The Christ Myth

331

Deut. xxi. 23.

332

We notice that already in these distinctions the germs of those endless and absurd disputes concerning the “nature” of the God-man lie concealed, which later, in the first century A.D., tore Christendom into countless sects and “heresies,” and which gave the occasion for the rise of the Christian dogma.

333

Rom. i. 3.

334

Rom. viii. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Phil. ii. 7 sq.

335

Gal. iii. 10 sqq.; Rom. iii. 9.

336

Rom. iii. 20, iv. 15, v. 20, vii., sqq.

337

Gal. iii. 19 sqq.

338

Rom. vi. 9 sq.

339

Id. v. 14.

340

Rom. iv. 3 sqq.

341

Rom. vi. 3 sqq.

342

Gal. iii. 27.

343

Cf. above, p. 137.

344

1 Cor. x. 16 sqq., xi. 23–27.

345

1 Cor. x. 3 sqq., 16–21.

346

Cf., e. g., Pfleiderer, op. cit., 333.

347

Cf. above, p. 49 sqq.

348

Plato, “Symposium,” c. 22.

349

Col. ii. 9.

350

Op. cit., 80.

351

Cf. my work, “Plotin und der Untergang der antiken Weltanschauung,” 1907.

352

Gal. ii. 20; Rom. viii. 4, 26.

353

Id. viii. 14 sqq.

354

2 Cor. iii. 17.

355

Gal. v. 26.

356

1 Cor. ii. 9, 14; Rom. xii. 2.

357

Op. cit., 86.

358

Wrede, Id.

359

Id.

360

Op. cit., 94.

361

Wrede, op. cit., 85.

362

1 Cor. xv. 17.

363

Cf. as to the whole question my essay on “Paulus u. Jesus” (“Das Freie Wort” of December, 1909).

364

It is true that other theologians think differently on this point, as, e. g., Feine in his book, “Jesus Christus und Paulus” (1902), declares that Paul had “interested himself very much in gaining a distinct and comprehensive picture of Jesus’ activity and personality” (!) (229).

365

Kalthoff has in his writings laid especial stress on this social significance of Christianity. Cf. also Steudel, “Das Christentum und die Zukunft des Protestantismus” (“Deutsche Wiedergeburt,” iv., 1909, 26 sq.), and Kautsky, “Der Ursprung des Christentums,” 1908.

366

xl. 26.

367

In the same way Vollers also, in his work on “Die Weltreligionen” (1907), seeks to explain the faith of the original Christian sects in Jesus’ death and resurrection as a blend of the Adonis (Attis) and Christ faiths. He regards this as the essence of that faith, that the existing views of the Messiah and the Resurrection were transferred to one and the same person; and shows from this of what great importance it must be that this faith met a well-prepared ground, in North Syria, Anatolia, and Egypt, where it naturally spread. But he treats the Jewish Diaspora of these lands as the natural mediator of the new preaching or “message of Salvation” (Gospel), and finds a proof of his view in this, “that the sphere of the greatest density of the Diaspora almost completely coincides with those lands where the growing and rising youthful God was honoured, and that these same districts are also the places in which we meet, only a generation after Jesus’ death, the most numerous, flourishing, and fruitful communities of the new form of belief.” It is the Eastern Mediterranean or Levantine horse-shoe shaped line which stretches from Ephesus and Bithynia through Anatolia to Tarsus and Antioch, thence through Syria and Palestine by way of the cult-centres Bubastes and Sais to Alexandria. Almost directly in the middle of these lands lies Aphaka, where was the chief sanctuary of the “Lord” Adonis, and a little south of this spot lies the country where the Saviour of the Gospels was born (op. cit., 152).

368

Cf. O. Pfleiderer, “Die Entstehung des Christentums,” 1905, 109 sqq.

369

Luke xxiv. 33, xlix. 52; Acts i. 4, 8, 12 sqq.

370

“Religionsgesch. Erklärung d. N.T.,” 261. Cf. also Joel iii. 1 and Isa. xxviii. 11, and the Buddhist account of the first sermon of Buddha: “Gods and men streamed up to him, and all listened breathlessly to the words of the teacher. Each of the countless listeners believed that the wise man looked at him and spoke to him in his own language; though it was the dialect of Magadha which he spoke.” Seydel, “Evangelium von Jesus,” 248; “Buddha-Legende,” 92 sq.

371

Stephen’s so-called “martyrdom,” whose feast falls on December 26th, the day after the birth of Christ, owes its existence to astrology, and rests on the constellation of Corona (Gr., Stephanos), which becomes visible at this time on the eastern horizon (Dupuis, op. cit., 267). Hence the well-known phrase “to inherit the martyr’s crown.” Even the theologian Baur has found it strange that the Jewish Sanhedrin, which could not carry into effect any death sentence without the assent of the Roman governor, should completely set aside this formality in the case of Stephen; and he has clearly shown how the whole account of Stephen’s martyrdom is paralleled with Christ’s death (Baur, “Paulus,” 25 sqq.).

372

Smith, op. cit., 23–31.

373

Frazer, “Golden Bough,” iii. 197.

374

Smith, op. cit., 30 sq.

375

As to the small value of Papias’ statement, cf. Gfrörer, “Die heilige Sage,” 1838, i. 3–23; also Lützelberger, “Die kirchl. Tradition über den Apostel Johannes,” 76–93. The whole story, according to which Mark received the essential content of the Gospel named after him from Peter, is based on 1 Peter v. 13, and merely serves the purpose of increasing the historical value of the Gospel of Mark. “As the first Gospel was believed to be the work of the Apostle Matthew, and the second (Luke) the work of an assistant of Paul, it was very easy to ascribe to the third (Mark) at least a similar origin as the second, i. e., to trace it back in an analogous way to Peter; as it would have seemed natural for the chief of the apostles, longest dead, to have had his own Gospel, one dedicated to him, as well as Paul. The passage 1 Peter v. 13, “My son Mark saluteth you,” gave a suitable opportunity for bestowing a name on the book,” (Gfrörer, op. cit., 15; cf. also Brandt, “Die evangelische Geschichte u. d. Ursprung des Christentums,” 1893, 535 sq.)

376

Op. cit., 58.

377

xv. 39.

378

60.

379

Id.

380

The proper explanation for this should lie in the fact that the Jesus-faith was set up as a sect-faith and not for “outsiders.”

381

63 sqq.

382

68.

383

70.

384

3.

385

It strikes the reader, who stands apart from the controversy, as comical to find the matter characterised in the theological works on the subject as “undoubtedly historical,” “distinct historical fact,” “true account of history,” and so forth; and to consider that what holds for one as “historically certain” is set aside by another as “quite certainly unhistorical.” Where is the famous “method” of which the “critical” theologians are so proud in opposition to the “laity,” who allow themselves to form judgments as to the historical worth or worthlessness of the Gospels?

386

Wrede, op. cit., 91.

387

104.

388

129.

389

131.

390

148.

391

148.

392

Cf. Pfleiderer, “Entstehung des Christentums,” 207, 213. All estimates as to the time at which the Gospels were produced rest entirely on suppositions, in which points of view quite different from that of purely historical interest generally predominate. Thus it has been the custom on the Catholic side to pronounce, not Mark or Luke, but Matthew, to be the oldest source. “Proofs” for this are also given – naturally, as it is indeed the “Church” Gospel: it contains the famous passage (xvi. 18, 19) about Peter’s possession of the keys; how, then, should this not be the oldest? And lately Harnack (“Beiträge zur Einl. in das N.T.,” iii., “Die Apostelgeschichte,” 1908) has tried to prove that the Acts, with the Gospel of Luke, had been already produced in the early part of the year 60 A.D. But he does not dare to come to a real decision; and his reasons are opposed by just as weighty ones which are against that “possibility” suggested by him (op. cit., 219 sqq.). Such is, first, the fact that all the other early Christian writings which belong to the first century, as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, evidently know nothing of them. In the Epistle of Barnabas, written about 96 A.D., we read that Jesus chose as his own apostles, as men who were to proclaim his Gospel, “of all men the most evil, to show that he had come to call, not the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” (iv.). As to this Lützelberger very justly remarks, “That is more even than our Gospels say. For these are content to prove that Jesus did not come for the righteous by saying that he ate with publicans and was anointed by women of evil life; while in this Epistle even the Apostles must be most wicked sinners, so that grace may shine forth to them. This passage was quite certainly written neither by an Apostle nor by a pupil of an Apostle; and also it was not written after our Gospels, but at a time when the learned Masters of the Church had still a free hand to show their spirit and ingenuity in giving form to the evangelical story” (“Die hist. Tradition,” 236 sq.). But also the so-called Epistle of Clement, which must have been written at about the same time, is completely silent as to the Gospels, while the “Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles,” which perhaps also belongs to the end of the first century, cites Christ’s words, such as stand in the Gospels, but not as sayings of Jesus. Moreover, according to Harnack, the “Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles” is the Christian elaboration of an early Jewish document; whence we may conclude that its Words of Christ have a similar origin in Jewish thought to that from which the Gospels obtained them. (Cf. Lützelberger, op. cit., 259–271.)

393

81.

394

71.

395

81 sq.

396

Id.

397

The laity has, as is well known, but a slight suspicion of this. So S. E. Verus’ “Vergleichende Übersicht der vier Evangelien” (1897), with the commentary, is to be recommended.

398

83.

399

83.

400

85 sq.

401

“Jesus u. d. neutestamentl. Schriftsteller,” ii. 43. Let us take the final paragraph in E. Petersen’s “Die wunderbare Geburt des Heilandes,” which reaches the zenith in proving the mythical nature of the evangelical account of the Saviour’s birth: “If, not because we wish it, but because we are forced to do so by the necessity of History, we remove the sentence, ‘Conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary’ – Jesus nevertheless remains the ‘Son of God.’ He remains such because he experienced God as his father, and because he stands at God’s side for us. Also, in spite of our setting aside the miraculous birth as unhistorical, we are quite justified in declaring ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.’” M. Brückner speaks similarly at the close of his otherwise excellent work. “Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland.” For the person to whom such phraseology is not – futile, there is no help.

402

Cf. “Jesus Christus,” a course of lectures delivered at the University of Freiburg i. B., 1908.

403

Schäfer, “Die Evangelien und die Evangelienkritik,” 1908, 123. The story of the Church’s development in the first century is a story of shameless literary falsifications, of rough violence in matters of faith, of unlimited trial of the credence of the masses. So that for those who know history the iteration of the “credibility” of the Christian writers of the age raises at most but an ironical smile. Cf. Robertson, “History of Christianity,” 1910.

404

Cf. Hochart, “Études au sujet de la persécution des Chrétiens sous Néron,” 1885, cp. 4.

405

A. Kalthoff, “Das Christusproblem, Grundzüge zu einer Sozialtheologie,” 1902, 14 sq.

406

Kalthoff, “Die Entstehung des Christentums: Neue Beiträge zum Christusproblem,” 1904, 8.

407

If v. Soden (“Hat Jesus gelebt?” vii. 45) has proved wrong the comparison with the Tell-legend, and thinks I have “probably once more” forgotten that Schiller first transformed a very meagre legend, which was bound up in a single incident, from grey antiquity into a living picture, he can know neither Tschudi nor J. v. Müller. Cf. Hertslet, “Der Treppenwitz der Weltgeschichte,” 6 Aufl., 1905, 216 sqq.

408

The passage runs: “At this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man, for he accomplished miracles and was a teacher of men who joyously embrace the truth, and he found a great following among Jews and Greeks. This one was the Christ. Although at the accusation of the leading men of our people Pilate sentenced him to the cross, those who had first loved him remained still faithful. For he appeared again to them on the third day, risen again to a new life, as the prophets of God had foretold of him, with a thousand other prophecies. After him are called the Christians, whose sect has not come to an end.”

409

“Einl. ins N.T.,” 1836, 581.

410

“Gesch. d. jüd. Volkes,” i. 548.

411

Origen, though he collected all Josephus’ assertions which could serve as support to the Christian religion, does not know the passage, but probably another, in which the destruction of Jerusalem was represented as a punishment for James’ execution, which is certainly a forgery.

412

Cf. Kalthoff, “Entstehung d. Chr.,” 16 sq. As to the whole matter, Schürer, op. cit., 544–549.

413

V. Soden proves the contrary in his work, “Hat Jesus gelebt?” (1910), “in order to show the reliability of Drew’s assertions,” from Clement’s letter of 96 A.D., from Dionysius of Corinth (about 170) from Tertullion and Eusebius (early fourth century, not third, as v. Soden writes); and wishes to persuade his readers that the persecution under Nero is testified to. The authenticity of the letter of Clement is, however, quite uncertain, and has been most actively combated, from its first publication in 1633 till the present day, by investigators of repute, such as Semler, Baur, Schwegler, Volkmar, Keim, &c. But as for the above-cited authors, the unimportance of their assertions on the point is so strikingly exhibited by Hochart that we have no right to call them up as witnesses for the authenticity of the passage of Tacitus.

414

Cf. Hochart, op. cit., 280 sqq.; H. Schiller, “Gesch. d. röm. Kaiserzeit,” 447, note.

415

“Consulting the archives has been but little customary among ancient historians; and Tacitus has bestowed but little consideration on the Acta Diurna and the protocols of the Senate” (“Handb. d. klass. Altertumsw.,” viii., 2 Abt., Aft. 2, under “Tacitus”). Moreover, the difficulties of the passage from Tacitus have been fully realised by German historians (H. Schiller, op. cit., 449; “De. Gesch. d. röm. Kaiserreiches unter der Regierung des Nero,” 1872, 434 sqq., 583 sq.), even if they do not generally go as far as to say that the passage is completely unauthentic, as Volney did at the end of the eighteenth century (“Ruinen,” Reclam, 276). Cf. also Arnold, “Die neronische Christenverfolgung. Eine historiche Untersuchung zur Geschichte d. ältesten Kirche,” 1888. The author does indeed adhere to the authenticity of the passage in Tacitus, but as a matter of fact he presupposes it rather than attempts to prove it; while in many isolated reflections he gives an opinion against the correctness of the account given by Tacitus, and busies himself principally in disproving false inferences connected with that passage, such as the connection of the Neronic persecution with the Book of Revelation. The conceivable possibility that the persecution actually took place, but that at all events the sentence of Tacitus may be a Christian interpolation, Arnold seems never to have considered.

416

Op. cit., 227.

417

Kalthoff, “Christusproblem,” 17.

418

Weinel, “Jesus im 19 Jahrhundert,” 1907, 68.

419

“Babylonisches im Neuen Testament,” 109 sq.

420

“Zerduscht Nameh,” ch. xxvi.

421

Gfrörer, “Jahrhundert des Heils,” Part II., 380 sqq.

422

Luke iii. 23.

423

Numb. iv. 3.

424

Matt. xxi. 12 sqq.

425

Zech. xiv. 21 runs in the Targum translation: “Every vessel in Jerusalem will be consecrated to the Lord, &c., and at that time there will no longer be shopkeepers in the House of the Lord.” In this there may have been a further inducement for the Evangelists to state that Jesus chases the tradesmen from the Temple.

426

2 Sam. xvii. 23; cf. also Zech. xi. 12 sq.; Psa. xli. 10.

427

Gfrörer, “Jahr. d. Heils,” ii. 318 sqq.

428

Cf. 1 Cor. x. 1 sq.

429

2 Kings iv. 19 sqq.

430

Numb. i. 44; Jos. iii. 12; iv. 1 sqq. Cf. “Petrus-legende,” 51 sq.

431

Cf. p. 127, note.

432

Josephus, “Antiq.,” iv. 8, 48; Philo, “Vita Mos.,” iii.

433

2 Kings ii. 11.

434

E.g. also the account of the arrest of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 51 sqq.) cf. 2 Kings vi. 10–22.

435

Matt. ix. 11 sq., xii. 8 sq., xv. 1 sqq., 11 and 20, xxviii. 18.

436

Psa. cxlvi. 7.

437

Bereshith Rabba zu Gen. xli. 1.

438

Cf. esp. Acts xi. 2 sqq.

439

Matt. v. 17 sqq.

440

Id. viii. 11 sqq., x. 5, xxiii. 34 sqq., xxviii. 19 sqq.

441

Cf. Lützelberger, “Jesus, was er war und wollte,” 1842, 16 sqq.

442

Cf. above, 59 sqq.

443

It is given as a reason for his appearing first in Galilee that the Galileans were first led into exile, and so should first be comforted, as all divine action conforms to the law of requital (Gfrörer, “Jahr. d. Heils,” 230 sq. Cf. also Isa. viii. 23).

444

Cf. above, 173 sq.

445

See above, 171.

446

Exod. xvi. 17 sqq.; Numb. xxi. 1 sqq.; Exod. vii. 17 sqq. 1 Kings xvii. 5 sqq.

447

“Hist.,” iv. 81.

448

“Vespasian,” vii.

449

lxvi. 8.

450

Isa. 1. 6 sq.

451

Zech. xii 10.

452

Cf. “Petruslegende,” 24.

453

Gen. xxvi. 6; cf. also Tertullian, “Adv. Jud.,” 10.

454

Cf. for this Brandt, “Die Evangelische Geschichte,” esp. 53 sqq. Even such a cautious investigator as Gfrörer confesses that, after his searching examination of the historical content of the Synoptics, he is obliged to close “with the sad admission” that their testimony does not give sufficient assurance to enable us to pronounce anything they contain to be true, so far as they are concerned, with a good historical conscience. “In this it is by no means asserted that many may not think their views correct, but only that we cannot rely on them sufficiently to rest a technically correct proof on them alone. They tell us too many things which are purely legendary, and too many others which are at least suspicious, for a prudent historian to feel justified in a construction based on their word alone. This admission may be disagreeable – it is also unpleasant to me – but it is genuine, and it is demanded by the rules which hold everywhere before a good tribunal, and in the sphere of history” (“Die hl. Sage,” 1838, ii. 243).

455

This is the case with the corresponding account in Mark, while in Luke the dramatic presentation seems to be more worked away, and the coherence, through the introduction of descriptions and episodes (disciples at Emmaus) bears more the character of a simple narrative. Cf. Robertson, “Pagan Christs,” 186 sqq.; “A Short History,” 87 sqq. The fact that in almost all representations of this kind both the scene at Gethsemane and the words spoken by Jesus usually serve as signs of his personality (e. g. also Bousset’s “Jesus” – Rel. Volksb., 1904, 56), shows what we must think of the historical value of the accounts of the life of Jesus; especially when we consider that certainly no listeners were there, and Jesus cannot himself have told his experience to his disciples, as the arrest is supposed to have taken place on the spot.

456

“Messiasgeheimnis,” 143.

457

Gen. xxiv.

458

E. v. Hartmann, “Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments,” 1905, 22.

459