The number forty figures also in many primitive myths. The Jews
were in the wilderness for forty years; Jesus fasted for forty days;
from the resurrection to the ascension were forty days; Moses was on
the mountain with God for forty days. An account in which such
scrupulous attention is shown to supposed sacred numbers is apt to be
more artificial than real. The biographers of Lincoln or of Socrates do
not seem to be interested in numbers. They write history, not
stories.
Again, many of the contemporaries of Lincoln bear written
witness to his existence. The historians of the time, the statesmen,
the publicists, the chroniclers--all seem to be acquainted with him, or
to have heard of him. It is impossible to explain why the
contemporaries of Jesus, the authors and historians of his time, do not take
notice of him. If Abraham Lincoln was important enough to have attracted
the attention of his contemporaries, how much more Jesus. Is it
reasonable to suppose that these Pagan and Jewish writers knew of
Jesus,--had heard of his incomparably great works and sayings,--but
omitted to give him a page or a line? Could they have been in a
conspiracy against him? How else is this unanimous silence to be accounted
for? Is it not more likely that the wonder-working Jesus was unknown
to them? And he was unknown to them because no such Jesus existed in their
day.
Should the student, looking into Abraham Lincoln's history,
discover that no one of his biographers knew positively just when he lived
or where he was born, he would have reason to conclude that because of
this uncertainty on the part of the biographers, he must be more exacting
than he otherwise would have been. That is precisely our position. Of course,
there are in history great men of whose birthplaces or birthdays we are
equally uncertain. But we believe in their existence, not because no one
seems to know exactly when and where they were born, but because there is
overwhelming evidence corroborating the other reports about them, and which
is sufficient to remove the suspicion suggested by the darkness hanging over
their nativity. Is there any evidence strong enough to prove the
historicity of Jesus, in spite of the fact that not even his supposed
companions, writing during the lifetime of Jesus' mother, have any
definite information to give.
But let us continue. The reports current
about a man like Lincoln are verifiable, while many of those about Jesus are
of a nature that no amount of evidence can confirm. That Lincoln was
President of these United States, that he signed the Emancipation
Proclamation, and that he was assassinated, can be readily
authenticated.
But how can any amount of evidence satisfy one's self that
Jesus was born of a virgin, for instance? Such a report or rumor can never
even be examined; it does not lend itself to evidence; it is beyond
the sphere of history; it is not a legitimate question for
investigation. It belongs to mythology. Indeed, to put forth a report of
that nature is to forbid the use of evidence, and to command
forcible acquiescence, which, to say the least, is a very
suspicious circumstance, calculated to hurt rather than to help the Jesus
story.
The report that Jesus was God is equally impossible of
verification. How are we to prove whether or not a certain person was God?
Jesus may have been a wonderful man, but is every wonderful man a God? Jesus
may have claimed to have been a God, but is every one who puts forth such
a claim a God? How, then, are we to decide which of the numerous candidates
for divine honors should be given our votes? And can we by voting for Jesus
make him a God? Observe to what confusion the mere attempt to follow such a
report leads us.
A human Jesus may or may not have existed, but we are as
sure as we can be of anything, that a virgin-born God, named Jesus, such as
we must believe in or be eternally lost, is an impossibility--except to
credulity. But credulity is no evidence at all, even when it is dignified by
the name of _faith_. Let us pause for a moment to reflect: The final argument
for the existence of the miraculous Jesus, preached in church and
Sunday-school, these two thousand years, as the sole savior of the world, is
an appeal to faith--the same to which Mohammed resorts to establish his
claims, and Brigham Young to prove his revelation. There is no other possible
way by which the virgin-birth or the _godhood_ of a man can be established.
And such a faith is never free, it is always maintained by the sword now, and
by hell-fire hereafter.
Once more, if it had been reported of Abraham
Lincoln that he predicted his own assassination; that he promised some of his
friends they would not die until they saw him coming again upon the clouds
of heaven; that he would give them thrones to sit upon; that they
could safely drink deadly poisons in his name, or that he would grant
them any request which they might make, provided they asked it for
his sake, we would be justified in concluding that such a Lincoln
never existed. Yet the most impossible utterances are put in Jesus'
mouth. He is made to say: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will
I do." No man who makes such a promise can keep it. It is not sayings like
the above that can prove a man a God. Has Jesus kept his promise? Does he
give his people everything, or "whatsoever" they ask of him? But, it is
answered, "Jesus only meant to say that he would give whatever he himself
considered good for his friends to have." Indeed! Is that the way to crawl
out of a contract? If that is what he meant, why did he say something else?
Could he not have _said_ just what he _meant_, in the first place? Would it
not have been fairer not to have given his friends any occasion for false
expectations? Better to promise a little and do more, than to promise
everything and do nothing. But to say that Jesus really entered into any such
agreement is to throw doubt upon his existence. Such a character is too
wild to be real. Only a mythical Jesus could virtually hand over
the government of the universe to courtiers who have petitions to
press upon his attention. Moreover, if Jesus could keep his promise,
there would be today no misery in the world, no orphans, no
childless mothers, no shipwrecks, no floods, no famines, no disease, no
crippled children, no insanity, no wars, no crime, no wrong! Have not
a thousand, thousand prayers been offered in Jesus' name against
every evil which has ploughed the face of our earth? Have these prayers
been answered? Then why is there discontent in the world? Can the
followers of Jesus move mountains, drink deadly poisons, touch serpents, or
work greater miracles than are ascribed to Jesus, as it was promised
that they would do? How many self-deluded prophets these extravagant
claims have produced! And who can number the bitter disappointments caused
by such impossible promises?
George Jacob Holyoake, of England, tells
how in the days of utter poverty, his believing mother asked the Lord, again
and again--on her knees, with tears streaming from her eyes, and with
absolute faith in Jesus' ability to keep His promise,--to give her starving
children their daily bread. But the more fervently she prayed the heavier
grew the burden of her life. A stone or wooden idol could not have
been more indifferent to a mother's tears. "My mind aches as I think
of those days," writes Mr. Holyoake. One day he went to see the Rev. Mr.
Cribbace, who had invited inquirers to his house. "Do you really believe,"
asked young Holyoake to the clergyman, "that what we ask in faith we shall
receive?"
"It never struck me," continues Mr. Holyoake, "that the
preacher's threadbare dress, his half-famished look, and necessity of taking
up a collection the previous night to pay expenses showed that faith
was not a source of income to him. It never struck me that if help
could be obtained by prayer no church would be needy, no believer would be
poor." What answer did the preacher give to Holyoake's earnest question? The
same which the preachers of today give: "He parried his answer with many
words, and at length said that the promise was to be taken with the provision
that what we asked for would be given, _if God thought it for our good."_ Why
then, did not Jesus explain that important _proviso_ when he made the
promise? Was Jesus only making a half statement, the other half of which he
would reveal later to protect himself against disappointed petitioners. But
he said: "If ye ask anything in my name, I will do it," and "If it were not
so, I would have told you." Did he not mean just what he said? The truth
is that no historical person in his senses ever made such
extraordinary, such impossible promises, and the report that Jesus made them
only goes to confirm that their author is only a legendary being.
When
this truth dawned upon Mr. Holyoake he ceased to petition Heaven, which was
like "dropping a bucket into an empty well," and began to look _elsewhere_
for help. * The world owes its advancement to the fact that men no longer
look to Heaven for help, but help themselves. Self-effort, and not prayer, is
the remedy against ignorance, slavery, poverty, and moral degradation.
Fortunately, by holding up before us an impossible Jesus, with his impossible
promises, the churches have succeeded only in postponing, but not in
preventing, the progress of man. This is a compliment to human nature, and it
is well earned. It is also a promise that in time humanity will be completely
emancipated from every phantom which in the past has scared it into silence
or submission, and
"A loftier race than e'er the
world Hath known shall rise With flame of liberty in their
souls, And light of science in their eyes."
* Bygones Worth
Remembering.--George Jacob Holyoake
[Illustration: 061 Portion of
Manuscript Supposed to Be Copy of Lost Originals.]
THE
CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS
The documents containing the story of Jesus are so
unlike those about Lincoln or any other historical character, that we must be
doubly vigilant in our investigation.
The Christians rely mainly on
the four Gospels for the historicity of Jesus. But the original documents of
which the books in the New Testament are claimed to be faithful copies are
not in existence. _There is absolutely no evidence that they ever were in
existence_. This is a statement which can not be controverted. Is it
conceivable that the early believers lost through carelessness or
purposely _every_ document written by an apostle, while guarding with
all protecting jealousy and zeal the writings of anonymous persons?
Is there any valid reason why the contributions to Christian literature of
an inspired apostle should perish while those of a nameless scribe are
preserved, why the original Gospel of Matthew should drop quietly out of
sight, no one knows how, while a supposed copy of it in an alien language is
preserved for many centuries? Jesus himself, it is admitted, did not write a
single line. He had come, according to popular belief, to reveal the will of
God--a most important mission indeed, and yet he not only did not put this
revelation in writing during his lifetime, and with his own hand, which it is
natural to suppose that a divine teacher, expressly come from heaven, would
have done, but he left this all-important duty to anonymous
chroniclers, who, naturally, made enough mistakes to split up Christendom
into innumerable factions. It is worth a moment's pause to think of the
persecutions, the cruel wars, and the centuries of hatred and bitterness
which would have been spared our unfortunate humanity, if Jesus himself had
written down his message in the clearest and plainest manner, instead of
leaving it to his supposed disciples to publish it to the world, when he
could no longer correct their mistakes.
Moreover, not only did Jesus
not write himself, but he has not even taken any pains to preserve the
writings of his "apostles," It is well known that the original manuscripts,
if there were any, are nowhere to be found. This is a grave matter. We have
only supposed copies of supposed original manuscripts. Who copied them? When
were they copied? How can we be sure that these copies are reliable? And why
are there thousands upon thousands of various readings in these,
numerous supposed copies? What means have we of deciding which version
or reading to accept? Is it possible that as the result of Jesus'
advent into our world, we have only a basketful of nameless and
dateless copies and documents? Is it conceivable, I ask, that a God would
send his Son to us, and then leave us to wander through a pile of
dusty manuscripts to find out why He sent His Son, and what He taught
when on earth?
The only answer the Christian church can give to this
question is that the original writings were purposely allowed to perish.
When a precious document containing the testament of Almighty God,
and inscribed for an eternal purpose by the Holy Ghost,
disappears altogether there is absolutely no other way of accounting for
its disappearance than by saying, as we have suggested, that its
divine author must have intentionally withdrawn it from circulation.
"God moves in a mysterious way" is the last resort of the believer.
This is the one argument which is left to theology to fight science
with. Unfortunately it is an argument which would prove every cult and
"ism" under the heavens true. The Mohammedan, the Mazdaian, and the
Pagan may also fall back upon faith. There is nothing which faith can
not cover up from the light. But if a faith which ignores evidence be
not a superstition, what then is superstition? I wonder if the
Catholic Church, which pretends to believe--and which derives quite an
income from the belief--that God has miraculously preserved the wood of
the cross, the Holy Sepulchre, in Jerusalem, the coat of Jesus, and
quite a number of other mementos, can explain why the original
manuscripts were lost. I have a suspicion that there were no
"original" manuscripts. I am not sure of this, of course, but if nails, bones
and holy places could be miraculously preserved, why not also
manuscripts? It is reasonable to suppose that the Deity would not have
permitted the most important documents containing His Revelation to drop
into some hole and disappear, or to be gnawed into dust by the
insects, after having had them written by special inspiration.
Again,
when these documents, such as we find them, are examined, it will be observed
that, even in the most elementary intelligence which they pretend to furnish,
they are hopelessly at variance with one another. It is, for example, utterly
impossible to reconcile Matthew's genealogy of Jesus with the one given by
Luke. In copying the names of the supposed ancestors of Jesus, they tamper
with the list as given in the book of Chronicles, in the Old Testament, and
thereby justly expose themselves to the charge of bad faith. One evangelist
says Jesus was descended from Solomon, born of "her that had been the
wife of Urias." It will be remembered that David ordered Urias killed in a
cowardly manner, that he may marry his widow, whom he coveted. According to
Matthew, Jesus is one of the offspring of this adulterous relation. According
to Luke, it is not through Solomon, but through Nathan, that Jesus is
connected with the house of David.
Again, Luke tells us that the name of
the father of Joseph was _Heli;_ Matthew says it was _Jacob_. If the writers
of the gospels were contemporaries of Joseph they could have easily learned
the exact name of his father.
Again, why do these biographers of Jesus
give us the genealogy of Joseph if he was not the father of Jesus? It is the
genealogy of Mary which they should have given to prove the descent of Jesus
from the house of David, and not that of Joseph. These
irreconcilable differences between Luke, Matthew and the other evangelists,
go to prove that these authors possessed no reliable information
concerning the subjects they were writing about. For if Jesus is a
historical character, and these biographers were really his immediate
associates, and were inspired besides, how are we to explain their blunders
and contradictions about his genealogy?
A good illustration of the
mythical or unhistorical character of the New Testament is furnished by the
story of John the Baptist. He is first represented as confessing publicly
that Jesus is the Christ; that he himself is not worthy to unloose the
latchet of his shoes; and that Jesus is the Lamb of God, "who taketh away the
sins of the world." John was also present, the gospels say, when the
heavens opened and a dove descended on Jesus' head, and he heard the
voice from the skies, crying: "He is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased."
Is it possible that, a few chapters later, this same
John forgets his public confession,--the dove and the voice from heaven,--and
actually sends two of his disciples to find out who this Jesus is, * The
only way we can account for such strange conduct is that the compiler
or editor in question had two different myths or stories before him,
and he wished to use them both.
* Matthew xi.
A further
proof of the loose and extravagant style of the Gospel writers is furnished
by the concluding verse of the Fourth Gospel: "There are also many other
things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written, every one, I
suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be
written." This is more like the language of a myth-maker than of a historian.
How much reliance can we put in a reporter who is given to such exaggeration?
To say that the world itself would be too small to contain the
unreported sayings and doings of a teacher whose public life possibly did
not last longer than a year, and whose reported words and deeds fill only
a few pages, is to prove one's statements unworthy of
serious consideration.
And it is worth our while to note also that the
documents which have come down to our time and which purport to be the
biographies of Jesus, are not only written in an alien language, that is to
say, in a language which was not that of Jesus and his disciples, but
neither are they dated or signed. Jesus and his twelve apostles were
Jews; why are all the four Gospels written in Greek? If they were
originally written in Hebrew, how can we tell that the Greek translation
is accurate, since we can not compare it with the originals? And why
are these Gospels anonymous? Why are they not dated? But as we shall say
something more on this subject in the present volume, we confine ourselves at
this point to reproducing a fragment of the manuscript pages from which our
Greek Translations have been made. * It is admitted by scholars that owing to
the difficulty of reading these ancient and imperfect and also conflicting
texts, an accurate translation is impossible. But this is another way of
saying that what the churches call the Word of God is not only the word of
man, but a very imperfect word, at that.
* See page 57.
The
belief in Jesus, then, is founded on secondary documents, altered and edited
by various hands; on lost originals, and on anonymous manuscripts of an age
considerably later than the events therein related--manuscripts which
contradict each other as well as themselves. Such is clearly and undeniably
the basis for the belief in a historical Jesus. It was this sense of the
insufficiency of the evidence which drove the missionaries of Christianity to
commit forgeries.
If there was ample evidence for the historicity of
Jesus, why did his biographers resort to forgery? The following admissions by
Christian writers themselves show the helplessness of the early preachers
in the presence of inquirers who asked for proofs. The church
historian, Mosheim, writes that, "The Christian Fathers deemed it a pious act
to employ deception and fraud." *
* Ecclesiastical Hist., Vol. I,
p. 247.
Again, he says: "The greatest and most pious teachers were nearly
all of them infected with this leprosy." Will not some believer tell us
why forgery and fraud were necessary to prove the historicity of Jesus.
Another historian, Milman, writes that, "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed"
by the early missionaries of Jesus. "It was an age of literary frauds,"
writes Bishop Ellicott, speaking of the times immediately following the
alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Dr. Giles declares that, "There can be no doubt
that great numbers of books were written with no other purpose than to
deceive." And it is the opinion of Dr. Robertson Smith that, "There was an
enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views."
Books which are now rejected as apochryphal were at one time received as
inspired, and books which are now believed to be infallible were at one
time regarded as of no authority in the Christian world. It certainly
is puzzling that there should be a whole literature of fraud and
forgery in the name of a historical person. But if Jesus was a myth, we
can easily explain the legends and traditions springing up in his
name.
The early followers of Jesus, then, realizing the force of
this objection, did actually resort to interpolation and forgery in
order to prove that Jesus was a historical character.
One of the
oldest critics of the Christian religion was a Pagan, known to history under
the name of Porphyry; yet, the early Fathers did not hesitate to tamper even
with the writings of an avowed opponent of their religion. After issuing an
edict to destroy, among others, the writings of this philosopher, a work,
called _Philosophy of Oracles,_ was produced, in which the author is made to
write almost as a Christian; and the name of Porphyry was signed to it as its
author. St. Augustine was one of the first to reject it as a forgery. *
A more astounding invention than this alleged work of a heathen
bearing witness to Christ is difficult to produce. Do these forgeries,
these apocryphal writings, these interpolations, freely admitted to
have been the prevailing practice of the early Christians, help to
prove the existence of Jesus? And when to this wholesale manufacture of
doubtful evidence is added the terrible vandalism which nearly destroyed
every great Pagan classic, we can form an idea of the desperate means to
which the early Christians resorted to prove that Jesus was not a myth. It
all goes to show how difficult it is to make a man out of a myth.
* Geo. W. Foote. Crimes of Christianity.
[Illustration:
072]
[Illustration: 073 The Goddess Mother in the Grecian
Pantheon.]
VIRGIN BIRTHS
Stories of gods born of
virgins are to be found in nearly every age and country. There have been many
virgin mothers, and Mary with her child is but a recent version of a very old
and universal myth. In China and India, in Babylonia and Egypt, in Greece and
Rome, "divine" beings selected from among the daughters of men the purest and
most beautiful to serve them as a means of entrance into the world
of mortals. Wishing to take upon themselves the human form,
while retaining at the same time their "divinity," this compromise--of
an earthly mother with a "divine" father--was effected. In the form of a
swan Jupiter approached Leda, as in the guise of a dove, or a _Paracletus,_
Jehovah "overshadowed" Mary.
A nymph bathing in a river in China is
touched by a lotus plant, and the divine Fohi is born.
In Siam, a
wandering sunbeam caresses a girl in her teens, and the great and wonderful
deliverer, Codom, is born. In the life of Buddha we read that he descended on
his mother Maya, "in likeness as the heavenly queen, and entered her womb,"
and was "born from her right side, to save the world." * In Greece, the young
god Apollo visits a fair maid of Athens, and a Plato is ushered into the
world.
* Stories of Virgin Births. Reference: Lord
Macartney. Voyage dans "interview de la Chine et en Tartarie." Vol.
I, p. 48. See also Les Vierges Meres et les Naissance
Miraculeuse. p. Saintyves. p. 19, etc.
In ancient Mexico, as well as in
Babylonia, and in modern Corea, as in modern Palestine, as in the legends of
all lands, virgins gave birth and became divine mothers. *
*
Stories of Virgin Births. Reference: Lord Macartney. Voyage dans
"interview de la Chine et en Tartarie." Vol. I, p. 48. See also Les
Vierges Meres et les Naissance Miraculeuse. p. Saintyves. p. 19,
etc.
But the real home of virgin births is the land of the Nile.
Eighteen hundred years before Christ, we find carved on one of the walls of
the great temple of Luxor a picture of the _annunciation, conception and
birth_ of King Amunothph III, an almost exact copy of the annunciation,
conception and birth of the Christian God. Of course no one will think of
maintaining that the Egyptians borrowed the idea from the Catholics nearly
two thousand years before the Christian era. "The story in the Gospel of
Luke, the first and second chapters is," says Malvert, "a reproduction,
'point by point,' of the story in stone of the miraculous birth of
Amunothph." *
* Science and Religion p. 96.
[Illustration:
076 The Annunciation, Birth, and Adoration of Amenophis of Egypt, Nearly 2000
Years Before Christ.]
Sharpe in his Egyptian Mythology, page 19, gives
the following description of the Luxor picture, quoted by G. W. Foote in his
_Bible Romances,_ page 126: "In this picture we have the annunciation,
the conception, the birth and the adoration, as described in the first and
second chapters of Luke's Gospel." Massey gives a more minute description of
the Luxor picture. "The first scene on the left hand shows the god Taht, the
divine Word or Loges, in the act of hailing the virgin queen, announcing to
her that she is to give birth to a son. In the second scene the god Kneph
(assisted by Hathor) gives life to her. This is the Holy Ghost, or Spirit
that causes conception....Next the mother is seated on the midwife's stool,
and the child is supported in the hands of one of the nurses. The
fourth scene is that of the adoration. Here the child is enthroned,
receiving homage from the gods and gifts from men." * The picture on the wall
of the Luxor temple, then, is one of the sources to which the
anonymous writers of the Gospels went for their miraculous story. It is
no wonder they suppressed their own identity as well as the source
from which they borrowed their material.
* Natural Genesis.
Massey, Vol. II, p. 398
Not only the idea of a virgin mother, but all
the other miraculous events, such as the stable cradle, the guiding star, the
massacre of the children, the flight to Egypt, and the resurrection and
bodily ascension toward the clouds, have not only been borrowed, but are
even scarcely altered in the New Testament story of
Jesus.
[Illustration: 078 The Nativity of the God Dionysius, Museum
of Naples. ]
That the early Christians borrowed the legend of Jesus
from earthly sources is too evident to be even questioned. Gerald Massey in
his great work on Egyptian origins demonstrates the identity of Mary,
the mother of Jesus, with Isis, the mother of Horus. He says: "The
most ancient, gold-bedizened, smoke-stained Byzantine pictures of
the virgin and child represent the mythical mother as Isis, and not as
a human mother of Nazareth." * Science and research have made this fact so
certain that, on the one hand ignorance, and on the other, interest only, can
continue to claim inspiration for the authors of the undated and unsigned
fragmentary documents which pass for the Word of God. If, then, Jesus is
stripped of all the borrowed legends and miracles of which he is the subject;
and if we also take away from him all the teachings which collected from
Jewish and Pagan sources have been attributed to him--what will be left of
him? That the ideas put in his mouth have been culled and compiled from other
sources is as demonstrable as the Pagan origin of the legends related of
him.
* Natural Genesis. Massey, Vol. ii, p. 487.
Nearly every
one of the dogmas and ceremonies in the Christian cult were borrowed from
other and older religions. The resurrection myth, the ascension, the
eucharisty, baptism, worship by kneeling or prostration, the folding of the
hands on the breast, the ringing of bells and the burning of incense, the
vestments and vessels used in church, the candles, "holy" water,--even the
word _Mass_ were all adopted and adapted by the Christians from the religions
of the ancients. The Trinity is as much Pagan, as much Indian or
Buddhist, as it is Christian. The idea of a Son of God is as old as the
oldest cult. The sun is the son of heaven in all primitive faiths. The
physical sun becomes in the course of evolution, the Son of Righteousness, or
the Son of God, and heaven is personified as the Father on High. The halo
around the head of Jesus, the horns of the older deities, the rays of light
radiating from the heads of Hindu and Pagan gods are incontrovertible
evidence that all gods were at one time--the sun in
heaven.
[Illustration: 080 Prehistoric Crosses Discovered in Pagan
Sepulchres (Italy).]
THE ORIGIN OF THE CROSS
Only
the uninformed, of whom, we regret to say, there are a great many, and who
are the main support of the old religions, still believe that the cross
originated with Christianity. Like the dogmas of the Trinity, the virgin
birth, and the resurrection, the sign of the cross or the cross as an emblem
or a symbol was borrowed from the more ancient faiths of Asia. Perhaps one of
the most important discoveries which primitive man felt obliged never to be
ungrateful enough to forget, was the production of fire by the friction of
two sticks placed across each other in the form of a cross. As early as the
stone age we find the cross carved on monuments which have been dug out
of the earth and which can be seen in the museums of Europe. On the
coins of later generations as well as on the altars of prehistoric times
we find the "sacred" symbol of the cross. The dead in ancient
cemeteries slept under the cross as they do in our day in Catholic
churchyards.
[Illustration: 081 House of Goodness, with Cross. Egyptian,
2000 B. C.]
In ancient Egypt, as in modern China, India, Corea, the
cross is venerated by the masses as a charm of great power. In the
Musee Guimet, in Paris, we have seen specimens of pre-Christian
crosses. In the Louvre Museum one of the "heathen" gods carries a cross on
his head. During his second journey to New Zealand, Cook was surprised
to find the natives marking the graves of their dead with the cross.
We saw, in the Museum of St. Germain, an ancient divinity of Gaul,
before the conquest of the country by Julius Caesar, wearing a garment
on which was woven a cross. In the same museum an ancient altar of
Gaul under Paganism, had a cross carved upon it. That the cross was
not adopted by the followers of Jesus until a later date may be
inferred from the silence of the earlier gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke,
on the details of the crucifixion, which is more fully developed in
the later gospel of John. The first three evangelists say nothing
about the nails or the blood, and give the impression that he was
hanged. Writing of the two thieves who were sentenced to receive the
same punishment, Luke says, "One of the malefactors that was _hanged_
with him." The idea of a bleeding Christ, such as we see on crosses
in Catholic churches, is not present in these earlier descriptions of the
crucifixion; the Christians of the time of Origin were called "the followers
of the god who was hanged." In the fourth gospel we see the beginnings of the
legend of the cross, of Jesus carrying or falling under the weight of the
cross, of the nail prints in his hands and feet, of the spear drawing the
blood from his side and smearing his body. Of all this, the first three
evangelists are quite ignorant.
[Illustration: 082 Pagan Priest of
Herculaneum Wearing the Cross.]
[Illustration: 083 Cross of the Chinese
Emperor Fou-Hi,2953 Years Before Christ; and An Ancient Pagan Cross
Discovered in Newgrange, Ireland.]
Let it be further noted that it was
not until eight hundred years after the supposed crucifixion that Jesus is
seen in the form of a human being on the cross. Not in any of the paintings
on the ancient catacombs is found a crucified Christ. The earliest cross
bearing a human being is of the eighth century. For a long time a lamb with
a cross, or on a cross, was the Christian symbol, and it is a lamb
which we see entombed in the "holy sepulchre." In more than one mosaic
of early Christian times, it is not Jesus, but a lamb, which is
bleeding for the salvation of the world. How a lamb came to play so
important a role in Christianity is variously explained. The similarity
between the name of the Hindu god, _Agni_ and the meaning of the same word
in Latin, which is a lamb, is one theory. Another is that a ram, one
of the signs of the zodiac, often confounded by the ancients with a
lamb, is the origin of the popular reverence for the lamb as a
symbol--a reverence which all religions based on sun-worship shared. The
lamb in Christianity takes away the sins of the people, just as the
paschal lamb did in the Old Testament, and earlier still, just as it did
in Babylonia.
[Illustration: 084 Used by a Priest of Bacchus, Showing
the Cross.]
[Illustration: 085 Engraving of the XI Century; Lamb on
Cross; A Lamb Carrying the Cross; The Lamb and the Cross, IX Century.
]
To the same effect is the following letter of the bishop of Mende,
in France, bearing date of the year 800 A. D.: "Because the darkness has
disappeared, and because also Christ is a real man, Pope Adrian commands us
to paint him under the form of a man. The lamb of God must not any longer be
painted on a cross, but after a human form has been placed on the cross,
there is no objection to have a lamb also represented with it, either at the
foot of the cross or on the opposite side." * We leave it to our readers to
draw the necessary conclusions from the above letter. How did a lamb hold its
place on the cross for eight hundred years? If Jesus was really crucified,
and that fact was a matter of history, why did it take eight hundred
years for a Christian bishop to write, "now that Christ is a real
man," etc.? Today, it would be considered a blasphemy to place a lamb on
a cross.
* Translated from the French of Didron. Quoted by
Malvert.
On the tombstones of Christians of the fourth century are
pictures representing, not Jesus, but a lamb, working the miracles
mentioned in the gospels, such as multiplying the loaves and fishes, and
raising Lazarus from the dead.
[Illustration: 086 Mosaic of St.
Praxedes, V Century, Showing the Lamb Christ; The Lamb Slowly Becoming Human;
The Lamb Multiplying the Loaves and Fishes, IV Century
Sarcophagus.]
The first representations of a human form on the cross
differ considerably from those which prevail at the present
time.
[Illustration: 087 The Lamb Resurrecting Lazarus, IV
Century Sarcophagus.]
While the figure on the modern cross is almost
naked, those on the earlier ones are clothed and completely covered. Wearing
a flowing tunic, Jesus is standing straight against the cross with
his arms outstretched, as though in the act of delivering an
address. Frequently, at his feet, on the cross, there is still painted
the figure of a lamb, which by and by, he is going to replace
altogether. Gradually the robe disappears from the crucified one, until we
see him crucified, as in the adjoining picture, with hardly any clothes
on, and wearing an expression of great agony.
[Illustration: 088
Modern Christ.]
[Illustration: 089 Christ and the Twelve Apostles,
Carrying Swastikas and Solar Discs Instead of the Cross. Sarcophagus,
Milan.]
THE SILENCE OF PROFANE WRITERS
In all
historical matters, we cannot ask for more than a _reasonable_ assurance
concerning any question. In fact, absolute certainty in any branch of human
knowledge, with the exception of mathematics, perhaps, is impossible. We are
finite beings, limited in all our powers, and, hence, our conclusions are not
only relative, but they should ever be held subject to correction. When our
law courts send a man to the gallows, they can have no more than a reasonable
assurance that he is guilty; when they acquit him, they can have no more than
a reasonable assurance that he is innocent. Positive assurance is
unattainable. The dogmatist is the only one who claims to possess absolute
certainty. But his claim is no more than a groundless assumption.
When, therefore, we learn that Josephus, for instance, who lived in
the same country and about the same time as Jesus, and wrote an
extensive history of the men and events of his day and country, does not
mention Jesus, except by interpolation, which even a Christian
clergyman, Bishop Warburton, calls "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one,
too," we can be reasonably sure that no such Jesus as is described in
the New Testament, lived about the same time and in the same country
with Josephus.
The failure of such a historian as Josephus to mention
Jesus tends to make the existence of Jesus at least reasonably
doubtful.
Few Christians now place any reliance upon the evidence from
Josephus. The early Fathers made this Jew admit that Jesus was the Son of
God. Of course, the admission was a forgery. De Quincey says the passage
is known to be "a forgery by all men not lunatics." Of one other
supposed reference in Josephus, Canon Farrar says: "This passage was
early tampered with by the Christians." The same writer says this of a
third passage: "Respecting the third passage in Josephus, the only
question is whether it be partly or entirely spurious." Lardner, the
great English theologian, was the first man to prove that Josephus was
a poor witness for Christ.
In examining the evidence from profane
writers we must remember that the silence of one contemporary author is more
important than the supposed testimony of another. There was living in the
same time with Jesus a great Jewish scholar by the name of Philo. He was
an Alexandrian Jew, and he visited Jerusalem while Jesus was teaching
and working miracles in the holy city. Yet Philo in all his works
never once mentions Jesus. He does not seem to have heard of him. He
could not have helped mentioning him if he had really seen him or heard of
him. In one place in his works Philo is describing the difference between two
Jewish names, Hosea and Jesus. Jesus, he says, means saviour of the people.
What a fine opportunity for him to have added that, at that very time, there
was living in Jerusalem a saviour by the name of Jesus, or one supposed to
be, or claiming to be, a saviour. He could not have helped mentioning Jesus
if he had ever seen or heard of him.
We have elsewhere referred to the
significant silence of the Pagan historians and miscellaneous writers on the
wonderful events narrated in the New Testament. But a few remarks may be
added here in explanation of the supposed testimony of Tacitus.
The
quotation from Tacitus is an important one. That part of the passage which
concerns us is something like this:--"They have their denomination from
_Chrestus,_ put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate during the reign of
Tiberius." I wish to say in the first place that this passage is not in the
_History_ of Tacitus, known to the ancients, but in his _Annals,_ which is
not quoted by any ancient writer. The _Annals_ of Tacitus were not known to
be in existence until the year 1468. An English writer, Mr. Ross, has
undertaken, in an interesting volume, to show that the _Annals_ were forged
by an Italian, Bracciolini. I am not competent to say whether or not
Mr. Ross proves his point. But is it conceivable that the early
Christians would have ignored so valuable a testimony had they known of
its existence, and would they not have known of it had it really
existed? The Christian Fathers, who not only collected assiduously all
that they could use to establish the reality of Jesus--but who did
not hesitate even to forge passages, to invent documents, and also
to destroy the testimony of witnesses unfavorable to their
cause--would have certainly used the Tacitus passage had it been in existence
in their day. _Not one of the Christian Fathers_ in his controversy
with the unbelievers has quoted the passage from Tacitus, which passage
is the church's strongest proof of the historicity of Jesus, outside
the gospels.
But, to begin with, this passage has the appearance, at
least, of being penned by a Christian. It speaks of such persecutions
of the Christians in Rome which contradict all that we know of
Roman civilization. The abuse of Christians in the same passage may
have been introduced purposely to cover up the identity of the writer.
The terrible outrages against the Christians mentioned in the text from
Tacitus are supposed to have taken place in the year 64 A. D. According to
the New Testament, Paul was in Rome from the year 63 to the year 65, and
must, therefore, have been an eye-witness of the persecution under Nero. Let
me quote from the Bible to show that there could have been no such
persecution as the Tacitus passage describes. The last verse in the book of
Acts reads: "And he (Paul) abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling,
and received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and
teaching things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, _none
forbidding him_." How is this picture of peace and tranquility to be
reconciled with the charge that the Romans rolled up the Christians in straw
mats and burned them to illuminate the streets at night, and also that
the lions were let loose upon the disciples of Jesus?
Moreover, it is
generally known that the Romans were indifferent to religious propaganda, and
never persecuted any sect or party in the name of religion. In Rome, the Jews
were free to be Jews; why should the Jewish Christians--and the early
Christians were Jews--have been thrown to the lions? In all probability the
persecutions were much milder than the Tacitus passage describes, and
politics was the real cause.
Until not very long ago, it was
universally believed that William Tell was a historical character. But it is
now proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that Tell and his apple are
altogether mythical. Notwithstanding that a great poet has made him the theme
of a powerful drama, and a great composer devoted one of his operas to his
heroic achievements; notwithstanding also that the Swiss show the
crossbow with which he is supposed to have shot at the apple on his
son's head--he is now admitted to be only a legendary hero. The
principal arguments which have led the educated world to revise its
views concerning William Tell are that, the Swiss historians, Faber
and Hamurbin, who lived shortly after the "hero," and who wrote
the history of their country, as Josephus did that of his, do not
mention Tell. Had such a man existed before their time, they could not
have failed to refer to him. Their complete silence is damaging beyond
help to the historicity of Tell. Neither does the historian, who was an
eye witness of the battle of Morgarten in 1315, mention the name of
Tell. The Zurich Chronicle of 1497, also omits to refer to his story. In
the accounts of the struggle of the Swiss against Austria, which drove
the former into rebellion and ultimate independence, Tell's name cannot
be found. Yet all these arguments are not half so damaging to the
William Tell story, as the silence of Josephus is to the Jesus story.
Jesus was supposed to have worked greater wonders and to have created
a wider sensation than Tell; therefore, it is more difficult to
explain the silence of historians like Josephus, Pliny and Quintilian; or
of philosophers like Philo, Seneca and Epictetus, concerning Jesus,
than to explain the silence of the Swiss chroniclers concerning
Tell.
THE JESUS STORY A RELIGIOUS DRAMA
We have now
progressed far enough in our investigation to pause a moment for reflection
before we proceed any further. I am conscious of no intentional
misrepresentation or suppression of the facts relating to the question in
hand. If I have erred through ignorance, I shall correct any mistake I may
have made, if some good reader will take the trouble to enlighten me. I am
also satisfied that I have not commanded the evidence, but have allowed the
evidence to command me. I am not interested in either proving or disproving
the existence of the New-Testament Jesus. I am not an advocate, I am rather
an umpire, who hears the evidence and pronounces his decision accordingly.
Let the lawyers or the advocates argue _pro_ and _con_. I only weigh,--and
I am sure, impartially,--the evidence which the witnesses offer. We have
heard and examined quite a number of these, and, I, at least, am compelled to
say, that unless stronger evidence be forthcoming, a historical Jesus has not
been proven by the evidence thus far taken in. This does not mean that there
is no evidence whatever that Jesus was a real existence, but that the
evidence is not enough to prove it.
To condemn or to acquit a man in a
court of law, there must not only be evidence, but enough of it to justify a
decision. There is some evidence for almost any imaginable proposition; but
that is not enough. Not only does the evidence offered to prove
Jesus' historicity, already examined, fail to give this assurance, but, on
the contrary, it lends much support to the opposite supposition, namely, that
in all probability, Jesus was a myth--even as Mithra, Osiris, Isis, Hercules,
Sampson, Adonis, Moses, Attis, Hermes, Heracles, Apollo of Tyanna, Chrishna, and
Indra, were myths. |
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기