As Mr. Frazer is to make our Lord one of the annual victims at Purim,
he has to try to prove that the Jews did annually hang or crucify a
mock-king supposed to be divine at Purim. To be sure neither prophet
nor legislator, neither Ezekiel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, nor Zachariah,
says one word about this heathen abomination borrowed by the Jews. Mr.
Frazer therefore tries to prove that the man was hanged at Purim by
the evidence of 'traces of human sacrifice lingering about the feast
of Purim in one or other of those mitigated forms to which I have
just referred,' such as the uncertain 'burning an effigy of a man at
Tarsus.'[34]
Mr. Frazer is, I think, rather easily satisfied with this kind of
testimony to human sacrifice. Every fifth of November a man, called Guy
by the populace, is burned in effigy. But, as we know the historical
facts, we do not, though science in the distant future may, regard
this rite as a trace of Druidical human sacrifice, Guy being a god of
the dying foliage of November, when St. Dasius was slain. Mr. Frazer
explains the old custom of burning Judas on Easter Saturday as 'all
for the purpose of protecting the fields from hail,' and as 'really
of pagan origin.'[35] It maybe so: the ashes are used in agricultural
magic. But we know that Guy Fawkes is not a relic of human sacrifice.
Moreover, it is natural to destroy a foe, like Haman, or John Knox, or
Mr. Kruger, in effigy: the thing is often done. The Jews undeniably
regarded Haman, on the authority of Esther, as an enemy of their race.
So they destroyed him in effigy. In the fifth century of our era, when
the hatred between Jews and Christians had become bitter, the Jews, 'in
contempt of the Christian religion,' attached the effigy of Haman to a
cross. This insult was forbidden by the Codex Theodosianus.[36] Similar
doings, without the cross, prevailed at Purim in the Middle Ages. But
how does this prove the hanging of a real Haman victim before the rise
of Christianity? It merely proves that, after the strife between Jews
and Christians began, an effigy of Haman, the national enemy, was
crucified 'in contemptu Christianæ fidei,' as the edict says--to annoy
the Christians.
But Mr. Frazer has 'some positive grounds' for thinking that 'in former
times the Jews, like the Babylonians from whom they appear to have
derived their Purim, may at one time have burned, hanged, or crucified
a real man in the character of Haman.' We have seen that[37] Purim, if
it is a Tammuz feast and fast, was kept by the Jews before they went to
Babylon. But, passing that, what are the 'positive grounds'?
Merely that in 416 A.D. some Jews in Syria, being heated with wine
after 'certain sports,' began to deride Christianity, and, for that
purpose, bound a Christian child to the cross. At first 'they only
laughed and jeered at him, but soon, their passions getting the better
of them, they ill-treated the child so that he died under their hands.'
Mr. Frazer 'can hardly doubt that' the 'sports' 'were Purim, and that
the boy who died on the cross represented Haman.' Granting that the
'sports' were Purim, and that the Christian child did duty for Haman,
the purpose was 'to deride Christians and even Christ himself.' These
motives did not exist before Christianity, so how does the anecdote of
brutal and cruel mockery, ending in murder, afford 'positive grounds'
for the hypothesis that, ever since the exile, the Jews, in imitation
of the Sacæan proceedings in July or September, yearly hanged a
mock-king in March?[38]