THE LAST SOLOMON.
Every race has a pride in its great men which ultimately prevails over
any pious taboo imposed on them in life or by tradition. Some years
ago it was announced that a German scholar was about to publish proofs
that Jesus was not of the Hebrew race, and while Christendom showed
little concern, all Israel sat upon that German almost furiously. It
is an old story. Banished Buddha becomes an avatar of Vishnu, and
his image now appears in India beside Jagenath. For the heresiarch
must be adapted before adoption. So Solomon returns as a preacher of
orthodox Jahvism, in the "Wisdom of Solomon," but so rigid had been
the taboo in his case that the writer did not venture to insert the
name of so famous a liberal and secularist.
That was about the first year of our era. But presently we hear about
the "Son of David." Was that because of David himself? Interest in
David had so receded that in the "Wisdom of Solomon" the resuscitated
Wise Man barely alludes (once) to his "father's seat." Was it because
of any popular interest in the legendary throne or house of David? That
old "covenant" is not alluded to by the resuscitated monarch, and in
the apostolic writings nothing is said about it. In the Gospels the
title "Son of David" is generally connected with certain alleged
miracles of Jesus, which recalled legends of Solomon, and it is
only in the account of the entry into Jerusalem that it carries any
connotation of royalty corresponding to the genealogies afterwards
elaborated. Unless these narratives are accepted as historical
they must be regarded as phenomena, and, taken in connection with
what may be reasonably regarded as genuine teachings of Jesus, the
phenomena point to a probability that he had reawakened interest in
the Wise Man's teachings, and that this interest, by a compromise
with Jahvist prejudices, coined the expression "Son of David" as an
alias of Solomon.
However this may be, it appears certain that there was in the
teachings of Jesus some substantial recovery of the ancient and
unconverted Solomon, the proverbial philosopher, the man of the
world. How much Jesus may have said to revive interest in Solomon,
and how many of his secular utterances have been hidden in the grave
of his humanity, can only be conjectured; but there are two direct
sayings concerning Solomon ascribed to him which may be regarded
as the only unreserved tributes to the Wise Man that had ever been
uttered since his idealization in Chronicles. And our own Protestant
Jahvism has tried so hard to manipulate these tributes into partial
disparagements that we may easily imagine early Christian Jahvism
destroying similar testimonies altogether.
A. S. V. Luke xi. 31: "The Queen of the South shall rise up in judgment
with the men of this generation and condemn them: for she came from
the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon,
and behold a greater than Solomon is here."
True rendering: "The Queen of the South shall stand in the judgment
with the men of this [Abrahamic] brood, and condemn them; for she came
from the farthest parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and
behold something more than Solomon is here." (pleion Solomônos hôde)
The word mistranslated "greater," pleion, is neuter and cannot be
applied to a man. Jesus is not speaking of himself, but of the new
Spirit animating a whole movement.
The word "generation" as a translation of genea is, in this connection,
misleading. No one English word can convey the satire on people who
regarded themselves as holy by generation from Abraham (cf. Luke
iii. 8), which is in the vein of Carlyle's ridicule of English
"Paper Nobility." Above these self-satisfied claimants of inherited
wisdom Jesus sets the Gentile Queen journeying to sit at the feet
of Solomon. At the feet of Solomon Jesus also was sitting, and he
certainly did not call himself personally greater than Solomon.
The other allusion to Solomon (Matt. vi. 28, 29) is rendered thus:
"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they toil not,
neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in
all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
Here "glory," which when applied to a man has a connotation of pride
and pomp, is made to translate doxê, which means honour in its best
sense, as preserved in "doxology." Jesus really says, "Solomon amid all
his honours never arrayed himself (periebaleto) like one of these." The
greatest and wisest of men did not affect display in dress. [51]
The apparent slightness of these English changes reveals their
deliberate subtlety. Puritanism, taking its cue from King James's
translators, has bettered the instruction, and steadily pictured
Jesus pointing to a lily,--white emblem of purity,--and censuring
(implicitly) the ostentation of Solomon. Even in rationalistic
hymn-books is found the pretty hymn of Agnes Strickland, beginning:
"Fair lilies of Jerusalem,
Ye wear the same array
As when imperial Judah's stem
Maintained its regal sway:
By sacred Jordan's desert tide
As bright ye blossom on
As when your simple charms outvied
The pride of Solomon."
Very sweet! But the "lilies of the field" in Palestine are not "fair,"
their charms are not "simple"; they are large and gorgeous combinations
of red and gold; and Solomon, so far from being proud in the contrast,
"outvied" in simplicity the pride of the lily.
Jesus may not indeed have said these things concerning Solomon, but
the probability that he did say something of the kind is suggested
by the adroit mistranslations. The same puritanical spirit, the
same prejudice against human wisdom and love of beauty, prevailed
even more when the Gospels were written. The Jahvist jealousy of
the wisdom of the world which in a Targum added to Jeremiah ix. 23
a fling at Solomon,--"Let not Solomon the Son of David, the Wise
Man, glory in his Wisdom,"--screamed on in Christian anathemas
on science, and laudations of the silly. (For "silly" is of pious
derivation, from German selig--blessed.) Solomon had not been named
in any canonical scripture for centuries, and even in apocryphal
"Wisdom" (Ecclesiasticus) he appears as if a brilliant but fallen
Lucifer. The cult of Solomon continued no doubt, in a sense, among the
Sadducees (respectfully treated, by the way, by Jesus), but they were
comparatively few, and like the rationalists of the English Church,
cautious about outside heresies. It was probably characteristic that
their name is derived from Solomon's priest, Zadok, instead of from
Solomon himself. As for the Gentile Queen, she is not named in the
Bible after the record of her visit to Solomon until the homage of
Jesus was given her. It appears, therefore, very unlikely that such
homage and the unqualified tributes to Solomon, would have been put
into the mouth of Jesus.
But why, it may be asked, were not these tributes suppressed? There is
in one case a recognition of a Gentile lady which would recommend the
text to the writer of Luke, and in the other a lesson against luxury
which would recommend this to all believers. At any rate, whatever may
have been the suppressions, and no doubt there were many, two of the
Gospels have preserved these sentences, which, so far as the glorious
"idolator" is concerned, neither of them would have invented. There
are the words; somebody uttered them; and the question arises, who
was that daring man who broke the severe silence or reservations of
centuries and did honour to the king who built shrines to gods and
goddesses? [52]
As Solomon said, "A man is proved by what he praises." That Jesus did
appreciate the greatness of the Solomonic literature is not a matter
of conjecture. The sayings ascribed to him in the Gospels--apart from
Pauline importations and quotations from Jahvist scriptures--are
largely pervaded by the spirit and even by the phraseology of the
Solomonic books. Remembering that the phrases "kingdom of heaven,"
"kingdom of God," are post-resurrectional, and that Jesus could not,
unless by miraculous foresight, use those phrases for any external
dominion connected with himself, there is reason to believe that his
conception was of a sway of Wisdom, and that Wisdom was to him the
Saviour, as to Jesus Ben Sira, her realm "within," her leaven hid in
the world, her advance without observation.
Of course those who read the Bible in the light of a supernatural
theory, see these things very differently, but considering the
records as if they were those of uninspired people, one may say that
some of the sayings ascribed to Jesus are, in their present form,
meaningless. For example, what should we think if we found an ancient
record of some poor Egyptian reported as saying, "Come unto me, all
ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my
yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly of heart: and
ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden
is light." How incongruous the "I am meek" with "learn of me"! How
could he give the heavy laden rest? And what rest? what yoke? But we
would surely feel enlightened should we presently discover an Egyptian
book of "Wisdom," with proof of its popularity when the mysterious
words were orally repeated, containing such language as this from
personified Wisdom: "Come unto me, all ye that be desirous of me,
and fill yourselves with my fruits." And if we found in the same
book a teacher saying: "I directed my soul unto Wisdom, and I found
her in pureness.... Draw near unto me, ye unlearned, and dwell in
the house of Wisdom.... Buy her for yourselves without money. Put
your neck under her yoke, and let your life receive instruction:
she is near at hand to find. Behold with your eyes that I have had
but little labour, and have gotten unto me much rest."
Here is sense. These are the words of Wisdom in Jesus Ben Sira
(Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 19, li. 23-27). Can any unbiased mind fail to
recognize in Matthew xi. 28-30 a mangled quotation from this Hebrew
book of the second century, before Jesus of Nazareth was born, but
in his time cherished in many Jewish households as much as any Gospel
is cherished in Christian households?
Consider the Sermon on the Mount. In the Proverbs ascribed to
Solomon is found the beatitude pronounced by Jesus on the lowly,
no doubt literally quoted by him: "With the lowly is wisdom"
(Prov. xi. 2). The blessing of those who hunger for righteousness
(justice) is in Prov. x. 24, where it is said their desire shall be
granted. The blessing of the peacemakers is joy (Prov. xii. 20). The
merciful man doeth good to his own life (Prov. xi. 17). The pure in
heart shall have the King for his friend (Prov. xxii. 11). The house
that stands and the house overthrown (Prov. x. 25; xii. 7; xiv. 11);
the two ways (Prov. xii. 28, xiv. 12, xvi. 17); the tree known by
its fruits (Prov. xi. 30, xii. 12); give and it shall be given you
(Prov. xxii. 9); the sower (Prov. xi. 18, 24, 25); taking the lower
place so as to be placed higher and not moved down (Prov. xxv. 6-8);
searching for and buying Wisdom as the precious silver, the pearl,
the treasure (Prov. vi. 11, 12, 17, 19, 35; xx. 15; xxiii. 23); the
prodigal (Prov. xxix. 3); those who wrong parents (Prov. xx. 20;
xxviii. 24; cf. Matt. xv. 5; Mark vii. 11). The lamps of the wise
and foolish virgins are found in Prov. xiii. 9; also xxiv. 20.
In Proverbs xx. 9, we have the words, "Who can say, 'I have made
my heart clean, I am pure from sin?'" In Ecclesiastes iii. 16, it
is said, "Moreover, I saw under the sun, in the place of judgment,
that wickedness was there; and in the place of righteousness that
wickedness was there." (Cf. also vii. 20.) In the "Gospel according
to the Hebrews" Jesus, declaring that an offender should be forgiven
seventy times seven, adds: "For in the prophets likewise, after they
were anointed by the Holy Spirit, utterance of sin was found."
Although in the language ascribed to Jesus in the fourth Gospel
(iii. 1-10) there are post-resurrectional phrases, whatever he
may have said about birth and about the wind-like spirit seems to
have been what he expected Nicodemus, as a teacher in Israel, to
understand. We may therefore suppose that it was substantially a
quotation from Ecclesiastes xi. 5: "As thou knowest not the way of
the wind, nor the growth of the bones in the mother's womb, even so
thou canst not fathom the work of God, who compasseth all things."
In relation to Woman Jesus seems to have appealed to Solomon against
Ecclesiastes, where (vii. 25-29) it is said:
I have turned my heart to know,
And to explore, and search out wisdom and the reason of things;
And to know that wickedness is Folly, and Folly madness:
And I have found what is more bitter than death--
The Woman who is a snare, her heart nets, her hands chains:
He who pleases God shall be delivered from her,
But the offender shall be captured by her.
See, this have I found (saith the Speaker).
Adding one to another, to find out the account,
Which I am still searching after, but have not found--
One man in a thousand I have found,
But a woman among all these I have not found.
Look you, only this have I found--
That God made man upright,
But they have sought out many devices.
In the first seven lines of this passage we may recognize the
personification in Proverbs ix. 13-18. The Woman of the fifth line
is "Dame Folly"; but the last eight lines relate to womankind. The
assurance in the eighth line that it is Koheleth who speaks raises
a suspicion that the last eight lines are commentary,--a suspicion
further confirmed by the awkwardness of the writing. Strictly read,
it is left uncertain whether no woman is ever captured by Dame Folly,
or not one escapes. However, as commentators are generally men,
the interpretation has been adverse to woman.
But Jesus, perhaps remembering that Wisdom is as much a woman as Folly,
is reported (Matthew xi. 19) to have said: "Wisdom is justified by
her works." In Luke vii. 35 it is, "Wisdom is justified of all her
children." Both of these readings appeal to the Solomonic portrait of
the virtuous woman, in Proverbs xxxi. the last line of which says,
"Let her works praise her," and verse 28, "her children rise up and
call her blessed."
In Luke the sentence is a verse by itself, and the word "all" renders
it probable that the sentiment has a bearing on the story that follows
of the anointing of Jesus by a sinful woman. [53] Some such incident
may have occurred, but the address to Simon the Pharisee making him
to be the offender, and the woman one delivered from Dame Folly by
her faith ("pleasing God") looks like a criticism on the "fling" at
woman in Ecclesiastes, with a proverb taken for text. This rebuke of
the Pharisee, who thought "the prophet" ought to abhor the "sinner,"
immediately precedes an account of the eminent women who supported
Jesus by their means,--Mary, called Magdalene; Joanna, the wife of
Herod's steward; Susanna, "and many others." They "ministered to him of
their substance," and possibly the Pharisee and others might naturally
suspect him of being among "the ensnared." The fact is strange enough
to be genuine, and Luke thinks it important to say that Jesus had
healed these ladies of bad spirits and infirmities. Of course it
is necessary to divest Gospel anecdotes of much post-resurrectional
vesture, and in this case it cannot be credited that Jesus said that
the woman's sins were "many," which he could not have known, or that
he gave her formal absolution.
The indications of the study of Ecclesiasticus by Jesus are very
remarkable. This book appears to have been a sort of nursery in
which proverbs were trained for their fruitage in the last Solomon's
religious testimonies. What those testimonies were we cannot easily
gather, but it is useful for comparative study to remark the sentences
in Ecclesiastictus which correspond, either in thought or phraseology,
with those ascribed to Jesus. The broad and the narrow ways barely
suggested in "Proverbs" are here developed (Ecclesiasticus iv. 17,
18). "Hide not thy wisdom" (iv. 23, xx. 30). "Say not, 'I have enough
(goods) for my life'" (v. 1, xi. 24). "Extol not thyself" (vi. 2). We
find the exhortation to judge not (vii. 6); rebuke of much speaking in
prayer (14); warning against the lustful gaze (ix. 5, 8); the night
cometh when no man can work (xiv. 16-19; cf. Eccles. ix. 10); the
proud cast down, the humble exalted (x. 14, xi. 5); one only is good
(xviii. 2); swear not (xxiii. 9); forgiven as we forgive (xxviii. 2);
treasure rusting and treasure laid up according to the commandments
of the Most High (xxix. 10, 11); "Judge of thy neighbor by thyself"
(xxxi. 15); the altar-gift and the wronged brother (xxxiv. 18-20);
he that seeks the law shall be filled (xxxii. 15); charity and not
sacrifice (xxxv. 2).
These resemblances, of which more might be quoted, between teachings
ascribed to Jesus and passages in the Wisdom Books, are so important
that by the aid of these books some of the confused utterances
attributed to him may be made clear. [54] Apart from the importations
of Paul, and one or two from the epistle to the Hebrews, no reference
by the Jesus of the Gospels to Jahvist books can be shown of similar
significance. Combined as his Solomonic ideas are with his homage
to Solomon and the Gentile Queen, and followed, as we shall see,
by a resuscitation of Solomonic legends in connection with him, it
appears clear that Jesus was of the Solomonic and anti-Jahvist school.
It would, however, be a great mistake to suppose that Jesus
was simply a philosophical and ethical teacher. He cannot be so
explained. The fragmentary sayings, so far as discoverable amid their
post-resurrectional perversions, have the air of obiter dicta from a
man engaged in a local propaganda of subversive principles. What the
propaganda really was is but dimly discernible under its own subsequent
subversion by his ghost, but there are a few sayings not traceable
to his predecessors, and beyond the capacity of his contemporaries
or his successors, which bring us near to an individual mind, and
suggest the general nature of the agitation he caused.
The story of the woman taken in adultery, known to have been in the
suppressed "Gospel according to the Hebrews," and by some strange
chance preserved in the fourth gospel (viii), I believe to have really
occurred. It would have required a first-century Boccaccio to invent
such a story, and I cannot discover anything similar in Eastern or
in Oriental books. Augustine says that some had removed it from their
manuscripts, "I imagine, out of fear that impunity of sin was granted
to their wives." It is not likely that any of the earlier fathers,
any more than the later, would have invented so dangerous a story.
Another anecdote, preserved only in the fourth Gospel, probably
contains some elements of truth, namely, the words uttered to the
Samaritan woman. Who would have been bold enough, even had he been
liberal enough, to invent the words: "Neither in this mountain, nor
in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father"? Even in the one Gospel
that ventures to preserve it this noble catholicity is immediately
retracted (John iv. 22) in a verse which obviously interrupts the
idea. That the story is an early one is also suggested by the fact
that no reproach to the woman on account of her many husbands is
inserted. It is remarkable to find such a story related without any
word about sin and forgiveness.
The so-called "Sermon on the Mount" is well named: it is evidently
made up of reports of sermons in amplification of sayings of Jesus
in the style of the Wisdom Books, among which probably were:
"Let your light shine before men. A lamp is not lit to be put
under a bushel."
"The lamp of the body is the eye. If thine eye be sound the whole
body is illumined; if the eye be diseased the whole body is in
darkness. If the inner eye be darkened how great is the darkness."
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
"By their fruits both trees and man are known."
"Each tree is known by its own fruit."
"Put not new wine into old wine-skins, lest they burst."
"Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
"Wisdom is justified by her children."
"If any man will be great, let him serve."
"The lowly shall be exalted, the proud humbled."
"Blind guides strain out the gnat, and swallow a camel."
"Give and it shall be given you."
"The measure ye mete shall be measured to you."
"Cast the beam from thine eye before noticing the mote in that
of thy neighbour."
The following sentences in the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" do not
appear to have been very seriously influenced by post-resurrectional
ideas.
"He is a great criminal who hath grieved the spirit of his
brother."
"No thank to you if you love them that love you, but
there is thank if ye love your enemies and them that hate
you." (Cf. Prov. xxix. 17, 29.)
"Be ye never joyful save when you have looked upon your brother
in charity."
"Be as lambkins in midst of wolves."
"The son and the daughter shall inherit alike."
"It is happy rather to give than to receive."
"No servant can serve two masters."
"Out of entire heart and out of entire mind."
"What is the profit if a man gain the entire world, and lose
his life?"
"Seek from little to wax great, and not from greater to become
less."
"Become proved bankers."
"If ye have not been faithful in the little who will give you
the great?"
These instructions have no connotations of the end of the world. They
appear like the words of a man of the world, but not a man of the
people. There is a certain unity in them, indicating a mind more
developed than the semi-Jahvist Alexandrian philosophers of the later
Wisdom cult, as represented by Jesus Ben Sira's "Wisdom," and by the
"Wisdom of Solomon"; also a mind more practical.
But these wise sayings do not convey the full idea of a man whose
execution the Sanhedrim would require, nor a man whose resurrection
from the grave would be looked for by the populace. These two
phenomenal facts imply some strong antagonism to the priesthood and
their system. Martyrdoms do not occur for ethical generalizations,
much less for philosophical affirmations. The faith that strikes deep
is that which speaks in great denials.
Trying to follow his advice to "Become proved bankers," we may detect
in some probable sayings of Jesus a transitional ring, e. g., "The
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." The effort
at self-emancipation is still more traceable in certain incidents
related in the "Gospel according to the Hebrews":
"He saith, 'If thy brother hath offended in anything and hath
made thee amends, seven times in a day receive him,' Simon his
disciple said unto him, 'Seven times in a day?' The Lord answered
and said unto him, 'I tell thee also unto seventy times seven;
for in the prophets likewise, after that they were anointed by
the Holy Spirit, utterance of sin was found.'"
"The same day, having beheld a man working on the Sabbath, he said
to him, 'Man, if thou knowest what thou dost, blessed art thou: but
if thou knowest not, thou art under a curse, and a law-breaker.'"
That a man should regard the Holy Spirit as unable to make men
infallible; that he should have discovered immoral utterances in
the prophets; that he should regard it as a sign of enlightenment to
disregard the Sabbath deliberately and intelligently--this is surely
all very striking.
Who, in the second century, could have invented these anecdotes
about Jesus? They are not harmonious with the Pauline Epistles;
their heretical character is proved by the repudiation of the Gospel
containing them, while their genuineness is implicitly confessed
by the ultimate suppression of that Gospel. For surely it cannot be
supposed that such a work, well known in the fifth century, was lost;
nor is there much doubt that any learned rationalist, if permitted
the free range of all the libraries in Rome, without the presence of
polite librarians, could bring to light that first-century Gospel,
the only one written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus.
But, when we come to consider the mature and positive teachings of
Jesus, there may be placed in the front a sentence preserved from
the suppressed Gospel by Epiphanius, who writes (Haer. xxx. 16):
"And they say that he both came, and (as their so-called Gospel has
it) instructed them that he had come to dissolve the Sacrifices:
'and unless ye cease from sacrificing the wrath shall not cease
from you.'" Dr. Nicholson is shocked at this threat, and suspects
the Ebionites of having altered what Jesus said. But surely it
is a true and grand admonition by one superseding a phantasm of
heavenly Egoism, demanding gifts from men for pacification, with
the idea of a Father. Dr. Nicholson connects it, no doubt rightly,
with Luke xiii. 1-3, which should probably read: "There were some
present at that very season who told him of the Galileans whose
blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered,
Think ye these Galileans were sinners rather than all other Galileans
because they suffered these things? I tell you, No! And unless ye
cease from sacrificing, the Wrath will not cease from you." That is,
they would always be haunted by the delusion of a bloodthirsty god,
a god of Wrath, and see a judgment, not only in every accident,
but in every calamity wrought by fiendish men.
In his quotation from Hosea--"I desire charity, and not
sacrifice"--Jesus speaks as if with a transitional accent,
as compared with the declaration that sacrifices imply deified
Wrath. The contempt of Ecclesiastes for "the sacrifice of fools
who know not that they are doing evil" (v. 1), has here become
a great and far-reaching affirmation, which must have impressed
the orthodox Jews as atheism. For, although there are passages in
several psalms and in the prophets which disparage sacrifice, they
were all interpreted by the Rabbins, as now by Christian theologians,
as meaning their purification and spiritualization--by no means their
abolition. Indeed, this higher interpretation of sacrifices appears
to have given them fresh lease; and in the time of Jesus, when to
the priesthood remained only control over their religious ordinances,
the sacrifices were apparently preserved with increased rigour. Jesus
himself, unless the gospeller (Matt. v. 23, 24) has softened his
language, had at one time only demanded that none should offer a gift
at the altar until he had done justice to any who had aught against
him. But a remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews (x. 5)
represents Jesus as going to the world with a quotation from Psalm
xl. 6, 7, for a clause of which a parenthesis is given, saying:
"Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not
(Thou hast furnished me this body)--
In whole burnt offerings and sin offerings thou delighted not:
Then said I (in that chapter of the book it is written for me),
'Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.'"
The sentence preserved by Eusebius, however, shows that his attitude
toward sacrifices was not merely to "lift" from men (Heb. x. 9,
anairei) the burden of sacrifice, but to denounce it as an offering
to the devil. "Unless ye cease from sacrificing, the Wrath shall not
cease from you."
In this sentence "the Wrath" (hê orgê) is clearly a personification. It
does not in the same form occur elsewhere in the Bible. Matthew and
Mark report John the Baptist as speaking of "the impending wrath,"
and Paul occasionally gives "Wrath" a quasi-personification (e. g.,
"children of Wrath," Eph. ii. 1-3). These expressions, and the
"destroyer" Abaddon or Apollyon, of Revelations ix. and (xii. 12)
the devil "in great temper" (thymon), all show that the Jewish mind
had become familiar with the idea of a dark and evil power quite
detached from official relation to Jahveh, no longer "the wrath of
God" executing divine judgments, but organized Violence, eager to
afflict mankind as the creation of his enemy.
In the "Wisdom of Solomon" (xviii.) there is a complete picture of
the two opposing Destroyers. The divine destroyer ("thine Almighty
Word") leaps down with his sword and slays the firstborn of Egypt; the
antagonist Destroyer begins the same kind of work among the Israelites
in Egypt, but Moses by prayer and the "propitiation of incense" sets
himself "against the Wrath" and overcomes him,--"not with physical
strength, nor force of arms, but with a word." The incense used by
Moses to put the demon to flight recalls the "perfume" used by Tobit,
on the advice of the angel, to put to flight Asmodeus; and Asmodeus is
notoriously the Persian Aêshma, a name meaning "Wrath," who occupies
so large space in the Parsî scriptures. [55] The especial antagonist
of Aêshma "of the wounding spear," is Sraosha, "the incarnate Word,
a mighty-speared god." (Farvardin Yast, 85.) As Moses overcomes "the
Wrath" "with a word," Zoroaster is given a form of words to conquer
Aêshma ("Praise to Armaîti, the propitious!") and the Vendîdâd says,
"The fiend becomes weaker and weaker at every one [repetition] of
those words." The Zamyâd Yast says, "The Word of falsehood smites,
but the Word of truth shall smite it." Aêshma is the child of Ahriman,
the Deceiver of the World, and a Parsî would recognize him in the
declaration ascribed to Jesus, "The devil is a liar and so is his
father." (John viii. 44.)
That Jesus regarded the whole realm of evil as absolutely antagonistic
to the Good is reflected in the epistle "To the Hebrews." There his
mission is to abolish the devil (ii. 14), which is very different
from abolishing death (2 Tim. i. 10). For a long time the devil was
suppressed in the "Lord's Prayer," but in that brief collection of
Talmudic ejaculations the only original thing is, "Deliver us from the
evil one." In the Clementine Homilies Jesus is quoted as having said,
"The evil one is the tempter," and "Give not a pretext to the evil
one." Nay, the single clause preserved in Matthew, that it is an enemy
that sows tares,--these being as much parts of nature as corn,--is
a sentence that divides the Ahrimanic creation from the Ahuramazdean
creation as clearly and profoundly as anything ascribed to Zoroaster.
Theological harmonists have for centuries been at work on the
contrarious doctrines of all scriptures, and even among the Parsîs
some kind of metaphysical alliance has taken place between the Kingdoms
of Good and Evil. Devout Christians find it quite consistent that one
person of the trinity should say, "I create good and I create evil,"
and another person of the trinity should say of natural evil, "An
enemy hath done this." But no such harmony existed in the Jerusalem
of Jesus. Under a teaching that symbolized the deity as the Sun,
shining alike on the thankful and thankless, individually, desiring no
sacrifices, and concentrating human effort against the forces of evil
in nature, in society--the evil principle--Jahveh falls like lightning
from heaven. Like "the blameless man" of the "Wisdom of Solomon," Jesus
"sets himself against the Wrath," however sanctified as the Wrath of
God, and sees all sacrifices as eucharists of the Adversary. He not
only repudiates the name "Jahveh," but tells the official agents of
Jahvism that their god is his devil. (John viii. 44).
Of course one can only refer cautiously to anything in the fourth
Gospel, for it is a composite book, but it contains, as I believe,
passages or fragments of the early apostolic theology, wherein dualism,
until crushed by Paul, was prominent, and the good God represented
in hard struggle with Satan for the rescue of mankind.
This aspect of the teaching of Jesus cannot be dealt with here as its
importance deserves. We live in an age whose clergy deal apologetically
with the prominence of the Adversary of Man in the teachings of
Jesus. For this fundamental principle of Jesus Jewish monotheism
has been substituted. But there are many records to attest that the
moral perfection and benevolence of the deity, which is certainly
inconsistent with his omnipotence, or his "permission" of the tares in
nature, was the only new principle of religion affirmed by Jesus; and,
also, that it was so subversive of sacrifices, priesthood, and the very
foundations of the temple--all dependent on Jahveh's menaces--that
the execution of Jesus appears more rationally explicable by this
dualistic propaganda than by any other ascribed to him.
It was the birth of a new God that moved Jerusalem: a unique God
in Judea--and almost unknown in modern Christendom--namely, a GOOD
God. As the Arabian gospel significantly relates, the Eastern Wise
Men came to the cradle of Jesus as that of a saviour "prophesied
by Zoroaster,"--the one prophet who separated deity from the realm
of evil.
It is now even unorthodox to deny that the agonies of nature are part
of the providence of God: but herein orthodoxy is in direct antagonism
to what it maintains as the authentic teaching of Jesus. "Then was
brought unto him one possessed of a devil, blind and dumb; and he
healed him, insomuch that the dumb man spake and saw. And all the
multitudes were amazed and said, Is this the Son of David? But when
the Pharisees heard it, they said, This man doth not cast out devils
but by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. And knowing their thoughts he
said, Every dominion divided against itself is brought to desolation;
and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand; and
if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then
shall his dominion stand?"
Those therefore who believe these to be the words of Jesus, and yet
believe blindness, dumbness, and other physical diseases to be in
any sense of divine providence or even permission, are believing in
a God whom Jesus implicitly pronounced to be Satan.
And those who do not believe that Jesus healed such diseases, nor
believe in a personal Satan, may still regard the above legend as
characteristic. The separation of Good and Evil into eternally
antagonistic dominions could not have been affirmed by any Jew
other than Jesus (or John the Baptist, probably however an Oriental
dervish). Though the Jews popularly believed in Beelzebub and other
devils, they were all regarded as under the omnipotence and control
of Jahveh, who proudly claimed that he was the creator of all evil,
and who even had lying spirits in his employ.
Whether Jesus believed in the personality of the evil principle, in
any strict sense, may be questioned. He may have meant no more than
Emerson, who pictured ill health as a ghoul preying on the heart and
life of its victims. Memories of similar teachings may have given
rise to the tales of healing afterwards associated with Jesus. But
the personality of evil is a more philosophical generalization than
the personification of a power representing both the good and the
evil phenomena of nature. Evil acts in concrete forms, and often
in combinations of forces which can not be analysed and distributed
into particular causes. History records instances of moral epidemics
driving whole peoples as if down a steep place into seas of blood,
as if by some pandemoniac possession, impressing the ordinarily humane
along with the vindictive, the lawless and destructive. A great deal
of crime seems disinterested, and still more is due to the fanatical
inspiration of cruel deities, whose names become in other religions
the names of devils. Out of manifold experiences in the tragical
annals of mankind came the terrible Ahriman.
That Jesus did not adopt the Zoroastrian theology is shown in his
hostility to sacrifices which are of vital importance in the Parsî
system, though they were not of the cruel kind; nor, as we have
seen, were they to propitiate gods, but to assist them. Moreover,
belief in Ahriman had naturally evoked a militant spirit in the war
against evil, and Jesus seems to have for this reason separated himself
from the dervish, John the Baptist, whose violence had landed him in
prison. The incident (Matt. xi.) is so wrapped in post-resurrectional
phraseology that any rational interpretation must be conjectural;
but there is a certain accent about it which can hardly be explained
as part of the evangelical doctrine that the Baptist was a mere
preface to Christ. Jesus seems to regard John the Baptizer as the
ablest man of his time (verse 11), but as of a revolutionary spirit,
as if the reformation were a siege against some political kingdom or
throne. Violent people had been pressing around John, and the cause of
spiritual liberation had suffered. There was too much of the old law
with its thunders, too much of fiery Elijah, surviving in John. The
ideal is not a thing to be clutched at, or taken by force, but all
of the conditions--every tittle--must be fulfilled. (Luke xvi. 17.)
This is in substance a doctrine of evolution as opposed to revolution,
and my interpretation may be suspected of rationalistic anachronism;
but it must be remembered that the Golden Age behind Israel was an
epoch of Peace, which was represented in the ancient name of their
city (Salem), and of its greatest monarch, Solomon. The prophets had
long been painting the visionary dawn with pigments of that glorious
sunset. Solomon, true to his name, had allowed dismemberment of his
kingdom rather than go to war against rebellion; and it is noticeable
that in the apostolic age there was a principle against carnal
weapons, the Epistle to the Hebrews (xii. 3, 4) especially reminding
the brethren of the patient endurance of Jesus, and commending their
not having "resisted unto blood." This peacefulness of Jesus had indeed
become a basis of the doctrine that the triumph of Jesus over Satan was
conditioned on his not using any force, or other satanic weapon. Those
who took to the sword would perish thereby--i. e., remain in sheol.
But in a realm of practically oppressive and cruel superstitions,
established and consecrated, an absolute appeal to the moral sentiment
cannot escape being revolutionary. The American Anti-Slavery Society
were non-resistants; their great leader, William Lloyd Garrison,
thus apostrophised his "elder brother" of Jerusalem:
"O Jesus! noblest of patriots, greatest of heroes, most glorious of
all martyrs! Thine is the spirit of universal liberty and love--of
uncompromising hostility to every form of injustice and wrong. But not
with weapons of death dost thou assault thy enemies, that they may be
vanquished or destroyed; for thou dost not wrestle against flesh and
blood, but against 'principalities, against powers, against the rulers
of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places'; therefore hast thou put on the whole armor of God, having
the loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of
righteousness, and thy feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of
peace, and going forth to battle with the shield of faith, the helmet
of salvation, the sword of the Spirit! Worthy of imitation art thou,
in overcoming the evil that is in the world; for by the shedding of
thine own blood, but not even the blood of thy bitterest foe, shalt
thou at last obtain a universal victory."
So, across the ages, does deep answer unto deep. But all the same
Garrison's feet were unconsciously shod with the preparation of the
gospel of war, even as those of Jesus were. In a realm of consecrated
wrong every appeal to the moral sentiment is necessarily revolutionary;
far more so than physical rebellion, against which preponderant moral
forces combine with the immoral, as being a greater evil than the
orderly wrong assailed. Satan cannot be cast out by Beelzebub. A
god of wrath, enthroned on reeking altars, could better stand the
axe of the Baptist than the sunbeam of Jesus, the arrow feathered
with gentleness and culture. John the Baptist was not a religious
martyr; he suffered from a ruler quite indifferent to his religion,
with whose personal affairs he had interfered. But Jesus suffered
because he proclaimed, with irresistible eloquence, a new religion,
one involving practically the existing institutions of the priesthood,
and their whole moral system. It was virtually the setting up of
a new deity in place of Jahveh, reason in place of the Bible, the
heart worshipping in spirit and in truth in place of the temple, and
humanizing the moral sentiment--turning the conventional morality to
"dead works" (Heb. vi. 1). He expected the reform to be peaceful!
Rousseau's remark that Socrates died like a philosopher, but Jesus like
a god, has in it a truth more important than those who often quote
it recognise. Jesus died, legendarily, so much like a god that it is
difficult to make out just what happened to the man. Strong arguments
have been made to prove that he did not die at all on "the cross"
(a word unknown to the New Testament), [56] and that Pilate not only
"set himself" to save Jesus (John xix. 12), but succeeded. There may
have been from the stake a despairing cry, afterwards shaped after a
line from a psalm, but it can hardly be determined whether this may
not have been part of the first post-resurrectional doctrine that the
Son must be absolutely left by his divine Father, and pass unaided
through the ordeal of Satan, in order to fulfil the conditions of a
return from death. It is true, however, that this primitive idea had
almost vanished when the earliest Gospel was written, and, although a
relic of it may have been preserved by tradition, there is an equal
probability that Jesus did utter at the stake a cry of despair. The
whole miserable murderous affair, unforeseen and disappointing, must
have appeared to him a horrible display of diabolism; and even after
his friends believed in his resurrection, and saw in the tragedy
a sacrifice, they regarded it a sacrifice hateful to his Father,
and exacted only by the Devil.
Did he pray, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do"? Only
Luke reports this; its suppression by the other Gospels suggests
that its doctrinal significance was perceived. I heard a preacher
in the church of the Jesuits at Rome argue that Judas himself is
now in Paradise, because Jesus thus prayed for those who slew him,
and the prayer of the Son of God must have been answered. There is
no apparent dogmatic purpose in this incident, and it may be true.
The story of his confiding his mother to the disciple "whom he loved,"
told only by John, is evidently meant to complete the assumption of a
special favoritism towards that disciple, who is the type of the good
Spirit on one side of Jesus in contrast with Judas, Satan's agent,
on the other. The two are equally unhistorical and allegorical. John
and Judas became the good and evil Wandering Jews of mediæval folklore.
The first Solomon had perished as a teacher of wisdom when he was
summoned from his tomb to utter the Jahvism of the "Wisdom of Solomon":
the second and last Solomon was forever buried on the day when Mary
Magdalene saw his apparition, and cried, "My master!" From that time
may be dated the loss of the man Jesus, and restoration in Christ of
the Jahvism whose burden the wise teacher had endeavored to lift from
the heart and mind of the people. Vicisti Jahveh!