JESUS OF NAZARETH.
I. The difference between ancient and modern times in Europe is vital.
Human society is never stagnant; development in one direction or another
is constant; so that in the course of a few centuries changes, both
numerous and noticeable, take place everywhere. Thus the Europe of the
middle ages differs very markedly from the Europe of to-day. Yet the one
is the direct outcome of the other. On the other hand, the civilizations
of Greece and Rome, although we owe them an incalculable debt, are
marked off from modern civilization by differences which can only be
spoken of as essential. For it is not any single element that has been
added externally to ancient life so as to produce modern society; it is
rather a subtle spirit, which has modified all thinking, altered the
values of things, produced organic changes in government and society,
and recreated art and literature. The unexampled development of science
and invention, and the extraordinary activity and vigour of European
commerce and arms, which are often spoken of as the chief
characteristics of modern civilization, are rather to be regarded as
indications of unparalleled vitality and efficiency in the social
organism than as essential products of its spirit. Science and invention
flourished among the Greeks; the Roman empire was as vigorous as any
modern state in matters of war. These things prove the healthy vitality
of the society of the West; its essential spirit is to be sought
elsewhere.
A comparison of ancient and modern life reveals differences at once very
numerous and greatly significant. The economics of Europe have been
revolutionized; for the labour, the manufacture and the commerce of
ancient times rested on a basis of slavery.[163] Government has been
turned upside down; for the ruling principle of ancient politics was
hereditary and exclusive citizenship in a city-state;[164] while modern
politics have been created by the great principles of the equality of
men irrespective of birth or station and the indefeasible sovereignty of
the people.[165] In ancient society human life as such had no value:
infanticide was practised openly by all as a right and proper thing
necessary for the well-being of the family and the state;[166] prisoners
taken in war, if not killed, were made slaves, and as slaves their lives
and persons were absolutely at the mercy of their masters;[167] aliens
had a place in the state only on sufferance: society stood in no
relation to them and had no duties towards them.[168] The social
organism of modern times, on the other hand, is a new creation, produced
by the conception of the inherent sanctity of human life and the divine
dignity of the human personality.[169] Modern education is in form and
method Greek; but the results it produces are altogether new; first,
because it carries the modern spirit within the ancient forms, and
secondly, because modern men regard education as part of the birthright
of every human being. Moral ideals show very important differences,
chiefly in the direction of the elevation of humility, meekness,
sympathy, forgiveness and self-sacrifice, and the extraordinary advance
in the conception of the right of individual freedom. In ancient times
the individual citizen had no rights as against the State;[170] now we
demand not only freedom in matters of profession and business, as
against caste restrictions, but intellectual, moral and religious
liberty. The differences between ancient and modern religion are very
extraordinary in many ways. For the present we need only note the one
far-reaching distinction, that to the ancients religion was a _political
duty_, which the citizen was bound to fulfil, and a _civic privilege_,
which only those in whose veins ran the sacred blood of the community
could share;[171] while modern religion is the loftiest activity of the
human spirit, as far transcending the narrow limits of the State as it
does the petty distinctions of race and blood. The differences, then,
between ancient and modern life are not accidental but essential.
A second thing to be noticed is the altogether unexampled vitality and
pervasiveness of modern civilization. During the nineteenth century
alone, while the population of the rest of the world remained nearly
stationary, the actual numbers of the European peoples rose from
170,000,000 to 500,000,000.[172] Here is physical life on a gigantic
scale. Let readers think, next, of the extraordinary advances made
during the nineteenth century in every province of natural science, from
mathematics and physics up through the biological sciences to psychology
and the science of religion, the swift upward progress made in literary,
historical and philosophical method, and the innumerable inventions that
have been produced for facilitating every form of human activity. Are
not these facts evidence of an amazing store of intellectual vitality in
the society of the West? Think also of the buoyancy, the hope, the
youthful delight in action, the glance into the future, which
characterize the progressive peoples of Europe and America.
Colonization, on the other hand, exploration, missions, world-wide
commerce, domination over other races, whether you call them bad or
good, are incontestable proofs of energy, physical, moral and
intellectual. Further, these forms of vital force are clearly of the
greatest practical importance in the world. In the process of natural
selection which, whether we like it or not, is ceaselessly being carried
on among the races of mankind, the possession of such energy is one of
the crucial factors in the struggle. But this civilization has also an
altogether unique power of entering into other civilizations and working
revolutionary changes there: its pervasiveness is almost as remarkable
as its vitality. We need only point to India and Japan to-day for proof
of this.
Western civilization, then, is a thing by itself, not more clearly
distinguished from ancient life than from the civilizations that have
arisen in other parts of the world. What is it that has made the
difference? What subtle spirit is it that appears in every aspect of the
civilization, that assumes so many forms, and generates such
transcending energies?
There can be but one answer: it is Christianity. In every community
religion is the life principle, the central fire, which fills the whole
with living force, and communicates its own spirit to every cell of the
organism.[173] That is a law which is becoming ever more apparent in all
anthropological, sociological and religious science. From this general
law we might conclude in this particular case, that it is the religion
that gives the civilization its character. But we need not appeal to
general principles; history tells us in the clearest tones that the
peculiarities which distinguish Western civilization from every other
spring directly or indirectly from the Christian faith.
Now one way of classifying religions is to divide them into two groups,
spontaneous and founded. The former are results of the united
unconscious action of a tribe or people: for example, the religions of
Greece and Rome. The latter spring from some particular man, and are
inseparably connected with his life: for example, Buddhism, Christianity
and Mohammedanism.
That Christianity is a founded religion, and that it springs from
Christ, admits of no question. Tacitus, the Roman historian, in speaking
of the great fire at Rome in 64 A. D., which devastated ten of the
fourteen districts into which the Imperial city was divided, says that
the people got their heads filled with the suspicion, that the Emperor
himself (Nero was then on the throne) had used his agents to set the
city on fire. He then continues:—
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom
the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the
reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius
Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the
moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the
evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from
every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty;
then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted,
not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against
mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered
with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished; or
were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to
serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
“Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a
show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of
a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who
deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of
compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but
to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”[174]
Christ, then, is a historical person. He was a Jew; He founded
Christianity; and He was executed by Pontius Pilatus during his
procuratorship of Judæa, _i.e._, between 27 and 37 A. D.[175] Other
facts enable scholars to fix the date of His death within narrower
limits: a few adopt 30 A. D., but by far the greatest number prefer 29
A. D.;[176] and that date we adopt here.
Here, then, are the facts: Christ was put to death by the Roman Governor
of Judæa in 29 A. D., but this did not extinguish Christianity; for it
spread not only in Judæa but beyond; so much so, that in 64 A. D. “an
immense multitude” of Christians were found in Rome, and were for their
faith put to death with horrible barbarities.
Such is the first chapter of the history of Christianity in Europe. From
this point onwards the facts are well known. The furious hostility
visible here in the spirit of the Roman Empire against the Christian
faith ended in the victory of the latter, in its gradual acceptance by
the races of Europe, and the continuously increasing infiltration of
Christian ideas into the minds of the people. The process is far from
complete; for the contrast between the old spirit and the new is so
extreme that only long ages of discipline and the slow processes of
evolution will suffice to work the transformation. We have seen how
essentially different the spirit in our modern life is from the spirit
of Græco-Roman life: how much greater would be the contrast, if one were
to oppose the pure spirit of Christ to the spirit of Paganism! When men
accept Christ, they are conscious of the authority of His perfect
character and His heavenly life, and they know that He claims their
complete submission to Him; but they have no idea how far-reaching this
claim is. Christ demands that not only every part of the individual’s
life—thoughts, feelings, words, deeds—but every aspect of social and
political life as well should be made subject to His law of love. This
is easily stated: how hard is it to work it out, except in a long series
of generations!
But imperfect as has been the perception of Christ’s aims, and still
more imperfect the execution of these by the peoples of Europe, yet the
results of even their very partial submission to them have been, as we
have seen, momentous in the highest degree. Christ has made modern
Europe.
Now we found from our study of Virgil’s prophecy that he believed that a
new age was just about to open. Like other thinking men of his day, he
felt that the civilization under which he lived was played out, that new
life was needed, new morals and a fresh organization of society. He
believed that in the new age the leader and king would be a great Roman,
and that under him the world would be transformed.
Further, it is sufficiently striking that, while his prophecy received
no literal fulfilment, yet the new age did actually begin shortly after
the time when he wrote, an age which has produced a new race of men, new
moral ideas and an altogether fresh organization of society, and
vitality and virility, besides, such as Virgil never dreamed of. He
spoke of a great leader favoured of the gods, a noble Roman. The new age
did come in under the guidance of a new leader, but he was no
aristocratic Roman, but a Jew, and a man of the people, Jesus of
Nazareth.
* * * * *
II. Christ’s name and life are well-known outside Christendom. He is
spoken of in very high terms in the book which all Mohammedans revere;
and contact with the West has brought a certain amount of knowledge
about him to the peoples of India, China and Japan. Now the most
striking fact in this connection is this, that while most of these
Mohammedans, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians condemn Christians
violently, and many write against Christianity, _they one and all speak
with the highest praise of the character of Christ_. The same is true of
sceptics and agnostics in Christian lands. One might compile a most
fascinating volume consisting merely of extracts from non-Christian
writers, in which Christ is spoken of as the best of men, as the ideal
man, as the man whom all men should not only admire, but imitate.
Now we have in this a most remarkable fact. There is no other character
in history that is so universally revered. There is no other man whom
all men join in praising with so much heartiness. Charles Lamb speaks
for the human race when he says: “If Shakespeare were to enter this
room, we should all spring to our feet; if Christ were to enter, we
should all fall on our knees.”
But HE WAS CRUCIFIED. This, the purest and noblest of men, was subjected
to the most shameful form of death possible. Nor was there only the bare
execution: every circumstance that could make death bitter to the noble
human spirit was added. He was betrayed by one of His own chosen Twelve;
the remaining eleven deserted Him; one plucked up heart and followed at
a distance, but only to deny him. Indeed the universal breakdown of
human character around Him is one of the saddest things in history. The
Jewish priests and scribes, the common people, the Roman Governor and
the common soldiers, all reveal their worst passions in the presence of
Christ, while He stands amongst them in all the silent majesty of
innocence.[177]
We here quote three short paragraphs from St. Matthew’s Gospel.[178] The
first describes what took place after the members of the Jewish
Sanhedrin had decided that Jesus deserved to be put to death:—
“Then did they spit in His face, and buffet Him; and some smote Him
with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, Thou
Christ: who is he that struck Thee?”[179]
Then those model judges carried their prisoner before Pontius Pilate,
the Roman Governor, and after much persuasion got him to condemn Jesus
to death, when the following scenes took place:—
“Then the soldiers of the Governor took Jesus into the palace, and
gathered unto Him the whole band. And they stripped Him, and put on
Him a scarlet robe. And they plaited a crown of thorns and put it
upon His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they kneeled down
before Him, and mocked Him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ And
they spat upon Him, and took the reed and smote Him on the head. And
when they had mocked Him, they took off from Him the robe, and put
on Him His garments and led Him away to crucify Him.”[180]
“And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name;
him they compelled to go with them, that he might bear His cross.
And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to
say, The place of a skull, they gave Him wine to drink mingled with
gall: and when He had tasted it, He would not drink. And when they
had crucified Him, they parted His garments among them, casting
lots: and they sat and watched Him there. And they set up over His
head His accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Then are there crucified with Him two robbers, one on the right
hand, and one on the left. And they that passed by railed on Him,
wagging their heads, and saying, ‘Thou that destroyest the temple
and buildest it in three days, save Thyself: if Thou art the Son of
God, come down from the cross.’ In like manner also the chief
priests mocking Him with the scribes and elders said, ‘He saved
others: Himself He cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let Him
now come down from the cross, and we will believe on Him. He
trusteth on God; let Him deliver Him now, if He desireth Him: for He
said, I am the Son of God.’ And the robbers also that were crucified
with Him cast upon Him the same reproach.”[181]
How was it that of all men Jesus should be the man subjected to all
this? How can we reconcile His character and His destiny?
Let us recollect what Plato had written 400 years earlier:—
“The just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes
burned out, and at last, after suffering every kind of torture, will
be crucified.”
Now we do not insist on the correspondence in detail between the words
of Plato and the death of Christ, although that, while not complete, is
sufficiently remarkable; but we wish to emphasize, with all possible
force, this most extraordinary fact, that Plato foresaw that a man of
the character of Jesus would suffer as He did.
How are we to explain the fact? What is the reason why the men of
Christ’s day treated this most humane of men with such barbarous
inhumanity? The answer is that it was inevitable. Jesus is the
revelation of the uttermost holiness of God, and _His attempt to lay
that standard upon the human spirit_[182] roused to its utmost fury
against Him all the sinfulness of our common human nature. It is the
same contest of which we are each conscious in our daily life between
inclination and conscience; only, in the case of Jesus, it seems as if
all the little battles of every individual life had met in one gigantic
struggle between sinful human nature and its Lord. And the same struggle
necessarily continues wherever Christianity goes. The persecutions of
the Roman Empire are merely the external signs of the convulsive efforts
of the spirit of Paganism to resist the march of the Spirit of God. In
every land Christ is met by the same opposition. Everywhere selfishness,
self-interest and passion dissuade men from following the Man of
Sorrows; and the struggle is there, terrible in its reality and
intensity, even if it never break out into open persecution. But, in
surveying these surging battles, the careful observer is much struck
with this fact, that, while human passions inevitably fight against
Christ, yet He has in Conscience an ally, which neither by bribes nor by
bullying can be made to desert Him. He is the objective conscience of
the human race. He is Plato’s just man.
* * * * *
III. Let us now try to realize what kind of a being the founder of
Christianity was. Our chief sources of information are the Gospels; for
from the other books of the New Testament and from outside literature we
learn only scattered facts about His life on earth. We shall not appeal
to the fourth Gospel, for there are still numerous questions with regard
to it unsettled, but shall confine ourselves to Matthew, Mark and Luke,
books recognized on all hands as of high historical value, and as having
been written between 65 and 95 A.D.[183] Anyone may very speedily
convince himself of the splendid historical reliability of these simple
narratives. From Josephus and other Jewish writers of the first and
second centuries, and from casual remarks in Greek and Roman books, we
are able to learn what the life of these days was like;[184] but nowhere
do we get such vivid, detailed, realistic pictures as in the Gospels.
“They are full of feeling for the time; they understand its men,
schools, classes, parties; they know the thoughts that are in the air,
the rumours that run along the street; they are familiar with the
catchwords and phrases of the period, its conventions, questions, modes
of discussion and style of argument. And all is presented with the
utmost realism, so grouped round the central figure as to form a perfect
historical picture, He and His setting being so built together as to
constitute a single organic whole.”[185]
How then does Christ appear in them?—His name was Jesus;[186] Christ is
a title springing from his teaching, as we shall see. He lived in the
small town of Nazareth, in the district of Galilee[187] in Palestine,
and worked as a carpenter there.[188] At length, in 26 A.D., He gave up
carpentry and began His public career as a preacher.[189] The picture
given of Him in the Gospels is a most attractive one. Wherever He goes,
the sick, the suffering, the distressed crowd around Him. Blind beggars,
outcast lepers, hopeless paralytics, even uncontrollable lunatics,
receive help from His healing power. He feeds the hungry, breathes hope
into the downcast, lifts up the enfeebled patient, helps the helpless.
But while every form of suffering and sorrow appeals to His compassion,
His heart is set on winning the souls of men. So we find Him preaching
in the synagogue and by the sea, on the mountain-side and in the busy
street, now stirring vast crowds, now dealing with an individual, and
again pouring His rich teaching into the ears of the chosen Twelve. No
man ever had such power of convincing men of sin and leading them to
repentance: the simple fisherman,[190] the fallen woman,[191] the
wealthy custom-house officer[192] and the dying robber,[193] all felt
condemned in His presence, and through Him entered into the new life.
The character revealed in His words and deeds is beautiful beyond
comparison. The most outstanding feature of it is His love for God and
the perfect and unbroken serenity of His intercourse with Him. Love for
man also shines out everywhere. But the most extraordinary point is
this, that He in whom the moral ideal was so lofty, so deep and so
broad, He who was so keenly conscious of sin in others, and had such
power to make them feel it, betrays absolutely no consciousness of sin
Himself, never asks for pardon, and never speaks of having repented, or
of having passed through any crisis of the nature of conversion.[194] On
the other hand the perfect balance of His character is almost as
marvellous as His sinlessness: judicial severity controlled by perfect
love; supreme authority that is also supreme gentleness; strength filled
with tenderness; regal dignity shown in acts of lowliest service;
holiness that led Him among the unholy;(sublimest self-consciousness,
never leading to anything but self-effacement and self-sacrifice.) And
yet again, is there anything about Him so wonderful as His power of
winning human love? The Gospels are full of instances of it, and to-day
how many millions of men, women and children would count it a supreme
joy to die for His sake!
His teaching is a perfectly articulated and unified whole, as may be
seen from the scientific studies of it that have been published during
the last twenty years.[195] But we must not attempt to deal with that
fascinating subject here, except in so far as the whole is implied in
what He says about Himself. For it is only that part of it, namely, His
account of Himself and His mission, that we propose to touch on.
We shall understand it best, if we begin with what happened at His
crucifixion; for it was only at the end of His life that He made
perfectly clear to the whole world what His claims were. People often
wondered whether He were not THE CHRIST, _i.e._, _The Messiah_, the
Anointed One, the great national deliverer whom the Jews were so
earnestly expecting and praying for;[196] but during the three years of
His public life He seldom openly made the claim.[197] When, however, He
went to Jerusalem for the last time, He made a royal entry into the
sacred city,[198] cleansed the Temple from the desecration of its
cattle-market,[199] and began to teach in the Temple courts,[200] thus
by both word and act publicly claiming recognition as the Christ.
The Jewish leaders had been often bitterly incensed by His teaching and
His actions before. His bold seizure of authority now decided them: they
resolved on His death.[201] He was apprehended[202] and brought before
the Sanhedrin,[203] _i.e._, the High Court of Judæa. Evidence was led
against Him, but it proved very unsubstantial;[204] so the High Priest,
the president of the court, formally asked Him, “Art thou the Christ,
the Son of God?” and He answered in the affirmative.[205] Since they did
not believe His claim, they could only come to the conclusion that He
was an irreligious impostor, impiously arrogating divine authority to
Himself. Consequently they declared that He ought to be put to death for
blasphemy against God.[206]
But the Sanhedrin could not put anyone to death; the sanction of the
Roman Governor was necessary.[207] He was therefore dragged before
Pilate. Here they did not charge Him with blasphemy, but with rebellion
against the Roman Emperor. ‘The King of the Jews’ was a synonym for ‘the
Christ’; so they argued that Jesus, in claiming to be the Christ,
claimed the sovereignty of the Jews, and was therefore guilty of
rebellion against Tiberius.[208] Pilate knew perfectly well that the
Jewish leaders were jealous of Jesus, and that the charge was a mere
pretence;[209] his Roman sense of justice revolted against the execution
of an innocent man; and he wished to save Him; but they played upon his
fears, and finally succeeded in wringing a condemnation from him.[210]
It was because the Roman soldiers were struck with the extreme absurdity
of the idea of Jesus being a rival of Tiberius, that they got up their
pitiable comedy of a court, and did Him mock homage as King of the Jews.
So He was led away to Calvary and crucified, and above His head on the
cross was written, in three languages (Hebrew, Greek and Latin), the
charge against Him,—
JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Thus Jesus took good care that there should be no doubt as to what He
claimed to be: He did not write a book, nor cut an inscription on a
rock, _but He let Himself be crucified_, that all men to the end of time
might know that He claimed to be the Christ.[211]
* * * * *
Now let us see what He meant when He called Himself the Christ. To get
to understand this fully would be to learn the complete meaning of His
teaching; for it is such a perfect organism that every member of it is
closely related to every other member; yet we may gain sufficient
insight for our purpose from a broad survey.
The subject of the whole teaching of Jesus was _the Kingdom of God_. He
held that God had been working from the very beginning for the winning
of man to Himself, and that especially among His own people Israel He
had shown His hand. They had not only come to know Him as the God of
righteousness whose law was holiness; they had enjoyed His love; they
had experienced His mercy and His power to redeem. But with the coming
of Jesus Himself a new era of the world had opened:[212] God was now
drawing near to all men, in a new relationship of love and mercy, with
the purpose of saving them.[213] This was the coming of the Kingdom of
God.[214] The history of Israel had been a long discipline in
preparation for this.[215] On the ground cleared in Israel, and on the
basis of the revelation already made to them, God would now reveal
Himself to all men. The destiny of Israel—“I will give thee for a light
to the Gentiles”[216]—would now be fulfilled.[217]
God, then, was about to enter into a new relationship with the whole
human race. That new relationship would be, like the old one with
Israel, characterized not only by His righteousness, but by His
redeeming love. His eternal purpose, which had been in contemplation all
through the centuries of Israel’s training, would now be unfolded. The
childhood of the world was over: its first simple lessons had been
learned; the real business of Time could now be begun. The partial
unveiling of God’s face which it had been Israel’s privilege to behold
would now become a full revelation in the sight of the nations. The King
of Israel would be seen to be the Father of men. Further, as Israel had
learned her lessons through Jehovah’s redemptive acts at the Red Sea, on
Zion, and in Babylon, so mankind would learn the Father’s love through
the great redemptive acts involved in the coming of the Kingdom.
The chief conviction that Jesus had about Himself was that _in and
through and by Him the Kingdom of God was coming_: this it was that
constituted Him THE CHRIST. His self-consciousness is the most
marvellous phenomenon within the compass of history; there is nothing
else comparable with it. The primary element in it seems to have been
the knowledge that He was the true man, man as God wishes Him to be,
faultless both morally and religiously.[218] Closely connected with this
is another element, quite as unparalleled in human experience, a feeling
of close kinship to all men, a consciousness of solidarity with the
whole race and of personal connection and sympathy with every
individual.[219] These two elements of His nature—His perfection as man,
and His relationship to the race as a whole—He summed up in the phrase
which He used so often to describe Himself, THE SON OF MAN.[220]
Correspondent to this double relationship to man stands a double
relationship to God: first, He stands in the closest personal kinship to
God—the Son with the Father—; so that He alone can reveal God, and God
alone can reveal Him;[221] and secondly, He is God’s representative to
the human race.[222] This dual relation to God He expressed by calling
Himself THE SON OF GOD.[223]
The life of a being of this order, standing in great, pregnant relations
to God on the one hand and to the human family on the other, would
necessarily be of transcendent significance. So we find that He regarded
His own words and acts and all the great experiences of His life as of
supreme importance in the history of the world:[224] His coming opens a
new era;[225] His public life is a wedding feast in the otherwise grey
experience of men;[226] His teaching is the final revelation of
God;[227] His acts are glimpses of the divine activity;[228] His death,
which to the casual observer is but a coarse judicial murder, is the
solemn sacrifice that ratifies the establishment of the new relationship
between God and man.[229]
Since such were the chief convictions Jesus held about Himself and His
mission, _authority_ was naturally the chief note of His teaching. His
hearers marked that characteristic at the very outset;[230] and a modern
student cannot fail to be impressed with it as he reads the Gospels. He
states quite frankly that He has come to fulfil the law and the
prophets;[231] He sets up His own “I say unto you” not only against the
Jewish traditions,[232] but against the definite provisions of the
Mosaic law;[233] and over and over again He demands from men such love,
faith, submission, obedience, as can be rightly given only to a Divine
Master.[234]
In Jesus of Nazareth, then, we have a historical person, whose time and
environment are well known to us, and whose teaching and life also stand
out clear and unmistakable; and the most prominent thing about Him is
this, that, by word and deed, and finally by His crucifixion, He made it
clear to all men that He claimed to be both Son of Man and Son of God.
Here, then, we have the secret of that similarity which we are all so
clearly conscious of, when we read a Gospel alongside of the _Gītā_. In
the Gospels we have in historical form the authoritative utterances of
the historical Jesus; in the _Gītā_ we have the imaginations of a
poet-philosopher who was clear sighted enough to realize that an
incarnate god would have many things to say about himself, and that his
teaching would bear the note of authority. When, however, we look for
exact parallels between the two, they are hard to find: the books are so
utterly diverse in origin and teaching that they have little in common
except the tone of the master. In a few cases, however, the resemblance
is rather striking: here, then, we place side by side the words of Jesus
and the imaginations of the writer of the _Gītā_.
SAYINGS OF JESUS.
All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.
_Matt._, 28, 18.
VERSES FROM THE GĪTĀ.
Nature gives birth to movables and immovables through me, the
supervisor, and by reason of that the universe revolves. IX, 10.
All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one
knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. _Luke_,
10, 22.
I know the things which have been, those which are, and those
which are to be; but me nobody knows. VII, 26.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest. _Matt._, 11, 28.
Forsaking all duties, come to me as thy sole refuge. I will
release thee from all sins: do not grieve. XVIII, 66.
But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath authority on earth to
forgive sins,—_Mark_, 2, 10.
Of all mortals, he who knows me to be unborn, without beginning,
the great Lord of the world, being free from delusion, is
released from all sins. X, 3.
If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up
his cross, and follow me. _Mark_, 8, 34.
In thought renouncing all actions unto me, intent on me,
applying thyself to the yoking of thine intellect, be thou
always thinking of me. XVIII, 57.
So, therefore, whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that
he hath, he cannot be my disciple. _Luke_, 14, 33.
Having thyself yoked by the yoke of renunciation, thou shalt
come to me. IX, 28.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest. _Matt._, 11, 28.
In him seek shelter with all thy might: by his grace thou shalt
attain supreme peace, the eternal dwelling-place. XVIII, 62.
If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more
shall they call them of his household? _Matt._, 10, 25.
hating me in their own bodies and in those of others. XVI, 18.
And blessed is he, whosoever shall find none occasion of stumbling
in me. _Matt._, 11, 6.
Deluded people, ... not knowing my highest nature as great lord
of entities, disregard me, as I have assumed a human body. IX,
11.
My yoke is easy, and my burden is light. _Matt._, 11, 30.
To the constantly-yoked Yogi, who constantly remembereth me,
never thinking of another, I am easy of access. VIII, 14.
Learn of me. _Matt._, 11, 29.
Learn from me. XVIII, 50.
It would lead us far afield to set forth in detail all the striking
things that Jesus has to say about His own person and mission, but it
may be well to quote a few passages exhibiting lines of character and
thought not exemplified above:—
(_a_) His meekness and lowliness.
“I am meek and lowly in heart.” _Matt._, 11, 29.
(_b_) The conditions of His earthly life.
“The foxes have holes, and the birds of heaven have nests; but the
Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.” _Luke_, 9, 58.
(_c_) The necessity that He should die for men.
“And He began to teach them, that the Son of Man must suffer many
things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and
the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
_Mark_, 8, 31.
(_d_) His spirit of service and self-sacrifice.
“Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to
minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.” _Matt._, 20, 28.
“But I am among you as he that doth serve.” _Luke_, 22, 27.
(_e_) His claims on the allegiance and love of men.
“Every one who shall confess Me before men, him shall the Son of Man
also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth Me in the
presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of
God.” _Luke_, 12, 8-9.
“He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me;
and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of
Me.” _Matt._, 10, 37-38.
(_f_) His universal sympathy.
“Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these My brethren, even these
least, ye did it unto Me.” _Matt._, 25, 40.
(_g_) His declaration that he will return to judge all men.
“Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by
Thy name, and by Thy name cast out devils, and by Thy name do many
mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you:
depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.” _Matt._, 7, 22-23.
(_h_) His presence with his followers.
“For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I
in the midst of them.” _Matt._, 18, 20.
* * * * *
The _Gītā_ is one of the most eloquent possible proofs of the fact that
the human heart cries out for an incarnate Saviour. Scarcely less
impressive is the evidence furnished by the reception of the _Gītā_ by
Hindu readers: not the greatest of the Upanishads, neither the
_Chāndogya_ nor the _Katha_, has had one quarter of the influence
exercised by this late poem; and the secret undoubtedly is to be found
in the attraction of the man-god Krishna. How many generations of pious
readers have found in the story of the life and teaching of the
incarnate god something to which their deepest and most persistent
religious instincts have responded! How many to-day turn to Krishna in
their trials and troubles!
On the one hand, then, we have the imaginative portrait of Krishna,
surrounded by millions of adoring worshippers—touching spectacle! On the
other, stands the historical Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Man and Son of
God, stretching out His nail-pierced hands to India, as He says, “Come
unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest.” Rightly read, the _Gītā_ is a clear-tongued prophecy of Christ,
and the hearts that bow down to the idea of Krishna are really seeking
the incarnate Son of God.
IV. We have been able to see some little distance into the
self-consciousness of Jesus, and to realize in part at least that on
which He grounds His claim to the heart of every man; but we have not
yet learned the secret of that most marvellous of His powers, His power
to win human love. To that we must now address ourselves.
It is a well-known fact of history that, shortly after the death of
Christ, His followers began to preach in His name, and that very soon
the new faith began to spread rapidly. We have already learned from
Tacitus that in 64 A. D. there was “an immense multitude” of Christians
in Rome itself. Now the greatest of all the early missionaries was Paul.
He was the apostle of Europe. We mention his name here, because we wish
to refer to one of his Epistles. These letters are the earliest of our
Christian documents. The series begins with two brief letters, both
written, with a short interval between them, to the church at
Thessalonica. The most probable date for them is 49 A. D., that is, only
twenty years after the death of Christ. But the letter we wish to use is
one sent from Ephesus to the church of Corinth[235] about 55 A. D.,[236]
that is, twenty-six years after the death of Jesus. We must not stay
here to speak of the splendour of the ethical feeling and teaching of
the Epistle further than to say that it manifestly has its source in
Jesus. We must direct our attention to other facts which appear in it.
Christianity, we note, has already spread from Judæa into the provinces
of Asia[237] and Galatia[238] in Asia Minor, and Macedonia[239] and
Achaia[240] in Europe. Phœnicia, Syria, Cilicia and Cyprus are not
mentioned; but we know from other sources[241] that they too were
already evangelized. Thus in twenty-six years the Church of Christ has
become a great organization, extending through many lands, yet conscious
of its unity in Christ.[242] We note also that then, as to-day, BAPTISM
is a solemn ceremonial act, in which a man through the action of the
Holy Spirit becomes a member of the body of Christ,[243] while THE
LORD’S SUPPER is a recurrent feast, in which the members of the Church
have fellowship with the Lord and with each other.[244]
But what we would call special attention to is _the place assigned to
Christ_ in the Epistle. With reference to the Christian, Christ is THE
LORD;[245] with reference to the Father, He is THE SON;[246] He is
spoken of as the Lord of Glory,[247] the Power of God,[248] and the
Wisdom of God;[249] and prayer is offered to Him.[250] All spiritual
authority and power are attributed to Him.[251] The Church is His
body,[252] and He supplies His grace and power to every member.[253] He
will come back again to earth in glory,[254] and will then reveal all
secrets and judge all men.[255]
But there is another point still more noteworthy, and that is _the way
in which the crucifixion of Christ is interpreted_. Instead of regarding
that judicial murder as a regrettable incident, like the assassination
of Cæsar or the death of Socrates, Paul and his fellow-believers glory
in it,[256] not only as the crowning event of the divine revelation made
in Christ, but as the consummation of His work as the Saviour of
men.[257] Paul makes it the basis of all his preaching,[258] and in it
he finds all the wealth of spiritual wisdom which Christianity
contains.[259] He contrasts the wisdom of God wrapped up in that divine
tragedy with the worldly wisdom of earthly rulers.[260]
What can be the explanation of this extraordinary attitude to such an
event?—The basis of it is the solemn declaration, which Paul makes in
the Epistle, and which he says he made to his converts first of all,
that ON THE CROSS CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS.[261] The crucifixion, as a
bare event in history, is but an act of wicked folly on the part of the
rulers of Judæa; but, viewed from the standpoint of morality and
religion, it is a divine act of world-wide significance. In the blood of
Christ a new covenant had been made between God and man.[262] This is
the Gospel, which all the Apostles teach, and which all the churches
believe.[263] Through faith in Christ, on the basis of this tremendous
assertion, the Corinthian Christians, like the rest, had been
saved,[264] _i.e._, they had received _the forgiveness of their
sins_[265] and _the sanctifying Spirit_.[266] They thus no longer
belonged to themselves: they had been bought with a great price, the
blood of the Son of God.[267] They were no longer part and parcel of
heathen society; each one was a member of the body of Christ.[268]
What led Paul and all the other Apostles and all the early Christians to
form such an extraordinary theory? How did they come to the conclusion
that the crucifixion was not a squalid tragedy, but a divine sacrifice?
This letter tells us quite plainly; the reasons were these: Jesus
Himself declared before He was crucified, that _His death was to be the
basis of the New Covenant_,[269] and this declaration of His _had been
divinely confirmed by His Resurrection_.[270]
Now mark: this letter was written within twenty-six years of the event.
The majority of the twelve Apostles, and multitudes of other men who had
known Jesus, were still alive.[271] Paul’s good faith is beyond all
question; and, as he was intimate with Peter and John and the rest of
the Apostles, and also with James the brother of Jesus,[272] he had
access to the very best information possible. Further he had been one of
the most violent opponents of Christianity. His testimony is, therefore,
evidence of the very highest value. We may conclude, then, with the
utmost certitude that we are standing on an immoveable historical
foundation, when we say that _Jesus, before His crucifixion, said He was
about to die for the sins of men_.
But this evidence does not stand alone. It is a historical fact,
acknowledged by scholars of every school, that all Christian churches
have from the very beginning celebrated the Lord’s Supper.[273] Now this
universal usage in so many churches, divided not only by long distances
but in many cases also by minor differences in doctrine, cannot be
explained at all except as a result of a command of Jesus Himself. If
any single disciple had started such a practice, it could never have won
its way to universal acceptance. Now consider the significance of this
fact: Jesus, on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, broke
it, and bade His disciples eat it, saying, ‘This is My body.’ He then
took a cup of wine and bade them drink it, saying, ‘This is My
blood.’[274] The scene is absolutely without a parallel in the history
of the world; and it can have but one meaning, _viz._, that Jesus
regarded His death as a sacrifice.
But the direct statement of Paul is corroborated, not only by the
institution of the Supper, but also by this fact, that the doctrine,
that Christ died for our sins, is an integral part of the teaching of
Jesus as that is handed down to us in the Gospels. We have already seen
that He held that His death was necessary for the establishment of the
Kingdom. We must now set out His teaching on this subject with a little
more fulness. We shall restrict ourselves to a single Gospel. In the
earliest saying that refers to it, His death is a future event, coming
inevitably, and destined to bring sorrow to His disciples. “And Jesus
said unto them, Can the sons of the bride-chamber mourn, as long as the
bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom
shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast.”[275] In the
next it is much more clearly defined. Its necessity is emphasized; we
are told that the agents are to be the religious leaders of Israel; and
it is to be followed by the resurrection. “From that time began Jesus to
shew unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer
many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed,
and the third day be raised up.”[276] Twice over this same prophecy is
repeated, the last time with more detail.[277] Then follows a most
striking saying, in which He speaks of His death as voluntary: it is a
giving away of His life; and it is explained as the climax of His life
of service; for the gift is ‘a ransom for many,’ that is a price paid,
in order to redeem many from sin. “The Son of Man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for
many.”[278] We need not linger over the next sayings, though each has
its own interest.[279] The last saying occurs in the account of the
institution of the Supper. In these words He teaches in the clearest
way, first, that His death is to be the ground of forgiveness, and
secondly, that after His death He is to be the source of the spiritual
life and strength of His followers. “And as they were eating, Jesus took
bread, and blessed, and brake it; and He gave to the disciples, and
said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took a cup, and gave thanks,
and gave to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of
the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins.”[280] The
teaching of Jesus is an organic whole, and is incomplete without this,
His own interpretation of His death of shame.
Jesus, then, gave Himself up to death as the sacrifice for the sins of
men. Our Christian documents go on to declare that _He rose from the
dead on the third day_, and that this resurrection of His was God’s
confirmation of the sacrifice of His Son. That men should at first sight
disbelieve the astounding assertion, that the crucified Jesus rose from
the dead, is not to be wondered at; but _the fact remains_. Sceptical
scholars have laboured for centuries to explain away this extraordinary
occurrence, but no one of these scholars themselves will venture to say
that any explanation hitherto given is satisfactory. The latest attempt,
that made by Schmiedel in the _Encyclopædia Biblica_, is a farcical
failure. The following are the adamantine facts which no rationalism has
ever yet succeeded in crushing or melting:—(_a_) the Christians declared
that they had seen Christ and spoken with Him after His resurrection;
(_b_) they were absolutely sincere in this belief[281]; (_c_) the
Christian Church arose as a result of this conviction; (_d_) the grave
was empty. The account of Christ’s appearances given in the fifteenth
chapter of our Epistle is well worth study. Those who wish to look into
this question further may consult Ballard’s _Miracles of Unbelief_, pp.
135 ff.
We have thus, by a serious historical inquiry, reached the conclusion,
that Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of the Christian religion, declared,
before His crucifixion, that He was about to die for the sins of men,
and that this assertion of His was sealed with the divine approval by
the unique miracle of the resurrection. We have also seen that this was
_the Good News_, which Paul and all the other Apostles preached, and on
which the early Church was founded. It is this that has won for Jesus
the love of myriads; it is this that has been the magnet to draw them
away from sin. It is the source of the joy and vital power of the
Christian life.
Now let us recollect the poem upon _The Servant of Jehovah_, which we
considered in our third chapter. How marvellously Jesus corresponds to
the extraordinary idea which that poem discloses, the despised and
oppressed prisoner who endures in uncomplaining meekness the uttermost
shame of a violent death, and is finally recognized as having been
“pierced because of our trangressions, and crushed because of our
iniquities.” That anyone should write such a poem, seems strange in the
extreme; that Jesus should have fulfilled it, is infinitely more
wonderful.
How comes it that this Jewish carpenter, with His three years of public
life and His cross of shame, fulfils so many ideals and aspirations? He
brings in the new age which Virgil and his contemporaries sighed for; He
is Plato’s just man; He utters from His own self-consciousness such
things as the author of the _Gītā_ imagined an incarnate god would say;
He gives Himself up to death, in sheer love, as a sacrifice for sin,
thus fulfilling the deepest needs of man, as expressed by the old Hebrew
seer; and He is the only human being whom men of every race and clime
can heartily admire and unhesitatingly imitate. Nor is this all: many
other convergent lines of thought might be suggested, in the light of
which Jesus stands out as the ideal of our common humanity and the
fountain of the love of God.
How is all this to be explained? Wide chasms sever the Hindu sage, the
Greek philosopher, the Hebrew prophet and the Roman poet; yet in Jesus
their several ideals are reconciled in a loftier unity. Once in the
course of the centuries East and West have actually met! Nor was the
meeting merely the resolution of antitheses in a wider conception: what
the Jew and the Indian, the Greek and the Roman, dreamed of as the
unattainable, that Jesus actually accomplished in this work-a-day world
of ours, amid storms of the cruellest hatred and calumny.—What is your
candid opinion about Him, brother? How are you to solve the problem
raised by His life, death and place in history? Can He be better
described than in His own words, SON OF MAN and SON OF GOD?
Footnote 163:
See article _Slavery_ in _Encyclopædia Brittanica_; and _cf._ Gibbon,
Chaps. II and XXXVIII; Cunningham, _An Essay on Western Civilization
in its Economic Aspects_; Wallon, _Histoire de l’Esclavage dans
l’Antiquité_.
Footnote 164:
Fowler, _The City-State of the Greeks and Romans_; Mahaffy, _Social
Life in Greece_, 44; Kidd, _P. W. C._, Chap. VI.
Footnote 165:
Kidd, _P. W. C._, Chaps. VII to IX.
Footnote 166:
Kidd, _P. W. C._, 190, 223-4.
Footnote 167:
Sohm, _The Institutes of Roman Law_; Wallon, _Histoire de l’Esclavage
dans l’Antiquité_.
Footnote 168:
Bury, _History of Greece_, I, 72.
Footnote 169:
Kidd, _P. W. C._, 223.
Footnote 170:
Kidd, _P. W. C._, 168.
Footnote 171:
Kidd, _P. W. C._, 160-172; Seebohm, _The Structure of Greek Tribal
Society_, 4, 138.
Footnote 172:
Sir Robert Giffen, _Address to the Manchester Statistical Society_,
15.
Footnote 173:
Kidd, _Social Evolution_, Chaps. IV & V.
Footnote 174:
Tacitus, _Annals_, XV, 44, Church and Brodribb’s translation.
Footnote 175:
Church and Brodribb’s _Annals_, 374.
Footnote 176:
For all the facts and the opinions of various scholars, _see_
Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_, I, 410-415.
Footnote 177:
_Matthew_, Chapters 26 & 27.
Footnote 178:
For the criticism of the Gospels _see_ below, pages 49-50.
Footnote 179:
_Matt._, 26, 67-68.
Footnote 180:
_Matt._, 27, 27-31.
Footnote 181:
_Matt._, 27, 32-44.
Footnote 182:
It was not the _teaching_ of Jesus, but His _interference_, in the
interests of His own supreme standards, with the traditional worship
and customs of the Jews, that led the Jewish hierarchy to determine on
His death. See below p. 52.
Footnote 183:
See Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_, _ad loca_, and Moffatt,
_Historical New Testament_, pp. 272-274. The most probable dates are,
for _Mark_, 66 to 70 A.D., and for _Matthew_ and _Luke_, 70 to 75 A.D.
Footnote 184:
See the masses of evidence gathered in Schürer, _H. J. P._
Footnote 185:
Fairbairn, _The Philosophy of the Christian Religion_, pp. 328-9.
Footnote 186:
_Mark_, 1, 9.
Footnote 187:
_Mark_, 1, 9.
Footnote 188:
_Mark_, 6, 3.
Footnote 189:
_Luke_, 3, 1; 1, 4, 14.
Footnote 190:
_Luke_, 5, 8.
Footnote 191:
_Luke_, 7, 36-50.
Footnote 192:
_Luke_, 19, 1-10.
Footnote 193:
_Luke_, 23, 39-43.
Footnote 194:
See Harnack, _What is Christianity_, pp. 32-35.
Footnote 195:
See specially Weiss, _N. T. Theology_; Beyschlag, _N. T. Theology_;
Wendt, _Teaching of Jesus_; Stevens, _Theology of the New Testament_;
Robertson, _Our Lord’s Teaching_; and many others.
Footnote 196:
See Schürer, _H. J. P._, Div. II, Vol. II, pp. 126 ff.
Footnote 197:
The reason for His silence is to be found in the fact that the
Messianic hope, as popularly held, had become largely political: to
have confessed Himself the Christ would have been to precipitate a
revolt against Rome. Cf. McGiffert’s _Apostolic Age_, 28.
Footnote 198:
_Matt._, 21, 1-11.
Footnote 199:
_Matt._, 21, 12-17.
Footnote 200:
_Matt._, 21, 23-23, 39.
Footnote 201:
_Matt._, 26, 3-5.
Footnote 202:
_Matt._, 26, 47-56.
Footnote 203:
_Matt._, 26, 57 and 59.
Footnote 204:
_Matt._, 26, 59-62.
Footnote 205:
_Matt._, 26, 63-64.
Footnote 206:
_Matt._, 26, 65-66.
Footnote 207:
Schürer, _H. J. P._, Div. II, Vol. I, 188; _John_, 18, 31.
Footnote 208:
_Matt._, 27, 1-2; 27, 11.
Footnote 209:
_Matt._, 27, 18.
Footnote 210:
_Matt._, 27, 11-26.
Footnote 211:
McGiffert’s _Apostolic Age_, 27-32.
Footnote 212:
_Mark_, 1, 15.
Footnote 213:
See the parables in _Matt._, 22, 2-14; and _Luke_, 14, 15-24.
Footnote 214:
_Mark_, 1, 15.
Footnote 215:
_Matt._, 11, 13-14; _Luke_, 16, 16.
Footnote 216:
_Isaiah_, 42, 6; 49, 6.
Footnote 217:
_Matt._, 24, 14; 26, 13; 28, 19.
Footnote 218:
_Matt._, 11, 28-29.
Footnote 219:
_Matt._, 25, 40; 25, 45.
Footnote 220:
See _e.g._, _Matt._, 9, 6; 11, 19; 12, 8; 16, 13; 20, 18; 20, 28; 25,
31; 26, 64.
Footnote 221:
_Matt._, 11, 27; 16, 17; 17, 5.
Footnote 222:
_Matt._, 21, 37; 11, 10; _Mark_, 8, 37-38; 9, 37; _Luke_, 10, 16.
Footnote 223:
_Matt._, 3, 17; 17, 5; 26, 63-64; 21, 37; 22, 41-45; _Luke_, 10, 22.
Footnote 224:
_Luke_, 10, 23-24.
Footnote 225:
_Mark_, 1, 15.
Footnote 226:
_Matt._, 9, 15; 22, 2-14.
Footnote 227:
_Luke_, 10, 22.
Footnote 228:
_Luke_, 11, 20.
Footnote 229:
_Matt._, 20, 28; _Luke_, 22, 20.
Footnote 230:
_Mark_, 1, 22; 1, 27.
Footnote 231:
_Matt._, 5, 17.
Footnote 232:
_Matt._, 5, 44; 15, 20.
Footnote 233:
_Matt._, 5, 32; 5, 34; 5, 39; 15, 11; 19, 7-9.
Footnote 234:
_Matt._, 5, 11; 8, 22; 10, 37-39; 11, 28-30; 16, 24-25.
Footnote 235:
_i.e._, _I Corinthians_.
Footnote 236:
For the dates of Paul’s Epistles, see the articles in Hastings’s
_Dictionary of the Bible_, or Moffatt’s _Historical New Testament_,
121-137.
Footnote 237:
16, 19.
Footnote 238:
16, 1.
Footnote 239:
16, 5.
Footnote 240:
16, 15.
Footnote 241:
_Acts_, 11, 19; _Galatians_, 1, 21-24.
Footnote 242:
12, 13.
Footnote 243:
12, 13.
Footnote 244:
11, 20-34; 10, 16-17.
Footnote 245:
Very frequent: cf. 1, 2; 1, 3; 1, 7; 8, 6; 12, 3; 16, 22. _The Lord_
takes in the Epistles the place held by _the Son of Man_ in the
Gospels.
Footnote 246:
1, 9.
Footnote 247:
2, 8.
Footnote 248:
1, 24.
Footnote 249:
1, 24; 1, 30.
Footnote 250:
1, 2.
Footnote 251:
5, 4; 7, 10; 14, 37; 15, 24-28.
Footnote 252:
12, 12-13; 12, 27.
Footnote 253:
1, 4-7; 1, 30; 3, 5; 12, 5; 16, 23.
Footnote 254:
1, 7; 4, 5.
Footnote 255:
4, 5.
Footnote 256:
1, 17-18.
Footnote 257:
11, 23-26; 15, 3.
Footnote 258:
1, 18; 1, 21; 2, 2; 15, 1; 15, 11.
Footnote 259:
1, 22-24.
Footnote 260:
2, 6-8.
Footnote 261:
15, 3.
Footnote 262:
11, 25.
Footnote 263:
15, 1; 15, 2; 15, 11.
Footnote 264:
1, 18; 1, 21.
Footnote 265:
15, 17.
Footnote 266:
1, 2; 1, 30; 3, 16; 6, 11; 6, 19.
Footnote 267:
6, 19; 7, 23.
Footnote 268:
6, 15; 10, 17; 12, 12-13; 12, 27.
Footnote 269:
11, 23-25. Cf. _Jeremiah_, 31, 31-34.
Footnote 270:
15, 4 compared with 15, 14.
Footnote 271:
15, 6.
Footnote 272:
_Galatians_, 1, 18-2, 10.
Footnote 273:
See McGiffert’s _Apostolic Age_, 536.
Footnote 274:
The event is described in _Matt._, 26, 26-30; _Mark_, 14, 22-26; and
_Luke_, 22, 14-20; as well as in _1 Corinthians_, 11, 23-26.
Footnote 275:
_Matt._, 9, 15.
Footnote 276:
_Matt._, 16, 21.
Footnote 277:
_Matt._, 17, 22-23; 20, 17-19.
Footnote 278:
_Matt._, 20, 28.
Footnote 279:
_Matt._, 21, 39; 26, 2; 26, 12.
Footnote 280:
_Matt._, 26, 26, 30.
Footnote 281:
Now universally acknowledged.
APPENDIX.
NEO-KRISHNA LITERATURE.
The Neo-Krishna movement is about twenty years old. Before 1880
Vaishnavism does not seem to have been in great favour with the higher
castes of Bengal. Traditionally they were Saivas or Sāktas rather than
Vaishnavas; and English education, which bore very heavily for half a
century on every form of Hinduism seems to have told with peculiar
severity on Krishnaism. But shortly after 1880 a great change becomes
visible: Krishna begins to be praised on every hand, and ancient
Vaishnava books are read and studied with avidity. The new movement
seems to have owed its origin, on the one hand, to the teaching and
influence of Ramkrishna Paramhansa, Keshub Chundra Sen, Bijoy Krishna
Goswami and Shishir Kumar Ghose; and on the other, to the efforts of two
or three noteworthy literary men, who threw themselves into the task of
painting the character of Krishna with extraordinary enthusiasm. The
_Gītā_ at once leaped into greater prominence than ever: numberless
editions and translations of it have been published. Many essays have
appeared comparing Krishna with Christ and Vaishnavism with
Christianity. Thus a large Krishna literature, both in English and
Bengali, has sprung up. The following seem to be the more important
books of this literature:—
1884
Essays in _Prachār_ on _Krishnacharitra_ by Bunkim Ch. Chatterji.
1886
1. _Krishnacharitra_, Bunkim Ch. Chatterji, 1st edition. A volume in
Bengali prose on the character of Krishna.
1887
2. _Raivatak_, Nobin Ch. Sen. An epic poem in Bengali on Krishna’s
youth. 3. _The Bhagavad Gītā, or the Lords Lay_, Mohini M.
Chatterji. An English prose translation of the text and of parts of
Sankara’s commentary. An attempt is made to put the _Gītā_ on the
same level as the New Testament.
1888
4. _Krishna Jivani_, Prosanna Kumar Vidyaratna. A life of Krishna in
Bengali prose.
1889
5. _Srikrishner Jivana O Dharma_, Gaur Gavinda Ray. The life and
religion of Krishna from the standpoint of the New Dispensation:
Bengali prose.
1890
6. _Srimadbhagavadgītā_, Krishnananda Swami (_i.e._ Krishna Prasanna
Sen). The text in the Bengali character with a Bengali commentary
and translation.
1892
_Krishnacharitra_, Bunkim Ch. Chatterji, 2nd edition. This edition
contains a great deal of new matter.
7. _Amiya Nimai Charity_, Shishir Kumar Ghose. First part. A life of
Chaitanya in Bengali prose.
1893
_Amiya Nimai Charit_. Second part.
8. _Kurukshetra_, Nobin Ch. Sen. An epic poem in Bengali on Krishna
at Kurukshetra.
1894
9. _The Landmarks of Ethics according to the Gītā_. Bulloram
Mullick.
_Amiya Nimai Charit_. Third part.
1895
10. _Kālā Chānd Gītā_, Shishir Kumar Ghose. A sort of Krishnaite
Song of Solomon in Bengali verse. It is said to have been composed
in 1888.
1896
11. _Srikrishna, his Life and Teachings_, Dhirendra Nath Pal. 3
vols.
12. _Srikrishner Kalanka Kena?_ Nava Kumar Devasarma. A Bengali
prose defence of the character of Krishna.
13. _The Bhagavad Gītā_, Annie Besant. New and revised edition. An
English prose translation with an introduction and a few notes.
14. _Prabhās_, Nobin Ch. Sen. An epic poem in Bengali on the later
years of Krishna’s life.
1897
15. _Lord Gaurānga_, Shishir Kumar Ghose, 1st volume. A life of
Chaitanya in English prose, with a discussion of the doctrine of
Incarnations.
1898
16. _Krishna and Krishnaism_, Bulloram Mullick.
_Lord Gaurānga_, 2nd volume.
17. _Hindu Theism_, Sitanath Tattvabhushan.
18. _An Elementary Treatise on Universal Religion._ Kshetra Mohan
Mukerji. The religion of the _Gītā_ is here put forward as the
universal religion.
1899
19. _Incarnation_, Nanda Krishna Bose. This treatise follows in most
points the theory of Incarnation put forward in _Lord Gaurānga_.
1900
20. _The Young Men’s Gītā_, Jogindranath Mukharji. An English prose
translation with introduction and notes.
21. _Srimadbhagavadgītā_, Prasanna Kumar Sastri, 2nd edition. The
text in the Bengali character, with several commentaries, and a
Bengali translation by Sasadhar Tarkachuramani.
1901
22. _The Imitation of Sreekrishna_, S. C. Mukhopadhaya. A daily
text-book, containing extracts in English from the _Gītā_, the
_Mahābhārata_, and the _Bhāgavat Purāna_.
23. _Sree Krishna_, Muralidhur Roy. An account, in English prose, of
the life and character of Krishna.
24. _Srimadbhagavadgītā_, Bhudhur Chattopadhaya, 4th edition. The
text in the Bengali character, with a Bengali commentary.
1903
25. A most elaborate edition of the _Gītā_, edited by Damudar
Mukerji, is being published in parts.
26. A Bengali verse translation of the _Gītā_ by Satyendra Nath
Tagore is appearing in _Bhārati_.
This revival of interest in Krishna and his worship is clearly part of
the great national movement which has been so potent in Bengal,
religiously, socially and politically, these last twenty years. This
period has witnessed the appearance of the whole Neo-Hindu movement,
with its literature, lectures, societies and missionary propaganda, the
rise of the Indian National Congress and of the social reform movement,
the advance of native journalism to its present extraordinary influence,
and the establishment of the native unaided colleges, which have so
seriously changed the balance of influence in Higher Education.
Neo-Krishnaism, then, is one result of the operation of that potent
spirit whereby India has become conscious of her unity, and her sons
have been roused to a vigorous defence of all that they have inherited
from the past. This rise of the national spirit, though it may be
troublesome in small matters to the rulers of India, is undoubtedly the
last and greatest justification of English rule; and, while, with its
exaggerations and insincerities and follies, it cannot fail to provoke
criticism,[282] yet its power to awake self-reliance, self-respect and
the passion for freedom ought to win for it the approval and the
encouragement of all good men.
There can be no doubt that among the influences which have produced
Neo-Hinduism, Christianity is one of the most potent, if not the chief.
This is peculiarly evident in the case of the Neo-Krishna literature we
are discussing. In 1899 the Bengal Librarian wrote, “There is no denying
the fact that all this revolution in the religious belief of the
educated Hindu has been brought about as much by the dissemination of
Christian thought by Missionaries as by the study of Hindu scriptures;
for Christian influence is plainly detectable in many of the Hindu
publications of the year.” But beyond this general influence, which
cannot fail to be noticed by anyone who will take the trouble to read
the volumes, it is, we believe, perfectly plain that the very ideas
which have given birth to the literature are the result of Christian
influence. A distinct taste for such books as the Gospels has sprung up;
and men have come to feel the need of a perfect character, such as
Christ’s is, for daily contemplation and imitation. The Neo-Krishna
movement endeavours to supply these needs from within Hinduism, offering
the _Gītā_ instead of the Gospels, and Krishna instead of Christ.[283]
Nobin Ch. Sen seems to have been the first to conceive the idea of a
modern rendering of the character of Krishna; for he laid the project
before some of his friends in 1882.[284] His famous epic trilogy,
_Raivatak_, _Kurukshetra_ and _Prabhās_, are the result of this pregnant
thought. But, while he and Shishir Kumar Ghose have done a great deal to
popularize the movement, there can be no doubt that Bunkim Ch.
Chatterji’s _Krishnacharitra_ has been by far the most influential
volume in the whole of this literature. Gaur Gavinda Ray’s work,
_Srikrishner Jivana O Dharma_, is a piece of excellent characterization,
and has won the high regard of many thoughtful men.
The books on our list fall into two classes, _Historical_ and
_Traditional_. In the Historical class there are only two volumes,
Tattvabhusan’s _Hindu Theism_, and the _Young Men’s Gītā_. These two
frankly acknowledge that the _Gītā_ is a late book. In the _Young Men’s
Gītā_[285] its date is said to be a century or two before, or a century
or two after, the Christian era; while in _Hindu Theism_[286] the _Gītā_
is regarded as the point of transition from the old Vedānta to the
religion of the Purānas. The standpoint of these two books is thus
thoroughly historical, but it necessarily implies the abandonment of the
divinity of Krishna.
All the rest of the books on the list fall into the second class; for
they hold the traditional position about Krishna. Most of them make no
attempt at criticism of the sources, but treat the _Mahābhārata_, the
_Gītā_, the _Harivansa_ and the Purānas as all historical and all
equally trustworthy. A few of the authors, however, state plainly their
own critical conclusions, and two or three enter into some discussion of
the main problems. These attempts at criticism are the most pitiable
parts of the whole literature. The talented author of _Srikrishner
Jivana O Dharma_, by far too sincere and candid to ignore the Puranic
elements in the sources, frankly confesses their presence; yet,
believing these books to be genuine representatives of the age of
Kurukshetra, he is driven to the extraordinary conclusion that the
Vedic, the Vedantic, and the Puranic ages were contemporaneous.[287] The
late Bulloram Mullick, in discussing the eighteen Purānas, goes so far
as to say, “Whatever may be the views of European savants, there is
indubitable proof that some of these Purānas existed in the eleventh or
twelfth century before Christ.”[288] Even Bunkim Chundra Chatterji
himself not only unhesitatingly adopts Goldstücker’s rash guess, that
Pānini’s grammar was written before the Brāhmanas and the Upanishads,
but on the basis of that unwise conjecture, pushes back Pānini’s date to
the tenth or eleventh century B. C.,[289] _i.e._, four or five centuries
earlier than the pre-Buddhistic date which Goldstücker[290] wished to
establish. Dhirendra Nath Pal, seeing that Bunkim Babu found it so easy
to leap over a few centuries, goes a little further and suggests the
twelfth or thirteenth.[291] But, indeed, without some such strange
perversion of history, it is impossible to construct an argument for the
authenticity of the _Gītā_ and the historicity of the _Mahābhārata_ that
shall have even the semblance of reason.
We note next that of all the books of the second class, Bunkim Chundra’s
_Krishnacharitra_ is the only work that gives any independent criticism:
all the rest, with the single exception of _Srikrishner Jivana O
Dharma_, merely echo his arguments. Thus Bunkim Babu’s theory is the
only one we need discuss.
Now the whole critical structure of the _Krishnacharitra_ rests upon the
passage on pages 41 and 42, where the date of Pānini is discussed.
Pānini is pushed back to 1000 B. C.; and, the ‘original’ _Mahābhārata_
being earlier than Pānini, we are asked to believe that it was produced
within a century or two of Kurukshetra, and that it is in consequence
trustworthy historically. The whole argument thus rests on the date of
Pānini.
We translate this important passage:—
“Goldstücker has proved that, when Pānini’s Sūtra was composed,
Buddha had not arisen. In that case Pānini must belong to the sixth
century B. C. But not only that, in his time the Brāhmanas, the
Aranyakas, the Upanishads and the other parts of the Vedas had not
been composed. Apart from the Rig, the Yajur, and the Sāma Vedas,
nothing else existed. Asvalāyana, Sānkhāyana and the rest had not
appeared. Max Müller says that the age in which the Brāhmanas were
composed began about 1000 B. C. Dr. Martin Haug says that that was
the end of the age, and that it began in the fourteenth century B.
C. Therefore, if we say that Pānini must belong to the tenth or
eleventh century B. C., we do not say too much.”
Now the first remark we make on this extraordinary piece of criticism is
this, that Goldstücker and Max Müller are most unfairly conjoined to
support a date which both of them would have indignantly repudiated. For
Müller’s date for Pānini is the fourth century B.C.,[292] and
Goldstücker never proposed to push him further back than the sixth
century; indeed all that he claims is that he has brought forward
evidence which affords a strong _probability_ that Pānini preceded the
origin of the Buddhistic creed.[293] Our next remark is that, though
more than forty years have passed since Goldstücker’s book
appeared,[294] he has convinced no one that the Brāhmanas and the
Upanishads are posterior to Pānini’s grammar: opinions still differ as
to Pānini’s precise date, but no scholar to-day puts him before the
Brāhmanas.[295]
Can the grounds for this unanimity among modern scholars be vividly set
forth? We believe they can. Here, as in our first chapter, we shall not
attempt to fix a definite chronology, but shall simply aim at reaching
_the relative age_ of the great books we are dealing with; and we shall
not deal with the meaning of disputed passages, but shall rest the case
altogether on the clear and prominent features of history which every
one can appreciate. There is, then, first of all the great broad fact
that the Sūtras depend on the Brāhmanas, and are, in general, posterior
to them, and that _the language and style of Pānini’s Sūtras show that
he belongs to about the middle of the Sūtra period_.[296] All the
detailed study of the last forty years _has gone to strengthen this
stable conclusion_.
But there is another and still more conclusive proof that Pānini comes
long after the early Brāhmanas. _These ancient books are written in
Vedic Sanskrit._[297] The early Upanishads are more modern in character,
but even they belong to a stage of the language a good deal earlier than
the Sūtras: Professor Macdonell’s words are, “the oldest Upanishads
occupying a position linguistically midway between the Brāhmanas and the
Sūtras.”[298] Thus the Brāhmanas were composed while Vedic Sanskrit was
still the language of the Indo-Aryans. Now Pānini’s grammar _deals with
classical Sanskrit_, not the Vedic speech. He deals with many points of
Vedic grammar, it is true, but he deals with them as exceptions; his
subject is classical Sanskrit. He laid down the law, which has ruled
Sanskrit throughout the centuries since his day. Thus he arose at a
time, _when the language of the Brāhmanas had become archaic_, and
modern Sanskrit had taken its place.[299] It is thus absolutely
impossible to believe that Pānini lived and wrote before the Brāhmanas
were composed: to propose to put him back before their composition is
much the same as proposing to push Johnson’s Dictionary back before
Chaucer.
Another line of proof may also be indicated. Careful study of the early
Brāhmanas has made it plain that they were composed after the collection
of the hymns of the _Rigveda_, but before[300] the formation of the
_Sanhitā_ text (_i.e._, the text in which the words are joined according
to the rules of _Sandhi_) and the _Pada_[301] text (_i.e._ the word by
word text). The author of the _Pada_ text is Sākalya.[302] Now Yāska
refers to Sākalya as a predecessor;[303] and Yāska himself is earlier
than Pānini.[304] Thus the historical order is the early Brāhmanas, the
_Sanhitā_ text, Sākalya, Yāska, Pānini.
Bunkim Babu’s date for Pānini being thus altogether untenable, his whole
argument for the historicity of the _Pāndava Mahābhārata_ and Krishna’s
character as therein pourtrayed tumbles in ruins, and brings down with
it all the rest of this Krishna literature.
We would invite our readers to turn away from these vain attempts to
turn a myth into sober history, and to listen to the teaching of those
really scholarly Indians who study Hinduism from a scientific
standpoint. We have already referred to Sitanath Tattvabhushan’s _Hindu
Theism_, and we have frequently used Bose’s _Hindu Civilization under
British Rule_ and R. C. Dutt’s works as authorities. We would now call
attention to a monograph by one of the greatest scholars in Bengal
(_Comparative Studies in Vaishnavism and Christianity_, by Brajendra
Nath Seal), where[305] the growth of the Krishna legend is frankly
discussed;[306] also to a very remarkable essay on _Buddhist and
Vishnuite_ in a recent number of _Sāhitya_[307] by the late Umes Chundra
Batabyal, in which grave historical reasons are given for concluding
that the _Gītā_ is in part at least a polemic against Buddhism; and to
the late Mr. Justice Telang’s introduction to his translation of the
_Gītā_ (_S. B. E._, vol. VIII), with regard to which readers will note,
that, although the date is put a little earlier than most scholars would
put it, no attempt is made to defend the traditional theory of the
origin of the Song.
Footnote 282:
Many of the wisest Indians have spoken out on this subject. The latest
utterance is an article on _Pseudo-Nationalism_ in _the Indian
Messenger_ for August 9th.
Footnote 283:
Many other signs of Christian influence might be noted: thus _the
Young Men’s Gītā_ is a counterblast to a Christian edition of the
Song, and it is besides most evidently arranged and printed in
imitation of some tasteful edition of _the Imitation of Christ_; while
_the Imitation of Sreekrishna_ proclaims its origin by its very name.
Footnote 284:
See an essay by Hirendra Nath Dutta, which originally appeared in
Sāhitya, now republished as an appendix to Nobin Chundra Sen’s
_Kurukshetra_.
Footnote 285:
p. ii.
Footnote 286:
pp. 74-76.
Footnote 287:
p. 1.
Footnote 288:
_Krishna and Krishnaism_, 16.
Footnote 289:
_Krishnacharitra_, 42.
Footnote 290:
_Pānini, his Place in Sanskrit Literature_, 227.
Footnote 291:
_Srikrishna, his Life and Teachings_, vol. I, p. xxv.
Footnote 292:
_Physical Religion_, 76.
Footnote 293:
_Pānini, his Place in Sanskrit Literature_, 227.
Footnote 294:
It was published in 1861.
Footnote 295:
Macdonell, 430-431; Kaegi, 7; Max Müller, _Physical Religion_, 63-64;
Haraprasad Sastri, _A School History of India_, 4-7; R. C. Dutt,
_Brief History of Ancient and Modern India_, 17, 27; Böhtlingk’s
_Pānini_ (Leipsic, 1887); Weber, _Indische Studien_, V, 1-172;
Hopkins, _R. I._, 350; Bühler in _S. B. E._, vol. II, pp. xxxv,
xxxix-xlii; Eggeling in _S. B. E._, vol. xii, p. xxxvii; Bhandarkar,
_Early History of the Deccan_, 5.
Footnote 296:
Max Müller, _A. S. L._, 311-312; Macdonell, 36, 39, 268. Cf. what
Whitney says, “The standard work of Pānini, the grammarian-in-chief of
Sanskrit literature, is a frightfully perfect model of the Sūtra
method” (_Oriental and Linguistic Studies_, I, 71).
Footnote 297:
Max Müller, _Natural Religion_, 296; Macdonell, 203-4.
Footnote 298:
Macdonell, 205.
Footnote 299:
Max Müller, _A. S. L._, 138; _Natural Religion_, 297-298; Macdonell,
22-23.
Footnote 300:
Macdonell, 50.
Footnote 301:
On these texts see Kaegi, Note 77; Macdonell, 48, 50.
Footnote 302:
Macdonell, 51.
Footnote 303:
Macdonell, 268.
Footnote 304:
Macdonell, 269. Goldstücker (_op. cit._ p. 225) acknowledges that
Yāska earlier than Pānini.
Footnote 305:
pp. 8-10.
Footnote 306:
See also Bose, _H. C._, 33-35.
Footnote 307:
13th year, 1st part.
● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are
referenced.
○ While the title page included with the source files shows
Neil Alexander to be the author, the original publication is
attributed to John Nicol Farquhar.