was already persistent _within_ the first Christian communities. That
which St Paul, with the logician’s cynicism of a Rabbi, carried to its
logical conclusion, was nevertheless merely the process of decay which
began with the death of the Saviour.—These gospels cannot be read
too cautiously; difficulties lurk behind every word they contain. I
confess, and people will not take this amiss, that they are precisely
on that account a joy of the first rank for a psychologist,—as the
reverse of all naive perversity, as refinement _par excellence,_ as
a masterpiece of art in psychological corruption. The gospels stand
alone. Altogether the Bible allows of no comparison. The _first_ thing
to be remembered if we do not wish to lose the scent here, is, that
we are among Jews. The dissembling of holiness which, here, literally
amounts to genius, and which has never been even approximately achieved
elsewhere either by books or by men, this fraud in word and pose
which in this book is elevated to an _Art,_ is not the accident of
any individual gift, of any exceptional nature. These qualities are
a matter of _race._ With Christianity, the art of telling holy lies,
which constitutes the whole of Judaism, reaches its final mastership,
thanks to many centuries of Jewish and most thoroughly serious training
and practice. The Christian, this _ultima ratio_ of falsehood, is the
Jew over again—he is even three times a Jew.... The fundamental will
only to make use of concepts, symbols and poses, which are demonstrated
by the practice of the priests, the instinctive repudiation of every
other kind of practice, every other standpoint of valuation and of
utility—all this is not only tradition, it is _hereditary;_ only as
an inheritance is it able to work like nature. The whole of mankind,
the best brains, and even the best ages—(one man only excepted who
is perhaps only a monster)—have allowed themselves to be deceived.
The gospels were read as the _book of innocence ..._ this is no
insignificant sign of the virtuosity with which deception has been
practised here.—Of course, if we could only succeed in seeing all
these amazing bigots and pretended saints, even for a moment, all
would be at an end—and it is precisely because _I_ can read no
single word of theirs, without seeing their pretentious poses, _that
I have made an end of them_.... I cannot endure a certain way they
have of casting their eyes heavenwards.—Fortunately for Christianity,
books are for the greatest number, merely literature. We must not let
ourselves be led away: “judge not!” they say, but they dispatch all
those to hell who stand in their way. Inasmuch as they let God do the
judging, they themselves, judge; inasmuch as they glorify God, they
glorify themselves; inasmuch as they exact those virtues of which
they themselves happen to be capable—nay more, of which they are in
need in order to be able to remain on top at all;—they assume the
grand airs of struggling for virtue, of struggling for the dominion of
virtue. “We live, we die, we sacrifice ourselves for the good” (—“the
Truth,” “the Light,” “the Kingdom of God”): as a matter of fact they
do only what they cannot help doing. Like sneaks they have to play a
humble part; sit away in corners, and remain obscurely in the shade,
and they make all this appear a duty; their humble life now appears as
a duty, and their humility is one proof the more of their piety!...
Oh, what a humble, chaste and compassionate kind of falsity! “Virtue
itself shall bear us testimony.” ... Only read the gospels as books
calculated to seduce by means of morality: morality is appropriated by
these petty people,—they know what morality can do! The best way of
leading mankind by the nose is with morality! The fact is that the most
conscious _conceit_ of people who believe themselves to be _chosen,_
here simulates modesty: in this way they, the Christian community, the
“good and the just” place themselves once and for all on a certain
side, the side “of Truth”—and the rest of mankind, “the world” on
the other.... This was the most fatal kind of megalomania that had
ever yet existed on earth: insignificant little abortions of bigots
and liars began to lay sole claim to the concepts “God,” “Truth,”
“Light,” “Spirit,” “Love,” “Wisdom,” “Life,” as if these things were,
so to speak, synonyms of themselves, in order to fence themselves off
from “the world”; little ultra-Jews, ripe for every kind of madhouse,
twisted values round in order to suit themselves, just as if the
Christian, alone, were the meaning, the salt, the standard and even the
“_ultimate tribunal_” of all the rest of mankind.... The whole fatality
was rendered possible only because a kind of megalomania, akin to this
one and allied to it in race,—the Jewish kind—was already to hand in
the world: the very moment the gulf between Jews and Judæo-Christians
was opened, the latter had no alternative left, but to adopt the same
self-preservative measures as the Jewish instinct suggested, even
_against_ the Jews themselves, whereas the Jews, theretofore, had
employed these same measures only against the Gentiles. The Christian
is nothing more than an anarchical Jew.
45
—Let me give you a few examples of what these paltry people have
stuffed into their heads, what they have laid _on the lips of their
Master_: quite a host of confessions from “beautiful souls.”—
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against
them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom
and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (Mark vi.
11.)—_How evangelical!..._
“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in
me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and he were cast into the sea.” (Mark ix. 42.)—How _evangelical!..._
“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it fa better for thee to
enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be
cast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched.” (Mark ix. 47, 48.)—The eye is not precisely what is meant
in this passage....
“Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here,
which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God
come with power.” (Mark ix. 1.)—Well _lied,_ lion![6] ...
“Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow me. _For_ ...” (_A psychologist’s comment._ Christian
morality is refuted by its “For’s”: its “reasons” refute,—this is
Christian.) (Mark viii. 34.)
“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged.” (Matthew vii. I, 2.)—What a strange notion of
justice on the part of a “just” judge!...
“For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even
the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye
more _than others?_ do not even the publicans so?” (Matthew v. 46, 47.)
The principle of “Christian love”: it insists upon being _well paid_....
“But if ye forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew vi. 15.)—Very compromising for the
“Father” in question.
“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all
these things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew vi. 33)—“All these
things”—that is to say, food, clothing, all the necessities of life.
To use a moderate expression, this is an _error ..._. Shortly before
this God appears as a tailor, at least in certain cases....
“Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward
_is_ great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto
the prophets.” (Luke vi. 23.)—_Impudent_ rabble! They dare to compare
themselves with the prophets....
“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and _that_ the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, _him shall God
destroy;_ for the temple of God is holy, which _temple ye are._” (St
Paul, I Corinthians iii. 16, 17.)—One cannot have too much contempt
for this sort of thing....
“Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world
shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?”
(St Paul, I Corinthians vi. 2.)—Unfortunately this is not merely the
speech of a lunatic.... This _appalling impostor_ proceeds thus: “Know
ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to
this life?”
“Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in
the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by
the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe ... not many
wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble _are called;_
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the
wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound
the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things
which are despised, hath God chosen; _yea,_ and things which are not,
to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in
his presence.” (St Paul, I Corinthians i. 20 _et seq._)—In order to
_understand_ this passage, which is of the highest importance as an
example of the psychology of every Chandala morality, the reader should
refer to my _Genealogy of Morals:_ in this book, the contrast between
a _noble_ and a Chandala morality born of _resentment_ and impotent
revengefulness, is brought to light for the first time. St Paul was the
greatest of all the apostles of revenge....
46
_What follows from this?_ That one does well to put on one’s gloves
when reading the New Testament The proximity of so much pitch almost
defiles one. We should feel just as little inclined to hobnob with
“the first Christians” as with Polish Jews: not that we need explain
our objections.... They simply smell bad.—In vain have I sought for a
single sympathetic feature in the New Testament; there is not a trace
of freedom, kindliness, open-heartedness and honesty to be found in
it. Humaneness has not even made a start in this book, while _cleanly_
instincts are entirely absent from it.... Only evil instincts are to be
found in the New Testament, it shows no sign of courage, these people
lack even the courage of their evil instincts. All is cowardice, all is
a closing of one’s eyes and self-deception. Every book becomes clean,
after one has just read the New Testament: for instance, immediately
after laying down St Paul, I read with particular delight that most
charming and most wanton of scoffers, Petronius, of whom someone might
say what Domenico Boccaccio wrote to the Duke of Parma about Cæsar
Borgia: “_è tutto festo_”—immortally healthy, immortally cheerful
and well-constituted. ... These petty bigots err in their calculations
and in the most important thing of all. They certainly attack; but
everything they assail is, by that very fact alone, _distinguished._
He whom a “primitive Christian” attacks, is _not_ thereby sullied....
Conversely it is an honour to be opposed by “primitive Christians.”
One cannot read the New Testament without feeling a preference for
everything in it which is the subject of abuse—not to speak of the
“wisdom of this world,” which an impudent windbag tries in vain to
confound “by the foolishness of preaching.” Even the Pharisees and the
Scribes derive advantage from such opposition: they must certainly
have been worth something in order to have been hated in such a
disreputable way. Hypocrisy—as if this were a reproach which the
“first Christians” _were at liberty_ to make!—After all the Scribes
and Pharisees were the _privileged ones;_ this was quite enough, the
hatred of the Chandala requires no other reasons. I very much fear
that the “first Christian”—as also the “_last Christian” whom I may
yet be able to meet,—_ is in his deepest instincts a rebel against
everything privileged; he lives and struggles unremittingly for “equal
rights”!... Regarded more closely, he has no alternative.... If one’s
desire be personally to represent “one of the chosen of God”—or a
“temple of God,” or “a judge of angels,”—then every _other_ principle
of selection, for instance that based upon a standard of honesty,
intellect, manliness and pride, or upon beauty and freedom of heart,
becomes the “world,”—_evil in itself._ Moral: every word on the lips
of a “first Christian” is a lie, every action he does is an instinctive
falsehood,—all his values, all his aims are pernicious; but the man
he, hates, _the thing_ he hates, _has value._ ... The Christian, more
particularly the Christian priest, is a _criterion of values_—Do I
require to add that in the whole of the New Testament only _one_ figure
appears which we cannot help respecting? Pilate, the Roman Governor. To
take a Jewish quarrel _seriously_ was a thing he could not get himself
to do. One Jew more or less—what did it matter?... The noble scorn
of a Roman, in whose presence the word “truth” had been shamelessly
abused, has enriched the New Testament with the only saying which _is
of value,_—and this saying is not only the criticism, but actually the
shattering of that Testament: “What is truth!”...
47
—That which separates us from other people is not the fact that
we can discover no God, either in history, or in nature, or behind
nature,—but that we regard what has been revered as “God,” not as
“divine,” but as wretched, absurd, pernicious; not as an error, but as
a _crime against life._ ... We deny God as God.... If the existence
of this Christian God were _proved_ to us, we should feel even less
able to believe in him.—In a formula: _deus qualem Paulus creavit,
dei negatio._—A religion such as Christianity which never once comes
in touch with reality, and which collapses the very moment reality
asserts its rights even on one single point, must naturally be a mortal
enemy of the “wisdom of this world”—that is to say, _science._ It
will call all those means good with which mental discipline, lucidity
and severity in intellectual matters, nobility and freedom of the
intellect may be poisoned, calumniated and _decried_. “Faith” as an
imperative is a _veto_ against science,—_in praxi,_ it means lies
at any price. St Paul _understood_ that falsehood—that “faith” was
necessary; subsequently the Church understood St Paul.—That “God”
which St Paul invented for himself, a God who “confounds” the “wisdom
of this world” (in a narrower sense, the two great opponents of all
superstition, philology and medicine), means, in very truth, simply St
Paul’s firm _resolve_ to do so: to call his own will “God”, _thora,_
that is arch-Jewish. St Paul insists upon confounding the “wisdom of
this world”: his enemies are the _good old_ philologists and doctors of
the Alexandrine schools; it is on them that he wages war. As a matter
of fact no one is either a philologist or a doctor, who is not also an
_Antichrist._ As a philologist, for instance, a man sees _behind_ the
“holy books,” as a doctor he sees _behind_ the physiological rottenness
of the typical Christian. The doctor says “incurable,” the philologist
says “forgery.”
48
—Has anybody ever really understood the celebrated story which stands
at the beginning of the Bible,—concerning God’s deadly panic over
_science?_ ... Nobody has understood it This essentially sacerdotal
book naturally begins with the great inner difficulty of the priest:
_he_ knows only one great danger, _consequently_ “God” has only one
great danger.—
The old God, entirely “spirit,” a high-priest through and through, and
wholly perfect, is wandering in a leisurely fashion round his garden;
but he is bored. Against boredom even the gods themselves struggle in
vain.[7] What does he do? He invents man,—man is entertaining.... But,
behold, even man begins to be bored. God’s compassion for the only
form of misery which is peculiar to all paradises, exceeds all bounds:
so forthwith he creates yet other animals. God’s _first_ mistake: man
did not think animals entertaining,—he dominated them, he did not even
wish to be an “animal.” Consequently God created woman. And boredom did
indeed cease from that moment,—but many other things ceased as well!
Woman was God’s _second_ mistake.—“Woman in her innermost nature is a
serpent, Heva”—every priest knows this: “all evil came into this world
through woman,”—every priest knows this too. “_Consequently science_
also comes from woman.” ... Only through woman did man learn to taste
of the tree of knowledge.—What had happened? Panic had seized the
old God Man himself had been his _greatest_ mistake, he had created
a rival for himself, science makes you _equal to God,_—it is all up
with priests and gods when man becomes scientific!—Moral: science is
the most prohibited thing of all,—it alone, is forbidden. Science is
the _first,_ the germ of all sins, the original sin. _This alone is
morality._—“Thou shalt _not_ know”:—the rest follows as a matter of
course, God’s panic did not deprive him of his intelligence. How can
one _guard_ against science? For ages this was his principal problem.
Reply: man must be kicked out of paradise! Happiness, leisure leads to
thinking,—all thoughts are bad thoughts.... Man _must_ not think.—And
the “priest-per-se” proceeds to invent distress, death, the vital
danger of pregnancy, every kind of misery, decrepitude, and affliction,
and above all _disease,_—all these are but weapons employed in the
struggle with science! Trouble prevents man from thinking.... And
notwithstanding all these precautions! Oh, horror! the work of science
towers aloft, it storms heaven itself, it rings the death-knell of the
gods,—what’s to be done?—The old God invents _war;_ he separates the
nations, and contrives to make men destroy each other mutually (—the
priests have always been in need of war....) War, among other things,
is a great disturber of science!—Incredible! Knowledge, _the rejection
of the sacerdotal yoke,_ nevertheless increases.—So the old God
arrives at this final decision: “Man has become scientific,—_there is
no help for it, he must be drowned!_” ...
49
You have understood me The beginning of the Bible contains the whole
psychology of the priest—The priest knows only one great danger, and
that is science,—the healthy concept of cause and effect But, on the
whole, science flourishes onlyunder happy conditions,—a man must
have time, he must also have superfluous mental energy in order to
“pursue knowledge” ... “_Consequently_ man must be made unhappy,”—this
has been the argument of the priest of all ages.—You have already
divined what, in accordance with such a manner of arguing, must
first have come into the world:—“sin.” ... The notion of guilt and
punishment, the whole “moral order of the universe,” was invented
against science,—against the deliverance of man from the priest....
Man must _not_ cast his glance upon the outer world, he must turn it
inwards into himself; he must not as a learner look cleverly and
cautiously _into_ things; he must not see at all: he must _suffer._
... And he must suffer, so that he may be in need of the priest every
minute.—Away with doctors! What is needed is a Saviour!—The notion of
guilt and punishment, including the doctrine of “grace,” of “salvation”
and of “forgiveness”—all _lies_ through and through without a shred
of psychological reality—were invented in order to destroy man’s
_sense of causality:_ they are an attack on the concept of cause and
effect!—And _not_ an attack with the fist, with the knife, with
honesty in hate and love! But one actuated by the most cowardly, most
crafty, and most ignoble instincts! A _priests_ attack! A _parasite’s_
attack! A vampyrism of pale subterranean leeches!—... When the natural
consequences of an act are no longer “natural,” but are thought to
be conjured up by phantom concepts of superstition, by “God,” by
“spirits,” and by “souls,” as merely moral consequences, in the form
of rewards, punishments, hints, and educational means,—then the whole
basis of knowledge is destroyed,—_then the greatest crime against man
has been perpetrated._—Sin, I repeat, this form of self-pollution _par
excellence_ on the part of man, was invented in order to make science,
culture and every elevation and noble trait in man quite impossible; by
means of the invention of sin the priest is able to _rule._
50
—I cannot here dispense with a psychology of “faith” and of the
“faithful,” which will naturally be to the advantage of the “faithful.”
If to-day there are still many who do not know how very _indecent_ it
is to be a “believer”—_or_ to what extent such a state is the sign
of decadence, and of the broken will to Life,—they will know it no
later than to-morrow. My voice can make even those hear who are hard
of hearing.—If perchance my ears have not deceived me, it seems that
among Christians there is such a thing as a kind of criterion of truth,
which is called “the proof of power.” “Faith saveth; _therefore_ it
is true.”—It might be objected here that it is precisely salvation
which is not proved but only _promised:_ salvation is bound up with
the condition “faith,”—one _shall_ be saved, _because_ one has
faith.... But how prove _that_ that which the priest promises to the
faithful really will take place, to wit: the “Beyond” which defies
all demonstration?—The assumed “proof of power” is at bottom once
again only a belief in the fact that the effect which faith promises
will not fail to take place. In a formula: “I believe that faith
saveth;—_consequently_ it is true.”—But with this we are at the end
of our tether. This “consequently” would be the _absurdum_ itself as
a criterion of truth.—Let us be indulgent enough to assume, however,
that salvation is proved by faith (—_not_ only desired, and _not_
merely promised by the somewhat suspicious lips of a priest): could
salvation—or, in technical terminology, _happiness_—ever be a proof
of truth? So little is it so that, when pleasurable sensations make
their influence felt in replying to the question “what is true,” they
furnish almost the contradiction of truth, or at any rate they make
it in the highest degree suspicious. The proof through “happiness,”
is a proof of happiness—and nothing else; why in the world should
we take it for granted that _true_ judgments cause more pleasure than
false ones, and that in accordance with a pre-established harmony, they
necessarily bring pleasant feelings in their wake?—The experience of
all strict and profound minds teaches the _reverse._ Every inch of
truth has been conquered only after a struggle, almost everything to
which our heart, our love and our trust in life cleaves, has had to be
sacrificed for it Greatness of soul is necessary for this: the service
of truth is the hardest of all services.—What then is meant by honesty
in things intellectual? It means that a man is severe towards his own
heart, that he scorns “beautiful feelings,” and that he makes a matter
of conscience out of every Yea and Nay!—-Faith saveth: _consequently_
it lies....
51