_The Anti-Essene Jesus._
I have said that in the New Testament there is an Essene and an
anti-Essene Christ. Both are most conspicuous in the Gospel of St.
Luke. Catholic and Protestant disputants are aware of this.
Until the days of Ferdinand Christian Baur, St. Luke had an immaculate
reputation. He was believed to be the companion of St. Paul on his
voyages. He was believed to have written the third gospel almost as
early as the date of Paul's imprisonment. He was the reputed author of
the Acts of the Apostles.
"Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you." (Col. iv. 14.)
In the Second Epistle to Timothy, and in the Epistle to Philemon, he is
also mentioned.
But now all is changed.
In the first place, two out of the three epistles that name him are
pronounced to be forgeries by all competent critics; and very few hold
even the Epistle to the Colossians to be by the pen of St. Paul. Then
it is pointed out that there is no mention of St. Luke's gospel or of
the Acts of the Apostles until the date of Irenæus (A.D. 180.)
Let us give the opening verses of the gospel as amended by that eminent
Greek scholar, Dr. Giles:--
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narrative
of those things which have been brought to fulfilment in us, even as
they which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the
word have handed down to us, it hath seemed good to me also, following
all accurately from the beginning, to write unto thee, in order, most
excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those
things wherein thou hast been instructed."
Now, here it is plain, as Dr. Giles remarks, that the author "does
not profess to have been an original writer, or to have had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first," which is the
erroneous rendering of our authorised version, but that he follows the
accounts of others, who "were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word."
(Giles, "Apostolical Records," p. 34.)
Next comes the pertinent question, Who was the "most excellent
Theophilus?" The word used is _Kratistos_, "which is thought by Gibbon
to designate a man holding a civil or official dignity. If this be so,
we might find it difficult to suppose that such a title would have been
given to a Christian, even if there were any one of exalted station,
within a few years after the first promulgation of Christianity."
("Apostolical Records," p. 13.)
But at Antioch, about the year 171, there was a Theophilus, the
sixth bishop. He might have been called Kratistos without anything
inappropriate. He was a convert late in life, which may explain the
passage about "those things in which thou has been instructed."
Eusebius tells us that this Theophilus wrote a treatise against
Marcion. But in the view of modern critics, the forged epistles of Paul
to Timothy were also levelled against Marcion.
This has its significance. For the followers of Marcion have always
maintained that Luke's gospel is Marcion's gospel enlarged and
falsified. One of these, Megethius, declared it was full of errors and
contradictions. This controversy has been revived in modern times.
But before we deal with this important gospel, we must say a word about
what the Germans call Luke's "tendency,"--his scheme of colour, to use
an artistic expression.
Baur, comparing the Acts with other scriptures, was struck with the
many discrepancies and absolute false statements that it contained.
He perceived also that these false statements were not accidental
but systematic. Soon their motive dawned upon him. It was plain that
this "Luke," writing long after the animosities of Paul against the
historical Apostles had ceased, desired to tone down and conceal these
animosities. Hence the book of the Acts of the Apostles could not be
the work of a contemporary. And a strong motive for this has been
suggested by erudite Germans.
The early enemy of Christianity was the Jew. The Roman official at
first treated the animosities of the dominant party as part of the
incomprehensible Jewish superstition, and sided, when practicable,
with the weaker section. But when Christianity began to gain ground,
the Roman began to examine it more closely, and soon found much to
condemn. For the Essenes proclaimed that the State gods of the Romans
were wicked demons. The Essenes forbade the use of wine and flesh meat,
important elements in the ceremonial of the Roman religion. The Essenes
forbade slavery. The Essenes forbade marriage, replacing it, according
to rumour, with lewd rites in their secret orgies. Soon violent
persecutions arose.
Now it has been suggested by the Germans that at the date of Kratistos,
the school of Antioch sought to conciliate the Roman authority by
showing that Christianity was a harmless form of Judaism, equally
entitled to State toleration.
This "tendency" of "Luke" must be borne in mind. It is very plain in
the earlier chapters of the Acts. The gospels announce that at Christ's
death consternation and cowardice were amongst his followers. The
"lambs" had fled in all directions from the "wolves." St. Paul also
speaks of the fierce persecutions that followed the event,--Stephen
stoned, and the "havoc" and the "slaughter." And yet in the opening
chapters of the Acts we find the "wolves" more gentle than the "lambs."
They are "pricked in their heart." They at once allow Peter to proclaim
in the temple, and also before the Sanhedrim, that there is no
salvation in any name other than that of the malefactor they have just
executed (by inference not even in Yahve); and that all who will not
hear this malefactor shall be destroyed. And the Sanhedrim, in solemn
conclave, let him go, "finding nothing how they might punish him."
(Acts iv. 21.) And Gamaliel, a solemn doctor, advises his colleagues
to let the hated "lambs" alone, "lest haply they be found to fight
against God." Had a "wolf" talked like that, his brother "wolves" would
have made short work of him.
The "tendency" here is very plain. "Luke" wants it to be understood
that from the first the chief doctors saw no harm in Christianity,
and allowed it to be preached in the temple. I shall not waste time
over the controversy, whether "Luke" is an enlargement of Marcion's
or some other shorter gospel. As we know that the earliest and only
authentic gospel came from the Essene Ebionites, it is plain that all
anti-Essenism is an accretion.
We now come to the opening chapters of Luke's gospel. Let us see if it
is possible at this distance of time to trace how they were built up.
In the Jerusalem Talmud, and also in the Babylonish, is a somewhat
fanciful account of the slaughter of a priest named Zacharias. who was
killed in the court of the priests, _near the altar_. A great miracle
now occurred: his blood began to bubble, that it might cause fury to
come up to take vengeance! Soon Nebuzaradan (this fixes the date of
the story to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar) arrived at the temple. He
asked the meaning of the bubbling. He was told that the blood was the
blood of calves, and rams, and lambs. He caused some calves, and rams,
and lambs to be slaughtered; still the blood bubbled. He slaughtered
a number of rabbins; still the blood bubbled. Ninety-four thousand
priests were slaughtered before the blood of the dead Zacharias was
appeased. (Talmud Hierosol. in Taannith, fol. 69, Lightfoot the
Hebraist.)
We now come to the Protevangelion, a fanciful gospel attributed to
James, the "Bishop of Bishops," as he is called on the title page. It
has incorporated this story of Zacharias and his avenging blood; and
tacked on to it an account of the birth of the Virgin Mary. One Joachim
was much afflicted because Anna his wife had no issue. He "called to
mind the patriarch Abraham, how that God in the end of his life had
given him his son Isaac," and he went into the wilderness and fasted
forty days. An angel appeared to Anna and promised offspring. Mary
the child was born, and dedicated to God. Zacharias, the high priest,
received her in the temple. When she was twelve years old a veil was
wanted, and the high priest cast lots to find out what maiden should
spin it. The lot fell on Mary, and from this moment Zacharias was dumb.
Meantime, Mary was espoused to Joseph, who, shortly afterwards finding
his betrothed with child, was sorrowful. Both were summoned before
the deputy of Zacharias, who caused them to go through the prescribed
ordeal of drinking "the water of the Lord." Christ was born. The wise
men came. Herod slew the infants, and murdered Zacharias in the temple.
Then a mighty miracle occurred. The roofs of the temple howled, and
were rent from the top to the bottom. And a voice from heaven said,
"Zacharias is murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped away until the
revenger of his blood shall come."
Let us now suppose that Luke comes across this story, the "Luke" of the
epoch of the most excellent Theophilus, the Luke with the "tendency"
to soften subversive Essenism. How would he proceed? He might argue
that John the Baptist would make a more suitable hero. He could be born
of old parents like Mary. And the story would certainly gain in unity
and dramatic vigour, if Zacharias the priest was made the old father.
That one author has copied from the other there can be no doubt.
Hail, thou art full of grace, thou art blessed amongst women. (Prot.
ix. 7.)
Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name to all generations. (Prot.
vii. 4.)
Mary, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most
High overshadow thee.
Wherefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be holy, and shall
be called the Son of the Living God.
And thou shalt call his name Jesus. (Prot. ix. 13.)
For lo, as the voice of thy salutation reached my ears, that which is
in me leaped and blessed me. (Prot. ix. 21.)
Hail, thou art highly favoured. Blessed art thou among women. (Luke i.
28).
My soul doth magnify the Lord. Henceforth all generations will call me
blessed. (Luke i. 46, 48).
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest
overshadow thee.
Therefore, also that holy thing which shall be born, shall be called
the Son of God. (Luke i. 35.)
And shalt call his name Jesus. (Luke i. 31.)
And it came to pass when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the
babe leaped in her womb. (Luke ii. 41.)
The question now arises, Which author has copied from the other? Three
theories are possible.
1. "James" copied the story from Luke, the companion of Paul.
2. James copied the story from "Luke," of a later date.
3. Luke copied from James.
1. Bishop Lightfoot is angry that an "evangelist" should be accused of
copying from an "apocryphal gospel." But there is the difficulty here,
that the Zacharias of both stories is plainly the Zacharias of the
Talmudic narrative. So that, if the bishop could prove that "James" had
stolen from Luke, there would still be an "apocryphal" document behind
both. And if "Luke" was the first to use the Talmudic story, how is it
that he misses the point of that story, and James copying him, hits it?
That point is the avenging blood.
2. The details of the picture and the whole local colour point plainly
to an age when past events have so faded away from the memory of living
people that a writer can afford to play tricks with them. The huge
animosity with which dominant Israel viewed spiritual Israel would have
made even Torquemada feel lukewarm. Christ called the two the "wolves"
and the "lambs." And yet a chief "wolf," on being informed that his
son is to be a water-drinking Nazarite, a leader of the abominable
schismatics who prated about the "power of Elias," and called
themselves a "people prepared for the Lord," feels ecstasy rather than
wrath. Imagine Philip of Spain learning that a son of his had helped to
steer the English fire-ships at the great battle of Gravelines. Imagine
Legree composing an original song of triumph on learning that Uncle
Tom was a free citizen. If there was a historical Luke, and he was the
genuine companion of Paul, he of all men would know of the "haling
men and women and committing them to prison," of the "havoc and the
slaughter." He would have known how the priestly party in Jerusalem
would view a proposal to annul the eternal covenant of Yahve with a
better, a more "holy covenant," and substitute remission of sins by
penitence for remission of sins by the bloody sacrifice.
3. If the opening chapters of Luke are historical, many events in his
own and the other gospels are plainly unhistorical. If John the Baptist
was the cousin of Christ, brought up with him from childhood, how is
it that he failed to recognise him on the Jordan (John i. 33) until
the First Person of the Trinity intervened, and performed the miracle
of sending down a dove to indicate him? Why, too, should he have sent,
as Luke himself announces (vii. 19), messengers to his cousin to ask
if he was the coming Messiah, when he must have known from his mother
the announcement of the angels that his cousin was the "Son of the
Highest," destined to "reign over Jacob for ever"? Why, too, did Mary,
knowing all this, forget it when the boy-Christ disputed in the temple?
and why did Luke forget it too? (Luke ii. 48.)
4. If John the Baptist was really the son of a chief priest, the
silence of the other gospels is unaccountable. Certainly if Justin
Martyr had had the opening chapters of Luke before him, he would have
used them against Trypho.
5. When I first read Luke critically, I asked myself, Why has he
omitted the death of Zacharias, as he has dragged him in? Then I was
struck with the words that he has put into the mouth of Christ:--
"From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias which _perished
between the altar and the temple_." (Ch. xi. 51.)
This passage convinced me that he had the Protevangelion before him. It
is to be remarked that this verse does not appear in Marcion's version.
Then I came across a whimsical passage in Bishop Lightfoot. He shows
that an "early tradition identified the Zacharias who is mentioned
in the gospels as having been slain between the temple and the altar
(Matt. xxiii. 35) with this Zacharias, the father of the Baptist."
("Supernatural Religion," p. 256.) The bishop then triumphs over the
author of "Supernatural Religion," who had declared that Luke makes no
announcement of Zacharias's death. "He appears," says Bishop Lightfoot,
"to have forgotten Luke xi. 51." (Op. cit. p. 257.)
But surely the bishop has overlooked one whimsical objection to
accepting this story as historical. If the John the Baptist was the son
of Zacharias, the son of Barachias, he must have been 531 years old
when he baptised Christ.
Bishop Lightfoot makes much of these opening chapters, because they
show that the parents of Jesus were orthodox Jews, who went up every
year to the feast of the Passover, and offered doves at the prescribed
times. But what about Herod and the flight into Egypt? If the first
four chapters which "Luke" is accused of adding to Marcion's gospel be
historical, the flight into Egypt is a fiction.
The Buddhist story about Simeon, and the Buddhist disputation with the
doctors, are borrowed from the First Gospel of the Infancy. They are
not in any other canonical gospel, and the First Gospel of the Infancy
is the great armoury of Buddhist legends.
It is to be remarked that a young Buddhist, that he may acquire
readiness in controversy, is pestered with questions by doctors and
theologians. But the rabbis at Jerusalem would scarcely have allowed a
little boy to talk to them about the Messiah. (First Infancy, xxi. 3.)
We now come to the two passages most relied on by those who desire to
show that Jesus condemned the asceticism of John. Let us read each with
its context.
"And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak
unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness
for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to
see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously
apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts. But what went
ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more
than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my
messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a
greater prophet than John the Baptist, _but he that is least in the
kingdom of God is greater than he_. And all the people that heard him,
and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism
of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God
against themselves, being not baptized of him.
"_And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this
generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children
sitting in the market-place, and calling one to another, and saying,
We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to
you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating
bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man
is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man,
and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!_ But wisdom is
justified of all her children." (Luke vii. 24-35.)
It is a singular fact that this short passage has been made the
chief armoury of the disciples of gastronomic, and also of interior
Christianity. Thus Migne's "Dictionnaire des Ascétes" cites it to show
that Christ approved of the asceticism of the Baptist. Does not this at
starting seem to argue two teachings, and, as a corollary, two distinct
teachers? If we omit the passages that I have marked in italics it is
difficult to find a more eloquent eulogy of ascetic mysticism. The
Buddhist mystics are called the Sons of Wisdom (Dharma or Prajñâ), and
Christ adopts the same terminology. Plainly the gist of the passage is
that the children of the mystic Sophia have no rivalry and no separate
baptism. The lower life of soft raiment and palaces is contrasted
with John's ascetic life amongst the "reeds" that still conspicuously
fringe the rushing Jordan. John is pronounced the greatest of prophets,
and his teaching the "counsel of God." Then comes my first passage
in italics, the statement that the most raw catechumen of Christ's
instruction is superior to this the greatest of God's prophets. It
completely disconnects what follows from what precedes, and involves
the silliest inconsequence, as shown by the action of Christ's hearers.
It is said that they crowded to the "baptism of John." Had that speech
been uttered, of course they would have stayed away from it.
The subsequent insertion of the gospel of eating and drinking,
and piping and dancing, involves a greater folly. It betrays a
writer completely ignorant of Jewish customs. The fierce enmity of
anti-mystical Israel to the Nazarites pivoted on the very fact that
the latter were pledged for life to drink neither wine nor strong
drink. This was the Nazarite's banner with victory already written
upon it. Hence the fierce hatred of the Jewish priesthood. If Christ
in their presence had drunk one cup of wine, there would have been no
crucifixion, and certainly no upbraiding.
This is the second passage that anti-mystical Christianity builds
upon:--
"_And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and
make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine
eat and drink? And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the
bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will
come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall
they fast in those days._
"And he spake also a parable unto them: No man putteth a piece of a new
garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and
the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And
no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst
the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine
must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. _No man also
having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old
is better._" (Luke v. 33-39.)
I have again resorted to italics. I think we have here a genuine speech
of Christ, and a very important one. His doctrine was "new wine," and
it was quite unfit for the "old bottles" of Mosaism. The gravity of
this speech was felt by the Roman monks who were trying to force the
new wine into the old bottles (with much prejudice to the wine), so
they tried to nullify it with flat contradiction let in both above and
below.
"For the old is better."
This completely contradicts Christ's eulogy of the Christian's "new
wine." Moreover, the words are not found in Matthew's version, which
makes the cheat more palpable. There, too, we have the gospel of eating
and drinking, a gospel that did not require an avatâra of the Maker of
the Heavens for its promulgation.
But supposing that we concede the two passages to be genuine, I do not
see that the priests of materialism will gain very much.
These texts are internecine, involving contradictions due either to
more than one author, or to an interpolator singularly deficient in
logical consistency and common sense. The statement, as far as it is
intelligible, is that Christ, having determined to forsake mystical for
anti-mystical Israel, made the following enactments:--
1. That the ascetic practices that He had taken over from John the
Baptist and the Nazarenes, and which in other gospels He enjoins under
the phrase of "prayer and fasting" as the machinery for developing
miraculous gifts, interior vision, etc., shall be discontinued by His
disciples during His lifetime and then again renewed.
2. That feastings and the use of wine, which as Nazarites He and
His disciples had specially forsworn, should be again resumed, with
no restrictions in this case in the matter of His death. So that by
one enactment His disciples after His death were to remain jovial
"wine-bibbers" by the other fasting ascetics. It is scarcely necessary
to bring forward the true Luke to confute the pseudo Luke.
A valuable historical transaction is recorded by the real Luke which
throws a strong light on the relations between Christ and John the
Baptist. Towards the close of the Saviour's career, at Jerusalem
itself, the chief priests accosted Him and asked Him by what authority
He did what He did. Now if the relations between Christ and John the
Baptist had been what the pseudo Luke would have us believe, Christ
had only to state all this and He might have saved many valuable
lives. He had only to plainly announce that His movement was not from
anti-mystical to mystical Israel, but from mystical to anti-mystical
Israel; that he had introduced wine and oil as a protest against
Essenism; that He had forbidden its ascetic fastings, and brought
many disciples back from "the baptism of John" to the orthodox fold.
If He had stated all this clearly, the high priest and elders would
have hailed Him as a friend instead of slaying Him as a foe. But the
Saviour, evidently quite unaware that He had led a great movement
against the Baptist, takes refuge behind John instead of condemning
him. He asks the pregnant question, Was he a prophet of God, or was he
not? inferring, of course, that he was, and that the prophetic gift
was "authority" enough. (Luke xx. 1, _et seq._) "For I say unto you,
Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than
John the Baptist." (Luke vii. 28.) Here again we have the real Luke
confronting his unskilful interpolator.