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.
The story of Jesus, we are constrained to say, possesses all the
characteristics of the religious drama, full of startling episodes,
thrilling situations, dramatic action and _denouement_. It reads more
like a play than plain history. From such evidence as the gospels
themselves furnish, the conclusion that he was no more than the
principal character in a religious play receives much support. Mystery
and morality plays are of a very ancient origin. In earlier times,
almost all popular instruction was by means of _Tableaux vivant_.
As a great scenic or dramatic performance, with Jesus as the hero,
Judas as the villain--with conspiracy as its plot, and the trial, the
resurrection and ascension as its _finale_, the story is intelligent
enough. For instance, as the curtain rises, it discloses upon the
stage shepherds tending their flocks in the green fields under the
moonlit sky; again, as the scene shifts, the clouds break, the heavens
open, and voices are heard from above, with a white-winged chorus
chanting an anthem. The next scene suggests a stable with the cattle
in their stalls, munching hay. In a corner of the stable, close to
a manger, imagine a young woman, stooping to kiss a newly born babe.
Anon appear three bearded and richly costumed men, with presents in
their hands, bowing their heads in ecstatic adoration. Surely enough
this is not history: It does not read like history. The element of
fiction runs through the entire Gospels, and is its warp and woof. A
careful analysis of the various incidents in this _ensemble_ will not
fail to convince the unprejudiced reader that while they possess all
the essentials for dramatic presentation, they lack the requirements
of real history.
The "opened-heavens," "angel-choirs," "grazing flocks," "watchful
shepherds," "worshiping magicians," "the stable crib," "the mother and
child," "the wonderful star," "the presents," "the anthem"--all these,
while they fit admirably as stage setting, are questionable material
for history. No historical person was ever born in so spectacular a
manner. The Gospel account of Jesus is an embellished, ornamental,
even sensationally dramatic creation to serve as an introduction for
a legendary hero. Similar theatrical furniture has been used thousands
of times to introduce other legendary characters. All the Savior Gods
were born supernaturally. They were all half god, half man. They were
all of royal descent. Miracles and wonders attended their birth. Jesus
was not an exception. We reject as mythical the birth-stories about
Mithra, and Apollo. Why accept as history those about Jesus? It rests
with the preachers of Christianity to show that while the god-man
of Persia, or of Greece, for example, was a myth, the god-man of
Palestine is historical.
The dramatic element is again plainly seen in the account of the
betrayal of Jesus. Jesus, who preaches daily in the temples, and in
the public places; who talks to the multitude on the mountain and
at the seaside; who feeds thousands by miracle; the report of whose
wonderful cures has reached the ends of the earth, and who is often
followed by such a crush that to reach him an opening has to be made
in the ceiling of the house where he is stopping; who goes in and
out before the people and is constantly disputing with the elders
and leaders of the nation--is, nevertheless, represented as being so
unknown that his enemies have to resort to the device of bribing with
thirty silver coins one of his disciples to point him out to them, and
which is to be done by a kiss. This might make a great scene upon the
stage, but it is not the way things happen in life.
Then read how Jesus is carried before Pilate the Roman governor, and
how while he is being tried a courier rushes in with a letter from
Pilate's wife which is dramatically torn open and read aloud in the
presence of the crowded court. The letter, it is said, was about a
dream of Pilate's wife, in which some ghost tells her that Jesus is
innocent, and that her husband should not proceed against him. Is this
history? Roman jurisprudence had not degenerated to that extent as to
permit the dreams of a woman or of a man to influence the course of
justice. But this letter episode was invented by the playwright--if
I may use the phrase--to prolong the dramatic suspense, to complicate
the situation, to twist the plot, and thereby render the impression
produced by his "piece" more lasting. The letter and the dream did
not save Jesus. Pilate was not influenced by his dreaming wife. She
dreamed in vain.
In the next place we hear Pilate pronouncing Jesus guiltless; but,
forthwith, he hands him over to the Jews to be killed. Does this
read like history? Did ever a Roman court witness such a trial? To
pronounce a man innocent and then to say to his prosecutors: "If you
wish to kill him, you may do so," is extraordinary conduct. Then,
proceeding, Pilate takes water and ostentatiously washes his hands, a
proceeding introduced by a Greek or Latin scribe, who wished, in all
probability, to throw the blame of the crucifixion entirely upon the
Jews. Pilate, representing the Gentile world, washes his hands of the
responsibility for the death of Jesus, while the Jews are made to say,
"His blood be upon us and our children."
Imagine the clamoring, howling Jews, trampling on one another,
gesticulating furiously, gnashing their teeth, foaming at the mouth,
and spitting in one another's face as they shout, "Crucify him!
Crucify him!" A very powerful stage setting, to be sure--but it
is impossible to imagine that such disorder, such anarchy could
be permitted in any court of justice. But think once more of those
terrible words placed in the mouths of the Jews, "His blood be upon
us and our children." Think of a people openly cursing themselves and
asking the whole Christian world to persecute them forever--"His blood
be upon _us and our children_."
Next, the composers of the gospels conduct us to the Garden of
Gethsemane, that we may see there the hero of the play in his agony,
fighting the great battle of his life alone, with neither help nor
sympathy from his distracted followers. He is shown to us there,
on his knees, crying tears of blood--sobbing and groaning under the
shadow of an almost crushing fear. Tremblingly he prays, "Let this
cup pass from me--if it be possible;" and then, yielding to the terror
crowding in upon him, he sighs in the hearing of all the ages, "The
spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," precisely the excuse given
by everybody for not doing what they would do if they could. Now, we
ask in all seriousness, is it likely that a God who had come down
from heaven purposely to drink that cup and to be the martyr-Savior of
humanity--would seek to be spared the fate for which he was ordained
from all eternity?
The objection that Jesus' hesitation on the eve of the crucifixion,
as well as his cry of despair on the cross, were meant to show that he
was as human as he was divine, does not solve the difficulty. In that
event Jesus, then, was merely acting--feigning a fear which he did
not feel, and pretending to dread a death which he knew could not hurt
him. If, however, Jesus really felt alarmed at the approach of death,
how much braver, then, were many of his followers who afterwards faced
dangers and tortures far more cruel than his own! We honestly think
that to have put in Jesus' mouth the words above quoted, and also to
have represented him as closing his public career with a shriek on the
cross: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" was tantamount
to an admission by the writers that they were dealing with a symbolic
Christ, an ideal figure, the hero of a play, and not a historical
character.
It is highly dramatic, to be sure, to see the sun darkened, to feel
the whole earth quaking, to behold the graves ripped open and the dead
reappear in their shrouds--to hear the hero himself tearing his own
heart with that cry of shuddering anguish, "My God! my God!"--but
it is not history. If such a man as Jesus really lived, then his
biographers have only given us a caricature of him. However beautiful
some of the sayings attributed to Jesus, and whatever the source
they may have been borrowed from, they are not enough to prove his
historicity. But even as the Ten Commandments do not prove Moses to
have been a historical personage or the author of the books and deeds
attributed to him, neither do the parables and miracles of Jesus prove
him to have once visited this earth as a god, or to have even existed
as a man.
Socrates and Jesus! Compare the quite natural behavior of Socrates in
prison with that of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Greek sage
is serene. Jesus is alarmed. The night agony of his soul, his tears
of _blood_, his pitiful collapse when he prays, "if it be possible
let this cup pass from me,"--all this would be very impressive on the
boards, but they seem incredible of a real man engaged in saving a
world. Once more we say that the defense that it was the man in Jesus
and not the god in him that broke down, would be unjust to the memory
of thousands of martyrs who died by a more terrible death than that of
Jesus. As elsewhere stated, but which cannot be too often emphasized,
what man would not have embraced death with enthusiasm,--without a
moment's misgiving, did he think that by his death, death and sin
would be no more! Who would shrink from a cross which is going to
save millions to millions added from eternal burnings. He must be
a phantom, indeed, who trembles and cries like a frightened child
because he cannot have the crown without the cross! What a spectacle
for the real heroes crowding the galleries of history! It is difficult
to see the shrinking and shuddering Savior of the world, his face
bathed in perspiration, blood oozing out of his forehead, his lips
pale, his voice breaking into a shriek, "My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me!"--it is difficult to witness all this and not to pity
him. Poor Jesus! he is going to save the world, but who is going to
save _him?_
If we compare the trial of Jesus with that of Socrates, the fictitious
nature of the former cannot possibly escape detection. Socrates was
so well known in Athens, that it was not necessary for his accusers to
bribe one of his disciples to betray him. Jesus should have been even
better known in Jerusalem than Socrates was in Athens. He was daily
preaching in the synagogues, and his miracles had given him an _eclat_
which Socrates did not enjoy.
Socrates is not taken to court at night, bound hand and feet. Jesus
is arrested in the glare of torchlights, after he is betrayed by
Judas with a kiss; then he is bound and forced into the high priest's
presence. All this is admirable setting for a stage, but they are no
more than that.
The disciples of Socrates behave like real men, those of Jesus are
actors. They run away; they hide and follow at a distance. One of them
curses him. The cock crows, the apostate repents. This reads like a
play.
In the presence of his judges, Socrates makes his own defense. One
by one he meets the charges. Jesus refused, according to two of the
evangelists, to open his mouth at his trial. This is dramatic, but it
is not history. It is not conceivable that a real person accused as
Jesus was, would have refused a great opportunity to disprove the
charges against him. Socrates' defense of himself is one of the
classics. Jesus' silence is a conundrum. "But he answered nothing,"
"But Jesus as yet answered nothing," "And he answered him never a
word," is the report of two of his biographers. The other two
evangelists, as is usual, contradict the former and produce the
following dialogues between Jesus and his judges, which from beginning
to end possess all the marks of unreality:
_Pilate_.--"Art thou the King of the Jews?"
_Jesus_.--"Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it
thee of me?"
_Pilate_--"Art thou a King?"
_Jesus_.--"Thou sayest that I am a King."
Is it possible that a real man, not to say the Savior of the world,
would give such unmeaning and evasive replies to straightforward
questions? Does it not read like a page from fiction?
In the presence of the priests of his own race Jesus is as indefinite
and sophistical as he is before the Roman Pilate.
_The Priests_--"Art thou the Christ--tell us?"
_Jesus._--"If I tell you ye will not believe me."
_The Priests_.--"Art thou the Son of God?"
_Jesus_.--"Ye say that I am."
In the first answer he refuses to reveal himself because he does not
think he can command belief in himself; in his second answer he either
blames them for saying he was the Son of God, or quotes their own
testimony to prove that he is the Son of God. But if they believed
he was God, would they try to kill him? Is it not unthinkable? He
intimates that the priests believe he is the Son of God--"Ye say that
I am." Surely, it is more probable that these dialogues were invented
by his anonymous biographers than that they really represent an actual
conversation between Jesus and his judges.
Compare in the next place the manner in which the public trials of
Socrates and Jesus are conducted. There is order in the Athenian
court; there is anarchy in the Jerusalem court. Witnesses and accusers
walk up to Jesus and slap him on the face, and the judge does
not reprove them for it. The court is in the hands of rowdies and
hoodlums, who shout "Crucify him," and again, "Crucify him." A Roman
judge, while admitting that he finds no guilt in Jesus deserving of
death, is nevertheless represented as handing him over to the mob to
be killed, after he has himself scourged him. No Roman judge could
have behaved as this Pilate is reported to have behaved toward an
accused person on trial for his life. All that we know of civilized
government, all that we know of the jurisprudence of Rome, contradicts
this "inspired" account of a pretended historical event. If Jesus was
ever tried and condemned to death in a Roman court, an account of it
that can command belief has yet to be written.
Again, when we come to consider the random, disconnected and
fragmentary form in which the teachings of Jesus are presented, we
cannot avoid the conclusion that he is a _dramatis persona_ brought
upon the stage to give expression not to a consistent, connected
and carefully worked-out thought, but to voice with many breaks and
interruptions, the ideas of his changing managers. He is made to play
a number of contradictory roles, and appears in the same story in
totally different characters.
One editor or compiler of the Gospel describes Jesus as an ascetic and
a mendicant, wandering from place to place, without a roof over his
head, and crawling at eventide into his cave in the Mount of Olives.
He introduces him as the "Man of Sorrows," fasting in the wilderness,
counseling people to part with their riches, and promising the Kingdom
of Heaven to Lazarus, the beggar.
Another redactor announces him as "eating and drinking" at the
banquets of "publicans and sinners,"--a "wine-bibbing" Son of Man.
"John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, but the Son of
Man came both eating and drinking," which, if it means anything, means
that Jesus was the very opposite of the ascetic John.
A partisan of the doctrine of non-resistance puts in Jesus' mouth the
words: "Resist not evil;" "The meek shall inherit the earth,"
etc., and counsels that he who smites us on the one cheek should be
permitted to strike us also on the other, and that to him who robs us
of an undergarment, we should also hand over our outer garments.
Another draws the picture of a militant Jesus who could never endorse
such precepts of indolence and resignation. "The kingdom of heaven is
taken by _violence_," cries this new Jesus, and intimates that no such
beggar like Lazarus, sitting all day long with the dogs and his sores,
can ever earn so great a prize. With a scourge in his hands this Jesus
rushes upon the traders in the temple-court, upturns their tables and
whips their owners into the streets. Surely this was resistance of the
most pronounced type. The right to use physical force could not have
been given a better endorsement than by this example of Jesus.
It will not help matters to say that these money-changers were
violating a divine law, and needed chastisement with a whip. Is not
the man who smites us upon the cheek, or robs us of our clothing,
equally guilty? Moreover, these traders in the outer courts of the
synagogue were rendering the worshipers a useful service. Just as
candles, rosaries, images and literature are sold in church vestibules
for the accommodation of Catholics, so were doves, pigeons and Hebrew
coins, necessary to the Jewish sacrifices, sold in the temple-courts
for the Jewish worshiper. The money changer who supplied the pious Jew
with the only sacred coin which the priests would accept was not very
much less important to the Jewish religion than the rabbi. To have
fallen upon these traders with a weapon, and to have caused them the
loss of their property, was certainly the most inconsistent thing that
a "meek" and "lowly" Jesus preaching non-resistance could have done.
Again; one writer makes Jesus the teacher _par excellence_ of peace.
He counsels forgiveness of injuries not seven times, but seventy times
that number--meaning unlimited love and charity. "Love your enemies,"
"Bless them that curse you," is his unusual advice. But another hand
retouches this picture, and we have a Jesus who breaks his own golden
rule. This other Jesus heaps abuse upon the people who displease him;
calls his enemies "vipers," "serpents," "devils," and predicts for
them eternal burnings in sulphur and brimstone. How could he who said,
"Come unto me all ye that are heavy laden," say also, "Depart from me
ye _cursed_?" Who curses them? How can there be an everlasting hell in
a universe whose author advises us to love our enemies, to bless them
that curse us, and to forgive seventy times seven? How could the same
Jesus who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," say also, "I came not
to bring peace, but a sword?" Is it possible that the same Jesus who
commands us to love our _enemies_, commands us also to "hate" father,
mother, wife and child, for "his name's sake?" Yes! the same Jesus who
said, "Put up thy sword in its sheath," also commands us to sell our
effects and "buy a sword."
Once more: A believer in the divinity of Jesus--I am going to
say--invents the following text: "The Father and I are _one_." An
opponent to this Trinitarian dogma introduces a correction which robs
the above text of its authority: "The Father is greater than I,"
and makes Jesus admit openly that there are some things known to
the father only. It is difficult not to see in these passages the
beginnings of the terrible controversies which, starting with Peter
and Paul, have come down to our day, _and which will not end_ until
Jesus shall take his place among the mythical saviors of the world.
To harmonize these many and different Jesuses into something like
unity or consistency a thousand books have been written by the clergy.
They have not succeeded. How can a Jesus represented at one time as
the image of divine perfection, and at another as protesting against
being called "good," for "none is good, save one, God,"--how can these
two conceptions be reconciled except by a resort to artificial and
arbitrary interpretations? If such insurmountable contradictions in
the teachings and character of another would weaken our faith in
his historicity, then we are justified in inferring that in all
probability Jesus was only a name--the name of an imaginary stage
hero, uttering the conflicting thoughts of his prompters.
Again, such phrases as, "and he was caught up in a cloud,"--describing
the ascension and consequent disappearance of Jesus, betray the
anxiety of the authors of the Gospels to bring their marvelous story
to a close. Not knowing how to terminate the career of an imaginary
Messiah, his creators invented the above method of dispatching him.
"He was caught up in a cloud,"--but for that, the narrators would have
been obliged to continue their story indefinitely.
In tragedy the play ends with the death of the hero, but if the
biographers of Jesus had given a similar excuse for bringing their
narrative to a _finale_, there would have been the danger of their
being asked to point out his grave. "He was caught up in a cloud,"
relieved them of all responsibility to produce his remains if called
upon to do so, and, at the same time, furnished them with an excuse to
bring their story to a close.
It would hardly be necessary, were we all unbiased, to look for any
further proofs of the mythical and fanciful nature of the Gospel
narratives than this expedient to which the writers resorted. To
questions, "Where is Jesus?"
"What became of his body?" etc., they could answer, "He was caught up
in a cloud." But a career that ends in the clouds was never begun on
the earth.
[Illustration: 117 Coin of the XII Century, Showing Halo Around Lamb's
Head.]
Let us imagine ourselves in Jerusalem in the year One, of the
Christian era, when the apostles, as it is claimed, were proclaiming
Jesus as the Messiah, crucified and risen. Desiring to be convinced
before believing in the strange story, let us suppose the following
conversation between the apostles and ourselves. We ask:
How long have you known Jesus?
I have known him for one year.
And I for two.
And I for three.
Has any of you known him for more than three years?
No.
Was he with his apostles for one year or for three?
For one.
No, for three.
You are not certain, then, how long Jesus was with his apostles.
No.
How old was Jesus when crucified?
About thirty-one.
No, about thirty-three.
No, he was much older, about fifty.
You cannot tell with any certainty, then, his age at the time of his
death.
No.
You say he was tried and crucified in Jerusalem before your own eyes,
can you remember the date of this great event?
We cannot.
Were you present when Jesus was taken down from the cross?
We were not.
You cannot tell, then, whether he was dead when taken down.
We have no personal knowledge.
Were you present when he was buried?
We were not, because we were in hiding for our lives.
You do not know, therefore, whether he was actually buried, or where
he was buried.
We do not.
Were any of you present when Jesus came forth from the grave?
Not one of us was present,
Then, you were not with him when he was taken down from the cross; you
were not with him when he was interred, and you were not present when
he rose from the grave.
We were not.
When, therefore, you say, he was dead, buried and rose again, you are
relying upon the testimony of others?
We are.
Will you mention the names of some of the witnesses who saw Jesus come
forth from the tomb?
Mary Magdalene, and she is here and may be questioned.
Were you present, Mary, when the angels rolled away the stone, and
when Jesus came forth from the dead?
No, when I reached the burying place early in the morning, the grave
had already been vacated, and there was no one sleeping in it.
You saw him, then, as the apostles did, _after_ he had risen?
Yes.
But you did not see anybody rise out of the grave.
I did not.
Are there any witnesses who saw the resurrection?
There are many who saw him after the resurrection.
But if neither they nor you saw him dead, and buried, and did not
see him rise, either, how can you tell that a most astounding and
supposedly impossible miracle had taken place between the time you saw
him last and when you saw him again two or three days after? Is it
not more natural to suppose that, being in a hurry on account of the
approaching Sabbath, Jesus, if ever crucified, was taken down from the
cross before he had really died, and that he was not buried, as rumor
states, but remained in hiding; and his showing himself to you under
cover of darkness and in secluded spots and in the dead of night only,
would seem to confirm this explanation.
You admit also that the risen Jesus did not present himself at the
synagogues of the people, in the public streets, or at the palace of
the High Priest to convince them of his Messiahship. Do you not think
that if he had done this, it would then have been impossible to deny
his resurrection? Why, then, did Jesus hide himself after he came out
of the grave? Why did he not show himself also to his enemies? Was he
still afraid of them, or did he not care whether they believed or not?
If so, why are _you_ trying to convert them? The question waits for
a reasonable answer; Why did not Jesus challenge the whole world with
the evidence of his resurrection? You say you saw him occasionally, a
few moments at a time, now here, and now there, and finally on the
top of a mountain whence he was caught up in a cloud and disappeared
altogether. But that "cloud" has melted away, the sky is clear, and
there is no Jesus visible there. The cloud, then, had nothing to hide.
It was unnecessary to call in a cloud to close the career of your
Christ. The grave is empty, the cloud has vanished. Where is Christ?
In heaven! Ah, you have at last removed him to a world unknown, to
the undiscovered country. Leave him there! Criticism, doubt,
investigation, the light of day, cannot cross its shores. Leave him
there!
[Illustration: 122 St. Margaret of the Catholic Church, Westminster,
England; The Goddess Astarte Carrying a Cross, British Museum.]
THE JESUS OF PAUL
The central figure of the New Testament is Jesus, and the question we
are trying to answer is, whether we have sufficient evidence to
prove to the unbiased mind that he is historical. An idea of the
intellectual caliber of the average churchman may be had by the nature
of the evidence he offers to justify his faith in the historical
Jesus. "The whole world celebrates annually the nativity of Jesus; how
could there be a Christmas celebration if there never was a Christ?"
asks a Chicago clergyman. The simplicity of this plea would
be touching were it not that it calls attention to the painful
inefficiency of the pulpit as an educator. The church goer is trained
to believe, not to think. The truth is withheld from him under the
pious pretense that faith, and not knowledge, is the essential thing.
A habit of untruthfulness is cultivated by systematically sacrificing
everything to orthodoxy. This habit in the end destroys one's
conscience for any truths which are prejudicial to one's interest. But
is it true that the Christmas celebration proves a historical Jesus?
We can only offer a few additional remarks to what we have already
said elsewhere in these pages on the Pagan origin of Christmas. It
will make us grateful to remember that just as we have to go to the
Pagans for the origins of our civilized institutions--our courts
of justice, our art and literature, and our political and religious
liberties--we must thank them also for our merry festivals, such as
Christmas and Easter. The ignorant, of course, do not know anything
about the value and wealth of the legacy bequeathed to us by our
glorious ancestors of Greek and Roman times, but the educated can have
no excuse for any failure to own their everlasting indebtedness to
the Pagans. It will be impossible today to write the history of
civilization without giving to the classical world the leading role.
But while accepting the gifts of the Pagan peoples we have abused
the givers. A beneficiary who will defame a bounteous benefactor
is unworthy of his good fortune. I regret to say that the Christian
church, notwithstanding that it owes many of its most precious
privileges to the Pagans, has returned for service rendered insolence
and vituperation. No generous or just institution would treat a rival
as Christianity has treated Paganism.
Both Christmas and Easter are Pagan festivals. We do not know, no
one knows, when Jesus was born; but we know the time of the winter
solstice when the sun begins to retrace his steps, turning his
radiant face toward our earth once more. It was this event, a natural,
demonstrable, universal, event, that our European ancestors celebrated
with song and dance--with green branches, through which twinkled a
thousand lighted candles, and with the exchange of good wishes
and gifts. Has the church had the courage to tell its people that
Christmas is a Pagan festival which was adopted and adapted by the
Christian world, reluctantly at first, and in the end as a measure of
compromise only? The Protestants, especially, conveniently forget
the severe Puritanic legislation against the observance of this Pagan
festival, both in England and America. It is the return to Paganism
which has given to Christmas and Easter their great popularity, as
it is the revival of Paganism which is everywhere replacing the Bible
ideas of monarchic government with republicanism. And yet, repeatedly,
and without any scruples of conscience, preacher and people claim
these festivals as the gifts of their creed to humanity, and quote
them further to prove the historical existence of their god-man,
Jesus. It was this open and persistent perversion of history by the
church, the manufacture of evidence on the one hand, the suppression
of witnesses prejudiced to her interests on the other, and the
deliberate forging of documents, which provoked Carlyle into referring
to one of its branches as _the great lying Church_.
We have said enough to show that, in all probability--for let us not
be dogmatic--the story of Jesus,--his birth and betrayal by one of
his own disciples, his trial in a Roman court, his crucifixion,
resurrection and ascension,--belongs to the order of imaginative
literature. Conceived at first as a religious drama, it received many
new accretions as it traveled from country to country and from age to
age. The "piece" shows signs of having been touched and retouched to
make it acceptable to the different countries in which it was
played. The hand of the adapter, the interpolator and the reviser is
unmistakably present. As an allegory, or as a dramatic composition,
meant for the religious stage, it proved one of the strongest
productions of Pagan or Christian times. But as real history, it lacks
the fundamental requisite--probability. As a play, it is stirring
and strong; as history, it lacks naturalness and consistency. The
miraculous is ever outside the province of history. Jesus was
a miracle, and as such, at least, we are safe in declaring him
un-historical.
We pass on now to the presentation of evidence which we venture to
think demonstrates with an almost mathematic precision, that the Jesus
of the four gospels is a legendary hero, as unhistorical as William
Tell of Switzerland. This evidence is furnished by the epistles
bearing the signature of Paul. He has been accepted as not only the
greatest apostle of Christianity, but in a sense also the author of
its theology. It is generally admitted that the epistles bearing the
name of Paul are among the oldest apostolical writings. They are older
than the gospels. This is very important information. When Paul
was preaching, the four gospels had not yet been written. From
the epistles of Paul, of which there are about thirteen in the
Bible--making the New Testament largely the work of this one
apostle--we learn that there were in different parts of Asia, a number
of Christian churches already established. Not only Paul, then, but
also the Christian church was in existence before the gospels were
composed. It would be natural to infer that it was not the gospels
which created the church, but the church which produced the gospels.
Do not lose sight of the fact that when Paul was preaching to the
Christians there was no written biography of Jesus in existence. There
was a church without a book.
In comparing the Jesus of Paul with the Jesus whose portrait is drawn
for us in the gospels, we find that they are not the same persons at
all. This is decisive. Paul knows nothing about a miraculously
born savior. He does not mention a single time, in all his thirteen
epistles, that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that his birth was
accompanied with heavenly signs and wonders. He knew nothing of
a Jesus born after the manner of the gospel writers. It is not
imaginable that he knew the facts, but suppressed them, or that he
considered them unimportant, or that he forgot to refer to them in
any of his public utterances. Today, a preacher is expelled from his
denomination if he suppresses or ignores the miraculous conception of
the Son of God; but Paul was guilty of that very heresy. How explain
it? It is quite simple: The virgin-born Jesus was not yet _invented_
when Paul was preaching Christianity. Neither he, nor the churches he
had organized, had ever heard of such a person. The virgin-born Jesus
was of later origin than the Apostle Paul.
Let the meaning of this discrepancy between the Jesus of Paul, that
is to say, the earliest portrait of Jesus, and the Jesus of the four
evangelists, be fully grasped by the student, and it should prove
beyond a doubt that in Paul's time the story of Jesus' birth from the
virgin-mother and the Holy Ghost, which has since become a cardinal
dogma of the Christian church, was not yet in circulation. Jesus had
not yet been Hellenized; he was still a Jewish Messiah whose coming
was foretold in the Old Testament, and who was to be a prophet like
unto Moses, without the remotest suggestion of a supernatural origin.
No proposition in Euclid is safer from contradiction than that, if
Paul knew what the gospels tell about Jesus, he would have, at
least once or twice during his long ministry, given evidence of his
knowledge of it. The conclusion is inevitable that the gospel Jesus
is later than Paul and his churches. Paul stood nearest to the time of
Jesus. Of those whose writings are supposed to have come down to
us, he is the most representative, and his epistles are the _first_
literature of the new religion. And yet there is absolutely not a
single hint or suggestion in them of such a Jesus as is depicted in
the gospels. The gospel Jesus was not yet put together or compiled,
when Paul was preaching.
Once more; if we peruse carefully and critically the writings of Paul,
the earliest and greatest Christian apostle and missionary, we find
that he is not only ignorant of the gospel stories about the birth and
miracles of Jesus, but he is equally and just as innocently ignorant
of the _teachings_ of Jesus. In the gospels Jesus is the author of the
Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, the Parable of the Prodigal
Son, the Story of Dives, the Good Samaritan, etc. Is it conceivable
that a preacher of Jesus could go throughout the world to convert
people to the teachings of Jesus, as Paul did, without ever quoting
a single one of his sayings? Had Paul known that Jesus had preached a
sermon, or formulated a prayer, or said many inspired things about
the here and the hereafter, he could not have helped quoting, now and
then, from the words of his master. If Christianity could have been
established without a knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, why, then,
did Jesus come to teach, and why were his teachings preserved by
divine inspiration? But if a knowledge of these teachings of Jesus is
indispensable to making converts, Paul gives not the least evidence
that he possessed such knowledge.
But the Apostle Paul, judging from his many epistles to the earliest
converts to Christianity, which are really his testimony, supposed to
have been sealed by his blood, appears to be quite as ignorant of a
Jesus who went about working miracles,--opening the eyes of the
blind, giving health to the sick, hearing to the deaf, and life to the
dead,--as he is of a Jesus born of a virgin woman and the Holy Ghost.
Is not this remarkable? Does it not lend strong confirmation to the
idea that the miracle-working Jesus of the gospels was not known in
Paul's time, that is to say, the earliest Jesus known to the churches
was a person altogether different from his namesake in the four
evangelists. If Paul knew of a miracle-working Jesus, one who could
feed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes--who could command the
grave to open, who could cast out devils, and cleanse the land of the
foulest disease of leprosy, who could, and did, perform many other
wonderful works to convince the unbelieving generation of
his divinity,--is it conceivable that either intentionally or
inadvertently he would have never once referred to them in all his
preaching? Is it not almost certain that, if the earliest Christians
knew of the miracles of Jesus, they would have been greatly surprised
at the failure of Paul to refer to them a single time? And would not
Paul have told them of the promise of Jesus to give them power to work
even greater miracles than his own, had he known of such a promise.
Could Paul really have left out of his ministry so essential a chapter
from the life of Jesus, had he been acquainted with it? The miraculous
fills up the greater portion of the four gospels, and if these
documents were dictated by the Holy Ghost, it means that they were too
important to be left out. Why, then, does not Paul speak of them at
all? There is only one reasonable answer: A miracle-working Jesus was
unknown to Paul.
What would we say of a disciple of Tolstoi, for example, who came
to America to make converts to Count Tolstoi and never once quoted
anything that Tolstoi had said? Or what would we think of the
Christian missionaries who go to India, China, Japan and Africa to
preach the gospel, if they never mentioned to the people of these
countries the Sermon on the Mount, the Parable of the Prodigal Son,
the Lord's Prayer--nor quoted a single text from the gospels?
Yet Paul, the first missionary, did the very thing which would be
inexplicable in a modern missionary. There is only one rational
explanation for this: The Jesus of Paul was not born of a virgin; he
did not work miracles; and he was not a teacher. It was after his day
that such a Jesus was--I have to use again a strong word--_invented_.
It has been hinted by certain professional defenders of Christianity
that Paul's specific mission was to introduce Christianity among the
Gentiles, and not to call attention to the miraculous element in
the life of his Master. But this is a very lame defense. What is
Christianity, but the life and teachings of Jesus? And how can it be
introduced among the Gentiles without a knowledge of the doctrines
and works of its founder? Paul gives no evidence of possessing
any knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, how could he, then, be a
missionary of Christianity to the heathen? There is no other answer
which can be given than that the Christianity of Paul was something
radically different from the Christianity of the later gospel writers,
who in all probability were Greeks and not Jews. Moreover, it is
known that Paul was reprimanded by his fellow-apostles for carrying
Christianity to the Gentiles. What better defense could Paul have
given for his conduct than to have quoted the commandment of Jesus--
"Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."
And he would have quoted the "divine" text had he been familiar with
it. Nay, the other apostles would not have taken him to task for
obeying the commandment of Jesus had they been familiar with such a
commandment. It all goes to support the proposition that the gospel
Jesus was of a date later than the apostolic times.
That the authorities of the church realize how damaging to the reality
of the gospel Jesus is the inexplicable silence of Paul concerning
him, may be seen in their vain effort to find in a passage put in
Paul's mouth by the unknown author of the book of _Acts_, evidence
that Paul does quote the sayings of Jesus. The passage referred to is
the following: "It is more blessed to give than to receive." Paul is
made to state that this was a saying of Jesus. In the first place,
this quotation is not in the epistles of Paul, but in the _Acts_, of
which Paul was not the author; in the second place, there is no such
quotation in the gospels. The position, then, that there is not a
single saying of Jesus in the gospels which is quoted by Paul in his
many epistles is unassailable, and certainly fatal to the historicity
of the gospel Jesus.
Again, from Paul himself we learn that he was a zealous Hebrew, a
Pharisee of Pharisees, studying with Gamaliel in Jerusalem, presumably
to become a rabbi. Is it possible that such a man could remain totally
ignorant of a miracle worker and teacher like Jesus, living in the
same city with him? If Jesus really raised Lazarus from the grave,
and entered Jerusalem at the head of a procession, waving branches
and shouting, "hosanna"--if he was really crucified in Jerusalem, and
ascended from one of its environs--is it possible that Paul neither
saw Jesus nor heard anything about these miracles? But if he knew all
these things about Jesus, is it possible that he could go through the
world preaching Christ without ever once referring to them? It is
more likely that when Paul was studying in Jerusalem there was no
miraculous Jesus living or teaching in any part of Judea.
If men make their gods they also make their Christs. * It is
frequently urged that it was impossible for a band of illiterate
fishermen to have created out of their own fancy so glorious a
character as that of Jesus, and that it would be more miraculous to
suppose that the unique sayings of Jesus and his incomparably perfect
life were invented by a few plain people than to believe in his actual
existence. But it is not honest to throw the question into that
form. We do not know who were the authors of the gospels. It is pure
assumption that they were written by plain fishermen. The authors of
the gospels do not disclose their identity. The words, _according_
to Matthew, Mark, etc., represent only the guesses or opinions of
translators and copyists.
* Christianity and Mythology. J. M. Robertson, to whom the
author acknowledges his indebtedness, for the difference
between Paul's Jesus and that of the Gospels.
Both in the gospels and in Christian history the apostles are
represented as illiterate men. But if they spoke Greek, and could also
write in Greek, they could not have been just plain fishermen. That
they were Greeks, not Jews, and more or less educated, may be safely
inferred from the fact that they all write in Greek, and one of
them at least seems to be acquainted with the Alexandrian school
of philosophy. Jesus was supposedly a Jew, his twelve apostles all
Jews--how is it, then, that the only biographies of him extant are all
in Greek? If his fishermen disciples were capable of composition in
Greek, they could not have been illiterate men, if they could not have
written in Greek--which was a rare accomplishment for a Jew, according
to what Josephus says--then the gospels were not written by the
apostles of Jesus. But the fact that though these documents are in a
language alien both to Jesus and his disciples, they are unsigned and
undated, goes to prove, we think, that their editors or authors wished
to conceal their identity that they may be taken for the apostles
themselves.
In the next place it is equally an assumption that the portrait of
Jesus is incomparable. It is now proven beyond a doubt that there is
not a single saying of Jesus, I say this deliberately, which had not
already been known both among the Jews and Pagans. Sometimes it is
urged by pettifogging clergymen that, while it is true that Confucius
gave the Golden Rule six hundred years before Jesus, it was in a
negative form. Confucius said, "Do not unto another what you would not
another to do unto you." Jesus said, "Do unto others," etc. But every
negative has its corresponding affirmation. Moreover, are not the Ten
Commandments in the negative? But the Greek sages gave the Golden Rule
in as positive a form as we find it in the Gospels. "And may I do to
others as I would that others should do to me," said Plato. *
* Jowett Trans., V. p. 483.
Besides, if the only difference between Jesus and Confucius, the one a
God, the other a mere man, was that they both said the same thing, the
one in the negative, the other in the positive, it is not enough
to prove Jesus infinitely superior to Confucius. Many of Jesus' own
commandments are in the negative: "Resist not evil," for instance.]
And as to his life; it is in no sense superior or even as large and as
many sided as that of Socrates. I know some consider it blasphemy to
compare Jesus with Socrates, but that must be attributed to prejudice
rather than to reason.
And to the question that if Jesus be mythical, we cannot account for
the rise and progress of the Christian church, we answer that the
Pagan gods who occupied Mount Olympus were all mythical beings--mere
shadows, and yet Paganism was the religion of the most advanced
and cultured nations of antiquity. How could an imaginary Zeus, or
Jupiter, draw to his temple the elite of Greece and Rome? And if there
is nothing strange in the rise and spread of the Pagan church; in the
rapid progress of the worship of Osiris, who never existed; in the
wonderful success of the religion of Mithra, who is but a name; if
the worship of Adonis, of Attis, of Isis, and the legends of Heracles,
Prometheus, Hercules, and the Hindoo trinity,--Brahma, Shiva,
Chrishna,--with their rock-hewn temples, can be explained without
believing in the actual existence of these gods--why not Christianity?
Religions, like everything else, are born, they grow old and die. They
show the handiwork of whole races, and of different epochs, rather
than of one man or of one age. Time gives them birth, and changing
environments determine their career. Just as the portrait of Jesus we
see in shops and churches is an invention, so is his character. The
artist gave him his features, the theologian his attributes.
What are the elements out of which the Jesus story was evolved? The
Jewish people were in constant expectation of a Messiah. The belief
prevailed that his name would be Joshua, which in English is Jesus.
The meaning of the word is _savior_. In ancient Syrian mythology,
Joshua was a Sun God. The Old-Testament Joshua, who "stopped the
Sun," was in all probability this same Syrian divinity. According to
tradition this Joshua, or Jesus, was the son of Mary, a name which
with slight variations is found in nearly all the old mythologies.
Greek and Hindoo divinities were mothered by either a Mary, Meriam,
Myrrah, or Merri. Maria or Mares is the oldest word for sea--the
earliest source of life. The ancients looked upon the sea-water as the
mother of every living thing. "Joshua (or Jesus), son of Mary," was
already a part of the religious outfit of the Asiatic world when Paul
began his missionary tours. His Jesus, or anointed one, crucified or
slain, did in no sense represent a new or original message. It is
no more strange that Paul's mythological "savior" should loom into
prominence and cast a spell over all the world, than that a mythical
Apollo or Jupiter should rule for thousands of years over the fairest
portions of the earth.
It is also well known that there is in the Talmud the story of a
Jesus, Ben, or son, of Pandira, who lived about a hundred years before
the Gospel Jesus, and who was hanged from a tree. I believe this Jesus
is quite as legendary as the Syrian Hesous, or Joshua. But may it not
be that such a legend accepted as true--to the ancients all legends
were true--contributed its share toward marking the outlines of the
later Jesus, hanged on a cross? My idea has been to show that the
materials for a Jesus myth were at hand, and that, therefore, to
account for the rise and progress of the Christian cult is no more
difficult than to explain the widely spread religion of the Indian
Chrishna, or of the Persian Mithra. *
* For a fuller discussion of the various "Christs" in
mythology read Robertson's Christianity and Mythology and
his Pagan Christs.
Now, why have I given these conclusions to the world? Would I not
have made more friends--provoked a warmer response from the public at
large--had I repeated in pleasant accents the familiar phrases about
the glory and beauty and sweetness of the Savior God, the Virgin-born
Christ? Instead of that, I have run the risk of alienating the
sympathies of my fellows by intimating that this Jesus whom
Christendom worships today as a god, this Jesus at whose altar the
Christian world bends its knees and bows its head, is as much of an
idol as was Apollo of the Greeks; and that we--we Americans of the
twentieth century--are an idolatrous people, inasmuch as we worship a
name, or at most, a man of whom we know nothing provable.
[Illustration: 142 Italian Sculpture of the X Century.]
IS CHRISTIANITY REAL?
It is assumed, without foundation, as I hope to show, that the
religion of Jesus alone can save the world. We are not surprised at
the claim, because there has never been a religion which has been too
modest to make a similar claim. No religion has ever been satisfied to
be _one_ of the saviors of man. Each religion wants to be the _only_
savior of man. There is no monopoly like religious monopoly. The
industrial corporations with all their greed are less exacting than
the Catholic church, for instance, which keeps heaven itself under
lock and key.
But what is meant by salvation? Let us consider its religious meaning
first. An unbiased investigation of the dogmas and their supposed
historical foundations will prove that the salvation which
Christianity offers, and the means by which it proposes to effect the
world's salvation, are extremely fanciful in nature. If this point
could be made clear, there will be less reluctance on the part of the
public to listen to the evidence on the un-historicity of the founder
of Christianity.
We are told that God, who is perfect, created this world about half
a hundred centuries ago. Of course, being perfect himself the world
which he created was perfect, too. But the world did not stay perfect
very long. Nay, from the heights it fell, not slowly, but suddenly,
into the lowest depths of degradation. How a world which God had
created perfect, could in the twinkling of an eye become so vile as
to be cursed by the same being who a moment before had pronounced it
"good," and besides be handed over to the devil as fuel for eternal
burnings, only credulity can explain. I am giving the story of what is
called the "plan of salvation," in order to show its mythical nature.
In the preceding pages we have discussed the question, Is Jesus a
Myth, but I believe that when we have reflected upon the story of
man's fall and his supposed subsequent salvation by the blood of
Jesus, we shall conclude that the function, or the office, which Jesus
is said to perform, is as mythical as his person.
The story of Eden possesses all the marks of an allegory. Adam and
Eve, and a perfect world _suddenly_ plunged from a snowy whiteness
into the blackness of hell, are the thoughts of a child who
exaggerates because of an as yet undisciplined fancy. Yet, if Adam and
Eve are unreal, theologically speaking, Jesus is unreal. If they are
allegory and myth, so is Jesus. It is claimed that it was the fall of
Adam which necessitated the death of Jesus, but if Adam's fall be a
fiction, as we know it is, Jesus' death as an atonement must also be a
fiction.
In the fall of Adam, we are told, humanity itself fell. Could anything
be more fanciful than that? And what was Adam's sin? He coveted
knowledge. He wished to improve his mind. He experimented with
forbidden things. He dared to take the initiative. And for that
imaginary crime, even the generations not yet born are to be forever
blighted. Even the animals, the flowers and vegetables were cursed for
it. Can you conceive of anything more mythical than that? One of
the English divines of the age of Calvin declared that original
sin,--Adam's sin imputed to us,--was so awful, that "if a man had
never been born he would yet have been damned for it." It is from this
mythical sin that a mythical Savior saves us. And how does he do it?
In a very mythical way, as we shall see.
When the world fell, it fell into the devil's hands. To redeem a part
of it, at least, the deity concludes to give up his only son for
a ransom. This is interesting. God is represented as being greatly
offended, because the world which he had created perfect was all in
a heap before him. To placate himself he sacrificed his son--not
himself.
But, as intimated above, he does not intend to restore the whole world
to its pristine purity, but only a part of it. This is alarming. He
creates the whole world perfect, but now he is satisfied to have only
a portion of it redeemed from the devil. If he can save at all,
pray, why not save all? This is not an irrelevant question when it
is remembered that the whole world was created perfect in the first
place.
The refusal of the deity to save all of his world from the devil would
lead one to believe that even when God created the world perfect he
did not mean to keep all of it to himself, but meant that some of it,
the greater part of it, as some theologians contend, should go to the
devil! Surely this is nothing but myth. Let us hope for the sake
of our ideals that all this is no more than the childish prattle of
primitive man.
But let us return to the story of the fall of man; God decides to save
a part of his ruined perfect world by the sacrifice of his son. The
latter is supposed to have said to his father: "Punish me, kill
me, accept my blood, and let it pay for the sins of man." He thus
interceded for the _elect_, and the deity was mollified. As Jesus is
also God, it follows that one God tried to pacify another, which is
pure myth. Some theologians have another theory--there is room here
for many theories. According to these, God gave up his son as a
ransom, not to himself, but to the devil, who now claimed the world
as his own. I heard a distinguished minister explain this in the
following manner: A poor man whose house is mortgaged hears that some
philanthropist has redeemed the property by paying off the mortgage.
The soul of man was by the fall of Adam mortgaged to the devil. God
has raised the mortgage by abandoning his son to be killed to satisfy
the devil who held the mortgage. The debt which we owed has been paid
by Jesus. By this arrangement the devil loses his legal right to our
souls and we are saved. All we need to do is to believe in this story
and we'll be sure to go to heaven. And to think that intelligent
Americans not only accept all this as inspired, but denounce the
man who ventures to intimate modestly that it might be a myth, as
a blasphemer! "O, judgment!" cries Shakespeare, "thou hast fled to
brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason."
The morality which the Christian church teaches is of as mythical a
nature as the story of the fall, and the blood-atonement. It is not
natural morality, but something quite unintelligible and fictitious.
For instance, we are told that we cannot of ourselves be righteous. We
must first have the grace of God. Then we are told that we cannot have
the grace of God unless he gives it to us. And he will not give it to
us unless we ask for it. But we cannot ask for it, unless he moves us
to ask for it. And there we are. We shall be damned if we do not come
to God, and we cannot come to God unless he calls us. Besides, could
anything be more mythical than a righteousness which can only be
imputed to us,--any righteousness of our own being but "filthy rags?"
The Christian religion has the appearance of being one great
myth, constructed out of many minor myths. It is the same with
Mohammedanism, or Judaism, which latter is the mischievous parent of
both the Mohammedan and the Christian faiths. It is the same with
all supernatural creeds. Myth is the dominating element in them all.
Compared with these Asiatic religions how glorious is science! How
wholesome, helpful, and luminous, are her commandments!
If I were to command you to believe that Mount Olympus was once
tenanted by blue-eyed gods and their consorts,--sipping nectar and
ambrosia the live-long day,--you will answer, "Oh, that is only
mythology." If I were to tell you that you cannot be saved unless you
believe that Minerva was born full-fledged from the brain of Jupiter,
you will laugh at me. If I were to tell you that you must punish your
innocent sons for the guilt of their brothers and sisters, you will
answer that I insult your moral sense. And yet, every Sunday, the
preacher repeats the myth of Adam and Eve, and how God killed his
innocent son to please himself, or to satisfy the devil, and with
bated breath, and on your knees, you whisper, _Amen._
How is it that when you read the literature of the Greeks, the
literature of the Persians, the literature of Hindoostan, or of the
Mohammedan world, you discriminate between fact and fiction, between
history and myth, but when it comes to the literature of the Jews, you
stammer, you stutter, you bite your lips, you turn pale, and fall
upon your face before it as the savage before his fetish? You would
consider it unreasonable to believe that everything a Greek, or a
Roman, or an Arab ever said was inspired. And yet, men have been
hounded to death for not believing that everything that a Jew ever
said in olden times was inspired.
I do not have to use arguments, I hope, to prove to an intelligent
public that an infallible book is as much a myth as the Garden of
Eden, or the Star of Bethlehem.
A mythical Savior, a mythical Bible, a mythical plan of salvation!
When we subject what are called religious truths to the same tests by
which we determine scientific or historical truths, we discover that
they are not truths at all; they are only opinions. Any statement
which snaps under the strain of reason is unworthy of credence. But it
is claimed that religious truth is discovered by intuition and not by
investigation. The believer, it is claimed, feels in his own soul--he
has the witness of the spirit, that the Bible is infallible, and that
Jesus is the Savior of man. The Christian does not have to look into
the arguments for or against his religion, it is said, before he makes
up his mind; he knows by an inward assurance; he has proved it to
his own deepermost being that Jesus is real and that he is the only
Savior. But what is that but another kind of argument? The argument is
quite inadequate to inspire assurance, as you will presently see, but
it is an argument nevertheless. To say that we must believe and
not reason is a kind of reasoning, This device of reasoning against
reasoning is resorted to by people who have been compelled by modern
thought to give up, one after another, the strongholds of their
position. They run under shelter of what they call faith, or the
"inward witness of the spirit," or the intuitive argument, hoping
thereby to escape the enemy's fire, if I may use so objectionable a
phrase.
What is called faith, then, or an intuitive spiritual assurance, is a
species of reasoning; let its worth be tested honestly.
In the first place, faith or the intuitive argument would prove too
much. If Jesus is real, notwithstanding that there is no reliable
historical data to warrant the belief, because the believer feels in
his own soul that He is real and divine, I answer that, the same
mode of reasoning--and let us not forget, it is a kind of
_reasoning_--would prove Mohammed a divine savior, and the wooden idol
of the savage a god. The African Bushman trembles before an image,
because he feels in his own soul that the thing is real. Does that
make it real? The Moslem cries unto Mohammed, because he believes in
his innermost heart that Mohammed is near and can hear him. He will
risk his life on that assurance. To quote to him history and science
to prove that Mohammed is dead and unable to save, would be of no
avail, for he has the witness of the spirit in him, an intuitive
assurance, that the great prophet sits on the right hand of Allah. An
argument which proves too much, proves nothing.
In the second place, an intuition is not communicable. I may have an
intuition that I see spirits all about me this morning. They come,
they go, they nod, they brush my forehead with their wings. But do
_you_ see them, too, because I see them? There is the difference
between a scientific demonstration and a purely metaphysical
assumption. I could go to the blackboard and assure you, as I am
myself assured, that two parallel lines running in the same direction
will not and cannot meet. That is demonstration. A fever patient
when in a state of delirium, and a frightened child in the dark, see
things. We do not deny that they do, but their testimony does not
prove that the things they see are real.
"What is this I see before me?" cries Macbeth, the murderer, and he
shrieks and shakes from head to foot--he draws his sword and rushes
upon Banquo's ghost, which he sees coldly staring at him. But is that
any proof that what he saw we could see also? Yes, we could, if we
were in the same frenzy! And it is the revivalist's aim, by creating
a general excitement, to make everybody _see things_. "Doctor, Doctor,
help! they are coming to kill me; there they are--the assassins,--one,
two, three--oh, help," and the patient jumps out of bed to escape
the banditti crowding in upon him. But is that any reason why the
attending physician, his pulse normal and his brow cool, should
believe that the room is filling up with assassins? I observe people
jump up and down, as they do in holiness meetings; I hear them say
they see angels, they see Jesus, they feel his presence. But is that
any evidence for you or me? An intuitive argument is not communicable,
and, therefore, it is no argument at all.
Our orthodox friends are finally driven by modern thought, which is
growing bolder every day, to the only refuge left for them. It is the
one already mentioned. Granted that Jesus was an imaginary character,
even then, as an ideal, they argue, he is an inspiration, and the most
effective moral force the world has ever known. We do not care, they
say, whether the story of his birth, trial, death, and resurrection
is myth or actual history; such a man as Jesus may never have existed,
the things he is reported as saying may have been put in his mouth by
others, but what of that--is not the picture of his character
perfect? Are not the Beatitudes beautiful--no matter who said them?
To strengthen this position they call our attention to Shakespeare's
creations, the majority of whom--Hamlet, Othello, Lear, Portia,
Imogen, Desdemona, are fictitious. Yet where are there grander men, or
finer women? These children of Shakespeare may never have lived, but,
surely, they will never die. In the same sense, Jesus may be just as
ideal a character as those of Shakespeare, they say, and still be "the
light of the world." A New York preacher is reported as saying that if
Christianity is a lie, it is a "glorious lie."
My answer to the above is that such an argument evades instead of
facing the question. It is receding from a position under cover of a
rhetorical manoeuvre. It is a retreat in disguise. If Christianity is
a "glorious lie," then call it such. The question under discussion is,
Is Jesus Historical? To answer that it is immaterial whether or not
he is historical, is to admit that there is no evidence that he
is historical. To urge that, unhistorical though he be, he is,
nevertheless, the only savior of the world, is, I regret to say,
not only evasive,--not only does it beg the question, but it is
also clearly dishonest. How long will the tremendous ecclesiastical
machinery last, if it were candidly avowed that it is doubtful whether
there ever was such a historical character as Jesus, or that in all
probability he is no more real than one of Shakespeare's creations?
What! all these prayers, these churches, these denominations,
these sectarian wars which have shed oceans of human blood--these
unfortunate persecutions which have blackened the face of man--the
fear of hell and the devil which has blasted millions of lives--all
these for a Christ who may, after all, be only a picture!
Neither is it true that this pictorial Jesus saved the world. He has
had two thousand years to do it in, but as missionaries are still
being sent out, it follows that the world is yet to be saved. The
argument presented elsewhere in these pages may here be recapitulated.
There was war before Christianity; has Jesus abolished war?
There was poverty and misery in the world before Christianity; has
Jesus removed these evils?
There was ignorance in the world before Christianity; has Jesus
destroyed ignorance?
There were disease, crime, persecution, oppression, slavery,
massacres, and bloodshed in the world before Christianity; alas, are
they not still with us?
_When Jesus shall succeed in pacifying his own disciples; in healing
the sectarian world of its endless and bitter quarrels, then it will
be time to ask what else Jesus has done for humanity._
If the world is improving at all, and we believe it is, the progress
is due to the fact that man pays now more attention to _this_ life
than formerly. He is thinking less of the other world and more of
this. He no longer sings with the believer:
The world is all a fleeting show
For man's delusion given.
Its smiles of joy, its tears of woe,
Deceitful shine, deceitful flow,
There's nothing true but heaven.
How could people with such feelings labor to improve a world they
hated? How could they be in the least interested in social or
political reforms when they were constantly repeating to themselves--
I'm a pilgrim, and I'm a stranger--
I can tarry, I can tarry, but a night.
That these same people should now claim not only a part of the credit
for the many improvements, but all of it--saying that, but for their
religion the "world would now have been a hell," * is really a little
too much for even the most serene temperament.
* Rev. Frank Gunsaulus, of the Central Church, Chicago. See
A New Catechism.--M. M. Mangasarian.
Which of the religions has persecuted as long and as relentlessly as
Christianity?
Which of the many faiths of the world has opposed Science as
stubbornly and as bitterly as Christianity?
In the name of what other prophets have more people been burned at the
stake than in the names of Jesus and Moses?
What other revelation has given rise to so many sects, hostile and
irreconcilable, as the Christian?
Which religion has furnished as many effective texts for political
oppression, polygamy, slavery, and the subjection of woman as the
religion of Jesus and Paul?
Is there,--has there ever been another creed which makes salvation
dependent on belief,--thereby encouraging hypocrisy, and making honest
inquiry a crime?
To send a thief to heaven from the gallows because he believes, and
an honest man to hell because he doubts, is that the virtue which is
going to save the world?
The claim that Jesus has saved the world is another myth.
A _pictorial_ Christ, then, has not done anything for humanity
to deserve the tremendous expenditure of time, energy, love, and
devotion, which has for two thousand years taxed the resources of
civilization.
The passing away of this imaginary savior will relieve the world of an
unproductive investment.
We conclude: Honesty, like charity, must begin at home. Unless we can
tell the truth in our churches we will never tell the truth in our
shops. Unless our teachers, the ministers of God, are honest, our
insurance companies and corporations will have to be watched. Permit
sham in your religious life, and the disease will spread to every
member of the social body. If you may keep religion in the dark, and
cry "hush," "hush," when people ask that it be brought out into the
light, why may not politics or business cultivate a similar partiality
for darkness? If the king cries, "rebel," when a citizen asks for
justice, it is because he has heard the priest cry, "infidel," when a
member of his church asked for evidence. Religious hypocrisy is the
mother of all hypocrisies. Cure a man of that, and the human world
will recover its health.
Not so long ago, nearly everybody believed in the existence of a
personal devil. People saw him, heard him, described him, danced with
him, and claimed, besides, to have whipped him. Luther hurled his
inkstand at him, and American women accused as witches were put to
death in the name of the devil. Yet all this "evidence" has not saved
the devil from passing out of existence. What has happened to the
devil will happen to the gods. Man is the only real savior. If he is
not a savior, there is no other.
[Illustration: 160 The Hindu Trinity.]