20] would sanction, by analogy, -the view that the real Jesus was the Talmudic Ben Pandira, who dates -about 100 B.C., and was reputed a worker of wonders by sorcery. This is -a sufficiently lame and impotent conclusion from a polemic in favour of -the gospel Jesus, whom it leaves, in effect, a myth, as the myth-theory -maintains. As for Apollonius of Tyana, one holds him historical [21] -just because his myth-laden story is finally intelligible as history, -which is precisely what the Jesus story is not. - -This said, The Historical Jesus may be left, as it is, open to critical -refutation. The present volume is theoretically constructive, and -does not unnecessarily return upon the other. It is open in its turn -to refutative criticism. - -That description, it may be remarked, would not be accorded by me to -a mere asseveration that there "must" be a historical basis for the -gospels in a person answering broadly to the Gospel Jesus. Any one -who confidently holds such a view need hardly trouble himself with -the present thesis at all: and for me any one who affects to dispose -of the issue by merely fulminating the "must" is simply begging the -question. Those who, on the other hand, do but lean instinctively to -such a belief may be respectfully invited to reconsider it in the -light of all hierology. That there "must" be a historic process of -causation behind every cult is a truism: it does not in the least -follow that the historic basis must be the historicity of the God or -Demigod round whose name the cult centres. - -Many Saviour names have been the centres of cults, in the ancient -world as in the modern. There were extensive and long-lived worships -of Herakles, Dionysos, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, in addition to the -age-long cults of the "Supreme" Gods. Is it claimed that there "must" -have been a historical Herakles, or Dionysos, or Adonis? If so, is -it further contended that there must have been a historical Jehovah, -a Jove, a Cybelê, a Juno, a Venus? If the Father-Gods and Mother-Gods -could be evolved by protracted mythopoeia, why not the Son-Gods? - -It is perfectly true, as was urged by the late Sir Alfred Lyall, -that in India and elsewhere distinguished men may to this day be -deified; that ancestor-worship played a great part in God-making; -and that tribal Gods are in many cases probably evolved from -distinguished chiefs. But such cases really defeat the inference -drawn from them. Such God-making can in no instance be shown ever -to have set up what can reasonably be termed a world-religion. The -world-religions are the product of a far more protracted and complex -causation. They grow from far further-reaching roots. Above all, -they have never grown up without the services either of a numerous -priesthood or of Sacred Books, or of both. - -Is it then contended that a Sacred Book must represent the originative -teaching of a real person and his disciples? It may or may not; -but what does not at all follow is that the personality deified or -extolled in the Sacred Book was real. Mohammed was a real person: -he made no claim to deity: he acclaimed an established God. The names -of Zoroaster and Buddha were probably not those of real persons: the -first figures as a cult-building priest; the second as a Teacher, -enshrined from the first in a luxuriant myth, whence his practical -deification. In both cases the specific centre of the religion is -the Book or Books; and it is beyond question that in both cases many -hands wrought on these. To say that only a primary personality of -abnormal greatness could have inspired the writing of the books is -really equivalent to saying that there must have been a historical -Jehovah to account for the Old Testament, and a historical Allah to -account for the Koran. Let it be freely granted that the writers of -Sacred Books were in many cases remarkable personalities. That is a -totally different proposition from the one we are considering. - -The claim that the gospels could only have originated round the memory -of an inspiring and love-creating personality is in effect an evasion -of the multitudinous facts of hierology. The European who sees nothing -in the fact that the mythic Krishna is loved by millions of Hindoos; -that in ages of antiquity millions of worshippers were absorbed in the -love of Dionysos, mutilated themselves for Attis, and wept for Adonis, -is not really ready for a verdict on what "must" have been as regards -the building up of any cult. Are the Psalms, once more, a testimony to -the historicity of Jehovah, or is the hymn of Hippolytos to Artemis, -in Euripides, a proof of anything but that men can love an imagination? - -The special claim for a historical Jesus arises out of the very fact -that Jesus alone among the Saviour Gods of antiquity (Buddha being -excluded from that category) is celebrated in a set of Sacred Books in -which he figures as at once a Sacrificed God and a Teaching God. [22] -But the worships of the Saviours Dionysos and Herakles and Adonis, -without Sacred Books (apart from temple liturgies), were as confident -as the worship of Jesus. Is the production of Sacred Books in itself -any more of a testimony to a Saviour God's human actuality than the -worship with which they are associated? - -Historically speaking, the emergence of Sacred Books as accompaniments -of a popular cultus is a result of special culture conditions. In -the case of Judaism these have never been scientifically traced, -by reason of the presuppositions of the past. [23] But we can trace -later cases. Early Christism founded primarily on the Sacred Books -of Judaism; and it needed to produce books of its own if it was -to survive as against the overshadowing parent cult. Save for these -books, Christism would have disappeared as did Mithraism, of which the -scanty hieratic literature remained occult, liturgical, unpopular, -where Christism was committed to publicity by the Jewish lead. To -make of Sacred Books produced under those special conditions a special -argument for the historicity of their contents, or of their narrative -groundwork, is to embrace the fallacy of the single instance. And when -the contents utterly fail to sustain the tests of rational documentary -criticism, to fall back on a "must" for certification of the actuality -of the figure they deify is merely to renounce critical reason. - -The rational problem is to account historically for the projection -as a whole, to explain the main features and as many minor details -as may be, as we explain the "personality" and the myth of Herakles -or Samson or Adonis, the doctrines and fictions of the Books of Ruth -and Esther, the religions of Krishna and Mithra and Quetzalcoatl. We -are now compendiously to make the attempt. - -M. Loisy has declared [24] that "One can explain to oneself Jesus: -one cannot explain to oneself those who invented him." In the previous -volume it has been contended that M. Loisy has decisively failed to -"explain Jesus" as a possible person: in this we essay to explain -"those who invented him." M. Loisy is an illustrious New-Testament -scholar: he is not a mythologist or a comparative hierologist. It is -very likely that he would find it difficult to explain to himself -those who invented Tezcatlipoca; but it would hardly follow that -Tezcatlipoca was not invented. In point of fact, a large portion -of M. Loisy's own important critical performance consists precisely -in explaining away as inventions a multitude of items in the gospel -narrative. He can understand invention of many parts, and admits that -unless removed they make an incongruous whole. There is really no -more difficulty in explaining the other parts as similar inventions -than in explaining these. Thus the alleged difficulty is illusory. - -The occupation of "explaining to oneself" imaginary beings has been the -occupation of theologians through whole millenniums. There can still -be found even a hierologist or two who believe in the historicity of -Krishna; as the judicious Mosheim in the eighteenth century confidently -believed in the historicity of Mercury and Mithra. Those--and they -are many--who are now content to see myth in the figures of Mithra -and Krishna, with or without the nimbus of Sacred Books, may on that -score consent to consider the thesis of this volume. - -It will be no adequate answer to that to say, as will doubtless be -said, that the outline of the evolution of the myth is unsatisfying. In -the very nature of the case, the connections of the data must be -speculative. It may well be that those here attempted--some of them -modifications of previous theories--will have to be at various -points reshaped; and I invite the reader to weigh carefully the -views of Professors Drews and Smith where I diverge from them. The -complete establishment of a historical construction will be a long and -difficult task. But in its least satisfying aspect the myth-theory -is a scientific substitution for what is wholly dissatisfying--the -entirely unhistorical construction furnished by the gospels. - -That has been under revision for a hundred and fifty years, with an -outlay of labour that is appalling to think of, in view of the utter -futility of the search--or, let us say, the labour in proportion to -the result, for toil even upon false clues has yielded some knowledge -that avails for rectification. But the labour has meant a steadily -dwindling confidence in a dwindling residuum of supposed fact; though -every shortening of the line of defence has evoked furious outcry from -the unthinking faithful. The first pious framers of "harmonies" of the -gospels were indignantly told by the more stupid pious that there was -no strife to harmonize: the Schmiedels and Loisys of to-day, striving -their hardest to save something by rational methods from the rational -advance, are execrated by those who believe more than they. The more -instructed believers are as warm in their resentment of the latest -and coolest negative criticism as were their fathers towards the -contemptuous exposure of the contradictions of "inspiration." Anger, -it would seem, always leaps to the help of shaken confidence. Let -the believer perpend. - -It is not orthodoxy that is to-day fighting the case of the historicity -of Jesus. Orthodoxy is committed to the miraculous, to Revelation, -to the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and, if it -would be consistent, to the Ascension, which is on the same plane -of belief. Upon such assumptions, there can be no critical defence -worthy of the name. The defence is being conducted mainly by the avowed -or non-avowed Neo-Unitarians of the various churches and countries; -and these are simply standing either at the position taken up fifty -years ago by Renan, whose "biography" of Jesus was received with a -far more widespread and no less violent storm of censure than that -now being turned upon the myth-theory; or at the more nearly negative -position of Strauss, which was still more fiercely censured. Renan's -position, or Strauss's, is now the position of the mass of "moderate" -scholars and students. Those who have thus seen a denounced heresy -become the standpoint of ordinary scholarly belief should be slow to -conclude that a newer heresy will not in time find similar acceptance. - - - - - - - - -CHAPTER II - -THE CENTRAL MYTH - - -§ 1. The Ground of Conflict - -For the purposes of this inquiry, all miracles, strictly so-called, -are out of discussion. This does not mean that the myth-theory -of Jesus is an outcome of atheistic philosophy. One of the most -brilliant of modern books on Jesus is the work of an avowed atheist, -[25] who accepted substantially the whole of the non-supernatural -presentment of Jesus in the gospels, taking it to be a bad biography, -and subjecting the doctrine to keen but sympathetic criticism. This -writer, dismissing miracles as outside debate, had a conviction of the -historicity of Jesus which was in no way affected by a knowledge of -modern documentary criticism. On the other hand, Professor Arthur -Drews, author of The Christ Myth, expressly claims to urge the -myth-theory in the interest of theistic religion. Of course he too -dismisses miracles as outside discussion. - -Those who are still concerned to discuss them, and to affirm such -beliefs as those of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, should -turn their attention to the well-known work of the late W. R. Cassels, -Supernatural Religion, [26] in which the whole supernaturalist case, -in its double aspect of "revelation" and miracles, is examined with an -abundance of learning, patience, and candour. Disparaged in its day -by professional orthodox scholars, that treatise has so completely -done its special work in the general criticism of supernaturalist -faith that, however common orthodoxy may still be, the matter is now -little debated among instructed men. Those who still hold the orthodox -position, therefore, are not here addressed. Our inquiry invites the -attention only of those who, abandoning the supernaturalist basis -of the Christian creed, seek to retain (it may be as the ground for -a transformed "Christianity") (1) the human personality which they -believe to have underlain the admitted myths of the record, and -(2) the teachings--or some of them--ascribed to the God-Man of the -Gospels. The problem is one of historical criticism, and does not turn -upon theism or atheism. The historicity of Jesus is maintained not only -by "Christians" of various degrees of heterodoxy but by some professed -rationalists; by critics eminent for judicial temper, as by Professor -Schmiedel of Zürich; and on the other hand by Dr. F. C. Conybeare. - -These critics agree in regarding Jesus as a natural man, naturally -born, and it is to them that we must reply. When an orthodox Christian -like the Rev. Dr. T. J. Thorburn, holding by the Annunciation and the -Virgin Birth, sets himself to rebut the myth-theory [27] by scouting -myth analogies, it would be idle to argue with him. A writer who -can believe he has evidence for a story of human parthenogenesis -has no conception of evidence in common with us. It is accordingly -needless to point out that he constantly and absurdly misunderstands -the myth argument; [28] that he discusses Evemerism without knowing -what it means; [29] and that he merely juggles with such cruces as -the stories of the Transfiguration and the Ascension. From one at his -standpoint we can expect nothing else; and to those whom his exposition -satisfies no myth-theory can appeal. When he resorts to the device of -denying "spiritual insight" to those who accept scientific tests, he -merely exemplifies the normal procedure of orthodox incompetence. The -religious reasoner who flouts reason usually certificates and betrays -himself in that inexpensive fashion. Our argument is addressed to -those who profess to apply to Biblical matters the principles of -historical criticism. - -The biographical school, as one may inoffensively term the variously -minded champions of the historicity of the record, abandon the Virgin -Birth and the Resurrection as impossibilities. That is to say, they -accept the myth-theory as regards those two cardinal items of the -Christian legend. They also in general recognize that the fourth -gospel, in so far as it differs vitally from the synoptics, is in -the main a process of myth-making. But, clinging to the alleged -substratum, most members of the school adhere to the fundamental -historicity of the Crucifixion. Here they stand with Strauss, who -found in the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate a solid historical -fact. Strauss is generally explicit as to his reasons for accepting -and rejecting; and while he resolves into myth at least nine-tenths -of the gospel narratives, finding them mere inventions to "fulfil" -supposed Old Testament predictions, he finds the testimony of Tacitus -unquestionable as to the execution. [30] - -Now, the Annals of Tacitus is itself a questioned document; but -even if we take it as unquestionable it is admittedly only a late -statement of a narrative already made current by the Christists, -the Annals being commonly dated about 120 C.E. Either Tacitus was -founding on a Roman record of the Crucifixion or he was merely saying -what Christists said as to the origin of their sect. If the latter, -he supplies no historical basis. On the other hand, the unlikelihood -of there being a Roman record of executions in Palestine ninety -years before is so great that no Christian advocate now appears -to affirm it. Tacitus in fact gives no sign of consulting official -records, [31] his only traceable sources being previous historians, -notably Suetonius. Thus Strauss's express ground for accepting the -execution of a "Christ" by Pontius Pilate is really illusory; and -when we further find him pronouncing that the Barabbas episode must -be held fundamentally historical because it is "so firmly rooted in -the early Christian tradition," [32] we are again compelled to reject -his test. As we shall see, the Barabbas episode is unintelligible -as history, but highly intelligible as myth. At the very outset, -then, unverified assumptions are seen to be made by the biographical -school as to what may confidently be taken as historical, even when, -as in the case of Strauss, they affirm an abundance of myth. - -Where Strauss was rash, later rationalistic writers have been more -so. My old friend, the English translator of Jules Soury's early work -on Jesus, took for granted that behind legendary heroes in general -there is always a nucleus of fact; but Soury, after postulating a -large part of the gospel story as veridical, gave up a number of his -own items. [33] As soon as he began to apply criticism, they were seen -to be arbitrary assumptions. Equally arbitrary is the assumption of -"some basis," made upon no scientific principle. - -The biographical school in general adhere at least to the trial -and condemnation before Pilate, though many abandon as fiction the -trial before the Sanhedrim, which indeed was abandoned as long ago -as the third gospel, in favour of an equally fictitious trial before -Herod. As is seen by M. Loisy, the trial before Pilate is for the -historical critic the keystone of the tragedy story. If that goes, -there remains only a highly composite body of teaching, with no -identifiable historical personality to which to attach it. - -But even as regards the trials there is wide divergence among the -biographical school. For instance, Mr. Charles Stanley Lester, an -ex-clergyman of Milwaukee, in his interesting work The Historic Jesus, -[34] entirely rejects the Sanhedrim trial, and likewise the gospel -account of the Pilate trial, but finds "probable history" in the view -that the priests privately persuaded Pilate to condemn Jesus on their -accusation without any trial. [35] Again, the anonymous author of The -Four Gospels as Historical Records, [36] an eminently keen, searching, -and candid critic, rejects alike the Judas story, the trial before the -Sanhedrim, and the trial before Pilate, [37] as he does most of the -other items of the gospel history, yet throughout seems to take for -granted the historicity of the "Great Teacher," the "Master," never -even raising that issue save in protesting that he has absolutely -nothing to say against him. [38] So completely does he destroy the -whole narrative, indeed, that he can hardly be said to maintain the -thesis of historicity, but he never calls it in question: he merely -destroys the biography. Mr. Lester, on the other hand, confidently -rejects a hundred details as myth, claiming that he presents the -gospels "relieved of the drapery of mythology and set free from all -dogmatic fictions"; [39] and yet no less confidently affirms a hundred -"undoubted" things, in a manner that almost outgoes M. Loisy. - -If, faced by such procedures, the critical reader asks upon what -grounds the historical personality is accepted, he gets from the -able anonymous writer no answer, and from Mr. Lester, in effect, only -the answer that the teachings which appeal to him in the gospels are -self-certified as coming from the "Jesus" in whom he believes, while -the others are dismissed by him as inconsistent with his conception. As -a rule, the negative criticism is soundly reasoned; the constructive -is purely arbitrary. Yet Mr. Lester is an amiable and--apart from his -quaint animosity towards "the Semitic mind" [40]--a temperate critic, -warmly concerned for historic truth and loyally opposed to all kinds -of priestcraft, ancient and modern. What we must ask from such critics -is that they should bring to bear on their biographical assumption -the same critical method that they bring to bear on the multitude -of details which strike them as obviously unhistorical. Rejecting -miracles and self-contradictory narrative, they affirm a miraculous -and self-contradictory Person. That conception too must be analysed. - -The Jesus of the Gospels is at once a Messiah (with no definite mission -as such), a Saviour God with whom the indefinite Messiah coalesces, -and a Teaching God who coalesces with both. The biographical school, -in the mass, posit a human Teacher, round whose teaching a Messianic -conception combined with a doctrine of salvation by blood sacrifice has -nucleated. If in this tissue there cannot be inserted the historical -detail of the trial before Pilate, there is nothing left but the -quasi-mythical detail of the crucifixion as an ostensible historical -basis for the Messianic and other teaching, so much of which is alien -to the early cult, so much of which is critically to be assigned to -previous and contemporary Jewish sources, and so much to later Jesuist -editors and compilers. Those laymen who are content to pick out of the -gospels certain teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount, and call -these "Christianity," have not realized how completely documentary -analysis has disintegrated the teachings into pre-Jesuine Jewish -and post-Jesuine Gentile matter. The latest professional analysis, -as we have seen, leaves no Jesuine "Teaching" save an eschatology, -a doctrine of "last things," coming from a visionary Messiah with no -political or social message. [41] The bulk of the biographical school, -on the other hand, cling diversely to "something" in the Teaching which -shall be somehow commensurate with the "impression" made by the life -and death of the Teacher, which, from Renan onwards, they regard as the -real genesis of the myth of the Resurrection and the consequent cult. - -Having shown, then, the cogent critical reasons for dismissing the -entire record of the triple episode of the Supper, the Agony, and the -Trials, as unhistorical, [42] it concerns us to show (1) that the whole -is intelligible only as myth, and (2) how the myth probably arose. The -sequence culminates in the Crucifixion, which, with the Sacrament, -is for the rational hierologist as for the orthodox theologian the -centre of Christianity. Equally the biographical school are committed -to maintaining the historicity of the event, without which they cannot -explain the rise of the cult. If then the myth-theory is to stand, -it must show that the central narrative belongs to the realm of myth. - - - - -§ 2. The Sacrificial Rite - -In the Christian record, the Crucifixion is essentially a -sacrifice. "The essence of the Sacrament is not merely partaking of -a common cup or a common meal, but feasting upon a sacrifice ... and -this was found everywhere among Jews and Gentiles." [43] Thus the term -"Eucharist," which means "thanksgiving" or "thank-offering," applied -in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the kind of sacrament -there indicated, and thence taken by Justin and other Fathers, -is clearly a misnomer for the thing specified in the gospels. Of -the gospel sacrifice, the sacrament is the liturgical and symbolic -application. [44] Or, otherwise, the crucifixion is the fulfilment of -the theory of the sacrament. On the view of the historicity of the -former, or of both, it would be necessary to show why the procedure -set forth in the gospels so closely simulated a human sacrifice; and -this is incidentally attempted in passing by M. Loisy. The scene of -derision by the soldiers, he says, "was perhaps connected with some -pagan festival usage." [45] But this at once admits the entrance of -the myth-theory, which affirms that an immemorial "festival" usage -is indicated. If Jesus was executed to please the Jewish multitude, -as is the view even of the most destructive of the later German -exegetes [46]--why should the execution take a pagan form? M. Loisy, -who had previously accepted as history the narrative of the Entry into -Jerusalem, with the public acclamation of Jesus as "the Son of David," -is unprepared to believe with the German critic that within a week the -multitude cried "Crucify him!"; and he therefore wholly eliminates -that item from his biographical sketch. He implies, however, that -the doom of Jesus was passed by Pilate to please the priests, which -is equally fatal to the thesis of a pagan festival usage. He accepts, -further, the scene of the Mocking, with no ostensible critical reason, -but presumably in order to establish a history which would explain -the subsequent growth of the cult. In this process the salient episode -of Barabbas is dismissed by him as unhistorical. [47] - -Thus the most distinguished critic of the biographical school has -no account to give of a second salient item in the record which, -being entirely non-supernatural, must be held to have been inserted -for some strong reason. It in fact closely involves the whole -myth-theory. Barabbas was in all probability a regular figure in -Semitic popular religion; and the name connects documentarily with -that of Jesus. The reading "Jesus Barabbas," in Mt. xxvii, 16, as -we have noted, [48] was long the accepted one in the ancient Church; -and its entrance and its disappearance are alike significant. It is -obviously probable that such a name as "Jesus the Son of the Father" -(= Bar-Abbas [49]), applied to a murderer, would give an amount of -offence to early Christian readers which would naturally lead in time -to its elimination from the current text. [50] But on that view there -is no explanation of its entrance. Such a stumbling-block could not -have been set up without a compulsive reason. - -The anthropological and hierological data go to show that an annual -sacrifice of a "Son of the Father" was a long-standing feature in the -Semitic world. A story in Philo Judæus about a mummery in Alexandria -in ridicule of the Jewish King Agrippa, the grandson of Herod, -points pretty clearly to a local Jewish survival from that usage. A -lunatic named Karabas is said to have been paraded as a mock-king, -with mock-crown, sceptre and robe. [51] In all likelihood the K is a -mistranscription for B. In any case, "the custom of sacrificing the son -for the father was common, if not universal, among Semitic peoples," -[52] as among others; and the Passover [53] was originally a sacrifice -of firstlings, human and animal, [54] the former being probably -most prevalent in times of disaster. "Devotion" was the principle: -surrogate sacrifices would normally be substituted. Sacrifice of a -king's son, in particular, was held to be of overwhelming efficacy by -early Hebrews and other Semites, as among other races in the savage -and barbaric stages. [55] - -There is nothing peculiar to the Semites either in the general or -in the particular usage, both being once nearly universal; but it is -with the Semites that we are here specially concerned. The story of -Abraham and Isaac, to say nothing of that of Jephthah's daughter, -is a finger-post in the evolution of religion, being inferribly -a humane myth to promote the substitution of animal for human -sacrifice. And the Phoenician myth of "Ieoud," the "only-begotten" -son of King Kronos, "whom the Phoenicians call Israel," sacrificed -by his father at a time of national danger, after being dressed in -the trappings of royalty, [56] points towards the historic roots -of Christianity. Again and again we meet the conception of the -"only-begotten" "Son of the Father"--Father Abraham, Father Kronos, -Father Israel, the Father-King--as a special sacrifice in Hebrew and -other Semitic history. Kronos is a Semitic God; and in connection with -the Roman Saturnalia we have the record of a Greek oracle commanding to -"send a man to the Father"--that is, to Kronos. [57] - -What is certain is that sacrifices of kings, which were at one stage of -social evolution normal, [58] inevitably tended to take other tribal -or communal forms; and a multitude of rites preserved plain marks -of the regal origin. Kings would inevitably pass off their original -tragic burden; the community, bent on the safeguard of sacrifice, -shifted it in turn. [59] Sacrifice of some kind, it was felt, there -must be, to avert divine wrath: [60] that conviction lies at the base -of the Christian as of the Jewish religion: it is fundamental to all -primitive religion; and it is happily beyond our power to realize -save symbolically the immeasurable human slaughter that the religious -conviction has involved. - -Primarily, voluntary victims were desired; and in Roman and -Japanese history there are special or general records of their being -forthcoming, annually or in times of emergency. [61] Even in the case -of animal sacrifice, the Romans had a trick of putting barley in the -victim's ear to make him bow his head as if in submission. [62] But as -regards human sacrifices, which were felt to be specially efficacious, -the progression was inevitable from willing to compelled victims; -and out of the multitude of the forms of human sacrifice, for which -war captives and slaves at some stages supplied a large proportion -of the victims, we single that of the evolution from the voluntary -scape-goat or the sacrificed king or messenger, through the victim -"bought with a price," to the released criminal or other desperate -or resigned person bribed with a period of licence and abundance to -die for the community at the end of it. - -In many if not in most of these cases, deification of the victim was -involved in the theory, the victim being customarily identified with -the God. [63] It was so in certain special sacrifices in pre-Christian -Mexico. [64] It was so in the human sacrifices of the Khonds of -Orissa, which subsisted till about the middle of last century. [65] -In the latter instance, of which we have precise record, the annual -victims were taken from families devoted by purchase to the function, -or were bought as children and brought up for the purpose. They -were "bought with a price." When definitely allotted, the males were -permitted absolute sexual liberty, being regarded as already virtually -deified. The victim was finally slain "for the sins of the world," -and was liturgically declared a God in the process. - -Such rites gradually dwindled in progressive communities from ritual -murders into ritual mysteries or masquerades; even as human sacrifices -in general, in most parts of the world, dwindled from bodies to parts -of bodies, fingers, hair, foreskins; from human to animal victims; -[66] from larger to smaller animals; from these to fowls; from real -animals to baked or clay models, fruits, grains, sheafs of rushes, -figures, paper or other symbols. It seems usually to have been humane -kings or chiefs who imposed the improvement on priesthoods. And as -with the victim, so with the sacramental meal which accompanied so -many sacrifices. Cannibal sacraments were once, probably, universal: -they have survived down till recent times in certain regions; but with -advance in civilization they early and inevitably tend to become merely -symbolic. In Mexico at the advent of Cortes, both the cannibal and the -symbolic forms subsisted--the former under conventional limitations; -the latter in the practice of eating a baked image which had been -raised on a cross and there pierced, for sanctification. [67] This -"Eating of the God" was very definitely a sacrament; but so were the -cannibalistic sacraments which preceded it. - -Surveying the general evolution, we reach the inference that somewhere -in Asia Minor there subsisted before "our era" a cult or cults in which -a "Son of the Father" was annually sacrificed under one or other of the -categories of human sacrifice--Scapegoat, representative Firstling, -Vegetation God, or Messenger; possibly in some cases under all four -aspects in one. The usage may or may not have subsisted in post-exilic -Jerusalem: quite possibly it did, for not only do the Sacred Books -avow constant popular and legal resort to "heathen" practices of human -sacrifice, [68] but Jewish religious lore preserves in a variety of -forms clear evidence of institutions of human sacrifice which are -not recognized in the Sacred Books. [69] In any case, in connection -with the particular cult or rite in question there subsisted also a -Eucharist or Sacrament or Holy Supper, analogous to the sacraments -of the cults of Mithra, Dionysos, Attis, and many other Gods. [70] -At a remote period it had been strictly cannibalistic: in course of -time, it became symbolical. In other words, originally the sacrificed -victim was sacramentally eaten; in course of time the thing eaten was -something else, with at most a ritual formula of "body and blood." At a -certain stage, whether by regal or other compulsion or by choice of the -devotees, the annual rite of sacrifice became a mere ritual or Mystery -Drama--as in other cases it became a public masquerade. The former -evolution underlay the religions of Dionysos, Osiris, Adonis, and -Attis: the latter may or may not have gone on alongside of the former. - -What does emerge from the gospel narrative concerning Barabbas and -Jesus is, not that such an episode happened: here the myth-theory is at -one with M. Loisy, who in effect pronounces the narrative to be myth: -but that in the first age of Christianity the name "Jesus Barabbas" -was well known, and stood for something well known. It was certainly -known to the Jews, for we have Talmudical mention, dating from a period -just after the fall of the Temple, that there was a Jewish ritual -"Week of the Son, or, as some call it, Jesus the Son," in connection -with the circumcision and redemption of the first-born child. [71] -From the inference of the currency of the name there is no escape: -attached to a robber and murderer it could never have got into the -gospels otherwise. And the myth-theory can supply the explanation -which neither the orthodox nor the biographical theory can yield. We -have outside evidence that a sacrifice of a "Son of the Father" was -customary in parts of the Semitic world. What the gospel story proves -is that it was known to have been a practice, either at Jerusalem or -elsewhere, to release a prisoner to the multitude in connection with a -popular festival, which might or might not have been the Passover. The -release may have been for the purpose either of a religious masquerade -or of a sacrifice. Either way, the religious rite involved was a rite -of "Jesus Barabbas"--Jesus the Son of the Father--and it involved -either a real or a mock sacrifice, in which the "Son" figured as a -mock king, with robe and crown. - -The more the problem is considered, then, the more clear becomes the -solution. As soon as the Jesuist cult reached the stage of propaganda -in which it described its Son-God as having died, in circumstances of -ignominy, as an atoning sacrifice, it would be met by the memory of -the actual Barabbas rite. Given that the Barabbas victim was ritually -scourged and "crucified" (a term which has yet to be investigated), -it follows that wherever the early propaganda [72] went in areas -in which the memory of the rite subsisted, the Christists would be -told that their Jesus the Son was simply the Jesus Barabbas of that -popular rite; and the only possible--or at least the best--way to -override the impeachment was to insert a narrative which reduced the -regular ritual Jesus Barabbas to a single person, a criminal whom the -wicked Jewish multitude had chosen to save instead of the sinless -Jesus of the cult. In the circumstances given it was an absolutely -necessary invention; and no other circumstances could conceivably -have made it necessary. The story, by the unwilling admission of -M. Loisy, who conserves whatever he thinks he critically can of the -record, is a myth; and it is a myth which on the biographical theory -cannot be explained. The myth-theory has explained it. As for the -disappearance of the "Jesus" from the name of Barabbas in the records, -it hardly needs explanation. When the memory of the old annual rite -died away from general knowledge, the elision of the "Jesus" would -be desirable alike for the learned who still knew and the unlearned -who did not. [73] - - - - -§ 3. Contingent Elements - -It is needless for the defender of the biographical theory to interject -a protest that the Barabbas story is only one item in the case. The -other items will all be dealt with in turn: that has been put in the -front because of its crucial significance. Incidentally it may be -further noted that the myth-theory explains the plainly unhistorical -item of "the thirty pieces of silver," confusedly explained from "the -prophet Jeremy" as "the price of him that was priced, whom [certain] -of the children of Israel did price" (Mt. xxvii, 9). The reference -is really to Zechariah (xi, 12, 13). - -The story of the Betrayal is fiction on the very face of the narrative, -Judas being employed to point out a personage of declared notoriety, -about whose movements there had been no secrecy. [74] Judas is -demonstrably a somewhat late figure in the gospel legend, coming -from the later Mystery Drama, not from the rite on which it was -built. But, whatever may be the solution of the cryptogram about the -potter's field and the thirty pieces of silver in Zechariah, or the -historic fact about Aceldama, one thing is clear: "the price of him -that was priced," in Matthew, tells of the usage of paying a price -for sacrificial victims. - -It does not follow that a price was regularly paid in the case of the -Jesus Barabbas rite, though the record actually insists on the item -by way of the Judas story: what is clear is that a memory of bought -victims subsisted after the fall of Jerusalem. It is not unlikely -that "Aceldama" was a field where sacrificial victims were either -slain or buried, or both. A passage in the Kalika Purana suggests -the procedure, and the probable significance of Golgotha, the "place -of skulls." In the Hindu rite, the human victim was immolated "at a -cemetery or holy place," upon which the sacrificer was not to look; -and the head was presented in "the place of skulls, sacred to Bhoiruvu" -(God of Fear). This could be in a special temple, or in a part of -the cemetery, "or on a mountain." [75] - -At this point a warning must be given against the confusion set up by -the habitual assumption that "something of the kind" occurred under -Pontius Pilate. It is only on the biographical theory that that date is -valid. Pontius Pilate is simply a figure in the later Mystery Drama, -originally chosen, probably, because of his notoriety as a shedder -of Jewish blood. [76] We are not bound to prove that at his date -the usage of ritual human sacrifice, real or pretended, survived at -Jerusalem, though it may have done, as it survived at Rhodes in the -time of Porphyry in the form, perhaps, of a Semitic mystery drama. [77] - -It is the assumption of the historicity of the Crucifixion that partly -disarms the theorem of Sir J. G. Frazer as to a coincidence of Jewish -sacrificial rites. [78] Noting that the details of the Crucifixion -closely conform to those of a human sacrifice sometimes practised -in the Christian era in connection with the Roman Saturnalia, and -also to those of a real or mock rite connected with the Babylonian -feast of the Sacæa, he resorts to the alternative hypotheses (a) -that the analogous Jewish feast of Purim, imported from Babylon after -the Return, and also involving either a real or a mock crucifixion, -chanced to coincide with the actual crucifixion of the gospel Jesus; -or that (b) Christian tradition "shifted the date of the crucifixion -by a month or so" to connect it with the Passover. As the official -Purim rite, though cognate with that of the Passover, cannot well have -been allowed to coincide with it, the theory of coincidence is barred; -and the theorist is assured by an expert colleague that "all that we -hear of the Passion is only explicable by the Passover festival," and -that "without the background of the festival all that we know of the -Crucifixion and of what led up to it is totally unintelligible." [79] - -When, however, the unhistorical character of the gospel narrative is -realized, such difficulties disappear. The intention was certainly -to connect the Crucifixion with the Passover (in which the paschal -lamb--symbolizing Isaac--was customarily dressed in the form of a -cross [80]); and in the fourth gospel Jesus becomes an actual Passover -sacrifice. But the narrative is simply a reduction to historic form -of the procedure of a customary ritual sacrifice, habitual usages of -human sacrifice being represented as expedients of a single Roman -execution. With the exact seasonal date of the Jesus Barabbas rite -which here motived the gospel legend, the myth-theory is not primarily -concerned, though it has secondary interest. It was probably a Spring -Festival, and at the same time a New Year Festival, the period of -the vernal equinox having been both in east and west the time of -the New Year before that was placed after the winter solstice. It is -thus highly likely that there were analogous sacrificial festivals -at Yule and at Easter, one celebrating the new-birth of the sun and -the other the revival of vegetation. The Sacæa festival may or may -not have been identical with that known from the monuments to have -been called the Zakmuk [81] (New Year): either way, the features may -have been the same. There was in Judea, further, a hieratic year as -well as a civil, a Lesser Passover as well as the greater. [82] The -myth-theory does not depend on an agreed date, though the myth fixes -on an astronomical date, itself constantly varying in the calendar. - -What leaps to the eyes is that the gospel legend preserves two -separated features of the festival of a Sacrificed Mock-King, which -as incidents in the life of the Teacher are wholly incompatible, -and which the biographical theory cannot reasonably explain--the -acclaimed and welcomed Entry into Jerusalem and within a week the -demand of the city multitude for the crucifixion. The Entry is an -elaboration of several myth elements, but it contains the item of the -acclaimed ride of the quasi-king, mounted on an ass (or two asses). If -the biographical school would but consider historical probabilities, -they would realize that the story as told cannot be historical, -with or without the strange antithesis of the multitude's speedy -demand for the prophet's death. Such a triumphal entry, for such a -person as the gospel Jesus, could not spontaneously have taken place: -it must have been planned; and, if arranged with such an effect as -the record describes, it would have given Pilate very sufficient -ground for intervention without waiting for a complaint from the -priests. Taken as history, it is wholly irreconcilable with the -"Crucify him" ascribed to a multitude whose support of Jesus had -been affirmed the day before; and accordingly M. Loisy, accepting -the Entry, rejects the latter episode. Strauss, hesitating to go, -"as has latterly often been done," the length of rejecting the Entry -on the ass as wholly mythical, finds it very much so; [83] and Brandt -incidentally dismisses it as "under the strongest suspicion of being -framed upon Old Testament motives from beginning to end." [84] - -Thus the biographical school itself proffers a myth-theory, -without indicating an explanatory motive for the positing of a -contradiction. But when we realize that an acclamation of a quasi-king -riding on an ass was actually part of the ritual in a sacrificial -rite in which he was to be crucified, the two clashing elements -in the legend are at once explained in the full myth-theory. Their -separate handling and development was, just as intelligibly, part of -the process of gospel-making, the creation of an ideal Jesus. But -seeing that in the Sacæa festival the mock-king had a five days' -reign between his start and his death, [85] the original ritual gave -the interval which in the gospel story is filled with the acts of -the Teaching God. Five days is the accepted traditional interval from -Palm Sunday to Crucifixion Day. - - -[Even for the item of the two asses in Matthew there is a -myth-explanation. Many writers of the biographical school, who -compensate themselves for their difficulties by ascribing a peculiarly -crass stupidity to the apostles and evangelists at every opportunity, -decide that the narrator or interpolator posited the two asses, an -ass and its colt, because he found in Zechariah a Messianic prediction -so phrased, [86] and did not understand that the Hebraic idiom simply -meant "an ass." Yet one member of the school, Dr. Conybeare, fiercely -denounces myth-theorists for claiming to understand Jewish symbolism -better than the Jews did. Either principle serves the turn. When -Tertullian says that Jesus is the Divine Fish because fishes were -parthenogenetically born, and Jesus was born again in the waters of -the Jordan, Dr. Conybeare is sure of the wisdom of Tertullian. This -thesis, first found in Tertullian, is to decide the question, to -the exclusion of any reflection on the fact that the Sun at Easter -had before the Christian era passed from the sign Aries to the sign -Pisces in the zodiac. But when Matthew reads Zechariah's two asses -as meaning two asses, Matthew is to be dismissed as a Jew who did -not understand the commonest Hebrew idiom. - -The simple fact that the Septuagint does not give the duplication, -putting only "a young colt," will serve to indicate to any careful -reader that the evangelist or interpolator was following the Hebrew, -and therefore is to be presumed to have known something of Hebrew -idiom. And the just critical inference is that both passages had -regard to the zodiacal figure of the Two Asses for the sign Cancer, -from which we have the myth of Bacchus riding on two asses. [87] -Further, it is probable that the similar passage in the Song of Jacob -[88] has also a zodiacal basis. These details, which Dr. Conybeare -absolutely withholds from his readers, indicate the mythological -induction put by the present writer. In an unconstruable sentence, -Dr. Conybeare appears to argue [89] that to secure any consideration -for such a thesis we must "prove that the earliest Christians, who -were Jews, must have been familiar with the rare legend of Bacchus -crossing a marsh on two asses," and "with the rare representation of -the zodiacal sign Cancer as an ass and its foal." - -How the critic knows that the legend was rare at the beginning of -the Christian era he does not reveal; any more than he gives his -justification for calling the Asses sign rare in the face of the -statement of Lactantius that the Greeks call the sign of Cancer "(the) -Asses." This reference was given by me, as also the item that the -sign of the Ass and Foal is Babylonian. It was thus very likely to -be known in the Semitic world. Yet Dr. Conybeare obliviously informs -us that "it is next to impossible" that it should be known to "the -earliest Christians," when all the while he is arguing that Matthew -was not the gospel of "the earliest Christians." It is in perfect -keeping with this chaotic procedure that he first oracularly refers -me to Hyginus, whose version of the myth of Bacchus and the asses I -had actually cited and quoted; and then, discovering that I had done -so, yet leaving his written exhortation unaltered, he announces that -"by Mr. Robertson's own admission, Bacchus never rode on two asses -at all." It is difficult to be sure whether Dr. Conybeare does or -does not believe in the historicity of Bacchus, as he does in that of -Jesus; but seeing that Lactantius, as cited by me, expressly declares -that the two asses (= Cancer) carried Bacchus over the marsh, and -that Dr. Conybeare had already recognized that such a myth existed, -his absurd conclusion can be set down only to his habitual incoherence. - -I have dealt in detail with his futile criticism at this point -by way of putting the reader on his guard against the method of -bluster. Comparative mythology is a difficult and thorny field, but -it has to be explored; and Dr. Conybeare, whose study of the subject -seems to have begun in the year of the issue of his book, [90] does -not even discern the nature of its problems. He avowedly supposes that -totems are Gods; and he argues that the Jewish and Hellenistic world -in the age of Augustus was at the mythopoeic stage of the Australian -aborigines of to-day. Of the phenomena of iconographic myth he is -evidently quite ignorant; and his dithyramb on the sun myth tells -of nothing but obsolete debate on the question. And it is in this -connection that he informs his antagonists, in his now celebrated -academic manner, that they are "a back number." - -It has only to be added that as regards the documentary problem, in -this connection, Dr. Conybeare is equally distracted. It is far from -certain that at this point Mark's "colt" is not a "rectification" -of an original which Matthew accepted. The assumption--negatived -by themselves--that Mark and Matthew as we have them are both -primary forms, Matthew always following and elaborating Mark, is -one of the loose hypotheses which such critics when it suits them -take for certainties. But the question of priority of form does not -affect the fundamental issue. One of the suggestions put by me which -Dr. Conybeare has carefully withheld from his readers--if, indeed, -he ever really sees what is before him--is that the item of the -single ass or colt is probably a myth with another basis. "An ass -tied" appears to have been an Egyptian symbol pointing to a solar -date or a zodiacal or other myth, [91] and this symbol, which is -found in the Song of Jacob, is the form put upon the Mark story by -Justin Martyr. That the other symbol had a long Christian vogue is -indicated first by the fact that there actually exists a Gnostic -gem showing an ass suckling its foal, with the figure of the crab -(Cancer) above, and the inscription D.N. IHV. XPS., DEI FILIUS = -Dominus Noster Jesu (?) Christus, Son of God; [92] and, secondly, by -the mention of the ass and foal in the third Sermon of St. Proclus -(5th c.). [93] These details also Dr. Conybeare withholds from his -readers, for the purposes of his polemic. - -That we are dealing with a conflict of symbolisms will probably be -the inference of those who will face the facts. But Dr. Conybeare, -who is here in good company, is quite satisfied that behind the Mark -story of Jesus riding in a noisy procession on an unbroken colt we have -unquestionable history. There must be no nonsense about two asses; -but for him the story of the unbroken colt raises no difficulty. He -further simplifies the problem by summarizing Mark as telling that -"an insignificant triumphal demonstration is organized for him [Jesus] -as he enters the sacred city on an ass"; [94] and by explaining that -"there was no other way of entering Jerusalem unless you went on -foot." [95] The "insignificant" is held to be sufficient to dispose -of the problem of the Roman Governor's entire indifference to a -Messianic movement. Thus functions the biographic method, in the -hands of our academician. - -All the while, the item of the foal is, on his own interpretation, -a specified fulfilment of a prophecy, only in this case the prophecy -is in his opinion rightly understood, whereas in the two-ass story -it was misunderstood. By his own method, the critic is committed -to the position that the phrase "whereon no man ever yet sat" is -myth. [96] For serious critics in general, this is sufficient to -put in doubt the whole story. For our critic, a story of a triumphal -procession, with an unbroken colt, is simply resolved into one of an -"insignificant procession," with an ordinary donkey. Thus, under the -pretence of extracting history from a given document, the document is -simply manipulated at will to suit a presupposition. On this plan, -the twelve labours of Herakles are simply history exaggerated, and -any one can make any Life of Herakles out of it at his pleasure. We -must not say that Una rode on a lion, but we may infer that she rode -on a small yellow pony. It is the method of the early German deistic -rationalists, according to which the story of Jesus walking on the -water is saved by the explanation that he was walking on the shore.] - - -Part of the demonstration of the myth-theory, again, lies in the fact -that the first act of Jesus after his entry is to "cast out all them -that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrow the tables of the -money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves." That this -should have been accomplished without resistance seemed to Origen -so astonishing that he pronounced it among the greatest miracles of -Jesus, [97] adding the skeptical comment--"if it really happened." The -myth-theory may here claim the support of Origen. - -Strauss could find no ground for rejecting the story as myth upon -his method of finding myth-motives only in the Old Testament. If he -had lived in our day he would probably have agreed that the episode -is singled out of the kinds of exploit which were permitted to the -victim in the Sacæa and the Saturnalia and such primitive sacrificial -festivals in general, and turned to a doctrinal account. Such liberties -as are described, all falling short of sacrilege, are among those -which could normally take place. It is by way of anti-Judaism that -the episode is utilized in the synoptics. - -In the fourth gospel, where so many matters are turned to new account, -and so much new doctrine introduced, the purification is put with -symbolic purpose at the outset of the Messiah's career, in a visit to -Jerusalem of which the synoptics know nothing; and in this myth Jesus -makes "a scourge of small cords" to effect his purpose. That later -item was probably suggested by the effigy of the Egyptian Saviour -God Osiris, who bears a scourge as the God of retribution. In the -synoptics there is no symbol: the story is simply employed as part -of the superadded didactic machinery which alternately exhibits the -full development of the Messiah and the unfitness of the "Jewish -dispensation" to continue. Inferribly, the story of the fig-tree is -in the same case, signifying the condemnation of the Jewish cult, -though here there may be a concrete motive of which we have lost the -clue. But it is significant that while the gospel record could not -possibly assign to the holy Messiah such a general course as was -followed by the licensed sacrificial victim, it follows the story -of his Entry with that of one markedly disorderly act; whereafter -he goes to lodge in Bethany (Mt. xxi, 17) at a house which later is -indicated as that of a leper (xxvi, 6). There his head is anointed -by a woman; who in Luke, in a differently placed episode (vii, 37), -becomes "a sinner." Is not this another echo from the obscure tragedy -of the sacrificial victim, who was anointed for his doom? - - - - -§ 4. The Mock-King Ritual - -Separately considered, the Crucifixion in the gospel story is as -impossible as the Entry. The cross, we are told, was headed with an -inscription: "This is the King of the Jews." Sir J. G. Frazer [98] -and M. Salomon Reinach [99] concur in recognizing that if the victim -had really been executed on the charge of making such a claim, no -Roman governor would have dared so to endorse it. [100] The argument -is that only by turning the execution into a celebration of a popular -rite could the procedure have been made officially acceptable. But to -extract such an explanation from the record is simply to stultify it as -such. If there really occurred such a manipulation of the death-scene -of an adored Teacher, how could the narrators possibly fail to say -as much? We are asked by the biographical school to believe that the -Crucifixion was made a farce-tragedy by treating the Teacher as the -victim in a well-known rite of human sacrifice, and also to believe -that the devotees who preserved the record, knowing this fact, chose -to say nothing about it, preferring to represent the procedure as a -unique incident. - -It might perhaps be argued, on the biographical view, that the Roman -soldiers, who are held to have been Asiatics, chose to improvise -a version of a sacrificial rite which was unknown to the Jesuists, -and that the latter simply reported the episode without understanding -it, interpreting it from their prophets in their own way. But if the -record be historical it is incredible that in a cult which is claimed -to have made many adherents throughout the Roman Empire in east and -west in a generation or two, it should not quickly have become known -that the procedure of the Crucifixion was a copy of popular eastern -and western rites of human sacrifice. If there had taken place what -the hypothesis suggests, there was a purposive suppression. That is -to say, the credibility of the narrative is at this point vitally -impeached by a supporter of the biographical theory, which expressly -rests on the narrative as regards non-miraculous data. - -And while on the one hand it is in effect charged with the gravest -suppressio veri, on the other it is charged, equally in the name of -the biographical view, with something more than suggestio falsi, with -absolute fiction. M. Loisy does not merely dismiss the Barabbas story -as unhistorical, offering no explanation of its strange presence: he -comes critically to the conclusion that Jesus on the cross uttered no -word, whether of despair, entreaty, or resignation. We need not ask -what kind of credit M. Loisy can ask for a record which he thus so -gravely discredits. The scientific question is, Upon what grounds -can he demur to the extension of a myth-theory to which he thus -contributes? If the record admittedly invented utterances for the -Teacher on the cross, why should not the whole be an invention? In -particular, why should not the trial before Pilate and the inscription -on the cross be inventions? - -The inscription on the cross, we see, is for the great anthropologist -of the school impossible save as part of a simulated ritual. M. Loisy, -supporting the same general thesis, declares that "to say Jesus was not -condemned to death as king of the Jews, that is to say, as Messiah, on -his own avowal, amounts to saying [autant vaut soutenir] that he never -existed." [101] It is even so; and the supporter of the myth-theory is -thus doubly justified. The loyal induction is, not that in any rite -of human sacrifice exactly such a label was affixed to the gibbet, -but that probably some label was, and that the gospel framers (or -one of them) "invented" a label which stated their claim for Jesus -as Messiah. It was a fairly skilful thing to do, representing the -label as a Roman mockery, and thereby making it an appeal to every -Jew. [102] It is indeed conceivable that Roman soldiers taking part, -once in a way, in the rite of Jesus Barabbas, may have turned that -to a purpose of contempt by labelling the poor mock-king as the king -of the Jews. But such an episode would not be the enactment of the -scene described in the record. It would merely be a hint for it, -the acceptance of which was but an additional item of fiction. - -That the Crucifixion, as described, is a normal act of ritual human -sacrifice, is even more true than it is shown to be by the parallels -of the Sacæa and the Saturnalia. The scourging, the royal robe, the -mock crown, were all parts of those rituals, which thus conform in -parody to the ritual of the mythic sacrifice of Ieoud, son of Kronos, -probably parodied in the ritual for the victim sacrificed to Kronos -at Rhodes. But so are the drink of wine and myrrh, the leg-breaking, -and the piercing with the spear. The crown is a feature of all ancient -sacrifice, in all parts of the world. Crowns of flowers were normal in -the case of human victims, in India, in Mexico, in Greece, and among -the North-American Indians, as in ordinary animal sacrifice among the -Greeks, Romans, and Semites. But even the crown of thorns had a special -religious vogue in Egypt, procured as such crowns were from thorn-trees -near Abydos whose branches curled into garland-form. Prometheus the -Saviour, too, receives from Zeus a crown of osiers; and his worshippers -wore crowns in his honour. [103] Either some such special motive or -the common practice in the popular rite will account for the record. - -And these items of the mock-king ritual exclude the argument which -might possibly be brought from the fact that in the ancient world, -as among primitives in general, all executions, as such, tend to -assume the sacrificial form. The condemned criminal is "devoted," -sacer, taboo, even as is the simply sacrificed victim, becoming the -appanage of the God as is the God's representative who is sacrificed -to the God. [104] It might therefore be argued that a man condemned on -purely political grounds could be treated as a sacrificial victim. But -there is no instance of the criminal executed as such being treated -as the mock-king. A criminal might be turned to that account, but -that would be by special arrangement: executed simply as a criminal, -he would not be crowned and royally robed. These details were features -of specific sacrifices: executions were only generically sacrificial, -and were of course in no way honorary. In the gospel story, the two -thieves are neither mocked, robed, nor crowned. They are not "Sons -of the Father," or deputies of the King. - - - - -§ 5. Doctrinal Additions - -The question here arises, however, whether the triple execution was a -customary rite. All executions being, as aforesaid, quasi-sacrificial, -an ordinary execution might conceivably be combined with a specific -sacrifice. It is to be observed that no mention of the triple execution -occurs outside of the gospels: the Acts and the Epistles have no -allusion to it. It is thus conceivably, as was hinted by Strauss, -a late addition to the myth, motived by the verse now omitted as -spurious from Mark (xv, 28), but preserved in Luke (xxii, 37): -"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he was reckoned -with transgressors." But we are bound to consider the possibility -that the triple execution was ritually primordial. - -The story of such an execution in the "Acts of Saint Hitzibouzit," -martyred at some time in Persia, is evidently doubtful evidence for -the practice, as Sir J. G. Frazer observes. The record runs that -the saint was "offered up as a sacrifice between two malefactors -on a hill top opposite the sun and before all the multitude," [105] -suggesting that the sacrifice was a solar one. This is possible; but -martyrology is dubious testimony. On the other hand Mr. W. R. Paton -has suggested that the triple execution was a Persian practice, and -was made to a triple God. [106] There is the notable support of the -statement in a fragment of Ctesias (36) that the Egyptian usurper -Inarus was crucified by Artaxerxes the First between two thieves. In -addition to the cases of Greek sacrifices of three victims may be -noted one among the Dravidians of Jeypore; [107] and the practice -among the Khonds of placing the victim between two shrubs. In the -Jeypore case one victim was sacrificed at the east, one at the west, -and one at the centre of a village; and in another case two victims -were sacrificed every third year. A triple execution might be a special -event, in which two victims were both actually and ritually criminals, -in order to enhance the divinity of the third. And we know that triple -sacrifices did occur. The throwing of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego -into the fiery furnace was ostensibly a triple sacrifice: it will -hardly be claimed as a historical episode in its subsisting form. - -On a careful balance, however, the presumption seems rather against a -triple rite. What is quite clear is that for the early Jesuists the -"prophecy" in 53rd Isaiah possessed the highest importance. For us, -that lyric chapter is still somewhat enigmatic. Gunkel, who is here -followed by Professor Drews, [108] takes the view that the suffering -figure described is really that of the typical victim of the human -sacrifice; and it certainly fits that conception at points where -it does not easily compose with that of the figure of oppressed -Israel. [109] The victim was "wounded for our transgressions, -bruised for our iniquities"; and conceptually "with his stripes we -are healed." On the other hand, who were "we" for "Isaiah" if not -Israel itself? The only interpretation seems to be that the past -generations had suffered for the present; and this does not yield an -intellectually satisfying figure. But still more improbable, on the -whole, is the suggestion that the Hebrew prophet or quasi-prophetic -lyrist--whatever date we may assign to the chapter--has really -perceived and figured the tragic vision of the sacrificial victim as -he is here supposed to have done. It would be a psychological feat -extremely remarkable even for that highly gifted writer; [110] and -moreover it would finally compose still less with the general idea -of the context than does the supposed presentment of the suffering -People. It is difficult to reach any satisfying notion of Isaiah's -general meaning on the view of Gunkel and Drews. - -We are thus far held, then, to the inference that, as Isaiah's -chapter was certainly taken by the early Christists [111] who had -adopted the Messianic idea to be a prophecy of their Messiah, the -Christ myth was shaped in accordance with it. There are three main -strands in the Christ myth, the Jesuist, the Christist or Messianic, -and that of the Teaching God. The "suffering" motive serves to bind -the three together; and the concrete item, "he was numbered with -the transgressors," bracketed as it is with "he poured out his soul -unto death," gives a very definite ground for the item of the forced -companionship of the malefactors in the Crucifixion scene. It is, -in short, apparently one of the specifically Judaic motives in the -myth construction. Earlier in the narrative the Messiah is frequently -grouped with "publicans and sinners": he comes "eating and drinking," -in contrast with the ascetic figure of the Baptist. That feature is -probably part of the atmosphere of the myth-motive of the sacrificial -victim, with the leper-host and the anointing by the "sinner." But the -"two thieves" are inferribly supplied from another side. - -In the first two gospels, the character of the unnamed anointress -is tacitly suggested by the very reticence of the description, -"a woman." In Jewry and in the East generally, the woman who went -freely into men's houses was declassed; and the "sinner" of Luke -was only a specification of the already hinted. But the story in -Luke of the homage of the good thief is clearly new myth, coming -of the widened ethic of the "gospel of the Gentiles." Matthew and -Mark have no thought of anything but the association of the Messiah -with typical transgressors in death: for them the two thieves are -hostile. The "Gentile" gospel improves the occasion by converting one -of the transgressors. No critical inquirer, presumably, now fails to -see doctrinal myth at the second stage. It is only the atmosphere of -presupposition that can keep it imperceptible in the first. In the -making of the gospels, ritual myth, doctrinal myth, and traditional -myth are co-factors; and it may be that even where doctrinal myth -is quite clearly at work, as in the staging of the Messianic death -"with transgressors," an actual ritual is also commemorated. - - - - -§ 6. Minor Ritual and Myth Elements - -In the later myth the robbers, as it happens, are made to embody -certain features of sacrificial ritual. We are told in the fourth -gospel that the Jews "asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, -and that they might be taken away,"--"that the bodies should not remain -on the cross upon the sabbath, for the day of that sabbath was a high -day." Accordingly the soldiers break the legs of the two thieves, -"but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they -brake not his legs." The implication is that the men's legs were to -be broken by way of killing them--a patently untrue suggestion. [112] -The spear-thrust which "howbeit" was given to Jesus would have been -the way of killing the others if they were alive: breaking the legs -was a brutality which would not ensure death. - -The explanation is that both leg-breaking and spearing were features -of sacrificial rites. It may have been by way of purposive contrast -to the former procedure that in the priestly ritual [113] of the -passover it is enacted that no bone of the (unspecified) victim -shall be broken. The breaking of the leg-bones in human sacrifice was -one of the horrible expedients of the primitive world for securing -the apparent willingness of the victim: it is to be found alike in -Dravidian and in African sacrifice. [114] An alternative method, which -tended to supersede the other, was that of drugging or intoxication, -of which we find still more widespread evidence. In ancient Jerusalem, -we find the practice transferred to ordinary execution on the cross, -the humane women making a practice of giving a narcotic potion of wine -and incense to the victim. [115] Thus associated with the deaths of -ordinary criminals, it suggested to some of the Jesuist myth-makers -a ground for specializing the record. - -In the first two gospels, a drink is offered to Jesus on the -cross--wine [116] mingled with gall, in Matthew; wine mingled with -myrrh in Mark--"but he received it not"; this, in Matthew, after -tasting. The Marcan form is probably the first, as it describes -the customary narcotic: the idea is to indicate that in the case -of the divine victim no artifice was needed to secure an apparent -acquiescence: he was a voluntary sufferer. "Gall," in Matthew, may have -reference to pagan mysteries in which a drink of gall figured. [117] -In Luke, vinegar is ostensibly offered as part of the derision. In -John, no drink is mentioned till the end, when the dying victim says, -"I thirst." Having partaken of "a sponge full of the vinegar upon -hyssop," he says, "It is finished," and dies. In Matthew, this act -of compassion takes a simpler form, the sponge of vinegar being given -on the utterance of the despairing cry, while other bystanders jeer: -in Mark, the giver of the sponge also jeers. - -It is needless to debate long over the priorities of such details: -as regards the drink of vinegar, all alike have regard to Psalm lxix, -21: "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave -me vinegar to drink." For that reason, the wine-and-myrrh item is -probably primordial: it tells of the sacrificial rite; and the drink -of vinegar is a doctrinal addition; even as the rejection of the -narcotic is doctrinal. For the variations which distinguish each -narrative from the others, there is no reasonable explanation on -the biographical view: if devoted onlookers could not preserve the -truth at such a point, where could they be trusted? The mythical -interpretation alone makes all intelligible. - -The fourth gospel, with its tale of the leg-breaking, supplies the -strongest ground for surmising the occasional occurrence of a triple -rite, in which the lesser victims were treated as sacrificed slaves -normally have been in African and other human sacrifice, while the -central victim was put on another footing. The express enactment in -regard to the mysterious paschal sacrifice suggests that bone-breaking -took place in others. In all likelihood, the original paschal sacrifice -was that of a human victim of specially high grade: the substitution of -the lamb was part of the process of civilization indicated in the myth -of Abraham and Isaac. And if the knowledge of the death-rite of Jesus -Barabbas could subsist in the first century or later, knowledge of an -early triple rite could subsist also. But this remains open to doubt, -though at several points the fourth gospel specially emphasizes the -historical derivation of the cult from a sacrament of blood sacrifice. - -Nowhere else is the literal basis of the symbol of "body and blood" -so insisted upon. Its writers had present to their minds an actual -ritual in which the eating of the body of a Sacrificed God, first -actually, then symbolically, was of cardinal importance. The later -myth puts new stress on the conception, as if it had been felt that -the earlier was not sufficiently explicit; and it makes the Jewish -high-priest lay down the doctrine of human sacrifice from the Judaic -side. [118] It is in this atmosphere of sacrificial ideas that we -get the item of the piercing of the divine victim with a spear. The -detail is turned specially to the account of the Johannine doctrine -of resurrection by putting what passed in popular physiology for a -certain proof of death--the issuing of "blood and water." [119] But -here again we find both a Hebrew motive [120] and a pagan motive for -the detail. In the sacrifice of the sacred slave of the Moon-Goddess -among the primitive Albanians, the victim was allowed the customary -year of luxury and licence, and was finally anointed and slain by -being pierced to the heart with a sacred lance through the side. And -there are other eastern analogues. [121] - -It is the fourth gospel, finally, that introduces the "garment without -seam," combining a Hebraic with a pagan motive. In order to fulfil a -"prophecy" held to be Messianic, [122] the synoptics make the soldiers -cast lots for the garments of Jesus. The fourth gospel specifies a -simple allotment of the garments in general, as if they could have -been numerous enough to go round the soldiery, but limits the act of -"casting lots" to the chiton, the under garment. Thus the soldiers -both "divide the raiment" and cast lots for the "vesture." The making -of this "without seam" is at once an assimilation of Jesus to the -high-priest and an assimilation of the Slain God to the Sun-God and -other deities. [123] A special chiton was woven for Apollo in Sparta; -as a peplos or shawl was woven for Hêrê at Elis. And this in turn -had for the pre-Christian pagans mystic meanings as symbolizing -the indivisible solar robe of universal light, ascribed to Osiris; -the partless robe of Ahura Mazda; Pan's coat of many colours, and -yet other notions. Always the story is itemized in terms of myth, -of ritual, of symbol, of doctrine, never in terms of real biography. - - - - -§ 7. The Cross - -It is not at all certain, and it is not probable, that in the earlier -stages of the myth the cross as such was prominent. Early crucifixion -was not always a nailing of outstretched hands in the cross form, -but often a hanging of the victim by the arms, tied together at the -wrists, with or without a support to the body at the thighs. [124] -The stauros was not necessarily a cross: it might be a simple pile -or stake. In the Book of Acts (v, 30) Peter and the Apostles are made -to speak of Jesus "whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree." This was in -itself a common sacrificial mode; and all sacrificial traditions are -more or less represented in the New Testament compilation. - -But there was an irresistible compulsion to a divinizing of the -cross as of the victim. Ages before the Christian era the symbol had -been mystic and sacrosanct for Semites, for Egyptians, for Greeks, -for Hindus; and the Sacred Tree of the cults of Attis, Dionysos, -and Osiris lent itself alike to many symbolic significances. [125] -The cross had reference to the equinox, when the sacred tree was cut -down; to the victim bound to it; to the four points of the compass; -to the zodiacal sign Aries, thus connected with the sacrificial lamb; -[126] and to the universe as symbolized in the "orb" of the emperor, -with the cross-lines drawn on it. The final Christian significance -of the cross is a composite of ideas associated with it everywhere, -from Mexico to the Gold Coast, in both of which regions it was or -is a symbol of the Rain-God. [127] The Dravidian victim, the deified -sacrifice, was as-it-were crucified; [128] as was a victim in a Batak -sacrifice, where, as on the Gold Coast, the St. Andrew's-cross form -is enacted. [129] The commonness of some such procedure in African -sacrificial practice points to its general antiquity. - -It would appear, too, that in the mysteries of the Saviour Gods not -only a crucified aspect of the God but a simulation of that on the -part of the devotees was customary. Osiris was actually represented in -crucifix form; [130] and in the ritual the worshipper became "one with -Osiris," apparently by being "joined unto the sycamore tree." [131] -When, then, in the Epistle to the Galatians [132] we find "Paul" -addressing the converts as "those before whose eyes Jesus Christ was -openly set forth (proegraphê) crucified," and declaring of himself: -[133] "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus," we are at once -pointed to the Syrian practice of stigmata, which appears to connect -with both Osirian and Christian usage. In his remarkable account of -the life of the sacred city of Hierapolis--a microcosm of eastern -paganism--Lucian, after telling how children are sacrificed with the -votive pretence that they are oxen, records that it is the universal -practice to make punctures in the neck or in the hands, and that -"all" Syrians bear such stigmata. [134] One of the principal cults -of the place was that of Attis, the castrated God of Vegetation, -in whose mysteries the image of a youth was bound to a tree, [135] -with a ritual of suffering, mourning, resurrection and rejoicing. As -Dionysos was also "he of the tree," it is not improbable that he, -who also died to rise again, may have been similarly adored. On the -other hand, the representation of the Saviour Prometheus suffering -in a crucified posture tells of an immemorial concept. [136] - -For the Jews, finally, the cross symbol was already mystically potent, -being a mark of salvation in connection with the massacre-sacrifice -of the Passover, and by consequence salvatory in times of similar -danger. [137] When with this was combined the mystic significance of -the sign in Platonic lore as pointing to the Logos, [138] the mythic -foundation for Christism was of the broadest. The crucifix is late in -Christian art; but the wayside cross is as old as the cult of Hermes, -God of boundaries. [139] - - - - -§ 8. The Suffering Messiah - -By way of accounting for the Jewish refusal to see in Jesus the -promised Messiah, orthodox exegesis has spread widely the belief -that it was no part of the Messianic idea that the Anointed One -should die an ignominious death; and some of us began by accepting -that account of the case. Clearly it was not the traditional or -generally prevailing Jewish expectation. Yet in the Acts we find -Peter and Paul alike (iii, 18; xvii, 3; xxvi, 23) made to affirm -that the prophets in general predicted that Christ should suffer; -and in Luke (xxiv, 26-27, 44-46) the same assertion is put in the -mouth of Jesus. Either then the exegetes regard these assertions as -unfounded or they admit that one school of interpretation in Jewry -found a number of "prophetical" passages which foretold the Messiah's -exemplary death. And the A. V. margin refers us to Ps. xxii; Isa. l, -6; liii, 5, etc.; Dan. ix, 26. - -Now, these are adequate though not numerous documentary grounds for the -doctrine, on Jewish principles of interpretation. Jewish, indeed, the -Messianic idea is not in origin: it is Perso-Babylonian; [140] and the -idea of a suffering or re-arising Messiah may well have come in from -that side. But equally that may have found some Jewish acceptance. We -can see very well that in Daniel "the Anointed One"--that is, "the -Messiah" and "the Christ"--refers to the Maccabean hero; but that -as well as the other passages, on Jewish principles, could apply -to the Messiah of any period; and the Septuagint reading of Psalm -xxii, 16: "They pierced my hands and my feet," was a specification of -crucifixion. It is not impossible that that reading was the result of -the actual crucifixion of Cyrus, who had been specified as a "Christ" -in Isaiah. We have nothing to do here with rational interpretation: -the whole conception of prophecy is irrational; but the construing -of old texts as prophecies was a Jewish specialty. - -When then a theistic rationalist of the last generation wrote of the -gospel Jesus:-- - - - His being a carpenter, occupying the field of barbaric Galilee, - and suffering death as a culprit, are not features which the - constructor of an imaginary tale would go out of his way to - introduce wherewith to associate his hero, and therefore, probably, - we have here real facts presented to us, [141] - - -he was far astray. Anything might be predicated of a Jewish -Messiah. Not only had the Messianic Cyrus been crucified: the anointed -and triumphant Judas Maccabæus, under whose auspices the Messianic -belief had revived in Israel in the second century B.C., had finally -fallen in battle; and his brother Simon, who was actually regarded -as the Messiah, was murdered by his son-in-law. [142] - -It is not here argued that the Messianic idea had been originally -connected with the Jesus cult; on the contrary that cult is presented -as a non-national one, surviving in parts of Palestine in connection -with belief in an ancient deity and the practice of an ancient rite, -in a different religious atmosphere from that of Messianism. The -solution to which we shall find ourselves led is that at a certain -stage the Messianic idea was grafted on the cultus; and this stage -is likely to have begun after the fall of Jerusalem, when for most -Jews the hope of a Maccabean recovery was buried. Then it was that -the idea of a Messiah "from above," [143] supernaturally empowered -to make an end of the earthly scene, became the only plausible one; -and here the conception of a Slain God who, like all slain Gods, -rose again, invited the development. Jesuists could now make a new -appeal to Jews in general upon recognizably Jewish lines. They were -of course resisted, even as Sadducees were resisted by Pharisees, and -vice versa. The statement in the Messiah article in the Encyclopædia -Biblica that it is highly improbable that "the Jews" at the time of -Christ believed in a suffering and atoning Messiah is nugatory. No one -ever put such a proposition. But "the Jews" had in course of time added -much to their creed, and might have added this, were it not that the -Jesus cult became identified with Gentile and anti-Judaic propaganda. - -In any case the idea arose among Jews, and quite intelligibly. The -picture drawn by Isaiah was a standing incitement to the rise of a -cult whose Hero-God had been slain. It was the one kind of Messianic -cult which the Romans would leave unmolested. At the same time it -committed the devotees to the position that the Messiah must come -again, "in the clouds, in great glory"; and the Christian Church was -actually established on that conception, which sufficed to sustain -it till the earthly Providence of the State came to the rescue. Some -of its modern adherents have not hesitated to boast that the common -expectation of the speedy end of the world gave the infant Church a -footing not otherwise obtainable. It was certainly a conditio sine -qua non for Christianity in its infancy. - -As for the item of "the carpenter," we have seen [144] not only that -that is mythic, but that the myth-theory alone can account for it. - - - - -§ 9. The Rock Tomb - -In the first gospel (xxvii, 57 sq.) we have a comparatively simple -version of the story of Joseph of Arimathea, a rich disciple of Jesus, -who gets the dead body of the crucified, wraps it in clean linen, and -lays it "in his own new tomb, which he had hewed out in the rock." In -Mark and Luke we have visibly elaborated accounts, in which, however, -while the rock tomb is specified, it is not described as Joseph's -"own," though it is represented as hitherto unused. Such a narrative -points very directly to the Mithraic rite in which the stone image of -the dead God, after being ritually mourned over, is laid in a tomb, -which, Mithra being "the God out of the rock," would naturally be of -stone--a simple matter in a cult whose chief rites were always enacted -in a cave. [145] Details thus thrown into special prominence, while -in themselves historically insignificant, can be understood only as -mythically motived. So noticeable is the Mithraic parallel that the -Christian Father who angrily records it exclaims, Habet ergo diabolus -Christos suos--"the devil thus has his Christs." In Mithraism the -rock tomb, which is an item in a ritual of death and resurrection, -is mythically motived throughout: in the gospel story, historically -considered, the item is meaningless. - -Obvious as is the mythological inference, it is met by the assertion -that round Jerusalem "soil was so scarce that every one was buried in -a rock tomb." [146] Such a criticism at once defeats itself. If every -one was buried in a rock tomb, what was the point of the emphasised -detail in the gospels, which are so devoid of details of a really -biographical character? Obviously, rock tombs were the specialty of -the rich; and Joseph of Arimathea is described in all the synoptics -as a man of social standing. Is the motive of the story nothing better -than the desire to record that Jesus was richly buried? - -"Scores of such tombs remain," cries the critic: "were they all -Mithraic?" The argument thus evaded is that there was no real tomb. If -there was one thing which the early Jesuists, on the biographical -theory, might be supposed to keep hold of, it was the place of -their Lord's sepulchre; yet nothing subsists but an admittedly -false tradition. At Jerusalem, as one has put it, there are shown -"two Zions, two Temple areas, two Bethanys, two Gethsemanes, two or -more Calvarys, three Holy Sepulchres, several Bethesdas." [147] It -is all myth. "There is not a single existing site in the Holy City -that is mentioned in connection with Christian history before the -year 326 A.D., when Constantine's mother adored the two footprints -of Christ on Olivet." [148] She was shown nothing else. [149] "The -position of the traditional sites of Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre, -in the middle of the north quarter of Jerusalem, seems to have given -rise to suspicions very early." [150] It well might. I have known a -modern traveller who, on seeing the juxtaposed sites, at once realized -that he was on the scene, if of anything, of an ancient ritual, -not of events such as are narrated in the gospels. The traditional -Golgotha is only fifty or sixty yards away from the Sepulchre; [151] -and near by is "Mount Moriah," upon which Abraham is recorded to have -sought to sacrifice Isaac. - -Colonel Conder, who accepts without misgiving all four gospel -narratives, and attempts to combine them, avows that the "Garden -Tomb" chosen by General Gordon, in the latterly selected Calvary, is -impossible, being probably a work of the twelfth century; [152] and for -his own part, while inclined to stand by the new Golgotha, avows that -"we must still say of our Lord as was said of Moses, 'No man knoweth -of his sepulchre unto this day.'" [153] Placidly he concludes that "it -is well that we should not know." [154] But what does the biographical -theory make of such a conclusion? Its fundamental assumption is that -of Renan, that the personality of Jesus was so commanding as to make -his disciples imagine his resurrection. In elaborate and contradictory -detail we have the legends of that; and yet we find that all trace of -knowledge alike of place of crucifixion and tomb had vanished from -the Christian community which is alleged to have arisen immediately -after his ascension. The theory collapses at a touch, here as at -every other point. There is no more a real Sepulchre of Jesus than -there is a real Sepulchre of Mithra; and the bluster which offers -the solution that at Jerusalem every one was buried in a rock tomb -is a mere closing of the eyes to the monumental fact of the myth. - -The critic is all the while himself committed to the denial that -there was any tomb. Professing to follow the suggestion [155] of -M. Loisy that Jesus was thrown into "some common foss," which in his -hands becomes "the common pit reserved for crucified malefactors," -he affirms [156] that "the words ascribed in Acts xiii, 29, to Paul -certainly favour the Abbé's view." They certainly do not. The text -in question runs: - - - And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him - they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. - - -The Greek word is mnêmeion--that used in the gospel story. There is -thus no support whatever either for the suggestion of "a common foss" -or for the allegation about "the common pit reserved for crucified -malefactors"--a wholly unwarranted figment. The second "they" of the -sentence is indefinite: it may mean either the Jews of the previous -sentence or another "they": but either way it expressly posits a -tomb. Yet after this deliberate perversion of the document, which of -course he does not quote, the critic proceeds (p. 302) to aver that -"the genuine tradition of Jesus having been cast by his enemies into -the common pit reserved for malefactors ... survived among the Jews"; -and that the tomb story was invented as "the most effective way of -meeting" the imagined statement. Such an amateur inventor of myth is -naturally resentful of mythological tests! - - - - -§ 10. The Resurrection - -If a suffering Messiah was arguable for the Jews, his resurrection -after death was a matter of course. The biographical theory, that -the greatness of the Founder's personality led his followers to -believe that he must rise again, is historically as unwarrantable -as any part of the biographical case. The death and resurrection of -the Saviour-God was an outstanding feature of all the most popular -cults of the near East; Osiris, Herakles, Dionysos, Attis, Adonis, -Mithra, all died to rise again; and a ritual of burial, mourning, -resurrection, and rejoicing was common to several. On any view such -rituals were established in other contemporary cults; and it is this -fact that makes it worth while in this inquiry to glance at a myth -which is now abandoned by all save the traditionally orthodox. - -On the uncritical assumption that nothing but pure Judaism could exist -in Jewry in the age of the Herods, the notion of a dying and re-arising -Hero-God was impossible among Jews save as a result of a stroke of -new constructive faith. That simple negative position ignores not only -the commonness of the belief in immortality among Jews (the Pharisees -all held it) before the Christian era, but the special Jewish beliefs -in the "translation" of Moses and Elijah, and the story of Saul, -the witch of Endor, and the spirit of Samuel. The very belief that -the risen Elias was to be the forerunner of the Messiah was a lead -to the belief that the Messiah himself might come after a resurrection. - -But it is practically certain that a liturgical resurrection was or had -been practised in contemporary cults which had at one time enacted an -annual sacrifice of the representative of the God, abstracted in myth -as the death of the God himself. And in our own time the survival of -an analogous practice has been noted in India. At the installation of -the Rajahs of Keonjhur it was anciently the practice for the Rajah -to slay a victim: latterly there is a mock-slaying, whereupon the -mock-victim disappears. "He must not be seen for three days; then he -presents himself to the Rajah as miraculously restored to life." [157] - - - - - - - - -CHAPTER III - -ROOTS OF THE MYTH - - -§ 1. Historical Data - -It does not follow from the proved existence of mystery-dramas in -pagan cults in the Roman empire in the first century, C.E., that the -Jesuists had a similar usage; but when we find in the New Testament -an express reference to such parallelism, and in the early Fathers -a knowledge that such parallels were drawn, we are entitled to ask -whether there is not further evidence. When "Paul" [158] tells his -adherents: "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of daimons: -[159] ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of -daimons," he is complaining that some converts are wont to partake -indifferently of the pagan and Christian sacraments. Few students -now, probably, will assent to the view that the "tables of daimons," -with their similar rites, were sudden imitations of the Christian -sacraments. They were of old standing. But the Jesuist rite also was -in all likelihood much older, in some form, than the Christian era. - -If there is any principle of comparative mythology that might fairly -have been claimed as generally accepted by experts a generation ago, -it is that "the ritual is older than the myth: the myth derives from -the ritual, not the ritual from the myth." [160] This principle, -expressly posited by himself as by others before him, Sir James -Frazer resolutely puts aside when he comes to deal with the Christian -mythus. Disinterested science cannot assent to such a course. - -That there were "tables" in the cults of many Gods is quite certain: -temple-meals for devotees seem to have been normal in Greek religion; -[161] and in the cults of the Saviour-Gods there were special -collocations of sacramental meals with "mysteries." In particular, -apart from the famous Eleusinian mysteries there were customary -dramatic representations of the sufferings and death of the God in -the cults of Osiris, Adonis, Attis, and Dionysos: in addition to a -scenic representation of the death of Herakles; and a special system of -symbolic presentation of the life of the God in the rites of initiation -of the worship of Mithra. [162] It is not to be supposed that these -religious representations amounted to anything like a complete drama, -such as those of the great Attic theatre. Rather they represented -early stages in the evolution which ended in Greek drama as we know -it. Nearer analogues are to be found in the religious plays of various -savage races in our own time. [163] What the mystery-plays in general -seem to have amounted to was a simple representation of the life and -death of the God, with a sacramental meal. - -The common objection to the hypothesis even of an elementary -mystery-play in the pre-gospel stages of Jesuism is that Hebrew -literature shows no dramatic element, the Jews being averse from this -as from other artistic developments of religious instinct. To this we -reply, first, that the mystery-play, as distinguished from the primary -sacrament, may or may not have been definitely Jewish at the outset; -and that the drama as seen developed in the supplement to the gospels -is certainly manipulated by Gentile hands. But the objection is in -any case invalid, overlooking as it does: - -1. The essentially dramatic character of the Song of Solomon. - -2. The partly dramatic character of the Book of Job. - -3. The dramatic form of the celebration of Purim. - -4. The existence in the Hellenistic period of theatres at Damascus, -Cæsarea, Gadara, Jericho and Scythopolis, the first two being, as we -learn from Josephus, built by Herod the Great. - -5. The chronic pressure of Hellenistic culture influence upon Jewish -culture for centuries. - -6. The prevalence of Greek culture influence at the city of Samaria, -Damascus, Gaza, Scythopolis, Gadara, Panias (Cæsarea Philippi). - -7. The "half-heathen" character of the districts of Trachonitis, -Batanea, and Auranitis, east of the Lake of Gennesareth. [164] Galilee, -be it remembered, was late conquered "heathen" territory. - -8. The long and deeply hostile sunderance, after the Return, between -the priestly and rabbinical classes and the common people of the -provinces. [165] - -9. The "resuscitation of obsolete mysteries" among the Jews, and -the known survival of private sacraments and symbolic sacrifices of -atonement. [166] - -10. The actual production of dramatic Greek poetry on Biblical subjects -by the Jewish poet Ezechiel (2nd c. B.C.). [167] - -The eighth item needs to be specially insisted upon. It is frequently -asserted that nothing in the nature of a heteroclite cult could subsist -continuously in Jewry; that there were no religious ideas in the Jewish -world save those of the Sacred Books of the Rabbis. [168] This is a -historical delusion. The historical and prophetic books of the Old -Testament affirm a constant resort to pagan rites and Gods before the -Exile. There is official record of bitter strife and sunderance between -those of the Return and the people they found on the soil. Malachi -sounds the note of strife, lamenting popular lukewarmness, sacrilege -and unbelief. The simple fact that after the Exile Hebrew was no -longer the common language, and that the people spoke Aramaic or -"Chaldee," tells of a highly artificial relation between hierarchy and -populace. Never can even Judæa have been long homogeneous. "Neither -in Galilee nor Peræa must we conceive of the Jewish element as pure -and unmixed. In the shifting course of history Jews and Gentiles had -been here so often, and in such a variety of ways, thrown together, -that the attainment of exclusive predominance by the Jewish element -must be counted among the impossibilities. It was only in Judæa that -this was at least approximately arrived at by the energetic agency -of the scribes during the course of a century." [169] - -The assumption commonly made is that all Jews and "naturalized" Jews -were of one theistic way of thinking, like orthodox Christians, and, -like these, could not imagine any other point of view. If for that -entirely one-sided conception the inquirer will even substitute one -in terms of the mixed realities of life in Christendom he will be -much nearer the truth. Over and above the hatreds between sects and -factions holding by the same formulas and Sacred Books, there were -in Jewry the innovators, then as now: the minds which varied from -the documentary norm in all directions, analogues of the devotees of -"Christian Science," Bâbists, British Buddhists, Swedenborgians, -Shakers, Second Adventists, Mormons, and so on, who from a more -or less common basis radiated to all the points of the compass of -creed. What faces us in the rise of Christianity is the development -of one of those variants, on lines of adaptation to popular need, with -an organization on lines already tested in the experience of Judaism. - -Among the common cravings of the age was the need for a near God, -[170] one ostensibly more in touch with human sorrows and sufferings -than the remote Supreme God. For the earlier Hebrews, Yahweh was -a tribal God like Moloch or Chemosh, fighting for his people (when -they deserved it) like other tribal Gods; a magnified man who talked -familiarly with Abraham and Sarah, and wrestled with Jacob. [171] -Even then, the attractions of other cults set up constant resort -to them by many Yahwists, unless the historical Sacred Books are -as illusory upon this as upon other topics. To say nothing of the -continual charges against Jewish kings, from Solomon downwards, of -setting up alien worships, and the express assertion of Jeremiah [172] -that in Judah there were as many Gods as cities, and in Jerusalem as -many Baal altars as streets, we have the equally explicit assertion -in Ezekiel [173] that "women weeping for Tammuz" were to be seen in -or at the Temple itself. Now, Tammuz was a Semitic deity, borrowed, -it would seem, from the Akkadians, [174] an original or variant of -Adonis, the very type of the Saviour-God we are now tracing. Tammuz, -like Jesus, was "the only-begotten son." If it be argued that the -worship of Tammuz must have disappeared during or after the Exile, -since it would not be tolerated in the Second Temple, the answer -is that Saint Jerome expressly declares that in his day the pagans -celebrated the worship of Tammuz at the very cave in which Jesus -was said to have been born at Bethlehem [175]--a detail of some -significance in our inquiry. Tammuz = Adonis = "the Lord." That -worship, indeed, might conceivably be a revival occurring after the -fall of Jerusalem; but to say that there can have been no folklore -about Tammuz in Jewry or Galilee or Samaria between the time of -Ezekiel and that of Jerome would be to make an utterly unwarranted -assertion. The belief may even have survived under another God-name. - - -[Among the many obscurations of history set up by presuppositions -is that which rules out all evidence for community of source in -myths save that of philology, the most precarious of all proofs. The -argument on this subject has been conducted even by opposing schools -of philology as if all alike believed that every God, like every -man, is an entity with a name, traceable by his name, and remaining -substantially unchanged in his attributes through the ages. When Max -Müller propounded such derivations as that of Zeus from the Sanskrit -Dyaus, some scholars for whom Sanskrit was occult matter observed a -respectful deference, while others debated whether the derivations -were philologically sound. To mythological science, strictly speaking, -it mattered little whether they were or were not. God-ideas may pass -with little change from race to race through contacts of conquest, -the attached God-names changing alike for "absorbed" races and for -those which "absorb" them, whereas other God-names may endure with -little change for ages while the attributes connected with them -are being continuously modified, and the tales told under them are -being perpetually added to, and many are dismissed. The Zeus of -the Iliad is probably a wholly disparate conceptual figure from the -Dyaus of the early "Aryan," supposing the names to be at bottom the -same vocable. The philological fact is one thing, the mythological -fact another. - -Writers like Dr. Conybeare, who have never even realized the nature -of a mythological problem, bewilder their readers by blusterously -affirming that there can be no homogeneity between myth-conceptions -unless the names attached to them in different regions and by -different races are etymologically akin. They irrationally ask -for linguistic "equations" where a linguistic equation by itself -would count for nothing, the relevant fact being the equation of the -myth-concepts. Blind to the salient facts that every "race" concerned -had undergone mutation by conquest; that God-names and God-ideas alike -passed from race to race by intermarriages, [176] by the effects of -enslavement, and by official adoption; [177] and that conquering races -constantly adopted wholly or partly the "Gods" of the conquered, -[178] they in effect assume that God-names and God-concepts are -fixed entities, traceable solely by glossology. As if glossology -could possibly pretend to trace, even on its own ground, all the -transformations of proper-names and appellatives through different -races and languages. The pretence that these are on all fours with -the general development of language is mere scientific charlatanism. - -What mythology has to consider is the filiation and interconnection -of myth-concepts. This is so pervading a process that even Max Müller, -after denying that there could have been any "crossing" between Vedic -and alien lines of thought in respect of the closely similar Babylonian -fire-cult and that of Agni, consented to identify the Indian Soma, -God of Wine, with the Moon-God Chandra. [179] The transmutations of a -cognate myth-concept under the names of Dionysos (who has a hundred -other epithets) and of the Latin Liber, constitute a mythological -process which philology cannot elucidate. The scientifically traceable -facts are the prevalence and translation of such concepts as Wine-God, -Sun-God, War-God, Moon-God, Love-Goddess, Mother Goddess, Babe-God, -through many races and regions. One myth-factor of great importance, -unrecognized by many who dogmatize on such problems, is that of -the influence of sculpture, [180] through which such figures as -that of the Mother-Goddess become common property for many lands, -setting up community of belief on one line irrespective of prevailing -theologies. And it is quite certain that as the nations came to know -more and more of each other's Gods they borrowed traits and tales, thus -assimilating the general concepts attached to wholly different names. - -Seeing, then, further, that, as in the case of Yahweh, it was often -a point of religious taboo that a deity should not be called by -"his real name," and that nearly all had many epithets, there was -no limit to the interaction and mutation of cults and God-norms. The -exact derivation and history of the worship of Tammuz in Jewry no one -can pretend to know; and no one therefore can pretend to know that it -was not interlinked with other cults of names associated with sets -of attributes, rites, and tales. In view of the idle declamation on -the subject, it seems positively necessary to remind the reader that -even if he believes in the historicity of Jesus he is not therefore -entitled to assume the historicity of Tammuz-Dumzi-Adonis, or Myrrha, -or Miriam, or Joshua; and that if he recognizes any connection, -in terms of attributes, between the God-concepts Mars and Arês, or -Zeus and Jupiter, or Aphroditê and Venus, or Artemis and Diana, and -does not in these cases fall back upon the nugatory thesis of "two -different deities," he is not entitled to do so over the suggestion -that one popular Syrian cult of a Lord-name may have connected with -another. There is really need here for a little critical vigilance, -not to say psychological analysis.] - - -Even if we assume the earlier Jewish cult of Tammuz to have been swept -away in the Captivity, the new conditions would tend to stimulate -similar popular cults. When, after the Exile, the conception of Yahweh -began under Perso-Babylonian influences to alter in the direction -of a universalist theism, the common tendency to seek a nearer God -was bound to come into play. There is no more universal feature in -religious history than the recession of the High Gods. [181] The more -"supreme" a deity becomes, in popular religion, the more generally -does popular devotion tend to elicit Son-Gods or Goddesses who seem -more likely to be "hearers and answerers of prayer." Sacred Books -certainly tend to check such a reversion; and in Islam the check has -been successful in virtue of the very fact that Allah, like the early -Yahweh, is in effect conceived as a racial God, or God of a single -cult. But the tendency is seen at work all over the earth. - -The vogue of Apollo, of Dionysos, of Herakles, of Tammuz-Adonis, -of Krishna, of Buddha, of Balder, of Athênê, of the Virgin Mary, -of the countless deities propitiated by savage peoples who ignore -their Supreme Gods, are all testimonies to the natural craving -of religious ignorance for a near God. The same craving certainly -subsisted among the Hebrews in so far as it was not completely laid -by organized legalism. And seeing that the redactors of the Sacred -Books had actually reduced many early deities--Abraham, Jacob, -Joseph, Daoud = David, Moses, Joshua, and Samson--to the status -of patriarchs and heroes, [182] the craving would among some be -relatively strengthened. Jews who in time of trouble chronically -reverted to alien Gods and alien rites, even as did the Greeks and -Romans, could not conceivably fail altogether to adopt or cherish -cults analogous to those of Dionysos, Adonis, Osiris, so popular -among the neighbouring peoples. - -The hypothesis forced upon us by the whole history, then, is that -there had subsisted in Jewry, in original connection with a sacrificial -rite of Jesus the Son of the Father, a Sacrament of a Hero-God Jesus, -whose Name was strong to save. If it took the form of a Sacrament of -Twelve, with the ritual-representative of the God, it would be closely -analogous to the traditional Sacrament of Twelve in which Aaron [the -Anointed One = Messiah] and the [twelve] elders of Israel "ate bread -with Moses' father-in-law before God." [183] Behind that narrative -lies a ritual practice. A sacrament of bread and wine is further -indicated in the mention of the mythic Melchisedek, "King of Peace" -and priest of "El Elyon," [184] "without father and without mother, -without genealogy, having neither beginning of days or end of life, -but made like unto the Son of God," who thus became for Christists -a type of Jesus. [185] A sacramental banquet of twelve seems to have -been involved in the sacrificial ritual of the Temple itself, where -a presiding priest and twelve others daily officiated. [186] - -That Galilean or other Jews or semi-Jews, always in a partly -hostile relation to priests, scribes, and Pharisees, should in an -age of chronic war, disaster and revolution, maintain an old private -sacrament, with a subordinate worship of a Hero-God Jesus whose body -and blood had once literally and now symbolically brought salvation, -is not an unlikely but a likely hypothesis. The gospels themselves -indicate an attitude of demotic hostility alike to the king, the -priests, the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. It is not -pretended that before and apart from Jesus there was no such hostility, -and that he generated it by his teaching. In a united community such -hostility could not be so generated. It was there to start with. If -then cults of Dionysos and Attis and Adonis, the annually dying and -suffering demigods, could openly subsist in the Hellenistic world -alongside of the State cults of Zeus and the other chief Gods, a secret -cult of a Hero-God Jesus could subsist in some part of Jewry, with its -survivals of rural paganism and its many contacts and mixtures with -Samaritan schism and Hellenistic culture. Yet further, if the popular -needs of the Hellenistic world could elicit and maintain a multitude -of private religious associations, each with its own sacramental meal, -[187] the same needs could elicit and maintain them elsewhere. - -To this thesis it is objected that we have no mention of the existence -of a Jesus cult of any kind in the Hebrew books. But that is a -necessity of the case. The Sacred Books would naturally exclude all -mention of a cult which in effect meant the continued deification of -Joshua, [188] who had long been reduced to the status of a mere hero -in the history. That Joshua is a non-historical personage has long -been established by modern criticism. [189] That he did not do what -he is said in the Book of Joshua to have done is agreed by all the -"higher" critics. Who or what then was Joshua? He is in many respects -the myth-duplicate of Moses, whose work he repeats, passing the Jordan -as did Moses the Red Sea, appointing his twelve, "renewing" the rite of -circumcision, and writing the law upon stones. But he notably excels -Moses in that he causes the sun and moon to stand still by his word; -[190] and as this is cited from "Jasher," he is possibly the older -figure of the two. - -And for the Jews he retained a special status. In his Book he is made -(with a "thus saith the Lord") to give a list of the conquests effected -by him against "the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, -and the Hittite, and the Girgashite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite." In -Exodus xx, this very list of conquests, barring "the Girgashite," -is promised, with this prelude:-- - - - Behold, I [Yahweh] send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the - way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take - ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice: provoke him not, - for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him. - - -The Angel who possesses or embodies the secret or magical name [191] -is to do what Joshua in the historical myth says has been done under -his leadership: [192] both passages stand. Further, the Angel of the -passage in Exodus is in the Talmud identified with the mystic Metatron, -[193] who corresponds generally with the Logos of Philo Judæus, -the Sophia or Power of the Gnostics, and the Nous of Plotinus. The -eminent Talmudic scholar, Emmanuel Deutsch, surmised that the Metatron -is "most probably nothing but Mithra," the Persian Sun-God; and as -the promised Divine One in the Septuagint version of Isaiah, ix, 6, -bears the Mithraic titles of "Angel of Great Counsel" and Judge, -there is perhaps ground for some such surmise. It may have been, -indeed, that the redactors of the sacred books originally meant to -substitute the Angel for Joshua in the esteem of the people, giving -the former the credit for the exploits of the latter; but such a -manipulation would be in itself a confession of Joshua's renown. And -in the Samaritan Targums "the Angel of God" commonly stood for the -divine names Jehovah and Elohim. [194] - -However that may be, the pseudo-historical Joshua could not have -been elevated by the Talmudists to a divine status in other regards -had he been a historical personage; and when we find him specially -honoured in Samaria [195] we can draw no inference save that he was -once a Palestinian deity. The fact that the name means "Saviour" [196] -is of capital importance. In Jewish tradition and in his Book he is -specially associated with the choosing of the Paschal lamb, the rite -of the Passover, and the rite of circumcision. [197] Here then is the -presumptive God for the early rite of Jesus the Son of the Father. As -we shall see later, "the Angel of the Lord" is found to equate with -"the Word of the Lord"--another cue for the gospel-makers. And in -the Jewish New Year liturgy, to this day, Joshua-Jesus figures as -the "Prince of the Presence," which again is supposed to identify -him with Metatron as = meta thronou, "behind the throne." Only as a -Palestinian deity thus subordinated to Yahweh is he explicable. And -as the "Angel of the Presence" again occurs in Isaiah, lxiii, 9, -figuring as Saviour and Redeemer, it is fairly clear that there was -some Jewish doctrine which made of Joshua a Saviour deity. - -A high authority [198] pronounces that the "Angel of the Presence" is -"probably Michael, who was the guardian angel of Israel." But Michael -is a wholly post-exilic figure: was there no Hebrew prototype? However -that may be, the ritual connection of the name Jesus (Joshua) with -the title of Prince of the Presence has survived the intervention of -Babylonian angelology, and remains to testify to a status for Joshua -which can be explained only as a result of his original Godhood. [199] - - -[To this inductive argument the only answer, thus far, seems to be -to argue, as does Dr. Conybeare, that while "no one nowadays accepts -the Book of Joshua offhand as sound history," nevertheless Joshua -is there "a man of flesh and blood." [200] On the same reasoning, -Samson cannot be an Evemerized deity, though his mythical character is -clear to every mythologist. Such considerations our amateur meets by -alleging that if "half-a-dozen or more" men "come along" mistaking an -"astral myth" for a man, we should "think we were bewitched, and take -to our heels." [201] In this connection Dr. Conybeare represents me -as declaring Jesus to be "an astral myth." It is not clear whether -Dr. Conybeare, who supposes totems to be Gods, knows what "astral -myth" means, so I impute rather hallucination than fabrication. The -rational reader is aware that no such theory has been put or suggested -by me. [202] But as to his thesis, which would seem to imply that -even solar deities could never be supposed by "half-a-dozen" to be -real men, it is sufficient to point out that Herakles, the typical -solar Hero-God, was believed by millions in antiquity to be a real -man; and that Samson, obviously = the Semitic Shamas or Shimshai, -a variant of Herakles, was believed by millions of Jews to have been -a real man. It is needless here to go into the cases of Achilles and -Ulysses; but the reader who would know more of mythology than has been -discovered by Dr. Conybeare and his newspaper reviewers may usefully -investigate these themes. - -As to Joshua, Dr. Conybeare, attempting academic humour, argues (p. 17) -that if the hero is "interested in fruitfulness and foreskins" he -ought to be conceived as a "Priapic god." The humorist, who pronounces -his antagonists "too modest," seems to be unaware that Yahweh had -the interests in question. Becoming "serious," he argues (p. 30) that -"even if there ever existed such a cult, it had long vanished when the -book of Joshua was compiled." For other purposes, he resorts (p. 16) -to the test, "How do you know?" "Vanished," for Dr. Conybeare, means, -"is not mentioned in the canonical Hebrew books." With his simple -conceptions of the religious life of antiquity, he supposes himself -to be aware of all that went on, religiously, in the lives of the -much-mixed population of Palestine. His statement (p. 31) that "the -Jews" in the fifth century B.C. "no longer revered David and Joshua -and Joseph as sun-gods" is as relevant as would be the statement -that they did not worship Zeus. No one ever said that "the Jews" -carried on all their primitive cults in the post-exilic period: the -proposition is the expression of mere inability to conceive the issue. - -When, on the other hand, Dr. Conybeare proceeds to notice the thesis -that the ancient Jesuine sacrament would presumably survive as a -secret rite, he disposes of the proposition by calling it "a literary -trick." That would be a mild term for his express assertion (p. 34) -that I have claimed that "the canonical Book of Joshua originally -contained" the tradition that Joshua was the son of Miriam--an explicit -untruth. My reference to deletions from the book expressly pointed to -the theses of Winckler, a scholar whom Dr. Conybeare supposes himself -to discredit by expressions of personal contempt. Winckler never put -the hypothesis as to Miriam. [203] - -As to the survival of many private "mysteries" among the Jews, -I may refer the reader to the section in Pagan Christs on "Private -Jewish Eucharists" (p. 168 sq.), and in particular to the dictum, -there cited, of the late Professor Robertson Smith (who has not yet, -I believe, incurred Dr. Conybeare's tolerably indiscriminate contempt), -that "the causes which produced a resuscitation of obsolete mysteries -were at work at the same period [after the Captivity] among all the -Northern Semites," and that "they mark the first appearance in Semitic -history of the tendency to found religious societies on voluntary -association and mystic initiation." To the "first" I cannot subscribe, -save on a special construction of "appearance." But Robertson Smith's -proposition was founded on the documentary evidence; and when he writes -that "the obscure rites described by the prophets have a vastly greater -importance than has been commonly recognized," with the addendum that -"everywhere the old national Gods had shown themselves powerless to -resist the gods of Assyria and Babylon," we are listening to a great -Semitic scholar, an anthropologist, and a thinker, not to a "wilful -child," as Dr. Conybeare may charitably be described, in words which, -after his manner of polemic, he applies to me.] - - -Finally, we have seen that a rite of "Jesus the Son," otherwise known -as the "Week of the Son," was actually specified by the Talmudists of -the period of the fall of the Temple. Taken with the item of the name -Jesus Barabbas, "Jesus the Son of the Father," and the five-days' -duration of the ritual of the sacrificed Mock-King, it completes a -body of Jewish evidence for the pre-Christian currency of the name -Jesus as a cult-name of some kind. It is now possible to see at once -the force of the primary thesis of Professor W. B. Smith [204] that -the phrase ta peri tou Iêsou, "the things concerning the Jesus," in -the Gospels and the Acts, [205] tells of a body of Jesus-lore of some -kind prior to the gospel story; and also the significance of the fact -that the narrative of the Acts represents the new apostle as finding -Jesus-worshippers, albeit in small numbers, wherever he went. - -To suppose that this could mean a far-reaching and successful -propaganda by "the Twelve" in the short period represented to have -elapsed between the Crucifixion and the advent of Paul is not merely -to take as history, or summary of history, the miracle of Pentecost, -but to ignore the rest of the narrative. First we are told (viii, -1) that after the martyrdom of Stephen the Christists "were all -scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judæa and Samaria, except -the apostles." It is only to Samaria that Philip goes at that stage, -and his doings are on the face of them mythical. Yet Saul on his -conversion finds the "disciple" Ananias at Damascus. Then Peter -"went throughout all parts" (ix, 32), reaching Lydda, where he finds -"saints"; and then it is that "the apostles and the brethren that were -in Judæa heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God" -(xi, 1). It is after this that "they that were scattered abroad -upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen travelled as far as -Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none save only -to Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who -when they were come to Antioch spake unto the Greeks [or Grecian Jews] -also, preaching the Lord Jesus" (xi, 19). Already there is an ecclesia -at Antioch (xiii, 1) with nothing to account for its existence. - -At this stage it is represented that Saul and Barnabas customarily -preach Jesuism in the Jewish synagogues; and that only after -"contradiction" from jealous Jews at Antioch of Pisidia do they -"turn to the Gentiles" (xiii, 46), continuing, however, to visit -synagogues, till the Jewish hostility becomes overwhelming. At -Jerusalem, meanwhile, after all the gospel invective against the -Pharisees, there are found "certain of the sect of the Pharisees who -believed," and who stand firm for circumcision. Ere long we find at -Ephesus the Alexandrian Jew Apollos, who "taught carefully the things -concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John," having been -"orally instructed in the way of the Lord" (xviii, 25), but had to -be taught "more carefully" by Priscilla and Aquila. Then he passes on -to Corinth. Paul in turn (xix) shows at Ephesus, where he finds other -early Jesuists, that they of the baptism of John, though by implication -they held that "Jesus was the Christ," had not received "the Holy -Ghost," which went only with the baptism of Jesus--the baptism which -only the fourth gospel alleges (with contradictions), the synoptics -knowing nothing of any baptism by Jesus or the disciples; and only -Matthew and Mark even alleging that after resurrection he prescribed -it. In all this the hypnotized believer sees no untruth. To the eye -of reason there is revealed a process of primitive cult-building. - -In whatever direction we turn, we thus find in the Jesuist documents -themselves the traces of a "pre-Christian" Jesuism and Christism. At -Ephesus, the believers "were in all about twelve men"--the number -required for the primitive rite. The subsequent statement (xix, -9-10) that after Paul had debated daily for two years at Ephesus "all -they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and -Greeks," is typical of the method of the pseudo-history. Either the -whole narrative is baseless fiction or there were prior developments -of the Jesus-cult. - -It may be argued, indeed, that such a work of manipulation as the -Acts is no evidence for anything, and that its accounts indicating a -prior spread of Jesuism are no more to be believed than its miracle -stories. But however fictitious be its accounts of any one person, -it is certain that there was a cult; and all critics are now agreed -that the book is a redaction of previous matter--probably of Acts -of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of the Apostles, and so on. And whereas -the most advantageous fiction from the point of view of the growing -"catholic" church would be an account of the apostles as everywhere -making converts, stories of their finding them must be held to have -been imposed on the redactor by his material. There also it must be -held to stand for some reality in the history of the cult, for the same -reason, that there was nothing to be gained by inventing such a detail. - - - - -§ 2. Prototypes - -Still we are met by the objection that whatever the Acts may say the -gospels give no indication of any previous Jesus-cult. But that is a -position untenable for the biographical school save by a temporary -resort to the theory of myth-making. As Professor W. B. Smith has -pointed out, the gospels expressly represent that the disciples healed -the sick in the name of Jesus in places where Jesus had never been. For -the supernaturalists, that is only one more set of miracles. But the -biographical school, though it is much inclined to credit Jesus with -occult "healing powers," can hardly affirm such healing by means of a -magic name, and has no resource but to dismiss all such matter. [206] -Yet why should the evangelists have framed such a narrative save on -the knowledge that the name of Jesus was a thing to conjure with in -Palestinian villages? - -It is true that the story is fully told only of the mission of the -Seventy. In Matthew the Twelve are "sent" out but neither go nor -return, for the narrative continues with them present. In Mark and -Luke, the Twelve go and return without reporting anything, though -Mark tells that they preached repentance, cast out many devils, and -healed many sick by anointing them with oil. Evidently the mission -was a heedless addition to the older gospel or gospels: the third -attempts to give it some completeness. It is only the Seventy who -make a report; and it is only of them (Lk. x, 1) that we are told -they were to go to places "whither he himself was about to come." As -the episode of the Seventy is in effect given up as myth even by many -supernaturalists (who feel that, if historical, the episode could not -have been overlooked in Matthew and Mark), the biographical school -are so far entitled to say that for them the record does not posit -a previously current Jesus-Name. But what idea then do they connect -with the sending-out of the Twelve, if not the kind of idea that is -associated with the sending-out of the Seventy? - -M. Loisy feels "authorized to believe" (1) that Jesus in some fashion -chose twelve disciples and sent them out to preach the simple "evangel" -that "the Kingdom of God was at hand"--that is, merely the evangel -of John the Baptist over again; and (2) that "it seems" that they -went two by two in the Galilean villages, and were "well received: -their warning was listened to: sick persons were presented to them -to heal, and there were cures." To say this is to say, if anything, -that for the first Christians the Name of Jesus was held to have -healing power before his deification, and that it was a known name. - -But we have stronger documentary grounds than these. The Apocalypse is -now by advanced critics in general recognized to have been primarily -a Judaic, not a Christian document. [207] The critics apparently do -not realize that this verdict carries in it the pronouncement that -Jesus was probably a divine name for some section of the Jews before -the rise of the Christian cult. The twelve apostles enter only in an -interpolation: [208] in the main document we have the "four and twenty -elders" of an older cult, [209] answering to the twenty-four Counsellor -Gods of Babylonia. Even if we assign the book to a "Christian" writer -of the earliest years, at the very beginning of the Pauline mission, -[210] we are committed to connecting the cult at that stage with -the doctrine of the Logos, [211] with the Alpha and Omega, and with -the Mithraic or Babylonian lore of the Seven Spirits. Of the gospel -story there is no trace beyond the mention of slaying: on the other -hand the Child-God of the dragon-story is wholly non-Christian, -and derives from Babylon. - -The entire book, in short, raises the question whether the Jesus-cult -may not have come in originally (as so much of Judaism did), or -been reinforced, from the side of Babylon, down even to the name of -Nazareth, since there was a Babylonian Nasrah. As Samaria, the seat of -the special celebration of Joshua, is historically known to have been -colonised from Assyria and Babylon, the possibilities are wide. Suffice -it that the Apocalypse indicates a strong Babylonian element in some -of the earliest real documentary matter we have in connection with -the Jesuist cult in the New Testament; and at the same time makes -certain the pre-Gospel currency of a Jesus-cult among professed Jews. - -Yet another clue obtrudes itself in the Epistle of Jude--or, as -it ought to be named, Judas--a document notably Jewish in literary -colour. Mr. Whittaker [212] was the first of the myth-theorists to -lay proper stress on the fact that the reading "Jesus" (= Joshua) -in verse 5, [213] alone makes the passage intelligible:-- - - - Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all - things once for all, how that Jesus [that is, Joshua, instead - of "the Lord"] having saved a people out of the land of Egypt - the second time [214] [Moses having saved them the first time], - destroyed them that believed not. And angels which kept not their - own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept - in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgement of the - great day. - - -The reference is certainly to Joshua, who is here -quasi-deified. Plainly, as Mr. Whittaker observes, "the binding of -erring angels can only be attributed to a supernatural being, and -not to a mere national hero." - -And, as Mr. Whittaker also notes, we have yet another clear indication -from the Jewish-Christian side that Joshua in Jewish theology had a -heavenly status. In the "Sibylline Oracles" there occurs the passage:-- - - - Now a certain excellent man shall come again from heaven, who - spread forth his hands upon the very fruitful tree, the best of - the Hebrews, who once made the sun stand still, speaking with - beauteous words and pure lips. [215] - - -"The identification of Christ with Joshua," remarks the orthodox -translator cited, "is a mixture of Jewish and Christian legend -(sic) which is unique. It is no question of symbolism here, as -Joshua in Christian writings is treated as a type of Christ, but -rather the confusion is such as might be made by an ignorant person -reading, Heb. iv, 8, 'if Jesus had given them rest,' and concluding -that Jesus Christ led the Jews into Canaan. The author, indeed, -identifies himself with the Jews, as where he prays (vers. 327 ff.): -'Spare Judea, Almighty Father, that we may see thy judgments'; and -were it credible that the whole book was the work of one author, we -should regard his religion as syncretic, and in full accord neither -with law nor gospel. But the book ... is of composite character. One -writer may have been a Christian; another filches occasionally from -Christian sources, but has no lively faith in Christ: like many of -his countrymen at this time, he suspends his judgment, and instead of -making a decision expends his energies in denunciation of the hated -power of Rome, and in speculations concerning the future." - -It matters not whether the writer was or was not a confident -Christian: Judaic by upbringing or tuition he certainly was; and -his identification of Jesus the Christ with Joshua is one more of -the proofs that for many Jews Joshua had a quasi-divine status, -as was fitting for a personage who "made the sun stand still." Taken -collectively, the proofs cannot be overridden or explained away. Joshua -was for the Jews of the Hellenistic period the actual founder of -the rite of circumcision: [216] that is to say, mythologically, -he was the God of the rite. But still more weighty is the evidence -that his name lived on as that of the God-victim of a kindred rite; -and it is on that basis that there was founded the rite which is for -Christianity what circumcision had been for Judaism. Circumcision is -a rite of redemption, the giving of a symbolic part of the body to -"redeem" the whole--a surrogate for the Passover sacrifice of the -first-born, developed into a racial theocratic rite. It is significant -that the Saviour-God of this rite becomes the Saviour-God of the -rite offered in place of that of the Passover, whereby the primordial -human sacrifice is re-typified in that of the deity who once for all -dies for all. It is upon such roots of pre-historic religion that -the world-religions grow. - - - - -§ 3. The Mystery-Drama - -That there was an actual mystery-drama behind the gospel tragedy is -revealed by the document itself, which is demonstrably not primarily a -narrative at all, but a drama transcribed, with a minimum of necessary -elucidation. Only the habit of reading with uncritical reverence can -conceal from a student the dramatic bareness and brevity of the record -in the synoptics--a record which in the fourth gospel is grafted, -without any real development, on a protracted discourse that only -artificially suggests circumstantial reality. Chapter xiii is as it -were inserted in the middle of that discourse; and chapter xiv proceeds -as from the end of chapter xii. The original document cannot have had -the story of the tragedy in this form. At the close of chapter xiv the -"Arise, let us go hence," is a slight artifice to suggest action where -there is none. Only at chapter xviii is the action resumed; and it is -as bare and formal as in the synoptics. Broadly speaking, the action -is something superadded. A long discourse has been wrapped round the -first section, but without altering its compressed character. The -synoptics know nothing of the Johannine discourses: the Johannine -document knows no more of a historic episode than do the synoptics: -it can only invent monologues. - -Reading the synoptic account, we find a series of separate scenes, -with the barest possible explanatory connection and introduction. The -treason of Judas, in itself a myth, [217] is announced beforehand in -three sentences, with no sign of reflection on the meaninglessness -of the situation posited. A mystico-mythical episode of a message -from the Master to one who is to prepare the passover meal comes -next. In Matthew the message is to "such a man"--undescribed: in Mark, -a man carrying a pitcher of water is to be seen and followed, and -"wheresoever he shall enter in" the message is to be delivered to -"the goodman of the house," and the room will be shown ready. To -read biography in this, or to ascribe a "primitive" trustworthiness -to the Marcan story, is to cast out criticism. - -But the Supper itself is presented with the same ceremonial effect; -the whole content being the mention of the betrayal and the dogmatic -meaning of the ritual. In Mark, the whole episode of the Supper -occupies eight sentences: in Matthew, where Judas puts his question -and gets his answer, ten. After the singing of a hymn, the scene -changes instantly to the Mount of Olives. No reason is assigned for -the going out into the night: it is taken for granted that the Divine -One is going to his death, of his own will and prevision. Either we -believe this, making him a God, or we recognize a myth. Biography it -cannot be. And drama it clearly is. - -On the Mount, there is another brief dialogue, committing Peter -and the other disciples--a wholly hostile presentment. Again the -scene changes to Gethsemane, where the three selected disciples with -whom Jesus withdraws actually sleep while he utters the prayer set -down. There was thus no one to hear it. Any biographical theory which -is concerned to respect verisimilitude must here recognize something -else than narrative, and will presumably posit invention. But why -should invention take this peculiar form? If the object was to -impeach the disciples--and they certainly are impeached--is it not -an impossibly crude device to tell of their sleeping throughout the -prayer and its repetition, leaving open the retort: "You report -the words of the prayer: from whom did you get them if not from -those disciples, who must have heard them?" But if we suppose the -scene first presented dramatically, no perplexity or counter-sense -is involved. The impeachment is effectual; the episode is seen; -and no one is concerned, in presence of a drama, to ask how certain -words came to be known to have been spoken by any personage. It is -the reduction to narrative form that betrays the dramatic source. And -when we find in both Matthew and Mark, which clearly embody the same -original document, this sequence: - - - And again he came, and found them sleeping ... and they wist - not what to answer him [nothing has been said]. And he cometh - the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your - rest: it is enough; the hour is come: behold, the son of man is - betrayed.... Arise now ..., - - -the documentary crux, which the biographical school makes vainly -violent attempts to solve, is at once solved when we realize that in -the transcription two speeches have accidentally been combined. The -drama must have gone thus:-- - - - The disciples still asleep. - - Enter Jesus. - - Jes. Sleep on now and take your rest. [Exit. - - Enter Jesus. (Disciples still asleep.) - - Jes. It is enough: the hour is come, etc. - - -The transcriber, missing an exit and an enter, has simply run two -speeches together; and the gospel copyists have faithfully followed -their copy, putting "they wist not what to answer him" in the wrong -place. In an original narrative the combination could not happen. In -the transcription of the copy of a play it could easily happen. We -find instances in the printing of the plays of Shakespeare and other -early dramatists. - - -[One antagonist of the mystery-play theory, making no attempt -to rebut the above solution, denies that it can be applied to the -midnight trial before the priests, elders, and scribes. Of this trial -M. Loisy recognizes the impossibility: pronouncing that, sans doute, -the asserted search for witnesses by night never took place. But, -says the objector [218]:-- - - - (1) It may be incredible history; but it is impossible drama. I - defy Mr. Robertson to say how it could have been represented on - the stage, or why it should have been given a place in a drama - at all. And he is searching for evidence of drama. - - (2) The incident exists only in Mr. Robertson's imagination. The - Greek phrase in Mk. xiv, 55, is the regular phrase for sifting - evidence, and does not imply or suggest any hunting up of witnesses - throughout Jerusalem. - - -We have here three propositions:-- - -1. The midnight search for witnesses is impossible in drama. - -2. It is impossible to give a reason why it should have been put in -a drama. - -3. The record does not say that it took place. - -The first is at once annihilated by briefly dramatizing the alleged -procedure:-- - - - Priest (or other official, to officials). Go and bring the - witnesses to convict this fellow. [Exeunt Officials. - - Priest consults with his fellows. - - Enter Officials with a witness. Exeunt Officials. - - Witness is examined: the evidence is confused. - - Enter Officials with another witness. Exeunt. - - Witness is examined: evidence conflicts with that already given. - - (And so with a series of witnesses.) - - Enter Officials with two more witnesses. - - Witnesses, examined, testify, with some contradictions in detail, - "This man said"--etc. - - High Priest (standing). Answerest thou nothing? etc. - - -Where is the difficulty? It is precisely in drama, and in drama alone, -that the impossible narrative can pass as possible. Action on the -stage is always telescoped: time is always more or less ignored, -because the selected action must go on continuously. Again and -again in Shakespeare (or rather in pseudo-Shakespeare) we find -irrelevant and futile scenes interposed to create the semblance of -a time interval; but in Othello and Measure for Measure, to name no -other plays, the action is impossibly telescoped. The explanation -is that in the psychology of the theatre time is disregarded, save -by the most critical. The simple-minded audience of devotees which -witnessed the Christist mystery-play would never ask "How did they -hunt up those witnesses in Jerusalem at midnight?" Solvitur ambulando, -so to speak: they saw the trial. It is when the play is transmuted to -dead narrative, wherein a number of questions and answers are reduced -to a few bald statements, that the impossibility obtrudes itself. - -Our critic defies us to explain how such a trial came to be put in -a drama. It is hard to see why he is puzzled. The general object -of the whole tragedy is to show Jesus as the victim, first, of the -priests, elders, and scribes--the Jewish ecclesiastical order, whose -hostility to Jesus is a constant datum of the gospels. At this stage -the mystery-play has become a Gentile-Christian performance, in which -even the Jewish disciples play a poor part, while the official class -are the mainspring of the tragedy. How could the priests be more -effectively impeached than by exhibiting them as producing plainly -suborned evidence to convict Jesus? Lord Tennyson, in our time, put -a bad freethinker in a bad play to discredit freethinking. And he -had non-canonical as well as canonical precedents. The apocryphal -"Acts of Pilate" appears to follow a drama in which a great many -gospel episodes were dramatized as well as the trial. [219] - -As for the critic's assertion that a midnight search for witnesses -is not posited in the narrative, it is again impossible to follow -his reasoning. If the ezêtoun ... martyrian of Mark means "sifted -evidence," the ezêtoun pseudomartyrian of Matthew means "sifted false -evidence." The theory of "sifting" is impossible. I have had the -curiosity to examine ten translations--Latin, German, modern Greek, -Italian, French, and English, without finding that one translator -has ever dreamt of it. All agree with the current English rendering, -which means sought [false] testimony, because no other rendering is -possible. The record goes on, in Mark:-- - - - ... and found it [i. e. the required evidence] not. For many - bare false witness against him and their witness agreed not - together. And there stood up certain, and bare false witness - against him.... And not even so did their witness agree - together. And the high priest stood up.... - - -According to the new theory, the prosecution "sifted evidence" which -"stood up," as did the high priest. - -Defending his thesis, the exegete argues [220] that the "evidence" was -not written but oral; that is to say, the authorities had collected -witnesses during the day and had then kept them till midnight or -later without ascertaining what evidence they were able to give. The -narratives neither say nor hint anything of the kind; whereas if such -had been supposed to be the fact it would have been the natural thing -to say so. - -But the thing alleged is unnatural. On the one hand we are asked to -believe that the authorities had before sunset collected a number of -witnesses, when they could not have any certainty of making the arrest; -on the other hand we are to believe that with all this extraordinary -fore-planning they had not taken the normal precaution of ascertaining -what the witnesses could say. In the transcribed drama as it stands, -the authorities are represented as knaves; in the interpretation -before us, framed to save the credit of the narrative, they are -represented as childishly foolish. The narrative as we have it defies -its vindicators. It tells that witnesses were sent for; and only in -a drama, in which time-conditions are ignored, could such a fiction -have been resorted to.] #/ - -The story is equally dramatic to the close. Everything is scenic, -detached, episodic: it is left to Luke (who elaborates the -Supper scene; gives a positive command of Jesus for the future -celebration where the previous documents merely show the rite as it -was practised; puts the denial of Peter before the trial; and drops -the whole procedure of the witnesses) to interpose the episode of the -daughters of Jerusalem between the Roman trial and the crucifixion; -and even that is parenthetic and dramatic, as are the burial and -the seeking; whereafter, in Mark, the gospel abruptly ends. The -rest is supplementary documentation. How much of that may have been -dramatized, it is impossible to say. That there had been evolution -in the mystery-play is involved in our conception of it. It began -with the simple Sacrament, at a remote period, the Sacrament itself -being evolved from a primitive and savage to a symbolic form, the God -being probably first represented, as in kindred rites, [221] by his -sacrificial priest; and later by the victim. [222] It is after the -primitive and localized cult seeks the status of a world-religion that -the ritual developes into a quasi-history; and we can see conflicting -influences in that. One writer causes Jesus to be buffeted and mocked -at the Jewish trial, as if to counterbalance the derision in the Roman -trial; even as Luke interposes a third trial before Herod, to make sure -that the guilt should ultimately lie with the Jewish government. In the -action as in the doctrine, the Gentile influence finally predominates. - -The important point to note in the documentary evolution is that the -mystery-play remained a secret representation for some time after -written gospels were current. To begin with, all the mystery-plays -of the age were on the same footing of secrecy. What takes place -finally in the Jesuist cult is a simple adding-on of the mystery-play -to the gospels. It was not for nothing that the school of B. Weiss, -seeking to expiscate a "Primitive Gospel" from the synoptics, made -it end before the Tragedy. This was what they were bound to do by -their documentary tests; and the common objection that such an ending -is very improbable--a difficulty avowed by Weiss and weakly sought -to be solved by some of the school--is seen in the light of the -myth-theory to be a difficulty only for those who assume not merely -the historicity of a Jesus but the historicity of the whole tragedy -story down to the resurrection. Once it is realized that that story -is a dramatic development of an originally simple myth of sacrificial -death, the documentary difficulty disappears. - - - [It should not be necessary to point out the absolute falsity of - the assertion of Dr. Conybeare (Histor. Christ, p. 49) that in my - theory "The Christian Gospels ... are a transcript of the annually - performed ritual drama, just as Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare are - transcripts of Shakespeare's plays." In Pagan Christs (p. 201) - it is expressly argued that "the Mystery Play is an addition to - a previously existing document.... The transcriber has been able - to add to the previous gospel the matter of the mystery-play; and - there he loyally stops." And it is repeatedly pointed out that - the transcription has been made with the minimum of necessary - narrative connection. Thus the parallel with Lamb's Tales is - false even as regards the matter posited as constituting the play; - while the assertion that the whole of the gospel is represented - as a transcription of a play is pure fabrication. And this mere - falsification of the theory passes with traditionalist critics - as a confutation.] - - -Some account, indeed, the Jesuists must have given of the death -of their God or Son-God when they reached the stage of systematic -propaganda; and this was in all likelihood a bare statement such -as we have in the Epistles, that he was put to a humiliating death -and rose again. It is very likely that accounts of the manner of -the death varied in the first written accounts, as they certainly -would in the traditions or rituals current at various points; and we -may grant to the documentary critics that various versions may have -attached to early forms or sources of Mark and Matthew. A general -statement that Jesus was the "Son of the Father," and that he had -been put to death with ignominy, would elicit, as has been above -argued, the objection that "Jesus Barabbas" was certainly no divine -personage. The Barabbas story, then, explaining away that objection, -is a comparatively late development, of which, accordingly, we find -not a single trace in the Acts or the Epistles. But similarly the -Supper is not described in the Acts or the Epistles apart from the -plainly interpolated account in First Corinthians. And at the outset -the Supper would be emphatically secret matter, not to be written down. - -Whatever conclusion, then, was given to the earlier gospel or -gospels, it did not include that. As little would it give the Agony, -or the trials before the Sanhedrim and before Pilate, throwing -the guilt of the tragedy on the Jews, or the episodes disparaging -the apostles. Judas is in all likelihood primarily a figure of a -Gentile form of the play, being just Judaios, a Jew, [223] created by -Gentile or Samaritan animus. What inferribly happened was a dramatic -development, by Gentile hands, of a primarily simple mystery drama, -consisting of the Supper, the death, and the resurrection, into the -play as it now stands transcribed in the synoptics, with the Betrayal, -the Agony, the Denial, the Trials, and the dramatic touches in the -crucifixion scene. - -The school of Weiss, then, on our theory, reached by comparatively -consistent methods of documentary criticism a relatively sound -conclusion. The earlier forms of the gospel certainly had not the -present conclusion; and whatever simple conclusions they had were bound -to be superseded when the complete mystery play was transcribed--the -very transcription being a reason for their disappearance. At some -point, probably by reason of the Christian reaction against all pagan -procedure, the play, which in its present form must always have been -special to a town or towns, was dropped, and though the tendency was -to keep the Eucharist an advanced rite for initiates, and withhold -it from catechumens, [224] the reduction of the Tragedy to narrative -form became a necessity for purposes of propaganda. Without it, -the gospels were inadequate to their purposes; and it supplied the -needed confutation of the charge that Jesus was simply a victim in -the Barabbas rite. - -This said, we have still to face the main problem of the evolution of -the Jesus-cult into a world-religion in which the God Sacrificed to -the God becomes also the Messiah of the Jews and the Teacher of those -who believe in him. And the tracing of that evolution must obviously -be difficult. The process of extracting true out of false history -is always so; and where the concocted history and its contingent -literature are the main documents, we can in the nature of things -reach only general conceptions. But general conceptions are attainable; -and we must frame them as scientifically as we can. - - - - - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -THE EVOLUTION OF THE CULT - - -§ 1. The Primary Impulsion - -Professor W. B. Smith, whose brilliant, independent, and powerful -advocacy of the myth-theory has brought conviction to readers not -otherwise attracted by it, has stressed two propositions in regard -to the evolution of the Jesus-cult. One is that the movement was -"multifocal," starting from a number of points; [225] the other that -the essential and inspiring motive was the monotheistic conception, -as against all forms of polytheism; Jesus being conceived as "the One -God." [226] That the first proposition is sound and highly important, -I am convinced. But after weighing the second with a full sense of the -acumen that guides all Professor Smith's constructive speculation, I -remain of the opinion that it needs considerable modification. [227] -In clearing up these two issues, we shall go a long way towards -establishing a clear theory of the whole historical process. - -In the first place, a "multifocal" movement, a growth from many points, -is involved in all our knowledge of the highly important matters of the -history of the early Christian sects, and the non-canonical Christian -documents. Perhaps the proposition is even more widely true than -Professor Smith indicates. To begin with, we find at an early stage -the sects of (1) Ebionites and (2) Nazarenes or Nazareans, in addition -to (3 and 4) the Judaizing and Gentilizing movements associated with -"the Twelve" and Paul respectively; and yet further (5) the movement -associated with the name of Apollos. Further we have to note (6) the -Jesuism of the Apocalypse, partly extra-Judaic in its derivation; -and (7) that of the ninth section of the Teaching of the Twelve -Apostles, which emerges as a quasi-Ebionitic addition to a purely -Judaic document--not yet interpolated by the seventh section. Yet -further, we have (8) the factors accruing to the religious epithet -"Chrestos" [228] (= good, gracious), which specially attached to the -underworld Gods of the Samothracian mysteries; also to Hermes, Osiris, -and Isis; and (9 and 10) the Christist cult-movements connected with -the non-Jesuine Pastor of Hermas and the sect of the Eleesaites. [229] -And this is not an exhaustive list. - -(11) That there was a general Jewish ferment of Messianism on foot in -the first century is part of the case of the biographical school. That -there actually arose in the first and second centuries various Jewish -"Christs" is also a historical datum. But the biographical school -are not wont in this connection to avow the inference that alone can -properly be drawn from the phrase of Suetonius as to a movement of -Jewish revolt at Rome occurring in the reign of Claudius impulsore -Chresto, "(one) Chrestus instigating." [230] This is not an allusion -to the Greek epithet Chrestos before referred to: it is either a -specification of an individual otherwise unknown or the reduction to -vague historic status of the source of a general ferment of Jewish -insurrection in Rome, founding on the expectation of the Christos, -the Messiah. In the reign of Claudius, such a movement could not have -been made by "Christians" on any view of the history. As the words were -pronounced alike they were interchangeably written, Chrestos (preserved -in the French chrétien) being used even among the Fathers. Giving to -the phrase of Suetonius the only plausible import we can assign to it, -we get the datum that among the Jews outside Palestine there was a -generalized movement of quasi-revolutionary Christism which cannot -well have been without its special literature. - -(12) In this connection may be noted the appearance of a -quasi-impersonal Messianism and Christism on the border-land of -Jewish and early Christian literature. Of this, a main source is the -Book of Enoch, of which the Messianic sections are now by general -consent assigned to the first and second centuries B.C. There the -Messiah is called the Just or Righteous One; [231] the Chosen One; -[232] Son of Man; [233] the Anointed; [234] and once "Son of the -Woman." [235] Here already we have the imagined Divine One more or -less concretely represented. He is premundane, and so supernatural, -yet not equal with God, being simply God's deputy. [236] When then -we find in the so-called Odes of Solomon, recently recovered from an -Ethiopic version, a Messianic psalmody in which, apparently in the -first Christian century, "the name of the gospel is not found, nor -the name of Jesus;" and "not a single saying of Jesus is directly -quoted," [237] it is critically inadmissible to pronounce the -Odes Christian, especially when a number are admitted to have no -Christian characteristics. [238] When, too, the writer admittedly -appears to be speaking ex ore Christi, a new doubt is cast on all -logia so-called. Such literature, whether or not it be pronounced -Gnostic, points to the Gnostic Christism in which the personal Jesus -disappears [239] in a series of abstract speculations that exclude -all semblance of human personality. All the evidence points for its -origination to abstract or general conceptions, not to any actual -life or teaching. It spins its doctrinal web from within. - -(13) And it is not merely on the Jewish side that we have evidence -of elements in the early Jesuist movement which derive from sources -alien to the gospel record. M. Loisy [240] admits that the hymn of the -Naassenes, given by Hippolytus, [241] in which Jesus appeals to the -Father to let him descend to earth and reveal the mysteries to men, -"has an extraordinary resemblance to the dialogue between the God -Ea and his son Marduk in certain Babylonian incantations." [242] He -disposes of the problem by claiming that before it can weigh with us -"it must be proved that the hymn of the Ophites is anterior to all -connection of their sect with Christianity." The implication is -that Gnostic syncretism could add Babylonian traits to the Jewish -Jesus. But when we find signal marks of a Babylonian connection for -the name Jesus in the Apocalypse we cannot thus discount, without -further evidence, the Babylonian connection set up by the Naassene -hymn. Nor can the defenders of a record which they themselves admit -to contain a mass of unhistorical matter claim to have a ground upon -which they can dismiss as a copyist's blunder the formula in which -in an old magic papyrus Jesus, as Healer, is adjured as "The God -of the Hebrews." [243] The very gospel records present the name of -Jesus as one of magical power in places where he has not appeared. A -strict criticism is bound to admit that the whole question of the -pre-Christian vogue of the name Jesus presents an unsolved problem. - -There are further two quasi-historical Jesuses, one (14) given in -the Old Testament, the other (15) in the Talmud, concerning which we -can neither affirm nor deny that they were connected with a Jesuine -movement before the Christian era. One is the Jesus of Zechariah (iii, -1-8; vi, 11-15); the other is the Jesus Ben Pandira, otherwise Jesus -Ben Satda or Stada, of the Talmud. The former, Jesus the High Priest, -plays a quasi-Messianic part, being described as "The Branch" and -doubly crowned as priest and king. The word for "branch" in Zechariah -is tsemach, but this was by the pre-Christian Jews identified with the -netzer of Isaiah xi, 1; which for some the early Jesuists would seem -to have constituted the explanation of Jesus' cognomen of "Nazarite" -or "Nazaræan." [244] The historic significance of the allusions in -Zechariah appears to have been wholly lost; and that very circumstance -suggests some pre-Christian connection between the name Jesus and a -Messianic movement, which the Jewish teachers would be disposed to -let slip from history, and the Christists who might know of it would -not wish to recall. But the matter remains an enigma. - -Equally unsolved, thus far, is the problem of the Talmudic -Jesus. Ostensibly, there are two; and yet both seem to have been -connected, in the Jewish mind, with the Jesus of the gospels. One, -Jesus son of Pandira, is recorded to have been stoned to death and then -hanged on a tree, for blasphemy or other religious crime, on the eve -of a Passover in the reign of Alexander Jannæus (B.C. 106-79). [245] -But in the Babylonian Gemara he is identified with a Jesus Ben Sotada -or Stada or Sadta or Sidta, who by one rather doubtful clue is put in -the period of Rabbi Akiba in the second century C.E. He too is said to -have been stoned and hanged on the eve of a Passover, but at Lydda, -whereas Ben Pandira is said to have been executed at Jerusalem. Some -scholars take the unlikely view that two different Jesuses were -thus stoned and hanged on the eve of a Passover: others infer one, -whose date has been confused. [246] As Ben Pandira entered into the -Jewish anti-Christian tradition, and is posited by the Jew of Celsus -in the second century, the presumption is in favour of his date. His -mother is in one place named Mariam Magdala = "Mary the nurse" or -"hair-dresser"--a quasi-mythical detail. But even supposing him to -have been a real personage, whose name may have been connected with -a Messianic movement (he is said to have had five disciples), it is -impossible to say what share his name may have had in the Jesuine -tradition. Our only practicable clues, then, are those of the sects -and movements enumerated. - -It soon becomes clear from a survey of these sects and movements -(1) that a cult of a non-divine Jesus, represented by the Hebraic -Ebionites, subsisted for a time alongside of one which, also among -Jews, made Jesus a supernatural being. Only on the basis of an original -rite can such divergences be explained. The Ebionites come before us, -in the account of Epiphanius, as using a form of the Gospel of Matthew -which lacked the first two chapters (an addition of the second or -third century), denying the divinity of Jesus, and rejecting the -apostleship of Paul. [247] It is implied that they accepted the -story of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. Here then were Jewish -believers in a Hero-Jesus, the Servant of God (as in the Teaching), -not a Son of God in any supernatural sense. Ebionism had rigidly -restricted the cult to a subordinate form. - -On the other hand, we have in the Nazarean sect or fraternity a -movement which added both directly and indirectly to the Jesuist -evolution. In the so-called Primitive Gospel, as expiscated by the -school of B. Weiss from the synoptics, there is no mention of Nazareth, -and neither the epithet "Nazarene" nor "Nazarite" for Jesus. All three -names are wholly absent from the Epistles, as from the Apocalypse: -Jesus never has a cognomen after we pass the Acts. The inference is -irresistible that first the epithet "Nazarean," and later the story -about Nazareth, were additions to a primary cult in which Jesus had -no birth-location, any more than he had human parents. - -I have suggested [248] that the term may have come in from the -Hebrew "Netzer" = "the branch," which would have a Messianic meaning -for Jews. Professor Smith, who makes a searching study of Hebrew -word-elements, has developed a highly important thesis to the effect -that the word Nazaraios, "Nazarean," which gives the residual name for -the Jesuist sect in the Acts and the predominant name for Jesus in the -gospels (apart from Mark, which gives Nazarenos), [249] is not only -pre-Christian but old Semitic; that the fundamental meaning of the name -(Nosri) is "guard" or "watcher" (= Saviour?), and that the appellation -is thus cognate with "Jesus," which signifies Saviour. [250] On the -negative side, as against the conventional derivations from Nazareth, -the case is very strong. More than fifty years ago, the freethinker -Owen Meredith insisted on the lack of evidence that a Galilean village -named Nazareth existed before the Christian era. To-day; professional -scholarship has acquiesced, to such an extent that Dr. Cheyne [251] -and Wellhausen have agreed in deriving the name from the regional -name Gennesareth, thus making Nazareth = Galilee; while Professor -Burkitt, finding "the ordinary view of Nazareth wholly unproved and -unsatisfactory," offers "a desperate conjecture" to the effect that -"the city of Joseph and Mary, the patris of Jesus, was Chorazin." [252] -In the face of this general surrender, we are doubly entitled to deny -that either the appellation for Jesus or the sect-name had anything -to do with the place-name Nazareth. [253] - -That there was a Jewish sect of "Nazaræans" before the Christian era, -Professor Smith has clearly shown, may be taken as put beyond doubt -by the testimony of Epiphanius, which he exhaustively analyzes. [254] -Primitively orthodox, like the Samaritans, and recognizing ostensibly -no Bible personages later than Joshua, they appear to have merged in -some way with the "Christians," who adopted their name, perhaps turning -"Nazaræan" into "Nazorean." My original theory was that the "Nazaræans" -were just the "Nazarites" of the Old Testament--men "separated" and -"under a vow"; [255] and that the two movements somehow coalesced, the -place-name "Nazareth" being finally adopted to conceal the facts. But -Professor Smith is convinced, from the evidence of Epiphanius, -that between "Nazarites" and "Nazaræans" there was no connection; -[256] and for this there is the strong support of the fact that the -Jews cursed the Jesuist "Nazoræans" while apparently continuing to -recognize the Nazirs or Nazarites. That Professor Smith's derivation -of the name may be the correct one, I am well prepared to believe. - -But it is difficult to connect such a derivation of an important -section of the early Jesuist movement with the thesis that Jesuism -at its historic outset was essentially a monotheistic crusade. On -this side we seem to face an old sect for whom, as for the adherents -of the early sacrament, Jesus was a secondary or subordinate divine -personage. Standing at an early Hebraic standpoint, the Nazaræans -would have no part in the monotheistic universalism of the later -prophets. The early Hebrews had believed in a Hebrew God, recognizing -that other peoples also had theirs. How or when had the Nazaræans -transcended that standpoint? - -In the absence of any elucidation, the very ably argued thesis of -Professor Smith as to the name "Nazaræan" seems broadly out of keeping -with the thesis that a monotheistic fervour was a main and primary -element in the development of the Christian cult; and that Jesus was -conceived by his Jewish devotees in general as "the One God." This -would have meant the simple dethroning of Yahweh, a kind of procedure -seen only in such myths as that of Zeus and Saturn, where one racial -cult superseded another. But the main form of Christianity was always -Yahwistic, even when Paul in the Acts is made to proclaim to the -Athenians an "unknown God"--an idea really derived from Athens. Only -for a few, and these non-Jews, can "the Jesus" originally have been -the One God; unless in so far as the use of the name "the Lord" may -for some unlettered Jews have identified Jesus with Yahweh, who was -so styled. The Ebionites denied his divinity all along. The later -Nazareans were Messianists who did not any more than the Jews seem -to conceive that the Messiah was Yahweh. - -The whole doctrine of "the Son" was in conflict with any purely -monotheistic idea. Nowhere in the synoptics or the Epistles is the -Christ doctrine so stated as really to serve monotheism: the "I and the -Father are one" of the fourth gospel is late; and the opening verses of -that gospel show tampering, telling of a vacillation as to whether the -Logos was God or "with God"--or rather "next to God," in the strict -meaning of pros. Here we have a reflex of Alexandrian philosophy, -[257] not the evangel of the popular cult. Formally monotheistic the -cult always was, even when it had become actually Trinitarian; and all -along, doubtless, the particularist monotheism of the Jews was at work -against all other God-names in particular and polytheism in general; -but that cannot well have been the moving force in a cult which was -professedly beginning by establishing an ostensibly new deity, and -was ere long to make a trinity. - -So far as anything can be clearly gathered from the scattered polemic -in the Talmud against "the Minim," the standing title for Jewish -heretics, including Christians as such, [258] they at least appear -not as maintaining the oneness of God but rather as affirming a -second Deity, [259] and this as early as the beginning of the second -century. That the Jewish Rabbis took this view of their doctrine -is explained in terms of the actual theology of the Epistle to the -Hebrews. If there was any new doctrine of monotheism bound up with -Jesuism, it must have been outside of the Jewish sphere, where the -unity of God was the very ground on which Jesuism was resisted. As -such, the Jewish Christians did not even repudiate the Jewish law, -being expressly aspersed by the Rabbis as secret traitors who professed -to be Jews but held alien heresies. [260] - -I have said that "the Jesus" can have been "the one God" only for -non-Jews. Conceivably he may have been so for some Samaritans. There -is reason to believe that in the age of the Herods only a minority -of the Samaritan people held by Judaism; [261] and there is Christian -testimony that in the second century a multitude of them worshipped as -the One God Sem or Semo, the Semitic Sun-God whose name is embodied in -that of Samson. Justin Martyr, himself a Samaritan, expressly alleges -that "almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations" -worship and acknowledge as "the first God" Simon, whom he describes -as a native of Gitta or Gitton, emerging in the reign of Claudius -Cæsar. [262] Justin's gross blunder in identifying a Samaritan of the -first century with the Sabine deity Semo Sancus, whose statue he had -seen in Rome, [263] is proof that he could believe in the deification -of an alien as Supreme God, in his lifetime, in a nation with ancient -cults. The thing being impossible, we are left to the datum that -Sem or Semo or Sem-on = Great Sem was widely worshipped in Samaria, -as elsewhere in the near East. [264] - -Returning to the subject of "the magician Simon" in his Dialogue with -Trypho, [265] Justin there repeats that the Samaritans call him "God -above all power, and authority, and might." Remembering that the Jewish -Shema, "the Name," is the ordinary appellative for Yahweh, we note -possibilities of syncretism as to which we can only speculate. The -fact that the Jews actually called their God in general by a word -meaning "Name" and also equating with the commonest Semitic name for -the Sun-God, while in their sacred books they professedly transmuted -the sacred name (altering the consonants) to Adonai = Lord ("plural -of majesty"), the name of the Syrian God Adonis, is a circumstance -that has never been much considered by hierologists. It suggests -that the Samaritan Sem also may have been "known" by other names; -and the certain fact of the special commemoration of Joshua among the -Samaritan Judaists gives another ground for speculation. The words -of Jesus to the Samaritan woman in the fourth gospel, "Ye worship -ye know not what," seem to signify that from the Alexandrian-Jewish -standpoint Samaritans worshipped a name only. - -What does emerge clearly is that Samaria played a considerable part -in the beginnings of Christism. In a curious passage of the fourth -gospel (viii, 48) the Jews say to Jesus, "Say we not well that thou -art a Samaritan, and hast a daimon?": and he answers with a denial -that he has a daimon, but makes no answer on the other charge. The -fact that Matthew makes the Founder expressly forbid his disciples -to enter any city of the Samaritans, while an interpolator of Luke -[266] introduces the story of the good Samaritan to counteract the -doctrine, tells that there was a sunderance between Samaritan and -Judaizing Christists just as there was between the Judaizers and the -Gentilizers in general. From Samaria, then, came part of the impulse -to the whole Gentilizing movement; and the Samaritan Justin shows -the anti-Judaic animus clearly enough. - -That Samaritan Jesuism, then, may early have outgone the Pauline in -making Jesus "the One God," in rivalry to the Jewish Yahweh, is a -recognizable possibility. But still we do not reach the conception -of a zealously monotheistic cult, relying specially on a polemic -of monotheism. Justin fights for monotheism as against paganism, -but on the ordinary Judaic-Christian basis. This is a later polemic -stage. Nor does the thesis of a new monotheism seem at all essential -to the rest of Professor Smith's conception of the emergence of -Jesuism. He agrees that it exfoliated from a scattered cult of -secret mysteries: the notion, then, that it was at the time of its -open emergence primarily a gospel of One God, and that God Jesus, -is ostensibly in excess of the first hypothesis. It is also somewhat -incongruous with the acceptance of the historic fact that it spread -as a popular religion, in a world which desired Saviour Gods. [267] -Saviour Gods abounded in polytheism; the very conception is primarily -polytheistic; and all we know of the cast and calibre of the early -converts in general is incompatible with the notion of them as zealous -for an abstract and philosophical conception of deity. Whether we take -the epistles to the Corinthians as genuine or as pseudepigraphic, -they are clearly addressed to a simple-minded community, not given -to monotheistic idealism, and indeed incapable of it. - -In positing, further, a rapid "triumph" of Christism in virtue -of its monotheism, Professor Smith seems to me to outgo somewhat -the historical facts. There is really no evidence for any rapid -triumph. Renan, after accepting as history the pentecostal dithyramb -of the Acts, came to see that no such quasi-miraculous spread of the -faith ever took place; and that the Pauline epistles all presuppose not -great churches but "little Bethels," or rather private conventicles, -scattered through the Eastern Empire. [268] He justifiably doubted -whether Paul's converts, all told, amounted to over a thousand -persons. At a much later period, sixty years after Constantine's -adoption of the faith, the then ancient church of Antioch, the city -where first the Jesuists "were called Christians," numbered only -about a fifth part of the population. [269] "At the end of the second -century, probably not a hundredth part even of the central provinces -of the Roman Empire was Christianized, while the outlying provinces -were practically unaffected." - -Rather we seem bound to infer that Christianity made headway -by assimilating pagan ideas and usages on a basis of Judaic -organization. It is ultimately organization that conserves cults; -and the vital factor in the Christian case is the adaptation of the -model set by the Jewish synagogues and their central supervision. Of -course even organization cannot avert brute conquest; and the organized -pagan cults in the towns of the Empire went down ultimately before -Christian violence as the Christian went down before violence in -Persia in the age of the Sassanides. But Christian organization, -improving upon Jewish, with no adequate rivalry on the pagan side, -developed the situation in which Constantine saw fit to imperialize -the cultus, as the one best fitted to become that of the State. - -How then did the organization begin and grow? The data point -insistently to a special group in Jerusalem; and behind the myth of -the gospels we have historical and documentary ground for a hypothesis -which can account for that as for the other myth-elements. - - - - -§ 2. The Silence of Josephus - -When we are considering the possibilities of underlying historical -elements in the gospel story, it may be well to note on the one hand -the entirely negative aspect of the works of Josephus to that story, -and on the other hand the emergence in his writings of personages -bearing the name Jesus. If the defenders of the historicity of the -gospel Jesus would really stand by Josephus as a historian of Jewry -in the first Christian century, they would have to admit that he -is the most destructive of all the witnesses against them. It is -not merely that the famous interpolated passage [270] is flagrantly -spurious in every aspect--in its impossible context; its impossible -language of semi-worship; its "He was (the) Christ"; its assertion of -the resurrection; and its allusion to "ten thousand other wonderful -things" of which the historian gives no other hint--but that the -flagrant interpolation brings into deadly relief the absence of all -mention of the crucified Jesus and his sect where mention must have -been made by the historian if they had existed. If, to say nothing of -"ten thousand wonderful things," there was any movement of a Jesus of -Nazareth with twelve disciples in the period of Pilate, how came the -historian to ignore it utterly? If, to say nothing of the resurrection -story, Jesus had been crucified by Pilate, how came it that there is -no hint of such an episode in connection with Josephus' account of -the Samaritan tumult in the next chapter? And if a belief in Jesus -as a slain and returning Messiah had been long on foot before the -fall of the Temple, how comes it that Josephus says nothing of it -in connection with his full account of the expectation of a coming -Messiah at that point? - -By every test of loyal historiography, we are not merely forced to -reject the spurious passage as the most obvious interpolation in all -literature: we are bound to confess that the "Silence of Josephus," as -is insisted by Professor Smith, [271] is an insurmountable negation -of the gospel story. For that silence, no tenable reason can be -given, on the assumption of the general historicity of the gospels -and Acts. Josephus declares himself [272] to be in his fifty-sixth -year in the thirteenth year of Domitian. Then he was born about the -year 38. By his own account, [273] he began at the age of sixteen to -"make trial of the several sects that were among us"--the Pharisees, -the Sadducees, and the Essenes--and in particular he spent three years -with a hermit of the desert named Banos, who wore no clothing save -what grew on trees, used none save wild food, and bathed himself daily -and nightly for purity's sake. Thereafter he returned to Jerusalem, -and conformed to the sect of the Pharisees. In the Antiquities, [274] -after describing in detail the three sects before named, he gives an -account of a fourth "sect of Jewish philosophy," founded by Judas -the Galilean, whose adherents in general agree with the Pharisees, -but are specially devoted to liberty and declare God to be their only -ruler, facing torture and death rather than call any man lord. - -A careful criticism will recognize a difficulty as to this section. In -§ 2, as in the Life, "three sects" are specified; and the concluding -section has the air of a late addition. Seeing, however, that the sect -of Judas is stated to have begun to give trouble in the procuratorship -of Gessius Florus, when Josephus was in his twenties, it is quite -intelligible that he should say nothing of it when naming the sects who -existed in his boyhood, and that he should treat it in a subsidiary -way in his fuller account of them in the Antiquities. It is not so -clear why he should in the first section of that chapter call Judas "a -Gaulanite, of a city whose name was Gamala," and in the final section -call him "Judas the Galilean." There was a Gamala in Gaulanitis and -another in Galilee. But the discrepancy is soluble on the view that -the sixth section was added some time after the composition of the -book. There seems no adequate ground for counting it spurious. - -On what theory, then, are we to explain the total silence of Josephus -as to the existence of the sect of Jesus of Nazareth, if there -be any historical truth in the gospel story? It is of no avail to -suggest that he would ignore it by reason of his Judaic hostility -to Christism. He is hostile to the sect of Judas the Galilean. There -is nothing in all his work to suggest that he would have omitted to -name any noticeable sect with a definite and outstanding doctrine -because he disliked it. He seems much more likely, in that case, -to have described and disparaged or denounced it. - -And here emerges the hypothesis that he did disparage or denounce the -Christian sect in some passage which has been deleted by Christian -copyists, perhaps in the very place now filled by the spurious -paragraph, where an account of Jesuism as a calamity to Judaism -would have been relevant in the context. This suggestion is nearly -as plausible as that of Chwolson, who would reckon the existing -paragraph a description of a Jewish calamity, is absurd. And it is the -possibility of this hypothesis that alone averts an absolute verdict -of non-historicity against the gospel story in terms of the silence of -Josephus. The biographical school may take refuge, at this point, in -the claim that the Christian forger, whose passage was clearly unknown -to Origen, perhaps eliminated by his fraud a historic testimony to -the historicity of Jesus, and also an account of the sect of Nazaræans. - -But that is all that can be claimed. The fact remains that in the Life, -telling of his youthful search for a satisfactory sect, Josephus -says not a word of the existence of that of the crucified Jesus; -that he nowhere breathes a word concerning the twelve apostles, -or any of them, or of Paul; and that there is no hint in any of -the Fathers of even a hostile account of Jesus by him in any of his -works, though Origen makes much of the allusion to James the Just, -[275]--also dismissible as an interpolation, like another to the same -effect cited by Origen, but not now extant. [276] There is therefore -a strong negative presumption to be set against even the forlorn -hypothesis that the passage forged in Josephus by a Christian scribe -ousted one which gave a hostile testimony. - -Over a generation ago, Mr. George Solomon of Kingston, Jamaica, noting -the general incompatibility of Josephus with the gospel story and the -unhistorical aspect of the latter, constructed an interesting theory, -[277] of which I have seen no discussion, but which merits notice -here. It may be summarized thus:-- - -1. Banos is probably the historical original of the gospel figure of -John the Baptist. - -2. Josephus names and describes two Jesuses, who are blended in the -figure of the gospel Jesus: (a) the Jesus (Wars, VI, v, 3) who predicts -"woe to Jerusalem"; is flogged till his bones show, but never utters -a cry; makes no reply when challenged; returns neither thanks for -kindness nor railing for railing; and is finally killed by a stone -projectile in the siege; and (b) Jesus the Galilean (Life, §§ 12, -27), son of Sapphias, who opposes Josephus, is associated with Simon -and John, and has a following of "sailors and poor people," one of -whom betrays him (§ 22), whereupon he is captured by a stratagem, -his immediate followers forsaking him and flying. [278] Before this -point, Josephus has taken seventy of the Galileans with him (§ 14) as -hostages, and, making them his friends and companions on his journey, -sets them "to judge causes." This is the hint for Luke's story of -the seventy disciples. - -3. The "historical Jesus" of the siege, who is "meek" and venerated -as a prophet and martyr, being combined with the "Mosaic Jesus" -of Galilee, a disciple of Judas of Galilee, who resisted the Roman -rule and helped to precipitate the war, the memory of the "sect" of -Judas the Gaulanite or Galilean, who began the anti-Roman trouble, -is also transmuted into a myth of a sect of Jesus of Galilee, who has -fishermen for disciples, is followed by poor Galileans, is betrayed -by one companion and deserted by the rest, and is represented finally -as dying under Pontius Pilate, though at that time there had been no -Jesuine movement. - -4. The Christian movement, thus mythically grounded, grows up after -the fall of the Temple. Paul's "the wrath is come upon them to the -uttermost" (1 Thess. ii, 16) tells of the destruction of the Temple, -as does Hebrews xii, 24-28; xiii, 12-14. - - - -This theory of the construction of the myth out of historical elements -in Josephus is obviously speculative in a high degree; and as the -construction fails to account for either the central rite or the -central myth of the crucifixion it must be pronounced inadequate -to the data. On the other hand, the author developes the negative -case from the silence of Josephus as to the gospel Jesus with an -irresistible force; and though none of his solutions is founded-on in -the constructive theory now elaborated, it may be that some of them -are partly valid. The fact that he confuses Jesus the robber captain -who was betrayed, and whose companions deserted him, with Jesus the -"Mosaic" magistrate of Tiberias, who was followed by sailors and poor -people, and was "an innovator beyond everybody else," does not exclude -the argument that traits of one or the other, or of the Jesus of the -siege, may have entered into the gospel mosaic. - - - - -§ 3. The Myth of the Twelve Apostles - -All careful investigators have been perplexed by the manner of the -introduction of "the Twelve" in the gospels; and they would have -been still more so if they had realized the total absence of any -reason in the texts for the creation of disciples or apostles at -all. Disciples to learn--what? Apostles to teach--what? The choosing -is as plainly mythical as the function. In Mark (i, 16) and Matthew -(iv, 18), Jesus calls upon the brothers Simon and Andrew to leave -their fishing and "become fishers of men." They come at the word; and -immediately afterwards the brothers James and John do the same. There -is no pretence of previous teaching: it is the act of the God. [279] -In Matthew, at the calling of the apostle Matthew (ix, 9), who in Mark -(ii, 14) becomes Levi the son of Alphæus, the procedure is the same: -"Follow me." - -Then, with no connective development whatever, we proceed at one -stroke to the full number. [280] Matthew actually makes the mission -of the twelve the point of choosing, saying simply (x, 1): "And he -called unto him his twelve disciples," adding their names. In Mark -(iii, 13) we have constructive myth:-- - - - And he goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom he - himself would: and they went unto him. And he appointed twelve, - that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth - to preach, and to have authority to cast out devils. - - -And the lists converge. Levi has now disappeared from Mark's record, -and we have instead "James the son of Alphæus," but with Matthew in -also. The lists of the first two synoptics have been harmonized. In -Luke, where only three are at first called, after a miracle (v, -1-11), the twelve are also summarily chosen on a mountain; and -here the list varies: Levi, who has been separately called (v, 27) -as in Mark, disappears here also in favour of "James of Alphæus"; -but there is no Thaddæus, and there are two Judases, one being "of -James," which may mean either son or brother. And this Judas remains -on the list in the Acts. Candid criticism cannot affirm that we have -here the semblance of veridical biography. The calling of the twelve -has been imposed upon an earlier narrative, with an arbitrary list, -which is later varied. The calling of the fishermen, to begin with, -is a symbolical act, as is the calling of a tax-gatherer. The calling -of the twelve is a more complicated matter. - -In searching for the roots of a pre-Christian Jesus-cult in Palestine, -we have noted the probability that it centred in a rite of twelve -participants, with the "Anointed One," the representative of the God, -and anciently the actual victim, as celebrating priest. The Anointed -One is "the Christ"; and the Christ, on the hypothesis, is Jesus Son -of the Father. The twelve, as in the case of the early Jesus-cult -at Ephesus, form as it were "the Church." A body of twelve, then, -who might term themselves "Brethren of the Lord," may well have been -one of the starting-points of Jewish Jesuism. - -But the first two synoptics, clearly, started with a group of only -four disciples, to which a fifth was added; and in John (i, 35-49) -the five are made up at once, in a still more supernatural manner -than in the synoptics, two being taken from the following of John -the Baptist. Then, still more abruptly than in the synoptics, we have -the completion (vi, 70):--"Did not I choose you the twelve, and one -of you is a devil?" It would be idle to say merely that the twelve -are suddenly imposed on the narrative, leaving a biographical five: -the five are just as evidently given unhistorically, for some special -reason, mythical or other. - -Now, though fives and fours and threes are all quasi-sacred -numbers in the Old Testament, it is noteworthy that in one of the -Talmudic allusions to Jesus Ben-Stada he is declared to have had five -disciples--Matthai, Nakai or Neqai, Nezer or Netzer, Boni or Buni, and -also Thoda, all of whom are ostensibly though not explicitly described -as having been put to death. [281] As this passage points to the Jesus -who is otherwise indicated as post-Christian, it cannot critically -be taken as other than a reference to a current Christian list of -five, though it may conceivably have been a miscarrying reference -to the Jesus of the reign of Alexander Jannæus. In any case, it is -aimed at a set of five; and there is never any Talmudic mention of a -twelve. If, then, the Talmudic passage was framed by way of a stroke -against the Christians it must have been made at a time when the list -of twelve had not been imposed on the gospels. Further, it is to be -noted that it provides for a Matthew, and perhaps for a "Mark," the -name "Nakai" being put next to Matthew's; while in Boni and Netzer -we have ostensible founders for the Ebionites and Nazaræans. Finally, -Thoda looks like the native form of Thaddæus; though it might perhaps -stand for the Theudas of Acts v, 36. Seeing how names are juggled with -in the official list and in the MS. variants ("Lebbæus whose surname -was Thaddæus" stood in the Authorised Version, on the strength of -the Codex Bezae), it cannot be argued that the Gemara list is not -possibly an early form or basis of that in the synoptics; though on -the other hand the names Boni and Netzer suggest a mythopoeic origin -for Ebionites and Nazarenes. Leaving this issue aside as part of the -unsolved problem of the Talmudic Jesus, we are again driven to note -the unhistoric apparition of the twelve. - -Following the documents, we find the later traces equally -unveridical. Matthew is introduced in the Acts as being chosen to -make up the number of the twelve, on the death of Judas; but never -again is such a process mentioned; and Matthew plays no part in -the further narrative. And of course the cult was interdicted from -further maintenance of the number as soon as it was settled that -the twelve were to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes -of Israel, which had apparently been done in an early Judaic form -of the Apocalypse before it was intimated in the gospels. Even in -the Epistles, however, there is no real trace of an active group -of twelve. The number is mentioned only in a passage (1 Cor. xv, -5) where there is interpolation upon interpolation, for after -the statement that the risen Jesus appeared "then to the twelve" -there shortly follows "then to all the apostles," that is, on the -traditionist assumption, to the twelve again--the exclusion of Judas -not being recognized. The first-cited clause could be interpolated in -order to insert the number; the second could not have been inserted -if the other were already there. - -That is the sole allusion. We find none where we might above all -expect it, in the pseudo-biographical epistle to the Galatians, -though there is mention in the opening chapter of "them which were -apostles before me," "the apostles," "James the brother of the Lord" -(never mentioned as an apostle in the gospels unless he be James the -son of Alphæus or James the son of Zebedee: that is, not a brother -of Jesus but simply a group-brother), and "James and Cephas and John, -who were [or are] reputed to be pillars." The language used in verse 6 -excludes the notion that the writer believed "the apostles" to have had -personal intercourse with the Founder. Thus even in a pseudepigraphic -work, composed after Paul's time, there is no suggestion that he had -to deal with the twelve posited by the gospels and the Acts. And -all the while "apostles" without number continue to figure in the -documents. They were in fact a numerous class in the early Church. It -is not surprising that the late Professor Cheyne not only rejected -the story of the Betrayal but declared that "The 'Twelve Apostles,' -too, are to me as unhistorical as the seventy disciples." [282] - -On the other hand, we have a decisive reason for the invention of the -Twelve story in the latterly recovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles -[283] (commonly cited as the Didachê), a document long current in the -early church. Of that book, the first six chapters, forming nearly -half of the matter, are purely ethical and monotheistic, developing -the old formula of the "Two Ways" of life and death; and saying nothing -of Jesus or Christ or the Son, or of baptism or sacrament. Then comes -a palpably late interpolation, giving a formula for baptism in the -name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even in the ninth -section, dealing with the Eucharist, we have only "the holy vine of -David thy Servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy -Servant." [284] The tenth, which is evidently later, and is written as -a conclusion, retains that formula. After that come warnings against -false apostles and prophets; and only in the twelfth section does the -word "Christian" occur. Still later there is specified "the Lord's-day -(kyriakên) of the Lord." Then comes a prescription for the election -of bishops; and the document ends with a chapter preparing for the -expected "last days." - -Here then we have an originally Jewish document, bearing the title -Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, adopted and gradually added to -by early Jesuists who did not deify Jesus, though like the early -Christians in general they expected the speedy end of the world. Though -their Jesus is not deified, he has no cognomen. He is neither "of -Nazareth," nor "the Nazarite;" and he is an ostensibly mythical figure, -not a teacher but a rite-founder, for his adherents. They do not belong -to an organized Church; and the baptismal section, with its Trinitarian -formula, is quite certainly one of the latest of all. The eighth, -which connects quite naturally with the sixth, and which contains -the "Lord's Prayer," raises the question whether it belonged to the -pre-Christian document, and has been merely interpolated with the -phrase as to "the Lord ... his gospel." There are strong reasons for -regarding the Lord's Prayer as a pre-Christian Jewish composition, -[285] founded on very ancient Semitic prayers. Seeing that "the Lord" -has in all the previous sections of the treatise clearly meant "God" -and not "Christ," the passage about the gospel is probably Jesuist; -but it does not at all follow that the Prayer is. - -Mr. Cassels, in the section on the Teaching added by him in the -one-volume reprint of his great work, points [286] to the fact that in -the recovered fragment of a Latin translation of an early version of -"The Two Ways," there do not occur the passages connecting with the -Sermon on the Mount which are found in the Teaching; and as the same -holds of the Two Ways section of the Epistle of Barnabas, it may fairly -be argued that it was a Christian hand that added them here. But when -we note that at the points at which the passages in the Teaching vary -from the gospel--as "Gentiles" for "tax-gatherers," [287]--the term in -the former is perfectly natural for Jewish teachers addressing Jews -in Gentile countries, and that in the latter rather strained in an -exhortation to Jews in their own country, it becomes very conceivable -that this is the original, or a prior form, of the gospel passage. The -Sermon on the Mount is certainly a compilation. This then may have -been one of the sources. And it is quite conceivable that the Jewish -Apostles should teach their people not to pray "as do the hypocrites," -an expression which Mr. Cassels takes to be directed by Jesuists -against Jews in general. - -Seeing that even conservative critics have admitted the probable -priority of the Teaching to Barnabas, it is no straining of the -probabilities to suggest that the Two Ways section of Barnabas is -either a variant, inspired by the Teaching, on what was clearly -a very popular line of homily, [288] or an annexation of another -Jewish homily of that kind. That in the Teaching is distinctly the -better piece of work, as we should expect the official manual of -the Apostles of the High Priest to be. It is inexact to say, as does -Dr. M. R. James, [289] that the section "reappears" in Barnabas. There -are many differences, as well as many identities. The other is not a -mere copy, but an exercise on the same standard theme, with "light -and darkness" for the stronger "life and death." It is a mistake -to suppose that there was a definite "original" of "The Two Ways": -it is a standing ethical theme, evidently handled by many. [290] If, -then, the Teaching preceded Barnabas, it may already have contained, -in its purely Jewish form, the Lord's Prayer, which is so thoroughly -Jewish, and items of the Sermon on the Mount, which is certainly a -Jewish compilation. And the justified critical presumption is that -it did contain them. The onus of disproof lies on the Christian side. - -We now reach our solution. The original document was in any case a -manual of teaching used among the scattered Jews and proselytes of the -Dispersion by the actual and historical Twelve Apostles either of the -High Priest before or of the Patriarch after the fall of Jerusalem. The -historic existence of that body before and after the catastrophe -is undisputed; [291] and the nature of its teaching functions can -be confidently inferred from the known currency of a Judaic ethical -teaching in the early Christian period. The demonstration of that is -supplied by an expert of the biographical school who considers the -Teaching to have been "known to Jesus and the Baptist." [292] Such a -document cannot rationally be supposed to be a compilation made by or -for Christists using the gospels: such a compilation would have given -the gospel view of Jesus. [293] The primary Teaching, including as it -probably does the Lord's Prayer, is the earlier thing: the gospels -use it. It is in fact one of the first documents of "Christianity," -if not the first. And its titular "twelve apostles" are Jewish and -not Christian. - -Given, then, such a document in the hands of the early Jesuist -organization--or one of the organizations--twelve apostles had to be -provided in the legend to take the credit for the Teaching. [294] -The new cult, once it was shaped to the end of superseding the -old, had to provide itself to that extent, by myth, with the same -machinery. No step in the myth-theory is better established than this; -and no non-miraculous item in the legend is more recalcitrant than -the twelve story to the assumptions of the biographical school. The -gospel list of the twelve is one of the most unmanageable things -in the record. In a narrative destitute of detail where detail is -most called for, we get a list of names, most of which count for -nothing in the later history, to give a semblance of actuality to -an invented institution. We have clearly unhistorical detail as to -five, no detail whatever as to further accessions, and then a body -of twelve suddenly constituted. For some of us, the discovery of the -Teaching was a definite point of departure in the progression toward -the myth-theory; and it supplies us with the firmest starting-point -for our theoretic construction of the process by which the organized -Christian Church took shape. - - - - -§ 4. The Process of Propaganda - -On the view here taken, there was at Jerusalem, at some time in the -first century, a small group of Jesuist "apostles" among whom the chief -may have been named James, John, and Cephas. They may have been members -of a ritual group of twelve, who may have styled themselves Brothers -of the Lord; but that group in no way answered to the Twelve of the -gospels. Of the apostle class the number was indefinite. Besides the -apostles, further, there would seem to have been an indefinite number -of "prophets," indicative of a cult of somewhat long standing. The -adherents believed in a non-historic Jesus, the "Servant" of the -Jewish God, somehow evolved out of the remote Jesus-God who is reduced -to human status in the Old Testament as Joshua. And their central -secret rite consisted in a symbolic sacrament, evolved out of an -ancient sacrament of human sacrifice, in which the victim had been -the representative of the God, sacrificed to the God, in the fashion -of a hundred primitive cults. This rite had within living memory, -if not still at the time from which we start, been accompanied by an -annual popular rite in which a selected person--probably a criminal -released for the purpose--was treated as a temporary king, then -derided, and then either in mock show or in actual fact executed, -under the name of Jesus Barabbas, "the Son of the Father." - -Of this ancient cult there were inferribly many scattered centres -outside of Judea, including probably some in Samaria, the special -region of the celebration of the Hero-God Joshua. There was one such -group in Ephesus; and probably another at Alexandria, and another at -Antioch; Jews of the Dispersion having possibly taken the cult with -them. But the cult outside Jewry may have had non-Jewish roots, though -it merged with Jewish elements. So long as the Temple at Jerusalem -lasted, the small cult counted for very little; and it was probably -after the fall of Jerusalem [295] that its leaders added to their -machinery the rite of baptism, which the synoptic gospels treat as a -specialty of the movement of John the Baptist. Him they represent as a -"forerunner" of the Christ, who under divine inspiration recognizes the -Messianic claims of Jesus. All this is plainly unhistorical, even on -the assumption of the historicity of Jesus. [296] Whatever may be the -historic facts as to John the Baptist, who is a very dubious figure, -[297] the marked divergence between the synoptics and the fourth gospel -on the subject of baptism [298] show that that rite was not originally -Jesuist, but was adopted by the Jesuists as a means of popular appeal. - -The recognition of this fact is a test of the critical good faith -of those who profess to found on the synoptics for a history of -the beginnings of the Jesuist cult. Canon Robinson [299] treats as -unquestionably historical one of the contradictory statements in John -iv, 1-2, of which the first affirms that Jesus baptized abundantly, -while the second, an evidently interpolated parenthesis, asserts that -only the disciples baptized, not Jesus. Though this interpolation -hinges on the first dictum, the Canon accepts it to the exclusion -of that, its basis. But the original writer could not have put the -proposition thus had he believed it. What he affirmed was abundant -baptizing by Jesus. Of this, however, the synoptics have no more hint -than they have of baptizing by the disciples. On any possible view -of the composition of the synoptics, it is inconceivable that they -should omit all mention of baptizing by Jesus or the disciples if such -a practice was affirmed in the early tradition. For them baptism is -the institution of the Forerunner, who is mythically represented as -hailing in Jesus his successor or supersessor, with no suggestion of -a continuance of the rite. If there is to be any critical consistency -in the biographical argument, it must at least recognize that baptism -is non-Jesuine. - -The embodiment of the rite of baptism on the basis of the Baptist's -alleged acclamation of Jesus as the Messiah, either carried with it -or followed upon the claim that Jesus, hitherto regarded as a simple -Saviour-God, was a Messiah. After the fall of Jerusalem, the old -dream of an earthly Messiah who should restore the Kingdom of Judah -or Israel [300] was shattered for the vast majority of Jews. Even in -the Assumption of Moses, in the main the work of a Quietist Pharisee, -written in Hebrew probably between 7 and 29 of the first century, -[301] there is a virtual abandonment of Messianism, the task of -overthrowing the Gentiles being assigned to "the Most High." [302] -In the composite Apocalypse of Baruch, written in Hebrew, mainly by -Pharisaic Jews, in the latter half of the first century, probably as an -implicit polemic against early Jesuism, [303] we see the effect of the -catastrophe. In the sections written before the fall of Jerusalem, -the hope of a Messianic Kingdom is proclaimed; in those written -later there is either at most a hope of a Messianic Kingdom without -a Messiah or a complete abandonment of mundane expectations. [304] -What the Jesuist movement did was to develop, outside of Jewry, [305] -the earlier notion of a Messiah "concealed," pre-appointed, and coming -from heaven to effect the consummation of all things earthly. [306] - -Such Messianism may have either preceded or proceeded-on an adoption -of the rite of baptism. Given a resort to Messianism by the Jesuists -after the fall of Jerusalem, the alleged testimony of the Baptist to -Jesus as the Appointed One might be the first step; and the resort -to the baptismal rite would follow on the myth that Jesus had been -actually baptized by John. In Acts, i, 5, Jesus is in effect made -to represent John's baptism with water as superseded by a baptism -in the Holy Ghost. [307] In the Pauline epistles we have trace of a -conflict over this as over other Judaic practices, Paul being made -to declare (1 Cor. i, 17) that "Christ sent me not to baptize but -to preach the gospel," though he admits having baptized a few. [308] -All that is clear is that the Jesuists were not primarily baptizers; -that they began to baptize "in the name of Jesus Christ," [309] with -a formula of the Holy Ghost and fire, but really in the traditional -manner with water; and that long afterwards they feigned that the -Founder had prescribed baptism with a trinitarian formula. [310] - -Thus far, the local movement was not only Jewish but Judaic. It may -or may not have been before the fall of Jerusalem that a Jesuist -"apostle" named Paul conceived the idea of creating by propaganda a -new Judæo-Jesuist movement appealing to Gentiles. Such an idea is not -the invention of Paul or any other Jesuist; the idea of a Messianic -Kingdom in which the Gentiles should be saved is found in the Jewish -Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, written in Hebrew by a Pharisee -between the years 109 and 106 B.C. [311] But, thus made current, -it might well be adopted by Jesuists. The reason for supposing this -to have begun before the year 70 is not merely the tradition to that -effect but the fact that in none of the epistles do we have any trace -of that "gospel of the Kingdom" which in the synoptics is posited -as the evangel of Jesus. That evangel, which is a simple duplication -of the alleged evangel of the Baptist, and which we have seen to be -wholly mythical, being devoid of possible historic content, [312] -is part of the apparatus of the retrospective Messianic claim. But -the Pauline Epistles, even as they show no knowledge of the name -Nazareth, or Nazaræan, or Nazarene, or of any gospel teaching, also -show no concern over a "gospel of the Kingdom." Whether or not, then, -they are wholly pseudepigraphic, they suggest that a Paulinism of -some kind was an early feature in the Jesuist evolution. - -According to the Acts, Paul's name was originally Saul, though no such -avowal is ever made in the epistles. The purpose of the statement -seems to be to strengthen the case as to his Jewish nationality, -which is affirmed in the epistles, as is the item that he had been a -murderous persecutor of the early Jesuists. All this suggests a late -manipulation of the traditions of an early strife. To claim that the -Gentilizing apostle had been a Jew born and bred would be as natural -on the Gentilizing side as to allege that the typically Judaic Peter -had denied his Lord; while the charge of persecuting the infant church -would be a not less natural invention of the Judaic Christians who -accepted the tradition that Paul had been a Pharisee and a pupil of -Gamaliel. In point of fact we find the Ebionites, the typical Judaic -Jesuists, knowing him simply as "Paul of Tarsus" in their version of -the Acts or in a previous document upon which that founded. [313] -And many Jewish scholars have declared that they cannot conceive -the Pauline epistles to have been written by a Rabbinically trained -Jew. [314] This does not preclude the possibility that the original -Paul, of whose "few very short epistles" personally penned [315] -we have probably nothing left that is identifiable, [316] may have -been such a Jew, but the presumption is to the contrary. - -On the face of the case, nothing was more natural than that the Jesuist -movement should appeal to civilized Gentiles. Judaism itself did so, -striving much after proselytes. The question was whether the Jesuist -proselytes should be made on a strictly Judaic basis. Now, even if -the fall of Jerusalem had not given the impetus to a severance of the -cult from the dominating religion, the sacred domicile being gone, it -is obvious that an abandonment of such a Jewish bar as circumcision -would give the developing cult a great advantage over the other -in propaganda among Gentiles. Circumcision must have been a highly -repellent detail for Hellenistic Gentiles in general; and a gospel -which dispensed with it would have a new chance of making headway. And -such a severance certainly took place, though we can put no reliance -on the chronology of the Acts. [317] Paul [318] remains a doubtfully -dated figure, because the chronology of the whole cult is problematic. - -But we can broadly distinguish between a "Petrine" and a "Pauline" -Christism. In the Acts (ii, 22-40), which clearly embodies earlier -lore, prior to that of the gospels, the Jesus Christ preached by Peter -is not represented as a saving sacrifice. As little is he a Teacher, -though he is a doer of "mighty works and wonders and signs." If -we were to apply the biographical method, the presentment might be -held to indicate the Talmudic Jesus. Only after his resurrection "God -hath made him both Lord and Christ"--that is, Messiah; and the Jewish -hearers are invited to "repent" and be "baptized ... in the name of -Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." Peter's Jesus, like him -of the Teaching, is the "Servant" of God, not his Son. And there is -no mention of a sacrament, though there is noted a "breaking of bread -at home" (42, 46) recalling the "broken" (bread) of the Didachê. The -sacrament, then, was apparently a secret rite for the Jewish group. - -The speeches, of course, are quite unhistorical: we can but take them -as embodying a traditional "Petrine" teaching with later matter. Thus -we have baptism figuring as a Jesuist rite, whereas in the synoptics, -as we have seen, there had been no such thing. The story of Peter -being brought to the pro-Gentile view is pure ecclesiastical myth, -probably posterior to the Pauline epistles, which are ignored but -counteracted in so far as they posit strife between Pauline and -Petrine propaganda. Peter and Paul alike are made to teach that -"it behoved the Christ to suffer" (iii, 18; xvii, 3), even as they -duplicate their miracles, their escapes, and their sufferings. But -while Peter is pretended to have accepted Gentilism, it is Paul -who acts on the principle; and he it is who is first represented as -fighting pagan polytheism, notably at Ephesus (xix, 26). At Athens, -in a plainly fictitious speech, he is made to expound the "unknown -God" of an Athenian agnostic cult in terms of Jewish opposition -to image-worship, indicating Jesus merely as "a man" raised by God -from the dead to judge the world at the judgment day. It is after -this episode that he is made to tell the Jews of Corinth he will -"henceforth go unto the Gentiles." Nevertheless he is made to go on -preaching to the Jews. The narrative as a whole is plainly factitious: -all we can hope to do is to detect some of its historic data. - -Two things must be kept clearly and constantly in view: first, that -what we understand by a literary and a historical conscience simply -did not exist in the early Christian environment; second, that in -all probability the Acts, which to start with would be a blend of -tradition and fiction, is much manipulated during a long period. We -are not entitled to assume that an "original" writer duplicated -the careers of Peter and Paul for purposes of edification. One or -more may have wrought one narrative, and a later hand or hands may -have systematically interpolated the other. [319] We are to remember -further that it was an age in which most Christians, assimilating the -eschatology of the Persians and the Jews--the spontaneous dream of -crushed peoples--expected the speedy end of the world, and did their -thinking on that basis. In such a state of mind, critical thought -could not exist save as a small element in religious polemic. - -Let us then see what we reach on the hypothesis that early Jesuism even -in the first century, and possibly even before the fall of Jerusalem, -was running in two different channels--one movement adhering to -Jewish usage, making Jesus the Servant of God, and conceiving him as a -God-gifted Healer whose death raised him to the status of the Messiah, -the promised Christ or Anointed One who should either close the earthly -scene or bring about a new God-ruled era for the Jews. For the holders -of this view, the Kingdom of God was coming. Jesus was ere long to -come in the clouds in great glory and inaugurate the new life. To -ask for clear conceptions on such a matter from such minds would -be idle. There were none. The one idea connected with the mythical -evangel was that Jews should repent and prepare for the new life. To -that elusive minimum the latest biographical analysis, assuming the -historicity, reduces the "ministry" of the gospel Jesus. [320] The rest -is all post-apostolic accretion. On the other hand, the Petrine Jesus -has proved his mission for his devotees, first and last, by miracles, -and by his resurrection--things which the biographical school rejects -as imaginary. - -Upon this movement there enters an innovator, Paul of Tarsus. Round -him, as round Peter, there are clouds of myth. That he was -originally Saul, a Pharisee, a pupil of Gamaliel; that he began as -a bitter persecutor of the Jesuists; and that he was converted by -a supernatural vision, become common data for the church. That the -charge of persecution was a Judaic figment, on the other hand, is -perhaps as likely as that the story of Peter's denial of his Master -was a Gentile figment. We are in a world of purposive fiction. But the -broad divergence of doctrine seems to underlie all the fables. Saul, -on the later view, changes his Jewish name to the Grecian Paul when -he plans to make the Jesus-cult non-Jewish, using the tactic of -monotheism against pagan polytheism in general, in the very act of -adding a Son-God to the Jewish Father-God, as so many Son-Gods had -been added to Father-Gods throughout religious history. To the early -Jewish Jesuists, the notion of the Son had been given by the old cult -of sacrifice, with its Jesus the Son--an idea obscurely but certainly -present, as we have seen, in the lore of the Talmudists. - -Clearly it was the Pauline movement that made of Christism a "viable" -world religion. As an unorganized Saviour-cult it would have died -out like others. As a phase of Judaism, it could have had no Jewish -permanence, simply because its Messianism was a matter of looking -daily for an "end of the world" that did not come. After two centuries -of waiting, the Jews would have had as clear a right to pronounce -Jesus a "false Messiah" as they had in the case of Barcochab or -any other before or since. The mere belief in a future life, at one -time excluded from their Sacred Books, had become the common faith, -only the aristocratic Sadducees (probably not all of them) rejecting -it. On that side, Jesuism gave them nothing. Well might Paul "turn -to the Gentiles"--albeit not under the circumstances theologically -imagined for him in the book of Acts. - -Even for the Gentiles, Jesuism was but one of many competing cults, -offering similar attractions. In the religions of Adonis, Attis, -Isis and Osiris, Dionysos, Mithra, and the Syrian Marnas ("the Lord, -a variant of Adonis = Adonai, one of the Jews' exoteric names for -Yahweh"), a resplendent ever-youthful God who had died to rise again -was sacramentally adored, mourned for, and rejoiced over, by devotees -just as absorbed in their faith as were the Jesuists. With vague -pretences of biographical knowledge, to which nobody now attaches any -credence, they were as sure of the historicity of their Vegetation-Gods -and Sun-Gods as the Christists were of the actuality of theirs. Had -a Frazer of the second century told them that their Adonis and Attis -were but abstractions of the annual sacrificial victim of old time, -they would have told him, in the manner of Festus (not yet obsolete), -that much learning had made him mad. They "knew" that their Redeemer -had lived, died, and risen again. The unbelief of philosophers, -or of scoffers like Lucian, affected them no more than scientific -and critical unbelief to-day disturbs the majority of unthinking -Christians. The busy sacrificial and devotional life of Hierapolis -would be as little affected by Lucian's tranquil exhibition of it as -the life at Lourdes has been by Zola's novel. On that side, we can -very easily understand the past by the present. - -So little psychic or intellectual difference was there between -Jesuism and the other "isms" that Paul's propaganda made no measurable -sensation in the colluvies of the Roman empire. As Renan avows, even on -the assumption of the genuineness of the Epistles, he was the missioner -of a number of small conventicles, all convinced that they alone were -the "true Church of God upon earth." It is an error of perspective to -ascribe extraordinary faculty to the missionary who either converted or -"stablished" such believers; and it is plainly unnecessary to assume -in his case any abnormal sincerity or persuasiveness. If we were to -estimate him in terms of the records we should describe him either -as a halluciné or as a fanatic who had shed Christian blood in his -Judaic stage and never in the least learned humility on that score, -his phrases of contrition being balanced by the fiercest asperities -towards all who withstood him in his Christian stage. But we have no -right to draw a portrait of "Paul," who is left to us a composite -of literary figments testifying only to the previous activity of a -propagandist so-named. - -One conclusion, however, holds alike whether or not we accept any of -the epistles as genuine: or rather, the more we lean on the epistles -the more it holds: Paul had no concern about the life, teachings, or -"personality" of his Jesus. [321] His Jesus, be it said once more, -is a speechless abstraction. One of the strangest fallacies in the -procedure of the biographical school is the assumption that the -acceptance of the epistles as genuine involves the admission of the -historicity of the Founder. In actual fact, it was a belief in the -substantial genuineness of the main epistles that first strengthened -the present writer in his first surmises of the non-historicity of the -entire gospel record; just as a perception of the historical situation -broadly set forth in Judges confirms doubt as to the historicity of the -record of the Hexateuch. The two will not consist. On the other hand, -Van Manen, who had previously been troubled about the historicity of -Jesus, was positively set at rest on that score when he reached the -conclusion that all the Paulines were supposititious. This happened -simply because he had scientifically covered the field only on -the Pauline side: had he applied equivalent tests to the gospels, -he would have reached there too a verdict of fabrication. There is -strictly no absolute sequitur in such a case. The myth-theory is -neither made nor marred by the rejection of the Paulines. - -Even those who cannot realize the indifference of "Paul" to all -personal records of his Jesus--or, recognizing it, are content to -explain it away by formulas--must see on consideration that belief in -a Saviour God no more needed biographical basis in the case of Paul -than in the case of the priests of Mithra, who, it may be noted, had a -strong centre at Tarsus. [322] There is a certain plausibility in the -argument that only a great personality could have made possible the -belief in the Resurrection story--though that too is fallacy--but there -is no plausibility in inferring that a conception of a personality he -had never personally known was needed to impel Paul to his evangel, -which is simply one of future salvation by divine sacrifice for all -who believe. That is the substitution made by Gentile Christism for -the miscarrying Messianism of the Petrine doctrine. It was probably -the normal doctrine of many pagan cults--Mithraism for one, which -for three hundred years, by common consent, was the outstanding -rival of Christianity in the Roman empire. [323] It was, then, no -specialty of dogma that ultimately determined the success of the one -and the disappearance of the other. It was a concatenation of real or -"external" causes, not a peculiarity of mere belief. - - - - -§ 5. Real Determinants - -The more we study comparatively the fortunes of the Christian and -the rival cults, the more difficult it is to conceive that it made -headway in virtue of sheer monotheism. If we assume that Judaism -had made its proselytes in the pagan world by reason of the appeal -made by its monotheism to the more thoughtful minds, we are bound -to infer that Christism was on that side rather at a disadvantage, -inasmuch as it was really adding a new deity, with a "Holy Spirit" -superadded, to the God of the Jews. - -But the ordinary argument as to the vogue of "pure monotheism" at any -time is in the main a series of traditional assumptions. For the more -thoughtful of the ancients, polytheism was always tending to pass into -monotheism. We see the process going on in the Vedas, in Brahmanism, -in the Egyptian system, in the Babylonian--to say nothing of the -Greek. [324] It proceeded partly by way of henotheism--the tendency -to exalt any particular deity as the deity: partly by way of the -compelled surmise that all the deities of the popular creeds were but -aspects or names of one all-controlling Power. Wherever creeds met, -the more thoughtful were driven to ask themselves whether the heavens -could be a mere reflex of the earth, with every nation represented -by its special God; and to fuse the national Gods into one was but a -step to fusing the Gods of the various natural forces into one. Since -religions became organized, there must always have been monotheists, -as there must always have been unbelievers. - -Nevertheless, polytheism is just as surely popular as monotheism -is inevitable to the more thoughtful who remain "religious" in the -natural sense of the term. One of the great delusions maintained by the -acceptance of the falsified history of Judaism and the conventional -religion of the Bible is the notion that the Jews were a specially -monotheistic people. They were not. [325] They were originally -tribalists like their neighbours, holding by a tribal God and a -hierarchy of inferior Gods. To this day we are seriously told that -Abraham made a new departure as a monotheist. Abraham is a mythical -patriarch, himself once a deity; and the deity represented to have been -believed in by Abraham is a tribal God. And not even the tribal God -was monotheistically worshipped. The Sacred Books are one long chain -of complaints against the Israelites for their perpetual resort to -"strange Gods"--and Goddesses. [326] - -Two brilliant French scholars have advanced the thesis that this -alleged polytheism is imaginary; [327] and that the Israelites in -the mass always worshipped only the One God Yahweh. [328] But this -position, which is grounded on the inference that the mass of the -historical and prophetic literature is post-exilic, outgoes its own -grounds. Even if we assume, with the theorists, that Jewish monotheism -was universalist from the moment it took shape as monotheism in -literature, [329] we get rid neither of the question of pre-exilic -polytheism nor of that of popular survival. To say that the post-exilic -Jews are "the only Jews known to history," and that the apparently old -lore in Genesis is "perhaps really the most modern," being invented -for purposes of parable, is only a screening of the fact that the -Hebrews evolved religiously like other peoples. A resort to alien -Gods is seen to be universal in the religious history of the ancient -world. Every conquered race was suspected to have secret power in -respect of "the God of the land [330]"; and wherever races mixed, -cults mixed. It is only on a provision of special Sacred Books, -themselves treated as fetishes, that the attractions of alien cults -can be repelled; and not even Sacred Books can make real monotheists -of an uncultured majority. Even later Judaism, with its angels, its -Metatron, its Satan, was never truly monotheistic. [331] Islam is -not. The universalism which in later Judaism still commonly passes -for a specialty of the Hebrew mind was really an assimilation and -development of Perso-Babylonian ideas; [332] and Satan made a dualism -of the Jewish creed even as Ahriman did of the Persian. - -In the Romanized world, Judaism had never a really great success of -proselytism, just because the more cultured had their own monotheism, -and had in Greek literature something more satisfactory than the -Hebraic, with its barbaric basis of racialism and its apparatus of -circumcision, synagogues and Sabbaths. The proselytes were made in -general among the less cultured--not the populace, but the serious -men of religious predilections, who were the more impressed by the -Sacred Books as rendered in the Septuagint because they were not at -home in the higher literature of Greece. And if Judaism could not -sweep the Roman empire in virtue of monotheism, Christism could not, -especially while it lacked sacred books of its own. - -Professor Smith's thesis of a rapid monotheistic triumph is partly -founded on his own vivid interpretation of many of the gospel stories -of cast-out demons and diseases as a symbolism for successes against -polytheism. And his symbolistic interpretation, which is at first sight -apt to seem arbitrary, is really important at many points, accounting -as it does convincingly for a number of gospel stories. But if we -are to assume that all the gospel stories of casting out devils, -curing lepers, healing the lame, and giving sight to the blind, -were composed with a symbolic intent, we shall still be left asking -on what grounds the Name of Jesus made any popular appeal before and -after the symbolizing gospels were compiled. - -Professor Smith draws a powerful picture of the relief given by -monotheism to polytheists. In his eloquent words, the "tyranny of -demons" had "trodden down humanity in dust and mire since the first -syllable of recorded time"; and the new proclamation "roused a world, -dissolved the fetters of the tyrannizing demons, set free the prisoners -of superstition, poured light upon the eyes of the blind, and called -a universe to life." [333] But let us be clear as to the facts. If -by "demons" we understand the Gods of the heathen, there was really -no more "bondage" under polytheism than under monotheism. Spiritual -bondage can be and is set up by the fear of One God who is supposed -to meddle actively with all life; [334] and the Jewish law was in -itself notoriously an intellectual and social bondage. It is expressly -represented as such in the Pauline epistles. If again we have regard -to the fear of "evil spirits," there was really no difference between -Jew and Gentile, for the "superstition" of the Jew in those matters -was unbounded. [335] Nor is there any ground for thinking that the -Jew had more confidence than other people in divine protection from -the spirits of evil. - -In what respect, then, are we to suppose Jesuist monotheism to -have been an innovation? The argument seems to require that Jesuism -delivered the polytheist from belief in the existence either of his -daimon Gods or of his evil spirits. But obviously it negated neither -of these. Daimons of all sorts are constantly presupposed in Jesuist -polemic. The "freedom in Christ" proffered to Jews and Gentiles by -the Pauline evangel is, in the terms of the case, not a freedom from -the terrors of polytheism as such. It was certainly not regarded as -a freedom, from "demons," for exorcism against demons was a standing -function in the early church for centuries; and the fear of a demon -or demons is implicit in the "Lord's Prayer." What is proffered is -primarily a freedom from the Jewish ceremonial law, and secondarily -a freedom from fear in respect of the judgment-day and the future -life, the divine sacrifice having taken away all sin. We are told by -eloquent missionaries in our own day [336] that the Christian doctrine -gives a new sense of freedom and security to negroes, in particular to -the women; though we also learn on the other hand that where the two -religions can compete freely Islam makes the stronger claim in respect -of its exclusion of the race bar which Christianity always sets up -in the rear of its evangel. But here, if the fear of evil spirits is -really cast out, it is by a modern doctrine of their non-existence, -not found in the New Testament, but generated by modern science. - -Whatever preaching of monotheism, then, entered into early Jesuism, -it gave no deliverance from belief in evil spirits: rather it added -to their number by turning good daimons into bad. What is more, -there enters into Christian polemic at a fairly early stage a use -of the terms "God" and "Gods" for the "saints" which is on all fours -with the common language of Paganism; [337] and this is a much more -common note than the "high" monotheism of the Apology of Aristides, -which has hardly any Christian characteristics. His monotheism is -rather Pagan than Christian. The broad fact remains that so far as -we can know the early Jesuist polemic from the gospels, the Acts, -the Epistles, the Apocalypse, or the patristic literature, it was -not a wide and successful assault on polytheism as such by an appeal -to monotheistic instinct, but just a proffer to Jews and Gentiles of -a kind of creed common enough in the pagan world, its inconsistent -monotheism appealing only to a minority of the recipients. [338] The -very miracle-stories which Professor Smith interprets as allegories of -monotheistic propaganda became part of the popular appeal as soon as -they were made current in documents; and they appealed (he will admit) -as miracle-stories, not as allegories. Peter and Paul in their turn -are represented as working miracles of healing. It was all finally -part of the appeal to primary religious credulity. - -Of two positions, then, we must choose one. Either the miracle-stories -of the gospels, and by consequence those of the Acts, were as such -otiose inventions for an audience which, on the view under discussion, -would have been much more responsive to an explicit claim of triumph -over polytheistic beliefs, the thing they are said to have been most -deeply concerned about, or the miracle stories in general were meant -as miracle-stories, only some later symbolists seeking to impose a -symbolic sense on the records along with the Gnostic conception that -the Christ had spoken in allegories which the people were not meant to -understand. This later manipulation undoubtedly did take place. The -parable of the Rich One, as Professor Smith convincingly shows, is -an allegory of Jew and Gentile--the Rich One being Israel. But it is -not by such manipulation that cults are made popular, congregations -collected, and revenue secured. And it was on these practical lines -that Christianity was "stablished." - -The factors which made this one Eastern cult gradually gain ground, -and finally hold its ground, as against the many rival cults, were-- - -1. The system of ecclesiæ, modelled at once on the Jewish synagogue -and the pagan collegia. - -2. The practice of mutual help, making the churches Friendly -Societies--again an assimilation of common pagan practice. - -3. The colligation of the churches, primarily by means of a new sacred -literature of gospels and epistles, and secondarily by a system of -centralized government, partly modelled on the imperial system. - -4. The backing of the new Christian Sacred Books by the Jewish Sacred -Books, giving an ancient Eastern background and basis for the faith -in a world in which Eastern religious elements were progressively -overriding the Western, which had in comparison no documentary basis. - -5. The giving to the whole process a relatively democratic character, -again after the model of the Jewish system, wherein the people had -their main recognition as human beings with rights. Thus Christianity -was at once a "secret society" under an autocracy, as were so many -Hellenistic religious groups, drawing members as such societies always -do in autocratically governed States, [339] and a popular movement as -contrasted with Mithraism, which always remained a mere secret society, -whence its easy ultimate suppression by the Christianized government. - -6. It was the wide ramification and popular importance of the Christian -system that at length made it worth the while of the emperor to cease -persecuting it as a partly anti-imperial organization and to turn it -into an imperial instrument by making it the religion of the State. - -To explain the process as the morally deserved success of a religion -superior from the start, in virtue of the superiority of its nominal -Founder, would be to adhere to pre-scientific conceptions of causation, -akin to the geocentric assumption in astronomy. Hierology ultimately -merges in sociology, as mythology and anthropology (in the English -limitation of the term) merge in hierology; and sociology is a study of -the reaction of environments as well as of the action of institutions -and doctrines. The Christian success was finally achieved by the -assimilation of all manner of pagan modes of attraction on the side -of creed, and the absolute ultimate subordination of the specialties -of early Christian ethic to the business of political adaptation. - -And to all attempts to obscure the problem by figuring Christianity as -a continuously beneficent and purifying force it is sufficient here to -answer that it is in strict fact a religious variant which survived in -a decaying civilization, a politically and socially decaying world; -that it lent itself to that decay; and that it did less than nothing -to avert it. - -Where superior hostile power efficiently fought it, it was suppressed -just as it suppressed the organized cults of paganism and some -(not all) of its own heretical sects. Its further survival, which -does not here properly concern us, was but a matter of the renewed -"triumph" of an organized over unorganized religions, and of the -adoption of that organization by the new barbaric States as before -by the declining Roman empire. - - - - - - - - -CHAPTER V - -ORGANIZATION AND ECONOMICS - - -§ 1. The Economic Side - -It is important to realize in some detail the operation of the economic -factor in particular, and of organization in general, before we try -to grasp synthetically the total process of documentary and doctrinal -construction. The former is somewhat sedulously ignored in ordinary -historiography, by reason of a general unwillingness even among -rationalists to seem to connect mercenary motives with religious -beginnings; and of the general assumption among religionists that -"true" or "early" religion operates in spite of, in defiance or -in independence of and not by aid of, economic motives. No one -will dispute that the history of the Roman Catholic Church is one -of economic as well as doctrinal action and reaction, or that -Protestantism from the first was in large measure an economic -processus. But it is commonly assumed, at least implicitly, that -"primitive" religion, religion "in the making," is not at all an -affair of economic motive or reaction. - -Those who have at all closely studied primitive religious life know -that this is not so. [340] The savage medicine-man is up to his lights -as keenly concerned about his economic interest as were the priests -of ancient Babylon and Egypt--to take instances that can hardly give -modern offence. [341] And to say this is not to say that the "religion" -involved is insincere, in the case of the savage or the pagan any more -than in that of the modern ecclesiastic or missionary. It is merely -to say that religion has always its economic side, and that faith -may go with economic self-seeking as easily as with self-sacrifice. I -at least am not prepared to say that when the Franciscans in general -passed from the state of voluntary poverty to that of corporate wealth -they ceased to be sincere believers; or that a bishop is necessarily -less pious than a Local Preacher. - -I have seen, in Egypt, the life of a Moslem "saint" in the making. He -fasted much, certainly never eating more than one meal a day, and he -was visibly emaciated and feeble as a result of his abstinences. Over -his devout neighbours he had an immense influence. To his religious -addresses they listened with rapt reverence; and when once in my -presence he gave to a young man a religious charm to cure his sick -sister, in the shape of a cigarette paper inscribed with a text -from the Koran and rolled up to be swallowed, the youth's face was -transfigured with joyous faith, his eyes shining as if he had seen -a glorious vision. I have not seen more radiant faith, in or out of -"Israel." And the saint, all the same, took unconcealed satisfaction -in showing privately the heavy purse of gold he had recently collected -from his faithful. To call him insincere would be puerile. I believe -him to have been as sincere as Luther or Loyola. He simply happened, -like so many Easterns and Westerns, to combine the love of pelf with -the love of God. - -If I am told there were no such men among the early Jesuists or -Christian propagandists, I answer that if there had not been the -cult would not have gone very far. Of course the records minimize -the economic side. In the gospels we are told that Judas carried -"the bag," but never anything of what he got to put in it. But in the -Acts, the economic factor obtrudes itself even in myth. A picture -is there drawn (ii, 44), for the edification of later Christians, -of the first community as having "all things common"--a statement -which we have no reason to believe true of any ancient Christian -community whatever--unless in the "pre-apostolic" period. [342] -The picture never recurs, in the apostolic history or elsewhere. And -the purpose of edification is unconsciously turned to the account of -revelation. Of the faithful it is represented that they "sold their -possessions and goods and parted them to all, according as any man had -need." The assertion is reiterated (iv, 34) to the extent of alleging -that all who had houses or lands sold all, bringing the proceeds to -the apostles for distribution "according as any one had need." Among -these having need would certainly be the "apostles." - -Soon one of the faithful, Joseph surnamed Barnabas, "a Levite, a man -of Cyprus by race," is held up to honour for that "having a field," -he "sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' -feet." Then comes the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who, or at least -the former, have ever since supplied Christendom with its standing -name for the fraudulent liar. The sin of Ananias consisted in his -not having given the apostles the whole price of a possession he had -voluntarily sold for behoof of the community. There could be no more -striking instance of the power of ecclesiastical ethic to paralyse -the general moral sense. Ananias in the legend was giving liberally, -but not liberally enough to satisfy the apostle, who accordingly -denounces him as sinning against the Holy Ghost, [343] and miraculously -slays him for his crime. One might have supposed that no Christian -reader, remembering that the ultra-righteous apostle, in the previous -sacrosanct record, had just before been represented as basely denying -his Lord, could fail to be struck with shame and horror by the savage -recital. But of such shame and horror I cannot recall one Christian -avowal. And we are to remember that the devout recipients of that -recital are assumed to have been the ideal Christian converts. - -Soon the twelve are made to explain (vi, 2-4) to the growing "multitude -of the disciples" that "it is not fit that we should forsake the -word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out ... seven men of good -report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over -this business. But we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the -ministry of the word." From the date of that writing the apostle and -his successors could claim to be worthy of their hire, though they -had long to squabble for it. In the early Jesuist additions to the -Teaching we see how the issue was raised. At first (xi) there is a -succession of wandering apostles or "prophets." Every apostle is to -be received "as the Lord; but he shall not remain [except for?] one -day; if however there be need, then the next [day]; but if he remain -three days, he is a false prophet. But when the apostle departeth, -let him take nothing except bread enough till he lodge [again]; but -if he ask money, he is a false prophet." That is the first stage, -probably quite Judaic. - -The next section (xii) still adheres broadly to the same view. Every -entrant must work for his living. "If he will not act according to -this, he is a Christmonger (christemporos)." Evidently there were -already Christmongers. But in chapter xiii the primitive stage has -been passed, and there is systematic enactment of economic provision -for the installed prophet or teacher as such:-- - - - But every true prophet who will settle among you is worthy of his - food. Likewise a true teacher, he also is worthy, like the workman, - of his food. Every first-fruit, then, of the produce of wine-press - and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give - to the prophets; for they are your high-priests. But if ye have no - prophet, give [it] to the poor. If thou makest a baking of bread, - take the first [of it] and give according to the commandment. In - like manner when thou openest a jar of wine or oil, take the first - [of it] and give to the prophets; and of money and clothing and - every possession, take the first, as may seem right to thee, - and give according to the commandment. - - -This economic development, too, may have been Jewish, as it was -heathen. [344] It is certainly also Christian. The "prophets" are -represented in the Acts (xi, 27) as at work already in the days -of Claudius; and they were an established class at the time of the -writing of First Corinthians (xii, 28), standing next to "apostles" -and above "teachers." That passage is obviously post-Pauline, if -we are to think of Paul as spending only a few years in his eastern -propaganda. But the prophets are ostensibly numerous in the earliest -days of the church, [345] and seem to have subsisted alongside -of "apostles" at the outset. All along they must have found some -subsistence: in time they are "established." The eleventh, twelfth, -and thirteenth sections of the Teaching, which are our best evidence -of the progression, show a gradual triumph of the economic factor, -registering itself in the additions. The fifteenth section divides -in two parts, an economic and an ethical, the economic coming first:-- - - - Now elect for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, - men meek and not avaricious, and upright and proved; for they too - render you the service of the prophets and the teachers. Therefore - neglect them not; for they are the ones who are honoured of you, - together with the prophets and teachers. - - -It was for a community thus supporting various classes of teachers -and preachers, first poorly and primitively, later in an organized -fashion, that the gospels were built up and the epistles composed. - - - - -§ 2. Organization - -Organization, which in our days has become "a word to conjure with," -is no new factor in human life. It is the secret of survival for -communities and institutions; and the survival of Christism in -its competition with other cults must be traced mainly to the -early process of adaptation. That, however, takes place in terms -of three concurrent factors: (1) the appeal made by the cult which -is the ground of association; (2) the practice of the community as -regards the relations of members; (3) the administration, as regards -propaganda, expansion and co-ordination of groups. And it is through -primary adaptations in respect of the first and second, with a constant -stimulus from the third, that the Christian Church can be seen to have -succeeded in the struggle for existence. That is to say, it is in the -element in which conscious organization is most prominent as distinct -from usage or tradition that the determining influence chiefly lies. - -The writer who in England was the first to take a comparatively -scientific view of church organization from the ecclesiastical side, -the late Dr. Edwin Hatch, puts in the forefront of his survey "the -preliminary assumption that, as matter of historical research, the -facts of ecclesiastical history do not differ in kind from the facts -of civil history." [346] For those who see in the religion itself a -processus of natural social history, this assumption is a matter of -course; but the ecclesiastical recognition of the fact is an important -step; and the churchman's analysis of the process is doubly serviceable -in that he keeps the study avowedly separate from that of the evolution -of doctrine. What he could not have supplied on scientific lines -without falling into heresy, the rationalist can supply for himself. - -As our historian recognizes, the Christian movement in the Eastern -Empire had from the outset a strong basis in the democratic spirit -which it derived alike from Jewish and from Hellenistic example. In -the day of universal autocracy, social life lay more and more in -the principles of voluntary association; and the first Christian -churches were but instances of an impulse seen in operation on all -sides. In the Jewish environment, the synagogue; in the Hellenistic the -ecclesia or private association, were everywhere in evidence. Greek -religious associations--thiasoi, eranoi, orgeones--were but types -of the prevailing impetus to find in voluntary organized groups -a substitute for the democratic life of the past. [347] Whereas -the older associations for the promotion of special worships were -limited to male free citizens, the new admitted foreigners, slaves, -and women. Besides religious associations there were a multitude of -others which had the double aspect of clubs and friendly societies; -trade guilds existed "among almost every kind of workmen in almost -every town in the empire:" [348] and burial clubs, dining clubs, -financial societies, and friendly societies met other social needs. - -Almost every society, however, had its tutelary divinity, "in the -same way as at the present day similar associations on the continent -of Europe"--as in England before the Reformation--"invoke the name -of a patron saint; and their meetings were sometimes called by a -name which was afterwards consecrated to Christian uses--that of a -'sacred synod.'" [349] In many of them "religion was, beyond this, the -basis and bond of union.... Then, as now, many men had two religions, -that which they professed and that which they believed; for the -former there were temples and State officials and public sacrifices; -for the latter there were associations; and in these associations, -as is shown from extant inscriptions, divinities whom the State -ignored had their priests, their chapels, and their ritual." [350] - -The Christists, then, when they began to form groups, were doing what -a swarm of other movements did. Their ecclesiæ were called by a pagan -name, as were the Jewish synagogues. Two things it behoved them to do -if they were collectively to gain ground and outlive or out-top the -rest: they must multiply in membership, and they must co-ordinate their -groups; and both things they did on lines of common action. Membership -was from the first promoted by the simplest of all methods, systematic -almsgiving to poor adherents; a practice long before initiated by the -Jewish synagogues and to this day fixed among them. Given the basis -of free association, the inculcated duty of almsgiving, the eastern -belief in its saving virtue, [351] and the special Christian belief -in the speedy end of the world, the problem of membership was early -solved. The poor, helped one day, would themselves help the next, -as is their human way in all ages; and in an age of general poverty, -the result of an autocratic fiscal system in the Empire as afterwards -in the Turkish Empire which in the East took its place, such mutual -sympathy constituted a broad social basis of corporate existence. - -For our ecclesiastical historian, the poverty is the main determinant -on the side of early organization. With a note of profound pessimism, -which alternates strangely with passages of professional eulogy of the -Church, he notes that pauperism and philanthropy were going hand in -hand already throughout the Empire before the advent of Christianity, -rich men and municipalities proclaiming an "almost Christian sentiment" -on the subject. "The instinct of benevolence was fairly roused. And -yet to the mass of men life was hardly worth living. It tended to -become a despair." [352] And he claims that the Christian practice -of almsgiving--which he knows to have been warmly inculcated among -the Jews, as it has always been in Eastern countries--was one of the -conservative forces that "arrested decay. They have prevented the -disintegration, and possibly the disintegration by a vast and ruinous -convulsion, of the social fabric. Of those forces the primitive bishops -and deacons were the channels and the ministers.... They bridged over -the widening interval between class and class. They lessened to the -individual soul the weight of that awful sadness of which, then as now, -to the mass of men, life was the synonym and the sum." [353] - -The generalization as to the widening of the interval between classes -is hardly borne out by the evidence; and the pessimism of the last -sentence partly defeats the argument, by putting the life of the early -Christian period on the same general level with that of to-day and of -all the time between. The true summary would be that in that age the -springs of social life were lamed by the suppression of all national -existence; that the rule of Rome tended to general impoverishment in -respect of a vicious system of taxation; and that the subject peoples, -deprived of the old impulses to collective energy, at once turned -more and more to private association and became ready to believe in a -coming "end of the world" which in some way was to mean a new life. And -as the Church's doctrine was pre-eminently one of salvation in that -new life, it behoved it in every way to resort to propaganda while -maintaining the eleemosynary system which gave it a broad basis of -membership. Thus the organization which controlled the simple financial -system must also have regard to the spread of doctrine. And for the -means of spreading doctrine, again, as we have already noted, the cue -was obviously given by Judaism, which stood out from all religious -systems in the Roman world as a religion of Sacred Books. Sacred -Books of its own the Jesuist movement must have if it was to hold -its own against the prestige of the Jewish Bible. The production of -Sacred Books, then, was a task which devolved upon the organizers of -the Christian ecclesiæ throughout the Eastern Empire, equally with -the task of co-ordination, of which, in fact, it was a main part. A -common religious literature was the basis of Jewish cohesion. Only -by means of a common religious literature could Christism cohere. - -No literature, indeed, could avert schism. Schism and strife are among -the first notes sounded in the epistles; and a religion which aimed -at dogmatic teaching, as against the purely liturgical practice of -the old pagan cults, was bound to multiply them. Judaism itself was -divided into antagonistic groups of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, -to say nothing of the Zealots, the Essenes, and other diverging -groups. But sects do not destroy a religion any more than parties -destroy a State; and the way of success for Christism was a way which, -while it involved a multiplication of schism so long as the voluntary -basis remained, made a growing aggregate which was at least a unity -as having a special creed, distinct from all competing with it. - -Thus the Christian movement was doubly a copy and competitor of -Judaism, upon whose books it primarily founded. As the dispersed Jewish -synagogues were co-ordinated from Jerusalem by the High Priest, and -later from Tiberias by the Patriarch, by means of Twelve Apostles and -possibly by a subordinate grade of seventy-two collectors who brought -in the contributions of the faithful scattered among the Gentiles, -so the Jesuists, beginning with an organization centred in Jerusalem -and likewise aiming at the collection of funds for which almsgiving -in Jerusalem was the appealing pretext, were bound after the fall -of the Temple to aim at a centralization or centralizations of their -own. A literature became more and more necessary if the new faith was -to extend. That was the way at once to glorify the new Hero-God and -to multiply his devotees. And it would seem to have been from the -starting-point of the Jewish Teaching of the Twelve Apostles that -the new departure on one line was made. - -To say who, or what class in the new organization, began the evolution, -seems impossible in the present state of our knowledge. The point at -which the Christist organization in course of time most noticeably -diverges from the Jewish model is in the creation and aggrandisement -of the episcopos, the bishop, a title and a function borrowed -from the pagan societies. These had officials called epimeletai -(superintendents) and episcopoi, whose function it was to receive -funds and dispense alms. [354] The early Christists adopted the latter -title, and constituted for each group a single official so named, who -as president of the assembly received the offerings of donors and was -personally responsible for their distribution. This is not the place -to trace the effects of the institution in the general development of -the churches. It must suffice to note that while in their presbyters -these preserved the democratic element which they had derived from -Judaism and which gave them their social foundation, their creation -of a supreme administrator, whose interest it was always to increase -the influence of his church by increasing his own, gave them a special -source of strength in comparison with the Judaic system. [355] - -For the dispersed Jews, held by a racial tie, association was a matter -of course. Marked off by religion if not by aspect from Gentiles -everywhere, they were a community within the Gentile community. For -the first Jesuists, association was not thus a matter of course all -round. For the slaves, seeking friendship, and the poor, seeking help, -it may have been; but the more prosperous were for that very reason -less spontaneously attracted. The fundamental tie was the so-called -"Eucharist," which at first, in varying forms, was probably only an -annual rite: the agapae or love feasts were common to the multitude -of pagan associations. Accordingly many adherents tended to "forsake -the assembling of themselves together," [356] and it was plainly -the function of the bishop to act upon these. Not only the Epistle -to the Hebrews and that of Jude but those of Barnabas and Ignatius, -and The Shepherd of Hermas, anxiously or sternly urge the duty of -regular meeting. Addresses by bishops and "prophets" would be natural -means of promoting the end. - -Who then produced the literature? Once more, there is no evidence. If -any of the Epistles might at first sight seem "genuine," they are -those ascribed to James and Jude, essentially Judaic or Judaistic -documents, especially the former, in which (ii, 1) the cumbrous formula -"the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory" exhibits a Christian -interpolation. It is essentially in the spirit of the Teaching, -a counsel of right living, calling for works in opposition to the -new doctrine that faith is the one thing needful, and sounding the -Ebionitic note (v, 1): "Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your -miseries that are coming upon you." But save for the interpolation and -the naming of Jesus Christ in the sentence of preamble, there is no -specific Jesuist or Christist teaching whatever. If this document was -current among the Jesuists, it was borrowed from a Jewish author who -had at most one special item of belief in common with them, that of -"the coming [or presence] of the Lord" (v. 7, 8); and here there is -no certainty that "the Lord" meant for the writer the Christ. - -Once more, then, we turn for our first clue to the Judaic Teaching, -which on its face exhibits the gradual accretion of Jesuist elements, -beginning with an Ebionitic mention of the "Servant" Jesus, and -proceeding step by step from a stage in which wandering "apostles" -or "prophets" must subsist from hand to mouth and from day to day, -to one in which settled prophets are supported by first fruits, and -yet a further one in which bishops and deacons appear to administer -while prophets and teachers continue to teach. And as the "prophets" -constitute a class which in the third century has disappeared from -the church, as if its work were done; and as they bear the name given -to the chief producers of the sacred literature of Judaism, it would -seem to be the natural surmise that they were the primary producers -of special literature for the early Christian churches. - - - - - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -EARLY BOOK-MAKING - - -§1. The "Didachê" - -Evidently the Teaching (Didachê) of the Twelve Apostles was humbly -used by some of the early Jesuists as an authoritative Jewish manual -which supplied them with their rule of conduct, they only later -supplying (c. ix) their special rite of the "Eucharist" of wine and -broken [357] bread, and vaguely mentioning "the life and knowledge -which thou hast made known to us by Jesus thy Servant." There is -no mention of crucifixion, no naming of Jesus as Messiah. We are -confronted with a primary Judaic Jesuism which is not that of the -gospels, nor that of the Paulines, nor that of the Acts, though it -agrees with the latter in calling Jesus the Servant of the Lord. It -is even of older type than Ebionism; for the Ebionites carried their -cult of poverty and asceticism to the point of using water instead -of wine in the Eucharist; [358] whereas the Didachê specifies wine, -the older practice. The cup of the Eucharist is "the holy wine of -David thy servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy -servant"; and the thanks which follow (c. 10) are to the holy Father -"for thy holy name, which thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, -and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou hast made -known to us through Jesus thy servant." - -It is quite clear that in this form of Jesuism, visibly early as -compared with that set forth in the gospels and the Acts, we have -something different from that in its derivation. The Eucharist, -here so called ostensibly for the first time, is only inferribly -derived from a sacrament of the body and blood of the sacrificed -Jesus. Eucharistia means thanksgiving or thank-offering, and this -ritual-meal is intelligibly so named. Applied, as by Justin Martyr -and later Fathers, to the sacrificial sacrament of the gospels and the -epistles, the name is a false description: yet the false description -becomes canonical. The licit inference appears to be that the cult -of a Jesus who outside of Judaism was a Sacrificed Saviour-God had -here, under Judaic control, been presented as that of a Hero-Jesus, -connected like Dionysos with the gift of the vine, and associated -with a ritual meal of thanksgiving to Yahweh, whose "servant" he is. - -Taking the Didachê as a stage in the Christian evolution, we further -infer that the conception and name of a "Eucharist" was thence imposed -on another and older species of ritual-meal, in which the Jesus is -slain as a sacrifice and commemorated in a sacrificial sacrament. The -more Judaic form of the cult absorbs an older and non-Judaic form, -forced to the front by a death-story which gives to its sacrament a -higher virtue for the devotee. It is a case of competition of cult -forms for survival, the weaker being superseded. And as the sacrament, -so the Jesus, is developed on other lines. He of the Didachê is -neither Son of God nor Saviour, as he is not the Messiah, though -he has somehow conveyed "knowledge and faith and immortality." What -the Didachê does is to begin the process of a doctrinal and ethical -teaching which coalesces with that of evolving the God. - -In the eighth section, the "Lord's Prayer" is introduced with the -formula "Nor pray ye like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded -in his gospel." Now "the Lord" has in every previous mention -clearly meant, not Jesus, who is mentioned solely in the "servant" -passages, but "God," "the Father," the Jewish deity. Either, then, -"the Lord ... in his gospel" refers to some "gospel" of Yahweh or, -as is highly probable, the whole clause is a late interpolation. This -is the more likely because the seventh section, prescribing baptism in -the name of "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," is flagrantly -interpolated. That being so, the provision at the end of c. 9, that -no one shall partake of the Eucharist except those baptized in the -name of the Lord, must be held to be also a late interpolation. Thus -the document has been manipulated to some extent even in its early -portions. The only other mentions of the gospel are in chapters 11 -and 15, which follow after the "Amen" of the tenth, and represent the -progressive provisions for the apostles and prophets of the growing -church. The introduction of Jesuism in chapters 9 and 10 is pre-gospel. - -This will be disputed only by those who, like the first American and -German editors, cannot see that the first five or six sections are -purely Judaic. After Dr. Charles Taylor and other English editors -did so, coinciding with an early suggestion of M. Massebieau, [359] -the rest have mostly come into line; and even the American editors at -the outset saw that the Epistle of Barnabas, which has so much of the -matter of the Teaching, is the later and not the earlier document. Thus -the Lord's Prayer takes its place as originally a Jewish and not -a Christian document; and the passages in the early chapters which -coincide with the Sermon on the Mount are equally Jewish. [360] - -We can now understand the tradition that Matthew, of which the present -opening chapters are so plainly late, was the first of the gospels, -and was primarily a collection of logia. But the logia were in the -terms of the case not logia Iesou at all, being but a compilation of -Jewish dicta on the lines of the Teaching, and, as regards the form -of beatitude, probably an imitation of other Jewish literature as -exampled in the "Slavonic Enoch." [361] - -It must be repeated, however, that the ninth and tenth sections of -the Teaching are not to be taken as giving us "the" original Jesus -of the Jesuist movement. We have posited, with Professor Smith, a -"multifocal" movement; and concerning the Jesus here given we can only -say that the document tells of the primary connection of the Jesus-Name -with a non-sacrificial Eucharist. Whether the name stood historically -for Joshua or for the Jesus of Zechariah, or for yet another, it is -impossible to pronounce. What is clear is that it does not point to -the Jesus of the gospels. When the Jesus-sections of the Teaching were -penned, the gospels were yet to come; and the crucified Saviour-God of -Paul was not preached, though his myth was certainly current somewhere. - - - - -§ 2. The Apocalypse - -The "Revelation of John the Theologian" is also, in respect of much of -its matter, pre-gospel, and even in its later elements independent of -the gospels. It is noteworthy that the latest professional criticism -has after infinite fumbling come (without acknowledging him) to the -view of Dupuis that the episode of the woman and the child and the -dragon belong to sun-myth; [362] and the exegetes would probably save -themselves a good deal of further guessing by contemplating Dupuis's -solution that the special details are simply derived from an ancient -planisphere or fuller zodiac, in which the woman and the dragon and -the hydra are prominent figures. [363] It is in any case particularly -important to realize that this palpably mythical conception of a Jesus -Christ, figured as "the Lamb," evidently with a zodiacal reference, -is found in one of the earliest documents of the cult, outside of -the gospels. - -In these, as we have seen, the original God-Man is progressively -humanized from the hieratic figure of the opening chapters of Mark, -through Matthew and Luke, till in the fourth, which declares him Logos -and premundane, he has close personal friends and (ostensibly) weeps -for the death of one. But not even the thoughtless criticism which -professes to find a recognizable human figure in Mark can pretend -to find one in Revelation. There, admittedly on Jewish bases, there -is limned an unearthly figure, who has been "pierced," we are not -told where; who has the keys of death and Hades, and carries on his -right hand seven stars; and has eyes like a flame of fire and feet -like unto burnished brass. With this pre-Christian apparatus, which -on the astrological side goes back to Persia and Babylon, there is -carried on a fierce polemic against certain of the "seven churches," -the sect of the Nicolaitans, and "them which say they are Jews and -are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." The churches named are not -those of the Acts and the Pauline epistles: Jerusalem and Antioch are -not named, though Ephesus is. Jewish and pre-Jewish myth and doctrine -overlay the Jesuist, which at many points is visibly a mere verbal -interpolation; so that the question arises whether even the seven -churches are primarily Christian or Jewish. - -If "Babylon" stands for Rome, it is but an adaptation of an older -polemic; for Babylon is declared to have actually fallen, before it is -announced that she "shall be cast down." [364] The eleventh chapter -dilates on the Jewish temple; again and again we listen to a purely -Jewish declamation over Jewish woes; the four-and-twenty elders and the -Lamb "as though it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, -which are the seven Spirits of God," are of Babylonian and Persian -derivation; and the "second death" is Egyptian. In the new Jerusalem, -"coming down out of heaven," twelve angels are at the gates, which -bear the names of the twelve tribes; and the "twelve apostles of the -Lamb" are represented only by "twelve basement courses" of the wall. - -How much such a document stood for in the early building-up of the cult -it is impossible to gather from the records, which indicate that it -was long regarded askance by the gospel-reading and epistle-reading -churches. But it gives a definite proof that the cult had roots -wholly unlike those indicated in the "catholic" tradition, and wholly -incompatible with the beginnings set out in the gospels and the Acts. - - - - -§ 3. Epistles - -The outstanding problem in regard to the Epistles in the mass is that -while criticism is more and more pressing them out of the "apostolic" -period into the second century, they show practically no knowledge of -the gospels. As little do they show any trace of the "personality" -of the Founder, which is posited by the biographical school as the -ground for the resurrection myth. Of Jesus as a remarkable personality -there is no glimpse in the whole literature; and it must be a relief -for the defenders of his historicity to be invited to pronounce both -James and Jude pseudepigraphic documents, the former written with -direct polemic reference to the Pauline doctrine of faith. [365] -The puzzle is to conceive how, on that view, the document can still -remain so destitute of Jesuist colouring. - -Save for the two namings of Jesus (i, 1; ii, 1) at the beginnings -of chapters, there is no trace of Jesuine doctrine; the epistle is -addressed to "the twelve tribes of the Dispersion"; and there is a -reference (ii, 2) to "your synagogue," not to "your ecclesia." When -therefore we note the extremely suspicious character of the second -naming of Jesus, "our Lord Jesus Christ of glory," we are doubly -entitled to diagnose interpolation; and the first naming at once comes -under suspicion. It is not surprising therefore that such a critic -as Spitta pronounces the epistle a Jewish document. [366] Even if it -were true, then, that the eschatological matter has a gospel colouring, -that would carry us no further than a surmise that the Jewish document -had been slightly developed for Jesuine purposes. And this may be -the solution as to the anti-Pauline element. An originally Jewish -document may have been used by a Judæo-Christian to carry an attack -on a doctrine of Gentilizing Christism. The residual fact is that a -section of the Jesuist movement in the second century was satisfied -with a quasi-apostolic document which has no hint of the teaching of -a historical Jesus. Naturally it soon passed into "catholic" disfavour. - -But the remaining epistles differ historically from this only in -respect of their asseveration of a crucified Christ, by faith in -whom men are saved. They too are devoid of biographical data. Neither -parable nor miracle, doctrine nor deed, family history nor birthplace, -of the Founder is ever mentioned in the epistolary literature, -any more than in the Apocalypse or the Didachê. And yet the mass of -the epistles are being, as aforesaid, more and more pressed upon by -criticism as pseudepigraphic. Second Peter was always in dispute; -and First Peter has few save traditionalist supporters. If First John -is to be bracketed with the fourth gospel, it is dismissed with that -as outside the synoptic tradition: and the second and third epistles -are simply dropped as spurious. Hebrews is anonymous, though our -Revisers saw fit to retain its false title; and that epistle too is -utterly devoid of testimony to a historical Jesus. It tells simply of -a human sacrifice, in which the victim "suffered without the gate," -in accordance with the regular sacrificial practice. Late or early, -then, the epistles give no support to the gospels--or, at least, -to the biographical theory founded on these. - -It is thus quite unnecessary to argue here the interesting question -of the genuineness of any of the Pauline epistles. Long ago, nine -were given up by the Tübingen school, and four only claimed to be -genuine. Remembering the datum of Eusebius that Paul personally -penned "only a few very short" epistles, though specially gifted in -the matter of style, we are not unprepared to find even these called -in question. And latterly the Dutch school whose work culminated in -Van Manen has built up an impressive case [367] for the rejection -of the whole mass, the supreme "four" included; and the defence so -far made by the traditionalists is the reverse of impressive. [368] -The ablest counter-criticism comes from other men of the left wing, -as Schmiedel, who makes havoc of the Acts. - -From the point of view of the historical as distinguished from -the documentary critic, all that need here be said on the issue is -that the negative case may have to be restated if there is faced -the hypothesis that the Jesuine movement was of comparatively old -standing, and of some degree of development, when Paul came on the -scene. Van Manen assumes the substantial historicity not only of -Jesus but of the Jesuine movement as set forth in the Gospels; and -whereas he found it hard to make that assumption on the view that any -of the Paulines was genuine, he had no difficulty about it when he -relegated them all to the second century. It should be asked, then, -whether the view that the Jesus-cult is "pre-Christian" might not -re-open the case for some of the Paulines. - -Having put that caveat, the historical critic has simply to consider -the question of the historicity of Jesus in relation to the Paulines -from both points of view, asking what evidence they can be supposed -to yield either on the view of the genuineness of some or on that -of the spuriousness of all. And the outcome is that on neither view -do they tell of a historical Jesus. If "the four" are genuine, Paul, -declared to be so near the influence of the "personality" of Jesus, -not only shows no trace of impression from it but expressly puts -aside the question. In the Epistle to the Galatians he declares that -he had not learned his gospel from the other apostles but received -it by special revelation, actually avoiding intercourse with the -other apostles apart from Peter--a proposition certainly savouring -strongly of post-Pauline dialectic, as does the text (2 Cor. v, 16): -"Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know -[him so] no more." Instead then of the Paulines, on the view of their -genuineness, confirming the conception of a remarkable personality -which had profoundly impressed those who came in contact with it, -they radically and unmanageably conflict with that conception. So -far Van Manen is justified. - -If on the other hand we accept the strongly supported thesis that -they are all pseudepigraphic, the historicity of the gospels is in no -way accredited. We reach the view that early in the second century, -when such early gospels as the Matthew and Mark of Papias may be -supposed to have been current, even the devotees who wrote in Paul's -name took no interest in the human personality of Jesus, but were -concerned simply about the religious significance of his death. The -passages in First Corinthians (xi, 23 sq.; xv, 3 sq.) which deal with -the Supper and the Resurrection expressly repudiate knowledge of the -gospels; the first claiming to have "received of the Lord" the facts -retailed, and the second, after a similar formula, proffering data -not given in any gospel. And both passages have been demonstrably -interpolated, even if we do not pronounce them, as we are entitled -to do, interpolations as wholes. The first breaks the continuity -of an exhortation as to the proper way of eating the Lord's Supper; -the second is introduced (xv, 1) with a strange profession to "make -known unto you the gospel which I preached unto you." And even the -second passage, with its mention of "the twelve," excludes knowledge -of the story of Judas; while the first, at the point at which our -revisers translate "was betrayed," really says only "delivered up" -(paredidoto), which may or may not imply betrayal. - -How Van Manen could find in all this any support for the gospel -story in general he never explained; and obviously no support -is given. Historically considered, the epistles undermine the -biographical theory whether we reckon them early or late, genuine -or pseudepigraphic. If early, they discredit completely the notion -of a historical Jesus of impressive personality. If as late as Van -Manen makes them (120-140) they tell not only of indifference to the -personality of Jesus but of ignorance of the gospel story as we have -it, strongly suggesting that the complete story of the tragedy was -yet unknown, and that only in still later interpolations, made before -the Judas story was current, was it to be indicated. - -What is more, the Paulines, like other Epistles, tell of vital -unbelief as to the reality of Jesus. Paul is made to protest that -"some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead" -(1 Cor. xv, 12). These Jesuists, then, held at most only a faith in -future salvation by virtue of the sacrament. So in First John it is -implied (iv, 2-3) that some of the adherents confess not that Jesus -is come in the flesh, which is declared to be the doctrine of "the -antichrist," a type of which "many" (ii, 18) have arisen. - -We are critically forced, then, to the conclusion that for a century -after the alleged death of the Founder the Jesuist movement had either -no literature whatever save one of primarily Jewish documents such as -the Didachê or problematic short Pauline epistles which have either -disappeared or been absorbed in much longer documents of later date, -which in turn still tell of no Jesuine Sacred Books. All alike exclude -the conception of a historical Jesus of remarkable personality. In -the doctrinal quarrels which have already driven deep furrows in the -faith, the personality of Jesus counts for nothing. In that connection -no one cites any teaching of the Master. He is simply an abstract -sacrifice; and even in that aspect he is not clearly present in -the Jewish-Christian Didachê. Of his earthly parentage, domicile, -or career, there is not a word. Everything goes to confirm our -hypothesis that the cult is of ancient origin, rooted in a sacrament -which evolved out of a rite of human sacrifice and connected with -non-Jewish as well as Jewish myths which from the first tended to -the deification of the Slain One. - -It remains, then, to consider the gospels anew as compilations made in -the second century of (1) previously current Jewish lore, written and -unwritten; (2) doctrinal elements indicated by the sectarian disputes -already active; (3) pseudo-historic elements justifying Messianic -doctrine and practice; and (4) the Mystery-Drama, now developed under -Gentile hands. Upon all this followed (5) the new theology and new -pseudo-biography of the fourth gospel, which was but another stage -in the general process of myth-making. - - - - - - - - -CHAPTER VII - -GOSPEL-MAKING - - -§ 1. Tradition - -According to the tradition preserved through Papias (d. circa 165), -from "John the presbyter," who is not pretended to have been John the -Apostle, the first gospels were those of Mark, the "interpreter" of -Peter, who set down in no chronological order the "sayings and doings" -of the Lord as he had gathered them from Peter; and of Matthew, who -wrote the logia or sayings "in the Hebrew dialect" [369]--presumably -Aramaic. This, the earliest written tradition concerning the matter -embodied in the gospels, is preserved to us from Papias' lost -"Exposition of the Dominical [370] Oracles" (Logiôn kyriakôn) by -Eusebius. For his own part, Papias professed to set more store by what -he received from Aristion and the Presbyter John and other disciples of -the Lord than by anything "out of books." And it chances that he gave -out as a Dominical Oracle [371] thus certificated a crude picture of -millennial marvels which is actually taken from either the Apocalypse -of Baruch, which here imitated the Book of Enoch, or from an older -source. [372] Concerning this utterance of the Lord, further, Papias -narrated a conversation between Jesus and Judas, in which the latter -figures as a freethinker, expressing disbelief in the prediction. - -Eusebius, scandalized by such testimony, pronounced Papias a man of -small understanding. But he is the first Christian authority as to -the history of the gospels; and the very fact that he set less store -by them than by oral tradition is evidence that he had no reason for -thinking them more authoritative than the matter that reached him by -word of mouth. It may be that he knew only Greek, and that he could -not read for himself the Aramaic logia, concerning which he says that -"every one interpreted them for himself as he was able." From the -logia and the proto-Mark to the first two synoptics the evolution -can only be guessed. No one now claims that we possess the original -documents even in translation. Matthew as it stands is admittedly -not a translation; and Dr. Conybeare, who idly alleges that I pay no -heed to the order of priority of the gospels, and insists chronically -on the general priority of Mark, avows that "Mark, the main source -of the first and third evangelists, is himself no original writer, -but a compiler, who pieces together and edits earlier documents in -which his predecessors had written down popular traditions of the -miracles and passion of Jesus." [373] And he predicates in one part -"four stages of documentary development." [374] How in this state of -things the existing Mark can be proved to be the main source of Matthew -and Luke is not and cannot be explained. Mark too is admittedly not -a translation from Aramaic; but some of his sources may have been. - -Concerning Matthew, again, the tradition runs that according to -Papias he told a story of a woman accused of many sins before the -Lord; and Eusebius adds, apparently on his own part, that this -is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. If this was -the story (now bracketed in R.V.) found only in late copies of the -fourth gospel, the "Hebrew" gospel contained matter notably special -to itself; and such is the conclusion established by a collation -of all the 33 fragments preserved. "We arrive ... at a Gospel (a) -in great part independent of the extant text of our gospels, and (b) -showing no signs of relationship to Mark or John, but (c) bearing a -very marked affinity to Matthew, and (d) a less constant but still -obvious affinity to Luke." [375] The hypothesis of Nicholson is "that -Matthew wrote at different times the canonical gospel and the gospel -according to the Hebrews, or at least that large part of the latter -which runs parallel to the former." [376] - -On this view, "Matthew" in one of his versions deliberately omitted (1) -the remarkable story of the woman taken in adultery; (2) the remarkable -story that "the mother of the Lord and his brethren" proposed to him -that they should all go and be baptized by John, whereupon he asked -"Wherein have I sinned?" but added: "except perchance this very -thing that I have said in ignorance," and went accordingly; (3) the -statement that at baptism Jesus saw the dove "entering into him"; (4) -the further item that "the entire fountain of the Holy Spirit descended -and rested upon him," addressing him as "My son"; and (5) Jesus' -use of the phrase, "My mother, the Holy Spirit." Such a hypothesis, -if accepted, deprives of all meaning the notion of an "author" of -a document. The only fair inference is that a Greek translation of -the Hebrew gospel was one of the sources of the present Matthew, -and that either (a) many of its details have been rejected, or (b) -that many of the preserved fragments were additions to the original. - -On either view, we must pronounce that the Hebrew gospel, as exhibited -in the fragments, has none of the marks of a real biographical -record. The items of narrative are wholly supernaturalist; the items -of teaching belong to the more advanced Jewish ethic which we find -progressively developed from Matthew to Luke. Once more, the critical -inference is either (a) that the ethically-minded among the Jesuist -"prophets" set out by putting approved doctrines in the mouth of the -legendary Saviour-God, whereafter doctrinary episodes were invented -for cult purposes, or (b) that the miraculous life was first pieced -out in terms of Old Testament prophecies held for Messianic. Having -regard to the ethical nullity of the primary evangel posited in the -synoptics, the presumption is wholly against any primary manufacture -of new logia. If we take the Sermon on the Mount as typical, the -matter is all pre-Christian. [377] If we pronounce the method of the -first canonical gospel to be secondary in relation to that of Mark, -the ethical element enters only after the cult has gone a long way, -and is then Jewish matter subsumed, as in the Didachê. - -On bases so laid, there accrue a multitude of expletions, stones added -to the cairn, as: episodes favouring this or that view of the proper -Messianic heredity; of the Messiah's ascetic or non-ascetic character; -of his attitude for or against Samaritans; of his thaumaturgic -principles; of the universality or selectness of the salvation he -brings; of his attitude towards the Roman power, towards divorce, -towards the Scribes and Pharisees, and so on. Up to the point of the -establishment of something like a Canon, the longer the cult lasted, -the greater would be the variety of the teaching. Different views of -the descent and character of the Messiah, put forward by Davidists -and non-Davidists, Nazarites and non-Nazarites, Jews and Samaritans, -would all tend to find currency, and all would tend to find a place -in the scroll of some group, whence they could ill be ousted by any -"Catholic" movement. Still later, definitely anti-Jewish matter -is grafted piecemeal by Gentile adherents: the "good Samaritan" -is an impeachment of Jewish character; and the legendary apostles -are progressively belittled--notably so in the mystery play which -finally supersedes the earlier accounts of the Tragedy. - -That such a general process actually took place is of necessity -admitted by the biographical school, their problem consisting in -delimiting the amount of tradition which they can plausibly claim as -genuine. From the point of that delimitation they posit a process of -doctrinal and other myth-making. The decision now claimed is that there -is no point of scientific delimitation, and that the process which -they carry forward from an arbitrarily fixed point must logically be -carried backwards. - -No more general or more far-reaching result can be reached by a -mere collation and analysis of the synoptics on purely documentary -lines--a process which has gone on for a century without even a -documentary decision. The conclusion forced upon Schmiedel, even -on the assumption of the historicity of Jesus, that none of the -current theories of gospel-composition can meet the problem, [378] -becomes part of the case of the myth-theory. The assumption that a -"source," once established, gives a historic foundation, is no more -tenable in this than in any other case of a challenged myth; and -the current methods of establishing sources, rooted as they are in -the assumption of historicity, are often quite arbitrary even when -they profess to follow documentary tests. Nevertheless, the normal -pressure of criticism is seen driving champions of the priority of -Mark to the confession that Mark not only contains late additions -but is in itself a secondary or tertiary document, pointing to an -earlier Mark, an Ur-Markus. The primary flaw in the process is the -habit of looking to an author rather than at a compilation; and this -habit roots in the assumption of historicity. At no point can we be -sure whether we are reading a transcript of oral lore or a redaction. - -Granting that Mark has pervading peculiarities of diction which suggest -one hand, we are still not entitled to say that such peculiarities -would not be adopted by a redactor. Again, as against the relative -terseness or simplicity of a number of passages which suggest -an earlier form, we have many which by their relative diffuseness -admittedly suggest deliberate elaboration. [379] And if we are to ask -ourselves what was likely to be the method of an early evangelist, -how shall we reconcile the "in the stern, asleep on the cushion" (iv, -38) with the absolute traditionalism and supernaturalism of the first -chapter? John, "clothed with camel's hair," is simply a duplicate of -Elijah. [380] Is one realistic detail to pass for personal knowledge -when the other is sheer typology? In the opening chapter, Jesus comes -as the promised "Lord," is prophesied of by John as the Coming One, -is hailed by God from heaven as his beloved son, sees the heavens rent -asunder and the Spirit descending as a dove, fasts forty days in the -wilderness, is ministered to by angels, calls on men to follow him -at his first word, proceeds to give marvellous teaching of which not -a word is preserved, is hailed by a demoniac as the Holy One of God, -expels a devil, cures a fever instantaneously, heals a multitude, casts -out many devils, who know him, goes through the synagogues of Galilee, -casting out devils and preaching, cures a leper instantaneously, -commands secrecy, is disobeyed, and is then flocked-to by more -multitudes. And we are invited to believe that we are reading the -biography of a real man, who always speaks to Jews as one Jew to -another, and is "not too bright and good for human nature's daily -food." And the confident champion of this biographical theory assures -us that we "need not doubt" that Jesus was a "successful exorcist." - - - - -§ 2. Schmiedel's Tests - -Either the first chapter of Mark is primordial gospel-writing or -it is not. If it is, the biographical theory is as idle as those -ridiculed by Socrates in the Phædrus. If it is not, upon what does -the biographical theory found? The details of "mending their nets" and -"in the boat with the hired servants"? Professor Schmiedel, conscious -of the unreality of such narrative, falls back upon nine selected -texts, seven of them in Mark, which he claims as "pillars" of a real -biography of Jesus, [381] on the score that they present him as (a) -flouted in his pretensions or (b) himself disclaiming deity, or (c) -declining to work wonders, or (d) apparently denying a miracle story, -or (e) crying out to God on the cross that he is forsaken. Now, of -all such texts, only b and e types can have any such evidential force -as Schmiedel ascribes to them. [382] Type a counts for nothing: not -only the suffering Saviour-Gods but Apollo and Arês, to say nothing of -Hephaistos, Hêrê, and Aphroditê, are flouted in the pagan literature -which treats them as Gods. If to quote "he is beside himself" is to -prove historicity, why not quote the taunts to Jesus in the fourth -gospel, nay, the crucifixion itself? - -In his able and interesting work on The Johannine Writings, Schmiedel -carefully developes the thesis that the Johannine Jesus is an invented -figure, conceived from the first as supernatural; and he puts among -other things the notable proposition that when Jesus weeps it is -implied by the evangelist that he does so not out of human sympathy, -but "simply because they [the kinsfolk of Lazarus] did not believe -in his power to work miracles." [383] Assuming for the argument's -sake that this is a true interpretation, we are driven to ask how the -thesis consists with that of the "pillar texts." The Johannine writer -starts with a supernatural Jesus, yet not only represents his attached -personal friends as not believing in his power to work miracles but -describes Jesus as weeping because of their unbelief. Nothing in Mark -is for moderns more incongruous with a supernaturalist view of Jesus, -yet Schmiedel sees no difficulty in believing that the Johannine -writer could deliberately frame the incongruity. Why then should even -an original author of Mark be held to regard Jesus as mortal because -in Mark he is flouted, or declines to work wonders, or is unable to -do so at Nazareth? If one writer can represent the Eternal Logos as -weeping from chagrin, why should not the other think him God even when -he cries out that God has forsaken him? And if, finally, the cry is -held to cite Psalm xxii, 1, and to imply the triumphant conclusion -of that psalm, what value has the passage for the critic's purpose? - -An unbiassed criticism will of course recognize that the "Jesus wept" -may be an interpolation, for it is admitted that the Greek words -rendered "groaned in the spirit" may mean "was moved with indignation -in the spirit"; and, yet again, Martha is represented (xi, 22) as -avowing the belief that "even now" Jesus can raise Lazarus by the power -of God. Nay, the whole story may be an addition, not from the pen of -the writer who makes Jesus God. But equally the incongruities in Mark -may come of interpolation. A fair inference from the characteristics of -that document is that parts of it, notably the first dozen paragraphs, -represent a condensation of previously current matter, while others -are as plainly expansive; and even if these diversely motived sections -be from the same hand, interpolations might be made in either. - -In reply to my argument [384] that texts in which Jesus figures -as a natural man would at most represent only Ebionitic views, -Professor Schmiedel puts the perplexing challenge, concerning the -Ebionites:--"Were they not also worshippers of Jesus as well? Were -they really men of such wickedness that they sought to bring the true -humanity of Jesus into acceptance by falsifying the Gospels? And -if they were, was it in their power to effect this falsification -with so great success?" [385] I cannot think that Dr. Schmiedel, -who is invariably candid, has thought out the positions here taken -up. The point that the Ebionites were "worshippers" of Jesus is -surely fatal to his own thesis. "Worshippers" could in their case -go on worshipping while maintaining that the worshipped one was -a mortal. Then to assert that he avowed himself a mortal was not -inconsistent with "worship." But the challenge obscures the issue; -and it is still more obscured when the Professor goes on to ask: "Had -they [the Ebionites] no predecessors in this view of his person? Must -we not suppose that precisely the earliest Christians, the actual -companions of Jesus--supposing Him really to have lived--were their -predecessors?" This argument, the Professor must see, has small -bearing on my position. - -Three questions are involved, from the mythological point of view: -first, whether actual believers in an alleged divinity could represent -him as flouted, humiliated, or temporarily powerless; second, whether -the Ebionitic view of Jesus can be accounted for otherwise than as -the persistence of a proto-Christian view, arising among the immediate -adherents of a man Jesus; third, whether in the second century Jesuists -of Ebionitic views could invent, and insert in the gospels, sayings -of or concerning Jesus which were meant to countervail the belief in -his divinity. - -On the first head, the answer is, as aforesaid, that throughout -all ancient religion we find derogatory views of deity constantly -entertained, at different stages of culture, without any clear -consciousness of incongruity. Yahweh in the Old Testament "repents" -that he made man; wrangles with Sarah; and is unable to overcome -worshippers of other Gods who have "chariots of iron." Always he is a -"jealous" God; and at a later stage he is alleged to be consciously -thwarted by the Israelites when they insist on having a king. These -are all priest-made stories. Among the early Greeks, the Gods are -still less godlike. In Homer, Athênê is almost the only deity who -is treated with habitual reverence: the others are so constantly -satirized, humanized, thwarted, or humiliated, that it is difficult -to associate reverence, in our sense, with the portrayal at all. The -statement of Arno Neumann that "it is impossible (here every historian -will agree) for one who worships a hero to think and speak in such -a way as to contradict or essentially modify his own worship" [386] -is an astonishingly uncritical pronouncement, which simply ignores -the main mass of ancient religious literature. - -As regards the Demigods in particular it belongs to the very nature of -the case that they should be at times specially thwarted and reviled -by mortals, since it is their fate to die, albeit to rise again. If, -then, sayings were once invented which fastened human limitations upon -the Divine One for the Jesuists, there was nothing in the psychology of -worshippers on their intellectual plane that should make them pronounce -such sayings forgeries. As we have seen, even in the fourth gospel, -which puts the Divine One higher than ever, he is made, on Professor -Schmiedel's own view, to weep for sheer chagrin. - - - - -§ 3. Tendential Tests - -More complex is the second question, as to how the Ebionite view of -Jesus emerged. But the answer has already been indicated in terms of -the myth-theory. And the question really cannot be answered on the -biographical view, for the canonical documents give no hint [387] -of a persistence of a "human" view among the early Christists as -against a "divine" one. The Judaizers are represented equally with -the Paulinists as making Jesus "Lord"; and it is on the Paulinist side -that we hear of adherents who do not believe in the resurrection. That -is really a divergence from the Judaistic view, for Jews in general -accepted immortality. The moment, however, we put the hypothesis -of a primitive cult of a Saviour-God whose sacrifice in some way -benefits men, and whose Sacrament is the machinery of that benefit, -we account for all the varieties of Jesuism known to us. The cult -was primordially Semitic, a thing on the outskirts of later Judaism, -which would be Judaized in so far as it came under Jewish influence, -and then theologically re-cast for Gentilism by Gentilizing Jews. Thus -there would be Judaistic Ebionites, and Jesuists such as those taught -by the Didachê, who would insist on connecting Jesus only with the -Eucharist, making him a subordinate figure, upon whose legend were -slowly grafted moral teachings. - -On the other hand there would be non-Jewish Jesuists who valued the -Sacrament as they and others valued those of Paganism, counting -on magical benefits from it (as "Catholics" in general did for -many centuries), but making light of the Jewish future life. The -one thing in common was the primordial sacrament, at once Jewish -and non-Jewish. For Jews it would easily connect with the belief in -immortality, already much connected with Messianism; for Gentiles who -accepted the former belief, it would be still more easily connected -with a doctrine of future individual salvation. All is broadly -intelligible on the myth-theory. On the biographical theory, the -Jesuists of the Didachê are as inexplicable as the Gentile Jesuists -who denied a future life, or the Docetists who denied that Jesus had -come in the flesh. - -Given such Jewish Jesuists, and given Docetism, the invention of -sayings and episodes in which Jesus is thwarted or flouted, or disavows -Godhood, is perfectly simple. Why Professor Schmiedel should raise the -question of "wickedness" in this connection I cannot divine. On his -own showing, the invention of sayings and episodes was normal among -the Christists in general; and it affected all of the synoptics. Does -he impute "wickedness" to the author of the fourth gospel, whom he -represents as inventing discourses and episodes systematically? The -Ebionites and Docetists had as much right to invent as any one else; -and once their inventions were current, they stood a fair chance -of being embodied in a gospel or gospels by reason of the general -incapacity of the Christists for critical reflection. - -From the biographical standpoint, the Ebionites and their counterparts -the Nazaræans are indeed enigmatic. It is important to have a clear -view of what is known as to both sects. [388] Origen, noting that the -Hebrew name of the former means "the poor," angrily implies that it was -given to them as describing their poverty of mind, [389] but leaves -open the rational inference that the name originally described their -chosen social status, which connected with a belief in the speedy end -of the world. In his book Against Celsus, [390] he tells that they -include believers in the Virgin Birth and deniers of it. Here arises -the surmise that the former were the socii Ebionitarum mentioned by -Jerome, who diverged from Judaic views, and may have been of the -general cast of the Nazaræans. [391] These bodies constituted the -mass of the Christians in Judæa in the second century. According to -the ecclesiastical tradition, the church of Jerusalem had withdrawn -during the siege to Pella and the neighbouring region beyond the -Jordan. In the reign of Hadrian, after the revolt and destruction of -the Messiah Bar-Cochab, who had attempted to rebuild the temple, the -new Roman city of Ælia Capitolina was built on the ruins of Jerusalem; -and in that no Jews were permitted to dwell. Only those Christians -who renounced Judaic usages, then, could enter; and a number of such -Christians, Jew and Gentile, did so. Others, probably including -both Ebionites and Nazaræans, remained at Pella, and these appear -to have furnished the types of heresy discussed by Irenæus, Origen, -Jerome, and Epiphanius under the head of Ebionism. Those who set up -in Jerusalem were in the way of substituting for "voluntary poverty" -a propaganda and organization which meant comfort. Those who stayed -behind would represent the primitive type. - -Now, neither Ebionism nor Nazaræanism offers any semblance of -support for the biographical view. Some Ebionites denied the Virgin -Birth; some, presumably the Nazaræans in particular, accepted it, -the latter being described as accepting the canonical Matthew (or a -Hebrew gospel nearly equivalent) with the present opening chapters, -while the Ebionites had a Matthew without them. Of the two views, -neither testified to any impression made by a "personality." The Virgin -Birth myth is a reversion to universal folk-lore by way of enlarging -the supernaturalist claim: the Ebionite denial is either a rejection -of all purely human claim for Jesus or only supernaturalism with a -difference, inasmuch as it inferribly posits a divinization of the -Founder either at the moment of his baptism or at his anointing. His -"personality" is the one thing never heard of in the discussion, so -far as we can trace it. In one account, "the" Ebionites are said to -have alleged that Christ became so because he perfectly fulfilled -the law, and that they individually might become Christs if they -fulfilled it as perfectly. [392] Ebionites and Nazaræans between them, -on the biographical view, let slip all knowledge of the Sacred Places, -of Golgotha, of the place of the Sepulchre. - -If it be asked how, on the biographical view, there came to be Jewish -Jesuists of the Ebionite type, men such as those described by Justin -Martyr and his Jewish antagonist Trypho, believing in a Jesus "anointed -by election" who thus became Christ, but adhering otherwise to Judaic -practices, [393] what is the answer? What idea, what teaching, had -Jesus left them? The notion which seems to have mainly differentiated -Ebionites from Jews was simply that Jesus had been the Messiah, and -that his Second Coming would mean the end of the world. Expectation of -the Second Coming would at once promote and be promoted by poverty, -which would thus have a special religious significance. Nazaræans, -on the other hand, were latterly marked by a general opposition to the -Pharisees. [394] But this could perfectly well be a simple development -of sectarianism. If it be claimed as a result of the teaching of Jesus, -what becomes of the other teaching as to the love of enemies? Which -species of teaching is supposed to have represented the "personality"? - -Given a general hostility between Nazaræans and Pharisees, the -ascription of anti-Pharisaic teachings to the Master would have been -in the ordinary way of all Jewish doctrinal propaganda. In so far as -they acclaimed sincerity and denounced formalism, they are intelligible -as part of a general revolt against Judaic legalism. Nazaræans would -invent anti-Pharisaic teachings just as they or "Catholics" would -invent pro-Samaritan teachings. And in so far as the Ebionites resisted -the assimilation of fresh supernaturalist folk-lore they would tend -to put appropriate sayings in the mouth of the Master just as did the -others. They are expressly charged not only with inventing a saying -[395] in denunciation of sacrifices, by way of sanctifying their -vegetarianism, which was presumably an aspect of their poverty, but of -tampering in various ways with their texts. [396] This is precisely -what the gospel-makers in general did; and to impeach the Ebionites -in particular is merely to ignore the general procedure. When, then, -we say that Ebionites might well invent a saying in which the Master -was made to repudiate Godhood, and that such a saying might find its -way into many manuscripts, as did other passages from their Hebrew -gospel, it is quite irrelevant to raise questions of "wickedness" -and of "worship." - -But it is important here to note the point, insisted on by Professor -W. B. Smith, that most of Professor Schmiedel's "pillar" texts -could be framed with no thought of lowering the status of Jesus, -while some, on the contrary, betray the motive of discrediting the -Jews. The story of Jesus' people (hoi par' autou, not "friends" -as in our versions) saying "He is beside himself" (Mk. iii, 21), is -simply a Gentile intimation that even among his own kin or associates -he was treated as a madman. The idea is exactly the same as that of -the story in the fourth gospel, that "the Jews" said he "had a devil" -and was a Samaritan. Similarly "tendential" is the avowal (Mk. vi, 5) -that at Nazareth the wonder-worker "could do no mighty work ... and -he marvelled because of their unbelief." Healing in other texts -is declared to depend on faith; and to call the people of Nazareth -unbelievers was either to explain why Jesus of Nazareth there had no -following or to emphasize the point that the Jews had rejected the -Lord. Such a doctrine, again, as that of Mt. xii, 31, that blasphemy -against the Son of Man was pardonable, was perfectly natural at a stage -at which the cult was seeking eagerly for converts. Had not Peter, -in the legend, denied his Lord with curses, and Paul persecuted the -Church to the death? - -In other cases, the bearing of Professor Schmiedel's texts is so much -a matter of arbitrary interpretation that the debate is otiose; and -in yet others there are insoluble questions of text corruption. The -thesis that any text "could not have been invented," and must infer the -existence of a teacher regarded as mortal, is so infirm in logic that -it is not surprising to find it regarded with bitter dislike by the -orthodox, transparently honest as is Professor Schmiedel's use of it. - -There is really more force in his argument [397] that the predictions -of the immediate re-appearance of the Christ after "the tribulation -of those days" could not have been invented long after the fall of -Jerusalem, the apparent impulse being rather to minimize them. They -may perfectly well have been predictions made at the approach of -danger by professed prophets. But it does not in the least follow -that they were made by one answering to the description of the -gospel Jesus, predicting his own Second Coming, though some one may -have so prophesied. Any Messiah would be "the Lord"; and the gospel -predictions as to false Christs tell of "many" Messiahs, every one -of whom would speak as "the Lord." Such utterances, after a little -while, could no more be discriminated by the Christists than the -certainly pre-Christian sayings put by their propagandists in the -mouth of Jesus. And, once a prediction had been written down, it -lived by the tenure of uncertainty that attached to all prediction -among blind believers. When one "tribulation" had apparently passed -without a Second Coming, there was nothing for it but to look forward -to the next. - -After generations of expectation, the early eschatology of the Church -became a burden to its conductors, inasmuch as expectation of the end -of the world made for disorder, and neglect of industry; and Second -Thessalonians was written to explain away previous predictions -of imminent ending. After the whole mass of such prediction had -been falsified by ages of continuance, there was still no critical -reaction, simply because religious belief excludes the practice of -radical criticism. To this day, orthodoxy has no rational account to -give of the pervading doctrine of the New Testament as to the speedy -end of the world. The biographical school finds in it a measure of -support for its belief in a real Jesus, who shared the delusions of -his age. But as that explanation equally applies to all men in the -period, it gives the biographical view no standing as against the -myth-theory. Christian prophets spoke for "the Lord" just as Jewish -prophets did before them. - -In this connection, finally, it has to be noted that Professor -Schmiedel finds an à priori authenticity in a prediction in which -Jesus claims supernatural status, though the ostensibly unhistorical -character of such claims was his avowed ground for positing the -"pillar-texts" which alone defied all skepticism. And the formula -in both cases is the same--"it could not have been invented." [398] -The major premiss involved is: "No passage could be invented which -would stultify the position of the believers." But do none of the -admitted inventions [399] in the gospels stultify the position of the -believers? The two genealogies do; the anti-Davidic passages stultify -these; the pro-Samaritan teaching stultifies the anti-Samaritan; -and so on through twenty cases of contradiction. M. Loisy, indeed, -claims the pro-Samaritan passage as genuine: does he then admit the -anti-Samaritan to be spurious? - -The biographical school cannot have it both ways. The very fact that -they have to oust so many passages on the score of incompatibility -is the complete answer to the plea of "genuine because unsuitable -to the purposes of the propaganda." The fact that a multitude of -contradictions are left standing proves simply that when once an -awkward passage was installed it was nearly impossible to get rid of -it; because some copies were always left which retained it; and in -the stage of increasing respect for the written word it was generally -restored. The "Jesus" before Barabbas was at last ejected only because -everybody recoiled from it. Predictions were not so easily dropped. - -On the page on which he claims that Jesus' prediction of his Second -Coming could not have been invented, Professor Schmiedel avows that -various passages in Mt. xxiv really belong to "a small composition, -perhaps Jewish, on the signs of the end of the world, written shortly -before the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70." If the one set of -passages are borrowed, why not the other? Was it unlikely that Jewish -eschatologists should predict the coming of the Son of Man at the -near end of the world, and that Jesuists should put the prediction in -the mouth of their Lord and make him say it of himself? The à priori -negative is quite untenable. - -While, then, the argument from unsuitableness is logically barred for -the biographical school by their own frequent rejection of passages -on the score of incompatibility, no aspect or portion of the New -Testament supplies a conclusive argument against the mythological -view. The whole constitutes an intelligible set of growths from the -point of view of the myth-theory; and from no other is the medley -explicable. A biographical theory, having posited a Messiah whose -Messianic claim is a mystery, a Teacher whose alleged teachings are -a mass of conflicting tendencies, and whose disciples admittedly -have no Messianic gospel till after his inexplicable execution, -following on an impossible trial, may make the assumption that by way -of popular myth he was then fortuitously deified by Messianist Jews, -and later transformed by other Jews into a Saviour for Gentiles; -but the biographical theory cannot even pretend to account for the -Apocalypse and the Didachê; and it has to renounce its own ground -principle of "personality" in order to assimilate the Epistles. On -critical principles, assent must go to the theory which explains -things, reducing the otherwise inexplicable to a natural evolution -on the known lines and bases of hierology. - - - - -§ 4. Historic Summary - -We may now bring together in one outline the series of inductive -hypotheses by which we seek to recover the natural evolution of the -historic cult. - -1. A primitive Semitic sacramental cult, whose sacrament centres in a -slain Saviour-God, a Jesus, who has assimilated to an abstraction of -the victim annually sacrificed to him--as in the case of the cults of -Adonis and Attis, both also Asiatic. Of the sacrificial rite, which in -the historic cult is embodied in the Last Supper and the dramatized -story of the Passion, the memory was preserved in particular by a -Jewish rite of Jesus Barabbas, Jesus the Son of the Father, in which -a victim goes through a mock coronation, ending latterly, perhaps, in -a mock-execution, where once there had been an actual human sacrifice. - -2. This cult, with its sacrament, existed sporadically in various -parts of Asia Minor, whence it spread to Greece and Egypt. Its forms -would vary, and under Jewish control the sacrificial sacrament tended -to be reduced to a Eucharist or thankoffering in which the "body and -blood" are only vaguely, if at all, reminiscent of the Divine One's -death. As a God can always be developed indefinitely out of a God-Name, -and personal Gods are historically but conceptual aggregates shaped -round names or functions, the adherents of this could proselytize -like others. When the Temple of Jerusalem fell in the year 70, the -adherents of the cult there had a new opportunity and motive, which -some of them actively embraced, to cut loose from the Judaic basis -and proclaim a religion of universal scope, freed from Judaic trammels -and claims. Economic motives played a considerable part in the process. - -3. The first tendency of the new Jewish promoters had been to develop -the Saviour-God of the sacramental rite (which they may at this stage -have adopted in its "pagan" form, now taken as canonical) into a -Messiah who was to "come again," introducing the Jewish "kingdom -of heaven." At a later stage they adopted the rite of baptism, -traditionally associated with John, whom they represented as a -Forerunner of the Messiah who had met, baptized, and acclaimed him, -playing the part assigned by Jewish prophecy to Elias. - -4. As time passed on, such a cult would of necessity die out among -Jews, in default of the promised "Second Coming." The connection of -the idea of salvation with a future life for all believers, Jew or -Gentile, gave it a new and larger lease of life throughout the Roman -Empire, in every part of which there were Asiatics. But the Jewish -doctrine of the Second Coming remained part of the developed teaching. - -5. Further machinery was accordingly necessary to spread and sustain -the cult; and this was spontaneously provided by (a) developments -of the early and simple propagandist organization, and (b) provision -for the needs of the poor, who among the Gentiles as among the Jews -were the natural adherents of a faith promising the speedy closing -of the earthly scene. Richer sympathizers won esteem by giving their -aid; but the poor, as always, helped each other. The propaganda -included the services of travelling "prophets," and "apostles" who -would be the natural compilers and inventors of Jesuine lore. The -administrative organization, framed on Hellenistic lines, put more -and more power in the hands of the bishop, whose interest it was -to develop his diocese. At first the "prophets" and "apostles" were -strictly peripatetic, being called upon to avoid the appearance of -mercenariness. In course of time they were enabled to settle down, -being systematically provided for. - -6. Under the hands of this organization grew up the Christian Sacred -Books, which gave the cult its footing as against, or rather alongside -of, the Jewish, which in the circumstances had an irresistible and -indispensable prestige. Thus on the literary side the Jewish influence -overlaid the non-Jewish, assimilating the outside elements of scattered -Jesuism. The earliest literature is Jewish, as in the case of the -Didachê, or a Jewish-Jesuist manipulation of outside Semitic matter, -as in the Apocalypse. On these foundations are laid "Christian" strata. - -7. The Didachê ("Teaching of the Twelve Apostles of the Lord") was -primarily a brief manual of monotheistic and moral instruction used by -the Twelve Apostles of the Jewish High Priest. To this, Jesuist matter -was gradually added. The result was that "Twelve Apostles" became part -of the Christian tradition; and they had ultimately to be imposed on -the gospel record, which obviously had not originally that item. - -8. The Epistles represent a polemic development, perhaps on the -basis of a few short Paulines. That of James, which has no specific -"Christian" colour, represents Judaic resistance, in the Ebionite -temper of "voluntary poverty," to the Gentilizing movement. The -Paulines carry on doctrinal debate and construction against the -Judaistic influence. The synoptic gospels, which in their present -forms were developing about the same time, reflect those struggles -primarily in anti-Samaritan and pro-Samaritan pronouncements, -both ascribed to Jesus. Primarily the gospels are Judaic, and the -Gentilizing movement had naturally not employed them. Paul is made -in effect to disclaim their aid. In time they are adopted and partly -turned to anti-Judaic ends. - -9. The chief Gentile achievement in the matter is the development of -the primitive sacrament-motive and ritual (fundamentally dramatic) -into the mystery-play which is transcribed in the closing chapters -of Matthew and Mark. Previous accounts of the foundation of the -Sacrament and the death of the Lord are now superseded by a vivid -though dramatically brief narrative in which the Jewish people -are collectively saddled with the guilt of his death and the Roman -government is crudely and impossibly exonerated. The apostles in -general are made to play a poor part; one plays an impossible rôle -of betrayer; and the legendary Judaizing apostle is made to deny his -Master. The whole story is thoroughly unhistorical, from the triumphal -Entry to the quasi-regal crucifixion; but it embodied the main ritual -features of the traditional human sacrifice, and, there being simply -no biographical record to compete with it, it held its ground. The -mystery-play in its complete form was inferribly developed and played -in a Gentile city; and its transcription probably coincided with its -cessation as a drama. But the Sacrament was long a quasi-secret rite. - -10. The picture drawn in the Acts, in which Peter and Paul alike -"turn to the Gentiles"--Peter taking the initiative--is the work of -a late and discreet redactor, bent on reconciling Jewish and Gentile -factors. It is a highly factitious account of early Christism; but -it preserves traces of the early state of things, in which no Jesuine -teaching was pretended to be current, and the cult is seen to exist in -a scattered form independently of the central propaganda. It evidently -had a footing in Samaria. The synoptics themselves reveal the absence -of baptism from the early procedure of the cult. Only in the latest -of the four canonical gospels is it pretended that either Jesus or -his disciples had baptized. - -11. The fourth gospel is only one more systematic step in the -process of myth-making. The biographical school, in giving this -up as unhistorical, in effect admits that the "personality" of the -alleged Teacher had been so ineffectual as to admit of a successful -interposition of a new and thoroughly mythical figure, entirely -supernatural in theory, but more "impressive" as a speaking and -quasi-human personage. The "Logos" of John is again an adaptation of -a Jewish adaptation of a pagan conception, the doctrine of the Logos -set forth by the Alexandrian Jew Philo having come through Greek and -Eastern channels. [400] There was no critical faculty in the early -Church that could secure its rejection, though it was somewhat slow -of acceptance. The doctrine of the Trinity is again an assimilation -from paganism, proximately Egyptian. [401] - -Such, in outline, is our working hypothesis. As explained at the -outset, it is not supposed that so complex a problem can in so -brief a space and time be conclusively solved; and criticism will -doubtless involve modification when criticism is scientifically -applied. To such scientific criticism the production of a complete -outline may be an aid; previous debate, even when rational in temper, -having been spent on some of the "trees" without regard to the "wood" -in general. All that is claimed for the complete hypothesis is that -it is at all points inductively reached, and that for that reason it -squares better with the whole facts than any form of the biographical -theory--including the highly attenuated "eschatological" form in which -Jesus is conceived solely as a proclaimer of "the last things." That -thesis, indeed, reduces the biographical theory to complete nullity -by leaving the mass of the record without any explanation save the -mythical one, which suffices equally to account for eschatology. - - - - - - - - -CHAPTER VIII - -SUPPLEMENTARY MYTH - - -§ 1. Myths of Healing - -It is significant that the later myth-making of the synoptics is partly -by way of reversion to the folk-lore in which the myth had risen, -partly by way of meeting non-Jewish Messianic requirements, partly by -way of Gentilism, partly by way of concessions to the Gnosticism or -occultism whose pretensions in the second century exercised so strong -a pressure on the Church. As Professor Smith points out, the story -in Mark (xiv, 51-52) of the youth who at the betrayal fled naked, -leaving his linen cloth in the hands of the captors, [402] is a -crude provision for the Docetic theory that the real Christ did not -suffer. Cerinthus taught that "at last Christ departed from Jesus, -and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained -impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being." [403] - -In this connection there arises for us the problem, stressed by -Professor Smith, as to the significance of the stories of wholesale -healing and casting out of devils. His thesis is that they were an -occult way of conveying the claim that Jesus by preaching monotheism -had cast out in Galilee the diseases and corruptions of polytheism, -pagan deities being "devils" for the Jew. And in view of the repeated -assertion, on Gnostic lines, that Jesus declared his teaching to -be made purposely occult, so as not to be understood by the people, -we cannot deny the possibility that some of the stories of healing -may have been so intended. Professor Smith, as I understand him, -argues [404] that a straightforward claim of wholesale overthrowing -of paganism would have offended the Roman Government; and that the -claim was put by metaphor to avoid that. The difficulty arises that -if the metaphor was not understood by Gentiles it missed its mark with -them; while if they did understand it their susceptibilities would be -particularly wounded by the metaphors of leprosy and blindness and -"devils." And there is the further difficulty that, as Professor -Smith notes, the stories of casting out devils relate solely to -half-heathen Galilee, while, as he also notes, there is no ultimate -trace of Jesuism there. [405] Why then should an allegory of casting -out polytheism have been framed concerning Galilee? - -On any view, it can hardly be doubted that the stories of healing -made their popular appeal as simple miracles. Professor Schmiedel's -argument that the claim of Jesus (Mt. xi, 5; Lk. vii, 22) to heal -blindness and lameness and leprosy, and to raise the dead, must be -understood in a spiritual sense, seems to me a complete failure. He -contends that if it be taken literally the final claim that "the -poor have the gospel preached to them" is an anti-climax. But if we -take the miracle-claims to be merely spiritual, the anti-climax is -absolute; for the proposition then runs that the blind, the lame, the -leprous, and the spiritually dead have the gospel preached to them, -and the poor have the gospel preached to them also. On the other hand, -there is no real anti-climax on a literal interpretation. Plainly, -the provision of good tidings for the merely poor, the most numerous -suffering class of all, was the one thing that could be said to be -done for them. It could not be pretended that they had been made -wealthy. Thus a "pillar-text" falls, and we are left committed to the -literal interpretation as against both Professor Smith and Professor -Schmiedel. Both, however, will probably agree that most readers always -took the literal view. [406] - - - - -§ 2. Birth-Myths - -And it was to the popular credulity that appeal was made by the stories -of the Annunciation, the Virgin Birth, the Adoration by the Magi and -the Shepherds, the stable, the manger, [407] the menace of Herod, -the massacre, and the flight. [408] The question that here arises for -the mythologist is whether the birth-myths had belonged to the early -Jesus-myth at a stage before gospel-making commenced, and had at first -been ignored, only to be embodied later. For suggesting that they had -been connected with the early myth I have been told by Dr. Carpenter -and Dr. Conybeare that I ignored the late acceptance of the Christmas -Birthday by "the Church," after I had expressly noted the late date -of that acceptance. These critics, as usual, miss the whole problem. - -Either the birth-stories were old lore in Syria (or elsewhere in the -East) [409] or they were not. If not, their imposition on the gospel -story in the second century represents an assimilation of quite alien -pagan matter, with the assent of the main body of Jewish Nazaræans, -who accepted the opening chapters of the canonical Matthew. Of -such an assent, no explanation can be given from the standpoint -or standpoints of Dr. Conybeare and Dr. Carpenter. It would be a -gratuitous capitulation to Gentilism in a Jewish atmosphere, and -this without any sign on the Pauline side of a Gentile obtrusion of -such matter. [410] But if, on the other hand, we put the hypothesis -that such matter had been connected in Syrian folk-lore with the old -Jesus-myth, we at once find an explanation for the additions to the -gospel-story and a new elucidation of the myth-theory. The spread of -the Jesus cult would bring to the front the primitive myths connected -with it which the reigning Judaic sentiment had at first kept out -of sight as savouring of heathenism; and all Jesus-lore would have -a progressive interest for converts. Judaism, in its redacted sacred -books, admitted of quasi-supernatural births in such cases as those -of Sarah and Hannah; but an absolute virgin birth, a commonplace in -heathen mythology, [411] had there no recognition. Yet the idea was -as likely to survive in folk-lore in Syria as anywhere else; and as -Judaism became more and more a hostile thing, Judaic views would tend -in various ways to be set aside. - -The hypothesis put by me is (1) that the certainly unhistorical -Miriam of the Pentateuch is inferribly, like Moses and Joshua, -an ancient deity; and that in old Palestinian myth she was the -mother of Joshua. In the Pentateuch she is degraded, as part of the -Evemeristic process of reducing the ancient popular Gods to human -status. That process, which affects Goddesses as well as Gods in -several ancient religions, [412] was for the Hebrew priesthood a -necessary rule. Polytheism was everywhere, in antiquity, and for -the Yahwists it must be cast out. A late Persian tradition that -Joshua was the son of Miriam [413] accents the query whether there -were no family relationships in the old Palestinian myths. That the -birth in a stable, with a ritual of babe-worship at the winter or -summer solstice, is very ancient both in the East and in the West, -is the conclusion forced on the mythologist by a mass of evidence; -and the location of the stable at Bethlehem in a cave connects the -Christian myth yet further with a number of those of paganism. [414] -If the matter of the myth was ancient for Syria, why should not the -names of the mother and the child be so? - -The fashion in which the hypothesis is met by the more impassioned -adherents of the biographical view is instructive. Dr. Conybeare, -who thinks it inconceivable that "a myth" should be mistaken for "a -man"--though that mistake is the gist of masses of mythology--finds no -difficulty in conceiving that a real woman may be turned into a myth -within a century. For him, the gospel "Mary" (Maria or Mariam) must -be a real Jewess because in Mark (vi, 3) the people of Nazareth ask: -"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, -and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters with us?" Any -thoughtful reader, comparing such a suddenly projected passage with -the opening chapters, realizes that it is on a wholly different plane -of ideas; that no one "author" can have posited both; and that the -later is part of a process of localization and debate, in connection -with the thesis that the healer could "do no wonder-work" at home -because of the unbelief of his own people. Furthermore, in Mark xv, -40, we have the group of women which includes "Mary the mother of James -the Little and of Joses," concerning whom we are told that when Jesus -was in Galilee they "followed him, and ministered unto him." How many -Maries, then, were mothers of James and Joses? Evidently the Mary -of the latter passage is not regarded by its writer as the mother -of Jesus. Then the prior passage is the later in order of time, -and alien to the other legends. - -Our exegete, nevertheless, is not only at once dogmatically certain -that he has found a real Jesus, son of Mary, but proceeds to assert, -in three separate passages, that in Mark's gospel Jesus is known as -"the son of Joseph and Mary," though Joseph is never mentioned in that -gospel. It is of a piece with his instantaneous invention of a "genuine -tradition" out of a modern hint, perverted. And it is this operator -who, meeting with a list of analogies (so described) which suggest that -"Miriam" and "Mariam" are variants of a Mother-Goddess name generally -current through the East, becomes incoherent in explosive protest, -and begins by informing me that the "original form of the name is -not Maria but Miriam, which does not lend itself to [these] hardy -equations." As Miriam had been expressly named and discussed by me -in the very first instance, the intimation tells only of the mental -disconnection which is the general mark of this writer's procedure. - -The question, of course, is not philological at all; and not only -was no philological "equation" ever hinted at, but the very passage -attacked begins with the avowal that it is impossible to prove -historical connections, and that what is in question is analogy of -"name and epithets." Nothing in philology is more speculative than -the explanation of early names. Any one who has noted the discussion -over "Moses," and noted the diverging theories, from the Coptic -"water-rescued" or "water-child" (mo-use) of Josephus and Philo and -Jablonski and Deutsch to the Egyptian "child" (mes or mesu) of Lepsius -and Dillmann, and the inference of an "abbreviation of a theophorous -Egyptian name" drawn by Renan and Guthe, will see that there is -small light to be had from "equations." When "Miriam" is expertly -described as "a distortion either of Merari [misri] or of Amramith," -[415] the mythologist is moved to seek for other clues. The philology -of Maria and Mariam is a hopeless problem. - -Now, if the Moses legend is to be held Egyptian, the Miriam legend -may well be so too; and in the items that the Egyptian princess who -saves the child Moses is in a Jewish legend named Merris, and that -one of the daughters of Ramses II is found to be named Meri, [416] the -analogy is worth noting. But the central mythological fact is that a -Mother-Goddess, a "Madonna" nursing a child, is one of the commonest -objects of ancient worship throughout Asia and North Africa. [417] -When, then, mothers of Gods born in caves, or Dying Demigods, are found -bearing such names as Myrrha and Maia; when Maia is noted to have the -meaning "nurse," and Mylitta that of "the child-bearing one," we are -not only moved to surmise a Mother-Goddess-name of many variants, of -which Miriam-Mariam is one, but to infer a wide diffusion of legends -concerning such a goddess-type. Figures of such a goddess abounded -throughout the East. [418] That is, in brief, the mythological case at -this point. Mary in the gospels, the virgin bearing a divine child, -flying from danger, and bearing her child on a journey, in a cave, -is the analogue of a dozen ancient myths of the Divine Child; the -Menaced Child is common to the myths of Moses and Sargon, Krishna -and Cyrus, Arthur and Herakles; the stable-ritual of the Adoration -is prehistoric in India in connection with Krishna; the "manger" -(a basket) belongs equally to the myths of Zeus, Hermes, Ion and -Dionysos; and the threatening king is a myth-figure found alike in -East and West. [419] - -All this is ostensibly "sun-myth." And we are asked by Dr. Conybeare -to believe, on the strength of one late and palpable interpolation in -Mark, which has no other word concerning the childhood, parentage, -or birthplace of Jesus, its Son of God, that his mother Mary was -a well-known figure in Nazareth about the year 30, and that it is -merely she who is made to play the mythic part in Matthew about a -century later. The simple use of common-sense, even by a reader who -has not studied comparative mythology, will reveal the improbability -of such a development; and Dr. Conybeare, who vehemently denies, for -other purposes, that the early Christians in Palestine could have any -knowledge of pagan myths, is the last person who could consistently -affirm it. But when we realize that under the shell of official Judaism -there subsisted in Palestine as everywhere else the folk-lore of the -past; [420] when we remember the "weeping for Tammuz" at Jerusalem -and the location of the birth of Adonis in the very stable-cave of -the Christ-legend at Bethlehem, we can quite rationally conceive how, -once the Jesus-myth was well re-established, old pre-Judaic elements -of it came to the front, and found from the later gospel-compilers -a welcome they could not have had in the Judaizing days. [421] - -The Joseph myth, again, is a very obvious construction. In Mark, -which Dr. Conybeare repeatedly and shrilly declares to be the primary -authority, Joseph is never once mentioned, though Dr. Conybeare, -with the eye of imagination, finds that he is. In Matthew, he figures -throughout the birth-story of the opening section, admittedly a late -addition. In Luke, still later, he is still further developed, Mark's -"son of Mary" becoming (iv, 22) "the son of Joseph," in a palpably late -fiction. Any critical method worthy of the name would reckon with such -plain marks of late fabrication. Joseph has been super-imposed on the -myth for a reason; and the reason is that a Messiah "the Son of Joseph" -was demanded from the Samaritan side as a Messiah the Son of David -was demanded (albeit not universally) from the Judaic side. [422] By -naming Jesus' earthly putative father Joseph, in the Davidic descent, -both requirements were met, on lines of traditionalist psychology. - -When this solution is met by the Unitarian thesis that the idea -of a Messiah Ben Joseph is late in Judaism, and that it arose out -of the gospel story, we can but appeal to the common-sense of the -reader. [423] For the Rabbis to set up such a formula on such a -motive would be an inconceivable self-stultification. The lateness -of Rabbinical discussion on the subject can be quite reasonably -explained through its Samaritan origination. All the while, the -Joseph story in the gospels belongs precisely to that late legend -which the neo-Unitarian school is bound in consistency to reject as -myth. But the prepossession in favour of a "human Jesus" balks at -no inconsistency, and selects its items not on critical principles -but simply in so far as they can be made to compose with a "human" -figure that is to be conserved at all costs. - -The curious myth-motive of the "taxing" [424] at Bethlehem in Luke, -an utterly unhistorical episode, has a remarkable parallel in the -Krishna-myth, [425] which has been cited in support of the thesis -that that myth in general is derived from the Christian story. The -general thesis breaks down completely; [426] and in this one instance -we are obviously entitled to ask whether the Christian myth is not -derived from some intermediate Asiatic source connecting with the -Indian. [427] As a mere invention to motive the birth at Bethlehem -the story seems exceptionally extravagant. - - - - -§ 3. Minor Myths - -To discuss in similar detail the myths of the Apocryphal gospels -and the still later myths of Catholic Christendom would only be to -extend the area of our demonstration without adding to its scientific -weight. The general result would only be to prove derivations from -pagan sources and to exhibit more fully the process (a) of inventing -sayings of Jesus to vindicate different views of his Messianic -and other functions, and (b) of enforcing ethical views by his -authority. The legend of St. Christopher, for instance, is but a -variant, probably iconographic in motive, of a multiform pagan myth -which probably roots in a ritual of child-carrying. [428] Iconography -yields many evidences. The conventional figure of the Good-Shepherd -carrying a sheep, which like the Birth-Story has counted for so much -in popularizing Christianity, is admittedly derived from pagan art, -[429] like the conventional angel-figure. Even the figure of Peter -[430] as the bearer of the keys, head of the Twelve, and denier of his -Lord, connects curiously with the myths of Proteus and Janus Bifrons, -[431] both bearers of the cosmic keys. - -Iconography, again, is probably the source, for the gospels, of the -myth of the Temptation, which professional scholars continue solemnly -to discuss as a "biographical" episode to be somehow reduced to -historicity. The story coincides so absolutely with the Græco-Roman -account, evidently derived from painting or sculpture, of Pan (in -figure the Satan of the Jews) standing by the young Jupiter on a -mountain-top before an altar, [432] that it might seem unnecessary -to go further. But, recognizing that "of myth there is no 'original,' -save man's immemorial dream," and remembering that there are similar -Temptation myths concerning Buddha and Zarathustra, we are bound to -extend the inquiry. The results are very interesting. - -We are specially concerned with the versions of Matthew and Luke, -of which Dr. Spitta, by analysis, finds the Lucan the earlier, -[433] pronouncing the Marcan to be a curtailment and manipulation, -not the primary source, as was maintained by Von Harnack and many -others. [434] The essence of the story, as episode, is the presence -of the God and the Adversary on a high place, surveying "the kingdoms -of the world." This originates proximately in Babylonian astronomy -and astrology, where the Goat-God is represented standing beside -the Sun-God on "the mountain of the world," that is, the height of -the heavens, at the beginning of the sun's yearly course in the -sign Capricorn, which, personified, figures as the sun's tutor -and guide. Graphically represented, it is the origin of a series -of Greek myths--Pan and Zeus; Marsyas and Apollo; Silenus and -Dionysos--all turning on a goat-legged figure beside a young God on -a mountain-top. Satan and Jesus are but another variant, probably -deriving from Greek iconography, but possibly more directly from the -East, where the idea of a Temptation goes back to the Vedas. - -The theologians, reluctantly admitting, of late, that the Devil could -not carry Jesus through the air, anxiously debate as to whether or -not Jesus had strange psychic experiences which he communicated to -his disciples; and, utterly ignoring comparative mythology, look for -motivation, as usual, only in the Old Testament. Spitta, after checking -these researches, and declaring that the man is not to be envied who -hopes to explain the story by Old Testament parallels from the forty -years of wandering in the wilderness, [435] confidently concludes -that it stands for the spiritual experience of Jesus in regard to -his Messianic ideal. [436] To such a biographical inference he has -not the slightest critical right on his own principles. The gospels -say nothing whatever of any communication on the subject by Jesus -to his disciples. The story is myth pure and simple, and belongs to -universal mythology. - -Mark turned the story to the illustration of the doctrine laid down -in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, [437] that devils and wild -beasts will flee from the righteous man; and Luke and Matthew turn it -into an affirmation of the theological maxims of Jewish monotheism; but -these are simply the invariable practices of the evangelists, steeped -in the habits of thought of Jewish symbolism. The myth remains; and the -story, as story, has counted for a great deal more in Christian popular -lore than the theology. When the writer of the fourth gospel put the -miracle of turning water into wine in the forefront of his work, he -doubtless had symbolic intentions; [438] but his story is simply an -adaptation of the annual Dionysiac rite of turning water into wine at -the festival of the God on Twelfth Night. [439] It may have come either -from the Greek or from the eastern side. The duplicated tale of the -Feeding of the Five Thousand, again, is either an adaptation of or an -attempt to excel the story of the feeding of the host of Dionysos in -a waterless desert in his campaign against the Titans. [440] As the -God had the power of miraculously producing, by touch, corn and wine -and oil, his lore doubtless included miracles of feeding. The touch -of the seating of the people "in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties" -(Mk. vi, 40) suggests a pictorial source. - -Thus did paganism, chased out of the window of early Judaic -Christianity, re-enter by all the doors, supplying the growing Church -with the forms of psychic and literary attraction which ultimately -served to give it a general hold over the ignorant and uncivilized -masses of decadent and barbaric Europe. [441] Even with that machinery, -the Church was dissolving in universal schism when Constantine saved -it--or at least its body--by establishing it. As the Church broadened -its basis, especially after its establishment, its assimilation of -pagan ideas, names and practices, became so general that the process -has long been made a standing ground of Protestant impeachment of the -Church of Rome. [442] Middleton's Letter from Rome (1729) may be said -to begin the scientific investigation, which is still going on. [443] - -Of that process the myth-theory is simply the attempted scientific -consummation. It is resisted as every previous step was resisted, -before and after Middleton, partly in sincere religious conviction, -partly on the simple instinctive resentment felt for every "upsetting" -theory about matters which men have habitually taken for granted. Some -of the best reasoned resistance comes from professional theologians who -have been disciplined by the habit of exact argument in the documentary -field; some of the worst, as we have seen, comes from professed -rationalists or Neo-Unitarians, who bring to the problem first and -last the temper of spleen and bluster which history associates with -the typical priest. Bluster never settles anything: argument, given -free play under conditions which foster the intellectual life, in the -end settles everything, even for the emotionalists who worship their -instincts. But as historical like physical science is a process of -continuous expansion and reconsideration, there can in this contest -be no "triumph" for anything but the principle of unending renewal -of thought, which is but an aspect of the principle of life. Insofar -as the solution now offered is inadequate, it will in due course be -improved upon; insofar as it is false, it will be ousted. - -The average cleric, of course, does not attempt confutation. Realizing -that it is prudent to avoid debate on such matters, he relies on the -proved proclivity of "human nature" to beliefs which fall-in with -habit, normal emotion, and normal religiosity; and his faith is, -practically speaking, not ill-grounded. A thesis which looks first -and last to scientific truth is therefore not addressed to him. It is -addressed to the more earnest of the laity and the clerisy--hardly to -those indeed who hold, as an amiable curate once put it to me, that -"in the providence of God" all heresy is short-lived; but to those who, -caring for righteousness, do not on that score cast out the spirit of -truth. Many such are honestly convinced that the teaching on which -they have been taught to found their conceptions of goodness cannot -be the accretion of a myth; and many who acknowledge an abundance of -myth in the documents are still insistent on elements of "religious" -truth which they find even in systematic forgeries. The countenance -thus given by the more liberal and critical theologians to the more -uncritical stands constantly in the way even of the acceptance of the -comparatively rational views of the former. [444] There is reason then -to ask whether the notion that human conduct is in any way dependent -on visionary beliefs is any sounder than those beliefs themselves. On -this head, something falls to be said in conclusion. - - - - - - - - -CHAPTER IX - -CONCLUSION - - -Not only to the myth-theory but to every attempt at ejecting historical -falsity from religion there has been offered the objection that -religion "does good"; that mankind needs "some religion or other"; -and that to "undermine faith" does social harm, even if it be by -way of driving out delusion. This position is not at all special to -orthodoxy. It was taken up by Middleton; by Kant, when he shaped a -"practical" basis for theistic belief after eliminating the theoretic, -and counselled unbelieving clergymen to use the Bible for purposes of -popular moral education; by Voltaire when he combated atheism after -bombarding Christianity; and by Paine when he wrote his Age of Reason -to save the belief in God. - -Insofar as the general plea merely amounts to saying that mankind -cannot conceivably give up its traditional religion at a stroke; that -liberal-minded priests are better than illiberal, for all purposes; -and that in a world dominated by economic need it is impossible for -many enlightened clergymen to secure a living save in the profession -for which they were trained, I am not at all concerned to combat -it. For the liberal priest, enlightened too late to reshape his -economic career, I have nothing but sympathy, provided that he in no -way hampers the intellectual progress of others. Insofar, again, as the -plea for "religion" is merely a plea for a word, or a thesis that all -earnest conviction about life is religion, it is quite irrelevant to -the present discussion. The rationalists who feel they cannot face the -world without the label of "religion" for their theory of the cosmos -and of conduct will be in the same position whether they believe -in a "historical Jesus" or not; and those who must have a humanist -"liturgy" of some sort in place of the ecclesiastical are apparently -not troubled by problems of historicity. What we are concerned with -is the notion that to deny the historicity of Jesus is somehow to -imperil not only ethics but historical science. - -M. Loisy puts the last point in his suggestion, in criticism of Drews, -that he who thinks to break down either all the traditional or the -"liberal" orthodoxies by denying the historic actuality of Jesus -will find he has "only furnished to their defenders the occasion -to persuade a certain not uncultivated public that the divinity of -Christ, or at least the unique character of his personality, is as -well guaranteed as the reality of his life and his death." [445] -Had M. Loisy then forgotten that his own attempts to elide from the -documents a number of details which he saw to be mythical have given -occasion to the defenders of the faith to assure a not uncultivated -public that the disintegration of the gospels destroyed all ground -for belief in any part of them? [446] - -We on this side of the Channel might meet such challenges, grounded -on the susceptibilities of the "public," with the demand of our great -humorist, Mr. Birrell: "What, in the name of the Bodleian, has the -general public got to do with literature? The general public ... has -its intellectual, like its lacteal sustenance, sent round to it in -carts." [447] - -But we must not turn the jest to earnest. There are plenty of -honest laymen to play the jury; and to them let it be put. The issue -between us and M. Loisy, as he virtually admits, must be fought out by -argument. It is perfectly true, as he says, that "in principle, nothing -is more legitimate, more necessary, than the comparative method; -but nothing is more delicate to handle." [448] Every issue, then, -must be vigilantly debated. But the obligation is reciprocal. In these -inquiries we have found M. Loisy many times in untenable positions, -and resorting to inconsistent arguments. The tests which he applies to -a mass of tradition are equally destructive to most of what he retains. - -Let illicit employments of the comparative method be discredited by all -means; but let us also have done with a criticism which on one leaf -claims that Jesus gave a "homogeneous" teaching which his disciples -could not have "combined," and on the next avows that "the gospel ethic -is no more consistent than the hope of the kingdom." [449] And when -the myth-theorists are called upon to make no unwarranted assumptions, -let us also have an end of such assertions as that "twenty-five or -thirty years after the death of Jesus the principal sentences and -parables of which the apostolic generation had kept memory were put -in writing." [450] This is pure hypothesis, unsupported by evidence. - -The issue between us and M. Loisy, once more, is not one in which -merely he assails the myth-theory as outgoing its proofs: it is one -in which his positions are at the same time assailed all along the -line, and particularly at its centre, as incapable of resisting -critical pressure. By all means let us seek that "the science of -religion should be applied without preoccupations of contemporary -propaganda or polemic." The present writer reached the myth-theory -not by way of propaganda but as a result of sheer protracted failure -to establish a presupposed historical foundation. Professor Smith -disclaims all criticism of "Christianity." And if Professor Drews -be blamed for avowing a religious aim, the answer is that he would -otherwise be assailed as "irreligious," alike in his own country and -elsewhere. The myth-theory has to meet other foes than M. Loisy. - -It is remarkable that Professor Schmiedel, who has gone nearly as far -as M. Loisy in recognizing in detail the force of the pressures on the -historical position, makes the avowal: "My inmost religious convictions -would suffer no harm, even if I now felt obliged to conclude that -Jesus never lived," [451] though as a critical historian he "sees no -prospect of this." He further avows that his religion does not require -him "to find in Jesus an absolutely perfect model," and that in effect -he does not find him so. [452] And he wrote in 1906 that "for about six -years the view that Jesus never really lived has gained an ever-growing -number of supporters," [453] adding that "it is no use to ignore it, -or to frame resolutions against it." It is accordingly with no kind of -polemic motive as against so entirely candid a writer that I suggest -certain criticisms of his emotional positions as tending unconsciously -to affect his judgment of the critical problem. - -It is after the avowals above cited that he writes:-- [454] - - - Nor do I ask whether in Jesus' faith and ethical system what he had - to offer was new. Was it able to give me something that would warm - my heart and strengthen my life?--that is all I ask. What does it - matter if one of the ideas of Jesus had been expressed once already - in India, another once already in Greece, a third once already, or - many times, by the Old Testament prophets, or by the much-praised - Jewish Rabbis shortly before the time of Jesus? Such ideas may - be found in books: that is all. What we ought to feel grateful to - Jesus for, is that he was destined for the first time to make the - ideas take effect and influence the lives of mankind in general. - - -It would, I think, be difficult to over-estimate the amount of -psychic bias involved in that pronouncement, which contains a theorem -no more fitly to be taken for granted than any concrete historic -proposition. The Professor, it will be observed, does not specify -a single teaching of Jesus as new, while admitting that some were -not. What he says is, in effect, that other utterances of Jesuine -doctrines do not "warm the heart"; that those of Jesus do; and that -they "for the first time" caused certain doctrines to "take effect -and influence the lives of mankind in general." What doctrines then -are meant, and what effects are posited? And why do other utterances -of the doctrines not "warm the heart"? - -Presumably the doctrines in question are those of mutual love, of -forgiveness of enemies, of doing as we would be done by. Concerning -the gospel doctrine of reward the Professor makes a disclaimer; and -concerning the doctrine that God cares for men as for the lilies -and the birds he pronounces that it is "to-day not merely untrue: -it is not even religious in the deepest sense of the term." [455] -It is not then clear that he would acclaim the doctrine that to help -the distressed is to succour the Lord. In any case, the detailed -religious prescription of beneficence was not merely a Jewish maxim: -it was an article of Egyptian religion; [456] and it can hardly be in -respect of such teaching that the Professor affirms a new "influence -on the lives of mankind in general." - -Is it then in respect of mutual love and the forgiveness of -enemies? If so, when did the change begin? Among the apostles? Among -the Fathers? Among the bishops? Among the Popes? To put the issue -broadly, was there more of good human life in Byzantium than in pagan -Greece; or even in the Rome of the Decadence and the Dark and Middle -Ages than in the Rome of the Republic? Was it because of Christian -goodness that the decline of Rome was accelerated instead of being -checked? And, to come to our own day, is the World War an evidence -for an ethical change wrought by the teaching of Jesus--a war forced -on the world by a Germany where there are more systematic students of -the gospels than in all the rest of Europe? I leave it to Professor -Schmiedel and Professor Drews to settle the point between them. They -would perhaps agree--though as to this I am uncertain--on the Jesuine -doctrine that morality is "nothing more than obedience to the will -of God"; and that "every deed is to be judged by the standard, Will -it bear the gaze of God?" [457] In any case I will affirm, for the -consideration of those who on any such ground cling to the notion of -something unique in the teaching of Jesus, that humanity is likely to -make a much better world when it substitutes for such a moral standard, -which is but a self-deluding substitution of God for the conscience -that delimits God, the principle of goodwill towards men, and the law -of reciprocity, articulately known to the mass of mankind millenniums -before the Christian era, and all along disobeyed, then as now, -partly because religious codes intervene between it and life. [458] - -If it be admitted--and who will considerately deny it?--that the moral -progress of mankind is made in virtue of recognition of the law of -reciprocity, the case for the general moral influence of Christianity -is disposed of, once for all. If the affirmation be still made, let -it confront the challenge of rational sociology, [459] founded on the -survey of all history--and the World War. Professor Schmiedel's large -affirmation is vain in the face of all that. His real psychic basis, -which in my judgment determines his critical presuppositions, lies in -the phrase: "warms my heart." And that phrase is a tacit confession -of religious partisanship, the result of his Christian training. [460] - -The more the moral teaching of the gospels is comparatively studied, -as apart from their myths of action and dogma, the more clear becomes -its entire dependence on previous lore, [461] and its failure even -to maintain the level of the best of that. The Sermon on the Mount -is wholly pre-Christian. [462] It is a Christian scholar who points -out that the Christian doctrine of forgiveness is fully set forth -in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a century before the -Christian era. In his view, those verses [463] "contain the most -remarkable statement on the subject of forgiveness in all ancient -literature." [464] Why then does it not warm the heart of Professor -Schmiedel equally with the doctrine of the gospels? Simply because he -was brought up to assign pre-eminence to the teaching of Jesus--God -or Man. And here we have, in its fundamental form, that unchecked -assumption of "uniqueness" which secretly dictates the bulk of the -denials of the myth-theory. Canon Charles explicitly traces the -Jesuine teaching to the verses in question: - - - That our Lord was acquainted with them, and that His teaching - presupposes them, we must infer from the fact that the parallel - is so perfect in thought and so close in diction between them and - Luke xvii, 3; Matt. xvii, 15. [465] The meaning of forgiveness - in both cases is the highest and noblest known to us.... - - -One puts with diffidence the challenge, Was it then high and noble for -the Teacher to give out as his own the teaching of another, instead -of acknowledging it? Is it not incomparably more likely, on every -aspect of the case, that the older teaching was thus appropriated by -gospel-makers bent at once on giving the Divine One a high message -and on securing acceptance for it by putting it in his mouth? Is not -this the strict critical verdict, apart from any other issue? - -The bias which balks at such a decision is the sign of the harm done -to intellectual ethic by the inculcated presupposition. It ought to -"warm the heart" of a good man to realize that the ideas which he has -been taught to think the noblest were not the "unique" production of -a Superman, but could be and were reached by Jews and Gentiles--for -they are Gentile also--whose very names are unknown to us. A doctrine -of forgiveness arose in prostrate Jewry precisely because rancour -had there reached its maximum. As a doctrine of asceticism rises in -a society where license has been at the extreme, so the phenomena of -hate breed a recoil from that. The doctrine of non-resistance was -current among the Pharisees of the period of the Maccabean revolt; -and the Testaments of the Patriarchs is the work of a Pharisee. And -the gospels have nevertheless taught all Christians to regard the -Pharisees collectively, with the Scribes, as a body devoid of all -goodness. There is, be it said--not for the first time--a pessimism -in the Christian conception of things; a pessimism which denies -the element of goodness in man in the very act of ascribing it as a -specialty to One, and relying on his "influence" to spread it among -men incapable of rising to it for themselves. The story of Lycurgus and -Alcander is the best ancient example to the precept, quite transcending -that of the good Samaritan, [466] and it is one of the antidotes to -the Christian pessimism which stultifies its own parable by denying -in effect that The Samaritan could think as ethically as The Jew. - -It is pessimism, yet again, that accepts the verdict: "Christianity is -the truth of humanity." [467] Were it not that Dr. Schmiedel endorses -it, I should have been inclined to use a stronger term. This too is -myth-making. It would be strange indeed if any depth of truth were -sounded by men who had not the first elements of a conscience for -truth of statement, truth of history: whose very notion of truth -was a production of fiction. The "truth of humanity" is something -infinitely wider than the structure raised by the "prophets" and -"apostles" of the Jesus-cult, out of pre-existing materials, some -two thousand years ago; and humanity will outlive that presentment of -its cosmos and its destinies as it has outlived others. If it should -carry something of the one with it, so does it from the others--even -as the one drew from its predecessors; and it will certainly jettison -more than it will keep. I have not noted in the Testaments of the -Patriarchs any such nullification of its doctrine of forgiveness -as is embodied in the promise of future perdition for Chorazin and -Bethsaida, or in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, to say nothing -of the Jesuine doctrine of future torment. The hate that breathes in -"Ye brood of vipers"; in the continual malediction against Scribes -and Pharisees as universally hypocrites, "sons of Gehenna," making -their proselytes twice as bad as themselves; and in the Johannine -"your father the devil"--all these are "Christian" specialties, -turning to naught the Jewish precept of forgiveness. - -And I can "see no prospect" of a long currency for Professor -Schmiedel's panegyric of fictitious sayings in Acts [468] as "of the -deepest that can be said about the inner Christian life." If that -be so, what amount of profundity goes to the whole construction -of the faith? How long is it to be maintained that the secret or -inspiration of good life lies in the ideas of men for whom the framing -of false history was a pious occupation? The main ethical content -of the Christian system, the moral doctrine by which the Church -has lived down till the other day, is the ethic-defying doctrine -of the redemption of mankind by a blood sacrifice--a survival of -immemorial savagery. That is still the specifically "evangelical" -view of Christianity. After living by the doctrine through two eras, -the slowly civilizing conscience of the Church has itself begun -to repudiate it; and we have the characteristic spectacle of its -defenders declaring that the very terms of the historic creed form a -libel framed by its enemies. Taught at last by human reason that the -doctrine of sacrifice is the negation of morality, they pretend that -that doctrine is not Christian. Without it, their Church would never -have taken its historic form. To eliminate it, they have to suppress -half their literature, prose and verse. The accommodations by which -the fundamental immorality has been modified in the interests of -saner morality are but the dictates of human experience; and these -dictates are in turn pretended to be the revelation of the faith that -flouted them. - -Unless the world is again to retrogress collectively in its -civilization, this polemic will not long avail to obscure historic -issues. It is not merely the "religion" of Professor Drews, it is -the emancipated human reason, that denies the mortmain of ancient -Syria over the field of ethical thought, and claims the birthright -of modern man in his own moral law. Not one day has passed since the -penning of the Apocalypse without men's hating each other in the name -of Jesus. Wars generations long have been waged for interpretations -of the lore. Hatred and malice and all uncharitableness stamp all -the Sacred Books; and the literature of the Fathers imports into the -dwindling intellectual life of the West all the rancour of battling -Judaism. In our own day, Professor Schmiedel is malignantly assailed -in the name of the divinity of the figure of which he claims to -prove the exemplary humanity, his reasoned argument winning him -no goodwill from the supernaturalists. And around him there figure -virulent partisans, incapable of his candour, so little capable of -love for enemies that they cannot conduct a debate without passion, -perversion and insolence. A multitude of those who acclaim the gospel -Jesus as the supreme Teacher reveal themselves as below the standards -of normal candour. - -From such pretenders to moral authority, the seeker for truth turns to -the layman similarly concerned, and to those professional scholars who -are capable of debating without passion, and in good faith. Professor -Schmiedel and M. Loisy are still, it is to be hoped, types of many. The -problem is in the end, unalterably, one of historical science; and -only by the use of all the methods of sound historical science will -it ever be solved. - -It is not merely in regard to the study of Christian origins that -sociological problems are vitiated by the habitual passing of -à priori judgments on issues never critically considered. When -an expert hierologist like Dr. Budge tells us repeatedly that -in ancient Egypt a "highly spiritual," "lofty spiritual" and -"elevated" religion went hand in hand with a system of sorcery of -"degrading" savagery, [469] we are led to inquire how the estimates -of altitude are reached or justified. There appears to be no answer -save that Dr. Budge holds certain theories about the universe, and, -finding these more or less akin to the esoteric theology of Egypt, -laurels his own opinions in this fashion. But Dr. Budge is no more -entitled than any one else to settle such questions without rational -discussion, and the reason of some of us revolts at the concept of a -conjoined sublimity and imbecility as a spurious paradox. It is but a -convention of supernaturalist apriorism, figuring where it has no right -of entry. In precisely the same fashion, Dr. Estlin Carpenter credits -to the Aztecs a "lofty religious sentiment," avowed to be "strangely -blended with a hideous and sanguinary ritual." [470] The "lofty" is -again a wreath for the writer's own philosophy of religion, in terms -of which the act of the "good Samaritan," performed a million times by -unpretending human beings, was imaginable only by a supernormal Jew, -and unmatchable in pagan thought. - -In a word, these moral pretensions had better be withdrawn from -the area of historical discussion proper. Involving as they do the -inference that "lofty" religious conceptions are not merely of no -moral value but potent sanctions for all manner of evil, they very -effectually stultify themselves. But rationalism needs not, and should -not seek, to turn such blunders to its account. As M. Loisy claims, -the ground of historic criticism is not the place for such polemic, -which tends only to confuse the scientific issue. That is hard enough -to solve, with the best will and the best methods. - - - - - - - - -APPENDIX A - -THE "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES" - -(Nov. 1 and 8, 1891.) - - -[The following is a revised translation of the Didachê tôn dôdeka -apostolôn, discovered by Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of -Nicomedia (then of Serres), in 1873, in the library attached to the -Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre, in the Phanar, or Greek quarter, -of Constantinople. It was part of a manuscript containing several -ancient documents, including two Epistles of Clement of Rome, which -Bryennios published in 1875. Not till 1883 did he publish the Didachê. - -Of the genuineness of the MS. there can be no reasonable doubt. That -there was current in the early Church a "Teaching of the Twelve -Apostles" appears from Eusebius (H. E. iii, 25) and Athanasius (Festal -Epistle 39, C.E. 367). There were very good reasons why the Church, -as time went on, should desire to drop the Teaching from her current -literature. It is obviously in origin a purely Jewish document, -and the first six chapters show no trace of Jesuism. We have already -stated the reasons for concluding that the primary "Teaching" was the -official doctrine of the twelve Jewish apostles of the High Priest to -the Jews dispersed through the Roman Empire; that the Gospels borrowed -from it, and not the converse; that Judaic Jesuists adopted it, and -gradually interpolated it; and that it is the real foundation of the -legend of the twelve Jesuist apostles. The sub-title: "Teaching of -[the] Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations" may have been -the original. "Lord" here has the force of "God." - -On a first study, we found reasons [471] for deciding that the Epistle -of Barnabas, which in part closely coincides with the "Teaching," -borrows from it, and not the converse. That view, though naturally -opposed by many orthodox scholars, who want to date the Teaching as -late as possible, was from the first, we find, put by Farrar and -by Zahn, and is convincingly maintained by the American editors, -though of course they take the conventional view that the document -is of Christian origin. Yet its Græco-Jewish origin, we feel certain, -will be plain to every open-minded reader at the first perusal. That -view was maintained by the Rev. Dr. C. Taylor, of St. John's College, -Cambridge, in two lectures given at the Royal Institution in 1886; -and it has been accepted by Dr. Salmon in his Introduction to the -Study of the New Testament. It was admitted to be probable by the -Rev. A. Gordon, in the Modern Review, July, 1884, but rejected by -the American editors (1885). - -We have followed, with but few serious variations, the translation of -the American editors, Professors Hitchcock and Brown, which, on careful -comparison, we find to be the most faithful. Reasons for the main -variations are given in the notes. Of the elucidatory notes, some are -borrowed (with additions) from the American and French editions. The -English student may refer to the edition of Professors Hitchcock and -Brown, or to that of Canon Spence (1885), for the literature of the -matter. Needless to say, the clerical reasoning on the matter must -be viewed with constant caution.] - - -Teaching of the Twelve Apostles - -Teaching of [the] Lord, through the Twelve Apostles, to the nations -[472] - -Chap. I.--Two ways there are, one of life and one of death, and great -is the difference between the two ways. [473] The way of life, then, -is this: First, thou shalt love the God who made thee; secondly, thy -neighbour as thyself; [474] and all things whatsoever thou wouldest -not have befall thee, thou, too, do not to another. [475] And of these -words the teaching is this: Bless them that curse you, and pray for -your enemies, and fast for them that persecute you; [476] for what -thank [have ye] if ye love them that love you? Do not foreigners -[477] do the same? But love ye them that hate you and ye shall have -no enemy. Abstain from the fleshly and worldly lusts. [478] If any -one give thee a blow on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, -and thou shalt be perfect; [479] if any one compel thee to go one mile, -go with him twain; if any one take thy cloak, give him thy tunic also; -if any one take from thee what is thine, ask it not back; for indeed -thou canst not. [480] To every one that asketh thee give, and ask not -back; for to all the Father desireth to have given of his own free -gifts. [481] Blessed is he that giveth according to the commandment; -for he is guiltless; woe to him that receiveth; [482] for if, indeed, -one receiveth who hath need, he shall be guiltless; but he who hath -no need shall give account, why he took, and for what purpose, and -coming under confinement, [483] shall be examined concerning what he -did, and shall not go out thence until he pay the last farthing. And -it hath also been said concerning this: Let thine alms sweat in thy -hands, until thou knowest to whom thou shouldst give. [484] - -Chap. II.--And a second commandment of the teaching is: Thou shalt not -kill, nor commit adultery, nor corrupt boys, not commit fornication, -nor steal, nor do magic, nor use sorcery, nor slay a child by abortion, -nor destroy what is conceived. Thou shalt not lust after the things -of thy neighbour, nor forswear thyself, nor bear false witness, nor -revile, nor be revengeful, nor be double-minded or double-tongued; -for a snare of death is the double tongue. Thy speech shall not be -false, nor empty, but filled with doing. Thou shalt not be covetous, -nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor malicious, nor arrogant. Thou -shalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbour. Thou shalt hate -no man, but some thou shalt reprove, and for some thou shalt pray, -and some thou shalt love above thy life. - -Chap. III.--My child, flee from every evil thing, and from everything -like it. Be not wrathful, for anger leadeth to murder; [485] nor -a zealot, [486] nor contentious, nor passionate; for of all these -murders are begotten. My child, become not lustful; for lust leadeth -to fornication; nor foul-mouthed, nor bold of gaze; [487] for of -all these things adulteries are begotten. My child, become not an -omen-watcher; [488] since it leadeth into idolatry; nor an enchanter, -nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, [489] nor be willing to look upon -these things; for of all these things idolatry is begotten. My child, -become not a liar; since lying leadeth to theft; nor avaricious, -nor vain-glorious; for of all these things thefts are begotten. My -child, become not a murmurer; since it leadeth to blasphemy; nor -self-willed, nor evil-minded; for of all these things blasphemies are -begotten. But be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. [490] -Become long-suffering and merciful and guileless and gentle and good, -and tremble continually at the words which thou hast heard. Thou shalt -not exalt thyself, nor allow over-boldness to thy soul. Thy soul shall -not cleave to the great, [491] but with the righteous and lowly thou -shalt consort. The experiences that befall thee shalt thou accept as -good, knowing that without God nothing happeneth. - -Chap. IV.--My child, him that speaketh to thee the word of God thou -shalt remember night and day, [492] and honour him as [the] Lord; -for where that which pertaineth to the Lord [493] is spoken there -[the] Lord is. And thou shalt seek out daily the faces of the saints, -that thou mayest be refreshed by their words. Thou shalt not desire -division, but shall make peace between those who contend; thou -shalt judge justly; thou shalt not respect persons in reproving for -transgressions. Thou shalt not hesitate [494] whether it shall be or -not. Be not one who for receiving stretcheth out the hands, but for -giving draweth them in; if thou hast anything, by thy hands thou shalt -give a ransom for thy sins. [495] Thou shalt not hesitate to give, -nor when giving shalt thou murmur, for thou shalt know who is the good -dispenser of the recompense. Thou shalt not turn away from the needy, -but shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt not say they -are thine own; for if ye are partners in that which is imperishable, -how much more in the perishable things? [496] Thou shalt not take off -thy hand from thy son and from thy daughter, [497] but from youth -shalt thou teach them the fear of God. Thou shalt not lay commands -in thy bitterness upon thy slave or girl-slave, who hope in the same -God, lest they perchance shall not fear the God over you both; for -he cometh not to call men according to the appearance, but to those -whom the spirit hath prepared. And ye, slaves, ye shall be subject to -your lords, as to God's image, [498] in modesty and fear. Thou shalt -hate every hypocrisy, and whatever is not pleasing to the Lord. Thou -shalt by no means forsake [the] Lord's commandments, but shall keep -what thou hast received, neither adding to it nor taking from it. In -church thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and shalt not draw near -for thy prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. - -Chap. V.--But the way of death is this: First of all it is evil, -and full of curse; murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, -idolatries, magic arts, sorceries, robberies, false testimonies, -hypocrisies, duplicity, guile, arrogance, malice, self-will, greed, -foul speech, jealousy, [499] over-boldness, haughtiness, boasting; -persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving falsehood, knowing not -the reward of righteousness, not cleaving to that which is good nor to -righteous judgment, on the watch not for good but for evil; far from -whom are meekness and patience; loving vanities, seeking reward, [500] -not pitying a poor man, not grieving with one [501] in distress, not -knowing him that made them, murderers of children, destroyers of God's -image, [502] turning away from the needy, oppressing the afflicted, -advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, universal sinners; -may ye be delivered, children, from all these. - -Chap. VI.--See that no one lead thee astray from this way of the -teaching, because apart from God doth he teach thee. For if thou -art able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect; -but if thou art not able, what thou art able that do. And concerning -food, what thou art able, bear; but of that offered to idols, beware -exceedingly; for it is a worship of dead Gods. - - -[It will be observed that while there is a very marked transition after -ch. vi, a division may be held to begin after ch. v. In this connection -may be noted an interesting fact, brought out by the Rev. A. Gordon -in his examination of the Didachê. Nicephoros of Constantinople -(fl. 750-820) knew of a certain Teaching of the Apostles, which he -mentioned as containing 200 lines. Nicephoros also speaks of the -combined lengths of the two Epistles of Clement as amounting to -2,600 lines. Now, in the Jerusalem MS., which is closely written, -the Clementine Epistles occupy only 1,200 lines, which would give -for the Didachê, in the same writing, on the proportions mentioned -by Nicephoros, only 92 lines, whereas it occupies 203. Mr. Gordon -simply noted the fact as a difficulty. If however he had followed -up his own observation that the Didachê shows a division after the -fifth chapter, he would have found that the proportion of the first -five sections to the rest is nearly as 86 to 203; while with ch. vi -we should have a still closer approximation--88 to 203. We have here, -then, a virtual proof that Nicephoros had before him only these first -five or six chapters, and that the subsequent additions were not to be -found in all copies of the Teaching. The inference from the internal -evidence is thus remarkably confirmed. The original Teaching, once -more, was a purely Jewish document, without even a mention of Jesus. - -It will be noted further that, while the first six chapters contain -no suggestion of anything beyond simple monotheism and general ethics, -and the sixth chapter ends with a warning against eating food offered -to idols, the seventh suddenly plunges into a prescription of baptism, -which introduces the formula of "the Father, the Son, and the Holy -Spirit," and minutely provides for the manner of the ceremony. But the -eighth chapter evidently connects directly with the sixth, a direction -as to fasting following on the warning in that section against eating -meat offered to idols. It is thus perfectly clear that the entire -Trinitarian section on baptism is an interpolation. In the eighth -chapter, again, we have an interpolation of the words "as the Lord -commanded in his gospel." In C.M. (415 sq.) are set forth the weighty -reasons for concluding that the Lord's prayer, which is lacking in -Mark, and different in Luke, was a Jewish formula long before the -Christian era. - -While the Christist interpolations are thus obvious after the sixth -chapter, it is not here assumed that the first six chapters as they -stand are a single original document. On the contrary, we are inclined -to think that the scheme of the "two ways" is itself a redaction of -an original document which gave the first "way" without preamble, -the present preamble and the fifth chapter being inserted to give -the dual form. On that view, the pre-Christian document may not -have stopped with the sixth chapter, though the definitely Christian -redaction begins with the seventh, as the document now stands. The -Trinitarian seventh chapter was almost certainly one of the latest -of the Christian additions. In the ninth, rules are laid down for the -Eucharist without any allusion to the Godhead of Jesus, who is spoken -of in Ebionitic terms as "Jesus thy servant," though Jesus Christ is -further on spoken of in more distinctly Christist terms. These are -evidently further additions. In the tenth chapter the Ebionitic tone -is resumed, Jesus being still only "thy servant"; while throughout the -rest of the document there is much teaching that might have come from -the Judaic apostles who propagated that of the earlier chapters. As to -this, however, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion. All -that is certain is that the nucleus of the document was Judaic, -and that the Christian tamperings were made at different stages, -the earlier indicating the primary Ebionitic creed, in which Jesus -was merely a holy man, no more God than any other "Anointed."] - - -Chap. VII.--Now concerning baptism, thus baptise ye: having first -uttered all these things, baptise into the name of the Father, and of -the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou hast -not living water, [503] baptise in other water; and if thou canst -not in cold, [then] in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water -upon the head thrice, [504] into the name of Father and Son and Holy -Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptiser and baptised fast, -and whatever others can; but the baptised thou shalt command to fast -for one or two days before. - -Chap. VIII.--But let not your fastings be in common with the -hypocrites; for they fast on the second day of the week and on the -fifth; [505] but do ye fast during the fourth, and the preparation -[day]. [506] Nor pray ye like the hypocrites, but as the Lord [507] -commanded in his gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, -Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, as in heaven, -so on earth; our daily bread give us to-day, and forgive us our debt -as we also forgive our debtors, and bring us not into temptation, -but deliver us from the evil; for thine is the power and the glory -forever. Three times in the day pray ye thus. - -Chap. IX.--Now, concerning the Eucharist, [508] thus give thanks: -first, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy -vine of David [509] thy servant, which thou hast made known to us -through Jesus thy servant; [510] to thee be the glory for ever. And -concerning the broken [bread]: We thank thee, our Father, for the -life and knowledge which thou hast made known to us through Jesus -thy servant; to thee be the glory for ever. [511] Just as this broken -[bread] was scattered over the hills and having been gathered together -became one, so let thy church be gathered from the ends of the earth -into thy kingdom; for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus -Christ forever.[3] But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, -except those baptised into the name of [the] Lord; for in regard to -this the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs. [512] - -Chap. X.--Now after ye are filled [513] thus do ye give thanks: We -thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name, which thou hast caused to -dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality -which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant; to thee -be the glory forever. Thou, Sovereign [514] Almighty, didst create -all things for thy name's sake; both food and drink thou didst give -to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to thee; but to us -thou hast graciously given spiritual food and drink and eternal life -through thy servant. Before all things we thank thee that thou art -mighty; to thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, thy Church, -to deliver it from every evil and to make it perfect in thy love, and -gather it from the four winds, [it] the sanctified, into thy kingdom, -which thou hast prepared for it; for thine is the power and the glory -forever. Let grace come and let this world pass away. Hos-anna to the -God [515] of David! Whoever is holy, let him come, whoever is not, -let him repent. Maranatha. [516] Amen. But permit the prophets to -give thanks as much as they will. - -Chap. XI.--Now, whoever cometh and teacheth you all these things -aforesaid, receive him; but if the teacher himself turn aside and -teach another teaching, so as to overthrow [this], do not hear him; -but [if he teach] so as to promote righteousness and knowledge of -[the] Lord, receive him as [the] Lord. Now in regard to the apostles -and prophets, according to the ordinance of the Gospel, so do ye. And -every apostle who cometh to you, let him be received as [the] Lord; -but he shall not remain [except for?] one day; if, however, there be -need, then the next [day]; but if he remain three days, he is a false -prophet. [517] But when the apostle departeth, let him take nothing -except bread enough till he lodge [again]; but if he ask money, he is -a false prophet. And every prophet who speaketh in the spirit, ye shall -not try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall -not be forgiven. [518] But not every one that speaketh in the spirit is -a prophet; but [only] if he have the ways of [the] Lord. So from their -ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And no prophet -appointing a table [519] in the spirit, eateth of it, unless indeed -he is a false prophet; and every prophet who teacheth the truth, if he -do not that which he teacheth, is a false prophet. But every prophet, -tried, true, acting with a view to the mystery of the Church on earth, -[520] but not teaching [others] to do all that he himself doeth, -shall not be judged among you; for with God he hath his judgment; -for so did the ancient prophets also. But whoever, in the spirit, -saith: Give me money, or something else, ye shall not hear him; -but if for others in need he bids [you] give, let none judge him. - -Chap. XII.--And let every one that cometh in [the] Lord's name be -received, but afterwards ye shall test and know him; for ye shall -have understanding, right and left. If he who cometh is a wayfarer, -help him as much as ye can; but he shall not remain with you, unless -for two or three days, if there be necessity. But if he will take -up his abode among you, being a craftsman, let him work and so eat; -but if he have no craft, provide, according to your understanding; -that no idler live with you as a Christian. But if he will not act -according to this, he is a Christmonger; [521] beware of such. - -Chap. XIII.--But every true prophet who will settle among you is -worthy of his food. Likewise a true teacher, he also is worthy, like -the workman, of his food. [522] Every firstfruit, then, of the produce -of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt -take and give to the prophets; for they are your high-priests. But -if ye have no prophet, give [it] to the poor. If thou makest a -baking of bread, take the first [of it] and give according to the -commandment. In like manner when thou openest a jar of wine or oil, -take the first [of it] and give to the prophets; and of money and -clothing and every possession, take the first, as may seem right to -thee, and give according to the commandment. - -Chap. XIV.--And on the Lord's-day of [the] Lord [523] being assembled, -break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions, -in order that your sacrifice may be pure. But any one that hath -variance with his friend, let him not come together with you, until -they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled. For this -is that which was spoken by [the] Lord: [524] At every place and time, -bring me a pure sacrifice; for a great king am I, saith [the] Lord, -and my name is marvellous among the nations. [525] - -Chap. XV.--Now elect for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy -of the Lord, men meek and not avaricious, and upright and proved; -for they, too, render you the service [526] of the prophets and the -teachers. Therefore neglect them not; for they are the ones who are -honoured of you, together with the prophets and teachers. - -And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as ye have [it] -in the gospel; and to every one who erreth against another, let no -one speak, nor let him hear [anything] from you, until he repent. But -your prayers and your alms and all your deeds so do ye, as ye have -[it] in the gospel of our [527] Lord. - -Chap. XVI.--Watch for your life; let not your lamps be gone out, -and let not your loins be loosed, but be ready; for ye know not the -hour in which our Lord cometh. But ye shall come together often, -and seek the things which befit your souls; for the whole time of -your faith will not profit you, if ye be not made perfect in the last -season. For in the last days the false prophets and the corruptors -shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and -love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increaseth they -shall hate one another, and shall persecute and shall deliver up; -and then shall appear the world-deceiver as the Son of God, [528] -and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be given unto his -hands, and he shall commit iniquities which have never yet been done -since the beginning. Then all created men shall come into the fire -of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish. But -they that endure in their faith shall be saved from under even this -curse. And then shall appear the signs of truth; first the sign of -an opening [529] in heaven, then the sign of a trumpet's voice, and -thirdly, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, [530] but as it -hath been said: The Lord will come and all the saints with him. Then -shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven. - - - - - - - - -APPENDIX B - -THE MYTH OF SIMON MAGUS - - -I - -Two questions are raised under this heading--the question whether, -as was argued by F. C. Baur, the "Simon Magus" of the "Clementine -Recognitions" and "Homilies" is a mask-name for a polemic directed -primarily at the Apostle Paul; and the more fundamental question -whether the Simon Magus of the Acts is or is not a historical -character. - -The reasons for holding Simon to be a mythical personage (as apart from -the reasons for supposing the Clementine Simon to be meant for Paul, -and the story of the Acts to be a misconceiving adaptation of the -Clementine narrative) are overwhelming. To begin with, Justin Martyr, -a Samaritan born, expressly says [531] that almost all the Samaritans -worshipped Simon. [532] This alone might dispose of the notion that the -"Simonians" dated merely from the time of Paul and Peter. It is absurd -to suppose that nearly all the Samaritans, a people with old cults, -could be converted within a century to a new Deity originating in -one man. The cult must date further back than that. And that Justin, -though of Samaritan birth, could widely misconceive the cults around -him, is pretty clear from his famous blunder of finding his Simon -Magus as Simo Sanctus in the Semo Sancus of Rome, the old Sabine -counterpart of the Eastern Semo. [533] - -For there is abundant evidence, to begin with, that a name of which -the basis is Sem is one of the oldest of Semitic God-names. We have -the forms Shem, Sime-on, Sams-on, S(h)amas (the Babylonian name -of the sun; Hebrew Shemesh), San-d-on, or Samdan [534] Semen and -Sem, all plainly connected with a sun-myth. Shamas or Samas was an -Assyrian Sun-God, the duplicate of Melkarth and Hercules. Samson -or Simson or Shimshai (= the Sun-man), the Hebrew Sun-hero, is -unquestionably a mere variant of that myth. Sand-on, also a Sun-God, -is the same myth over again. Baal-Samen, "the Lord of Heaven," -[535] is the same conception as Baal-Melkarth; Baal, "the Lord," -a Sun-God himself as well as Supreme God, being joined with the -Sun-God proper. The name Sem, again, is found as signifying Hercules, -in conjunction with those of Harpocrates and the Egyptian Hermes, -[536] and is probably involved in the mythical queen-name Semiramis -(Sammuramat), since she in one of the myths gets her name from Simmas, -"keeper of the king's flocks," who rears her [537]--another form of -the Sun-God, belike. Simeon, in the myth of the twelve tribes, is -one of the twin-brethren, who in all mythologies are at bottom solar -deities. The "on" means "great," as in Samson, Dagon, Solomon, etc.; -[538] and the Dioscuri of the Greek and Roman myth were "the Great Twin -Brethren." It was added to the name of the Samaritan God Êl Êlyon, -"Great Êl," [539] who is just the Êl (singular of Elohim) of the -Hebrews. But the name Shem itself means "the Lofty"; [540] and the -name of the mythical ancestor of the Shemites is at bottom a God-name, -just as are those of Noach, Abram, Jacob, and Isra-el. It may also, it -appears, have had the significance of "red-shining." [541] And, last -but not least, the same vocable also has the significance of "name," -so that the Semites or sons of S(h)em were also "the men with names" -[542]; and the Hebrew "Shem hemmaphorash" or Tetragrammaton was the -name of four letters (IEUE = Yahweh) or "the peculiar name." [543] -Lenormant declares [544] that this last tenet came from Chaldea, where -"they considered the divine name, the Shem, as endowed with properties -so special and individual that they succeeded in making of it a -distinct person." But this idea of the sacredness of the God-name was -one of the most prevalent of ancient religious notions. It was still -devoutly held by the Christian Origen, who argued [545] that the Hebrew -divine names must be held to because they alone were potent to conjure -with. It appears in the Judaic Teaching of the Twelve Apostles in its -Christianised form (c. x), in the passage of thanksgiving beginning, -"We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name, which thou hast made -to dwell in our hearts." In the Jewish Sepher Toledoth Jeschu, Jesus -is made to do his magic works by virtue of the "Shem hemmaphorash," -the Tetragrammaton, of which he has furtively possessed himself. Thus -could an ancient God-name retain its mysterious prestige even after -the mystery-mongers (reversing the process imagined by Lenormant) had -taken the name-quality out of it, and left only the word for "name." In -other ways it clung to the Jewish cult. It is highly probable that the -pre-eminent Jewish prayer, the "Shema" (or the "Shemoneh Esreh"), -of which the name is explained away into insignificance, is an -extremely ancient prayer to the Sun-God. [546] Even this is sought -to be connected with a historical "Simon." [547] And all the while -the original God Sem survives in the Jewish mythology as "Shamma-el," -the Prince of Demons and angel of death, who has power over all peoples -except the Jews; [548] and at the same time in the legend of Samu-el, -the unshorn, the child of the heretofore sterile mother (vexed by her -rival as Rachel by Leah), the potentate who makes and unmakes kings, -and who is called up as a "God" [549] from the earth by incantation. - -But all this connects decisively with Samaria. It is not improbable -that the name Samaria itself was derived from the name of the Sun-God, -it being very much more likely that the mountain would be named -from the God who was worshipped on it than from a man Shemer. [550] -The last is obviously a worthless gloss. A reasonable alternative -view is that as the God-name Asshur is identified with the name of -the Assyrian country and people, whether giving or following their -race-name, so the Semitic God-name Shem is bound up with the name -Samaria, as that of Athênê with Athens. It is at all events clear -that, as is claimed by Volkmar, [551] Sem or Simon was the chief God -of the Samaritans. They declared to Antiochus, according to Josephus, -[552] that their temple on Mount Gerizim had no name, but was that of -"the greatest God"; and this squares with the other evidence, whether -or not it be true that they offered, as Josephus states, to dedicate -the temple to Zeus of the Hellenes. For, S(h)em being "the high," -Sem-on would be the Great High One or Greatest God, just as Êl Êlyon -was the great Êl, the Great Power, Greatest of Powers. And as Sem-on -was also the Great Name, the God was in that sense without a name, -which circumstance is the explanation of the otherwise pointless -phrase of the Johannine Jesus (John iv, 22) to the Samaritan woman, -"Ye worship that which ye know not what." And all the ideas converge -in the phrases in the Acts (viii, 9-10), that Simon claimed to be -"some great one" (heauton megan) and was spoken of as "that power of -God which is called Great." In fine, Simon Magus, the Mage, is just -a version of Simon Megas, Great Simon. - -We know from their version of the Pentateuch that the later Samaritans, -being strong "monotheists" in one of the senses of that elastic and -misleading term, sought always to substitute angels for Elohim in -the old narratives of divine action (e. g. Gen. iii, 5; v, 1; v, 24; -xvii, 22), "lest a corporeal existence should be attributed to the -Deity." [553] And it is instructive to note how their theological -drift exhibits itself in early Christism. The doctrine of the "Logos" -is not merely Alexandrian-Christian, it is Judaic. Some of the Aramaic -paraphrasts of the Old Testament at times wrote "the Word of Jehovah" -instead of the angel of Jehovah, sometimes the "She-kin-ah," which -means "the abode of the Word of Jehovah." [554] On the other hand, -we know from the Gospel of Peter that one of the early Christian sects -regarded Jesus as having received his dynamis, his power, at baptism, -and yielded it up at crucifixion. Here we are close to Samaritanism, -in which the angels were regarded [555] as "uncreated influences -proceeding from God (dynameis, powers)," pretty much as Simon is -described in the Acts. Thus "Simon" for the Samaritans would just be -"Êl," which the Samaritan Justin, like the writer of "Peter," held -to mean "Power." And at the same time, be it observed, Simon was -"the Word." - -But still the proof abounds. In Lucian's account of the Syrian -Goddess we are told [556] that in the temple at Byblos there was a -statue, apparently epicene or double-sexed, called by some Dionysos, -by others Deucalion, and by others Semiramis, but to which the Syrians -gave no specific name, calling it only Semeion, a word which in Greek -properly means "sign," but may mean image. There can be little doubt -that Movers [557] was right in surmising this statue to be just the -primordial Sem or Sem-on, the Great Sem of the Semitic race. The -two-sexed character is in perfect keeping with the ideal duality of -the old Assyrian Nature-Gods; [558] and the peculiar detail of the name -which was not a name brings us again to the Sem-on of the Samaritans. - -Everything in the Christian legend falls in with this -identification. The Fathers [559] tell us of one Helen, a prostitute -from Tyre, with whom Simon went about, and whom he gave out to be a -reincarnation of Helen of Troy, and also his "Thought." Helen is almost -unquestionably, as Baur [560] surmised, the Selene or Luna of the old -sun-cultus. In the paragraph following his account of the Semeion, -Lucian tells us that in the forepart of the same temple stands the -throne of Helios, but without a statue; Helios and Selene, the sun and -moon, being the only divinities not sculptured in the temple--though -he goes on to mention that behind the throne is a statue of a clothed -and bearded Apollo, quite different from the Greek form. Here, again, -we have a mystic conception of the Sun-God, a conception necessarily -confusing to ordinary visitors, even supposing the priests themselves -to have had any consistent ideas about it; and the fact [561] that the -temple further contained among other statues one of Helena (herself an -old Moon-Goddess), gave ample opportunity for the usual mythological -variants. Thus it came about that while Justin and Irenæus connect -Simon Magus with Helen, Irenæus says the Simonians have "an image of -Simon in the likeness of Jupiter, and of Helen in that of Minerva"--a -curious statement, which at once recalls that of Lucian [562] that the -Hêrê of the temple of Byblos "has something of Athênê and Aphrodite, of -Selene and Rhea, of Artemis, of Nemesis, and of the Parcæ." This again -squares with the fact that in the Chaldeo-Babylonian system Samas was -associated with the goddess Gula, "triform as personating the moon, and -sometimes replaced by a group of three spouses of equal rank, Malkit, -Gula, and Anunit." [563] And in the Latin translation by Rufinus of -the pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions," for Helena we actually have Luna. - -The chain is complete. We are dealing not with a historic person or -persons, but with an ancient cult, which Christian ignorance and Judaic -"monotheism" between them strove to reduce somehow to a historical -narrative, as the myths of Abraham and Samson and Israel and Elijah -and a dozen others had been reduced, as the mythic ritual had been in -the gospels, and as indeed the rituals of Paganism had been in the -current pagan mythologies. There was no Samaritan Simon the Mage, -who met a Christian Peter; it was not a preaching Simon who taught -of himself, but the Samaritan populace who traditionally believed of -their God Sem or Simon, that "he appeared among the Jews as the Son, -while in Samaria he descended as the Father, and in the rest of the -nations he came as the Holy Spirit." [564] The parallel holds down -to the last jot. The Semeion of the temple of Byblos had a dove -on his head, [565] and there are abundant Jewish charges as to the -worship of a dove by the Samaritans at Mount Gerizim; [566] so that -Simon was the Logos receiving the Holy Spirit, the dynamis, just as -Jesus did in the Gospels; and the Christists' doctrine that the Holy -Spirit should be given to the nations is simply an adaptation of the -Samaritan syncretism, which they sought to override by a syncretism -of their own in their latest gospel, where it comes out that their -Galilean Jesus was called a Samaritan by Jews, [567] a charge which -curiously enough he does not dispute, denying only that he has "a -daimon." This is exactly the myth of Simon turned into a story of -an incarnate Messiah, who affirms his reality. [568] Well might the -Fathers call their imaginary "Simon" the Father of all heresies. He -was the "Father" in a sense of their own creed, as well as of all -the Gnosticisms into which it broke. - - - - -II - -What hinders ordinary students from accepting Baur's view of -the "Clementine" Simon, which we have here sought to support, -is the existence of the fragments of writings attributed to Simon, -together with the circumstantialities of the story in the Acts and the -Fathers. But these circumstantialities are just the marks of all the -ancient myths, Jewish, Christian, and Gentile; and the attribution -of writings to Simon Magus no more proves his historical existence -than the same process proves the historical existence of Orpheus and -Moses. [569] The fragments and paraphrases preserved by the Fathers -are just part of the mass of ancient Occultism; and their connection -with the name of Simon the Mage is merely a variation of the Jewish -myth which attributes the authorship of the Zohar to Simon Ben Jochaï, -a mythical or mythicised personage if ever there was one. He is fabled -to have lived in a cave for twelve years, studying the Cabbala, -during which time he was visited by Elias. At his death fire was -seen in the cave, and a voice from heaven was heard saying, "Come -ye to the marriage of Simon Ben Jochaï: he is entering into peace, -and shall rest in his chamber." At his burial there was heard a voice -crying, "This is he who caused the earth to quake and the kingdoms to -shake." [570] Simon is said to have belonged to the first century of -the Christian era; while the Zohar is held to have been composed in -the 13th century. [571] In all probability the matter of the Zohar -is largely ancient; and the association of it (as of the Shema or -Shemoneh Esreh prayer) with the name Simon points distinctly to a -traditional vogue of the name in Semitic Gnosticism. But there is no -more reason to believe that an actual Simon composed the Zohar, or the -"Great Denial" (perhaps = antinomy) attributed to Simon the Mage, -than to believe in the above stories of the voices from heaven and -those of the miracles of the Mage in the Acts. The Talmudic legends -clearly point to a sun myth, bringing Simon into connection with Elias, -Eli-jah, an unquestionable Sun-God, who combines the names El and Jah, -though reduced by the Judaic Evemerising monotheists to the rank of a -judge-prophet, as was Samu-el, and as Sams-on was made a "judge." It -lay in the essence of ancient religiosity to do this, and at the same -time to seek to father all its documents on sacrosanct names. That a -real Samaritan Simon of the first century should write a new occultist -book and publish it as his own, is contrary to the whole spirit of -the time. Only centuries after the period of its composition could -such a book be attributed to an ordinary human author by those who -accepted it. If it was current in the first century, it must have -been either fathered on an ancient and mythical Simon or regarded as -a book of the mysteries of the God Simon. The opinions or statements -of the Christian Fathers concerning it are quite worthless save as -embodying a name-tradition. - - - - -III - -There remains to be considered the theory of the Tübingen school that -the Christian legend of Simon Magus is to be found in its earliest form -in the "Clementines," that body of early sectarian forged literature -which has been made to yield so much light as to the early history -of the Christist Church. Here, in a set of writings ("Recognitions" -and "Homilies," of which books one is a redaction of the other), -purporting to be by Clement of Rome, we have a propaganda that is on -the face of it strongly Petrine, and that turns out on analysis to be -strongly anti-Pauline, though the gist of the matter is a series of -disputations between Peter and Simon the Mage. It is impossible at -present to settle what was the first form of these documents, which -as they stand bear marks of the third century, and survive only in -the Latin translation of Rufinus (d. 410); but it is plain that they -preserve elements of the early Ebionitic or Judæo-Christian opposition -to the Gentile Christism of Paul. The Tübingen theory is that under -the name of Simon Magus Paul is attacked throughout. This, at first -sight, certainly seems a fantastic thesis; but an examination of the -matter shows that it is very strongly founded. A leading feature in -the conduct of Simon Magus in the Clementines, as in the Acts, is his -attempt to purchase apostleship with money. Now, this corresponds very -closely with the act of Paul in bringing to Jerusalem a subsidy from -the Western churches, an act which, on the part of one not recognised -as an apostle, and exhibited in the Epistles as always on jealous -terms [572] with the Jerusalem apostles, would naturally rank as an -attempt to purchase the Holy Ghost with lucre. Again, Simon Magus -in the Clementines claims to rest his authority on divine visions, -which is exactly the position of Paul; [573] and Peter denies that -visions have such authority. Once recognise the primary strife between -Judaising and Gentilising Christians, of which there are so many -traces in New Testament and Patristic literature, and it is easy to -see that these are the very points on which the anti-Paulinists would -most bitterly oppose Paul and his movement. In the Clementines, Peter -not only opposes the Magus in Palestine, but follows him to Rome, -thus carrying the antagonism between the two sects over the whole -theoretic field. The fact that both Simon Peter and Simon Magus, -Cephas and Paul, are made to journey from East to West, and to die -in the West, like the immemorial Sun-God, is suggestive. - -That the Judaists should give Paul a symbolical name, again, was quite -in keeping with the usual dialectic of the time, in which Rome, for -instance, figured as "Babylon," the typical great hostile city of -Jewish remembrance. Just as Babylon symbolised heathen oppression, -Samaria typified heathen heresy, the divergence from the Jewish cult -in a heathen direction. Such divergence was the Judaist gravamen -against Paul, who broke away from the law; and as Simon, Semo, -typified Samaritan heresy in general, it was peculiarly suited to -the arch-heretic who sought to overthrow the supreme privilege of -Jerusalem. Simon was the Samaritan "false Christ," and Paul's preaching -falsified the Judaic Christ. [574] And nothing is more remarkable in -the matter than the way in which the plainly patched-up reconciliatory -narrative of the Acts squares with this theory. The book of Acts is -explicable only on the hypothesis that it was designed, in its final -form, to reconcile the long-opposed sects by reconciling Peter and -Paul in a quasi-historical narrative. The narrative plainly clashes -with Paul's alleged Epistles. For the rest, it is managed largely -on the plan of duplicating the exploits of the two heroes, so that -Paul confutes Elymas as Peter does Simon, and closely duplicates -one of Peter's miracles. [575] Some legends were in existence to -start with, and others were invented to match them. Similarly the -dispute between Paul and Barnabas at Antioch was to supersede the -strife there between Paul and Peter. [576] If then the composer of -the Acts had before him a legend of Peter confuting Simon the Mage, -it would suit him to retain it, since thus would he best dissociate -the Mage from Paul. But, as Zeller points out, he is careful, first -of all, to place the story of the Mage before Paul's conversion; -and at the same time he shows he knows the original significance of -the charge against Simon Magus as to offering money, by ignoring the -most important of Paul's subsidies. [577] - -The application of a great mass of the polemic against Simon Magus -in the Clementines is so obvious that the evasion of the problem by -Harnack and Salmon and others on futile pleas of "false appearances" -and "common-sense" is simply a confession of defeat. Baur's case, -after being dismissed on pretexts of "common-sense" by those who -could not meet it, is irresistibly restated by Schmiedel, on a -full survey of its development by Lipsius and others. The only -solution is, that the Clementines adapt for new purposes a mass of -old anti-Pauline matter. At the time at which they were redacted, -Paul had been established as a "catholic" figure; and there could be -no such hatred to him as breathes through the fierce impeachments of -the teaching of the Paulines in the Recognitions and Homilies. For it -is at the Epistles that the bulk of the attacks are directed. What has -been done is to use up, for a new polemic with heretics, a quantity of -old anti-Pauline literature in which the disguising of Paul under the -name of Simon Magus probably blinded the redactors to its purpose. For -them Simon was simply the arch-heretic, and it was against his detested -memory and persisting influence that they operated. - -The theory is no doubt a complicated one; but when taken in its full -extent, as recognising the addition of the heresy of the Gnostic -Paulinist Marcion to that of Paul, it is perfectly consistent with -the documents; and there is really no other view worth discussing, as -regards the connection of Simon Magus with Peter. The orthodox belief -that Simon was an actual Samaritan who suddenly persuaded the people -of Samaria to regard him as a divine incarnation, as told in the Acts, -will not explain the mass of identities in the Clementines between the -teaching ascribed to him and the actual Pauline Epistles. In explaining -the choice of the name Simon for Paul by his Judaic antagonists, the -myth-theory is far more helpful than the view of Simon's historicity. A -"false God" Simon, the God of the typically misbelieving Samaritans, -would be by Jews reduced to human status as a matter of course, unless -he were simply classed as a "daimon." A "Simon the Mage" was for them -just the type they wanted wherewith to identify Paul, the new False -Teacher. To identify, on the other hand, a contemporary or lately -deceased Paul with a contemporary or lately deceased Simon would be -an idle device, missing the end in view. The name of such a Simon -would for purposes of aspersion be worth little or nothing. The name -had to be a widely and long notorious one, and the myth supplied it. - - - - -IV - -In conclusion, let it be noted that the bearing of the myth of -Simon Magus on Christianity is not limited to the explanation of -the Samaritan origins and the elucidation of the Paul-and-Peter -antagonism. The more the matter is looked into, the more reason is -seen for surmising that Samaria played a large part in the beginnings -of the Christian system. Samaria seems to have been beyond all other -parts of Palestine a crucible in which manifold cult-elements tended -to be fused by syncretic ideas; and the extent to which Samaria figures -in the fourth gospel is a phenomenon not yet adequately explained. The -fact that Jesus is there said to have been called a Samaritan reminds -us that among the movements of the "false Christs" so often alluded -to in the Gospels [578] a Samaritan cult of the mystic Christ may -have counted for much. The fourth gospel itself would come under the -anti-Pauline ban, inasmuch as, while Simon Magus is said to have sought -to substitute Mount Gerizim for Jerusalem, Jesus here [579] is made -to set aside both the Samaritan mountain and Jerusalem. The very fact -that the Samaritan woman professedly expects the coming of Messiah, -is a hint that the story of the well and the living water may be of -Samaritan Messianic origin. Nay more, since we know that the Samaritans -in particular laid stress on the Messiah Ben Joseph rather than on the -Messiah Ben David, they regarding themselves as of Josephite descent, -it is probable that the very legend of Jesus being the putative son -of one Joseph, which we know was absent from the Ebionite version -of Matthew, was framed to meet the Samaritan view. These matters are -still far from having been exhaustively considered. - - - - - - - - -NOTES - - -[1] The charge of haste is posited as a preliminary to criticism by -the Rev. Dr. Thorburn in his work on The Mythical Interpretation of -the Gospels. Some examples of Dr. Thorburn's own haste will be found -in the following pages. - -[2] Twenty years ago a French scholar gently included me in this -reproach. - -[3] I omit personalities. - -[4] Art. by H. G. Wood in The Cambridge Magazine, Jan. 1917. - -[5] Cp. H.J. 128-139. - -[6] In the course of a second attack, the critic avows that he knows -of "no theory of gospel-origins, living or dead," which concedes -that the tragedy-story was added to the gospels as a separate -block. Reminded that the school of B. Weiss make their "Primitive -Gospel" end before the tragedy, he replies in a third attack that -that school is "obsolete"--i. e. neither living nor dead? - -[7] It seems to have been the view of Mr. Cassels. - -[8] Art. Gospels in Encyc. Bibl., ii, col. 1869. - -[9] Ecce Deus, p. 93. - -[10] Historical Christ, p. 182. - -[11] Ecce Deus, pref. p. ix. - -[12] Dr. Conybeare, The Historical Christ, p. 5. - -[13] H.J. 112, 113, 128, 157 sq., 177 sq. - -[14] Hist. of Greece, 10 vol. ed. 1888, ii, 462. - -[15] Id. p. 500. - -[16] Gesch. des Alterthums, ii (1893), 649. See the context for the -historic basis in general. - -[17] Id. 427, 564. - -[18] Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 2nd ed. p. 91. Cp. 93 sq. - -[19] Id. p. 100. Cp. 106-7, 123. - -[20] Id. p. 105. Cp. 109. - -[21] P.C. 274 sq. A proselytizing Catholic Professor in Glasgow -has represented me as denying the historicity of Apollonius, having -reached that opinion by intuition. - -[22] The Bhagavat Gîta, which glorifies Krishna, is late relatively -to the cult. - -[23] Cp. Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des N.T., -1903, p. 5 sq. - -[24] Apropos d'histoire des religions, p. 290. - -[25] Jesus, by William Renton. Pub. by author, Keswick, 1879. - -[26] Rep. by R.P.A. 1907. - -[27] The Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, 1916. - -[28] E. g. He takes as applying to Jesus (p. 377) a remark applied -expressly and solely to the myth of Herakles. - -[29] Work cited, p. 10. - -[30] Second Leben Jesu, § 91 (3te Aufl. p. 569). - -[31] See refs. in Drews, The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, -Eng. trans. p. 23. - -[32] As cited, p. 572. - -[33] Jesus and Israel, Eng. tr., pp. viii, ix, 29. - -[34] Putnams, 1912. I had not met with this work when I chose my own -title, The Historical Jesus, else I should have framed another. - -[35] Work cited, pp. 335-353. - -[36] Williams and Norgate, 1895. - -[37] Work cited, p. 420. - -[38] Id. p. 17, etc. - -[39] The Historic Jesus, p. vii. - -[40] In this connection he puts the theory--derived from the celebrated -Herr Chamberlain--that Jesus was not a Jew but an "Amorite." - -[41] H.J. chs. xvii and xix. - -[42] H.J. 199. On this compare The Four Gospels as Historical Records, -chs. vi-xiii. - -[43] Canon Cheetham, Hulsean Lectures on The Mysteries, 1897, p. 115. - -[44] "The primitive idea of the sacrificial meal, namely, that it is -by participation in the blood of the god that the spirit of the god -enters into his worshipper."--Prof. Jevons, Introd. to the Hist. of -Religion, 1896, p. 291. "Originally the death of the god was nothing -else than the death of the theanthropic victim."--Robertson Smith, -Religion of the Semites, 1889, p. 394. - -[45] Jésus et la tradition évangélique, 1910, p. 106. - -[46] H.J. 202-3. - -[47] Loisy, p. 171. - -[48] See refs. in H.J. 171; others in G.B. ix. 420 n. An overwhelming -case for the reading "Jesus (the) Barabbas" is established by -E. B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 1879, pp. 141-2. - -[49] Mr. Lester translates "Son of a Teacher," but this (adopted by -Brandt) is an evasive rendering. He thinks the story, even if true, -had no connection with the condemnation of Jesus. - -[50] Cp. Nicholson, as cited, p. 142. - -[51] G.B. ix, 418; P.C. 146. - -[52] G.B. ix, 419. - -[53] Id. iv, ch. vi; P.C. 124. - -[54] P.C. 152, 64; G.B. iv (Pt. III, The Dying God), 170 sq. - -[55] P.C. 161. Cp. Turner, Samoa, 1884, 274-5; G.B. iv, ch. vi. - -[56] P.C. 137, 161, 186; G.B. iv (Pt. III), 166. - -[57] Macrobius, Saturnalia, i, 7. Cp. Varro, cit. by Lactantius, -Div. Inst. i, 21. - -[58] G.B. iv, 14 sq., 46 sq., x, 1 sq. - -[59] Cp. Ward's View of the Religion of the Hindoos, 5th ed. 1863, -p. 92. - -[60] See P.C. 105 sq. as to the various motives of human sacrifice. - -[61] Livy, viii, 9, 10; Lafcadio Hearn, Japan, 166; P.C., 138. - -[62] Cp. Kalisch, Comm. on Leviticus, 1867, i, 366; P.C. 121. - -[63] Robertson Smith, Semites, 391; F. B. Jevons, Introd. to Hist. of -Religion, pp. 274-93. - -[64] P.C. 363. - -[65] Id. 108 sq. - -[66] Cp. G.B. Pt. III, The Dying God (vol. iv), 166 n., 214 sq.; -P.C. 116-117, 140. - -[67] P.C. 364-8. - -[68] Cp. Kalisch, as cited; G.B., as last cited; Ps. 106, etc. - -[69] P.C. 158 sq. Hebrews, ix, 7, 25, suggests a cryptic meaning for -the sacrifice of atonement. - -[70] As to Hebrew private sacraments, see P.C. 168 sq. - -[71] P.C. 166. I do not find that Mr. R. T. Herford deals with this -matter in his valuable work on Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, -1903. - -[72] See below, p. 104, as to the inferrible early forms of the -propaganda of the crucifixion. - -[73] Mr. Joseph McCabe (Sources of Gospel Morality, p. 21) argues -against the myth-theory that the early Rabbis never question the -historicity of Jesus. But it is extremely likely that early Rabbis -did use the Barabbas argument before the gospel story was framed. In -an age destitute of historical literature and of critical method or -practice, it sufficed to turn their flank. - -[74] C.M. 352, § 21, and refs. A fair "biographical" inference would -be that the betrayed Jesus had been an obscure person, not publicly -known. This inference, however, is never drawn. - -[75] Ward's View of the Religion of the Hindoos, 5th ed. 1863, p. 91. - -[76] Cp. Prof. Drews, The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, -Eng. tr. p. 54 sq., for Niemojewski's theory that Pilate = the -constellation Orion, pilatus, the javelin-bearer. This theory is not -endorsed by Drews. - -[77] P.C. 137. - -[78] G.B. ix, 412 sq. - -[79] G.B. ix, 415, note. - -[80] Justin Martyr, Dial. with Trypho, c. 40. - -[81] G.B. ix, 357 sq. - -[82] P.C. 146; G.B. ix, 359. - -[83] Second Leben Jesu, § 83. - -[84] Die evang. Geschichte, p. 156. - -[85] G.B. Pt. III (vol. iv), 113-114. - -[86] "Upon an ass and [even in R.V.] upon a colt, the foal of an ass," -Zech. ix, 9. I should explain that in denying that such "tautologies" -were normal in the Old Testament I had in view narrative passages. - -[87] C.M. 338-341. - -[88] Gen. xlix, 11. - -[89] The Historical Christ, p. 22. - -[90] See p. 19, note, ref. to M. Durkheim. M. Durkheim is one of the -greatest of anthropologists; he is not a mythologist at all. - -[91] C.M. 340. - -[92] Id. 341. - -[93] Id. 218, note. - -[94] Work cited, p. 14. - -[95] Id. p. 76. - -[96] See his Myth, Magic, and Morals, 2nd ed. p. 302. - -[97] Comm. in Joh. x, 16, cited by Strauss. See his first Life of -Jesus, Pt. II, ch. vii, § 88, for the views of the commentators on -the episode. - -[98] G.B. ix, 417. - -[99] Cultes, mythes, et religions, i, 338. - -[100] In John, the high priest is actually made to remonstrate from -a Jewish point of view, by way of enforcing the Christian conclusion. - -[101] Jésus et la tradition, p. 76. - -[102] There might be involved, again, a reminiscence of the -crucifixion of the last independent king of the Jews, Antigonus, -by Mark Antony. C.M. 364. - -[103] C.M. 365. - -[104] P.C. 130 sq., 363. Cp. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, -p. 391; Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 55, citing Pliny, H.N. xviii, -iii, 12. - -[105] Apology and Acts of Apollonius, etc., ed. by F. C. Conybeare, -1894, p. 270. Here Dr. Conybeare momentarily appears as a -myth-theorist. - -[106] Id. p. 258. - -[107] P.C. 115. - -[108] The Christ Myth, Eng. trans. pp. 65-68. - -[109] Cp. Cheyne, Introd. to Isaiah, 1895, pp. 304-5, as to Ewald's -theory that Jeremiah may have been meant. - -[110] So to be estimated whether he be "the" Deutero-Isaiah or a -song-writer whose work has been incorporated. Cp. Cheyne, as cited, -and his art. Isaiah in Encyc. Bib. - -[111] The terms "Christists" and "Jesuists" are, it need hardly be -said, used for the sake of exactitude. The term "early Christians" -would often convey a different and misleading idea. There were Jesuists -and Christists before the "Christian" movement arose. Dr. Conybeare -pronounces such terms "jargon" (Histor. Christ, p. 94). In the next -line he illustrates the delicacy of his own academic taste by the -terms "tag-rag and bobtail." Such slang abounds in his book, and this -particular phrase recurs (p. 183). - -[112] It is interesting to note that in the Gospel of Peter one of -the malefactors is represented as speaking to the Jews in defence of -Jesus, whereupon they break his legs in vengeance. - -[113] Ex. xii, 46; Num. ix, 12. Cp. Ps. xxxiv, 20. - -[114] P.C. 113, 155. - -[115] Granum turis in poculo vini, ut alienetur mens ejus. Talmud, -tract. Sanhedrin. - -[116] Vinegar in the Alexandrian Codex. - -[117] C.M. 367. - -[118] John xi, 50. - -[119] See the whole question minutely discussed in Strauss, Pt. III, -ch. iv, § 134. - -[120] Zech. xii, 10. - -[121] P.C. 125-6. - -[122] Ps. xxii, 18. The citation in Mt. xxvii, 35 (omitted in R.V.) is -a late interpolation, found in the Codex Sangallensis. - -[123] C.M. 380. - -[124] C.M. 364. - -[125] C.M. 369 sq.; P.C. 150 sq. - -[126] P.C. 319. - -[127] P.C. 151, 368, note. - -[128] P.C. 113, top. The preceding hypothesis with regard to the -Meriah post is an error. Mr. H. G. Wood informs me he has learned -from the Museum authorities at Madras that the apparent cross-bar -was really a projection, representing the head of an elephant, to -the trunk of which the victim was tied. - -[129] P.C. App. A. - -[130] C.M. 376. - -[131] P.C. 196. - -[132] Gal. iii, 1. - -[133] vi, 17. - -[134] De Dea Syria, 59. - -[135] C.M. 373. - -[136] P.C. 371. - -[137] P.C. 157. - -[138] C.M. 375. - -[139] Id. 377. - -[140] P.C. 166. Cp. Drews, Christ Myth, 42. - -[141] Judge T. L. Strange, Contributions, etc., 1881. "The Portraiture -and Mission of Jesus," p. 6. - -[142] Cp. Charles, introd. to The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, -1908, p. xvi, as to John Hyrcanus. - -[143] Cp. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896, pp. 52-53, -notes. The Messiah, in the view there discussed, was to have been -"concealed"--another cue for the evangelists. - -[144] H.J. 153 sq. - -[145] P.C. 304-6, 316-18; C.M. 331 and note. - -[146] Conybeare, Historical Christ, p. 19. - -[147] Col. Conder, The City of Jerusalem, 1909, p. 3, citing Rix. - -[148] Id. p. 9. - -[149] Id. p. 10; Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iii, 42. - -[150] Conder, p. 13. - -[151] Walter Menzies, Notes of a Holiday Excursion, 1897, p. 89. - -[152] Work cited, pp. 154-5. - -[153] Id. p. 156. - -[154] Id. p. 140. - -[155] "Il est à supposer," are M. Loisy's words. Jésus et la -trad. évang., p. 107. - -[156] Myth, Magic, and Morals, 2nd edit. p. 297. - -[157] G.B. iv, 56. Cp. 154. - -[158] 1 Cor. x, 21. I say "Paul" as I say "Matthew" or "John," -for brevity's sake, not at all as accepting the ascriptions of -the books. Van Manen's thesis that all the Epistles of "Paul" are -pseudepigraphic is probably very near the truth. - -[159] The retention of "devils" in the Revised Version, with -"Gr. demons" only in the margin, is an abuse. For the Greeks, -there were good daimons as well as bad; and "demon" is not the real -equivalent of "daimon." - -[160] C.M. 179, note. - -[161] Cp. Athenæus, vi, 26-27; Schömann, Griechische Alterthümer, -3te Aufl. ii, 418-19; Foucart, Des associations religieuses, 50-52; -Miss Harrison, Themis, p. 154; Menzies, History of Religion, p. 292. - -[162] P.C. 194 sq., 306; C.M. 381, note. - -[163] G.B. ix, 374 sq. - -[164] On the points enumerated under heads 4-7 see Schürer, Jewish -People in the Time of Christ, Eng. tr. Div. II, i, 11-36. In regard to -my former specification of such influences (P.C. 204), Dr. Conybeare -alleges (p. 49) that I "hint" that the Jesuist mystery-play was -performed "in the temples (sic) built by Herod at Damascus and Jericho, -and in the theatres of the Greek town at Gadara." This cannot be -regarded as one of Dr. Conybeare's hallucinations: it is one of his -random falsifications. No "hint" of the kind was ever given. The -mystery-play is always represented by me as secretly performed. - -[165] Cp. Ezra and Nehemiah. - -[166] P.C. 168 sq. - -[167] Schürer, as cited, iii, 225. - -[168] Thus Dr. Conybeare, constantly. Upon his view, the Essenes can -never have existed. - -[169] Schürer, as cited, i, 3-4. - -[170] Cp. Gunkel, Zum Verständnis des N.T., as cited, p. 20. - -[171] The later documentists in such cases substituted an angel; -but that was certainly not the early idea. See C.M. 112; Etheridge, -Targums on the Pentateuch, i, 1862, p. 5. - -[172] Jer. xi, 13. - -[173] Ezek. viii, 14. - -[174] P.C. 162. - -[175] P.C. 321. - -[176] E.g. the Biblical accounts of the adoption of Canaanite Gods -by Israelites who married Canaanite women. - -[177] E.g. the special adoption of Greek deities by Romans, apart -from the political practice of enrolling deities of conquered States -in the Roman Pantheon. - -[178] S.H.F. i, 44-45. - -[179] S.H.F. i, 48-49. - -[180] C.M. 35, and note. - -[181] See many details in C.M., pp. 52-57. - -[182] Refs. in P.C. 51, note 6. Dr. Conybeare (pp. 29, 30) meets such -conclusions of scholars (Stade, Winckler, Sayce, etc.) by excluding -them from his list of "serious Semitic scholars." - -[183] Exod. xviii, 12. - -[184] Gen. xiv, 18; Ps. cx, 4. - -[185] Heb. vii, 3. Cp. v, 6, 10; vii, 11, 17. - -[186] P.C. 179. - -[187] E.S. 115; Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, p. 291 sq. - -[188] Or Jehoshua--the Hebrew name of which Iesous is the Greek -equivalent. - -[189] P.C. 163. - -[190] The miracle of hastening the sun's setting is in Homer -(Il. xviii, 239) assigned to Hêrê, the chief Goddess. - -[191] P.C. 220. - -[192] Josh. v, 13-15 is clearly late. In ch. xxiv the angel is not -mentioned. - -[193] P.C. 314, 315. - -[194] Etheridge, The Targums on the Pentateuch, 1862, p. 5. - -[195] The Samaritans have a late book ascribing to him many feats -not given in the Jewish records. Concerning this Professor Drews -wrote (Christ Myth, p. 57, note):--"The Samaritan Book of Joshua -(Chronicon Samaritanum, published 1848) was written in Arabic -during the thirteenth century in Egypt, and is based upon an old -work compiled in the third century B.C." Dr. Conybeare (Hist. Christ, -p. 33) declares the last statement to be "founded on pure ignorance," -adding: "and the Encyclopædia Biblica declares it to be a medieval -production of no value to anyone except the student of the Samaritan -sect under Moslem rule." Be it observed (1) that Dr. Drews had -actually described the book as a medieval production; (2), that -his whole point was that it was legendary, not historical; and (3) -that the Ency. Bib. article, which bears out both propositions, -uses no such language as Dr. Conybeare ascribes to it after the word -"production," and says nothing whatever on the hypothesis that the -book is founded on a compilation of the third century B.C. That -hypothesis, framed by Hebraists, is one upon which Dr. Conybeare -has not the slightest right to an opinion. Dr. A. E. Cowley, in the -Encyc. Brit., describes the book as derived from "sources of various -dates." That being so, Dr. Conybeare, who as usual has wholly failed -to understand what he is attacking, has never touched the position, -which is that Joshua legends so flourished among the Samaritans that -they are preserved in a medieval book--unless he means to allege that -the legends are of medieval invention, a proposition which, indeed, -would fitly consummate his excursion. - -[196] Yeho-shua = "Yah [or Yeho] is welfare." - -[197] Cp. Josh. v, 2-10. - -[198] Canon Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 1902, p. 9, note 29. - -[199] This thesis was substantially put by me in the first edition of -Pagan Christs (1903). Dr. Conybeare, who appears incapable of accuracy -in such matters, ascribes the Joshua theory (Hist. Christ, pp. 32, -35) and the special hypothesis that Joshua was mythically the son of -Miriam, to Professor Smith, who never broached either. His pretext -is a passage in the preface to the second edition of Christianity -and Mythology, which he perverts in defiance of the context. On this -basis he proceeds to charge "imitation." Aspersion in Dr. Conybeare's -polemic is usually thus independent of fact. - -[200] Historical Christ, p. 17. - -[201] Id. pp. 8-9. - -[202] Neither is it put by Prof. Drews, who merely cites (above, -p. 41, note) from Niemojewski, without endorsing it, an "astral" -theory of Jesus and Pilate. Dr. Conybeare appears incapable of giving -a true account of anything he antagonizes, whether in politics -or in religion. Elsewhere Drews speaks of astral elements in the -Christ story; but so do those adherents of the biographical school -who recognize the zodiacal source of the Woman-and-Child myth in -Revelation. - -[203] At another point (p. 87, note) Dr. Conybeare triumphantly -cites Winckler as saying that "the humanization of the Joshua myth -was complete when the book of Joshua was compiled." This grants -the whole case. "Humanization" tells of previous deity; and just as -Achilles remained a God after being presented in the Iliad, Joshua -was "human" only for those whose sole lore concerning him was that -of the Hexateuch. - -[204] Der vorchristliche Jesus, p. 1 sq. - -[205] Mk. v, 27; Lk. xxiv, 19; Acts xviii, 25; xxviii, 31. - -[206] Perhaps an exception should be made of Dr. Conybeare, -who believes Jesus to have been a "successful exorcist" -(M.M.M. p. 142). This writer sees no difficulty in the fact that in -Mark Jesus is no exorcist at Nazareth, and refuses to work wonders. - -[207] P.C. 164. - -[208] Rev. xxi, 14. - -[209] iv, 4. - -[210] Cp. ii, 9; iii, 9. - -[211] iii, 14, 15; xix, 13. - -[212] Origins of Christianity, ed. 1914, p. 27. - -[213] Found in the Alexandrian and Vatican codices, and preferred by -Lachmann, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. - -[214] to deuteron. The R.V. puts "afterward" in the text, with -"Gr. the second time" in the margin. Mr. Whittaker reads "afterward" -also, after "the second time"--apparently by oversight. - -[215] Deane, Pseudepigrapha, 1891, p. 312. - -[216] Josh. xxiv, 31, in Septuagint. - -[217] C.M. 352. - -[218] Art. by H. G. Wood in The Cambridge Magazine, Jan. 20, 1917, -p. 216. - -[219] P.C. 202. - -[220] Cambridge Magazine, Feb. 3, 1917, p. 289. - -[221] G.B. v, 45 sq., 223; P.C. 364, 373-4. - -[222] P.C. 112 sq., 131 sq., 140, 142, 144, 352, 362-4, 368. - -[223] C.M. 354. I find that Volkmar (there cited) had in one of his -later works put the theory that the traitor, whom he held to be an -invention of the later Paulinists, would be named Juda as typifying -Judaism. The myth-theory is not necessarily committed to the whole of -this thesis, but the objections of Brandt (Die evang. Gesch. pp. 15-18) -seem to me invalid. He always reasons on the presupposition of -a central historicity, and argues as if Mark could not have been -interpolated at the points where Judas is named. - -[224] C.M. 208, notes. - -[225] Der vorchristliche Jesus, 1906, Vorwort by Schmiedel, p. vii, -and pp. 27-28. Ecce Deus, 1912, pp. 18, 332. - -[226] Ecce Deus, pp. 16, 18, 50 sq., 70, 135; Der vorchr. Jesus, -p. 40. But see Ecce Deus, pp. 66 and 196, where the thesis is modified. - -[227] In the Literary Guide of June, 1913, Professor Smith defends his -thesis against another critic. The reader should consult that article. - -[228] S.H.C. 33 sq. - -[229] Id. 35-36. - -[230] On this problem cp. Prof. Smith, Ecce Deus, 251 sq.; and -Prof. Drews, Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, Eng. tr. p. 19. - -[231] Enoch, xxxviii, 2; liii, 6. - -[232] Id. xl, 5, and often. - -[233] Id. xlvi, 2, 3, etc. - -[234] Id. xlviii, 10; lii, 4. - -[235] Id. lxii, 5. - -[236] Schodde's introd. p. 51. - -[237] Dr. Rendel Harris, Odes of Solomon, 1909, introd. p. 72. - -[238] Harris, as cited, pp. 118, 125, 128, etc. - -[239] Dr. Harris pronounces that an account in the Odes of the Virgin -Birth (xix) must be later than the first century (p. 116). But this -begs the question as to the source of that myth. - -[240] Apropos d'hist. des religions, p. 272. - -[241] Refutation of all Heresies, v, 5 (11). - -[242] Cp. Drews, The Christ Myth, p. 54; and 2nd ed. of original, -p. 24. - -[243] Drews, p. 59; Loisy, p. 273. - -[244] C.M. 316 sq. - -[245] C.M. 363. - -[246] Id. 364. - -[247] Hæres. XXX. - -[248] S.H.C. 6; C.M. 316. - -[249] C.M. 314. - -[250] Der vorchristliche Jesus, pp. 42-70; Ecce Deus, pt. vi. - -[251] C.M. 314. - -[252] Paper on "The Syriac Forms of New Testament Names," in Proc. of -the British Academy, vol. v, 1912, pp. 17-18. - -[253] C.M. 312. The thesis was put by me twenty-eight years ago. - -[254] Der vorchr. Jesus, p. 54 sq. - -[255] C.M. 316. - -[256] Der vorchr. Jesus, pp. 56, 65. - -[257] Cp. Philo Judæus, De Profugis:--"The Divine Word ... existing -as the image of God, is the eldest of all things that can be known, -placed nearest, and without anything intervening, to him who alone -is the self-existent." - -[258] Friedländer's thesis that the Minim were early Gnostics seems to -be completely upset by Mr. Herford, Christianity in Talmud, p. 368 sq. - -[259] Id. pp. 255-266. - -[260] The fact that the Talmudic allusions to the Minim include no -discussion of the Christist doctrine of the Messiah (Herford, pp. 277, -279) goes to show that a Messianic doctrine had been no part of the -early cult, and that among the Jesuists who kept up their connection -with Judaism it gathered, or kept, no hold. - -[261] Cp. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu, 1857, p. 287. - -[262] Justin, 1 Apol. 26. - -[263] Id. ib. - -[264] See the whole subject discussed in Appendix B. - -[265] C. 120, end. - -[266] See H. J. 182. - -[267] Ecce Deus, p. 68. In his article in the Literary Guide, June, -1913, Professor Smith argues that only as a protest against idolatry -and a crusade for monotheism could Proto-Christianity have succeeded -with the Gentiles. But that was simply the line of Judaism, which had -no Son-God to cloud its monotheism. Surely Jesuism appealed to the -Gentiles primarily as did other Saviour-cults, ultimately distancing -these by reason of organization. - -[268] Cp. Les Apôtres, p. 107; Saint Paul, pp. 562-3. - -[269] Cp. S.H.C. 82. - -[270] 19 Antiq. iii, 3. - -[271] Ecce Deus, p. 230 sq. - -[272] 20 Antiq. xi, 3. - -[273] Life, § 2. - -[274] XVIII, i, 6. - -[275] 20 Antiq. ix, 1. - -[276] Ecce Deus, pp. 235-6. - -[277] The Jesus of History and the Jesus of Tradition Identified. By -George Solomon. Reeves and Turner, 1880. - -[278] Here Mr. Solomon, without offering any explanation, identifies -Josephus's Jesus son of Sapphias, who was chief magistrate in Tiberias, -with Jesus the robber captain of the borders of Ptolemais (§ 22)--a -different person. I give his theory as he puts it. (Work cited, -pp. 164-179.) - -[279] Dr. Conybeare puts it as axiomatic that Jesus always speaks in -Mark "as a Jew to Jews." Thus are facts "gross as a mountain, open, -palpable," sought to be outfaced by verbiage. - -[280] This aspect of the problem seems to be ignored by Erich Haupt -(Zum Verständnis des Apostolats im neuen Testament 1896), who finds -the choice of the twelve historical. - -[281] See the passage in Baring Gould's Lost and Hostile Gospels, -1874, p. 61; and in Herford's Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, -1903, p. 90. - -[282] Hibbert Journal, July, 1911, cited by Prof. Smith, Ecce Deus, -p. 318. - -[283] C.M. 344. For the convenience of the reader I reprint in an -Appendix an annotated translation I published in 1891--a revision of -that of Messrs. Hitchcock and Brown, compared with a number of others. - -[284] Cp. "His Servant Jesus" in Acts iii, 13, 26; iv, 27, 30. - -[285] C.M. 415 sq. - -[286] Supernatural Religion, R.P.A. rep. p. 153. - -[287] See the notes to translation in Appendix. - -[288] It goes back to Jeremiah, xxi, 8. - -[289] Encyc. Bib. i, 261. - -[290] Cp. Prof. A. Seeberg, Die Didache des Judentums und der -Urchristenheit, 1908, p. 8; and his previous works, cited by him. - -[291] C.M. 344. - -[292] A. Seeberg, work cited, p. 1. - -[293] Dr. Conybeare nevertheless (Histor. Christ, p. 3) calls it a -"characteristically Christian document," in an argument which maintains -the early currency and general historicity of Mark. - -[294] This thesis was put in C.M. 345. Yet Dr. Conybeare alleges -(p. 20) that I represent Jesus as surrounded by twelve disciples solely -because of the twelve signs of the zodiac. The latter item is given -simply as an explanation of the calling of the twelve on a mountain -(412), which Dr. Conybeare finds quite historical. - -[295] It was probably about the year 80 that the Jewish authorities -framed the formula by which they sought to mark off "the Minim" -from the Judaic fold.--Herford, Christianity in Talmud, pp. 135, 385-7. - -[296] Mr. Lester (The Historic Jesus, p. 84) argues that the baptism -of Jesus by John must be historical, since to invent it would be -gratuitously to make him "in a way subordinate to John." But when -John is put as the Forerunner, acclaiming the Messiah, where is the -subordination? - -[297] C.M. 396. - -[298] H.J. 135-6. - -[299] Encyc. Bib. art. Baptism. - -[300] A temporary Messianic Kingdom is set forth about 100 B.C. in -the Book of Jubilees (ed. Charles, 1902, introd. p. lxxxvii). - -[301] Charles, introd. to the Assumption of Moses, 1897, pp. xiii-xiv, -liv. - -[302] Id. pp. xi, 41. - -[303] Charles, introd. to the Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896, pp. vii-viii. - -[304] Id. p. lv, and refs. - -[305] See above, p. 117, n. - -[306] Above, p. 66. - -[307] Cp. Mk. i, 8. - -[308] In Hebrews vi, 2, also, baptism appears to be disparaged. But -vv. 1-2 are incoherent. Green's translation gives a passable sense: -the R.V. does not. - -[309] Acts x, 48. - -[310] Mt. xxviii, 19. Cp. Mk. xvi, 16. - -[311] Testaments, ed. Charles, 1908, pp. xvi, 121. - -[312] H.J. ch. vi. - -[313] Van Manen, as summarized by Mr. Whittaker, Origins of -Christianity, ed. 1914, p. 78, citing Epiphanius, Hær. xxx, 16. - -[314] Id. pp. 124-5, 199. - -[315] Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. iii, 24. - -[316] Cp. Van Manen in Whittaker, p. 182. - -[317] E.g. the dating of the rising of Theudas before the "enrolment" -of Luke (6 C.E.); whereas Josephus places it about the year 45. - -[318] The reference to "Aretas the King" in 2 Cor. xi, 32, one of the -few possible clues in the Epistles, yields no certain date, and indeed -creates a crux for the historians. See art. Aretas in Encyc. Bib. - -[319] Cp. Van Manen, as cited. - -[320] H.J. 199-203. - -[321] Cp. Schmiedel, art. Gospels in Encyc. Bib. col. 1890. - -[322] P.C. 316 n. - -[323] P.C. 281. - -[324] See S.H.F., chs. iii and v; and cp. Whittaker, Priests, -Philosophers, and Prophets, 1911. - -[325] P.C. 67 sq. - -[326] S.H.F. ch. iv. - -[327] First put by M. Maurice Vernes, Du prétendu polythéisme des -Hebreux, 1891. - -[328] See The Source of the Christian Tradition, by E. Dujardin: -Eng. trans. R.P.A., p. 32; and the citations from MM. Vernes and -Dujardin in Mr. Whittaker's Priests, Philosophers, and Prophets, -1911, pp. 124-127. - -[329] Mr. Whittaker (p. 128) puts the view that Jewish monotheism was -really a reduction of the universalist monotheism of the Mesopotamian -priesthoods to the purposes of a nationalist God-cult. - -[330] S.H.F. i, 44-46. - -[331] Even Dean Inge avows that "The distinctive feature of the Jewish -religion is not, as is often supposed, its monotheism. Hebrew religion -in its golden age was monolatry rather than monotheism; and when -Jehovah became more strictly the only God, the cult of intermediate -beings came in, and restored a quasi-polytheism."--Art. "St. Paul" -in Quarterly Review, Jan. 1914, p. 54. - -[332] See, however, the contrary thesis maintained by Dr. A. Causse, -Les Prophètes d'Israel et les religions de l'orient, 1913. - -[333] Ecce Deus, pp. 71, 75. - -[334] Cp. Whittaker, Priests, Philosophers, and Prophets, p. 45. - -[335] Cp. Supernatural Religion, ch. iv. - -[336] E.g. Art. in The Atlantic Monthly, Nov. 1916, p. 605. - -[337] Cp. J. A. Farrer, Paganism and Christianity, R.P.A. rep. pp., -19-20; Dr. J. E. Carpenter, Phases of Early Christianity, 1916, -p. 57 sq. - -[338] It may be argued that the really swift triumph of Islam in a -later age goes to support Professor Smith's thesis. But the triumph -of Islam was primarily military. And Islam too kept its cortège of -"demons." - -[339] E.g. in modern China. - -[340] P.C. 62-63. - -[341] S.H.F. i, 34, 72. - -[342] Cp. Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age, Eng. trans, i, 55. It is -just possible that among people devoutly awaiting the imminent end -of the world, some such communions might have a brief existence. - -[343] A good support to Hobbes's thesis that the sin against the Holy -Ghost is sin against the ecclesiastical power. - -[344] S.H.C. 70. - -[345] Cp. Acts xiii, 1; xv, 32; Rev. xvi, 6; xviii, 20, 24. - -[346] Bampton Lectures on The Organization of the Early Christian -Churches, 3rd. ed. 1888, p. ix. - -[347] E.S. 113-115. - -[348] Hatch, 26. Cp. his Hibbert Lectures, p. 291 sq. - -[349] Id. Organization 28. - -[350] Id. 28; Foucart, as there cited. - -[351] As Hatch notes, p. 35, Clemens Romanus (ii, 16) echoes Tobit, -xii, 8, 9, as to the blessedness of almsgiving. Cp. his citations -from Lactantius, Chrysostom, and the Apostolical Constitutions. - -[352] Hatch, p. 35. - -[353] Id. p 35. - -[354] Hatch, p. 37. - -[355] S.H.C. 87 sq. - -[356] Hatch, 29. - -[357] "The Broken" is used as a noun: bread is only -understood. Evidently the breaking was vitally symbolic, as is -explained in the context. Cp. Luke xxiv, 30, 35. - -[358] Irenæus, Against Heresies, v, 3. - -[359] See Introd. to Messrs. Hitchcock and Brown's (American) ed., -1885, p. lxxviii. - -[360] Above, p. 132. - -[361] C.M. 422. - -[362] Bousset in Encyc. Bib. i, 209, following Gunkel, Schöpfung -und Chaos. - -[363] Cp. R. Brown, Jr., Primitive Constellations, 1899, i, 64-65, -104, 119, etc.; G. Schiaparelli, Astronomy in the O. T., 1905, p. 72; -Hon. Emmeline M. Plunket, Ancient Calendars and Constellations, 1903, -117-123, and maps; and Hippolytus, Ref. of all Heresies, v, 47-49. - -[364] Rev. xviii, 2, 21. - -[365] Encyc. Bib. art. James. - -[366] A view independently put before his (1896) by the present writer. - -[367] Admirably summarized by Mr. T. Whittaker in his Origins of -Christianity. Cp. Van Manen's art. Paul in Encyc. Bib. - -[368] Dr. F. C. Conybeare has indicated the view that, Van Manen's -chair having been offered to him after Van Manen's death, he is in -a position to dispose of Van Manen's case by expressing his contempt -for it. And Dr. Conybeare is prepared to accept as genuine the whole -of the epistles, a position rejected by all the professional critics -except the extreme traditionalists. - -[369] Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii, 39, end. - -[370] This term, it will be noted, tells of an abstract or generalized -and not of a "personal" tradition. - -[371] Irenæus, Against Heresies, v, 33. - -[372] Canon Charles, note on Apoc. Baruch, xxix, 5. - -[373] Myth, Magic, and Morals, 2nd ed. p. 58. - -[374] Id. p. 53. - -[375] E. B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 1879, -p. 101. - -[376] Id. p. 104. - -[377] C.M. 403 sq. - -[378] Art. Gospels in Encyc. Bib. cols. 1868, 1872. - -[379] Art. Gospels in Encyc. Bib. cols. 1767, 1846. - -[380] 2 Kings i, 8: R.V. marg. - -[381] This thesis is put by the Professor in art. Gospels in -Encyc. Bib. col. 1881; also, at greater length, in his lecture, -Jesus in Modern Criticism, and his work on The Johannine Writings -(Eng. trans.; Black, 1907, 1908). - -[382] I have dealt with the nine texts seriatim in C.M. 441 sq., -and P.C. 229 sq. They are more fully and very ably discussed by -Prof. Smith (Ecce Deus, Part III), with most though not with all of -whose criticism I am in agreement. - -[383] Eng. trans. p. 31. - -[384] P.C. 234. - -[385] Pref. to Eng. trans. of Arno Neumann's Jesus, 1906, p. xx. - -[386] Work cited, p. 9. - -[387] Unless we take the story of Thomas to be an invention to -confute doubters. - -[388] See above, p. 113 sq., as to the Nazaræans. - -[389] De Principiis, iv, 22. - -[390] B. v, c. 61. - -[391] Cp. Neander, Church Hist. Bohn trans. i, 482-3. Jerome speaks -(In Matt. xii, 13) of the gospel quo utuntur Nazaraei et Ebionitae, -as if they held it in common. Cp. Nicholson, p. 28. - -[392] Hippolytus, Ref. of all Heresies, vii, 22. - -[393] Dialogue with Trypho, 47-49. - -[394] Neander, as cited, p. 482 and refs. - -[395] Epiphanius, Hær. xxx, 16. - -[396] Nicholson, pp. 15, 34, 61, 77. - -[397] Jesus in Modern Criticism, p. 33. - -[398] Cp. the Professor's work on The Johannine Writings, p. 90, -where the same query: "Who could have invented them?" is put as -establishing special sayings of Buddha, Confucius, Zarathustra, -and Mohammed. I cannot follow the logic. - -[399] The argument is the same whether we say "inventions of the -evangelists" or "appropriations from other documents, or from hearsay." - -[400] P.C. 218 sq.; C.M. 395. - -[401] P.C. 206, 223, 228; C.M. 395. - -[402] Compare the story of Joseph, Gen. xxxix. - -[403] Irenæus, Against Heresies, i, 26. - -[404] Ecce Deus, p. 60. - -[405] Id. pp. 171-2. - -[406] Cp. Ecce Deus, p. 26. - -[407] Dr. Thorburn (Mythical Interpretation, p. 34) sees fit to argue -that the Christian phatnê was a "totally different thing" from the -pagan liknon (that is, if he argues anything at all). He carefully -ignores the sculptures which show them to be the same. (C.M. 192, 307.) - -[408] Cp. Soltau on the appeal made by the story (Birth of Jesus -Christ, Eng. tr. p. 4). "What is there," he asks, "that can be compared -with this in the religious literature of any other people?" The critic -should compare the literature of Krishnaism. - -[409] Ludwig Conrady argues (Die Quelle der kanonischen -Kindheitsgeschichte Jesus', 1900, p. 272 sq.) that the stories of -the Infancy in the Apocryphal Gospels, which appear to be at that -point the sources for Matthew and Luke, probably derive from Egypt, -where the hieratic ideals of virginity were high. This may be, but -the evidence is very imperfect. - -[410] The precedents of the divine paternity of Alexander and Augustus, -stressed by Soltau, would surely be inadequate. Heathen emperors -would hardly be "types" for early Christians. - -[411] The Rev. Dr. Thorburn idly argues (Mythical Interpretation, -pp. 38-39) that such stories do not affirm parthenogenesis where -a Goddess or a woman is described as married. As if Mary were not -in effect so described! But in Greek mythology we have the special -case of the spouse-goddess Hêrê, who is repeatedly represented as -conceiving without congress. (C.M. 295.) - -[412] P.C. 166, note 3. - -[413] C.M. 99; P.C. 165. - -[414] C.M. 191 sq., 306 sq. - -[415] Encyc. Bib. art. Moses, col. 3206. - -[416] C.M. 298. - -[417] Id. 167 sq. - -[418] C.M. 168-9. Cp. Dr. G. Contenau, La déesse nue Babylonienne, -1914, pp. 7, 15, 16, 57, 78, 80, 101, 129, 131. - -[419] C.M. 180-205. - -[420] Soltau argues not only that the belief in the Virgin Birth -"could not have originated in Palestine; anyhow, it could never -have taken its rise in Jewish circles," but that "the idea that the -Holy Spirit begat Jesus can have no other than a Hellenic origin" -(Birth of Jesus Christ, Eng. trans, pp. 47-48). He forgets the "sons -of God" in Genesis vi, 2. The stories of the births of Isaac and -Samson inferribly had an original form less decorous than the Biblical. - -[421] It is doubly edifying to remember that the writer who pretends -to find in avowed analogies of divine names, functions, and epithets -a theory of a philological "equation," himself insists on finding -in every New Testament naming of a Jesus, and every pagan allusion -to a "Chrestus" or "Christus," a biographical allusion to Jesus of -Nazareth. For Dr. Conybeare, the Jesus of the Apocalypse and the -"Chrestus" of Suetonius are testimonies to the existence of Jesus -the son of Mary and Joseph. The very absurdity he seeks to find in -the myth-theory is inherent in his own method. - -[422] C.M. 301-2 and refs. - -[423] The Rev. Dr. Thorburn (Mythical Interpretation, p. 21) cites -from the Encyc. Bib. as "the words of Dr. Cheyne" words which are not -Cheyne's at all, but those of Robertson Smith. Smith, so scientific -in his anthropology, is always irrationalist in his theology. - -[424] R.V. "enrolment." Dr. Thorburn appears to argue (p. 39) that the -"taxing" story in the Krishna-myth is derived from "ignorant copying" -of the English Authorized Version! The "to be taxed" of the A.V. of -course represents the traditional interpretation--that taxing was -the object of the enrolment. - -[425] C.M. 189-90. - -[426] C.M. 273. - -[427] I have been represented, by scholars who will not take the -trouble to read the books they attack, as deriving the Christ-myth in -general from the Krishna-myth. This folly belongs solely to their own -imagination. Dr. Conybeare's assertion (Histor. Christ, p. 69) that in -my theory the Proto-Christian Joshua-God was a composite myth "made up -of memories of Krishna ... and a hundred other fiends," is of the same -order. In his case, of course, I do not charge omission to read the -statement he falsifies: it is simply a matter of his normal inability -to understand any position he attacks. As regards the Krishna-myth I -suggest only in the detail of the "taxing" the possibility of Christian -borrowing through an intermediate source: in another, that of "the bag" -which is carried by a hostile demon-follower of Krishna (C.M. 241-3), -I suggest the possibility of Indian borrowing from the fourth gospel, -where "the bag" is presumptively derived from a stage accessory in -the mystery-drama, Judas carrying a bag to receive his reward. - -[428] C.M. 205 sq. - -[429] C.M. 207. - -[430] Id. 347 sq.; Drews, Die Petrus Legende (pamphlet), 1910. - -[431] Dr. Conybeare, undeviating in error, represents me -(Histor. Christ, p. 73) as suggesting that the epithet bifrons led to -the invention of the story of Peter's Denial. I had expressly pointed -out that the epithet bifrons did not carry an aspersive sense, and -suggested that the figure of Janus, with its Petrine characteristics, -might have inspired the story of the Denial (C.M. 350-1). The subject -of iconographic myth is evidently unknown matter to Dr. Conybeare. - -[432] C.M. 318 sq. - -[433] Die Versuchung Jesu (in Zur Gesch. und Litt. des Urchristentums, -III, ii, 1907, pp. 53, 65.) - -[434] The simple principle of holding Mark for primary wherever it -is brief has meant many such assumptions, in which many of us once -uncritically acquiesced. - -[435] As cited, p. 85. - -[436] Id. pp. 92-93. - -[437] Test. Naphtali, viii, 4. - -[438] This is ably argued by Prof. Smith. - -[439] C.M. 329 sq. - -[440] Id. 335 sq. - -[441] Cp. Soltau, Das Fortleben des Heidentums in d. altchr. Kirche, -1906; S.H.C. 67 sq., 101 sq.; J. A. Farrer, Paganism and Christianity, -R.P.A. rep. passim. - -[442] C.M. 220 and note 2. Cp. W. J. Wilkins, Paganism in the Papal -Church, 1901. - -[443] Cp. Saint-Yves, Les Saints successeurs des Dieux, 1907; J. Rendel -Harris, The Dioscuri in the Christian Legends, 1903. - -[444] Compare Soltau's remarks on the hostility still shown to -professional scholars who merely reject the Virgin Birth (work -cited, p. 2), and the plea of Brandt for his piety (Die evangelische -Geschichte, Vorwort). - -[445] Apropos d'histoire des religions, end. - -[446] Compare the recent volume of debate between Dr. Sanday -and the Rev. N. P. Williams on Form and Content in the Christian -Tradition. Mr. Williams argues against Dr. Sanday--who is less -destructive in his criticism than M. Loisy--in this very fashion. - -[447] Essay on Dr. Johnson (1884). - -[448] Apropos d'histoire des religions, p. 320. - -[449] Jésus et la trad. évang. pp. 286, 288. - -[450] Id. p. 277. - -[451] Jesus in Modern Criticism, p. 85. - -[452] Id. p. 86. - -[453] Id. p. 12. - -[454] Id. p. 87. - -[455] Jesus in Modern Criticism, pp. 79-81. - -[456] C.M. 392. - -[457] C.M. p. 90. - -[458] So far as I am aware, the only explicit condemnation passed in -the German Reichstag on the German submarine policy has been delivered -by the Socialist Adolf Hoffmann, a professed Freethinker. He pronounced -it "shameful," and was duly called to order. - -[459] I have briefly put the case in pref. to S.H.C. - -[460] Dr. Rendel Harris, on the other hand, in effect avows that his -heart is warmed by fictitious "Odes of Solomon," in which the writer -puts imaginary language in the mouth of the Christ. - -[461] See J. McCabe, Sources of the Morality of the Gospels, R.P.A., -1914. - -[462] C.M. 403 sq. - -[463] Test. Gad, vi, 1-7. - -[464] Canon Charles, in loc. - -[465] There are many such close parallels of thought and diction -between the two books. See Canon Charles's introduction, § 26. - -[466] In The Historical Jesus, pp. 23-26, I had to point out how two -Doctors of Divinity, of high pretensions, had scornfully denied that -that story had ever been transcended, and how signally they erred. The -second, the Rev. Dr. T. J. Thorburn, has since produced another work, -in which the subject is carefully ignored. When theologians thus -exhibit themselves as morally colour-blind, they relieve us of the -necessity of proving at any length how congenitally incompetent they -are to determine the moral problems of sociology by the authority -they presume to flaunt. - -[467] Schmiedel, Jesus, end. - -[468] Art. Acts in Encyc. Bib., citing iv, 20; xiv, 22; xx, 24; xxi, -13; xxiv, 16. - -[469] Egyptian Magic, 1899, pref. - -[470] Comparative Religion, 1912, p. 57. - -[471] Set forth in the National Reformer, May 15, 1887. Barnabas in -effect avows that he is copying previous teaching. - -[472] There are two titles. It is surmised, with good reason, that this -was the original, though Mr. Gordon argues that it may be Sabellian, -and of the third or fourth century. The "Lord" (the name is here used -without the article, which was normally used in Christian writings) -refers to the God of the Jews, not to Jesus. - -[473] A pagan as well as a Jewish commonplace. Cp. Jeremiah xxi, -8; Hesiod, Works and Days, 285 sq.; Xenophon, Memorabilia, ii, 1; -Persius, Sat. iii, 56. Persius followed Pythagoras, who taught that -the ways of virtue and vice were like the thin and thick lines of the -letter Y. This is the origin of the Christian formula of the broad -and the narrow path. The conception of "the right way" is found among -the ancient Persians. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, i, 539 (§ 448). - -[474] Cp. Levit. xix, 18; Matt. xxii, 37-39. - -[475] Cp. Tobit iv, 15; Matt. vii, 12. Hillel (Talmud, Sabbath, 306) -puts the rule, as here, in the sane negative form, which is also the -Chinese. The gospel form is less rational. The sentiment is the first -principle of morals, and is common to all religions and all races. - -[476] Cp. Matt. v, 44; Prov. xxv, 21; Talmud refs. in C.M. 406; -and Test. of Twelve Patr. Dan. iii, iv; Gad, iii-vi. Canon Spence -notes that the resemblance between the Testaments and the Didachê is -"very marked." Note that in the Revised Version the text in Matthew -is cut down--a recognition of tampering, in imitation of Luke vi, 27-8. - -[477] Gr. "the nations" = "the Gentiles." Here, as elsewhere, we render -by an English idiom, which gives the real force of the original. It -will be observed that the compilers of the first gospel (v, 46) -substitute "tax-gatherers" for the original, by way of applying the -discourse to Jews in Palestine, where the tax-gatherers represented -foreign oppression. - -[478] A probable interpolation. - -[479] Cp. Lament. iii, 30, and the pagan parallels cited by Mr. McCabe, -Sources of Mor. of Gospels, pp. 229, 231. - -[480] This clause, which is not in Matthew, is intelligible only as -an exhortation to Jews in foreign lands. The reference to 1 Cor. vi, -1, cannot make it plausible as a Christian utterance. - -[481] This is otherwise translated by the Rev. Mr. Heron, Church of -the Sub-Apostolic Age, p. 16, thus: "the Father wisheth men to give to -all from their private portion"; and by Dr. Taylor, Teaching, 1886, -p. 122, thus: "the Father wills that to all men there be given of -our own free gifts." - -[482] Cp. Acts xx, 35. That passage probably derives from this, -and loses point in the transference. - -[483] Mr. Heron renders this "under discipline," because the early -Church had no prison for its backsliders. Quite so. The reference is to -Pagan prisons, and the warning is to Jewish beggars. The Greek phrase, -en synochê, here clearly refers to a prison, though in Luke xxi, 25, -it is rendered "distress" and in 2 Cor. ii, 4, "anguish." Cp. Josephus, -8 Ant. iii, 2. Canon Spence, who translates "being in sore straits," -offers the alternative "coming under arrest." - -[484] Cp. Ecclesiasticus, xii, 1 sq. It will be observed that the -concluding clause modifies the earlier precept of indiscriminate -giving. It may be an addition. - -[485] A more developed teaching is found in the Testaments of the -Patriarchs, as above cited. - -[486] Gr. zêlôtês. The American editors translate this "jealous"; -but Mr. Heron and Dr. Taylor more faithfully render it "a zealot," -though this, a natural warning to Jews, would come oddly to -Christians. "Zealot" specified a fanatical Jewish type (Luke vi, 15; -Acts i, 13; xxi, 20), but the Jesuists were exhorted to be "zealous" -(same word) in 1 Cor. xiv, 12; Tit. ii, 14. Nowhere are Christian -"zealots" rebuked; but Jewish fanatics in foreign lands needed warning -from peace-loving teachers. On the other hand, the rendering "jealous" -is evidently adopted because of the very difficulty of conceiving -that Christian teachers would warn their flocks against being either -"zealous" or "zealots." The context, however, clearly justifies -our translation. - -[487] Gr. "high-eyed." The meaning evidently is "always looking at -people," and there is implied the injunction to look down, as is -the wont of nuns. Since deciding on the rendering given, we notice -that the Rev. A. Gordon, in his translation (sold at Essex Hall, -Essex Street), has "bold of eye." Dr. Taylor has "of high looks." - -[488] Mr. Gordon has "a diviner from birds"; M. Sabatier "augure"; -Dr. Taylor "given to augury." - -[489] Mr. Gordon has "a fire lustrator." - -[490] Cp. Matt. v, 5. - -[491] Gr. "the high" = the upper or ruling classes. - -[492] Cp. Heb. xiii, 7. - -[493] Gr. hê kyriotês. Messrs. Gordon and Heron render "whence the -lordship is spoken" or "proclaimed." In the New Testament (Eph. i, -21; Col. i, 16; Jude viii; 2 Pet. ii, 10) the same word is rendered -"dominion" by the Revisers. - -[494] Mr. Gordon adds here "in praying" in brackets. This is a guess, -which seems to have no warrant, though Canon Spence leans to it. The -sentence connects with the preceding one. - -[495] Cp. Dan. iv, 27; Test. Patr. Zabulon, viii. - -[496] Cp. Acts iv, 32. Here we seem to have the hint for the legend. - -[497] Cp. Prov. xiii, 24; xxii, 15; xxiii, 13-14; xxix, 17; -Ecclus. vii, 23-4; xxx, 1-2. A common Jewish sentiment, not found in -the New Testament. Cp. Eph. vi, 4. - -[498] Or type. Here, as in the New Testament, there is not the faintest -pretence of impugning slavery. The resistance to that began among -Pagans, not among Jews or Christians. - -[499] Gr. zêlotypia. This is the normal Greek word for jealousy. Here, -however, Mr. Heron has "envy," perhaps rightly. - -[500] The American editors have "pursuing revenge." - -[501] So Mr. Heron, we think rightly. M. Sabatier agrees. The American -editors have "toiling for," and Mr. Gordon "labouring for." - -[502] Or, handiwork. - -[503] Probably a river or the sea. Cp. Carpenter, Phases of -Christianity, p. 244, citing the Canons of Hippolytus. - -[504] The Syrian method, introduced into Europe after the Crusades. - -[505] The Jews, at least the Pharisees, fasted on Monday and Thursday, -the days of the ascent and descent of Moses to and from Sinai. - -[506] That is, Friday, called "the preparation" (for the Sabbath) by -the Jews. Mr. Heron notes that the Christians fasted on Wednesdays -and Fridays, but does not explain how a Christian document came to -use the Jewish expression with no Christian qualification. - -[507] After all the previous allusions to "the Lord" (without the -article, save once in ch. iv and once in ch. vi) had plainly signified -"God," we here have "the Lord" (with the article) suddenly used in a -clearly Christian sense, to signify Jesus. The transition is flagrant. - -[508] That is, in the original sense, thank-offering, as Mr. Gordon -notes. Now, the sacrament, as instituted in the gospels, is not -a thank-offering. It is evidently from the Didachê, or similar -early lore, that the word comes to be used for the sacrament by the -Fathers. It is never so used in the New Testament. - -[509] As the American editors note, Clement of Alexandria (Quis -Dives Salvetur, § 29) calls Jesus "the vine of David." As Jesus is -"the vine" in the fourth gospel, but not in the synoptics, we may -surmise that the Didachê was current at Alexandria. - -[510] Gr. paidos. Canon Spence and Mr. Heron render "Son"; but this -is not the normal word for son (huios), and the same term is used -for David and Jesus. It is rendered "servant" in Acts iii, 13, 26; -iv, 27, R.V. - -[511] Gr. "in the ages." - -[512] Cp. Matt. vii, 6. There is no such application there. - -[513] Mr. Heron takes this to signify that the love-feast accompanied -the Eucharist. But he notes, from Dr. Taylor, that the Jews had -their chagigah before the Passover, in order that the latter might -be eaten "after being filled." Mr. Gordon translates: "After the -full reception." - -[514] Gr. despota. The American editors (who render it "Master") -note that this word becomes rare in Christian literature towards the -latter part of the second century. - -[515] So in the MS. Bryennios conjectures huiô (Son) for theô, but -this does not justify the alteration of the text by several editors. - -[516] A Syriac phrase meaning not, as is sometimes said, "The Lord -cometh," but "The Lord is come." It was presumably an ancient formula -in the prayers hailing the rise of the sun. - -[517] It is difficult to reconcile this arrangement with any of the New -Testament data as to the practice of the Jesuist apostles. Cp. Canon -Spence, p. 91, as to "the Jewish habit of wandering from place -to place." - -[518] Cp. Mk. iii, 28-30; Matt. xii, 31; 1 Thess. v, 19, 20. - -[519] The American editors have "a meal"; Canon Spence "a -Love-Feast." See his note. And cp. Jevons, Introd. to Hist. of -Religion, p. 333, as to the Greek agyrtes. - -[520] On this obscure passage Mr. Heron has a long note, which, -however, supplies little light. Dr. Taylor notes that a "cosmic -mystery" [Gr. mystêrion kosmikon] is "the manifestation in the -phenomenal world of a 'mystery of the upper world,'" citing the -Zohar. Canon Spence suggests that the "table" connects with the -"mystery." - -[521] Gr. christemporos. Warnings of this kind are given in the -Epistles of Barnabas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. See Canon Spence's note. - -[522] Note the remarkable advance in the economic provision for the -preacher, clearly a later item than ch. xi. - -[523] Canon Spence rightly translates: "on the Lord's Lord's-day." This -singular phrase is obscured by the American editors, who simply -translate "the Lord's day." The Greek is kyriakên Kyriou. It is -thus clear that the expression "Lord's day" was in Pagan use, and -that the phrase "Lord's-day of [the] Lord" was an adaptation of the -standing expression to either Jewish or Jesuist use. This chapter may -have belonged to the pre-Christian document. There is no allusion to -the crucifixion. - -[524] Here the reference is clearly to Yahweh. The document cannot -have been originally written with the same title used indifferently -of Yahweh and Jesus. - -[525] Mal. i, 11. - -[526] Literally, "perform the liturgy" = "serve the (public) service." - -[527] Here we have the Christist expression. - -[528] This may have been a Jesuist allusion to Bar Cochab, about the -year 135. - -[529] Or "outspreading." - -[530] An early support for the "Conditional Immortality Association." - -[531] Apol. i, 26. - -[532] If we could but trust the assertion of Origen in the next century -(Against Celsus, vi, 11) that there were then no Simonians left, -the presumption would be that they had been absorbed by another cult. - -[533] Ovid, Fasti, vi, 213; Livy, viii, 20. - -[534] Cory's Ancient Fragments, ed. 1876, p. 92; Lenormant's Chaldean -Magic, Eng. tr., p. 131. - -[535] Sanchoniathon, in Cory, as cited, p. 5. - -[536] Eratosthenes' Canon of Theban Kings, in Cory as cited, -pp. 139-141. - -[537] Diodorus Siculus, ii, 4. - -[538] Bible Folk Lore, 1884, p. 45; cp. Steinthal on Samson, Eng. tr., -with Goldziher, p. 408. - -[539] Movers, Die Phönizier, i, 558. - -[540] Goldziher, Hebrew Mythology, Eng. tr., p. 132; cp. Buttmann, -Mythologus, 1828, i, 221, and Sanchoniathon, as above. - -[541] Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu, 1857, p. 281. - -[542] Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, 1884, i, 214 n. - -[543] McClintock and Strong's Bib. Cycl. s. v. - -[544] Chaldean Magic, Eng. tr., p. 44. - -[545] Against Celsus, v, 45. - -[546] See it in McClintock and Strong's Cycl. s. v.; cp. Schürer, -Jewish Nation in Time of Christ, Eng. tr., Div. ii, Vol. ii, p. 83, -where the prayer is given as the Shemoneh Esreh. - -[547] Schürer, p. 88. - -[548] McClintock and Strong's Bib. Cycl. s. v. - -[549] 1 Samuel xxviii, 13. - -[550] 1 Kings xvi, 24. - -[551] Die Religion Jesu, as cited. - -[552] 12 Antiq. v, 5. - -[553] G. L. Bauer, Theol. of the Old Test., Eng. tr., 1837, p. 5; -Etheridge, The Targums on the Pentateuch, i (1862), introd., pp. 5, -14, 17. - -[554] Bauer and Etheridge, as cited. - -[555] Gieseler, Comp. of Ec. Hist., Eng. tr., i, 48. - -[556] De Dea Syria, c. 33. - -[557] Die Phönizier, i, 417, 634. - -[558] Lenormant, as cited, p. 129. - -[559] Justin, Apol. i, 26; Irenæus, i, 23, § 2; Tertullian, De -Anima, 34. - -[560] Die christliche Gnosis, 1835, p. 309. - -[561] De Dea Syria, 40. - -[562] Id. 32. - -[563] Lenormant, as cited, p. 117. - -[564] Irenæus, as cited. - -[565] Lucian, as cited. - -[566] Reland, Dissertat. Miscellan., Pars i, 1706, p. 147; -cp. Enc. Bib. art. Samaritans, 4a. The dove was everywhere regarded in -Syria as sacred, in connection with the myth of Semiramis (Diodorus, -ii, 4), which bears so closely on the name Samaria. - -[567] John viii, 48. - -[568] Mem. the aged Simeon of Luke ii, who blessed the child -Jesus. "The Holy Spirit was upon him" (v. 25). With him is associated -Anna the Prophetess. Cp. Hannah, mother of Samuel. - -[569] Professor Smith, who accepts the historicity of Simon (Ecce Deus, -pp. 11, 103) does so without noting that it has been challenged. It -would be interesting to have his grounds for discriminating between -the God and the man. - -[570] McClintock and Strong's Bib. Cyc. - -[571] Kuenen, Religion of Israel, Eng. tr., iii, 314. - -[572] 1 Cor. xv, 10; 2 Cor. xi, 13, 23; Gal. i, 7; ii, 11. - -[573] 1 Cor. xv, 9; 2 Cor. xii, 4; Gal. i, 12. - -[574] Even a late copyist or reader of one of the Clementine -MSS. confusedly recognised a hostility to Paul as underlying his -text. See Anti-Nicene Lib. trans., Recog. i, 70. - -[575] Acts iii, 1-12, etc.; xiv, 8-15, etc. - -[576] Gal. ii, 11-14. - -[577] See the whole data discussed in Baur, Ch. Hist. of the First -Three Cent., Eng. tr., i, 91-98, etc.; Paul, Eng. tr., i, 88, 95, -etc.; Zeller, Contents and Origin of the Acts, Eng. tr., i, 250 sq.; -Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu; Schmiedel, art. Simon Magus in Encyc. Bib. - -[578] Cp. 2 Cor. xi, 4. - -[579] John iv, 21. - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Jesus Problem, by J. M. Robertson - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE JESUS PROBLEM *** - -***** This file should be named 53616-8.txt or 53616-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/3/6/1/53616/ - -Produced by Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net/ for Project -Gutenberg (This file was produced from images generously -made available by Cornell University Digital Collections) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |