The Christ Myth

264

Esther v. 14, vii. 10.

265

Cf. the picture of Marsyas hanging upon a tree-trunk in the collection of antiquities at Karlsruhe; also the illustrations in P. Schmidt, “Die Geschichte Jesu, erläutert,” 1904.

266

Movers, op. cit., 687; Nork, “Reallexikon,” ii. 122 sq.; Frazer, “Adonis, Attis, Osiris,” 185 sq.

267

Rev. ii. 7, xxii. 2.

268

lxvi. 19.

269

ix. 3, 4.

270

Exod. xvii. 10 sqq.

271

For particulars see Zöckler, op. cit., 7 sqq.; also Hochart, op. cit., chap, viii., “Le symbole de la croix”; G. de Mortillet, “Le signe de la croix avant le christianisme,” 1866; Mourant Brock, “La croix payenne et chrétienne,” 1881; Goblet d’Alviella, “La migration des symboles,” 1891.

272

Henry Petersen, “Über den Gottesdienst u. den Götterglauben des Nordens während der Heidenzeit,” 1882, 39 sqq. 95 sqq.

273

Zöckler, op. cit., 21 sqq.

274

Winckler, “Die babyl. Geisteskultur,” 82.

275

Tertullian, “Contra Haereses,” 40.

276

Burnouf, op. cit., 240.

277

Goblet d’Alviella, op. cit., 61. sqq. Cf. also Ludw. Müller, “Det saakaldte Hagekors Anvendelse og Betydning i Oldtiden,” 1877.

278

Op. cit., 296.

279

One feels the words of Revelation quoted above brought to his mind: “And madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon the earth!”

280

“De errore profanae religionis,” i. 5.

281

Op. cit., § 48.

282

“Apolog.,” i. ch. 60.

283

III. 12, vii. 3 sqq., ix. 4, xiv. 1, xx. 4, xxii. 4.

284

Gal. vi. 17; Ephes. i. 13 sq.

285

Mourant Brock, op. cit., 177 sqq., 178 sqq.

286

So also in Tertullian when, with reference to the passage of Ezekiel above quoted (ix. 5), he describes the Greek letter Tau as “our [the Christians’] kind of cross” (nostra species crucis), not because it had the shape of the gibbet upon which Jesus is supposed to have died, but because it represented the seal or sign upon the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem (“Contra Marcionem,” iii. 22). And when in the same work (iii. 18) he explains the horns of the “unicorn” (ox?) mentioned in the Blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 17) as the two arms of the cross, this happens only for the reason that the sign of union and uplifting and the gibbet became commingled in his fancy into the one and the same form (cf. also “Adv. Judaeos,” 10, and Justin, “Dial.,” 91; also Hochart, op. cit., 365–369).

287

Zöckler, op. cit., 14 sq.

288

Frazer, “Adonis, Attis, Osiris,” 174 sq., 276 sqq.

289

Cf. on the whole subject Hochart, op. cit., 359 sqq.; P. Schmidt, “Gesch. Jesu,” 386–394. In spite of all his efforts Zöckler has not succeeded in proving that Jesus was nailed to a piece of wood having the form of a four-armed cross. The assertion that this form of gibbet was borrowed by the Romans from the Carthaginians, and was the usual one in late pre-Christian days, is simply a figment of the imagination. All passages usually brought forward in support of this traditional view either prove nothing, as the appeal to Luke xxiv. 39, John xx. 20 and 25, or they refer to the symbol, not to the gibbet of the cross, and consequently cannot serve to support the usual view of the matter (Zöckler, op. cit., especially 78; 431 sqq.).

290

“Geschichte der christlichen Kunst,” 174.

291

Cf. Detzel, “Christl. Ikonographie,” 1894, 392 sqq.; Hochart, op. cit., 378 sqq.

292

Moreover, the so-called Flabellum, the fan, which in the early Christian pictures of the birth of Christ a servant holds before the child, shows the connection of the Christ Cult and that of Agni. This fan, which was in use in divine service of the Western Church as late as the fourteenth century, cannot be for the driving away of insects or for cooling purposes, as is usually considered, for this would obviously be in contradiction to the “winter” birth of the Saviour. It refers to the fanning of the divine spark in the ancient Indian fire-worship. In this sense it has been retained until the present day in the Greek and Armenian rites, in which during the Mass the fan is waved to and fro over the altar. A synopsis of all the facts and illustrations bearing on the matter are to be found in A. Malvert’s “Wissenschaft und Religion,” 1904.

293

Of course the “Acts of the Apostles” is, and remains in spite of all modern attempts at vindication (Harnack), a very untrustworthy historical document, and the information it gives as to Paul’s life is for the most part mere fiction. We need not go so far as Jensen, who disputes the existence at any time of an historical Paul (“Moses, Jesus, Paulus. Drei Sagenvarianten des babylonischen Gottmenschen Gilgamesch,” 2 Aufl., 1909), but will nevertheless not be able to avoid the view that the description of Paul, as Bruno Bauer has already shown, represents an original, in any case very much worked over, and in the opinion of many only a copy of the original, which preceded it in the portrayal of the “chief of the apostles,” Peter (cf., on the historical value of the Acts, also E. Zeller, “Die Apg. nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht,” 1854).

294

Cf. H. Jordan, “Jesus und die modernen Jesusbilder. Bibl. Zeit- u. Streitfragen,” 1909, 36.

295

“To create authors who have never written a letter, to forge whole series of books, to date the most recent production back into grey antiquity, to cause the well-known philosophers to utter opinions diametrically opposed to their real views, these and similar things were quite common during the last century before and the first after Christ. People cared little at that time about the author of a work, if only its contents were in harmony with the taste and needs of the age” (E. Zeller, “Vorträge u. Abhdlg.,” 1865, 298 sq.). “It was at that time a favourite practice to write letters for famous men. A collection of not less than 148 letters was attributed to the tyrant Phalaris, who ruled Agrigentum in the sixth century B.C. Beyschlag has proved that they were ascribed to him in the time of Antoninus. Similarly the letters attributed to Plato, to Euripides and others, are spurious. It would have been indeed strange if this custom of the age had not gained an influence over the growing Christian literature, for such forgery would be produced most easily in the religious sphere, since it was here not a question of producing particular thoughts, but of being an organ of the common religious spirit working in the individual” (Steck, op. cit., 384 sq.; cf. also Holtzmann, “Einl. in das N.T.,” 2 Aufl., 223 sqq.).

296

E. Vischer, “Die Paulusbriefe, Rel. Volksb.,” 1904, 69 sq.

297

Op. cit., ix. 3 sqq.

298

1 Cor. xv. 5 sqq.

299

Cf. W. Seufert, “Der Ursprung und die Bedeutung des Apostolates in der christlichen Kirche der ersten Jahrhunderte,” 1887, 46, 157.

300

An attempt is now being made to prove the contrary, citing 2 Cor. v. 16, which runs: “Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.” The passage has been most differently explained. According to Baur the “Christ after the flesh” refers to the Jewish Messiah, the expected king and earthly Saviour of the Jews from political and social distress, in whom even Paul believed at an earlier date; and the meaning of the passage quoted is that this sensuous and earthly conception of the Messiah had given place in him to the spiritual conception (“Die Christuspartei in der kor. Gemeinde Tüb. Ztschr.,” 1831, 4 Heft, 90). According to Heinrici the “even though we have known” is not a positive assertion of a point of view which had once determined his judgment of Christ, but a hypothetical instance, which excludes a false point of view without asserting anything as to its actuality (“Komment,” 289). According to Beyschlag the passage is to be understood as asserting that Paul had seen Jesus at Jerusalem during his life on earth. But with Paul there is no talk of a mere seeing, but rather of a knowing. Lütgert disproves all these different hypotheses with the argument that the words “after the flesh” refer not to Christ but to the verb. “The apostle no longer knows any one ‘after the flesh,’ and so he no longer knows Jesus thus. At an earlier stage his knowledge of Christ was ‘after the flesh.’ At that time he did not have the spirit of God which made him able to see in Jesus the Son of God. Paul then is not protecting himself from the Jews, who denied him a personal knowledge of Jesus, but from the Pneumatics, who denied him a pneumatic knowledge of Jesus” (“Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth,” 1908, 55–58).

301

Gal. i. 11, 12; 1 Cor. ii. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 6.

302

Gal. i. 17–19.

303

Gal. ii. 1 sqq.

304

Id. i. 19.

305

Matt. xxviii. 10; Mark xiii. 33 sqq.; John xx. 17.

306

In the opinion of the Dutch school of theologians, whom Schläger follows in his essay, “Das Wort kürios (Herr) in Seiner Bezichung auf Gott oder Jesus Christus” (“Theol. Tijdschrift,” 33, 1899, Part I.), this mention of the “Brother of the Lord” does not come from Paul; as according to Schläger, all the passages in 1 Cor., which speak of Jesus under the title “Kurios,” are interpolated. “Missionary travels of Brothers of Jesus are unknown to us from any other quarter, and are also in themselves improbable” (op. cit., 46; cf. also Steck, op. cit., 272 sq.).

307

Similarly Origen, “Contra Celsum,” i. 35; cf. Smith, op. cit., 18 sq.

308

Cf. as to this Sieffert in “Realenzyklop. f. prot. Theol. und Kirche” under “James.” In Ezr. ii. 2 and 9 there is also mention of “Brothers” of the High Priest Joshua, by which only the priests subordinate to him seem to be meant; and in Justin (“Dial c. Tryph.,” 106) the apostles are collectively spoken of as “Brothers of Jesus.” Similarly in Rev. xii. 17, those “who keep the word of God and bear testimony to Jesus Christ” are spoken of as children of the heavenly woman and also as Brothers and Sisters of the Divine Redeemer, whom the dragon attempts to swallow up together with his mother. As Revelation owes its origin to a pre-Christian Jesus-cult, the designation of pious brothers of a community as physical brothers of Jesus seems also to have been customary in that cult, antecedent to the Pauline epistles and the Gospels.

309

This is actually the view of the Dutch school of theologians.

310

A. Kalthoff, “Was wissen wir von Jesus? Eine Abrechnung mit Prof. D. Bousset,” 1904, 17.

311

1 Cor. vii. 10.

312

Id. ix. 14.

313

1 Cor. xi. 23.

314

Cf. Brandt, “Die evangel. Geschichte u. d. Ursprung d. Christentums,” 1893, 296. Schläger also agrees with the Dutch school, and produces telling arguments in favour of the view that 1 Cor. xi. 23–32 is an interpolation. “In our opinion,” he says, “the opening words, ‘For I received of the Lord,’ betray the same attempt as can be seen in vii. 10 and ix. 14 – and probably the attempt of one and the same interpolator – to trace back Church institutions and regulations to the authority of the Lord, of the Kurios. In the three cases in which the latter is mentioned he is called ‘the Lord,’ which is a fact well worthy of consideration in view of the usual designation.” Schläger also shows that verse 32 is a very appropriate conclusion to verse 22; while as they stand now the logical connection is broken in a forcible manner by the interpolation of the account of the Last Supper. Another proof of the interpolation of 23–32 is to be found, Schläger thinks, in the fact that in verse 33 as in verse 22 the Corinthians are addressed in the second person, while in verses 31 and 32 the first person plural is used (op. cit., 41 sq.). In view of these notorious facts we can hardly understand how German theologians can with such decision adhere to the authenticity of the passage, reproaching those who contest it with “faults in method.” As against this view of theirs Schläger justly objects that “References to words and events from the life of Jesus are so isolated in the Pauline writings that we are entitled to and forced to raise the question as to each such reference, whether it is not the reflection of a later age, of an age which already placed confidence in the Gospel literature, that brought Jesus’ authority into the text” (Schläger, op. cit., 36). And the critical theologians are convinced that the writings of the New Testament are worked over to a great extent, rectified to accord with the Church, and in many places interpolated. But when some one else brings this to publicity, and dares to doubt the authenticity of a passage, they immediately raise a great outcry, and accuse him of wilfully misrepresenting the text; as if there were even one single such passage on which the views of critics are not divergent!

315

M. Brückner’s opinion also is “that the Pauline account of the scene at the Last Supper is in all probability not a purely historical one, but is a dogmatic representation of the festival.” And he adds: “In any case just on account of its religious importance this scene cannot be cited to prove Paul’s acquaintance with the details of Jesus’ life” (“Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie,” 1903, 44). Cf. also Robertson, “Christianity and Mythology,” 388 sq.

316

Holtzmann has, as a matter of fact, in an essay in the “Christliche Welt” (No. 7, 1910) recently attempted to prove the contrary, citing from Paul a number of moral exhortations, &c., which are in accord with Jesus’ words in the Gospels. But in this argument there is a presupposition, which should surely be previously proved, that the Gospels received their corresponding content from Jesus and not, on the contrary, from Paul’s epistles. It is admitted that they were in many other respects influenced by Pauline ideas. Moreover, all the moral maxims cited have their parallels in contemporary Rabbinical literature, so that they need not necessarily be referred back to an historical Jesus; also, such is their nature, that they might be advanced by any one, i. e., they are mere ethical commonplaces without any individual colouring. Thus we find the Rabbis in agreement with Rom. xiii. 8 sq. and Gal. v. 14, which Holtzmann traces back to Matt. vii. 12: “Bring not on thy neighbour that which displeases thee; this is our whole doctrine.” Rom. xiii. 7 has its parallel not only in Matt. xxii. 21, but also in the Talmud, which runs: “Every one is bound to fulfil his obligations to God with the like exactness as those to men. Give to God his due; for all that thou hast is from him.” Rom. xii. 21 runs in the Sanhedrin: “It is better to be persecuted than to persecute, better to be calumniated by another than to slander.” So that the remark need not necessarily be based on Matt. v. 39; in fact, the last-named passage is not found at all in the standard MSS., in the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The phrase, “to remove mountains” (1 Cor. xiii. 2). is a general Rabbinical one for extolling the power of a teacher’s diction, and so could easily be transferred to the power of faith. So also the phrase, Mark ix. 50, “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another” – which Rom. xii. 18 is supposed to resemble – is a well-known Rabbinical expression. Matt. v. 39 sq., which is supposed to accord with 1 Cor. vi. 7, runs in the Talmud: “If any one desires thy donkey, give him also the saddle.” Matt. vii. 1–5, on which Rom. ii. 1 and xiv. 4 are supposed to be based, equally recalls the Talmud: “Who thinks favourably of his neighbour brings it about that fair judgments are also made of him.” “Let your judgment of your neighbour be completely good.” “Even as one measures, with the same measure shall it also be measured unto him.” Rom. xiv. 13 and 1 Cor. viii. 7–13 need not necessarily be an allusion to Jesus’ tender consideration for those who are ruined by scandal, as we find in the Talmud: “It would have been better that the evil-minded had been born blind, so that they would not have brought evil into the world” (cf. also Nork, “Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen,” 1839). And does Paul’s usual phrase of greeting, “from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” really contain the avowal of the “Father-God” preached by Christ? For the connection of the divine Son and bearer of salvation with the “Father-God” is a general mythological formula which occurs in all the different religions – witness the relation between Marduk and Ea, Heracles and Zeus, Mithras and Ormuzd, Balder and Odin. What then does it mean when Paul speaks of the “meekness and humility of Christ,” who lived not for his own pleasure, who made no fame for himself, but was “submissive,” assumed the form of a servant, and was “obedient” to the will of his “father,” even to the death of the cross? All these traits are reproduced directly from the description of the suffering servant of God in Isaiah, which we know had a great part in shaping the personality of Jesus. Meekness, humility, charitableness, and obedience are the specific virtues of the pious of Paul’s time. It was a matter of course for Christ also, the ideal prototype of good and pious men, to be endowed with these characteristics. Abraham was obedient when he sacrificed his son Isaac; and so was the latter to his father, being also submissive in himself bringing the wood to the altar and giving himself up willingly to the sacrificial knife. And we know what a significant rôle the story of Isaac’s sacrifice has always played in the religious ideas of the Jews. Moreover, the heathen redeemer deities – Marduk, of the Mandaic Hibil Ziwâ, Mithras and Heracles – were also obedient in coming down upon earth at the bidding of their heavenly father, burst the gates of death, and gave themselves up, in the case of Mithras, even to be sacrificed; and Heracles served mankind in the position of a servant, fought with the monsters and horrors of hell, and assumed the hardest tasks at the will of others.

317

Kalthoff, “Die Entstehung d. Christentums,” 1904, 15.

318

P. Wernle, “Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu, Religionsgesch. Volksbücher,” 2 Aufl., 4.

319

Gunkel, op. cit., 93.

320

Gunkel also takes the view “that before Jesus there was a belief in Christ’s death and resurrection current in Jewish syncretic circles (op. cit., 82). Now we have already seen (p. 57) that the term “Christ” is of very similar significance to “Jesus.” So that it is not at all necessary to believe, as Gunkel asserted in the Darmstadt discussion, that Paul in speaking of “Jesus” testifies to an historical figure, because Jesus is the name of a person. “Jesus Christ” is simply a double expression for one and the same idea – that is, for the idea of the Messiah, Saviour, Physician, and Redeemer; and it is not at all improbable, as Smith supposes, that the contradictions in the conception of the Messiah in two different sects or spheres of thought found their settlement in the juxtaposition of the two names.

321

“Not the teacher, not the miracle-worker, not the friend of the publicans and sinners, not the opponent of the Pharisees, is of importance for Paul. It is the crucified and risen Son of God alone” (Wernle, op. cit., 5).

322

“Indeed, the historical Jesus in the sense of the Ritschlian school would have been for Paul an absurdity. The Pauline theology has to do rather with the experiences of a heavenly being, which have, and will yet have, extraordinary significance for humanity” (M. Brückner, “Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie,” 1903, 12). Brückner also considers it settled “that Jesus’ life on earth had no interest at all for Paul” (op. cit., 46). “Paul did not trouble himself about Jesus’ life on earth, and what he may here and there have learnt concerning it, with few exceptions, remained indifferent to him” (42). Brückner also shows that the passages which are cited to contradict this prove nothing as to Paul’s more detailed acquaintance with Jesus’ life on earth (41 sqq.). He claims “to have given the historical demonstration” in his work “that the Christian religion is at bottom independent of ‘uncertain historical truths’” (Preface). And in spite of this he cannot as a theologian free himself from the conception of an historical Jesus even with regard to Paul, though he is, nevertheless, not in a position to show where and to what extent the historical Jesus had a really decided influence over Paul.

323

Movers, op. cit., 438 sqq.; Fraser, “Adonis, Attis, Osiris,” 42, 43, 47, 60, 79 sq.

324

Cumont, “Textes et monuments,” &c., i. 240; Pfleiderer, “Urchristentum,” i. 29 sqq.

325

1 Cor. x. 16.

326

Pfleiderer, op. cit., 45.

327

xi. 19 sqq.

328

Smith, op. cit., 21 sq.

329

Cf. Zimmern, “Zum Streit um die Christusmythe,” 23.

330

“I am the A and the O, the beginning and the end,” the Revelation of John makes the Messiah say (i. 8.). Is there not at the same time in this a concealed reference to Adonis? The Alpha and the Omega, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, form together the name of Adonis – Ao (Aoos) as the old Dorians called the God, whence Cilicia is also called Aoa. A son of Adonis and Aphrodite (Maia) is said (“Schol. Theocr.,” 15, 100) to have been called Golgos. His name is connected with the phallic cones (Greek, golgoi), as they were erected on heights in honour of the mother divinities of Western Asia, who were themselves, probably on this account, called Golgoi and golgōn anássa (Queens of the Golgoi), and is the same as the Hebraic plural Golgotha (Sepp, “Heidentum,” i. 157 sq.). Finally, was the “place of skulls” an old Jebusite place of worship of Adonis under the name of Golgos, and was the cone of rock, on which statue of Venus was erected in the time of Hadrian, selected for the place of execution of the Christian Saviour because it was connected with the remembrance of the real sacrifice of a man in the rôle of Adonis (Tammuz)?