{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45540/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45540","id":"gutenberg_45540","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45540","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jesus Christ -- Historicity"],"text":"THE CHRIST MYTH\n\n                                   BY\n\n                          ARTHUR DREWS, Ph.D.\n\n                     PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE\n                      TECHN. HOCHSCHULE, KARLSRUHE\n\n                   TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD EDITION\n                         (REVISED AND ENLARGED)\n                       BY C. DELISLE BURNS, M.A.\n\n\n\n                            T. FISHER UNWIN\n                       LONDON: 1 ADELPHI TERRACE\n                        LEIPZIC: INSELSTRASSE 20\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   TO\n                               MY FRIEND\n                          WILHELM VON SCHNEHEN\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE FIRST AND SECOND EDITIONS\n\n\nSince David Frederick Strauss, in his \"Life of Jesus,\" attempted for\nthe first time to trace the Gospel stories and accounts of miracles\nback to myths and pious fictions, doubts regarding the existence of an\nhistorical Jesus have never been lulled to rest. Bruno Bauer also in\nhis \"Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte und der Synoptiker\" (1841-42,\n2nd ed. 1846), [1] disputed the historical existence of Jesus; later,\nin his \"Christ und die C\u00e4saren, der Ursprung des Christentums aus\ndem r\u00f6mischen Griechentum\" (1877), he attempted to show that the\nlife of Jesus was a pure invention of the first evangelist, Mark,\nand to account for the whole Christian religion from the Stoic\nand Alexandrine culture of the second century, ascribing to Seneca\nespecially a material influence upon the development of the Christian\npoint of view. But it was reserved for the present day, encouraged by\nthe essentially negative results of the so-called critical theology,\nto take up the subject energetically, and thereby to attain to results\neven bolder and more startling.\n\nIn England John M. Robertson, in \"Christianity and Mythology\" (1900),\nin \"A Short History of Christianity\" (1902), as well as in his work\n\"Pagan Christs: Studies in Comparative Hierology\" (1903), has traced\nthe picture of Christ in the Gospels to a mixture of mythological\nelements in heathenism and Judaism.\n\nIn France, as early as the end of the eighteenth century, Dupuis\n(\"L'origine de tous les cultes,\" 1795) and Voltaire (\"Les Ruines,\"\n1791) traced back the essential points of the history of the Christian\nredemption to astral myths, while \u00c9mile Burnouf (\"La science des\nreligions,\" 4th ed., 1885) and Hochart (\"\u00c9tudes d'histoire religieuse,\"\n1890) collected important material for the clearing up of the origin\nof Christianity, and by their results cast considerable doubt upon\nthe existence of an historical Christ.\n\nIn Italy Milesbo (Emilio Bossi) has attempted to prove the\nnon-historicity of Jesus in his book \"Ges\u00f9 Christo non \u00e8 mai esistito\"\n(1904).\n\nIn Holland the Leyden Professor of Philosophy, Bolland, handled the\nsame matter in a series of works (\"Het Lijden en Sterven van Jezus\nChristus,\" 1907; \"De Achtergrond der Evangeli\u00ebn. Eene Bijdrage tot\nde kennis van de Wording des Christendoms,\" 1907; \"De evangelische\nJozua. Eene poging tot aanwijzing van den oorsprong des Christendoms,\"\n1907).\n\nIn Poland the mythical character of the story of Jesus has been shown\nby Andrzej Niemojewski in his book \"B\u00f3g Jezus\" (1909), which rests on\nthe astral-mythological theories of Dupuis and the school of Winckler.\n\nIn Germany the Bremen Pastor Kalthoff, in his work, \"Das\nChristusproblem, Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie\" (1903),\nthought that the appearance of the Christian religion could be\naccounted for without the help of an historical Jesus, simply from a\nsocial movement of the lower classes under the Empire, subsequently\nattempting to remove the one-sidedness of this view by his work\n\"Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beitr\u00e4ge zum Christusproblem\"\n(1904). (Cf. also his work \"Was wissen wir von Jesus? Eine Abrechnung\nmit Professor D. Bousset,\" 1904.) A supplement to the works of Kalthoff\nin question is furnished by Fr. Steudel in \"Das Christusproblem und\ndie Zukunft des Protestantismus\" (Deutsche Wiedergeburt, 1909).\n\nFinally, the American, William Benjamin Smith, in his work, \"The\nPre-Christian Jesus\" (1906), has thrown so clear a light upon a number\nof important points in the rise of Christianity, and elucidated so many\ntopics which give us a deeper insight into the actual correlation of\nevents, that we gradually commence to see clearly in this connection.\n\n\"The time is passed,\" says J\u00fclicher, \"when among the learned the\nquestion could be put whether an 'historical' Jesus existed at\nall.\" [2] The literature cited does not appear to justify this\nassertion. On the contrary, that time seems only commencing. Indeed,\nan unprejudiced judge might find that even J\u00fclicher's own essay, in\nwhich he treated of the so-called founder of the Christian religion in\nthe \"Kultur der Gegenwart,\" and in which he declared it \"tasteless\"\nto look upon the contents of the Gospels as a myth, speaks rather\nagainst than for the historical reality of Jesus. For the rest,\nofficial learning in Germany, and especially theology, has, up to\nthe present, remained, we may almost say, wholly unmoved by all the\nabove-mentioned publications. To my mind it has not yet taken up a\nserious position regarding Robertson. Its sparing citations of his\n\"Pagan Christs\" do not give the impression that there can be any talk\nof its having a real knowledge of his expositions. [3]\n\nIt has, moreover, passed Kalthoff over with the mien of a better\ninformed superiority or preferably with silent scorn, and up to the\npresent it has avoided with care any thoroughgoing examination of\nSmith. [4] And yet such a distinguished theologian as Professor Paul\nSchmiedel, of Z\u00fcrich, who furnished a foreword to Smith's work, laid\nsuch an examination upon his colleagues as a \"duty of all theologians\nmaking any claim to a scientific temper,\" and strongly warned them\nagainst any under-estimation of Smith's highly scientific work! \"How\ncan one then confidently stand by his former views,\" Schmiedel cries to\nhis theological colleagues, \"unless he investigates whether they have\nnot in whole or in part been undermined by these new opinions? Or is it\na question of some secondary matter merely, and not rather of exactly\nwhat for the majority forms the fundamental part of their Christian\nconviction? But if these new opinions are so completely futile,\nthen it must be an easy matter, indeed a mere nothing, to show this.\"\n\nIn the meantime there are many voices which speak out against the\nexistence of an historical Jesus. In wide circles the doubt grows\nas to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in\nthe Gospels. Popular works written with a purpose, such as the\ninvestigations of the Frenchman Jacolliot, worked up by Plange into\n\"Jesus ein Inder\" (1898), have to serve to alleviate this thirst for\nknowledge and confuse views more than they clear them. In a short\nwork, \"Die Entstehung des Christentums\" (1905), Promus has afforded\na brief r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of the most important matter bearing on the point,\nwithout any working up of it on its own account, and attacked the\nexistence of an historical Jesus. Lately Karl Voller, the prematurely\ndeceased Jena Orientalist, in his valuable work, \"Die Weltreligionen\nin ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange\" (1907), voiced the opinion\n\"that weighty reasons favour this radical myth interpretation, and\nthat no absolutely decisive arguments for the historicity of the\nperson of Jesus can be brought forward\" (op. cit. i. 163).\n\nAnother Orientalist, P. Jensen, in his work \"Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der\nWeltliteratur\" (1906), even thinks that he can show that both the main\nlines of the Old Testament story and the whole narrative of the life\nof Jesus given in the Gospels are simply variations of the Babylonian\nGilgamesh Epic (about 2000 B.C.), and consequently a pure myth. [5]\n\nWhile criticism of the Gospel documents is advancing more boldly and\nalways leaving in existence less of an historical Jesus, the number\nof works in popular religious literature intended to glorify Jesus the\nman grows enormously. These endeavour to make up for the deficiency in\ncertain historical material by sentimental phrases and the deep tone\nof conviction; indeed, the rhetoric which is disseminated with this\ndesign [6] seems to find more sympathy in proportion as it works with\nless historical restraint. And yet learning as such has long come to\nthe point when the historical Jesus threatens to disappear from under\nits hands. The latest results in the province of Oriental mythology\nand religion, the advances in the comparative history of religion,\nthat are associated in England with the names of Frazer and Robertson\nespecially, and in Germany with those of Winckler, Jeremias, Gunkel,\nJensen, &c., have so much increased our knowledge of the religious\nposition of Nearer Asia in the last century before Christ, that we\nare no longer obliged to rely exclusively upon the Gospels and the\nother books of the New Testament for the rise of Christianity. [7] The\ncritical and historical theology of Protestantism has itself thrown\nso deep a light upon the origins of the Christian religion that the\nquestion as to the historical existence of Jesus loses all paradox\nwhich hitherto may have attached to it in the eyes of many. So, too,\nProtestant theology no longer has any grounds for becoming excited\nif the question is answered in a sense opposed to its own answer.\n\nThe author of the present work had hoped until lately that one\nof the historians of Christianity would himself arise and extract\nthe present results of the criticisms of the Gospel, which to-day\nare clear. These hopes have not been fulfilled. On the contrary,\nin theological circles religious views continue to be quietly drawn\nfrom the \"fact\" of an historical Jesus, and he is considered as the\nimpassable height in the religious development of the individual,\nas though nothing has occurred and the existence of such a Jesus was\nonly the more clearly established by the investigations of critical\ntheology in this connection. The author has accordingly thought that he\nshould no longer keep back his own views, which he long since arrived\nat out of the works of specialists, and has taken upon himself the\nthankless task of bringing together the grounds which tell against\nthe theory of an historical Jesus.\n\nWhoever, though not a specialist, invades the province of any\nscience, and ventures to express an opinion opposed to its official\nrepresentatives, must be prepared to be rejected by them with anger,\nto be accused of a lack of scholarship, \"dilettantism,\" or \"want\nof method,\" and to be treated as a complete ignoramus. This has\nbeen the experience of all up to now who, while not theologians,\nhave expressed themselves on the subject of an historical Jesus. The\nlike experience was not spared the author of the present work after\nthe appearance of its first edition. He has been accused of \"lack of\nhistorical training,\" \"bias,\" \"incapacity for any real historical way\nof thinking,\" &c., and it has been held up against him that in his\ninvestigations their result was settled beforehand--as if this was\nnot precisely the case with theologians, who write on the subject of\na historical Jesus, since it is just the task of theology to defend\nand establish the truth of the New Testament writings. Whoever has\nlooked about him in the turmoil of science knows that generally each\nfellow-worker is accustomed to regard as \"method\" that only which he\nhimself uses as such, and that the famous conception of \"scientific\nmethod\" is very often ruled by points of view purely casual and\npersonal. [8] Thus, for example, we see the theologian Clemen, in\nhis investigation into the method of explaining the New Testament\non religious-historical lines, seriously put the question to himself\nwhether one \"could not dispense himself from refuting such books as\nfinally arrive at the unauthenticity of all the Pauline epistles and\nthe non-historicity of the whole, or at least of almost the whole,\ntradition concerning Jesus; for example, not only that of Bauer, but\nalso those of Jensen and Smith.\" This same Clemen advances the famous\nmethodological axiom: \"An explanation on religious-historical lines is\nimpossible if it of necessity leads to untenable consequences or sets\nout from such hypotheses,\" [9] obviously thinking here of the denial of\nan historical Christ. For the rest, the \"method\" of \"critical theology\"\nconsists, as is well known, in applying an already settled picture of\nJesus to the Gospels and undertaking the critical sifting of their\ncontents according to this measure. This picture makes the founder\nof the Christian religion merely a pious preacher of morality in the\nsense of present-day liberalism, the \"representative of the noblest\nindividuality,\" the incarnation of the modern ideal of personality, or\nof some other fashionable theological view. Theologians commence with\nthe conviction that the historical Jesus was a kind of \"anticipation\nof modern religious consciousness.\" They think that they discern the\nreal historical import of the Gospels in their \"moral-religious kernel\"\nso far as this is good for all time, and they arrive in this manner\nat its \"strictly scientific conception\" of Jesus by casting out all\nsuch features as do not fit this picture, thus recognising only the\n\"everlasting human\" and the \"modern\" as historical. [10]\n\nIf one keeps this before his eyes he will not be particularly moved by\nthe talk about \"method\" and \"lack of scientific system.\" One could then\nat most wonder that it should be forbidden to philosophers particularly\nto have a say in theological matters. As though the peace at present\nreigning between philosophy and theology and their mutual efforts at a\nrapprochement did not clearly indicate that upon one of the two sides,\nor upon both, something cannot be in order, and that consequently\nit was high time, if no one else undertakes it, for a philosopher to\nnotice theology in order to terminate the make-believe peace which is\nfor both so fateful. For what does Lessing say? \"With orthodoxy God be\nthanked one had arrived at a tolerable understanding. Between it and\nphilosophy a partition had been raised behind which each could continue\nits way without hindering the other. But what is now being done? The\npartition is again being demolished, and under the pretext of making\nus reasonable Christians we are being made unreasonable philosophers.\"\n\nThe author of this book has been reproached with following in\nit tendencies merely destructive. Indeed, one guardian of Zion,\nparticularly inflamed with rage, has even expressed himself to this\neffect, that the author's researches do not originate in a serious\ndesire for knowledge, but only in a wish to deny. One who, as I\nhave done, has in all his previous work emphasised the positive\nnature of the ethical and religious life against the denying and\ndestroying spirit of the age, who has in his work \"Die Religion als\nSelbst-Bewusstsein Gottes\" (1906) sought to build up anew from within\nthe shattered religious outlook upon the world, who in the last chapter\nof the present work has left no doubt remaining that he regards the\npresent falling away of religious consciousness as one of the most\nimportant phenomena of our spiritual life and as a misfortune for our\nwhole civilisation, should be protected against such reproaches. In\nreality, \"The Christ Myth\" has been written pre-eminently in the\ninterests of religion, from the conviction that its previous forms\nno longer suffice for men of to-day, that above all the \"Jesuanism\"\nof historical theology is in its deepest nature irreligious, and\nthat this itself forms the greatest hindrance to all real religious\nprogress. I agree with E. v. Hartmann and W. v. Schnehen in the opinion\nthat this so-called Christianity of the liberal pastors is in every\ndirection full of internal contradiction, that it is false through and\nthrough (in so saying naturally no individual representative of this\nmovement is accused of subjective untruthfulness). I agree that by\nits moving rhetoric and its bold appearance of being scientific it is\nsystematically undermining the simple intellectual truthfulness of our\npeople; and that on this account this romantic cult of Jesus must be\ncombated at all costs, but that this cannot be done more effectually\nthan by taking its basis in the theory of the historical Jesus [11]\nfrom beneath its feet.\n\nThis work seeks to prove that more or less all the features of\nthe picture of the historical Jesus, at any rate all those of any\nimportant religious significance, bear a purely mythical character,\nand no opening exists for seeking an historical figure behind the\nChrist myth. It is not the imagined historical Jesus but, if any one,\nPaul who is that \"great personality\" that called Christianity into life\nas a new religion, and by the speculative range of his intellect and\nthe depth of his moral experience gave it the strength for its journey,\nthe strength which bestowed upon it victory over the other competing\nreligions. Without Jesus the rise of Christianity can be quite well\nunderstood, without Paul not so. If in spite of this any one thinks\nthat besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with, this can\nnaturally not be opposed; but we know nothing of this Jesus. Even in\nthe representations of historical theology he is scarcely more than\nthe shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the\nfigure of this \"unique\" and \"mighty\" personality, to which a man may\nbelieve he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point\nof religious consciousness. Jesus Christ may be great and worthy of\nreverence as a religious idea, as the symbolical personification\nof the unity of nature in God and man, on the belief in which the\npossibility of the \"redemption\" depends. As a purely historical\nindividual, as liberal theology views him, he sinks back to the level\nof other great historical personalities, and from the religious point\nof view is exactly as unessential as they, indeed, more capable of\nbeing dispensed with than they, for in spite of all rhetoric he is\nin the light of historical theology of to-day, even at best only\n\"a figure swimming obscurely in the mists of tradition.\" [12]\n\n\n    PROFESSOR DR. ARTHUR DREWS.\n\n    Karlsruhe, January, 1910.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION\n\n\nThe time since the appearance of the second edition was too short\nfor any material alterations to be undertaken in the third edition\nnow appearing. However, the phraseology here and there has been\nimproved and many things put more strongly. Above all, the famous\npassage in Tacitus and the passage 1 Cor. ii. 23 et seq. has been so\nhandled that its lack of significance as regards the existence of an\nhistorical Jesus should now appear more clearly than hitherto. That\nPaul in reality is not a witness for an historical Jesus and is wrongly\nconsidered as the \"foundation\" of the faith in such a figure, should\nbe already established for every unprejudiced person as the result\nof the discussion so far on the \"Christ Myth.\" The Protestantenblatt\nfinds itself now compelled to the admission that the historical image\nof the person of Jesus as a matter of fact \"can no longer be clearly\nrecognised\" (No. 6, 1910). How then does it fare with the new \"bases\"\nof Schmiedel? To no refutation of the assertions which I represent has\ngreater significance been hitherto ascribed on the theological side\nthan to those supposed supports of a \"really scientific life of Jesus\"\n(in the discussions of \"the Christ Myth\" this has again received the\nstrongest expression). And yet these bases were advanced by their\noriginator obviously with a view to a conception quite different from\nmine, and, as I have now shown, do not affect, generally speaking, the\nview represented by me regarding the rise of the supposed historical\npicture of Jesus. When, above all, the \"historical references to\nJesus\" are supposed to be contained in them, and these, according to\nthe Protestantenblatt, lie \"like blocks of granite\" in my path--then\nthis is a pure illusion of the theologians.\n\nAs can be conceived, my assertion that a pre-Christian cult\nof Jesus existed has found the most decisive rejection. This,\nhowever, is for the most part only due to the fact that the\nresearches in this connection of the American, Smith, and the\nEnglishman, Robertson, were not known, and, moreover, the opinion\nwas held that one need not trouble about these \"foreigners,\" who\nfurther were not \"specialists.\" And yet Gunkel, in his work \"Zum\nreligionsgeschichtlichen Verst\u00e4ndnis des Neuen Testaments,\" had\nalready sufficiently prepared that view, as one might have thought,\nwhen, among other things, he declares \"that even before Jesus there\nexisted in Jewish syncretistic circles a belief in the death and\nresurrection of Christ.\" [13] Again, it can only be rejected without\nmore ado by such as seek the traces of the pre-Christian cult of\nJesus in well-worn places and will only allow that to be \"proved\"\nwhich they have established by direct original documentary evidence\nbefore their eyes. In this connection it is forgotten that we are\ndealing with a secret cult, the existence of which we can decide upon\nonly by indirect means. It is forgotten also that the hypothesis of a\npre-Christian cult of Jesus, if urged upon us from another quarter,\ncannot be forthwith rejected because it does not suit the current\nviews, and because it may be that it is impossible for the time being\nto place it beyond all doubt. Where everything is so hypothetical,\nuncertain, and covered with darkness, as is the case with the origins\nof Christianity, every hypothesis should be welcomed and tested\nwhich appears to be in some way or the other suitable for opening up\na new point of view and clearing away the darkness. For as Dunkmann\nsays in his sympathetic and genuine discussion of \"The Christ Myth\":\n\"Irregularities and even violences of combination must be borne in\nscience for the simple reason that our sources are too scanty and\nfull of contradictions. Our hypotheses will in all such cases have\nsomething rash, bold, and surprising in them; if even they are in the\nmain correct, i.e., if they are irrefutable according to the method\nof investigation\" (\"Der historische Jesus, der mythologische Jesus,\nund Jesus der Christ,\" 1910, 55). But if that very hypothesis is\nnot established, yet this makes no difference in the fact that there\nexisted a pre-Christian Jesus Christ, at least as a complex myth, and\nthis quite suffices for the explanation of the Pauline Christology and\nthe so-called \"original community\" of Jerusalem. I can, accordingly,\nonly regard it as a misleading of the public when the other side,\nafter rejecting the hypothesis of a pre-Christian cult of Jesus, bear\nthemselves as though they had thereby taken away the foundations for\nthe whole body of my views regarding an historical Jesus.\n\nMeanwhile the storm which has been raised against my book in\ntheological circles and in the Press, and has even led to mass\nmeetings of protest in the Busch Circus and in the Dom at Berlin,\nshows me that I have \"hit the bull's-eye\" with my performance and\nhave in truth touched the sore point of Christianity. The way in which\nthe battle is being waged, the means by which my opponents attempt to\ndisparage the author of \"The Christ Myth,\" or to make me ridiculous\nin the eyes of the public by personal slanders, their habit of trying\nto injure me by throwing doubt on my intellectual capabilities, and\nto undermine my scientific honour and official position (Bornemann,\nBeth)--all this can only make me more determined to continue the\nwork of illumination that I have begun, and only proves to me that my\n\"Christ Myth\" cannot be so absolutely \"unscientific\" and so completely\na quantit\u00e9 n\u00e9gligeable as its opponents are disposed to represent it.\n\nThe means by which the \"Christ Myth\" is opposed to-day are exactly\nthe same as those which were employed against Strauss's \"Leben Jesu,\"\nwithout, however, the least result being attained. I accordingly\nawait the further attacks of the enemy with complete coolness of\nmind, confident in the fact that what is true in my book will make\nits way of itself, and that a work which, like mine, has arisen from\nserious motives, and has been carried through with a disregard of\npersonal advantages, cannot be lost but will be serviceable to the\nspiritual progress of mankind. The attacks which have so far come to\nmy notice in pamphlets (Bornemann, v. Soden, Delbr\u00fcck, Beth) and in\nthe Press have not had the effect of making any weaker my fundamental\nconvictions. On the contrary, they have only served to reveal to me\nstill further the weakness of the opposing position, which is much\ngreater than I myself had hitherto imagined. I am, however, at all\ntimes ready and pleased--and I have shown this too by the corrections\nundertaken since the first edition of this work--to give attention to\nreal objections and to put right possible errors. All that matters to\nme is simply the fact as such. The question before us in \"The Christ\nMyth,\" as it is not unnecessary to point out here once again, is a\npurely scientific one. For possible suggestions and advice in this\ndirection I will accordingly at all times be grateful. On the contrary,\nI am left perfectly cold by personal slanders, anonymous threats, and\npious corrections, meetings of protest in which the Minister of Public\nWorship takes part with obbligato trombone choirs and professions of\nfaith, as well as by the uproar of the multitude roused to fanaticism\nin this manner by the \"guardian of their souls.\" They are everything\nexcept refutations.\n\n\n    PROFESSOR DR. ARTHUR DREWS.\n\n    Karlsruhe, March, 1910.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                PAGE\n    Preface to the First and Second Editions                       7\n    Preface to the Third Edition                                  21\n\n    THE PRE-CHRISTIAN JESUS                                       29\n\n          I.  The Influence of Parseeism on the Belief in\n              a Messiah                                           37\n         II.  The Hellenistic Idea of a Mediator (Philo)          46\n        III.  Jesus as Cult-God in the Creed of Jewish Sects      51\n         IV.  The Sufferings of the Messiah                       64\n          V.  The Birth of the Messiah. The Baptism               88\n         VI.  The Self-Offering of the Messiah. The Supper       128\n        VII.  Symbols of the Messiah.  The Lamb and the Cross    140\n\n    THE CHRISTIAN JESUS                                          163\n\n          I.  The Pauline Jesus                                  165\n         II.  The Jesus of the Gospels                           214\n              a.  The Synoptic Jesus                             214\n                    Jesus in Secular Literature                  230\n              b.  The Objections against a Denial of the\n                  Historicity of the Synoptic Jesus              235\n              c.  The True Character of the Synoptic Jesus       265\n              d.  Gnosticism and the Johannine Jesus             273\n\n    THE RELIGIOUS PROBLEM OF THE PRESENT                         283\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRIST MYTH\n\n\nTHE PRE-CHRISTIAN JESUS\n\n\n\"If you see a man undaunted by dangers, undisturbed by passions,\nhappy when fortune frowns, calm in the midst of storms, will you not be\nfilled with reverence for him? Will you not say that here is something\ntoo great and grand to be regarded as of the same nature as the trivial\nbody in which it dwells? A divine force has descended here--a heavenly\npower moves a soul so wonderful, so calm, one which passes through all\nlife as though it were of small account, and smiles at all our hopes\nand fears. Nothing so great can exist without the help of God, and\ntherefore in the main it belongs to that from which it came down. Just\nas the rays of the sun touch the earth, but belong to that from which\nthey are sent, so a great and holy spirit, sent here that we may\nhave a more intimate knowledge of deity, lives indeed in our midst,\nbut remains in contact with its source. On that it depends, thither\nits eyes are turned, thither its life tends: among men it dwells as a\nnoble guest. What then is this soul? One which relies upon no goodness\nbut its own. What is proper to man is his soul and the perfect reason\nin the soul: for man is a rational animal: therefore his highest good\nis reached when he is filled with that of which he is born.\"\n\nWith these words the Roman philosopher Seneca (4 B.C.-65 A.D.) portrays\nthe ideally great and good man that we may be moved to imitate\nhim. [14] \"We must choose some good man,\" he says, \"and always have him\nbefore our eyes; and we must live and act as if he were watching us. A\ngreat number of sins would remain uncommitted were there a witness\npresent to those about to sin. Our heart must have someone whom it\nhonours, and by whose example its inner life can be inspired. Happy is\nhe whose reverence for another enables him to fashion his life after\nthe picture living in his memory. We need some one upon whose life we\nmay model our own: without the rule you cannot correct what is amiss\"\n(Ep. 11). \"Rely on the mind of a great man and detach yourself from\nthe opinions of the mob. Hold fast to the image of the most beautiful\nand exalted virtue, which must be worshipped not with crowns but\nwith sweat and blood\" (Ep. 67). \"Could we but gaze upon the soul of\na good man, what a beautiful picture should we see, how worthy of\nour reverence in its loftiness and peace. There would justice shine\nforth and courage and prudence and wisdom: and humanity, that rare\nvirtue, would pour its light over all. Every one would declare him\nworthy of honour and of love. If any one saw that face, more lofty\nand splendid than any usually found among men, would he not stand\nin dumb wonder as before a God, and silently pray that it might be\nfor his good to have seen it? Then, overcome by the inviting grace\nof the vision, he would kneel in prayer, and after long meditation,\nfilled with wondering awe, he would break forth into Virgil's words:\n'Hail to thee, whoe'er thou art! O lighten thou our cares!' There is\nno one, I repeat, who would not be inflamed with love were it given\nhim to gaze upon such an ideal. Now indeed much obscures our vision:\nbut if we would only make our eyes pure and remove the veil that\ncovers them, we should be able to behold virtue even though covered\nby the body, and clouded by poverty, lowliness and shame. We should\nsee its loveliness even through the most sordid veils\" (Ep. 115).\n\nThe attitude expressed in these words was widespread in the whole of\nthe civilised world at the beginning of the Christian era. A feeling\nof the uncertainty of all things human weighed like a ghastly dream\nupon most minds. The general distress of the time, the collapse of the\nnation states under the rough hand of the Roman conquerors, the loss\nof independence, the uncertainty of political and social conditions,\nthe incessant warfare and the heavy death-roll it involved--all this\nforced men back upon their own inner life, and compelled them to\nseek there for some support against the loss of outer happiness in\na philosophy which raised and invigorated the soul. But the ancient\nphilosophy had spent itself. The na\u00efve interplay of nature and spirit,\nthat ingenuous trust in external reality which had been the expression\nof a youthful vigour in the Mediterranean peoples, from which indeed\nthe ancient civilisation was derived, now was shattered. To the eyes\nof men at that time Nature and Spirit stood opposed as hostile and\nirreconcilable facts. All efforts to restore the shattered unity were\nfrustrated by the impossibility of regaining the primitive attitude. A\nfruitless scepticism which satisfied no one, but out of which no\nway was known, paralysed all joy in outward or inner activities,\nand prevented men from having any pleasure in life. Therefore all\neyes were turned towards a supernatural support, a direct divine\nenlightenment, a revelation; and the desire arose of finding once\nagain the lost certainty in the ordering of life by dependence upon\nan ideal and superhuman being.\n\nMany saw in the exalted person of the Emperor the incarnation of\nsuch a divine being. It was not then always pure flattery, but often\nenough the expression of real gratitude towards individual Imperial\nbenefactors, combined with a longing for direct proximity with and\nvisible presence of a god, which gave to the worship of the Emperor\nits great significance throughout the whole Roman Empire.\n\nAn Augustus who had put an end to the horrors of the civil war must, in\nspite of everything, have appeared as a prince of peace and a saviour\nin the uttermost extremity, who had come to renew the world and to\nbring back the fair days of the Golden Age. He had again given to\nmankind an aim in life and to existence some meaning. As the head of\nthe Roman State religion, a person through whose hands the threads of\nthe policy of the whole world passed, as the ruler of an empire such\nas the world had never before seen, he might well appear to men as a\nGod, as Jupiter himself come down to earth, to dwell among men. \"Now\nat length the time is passed,\" runs an inscription, apparently of\nthe ninth year before Christ, found at Priene not long ago, \"when man\nhad to lament that he had been born. That providence, which directs\nall life, has sent this man as a saviour to us and the generations\nto come. He will put an end to all feuds, and dispose all things\nnobly. In his appearance are the hopes of the past fulfilled. All\nearlier benefactors of mankind he has surpassed. It is impossible\nthat a greater should come. The birthday of the God has brought for\nthe world the messages of salvation (Gospels) which attend him. From\nhis birth a new epoch must begin.\" [15]\n\nIt was not only the longing of mankind for a new structure of society,\nfor peace, justice, and happiness upon earth, which lay at the root of\nthe cult of the Emperors. Deeper minds sought not only an improvement\nin political and social circumstances, but felt disturbed by thoughts\nof death and the fate of the soul after its parting from its bodily\nshell. They trembled at the expectation of the early occurrence\nof a world-wide catastrophe, which would put a terrible end to all\nexistence. The apocalyptic frame of mind was so widespread at the\ncommencement of the Christian era that even a Seneca could not keep\nhis thoughts from the early arrival of the end of the world. Finally,\nthere also grew up a superstitious fear of evil spirits and D\u00e6mons,\nwhich we can scarcely exaggerate. And here no philosophic musings could\noffer a support to anxious minds, but religion alone. Seldom in the\nhistory of mankind has the need for religion been so strongly felt as\nin the last century before and the first century after Christ. But it\nwas not from the old hereditary national religions that deliverance was\nexpected. It was from the unrestrained commingling and unification of\nall existing religions, a religious syncretism, which was specially\nfurthered by acquaintance with the strange, but on that account all\nthe more attractive, religions of the East. Already Rome had become\na Pantheon of almost all religions which one could believe, while in\nthe Far East, in Nearer Asia, that breeding-place of ancient Gods and\ncults, there were continually appearing new, more daring and secret\nforms of religious activity. These, too, in a short while obtained\ntheir place in the consciousness of Western humanity. Where the public\nworship of the recognised Gods did not suffice, men sought a deeper\nsatisfaction in the numberless mystic associations of that time, or\nformed themselves with others of like mind into private religious\nbodies or pious brotherhoods, in order to nourish in the quiet of\nprivate ritualistic observance an individual religious life apart\nfrom the official State religion.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF PARSEEISM ON THE BELIEF IN A MESSIAH\n\n\nAmong no people was the longing for redemption so lively and the\nexpectation of a speedy end of the world so strong as among the\nJews. Since the Babylonian captivity (586-536 B.C.) the former Jewish\noutlook upon the world had undergone a great change. Fifty years had\nbeen spent by the Israelites in the land of the stranger. For two\nhundred years after their return to their own land they were under\nPersian overlordship. As a consequence of this they were in close\nconnection politically and economically with the Ach\u00e6menidean Empire,\nand this did not cease when Alexander overthrew the Persian power\nand brought the whole Eastern world under Greek influence. During\nthis lengthy period Persian modes of thinking and Persian religious\nviews had influenced in many ways the old Jewish opinions, and had\nintroduced a large number of new ideas. First of all the extreme\ndualism of the Persians had impressed a distinctly dual character\nupon Jewish Monotheism. God and the world, which in the old ideas\nhad often mingled with one another, were separated and made to stand\nin opposition to each other. Following the same train of thought,\nthe old national God Jahwe, in imitation of the Persian Ahuramazda\n(Ormuzd), had developed from a God of fire, light, and sky into a God\nof supernatural purity and holiness. Surrounded by light and enthroned\nin the Beyond, like Ahuramazda, the source of all life, the living\nGod held intercourse with his creatures upon the earth only through\nthe instrumentality of a court of angels. These messengers of God or\nintermediate beings in countless numbers moved between heaven and earth\nupon his service. And just as Angromainyu (Ahriman), the evil, was\nopposed to Ahuramazda, the good, and the struggle between darkness and\nlight, truth and falsehood, life and death, was, according to Persian\nideas, reproduced in the course of earthly events, so the Jews too\nascribed to Satan the r\u00f4le of an adversary of God, a corrupter of the\ndivine creation, and made him, as Prince of this world and leader of\nthe forces of hell, measure his strength with the King of Heaven. [16]\n\nIn the struggle of the two opposing worlds, according to Persian\nideas, Mithras stood in the foreground, the spirit of light,\ntruth, and justice, the divine \"friend\" of men, the \"mediator,\"\n\"deliverer,\" and \"saviour\" of the world. He shared his office with\nHonover, Ahuramazda's Word of creation and revelation; and indeed in\nmost things their attributes were mingled. An incarnation of fire or\nthe sun, above all of the struggling, suffering, triumphant light,\nwhich presses victoriously through night and darkness, Mithras was\nalso connected with death and immortality, and passed as guide of\nsouls and judge in the under-world. He was the \"divine son,\" of whom\nit was said that Ahuramazda had fashioned him as great and worthy\nof reverence as his own self. Indeed, he was in essence Ahuramazda\nhimself, proceeding from his supernatural light, and given a concrete\nindividuality. As companion in creation and \"protector\" of the world\nhe kept the universe standing in its struggle against its enemies. At\nthe head of the heavenly host he fought for God, and with his sword\nof flame he drove the D\u00e6mons of Darkness in terror back into the\nshadows. To take part in this combat on the side of God, to build up\nthe future kingdom of God by the work of a life-giving civilisation,\nby the rendering fruitful of sterile wastes, the extinction of noxious\nanimals, and by moral self-education, seemed the proper end of human\nexistence. But when the time should have been fulfilled and the present\nepoch come to an end, according to Persian belief, Ahuramazda was\nthen to raise up from the seed of Zarathustra, the founder of this\nreligion, the \"virgin's son,\" Saoshyant (Sraosha, Sosiosch, which\nsignifies the Saviour), or, as it ran according to another rendering,\nMithras himself should descend upon the earth and in a last fierce\nstruggle overwhelm Angromainyu and his hosts, and cast them down\ninto the Nether World. He would then raise the dead in bodily shape,\nand after a General Judgment of the whole world, in which the wicked\nshould be condemned to the punishments of hell and the good raised\nto heavenly glory, establish the \"millennial Kingdom of Peace.\" Hell\nitself was not to last for ever, for a great reconciliation was to\nbe finally held out even to the damned. Then Angromainyu also would\nmake peace with Ahuramazda, and upon a new earth beneath a new heaven\nall were to be united to one another in everlasting blessedness.\n\nThese ideas entered the circle of Jewish thought and there brought\nabout a complete transformation of the former belief in a Messiah.\n\nMessiah--that is, the Anointed (in Greek, Christos)--originally\nsignified the king as representative of Jahwe before the people and of\nthe people before Jahwe. According to 2 Sam. vii. 13 sq., he was placed\nin the same relation of an obedient \"son\" to his \"father,\" in which\nthe whole people was conscious of standing. [17] Then the opposition\nbetween the holy dignity of the \"Anointed\" of God and the humanly\nimperfect personality of the Jewish kings led to the ideal of the\nMessiah being transferred to the future and the complete realisation\nof the rule of Jahwe over his people being expected only then. In\nthis sense the ancient prophets had already celebrated the Messiah\nas an ideal King of the future, who would experience in the fullest\nsense the high assurances of Jahwe's favour, of which David had been\ndeemed worthy, since he would be completely worthy of them. They had\ndescribed him as the Hero, who would be more than Moses and Joshua,\nwho would establish the promised glory of Israel, dispose the people\nanew, and bring Jahwe's religion even to the heathen. [18] They had\nglorified him in that he would span the heavens afresh, establish a\nnew earth, and make Israel Lord over all nations. [19] In this they\nhad at first understood the Messiah only as a human being, as a new\nDavid or of his seed--theocratic king, divinely favoured prince of\npeace and just ruler over his people, just as the Persian Saoshyant\nwas to be a man of the seed of Zarathustra. In this sense a Cyrus,\nthe deliverer of the people from the Babylonian captivity, the rescuer\nand overlord of Israel, had been acclaimed Messiah. [20] But just as\nSaoshyant had been undesignedly transfigured in the imagination of the\npeople into a divine being and made one with the figure of Mithras,\n[21] so also among the prophets the Messiah was more and more assigned\nthe part of a divine king. He was called \"divine hero,\" \"Father of\nEternity,\" and the prophet Isaiah indulged in a description of his\nkingdom of peace, in which the wolf would lie down by the lamb, men\nwould no longer die before their time, and would enjoy the fruit of\ntheir fields without tithe, while right and justice would reign upon\nearth under this king of a golden age as it had never done before. [22]\nSecret and supernatural, as was his nature, so should the birth of\nthe Messiah be. Though a divine child, he was to be born in lowly\nstate. [23] The personality of the Messiah mingled with that of Jahwe\nhimself, as though it were God himself of whose ascending the throne\nand journey heavenwards the Psalmists sing. [24]\n\nThese alternations of the Messiah between a human and a divine nature\nappear still more clearly in the Jewish apocalyptics of the last\ncentury before and the first century after Christ. Thus the Apocalypse\nof Daniel (about 165 B.C.) speaks of one who as Son of Man will descend\nupon the clouds of heaven and will be brought before the \"Ancient of\nDays.\" The whole tone of the passage leaves no doubt that the Son of\nMan (barnasa) is a superhuman being representing the Deity. To him the\nmajesty and kingdom of God have been entrusted in order that, at the\nend of the existing epoch, he should descend upon the clouds of heaven,\nsurrounded by a troop of angels, and establish an everlasting power, a\nKingdom of Heaven. In the picture-language of Enoch (in the last decade\nbefore Christ) the Messiah, the \"Chosen One,\" the \"Son of Man,\" appears\nas a supernatural pre-existing being, who was hidden in God before the\nworld was created, whose glory continues from eternity to eternity and\nhis might from generation to generation, in whom the spirit of wisdom\nand power dwells, who judges hidden things, punishes the wicked, but\nwill save the holy and just. [25] Indeed, the Apocalypse of Esdras\n(the so-called fourth Book of Esdras) expressly combats the opinion\nthat the judgment of the world will come through another than God,\nand likewise describes the Messiah as a kind of \"second God,\" as the\n\"Son of God,\" as the human incarnation of the Godhead. [26]\n\nIn all of this the influence of Persian beliefs is unmistakable,\nwhether these arose in Iran itself directly, or whether the idea of\na God-appointed king and deliverer of the world was borrowed by the\nPersians from the circle of Babylonian ideas. Here this conception\nhad taken deep root and was applied at different times now to this\nking, now to that. [27] Just as in the Persian religion the image\nof Saoshyant, so also in the Jewish view the picture of the Messiah\nwavered between a human king of the race of David and a supernatural\nbeing of divine nature descended from heaven. And just as in the\nPersian representation of the coming of Saoshyant and the final victory\nof the Kingdom of Light there would be a preceding period during which\nthreatening signs would appear in the heavens, the whole of nature\nwould find itself in upheaval and mankind would be scourged with\nfearful plagues, so also the Jewish Apocalypse speaks of the \"woes\"\nof the Messiah and describes a period of terror which would precede\nthe coming of the Messiah. The coming of the power of God was looked\nupon as a miraculous catastrophe suddenly breaking in from on high,\nas a conflagration of the world followed by a new creation. The Jewish\nagreed with the Persian view in this also, that it made a heavenly\nkingdom of undisturbed bliss \"in the light of the everlasting life\nand in likeness of the angels\" follow the earthly world-wide empire\nof the Messiah. This they imagined on exactly the same lines as the\nPersian Paradise. There would the holy drink of the \"Water of Life\"\nand nourish themselves on the fruit which hang upon the \"Tree of\nLife.\" The wicked, on the other hand, would be cast into hell and\nsuffer in fearful torments the just punishment of their sins. [28]\n\nThe conception of a resurrection of the dead and a last judgment had\nhitherto been strange to the Jews. In pre-exilic days they allowed the\nbody to die and the soul after death to go down as a shadow without\nfeeling into Hades (Sheol), without disturbing themselves further\nabout its fate. Now, however, with the doctrine of the destruction\nof the world by fire and the general judgment, the idea of personal\nimmortality entered the world of Jewish thought. Thus it is said by\nDaniel that on the day of judgment the dead will rise again, some\nwaking to everlasting life, others to everlasting perdition. \"But the\nteachers will shine as the brightness of heaven, and those who led\nthe multitude to justice as the stars for ever and ever.\" [29] With\nthe acceptance of personal immortality the whole tone of religious\nthought was deepened and enriched in the direction of thought for\nthe individual. Former Jewish morality had been essentially of a\ncollective kind. It was not so much the individual as the people\nviewed collectively that was looked upon as the object of divine\nsolicitude. At this point the position, the road to which had been\nalready prepared by the prophets, was definitely established, that\nthe individual hoped for a personal religious salvation and as a\nconsequence felt in direct personal relationship with Jahwe. God\nindeed remained, as the Persians had taught them to understand\nhim, the superhuman lord of heaven enthroned in pure light, the\nsource of all life, the living God. His metaphysical qualities,\nhowever, his dazzling glory and unconquerable might were ever more\nand more overshadowed by his moral attributes: goodness, grace,\nand mercy appeared as the most prominent features in the character\nof Jahwe. God seemed a loving father who leads his children through\nlife with kindly care, and without whose consent not a hair of one of\nhis creatures could be touched. The strong tendency within Judaism,\nrepresented by the upper currents of pharisaic rabbinism, continually\ndrew the national boundaries closer, and was ever more anxiously\noccupied with a painfully strict observance of the letter of the\nlaw and a conscientious observance of ritualistic ordinances. Ethics\nthreatened to be extinguished under a system of conventional rules\nof an essentially juristic nature. Yet all the while a more human\nand natural morality was arising, an inward piety, warm-hearted,\npopular, and sound, which broke through the narrow limits of Jewish\nnationalism, and sent a fresh current into the heavy atmosphere of\nofficial legality. It was then that the groundwork of later Christian\nethics was laid in the purified morality of the psalms, aphorisms,\nand other edificatory writings of a Job, Baruch, Jesus son of Sirach,\n&c. It was then that the Jewish Monotheism set itself to extend\nits sway beyond the boundaries of its own land and to enter into\ncompetition with the other religions of antiquity, from which it was\nto draw back vanquished only before a matured Christianity.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nTHE HELLENISTIC IDEA OF A MEDIATOR (PHILO)\n\n\nWith Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire Palestine also was\ndrawn within the circle of Hellenistic culture. It was at first a\nvassal state of the Egyptian Ptolemies, and consequently at the\ncommencement of the second century before Christ came under the\noverlordship of the Syrian Seleucids. The customs and intellectual life\nof Greece forced their way into the quiet isolation of the priest-ruled\nJewish state and could not be expelled again, despite the national\nreaction under the Maccabees against foreign influences. Above all,\nhowever, the dispersal of the Jews contributed to bring about a\nsettlement of opposing views. Since the Exile the Jews had spread\nover all the countries of the East Mediterranean. Some had remained\nin Babylon, others were permanently settled especially in the ports\nas tradesmen, bankers, and merchants. They controlled the entire\nmoney market and trade of the East through their assiduous industry,\nmercantile sharpness, their lack of scruples, and the tenacity with\nwhich they held together, supported therein by their worship in common\nin the Synagogue. In the atmosphere of Greek philosophy and morality a\nstill further transformation and purification of Jahwe took place. All\ncommon human and material lineaments were dropped, and he developed\ninto a spiritual being of perfect goodness, such as Plato had described\nthe Godhead. Here the Jews found themselves face to face with the same\nproblem that had long occupied the Greek philosophers. This was the\nreconciliation of the supernatural loftiness and aloofness from the\nworld of their God with the demands of the religious consciousness\nthat required the immediate presence of Godhead.\n\nAmong the ideas which were borrowed by Judaism from the Persian\nreligion belonged those connected with the mediatory \"Word.\" As\nthe creative power of the Godhead, the bearer of revelation and\nrepresentative of God upon earth, the expression \"the word\" had already\nappeared in aphoristic literature. Under Gr\u00e6co-Egyptian influence\nthe term \"wisdom\" (sophia) had become the naturalised expression for\nit. \"Wisdom\" served to describe the activities in regard to man of the\nGod who held aloof from the world. In this connection it may be noted\nthat according to Persian ideas \"Wisdom\" under the name of Spenta\nArmaiti was considered as one of the six or seven Amesha Spentas\n(Amshaspands), those spirits that stood as a bodyguard closest to\nthe throne of God and corresponded to the Jewish archangels. She\nwas considered by the Persians as the daughter or spouse of\nAhuramazda. Already, in the so-called \"Wisdom of Solomon,\" written by\nan Alexandrian Jew in the last century before Christ, she was declared\nto be a separately existing spirit in close relation to God. Under the\nguise of a half-personal, half-material being--a power controlling the\nwhole of nature--she was described as the principle of the revelation\nof God in the creation, maintenance, and ruling of the world, as the\ncommon principle of life from on high and as the intermediary organ\nof religious salvation. Just as Plato had sought to overcome the\ndualism of the ideal and the material world by the conception of a\n\"world-soul,\" so \"Wisdom\" was intended to serve as an intermediary\nbetween the opposites, the God of the Jews and his creation. These\nefforts were continued by the Alexandrian Jew Philo (30 B.C. to 50\nA.D.), who tried to bring the Perso-Jewish conception of the \"Word\"\nor \"Wisdom\" into closer accord with the ideas of Greek philosophy\nthan the author of the \"Book of Wisdom\" had already done. Philo, too,\ncommenced with the opposition between an unknowable, unnameable God,\nabsolutely raised above the world, and material created existence. He\nimagined this opposition bridged over by means of \"powers\" which,\nas relatively self-existing individuals, messengers, servants, and\nrepresentatives of God, at one time more closely resembled Persian\nangels or Greek D\u00e6mons, at another time the Platonic \"Ideas,\" the\noriginals and patterns of God in creating. Essentially, however,\nthey bore the character of the so-called \"Fructifying powers,\"\nthose creative forces which infused a soul and design into formless\nmatter and by means of which the Stoic philosophers sought to explain\nexistence. As the first of these intermediate forces, or, indeed, as\nthe essence of them all, Philo considered the \"Logos,\" efficacious\nreason or the creative word of God. He called him the \"first-born\nson of God\" or the \"second God,\" the representative, interpreter,\nambassador, Archangel of God, or Prince of Angels. He considered him\nas the High Priest, who made intercession with God for the world,\nthe affairs of which he represented before him as the paraclete, the\nadvocate and consoler of the world, who was the channel to it of the\ndivine promises; as the tool with which God had fashioned the world,\nthe original and ideal of it to which God had given effect in its\ncreation--that which operated in all things; in a word, as the soul\nor spirit of the world, which the Stoics had identified with their\nGod, but which Philo distinguished from the other-world Divinity and\nlooked upon as his revelation and manifestation.\n\nIn essence only an expression for the sum total of all divine forces\nand activities, the Logos of Philo also was sometimes an impersonal\nmetaphysical principle, simply the efficacy of the Godhead, and\nsometimes an independent personality distinct from God. Just as the\nStoics had personified their world-reason in Hermes, the messenger of\nthe Gods, so the Egyptians had raised Amun Ra's magic word of creation\nto a self-existing personal mediatory being in Thoth the guide of\nsouls; the Babylonians, the word of fate of the great God Marduk in\nthe shape of Nabu; the Persians, the word of Ahuramazda in Vohu mano\nas well as in the Spenta Armaiti, the good thought of the creative\nGod. And just as according to Persian ideas it was at one time the\ndivine \"son\" and mediator \"Mithras,\" the collectivity of all divine\nforces, at another the ideal man Saoshyant who appeared as Saviour\nand Deliverer of the world, and just as both mingled in one form,\nso Philo also at one time described the Word as the collectivity of\nall creative ideas, at another only as the unembodied idea of man,\nthe ideal man, the direct divine image and immaterial pattern of\nthe material exemplars of humanity, that is effective therein as the\nsubject of all religious redemption. Indeed, he occasionally identified\nhim with the tree of life in Paradise, since both were everlasting and\n\"stood in the middle.\"\n\nAccording to Philo, man is unable of his own strength to free himself\nfrom the bonds of earthly existence. All deliverance depends upon the\nemancipation of the soul from the body and its sensuous desires. In\nconformity with his true spiritual and godlike nature, to become\nas perfect as God, is the highest virtue and at the same time true\nhappiness. This is attained by an insight into the divine reality of\nthings, by whole-hearted trust in God, by grateful recognition of the\ngoodness and love bestowed by him, showing itself in piety towards God\nas well as in charity and justice towards other men. But in addition\nthe Logos itself must be in us and cause for us the insight into our\ndivine nature. The Logos must guide us, come to the aid of our human\nweakness with his supernatural strength in the struggles against the\nworld and sin and raise us up to God. Thus the apotheosis of man is\nthe goal aimed at in all religious activity. The Logos, however, is\nthe only means to this end, in so far as we are raised through union\nwith him in faith and love to our true origin and life's source,\n\"the vision of God,\" and thereby have participation in his life.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nJESUS AS CULT-GOD IN THE CREED OF JEWISH SECTS\n\n\nAll religious spirits of the time longed to secure this happy vision\nand communion with God, and to obtain even here on earth a foretaste of\nthe heavenly life. The Jews sought to attain this end by a painfully\nexact observance of the ordinances of their law, but in so doing they\nbecame entangled in a mesh of such minute and tiresome regulations\nthat the more they applied themselves to the service of the law\nthe more difficult it appeared. It seemed to be no longer possible\nto reconcile the demands of everyday life with one's religious\nduties. Some therefore withdrew from the life of the world and in\nretirement and quiet endeavoured to devote themselves exclusively\nto the \"inner life.\" In Egypt the Therapeutes or Physicians, a\nreligious association composed of Jews and their proselytes, with their\nheadquarters in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, sought in this manner,\nas Philo informs us in his work \"On the Contemplative Life,\" to give\neffect to the claims of religion as expressed by Philo himself. [30]\nTheir religious observances resembled those of the Orphic-Pythagorean\nsects, as in abstinence from flesh and wine, admiration for virginity,\nvoluntary poverty, religious feasts and community singing, and the\nuse of white garments.\n\nThey made a deep study of the mystical writings of revelation that had\nbeen handed down, and these they used as a guide in the allegorical\nexplanation of the Mosaic law. They united a contemplative piety with\na common religious observance, and thus sought to strengthen themselves\nmutually in the certainty of religious salvation. Beyond the Jordan the\nJewish sect of the Essenes (from the Syrian word chase, plural chasen\nor chasaja) had their chief settlement. These called themselves, as is\nexpressed by their name, the \"Pious\" or \"Godfearing.\" In their esteem\nof temperance, celibacy, and poverty, their reprobation of slavery,\nprivate property, the taking of oaths, and blood-sacrifice, in the\nhonour they paid the sun as a visible manifestation of the divine\nlight, they agreed with the Therapeutes. They differed from them,\nhowever, in their monastic organisation and the regular manner in which\nthe life of the community was divided among different classes, their\nstrict subordination to superiors, their maintenance of a novitiate of\nseveral years, the secrecy of the traditions of the sect, and their\ncultivation of the healing art and magic. The Therapeutes passed\ntheir lives in leisurely contemplation and spiritual exercises; the\nEssenes, on the other hand, engaged in the rearing of stock, farming,\nand bee-culture, or they pursued a handicraft, and in the country\nplaces or towns of Jud\u00e6a, where they often dwelt together in houses of\nthe order, they lived as dwellers in a desert the life of purity and\nsanctity. Both sects, again, were alike in expecting an early end of\nthe world and in seeking to prepare themselves for the reception of the\npromises of God by the cultivation of brotherly dispositions amongst\nthemselves, by justice, good works, and benevolence towards their\nfellow-men, finding therein the special occupation of their lives. [31]\n\nOf what nature were the secret traditions upon which these sects\nrested? We know from the Jewish historian Josephus that the Essenes\nclung to an extreme dualism of soul and body, in which, indeed, they\nagreed with the other religious associations of antiquity. Like all\nmystical sects, they regarded the body as the grave and prison-house\nof the immortal soul, to which it had been banished from an earlier\nlife in light and blessedness. They also grounded their longing for\ndeliverance from the world of sense and their strivings towards the\nglory of a better life of the soul beyond the grave upon pessimism\nin regard to human existence. They even regarded the performance\nof secret rites as a necessary condition of redemption. But in the\nopinion of the Essenes it was essential above all to know the names of\nthe angels and d\u00e6mons who opened the passage to the different heavens,\ndisposed one above another. This knowledge was to be revealed to men\nby one of the higher gods, a god-redeemer. A conception allied to that\nlay at the root of the Book of Wisdom, as well as of Philo's work--the\nbelief in the magic power of the redemptive word of God, mingled by the\nEssenes with many strange Egyptian, Persian, and Babylonian ingredients\nand removed from the sphere of philosophic thought to the region\nof a rankly luxuriant superstition. Thus the closely related Jewish\nApocalypse had expressly supported the revelation of a secret divine\nwisdom. [32] Indeed, we now know that this whole world of thought\nbelonged to an exceedingly manifold syncretic religious system,\ncomposed of Babylonian, Persian, Jewish, and Greek ingredients,\nwhich ruled the whole of Western Asia in the last centuries before\nChrist. Its followers called themselves Adon\u00e6i, after the name of its\nsupposed founder, Ado (? Adonis). It is, however, generally described\nas the Mandaic religion, according to another name for its followers,\nthe so-called Mand\u00e6i (Gnostics). [33]\n\nOf the numberless sects into which this religion split only a few names\nhave come down to us, of which some played a part in the history of the\nheresies of early Christianity; for example, the Ophites or Nassenes,\nthe Ebionites, Perates, Sethianes, Heliognostics, Samps\u00e6es, &c. [34]\nWe are thus much better acquainted with their fundamental ideas,\nwhich were very fantastic and complicated. They all subscribed to\nthe belief in the redemption of the soul of man from its grave of\ndarkness by a mediatory being, originally hidden in God and then\nexpressly awakened or appointed by him for this purpose. In original\nMandaism he bore the name of Mand\u00e2 de hajj\u00ea--that is, Gnosis, or \"word\"\nof life. In the form of Hibil-ziw\u00e2, the Babylonian Marduk or Nabu,\nhe was to descend from heaven with the keys thereof, and by means of\nhis magic obtain the dominion of the world. He was to conquer those\nd\u00e6mons that had fallen away from God, introduce the end of the world,\nand lead back the souls of light to the highest Godhead.\n\nAs the Apocalyptics show, this view had numerous adherents among\nthe Jews of Palestine also. All those who found no satisfaction\nin the literalness of the Pharasaic beliefs and the business-like\nsuperficiality of the official Jewish religion, found edification in\nideas of this sort, which excited the imagination. They dealt with\nthem as \"mysteries,\" and sought, as may well be from fear of conflicts\nwith traditional religion, to keep them secret from the public. [35]\nHence it is that we have such an incomplete knowledge of this side\nof the religious life of the Jews. At any rate they clothed their\nexpected Messiah with the attributes of the Mandaic God of Mediation,\nand they appear, as is clear from the Apocalypse of Daniel and that\nof John, to have taken particular pleasure in the description of the\nscene where God calls (\"awakes\") the Redeemer to his mediatory office\nand installs him as Deliverer, Ruler of the World, and Judge of the\nliving and the dead.\n\nWe are accustomed to look upon the Jewish religion as strictly\nmonotheistic. In truth, it never was, even in the Mosaic times,\nuntil after the return from Exile. And this is clear, in spite of the\ntrouble which the composers of the so-called historic books of the\nOld Testament have taken to work up the traditions in a monotheistic\nsense and to obliterate the traces of the early Jewish polytheism,\nby transforming the ancient gods into patriarchs, heroes, angels,\nand servants of Jahwe. It was not entirely Babylonian, Persian, and\nGreek opinions which influenced Judaism in a polytheistic direction;\nfrom the beginning, besides the theory of one God, emphasised\nby the priesthood and official world, there existed a belief in\nother Gods. This constantly received fresh nourishment from foreign\ninfluences, and it appears to have been chiefly cultivated in the\nsecret societies. On the descent of the Israelites into Canaan each\ntribe brought with it its special God, under whose specific guidance it\nbelieved its deeds were accomplished. By the reforms of the Prophets\nthese Gods were suppressed; but the higher grew the regard for Jahwe\n(apparently the God of the tribe of Judah), and the further he was in\nconsequence withdrawn from the world to an unapproachable distance,\nthe more strongly the remembrance of the ancient Gods again arose and\nassumed the form of the recognition of divine intermediate beings, the\nso-called \"Sons of God.\" In these the longing for the direct presence\nand visible representation of God sought expression. Such appears to\nhave been the \"Presence,\" or \"Angel of God,\" with whom Jacob wrestled\nin the desert, [36] who led the Israelites out of Egypt and went before\nthem as a pillar of flame, [37] who fought against their enemies,\ndrove the Canaanites from their homes, [38] held intercourse with the\nprophets Elijah and Ezekiel, [39] and stood by the people of Jahwe in\nevery difficulty. [40] He is also called the \"King\" (Melech), or \"Son\"\nof Jahwe, [41] and thus exactly resembles the Babylonian Marduk, the\nPersian Mithras, the Phoenician Hercules or Moloch, \"the first-born\nson\" of God (Protogonos), who also appeared among the Orphics under\nthe name of Phanes (i.e., Countenance), who wrestles with Zeus at\nOlympia as Jacob with Jahwe, and, like him, dislocates his hip in\nthe struggle with Hippokoon. In the rabbinic theology he is compared\nwith the mystic Metatron, a being related to the Logos, \"The Prince of\nthe Presence,\" \"Leader of Angels,\" \"Lord of Lords,\" \"King of Kings,\"\n\"Commencement of the Way of God.\" He was also called the \"Protector,\"\n\"Sentinel,\" and \"Advocate\" of Israel, who lays petitions before God,\nand \"in whom is the name of the Lord.\" [42] Thus he is identical with\nthat Angel promised in the second Book of Moses, in whom also is the\nname of Jahwe, who was to lead Israel to victory over the Amorites,\nHittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites. [43] But\nhe, again, is no other than Joshua, who was said to have overthrown\nthese nations with Jahwe's aid. [44] But Joshua himself is apparently\nan ancient Ephraimitic God of the Sun and Fruitfulness, who stood\nin close relation to the Feast of the Pasch and to the custom of\ncircumcision. [45]\n\nNow, many signs speak in favour of the fact that Joshua or Jesus was\nthe name under which the expected Messiah was honoured in certain\nJewish sects. In Zech. iii. Joshua, who, according to Ezra iii. 2,\nled back the Jews into their old homes after the Babylonian captivity,\njust as the older Joshua brought back the Israelites into Canaan, the\npromised land of their fathers, was invested as High Priest by the\n\"Angel of the Lord,\" and promised the continuance of his priesthood\nso long as he walked in the ways of the Lord. In Zech. vi. 9-15\nthe High Priest Joshua is crowned as Messiah and brought into\nconnection with the \"branch\" under which the glory of God's kingdom\nwill come to pass. It is true that in this passage under the title\nof Messiah Zerubbabel, the leader of the Jews of the race of David,\nwas originally understood. In him the prophet thought he could\ndiscern that \"branch\" by which, in accordance with Isaiah xi. 1,\nthe House of David was again to obtain the rule. Since, however,\nthe great hopes set upon Zerubbabel as Messiah were not fulfilled,\na correction was made (and this before the Bible was translated\ninto Greek) in the text of the prophet, as follows: The name of\nZerubbabel was struck out, the plural changed into the singular,\nso that Joshua alone was represented as having been crowned, the\npromises regarding the Messiah accordingly also passing over to\nhim (Stade, \"Gesch. des Volkes Israel,\" 1888, ii. 126, note. H\u00fchn,\n\"Die messianischen Weissagungen des israel. Volkes,\" 1889, 62 et sq.).\n\nJesus was a name given, as will be still more clearly shown, not\nonly to the High Priest of Zechariah and to the successor of Moses,\nboth of whom were said to have led Israel back into its ancient\nhome, both having a decidedly Messianic character. The name in\nancient times also belonged to the Healthbringer and Patron of the\nPhysician--namely, Jasios or Jason, the pupil of Chiron skilled in\nhealing [46]--who in general shows a remarkable resemblance to the\nChristian Redeemer. Consider also the significant fact that three times\nat decisive turning-points in the history of the Israelites a Joshua\nappears who leads his people into their promised home, into Canaan\nand Jerusalem, into the Kingdom of God--the \"New Jerusalem.\" Now, as\nEpiphanius remarks in his \"History of the Heretics,\" Jesus bears in\nthe Hebrew language the same meaning as curator, therapeutes--that\nis, physician and curer. But the Therapeutes and Essenes regarded\nthemselves as physicians, and, above all, physicians of the soul. It\nis accordingly by no means improbable that they too honoured the God\nof their sect under this name. [47] We, moreover, read in a Parisian\nmagic-papyrus recently found and published by Wessely (line 3119\net sq.): \"I exort thee by Jesus the God of the Hebrews.\" The words\nare found in an ostensibly \"Hebrew Logos\" of that papyrus, the tone\nof which is quite ancient, moreover shows no trace of Christian\ninfluence, and is ascribed by the transcriber to \"the Pure,\" under\nwhich name, according to Dieterich, the Essenes or Therapeutes are to\nbe understood. [48] The Jessaes or Jessenes (Jessaioi) named themselves\nafter Jesus, or after \"the branch from the root of Jesse.\" [49] They\nwere closely connected on one side with the Essenes and on the other\nside with the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes or Nazoraes (Nazoraiori),\nif they were not absolutely identical. These were, as Epiphanius shows,\nin existence long before Christ, and had no knowledge of him. [50]\nThey were, however, called Nazoraes (Nazarenes (Nazarenos) is only\na linguistic variation of it, cf. Essaes and Essenes) because they\nhonoured the Mediator God, the divine \"son,\" as a protector and\nguardian (Syrian, Nasary\u00e1; Hebrew, Ha-n\u00f4sr\u00ee) (cf. \"the Protector of\nIsrael,\" also the fact that Mithras was honoured as \"Protector of\nthe World\"). According to Acts xxiv. 5 the first followers of Jesus\nwere also called Nazoraes or Nazarenes. The expressions \"Jesus\"\nand \"Nazorean\" were therefore originally of almost like meaning,\nand by the addition of \"the Nazorean\" or \"Nazarene\" Jesus is not\ncharacterised as the man of Nazareth, as the Evangelists represent it,\nbut as the Healer and Deliverer.\n\nWhether there was a place called Nazareth in pre-Christian days must\nbe considered as at least very doubtful. Such a place is not mentioned\neither in the Old Testament or in the Talmud, which, however, mentions\nmore than sixty Galilean towns; nor, again, by the Jewish historian\nJosephus, nor in the Apocrypha. Cheyne believes himself justified by\nthis in the conclusion that Nazareth in the New Testament is a pure\ngeographical fiction. [51]\n\nIt is only in the later phases of the tradition that the name appears\nin the New Testament as a place-name. In the earlier ones the Nazorean\n(Nazarene) only signifies the follower of a particular sect, or is\na surname of Jesus which characterises the significance attached to\nhim in the thoughts of his followers. \"The Nazorean\" appears here\nonly as an integral part of the whole name of Jesus, as Zeus Xenios,\nHermes Psychopompos, Apollo Pythios, &c., &c. It is applied to Jesus\nonly as Guardian of the world, Protector and Deliverer of Men from the\npower of sin and D\u00e6mons, but without any reference to a quite obscure\nand entirely unknown village named Nazareth, which is mentioned in\ndocuments beyond any dispute, only from the fourth century on (see\nEusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius). Or where else is a sect named after\nthe birthplace of its founder? [52] Moreover, even in the Gospels it\nis not Nazareth but Capernaum which is described as his city; while\nNazareth does not play any part at all in the life of Jesus. For the\npassages Matt. xiii. 53-58 and Mark vi. 1-6, according to which he\nhad no success with his miracles in his \"patris\" on account of the\nunbelief of the people, leave the question open whether under the\nname of \"patris\" one is to understand his father-city Nazareth or\nsomewhere else. The corresponding passage, Luke iv. 16-31, mentions\nNazareth, it is true, in connection with this incident; but it is\nin discrepancy with the older versions of Matthew and Mark, and it\nappears otherwise recognisable as a later redaction of the passages\nin the other Gospels. [53]\n\nNow the expression nazar or netzer in the sense of twig (sprout)\nis found not only in the well-known passage Isaiah xi. 1, where the\nMessiah is described as the \"rod from the tree of Jesse\" or \"the twig\nfrom its root.\" In fine, was not the twig looked upon as a symbol\nof the Redeemer in his character of a God of vegetation and life, as\nwas the case in the worship of Mithras, of Men, a god of Asia Minor,\nof Attis, Apollo, [54] &c., and did not this idea also make itself\nfelt in the name of the Nazareans? \"He shall be called a Nazarene,\"\n[55] accordingly, does not signify that he was to be born in the small\nvillage of Nazareth, which probably did not exist in the time of Jesus,\nbut that he is the promised netzer or Zemah, who makes all new, and\nrestores the time when \"one loads the other beneath vine and fig-tree,\"\n[56] and wonderful increase will appear. [57] Again, the possibility\nis not excluded of the name of the Nazareans having been confused with\nthat of the Nasiraes (Nazirites), those \"holy\" or \"dedicated\" ones,\nwho were a survival in Judea from the times when the Israelite tribes\nwere nomads. These sought to express their opposition to the higher\ncivilisation of the conquered land by patriarchal simplicity and purity\nof life, abstinence from the use of oil, wine, and the shears, &c. [58]\n\nAccording to this, Jesus (Joshua) was originally a divinity, a\nmediator, and God of healing of those pre-Christian Jewish sectaries,\nwith reference to whom we are obliged to describe the Judaism of the\ntime--as regards certain of its tendencies, that is--as a syncretic\nreligion. [59] \"The Revelation of John\" also appears to be a Christian\nredaction of an original Jewish work which in all likelihood belonged\nto a pre-Christian cult of Jesus. The God Jesus which appears in it has\nnothing to do with the Christian Jesus. Moreover, its whole range of\nideas is so foreign even to ancient Judaism that it can be explained\nonly by the influence of heathen religions upon the Jewish. [60]\nIt is exactly the same with the so-called \"Doctrine of the Twelve\nApostles.\" This too displays a Jewish foundation, and speaks of a\nJesus in the context of the words of the supper, who is in no wise\nthe same as the Christian Redeemer. [61] It is comprehensible that\nthe later Christians did all they could in order to draw the veil of\nforgetfulness over these things. Nevertheless Smith has succeeded\nin his book, \"The Pre-Christian Jesus,\" in showing clear evidences\neven in the New Testament of a cult of an old God Jesus. Among other\nthings the phrase \"ta peri tou Iesou\" (\"the things concerning\nJesus\") [62] which according to all appearance has no reference to\nthe history of Jesus, but only means the doctrines concerning him,\nand in any case could originally only have had this meaning, involves\na pre-Christian form of belief in a Jesus. But this point is above all\nsupported by the circumstance that even at the earliest commencement\nof the Christian propaganda we meet with the name of Jesus used in\nsuch a manner as to point to a long history of that name. For it\nis employed from the beginning in the driving out of evil spirits,\na fact that would be quite incomprehensible if its bearer had been\nmerely a man. Now we know from the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles\nthat it was not only the disciples of the Jesus of the Gospels, but\nalso others even in his lifetime (i.e., even in the first commencement\nof the Christian propaganda), healed diseases, and drove out evil\nspirits in the name of Jesus. From this it is to be concluded that\nthe magic of names was associated from of old with the conception\nof a divine healer and protector, and that Jesus, like Marduk, was\na name for this God of Healing. [63] Judging by this the Persian,\nbut above all the Babylonian, religion must have influenced the views\nof the above-named sects. For the superstition regarding names, the\nbelief in the magic power attributed to the name of a divine being,\nas well as the belief in Star Gods and Astral mythology, which is\na characteristic of Mandaism, all have Babylon as their home. The\nEssenes also appear to have exercised the magical and healing art of\nwhich they boasted in the form of wonder-working and the driving out\nof evil spirits by a solemn invocation of the name of their God of\nHealing. [64]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nTHE SUFFERINGS OF THE MESSIAH\n\n\nIn the most different religions the belief in a divine Saviour and\nRedeemer is found bound up with the conception of a suffering and dying\nGod, and this idea of a suffering and dying Messiah was by no means\nunknown to the Jews. It may be of no importance that in the Apocalypse\nof Esdras [65] the death of Christ is spoken of, since in the opinion\nof many this work only appeared in the first century after Christ;\nbut Deutero-Isaiah too, during the Exile, describes the chosen one\nand messenger of God as the \"suffering servant of God,\" as one who\nhad already appeared, although he had remained unknown and despised,\nhad died shamefully and been buried, but as one also who would rise up\nagain in order to fulfil the splendour of the divine promise. [66] This\nbrings to mind the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Gods of\nBabylon and of the whole of Nearer Asia; for example, Tammuz, Mithras,\nAttis, Melkart, and Adonis, Dionysus, the Cretan Zeus, and the Egyptian\nOsiris. The prophet Zechariah, moreover, speaks of the secret murder of\na God over which the inhabitants of Jerusalem would raise their lament,\n\"as in the case of Hadad-rimmon (Ramm\u00e2n) in the valley of Megiddon,\"\nthat is, as at the death of Adonis, one of the chief figures among\nthe Gods believed in by the Syrians. [67] Ezekiel also describes the\nwomen of Jerusalem, sitting before the north gate of the city and\nweeping over Tammuz. [68] The ancient Israelites, too, were already\nwell acquainted with the suffering and dying Gods of the neighbouring\npeoples. Now, indeed, it is customary for Isaiah's \"servant of God\"\nto be held to refer to the present sufferings and future glory of\nthe Jewish people, and there is no doubt that the prophet understood\nthe image in that sense. At the same time Gunkel rightly maintains\nthat in the passage of Isaiah referred to, the figure of a God who\ndies and rises again stands in the background, and the reference to\nIsrael signifies nothing more than a new symbolical explanation of\nthe actual fate of a God. [69]\n\nEvery year the forces of nature die away to reawaken to a new life only\nafter a long period. The minds of all peoples used to be deeply moved\nby this occurrence--the death whether of nature as a whole beneath\nthe influence of the cold of winter, or of vegetable growth under the\nparching rays of the summer sun. Men looked upon it as the fate of a\nfair young God whose death they deeply lamented and whose rebirth or\nresurrection they greeted with unrestrained rejoicing. On this account\nfrom earliest antiquity there was bound up with the celebration\nof this God an imitative mystery under the form of a ritualistic\nrepresentation of his death and resurrection. In the primitive stages\nof worship, when the boundaries between spirit and nature remained\nalmost entirely indistinct, and man still felt himself inwardly in a\nsympathetic correspondence with surrounding nature, it was believed\nthat one could even exercise an influence upon nature or help it in\nits interchange between life and death, and turn the course of events\nto one's own interest. For this purpose man was obliged to imitate\nit. \"Nowhere,\" says Frazer, to whom we are indebted for a searching\ninquiry into all ideas and ritualistic customs in this connection,\n\"were these efforts more strictly and systematically carried out than\nin Western Asia. As far as names go they differed in different places,\nin essence they were everywhere alike. A man, whom the unrestrained\nphantasy of his adorers clothed with the garments and attributes\nof a God, used to give his life for the life of the world. After he\nhad poured from his own body into the stagnating veins of nature a\nfresh stream of vital energy, he was himself delivered over to death\nbefore his own sinking strength should have brought about a general\nruin of the forces of nature, and his place was then taken by another,\nwho, like all his forerunners, played the ever-recurring drama of the\ndivine resurrection and death.\" [70] Even in historic times this was\nfrequently carried out with living persons. These had formerly been\nthe kings of the country or the priests of the God in question, but\ntheir place was now taken by criminals. In other cases the sacrifice\nof the deified man took place only symbolically, as with the Egyptian\nOsiris, the Persian Mithras, the Phrygian Attis, the Syrian Adonis,\nand the Tarsic (Cilician) Sandan (Sandes). In these cases a picture\nof the God, an effigy, or a sacred tree-trunk took the place of the\n\"God man.\" Sufficient signs, however, still show that in such cases\nit was only a question of a substitute under milder forms of ritual\nfor the former human victim. Thus, for example, the name of the High\nPriest of Attis, being also Attis, that is, \"father,\" the sacrificial\nself-inflicted wound on the occasion of the great feast of the God\n(March 22nd to 27th), and the sprinkling with his blood of the picture\nof the God that then took place, makes us recognise still more plainly\na later softening of an earlier custom of self-immolation. [71] With\nthe idea of revivifying dying nature by the sacrifice of a man was\nassociated that of the \"scapegoat.\" The victim did not only represent\nto the people their God, but at the same time stood for the people\nbefore God and had to expiate by his death the misdeeds committed by\nthem during the year. [72] As regards the manner of death, however,\nthis varied in different places between death by his own sword or\nthat of the priest, by the pyre or the gibbet (gallows).\n\nIn this way we understand the 53rd chapter of Isaiah: \"Surely he\nhath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him\nstricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our\ntransgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement\nof our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we\nlike sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;\nand the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed,\nyet he humbled himself, and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led\nto the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea,\nhe opened not his mouth. He was cut off out of the land of the living;\nfor the transgression of my people was he stricken. And they made\nhis grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death; although\nhe had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. When\nthou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed,\nhe shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper\nin his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul [? sufferings],\nand shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant\njustify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I\ndivide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil\nwith the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was\nnumbered with the transgressors; yet he bare the sin of many, and made\nintercession for the transgressors.\" Here we obviously have to do with\na man who dies as an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of his people,\nand by his death benefiting the lives of the others is on that account\nraised to be a God. Indeed, the picture of the just man suffering, all\ninnocent as he is, itself varies between a human and a divine being.\n\nAnd now let us enter into the condition of the soul of such an unhappy\none, who as \"God man\" suffers death upon the gibbet, and we understand\nthe words of the 22nd Psalm: \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken\nme? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my\nroaring? O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou answereth not;\nand in the night season, and am not silent. But thou art holy, O thou\nthat inhabitest the praises of Israel. Our fathers trusted in thee;\nthey trusted, and thou didst deliver them. They cried unto thee, and\nwere delivered; they trusted in Thee, and were not ashamed. But I am\na worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All\nthey that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake\nthe lip, saying, Commit thyself unto the Lord, let him deliver him:\nlet him deliver him, seeing he delighteth in him.... Many bulls have\ncompassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gape\nupon me with their mouth, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am\npoured out like water. And all my bones are out of joint: my heart\nis like wax: it is melted in the midst of my bowels.... They pierced\nmy hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones. They look and stare\nupon me: they part my garments among them, and upon my vesture do\nthey cast lots. But be not thou far off, O Lord: O Thou, my succour,\nhaste Thee to help me.... Save me from the lion's mouth, yea, from\nthe horns of the wild oxen....\"\n\nWhen the poet of the psalms wished to describe helplessness in its\ndirest extremity, before his eyes there came the picture of a man, who,\nhanging upon the gibbet, calls upon God's aid, while round about him\nthe people gloat over his sufferings, which are to save them; and the\nattendants who had taken part in the sacrifice divide among themselves\nthe costly garments with which the God-king had been adorned.\n\nThe employment of such a picture presupposes that the occurrence\ndepicted was not unknown to the poet and his public, whether it\ncame before their eyes from acquaintance with the religious ideas\nof their neighbours or because they were accustomed to see it in\ntheir own native usages. As a matter of fact in ancient Israel human\nsacrifices were by no means unusual. This appears from numberless\npassages of the Old Testament, and has been already exhaustively set\nforth by Ghillany in his book \"Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebr\u00e4er\"\n(1842), and by Daumer in his \"Der Feuer- und Molochdienst der alten\nHebr\u00e4er.\" Thus we read in 2 Sam. xxi. 6-9 of the seven sons of the\nHouse of Saul, who were delivered over by David to the Gibeonites,\nwho hung them on the mountain before the Lord. Thus was God appeased\ntowards the land. [73] In Numb. xxv. 4 Jahwe bade Moses hang the chiefs\nof the people \"to the Lord before the sun, in order that the bitter\nwrath of the Lord might be turned from Israel.\" And according to the\nBook of Joshua this latter dedicated the inhabitants of the city of Ain\nto the Lord, and after the capture of the city hung their king upon\na tree, [74] while in the tenth chapter (15-26) he even hangs five\nkings at one time. Indeed, it appears that human sacrifice formed a\nregular part of the Jewish religion in the period before the Exile;\nwhich indeed was but to be expected, considering the relationship\nbetween Jahwe and the Phoenician Baal. Jahwe himself was, moreover,\noriginally only another form of the old Semitic Fire- and Sun-God;\nthe God-king (Moloch or Melech), who was honoured under the image of\na Bull, was represented at this time as a \"smoking furnace\" [75] and\nwas gratified and propitiated by human sacrifices. [76] Even during\nthe Babylonian captivity, despite the voices raised against it by\nsome prophets in the last years of the Jewish state, sacrifices of\nthis kind were offered by the Jews; until they were suppressed under\nthe rule of the Persians, and in the new Jewish state were expressly\nforbidden. But even then they continued in secret and could easily be\nrevived at any time, so soon as the excitement of the popular mind in\nsome time of great need seemed to demand an extraordinary victim. [77]\n\nNow the putting to death of a man in the r\u00f4le of a divine ruler was\nin ancient times very often connected with the celebration of the\nnew year. This is brought to our mind even at the present day by the\nGerman and Slav custom of the \"bearing out\" of death at the beginning\nof spring, when a man or an image of straw symbolising the old year or\nwinter, is taken round amidst lively jesting and is finally thrown into\nthe water or ceremonially burnt, while the \"Lord of May,\" crowned with\nflowers, makes his entrance. Again, the Roman Saturnalia, celebrated\nin December, during which a mock king wielded his sceptre over a world\nof joy and licence and unbounded folly, and all relationships were\ntopsy-turvy, the masters playing the part of slaves and vice-vers\u00e2,\nin the most ancient times used to be held in March as a festival of\nspring. And in this case, too, the king of the festival had to pay\nfor his short reign with his life. In fact, the Acts of St. Dasius,\npublished by Cumont, show that the bloody custom was still observed\nby the Roman soldiers on the frontiers of the Empire in the year 303\nA.D. [78]\n\nIn Babylon the Feast of the Sak\u00e6es corresponded to the Roman\nSaturnalia. It was ostensibly a memorial of the inroad of the Scythian\nSakes into Nearer Asia, and according to Frazer was identical with the\nvery ancient new year's festival of the Babylonians, the Zakmuk. This\ntoo was associated with a reversal of all usual relationships. A\nmock king, a criminal condemned to death, was here also the central\nfigure--an unhappy being, to whom for a few days was accorded absolute\nfreedom and every kind of pleasure, even to the using of the royal\nharem, until on the last day he was divested of his borrowed dignity,\nstripped naked, scourged, and then burnt. [79] The Jews gained a\nknowledge of this feast during the Babylonian captivity, borrowed\nit from their oppressors, and celebrated it shortly before their\nPasch under the name of the Feast of Purim, ostensibly, as the Book\nof Esther is at pains to point out, as a memorial of a great danger\nfrom which in Persia during the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) they\nwere saved by the craft of Esther and her uncle Mordecai. Jensen,\nhowever, has pointed out in the Vienna Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Kunde des\nMorgenlandes [80] that the basis of the narrative of Esther is an\nopposition between the chief Gods of Babylon and those of hostile\nElam. According to his view under the names of Esther and Mordecai\nare hidden the names of Istar, the Babylonian Goddess of fertility,\nand Marduk, her \"son\" and \"beloved.\" At Babylon during the Feast\nof the Sak\u00e6es, under the names of the Elamite Gods Vashti and Haman\n(Humman), they were put out of the way as representatives of the old\nor wintry part of the year in order that they might rise up again\nunder their real names and bring into the new year or the summer half\nof the year. [81] Thus the Babylonian king of the Sak\u00e6es also played\nthe part of a God and suffered death as such upon the pyre. Now we\nhave grounds for assuming that the later Jewish custom at the Feast\nof Purim of hanging upon a gibbet and burning a picture or effigy\nrepresenting the evil Haman, originally consisted, as at Babylon,\nin the putting to death of a real man, some criminal condemned to\ndeath. Here, too, then was seen not only a representative of Haman,\nbut one also of Mordecai, a representative of the old as well as of\nthe new year, who in essence was one and the same being. While the\nformer was put to death at the Purim feast, the latter, a criminal\nchosen by lot, was given his freedom on this occasion, clothed with\nthe royal insignia of the dead man and honoured as the representative\nof Mordecai rewarded by Ahasuerus for his services.\n\n\"Mordecai,\" it is said in the Book of Esther, \"went out from the\nking in royal attire, gold and white, with a great crown of gold, and\ncovered with a robe of linen and purple. And the town of Susa rejoiced\nand was merry.\" [82] Frazer has discovered that in this description we\nhave before us the picture of an old Babylonian king of the Sak\u00e6es,\nwho represented Marduk, as he entered the chief town of the country\nside, and thus introduced the new year. At the same time it appears\nthat in reality the procession of the mock king was less serious\nand impressive than the author of the Book of Esther would out of\nnational vanity make us believe. Thus Lagarde has drawn attention to\nan old Persian custom which used to be observed every year at the\nbeginning of spring in the early days of March, which is known as\n\"the Ride of the Beardless One.\" [83] On this occasion a beardless\nand, when possible, one-eyed yokel, naked, and accompanied by a\nroyal body-guard and a troop of outriders, was conducted in solemn\npomp through the city seated upon an ass, amidst the acclamations of\nthe crowd, who bore branches of palm and cheered the mock king. He\nhad the right to collect contributions from the rich people and\nshopkeepers along the route which he followed. Part of these went\ninto the coffers of the king, part were assigned to the collector,\nand he could without more ado appropriate the property of another\nin case the latter refused his demands. He had, however, to finish\nhis progress and disappear within a strictly limited time, for in\ndefault of this he exposed himself to the danger of being seized by\nthe crowd and mercilessly cudgelled to death. People hoped that from\nthis procession of \"the Beardless One\" an early end of winter and a\ngood year would result. From this it appears that here too we have\nto do with one of those innumerable and multiform spring customs,\nwhich at all times and among the most diverse nations served to\nhasten the approach of the better season. The Persian \"Beardless One\"\ncorresponded with the Babylonian king of the Sak\u00e6es, and appears to\nhave represented the departing winter. Frazer concludes from this\nthat the criminal also who played the part of the Jewish \"Mordecai\"\nwith similar pomp rode through the city like \"the Beardless One,\" and\nhad to purchase his freedom with the amusement which he afforded the\npeople. In this connection he recalls a statement of Philo according\nto which, on the occasion of the entry of the Jewish King Agrippa into\nAlexandria, a half-crazy street sweeper was solemnly chosen by the\nrabble to be king. After the manner of \"the Beardless One,\" covered\nwith a robe and bearing a crown of paper upon his head and a stick\nin his hand for a sceptre, he was treated by a troop of merry-makers\nas a real king. [84] Philo calls the poor wretch Karabas. This is\nprobably only a corruption of the Hebrew name Barabbas, which means\n\"Son of the Father.\" It was accordingly not the name of an individual,\nbut the regular appellation of whoever had at the Purim feast to\nplay the part of Mordecai, the Babylonian Marduk, that is, the new\nyear. This is in accordance with the original divine character of\nthe Jewish mock king. For as \"sons\" of the divine father all the\nGods of vegetation and fertility of Nearer Asia suffered death, and\nthe human representatives of these gods had to give their lives for\nthe welfare of their people and the renewed growth of nature. [85]\nIt thus appears that a kind of commingling of the Babylonian Feast of\nthe Sak\u00e6es and the Persian feast of \"the Beardless One\" took place\namong the Jews, owing to their sojourn in Babylon under Persian\noverlordship. The released criminal made his procession as Marduk\n(Mordecai) the representative of the new life rising from the dead,\nbut it was made in the ridiculous r\u00f4le of the Persian \"Beardless\nOne\"--that is, the representative of the old year--while this latter\nwas likewise represented by another criminal, who, as Haman, had to\nsuffer death upon the gallows. In their account of the last events of\nthe life of the Messiah, Jesus, the custom at the Jewish Purim feast,\nalready referred to, passed through the minds of the Evangelists. They\ndescribed Jesus as the Haman, Barabbas as the Mordecai of the year,\nand in so doing, on account of the symbol of the lamb of sacrifice,\nthey merged the Purim feast in the feast of Easter, celebrated a little\nlater. They, however, transferred the festive entry into Jerusalem of\n\"the Beardless One,\" his hostile measures against the shopkeepers\nand money-changers, and his being crowned in mockery as \"King of\nthe Jews,\" from Mordecai-Barabbas to Haman-Jesus, thus anticipating\nsymbolically the occurrences which should only have been completed\non the resurrection of the Marduk of the new year. [86] According\nto an old reading of Math. xxvii. 18 et seq., which, however, has\ndisappeared from our texts since Origen, Barabbas, the criminal set\nagainst the Saviour, is called \"Jesus Barabbas\"--that is, \"Jesus,\nthe son of the Father.\" [87] May an indication of the true state\nof the facts not lie herein, and may the figure of Jesus Barabbas,\nthe God of the Year, corresponding to both halves of the year, that\nof the sun's course upwards and downwards, not have separated into\ntwo distinct personalities on the occasion of the new year's feast?\n\nThe Jewish Pasch was a feast of spring and the new year, on the\noccasion of which the firstfruits of the harvest and the first-born of\nmen and beasts were offered to the God of sun and sky. Originally this\nwas also associated with human sacrifices. Here too such a sacrifice\npassed, as was universal in antiquity, for a means of expiation,\natoning for the sins of the past year and ensuring the favour of Jahwe\nfor the new year. [88] \"As representing all the souls of the first-born\nare given to God; they are the means of union between Jahwe and his\npeople; the latter can only remain for ever Jahwe's own provided a new\ngeneration always offers its first-born in sacrifice to God. This was\nthe chief dogma of ancient Judaism; all the hopes of the people were\nfixed thereon; the most far-reaching promises were grounded upon the\nreadiness to sacrifice the first-born.\" [89] The more valuable such\na victim was, the higher the rank which he bore in life, so much the\nmore pleasing was his death to God. On this account they were \"kings\"\nwho, according to the Books of Joshua and Samuel, were \"consecrated\"\nto the Lord. Indeed, in the case of the seven sons of the house of Saul\nwhom David caused to be hung, the connection between their death and\nthe Pasch is perfectly clear, when it is said that they died \"before\nthe Lord\" at the time of the barley harvest (i.e., of the Feast of the\nPasch). [90] Thus there could be no more efficacious sacrifice than\nwhen a king or ruler offered his first-born. It was on this account\nthat, as Justin informs us, [91] the banished Carthaginian general\nMaleus caused his son Cartalo, decked out as a king and priest, to be\nhung in sight of Carthage while it was being besieged by him, thereby\ncasting down the besiegers so much that he captured the city after\na few days. It was on this account that the Carthaginian Hamilcar at\nthe siege of Agrigentum (407 B.C.) sacrificed his own son, and that\nthe Israelites relinquished the conquest of Moab, when the king of\nthis country offered his first-born to the Gods. [92] Here, too, the\nhuman victim seems to have been only the representative of a divine\none, as when, for example, the Phoenicians in Tyre until the time of\nthe siege of that city by Alexander sacrificed each year, according\nto Pliny, a boy to Kronos, i.e., Melkart or Moloch (king). [93] This\nTyrian Melkart, however, is the same as he to whom, as Porphyry states,\na criminal was annually sacrificed at Rhodes. According to Philo of\nByblos the God was called \"Israel\" among the Phoenicians, and on the\noccasion of a great pestilence, in order to check the mortality, he\nis said to have sacrificed his first-born son Jehud (Judah), i.e.,\n\"the Only one,\" having first decked him out in regal attire. [94]\nThus Abraham also sacrificed his first-born to Jahwe. Abraham\n(the \"great father\") is, however, only another name for Israel,\n\"the mighty God.\" This was the earliest designation of the God of\nthe Hebrews, until it was displaced by the name Jahwe, being only\nemployed henceforth as the name of the people belonging to him. The\nname of his son Isaac (Jish\u00e2k) marks the latter out as \"the smiling\none.\" This however, does not refer, as Goldzither [95] thinks, to\nthe smiling day or the morning light, but to the facial contortions\nof the victim called forth by the pains he endured from the flames\nin the embrace of the glowing oven. These contortions were anciently\ncalled \"sardonic laughter,\" on account of the sacrifices to Moloch\nin Crete and Sardinia. [96] When, as civilisation increased, human\nsacrifices were done away with in Israel, and with the development\nof monotheism the ancient Gods were transformed into men, the story\nof Genesis xxii. came into existence with the object of justifying\n\"historically\" the change from human to animal victims. The ancient\ncustom according to which amongst many peoples of antiquity, kings,\nthe sons of kings, and priests were not allowed to die a natural\ndeath, but, after the expiration of a certain time usually fixed\nby an oracle, had to suffer death as a sacrificial victim for the\ngood of their people, must accordingly have been in force originally\nin Israel also. Thus did Moses and Aaron also offer themselves for\ntheir people in their capacity of leader and high priest. [97] But\nsince both, and especially Moses, passed as types of the Messiah, the\nopinion grew up quite naturally that the expected great and mighty\nleader and high priest of Israel, in whom Moses should live again,\n[98] had to suffer the holy death of Moses and Aaron as sacrificial\nvictims. [99] The view that the idea of a suffering and dying Messiah\nwas unknown to the Jews cannot accordingly be maintained. Indeed,\nin Daniel ix. 26 mention is made of a dying Christ. We saw above\nthat among the Jews of the post-exilic period the thought of the\nMessiah was associated with the personality of Cyrus. Now of Cyrus\nthe story goes that this mighty Persian king suffered death upon\nthe gibbet by the order of the Scythian queen Tomyris. [100] But in\nJustin the Jew Trypho asserts that the Messiah will suffer and die\na death of violence. [101] Indeed, what is more, the Talmud looks\nupon the death of the Messiah (with reference to Isaiah liii.) as\nan expiatory death for the sins of his people. From this it appears\n\"that in the second century after Christ, people were, at any rate\nin certain circles of Judaism, familiar with the idea of a suffering\nMessiah, suffering too as an expiation for human sins.\" [102]\n\nThe Rabbinists separate more accurately two conceptions of the\nMessiah. According to one, in the character of a descendant of\nDavid and a great and divine hero he was to release the Jews from\nservitude, found the promised world-wide empire, and sit in judgment\nover men. This is the Jewish conception of the Messiah, of which\nKing David was the ideal. [103] According to the other he was to\nassemble the ten tribes in Galilee and lead them against Jerusalem,\nonly to be overthrown, however, in the battle against Gog and Magog\nunder the leadership of Armillus on account of Jeroboam's sin--that\nis, on account of the secession of the Israelites from the Jews. The\nTalmud describes the last-mentioned Messiah, in distinction from the\nfirst, as the son of Joseph or Ephraim. This is done with reference\nto the fact that the kingdom of Israel included above all the tribes\nof Ephraim and Manasseh, and that these traced back their origin\nto the mythical Joseph. He is thus the Messiah of the Israelites\nwho had separated from the Jews, and especially, as it appears,\nof the Samaritans. This Messiah, \"the son of Joseph,\" it is said,\n\"will offer himself in sacrifice and pour forth his soul in death,\nand his blood will atone for the people of God.\" He himself will\ngo to heaven. Then, however, the other Messiah, \"the son of David,\"\nthe Messiah of the Jews in a narrower sense, will come and fulfil the\npromises made to them, in which connection Zech. xii. 10 sq. and xiv. 3\nsq. seem to have influenced this whole doctrine. [104] According to\nDalman, [105] the figure of the Messiah ben Joseph first appeared\nin the second or third century after Christ. Bousset too appears\nto consider it a \"later\" tradition, although he cannot deny that the\nJewish Apocalypses of the end of the first thousand years after Christ,\nwhich are the first to make extensive mention of the matter, may have\ncontained \"very ancient\" traditions. According to Persian beliefs,\ntoo, Mithras was the suffering Redeemer and mediator between God and\nthe world, while Saoshyant, on the other hand, was the judge of the\nworld who would appear at the end of all time and obtain the victory\nover Ariman (Armillus). In the same way the Greek myth distinguished\nfrom the older Dionysus, Zagreus, the son of Persephone, who died a\ncruel death at the hands of the Titans, a younger God of the same name,\nson of Zeus and Semele, who was to deliver the world from the shackles\nof darkness. Precisely the same relationship exists between Prometheus,\nthe suffering, and Heracles, the triumphant deliverer of the world. We\nthus obviously have to do here with a very old and wide-spread myth,\nand it is scarcely necessary to point out how closely the two figures\nof the Samaritan and Jewish Messiahs correspond to the Haman and\nMardachai of the Jewish Purim feast, in order to prove the extreme\nantiquity of this whole conception. The Gospel united into one the\ntwo figures of the Messiah, which had been originally separate. From\nthe Messiah ben Joseph it made the human Messiah, born in Galilee,\nand setting out from there with his followers for Jerusalem, there to\nsuccumb to his adversaries. On the other hand, from the Messiah ben\nDavid it made the Messiah of return and resurrection. At the same time\nit elevated and deepened the whole idea of the Messiah in the highest\ndegree by commingling the conception of the self-sacrificing Messiah\nwith that of the Paschal victim, and this again with that of the God\nwho offers his own son in sacrifice. Along with the Jews it looked\nupon Jesus as the \"son\" of King David, at the same time, however,\npreserving a remembrance of the Israelite Messiah in that it also gave\nhim Joseph as father; and while it said with respect to the first idea\nthat he was born at Bethlehem, the city of David, it assigned him in\nconnection with the latter Nazareth of Galilee as his birthplace,\nand invented the abstruse story of the journey of his parents to\nBethlehem in order to be perfectly impartial towards both views.\n\nAnd now, who is this Joseph, as son of whom the Messiah was to be\na suffering and dying creature like any ordinary man? Winckler has\npointed out in his \"Geschichte Israels\" that under the figure of\nthe Joseph of the Old Testament, just as under that of Joshua, an\nancient Ephraimitic tribal God is concealed. Joseph is, as Winckler\nexpresses it, \"the heroic offspring of Baal of Garizim, an offshoot\nof the Sun-God, to whom at the same time characteristics of Tammuz,\nthe God of the Spring Sun, are transferred.\" [106] Just as Tammuz had\nto descend into the under-world, so was Joseph cast into the well,\nin which, according to the \"Testament of the twelve Patriarchs,\"\n[107] he spent three months and five days. This betokens the winter\nmonths and five additional days during which the sun remains in the\nunder-world. And again he is cast into prison; and just as Tammuz,\nafter his return from the under-world, brings a new spring to the\nearth, so does Joseph, after his release from confinement, introduce\na season of peace and happiness for Egypt. [108] On this account he\nwas called in Egypt Psontomphanech, that is, Deliverer of the World,\nin view of his divine nature, and later passed among the Jews also as\na prototype of the Messiah. Indeed, it appears that the Evangelists\nthemselves regarded him in such a light, for the story of the two\nfellow-prisoners of Joseph, the baker and cupbearer of Pharaoh, one\nof whom, as Joseph foretold, was hanged, [109] while the other was\nagain received into favour by the king, was transformed by them into\nthe story of the two robbers who were executed at the same time as\nJesus, one of whom mocked the Saviour while the other besought him\nto remember him when he entered into his heavenly kingdom. [110]\n\nBut the Ephraimitic Joshua too must have been a kind of Tammuz\nor Adonis. His name (Joshua, Syrian, Jeshu) characterises him as\nsaviour and deliverer. As such he also appears in the Old Testament,\nfinally leading the people of Israel into the promised land after\nlong privations and sufferings. According to the Jewish Calendar\nthe commencement of his activity was upon the tenth of Nisan,\non which the Paschal lamb was chosen, and it ended with the Feast\nof the Pasch. Moses introduced the custom of circumcision and the\nredemption of the first-born male, and Joshua was supposed to have\nrevived it. [111] At the same time he is said to have replaced the\nchild victims, which it had been customary to offer to Jahwe in early\ndays, by the offering of the foreskin of the male and thereby to have\nestablished a more humane form of sacrificial worship. This brings to\nour mind the substitution of an animal victim for a human one in the\nstory of Isaac (Jish\u00e2ks). It also brings to mind Jesus who offered his\nown body in sacrifice at the Pasch as a substitute for the numberless\nbloody sacrifices of expiation of prior generations. Again, according\nto an ancient Arabian tradition, the mother of Joshua was called Mirzam\n(Mari\u00e1m, Maria), as the mother of Jesus was, while the mother of Adonis\nbore the similar sounding name of Myrrha, which also expressed the\nmourning of the women at the lament for Adonis [112] and characterised\nthe mother of the Redeemer God as \"the mother of sorrow.\" [113]\n\nBut what is above all decisive is that the son of the \"Ploughman\"\nJephunneh, Caleb (i.e., the Dog), stands by Joshua's side as a hero of\nequal rank. His name points in the same way to the time of the summer\nsolstice, when in the mouth of the \"lion\" the dog-star (Sirius) rises,\nwhile his descent from Nun, the Fish or Aquarius, indicates Joshua\nas representing the winter solstice. [114] Just as Joshua belonged to\nthe tribe of Ephraim, to which according to the Blessing of Jacob the\nFishes of the the Zodiac refer, [115] so Caleb belonged to the tribe\nof Judah, which Jacob's Blessing likened to a lion; [116] and while\nthe latter as Calub (Chelub) has Shuhah for brother, that is, the Sun\ndescending into the kingdom of shadows (the Southern Hemisphere),\n[117] in like manner Joshua represents the Spring Sun rising out\nof the night of winter. They are thus both related to one another\nin the same way as the annual rise and decline of the sun, and as,\naccording to Babylonian ideas, are Tammuz and Nergal, who similarly\ntypify the two halves of the year. When Joshua dies at Timnath-heres,\nthe place of the eclipse of the Sun (i.e., at the time of the summer\nsolstice, at which the death of the Sun-God was celebrated [118]),\nhe appears again as a kind of Tammuz, while the \"lamentation\" of the\npeople at his death [119] alludes possibly to the lamentation at the\ndeath of the Sun-God. [120]\n\nIt cannot be denied after all this that the conception of a suffering\nand dying Messiah was of extreme antiquity amongst the Israelites\nand was connected with the earliest nature-worship, although later it\nmay indeed have become restricted and peculiar to certain exclusive\ncircles. [121]\n\nThe Jewish representative of Haman suffered death at the Feast of\nPurim on account of a crime, as a deserved punishment which had been\nawarded him. The Messiah Jesus, on the other hand, according to the\nwords of Isaiah, took the punishment upon himself, being \"just.\" He\nwas capable of being an expiatory victim for the sins of the whole\npeople, precisely because he least of all deserved such a fate.\n\nPlato had already in his \"Republic\" sketched the picture of a \"just\nman\" passing his life unknown and unhonoured amidst suffering and\npersecution. His righteousness is put to the proof and he reaches\nthe highest degree of virtue, not allowing himself to be shaken in\nhis conduct. \"The just man is scourged, racked, thrown into prison,\nblinded in both eyes, and finally, when he has endured all ills,\nhe is executed, and he recognises that one should be determined not\nto be just but to appear so.\" In Pharisaic circles he passed as a\njust man who by his own undeserved sufferings made recompense for\nthe sins of the others and made matters right for them before God,\nas, for example, in the Fourth Book of the Maccabees the blood of\nthe martyrs is represented as the expiatory offering on account of\nwhich God delivered Israel. The hatred of the unjust and godless\ntowards the just, the reward of the just and the punishment of the\nunjust, were favourite themes for aphoristic literature, and they\nwere fully dealt with in the Book of Wisdom, the Alexandrian author\nof which was presumably not unacquainted with the Platonic picture\nof the just man. He makes the godless appear conversing and weaving\nplots against the just. \"Let us then,\" he makes them say, \"lie in\nwait for the righteous; because he is not to our liking and he is\nclean contrary to our doings; he upbraideth us with our offending\nthe law and reproacheth us with our sins against our training. He\nprofesseth to have the knowledge of God; and he calleth himself\nthe child of the Lord. He proved to be to us for the reproof of our\ndesigns. He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not\nlike other men's, his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed\nof him as counterfeits; he abstaineth from our ways as from filth;\nhe pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed and maketh his boast\nthat God is his father. Let us see if his words be true: and let us\nprove what will happen in the end of him. For if the just man be the\nson of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his\nenemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture that we\nmay know his meekness and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with\na shameful death: thus will he be known by his words.\" [122] \"But\nthe souls of the just,\" continues the author of the Book of Wisdom,\n\"are in the hands of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In\nthe sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is\ntaken for misery, and their going from us for utter destruction:\nbut they are in peace. For though they be punished in the sight of\nmen yet is their hopes full of immortality. And having been a little\nchastised, they shall be greatly rewarded: for God proved them and\nfound them worthy for himself. As gold in the furnace hath he tried\nthem, and received them as a burnt offering. And in the time of their\nvisitation they shall shine and run to and fro like sparks among\nthe stubble. They shall judge the nations and have dominion over the\npeople and their Lord will rule for ever.\" [123] It could easily be\nimagined that these words, which were understood by the author of the\nBook of Wisdom of the just man in general, referred to the just man\npar excellence, the Messiah, the \"son\" of God in the highest sense\nof the word, who gave his life for the sins of his people. A reason\nwas found at the same time for the shameful death of the Messiah. He\ndied the object of the hatred of the unjust; he accepted contempt and\nscorn as did the Haman and Barabbas of the Feast of Purim, but only\nin order that by this deep debasement he might be raised up by God,\nas is said of the just man in the Book of Wisdom: \"That is he whom we\nhad sometimes in derision and a proverb of reproach: We fools accounted\nhis life madness and his end to be without honour: Now is he numbered\namong the children of God, and his lot is among the saints.\" [124]\n\nNow we understand how the picture of the Messiah varied among the\nJews between that of a divine and that of a human being; how he was\n\"accounted just among the evil-doers\"; how the idea became associated\nwith a human being that he was a \"Son of God\" and at the same time\n\"King of the Jews\"; and how the idea could arise that in his shameful\nand undeserved death God had offered himself for mankind. Now too we\ncan understand that he who died had after a short while to rise again\nfrom the dead, and this in order to ascend into heaven in splendour\nand glory and to unite himself with God the Father above. These were\nideas which long before the Jesus of the Gospels were spread among the\nJewish people, and indeed throughout the whole of Western Asia. In\ncertain sects they were cherished as secret doctrines, and were the\nprincipal cause that precisely in this portion of the ancient world\nChristianity spread so early and with such unusual rapidity.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nTHE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH. THE BAPTISM\n\n\nIt is not only the idea of the just man suffering, of the Messiah dying\nupon the gibbet, as \"King of the Jews\" and a criminal, and his rising\nagain, which belongs to the centuries before Christ. The stories which\nrelate to the miraculous birth of Jesus and to his early fortunes\nalso date back to this time. Thus in the Revelation of John [125]\nwe meet with the obviously very ancient mythical idea of the birth of\na divine child, who is scarcely brought into the world before he is\nthreatened by the Dragon of Darkness, but is withdrawn in time into\nheaven from his pursuer; whereupon the Archangel Michael renders the\nmonster harmless. Gunkel thinks that this conception must be traced\nback to a very ancient Babylonian myth. [126] Others, as Dupuis [127]\nand Dieterich, have drawn attention to its resemblance to the Greek\nmyth of Leto, [128] who, before the birth of the Light god Apollo,\nbeing pursued by the Earth dragon Pytho, was carried by the Wind god\nBoreas to Poseidon, and was brought safely by the latter to the Island\nof Ortygia, where she was able to bring forth her son unmolested by\nthe hostile monster. Others again, like Bousset, have compared the\nEgyptian myth of Hathor, according to which Hathor or Isis sent her\nyoung son, the Light god Horus, fleeing out of Egypt upon an ass before\nthe pursuit of his uncle Seth or Typhon. Pompeian frescoes represent\nthis incident in such a manner as to recall feature for feature the\nChristian representations of the flight of Mary with the Child Jesus\ninto Egypt; and coins with the picture of the fleeing Leto prove how\ndiffused over the whole of Nearer Asia this myth must have been. The\nAssyrian prince Sargon also, being pursued by his uncle, is said\nto have been abandoned on the Euphrates in a basket made of reeds,\nto have been found by a water-carrier, and to have been brought up\nby him--a story which the Jews have interwoven into the account of\nthe life of their fabulous Moses. [129] And very similar stories are\nrelated both in East and West, in ancient and in later times, of other\nGods, distinguished heroes and kings, sons of the Gods, of Zeus, Attis,\nDionysus, OEdipus, Perseus, Romulus and Remus, Augustus, and others. As\nis well known, the Indian God-man Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu,\nis supposed to have been sought for immediately after his birth by his\nuncle, King Kansa, who had all the male children of the same age in\nhis country put to death, the child being only saved from a like fate\nby taking refuge with a poor herdsman. [130] This recalls Herodotus's\nstory of Cyrus, [131] according to which Astyages, the grandfather of\nCyrus, being warned by a dream, ordered his grandson to be exposed,\nthe latter being saved from death, however, through being found by\na poor herdsmen and being brought up in his house. Now in Persian\nthe word for son is Cyrus (Khoro, [132] Greek Kyros), and Kyris or\nKiris is the name of Adonis in Cyprus. [133] Thus it appears that the\nstory of the birth of Cyrus came into existence through the transfer\nto King Cyrus of one of the myths concerning the Sun-God, the God in\nthis way being confused with a human individual. Now since Cyrus, as\nhas been said, was in the eyes of the Jews a kind of Messiah and was\nglorified by them as such, we can understand how the danger through\nwhich the Messianic child is supposed to have passed found a place\nin the Gospels. Again, a similar story of a king, who, having been\nwarned by a dream or oracle, orders the death of the children born\nwithin a specified time, is found in the \"Antiquities\" of Josephus\n[134] in connection with the story of the childhood of Moses. Moses,\nhowever, passed like Cyrus for a kind of forerunner and anticipator\nof Christ; and Christ was regarded as a Moses reappearing. [135] Again\nJoab, David's general, is said to have slaughtered every male in Edom;\nthe young prince Hadad, however, escaped the massacre by fleeing into\nEgypt. Here he grew up and married the sister of the king, and after\nthe death of his enemy King David he returned to his home. [136]\nBut Hadad is, like Cyrus, (Kyrus) a name of the Syrian Adonis.\n\nAnother name of Adonis or Tammuz is D\u00f4d, Dodo, Daud, or David. This\nsignifies \"the Beloved\" and indicates \"the beloved son\" of the heavenly\nfather, who offers himself for mankind, or \"the Beloved\" of the Queen\nof heaven (Atargatis, Mylitta, Istar). [137] As is well known, King\nDavid was also called \"the man after the heart of God,\" and there is\nno doubt that characteristics of the divine Redeemer and Saviour of\nthe same name have been intermingled in the story of David in the same\nway as in that of Cyrus. [138] According to Jeremiah xxx. 8 and Ezekiel\nxxxiv. 22 sqq. and xxxvii. 21, it was David himself who would appear as\nthe Messiah and re-establish Israel in its ancient glory. Indeed, this\neven appears to have been the original conception of the Messiah. The\nMessiah David seems to have been changed into a descendant of David\nonly with the progress of the monotheistic conception of God, under\nthe influence of the Persian doctrine concerning Saoshyant, the man\n\"of the seed of Zarathustra.\" Now David was supposed to have been\nborn at Bethlehem. But in Bethlehem there was, as Jerome informs us,\n[139] an ancient grove and sanctuary of the Syrian Adonis, and as\nJerome himself complains the very place where the Saviour first saw the\nlight resounded with the lamentations over Tammuz. [140] At Bethlehem,\nthe former Ephrata (i.e., Place of Ashes), Rachel is said to have\nbrought forth the youngest of the twelve month-sons of Jacob. She\nherself had christened him Benoni, son of the woeful lament. He was,\nhowever, usually called Benjamin, the Lord or Possessor of light. In\nthe Blessing of Moses he is also called \"a Darling of the Lord,\" and\nhis father Jacob loved him especially. [141] He is the God of the\nnew year born of the ashes of the past, at whose appearance lament\nand rejoicings are commingled one with another; and thus he is only\na form of Tammuz (Hadad) bringing to mind the Christian Redeemer in\nthat he presided over the month of the Ram. [142]\n\nNow we understand the prophecy of the prophet Micah: \"Thou Bethlehem\nEphrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah,\nout of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be a ruler in\nIsrael, whose going forth is from of old, from everlasting.\" [143]\nNow, too, the story of the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem\nhas its background in religious history. It is said in Matt. ii. 18,\nwith reference to Jer. xxxi. 15, \"A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping\nand great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and she would\nnot be comforted, because they are not.\" It is the lamentation of\nthe women over the murdered Adonis which was raised each year at\nBethlehem. This was transformed by the Evangelists into the lament\nover the murder of the children which took place at the birth of\nHadad who was honoured at Bethlehem. [144]\n\nHadad-Adonis is a God of Vegetation, a God of the rising sap of\nlife and of fruitfulness: but, as was the case with all Gods of a\nsimilar nature, the thought of the fate of the sun, dying in winter\nand being born anew in the spring, played its part in the conception\nof this season God of Nearer Asia. Something of this kind may well\nhave passed before the mind of Isaiah, when he foretold the future\nglory of the people of God under the image of a new birth of the sun\nfrom out of the blackness of night, with these \"prophetic\" words:\n\"Arise, shine, for thy light has come and the glory of the Lord is\nrisen upon thee. For behold darkness shall cover the earth and gross\ndarkness the peoples: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his\nglory shall be seen upon thee. And nations shall come to thy light,\nand kings to the brightness of thy rising.... The abundance of the\nsea shall be turned unto thee, the wealth of the nations shall come\nunto thee. The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of\nMidian and Ephah. They all shall come from Sheba: they shall bring gold\nand frankincence, and shall proclaim the praises of the Lord.\" [145]\n\nAs is well known, later generations were continually setting out\nthis idea in a still more exuberant form. The imagination of the\nenslaved and impoverished Jews feasted upon the thought that the\nnations and their princes would do homage to the Messiah with gifts,\nwhile uncounted treasures poured into the temple at Jerusalem: \"Princes\nshall come out of Egypt, Ethiopia shall haste to stretch out her hands\nunto God. Sing unto God ye kingdoms of the earth.\" [146] This is the\nfoundation of the Gospel story of the \"Magi,\" who lay their treasures\nat the feet of the new-born Christ and his \"virgin mother.\" But that we\nhave here in reality to do with the new birth of the sun at the time\nof the winter solstice appears from the connection between the Magi,\nor kings, and the stars. For these Magi are nothing else than the\nthree stars in the sword-belt of Orion, which at the winter solstice\nare opposed in the West to the constellation of the Virgin in the East;\nstars which according to Persian ideas at this time seek the son of the\nQueen of Heaven--that is, the lately rejuvenated sun, Mithras. [147]\nNow, as it has been said, Hadad also is a name of the Sun-God, and the\nHadad of the Old Testament returns to his original home out of Egypt,\nwhither he had fled from David. Thus we can understand how Hosea xi. 1,\n\"I called my son out of Egypt,\" could be referred to the Messiah and\nhow the story that Jesus passed his early youth in Egypt was derived\nfrom it. [148]\n\nIt may be fairly asked how it was that the sun came to be thus\nhonoured by the people of Western Asia, with lament at its death\nand rejoicing at its new birth. For winter, the time of the sun's\n\"death,\" in these southern countries offered scarcely any grounds\nat all for lament. It was precisely the best part of the year. The\nnight, too, having regard to its coolness after the heat of the day,\ngave no occasion for desiring the new birth of the sun in the morning.\n\nWe are compelled to suppose that in the case of all the Gods of this\nnature the idea of the dying away of vegetation during the heat of\nthe year and its revival had become intertwined and commingled with\nthat of the declining and reviving strength of the sun. Thus, from\nthis mingling of two distinct lines of thought, we have to explain\nthe variations of the double-natured character of the Sun-Gods and\nVegetation-Gods of Western Asia. [149] It is obvious, however, that the\nsun can only be regarded from such a tragic standpoint in a land where,\nand in the myths of a people for whom, it possesses in reality such a\ndecisive significance that there are grounds for lamenting its absence\nor lack of strength during winter and for an anxious expectation of\nits return and revival. [150] But it is chiefly in the highlands of\nIran and the mountainous hinterland of Asia Minor that this is the\ncase to such an extent as to make this idea one of the central points\nof religious belief. Even here it points back to a past time when\nthe people concerned still had their dwelling-place along with the\nkindred Aryan tribes in a much more northerly locality. [151] Thus\nMithras, the \"Sol invictus\" of the Romans, struggling victoriously\nthrough night and darkness, is a Sun hero, who must have found his\nway into Persia from the north. This is shown, amongst other things,\nby his birthday being celebrated on the 25th of December, the day of\nthe winter solstice. Again, the birth of the infant Dionysus, who\nwas so closely related to the season Gods of Nearer Asia, used to\nbe celebrated as the feast of the new birth of the sun at about the\nsame time, the God being then honoured as Liknites, as \"the infant\nin the cradle\" (the winnowing-fan). The Egyptians celebrated the\nbirth of Osiris on the 6th of January, on which occasion the priests\nproduced the figure of an infant from the sanctuary, and showed it to\nthe people as a picture of the new-born God. [152] That the Phrygian\nAttis came thither with the Aryans who made their way from Thrace into\nAsia Minor, and must have had his home originally in Northern Europe,\nappears at once from the striking resemblance of the myth concerning\nhim with that of the northern myth of Balder. There can be no doubt\nthat the story in Herodotus of Atys, son of Croesus, who while out\nboar hunting accidently met his death from the spear of his friend,\nonly gives another version of the Attis myth. This story, however,\nso closely resembles that of the death of Balder, given in the Edda,\nthat the theory of a connection between them is inevitably forced\nupon one's mind. In the Edda the wife of Balder is called Nanna. But\nNanna (i.e., \"mother\") was according to Arnobius [153] the name of\nthe mother of the Phrygian Attis.\n\nNow the Sun and Summer God Balder is only a form of Odin, the Father\nof Heaven, with summer attributes, and he too is said, like Attis,\nAdonis and Osiris, to have met his death through a wild boar. Just as\nanemones sprang from the blood of the slain Adonis and violets from\nthat of Attis, so also the blood of the murdered Odin (Hackelbernd)\nis said to have been changed into spring flowers. [154] At the great\nfeast of Attis in March a post or pine-tree trunk decked with violets,\non which the picture of the God was hung, used to form the central\npoint of the rite. This was a reminder of the way in which in ancient\ntimes the human representative of the God passed from life to death,\nin order by sacrifice to revive exhausted nature. According to the\nverses of the Eddic Havamal, Odin says of himself:--\n\n\n        \"I know that I hang on the wind-rocked tree\n        Throughout nine nights,\n        Wounded by the spear, dedicated to Odin,\n        I myself to myself.\" [155]\n\n\nBy this self-sacrifice and the agonies which he endured, the northern\nGod, too, obtained new strength and life. For on this occasion he not\nonly discovered the Runes of magic power, the knowledge of which made\nhim lord over nature, but he obtained possession at the same time of\nthe poetic mead which gave him immortality and raised the Nature God\nto be a God of spiritual creative power and of civilisation. This is\nobviously the same idea as is again found in the cult of Attis and\nin the belief in the death of the God. The relationship of all these\ndifferent views seems still more probable in that a sacrificial rite\nlay at the root of the Balder myth also. This myth is only, so to\nspeak, the text of a religious drama which was performed every year\nfor the benefit of dying nature--a drama in which a man representing\nthe God was delivered over to death. [156] As all this refers to the\nfate of a Sun God, who dies in winter to rise again in the spring,\nthe same idea must have been associated originally with the worship\nof the Nearer Asiatic Gods of vegetation and fruitfulness, and this\nidea was only altered under changed climatic conditions into that\nof the death and resurrection of the plant world, without, however,\nlosing in its new form its original connection with the sun and winter.\n\nAt the same time the myth of the Sun God does not take us to the\nvery basis and the real kernel of the stories of the divine child's\nbirth. The Persian religion was not so much a religion of Light\nand Sun as of Fire, the most important and remarkable manifestation\nof which was of course the sun. Dionysus too, like all Gods of the\nlife-warmth, of the rising plant sap and of fruitfulness, was in his\ndeepest nature a Fire God. In the Fire Religion, however, the birth\nof the God forms the centre of all religious ideas; and its form was\nmore exactly fixed through the peculiar acts by means of which the\npriest rekindled the holy fire.\n\nFor the manner in which this occurred we have the oldest authentic\ntestimony in the religious records of the Indian Aryans. Here Agni,\nas indeed his name (ignis, fire) betokens, passed for the divine\nrepresentative of the Fire Element. His mystic birth was sung in\nnumberless passages in the hymns of the Rigveda. At dawn, as soon as\nthe brightening morning star in the east announced that the sun was\nrising, the priest called his assistants together and kindled the fire\nupon a mound of earth by rubbing together two sticks (aran\u00ee) in which\nthe God was supposed to be hidden. As soon as the spark shone in the\n\"maternal bosom,\" the soft underpart of the wood, it was treated as an\n\"infant child.\" It was carefully placed upon a little heap of straw,\nwhich at once took fire from it. On one side lay the mystic \"cow\"--that\nis, the milk-pail and a vessel full of butter, as types of all animal\nnourishment--upon the other the holy Soma draught, representing the\nsap of plants, the symbol of life. A priest fanned it with a small\nfan shaped like a banner, thereby stirring up the fire. The \"child\"\nwas then raised upon the altar. The priests turned up the fire with\nlong-handled spoons, pouring upon the flames melted butter (ghrita)\ntogether with the Soma cup. From this time \"Agni\" was called \"the\nanointed\" (Akta). The fire flickered high. The God was unfolding\nhis majesty. With his flames he scared away the d\u00e6mons of darkness,\nand lighted up the surrounding shadows. All creatures were invited to\ncome and gaze upon the wonderful spectacle. Then with presents the\nGods (kings) hastened from heaven and the herdsmen from the fields,\ncast themselves down in deep reverence before the new-born, praying\nto it and singing hymns in its praise. It grew visibly before their\neyes. The new-born Agni already had become \"the teacher\" of all living\ncreatures, \"the wisest of the wise,\" opening to mankind the secrets\nof existence. Then, while everything around him grew bright and the\nsun rose over the horizon, the God, wreathed in a cloud of smoke,\nwith the noise of darting flames, ascended to heaven, and was united\nthere with the heavenly light. [157]\n\nThus in ancient India the holy fire was kindled anew each morning,\nand honoured with ritualistic observances (Agnihotra). This took\nplace, however, with special ceremony at the time of the winter\nsolstice, when the days began again to increase (Agnistoma). They\nthen celebrated the end of the time \"of darkness,\" the Pitryana, or\ntime of the Manes, during which the worship of the Gods had been at a\nstandstill. Then the Angiras, the priestly singers, summoned the Gods\nto be present, greeting with loud song the beginning of the \"holy\"\nseason, the Devayana, with which the new light arose. Agni and the\nother Gods again returned to men, and the priests announced to the\npeople the \"joyful tidings\" (Evangelium) that the Light God had been\nborn again. As Hillebrand has shown, this festival also indicates\nthe memory of an earlier home in the North whence the Aryan tribes\nhad migrated, since in India, where the shortest and longest days\nonly differ by about four hours, no reason exists for celebrating\nthe \"return\" of the light. [158] Indeed, it appears that we have to\ndo here with a rite which reaches back into the very origins of all\nhuman civilisation, and preserves the memory of the discovery of fire\nin the midst of the horrors of the Stone Age.\n\nThere is no doubt that we have before us in the Vedic Agni Cult the\noriginal source of all the stories of the birth of the Fire-Gods\nand Sun-Gods. These Gods usually enter life in darkness and\nconcealment. Thus the Cretan Zeus was born in a cavern, Mithras,\nDionysus, and Hermes in a gloomy grotto, Horus in the \"stable\"\n(temple) of the holy cow (Isis)--Jesus, too, was born at dead of\nnight in a lowly \"stable\" [159] at Bethlehem. The original ground\nfor this consists in the fact that Agni, in the form of a spark,\ncomes into existence in the dark hollow of the hole bored in the\nstick. The Hymns of the Rigveda often speak of this \"secret birth\"\nand of the \"concealment\" of Agni. They describe the Gods as they set\nout in order to seek the infant. They make the Angiras discover it\n\"lying in concealment,\" and it grows up in hiding. [160] But the idea\nof the Fire-God being born in a \"stable\" is also foreshadowed in the\nRigveda. For not only are the vessels of milk and butter ready for\nthe anointing compared with cows, but Ushas, too, the Goddess of Dawn,\nwho is present at the birth, is called a red milch-cow, and of men it\nis said that they flocked \"like cows to a warm stable\" to see Agni,\nwhom his mother held lovingly upon her lap. [161]\n\nIt is a common fundamental feature of all Nature religions that they\ndistinguish between the particular and the general, between earthly\nand heavenly events, between human acts and natural occurrences as\nlittle as they do between the spiritual and natural. The Agni Cult\nshows, as does the Vedic religion in general, this interplay of the\nearthly and heavenly world, of the microcosmic individual and the\nmacrocosm. The kindling of the fire upon the earth at the same time\nbetokened the rising of the great light of the skies, the sun. The fire\nupon the altar did not merely represent but actually was the sun, the\nearthly and the heavenly Agni were one. Thus it was that the nations\nof antiquity were able to think of transferring earthly events into\nheaven, and conversely were able to read earthly events in heavenly\noccurrences such as the relations of the stars to one another. It was\non this that astrology rested. Even the ancient Fire Worship appears\nin very early times to have been transformed into astrology, and what\nwas in the beginning a simple act of worship was generalised by the\npriests in a macrocosmic sense and was transferred to the starry\nheavens as a forecast. Thus the altar or place of sacrifice upon\nwhich the sacred fire was kindled was enlarged into the Vault of the\nSpheres or Grotto of the Planets. Through this the sun completed its\nannual journey among the twelve signs of the Zodiac, and in so doing\nassumed successively the form and fulfilled the functions of that\nconstellation with which it entered into astronomical relations. The\nmetaphorical name of \"stable\" for the place of sacrifice attains a\nnew significance from the fact that the sun during a certain epoch of\nthe world (something between 3000 and 800 B.C.) at the beginning of\nspring passed through the constellation of the Bull, and at the time\nof the winter solstice commenced its course between the Ox (Bull)\nand the Great Bear, which anciently was also called the Ass. [162]\nThe birth of the God is said to have been in secret because it took\nplace at night. His mother is a \"virgin\" since at midnight of the\nwinter solstice the constellation of the Virgin is on the eastern\nhorizon. [163] Shortly afterwards Draco, the Dragon (the snake Pytho),\nrises up over Libra, the Balance, and seems to pursue the Virgin. From\nthis comes the story of the Winter Dragon threatening Leto, or Apollo;\nor, as it is also found in the Myth of Osiris and the Apocalypse of\nJohn, the story of the pursuit of the child of light by a hostile\nprinciple (Astyages, Herod, &c.). [164] Unknown and in concealment\nthe child grows up. This refers to the course of the sun as it yet\nstands low in the heavens. Or like Sargon, Dionysus, or Moses it is\ncast in a basket upon the waters of some great stream or of the sea,\nsince the sun in its wanderings through the Zodiac has next to pass\nthrough the so-called watery region, the signs of the Water-carrier\nand the Fishes, the rainy season of winter. Thus can the fate of the\nnew-born be read in the sky. The priests (Magi) cast his horoscope like\nthat of any other child. They greet his birth with loud rejoicings,\nbring him myrrh, incense and costly presents, while prophesying\nfor him a glorious future. The earthly Agni is completely absorbed\nin the heavenly one; and in the study of the great events which are\nportrayed in the sky, the simple act of sacrificial worship, which had\noriginally furnished the opportunity for this whole range of ideas,\ngradually fell into oblivion. [165]\n\nIt has been often maintained that Indian influences have worked\nupon the development of the story of the childhood of Jesus, and in\nthis connection we are accustomed to think of Buddhism. Now, as a\nmatter of fact, the resemblances between the Christian and Buddhist\nlegends are so close that we can scarcely imagine it to be a mere\ncoincidence. Jesus and Buddha are both said to have been born of a\n\"pure virgin,\" honoured by heavenly spirits at their birth, prayed\nto by kings and loaded with presents. \"Happy is the whole world,\"\nsing the Gods under the form of young Brahmins at the birth of the\nchild--as we are told in the Lalita Vistara, the legendary biography\nof Buddha, dating from before Christ, \"for he is indeed born who\nbrings salvation and will establish the world in blessedness. He\nis born who will darken sun and moon by the splendour of his merits\nand will put all darkness to flight. The blind see, the deaf hear,\nthe demented are restored to reason. No natural crimes afflict us any\nlonger, for upon the earth men have become righteous. Gods and men\ncan in future approach each other without hostility, since he will\nbe the guide of their pilgrimage.\" [166] Just as the significance of\nJesus was announced beforehand by Simeon, in the same way according\nto the Buddhist legend, the Seer Asita foresees in his own mind the\ngreatness of the child and bursts into tears since he will not see him\nin the splendour of his maturity and will have no part in his work\nof redemption. Again, just as Jesus [167] even in his early youth\nastonished the learned by his wisdom, so Prince Siddharta (Buddha)\nput all his teachers at school to shame by his superior knowledge, and\nso on. The Buddhist legend itself, however, goes back to a still older\nform, which is the Vedic Agni Cult. All its various features are here\npreserved in their simplest form and in their original relation to the\nsacrificial worship of the Fire-God. This was the natural source of the\nIndian and Christian legends, and it was the original of those myths\nwhich the Evangelist worked up for his own purposes, which according\nto Pfleiderer belonged \"to the common tribal property of the national\nsagas of Nearer Asia.\" [168] Again, it could the more easily reappear\nin the Evangelists' version of the story of the childhood of Jesus,\nsince the sacrificial act had been re-interpreted mythologically,\nand the corresponding myths transformed into astrology, and, as it\nwere, written with starry letters upon the sky, where they could be\nread without trouble by the most distant peoples of antiquity.\n\nThe myth of Krishna offers a characteristic example of the manner in\nwhich in India a sacrificial cult is changed into a myth. Like Astyages\nand Herod, in order to ward off the danger arising from his sister's\nson, of which he had been warned by an oracle, King Kansa caused his\nsister and her husband Vasudewa to be cast into prison. Here, in the\ndarkness of a dungeon, Krishna comes into the world as Jesus did in\nthe stable at Bethlehem. The nearer the hour of birth approaches the\nmore beautiful the mother becomes. Soon the whole dungeon is filled\nwith light. Rejoicing choirs sound in the air, the waters of the\nrivers and brooks make sweet music. The Gods come down from heaven\nand blessed spirits dance and sing for joy. At midnight his mother\nDewaki (i.e., the divine) brings the child into the world, at the\ncommencement of a new epoch. The parents themselves fall down before\nhim and pray, but a voice from heaven admonishes them to convey him\nfrom the machinations of the tyrant to Gokala, the land of the cow,\nand to exchange him for the daughter of the herdsman Nanda. Immediately\nthe chains fall from the father's hands, the dungeon doors are opened,\nand he passes out into freedom. Another Christopher, he bears the\nchild upon his shoulders through the river Yamuna, the waters of which\nrecede in reverence before the son of God, and he exchanges Krishna\nfor the new-born daughter of Nanda. He then returns to the dungeon,\nwhere the chains again immediately fasten of their own accord upon\nhis limbs. Kansa now makes his way into the dungeon. In vain Dewaki\nentreats her brother to leave her the child. He is on the point of\ntearing it forcibly from her hands when it disappears before his eyes,\nand Kansa gives the order that all newly-born children in his country\nunder the age of two years shall be killed.\n\nAt Mathura in Gokala Krishna grew up unknown among poor herdsmen. While\nyet in his cradle he had betrayed his divine origin by strangling,\nlike Hercules, a dreadful snake which crawled upon him. He causes\nastonishment to every one by his precosity and lofty wisdom. As he\ngrows up he becomes the darling of the herdsmen and playmate of Gopias,\nthe milkmaid; he performs the most astonishing miracles. When, however,\nthe time had come he arose and slew Kansa. He then fought the frightful\n\"Time Snake\" Kaliyanaga, of the thousand heads (the Hydra in the\nmyth of Hercules, the Python in that of Apollo), which poisoned the\nsurrounding air with its pestilential breath; and he busied himself\nin word and deed as a protector of the poor and proclaimer of the\nmost perfect teaching. His greatest act, however, was his descent\ninto the Underworld. Here he overpowered Yama, the dark God of death,\nobtained from him a recognition of his divine power, and led back the\ndead with him to a new life. Thus he was a benefactor of mankind by\nhis heroic strength and miraculous power, leading the purest life,\nhealing the sick, bringing the dead back to life, disclosing the\nsecrets of the world, and withal humbly condescending to wash the\nfeet of the Brahmins. Krishna finally died of an arrow wound which he\nsustained accidentally and in an unforeseen manner on his heel--the\nonly vulnerable part of his body (cf. Achilles, Balder, Adonis, and\nOsiris). While dying he delivered the prophecy that thirty-six years\nafter his death the fourth Epoch of the World, Caliyuga, the Iron\nAge, would begin, in which men would be both unhappy and wicked. But\naccording to Brahmin teaching Krishna will return at the end of all\ntime, when bodily and moral need will have reached its highest pitch\nupon the earth. In the clouds of heaven he will appear upon his white\nsteed. With a comet in his right hand as a sword of flame he will\ndestroy the old earth by fire, founding a new earth and a new heaven,\nand establishing a golden age of purity and perfection in which there\nwill be nothing but pure joy and blessedness.\n\nThis reminds us strongly of the Persian Eschatology, of Mithras and\nSaoshyant, and of the Jewish Apocalyptics. But following the ancient\nsacred poem, the Barta Chastram, the former conception as well as the\ndoctrine of a Messiah rest upon a prophecy according to which Vishnu\nJesudu (!) was to be born a Brahmin in the city of Skambelam. He was\nto hold intercourse with men as a God, to purify the earth from sin,\nmaking it the abode of justice and truth, and to offer a sacrifice\n(self-sacrifice?). But still more striking are the resemblances of\nthe Krishna myth with the Gospels. Does any connection between the two\nexist? The question is hard to answer because, owing to the uncertainty\nin all Indian citation of dates, the age of the story of Krishna cannot\nbe settled. In the oldest Indian literature, the Vedas, Krishna appears\nto be the name of a D\u00e6mon. In the Mah\u00e2bbh\u00e2rata, the great Indian heroic\nepic, he plays indeed a prominent part, and is here on the point of\nassuming the place of the God Indra. The age of the poem, however, is\ndebatable, although it is probably of pre-Buddhist origin. The chief\nsource of the Krishna myth is the Puranas, especially the Bhagavat\nPurana and Vishnu Parana. But since the antiquity of these also is\nuncertain, and their most modern portions presumably belong only to\nthe eighth or ninth century of the Christian era, a decision as to\nthe date of the appearance of the Krishna myth can only be arrived\nat from internal evidence.\n\nNow the Pantanjalis Mah\u00e2bhashya, i.e., \"Great Commentary,\" of the\nsecond century before Christ, shows that the story of Kansa's death\nat the hands of Krishna was at that time well known in India, and was\neven the subject of a religious drama. Thus the story of the birth at\nleast of Krishna, who had already been raised to be a Cult God of the\nHindoos, cannot have been unknown. The other portions of the myth,\nhowever, belong as a whole to the general circle of Indian ideas,\nand are in part only transferred from other Gods to Krishna. Thus,\nfor example, the miraculous birth of the divine child in the darkness,\nhis precosity, his upbringing among the herdsmen, and his friendship\nwith Gopias, remind us of Agni, the God of Fire and Herdsmen, who also\nis described in the Rigveda as a \"friend and lover of the maidens\"\n(of the Cloud Women?). His combat with the Time Snake, on the other\nhand, is copied from the fight of Indra with the wicked dragon Vritra\nor Ahi. Again, in his capacity as purifier and deliverer of the world\nfrom evil and d\u00e6mons the God bears such a striking resemblance to\nHercules, that Megasthenes, the ambassador of Seleucus at the court\nof the king at Pataliputra, in the third century before Christ, simply\nidentified him with the latter. No impartial critic of the matter can\nnow doubt that the Krishna myth was in existence and was popularised\nlong before Christianity appeared in the world. The great importance,\nhowever, which the God possesses in present-day India may have been\nattained only during the Christian era, and the Puranas may have\nbeen composed only after the appearance of the Gospels; for their\nbeing written down later proves nothing against the antiquity of the\nmatter they contain. It appears that even Buddhism did not obtain its\ncorresponding legends direct from the Vedas, but through the channel\nof the Krishna myth. Since, however, Buddhism is certainly at least\nfour hundred years older than Christianity, it must be assumed that\nit was the former which introduced the Krishna myth to Christianity,\nand not vice vers\u00e2, if we are not to consider the Babylonian-Mandaic\nreligion as the intermediary between Krishna and Christ. [169]\n\nFor the rest the supposition of Indian influences in the Gospel\nstory is not by any means an improbable one. It is pure theological\nprejudice, resting upon a complete ignorance of the conditions of\nnational intercourse in ancient times, when it is denied, as, for\nexample, by Clemen in his \"Religionsgeschichtlichen Erkl\u00e4rung des\nNeuen Testaments\" (1909), that the Gospels were influenced by Indian\nideas, or when only a dependence the other way about is allowed;\n[170] and this although Buddha left to his disciples, as one of\nthe highest precepts, the practice of missionary activity, and\nalthough as early as 400 B.C. mention is made in Indian sources of\nBuddhist missionaries in Bactria. Two hundred years later we read of\nBuddhist monasteries in Persia. Indeed, in the last century before the\nChristian era the Buddhist mission in Persia had made such progress\nthat Alexander Polyhistor actually speaks of a period during which\nBuddhism flourished in that country, and bears witness to the spread\nof the Mendicant Orders in the western parts of Persia. Buddhism\nalso reached Syria and Egypt at that time with the trade caravans;\nas we have to suppose a frequent exchange of wares and ideas between\nIndia and the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean, especially\nafter the campaigns of Alexander. Communication took place, not only\noverland by way of Persia, but by sea as well. Indian thought made\nadvances in the Near East, where Alexandria, the London and Antwerp\nof antiquity, and a headquarters of Jewish syncretism, favoured the\nexchange of ideas. With the rediscovery of the South-west Monsoon\nat the beginning of the first century after Christ the intercourse\nby sea between India and the Western world assumed still greater\ndimensions. Thus Pliny speaks of great trading fleets setting out\nannually for India and of numerous Indian merchants who had their\nfixed abode in Alexandria. Indian embassies came to Rome as early as\nthe reign of Augustus. The renown of Indian piety caused the author\nof the Peregrinus Proteus to choose the Indian Calanus as an example\nof holiness. Indeed, so lively was the Western world's interest\nin the intellectual life of India, that the library at Alexandria,\nas early as the time of the geographer Eratosthenes under Ptolemy\nEuergetes (246 B.C.), was administered with special regard to Indian\nstudies. The monastic organisation of the Essenes in Palestine also\nvery probably points to Buddhist influence. Again, although the\nRigveda, which contains the groundwork of all Indian religions, may\nhave been unknown in Nearer Asia, yet the Fire Worship of the Mazda\nreligion at any rate reaches back to the time before the division\nbetween the Indian and Persian Aryans. Certain fundamental ideas,\ntherefore, of the Fire Religion may through Persian influences on\nNearer Asia have been known to the surrounding peoples. [171]\n\nAs a matter of fact, the Mandaic religion contains much that is\nIndian. This is the less strange considering that the headquarters\nand centre of Mandaism was in Southern Babylonia; and the ancient\nsettlements of the Mand\u00e6i, close to the Persian Gulf, were easily\nreached by sea from India. Moreover, from ancient times Babylonian\ntrade went down to India and Ceylon. [172] Consequently it is by no\nmeans improbable that the many remarkable resemblances between the\nBabylonian and Indian religions rest upon mutual influences. Indeed,\nin one case the borrowing of a Mandaic idea from India can be looked\nupon as quite certain. The Lalita Vistara begins with a description\nof Buddha's ante-natal life in heaven. He teaches the Gods the \"law,\"\nthe eternal truth of salvation, and announces to them his intention\nof descending into the bosom of an earthly woman in order to bring\nredemption to mankind. In vain the Gods endeavour to hold him back\nand cling weeping to his feet: \"Noble man, if thou remainest here\nno longer, this abode of heaven will be bright no more.\" He leaves\nthem, however, a successor, and consecrates him solemnly to be the\npossessor of the future dignity of Buddha: \"Noble man, thou art\nhe who will be endowed after me with the perfect intelligence of a\nBuddha.\" [173] \"Man\" (Purusha) is thus here the usual name for the\ndivine nature of Buddha destined for individual incarnations. It is\nalso called the \"great man\" (Mahapurusha) or the \"victorious lord\"\n(Cakravartin). Here we have the original of the Mandaic \"son of man,\"\nwhom we meet with in the Jewish Apocalyptics (Daniel, Enoch, Ezra),\na figure which plays so great a part in the primitive Gospel records\nof Christianity, and has called forth so many explanations. And\nthe Elcesaitic Gnostics teach a like doctrine when they imagine the\n\"son of man,\" or Christ, as a heavenly spirit and king of the world to\ncome who became incarnate first in Adam, then in Enoch, Noah, Abraham,\nIsaac, Jacob and so on, in order finally to appear by a supernatural\nvirgin-birth in the person of Jesus, and to illumine the dark earth\nby his true message of salvation. [174]\n\nOf all the Gods of the Rigveda Agni bears the closest relationship\nto the Perso-Jewish Messiah, and it is he also who stands closest\nto man's soul. He is rightly called king of the universe, as God of\nGods, who created the world and called into life all beings that are\nupon it. He is the lord of the heavenly hosts, the guardian of the\ncosmic order and judge of the world, who is present as an invisible\nwitness of all human acts, who as a \"knower of nature\" works in every\nliving thing, and as a party to all earthly secrets illuminates the\nunknown. Sent down by his father, the Sky-God or Sun-God, he appears\nas the \"light of the world.\" He releases this world from the Powers\nof Darkness and returns to his father with the \"Banner of Smoke\" in\nhis hand as a token of victory. Agni blazes forth in the lightning\nflash from out of the watercloud, the \"sea of the sky,\" in order to\nannihilate the D\u00e6mons of Darkness and to release oppressed humanity\nfrom the fear of its tormentors. Thus, according to Isaiah xi.,\n4, the Messiah too will burn his enemies with the fiery breath\nof his mouth; and in this he is clearly a Fire-God. Again, in the\nApocalypse of Esdras (chap. xiii.) the Seer beholds the \"Son of Man\"\n(Purusha) rise up from out of the sea, fly upon the clouds of heaven,\ndestroy the hostile forces by the stream of fire which proceeded\nfrom his mouth, free the scattered Israelites from their captivity\nand lead them back into their country. [175] But this \"first-born\"\nson of the Sun-God and the Sky-God is at the same time the father and\nancestor of men, the first man (Purusha), the head of the community\nof mankind, the guardian of the house and of the domestic flock, who\nkeeps from the threshold the evil spirits and the enemies who lurk\nin the darkness. Agni enters the dwellings of men as guest, friend\n(Mitra), companion, brother and consoler of those who honour him. He\nis the messenger between this world and the beyond, communicating the\nwishes of men to the Gods above, and announcing to men the will of the\nGods. He is a mediator between God and men who makes a report to the\nGods of everything of which he becomes aware among mankind. Although\nindeed he takes revenge for the men's faults yet he is a gracious God,\ndisposed to forgive, in his capacity of an expiatory, propitiatory and\nredeeming power, atoning for their sins and bringing them the divine\ngrace. Finally, he is also the guide of souls--he conducts the Gods\ndown to the sacrifices offered by man and makes ready for men the path\nupon which he leads them up to God. And when their time has come he,\nas the purifying fire, consumes their bodies and carries that which\nis immortal to heaven. [176]\n\nAgni's father is, as has been said, the sky, or rather the light,\nthe sun, the source of all warmth and life upon the earth. He bears\nthe name of Savitar, which means \"creator\" or \"mover,\" is called \"the\nlord of creation,\" \"the father of all life,\" \"the living one,\" or \"the\nheavenly father\" simply. [177] At the same time Tvashtar also passes\nas the father of Agni. His name characterises him simply as modeller\n(world-modeller) or work-master, divine artist, skilful smith, or\n\"carpenter,\" in which capacity he sharpens Brihaspati's axe, and,\nindeed, is himself represented with a hatchet in his hand. [178]\nHe appears to have attained this r\u00f4le as being the discoverer of\nthe artificial kindling of fire, by means of which any fashioning\n(welding), any art in the higher sense of the word became possible,\nas being the preparer of the apparatus for obtaining fire by friction\nor rotation--\"the fire cradle\"--which consisted of carefully chosen\nwood of a specified form and kind. Finally, the production of fire is\nascribed to Matari\u00e7van also, the God of the Wind identical with Vayu,\nbecause fire cannot burn without air, and it is the motion of the\nbreeze which fans the glimmering spark. [179] All of these different\nfigures are identical with one another, and can mutually take the\nplace one of another, for they are all only different manifestations\nof warmth. It is this which reveals itself as well in the lightning\nof the sky and motion of the air, as in the glimmering of the fire,\nand not only as the principle of life, but also as that of thought\nand of knowledge or the \"word\" (V\u00e2c, Veda), appearing on the one side\nas the productive, life-giving, and fructifying power of nature, on\nthe other as the creative, inspiring spirit. This is the reason why,\namong the ancients, the God of life and fertility was in his essential\nnature a Fire-God, and why the three figures of the divine \"father,\"\n\"son,\" and \"spirit,\" in spite of the differences of their functions,\ncould be looked upon without inconsistency as one and the same being.\n\nAs is well known, Jesus, too, had three fathers, namely, his\nheavenly father, Jahwe, the Holy Spirit, and also his earthly father,\nJoseph. The latter is also a work-master, artizan, or \"carpenter,\" as\nthe word \"tekton\" indicates. Similarly, Kinyras, the father of Adonis,\nis said to have been some kind of artizan, a smith or carpenter. That\nis to say, he is supposed to have invented the hammer and the lever\nand roofing as well as mining. In Homer he appears as the maker of\nthe ingenious coat of mail which Agamemnon received from him as a\nguest-friend. [180] The father of Hermes also is an artizan. Now Hermes\nclosely resembles Agni as well as Jesus. He is the \"good messenger,\"\nthe Euangelos; that is, the proclaimer of the joyful message of\nthe redemption of souls from the power of death. He is the God of\nsacrifices, and as such \"mediator\" between heaven and earth. He is the\n\"guide of souls\" (Psychopompos) and \"bridegroom of souls\" (beloved of\nPsyche). He is also a God of fertility, a guardian of the flocks, who\nis represented in art as the \"good shepherd,\" the bearer of the ram,\na guide upon the roads of earth, a God of the door-hinge (Strophaios)\nand guardian of the door, [181] a god of healing as well as of speech,\nthe model of all human reason, in which capacity he was identified\nby the Stoics with the Logos that dwelt within the world. [182] Just\nas in the Rigveda Tvashtar stands with Savitar, the divine father of\nAgni, and Joseph the \"carpenter\" with Jahwe, as father of the divine\nmediator, so the divine artificer, Hephaistos, whose connection with\nTvashtar is obvious, is looked upon together with Zeus, the father\nof heaven, as the begetter of Hermes. [183]\n\nNow if Joseph, as we have already seen, was originally a God, Mary,\nthe mother of Jesus, was a Goddess. Under the name of Maya she is\nthe mother of Agni, i.e., the principle of motherhood and creation\nsimply, as which she is in the Rigveda at one time represented by\nthe fire-producing wood, the soft pith, in which the fire-stick was\nwhirled; at another as the earth, with which the sky has mated. She\nappears under the same name as the mother of Buddha as well as of\nthe Greek Hermes. She is identical with Maira (Maera) as, according\nto Pausanias, viii. 12, 48, the Pleiad Maia, wife of Hephaistos,\nwas called. She appears among the Persians as the \"virgin\" mother\nof Mithras. As Myrrha she is the mother of the Syrian Adonis;\nas Semiramis, mother of the Babylonian Ninus (Marduk). In the\nArabic legend she appears under the name of Mirzam as mother of the\nmythical saviour Joshua, while the Old Testament gives this name to\nthe virgin sister of that Joshua who was so closely related to Moses;\nand, according to Eusebius, [184] Merris was the name of the Egyptian\nprincess who found Moses in a basket and became his foster-mother.\n\nAfter all this it seems rather na\u00efve to believe that the parents of the\n\"historical\" Jesus were called Joseph and Mary, and that his father\nwas a carpenter. In reality the whole of the family and home life\nof the Messiah, Jesus, took place in heaven among the Gods. It was\nonly reduced to that of a human being in lowly circumstances by the\nfact that Paul described the descent of the Messiah upon the earth\nas an assumption of poverty and a relinquishment of his heavenly\nsplendour. [185] Hence, when the myth was transformed into history,\nChrist was turned into a \"poor\" man in the economic sense of the word,\nwhile Joseph, the divine artificer and father of the sun, became an\nordinary carpenter.\n\nNow it is a feature which recurs in all the religions of Nearer Asia\nthat the \"son\" of the divine \"virgin\" mother is at the same time the\n\"beloved\" of this Goddess in the sexual sense of the word. This\nis the case not only with Semiramis and Ninus, Istar and Tammuz,\nAtargatis (Aphrodite) and Adonis, Cybele and Attis, but also with\nAphrodite (Maia) and Hermes, [186] Maia and Iasios, one of the Cabiri,\nidentical with Hermes or Cadmus, who was slain by his father, Zeus,\nwith a lightning stroke, but was raised again and placed in the\nsky as a constellation. [187] We may conclude from the connection\nbetween Iasios and Joshua that a similar relationship existed between\nthe latter and his mother Mirzam. Indeed, a glimmer of this possibly\nappears even in the Gospels in the relationship of the various Maries\nto Jesus, although, of course, in accordance with the character of\nthese writings, they are transferred into quite a different sphere\nand given other emotional connections. [188]\n\nNow in Hebrew the word \"spirit\" (ruach) is of feminine gender. As a\nconsequence of this the Holy Ghost was looked upon by the Nassenes and\nthe earliest Christians as the \"mother\" of Jesus. Indeed, it appears\nthat in their view the birth of the divine son was only consummated by\nthe baptism and the descent of the Spirit. According to the Gospels\nwhich we possess, on the occasion of the baptism in the Jordan a\nvoice from above uttered these words: \"Thou art my beloved son; in\nthee I am well pleased.\" [189] On the other hand, in an older reading\nof the passage in question in Luke, which was in use as late as the\nmiddle of the fourth century, it runs, in agreement with Psalm ii. 7:\n\"Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.\" In this case the\nspirit who speaks these words is regarded as a female being. This\nis shown by the dove which descends from heaven, for this was the\nholy bird, the symbol of the Mother Goddess of Nearer Asia. [190]\nBut it was not the Nassenes alone (Ophites) who called the Holy\nSpirit \"the first word\" and \"the mother of all living things:\"\n[191] other Gnostic sects, such as the Valentinians, regarded the\nSpirit which descended in the shape of a dove as the \"word of the\nmother from above, of wisdom.\" [192] Viewed in this sense, baptism\nalso passed in the Mysteries as a new birth. Indeed, its Greek name,\nphotisma or photism\u00f3s (i.e., illumination), clearly indicates its\norigin in fire-worship. Thus, when Justin [193] too speaks of a\nflame appearing at the baptism of Jesus, he alludes thereby to the\nconnection between that solemn act and the birth of a Fire-God. [194]\nEphrem, the Syrian composer of hymns, makes the Baptist say to Jesus:\n\"A tongue of fire in the air awaits thee beyond the Jordan. If thou\nfollowest it and wilt be baptized, then undertake to purify thyself,\nfor who can seize a burning fire with his hands? Thou who art all fire\nhave mercy upon me.\" [195] In Luke iii. 16 and Matt. iii. 11 it is\nsaid in the same sense: \"I indeed baptize you with water; but there\ncometh he that is mightier than I.... He shall baptize you with the\nHoly Ghost and with fire.\" And in Luke xii. 49 sq. we read the words:\n\"I came to cast fire upon the earth: and what will I, if it is already\nkindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with.\" Here is a reference\nto fire falling upon the eyes and being made to blaze up by \"baptism,\"\nthat is, the pouring on of a nourishing liquid, as we have seen in\nthe worship of Agni. [196]\n\nJust as John, who was closely related to the Essenes, baptized the\npenitents in the Jordan in the open air, so also the Mand\u00e6i, whose\nconnection with the Essenes is extremely probable, used to perform\nbaptisms in flowing water only, on which account they were also called\n\"the Christians of John\" in later times. This custom among them was\nobviously connected with the fact that Hibil Ziw\u00e2, who was venerated by\nthem as a Redeemer, was a form of Marduk, and the latter was a son of\nthe great Water-God, Ea; he thus incorporated the healing and cleansing\npowers of water in himself. On the other hand, as has been already\nsaid, the \"anointing\" of the God in the Agni Cult with milk, melted\nbutter, and the fluid Soma, served to strengthen the vital powers of\nthe divine child and to bring the sparks slumbering in the fire-wood\nto a blaze. There is no doubt that this idea was also present in the\nbaptism as it was usually practised in the mystic cults. By baptism\nthe newly admitted member was inwardly \"enlightened.\" Often enough,\ntoo, for example, in the Mysteries of Mithras, with the ceremony\nthere was also associated the actual flashing forth of a light, the\nproduction of the Cult God himself manifested in light. [197] By this\nmeans the faithful were \"born again,\" in the same way as Agni was\n\"baptized\" at his birth, and thereby enabled to shine forth brightly\nand to reveal the disorder of the world hidden in the darkness.\n\n\n        \"The world was swallowed up, veiled in darkness,\n        Light appeared, when Agni was born.\" [198]\n\n        \"Shining brightly, Agni flashes forth far and wide,\n        He makes everything plain in splendour.\" [199]\n\n\nA complete understanding of the baptism in the Jordan can only be\nattained if here, too, we take into consideration the translation of\nthe baptism into astrological terms. In other words, it appears that\nJohn the Baptist, as we meet him in the Gospels, was not an historical\npersonage. Apart from the Gospels he is mentioned by Josephus only,\n[200] and this passage, although it was known to Origen [201] in\nearly days, is exposed to a strong suspicion of being a forgery\nby some Christian hand. [202] Again, the account in the Gospels\nof the relations between John and Jesus is full of obscurities and\ncontradictions, as has been pointed out by Strauss. These, however,\ndisappear as soon as we recognise that under the name John, which\nin Hebrew means \"pleasing to God,\" is concealed the Babylonian\nWater-God, Oannes (Ea). Baptism is connected with his worship, and\nthe baptism of Jesus in the Jordan represents the reflection upon\nearth of what originally took place among the stars. That is to say,\nthe sun begins its yearly course with a baptism, entering as it does,\nimmediately after its birth, the constellations of the Water-carrier\nand the Fishes. But this celestial Water Kingdom, in which each year\nthe day-star is purified and born again, is the Eridanus, the heavenly\nJordan or Year-Stream (Egyptian, iaro or iero, the river), wherein the\noriginal baptism of the divine Saviour of the world takes place. [203]\nOn this account it is said in the hymn of Ephrem on the Epiphany\nof the divine Son: \"John stepped forward and adored the Son, whose\nform was enveloped in a strange light,\" and \"when Jesus had received\nthe baptism he immediately ascended, and his light shone over the\nworld.\" [204] In the Syrian Baptismal Liturgy, preserved to us under\nthe name of Severus, we read the words: \"I, he said, baptize with\nwater, but he who comes, with Fire and Spirit, that spirit, namely,\nwhich descended from on high upon his head in the shape of a dove, who\nhas been baptized and has arisen from the midst of the waters, whose\nlight has gone up over the earth.\" According to the Fourth Gospel,\nJohn was not himself the light; but he gave testimony of the light,\n\"that true light which lighteth every man coming into the world,\"\nby whom the world was made and of whose fulness we have all received\ngrace. [205] In this the reference to the sun is unmistakable, while\nthe story of John's birth [206] is copied from that of the Sun-Gods\nIsaac [207] and Samson. [208] In John, the Baptist himself is called\nby Jesus \"a burning and shining lamp,\" [209] and he himself remarks,\nwhen he hears of the numerous following of Jesus, \"he must increase\nbut I must decrease,\" [210] a speech which probably at first referred\nto the summer solstice, when the sun, having reached the highest point\nin its course, enters the winter hemisphere and loses strength day by\nday. John is said to have been born six months before Jesus. [211]\nThis, too, points to the fact that both are essentially identical,\nthat they are only the different halves of the year, representing\nthe sun as rising and setting, these two phases being related to one\nanother as Caleb and Joshua, Nergal and Tammuz, &c. John the Baptist is\nrepresented as wearing a cloak of camel-hair, with a leathern girdle\nabout his loins. [212] This brings to mind the garb of the prophet\nElijah, [213] to whom Jesus himself likened him. [214] But Elijah,\nwho passed among the Jews for a forerunner of the Messiah, is a form\nof Sun-God transferred to history. In other words, he is the same as\nthe Greek Helios, the German Heljas, and Ossetic Ilia, with whom he\ncoincides in most important points, or at any rate characteristics\nof this God have been transferred to the figure of the prophet. [215]\n\nAccording to Babylonian ideas corresponding to the \"baptism of water\"\nat the commencement of the efficacious power of the sun, was the\n\"baptism of fire,\" when it was at the height of its annual course,\nat the time of the summer solstice, and its passage was again\ninclined downwards. [216] This idea, too, is found in the Gospels,\nin the story of the transfiguration of Jesus upon the mountain. [217]\nIt takes precisely the same place in the context of his life-year,\nas depicted by the Evangelists, as the Sun's \"baptism of fire\"\nin the Babylonian world system, since it too marks the highest and\nturning-point in the life of the Christian Saviour. On this occasion\nMoses and Elijah appeared with the Saviour, who shone like a pillar\nof fire, \"and his garments became glistening, exceeding white, like\nunto snow, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.\" And there came\na cloud which overshadowed the three disciples whom Jesus had taken\nwith him on to the mountain. And a voice came from the cloud, saying,\n\"This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.\" As at the baptism, so here,\ntoo, was Jesus proclaimed by a heavenly voice as the Son or beloved\nof God, or rather of the Holy Spirit. As the latter is in Hebrew of\nthe feminine gender, it consequently appears that in this passage we\nhave before us a parallel to the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The\nincident is generally looked upon as though by it was emphasised\nthe higher significance of Jesus in comparison with the two chief\nrepresentatives of the old order, and as though Jesus was extolled\nbefore Moses and Elijah by the transfiguration. Here too, however,\nthe Sun-God, Helios, is obviously concealed beneath the form of the\nIsraelite Elijah. On this account Christianity changed the old places\nof worship of Zeus and Helios upon eminences into chapels of Elijah;\nand Moses is no other than the Moon-God, the Men of Asia Minor. And\nhe has been introduced into the story because the divine lawgivers in\nalmost all mythologies are the same as the moon, the measurer of time\nand regulator of all that happens (cf. Manu among the Indians, Minos\namong the Greeks, Men (Min) among the Egyptians). [218] According\nto Justin, [219] David is supposed to have made the prophecy that\nChrist would be born \"before the sun and the moon.\" The sun and moon\noften appear upon the pictures of the Nearer Asiatic Redeemer, God\n(e.g., Mithras), paling before the splendour of the young Light-God,\nas we have seen in the case of Buddha, [220] and as, according to\nthe narrative of the Rigveda, also happened at the birth of the Child\nAgni. Accordingly we have before us in the story of the transfiguration\nin the Gospels only another view of the story of the birth of the\nLight-God or Fire-God, such as lies at the root of the story of the\nbaptism of the Christian Saviour. [221] And with the thought of the\nnew birth of the Saviour is associated that of the baptism of Jesus,\nand particularly that of the fire-baptism, of which the sun partakes\nat the height of its power. [222]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\nTHE SELF-OFFERING OF THE MESSIAH. THE SUPPER\n\n\nLike Baptism, the sacrament of the \"Supper,\" the partaking of the\nsacred host and wine (in place of which among certain sects water is\nalso found), has its precedent in the most ancient fire-worship. When\nthe sacred fire had been kindled upon the altar, the faithful were\naccustomed, as the Rigveda shows, to sit down in order to partake of\nthe sacred cake prepared from meal and butter, the symbol of all solid\nfood, and of the Soma cup, the symbol of all liquid nourishment. It\nwas thought that Agni dwelt invisible within these substances: in\nthe meal as though in the concentrated heat of the sun, in the Soma,\nsince the drink in its fiery nature and invigorating power disclosed\nthe nature of the God of Fire and Life. Participation therein opened to\nthe faithful communion with Agni. Thereby they were incorporated with\nthe God. They felt themselves transformed into him, raised above the\nactuality of every day, and as members of a common body, as though of\none heart and one soul, inflamed by the same feeling of interdependence\nand brotherhood. Then some such hymn as follows would mount towards\nheaven from their breasts overflowing with thankfulness:--\n\n\n        \"Oh great Agni, true-minded\n        Thou dost indeed unite all.\n        Enkindled on the place of worship\n        Bring us all that is good.\n        Unitedly come, unitedly speak,\n        And let your hearts be one,\n        Just as the old Gods\n        For their part are of one mind.\n\n        Like are their designs, like their assembly,\n        Like their disposition, united their thoughts.\n        So pray I also to you with like prayer,\n        And sacrifice unto you with like sacrifice.\n        The like design you have indeed,\n        And your hearts are united.\n        Let your thoughts be in unison,\n        That you may be happily joined together.\" [223]\n\n\nWhile the faithful by partaking of the sacred cake and the fiery\nSoma cup united themselves with the God and were filled with his\n\"spirit,\" the sacrificial gifts which had been brought to him burnt\nupon the altars. These consisted likewise of Soma and Sacred Cake,\nand caused the sacred banquet to be of such a kind that it was\npartaken of by Agni and men together. The God was at and present\nin the banquet dedicated to him. He consumed the gifts, transformed\nthem into flame, and in sweet-smelling smoke bore them with him up\nto heaven. Here they were partaken of by the other divine beings and\nfinally by the Father of Heaven himself. Thus Agni became not merely\nan agent at the sacrifice, a mystic sacrificial priest, but, since the\nsacrificial gifts simply contained him in material form, a sacrificer,\nwho offered his own body in sacrifice. [224] While man sacrificed God,\nGod at the same time sacrificed himself. Indeed, this sacrifice was\none in which God was not only the subject but also the object, both\nsacrificer and sacrificed. \"It was a common mode of thinking among the\nIndians,\" says Max M\u00fcller, \"to look upon the fire on the altar as at\nthe same time subject and object of the sacrifice. The fire burnt the\noffering and was accordingly the priest as it were. The fire bore the\noffering to the Gods and was accordingly a mediator between God and\nmen. But the fire also represented something divine. It was a God,\nand if honour was paid to this God, the fire was at once subject and\nobject of the sacrifice. Out of this arose the first idea, that Agni\nsacrificed to himself, that is, that he brought his own offering to\nhimself, then, that he brought himself as a victim--out of which the\nlater legends grew.\" [225] The sacrifice of the God is a sacrificing of\nthe God. The genitive in this sentence is in one case to be understood\nin an objective, in the other in a subjective sense. In other words,\nthe sacrifice which man offers to the God is a sacrifice which the\nGod brings, and this sacrifice of the God is at the same time one in\nwhich the God offers himself as victim.\n\nIn the Rigveda Agni, as God of Priests and Sacrifices, also bears\nthe name of Vi\u00e7vakarman, i.e., \"Consummator of All.\" Hymn x., 81 also\ndescribes him as the creator of the world, who called the world into\nexistence, and in so doing gave his own body in sacrifice. Hence,\nthen, the world, according to x. 82, represents nothing existing\nexterior to him, but the very manifestation of Vi\u00e7vakarman, in which\nat the creation he as it were appeared. On the other hand, Purusha,\nthe first man, is represented as he out of whose body the world was\nformed. [226] But Purusha is, as we have seen, the prototype of the\nMandaic and apocalyptic \"son of man.\" Herein lies the confirmation\nof the fact that the \"son of man\" is none other than Agni, the most\nhuman of the Vedic Gods. In the Mazda religion the first mortals were\ncalled Meshia and Meshiane, the ancestors of fallen mankind, who expect\ntheir redemption at the hands of another Meshia. This meaning of the\nword Messiah was not strange to the Jews too, when they placed the\nlatter as the \"new Adam\" in the middle of the ages. Adam, however,\nalso means man. [227] The Messiah accordingly, as the new Adam,\nwas for them too only a renewal of the first man in a loftier and\nbetter form. This idea, that mankind needed to be renewed by another\ntypical representative of itself, goes back in the last resort to\nIndia, where, after the dismemberment of Purusha, a man arose in\nthe person of Manu or Manus. He was to be the just king, the first\nlawgiver and establisher of civilisation, descending after his death\nto rule as judge in the under-world (cf. the Cretan Minos). But Manu,\nwhose name again meant no more than man or human being (Manusha),\npassed as son of Agni. Indeed, he was even completely identified\nwith him, since life, spirit, and fire to the mind of primitive man\nare interchangeable ideas, although it is spirit and intelligence\nwhich are expressed under the name of Manu (Man = to measure, to\nexamine). [228] We thus also obtain a new reason for the fact that the\ndivine Redeemer is a human being. We also understand not only why the\n\"first-born son of God\" was, according to the ideas of the whole of\nNearer Asiatic syncretism, the principle of the creation of the world,\nbut also why the redemption which he brought man could be for this\nreason looked upon as a divine self-sacrifice. [229]\n\nThe sacrifice of the God on the part of mankind is a sacrifice of the\nGod himself--it is only by this means that the community between God\nand man was completed. The God offers sacrifice for man, while man\noffers sacrifice for God. Indeed, more than this, he offers himself\nfor mankind, he gives his own body that man may reap the fruit of\nhis sacrifice. The divine \"son\" offers himself as a victim. Sent\ndown by the \"father\" upon the earth in the form of light and warmth,\nhe enters men as the \"quickening and life-giving spirit\" under the\nappearance of bread and wine. He consumes himself in the fire and\nunites man with the father above, in that by his disposal of his\nown personality he removes the separation and difference between\nthem. Thus Agni extinguishes the hostility between God and man, thus\nhe consumes their sins in the glow of his fiery nature, spiritualising\nand illuminating them inwardly. Through the invigorating power of\nthe \"fire-water\" he raises men above the actuality of every day\nto the source of their existence and by his own sacrifice obtains\nfor them a life of blessedness in heaven. In the sacrifice, too,\nGod and man are identified. Therein God descends to man and man is\nraised to God. That is the common thought which had already found\nexpression in the Rigveda, which later formed the special \"mystery\"\nof the secret cults and religious unions of Nearer Asia, which lay\nat the root of the sacrament of \"the Supper,\" which guaranteed to man\nthe certainty of a blessed life in the beyond, and reconciled him to\nthe thought of bodily death. [230] Agni is accordingly nothing else\nthan the bodily warmth in individuals, and as such the subject of\ntheir motions and thoughts, the principle of life, their soul. When\nthe body grows cold in death the warmth of life leaves it, the eyes\nof the dead go up to the sun, his breath into the wind; his soul,\nhowever, ascends towards heaven where the \"fathers\" dwell, into the\nkingdom of everlasting light and life. [231] Indeed, so great is the\npower of Agni, the divine physician and saviour of the soul, [232]\nthat he, as the God of all creative power, can, by merely laying on\nhis hands, even call the dead back to life. [233]\n\nEven in the Old Testament we meet with the idea of a sacramental\nmeal. This is pointed to in Genesis xiv. 18 sqq., when Melchisedek,\nthe prince of peace (\"King of Salem\"), the priest of \"God Most\nHigh,\" prepares for Abraham a meal of bread and wine, and at it\nimparts to him the blessing of the Lord God. For Melchisedek, the\nruler of Salem, the city of peace, \"the King of Justice,\" as he is\ncalled in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is even in this book plainly\ndescribed as an ancient God: \"without father, without mother, without\ngenealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made\nlike unto the Son of God, he abideth a priest continually.\" [234]\nSo also the Prophet Jeremiah speaks of holy feasts, consisting of\ncake and wine, of nightly sacrifices of burnt-offerings and liquids,\nwhich were offered to the Queen of Heaven (i.e., the Moon) and other\nDivinities. [235] Isaiah, too, is indignant against those who prepare\na drinking-feast for God and make liquid offerings to Meni. [236]\nNow Meni is none other than Men, the Moon-God of Asia Minor, and\nas such is identical with Selene-Mene, the Goddess of the Moon in\nthe Orphic hymns. Like her he is a being of a dual sex, at once\nQueen and King of Heaven. Consequently a liquid sacrifice appears\nto have been offered by all the people of Nearer Asia in honour of\nthe Moon. As Moon-God (Deus Lunus) and as related to Meni, in whose\nworship a sacramental meal also plays the chief part, Agni appears in\nthe Vedas under the name of Manu, Manus, or Soma. He too is a being\nof dual sex. Of this we are again reminded when Philo, the Rabbinic\nspeculation of the Kabbala, as well as the Gnostics ascribe to the\nfirst man (Adam Kadmon) two faces and the form of a man and woman,\nuntil God separated the two sexes from one another. [237] According\nto this we should probably look upon the fire-worship in Asia Minor\nalso as the foundation of the sacramental meal.\n\nObviously we have to do with a meal of this kind in the bringing in\nof the so-called shew-bread. Every Sabbath twelve cakes were laid by\nthe priests \"upon the pure table before the Lord,\" \"and it shall be\nfor Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, for\nit is most holy unto him of the offerings of the Lord, by a perpetual\nstatute.\" [238]\n\nIt appears, then, that this meal, presided over by the High Priest as\nrepresentative of Aaron, was partaken of by twelve other priests, and\nRobertson rightly sees herein the Jewish prototype of the Christian\nSupper and of the number of apostles--the Twelve--present at it. But\nthe High Priest Aaron is a personification of the Jewish Ark of the\nCovenant, that is, of the visible expression of the Covenant between\nGod and man, one of the chief prototypes of the Messiah. And if the\nself-offering of the Messiah, as we have seen above (p. 78), has its\nprecedent in the self-offering of Aaron, so also the great solemnity\nof the Aaronic sacrificial meal would not be wanting in the story of\nthe Christian Redeemer.\n\nAs is well known, Joshua too, the Jesus of the Old Testament, whom we\nhave learnt to recognise as an ancient Ephraimitic God of the Sun and\nFruitfulness, was accompanied in his passage of the Jordan by twelve\nassistants, one from each tribe. And he is said after circumcising the\npeople to have celebrated the Paschal Feast on the other bank. [239]\nHence, taking into account what has been said above concerning Joshua,\nwe are probably justified in drawing the conclusion that his name was\npermanently connected with the partaking of the Easter lamb. [240]\nIn any case the so-called \"Supper\" of Christianity did not only later\ntake its place as the central point of religious activity, but from\nthe beginning it held this central position in the cults of those\nsects out of which Christianity was developed. It was the point of\ncrystallisation, the highest point, of the other ritualistic acts,\nin a way the germ cell out of which in association with the idea\nof the death and resurrection of the God Redeemer the Christian\noutlook upon the world has grown. Just as in the Vedic Agni Cult the\nsacrifice offered by men to their God was a self-sacrifice of this\nGod as well in a subjective as in an objective sense; just as the\nparticipating in common of the sacrificial gifts served the purpose\nof rendering the sacrifice in an inward sense their very own, and\nthereby making them immediate participators in its efficacy, so, too,\nthe Christian partakes in the bread of the body of his God and in the\nwine drinks his blood in order to become as it were himself God. The\nEvangelists make the Supper coincide with the Feast of the Pasch,\nbecause originally a man was immolated on this occasion; and he,\nas the first-born and most valuable of sacrificial gifts, took the\nplace of the God who offered himself in sacrifice. [241]\n\nThe celebration of sacramental feasts was very widespread throughout\nthe whole of antiquity. They were among the most important acts\nof worship in the Mystic religions, above all in connection with\nthe idea of the Saviour (Soter) and God of Sacrifices, who gave his\nlife for the world. Thus Mithras, the Persian Agni, is said to have\ncelebrated in a last meal with Helios and the other companions of\nhis toils the end of their common struggle. Those initiated into\nthe Mysteries of Mithras also celebrated this occurrence by common\nfeasts in which they strove to unite themselves in a mystic manner\nwith the God. Saos (Saon or Samon), the son of Zeus or Hermes,\nthe God of Healing, and a nymph, reminds us of the name of Mithras,\nrejuvenated and risen again, of Saoshyant or Sosiosh. He is said to\nhave founded the Mysteries in Samothrace, and appears to be identical\nwith the mythical Sabus, who is supposed to have given his name to the\nSabines, to have founded Italian civilization, and to have invented\nwine. [242] His name characterises him as the \"sacrificer\" (Scr.,\nSavana, sacrifice); and he appears to be a Western form of Agni,\nthe God of Sacrifices and preparer of the Soma, since Dionysus also\nbore the surname of Saos or Saotes and, as distributor of the wine, is\nsupposed to have shed his blood for the salvation of the world, to have\ndied and to have risen again, and thus has a prototype in the Vedic\nAgni. With Saos are connected Iasios (Jasion), the son and beloved of\nDemeter or Aphrodite (Maia), and of Zeus or the divine \"artificer\"\nHephaistos (Tvashtar). Just as Saos established the worship of the\nCabiri, Iasios is said to have established the worship of Demeter in\nSamothrace. In this connection he is identified with Hermes-Cadmus,\nthe divine sacrificial priest (Kadmilos, i.e., Servant of God) of\nthe Samothracian religion (cf. Adam-Kadmon of the Kabbala and the\nGnostics, who is connected both with Agni-Manu and Jesus). According\nto Usener his name is connected with the Greek \"iasthein,\" to cure,\nand consequently characterises its bearer as \"saviour.\" But this is\nalso the real meaning of the name Jason, whose bearer, a form of the\npatron of physicians, Asclepios (Helios), wanders about as a physician,\nexorciser of demons and founder of holy rites, and was venerated as\nGod of Healing in the whole of Nearer Asia and Greece. [243] The myth\nalso connects him with the establishment of the worship of the twelve\nGods. [244]\n\nNow, Iasios (Jason) is only a Greek form of the name Joshua\n(Jesus). Just as Joshua crossed the Jordan with twelve assistants and\ncelebrated the Pasch (lamb) on the further bank, just as Jesus in\nhis capacity of divine physician and wonder-worker wanders through\nGalilee (the district of Galil!) with twelve disciples, and goes to\nJerusalem at the Pasch in order to eat the Easter lamb there with\nthe Twelve, so does Jason set out with twelve companions in order to\nfetch the golden fleece of the lamb from Colchis. [245] And just as\nJason, after overcoming innumerable dangers, successfully leads his\ncompanions to their goal and back again to the homes they so longed\nfor, so does Joshua lead the people of Israel into the promised land\n\"where milk and honey flow,\" and so Jesus shows his followers the\nway to their true home, the kingdom of heaven, the land of their\n\"fathers,\" whence the soul originally came and whither after the\ncompletion of its journey through life it returns. It can scarcely\nbe doubted that in all of these cases we have to do with one and the\nsame myth--the myth of the Saving Sun and Rejoicer of the peoples,\nas it was spread among all the peoples of antiquity, but especially\nin Nearer Asia. We can scarcely doubt that the stories in question\noriginally referred to the annual journey of the sun through the\ntwelve signs of the Zodiac. Even the names (Iasios, Jason, Joshua,\nJesus; cf. also Vishnu Jesudu, see above) agree, and their common\nroot is contained also in the name Jao (Jahwe), from which Joshua is\nderived. Jao or Jehu, however, was a mystical name of Dionysus among\nthe Greeks, and he, like Vishnu Jesudu (Krishna), Joshua, and Jesus,\nroamed about in his capacity of travelling physician and redeemer\nof the world. [246] Of all of these wandering Healers, Physicians,\nand Deliverers it is true that they were honoured in the Mysteries\nby sacramental meals and offered the faithful both the chalice of\ncorporal and spiritual healing and the \"bread of life.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\nSYMBOLS OF THE MESSIAH: THE LAMB AND THE CROSS\n\n\nOf a great number of modes of expression and images in the New\nTestament we know that they originated from the common treasury of\nthe languages of the secret sects of the Orient, having their source\nabove all in Mandaism and the Mithraic religion. Thus \"the rock,\"\n\"the water,\" \"the bread,\" \"the book,\" or \"the light of life,\"\n[247] \"the second death,\" \"the vine,\" \"the good shepherd,\" &c.,\nare simply expressions which in part are known also by the Rigveda\nand there belong to the ideas grouped about Agni, the God of Fire,\nLife, and Shepherds. Of the latter, too, as of Jesus, it is said\nthat he loses not a single one of the flock entrusted to his care,\n[248] for Pushan, to whom the hymn in this connection is addressed,\nis only a form of Agni. In its symbols also the earliest Christianity\ncoincides with Indian thought in such a striking manner that it can\nscarcely be explained as chance. Thus the horse, [249] the hare, and\nthe peacock, which play so great a part in symbolic pictures of the\ncatacombs, point to an ultimately Vedic origin, where they all stand in\nconnection with the nature of Agni. Again, the Fish was already to be\nfound in the Indian Fire Worship and appears to have here originally\nrepresented Agni swimming in the water of the clouds, the ocean of\nheaven. [250] In the hymn of the Rigveda itself Agni is often invoked\nas \"the Bull.\" This was probably originally a simple nature symbol,\nthe Bull as image of the strength of the God; then the Fire-God and\nSun-God, in his capacity of preparer of the Soma cup, was identified\nwith the moon (Manu), whose crescents were taken as the horns of a\nbull. Later, however, the image of the Bull was driven out by that\nof the Ram. As early as in the Rigveda there is frequent mention of\nthe God's \"banner of smoke.\" Thus he was accustomed to be represented\nleading a ram with a banner in his hand or simply with a banner in his\nhand with the picture of a ram upon it, just as Christ is portrayed\nunder the shape of a ram or lamb bearing a banner like a cross.\n\nAbout the year 800 B.C. the sun, the heavenly Agni, which had hitherto\nbeen at the commencement of spring in the constellation of the Bull,\nentered (as a consequence of the advance of equality between day and\nnight) that of the Ram. Thus it became, according to astrological\nmodes of thought, itself a ram. [251] While it had formerly, in the\nshape of a bull, opened the spring and released the world from the\npower of winter--an image which was still retained in the Mithras\nCult--these functions were now transferred to the ram, and this became\na symbol of the God and the beast offered in expiatory sacrifices. Now\nthe constellation of the Ram was described by the Persians in a word\nwhich could also mean lamb. In other cases also the lamb often took\nthe place of the ram in the sacrificial worship of Nearer Asia; for\nexample, among the Jews, who were accustomed to consume the Paschal\nlamb at the beginning of the year in spring. This is the explanation\nof the mystical lamb in the Revelation of John (which is scarcely an\noriginal Christian work, but shows signs of a pre-Christian Cult of\nJesus [252]), being depicted by seven horns or rays in a way which\nrather implies the idea of a ram.\n\nThe fifth chapter of Revelation describes the lamb in its quality\nof heavenly victim of expiation. No one can open the book with the\nseven seals, which God holds in his right hand, in which the fate of\nthe world appears to be written, but the lamb alone succeeds in so\ndoing--\"In the midst of the four-and-twenty elders who, clad in white\ngarments and with crowns on their heads, sit around the divine throne,\nand in the midst of the four beasts who sit around it, the lamb,\nsuddenly and without anything happening, stands as though it had been\nslain, having seven horns and seven eyes which are the seven spirits of\nGod, sent forth into all the earth. And when he had taken the book the\nfour living creatures and the four-and-twenty elders fell down before\nthe lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense,\nwhich are the prayers of the saints. And they sing a new song saying,\nWorthy art thou to take the book and to open the seals thereof, for\nthou wast slain and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every\ntribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be unto\nour God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon the earth.\" [253]\n\nThe scene recalls to mind the self-offering of Agni in the midst of\nthe Gods, Priests, and victims, and the ascension of the God which\nthen took place. Just as the sacrifice of the lamb in Revelation\nrefers to the entrance of the sun into the constellation of the Ram,\nand the victory of light over wintry darkness and the beginning of\na new life which it heralds, so were mystic sacrifices of bulls and\nrams in the other Sun Cults of Nearer Asia, especially in those of\nAttis and Mithras, very customary for purposes of expiation or new\nbirth. On these occasions the beast was immolated while standing,\nand the blood which poured in streams from the victim was looked upon\nas a means of cleansing and of life-giving. In any case, throughout\nRevelation the lamb plays the part of the heavenly fire revealing\nGod's illuminatory nature, unfolding his wisdom and enlightening the\nworld. As it is said of the heavenly Jerusalem: \"And the city needed\nno sun and no moon to shine upon her, for the glory of God illumined\nher, and her light is the lamb.\" [254]\n\nAgain, in the Church of the first century, at Easter, a lamb was\nsolemnly slaughtered upon an altar and its blood collected in a\nchalice. [255] Accordingly in the early days of Christianity the\ncomparison of Christ with the light and the lamb was a very favourite\none. Above all the Gospel of John makes the widest use of it. As had\nalready been done in the Vedic Cult of Agni, here too were identified\nwith Christ the creative word of God that had existed before the\nworld--the life, the light, and the lamb. And he was also called\n\"the light of the world\" that came to light up the darkness ruling\nupon the earth, as well as \"the Lamb of God, who bore the sins of the\nworld.\" [256] And indeed the Latin expression for lamb (agnus) also\nexpresses its relation to the ancient Fire-God and its sanctity as a\nsacrificial animal. For its root is connected with ignis (Scr. agni,\nthe purifying fire, and yagna, victim), and also, according to Festus\nPompeius, with the Greek \"hagnos,\" pure, consecrated, and \"hagnistes,\"\nthe expiator. [257] In this sense \"Agnus Dei,\" the Lamb of God,\nas Christ is very frequently called, is in fact nothing else than\n\"Agni Deus,\" since Agnus stands in a certain measure as the Latin\ntranslation for Agni. [258] But in India at the so-called Hulfeast,\nat the spring equinox, a ram (lamb) used to be solemnly burnt as an\nexpiatory victim representing Agni. The \"crucifixion\" of Jesus, as will\nlikewise appear, is in a certain sense only the symbol of the burning\nof the divine lamb, which by its death redeems man from sin. In both\ncases the lamb refers to the lamb of the Zodiac, the constellation of\nthe Ram, into which the sun enters at the time of the spring equinox,\nand with which consequently, in accordance with the astrological way\nof looking at things, it is blended, and which is as though burnt up\nby it. Thus were completed the victory of the Sun Fire (Agni) over\nthe night of winter and the resurrection of nature to a new life,\nthis cosmic process finding its reflection in the sacrifice upon\nearth of a lamb (agnus).\n\nDuring the first century after Christ the lamb in association with\nlight and fire was among the most popular images in ecclesiastical\nlanguage and symbolism. The heathen Romans used to hang \"bull\u00e6\"\nround the necks of their children as amulets. The Christians\nused consecrated waxen lambs, which were manufactured out of the\nremains of the Easter candles of the preceding year and distributed\nduring Easter week. The belief then attached itself to these \"Agnus\nDei's,\" that if they were preserved in a house they gave protection\nagainst lightning and fire. Above all the lamps offered a convenient\nopportunity for symbolising Christ as a light, and thus making use\nof the image of the lamb. [259] The motif of the lamb with the cross\nis also found very frequently in old Christian art upon glass bowls,\nsarcophagi, and articles of use of all kinds. And indeed in such cases\nthe cross is sometimes found upon the head or shoulder, sometimes at\nthe side of the lamb or even behind him, while a nimbus in the shape\nof a disc of sunlight surrounds his head and points to the \"light\"\nnature of the lamb. The nimbus, too, is an old Indian symbol, and\nthus indicates that the whole conception was borrowed from the circle\nof Indian ideas. Later the lamb is also found upon the cross itself,\nand indeed at the point of intersection of the two arms surrounded by\nthe disc of sunlight. This seems to point to the Saviour's death upon\nthe cross, the cross here appearing to be understood as the gibbet. But\nis it really certain that the cross in the world of Christian thought\npossessed this significance from the beginning as the instrument by\nmeans of which Jesus was put to death?\n\nIn the whole of Christendom it passes as a settled matter that Jesus\n\"died upon the cross\"; but this has the shape, as it is usually\nrepresented among painters, of the so-called Latin cross, in which the\nhorizontal crosspiece is shorter than the vertical beam. On what then\ndoes the opinion rest that the cross is the gibbet? The Evangelists\nthemselves give us no information on this point. The Jews described\nthe instrument which they made use of in executions by the expression\n\"wood\" or \"tree.\" Under this description it often occurs in the Greek\ntranslation of the Old Testament, in which the gibbet is rendered by\nx\u00falon, the same expression being also found in the Gospels. Usually,\nhowever, the gibbet is described as staur\u00f3s (i.e., stake), so much\nso that staur\u00f3s and x\u00falon pass for synonyms. The Latin translation of\nboth these words is crux. By this the Romans understood any apparatus\nfor the execution of men generally, without thinking, however, as a\nrule of anything else than a stake or gallows (patibulum, stipes) upon\nwhich, as Livy tells us, the delinquent was bound with chains or ropes\nand so delivered over to death. [260] That the method of execution in\nPalestine differed in any way from this is not in any way shown. Among\nthe Jews also the condemned used to be hanged upon a simple stake or\nbeam, and exposed to a lingering death from heat, hunger, and thirst,\nas well as from the natural tension of his muscles. \"To fasten to the\ncross\" (stauroun, afigere cruci) accordingly does not mean either in\nEast or West to crucify in our sense, but at first simply \"to torture\"\nor \"martyr,\" and later \"to hang upon a stake or gallows.\" And in this\nconnection it appears that the piercing of hands and feet with nails,\nat least at the time at which the execution of Jesus is supposed to\nhave occurred, was something quite unusual, if it was ever employed\nat all. The expressions prospassaleuein and pros\u00e9loun, moreover,\nusually signify only to \"fasten,\" \"to hang upon a nail,\" but not at\nall \"to nail to\" in the special sense required. [261]\n\nThere is not then the least occasion for assuming that according to\noriginal Christian views an exception to this mode of proceeding was\nmade at the execution of Jesus. The only place in the Gospels where\nthere is any mention of the \"marks of the nails\" (viz., John xx. 25)\nbelongs, as does the whole Gospel, to a relatively later time,\nand appears, as does so much in John, as a mere strengthening and\nexaggeration of the original story. For example, Luke xxiv. 39, upon\nwhich John is based, does not speak at all of nail-marks, but merely\nof the marks of the wounds which the condemned must naturally have\nreceived as a consequence of being fastened to the stake. Accordingly\nthe idea that Christ was \"nailed\" to the cross was in the earliest\nChristianity by no means the ruling one. Ambrose, for example, only\nspeaks of the \"cords\" of the \"cross\" and the \"ligatures of the passion\"\n(\"usque ad crucis laqueos ac retia passionis\"), [262] and consequently\nknew nothing of nails having been used in this case. [263] If we\nconsider that the \"crucifixion\" of Jesus corresponds to the hanging\nof Attis, Osiris, and so forth, and that the idea of the gibbeted\ngods of Nearer Asia called forth and fixed the Christian view; if we\nremember that Haman, the prototype of Jesus at the Purim feast, was\nalso hanged upon a gallows, [264] then it becomes doubly improbable\nthat our present ideas on the matter correspond to the views of\nthe early Christians. For although we have no direct picture of the\nhanging of those Gods, yet we possess representations of the execution\nof Marsyas by Apollo, in which the God has his rival hauled up on to a\ntree by ropes round his wrists, which have been bound together. [265]\nBut Marsyas, the inventor of the flute, the friend and guide of Cybele\nin the search for the lost Attis, is no other than the latter himself,\nor at any rate a personality very near akin to Attis. [266] It is not\ndifficult to conclude that Attis too, or the man who represented him\nin the rites, was hung in the same manner to the stake or tree-trunk\nand thus put to death. Thus it seems that originally the manner of\ndeath of the Jewish Messiah was imagined in the same way, and so the\nheathens too called the new God in scorn \"the Hanged One.\"\n\nHow, then, did the idea come into existence that Jesus did not die upon\na simple gallows, but rather upon wood having the well-known form of\nthe cross? It arose out of a misunderstanding, from considering as\nthe same and mingling two ideas which were originally distinct but\ndescribed by the same word wood, tree, x\u00falon, lignum, arbor. This word\nsignifies, as we have already said, on the one hand indeed the stake\nor gallows (staur\u00f3s, crux) upon which the criminal was executed; but\nthe same word, corresponding to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament,\nalso referred to the \"wood,\" \"the tree of life,\" which was supposed\nto stand in Paradise. According to the Revelation of John it was to\nserve as food for the holy in the new Paradise to come, [267] and it\nwas honoured by the Christians as the \"seal\" and guarantee of their\nsalvation under the form of the mystic cross or Tau.\n\nIn all private religious associations and secret cults of later\nantiquity the members made use of a secret sign of recognition or\nunion. This they carried about in the form, in some cases, of wooden,\nbronze, or silver amulets hung round the neck or concealed beneath\nthe clothes, in others woven in their garments, or tattooed upon the\nforehead, neck, breast, hands, &c. Among these signs was the cross,\nand it was usually described under the name \"Tau,\" after the letter\nof the old Phoenician alphabet. Such an application of the cross\nto mystic or religious ends reaches back into grey antiquity. From\nof old the cross was in use in the cult of the Egyptian Gods,\nespecially of Isis and Horus. It was also found among the Assyrians\nand Persians, serving, as the pictures show, in part as the mark\nand ornament of distinguished persons, such as priests and kings,\nin part also as a religious attribute in the hands of the Gods and\ntheir worshippers. According to some it was the sign which Jahwe\nordered the Israelites to paint upon their doors with the blood of\nthe lamb when he sent the angel of death to destroy the first-born of\ntheir Egyptian oppressors. It played a similar part also in Isaiah\n[268] and Ezekiel, [269] when it was a question of separating\nthe god-fearing Israelites from the crowd of other men whom Jahwe\npurposed to destroy. When the Israelites were pressed in battle by\nthe Amalekites Moses is said to have been helped by Aaron and Hur to\nstretch out his arms in the shape of that magic sign, and thus to have\nrendered possible a victory for his people over their enemies. [270]\nAmong the other nations of antiquity also--the Greeks, Thracians,\nthe Gaulish Druids, and so on--the Tau was applied in a similar\nmanner to ritualistic and mystic ends. It appears as an ornament\non the images of the most different divinities and heroes--e.g.,\nApollo, Dionysus, Demeter, Diana (the Phoenician Astarte). It is also\nfound upon innumerable Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Phoenician coins,\nupon vases, pictures, jewellery, &c. In Alexandria the Christians\nfound it chiselled upon the stone when the temple of Serapis was\ndestroyed, in 391. In this temple Serapis himself was represented\nof superhuman size, with arms outstretched in the form of a cross,\nas though embracing the universe. In Rome the Vestal virgins wore\nthe cross upon a ribbon round the neck. Indeed, it even served as an\nornament upon the weapons of the Roman legions and upon the standards\nof the cavalry long before Constantine, by his well-known \"vision,\"\ngave occasion for its being expressly introduced under the form of the\nso-called \"Monogram of Christ\" into the army as a military sign. [271]\nBut in the North also we find the cross, not only in the shape of the\nhooked-cross and the three-armed cross (Triskele), but also in the form\nof Thor's hammer, upon runic, stones, weapons, utensils, ornaments,\namulets, &c. And when the heathens of the North, as Snorre informs us,\nmarked themselves in the hour of death with a spear, they scratched\nupon their bodies one of the sacred signs that has been mentioned,\nin doing which they dedicated themselves to God. [272]\n\nThat here we have to do with a sun symbol is easily recognised wherever\nthe simple, equally-armed cross appears duplicated with an oblique\ncross having the same point of intersection with it, [eight ray star\nsymbol], or where it has the shape of a perpendicular which is cut\nsymmetrically by two other lines crossing one another, [six ray star\nsymbol]. And as a matter of fact this symbol of a sun shedding\nits rays is found upon numberless coins and illustrations, in which\nit is obvious that a reference to the sun is intended--e.g., upon\nthe coins of the Egyptian Ptolemies, of the city Gods of Rome, of\nAugustus and the Flavian C\u00e6sars. Here the Sun sign appears to have\nbeen adopted as a consequence of the fusing of the Sun Cult of later\nantiquity with the cult of the Emperor. Much more frequent, however,\nis the simple Tau, sometimes, indeed, in a shape with equal limbs\n(Greek cross), +, sometimes with the upright below lengthened (Latin\ncross), sometimes upright, sometimes oblique (St. Andrew's cross), \u00d7,\nsometimes, again, like the Greek letter Tau, T, sometimes in the\nshape of the so-called mirror of Venus, [Venus symbol], in which the\nring plainly refers to the sun, sometimes in that of the Svastika,\nor hooked cross, [swastika], sometimes with, sometimes without a\ncircle, and so on. A form made up of the oblique and the ring cross\nof the Egyptians (so-called Key of the Nile) is the cross known under\nthe description of the \"Monogram of Christ.\" According to the legend\nit was first employed by Constantine on account of his \"vision\"; and\necclesiastical writers, especially on the Catholic side, try even\nto-day to support this view, in spite of all facts. For this form of\nthe cross also is clearly of pre-Christian origin, and had its\nprototype in the ancient Bactrian Labarum cross, as is found, for\nexample, upon the coins of the Bactrian king Hippostratos (about\n130 B.C.), of the Egyptian Ptolemies, of Mithridates, upon Attic\nTetradrachma, &c. [273]\n\nAfter the careful investigations on this subject which have been\nundertaken by French savants especially, there can be no doubt that\nwe have before us in this so-called \"seal\" of the Gods and religious\npersonalities a symbol of the creative force of nature, of the\nresurrection and the new life, a pledge of divine protection in this\nworld and of everlasting blessedness after. As such it appears upon\nheathen sarcophagi and tombstones; and on this account in some cases\ntheir Christian character is too quickly assumed. Moreover, the cross\nhas been preserved in present-day musical notation as the sign of the\nraising of a note, [274] while its use in the Mysteries and private\nCult associations is authority for the statement that precisely in\nthese the thought of a new-birth and resurrection in company with the\nhero of the association or God of the union stood as a central point\nof faith. One understands the painful feeling of the Christians at the\nfact that the private sign used by them and their special sacraments\nwere in use among all the secret cults of antiquity. They could explain\nthis to themselves only as the work of spiteful d\u00e6mons and an evil\nimitation of Christian usages on the heathens' part. [275] In reality\nthe symbol of the cross is much older than Christianity; and, indeed,\nthe sign of the cross is found associated in a special manner with the\ncult of divinities of nature or life with its alternations of birth,\nblossoming, and decay, representatives of the fertility and creative\nforce of nature, the Light-Gods and Sun-Gods subjected to death and\ntriumphing victoriously over it. It is only as such, as Gods who\ndied and rose again, that they were divinities of the soul and so of\nthe Mysteries and pious fraternities. The idea of the soul, however,\nis found everywhere in nature religion considered as being connected\nwith the warmth of life and with fire, just as the sun was honoured as\nthe highest divinity and, so to speak, as the visible manifestation\nof the world-soul solely on account of its fiery nature. Should not,\nthen, the symbol of life, which in its developed form plainly refers\nto the sun, in its simplest and original shape point to the fire,\nthis \"earliest phenomenon\" of all religious worship?\n\nNaturally, indeed, different views can be held as to what the various\nforms of the cross betoken. Thus, for example, according to Burnouf,\nSchliemann, and others, the Svastika represents the \"fire's cradle,\"\ni.e., the pith of the wood, from which in oldest times in the point\nof intersection of the two arms the fire was produced by whirling\nround an inserted stick. [276] On the other hand, according to the\nview most widespread at the present day, it simply symbolises the\ntwirling movement when making the fire, and on this, too, rests its\napplication as symbol of the sun's course. [277] Hochart considers\nthe cross in the shape of the Greek Tau as the inserted stick\n(pramantha) of the Vedic priests. [278] Very likely, however, this\nform arose simply through the identity of sound between the Greek and\nPhoenician letter, the Greeks having interchanged the like-sounding\nforeign letter with their own Tau. That the cross generally speaking,\nhowever, is connected with the Fire Cult, and that both parts of the\nsign originally contained a reference to the pieces of wood (aran\u00ee)\nof which in most ancient times use was made to produce fire, has\nbeen placed beyond doubt by the investigations into the matter. This\nis confirmed inter alia by the use of the symbol in the worship of\nthe Vestals, the Roman fire-priestesses. This is the explanation\nof the wide extent of the symbol of the cross. Not only among the\npeoples of antiquity and in Europe, but also in Asia among the\nIndians and Chinese, it is in use from ancient times. In America,\ntoo, among the Mexicans and Incas, it played a part in worship\nlong before the arrival of Europeans. In the same way is explained\nthe close association of that symbol with the priestly office and\nkingly dignity, which was itself often connected with that office;\nsimilarly the intimate relations between the sign of the cross and the\nGods of Fertility, Vegetation, and Seasons. For all of these were, as\nrepresentatives of the warmth of life and the soul's breath, in their\ndeepest nature, Fire-Gods special aspects, closer characterisations\nand connections of that one divinity, of whom the oldest form known\nto us is in the Vedic Agni, and in whose service the priests of all\npeoples and times grew to their overwhelming strength. [279] Julius\nFirmicus Maternus was thus quite right when he declared that Mithras,\nwhose followers bore the sign of the cross upon their foreheads and\nat their communion-meal had the cross, imprinted upon the holy loaf,\nbefore their eyes, was an ancient Fire-God. [280] But if the cross is\nthe symbol of fire and also of the Mediator God, who brings earth and\nheaven into connection, then the reason can be found why Plato in the\n\"Tim\u00e6us\" makes the World Soul in the form of a Chi, i.e., an oblique\ncross, stretched between heaven and earth. [281] Then, indeed, it is\nnot strange that the Christians of the first century regarded as an\ninspiration of the devil Plato's doctrine of the mediatory office of\nthe \"double-natured\" World Soul, which, according to that philosopher,\nwas formed from a mixture of ideal and sensible matter. It is not\nstrange that a Justin, \"the most foolish of the Christian fathers\"\n(Robertson), could actually assert that Plato borrowed the idea,\nas well as that of a world-conflagration, from--Moses. [282]\n\nIn the Old Testament also, as was shown above, we meet the cross. Here\nit served as a mark of recognition and distinction of the God-fearing\nIsraelites from the heathen, and as a magic sign. With a similar\nsignificance we meet it again in the New Testament. In the Revelation\nof John it appears as \"the seal (sphrag\u00eds) of the living God.\" By it\nhere, too, are the chosen ones of Israel marked off from the rest of\nmankind whom judgment has overtaken. At the same time, it is said\nthat this sign is imprinted upon the foreheads of the inhabitants\nof the true Jerusalem. [283] In the Epistles to the Galatians and\nEphesians it is said of the believers in Christ that they were\n\"sealed\" before God by the mystic sign upon their foreheads, hands,\nor feet. The sign thus serves them as a pledge of redemption. [284]\nAgain, in the Epistle of Barnabas ix. 8, the cross contained in the\nletter T is expressly interpreted as (charis) \"grace.\" Under the\nform of the Greek Tau the cross appears during the first century\nof the Christian era, especially among the Christians in Egypt, and\naccording to many was a symbol of Adonis or Tammuz. [285] Now since\nthe expressions x\u00falon and staur\u00f3s, lignum and crux, were of double\nsignificance and denoted both the \"seal\" of religious salvation and\nthe gibbet, it is possible that the two different significations\nbecame of themselves identical in the minds of the faithful. [286]\nThis was possible so much the more easily since the biblical account\nplaced by the side of the \"tree of life\" in Paradise a \"tree of\ndeath,\" the fateful \"tree of the knowledge of good and evil,\" which\nwas supposed to have been accountable for the death of Adam and so of\nthe whole of mankind, and as such made the comparison possible with\nthe wood upon which Jesus died. We meet again with a special form of\nthe cross in the old Assyrian or Babylonian so-called \"mystical tree\nof mystery,\" which was also a symbol of life. Among the Persians it\nappears to have had some reference to the holy Haoma tree; and here,\ntoo, as well as in India, where it was connected with the Bodhi tree,\nunder which Sakyamuni by his devout humility rose to be a Buddha,\nit was represented in the artificial shape of a many-armed cross. [287]\n\nOne and the same word, then (x\u00falon, crux), betokens both the gibbet\nand the pledge of life. Christ himself appears as the true \"Tree of\nLife,\" as the original of that miraculous tree the sight of which\ngave life to the first man in Paradise, which will be the food of the\nblessed in the world to come, and is represented symbolically by the\nmystical cross. It was easy to unite the ideas connected with those\nexpressions, to look upon the \"seal\" of Christ (to semeion tou staurou,\nsignum crucis) as the cross upon which he suffered, and vice-vers\u00e2,\nand to ascribe to the \"wood\" upon which Jesus is supposed to have died,\nthe shape of the mystic sign, the Tau, or cross. The heathens had been\naccustomed to regard the stake upon which their Gods were hanged both\nas the representative of the God in question and the symbol of life\nand fruitfulness. For example, the stake furnished with four oblique\nsticks (like a telegraph post), which went by the name of the tatu,\ntat, dad, or ded and was planted at the feast of Osiris in Egypt, often\nhad a rough picture of the God painted upon it, as also the pine-tree\ntrunk of Attis, in which connection the idea that the seed contained\nin the cones of the rock-pine from of old had served men as food,\nwhile the sap found in them was prepared into an intoxicating drink\n(Soma), played its part. [288] We are reminded also of the Germanic\ncustom of the planting of the may-tree. This was not only a symbol\nof the Spring God, but also represented the life bestowed by him. In\nthe same way the cross did not appear to the Christians originally\nas the form of the gibbet upon which God died, but as \"the tree of\nlife,\" the symbol of the new birth and redemption. Since, however,\nthe word for the mystical sign was identical with the expression for\nthe gibbet, the double meaning led to the gibbet of Jesus being looked\nupon as the symbol of life and redemption, and the idea of the gibbet\nwas mingled with that of the cross, the shape of the latter being\nimagined for the former. As Justin in his conversation with the Jew\nTrypho informs us, the Jews used to run a spit lengthwise through\nthe whole body of the Paschal lamb and another cross-wise through\nits breast, upon which the forefeet were fastened, so that the two\nspits made the shape of a cross. This was to them obviously not a\nsymbol of execution but rather the sign of reconcilement with Jahwe\nand of the new life thereon depending. For the Christians, however,\nwho compared their Saviour with the Paschal lamb, this may have been an\nadditional cause for the above-mentioned commingling of ideas, and this\nmay have strengthened them in the conception that their God died upon\nthe \"cross.\" The Phrygians, moreover, according to Firmicus Maternus,\nat the Spring Feast of Attis, used to fasten a ram or lamb at the foot\nof the fig-tree trunk on which the image of their God was hung. [289]\n\nIn agreement with this view is the fact that the earliest\nrepresentations of Christ in connection with the cross had for their\nsubject not the suffering and crucified, but the miraculous Saviour\ntriumphing over sickness and death. He appeared as a youthful God\nwith the Book of the Law, the Gospel, in his hand, the lamb at his\nfeet, the cross upon his head or in his right hand, just as the\nheathen Gods, a Jupiter, or some crowned ruler, used to be depicted\nwith a cross-shaped sceptre. Or Jesus' head was placed before the\ncross, and this in the orb of the sun--and exactly at the point of\nintersection of the arms of the cross, thus at the place where one\notherwise finds the lamb. Even the Church, probably with a right\nfeeling of the identity of Agnus and Agni, and in order to remove\nthe connection of ideas therein contained, in the year 692, by the\nQuinisext Synod (in Trullo), forbade the pictures of the lamb and\nrequired the representation to be of the Saviour's human shape. In\nspite of this even then they did not represent \"the Crucified\" in\nthe present-day sense of the word, but portrayed Christ in the form\nof one standing before the cross praying with outstretched arms. Or\nhe was shown risen from the grave, or standing upon the Gospels at\nthe foot of the cross, out of this arising later the support for the\nfeet in the pictures of him crucified. Here he was represented with\nopen eyes, with his head encircled by the sun's orb. In all of these\ndifferent representations accordingly the cross only brought again\nbefore the eyes in symbolical form what was at the same time expressed\nby the figure of Christ standing at the cross, just as at the feasts\nof Osiris or Attis the God was doubly represented, both in his true\nshape (as image or puppet) and in the symbolical form of the Jatu or\npine-tree trunk. This mode of depicting Christ lasted a long while,\neven though as early as the fifth or sixth century mention is made\nof crucifixion, and in arbitrary interpretation of Psa. xxii. 17\nhe was depicted with the marks of the nails. For, as has been said,\n\"crux\" betokens both the gibbet and the mystical sign, and the marks\nof the nails served to symbolise the Saviour's triumph over pain and\ndeath. An ivory plate in the British Museum in London, mentioned and\ncopied by Kraus, [290] is considered the oldest representation of a\ncrucifixion in our present sense. It is said to be of fifth-century\norigin. This assignment of date is, however, just as uncertain as\nthe other, according to which the miniature from the Syrian Gospel\nmanuscript of the monk Rabula of the monastery of Zagba in Mesopotamia,\nwhich also has the crucifixion for subject and is to be found in the\nBibliotheca Laurenziana at Florence, is assigned to the year 586. In\nany case, as a general rule until the eleventh century it was not\nthe dead but the living Christ who was depicted before or on the\ncross. Consequently an illustration in the Bibliotheca Laurenziana\nof about the date 1060 is considered as the first certain example of\na dead crucified Christ. [291]\n\nThe conception of Christ being put to death upon the cross is,\ncomparatively speaking, a late one. The connection of Christ\nwith the cross was originally not a reproduction of the manner\nof his death. It rather symbolises, as in the ancient Mysteries,\nprecisely the reverse--the victory of the Christian Cult-God over\ndeath--the idea of resurrection and life. Hence it is obvious that\nthe above-mentioned juxtaposition of the cross and lamb must have\nexpressed the same idea. Here, too, the cross was originally only\nthe symbol of fire and life. The lamb encircled by the sun's orb\nrefers to the ceremonial burning of the lamb at the spring equinox\nas an expiatory sacrifice and as a pledge of a new life. It appears\nthe more plainly to be a figure of Agni (Agnus), since it is usually\nplaced exactly at the point of intersection of the two arms--that is,\nat the place whence the divine spark first issued at the kindling of\nthe fire with the two aran\u00ee. [292]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN JESUS\n\nI\n\nTHE PAULINE JESUS\n\n\nThe faith in a Jesus had been for a long time in existence among\ninnumerable Mandaic sects in Asia Minor, which differed in many\nways from each other, before this faith obtained a definite shape in\nthe religion of Jesus, and its adherents became conscious of their\nreligious peculiarities and their divergence from the official Jewish\nreligion. The first evidence of such a consciousness, and also the\nfirst brilliant outline of a new religion developed with Jesus as\nits central idea, lies in the epistles of the tent-maker of Tarsus,\nthe pilgrim-apostle Paul.\n\nOf the epistles in his name which have been handed down to us, that to\nthe Hebrews is quite certainly not Paul's. But also the two epistles\nto the Thessalonians, that to the Ephesians, as well as the so-called\npastoral epistles (to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon), are considered\nby the overwhelming majority of theologians to be forgeries; and also\nthe authenticity of the epistles to the Colossians and Philippians\nis negatived by considerations of great weight. But with all the\nmore certainty modern critical theologians believe that Paul was the\nwriter of the four great didactic epistles--one to the Galatians,\ntwo to the Corinthians, and one to the Romans; and they are wont\nto set aside all suspicion of these epistles as a \"grave error\"\nof historical hypercriticism.\n\nIn opposition to this view the authenticity of even these epistles is\ncontested, apart from Bruno Bauer, especially by Dutch theologians,\nby Pierson, Loman, von Mauen, Meyboom, Matthes, and others; and, in\naddition, recently the Bern theologian R. Steck, and B. W. Smith,\nProfessor of Mathematics in the Tulane University of New Orleans,\nwith whom the late Pastor Albert Kalthoff of Bremen was associated,\nhave contested the traditional view with objections that deserve\nconsideration. They have attempted to prove the Pauline epistles, as a\nliterary product, to be the work of a whole school of second-century\ntheologians, authors who either simultaneously or successively wrote\nfor the growing Church.\n\nThis much is certain--a conclusive proof that Paul was really the\nauthor of the epistles current in his name cannot be given. With\nregard to this it must always remain a ground for doubt that Luke,\nwho accompanied Paul on his missionary travels, was completely silent\nas to such literary activity of the apostle; and this, although he\ndevoted the greatest portion of his account in the Acts to Paul's\nactivities. [293] Also the proof given by Smith, that the Pauline\nepistles were as yet completely unknown in the first century a.d.,\nthat in particular the existence of the Epistle to the Romans is not\ntestified to before the middle of the second century, must speak\nseriously against Paul's authorship, and is evidence that those\nepistles cannot be accepted as the primary source of the Pauline\ndoctrines. For this reason it can in no way be asserted that the\ncritical theology of last century has \"scientifically and beyond\nquestion established\" [294] the authenticity of the Pauline writings.\n\nIt is well known that the ancient world was not as yet in possession of\nthe idea of literary individuality in our sense of the word. At that\ntime innumerable works were circulated bearing famous names, whose\nauthors had neither at the time nor probably at any time anything\nto do with the men who bore those names. Many such productions were\ncirculated among the members of Sects of antiquity, which passed,\nfor example, under the names of Orpheus, of Pythagoras, of Zoroaster,\n&c., and thereby sought to procure the canonical acceptance of their\ncontents! Of the works of the Old Testament neither the Psalms, nor\nthe Proverbs, nor the so-called Preacher, nor the Book of Wisdom,\ncan be connected with the historical kings David and Solomon, whose\nnames they bear; and the prophet Daniel is just such a fictitious\npersonality as the Enoch and the Ezra of the Apocalypses known under\ntheir names. Even the so-called Five Books of Moses are the literary\nproduct of an age much later than the one in which Moses is supposed\nto have lived, while Joshua is the name of an old Israelite God after\nwhom the book in question is called. [295] There has never anywhere\nbeen such a Moses as the one described in the Old Testament.\n\nThe possibility of the so-called Pauline epistles having been the work\nof later theologians, and of having been christened in the name of\nPaul, the apostle of the Gentiles, only to increase their authority in\nthe community, is therefore by no means excluded; especially when we\nconsider how exuberantly literary falsifications and \"pious frauds\"\nflourished in the first century, and at other times also, in the\ninterests of the Christian Church. Indeed, at that time they even\ndared, as is shown by Christian documents of the second century,\nto alter the very text of the Old Testament, and thereby, as they\nused to say, to \"elucidate\" it. Already in the middle of the second\ncentury Marcion, the Gnostic, reproached the Church with possessing\nthe Pauline epistles only in a garbled form, and who can say whether\nit was a false accusation? He himself undertook to restore the correct\ntext by excisions and completions. [296]\n\nBut let us leave completely on one side the question of the\nauthenticity of the Pauline epistles, a question absolute agreement\non which will probably never be attained, for the simple reason\nthat we lack any certain basis for its decision. Instead of this let\nus turn rather to what we learn from these epistles concerning the\nhistorical Jesus.\n\nThere we meet in the first place with the fact, testified to by Paul\nhimself, that the Saviour revealed himself in person to him, and at\nthe same time caused him to enter his service (Gal. i. 12). It was,\nas is stated in the Acts, on the way to Damascus that suddenly there\nshone round about him a light out of heaven, while a voice summoned\nhim to cease his former persecution of the community of the Messiah,\nand revealed itself to him as Jesus. [297] There is no need to doubt\nthe fact itself; but to see in it a proof of the historical Jesus\nis reserved for those theologians who have discovered the splendid\nconception of an \"objective vision,\" basing the objective reality of\nthe vision in question on Paul's life in the desert. It was obviously\nonly an \"inner vision,\" which the \"visionary\" and \"epileptic\" Paul\nattributed to Jesus; and for this reason it proves nothing as to\nthe existence of an historical Jesus when he asks, 1 Cor. ix. 1,\n\"Have I not seen our Lord Jesus?\" and remarks, 1 Cor. xv. 9, \"Last\nof all he appeared to me also.\"\n\nIt only proves the dilemma of theologians on the whole question\nthat they have recently asserted that Paul, notwithstanding his own\nprotestations (Gal. i.), must have had a personal knowledge of the\nhistorical Jesus, as otherwise on the occasion at Damascus he could\nnot have recognised the features and voice of the transfigured Jesus,\nnot being already acquainted with them from some other quarter! With\nequal justice we might assert that the heathens also, who had visions\nof their Gods, must previously have known them personally, as otherwise\nthey could not have known that Zeus or Athene or any other definite\nGod had appeared to them. In the Acts we read only of an apparition\nof light which Paul saw, and of a voice which called to him, \"Saul,\nwhy persecutest thou me?\" Is the supposition referred to necessary\nto account for the fact that Paul, the persecutor of Jesus, referred\nthe voice and the vision to Jesus?\n\nThe case is similar with Paul's testimony as to those who, like\nhim, saw the Saviour after his death. [298] It is possible that\nthe people concerned saw something, that they saw a Jesus \"risen\nup\" in heavenly transfiguration; but that this was the Jesus of the\nso-called historical theology, whose existence is hereby established,\neven its supporters would not in all probability insist upon; for in\ntheir view the historical Jesus had in no way risen from the dead:\nbut here also there would only be question of a purely subjective\nvision of the ecstatically excited disciples. Moreover, the passage\nof the Epistle to the Corinthians in question (5-11) seems clearly\nto be one at least very much interpolated, if it is not entirely\nan after-insertion. Thus, the Risen Jesus is said to have been seen\nby \"more than five hundred Brethren at once.\" But of this the four\nGospels know nothing; and also, according to xv. 5, that \"the twelve\"\nhad the vision, would lead us to suspect that it was first inserted\nin the text at a much later date. [299]\n\nPaul himself never disguised the fact that he had seen Jesus, not\nwith mortal eyes, but only with those of the Spirit, as an inner\nrevelation. \"It has pleased God,\" he says (Gal. i. 16), \"to reveal his\nSon within me.\" [300] He confesses that the Gospel preached by him was\nnot \"of men,\" that he neither received nor learnt it from any man,\nbut that he had obtained it directly from the heavenly Christ and\nwas inspired by the Holy Ghost. [301] He seems also to have had no\ninterest at all in giving accurate information as to the personality\nof Jesus, as to his fortunes and teachings. When three years after\nhis conversion he first returns to Jerusalem, he visits only Peter\nand makes the acquaintance of James during the fourteen days of his\nstay there, troubling himself about none of the other apostles. [302]\nBut when, fourteen years after, he meets with the \"First Apostles\" in\nthe so-called Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem, he does not set\nabout learning from them, but teaching them and procuring from them\nrecognition of his own missionary activity; and he himself declares\nthat he spoke with them only on the method of proclaiming the Gospel,\nbut not on its religious content or on the personality of the historic\nJesus. [303]\n\nCertainly that James whose acquaintance Paul made in Jerusalem is\ndesignated by him as the \"Brother of the Lord\"; [304] and from this it\nseems to follow that Jesus must have been an historical person. The\nexpression \"Brother,\" however, is possibly in this case, as so\noften in the Gospels, [305] only a general expression to designate a\nfollower of Jesus, as the members of a religious society in antiquity\nfrequently called each other \"Brother\" and \"Sister\" among themselves. 1\nCor. ix. 5 runs: \"Have we [i.e., Paul and Barnabas] not also right to\ntake about with us a wife that is a sister, even as the other Apostles\nand Brothers of the Lord and Cephas?\" There it is evident that the\nexpression by no means necessarily refers to bodily relationship,\nbut that \"Brother\" serves only to designate the followers of the\nreligion of Jesus. [306] Accordingly Jerome seems to have hit the\ntruth exactly when, commenting on Gal. i. 19, he writes: \"James was\ncalled the Brother of the Lord on account of his great character\n[though the Pauline epistles certainly show the opposite of this],\nof his incomparable faith and extraordinary wisdom. The other Apostles\nwere as a matter of fact also called Brothers, but he was specially so\ncalled, because the Lord at his death had confided to him the sons of\nhis mother\" (i.e., the members of the community at Jerusalem). [307]\nAnd how then should Paul have met with a physical brother of that\nvery Jesus whom, as will be shown, he could only treat as a myth in\nother respects? The thing is, considered now purely psychologically,\nso improbable that no conclusion can in any case be drawn from the\nexpression concerning James as the Brother of the Lord as to the\nhistorical existence of Jesus; especially in view of the fact that\ntheologians from the second century to the present day have been unable\nto come to an agreement as to the true blood-relationship between\nJames and Jesus. [308] Moreover, if we consider how the glorification\nof James came into fashion in anti-Pauline circles of the second\ncentury, and how customary it was to connect the chief of the Jewish\nChristians at Jerusalem as closely as possible with Jesus himself\n(e.g., Hegesippus, in the so-called Epistles of Clement, in the Gospel\nof the Nazarenes, &c.), the suspicion forces itself on us that the\nPauline mention of James as \"the Brother of the Lord\" is perhaps only\nan after-insertion in the Epistle to the Galatians in order thereby\nto have the bodily relationship between James and Jesus confirmed by\nPaul himself. [309] Jesus' parents are not historical personalities\n(see above, 117 ff.); and it is probably the same with his brothers\nand sisters. Also Paul never refers to the testimony of the brothers\nor of the disciples of Jesus concerning their Master; though this\nwould have been most reasonable had they really known any more of\nJesus than he himself did. \"He bases,\" as Kalthoff justly objects,\n\"not a single one of his most incisive polemical arguments against\nthe adherents of the law on the ground that he had the historical\nJesus on his side; but he gives his own detailed theological ideas\nwithout mentioning an historical Jesus, he gives a gospel of Christ,\nnot the gospel which he had heard at first, second, or third hand\nconcerning a human individual Jesus.\" [310]\n\nFrom Paul, therefore, there is nothing of a detailed nature to be\nlearnt about the historical Jesus. The apostle does indeed occasionally\nrefer to the words and opinions of the \"Lord,\" as with regard to the\nprohibition of divorce, [311] or to the right of the apostles to be\nfed by the community. [312] But as the exact words are not given there\nis no express reference to an historical individual of the name of\nJesus; and so we are persuaded that we here have to do with mere rules\nof a community such as were current and had canonical significance\neverywhere in the religious unions as \"Words of the Master,\" i.e., of\nthe patrons and celebrities of the community (cf. the \"autos epha:\nhe himself, viz., the Master, has said it\" of the Pythagoreans). Only\nonce, 1 Cor. xi. 23 sq., where Paul quotes the words at the Last\nSupper, does the apostle apparently refer to an experience of the\n\"historical\" Jesus: \"The Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was\nbetrayed, took bread,\" &c. [313] Unfortunately here we have to do with\nwhat is clearly a later insertion. The passage is obscure throughout\n(vers. 23-32), and through its violent and confusing interruption of\nthe Pauline line of thought may be recognised as an after-insertion in\nthe original text, as is even acknowledged by many on the theological\nside. [314] Paul says that he had obtained these things from the\n\"Lord\" himself. Does this mean that they were directly \"revealed\"\nto him by the transfigured Jesus? It seems much more reasonable to\nbelieve that he took them from a religion already existing. This\ncould indeed refer at most only to the words of the Last Supper in\nthemselves. On the other hand, the words \"in the night in which he\nwas betrayed\" are certainly an addition. They will do neither in the\nconnection of a \"revelation\" nor of an existing religion, but stand\nthere completely by themselves as a reference to a real event in the\nlife of Jesus; and so, for this alone, they form much too small a\nbasis for testimony as to its historical truth. [315]\n\nAll expressions concerning Jesus which are found in Paul are\naccordingly of no consequence for the hypothesis of an historical\nperson of that name. The so-called \"words of the Lord\" quoted by him\nrefer to quite unimportant points in the teachings of Jesus. And, on\nthe other hand, Paul is just as silent on those points in which modern\ncritical theology finds the particular greatness and importance of\nthis teaching; as, e.g., on Jesus' confidence in the divine goodness\nof the Father, his command of the love of our neighbours as the\nfulfilment of the Law, his sermon about humility and charity, his\nwarning against the over-esteem of worldly goods, &c., as on Jesus'\npersonality, his trust in God, and his activity among his people. [316]\n\nPaul did not give himself the least trouble to bring the Saviour as a\nman nearer to his readers. He seems to know nothing of any miraculous\npower in Jesus. He says nothing of his sympathy with the poor and\noppressed, though surely just this would have been specially adapted\nto turn the hearts of men towards his Jesus and to make an impression\non the multitude that sought for miracles. All the moral-religious\nprecepts and exhortations of Jesus are neither employed by Paul as\na means of proselytising for him, nor in any way used to place his\nindividuality in opposition to his prophetic precursors in a right\nlight, as is the case in the Christian literature of the present\nday. \"Thus, just those thoughts, which Protestant theologians\nclaim as the particular domain of their historical Jesus, appear\nin the epistles independently of this Jesus, as individual moral\neffusions of the apostolic consciousness; while Christian social\nrules, which the same theologians consider additions to the story,\nare introduced directly as rules of the Lord. For this reason the\nChrist of the Pauline epistles may rather be cited as a case against\ncritical theologians than serve as a proof for the historical Jesus\nin their sense.\" [317] Even so zealous a champion of this theology\nas Wernle must admit: \"We learn from Paul least of all concerning\nthe person and life of Jesus. Were all his epistles lost we should\nknow not much less of Jesus than at present.\" Immediately after this,\nhowever, this very author consoles himself with the consideration that\nin a certain sense Paul gave us even more than the most exact and\nthe most copious records could give. \"We learn from him that a man\n(?) Jesus, in spite of his death on the cross, was able to develop\nsuch a power after his death, that Paul knew himself to be mastered,\nredeemed, and blessed by him; and this in so marked a way that he\nseparated his own life and the whole world into two parts: without\nJesus, with Jesus. This is a fact which, explain it as we may, purely\nas a fact excites our wonder (!) and compels us to think highly of\nJesus.\" [318] What does excite our wonder is this style of historical\n\"demonstration.\" And then how peculiar it is to read, from the silence\nof an author like Paul concerning the historical Jesus, an argument\nin its favour! As if it does not rather prove the unimportance of\nsuch a personality for the genesis of Christianity! As if the fact\nthat Paul erected a religious-metaphysical thought construction of\nundoubted magnificence must necessarily be based on the \"overwhelming\nimpression of the person of Jesus,\" of the same Jesus of whom Paul had\nno personal knowledge at all! The disciples--who are supposed to have\nbeen in touch with Jesus for many years--Paul strenuously avoided, and\nof the existence of this Jesus no other signs are to be found in his\nepistles but such as may have quite a different meaning. Or did Paul,\nas historical theology says, reveal more of Jesus in his sermons than\nhe did in the epistles? Surely that could only be maintained after\nit was first established that in his account Paul had in view any\nhistorical Jesus at all.\n\nThis seems to be completely problematic. The \"humanity\" of Jesus stands\nas the central point of the Pauline idea. And yet the Jesus painted by\nPaul is not a man, but a purely divine personality, a heavenly spirit\nwithout flesh and blood, an unindividual superhuman phantom. He is\nthe \"Son of God\" made manifest in Paul; the Messiah foretold by the\nJewish Apocalyptics; the pre-existing \"Son of Man\" of Daniel and his\nfollowers; the spiritual \"ideal man\" as he appeared in the minds of\nthe Jews influenced by Platonic ideas; whom also Philo knew as the\nmetaphysical prototype of ordinary sensual humanity and thought he had\nfound typified to in Gen. i. 27. He is the \"great man\" of the Indian\nlegends, who was supposed to have appeared also in Buddha and in other\nRedeemer figures--the Purusha of the Vedic Brahmans, the Mand\u00e2 de hajj\u00ea\nand Hibil Ziw\u00e2 of the Mandaic religion influenced by Indian ideas, the\ntribe-God of syncretised Judaism. The knowledge which Paul has of this\nBeing is for this reason not an ordinary acquaintance from teachings,\nbut a Gnosis, an immediate consciousness, a \"knowledge inspired\";\nand all the statements which he makes concerning it fall within the\nsphere of theosophy, of religious speculation or metaphysics, but not\nof history. As we have stated, the belief in such a Jesus had been\nfor a long time the property of Jewish sects, when Paul succeeded,\non the ground of his astounding personal experiences, in drawing it\ninto the light from the privacy of religious arcana, and setting it\nup as the central point of a new religion distinct from Judaism.\n\n\"There was already in their minds a faith in a divine revealer,\na divine-human activity, in salvation to be obtained through\nsacraments.\" [319] Among the neighbouring heathen peoples for a\nvery long time, and in Jewish circles at least since the days of the\nprophets, there had existed a belief in a divine mediator, a \"Son of\nGod,\" a \"First-born of all creation,\" in whom was made all that exists,\nwho came down upon earth, humbled himself in taking on a human form,\nsuffered for mankind a shameful death, but rose again victorious,\nand in his elevation and transfiguration simultaneously renewed and\nspiritualised the whole earth. [320] Then Paul appeared--in an age\nwhich was permeated as no other with a longing for redemption; which,\noverwhelmed by the gloom of its external relations, was possessed\nwith the fear of evil powers; which, penetrated with terror of the\nimminent end of the world, was anxiously awaiting this event and\nhad lost faith in the saving power of the old religion--then he gave\nsuch an expression to that belief as made it appear the only means of\nescape from the confusion of present existence. Can the assumption\nof an historical Jesus in the sense of the traditional conception\nreally be necessary, in order to account for the fact that men fled\nimpetuously to this new religion of Paul's? Is it even probable that\nthe intelligent populations of the sea-ports of Asia Minor and Greece,\namong whom in particular Paul preached the Gospel of Jesus, would\nhave turned towards Christianity for the reason that at some time or\nother, ten or twenty years before, an itinerant preacher of the name\nof Jesus had made an \"overpowering\" impression on ignorant fisher-folk\nand workmen in Galilee or Jerusalem by his personal bearing and his\nteachings, and had been believed by them to be the expected Messiah,\nthe renowned divine mediator and redeemer of the world? Paul did not\npreach the man Jesus, but the heavenly spiritual being, Christ. [321]\nThe public to which Paul turned consisted for the most part of\nGentiles; and to these the conception of a spiritual being presented\nno difficulties. It could have no strengthening, no guarantee, of\nits truth, through proof of the manhood of Jesus. If the Christians\nof the beginning of our own historical epoch had only been able to\ngain faith in the God Christ through the Man Jesus, Paul would have\nturned his attention from that which, to him, particularly mattered;\nhe would have obscured the individual meaning of his Gospel and brought\nhis whole religious speculation into a false position, by substituting\na man Jesus for the God-man Jesus as he understood him. [322]\n\nPaul is said to have been born in the Greek city of Tarsus in Cilicia,\nthe son of Jewish parents. At that time Tarsus was, like Alexandria,\nan important seat of Greek learning.\n\nHere flourished the school of the younger Stoics, with its mixture of\nold Stoic, Orphic, and Platonic ideas. Here the ethical principles\nof that school were preached in a popular form, in street and\nmarket-place, by orators of the people. It was not at all necessary for\nPaul, brought up in the austerity of the Jewish religion of the Law,\nto visit the lecture-rooms of the Stoic teachers in order to gain\na knowledge of Stoic views, for in Tarsus it was as though the air\nwas filled with that doctrine. Paul was certainly acquainted with\nit. It sank so deeply into his mind, perhaps unknown to himself,\nthat his epistles are full of the expressions and ideas of the Stoic\nphilosopher Seneca, and to this are due the efforts which have been\nmade to make Seneca a pupil of Paul's, or the reverse, to make Paul\na pupil of Seneca's. A correspondence exists, which is admittedly a\nforgery, pretending to have passed between the two.\n\nTarsus, in spite of its Eastern character, was a city saturated\nwith Greek learning and ways of thought, but not these alone. The\nreligious ideas and motives of the time found also a fruitful soil\nthere. In Tarsus the Hittite Sandan (Sardanapal) was worshipped,\na human being upon whom Dionysus had bestowed the godhead of life\nand fecundity, who was identified by the Greeks either with Zeus, or\nwith Heracles, the divine \"Son\" of the \"Father\" Zeus. He passed as\nthe founder of the city, and was represented as a bearded man with\nbunches of grapes and ears of corn, with a double-headed axe in his\nright hand, standing on a lion or a funeral pyre; and every year it\nwas the custom for a human representative of the God, or in later\ntimes his effigy, to be ceremoniously burnt on a pyre. [323] But\nTarsus was also at the same time a centre for the mystery-religions\nof the East. The worship of Mithras, in particular, flourished there,\nwith its doctrine of the mystic death and re-birth of those received\ninto the communion, who were thereby purified from the guilt of\ntheir past life and won a new immortal life in the \"Spirit\"; with\nits sacred feast, at which the believers entered into a communion of\nlife with Mithra by partaking of the consecrated bread and chalice;\nwith its conception of the magic effect of the victim's blood, which\nwashed away all sins; and with its ardent desire for redemption,\npurification, and sanctification of the soul. [324] Paul was not\nunaffected by these and similar ideas. His conception of the mystic\nsignificance of Christ's death shows that; in which conception the\nwhole of this type of religious thought is expressed, although in\na new setting. Indeed, the expression (Gal. iii. 27), in which the\nbaptized are said to have \"put on\" Christ, seems to be borrowed\ndirectly from the Mithraic Mysteries. For in these, according to a\nprimitive animistic custom, the initiated of different degrees used\nto be present in the masks of beasts, representing God's existence\nunder diverse attributes; that is, they used to \"put on\" the Lord\nin order to place themselves in innermost communion with him. Again,\nthe Pauline expression, that the consecrated chalice and bread at the\nLord's Supper are the \"communion of the blood and body of Christ,\"\n[325] reminds us too forcibly of the method of expression in the\nMysteries for this agreement to be purely a coincidence. [326]\n\nIf in such circumstances Paul, the citizen of Tarsus, heard of a Jewish\nGod of the name of Jesus, the ideas which were connected with him\nwere in no way quite new and unaccustomed. Nearer Asia was, indeed,\nas we have seen, filled with the idea of a young and beautiful God,\nwho reanimated Nature by his death; with popular legends connected with\nhis violent end and glorious resurrection: and not merely in Tarsus,\nbut also in Cyprus and in countless other places of the Western Asiatic\ncivilised world, there was the yearly celebration in most impressive\nfashion of the feast of this God, who was called Tammuz, Adonis,\nAttis, Dionysus, Osiris, &c. Nowhere, perhaps, was the celebration\nmore magnificent than at Antioch, the Syrian capital. But at Antioch,\nif we may believe the Acts [327] on this point, the Gospel of Jesus had\nbeen preached even before Paul. Men of Cyprus and Cyrene are said to\nhave spoken there the Word of the dead and risen Christ, not only to\nthe Jews but also to the Greeks, and they are said to have converted\nmany of the heathens to the new \"Lord.\" The Acts tells us this after\nit has recounted the persecution of the community of the Messiah at\nJerusalem; representing the spreading of the Gospel as a consequence\nof the dispersion of the community that followed the persecution. It\nseems, however, that Cyprus--where Adonis was particularly worshipped,\nat Paphos--and Cyrene were very early centres from which missionaries\ncarried abroad the faith in Christ. [328] Consequently the Gospel was\nin origin nothing but a Judaised and spiritualised Adonis cult. [329]\nThose earliest missionaries of whom we hear would not have attacked\nthe faith of the Syrian heathens: they would have declared that Christ,\nthe Messiah, the God of the Jewish religions, was Adonis: Christ is the\n\"Lord\"! They would only have attempted to draw the old native religion\nof Adonis into the Jewish sphere of thought, and by this means to\ncarry on the Jewish propaganda which they could find everywhere at\nwork, and which developed an efficacy about the beginning of our\nepoch such as it had never before possessed. They would carry on the\npropaganda, not in the sense of the strict standpoint of the Law,\nbut of the Jewish Apocalypses and their religious teachings. [330]\n\nSuch a man as Paul, who had been educated in the school of Gamaliel\nas a teacher of the Law of the strict Pharisaical sort, could not\nindeed calmly look on while the heathen belief in Adonis, which he\nmust surely, even in his native city of Tarsus, have despised as a\nblasphemous superstition, was uniting itself, in the new religious\nsects, with the Jewish conceptions. \"Cursed is he who is hung upon\nthe tree,\" so it stood written in the Law; [331] and the ceremony of\nthe purification--at which one criminal was hung, amid the insults of\nthe people, as the scapegoat of the old year, while another was set\nfree as Mordecai, and driven with regal honours through the city,\nbeing revered as representative of the new year--must have been in\nhis eyes only another proof of the disgrace of the tree, and of the\nblasphemous character of a belief that honoured in the hanged man the\ndivine Saviour of the world, the Messiah expected by the Jews. Then\non a sudden there came over him as it were enlightenment. What if\nthe festivals of the Syrian Adonis, of the Phrygian Attis, and so on,\nreally treated of the self-sacrifice of a God who laid down his life\nfor the world? The guiltless martyrdom of an upright man as expiatory\nmeans to the justification of his people was also not unknown to the\nadherents of the Law since the days of the Maccabean martyrs. The\n\"suffering servant of God,\" as Isaiah had portrayed him, suggests as\nquite probable the idea that, just as among the heathen peoples, in\nIsrael also an individual might renew the life of all others by his\nvoluntary sacrifice. Might it not be true, as the adherents of the\nJesus-religions maintained, that the Messiah was really a \"servant\nof God,\" and had already accomplished the work of redemption by\nhis own voluntary death? According to the heathen view, the people\nwere atoned for by the vicarious sacrifice of their God, and that\n\"justification\" of all in the sight of the Godhead took place which\nthe pious Pharisee expected from the strict fulfilment of the Jewish\nLaw. And yet, when Paul compared the \"righteousness\" actually achieved\nby himself and others with the ideal of righteousness for which they\nstrove, as it was required in the Law, then terror at the greatness\nof the contrast between the ideal and the reality must have seized\nhim; and at the same time he might well have despaired of the divine\nrighteousness, which required of the people the fulfilment of the\nLaw, which weighed the people down with the thought of the imminent\nend of the world, and which, through the very nature of its commands,\nexcluded the possibility of the Messiah meeting on his arrival, as he\nshould have done, with a \"righteous\" people. Were those who expected\nthe sanctification of humanity not from the fulfilment of the Law,\nbut immediately, through an infusion of God himself, really so much\nin the wrong? It was not unusual among the heathen peoples for a\nman to be sacrificed, in the place of the Deity, as a symbolical\nrepresentative; although already at the time of Paul it was the custom\nto represent the self-sacrificing God only by an effigy, instead of\na real man. The important point, however, was not this, but the idea\nwhich lay at the foundation of this divine self-sacrifice. And this\nwas not affected by the victim's being a criminal, who was killed in\nthe r\u00f4le of the guiltless and upright man, and by the voluntariness\nof his death being completely fictitious. Might it not also be,\nas the believers in Jesus asserted, that the Messiah was not still\nto be expected, and that only on the ground of human righteousness;\nbut that rather he had already appeared, and had already accomplished\nthe righteousness unattainable by the individual through his shameful\ndeath and his glorious resurrection?\n\nThe moment in which this idea flashed through Paul's mind was the\nmoment of the birth of Christianity as Paul's religion. The form in\nwhich he grasped that conception was that of an Incarnation of God;\nand at the same time this form was such that he introduced with it\nquite a new impulse into the former mode of thought. According to the\nheathen conception a God did indeed sacrifice himself for his people,\nwithout thereby ceasing to be God; and here the man sacrificed in the\nplace of God was considered merely as a chance representative of the\nself-sacrificing God. According to the old view of the Jewish faith it\nwas really the \"Son of Man,\" a being of human nature, who was to come\ndown from heaven and effect the work of redemption, without, however,\nbeing a real man and without suffering and dying in human form. With\nPaul, on the contrary, the stress lay just on this, that the Redeemer\nshould be himself really a man, and that the man sacrificed in God's\nplace should be equally the God appearing in human form: the man was\nnot merely a representation of God's as a celestial and supernatural\nbeing, but God himself appearing in human form. God himself becomes\nman, and thereby a man is exalted to the Deity, and, as expiatory\nrepresentative for his people, can unite mankind with God. [332] The\nman who is sacrificed for his people represents on the one hand his\npeople in the eyes of God, but on the other hand the God sacrificing\nhimself for mankind in the eyes of this people. And thereby, in the\nidea of the representative expiatory victim, the separation between God\nand Man is blotted out, and both fuse directly in the conception of\nthe \"God-man.\" God becomes man, and by this means mankind is enabled\nto become God. The man is sacrificed as well in the place of God as\nin that of mankind, and so unites both contradictories in a unity\nwithin himself.\n\nIt is evident that in reality it was merely a new setting to the old\nconception of the representative self-sacrifice of God--in which the\ngenitive is to be taken both in its subjective and objective sense. No\nhistorical personality, who should, so to say, have lived as an example\nof the God-man, was in any way necessary to produce that Pauline\ndevelopment of the religion of Jesus. For the chance personalities\nof the men representing the God came under consideration just as\nlittle for Paul as for the heathens; and when he also, with the other\nJews, designated the Messiah Jesus as the bodily descendant of David\n\"according to the flesh,\" [333] i.e., as a man; when he treated him as\n\"born of woman,\" he thought not at all of any concrete individuality,\nwhich had at a certain time embodied the divinity within itself, but\npurely of the idea of a Messiah in the flesh; just as the suffering\nservant of God of Isaiah, even in spite of the connection of this idea\nwith an actually accomplished human sacrifice, had possessed only\nan ideal imaginary or typical significance. The objection is always\nbeing raised that Paul must have conceived of Jesus as an historical\nindividual because he designates him as the bodily descendant of\nDavid, and makes him \"born of woman\" (Gal. iv. 4). But how else could\nhe have been born? (Cf. Job xiv. 1.) The bringing into prominence\nthe birth from woman, as well as the general emphasis laid by the\nApostle on the humanity of Jesus, is directed against the Gnostics\nin the Corinthian community, but proves nothing whatsoever as to\nthe historical Jesus. And the descent from David was part of the\ntraditional characteristics of the Messiah; so that Paul could say it\nof Jesus without referring to a real descendant of David. But even\nless is proved by Paul's, in Gal. iii. 1, reproaching the Galatians\nwith having seen the crucified Christ \"set forth openly\"; we would\nthen have to declare also that there was an actual devil and a hell,\nbecause these are set forth to the faithful by the \"caretakers of\ntheir souls\" when preaching. Here then lies the explanation for the\nfact that the \"man\" Jesus remained an intangible phantom to Paul,\nand that he can speak of Christ as a man, without thinking of an\nhistorical personality in the sense of the liberal theology of the\npresent day. The ideal man, as Paul represented Jesus to himself--the\nessence of all human existence--the human race considered as a person,\nwho represented humanity to God, just as the man sacrificed in his\nr\u00f4le had represented the Deity to the people--the \"Man\" on whom alone\nredemption depended--is and remains a metaphysical Being--just as the\nIdea of Plato or the Logos of Philo are none the less metaphysical\nexistences because of their descent into the world of the senses and\nof their assuming in it a definite individual corporality. And what\nPaul teaches concerning the \"man\" Jesus is only a detailed development\nand deepening of what the Mand\u00e6i believed of their Mand\u00e4 de hajj\u00ea\nor Hibil Ziw\u00e2, and of what the Jewish religions under the influence\nof the Apocalypses involved in their mysterious doctrines of the\nMessiah. For Paul the descent, death, and resurrection of Jesus\nrepresented an eternal but not an actual story in time; and so to\nsearch Paul for the signs of an historical Jesus is to misunderstand\nthe chief point in his religious view of the world.\n\nGod, the \"father\" of our \"Lord\" Jesus Christ, \"awakened\" his son and\nsent him down upon the earth for the redemption of mankind. Although\noriginally one with God, and for that reason himself a divine being,\nChrist nevertheless renounced his original supernatural existence. In\ncontradiction to his real Being he changed his spiritual nature for\n\"the likeness of sinful flesh,\" gave up his heavenly kingdom for\nthe poverty and misery of human existence, and came to mankind in\nthe form of a servant, \"being found in fashion as a man,\" in order\nto bring redemption. [334] For man is unable to obtain religious\nsalvation through himself alone. In him the spirit is bound to the\nflesh, his divine supersensible Being is bound down to the material\nof sensible actuality, and for that reason he is subject \"by nature\"\nto misfortune and sin. All flesh is necessarily \"sinful flesh.\" Man is\ncompelled to sin just in so far as he is a being of the flesh. Adam,\nmoreover, is the originator of all human sin only for the reason\nthat he was \"in the flesh\"--that is, a finite Being imprisoned in\ncorporality. Probably God gave the Law unto mankind, in order to\nshow them the right path in their obscurity; and thereby opened the\npossibility of being declared righteous or \"justified\" before his\ncourt, through the fulfilment of his commands; but it is impossible\nto keep the commandments in their full severity.\n\nAnd yet only the ceaseless fulfilment of the whole Law can save mankind\nfrom justice. We are all sinners. [335] So the Law indeed awakened the\nknowledge of guilt, and brought sin to light through its violation;\nbut it has at the same time increased the guilt. [336] It has shown\nitself to be a strict teacher and taskmaster in righteousness, without,\nhowever, itself leading to righteousness. So little has it proved to\nbe the desired means of salvation, that it may equally be said of it\nthat it was given by God not for the purpose of saving mankind, but\nonly to make it still more miserable. Consequently Paul would rather\nattribute the mediation of the Law of Moses not to God himself but to\nhis angels, in order to relieve God of the guilt of the Law. [337]\nThis circumstance is of so much the more consequence for mankind,\nbecause the sin aroused by the Law unresistingly drew death in its\ntrain; and that deprived them also of the last possibility of becoming\nequal to their higher spiritual nature. So is man placed midway between\nlight and darkness--a pitiable Being. His spirit, that is kin with God,\ndraws him upwards; and the evil spirit and d\u00e6mons drag him downwards,\nthe evil spirits who rule this world and who lure him into sin--and\nwho are at bottom nothing but mythical personifications of man's\nsinful and fleshly desires.\n\nChrist now enters this world of darkness and of sin. As a man among\nmen, he enters the sphere over which the flesh and sin have power,\nand must die as other men. But for the incarnate God death is not what\nit is in the ordinary sense. For him it is only the liberation from\nthe incongruous condition of the flesh. When Christ dies, he merely\nstrips off the fetters of the flesh and leaves the prison of the\nbody, leaves the sphere over which sin, death, and evil spirits hold\ntheir sway. He, the God-man, dies to the sin, which was once unknown\nto him, once and for all. By prevailing over the power of death in\nhis resurrection, the Son regains, by means of death, his original\nindividual existence, perpetual life in and with the Father. [338]\nThus also does he attain mastery over the Law, for this rules only\nin so far as there are fleshly men of earth, and ceases to hold good\nfor him at the moment when Christ raises himself above the flesh and\nreturns to his pure spiritual nature. Were there the possibility for\nmankind of similarly dying to their flesh, then would they be redeemed,\nas Christ was, from sin, death, and the Law.\n\nThere is, in fact, such a possibility. It lies in this: even Christ\nhimself is nothing but the idea of the human race conceived as\na personality, the Platonic idea of Humanity personified, the\nideal man as a metaphysical essence; and so in his fate the fate\nof all mankind is fulfilled. In this sense the saying holds, \"If\none has died for all, then have they all died.\" [339] In order to\nbecome partakers of the fruit of this Jesus' death, it is certainly\nnecessary that the individual man become really one with Christ;\nthat he enter into an inner unity with the representative, with\nthe divine type of the human race, not merely subjectively, but\nobjectively and actually; and this takes place, according to Paul,\nby means of \"faith.\" Faith, as Paul understands it, is not a purely\nexternal belief in the actuality of Jesus' death as a victim and\nof his resurrection, but the turning of the whole man to Jesus, the\nspiritual unification with him and the divine disposition produced\nthereby, from which the corresponding moral action proceeds of\nitself. It is only in this sense that Paul sets faith above works\nas demanded by the Law. An action that does not proceed from faith,\nfrom the deepest conviction of the divine, has no religious value,\nbe it ever so conformable to the letter of the Law. That is a view\nwhich Paul completely shared with the Stoic philosophy of his age,\nand which was at that time being brought more and more to the front\nin the more advanced circles of the old civilisation. Man is justified\nnot through the Law, not through works, but through faith; faith, even\nwithout works, is reckoned as righteousness. [340] It is only another\nexpression for the same thought when Paul says that God justifies man,\nnot according to his merit and actions, but \"gratuitously,\" \"of his\ngrace.\" In the conception of the Jewish religion of the Law the idea\nof justification has a purely juridical significance. Reward here\nanswers exactly to merit. Justification is nothing but an \"obligation\"\naccording to an irrevocable standard. In Paul's new conception it is,\non the contrary, a natural product of God's mercy. But mercy consists\nfinally in this, that God of his own accord sacrificed his Son, so\nthat mankind may share in the effects of his work of redemption by\n\"faith\" in him, and by the unity with him thus brought about. But faith\nis only one way of becoming one with Christ; and real unity with him\nmust also be externally effected. Baptism and the Lord's Supper must\nbe added to faith. There Paul directly follows the Mysteries and\ntheir sacramental conception of man's unification with the deity;\nand shows the connection of his own doctrines with those of the\nheathen religions. By his baptism, his immersion and disappearance\nin the depths of the water, man is \"buried in death\" with Christ. In\nthat he rises once more from the water, the resurrection with Christ\nto a new life is fulfilled, not merely in a symbolic but also in\na magical mystic fashion. [341] And Christ is as it were \"put on\"\n[342] through Baptism, so that henceforth the baptized is, no longer\npotentially but actually, one with Christ; Christ is in him, and\nhe is in Christ. The Lord's Supper is indeed on one hand a feast of\nfraternal love and recollection, in memory of the Saviour; just as the\nadherents of Mithras used to hold their love-feasts (Agape) in memory\nof their God's parting feast with his own people. [343] But on the\nother hand it is a mystic communion of the blood and body of Christ,\nthrough the drinking of the sacramental chalice and the eating of the\nsacramental bread--a mystic communion in no other sense than that in\nwhich the heathens thought they entered into inner connection with\ntheir Gods through sacrificial feasts, and in which savages generally\neven to-day believe that through the eating of another's flesh,\nbe it beast's or man's, and through the drinking of his blood, they\nbecome partakers of the power residing in him. [344] Even for Paul\nbaptism and the Lord's Supper are to such an extent purely natural\nprocesses or magic practices, that he does not object to the heathen\ncustom of baptizing, by proxy, living Christians for dead ones; and\nin his opinion unworthy eating and drinking of the Lord's Supper\nproduce sickness and death. [345] In this respect, consequently,\nthere can be no talk of a \"transcending of the naturalism of the\nheathen mysteries\" in Paul; and to attribute to him a much higher\nor more spiritual conception of the sacrament than the heathens had\nseems difficult to reconcile with his express statements. [346]\n\nNow Christ, as already stated, is for Paul only a comprehensive\nexpression for the ideal totality of men, which is therein represented\nas an individual personal being. It is clearly the Platonic idea\nof humanity, and nothing else; just as Philo personified the divine\nintelligence and made this coalesce with the \"ideal man,\" with the\nidea of humanity. [347] As in the Platonic view the union of man with\nthe ideal takes place through love, through immediate intellectual\nperception on the basis of ideal knowledge, and the contradiction\nbetween the world of sense and the world of ideas is overcome\nby the same means; as also thereby man is raised to membership\nin the cosmos of ideas; in just such a manner, according to Paul,\nChristians unite together by means of faith and the sacraments into\nconstitutive moments of the ideal humanity. Thus they realise the\nidea of humanity, and enter into a mystic communion with Jesus, who\nhimself, as we have already said, represents this idea in its united\ncompass. The consequence of this is, that all that is fulfilled in\nChrist is equally experienced along with him, in mysterious fashion,\nby those men who are united with him. Consequently they can now be\ntermed \"members of the one body of Christ,\" who is its \"head\" or\n\"Soul\"; and this indeed in the same sense as with Plato the different\nideas form but members and moments of the one world of ideas, and\ntheir plurality is destroyed in the unity of the comprehensive and\ndetermining idea of the One or the Good.\n\nJust what an elevation of the spirit to the world of ideas is for\nPlato, the union of mankind with Christ is for Paul. What the man\nactually in possession of knowledge, the \"wise man,\" is for the\nformer, \"Christ\" is for the latter. What is there called Eros--the\nmediator of the unity between the world of ideas and the sense-world,\nof Being and Conscious Being, of objective and subjective thought,\nand at the same time the very essence of all objective thought--is\nhere called Christ. Eros is called by Plato the son of riches and\npoverty, who bears the \"nature and signs\" of both: \"He is quite poor,\nruns around barefoot and homeless, and must sleep on the naked earth\nwithout a roof, in the open air, at the doors and on the streets,\nin conformity with his mother's nature.\" \"As, however, he is neither\nmortal nor immortal, at one moment he is flourishing and full of\nlife, at another he is weary and dies away, and all that often on the\nself-same day; but ever he rises up again in life in conformity with\nhis father's nature.\" [348] So also the Pauline Christ contains all\nthe fulness of the Godhead [349] and is himself the \"Son of God\"; yet\nnevertheless Christ debases himself, takes on the form of a servant,\nbecomes Man, and dies, thereby placing himself in direct opposition to\nhis real nature, but only to rise again continually in each individual\nman and allow mankind to participate in his own life. And as Christ\n(in 1 Tim. ii. 5) is the \"mediator\" between God and men, so also the\nPlatonic Eros \"is midway between the immortal and the mortal.\" \"Eros,\nO Socrates, is a daimon, a great daimon, and everything of this nature\nis intermediate between God and man. The daimon transfers to the Gods\nwhat comes from man, and to man what comes from the Gods; from the\none prayer and sacrifice, from the other the orders and rewards for\nthe sacrifice. Midway, he fills the gap between the immortal and the\nmortal, and everything is through him bound into one whole. By his\nmediation is disseminated every prophecy and the religious skill which\nhas reference to sacrifice, sanctification, sacred maxims, and each\nprediction and magic spell. God himself does not mix with mankind,\nbut all intercourse and all speech between God and man, as well in\nwaking as in sleep, takes place in the way mentioned. Whoever has\nexperienced this, in him is the daimon.\" In this connection we recall\nto our minds that Eros appears in the \"Tim\u00e6us\" under the name of the\n\"world-soul,\" and this is supposed by Plato to have the form of an\noblique cross. [350]\n\nThe Platonic Eros is the mythical personification of the conception\nthat the contemplation of Being (obj. gen.) as such is at the\nsame time a contemplation of Being's (sub. gen.); or that in the\ncontemplation of the Ideas the subjective thought of the Philosopher\nand the objective ideal Reality as it were meet each other from\ntwo sides and fuse directly into a unity. [351] It is thus only the\nscientific and theoretical formulation of the fundamental idea of the\nold Aryan Fire Cult. According to this the sacrifice of Agni--that\nis, the victim which man offers to God--is as such equally Agni's\nsacrifice, the victim which God offers, and in which he sacrifices\nhimself for humanity. It is in agreement with this that according to\nPaul the death and resurrection of Christ, as they take place in the\nconsciousness of the believer, represent a death and resurrection of\nChrist as a divine personality: man dies and lives again with Christ,\nand God and man are completely fused together in the believer. As\nmankind by this means becomes a \"member\" of the \"Body of Christ,\"\nso in the Vedic conception the partaker of the Fire-God's sacrifice,\nby the tasting of the blood and the eating of the sacred bread, is\nassociated with a mystic body, and is infused with the one Spirit of\nGod, which destroys his sins in its sacred fire, and flows through\nhim with new life-power. In India, from the cult of the Fire-God and\nthe complete unity of God and man thereby attained, Brahmanism was\ndeveloped, and gained an influence over all the Indian peoples. In\nPlato intellectual contemplation formed the basis of cognition. He\nplaced the wise man at the head of the social organism, and regarded\nthe philosopher as the only man fitted for the government of the\nworld. And the future development of the Church as a \"Communion of\nSaints\" appears already in the Pauline conception of the faithful as\nthe \"Body of Christ,\" in which the Idea of the human race (Christ)\nis realised, as the kingdom of God upon earth, as the true humanity,\nas the material appearance of the divine ideal man, to belong to\nwhich is mankind's duty, and without which it is impossible for man\nto live in his real ideal nature.\n\nAncient philosophy had attempted until now in vain to overcome the\ncontradiction between the sense-world and the world of ideas, and\nto destroy the uncertainty of human thought and life which results\nfrom this contradiction. From the time of Plato it had worked at the\nproblem of uniting, without contradiction, Nature and Spirit, whose\ncontradictory nature had first been brought to notice by the founder\nof metaphysical idealism. Religion, particularly in the Mystery Cults,\nhad tried to solve in a practical way the problem that seemed insoluble\nby abstract means, and had sought to secure for man a new basis and\nresting-place by means of devotion and \"revelation\"--a mystic sinking\ninto the depths of God. But Paul's Christianity first gave a form to\nall this obscure desire, a form which united the thrills and joy of\nmystic ecstasy with the certainty of a comprehensive religious view\nof the world, and enlightened men as to the deepest meaning of their\nemotional impulse towards certainty: man obtains unity with God and\ncertainty as to the true reality, not by an abstract dialectic, as\nPlato supposed; not by logical insight into the cosmos in the sense of\nan abstract knowledge attainable only by the few, but through faith,\nthrough the divine act of redemption. To adopt this internally, thereby\nto live with it directly--this alone can give man the possibility\nof emerging from the uncertainty and darkness of corporeal existence\ninto the clear light of the spiritual. All certainty of the true or\nessential being is consequently a certainty of faith, and there is\nno higher certainty than that which is given to men in faith and\npiety. As Christ died and was thereby freed from the bonds of the\nbody and of the world, so also must man die in the spirit. He must\nlay aside the burden of this body, the real cause of all his ethical\nand intellectual shortcomings. He must inwardly rise with Christ and\nbe born again, thereby taking part in his spiritual certitude and\ngaining together with the \"Life in the Spirit\" salvation from all his\npresent shortcomings. It is true that outwardly the body still exists,\neven after the inner act of redemption has taken place. Even when the\nman who died with Christ has arisen and has become a new man, he is\nnevertheless still subject to corporeal limitations. The redeemed\nman is still in the world and must fight with its influences. But\nwhat man gains in the union with the body of Christ is the \"Spirit\"\nof Christ, which holds the members of the body together, shows itself\nto be active in everything which belongs to the body, and acts in man\nas a supernatural power. This spirit, as it dwells henceforth in the\nredeemed man, works and directs and drives him on to every action;\nlifts man in idea far above all the limitations of his fleshly nature;\nstrengthens him in his weakness; shows him existence in a new light,\nso that henceforth he feels himself no longer bound; gives him the\nvictory over the powers of earth, and enables him to anticipate,\neven in this life, the blessedness of his real and final redemption\nin a life to come. [352] But the spirit of Christ as such is equally\nthe divine spirit. So that the redeemed, as they receive the spirit\nof Christ, are the \"sons\" of God himself, and this is expressed by\nsaying that with the spirit they \"inherit the glorious freedom of the\nchildren of God.\" [353] For, as Paul says, \"the Lord is the spirit;\nbut where the spirit is, there is freedom.\" [354]\n\nSo that when the Christian feels himself transformed into a \"new\ncreature,\" equipped with power of knowledge and of virtue, blest in\nthe consciousness of his victorious strength over carnal desires,\nand wins his peace in faith, this is only the consequence of a\nsuperhuman spirit working in him. Hence the Christian virtues of\nBrotherly Love, Humility, Obedience, &c., are necessary consequences\nof the possession of the Spirit: \"If we live by the Spirit, by the\nSpirit let us also walk.\" [355] And if the faithful suddenly develop\na fulness of new and wonderful powers, which exceed man's ordinary\nnature--such as facility in \"tongues,\" in prophecy, and in the\nhealing of the sick--this is, in the superstitious view of the age,\nonly to be explained by the indwelling activity of a supernatural\nspirit-being that has entered man from the outside. Certainly it\ndoes not seem clear, in the Pauline conception of the redemption, how\nthis heavenly spirit can at the same time be the spirit of man--how\nit can be active in man without removing the particular and original\nspirit of man, and without reducing the individual to a passive tool,\nto a lifeless puppet without self-determination and responsibility;\nhow the man \"possessed\" by such a spirit can nevertheless feel himself\nfree and redeemed by the Spirit. For it is in truth an alien spirit,\none that does not in essence belong to him, which enters man through\nthe union with Christ. Yet it is supposed to be the spirit, not merely\nof the individual man, but also Christ's personal spirit. One and the\nsame spirit putting on a celestial body of light must be enthroned on\nthe right hand of the Father in heaven, and must also be on earth the\nspirit of those who believe in it, setting itself to work in them as\nthe source of Gnosis, of full mystic knowledge; and, as the power of\nGod, as the spirit of salvation, must produce in them supernatural\neffects. [356] It must be on the one hand an objective and actual\nspirit-being which in Christ becomes man, dies, and rises again; and\non the other hand an inner subjective power, which produces in each\nindividual man the extinction of the flesh and a new birth which\nis to be shared by the faithful as the fruit of their individual\nredemption. That is perhaps comprehensible in the mode of thought\nof an age for which the idea of personality had as yet no definite\nmeaning, and which consequently saw no contradiction in this, that\na personal Christ-spirit should at the same time inhabit a number of\nindividual spirits; and which did not differentiate between the one,\nor rather the continual, act of redemption by God and its continual\ntemporal repetition in the individual. We can understand this only\nif the Pauline Christ is a purely metaphysical being. It is, on the\ncontrary, quite incomprehensible if Paul is supposed to have gained\nhis idea of the mediator of salvation from any experience of an\nhistorical Jesus and his actual death. Only because in his doctrine\nof the saving power of the Christ-spirit Paul had thought of no\nparticular human personality could he imagine the immanence of the\ndivine in the world to be mediated by that spirit. Only because he\nconnected no other idea with the personality of Jesus than the Book\nof Wisdom or Philo did with their particular immanence principles,\ndoes he declare that Christ brings about salvation. So that Christ,\nas the principle of redemption, is for Paul only an allegorical or\nsymbolical personality and not a real one. He is a personality such as\nwere the heathen deities, who passed as general cosmic powers without\nprejudice to their appearing in human form. Personality is for Paul\nonly another mode of expressing the supernatural spirituality and\ndirected activity of the principle of redemption, in distinction\nfrom the blindly working powers and material realities of religious\nnaturalism. It serves merely to suggest spirituality to an age which\ncould only represent spirit as a material fluid. It corresponds\nsimply to the popular conception of the principle of redemption,\nwhich treated this as bound up with the idea of a human being. But\nit in no way referred to a real historical individual, showing,\nin fact, just by the uncertainty and fluctuation of the idea, how\nfar the Christ of the Pauline doctrine of redemption was from being\nconnected with a definite historical reality.\n\nNot because he so highly esteemed and revered Jesus as an historical\npersonality did Paul make Christ the bearer and mediator of redemption,\nbut because he knew nothing at all of an historical Jesus, of a human\nindividual of this name, to whom he would have been able to transfer\nthe work of redemption. \"Faithful disciples,\" Wrede considers, \"could\nnot so easily believe that the man who had sat with them at table in\nCapernaum, or had journeyed over the Sea of Galilee with them, was\nthe creator of the world. For Paul this obstacle was absent.\" [357]\nBut Paul is nevertheless supposed to have met James, the \"Brother of\nthe Lord,\" and to have had dealings with him which would certainly\nhave modified his view of Jesus, if here there were really question\nof a corporeal brotherhood. What a wonderful idea our theologians\nmust have of a man like Paul if they think that it could ever have\noccurred to him to connect such tremendous conceptions with a human\nindividual Jesus as he does with his Christ! It is true that there is\na type of religious ecstasy in which the difference between man and\nGod is completely lost sight of; and, especially at the beginning of\nour era, in the period of C\u00e6sar-worship and of the deepest religious\nsuperstition, it was not in itself unusual to deify, after his death,\na man who was highly esteemed. A great lack of reason, a great mental\nconfusion, an immense flight of imagination, would be necessary to\ntransform a man not long dead, who was still clearly remembered by\nhis relatives and contemporaries, not merely into a divine hero or\ndemi-god, but into the world-forming spiritual principle, into the\nmetaphysical mediator of redemption and the \"second God.\" And if, as\neven Wrede acknowledges in the above-quoted words, personal knowledge\nof Jesus was really an \"obstacle\" to his apotheosis, how is it to be\nexplained that the \"First Apostles\" at Jerusalem took no exception to\nthat representation of Paul's? They surely knew who Jesus had been;\nthey knew the Master through many years' continual wandering with\nhim. And however highly they may always have thought of the risen\nJesus, however intimately they may have joined in their minds the\nmemory of the man Jesus with the prevailing idea of the Messiah,\naccording to the prevalent theological opinion, even they are supposed\nto have risen in no way to such a boundless deification of their\nLord and Master as Paul undertook a comparatively short while after\nJesus' death.\n\n\"Paul already believed in such a heavenly Being, in a divine Christ,\nbefore he believed in Jesus.\" [358] The truth is that he never\nbelieved at all in the Jesus of liberal theology. The \"man\" Jesus\nalready belonged to his faith in Christ, so far as Christ's act\nof redemption was supposed to consist in his humbling himself and\nbecoming man--and no historical Jesus was necessary for that. For\nPaul also, just as for the whole heathen world, the man actually\nsacrificed in God's place was at best merely a chance symbol of the\nGod presenting himself as victim. Hence it cannot be said that the\nman Jesus was but \"the bearer of all the great attributes,\" which\nas such had been long since determined; [359] or, as Gunkel puts it,\nthat the enthusiastic disciples had transferred to him all that the\nformer Judaism had been wont to ascribe to the Messiah; and that\nconsequently the Christology of the New Testament, in spite of its\nunhistorical nature, was nevertheless \"a mighty hymn which History\nsings to Jesus\"(!). [360] If we once agree as to the existence of a\npre-Christian Jesus--and even Gunkel, apart from Robertson and Smith,\nhas worked for the recognition of this fact--then this can in the first\nplace produce nothing but a strong suspicion against the historical\nJesus; and it seems a despairing subterfuge of the \"critical\" theology\nto seek to find capital, from the existence of a pre-Christian Jesus,\nfor the \"unique\" significance of their \"historical\" Jesus.\n\nChrist's life and death are for Paul neither the moral achievement of\na man nor in any way historical facts, but something super-historical,\nevents in the supersensible world. [361] Further, the \"man\" Jesus\ncomes in question for Paul, just as did the suffering servant of\nGod for Isaiah, exclusively as an Idea, and his death is, like his\nresurrection, but the purely ideal condition whereby redemption\nis brought about. \"If Christ hath not been raised, your faith is\nvain.\" [362] On this declaration has till now been founded the chief\nproof that an historical Jesus was to Paul the pre-supposition of\nhis doctrine. But really that declaration in Paul's mouth points to\nnothing but the faith of his contemporaries, who expected natural\nand religious salvation from the resurrection of their God, whether\nhe were called Adonis, Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, or anything else.\n\nThe fact is therefore settled, that Paul knew nothing of an historical\nJesus; and that even if he had known anything of him, this Jesus in\nany case plays no part for him, and exercised no influence over the\ndevelopment of his religious view of the world. Let us consider the\nimportance of this: the very man from whom we derive the first written\ntestimony as to Christianity, who was the first in any way to establish\nit as a new religion differing from Judaism, on whose teachings alone\nthe whole further development of Christian thought has depended--this\nPaul knew absolutely nothing of Jesus as an historical personality. In\nfact, with perfect justice from his point of view he was even compelled\nto excuse himself, when others wished to enlighten him as to such a\npersonality! At the present day it will be acknowledged by all sensible\npeople that, as Ed. von Hartmann declared more than thirty years ago,\nwithout Paul the Christian movement would have disappeared in the\nsand, just as the many other Jewish religions have done--at best to\nafford interest to investigators as an historical curiosity--and\nPaul had no knowledge of Jesus! The formation and development of\nthe Christian religion began long before the Jesus of the Gospels\nappeared, and was completed independently of the historical Jesus of\ntheology. Theology has no justification for treating Christianity\nmerely as the \"Christianity of Christ,\" as it now is sufficiently\nevident; nor should it present a view of the life and doctrines of\nan ideal man Jesus as the Christian religion. [363]\n\nThe question raised at the beginning, as to what we learn from Paul\nabout the historical Jesus, has found its answer--nothing. There is\nlittle value, then, in the objection to the disbelievers in such a\nJesus which is raised on the theological side in triumphant tones:\nthat the historical existence of Jesus is \"most certainly established\"\nby Paul. This objection comes, in fact, even from such people as\nregard the New Testament, in other respects, with most evidently\nsceptical views. The truth is that the Pauline epistles contain\nnothing which would force us to the belief in an historical Jesus;\nand probably no one would find such a person in them if that belief\nwas not previously established in him. It must be considered that,\nif the Pauline epistles stood in the edition of the New Testament\nwhere they really belong--that is, before the Gospels--hardly any\none would think that Jesus, as he there meets him, was a real man\nand had wandered on the earth in flesh and blood; but he would in all\nprobability only find therein a detailed development of the \"suffering\nservant of God,\" and would conclude that it was an irruption of\nheathen religious ideas into Jewish thought. Our theologians are,\nhowever, so strongly convinced of it a priori--that the Pauline\nrepresentation of Christ actually arose from the figure of Jesus\nwandering on earth--that even M. Br\u00fcckner confesses, in the preface\nto his work, that he had been \"himself astonished\" (!) at the result\nof his inquiry--the independence of the Pauline representation of\nChrist from the historical personality, Jesus. [364]\n\nChristianity is a syncretic religion. It belongs to those multiform\nreligious movements which at the commencement of our era were\nstruggling with one another for the mastery. Setting out from the\nApocalyptic idea and the expectation of the Messiah among the Jewish\nsects, it was borne on the tide of a mighty social agitation, which\nfound its centre and its point of departure in the religious sects and\nMystery communities. Its adherents conceived the Messiah not merely as\nthe Saviour of souls, but as deliverer from slavery, from the lot of\nthe poor and the oppressed, and as the bearer of a new justice. [365]\n\nIt borrowed the chief part of its doctrine, the specific point in\nwhich it differed from ordinary Judaism, the central idea of the God\nsacrificing himself for mankind, from the neighbouring peoples, who had\nbrought down this belief into Asia, in connection with fire-worship,\nfrom its earlier home in the North. Only in so far as that faith\npoints in the end to an Aryan origin can it be said that Jesus was \"an\nAryan\"; any further statements on this point, such as, for example,\nChamberlain makes in his \"Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts,\"\nare pure fancies, and rest on a complete misunderstanding of the true\nstate of affairs. Christianity, as the religion of Christ, of the\n\"Lord,\" who secularised the Jewish Law by his voluntary death of\nexpiation, did not \"arise\" in Jerusalem, but, if anywhere, in the\nSyrian capital Antioch, one of the principal places of the worship\nof Adonis. For it was at Antioch where, according to the Acts, [366]\nthe name \"Christians\" was first used for the adherents of the new\nreligion, who had till then been usually called Nazarenes. [367]\n\nThat certainly is in sharpest contradiction to tradition, according to\nwhich Christianity is supposed to have arisen in Jerusalem and to have\nbeen thence spread abroad among the heathen. But Luke's testimony\nas to the arising of the community of the Messiah at Jerusalem\nand the spreading of the Gospel from that place can lay no claim to\nhistorical significance. Even the account of the disciples' experience\nat Easter and of the first appearances after the Resurrection, from\ntheir contradictory and confused character appear to be legendary\ninventions. [368] Unhistorical, and in contradiction to the information\non this point given by Matthew and Mark, is the statement that the\ndisciples stayed in Jerusalem after Jesus' death, which is even\nreferred by Luke to an express command of the dead master. [369]\nUnhistorical is the assemblage at Pentecost and the wonderful \"miracle\"\nof the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, which, as even Clemen agrees,\nprobably originated from the Jewish legends, according to which the\ngiving of the Law on Sinai was made in seventy different languages,\nin order that it might be understood by all peoples. [370] But also\nStephen's execution and the consequent persecution of the community\nat Jerusalem are legendary inventions. [371] The great trouble which\nLuke takes to represent Jerusalem as the point whence the Christian\nmovement set out, clearly betrays the tendency of the author of\nthe Acts to misrepresent the activity of the Christian propaganda,\nwhich really emanated from many centres, as a bursting out of the\nGospel from one focus. It is meant to produce the impression that\nthe new religion spread from Jerusalem over the whole world like an\nexplosion; and thus its almost simultaneous appearance in the whole of\nNearer Asia is explained. For this reason \"devout Jews of all nations\"\nwere assembled in Jerusalem at Pentecost, and could understand each\nother in spite of their different languages. For this reason Stephen\nwas stoned, and the motive given for that persecution which in one\nmoment scattered the faithful in all directions. [372]\n\nNow it is certainly probable that there was in Jerusalem, just as\nin many other places, a community of the Messiah which believed in\nJesus as the God sacrificing himself for humanity. But the question\nis whether this belief, in the community at Jerusalem, rested on a\nreal man Jesus; and whether it is correct to regard this community,\nsome of whose members were personally acquainted with Jesus, and\nwho were the faithful companions of his wanderings, as the \"original\ncommunity\" in the sense of the first germ and point of departure of the\nChristian movement. We may believe, with Fraser, that a Jewish prophet\nand itinerant preacher, who by chance was named Jesus, was seized\nby his opponents, the orthodox Jews, on account of his revolutionary\nagitation, and was beheaded as the Haman of the current year, thereby\ngiving occasion for the foundation of the community at Jerusalem. [373]\nAgainst this it may be said that our informants as to the beginning\nof the Christian propaganda certainly vary, now making one assertion,\nnow another, without caring whether these are contradictory; and\nthey all strive to make up for the lack of any certain knowledge\nby unmistakable inventions. If the doctrine of Jesus was, as Smith\ndeclares, pre-Christian, \"a religion which was spread among the Jews\nand especially the Greeks within the limits of the century [100 B.C. to\n100 A.D.], more or less secretly, and wrapped up in 'Mysteries,'\"\nthen we can understand both the sudden appearance of Christianity\nover so wide a sphere as almost the whole of Nearer Asia, and also\nthe fact that even the earliest informants as to the beginning of\nthe Christian movement had nothing certain to tell. This, however,\nseems quite irreconcilable with the view of a certain, definite,\nlocal, and personal point of departure for the new doctrine. [374]\nThe objection will be raised: what about the Gospels? They, at least,\nclearly tell the story of a human individual, and are inexplicable,\napart from the belief in an historical Jesus.\n\nThe question consequently arises as to the source from which the\nGospels derived a knowledge of this Jesus; for on this alone the\nbelief in an historical Jesus can rest.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nTHE JESUS OF THE GOSPELS\n\n\nHowever widely views may differ even now in the sphere of Gospel\ncriticism, all really competent investigators agree on one point\nwith rare unanimity: the Gospels are not historical documents in the\nordinary sense of the word, but creeds, religious books, literary\ndocuments revealing the mind of the Christian community. Their purpose\nis consequently not to give information as to the life and teachings\nof Jesus which would correspond to reality, but to awaken belief in\nJesus as the Messiah sent from God for the redemption of his people,\nto strengthen and defend that belief against attacks. And as creeds\nthey confine themselves naturally to recounting such words and events\nas have any significance for the faith; and they have the greatest\ninterest in so arranging and representing the facts as to make them\naccord with the content of that faith.\n\n\n\n\n(a) The Synoptic Jesus.\n\nOf the numerous Gospels which were still current in the first half\nof the second century, as is well known, only four have come down to\nus. The others were not embodied by the Church in the Canon of the New\nTestament writings, and consequently fell into oblivion. Of these at\nmost a few names and isolated and insignificant fragments remain to\nus. Thus we know of a Gospel of Matthew, of Thomas, of Bartholomew,\nPeter, the twelve apostles, &c. Of our four Gospels, two bear the\nnames of apostles and two the names of companions and pupils of\napostles, viz., Mark and Luke. In this, of course, it is in no way\nmeant that they were really written by these persons. According to\nChrysostom these names were first assigned to them towards the end\nof the second century. And the titles do not run: Gospel of Matthew,\nof Mark, and so on, but \"according to\" Matthew, \"according to\" Mark,\nLuke, and John; so that they indicate at most only the persons or\nschools whose particular conception of the Gospel they represent.\n\nOf these Gospels, again, that of John ranks as the latest. It\npresupposes the others, and shows such a dogmatic tendency, that it\ncannot be considered the source of the story. Of the remaining Gospels,\nwhich on account of their similarity as to form and matter have been\ntermed \"Synoptic\" (i.e., such as must be dealt with in connection\nwith each other and thus only give a real idea of the Saviour's\npersonality), that of Mark is generally regarded as the oldest. Matthew\nand Luke rely on Mark, and all three, according to the prevailing\nview, are indebted to a common Aramaic source, wherein Jesus' didactic\nsermons are supposed to have been contained. Tradition points to John\nMark, the nephew of Barnabas, pupil of Peter, and Paul's companion on\nhis first missionary journey and later a sharer in the captivity at\nRome, as the author of the Gospel of Mark. It is believed that this\nwas written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem (70)--i.e., at\nleast forty years after Jesus' death (!). This tradition depends upon\na note of the Church historian Eusebius (d. about 340 A.D.), according\nto which Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, learnt from the\n\"elder John\" that Mark had set forth what he had heard from Peter,\nand what this latter had in turn heard from the \"Lord.\" On account\nof its indirect nature and of Eusebius' notorious unreliability this\nnote is not a very trustworthy one, [375] and belief in it should\ndisappear in view of the fact that the author of the Gospel of Mark\nhad no idea of the spot where Jesus is supposed to have lived. And\nyet Mark is supposed to have been born in Jerusalem and to have been a\nmissionary! As Wernle shows in his work, \"Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu,\"\nMark stands quite far from the life of Jesus both in time and place(!);\nindeed, he has no clear idea of Jesus' doings and course of life. [376]\nAnd Wrede confirms this in his work, \"Das Messias-geheimnis\" (1901),\nprobably the clearest and deepest inquiry into the fundamental\nproblem of the Gospel of Mark which we possess. Jesus is for Mark\nat once the Messiah and the Son of God. \"Faith in this dogma must be\naroused, it must be established and defended. The whole Gospel is a\ndefence. Mark wishes to lead all his readers, among whom he counts\nthe Heathens and Gentile Christians, to the recognition of what the\nheathen centurion said, 'Truly this man was the Son of God!' [377]\nThe whole account is directed to this end.\" [378]\n\nMark's main proof for this purpose is that of miracles. Jesus'\ndoctrines are with Mark of so much less importance than his miracles,\nthat we never learn exactly what Jesus preached. \"Consequently the\nhistorical portrait is very obscure: Jesus' person is distorted\ninto the grotesque and the fantastic\"(!) [379] Not only does Mark\noften introduce his own thought into the tradition about Jesus,\nand so prove perfectly wrong, and indeed absurd, the view held,\nfor instance, by Wernle, that Jesus had intentionally made use of an\nobscure manner of speech and had spoken in parables and riddles so\nas not to be understood by the people; [380] but also the connection\nwhich he has established between the accounts, which had first gone\nfrom mouth to mouth for a long time in isolation, is a perfectly\ndisconnected and external one. At first the stories reported by Mark\nwere totally disconnected with one another. There is no evidence at\nall of their having followed each other in the present order(!). [381]\nSo that only the matter, not what Mark made of it, is of historical\nvalue. [382] Single stories, discourses, and phrases are bound into\na whole by Mark; and often enough it may be seen that we have here a\ntradition which was first built up in the earliest Christianity long\nafter Jesus' death. Experiences were at first gradually fashioned into\na story--and the miracle-stories may especially be regarded in this\nway. In spite of all these trimmings and alterations, and in spite of\nthe fact that neither in the words of Jesus nor in the stories is it\nfor the most part any longer possible to separate the actual from the\ntraditional, which for forty years was not put into writing--in spite\nof all this, the historical value of the traditions given us by Mark\nis \"very highly\" estimated. For not only is \"the general impression\nof power, originality, and creation\" \"valuable,\" which is given in\nthis account of Mark's, but also there are so many individual phrases\n\"corresponding to reality.\" Numerous accounts, momentary pictures and\nremarks, \"speak for themselves.\" The modesty and ingenuousness(!), the\nfreshness and joy(!) with which Mark recounts all this, show distinctly\nthat he is here the reporter of a valid tradition, and that he writes\nnothing but what eye-witnesses have told him(!). \"And so finally, in\nspite of all, this Gospel remains an extraordinarily valuable work,\na collection of old and genuine material, which is loosely arranged\nand placed under a few leading conceptions; produced perhaps by that\nMark whom the New Testament knows, and of whom Papias heard from the\nmouth of the elder John.\" [383]\n\nOne does not trust one's eyes with this style of attempting to set\nup Mark as an even half-credible \"historical source.\" This attempt\nwill remind us only too forcibly of Wrede's ironical remarks when\nhe is making fun of the \"decisions as you like it\" that flourish\nin the study of Jesus' life. \"This study,\" says Wrede, \"suffers\nfrom psychological suggestion, and this is one style of historical\nsolution.\" [384] One believes that he can secure this, another that,\nas the historical nucleus of the Gospel; but neither has objective\nproofs for his assertions. [385] If we wish to work with an historical\nnucleus, we must really make certain of a nucleus. The whole point\nis, that in an anecdote or phrase something is proved, which makes\nany other explanation of the matter under consideration improbable,\nor at least doubtful. [386] It seems very questionable, after his\nradical criticism of the historical credibility of Mark's Gospel, that\nWrede saw in it such a \"historical kernel\"--though this is supposed\nby Wernle to \"speak for itself.\" Moreover, Wrede's opinion of the\n\"historian\" Mark is not essentially different from Wernle's. In\nhis opinion, for example, Jesus' disciples, as the Gospel portrays\nthem, with their want of intelligence bordering on idiocy, their\nfolly, and their ambiguous conduct as regards their Master, are\n\"not real figures.\" [387] He also concedes, as we have stated, that\nMark had no real idea of the historical life of Jesus, [388] even if\n\"pallid fragments\"(!) of such an idea entered into his superhistorical\nfaith-conception. \"The Gospel of Mark,\" he says, \"has in this sense a\nplace among the histories of dogma.\" [389] The belief that in it the\ndevelopment of Jesus' public life is still perceptible appears to be\ndecaying. [390] \"It would indeed be in the highest degree desirable\nthat such a Gospel were not the oldest.\" [391]\n\nThus, then, does Mark stand as an historical source. After this we\ncould hardly hope to be much strengthened in our belief in Jesus'\nhistorical reality by the other two Synoptics. Of these, Luke's Gospel\nmust have been written, in the early part of the second century, by an\nunknown Gentile Christian; and Matthew's is not the work of a single\nauthor, but was produced--and unmistakably in the interests of the\nChurch--by various hands in the first half of the second century. [392]\nBut now both, as we have said, are based on Mark. And even if in\ntheir representations they have attained a certain \"peculiar value\"\nwhich is wanting in Mark--e.g., a greater number of Jesus' parables\nand words--even if they have embellished the story of his life by\nthe addition of legendary passages (e.g., of the history of the time\npreceding the Saviour, of many additions to the account of the Passion\nand Resurrection, &c.), this cannot quite establish the existence of\nan historical Jesus. It is true that Wernle takes the view that in this\nrespect \"old traditions\" have been preserved \"with wonderful fidelity\"\nby both the Evangelists; but, on the other hand, he concedes as to\ncertain of Luke's accounts that even if he had used old traditions\nthey need not have been as yet written, and certainly they need not\nhave been \"historically reliable.\" It seems rather peculiar when,\nleaving completely on one side the historical value of the tradition,\nhe emphatically declares that even such a strong interest, as in\nhis opinion the Evangelists had in the shaping and formation of their\naccount, could not in any way set aside \"the worth of its rich treasure\nof parables and stories, through which Jesus himself [!] speaks to\nus with freshness and originality\" (!). He also strangely sums up at\nthe end, \"that the peculiar value of both Gospels, in spite of their\nvery mixed nature, has claim enough on our gratitude\"(!). [393] This\nsurely is simply to make use of the Gospels' literary or other value\nin the interest of the belief in their historical credibility.\n\nBut there is still the collection of sayings, that \"great authority\non the matter,\" from which all the Synoptics, and especially Luke\nand Matthew, are supposed to have derived the material for their\ndeclarations about Jesus. Unfortunately this is to us a completely\nunknown quantity, as we know neither what this \"great\" authority\ntreats of, nor the arrangement of the matter in it, nor its text. We\ncan only say that this collection was written in the Aramaic tongue,\nand the arrangement of its matter was not apparently chronological,\nbut according to the similarity of its contents. Again, it is doubtful\nwhether the collection was a single work, produced by one individual;\nor whether it had had a history before it came to Luke and Matthew. All\nthe same, \"the collection contains such a valuable number of the\nLord's words, that in all probability an eye-witness was its author\"\n(!). [394] As for the speeches of Jesus constructed from it, they were\nnever really made as speeches by Jesus, but owe the juxtaposition\nof their contents entirely to the hand of the compiler. Thus the\nmuch admired Sermon on the Mount is constructed by placing together\nindividual phrases of Jesus, which belong to all periods of his life,\nperhaps made in the course of a year. The ideas running through it\nand connecting the parts are not those of Jesus, but rather those\nof the original community; \"nevertheless, the historical value of\nthese speeches is, on the whole, very great indeed. Together with the\n'Lord's words' of Mark they give us the truest insight into the spirit\nof the Gospel\"(!). [395]\n\nSuch are the authorities for the belief in an historical Jesus! If we\nsurvey all that remains of the Gospels, this does indeed appear quite\n\"scanty,\" or, speaking plainly, pitiable. Wernle consoles himself with,\n\"If only it is certain and reliable.\" Yes, if! \"And if only it was\nable to give us an answer to the chief question: Who was Jesus?\" [396]\nThis much is certain: a \"Life of Jesus\" cannot be written on the basis\nof the testimony before us. Probably all present-day theologians are\nagreed on this point; which, however, does not prevent them producing\nnew essays on it, at any rate for the \"people,\" thus making up for the\nlack of historical reliability by edifying effusions and rhetorical\nphrases. \"There is no lack of valuable historical matter, of stones for\nthe construction of Jesus' life; they lie before us plentifully. But\nthe plan for the construction is lost and completely irretrievable,\nbecause the oldest disciples had no occasion for such an historical\nconnection, but rather claimed obedience to the isolated words and\nacts, so far as they aroused faith.\" But would they have been less\nfaith-arousing if they had been arranged connectedly, would the\ncredibility of the accounts of Jesus have been diminished and not\nmuch rather increased, if the Evangelists had taken the trouble to\ngive us some more information as to Jesus' real life? As things stand\nat present, hardly two events are recounted in the same manner in\nthe Gospels, or even in the same connection. Indeed, the differences\nand contradictions--and this not only as to unimportant things, such\nas names, times and places, &c.--are so great that these literary\ndocuments of Christianity can hardly be surpassed in confusion. [397]\nBut even this is, according to Wernle, \"not so great a pity, if\nonly we can discover with sufficient clearness, what Jesus' actions\nand wishes were on important points.\" [398] Unfortunately we are\nnot in a position to do even this. For the ultimate source of our\ninformation, which we arrive at in our examination of the authorities\nis completely unknown to us--the Aramaic collection of sayings, and\nthose very old traditions from which Mark is supposed to have derived\nhis production, gleanings of which have been preserved for us by Luke\nand Matthew. But even if we knew these also, we would almost certainly\nnot have \"come to Jesus himself.\" \"They contain the possibility of\ndispute and misrepresentation. They recount in the first place the\nfaith of the oldest Christians, a faith which arose in the course of\nfour hundred years, and moreover changed much in that time.\" [399]\nSo that at most we know only the faith of the earliest community. We\nsee how this community sought to make clear to itself through Jesus\nits belief in the Resurrection, how it sought to \"prove\" to itself\nand to others the divine nature of Jesus by the recital of tales\nof miracles and the like. What Jesus himself thought, what he did,\nwhat he taught, what his life was, and--might we say it?--whether he\never lived at all--that is not to be learnt from the Gospels, and,\naccording to all the preceding discussion, cannot be settled from\nthem with lasting certainty.\n\nOf course the liberal theologian, for whom everything is compatible\nwith an historical Jesus, has many resources. He explains that all\nthe former discussion has not touched the main point, and that\nthis point is--What was Jesus' attitude to God, to the world,\nand to mankind? What answer did he give to the questions: What\nmatters in the eyes of God? and What is religion? This should\nindicate that the solution of the problem is contained in what has\npreceded, and that this solution is unknown to us. But such is not\nthe case. Wernle knows it, and examines it \"in the clear light of\nday.\" \"From his numerous parables and sermons and from countless\nmomentary recollections it comes to us as clearly and distinctly as\nif Jesus were our contemporary [!]. No man on earth can say that it\nis either uncertain or obscure how Jesus thought on this point, which\nis to us [viz., to the liberal theologians] even at the present day\nthe chief point.\" \"And if Christianity has forgotten for a thousand\nyears what its Master desired first and before all, to-day [i.e.,\nafter the clear solutions of critical theology] it shines on us once\nmore from the Gospels as clearly and wonderfully, as if the sun were\nnewly risen, driving before its conquering rays all the phantoms and\nshadows of night.\" [400] And so Wernle himself, to whom we owe this\nconsoling assurance, has written a work, \"Die Anf\u00e4nge unserer Religion\"\n(1901), which is highly esteemed in theological circles, and in which\nhe has given a detailed account, in a tone of overwhelming assurance,\nof the innermost thoughts, views, words, and teachings of Jesus and\nof his followers, just as if he had been actually present.\n\nWe must be careful of our language. These are indeed the views of\na man who must be taken seriously, with whom we have been dealing\nabove, a \"shining light\" of his science! The often cited work on\n\"Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu\" belongs to the series of \"Popular\nBooks on the History of Religion,\" which contains the quintessence of\npresent-day theological study, and which is intended for the widest\ncircles interested and instructed in religion. We may suppose, probably\nwith justice, that that work expresses what the liberal theology of\nour day wishes the members of the community subject to it to know\nand to believe. Or is it only that the popular books on the history\nof religion place the intellectual standard of their readers so low\nthat they think they can strengthen the educated in their belief in\nan historical Jesus by productions such as Wernle's? We consider the\nmore \"scientifically\" elaborated works of other important theologians\non the same subject. We think of Beyschlag, Harnack, Bernard Weiss,\nof Pfleiderer, J\u00fclicher, and Holtzmann. We consult Bousset, who\ndefended against Kalthoff, with such great determination and warmth,\nthe existence of an historical Jesus. Everywhere there is the same\nhalf-comic, half-pathetic drama: on the one hand the evangelical\nauthorities are depreciated and the information is criticised away\nto such an extent that hardly anything positive remains from it;\non the other hand there is a pathetic enthusiasm for the so-called\n\"historical kernel.\" Then comes praise for the so-called critical\ntheology and its \"courageous truthfulness,\" which, however, ultimately\nconsists only in declaring evident myths and legends to be such. This\nwas known for a long time previously among the unprejudiced. There\nusually follows a hymn to Jesus with ecstatic raising of the eyes,\nas if all the statements concerning him in the Gospels still had\nvalidity. What then does Hausrath say?--\"To conceal the miraculous\nparts of the [evangelical] accounts and then to give out the rest as\nhistorical, has not hitherto passed as criticism.\" [401] Can we object\nto Catholic theology because it looks with open pity on the whole of\nProtestant \"criticism,\" and reproaches it with the inconsistency,\nincompleteness, and lack of results, which is the mark of all its\nefforts to discover the beginnings of Christianity. [402] Is it not\nright in rejoicing at the blow which Protestantism has sustained\nand from which it must necessarily suffer through all such attempts\nat accepting the Gospels as basis for a belief in an historical\nJesus? Certainly what Catholic theologians bring forward in favour\nof the historical Jesus is so completely devoid of any criticism\nor even of any genuine desire to elucidate the facts, that it would\nbe doing them too much honour to make any more detailed examination\nof their works on this point. For them the whole problem has a very\nsimple solution in this: the existence of the historical Jesus forms\nthe unavoidable presupposition of the Church, even though every\nhistorical fact should register its veto against it; and as one of\nits writers has put it, that is at bottom the long-established and\nunanimous view of all our inquiries into the subject under discussion:\n\"The historical testimony for the authenticity of the Gospels is\nas old, as extensive, and as well established as it is for very\nfew other books of ancient literature [!]. If we do not wish to be\ninconsistent we cannot question their authenticity. Their credibility\nis beyond question; for their authors were eye-witnesses of the events\n[!] related, or they gained their information from such; they were as\ncompetent judges [!] as men loving the truth can well be; they could,\nand in fact were obliged to speak the truth.\" [403]\n\nHow distinguished, as compared with this kind of theologian, Kalthoff\nseems! It is true that we are obliged to allow for the one-sidedness\nand insufficiency of his positive working out of the origin of\nChristianity, of his attempt to explain it, on the basis of Mark's\nhandling of the story, purely on the lines of social motives, and to\nrepresent Christ as the mere reflection of the Christian community and\nof its experiences. Quite certainly he is wrong in identifying the\nbiblical Pilate with Pliny, the governor of Bithynia under Trajan,\nand in the proof based on this; and this because in all probability\nPliny's letter to the Emperor is a later Christian forgery. [404]\nBut Kalthoff is quite right in what he says about modern critical\ntheology and its historical Jesus. The critical theologians may\nthink themselves justified in treating this embarrassing opponent as\n\"incompetent,\" or in ignoring him on account of the mistaken basis of\nargument; but all the efforts made with such great perseverance and\npenetration by historical theologians to derive from the authorities\nbefore us proof of the existence of a man Jesus in the traditional\nsense have led, as Kalthoff very justly says, to a purely negative\nconclusion. \"The numerous passages in the Gospels which this theology,\nin maintaining its historical Jesus, is obliged to place on one\nside and pass over, stand from a literary point of view exactly\non the same footing as those passages from which it constructs its\nhistorical Jesus; and consequently they claim historical value equal\nto these latter. The Synoptic Christ, in whom modern theology thinks\nit finds the characteristics of the historical Jesus, stands not\na hair's breadth nearer to a human interpretation of Christianity\nthan the Christ of the fourth Gospel. What the Epigones of liberal\ntheology think they can distil from this Synoptic Christ as historical\nessence has historical value only as a monument of masterly sophistry,\nwhich has produced its finest examples in the name of theological\nscience.\" [405] Historical research should not have so long set apart\nfrom all other history that of early Christianity as the special domain\nof theology and handed it over to churchmen, as if for the decision\nof the questions on this point quite special talent was necessary--a\ntalent far beyond the ordinary sphere of science and one which was\nonly possessed by the Church theologian. The world would then long\nsince have done with the whole literature of the \"Life of Jesus.\"\n\nThe sources which give information of the origin of Christianity are\nof such a kind that, considering the present standard of historical\nresearch, no historian would care to undertake an attempt to produce\nthe biography of an historical Christ. [406] They are, we can add,\nof such a nature that a real historian, who meets them without a\nprevious conviction or expectation that he will find an historical\nJesus in it, cannot for a moment doubt that he has here to do with\nreligious fiction, [407] with myth in an historical form, which does\nnot essentially differ from other myths and legends--such as perhaps\nthe legend of Tell.\n\n\n\nSupplement: Jesus in Secular Literature.\n\nThere seems to be but little hope of considerably adding to the weight\nof the reasons in favour of the historical existence of Jesus by citing\ndocuments of secular literature. As is well known, only two passages of\nthe Jewish historian Josephus, and one in each of the Roman historians,\nTacitus and Suetonius, must be considered in this connection. As for\nthe testimony of Josephus in his \"Antiquities,\" which was written\n93 A.D., the first passage (viz., xviii. 3, 3) is so evidently an\nafter-insertion of a later age, that even Roman Catholic theologians\ndo not venture to declare it authentic, though they always attempt,\nwith pitiful na\u00efvet\u00e9, to support the credibility of pre-Christian\ndocuments of this type. [408] But the other passage, too (xx. 9,\n1), which states that James was executed under the authority of the\npriest Ananos (A.D. 62), and refers to him as \"the Brother of Jesus,\nthe so-called Christ,\" in the opinion of eminent theologians such as\nCredner, [409] Sch\u00fcrer, [410] &c., must be regarded as a forgery;\n[411] but even if its authenticity were established it would still\nprove nothing in favour of the historical Jesus. For, first, it\nleaves it undecided whether a bodily relationship is indicated by\nthe word \"Brother,\" or whether, as is much more likely, the reference\nis merely to a religious brotherhood (see above, 170 sq.). Secondly,\nthe passage only asserts that there was a man of the name of Jesus who\nwas called Christ, and this is in no way extraordinary in view of the\nfact that at the time of Josephus, and far into the second century,\nmany gave themselves out as the expected Messiah. [412]\n\nThe Roman historians' testimony is in no better case than that of\nJosephus. It is true that Tacitus writes in his \"Annals\" (xv. 44),\nin connection with the persecution of the Christians under Nero (64),\nthat \"the founder of this sect, Christ, was executed in Tiberius'\nreign by the procurator Pontius Pilate\"; and Suetonius states in his\nbiography of the Emperor Claudius, chap. xxv., that he \"drove out of\nRome the Jews, who had caused great disturbances at the instigation\nof Chrestus.\" What does this prove? Are we so certain that the passage\ncited from Tacitus as to the persecution of the Christians under Nero\nis not after all a later insertion and falsification of the original\ntext? This is indeed the case, judging from Hochart's splendid and\nexhaustive inquiry. In fact, everything points to the idea that the\n\"first persecution of the Christians,\" which is previously mentioned\nby no writers, either Jewish or heathen, is nothing but the product\nof a Christian's imagination in the fifth century. [413] But let\nus admit the authenticity of Tacitus' assertion; let us suppose\nalso that by Suetonius' Chrestus is really meant Christ and not a\npopular Jewish rioter of that name; let us suppose that the unrest\nof the Jews was not connected with the expectation of the Messiah,\nor that the Roman historian, in his ignorance of the Jewish dreams of\nthe future, did not imagine a leader of the name of Chrestus. [414]\nCan writers of the first quarter of the second century after Christ,\nat which time the tradition was already formed and Christianity had\nmade its appearance in History as a power, be regarded as independent\nauthorities for facts which are supposed to have taken place long\nbefore the birth of the Tradition? Tacitus can at most have heard\nthat the Christians were followers of a Christ who was supposed to\nhave been executed under Pontius Pilate. That was probably even at\nthat time in the Gospels--and need not, therefore, be a real fact\nof history. And if it has been proved, according to Mommsen, that\nTacitus took his material from the protocols of the Senate and imperial\narchives, there has equally been, on the other hand, a most definite\ncounter-assertion that he never consulted these authorities. [415]\n\nLately, Tacitus proving to be slightly inconsistent, it has been usual\nto refer to Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan, asserting that the\nhistorical Jesus is certified to in this. The letter hinges on the\nquestion of what Pliny's attitude as Governor of Bithynia must be\nto the Christians; so that naturally the Christians are much spoken\nof, and once even there is mention of Christ, whose followers sing\nalternate hymns to him \"as to a God\" (quasi deo). But Jesus as an\nhistorical person is not once mentioned in the whole letter; and Christ\nwas even for Paul a \"Quasi-god,\" a being fluctuating between man and\nGod. What then is proved by the letter of Pliny as to the historical\nnature of Jesus? It only proves the liberal theologians' dilemma over\nthe whole question, that they think they can cite these witnesses\nagain and again for strengthening the belief in an historical Jesus,\nas, e.g. Melhorn does in his work \"Wahrheit und Dichtung im Leben Jesu\"\n(in \"Aus Natur und Geisteswelt,\" 1906), trying to make it appear that\nthese witnesses are in any way worthy of consideration. Joh. Weiss\nalso--according to the newspaper account--in his lecture on Christ in\nthe Berlin vacation-course of March, 1910, confessed that \"statements\nfrom secular literature as to the historical nature of Jesus which\nare absolutely free of objection are very far from having been\nauthenticated.\" Even an orthodox theologian like Kropatscheck writes\nin the \"Kreuzzeitung\" (April 7, 1910): \"It is well known that the\nnon-Christian writers in a very striking way ignore the appearing of\nChrist. The few small notices in Tacitus, Suetonius, &c., are easily\nenumerated. Though we date our chronology from him, his advent made no\nimpression at all on the great historians of his age. The Talmud gives\na hostile caricature of his advent which has no historical value. The\nJewish historian, Flavius Josephus, from whom we might have expected\ninformation of the first rank, is absolutely silent. We are referred\nto our Gospels, as Paul also says little of the life of Jesus; and we\ncan understand how it is that attempts are always being made to remove\nhim, as an historical person, from the past.\" The objection to this,\nthat the secular writers, even though they give no positive testimony\nfor Jesus' historical existence, have never brought it in question,\nis of very little strength. For the writings considered in it, viz.,\nJustin's conversation with the Jew Trypho, as well as the polemical\nwork of Celsus against Christianity, both belong to the latter half\nof the second century, while the passages in the Talmud referred to\nare probably of a later date, and all these passages are merely based\non the tradition. So that this \"proof from silence\" is in reality\nno proof. It is, rather, necessary to explain why the whole of the\nfirst century, apart from the Gospels, seems to know nothing of Jesus\nas an historical personality. The Frenchman Hochart ridicules the\ntheological attitude: \"It seems that the most distinguished men lose\na part of their brilliant character in the study of martyrology. Let\nus leave it to German theologians to study history in their way. We\nFrenchmen wish throughout our inquiries to preserve our clearness of\nmind and healthy common-sense. Let us not invent new legends about\nNero: there are really too many already.\" [416]\n\n\n\n\n(b) The Objections against a Denial of the Historicity of the\nSynoptic Jesus.\n\nThere the matter ends: we know nothing of Jesus, of an historical\npersonality of that name to whom the events and speeches recorded in\nthe Gospels refer. \"In default of any historical certainty the name\nof Jesus has become for Protestant theology an empty vessel, into\nwhich that theology pours the content of its own meditations.\" [417]\nAnd if there is any excuse for this, it is that that name has never at\nany time been anything but such an empty vessel: Jesus, the Christ,\nthe Deliverer, Saviour, Physician of oppressed souls, has been from\nfirst to last a figure borrowed from myth, to whom the desire for\nredemption and the na\u00efve faith of the Western Asiatic peoples have\ntransferred all their conceptions of the soul's welfare. The \"history\"\nof this Jesus in its general characteristics had been determined even\nbefore the evangelical Jesus. Even Weinel, one of the most zealous\nand enthusiastic adherents of the modern Jesus-worship, confesses that\n\"Christology was almost completed before Jesus came on earth.\" [418]\n\nIt was not, however, merely the general frame and outlines of the\n\"history\" of Jesus which had been determined in the Messiah-faith,\nin the idea of a divine spirit sent from God, of the \"Son of Man\" of\nDaniel and the Jewish Apocalyptics, &c., not merely that this vague\nidea was filled out with new content through the Redeemer-worship of\nthe neighbouring heathen peoples. Besides this, many of the individual\ntraits of the Jesus-figure were present, some in heathen mythology,\nsome in the Old Testament; and they were taken thence and worked into\nthe evangelical representation. There is, for instance, the story of\nthe twelve-year old Jesus in the Temple. \"Who would have invented this\nstory?\" asks Jeremias. \"Nevertheless,\" he thinks it \"probable\" that in\nthis Luke was thinking of Philo's description of the life of Moses;\nhe calls to mind that Plutarch gives us a quite similar statement\nconcerning Alexander, whose life was consciously decorated with all\nthe traits of the Oriental King-redeemer. [419] Perhaps, however, the\naccount comes from a Buddhist origin. The account of the temptation of\nJesus also sounds very much like the temptation of Buddha, so far as\nit is not derived from the temptation of Zarathustra by Ahriman [420]\nor the temptation of Moses by the devil, of which the Rabbis told,\n[421] while Jesus is said to have entered upon his ministry in his\nthirtieth year, [422] because at that age the Levite was fitted for\nhis sacred office. [423] Till then (i.e., till his baptism) we learn\nnothing of Jesus' life. Similarly Isa. liii. 2, jumps from the early\nyouth of the Servant of God (\"He grew up as a tender plant, as a root\nout of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness, is despised and\nrejected of men\") straight to his passion and death; while the Gospels\nattempt to fill in the interval from Jesus' baptism up to his passion\nby painting in further so-called Messianic passages from the Old\nTestament and Words of Jesus. We know how the early Christians liked\nto rediscover their faith in the Scriptures and see it predicted,\nand with what zeal they consequently studied the Old Testament and\naltered the \"history\" of their Jesus to make it agree with those\npredictions, thus rendering it valuable as corroboration of their own\nnotions. In this connection it has been shown above how the \"ride of\nthe beardless one\" influenced the collection of the tribute and his\ndirect attack on the shopkeepers and money-changers in the evangelical\naccount of Jesus' advent to the Temple at Jerusalem. [424] But the\nmore detailed development of this scene is determined by Zech. ix. 9,\nMal. iii. 1-3, and Isa. i. 10 sqq., and the words placed in Jesus'\nmouth on this occasion are taken from Isa. lvi. 7 and Jer. vii. 1\nsqq., so that this \"most important\" event in Jesus' life can lay no\nclaim to historical actuality. [425]\n\nAnd again the account of the betrayal, of the thirty pieces of silver,\nand of Judas' death, have their source in the Old Testament, viz.,\nin the betrayal and death of Ahitophel. [426] To what extent in\nparticular the figures of Moses, with reference to Deut. xviii. 15\nand xxxiv. 10, of Joshua, of Elijah and Elisha, influenced the\nportrayal of the evangelical Jesus has also been traced even by the\ntheological party. [427] Jesus has to begin his activities through\nbaptism in the Jordan, because Moses had begun his leadership of\nIsrael with the passage through the Red Sea and Joshua at the time\nof the Passover led the people through the Jordan, and this passage\n(of the sun through the watery regions of the sky) was regarded as\nbaptism. [428] He has to walk on the water, even as Moses, Joshua,\nand Elias walked dryshod through the water. He has to awaken the\ndead, like Elijah; [429] to surround himself with twelve or seventy\ndisciples and apostles, just as Moses had surrounded himself with\ntwelve chiefs of the people and seventy elders, and as Joshua had\nchosen twelve assistants at the passage of the Jordan; [430] he has\nto be transfigured, [431] and to ascend into heaven like Moses [432]\nand Elijah. [433] Elijah (Eli-scha) and Jeho-schua (Joshua, Jesus)\nagree even in their names, so that on this ground alone it would not\nhave been strange if the Prophet of the Old Testament had served as\nprototype of his evangelical namesake. [434] Now Jesus places himself\nin many ways above the Mosaic Law, especially above the commands as\nto food, [435] and in this at least one might find a trait answering\nto reality. But in the Rabbinical writings we find: \"It is written,\n[436] the Lord sets loose that which is bound; for every creature\nthat passes as unclean in this world, the Lord will pronounce clean\nin the next.\" [437] So that similarly the disposition of the Law\nbelongs to the general characteristics of the Messiah, and cannot be\nhistorical of Jesus, because if it were the attitude of the Jewish\nChristians to Paul on account of his disposition of the Law would\nbe incomprehensible. [438] The contrary attitude, which is likewise\nrepresented by Jesus, [439] was already foreseen in the Messianic\nexpectation. For while some hoped for a lightening and amendment\nof the Law by the Messiah, others thought of its aggravation and\ncompletion. In Micah iv. 5 the Messiah was to exert his activity,\nnot merely among the Jews, but also among the Gentiles, and the\nwelfare of the kingdom of the Messiah was to extend also to the\nlatter. According to Isaiah lx. and Zechariah xiv., on the contrary,\nthe Gentiles were to be subjected and brought to nothing, and only\nthe Jews were worthy of participation in the kingdom of God. For\nthat reason Jesus had to declare himself with like determination for\nboth conceptions, [440] without any attempt being made to reconcile\nthe contradiction contained in this. [441] That the parents of Jesus\nwere called Joseph and Mary, and that his father was a \"carpenter,\"\nwere determined by tradition, just as the name of his birthplace,\nNazareth, was occasioned by the name of a sect (Nazaraios = Protector),\nor by the fact that one sect honoured the Messiah as a \"branch of the\nroot of Jesse\" (nazar Isai). [442] It was a Messianic tradition that\nhe began his activity in Galilee and wandered about as Physician,\nSaviour, Redeemer, and Prophet, as mediator of the union of Israel,\nand as one who brought light to the Gentiles, not as an impetuous\noppressor full of inconsiderate strength, but as one who assumed a\nloving tenderness for the weak and despairing. [443] He heals the sick,\ncomforts the afflicted, and proclaims to the poor the Gospel of the\nnearness of the kingdom of God. That is connected with the wandering\nof the sun through the twelve Signs of the Zodiac (Galil = circle),\nand is based on Isa. xxxv. 5 sqq., xlii. 1-7, xlix. 9 sqq., as well\nas on Isa. lxi. 1, a passage which Jesus himself, according to Luke\niv. 16 sqq., began his teaching in Nazareth by explaining. [444] He\nhad to meet with opposition in his work of salvation, and nevertheless\nendure patiently, because of Isa. 1. 5. Naturally Jesus, behind whose\nhuman nature was concealed a God, and to whom the pilgrim \"Saviour\"\nJason corresponded, [445] was obliged to reveal his true nature by\nmiraculous healing, and could not take a subordinate place in this\nregard among the cognate heathen God-redeemers. At most we may wonder\nthat even in this the Old Testament had to stand [446] as a model,\nand that Jesus' doings never surpass those which the heathens praise\nin their gods and heroes, e.g., Asclepius. Indeed, according to\nTacitus [447] even the Emperor Vespasian accomplished such miracles\nat Alexandria, where, on being persistently pressed by the people,\nhe healed both a lame man and a blind, and this almost in the same\nway as Jesus did, by moistening their eyes and cheeks with spittle;\nwhich information is corroborated also by Suetonius [448] and Dio\nCassius. [449] But the most marvellous thing is that the miracles\nof Jesus have been found worth mentioning by the critical theology,\nand that there is an earnest search for an \"historical nucleus,\"\nwhich might probably \"underlie them.\"\n\nAll the individual characteristics cited above are, however,\nunimportant in comparison with the account of the Last Supper, of the\nPassion, death (on the cross), and resurrection of Jesus. And yet\nwhat is given us on these points is quite certainly unhistorical;\nthese parts of the Gospels owe their origin, as we have stated,\nmerely to cult-symbolism and to the myth of the dying and rising\ndivine Saviour of the Western Asiatic religions. No \"genius\" was\nnecessary for their invention, as everything was given: the derision,\n[450] the flagellation, both the thieves, the crying out on the cross,\nthe sponge with vinegar (Psa. lxix. 22), the piercing with a lance,\n[451] the soldiers casting dice for the dead man's garments, also\nthe women at the place of execution and at the grave, the grave in a\nrock, are found in just the same form in the worship of Adonis, Attis,\nMithras, and Osiris. Even the Saviour carrying his cross is copied from\nHercules (Simon of Cyrene), [452] bearing the pillars crosswise, as\nwell as from the story of Isaac, who carried his own wood to the altar\non which he was to be sacrificed. [453] But where the authors of the\nGospels have really found something new, e.g., in the account of Jesus'\ntrial, of the Roman and Jewish procedure, they have worked it out in\nsuch an ignorant way, and to one who knows something about it betray\nso significantly the purely fictitious nature of their account, that\nhere really there is nothing to wonder at except perhaps the na\u00efvet\u00e9 of\nthose who still consider that account historical, and pique themselves\na little on their \"historical exactness\" and \"scientific method.\" [454]\n\nIs not Robertson perhaps right after all in considering the whole\nstatement of the last fate of Jesus to be the rewriting of a dramatic\nMystery-play, which among the Gentile Christians of the larger cities\nfollowed the sacramental meal on Easter Day? We know what a great r\u00f4le\nwas played by dramatic representations in numerous cults of antiquity,\nand how they came into especial use in connection with the veneration\nof the suffering and rising God-redeemers. Thus in Egypt the passion,\ndeath, and resurrection of Osiris and the birth of Horus; at Eleusis\nthe searching and lamentation of Demeter for her lost Persephone and\nthe birth of Iacchus; at Lern\u00e6 in Argolis and many other places the\nfate of Dionysus (Zagreus); in Sicyon the suffering of Adrastos, who\nthrew himself on to the funeral pyre of his father Hercules; at Amycl\u00e6\nthe passing away of Nature and its new life in the fate of Hyacinth:\nthese were celebrated in festal pageants and scenic representations,\nto say nothing of the feasts of the death and resurrection of Mithras,\nAttis, and Adonis. Certainly Matthew's account, xx.-xxviii. (with the\nexception of verses 11-15 in the last chapter), with its connected\nsequence of events, which could not possibly have actually followed\neach other like this--Supper, Gethsemane, betrayal, passion, Peter's\ndenial, the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection--throughout gives\none the impression of a chain of isolated dramatic scenes. And the\nclose of the Gospel agrees very well with this conception, for the\nparting words and exhortations of Jesus to his people are a very\nsuitable ending to a drama. [455]\n\nIf we allow this, an explanation is given of the \"clearness\" which is\nso generally praised in the style of the Gospels by the theologians\nand their following, and which many think sufficient by itself to\nprove the historical nature of the Synoptic representation of Jesus.\n\nOf course, Wrede has already warned us \"not too hastily to consider\nclearness a sign of historical truth. A writing may have a very\nsecondary, even apocryphal character, and yet show much clearness. The\nquestion always is how this was obtained.\" [456] Wernle and Wrede quite\nagree that at least in Mark's production the clearness is of no account\nat all, while clearness in the other Gospels is found just in those\nparts which admittedly belong to the sphere of legend. And how clearly\nand concretely do not our authors of the various \"Lives of Jesus,\" not\nto mention Renan, or our ministers in the pulpits describe the events\nof the Gospels, with how many small and attractive traits do they\nnot decorate these events, in order that they should have a greater\neffect on their listeners! This kind of clearness and personal stamp\nis really nothing but a matter of the literary skill and imagination\nof the authors in question. The writings of the Old Testament, and\nnot merely the historical writings, are also full of a most clear\nability for narration and of most individual characteristics,\nwhich prove how much the Rabbinical writers in Palestine knew\nof this side of literary activity. Or is anything wanting to the\nclearness and individual characterisation, to which Kalthoff also\nhas alluded, of the touching story of Ruth; of the picture of the\nprophet Jonah, of Judith, Esther, Job, &c? And then the stories of the\npatriarchs--the pious Abraham, the good-natured, narrow-minded Esau,\nthe cunning Jacob, and their respective wives--or, to take one case,\nhow clear is not the meeting of Abraham's servant with Rebecca at the\nwell! [457] Or let us consider Moses, Elijah, Samson--great figures\nwho in their most essential traits demonstrably belong to myth and\nreligious fable! If in preaching our ministers can go so vividly into\nthe details of the story of the Saviour that fountains of poetry are\nopened and there stream forth from their lips clear accounts of Jesus'\ngoodness of heart, of his heroic greatness, and of his readiness for\nthe sacrifice, how much more would this have been so at first in the\nChristian community, when the new religion was still in its youth,\nwhen the faith in the Messiah was as yet unweakened by sceptical\ndoubts, and when the heart of man was still filled with the desire\nfor immediate and final redemption? And even if we are confronted\nwith a host of minor traits, which cannot so easily be accounted for\nby religious motives and poetic imagination, must these all refer to\nthe same real personality? May they not be based on events which are\nvery far from being necessarily experiences of the liberal theology's\nhistorical Jesus? Even Edward v. Hartmann, who is generally content\nto adhere to the historical Jesus, suggests the possibility \"that\nseveral historical personages, who lived at quite different times,\nhave contributed concrete individual characteristics to the picture of\nJesus.\" [458] There is a great deal of talk about the \"uninventable\"\nin the evangelical representation. Von Soden even goes so far as to\nbase his chief proof for the historical existence of Jesus on this\nindividuality that cannot be invented. [459] As if there was any such\nthing as what cannot be invented for men with imagination! And as if\nall the significant details of Jesus' life were not invented on the\nlines of the so-called Messianic passages in the Old Testament, in\nheathen mythology, and in the imported conceptions of the Messiah! The\npart that is professedly \"uninventable\" shrinks continuously the more\nassiduously criticism busies itself with the Gospels; and the word can\nat present apply only to side-issues and matters of no importance. We\nare indeed faced with the strange fact, that all the essential part of\nthe Gospels, everything which is of importance for religious faith,\nsuch as especially the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus,\nis demonstrably invented and mythical; but such parts as can at best\nonly be historical because of their supposed \"uninventable\" nature\nare of no importance for the character of the Gospel representation!\n\nNow, it has been shown that the Gospel picture of Jesus is not without\ndeficiencies. We may see a proof [460] of the historical nature of\nthe events referred to in small traits, as, for example, in Jesus'\ntemporary inability to perform miracles, [461] the circumstance that he\nis not represented as omniscient, [462] the attitude of his relatives\nto him. [463] So the theologian Schmiedel set up first five and then\nnine passages as \"clearly credible,\" and pronounced these to be the\nbasis of a really scientific knowledge of Jesus. The passages are Mark\nx. 17 sqq. (Why callest thou me good?), Matt. xii. 31 sqq. (The sin\nagainst the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven), Mark iii. 21 (He is\nbeside himself), Mark xiii. 32 (But the day and the hour is known to\nno man), Mark xv. 24 (My God, why has thou forsaken me?), Mark vi. 5\n(And he could there do no mighty work), Mark viii. 12 (There shall no\nsign be given unto this generation), Mark viii. 14-21 (Reproaching the\ndisciples on the occasion of the lack of bread), Matt. xi. 5 (The blind\nsee, the lame walk). All these \"bases\" evidently have a firm support\nonly on the supposition that the Gospels are meant to paint a stainless\nideal, a God, that they are at most but a conception, such, perhaps,\nas has been set up by Bruno Bauer. But they are useless from the point\nof view intended, as portraying a man. If, however, the Evangelists'\nintention was to paint the celestial Christ of the Apostle Paul, the\nGod-man, the abstract spirit-being, as a completely real man for the\neyes of the faithful, to place him on the ground of historical reality,\nand so to treat seriously Paul's \"idea\" of humanity, they were obliged\nto give him also human characteristics. And these could be either\ninvented afresh or taken from the actual life of honoured teachers,\nin which the fact is acknowledged that, even for the noblest and best\nof men, there are hours of despair and grief, that the prophet is\nworth nothing in his own fatherland, or is even unknown to his nearest\nrelatives. Even the prophet Elijah, the Old Testament precursor of\nthe Messiah, who has in many ways determined the picture of Jesus, is\nsaid to have had moments of despair in which he wanted to die, till\nGod strengthened him anew to the fulfilment of his vocation. [464]\nMoreover, Mark x. 17 was a commonplace in all ancient philosophy\nfrom the time of Plato, and gained that form by an alteration of\nthe original text (A. Pott, \"Der Text des Neuen Testaments nach\nseiner gesch. Entwicklung\" in \"Aus Natur und Geisteswelt,\" 1906,\np. 63, sq.); Mark xiv. 24 is taken from the 22nd Psalm, which has\nalso in other respects determined the details of the account of the\ncrucifixion. Mark iii. 21 is, as Schleiermacher showed and Strauss\ncorroborated, a pure invention of the Evangelist, the words of the\nPharisees being put into their mouths, as their opinion, in order\nto explain Jesus' answer by the assertion of his kinship (Strauss,\n\"Leben Jesu,\" i. 692; cf. also Psa. lix. 1: \"I am become a stranger\nunto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children\"). Matt. xi. 5\nis based on Isaiah xxxv. 5, xlii. 7, xlix. 9, lxi. 1, which runs in\nthe Septuagint: \"The spirit of the Lord is upon me; because the Lord\nhath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the poor; he hath sent\nme to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives,\nand to the blind the opening of their eyes; to proclaim the acceptable\nyear of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort\nall that mourn.\" [465] Schmiedel's nine \"bases\" consequently are at\nmost testimony to a \"lost glory\"; but the construction of a \"really\nscientific\" life of Jesus cannot possibly arise from them. [466]\n\nClearness of exposition, then, can never afford a proof of the\nhistorical nature of the matter concerned. And how easily is not this\nclearness imported by us into the evangelical information! We are\nbrought up in the atmosphere of these tales, and carry about with us,\nunder the influence of the surrounding Christianity, an imaginary\npicture of them, which we unwittingly introduce into our reading of\nthe Gospels. And how subjective and dependent on the reader's \"taste\"\nthe impression of clearness given by the Gospel picture of Jesus is,\nto what a great extent personal predilections come in, is evidenced by\nthis fact, that a Vollers could not discover in the Gospels any real\nman of flesh and blood, but only a \"shadowy image,\" which he analysed\ninto a thaumaturgical (the miracle-worker) and a soteriological (the\nSaviour) part. [467] In opposition to the efforts of the historical\ntheology to give Jesus a \"unique\" position above that of all other\nfounders of religions, Vollers justly remarks how difficult it\nmust be for the purely historical treatment to recognise these and\nsimilar assertions. \"The improbability, not to say impossibility,\nof the soteriological picture is too obvious. At bottom this picture\nof critical theology is nothing but the contemporary transformation\nof Schleiermacher's ideal man; what must have a hundred years ago\nappeared comprehensible as the product of a refined Moravianism, in\nthe atmosphere of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, is nowadays a mere\navoidance of an open and honourable analysis from the point of view\nthat prevails outside of theology, and is principally known in the\nspheres of Nature and of History. Who would deny that the tone of the\ncatechism and of the pulpit, that full-sounding words of many meanings,\neven the concealment and glossing over of unpleasant admissions,\nplay a part in this sphere such as they could never have in in any\nother science?\"\n\nWe are then reduced to the individual maxims and sermons of\nJesus. These must be proved to be intelligible only as the personal\nexperiences and thoughts of one supreme individual. Unfortunately\njust this, as has already been proved, seems peculiarly doubtful. As\nfor Jesus' sermons, we have already understood from Wernle that\nthey were in any case not received from Jesus in the form in\nwhich they have been handed down to us, but were subsequently\ncompiled by the Evangelists from isolated and occasional maxims of\nhis. [468] These single phrases and occasional utterances of Jesus\nare supposed to have been taken in the last resort partly from oral\ntradition, partly from the Aramaic collection--that \"great source\"\nof Wernle's--which was translated into Greek by the Gospels. The\nexistence of this source has been established only very indirectly,\nand we know absolutely nothing more of it. But it is self-evident\nthat even in the translation from one language into another much of\nthe originality of those \"words of the Lord\" must have been lost;\nand, as may be shown, the different Evangelists have \"translated\"\nthe same words quite differently. Whether it will be possible to\nreconstruct the original work, as critical theology is striving to\ndo, from the material before us, seems very questionable. And we are\ngiven no guarantee that we have to do with actual \"words of the Lord\"\nas they were contained in the Aramaic collection.\n\nEven if the Evangelist is supposed to have expressed the original\nmeaning, what is to assure us that this phrase was spoken by Jesus\njust in this way, and not in other connections, if even the phrases\nwere taken down as soon as uttered? But this is admittedly supposed\nnot to have occurred till after Jesus' death, after his Messianic\nsignificance was clearly recognised, and after people were making\nefforts to go back in memory to the Master's figure and preserve of\nhis sayings any that were serviceable. Bousset, indeed, in his work,\n\"Was wissen wir von Jesus?\"--which was directed against Kalthoff--has\nreferred to the \"good Oriental memory of the disciples.\" All who know\nthe East from personal experience are in tolerable agreement on one\npoint, viz., how little an Oriental is able to repeat what he has heard\nor experienced in a true and objective fashion. Consequently there\nare in the East no historical traditions in our sense of the word,\nbut all important events are decorated like a novel, and are changed\naccording to the necessities of the moment. Such maxims, indeed,\nas \"Love your enemies,\" \"To give is more blessed than to receive,\"\n\"No one but God is good,\" \"Blessed are the poor,\" \"You are the light\nof the world,\" \"Give to C\u00e6sar that which is C\u00e6sar's,\" &c., once heard\nmay be \"not easily forgotten,\" as the theological phrase runs. But\nalso they are not of such a kind that the Jesus of liberal theology\nwas necessary for their invention.\n\nWe need not here take into consideration how many of Jesus' expressions\nmay have been imported into the Gospels from the Mystery drama, with\nwhose existence we must nevertheless reckon, and from which phrases\nmay have been changed into sayings of the \"historical\" Jesus. Such\nobscure and high-flown passages as, e.g., Matt. x. 32 sq.; xi. 15-30,\nxxvi. 64, and xxviii. 18, give one the impression of coming from the\nmouth of God's representative on the stage; and this probability is\nfurther increased when we meet quite similar expressions, such as of\nthe \"light burden\" and the \"easy yoke,\" in the Mysteries of Mithras or\nof Isis. [469] Bousset admits that all the individual words which have\nbeen handed down to us as expressions of Jesus are \"mediated by the\ntradition of a community, and have passed through many hands.\" [470]\nThey are, as Strauss has observed, like pebbles which the waves of\ntradition have rolled and polished, setting them down here and there\nand uniting them to this and that mass. \"We are,\" Steck remarks,\n\"absolutely certain of no single word of the Gospels--that it was\nspoken by Jesus just in this way and in no other.\" [471] \"It would\nbe very difficult,\" thinks Vollers, \"to refer even one expression,\none parable, one act of this ideal man to Jesus of Nazareth with\nhistorical certainty, let us say with the same certainty with which we\nattribute the Epistle to the Galatians to the Apostle Paul, or explain\nthe Johannine Logos as the product of Greek philosophy.\" [472] Even one\nof the leaders of Protestant orthodoxy, Professor K\u00e4hler, of Halle,\nadmitted, as was stated in the \"Kirchliche Monatsblatt f\u00fcr Rheinland\nund Westfalen,\" in a theological conference held in Dortmund, that\nwe possess \"no single authentic word\" of Jesus. Any attempt, such as\nChamberlain has made, to gather from the tradition a certain nucleus\nof \"words of Jesus,\" is consequently mistaken; and if nothing is to\nbe a criterion but one's personal feelings, it would be better to\nconfess at once that here there can be no talk of any kind of decision.\n\nIt is, then, settled that we cannot with certainty trace back to an\nhistorical Jesus any single one of the expressions of the \"Lord\"\nthat have come down to us. Even the oldest authority, the Aramaic\ncollection, may have contained merely the tradition of a community. Can\nwe then think that the supporters of an \"historical\" Jesus are\nright in treating it as nothing more than a \"crude sin against all\nhistorical methods,\" as something most monstrous and unscientific, if\none draws the only possible inference from the result of the criticism\nof the Gospels, and disputes the existence at any time of an historical\nJesus? There may after all have been such a collection of \"words of the\nLord\" in the oldest Christian communities; but must we understand by\nthis words of a definite human individual? May they not rather have\nbeen words which had an authoritative and canonical acceptation in\nthe community, being either specially important or congenial to it,\nand which were for this reason attributed to the \"Lord\"--that is,\nto the hero of the association or cult, Jesus? It has been generally\nagreed that this was the case, for example, with the directions as to\naction in the case of quarrels among the members of the community [473]\nand with regard to divorce. [474] Let us also recall to our minds the\n\"words of the Lord\" in the other cult-associations of antiquity, the\nautos epha of the Pythagoreans. And how many particularly popular,\nimpressive, and favourite sayings were current in antiquity bearing\nthe names of one of the \"Seven Wise Men,\" without any one dreaming\nof ascribing to them an historical signification! How then can it\nbe anything but hasty and uncritical to give out the \"words of the\nLord\" in the collection, which are the basis of Jesus' sermons in the\nGospels, as sayings of one definite Rabbi--that is, of the \"historical\"\nJesus? One may have as high an opinion of Jesus' words as one likes:\nthe question is whether Jesus, even the Jesus of liberal theology,\nis their spiritual father, or whether they are not after all in the\nsame position as the psalms or sayings of the Old Testament which\nare current in the names of David and Solomon, and of which we know\nquite positively that their authors were neither the one nor the other.\n\nBut perhaps those sayings and sermons of Jesus are of such a nature\nthat they could only arise from the \"historical Jesus\"? Of a great\nnumber both of isolated sayings and parables of Jesus--and among\nthese indeed the most beautiful and the most admired, for example,\nthe parable of the good Samaritan, whose moral content coincides with\nDeut. xxix. 1-4, of the Prodigal Son, [475] of the man that sowed--we\nknow that they were borrowed [476] partly from Jewish philosophy,\npartly from oral tradition of the Talmud, and partly from other\nsources. In any case they have no claim to originality. [477] This\nholds good even of the Sermon on the Mount, which is, as has been\nshown by Jewish scholars in particular, and as Robertson has once\nmore proved, a mere patchwork taken from ancient Jewish literature,\nand, together with the Lord's Prayer, contains not a single thought\nwhich has not its prototype in the Old Testament and in the ancient\nphilosophical maxims of the Jewish people. [478] Moreover, the\nremaining portions, whose genesis from any other quarter is at least\nas yet unproved, is not at all of such a nature that it could only\nhave arisen in the mind of such a personality as the theological Jesus\nof Nazareth. At bottom, indeed, he neither said nor taught anything\nbeyond the purer morality of contemporary Judaism--to say nothing at\nall of the Stoics and of the other ethical teachers of antiquity, in\nparticular those of the Indians. The gravest suspicion of their novelty\nand originality is awakened at the Gospels' emphasising the novelty\nand significance of Jesus' sayings by \"the ancients said\"--\"but I say\nunto you\"; attempting thereby to make an artificial contradiction with\nthe former spiritual and moral standpoint of Judaism, even in places\nwhere only a look at the Old Testament is necessary to convince us that\nsuch a contradiction does not exist, as, for example, in the case of\nthe love of God and of one's neighbor. [479] Moreover, our cultivated\nreverence for Jesus and the overwhelming glorification of everything\nconnected with him has surrounded a great many of the \"words of the\nLord\" with a glitter of importance which stands in no relation to\ntheir real value, and which they would never have obtained had they\nbeen handed down to us in another connection or under some other name.\n\nLet us only think how much that is in itself quite trivial and\ninsignificant has been raised to quite an unjustifiable importance\nmerely through the use of the pulpit and the consecration of divine\nservice. Even though our theologians are not already tired of extolling\nthe \"uniqueness,\" incomparability, and majesty of Jesus' words and\nparables, they might nevertheless just for once consider how much\nthat is of little worth, how much that is mistaken, spiritually\ninsignificant and morally insufficient, even absolutely doubtful,\nthere is in what Jesus preached. [480] In this connection it has\nalways been the custom to extenuate the tradition by referring to the\ninexactitude or to fly in the face of any genuine historical method\nby tortuous elucidations of the passages in question, by unmeaning\nreferences to the temporal and educational limitations even of the\n\"superman,\" and by suppression of the disagreeable parts.\n\nHow much trouble have not our theologians taken, and do they not even\nnow take, to show even one single point in Jesus' doctrines which\nmay justify their declaring with a good conscience his \"uniqueness\"\nin the sense understood by them, and may justify their raising their\npurely human Jesus as high as possible above his own age! Not one of\nall the passages quoted to this end has been allowed to remain. The\nSynoptic Jesus taught neither a new and loftier morality, nor a\n\"new meekness,\" nor a deepened consciousness of God; neither\nthe \"indestructible value of the individual souls of men\" in the\npresent-day individualistic sense, nor even freedom as against the\nJewish Law, nor the immanence of the kingdom of God, nor anything\nelse, that surpassed the capabilities of another intellectually\ndistinguished man of his age. Even the love, the general love, of\none's neighbour, the preaching of which is with the greater portion of\nthe laity the chief claim to veneration possessed by the historical\nJesus, in the Synoptics plays no very important part in Jesus' moral\nconception of life; governing no wider sphere than had already been\nallowed it in the Old Testament. [481] And if the pulpit eloquence\nof nineteen hundred years has nevertheless attempted to lay stress\non this point, it is because it counts on the faithful not having\nin mind the difference between the Gospels, and on their peacefully\npermitting the Gospel of John, the one and only \"gospel of love,\"\nwhich, however, is not supposed to be \"historical,\" to be substituted\nfor the Synoptic Gospels. And so we actually see the glorification of\nJesus' doctrines which, a short time ago, flourished so luxuriantly,\nappearing recently in more and more moderate terms. [482]\n\nThus it was for a time customary in theology, under the influence of\nHoltzmann and Harnack, to consider the ethical deepening and return\nof God's \"fatherly love\" as the essentially new and significant\npoint in Jesus' \"glad tidings,\" and to write about it in unctuous\nphrases. Recently, even this seems to have been abandoned, as,\nfor example, Wrede openly confesses, with respect to the \"filiation\nto God,\" that this conception existed in Judaism very long before\nChrist; also that Jesus did not especially preach God as the loving\n\"Father\" of each individual, that indeed he did not once place in\nthe foreground the name of God as the Father. [483] But so much\nthe more decidedly is reference made to the \"enormous effects\"\nwhich attended Jesus' appearance, and the attempt is made to prove\nfrom them his surpassing greatness, \"uniqueness,\" and historical\nreality. As if Zarathustra, Buddha, and Mohammed had achieved less,\nas if the effects which proceed from a person must stand in a certain\nrelation to his human significance, and as if those effects were\nto be ascribed to the \"historical\" and not rather to the mythical\nJesus--that is, to the idea of the God sacrificing himself for\nhumanity! As a matter of fact, his faith in the immediate proximity\nof the Messianic kingdom of God, and the demand for a change of life\nbased on this, which is really \"unique\" in the traditional Jesus,\nis without any religious and ethical significance for us, and is at\nmost only of interest for the history of civilisation. On the other\nhand, such part of his teaching as is still of importance to us is\nnot \"unique,\" and only has the reputation of being so because we are\naccustomed by a theological education to treat it in the light of the\nChristian dogmatic metaphysics of redemption. Plato, Seneca, Epictetus,\nLaotse, or Buddha in their ethical views are not behind Jesus with his\negoistical pseudo-morals, his basing moral action on the expectation\nof reward and punishment in the future, his narrow-minded nationalism,\nwhich theologians in vain attempt to debate away and to conceal; and\nhis obscure mysticism, which strives to attain a special importance for\nits maxims by mysterious references to his \"heavenly Father.\" [484]\nAnd as for the \"great impression\" which Jesus is supposed to have\nmade on his own people and on the following age, and without which\nthe history of Christianity is supposed to be inexplicable, Kalthoff\nhas shown with justice that the Gospels do not in any way reflect the\nimpression which a person produced, but only such as the accounts of\nJesus' personality would have made on the members of the Christian\ncommunity. \"Even the strongest impression proves nothing as to the\nhistorical truth of these accounts. Even an account of a fictitious\npersonage may produce the deepest impression on a community if it\nis given in historical terms. What an impression Goethe's \"Werther\"\nproduced, though the whole world knew that it was only a romance! Yet\nit stirred up countless disciples and imitators.\" [485]\n\nIn this we have at the same time a refutation of the popular objection\nthat to deny the historical existence of Jesus is to misunderstand\n\"the significance of personality in the historical life of peoples\nand religions.\" Certainly, as Mehlhorn says, active devotion above\nall is enkindled to persons in whom this personality strikes us in an\nevident, elevating, and animating way. [486] But in order to enkindle\ndevotion and faith in Jesus Christ the elevating personality of a Paul\nsufficed, whether or not he was the author of the epistles current\nin his name; the missionary activity of apostles, working, like him,\nin the service of the Jesus-creed, was enough, since they moved\nfrom place to place, and, often undergoing great personal sacrifice\nand privation, with danger to their own lives demanded adoration of\nthe new God. Those in need of redemption could never find any real\nreligious support outside of the faith in a divine redeemer, they\ncould never find satisfaction and deliverance but in the idea of the\nGod sacrificing himself for mankind--the God whose redeeming power and\nwhose distinct superiority to the other Mystery-deities the apostles\ncould portray in such a lively and striking fashion. That an idea\ncan only be effective and fruitful by means of a great personality\nis a barren formula. [487] In thinking they can with this argument\nsupport their faith in an historical Jesus liberal theologians avail\nthemselves of an irrelevant bit of modern street-philosophy without\nnoticing that in their case it proves nothing at all. Where, then,\nis the \"great personality\" which gave to Mithraism such an efficacy\nthat in the first century of our era it was able to conquer from the\nEast almost the whole of the West and to make it doubtful for a time\nwhether the world was to be Mithraic or Christian? In such influential\nreligions as those of Dionysus and Osiris, or indeed in Brahmanism,\nwe cannot speak of great personalities as their \"founders\"; and as\nfor Zarathustra, the pretended founder of the Persian, and Moses, the\nfounder of the Israelite religion, they are not historical persons;\nwhile the views of different investigators differ as to the historical\nexistence of the reputed founder of Buddhism. Of course, even in\nthe above-mentioned religions the particular ideas would have been\nbrought forward by brilliant individuals, and the movements depending\non them would have been first organised and rendered effective by men\nof energy and purpose. But the question is whether persons of this\ntype are necessarily \"great,\" even \"unique,\" in the sense of liberal\ntheology, in order to be successful. So that to set aside Paul, whose\ninspiring personality gifted with a genius for organisation we know\nfrom his epistles,--to set him aside in favour of an imaginary Jesus,\nto base the importance of the Christian religion on the \"uniqueness\"\nof its supposed founder, and to base this uniqueness in turn on the\nimportance of the religious movement which resulted from it, is to\nabandon the critical standpoint and to turn about in circles. \"It is\nan empty assertion,\" says L\u00fctzelberger, \"without any real foundation,\nthat the invention of such a person as the Gospels give us in their\nJesus would have been quite impossible, as we find in him such a\npeculiar and sharply defined character that imagination would never\nhave been able to invent and adhere to it. For the personality which\nmeets us in the Gospels is by no means one that is sharply drawn and\ntrue to itself; but the story shows us rather a man who from quite\ndifferent mental tendencies spoke now one way and now another, and\nis perfectly different in the first and fourth Gospels. Only with\nthe greatest trouble can a homogeneous and coherent whole be formed\nfrom the descriptions in the Gospels. So that we are absolutely\nwrong in concluding from the originality of the person of Christ\nin the Gospels to their historical credibility.\" The conclusion is\nmuch more justifiable that if such a person with such a life-history\nand such speech had stood at the beginning of the Christian Church,\nthe history of its development must have been quite a different one,\njust as the history of Judaism would have been different if a Moses\nwith his Law had stood at its head. [488]\n\nAnd now if we compare the praises of Buddha in the Lalita Vistara with\nthe description of Jesus' personality given in the New Testament, we\nwill be convinced how similarly--even if we exclude the hypothesis of\na direct influence--and under what like conditions the kindred religion\ntook shape: \"In the world of creatures, which was long afflicted by the\nevils of natural corruption, thou didst appear, O king of physicians,\nwho redeemest us from all evil. At thy approach, O guide, unrest\ndisappears, and gods and men are filled with health. Thou art the\nprotector, the firm foundation, the chief, the leader of the world,\nwith thy gentle and benevolent disposition. Thou art the best of\nphysicians, who bringest the perfect means of salvation and healest\nsuffering. Distinguished by thy compassion and sympathy, thou governest\nthe things of the world. Distinguished by thy strength of mind and\ngood works, completely pure, thou hast attained to perfection, and,\nthyself redeemed, thou wilt, as the prophet of the four truths, redeem\nother creatures also. The power of the Evil One has been overcome\nby wisdom, courage, and humility. Thou hast brought it about,--the\nhighest and immortal glory. We greet thee as the conqueror of the\narmy of the Deceiver. Thou whose word is without fault, who freest\nfrom error and passion, hast trod the path of eternal life; thou dost\ndeserve in heaven and on earth honour and homage unparalleled. Thou\nquickenest Gods and men with thy clear words. By the beams which go\nforth from thee thou art the conqueror of this universe, the Master of\nGods and men. Thou didst appear, Light of the Law, destroyer of misery\nand ignorance, completely filled with humility and majesty. Sun, moon,\nand fires no longer shine before thee and thy fulness of imperishable\nglory. Thou who teachest us to know truth from falsehood, ghostly\nleader with the sweetest voice, whose spirit is calm, whose passions\nare controlled, whose heart is perfectly at rest, who teachest what\nshould be taught, who bringest about the union of gods and men: I\ngreet thee, Sakhyamuni, as the greatest of men, as the wonder of the\nthree thousand worlds, who deservest honour and homage in heaven and on\nearth, from Gods and men!\" Where, then, is the \"uniqueness\" of Jesus,\ninto which the future divinity of the World-redeemer has disappeared\nfor modern critical theology, and into which it has striven to import\nall the sentimental considerations which once belonged to the \"God-man\"\nin the sense of the Church dogma? \"Nothing is more negative than the\nresult of the inquiry into the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth,\nwho appeared as the Messiah, who proclaimed the morals of the kingdom\nof God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth, and died to\ngive consecration to his acts, never existed. He is a figure which was\ninvented by Rationalism, restored by Liberalism, and painted over with\nhistorical science by modern theologians.\" With these words of the\ntheologian Schweitzer [489] the present inquiry may be said to agree.\n\nIn fact, in the Gospels we have nothing but the expression of the\nconsciousness of a community. In this respect the view supported\nby Kalthoff is completely right. The life of Jesus, as portrayed by\nthe Synoptics, merely brings to an expression in historical garb the\nmetaphysical ideas, religious hopes, the outer and inner experiences\nof the community which had Jesus for its cult-god. His opinions,\nstatements, and parables only reflect the religious-moral conceptions,\nthe temporary sentiments, the casting down and the joy of victory,\nthe hate and the love, the judgments and prejudices of the members of\nthe community, and the differences and contradictions in the Gospels\nprove to be the developing material of the conception of the Messiah\nin different communities and at different times. Christ takes just\nthe same position in the religious-social brotherhoods which are named\nafter him as Attis has in the Phrygian, Adonis in the Syrian, Osiris\nin the Egyptian, Dionysus, Hercules, Hermes, Asclepius, &c., in the\nGreek cult-associations. He is but another form of these club-gods\nor patrons of communities, and the cult devoted to him shows in\nessentials the same forms as those devoted to the divinities above\nnamed. The place of the bloody expiatory sacrifice of the believers\nin Attis, wherein they underwent \"baptism of blood\" in their yearly\nMarch festival, and wherein they obtained the forgiveness of their\nsins and were \"born again\" to a new life, was in Rome the Hill of\nthe Vatican. In fact, the very spot on which in Christian times the\nChurch of Peter grew above the so-called grave of the apostle. It\nwas at bottom merely an alteration of the name, not of the matter,\nwhen the High Priest of Attis blended his r\u00f4le with that of the High\nPriest of Christ, and the Christ-cult spread itself from this new\npoint far over the other parts of the Roman Empire.\n\n\n\n\n(c) The True Character of the Synoptic Jesus.\n\nThe Synoptic Gospels leave open the question whether they treat\nof a man made God or of a God made man. The foregoing account has\nshown that the Jesus of the Gospels is to be understood only as a\nGod made man. The story of his life, as presented in the Gospels,\nis the rendering into history of a primitive religious myth. Most\nof the great heroes of the legend, which passes as historical, are\nsimilar incarnate Gods--such as Jason, Hercules, Achilles, Theseus,\nPerseus, Siegfried, &c.; in these we have nothing but the old Aryan\nsun--champion in the struggle against the powers of darkness and of\ndeath. That primitive Gods in the view of a later age should become\nmen, without, however, ceasing to be clothed with the glamour of the\ndeity, is to such an extent the ordinary process, that the reverse,\nthe elevation of men to Gods, is as a rule only found in the earliest\nstages of human civilisation, or in periods of moral and social decay,\nwhen fawning servility and worthless flattery fashion a prominent man,\neither during his life or after his death, into a divine being. Even\nthe so-called \"Bible Story\" contains numerous examples of such God\nmade men: the patriarchs, Joseph, Joshua, Samson, Esther, Mordecai,\nHaman, Simon Magus, the magician Elymas, &c., were originally pure\nGods, and in the description of their lives old Semitic star-myths and\nsun-myths obtained a historical garb. If we cannot doubt that Moses,\nthe founder of the old covenant, was a fictitious figure, and that his\n\"history\" was invented by the priests at Jerusalem only for the purpose\nof sanctioning and basing on his authority the law of the priests named\nafter him; if for this end the whole history of Israel was falsified,\nand the final event in the religious development of Israel, i.e., the\ngiving of the Law, was placed at the beginning--why cannot what was\npossible with Moses have been repeated in the case of Jesus? Why may\nnot also the founder of the new covenant as an historical person belong\nentirely to pious legend? According to Herodotus, [490] the Greeks also\nchanged an old Phoenician God, Hercules, for national reasons, into a\nnative hero, the son of Amphitryon, and incorporated him in their own\nsphere of ideas. Let us consider how strong the impulse was, especially\namong Orientals, to make history of purely internal experiences and\nideas. To carry historical matter into the sphere of myth, and to\nconceive myth as history, is, as is shown by the investigations of\nWinckler, Schrader, Jensen, &c., for the Orientals such a matter of\ncourse, that, as regards the accounts in the Old Testament, it is\nhardly possible to distinguish their genuinely \"historical nucleus\"\nfrom its quasi-historical covering. And it is more especially the\nSemitic thought of antiquity which proves to be completely unable\nto distinguish mythical phantasy from real event! It is, indeed,\ntoo often said that the Semite produced and possessed no mythology\nof his own, as Renan asserted; and no doubt at all is possible that\nthey could not preserve as such and deal with the mythical figures and\nevents whencesoever they derived them, but always tended to translate\nthem into human form and to associate them with definite places and\ntimes. \"The God of the Semites is associated with place and object,\nhe is a Genius loci,\" says Winckler. [491] But if ever a myth required\nto be clothed in the garment of place and the metaphysical ideas\ncontained in it to be separated into a series of historical events,\nit was certainly the myth of the God sacrificing himself for humanity,\nwho sojourned among men in human form, suffered with the rest of men\nand died, returning, after victoriously overcoming the dark powers\nof death, to the divine seat whence he set out.\n\nWe understand how the God Jesus, consequent on his symbolical\nunification with the man sacrificed in his stead, could come to be\nmade human, and how on this basis the faith in the resurrection of God\nin the form of an historical person could arise. But how the reverse\nprocess could take place, how the man Jesus could be elevated into a\nGod, or could ever fuse with an already existing God of like name into\nthe divine-human redeemer--indeed, the Deity--that is and remains, as\nwe have already said, a psychological puzzle. The only way to solve\nit is to refer to the \"inscrutable secrets of the Divine will.\" In\nwhat other way can we explain how \"that simple child of man, as he has\nbeen described,\" could so very soon after his death be elevated into\nthat \"mystical being of imagination,\" into that \"celestial Christ,\"\nas he meets us in the epistles of Paul? There can only have been at\nmost seven, probably three, years, according to a recent estimate\nhardly one year, between the death of Jesus and the commencement\nof Paul's activity. [492] And this short time is supposed to have\nsufficed to transform the man Jesus into the Pauline Christ! And\nnot only Paul is supposed to have been able to do this; even Jesus'\nimmediate disciples, who sat with him at the same table, ate and drank\nwith him, knowing then who Jesus was, are supposed to have declared\nthemselves in agreement with this, and to have prayed to him whom they\nhad always seen praying to the \"Father\"! Certainly in antiquity the\ndeification of a man was nothing extraordinary: Plato and Aristotle\nwere, after their death, honoured by their pupils as god-like beings;\nDemetrius Poliorcetes, Alexander, the Ptolemies, &c., had divine\nhonours rendered to them even during their lives. But this style of\ndeification is completely different from that which is supposed to\nhave been allotted to Jesus. It is merely an expression of personal\ngratitude and attachment, of overflowing sentiment and characterless\nflattery, and never obtained any detailed theological formulation. It\nwas the basis for no new religion. Schopenhauer has very justly pointed\nout the contradiction between Paul's apotheosis of Jesus and usual\nhistorical experience, and remarked that from this consideration\ncould be drawn an argument against the authenticity of the Pauline\nepistles. [493] In fact, Holtzmann considers, with reference to this\nassertion of the philosopher's, the question \"whether the figure of\nJesus attaining such colossal dimensions in Paul's sight may not be\ntaken to establish the distance between the two as that of only a few\nyears, if there was not immediate temporal contact,\" as the question\n\"most worthy of discussion, which the critics of the Dutch school have\npropounded for consideration.\" [494] According to the prevalent view of\ncritical theologians, as presented even by Pfleiderer, the apparitions\nof the \"Lord,\" which after Jesus' death were seen by the disciples\nwho had fled from Jerusalem, the \"ecstatic visionary experiences,\nin which they thought they saw their crucified Master living and\nraised up to heavenly glory,\" were the occasion of their faith in\nthe resurrection, and consequently of their faith in Jesus' divine\nr\u00f4le as Redeemer. [495] Pathological states of over-excited men and\nhysterical women are then supposed to form the \"historical foundation\"\nfor the genesis of the Christian religion! And with such opinions they\nthink themselves justified in looking down on the rationalist of the\neighteenth-century Enlightenment with supreme contempt, and in boasting\nof the depth to which their religious-historical insight reaches! But\nif we really admit, with historical theology, this more than doubtful\nexplanation, which degrades Christianity into the merely chance product\nof mental excitement, at once the further question arises as to how\nthe new religion of the small community of the Messiah at Jerusalem\nwas able to spread itself abroad with such astounding rapidity that,\neven so soon as at most two decades after Jesus' death, we meet\nwith Christian communities not only over the whole of Western Asia,\nbut also in the islands of the Mediterranean, in the coast-towns of\nGreece, even in Italy, at Puteoli, and in Rome; and this at a time\nwhen as yet not a line had been written about the Jewish Rabbi. [496]\nEven the theologian Schweitzer is obliged to confess of historical\ntheology that \"until it has in some way explained how it was that,\nunder the influence of the Jewish sect of the Messiah, Greek and\nRoman popular Christianity appeared at all points simultaneously,\nit must admit a formal right of existence to all hypotheses, even the\nmost extravagant, which seek to attack and solve this problem.\" [497]\n\nIf in all this it is shown to be possible, or even probable, that\nin the Jesus of the Gospels we have not a deified man, but rather a\nhumanised God, there remains but to find an answer to the question as\nto what external reasons led to the transplanting of the God Jesus into\nthe soil of historical actuality and the reduction of the eternal or\nsuper-historical fact of his redeeming death and of his resurrection\ninto a series of temporal events.\n\nThis question is answered at once if we turn our attention to the\nmotives present in the earliest Christian communities known to us,\nwhich motives appear in the Acts and in the Pauline epistles. From\nthese sources we know at what an early stage an opposition arose\nbetween Paul's Gentile Christianity and the Jewish Christianity,\nthe chief seat of which was at Jerusalem, and which for this reason,\nas we can understand, claimed for itself a special authority. As\nlong as the former persecutor of the Christian community, over whose\nconversion they could not at first rejoice too much, [498] did not\nobstruct others and seemed to justify his apostolic activity by his\nsuccess among the Gentiles, they left him to go his way. But when\nPaul showed his independence by his reserve before the \"Brothers\"\nat Jerusalem, and began to attract the feelings of those at Jerusalem\nby his abrogation of the Mosaic Law, then they commenced to treat him\nwith suspicion, to place every obstacle in the way of his missionary\nactivity, and to attempt, led by the zealous James, to bring the\nPauline communities under their own government. Then, seeking a\ntitle for the practice of the apostolic vocation, they found it in\nthis--that every one who wished to testify to Christ must himself\nhave seen him after his resurrection.\n\nBut Paul could very justly object that to him also the transfigured\nJesus had appeared. [499] Then they made the justification for the\napostolic vocation consist in this, that an apostle must not only\nhave seen Christ risen up, but must also have eaten and drunk with\nhim. [500] This indeed was not applicable in the case of Judas, who in\nthe Acts i. 16 is nevertheless counted among the apostles; and it was\nalso never asserted of Matthias, who was chosen in the former's stead,\nthat he had been a witness of Jesus' resurrection. Much less even does\nhe seem to have fulfilled the condition to which advance was made in\nthe development of the original idea, i.e., that an apostle of Jesus\nshould have been personally acquainted with the living Jesus, that he\nshould have belonged to the \"First Apostles\" and have been present as\neye-witness and hearer of Jesus' words from the time of John's baptism\nup to the Resurrection and Ascension. [501] Now Seufert has shown\nthat the passage of the Acts referred to is merely a construction,\na transference of later conditions to an earlier epoch; and that the\nwhole point of it is to paralyse Paul's mission to the Gentiles and\nto establish the title of the Jew-Christians at Jerusalem as higher\nthan that of his followers.\n\nIf with this purpose, as Seufert showed, the organisation of the\nApostleship of Twelve arose--an organisation which has no satisfactory\nbasis or foundation in the Gospels or in the Pauline epistles--then it\nis from this purpose also that we can find cause for the God Jesus to\nbecome a human founder of the apostleship. \"An apostle was to be only\nsuch an one as had seen and heard Jesus himself, or had learnt from\nthose who had been his immediate disciples. A literature of Judaism\narose which had at quite an early stage the closest interest in the\nhistorical determination of Jesus' life; and this formed the lowest\nstratum on which our canonical Gospels are based.\" [502] Judaism in\ngeneral, and the form of it at Jerusalem in particular, needed a legal\ntitle on which to base its commanding position as contrasted with the\nGentile Christianity of Paul; and so its founders were obliged to have\nbeen companions of Jesus in person, and to have been selected for their\nvocation by him. For this reason Jesus could not remain a mere God,\nbut had to be drawn down into historical actuality. Seufert thinks\nthat the tracing of the Apostleship of Twelve back to an \"historical\"\nJesus, and the setting up of the demand for an apostle of Jesus to\nhave been a companion of his journeying, took place in Paul's lifetime\nin the sixth, or perhaps even in the fifth decade. [503] In this he\npresupposes the existence of an historical Jesus, while the Pauline\nepistles themselves contain nothing to lead one to believe that the\ntransformation of the Jesus-faith into history took place in Paul's\nlifetime. In early Christianity exactly the same incident took place\nhere, on the soil of Palestine and at Jerusalem, as took place later in\n\"eternal\" Rome, when the bishop of this city, in order to establish\nhis right of supremacy in the Church, proclaimed himself to be the\ndirect successor of the Apostle Peter, and caused the \"possession of\nthe keys\" to have been given to this latter by Jesus himself. [504]\n\nSo that there were very mundane and very practical reasons which\nafter all gave the impulse for the God Jesus to be transformed into\nan historical individual, and for the central point of his action,\nthe crisis in his life, his death and his resurrection, which alone\naffected religious considerations, to be placed in the capital of\nthe Jewish state, the \"City of God,\" the Holy City of David, of the\n\"ancestors\" of the Messiah, with which now the Jews connected religious\nsalvation. But how could this fiction succeed and maintain its ground,\nso that it was able to become an absolutely vital question for the\nnew religion, an indestructible dogma, a self-evident \"fact,\" so\nthat its very calling in question seems to the critical theologians\nof our time a perfect absurdity?\n\nBefore we can answer this question we must turn our attention to the\nGnostic movement and its relations to the growing Church.\n\n\n\n\n(d) Gnosticism and the Johannine Jesus.\n\nChristianity was originally developed from Gnosticism (Mandaism). The\nPauline religion was only one form of the many syncretising efforts\nto satisfy contemporary humanity's need of redemption by a fusion\nof religious conceptions derived from different sources. So much the\ngreater was the danger which threatened to spring up on this side of\nthe youthful Church.\n\nGnosticism agreed with Christianity in its pessimistic valuation of\nthe world, in its belief in the inability of man to obtain religious\nsalvation by himself, in the necessity for a divine mediation of\n\"Life.\" Like Christianity, it expected the deliverance of the oppressed\nsouls of men by a supernatural Redeemer. He came down from Heaven\nupon earth and assumed a human form, establishing, through a mystic\nunion with himself, the connection between the spheres of heaven and\nearth. He thereby guarantees to mankind an eternal life in a bliss\nto come. Gnosticism also involves a completely dualistic philosophy\nin its opposition of God and world, of spirit and matter, of soul\nand body, &c.; but all its efforts are directed to overcoming these\ncontradictions by supernatural mediation and magical contrivances. It\ntreats the \"Gnosis,\" the knowledge, the proper insight into the\ncoherence of things, as the necessary condition of redemption. The\nindividual must know that his soul comes from God, that it is only\ntemporarily confined in this prison of the body, and that it is\nintended for something higher than to be lost here in the obscurity\nof ignorance, of evil and of sin; so that he is already freed from\nthe trammels of the flesh, and finds a new life for himself. The\nGod-Redeemer descended upon earth to impart this knowledge to mankind;\nand Gnosticism pledges itself, on the basis of the \"revelation\"\nreceived directly from God, to open to those who strive for the\nhighest knowledge all the heights and depths of Heaven and of earth.\n\nThis Gnosticism of the first century after Christ was a wonderfully\nopalescent and intricate structure--half religious speculation, half\nreligion, a mixture of Theosophy, uncritical mythological superstition,\nand deep religious mysticism. In it Babylonian beliefs as to Gods and\nstars, Parsee mythology, and Indian doctrines of metempsychosis and\nKarma were combined with Jewish theology and Mystery-rites of Western\nAsia; and through the whole blew a breath of Hellenic philosophy,\nwhich chiefly strove to fix the fantastic creatures of speculation\nin a comprehensible form, and to work up the confusion of Oriental\nlicence and extravagance of thought into the form of a philosophical\nview of the world. The Gnostics also called their mediating deity,\nas we have already seen of the Mandaic sect of the Nassenes, \"Jesus,\"\nand indulged in a picture rendering of his pre-worldly existence and\nsupernatural divine majesty. They agreed with the Christians that\nJesus had been \"human.\"\n\nThe extravagant metaphysical conception which they had of Jesus at\nthe same time prevented them from dealing seriously with the idea of\nhis manhood. So that they either maintained that the celestial Christ\nhad attached himself to the man Jesus in a purely external way, and\nindeed, first on the occasion of the baptism in the Jordan, and only\ntemporarily, i.e., up to the Passion--it being only the \"man\" Jesus\nwho suffered death (Basilides, Cerinthus); or they thought of Jesus as\nhaving assumed merely a ghostly body--and consequently thought that all\nhis human actions took place merely as pure appearance (Saturninus,\nValentinus, Marcion). But how little they managed to penetrate into\nthe centre of the Christian doctrine of redemption and to value the\nfundamental significance of the Christ-figure, is shown by the fact\nthat they thought of Christ merely as one mediator among countless\nothers. It is shown also by the romantic and florid description of the\nspirits or \"\u00e6ons,\" who are supposed to travel backwards and forwards\nbetween heaven and earth, leading their lives apart. These played a\ngreat part in the Gnostic systems.\n\nIt was a matter of course that the Christian faith had to take\nexception to such a fantastic and external treatment of the idea of\nthe God-man. The Pauline Christianity was distinct from Gnosticism,\nwith which it was most closely connected, just in this, that it was\nin earnest with the \"manhood\" of Jesus. It was still more serious\nthat the Gnostics combined with their extreme dualism an outspokenly\nanti-Jewish character. For this in the close relationship between\nGnosticism and Christianity would necessarily frighten the Jews from\nthe Gospel, and incite only too many against the young religion. But\nthe Jews formed the factor with which early Christianity had first of\nall to reckon. In addition to this the Gnostics, from the standpoint of\ntheir spiritualistic conception of God, turned to contempt of the world\nand asceticism. They commended sexual continence, rejected marriage,\nand wished to know nothing either of Christ's or of man's bodily\nresurrection. But in the West no propaganda of an ascetic religion\ncould succeed. And yet even with the Gnostics, as is so often the\ncase, asceticism only too frequently degenerated into unbridled\nvoluptuousness and libertinage, and the spiritual pride of those\nchosen by God to knowledge, who were raised above the Mosaic Law,\nthreatened completely to tear apart the connection with Judaism\nby its radical criticism of the Old Testament. In this Gnosticism\nnot only undermined the moral life of the communities, but also\nbrought the Gospel into discredit in other parts of the world. As\nan independent religion, which expressly opposed all other worships,\nand the adherents of which withdrew from the religious practices of\nthe State, even from any political activity whatsoever, Christianity\nbrought on itself the suspicion of the authorities and the hate of\nthe people, and incurred the prohibition of new religions and secret\nsects (lex Julia majestatis). [505] So that Gnosticism, by taking it\nfrom its Jewish native soil, drove Christianity into a conflict with\nthe Roman civil laws.\n\nAll these dangers, which threatened Christianity from the Gnostic\nmovement, were set aside in one stroke by the recognition of the true\n\"manhood\" of Jesus, the assertion of the \"historical\" Jesus. This\npreserved the connection, so important for the unhindered spread of\nChristianity in the Roman Empire, with Judaism and its \"revealed\"\nlegality--the heteronomous and ritualistic character of which\nhad indeed been shown by Paul, and the moral content of which was\nnevertheless adhered to by the Christians even later. It was made\npossible, in default of any previous written documents of revelation,\neven yet to regard the Old Testament in essentials as the authoritative\nbook of the new faith, and as a preparatory testimony to the final\nrevelation which appeared in Jesus. And most of all, it put a check\non Gnostic phantasy, in drawing together the perplexing plurality of\nthe Gnostic \u00e6ons into the one figure of the World-redeemer and Saviour\nChrist, in making the chief dogma the redeeming sacrificial death of\nthe Messiah, and in concentrating the religious man's attention on\nthis chief turning-point of all the historical events. This was the\nreason why the Apologists and \"Fathers\" of Christianity, Ignatius,\nPolycarp, Justin, Iren\u00e6us, &c., spoke with such decision in favour\nof the actuality and true manhood of Jesus. It was not perhaps a\nbetter historical knowledge which caused them to do this, but the\nlife-instinct of the Church, which knew only too well that its own\nposition and the prosecution of its religious task, in contrast with\nthe excitements of Gnosticism and its seductive attempts to explain\nthe world, was dependent on the belief in an historical Redeemer. So\nthe historical Jesus was from the beginning a dogma, a fiction,\ncaused by the religious and practical social needs, of the growing\nand struggling Christian Church. This Jesus has, indeed, led it to\nvictory; not, however, as an historical reality, but as an idea; or,\nin other words, not an historical Jesus, in the proper sense of the\nword, a really human individual, but the pure idea of such a person,\nis the patron-saint, the Genius of ecclesiastical Christianity, the\nman who enabled it to overcome Gnosticism, Mithraism, and the other\nreligions of the Redeemer-Gods of Western Asia.\n\nThe importance of the fourth Gospel rests in having brought to\na final close these efforts of the Church to make history of the\nRedeemer-figure Christ. Begun under the visible influence of the\nGnostic conception of the process of redemption, it meets Gnosticism\nlater as another Gospel; indeed, it seems saturated through and\nthrough with the Gnostic attitude and outlook. To a certain degree\nit shares with Gnosticism its anti-Jewish character. But at the same\ntime it adheres, with the Synoptics, to Jesus' historical activity,\nand seeks to establish a kind of mediation between the essentially\nmetaphysical conception of the Gnostics and the essentially human\nconception of the Synoptic Gospels.\n\nThe author who wrote the Gospel in the name of John, the \"favourite\ndisciple of Jesus,\" probably about 140 A.D., agrees with Gnosticism in\nits dualistic conception of the universe. On one side is the world,\nthe kingdom of darkness, deceit, and evil, in deadly enmity to the\ndivine kingdom of light, the kingdom of truth and life. At the head\nof the divine kingdom is God, who is himself Light, Truth, Life,\nand Spirit--following Parsee thought. At the head of the kingdom of\nearth is Satan (Angromainyu). In the middle, between them, is placed\nman. But mankind is also divided, as all the rest of existence,\ninto two essentially different kinds. The souls of the one part of\nmankind are derived from God, those of the other from Satan. The\n\"children of God\" are by nature destined for the good and are fit for\nredemption. The \"children of Satan\"--among whom John, in agreement\nwith the Gnostics, counts the Jews before all--are not susceptible\nof anything divine and are assigned to eternal damnation. In order to\naccomplish redemption, God, from pure \"Love\" for the world, selected\nMonogenes, his only-begotten Son, that is, the only being which, as the\nchild of God, was produced not by other beings, but by God himself. The\nauthor of the Gospel fuses Monogenes with the Philonic Logos, who\nin the Gnostic conception was only one of countless other \u00e6ons, and\nwas a son of Monogenes, the divine reason, and so only a grandson\nof God. At the same time, he transfers the whole \"pleroma\"--the\nplurality of the \u00e6ons into which, in the Gnostic conception, the\ndivine reality was divided--to the single principle of the Logos,\ndefines the Logos as the unique bearer of the whole fulness of divine\nglory, as the pre-existent creator of the world; and calls him also,\nsince he is in essence identical with God his \"Father,\" the source\nof life, the light, the truth, and the spirit of the universe.\n\nAnd how then does the Logos bring about redemption? He becomes flesh,\nthat is, he assumes the form of the \"man\" Jesus, without, however,\nceasing to be the supernatural Logos, and as such brings to men the\n\"Life\" which he himself is, by revealing wisdom and love. As revealer\nof wisdom he is the \"light of the world\"; he opens to men the secret\nof their filial relation to God; he teaches them, by knowing God,\nto understand themselves and the world; he collects about himself the\nchildren of God, who are scattered through the world, in a united and\nbrotherly society; and gives them, in imitating his own personality,\nthe \"light of life\"--that is, he inwardly enlightens and elevates\nthem. As revealer of love he not only assumes the human form and\nthe renunciation of his divine bliss connected with it, but as a\n\"good shepherd\" he lays down his life for his flock; he saves them\nfrom the power of Satan, from the terrors of darkness, and sacrifices\nhimself for his people, in order through this highest testimony of\nhis love for men, through the complete surrender of his life, to\nregain the life which he really is, and to return to his celestial\nglory. This is the meaning of Christ's work of redemption, that men\nby faith and love become inwardly united with him and so with God;\nwhereby they gain the \"life\" in the higher spirit. For though Christ\nhimself may return to God, his spirit still lives on earth. As the\n\"second Paraclete\" or agent, the Spirit proceeds with the Saviour's\nwork of redemption, arouses and strengthens the faith in Christ and\nthe love for him and for the Brotherhood, thereby mediating for them\nthe \"Life,\" and leading them after their death into the eternal bliss.\n\nIn all this the influence of Gnosticism and of the Philonic doctrine\nof the Logos is unmistakable, and it is very probable that the\nauthor of the fourth Gospel was influenced by the recollection,\nstill living at Ephesus, of the Ephesian Heraclitus' Logos, in his\nattachment to Philo and to the latter's more detailed exposition of the\nHellenic Logos-philosophy. But he fundamentally differs from Philo and\nGnosticism in his assertion that the Logos \"was made flesh,\" sojourned\non earth in the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, and suffered death. It\nis true, however, that the Evangelist is more persistent in this\nassertion than successful in delineating a real man, notwithstanding\nhis use of the Synoptic accounts of the personal fate of Jesus. The\nidea of the divine nature of the Saviour is the one that prevails\nin his writings. The \"historical picture\" which came down to him was\nforcibly rectified, and the personality of Jesus was worked up into\nsomething so wonderful, extraordinary, and supernatural that, if we\nwere in possession of the fourth Gospel alone, in all probability the\nidea would hardly have occurred to any one that it was a treatment\nof the life-story of an historical individual. And yet in this the\ndifference between the Johannine and the Synoptic Gospels is only a\nslight one. For the Synoptic Jesus also is not really a man, but a\n\"superman,\" the original Christian community's God-man, cult-hero,\nand mediator of salvation. And if it is settled that the quarrel\nbetween the Church teachers and the Gnostic heretics hinged, not\non the divinity of Christ, in which they agreed, but rather on the\nkind and degree of his humanity, then this \"paradoxical fact\" is\nby itself sufficient to corroborate the assertion that the divinity\nof the mediator of redemption was the only originally determined and\nself-evident presupposition of the whole Christian faith; and that, on\nthe contrary, his humanity was doubtful even in the earliest times, and\nfor this reason alone could become a subject of the bitterest strife.\n\nIndeed, even the author of the fourth Gospel did not bring about a real\nfusion between the human person Jesus and the mythological person, the\nGnostic Son of God, who with Philo wavered, also in the form of the\nLogos, between impersonal being and allegorical personality. All the\nefforts to render comprehensible \"the interfusion of the divine and the\nhuman in the unity of the personal, its basis (essence) being divine,\nits appearance a human life of Jesus,\" are frustrated even with the\nso-called John by one fact. This fact is that a Logos considered as\na person can never be at once a human personality and yet have as its\nbasis and essence a divine personality, but can only be demoniacally\npossessed by this latter, and can never be this latter itself. And so,\nas Pfleiderer says, the Johannine Christ wavers throughout \"between\na sublime truth and a ghostly monstrosity; the former, in so far as\nhe represents the ideal of the Son of God, and so the religion of\nmankind, separated from all the accidents and limits of individuality\nand nationality, of space and time--and the latter so far as he is the\nmythical covering of a God sojourning on earth in human form.\" [506]\n\nIt is true that this fusion of the Gnostic Son of God and the Philonic\nLogos with the Synoptic Jesus first fixed the hazy uncertainty of\nmythological speculation and abstract thought in the clear form and\nliving individuality of the personal mediator of redemption. It brought\nthis personality nearer to the hearts of the faithful than any other\nfigure of religious belief, and thereby procured for the Christian\ncult-god Jesus, in his pure humanity, his overflowing goodness and\nbenevolence, such a predominance over his divine competitors, Mithras,\nAttis, and others, that by the side of Jesus these faded away into\nempty shadows. The Gnostic ideal man, that is, the Platonic idea, and\nthe moral ideal of man merged in him directly into a unity. The miracle\nof the union of God and man, over which the ancient world had so hotly\nand so fruitlessly disputed, seemed to have found its realisation in\nChrist. Christ was the \"Wise man\" of the Stoic philosophy, in whom was\nunited for them all that is most honourable in man; more than this,\nhe was the God-man, as he had been preached and demanded by Seneca\nfor the moral elevation of mankind. [507] The world was consequently\nso ready to receive and so well prepared for his fundamental ideas\nthat we easily see why the Church Christianity took its stand on the\nhuman personality of its redeeming principle with almost more decision\nthan on the divine character of Jesus. Nevertheless, in spite of\nthe majesty and sublimity, in spite of the immeasurable significance\nwhich the accentuation of the true humanity of Jesus has had for the\ndevelopment of Christianity, it remains true that on the other hand it\nis just this which is the source of all the insoluble contradictions,\nof all the insurmountable difficulties from which the Christian view\nof the world suffers. This is the reason why that great idea, which\nChristianity brought to the consciousness of the men of the West,\nand through which it conquered Judaism--the idea of the God-man--was\nutterly destroyed, and the true content of this religion was obscured,\nhidden, and misrepresented in such disastrous fashion, that to-day it\nis no longer possible to assent to its doctrine of redemption without\nthe sacrifice of the intellect.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGIOUS PROBLEM OF THE PRESENT\n\n\nIn the opinion of liberal theologians, not the God but rather the man\nJesus forms the valuable religious essence of Christianity. [508] In\nsaying this it says nothing less than that the whole of Christendom\nup to the present day--that is, till the appearance of a Harnack,\nBousset, Wernle, and others of like mind--was in error about itself,\nand did not recognise its own essence. For Christianity, as the\npresent account shows, from the very first conceived the God Jesus,\nor rather the God-man, the Incarnate, the God-redeemer, suffering with\nman and sacrificing himself for humanity, as the central point of\nits doctrine. The declaration of the real manhood of Jesus appears,\non the other hand, but as an after-concession of this religion to\nouter circumstances, wrung from it only later by its opponents,\nand so expressly championed by it only because of its forming the\nunavoidable condition of its permanence in history and of its practical\nsuccess. Only the God, therefore, not the man Jesus, can be termed the\n\"founder\" of the Christian religion.\n\nIt is in fact the fundamental error of the liberal theology to think\nthat the development of the Christian Church took its rise from\nan historical individual, from the man Jesus. The view is becoming\nmore common that the original Christian movement under the name of\nJesus would have remained an insignificant and transient movement\nwithin Judaism but for Paul, who first gave it a religious view of\nthe world by his metaphysics of redemption, and who by his break\nwith the Jewish Law really founded the new religion. It will not\nbe long before the further concession is found necessary, that an\nhistorical Jesus, as the Gospels portray him, and as he lives in the\nminds of the liberal theologians of to-day, never existed at all;\nso that he never founded the insignificant and diminutive community\nof the Messiah at Jerusalem. It will be necessary to concede that the\nChrist-faith arose quite independently of any historical personality\nknown to us; that indeed Jesus was in this sense a product of the\nreligious \"social soul\" and was made by Paul, with the required amount\nof reinterpretation and reconstruction, the chief interest of those\ncommunities founded by him. The \"historical\" Jesus is not earlier but\nlater than Paul; and as such he has always existed merely as an idea,\nas a pious fiction in the minds of members of the community. The New\nTestament with its four Gospels is not previous to the Church, but the\nlatter is antecedent to them; and the Gospels are the derivatives,\nconsequently forming a support for the propaganda of the Church,\nand being without any claim to historical significance.\n\nNothing at all, as Kalthoff shows, is to be gained for the\nunderstanding of Christianity from the completely modern view that\nreligion is an entirely personal life and experience. Religion\nis such personal life only in an age which is differentiated into\npersonalities; it is such only in so far as this differentiation\nhas been accomplished. From the very beginning religion makes its\nappearance as a phenomenon of social life; it is a group-religion,\na folk-religion, a State religion; and this social character is\nnaturally transferred to the free associations which are formed\nwithin the limits of tribe and the State. The talk about personality\nas the centre of all religious life is with regard to the origin of\nChristianity absurd and unhistorical, for the reason that Christianity\ngrew up in religious associations, in communities. From this social\nreligion our personal religion has only been developed in a history\nlasting centuries. Only after great struggles has personal religion\nbeen able to succeed against an essentially older form. What devout\npeople of to-day call Christianity, a religion of the individual,\na principle of personal salvation, would have been an offence and an\nabsurdity to the whole of ancient Christendom. It would have been to\nit the sin against the Holy Ghost which was never to be forgiven; for\nthe Holy Ghost was the spirit of the Church's unity, the connection\nof the religious community, the spirit of the subordination of the\nflock to the shepherd. For this reason individual religion existed\nin old Christendom only through the medium of the association of the\ncommunity of the Church. A private setting up of one's own religion\nwas heresy, separation from the body of Christ. [509]\n\nWe cannot refuse to concede to the \"Catholic\" Church, both Roman and\nGreek, that in this respect it has most faithfully preserved the spirit\nof the earliest Christendom. This alone is to-day what Christianity in\nessence once was--the religion of an association in the sense to which\nwe have referred. Thus Catholicism justly refers to \"tradition\" for\nthe truth of its religious view of the world and for the correctness\nof its hierarchical claims. But Catholicism itself beyond doubt first\nestablished this \"tradition\" in its own interests. It teaches also\nan \"historical\" Jesus, but clearly one that is historical merely by\ntradition, and of whose actual historical existence not the least\nindication has yet been established. Protestantism, on the other hand,\nis completely unhistoric in passing off the Gospels as the sources,\nas the \"revealed\" basis of the faith in Christ, as if they had arisen\nindependently of the Church and represented the true beginnings of\nChristianity. Consequently one cannot base one's religious faith on\nthe Gospel and wish nevertheless to stand outside of that community,\nsince the writings of the New Testament can only pass as the expression\nof the community's life. One cannot therefore be Christian in the sense\nof the original community without obliterating one's own personality\nand uniting oneself as a member with the \"Body of Christ\"--that is,\nwith the Church. The spirit of obedience and humility, which Christ\ndemanded of his followers, is nothing but the spirit of subordination\nto the system of rules of conduct observed by the society of worship\npassing under his name. Christianity in the original sense is nothing\nbut--\"Catholic\" Christianity; and this is the faith of the Church\nin the work of redemption accomplished by the God-man Christ in his\nChurch and by means of the organisation infused with his \"spirit.\"\n\nOn purely religious grounds the wrongly so-called \"Catholicism\"\ncould very probably dispense with the fiction of an historical Jesus,\nand go back to Paul's standpoint before the origin of the Gospels,\nif it could have faith to-day in its mythological conception, of\nthe God sacrificing himself for mankind, without that fiction. In\nits present form, however, it stands or falls as a Church with\nthe belief in the historical truth of the God-redeemer; because\nall the Church's hierarchical claims and authority are based on\nthis authority having been entrusted to her by an historical Jesus\nthrough the apostles. Catholicism relies for this, as it has been\nsaid, on \"tradition.\" But Catholicism itself called this tradition\ninto life, just as the priests at Jerusalem worked up the tradition\nof an historical Moses in order to trace back to him their claim to\nauthority. It is the \"Irony of World-History\" that that very tradition\nsoon afterwards forced the Church, with regard to the historical\nChrist, to conceal its real nature from the crowd, and to forbid the\nlaity to read the Gospels, on account of the contradiction between the\npower of the Church and the traditional Christ it had produced. But\nthe position of Protestantism is even more contradictory and more\ndesperate than that of the Catholic Church, in view of our insight\ninto the fictitious character of the Gospels. For Protestantism has no\nmeans but history for the foundation of its religious metaphysics;\nand history, viewed impartially, leads away from those roots of\nChristianity to which Protestantism strives, instead of towards them.\n\nIf this is true of Protestant orthodoxy it is even more true of that\nform of Protestantism which thinks it can maintain Christianity\napart from its metaphysical doctrine of redemption because this\ndoctrine is \"no longer suitable to the age.\" Liberal Protestantism\nis and wishes to be nothing but a mere faith in the historical\npersonality of a man who is supposed to have been born 1,900 years\nago in Palestine, and through his exemplary life to have become the\nfounder of a new religion; being crucified and dying in conflict with\nthe authorities at Jerusalem, being raised up then as a God in the\nminds of his enthusiastic disciples. It is a faith in the \"loving\nGod the Father,\" because Jesus is supposed to have believed in him;\nin the personal immortality of man, because this is supposed to have\nbeen the presupposition of Jesus' appearance and doctrines; in the\n\"incomparable\" value of moral instructions, because they stand in\na book which is supposed to have been produced under the immediate\ninfluence of the prophet of Nazareth. Liberal Protestantism supports\nmorality on this, that Jesus was such a good man, and that for this\nreason it is necessary for each individual man to follow the call\nof Jesus. But it bases the faith in Jesus once and for all on the\nhistorical significance of the Gospels; though it cannot conceal\nfrom itself, after careful consideration, that the belief in their\nhistorical value rests on extremely weak grounds, and that we know\nnothing of that Jesus, not even that he ever lived. In any case we\nknow nothing which could be of influential religious significance,\nand which could not be put together just as well or better from\nother less doubtful sources. [510] It is pierced to the heart by the\ndenial of the historical personality of Jesus, not, like Catholicism,\nmerely as a Church, but in its very essence, as a Religion. And as to\nits real religious kernel it consists in a few fine-sounding phrases\nand some scattered references to a metaphysics which was once living,\nbut which is now degraded into a mere ornament for modest minds. And\nafter disposing of its would-be historical value there is left only\na dimly smouldering spark of \"homeless sentiments,\" which would suit\nany style of religious faith. Liberal Protestantism proclaims itself\nas the really \"modern\" Christianity. Confronted by the philosophic\nspirit of our day, it lays stress upon having no philosophy. It\nsets aside all religious speculation as \"Myth,\" if possible with\nreference to Kant, as this is \"modern,\" without noticing that it\nis itself most deeply imbedded in mythology with its \"historical\"\nJesus. It believes that, in its exclusive reverence for the man Jesus,\nit has brought Christianity to the \"height of present culture.\" As to\nthis Stendel justly says: \"Of the whole apologetic art with which the\nmodern Jesus-theology undertakes to save Christianity for our time,\nit can be said that there is no historical religion which could not\njust as well be brought into accord with the modern mind as that of\nthe New Testament.\" [511] We have no occasion to weep for the complete\ncollapse of such a \"religion.\" This form of Christianity has already\nbeen proved by Hartmann to be worthless from the religious point of\nview; [512] and it is only a proof of the fascinating power of phrases,\nof the laxity in our creeds, and the thoughtlessness of the mob in\nreligious matters, that it is even yet alive. For such reasons it\nis even allowed, under the lead of the so-called critical theology,\nto proclaim itself as the pure Christianity, now known for the first\ntime. Thus it finds sympathy. This unsystematic collection of thoughts,\narbitrarily selected from the view of the world and of life given\nby the Gospels, which even so requires to be rhetorically puffed out\nand artistically modified before it is made acceptable to the present\nage,--this unspeculative doctrine of redemption, which at bottom is\nuncertain of itself,--this sentimental, \u00e6sthetic, Jesus-worship of a\nHarnack, Bousset, and the rest on whom W. v. Schnehen so pitilessly\nbroke his lance; [513] this whole so-called Christianity of cultured\npastors and a laity in need of redemption, would have long since\ncome to grief through its poverty of ideas, its sickening sweetness,\nif it were not considered necessary to maintain Christianity at all\ncosts, were it even that of the complete deprivation of its spiritual\ncontent. The recognition of the fact that the \"historical\" Jesus has\nno religious interest at all, but at most concerns historians and\nphilologists, is indeed at present commencing to make its way into\nwider circles. [514] If one only knew a way out of the difficulty! If\none were only not afraid of following a clear lead just because\none might then possibly be forced beyond the existing religion in\nthe course of his ideas--as the example of Kalthoff showed! If\nonly one had not such a fearful respect for the past and such a\ntender \"historic unconsciousness\" and such immense respect for the\n\"historical basis\" of existing religion! The reference to history and\nthe so-called \"historical continuity of the religious development\"\nis indeed on the face of it merely a way out of a difficulty, and\nanother way of putting the fact that one is not desired to draw the\nconsequences of his presuppositions. As if there can still be talk of a\n\"historical basis\" where there is no history, but pure myth! As if the\n\"preservation of historical continuity\" could consist in maintaining\nas history what are mythical fictions, just because they have\nhitherto passed for historic truth, though we have seen through\ntheir purely fictitious and unreal character! As if the difficulty\nof the redemption of present-day civilisation from the chaos of\nsuperstition, social deceit, cowardice, and intellectual servitude\nwhich are connected with the name of Christianity, lay in a purely\nspiritual sphere and not rather in the sentiment, in the slovenly\npiety, in the heavy weight of ancient tradition, above all in the\neconomic, social, and practical relations which unite our churches\nwith the past! Faith in the future of Christianity is still built\nnot so much on the persuasive inner truth of its doctrine, but much\nmore on the inborn religious feeling of the members of the community,\non the religious education in school and home, and the consequent\nincreasing store of metaphysical and ethical ideas, on protection\nby the State and--on the law of inertia in the spiritual life of the\nmob. For the rest, in pulpit, in parish papers, and in public life,\na method of expression is used which is not essentially different\nfrom that of orthodoxy, but is so adapted as to allow every man to\nthink what he deems best for himself. We are enthusiastically told\nthat thus we are able to keep the rudderless ship of Protestantism\nstill a while above water, and that we have \"reconciled\" faith with\nmodern culture in \"the further development of Christianity.\"\n\nThus nineteen hundred years of religious development were completely\nin error. Is no other course open to us but a complete break with the\nChristian doctrine of redemption? This doctrine, however--such was\nthe result of our previous examination--is independent of the belief\nin an historical Jesus. Its centre of gravity lies in the conception\nof the \"incarnation\" of God, who suffers in the world but is finally\nvictorious over this suffering; and through union with whom Mankind\nalso \"prevails over the world\" and gains a new life in a higher\nsphere of existence. That the form of this divine Redeemer of the\nworld coalesced, in the minds of the Christian community, with that\nof a man Jesus; that, consequent on this, the act of redemption was\nfixed as to time and place, is only the consequence of the conditions\nunder which the new religion appeared.\n\nFor this reason it can only claim, in and for itself, a transient\npractical significance, and not a special religious value; while\non the other hand it has become the doom of Christianity that just\nthis making into history of the principle of redemption makes it\nimpossible for us still to acknowledge this religion. But then the\npreservation of historical continuity or the \"further development\"\nof Christianity in its proper sense probably does not consist in\nseparating this chance historical side of the Christian doctrine\nof redemption from its connection with the whole Christian view of\nthe world and setting it up by itself, but only in going back to\nthe essential and fundamental idea of the Christian religion, and\nstating its metaphysical doctrine of redemption in a manner more\nnearly answering to the ideas of the day.\n\nFrom the conception of a personal God-redeemer arose the possibility of\nsacrificing a man in God's place, and of seeing the divine and ideal\nman, that is, the Idea of Man, in an actual man. From the growing\nChurch's desire for authority, from its opposition to Gnostic phantasy\nwith its intellectual volatilising of the religious-moral kernel of\nthe Pauline doctrine of redemption, and from the wish not to give up\nthe historical connection with Judaism on opportunist grounds, arose\nthe necessity of portraying the divine-human expiatory sacrifice as\nthe sacrifice of an historical person who had arisen in Judaism. All\nthese different reasons, which led to the formation of the belief in\nan \"historical\" Jesus, have no force with us, particularly after it\nhas been shown that the personality of the principle of redemption,\nthis fundamental presupposition of the evangelical \"history,\" is in\nthe end to blame for all the contradictions and shortcomings of that\nreligion. To lead back to its real essence the Christian doctrine of\nredemption can consequently mean nothing but placing the idea of the\nGod-man, as it lies at the basis of that doctrine, in the central\npoint of the religious view of the world, through the stripping off\nof the mythical personality of the Logos.\n\nGod must become man, so that Man can become God and be redeemed from\nthe bounds of the finite. The idea of Man which is realised in the\nworld must itself be a divine idea, an idea of the Deity, and so\nGod must be the common root and essence of all individual men and\nthings; only then may Man attain his existence in God and freedom\nfrom the world, through this consciousness of his supernatural divine\nessence. Man's consciousness of himself and of his true essence must\nitself be a divine consciousness. Man, and indeed every man, must be\na purely finite phenomenon, an individual limitation, the clothing\nof the Deity with a human form. In possibility he is a God-man,\nto be born again an actual God-man through his moral activity, and\nconsequently to become really one with God. In this conception all\nthe contradictions of Christian dogmatism are solved, and the kernel\nof its doctrine of redemption is preserved without being divested of\nits true significance by the introduction of mythical phantasy or of\nhistorical coincidences, as is the case in Christianity.\n\nIf we are still to use the language of the past, and to call the divine\nessence of mankind the immanent Godhead, \"Christ,\" then any advance of\nreligion can only consist in the development and working out of this\n\"inner Christ,\" that is, of the spiritual-moral tendencies dwelling\nin mankind, in the carrying of it back to its absolute and divine\nbasis, but not in the historical personification of this inner human\nnature. Any reality of the God-man consequently consists in \"Christ's\"\nactivity in Man, in the proving of his \"true self,\" of his personal,\nspiritual essence, in the raising of one's self to personality on the\nground of Man's divine nature, but not in the magical efficacy of an\nexternal divine personality. This, indeed, is nothing but the religious\nideal of mankind, which men have projected on to an historical figure,\nin order to assure themselves of the \"reality\" of the ideal. It is not\ntrue that it is \"essential\" to the religious consciousness to consider\nits ideal in human form, and that for this reason the historical Jesus\nis indispensable for the religious life. Were this true, religion\nwould not be, in principle, in a position to raise itself above the\nmythical and primitive stage of God's externality and appearance to the\nsenses, and to conquer these Gods, working them more and more into the\nforms of an inner nature. This, however, is the essence of religious\ndevelopment. Religion would otherwise be confined to a lower province\nin the human life of the spirit; and it would be overthrown whenever\nthe fiction of that projection and separation of God from one's own\nself was seen through. It is only to orthodox Christianity that it\nis necessary to represent the God in Man as a God outside of Man,\nas the \"unique\" personality of a historical God-man; and that because\nit still remains with one foot in religious naturalism and mythology,\nand the historical circumstances of another age occasioned the choice\nof that representation and falsification of the idea of the God-man.\n\nTo think of the world's activity as God's activity; of mankind's\ndevelopment, filled with struggles and sufferings, as the story of a\ndivine struggle and Passion; of the world-process as the process of\na God, who in each individual creature fights, suffers, conquers and\ndies, so that he may overcome the limitations of the finite in the\nreligious consciousness of man and anticipate his future triumph\nover all the suffering of the world--that is the real Christian\ndoctrine of redemption. To revive in this sense the fundamental\nconception from which Christianity sprang--and which is independent\nof any historical reference--is, indeed, to return to this religious\nstarting-point. Protestantism, on the contrary, which repudiates Paul's\nreligion and sets up the Gospels as the foundation of its belief,\nnevertheless does not go behind Christianity's development into the\nChurch, back to the origin of Christianity, but remains always within\nthis development, and deceives itself if it thinks that it can prevail\nover the Church from the point of view of the Gospel. [515]\n\nIn such an interpretation and development of the Christian conception\nof redemption \"historical continuity\" is preserved just as decidedly\nas it is in the one-sided making into history of that thought on the\nside of liberal Protestantism. What is in opposition to it is, on the\none hand, completely unhistorical belief in an historical Jesus; on\nthe other hand, the prejudice against the \"immanent God,\" or against\nPantheism. But this prejudice is based entirely on that fiction of\nan historical \"mediator\" and the hypothesis contained therein of a\ndualistic separation of world and God. The representatives of the\nmonistic conception--who began to organise themselves a short time\nago--should be clearer as to the significance of that conception\nthan they are for the most part even at the present day. They must\nperceive that the true doctrine of unity can only be the doctrine\nof the all in one. There must be an idealistic monism in opposition\nto the naturalistic monism of Haeckel, which is prevalent even\nto-day. This monism must not exclude but include God's existence;\nand its present unfruitful negation of all religion must deepen\ninto a positive and religiously valuable view of the world. Then,\nand not till then, will it be able to effect a genuine separation\nfrom the Church, and the monistic movement, still in its childhood,\nmay lead to an inner improvement and renovation of our spiritual\nlife in general. It requires much short-sightedness on the part of\nthe exponents of a purely historical Christianity to suppose that the\nsoulless and poor faith in the personal, or as it is considered better\nexpressed to-day, in the \"living\" God, in freedom and immortality,\nsupported by the authority of the \"unique\" personality of a man Jesus\nwho died two thousand years ago, will be in a position permanently\nto satisfy religious needs, even when the metaphysic of redemption,\nstill connected with it at all points, and the pious attitude based\nupon this are completely stripped off from it. The earlier the orthodox\nChristians, by giving up their superstition in an historical Jesus,\nand the Monists, by sacrificing their equally fatal superstition\nin the sole reality of matter and in the redeeming truths of\nphysical science which alone can give happiness, come to a mutual\nreconciliation, the better it will be for both. The more surely we\nshall avoid the total obliteration of the religious consciousness;\nand the civilised nations of Europe will be saved from the loss\nof their spiritual ballast--towards which loss there seems at the\npresent day to be a continuous movement on all sides. At present\nthere are only two possibilities--either to look on quietly while\nthe tidal wave of naturalism, getting ever more powerful from day\nto day, sweeps away the last vestige of religious thought, or to\ntransfer the sinking fire of religion to the ground of Pantheism,\nin a religion independent of any ecclesiastical guardianship. The\ntime of dualistic Theism has gone by. At present all the advancing\nspirits, in spheres most widely different, concur in striving towards\nMonism. This striving is so deeply grounded and so well warranted,\nthat the Church will not be able to suppress it for ever. [516] The\nchief obstacle to a monistic religion and attitude is the belief,\nirreconcilable with reason or history, in the historical reality of a\n\"unique,\" ideal, and unsurpassable Redeemer.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\n[1] Cf. also his \"Kritik der Evangelien,\" 2 vols. (1850-51).\n\n[2] \"Kultur d. Gegenwart: Gesch. d. christl. Religion,\" 2nd ed.,\n1909, 47.\n\n[3] The same is true of Clemen, who, judging by his\n\"Religionsgeschichtl. Erkl\u00e4rung d. N.T.\" (1909), appears to be\nacquainted with Robertson's masterpiece, \"Christianity and Mythology,\"\nonly from a would-be witty notice of R\u00e9ville, and furthermore only\ncites the author when he thinks he can demolish him with ease.\n\n[4] A. Hausrath, in his work \"Jesus u. die neutestamentlichen\nSchriftsteller,\" vol. i. (1908), offers a striking example of how\nlight a matter our theologians make it to overthrow the attacks of\nthe opponents of an historical Jesus. In scarcely three pages at\nthe commencement of his compendious work he rejects the myth theory\nof Bruno Bauer with the favourite appeal to a few individual and\nhistorical features of the Gospel tradition which are intrinsically\nof no significance, finishing up this \"refutation\" with a reckless\ncitation from Weinel which proves nothing for the historical character\nof Jesus.\n\n[5] Cf. also his work \"Moses, Jesus, Paulus. Drei sagen varianten\ndes babylonischen Gottmenschen Gilgamesch,\" 2nd ed., 1909.\n\n[6] Cf., for example, \"Jesus Vier Vortr\u00e4ge, geh. in Frankf.\" 1910.\n\n[7] In other respects the \"progress\" in the province of religious\nhistory is not so great as I formerly believed I could assume. That\nis to say, in essentials modern learning in this connection has\nonly brought facts to light and given a new focus to points of\nview which were already possessed (cf. Dupuis and Volney) by the\neighteenth century. In the twenties and forties of the nineteenth\ncentury investigations, unprejudiced and independent of theology,\nhad already reached in the case of some of their representatives,\nsuch as Gfr\u00f6rer, L\u00fctzelberger, Ghillany, Nork, and others, the point\nwhich is to-day again represented by the most advanced learning. The\nrevolution of 1848 and the reaction consequent on it in ecclesiastical\nmatters then again shook, on account of their radical tendency, those\nviews which had been already arrived at. The liberal Protestantism,\ntoo, that rose as a recoil against orthodoxy in its effort to work out\nthe \"historical\" Jesus as the kernel of Christianity on its part had\nno interest in again bringing up the old results. Indeed, it actually\nmakes it a reproach to a person of the present day if he quotes the\nworks of those earlier investigators, and reminds him that religious\nlearning did not begin only with the modern Coryphaei, with Holtzmann,\nHarnack, &c. Whoever looks upon things from this point of view can\nmost probably agree in the melancholy reflection of a reviewer of\nthe first edition of \"The Christ Myth,\" when he says with reference\nto the \"latest investigations\": \"Apparently the whole learning of the\nnineteenth century so far as relates to investigations into the moving\nforces of civilisation and national upheavals will be considered by\nfuture research as an arsenal of errors\" (O. Hauser in the Neue Freie\nPresse, August 8, 1909).\n\n[8] It has also been reckoned as a want of \"method\" in this work\nthat I have often made use of a cautious and restrained mode of\nexpression, that I have spoken of mere \"suppositions\" and employed\nlocutions such as \"it appears,\" &c., when it has been for the time\nbeing impossible for science or myself to give complete certainty to\nan assertion. This reproach sounds strange in the mouths of such as\nplume themselves upon \"scientific method.\" For I should think that it\nwas indeed more scientific in the given cases to express oneself in\nthe manner chosen by me, than by an unmeasured certainty in assertions\nto puff out pure suppositions into undoubted facts. I must leave such\na mode of proceeding to the historical theologians. They work purely\nwith hypotheses. All their endeavours to obtain an historical kernel\nfrom the Gospels rest upon conjectures simply. Above everything,\ntheir explanation of the origin of Christianity simply from an\nhistorical Jesus is, in spite of the certainty and self-confidence\nwith which it comes out, a pure hypothesis, and that of very doubtful\nvalue. For that in reality the new religion should have been called\ninto life by the \"all-subduing influence of the personality of\nJesus\" and its accompaniments, the visions and hallucinations\nof the disciples worked up into ecstasies, is so improbable, and\nthe whole view is psychologically so assailable, and, moreover,\nso futile, that even a liberal theologian like Gunkel declares it\nentirely insufficient (\"Zum religionsgesichtl. Verst\u00e4ndnis d. N.T.,\"\n89 sq.). With this explanation, however, stands or falls the whole\nmodern Jesus-religion. For if they cannot show how the Pauline and\nJohannine Christology could develop from the mere existence of an\nhistorical Jesus, if this now forms \"the problem of problems of New\nTestament research\" (Gunkel, op. cit.), then their whole conception\nof the rise of Christianity disappears into air, and they have no\nright to hold up against others who seek a better explanation the\npartially hypothetical character of the views advanced by them.\n\n[9] Op. cit., 10 sq.\n\n[10] Cf. K. Dunkmann, \"Der historische Jesus, der mythologische\nChristus, und Jesus der Christ\" (1910). Cf. also Pfleiderer, \"Das\nChristusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens in religionsgeschichtlicher\nBeleuchtung\" (1903), 6 sq. Here, too, it is pointed out that modern\nscientific theology in its description of the figure of Christ\nproceeds in anything but an unprejudiced manner. Out of the belief in\nChrist as contained in the New Testament it \"only draws forth what\nis acceptable to present modes of thinking--passing over everything\nelse and reading in much that is its own--in order to construct an\nideal Christ according to modern taste.\" Pfleiderer declares it a\n\"great illusion\" to believe that the pictures of Christ in works\nsuch as Harnack's \"Wesen des Christentums,\" each differently drawn\naccording to the peculiarities of their composers, but all more or\nless in the modern style, are the result of scientific historical\nresearch, and are related to the old conceptions of Christ like truth\nto error. \"One should,\" he says, \"be reasonable and honourable enough\nto confess that both the modern and the antique conceptions of Christ\nare alike creations of the common religious spirit of their times and\nsprung from the natural need of faith to fix its special principle in\na typical figure and to illustrate it. The differences between the\ntwo correspond to the differences of the times, the former a simple\nmythical Epic, the latter a sentimental and conscious Romance.\" In\nthe same sense Alb. Schweitzer also characterises the famous \"method\"\nof historical theology as \"a continual experimentation according to\nsettled hypotheses in which the leading thought rests in the last\nresort upon an intuition\" (\"Von Reimarus bis Wrede,\" 1906). Indeed,\nWeinel himself, who cannot hold up against the author with sufficient\nscorn his lack of method and his dilettantism has to confess that\nthe same blemishes which in his opinion characterise dilettantism are\nto be found even in the most prominent representatives of historical\ntheology, in a Wrede or a Wellhausen. He reproaches both of these with\nthe fact that in their researches \"serious faults of a general nature\nand in method\" are present (21). He advises the greatest prudence\nin respect to Wellhausen's Gospel Commentaries \"on account of their\nserious general blemishes\" (26). He objects to Wrede that to be\nconsistent he must himself go over to radical dilettantism (22). He\ncharges Schweitzer actually with dilettantism and blind bias which\ncause every literary consideration to be lacking (25 sq.). Indeed,\nhe finds himself, in face of the \"dilettante endeavours\" to deny the\nhistorical Jesus, compelled even to admit that liberal theology for\nthe future \"must learn to express itself with more caution and to\nexhibit more surely the method of religious historical comparison\"\n(14). He blames Gunkel for imprudence in declaring Christianity to be\na syncretic religion, and demands that the historical works of liberal\ntheology \"should be clearer in their results and more convincing in\ntheir methods\" (16). He says that the method which they employ is\nat present not sure and clear enough since \"it has been spoken of\ngenerally in very loose if not misleading terms,\" and he confesses:\n\"We have apparently not made the measure, according to which we\ndecide upon what is authentic and what not so in the tradition,\nso plain that it can always be recognised with security\" (29). Now,\nif matters are in such a position, we non-theologians need not take\ntoo tragically the reproach of dilettantism and lack of scientific\nmethod, since it appears very much as though historical theology,\nwith the exception at most of Herr Weinel, has no sure method.\n\n[11] Cf. W. v. Schnehen, \"Der moderne Jesuskultus,\" 2nd ed., 1907,\np. 41, a work with which even a Pfleiderer has agreed in the main\npoints; also the same author's \"Fr. Naumann vor dem Bankrott des\nChristentums,\" 1907.\n\n[12] The excursus on \"The Legend of Peter\" which was contained in\nthe first edition of this work, and there appears to have been rather\nmisunderstood, has recently (1910) appeared more closely worked out\nand reasoned in an independent form in the Neuer Frankfurter Verlag\nunder the title \"Die Petrus Legende. Ein Beitrag zur Mythologie des\nChristentums.\"\n\n[13] Op cit., 82.\n\n[14] Ep. ad Luc. 41.\n\n[15] E. v. Mommsen and Wilamowitz in the Transactions of the\nGerman Arch\u00e6ological Institute, xxiii. Part iii.; \"Christl. Welt,\"\n1899, No. 57. Compare as a specially characteristic expression of\nthat period's longing for redemption the famous Fourth Eclogue of\nVirgil. Also Jeremias, \"Babylonisches im Neuen Testament,\" 1905,\npp. 57 sqq. Lietzmann, \"Der Weltheiland,\" 1909.\n\n[16] It is certain that the old Israelite Jahwe only attained that\nspiritualised character for which he is nowadays extolled under the\ninfluence of the Persians' imageless worship of God. All efforts to\nconstruct, in spite of this admission, a \"qualitative\" difference\nbetween Jahwe and Ahuramazda, as, for example, Stave does in his work\n(\"Der Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum,\" 1898, 122 sq.) are\nunavailing. According to Stave, the conception of good and evil is\nnot grasped in Mazdeism in all its purity and truth, but \"has been\nconfused with the natural.\" But is that distinction \"grasped in all\nits purity\" in Judaism with its ritualistic legality? Indeed, has it\ncome to a really pure realisation even in Christianity, in which piety\nand attachment to the Church so often pass as identical ideas? Let\nus give to each religion its due, and cease to be subtle in drawing\nsuch artificial distinctions in favour of our own--distinctions which\nfall into nothingness before every unprejudiced consideration.\n\n[17] Exod. iv. 22; Deut. xxxii. 6; Hosea xi. 1.\n\n[18] Isa. xlix. 6, 8.\n\n[19] Id. li. 16.\n\n[20] Isa. xliv. 28, xlv. 1 sq.\n\n[21] Cumont, \"Textes et monuments figur\u00e9s relatifs aux myst\u00e8res de\nMithra,\" 1899, vol. i. 188.\n\n[22] Isa. xi. 65, 17 sqq.\n\n[23] Isa. ix. 6; Micah v. 1.\n\n[24] Psa. xlvii. 6, 9, lvii. 12.\n\n[25] Ch. xlv.-li.\n\n[26] Ch. vi. 1 sqq.\n\n[27] Cf. Gunkel, \"Zum religionsgesch. Verst\u00e4ndnis des Neuen\nTestaments,\" 1903, p. 23, note 4.\n\n[28] Revelation xxii.; cf. Pfleiderer, \"Das Urchristentum. Seine\nSchriften und seine Lehren,\" 2nd edit., 1902, vol. ii. 54 sqq.\n\n[29] Dan. xii. 3.\n\n[30] The assertion advanced by Gr\u00e4tz and Lucius that the work mentioned\nis a forgery of a fourth-century Christian foisted upon Philo with\nthe object of recommending the Christian \"Ascesis,\" and that a sect\nof Therapeutes never existed, can now be considered disposed of,\nsince its refutation by Massebiau and Conybeare. Cf. Pfleiderer,\n\"Urchristentum,\" ii. 5 sq.\n\n[31] Cf. as regards the Essenes, Sch\u00fcrer, \"Geschichte des j\u00fcdischen\nVolkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,\" 1898, II. 573-584.\n\n[32] Regarding the connection between the Essenes and the Apocalypse,\ncf. Hilgenfeld, \"Die j\u00fcdische Apokalyptik,\" 1857, p. 253 sqq.\n\n[33] On this point, cf. Brandt, \"Die mand\u00e4ische Religion,\" 1899;\n\"Realenzyklop, f.d. protest. Theologie u. Kirche,\" xii. 160 sqq.;\nGunkel, op. cit., 18 sqq.\n\n[34] Cf. Hilgenfeld, \"Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums,\" 1884.\n\n[35] Gunkel, op. cit., 29.\n\n[36] Gen. xxxii. 24.\n\n[37] Numb. xx. 16; Exod. xiii. 21.\n\n[38] Exod. xxxiii. 14; 2 Sam. v. 23.\n\n[39] 1 Kings i. 3; Ezek. xliii. 5.\n\n[40] Isa. lxiii. 9 sqq.\n\n[41] Psa. ii.\n\n[42] Cf. Ghillany, \"Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebr\u00e4er,\" 1842,\n326-334; Eisenmenger, \"Entdecktes Judentum,\" 1711, i. 311, 395\nsqq. Also Movers, \"Die Ph\u00f6nizier,\" 1841; i. 398 sq.\n\n[43] Exod. xxiii. 20 sqq.\n\n[44] Jos. xxiv. 11.\n\n[45] Jos. v. 2-10. The unhistorical nature of Joshua is admitted also\nby Stade. Stade counts him an Ephraimitic myth, recalling to mind in\nso doing that the Samaritans possessed an apocryphal book of the same\nname in place of our Book of Joshua (\"Gesch. d. Volkes Israel,\" 1887,\ni. 64 sqq., 135). The Samaritan Book of Joshua (Chronicum Samaritanum,\npublished 1848) was written in Arabic during the thirteenth century in\nEgypt, and is based upon an old work composed in the third century\nB.C. containing stories which in part do not appear in our Book\nof Joshua.\n\n[46] That the hypothesis of Smith here mentioned is quite admissible\nfrom the linguistic point of view has lately been maintained by\nSchmiedel in opposition to Weinel (Protestantenbl., 1910, No. 17, 438).\n\n[47] Epiph., \"H\u00e6resiol.\" xxix.\n\n[48] Smith, op. cit., 37 sq., 54.\n\n[49] Isa. ii. 1. Cf. Epiphanius, op. cit.\n\n[50] Id. xxix. 6.\n\n[51] \"Enc. Bibl.,\" art. \"Nazareth.\"\n\n[52] \"Since ha-nosr\u00eem was a very usual term for guardians or\nprotectors, it follows that when the term or its Greek equivalent\nhoi Nazoraioi was used the adoption of its well-known meaning was\nunavoidable. Even if the name was really derived from the village\nof Nazareth, no one would have thought of it. Every one would have\nunavoidably struck at once upon the current meaning. If a class of\npersons was called protectors, every one would understand that as\nmeaning that they protected something. No one would hit upon it to\nderive their name from an otherwise unknown village named Protection\"\n(Smith, op. cit., 47).\n\n[53] Cf. in this connection Smith, op. cit., 36 sq., 42 sqq.\n\n[54] Cf. Cumont, op. cit., 195 sq.\n\n[55] Matt. ii. 25.\n\n[56] Zech. iii. 10.\n\n[57] Jeremias, op. cit., 56; cf. also 33 and 46, notes.\n\n[58] Robertson, \"A Short History of Christianity,\" 1902, 9 sqq.\n\n[59] Gunkel, op. cit., 34.\n\n[60] Id., op. cit., 39-63; cf. also Robertson, \"Pagan Christs,\" 1903,\n155 seq.\n\n[61] Cf. Robertson, op. cit., 156.\n\n[62] Mark v. 27; Luke xxiv. 19; Acts xviii. 25, xxviii. 31.\n\n[63] Luke ix. 49, x. 17; Acts iii. 16; James v. 14 sq. For more\ndetails regarding Name magic, see W. Heitm\u00fcller, \"Im Namen Jesu,\" 1903.\n\n[64] Cf. on whole subject Robertson, op. cit., 153-160.\n\n[65] Ch. vii. 29.\n\n[66] Isa. iii.\n\n[67] Ch. xii. 10 sqq.; cf. Movers, op. cit., i. 196.\n\n[68] Ch. viii. 14.\n\n[69] Op. cit., 78.\n\n[70] Frazer, \"The Golden Bough,\" 1900, ii. 196 sq.\n\n[71] Frazer, \"Adonis, Attis, Osiris,\" 1908, 128 sqq.\n\n[72] \"The Golden Bough,\" i., iii. 20 sq.\n\n[73] Verse 14.\n\n[74] Op. cit., viii. 24-29.\n\n[75] 1 Gen. xv. 17.\n\n[76] Ghillany, op. cit., 148, 195, 279, 299, 318 sqq. Cf. especially\nthe chapter \"Der alte hebr\u00e4ische Nationalgott Jahve,\" 264 sqq.\n\n[77] J. M. Robertson, \"Pagan Christs,\" 140-148. It cannot be\nsufficiently insisted upon that it was only under Persian influence\nthat Jahwe was separated from the Gods of the other Semitic races,\nfrom Baal, Melkart, Moloch, Chemosh, &c., with whom hitherto he had\nbeen almost completely identified; also that it was only through\nbeing worked upon by Hellenistic civilisation that he became that\n\"unique\" God, of whom we usually think on hearing the name. The idea\nof a special religious position of the Jewish people, the expression\nof which was Jahwe, above all belongs to those myths of religious\nhistory which one repeats to another without thought, but which\nscience should finally put out of the way.\n\n[78] \"Golden Bough,\" iii. 138-146.\n\n[79] Movers, op. cit., 480 sqq.\n\n[80] VI. 47 sqq., 209 sqq.\n\n[81] Cf. Gunkel, \"Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit,\" 1895. 309\nsq. E. Schrader, \"Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament,\" 1902,\n514-520.\n\n[82] Ch. viii. 15. Cf. also vi. 8, 9.\n\n[83] \"Abhandlungen d. Kgl. Ges. d. Wissenschaften zu G\u00f6ttingen,\" xxxiv.\n\n[84] Cf. also P. Wendland, \"Ztschr. Hermes,\" xxxiii., 1898, 175 sqq.,\nand Robertson, op. cit., 138, note 1.\n\n[85] In the same way the Phrygian Attis, whose name characterises him\nas himself the \"father,\" was also honoured as the \"son,\" beloved and\nspouse of Cybele, the mother Goddess. He thus varied between a Father\nGod, the high King of Heaven, and the divine Son of that God.\n\n[86] Frazer, op. cit., iii. 138-200. Cf. also Robertson, \"Pagan\nChrists,\" 136-140.\n\n[87] Keim, \"Geschichte Jesu,\" 1873, 331 note.\n\n[88] Ghillany, op. cit., 510 sqq.\n\n[89] Id. 505.\n\n[90] 2 Sam. xxi. 9; cf. Lev. xxiii. 10-14.\n\n[91] \"Hist.,\" xviii. 7.\n\n[92] 2 Kings iii. 27.\n\n[93] \"Hist. Nat.,\" xxxiv. 4, \u00a7 26.\n\n[94] Mentioned in Eusebius, \"Praeparatio Evangelica,\"\ni. 10. Cf. Movers, op. cit., 303 sq.\n\n[95] \"Der Mythus bei den Hebr\u00e4ern,\" 1876, 109-113.\n\n[96] Cf. Ghillany, op. cit., 451 sqq.; Daumer, op. cit., 34 sqq., 111.\n\n[97] Numb. xx. 22 sqq., xxvii. 12 sqq., xxxiii. 37 sqq.,\nDeut. xxxii. 48 sqq. Cf. Ghillany, op. cit., 709-721.\n\n[98] Deut. xviii. 15.\n\n[99] Cf. Heb. v.\n\n[100] Diodorus Siculus, ii. 44.\n\n[101] Justin, \"Dial. cum Tryphone,\" cap. xc.\n\n[102] Sch\u00fcrer, op. cit., ii. 555. Cf. also W\u00fcnsche, \"Die Leiden des\nMessias,\" 1870.\n\n[103] See above, page 40 sqq.\n\n[104] Cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., ii. 720 sqq.; Gfr\u00f6rer, \"Das\nJahrhundert des Heils,\" 1838, ii. 260 sqq.; L\u00fctzelberger, \"Die\nkirchl. Tradition \u00fcber den Apostel Johannes u. s. Schriften,\"\n1840, 224-229; Dalman, \"Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der\nSynagoge im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend,\" 1888; Bousset,\n\"Die Religion des Judentums, im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter,\" 1903,\n218 sq.; Jeremias, op. cit., 40 sq.\n\n[105] Op. cit., 21.\n\n[106] Op. cit., 71 sq.\n\n[107] Kautzsch, \"Pseudoepigraphen,\" 500.\n\n[108] Winckler, op. cit., 67-77. Cf. also Jeremias, op. cit., 40,\nand his \"Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients,\" 1904, 239 sq.\n\n[109] Gen. xl.\n\n[110] Luke xxiii. 39-43; cf. also Isa. lxxx. 12.\n\n[111] Jos. v. 2 sqq.\n\n[112] Amos viii. 10; cf. Movers, op. cit., 243.\n\n[113] Cf. Robertson, \"Pagan Christs,\" 157.\n\n[114] Numb. xiv.\n\n[115] Id. xiii. 9; Gen. xlviii. 16.\n\n[116] Id. xiii. 7; Gen. xlix. 9.\n\n[117] 1 Chron. iv. 11.\n\n[118] Judges ii. 9.\n\n[119] Id. iv.\n\n[120] Cf. Nork, \"Realw\u00f6rterbuch,\" 1843-5, ii. 301 sq.\n\n[121] Cf. on whole subject Martin Br\u00fcckner, \"Der sterbende und\nauferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen Religionen und ihr\nVerh\u00e4ltnis zum Christentum. Religionsgesch. Volksb\u00fccher,\" 1908.\n\n[122] Ch. ii. 12-20.\n\n[123] Ch. iii. 1-8.\n\n[124] Ch. v. 3-5.\n\n[125] Ch. xii.\n\n[126] \"Zum religionsgesch. Verst. d. N.T.,\" 54.\n\n[127] \"L'origine de tous les cultes,\" 1795, v. 133.\n\n[128] \"Abraxas,\" 117.\n\n[129] Cf. regarding the mythical nature of Moses, who is to be looked\nupon as an offshoot of Jahwe and Tammuz, Winckler, op. cit., 86-95.\n\n[130] Cf. also O. Pfleiderer, \"Das Christusbild des urchristlichen\nGlaubens in religionsgesch. Beleuchtung,\" 1903, 37. Also Jeremias,\n\"Das A.T. im Lichte des alten Orients,\" 254.\n\n[131] I. 107.\n\n[132] Cf. Plutarch, \"Artaxerxes,\" ch. i.\n\n[133] Movers, op. cit., 228.\n\n[134] II. 9, 2.\n\n[135] Bousset, \"Das Judentum,\" 220.\n\n[136] 1 Kings xi. 14 sq.\n\n[137] Schrader, \"Die Keilinschriften u. d. A.T.,\" 225.\n\n[138] Winckler, op. cit., 172 sqq., Jeremias, \"Das A.T. im Lichte\nd. a. O.,\" 2nd. ed., 488 sqq.; cf. also Baentsch, \"David und sein\nZeitalter. Wissenschaft u. Bildung,\" 1907.\n\n[139] Ep. viii. 3.\n\n[140] Id. xlii. 58.\n\n[141] Ch. v. 1.\n\n[142] Gen. xxxv. 11-19; Deut. xxxiii. 12; Gen. xliv. 26.\n\n[143] Cf. Nork, \"Realw\u00f6rterbuch,\" i. 240 sq.\n\n[144] The other famous \"prophecy\" supposed to refer to the birth of the\nMessiah, viz., Isaiah vii. 14, is at present no longer regarded as such\nby many. The passage obviously does not refer to the Messiah. This\nis shown by a glance at the text, and it would hardly have been\nconsidered so long as bearing that meaning, if any one had taken the\ntrouble to read it in its context. Consider the situation. Queen Rezin\nof Syria and Pekah of Israel march against the Jewish King Ahaz, who\nis therefore much troubled. At the command of Jahwe the prophet goes\nto the king in order to exhort him to courage, and urges him to pray\nfor a sign of the happy outcome of the fight. He, however, refuses\nto tempt God. Thereupon Isaiah himself gives him a sign. \"Behold,\"\nhe says, \"a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his\nname Immanuel, God be with us. Before the child shall know to refuse\nthe evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest\nshall be forsaken.\" And undisturbed by the fact that this prophecy\nfor the moment can give but little encouragement to the king, Isaiah\ngoes with the help of two witnesses(!) to a prophetess and gets her\nwith child in order to make his words true(!). The text does not say\nin what relationship the woman stood to Isaiah. The Hebrew word Almah\nmay mean \"young woman\" as well as \"virgin.\" The Septuagint, however,\nthoughtlessly making the passage refer to the Messiah, and having\nbefore its eyes very possibly the stories of the miraculous birth of\nthe heathen Redeemer Gods, translates the word straightway by \"virgin,\"\nwithout thinking what possible light it thereby threw upon Isaiah.\n\n[145] Ch. lx. 1 sqq.\n\n[146] Psa. lxviii. 32 sq.\n\n[147] Dupuis, op. cit., 268.\n\n[148] Matt. i. 14 sq.\n\n[149] The feasts of the Gods in question also correspond to this\nin character. They fell upon the solstice (the birthday or day\nof death of the sun), so far as their connection with the sun was\nemphasized. On the contrary, upon the equinoxes, so far as their\nconnection with vegetation was concerned, sowing and harvest were\nbrought into prominence. Usually, however, death and reappearance were\njoined in one single feast, and this was celebrated at the time in\nspring when day and night were of equal length, when vegetation was\nat its highest, and in the East the harvest was begun. Cf. Jeremias,\n\"Babylonisches im N.T.,\" 10 sq.\n\n[150] One should compare the description given by Hommel of the\nclimate of Babylonia (op. cit., 186) with the picture of the natural\noccurrences which, according to Gunkel, gave occasion for the myth\nof the birth of Marduk, and the threatening of the child by the\n\"Winter Dragon,\" Ti\u00e2mat. \"Before spring descends to the earth from\nheaven, winter has had its grim (!) rule upon the earth. Men pine away\n(in the country of the two rivers!) beneath its sway, and look up to\nheaven wondering if deliverance will not come. The myth consoles them\nwith the story that the God of spring who will overthrow winter has\nalready been born. The God of winter who knows for what he is destined\nis his enemy, and would be very pleased if he could devour him. And\nwinter at present ruling is much stronger than the weak child. But his\nendeavour to get rid of his enemy comes to nought. Do you then want to\nknow why he is so grim? He knows that he has only a short time. His\nmight is already broken although we may be yet unaware of it. The\nyear has already changed to spring. The child grows up in heaven; the\ndays become longer, the light of the sun stronger. As soon as he is\ngrown up he descends and overthrows his old enemy. 'Only trust in God\nwithout despair, spring must come'\" (\"Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos,\" 389 sq.).\n\n[151] Dupuis has already pointed this out, op. cit., 152.\n\n[152] Macrobius, \"Saturnal.,\" i. 18, i. 34-35.\n\n[153] \"Adversus Nationes,\" v. 6 and 13.\n\n[154] Cf. Simrock, \"Handbuch der deutschen Mythologie,\" 4th ed.,\n1874, 201 and 225.\n\n[155] Op. cit., 138. The transfixing of the victim with the holy lance,\nas we meet it in John xix. 34, appears to be a very old sacrificial\ncustom, which is found among the most different races. For example,\nboth among the Scythian tribes in Albania in the worship of Astarte\n(Strabo) and in Salamis, on the island of Cyprus, in that of Moloch\n(Eusebius, \"Praep. Evang.,\" iv. 16). \"The lance thrust,\" says Ghillany,\nwith reference to the Saviour's death, \"was not given with the object\nof testing whether the sufferer was still alive, but was in order to\ncorrespond with the old method of sacrificing. The legs were not broken\nbecause the victim could not be mutilated. In the evening the corpse\nhad to be taken down, just as Joshua only allowed the kings sacrificed\nto the sun to remain until evening upon the cross\" (op. cit., 558).\n\n[156] Frazer, op. cit., 345 sq. F. Kauffmann, \"Balder Mythus u. Sage\nnach ihren dichterischen u. religi\u00f6sen Elementen untersucht,\" 1902,\n266 sq.\n\n[157] Rigv. v. 1, v. 2, iii. 1, vii. 12, i. 96, &c.\n\n[158] Hillebrand, \"Vedische Mythologie,\" 1891-1902, ii. 38 sq.\n\n[159] According to early Christian writers, such as Justin and Origen,\nJesus also came into the world in a cave, and Jerome complains\n(Epist. lviii.) that in his time the heathens celebrated the feast\nof the birth of Tammuz at Bethlehem in the same cave in which Jesus\nwas born.\n\n[160] I. 72, 2; v. 11, 6; v. 2, 1; iii. 1, 14; i. 65, 1; x. 46, 2.\n\n[161] III. 1, 7; iii. 9, 7; v. 1, 1; v. 2, 1, and 2; iii. 7, 2; x. 4,\n2, and 3.\n\n[162] Cf. Volney, \"Die Ruinen,\" 1791 (Reclam), note 83 to\nchap. xiii. This is the reason why the infant Christ was represented\nin early Christian pictures lying in his mother's lap or in a cradle\nbetween an Ox and an Ass.\n\n[163] Jeremias, \"Babylonisches im Neuen Testament,\" 35, note\n1. Cf. Dupuis, op. cit., 111 sqq.\n\n[164] Dupuis, op. cit., 143 sq.\n\n[165] Cf. also Winckler, \"Die babylonische Geisteskultur Wissenschaft\nu. Bildung,\" 1907. Jeremias, \"Babylonisches im N.T.,\" 62 sqq. The\nastral references of the Christ myth are very beautifully shown in\nthe \"Thomakapelle\" at Karlsruhe, where the Master has depicted in\ncostly profusion and unconscious insight the chief points of the\nGospel \"history\" in connection with the signs of the Zodiac and the\nstars--the riddle of the Christ story and its solution! As is well\nknown, the theological faculty in Heidelburg conferred an \"honorary\ndoctorate of theology\" upon the Master.\n\n[166] \"Le Lalita Vistara, traduit du sanscrit en fran\u00e7ais,\" i. 76 sqq.\n\n[167] Further in R. Seydel, \"Die Buddhalegende u. das Leben Jesu,\" 2nd\ned., 1897, and in his \"Das Evangelium von Jesus in seinem Verh\u00e4ltnis\nzur Buddhasage u. Buddhalegende,\" 1882. Also Van den Bergh van Eysinga,\n\"Indische Einfl\u00fcsse auf evang. Erz\u00e4hlungen,\" 2nd ed., 1909. Cf. also\nO. Pfleiderer, \"Das Christusbild,\" 23 sqq.\n\n[168] \"Urchristentum,\" i. 411 sq.\n\n[169] Robertson, \"Christianity and Mythology,\" 1900, 129-302.\n\n[170] Op. cit., 25 sqq., 239-244; cf., on the other hand, Paul\nW. Schmidt, \"Die Geschichte Jesu erl\u00e4utert,\" 1904, 16.\n\n[171] Cf. also Seydel, \"Evangelium von Jesus,\" 305 sqq.;\n\"Buddha-Legende,\" 46 sqq. Also \u00c9mile Burnouf, \"La Science des\nReligions,\" 4th ed., 1885, 105.\n\n[172] R. Kessler, \"Realenz. f. prot. Theol. u. Kirche,\" xii. 163.\n\n[173] Foucaux, \"Le Lalita Vistara,\" i. 40.\n\n[174] Hippolytus, op. cit., 9, 10; Epiphanius, op. cit., 30, 53.\n\n[175] Cf. Pfleiderer, \"Christusbild,\" 14 sq.\n\n[176] Cf. also Max M\u00fcller, \"Natural Religion\"; Bergaigne, \"La religion\nv\u00e9dique d'apr\u00e8s les hymnes du Rigveda,\" 1878-83; Holtzmann, \"Agni\nnach den Vorstellungen des Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata,\" 1878.\n\n[177] Rgv. iii. 1, 9, 10.\n\n[178] Id. ii. 23; i. 7; xcv. 2, 5; x. 2, 7; viii. 29, 3.\n\n[179] Id. iii. 5, 10; i. 148, 1. Cf. also Adalb. Kuhn, \"Die Herabkunft\ndes Feuers und des G\u00f6ttertrankes,\" 2nd ed., 1886-9. In Mazdeism also\nthe light is indissolubly connected with the air, passing as this\ndoes as its bearer. Cf. F. Cumont, \"Textes et monuments,\" i. 228,\nii. 87 sq., and his \"Myst\u00e8res de Mithra.\"\n\n[180] Il., xi. 20; cf. Movers, op. cit., 242 sq.\n\n[181] Cf. John x. 3, 7, 9.\n\n[182] O. Gruppe, \"Griech. Mythologie,\" 1900, ii. 1328, note 10.\n\n[183] Id., op. cit., 1307. According to the Arabian legend Father\nAbraham, also, who here plays the part of a saviour and redeemer,\nwas under the name of Thare, a skilful master workman, understanding\nhow to cut arrows from any wood, and being specially occupied with\nthe preparation of idols (Sepp, \"Das Heidentum und dessen Bedeutung\nf\u00fcr das Christentum,\" 1853, iii. 82).\n\n[184] \"Praep. Evang.,\" ix. 27.\n\n[185] 2 Cor. viii. 9.\n\n[186] Gruppe, op. cit., 1322, 1331.\n\n[187] Preller, \"Griech. Mythol.,\" 1894, 775 sq., 855.\n\n[188] Robertson, \"Christianity and Mythology,\" 322.\n\n[189] Matt. iii. 17; Mark i. 11; Luke iii. 22.\n\n[190] Phereda or Pheredet, the dove, is the Chaldaic root of the name\nAphrodite, as the Goddess in the car drawn by two doves was called\namong the Greeks. In the whole of Nearer Asia the cult of doves was\nconnected with that of the Mother Goddess. As is well known, the dove\nas a symbol of innocence or purity is also the bird of the Virgin\nMary, who is often compared to one. Indeed, in the Protevangelium\nof James she is actually called a dove which nested in the temple, a\nplain reference to the dove cult of the Syrian Aphrodite or Atargatis\n(Astarte, Astaroth).\n\n[191] Iren\u00e6us, i. 28.\n\n[192] Hippolytus iv. 35. This brings to mind that, according to\nPersian ideas also, besides the Trinity of Heaven (Ahuramazda), Sun,\nFire (Mithras), and Air (Spirit, \"word,\" Honover, Spenta Armaiti),\nthe earth stood as a fourth principle (Anahita, Anaitis, Tanit). This\nstood in the same relation to Mithras as Istar to Tammuz, Cybele to\nAttis, Atargatis to Adonis, Maya to Agni, Aphrodite to Hermes, Mary\nto Jesus, &c., becoming identical, however, usually with the \"word\"\nof God, the holy spirit (Cumont, op. cit., ii. 87 sq.).\n\n[193] \"Dialog.,\" 88.\n\n[194] One cannot therefore say, as is usual, that Mark, in whom the\nstory of the birth given in Matthew and Luke is not found, knew nothing\nof a supernatural birth of Christ. For the narrative of the baptism\nis the history of his birth, while the corresponding narrative of the\nother Evangelists only came into existence later, when the original\nsense of the story of the baptism in Mark was no longer understood.\n\n[195] Quoted in Usener, \"Religionsgesch. Untersuchungen,\" 1889, i. 64.\n\n[196] Thus Mithras also was said to have been born on the bank of a\nriver, just as Jesus received baptism in or near the Jordan. On this\naccount \"the Rock-born\" was usually represented with a torch in his\nleft and a sword or knife in his right hand (Cumont, \"Myst. d. Mithra,\"\n97). This recalls to mind the words of Jesus in Matt. x. 34: \"I came\nnot to send peace, but a sword.\"\n\n[197] Cf. Wobbermin, \"Religionsgesch. Studien zur Frage der\nBeeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen,\"\n1896, 154 sqq. The Christian Church also surrounded the act of baptism\nwith an unusual splendour of lights and candles. Not only was the\nHouse of God lit up on this occasion in a festive manner, but each\nindividual to be baptized had to carry a burning candle. The sermons\nwhich have come down to us delivered on the feast of the Epiphany,\nthe feast of the birth and baptism of the Saviour which in earlier\ndays fell together(!), excel in the description of the splendour of\nthe lights; indeed, the day of the feast itself was actually called\n\"the day of lights\" or \"the lights\" (phota).\n\n[198] Rgv. x. 88, 2.\n\n[199] Id. v. 2, 9.\n\n[200] \"Antiq.,\" xviii. 5, 2.\n\n[201] \"Contra Celsum,\" i. 47.\n\n[202] Graetz calls it \"a shameless interpolation\" (\"Gesch. d. Juden,\"\n1888, iii. 278). Cf. J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann, \"Die heiligen Schriften\ndes N.T.,\" vii. Tl. 3, 1876, 4; Sch\u00fcrer, \"Gesch. den j\u00fcdischen Volkes\nim Zeitalter Jesu,\" i. 438, note.\n\n[203] Cf. Sepp., op. cit., i. 168 sqq.\n\n[204] Cf. Usener, op. cit., 62.\n\n[205] I. 8, 9, 10, 16; cf. Matt. iv. 16.\n\n[206] Luke i. 5 sqq.\n\n[207] Gen. xvii. 16 sqq.\n\n[208] Judges, xiii. 2 sqq.\n\n[209] John v. 35.\n\n[210] Id. iii. 30.\n\n[211] Luke i. 26.\n\n[212] Matt. iii. 4.\n\n[213] 2 Kings i. 8.\n\n[214] Matt. xi. 14.\n\n[215] Cf. Nork, \"Realw\u00f6rterbuch,\" i. 451 sqq. The Baptist John in\nthe Gospels also appears as the \"forerunner,\" announcer, herald, and\npreparer of the way for Jesus, and it appears that the position of\nAaron in regard to Moses, he being given the latter as a mouthpiece\nor herald, has helped in the invention of the Baptist's figure. A\nsimilar position is taken in the Old Testament by the \"Angel of the\nCountenance,\" the messenger, mediator, ambassador, and \"Beginning\nof the way of God,\" the rabbinic Metatron, whom we saw earlier was\nidentical with Joshua (see above, p. 56 sq.). In the Syro-Phoenician\nand the Greek Mysteries Cadmus, Kadmilos, or Kadmiel, a form of the\ndivine messenger and mediator Hermes, also called Iasios (Joshua),\ncorresponded to him, his name literally meaning \"he who goes before\nGod\" or prophesies of him, the announcer, herald, or forerunner\nof the coming God (cf. Schelling, \"Die Gottheiten von Samothrake\nWw.,\" i. 8, 358, 392 sqq.). Ezra ii. 40, 39, and Nehem. vii. 43,\ncall Kadmiel a Levite, he being always named together with the High\nPriest Joshua. It is probably only another name of the latter himself,\nand characterises him as servant and herald of God. Now Kadmiel is the\ndiscoverer of writing and the establisher of civilisation, and in so\nfar identical with Oannes, the Babylonian \"Water-man\" and Baptism-God\n(Movers, op. cit., 518 sqq.). Can Oannes (Johannes) the Baptist in\nthis way have become Kadmiel, the \"forerunner\" and preparer of the\nway of Jesus, who announced his near arrival, and the God Jesus, in\nconsequence of this, have divided into two different figures, that\nof Joshua-Kadmiel (Johannes) and the Messiah Jesus? In this regard\nit is certainly not without significance that the figure of the High\nPriest Joshua in Zechariah wavers between the Messiah (Zemah) and a\nmere forerunner of the latter. John's question to Jesus, \"Art thou\nhe that cometh, or look we for another?\" (Matt. xi. 3) is exactly the\nquestion which strikes the reader in reading the corresponding passage\nof Zechariah. Possibly the presence of the dove at the baptism in the\nJordan obtains in this way a still closer explanation, for Semiramis,\nthe Dove Goddess, is the spouse of Oannes (Ninus); John and the dove\naccordingly are the parents, who are present at the \"birth\" of the\ndivine son. But the violent death of John at Herod's command and\nthe head of the prophet upon the dish have prototypes in the myth of\nCadmus. For the head of the latter is supposed to have been cut off by\nhis brother and to have been buried upon a brazen shield, a cult story\nwhich plays a part especially in the Mysteries of the Cabiri Gods,\nto whom Cadmus belongs (cf. Creuzer, \"Symbolik und Mythologie der\nalten V\u00f6lker,\" 1820, ii. 333). According to Josephus (op. cit.) John\nwas put to death because Herod feared political disorders from his\nappearance, while Matthew makes him fall a victim to Herod's revenge,\nthe latter having been censured by John for his criminal marriage with\nthe wife of his brother. Moreover, the prophet Elijah, who accuses Ahab\nof having yielded to his wife Jezebel and of having murdered Naboth\n(1 Kings xxi.), as well as the prophet Nathan, who reproaches David\nfor having killed Uriah and having married his wife (2 Sam. xii.,\ncf. also Esther v. 7, 2), are also prototypes. According to this\na religious movement or sect must, in the minds of posterity, have\nbeen condensed into the figure of John the Baptist. Its followers,\nwho closely resembled the Essenes, in view of the imminent nearness\nof the kingdom of heaven, exhorted men to a conversion of mind,\nlooked upon the Messiah in the sense of Daniel essentially as the\nGod appointed (\"awakened\") judge over the living and the dead,\nand sought by baptism to apply to the penitents the magic effects\nwhich should flow from the name of their Cult God Johannes (Oannes),\nthe Babylonian-Mandaic Baptism and Water-God. The stern and gloomy\ncharacter of this sect may have been reflected in the character sketch\nof the John in the Gospels, and between it and the sect of Jesus many\ncollisions, disagreements, and conversions appear to have taken place\n(Matt. xi. 1 sq.; Luke vii. 18 sqq.; John i. 37). Possibly the sect\nof Jesus was originally only an excrescence from, and a development\nof, the conception which the disciples of John had of the Messiah,\nas is indicated by the supposed blood relationship between Jesus and\nJohn. At any rate, the adherents of the former in their belief in the\nsufferings, death, and resurrection of the Messiah felt that their\npoint of view was higher and more perfect as compared with that of\nJohn's disciples, who do not appear to have risen essentially above\nthe general ideas of the Jewish Apocalyptics. According to Matthew\niii. 13 Jesus came out of Galilee, the \"Galilee of the Heathens,\" to\nthe baptism of John. Herein the original heathenish origin of the faith\nof Jesus was pointed to. \"The people which sat in darkness have seen\na great light. To them which sat in the region and shadow of death,\nto them did light spring up\" (Matt. iv. 16; cf. Smith, op. cit.,\n95). The opposition of the two different sects was, at any rate, so\ngreat that John's disciples needed a further instruction and a new\nbaptism \"in the name of the Lord Jesus\" to receive the Holy Ghost,\nin order to be received into the Christian community. For example,\nthe twelve at Ephesus, who had simply received the baptism of John,\nas well as the eloquent and literary Alexandrian, Apollo, who none\nthe less proclaimed the message of salvation (ta peri tou Iesou)\n(Acts xviii. 24 sqq., xix. 1-7).\n\n[216] Cf., Sepp, \"Heidentum,\" i. 170 sq., 190 sq.; Winckler, \"Die\nbabylonische Geisteskultur,\" 89, 100 sq. By this reference of the\nGospel story to the sun's course it appears that the activity of Jesus\nfrom his baptism in the Jordan to his death, according to the account\nof the Synoptics, only covered a year. It is the mythological year\nof the sun's course through the Watery Region in January and February\nuntil the complete exhaustion of its strength in December.\n\n[217] Mark ix. 2-7.\n\n[218] The horns (crescent) which he also shares with Jahwe, as the\nSyrian Hadah shows (Winckler, \"Gesch. Israels,\" ii. 94), recalls to\nmind the Moon nature of Moses. Moses is, as regards his name, the\n\"Water-drawer.\" The moon is, however, according to antique views,\nmerely the water-star, the dispenser of the dew and rain, and the\nroot ma (mo), which, in the name of Moses, refers to water, is also\ncontained in the various expressions for the moon.\n\n[219] \"Contra Tryph.,\" xlvi.\n\n[220] Cf. above, 112.\n\n[221] Burnouf, op. cit., 195 sq.\n\n[222] That in the closer description of this occurrence Old Testament\nideas have had their part has already been advanced by others. Thus\nin the transfiguration of Jesus the transfiguration of Moses upon\nSinai without doubt passed before the mind of the narrator. And just\nas Jesus took with him his three chief disciples on to the mount of\ntransfiguration, so Moses took his three trusted followers, Aaron,\nNadab, and Abihu, to partake in the vision of Jahwe (Strauss, \"Leben\nJesu,\" ii. 269 sqq.).\n\n[223] Rgv. x. 191; cf. i. 72, 5.\n\n[224] Id. iii. 28, vi. 11.\n\n[225] Max M\u00fcller, \"Einleitung in die vergl. Religionswissenschaft,\"\nnote to p. 219.\n\n[226] Rigv. x. 90.\n\n[227] The Rigveda describes Purusha as a gigantic being (cf. the\nEddic Ymir) who covers the earth upon all sides and stretches ten\nfingers beyond. The Talmud, too (Chagiga, xii. 1), ascribes to the\nfirst man Adam a gigantic size, reaching as he did with his head to\nheaven and with his feet to the end of the world. Indeed, according\nto Epiphanius (\"Haeres.\" xix. 4), the Essenes made the size of Christ\ntoo, the \"second Adam,\" stretch an immeasurable distance.\n\n[228] In Hebrew Messiah means \"the anointed.\" But Agni too as God of\nSacrifices bears the name of the anointed, akta (above, p. 99). Indeed,\nit appears as though the Greek Christ, as a translation of Messiah,\nstands in relation to Agni. For the God over whom at his birth was\npoured milk or the holy Soma cup and sacrificial butter, bore the\nsurname of Hari among the members of the cult. The word signified\noriginally the brightness produced by anointing with fat and oil. It\nappears in the Greek Charis, an epithet of Aphrodite, and is contained\nin the verb chrio, to anoint, of which Christos is the participial form\n(cf. Cox, \"Mythology of the Aryan Nations,\" 1903, 27, 254).\n\n[229] The Bhagavadg\u00eeta shows that the idea of a self-sacrifice\nwas associated with Krishna also, whom we have already learnt to\nrecognise as a form of Agni, and that his becoming man was regarded\nas such a sacrifice. It (ii. 16) runs: \"I am the act of sacrifice,\nthe sacrifice of God and of man. I am the sap of the plant, the\nwords, the sacrificial butter and fire, and at the same time the\nvictim.\" And in viii. 4 Krishna says of himself: \"My presence in\nnature is my transitory being, my presence in the Gods is Purusha\n(i.e., my existence as Purusha), my presence in the sacrifices is\nmyself incorporated in this body.\" But Mithras too offers himself for\nmankind. For the bull whose death at the hands of the God takes the\ncentral position in all the representations of Mithras was originally\nnone other than the God himself--the sun in the constellation of the\nBull, at the spring equinox--the sacrifice of the bull accordingly\nbeing also a symbol of the God who gives his own life, in order\nby his death to bring a new, richer and better life. Mithras, too,\nperforms this self-sacrifice, although his heart struggles against\nit, at the command of the God of Heaven, which is brought to him by\na raven, the messenger of the God of Gods. (cf. Cumont, op. cit.,\n98 sqq.). And just as according to Vedic ideas Purusha was torn in\npieces by the Gods and D\u00e6mons and the world made out of his parts,\nso too according to Persian views the World Bull Abudad or the Bull\nMan Gayomart at the beginning of creation is supposed to have shed\nhis blood for the world, to live again as Mithras (Sepp., op. cit.,\ni. 330, ii. 6 sq.).\n\n[230] Cumont, \"Myst. de Mithra,\" 101.\n\n[231] Rgv. x. 16.\n\n[232] Id. x. 16, 6.\n\n[233] Id. lx.; cf. also Burnouf, op. cit., 176 sqq.\n\n[234] Op. cit., vii. 3. He is Jahwe, the King of Jeru-Salem itself\n(Josephus, \"Ant.,\" x. 2), and corresponds to the Phoenician Moloch\n(Melech) Sidyk, who offered his only born son, Jehud, to the people\nas an expiation. Cf. supra, p. 77.\n\n[235] Op. cit., xix. 13, xxxii. 29, xliv. 17, xvi. 25.\n\n[236] Op. cit., lxv. 11.\n\n[237] As is well known, the Germanic first man, Mannus, according to\nTacitus, was a son of the hermaphrodite Thuisto.\n\n[238] Lev. xxiv. 5-9.\n\n[239] Jos. iv. 1 sqq.; ch. v.\n\n[240] Thus Helios also, the Greek Sun-God, the heavenly physician and\nsaviour, annually prepared the \"Sun's Table\" in nature, causing the\nfruit to ripen, the healing herbs to grow, and inviting mortals to\nthe life-giving feast. \"This Table of the Sun was always spread in\nthe land of the happy and long-living Ethiopians; even the twelve\nGods journeyed thither each year with Zeus for twelve days, i.e.,\nin the last Octave of the old and new year, as though to the feast of\nAgape\" (Sepp., op. cit., i. 275). For the rest the number twelve had\nthroughout the whole of antiquity in connection with such ceremonial\nfeasts a typical signification. For example, among the Athenians, whose\ncommon religious feasts were celebrated annually on the occasion of\nthe spring sacrifices; also among the Jews at least twelve persons had\nto be assembled round the table of the Easter Lamb (Sepp., op. cit.,\nii. 313 sqq.).\n\n[241] Ghillany, op. cit., 510 sqq.\n\n[242] Preller, \"Griech. Mythol.,\" 398, 850, and his \"R\u00f6m. Mythol.,\"\n275.\n\n[243] Strabo, xi. 2; Justin, xlii. 3.\n\n[244] Preller, \"Griech. Mytholog.,\" 110.\n\n[245] It is worth while to observe that the High Priest Joshua\nreturned to Jerusalem at the head of twelve elders (Ezra ii. 2;\nNehem. vii. 7. Cf. Stade, \"Gesch. d. V. Israel,\" ii. 102).\n\n[246] Cf. Movers, op. cit., 539 sqq.; Sepp., \"Heidentum,\" 271, 421.\n\n[247] Cf. Jeremias, \"Babyl. im N.T.,\" 69-80.\n\n[248] Rgv. vi. 54.\n\n[249] Cf. \"The Hymns to Dadhikra,\" iv. 38-40.\n\n[250] Cf. Burnouf, op. cit., 196. The connection between the Fire-God\nand water is of extreme antiquity. As is well known, in the Edda Loki\nseeks to escape the pursuit of the Gods in the shape of a salmon;\nHephaistos, too, after being cast forth from heaven remains concealed\nin the sea until Dionysus brings him out; in Rome on the 22nd of\nAugust fish from the Tiber used to be sacrificed to Vulcan, being cast\nliving into the fire in representation of the souls of men (Preller,\n\"R\u00f6m. Mythol.,\" ii. 151). It is uncertain whether or to what degree the\nrelations of the sun to the constellation of the Fishes have influenced\nthese images. As regards Babylon, where astrology underwent the most\naccurate development, this can indeed be looked upon as certain. Here\nEa (Oannes), the God of Water and of Life, the father of the Redeemer\nGod Marduk, was represented under the form of a fish. Again, it was not\nonly to the Philistinian Dagon that fish as well as doves were sacred\n(above, p. 118), but also to the Syrian Atargatis, the latter having\nborne, as was said, the \"Ichthus,\" or fish, and the worship of fish\nbeing connected with devotion to her (Robertson Smith, \"Religion of\nthe Semites,\" 174 sqq.). In Egypt Horus was the \"divine fish,\" being\nrepresented with a fish-tail and holding a cross in the hand. But the\nJoshua of the Old Testament, in whom we believe we see the Israelite\noriginal of the Christian Saviour, was also called a \"Son of the Fish\"\n(Nun, Ninus, a form of Marduk, whose spouse or beloved, Semiramis,\nis also a Fish Divinity and is the same as Derketo (Atargatis), the\nSyrian Mother Goddess.) The Rabbinists called the Messiah son of Joseph\n(see above, p. 80 sq.), Dag (Dagon) the Fish, and made him to be born\nof a fish; that is, they expected his birth under the constellation of\nthe Fishes, on which account the Jews were long accustomed to immolate\na fish on expiatory feasts. Finally, the fish is also Vishnu's symbol,\nin whose worship baptism of water takes an important place. Again,\nthe God is said in the form of a fish to have come to the rescue of\nthe pious Manu, the only just man of his time, the Indian Noah, and\nto have steered the Ark through the flood, thus ensuring to mankind\nits continuation. It is not difficult to suppose that this idea as\nwell influenced the symbols of Christianity through Mandaic (Gnostic)\nchannels. At any rate, it cannot be admitted at all that the symbol\nof the fish first arose out of a mere play on letters so far as the\nformula \"Jesous Christos Theou Huios Soter\" represents in five words\nthe expression of the quintessence of the Christian faith (cf. van den\nBergh van Eysinga, \"Ztschr. d. Deutchen Morgenl\u00e4nd. Gesellschaft B.,\"\nix., 1906, 210 sqq.).\n\n[251] Cf. Iamblichus, \"De Symbol. Aegyptiorum,\" ii. 7.\n\n[252] Gunkel, op. cit., 32. sq.; Robertson, \"Pagan Christs,\" 135 sq.\n\n[253] Op. cit., v. 6 sq.\n\n[254] Rev. xxi. 23.\n\n[255] Hatch, \"The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the\nChristian Church,\" Hibbert Lectures, 1888, 300.\n\n[256] John i. 7, 12; ix. 5; xii. 36, 46.\n\n[257] Sepp., i. 353.\n\n[258] Burnouf, op. cit., 186 sq.\n\n[259] Cf., for example, F. X. Kraus, \"Geschichte d. christl. Kunst,\"\ni. 105.\n\n[260] \"Hist. Rom.,\" i. 26.\n\n[261] Cf. Z\u00f6ckler, \"Das Kreuz Christi,\" 1875, 62 sqq.; Hochart,\n\"\u00c9tudes d'histoire religieuse,\" 1890, chap, x., \"La crucifix.\"\n\n[262] Aringhi, \"Roma subterranea,\" vi. ch. 23, \"De Cervo.\"\n\n[263] Cf. on the other hand Justin, \"Apol.,\" i. 35.\n\n[264] Esther v. 14, vii. 10.\n\n[265] Cf. the picture of Marsyas hanging upon a tree-trunk in the\ncollection of antiquities at Karlsruhe; also the illustrations in\nP. Schmidt, \"Die Geschichte Jesu, erl\u00e4utert,\" 1904.\n\n[266] Movers, op. cit., 687; Nork, \"Reallexikon,\" ii. 122 sq.; Frazer,\n\"Adonis, Attis, Osiris,\" 185 sq.\n\n[267] Rev. ii. 7, xxii. 2.\n\n[268] lxvi. 19.\n\n[269] ix. 3, 4.\n\n[270] Exod. xvii. 10 sqq.\n\n[271] For particulars see Z\u00f6ckler, op. cit., 7 sqq.; also Hochart,\nop. cit., chap, viii., \"Le symbole de la croix\"; G. de Mortillet,\n\"Le signe de la croix avant le christianisme,\" 1866; Mourant Brock,\n\"La croix payenne et chr\u00e9tienne,\" 1881; Goblet d'Alviella, \"La\nmigration des symboles,\" 1891.\n\n[272] Henry Petersen, \"\u00dcber den Gottesdienst u. den G\u00f6tterglauben\ndes Nordens w\u00e4hrend der Heidenzeit,\" 1882, 39 sqq. 95 sqq.\n\n[273] Z\u00f6ckler, op. cit., 21 sqq.\n\n[274] Winckler, \"Die babyl. Geisteskultur,\" 82.\n\n[275] Tertullian, \"Contra Haereses,\" 40.\n\n[276] Burnouf, op. cit., 240.\n\n[277] Goblet d'Alviella, op. cit., 61. sqq. Cf. also Ludw. M\u00fcller,\n\"Det saakaldte Hagekors Anvendelse og Betydning i Oldtiden,\" 1877.\n\n[278] Op. cit., 296.\n\n[279] One feels the words of Revelation quoted above brought to his\nmind: \"And madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests;\nand they reign upon the earth!\"\n\n[280] \"De errore profanae religionis,\" i. 5.\n\n[281] Op. cit., \u00a7 48.\n\n[282] \"Apolog.,\" i. ch. 60.\n\n[283] III. 12, vii. 3 sqq., ix. 4, xiv. 1, xx. 4, xxii. 4.\n\n[284] Gal. vi. 17; Ephes. i. 13 sq.\n\n[285] Mourant Brock, op. cit., 177 sqq., 178 sqq.\n\n[286] So also in Tertullian when, with reference to the passage of\nEzekiel above quoted (ix. 5), he describes the Greek letter Tau as\n\"our [the Christians'] kind of cross\" (nostra species crucis), not\nbecause it had the shape of the gibbet upon which Jesus is supposed\nto have died, but because it represented the seal or sign upon the\ninhabitants of the New Jerusalem (\"Contra Marcionem,\" iii. 22). And\nwhen in the same work (iii. 18) he explains the horns of the \"unicorn\"\n(ox?) mentioned in the Blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 17) as the two\narms of the cross, this happens only for the reason that the sign of\nunion and uplifting and the gibbet became commingled in his fancy into\nthe one and the same form (cf. also \"Adv. Judaeos,\" 10, and Justin,\n\"Dial.,\" 91; also Hochart, op. cit., 365-369).\n\n[287] Z\u00f6ckler, op. cit., 14 sq.\n\n[288] Frazer, \"Adonis, Attis, Osiris,\" 174 sq., 276 sqq.\n\n[289] Cf. on the whole subject Hochart, op. cit., 359 sqq.; P. Schmidt,\n\"Gesch. Jesu,\" 386-394. In spite of all his efforts Z\u00f6ckler has\nnot succeeded in proving that Jesus was nailed to a piece of wood\nhaving the form of a four-armed cross. The assertion that this form\nof gibbet was borrowed by the Romans from the Carthaginians, and was\nthe usual one in late pre-Christian days, is simply a figment of the\nimagination. All passages usually brought forward in support of this\ntraditional view either prove nothing, as the appeal to Luke xxiv. 39,\nJohn xx. 20 and 25, or they refer to the symbol, not to the gibbet\nof the cross, and consequently cannot serve to support the usual view\nof the matter (Z\u00f6ckler, op. cit., especially 78; 431 sqq.).\n\n[290] \"Geschichte der christlichen Kunst,\" 174.\n\n[291] Cf. Detzel, \"Christl. Ikonographie,\" 1894, 392 sqq.; Hochart,\nop. cit., 378 sqq.\n\n[292] Moreover, the so-called Flabellum, the fan, which in the\nearly Christian pictures of the birth of Christ a servant holds\nbefore the child, shows the connection of the Christ Cult and that\nof Agni. This fan, which was in use in divine service of the Western\nChurch as late as the fourteenth century, cannot be for the driving\naway of insects or for cooling purposes, as is usually considered,\nfor this would obviously be in contradiction to the \"winter\" birth\nof the Saviour. It refers to the fanning of the divine spark in the\nancient Indian fire-worship. In this sense it has been retained until\nthe present day in the Greek and Armenian rites, in which during the\nMass the fan is waved to and fro over the altar. A synopsis of all\nthe facts and illustrations bearing on the matter are to be found in\nA. Malvert's \"Wissenschaft und Religion,\" 1904.\n\n[293] Of course the \"Acts of the Apostles\" is, and remains in spite\nof all modern attempts at vindication (Harnack), a very untrustworthy\nhistorical document, and the information it gives as to Paul's life\nis for the most part mere fiction. We need not go so far as Jensen,\nwho disputes the existence at any time of an historical Paul (\"Moses,\nJesus, Paulus. Drei Sagenvarianten des babylonischen Gottmenschen\nGilgamesch,\" 2 Aufl., 1909), but will nevertheless not be able\nto avoid the view that the description of Paul, as Bruno Bauer\nhas already shown, represents an original, in any case very much\nworked over, and in the opinion of many only a copy of the original,\nwhich preceded it in the portrayal of the \"chief of the apostles,\"\nPeter (cf., on the historical value of the Acts, also E. Zeller,\n\"Die Apg. nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht,\" 1854).\n\n[294] Cf. H. Jordan, \"Jesus und die modernen Jesusbilder. Bibl. Zeit-\nu. Streitfragen,\" 1909, 36.\n\n[295] \"To create authors who have never written a letter, to forge\nwhole series of books, to date the most recent production back into\ngrey antiquity, to cause the well-known philosophers to utter opinions\ndiametrically opposed to their real views, these and similar things\nwere quite common during the last century before and the first after\nChrist. People cared little at that time about the author of a work, if\nonly its contents were in harmony with the taste and needs of the age\"\n(E. Zeller, \"Vortr\u00e4ge u. Abhdlg.,\" 1865, 298 sq.). \"It was at that time\na favourite practice to write letters for famous men. A collection\nof not less than 148 letters was attributed to the tyrant Phalaris,\nwho ruled Agrigentum in the sixth century B.C. Beyschlag has proved\nthat they were ascribed to him in the time of Antoninus. Similarly the\nletters attributed to Plato, to Euripides and others, are spurious. It\nwould have been indeed strange if this custom of the age had not gained\nan influence over the growing Christian literature, for such forgery\nwould be produced most easily in the religious sphere, since it was\nhere not a question of producing particular thoughts, but of being\nan organ of the common religious spirit working in the individual\"\n(Steck, op. cit., 384 sq.; cf. also Holtzmann, \"Einl. in das N.T.,\"\n2 Aufl., 223 sqq.).\n\n[296] E. Vischer, \"Die Paulusbriefe, Rel. Volksb.,\" 1904, 69 sq.\n\n[297] Op. cit., ix. 3 sqq.\n\n[298] 1 Cor. xv. 5 sqq.\n\n[299] Cf. W. Seufert, \"Der Ursprung und die Bedeutung des Apostolates\nin der christlichen Kirche der ersten Jahrhunderte,\" 1887, 46, 157.\n\n[300] An attempt is now being made to prove the contrary, citing 2\nCor. v. 16, which runs: \"Wherefore we henceforth know no man after\nthe flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet\nnow we know him so no more.\" The passage has been most differently\nexplained. According to Baur the \"Christ after the flesh\" refers to\nthe Jewish Messiah, the expected king and earthly Saviour of the Jews\nfrom political and social distress, in whom even Paul believed at\nan earlier date; and the meaning of the passage quoted is that this\nsensuous and earthly conception of the Messiah had given place in him\nto the spiritual conception (\"Die Christuspartei in der kor. Gemeinde\nT\u00fcb. Ztschr.,\" 1831, 4 Heft, 90). According to Heinrici the \"even\nthough we have known\" is not a positive assertion of a point of view\nwhich had once determined his judgment of Christ, but a hypothetical\ninstance, which excludes a false point of view without asserting\nanything as to its actuality (\"Komment,\" 289). According to Beyschlag\nthe passage is to be understood as asserting that Paul had seen Jesus\nat Jerusalem during his life on earth. But with Paul there is no\ntalk of a mere seeing, but rather of a knowing. L\u00fctgert disproves\nall these different hypotheses with the argument that the words\n\"after the flesh\" refer not to Christ but to the verb. \"The apostle\nno longer knows any one 'after the flesh,' and so he no longer knows\nJesus thus. At an earlier stage his knowledge of Christ was 'after\nthe flesh.' At that time he did not have the spirit of God which made\nhim able to see in Jesus the Son of God. Paul then is not protecting\nhimself from the Jews, who denied him a personal knowledge of Jesus,\nbut from the Pneumatics, who denied him a pneumatic knowledge of Jesus\"\n(\"Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth,\" 1908, 55-58).\n\n[301] Gal. i. 11, 12; 1 Cor. ii. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 6.\n\n[302] Gal. i. 17-19.\n\n[303] Gal. ii. 1 sqq.\n\n[304] Id. i. 19.\n\n[305] Matt. xxviii. 10; Mark xiii. 33 sqq.; John xx. 17.\n\n[306] In the opinion of the Dutch school of theologians, whom Schl\u00e4ger\nfollows in his essay, \"Das Wort k\u00fcrios (Herr) in Seiner Bezichung auf\nGott oder Jesus Christus\" (\"Theol. Tijdschrift,\" 33, 1899, Part I.),\nthis mention of the \"Brother of the Lord\" does not come from Paul;\nas according to Schl\u00e4ger, all the passages in 1 Cor., which speak of\nJesus under the title \"Kurios,\" are interpolated. \"Missionary travels\nof Brothers of Jesus are unknown to us from any other quarter, and\nare also in themselves improbable\" (op. cit., 46; cf. also Steck,\nop. cit., 272 sq.).\n\n[307] Similarly Origen, \"Contra Celsum,\" i. 35; cf. Smith, op. cit.,\n18 sq.\n\n[308] Cf. as to this Sieffert in \"Realenzyklop. f. prot. Theol. und\nKirche\" under \"James.\" In Ezr. ii. 2 and 9 there is also mention\nof \"Brothers\" of the High Priest Joshua, by which only the priests\nsubordinate to him seem to be meant; and in Justin (\"Dial c. Tryph.,\"\n106) the apostles are collectively spoken of as \"Brothers of\nJesus.\" Similarly in Rev. xii. 17, those \"who keep the word of God\nand bear testimony to Jesus Christ\" are spoken of as children of\nthe heavenly woman and also as Brothers and Sisters of the Divine\nRedeemer, whom the dragon attempts to swallow up together with his\nmother. As Revelation owes its origin to a pre-Christian Jesus-cult,\nthe designation of pious brothers of a community as physical brothers\nof Jesus seems also to have been customary in that cult, antecedent\nto the Pauline epistles and the Gospels.\n\n[309] This is actually the view of the Dutch school of theologians.\n\n[310] A. Kalthoff, \"Was wissen wir von Jesus? Eine Abrechnung mit\nProf. D. Bousset,\" 1904, 17.\n\n[311] 1 Cor. vii. 10.\n\n[312] Id. ix. 14.\n\n[313] 1 Cor. xi. 23.\n\n[314] Cf. Brandt, \"Die evangel. Geschichte u. d. Ursprung\nd. Christentums,\" 1893, 296. Schl\u00e4ger also agrees with the Dutch\nschool, and produces telling arguments in favour of the view that\n1 Cor. xi. 23-32 is an interpolation. \"In our opinion,\" he says,\n\"the opening words, 'For I received of the Lord,' betray the same\nattempt as can be seen in vii. 10 and ix. 14--and probably the attempt\nof one and the same interpolator--to trace back Church institutions\nand regulations to the authority of the Lord, of the Kurios. In the\nthree cases in which the latter is mentioned he is called 'the Lord,'\nwhich is a fact well worthy of consideration in view of the usual\ndesignation.\" Schl\u00e4ger also shows that verse 32 is a very appropriate\nconclusion to verse 22; while as they stand now the logical connection\nis broken in a forcible manner by the interpolation of the account of\nthe Last Supper. Another proof of the interpolation of 23-32 is to be\nfound, Schl\u00e4ger thinks, in the fact that in verse 33 as in verse 22\nthe Corinthians are addressed in the second person, while in verses\n31 and 32 the first person plural is used (op. cit., 41 sq.). In\nview of these notorious facts we can hardly understand how German\ntheologians can with such decision adhere to the authenticity of the\npassage, reproaching those who contest it with \"faults in method.\" As\nagainst this view of theirs Schl\u00e4ger justly objects that \"References to\nwords and events from the life of Jesus are so isolated in the Pauline\nwritings that we are entitled to and forced to raise the question as to\neach such reference, whether it is not the reflection of a later age,\nof an age which already placed confidence in the Gospel literature,\nthat brought Jesus' authority into the text\" (Schl\u00e4ger, op. cit.,\n36). And the critical theologians are convinced that the writings\nof the New Testament are worked over to a great extent, rectified to\naccord with the Church, and in many places interpolated. But when some\none else brings this to publicity, and dares to doubt the authenticity\nof a passage, they immediately raise a great outcry, and accuse him\nof wilfully misrepresenting the text; as if there were even one single\nsuch passage on which the views of critics are not divergent!\n\n[315] M. Br\u00fcckner's opinion also is \"that the Pauline account of the\nscene at the Last Supper is in all probability not a purely historical\none, but is a dogmatic representation of the festival.\" And he adds:\n\"In any case just on account of its religious importance this scene\ncannot be cited to prove Paul's acquaintance with the details of\nJesus' life\" (\"Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie,\" 1903,\n44). Cf. also Robertson, \"Christianity and Mythology,\" 388 sq.\n\n[316] Holtzmann has, as a matter of fact, in an essay in the\n\"Christliche Welt\" (No. 7, 1910) recently attempted to prove the\ncontrary, citing from Paul a number of moral exhortations, &c., which\nare in accord with Jesus' words in the Gospels. But in this argument\nthere is a presupposition, which should surely be previously proved,\nthat the Gospels received their corresponding content from Jesus and\nnot, on the contrary, from Paul's epistles. It is admitted that they\nwere in many other respects influenced by Pauline ideas. Moreover,\nall the moral maxims cited have their parallels in contemporary\nRabbinical literature, so that they need not necessarily be referred\nback to an historical Jesus; also, such is their nature, that they\nmight be advanced by any one, i.e., they are mere ethical commonplaces\nwithout any individual colouring. Thus we find the Rabbis in agreement\nwith Rom. xiii. 8 sq. and Gal. v. 14, which Holtzmann traces back\nto Matt. vii. 12: \"Bring not on thy neighbour that which displeases\nthee; this is our whole doctrine.\" Rom. xiii. 7 has its parallel\nnot only in Matt. xxii. 21, but also in the Talmud, which runs:\n\"Every one is bound to fulfil his obligations to God with the like\nexactness as those to men. Give to God his due; for all that thou hast\nis from him.\" Rom. xii. 21 runs in the Sanhedrin: \"It is better to\nbe persecuted than to persecute, better to be calumniated by another\nthan to slander.\" So that the remark need not necessarily be based on\nMatt. v. 39; in fact, the last-named passage is not found at all in\nthe standard MSS., in the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The phrase,\n\"to remove mountains\" (1 Cor. xiii. 2). is a general Rabbinical one\nfor extolling the power of a teacher's diction, and so could easily be\ntransferred to the power of faith. So also the phrase, Mark ix. 50,\n\"Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another\"--which\nRom. xii. 18 is supposed to resemble--is a well-known Rabbinical\nexpression. Matt. v. 39 sq., which is supposed to accord with 1\nCor. vi. 7, runs in the Talmud: \"If any one desires thy donkey, give\nhim also the saddle.\" Matt. vii. 1-5, on which Rom. ii. 1 and xiv. 4\nare supposed to be based, equally recalls the Talmud: \"Who thinks\nfavourably of his neighbour brings it about that fair judgments are\nalso made of him.\" \"Let your judgment of your neighbour be completely\ngood.\" \"Even as one measures, with the same measure shall it also\nbe measured unto him.\" Rom. xiv. 13 and 1 Cor. viii. 7-13 need not\nnecessarily be an allusion to Jesus' tender consideration for those who\nare ruined by scandal, as we find in the Talmud: \"It would have been\nbetter that the evil-minded had been born blind, so that they would not\nhave brought evil into the world\" (cf. also Nork, \"Rabbinische Quellen\nund Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen,\" 1839). And\ndoes Paul's usual phrase of greeting, \"from God our Father and the\nLord Jesus Christ,\" really contain the avowal of the \"Father-God\"\npreached by Christ? For the connection of the divine Son and bearer\nof salvation with the \"Father-God\" is a general mythological formula\nwhich occurs in all the different religions--witness the relation\nbetween Marduk and Ea, Heracles and Zeus, Mithras and Ormuzd, Balder\nand Odin. What then does it mean when Paul speaks of the \"meekness\nand humility of Christ,\" who lived not for his own pleasure, who\nmade no fame for himself, but was \"submissive,\" assumed the form of\na servant, and was \"obedient\" to the will of his \"father,\" even to\nthe death of the cross? All these traits are reproduced directly from\nthe description of the suffering servant of God in Isaiah, which we\nknow had a great part in shaping the personality of Jesus. Meekness,\nhumility, charitableness, and obedience are the specific virtues of\nthe pious of Paul's time. It was a matter of course for Christ also,\nthe ideal prototype of good and pious men, to be endowed with these\ncharacteristics. Abraham was obedient when he sacrificed his son Isaac;\nand so was the latter to his father, being also submissive in himself\nbringing the wood to the altar and giving himself up willingly to\nthe sacrificial knife. And we know what a significant r\u00f4le the story\nof Isaac's sacrifice has always played in the religious ideas of the\nJews. Moreover, the heathen redeemer deities--Marduk, of the Mandaic\nHibil Ziw\u00e2, Mithras and Heracles--were also obedient in coming down\nupon earth at the bidding of their heavenly father, burst the gates\nof death, and gave themselves up, in the case of Mithras, even to be\nsacrificed; and Heracles served mankind in the position of a servant,\nfought with the monsters and horrors of hell, and assumed the hardest\ntasks at the will of others.\n\n[317] Kalthoff, \"Die Entstehung d. Christentums,\" 1904, 15.\n\n[318] P. Wernle, \"Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu,\nReligionsgesch. Volksb\u00fccher,\" 2 Aufl., 4.\n\n[319] Gunkel, op. cit., 93.\n\n[320] Gunkel also takes the view \"that before Jesus there was a belief\nin Christ's death and resurrection current in Jewish syncretic circles\n(op. cit., 82). Now we have already seen (p. 57) that the term \"Christ\"\nis of very similar significance to \"Jesus.\" So that it is not at all\nnecessary to believe, as Gunkel asserted in the Darmstadt discussion,\nthat Paul in speaking of \"Jesus\" testifies to an historical figure,\nbecause Jesus is the name of a person. \"Jesus Christ\" is simply a\ndouble expression for one and the same idea--that is, for the idea\nof the Messiah, Saviour, Physician, and Redeemer; and it is not at\nall improbable, as Smith supposes, that the contradictions in the\nconception of the Messiah in two different sects or spheres of thought\nfound their settlement in the juxtaposition of the two names.\n\n[321] \"Not the teacher, not the miracle-worker, not the friend of\nthe publicans and sinners, not the opponent of the Pharisees, is of\nimportance for Paul. It is the crucified and risen Son of God alone\"\n(Wernle, op. cit., 5).\n\n[322] \"Indeed, the historical Jesus in the sense of the Ritschlian\nschool would have been for Paul an absurdity. The Pauline theology\nhas to do rather with the experiences of a heavenly being, which\nhave, and will yet have, extraordinary significance for humanity\"\n(M. Br\u00fcckner, \"Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie,\" 1903,\n12). Br\u00fcckner also considers it settled \"that Jesus' life on earth\nhad no interest at all for Paul\" (op. cit., 46). \"Paul did not\ntrouble himself about Jesus' life on earth, and what he may here\nand there have learnt concerning it, with few exceptions, remained\nindifferent to him\" (42). Br\u00fcckner also shows that the passages which\nare cited to contradict this prove nothing as to Paul's more detailed\nacquaintance with Jesus' life on earth (41 sqq.). He claims \"to have\ngiven the historical demonstration\" in his work \"that the Christian\nreligion is at bottom independent of 'uncertain historical truths'\"\n(Preface). And in spite of this he cannot as a theologian free himself\nfrom the conception of an historical Jesus even with regard to Paul,\nthough he is, nevertheless, not in a position to show where and to what\nextent the historical Jesus had a really decided influence over Paul.\n\n[323] Movers, op. cit., 438 sqq.; Fraser, \"Adonis, Attis, Osiris,\"\n42, 43, 47, 60, 79 sq.\n\n[324] Cumont, \"Textes et monuments,\" &c., i. 240; Pfleiderer,\n\"Urchristentum,\" i. 29 sqq.\n\n[325] 1 Cor. x. 16.\n\n[326] Pfleiderer, op. cit., 45.\n\n[327] xi. 19 sqq.\n\n[328] Smith, op. cit., 21 sq.\n\n[329] Cf. Zimmern, \"Zum Streit um die Christusmythe,\" 23.\n\n[330] \"I am the A and the O, the beginning and the end,\" the Revelation\nof John makes the Messiah say (i. 8.). Is there not at the same time\nin this a concealed reference to Adonis? The Alpha and the Omega, the\nfirst and last letters of the Greek alphabet, form together the name of\nAdonis--Ao (Aoos) as the old Dorians called the God, whence Cilicia\nis also called Aoa. A son of Adonis and Aphrodite (Maia) is said\n(\"Schol. Theocr.,\" 15, 100) to have been called Golgos. His name is\nconnected with the phallic cones (Greek, golgoi), as they were erected\non heights in honour of the mother divinities of Western Asia, who were\nthemselves, probably on this account, called Golgoi and golgon an\u00e1ssa\n(Queens of the Golgoi), and is the same as the Hebraic plural Golgotha\n(Sepp, \"Heidentum,\" i. 157 sq.). Finally, was the \"place of skulls\"\nan old Jebusite place of worship of Adonis under the name of Golgos,\nand was the cone of rock, on which statue of Venus was erected in the\ntime of Hadrian, selected for the place of execution of the Christian\nSaviour because it was connected with the remembrance of the real\nsacrifice of a man in the r\u00f4le of Adonis (Tammuz)?\n\n[331] Deut. xxi. 23.\n\n[332] We notice that already in these distinctions the germs of those\nendless and absurd disputes concerning the \"nature\" of the God-man lie\nconcealed, which later, in the first century A.D., tore Christendom\ninto countless sects and \"heresies,\" and which gave the occasion for\nthe rise of the Christian dogma.\n\n[333] Rom. i. 3.\n\n[334] Rom. viii. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Phil. ii. 7 sq.\n\n[335] Gal. iii. 10 sqq.; Rom. iii. 9.\n\n[336] Rom. iii. 20, iv. 15, v. 20, vii., sqq.\n\n[337] Gal. iii. 19 sqq.\n\n[338] Rom. vi. 9 sq.\n\n[339] Id. v. 14.\n\n[340] Rom. iv. 3 sqq.\n\n[341] Rom. vi. 3 sqq.\n\n[342] Gal. iii. 27.\n\n[343] Cf. above, p. 137.\n\n[344] 1 Cor. x. 16 sqq., xi. 23-27.\n\n[345] 1 Cor. x. 3 sqq., 16-21.\n\n[346] Cf., e.g., Pfleiderer, op. cit., 333.\n\n[347] Cf. above, p. 49 sqq.\n\n[348] Plato, \"Symposium,\" c. 22.\n\n[349] Col. ii. 9.\n\n[350] Op. cit., 80.\n\n[351] Cf. my work, \"Plotin und der Untergang der antiken\nWeltanschauung,\" 1907.\n\n[352] Gal. ii. 20; Rom. viii. 4, 26.\n\n[353] Id. viii. 14 sqq.\n\n[354] 2 Cor. iii. 17.\n\n[355] Gal. v. 26.\n\n[356] 1 Cor. ii. 9, 14; Rom. xii. 2.\n\n[357] Op. cit., 86.\n\n[358] Wrede, Id.\n\n[359] Id.\n\n[360] Op. cit., 94.\n\n[361] Wrede, op. cit., 85.\n\n[362] 1 Cor. xv. 17.\n\n[363] Cf. as to the whole question my essay on \"Paulus u. Jesus\"\n(\"Das Freie Wort\" of December, 1909).\n\n[364] It is true that other theologians think differently on this\npoint, as, e.g., Feine in his book, \"Jesus Christus und Paulus\"\n(1902), declares that Paul had \"interested himself very much in\ngaining a distinct and comprehensive picture of Jesus' activity and\npersonality\" (!) (229).\n\n[365] Kalthoff has in his writings laid especial stress on this social\nsignificance of Christianity. Cf. also Steudel, \"Das Christentum und\ndie Zukunft des Protestantismus\" (\"Deutsche Wiedergeburt,\" iv., 1909,\n26 sq.), and Kautsky, \"Der Ursprung des Christentums,\" 1908.\n\n[366] xl. 26.\n\n[367] In the same way Vollers also, in his work on \"Die Weltreligionen\"\n(1907), seeks to explain the faith of the original Christian sects\nin Jesus' death and resurrection as a blend of the Adonis (Attis)\nand Christ faiths. He regards this as the essence of that faith,\nthat the existing views of the Messiah and the Resurrection were\ntransferred to one and the same person; and shows from this of what\ngreat importance it must be that this faith met a well-prepared\nground, in North Syria, Anatolia, and Egypt, where it naturally\nspread. But he treats the Jewish Diaspora of these lands as the\nnatural mediator of the new preaching or \"message of Salvation\"\n(Gospel), and finds a proof of his view in this, \"that the sphere of\nthe greatest density of the Diaspora almost completely coincides with\nthose lands where the growing and rising youthful God was honoured,\nand that these same districts are also the places in which we meet,\nonly a generation after Jesus' death, the most numerous, flourishing,\nand fruitful communities of the new form of belief.\" It is the Eastern\nMediterranean or Levantine horse-shoe shaped line which stretches\nfrom Ephesus and Bithynia through Anatolia to Tarsus and Antioch,\nthence through Syria and Palestine by way of the cult-centres Bubastes\nand Sais to Alexandria. Almost directly in the middle of these lands\nlies Aphaka, where was the chief sanctuary of the \"Lord\" Adonis,\nand a little south of this spot lies the country where the Saviour\nof the Gospels was born (op. cit., 152).\n\n[368] Cf. O. Pfleiderer, \"Die Entstehung des Christentums,\" 1905,\n109 sqq.\n\n[369] Luke xxiv. 33, xlix. 52; Acts i. 4, 8, 12 sqq.\n\n[370] \"Religionsgesch. Erkl\u00e4rung d. N.T.,\" 261. Cf. also Joel iii. 1\nand Isa. xxviii. 11, and the Buddhist account of the first sermon of\nBuddha: \"Gods and men streamed up to him, and all listened breathlessly\nto the words of the teacher. Each of the countless listeners believed\nthat the wise man looked at him and spoke to him in his own language;\nthough it was the dialect of Magadha which he spoke.\" Seydel,\n\"Evangelium von Jesus,\" 248; \"Buddha-Legende,\" 92 sq.\n\n[371] Stephen's so-called \"martyrdom,\" whose feast falls on December\n26th, the day after the birth of Christ, owes its existence to\nastrology, and rests on the constellation of Corona (Gr., Stephanos),\nwhich becomes visible at this time on the eastern horizon (Dupuis,\nop. cit., 267). Hence the well-known phrase \"to inherit the martyr's\ncrown.\" Even the theologian Baur has found it strange that the Jewish\nSanhedrin, which could not carry into effect any death sentence without\nthe assent of the Roman governor, should completely set aside this\nformality in the case of Stephen; and he has clearly shown how the\nwhole account of Stephen's martyrdom is paralleled with Christ's death\n(Baur, \"Paulus,\" 25 sqq.).\n\n[372] Smith, op. cit., 23-31.\n\n[373] Frazer, \"Golden Bough,\" iii. 197.\n\n[374] Smith, op. cit., 30 sq.\n\n[375] As to the small value of Papias' statement, cf. Gfr\u00f6rer, \"Die\nheilige Sage,\" 1838, i. 3-23; also L\u00fctzelberger, \"Die kirchl. Tradition\n\u00fcber den Apostel Johannes,\" 76-93. The whole story, according to\nwhich Mark received the essential content of the Gospel named after\nhim from Peter, is based on 1 Peter v. 13, and merely serves the\npurpose of increasing the historical value of the Gospel of Mark. \"As\nthe first Gospel was believed to be the work of the Apostle Matthew,\nand the second (Luke) the work of an assistant of Paul, it was very\neasy to ascribe to the third (Mark) at least a similar origin as\nthe second, i.e., to trace it back in an analogous way to Peter;\nas it would have seemed natural for the chief of the apostles,\nlongest dead, to have had his own Gospel, one dedicated to him,\nas well as Paul. The passage 1 Peter v. 13, \"My son Mark saluteth\nyou,\" gave a suitable opportunity for bestowing a name on the book,\"\n(Gfr\u00f6rer, op. cit., 15; cf. also Brandt, \"Die evangelische Geschichte\nu. d. Ursprung des Christentums,\" 1893, 535 sq.)\n\n[376] Op. cit., 58.\n\n[377] xv. 39.\n\n[378] 60.\n\n[379] Id.\n\n[380] The proper explanation for this should lie in the fact that\nthe Jesus-faith was set up as a sect-faith and not for \"outsiders.\"\n\n[381] 63 sqq.\n\n[382] 68.\n\n[383] 70.\n\n[384] 3.\n\n[385] It strikes the reader, who stands apart from the controversy, as\ncomical to find the matter characterised in the theological works on\nthe subject as \"undoubtedly historical,\" \"distinct historical fact,\"\n\"true account of history,\" and so forth; and to consider that what\nholds for one as \"historically certain\" is set aside by another as\n\"quite certainly unhistorical.\" Where is the famous \"method\" of which\nthe \"critical\" theologians are so proud in opposition to the \"laity,\"\nwho allow themselves to form judgments as to the historical worth or\nworthlessness of the Gospels?\n\n[386] Wrede, op. cit., 91.\n\n[387] 104.\n\n[388] 129.\n\n[389] 131.\n\n[390] 148.\n\n[391] 148.\n\n[392] Cf. Pfleiderer, \"Entstehung des Christentums,\" 207, 213. All\nestimates as to the time at which the Gospels were produced rest\nentirely on suppositions, in which points of view quite different\nfrom that of purely historical interest generally predominate. Thus\nit has been the custom on the Catholic side to pronounce, not Mark\nor Luke, but Matthew, to be the oldest source. \"Proofs\" for this\nare also given--naturally, as it is indeed the \"Church\" Gospel: it\ncontains the famous passage (xvi. 18, 19) about Peter's possession of\nthe keys; how, then, should this not be the oldest? And lately Harnack\n(\"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einl. in das N.T.,\" iii., \"Die Apostelgeschichte,\" 1908)\nhas tried to prove that the Acts, with the Gospel of Luke, had been\nalready produced in the early part of the year 60 A.D. But he does\nnot dare to come to a real decision; and his reasons are opposed by\njust as weighty ones which are against that \"possibility\" suggested\nby him (op. cit., 219 sqq.). Such is, first, the fact that all the\nother early Christian writings which belong to the first century,\nas the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, evidently know\nnothing of them. In the Epistle of Barnabas, written about 96 A.D.,\nwe read that Jesus chose as his own apostles, as men who were to\nproclaim his Gospel, \"of all men the most evil, to show that he had\ncome to call, not the righteous, but sinners, to repentance\" (iv.). As\nto this L\u00fctzelberger very justly remarks, \"That is more even than our\nGospels say. For these are content to prove that Jesus did not come for\nthe righteous by saying that he ate with publicans and was anointed\nby women of evil life; while in this Epistle even the Apostles must\nbe most wicked sinners, so that grace may shine forth to them. This\npassage was quite certainly written neither by an Apostle nor by a\npupil of an Apostle; and also it was not written after our Gospels,\nbut at a time when the learned Masters of the Church had still a\nfree hand to show their spirit and ingenuity in giving form to the\nevangelical story\" (\"Die hist. Tradition,\" 236 sq.). But also the\nso-called Epistle of Clement, which must have been written at about\nthe same time, is completely silent as to the Gospels, while the\n\"Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles,\" which perhaps also belongs to the\nend of the first century, cites Christ's words, such as stand in the\nGospels, but not as sayings of Jesus. Moreover, according to Harnack,\nthe \"Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles\" is the Christian elaboration\nof an early Jewish document; whence we may conclude that its Words\nof Christ have a similar origin in Jewish thought to that from which\nthe Gospels obtained them. (Cf. L\u00fctzelberger, op. cit., 259-271.)\n\n[393] 81.\n\n[394] 71.\n\n[395] 81 sq.\n\n[396] Id.\n\n[397] The laity has, as is well known, but a slight suspicion of\nthis. So S. E. Verus' \"Vergleichende \u00dcbersicht der vier Evangelien\"\n(1897), with the commentary, is to be recommended.\n\n[398] 83.\n\n[399] 83.\n\n[400] 85 sq.\n\n[401] \"Jesus u. d. neutestamentl. Schriftsteller,\" ii. 43. Let us\ntake the final paragraph in E. Petersen's \"Die wunderbare Geburt des\nHeilandes,\" which reaches the zenith in proving the mythical nature\nof the evangelical account of the Saviour's birth: \"If, not because\nwe wish it, but because we are forced to do so by the necessity\nof History, we remove the sentence, 'Conceived of the Holy Ghost,\nborn of the Virgin Mary'--Jesus nevertheless remains the 'Son of\nGod.' He remains such because he experienced God as his father, and\nbecause he stands at God's side for us. Also, in spite of our setting\naside the miraculous birth as unhistorical, we are quite justified in\ndeclaring 'Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.'\" M. Br\u00fcckner\nspeaks similarly at the close of his otherwise excellent work. \"Der\nsterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland.\" For the person to whom such\nphraseology is not--futile, there is no help.\n\n[402] Cf. \"Jesus Christus,\" a course of lectures delivered at the\nUniversity of Freiburg i. B., 1908.\n\n[403] Sch\u00e4fer, \"Die Evangelien und die Evangelienkritik,\" 1908,\n123. The story of the Church's development in the first century is\na story of shameless literary falsifications, of rough violence in\nmatters of faith, of unlimited trial of the credence of the masses. So\nthat for those who know history the iteration of the \"credibility\"\nof the Christian writers of the age raises at most but an ironical\nsmile. Cf. Robertson, \"History of Christianity,\" 1910.\n\n[404] Cf. Hochart, \"\u00c9tudes au sujet de la pers\u00e9cution des Chr\u00e9tiens\nsous N\u00e9ron,\" 1885, cp. 4.\n\n[405] A. Kalthoff, \"Das Christusproblem, Grundz\u00fcge zu einer\nSozialtheologie,\" 1902, 14 sq.\n\n[406] Kalthoff, \"Die Entstehung des Christentums: Neue Beitr\u00e4ge zum\nChristusproblem,\" 1904, 8.\n\n[407] If v. Soden (\"Hat Jesus gelebt?\" vii. 45) has proved wrong the\ncomparison with the Tell-legend, and thinks I have \"probably once more\"\nforgotten that Schiller first transformed a very meagre legend, which\nwas bound up in a single incident, from grey antiquity into a living\npicture, he can know neither Tschudi nor J. v. M\u00fcller. Cf. Hertslet,\n\"Der Treppenwitz der Weltgeschichte,\" 6 Aufl., 1905, 216 sqq.\n\n[408] The passage runs: \"At this time lived Jesus, a wise man,\nif he may be called a man, for he accomplished miracles and was a\nteacher of men who joyously embrace the truth, and he found a great\nfollowing among Jews and Greeks. This one was the Christ. Although at\nthe accusation of the leading men of our people Pilate sentenced him to\nthe cross, those who had first loved him remained still faithful. For\nhe appeared again to them on the third day, risen again to a new life,\nas the prophets of God had foretold of him, with a thousand other\nprophecies. After him are called the Christians, whose sect has not\ncome to an end.\"\n\n[409] \"Einl. ins N.T.,\" 1836, 581.\n\n[410] \"Gesch. d. j\u00fcd. Volkes,\" i. 548.\n\n[411] Origen, though he collected all Josephus' assertions which\ncould serve as support to the Christian religion, does not know\nthe passage, but probably another, in which the destruction of\nJerusalem was represented as a punishment for James' execution,\nwhich is certainly a forgery.\n\n[412] Cf. Kalthoff, \"Entstehung d. Chr.,\" 16 sq. As to the whole\nmatter, Sch\u00fcrer, op. cit., 544-549.\n\n[413] V. Soden proves the contrary in his work, \"Hat Jesus\ngelebt?\" (1910), \"in order to show the reliability of Drew's\nassertions,\" from Clement's letter of 96 A.D., from Dionysius of\nCorinth (about 170) from Tertullion and Eusebius (early fourth century,\nnot third, as v. Soden writes); and wishes to persuade his readers\nthat the persecution under Nero is testified to. The authenticity\nof the letter of Clement is, however, quite uncertain, and has been\nmost actively combated, from its first publication in 1633 till\nthe present day, by investigators of repute, such as Semler, Baur,\nSchwegler, Volkmar, Keim, &c. But as for the above-cited authors,\nthe unimportance of their assertions on the point is so strikingly\nexhibited by Hochart that we have no right to call them up as witnesses\nfor the authenticity of the passage of Tacitus.\n\n[414] Cf. Hochart, op. cit., 280 sqq.; H. Schiller,\n\"Gesch. d. r\u00f6m. Kaiserzeit,\" 447, note.\n\n[415] \"Consulting the archives has been but little customary\namong ancient historians; and Tacitus has bestowed but little\nconsideration on the Acta Diurna and the protocols of the Senate\"\n(\"Handb. d. klass. Altertumsw.,\" viii., 2 Abt., Aft. 2, under\n\"Tacitus\"). Moreover, the difficulties of the passage from Tacitus have\nbeen fully realised by German historians (H. Schiller, op. cit., 449;\n\"De. Gesch. d. r\u00f6m. Kaiserreiches unter der Regierung des Nero,\" 1872,\n434 sqq., 583 sq.), even if they do not generally go as far as to say\nthat the passage is completely unauthentic, as Volney did at the end\nof the eighteenth century (\"Ruinen,\" Reclam, 276). Cf. also Arnold,\n\"Die neronische Christenverfolgung. Eine historiche Untersuchung zur\nGeschichte d. \u00e4ltesten Kirche,\" 1888. The author does indeed adhere\nto the authenticity of the passage in Tacitus, but as a matter of\nfact he presupposes it rather than attempts to prove it; while in\nmany isolated reflections he gives an opinion against the correctness\nof the account given by Tacitus, and busies himself principally in\ndisproving false inferences connected with that passage, such as the\nconnection of the Neronic persecution with the Book of Revelation. The\nconceivable possibility that the persecution actually took place,\nbut that at all events the sentence of Tacitus may be a Christian\ninterpolation, Arnold seems never to have considered.\n\n[416] Op. cit., 227.\n\n[417] Kalthoff, \"Christusproblem,\" 17.\n\n[418] Weinel, \"Jesus im 19 Jahrhundert,\" 1907, 68.\n\n[419] \"Babylonisches im Neuen Testament,\" 109 sq.\n\n[420] \"Zerduscht Nameh,\" ch. xxvi.\n\n[421] Gfr\u00f6rer, \"Jahrhundert des Heils,\" Part II., 380 sqq.\n\n[422] Luke iii. 23.\n\n[423] Numb. iv. 3.\n\n[424] Matt. xxi. 12 sqq.\n\n[425] Zech. xiv. 21 runs in the Targum translation: \"Every vessel\nin Jerusalem will be consecrated to the Lord, &c., and at that time\nthere will no longer be shopkeepers in the House of the Lord.\" In\nthis there may have been a further inducement for the Evangelists to\nstate that Jesus chases the tradesmen from the Temple.\n\n[426] 2 Sam. xvii. 23; cf. also Zech. xi. 12 sq.; Psa. xli. 10.\n\n[427] Gfr\u00f6rer, \"Jahr. d. Heils,\" ii. 318 sqq.\n\n[428] Cf. 1 Cor. x. 1 sq.\n\n[429] 2 Kings iv. 19 sqq.\n\n[430] Numb. i. 44; Jos. iii. 12; iv. 1 sqq. Cf. \"Petrus-legende,\"\n51 sq.\n\n[431] Cf. p. 127, note.\n\n[432] Josephus, \"Antiq.,\" iv. 8, 48; Philo, \"Vita Mos.,\" iii.\n\n[433] 2 Kings ii. 11.\n\n[434] E.g. also the account of the arrest of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 51\nsqq.) cf. 2 Kings vi. 10-22.\n\n[435] Matt. ix. 11 sq., xii. 8 sq., xv. 1 sqq., 11 and 20, xxviii. 18.\n\n[436] Psa. cxlvi. 7.\n\n[437] Bereshith Rabba zu Gen. xli. 1.\n\n[438] Cf. esp. Acts xi. 2 sqq.\n\n[439] Matt. v. 17 sqq.\n\n[440] Id. viii. 11 sqq., x. 5, xxiii. 34 sqq., xxviii. 19 sqq.\n\n[441] Cf. L\u00fctzelberger, \"Jesus, was er war und wollte,\" 1842, 16 sqq.\n\n[442] Cf. above, 59 sqq.\n\n[443] It is given as a reason for his appearing first in Galilee\nthat the Galileans were first led into exile, and so should first\nbe comforted, as all divine action conforms to the law of requital\n(Gfr\u00f6rer, \"Jahr. d. Heils,\" 230 sq. Cf. also Isa. viii. 23).\n\n[444] Cf. above, 173 sq.\n\n[445] See above, 171.\n\n[446] Exod. xvi. 17 sqq.; Numb. xxi. 1 sqq.; Exod. vii. 17 sqq. 1\nKings xvii. 5 sqq.\n\n[447] \"Hist.,\" iv. 81.\n\n[448] \"Vespasian,\" vii.\n\n[449] lxvi. 8.\n\n[450] Isa. 1. 6 sq.\n\n[451] Zech. xii 10.\n\n[452] Cf. \"Petruslegende,\" 24.\n\n[453] Gen. xxvi. 6; cf. also Tertullian, \"Adv. Jud.,\" 10.\n\n[454] Cf. for this Brandt, \"Die Evangelische Geschichte,\" esp. 53\nsqq. Even such a cautious investigator as Gfr\u00f6rer confesses that,\nafter his searching examination of the historical content of the\nSynoptics, he is obliged to close \"with the sad admission\" that their\ntestimony does not give sufficient assurance to enable us to pronounce\nanything they contain to be true, so far as they are concerned, with a\ngood historical conscience. \"In this it is by no means asserted that\nmany may not think their views correct, but only that we cannot rely\non them sufficiently to rest a technically correct proof on them\nalone. They tell us too many things which are purely legendary,\nand too many others which are at least suspicious, for a prudent\nhistorian to feel justified in a construction based on their word\nalone. This admission may be disagreeable--it is also unpleasant to\nme--but it is genuine, and it is demanded by the rules which hold\neverywhere before a good tribunal, and in the sphere of history\"\n(\"Die hl. Sage,\" 1838, ii. 243).\n\n[455] This is the case with the corresponding account in Mark,\nwhile in Luke the dramatic presentation seems to be more worked\naway, and the coherence, through the introduction of descriptions\nand episodes (disciples at Emmaus) bears more the character of\na simple narrative. Cf. Robertson, \"Pagan Christs,\" 186 sqq.; \"A\nShort History,\" 87 sqq. The fact that in almost all representations\nof this kind both the scene at Gethsemane and the words spoken by\nJesus usually serve as signs of his personality (e.g. also Bousset's\n\"Jesus\"--Rel. Volksb., 1904, 56), shows what we must think of the\nhistorical value of the accounts of the life of Jesus; especially when\nwe consider that certainly no listeners were there, and Jesus cannot\nhimself have told his experience to his disciples, as the arrest is\nsupposed to have taken place on the spot.\n\n[456] \"Messiasgeheimnis,\" 143.\n\n[457] Gen. xxiv.\n\n[458] E. v. Hartmann, \"Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments,\" 1905, 22.\n\n[459] Op. cit.\n\n[460] Cf. H. Jordan, \"Jesus und die modernen Jesusbilder, Bibl. Zeit-\nu. Streitfragen,\" 1909, 38.\n\n[461] Mark vi. 1 sq.\n\n[462] Mark xiii. 32.\n\n[463] Mark iii. 20.\n\n[464] 1 Kings xix.; cf. also Isa. xlii. 4.\n\n[465] Cf. Brandt, op. cit., 553 sq.\n\n[466] Hertlein treats of these Bases of Schmiedel in the\n\"Prot. Monatsheften,\" 1906, 386 sq.; cf. also Schmiedel's reply.\n\n[467] Op. cit., 141.\n\n[468] Bousset agrees with this in his work \"Was wissen wir von\nJesus?\" (1901). \"Jesus' speeches are for the most part creations of\nthe communities, placed together by the community from isolated words\nof Jesus.\" \"In this, apart from all the rest, there was a powerful\nand decided alteration of the speeches\" (47 sqq.).\n\n[469] Cf. Robertson, \"Christianity and Mythology,\" 424 sqq., 429.\n\n[470] Op. cit., 43.\n\n[471] \"Protest. Monatshefte,\" 1903, M\u00e4rzheft.\n\n[472] Op. cit., 161 sq.\n\n[473] Matt. xviii. 15 sqq.\n\n[474] Id. xxix. 3 sqq.\n\n[475] Cf. Pfleiderer, \"Urchristentum,\" i. 447 sq.; van den Bergh van\nEysinga, op. cit., 57 sqq.\n\n[476] Smith, op. cit., 107 sqq.\n\n[477] Cf. Nork, \"Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu\nneutestamentlichen Schriftstellen,\" 1839.\n\n[478] Cf. Robertson, \"Christianity and Mythology,\" 440-457.\n\n[479] Cf. v. Hartmann, op. cit., 131-143. It will always be a telling\nargument against the historical nature of the sayings of Jesus that\nPaul seems to know nothing of them, that he never refers to them\nexactly; and that even up to the beginning of the second century,\nwith the exception of a few remarks in Clement and Polycarp, the\nApostles and Fathers in all their admonitions, consolations, and\nreprimands, never make use of Jesus' sayings to give greater force\nto their own words.\n\n[480] V. Hartmann, op. cit., 44 sq.\n\n[481] Let us hear what Clemen says against this: \"In its reduction of\nthe Law to the Commandment of love, though this was already prominent\nin the Old Testament [!] and even earlier had here and there [!] been\ncharacterised as the chief Commandment, Christianity is completely\noriginal [!]. And for Jesus the subordination of religious duties\nto moral was consequent on this, though in this respect he would\nhave been equally influenced by the prophets of the Old Testament\"\n(op. cit., 135 sq.).\n\n[482] \"We must (as regards the moral ideals of Jesus) pay just as\nmuch attention to what he does not treat of, to what he set aside,\nas to what he clung to, indeed, setting it in opposition to all the\nrest. At least this wonderfully sure selection is Jesus' own. We may\nproduce analogies for each individual thing, but the whole is unique\nand cannot be invented\" (v. Soden, op. cit., 51 sq.). This method,\npractised by liberal theology, of extolling their Jesus as against all\nother mortals, and of raising him up to a \"uniqueness\" in the absolute\nsense, can make indeed but a small impression on the impartial.\n\n[483] Wrede, \"Paulus,\" 91.\n\n[484] We admit that besides the eschatological grounding of his\nmoral demands, Jesus also makes use occasionally of expressions that\npass beyond the idea of reward. But they are quite isolated--as,\ne.g., Matt. v. 48, \"Be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is\nperfect,\" a phrase which is, moreover, in accord with Lev. xi. 44\nand xix. 3--and without any fundamental significance. In general,\nand in particular even in the Sermon on the Mount, that \"Diamond in\nthe Crown of Jesus' ethics,\" the idea of reward and punishment is\nprevalent (Matt. v. 12 and 46; vi. 1, 4, 6, 14, 18; v. 20; vi. 15;\nvii. 1, &c.). Views may still differ widely as to whether it is\nhistorically correct to estimate, as Weinel would like to, Jesus'\nethics in this connection really by the few sayings which go beyond\nthat idea. (Cf. v. Hartmann, op. cit., 116-124.) The favourite\ndeclaration, however, is quite unhistorical, that Jesus was the\nfirst who introduced into the world the principle of active love;\nand that the Stoics, as Weinel represents, only taught the doing away\nwith all our passions, even that of love; or indeed that Jesus, who\nwished salvation only to benefit the Jews, who forbade his people\nto walk in the ways of the Gentiles, and who hesitated to comply\nwith the Canaanite woman's prayer, \"raised to the highest degree of\nsincerity\" the \"altruistic ideal,\" and that in principle he broke down\nthe boundaries between peoples and creeds with his \"Love thy enemy,\"\n(Weinel, op. cit., 55, 57). As against this cf. the following passage\nfrom Seneca: \"Everything which we must do and avoid may be reduced to\nthis short formula of human obligation: We are members of a mighty\nbody. Nature has made us kindred, having produced us from the same\nstuff and for the same ends. She has implanted in us a mutual love,\nand has arranged it socially. She has founded right and equity. Because\nof her commands to do evil is worse than to suffer evil. Hands ready\nto aid are raised at her call. Let that verse be in our mouths and our\nhearts: I am a man, nothing human do I despise! Human life consists\nin well-doing and striving. It will be cemented into a society of\ngeneral aid not by fear but by mutual love. What is the rightly\nconstituted, good and high-minded soul, but a God living as a guest\nin a human body? Such a soul may appear just as well in a knight as\nin a freedman or in a slave. We can soar upwards to heaven from any\ncorner. Make this your rule, to treat the lower classes even as you\nwould wish the higher to treat you. Even if we are slaves, we may yet\nbe free in spirit. The slaves are men, inferior relatives, friends;\nindeed, our fellow-slaves in a like submission to the tyranny of\nfate. A friendship based on virtue exists between the good man and\nGod, yes, more than a friendship, a kinship and likeness; for the\ngood man is really his pupil, imitator, and scion, differing from\nGod only because of the continuance of time. Him the majestic father\nbrings up, a little severely, as is the strict father's wont. God\ncherishes a fatherly affection towards the good man, and loves him\ndearly. If you wish to imitate the gods, give also to the ungrateful;\nfor the sun rises even on the ungodly and the seas lie open even to the\npirate, the wind blows not only in favour of the good, and the rain\nfalls even on the fields of the unjust. If you wish to have the gods\nwell-disposed towards you, be good: he has enough, who honours and who\nimitates them.\" Cf. also Epictetus: \"Dare, raising your eyes to God,\nto say, Henceforth make use of me to what end thou wilt! I assent,\nI am thine, I draw back from nothing which thy will intends. Lead\nme whithersoever thou wilt! For I hold God's will to be better than\nmine.\" (Cf. also Matt. xxvi. 39.)\n\n[485] Kautsky, \"Ursprung des Christentums,\" 17.\n\n[486] Op. cit., 3.\n\n[487] \"How is it conceivable,\" even Pfleiderer asks, \"that the new\ncommunity should have fashioned itself from the chaos of material\nwithout some definite fact, some foundation-giving event which could\nform the nucleus for the genesis of the new ideas? Everywhere in the\ncase of a new historical development the powers and impulses which are\npresent in the crowd are first directed to a definite end and fastened\ninto an organism that can survive by the purpose-giving action of\nheroic personalities. And so the impulse for the formation of the\nChristian community must have come from some definite point, which,\nfrom the testimony of the Apostle Paul and of the earliest Gospels, we\ncan only find in the life and death of Jesus\" (\"Entstehung des Chr.,\"\n11). But that the \"testimony\" for an historical Jesus is not testimony,\nand that the \"definite fact,\" the \"foundation-giving event,\" is to\nbe looked for, if anywhere, in Paul himself and nowhere else--such\nis the central point of all this analysis.\n\n[488] Op. cit., 61 sq.\n\n[489] \"Von Reimarus bis Wrede,\" 396.\n\n[490] ii. 44.\n\n[491] \"Gesch. Israels,\" ii. 1 sqq.\n\n[492] Holtzmann, \"Zum Thema 'Jesus und Paulus'\" (\"Prot. Monatsheft,\"\niv., 1900, 465).\n\n[493] Parerga, ii. 180.\n\n[494] Neutest. Theol. ii. 4. Cf. R. H. Gr\u00fctzmacher: \"Ist das liberale\nChristusbild modern? Bibl. Zeit- und Streitfragen,\" 39 sq.\n\n[495] Pfleiderer, \"Entstehung d. Chr.,\" 108 sqq.\n\n[496] Cf. Stendel, op. cit., 22.\n\n[497] \"Von Reimarus bis Wrede,\" 313.\n\n[498] Gal. i. 24.\n\n[499] 1 Cor. ii. 1; 2 Cor. xix. 9.\n\n[500] Acts i. 3, x. 41.\n\n[501] Acts i. 21 sq.\n\n[502] Seufert, \"Der Ursprung und die Bedeutung des Apostolates in der\nchristlichen Kirche der ersten Jahrhunderte,\" 1887, 143. Cf. also my\n\"Petruslegende,\" in which the unhistorical nature of the disciples\nand apostles is shown, 50 sqq.\n\n[503] Op. cit., 42.\n\n[504] Cf. my work \"Die Petruslegende.\"\n\n[505] Cf. Hausrath, \"Jesus und die neutestamentl. Schriftsteller,\"\nii. 203 sqq.\n\n[506] \"Entstehung d. Chr.,\" 239.\n\n[507] Cf. above, p. 31. sqq.\n\n[508] Cf. Arnold Meyer, \"Was uns Jesus heute ist. Rel. Volksb.,\"\n1907--a very impressive presentation of the liberal Protestant point\nof view; also Weinel, \"Jesus im 19ten Jahrhundert.\"\n\n[509] \"Entstehung d. Chr.,\" 98 sq.\n\n[510] Weinel, indeed, resolutely denies that this is a real\ncharacteristic of liberal Protestantism, and asserts that he has\nlooked for it in vain in any liberal theologian's book. But he need\nonly look in A. Meyer's work, which is cited by me, to find my idea\nconfirmed. There it is said of Jesus inter alia: \"Not only should we\nmove and live in his love, but we are as he was, of the faith that\nthis love will overcome the world, that it is the meaning, end,\nand true content of the world; that the power which uniformly and\nomnipotently fills and guides the world, is nothing but the God in\nwhom he believed [was Jesus then a Pantheist?], and whom he calls\nhis heavenly father. As he believed, so let us also, that whoever\ntrusts in this God and lives in his love has found the meaning of\nlife and the power which preserves him in time and in eternity. Jesus\nwas the founder of our religion, of our faith, and of our inner\nlife\" (31). According to Meyer, Jesus attracts us by his manner,\nhis Being, his love and his faith, we feel ourselves bound to him,\nbecome kin with him and so live by his strength; he is called \"the\nvoice of God to us,\" \"our redeemer,\" and so forth. Those are simply\nexpressions which applied to God have at least a valid meaning,\nbut applied to the historical man Jesus are nothing but phrases,\nand are to be explained purely psychologically from the fact that\nliberalism in honouring the \"unique\" man Jesus does nevertheless\nunwittingly allow the belief in his divinity to come into play. In\nthis atmosphere, obscured with phrases, the so-called \"theology\"\nof liberal Protestantism moves. Moreover, Weinel himself quotes a\nsentence of Herrmann with approval, which also gives expression\nto the idea that Jesus is for Protestant liberalism a kind of\n\"demonstration of God\" (80), and he adds himself: \"It may indeed\nbe that our conception of the significance of Jesus has often been\nexpressed unskilfully enough. It may be that in discourses, lectures,\nor other popular ways of speaking something is at times said which\nmay be so clumsily put as to give occasion for such things to be\nsaid.\" Indeed, he himself maintains regarding Jesus: \"Whoever places\nthe ideal of his life in him, he experiences God in him\" (84). He\nalso finds that the desire for God of the Jews, Greeks, Semites,\nand Germans \"could be stilled in him.\" Taking into account these\nexpressions and the whole tone which it pleases Herr Weinel to adopt\ntowards the opponents of his standpoint, it appears time to remind him\nonce again of E. v. Hartmann's \"Die Selbstzersetzung des Christentums\"\n(it is obvious he has only a third-hand acquaintance with the author\nwhose point of view he calls Neo-Buddhism, counting him among the\nsupporters of the morality of pity!) and especially of the chapter on\n\"Die Irreligiosit\u00e4t des liberalen Protestantismus.\" Here, in connection\nwith the lack of metaphysics displayed by liberal Protestantism (and\nadmitted even by Weinel) and the latter's principle of love, he says:\n\"If we transform the whole of religion into Ethics and soften down the\nwhole of Ethics into love, we thereby renounce everything that is in\nreligion besides love, and everything which makes love religious. We\nthereby confess that the impulse of love is raised into religion\nsince religion properly so called has been lost. It is true religion\nis not a shark, as the inquisitors thought, but at the same time it is\nnot a sea-nettle. A shark can at least be terrifying, a sea-nettle is\nalways feeble.\" Liberal Protestantism, as Hartmann sums it up, consists\n\"of a shapeless, poor, shallow metaphysic, which is concealed as far\nas possible from critical eyes; of a worship successfully freed from\nall mystery, but one that has become thereby by no means incapable of\nbeing objected to; of an Ethics forcibly separated from Metaphysics\nand on that account irreligious. It rests upon a view of the world\nwhich by its worldliness and optimistic contentment with the world\nis by no means in a position to give birth to a religion, and which\nsooner or later will allow the remnants of religious feeling which\nit brought with it to be smothered in worldly ease.\"\n\n[511] Op. cit., 39.\n\n[512] Cf. E. v. Hartmann, \"Die Selbstzersetzung des Christentums und\ndie Religion der Zukunft,\" 2nd ed., 1874, especially chaps. vi. and\nvii.\n\n[513] Cf. W. v. Schnehen, \"Der moderne Jesuskultus,\" 2nd ed., 1906;\nalso \"Naumann vor dem Bankerott des Christentums,\" 1907.\n\n[514] Cf. my work, \"Die Religion als Selbstbewusstsein Gottes,\" 1906,\n199 sq.\n\n[515] Cf. my work, \"Die Religion als Selbstbewusstsein Gottes,\" in\nwhich the attempt has been made to form a general religious view of\nthe world in the sense mentioned.\n\n[516] Cf. \"Der Monismus, dargestellt in Beitr\u00e4gen seiner Vertreter,\"\n2 vols., 1908.","title":"The Christ Myth","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":93498}