{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_53616/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_53616","id":"gutenberg_53616","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53616","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jesus Christ"],"text":"THE JESUS PROBLEM\n\n                    A RESTATEMENT OF THE MYTH THEORY\n\n\n                                   BY\n                         J. M. ROBERTSON, M.P.\n\n\n        [ISSUED FOR THE RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION, LIMITED]\n\n\n                                London:\n                              WATTS & CO.,\n                17 JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C. 4\n                                  1917\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                            PAGE\n    Prefatory Note                                           vii\n\n    Chapter I.--THE APPROACH                                   1\n    Chapter II.--THE CENTRAL MYTH                             24\n\n        \u00a7 1. The Ground of Conflict                           24\n        \u00a7 2. The Sacrificial Rite                             31\n        \u00a7 3. Contingent Elements                              39\n        \u00a7 4. The Mock-King Ritual                             50\n        \u00a7 5. Doctrinal Additions                              53\n        \u00a7 6. Minor Ritual and Myth Elements                   57\n        \u00a7 7. The Cross                                        61\n        \u00a7 8. The Suffering Messiah                            64\n        \u00a7 9. The Rock Tomb                                    67\n        \u00a7 10. The Resurrection                                70\n\n    Chapter III.--ROOTS OF THE MYTH                           72\n\n        \u00a7 1. Historical Data                                  72\n        \u00a7 2. Prototypes                                       91\n        \u00a7 3. The Mystery-Drama                                96\n\n    Chapter IV.--EVOLUTION  OF THE CULT                      107\n\n        \u00a7 1. The Primary Impulsion                           107\n        \u00a7 2. The Silence of Josephus                         121\n        \u00a7 3. The Myth of the Twelve Apostles                 126\n        \u00a7 4. The Process of Propaganda                       135\n        \u00a7 5. Real Determinants                               148\n\n    Chapter V.--ORGANIZATION AND ECONOMICS                   157\n\n        \u00a7 1. The Economic Side                               157\n        \u00a7 2. Organization                                    162\n\n    Chapter VI.--EARLY BOOK-MAKING                           170\n\n        \u00a7 1. The \"Didach\u00ea\"                                   170\n        \u00a7 2. The Apocalypse                                  173\n        \u00a7 3. Epistles                                        176\n\n     Chapter VII.--GOSPEL-MAKING                             182\n\n        \u00a7 1. Tradition                                       182\n        \u00a7 2. Schmiedel's Tests                               188\n        \u00a7 3. Tendential Tests                                192\n        \u00a7 4. Historic Summary                                202\n\n    Chapter VIII.--SUPPLEMENTARY MYTH                        207\n\n        \u00a7 1. Myths of Healing                                207\n        \u00a7 2. Birth Myths                                     209\n        \u00a7 3. Minor Myths                                     217\n\n    Chapter IX.--CONCLUSION                                  223\n\n    Appendix A.--TRANSLATION OF \"THE TEACHING OF\n                 THE TWELVE APOSTLES,\" WITH NOTES            235\n    Appendix B.--THE MYTH OF SIMON MAGUS                     248\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE\n\n\nMost of the propositions in mythology and anthropology in this\nbook are founded on bodies of evidence given in the larger works of\nthe author. It seemed fitting, therefore, to refer to those works\ninstead of repeating hundreds of references there given. Readers\nconcerned to investigate the issues are thus invited and enabled to do\nso. For brevity's sake, Christianity and Mythology is cited as C.M.;\nPagan Christs as P.C.; and the Short Histories of Christianity and\nFreethought as S.H.C. and S.H.F. respectively. In the first three\ncases the references are to the second editions; in the last case,\nto the third. The Evolution of States is cited as E.S. Another work\noften referred to is Sir J. G. Frazer's great thesaurus, The Golden\nBough, which is cited as G.B., the references being to the last\nedition. Other new references are given in the usual way. The Ecce\nDeus of Professor W. B. Smith is cited in the English edition.\n\nPassages in brackets, in unleaded type, may be passed at a first\nperusal by readers concerned mainly to follow the constructive\ntheory. Such passages deal controversially with counter-polemic.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE JESUS PROBLEM\n\nTHE APPROACH\n\n\nAs was explained in the preamble to The Historical Jesus (1916),\nthat work was offered as prolegomena to a concise restatement of the\ntheory that the Gospel Jesus is a mythical construction. That theory\nhad been discursively expounded by the writer in two large volumes,\nChristianity and Mythology and Pagan Christs, and summarily in A Short\nHistory of Christianity, the argument in the two former combining a\nnegative criticism of the New Testament narrative with an exposition\nof the myth-evidence. Criticism having in large part taken the form\nof a denial that the records were unhistorical, it was necessary to\nclear the ground by showing that all the various attempts of the\npast generation to find in the gospels a historical residuum have\nentirely failed to meet critical tests. Those attempts, conflicting\nas they do with each other, and collapsing as they do in themselves,\ngive undesigned support to the conclusion that the gospel story is\nwithout historic basis.\n\nIt remains to restate with equal brevity the myth-theory which, long\nago propounded on a very narrow basis, has latterly been re-developed\nin the light of modern mythology and anthropology, and has in recent\nyears found rapidly increasing acceptance. Inevitably the different\nlines of approach have involved varieties of speculation; Professors\nDrews and W. B. Smith have ably and independently developed the theory\nin various ways; and a conspectus and restatement has become necessary\nfor the sake of the theory itself no less than for the sake of those\nreaders who call for a condensed statement.\n\nThis in turn is in itself tentative. If the progressive analysis of\nthe subject matter from the point of view of its historicity has meant\na century and a half of debate and an immense special literature, it\nis not to be supposed that the theory which negates the fundamental\nassumptions of that literature can be fully developed and established\nin one lifetime, at the hands of a few writers. The problem \"What\nreally happened?\" is in fact a far wider one for the advocate of the\nmyth-theory than for the critic who undertakes to extract a biography\nfrom the documents. In its first form, as propounded by Dupuis and\nVolney, the myth-theory was confined simply to certain parallelisms\nbetween Christian and Pagan myth, and to the astronomical basis of a\nnumber of these. From this standpoint the actual historic inception of\nthe cult was little considered. Strauss, again, developed with great\npower and precision the view that most of the detail in the gospel\nnarrative is myth construction on the lines of Jewish prophecy and\ndogma. But Strauss never fully accepted the myth-theory, having always\nassumed the existence of a teacher as a nucleus for the whole. As\napart from the continuators of Dupuis and Volney, it was Bruno Bauer\nwho, setting out with the purpose of extracting a biography from the\ngospels, and finding no standing ground, first propounded a myth-theory\nfrom that point of view.\n\nHis construction, being the substantially arbitrary one of a\nhypothetical evangelist who created a myth and thereby founded the\ncultus, naturally made no headway; and its artificiality strengthened\nthe hands of those who claimed to work inductively on the documents. It\nwas by reason of a similar failure to find a historic footing where he\nhad at first taken it for granted that the present writer was gradually\nled, on lines of comparative hierology and comparative mythology and\nanthropology, to the conception of the evolution of the Jesus-cult from\nthe roots of a \"pre-Christian\" one. The fact that this view has been\nindependently reached by such a student as Professor W. B. Smith,\nwho approached the problem from within rather than by way of the\ncomparative method, seems in itself a very important confirmation.\n\nWhat is now to be done is to revise the general theory in the light\nof further study as well as of the highly important expositions of it\nby Professor Smith and other scholars. An attempt is now definitely\nmade not merely to combine concisely the evidence for a pre-Christian\nJesus-cult, but to show how that historically grew into \"Christianity,\"\nthus substituting a defensible historical view for a mythic narrative\nof beginnings. And this, of course, is a heavy undertaking.\n\nThe question, \"What do you put in its place?\" is often addressed\nto the destructive critic of a belief, not with any philosophic\nperception of the fact that complete removal is effected only by\nputting a tested or tenable judgment in place of an untested or\nuntenable one, but with a sense of injury, as if a false belief\nwere a personal possession, for the removal of which there must be\n\"compensation.\" In point of fact, the destructive process is rarely\nattempted without a coincident process of substitution. Even to say\nthat a particular text is spurious is to say that some one forged or\ninserted it where it is, for a purpose. That concept is \"something in\nits place.\" Some Comtists, again, are wont to commit the contradiction\nof affirming that \"no belief is really destroyed without replacement,\"\nand, in the next breath, of condemning rationalists who \"destroy\nwithout replacing.\" Both propositions cannot stand.\n\nIf it be meant merely to insist that explanation is replacement,\nand that explanation is a necessary part of a successful or complete\nprocess of destruction, the answer is that it is hardly possible even\nto attempt to cancel a belief without putting a different belief in its\nplace; and that it is nearly always by way of positing a new belief\nthat an old one is assailed. The old charge against rationalism, of\n\"destroying without building up,\" is historically quite false. Almost\ninvariably, the innovator has offered a new doctrine or conception in\nplace of the old. True, it might not be ostensibly an equivalent, for\nthe believer who wanted an equivalent in kind. An exploded God-idea\nis not for me replaceable by another God-idea: the only rational\n\"replacement\" is a substitution of a reasoned for an authoritarian\ncosmology and ethic. But in the way of reasoned replacements the\ninnovators have been only too quick, in general, to formulate\nnew conceptions, new creeds. They have really been too eager to\nbuild afresh, and many untenable formulas and hypotheses are the\nconsequences.\n\nThese very attempts, naturally, are constantly made the objects of\nstill more hasty counter-attack. Every form of the myth-theory with\nwhich I am acquainted, whatever its defects, has been the result\nof much labour, and even if astray can be fairly pronounced \"hasty\"\nonly in the sense that it proves to be inadequate. It is not so with\nmost of the counter-criticism. The reader may rest assured that\nit is not possible for any exposition of the new theory to be as\n\"hasty\" as is usually its rejection. [1] Professional theologians\nwho cast that epithet are in general recognizably men who believed\ntheir hereditary creed before they were able to think, and have at\nno later stage made good the first inevitable omission.\n\nMyth-theories, sound or unsound, are the attempts of students who find\nthe record incredible as history to think out, in the light of the\ndocuments and of comparative mythology and hierology, the process by\nwhich it came to be produced; and even as all myth is but a form of\ntraditionary error, so any attempt to trace its growth runs the risk\nof error. It is one thing to show, for instance, that the Pentateuch\ncannot have been written by \"Moses,\" seen to be a non-historical\nfigure: it is another thing to settle how the books were really\nmade. In such cases, the \"something in the place\" of the tradition\nis to be ascertained only after long and patient investigation and\ncounter-criticism. So with the investigation of the fabulous history of\nearly Rome. After several scholars had set forth grounded doubts, the\nproblem was ably and systematically handled by the French freethinker\nLouis de Beaufort in 1738. Early in the nineteenth century, Niebuhr,\nconfidently undertaking \"with the help of God\" to get at the truth,\nand falsely disparaging Beaufort's work as wholly \"sceptical,\" effected\na reconstruction which has since been found to be in large measure\nunsound, though long acquiesced in by English students. [2] In such\nmatters there is really no finality. If well-documented history must\nin every age be rewritten, no less inevitable is the re-writing of\nthat which is reached only by processes of inference. And the gospel\nproblem is the hardest of all. Still more than in the case of the\nPentateuch problem, many revisions will probably be needed before a\ngenerally satisfactory solution is reached.\n\nThere is nothing for it but to trace and retrace, consider and\nreconsider, the inferrible historic process. Met as he is by\nalternate charges of reckless iconoclasm and \"hasty\" construction,\nthe proper course for the holder of the myth-theory is to repeat with\ndispassionate vigilance both of his processes--to show first that the\nprogressive effort to extract from the gospels a tenable biography\nhas ended in complete critical collapse, revealing only a tissue of\nmyth; and then to attempt to indicate how the pseudo-history came\nto be compiled: in other words, how the myth arose. Such has been my\nprocedure in the preceding volume and in this.\n\n\n\nIt may of course be argued that the previous negative criticism of\nthe gospel record is indecisive; that the avowal of Loisy: \"If the\ntrial and condemnation of Jesus, as pretended Messiah, could be put\nin doubt, we should have no ground for affirming the existence of the\nChrist,\" does not commit other inquirers, or that the historicity of\nthe trial story has not really been exploded; that the nullity of\nthe alleged Evangel has not been established; or that the complete\ndestruction of previous biographical theories claimed by Schweitzer\nfor himself and Wrede has not been accomplished. The answer is that\nthese issues are not re-opened in the following chapters. They were\ncarefully handled in the previous volume, to which I have seen no\nattempt at a comprehensive and reasoned answer.\n\n\n[The latest attack I have seen comes from a former antagonist, who\nappears to lay his main complaint against the book on the ground that\nit \"omits to notice the theory of the synoptic problem which appears in\nevery modern text-book,\" that is, \"the two-documents hypothesis.\" And\nthere emerges this indictment:--\n\n\n    As the theory has a vital bearing on the relative values of\n    different strata of tradition, Mr. Robertson cannot afford to\n    ignore it. If we apply to himself the crude principle he applies\n    to Paul and the evangelists, to wit, that if they don't mention\n    a thing they don't know it, we must assume that Mr. Robertson is\n    still ignorant of the very elements of the problem he is professing\n    to solve. Since he has no clear or tenable view of the documents\n    and their relations to one another, he obviously cannot answer\n    the historical questions they raise. [3]... Presumably he omits\n    to mention it because he does not see its significance. [4]\n\n\nBefore coming to the main matter, it is necessary to elucidate\nthe charge as to a \"crude principle\" applied to Paul and the\nevangelists. The \"principle\" really applied was this, that if \"Paul\" in\nall his writings, apart from two interpolated passages, shows no real\nknowledge whatever of the gospels, and no knowledge whatever either of\nthe life or the teachings of Jesus as there recorded, we are compelled\nto infer either that these details were not in any form known to Paul,\nor that, if he knew them, he did not believe them. It is not a matter\nof his not knowing \"a thing\": that is the sophism of the critic; it is\na matter of his not knowing anything on the subject. And so with the\nsynoptics and the fourth gospel. When one side relates something vital\nto the record, of which the other side shows no knowledge whatever\n[5]--as, for instance, great miracles--we are bound to infer that\nthe silent side, when it is the earlier record, either did not know\nor did not believe the story. Or, again, when John alleges that the\ndisciples baptized freely and the synoptics make no mention of it,\nit is clear that we cannot suppose them, in the alleged circumstances,\nto have been ignorant of such a fact; while, if they are supposed to\nhave known it and yet to have kept silence, their credit as historians\nis gravely shaken. The \"principle,\" in fact, is that of critical\ncommon-sense; and the critic's version of it is a forensic perversion.\n\nOn the next issue, it is perhaps well to explain to the lay reader\nthat the \"two-documents hypothesis\" is simply what Schmiedel--with\na very justifiable implication--named \"the so-called theory of two\nsources,\" a mere aspect of \"the borrowing hypothesis\" which constitutes\nthe main substance of the bulk of the documentary discussion of the\ngospels in the last century, and which is simply the most obvious\nway of attempting to explain the documentary phenomena. It dates from\nPapias. As the critic asseverates, it is the theory of the text-books\nin general. And for the main purposes of historic comprehension, it\nis neither here nor there. The theory of two sources cannot possibly\ncover all the data, even from the biographical point of view. The\neffect of Schmiedel's article--a model of critical honesty and general\ngood sense which his successors might usefully strive to copy in those\nregards--is to show that the hypothesis is quite inadequate even as a\ndocumentary theory; and from the point of view of the rational student\nit is simply neutral to the vital question, What really did happen,\nin the main? He who has realized that the Entry, the Betrayal, the\nLast Supper, the Agony, the Trials, and the Crucifixion, are all as\nmythical as the Resurrection, is not at that point concerned with the\ndispute as to priority among the gospels, or any sections of them. No\ndocumentary hypothesis can possibly make the myth true.\n\nAt the vital point, in fact, the two-documents hypothesis is not even\nostensibly applicable: the synoptic narrative is one primary narrative,\nsubjected to minor modifications. It is admitted by Harnack to have\nbeen absent from \"Q,\" the Logoi \"source\" held to have been drawn upon\nby Matthew and Luke. And that one narrative, as I have argued, is\nnot in origin a \"gospel\" narrative at all, but the simple transcript\nof a mystery-drama, with almost the minimum of necessary narrative\ninsertion. If the exegete could bring himself to contemplate rationally\nmy hypothesis, he might find his documentary labours lightened. [6]\n\nIt is doubtless true that the determination of the earlier as against\nthe later form of a minor narrative episode, or of a teaching, is\noften essential to the framing of a true notion as to its mode of\nentrance; and such determination I have attempted many times. But\nthe notion that historicity is a matter of priority of documents\nis, as Schmiedel sees, the fallacy of fallacies. Prisoned in that\npresupposition, exegetes defending the record achieve inevitably the\nvery failure they impute: they are \"ignorant of the very elements\nof the problem they are professing to solve\"--that is, the problem\nof what really happened. They cannot realize the conditions under\nwhich the gospels were compiled. They construct what they think a\n\"clear or tenable\" view of the documents by the process of evading\nthe considerations which make it untenable or inadequate, and then\ndemand that their documentary formula shall be met by one in pari\nmateria. The answer to them is that their psychological as well as\ntheir historical assumptions are false. Things did not happen in\nthat way. And two versions of a palpable myth do not make for its\nhistoricity. There are two or more versions of most myths.\n\nThe indictment before us, in short, is an illustration of the mode\nof theological fence discussed above. You undertake to show that the\nmost alert presentments of a given historical conception fail to stand\ncritical tests, and you are met with the reply: \"We are not concerned\nto discuss the presentments you deal with, which are not generally\naccepted: we demand that you discuss instead the documentary theory\nwhich in those presentments is treated as obsolete. If you do not\ndo this, you show you are incompetent.\" When on the other hand the\ncritical significance of an older theory is indicated, the reply is\nmade that that theory is \"obsolete.\" One theory is too new, another\nis too old, for discussion. All the while, the theory founded-on for\nthe defence is really the oldest of all. It was in fact the obvious\ninadequacy of the familiar documentary hypothesis that dictated our\ndiscussion of more up-to-date theories, as it had elicited these. If\nour exegete's favourite hypothesis had had any power of satisfying\nindependent students, we should not have had such treatises as those of\nthe Rev. Dr. Wright and Dr. Flinders Petrie, or the searching analysis\nand commentary of M. Loisy, to say nothing of the vigorous Dr. Blass.\n\nIn dealing with such writers, and particularly in following the\n\"real\" procedure of M. Loisy on the main issues of historical fact,\nI took what seemed to me the candid controversial course. To resort\ninstead to a mere exposure of the obvious insufficiency of the\n\"two-documents hypothesis\" would be like arguing as if Genesis\nwere the only alternative to the Darwinian theory. Dr. Wright's\n\"oral hypothesis\" is a vivid and interesting revival of what, as\nI pointed out, had long ago been the \"predominant\" view. [7] Our\nexegete nevertheless affirms that I regard it \"as something new in\nEngland.\" To the lay reader I would again explain the situation thus\nhandled. Theological discussion on the gospels has moved in cycles,\nby reason of the invariable presupposition as to historicity, which\nwas a main factor in the partial failure of the mythical theory as\nintroduced by Strauss. As I expressly stated, the oral hypothesis was\nbefore Strauss \"well established.\" Then ensued the age-long discussion\nof documentary hypotheses. At the close of the nineteenth century we\nfind Schmiedel saying:\n\n\n    Lastly, scholars are also beginning to remember that the\n    evangelists did not need to draw their material from books alone,\n    but that from youth up they were acquainted with it from oral\n    narration and could easily commit it to writing precisely in\n    this form in either case--whether they had it before them in no\n    written form, or whether they had it in different written form. In\n    this matter, again, we are beginning to be on our guard against\n    the error of supposing that in the synoptical problem we have\n    to reckon merely with given quantities, or with such as can be\n    easily ascertained. [8]\n\n\nIf I had written that, I should doubtless be told that I regarded\nthe oral hypothesis as \"new.\" Dr. Schmiedel, it is to be hoped, may\nescape the aspersive method of my critic. In point of fact, a return\nto the oral hypothesis was inevitable in view of the insufficiency\nof the other. Unfortunately it has been made on the old and fatal\npresupposition of the historicity of the myth; but, as made by\nDr. Wright, it seemed well worth critical consideration. My critic\ndisparages that and other propaganda as \"commanding no large measure of\nassent anywhere.\" My testimony, I fear, will not help Dr. Wright; but I\nwill say that I found him an honest and extremely interesting writer,\nadmirably free from theological malice, and above all exhibiting a\nthoroughly independent hold of his thesis. What amount of assent he\nhas secured is an irrelevant issue. I can only say that I found him\nvery readable. The scholarly and intellectual status of Dr. Flinders\nPetrie, again, is such as perhaps to make it unnecessary to say--as\nagainst similar disparagement in his case--that a thesis seriously and\nvigorously embraced by him as superseding the older documentary and\noral hypotheses alike, seemed to me well entitled to consideration.]\n\n\nThe examination of the recent positions of independent writers\nseeking to construct a documentary theory has, I think, sufficed\nto safeguard the honest lay student of the myth-theory against the\nkind of spurious rebuttal set up by those who, themselves innocent\nof all original research, pretend that the fundamental historicity\nof the gospels is established by a \"consensus of scholarship.\" There\nis no consensus of scholarship. I observe that M. Loisy, to whom I\ndevoted special study, is journalistically disparaged by the Very\nRev. Dean Inge. That disparagement--which, I also observe, I have the\nundeserved honour to share--will not impose upon serious students,\nwho will realize that Dean Inge, himself transparently unorthodox,\nhas no resource in such matters but to disparage all who labour\nwith any measure of rational purpose to put concrete conclusions\nwhere church dignitaries inevitably prefer to maintain rhetorical\nmystification. For the purposes of serious students, M. Loisy is an\nimportant investigator, Dean Inge a negligible essayist.\n\nIt is true that one of the positions I discussed--that of the school of\nWeiss--is not \"new.\" But in that case the reason for selection was not\nmerely that it was one of the efforts to reach something less neutral\nthan the \"two-documents hypothesis,\" but that it is in substance\nthe position of some of the most recent and most virulent English\ncritics of the myth-theory. It is in fact the gist of the polemic\nof Dr. Conybeare. I have shown, accordingly, that the thesis of a\nprimary biography is psychologically absurd in itself; and, further,\nthat like all the other documentary hypotheses it has been left high\nand dry by the latest German exegetes, who, expressly assuming the\nhistoricity of a Jesus, and founding on the gospels for their case,\nreduce these to a minimum of tradition at which M. Loisy must stand\naghast. It is in England, in short, that the biographical school,\nas represented by Dean Inge and Dr. Conybeare, is seen to be most\nentirely out of touch with the movement of rational criticism.\n\nIt is in England, too, that we find the most uncritical reliance\nput upon the \"impression of a personality\" said to be set up by\nthe gospels. This argument is still used without any attempt at\npsychological self-analysis, any effort to find out what an impression\nis worth. A generation or two ago, exactly the same position was\ntaken up in regard to the fourth gospel: both the Arnolds, for\ninstance, were confident that the vision of Jesus there given was\npeculiarly real. Critical study has since forced all save the sworn\ntraditionalists and the mere compromisers to the conclusion that it\ncannot be real if there is any substantial truth in the presentment\nof the synoptics. Slowly it has been realized that the methods\nwhich produce a vivid impression of \"personality\" are methods open\nto fictive art, and differ only in detail from the methods of the\nBhagavat G\u00eeta or the methods of Homer. If a strong impression of a\npersonality be a certificate of historicity, what of Zeus and H\u00ear\u00ea,\nAth\u00ean\u00ea and Achilles, Ulysses and Nestor? Most critics who handle the\nproblem seem to work in vacuo, without regard to the phenomena and\nthe machinery of fictive literature in general, even when they are\nmoved to accept a hypothesis of fiction.\n\nThe vision presented in the fourth gospel is prima facie more lifelike\nthan that of the synoptics, because its main author is more of an\nartist than his predecessors. It has been justly affirmed by Professor\nW. B. Smith that\n\n\n    The received notion that in the early Marcan narratives the\n    Jesus is distinctly human, and that the process of deification\n    is fulfilled in John, is precisely the reverse of the truth. In\n    Mark there is really no man at all: the Jesus is God, or at\n    least essentially divine, throughout. He wears only a transparent\n    garment of flesh. Mark historizes only. Matthew also historizes\n    and faintly humanizes. Luke more strongly humanizes; while John\n    not only humanizes but begins to sentimentalize. [9]\n\n\nContemporary German scholars, such as Wellhausen, working on\nthe synoptics, begin uneasily to note the lack of reality and\nverisimilitude in the presentment there given, avowing a deficit\nof biographical quality where English amateurs still heedlessly\naffirm a veridical na\u00efvet\u00e9. Wellhausen, tacitly clinging to the\nbiographical assumption, gives up section after section of Mark,\nwhere our amateurs primitively acclaim as genuine biographic detail\nsuch an item as \"asleep on the cushion\" (Mk. iv, 38). Following\nanother will-o'-the-wisp, Wellhausen is moved to claim the episode\nof the widow's mite (Lk. xxi, 1-4) as having biographical flavour,\nas if the admitted inventor of other Lucan episodes could not have\ndoctrinally framed this. There is no science in such tentatives. They\ndo but tell of a search for a subjective basis of belief when criticism\nhas dissolved the objective bases of the old assumption.\n\nWhen it is pretended, as by Dr. Conybeare, that the mythical theory\nrests on and grows solely out of the supernaturalist details in\nthe gospel story, the case is simply falsified. This writer never\nseems to master his subject matter. Before Strauss, as by Strauss,\nthe myth-theory was widely applied to non-supernatural matter;\nand to surmise a historical Jesus behind those details has been\nthe first step in all modern inquiry. The assertion that the\nrejection of the historicity of Jesus \"is not really the final\nconclusion of their [myth-theorists'] researches, but an initial\nunproved assumption\" [10] is categorically false. Professor Smith's\nbiographical statement negates it. [11] As I have repeatedly stated,\nI began without misgivings by assuming a historical Jesus, and\nsought historically to trace him, regarding the birth myth and the\nothers as mere accretions. But the very first step in the strictly\nhistorical inquiry revealed difficulties which the biographical\nschool and the traditionalists alike had simply never faced. The\nquestions whether Jesus was \"of Nazareth,\" \"Nazarene\" in that sense,\nor \"the Nazarite\"; and why, if he was either of these, he was never\nso named in the epistles, stood in the very front of the problem,\nwholly unregarded by those who profess to trace a historical Jesus\nby historical method. The problem of \"the twelve\" is to this day\npassed with equal heedlessness by critics professing to work on\nhistorico-critical lines; and the question of the authenticity of the\nteachings is no more scientifically met. It was because at every step\nthe effort to find historical foundation failed utterly that after\nyears of investigation I sought and found in a thorough application\nof the myth-theory the solution of the enigma. Invariably that gives\nlight where the historical assumption yields darkness.\n\nIt is thoroughly characteristic of the spirit in which some champions\nof the biographical view work that, in sequel to the falsification\nof the problem just noted, we have from them the plea that if we\ngive up the historicity of Jesus, we must give up that of Solon and\nPythagoras; and that \"obviously Jesus has a far larger chance to\nhave really existed than Solon.\" [12] Such a use of the conception of\n\"chance\" reveals the kind of dialectic we are dealing with. One recalls\nNewman's derision of the Paleyan position that the \"chances\" were in\nfavour of there being a God. \"If we deny all authenticity to Jesus's\nteaching,\" we are asked, \"what of Solon's traditional lore?\" Well,\nwhat of it? Is it to be authenticated by the threat that it must\ngo if we deny that the Sermon on the Mount is a sermon at all? The\nfragments of Solon's verse purport to have been written by him:\nhave we anything purporting to have been written by Jesus? The very\nfact that we have only fragments of Solon is in itself an argument\nin favour of their genuineness: to Jesus any evangelist could ascribe\nany sayings at will. [13]\n\nAs usual, the critic falsifies the debate, affirming that \"the stories\nof Plutarch about him [Solon] are, as Grote says, 'contradictory as\nwell as apocryphal.'\" What Grote really says [14] is that Plutarch's\nstories \"as to the way in which Salamis was recovered are contradictory\nas well as apocryphal.\" He makes no such assertion as to the stories\nof Solon's life in general, though, like every critical historian,\nhe recognizes that many things were ultimately ascribed to Solon which\nbelong to later times. [15] But the genuine fragments of Solon's verse\nand laws are sound historical material. As Meyer claims, [16] the\nArchon list is as valid as the Roman Fasti. It is precisely because\nof the solid elements in the record that Solon stands as a historic\nfigure, while Lycurgus is given up as a deity Evemerized. [17] On the\nprinciples of Dr. Conybeare, we must give up Solon because we give up\nLycurgus, or accept Lykurgos if we accept Solon. Historical criticism\ndoes no such thing. It decides the cases on their merits by critical\ntests, and finds the fact of a Solonian legislation historically as\ncertain as the Lycurgean is fabulous. The item that Solon's family\nclaimed to be descended from Poseidon is no ground for doubting\nthe historicity of Solon, because such claims were normal in early\nGreece. Is it pretended that claims to be the Son of God were normal\nin later Jewry?\n\nThe device of saying that we must accept the historicity of Jesus if we\naccept that of Solon is merely a new dressing of the old claim that we\nmust believe in the resurrection if we believe in the assassination\nof C\u00e6sar. Both theses rest on spurious analogies; and both alike\ndefeat themselves, the older by carrying the implication that the\nprodigies at C\u00e6sar's death are as historical as the assassination;\nthe newer by involving the consequence that Solon accredits not only\nLycurgus but Herakles and Dionysos, Ulysses and Achilles.\n\nThe argument from Pythagoras is a still more fatal device. Of him\n\"it is no easy task to give an account that can claim to be regarded\nas history.\" [18] And \"of the opinions of Pythagoras we know even\nless than of his life.\" [19] It is held to be certain that he taught\nthe doctrine of transmigration and originated certain propositions in\nmathematics; but while the mathematical element has no analogue in the\ngospels, the residual view of Pythagoras as vending in religion only a\n\"thoroughly primitive\" set of taboos [20] would sanction, by analogy,\nthe view that the real Jesus was the Talmudic Ben Pandira, who dates\nabout 100 B.C., and was reputed a worker of wonders by sorcery. This is\na sufficiently lame and impotent conclusion from a polemic in favour of\nthe gospel Jesus, whom it leaves, in effect, a myth, as the myth-theory\nmaintains. As for Apollonius of Tyana, one holds him historical [21]\njust because his myth-laden story is finally intelligible as history,\nwhich is precisely what the Jesus story is not.\n\nThis said, The Historical Jesus may be left, as it is, open to critical\nrefutation. The present volume is theoretically constructive, and\ndoes not unnecessarily return upon the other. It is open in its turn\nto refutative criticism.\n\nThat description, it may be remarked, would not be accorded by me to\na mere asseveration that there \"must\" be a historical basis for the\ngospels in a person answering broadly to the Gospel Jesus. Any one\nwho confidently holds such a view need hardly trouble himself with\nthe present thesis at all: and for me any one who affects to dispose\nof the issue by merely fulminating the \"must\" is simply begging the\nquestion. Those who, on the other hand, do but lean instinctively to\nsuch a belief may be respectfully invited to reconsider it in the\nlight of all hierology. That there \"must\" be a historic process of\ncausation behind every cult is a truism: it does not in the least\nfollow that the historic basis must be the historicity of the God or\nDemigod round whose name the cult centres.\n\nMany Saviour names have been the centres of cults, in the ancient\nworld as in the modern. There were extensive and long-lived worships\nof Herakles, Dionysos, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, in addition to the\nage-long cults of the \"Supreme\" Gods. Is it claimed that there \"must\"\nhave been a historical Herakles, or Dionysos, or Adonis? If so, is\nit further contended that there must have been a historical Jehovah,\na Jove, a Cybel\u00ea, a Juno, a Venus? If the Father-Gods and Mother-Gods\ncould be evolved by protracted mythopoeia, why not the Son-Gods?\n\nIt is perfectly true, as was urged by the late Sir Alfred Lyall,\nthat in India and elsewhere distinguished men may to this day be\ndeified; that ancestor-worship played a great part in God-making;\nand that tribal Gods are in many cases probably evolved from\ndistinguished chiefs. But such cases really defeat the inference\ndrawn from them. Such God-making can in no instance be shown ever\nto have set up what can reasonably be termed a world-religion. The\nworld-religions are the product of a far more protracted and complex\ncausation. They grow from far further-reaching roots. Above all,\nthey have never grown up without the services either of a numerous\npriesthood or of Sacred Books, or of both.\n\nIs it then contended that a Sacred Book must represent the originative\nteaching of a real person and his disciples? It may or may not;\nbut what does not at all follow is that the personality deified or\nextolled in the Sacred Book was real. Mohammed was a real person:\nhe made no claim to deity: he acclaimed an established God. The names\nof Zoroaster and Buddha were probably not those of real persons: the\nfirst figures as a cult-building priest; the second as a Teacher,\nenshrined from the first in a luxuriant myth, whence his practical\ndeification. In both cases the specific centre of the religion is\nthe Book or Books; and it is beyond question that in both cases many\nhands wrought on these. To say that only a primary personality of\nabnormal greatness could have inspired the writing of the books is\nreally equivalent to saying that there must have been a historical\nJehovah to account for the Old Testament, and a historical Allah to\naccount for the Koran. Let it be freely granted that the writers of\nSacred Books were in many cases remarkable personalities. That is a\ntotally different proposition from the one we are considering.\n\nThe claim that the gospels could only have originated round the memory\nof an inspiring and love-creating personality is in effect an evasion\nof the multitudinous facts of hierology. The European who sees nothing\nin the fact that the mythic Krishna is loved by millions of Hindoos;\nthat in ages of antiquity millions of worshippers were absorbed in the\nlove of Dionysos, mutilated themselves for Attis, and wept for Adonis,\nis not really ready for a verdict on what \"must\" have been as regards\nthe building up of any cult. Are the Psalms, once more, a testimony to\nthe historicity of Jehovah, or is the hymn of Hippolytos to Artemis,\nin Euripides, a proof of anything but that men can love an imagination?\n\nThe special claim for a historical Jesus arises out of the very fact\nthat Jesus alone among the Saviour Gods of antiquity (Buddha being\nexcluded from that category) is celebrated in a set of Sacred Books in\nwhich he figures as at once a Sacrificed God and a Teaching God. [22]\nBut the worships of the Saviours Dionysos and Herakles and Adonis,\nwithout Sacred Books (apart from temple liturgies), were as confident\nas the worship of Jesus. Is the production of Sacred Books in itself\nany more of a testimony to a Saviour God's human actuality than the\nworship with which they are associated?\n\nHistorically speaking, the emergence of Sacred Books as accompaniments\nof a popular cultus is a result of special culture conditions. In\nthe case of Judaism these have never been scientifically traced,\nby reason of the presuppositions of the past. [23] But we can trace\nlater cases. Early Christism founded primarily on the Sacred Books\nof Judaism; and it needed to produce books of its own if it was\nto survive as against the overshadowing parent cult. Save for these\nbooks, Christism would have disappeared as did Mithraism, of which the\nscanty hieratic literature remained occult, liturgical, unpopular,\nwhere Christism was committed to publicity by the Jewish lead. To\nmake of Sacred Books produced under those special conditions a special\nargument for the historicity of their contents, or of their narrative\ngroundwork, is to embrace the fallacy of the single instance. And when\nthe contents utterly fail to sustain the tests of rational documentary\ncriticism, to fall back on a \"must\" for certification of the actuality\nof the figure they deify is merely to renounce critical reason.\n\nThe rational problem is to account historically for the projection\nas a whole, to explain the main features and as many minor details\nas may be, as we explain the \"personality\" and the myth of Herakles\nor Samson or Adonis, the doctrines and fictions of the Books of Ruth\nand Esther, the religions of Krishna and Mithra and Quetzalcoatl. We\nare now compendiously to make the attempt.\n\nM. Loisy has declared [24] that \"One can explain to oneself Jesus:\none cannot explain to oneself those who invented him.\" In the previous\nvolume it has been contended that M. Loisy has decisively failed to\n\"explain Jesus\" as a possible person: in this we essay to explain\n\"those who invented him.\" M. Loisy is an illustrious New-Testament\nscholar: he is not a mythologist or a comparative hierologist. It is\nvery likely that he would find it difficult to explain to himself\nthose who invented Tezcatlipoca; but it would hardly follow that\nTezcatlipoca was not invented. In point of fact, a large portion\nof M. Loisy's own important critical performance consists precisely\nin explaining away as inventions a multitude of items in the gospel\nnarrative. He can understand invention of many parts, and admits that\nunless removed they make an incongruous whole. There is really no\nmore difficulty in explaining the other parts as similar inventions\nthan in explaining these. Thus the alleged difficulty is illusory.\n\nThe occupation of \"explaining to oneself\" imaginary beings has been the\noccupation of theologians through whole millenniums. There can still\nbe found even a hierologist or two who believe in the historicity of\nKrishna; as the judicious Mosheim in the eighteenth century confidently\nbelieved in the historicity of Mercury and Mithra. Those--and they\nare many--who are now content to see myth in the figures of Mithra\nand Krishna, with or without the nimbus of Sacred Books, may on that\nscore consent to consider the thesis of this volume.\n\nIt will be no adequate answer to that to say, as will doubtless be\nsaid, that the outline of the evolution of the myth is unsatisfying. In\nthe very nature of the case, the connections of the data must be\nspeculative. It may well be that those here attempted--some of them\nmodifications of previous theories--will have to be at various\npoints reshaped; and I invite the reader to weigh carefully the\nviews of Professors Drews and Smith where I diverge from them. The\ncomplete establishment of a historical construction will be a long and\ndifficult task. But in its least satisfying aspect the myth-theory\nis a scientific substitution for what is wholly dissatisfying--the\nentirely unhistorical construction furnished by the gospels.\n\nThat has been under revision for a hundred and fifty years, with an\noutlay of labour that is appalling to think of, in view of the utter\nfutility of the search--or, let us say, the labour in proportion to\nthe result, for toil even upon false clues has yielded some knowledge\nthat avails for rectification. But the labour has meant a steadily\ndwindling confidence in a dwindling residuum of supposed fact; though\nevery shortening of the line of defence has evoked furious outcry from\nthe unthinking faithful. The first pious framers of \"harmonies\" of the\ngospels were indignantly told by the more stupid pious that there was\nno strife to harmonize: the Schmiedels and Loisys of to-day, striving\ntheir hardest to save something by rational methods from the rational\nadvance, are execrated by those who believe more than they. The more\ninstructed believers are as warm in their resentment of the latest\nand coolest negative criticism as were their fathers towards the\ncontemptuous exposure of the contradictions of \"inspiration.\" Anger,\nit would seem, always leaps to the help of shaken confidence. Let\nthe believer perpend.\n\nIt is not orthodoxy that is to-day fighting the case of the historicity\nof Jesus. Orthodoxy is committed to the miraculous, to Revelation,\nto the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and, if it\nwould be consistent, to the Ascension, which is on the same plane\nof belief. Upon such assumptions, there can be no critical defence\nworthy of the name. The defence is being conducted mainly by the avowed\nor non-avowed Neo-Unitarians of the various churches and countries;\nand these are simply standing either at the position taken up fifty\nyears ago by Renan, whose \"biography\" of Jesus was received with a\nfar more widespread and no less violent storm of censure than that\nnow being turned upon the myth-theory; or at the more nearly negative\nposition of Strauss, which was still more fiercely censured. Renan's\nposition, or Strauss's, is now the position of the mass of \"moderate\"\nscholars and students. Those who have thus seen a denounced heresy\nbecome the standpoint of ordinary scholarly belief should be slow to\nconclude that a newer heresy will not in time find similar acceptance.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE CENTRAL MYTH\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Ground of Conflict\n\nFor the purposes of this inquiry, all miracles, strictly so-called,\nare out of discussion. This does not mean that the myth-theory\nof Jesus is an outcome of atheistic philosophy. One of the most\nbrilliant of modern books on Jesus is the work of an avowed atheist,\n[25] who accepted substantially the whole of the non-supernatural\npresentment of Jesus in the gospels, taking it to be a bad biography,\nand subjecting the doctrine to keen but sympathetic criticism. This\nwriter, dismissing miracles as outside debate, had a conviction of the\nhistoricity of Jesus which was in no way affected by a knowledge of\nmodern documentary criticism. On the other hand, Professor Arthur\nDrews, author of The Christ Myth, expressly claims to urge the\nmyth-theory in the interest of theistic religion. Of course he too\ndismisses miracles as outside discussion.\n\nThose who are still concerned to discuss them, and to affirm such\nbeliefs as those of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, should\nturn their attention to the well-known work of the late W. R. Cassels,\nSupernatural Religion, [26] in which the whole supernaturalist case,\nin its double aspect of \"revelation\" and miracles, is examined with an\nabundance of learning, patience, and candour. Disparaged in its day\nby professional orthodox scholars, that treatise has so completely\ndone its special work in the general criticism of supernaturalist\nfaith that, however common orthodoxy may still be, the matter is now\nlittle debated among instructed men. Those who still hold the orthodox\nposition, therefore, are not here addressed. Our inquiry invites the\nattention only of those who, abandoning the supernaturalist basis\nof the Christian creed, seek to retain (it may be as the ground for\na transformed \"Christianity\") (1) the human personality which they\nbelieve to have underlain the admitted myths of the record, and\n(2) the teachings--or some of them--ascribed to the God-Man of the\nGospels. The problem is one of historical criticism, and does not turn\nupon theism or atheism. The historicity of Jesus is maintained not only\nby \"Christians\" of various degrees of heterodoxy but by some professed\nrationalists; by critics eminent for judicial temper, as by Professor\nSchmiedel of Z\u00fcrich; and on the other hand by Dr. F. C. Conybeare.\n\nThese critics agree in regarding Jesus as a natural man, naturally\nborn, and it is to them that we must reply. When an orthodox Christian\nlike the Rev. Dr. T. J. Thorburn, holding by the Annunciation and the\nVirgin Birth, sets himself to rebut the myth-theory [27] by scouting\nmyth analogies, it would be idle to argue with him. A writer who\ncan believe he has evidence for a story of human parthenogenesis\nhas no conception of evidence in common with us. It is accordingly\nneedless to point out that he constantly and absurdly misunderstands\nthe myth argument; [28] that he discusses Evemerism without knowing\nwhat it means; [29] and that he merely juggles with such cruces as\nthe stories of the Transfiguration and the Ascension. From one at his\nstandpoint we can expect nothing else; and to those whom his exposition\nsatisfies no myth-theory can appeal. When he resorts to the device of\ndenying \"spiritual insight\" to those who accept scientific tests, he\nmerely exemplifies the normal procedure of orthodox incompetence. The\nreligious reasoner who flouts reason usually certificates and betrays\nhimself in that inexpensive fashion. Our argument is addressed to\nthose who profess to apply to Biblical matters the principles of\nhistorical criticism.\n\nThe biographical school, as one may inoffensively term the variously\nminded champions of the historicity of the record, abandon the Virgin\nBirth and the Resurrection as impossibilities. That is to say, they\naccept the myth-theory as regards those two cardinal items of the\nChristian legend. They also in general recognize that the fourth\ngospel, in so far as it differs vitally from the synoptics, is in\nthe main a process of myth-making. But, clinging to the alleged\nsubstratum, most members of the school adhere to the fundamental\nhistoricity of the Crucifixion. Here they stand with Strauss, who\nfound in the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate a solid historical\nfact. Strauss is generally explicit as to his reasons for accepting\nand rejecting; and while he resolves into myth at least nine-tenths\nof the gospel narratives, finding them mere inventions to \"fulfil\"\nsupposed Old Testament predictions, he finds the testimony of Tacitus\nunquestionable as to the execution. [30]\n\nNow, the Annals of Tacitus is itself a questioned document; but\neven if we take it as unquestionable it is admittedly only a late\nstatement of a narrative already made current by the Christists,\nthe Annals being commonly dated about 120 C.E. Either Tacitus was\nfounding on a Roman record of the Crucifixion or he was merely saying\nwhat Christists said as to the origin of their sect. If the latter,\nhe supplies no historical basis. On the other hand, the unlikelihood\nof there being a Roman record of executions in Palestine ninety\nyears before is so great that no Christian advocate now appears\nto affirm it. Tacitus in fact gives no sign of consulting official\nrecords, [31] his only traceable sources being previous historians,\nnotably Suetonius. Thus Strauss's express ground for accepting the\nexecution of a \"Christ\" by Pontius Pilate is really illusory; and\nwhen we further find him pronouncing that the Barabbas episode must\nbe held fundamentally historical because it is \"so firmly rooted in\nthe early Christian tradition,\" [32] we are again compelled to reject\nhis test. As we shall see, the Barabbas episode is unintelligible\nas history, but highly intelligible as myth. At the very outset,\nthen, unverified assumptions are seen to be made by the biographical\nschool as to what may confidently be taken as historical, even when,\nas in the case of Strauss, they affirm an abundance of myth.\n\nWhere Strauss was rash, later rationalistic writers have been more\nso. My old friend, the English translator of Jules Soury's early work\non Jesus, took for granted that behind legendary heroes in general\nthere is always a nucleus of fact; but Soury, after postulating a\nlarge part of the gospel story as veridical, gave up a number of his\nown items. [33] As soon as he began to apply criticism, they were seen\nto be arbitrary assumptions. Equally arbitrary is the assumption of\n\"some basis,\" made upon no scientific principle.\n\nThe biographical school in general adhere at least to the trial\nand condemnation before Pilate, though many abandon as fiction the\ntrial before the Sanhedrim, which indeed was abandoned as long ago\nas the third gospel, in favour of an equally fictitious trial before\nHerod. As is seen by M. Loisy, the trial before Pilate is for the\nhistorical critic the keystone of the tragedy story. If that goes,\nthere remains only a highly composite body of teaching, with no\nidentifiable historical personality to which to attach it.\n\nBut even as regards the trials there is wide divergence among the\nbiographical school. For instance, Mr. Charles Stanley Lester, an\nex-clergyman of Milwaukee, in his interesting work The Historic Jesus,\n[34] entirely rejects the Sanhedrim trial, and likewise the gospel\naccount of the Pilate trial, but finds \"probable history\" in the view\nthat the priests privately persuaded Pilate to condemn Jesus on their\naccusation without any trial. [35] Again, the anonymous author of The\nFour Gospels as Historical Records, [36] an eminently keen, searching,\nand candid critic, rejects alike the Judas story, the trial before the\nSanhedrim, and the trial before Pilate, [37] as he does most of the\nother items of the gospel history, yet throughout seems to take for\ngranted the historicity of the \"Great Teacher,\" the \"Master,\" never\neven raising that issue save in protesting that he has absolutely\nnothing to say against him. [38] So completely does he destroy the\nwhole narrative, indeed, that he can hardly be said to maintain the\nthesis of historicity, but he never calls it in question: he merely\ndestroys the biography. Mr. Lester, on the other hand, confidently\nrejects a hundred details as myth, claiming that he presents the\ngospels \"relieved of the drapery of mythology and set free from all\ndogmatic fictions\"; [39] and yet no less confidently affirms a hundred\n\"undoubted\" things, in a manner that almost outgoes M. Loisy.\n\nIf, faced by such procedures, the critical reader asks upon what\ngrounds the historical personality is accepted, he gets from the\nable anonymous writer no answer, and from Mr. Lester, in effect, only\nthe answer that the teachings which appeal to him in the gospels are\nself-certified as coming from the \"Jesus\" in whom he believes, while\nthe others are dismissed by him as inconsistent with his conception. As\na rule, the negative criticism is soundly reasoned; the constructive\nis purely arbitrary. Yet Mr. Lester is an amiable and--apart from his\nquaint animosity towards \"the Semitic mind\" [40]--a temperate critic,\nwarmly concerned for historic truth and loyally opposed to all kinds\nof priestcraft, ancient and modern. What we must ask from such critics\nis that they should bring to bear on their biographical assumption\nthe same critical method that they bring to bear on the multitude\nof details which strike them as obviously unhistorical. Rejecting\nmiracles and self-contradictory narrative, they affirm a miraculous\nand self-contradictory Person. That conception too must be analysed.\n\nThe Jesus of the Gospels is at once a Messiah (with no definite mission\nas such), a Saviour God with whom the indefinite Messiah coalesces,\nand a Teaching God who coalesces with both. The biographical school,\nin the mass, posit a human Teacher, round whose teaching a Messianic\nconception combined with a doctrine of salvation by blood sacrifice has\nnucleated. If in this tissue there cannot be inserted the historical\ndetail of the trial before Pilate, there is nothing left but the\nquasi-mythical detail of the crucifixion as an ostensible historical\nbasis for the Messianic and other teaching, so much of which is alien\nto the early cult, so much of which is critically to be assigned to\nprevious and contemporary Jewish sources, and so much to later Jesuist\neditors and compilers. Those laymen who are content to pick out of the\ngospels certain teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount, and call\nthese \"Christianity,\" have not realized how completely documentary\nanalysis has disintegrated the teachings into pre-Jesuine Jewish\nand post-Jesuine Gentile matter. The latest professional analysis,\nas we have seen, leaves no Jesuine \"Teaching\" save an eschatology,\na doctrine of \"last things,\" coming from a visionary Messiah with no\npolitical or social message. [41] The bulk of the biographical school,\non the other hand, cling diversely to \"something\" in the Teaching which\nshall be somehow commensurate with the \"impression\" made by the life\nand death of the Teacher, which, from Renan onwards, they regard as the\nreal genesis of the myth of the Resurrection and the consequent cult.\n\nHaving shown, then, the cogent critical reasons for dismissing the\nentire record of the triple episode of the Supper, the Agony, and the\nTrials, as unhistorical, [42] it concerns us to show (1) that the whole\nis intelligible only as myth, and (2) how the myth probably arose. The\nsequence culminates in the Crucifixion, which, with the Sacrament,\nis for the rational hierologist as for the orthodox theologian the\ncentre of Christianity. Equally the biographical school are committed\nto maintaining the historicity of the event, without which they cannot\nexplain the rise of the cult. If then the myth-theory is to stand,\nit must show that the central narrative belongs to the realm of myth.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Sacrificial Rite\n\nIn the Christian record, the Crucifixion is essentially a\nsacrifice. \"The essence of the Sacrament is not merely partaking of\na common cup or a common meal, but feasting upon a sacrifice ... and\nthis was found everywhere among Jews and Gentiles.\" [43] Thus the term\n\"Eucharist,\" which means \"thanksgiving\" or \"thank-offering,\" applied\nin the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the kind of sacrament\nthere indicated, and thence taken by Justin and other Fathers,\nis clearly a misnomer for the thing specified in the gospels. Of\nthe gospel sacrifice, the sacrament is the liturgical and symbolic\napplication. [44] Or, otherwise, the crucifixion is the fulfilment of\nthe theory of the sacrament. On the view of the historicity of the\nformer, or of both, it would be necessary to show why the procedure\nset forth in the gospels so closely simulated a human sacrifice; and\nthis is incidentally attempted in passing by M. Loisy. The scene of\nderision by the soldiers, he says, \"was perhaps connected with some\npagan festival usage.\" [45] But this at once admits the entrance of\nthe myth-theory, which affirms that an immemorial \"festival\" usage\nis indicated. If Jesus was executed to please the Jewish multitude,\nas is the view even of the most destructive of the later German\nexegetes [46]--why should the execution take a pagan form? M. Loisy,\nwho had previously accepted as history the narrative of the Entry into\nJerusalem, with the public acclamation of Jesus as \"the Son of David,\"\nis unprepared to believe with the German critic that within a week the\nmultitude cried \"Crucify him!\"; and he therefore wholly eliminates\nthat item from his biographical sketch. He implies, however, that\nthe doom of Jesus was passed by Pilate to please the priests, which\nis equally fatal to the thesis of a pagan festival usage. He accepts,\nfurther, the scene of the Mocking, with no ostensible critical reason,\nbut presumably in order to establish a history which would explain\nthe subsequent growth of the cult. In this process the salient episode\nof Barabbas is dismissed by him as unhistorical. [47]\n\nThus the most distinguished critic of the biographical school has\nno account to give of a second salient item in the record which,\nbeing entirely non-supernatural, must be held to have been inserted\nfor some strong reason. It in fact closely involves the whole\nmyth-theory. Barabbas was in all probability a regular figure in\nSemitic popular religion; and the name connects documentarily with\nthat of Jesus. The reading \"Jesus Barabbas,\" in Mt. xxvii, 16, as\nwe have noted, [48] was long the accepted one in the ancient Church;\nand its entrance and its disappearance are alike significant. It is\nobviously probable that such a name as \"Jesus the Son of the Father\"\n(= Bar-Abbas [49]), applied to a murderer, would give an amount of\noffence to early Christian readers which would naturally lead in time\nto its elimination from the current text. [50] But on that view there\nis no explanation of its entrance. Such a stumbling-block could not\nhave been set up without a compulsive reason.\n\nThe anthropological and hierological data go to show that an annual\nsacrifice of a \"Son of the Father\" was a long-standing feature in the\nSemitic world. A story in Philo Jud\u00e6us about a mummery in Alexandria\nin ridicule of the Jewish King Agrippa, the grandson of Herod,\npoints pretty clearly to a local Jewish survival from that usage. A\nlunatic named Karabas is said to have been paraded as a mock-king,\nwith mock-crown, sceptre and robe. [51] In all likelihood the K is a\nmistranscription for B. In any case, \"the custom of sacrificing the son\nfor the father was common, if not universal, among Semitic peoples,\"\n[52] as among others; and the Passover [53] was originally a sacrifice\nof firstlings, human and animal, [54] the former being probably\nmost prevalent in times of disaster. \"Devotion\" was the principle:\nsurrogate sacrifices would normally be substituted. Sacrifice of a\nking's son, in particular, was held to be of overwhelming efficacy by\nearly Hebrews and other Semites, as among other races in the savage\nand barbaric stages. [55]\n\nThere is nothing peculiar to the Semites either in the general or\nin the particular usage, both being once nearly universal; but it is\nwith the Semites that we are here specially concerned. The story of\nAbraham and Isaac, to say nothing of that of Jephthah's daughter,\nis a finger-post in the evolution of religion, being inferribly\na humane myth to promote the substitution of animal for human\nsacrifice. And the Phoenician myth of \"Ieoud,\" the \"only-begotten\"\nson of King Kronos, \"whom the Phoenicians call Israel,\" sacrificed\nby his father at a time of national danger, after being dressed in\nthe trappings of royalty, [56] points towards the historic roots\nof Christianity. Again and again we meet the conception of the\n\"only-begotten\" \"Son of the Father\"--Father Abraham, Father Kronos,\nFather Israel, the Father-King--as a special sacrifice in Hebrew and\nother Semitic history. Kronos is a Semitic God; and in connection with\nthe Roman Saturnalia we have the record of a Greek oracle commanding to\n\"send a man to the Father\"--that is, to Kronos. [57]\n\nWhat is certain is that sacrifices of kings, which were at one stage of\nsocial evolution normal, [58] inevitably tended to take other tribal\nor communal forms; and a multitude of rites preserved plain marks\nof the regal origin. Kings would inevitably pass off their original\ntragic burden; the community, bent on the safeguard of sacrifice,\nshifted it in turn. [59] Sacrifice of some kind, it was felt, there\nmust be, to avert divine wrath: [60] that conviction lies at the base\nof the Christian as of the Jewish religion: it is fundamental to all\nprimitive religion; and it is happily beyond our power to realize\nsave symbolically the immeasurable human slaughter that the religious\nconviction has involved.\n\nPrimarily, voluntary victims were desired; and in Roman and\nJapanese history there are special or general records of their being\nforthcoming, annually or in times of emergency. [61] Even in the case\nof animal sacrifice, the Romans had a trick of putting barley in the\nvictim's ear to make him bow his head as if in submission. [62] But as\nregards human sacrifices, which were felt to be specially efficacious,\nthe progression was inevitable from willing to compelled victims;\nand out of the multitude of the forms of human sacrifice, for which\nwar captives and slaves at some stages supplied a large proportion\nof the victims, we single that of the evolution from the voluntary\nscape-goat or the sacrificed king or messenger, through the victim\n\"bought with a price,\" to the released criminal or other desperate\nor resigned person bribed with a period of licence and abundance to\ndie for the community at the end of it.\n\nIn many if not in most of these cases, deification of the victim was\ninvolved in the theory, the victim being customarily identified with\nthe God. [63] It was so in certain special sacrifices in pre-Christian\nMexico. [64] It was so in the human sacrifices of the Khonds of\nOrissa, which subsisted till about the middle of last century. [65]\nIn the latter instance, of which we have precise record, the annual\nvictims were taken from families devoted by purchase to the function,\nor were bought as children and brought up for the purpose. They\nwere \"bought with a price.\" When definitely allotted, the males were\npermitted absolute sexual liberty, being regarded as already virtually\ndeified. The victim was finally slain \"for the sins of the world,\"\nand was liturgically declared a God in the process.\n\nSuch rites gradually dwindled in progressive communities from ritual\nmurders into ritual mysteries or masquerades; even as human sacrifices\nin general, in most parts of the world, dwindled from bodies to parts\nof bodies, fingers, hair, foreskins; from human to animal victims;\n[66] from larger to smaller animals; from these to fowls; from real\nanimals to baked or clay models, fruits, grains, sheafs of rushes,\nfigures, paper or other symbols. It seems usually to have been humane\nkings or chiefs who imposed the improvement on priesthoods. And as\nwith the victim, so with the sacramental meal which accompanied so\nmany sacrifices. Cannibal sacraments were once, probably, universal:\nthey have survived down till recent times in certain regions; but with\nadvance in civilization they early and inevitably tend to become merely\nsymbolic. In Mexico at the advent of Cortes, both the cannibal and the\nsymbolic forms subsisted--the former under conventional limitations;\nthe latter in the practice of eating a baked image which had been\nraised on a cross and there pierced, for sanctification. [67] This\n\"Eating of the God\" was very definitely a sacrament; but so were the\ncannibalistic sacraments which preceded it.\n\nSurveying the general evolution, we reach the inference that somewhere\nin Asia Minor there subsisted before \"our era\" a cult or cults in which\na \"Son of the Father\" was annually sacrificed under one or other of the\ncategories of human sacrifice--Scapegoat, representative Firstling,\nVegetation God, or Messenger; possibly in some cases under all four\naspects in one. The usage may or may not have subsisted in post-exilic\nJerusalem: quite possibly it did, for not only do the Sacred Books\navow constant popular and legal resort to \"heathen\" practices of human\nsacrifice, [68] but Jewish religious lore preserves in a variety of\nforms clear evidence of institutions of human sacrifice which are\nnot recognized in the Sacred Books. [69] In any case, in connection\nwith the particular cult or rite in question there subsisted also a\nEucharist or Sacrament or Holy Supper, analogous to the sacraments\nof the cults of Mithra, Dionysos, Attis, and many other Gods. [70]\nAt a remote period it had been strictly cannibalistic: in course of\ntime, it became symbolical. In other words, originally the sacrificed\nvictim was sacramentally eaten; in course of time the thing eaten was\nsomething else, with at most a ritual formula of \"body and blood.\" At a\ncertain stage, whether by regal or other compulsion or by choice of the\ndevotees, the annual rite of sacrifice became a mere ritual or Mystery\nDrama--as in other cases it became a public masquerade. The former\nevolution underlay the religions of Dionysos, Osiris, Adonis, and\nAttis: the latter may or may not have gone on alongside of the former.\n\nWhat does emerge from the gospel narrative concerning Barabbas and\nJesus is, not that such an episode happened: here the myth-theory is at\none with M. Loisy, who in effect pronounces the narrative to be myth:\nbut that in the first age of Christianity the name \"Jesus Barabbas\"\nwas well known, and stood for something well known. It was certainly\nknown to the Jews, for we have Talmudical mention, dating from a period\njust after the fall of the Temple, that there was a Jewish ritual\n\"Week of the Son, or, as some call it, Jesus the Son,\" in connection\nwith the circumcision and redemption of the first-born child. [71]\nFrom the inference of the currency of the name there is no escape:\nattached to a robber and murderer it could never have got into the\ngospels otherwise. And the myth-theory can supply the explanation\nwhich neither the orthodox nor the biographical theory can yield. We\nhave outside evidence that a sacrifice of a \"Son of the Father\" was\ncustomary in parts of the Semitic world. What the gospel story proves\nis that it was known to have been a practice, either at Jerusalem or\nelsewhere, to release a prisoner to the multitude in connection with a\npopular festival, which might or might not have been the Passover. The\nrelease may have been for the purpose either of a religious masquerade\nor of a sacrifice. Either way, the religious rite involved was a rite\nof \"Jesus Barabbas\"--Jesus the Son of the Father--and it involved\neither a real or a mock sacrifice, in which the \"Son\" figured as a\nmock king, with robe and crown.\n\nThe more the problem is considered, then, the more clear becomes the\nsolution. As soon as the Jesuist cult reached the stage of propaganda\nin which it described its Son-God as having died, in circumstances of\nignominy, as an atoning sacrifice, it would be met by the memory of\nthe actual Barabbas rite. Given that the Barabbas victim was ritually\nscourged and \"crucified\" (a term which has yet to be investigated),\nit follows that wherever the early propaganda [72] went in areas\nin which the memory of the rite subsisted, the Christists would be\ntold that their Jesus the Son was simply the Jesus Barabbas of that\npopular rite; and the only possible--or at least the best--way to\noverride the impeachment was to insert a narrative which reduced the\nregular ritual Jesus Barabbas to a single person, a criminal whom the\nwicked Jewish multitude had chosen to save instead of the sinless\nJesus of the cult. In the circumstances given it was an absolutely\nnecessary invention; and no other circumstances could conceivably\nhave made it necessary. The story, by the unwilling admission of\nM. Loisy, who conserves whatever he thinks he critically can of the\nrecord, is a myth; and it is a myth which on the biographical theory\ncannot be explained. The myth-theory has explained it. As for the\ndisappearance of the \"Jesus\" from the name of Barabbas in the records,\nit hardly needs explanation. When the memory of the old annual rite\ndied away from general knowledge, the elision of the \"Jesus\" would\nbe desirable alike for the learned who still knew and the unlearned\nwho did not. [73]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Contingent Elements\n\nIt is needless for the defender of the biographical theory to interject\na protest that the Barabbas story is only one item in the case. The\nother items will all be dealt with in turn: that has been put in the\nfront because of its crucial significance. Incidentally it may be\nfurther noted that the myth-theory explains the plainly unhistorical\nitem of \"the thirty pieces of silver,\" confusedly explained from \"the\nprophet Jeremy\" as \"the price of him that was priced, whom [certain]\nof the children of Israel did price\" (Mt. xxvii, 9). The reference\nis really to Zechariah (xi, 12, 13).\n\nThe story of the Betrayal is fiction on the very face of the narrative,\nJudas being employed to point out a personage of declared notoriety,\nabout whose movements there had been no secrecy. [74] Judas is\ndemonstrably a somewhat late figure in the gospel legend, coming\nfrom the later Mystery Drama, not from the rite on which it was\nbuilt. But, whatever may be the solution of the cryptogram about the\npotter's field and the thirty pieces of silver in Zechariah, or the\nhistoric fact about Aceldama, one thing is clear: \"the price of him\nthat was priced,\" in Matthew, tells of the usage of paying a price\nfor sacrificial victims.\n\nIt does not follow that a price was regularly paid in the case of the\nJesus Barabbas rite, though the record actually insists on the item\nby way of the Judas story: what is clear is that a memory of bought\nvictims subsisted after the fall of Jerusalem. It is not unlikely\nthat \"Aceldama\" was a field where sacrificial victims were either\nslain or buried, or both. A passage in the Kalika Purana suggests\nthe procedure, and the probable significance of Golgotha, the \"place\nof skulls.\" In the Hindu rite, the human victim was immolated \"at a\ncemetery or holy place,\" upon which the sacrificer was not to look;\nand the head was presented in \"the place of skulls, sacred to Bhoiruvu\"\n(God of Fear). This could be in a special temple, or in a part of\nthe cemetery, \"or on a mountain.\" [75]\n\nAt this point a warning must be given against the confusion set up by\nthe habitual assumption that \"something of the kind\" occurred under\nPontius Pilate. It is only on the biographical theory that that date is\nvalid. Pontius Pilate is simply a figure in the later Mystery Drama,\noriginally chosen, probably, because of his notoriety as a shedder\nof Jewish blood. [76] We are not bound to prove that at his date\nthe usage of ritual human sacrifice, real or pretended, survived at\nJerusalem, though it may have done, as it survived at Rhodes in the\ntime of Porphyry in the form, perhaps, of a Semitic mystery drama. [77]\n\nIt is the assumption of the historicity of the Crucifixion that partly\ndisarms the theorem of Sir J. G. Frazer as to a coincidence of Jewish\nsacrificial rites. [78] Noting that the details of the Crucifixion\nclosely conform to those of a human sacrifice sometimes practised\nin the Christian era in connection with the Roman Saturnalia, and\nalso to those of a real or mock rite connected with the Babylonian\nfeast of the Sac\u00e6a, he resorts to the alternative hypotheses (a)\nthat the analogous Jewish feast of Purim, imported from Babylon after\nthe Return, and also involving either a real or a mock crucifixion,\nchanced to coincide with the actual crucifixion of the gospel Jesus;\nor that (b) Christian tradition \"shifted the date of the crucifixion\nby a month or so\" to connect it with the Passover. As the official\nPurim rite, though cognate with that of the Passover, cannot well have\nbeen allowed to coincide with it, the theory of coincidence is barred;\nand the theorist is assured by an expert colleague that \"all that we\nhear of the Passion is only explicable by the Passover festival,\" and\nthat \"without the background of the festival all that we know of the\nCrucifixion and of what led up to it is totally unintelligible.\" [79]\n\nWhen, however, the unhistorical character of the gospel narrative is\nrealized, such difficulties disappear. The intention was certainly\nto connect the Crucifixion with the Passover (in which the paschal\nlamb--symbolizing Isaac--was customarily dressed in the form of a\ncross [80]); and in the fourth gospel Jesus becomes an actual Passover\nsacrifice. But the narrative is simply a reduction to historic form\nof the procedure of a customary ritual sacrifice, habitual usages of\nhuman sacrifice being represented as expedients of a single Roman\nexecution. With the exact seasonal date of the Jesus Barabbas rite\nwhich here motived the gospel legend, the myth-theory is not primarily\nconcerned, though it has secondary interest. It was probably a Spring\nFestival, and at the same time a New Year Festival, the period of\nthe vernal equinox having been both in east and west the time of\nthe New Year before that was placed after the winter solstice. It is\nthus highly likely that there were analogous sacrificial festivals\nat Yule and at Easter, one celebrating the new-birth of the sun and\nthe other the revival of vegetation. The Sac\u00e6a festival may or may\nnot have been identical with that known from the monuments to have\nbeen called the Zakmuk [81] (New Year): either way, the features may\nhave been the same. There was in Judea, further, a hieratic year as\nwell as a civil, a Lesser Passover as well as the greater. [82] The\nmyth-theory does not depend on an agreed date, though the myth fixes\non an astronomical date, itself constantly varying in the calendar.\n\nWhat leaps to the eyes is that the gospel legend preserves two\nseparated features of the festival of a Sacrificed Mock-King, which\nas incidents in the life of the Teacher are wholly incompatible,\nand which the biographical theory cannot reasonably explain--the\nacclaimed and welcomed Entry into Jerusalem and within a week the\ndemand of the city multitude for the crucifixion. The Entry is an\nelaboration of several myth elements, but it contains the item of the\nacclaimed ride of the quasi-king, mounted on an ass (or two asses). If\nthe biographical school would but consider historical probabilities,\nthey would realize that the story as told cannot be historical,\nwith or without the strange antithesis of the multitude's speedy\ndemand for the prophet's death. Such a triumphal entry, for such a\nperson as the gospel Jesus, could not spontaneously have taken place:\nit must have been planned; and, if arranged with such an effect as\nthe record describes, it would have given Pilate very sufficient\nground for intervention without waiting for a complaint from the\npriests. Taken as history, it is wholly irreconcilable with the\n\"Crucify him\" ascribed to a multitude whose support of Jesus had\nbeen affirmed the day before; and accordingly M. Loisy, accepting\nthe Entry, rejects the latter episode. Strauss, hesitating to go,\n\"as has latterly often been done,\" the length of rejecting the Entry\non the ass as wholly mythical, finds it very much so; [83] and Brandt\nincidentally dismisses it as \"under the strongest suspicion of being\nframed upon Old Testament motives from beginning to end.\" [84]\n\nThus the biographical school itself proffers a myth-theory,\nwithout indicating an explanatory motive for the positing of a\ncontradiction. But when we realize that an acclamation of a quasi-king\nriding on an ass was actually part of the ritual in a sacrificial\nrite in which he was to be crucified, the two clashing elements\nin the legend are at once explained in the full myth-theory. Their\nseparate handling and development was, just as intelligibly, part of\nthe process of gospel-making, the creation of an ideal Jesus. But\nseeing that in the Sac\u00e6a festival the mock-king had a five days'\nreign between his start and his death, [85] the original ritual gave\nthe interval which in the gospel story is filled with the acts of\nthe Teaching God. Five days is the accepted traditional interval from\nPalm Sunday to Crucifixion Day.\n\n\n[Even for the item of the two asses in Matthew there is a\nmyth-explanation. Many writers of the biographical school, who\ncompensate themselves for their difficulties by ascribing a peculiarly\ncrass stupidity to the apostles and evangelists at every opportunity,\ndecide that the narrator or interpolator posited the two asses, an\nass and its colt, because he found in Zechariah a Messianic prediction\nso phrased, [86] and did not understand that the Hebraic idiom simply\nmeant \"an ass.\" Yet one member of the school, Dr. Conybeare, fiercely\ndenounces myth-theorists for claiming to understand Jewish symbolism\nbetter than the Jews did. Either principle serves the turn. When\nTertullian says that Jesus is the Divine Fish because fishes were\nparthenogenetically born, and Jesus was born again in the waters of\nthe Jordan, Dr. Conybeare is sure of the wisdom of Tertullian. This\nthesis, first found in Tertullian, is to decide the question, to\nthe exclusion of any reflection on the fact that the Sun at Easter\nhad before the Christian era passed from the sign Aries to the sign\nPisces in the zodiac. But when Matthew reads Zechariah's two asses\nas meaning two asses, Matthew is to be dismissed as a Jew who did\nnot understand the commonest Hebrew idiom.\n\nThe simple fact that the Septuagint does not give the duplication,\nputting only \"a young colt,\" will serve to indicate to any careful\nreader that the evangelist or interpolator was following the Hebrew,\nand therefore is to be presumed to have known something of Hebrew\nidiom. And the just critical inference is that both passages had\nregard to the zodiacal figure of the Two Asses for the sign Cancer,\nfrom which we have the myth of Bacchus riding on two asses. [87]\nFurther, it is probable that the similar passage in the Song of Jacob\n[88] has also a zodiacal basis. These details, which Dr. Conybeare\nabsolutely withholds from his readers, indicate the mythological\ninduction put by the present writer. In an unconstruable sentence,\nDr. Conybeare appears to argue [89] that to secure any consideration\nfor such a thesis we must \"prove that the earliest Christians, who\nwere Jews, must have been familiar with the rare legend of Bacchus\ncrossing a marsh on two asses,\" and \"with the rare representation of\nthe zodiacal sign Cancer as an ass and its foal.\"\n\nHow the critic knows that the legend was rare at the beginning of\nthe Christian era he does not reveal; any more than he gives his\njustification for calling the Asses sign rare in the face of the\nstatement of Lactantius that the Greeks call the sign of Cancer \"(the)\nAsses.\" This reference was given by me, as also the item that the\nsign of the Ass and Foal is Babylonian. It was thus very likely to\nbe known in the Semitic world. Yet Dr. Conybeare obliviously informs\nus that \"it is next to impossible\" that it should be known to \"the\nearliest Christians,\" when all the while he is arguing that Matthew\nwas not the gospel of \"the earliest Christians.\" It is in perfect\nkeeping with this chaotic procedure that he first oracularly refers\nme to Hyginus, whose version of the myth of Bacchus and the asses I\nhad actually cited and quoted; and then, discovering that I had done\nso, yet leaving his written exhortation unaltered, he announces that\n\"by Mr. Robertson's own admission, Bacchus never rode on two asses\nat all.\" It is difficult to be sure whether Dr. Conybeare does or\ndoes not believe in the historicity of Bacchus, as he does in that of\nJesus; but seeing that Lactantius, as cited by me, expressly declares\nthat the two asses (= Cancer) carried Bacchus over the marsh, and\nthat Dr. Conybeare had already recognized that such a myth existed,\nhis absurd conclusion can be set down only to his habitual incoherence.\n\nI have dealt in detail with his futile criticism at this point\nby way of putting the reader on his guard against the method of\nbluster. Comparative mythology is a difficult and thorny field, but\nit has to be explored; and Dr. Conybeare, whose study of the subject\nseems to have begun in the year of the issue of his book, [90] does\nnot even discern the nature of its problems. He avowedly supposes that\ntotems are Gods; and he argues that the Jewish and Hellenistic world\nin the age of Augustus was at the mythopoeic stage of the Australian\naborigines of to-day. Of the phenomena of iconographic myth he is\nevidently quite ignorant; and his dithyramb on the sun myth tells\nof nothing but obsolete debate on the question. And it is in this\nconnection that he informs his antagonists, in his now celebrated\nacademic manner, that they are \"a back number.\"\n\nIt has only to be added that as regards the documentary problem, in\nthis connection, Dr. Conybeare is equally distracted. It is far from\ncertain that at this point Mark's \"colt\" is not a \"rectification\"\nof an original which Matthew accepted. The assumption--negatived\nby themselves--that Mark and Matthew as we have them are both\nprimary forms, Matthew always following and elaborating Mark, is\none of the loose hypotheses which such critics when it suits them\ntake for certainties. But the question of priority of form does not\naffect the fundamental issue. One of the suggestions put by me which\nDr. Conybeare has carefully withheld from his readers--if, indeed,\nhe ever really sees what is before him--is that the item of the\nsingle ass or colt is probably a myth with another basis. \"An ass\ntied\" appears to have been an Egyptian symbol pointing to a solar\ndate or a zodiacal or other myth, [91] and this symbol, which is\nfound in the Song of Jacob, is the form put upon the Mark story by\nJustin Martyr. That the other symbol had a long Christian vogue is\nindicated first by the fact that there actually exists a Gnostic\ngem showing an ass suckling its foal, with the figure of the crab\n(Cancer) above, and the inscription D.N. IHV. XPS., DEI FILIUS =\nDominus Noster Jesu (?) Christus, Son of God; [92] and, secondly, by\nthe mention of the ass and foal in the third Sermon of St. Proclus\n(5th c.). [93] These details also Dr. Conybeare withholds from his\nreaders, for the purposes of his polemic.\n\nThat we are dealing with a conflict of symbolisms will probably be\nthe inference of those who will face the facts. But Dr. Conybeare,\nwho is here in good company, is quite satisfied that behind the Mark\nstory of Jesus riding in a noisy procession on an unbroken colt we have\nunquestionable history. There must be no nonsense about two asses;\nbut for him the story of the unbroken colt raises no difficulty. He\nfurther simplifies the problem by summarizing Mark as telling that\n\"an insignificant triumphal demonstration is organized for him [Jesus]\nas he enters the sacred city on an ass\"; [94] and by explaining that\n\"there was no other way of entering Jerusalem unless you went on\nfoot.\" [95] The \"insignificant\" is held to be sufficient to dispose\nof the problem of the Roman Governor's entire indifference to a\nMessianic movement. Thus functions the biographic method, in the\nhands of our academician.\n\nAll the while, the item of the foal is, on his own interpretation,\na specified fulfilment of a prophecy, only in this case the prophecy\nis in his opinion rightly understood, whereas in the two-ass story\nit was misunderstood. By his own method, the critic is committed\nto the position that the phrase \"whereon no man ever yet sat\" is\nmyth. [96] For serious critics in general, this is sufficient to\nput in doubt the whole story. For our critic, a story of a triumphal\nprocession, with an unbroken colt, is simply resolved into one of an\n\"insignificant procession,\" with an ordinary donkey. Thus, under the\npretence of extracting history from a given document, the document is\nsimply manipulated at will to suit a presupposition. On this plan,\nthe twelve labours of Herakles are simply history exaggerated, and\nany one can make any Life of Herakles out of it at his pleasure. We\nmust not say that Una rode on a lion, but we may infer that she rode\non a small yellow pony. It is the method of the early German deistic\nrationalists, according to which the story of Jesus walking on the\nwater is saved by the explanation that he was walking on the shore.]\n\n\nPart of the demonstration of the myth-theory, again, lies in the fact\nthat the first act of Jesus after his entry is to \"cast out all them\nthat sold and bought in the temple, and overthrow the tables of the\nmoney-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves.\" That this\nshould have been accomplished without resistance seemed to Origen\nso astonishing that he pronounced it among the greatest miracles of\nJesus, [97] adding the skeptical comment--\"if it really happened.\" The\nmyth-theory may here claim the support of Origen.\n\nStrauss could find no ground for rejecting the story as myth upon\nhis method of finding myth-motives only in the Old Testament. If he\nhad lived in our day he would probably have agreed that the episode\nis singled out of the kinds of exploit which were permitted to the\nvictim in the Sac\u00e6a and the Saturnalia and such primitive sacrificial\nfestivals in general, and turned to a doctrinal account. Such liberties\nas are described, all falling short of sacrilege, are among those\nwhich could normally take place. It is by way of anti-Judaism that\nthe episode is utilized in the synoptics.\n\nIn the fourth gospel, where so many matters are turned to new account,\nand so much new doctrine introduced, the purification is put with\nsymbolic purpose at the outset of the Messiah's career, in a visit to\nJerusalem of which the synoptics know nothing; and in this myth Jesus\nmakes \"a scourge of small cords\" to effect his purpose. That later\nitem was probably suggested by the effigy of the Egyptian Saviour\nGod Osiris, who bears a scourge as the God of retribution. In the\nsynoptics there is no symbol: the story is simply employed as part\nof the superadded didactic machinery which alternately exhibits the\nfull development of the Messiah and the unfitness of the \"Jewish\ndispensation\" to continue. Inferribly, the story of the fig-tree is\nin the same case, signifying the condemnation of the Jewish cult,\nthough here there may be a concrete motive of which we have lost the\nclue. But it is significant that while the gospel record could not\npossibly assign to the holy Messiah such a general course as was\nfollowed by the licensed sacrificial victim, it follows the story\nof his Entry with that of one markedly disorderly act; whereafter\nhe goes to lodge in Bethany (Mt. xxi, 17) at a house which later is\nindicated as that of a leper (xxvi, 6). There his head is anointed\nby a woman; who in Luke, in a differently placed episode (vii, 37),\nbecomes \"a sinner.\" Is not this another echo from the obscure tragedy\nof the sacrificial victim, who was anointed for his doom?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Mock-King Ritual\n\nSeparately considered, the Crucifixion in the gospel story is as\nimpossible as the Entry. The cross, we are told, was headed with an\ninscription: \"This is the King of the Jews.\" Sir J. G. Frazer [98]\nand M. Salomon Reinach [99] concur in recognizing that if the victim\nhad really been executed on the charge of making such a claim, no\nRoman governor would have dared so to endorse it. [100] The argument\nis that only by turning the execution into a celebration of a popular\nrite could the procedure have been made officially acceptable. But to\nextract such an explanation from the record is simply to stultify it as\nsuch. If there really occurred such a manipulation of the death-scene\nof an adored Teacher, how could the narrators possibly fail to say\nas much? We are asked by the biographical school to believe that the\nCrucifixion was made a farce-tragedy by treating the Teacher as the\nvictim in a well-known rite of human sacrifice, and also to believe\nthat the devotees who preserved the record, knowing this fact, chose\nto say nothing about it, preferring to represent the procedure as a\nunique incident.\n\nIt might perhaps be argued, on the biographical view, that the Roman\nsoldiers, who are held to have been Asiatics, chose to improvise\na version of a sacrificial rite which was unknown to the Jesuists,\nand that the latter simply reported the episode without understanding\nit, interpreting it from their prophets in their own way. But if the\nrecord be historical it is incredible that in a cult which is claimed\nto have made many adherents throughout the Roman Empire in east and\nwest in a generation or two, it should not quickly have become known\nthat the procedure of the Crucifixion was a copy of popular eastern\nand western rites of human sacrifice. If there had taken place what\nthe hypothesis suggests, there was a purposive suppression. That is\nto say, the credibility of the narrative is at this point vitally\nimpeached by a supporter of the biographical theory, which expressly\nrests on the narrative as regards non-miraculous data.\n\nAnd while on the one hand it is in effect charged with the gravest\nsuppressio veri, on the other it is charged, equally in the name of\nthe biographical view, with something more than suggestio falsi, with\nabsolute fiction. M. Loisy does not merely dismiss the Barabbas story\nas unhistorical, offering no explanation of its strange presence: he\ncomes critically to the conclusion that Jesus on the cross uttered no\nword, whether of despair, entreaty, or resignation. We need not ask\nwhat kind of credit M. Loisy can ask for a record which he thus so\ngravely discredits. The scientific question is, Upon what grounds\ncan he demur to the extension of a myth-theory to which he thus\ncontributes? If the record admittedly invented utterances for the\nTeacher on the cross, why should not the whole be an invention? In\nparticular, why should not the trial before Pilate and the inscription\non the cross be inventions?\n\nThe inscription on the cross, we see, is for the great anthropologist\nof the school impossible save as part of a simulated ritual. M. Loisy,\nsupporting the same general thesis, declares that \"to say Jesus was not\ncondemned to death as king of the Jews, that is to say, as Messiah, on\nhis own avowal, amounts to saying [autant vaut soutenir] that he never\nexisted.\" [101] It is even so; and the supporter of the myth-theory is\nthus doubly justified. The loyal induction is, not that in any rite\nof human sacrifice exactly such a label was affixed to the gibbet,\nbut that probably some label was, and that the gospel framers (or\none of them) \"invented\" a label which stated their claim for Jesus\nas Messiah. It was a fairly skilful thing to do, representing the\nlabel as a Roman mockery, and thereby making it an appeal to every\nJew. [102] It is indeed conceivable that Roman soldiers taking part,\nonce in a way, in the rite of Jesus Barabbas, may have turned that\nto a purpose of contempt by labelling the poor mock-king as the king\nof the Jews. But such an episode would not be the enactment of the\nscene described in the record. It would merely be a hint for it,\nthe acceptance of which was but an additional item of fiction.\n\nThat the Crucifixion, as described, is a normal act of ritual human\nsacrifice, is even more true than it is shown to be by the parallels\nof the Sac\u00e6a and the Saturnalia. The scourging, the royal robe, the\nmock crown, were all parts of those rituals, which thus conform in\nparody to the ritual of the mythic sacrifice of Ieoud, son of Kronos,\nprobably parodied in the ritual for the victim sacrificed to Kronos\nat Rhodes. But so are the drink of wine and myrrh, the leg-breaking,\nand the piercing with the spear. The crown is a feature of all ancient\nsacrifice, in all parts of the world. Crowns of flowers were normal in\nthe case of human victims, in India, in Mexico, in Greece, and among\nthe North-American Indians, as in ordinary animal sacrifice among the\nGreeks, Romans, and Semites. But even the crown of thorns had a special\nreligious vogue in Egypt, procured as such crowns were from thorn-trees\nnear Abydos whose branches curled into garland-form. Prometheus the\nSaviour, too, receives from Zeus a crown of osiers; and his worshippers\nwore crowns in his honour. [103] Either some such special motive or\nthe common practice in the popular rite will account for the record.\n\nAnd these items of the mock-king ritual exclude the argument which\nmight possibly be brought from the fact that in the ancient world,\nas among primitives in general, all executions, as such, tend to\nassume the sacrificial form. The condemned criminal is \"devoted,\"\nsacer, taboo, even as is the simply sacrificed victim, becoming the\nappanage of the God as is the God's representative who is sacrificed\nto the God. [104] It might therefore be argued that a man condemned on\npurely political grounds could be treated as a sacrificial victim. But\nthere is no instance of the criminal executed as such being treated\nas the mock-king. A criminal might be turned to that account, but\nthat would be by special arrangement: executed simply as a criminal,\nhe would not be crowned and royally robed. These details were features\nof specific sacrifices: executions were only generically sacrificial,\nand were of course in no way honorary. In the gospel story, the two\nthieves are neither mocked, robed, nor crowned. They are not \"Sons\nof the Father,\" or deputies of the King.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Doctrinal Additions\n\nThe question here arises, however, whether the triple execution was a\ncustomary rite. All executions being, as aforesaid, quasi-sacrificial,\nan ordinary execution might conceivably be combined with a specific\nsacrifice. It is to be observed that no mention of the triple execution\noccurs outside of the gospels: the Acts and the Epistles have no\nallusion to it. It is thus conceivably, as was hinted by Strauss,\na late addition to the myth, motived by the verse now omitted as\nspurious from Mark (xv, 28), but preserved in Luke (xxii, 37):\n\"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he was reckoned\nwith transgressors.\" But we are bound to consider the possibility\nthat the triple execution was ritually primordial.\n\nThe story of such an execution in the \"Acts of Saint Hitzibouzit,\"\nmartyred at some time in Persia, is evidently doubtful evidence for\nthe practice, as Sir J. G. Frazer observes. The record runs that\nthe saint was \"offered up as a sacrifice between two malefactors\non a hill top opposite the sun and before all the multitude,\" [105]\nsuggesting that the sacrifice was a solar one. This is possible; but\nmartyrology is dubious testimony. On the other hand Mr. W. R. Paton\nhas suggested that the triple execution was a Persian practice, and\nwas made to a triple God. [106] There is the notable support of the\nstatement in a fragment of Ctesias (36) that the Egyptian usurper\nInarus was crucified by Artaxerxes the First between two thieves. In\naddition to the cases of Greek sacrifices of three victims may be\nnoted one among the Dravidians of Jeypore; [107] and the practice\namong the Khonds of placing the victim between two shrubs. In the\nJeypore case one victim was sacrificed at the east, one at the west,\nand one at the centre of a village; and in another case two victims\nwere sacrificed every third year. A triple execution might be a special\nevent, in which two victims were both actually and ritually criminals,\nin order to enhance the divinity of the third. And we know that triple\nsacrifices did occur. The throwing of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego\ninto the fiery furnace was ostensibly a triple sacrifice: it will\nhardly be claimed as a historical episode in its subsisting form.\n\nOn a careful balance, however, the presumption seems rather against a\ntriple rite. What is quite clear is that for the early Jesuists the\n\"prophecy\" in 53rd Isaiah possessed the highest importance. For us,\nthat lyric chapter is still somewhat enigmatic. Gunkel, who is here\nfollowed by Professor Drews, [108] takes the view that the suffering\nfigure described is really that of the typical victim of the human\nsacrifice; and it certainly fits that conception at points where\nit does not easily compose with that of the figure of oppressed\nIsrael. [109] The victim was \"wounded for our transgressions,\nbruised for our iniquities\"; and conceptually \"with his stripes we\nare healed.\" On the other hand, who were \"we\" for \"Isaiah\" if not\nIsrael itself? The only interpretation seems to be that the past\ngenerations had suffered for the present; and this does not yield an\nintellectually satisfying figure. But still more improbable, on the\nwhole, is the suggestion that the Hebrew prophet or quasi-prophetic\nlyrist--whatever date we may assign to the chapter--has really\nperceived and figured the tragic vision of the sacrificial victim as\nhe is here supposed to have done. It would be a psychological feat\nextremely remarkable even for that highly gifted writer; [110] and\nmoreover it would finally compose still less with the general idea\nof the context than does the supposed presentment of the suffering\nPeople. It is difficult to reach any satisfying notion of Isaiah's\ngeneral meaning on the view of Gunkel and Drews.\n\nWe are thus far held, then, to the inference that, as Isaiah's\nchapter was certainly taken by the early Christists [111] who had\nadopted the Messianic idea to be a prophecy of their Messiah, the\nChrist myth was shaped in accordance with it. There are three main\nstrands in the Christ myth, the Jesuist, the Christist or Messianic,\nand that of the Teaching God. The \"suffering\" motive serves to bind\nthe three together; and the concrete item, \"he was numbered with\nthe transgressors,\" bracketed as it is with \"he poured out his soul\nunto death,\" gives a very definite ground for the item of the forced\ncompanionship of the malefactors in the Crucifixion scene. It is,\nin short, apparently one of the specifically Judaic motives in the\nmyth construction. Earlier in the narrative the Messiah is frequently\ngrouped with \"publicans and sinners\": he comes \"eating and drinking,\"\nin contrast with the ascetic figure of the Baptist. That feature is\nprobably part of the atmosphere of the myth-motive of the sacrificial\nvictim, with the leper-host and the anointing by the \"sinner.\" But the\n\"two thieves\" are inferribly supplied from another side.\n\nIn the first two gospels, the character of the unnamed anointress\nis tacitly suggested by the very reticence of the description,\n\"a woman.\" In Jewry and in the East generally, the woman who went\nfreely into men's houses was declassed; and the \"sinner\" of Luke\nwas only a specification of the already hinted. But the story in\nLuke of the homage of the good thief is clearly new myth, coming\nof the widened ethic of the \"gospel of the Gentiles.\" Matthew and\nMark have no thought of anything but the association of the Messiah\nwith typical transgressors in death: for them the two thieves are\nhostile. The \"Gentile\" gospel improves the occasion by converting one\nof the transgressors. No critical inquirer, presumably, now fails to\nsee doctrinal myth at the second stage. It is only the atmosphere of\npresupposition that can keep it imperceptible in the first. In the\nmaking of the gospels, ritual myth, doctrinal myth, and traditional\nmyth are co-factors; and it may be that even where doctrinal myth\nis quite clearly at work, as in the staging of the Messianic death\n\"with transgressors,\" an actual ritual is also commemorated.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Minor Ritual and Myth Elements\n\nIn the later myth the robbers, as it happens, are made to embody\ncertain features of sacrificial ritual. We are told in the fourth\ngospel that the Jews \"asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken,\nand that they might be taken away,\"--\"that the bodies should not remain\non the cross upon the sabbath, for the day of that sabbath was a high\nday.\" Accordingly the soldiers break the legs of the two thieves,\n\"but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they\nbrake not his legs.\" The implication is that the men's legs were to\nbe broken by way of killing them--a patently untrue suggestion. [112]\nThe spear-thrust which \"howbeit\" was given to Jesus would have been\nthe way of killing the others if they were alive: breaking the legs\nwas a brutality which would not ensure death.\n\nThe explanation is that both leg-breaking and spearing were features\nof sacrificial rites. It may have been by way of purposive contrast\nto the former procedure that in the priestly ritual [113] of the\npassover it is enacted that no bone of the (unspecified) victim\nshall be broken. The breaking of the leg-bones in human sacrifice was\none of the horrible expedients of the primitive world for securing\nthe apparent willingness of the victim: it is to be found alike in\nDravidian and in African sacrifice. [114] An alternative method, which\ntended to supersede the other, was that of drugging or intoxication,\nof which we find still more widespread evidence. In ancient Jerusalem,\nwe find the practice transferred to ordinary execution on the cross,\nthe humane women making a practice of giving a narcotic potion of wine\nand incense to the victim. [115] Thus associated with the deaths of\nordinary criminals, it suggested to some of the Jesuist myth-makers\na ground for specializing the record.\n\nIn the first two gospels, a drink is offered to Jesus on the\ncross--wine [116] mingled with gall, in Matthew; wine mingled with\nmyrrh in Mark--\"but he received it not\"; this, in Matthew, after\ntasting. The Marcan form is probably the first, as it describes\nthe customary narcotic: the idea is to indicate that in the case\nof the divine victim no artifice was needed to secure an apparent\nacquiescence: he was a voluntary sufferer. \"Gall,\" in Matthew, may have\nreference to pagan mysteries in which a drink of gall figured. [117]\nIn Luke, vinegar is ostensibly offered as part of the derision. In\nJohn, no drink is mentioned till the end, when the dying victim says,\n\"I thirst.\" Having partaken of \"a sponge full of the vinegar upon\nhyssop,\" he says, \"It is finished,\" and dies. In Matthew, this act\nof compassion takes a simpler form, the sponge of vinegar being given\non the utterance of the despairing cry, while other bystanders jeer:\nin Mark, the giver of the sponge also jeers.\n\nIt is needless to debate long over the priorities of such details:\nas regards the drink of vinegar, all alike have regard to Psalm lxix,\n21: \"They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave\nme vinegar to drink.\" For that reason, the wine-and-myrrh item is\nprobably primordial: it tells of the sacrificial rite; and the drink\nof vinegar is a doctrinal addition; even as the rejection of the\nnarcotic is doctrinal. For the variations which distinguish each\nnarrative from the others, there is no reasonable explanation on\nthe biographical view: if devoted onlookers could not preserve the\ntruth at such a point, where could they be trusted? The mythical\ninterpretation alone makes all intelligible.\n\nThe fourth gospel, with its tale of the leg-breaking, supplies the\nstrongest ground for surmising the occasional occurrence of a triple\nrite, in which the lesser victims were treated as sacrificed slaves\nnormally have been in African and other human sacrifice, while the\ncentral victim was put on another footing. The express enactment in\nregard to the mysterious paschal sacrifice suggests that bone-breaking\ntook place in others. In all likelihood, the original paschal sacrifice\nwas that of a human victim of specially high grade: the substitution of\nthe lamb was part of the process of civilization indicated in the myth\nof Abraham and Isaac. And if the knowledge of the death-rite of Jesus\nBarabbas could subsist in the first century or later, knowledge of an\nearly triple rite could subsist also. But this remains open to doubt,\nthough at several points the fourth gospel specially emphasizes the\nhistorical derivation of the cult from a sacrament of blood sacrifice.\n\nNowhere else is the literal basis of the symbol of \"body and blood\"\nso insisted upon. Its writers had present to their minds an actual\nritual in which the eating of the body of a Sacrificed God, first\nactually, then symbolically, was of cardinal importance. The later\nmyth puts new stress on the conception, as if it had been felt that\nthe earlier was not sufficiently explicit; and it makes the Jewish\nhigh-priest lay down the doctrine of human sacrifice from the Judaic\nside. [118] It is in this atmosphere of sacrificial ideas that we\nget the item of the piercing of the divine victim with a spear. The\ndetail is turned specially to the account of the Johannine doctrine\nof resurrection by putting what passed in popular physiology for a\ncertain proof of death--the issuing of \"blood and water.\" [119] But\nhere again we find both a Hebrew motive [120] and a pagan motive for\nthe detail. In the sacrifice of the sacred slave of the Moon-Goddess\namong the primitive Albanians, the victim was allowed the customary\nyear of luxury and licence, and was finally anointed and slain by\nbeing pierced to the heart with a sacred lance through the side. And\nthere are other eastern analogues. [121]\n\nIt is the fourth gospel, finally, that introduces the \"garment without\nseam,\" combining a Hebraic with a pagan motive. In order to fulfil a\n\"prophecy\" held to be Messianic, [122] the synoptics make the soldiers\ncast lots for the garments of Jesus. The fourth gospel specifies a\nsimple allotment of the garments in general, as if they could have\nbeen numerous enough to go round the soldiery, but limits the act of\n\"casting lots\" to the chiton, the under garment. Thus the soldiers\nboth \"divide the raiment\" and cast lots for the \"vesture.\" The making\nof this \"without seam\" is at once an assimilation of Jesus to the\nhigh-priest and an assimilation of the Slain God to the Sun-God and\nother deities. [123] A special chiton was woven for Apollo in Sparta;\nas a peplos or shawl was woven for H\u00ear\u00ea at Elis. And this in turn\nhad for the pre-Christian pagans mystic meanings as symbolizing\nthe indivisible solar robe of universal light, ascribed to Osiris;\nthe partless robe of Ahura Mazda; Pan's coat of many colours, and\nyet other notions. Always the story is itemized in terms of myth,\nof ritual, of symbol, of doctrine, never in terms of real biography.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. The Cross\n\nIt is not at all certain, and it is not probable, that in the earlier\nstages of the myth the cross as such was prominent. Early crucifixion\nwas not always a nailing of outstretched hands in the cross form,\nbut often a hanging of the victim by the arms, tied together at the\nwrists, with or without a support to the body at the thighs. [124]\nThe stauros was not necessarily a cross: it might be a simple pile\nor stake. In the Book of Acts (v, 30) Peter and the Apostles are made\nto speak of Jesus \"whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree.\" This was in\nitself a common sacrificial mode; and all sacrificial traditions are\nmore or less represented in the New Testament compilation.\n\nBut there was an irresistible compulsion to a divinizing of the\ncross as of the victim. Ages before the Christian era the symbol had\nbeen mystic and sacrosanct for Semites, for Egyptians, for Greeks,\nfor Hindus; and the Sacred Tree of the cults of Attis, Dionysos,\nand Osiris lent itself alike to many symbolic significances. [125]\nThe cross had reference to the equinox, when the sacred tree was cut\ndown; to the victim bound to it; to the four points of the compass;\nto the zodiacal sign Aries, thus connected with the sacrificial lamb;\n[126] and to the universe as symbolized in the \"orb\" of the emperor,\nwith the cross-lines drawn on it. The final Christian significance\nof the cross is a composite of ideas associated with it everywhere,\nfrom Mexico to the Gold Coast, in both of which regions it was or\nis a symbol of the Rain-God. [127] The Dravidian victim, the deified\nsacrifice, was as-it-were crucified; [128] as was a victim in a Batak\nsacrifice, where, as on the Gold Coast, the St. Andrew's-cross form\nis enacted. [129] The commonness of some such procedure in African\nsacrificial practice points to its general antiquity.\n\nIt would appear, too, that in the mysteries of the Saviour Gods not\nonly a crucified aspect of the God but a simulation of that on the\npart of the devotees was customary. Osiris was actually represented in\ncrucifix form; [130] and in the ritual the worshipper became \"one with\nOsiris,\" apparently by being \"joined unto the sycamore tree.\" [131]\nWhen, then, in the Epistle to the Galatians [132] we find \"Paul\"\naddressing the converts as \"those before whose eyes Jesus Christ was\nopenly set forth (proegraph\u00ea) crucified,\" and declaring of himself:\n[133] \"I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus,\" we are at once\npointed to the Syrian practice of stigmata, which appears to connect\nwith both Osirian and Christian usage. In his remarkable account of\nthe life of the sacred city of Hierapolis--a microcosm of eastern\npaganism--Lucian, after telling how children are sacrificed with the\nvotive pretence that they are oxen, records that it is the universal\npractice to make punctures in the neck or in the hands, and that\n\"all\" Syrians bear such stigmata. [134] One of the principal cults\nof the place was that of Attis, the castrated God of Vegetation,\nin whose mysteries the image of a youth was bound to a tree, [135]\nwith a ritual of suffering, mourning, resurrection and rejoicing. As\nDionysos was also \"he of the tree,\" it is not improbable that he,\nwho also died to rise again, may have been similarly adored. On the\nother hand, the representation of the Saviour Prometheus suffering\nin a crucified posture tells of an immemorial concept. [136]\n\nFor the Jews, finally, the cross symbol was already mystically potent,\nbeing a mark of salvation in connection with the massacre-sacrifice\nof the Passover, and by consequence salvatory in times of similar\ndanger. [137] When with this was combined the mystic significance of\nthe sign in Platonic lore as pointing to the Logos, [138] the mythic\nfoundation for Christism was of the broadest. The crucifix is late in\nChristian art; but the wayside cross is as old as the cult of Hermes,\nGod of boundaries. [139]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. The Suffering Messiah\n\nBy way of accounting for the Jewish refusal to see in Jesus the\npromised Messiah, orthodox exegesis has spread widely the belief\nthat it was no part of the Messianic idea that the Anointed One\nshould die an ignominious death; and some of us began by accepting\nthat account of the case. Clearly it was not the traditional or\ngenerally prevailing Jewish expectation. Yet in the Acts we find\nPeter and Paul alike (iii, 18; xvii, 3; xxvi, 23) made to affirm\nthat the prophets in general predicted that Christ should suffer;\nand in Luke (xxiv, 26-27, 44-46) the same assertion is put in the\nmouth of Jesus. Either then the exegetes regard these assertions as\nunfounded or they admit that one school of interpretation in Jewry\nfound a number of \"prophetical\" passages which foretold the Messiah's\nexemplary death. And the A. V. margin refers us to Ps. xxii; Isa. l,\n6; liii, 5, etc.; Dan. ix, 26.\n\nNow, these are adequate though not numerous documentary grounds for the\ndoctrine, on Jewish principles of interpretation. Jewish, indeed, the\nMessianic idea is not in origin: it is Perso-Babylonian; [140] and the\nidea of a suffering or re-arising Messiah may well have come in from\nthat side. But equally that may have found some Jewish acceptance. We\ncan see very well that in Daniel \"the Anointed One\"--that is, \"the\nMessiah\" and \"the Christ\"--refers to the Maccabean hero; but that\nas well as the other passages, on Jewish principles, could apply\nto the Messiah of any period; and the Septuagint reading of Psalm\nxxii, 16: \"They pierced my hands and my feet,\" was a specification of\ncrucifixion. It is not impossible that that reading was the result of\nthe actual crucifixion of Cyrus, who had been specified as a \"Christ\"\nin Isaiah. We have nothing to do here with rational interpretation:\nthe whole conception of prophecy is irrational; but the construing\nof old texts as prophecies was a Jewish specialty.\n\nWhen then a theistic rationalist of the last generation wrote of the\ngospel Jesus:--\n\n\n    His being a carpenter, occupying the field of barbaric Galilee,\n    and suffering death as a culprit, are not features which the\n    constructor of an imaginary tale would go out of his way to\n    introduce wherewith to associate his hero, and therefore, probably,\n    we have here real facts presented to us, [141]\n\n\nhe was far astray. Anything might be predicated of a Jewish\nMessiah. Not only had the Messianic Cyrus been crucified: the anointed\nand triumphant Judas Maccab\u00e6us, under whose auspices the Messianic\nbelief had revived in Israel in the second century B.C., had finally\nfallen in battle; and his brother Simon, who was actually regarded\nas the Messiah, was murdered by his son-in-law. [142]\n\nIt is not here argued that the Messianic idea had been originally\nconnected with the Jesus cult; on the contrary that cult is presented\nas a non-national one, surviving in parts of Palestine in connection\nwith belief in an ancient deity and the practice of an ancient rite,\nin a different religious atmosphere from that of Messianism. The\nsolution to which we shall find ourselves led is that at a certain\nstage the Messianic idea was grafted on the cultus; and this stage\nis likely to have begun after the fall of Jerusalem, when for most\nJews the hope of a Maccabean recovery was buried. Then it was that\nthe idea of a Messiah \"from above,\" [143] supernaturally empowered\nto make an end of the earthly scene, became the only plausible one;\nand here the conception of a Slain God who, like all slain Gods,\nrose again, invited the development. Jesuists could now make a new\nappeal to Jews in general upon recognizably Jewish lines. They were\nof course resisted, even as Sadducees were resisted by Pharisees, and\nvice versa. The statement in the Messiah article in the Encyclop\u00e6dia\nBiblica that it is highly improbable that \"the Jews\" at the time of\nChrist believed in a suffering and atoning Messiah is nugatory. No one\never put such a proposition. But \"the Jews\" had in course of time added\nmuch to their creed, and might have added this, were it not that the\nJesus cult became identified with Gentile and anti-Judaic propaganda.\n\nIn any case the idea arose among Jews, and quite intelligibly. The\npicture drawn by Isaiah was a standing incitement to the rise of a\ncult whose Hero-God had been slain. It was the one kind of Messianic\ncult which the Romans would leave unmolested. At the same time it\ncommitted the devotees to the position that the Messiah must come\nagain, \"in the clouds, in great glory\"; and the Christian Church was\nactually established on that conception, which sufficed to sustain\nit till the earthly Providence of the State came to the rescue. Some\nof its modern adherents have not hesitated to boast that the common\nexpectation of the speedy end of the world gave the infant Church a\nfooting not otherwise obtainable. It was certainly a conditio sine\nqua non for Christianity in its infancy.\n\nAs for the item of \"the carpenter,\" we have seen [144] not only that\nthat is mythic, but that the myth-theory alone can account for it.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. The Rock Tomb\n\nIn the first gospel (xxvii, 57 sq.) we have a comparatively simple\nversion of the story of Joseph of Arimathea, a rich disciple of Jesus,\nwho gets the dead body of the crucified, wraps it in clean linen, and\nlays it \"in his own new tomb, which he had hewed out in the rock.\" In\nMark and Luke we have visibly elaborated accounts, in which, however,\nwhile the rock tomb is specified, it is not described as Joseph's\n\"own,\" though it is represented as hitherto unused. Such a narrative\npoints very directly to the Mithraic rite in which the stone image of\nthe dead God, after being ritually mourned over, is laid in a tomb,\nwhich, Mithra being \"the God out of the rock,\" would naturally be of\nstone--a simple matter in a cult whose chief rites were always enacted\nin a cave. [145] Details thus thrown into special prominence, while\nin themselves historically insignificant, can be understood only as\nmythically motived. So noticeable is the Mithraic parallel that the\nChristian Father who angrily records it exclaims, Habet ergo diabolus\nChristos suos--\"the devil thus has his Christs.\" In Mithraism the\nrock tomb, which is an item in a ritual of death and resurrection,\nis mythically motived throughout: in the gospel story, historically\nconsidered, the item is meaningless.\n\nObvious as is the mythological inference, it is met by the assertion\nthat round Jerusalem \"soil was so scarce that every one was buried in\na rock tomb.\" [146] Such a criticism at once defeats itself. If every\none was buried in a rock tomb, what was the point of the emphasised\ndetail in the gospels, which are so devoid of details of a really\nbiographical character? Obviously, rock tombs were the specialty of\nthe rich; and Joseph of Arimathea is described in all the synoptics\nas a man of social standing. Is the motive of the story nothing better\nthan the desire to record that Jesus was richly buried?\n\n\"Scores of such tombs remain,\" cries the critic: \"were they all\nMithraic?\" The argument thus evaded is that there was no real tomb. If\nthere was one thing which the early Jesuists, on the biographical\ntheory, might be supposed to keep hold of, it was the place of\ntheir Lord's sepulchre; yet nothing subsists but an admittedly\nfalse tradition. At Jerusalem, as one has put it, there are shown\n\"two Zions, two Temple areas, two Bethanys, two Gethsemanes, two or\nmore Calvarys, three Holy Sepulchres, several Bethesdas.\" [147] It\nis all myth. \"There is not a single existing site in the Holy City\nthat is mentioned in connection with Christian history before the\nyear 326 A.D., when Constantine's mother adored the two footprints\nof Christ on Olivet.\" [148] She was shown nothing else. [149] \"The\nposition of the traditional sites of Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre,\nin the middle of the north quarter of Jerusalem, seems to have given\nrise to suspicions very early.\" [150] It well might. I have known a\nmodern traveller who, on seeing the juxtaposed sites, at once realized\nthat he was on the scene, if of anything, of an ancient ritual,\nnot of events such as are narrated in the gospels. The traditional\nGolgotha is only fifty or sixty yards away from the Sepulchre; [151]\nand near by is \"Mount Moriah,\" upon which Abraham is recorded to have\nsought to sacrifice Isaac.\n\nColonel Conder, who accepts without misgiving all four gospel\nnarratives, and attempts to combine them, avows that the \"Garden\nTomb\" chosen by General Gordon, in the latterly selected Calvary, is\nimpossible, being probably a work of the twelfth century; [152] and for\nhis own part, while inclined to stand by the new Golgotha, avows that\n\"we must still say of our Lord as was said of Moses, 'No man knoweth\nof his sepulchre unto this day.'\" [153] Placidly he concludes that \"it\nis well that we should not know.\" [154] But what does the biographical\ntheory make of such a conclusion? Its fundamental assumption is that\nof Renan, that the personality of Jesus was so commanding as to make\nhis disciples imagine his resurrection. In elaborate and contradictory\ndetail we have the legends of that; and yet we find that all trace of\nknowledge alike of place of crucifixion and tomb had vanished from\nthe Christian community which is alleged to have arisen immediately\nafter his ascension. The theory collapses at a touch, here as at\nevery other point. There is no more a real Sepulchre of Jesus than\nthere is a real Sepulchre of Mithra; and the bluster which offers\nthe solution that at Jerusalem every one was buried in a rock tomb\nis a mere closing of the eyes to the monumental fact of the myth.\n\nThe critic is all the while himself committed to the denial that\nthere was any tomb. Professing to follow the suggestion [155] of\nM. Loisy that Jesus was thrown into \"some common foss,\" which in his\nhands becomes \"the common pit reserved for crucified malefactors,\"\nhe affirms [156] that \"the words ascribed in Acts xiii, 29, to Paul\ncertainly favour the Abb\u00e9's view.\" They certainly do not. The text\nin question runs:\n\n\n    And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him\n    they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.\n\n\nThe Greek word is mn\u00eameion--that used in the gospel story. There is\nthus no support whatever either for the suggestion of \"a common foss\"\nor for the allegation about \"the common pit reserved for crucified\nmalefactors\"--a wholly unwarranted figment. The second \"they\" of the\nsentence is indefinite: it may mean either the Jews of the previous\nsentence or another \"they\": but either way it expressly posits a\ntomb. Yet after this deliberate perversion of the document, which of\ncourse he does not quote, the critic proceeds (p. 302) to aver that\n\"the genuine tradition of Jesus having been cast by his enemies into\nthe common pit reserved for malefactors ... survived among the Jews\";\nand that the tomb story was invented as \"the most effective way of\nmeeting\" the imagined statement. Such an amateur inventor of myth is\nnaturally resentful of mythological tests!\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. The Resurrection\n\nIf a suffering Messiah was arguable for the Jews, his resurrection\nafter death was a matter of course. The biographical theory, that\nthe greatness of the Founder's personality led his followers to\nbelieve that he must rise again, is historically as unwarrantable\nas any part of the biographical case. The death and resurrection of\nthe Saviour-God was an outstanding feature of all the most popular\ncults of the near East; Osiris, Herakles, Dionysos, Attis, Adonis,\nMithra, all died to rise again; and a ritual of burial, mourning,\nresurrection, and rejoicing was common to several. On any view such\nrituals were established in other contemporary cults; and it is this\nfact that makes it worth while in this inquiry to glance at a myth\nwhich is now abandoned by all save the traditionally orthodox.\n\nOn the uncritical assumption that nothing but pure Judaism could exist\nin Jewry in the age of the Herods, the notion of a dying and re-arising\nHero-God was impossible among Jews save as a result of a stroke of\nnew constructive faith. That simple negative position ignores not only\nthe commonness of the belief in immortality among Jews (the Pharisees\nall held it) before the Christian era, but the special Jewish beliefs\nin the \"translation\" of Moses and Elijah, and the story of Saul,\nthe witch of Endor, and the spirit of Samuel. The very belief that\nthe risen Elias was to be the forerunner of the Messiah was a lead\nto the belief that the Messiah himself might come after a resurrection.\n\nBut it is practically certain that a liturgical resurrection was or had\nbeen practised in contemporary cults which had at one time enacted an\nannual sacrifice of the representative of the God, abstracted in myth\nas the death of the God himself. And in our own time the survival of\nan analogous practice has been noted in India. At the installation of\nthe Rajahs of Keonjhur it was anciently the practice for the Rajah\nto slay a victim: latterly there is a mock-slaying, whereupon the\nmock-victim disappears. \"He must not be seen for three days; then he\npresents himself to the Rajah as miraculously restored to life.\" [157]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nROOTS OF THE MYTH\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Historical Data\n\nIt does not follow from the proved existence of mystery-dramas in\npagan cults in the Roman empire in the first century, C.E., that the\nJesuists had a similar usage; but when we find in the New Testament\nan express reference to such parallelism, and in the early Fathers\na knowledge that such parallels were drawn, we are entitled to ask\nwhether there is not further evidence. When \"Paul\" [158] tells his\nadherents: \"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of daimons:\n[159] ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of\ndaimons,\" he is complaining that some converts are wont to partake\nindifferently of the pagan and Christian sacraments. Few students\nnow, probably, will assent to the view that the \"tables of daimons,\"\nwith their similar rites, were sudden imitations of the Christian\nsacraments. They were of old standing. But the Jesuist rite also was\nin all likelihood much older, in some form, than the Christian era.\n\nIf there is any principle of comparative mythology that might fairly\nhave been claimed as generally accepted by experts a generation ago,\nit is that \"the ritual is older than the myth: the myth derives from\nthe ritual, not the ritual from the myth.\" [160] This principle,\nexpressly posited by himself as by others before him, Sir James\nFrazer resolutely puts aside when he comes to deal with the Christian\nmythus. Disinterested science cannot assent to such a course.\n\nThat there were \"tables\" in the cults of many Gods is quite certain:\ntemple-meals for devotees seem to have been normal in Greek religion;\n[161] and in the cults of the Saviour-Gods there were special\ncollocations of sacramental meals with \"mysteries.\" In particular,\napart from the famous Eleusinian mysteries there were customary\ndramatic representations of the sufferings and death of the God in\nthe cults of Osiris, Adonis, Attis, and Dionysos: in addition to a\nscenic representation of the death of Herakles; and a special system of\nsymbolic presentation of the life of the God in the rites of initiation\nof the worship of Mithra. [162] It is not to be supposed that these\nreligious representations amounted to anything like a complete drama,\nsuch as those of the great Attic theatre. Rather they represented\nearly stages in the evolution which ended in Greek drama as we know\nit. Nearer analogues are to be found in the religious plays of various\nsavage races in our own time. [163] What the mystery-plays in general\nseem to have amounted to was a simple representation of the life and\ndeath of the God, with a sacramental meal.\n\nThe common objection to the hypothesis even of an elementary\nmystery-play in the pre-gospel stages of Jesuism is that Hebrew\nliterature shows no dramatic element, the Jews being averse from this\nas from other artistic developments of religious instinct. To this we\nreply, first, that the mystery-play, as distinguished from the primary\nsacrament, may or may not have been definitely Jewish at the outset;\nand that the drama as seen developed in the supplement to the gospels\nis certainly manipulated by Gentile hands. But the objection is in\nany case invalid, overlooking as it does:\n\n1. The essentially dramatic character of the Song of Solomon.\n\n2. The partly dramatic character of the Book of Job.\n\n3. The dramatic form of the celebration of Purim.\n\n4. The existence in the Hellenistic period of theatres at Damascus,\nC\u00e6sarea, Gadara, Jericho and Scythopolis, the first two being, as we\nlearn from Josephus, built by Herod the Great.\n\n5. The chronic pressure of Hellenistic culture influence upon Jewish\nculture for centuries.\n\n6. The prevalence of Greek culture influence at the city of Samaria,\nDamascus, Gaza, Scythopolis, Gadara, Panias (C\u00e6sarea Philippi).\n\n7. The \"half-heathen\" character of the districts of Trachonitis,\nBatanea, and Auranitis, east of the Lake of Gennesareth. [164] Galilee,\nbe it remembered, was late conquered \"heathen\" territory.\n\n8. The long and deeply hostile sunderance, after the Return, between\nthe priestly and rabbinical classes and the common people of the\nprovinces. [165]\n\n9. The \"resuscitation of obsolete mysteries\" among the Jews, and\nthe known survival of private sacraments and symbolic sacrifices of\natonement. [166]\n\n10. The actual production of dramatic Greek poetry on Biblical subjects\nby the Jewish poet Ezechiel (2nd c. B.C.). [167]\n\nThe eighth item needs to be specially insisted upon. It is frequently\nasserted that nothing in the nature of a heteroclite cult could subsist\ncontinuously in Jewry; that there were no religious ideas in the Jewish\nworld save those of the Sacred Books of the Rabbis. [168] This is a\nhistorical delusion. The historical and prophetic books of the Old\nTestament affirm a constant resort to pagan rites and Gods before the\nExile. There is official record of bitter strife and sunderance between\nthose of the Return and the people they found on the soil. Malachi\nsounds the note of strife, lamenting popular lukewarmness, sacrilege\nand unbelief. The simple fact that after the Exile Hebrew was no\nlonger the common language, and that the people spoke Aramaic or\n\"Chaldee,\" tells of a highly artificial relation between hierarchy and\npopulace. Never can even Jud\u00e6a have been long homogeneous. \"Neither\nin Galilee nor Per\u00e6a must we conceive of the Jewish element as pure\nand unmixed. In the shifting course of history Jews and Gentiles had\nbeen here so often, and in such a variety of ways, thrown together,\nthat the attainment of exclusive predominance by the Jewish element\nmust be counted among the impossibilities. It was only in Jud\u00e6a that\nthis was at least approximately arrived at by the energetic agency\nof the scribes during the course of a century.\" [169]\n\nThe assumption commonly made is that all Jews and \"naturalized\" Jews\nwere of one theistic way of thinking, like orthodox Christians, and,\nlike these, could not imagine any other point of view. If for that\nentirely one-sided conception the inquirer will even substitute one\nin terms of the mixed realities of life in Christendom he will be\nmuch nearer the truth. Over and above the hatreds between sects and\nfactions holding by the same formulas and Sacred Books, there were\nin Jewry the innovators, then as now: the minds which varied from\nthe documentary norm in all directions, analogues of the devotees of\n\"Christian Science,\" B\u00e2bists, British Buddhists, Swedenborgians,\nShakers, Second Adventists, Mormons, and so on, who from a more\nor less common basis radiated to all the points of the compass of\ncreed. What faces us in the rise of Christianity is the development\nof one of those variants, on lines of adaptation to popular need, with\nan organization on lines already tested in the experience of Judaism.\n\nAmong the common cravings of the age was the need for a near God,\n[170] one ostensibly more in touch with human sorrows and sufferings\nthan the remote Supreme God. For the earlier Hebrews, Yahweh was\na tribal God like Moloch or Chemosh, fighting for his people (when\nthey deserved it) like other tribal Gods; a magnified man who talked\nfamiliarly with Abraham and Sarah, and wrestled with Jacob. [171]\nEven then, the attractions of other cults set up constant resort\nto them by many Yahwists, unless the historical Sacred Books are\nas illusory upon this as upon other topics. To say nothing of the\ncontinual charges against Jewish kings, from Solomon downwards, of\nsetting up alien worships, and the express assertion of Jeremiah [172]\nthat in Judah there were as many Gods as cities, and in Jerusalem as\nmany Baal altars as streets, we have the equally explicit assertion\nin Ezekiel [173] that \"women weeping for Tammuz\" were to be seen in\nor at the Temple itself. Now, Tammuz was a Semitic deity, borrowed,\nit would seem, from the Akkadians, [174] an original or variant of\nAdonis, the very type of the Saviour-God we are now tracing. Tammuz,\nlike Jesus, was \"the only-begotten son.\" If it be argued that the\nworship of Tammuz must have disappeared during or after the Exile,\nsince it would not be tolerated in the Second Temple, the answer\nis that Saint Jerome expressly declares that in his day the pagans\ncelebrated the worship of Tammuz at the very cave in which Jesus\nwas said to have been born at Bethlehem [175]--a detail of some\nsignificance in our inquiry. Tammuz = Adonis = \"the Lord.\" That\nworship, indeed, might conceivably be a revival occurring after the\nfall of Jerusalem; but to say that there can have been no folklore\nabout Tammuz in Jewry or Galilee or Samaria between the time of\nEzekiel and that of Jerome would be to make an utterly unwarranted\nassertion. The belief may even have survived under another God-name.\n\n\n[Among the many obscurations of history set up by presuppositions\nis that which rules out all evidence for community of source in\nmyths save that of philology, the most precarious of all proofs. The\nargument on this subject has been conducted even by opposing schools\nof philology as if all alike believed that every God, like every\nman, is an entity with a name, traceable by his name, and remaining\nsubstantially unchanged in his attributes through the ages. When Max\nM\u00fcller propounded such derivations as that of Zeus from the Sanskrit\nDyaus, some scholars for whom Sanskrit was occult matter observed a\nrespectful deference, while others debated whether the derivations\nwere philologically sound. To mythological science, strictly speaking,\nit mattered little whether they were or were not. God-ideas may pass\nwith little change from race to race through contacts of conquest,\nthe attached God-names changing alike for \"absorbed\" races and for\nthose which \"absorb\" them, whereas other God-names may endure with\nlittle change for ages while the attributes connected with them\nare being continuously modified, and the tales told under them are\nbeing perpetually added to, and many are dismissed. The Zeus of\nthe Iliad is probably a wholly disparate conceptual figure from the\nDyaus of the early \"Aryan,\" supposing the names to be at bottom the\nsame vocable. The philological fact is one thing, the mythological\nfact another.\n\nWriters like Dr. Conybeare, who have never even realized the nature\nof a mythological problem, bewilder their readers by blusterously\naffirming that there can be no homogeneity between myth-conceptions\nunless the names attached to them in different regions and by\ndifferent races are etymologically akin. They irrationally ask\nfor linguistic \"equations\" where a linguistic equation by itself\nwould count for nothing, the relevant fact being the equation of the\nmyth-concepts. Blind to the salient facts that every \"race\" concerned\nhad undergone mutation by conquest; that God-names and God-ideas alike\npassed from race to race by intermarriages, [176] by the effects of\nenslavement, and by official adoption; [177] and that conquering races\nconstantly adopted wholly or partly the \"Gods\" of the conquered,\n[178] they in effect assume that God-names and God-concepts are\nfixed entities, traceable solely by glossology. As if glossology\ncould possibly pretend to trace, even on its own ground, all the\ntransformations of proper-names and appellatives through different\nraces and languages. The pretence that these are on all fours with\nthe general development of language is mere scientific charlatanism.\n\nWhat mythology has to consider is the filiation and interconnection\nof myth-concepts. This is so pervading a process that even Max M\u00fcller,\nafter denying that there could have been any \"crossing\" between Vedic\nand alien lines of thought in respect of the closely similar Babylonian\nfire-cult and that of Agni, consented to identify the Indian Soma,\nGod of Wine, with the Moon-God Chandra. [179] The transmutations of a\ncognate myth-concept under the names of Dionysos (who has a hundred\nother epithets) and of the Latin Liber, constitute a mythological\nprocess which philology cannot elucidate. The scientifically traceable\nfacts are the prevalence and translation of such concepts as Wine-God,\nSun-God, War-God, Moon-God, Love-Goddess, Mother Goddess, Babe-God,\nthrough many races and regions. One myth-factor of great importance,\nunrecognized by many who dogmatize on such problems, is that of\nthe influence of sculpture, [180] through which such figures as\nthat of the Mother-Goddess become common property for many lands,\nsetting up community of belief on one line irrespective of prevailing\ntheologies. And it is quite certain that as the nations came to know\nmore and more of each other's Gods they borrowed traits and tales, thus\nassimilating the general concepts attached to wholly different names.\n\nSeeing, then, further, that, as in the case of Yahweh, it was often\na point of religious taboo that a deity should not be called by\n\"his real name,\" and that nearly all had many epithets, there was\nno limit to the interaction and mutation of cults and God-norms. The\nexact derivation and history of the worship of Tammuz in Jewry no one\ncan pretend to know; and no one therefore can pretend to know that it\nwas not interlinked with other cults of names associated with sets\nof attributes, rites, and tales. In view of the idle declamation on\nthe subject, it seems positively necessary to remind the reader that\neven if he believes in the historicity of Jesus he is not therefore\nentitled to assume the historicity of Tammuz-Dumzi-Adonis, or Myrrha,\nor Miriam, or Joshua; and that if he recognizes any connection,\nin terms of attributes, between the God-concepts Mars and Ar\u00eas, or\nZeus and Jupiter, or Aphrodit\u00ea and Venus, or Artemis and Diana, and\ndoes not in these cases fall back upon the nugatory thesis of \"two\ndifferent deities,\" he is not entitled to do so over the suggestion\nthat one popular Syrian cult of a Lord-name may have connected with\nanother. There is really need here for a little critical vigilance,\nnot to say psychological analysis.]\n\n\nEven if we assume the earlier Jewish cult of Tammuz to have been swept\naway in the Captivity, the new conditions would tend to stimulate\nsimilar popular cults. When, after the Exile, the conception of Yahweh\nbegan under Perso-Babylonian influences to alter in the direction\nof a universalist theism, the common tendency to seek a nearer God\nwas bound to come into play. There is no more universal feature in\nreligious history than the recession of the High Gods. [181] The more\n\"supreme\" a deity becomes, in popular religion, the more generally\ndoes popular devotion tend to elicit Son-Gods or Goddesses who seem\nmore likely to be \"hearers and answerers of prayer.\" Sacred Books\ncertainly tend to check such a reversion; and in Islam the check has\nbeen successful in virtue of the very fact that Allah, like the early\nYahweh, is in effect conceived as a racial God, or God of a single\ncult. But the tendency is seen at work all over the earth.\n\nThe vogue of Apollo, of Dionysos, of Herakles, of Tammuz-Adonis,\nof Krishna, of Buddha, of Balder, of Ath\u00ean\u00ea, of the Virgin Mary,\nof the countless deities propitiated by savage peoples who ignore\ntheir Supreme Gods, are all testimonies to the natural craving\nof religious ignorance for a near God. The same craving certainly\nsubsisted among the Hebrews in so far as it was not completely laid\nby organized legalism. And seeing that the redactors of the Sacred\nBooks had actually reduced many early deities--Abraham, Jacob,\nJoseph, Daoud = David, Moses, Joshua, and Samson--to the status\nof patriarchs and heroes, [182] the craving would among some be\nrelatively strengthened. Jews who in time of trouble chronically\nreverted to alien Gods and alien rites, even as did the Greeks and\nRomans, could not conceivably fail altogether to adopt or cherish\ncults analogous to those of Dionysos, Adonis, Osiris, so popular\namong the neighbouring peoples.\n\nThe hypothesis forced upon us by the whole history, then, is that\nthere had subsisted in Jewry, in original connection with a sacrificial\nrite of Jesus the Son of the Father, a Sacrament of a Hero-God Jesus,\nwhose Name was strong to save. If it took the form of a Sacrament of\nTwelve, with the ritual-representative of the God, it would be closely\nanalogous to the traditional Sacrament of Twelve in which Aaron [the\nAnointed One = Messiah] and the [twelve] elders of Israel \"ate bread\nwith Moses' father-in-law before God.\" [183] Behind that narrative\nlies a ritual practice. A sacrament of bread and wine is further\nindicated in the mention of the mythic Melchisedek, \"King of Peace\"\nand priest of \"El Elyon,\" [184] \"without father and without mother,\nwithout genealogy, having neither beginning of days or end of life,\nbut made like unto the Son of God,\" who thus became for Christists\na type of Jesus. [185] A sacramental banquet of twelve seems to have\nbeen involved in the sacrificial ritual of the Temple itself, where\na presiding priest and twelve others daily officiated. [186]\n\nThat Galilean or other Jews or semi-Jews, always in a partly\nhostile relation to priests, scribes, and Pharisees, should in an\nage of chronic war, disaster and revolution, maintain an old private\nsacrament, with a subordinate worship of a Hero-God Jesus whose body\nand blood had once literally and now symbolically brought salvation,\nis not an unlikely but a likely hypothesis. The gospels themselves\nindicate an attitude of demotic hostility alike to the king, the\npriests, the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. It is not\npretended that before and apart from Jesus there was no such hostility,\nand that he generated it by his teaching. In a united community such\nhostility could not be so generated. It was there to start with. If\nthen cults of Dionysos and Attis and Adonis, the annually dying and\nsuffering demigods, could openly subsist in the Hellenistic world\nalongside of the State cults of Zeus and the other chief Gods, a secret\ncult of a Hero-God Jesus could subsist in some part of Jewry, with its\nsurvivals of rural paganism and its many contacts and mixtures with\nSamaritan schism and Hellenistic culture. Yet further, if the popular\nneeds of the Hellenistic world could elicit and maintain a multitude\nof private religious associations, each with its own sacramental meal,\n[187] the same needs could elicit and maintain them elsewhere.\n\nTo this thesis it is objected that we have no mention of the existence\nof a Jesus cult of any kind in the Hebrew books. But that is a\nnecessity of the case. The Sacred Books would naturally exclude all\nmention of a cult which in effect meant the continued deification of\nJoshua, [188] who had long been reduced to the status of a mere hero\nin the history. That Joshua is a non-historical personage has long\nbeen established by modern criticism. [189] That he did not do what\nhe is said in the Book of Joshua to have done is agreed by all the\n\"higher\" critics. Who or what then was Joshua? He is in many respects\nthe myth-duplicate of Moses, whose work he repeats, passing the Jordan\nas did Moses the Red Sea, appointing his twelve, \"renewing\" the rite of\ncircumcision, and writing the law upon stones. But he notably excels\nMoses in that he causes the sun and moon to stand still by his word;\n[190] and as this is cited from \"Jasher,\" he is possibly the older\nfigure of the two.\n\nAnd for the Jews he retained a special status. In his Book he is made\n(with a \"thus saith the Lord\") to give a list of the conquests effected\nby him against \"the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite,\nand the Hittite, and the Girgashite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite.\" In\nExodus xx, this very list of conquests, barring \"the Girgashite,\"\nis promised, with this prelude:--\n\n\n    Behold, I [Yahweh] send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the\n    way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take\n    ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice: provoke him not,\n    for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.\n\n\nThe Angel who possesses or embodies the secret or magical name [191]\nis to do what Joshua in the historical myth says has been done under\nhis leadership: [192] both passages stand. Further, the Angel of the\npassage in Exodus is in the Talmud identified with the mystic Metatron,\n[193] who corresponds generally with the Logos of Philo Jud\u00e6us,\nthe Sophia or Power of the Gnostics, and the Nous of Plotinus. The\neminent Talmudic scholar, Emmanuel Deutsch, surmised that the Metatron\nis \"most probably nothing but Mithra,\" the Persian Sun-God; and as\nthe promised Divine One in the Septuagint version of Isaiah, ix, 6,\nbears the Mithraic titles of \"Angel of Great Counsel\" and Judge,\nthere is perhaps ground for some such surmise. It may have been,\nindeed, that the redactors of the sacred books originally meant to\nsubstitute the Angel for Joshua in the esteem of the people, giving\nthe former the credit for the exploits of the latter; but such a\nmanipulation would be in itself a confession of Joshua's renown. And\nin the Samaritan Targums \"the Angel of God\" commonly stood for the\ndivine names Jehovah and Elohim. [194]\n\nHowever that may be, the pseudo-historical Joshua could not have\nbeen elevated by the Talmudists to a divine status in other regards\nhad he been a historical personage; and when we find him specially\nhonoured in Samaria [195] we can draw no inference save that he was\nonce a Palestinian deity. The fact that the name means \"Saviour\" [196]\nis of capital importance. In Jewish tradition and in his Book he is\nspecially associated with the choosing of the Paschal lamb, the rite\nof the Passover, and the rite of circumcision. [197] Here then is the\npresumptive God for the early rite of Jesus the Son of the Father. As\nwe shall see later, \"the Angel of the Lord\" is found to equate with\n\"the Word of the Lord\"--another cue for the gospel-makers. And in\nthe Jewish New Year liturgy, to this day, Joshua-Jesus figures as\nthe \"Prince of the Presence,\" which again is supposed to identify\nhim with Metatron as = meta thronou, \"behind the throne.\" Only as a\nPalestinian deity thus subordinated to Yahweh is he explicable. And\nas the \"Angel of the Presence\" again occurs in Isaiah, lxiii, 9,\nfiguring as Saviour and Redeemer, it is fairly clear that there was\nsome Jewish doctrine which made of Joshua a Saviour deity.\n\nA high authority [198] pronounces that the \"Angel of the Presence\" is\n\"probably Michael, who was the guardian angel of Israel.\" But Michael\nis a wholly post-exilic figure: was there no Hebrew prototype? However\nthat may be, the ritual connection of the name Jesus (Joshua) with\nthe title of Prince of the Presence has survived the intervention of\nBabylonian angelology, and remains to testify to a status for Joshua\nwhich can be explained only as a result of his original Godhood. [199]\n\n\n[To this inductive argument the only answer, thus far, seems to be\nto argue, as does Dr. Conybeare, that while \"no one nowadays accepts\nthe Book of Joshua offhand as sound history,\" nevertheless Joshua\nis there \"a man of flesh and blood.\" [200] On the same reasoning,\nSamson cannot be an Evemerized deity, though his mythical character is\nclear to every mythologist. Such considerations our amateur meets by\nalleging that if \"half-a-dozen or more\" men \"come along\" mistaking an\n\"astral myth\" for a man, we should \"think we were bewitched, and take\nto our heels.\" [201] In this connection Dr. Conybeare represents me\nas declaring Jesus to be \"an astral myth.\" It is not clear whether\nDr. Conybeare, who supposes totems to be Gods, knows what \"astral\nmyth\" means, so I impute rather hallucination than fabrication. The\nrational reader is aware that no such theory has been put or suggested\nby me. [202] But as to his thesis, which would seem to imply that\neven solar deities could never be supposed by \"half-a-dozen\" to be\nreal men, it is sufficient to point out that Herakles, the typical\nsolar Hero-God, was believed by millions in antiquity to be a real\nman; and that Samson, obviously = the Semitic Shamas or Shimshai,\na variant of Herakles, was believed by millions of Jews to have been\na real man. It is needless here to go into the cases of Achilles and\nUlysses; but the reader who would know more of mythology than has been\ndiscovered by Dr. Conybeare and his newspaper reviewers may usefully\ninvestigate these themes.\n\nAs to Joshua, Dr. Conybeare, attempting academic humour, argues (p. 17)\nthat if the hero is \"interested in fruitfulness and foreskins\" he\nought to be conceived as a \"Priapic god.\" The humorist, who pronounces\nhis antagonists \"too modest,\" seems to be unaware that Yahweh had\nthe interests in question. Becoming \"serious,\" he argues (p. 30) that\n\"even if there ever existed such a cult, it had long vanished when the\nbook of Joshua was compiled.\" For other purposes, he resorts (p. 16)\nto the test, \"How do you know?\" \"Vanished,\" for Dr. Conybeare, means,\n\"is not mentioned in the canonical Hebrew books.\" With his simple\nconceptions of the religious life of antiquity, he supposes himself\nto be aware of all that went on, religiously, in the lives of the\nmuch-mixed population of Palestine. His statement (p. 31) that \"the\nJews\" in the fifth century B.C. \"no longer revered David and Joshua\nand Joseph as sun-gods\" is as relevant as would be the statement\nthat they did not worship Zeus. No one ever said that \"the Jews\"\ncarried on all their primitive cults in the post-exilic period: the\nproposition is the expression of mere inability to conceive the issue.\n\nWhen, on the other hand, Dr. Conybeare proceeds to notice the thesis\nthat the ancient Jesuine sacrament would presumably survive as a\nsecret rite, he disposes of the proposition by calling it \"a literary\ntrick.\" That would be a mild term for his express assertion (p. 34)\nthat I have claimed that \"the canonical Book of Joshua originally\ncontained\" the tradition that Joshua was the son of Miriam--an explicit\nuntruth. My reference to deletions from the book expressly pointed to\nthe theses of Winckler, a scholar whom Dr. Conybeare supposes himself\nto discredit by expressions of personal contempt. Winckler never put\nthe hypothesis as to Miriam. [203]\n\nAs to the survival of many private \"mysteries\" among the Jews,\nI may refer the reader to the section in Pagan Christs on \"Private\nJewish Eucharists\" (p. 168 sq.), and in particular to the dictum,\nthere cited, of the late Professor Robertson Smith (who has not yet,\nI believe, incurred Dr. Conybeare's tolerably indiscriminate contempt),\nthat \"the causes which produced a resuscitation of obsolete mysteries\nwere at work at the same period [after the Captivity] among all the\nNorthern Semites,\" and that \"they mark the first appearance in Semitic\nhistory of the tendency to found religious societies on voluntary\nassociation and mystic initiation.\" To the \"first\" I cannot subscribe,\nsave on a special construction of \"appearance.\" But Robertson Smith's\nproposition was founded on the documentary evidence; and when he writes\nthat \"the obscure rites described by the prophets have a vastly greater\nimportance than has been commonly recognized,\" with the addendum that\n\"everywhere the old national Gods had shown themselves powerless to\nresist the gods of Assyria and Babylon,\" we are listening to a great\nSemitic scholar, an anthropologist, and a thinker, not to a \"wilful\nchild,\" as Dr. Conybeare may charitably be described, in words which,\nafter his manner of polemic, he applies to me.]\n\n\nFinally, we have seen that a rite of \"Jesus the Son,\" otherwise known\nas the \"Week of the Son,\" was actually specified by the Talmudists of\nthe period of the fall of the Temple. Taken with the item of the name\nJesus Barabbas, \"Jesus the Son of the Father,\" and the five-days'\nduration of the ritual of the sacrificed Mock-King, it completes a\nbody of Jewish evidence for the pre-Christian currency of the name\nJesus as a cult-name of some kind. It is now possible to see at once\nthe force of the primary thesis of Professor W. B. Smith [204] that\nthe phrase ta peri tou I\u00easou, \"the things concerning the Jesus,\" in\nthe Gospels and the Acts, [205] tells of a body of Jesus-lore of some\nkind prior to the gospel story; and also the significance of the fact\nthat the narrative of the Acts represents the new apostle as finding\nJesus-worshippers, albeit in small numbers, wherever he went.\n\nTo suppose that this could mean a far-reaching and successful\npropaganda by \"the Twelve\" in the short period represented to have\nelapsed between the Crucifixion and the advent of Paul is not merely\nto take as history, or summary of history, the miracle of Pentecost,\nbut to ignore the rest of the narrative. First we are told (viii,\n1) that after the martyrdom of Stephen the Christists \"were all\nscattered abroad throughout the regions of Jud\u00e6a and Samaria, except\nthe apostles.\" It is only to Samaria that Philip goes at that stage,\nand his doings are on the face of them mythical. Yet Saul on his\nconversion finds the \"disciple\" Ananias at Damascus. Then Peter\n\"went throughout all parts\" (ix, 32), reaching Lydda, where he finds\n\"saints\"; and then it is that \"the apostles and the brethren that were\nin Jud\u00e6a heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God\"\n(xi, 1). It is after this that \"they that were scattered abroad\nupon the tribulation that arose about Stephen travelled as far as\nPhoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none save only\nto Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who\nwhen they were come to Antioch spake unto the Greeks [or Grecian Jews]\nalso, preaching the Lord Jesus\" (xi, 19). Already there is an ecclesia\nat Antioch (xiii, 1) with nothing to account for its existence.\n\nAt this stage it is represented that Saul and Barnabas customarily\npreach Jesuism in the Jewish synagogues; and that only after\n\"contradiction\" from jealous Jews at Antioch of Pisidia do they\n\"turn to the Gentiles\" (xiii, 46), continuing, however, to visit\nsynagogues, till the Jewish hostility becomes overwhelming. At\nJerusalem, meanwhile, after all the gospel invective against the\nPharisees, there are found \"certain of the sect of the Pharisees who\nbelieved,\" and who stand firm for circumcision. Ere long we find at\nEphesus the Alexandrian Jew Apollos, who \"taught carefully the things\nconcerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John,\" having been\n\"orally instructed in the way of the Lord\" (xviii, 25), but had to\nbe taught \"more carefully\" by Priscilla and Aquila. Then he passes on\nto Corinth. Paul in turn (xix) shows at Ephesus, where he finds other\nearly Jesuists, that they of the baptism of John, though by implication\nthey held that \"Jesus was the Christ,\" had not received \"the Holy\nGhost,\" which went only with the baptism of Jesus--the baptism which\nonly the fourth gospel alleges (with contradictions), the synoptics\nknowing nothing of any baptism by Jesus or the disciples; and only\nMatthew and Mark even alleging that after resurrection he prescribed\nit. In all this the hypnotized believer sees no untruth. To the eye\nof reason there is revealed a process of primitive cult-building.\n\nIn whatever direction we turn, we thus find in the Jesuist documents\nthemselves the traces of a \"pre-Christian\" Jesuism and Christism. At\nEphesus, the believers \"were in all about twelve men\"--the number\nrequired for the primitive rite. The subsequent statement (xix,\n9-10) that after Paul had debated daily for two years at Ephesus \"all\nthey which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and\nGreeks,\" is typical of the method of the pseudo-history. Either the\nwhole narrative is baseless fiction or there were prior developments\nof the Jesus-cult.\n\nIt may be argued, indeed, that such a work of manipulation as the\nActs is no evidence for anything, and that its accounts indicating a\nprior spread of Jesuism are no more to be believed than its miracle\nstories. But however fictitious be its accounts of any one person,\nit is certain that there was a cult; and all critics are now agreed\nthat the book is a redaction of previous matter--probably of Acts\nof Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of the Apostles, and so on. And whereas\nthe most advantageous fiction from the point of view of the growing\n\"catholic\" church would be an account of the apostles as everywhere\nmaking converts, stories of their finding them must be held to have\nbeen imposed on the redactor by his material. There also it must be\nheld to stand for some reality in the history of the cult, for the same\nreason, that there was nothing to be gained by inventing such a detail.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Prototypes\n\nStill we are met by the objection that whatever the Acts may say the\ngospels give no indication of any previous Jesus-cult. But that is a\nposition untenable for the biographical school save by a temporary\nresort to the theory of myth-making. As Professor W. B. Smith has\npointed out, the gospels expressly represent that the disciples healed\nthe sick in the name of Jesus in places where Jesus had never been. For\nthe supernaturalists, that is only one more set of miracles. But the\nbiographical school, though it is much inclined to credit Jesus with\noccult \"healing powers,\" can hardly affirm such healing by means of a\nmagic name, and has no resource but to dismiss all such matter. [206]\nYet why should the evangelists have framed such a narrative save on\nthe knowledge that the name of Jesus was a thing to conjure with in\nPalestinian villages?\n\nIt is true that the story is fully told only of the mission of the\nSeventy. In Matthew the Twelve are \"sent\" out but neither go nor\nreturn, for the narrative continues with them present. In Mark and\nLuke, the Twelve go and return without reporting anything, though\nMark tells that they preached repentance, cast out many devils, and\nhealed many sick by anointing them with oil. Evidently the mission\nwas a heedless addition to the older gospel or gospels: the third\nattempts to give it some completeness. It is only the Seventy who\nmake a report; and it is only of them (Lk. x, 1) that we are told\nthey were to go to places \"whither he himself was about to come.\" As\nthe episode of the Seventy is in effect given up as myth even by many\nsupernaturalists (who feel that, if historical, the episode could not\nhave been overlooked in Matthew and Mark), the biographical school\nare so far entitled to say that for them the record does not posit\na previously current Jesus-Name. But what idea then do they connect\nwith the sending-out of the Twelve, if not the kind of idea that is\nassociated with the sending-out of the Seventy?\n\nM. Loisy feels \"authorized to believe\" (1) that Jesus in some fashion\nchose twelve disciples and sent them out to preach the simple \"evangel\"\nthat \"the Kingdom of God was at hand\"--that is, merely the evangel\nof John the Baptist over again; and (2) that \"it seems\" that they\nwent two by two in the Galilean villages, and were \"well received:\ntheir warning was listened to: sick persons were presented to them\nto heal, and there were cures.\" To say this is to say, if anything,\nthat for the first Christians the Name of Jesus was held to have\nhealing power before his deification, and that it was a known name.\n\nBut we have stronger documentary grounds than these. The Apocalypse is\nnow by advanced critics in general recognized to have been primarily\na Judaic, not a Christian document. [207] The critics apparently do\nnot realize that this verdict carries in it the pronouncement that\nJesus was probably a divine name for some section of the Jews before\nthe rise of the Christian cult. The twelve apostles enter only in an\ninterpolation: [208] in the main document we have the \"four and twenty\nelders\" of an older cult, [209] answering to the twenty-four Counsellor\nGods of Babylonia. Even if we assign the book to a \"Christian\" writer\nof the earliest years, at the very beginning of the Pauline mission,\n[210] we are committed to connecting the cult at that stage with\nthe doctrine of the Logos, [211] with the Alpha and Omega, and with\nthe Mithraic or Babylonian lore of the Seven Spirits. Of the gospel\nstory there is no trace beyond the mention of slaying: on the other\nhand the Child-God of the dragon-story is wholly non-Christian,\nand derives from Babylon.\n\nThe entire book, in short, raises the question whether the Jesus-cult\nmay not have come in originally (as so much of Judaism did), or\nbeen reinforced, from the side of Babylon, down even to the name of\nNazareth, since there was a Babylonian Nasrah. As Samaria, the seat of\nthe special celebration of Joshua, is historically known to have been\ncolonised from Assyria and Babylon, the possibilities are wide. Suffice\nit that the Apocalypse indicates a strong Babylonian element in some\nof the earliest real documentary matter we have in connection with\nthe Jesuist cult in the New Testament; and at the same time makes\ncertain the pre-Gospel currency of a Jesus-cult among professed Jews.\n\nYet another clue obtrudes itself in the Epistle of Jude--or, as\nit ought to be named, Judas--a document notably Jewish in literary\ncolour. Mr. Whittaker [212] was the first of the myth-theorists to\nlay proper stress on the fact that the reading \"Jesus\" (= Joshua)\nin verse 5, [213] alone makes the passage intelligible:--\n\n\n    Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all\n    things once for all, how that Jesus [that is, Joshua, instead\n    of \"the Lord\"] having saved a people out of the land of Egypt\n    the second time [214] [Moses having saved them the first time],\n    destroyed them that believed not. And angels which kept not their\n    own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept\n    in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgement of the\n    great day.\n\n\nThe reference is certainly to Joshua, who is here\nquasi-deified. Plainly, as Mr. Whittaker observes, \"the binding of\nerring angels can only be attributed to a supernatural being, and\nnot to a mere national hero.\"\n\nAnd, as Mr. Whittaker also notes, we have yet another clear indication\nfrom the Jewish-Christian side that Joshua in Jewish theology had a\nheavenly status. In the \"Sibylline Oracles\" there occurs the passage:--\n\n\n    Now a certain excellent man shall come again from heaven, who\n    spread forth his hands upon the very fruitful tree, the best of\n    the Hebrews, who once made the sun stand still, speaking with\n    beauteous words and pure lips. [215]\n\n\n\"The identification of Christ with Joshua,\" remarks the orthodox\ntranslator cited, \"is a mixture of Jewish and Christian legend\n(sic) which is unique. It is no question of symbolism here, as\nJoshua in Christian writings is treated as a type of Christ, but\nrather the confusion is such as might be made by an ignorant person\nreading, Heb. iv, 8, 'if Jesus had given them rest,' and concluding\nthat Jesus Christ led the Jews into Canaan. The author, indeed,\nidentifies himself with the Jews, as where he prays (vers. 327 ff.):\n'Spare Judea, Almighty Father, that we may see thy judgments'; and\nwere it credible that the whole book was the work of one author, we\nshould regard his religion as syncretic, and in full accord neither\nwith law nor gospel. But the book ... is of composite character. One\nwriter may have been a Christian; another filches occasionally from\nChristian sources, but has no lively faith in Christ: like many of\nhis countrymen at this time, he suspends his judgment, and instead of\nmaking a decision expends his energies in denunciation of the hated\npower of Rome, and in speculations concerning the future.\"\n\nIt matters not whether the writer was or was not a confident\nChristian: Judaic by upbringing or tuition he certainly was; and\nhis identification of Jesus the Christ with Joshua is one more of\nthe proofs that for many Jews Joshua had a quasi-divine status,\nas was fitting for a personage who \"made the sun stand still.\" Taken\ncollectively, the proofs cannot be overridden or explained away. Joshua\nwas for the Jews of the Hellenistic period the actual founder of\nthe rite of circumcision: [216] that is to say, mythologically,\nhe was the God of the rite. But still more weighty is the evidence\nthat his name lived on as that of the God-victim of a kindred rite;\nand it is on that basis that there was founded the rite which is for\nChristianity what circumcision had been for Judaism. Circumcision is\na rite of redemption, the giving of a symbolic part of the body to\n\"redeem\" the whole--a surrogate for the Passover sacrifice of the\nfirst-born, developed into a racial theocratic rite. It is significant\nthat the Saviour-God of this rite becomes the Saviour-God of the\nrite offered in place of that of the Passover, whereby the primordial\nhuman sacrifice is re-typified in that of the deity who once for all\ndies for all. It is upon such roots of pre-historic religion that\nthe world-religions grow.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The Mystery-Drama\n\nThat there was an actual mystery-drama behind the gospel tragedy is\nrevealed by the document itself, which is demonstrably not primarily a\nnarrative at all, but a drama transcribed, with a minimum of necessary\nelucidation. Only the habit of reading with uncritical reverence can\nconceal from a student the dramatic bareness and brevity of the record\nin the synoptics--a record which in the fourth gospel is grafted,\nwithout any real development, on a protracted discourse that only\nartificially suggests circumstantial reality. Chapter xiii is as it\nwere inserted in the middle of that discourse; and chapter xiv proceeds\nas from the end of chapter xii. The original document cannot have had\nthe story of the tragedy in this form. At the close of chapter xiv the\n\"Arise, let us go hence,\" is a slight artifice to suggest action where\nthere is none. Only at chapter xviii is the action resumed; and it is\nas bare and formal as in the synoptics. Broadly speaking, the action\nis something superadded. A long discourse has been wrapped round the\nfirst section, but without altering its compressed character. The\nsynoptics know nothing of the Johannine discourses: the Johannine\ndocument knows no more of a historic episode than do the synoptics:\nit can only invent monologues.\n\nReading the synoptic account, we find a series of separate scenes,\nwith the barest possible explanatory connection and introduction. The\ntreason of Judas, in itself a myth, [217] is announced beforehand in\nthree sentences, with no sign of reflection on the meaninglessness\nof the situation posited. A mystico-mythical episode of a message\nfrom the Master to one who is to prepare the passover meal comes\nnext. In Matthew the message is to \"such a man\"--undescribed: in Mark,\na man carrying a pitcher of water is to be seen and followed, and\n\"wheresoever he shall enter in\" the message is to be delivered to\n\"the goodman of the house,\" and the room will be shown ready. To\nread biography in this, or to ascribe a \"primitive\" trustworthiness\nto the Marcan story, is to cast out criticism.\n\nBut the Supper itself is presented with the same ceremonial effect;\nthe whole content being the mention of the betrayal and the dogmatic\nmeaning of the ritual. In Mark, the whole episode of the Supper\noccupies eight sentences: in Matthew, where Judas puts his question\nand gets his answer, ten. After the singing of a hymn, the scene\nchanges instantly to the Mount of Olives. No reason is assigned for\nthe going out into the night: it is taken for granted that the Divine\nOne is going to his death, of his own will and prevision. Either we\nbelieve this, making him a God, or we recognize a myth. Biography it\ncannot be. And drama it clearly is.\n\nOn the Mount, there is another brief dialogue, committing Peter\nand the other disciples--a wholly hostile presentment. Again the\nscene changes to Gethsemane, where the three selected disciples with\nwhom Jesus withdraws actually sleep while he utters the prayer set\ndown. There was thus no one to hear it. Any biographical theory which\nis concerned to respect verisimilitude must here recognize something\nelse than narrative, and will presumably posit invention. But why\nshould invention take this peculiar form? If the object was to\nimpeach the disciples--and they certainly are impeached--is it not\nan impossibly crude device to tell of their sleeping throughout the\nprayer and its repetition, leaving open the retort: \"You report\nthe words of the prayer: from whom did you get them if not from\nthose disciples, who must have heard them?\" But if we suppose the\nscene first presented dramatically, no perplexity or counter-sense\nis involved. The impeachment is effectual; the episode is seen;\nand no one is concerned, in presence of a drama, to ask how certain\nwords came to be known to have been spoken by any personage. It is\nthe reduction to narrative form that betrays the dramatic source. And\nwhen we find in both Matthew and Mark, which clearly embody the same\noriginal document, this sequence:\n\n\n    And again he came, and found them sleeping ... and they wist\n    not what to answer him [nothing has been said]. And he cometh\n    the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your\n    rest: it is enough; the hour is come: behold, the son of man is\n    betrayed.... Arise now ...,\n\n\nthe documentary crux, which the biographical school makes vainly\nviolent attempts to solve, is at once solved when we realize that in\nthe transcription two speeches have accidentally been combined. The\ndrama must have gone thus:--\n\n\n    The disciples still asleep.\n\n    Enter Jesus.\n\n    Jes. Sleep on now and take your rest. [Exit.\n\n    Enter Jesus. (Disciples still asleep.)\n\n    Jes. It is enough: the hour is come, etc.\n\n\nThe transcriber, missing an exit and an enter, has simply run two\nspeeches together; and the gospel copyists have faithfully followed\ntheir copy, putting \"they wist not what to answer him\" in the wrong\nplace. In an original narrative the combination could not happen. In\nthe transcription of the copy of a play it could easily happen. We\nfind instances in the printing of the plays of Shakespeare and other\nearly dramatists.\n\n\n[One antagonist of the mystery-play theory, making no attempt\nto rebut the above solution, denies that it can be applied to the\nmidnight trial before the priests, elders, and scribes. Of this trial\nM. Loisy recognizes the impossibility: pronouncing that, sans doute,\nthe asserted search for witnesses by night never took place. But,\nsays the objector [218]:--\n\n\n    (1) It may be incredible history; but it is impossible drama. I\n    defy Mr. Robertson to say how it could have been represented on\n    the stage, or why it should have been given a place in a drama\n    at all. And he is searching for evidence of drama.\n\n    (2) The incident exists only in Mr. Robertson's imagination. The\n    Greek phrase in Mk. xiv, 55, is the regular phrase for sifting\n    evidence, and does not imply or suggest any hunting up of witnesses\n    throughout Jerusalem.\n\n\nWe have here three propositions:--\n\n1. The midnight search for witnesses is impossible in drama.\n\n2. It is impossible to give a reason why it should have been put in\na drama.\n\n3. The record does not say that it took place.\n\nThe first is at once annihilated by briefly dramatizing the alleged\nprocedure:--\n\n\n    Priest (or other official, to officials). Go and bring the\n    witnesses to convict this fellow.        [Exeunt Officials.\n\n    Priest consults with his fellows.\n\n    Enter Officials with a witness. Exeunt Officials.\n\n    Witness is examined: the evidence is confused.\n\n    Enter Officials with another witness. Exeunt.\n\n    Witness is examined: evidence conflicts with that already given.\n\n    (And so with a series of witnesses.)\n\n    Enter Officials with two more witnesses.\n\n    Witnesses, examined, testify, with some contradictions in detail,\n    \"This man said\"--etc.\n\n    High Priest (standing). Answerest thou nothing? etc.\n\n\nWhere is the difficulty? It is precisely in drama, and in drama alone,\nthat the impossible narrative can pass as possible. Action on the\nstage is always telescoped: time is always more or less ignored,\nbecause the selected action must go on continuously. Again and\nagain in Shakespeare (or rather in pseudo-Shakespeare) we find\nirrelevant and futile scenes interposed to create the semblance of\na time interval; but in Othello and Measure for Measure, to name no\nother plays, the action is impossibly telescoped. The explanation\nis that in the psychology of the theatre time is disregarded, save\nby the most critical. The simple-minded audience of devotees which\nwitnessed the Christist mystery-play would never ask \"How did they\nhunt up those witnesses in Jerusalem at midnight?\" Solvitur ambulando,\nso to speak: they saw the trial. It is when the play is transmuted to\ndead narrative, wherein a number of questions and answers are reduced\nto a few bald statements, that the impossibility obtrudes itself.\n\nOur critic defies us to explain how such a trial came to be put in\na drama. It is hard to see why he is puzzled. The general object\nof the whole tragedy is to show Jesus as the victim, first, of the\npriests, elders, and scribes--the Jewish ecclesiastical order, whose\nhostility to Jesus is a constant datum of the gospels. At this stage\nthe mystery-play has become a Gentile-Christian performance, in which\neven the Jewish disciples play a poor part, while the official class\nare the mainspring of the tragedy. How could the priests be more\neffectively impeached than by exhibiting them as producing plainly\nsuborned evidence to convict Jesus? Lord Tennyson, in our time, put\na bad freethinker in a bad play to discredit freethinking. And he\nhad non-canonical as well as canonical precedents. The apocryphal\n\"Acts of Pilate\" appears to follow a drama in which a great many\ngospel episodes were dramatized as well as the trial. [219]\n\nAs for the critic's assertion that a midnight search for witnesses\nis not posited in the narrative, it is again impossible to follow\nhis reasoning. If the ez\u00eatoun ... martyrian of Mark means \"sifted\nevidence,\" the ez\u00eatoun pseudomartyrian of Matthew means \"sifted false\nevidence.\" The theory of \"sifting\" is impossible. I have had the\ncuriosity to examine ten translations--Latin, German, modern Greek,\nItalian, French, and English, without finding that one translator\nhas ever dreamt of it. All agree with the current English rendering,\nwhich means sought [false] testimony, because no other rendering is\npossible. The record goes on, in Mark:--\n\n\n    ... and found it [i. e. the required evidence] not. For many\n    bare false witness against him and their witness agreed not\n    together. And there stood up certain, and bare false witness\n    against him.... And not even so did their witness agree\n    together. And the high priest stood up....\n\n\nAccording to the new theory, the prosecution \"sifted evidence\" which\n\"stood up,\" as did the high priest.\n\nDefending his thesis, the exegete argues [220] that the \"evidence\" was\nnot written but oral; that is to say, the authorities had collected\nwitnesses during the day and had then kept them till midnight or\nlater without ascertaining what evidence they were able to give. The\nnarratives neither say nor hint anything of the kind; whereas if such\nhad been supposed to be the fact it would have been the natural thing\nto say so.\n\nBut the thing alleged is unnatural. On the one hand we are asked to\nbelieve that the authorities had before sunset collected a number of\nwitnesses, when they could not have any certainty of making the arrest;\non the other hand we are to believe that with all this extraordinary\nfore-planning they had not taken the normal precaution of ascertaining\nwhat the witnesses could say. In the transcribed drama as it stands,\nthe authorities are represented as knaves; in the interpretation\nbefore us, framed to save the credit of the narrative, they are\nrepresented as childishly foolish. The narrative as we have it defies\nits vindicators. It tells that witnesses were sent for; and only in\na drama, in which time-conditions are ignored, could such a fiction\nhave been resorted to.] #/\n\nThe story is equally dramatic to the close. Everything is scenic,\ndetached, episodic: it is left to Luke (who elaborates the\nSupper scene; gives a positive command of Jesus for the future\ncelebration where the previous documents merely show the rite as it\nwas practised; puts the denial of Peter before the trial; and drops\nthe whole procedure of the witnesses) to interpose the episode of the\ndaughters of Jerusalem between the Roman trial and the crucifixion;\nand even that is parenthetic and dramatic, as are the burial and\nthe seeking; whereafter, in Mark, the gospel abruptly ends. The\nrest is supplementary documentation. How much of that may have been\ndramatized, it is impossible to say. That there had been evolution\nin the mystery-play is involved in our conception of it. It began\nwith the simple Sacrament, at a remote period, the Sacrament itself\nbeing evolved from a primitive and savage to a symbolic form, the God\nbeing probably first represented, as in kindred rites, [221] by his\nsacrificial priest; and later by the victim. [222] It is after the\nprimitive and localized cult seeks the status of a world-religion that\nthe ritual developes into a quasi-history; and we can see conflicting\ninfluences in that. One writer causes Jesus to be buffeted and mocked\nat the Jewish trial, as if to counterbalance the derision in the Roman\ntrial; even as Luke interposes a third trial before Herod, to make sure\nthat the guilt should ultimately lie with the Jewish government. In the\naction as in the doctrine, the Gentile influence finally predominates.\n\nThe important point to note in the documentary evolution is that the\nmystery-play remained a secret representation for some time after\nwritten gospels were current. To begin with, all the mystery-plays\nof the age were on the same footing of secrecy. What takes place\nfinally in the Jesuist cult is a simple adding-on of the mystery-play\nto the gospels. It was not for nothing that the school of B. Weiss,\nseeking to expiscate a \"Primitive Gospel\" from the synoptics, made\nit end before the Tragedy. This was what they were bound to do by\ntheir documentary tests; and the common objection that such an ending\nis very improbable--a difficulty avowed by Weiss and weakly sought\nto be solved by some of the school--is seen in the light of the\nmyth-theory to be a difficulty only for those who assume not merely\nthe historicity of a Jesus but the historicity of the whole tragedy\nstory down to the resurrection. Once it is realized that that story\nis a dramatic development of an originally simple myth of sacrificial\ndeath, the documentary difficulty disappears.\n\n\n    [It should not be necessary to point out the absolute falsity of\n    the assertion of Dr. Conybeare (Histor. Christ, p. 49) that in my\n    theory \"The Christian Gospels ... are a transcript of the annually\n    performed ritual drama, just as Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare are\n    transcripts of Shakespeare's plays.\" In Pagan Christs (p. 201)\n    it is expressly argued that \"the Mystery Play is an addition to\n    a previously existing document.... The transcriber has been able\n    to add to the previous gospel the matter of the mystery-play; and\n    there he loyally stops.\" And it is repeatedly pointed out that\n    the transcription has been made with the minimum of necessary\n    narrative connection. Thus the parallel with Lamb's Tales is\n    false even as regards the matter posited as constituting the play;\n    while the assertion that the whole of the gospel is represented\n    as a transcription of a play is pure fabrication. And this mere\n    falsification of the theory passes with traditionalist critics\n    as a confutation.]\n\n\nSome account, indeed, the Jesuists must have given of the death\nof their God or Son-God when they reached the stage of systematic\npropaganda; and this was in all likelihood a bare statement such\nas we have in the Epistles, that he was put to a humiliating death\nand rose again. It is very likely that accounts of the manner of\nthe death varied in the first written accounts, as they certainly\nwould in the traditions or rituals current at various points; and we\nmay grant to the documentary critics that various versions may have\nattached to early forms or sources of Mark and Matthew. A general\nstatement that Jesus was the \"Son of the Father,\" and that he had\nbeen put to death with ignominy, would elicit, as has been above\nargued, the objection that \"Jesus Barabbas\" was certainly no divine\npersonage. The Barabbas story, then, explaining away that objection,\nis a comparatively late development, of which, accordingly, we find\nnot a single trace in the Acts or the Epistles. But similarly the\nSupper is not described in the Acts or the Epistles apart from the\nplainly interpolated account in First Corinthians. And at the outset\nthe Supper would be emphatically secret matter, not to be written down.\n\nWhatever conclusion, then, was given to the earlier gospel or\ngospels, it did not include that. As little would it give the Agony,\nor the trials before the Sanhedrim and before Pilate, throwing\nthe guilt of the tragedy on the Jews, or the episodes disparaging\nthe apostles. Judas is in all likelihood primarily a figure of a\nGentile form of the play, being just Judaios, a Jew, [223] created by\nGentile or Samaritan animus. What inferribly happened was a dramatic\ndevelopment, by Gentile hands, of a primarily simple mystery drama,\nconsisting of the Supper, the death, and the resurrection, into the\nplay as it now stands transcribed in the synoptics, with the Betrayal,\nthe Agony, the Denial, the Trials, and the dramatic touches in the\ncrucifixion scene.\n\nThe school of Weiss, then, on our theory, reached by comparatively\nconsistent methods of documentary criticism a relatively sound\nconclusion. The earlier forms of the gospel certainly had not the\npresent conclusion; and whatever simple conclusions they had were bound\nto be superseded when the complete mystery play was transcribed--the\nvery transcription being a reason for their disappearance. At some\npoint, probably by reason of the Christian reaction against all pagan\nprocedure, the play, which in its present form must always have been\nspecial to a town or towns, was dropped, and though the tendency was\nto keep the Eucharist an advanced rite for initiates, and withhold\nit from catechumens, [224] the reduction of the Tragedy to narrative\nform became a necessity for purposes of propaganda. Without it,\nthe gospels were inadequate to their purposes; and it supplied the\nneeded confutation of the charge that Jesus was simply a victim in\nthe Barabbas rite.\n\nThis said, we have still to face the main problem of the evolution of\nthe Jesus-cult into a world-religion in which the God Sacrificed to\nthe God becomes also the Messiah of the Jews and the Teacher of those\nwho believe in him. And the tracing of that evolution must obviously\nbe difficult. The process of extracting true out of false history\nis always so; and where the concocted history and its contingent\nliterature are the main documents, we can in the nature of things\nreach only general conceptions. But general conceptions are attainable;\nand we must frame them as scientifically as we can.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF THE CULT\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Primary Impulsion\n\nProfessor W. B. Smith, whose brilliant, independent, and powerful\nadvocacy of the myth-theory has brought conviction to readers not\notherwise attracted by it, has stressed two propositions in regard\nto the evolution of the Jesus-cult. One is that the movement was\n\"multifocal,\" starting from a number of points; [225] the other that\nthe essential and inspiring motive was the monotheistic conception,\nas against all forms of polytheism; Jesus being conceived as \"the One\nGod.\" [226] That the first proposition is sound and highly important,\nI am convinced. But after weighing the second with a full sense of the\nacumen that guides all Professor Smith's constructive speculation, I\nremain of the opinion that it needs considerable modification. [227]\nIn clearing up these two issues, we shall go a long way towards\nestablishing a clear theory of the whole historical process.\n\nIn the first place, a \"multifocal\" movement, a growth from many points,\nis involved in all our knowledge of the highly important matters of the\nhistory of the early Christian sects, and the non-canonical Christian\ndocuments. Perhaps the proposition is even more widely true than\nProfessor Smith indicates. To begin with, we find at an early stage\nthe sects of (1) Ebionites and (2) Nazarenes or Nazareans, in addition\nto (3 and 4) the Judaizing and Gentilizing movements associated with\n\"the Twelve\" and Paul respectively; and yet further (5) the movement\nassociated with the name of Apollos. Further we have to note (6) the\nJesuism of the Apocalypse, partly extra-Judaic in its derivation;\nand (7) that of the ninth section of the Teaching of the Twelve\nApostles, which emerges as a quasi-Ebionitic addition to a purely\nJudaic document--not yet interpolated by the seventh section. Yet\nfurther, we have (8) the factors accruing to the religious epithet\n\"Chrestos\" [228] (= good, gracious), which specially attached to the\nunderworld Gods of the Samothracian mysteries; also to Hermes, Osiris,\nand Isis; and (9 and 10) the Christist cult-movements connected with\nthe non-Jesuine Pastor of Hermas and the sect of the Eleesaites. [229]\nAnd this is not an exhaustive list.\n\n(11) That there was a general Jewish ferment of Messianism on foot in\nthe first century is part of the case of the biographical school. That\nthere actually arose in the first and second centuries various Jewish\n\"Christs\" is also a historical datum. But the biographical school\nare not wont in this connection to avow the inference that alone can\nproperly be drawn from the phrase of Suetonius as to a movement of\nJewish revolt at Rome occurring in the reign of Claudius impulsore\nChresto, \"(one) Chrestus instigating.\" [230] This is not an allusion\nto the Greek epithet Chrestos before referred to: it is either a\nspecification of an individual otherwise unknown or the reduction to\nvague historic status of the source of a general ferment of Jewish\ninsurrection in Rome, founding on the expectation of the Christos,\nthe Messiah. In the reign of Claudius, such a movement could not have\nbeen made by \"Christians\" on any view of the history. As the words were\npronounced alike they were interchangeably written, Chrestos (preserved\nin the French chr\u00e9tien) being used even among the Fathers. Giving to\nthe phrase of Suetonius the only plausible import we can assign to it,\nwe get the datum that among the Jews outside Palestine there was a\ngeneralized movement of quasi-revolutionary Christism which cannot\nwell have been without its special literature.\n\n(12) In this connection may be noted the appearance of a\nquasi-impersonal Messianism and Christism on the border-land of\nJewish and early Christian literature. Of this, a main source is the\nBook of Enoch, of which the Messianic sections are now by general\nconsent assigned to the first and second centuries B.C. There the\nMessiah is called the Just or Righteous One; [231] the Chosen One;\n[232] Son of Man; [233] the Anointed; [234] and once \"Son of the\nWoman.\" [235] Here already we have the imagined Divine One more or\nless concretely represented. He is premundane, and so supernatural,\nyet not equal with God, being simply God's deputy. [236] When then\nwe find in the so-called Odes of Solomon, recently recovered from an\nEthiopic version, a Messianic psalmody in which, apparently in the\nfirst Christian century, \"the name of the gospel is not found, nor\nthe name of Jesus;\" and \"not a single saying of Jesus is directly\nquoted,\" [237] it is critically inadmissible to pronounce the\nOdes Christian, especially when a number are admitted to have no\nChristian characteristics. [238] When, too, the writer admittedly\nappears to be speaking ex ore Christi, a new doubt is cast on all\nlogia so-called. Such literature, whether or not it be pronounced\nGnostic, points to the Gnostic Christism in which the personal Jesus\ndisappears [239] in a series of abstract speculations that exclude\nall semblance of human personality. All the evidence points for its\norigination to abstract or general conceptions, not to any actual\nlife or teaching. It spins its doctrinal web from within.\n\n(13) And it is not merely on the Jewish side that we have evidence\nof elements in the early Jesuist movement which derive from sources\nalien to the gospel record. M. Loisy [240] admits that the hymn of the\nNaassenes, given by Hippolytus, [241] in which Jesus appeals to the\nFather to let him descend to earth and reveal the mysteries to men,\n\"has an extraordinary resemblance to the dialogue between the God\nEa and his son Marduk in certain Babylonian incantations.\" [242] He\ndisposes of the problem by claiming that before it can weigh with us\n\"it must be proved that the hymn of the Ophites is anterior to all\nconnection of their sect with Christianity.\" The implication is\nthat Gnostic syncretism could add Babylonian traits to the Jewish\nJesus. But when we find signal marks of a Babylonian connection for\nthe name Jesus in the Apocalypse we cannot thus discount, without\nfurther evidence, the Babylonian connection set up by the Naassene\nhymn. Nor can the defenders of a record which they themselves admit\nto contain a mass of unhistorical matter claim to have a ground upon\nwhich they can dismiss as a copyist's blunder the formula in which\nin an old magic papyrus Jesus, as Healer, is adjured as \"The God\nof the Hebrews.\" [243] The very gospel records present the name of\nJesus as one of magical power in places where he has not appeared. A\nstrict criticism is bound to admit that the whole question of the\npre-Christian vogue of the name Jesus presents an unsolved problem.\n\nThere are further two quasi-historical Jesuses, one (14) given in\nthe Old Testament, the other (15) in the Talmud, concerning which we\ncan neither affirm nor deny that they were connected with a Jesuine\nmovement before the Christian era. One is the Jesus of Zechariah (iii,\n1-8; vi, 11-15); the other is the Jesus Ben Pandira, otherwise Jesus\nBen Satda or Stada, of the Talmud. The former, Jesus the High Priest,\nplays a quasi-Messianic part, being described as \"The Branch\" and\ndoubly crowned as priest and king. The word for \"branch\" in Zechariah\nis tsemach, but this was by the pre-Christian Jews identified with the\nnetzer of Isaiah xi, 1; which for some the early Jesuists would seem\nto have constituted the explanation of Jesus' cognomen of \"Nazarite\"\nor \"Nazar\u00e6an.\" [244] The historic significance of the allusions in\nZechariah appears to have been wholly lost; and that very circumstance\nsuggests some pre-Christian connection between the name Jesus and a\nMessianic movement, which the Jewish teachers would be disposed to\nlet slip from history, and the Christists who might know of it would\nnot wish to recall. But the matter remains an enigma.\n\nEqually unsolved, thus far, is the problem of the Talmudic\nJesus. Ostensibly, there are two; and yet both seem to have been\nconnected, in the Jewish mind, with the Jesus of the gospels. One,\nJesus son of Pandira, is recorded to have been stoned to death and then\nhanged on a tree, for blasphemy or other religious crime, on the eve\nof a Passover in the reign of Alexander Jann\u00e6us (B.C. 106-79). [245]\nBut in the Babylonian Gemara he is identified with a Jesus Ben Sotada\nor Stada or Sadta or Sidta, who by one rather doubtful clue is put in\nthe period of Rabbi Akiba in the second century C.E. He too is said to\nhave been stoned and hanged on the eve of a Passover, but at Lydda,\nwhereas Ben Pandira is said to have been executed at Jerusalem. Some\nscholars take the unlikely view that two different Jesuses were\nthus stoned and hanged on the eve of a Passover: others infer one,\nwhose date has been confused. [246] As Ben Pandira entered into the\nJewish anti-Christian tradition, and is posited by the Jew of Celsus\nin the second century, the presumption is in favour of his date. His\nmother is in one place named Mariam Magdala = \"Mary the nurse\" or\n\"hair-dresser\"--a quasi-mythical detail. But even supposing him to\nhave been a real personage, whose name may have been connected with\na Messianic movement (he is said to have had five disciples), it is\nimpossible to say what share his name may have had in the Jesuine\ntradition. Our only practicable clues, then, are those of the sects\nand movements enumerated.\n\nIt soon becomes clear from a survey of these sects and movements\n(1) that a cult of a non-divine Jesus, represented by the Hebraic\nEbionites, subsisted for a time alongside of one which, also among\nJews, made Jesus a supernatural being. Only on the basis of an original\nrite can such divergences be explained. The Ebionites come before us,\nin the account of Epiphanius, as using a form of the Gospel of Matthew\nwhich lacked the first two chapters (an addition of the second or\nthird century), denying the divinity of Jesus, and rejecting the\napostleship of Paul. [247] It is implied that they accepted the\nstory of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. Here then were Jewish\nbelievers in a Hero-Jesus, the Servant of God (as in the Teaching),\nnot a Son of God in any supernatural sense. Ebionism had rigidly\nrestricted the cult to a subordinate form.\n\nOn the other hand, we have in the Nazarean sect or fraternity a\nmovement which added both directly and indirectly to the Jesuist\nevolution. In the so-called Primitive Gospel, as expiscated by the\nschool of B. Weiss from the synoptics, there is no mention of Nazareth,\nand neither the epithet \"Nazarene\" nor \"Nazarite\" for Jesus. All three\nnames are wholly absent from the Epistles, as from the Apocalypse:\nJesus never has a cognomen after we pass the Acts. The inference is\nirresistible that first the epithet \"Nazarean,\" and later the story\nabout Nazareth, were additions to a primary cult in which Jesus had\nno birth-location, any more than he had human parents.\n\nI have suggested [248] that the term may have come in from the\nHebrew \"Netzer\" = \"the branch,\" which would have a Messianic meaning\nfor Jews. Professor Smith, who makes a searching study of Hebrew\nword-elements, has developed a highly important thesis to the effect\nthat the word Nazaraios, \"Nazarean,\" which gives the residual name for\nthe Jesuist sect in the Acts and the predominant name for Jesus in the\ngospels (apart from Mark, which gives Nazarenos), [249] is not only\npre-Christian but old Semitic; that the fundamental meaning of the name\n(Nosri) is \"guard\" or \"watcher\" (= Saviour?), and that the appellation\nis thus cognate with \"Jesus,\" which signifies Saviour. [250] On the\nnegative side, as against the conventional derivations from Nazareth,\nthe case is very strong. More than fifty years ago, the freethinker\nOwen Meredith insisted on the lack of evidence that a Galilean village\nnamed Nazareth existed before the Christian era. To-day; professional\nscholarship has acquiesced, to such an extent that Dr. Cheyne [251]\nand Wellhausen have agreed in deriving the name from the regional\nname Gennesareth, thus making Nazareth = Galilee; while Professor\nBurkitt, finding \"the ordinary view of Nazareth wholly unproved and\nunsatisfactory,\" offers \"a desperate conjecture\" to the effect that\n\"the city of Joseph and Mary, the patris of Jesus, was Chorazin.\" [252]\nIn the face of this general surrender, we are doubly entitled to deny\nthat either the appellation for Jesus or the sect-name had anything\nto do with the place-name Nazareth. [253]\n\nThat there was a Jewish sect of \"Nazar\u00e6ans\" before the Christian era,\nProfessor Smith has clearly shown, may be taken as put beyond doubt\nby the testimony of Epiphanius, which he exhaustively analyzes. [254]\nPrimitively orthodox, like the Samaritans, and recognizing ostensibly\nno Bible personages later than Joshua, they appear to have merged in\nsome way with the \"Christians,\" who adopted their name, perhaps turning\n\"Nazar\u00e6an\" into \"Nazorean.\" My original theory was that the \"Nazar\u00e6ans\"\nwere just the \"Nazarites\" of the Old Testament--men \"separated\" and\n\"under a vow\"; [255] and that the two movements somehow coalesced, the\nplace-name \"Nazareth\" being finally adopted to conceal the facts. But\nProfessor Smith is convinced, from the evidence of Epiphanius,\nthat between \"Nazarites\" and \"Nazar\u00e6ans\" there was no connection;\n[256] and for this there is the strong support of the fact that the\nJews cursed the Jesuist \"Nazor\u00e6ans\" while apparently continuing to\nrecognize the Nazirs or Nazarites. That Professor Smith's derivation\nof the name may be the correct one, I am well prepared to believe.\n\nBut it is difficult to connect such a derivation of an important\nsection of the early Jesuist movement with the thesis that Jesuism\nat its historic outset was essentially a monotheistic crusade. On\nthis side we seem to face an old sect for whom, as for the adherents\nof the early sacrament, Jesus was a secondary or subordinate divine\npersonage. Standing at an early Hebraic standpoint, the Nazar\u00e6ans\nwould have no part in the monotheistic universalism of the later\nprophets. The early Hebrews had believed in a Hebrew God, recognizing\nthat other peoples also had theirs. How or when had the Nazar\u00e6ans\ntranscended that standpoint?\n\nIn the absence of any elucidation, the very ably argued thesis of\nProfessor Smith as to the name \"Nazar\u00e6an\" seems broadly out of keeping\nwith the thesis that a monotheistic fervour was a main and primary\nelement in the development of the Christian cult; and that Jesus was\nconceived by his Jewish devotees in general as \"the One God.\" This\nwould have meant the simple dethroning of Yahweh, a kind of procedure\nseen only in such myths as that of Zeus and Saturn, where one racial\ncult superseded another. But the main form of Christianity was always\nYahwistic, even when Paul in the Acts is made to proclaim to the\nAthenians an \"unknown God\"--an idea really derived from Athens. Only\nfor a few, and these non-Jews, can \"the Jesus\" originally have been\nthe One God; unless in so far as the use of the name \"the Lord\" may\nfor some unlettered Jews have identified Jesus with Yahweh, who was\nso styled. The Ebionites denied his divinity all along. The later\nNazareans were Messianists who did not any more than the Jews seem\nto conceive that the Messiah was Yahweh.\n\nThe whole doctrine of \"the Son\" was in conflict with any purely\nmonotheistic idea. Nowhere in the synoptics or the Epistles is the\nChrist doctrine so stated as really to serve monotheism: the \"I and the\nFather are one\" of the fourth gospel is late; and the opening verses of\nthat gospel show tampering, telling of a vacillation as to whether the\nLogos was God or \"with God\"--or rather \"next to God,\" in the strict\nmeaning of pros. Here we have a reflex of Alexandrian philosophy,\n[257] not the evangel of the popular cult. Formally monotheistic the\ncult always was, even when it had become actually Trinitarian; and all\nalong, doubtless, the particularist monotheism of the Jews was at work\nagainst all other God-names in particular and polytheism in general;\nbut that cannot well have been the moving force in a cult which was\nprofessedly beginning by establishing an ostensibly new deity, and\nwas ere long to make a trinity.\n\nSo far as anything can be clearly gathered from the scattered polemic\nin the Talmud against \"the Minim,\" the standing title for Jewish\nheretics, including Christians as such, [258] they at least appear\nnot as maintaining the oneness of God but rather as affirming a\nsecond Deity, [259] and this as early as the beginning of the second\ncentury. That the Jewish Rabbis took this view of their doctrine\nis explained in terms of the actual theology of the Epistle to the\nHebrews. If there was any new doctrine of monotheism bound up with\nJesuism, it must have been outside of the Jewish sphere, where the\nunity of God was the very ground on which Jesuism was resisted. As\nsuch, the Jewish Christians did not even repudiate the Jewish law,\nbeing expressly aspersed by the Rabbis as secret traitors who professed\nto be Jews but held alien heresies. [260]\n\nI have said that \"the Jesus\" can have been \"the one God\" only for\nnon-Jews. Conceivably he may have been so for some Samaritans. There\nis reason to believe that in the age of the Herods only a minority\nof the Samaritan people held by Judaism; [261] and there is Christian\ntestimony that in the second century a multitude of them worshipped as\nthe One God Sem or Semo, the Semitic Sun-God whose name is embodied in\nthat of Samson. Justin Martyr, himself a Samaritan, expressly alleges\nthat \"almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations\"\nworship and acknowledge as \"the first God\" Simon, whom he describes\nas a native of Gitta or Gitton, emerging in the reign of Claudius\nC\u00e6sar. [262] Justin's gross blunder in identifying a Samaritan of the\nfirst century with the Sabine deity Semo Sancus, whose statue he had\nseen in Rome, [263] is proof that he could believe in the deification\nof an alien as Supreme God, in his lifetime, in a nation with ancient\ncults. The thing being impossible, we are left to the datum that\nSem or Semo or Sem-on = Great Sem was widely worshipped in Samaria,\nas elsewhere in the near East. [264]\n\nReturning to the subject of \"the magician Simon\" in his Dialogue with\nTrypho, [265] Justin there repeats that the Samaritans call him \"God\nabove all power, and authority, and might.\" Remembering that the Jewish\nShema, \"the Name,\" is the ordinary appellative for Yahweh, we note\npossibilities of syncretism as to which we can only speculate. The\nfact that the Jews actually called their God in general by a word\nmeaning \"Name\" and also equating with the commonest Semitic name for\nthe Sun-God, while in their sacred books they professedly transmuted\nthe sacred name (altering the consonants) to Adonai = Lord (\"plural\nof majesty\"), the name of the Syrian God Adonis, is a circumstance\nthat has never been much considered by hierologists. It suggests\nthat the Samaritan Sem also may have been \"known\" by other names;\nand the certain fact of the special commemoration of Joshua among the\nSamaritan Judaists gives another ground for speculation. The words\nof Jesus to the Samaritan woman in the fourth gospel, \"Ye worship\nye know not what,\" seem to signify that from the Alexandrian-Jewish\nstandpoint Samaritans worshipped a name only.\n\nWhat does emerge clearly is that Samaria played a considerable part\nin the beginnings of Christism. In a curious passage of the fourth\ngospel (viii, 48) the Jews say to Jesus, \"Say we not well that thou\nart a Samaritan, and hast a daimon?\": and he answers with a denial\nthat he has a daimon, but makes no answer on the other charge. The\nfact that Matthew makes the Founder expressly forbid his disciples\nto enter any city of the Samaritans, while an interpolator of Luke\n[266] introduces the story of the good Samaritan to counteract the\ndoctrine, tells that there was a sunderance between Samaritan and\nJudaizing Christists just as there was between the Judaizers and the\nGentilizers in general. From Samaria, then, came part of the impulse\nto the whole Gentilizing movement; and the Samaritan Justin shows\nthe anti-Judaic animus clearly enough.\n\nThat Samaritan Jesuism, then, may early have outgone the Pauline in\nmaking Jesus \"the One God,\" in rivalry to the Jewish Yahweh, is a\nrecognizable possibility. But still we do not reach the conception\nof a zealously monotheistic cult, relying specially on a polemic\nof monotheism. Justin fights for monotheism as against paganism,\nbut on the ordinary Judaic-Christian basis. This is a later polemic\nstage. Nor does the thesis of a new monotheism seem at all essential\nto the rest of Professor Smith's conception of the emergence of\nJesuism. He agrees that it exfoliated from a scattered cult of\nsecret mysteries: the notion, then, that it was at the time of its\nopen emergence primarily a gospel of One God, and that God Jesus,\nis ostensibly in excess of the first hypothesis. It is also somewhat\nincongruous with the acceptance of the historic fact that it spread\nas a popular religion, in a world which desired Saviour Gods. [267]\nSaviour Gods abounded in polytheism; the very conception is primarily\npolytheistic; and all we know of the cast and calibre of the early\nconverts in general is incompatible with the notion of them as zealous\nfor an abstract and philosophical conception of deity. Whether we take\nthe epistles to the Corinthians as genuine or as pseudepigraphic,\nthey are clearly addressed to a simple-minded community, not given\nto monotheistic idealism, and indeed incapable of it.\n\nIn positing, further, a rapid \"triumph\" of Christism in virtue\nof its monotheism, Professor Smith seems to me to outgo somewhat\nthe historical facts. There is really no evidence for any rapid\ntriumph. Renan, after accepting as history the pentecostal dithyramb\nof the Acts, came to see that no such quasi-miraculous spread of the\nfaith ever took place; and that the Pauline epistles all presuppose not\ngreat churches but \"little Bethels,\" or rather private conventicles,\nscattered through the Eastern Empire. [268] He justifiably doubted\nwhether Paul's converts, all told, amounted to over a thousand\npersons. At a much later period, sixty years after Constantine's\nadoption of the faith, the then ancient church of Antioch, the city\nwhere first the Jesuists \"were called Christians,\" numbered only\nabout a fifth part of the population. [269] \"At the end of the second\ncentury, probably not a hundredth part even of the central provinces\nof the Roman Empire was Christianized, while the outlying provinces\nwere practically unaffected.\"\n\nRather we seem bound to infer that Christianity made headway\nby assimilating pagan ideas and usages on a basis of Judaic\norganization. It is ultimately organization that conserves cults;\nand the vital factor in the Christian case is the adaptation of the\nmodel set by the Jewish synagogues and their central supervision. Of\ncourse even organization cannot avert brute conquest; and the organized\npagan cults in the towns of the Empire went down ultimately before\nChristian violence as the Christian went down before violence in\nPersia in the age of the Sassanides. But Christian organization,\nimproving upon Jewish, with no adequate rivalry on the pagan side,\ndeveloped the situation in which Constantine saw fit to imperialize\nthe cultus, as the one best fitted to become that of the State.\n\nHow then did the organization begin and grow? The data point\ninsistently to a special group in Jerusalem; and behind the myth of\nthe gospels we have historical and documentary ground for a hypothesis\nwhich can account for that as for the other myth-elements.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Silence of Josephus\n\nWhen we are considering the possibilities of underlying historical\nelements in the gospel story, it may be well to note on the one hand\nthe entirely negative aspect of the works of Josephus to that story,\nand on the other hand the emergence in his writings of personages\nbearing the name Jesus. If the defenders of the historicity of the\ngospel Jesus would really stand by Josephus as a historian of Jewry\nin the first Christian century, they would have to admit that he\nis the most destructive of all the witnesses against them. It is\nnot merely that the famous interpolated passage [270] is flagrantly\nspurious in every aspect--in its impossible context; its impossible\nlanguage of semi-worship; its \"He was (the) Christ\"; its assertion of\nthe resurrection; and its allusion to \"ten thousand other wonderful\nthings\" of which the historian gives no other hint--but that the\nflagrant interpolation brings into deadly relief the absence of all\nmention of the crucified Jesus and his sect where mention must have\nbeen made by the historian if they had existed. If, to say nothing of\n\"ten thousand wonderful things,\" there was any movement of a Jesus of\nNazareth with twelve disciples in the period of Pilate, how came the\nhistorian to ignore it utterly? If, to say nothing of the resurrection\nstory, Jesus had been crucified by Pilate, how came it that there is\nno hint of such an episode in connection with Josephus' account of\nthe Samaritan tumult in the next chapter? And if a belief in Jesus\nas a slain and returning Messiah had been long on foot before the\nfall of the Temple, how comes it that Josephus says nothing of it\nin connection with his full account of the expectation of a coming\nMessiah at that point?\n\nBy every test of loyal historiography, we are not merely forced to\nreject the spurious passage as the most obvious interpolation in all\nliterature: we are bound to confess that the \"Silence of Josephus,\" as\nis insisted by Professor Smith, [271] is an insurmountable negation\nof the gospel story. For that silence, no tenable reason can be\ngiven, on the assumption of the general historicity of the gospels\nand Acts. Josephus declares himself [272] to be in his fifty-sixth\nyear in the thirteenth year of Domitian. Then he was born about the\nyear 38. By his own account, [273] he began at the age of sixteen to\n\"make trial of the several sects that were among us\"--the Pharisees,\nthe Sadducees, and the Essenes--and in particular he spent three years\nwith a hermit of the desert named Banos, who wore no clothing save\nwhat grew on trees, used none save wild food, and bathed himself daily\nand nightly for purity's sake. Thereafter he returned to Jerusalem,\nand conformed to the sect of the Pharisees. In the Antiquities, [274]\nafter describing in detail the three sects before named, he gives an\naccount of a fourth \"sect of Jewish philosophy,\" founded by Judas\nthe Galilean, whose adherents in general agree with the Pharisees,\nbut are specially devoted to liberty and declare God to be their only\nruler, facing torture and death rather than call any man lord.\n\nA careful criticism will recognize a difficulty as to this section. In\n\u00a7 2, as in the Life, \"three sects\" are specified; and the concluding\nsection has the air of a late addition. Seeing, however, that the sect\nof Judas is stated to have begun to give trouble in the procuratorship\nof Gessius Florus, when Josephus was in his twenties, it is quite\nintelligible that he should say nothing of it when naming the sects who\nexisted in his boyhood, and that he should treat it in a subsidiary\nway in his fuller account of them in the Antiquities. It is not so\nclear why he should in the first section of that chapter call Judas \"a\nGaulanite, of a city whose name was Gamala,\" and in the final section\ncall him \"Judas the Galilean.\" There was a Gamala in Gaulanitis and\nanother in Galilee. But the discrepancy is soluble on the view that\nthe sixth section was added some time after the composition of the\nbook. There seems no adequate ground for counting it spurious.\n\nOn what theory, then, are we to explain the total silence of Josephus\nas to the existence of the sect of Jesus of Nazareth, if there\nbe any historical truth in the gospel story? It is of no avail to\nsuggest that he would ignore it by reason of his Judaic hostility\nto Christism. He is hostile to the sect of Judas the Galilean. There\nis nothing in all his work to suggest that he would have omitted to\nname any noticeable sect with a definite and outstanding doctrine\nbecause he disliked it. He seems much more likely, in that case,\nto have described and disparaged or denounced it.\n\nAnd here emerges the hypothesis that he did disparage or denounce the\nChristian sect in some passage which has been deleted by Christian\ncopyists, perhaps in the very place now filled by the spurious\nparagraph, where an account of Jesuism as a calamity to Judaism\nwould have been relevant in the context. This suggestion is nearly\nas plausible as that of Chwolson, who would reckon the existing\nparagraph a description of a Jewish calamity, is absurd. And it is the\npossibility of this hypothesis that alone averts an absolute verdict\nof non-historicity against the gospel story in terms of the silence of\nJosephus. The biographical school may take refuge, at this point, in\nthe claim that the Christian forger, whose passage was clearly unknown\nto Origen, perhaps eliminated by his fraud a historic testimony to\nthe historicity of Jesus, and also an account of the sect of Nazar\u00e6ans.\n\nBut that is all that can be claimed. The fact remains that in the Life,\ntelling of his youthful search for a satisfactory sect, Josephus\nsays not a word of the existence of that of the crucified Jesus;\nthat he nowhere breathes a word concerning the twelve apostles,\nor any of them, or of Paul; and that there is no hint in any of\nthe Fathers of even a hostile account of Jesus by him in any of his\nworks, though Origen makes much of the allusion to James the Just,\n[275]--also dismissible as an interpolation, like another to the same\neffect cited by Origen, but not now extant. [276] There is therefore\na strong negative presumption to be set against even the forlorn\nhypothesis that the passage forged in Josephus by a Christian scribe\nousted one which gave a hostile testimony.\n\nOver a generation ago, Mr. George Solomon of Kingston, Jamaica, noting\nthe general incompatibility of Josephus with the gospel story and the\nunhistorical aspect of the latter, constructed an interesting theory,\n[277] of which I have seen no discussion, but which merits notice\nhere. It may be summarized thus:--\n\n1. Banos is probably the historical original of the gospel figure of\nJohn the Baptist.\n\n2. Josephus names and describes two Jesuses, who are blended in the\nfigure of the gospel Jesus: (a) the Jesus (Wars, VI, v, 3) who predicts\n\"woe to Jerusalem\"; is flogged till his bones show, but never utters\na cry; makes no reply when challenged; returns neither thanks for\nkindness nor railing for railing; and is finally killed by a stone\nprojectile in the siege; and (b) Jesus the Galilean (Life, \u00a7\u00a7 12,\n27), son of Sapphias, who opposes Josephus, is associated with Simon\nand John, and has a following of \"sailors and poor people,\" one of\nwhom betrays him (\u00a7 22), whereupon he is captured by a stratagem,\nhis immediate followers forsaking him and flying. [278] Before this\npoint, Josephus has taken seventy of the Galileans with him (\u00a7 14) as\nhostages, and, making them his friends and companions on his journey,\nsets them \"to judge causes.\" This is the hint for Luke's story of\nthe seventy disciples.\n\n3. The \"historical Jesus\" of the siege, who is \"meek\" and venerated\nas a prophet and martyr, being combined with the \"Mosaic Jesus\"\nof Galilee, a disciple of Judas of Galilee, who resisted the Roman\nrule and helped to precipitate the war, the memory of the \"sect\" of\nJudas the Gaulanite or Galilean, who began the anti-Roman trouble,\nis also transmuted into a myth of a sect of Jesus of Galilee, who has\nfishermen for disciples, is followed by poor Galileans, is betrayed\nby one companion and deserted by the rest, and is represented finally\nas dying under Pontius Pilate, though at that time there had been no\nJesuine movement.\n\n4. The Christian movement, thus mythically grounded, grows up after\nthe fall of the Temple. Paul's \"the wrath is come upon them to the\nuttermost\" (1 Thess. ii, 16) tells of the destruction of the Temple,\nas does Hebrews xii, 24-28; xiii, 12-14.\n\n\n\nThis theory of the construction of the myth out of historical elements\nin Josephus is obviously speculative in a high degree; and as the\nconstruction fails to account for either the central rite or the\ncentral myth of the crucifixion it must be pronounced inadequate\nto the data. On the other hand, the author developes the negative\ncase from the silence of Josephus as to the gospel Jesus with an\nirresistible force; and though none of his solutions is founded-on in\nthe constructive theory now elaborated, it may be that some of them\nare partly valid. The fact that he confuses Jesus the robber captain\nwho was betrayed, and whose companions deserted him, with Jesus the\n\"Mosaic\" magistrate of Tiberias, who was followed by sailors and poor\npeople, and was \"an innovator beyond everybody else,\" does not exclude\nthe argument that traits of one or the other, or of the Jesus of the\nsiege, may have entered into the gospel mosaic.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The Myth of the Twelve Apostles\n\nAll careful investigators have been perplexed by the manner of the\nintroduction of \"the Twelve\" in the gospels; and they would have\nbeen still more so if they had realized the total absence of any\nreason in the texts for the creation of disciples or apostles at\nall. Disciples to learn--what? Apostles to teach--what? The choosing\nis as plainly mythical as the function. In Mark (i, 16) and Matthew\n(iv, 18), Jesus calls upon the brothers Simon and Andrew to leave\ntheir fishing and \"become fishers of men.\" They come at the word; and\nimmediately afterwards the brothers James and John do the same. There\nis no pretence of previous teaching: it is the act of the God. [279]\nIn Matthew, at the calling of the apostle Matthew (ix, 9), who in Mark\n(ii, 14) becomes Levi the son of Alph\u00e6us, the procedure is the same:\n\"Follow me.\"\n\nThen, with no connective development whatever, we proceed at one\nstroke to the full number. [280] Matthew actually makes the mission\nof the twelve the point of choosing, saying simply (x, 1): \"And he\ncalled unto him his twelve disciples,\" adding their names. In Mark\n(iii, 13) we have constructive myth:--\n\n\n    And he goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom he\n    himself would: and they went unto him. And he appointed twelve,\n    that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth\n    to preach, and to have authority to cast out devils.\n\n\nAnd the lists converge. Levi has now disappeared from Mark's record,\nand we have instead \"James the son of Alph\u00e6us,\" but with Matthew in\nalso. The lists of the first two synoptics have been harmonized. In\nLuke, where only three are at first called, after a miracle (v,\n1-11), the twelve are also summarily chosen on a mountain; and\nhere the list varies: Levi, who has been separately called (v, 27)\nas in Mark, disappears here also in favour of \"James of Alph\u00e6us\";\nbut there is no Thadd\u00e6us, and there are two Judases, one being \"of\nJames,\" which may mean either son or brother. And this Judas remains\non the list in the Acts. Candid criticism cannot affirm that we have\nhere the semblance of veridical biography. The calling of the twelve\nhas been imposed upon an earlier narrative, with an arbitrary list,\nwhich is later varied. The calling of the fishermen, to begin with,\nis a symbolical act, as is the calling of a tax-gatherer. The calling\nof the twelve is a more complicated matter.\n\nIn searching for the roots of a pre-Christian Jesus-cult in Palestine,\nwe have noted the probability that it centred in a rite of twelve\nparticipants, with the \"Anointed One,\" the representative of the God,\nand anciently the actual victim, as celebrating priest. The Anointed\nOne is \"the Christ\"; and the Christ, on the hypothesis, is Jesus Son\nof the Father. The twelve, as in the case of the early Jesus-cult\nat Ephesus, form as it were \"the Church.\" A body of twelve, then,\nwho might term themselves \"Brethren of the Lord,\" may well have been\none of the starting-points of Jewish Jesuism.\n\nBut the first two synoptics, clearly, started with a group of only\nfour disciples, to which a fifth was added; and in John (i, 35-49)\nthe five are made up at once, in a still more supernatural manner\nthan in the synoptics, two being taken from the following of John\nthe Baptist. Then, still more abruptly than in the synoptics, we have\nthe completion (vi, 70):--\"Did not I choose you the twelve, and one\nof you is a devil?\" It would be idle to say merely that the twelve\nare suddenly imposed on the narrative, leaving a biographical five:\nthe five are just as evidently given unhistorically, for some special\nreason, mythical or other.\n\nNow, though fives and fours and threes are all quasi-sacred\nnumbers in the Old Testament, it is noteworthy that in one of the\nTalmudic allusions to Jesus Ben-Stada he is declared to have had five\ndisciples--Matthai, Nakai or Neqai, Nezer or Netzer, Boni or Buni, and\nalso Thoda, all of whom are ostensibly though not explicitly described\nas having been put to death. [281] As this passage points to the Jesus\nwho is otherwise indicated as post-Christian, it cannot critically\nbe taken as other than a reference to a current Christian list of\nfive, though it may conceivably have been a miscarrying reference\nto the Jesus of the reign of Alexander Jann\u00e6us. In any case, it is\naimed at a set of five; and there is never any Talmudic mention of a\ntwelve. If, then, the Talmudic passage was framed by way of a stroke\nagainst the Christians it must have been made at a time when the list\nof twelve had not been imposed on the gospels. Further, it is to be\nnoted that it provides for a Matthew, and perhaps for a \"Mark,\" the\nname \"Nakai\" being put next to Matthew's; while in Boni and Netzer\nwe have ostensible founders for the Ebionites and Nazar\u00e6ans. Finally,\nThoda looks like the native form of Thadd\u00e6us; though it might perhaps\nstand for the Theudas of Acts v, 36. Seeing how names are juggled with\nin the official list and in the MS. variants (\"Lebb\u00e6us whose surname\nwas Thadd\u00e6us\" stood in the Authorised Version, on the strength of\nthe Codex Bezae), it cannot be argued that the Gemara list is not\npossibly an early form or basis of that in the synoptics; though on\nthe other hand the names Boni and Netzer suggest a mythopoeic origin\nfor Ebionites and Nazarenes. Leaving this issue aside as part of the\nunsolved problem of the Talmudic Jesus, we are again driven to note\nthe unhistoric apparition of the twelve.\n\nFollowing the documents, we find the later traces equally\nunveridical. Matthew is introduced in the Acts as being chosen to\nmake up the number of the twelve, on the death of Judas; but never\nagain is such a process mentioned; and Matthew plays no part in\nthe further narrative. And of course the cult was interdicted from\nfurther maintenance of the number as soon as it was settled that\nthe twelve were to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes\nof Israel, which had apparently been done in an early Judaic form\nof the Apocalypse before it was intimated in the gospels. Even in\nthe Epistles, however, there is no real trace of an active group\nof twelve. The number is mentioned only in a passage (1 Cor. xv,\n5) where there is interpolation upon interpolation, for after\nthe statement that the risen Jesus appeared \"then to the twelve\"\nthere shortly follows \"then to all the apostles,\" that is, on the\ntraditionist assumption, to the twelve again--the exclusion of Judas\nnot being recognized. The first-cited clause could be interpolated in\norder to insert the number; the second could not have been inserted\nif the other were already there.\n\nThat is the sole allusion. We find none where we might above all\nexpect it, in the pseudo-biographical epistle to the Galatians,\nthough there is mention in the opening chapter of \"them which were\napostles before me,\" \"the apostles,\" \"James the brother of the Lord\"\n(never mentioned as an apostle in the gospels unless he be James the\nson of Alph\u00e6us or James the son of Zebedee: that is, not a brother\nof Jesus but simply a group-brother), and \"James and Cephas and John,\nwho were [or are] reputed to be pillars.\" The language used in verse 6\nexcludes the notion that the writer believed \"the apostles\" to have had\npersonal intercourse with the Founder. Thus even in a pseudepigraphic\nwork, composed after Paul's time, there is no suggestion that he had\nto deal with the twelve posited by the gospels and the Acts. And\nall the while \"apostles\" without number continue to figure in the\ndocuments. They were in fact a numerous class in the early Church. It\nis not surprising that the late Professor Cheyne not only rejected\nthe story of the Betrayal but declared that \"The 'Twelve Apostles,'\ntoo, are to me as unhistorical as the seventy disciples.\" [282]\n\nOn the other hand, we have a decisive reason for the invention of the\nTwelve story in the latterly recovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles\n[283] (commonly cited as the Didach\u00ea), a document long current in the\nearly church. Of that book, the first six chapters, forming nearly\nhalf of the matter, are purely ethical and monotheistic, developing\nthe old formula of the \"Two Ways\" of life and death; and saying nothing\nof Jesus or Christ or the Son, or of baptism or sacrament. Then comes\na palpably late interpolation, giving a formula for baptism in the\nname of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even in the ninth\nsection, dealing with the Eucharist, we have only \"the holy vine of\nDavid thy Servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy\nServant.\" [284] The tenth, which is evidently later, and is written as\na conclusion, retains that formula. After that come warnings against\nfalse apostles and prophets; and only in the twelfth section does the\nword \"Christian\" occur. Still later there is specified \"the Lord's-day\n(kyriak\u00ean) of the Lord.\" Then comes a prescription for the election\nof bishops; and the document ends with a chapter preparing for the\nexpected \"last days.\"\n\nHere then we have an originally Jewish document, bearing the title\nTeaching of the Twelve Apostles, adopted and gradually added to\nby early Jesuists who did not deify Jesus, though like the early\nChristians in general they expected the speedy end of the world. Though\ntheir Jesus is not deified, he has no cognomen. He is neither \"of\nNazareth,\" nor \"the Nazarite;\" and he is an ostensibly mythical figure,\nnot a teacher but a rite-founder, for his adherents. They do not belong\nto an organized Church; and the baptismal section, with its Trinitarian\nformula, is quite certainly one of the latest of all. The eighth,\nwhich connects quite naturally with the sixth, and which contains\nthe \"Lord's Prayer,\" raises the question whether it belonged to the\npre-Christian document, and has been merely interpolated with the\nphrase as to \"the Lord ... his gospel.\" There are strong reasons for\nregarding the Lord's Prayer as a pre-Christian Jewish composition,\n[285] founded on very ancient Semitic prayers. Seeing that \"the Lord\"\nhas in all the previous sections of the treatise clearly meant \"God\"\nand not \"Christ,\" the passage about the gospel is probably Jesuist;\nbut it does not at all follow that the Prayer is.\n\nMr. Cassels, in the section on the Teaching added by him in the\none-volume reprint of his great work, points [286] to the fact that in\nthe recovered fragment of a Latin translation of an early version of\n\"The Two Ways,\" there do not occur the passages connecting with the\nSermon on the Mount which are found in the Teaching; and as the same\nholds of the Two Ways section of the Epistle of Barnabas, it may fairly\nbe argued that it was a Christian hand that added them here. But when\nwe note that at the points at which the passages in the Teaching vary\nfrom the gospel--as \"Gentiles\" for \"tax-gatherers,\" [287]--the term in\nthe former is perfectly natural for Jewish teachers addressing Jews\nin Gentile countries, and that in the latter rather strained in an\nexhortation to Jews in their own country, it becomes very conceivable\nthat this is the original, or a prior form, of the gospel passage. The\nSermon on the Mount is certainly a compilation. This then may have\nbeen one of the sources. And it is quite conceivable that the Jewish\nApostles should teach their people not to pray \"as do the hypocrites,\"\nan expression which Mr. Cassels takes to be directed by Jesuists\nagainst Jews in general.\n\nSeeing that even conservative critics have admitted the probable\npriority of the Teaching to Barnabas, it is no straining of the\nprobabilities to suggest that the Two Ways section of Barnabas is\neither a variant, inspired by the Teaching, on what was clearly\na very popular line of homily, [288] or an annexation of another\nJewish homily of that kind. That in the Teaching is distinctly the\nbetter piece of work, as we should expect the official manual of\nthe Apostles of the High Priest to be. It is inexact to say, as does\nDr. M. R. James, [289] that the section \"reappears\" in Barnabas. There\nare many differences, as well as many identities. The other is not a\nmere copy, but an exercise on the same standard theme, with \"light\nand darkness\" for the stronger \"life and death.\" It is a mistake\nto suppose that there was a definite \"original\" of \"The Two Ways\":\nit is a standing ethical theme, evidently handled by many. [290] If,\nthen, the Teaching preceded Barnabas, it may already have contained,\nin its purely Jewish form, the Lord's Prayer, which is so thoroughly\nJewish, and items of the Sermon on the Mount, which is certainly a\nJewish compilation. And the justified critical presumption is that\nit did contain them. The onus of disproof lies on the Christian side.\n\nWe now reach our solution. The original document was in any case a\nmanual of teaching used among the scattered Jews and proselytes of the\nDispersion by the actual and historical Twelve Apostles either of the\nHigh Priest before or of the Patriarch after the fall of Jerusalem. The\nhistoric existence of that body before and after the catastrophe\nis undisputed; [291] and the nature of its teaching functions can\nbe confidently inferred from the known currency of a Judaic ethical\nteaching in the early Christian period. The demonstration of that is\nsupplied by an expert of the biographical school who considers the\nTeaching to have been \"known to Jesus and the Baptist.\" [292] Such a\ndocument cannot rationally be supposed to be a compilation made by or\nfor Christists using the gospels: such a compilation would have given\nthe gospel view of Jesus. [293] The primary Teaching, including as it\nprobably does the Lord's Prayer, is the earlier thing: the gospels\nuse it. It is in fact one of the first documents of \"Christianity,\"\nif not the first. And its titular \"twelve apostles\" are Jewish and\nnot Christian.\n\nGiven, then, such a document in the hands of the early Jesuist\norganization--or one of the organizations--twelve apostles had to be\nprovided in the legend to take the credit for the Teaching. [294]\nThe new cult, once it was shaped to the end of superseding the\nold, had to provide itself to that extent, by myth, with the same\nmachinery. No step in the myth-theory is better established than this;\nand no non-miraculous item in the legend is more recalcitrant than\nthe twelve story to the assumptions of the biographical school. The\ngospel list of the twelve is one of the most unmanageable things\nin the record. In a narrative destitute of detail where detail is\nmost called for, we get a list of names, most of which count for\nnothing in the later history, to give a semblance of actuality to\nan invented institution. We have clearly unhistorical detail as to\nfive, no detail whatever as to further accessions, and then a body\nof twelve suddenly constituted. For some of us, the discovery of the\nTeaching was a definite point of departure in the progression toward\nthe myth-theory; and it supplies us with the firmest starting-point\nfor our theoretic construction of the process by which the organized\nChristian Church took shape.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Process of Propaganda\n\nOn the view here taken, there was at Jerusalem, at some time in the\nfirst century, a small group of Jesuist \"apostles\" among whom the chief\nmay have been named James, John, and Cephas. They may have been members\nof a ritual group of twelve, who may have styled themselves Brothers\nof the Lord; but that group in no way answered to the Twelve of the\ngospels. Of the apostle class the number was indefinite. Besides the\napostles, further, there would seem to have been an indefinite number\nof \"prophets,\" indicative of a cult of somewhat long standing. The\nadherents believed in a non-historic Jesus, the \"Servant\" of the\nJewish God, somehow evolved out of the remote Jesus-God who is reduced\nto human status in the Old Testament as Joshua. And their central\nsecret rite consisted in a symbolic sacrament, evolved out of an\nancient sacrament of human sacrifice, in which the victim had been\nthe representative of the God, sacrificed to the God, in the fashion\nof a hundred primitive cults. This rite had within living memory,\nif not still at the time from which we start, been accompanied by an\nannual popular rite in which a selected person--probably a criminal\nreleased for the purpose--was treated as a temporary king, then\nderided, and then either in mock show or in actual fact executed,\nunder the name of Jesus Barabbas, \"the Son of the Father.\"\n\nOf this ancient cult there were inferribly many scattered centres\noutside of Judea, including probably some in Samaria, the special\nregion of the celebration of the Hero-God Joshua. There was one such\ngroup in Ephesus; and probably another at Alexandria, and another at\nAntioch; Jews of the Dispersion having possibly taken the cult with\nthem. But the cult outside Jewry may have had non-Jewish roots, though\nit merged with Jewish elements. So long as the Temple at Jerusalem\nlasted, the small cult counted for very little; and it was probably\nafter the fall of Jerusalem [295] that its leaders added to their\nmachinery the rite of baptism, which the synoptic gospels treat as a\nspecialty of the movement of John the Baptist. Him they represent as a\n\"forerunner\" of the Christ, who under divine inspiration recognizes the\nMessianic claims of Jesus. All this is plainly unhistorical, even on\nthe assumption of the historicity of Jesus. [296] Whatever may be the\nhistoric facts as to John the Baptist, who is a very dubious figure,\n[297] the marked divergence between the synoptics and the fourth gospel\non the subject of baptism [298] show that that rite was not originally\nJesuist, but was adopted by the Jesuists as a means of popular appeal.\n\nThe recognition of this fact is a test of the critical good faith\nof those who profess to found on the synoptics for a history of\nthe beginnings of the Jesuist cult. Canon Robinson [299] treats as\nunquestionably historical one of the contradictory statements in John\niv, 1-2, of which the first affirms that Jesus baptized abundantly,\nwhile the second, an evidently interpolated parenthesis, asserts that\nonly the disciples baptized, not Jesus. Though this interpolation\nhinges on the first dictum, the Canon accepts it to the exclusion\nof that, its basis. But the original writer could not have put the\nproposition thus had he believed it. What he affirmed was abundant\nbaptizing by Jesus. Of this, however, the synoptics have no more hint\nthan they have of baptizing by the disciples. On any possible view\nof the composition of the synoptics, it is inconceivable that they\nshould omit all mention of baptizing by Jesus or the disciples if such\na practice was affirmed in the early tradition. For them baptism is\nthe institution of the Forerunner, who is mythically represented as\nhailing in Jesus his successor or supersessor, with no suggestion of\na continuance of the rite. If there is to be any critical consistency\nin the biographical argument, it must at least recognize that baptism\nis non-Jesuine.\n\nThe embodiment of the rite of baptism on the basis of the Baptist's\nalleged acclamation of Jesus as the Messiah, either carried with it\nor followed upon the claim that Jesus, hitherto regarded as a simple\nSaviour-God, was a Messiah. After the fall of Jerusalem, the old\ndream of an earthly Messiah who should restore the Kingdom of Judah\nor Israel [300] was shattered for the vast majority of Jews. Even in\nthe Assumption of Moses, in the main the work of a Quietist Pharisee,\nwritten in Hebrew probably between 7 and 29 of the first century,\n[301] there is a virtual abandonment of Messianism, the task of\noverthrowing the Gentiles being assigned to \"the Most High.\" [302]\nIn the composite Apocalypse of Baruch, written in Hebrew, mainly by\nPharisaic Jews, in the latter half of the first century, probably as an\nimplicit polemic against early Jesuism, [303] we see the effect of the\ncatastrophe. In the sections written before the fall of Jerusalem,\nthe hope of a Messianic Kingdom is proclaimed; in those written\nlater there is either at most a hope of a Messianic Kingdom without\na Messiah or a complete abandonment of mundane expectations. [304]\nWhat the Jesuist movement did was to develop, outside of Jewry, [305]\nthe earlier notion of a Messiah \"concealed,\" pre-appointed, and coming\nfrom heaven to effect the consummation of all things earthly. [306]\n\nSuch Messianism may have either preceded or proceeded-on an adoption\nof the rite of baptism. Given a resort to Messianism by the Jesuists\nafter the fall of Jerusalem, the alleged testimony of the Baptist to\nJesus as the Appointed One might be the first step; and the resort\nto the baptismal rite would follow on the myth that Jesus had been\nactually baptized by John. In Acts, i, 5, Jesus is in effect made\nto represent John's baptism with water as superseded by a baptism\nin the Holy Ghost. [307] In the Pauline epistles we have trace of a\nconflict over this as over other Judaic practices, Paul being made\nto declare (1 Cor. i, 17) that \"Christ sent me not to baptize but\nto preach the gospel,\" though he admits having baptized a few. [308]\nAll that is clear is that the Jesuists were not primarily baptizers;\nthat they began to baptize \"in the name of Jesus Christ,\" [309] with\na formula of the Holy Ghost and fire, but really in the traditional\nmanner with water; and that long afterwards they feigned that the\nFounder had prescribed baptism with a trinitarian formula. [310]\n\nThus far, the local movement was not only Jewish but Judaic. It may\nor may not have been before the fall of Jerusalem that a Jesuist\n\"apostle\" named Paul conceived the idea of creating by propaganda a\nnew Jud\u00e6o-Jesuist movement appealing to Gentiles. Such an idea is not\nthe invention of Paul or any other Jesuist; the idea of a Messianic\nKingdom in which the Gentiles should be saved is found in the Jewish\nTestaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, written in Hebrew by a Pharisee\nbetween the years 109 and 106 B.C. [311] But, thus made current,\nit might well be adopted by Jesuists. The reason for supposing this\nto have begun before the year 70 is not merely the tradition to that\neffect but the fact that in none of the epistles do we have any trace\nof that \"gospel of the Kingdom\" which in the synoptics is posited\nas the evangel of Jesus. That evangel, which is a simple duplication\nof the alleged evangel of the Baptist, and which we have seen to be\nwholly mythical, being devoid of possible historic content, [312]\nis part of the apparatus of the retrospective Messianic claim. But\nthe Pauline Epistles, even as they show no knowledge of the name\nNazareth, or Nazar\u00e6an, or Nazarene, or of any gospel teaching, also\nshow no concern over a \"gospel of the Kingdom.\" Whether or not, then,\nthey are wholly pseudepigraphic, they suggest that a Paulinism of\nsome kind was an early feature in the Jesuist evolution.\n\nAccording to the Acts, Paul's name was originally Saul, though no such\navowal is ever made in the epistles. The purpose of the statement\nseems to be to strengthen the case as to his Jewish nationality,\nwhich is affirmed in the epistles, as is the item that he had been a\nmurderous persecutor of the early Jesuists. All this suggests a late\nmanipulation of the traditions of an early strife. To claim that the\nGentilizing apostle had been a Jew born and bred would be as natural\non the Gentilizing side as to allege that the typically Judaic Peter\nhad denied his Lord; while the charge of persecuting the infant church\nwould be a not less natural invention of the Judaic Christians who\naccepted the tradition that Paul had been a Pharisee and a pupil of\nGamaliel. In point of fact we find the Ebionites, the typical Judaic\nJesuists, knowing him simply as \"Paul of Tarsus\" in their version of\nthe Acts or in a previous document upon which that founded. [313]\nAnd many Jewish scholars have declared that they cannot conceive\nthe Pauline epistles to have been written by a Rabbinically trained\nJew. [314] This does not preclude the possibility that the original\nPaul, of whose \"few very short epistles\" personally penned [315]\nwe have probably nothing left that is identifiable, [316] may have\nbeen such a Jew, but the presumption is to the contrary.\n\nOn the face of the case, nothing was more natural than that the Jesuist\nmovement should appeal to civilized Gentiles. Judaism itself did so,\nstriving much after proselytes. The question was whether the Jesuist\nproselytes should be made on a strictly Judaic basis. Now, even if\nthe fall of Jerusalem had not given the impetus to a severance of the\ncult from the dominating religion, the sacred domicile being gone, it\nis obvious that an abandonment of such a Jewish bar as circumcision\nwould give the developing cult a great advantage over the other\nin propaganda among Gentiles. Circumcision must have been a highly\nrepellent detail for Hellenistic Gentiles in general; and a gospel\nwhich dispensed with it would have a new chance of making headway. And\nsuch a severance certainly took place, though we can put no reliance\non the chronology of the Acts. [317] Paul [318] remains a doubtfully\ndated figure, because the chronology of the whole cult is problematic.\n\nBut we can broadly distinguish between a \"Petrine\" and a \"Pauline\"\nChristism. In the Acts (ii, 22-40), which clearly embodies earlier\nlore, prior to that of the gospels, the Jesus Christ preached by Peter\nis not represented as a saving sacrifice. As little is he a Teacher,\nthough he is a doer of \"mighty works and wonders and signs.\" If\nwe were to apply the biographical method, the presentment might be\nheld to indicate the Talmudic Jesus. Only after his resurrection \"God\nhath made him both Lord and Christ\"--that is, Messiah; and the Jewish\nhearers are invited to \"repent\" and be \"baptized ... in the name of\nJesus Christ unto the remission of your sins.\" Peter's Jesus, like him\nof the Teaching, is the \"Servant\" of God, not his Son. And there is\nno mention of a sacrament, though there is noted a \"breaking of bread\nat home\" (42, 46) recalling the \"broken\" (bread) of the Didach\u00ea. The\nsacrament, then, was apparently a secret rite for the Jewish group.\n\nThe speeches, of course, are quite unhistorical: we can but take them\nas embodying a traditional \"Petrine\" teaching with later matter. Thus\nwe have baptism figuring as a Jesuist rite, whereas in the synoptics,\nas we have seen, there had been no such thing. The story of Peter\nbeing brought to the pro-Gentile view is pure ecclesiastical myth,\nprobably posterior to the Pauline epistles, which are ignored but\ncounteracted in so far as they posit strife between Pauline and\nPetrine propaganda. Peter and Paul alike are made to teach that\n\"it behoved the Christ to suffer\" (iii, 18; xvii, 3), even as they\nduplicate their miracles, their escapes, and their sufferings. But\nwhile Peter is pretended to have accepted Gentilism, it is Paul\nwho acts on the principle; and he it is who is first represented as\nfighting pagan polytheism, notably at Ephesus (xix, 26). At Athens,\nin a plainly fictitious speech, he is made to expound the \"unknown\nGod\" of an Athenian agnostic cult in terms of Jewish opposition\nto image-worship, indicating Jesus merely as \"a man\" raised by God\nfrom the dead to judge the world at the judgment day. It is after\nthis episode that he is made to tell the Jews of Corinth he will\n\"henceforth go unto the Gentiles.\" Nevertheless he is made to go on\npreaching to the Jews. The narrative as a whole is plainly factitious:\nall we can hope to do is to detect some of its historic data.\n\nTwo things must be kept clearly and constantly in view: first, that\nwhat we understand by a literary and a historical conscience simply\ndid not exist in the early Christian environment; second, that in\nall probability the Acts, which to start with would be a blend of\ntradition and fiction, is much manipulated during a long period. We\nare not entitled to assume that an \"original\" writer duplicated\nthe careers of Peter and Paul for purposes of edification. One or\nmore may have wrought one narrative, and a later hand or hands may\nhave systematically interpolated the other. [319] We are to remember\nfurther that it was an age in which most Christians, assimilating the\neschatology of the Persians and the Jews--the spontaneous dream of\ncrushed peoples--expected the speedy end of the world, and did their\nthinking on that basis. In such a state of mind, critical thought\ncould not exist save as a small element in religious polemic.\n\nLet us then see what we reach on the hypothesis that early Jesuism even\nin the first century, and possibly even before the fall of Jerusalem,\nwas running in two different channels--one movement adhering to\nJewish usage, making Jesus the Servant of God, and conceiving him as a\nGod-gifted Healer whose death raised him to the status of the Messiah,\nthe promised Christ or Anointed One who should either close the earthly\nscene or bring about a new God-ruled era for the Jews. For the holders\nof this view, the Kingdom of God was coming. Jesus was ere long to\ncome in the clouds in great glory and inaugurate the new life. To\nask for clear conceptions on such a matter from such minds would\nbe idle. There were none. The one idea connected with the mythical\nevangel was that Jews should repent and prepare for the new life. To\nthat elusive minimum the latest biographical analysis, assuming the\nhistoricity, reduces the \"ministry\" of the gospel Jesus. [320] The rest\nis all post-apostolic accretion. On the other hand, the Petrine Jesus\nhas proved his mission for his devotees, first and last, by miracles,\nand by his resurrection--things which the biographical school rejects\nas imaginary.\n\nUpon this movement there enters an innovator, Paul of Tarsus. Round\nhim, as round Peter, there are clouds of myth. That he was\noriginally Saul, a Pharisee, a pupil of Gamaliel; that he began as\na bitter persecutor of the Jesuists; and that he was converted by\na supernatural vision, become common data for the church. That the\ncharge of persecution was a Judaic figment, on the other hand, is\nperhaps as likely as that the story of Peter's denial of his Master\nwas a Gentile figment. We are in a world of purposive fiction. But the\nbroad divergence of doctrine seems to underlie all the fables. Saul,\non the later view, changes his Jewish name to the Grecian Paul when\nhe plans to make the Jesus-cult non-Jewish, using the tactic of\nmonotheism against pagan polytheism in general, in the very act of\nadding a Son-God to the Jewish Father-God, as so many Son-Gods had\nbeen added to Father-Gods throughout religious history. To the early\nJewish Jesuists, the notion of the Son had been given by the old cult\nof sacrifice, with its Jesus the Son--an idea obscurely but certainly\npresent, as we have seen, in the lore of the Talmudists.\n\nClearly it was the Pauline movement that made of Christism a \"viable\"\nworld religion. As an unorganized Saviour-cult it would have died\nout like others. As a phase of Judaism, it could have had no Jewish\npermanence, simply because its Messianism was a matter of looking\ndaily for an \"end of the world\" that did not come. After two centuries\nof waiting, the Jews would have had as clear a right to pronounce\nJesus a \"false Messiah\" as they had in the case of Barcochab or\nany other before or since. The mere belief in a future life, at one\ntime excluded from their Sacred Books, had become the common faith,\nonly the aristocratic Sadducees (probably not all of them) rejecting\nit. On that side, Jesuism gave them nothing. Well might Paul \"turn\nto the Gentiles\"--albeit not under the circumstances theologically\nimagined for him in the book of Acts.\n\nEven for the Gentiles, Jesuism was but one of many competing cults,\noffering similar attractions. In the religions of Adonis, Attis,\nIsis and Osiris, Dionysos, Mithra, and the Syrian Marnas (\"the Lord,\na variant of Adonis = Adonai, one of the Jews' exoteric names for\nYahweh\"), a resplendent ever-youthful God who had died to rise again\nwas sacramentally adored, mourned for, and rejoiced over, by devotees\njust as absorbed in their faith as were the Jesuists. With vague\npretences of biographical knowledge, to which nobody now attaches any\ncredence, they were as sure of the historicity of their Vegetation-Gods\nand Sun-Gods as the Christists were of the actuality of theirs. Had\na Frazer of the second century told them that their Adonis and Attis\nwere but abstractions of the annual sacrificial victim of old time,\nthey would have told him, in the manner of Festus (not yet obsolete),\nthat much learning had made him mad. They \"knew\" that their Redeemer\nhad lived, died, and risen again. The unbelief of philosophers,\nor of scoffers like Lucian, affected them no more than scientific\nand critical unbelief to-day disturbs the majority of unthinking\nChristians. The busy sacrificial and devotional life of Hierapolis\nwould be as little affected by Lucian's tranquil exhibition of it as\nthe life at Lourdes has been by Zola's novel. On that side, we can\nvery easily understand the past by the present.\n\nSo little psychic or intellectual difference was there between\nJesuism and the other \"isms\" that Paul's propaganda made no measurable\nsensation in the colluvies of the Roman empire. As Renan avows, even on\nthe assumption of the genuineness of the Epistles, he was the missioner\nof a number of small conventicles, all convinced that they alone were\nthe \"true Church of God upon earth.\" It is an error of perspective to\nascribe extraordinary faculty to the missionary who either converted or\n\"stablished\" such believers; and it is plainly unnecessary to assume\nin his case any abnormal sincerity or persuasiveness. If we were to\nestimate him in terms of the records we should describe him either\nas a hallucin\u00e9 or as a fanatic who had shed Christian blood in his\nJudaic stage and never in the least learned humility on that score,\nhis phrases of contrition being balanced by the fiercest asperities\ntowards all who withstood him in his Christian stage. But we have no\nright to draw a portrait of \"Paul,\" who is left to us a composite\nof literary figments testifying only to the previous activity of a\npropagandist so-named.\n\nOne conclusion, however, holds alike whether or not we accept any of\nthe epistles as genuine: or rather, the more we lean on the epistles\nthe more it holds: Paul had no concern about the life, teachings, or\n\"personality\" of his Jesus. [321] His Jesus, be it said once more,\nis a speechless abstraction. One of the strangest fallacies in the\nprocedure of the biographical school is the assumption that the\nacceptance of the epistles as genuine involves the admission of the\nhistoricity of the Founder. In actual fact, it was a belief in the\nsubstantial genuineness of the main epistles that first strengthened\nthe present writer in his first surmises of the non-historicity of the\nentire gospel record; just as a perception of the historical situation\nbroadly set forth in Judges confirms doubt as to the historicity of the\nrecord of the Hexateuch. The two will not consist. On the other hand,\nVan Manen, who had previously been troubled about the historicity of\nJesus, was positively set at rest on that score when he reached the\nconclusion that all the Paulines were supposititious. This happened\nsimply because he had scientifically covered the field only on\nthe Pauline side: had he applied equivalent tests to the gospels,\nhe would have reached there too a verdict of fabrication. There is\nstrictly no absolute sequitur in such a case. The myth-theory is\nneither made nor marred by the rejection of the Paulines.\n\nEven those who cannot realize the indifference of \"Paul\" to all\npersonal records of his Jesus--or, recognizing it, are content to\nexplain it away by formulas--must see on consideration that belief in\na Saviour God no more needed biographical basis in the case of Paul\nthan in the case of the priests of Mithra, who, it may be noted, had a\nstrong centre at Tarsus. [322] There is a certain plausibility in the\nargument that only a great personality could have made possible the\nbelief in the Resurrection story--though that too is fallacy--but there\nis no plausibility in inferring that a conception of a personality he\nhad never personally known was needed to impel Paul to his evangel,\nwhich is simply one of future salvation by divine sacrifice for all\nwho believe. That is the substitution made by Gentile Christism for\nthe miscarrying Messianism of the Petrine doctrine. It was probably\nthe normal doctrine of many pagan cults--Mithraism for one, which\nfor three hundred years, by common consent, was the outstanding\nrival of Christianity in the Roman empire. [323] It was, then, no\nspecialty of dogma that ultimately determined the success of the one\nand the disappearance of the other. It was a concatenation of real or\n\"external\" causes, not a peculiarity of mere belief.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Real Determinants\n\nThe more we study comparatively the fortunes of the Christian and\nthe rival cults, the more difficult it is to conceive that it made\nheadway in virtue of sheer monotheism. If we assume that Judaism\nhad made its proselytes in the pagan world by reason of the appeal\nmade by its monotheism to the more thoughtful minds, we are bound\nto infer that Christism was on that side rather at a disadvantage,\ninasmuch as it was really adding a new deity, with a \"Holy Spirit\"\nsuperadded, to the God of the Jews.\n\nBut the ordinary argument as to the vogue of \"pure monotheism\" at any\ntime is in the main a series of traditional assumptions. For the more\nthoughtful of the ancients, polytheism was always tending to pass into\nmonotheism. We see the process going on in the Vedas, in Brahmanism,\nin the Egyptian system, in the Babylonian--to say nothing of the\nGreek. [324] It proceeded partly by way of henotheism--the tendency\nto exalt any particular deity as the deity: partly by way of the\ncompelled surmise that all the deities of the popular creeds were but\naspects or names of one all-controlling Power. Wherever creeds met,\nthe more thoughtful were driven to ask themselves whether the heavens\ncould be a mere reflex of the earth, with every nation represented\nby its special God; and to fuse the national Gods into one was but a\nstep to fusing the Gods of the various natural forces into one. Since\nreligions became organized, there must always have been monotheists,\nas there must always have been unbelievers.\n\nNevertheless, polytheism is just as surely popular as monotheism\nis inevitable to the more thoughtful who remain \"religious\" in the\nnatural sense of the term. One of the great delusions maintained by the\nacceptance of the falsified history of Judaism and the conventional\nreligion of the Bible is the notion that the Jews were a specially\nmonotheistic people. They were not. [325] They were originally\ntribalists like their neighbours, holding by a tribal God and a\nhierarchy of inferior Gods. To this day we are seriously told that\nAbraham made a new departure as a monotheist. Abraham is a mythical\npatriarch, himself once a deity; and the deity represented to have been\nbelieved in by Abraham is a tribal God. And not even the tribal God\nwas monotheistically worshipped. The Sacred Books are one long chain\nof complaints against the Israelites for their perpetual resort to\n\"strange Gods\"--and Goddesses. [326]\n\nTwo brilliant French scholars have advanced the thesis that this\nalleged polytheism is imaginary; [327] and that the Israelites in\nthe mass always worshipped only the One God Yahweh. [328] But this\nposition, which is grounded on the inference that the mass of the\nhistorical and prophetic literature is post-exilic, outgoes its own\ngrounds. Even if we assume, with the theorists, that Jewish monotheism\nwas universalist from the moment it took shape as monotheism in\nliterature, [329] we get rid neither of the question of pre-exilic\npolytheism nor of that of popular survival. To say that the post-exilic\nJews are \"the only Jews known to history,\" and that the apparently old\nlore in Genesis is \"perhaps really the most modern,\" being invented\nfor purposes of parable, is only a screening of the fact that the\nHebrews evolved religiously like other peoples. A resort to alien\nGods is seen to be universal in the religious history of the ancient\nworld. Every conquered race was suspected to have secret power in\nrespect of \"the God of the land [330]\"; and wherever races mixed,\ncults mixed. It is only on a provision of special Sacred Books,\nthemselves treated as fetishes, that the attractions of alien cults\ncan be repelled; and not even Sacred Books can make real monotheists\nof an uncultured majority. Even later Judaism, with its angels, its\nMetatron, its Satan, was never truly monotheistic. [331] Islam is\nnot. The universalism which in later Judaism still commonly passes\nfor a specialty of the Hebrew mind was really an assimilation and\ndevelopment of Perso-Babylonian ideas; [332] and Satan made a dualism\nof the Jewish creed even as Ahriman did of the Persian.\n\nIn the Romanized world, Judaism had never a really great success of\nproselytism, just because the more cultured had their own monotheism,\nand had in Greek literature something more satisfactory than the\nHebraic, with its barbaric basis of racialism and its apparatus of\ncircumcision, synagogues and Sabbaths. The proselytes were made in\ngeneral among the less cultured--not the populace, but the serious\nmen of religious predilections, who were the more impressed by the\nSacred Books as rendered in the Septuagint because they were not at\nhome in the higher literature of Greece. And if Judaism could not\nsweep the Roman empire in virtue of monotheism, Christism could not,\nespecially while it lacked sacred books of its own.\n\nProfessor Smith's thesis of a rapid monotheistic triumph is partly\nfounded on his own vivid interpretation of many of the gospel stories\nof cast-out demons and diseases as a symbolism for successes against\npolytheism. And his symbolistic interpretation, which is at first sight\napt to seem arbitrary, is really important at many points, accounting\nas it does convincingly for a number of gospel stories. But if we\nare to assume that all the gospel stories of casting out devils,\ncuring lepers, healing the lame, and giving sight to the blind,\nwere composed with a symbolic intent, we shall still be left asking\non what grounds the Name of Jesus made any popular appeal before and\nafter the symbolizing gospels were compiled.\n\nProfessor Smith draws a powerful picture of the relief given by\nmonotheism to polytheists. In his eloquent words, the \"tyranny of\ndemons\" had \"trodden down humanity in dust and mire since the first\nsyllable of recorded time\"; and the new proclamation \"roused a world,\ndissolved the fetters of the tyrannizing demons, set free the prisoners\nof superstition, poured light upon the eyes of the blind, and called\na universe to life.\" [333] But let us be clear as to the facts. If\nby \"demons\" we understand the Gods of the heathen, there was really\nno more \"bondage\" under polytheism than under monotheism. Spiritual\nbondage can be and is set up by the fear of One God who is supposed\nto meddle actively with all life; [334] and the Jewish law was in\nitself notoriously an intellectual and social bondage. It is expressly\nrepresented as such in the Pauline epistles. If again we have regard\nto the fear of \"evil spirits,\" there was really no difference between\nJew and Gentile, for the \"superstition\" of the Jew in those matters\nwas unbounded. [335] Nor is there any ground for thinking that the\nJew had more confidence than other people in divine protection from\nthe spirits of evil.\n\nIn what respect, then, are we to suppose Jesuist monotheism to\nhave been an innovation? The argument seems to require that Jesuism\ndelivered the polytheist from belief in the existence either of his\ndaimon Gods or of his evil spirits. But obviously it negated neither\nof these. Daimons of all sorts are constantly presupposed in Jesuist\npolemic. The \"freedom in Christ\" proffered to Jews and Gentiles by\nthe Pauline evangel is, in the terms of the case, not a freedom from\nthe terrors of polytheism as such. It was certainly not regarded as\na freedom, from \"demons,\" for exorcism against demons was a standing\nfunction in the early church for centuries; and the fear of a demon\nor demons is implicit in the \"Lord's Prayer.\" What is proffered is\nprimarily a freedom from the Jewish ceremonial law, and secondarily\na freedom from fear in respect of the judgment-day and the future\nlife, the divine sacrifice having taken away all sin. We are told by\neloquent missionaries in our own day [336] that the Christian doctrine\ngives a new sense of freedom and security to negroes, in particular to\nthe women; though we also learn on the other hand that where the two\nreligions can compete freely Islam makes the stronger claim in respect\nof its exclusion of the race bar which Christianity always sets up\nin the rear of its evangel. But here, if the fear of evil spirits is\nreally cast out, it is by a modern doctrine of their non-existence,\nnot found in the New Testament, but generated by modern science.\n\nWhatever preaching of monotheism, then, entered into early Jesuism,\nit gave no deliverance from belief in evil spirits: rather it added\nto their number by turning good daimons into bad. What is more,\nthere enters into Christian polemic at a fairly early stage a use\nof the terms \"God\" and \"Gods\" for the \"saints\" which is on all fours\nwith the common language of Paganism; [337] and this is a much more\ncommon note than the \"high\" monotheism of the Apology of Aristides,\nwhich has hardly any Christian characteristics. His monotheism is\nrather Pagan than Christian. The broad fact remains that so far as\nwe can know the early Jesuist polemic from the gospels, the Acts,\nthe Epistles, the Apocalypse, or the patristic literature, it was\nnot a wide and successful assault on polytheism as such by an appeal\nto monotheistic instinct, but just a proffer to Jews and Gentiles of\na kind of creed common enough in the pagan world, its inconsistent\nmonotheism appealing only to a minority of the recipients. [338] The\nvery miracle-stories which Professor Smith interprets as allegories of\nmonotheistic propaganda became part of the popular appeal as soon as\nthey were made current in documents; and they appealed (he will admit)\nas miracle-stories, not as allegories. Peter and Paul in their turn\nare represented as working miracles of healing. It was all finally\npart of the appeal to primary religious credulity.\n\nOf two positions, then, we must choose one. Either the miracle-stories\nof the gospels, and by consequence those of the Acts, were as such\notiose inventions for an audience which, on the view under discussion,\nwould have been much more responsive to an explicit claim of triumph\nover polytheistic beliefs, the thing they are said to have been most\ndeeply concerned about, or the miracle stories in general were meant\nas miracle-stories, only some later symbolists seeking to impose a\nsymbolic sense on the records along with the Gnostic conception that\nthe Christ had spoken in allegories which the people were not meant to\nunderstand. This later manipulation undoubtedly did take place. The\nparable of the Rich One, as Professor Smith convincingly shows, is\nan allegory of Jew and Gentile--the Rich One being Israel. But it is\nnot by such manipulation that cults are made popular, congregations\ncollected, and revenue secured. And it was on these practical lines\nthat Christianity was \"stablished.\"\n\nThe factors which made this one Eastern cult gradually gain ground,\nand finally hold its ground, as against the many rival cults, were--\n\n1. The system of ecclesi\u00e6, modelled at once on the Jewish synagogue\nand the pagan collegia.\n\n2. The practice of mutual help, making the churches Friendly\nSocieties--again an assimilation of common pagan practice.\n\n3. The colligation of the churches, primarily by means of a new sacred\nliterature of gospels and epistles, and secondarily by a system of\ncentralized government, partly modelled on the imperial system.\n\n4. The backing of the new Christian Sacred Books by the Jewish Sacred\nBooks, giving an ancient Eastern background and basis for the faith\nin a world in which Eastern religious elements were progressively\noverriding the Western, which had in comparison no documentary basis.\n\n5. The giving to the whole process a relatively democratic character,\nagain after the model of the Jewish system, wherein the people had\ntheir main recognition as human beings with rights. Thus Christianity\nwas at once a \"secret society\" under an autocracy, as were so many\nHellenistic religious groups, drawing members as such societies always\ndo in autocratically governed States, [339] and a popular movement as\ncontrasted with Mithraism, which always remained a mere secret society,\nwhence its easy ultimate suppression by the Christianized government.\n\n6. It was the wide ramification and popular importance of the Christian\nsystem that at length made it worth the while of the emperor to cease\npersecuting it as a partly anti-imperial organization and to turn it\ninto an imperial instrument by making it the religion of the State.\n\nTo explain the process as the morally deserved success of a religion\nsuperior from the start, in virtue of the superiority of its nominal\nFounder, would be to adhere to pre-scientific conceptions of causation,\nakin to the geocentric assumption in astronomy. Hierology ultimately\nmerges in sociology, as mythology and anthropology (in the English\nlimitation of the term) merge in hierology; and sociology is a study of\nthe reaction of environments as well as of the action of institutions\nand doctrines. The Christian success was finally achieved by the\nassimilation of all manner of pagan modes of attraction on the side\nof creed, and the absolute ultimate subordination of the specialties\nof early Christian ethic to the business of political adaptation.\n\nAnd to all attempts to obscure the problem by figuring Christianity as\na continuously beneficent and purifying force it is sufficient here to\nanswer that it is in strict fact a religious variant which survived in\na decaying civilization, a politically and socially decaying world;\nthat it lent itself to that decay; and that it did less than nothing\nto avert it.\n\nWhere superior hostile power efficiently fought it, it was suppressed\njust as it suppressed the organized cults of paganism and some\n(not all) of its own heretical sects. Its further survival, which\ndoes not here properly concern us, was but a matter of the renewed\n\"triumph\" of an organized over unorganized religions, and of the\nadoption of that organization by the new barbaric States as before\nby the declining Roman empire.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nORGANIZATION AND ECONOMICS\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Economic Side\n\nIt is important to realize in some detail the operation of the economic\nfactor in particular, and of organization in general, before we try\nto grasp synthetically the total process of documentary and doctrinal\nconstruction. The former is somewhat sedulously ignored in ordinary\nhistoriography, by reason of a general unwillingness even among\nrationalists to seem to connect mercenary motives with religious\nbeginnings; and of the general assumption among religionists that\n\"true\" or \"early\" religion operates in spite of, in defiance or\nin independence of and not by aid of, economic motives. No one\nwill dispute that the history of the Roman Catholic Church is one\nof economic as well as doctrinal action and reaction, or that\nProtestantism from the first was in large measure an economic\nprocessus. But it is commonly assumed, at least implicitly, that\n\"primitive\" religion, religion \"in the making,\" is not at all an\naffair of economic motive or reaction.\n\nThose who have at all closely studied primitive religious life know\nthat this is not so. [340] The savage medicine-man is up to his lights\nas keenly concerned about his economic interest as were the priests\nof ancient Babylon and Egypt--to take instances that can hardly give\nmodern offence. [341] And to say this is not to say that the \"religion\"\ninvolved is insincere, in the case of the savage or the pagan any more\nthan in that of the modern ecclesiastic or missionary. It is merely\nto say that religion has always its economic side, and that faith\nmay go with economic self-seeking as easily as with self-sacrifice. I\nat least am not prepared to say that when the Franciscans in general\npassed from the state of voluntary poverty to that of corporate wealth\nthey ceased to be sincere believers; or that a bishop is necessarily\nless pious than a Local Preacher.\n\nI have seen, in Egypt, the life of a Moslem \"saint\" in the making. He\nfasted much, certainly never eating more than one meal a day, and he\nwas visibly emaciated and feeble as a result of his abstinences. Over\nhis devout neighbours he had an immense influence. To his religious\naddresses they listened with rapt reverence; and when once in my\npresence he gave to a young man a religious charm to cure his sick\nsister, in the shape of a cigarette paper inscribed with a text\nfrom the Koran and rolled up to be swallowed, the youth's face was\ntransfigured with joyous faith, his eyes shining as if he had seen\na glorious vision. I have not seen more radiant faith, in or out of\n\"Israel.\" And the saint, all the same, took unconcealed satisfaction\nin showing privately the heavy purse of gold he had recently collected\nfrom his faithful. To call him insincere would be puerile. I believe\nhim to have been as sincere as Luther or Loyola. He simply happened,\nlike so many Easterns and Westerns, to combine the love of pelf with\nthe love of God.\n\nIf I am told there were no such men among the early Jesuists or\nChristian propagandists, I answer that if there had not been the\ncult would not have gone very far. Of course the records minimize\nthe economic side. In the gospels we are told that Judas carried\n\"the bag,\" but never anything of what he got to put in it. But in the\nActs, the economic factor obtrudes itself even in myth. A picture\nis there drawn (ii, 44), for the edification of later Christians,\nof the first community as having \"all things common\"--a statement\nwhich we have no reason to believe true of any ancient Christian\ncommunity whatever--unless in the \"pre-apostolic\" period. [342]\nThe picture never recurs, in the apostolic history or elsewhere. And\nthe purpose of edification is unconsciously turned to the account of\nrevelation. Of the faithful it is represented that they \"sold their\npossessions and goods and parted them to all, according as any man had\nneed.\" The assertion is reiterated (iv, 34) to the extent of alleging\nthat all who had houses or lands sold all, bringing the proceeds to\nthe apostles for distribution \"according as any one had need.\" Among\nthese having need would certainly be the \"apostles.\"\n\nSoon one of the faithful, Joseph surnamed Barnabas, \"a Levite, a man\nof Cyprus by race,\" is held up to honour for that \"having a field,\"\nhe \"sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles'\nfeet.\" Then comes the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who, or at least\nthe former, have ever since supplied Christendom with its standing\nname for the fraudulent liar. The sin of Ananias consisted in his\nnot having given the apostles the whole price of a possession he had\nvoluntarily sold for behoof of the community. There could be no more\nstriking instance of the power of ecclesiastical ethic to paralyse\nthe general moral sense. Ananias in the legend was giving liberally,\nbut not liberally enough to satisfy the apostle, who accordingly\ndenounces him as sinning against the Holy Ghost, [343] and miraculously\nslays him for his crime. One might have supposed that no Christian\nreader, remembering that the ultra-righteous apostle, in the previous\nsacrosanct record, had just before been represented as basely denying\nhis Lord, could fail to be struck with shame and horror by the savage\nrecital. But of such shame and horror I cannot recall one Christian\navowal. And we are to remember that the devout recipients of that\nrecital are assumed to have been the ideal Christian converts.\n\nSoon the twelve are made to explain (vi, 2-4) to the growing \"multitude\nof the disciples\" that \"it is not fit that we should forsake the\nword of God, and serve tables. Look ye out ... seven men of good\nreport, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over\nthis business. But we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the\nministry of the word.\" From the date of that writing the apostle and\nhis successors could claim to be worthy of their hire, though they\nhad long to squabble for it. In the early Jesuist additions to the\nTeaching we see how the issue was raised. At first (xi) there is a\nsuccession of wandering apostles or \"prophets.\" Every apostle is to\nbe received \"as the Lord; but he shall not remain [except for?] one\nday; if however there be need, then the next [day]; but if he remain\nthree days, he is a false prophet. But when the apostle departeth,\nlet him take nothing except bread enough till he lodge [again]; but\nif he ask money, he is a false prophet.\" That is the first stage,\nprobably quite Judaic.\n\nThe next section (xii) still adheres broadly to the same view. Every\nentrant must work for his living. \"If he will not act according to\nthis, he is a Christmonger (christemporos).\" Evidently there were\nalready Christmongers. But in chapter xiii the primitive stage has\nbeen passed, and there is systematic enactment of economic provision\nfor the installed prophet or teacher as such:--\n\n\n    But every true prophet who will settle among you is worthy of his\n    food. Likewise a true teacher, he also is worthy, like the workman,\n    of his food. Every first-fruit, then, of the produce of wine-press\n    and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give\n    to the prophets; for they are your high-priests. But if ye have no\n    prophet, give [it] to the poor. If thou makest a baking of bread,\n    take the first [of it] and give according to the commandment. In\n    like manner when thou openest a jar of wine or oil, take the first\n    [of it] and give to the prophets; and of money and clothing and\n    every possession, take the first, as may seem right to thee,\n    and give according to the commandment.\n\n\nThis economic development, too, may have been Jewish, as it was\nheathen. [344] It is certainly also Christian. The \"prophets\" are\nrepresented in the Acts (xi, 27) as at work already in the days\nof Claudius; and they were an established class at the time of the\nwriting of First Corinthians (xii, 28), standing next to \"apostles\"\nand above \"teachers.\" That passage is obviously post-Pauline, if\nwe are to think of Paul as spending only a few years in his eastern\npropaganda. But the prophets are ostensibly numerous in the earliest\ndays of the church, [345] and seem to have subsisted alongside\nof \"apostles\" at the outset. All along they must have found some\nsubsistence: in time they are \"established.\" The eleventh, twelfth,\nand thirteenth sections of the Teaching, which are our best evidence\nof the progression, show a gradual triumph of the economic factor,\nregistering itself in the additions. The fifteenth section divides\nin two parts, an economic and an ethical, the economic coming first:--\n\n\n    Now elect for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord,\n    men meek and not avaricious, and upright and proved; for they too\n    render you the service of the prophets and the teachers. Therefore\n    neglect them not; for they are the ones who are honoured of you,\n    together with the prophets and teachers.\n\n\nIt was for a community thus supporting various classes of teachers\nand preachers, first poorly and primitively, later in an organized\nfashion, that the gospels were built up and the epistles composed.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Organization\n\nOrganization, which in our days has become \"a word to conjure with,\"\nis no new factor in human life. It is the secret of survival for\ncommunities and institutions; and the survival of Christism in\nits competition with other cults must be traced mainly to the\nearly process of adaptation. That, however, takes place in terms\nof three concurrent factors: (1) the appeal made by the cult which\nis the ground of association; (2) the practice of the community as\nregards the relations of members; (3) the administration, as regards\npropaganda, expansion and co-ordination of groups. And it is through\nprimary adaptations in respect of the first and second, with a constant\nstimulus from the third, that the Christian Church can be seen to have\nsucceeded in the struggle for existence. That is to say, it is in the\nelement in which conscious organization is most prominent as distinct\nfrom usage or tradition that the determining influence chiefly lies.\n\nThe writer who in England was the first to take a comparatively\nscientific view of church organization from the ecclesiastical side,\nthe late Dr. Edwin Hatch, puts in the forefront of his survey \"the\npreliminary assumption that, as matter of historical research, the\nfacts of ecclesiastical history do not differ in kind from the facts\nof civil history.\" [346] For those who see in the religion itself a\nprocessus of natural social history, this assumption is a matter of\ncourse; but the ecclesiastical recognition of the fact is an important\nstep; and the churchman's analysis of the process is doubly serviceable\nin that he keeps the study avowedly separate from that of the evolution\nof doctrine. What he could not have supplied on scientific lines\nwithout falling into heresy, the rationalist can supply for himself.\n\nAs our historian recognizes, the Christian movement in the Eastern\nEmpire had from the outset a strong basis in the democratic spirit\nwhich it derived alike from Jewish and from Hellenistic example. In\nthe day of universal autocracy, social life lay more and more in\nthe principles of voluntary association; and the first Christian\nchurches were but instances of an impulse seen in operation on all\nsides. In the Jewish environment, the synagogue; in the Hellenistic the\necclesia or private association, were everywhere in evidence. Greek\nreligious associations--thiasoi, eranoi, orgeones--were but types\nof the prevailing impetus to find in voluntary organized groups\na substitute for the democratic life of the past. [347] Whereas\nthe older associations for the promotion of special worships were\nlimited to male free citizens, the new admitted foreigners, slaves,\nand women. Besides religious associations there were a multitude of\nothers which had the double aspect of clubs and friendly societies;\ntrade guilds existed \"among almost every kind of workmen in almost\nevery town in the empire:\" [348] and burial clubs, dining clubs,\nfinancial societies, and friendly societies met other social needs.\n\nAlmost every society, however, had its tutelary divinity, \"in the\nsame way as at the present day similar associations on the continent\nof Europe\"--as in England before the Reformation--\"invoke the name\nof a patron saint; and their meetings were sometimes called by a\nname which was afterwards consecrated to Christian uses--that of a\n'sacred synod.'\" [349] In many of them \"religion was, beyond this, the\nbasis and bond of union.... Then, as now, many men had two religions,\nthat which they professed and that which they believed; for the\nformer there were temples and State officials and public sacrifices;\nfor the latter there were associations; and in these associations,\nas is shown from extant inscriptions, divinities whom the State\nignored had their priests, their chapels, and their ritual.\" [350]\n\nThe Christists, then, when they began to form groups, were doing what\na swarm of other movements did. Their ecclesi\u00e6 were called by a pagan\nname, as were the Jewish synagogues. Two things it behoved them to do\nif they were collectively to gain ground and outlive or out-top the\nrest: they must multiply in membership, and they must co-ordinate their\ngroups; and both things they did on lines of common action. Membership\nwas from the first promoted by the simplest of all methods, systematic\nalmsgiving to poor adherents; a practice long before initiated by the\nJewish synagogues and to this day fixed among them. Given the basis\nof free association, the inculcated duty of almsgiving, the eastern\nbelief in its saving virtue, [351] and the special Christian belief\nin the speedy end of the world, the problem of membership was early\nsolved. The poor, helped one day, would themselves help the next,\nas is their human way in all ages; and in an age of general poverty,\nthe result of an autocratic fiscal system in the Empire as afterwards\nin the Turkish Empire which in the East took its place, such mutual\nsympathy constituted a broad social basis of corporate existence.\n\nFor our ecclesiastical historian, the poverty is the main determinant\non the side of early organization. With a note of profound pessimism,\nwhich alternates strangely with passages of professional eulogy of the\nChurch, he notes that pauperism and philanthropy were going hand in\nhand already throughout the Empire before the advent of Christianity,\nrich men and municipalities proclaiming an \"almost Christian sentiment\"\non the subject. \"The instinct of benevolence was fairly roused. And\nyet to the mass of men life was hardly worth living. It tended to\nbecome a despair.\" [352] And he claims that the Christian practice\nof almsgiving--which he knows to have been warmly inculcated among\nthe Jews, as it has always been in Eastern countries--was one of the\nconservative forces that \"arrested decay. They have prevented the\ndisintegration, and possibly the disintegration by a vast and ruinous\nconvulsion, of the social fabric. Of those forces the primitive bishops\nand deacons were the channels and the ministers.... They bridged over\nthe widening interval between class and class. They lessened to the\nindividual soul the weight of that awful sadness of which, then as now,\nto the mass of men, life was the synonym and the sum.\" [353]\n\nThe generalization as to the widening of the interval between classes\nis hardly borne out by the evidence; and the pessimism of the last\nsentence partly defeats the argument, by putting the life of the early\nChristian period on the same general level with that of to-day and of\nall the time between. The true summary would be that in that age the\nsprings of social life were lamed by the suppression of all national\nexistence; that the rule of Rome tended to general impoverishment in\nrespect of a vicious system of taxation; and that the subject peoples,\ndeprived of the old impulses to collective energy, at once turned\nmore and more to private association and became ready to believe in a\ncoming \"end of the world\" which in some way was to mean a new life. And\nas the Church's doctrine was pre-eminently one of salvation in that\nnew life, it behoved it in every way to resort to propaganda while\nmaintaining the eleemosynary system which gave it a broad basis of\nmembership. Thus the organization which controlled the simple financial\nsystem must also have regard to the spread of doctrine. And for the\nmeans of spreading doctrine, again, as we have already noted, the cue\nwas obviously given by Judaism, which stood out from all religious\nsystems in the Roman world as a religion of Sacred Books. Sacred\nBooks of its own the Jesuist movement must have if it was to hold\nits own against the prestige of the Jewish Bible. The production of\nSacred Books, then, was a task which devolved upon the organizers of\nthe Christian ecclesi\u00e6 throughout the Eastern Empire, equally with\nthe task of co-ordination, of which, in fact, it was a main part. A\ncommon religious literature was the basis of Jewish cohesion. Only\nby means of a common religious literature could Christism cohere.\n\nNo literature, indeed, could avert schism. Schism and strife are among\nthe first notes sounded in the epistles; and a religion which aimed\nat dogmatic teaching, as against the purely liturgical practice of\nthe old pagan cults, was bound to multiply them. Judaism itself was\ndivided into antagonistic groups of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes,\nto say nothing of the Zealots, the Essenes, and other diverging\ngroups. But sects do not destroy a religion any more than parties\ndestroy a State; and the way of success for Christism was a way which,\nwhile it involved a multiplication of schism so long as the voluntary\nbasis remained, made a growing aggregate which was at least a unity\nas having a special creed, distinct from all competing with it.\n\nThus the Christian movement was doubly a copy and competitor of\nJudaism, upon whose books it primarily founded. As the dispersed Jewish\nsynagogues were co-ordinated from Jerusalem by the High Priest, and\nlater from Tiberias by the Patriarch, by means of Twelve Apostles and\npossibly by a subordinate grade of seventy-two collectors who brought\nin the contributions of the faithful scattered among the Gentiles,\nso the Jesuists, beginning with an organization centred in Jerusalem\nand likewise aiming at the collection of funds for which almsgiving\nin Jerusalem was the appealing pretext, were bound after the fall\nof the Temple to aim at a centralization or centralizations of their\nown. A literature became more and more necessary if the new faith was\nto extend. That was the way at once to glorify the new Hero-God and\nto multiply his devotees. And it would seem to have been from the\nstarting-point of the Jewish Teaching of the Twelve Apostles that\nthe new departure on one line was made.\n\nTo say who, or what class in the new organization, began the evolution,\nseems impossible in the present state of our knowledge. The point at\nwhich the Christist organization in course of time most noticeably\ndiverges from the Jewish model is in the creation and aggrandisement\nof the episcopos, the bishop, a title and a function borrowed\nfrom the pagan societies. These had officials called epimeletai\n(superintendents) and episcopoi, whose function it was to receive\nfunds and dispense alms. [354] The early Christists adopted the latter\ntitle, and constituted for each group a single official so named, who\nas president of the assembly received the offerings of donors and was\npersonally responsible for their distribution. This is not the place\nto trace the effects of the institution in the general development of\nthe churches. It must suffice to note that while in their presbyters\nthese preserved the democratic element which they had derived from\nJudaism and which gave them their social foundation, their creation\nof a supreme administrator, whose interest it was always to increase\nthe influence of his church by increasing his own, gave them a special\nsource of strength in comparison with the Judaic system. [355]\n\nFor the dispersed Jews, held by a racial tie, association was a matter\nof course. Marked off by religion if not by aspect from Gentiles\neverywhere, they were a community within the Gentile community. For\nthe first Jesuists, association was not thus a matter of course all\nround. For the slaves, seeking friendship, and the poor, seeking help,\nit may have been; but the more prosperous were for that very reason\nless spontaneously attracted. The fundamental tie was the so-called\n\"Eucharist,\" which at first, in varying forms, was probably only an\nannual rite: the agapae or love feasts were common to the multitude\nof pagan associations. Accordingly many adherents tended to \"forsake\nthe assembling of themselves together,\" [356] and it was plainly\nthe function of the bishop to act upon these. Not only the Epistle\nto the Hebrews and that of Jude but those of Barnabas and Ignatius,\nand The Shepherd of Hermas, anxiously or sternly urge the duty of\nregular meeting. Addresses by bishops and \"prophets\" would be natural\nmeans of promoting the end.\n\nWho then produced the literature? Once more, there is no evidence. If\nany of the Epistles might at first sight seem \"genuine,\" they are\nthose ascribed to James and Jude, essentially Judaic or Judaistic\ndocuments, especially the former, in which (ii, 1) the cumbrous formula\n\"the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory\" exhibits a Christian\ninterpolation. It is essentially in the spirit of the Teaching,\na counsel of right living, calling for works in opposition to the\nnew doctrine that faith is the one thing needful, and sounding the\nEbionitic note (v, 1): \"Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your\nmiseries that are coming upon you.\" But save for the interpolation and\nthe naming of Jesus Christ in the sentence of preamble, there is no\nspecific Jesuist or Christist teaching whatever. If this document was\ncurrent among the Jesuists, it was borrowed from a Jewish author who\nhad at most one special item of belief in common with them, that of\n\"the coming [or presence] of the Lord\" (v. 7, 8); and here there is\nno certainty that \"the Lord\" meant for the writer the Christ.\n\nOnce more, then, we turn for our first clue to the Judaic Teaching,\nwhich on its face exhibits the gradual accretion of Jesuist elements,\nbeginning with an Ebionitic mention of the \"Servant\" Jesus, and\nproceeding step by step from a stage in which wandering \"apostles\"\nor \"prophets\" must subsist from hand to mouth and from day to day,\nto one in which settled prophets are supported by first fruits, and\nyet a further one in which bishops and deacons appear to administer\nwhile prophets and teachers continue to teach. And as the \"prophets\"\nconstitute a class which in the third century has disappeared from\nthe church, as if its work were done; and as they bear the name given\nto the chief producers of the sacred literature of Judaism, it would\nseem to be the natural surmise that they were the primary producers\nof special literature for the early Christian churches.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nEARLY BOOK-MAKING\n\n\n\u00a71. The \"Didach\u00ea\"\n\nEvidently the Teaching (Didach\u00ea) of the Twelve Apostles was humbly\nused by some of the early Jesuists as an authoritative Jewish manual\nwhich supplied them with their rule of conduct, they only later\nsupplying (c. ix) their special rite of the \"Eucharist\" of wine and\nbroken [357] bread, and vaguely mentioning \"the life and knowledge\nwhich thou hast made known to us by Jesus thy Servant.\" There is\nno mention of crucifixion, no naming of Jesus as Messiah. We are\nconfronted with a primary Judaic Jesuism which is not that of the\ngospels, nor that of the Paulines, nor that of the Acts, though it\nagrees with the latter in calling Jesus the Servant of the Lord. It\nis even of older type than Ebionism; for the Ebionites carried their\ncult of poverty and asceticism to the point of using water instead\nof wine in the Eucharist; [358] whereas the Didach\u00ea specifies wine,\nthe older practice. The cup of the Eucharist is \"the holy wine of\nDavid thy servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy\nservant\"; and the thanks which follow (c. 10) are to the holy Father\n\"for thy holy name, which thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts,\nand for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou hast made\nknown to us through Jesus thy servant.\"\n\nIt is quite clear that in this form of Jesuism, visibly early as\ncompared with that set forth in the gospels and the Acts, we have\nsomething different from that in its derivation. The Eucharist,\nhere so called ostensibly for the first time, is only inferribly\nderived from a sacrament of the body and blood of the sacrificed\nJesus. Eucharistia means thanksgiving or thank-offering, and this\nritual-meal is intelligibly so named. Applied, as by Justin Martyr\nand later Fathers, to the sacrificial sacrament of the gospels and the\nepistles, the name is a false description: yet the false description\nbecomes canonical. The licit inference appears to be that the cult\nof a Jesus who outside of Judaism was a Sacrificed Saviour-God had\nhere, under Judaic control, been presented as that of a Hero-Jesus,\nconnected like Dionysos with the gift of the vine, and associated\nwith a ritual meal of thanksgiving to Yahweh, whose \"servant\" he is.\n\nTaking the Didach\u00ea as a stage in the Christian evolution, we further\ninfer that the conception and name of a \"Eucharist\" was thence imposed\non another and older species of ritual-meal, in which the Jesus is\nslain as a sacrifice and commemorated in a sacrificial sacrament. The\nmore Judaic form of the cult absorbs an older and non-Judaic form,\nforced to the front by a death-story which gives to its sacrament a\nhigher virtue for the devotee. It is a case of competition of cult\nforms for survival, the weaker being superseded. And as the sacrament,\nso the Jesus, is developed on other lines. He of the Didach\u00ea is\nneither Son of God nor Saviour, as he is not the Messiah, though\nhe has somehow conveyed \"knowledge and faith and immortality.\" What\nthe Didach\u00ea does is to begin the process of a doctrinal and ethical\nteaching which coalesces with that of evolving the God.\n\nIn the eighth section, the \"Lord's Prayer\" is introduced with the\nformula \"Nor pray ye like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded\nin his gospel.\" Now \"the Lord\" has in every previous mention\nclearly meant, not Jesus, who is mentioned solely in the \"servant\"\npassages, but \"God,\" \"the Father,\" the Jewish deity. Either, then,\n\"the Lord ... in his gospel\" refers to some \"gospel\" of Yahweh or,\nas is highly probable, the whole clause is a late interpolation. This\nis the more likely because the seventh section, prescribing baptism in\nthe name of \"the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,\" is flagrantly\ninterpolated. That being so, the provision at the end of c. 9, that\nno one shall partake of the Eucharist except those baptized in the\nname of the Lord, must be held to be also a late interpolation. Thus\nthe document has been manipulated to some extent even in its early\nportions. The only other mentions of the gospel are in chapters 11\nand 15, which follow after the \"Amen\" of the tenth, and represent the\nprogressive provisions for the apostles and prophets of the growing\nchurch. The introduction of Jesuism in chapters 9 and 10 is pre-gospel.\n\nThis will be disputed only by those who, like the first American and\nGerman editors, cannot see that the first five or six sections are\npurely Judaic. After Dr. Charles Taylor and other English editors\ndid so, coinciding with an early suggestion of M. Massebieau, [359]\nthe rest have mostly come into line; and even the American editors at\nthe outset saw that the Epistle of Barnabas, which has so much of the\nmatter of the Teaching, is the later and not the earlier document. Thus\nthe Lord's Prayer takes its place as originally a Jewish and not\na Christian document; and the passages in the early chapters which\ncoincide with the Sermon on the Mount are equally Jewish. [360]\n\nWe can now understand the tradition that Matthew, of which the present\nopening chapters are so plainly late, was the first of the gospels,\nand was primarily a collection of logia. But the logia were in the\nterms of the case not logia Iesou at all, being but a compilation of\nJewish dicta on the lines of the Teaching, and, as regards the form\nof beatitude, probably an imitation of other Jewish literature as\nexampled in the \"Slavonic Enoch.\" [361]\n\nIt must be repeated, however, that the ninth and tenth sections of\nthe Teaching are not to be taken as giving us \"the\" original Jesus\nof the Jesuist movement. We have posited, with Professor Smith, a\n\"multifocal\" movement; and concerning the Jesus here given we can only\nsay that the document tells of the primary connection of the Jesus-Name\nwith a non-sacrificial Eucharist. Whether the name stood historically\nfor Joshua or for the Jesus of Zechariah, or for yet another, it is\nimpossible to pronounce. What is clear is that it does not point to\nthe Jesus of the gospels. When the Jesus-sections of the Teaching were\npenned, the gospels were yet to come; and the crucified Saviour-God of\nPaul was not preached, though his myth was certainly current somewhere.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Apocalypse\n\nThe \"Revelation of John the Theologian\" is also, in respect of much of\nits matter, pre-gospel, and even in its later elements independent of\nthe gospels. It is noteworthy that the latest professional criticism\nhas after infinite fumbling come (without acknowledging him) to the\nview of Dupuis that the episode of the woman and the child and the\ndragon belong to sun-myth; [362] and the exegetes would probably save\nthemselves a good deal of further guessing by contemplating Dupuis's\nsolution that the special details are simply derived from an ancient\nplanisphere or fuller zodiac, in which the woman and the dragon and\nthe hydra are prominent figures. [363] It is in any case particularly\nimportant to realize that this palpably mythical conception of a Jesus\nChrist, figured as \"the Lamb,\" evidently with a zodiacal reference,\nis found in one of the earliest documents of the cult, outside of\nthe gospels.\n\nIn these, as we have seen, the original God-Man is progressively\nhumanized from the hieratic figure of the opening chapters of Mark,\nthrough Matthew and Luke, till in the fourth, which declares him Logos\nand premundane, he has close personal friends and (ostensibly) weeps\nfor the death of one. But not even the thoughtless criticism which\nprofesses to find a recognizable human figure in Mark can pretend\nto find one in Revelation. There, admittedly on Jewish bases, there\nis limned an unearthly figure, who has been \"pierced,\" we are not\ntold where; who has the keys of death and Hades, and carries on his\nright hand seven stars; and has eyes like a flame of fire and feet\nlike unto burnished brass. With this pre-Christian apparatus, which\non the astrological side goes back to Persia and Babylon, there is\ncarried on a fierce polemic against certain of the \"seven churches,\"\nthe sect of the Nicolaitans, and \"them which say they are Jews and\nare not, but are a synagogue of Satan.\" The churches named are not\nthose of the Acts and the Pauline epistles: Jerusalem and Antioch are\nnot named, though Ephesus is. Jewish and pre-Jewish myth and doctrine\noverlay the Jesuist, which at many points is visibly a mere verbal\ninterpolation; so that the question arises whether even the seven\nchurches are primarily Christian or Jewish.\n\nIf \"Babylon\" stands for Rome, it is but an adaptation of an older\npolemic; for Babylon is declared to have actually fallen, before it is\nannounced that she \"shall be cast down.\" [364] The eleventh chapter\ndilates on the Jewish temple; again and again we listen to a purely\nJewish declamation over Jewish woes; the four-and-twenty elders and the\nLamb \"as though it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes,\nwhich are the seven Spirits of God,\" are of Babylonian and Persian\nderivation; and the \"second death\" is Egyptian. In the new Jerusalem,\n\"coming down out of heaven,\" twelve angels are at the gates, which\nbear the names of the twelve tribes; and the \"twelve apostles of the\nLamb\" are represented only by \"twelve basement courses\" of the wall.\n\nHow much such a document stood for in the early building-up of the cult\nit is impossible to gather from the records, which indicate that it\nwas long regarded askance by the gospel-reading and epistle-reading\nchurches. But it gives a definite proof that the cult had roots\nwholly unlike those indicated in the \"catholic\" tradition, and wholly\nincompatible with the beginnings set out in the gospels and the Acts.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Epistles\n\nThe outstanding problem in regard to the Epistles in the mass is that\nwhile criticism is more and more pressing them out of the \"apostolic\"\nperiod into the second century, they show practically no knowledge of\nthe gospels. As little do they show any trace of the \"personality\"\nof the Founder, which is posited by the biographical school as the\nground for the resurrection myth. Of Jesus as a remarkable personality\nthere is no glimpse in the whole literature; and it must be a relief\nfor the defenders of his historicity to be invited to pronounce both\nJames and Jude pseudepigraphic documents, the former written with\ndirect polemic reference to the Pauline doctrine of faith. [365]\nThe puzzle is to conceive how, on that view, the document can still\nremain so destitute of Jesuist colouring.\n\nSave for the two namings of Jesus (i, 1; ii, 1) at the beginnings\nof chapters, there is no trace of Jesuine doctrine; the epistle is\naddressed to \"the twelve tribes of the Dispersion\"; and there is a\nreference (ii, 2) to \"your synagogue,\" not to \"your ecclesia.\" When\ntherefore we note the extremely suspicious character of the second\nnaming of Jesus, \"our Lord Jesus Christ of glory,\" we are doubly\nentitled to diagnose interpolation; and the first naming at once comes\nunder suspicion. It is not surprising therefore that such a critic\nas Spitta pronounces the epistle a Jewish document. [366] Even if it\nwere true, then, that the eschatological matter has a gospel colouring,\nthat would carry us no further than a surmise that the Jewish document\nhad been slightly developed for Jesuine purposes. And this may be\nthe solution as to the anti-Pauline element. An originally Jewish\ndocument may have been used by a Jud\u00e6o-Christian to carry an attack\non a doctrine of Gentilizing Christism. The residual fact is that a\nsection of the Jesuist movement in the second century was satisfied\nwith a quasi-apostolic document which has no hint of the teaching of\na historical Jesus. Naturally it soon passed into \"catholic\" disfavour.\n\nBut the remaining epistles differ historically from this only in\nrespect of their asseveration of a crucified Christ, by faith in\nwhom men are saved. They too are devoid of biographical data. Neither\nparable nor miracle, doctrine nor deed, family history nor birthplace,\nof the Founder is ever mentioned in the epistolary literature,\nany more than in the Apocalypse or the Didach\u00ea. And yet the mass of\nthe epistles are being, as aforesaid, more and more pressed upon by\ncriticism as pseudepigraphic. Second Peter was always in dispute;\nand First Peter has few save traditionalist supporters. If First John\nis to be bracketed with the fourth gospel, it is dismissed with that\nas outside the synoptic tradition: and the second and third epistles\nare simply dropped as spurious. Hebrews is anonymous, though our\nRevisers saw fit to retain its false title; and that epistle too is\nutterly devoid of testimony to a historical Jesus. It tells simply of\na human sacrifice, in which the victim \"suffered without the gate,\"\nin accordance with the regular sacrificial practice. Late or early,\nthen, the epistles give no support to the gospels--or, at least,\nto the biographical theory founded on these.\n\nIt is thus quite unnecessary to argue here the interesting question\nof the genuineness of any of the Pauline epistles. Long ago, nine\nwere given up by the T\u00fcbingen school, and four only claimed to be\ngenuine. Remembering the datum of Eusebius that Paul personally\npenned \"only a few very short\" epistles, though specially gifted in\nthe matter of style, we are not unprepared to find even these called\nin question. And latterly the Dutch school whose work culminated in\nVan Manen has built up an impressive case [367] for the rejection\nof the whole mass, the supreme \"four\" included; and the defence so\nfar made by the traditionalists is the reverse of impressive. [368]\nThe ablest counter-criticism comes from other men of the left wing,\nas Schmiedel, who makes havoc of the Acts.\n\nFrom the point of view of the historical as distinguished from\nthe documentary critic, all that need here be said on the issue is\nthat the negative case may have to be restated if there is faced\nthe hypothesis that the Jesuine movement was of comparatively old\nstanding, and of some degree of development, when Paul came on the\nscene. Van Manen assumes the substantial historicity not only of\nJesus but of the Jesuine movement as set forth in the Gospels; and\nwhereas he found it hard to make that assumption on the view that any\nof the Paulines was genuine, he had no difficulty about it when he\nrelegated them all to the second century. It should be asked, then,\nwhether the view that the Jesus-cult is \"pre-Christian\" might not\nre-open the case for some of the Paulines.\n\nHaving put that caveat, the historical critic has simply to consider\nthe question of the historicity of Jesus in relation to the Paulines\nfrom both points of view, asking what evidence they can be supposed\nto yield either on the view of the genuineness of some or on that\nof the spuriousness of all. And the outcome is that on neither view\ndo they tell of a historical Jesus. If \"the four\" are genuine, Paul,\ndeclared to be so near the influence of the \"personality\" of Jesus,\nnot only shows no trace of impression from it but expressly puts\naside the question. In the Epistle to the Galatians he declares that\nhe had not learned his gospel from the other apostles but received\nit by special revelation, actually avoiding intercourse with the\nother apostles apart from Peter--a proposition certainly savouring\nstrongly of post-Pauline dialectic, as does the text (2 Cor. v, 16):\n\"Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know\n[him so] no more.\" Instead then of the Paulines, on the view of their\ngenuineness, confirming the conception of a remarkable personality\nwhich had profoundly impressed those who came in contact with it,\nthey radically and unmanageably conflict with that conception. So\nfar Van Manen is justified.\n\nIf on the other hand we accept the strongly supported thesis that\nthey are all pseudepigraphic, the historicity of the gospels is in no\nway accredited. We reach the view that early in the second century,\nwhen such early gospels as the Matthew and Mark of Papias may be\nsupposed to have been current, even the devotees who wrote in Paul's\nname took no interest in the human personality of Jesus, but were\nconcerned simply about the religious significance of his death. The\npassages in First Corinthians (xi, 23 sq.; xv, 3 sq.) which deal with\nthe Supper and the Resurrection expressly repudiate knowledge of the\ngospels; the first claiming to have \"received of the Lord\" the facts\nretailed, and the second, after a similar formula, proffering data\nnot given in any gospel. And both passages have been demonstrably\ninterpolated, even if we do not pronounce them, as we are entitled\nto do, interpolations as wholes. The first breaks the continuity\nof an exhortation as to the proper way of eating the Lord's Supper;\nthe second is introduced (xv, 1) with a strange profession to \"make\nknown unto you the gospel which I preached unto you.\" And even the\nsecond passage, with its mention of \"the twelve,\" excludes knowledge\nof the story of Judas; while the first, at the point at which our\nrevisers translate \"was betrayed,\" really says only \"delivered up\"\n(paredidoto), which may or may not imply betrayal.\n\nHow Van Manen could find in all this any support for the gospel\nstory in general he never explained; and obviously no support\nis given. Historically considered, the epistles undermine the\nbiographical theory whether we reckon them early or late, genuine\nor pseudepigraphic. If early, they discredit completely the notion\nof a historical Jesus of impressive personality. If as late as Van\nManen makes them (120-140) they tell not only of indifference to the\npersonality of Jesus but of ignorance of the gospel story as we have\nit, strongly suggesting that the complete story of the tragedy was\nyet unknown, and that only in still later interpolations, made before\nthe Judas story was current, was it to be indicated.\n\nWhat is more, the Paulines, like other Epistles, tell of vital\nunbelief as to the reality of Jesus. Paul is made to protest that\n\"some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead\"\n(1 Cor. xv, 12). These Jesuists, then, held at most only a faith in\nfuture salvation by virtue of the sacrament. So in First John it is\nimplied (iv, 2-3) that some of the adherents confess not that Jesus\nis come in the flesh, which is declared to be the doctrine of \"the\nantichrist,\" a type of which \"many\" (ii, 18) have arisen.\n\nWe are critically forced, then, to the conclusion that for a century\nafter the alleged death of the Founder the Jesuist movement had either\nno literature whatever save one of primarily Jewish documents such as\nthe Didach\u00ea or problematic short Pauline epistles which have either\ndisappeared or been absorbed in much longer documents of later date,\nwhich in turn still tell of no Jesuine Sacred Books. All alike exclude\nthe conception of a historical Jesus of remarkable personality. In\nthe doctrinal quarrels which have already driven deep furrows in the\nfaith, the personality of Jesus counts for nothing. In that connection\nno one cites any teaching of the Master. He is simply an abstract\nsacrifice; and even in that aspect he is not clearly present in\nthe Jewish-Christian Didach\u00ea. Of his earthly parentage, domicile,\nor career, there is not a word. Everything goes to confirm our\nhypothesis that the cult is of ancient origin, rooted in a sacrament\nwhich evolved out of a rite of human sacrifice and connected with\nnon-Jewish as well as Jewish myths which from the first tended to\nthe deification of the Slain One.\n\nIt remains, then, to consider the gospels anew as compilations made in\nthe second century of (1) previously current Jewish lore, written and\nunwritten; (2) doctrinal elements indicated by the sectarian disputes\nalready active; (3) pseudo-historic elements justifying Messianic\ndoctrine and practice; and (4) the Mystery-Drama, now developed under\nGentile hands. Upon all this followed (5) the new theology and new\npseudo-biography of the fourth gospel, which was but another stage\nin the general process of myth-making.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nGOSPEL-MAKING\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Tradition\n\nAccording to the tradition preserved through Papias (d. circa 165),\nfrom \"John the presbyter,\" who is not pretended to have been John the\nApostle, the first gospels were those of Mark, the \"interpreter\" of\nPeter, who set down in no chronological order the \"sayings and doings\"\nof the Lord as he had gathered them from Peter; and of Matthew, who\nwrote the logia or sayings \"in the Hebrew dialect\" [369]--presumably\nAramaic. This, the earliest written tradition concerning the matter\nembodied in the gospels, is preserved to us from Papias' lost\n\"Exposition of the Dominical [370] Oracles\" (Logi\u00f4n kyriak\u00f4n) by\nEusebius. For his own part, Papias professed to set more store by what\nhe received from Aristion and the Presbyter John and other disciples of\nthe Lord than by anything \"out of books.\" And it chances that he gave\nout as a Dominical Oracle [371] thus certificated a crude picture of\nmillennial marvels which is actually taken from either the Apocalypse\nof Baruch, which here imitated the Book of Enoch, or from an older\nsource. [372] Concerning this utterance of the Lord, further, Papias\nnarrated a conversation between Jesus and Judas, in which the latter\nfigures as a freethinker, expressing disbelief in the prediction.\n\nEusebius, scandalized by such testimony, pronounced Papias a man of\nsmall understanding. But he is the first Christian authority as to\nthe history of the gospels; and the very fact that he set less store\nby them than by oral tradition is evidence that he had no reason for\nthinking them more authoritative than the matter that reached him by\nword of mouth. It may be that he knew only Greek, and that he could\nnot read for himself the Aramaic logia, concerning which he says that\n\"every one interpreted them for himself as he was able.\" From the\nlogia and the proto-Mark to the first two synoptics the evolution\ncan only be guessed. No one now claims that we possess the original\ndocuments even in translation. Matthew as it stands is admittedly\nnot a translation; and Dr. Conybeare, who idly alleges that I pay no\nheed to the order of priority of the gospels, and insists chronically\non the general priority of Mark, avows that \"Mark, the main source\nof the first and third evangelists, is himself no original writer,\nbut a compiler, who pieces together and edits earlier documents in\nwhich his predecessors had written down popular traditions of the\nmiracles and passion of Jesus.\" [373] And he predicates in one part\n\"four stages of documentary development.\" [374] How in this state of\nthings the existing Mark can be proved to be the main source of Matthew\nand Luke is not and cannot be explained. Mark too is admittedly not\na translation from Aramaic; but some of his sources may have been.\n\nConcerning Matthew, again, the tradition runs that according to\nPapias he told a story of a woman accused of many sins before the\nLord; and Eusebius adds, apparently on his own part, that this\nis contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. If this was\nthe story (now bracketed in R.V.) found only in late copies of the\nfourth gospel, the \"Hebrew\" gospel contained matter notably special\nto itself; and such is the conclusion established by a collation\nof all the 33 fragments preserved. \"We arrive ... at a Gospel (a)\nin great part independent of the extant text of our gospels, and (b)\nshowing no signs of relationship to Mark or John, but (c) bearing a\nvery marked affinity to Matthew, and (d) a less constant but still\nobvious affinity to Luke.\" [375] The hypothesis of Nicholson is \"that\nMatthew wrote at different times the canonical gospel and the gospel\naccording to the Hebrews, or at least that large part of the latter\nwhich runs parallel to the former.\" [376]\n\nOn this view, \"Matthew\" in one of his versions deliberately omitted (1)\nthe remarkable story of the woman taken in adultery; (2) the remarkable\nstory that \"the mother of the Lord and his brethren\" proposed to him\nthat they should all go and be baptized by John, whereupon he asked\n\"Wherein have I sinned?\" but added: \"except perchance this very\nthing that I have said in ignorance,\" and went accordingly; (3) the\nstatement that at baptism Jesus saw the dove \"entering into him\"; (4)\nthe further item that \"the entire fountain of the Holy Spirit descended\nand rested upon him,\" addressing him as \"My son\"; and (5) Jesus'\nuse of the phrase, \"My mother, the Holy Spirit.\" Such a hypothesis,\nif accepted, deprives of all meaning the notion of an \"author\" of\na document. The only fair inference is that a Greek translation of\nthe Hebrew gospel was one of the sources of the present Matthew,\nand that either (a) many of its details have been rejected, or (b)\nthat many of the preserved fragments were additions to the original.\n\nOn either view, we must pronounce that the Hebrew gospel, as exhibited\nin the fragments, has none of the marks of a real biographical\nrecord. The items of narrative are wholly supernaturalist; the items\nof teaching belong to the more advanced Jewish ethic which we find\nprogressively developed from Matthew to Luke. Once more, the critical\ninference is either (a) that the ethically-minded among the Jesuist\n\"prophets\" set out by putting approved doctrines in the mouth of the\nlegendary Saviour-God, whereafter doctrinary episodes were invented\nfor cult purposes, or (b) that the miraculous life was first pieced\nout in terms of Old Testament prophecies held for Messianic. Having\nregard to the ethical nullity of the primary evangel posited in the\nsynoptics, the presumption is wholly against any primary manufacture\nof new logia. If we take the Sermon on the Mount as typical, the\nmatter is all pre-Christian. [377] If we pronounce the method of the\nfirst canonical gospel to be secondary in relation to that of Mark,\nthe ethical element enters only after the cult has gone a long way,\nand is then Jewish matter subsumed, as in the Didach\u00ea.\n\nOn bases so laid, there accrue a multitude of expletions, stones added\nto the cairn, as: episodes favouring this or that view of the proper\nMessianic heredity; of the Messiah's ascetic or non-ascetic character;\nof his attitude for or against Samaritans; of his thaumaturgic\nprinciples; of the universality or selectness of the salvation he\nbrings; of his attitude towards the Roman power, towards divorce,\ntowards the Scribes and Pharisees, and so on. Up to the point of the\nestablishment of something like a Canon, the longer the cult lasted,\nthe greater would be the variety of the teaching. Different views of\nthe descent and character of the Messiah, put forward by Davidists\nand non-Davidists, Nazarites and non-Nazarites, Jews and Samaritans,\nwould all tend to find currency, and all would tend to find a place\nin the scroll of some group, whence they could ill be ousted by any\n\"Catholic\" movement. Still later, definitely anti-Jewish matter\nis grafted piecemeal by Gentile adherents: the \"good Samaritan\"\nis an impeachment of Jewish character; and the legendary apostles\nare progressively belittled--notably so in the mystery play which\nfinally supersedes the earlier accounts of the Tragedy.\n\nThat such a general process actually took place is of necessity\nadmitted by the biographical school, their problem consisting in\ndelimiting the amount of tradition which they can plausibly claim as\ngenuine. From the point of that delimitation they posit a process of\ndoctrinal and other myth-making. The decision now claimed is that there\nis no point of scientific delimitation, and that the process which\nthey carry forward from an arbitrarily fixed point must logically be\ncarried backwards.\n\nNo more general or more far-reaching result can be reached by a\nmere collation and analysis of the synoptics on purely documentary\nlines--a process which has gone on for a century without even a\ndocumentary decision. The conclusion forced upon Schmiedel, even\non the assumption of the historicity of Jesus, that none of the\ncurrent theories of gospel-composition can meet the problem, [378]\nbecomes part of the case of the myth-theory. The assumption that a\n\"source,\" once established, gives a historic foundation, is no more\ntenable in this than in any other case of a challenged myth; and\nthe current methods of establishing sources, rooted as they are in\nthe assumption of historicity, are often quite arbitrary even when\nthey profess to follow documentary tests. Nevertheless, the normal\npressure of criticism is seen driving champions of the priority of\nMark to the confession that Mark not only contains late additions\nbut is in itself a secondary or tertiary document, pointing to an\nearlier Mark, an Ur-Markus. The primary flaw in the process is the\nhabit of looking to an author rather than at a compilation; and this\nhabit roots in the assumption of historicity. At no point can we be\nsure whether we are reading a transcript of oral lore or a redaction.\n\nGranting that Mark has pervading peculiarities of diction which suggest\none hand, we are still not entitled to say that such peculiarities\nwould not be adopted by a redactor. Again, as against the relative\nterseness or simplicity of a number of passages which suggest\nan earlier form, we have many which by their relative diffuseness\nadmittedly suggest deliberate elaboration. [379] And if we are to ask\nourselves what was likely to be the method of an early evangelist,\nhow shall we reconcile the \"in the stern, asleep on the cushion\" (iv,\n38) with the absolute traditionalism and supernaturalism of the first\nchapter? John, \"clothed with camel's hair,\" is simply a duplicate of\nElijah. [380] Is one realistic detail to pass for personal knowledge\nwhen the other is sheer typology? In the opening chapter, Jesus comes\nas the promised \"Lord,\" is prophesied of by John as the Coming One,\nis hailed by God from heaven as his beloved son, sees the heavens rent\nasunder and the Spirit descending as a dove, fasts forty days in the\nwilderness, is ministered to by angels, calls on men to follow him\nat his first word, proceeds to give marvellous teaching of which not\na word is preserved, is hailed by a demoniac as the Holy One of God,\nexpels a devil, cures a fever instantaneously, heals a multitude, casts\nout many devils, who know him, goes through the synagogues of Galilee,\ncasting out devils and preaching, cures a leper instantaneously,\ncommands secrecy, is disobeyed, and is then flocked-to by more\nmultitudes. And we are invited to believe that we are reading the\nbiography of a real man, who always speaks to Jews as one Jew to\nanother, and is \"not too bright and good for human nature's daily\nfood.\" And the confident champion of this biographical theory assures\nus that we \"need not doubt\" that Jesus was a \"successful exorcist.\"\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Schmiedel's Tests\n\nEither the first chapter of Mark is primordial gospel-writing or\nit is not. If it is, the biographical theory is as idle as those\nridiculed by Socrates in the Ph\u00e6drus. If it is not, upon what does\nthe biographical theory found? The details of \"mending their nets\" and\n\"in the boat with the hired servants\"? Professor Schmiedel, conscious\nof the unreality of such narrative, falls back upon nine selected\ntexts, seven of them in Mark, which he claims as \"pillars\" of a real\nbiography of Jesus, [381] on the score that they present him as (a)\nflouted in his pretensions or (b) himself disclaiming deity, or (c)\ndeclining to work wonders, or (d) apparently denying a miracle story,\nor (e) crying out to God on the cross that he is forsaken. Now, of\nall such texts, only b and e types can have any such evidential force\nas Schmiedel ascribes to them. [382] Type a counts for nothing: not\nonly the suffering Saviour-Gods but Apollo and Ar\u00eas, to say nothing of\nHephaistos, H\u00ear\u00ea, and Aphrodit\u00ea, are flouted in the pagan literature\nwhich treats them as Gods. If to quote \"he is beside himself\" is to\nprove historicity, why not quote the taunts to Jesus in the fourth\ngospel, nay, the crucifixion itself?\n\nIn his able and interesting work on The Johannine Writings, Schmiedel\ncarefully developes the thesis that the Johannine Jesus is an invented\nfigure, conceived from the first as supernatural; and he puts among\nother things the notable proposition that when Jesus weeps it is\nimplied by the evangelist that he does so not out of human sympathy,\nbut \"simply because they [the kinsfolk of Lazarus] did not believe\nin his power to work miracles.\" [383] Assuming for the argument's\nsake that this is a true interpretation, we are driven to ask how the\nthesis consists with that of the \"pillar texts.\" The Johannine writer\nstarts with a supernatural Jesus, yet not only represents his attached\npersonal friends as not believing in his power to work miracles but\ndescribes Jesus as weeping because of their unbelief. Nothing in Mark\nis for moderns more incongruous with a supernaturalist view of Jesus,\nyet Schmiedel sees no difficulty in believing that the Johannine\nwriter could deliberately frame the incongruity. Why then should even\nan original author of Mark be held to regard Jesus as mortal because\nin Mark he is flouted, or declines to work wonders, or is unable to\ndo so at Nazareth? If one writer can represent the Eternal Logos as\nweeping from chagrin, why should not the other think him God even when\nhe cries out that God has forsaken him? And if, finally, the cry is\nheld to cite Psalm xxii, 1, and to imply the triumphant conclusion\nof that psalm, what value has the passage for the critic's purpose?\n\nAn unbiassed criticism will of course recognize that the \"Jesus wept\"\nmay be an interpolation, for it is admitted that the Greek words\nrendered \"groaned in the spirit\" may mean \"was moved with indignation\nin the spirit\"; and, yet again, Martha is represented (xi, 22) as\navowing the belief that \"even now\" Jesus can raise Lazarus by the power\nof God. Nay, the whole story may be an addition, not from the pen of\nthe writer who makes Jesus God. But equally the incongruities in Mark\nmay come of interpolation. A fair inference from the characteristics of\nthat document is that parts of it, notably the first dozen paragraphs,\nrepresent a condensation of previously current matter, while others\nare as plainly expansive; and even if these diversely motived sections\nbe from the same hand, interpolations might be made in either.\n\nIn reply to my argument [384] that texts in which Jesus figures\nas a natural man would at most represent only Ebionitic views,\nProfessor Schmiedel puts the perplexing challenge, concerning the\nEbionites:--\"Were they not also worshippers of Jesus as well? Were\nthey really men of such wickedness that they sought to bring the true\nhumanity of Jesus into acceptance by falsifying the Gospels? And\nif they were, was it in their power to effect this falsification\nwith so great success?\" [385] I cannot think that Dr. Schmiedel,\nwho is invariably candid, has thought out the positions here taken\nup. The point that the Ebionites were \"worshippers\" of Jesus is\nsurely fatal to his own thesis. \"Worshippers\" could in their case\ngo on worshipping while maintaining that the worshipped one was\na mortal. Then to assert that he avowed himself a mortal was not\ninconsistent with \"worship.\" But the challenge obscures the issue;\nand it is still more obscured when the Professor goes on to ask: \"Had\nthey [the Ebionites] no predecessors in this view of his person? Must\nwe not suppose that precisely the earliest Christians, the actual\ncompanions of Jesus--supposing Him really to have lived--were their\npredecessors?\" This argument, the Professor must see, has small\nbearing on my position.\n\nThree questions are involved, from the mythological point of view:\nfirst, whether actual believers in an alleged divinity could represent\nhim as flouted, humiliated, or temporarily powerless; second, whether\nthe Ebionitic view of Jesus can be accounted for otherwise than as\nthe persistence of a proto-Christian view, arising among the immediate\nadherents of a man Jesus; third, whether in the second century Jesuists\nof Ebionitic views could invent, and insert in the gospels, sayings\nof or concerning Jesus which were meant to countervail the belief in\nhis divinity.\n\nOn the first head, the answer is, as aforesaid, that throughout\nall ancient religion we find derogatory views of deity constantly\nentertained, at different stages of culture, without any clear\nconsciousness of incongruity. Yahweh in the Old Testament \"repents\"\nthat he made man; wrangles with Sarah; and is unable to overcome\nworshippers of other Gods who have \"chariots of iron.\" Always he is a\n\"jealous\" God; and at a later stage he is alleged to be consciously\nthwarted by the Israelites when they insist on having a king. These\nare all priest-made stories. Among the early Greeks, the Gods are\nstill less godlike. In Homer, Ath\u00ean\u00ea is almost the only deity who\nis treated with habitual reverence: the others are so constantly\nsatirized, humanized, thwarted, or humiliated, that it is difficult\nto associate reverence, in our sense, with the portrayal at all. The\nstatement of Arno Neumann that \"it is impossible (here every historian\nwill agree) for one who worships a hero to think and speak in such\na way as to contradict or essentially modify his own worship\" [386]\nis an astonishingly uncritical pronouncement, which simply ignores\nthe main mass of ancient religious literature.\n\nAs regards the Demigods in particular it belongs to the very nature of\nthe case that they should be at times specially thwarted and reviled\nby mortals, since it is their fate to die, albeit to rise again. If,\nthen, sayings were once invented which fastened human limitations upon\nthe Divine One for the Jesuists, there was nothing in the psychology of\nworshippers on their intellectual plane that should make them pronounce\nsuch sayings forgeries. As we have seen, even in the fourth gospel,\nwhich puts the Divine One higher than ever, he is made, on Professor\nSchmiedel's own view, to weep for sheer chagrin.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Tendential Tests\n\nMore complex is the second question, as to how the Ebionite view of\nJesus emerged. But the answer has already been indicated in terms of\nthe myth-theory. And the question really cannot be answered on the\nbiographical view, for the canonical documents give no hint [387]\nof a persistence of a \"human\" view among the early Christists as\nagainst a \"divine\" one. The Judaizers are represented equally with\nthe Paulinists as making Jesus \"Lord\"; and it is on the Paulinist side\nthat we hear of adherents who do not believe in the resurrection. That\nis really a divergence from the Judaistic view, for Jews in general\naccepted immortality. The moment, however, we put the hypothesis\nof a primitive cult of a Saviour-God whose sacrifice in some way\nbenefits men, and whose Sacrament is the machinery of that benefit,\nwe account for all the varieties of Jesuism known to us. The cult\nwas primordially Semitic, a thing on the outskirts of later Judaism,\nwhich would be Judaized in so far as it came under Jewish influence,\nand then theologically re-cast for Gentilism by Gentilizing Jews. Thus\nthere would be Judaistic Ebionites, and Jesuists such as those taught\nby the Didach\u00ea, who would insist on connecting Jesus only with the\nEucharist, making him a subordinate figure, upon whose legend were\nslowly grafted moral teachings.\n\nOn the other hand there would be non-Jewish Jesuists who valued the\nSacrament as they and others valued those of Paganism, counting\non magical benefits from it (as \"Catholics\" in general did for\nmany centuries), but making light of the Jewish future life. The\none thing in common was the primordial sacrament, at once Jewish\nand non-Jewish. For Jews it would easily connect with the belief in\nimmortality, already much connected with Messianism; for Gentiles who\naccepted the former belief, it would be still more easily connected\nwith a doctrine of future individual salvation. All is broadly\nintelligible on the myth-theory. On the biographical theory, the\nJesuists of the Didach\u00ea are as inexplicable as the Gentile Jesuists\nwho denied a future life, or the Docetists who denied that Jesus had\ncome in the flesh.\n\nGiven such Jewish Jesuists, and given Docetism, the invention of\nsayings and episodes in which Jesus is thwarted or flouted, or disavows\nGodhood, is perfectly simple. Why Professor Schmiedel should raise the\nquestion of \"wickedness\" in this connection I cannot divine. On his\nown showing, the invention of sayings and episodes was normal among\nthe Christists in general; and it affected all of the synoptics. Does\nhe impute \"wickedness\" to the author of the fourth gospel, whom he\nrepresents as inventing discourses and episodes systematically? The\nEbionites and Docetists had as much right to invent as any one else;\nand once their inventions were current, they stood a fair chance\nof being embodied in a gospel or gospels by reason of the general\nincapacity of the Christists for critical reflection.\n\nFrom the biographical standpoint, the Ebionites and their counterparts\nthe Nazar\u00e6ans are indeed enigmatic. It is important to have a clear\nview of what is known as to both sects. [388] Origen, noting that the\nHebrew name of the former means \"the poor,\" angrily implies that it was\ngiven to them as describing their poverty of mind, [389] but leaves\nopen the rational inference that the name originally described their\nchosen social status, which connected with a belief in the speedy end\nof the world. In his book Against Celsus, [390] he tells that they\ninclude believers in the Virgin Birth and deniers of it. Here arises\nthe surmise that the former were the socii Ebionitarum mentioned by\nJerome, who diverged from Judaic views, and may have been of the\ngeneral cast of the Nazar\u00e6ans. [391] These bodies constituted the\nmass of the Christians in Jud\u00e6a in the second century. According to\nthe ecclesiastical tradition, the church of Jerusalem had withdrawn\nduring the siege to Pella and the neighbouring region beyond the\nJordan. In the reign of Hadrian, after the revolt and destruction of\nthe Messiah Bar-Cochab, who had attempted to rebuild the temple, the\nnew Roman city of \u00c6lia Capitolina was built on the ruins of Jerusalem;\nand in that no Jews were permitted to dwell. Only those Christians\nwho renounced Judaic usages, then, could enter; and a number of such\nChristians, Jew and Gentile, did so. Others, probably including\nboth Ebionites and Nazar\u00e6ans, remained at Pella, and these appear\nto have furnished the types of heresy discussed by Iren\u00e6us, Origen,\nJerome, and Epiphanius under the head of Ebionism. Those who set up\nin Jerusalem were in the way of substituting for \"voluntary poverty\"\na propaganda and organization which meant comfort. Those who stayed\nbehind would represent the primitive type.\n\nNow, neither Ebionism nor Nazar\u00e6anism offers any semblance of\nsupport for the biographical view. Some Ebionites denied the Virgin\nBirth; some, presumably the Nazar\u00e6ans in particular, accepted it,\nthe latter being described as accepting the canonical Matthew (or a\nHebrew gospel nearly equivalent) with the present opening chapters,\nwhile the Ebionites had a Matthew without them. Of the two views,\nneither testified to any impression made by a \"personality.\" The Virgin\nBirth myth is a reversion to universal folk-lore by way of enlarging\nthe supernaturalist claim: the Ebionite denial is either a rejection\nof all purely human claim for Jesus or only supernaturalism with a\ndifference, inasmuch as it inferribly posits a divinization of the\nFounder either at the moment of his baptism or at his anointing. His\n\"personality\" is the one thing never heard of in the discussion, so\nfar as we can trace it. In one account, \"the\" Ebionites are said to\nhave alleged that Christ became so because he perfectly fulfilled\nthe law, and that they individually might become Christs if they\nfulfilled it as perfectly. [392] Ebionites and Nazar\u00e6ans between them,\non the biographical view, let slip all knowledge of the Sacred Places,\nof Golgotha, of the place of the Sepulchre.\n\nIf it be asked how, on the biographical view, there came to be Jewish\nJesuists of the Ebionite type, men such as those described by Justin\nMartyr and his Jewish antagonist Trypho, believing in a Jesus \"anointed\nby election\" who thus became Christ, but adhering otherwise to Judaic\npractices, [393] what is the answer? What idea, what teaching, had\nJesus left them? The notion which seems to have mainly differentiated\nEbionites from Jews was simply that Jesus had been the Messiah, and\nthat his Second Coming would mean the end of the world. Expectation of\nthe Second Coming would at once promote and be promoted by poverty,\nwhich would thus have a special religious significance. Nazar\u00e6ans,\non the other hand, were latterly marked by a general opposition to the\nPharisees. [394] But this could perfectly well be a simple development\nof sectarianism. If it be claimed as a result of the teaching of Jesus,\nwhat becomes of the other teaching as to the love of enemies? Which\nspecies of teaching is supposed to have represented the \"personality\"?\n\nGiven a general hostility between Nazar\u00e6ans and Pharisees, the\nascription of anti-Pharisaic teachings to the Master would have been\nin the ordinary way of all Jewish doctrinal propaganda. In so far as\nthey acclaimed sincerity and denounced formalism, they are intelligible\nas part of a general revolt against Judaic legalism. Nazar\u00e6ans would\ninvent anti-Pharisaic teachings just as they or \"Catholics\" would\ninvent pro-Samaritan teachings. And in so far as the Ebionites resisted\nthe assimilation of fresh supernaturalist folk-lore they would tend\nto put appropriate sayings in the mouth of the Master just as did the\nothers. They are expressly charged not only with inventing a saying\n[395] in denunciation of sacrifices, by way of sanctifying their\nvegetarianism, which was presumably an aspect of their poverty, but of\ntampering in various ways with their texts. [396] This is precisely\nwhat the gospel-makers in general did; and to impeach the Ebionites\nin particular is merely to ignore the general procedure. When, then,\nwe say that Ebionites might well invent a saying in which the Master\nwas made to repudiate Godhood, and that such a saying might find its\nway into many manuscripts, as did other passages from their Hebrew\ngospel, it is quite irrelevant to raise questions of \"wickedness\"\nand of \"worship.\"\n\nBut it is important here to note the point, insisted on by Professor\nW. B. Smith, that most of Professor Schmiedel's \"pillar\" texts\ncould be framed with no thought of lowering the status of Jesus,\nwhile some, on the contrary, betray the motive of discrediting the\nJews. The story of Jesus' people (hoi par' autou, not \"friends\"\nas in our versions) saying \"He is beside himself\" (Mk. iii, 21), is\nsimply a Gentile intimation that even among his own kin or associates\nhe was treated as a madman. The idea is exactly the same as that of\nthe story in the fourth gospel, that \"the Jews\" said he \"had a devil\"\nand was a Samaritan. Similarly \"tendential\" is the avowal (Mk. vi, 5)\nthat at Nazareth the wonder-worker \"could do no mighty work ... and\nhe marvelled because of their unbelief.\" Healing in other texts\nis declared to depend on faith; and to call the people of Nazareth\nunbelievers was either to explain why Jesus of Nazareth there had no\nfollowing or to emphasize the point that the Jews had rejected the\nLord. Such a doctrine, again, as that of Mt. xii, 31, that blasphemy\nagainst the Son of Man was pardonable, was perfectly natural at a stage\nat which the cult was seeking eagerly for converts. Had not Peter,\nin the legend, denied his Lord with curses, and Paul persecuted the\nChurch to the death?\n\nIn other cases, the bearing of Professor Schmiedel's texts is so much\na matter of arbitrary interpretation that the debate is otiose; and\nin yet others there are insoluble questions of text corruption. The\nthesis that any text \"could not have been invented,\" and must infer the\nexistence of a teacher regarded as mortal, is so infirm in logic that\nit is not surprising to find it regarded with bitter dislike by the\northodox, transparently honest as is Professor Schmiedel's use of it.\n\nThere is really more force in his argument [397] that the predictions\nof the immediate re-appearance of the Christ after \"the tribulation\nof those days\" could not have been invented long after the fall of\nJerusalem, the apparent impulse being rather to minimize them. They\nmay perfectly well have been predictions made at the approach of\ndanger by professed prophets. But it does not in the least follow\nthat they were made by one answering to the description of the\ngospel Jesus, predicting his own Second Coming, though some one may\nhave so prophesied. Any Messiah would be \"the Lord\"; and the gospel\npredictions as to false Christs tell of \"many\" Messiahs, every one\nof whom would speak as \"the Lord.\" Such utterances, after a little\nwhile, could no more be discriminated by the Christists than the\ncertainly pre-Christian sayings put by their propagandists in the\nmouth of Jesus. And, once a prediction had been written down, it\nlived by the tenure of uncertainty that attached to all prediction\namong blind believers. When one \"tribulation\" had apparently passed\nwithout a Second Coming, there was nothing for it but to look forward\nto the next.\n\nAfter generations of expectation, the early eschatology of the Church\nbecame a burden to its conductors, inasmuch as expectation of the end\nof the world made for disorder, and neglect of industry; and Second\nThessalonians was written to explain away previous predictions\nof imminent ending. After the whole mass of such prediction had\nbeen falsified by ages of continuance, there was still no critical\nreaction, simply because religious belief excludes the practice of\nradical criticism. To this day, orthodoxy has no rational account to\ngive of the pervading doctrine of the New Testament as to the speedy\nend of the world. The biographical school finds in it a measure of\nsupport for its belief in a real Jesus, who shared the delusions of\nhis age. But as that explanation equally applies to all men in the\nperiod, it gives the biographical view no standing as against the\nmyth-theory. Christian prophets spoke for \"the Lord\" just as Jewish\nprophets did before them.\n\nIn this connection, finally, it has to be noted that Professor\nSchmiedel finds an \u00e0 priori authenticity in a prediction in which\nJesus claims supernatural status, though the ostensibly unhistorical\ncharacter of such claims was his avowed ground for positing the\n\"pillar-texts\" which alone defied all skepticism. And the formula\nin both cases is the same--\"it could not have been invented.\" [398]\nThe major premiss involved is: \"No passage could be invented which\nwould stultify the position of the believers.\" But do none of the\nadmitted inventions [399] in the gospels stultify the position of the\nbelievers? The two genealogies do; the anti-Davidic passages stultify\nthese; the pro-Samaritan teaching stultifies the anti-Samaritan;\nand so on through twenty cases of contradiction. M. Loisy, indeed,\nclaims the pro-Samaritan passage as genuine: does he then admit the\nanti-Samaritan to be spurious?\n\nThe biographical school cannot have it both ways. The very fact that\nthey have to oust so many passages on the score of incompatibility\nis the complete answer to the plea of \"genuine because unsuitable\nto the purposes of the propaganda.\" The fact that a multitude of\ncontradictions are left standing proves simply that when once an\nawkward passage was installed it was nearly impossible to get rid of\nit; because some copies were always left which retained it; and in\nthe stage of increasing respect for the written word it was generally\nrestored. The \"Jesus\" before Barabbas was at last ejected only because\neverybody recoiled from it. Predictions were not so easily dropped.\n\nOn the page on which he claims that Jesus' prediction of his Second\nComing could not have been invented, Professor Schmiedel avows that\nvarious passages in Mt. xxiv really belong to \"a small composition,\nperhaps Jewish, on the signs of the end of the world, written shortly\nbefore the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70.\" If the one set of\npassages are borrowed, why not the other? Was it unlikely that Jewish\neschatologists should predict the coming of the Son of Man at the\nnear end of the world, and that Jesuists should put the prediction in\nthe mouth of their Lord and make him say it of himself? The \u00e0 priori\nnegative is quite untenable.\n\nWhile, then, the argument from unsuitableness is logically barred for\nthe biographical school by their own frequent rejection of passages\non the score of incompatibility, no aspect or portion of the New\nTestament supplies a conclusive argument against the mythological\nview. The whole constitutes an intelligible set of growths from the\npoint of view of the myth-theory; and from no other is the medley\nexplicable. A biographical theory, having posited a Messiah whose\nMessianic claim is a mystery, a Teacher whose alleged teachings are\na mass of conflicting tendencies, and whose disciples admittedly\nhave no Messianic gospel till after his inexplicable execution,\nfollowing on an impossible trial, may make the assumption that by way\nof popular myth he was then fortuitously deified by Messianist Jews,\nand later transformed by other Jews into a Saviour for Gentiles;\nbut the biographical theory cannot even pretend to account for the\nApocalypse and the Didach\u00ea; and it has to renounce its own ground\nprinciple of \"personality\" in order to assimilate the Epistles. On\ncritical principles, assent must go to the theory which explains\nthings, reducing the otherwise inexplicable to a natural evolution\non the known lines and bases of hierology.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Historic Summary\n\nWe may now bring together in one outline the series of inductive\nhypotheses by which we seek to recover the natural evolution of the\nhistoric cult.\n\n1. A primitive Semitic sacramental cult, whose sacrament centres in a\nslain Saviour-God, a Jesus, who has assimilated to an abstraction of\nthe victim annually sacrificed to him--as in the case of the cults of\nAdonis and Attis, both also Asiatic. Of the sacrificial rite, which in\nthe historic cult is embodied in the Last Supper and the dramatized\nstory of the Passion, the memory was preserved in particular by a\nJewish rite of Jesus Barabbas, Jesus the Son of the Father, in which\na victim goes through a mock coronation, ending latterly, perhaps, in\na mock-execution, where once there had been an actual human sacrifice.\n\n2. This cult, with its sacrament, existed sporadically in various\nparts of Asia Minor, whence it spread to Greece and Egypt. Its forms\nwould vary, and under Jewish control the sacrificial sacrament tended\nto be reduced to a Eucharist or thankoffering in which the \"body and\nblood\" are only vaguely, if at all, reminiscent of the Divine One's\ndeath. As a God can always be developed indefinitely out of a God-Name,\nand personal Gods are historically but conceptual aggregates shaped\nround names or functions, the adherents of this could proselytize\nlike others. When the Temple of Jerusalem fell in the year 70, the\nadherents of the cult there had a new opportunity and motive, which\nsome of them actively embraced, to cut loose from the Judaic basis\nand proclaim a religion of universal scope, freed from Judaic trammels\nand claims. Economic motives played a considerable part in the process.\n\n3. The first tendency of the new Jewish promoters had been to develop\nthe Saviour-God of the sacramental rite (which they may at this stage\nhave adopted in its \"pagan\" form, now taken as canonical) into a\nMessiah who was to \"come again,\" introducing the Jewish \"kingdom\nof heaven.\" At a later stage they adopted the rite of baptism,\ntraditionally associated with John, whom they represented as a\nForerunner of the Messiah who had met, baptized, and acclaimed him,\nplaying the part assigned by Jewish prophecy to Elias.\n\n4. As time passed on, such a cult would of necessity die out among\nJews, in default of the promised \"Second Coming.\" The connection of\nthe idea of salvation with a future life for all believers, Jew or\nGentile, gave it a new and larger lease of life throughout the Roman\nEmpire, in every part of which there were Asiatics. But the Jewish\ndoctrine of the Second Coming remained part of the developed teaching.\n\n5. Further machinery was accordingly necessary to spread and sustain\nthe cult; and this was spontaneously provided by (a) developments\nof the early and simple propagandist organization, and (b) provision\nfor the needs of the poor, who among the Gentiles as among the Jews\nwere the natural adherents of a faith promising the speedy closing\nof the earthly scene. Richer sympathizers won esteem by giving their\naid; but the poor, as always, helped each other. The propaganda\nincluded the services of travelling \"prophets,\" and \"apostles\" who\nwould be the natural compilers and inventors of Jesuine lore. The\nadministrative organization, framed on Hellenistic lines, put more\nand more power in the hands of the bishop, whose interest it was\nto develop his diocese. At first the \"prophets\" and \"apostles\" were\nstrictly peripatetic, being called upon to avoid the appearance of\nmercenariness. In course of time they were enabled to settle down,\nbeing systematically provided for.\n\n6. Under the hands of this organization grew up the Christian Sacred\nBooks, which gave the cult its footing as against, or rather alongside\nof, the Jewish, which in the circumstances had an irresistible and\nindispensable prestige. Thus on the literary side the Jewish influence\noverlaid the non-Jewish, assimilating the outside elements of scattered\nJesuism. The earliest literature is Jewish, as in the case of the\nDidach\u00ea, or a Jewish-Jesuist manipulation of outside Semitic matter,\nas in the Apocalypse. On these foundations are laid \"Christian\" strata.\n\n7. The Didach\u00ea (\"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles of the Lord\") was\nprimarily a brief manual of monotheistic and moral instruction used by\nthe Twelve Apostles of the Jewish High Priest. To this, Jesuist matter\nwas gradually added. The result was that \"Twelve Apostles\" became part\nof the Christian tradition; and they had ultimately to be imposed on\nthe gospel record, which obviously had not originally that item.\n\n8. The Epistles represent a polemic development, perhaps on the\nbasis of a few short Paulines. That of James, which has no specific\n\"Christian\" colour, represents Judaic resistance, in the Ebionite\ntemper of \"voluntary poverty,\" to the Gentilizing movement. The\nPaulines carry on doctrinal debate and construction against the\nJudaistic influence. The synoptic gospels, which in their present\nforms were developing about the same time, reflect those struggles\nprimarily in anti-Samaritan and pro-Samaritan pronouncements,\nboth ascribed to Jesus. Primarily the gospels are Judaic, and the\nGentilizing movement had naturally not employed them. Paul is made\nin effect to disclaim their aid. In time they are adopted and partly\nturned to anti-Judaic ends.\n\n9. The chief Gentile achievement in the matter is the development of\nthe primitive sacrament-motive and ritual (fundamentally dramatic)\ninto the mystery-play which is transcribed in the closing chapters\nof Matthew and Mark. Previous accounts of the foundation of the\nSacrament and the death of the Lord are now superseded by a vivid\nthough dramatically brief narrative in which the Jewish people\nare collectively saddled with the guilt of his death and the Roman\ngovernment is crudely and impossibly exonerated. The apostles in\ngeneral are made to play a poor part; one plays an impossible r\u00f4le\nof betrayer; and the legendary Judaizing apostle is made to deny his\nMaster. The whole story is thoroughly unhistorical, from the triumphal\nEntry to the quasi-regal crucifixion; but it embodied the main ritual\nfeatures of the traditional human sacrifice, and, there being simply\nno biographical record to compete with it, it held its ground. The\nmystery-play in its complete form was inferribly developed and played\nin a Gentile city; and its transcription probably coincided with its\ncessation as a drama. But the Sacrament was long a quasi-secret rite.\n\n10. The picture drawn in the Acts, in which Peter and Paul alike\n\"turn to the Gentiles\"--Peter taking the initiative--is the work of\na late and discreet redactor, bent on reconciling Jewish and Gentile\nfactors. It is a highly factitious account of early Christism; but\nit preserves traces of the early state of things, in which no Jesuine\nteaching was pretended to be current, and the cult is seen to exist in\na scattered form independently of the central propaganda. It evidently\nhad a footing in Samaria. The synoptics themselves reveal the absence\nof baptism from the early procedure of the cult. Only in the latest\nof the four canonical gospels is it pretended that either Jesus or\nhis disciples had baptized.\n\n11. The fourth gospel is only one more systematic step in the\nprocess of myth-making. The biographical school, in giving this\nup as unhistorical, in effect admits that the \"personality\" of the\nalleged Teacher had been so ineffectual as to admit of a successful\ninterposition of a new and thoroughly mythical figure, entirely\nsupernatural in theory, but more \"impressive\" as a speaking and\nquasi-human personage. The \"Logos\" of John is again an adaptation of\na Jewish adaptation of a pagan conception, the doctrine of the Logos\nset forth by the Alexandrian Jew Philo having come through Greek and\nEastern channels. [400] There was no critical faculty in the early\nChurch that could secure its rejection, though it was somewhat slow\nof acceptance. The doctrine of the Trinity is again an assimilation\nfrom paganism, proximately Egyptian. [401]\n\nSuch, in outline, is our working hypothesis. As explained at the\noutset, it is not supposed that so complex a problem can in so\nbrief a space and time be conclusively solved; and criticism will\ndoubtless involve modification when criticism is scientifically\napplied. To such scientific criticism the production of a complete\noutline may be an aid; previous debate, even when rational in temper,\nhaving been spent on some of the \"trees\" without regard to the \"wood\"\nin general. All that is claimed for the complete hypothesis is that\nit is at all points inductively reached, and that for that reason it\nsquares better with the whole facts than any form of the biographical\ntheory--including the highly attenuated \"eschatological\" form in which\nJesus is conceived solely as a proclaimer of \"the last things.\" That\nthesis, indeed, reduces the biographical theory to complete nullity\nby leaving the mass of the record without any explanation save the\nmythical one, which suffices equally to account for eschatology.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nSUPPLEMENTARY MYTH\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Myths of Healing\n\nIt is significant that the later myth-making of the synoptics is partly\nby way of reversion to the folk-lore in which the myth had risen,\npartly by way of meeting non-Jewish Messianic requirements, partly by\nway of Gentilism, partly by way of concessions to the Gnosticism or\noccultism whose pretensions in the second century exercised so strong\na pressure on the Church. As Professor Smith points out, the story\nin Mark (xiv, 51-52) of the youth who at the betrayal fled naked,\nleaving his linen cloth in the hands of the captors, [402] is a\ncrude provision for the Docetic theory that the real Christ did not\nsuffer. Cerinthus taught that \"at last Christ departed from Jesus,\nand that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained\nimpassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.\" [403]\n\nIn this connection there arises for us the problem, stressed by\nProfessor Smith, as to the significance of the stories of wholesale\nhealing and casting out of devils. His thesis is that they were an\noccult way of conveying the claim that Jesus by preaching monotheism\nhad cast out in Galilee the diseases and corruptions of polytheism,\npagan deities being \"devils\" for the Jew. And in view of the repeated\nassertion, on Gnostic lines, that Jesus declared his teaching to\nbe made purposely occult, so as not to be understood by the people,\nwe cannot deny the possibility that some of the stories of healing\nmay have been so intended. Professor Smith, as I understand him,\nargues [404] that a straightforward claim of wholesale overthrowing\nof paganism would have offended the Roman Government; and that the\nclaim was put by metaphor to avoid that. The difficulty arises that\nif the metaphor was not understood by Gentiles it missed its mark with\nthem; while if they did understand it their susceptibilities would be\nparticularly wounded by the metaphors of leprosy and blindness and\n\"devils.\" And there is the further difficulty that, as Professor\nSmith notes, the stories of casting out devils relate solely to\nhalf-heathen Galilee, while, as he also notes, there is no ultimate\ntrace of Jesuism there. [405] Why then should an allegory of casting\nout polytheism have been framed concerning Galilee?\n\nOn any view, it can hardly be doubted that the stories of healing\nmade their popular appeal as simple miracles. Professor Schmiedel's\nargument that the claim of Jesus (Mt. xi, 5; Lk. vii, 22) to heal\nblindness and lameness and leprosy, and to raise the dead, must be\nunderstood in a spiritual sense, seems to me a complete failure. He\ncontends that if it be taken literally the final claim that \"the\npoor have the gospel preached to them\" is an anti-climax. But if we\ntake the miracle-claims to be merely spiritual, the anti-climax is\nabsolute; for the proposition then runs that the blind, the lame, the\nleprous, and the spiritually dead have the gospel preached to them,\nand the poor have the gospel preached to them also. On the other hand,\nthere is no real anti-climax on a literal interpretation. Plainly,\nthe provision of good tidings for the merely poor, the most numerous\nsuffering class of all, was the one thing that could be said to be\ndone for them. It could not be pretended that they had been made\nwealthy. Thus a \"pillar-text\" falls, and we are left committed to the\nliteral interpretation as against both Professor Smith and Professor\nSchmiedel. Both, however, will probably agree that most readers always\ntook the literal view. [406]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Birth-Myths\n\nAnd it was to the popular credulity that appeal was made by the stories\nof the Annunciation, the Virgin Birth, the Adoration by the Magi and\nthe Shepherds, the stable, the manger, [407] the menace of Herod,\nthe massacre, and the flight. [408] The question that here arises for\nthe mythologist is whether the birth-myths had belonged to the early\nJesus-myth at a stage before gospel-making commenced, and had at first\nbeen ignored, only to be embodied later. For suggesting that they had\nbeen connected with the early myth I have been told by Dr. Carpenter\nand Dr. Conybeare that I ignored the late acceptance of the Christmas\nBirthday by \"the Church,\" after I had expressly noted the late date\nof that acceptance. These critics, as usual, miss the whole problem.\n\nEither the birth-stories were old lore in Syria (or elsewhere in the\nEast) [409] or they were not. If not, their imposition on the gospel\nstory in the second century represents an assimilation of quite alien\npagan matter, with the assent of the main body of Jewish Nazar\u00e6ans,\nwho accepted the opening chapters of the canonical Matthew. Of\nsuch an assent, no explanation can be given from the standpoint\nor standpoints of Dr. Conybeare and Dr. Carpenter. It would be a\ngratuitous capitulation to Gentilism in a Jewish atmosphere, and\nthis without any sign on the Pauline side of a Gentile obtrusion of\nsuch matter. [410] But if, on the other hand, we put the hypothesis\nthat such matter had been connected in Syrian folk-lore with the old\nJesus-myth, we at once find an explanation for the additions to the\ngospel-story and a new elucidation of the myth-theory. The spread of\nthe Jesus cult would bring to the front the primitive myths connected\nwith it which the reigning Judaic sentiment had at first kept out\nof sight as savouring of heathenism; and all Jesus-lore would have\na progressive interest for converts. Judaism, in its redacted sacred\nbooks, admitted of quasi-supernatural births in such cases as those\nof Sarah and Hannah; but an absolute virgin birth, a commonplace in\nheathen mythology, [411] had there no recognition. Yet the idea was\nas likely to survive in folk-lore in Syria as anywhere else; and as\nJudaism became more and more a hostile thing, Judaic views would tend\nin various ways to be set aside.\n\nThe hypothesis put by me is (1) that the certainly unhistorical\nMiriam of the Pentateuch is inferribly, like Moses and Joshua,\nan ancient deity; and that in old Palestinian myth she was the\nmother of Joshua. In the Pentateuch she is degraded, as part of the\nEvemeristic process of reducing the ancient popular Gods to human\nstatus. That process, which affects Goddesses as well as Gods in\nseveral ancient religions, [412] was for the Hebrew priesthood a\nnecessary rule. Polytheism was everywhere, in antiquity, and for\nthe Yahwists it must be cast out. A late Persian tradition that\nJoshua was the son of Miriam [413] accents the query whether there\nwere no family relationships in the old Palestinian myths. That the\nbirth in a stable, with a ritual of babe-worship at the winter or\nsummer solstice, is very ancient both in the East and in the West,\nis the conclusion forced on the mythologist by a mass of evidence;\nand the location of the stable at Bethlehem in a cave connects the\nChristian myth yet further with a number of those of paganism. [414]\nIf the matter of the myth was ancient for Syria, why should not the\nnames of the mother and the child be so?\n\nThe fashion in which the hypothesis is met by the more impassioned\nadherents of the biographical view is instructive. Dr. Conybeare,\nwho thinks it inconceivable that \"a myth\" should be mistaken for \"a\nman\"--though that mistake is the gist of masses of mythology--finds no\ndifficulty in conceiving that a real woman may be turned into a myth\nwithin a century. For him, the gospel \"Mary\" (Maria or Mariam) must\nbe a real Jewess because in Mark (vi, 3) the people of Nazareth ask:\n\"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James,\nand Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters with us?\" Any\nthoughtful reader, comparing such a suddenly projected passage with\nthe opening chapters, realizes that it is on a wholly different plane\nof ideas; that no one \"author\" can have posited both; and that the\nlater is part of a process of localization and debate, in connection\nwith the thesis that the healer could \"do no wonder-work\" at home\nbecause of the unbelief of his own people. Furthermore, in Mark xv,\n40, we have the group of women which includes \"Mary the mother of James\nthe Little and of Joses,\" concerning whom we are told that when Jesus\nwas in Galilee they \"followed him, and ministered unto him.\" How many\nMaries, then, were mothers of James and Joses? Evidently the Mary\nof the latter passage is not regarded by its writer as the mother\nof Jesus. Then the prior passage is the later in order of time,\nand alien to the other legends.\n\nOur exegete, nevertheless, is not only at once dogmatically certain\nthat he has found a real Jesus, son of Mary, but proceeds to assert,\nin three separate passages, that in Mark's gospel Jesus is known as\n\"the son of Joseph and Mary,\" though Joseph is never mentioned in that\ngospel. It is of a piece with his instantaneous invention of a \"genuine\ntradition\" out of a modern hint, perverted. And it is this operator\nwho, meeting with a list of analogies (so described) which suggest that\n\"Miriam\" and \"Mariam\" are variants of a Mother-Goddess name generally\ncurrent through the East, becomes incoherent in explosive protest,\nand begins by informing me that the \"original form of the name is\nnot Maria but Miriam, which does not lend itself to [these] hardy\nequations.\" As Miriam had been expressly named and discussed by me\nin the very first instance, the intimation tells only of the mental\ndisconnection which is the general mark of this writer's procedure.\n\nThe question, of course, is not philological at all; and not only\nwas no philological \"equation\" ever hinted at, but the very passage\nattacked begins with the avowal that it is impossible to prove\nhistorical connections, and that what is in question is analogy of\n\"name and epithets.\" Nothing in philology is more speculative than\nthe explanation of early names. Any one who has noted the discussion\nover \"Moses,\" and noted the diverging theories, from the Coptic\n\"water-rescued\" or \"water-child\" (mo-use) of Josephus and Philo and\nJablonski and Deutsch to the Egyptian \"child\" (mes or mesu) of Lepsius\nand Dillmann, and the inference of an \"abbreviation of a theophorous\nEgyptian name\" drawn by Renan and Guthe, will see that there is\nsmall light to be had from \"equations.\" When \"Miriam\" is expertly\ndescribed as \"a distortion either of Merari [misri] or of Amramith,\"\n[415] the mythologist is moved to seek for other clues. The philology\nof Maria and Mariam is a hopeless problem.\n\nNow, if the Moses legend is to be held Egyptian, the Miriam legend\nmay well be so too; and in the items that the Egyptian princess who\nsaves the child Moses is in a Jewish legend named Merris, and that\none of the daughters of Ramses II is found to be named Meri, [416] the\nanalogy is worth noting. But the central mythological fact is that a\nMother-Goddess, a \"Madonna\" nursing a child, is one of the commonest\nobjects of ancient worship throughout Asia and North Africa. [417]\nWhen, then, mothers of Gods born in caves, or Dying Demigods, are found\nbearing such names as Myrrha and Maia; when Maia is noted to have the\nmeaning \"nurse,\" and Mylitta that of \"the child-bearing one,\" we are\nnot only moved to surmise a Mother-Goddess-name of many variants, of\nwhich Miriam-Mariam is one, but to infer a wide diffusion of legends\nconcerning such a goddess-type. Figures of such a goddess abounded\nthroughout the East. [418] That is, in brief, the mythological case at\nthis point. Mary in the gospels, the virgin bearing a divine child,\nflying from danger, and bearing her child on a journey, in a cave,\nis the analogue of a dozen ancient myths of the Divine Child; the\nMenaced Child is common to the myths of Moses and Sargon, Krishna\nand Cyrus, Arthur and Herakles; the stable-ritual of the Adoration\nis prehistoric in India in connection with Krishna; the \"manger\"\n(a basket) belongs equally to the myths of Zeus, Hermes, Ion and\nDionysos; and the threatening king is a myth-figure found alike in\nEast and West. [419]\n\nAll this is ostensibly \"sun-myth.\" And we are asked by Dr. Conybeare\nto believe, on the strength of one late and palpable interpolation in\nMark, which has no other word concerning the childhood, parentage,\nor birthplace of Jesus, its Son of God, that his mother Mary was\na well-known figure in Nazareth about the year 30, and that it is\nmerely she who is made to play the mythic part in Matthew about a\ncentury later. The simple use of common-sense, even by a reader who\nhas not studied comparative mythology, will reveal the improbability\nof such a development; and Dr. Conybeare, who vehemently denies, for\nother purposes, that the early Christians in Palestine could have any\nknowledge of pagan myths, is the last person who could consistently\naffirm it. But when we realize that under the shell of official Judaism\nthere subsisted in Palestine as everywhere else the folk-lore of the\npast; [420] when we remember the \"weeping for Tammuz\" at Jerusalem\nand the location of the birth of Adonis in the very stable-cave of\nthe Christ-legend at Bethlehem, we can quite rationally conceive how,\nonce the Jesus-myth was well re-established, old pre-Judaic elements\nof it came to the front, and found from the later gospel-compilers\na welcome they could not have had in the Judaizing days. [421]\n\nThe Joseph myth, again, is a very obvious construction. In Mark,\nwhich Dr. Conybeare repeatedly and shrilly declares to be the primary\nauthority, Joseph is never once mentioned, though Dr. Conybeare,\nwith the eye of imagination, finds that he is. In Matthew, he figures\nthroughout the birth-story of the opening section, admittedly a late\naddition. In Luke, still later, he is still further developed, Mark's\n\"son of Mary\" becoming (iv, 22) \"the son of Joseph,\" in a palpably late\nfiction. Any critical method worthy of the name would reckon with such\nplain marks of late fabrication. Joseph has been super-imposed on the\nmyth for a reason; and the reason is that a Messiah \"the Son of Joseph\"\nwas demanded from the Samaritan side as a Messiah the Son of David\nwas demanded (albeit not universally) from the Judaic side. [422] By\nnaming Jesus' earthly putative father Joseph, in the Davidic descent,\nboth requirements were met, on lines of traditionalist psychology.\n\nWhen this solution is met by the Unitarian thesis that the idea\nof a Messiah Ben Joseph is late in Judaism, and that it arose out\nof the gospel story, we can but appeal to the common-sense of the\nreader. [423] For the Rabbis to set up such a formula on such a\nmotive would be an inconceivable self-stultification. The lateness\nof Rabbinical discussion on the subject can be quite reasonably\nexplained through its Samaritan origination. All the while, the\nJoseph story in the gospels belongs precisely to that late legend\nwhich the neo-Unitarian school is bound in consistency to reject as\nmyth. But the prepossession in favour of a \"human Jesus\" balks at\nno inconsistency, and selects its items not on critical principles\nbut simply in so far as they can be made to compose with a \"human\"\nfigure that is to be conserved at all costs.\n\nThe curious myth-motive of the \"taxing\" [424] at Bethlehem in Luke,\nan utterly unhistorical episode, has a remarkable parallel in the\nKrishna-myth, [425] which has been cited in support of the thesis\nthat that myth in general is derived from the Christian story. The\ngeneral thesis breaks down completely; [426] and in this one instance\nwe are obviously entitled to ask whether the Christian myth is not\nderived from some intermediate Asiatic source connecting with the\nIndian. [427] As a mere invention to motive the birth at Bethlehem\nthe story seems exceptionally extravagant.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Minor Myths\n\nTo discuss in similar detail the myths of the Apocryphal gospels\nand the still later myths of Catholic Christendom would only be to\nextend the area of our demonstration without adding to its scientific\nweight. The general result would only be to prove derivations from\npagan sources and to exhibit more fully the process (a) of inventing\nsayings of Jesus to vindicate different views of his Messianic\nand other functions, and (b) of enforcing ethical views by his\nauthority. The legend of St. Christopher, for instance, is but a\nvariant, probably iconographic in motive, of a multiform pagan myth\nwhich probably roots in a ritual of child-carrying. [428] Iconography\nyields many evidences. The conventional figure of the Good-Shepherd\ncarrying a sheep, which like the Birth-Story has counted for so much\nin popularizing Christianity, is admittedly derived from pagan art,\n[429] like the conventional angel-figure. Even the figure of Peter\n[430] as the bearer of the keys, head of the Twelve, and denier of his\nLord, connects curiously with the myths of Proteus and Janus Bifrons,\n[431] both bearers of the cosmic keys.\n\nIconography, again, is probably the source, for the gospels, of the\nmyth of the Temptation, which professional scholars continue solemnly\nto discuss as a \"biographical\" episode to be somehow reduced to\nhistoricity. The story coincides so absolutely with the Gr\u00e6co-Roman\naccount, evidently derived from painting or sculpture, of Pan (in\nfigure the Satan of the Jews) standing by the young Jupiter on a\nmountain-top before an altar, [432] that it might seem unnecessary\nto go further. But, recognizing that \"of myth there is no 'original,'\nsave man's immemorial dream,\" and remembering that there are similar\nTemptation myths concerning Buddha and Zarathustra, we are bound to\nextend the inquiry. The results are very interesting.\n\nWe are specially concerned with the versions of Matthew and Luke,\nof which Dr. Spitta, by analysis, finds the Lucan the earlier,\n[433] pronouncing the Marcan to be a curtailment and manipulation,\nnot the primary source, as was maintained by Von Harnack and many\nothers. [434] The essence of the story, as episode, is the presence\nof the God and the Adversary on a high place, surveying \"the kingdoms\nof the world.\" This originates proximately in Babylonian astronomy\nand astrology, where the Goat-God is represented standing beside\nthe Sun-God on \"the mountain of the world,\" that is, the height of\nthe heavens, at the beginning of the sun's yearly course in the\nsign Capricorn, which, personified, figures as the sun's tutor\nand guide. Graphically represented, it is the origin of a series\nof Greek myths--Pan and Zeus; Marsyas and Apollo; Silenus and\nDionysos--all turning on a goat-legged figure beside a young God on\na mountain-top. Satan and Jesus are but another variant, probably\nderiving from Greek iconography, but possibly more directly from the\nEast, where the idea of a Temptation goes back to the Vedas.\n\nThe theologians, reluctantly admitting, of late, that the Devil could\nnot carry Jesus through the air, anxiously debate as to whether or\nnot Jesus had strange psychic experiences which he communicated to\nhis disciples; and, utterly ignoring comparative mythology, look for\nmotivation, as usual, only in the Old Testament. Spitta, after checking\nthese researches, and declaring that the man is not to be envied who\nhopes to explain the story by Old Testament parallels from the forty\nyears of wandering in the wilderness, [435] confidently concludes\nthat it stands for the spiritual experience of Jesus in regard to\nhis Messianic ideal. [436] To such a biographical inference he has\nnot the slightest critical right on his own principles. The gospels\nsay nothing whatever of any communication on the subject by Jesus\nto his disciples. The story is myth pure and simple, and belongs to\nuniversal mythology.\n\nMark turned the story to the illustration of the doctrine laid down\nin the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, [437] that devils and wild\nbeasts will flee from the righteous man; and Luke and Matthew turn it\ninto an affirmation of the theological maxims of Jewish monotheism; but\nthese are simply the invariable practices of the evangelists, steeped\nin the habits of thought of Jewish symbolism. The myth remains; and the\nstory, as story, has counted for a great deal more in Christian popular\nlore than the theology. When the writer of the fourth gospel put the\nmiracle of turning water into wine in the forefront of his work, he\ndoubtless had symbolic intentions; [438] but his story is simply an\nadaptation of the annual Dionysiac rite of turning water into wine at\nthe festival of the God on Twelfth Night. [439] It may have come either\nfrom the Greek or from the eastern side. The duplicated tale of the\nFeeding of the Five Thousand, again, is either an adaptation of or an\nattempt to excel the story of the feeding of the host of Dionysos in\na waterless desert in his campaign against the Titans. [440] As the\nGod had the power of miraculously producing, by touch, corn and wine\nand oil, his lore doubtless included miracles of feeding. The touch\nof the seating of the people \"in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties\"\n(Mk. vi, 40) suggests a pictorial source.\n\nThus did paganism, chased out of the window of early Judaic\nChristianity, re-enter by all the doors, supplying the growing Church\nwith the forms of psychic and literary attraction which ultimately\nserved to give it a general hold over the ignorant and uncivilized\nmasses of decadent and barbaric Europe. [441] Even with that machinery,\nthe Church was dissolving in universal schism when Constantine saved\nit--or at least its body--by establishing it. As the Church broadened\nits basis, especially after its establishment, its assimilation of\npagan ideas, names and practices, became so general that the process\nhas long been made a standing ground of Protestant impeachment of the\nChurch of Rome. [442] Middleton's Letter from Rome (1729) may be said\nto begin the scientific investigation, which is still going on. [443]\n\nOf that process the myth-theory is simply the attempted scientific\nconsummation. It is resisted as every previous step was resisted,\nbefore and after Middleton, partly in sincere religious conviction,\npartly on the simple instinctive resentment felt for every \"upsetting\"\ntheory about matters which men have habitually taken for granted. Some\nof the best reasoned resistance comes from professional theologians who\nhave been disciplined by the habit of exact argument in the documentary\nfield; some of the worst, as we have seen, comes from professed\nrationalists or Neo-Unitarians, who bring to the problem first and\nlast the temper of spleen and bluster which history associates with\nthe typical priest. Bluster never settles anything: argument, given\nfree play under conditions which foster the intellectual life, in the\nend settles everything, even for the emotionalists who worship their\ninstincts. But as historical like physical science is a process of\ncontinuous expansion and reconsideration, there can in this contest\nbe no \"triumph\" for anything but the principle of unending renewal\nof thought, which is but an aspect of the principle of life. Insofar\nas the solution now offered is inadequate, it will in due course be\nimproved upon; insofar as it is false, it will be ousted.\n\nThe average cleric, of course, does not attempt confutation. Realizing\nthat it is prudent to avoid debate on such matters, he relies on the\nproved proclivity of \"human nature\" to beliefs which fall-in with\nhabit, normal emotion, and normal religiosity; and his faith is,\npractically speaking, not ill-grounded. A thesis which looks first\nand last to scientific truth is therefore not addressed to him. It is\naddressed to the more earnest of the laity and the clerisy--hardly to\nthose indeed who hold, as an amiable curate once put it to me, that\n\"in the providence of God\" all heresy is short-lived; but to those who,\ncaring for righteousness, do not on that score cast out the spirit of\ntruth. Many such are honestly convinced that the teaching on which\nthey have been taught to found their conceptions of goodness cannot\nbe the accretion of a myth; and many who acknowledge an abundance of\nmyth in the documents are still insistent on elements of \"religious\"\ntruth which they find even in systematic forgeries. The countenance\nthus given by the more liberal and critical theologians to the more\nuncritical stands constantly in the way even of the acceptance of the\ncomparatively rational views of the former. [444] There is reason then\nto ask whether the notion that human conduct is in any way dependent\non visionary beliefs is any sounder than those beliefs themselves. On\nthis head, something falls to be said in conclusion.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\nNot only to the myth-theory but to every attempt at ejecting historical\nfalsity from religion there has been offered the objection that\nreligion \"does good\"; that mankind needs \"some religion or other\";\nand that to \"undermine faith\" does social harm, even if it be by\nway of driving out delusion. This position is not at all special to\northodoxy. It was taken up by Middleton; by Kant, when he shaped a\n\"practical\" basis for theistic belief after eliminating the theoretic,\nand counselled unbelieving clergymen to use the Bible for purposes of\npopular moral education; by Voltaire when he combated atheism after\nbombarding Christianity; and by Paine when he wrote his Age of Reason\nto save the belief in God.\n\nInsofar as the general plea merely amounts to saying that mankind\ncannot conceivably give up its traditional religion at a stroke; that\nliberal-minded priests are better than illiberal, for all purposes;\nand that in a world dominated by economic need it is impossible for\nmany enlightened clergymen to secure a living save in the profession\nfor which they were trained, I am not at all concerned to combat\nit. For the liberal priest, enlightened too late to reshape his\neconomic career, I have nothing but sympathy, provided that he in no\nway hampers the intellectual progress of others. Insofar, again, as the\nplea for \"religion\" is merely a plea for a word, or a thesis that all\nearnest conviction about life is religion, it is quite irrelevant to\nthe present discussion. The rationalists who feel they cannot face the\nworld without the label of \"religion\" for their theory of the cosmos\nand of conduct will be in the same position whether they believe\nin a \"historical Jesus\" or not; and those who must have a humanist\n\"liturgy\" of some sort in place of the ecclesiastical are apparently\nnot troubled by problems of historicity. What we are concerned with\nis the notion that to deny the historicity of Jesus is somehow to\nimperil not only ethics but historical science.\n\nM. Loisy puts the last point in his suggestion, in criticism of Drews,\nthat he who thinks to break down either all the traditional or the\n\"liberal\" orthodoxies by denying the historic actuality of Jesus\nwill find he has \"only furnished to their defenders the occasion\nto persuade a certain not uncultivated public that the divinity of\nChrist, or at least the unique character of his personality, is as\nwell guaranteed as the reality of his life and his death.\" [445]\nHad M. Loisy then forgotten that his own attempts to elide from the\ndocuments a number of details which he saw to be mythical have given\noccasion to the defenders of the faith to assure a not uncultivated\npublic that the disintegration of the gospels destroyed all ground\nfor belief in any part of them? [446]\n\nWe on this side of the Channel might meet such challenges, grounded\non the susceptibilities of the \"public,\" with the demand of our great\nhumorist, Mr. Birrell: \"What, in the name of the Bodleian, has the\ngeneral public got to do with literature? The general public ... has\nits intellectual, like its lacteal sustenance, sent round to it in\ncarts.\" [447]\n\nBut we must not turn the jest to earnest. There are plenty of\nhonest laymen to play the jury; and to them let it be put. The issue\nbetween us and M. Loisy, as he virtually admits, must be fought out by\nargument. It is perfectly true, as he says, that \"in principle, nothing\nis more legitimate, more necessary, than the comparative method;\nbut nothing is more delicate to handle.\" [448] Every issue, then,\nmust be vigilantly debated. But the obligation is reciprocal. In these\ninquiries we have found M. Loisy many times in untenable positions,\nand resorting to inconsistent arguments. The tests which he applies to\na mass of tradition are equally destructive to most of what he retains.\n\nLet illicit employments of the comparative method be discredited by all\nmeans; but let us also have done with a criticism which on one leaf\nclaims that Jesus gave a \"homogeneous\" teaching which his disciples\ncould not have \"combined,\" and on the next avows that \"the gospel ethic\nis no more consistent than the hope of the kingdom.\" [449] And when\nthe myth-theorists are called upon to make no unwarranted assumptions,\nlet us also have an end of such assertions as that \"twenty-five or\nthirty years after the death of Jesus the principal sentences and\nparables of which the apostolic generation had kept memory were put\nin writing.\" [450] This is pure hypothesis, unsupported by evidence.\n\nThe issue between us and M. Loisy, once more, is not one in which\nmerely he assails the myth-theory as outgoing its proofs: it is one\nin which his positions are at the same time assailed all along the\nline, and particularly at its centre, as incapable of resisting\ncritical pressure. By all means let us seek that \"the science of\nreligion should be applied without preoccupations of contemporary\npropaganda or polemic.\" The present writer reached the myth-theory\nnot by way of propaganda but as a result of sheer protracted failure\nto establish a presupposed historical foundation. Professor Smith\ndisclaims all criticism of \"Christianity.\" And if Professor Drews\nbe blamed for avowing a religious aim, the answer is that he would\notherwise be assailed as \"irreligious,\" alike in his own country and\nelsewhere. The myth-theory has to meet other foes than M. Loisy.\n\nIt is remarkable that Professor Schmiedel, who has gone nearly as far\nas M. Loisy in recognizing in detail the force of the pressures on the\nhistorical position, makes the avowal: \"My inmost religious convictions\nwould suffer no harm, even if I now felt obliged to conclude that\nJesus never lived,\" [451] though as a critical historian he \"sees no\nprospect of this.\" He further avows that his religion does not require\nhim \"to find in Jesus an absolutely perfect model,\" and that in effect\nhe does not find him so. [452] And he wrote in 1906 that \"for about six\nyears the view that Jesus never really lived has gained an ever-growing\nnumber of supporters,\" [453] adding that \"it is no use to ignore it,\nor to frame resolutions against it.\" It is accordingly with no kind of\npolemic motive as against so entirely candid a writer that I suggest\ncertain criticisms of his emotional positions as tending unconsciously\nto affect his judgment of the critical problem.\n\nIt is after the avowals above cited that he writes:-- [454]\n\n\n    Nor do I ask whether in Jesus' faith and ethical system what he had\n    to offer was new. Was it able to give me something that would warm\n    my heart and strengthen my life?--that is all I ask. What does it\n    matter if one of the ideas of Jesus had been expressed once already\n    in India, another once already in Greece, a third once already, or\n    many times, by the Old Testament prophets, or by the much-praised\n    Jewish Rabbis shortly before the time of Jesus? Such ideas may\n    be found in books: that is all. What we ought to feel grateful to\n    Jesus for, is that he was destined for the first time to make the\n    ideas take effect and influence the lives of mankind in general.\n\n\nIt would, I think, be difficult to over-estimate the amount of\npsychic bias involved in that pronouncement, which contains a theorem\nno more fitly to be taken for granted than any concrete historic\nproposition. The Professor, it will be observed, does not specify\na single teaching of Jesus as new, while admitting that some were\nnot. What he says is, in effect, that other utterances of Jesuine\ndoctrines do not \"warm the heart\"; that those of Jesus do; and that\nthey \"for the first time\" caused certain doctrines to \"take effect\nand influence the lives of mankind in general.\" What doctrines then\nare meant, and what effects are posited? And why do other utterances\nof the doctrines not \"warm the heart\"?\n\nPresumably the doctrines in question are those of mutual love, of\nforgiveness of enemies, of doing as we would be done by. Concerning\nthe gospel doctrine of reward the Professor makes a disclaimer; and\nconcerning the doctrine that God cares for men as for the lilies\nand the birds he pronounces that it is \"to-day not merely untrue:\nit is not even religious in the deepest sense of the term.\" [455]\nIt is not then clear that he would acclaim the doctrine that to help\nthe distressed is to succour the Lord. In any case, the detailed\nreligious prescription of beneficence was not merely a Jewish maxim:\nit was an article of Egyptian religion; [456] and it can hardly be in\nrespect of such teaching that the Professor affirms a new \"influence\non the lives of mankind in general.\"\n\nIs it then in respect of mutual love and the forgiveness of\nenemies? If so, when did the change begin? Among the apostles? Among\nthe Fathers? Among the bishops? Among the Popes? To put the issue\nbroadly, was there more of good human life in Byzantium than in pagan\nGreece; or even in the Rome of the Decadence and the Dark and Middle\nAges than in the Rome of the Republic? Was it because of Christian\ngoodness that the decline of Rome was accelerated instead of being\nchecked? And, to come to our own day, is the World War an evidence\nfor an ethical change wrought by the teaching of Jesus--a war forced\non the world by a Germany where there are more systematic students of\nthe gospels than in all the rest of Europe? I leave it to Professor\nSchmiedel and Professor Drews to settle the point between them. They\nwould perhaps agree--though as to this I am uncertain--on the Jesuine\ndoctrine that morality is \"nothing more than obedience to the will\nof God\"; and that \"every deed is to be judged by the standard, Will\nit bear the gaze of God?\" [457] In any case I will affirm, for the\nconsideration of those who on any such ground cling to the notion of\nsomething unique in the teaching of Jesus, that humanity is likely to\nmake a much better world when it substitutes for such a moral standard,\nwhich is but a self-deluding substitution of God for the conscience\nthat delimits God, the principle of goodwill towards men, and the law\nof reciprocity, articulately known to the mass of mankind millenniums\nbefore the Christian era, and all along disobeyed, then as now,\npartly because religious codes intervene between it and life. [458]\n\nIf it be admitted--and who will considerately deny it?--that the moral\nprogress of mankind is made in virtue of recognition of the law of\nreciprocity, the case for the general moral influence of Christianity\nis disposed of, once for all. If the affirmation be still made, let\nit confront the challenge of rational sociology, [459] founded on the\nsurvey of all history--and the World War. Professor Schmiedel's large\naffirmation is vain in the face of all that. His real psychic basis,\nwhich in my judgment determines his critical presuppositions, lies in\nthe phrase: \"warms my heart.\" And that phrase is a tacit confession\nof religious partisanship, the result of his Christian training. [460]\n\nThe more the moral teaching of the gospels is comparatively studied,\nas apart from their myths of action and dogma, the more clear becomes\nits entire dependence on previous lore, [461] and its failure even\nto maintain the level of the best of that. The Sermon on the Mount\nis wholly pre-Christian. [462] It is a Christian scholar who points\nout that the Christian doctrine of forgiveness is fully set forth\nin the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a century before the\nChristian era. In his view, those verses [463] \"contain the most\nremarkable statement on the subject of forgiveness in all ancient\nliterature.\" [464] Why then does it not warm the heart of Professor\nSchmiedel equally with the doctrine of the gospels? Simply because he\nwas brought up to assign pre-eminence to the teaching of Jesus--God\nor Man. And here we have, in its fundamental form, that unchecked\nassumption of \"uniqueness\" which secretly dictates the bulk of the\ndenials of the myth-theory. Canon Charles explicitly traces the\nJesuine teaching to the verses in question:\n\n\n    That our Lord was acquainted with them, and that His teaching\n    presupposes them, we must infer from the fact that the parallel\n    is so perfect in thought and so close in diction between them and\n    Luke xvii, 3; Matt. xvii, 15. [465] The meaning of forgiveness\n    in both cases is the highest and noblest known to us....\n\n\nOne puts with diffidence the challenge, Was it then high and noble for\nthe Teacher to give out as his own the teaching of another, instead\nof acknowledging it? Is it not incomparably more likely, on every\naspect of the case, that the older teaching was thus appropriated by\ngospel-makers bent at once on giving the Divine One a high message\nand on securing acceptance for it by putting it in his mouth? Is not\nthis the strict critical verdict, apart from any other issue?\n\nThe bias which balks at such a decision is the sign of the harm done\nto intellectual ethic by the inculcated presupposition. It ought to\n\"warm the heart\" of a good man to realize that the ideas which he has\nbeen taught to think the noblest were not the \"unique\" production of\na Superman, but could be and were reached by Jews and Gentiles--for\nthey are Gentile also--whose very names are unknown to us. A doctrine\nof forgiveness arose in prostrate Jewry precisely because rancour\nhad there reached its maximum. As a doctrine of asceticism rises in\na society where license has been at the extreme, so the phenomena of\nhate breed a recoil from that. The doctrine of non-resistance was\ncurrent among the Pharisees of the period of the Maccabean revolt;\nand the Testaments of the Patriarchs is the work of a Pharisee. And\nthe gospels have nevertheless taught all Christians to regard the\nPharisees collectively, with the Scribes, as a body devoid of all\ngoodness. There is, be it said--not for the first time--a pessimism\nin the Christian conception of things; a pessimism which denies\nthe element of goodness in man in the very act of ascribing it as a\nspecialty to One, and relying on his \"influence\" to spread it among\nmen incapable of rising to it for themselves. The story of Lycurgus and\nAlcander is the best ancient example to the precept, quite transcending\nthat of the good Samaritan, [466] and it is one of the antidotes to\nthe Christian pessimism which stultifies its own parable by denying\nin effect that The Samaritan could think as ethically as The Jew.\n\nIt is pessimism, yet again, that accepts the verdict: \"Christianity is\nthe truth of humanity.\" [467] Were it not that Dr. Schmiedel endorses\nit, I should have been inclined to use a stronger term. This too is\nmyth-making. It would be strange indeed if any depth of truth were\nsounded by men who had not the first elements of a conscience for\ntruth of statement, truth of history: whose very notion of truth\nwas a production of fiction. The \"truth of humanity\" is something\ninfinitely wider than the structure raised by the \"prophets\" and\n\"apostles\" of the Jesus-cult, out of pre-existing materials, some\ntwo thousand years ago; and humanity will outlive that presentment of\nits cosmos and its destinies as it has outlived others. If it should\ncarry something of the one with it, so does it from the others--even\nas the one drew from its predecessors; and it will certainly jettison\nmore than it will keep. I have not noted in the Testaments of the\nPatriarchs any such nullification of its doctrine of forgiveness\nas is embodied in the promise of future perdition for Chorazin and\nBethsaida, or in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, to say nothing\nof the Jesuine doctrine of future torment. The hate that breathes in\n\"Ye brood of vipers\"; in the continual malediction against Scribes\nand Pharisees as universally hypocrites, \"sons of Gehenna,\" making\ntheir proselytes twice as bad as themselves; and in the Johannine\n\"your father the devil\"--all these are \"Christian\" specialties,\nturning to naught the Jewish precept of forgiveness.\n\nAnd I can \"see no prospect\" of a long currency for Professor\nSchmiedel's panegyric of fictitious sayings in Acts [468] as \"of the\ndeepest that can be said about the inner Christian life.\" If that\nbe so, what amount of profundity goes to the whole construction\nof the faith? How long is it to be maintained that the secret or\ninspiration of good life lies in the ideas of men for whom the framing\nof false history was a pious occupation? The main ethical content\nof the Christian system, the moral doctrine by which the Church\nhas lived down till the other day, is the ethic-defying doctrine\nof the redemption of mankind by a blood sacrifice--a survival of\nimmemorial savagery. That is still the specifically \"evangelical\"\nview of Christianity. After living by the doctrine through two eras,\nthe slowly civilizing conscience of the Church has itself begun\nto repudiate it; and we have the characteristic spectacle of its\ndefenders declaring that the very terms of the historic creed form a\nlibel framed by its enemies. Taught at last by human reason that the\ndoctrine of sacrifice is the negation of morality, they pretend that\nthat doctrine is not Christian. Without it, their Church would never\nhave taken its historic form. To eliminate it, they have to suppress\nhalf their literature, prose and verse. The accommodations by which\nthe fundamental immorality has been modified in the interests of\nsaner morality are but the dictates of human experience; and these\ndictates are in turn pretended to be the revelation of the faith that\nflouted them.\n\nUnless the world is again to retrogress collectively in its\ncivilization, this polemic will not long avail to obscure historic\nissues. It is not merely the \"religion\" of Professor Drews, it is\nthe emancipated human reason, that denies the mortmain of ancient\nSyria over the field of ethical thought, and claims the birthright\nof modern man in his own moral law. Not one day has passed since the\npenning of the Apocalypse without men's hating each other in the name\nof Jesus. Wars generations long have been waged for interpretations\nof the lore. Hatred and malice and all uncharitableness stamp all\nthe Sacred Books; and the literature of the Fathers imports into the\ndwindling intellectual life of the West all the rancour of battling\nJudaism. In our own day, Professor Schmiedel is malignantly assailed\nin the name of the divinity of the figure of which he claims to\nprove the exemplary humanity, his reasoned argument winning him\nno goodwill from the supernaturalists. And around him there figure\nvirulent partisans, incapable of his candour, so little capable of\nlove for enemies that they cannot conduct a debate without passion,\nperversion and insolence. A multitude of those who acclaim the gospel\nJesus as the supreme Teacher reveal themselves as below the standards\nof normal candour.\n\nFrom such pretenders to moral authority, the seeker for truth turns to\nthe layman similarly concerned, and to those professional scholars who\nare capable of debating without passion, and in good faith. Professor\nSchmiedel and M. Loisy are still, it is to be hoped, types of many. The\nproblem is in the end, unalterably, one of historical science; and\nonly by the use of all the methods of sound historical science will\nit ever be solved.\n\nIt is not merely in regard to the study of Christian origins that\nsociological problems are vitiated by the habitual passing of\n\u00e0 priori judgments on issues never critically considered. When\nan expert hierologist like Dr. Budge tells us repeatedly that\nin ancient Egypt a \"highly spiritual,\" \"lofty spiritual\" and\n\"elevated\" religion went hand in hand with a system of sorcery of\n\"degrading\" savagery, [469] we are led to inquire how the estimates\nof altitude are reached or justified. There appears to be no answer\nsave that Dr. Budge holds certain theories about the universe, and,\nfinding these more or less akin to the esoteric theology of Egypt,\nlaurels his own opinions in this fashion. But Dr. Budge is no more\nentitled than any one else to settle such questions without rational\ndiscussion, and the reason of some of us revolts at the concept of a\nconjoined sublimity and imbecility as a spurious paradox. It is but a\nconvention of supernaturalist apriorism, figuring where it has no right\nof entry. In precisely the same fashion, Dr. Estlin Carpenter credits\nto the Aztecs a \"lofty religious sentiment,\" avowed to be \"strangely\nblended with a hideous and sanguinary ritual.\" [470] The \"lofty\" is\nagain a wreath for the writer's own philosophy of religion, in terms\nof which the act of the \"good Samaritan,\" performed a million times by\nunpretending human beings, was imaginable only by a supernormal Jew,\nand unmatchable in pagan thought.\n\nIn a word, these moral pretensions had better be withdrawn from\nthe area of historical discussion proper. Involving as they do the\ninference that \"lofty\" religious conceptions are not merely of no\nmoral value but potent sanctions for all manner of evil, they very\neffectually stultify themselves. But rationalism needs not, and should\nnot seek, to turn such blunders to its account. As M. Loisy claims,\nthe ground of historic criticism is not the place for such polemic,\nwhich tends only to confuse the scientific issue. That is hard enough\nto solve, with the best will and the best methods.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\nTHE \"TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES\"\n\n(Nov. 1 and 8, 1891.)\n\n\n[The following is a revised translation of the Didach\u00ea t\u00f4n d\u00f4deka\napostol\u00f4n, discovered by Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of\nNicomedia (then of Serres), in 1873, in the library attached to the\nMonastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre, in the Phanar, or Greek quarter,\nof Constantinople. It was part of a manuscript containing several\nancient documents, including two Epistles of Clement of Rome, which\nBryennios published in 1875. Not till 1883 did he publish the Didach\u00ea.\n\nOf the genuineness of the MS. there can be no reasonable doubt. That\nthere was current in the early Church a \"Teaching of the Twelve\nApostles\" appears from Eusebius (H. E. iii, 25) and Athanasius (Festal\nEpistle 39, C.E. 367). There were very good reasons why the Church,\nas time went on, should desire to drop the Teaching from her current\nliterature. It is obviously in origin a purely Jewish document,\nand the first six chapters show no trace of Jesuism. We have already\nstated the reasons for concluding that the primary \"Teaching\" was the\nofficial doctrine of the twelve Jewish apostles of the High Priest to\nthe Jews dispersed through the Roman Empire; that the Gospels borrowed\nfrom it, and not the converse; that Judaic Jesuists adopted it, and\ngradually interpolated it; and that it is the real foundation of the\nlegend of the twelve Jesuist apostles. The sub-title: \"Teaching of\n[the] Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations\" may have been\nthe original. \"Lord\" here has the force of \"God.\"\n\nOn a first study, we found reasons [471] for deciding that the Epistle\nof Barnabas, which in part closely coincides with the \"Teaching,\"\nborrows from it, and not the converse. That view, though naturally\nopposed by many orthodox scholars, who want to date the Teaching as\nlate as possible, was from the first, we find, put by Farrar and\nby Zahn, and is convincingly maintained by the American editors,\nthough of course they take the conventional view that the document\nis of Christian origin. Yet its Gr\u00e6co-Jewish origin, we feel certain,\nwill be plain to every open-minded reader at the first perusal. That\nview was maintained by the Rev. Dr. C. Taylor, of St. John's College,\nCambridge, in two lectures given at the Royal Institution in 1886;\nand it has been accepted by Dr. Salmon in his Introduction to the\nStudy of the New Testament. It was admitted to be probable by the\nRev. A. Gordon, in the Modern Review, July, 1884, but rejected by\nthe American editors (1885).\n\nWe have followed, with but few serious variations, the translation of\nthe American editors, Professors Hitchcock and Brown, which, on careful\ncomparison, we find to be the most faithful. Reasons for the main\nvariations are given in the notes. Of the elucidatory notes, some are\nborrowed (with additions) from the American and French editions. The\nEnglish student may refer to the edition of Professors Hitchcock and\nBrown, or to that of Canon Spence (1885), for the literature of the\nmatter. Needless to say, the clerical reasoning on the matter must\nbe viewed with constant caution.]\n\n\nTeaching of the Twelve Apostles\n\nTeaching of [the] Lord, through the Twelve Apostles, to the nations\n[472]\n\nChap. I.--Two ways there are, one of life and one of death, and great\nis the difference between the two ways. [473] The way of life, then,\nis this: First, thou shalt love the God who made thee; secondly, thy\nneighbour as thyself; [474] and all things whatsoever thou wouldest\nnot have befall thee, thou, too, do not to another. [475] And of these\nwords the teaching is this: Bless them that curse you, and pray for\nyour enemies, and fast for them that persecute you; [476] for what\nthank [have ye] if ye love them that love you? Do not foreigners\n[477] do the same? But love ye them that hate you and ye shall have\nno enemy. Abstain from the fleshly and worldly lusts. [478] If any\none give thee a blow on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,\nand thou shalt be perfect; [479] if any one compel thee to go one mile,\ngo with him twain; if any one take thy cloak, give him thy tunic also;\nif any one take from thee what is thine, ask it not back; for indeed\nthou canst not. [480] To every one that asketh thee give, and ask not\nback; for to all the Father desireth to have given of his own free\ngifts. [481] Blessed is he that giveth according to the commandment;\nfor he is guiltless; woe to him that receiveth; [482] for if, indeed,\none receiveth who hath need, he shall be guiltless; but he who hath\nno need shall give account, why he took, and for what purpose, and\ncoming under confinement, [483] shall be examined concerning what he\ndid, and shall not go out thence until he pay the last farthing. And\nit hath also been said concerning this: Let thine alms sweat in thy\nhands, until thou knowest to whom thou shouldst give. [484]\n\nChap. II.--And a second commandment of the teaching is: Thou shalt not\nkill, nor commit adultery, nor corrupt boys, not commit fornication,\nnor steal, nor do magic, nor use sorcery, nor slay a child by abortion,\nnor destroy what is conceived. Thou shalt not lust after the things\nof thy neighbour, nor forswear thyself, nor bear false witness, nor\nrevile, nor be revengeful, nor be double-minded or double-tongued;\nfor a snare of death is the double tongue. Thy speech shall not be\nfalse, nor empty, but filled with doing. Thou shalt not be covetous,\nnor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor malicious, nor arrogant. Thou\nshalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbour. Thou shalt hate\nno man, but some thou shalt reprove, and for some thou shalt pray,\nand some thou shalt love above thy life.\n\nChap. III.--My child, flee from every evil thing, and from everything\nlike it. Be not wrathful, for anger leadeth to murder; [485] nor\na zealot, [486] nor contentious, nor passionate; for of all these\nmurders are begotten. My child, become not lustful; for lust leadeth\nto fornication; nor foul-mouthed, nor bold of gaze; [487] for of\nall these things adulteries are begotten. My child, become not an\nomen-watcher; [488] since it leadeth into idolatry; nor an enchanter,\nnor an astrologer, nor a purifier, [489] nor be willing to look upon\nthese things; for of all these things idolatry is begotten. My child,\nbecome not a liar; since lying leadeth to theft; nor avaricious,\nnor vain-glorious; for of all these things thefts are begotten. My\nchild, become not a murmurer; since it leadeth to blasphemy; nor\nself-willed, nor evil-minded; for of all these things blasphemies are\nbegotten. But be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. [490]\nBecome long-suffering and merciful and guileless and gentle and good,\nand tremble continually at the words which thou hast heard. Thou shalt\nnot exalt thyself, nor allow over-boldness to thy soul. Thy soul shall\nnot cleave to the great, [491] but with the righteous and lowly thou\nshalt consort. The experiences that befall thee shalt thou accept as\ngood, knowing that without God nothing happeneth.\n\nChap. IV.--My child, him that speaketh to thee the word of God thou\nshalt remember night and day, [492] and honour him as [the] Lord;\nfor where that which pertaineth to the Lord [493] is spoken there\n[the] Lord is. And thou shalt seek out daily the faces of the saints,\nthat thou mayest be refreshed by their words. Thou shalt not desire\ndivision, but shall make peace between those who contend; thou\nshalt judge justly; thou shalt not respect persons in reproving for\ntransgressions. Thou shalt not hesitate [494] whether it shall be or\nnot. Be not one who for receiving stretcheth out the hands, but for\ngiving draweth them in; if thou hast anything, by thy hands thou shalt\ngive a ransom for thy sins. [495] Thou shalt not hesitate to give,\nnor when giving shalt thou murmur, for thou shalt know who is the good\ndispenser of the recompense. Thou shalt not turn away from the needy,\nbut shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt not say they\nare thine own; for if ye are partners in that which is imperishable,\nhow much more in the perishable things? [496] Thou shalt not take off\nthy hand from thy son and from thy daughter, [497] but from youth\nshalt thou teach them the fear of God. Thou shalt not lay commands\nin thy bitterness upon thy slave or girl-slave, who hope in the same\nGod, lest they perchance shall not fear the God over you both; for\nhe cometh not to call men according to the appearance, but to those\nwhom the spirit hath prepared. And ye, slaves, ye shall be subject to\nyour lords, as to God's image, [498] in modesty and fear. Thou shalt\nhate every hypocrisy, and whatever is not pleasing to the Lord. Thou\nshalt by no means forsake [the] Lord's commandments, but shall keep\nwhat thou hast received, neither adding to it nor taking from it. In\nchurch thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and shalt not draw near\nfor thy prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.\n\nChap. V.--But the way of death is this: First of all it is evil,\nand full of curse; murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts,\nidolatries, magic arts, sorceries, robberies, false testimonies,\nhypocrisies, duplicity, guile, arrogance, malice, self-will, greed,\nfoul speech, jealousy, [499] over-boldness, haughtiness, boasting;\npersecutors of the good, hating truth, loving falsehood, knowing not\nthe reward of righteousness, not cleaving to that which is good nor to\nrighteous judgment, on the watch not for good but for evil; far from\nwhom are meekness and patience; loving vanities, seeking reward, [500]\nnot pitying a poor man, not grieving with one [501] in distress, not\nknowing him that made them, murderers of children, destroyers of God's\nimage, [502] turning away from the needy, oppressing the afflicted,\nadvocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, universal sinners;\nmay ye be delivered, children, from all these.\n\nChap. VI.--See that no one lead thee astray from this way of the\nteaching, because apart from God doth he teach thee. For if thou\nart able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect;\nbut if thou art not able, what thou art able that do. And concerning\nfood, what thou art able, bear; but of that offered to idols, beware\nexceedingly; for it is a worship of dead Gods.\n\n\n[It will be observed that while there is a very marked transition after\nch. vi, a division may be held to begin after ch. v. In this connection\nmay be noted an interesting fact, brought out by the Rev. A. Gordon\nin his examination of the Didach\u00ea. Nicephoros of Constantinople\n(fl. 750-820) knew of a certain Teaching of the Apostles, which he\nmentioned as containing 200 lines. Nicephoros also speaks of the\ncombined lengths of the two Epistles of Clement as amounting to\n2,600 lines. Now, in the Jerusalem MS., which is closely written,\nthe Clementine Epistles occupy only 1,200 lines, which would give\nfor the Didach\u00ea, in the same writing, on the proportions mentioned\nby Nicephoros, only 92 lines, whereas it occupies 203. Mr. Gordon\nsimply noted the fact as a difficulty. If however he had followed\nup his own observation that the Didach\u00ea shows a division after the\nfifth chapter, he would have found that the proportion of the first\nfive sections to the rest is nearly as 86 to 203; while with ch. vi\nwe should have a still closer approximation--88 to 203. We have here,\nthen, a virtual proof that Nicephoros had before him only these first\nfive or six chapters, and that the subsequent additions were not to be\nfound in all copies of the Teaching. The inference from the internal\nevidence is thus remarkably confirmed. The original Teaching, once\nmore, was a purely Jewish document, without even a mention of Jesus.\n\nIt will be noted further that, while the first six chapters contain\nno suggestion of anything beyond simple monotheism and general ethics,\nand the sixth chapter ends with a warning against eating food offered\nto idols, the seventh suddenly plunges into a prescription of baptism,\nwhich introduces the formula of \"the Father, the Son, and the Holy\nSpirit,\" and minutely provides for the manner of the ceremony. But the\neighth chapter evidently connects directly with the sixth, a direction\nas to fasting following on the warning in that section against eating\nmeat offered to idols. It is thus perfectly clear that the entire\nTrinitarian section on baptism is an interpolation. In the eighth\nchapter, again, we have an interpolation of the words \"as the Lord\ncommanded in his gospel.\" In C.M. (415 sq.) are set forth the weighty\nreasons for concluding that the Lord's prayer, which is lacking in\nMark, and different in Luke, was a Jewish formula long before the\nChristian era.\n\nWhile the Christist interpolations are thus obvious after the sixth\nchapter, it is not here assumed that the first six chapters as they\nstand are a single original document. On the contrary, we are inclined\nto think that the scheme of the \"two ways\" is itself a redaction of\nan original document which gave the first \"way\" without preamble,\nthe present preamble and the fifth chapter being inserted to give\nthe dual form. On that view, the pre-Christian document may not\nhave stopped with the sixth chapter, though the definitely Christian\nredaction begins with the seventh, as the document now stands. The\nTrinitarian seventh chapter was almost certainly one of the latest\nof the Christian additions. In the ninth, rules are laid down for the\nEucharist without any allusion to the Godhead of Jesus, who is spoken\nof in Ebionitic terms as \"Jesus thy servant,\" though Jesus Christ is\nfurther on spoken of in more distinctly Christist terms. These are\nevidently further additions. In the tenth chapter the Ebionitic tone\nis resumed, Jesus being still only \"thy servant\"; while throughout the\nrest of the document there is much teaching that might have come from\nthe Judaic apostles who propagated that of the earlier chapters. As to\nthis, however, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion. All\nthat is certain is that the nucleus of the document was Judaic,\nand that the Christian tamperings were made at different stages,\nthe earlier indicating the primary Ebionitic creed, in which Jesus\nwas merely a holy man, no more God than any other \"Anointed.\"]\n\n\nChap. VII.--Now concerning baptism, thus baptise ye: having first\nuttered all these things, baptise into the name of the Father, and of\nthe Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou hast\nnot living water, [503] baptise in other water; and if thou canst\nnot in cold, [then] in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water\nupon the head thrice, [504] into the name of Father and Son and Holy\nSpirit. But before the baptism let the baptiser and baptised fast,\nand whatever others can; but the baptised thou shalt command to fast\nfor one or two days before.\n\nChap. VIII.--But let not your fastings be in common with the\nhypocrites; for they fast on the second day of the week and on the\nfifth; [505] but do ye fast during the fourth, and the preparation\n[day]. [506] Nor pray ye like the hypocrites, but as the Lord [507]\ncommanded in his gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven,\nHallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, as in heaven,\nso on earth; our daily bread give us to-day, and forgive us our debt\nas we also forgive our debtors, and bring us not into temptation,\nbut deliver us from the evil; for thine is the power and the glory\nforever. Three times in the day pray ye thus.\n\nChap. IX.--Now, concerning the Eucharist, [508] thus give thanks:\nfirst, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy\nvine of David [509] thy servant, which thou hast made known to us\nthrough Jesus thy servant; [510] to thee be the glory for ever. And\nconcerning the broken [bread]: We thank thee, our Father, for the\nlife and knowledge which thou hast made known to us through Jesus\nthy servant; to thee be the glory for ever. [511] Just as this broken\n[bread] was scattered over the hills and having been gathered together\nbecame one, so let thy church be gathered from the ends of the earth\ninto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus\nChrist forever.[3] But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist,\nexcept those baptised into the name of [the] Lord; for in regard to\nthis the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs. [512]\n\nChap. X.--Now after ye are filled [513] thus do ye give thanks: We\nthank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name, which thou hast caused to\ndwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality\nwhich thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant; to thee\nbe the glory forever. Thou, Sovereign [514] Almighty, didst create\nall things for thy name's sake; both food and drink thou didst give\nto men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to thee; but to us\nthou hast graciously given spiritual food and drink and eternal life\nthrough thy servant. Before all things we thank thee that thou art\nmighty; to thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, thy Church,\nto deliver it from every evil and to make it perfect in thy love, and\ngather it from the four winds, [it] the sanctified, into thy kingdom,\nwhich thou hast prepared for it; for thine is the power and the glory\nforever. Let grace come and let this world pass away. Hos-anna to the\nGod [515] of David! Whoever is holy, let him come, whoever is not,\nlet him repent. Maranatha. [516] Amen. But permit the prophets to\ngive thanks as much as they will.\n\nChap. XI.--Now, whoever cometh and teacheth you all these things\naforesaid, receive him; but if the teacher himself turn aside and\nteach another teaching, so as to overthrow [this], do not hear him;\nbut [if he teach] so as to promote righteousness and knowledge of\n[the] Lord, receive him as [the] Lord. Now in regard to the apostles\nand prophets, according to the ordinance of the Gospel, so do ye. And\nevery apostle who cometh to you, let him be received as [the] Lord;\nbut he shall not remain [except for?] one day; if, however, there be\nneed, then the next [day]; but if he remain three days, he is a false\nprophet. [517] But when the apostle departeth, let him take nothing\nexcept bread enough till he lodge [again]; but if he ask money, he is\na false prophet. And every prophet who speaketh in the spirit, ye shall\nnot try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall\nnot be forgiven. [518] But not every one that speaketh in the spirit is\na prophet; but [only] if he have the ways of [the] Lord. So from their\nways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And no prophet\nappointing a table [519] in the spirit, eateth of it, unless indeed\nhe is a false prophet; and every prophet who teacheth the truth, if he\ndo not that which he teacheth, is a false prophet. But every prophet,\ntried, true, acting with a view to the mystery of the Church on earth,\n[520] but not teaching [others] to do all that he himself doeth,\nshall not be judged among you; for with God he hath his judgment;\nfor so did the ancient prophets also. But whoever, in the spirit,\nsaith: Give me money, or something else, ye shall not hear him;\nbut if for others in need he bids [you] give, let none judge him.\n\nChap. XII.--And let every one that cometh in [the] Lord's name be\nreceived, but afterwards ye shall test and know him; for ye shall\nhave understanding, right and left. If he who cometh is a wayfarer,\nhelp him as much as ye can; but he shall not remain with you, unless\nfor two or three days, if there be necessity. But if he will take\nup his abode among you, being a craftsman, let him work and so eat;\nbut if he have no craft, provide, according to your understanding;\nthat no idler live with you as a Christian. But if he will not act\naccording to this, he is a Christmonger; [521] beware of such.\n\nChap. XIII.--But every true prophet who will settle among you is\nworthy of his food. Likewise a true teacher, he also is worthy, like\nthe workman, of his food. [522] Every firstfruit, then, of the produce\nof wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt\ntake and give to the prophets; for they are your high-priests. But\nif ye have no prophet, give [it] to the poor. If thou makest a\nbaking of bread, take the first [of it] and give according to the\ncommandment. In like manner when thou openest a jar of wine or oil,\ntake the first [of it] and give to the prophets; and of money and\nclothing and every possession, take the first, as may seem right to\nthee, and give according to the commandment.\n\nChap. XIV.--And on the Lord's-day of [the] Lord [523] being assembled,\nbreak bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions,\nin order that your sacrifice may be pure. But any one that hath\nvariance with his friend, let him not come together with you, until\nthey be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled. For this\nis that which was spoken by [the] Lord: [524] At every place and time,\nbring me a pure sacrifice; for a great king am I, saith [the] Lord,\nand my name is marvellous among the nations. [525]\n\nChap. XV.--Now elect for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy\nof the Lord, men meek and not avaricious, and upright and proved;\nfor they, too, render you the service [526] of the prophets and the\nteachers. Therefore neglect them not; for they are the ones who are\nhonoured of you, together with the prophets and teachers.\n\nAnd reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as ye have [it]\nin the gospel; and to every one who erreth against another, let no\none speak, nor let him hear [anything] from you, until he repent. But\nyour prayers and your alms and all your deeds so do ye, as ye have\n[it] in the gospel of our [527] Lord.\n\nChap. XVI.--Watch for your life; let not your lamps be gone out,\nand let not your loins be loosed, but be ready; for ye know not the\nhour in which our Lord cometh. But ye shall come together often,\nand seek the things which befit your souls; for the whole time of\nyour faith will not profit you, if ye be not made perfect in the last\nseason. For in the last days the false prophets and the corruptors\nshall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and\nlove shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increaseth they\nshall hate one another, and shall persecute and shall deliver up;\nand then shall appear the world-deceiver as the Son of God, [528]\nand shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be given unto his\nhands, and he shall commit iniquities which have never yet been done\nsince the beginning. Then all created men shall come into the fire\nof trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish. But\nthey that endure in their faith shall be saved from under even this\ncurse. And then shall appear the signs of truth; first the sign of\nan opening [529] in heaven, then the sign of a trumpet's voice, and\nthirdly, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, [530] but as it\nhath been said: The Lord will come and all the saints with him. Then\nshall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B\n\nTHE MYTH OF SIMON MAGUS\n\n\nI\n\nTwo questions are raised under this heading--the question whether,\nas was argued by F. C. Baur, the \"Simon Magus\" of the \"Clementine\nRecognitions\" and \"Homilies\" is a mask-name for a polemic directed\nprimarily at the Apostle Paul; and the more fundamental question\nwhether the Simon Magus of the Acts is or is not a historical\ncharacter.\n\nThe reasons for holding Simon to be a mythical personage (as apart from\nthe reasons for supposing the Clementine Simon to be meant for Paul,\nand the story of the Acts to be a misconceiving adaptation of the\nClementine narrative) are overwhelming. To begin with, Justin Martyr,\na Samaritan born, expressly says [531] that almost all the Samaritans\nworshipped Simon. [532] This alone might dispose of the notion that the\n\"Simonians\" dated merely from the time of Paul and Peter. It is absurd\nto suppose that nearly all the Samaritans, a people with old cults,\ncould be converted within a century to a new Deity originating in\none man. The cult must date further back than that. And that Justin,\nthough of Samaritan birth, could widely misconceive the cults around\nhim, is pretty clear from his famous blunder of finding his Simon\nMagus as Simo Sanctus in the Semo Sancus of Rome, the old Sabine\ncounterpart of the Eastern Semo. [533]\n\nFor there is abundant evidence, to begin with, that a name of which\nthe basis is Sem is one of the oldest of Semitic God-names. We have\nthe forms Shem, Sime-on, Sams-on, S(h)amas (the Babylonian name\nof the sun; Hebrew Shemesh), San-d-on, or Samdan [534] Semen and\nSem, all plainly connected with a sun-myth. Shamas or Samas was an\nAssyrian Sun-God, the duplicate of Melkarth and Hercules. Samson\nor Simson or Shimshai (= the Sun-man), the Hebrew Sun-hero, is\nunquestionably a mere variant of that myth. Sand-on, also a Sun-God,\nis the same myth over again. Baal-Samen, \"the Lord of Heaven,\"\n[535] is the same conception as Baal-Melkarth; Baal, \"the Lord,\"\na Sun-God himself as well as Supreme God, being joined with the\nSun-God proper. The name Sem, again, is found as signifying Hercules,\nin conjunction with those of Harpocrates and the Egyptian Hermes,\n[536] and is probably involved in the mythical queen-name Semiramis\n(Sammuramat), since she in one of the myths gets her name from Simmas,\n\"keeper of the king's flocks,\" who rears her [537]--another form of\nthe Sun-God, belike. Simeon, in the myth of the twelve tribes, is\none of the twin-brethren, who in all mythologies are at bottom solar\ndeities. The \"on\" means \"great,\" as in Samson, Dagon, Solomon, etc.;\n[538] and the Dioscuri of the Greek and Roman myth were \"the Great Twin\nBrethren.\" It was added to the name of the Samaritan God \u00cal \u00calyon,\n\"Great \u00cal,\" [539] who is just the \u00cal (singular of Elohim) of the\nHebrews. But the name Shem itself means \"the Lofty\"; [540] and the\nname of the mythical ancestor of the Shemites is at bottom a God-name,\njust as are those of Noach, Abram, Jacob, and Isra-el. It may also, it\nappears, have had the significance of \"red-shining.\" [541] And, last\nbut not least, the same vocable also has the significance of \"name,\"\nso that the Semites or sons of S(h)em were also \"the men with names\"\n[542]; and the Hebrew \"Shem hemmaphorash\" or Tetragrammaton was the\nname of four letters (IEUE = Yahweh) or \"the peculiar name.\" [543]\nLenormant declares [544] that this last tenet came from Chaldea, where\n\"they considered the divine name, the Shem, as endowed with properties\nso special and individual that they succeeded in making of it a\ndistinct person.\" But this idea of the sacredness of the God-name was\none of the most prevalent of ancient religious notions. It was still\ndevoutly held by the Christian Origen, who argued [545] that the Hebrew\ndivine names must be held to because they alone were potent to conjure\nwith. It appears in the Judaic Teaching of the Twelve Apostles in its\nChristianised form (c. x), in the passage of thanksgiving beginning,\n\"We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name, which thou hast made\nto dwell in our hearts.\" In the Jewish Sepher Toledoth Jeschu, Jesus\nis made to do his magic works by virtue of the \"Shem hemmaphorash,\"\nthe Tetragrammaton, of which he has furtively possessed himself. Thus\ncould an ancient God-name retain its mysterious prestige even after\nthe mystery-mongers (reversing the process imagined by Lenormant) had\ntaken the name-quality out of it, and left only the word for \"name.\" In\nother ways it clung to the Jewish cult. It is highly probable that the\npre-eminent Jewish prayer, the \"Shema\" (or the \"Shemoneh Esreh\"),\nof which the name is explained away into insignificance, is an\nextremely ancient prayer to the Sun-God. [546] Even this is sought\nto be connected with a historical \"Simon.\" [547] And all the while\nthe original God Sem survives in the Jewish mythology as \"Shamma-el,\"\nthe Prince of Demons and angel of death, who has power over all peoples\nexcept the Jews; [548] and at the same time in the legend of Samu-el,\nthe unshorn, the child of the heretofore sterile mother (vexed by her\nrival as Rachel by Leah), the potentate who makes and unmakes kings,\nand who is called up as a \"God\" [549] from the earth by incantation.\n\nBut all this connects decisively with Samaria. It is not improbable\nthat the name Samaria itself was derived from the name of the Sun-God,\nit being very much more likely that the mountain would be named\nfrom the God who was worshipped on it than from a man Shemer. [550]\nThe last is obviously a worthless gloss. A reasonable alternative\nview is that as the God-name Asshur is identified with the name of\nthe Assyrian country and people, whether giving or following their\nrace-name, so the Semitic God-name Shem is bound up with the name\nSamaria, as that of Ath\u00ean\u00ea with Athens. It is at all events clear\nthat, as is claimed by Volkmar, [551] Sem or Simon was the chief God\nof the Samaritans. They declared to Antiochus, according to Josephus,\n[552] that their temple on Mount Gerizim had no name, but was that of\n\"the greatest God\"; and this squares with the other evidence, whether\nor not it be true that they offered, as Josephus states, to dedicate\nthe temple to Zeus of the Hellenes. For, S(h)em being \"the high,\"\nSem-on would be the Great High One or Greatest God, just as \u00cal \u00calyon\nwas the great \u00cal, the Great Power, Greatest of Powers. And as Sem-on\nwas also the Great Name, the God was in that sense without a name,\nwhich circumstance is the explanation of the otherwise pointless\nphrase of the Johannine Jesus (John iv, 22) to the Samaritan woman,\n\"Ye worship that which ye know not what.\" And all the ideas converge\nin the phrases in the Acts (viii, 9-10), that Simon claimed to be\n\"some great one\" (heauton megan) and was spoken of as \"that power of\nGod which is called Great.\" In fine, Simon Magus, the Mage, is just\na version of Simon Megas, Great Simon.\n\nWe know from their version of the Pentateuch that the later Samaritans,\nbeing strong \"monotheists\" in one of the senses of that elastic and\nmisleading term, sought always to substitute angels for Elohim in\nthe old narratives of divine action (e. g. Gen. iii, 5; v, 1; v, 24;\nxvii, 22), \"lest a corporeal existence should be attributed to the\nDeity.\" [553] And it is instructive to note how their theological\ndrift exhibits itself in early Christism. The doctrine of the \"Logos\"\nis not merely Alexandrian-Christian, it is Judaic. Some of the Aramaic\nparaphrasts of the Old Testament at times wrote \"the Word of Jehovah\"\ninstead of the angel of Jehovah, sometimes the \"She-kin-ah,\" which\nmeans \"the abode of the Word of Jehovah.\" [554] On the other hand,\nwe know from the Gospel of Peter that one of the early Christian sects\nregarded Jesus as having received his dynamis, his power, at baptism,\nand yielded it up at crucifixion. Here we are close to Samaritanism,\nin which the angels were regarded [555] as \"uncreated influences\nproceeding from God (dynameis, powers),\" pretty much as Simon is\ndescribed in the Acts. Thus \"Simon\" for the Samaritans would just be\n\"\u00cal,\" which the Samaritan Justin, like the writer of \"Peter,\" held\nto mean \"Power.\" And at the same time, be it observed, Simon was\n\"the Word.\"\n\nBut still the proof abounds. In Lucian's account of the Syrian\nGoddess we are told [556] that in the temple at Byblos there was a\nstatue, apparently epicene or double-sexed, called by some Dionysos,\nby others Deucalion, and by others Semiramis, but to which the Syrians\ngave no specific name, calling it only Semeion, a word which in Greek\nproperly means \"sign,\" but may mean image. There can be little doubt\nthat Movers [557] was right in surmising this statue to be just the\nprimordial Sem or Sem-on, the Great Sem of the Semitic race. The\ntwo-sexed character is in perfect keeping with the ideal duality of\nthe old Assyrian Nature-Gods; [558] and the peculiar detail of the name\nwhich was not a name brings us again to the Sem-on of the Samaritans.\n\nEverything in the Christian legend falls in with this\nidentification. The Fathers [559] tell us of one Helen, a prostitute\nfrom Tyre, with whom Simon went about, and whom he gave out to be a\nreincarnation of Helen of Troy, and also his \"Thought.\" Helen is almost\nunquestionably, as Baur [560] surmised, the Selene or Luna of the old\nsun-cultus. In the paragraph following his account of the Semeion,\nLucian tells us that in the forepart of the same temple stands the\nthrone of Helios, but without a statue; Helios and Selene, the sun and\nmoon, being the only divinities not sculptured in the temple--though\nhe goes on to mention that behind the throne is a statue of a clothed\nand bearded Apollo, quite different from the Greek form. Here, again,\nwe have a mystic conception of the Sun-God, a conception necessarily\nconfusing to ordinary visitors, even supposing the priests themselves\nto have had any consistent ideas about it; and the fact [561] that the\ntemple further contained among other statues one of Helena (herself an\nold Moon-Goddess), gave ample opportunity for the usual mythological\nvariants. Thus it came about that while Justin and Iren\u00e6us connect\nSimon Magus with Helen, Iren\u00e6us says the Simonians have \"an image of\nSimon in the likeness of Jupiter, and of Helen in that of Minerva\"--a\ncurious statement, which at once recalls that of Lucian [562] that the\nH\u00ear\u00ea of the temple of Byblos \"has something of Ath\u00ean\u00ea and Aphrodite, of\nSelene and Rhea, of Artemis, of Nemesis, and of the Parc\u00e6.\" This again\nsquares with the fact that in the Chaldeo-Babylonian system Samas was\nassociated with the goddess Gula, \"triform as personating the moon, and\nsometimes replaced by a group of three spouses of equal rank, Malkit,\nGula, and Anunit.\" [563] And in the Latin translation by Rufinus of\nthe pseudo-Clementine \"Recognitions,\" for Helena we actually have Luna.\n\nThe chain is complete. We are dealing not with a historic person or\npersons, but with an ancient cult, which Christian ignorance and Judaic\n\"monotheism\" between them strove to reduce somehow to a historical\nnarrative, as the myths of Abraham and Samson and Israel and Elijah\nand a dozen others had been reduced, as the mythic ritual had been in\nthe gospels, and as indeed the rituals of Paganism had been in the\ncurrent pagan mythologies. There was no Samaritan Simon the Mage,\nwho met a Christian Peter; it was not a preaching Simon who taught\nof himself, but the Samaritan populace who traditionally believed of\ntheir God Sem or Simon, that \"he appeared among the Jews as the Son,\nwhile in Samaria he descended as the Father, and in the rest of the\nnations he came as the Holy Spirit.\" [564] The parallel holds down\nto the last jot. The Semeion of the temple of Byblos had a dove\non his head, [565] and there are abundant Jewish charges as to the\nworship of a dove by the Samaritans at Mount Gerizim; [566] so that\nSimon was the Logos receiving the Holy Spirit, the dynamis, just as\nJesus did in the Gospels; and the Christists' doctrine that the Holy\nSpirit should be given to the nations is simply an adaptation of the\nSamaritan syncretism, which they sought to override by a syncretism\nof their own in their latest gospel, where it comes out that their\nGalilean Jesus was called a Samaritan by Jews, [567] a charge which\ncuriously enough he does not dispute, denying only that he has \"a\ndaimon.\" This is exactly the myth of Simon turned into a story of\nan incarnate Messiah, who affirms his reality. [568] Well might the\nFathers call their imaginary \"Simon\" the Father of all heresies. He\nwas the \"Father\" in a sense of their own creed, as well as of all\nthe Gnosticisms into which it broke.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nWhat hinders ordinary students from accepting Baur's view of\nthe \"Clementine\" Simon, which we have here sought to support,\nis the existence of the fragments of writings attributed to Simon,\ntogether with the circumstantialities of the story in the Acts and the\nFathers. But these circumstantialities are just the marks of all the\nancient myths, Jewish, Christian, and Gentile; and the attribution\nof writings to Simon Magus no more proves his historical existence\nthan the same process proves the historical existence of Orpheus and\nMoses. [569] The fragments and paraphrases preserved by the Fathers\nare just part of the mass of ancient Occultism; and their connection\nwith the name of Simon the Mage is merely a variation of the Jewish\nmyth which attributes the authorship of the Zohar to Simon Ben Jocha\u00ef,\na mythical or mythicised personage if ever there was one. He is fabled\nto have lived in a cave for twelve years, studying the Cabbala,\nduring which time he was visited by Elias. At his death fire was\nseen in the cave, and a voice from heaven was heard saying, \"Come\nye to the marriage of Simon Ben Jocha\u00ef: he is entering into peace,\nand shall rest in his chamber.\" At his burial there was heard a voice\ncrying, \"This is he who caused the earth to quake and the kingdoms to\nshake.\" [570] Simon is said to have belonged to the first century of\nthe Christian era; while the Zohar is held to have been composed in\nthe 13th century. [571] In all probability the matter of the Zohar\nis largely ancient; and the association of it (as of the Shema or\nShemoneh Esreh prayer) with the name Simon points distinctly to a\ntraditional vogue of the name in Semitic Gnosticism. But there is no\nmore reason to believe that an actual Simon composed the Zohar, or the\n\"Great Denial\" (perhaps = antinomy) attributed to Simon the Mage,\nthan to believe in the above stories of the voices from heaven and\nthose of the miracles of the Mage in the Acts. The Talmudic legends\nclearly point to a sun myth, bringing Simon into connection with Elias,\nEli-jah, an unquestionable Sun-God, who combines the names El and Jah,\nthough reduced by the Judaic Evemerising monotheists to the rank of a\njudge-prophet, as was Samu-el, and as Sams-on was made a \"judge.\" It\nlay in the essence of ancient religiosity to do this, and at the same\ntime to seek to father all its documents on sacrosanct names. That a\nreal Samaritan Simon of the first century should write a new occultist\nbook and publish it as his own, is contrary to the whole spirit of\nthe time. Only centuries after the period of its composition could\nsuch a book be attributed to an ordinary human author by those who\naccepted it. If it was current in the first century, it must have\nbeen either fathered on an ancient and mythical Simon or regarded as\na book of the mysteries of the God Simon. The opinions or statements\nof the Christian Fathers concerning it are quite worthless save as\nembodying a name-tradition.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nThere remains to be considered the theory of the T\u00fcbingen school that\nthe Christian legend of Simon Magus is to be found in its earliest form\nin the \"Clementines,\" that body of early sectarian forged literature\nwhich has been made to yield so much light as to the early history\nof the Christist Church. Here, in a set of writings (\"Recognitions\"\nand \"Homilies,\" of which books one is a redaction of the other),\npurporting to be by Clement of Rome, we have a propaganda that is on\nthe face of it strongly Petrine, and that turns out on analysis to be\nstrongly anti-Pauline, though the gist of the matter is a series of\ndisputations between Peter and Simon the Mage. It is impossible at\npresent to settle what was the first form of these documents, which\nas they stand bear marks of the third century, and survive only in\nthe Latin translation of Rufinus (d. 410); but it is plain that they\npreserve elements of the early Ebionitic or Jud\u00e6o-Christian opposition\nto the Gentile Christism of Paul. The T\u00fcbingen theory is that under\nthe name of Simon Magus Paul is attacked throughout. This, at first\nsight, certainly seems a fantastic thesis; but an examination of the\nmatter shows that it is very strongly founded. A leading feature in\nthe conduct of Simon Magus in the Clementines, as in the Acts, is his\nattempt to purchase apostleship with money. Now, this corresponds very\nclosely with the act of Paul in bringing to Jerusalem a subsidy from\nthe Western churches, an act which, on the part of one not recognised\nas an apostle, and exhibited in the Epistles as always on jealous\nterms [572] with the Jerusalem apostles, would naturally rank as an\nattempt to purchase the Holy Ghost with lucre. Again, Simon Magus\nin the Clementines claims to rest his authority on divine visions,\nwhich is exactly the position of Paul; [573] and Peter denies that\nvisions have such authority. Once recognise the primary strife between\nJudaising and Gentilising Christians, of which there are so many\ntraces in New Testament and Patristic literature, and it is easy to\nsee that these are the very points on which the anti-Paulinists would\nmost bitterly oppose Paul and his movement. In the Clementines, Peter\nnot only opposes the Magus in Palestine, but follows him to Rome,\nthus carrying the antagonism between the two sects over the whole\ntheoretic field. The fact that both Simon Peter and Simon Magus,\nCephas and Paul, are made to journey from East to West, and to die\nin the West, like the immemorial Sun-God, is suggestive.\n\nThat the Judaists should give Paul a symbolical name, again, was quite\nin keeping with the usual dialectic of the time, in which Rome, for\ninstance, figured as \"Babylon,\" the typical great hostile city of\nJewish remembrance. Just as Babylon symbolised heathen oppression,\nSamaria typified heathen heresy, the divergence from the Jewish cult\nin a heathen direction. Such divergence was the Judaist gravamen\nagainst Paul, who broke away from the law; and as Simon, Semo,\ntypified Samaritan heresy in general, it was peculiarly suited to\nthe arch-heretic who sought to overthrow the supreme privilege of\nJerusalem. Simon was the Samaritan \"false Christ,\" and Paul's preaching\nfalsified the Judaic Christ. [574] And nothing is more remarkable in\nthe matter than the way in which the plainly patched-up reconciliatory\nnarrative of the Acts squares with this theory. The book of Acts is\nexplicable only on the hypothesis that it was designed, in its final\nform, to reconcile the long-opposed sects by reconciling Peter and\nPaul in a quasi-historical narrative. The narrative plainly clashes\nwith Paul's alleged Epistles. For the rest, it is managed largely\non the plan of duplicating the exploits of the two heroes, so that\nPaul confutes Elymas as Peter does Simon, and closely duplicates\none of Peter's miracles. [575] Some legends were in existence to\nstart with, and others were invented to match them. Similarly the\ndispute between Paul and Barnabas at Antioch was to supersede the\nstrife there between Paul and Peter. [576] If then the composer of\nthe Acts had before him a legend of Peter confuting Simon the Mage,\nit would suit him to retain it, since thus would he best dissociate\nthe Mage from Paul. But, as Zeller points out, he is careful, first\nof all, to place the story of the Mage before Paul's conversion;\nand at the same time he shows he knows the original significance of\nthe charge against Simon Magus as to offering money, by ignoring the\nmost important of Paul's subsidies. [577]\n\nThe application of a great mass of the polemic against Simon Magus\nin the Clementines is so obvious that the evasion of the problem by\nHarnack and Salmon and others on futile pleas of \"false appearances\"\nand \"common-sense\" is simply a confession of defeat. Baur's case,\nafter being dismissed on pretexts of \"common-sense\" by those who\ncould not meet it, is irresistibly restated by Schmiedel, on a\nfull survey of its development by Lipsius and others. The only\nsolution is, that the Clementines adapt for new purposes a mass of\nold anti-Pauline matter. At the time at which they were redacted,\nPaul had been established as a \"catholic\" figure; and there could be\nno such hatred to him as breathes through the fierce impeachments of\nthe teaching of the Paulines in the Recognitions and Homilies. For it\nis at the Epistles that the bulk of the attacks are directed. What has\nbeen done is to use up, for a new polemic with heretics, a quantity of\nold anti-Pauline literature in which the disguising of Paul under the\nname of Simon Magus probably blinded the redactors to its purpose. For\nthem Simon was simply the arch-heretic, and it was against his detested\nmemory and persisting influence that they operated.\n\nThe theory is no doubt a complicated one; but when taken in its full\nextent, as recognising the addition of the heresy of the Gnostic\nPaulinist Marcion to that of Paul, it is perfectly consistent with\nthe documents; and there is really no other view worth discussing, as\nregards the connection of Simon Magus with Peter. The orthodox belief\nthat Simon was an actual Samaritan who suddenly persuaded the people\nof Samaria to regard him as a divine incarnation, as told in the Acts,\nwill not explain the mass of identities in the Clementines between the\nteaching ascribed to him and the actual Pauline Epistles. In explaining\nthe choice of the name Simon for Paul by his Judaic antagonists, the\nmyth-theory is far more helpful than the view of Simon's historicity. A\n\"false God\" Simon, the God of the typically misbelieving Samaritans,\nwould be by Jews reduced to human status as a matter of course, unless\nhe were simply classed as a \"daimon.\" A \"Simon the Mage\" was for them\njust the type they wanted wherewith to identify Paul, the new False\nTeacher. To identify, on the other hand, a contemporary or lately\ndeceased Paul with a contemporary or lately deceased Simon would be\nan idle device, missing the end in view. The name of such a Simon\nwould for purposes of aspersion be worth little or nothing. The name\nhad to be a widely and long notorious one, and the myth supplied it.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nIn conclusion, let it be noted that the bearing of the myth of\nSimon Magus on Christianity is not limited to the explanation of\nthe Samaritan origins and the elucidation of the Paul-and-Peter\nantagonism. The more the matter is looked into, the more reason is\nseen for surmising that Samaria played a large part in the beginnings\nof the Christian system. Samaria seems to have been beyond all other\nparts of Palestine a crucible in which manifold cult-elements tended\nto be fused by syncretic ideas; and the extent to which Samaria figures\nin the fourth gospel is a phenomenon not yet adequately explained. The\nfact that Jesus is there said to have been called a Samaritan reminds\nus that among the movements of the \"false Christs\" so often alluded\nto in the Gospels [578] a Samaritan cult of the mystic Christ may\nhave counted for much. The fourth gospel itself would come under the\nanti-Pauline ban, inasmuch as, while Simon Magus is said to have sought\nto substitute Mount Gerizim for Jerusalem, Jesus here [579] is made\nto set aside both the Samaritan mountain and Jerusalem. The very fact\nthat the Samaritan woman professedly expects the coming of Messiah,\nis a hint that the story of the well and the living water may be of\nSamaritan Messianic origin. Nay more, since we know that the Samaritans\nin particular laid stress on the Messiah Ben Joseph rather than on the\nMessiah Ben David, they regarding themselves as of Josephite descent,\nit is probable that the very legend of Jesus being the putative son\nof one Joseph, which we know was absent from the Ebionite version\nof Matthew, was framed to meet the Samaritan view. These matters are\nstill far from having been exhaustively considered.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\n[1] The charge of haste is posited as a preliminary to criticism by\nthe Rev. Dr. Thorburn in his work on The Mythical Interpretation of\nthe Gospels. Some examples of Dr. Thorburn's own haste will be found\nin the following pages.\n\n[2] Twenty years ago a French scholar gently included me in this\nreproach.\n\n[3] I omit personalities.\n\n[4] Art. by H. G. Wood in The Cambridge Magazine, Jan. 1917.\n\n[5] Cp. H.J. 128-139.\n\n[6] In the course of a second attack, the critic avows that he knows\nof \"no theory of gospel-origins, living or dead,\" which concedes\nthat the tragedy-story was added to the gospels as a separate\nblock. Reminded that the school of B. Weiss make their \"Primitive\nGospel\" end before the tragedy, he replies in a third attack that\nthat school is \"obsolete\"--i. e. neither living nor dead?\n\n[7] It seems to have been the view of Mr. Cassels.\n\n[8] Art. Gospels in Encyc. Bibl., ii, col. 1869.\n\n[9] Ecce Deus, p. 93.\n\n[10] Historical Christ, p. 182.\n\n[11] Ecce Deus, pref. p. ix.\n\n[12] Dr. Conybeare, The Historical Christ, p. 5.\n\n[13] H.J. 112, 113, 128, 157 sq., 177 sq.\n\n[14] Hist. of Greece, 10 vol. ed. 1888, ii, 462.\n\n[15] Id. p. 500.\n\n[16] Gesch. des Alterthums, ii (1893), 649. See the context for the\nhistoric basis in general.\n\n[17] Id. 427, 564.\n\n[18] Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 2nd ed. p. 91. Cp. 93 sq.\n\n[19] Id. p. 100. Cp. 106-7, 123.\n\n[20] Id. p. 105. Cp. 109.\n\n[21] P.C. 274 sq. A proselytizing Catholic Professor in Glasgow\nhas represented me as denying the historicity of Apollonius, having\nreached that opinion by intuition.\n\n[22] The Bhagavat G\u00eeta, which glorifies Krishna, is late relatively\nto the cult.\n\n[23] Cp. Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verst\u00e4ndnis des N.T.,\n1903, p. 5 sq.\n\n[24] Apropos d'histoire des religions, p. 290.\n\n[25] Jesus, by William Renton. Pub. by author, Keswick, 1879.\n\n[26] Rep. by R.P.A. 1907.\n\n[27] The Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, 1916.\n\n[28] E. g. He takes as applying to Jesus (p. 377) a remark applied\nexpressly and solely to the myth of Herakles.\n\n[29] Work cited, p. 10.\n\n[30] Second Leben Jesu, \u00a7 91 (3te Aufl. p. 569).\n\n[31] See refs. in Drews, The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus,\nEng. trans. p. 23.\n\n[32] As cited, p. 572.\n\n[33] Jesus and Israel, Eng. tr., pp. viii, ix, 29.\n\n[34] Putnams, 1912. I had not met with this work when I chose my own\ntitle, The Historical Jesus, else I should have framed another.\n\n[35] Work cited, pp. 335-353.\n\n[36] Williams and Norgate, 1895.\n\n[37] Work cited, p. 420.\n\n[38] Id. p. 17, etc.\n\n[39] The Historic Jesus, p. vii.\n\n[40] In this connection he puts the theory--derived from the celebrated\nHerr Chamberlain--that Jesus was not a Jew but an \"Amorite.\"\n\n[41] H.J. chs. xvii and xix.\n\n[42] H.J. 199. On this compare The Four Gospels as Historical Records,\nchs. vi-xiii.\n\n[43] Canon Cheetham, Hulsean Lectures on The Mysteries, 1897, p. 115.\n\n[44] \"The primitive idea of the sacrificial meal, namely, that it is\nby participation in the blood of the god that the spirit of the god\nenters into his worshipper.\"--Prof. Jevons, Introd. to the Hist. of\nReligion, 1896, p. 291. \"Originally the death of the god was nothing\nelse than the death of the theanthropic victim.\"--Robertson Smith,\nReligion of the Semites, 1889, p. 394.\n\n[45] J\u00e9sus et la tradition \u00e9vang\u00e9lique, 1910, p. 106.\n\n[46] H.J. 202-3.\n\n[47] Loisy, p. 171.\n\n[48] See refs. in H.J. 171; others in G.B. ix. 420 n. An overwhelming\ncase for the reading \"Jesus (the) Barabbas\" is established by\nE. B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 1879, pp. 141-2.\n\n[49] Mr. Lester translates \"Son of a Teacher,\" but this (adopted by\nBrandt) is an evasive rendering. He thinks the story, even if true,\nhad no connection with the condemnation of Jesus.\n\n[50] Cp. Nicholson, as cited, p. 142.\n\n[51] G.B. ix, 418; P.C. 146.\n\n[52] G.B. ix, 419.\n\n[53] Id. iv, ch. vi; P.C. 124.\n\n[54] P.C. 152, 64; G.B. iv (Pt. III, The Dying God), 170 sq.\n\n[55] P.C. 161. Cp. Turner, Samoa, 1884, 274-5; G.B. iv, ch. vi.\n\n[56] P.C. 137, 161, 186; G.B. iv (Pt. III), 166.\n\n[57] Macrobius, Saturnalia, i, 7. Cp. Varro, cit. by Lactantius,\nDiv. Inst. i, 21.\n\n[58] G.B. iv, 14 sq., 46 sq., x, 1 sq.\n\n[59] Cp. Ward's View of the Religion of the Hindoos, 5th ed. 1863,\np. 92.\n\n[60] See P.C. 105 sq. as to the various motives of human sacrifice.\n\n[61] Livy, viii, 9, 10; Lafcadio Hearn, Japan, 166; P.C., 138.\n\n[62] Cp. Kalisch, Comm. on Leviticus, 1867, i, 366; P.C. 121.\n\n[63] Robertson Smith, Semites, 391; F. B. Jevons, Introd. to Hist. of\nReligion, pp. 274-93.\n\n[64] P.C. 363.\n\n[65] Id. 108 sq.\n\n[66] Cp. G.B. Pt. III, The Dying God (vol. iv), 166 n., 214 sq.;\nP.C. 116-117, 140.\n\n[67] P.C. 364-8.\n\n[68] Cp. Kalisch, as cited; G.B., as last cited; Ps. 106, etc.\n\n[69] P.C. 158 sq. Hebrews, ix, 7, 25, suggests a cryptic meaning for\nthe sacrifice of atonement.\n\n[70] As to Hebrew private sacraments, see P.C. 168 sq.\n\n[71] P.C. 166. I do not find that Mr. R. T. Herford deals with this\nmatter in his valuable work on Christianity in Talmud and Midrash,\n1903.\n\n[72] See below, p. 104, as to the inferrible early forms of the\npropaganda of the crucifixion.\n\n[73] Mr. Joseph McCabe (Sources of Gospel Morality, p. 21) argues\nagainst the myth-theory that the early Rabbis never question the\nhistoricity of Jesus. But it is extremely likely that early Rabbis\ndid use the Barabbas argument before the gospel story was framed. In\nan age destitute of historical literature and of critical method or\npractice, it sufficed to turn their flank.\n\n[74] C.M. 352, \u00a7 21, and refs. A fair \"biographical\" inference would\nbe that the betrayed Jesus had been an obscure person, not publicly\nknown. This inference, however, is never drawn.\n\n[75] Ward's View of the Religion of the Hindoos, 5th ed. 1863, p. 91.\n\n[76] Cp. Prof. Drews, The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus,\nEng. tr. p. 54 sq., for Niemojewski's theory that Pilate = the\nconstellation Orion, pilatus, the javelin-bearer. This theory is not\nendorsed by Drews.\n\n[77] P.C. 137.\n\n[78] G.B. ix, 412 sq.\n\n[79] G.B. ix, 415, note.\n\n[80] Justin Martyr, Dial. with Trypho, c. 40.\n\n[81] G.B. ix, 357 sq.\n\n[82] P.C. 146; G.B. ix, 359.\n\n[83] Second Leben Jesu, \u00a7 83.\n\n[84] Die evang. Geschichte, p. 156.\n\n[85] G.B. Pt. III (vol. iv), 113-114.\n\n[86] \"Upon an ass and [even in R.V.] upon a colt, the foal of an ass,\"\nZech. ix, 9. I should explain that in denying that such \"tautologies\"\nwere normal in the Old Testament I had in view narrative passages.\n\n[87] C.M. 338-341.\n\n[88] Gen. xlix, 11.\n\n[89] The Historical Christ, p. 22.\n\n[90] See p. 19, note, ref. to M. Durkheim. M. Durkheim is one of the\ngreatest of anthropologists; he is not a mythologist at all.\n\n[91] C.M. 340.\n\n[92] Id. 341.\n\n[93] Id. 218, note.\n\n[94] Work cited, p. 14.\n\n[95] Id. p. 76.\n\n[96] See his Myth, Magic, and Morals, 2nd ed. p. 302.\n\n[97] Comm. in Joh. x, 16, cited by Strauss. See his first Life of\nJesus, Pt. II, ch. vii, \u00a7 88, for the views of the commentators on\nthe episode.\n\n[98] G.B. ix, 417.\n\n[99] Cultes, mythes, et religions, i, 338.\n\n[100] In John, the high priest is actually made to remonstrate from\na Jewish point of view, by way of enforcing the Christian conclusion.\n\n[101] J\u00e9sus et la tradition, p. 76.\n\n[102] There might be involved, again, a reminiscence of the\ncrucifixion of the last independent king of the Jews, Antigonus,\nby Mark Antony. C.M. 364.\n\n[103] C.M. 365.\n\n[104] P.C. 130 sq., 363. Cp. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites,\np. 391; Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 55, citing Pliny, H.N. xviii,\niii, 12.\n\n[105] Apology and Acts of Apollonius, etc., ed. by F. C. Conybeare,\n1894, p. 270. Here Dr. Conybeare momentarily appears as a\nmyth-theorist.\n\n[106] Id. p. 258.\n\n[107] P.C. 115.\n\n[108] The Christ Myth, Eng. trans. pp. 65-68.\n\n[109] Cp. Cheyne, Introd. to Isaiah, 1895, pp. 304-5, as to Ewald's\ntheory that Jeremiah may have been meant.\n\n[110] So to be estimated whether he be \"the\" Deutero-Isaiah or a\nsong-writer whose work has been incorporated. Cp. Cheyne, as cited,\nand his art. Isaiah in Encyc. Bib.\n\n[111] The terms \"Christists\" and \"Jesuists\" are, it need hardly be\nsaid, used for the sake of exactitude. The term \"early Christians\"\nwould often convey a different and misleading idea. There were Jesuists\nand Christists before the \"Christian\" movement arose. Dr. Conybeare\npronounces such terms \"jargon\" (Histor. Christ, p. 94). In the next\nline he illustrates the delicacy of his own academic taste by the\nterms \"tag-rag and bobtail.\" Such slang abounds in his book, and this\nparticular phrase recurs (p. 183).\n\n[112] It is interesting to note that in the Gospel of Peter one of\nthe malefactors is represented as speaking to the Jews in defence of\nJesus, whereupon they break his legs in vengeance.\n\n[113] Ex. xii, 46; Num. ix, 12. Cp. Ps. xxxiv, 20.\n\n[114] P.C. 113, 155.\n\n[115] Granum turis in poculo vini, ut alienetur mens ejus. Talmud,\ntract. Sanhedrin.\n\n[116] Vinegar in the Alexandrian Codex.\n\n[117] C.M. 367.\n\n[118] John xi, 50.\n\n[119] See the whole question minutely discussed in Strauss, Pt. III,\nch. iv, \u00a7 134.\n\n[120] Zech. xii, 10.\n\n[121] P.C. 125-6.\n\n[122] Ps. xxii, 18. The citation in Mt. xxvii, 35 (omitted in R.V.) is\na late interpolation, found in the Codex Sangallensis.\n\n[123] C.M. 380.\n\n[124] C.M. 364.\n\n[125] C.M. 369 sq.; P.C. 150 sq.\n\n[126] P.C. 319.\n\n[127] P.C. 151, 368, note.\n\n[128] P.C. 113, top. The preceding hypothesis with regard to the\nMeriah post is an error. Mr. H. G. Wood informs me he has learned\nfrom the Museum authorities at Madras that the apparent cross-bar\nwas really a projection, representing the head of an elephant, to\nthe trunk of which the victim was tied.\n\n[129] P.C. App. A.\n\n[130] C.M. 376.\n\n[131] P.C. 196.\n\n[132] Gal. iii, 1.\n\n[133] vi, 17.\n\n[134] De Dea Syria, 59.\n\n[135] C.M. 373.\n\n[136] P.C. 371.\n\n[137] P.C. 157.\n\n[138] C.M. 375.\n\n[139] Id. 377.\n\n[140] P.C. 166. Cp. Drews, Christ Myth, 42.\n\n[141] Judge T. L. Strange, Contributions, etc., 1881. \"The Portraiture\nand Mission of Jesus,\" p. 6.\n\n[142] Cp. Charles, introd. to The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,\n1908, p. xvi, as to John Hyrcanus.\n\n[143] Cp. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896, pp. 52-53,\nnotes. The Messiah, in the view there discussed, was to have been\n\"concealed\"--another cue for the evangelists.\n\n[144] H.J. 153 sq.\n\n[145] P.C. 304-6, 316-18; C.M. 331 and note.\n\n[146] Conybeare, Historical Christ, p. 19.\n\n[147] Col. Conder, The City of Jerusalem, 1909, p. 3, citing Rix.\n\n[148] Id. p. 9.\n\n[149] Id. p. 10; Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iii, 42.\n\n[150] Conder, p. 13.\n\n[151] Walter Menzies, Notes of a Holiday Excursion, 1897, p. 89.\n\n[152] Work cited, pp. 154-5.\n\n[153] Id. p. 156.\n\n[154] Id. p. 140.\n\n[155] \"Il est \u00e0 supposer,\" are M. Loisy's words. J\u00e9sus et la\ntrad. \u00e9vang., p. 107.\n\n[156] Myth, Magic, and Morals, 2nd edit. p. 297.\n\n[157] G.B. iv, 56. Cp. 154.\n\n[158] 1 Cor. x, 21. I say \"Paul\" as I say \"Matthew\" or \"John,\"\nfor brevity's sake, not at all as accepting the ascriptions of\nthe books. Van Manen's thesis that all the Epistles of \"Paul\" are\npseudepigraphic is probably very near the truth.\n\n[159] The retention of \"devils\" in the Revised Version, with\n\"Gr. demons\" only in the margin, is an abuse. For the Greeks,\nthere were good daimons as well as bad; and \"demon\" is not the real\nequivalent of \"daimon.\"\n\n[160] C.M. 179, note.\n\n[161] Cp. Athen\u00e6us, vi, 26-27; Sch\u00f6mann, Griechische Alterth\u00fcmer,\n3te Aufl. ii, 418-19; Foucart, Des associations religieuses, 50-52;\nMiss Harrison, Themis, p. 154; Menzies, History of Religion, p. 292.\n\n[162] P.C. 194 sq., 306; C.M. 381, note.\n\n[163] G.B. ix, 374 sq.\n\n[164] On the points enumerated under heads 4-7 see Sch\u00fcrer, Jewish\nPeople in the Time of Christ, Eng. tr. Div. II, i, 11-36. In regard to\nmy former specification of such influences (P.C. 204), Dr. Conybeare\nalleges (p. 49) that I \"hint\" that the Jesuist mystery-play was\nperformed \"in the temples (sic) built by Herod at Damascus and Jericho,\nand in the theatres of the Greek town at Gadara.\" This cannot be\nregarded as one of Dr. Conybeare's hallucinations: it is one of his\nrandom falsifications. No \"hint\" of the kind was ever given. The\nmystery-play is always represented by me as secretly performed.\n\n[165] Cp. Ezra and Nehemiah.\n\n[166] P.C. 168 sq.\n\n[167] Sch\u00fcrer, as cited, iii, 225.\n\n[168] Thus Dr. Conybeare, constantly. Upon his view, the Essenes can\nnever have existed.\n\n[169] Sch\u00fcrer, as cited, i, 3-4.\n\n[170] Cp. Gunkel, Zum Verst\u00e4ndnis des N.T., as cited, p. 20.\n\n[171] The later documentists in such cases substituted an angel;\nbut that was certainly not the early idea. See C.M. 112; Etheridge,\nTargums on the Pentateuch, i, 1862, p. 5.\n\n[172] Jer. xi, 13.\n\n[173] Ezek. viii, 14.\n\n[174] P.C. 162.\n\n[175] P.C. 321.\n\n[176] E.g. the Biblical accounts of the adoption of Canaanite Gods\nby Israelites who married Canaanite women.\n\n[177] E.g. the special adoption of Greek deities by Romans, apart\nfrom the political practice of enrolling deities of conquered States\nin the Roman Pantheon.\n\n[178] S.H.F. i, 44-45.\n\n[179] S.H.F. i, 48-49.\n\n[180] C.M. 35, and note.\n\n[181] See many details in C.M., pp. 52-57.\n\n[182] Refs. in P.C. 51, note 6. Dr. Conybeare (pp. 29, 30) meets such\nconclusions of scholars (Stade, Winckler, Sayce, etc.) by excluding\nthem from his list of \"serious Semitic scholars.\"\n\n[183] Exod. xviii, 12.\n\n[184] Gen. xiv, 18; Ps. cx, 4.\n\n[185] Heb. vii, 3. Cp. v, 6, 10; vii, 11, 17.\n\n[186] P.C. 179.\n\n[187] E.S. 115; Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, p. 291 sq.\n\n[188] Or Jehoshua--the Hebrew name of which Iesous is the Greek\nequivalent.\n\n[189] P.C. 163.\n\n[190] The miracle of hastening the sun's setting is in Homer\n(Il. xviii, 239) assigned to H\u00ear\u00ea, the chief Goddess.\n\n[191] P.C. 220.\n\n[192] Josh. v, 13-15 is clearly late. In ch. xxiv the angel is not\nmentioned.\n\n[193] P.C. 314, 315.\n\n[194] Etheridge, The Targums on the Pentateuch, 1862, p. 5.\n\n[195] The Samaritans have a late book ascribing to him many feats\nnot given in the Jewish records. Concerning this Professor Drews\nwrote (Christ Myth, p. 57, note):--\"The Samaritan Book of Joshua\n(Chronicon Samaritanum, published 1848) was written in Arabic\nduring the thirteenth century in Egypt, and is based upon an old\nwork compiled in the third century B.C.\" Dr. Conybeare (Hist. Christ,\np. 33) declares the last statement to be \"founded on pure ignorance,\"\nadding: \"and the Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica declares it to be a medieval\nproduction of no value to anyone except the student of the Samaritan\nsect under Moslem rule.\" Be it observed (1) that Dr. Drews had\nactually described the book as a medieval production; (2), that\nhis whole point was that it was legendary, not historical; and (3)\nthat the Ency. Bib. article, which bears out both propositions,\nuses no such language as Dr. Conybeare ascribes to it after the word\n\"production,\" and says nothing whatever on the hypothesis that the\nbook is founded on a compilation of the third century B.C. That\nhypothesis, framed by Hebraists, is one upon which Dr. Conybeare\nhas not the slightest right to an opinion. Dr. A. E. Cowley, in the\nEncyc. Brit., describes the book as derived from \"sources of various\ndates.\" That being so, Dr. Conybeare, who as usual has wholly failed\nto understand what he is attacking, has never touched the position,\nwhich is that Joshua legends so flourished among the Samaritans that\nthey are preserved in a medieval book--unless he means to allege that\nthe legends are of medieval invention, a proposition which, indeed,\nwould fitly consummate his excursion.\n\n[196] Yeho-shua = \"Yah [or Yeho] is welfare.\"\n\n[197] Cp. Josh. v, 2-10.\n\n[198] Canon Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 1902, p. 9, note 29.\n\n[199] This thesis was substantially put by me in the first edition of\nPagan Christs (1903). Dr. Conybeare, who appears incapable of accuracy\nin such matters, ascribes the Joshua theory (Hist. Christ, pp. 32,\n35) and the special hypothesis that Joshua was mythically the son of\nMiriam, to Professor Smith, who never broached either. His pretext\nis a passage in the preface to the second edition of Christianity\nand Mythology, which he perverts in defiance of the context. On this\nbasis he proceeds to charge \"imitation.\" Aspersion in Dr. Conybeare's\npolemic is usually thus independent of fact.\n\n[200] Historical Christ, p. 17.\n\n[201] Id. pp. 8-9.\n\n[202] Neither is it put by Prof. Drews, who merely cites (above,\np. 41, note) from Niemojewski, without endorsing it, an \"astral\"\ntheory of Jesus and Pilate. Dr. Conybeare appears incapable of giving\na true account of anything he antagonizes, whether in politics\nor in religion. Elsewhere Drews speaks of astral elements in the\nChrist story; but so do those adherents of the biographical school\nwho recognize the zodiacal source of the Woman-and-Child myth in\nRevelation.\n\n[203] At another point (p. 87, note) Dr. Conybeare triumphantly\ncites Winckler as saying that \"the humanization of the Joshua myth\nwas complete when the book of Joshua was compiled.\" This grants\nthe whole case. \"Humanization\" tells of previous deity; and just as\nAchilles remained a God after being presented in the Iliad, Joshua\nwas \"human\" only for those whose sole lore concerning him was that\nof the Hexateuch.\n\n[204] Der vorchristliche Jesus, p. 1 sq.\n\n[205] Mk. v, 27; Lk. xxiv, 19; Acts xviii, 25; xxviii, 31.\n\n[206] Perhaps an exception should be made of Dr. Conybeare,\nwho believes Jesus to have been a \"successful exorcist\"\n(M.M.M. p. 142). This writer sees no difficulty in the fact that in\nMark Jesus is no exorcist at Nazareth, and refuses to work wonders.\n\n[207] P.C. 164.\n\n[208] Rev. xxi, 14.\n\n[209] iv, 4.\n\n[210] Cp. ii, 9; iii, 9.\n\n[211] iii, 14, 15; xix, 13.\n\n[212] Origins of Christianity, ed. 1914, p. 27.\n\n[213] Found in the Alexandrian and Vatican codices, and preferred by\nLachmann, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort.\n\n[214] to deuteron. The R.V. puts \"afterward\" in the text, with\n\"Gr. the second time\" in the margin. Mr. Whittaker reads \"afterward\"\nalso, after \"the second time\"--apparently by oversight.\n\n[215] Deane, Pseudepigrapha, 1891, p. 312.\n\n[216] Josh. xxiv, 31, in Septuagint.\n\n[217] C.M. 352.\n\n[218] Art. by H. G. Wood in The Cambridge Magazine, Jan. 20, 1917,\np. 216.\n\n[219] P.C. 202.\n\n[220] Cambridge Magazine, Feb. 3, 1917, p. 289.\n\n[221] G.B. v, 45 sq., 223; P.C. 364, 373-4.\n\n[222] P.C. 112 sq., 131 sq., 140, 142, 144, 352, 362-4, 368.\n\n[223] C.M. 354. I find that Volkmar (there cited) had in one of his\nlater works put the theory that the traitor, whom he held to be an\ninvention of the later Paulinists, would be named Juda as typifying\nJudaism. The myth-theory is not necessarily committed to the whole of\nthis thesis, but the objections of Brandt (Die evang. Gesch. pp. 15-18)\nseem to me invalid. He always reasons on the presupposition of\na central historicity, and argues as if Mark could not have been\ninterpolated at the points where Judas is named.\n\n[224] C.M. 208, notes.\n\n[225] Der vorchristliche Jesus, 1906, Vorwort by Schmiedel, p. vii,\nand pp. 27-28. Ecce Deus, 1912, pp. 18, 332.\n\n[226] Ecce Deus, pp. 16, 18, 50 sq., 70, 135; Der vorchr. Jesus,\np. 40. But see Ecce Deus, pp. 66 and 196, where the thesis is modified.\n\n[227] In the Literary Guide of June, 1913, Professor Smith defends his\nthesis against another critic. The reader should consult that article.\n\n[228] S.H.C. 33 sq.\n\n[229] Id. 35-36.\n\n[230] On this problem cp. Prof. Smith, Ecce Deus, 251 sq.; and\nProf. Drews, Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, Eng. tr. p. 19.\n\n[231] Enoch, xxxviii, 2; liii, 6.\n\n[232] Id. xl, 5, and often.\n\n[233] Id. xlvi, 2, 3, etc.\n\n[234] Id. xlviii, 10; lii, 4.\n\n[235] Id. lxii, 5.\n\n[236] Schodde's introd. p. 51.\n\n[237] Dr. Rendel Harris, Odes of Solomon, 1909, introd. p. 72.\n\n[238] Harris, as cited, pp. 118, 125, 128, etc.\n\n[239] Dr. Harris pronounces that an account in the Odes of the Virgin\nBirth (xix) must be later than the first century (p. 116). But this\nbegs the question as to the source of that myth.\n\n[240] Apropos d'hist. des religions, p. 272.\n\n[241] Refutation of all Heresies, v, 5 (11).\n\n[242] Cp. Drews, The Christ Myth, p. 54; and 2nd ed. of original,\np. 24.\n\n[243] Drews, p. 59; Loisy, p. 273.\n\n[244] C.M. 316 sq.\n\n[245] C.M. 363.\n\n[246] Id. 364.\n\n[247] H\u00e6res. XXX.\n\n[248] S.H.C. 6; C.M. 316.\n\n[249] C.M. 314.\n\n[250] Der vorchristliche Jesus, pp. 42-70; Ecce Deus, pt. vi.\n\n[251] C.M. 314.\n\n[252] Paper on \"The Syriac Forms of New Testament Names,\" in Proc. of\nthe British Academy, vol. v, 1912, pp. 17-18.\n\n[253] C.M. 312. The thesis was put by me twenty-eight years ago.\n\n[254] Der vorchr. Jesus, p. 54 sq.\n\n[255] C.M. 316.\n\n[256] Der vorchr. Jesus, pp. 56, 65.\n\n[257] Cp. Philo Jud\u00e6us, De Profugis:--\"The Divine Word ... existing\nas the image of God, is the eldest of all things that can be known,\nplaced nearest, and without anything intervening, to him who alone\nis the self-existent.\"\n\n[258] Friedl\u00e4nder's thesis that the Minim were early Gnostics seems to\nbe completely upset by Mr. Herford, Christianity in Talmud, p. 368 sq.\n\n[259] Id. pp. 255-266.\n\n[260] The fact that the Talmudic allusions to the Minim include no\ndiscussion of the Christist doctrine of the Messiah (Herford, pp. 277,\n279) goes to show that a Messianic doctrine had been no part of the\nearly cult, and that among the Jesuists who kept up their connection\nwith Judaism it gathered, or kept, no hold.\n\n[261] Cp. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu, 1857, p. 287.\n\n[262] Justin, 1 Apol. 26.\n\n[263] Id. ib.\n\n[264] See the whole subject discussed in Appendix B.\n\n[265] C. 120, end.\n\n[266] See H. J. 182.\n\n[267] Ecce Deus, p. 68. In his article in the Literary Guide, June,\n1913, Professor Smith argues that only as a protest against idolatry\nand a crusade for monotheism could Proto-Christianity have succeeded\nwith the Gentiles. But that was simply the line of Judaism, which had\nno Son-God to cloud its monotheism. Surely Jesuism appealed to the\nGentiles primarily as did other Saviour-cults, ultimately distancing\nthese by reason of organization.\n\n[268] Cp. Les Ap\u00f4tres, p. 107; Saint Paul, pp. 562-3.\n\n[269] Cp. S.H.C. 82.\n\n[270] 19 Antiq. iii, 3.\n\n[271] Ecce Deus, p. 230 sq.\n\n[272] 20 Antiq. xi, 3.\n\n[273] Life, \u00a7 2.\n\n[274] XVIII, i, 6.\n\n[275] 20 Antiq. ix, 1.\n\n[276] Ecce Deus, pp. 235-6.\n\n[277] The Jesus of History and the Jesus of Tradition Identified. By\nGeorge Solomon. Reeves and Turner, 1880.\n\n[278] Here Mr. Solomon, without offering any explanation, identifies\nJosephus's Jesus son of Sapphias, who was chief magistrate in Tiberias,\nwith Jesus the robber captain of the borders of Ptolemais (\u00a7 22)--a\ndifferent person. I give his theory as he puts it. (Work cited,\npp. 164-179.)\n\n[279] Dr. Conybeare puts it as axiomatic that Jesus always speaks in\nMark \"as a Jew to Jews.\" Thus are facts \"gross as a mountain, open,\npalpable,\" sought to be outfaced by verbiage.\n\n[280] This aspect of the problem seems to be ignored by Erich Haupt\n(Zum Verst\u00e4ndnis des Apostolats im neuen Testament 1896), who finds\nthe choice of the twelve historical.\n\n[281] See the passage in Baring Gould's Lost and Hostile Gospels,\n1874, p. 61; and in Herford's Christianity in Talmud and Midrash,\n1903, p. 90.\n\n[282] Hibbert Journal, July, 1911, cited by Prof. Smith, Ecce Deus,\np. 318.\n\n[283] C.M. 344. For the convenience of the reader I reprint in an\nAppendix an annotated translation I published in 1891--a revision of\nthat of Messrs. Hitchcock and Brown, compared with a number of others.\n\n[284] Cp. \"His Servant Jesus\" in Acts iii, 13, 26; iv, 27, 30.\n\n[285] C.M. 415 sq.\n\n[286] Supernatural Religion, R.P.A. rep. p. 153.\n\n[287] See the notes to translation in Appendix.\n\n[288] It goes back to Jeremiah, xxi, 8.\n\n[289] Encyc. Bib. i, 261.\n\n[290] Cp. Prof. A. Seeberg, Die Didache des Judentums und der\nUrchristenheit, 1908, p. 8; and his previous works, cited by him.\n\n[291] C.M. 344.\n\n[292] A. Seeberg, work cited, p. 1.\n\n[293] Dr. Conybeare nevertheless (Histor. Christ, p. 3) calls it a\n\"characteristically Christian document,\" in an argument which maintains\nthe early currency and general historicity of Mark.\n\n[294] This thesis was put in C.M. 345. Yet Dr. Conybeare alleges\n(p. 20) that I represent Jesus as surrounded by twelve disciples solely\nbecause of the twelve signs of the zodiac. The latter item is given\nsimply as an explanation of the calling of the twelve on a mountain\n(412), which Dr. Conybeare finds quite historical.\n\n[295] It was probably about the year 80 that the Jewish authorities\nframed the formula by which they sought to mark off \"the Minim\"\nfrom the Judaic fold.--Herford, Christianity in Talmud, pp. 135, 385-7.\n\n[296] Mr. Lester (The Historic Jesus, p. 84) argues that the baptism\nof Jesus by John must be historical, since to invent it would be\ngratuitously to make him \"in a way subordinate to John.\" But when\nJohn is put as the Forerunner, acclaiming the Messiah, where is the\nsubordination?\n\n[297] C.M. 396.\n\n[298] H.J. 135-6.\n\n[299] Encyc. Bib. art. Baptism.\n\n[300] A temporary Messianic Kingdom is set forth about 100 B.C. in\nthe Book of Jubilees (ed. Charles, 1902, introd. p. lxxxvii).\n\n[301] Charles, introd. to the Assumption of Moses, 1897, pp. xiii-xiv,\nliv.\n\n[302] Id. pp. xi, 41.\n\n[303] Charles, introd. to the Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896, pp. vii-viii.\n\n[304] Id. p. lv, and refs.\n\n[305] See above, p. 117, n.\n\n[306] Above, p. 66.\n\n[307] Cp. Mk. i, 8.\n\n[308] In Hebrews vi, 2, also, baptism appears to be disparaged. But\nvv. 1-2 are incoherent. Green's translation gives a passable sense:\nthe R.V. does not.\n\n[309] Acts x, 48.\n\n[310] Mt. xxviii, 19. Cp. Mk. xvi, 16.\n\n[311] Testaments, ed. Charles, 1908, pp. xvi, 121.\n\n[312] H.J. ch. vi.\n\n[313] Van Manen, as summarized by Mr. Whittaker, Origins of\nChristianity, ed. 1914, p. 78, citing Epiphanius, H\u00e6r. xxx, 16.\n\n[314] Id. pp. 124-5, 199.\n\n[315] Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. iii, 24.\n\n[316] Cp. Van Manen in Whittaker, p. 182.\n\n[317] E.g. the dating of the rising of Theudas before the \"enrolment\"\nof Luke (6 C.E.); whereas Josephus places it about the year 45.\n\n[318] The reference to \"Aretas the King\" in 2 Cor. xi, 32, one of the\nfew possible clues in the Epistles, yields no certain date, and indeed\ncreates a crux for the historians. See art. Aretas in Encyc. Bib.\n\n[319] Cp. Van Manen, as cited.\n\n[320] H.J. 199-203.\n\n[321] Cp. Schmiedel, art. Gospels in Encyc. Bib. col. 1890.\n\n[322] P.C. 316 n.\n\n[323] P.C. 281.\n\n[324] See S.H.F., chs. iii and v; and cp. Whittaker, Priests,\nPhilosophers, and Prophets, 1911.\n\n[325] P.C. 67 sq.\n\n[326] S.H.F. ch. iv.\n\n[327] First put by M. Maurice Vernes, Du pr\u00e9tendu polyth\u00e9isme des\nHebreux, 1891.\n\n[328] See The Source of the Christian Tradition, by E. Dujardin:\nEng. trans. R.P.A., p. 32; and the citations from MM. Vernes and\nDujardin in Mr. Whittaker's Priests, Philosophers, and Prophets,\n1911, pp. 124-127.\n\n[329] Mr. Whittaker (p. 128) puts the view that Jewish monotheism was\nreally a reduction of the universalist monotheism of the Mesopotamian\npriesthoods to the purposes of a nationalist God-cult.\n\n[330] S.H.F. i, 44-46.\n\n[331] Even Dean Inge avows that \"The distinctive feature of the Jewish\nreligion is not, as is often supposed, its monotheism. Hebrew religion\nin its golden age was monolatry rather than monotheism; and when\nJehovah became more strictly the only God, the cult of intermediate\nbeings came in, and restored a quasi-polytheism.\"--Art. \"St. Paul\"\nin Quarterly Review, Jan. 1914, p. 54.\n\n[332] See, however, the contrary thesis maintained by Dr. A. Causse,\nLes Proph\u00e8tes d'Israel et les religions de l'orient, 1913.\n\n[333] Ecce Deus, pp. 71, 75.\n\n[334] Cp. Whittaker, Priests, Philosophers, and Prophets, p. 45.\n\n[335] Cp. Supernatural Religion, ch. iv.\n\n[336] E.g. Art. in The Atlantic Monthly, Nov. 1916, p. 605.\n\n[337] Cp. J. A. Farrer, Paganism and Christianity, R.P.A. rep. pp.,\n19-20; Dr. J. E. Carpenter, Phases of Early Christianity, 1916,\np. 57 sq.\n\n[338] It may be argued that the really swift triumph of Islam in a\nlater age goes to support Professor Smith's thesis. But the triumph\nof Islam was primarily military. And Islam too kept its cort\u00e8ge of\n\"demons.\"\n\n[339] E.g. in modern China.\n\n[340] P.C. 62-63.\n\n[341] S.H.F. i, 34, 72.\n\n[342] Cp. Weizs\u00e4cker, The Apostolic Age, Eng. trans, i, 55. It is\njust possible that among people devoutly awaiting the imminent end\nof the world, some such communions might have a brief existence.\n\n[343] A good support to Hobbes's thesis that the sin against the Holy\nGhost is sin against the ecclesiastical power.\n\n[344] S.H.C. 70.\n\n[345] Cp. Acts xiii, 1; xv, 32; Rev. xvi, 6; xviii, 20, 24.\n\n[346] Bampton Lectures on The Organization of the Early Christian\nChurches, 3rd. ed. 1888, p. ix.\n\n[347] E.S. 113-115.\n\n[348] Hatch, 26. Cp. his Hibbert Lectures, p. 291 sq.\n\n[349] Id. Organization 28.\n\n[350] Id. 28; Foucart, as there cited.\n\n[351] As Hatch notes, p. 35, Clemens Romanus (ii, 16) echoes Tobit,\nxii, 8, 9, as to the blessedness of almsgiving. Cp. his citations\nfrom Lactantius, Chrysostom, and the Apostolical Constitutions.\n\n[352] Hatch, p. 35.\n\n[353] Id. p 35.\n\n[354] Hatch, p. 37.\n\n[355] S.H.C. 87 sq.\n\n[356] Hatch, 29.\n\n[357] \"The Broken\" is used as a noun: bread is only\nunderstood. Evidently the breaking was vitally symbolic, as is\nexplained in the context. Cp. Luke xxiv, 30, 35.\n\n[358] Iren\u00e6us, Against Heresies, v, 3.\n\n[359] See Introd. to Messrs. Hitchcock and Brown's (American) ed.,\n1885, p. lxxviii.\n\n[360] Above, p. 132.\n\n[361] C.M. 422.\n\n[362] Bousset in Encyc. Bib. i, 209, following Gunkel, Sch\u00f6pfung\nund Chaos.\n\n[363] Cp. R. Brown, Jr., Primitive Constellations, 1899, i, 64-65,\n104, 119, etc.; G. Schiaparelli, Astronomy in the O. T., 1905, p. 72;\nHon. Emmeline M. Plunket, Ancient Calendars and Constellations, 1903,\n117-123, and maps; and Hippolytus, Ref. of all Heresies, v, 47-49.\n\n[364] Rev. xviii, 2, 21.\n\n[365] Encyc. Bib. art. James.\n\n[366] A view independently put before his (1896) by the present writer.\n\n[367] Admirably summarized by Mr. T. Whittaker in his Origins of\nChristianity. Cp. Van Manen's art. Paul in Encyc. Bib.\n\n[368] Dr. F. C. Conybeare has indicated the view that, Van Manen's\nchair having been offered to him after Van Manen's death, he is in\na position to dispose of Van Manen's case by expressing his contempt\nfor it. And Dr. Conybeare is prepared to accept as genuine the whole\nof the epistles, a position rejected by all the professional critics\nexcept the extreme traditionalists.\n\n[369] Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii, 39, end.\n\n[370] This term, it will be noted, tells of an abstract or generalized\nand not of a \"personal\" tradition.\n\n[371] Iren\u00e6us, Against Heresies, v, 33.\n\n[372] Canon Charles, note on Apoc. Baruch, xxix, 5.\n\n[373] Myth, Magic, and Morals, 2nd ed. p. 58.\n\n[374] Id. p. 53.\n\n[375] E. B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 1879,\np. 101.\n\n[376] Id. p. 104.\n\n[377] C.M. 403 sq.\n\n[378] Art. Gospels in Encyc. Bib. cols. 1868, 1872.\n\n[379] Art. Gospels in Encyc. Bib. cols. 1767, 1846.\n\n[380] 2 Kings i, 8: R.V. marg.\n\n[381] This thesis is put by the Professor in art. Gospels in\nEncyc. Bib. col. 1881; also, at greater length, in his lecture,\nJesus in Modern Criticism, and his work on The Johannine Writings\n(Eng. trans.; Black, 1907, 1908).\n\n[382] I have dealt with the nine texts seriatim in C.M. 441 sq.,\nand P.C. 229 sq. They are more fully and very ably discussed by\nProf. Smith (Ecce Deus, Part III), with most though not with all of\nwhose criticism I am in agreement.\n\n[383] Eng. trans. p. 31.\n\n[384] P.C. 234.\n\n[385] Pref. to Eng. trans. of Arno Neumann's Jesus, 1906, p. xx.\n\n[386] Work cited, p. 9.\n\n[387] Unless we take the story of Thomas to be an invention to\nconfute doubters.\n\n[388] See above, p. 113 sq., as to the Nazar\u00e6ans.\n\n[389] De Principiis, iv, 22.\n\n[390] B. v, c. 61.\n\n[391] Cp. Neander, Church Hist. Bohn trans. i, 482-3. Jerome speaks\n(In Matt. xii, 13) of the gospel quo utuntur Nazaraei et Ebionitae,\nas if they held it in common. Cp. Nicholson, p. 28.\n\n[392] Hippolytus, Ref. of all Heresies, vii, 22.\n\n[393] Dialogue with Trypho, 47-49.\n\n[394] Neander, as cited, p. 482 and refs.\n\n[395] Epiphanius, H\u00e6r. xxx, 16.\n\n[396] Nicholson, pp. 15, 34, 61, 77.\n\n[397] Jesus in Modern Criticism, p. 33.\n\n[398] Cp. the Professor's work on The Johannine Writings, p. 90,\nwhere the same query: \"Who could have invented them?\" is put as\nestablishing special sayings of Buddha, Confucius, Zarathustra,\nand Mohammed. I cannot follow the logic.\n\n[399] The argument is the same whether we say \"inventions of the\nevangelists\" or \"appropriations from other documents, or from hearsay.\"\n\n[400] P.C. 218 sq.; C.M. 395.\n\n[401] P.C. 206, 223, 228; C.M. 395.\n\n[402] Compare the story of Joseph, Gen. xxxix.\n\n[403] Iren\u00e6us, Against Heresies, i, 26.\n\n[404] Ecce Deus, p. 60.\n\n[405] Id. pp. 171-2.\n\n[406] Cp. Ecce Deus, p. 26.\n\n[407] Dr. Thorburn (Mythical Interpretation, p. 34) sees fit to argue\nthat the Christian phatn\u00ea was a \"totally different thing\" from the\npagan liknon (that is, if he argues anything at all). He carefully\nignores the sculptures which show them to be the same. (C.M. 192, 307.)\n\n[408] Cp. Soltau on the appeal made by the story (Birth of Jesus\nChrist, Eng. tr. p. 4). \"What is there,\" he asks, \"that can be compared\nwith this in the religious literature of any other people?\" The critic\nshould compare the literature of Krishnaism.\n\n[409] Ludwig Conrady argues (Die Quelle der kanonischen\nKindheitsgeschichte Jesus', 1900, p. 272 sq.) that the stories of\nthe Infancy in the Apocryphal Gospels, which appear to be at that\npoint the sources for Matthew and Luke, probably derive from Egypt,\nwhere the hieratic ideals of virginity were high. This may be, but\nthe evidence is very imperfect.\n\n[410] The precedents of the divine paternity of Alexander and Augustus,\nstressed by Soltau, would surely be inadequate. Heathen emperors\nwould hardly be \"types\" for early Christians.\n\n[411] The Rev. Dr. Thorburn idly argues (Mythical Interpretation,\npp. 38-39) that such stories do not affirm parthenogenesis where\na Goddess or a woman is described as married. As if Mary were not\nin effect so described! But in Greek mythology we have the special\ncase of the spouse-goddess H\u00ear\u00ea, who is repeatedly represented as\nconceiving without congress. (C.M. 295.)\n\n[412] P.C. 166, note 3.\n\n[413] C.M. 99; P.C. 165.\n\n[414] C.M. 191 sq., 306 sq.\n\n[415] Encyc. Bib. art. Moses, col. 3206.\n\n[416] C.M. 298.\n\n[417] Id. 167 sq.\n\n[418] C.M. 168-9. Cp. Dr. G. Contenau, La d\u00e9esse nue Babylonienne,\n1914, pp. 7, 15, 16, 57, 78, 80, 101, 129, 131.\n\n[419] C.M. 180-205.\n\n[420] Soltau argues not only that the belief in the Virgin Birth\n\"could not have originated in Palestine; anyhow, it could never\nhave taken its rise in Jewish circles,\" but that \"the idea that the\nHoly Spirit begat Jesus can have no other than a Hellenic origin\"\n(Birth of Jesus Christ, Eng. trans, pp. 47-48). He forgets the \"sons\nof God\" in Genesis vi, 2. The stories of the births of Isaac and\nSamson inferribly had an original form less decorous than the Biblical.\n\n[421] It is doubly edifying to remember that the writer who pretends\nto find in avowed analogies of divine names, functions, and epithets\na theory of a philological \"equation,\" himself insists on finding\nin every New Testament naming of a Jesus, and every pagan allusion\nto a \"Chrestus\" or \"Christus,\" a biographical allusion to Jesus of\nNazareth. For Dr. Conybeare, the Jesus of the Apocalypse and the\n\"Chrestus\" of Suetonius are testimonies to the existence of Jesus\nthe son of Mary and Joseph. The very absurdity he seeks to find in\nthe myth-theory is inherent in his own method.\n\n[422] C.M. 301-2 and refs.\n\n[423] The Rev. Dr. Thorburn (Mythical Interpretation, p. 21) cites\nfrom the Encyc. Bib. as \"the words of Dr. Cheyne\" words which are not\nCheyne's at all, but those of Robertson Smith. Smith, so scientific\nin his anthropology, is always irrationalist in his theology.\n\n[424] R.V. \"enrolment.\" Dr. Thorburn appears to argue (p. 39) that the\n\"taxing\" story in the Krishna-myth is derived from \"ignorant copying\"\nof the English Authorized Version! The \"to be taxed\" of the A.V. of\ncourse represents the traditional interpretation--that taxing was\nthe object of the enrolment.\n\n[425] C.M. 189-90.\n\n[426] C.M. 273.\n\n[427] I have been represented, by scholars who will not take the\ntrouble to read the books they attack, as deriving the Christ-myth in\ngeneral from the Krishna-myth. This folly belongs solely to their own\nimagination. Dr. Conybeare's assertion (Histor. Christ, p. 69) that in\nmy theory the Proto-Christian Joshua-God was a composite myth \"made up\nof memories of Krishna ... and a hundred other fiends,\" is of the same\norder. In his case, of course, I do not charge omission to read the\nstatement he falsifies: it is simply a matter of his normal inability\nto understand any position he attacks. As regards the Krishna-myth I\nsuggest only in the detail of the \"taxing\" the possibility of Christian\nborrowing through an intermediate source: in another, that of \"the bag\"\nwhich is carried by a hostile demon-follower of Krishna (C.M. 241-3),\nI suggest the possibility of Indian borrowing from the fourth gospel,\nwhere \"the bag\" is presumptively derived from a stage accessory in\nthe mystery-drama, Judas carrying a bag to receive his reward.\n\n[428] C.M. 205 sq.\n\n[429] C.M. 207.\n\n[430] Id. 347 sq.; Drews, Die Petrus Legende (pamphlet), 1910.\n\n[431] Dr. Conybeare, undeviating in error, represents me\n(Histor. Christ, p. 73) as suggesting that the epithet bifrons led to\nthe invention of the story of Peter's Denial. I had expressly pointed\nout that the epithet bifrons did not carry an aspersive sense, and\nsuggested that the figure of Janus, with its Petrine characteristics,\nmight have inspired the story of the Denial (C.M. 350-1). The subject\nof iconographic myth is evidently unknown matter to Dr. Conybeare.\n\n[432] C.M. 318 sq.\n\n[433] Die Versuchung Jesu (in Zur Gesch. und Litt. des Urchristentums,\nIII, ii, 1907, pp. 53, 65.)\n\n[434] The simple principle of holding Mark for primary wherever it\nis brief has meant many such assumptions, in which many of us once\nuncritically acquiesced.\n\n[435] As cited, p. 85.\n\n[436] Id. pp. 92-93.\n\n[437] Test. Naphtali, viii, 4.\n\n[438] This is ably argued by Prof. Smith.\n\n[439] C.M. 329 sq.\n\n[440] Id. 335 sq.\n\n[441] Cp. Soltau, Das Fortleben des Heidentums in d. altchr. Kirche,\n1906; S.H.C. 67 sq., 101 sq.; J. A. Farrer, Paganism and Christianity,\nR.P.A. rep. passim.\n\n[442] C.M. 220 and note 2. Cp. W. J. Wilkins, Paganism in the Papal\nChurch, 1901.\n\n[443] Cp. Saint-Yves, Les Saints successeurs des Dieux, 1907; J. Rendel\nHarris, The Dioscuri in the Christian Legends, 1903.\n\n[444] Compare Soltau's remarks on the hostility still shown to\nprofessional scholars who merely reject the Virgin Birth (work\ncited, p. 2), and the plea of Brandt for his piety (Die evangelische\nGeschichte, Vorwort).\n\n[445] Apropos d'histoire des religions, end.\n\n[446] Compare the recent volume of debate between Dr. Sanday\nand the Rev. N. P. Williams on Form and Content in the Christian\nTradition. Mr. Williams argues against Dr. Sanday--who is less\ndestructive in his criticism than M. Loisy--in this very fashion.\n\n[447] Essay on Dr. Johnson (1884).\n\n[448] Apropos d'histoire des religions, p. 320.\n\n[449] J\u00e9sus et la trad. \u00e9vang. pp. 286, 288.\n\n[450] Id. p. 277.\n\n[451] Jesus in Modern Criticism, p. 85.\n\n[452] Id. p. 86.\n\n[453] Id. p. 12.\n\n[454] Id. p. 87.\n\n[455] Jesus in Modern Criticism, pp. 79-81.\n\n[456] C.M. 392.\n\n[457] C.M. p. 90.\n\n[458] So far as I am aware, the only explicit condemnation passed in\nthe German Reichstag on the German submarine policy has been delivered\nby the Socialist Adolf Hoffmann, a professed Freethinker. He pronounced\nit \"shameful,\" and was duly called to order.\n\n[459] I have briefly put the case in pref. to S.H.C.\n\n[460] Dr. Rendel Harris, on the other hand, in effect avows that his\nheart is warmed by fictitious \"Odes of Solomon,\" in which the writer\nputs imaginary language in the mouth of the Christ.\n\n[461] See J. McCabe, Sources of the Morality of the Gospels, R.P.A.,\n1914.\n\n[462] C.M. 403 sq.\n\n[463] Test. Gad, vi, 1-7.\n\n[464] Canon Charles, in loc.\n\n[465] There are many such close parallels of thought and diction\nbetween the two books. See Canon Charles's introduction, \u00a7 26.\n\n[466] In The Historical Jesus, pp. 23-26, I had to point out how two\nDoctors of Divinity, of high pretensions, had scornfully denied that\nthat story had ever been transcended, and how signally they erred. The\nsecond, the Rev. Dr. T. J. Thorburn, has since produced another work,\nin which the subject is carefully ignored. When theologians thus\nexhibit themselves as morally colour-blind, they relieve us of the\nnecessity of proving at any length how congenitally incompetent they\nare to determine the moral problems of sociology by the authority\nthey presume to flaunt.\n\n[467] Schmiedel, Jesus, end.\n\n[468] Art. Acts in Encyc. Bib., citing iv, 20; xiv, 22; xx, 24; xxi,\n13; xxiv, 16.\n\n[469] Egyptian Magic, 1899, pref.\n\n[470] Comparative Religion, 1912, p. 57.\n\n[471] Set forth in the National Reformer, May 15, 1887. Barnabas in\neffect avows that he is copying previous teaching.\n\n[472] There are two titles. It is surmised, with good reason, that this\nwas the original, though Mr. Gordon argues that it may be Sabellian,\nand of the third or fourth century. The \"Lord\" (the name is here used\nwithout the article, which was normally used in Christian writings)\nrefers to the God of the Jews, not to Jesus.\n\n[473] A pagan as well as a Jewish commonplace. Cp. Jeremiah xxi,\n8; Hesiod, Works and Days, 285 sq.; Xenophon, Memorabilia, ii, 1;\nPersius, Sat. iii, 56. Persius followed Pythagoras, who taught that\nthe ways of virtue and vice were like the thin and thick lines of the\nletter Y. This is the origin of the Christian formula of the broad\nand the narrow path. The conception of \"the right way\" is found among\nthe ancient Persians. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, i, 539 (\u00a7 448).\n\n[474] Cp. Levit. xix, 18; Matt. xxii, 37-39.\n\n[475] Cp. Tobit iv, 15; Matt. vii, 12. Hillel (Talmud, Sabbath, 306)\nputs the rule, as here, in the sane negative form, which is also the\nChinese. The gospel form is less rational. The sentiment is the first\nprinciple of morals, and is common to all religions and all races.\n\n[476] Cp. Matt. v, 44; Prov. xxv, 21; Talmud refs. in C.M. 406;\nand Test. of Twelve Patr. Dan. iii, iv; Gad, iii-vi. Canon Spence\nnotes that the resemblance between the Testaments and the Didach\u00ea is\n\"very marked.\" Note that in the Revised Version the text in Matthew\nis cut down--a recognition of tampering, in imitation of Luke vi, 27-8.\n\n[477] Gr. \"the nations\" = \"the Gentiles.\" Here, as elsewhere, we render\nby an English idiom, which gives the real force of the original. It\nwill be observed that the compilers of the first gospel (v, 46)\nsubstitute \"tax-gatherers\" for the original, by way of applying the\ndiscourse to Jews in Palestine, where the tax-gatherers represented\nforeign oppression.\n\n[478] A probable interpolation.\n\n[479] Cp. Lament. iii, 30, and the pagan parallels cited by Mr. McCabe,\nSources of Mor. of Gospels, pp. 229, 231.\n\n[480] This clause, which is not in Matthew, is intelligible only as\nan exhortation to Jews in foreign lands. The reference to 1 Cor. vi,\n1, cannot make it plausible as a Christian utterance.\n\n[481] This is otherwise translated by the Rev. Mr. Heron, Church of\nthe Sub-Apostolic Age, p. 16, thus: \"the Father wisheth men to give to\nall from their private portion\"; and by Dr. Taylor, Teaching, 1886,\np. 122, thus: \"the Father wills that to all men there be given of\nour own free gifts.\"\n\n[482] Cp. Acts xx, 35. That passage probably derives from this,\nand loses point in the transference.\n\n[483] Mr. Heron renders this \"under discipline,\" because the early\nChurch had no prison for its backsliders. Quite so. The reference is to\nPagan prisons, and the warning is to Jewish beggars. The Greek phrase,\nen synoch\u00ea, here clearly refers to a prison, though in Luke xxi, 25,\nit is rendered \"distress\" and in 2 Cor. ii, 4, \"anguish.\" Cp. Josephus,\n8 Ant. iii, 2. Canon Spence, who translates \"being in sore straits,\"\noffers the alternative \"coming under arrest.\"\n\n[484] Cp. Ecclesiasticus, xii, 1 sq. It will be observed that the\nconcluding clause modifies the earlier precept of indiscriminate\ngiving. It may be an addition.\n\n[485] A more developed teaching is found in the Testaments of the\nPatriarchs, as above cited.\n\n[486] Gr. z\u00eal\u00f4t\u00eas. The American editors translate this \"jealous\";\nbut Mr. Heron and Dr. Taylor more faithfully render it \"a zealot,\"\nthough this, a natural warning to Jews, would come oddly to\nChristians. \"Zealot\" specified a fanatical Jewish type (Luke vi, 15;\nActs i, 13; xxi, 20), but the Jesuists were exhorted to be \"zealous\"\n(same word) in 1 Cor. xiv, 12; Tit. ii, 14. Nowhere are Christian\n\"zealots\" rebuked; but Jewish fanatics in foreign lands needed warning\nfrom peace-loving teachers. On the other hand, the rendering \"jealous\"\nis evidently adopted because of the very difficulty of conceiving\nthat Christian teachers would warn their flocks against being either\n\"zealous\" or \"zealots.\" The context, however, clearly justifies\nour translation.\n\n[487] Gr. \"high-eyed.\" The meaning evidently is \"always looking at\npeople,\" and there is implied the injunction to look down, as is\nthe wont of nuns. Since deciding on the rendering given, we notice\nthat the Rev. A. Gordon, in his translation (sold at Essex Hall,\nEssex Street), has \"bold of eye.\" Dr. Taylor has \"of high looks.\"\n\n[488] Mr. Gordon has \"a diviner from birds\"; M. Sabatier \"augure\";\nDr. Taylor \"given to augury.\"\n\n[489] Mr. Gordon has \"a fire lustrator.\"\n\n[490] Cp. Matt. v, 5.\n\n[491] Gr. \"the high\" = the upper or ruling classes.\n\n[492] Cp. Heb. xiii, 7.\n\n[493] Gr. h\u00ea kyriot\u00eas. Messrs. Gordon and Heron render \"whence the\nlordship is spoken\" or \"proclaimed.\" In the New Testament (Eph. i,\n21; Col. i, 16; Jude viii; 2 Pet. ii, 10) the same word is rendered\n\"dominion\" by the Revisers.\n\n[494] Mr. Gordon adds here \"in praying\" in brackets. This is a guess,\nwhich seems to have no warrant, though Canon Spence leans to it. The\nsentence connects with the preceding one.\n\n[495] Cp. Dan. iv, 27; Test. Patr. Zabulon, viii.\n\n[496] Cp. Acts iv, 32. Here we seem to have the hint for the legend.\n\n[497] Cp. Prov. xiii, 24; xxii, 15; xxiii, 13-14; xxix, 17;\nEcclus. vii, 23-4; xxx, 1-2. A common Jewish sentiment, not found in\nthe New Testament. Cp. Eph. vi, 4.\n\n[498] Or type. Here, as in the New Testament, there is not the faintest\npretence of impugning slavery. The resistance to that began among\nPagans, not among Jews or Christians.\n\n[499] Gr. z\u00ealotypia. This is the normal Greek word for jealousy. Here,\nhowever, Mr. Heron has \"envy,\" perhaps rightly.\n\n[500] The American editors have \"pursuing revenge.\"\n\n[501] So Mr. Heron, we think rightly. M. Sabatier agrees. The American\neditors have \"toiling for,\" and Mr. Gordon \"labouring for.\"\n\n[502] Or, handiwork.\n\n[503] Probably a river or the sea. Cp. Carpenter, Phases of\nChristianity, p. 244, citing the Canons of Hippolytus.\n\n[504] The Syrian method, introduced into Europe after the Crusades.\n\n[505] The Jews, at least the Pharisees, fasted on Monday and Thursday,\nthe days of the ascent and descent of Moses to and from Sinai.\n\n[506] That is, Friday, called \"the preparation\" (for the Sabbath) by\nthe Jews. Mr. Heron notes that the Christians fasted on Wednesdays\nand Fridays, but does not explain how a Christian document came to\nuse the Jewish expression with no Christian qualification.\n\n[507] After all the previous allusions to \"the Lord\" (without the\narticle, save once in ch. iv and once in ch. vi) had plainly signified\n\"God,\" we here have \"the Lord\" (with the article) suddenly used in a\nclearly Christian sense, to signify Jesus. The transition is flagrant.\n\n[508] That is, in the original sense, thank-offering, as Mr. Gordon\nnotes. Now, the sacrament, as instituted in the gospels, is not\na thank-offering. It is evidently from the Didach\u00ea, or similar\nearly lore, that the word comes to be used for the sacrament by the\nFathers. It is never so used in the New Testament.\n\n[509] As the American editors note, Clement of Alexandria (Quis\nDives Salvetur, \u00a7 29) calls Jesus \"the vine of David.\" As Jesus is\n\"the vine\" in the fourth gospel, but not in the synoptics, we may\nsurmise that the Didach\u00ea was current at Alexandria.\n\n[510] Gr. paidos. Canon Spence and Mr. Heron render \"Son\"; but this\nis not the normal word for son (huios), and the same term is used\nfor David and Jesus. It is rendered \"servant\" in Acts iii, 13, 26;\niv, 27, R.V.\n\n[511] Gr. \"in the ages.\"\n\n[512] Cp. Matt. vii, 6. There is no such application there.\n\n[513] Mr. Heron takes this to signify that the love-feast accompanied\nthe Eucharist. But he notes, from Dr. Taylor, that the Jews had\ntheir chagigah before the Passover, in order that the latter might\nbe eaten \"after being filled.\" Mr. Gordon translates: \"After the\nfull reception.\"\n\n[514] Gr. despota. The American editors (who render it \"Master\")\nnote that this word becomes rare in Christian literature towards the\nlatter part of the second century.\n\n[515] So in the MS. Bryennios conjectures hui\u00f4 (Son) for the\u00f4, but\nthis does not justify the alteration of the text by several editors.\n\n[516] A Syriac phrase meaning not, as is sometimes said, \"The Lord\ncometh,\" but \"The Lord is come.\" It was presumably an ancient formula\nin the prayers hailing the rise of the sun.\n\n[517] It is difficult to reconcile this arrangement with any of the New\nTestament data as to the practice of the Jesuist apostles. Cp. Canon\nSpence, p. 91, as to \"the Jewish habit of wandering from place\nto place.\"\n\n[518] Cp. Mk. iii, 28-30; Matt. xii, 31; 1 Thess. v, 19, 20.\n\n[519] The American editors have \"a meal\"; Canon Spence \"a\nLove-Feast.\" See his note. And cp. Jevons, Introd. to Hist. of\nReligion, p. 333, as to the Greek agyrtes.\n\n[520] On this obscure passage Mr. Heron has a long note, which,\nhowever, supplies little light. Dr. Taylor notes that a \"cosmic\nmystery\" [Gr. myst\u00earion kosmikon] is \"the manifestation in the\nphenomenal world of a 'mystery of the upper world,'\" citing the\nZohar. Canon Spence suggests that the \"table\" connects with the\n\"mystery.\"\n\n[521] Gr. christemporos. Warnings of this kind are given in the\nEpistles of Barnabas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. See Canon Spence's note.\n\n[522] Note the remarkable advance in the economic provision for the\npreacher, clearly a later item than ch. xi.\n\n[523] Canon Spence rightly translates: \"on the Lord's Lord's-day.\" This\nsingular phrase is obscured by the American editors, who simply\ntranslate \"the Lord's day.\" The Greek is kyriak\u00ean Kyriou. It is\nthus clear that the expression \"Lord's day\" was in Pagan use, and\nthat the phrase \"Lord's-day of [the] Lord\" was an adaptation of the\nstanding expression to either Jewish or Jesuist use. This chapter may\nhave belonged to the pre-Christian document. There is no allusion to\nthe crucifixion.\n\n[524] Here the reference is clearly to Yahweh. The document cannot\nhave been originally written with the same title used indifferently\nof Yahweh and Jesus.\n\n[525] Mal. i, 11.\n\n[526] Literally, \"perform the liturgy\" = \"serve the (public) service.\"\n\n[527] Here we have the Christist expression.\n\n[528] This may have been a Jesuist allusion to Bar Cochab, about the\nyear 135.\n\n[529] Or \"outspreading.\"\n\n[530] An early support for the \"Conditional Immortality Association.\"\n\n[531] Apol. i, 26.\n\n[532] If we could but trust the assertion of Origen in the next century\n(Against Celsus, vi, 11) that there were then no Simonians left,\nthe presumption would be that they had been absorbed by another cult.\n\n[533] Ovid, Fasti, vi, 213; Livy, viii, 20.\n\n[534] Cory's Ancient Fragments, ed. 1876, p. 92; Lenormant's Chaldean\nMagic, Eng. tr., p. 131.\n\n[535] Sanchoniathon, in Cory, as cited, p. 5.\n\n[536] Eratosthenes' Canon of Theban Kings, in Cory as cited,\npp. 139-141.\n\n[537] Diodorus Siculus, ii, 4.\n\n[538] Bible Folk Lore, 1884, p. 45; cp. Steinthal on Samson, Eng. tr.,\nwith Goldziher, p. 408.\n\n[539] Movers, Die Ph\u00f6nizier, i, 558.\n\n[540] Goldziher, Hebrew Mythology, Eng. tr., p. 132; cp. Buttmann,\nMythologus, 1828, i, 221, and Sanchoniathon, as above.\n\n[541] Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu, 1857, p. 281.\n\n[542] Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, 1884, i, 214 n.\n\n[543] McClintock and Strong's Bib. Cycl. s. v.\n\n[544] Chaldean Magic, Eng. tr., p. 44.\n\n[545] Against Celsus, v, 45.\n\n[546] See it in McClintock and Strong's Cycl. s. v.; cp. Sch\u00fcrer,\nJewish Nation in Time of Christ, Eng. tr., Div. ii, Vol. ii, p. 83,\nwhere the prayer is given as the Shemoneh Esreh.\n\n[547] Sch\u00fcrer, p. 88.\n\n[548] McClintock and Strong's Bib. Cycl. s. v.\n\n[549] 1 Samuel xxviii, 13.\n\n[550] 1 Kings xvi, 24.\n\n[551] Die Religion Jesu, as cited.\n\n[552] 12 Antiq. v, 5.\n\n[553] G. L. Bauer, Theol. of the Old Test., Eng. tr., 1837, p. 5;\nEtheridge, The Targums on the Pentateuch, i (1862), introd., pp. 5,\n14, 17.\n\n[554] Bauer and Etheridge, as cited.\n\n[555] Gieseler, Comp. of Ec. Hist., Eng. tr., i, 48.\n\n[556] De Dea Syria, c. 33.\n\n[557] Die Ph\u00f6nizier, i, 417, 634.\n\n[558] Lenormant, as cited, p. 129.\n\n[559] Justin, Apol. i, 26; Iren\u00e6us, i, 23, \u00a7 2; Tertullian, De\nAnima, 34.\n\n[560] Die christliche Gnosis, 1835, p. 309.\n\n[561] De Dea Syria, 40.\n\n[562] Id. 32.\n\n[563] Lenormant, as cited, p. 117.\n\n[564] Iren\u00e6us, as cited.\n\n[565] Lucian, as cited.\n\n[566] Reland, Dissertat. Miscellan., Pars i, 1706, p. 147;\ncp. Enc. Bib. art. Samaritans, 4a. The dove was everywhere regarded in\nSyria as sacred, in connection with the myth of Semiramis (Diodorus,\nii, 4), which bears so closely on the name Samaria.\n\n[567] John viii, 48.\n\n[568] Mem. the aged Simeon of Luke ii, who blessed the child\nJesus. \"The Holy Spirit was upon him\" (v. 25). With him is associated\nAnna the Prophetess. Cp. Hannah, mother of Samuel.\n\n[569] Professor Smith, who accepts the historicity of Simon (Ecce Deus,\npp. 11, 103) does so without noting that it has been challenged. It\nwould be interesting to have his grounds for discriminating between\nthe God and the man.\n\n[570] McClintock and Strong's Bib. Cyc.\n\n[571] Kuenen, Religion of Israel, Eng. tr., iii, 314.\n\n[572] 1 Cor. xv, 10; 2 Cor. xi, 13, 23; Gal. i, 7; ii, 11.\n\n[573] 1 Cor. xv, 9; 2 Cor. xii, 4; Gal. i, 12.\n\n[574] Even a late copyist or reader of one of the Clementine\nMSS. confusedly recognised a hostility to Paul as underlying his\ntext. See Anti-Nicene Lib. trans., Recog. i, 70.\n\n[575] Acts iii, 1-12, etc.; xiv, 8-15, etc.\n\n[576] Gal. ii, 11-14.\n\n[577] See the whole data discussed in Baur, Ch. Hist. of the First\nThree Cent., Eng. tr., i, 91-98, etc.; Paul, Eng. tr., i, 88, 95,\netc.; Zeller, Contents and Origin of the Acts, Eng. tr., i, 250 sq.;\nVolkmar, Die Religion Jesu; Schmiedel, art. Simon Magus in Encyc. Bib.\n\n[578] Cp. 2 Cor. xi, 4.\n\n[579] John iv, 21.","title":"The Jesus Problem: A Restatement of the Myth Theory","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":85290}