The mythical interpretation of the Gospels [microform] ; critical studies in the historic narratives

I Cbc Cimver^Uv eCbica$c
libraries

:FT OF

THE BROSS LIBRARY

VOLUME VII

1 \ \

COPYEIGHT, 1916, BY

THE TRUSTEES OF LAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS

TO

THE PRESIDENT, TRUSTEES, AND FACULTY

OF

LAKE FOREST COLLEGE, U. S. A.

THIS WORK IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED

BY
THE AUTHOR

Ov ybp treffo<f>itr(jivQis fio&dois
lyvtapla'aij.ev v/uv rijv TOU Ku/aiou IijtroO
Stva.iJ.iv Kal va.povyla.Vy dXX' iirbirra.1 yevydfrres

Tijs licelvov fieyaKfilmiTos.

H Peter i : 16.

THE BROSS FOUNDATION

THE BROSS LIBRARY is an outgrowth of a fund estab-
lished in 1879 by the late William Bross, lieutenant-
governor of Illinois from 1866 to 1870. Desiring some
memorial of his son, Nathaniel Bross, who died in 1856,
Mr. Bross entered into an agreement with the "trustees
of Lake Forest University," whereby there was finally
transferred to them the sum of forty thousand dollars,
the income of which was to accumulate in perpetuity
for successive periods of ten years, the accumulation of
one decade to be spent in the following decade, for the
purpose of stimulating the best books or treatises "on the
connexion, relation, and mutual bearing of any practi-
cal science, the history of our race, or the facts in any
department of knowledge, with and upon the Christian
Religion." The object of the donor was to "call out the
best efforts of the highest talent and the ripest scholar-
ship of the world to illustrate from science, or from any
department of knowledge, and to demonstrate the divine
origin and the authority of the Christian scriptures; and,
further, to show how both science and revelation coin-
cide and prove the existence, the providence, or any or
all of the attributes of the only living and true God, 'in-
finite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom,
power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'"

The gift contemplated in the original agreement of
1879 was finally consummated in 1890. The first decade
of the accumulation of interest having closed in 1900,
the trustees of the Bross Fund began at this time to carry
out the provisions of the deed of gift. It was deter-
mined to give the general title of "The .Bross Library"

vii

viii THE BROSS FOUNDATION

to the series of books purchased and published with the
proceeds of the Bross Fund. In accordance with the
express wish of the donor, that the " Evidences of Chris-
tianity" of his "very dear friend and teacher, Mark
Hopkins, D.D.," be purchased and "ever numbered and
known as No. i of the series," the trustees secured the
copyright of this work, which has been republished in a
presentation edition as Volume I of the Bross Library.

The trust agreement prescribed two methods by which
the production of books and treatises of the nature con-
templated by the donor was to be stimulated:

i. The trustees were empowered to offer one or more
prizes during each decade, the competition for which
was to be thrown open to "the scientific men, the Chris-
tian philosophers, and historians of all nations." In ac-
cordance with this provision, a prize of six thousand dol-
lars was offered in 1902 for the best book fulfilling the
conditions of the deed of gift, the competing manuscripts
to be presented on or before June i, 1905. The prize
was awarded to the late Reverend James Orr, D.D.,
professor of apologetics and systematic theology in the
United Free Church College, Glasgow, for his treatise on
"The Problem of the Old Testament," which was pub-
lished in 1906 as Volume III of the Bross Library.

The second decennial prize of six thousand dollars
was offered in 1913, the competing manuscripts to be
submitted by January i, 1915. The judges were Presi-
dent William Douglas Mackenzie, of Hartford Theo-
logical Seminary; Professor Rufus M. Jones, of Hav-
erford College; and Professor Benjamin L. Hobson,
of McCormick Theological Seminary. The prize was
awarded by the judges to a manuscript entitled "The
Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels," whose author
proved to be the Reverend Thomas James Thorburn,
D.D., LL.D., St. Helen's Down, Hastings, England. This
essay is now issued as Volume VII of the Bross Library.

THE BROSS FOUNDATION ix

The next Bross Prize will be offered about 1925, and
will be announced in due time by the trustees of. Lake
Forest University.

2. The trustees were also empowered to "select and
designate any particular scientific man or Christian phi-
losopher and the subject on which he shall write," and to
"agree with him as to the sum he shall receive for the
book or treatise to be written." Under this provision
the trustees have, from time to time, invited eminent
scholars to deliver courses of lectures before Lake Forest
College, such courses to be subsequently published as
volumes in the Bross Library. The first course of lec-
tures, on "Obligatory Morality," was delivered in May,
1903, by the Reverend Francis Landey Patton, D.D.,
LL.D., president of Princeton Theological Seminary.
The copyright of the lectures is now the property of the
trustees of the Bross Fund. The second course of lec-
tures, on "The Bible: Its Origin and Nature," was de-
livered in May, 1904, by the late Reverend Marcus Dods,
D.D., professor of exegetical theology in New College,
Edinburgh. These lectures were published in 1905 as
Volume II of the Bross Library. The third course of
lectures, on "The Bible of Nature," was delivered in
September and October, 1907, by J. Arthur Thomson,
M.A., regius professor of natural history in the Uni-
versity of Aberdeen. These lectures were published in
1908 as Volume IV of the Bross Library. The fourth
course of lectures, on "The Religions of Modern Syria
and Palestine," was delivered in November and Decem-
ber, 1908, by Frederick Jones Bliss, Ph.D., of Beirut,
Syria. These lectures were published in 1912 as Volume
V of the Bross Library. The fifth course of lectures, on
"The Sources of Religious Insight," was delivered in
November, 1911, by Professor Josiah Royce, Ph.D., of
Harvard University. These lectures were published in
1912 as Volume VI of the Bross Library. The sixth

x THE BROSS FOUNDATION

course of lectures, on " The Will to Freedom, or the Gos-
pel of Nietzsche and the Gospel of Christ," was delivered
in May, 1915, by the Reverend John Neville Figgis, D.D.,
Litt.D., of the House of the Resurrection, Mirfield, Eng-
land. These lectures will be published as Volume VIII of
the Bross Library.

JOHN SCHOLTE NOLLEN,

President of Lake Forest College.

LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS,
January, 1916.

PREFACE

IT is but fitting that the writer of this volume should
introduce his work, which has gained the Bross Prize
for 1915, with an expression of gratitude to the memory
of the founder of that bequest, to the present trustees
of Lake Forest College, and also to the judges for their
courtesy and the trouble involved in dealing with the
manuscript submitted for their consideration. He may
add, however, that the work was not commenced with a
view to competing for the Bross, or indeed any, prize;
it had been in hand for about two years, and had already
progressed considerably towards taking a final shape,
when he bethought him that, perhaps, it might be a suit-
able book for the purpose which the late William Bross,
formerly lieutenant-governor of the State of Illinois, had
in view when he established the trust.

The subject of this treatise, "The Mythical Interpre-
tation of the Gospels," as it may be termed, is, it should
be widely known, nothing more nor less than the theory
that our present four canonical Gospels are in no sense
whatever what we nowadays mean by- the term "his-
torical documents." This is, in truth, a most serious
proposition to fling down before the world after close
upon nineteen centuries of Christian teaching which has
been throughout based upon the contrary affirmation.
For, if any such theory be a true one, and can be so es-
tablished to the satisfaction not only of scholars but to
that of the world at large, then the documents referred
to must be in effect probably nothing more than a mere
congeries of ancient nature-myths, and their Central
Figure also can only be an embodiment of one or more

xi

xii PREFACE

of the various cult-gods or nature-spirits (demons) with
which the imagination of the ancient races who formerly
dwelt in the southern parts of western Asia and east-
ern Europe, with Egypt and Arabia, peopled those lands
for many centuries before and subsequent to the Chris-
tian era.

The subject, the present writer repeats, is one of the
utmost importance when viewed from the religious stand-
point; and it has hitherto, in his opinion, been some-
what too hastily set aside without examination, and even
quietly snubbed by critical as well as by dogmatic the-
ologians. It is not thus that any theory, however wrong-
headed it may be, is checked, nor by these means are
genuine seekers after truth ever convinced of its errors.
On the contrary, such theories and assertions should be
challenged freely and criticised, and their mistakes and
assumptions frankly and systematically pointed out.

After making the above prefatory statement, it may
not be inopportune or superfluous here to give, for the
benefit of such readers to whom it will be welcome, a
brief sketch of the chief mythical and non-historical ex-
planations of the origin and nature of Christianity which
have been put forth from time to time during the period
covered by the past one hundred and twenty years.

Previously to the end of the eighteenth century the
mythical hypothesis of Christianity was, for all practical
purposes, wholly unknown. Going still further back, in
the earlier centuries of the Christian era, we find the va-
rious fathers of the church and other contemporary wri-
ters, secular as well as ecclesiastical, distinguishing most
carefully and emphatically the historical Gospel narra-
tives, as they had received or examined them, and above
all the personality of Jesus Christ, from the nature-
myths and the deities of various classes and grades,
whether Olympic gods or cultual nature-spirits (demons),
which were held in awe or honour by the peoples in whose

PREFACE xiii

very midst Christianity had but recently been introduced
and established. This is, indeed, an indisputable and
accepted fact.

Much the same, too, may be said of the Jewish rabbins
and others who contributed to that body of authorita-
tive Jewish teaching, mingled with fact and fancy, which
at an early period took shape and became known as the
two Talmuds. To the Christian fathers and the Jewish
rabbins alike both Jesus Christ and the records of his
life and teaching had an undoubted historical basis.
Even his miracles were in general admitted by the Jews,
but were attributed by them either to the agency of de-
mons or to the magical arts which he was supposed to
have learned in, and brought from, Egypt. Neither early
Christian nor Jew of any period felt the smallest doubt
as to the historic character of either Christianity or its
Founder, whilst even the pagan Romans and Greeks al-
ways refer to both in professedly historic terms. In-
deed, the educated Gentiles of all races included within
the Roman Empire of that period regarded the Christian
system as wholly unlike, and in every respect totally
opposed to, the stories told of the cult-gods and divine
heroes of their myths. These three primary facts are
beyond dispute, and all three taken together form, in
the opinion of the present writer, a great and a -priori
obstacle to any modern scheme that can be devised for
the mythicising of the story of the Christian religion or
the person of its Founder.

With the period of the great French Revolution, at
the end of the eighteenth century, a great change was
obviously impending. Its advent was heralded by the
publication, in 1794, of the notorious work of Charles
Frangois Dupuis (1742-1809), entitled L'origine de tons
les Cultes, ou la Religion Universette, which had followed
close upon Volney's Les Ruines, ou Meditation sur les
Revolutions des Empires, a thinly veiled and dilettante

xiv PREFACE

attack upon all religion, and especially upon the histor-
ical character and evidences of Christianity. In the work
of Dupuis all primitive religion is connected with a sys-
tem of astral mythology, and the origin of astral myths
is traced to Upper Egypt. This book excited some in-
terest at the time of its publication, though it had only
a small sale; it is said, however, to have been largely
instrumental in bringing about the expedition organised
by Napoleon Bonaparte for the exploration, or exploita-
tion, of that country. Regarding this book, it will suffice
here to say that a distinguished modern astronomer 1 has
(March 20, 1914) informed the present writer that Du-
puis's "method led him to the conclusion that the con-
stellations must have been devised when the sun was in
the constellation Aries at the autumnal equinox, i. e. }
about 13000 B. C. The evidence afforded by the un-
mapped space round the south pole proves that he was
ten or eleven thousand years wrong; in other words,
nearly as wrong as he could be " ! 2 Any system which
is based upon such a huge and primary error as this
stands self-condemned at the outset.

The method of Dupuis soon fell into disrepute, but in
spite of this fact it has been revived in our own day in a
somewhat modified form by certain modern mythicists,
notably A. Niemojewski (Bog Jezus, 1909, and Gott Jezus
im Lichte fremder und eigener Forschungen, samt Darstel-
lung der evangelisckenAstralstojfe, Astralszenen, und Astral-
systeme, 1910) and Fuhrmann (Der Astralmythen von
Christus), who have used this once much-vaunted "key"
to the origin of religions in a manner regardless not only
of astronomical facts but even, at times, of common sense.

With the downfall, in the early nineteenth century,
of the astral theory of Dupuis, which in speculative
theology was largely superseded by the unimaginative

1 Mr. E. Walter Maunder, F.R.A.S.

2 See also Encyclopedia Britannica, nth ed., art. "Dupuis."

PREFACE xv

rationalism of Paulus (1761-1851), the next generation
were confronted with a revival of the mythic theory in
a new and improved form. David Friedrich Strauss
(1808-74) issued in 1835-6 his famous work, Das Leben
Jesu, based to a great extent upon the dialectical method
of the then fashionable Hegelian idealistic philosophy,
in which, while he acknowledged the actual existence of
an historical Jesus who formed the subject of the Gospel
memoirs, Strauss maintained had had such a complete
halo of myth thrown around him that for all practical
purposes his life was entirely unknown to us. This work
created a great sensation almost throughout Europe,
and a fourth edition of it, translated by George Eliot,
appeared in England in a popular form under the Eng-
lish title of The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1846).
Finally the work was entirely recast and rewritten as
Das Leben Jesu filr das Deutsche Volk bearbeitet (1865) ; in
this new form Strauss declared that he viewed the Gospel
stories rather as conscious inventions than as poetic myths,
as he had maintained in the original Das Leben Jesu.

This non-historical and later view of the Gospel rec-
ords and the person of Jesus was next taken up by Bruno
Bauer (1809-82), a critic belonging, like Strauss, in the
earlier part of his career, to the Hegelian "Left Wing,"
and who differed from Strauss chiefly in denying that
the Judaism antecedent to the rise of Christianity har-
boured any potent Messianic expectations. The Messiah,
Bauer maintained (Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte der
Synoptiker, 1841), was the product of the Christian con-
sciousness, and was rather carried back from the Chris-
tian system into that of Judaism than borrowed by the
former from the latter source. As for the Gospels, they
were, he thought, abstract conceptions turned into his-
tory, probably by one man the evangelist Mark.

Before, however, dismissing Jesus as a wholly fictitious
character in history, Bauer decided to make a further

xvi PREFACE

critical examination of the structure and contents of the
Pauline epistles (Kritik der Paulinischen Brief e, 1850-1).
As an outcome of these combined investigations he at
last decided that an historical Jesus never existed a
result little, if at all, removed from the final conclusions
of Strauss.

With the death of Bauer the mythical hypothesis may
be said to have entered upon a new phase. In 1882 Rudolf
Seydel published his Das Evangelium wn Jesu in seinen
Verhaltnissen zur Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre, which
was followed not long afterwards by his Die Buddha-
Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien (26. ed.,
1897), and Buddha und Christus (1884), in which the
avowed object was to demonstrate that the life of Jesus,
as related by the compilers of the synoptic Gospels, was
almost wholly derived from similar anecdotes related of
the Buddha in Buddhist legend and myth. The reader
of the present book will find the greater number of these
stories quoted and compared with their (so-called) Chris-
tian "parallels" and "derivatives." This theory had
been, however, already effectively criticised by Bousset
in the Theologiscke Rundschau for February, 1889.

At the opening of the twentieth century another Ori-
ental "source" was proposed by Mr. J. M. Robertson
(Christianity and Mythology, 1900; Pagan Christs: Stud-
ies in Comparative Hierology, 1903, 2d ed., 1912). This
author, whose excursions into the field of theology all
bear the marks of great haste and extreme recklessness
of statement, has been very largely dealt with in the pres-
ent volume. It will suffice, therefore, to add here that
he traces the portrait of Jesus, as drawn by the synoptic
writers, to a syncretism of mythological elements de-
rived primarily, perhaps, from early Hebraic tradition
and myth combined (later on) with various pagan myths,
European as well as Asiatic, and especially the stories
told about the early life of Krishna and, in some cases,

PREFACE xvii

those recorded of the Buddha. Indeed, the idea con-
tained in the story of Jesus is, in the main, for him, very
largely a recension of the myth of an old Ephraimitic
sun-god "Joshua," which, when historicised, gave rise to
a legend regarding a northern Israelite Messiah, Joshua
ben Joseph.

This last-mentioned view of Christianity and its
Founder, again, does not differ very greatly from that of
Professor W. B. Smith, of Tulane University, New Or-
leans, U. S. A., who (Der VorchristUche Jesus, 1906) de-
rives the "Christ-myth" from certain alleged "Jesus-
cults," dating from" pre-Christian times. Jesus is, he
thinks, the name of an ancient Western Semitic cult-god,
and he finds a reference to the doctrines held by the
devotees of this deity in Acts 18 : 25. He also further
maintains that "Nazareth" was not in pre-Christian
times the name of a village in Galilee (since no such
village then existed), but is a corruption of Nazaraios
(Na^a/aato?), meaning "guardian" or "saviour" a word
identical in its signification with "Jesus," the name of
this ancient cult-god. " Christ," also, in like manner has
reference to the same deity, for X/ato-ro? is equatable with
Xprja-Tos, found in the LXX version of Psalm 34 : 8.

The above views Professor Smith subsequently devel-
oped more fully in a later work (Ecce Deus, 1912), in
which he maintains, contrary to the commonly accepted
view, that Jesus is presented by the evangelist Mark
wholly as a god (i. e. } a cult-deity) in an anthropomorphic
guise.

We may, perhaps, here also briefly note another vari-
ant form of the mythical theory which has been pro-
posed by the German Assyriologist, P. Jensen.

Doctor Jensen states (Das Gilgamesch-epos in der Welt-
literatur, 1906; Moses, Jesus, Paulus: drei Varianten des
Babylonischen Gottmenschen Gilgamesch, 1909; Hat der
Jesus der Evangelien wirklich gelebt ? 1910) that Jesus may

xviii PREFACE

be identified with not merely one but several of the myth-
ical heroes in the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, and a series
of so-called parallels found in that work and the Gospels
are set forth in his Moses, Jesus, Paulus, as establishing
the truth of his thesis. His theory, however, has been
rejected by the almost unanimous consent of scholars,
and one American theologian has even gone so far as to
pronounce the whole hypothesis "elaborate bosh."

But the hypothesis of the mythical origin and nature
of Christianity and the unhistorical character of the Gos-
pel narratives reaches its culminating point in two re-
cent works of Professor Drews, of Karlsruhe, who, aban-
doning for a time the exposition of philosophy, appears as
the strenuous advocate of a mythical Christianity (Die
Christusmythe, 1910, English translation The Christ Myth;
and The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus? 1912). His
method and conclusions may be briefly summarised as
follows: From Robertson and W. B. Smith he borrows
the general mythical view of the Gospel narratives, and
in particular the identification of Jesus with an ancient He-
brew cult-deity, Joshua, and an old Greek divine healer-
hero, Jason equating Jason = Joshua = Jesus (Joshua
forming the intermediate link) as all representing the
sun.

Further, from Professor W. B. Smith he adopts the
theory that the members of these cults had been termed
"Nazoraeans" (Nazaraioi). Christianity, he maintains,
is primarily and mainly -a syncretism of these elements
together with (orthodox) Jewish Messianism plus the pa-
gan (Greco-Roman, etc.) idea of a "redeemer-god," who
annually "dies" and "rises," and thereby promotes the
welfare of mankind. This synthesis, he thinks, was ef-
fected in the mind of St. Paul, who "knew no historical
Jesus" (II Cor. 5 : 16). This explains, he surmises, the
great change which took place in the views and actions

1 An amended version of the second part of The Christ Myth.

PREFACE xix

of St. Paul. At first, he says, Paul, as a legalist, vio-
lently opposed the gospel because the law pronounced
cursed every one who had been "hanged upon a tree."
But suddenly he became "enlightened," and a reconcili-
ation became possible. He found that he could combine
the idea of the expected and orthodox Jewish Messiah of
the first century with the older and self-sacrificing god of
the ethnic nature-cults, which latter were closely akin to
the pre-Christian Joshua or Jesus cults. "This," con-
cludes Professor Drews, "was the moment of Christian-
ity's birth as a religion of Paul." 1

To sum up: Professor Drews has himself stated his
position in the following terms: The Gospels do not
contain the history of an actual man, but only the myth
of the god-man Jesus clothed in an historical dress.
Further, such important, and for religious purposes sig-
nificant, events in the Gospels as the Baptism, the Lord's
Supper, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection of Jesus are
all borrowed by St. Paul from the cult-worship of the
mythical Jesus, being embodied Jn ancient and pre-
Christian systems of religious ritual.

Yet further: The "historical Jesus" of modern crit-
ical theology has now become so vague and doubtful a
figure in both religion and history that he can no longer
be regarded as the absolutely indispensable condition of
salvation. Doctor Drews likewise believes that his own
works are written in the true interests of religion, for
which ideas alone not personalities have value, and,
by reason of his convictions, that the forms of Christian-
ity which have hitherto prevailed are no longer sufficient
for modern needs. Not the historical Jesus, he urges, but
Christ as an idea as an idea of the divine humanity
must henceforth be the ground of religion. And he adds
that "when we can and will no longer believe on acci-

*We have here an example of the application of the three "moments"
of the Hegelian dialectic thesis, antithesis, synthesis ; see Hegel's Logic.

xx PREFACE

dental [ ! ] personalities, we can and must believe on
ideas." l

It is not our purpose here to deal with this complex
mass of crude theories, suppositions, and assumptions,
but we may, perhaps, in this place appropriately quote
the apposite remarks thereupon of Doctor A. Schweitzer
(Paul and His Interpreters, pp. 193 and 239): "In par-
ticular, these [mythical] works aim at getting hold of the
idea of a Greek redeemer-god who might serve as an
analogue to Jesus Christ. No figure of this designation
occurs in any myth or in any mystery religion; it is cre-
ated by a process of generalisation, abstraction, and re-
construction."

Again: "These writers make a rather extravagant use
of the privilege of standing outside the ranks of scien-
tific theology. Their imagination leaps with playful ele-
gance over obstacles of fact, and enables them to dis-
cover everywhere the pre-Christian Jesus whom their
souls desire, even in places where an ordinary intelli-
gence can find no trace of it." 2

This is true; and it is also true that any discussion of
a general nature which may be carried on with reference
to these "generalisations, abstractions, and reconstruc-
tions" is seldom a fruitful one. Let us, therefore, put the
results of the above mental operations to a more con-
crete test, viz., that of an actual comparative study in
detail. In other words, let us analyse and compare care-
fully the stories told by the evangelists with the mythic
episodes from which the former are said to be derived,
or which they are confidently stated to resemble. If
they fail in this final and supreme test, then we may
safely dismiss the whole theory of the mythical interpre-
tation of the Gospels, with its "generalisations, abstrac-

1 See the Berliner Religionsgesprach, 1910, pp. 94 /.; and cf. Die Christus-
mythe, p. xi.

2 See also Doctor F. C. Conybeare, The Historical Christ, p. 29.

PREFACE xxi

tions, and reconstructions," as an interesting but empty
dream. This is, indeed, the practical and only true
method of testing all theories in almost every depart-
ment of knowledge, and it is the one which the present
writer has endeavoured to set before his readers in the
following pages.

Further, the author wishes to express his great obliga-
tions and sincere thanks to a number of eminent scholars
who have kindly furnished him with expert information
upon various special or obscure points where his own
knowledge was either wanting or defective. Amongst
these the following gentlemen may be specially men-
tioned: Doctor E. M. Wallis Budge, keeper of the As-
syrian and Egyptian antiquities in the British Museum,
London; Doctor A. A. Macdonell, Boden professor of
Sanscrit in the University of Oxford; Doctor L. H.
Mills, professor of Zend philology in Oxford University;
and Doctor W. M. Flinders Petrie, F.R.S., F.B.A., Ed-
wards professor of Egyptology in University College,
London University. His friend the Reverend F. B. Alli-
son, M.A., F.R.A.S., formerly fellow of Sidney Sussex
College, Cambridge, and E. Walter Maunder, Esq.,
F.R.A.S., late superintendent of the Solar Department
in the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, also gave him
valuable assistance on astronomical questions, which he
acknowledges with gratitude.

Finally, the author's thanks are due to his son, Charles
E. A. Thorburn, for his kindness in typing the three
copies of the original manuscript which were required by
the conditions of the trust.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. MARY AND JOSEPH 3

II. THE ANNUNCIATION, CONCEPTION, AND BIRTH . . 24

III. THE NARRATIVES OF THE INFANCY AND CHILDHOOD 43

IV. JESUS. CHRIST. PRE-CHRISTIAN CHRIST AND JESUS

CULTS 63

V. BETHLEHEM. NAZARETH AND THE NAZAREAN.

GALILEE 89

VI. THE BAPTISM no

VII. THE TEMPTATION 133

VIII. THE TRANSFIGURATION 154

IX. THE ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM AND THE EXPULSION

OF THE TRADERS 167

X. THE EUCHARIST AND THE MYSTERY-CULTS . . . 178

XI. GETHSEMANE. THE BETRAYAL AND ARREST. THE

YOUNG MAN WHO FLED AWAY NAKED . . . 208

XII. THE TRIALS. PETER. PILATE. LITHOSTROTON-GAB-

BATHA. ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS 228

XIII. JUDAS ISCARIOT AND [JESUS?] BARABBAS . . . 248

XIV. THE MOCKERY OP JESUS. SIMON OF CYRENE. GOL-

GOTHA AND THE PHALLIC CONES. THE CROSS AND
ITS ASTRAL SIGNIFICANCE. THE CRUCIFIXION.
THE BURIAL IN THE NEW TOMB ...... 270

xxiii

xxlv CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

XV. THE DESCENSION TO HADES. THE RESURRECTION

AND ASCENSION TO HEAVEN 302

APPENDICES:

A. THE DATES OF THE BIRTH AND DEATH OF

JESUS CHRIST 331

B. AGNI AND AGNUS 335

c. THE "ASTRAL DRAMA" or THE CRUCIFIXION. 338

INDEX 347

THE MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION
OF THE GOSPELS

The Mythical Interpretation of
the Gospels

CHAPTER I

MARY AND JOSEPH

IT is an almost primary necessity of every theory of
a mythical interpretation of the Gospels to demonstrate
that Mary and Joseph are ancient deities, the former in
particular being identical with the mother-divinities of
the pagan nature-cults, who were worshipped under one
form or another, and under different names, by the vari-
ous nations and races which occupied the countries situ-
ated round about the eastern end of the Mediterranean
Sea. 1 We will, therefore, begin our study of this complex
question with the statements of this thesis as they are
set forth by two of the leading exponents of the theory,
and for the most part in their own words.

"The whole birth-story," writes Mr. J. M. Robertson
(Christianity and Mythology, p. 319), "is indisputably
late, and the whole action mythic; and the name [Mary]
is also to be presumed mythical. For this there is the
double reason that Mary, or Miriam, was already a
mythic name for both Jews and Gentiles. The Miriam
of Exodus is no more historical than Moses: like him
and Joshua she is to be reckoned an ancient deity evem-
erised, and the Arab tradition that she was the mother of
Joshua (= Jesus) raises an irremovable surmise that a

1 Similarly, the patriarch Joseph is regarded by Doctor Winckler and
others as a form of the sun-god.

3

4 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Mary, the mother of Jesus, may have been worshipped
in Syria long before our era."

But Mr. Robertson further continues: "It is not pos-
sible, from the existing data, to connect historically such
a cult with its congeners; but the mere analogy of names
and epithets goes far. The mother of Adonis, the slain
'Lord' of the great Syrian cult, is Myrrha; and Myrrha,
in one of her myths, is the weeping tree 1 from which the
babe Adonis is born. Again, Hermes, the Greek Logos,
has for mother Maia, whose name has further connex-
ion with Mary. In one myth Maia is the daughter of
Atlas (Apollod., Ill, 10, 2), thus doubling with Maira,
who has the same father (Paus., VIII, 48) and who, hav-
ing died a virgin (ibid., X, 30), was seen by Odysseus in
Hades. Mythologically, Maira is identified with the dog-
star, which is the star of Isis.

"Yet again, the name appears in the East as Maya, the
virgin mother of the Buddha, and it is remarkable that,
according to a Jewish legend, the name of the Egyptian
princess who found the babe Moses was Merris (Euseb.,
Prcep. Evan., IX, 27). The plot is still further thick-
ened by the fact that, as we learn from the monuments,
one of the daughters of Rameses II was named Men
(Brugsch., Egypt Under the Pharaohs, II, p. 117)."

Further: "In the matter of names, it is of some though
minor interest to recall that Demeter is associated in
Greek mythology with one Jasios, or Jasion, not as
mother but as lover (Od., V, 125; Hesiod, Tkeog., 960).
Jason, as we know, actually served as a Greek form of
the name Joshua, or Jesous (Jos., Ant., XII, 5, i); and
Jasion, who in one story is the founder of the famous
Samothracian mysteries (Preller, Griech. Myth., I, 667),
is, in the ordinary myth, slain by Zeus. But the partial
parallel of his name is of less importance than the possible
parallel of his mythical relation to the goddess-mother.

1 I. e., it exudes a resinous gum. See fffttipva. (Greek lexicon).

MARY AND JOSEPH 5

"In many if not all of the cults in which there figures
a nursing mother, it is found that her name signifies the
nurse, 1 or that becomes one of her epithets. Thus, Maia
stands for 'the nurse,' T/OO$O? (Porphyr., De Abstin., IV,
1 6); Mylitta means the child-bearing one (Bahr, Sym-
bolik des mosaisch. Cult., I, 436); both Demeter and Ar-
temis were styled child-rearers, and Isis was alternately
styled 'the nurse' and 'the mother' (Plut., De Is. et
Osir., 53, 56) . 2

"Now one of the most important details of the con-
fused legend in the Talmud concerning the pre-Christian
[? ] Jesus Ben Pandira, who is conjoined with Ben Stada, 3
is that the 'mother is in one place named Miriam Mag-
dala, Mary the nurse, or the hair-dresser (Jastrow, Diet,
of the Targ. and, the Midr. Lit., part 2, p. 213, 1888).
As Isis, too, plays the part of a hair-dresser (Plut., De
Is. et Osir., is), 4 it seems clear that we are dealing here
also with myth, not with biography. In the Gospels we
have Mary the Magdalene, that is, of the supposed place
Magdala, which Jesus in one text (Matt. 15 : 39, A. V.)
visits. But Magdala at most simply means ' a tower,' or
'high place' (the same root yielding the various senses of
nursing, rearing, and hair-dressing); and, in the revised
text, Magdala gives way to Magadan, thus disappear-

1 So (in Homer) /wtta applied, in familiar sense, to old women, "[mother."

2 Plutarch says (53) that Isis is the female principle of nature, and is,
therefore, styled by Plato the "Nurse" and "All-receiving"; but, by the
generality of mankind, the " One of numberless names." In 56 he further
remarks that Plato calls matter "mother" and "nurse," while idea is termed
" father." This is not quite the same thing as the above. Isis, however, was
a special form of the great Mater Nittrix, though it is not directly so stated
here.

3 It is highly uncertain whether these " Jesuses" are one and the same or
not. Mr. Robertson is making an assumption here.

4 Plutarch, again, says here that Isis, having come to Byblus, made friends
with the servants of the queen of that place by dressing their hair for them.
This is hardly being a professional hair-dresser, as implied above, and
savours somewhat of special pleading. Moreover, there is a confusion of
Marys.

6 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

ing entirely from the Gospels. There is no documentary
trace of it save as a citadel so named by Josephus.

"Mary Magdalene, finally, plays in the Gospels a
purely mythical part, that of one of the finders of the
risen Lord. The interpolated text in Luke (8 : 2) baldly
describing her as having seven devils cast out of her
by Jesus is equally remote from history; but it points
towards the probable mythic solution. Maria, the Mag-
dalene, who in the post-evangelical myth becomes a pen-
itent harlot, is probably cognate with the evemerised
Miriam of the Mosaic myth, who is morally possessed
by devils [ ! ], and is expressly punished for her sin before
being forgiven. Something else, evidently, has under-
lain the pseudo-historical tale; and the Talmudic refer-
ence, instead of being a fiction based on the scanty data
in the Gospels, is presumptively an echo of a mythic
tradition, which may be the real source of the Gospel
allusions. In Jewry the profession of hair-dressing seems
to have been identified with that of hetaira [courtesan],
the character ultimately ascribed in Christian legend to
Mary Magdalene."

Thus far Mr. Robertson. The remainder of his section
on the "Mythic Maries" deals chiefly with the rdle, in
which he thinks they figure in finding the risen Saviour,
and which, in his view, is comparable to the parts played
by the various representatives of the mother-goddess.

This thesis of Mr. Robertson is practically accepted in
its entirety by Professor Drews, who says (The Christ
Myth, p. 239): "That the parents of Jesus were called
Joseph and Mary, and that his father was a carpenter,
were determined by tradition." And, again, he writes
(ibid., pp. 116 and 117) : "Mary, the mother of Jesus, was
a goddess. Under the name of Maya she is the mother
of Agni. 1 . . . She appears, under the same name, as

1 The Vedic fire-god. He was born, according to the Yajur-Veda, from
the mouth of a divine being (Prajapati), Muir, Sanscrit Texts, 2d ed., I, p. 16.

MARY AND JOSEPH 7

the mother of Buddha, as well as of the Greek Hermes.
She is identical with Maira (Msera), as, according to
Pausanias (VIII, 12, 48), the Pleiad Maia, the wife of
Hephaistos, was called. 1 She appears among the Per-
sians as the 'virgin' mother of Mithras. As Myrrha, she
is the mother of the Syrian Adonis; as Semiramis, mother
of the Babylonian Ninus (Marduk). In the Arabic leg-
end she appears under the name of Mirzam, as mother
of the mythical saviour, Joshua, who was so closely re-
lated to Moses; and, according to Eusebius, Merris was
the name of the Egyptian princess who found Moses in a
basket and became his foster-mother."

Finally, in The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus
(1912), p. 164, Doctor Drews complains that Weiss ? is
unable to recognise in Mary Magdalene and the other
Marys at the cross and the grave of the Saviour the
Indian, Asiatic, and Egyptian mother of the gods the
Maia, Mariamma, or Maritala, as the mother of Krishna
is called, the Mariana of Mariandynium (Bithynia),
Mandane, the mother of the Messiah, Cyrus (Isai'4Jtjp
45 : i), the "great mother" of Pessinunt, 3 the sorrowing
Semiramis, Miriam, Merris/ Myrrha, Maira (Msera), and
Maia, "beloved of her son," as the more enlightened
mythical school have done.

We have given in the above extracts, as far as possi-
ble, the ipsissima verba* of these writers in order to pre-
clude any possibility of a misstatement of their views and

1 Drews points out (The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, p. 169, note 2)
that Augustus was called the "World Saviour," and referred to by Horace
as Maia's winged child. But the former title is used only in a secular sense
saviour of the world from anarchy and bloodshed; and the latter is
merely a fulsome compliment paid by Horace. This really shows that his-
torical personages were thus complimented. His actual mother was Atia,
niece to Julius Caesar, as Horace knew very well. But see also Suetonius,
Div. Aug., 0.4; Dio Cassius, XLV, i, 2.

* In his Jesus von Nazareth: Mythus oder Geschkhte?

* See The Christ Myth, pp. 53 and 78.

* The last two from authorised translations.

8 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

meaning. We will now proceed to examine, as concisely
as may be, these "second-hand statements," as they are
truly termed by Doctor Cheyne, who adds: "Even if they
were always correct, and had no need of verification, the
inferences are impossible." 1

It will have been gathered from these quotations that
both Mr. Robertson and Doctor Drews, admitting the-
silence of history upon these points, very largely base
their hypothetical identifications of all the Marys with
the mother-goddesses upon analogy and the etymologies
of their numerous local appellations. This is within
limits justifiable, and a salutary check upon wild specu-
lation; let us, therefore, in the present chapter apply
this important test, so far as it is applicable, and see what
results we get from it.

The Goddess-Mothers

Speaking broadly and generally, it may be affirmed that
in the various localised forms of the goddess-mother the
root ma ("bring forth") forms part of the name. This
is especially evident in that very primitive form, Ammo?
(Maj, the Hittite name of the mother. But this root
certainly cannot be found in all the names enumerated
by Professor Drews, who, along with Mr. Robertson,
appears to think that because an Oriental female name
begins with M, or contains a syllable in which that con-
sonant forms the initial letter, it is a sure indication that
we are dealing with some form of the universal mother. 3

1 See his review of The Christ Myth in the Hibbert Journal, April, 1911,
p. 60.

2 Probably akin to Assyr., alittu, " the begetting one," fern. part, of aladu,
"to give birth." Thus we get the form mulitta (of. Herod., I, 199) from
$alid-tu, the m reproducing the semi-vowel v and a becoming u through the
influence of the labial m.

3 It will be impossible here to take all these names in detail. Amongst
the striking exceptions to the rule laid down by Drews we may mention
Mandane. According to Doctor Mills, professor of Zend philology at Ox-
ford, Mandane may be derived from any of the following: (i) mad (cf.

MARY, OR MARIAM (MIRIAM) 9

Mary, or Mariam (Miriam)

-But it is when we turn to the alleged connexion of the
name "Mary" ("Mariana") with that of the goddess-
mothers that this theory is seen to be wholly untrue to
fact.

- With regard to the derivation and meaning of the
Hebrew name "Mariam," Doctor Schmiedel says (Enc.
Bib., art. "Mary," sec. i): "There are but two alterna-
tive roots that can be seriously considered, HID, 'to be
rebellious,' and KTO, 'to be fat.' The K of the X*lD might
before the a of -am pass into *>, which in the case of HID
is already the third consonant. The termination -dm
indicates substantives as well as adjectives, and is espe-
cially common in the case of proper names. Mariam,
then, might mean either 'the rebellious' (cf. Num. 12 :
1-15), or 'the corpulent.'"

Finally, he decides in favour of the latter meaning as
according excellently with the whole analogy of Semitic
names; it is associated, he adds, with the Semitic idea
of beauty.

Doctor Boyd, on the other hand, thinks (Hastings'
D. B., vol. I, art. "Miriam") that the name "is probably
of Egyptian derivation," and explains it thus: Miriam =
mer Amon (Amun), "beloved of Amon" 1 an explana-
tion equally remote with that of Doctor Schmiedel from
the one sought to be established by the mythicists. It
is clear, therefore, that in the name Mary there is abso-
lutely no trace of a meaning "begetter," or "nursing
mother," which is often found in the names of the mother-
goddess.

Sansc., mad and mand), " to delight," " the winsome one." (2) man + dha,
"the prudent (i. e., "exercising") mind." (3) A form from mana, "house,"
i. e., manadha, "house-mistress." There can be but little doubt that she
is an historical character.

1 Similarly, Moses has been connected with mes, mestt, " son." Cf. Ra-
mesu (Rameses), " son of Ra," etc. (so Sayce).

10 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Mr. Robertson, however, at this point attempts to
affiliate directly the Mariam (Mary) of the Gospel story
with the Miriam of Exodus, who is, he adds with dog-
matic self-confidence, "no more historical than Moses."
This latter theory has, it is true, been somewhat fash-
ionable of late, and it is zealously advocated by Doctor
Hugo Winckler in his Geschichte Israels in Einzendarstel-
lungen (1900). But, after all, it is still a mere hypothe-
sis, and very far from being an established fact upon
which an argument may be based. In short, the entire
non-historicity of both Miriam and Moses has yet to be
proved. Yet, he insists: "She is to be reckoned an an-
cient deity evemerised." Men, not deities we may re-
mark here are evemerised by being raised to the rank
of gods. Very probably there has been some evemerism
at work here, and Moses and Miriam were subsequently
deified by the polytheistic Arabians and other neigh-
bouring races. This, however, would be a more con-
clusive argument for their historicity, though of course
it would not prove that various mythic stories had not
gathered round them and their exploits. In any case,
Mr. Robertson's "irremovable surmise" that Mary the
mother of Jesus "may [he is less dogmatic here !] have
been worshipped in Syria as a form of the goddess-mother,
long before our era," is nothing but a pure guess unsub-
stantiated by any admitted facts.

We may at this point deal with Mr. Robertson's ref-
erence to the Talmud in connexion with this question.
There is an evident confusion in this work between Mary
the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and the im-
putation implied in the term "hair-dresser" was no doubt
connected with the birth-slanders of which Origen (Cont.
Cels., I, 25, 32) speaks.

Now Mary Magdalene is said (Luke 8 : 2) to have been
formerly possessed of "seven demons." But the demoni-
acal possession of a woman would not of necessity imply

MARY, OR MARIAM (MIRIAM) 11

harlotry as one of its effects. "Possession" frequently
resulted in nothing worse than a morose disposition and
violent and mischievous acts (cf. Matt. 8 : 28).

Again, Miriam (Mariam) is stated (Num. 12 : 10; cf.
Deut. 24 : 9) to have been smitten with leprosy for con-
tempt of Moses. But this "contempt" in no way indi-
cates "moral possession by devils." It is true that in
those times, and long previously, disease of all kinds was
commonly attributed to malicious demons, and in Baby-
lonian and other literature many formula exist for the
expulsion of these intruders. But the act is referred by
the writers of both Numbers and Deuteronomy to Jah-
veh,- and the treatment of that disease was not exorcistic
(see Lev. 13 and 14). Moreover, Miriam's leprosy (^J?"l^)
seems to have been only some transient skin affection,
simulating perhaps the graver disease, and not the true
leprosy (elephantiasis Grcecorum). Neither is there any
evident connexion between the story of Miriam and the
story of the Magdalene; still less is there any with that
of Mary the mother of Jesus. The "myths" if myths
they be are apparently quite unconnected.

Again, Mr. Robertson's contention that the root of
the Hebrew word 7^3D (Migdal, "tower"), from which
Magdala is commonly derived, and which yields also the
various senses of "nursing" ("rearing"), and especially
"hair-dressing," connects Mary Magdalene (who thus
becomes a reduplication of Mary the mother of Jesus)
with the pagan goddess-mother, is founded upon the
slenderest possible grounds, and really proves nothing.
It is true that Migdal has been more or less plausibly
derived from a root ^13, which has various meanings.
Amongst these, in the Piel voice, it signifies intensively
"to cause or take care that anything shall grow," etc.;
hence "to nourish," "to cultivate," "to bring up chil-
dren" (II Kings 10 : 6; Isaiah i : 2; 23 : 4); "to train the
hair" (Num. 6:5), i. e., not to cut it. But there is great

12 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

uncertainty here. Apart from doubt as to the real der-
ivation, Magadan is a better reading. This, however, has
been conjectured to be a "possible corruption of an orig-
inal Magdala." It is really impossible to frame any trust-
worthy hypothesis upon such meagre data. And in any
case the existence of a town whatever the derivation
and meaning of its name may be called Magdala is
amply proved by its mention in the Jerusalem Talmud
CErubln, 5, i) which places it within a Sabbath day's
journey of Tiberias. The same authority (Ta'anith, 4, 8)
states that it was a place of some wealth, and in the
Midrash 'Ekkah, 2, 2, it is said to have been destroyed
"because of licentiousness," which statement may have
some connexion with the sinister post-evangelical repu-
tation of Mary Magdalene.

It is much more probable, therefore, that this Mary
derived her designation from the town of her origin than
from any practise of hair-dressing, of which there is no
trace in Christian tradition.

Neither is there any evidence for the theory of her iden-
tity with Mary the mother of the Lord further than the
confusion between them which is shown in the Talmud;
nor for the concomitant idea of her name indicating
"begetting" or "nursing," for, as we have already shown,
of this the name Mary (Mariam) contains no trace
whatever. In short, Mr. Robertson's excursion into
philology is a very precarious one, and proves nothing.
Probability points to the reputation of the town in Jew-
ish tradition as having later adversely affected that of
its townswoman, 1 and to a Talmudic misstatement in-
advertent or deliberate as having helped to formulate
the confused and scurrilous birth-stories so common in
the Jewish synagogues of the second century.

1 7. e., the "seven demons" were supposed to cause licentiousness of life.
But she is an &papTu\6s, not a irdpirq (Luke 7 : 37).

THE "VIRGINITY" OF THE GODDESS-MOTHERS 13

The "Virginity" of the Goddess-Mothers

In order to understand rightly the term "virgin" as
used in mythical literature, it must be remembered that
it means no more than that the goddess in question had
no recognised male partner, or, as Doctor Cheyne euphe-
mistically states it (Bib. Probs., p. 75), that she was not
"bound by the marriage-tie." * The mythical idea was
wholly sexual and "unmoral." In the Gospels, on the
contrary, the idea is purely parthenogenetic and has no
implications of license.

In addition, however, to overlooking this important
and fundamental distinction, Professor Drews makes vari-
ous assumptions and falls into divers errors in connex-
ion with several of his "mythic mothers." Thus, he
refers to Maera as "the virgin mother of Mithra." Now
the actual Mithra-myth is lost; we gather, however,
from other sources that Mithra was variously described
as having sprung from the incestuous intercourse of
Ahura-Mazda with his own mother, and as being the
ordinary offspring of a common mortal.

Moreover, the extant Mithraic sculptures depict the
god as originating from a rock (Petra genetrix) at birth
(Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Try., 70). Furthermore, Mr.
Robertson's assertion (Pagan Christs, p. 339) that "the
virginity" of the mother of Mithra was admitted by cer-

1 Franckh says emphatically ("Geburtsgesch. Jes. Chr. im Lichte der altori-
entalisch. Weltansch," Philostia, 1907, pp. 213 /.): "None of these person-
ages that play the part of a mother-goddess is thought of as a virgin. . . .
As mother-goddess Ishtar has no male god who permanently corresponds to
her.' This is the reason why she is vaguely spoken of as virgin Ishtar." In
the Babylonian liturgies, as well as in the incantations, the "divine harlot"
Lilitu (Heb., n^h-h") is especially described as a virgin (Bdbyloniaca, IV, 188,
4/., translated by S. Langdon). We also meet with the term "virgin-har-
lot" (iS-ta-ri-tum). See Haupt, Akkadiscke und Sumerische Keilschrifitexfe,
126. 18. According to Epiphanius (Hcsr., LI) the mother of Dusares (the
N. Arab, equivalent for Tammuz, etc.) was adored as " the Virgin "
s, K6pij), while her son was worshipped as fj.ovoyevT)s TOV Ae<rirbrov.

14 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

tain Christian bishops of Armenia in the fourth and fifth
centuries A. D. is wholly incorrect. The Armenian his-
torian Elisaeus says (Concerning the Vardans and the Ar-
menian War, II, 53, 57) the bishops stated that "The
god Mithra was born of a woman"; and again: "The
god Mithra was incestuously born of a mortal mother."
A similar error is perpetuated by Doctor Drews when
he represents (The Christ Myth, p. 39) Saoshyant as the
"virgin's son." According to the mythic story the "seed"
of Zarathustra was miraculously preserved in water in
which three maidens bathed at different times. Each
of them in succession became pregnant in consequence,
and they severally afterwards gave birth to Saoshyant
and his two precursors. It is in the highest degree absurd
to classify stories of this type as "virgin births" in the
Biblical sense of the term. But the most glaring error
committed by him is one into which he falls in common
with many other modern writers. It is a defiance of all
ancient authority to term the mother of the Buddha
"the virgin Maya." Not only the older Pali texts, but
the Chinese version of the Abhinishkramana Sutra, and
even the later Lalita vistara, 1 of the Northern or Tibetan
canon, plainly state that Maya was a married woman
and lived with her husband after the usual manner. A
similar remark applies to the statement that "the virgin
mother of Krishna" was named "Mariamma," or "Mari-
tala." The Puranas (circ. 1000 A. D.), from which we
derive our principal knowledge of the family affairs of
Krishna, affirm that the name of his mother was Devaki,
and that so far from being a "virgin" she had had, be-
fore the birth of Krishna, seven children by her husband
Vasudeva.

1 A life of the Buddha.

THE VIRGIN OF THE ZODIAC .15

The Virgin of the Zodiac

Finally, the attempt made by several German scholars
to identify or connect Mary the mother of Jesus with
the "Virgin" of the zodiac is equally futile. This astral
concept, if it be a reflection of the great mother-goddess
idea, has a very different connotation from the Christian
use of the word "virgin" (Tra/aflezw), as we have already
shown.

Again, when Jeremias (Babylonisches, p. 48) and Cheyne
(Bib. Probs., pp. 242 /.) point out that Mary, accord-
ing to Epiphanius (fourth century A. D.), was at a
later period identified with the mother-goddess, Pro-
fessor Carl Clemen very properly replies that this fact
proves nothing for earlier times. "Still less," he adds,
"does the fact which the former scholar adduces (follow-
ing Dupuis), viz., that on a side door of Notre Dame,
in Paris, Mary is associated with the signs of the zo-
diac" (Prim,. Christ, and Its Non-Jewish Sources, p. 292,
note g). 1 - ~

A consideration of the various facts set forth in the
above analysis of this question point, we think, very
strongly to the following conclusions upon the matter:
(i) That Mary the mother of Jesus has no connexion
whatever, linguistically or analogically, with the great
mother-goddess of the ancient world. (2) That the term
"virgin" is applied to her in quite a different sense to that
which it bore in relation to the various local representa-
tives \ of the mother-goddess. Further, this last-named
conclusion is supported by the additional fact that no-
where in the New Testament is Mary the mother of Jesus
regarded as in any sense divine (cf. Mark 3 : 33 and 34).
This fact alone, indeed, would form the greatest possible

1 According to Jensen (Die Kosmol. der Babylonier, p. 67) the earlier
Babylonians, and the Eastern nations generally, had no such name as "Vir-
gin" for the sign which was later known as Virgo.

16 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

bar to any identification of her with the pagan goddess-
mothers, which forms the basis of the mythical theory.

Joseph

"The myth of Joseph," writes Mr. Robertson (Chris-
tianity and Mythology, pp. 236 /.), "arose as a real acces-
sory to the cult [of the mother]. Once introduced, he
would naturally figure as an elderly man, not only in the
interests of the virgin birth,, but in terms of the Hebrew
precedent adopted in the myth of the parentage of John
the Baptist." 1 And then he proceeds to state that this,
together with the story of "the leading of the laden ass by
Joseph in the journey of the 'holy family,' was suggested
by old religious ceremonial." This ceremonial turns out
to be a sacred procession in the cult of Isis, as described
by Apuleius (Metamorphoses, book XI), wherein there
figures "a feeble old man leading an ass." 3 The great
Isiac cult, he argues, would be unlikely to adopt such an
episode from a new system like Christianity. The an-
tiquity of this symbolism may next be traced to Plu-
tarch's statement (De Is. et Osir., 32) that "in the fore-
court of the temple of the goddess at Sais there were
sculptured a child, an old man, and some animal figures."
Lastly: "The Egyptians held that all things came from
Saturn (ibid., 59), or a similar Egyptian god, who signi-
fied at once time and the Nile (ibid., 32), and was al-
ways figured as aged." In short, "the Christian system
is a patchwork of a hundred suggestions drawn from
pagan art and ritual usage."

But Mr. Robertson has a further and more important
source. Let us hear him patiently a little further (Chris-

1 Referring here to the Hist, of Joseph the Carpenter, IV and VII, and the
Gospel of the Birth of Mary, VIII. "This is the view," he adds, "of Chris-
tian tradition."

2 Apuleius says: "An ass, on which wings were glued, and which walked
near a feeble old man." "These were supposed to represent Pegasus and
Bellerophon" (Budge, Osiris, etc., vol. II, p. 297).

JOSEPH 17

tianity and Mythology, pp. 326 f.}: "The first presump-
tion of the early Judaic myth-makers evidently was to
present the Messiah as Ben David, son of the hero-king,
himself clothed about with myth, like Cyrus. For this
purpose were framed the two mythic genealogies. But
it so happened," he proceeds, "that the Palestinian
tradition demanded a Messias Ben Joseph a descend-
ant of the mythic patriarch as well as the Messias Ben
David." He declines to enter into the origin of the for-
mer doctrine, which, he says, "suggests a partial revival
of the ancient adoration of the god Joseph, as well as
that of the god Daoud [sic], though it may have been,"
he concludes, "a tribal matter."

We have not space to follow out in further and mi-
nute detail this argument, which the reader will find in
Mr. Robertson's work, but we will here merely add his
summary taken from Fragments of a Samaritan Targum
(Nutt, 1874), p. 70, where the author writes: "Messiah
the son of Joseph will come before Messiah the son of
David, will assemble the ten tribes in Galilee and lead
them to Jerusalem; but will at last perish in battle
against Gog and Magog for the sins of Jeroboam." This
passage, however, he adds, "overlooks the circumstance
that in two Talmudic passages the Messiah Ben David
is identified with the Messiah Ben Joseph, or, as he is
styled in one case, Ben Ephraim." 1

Professor Drews, to whom we will now turn, in gen-
eral accepts the above presentation of the case and adds
various details of his own. Thus, he says (The Christ
Myth, pp. 115-117): "As is well known, Jesus, too [like
Agni], had three fathers [sic], viz., his heavenly Father
Jahwe, the Holy Spirit, and also his earthly father
Joseph. The latter is also a workmaster, artisan, or car-
References to Tract. Succa, folio 52, i; Zohar Chadash, folio 45, i; and
Pesikta, folio 62, quoted by F. H. Reichardt, Relation of the Jewish Chris-
tians to the Jews (1884), pp. 37 and 38.

18 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

penter, as the word tekton indicates. 1 Similarly, Kiny-
ras, the father of Adonis, is said to have been some
kind of artisan, a smith or carpenter. That is to say,
he is supposed to have invented the hammer and the
lever, and roofing as well as mining. In Homer he ap-
pears as the maker of the ingenious coat of mail which
Agamemnon received from him as a guest-friend (II.,
XI, 20; cf. Movers, Die Phon., 242, s.). The father of
Hermes is also an artisan." And in a foot-note he adds
(p. 116): "According to the Arabian legend, Father
Abraham, also, who plays the part of a saviour [ ! ],
was, under the name of Thare 2 [? Terah], a skilful mas-
ter-workman, understanding how to cut arrows from
any wood, and being especially occupied with the prep-
aration of idols (Sepp, Das Held. u. dess. Bedeut. fur das
Christent., 1853, III, 82)."

Finally, he asserts that "Joseph, as we have already
seen, was originally a god . . ."; and "In reality, the
whole of the family and home life of the Messiah, Jesus,
took place among the gods. It was only reduced to
that of a human being in lowly circumstances by the
fact that Paul described the descent of the Messiah upon
the earth as an assumption of poverty and a relinquish-
ment of his heavenly splendour (II Cor. 8 : 9). Hence"
and this is the crucial point in the whole of Drews's
hypothesis "when the myth was transformed into his-
tory, 3 Christ was turned into a poor man in the economic
sense of the word, while Joseph, the divine artificer, and
father of the sun [ ! ], became an ordinary carpenter."

We will now subject this complex mass of confident

1 All clean handicrafts were looked upon by the Jews as honourable occu-
pations. Even the high priest might be a carpenter. This is quite a Sem-
itic view.

2 See Koran (Sale's translation), pp. 95, 96, and notes. In Jewish records
Terah is the father of Abraham. Arab traditions are very inaccurate and
untrustworthy.

3 Italics ours.

JOSEPH 19

assertions, unproved theories, and plausible identifica-
tions to as detailed an analysis as is here possible.

It would be interesting to learn, in the first place, why
the myth of Joseph arose as a real accessory to the cult
[of a olivine and virgin mother]. At the outset it is for-
eign to the pagan myths, and his presence in a story of
that type would rather tend to discount it. But that
is the reason, Mr. Robertson thinks, why he must be
"elderly." The canonical Gospels, however, which con-
tain by far the oldest version of the story, nowhere de-
scribe, or appear to regard, him as being elderly. Mat-
thew, indeed (i : 18, 25 in the latter verse especially),
indirectly negatives that view. It is only in the very late
Apocryphs (and in popular Christian art, derived from
them) that Joseph is so depicted. And the motive for
this newer view is plain. The church had then become
less Jewish, and the normal Hebrew ideal of faithful
wedlock had largely given place to an alien and ultra-
ascetic Gentilism in which perpetual virginity was held
up as the model virtue for both men and women. This,
however, was really in flat contradiction to the teaching
of the earliest church, as well as that of the synoptic
Gospels, which were the expression and the outcome of it.

But having got the elderly man (from the late and un-
canonical gospels), Mr. Robertson proceeds to make the
most of him. He is (apparently) identified with the
feeble old man "leading an ass" 1 in the sacred proces-
sion of Isis, described by Apuleius in his Metamorphoses.
How, may we ask, does Mr. Robertson know this?
Apuleius does not explain the symbolism of this proces-
sion, and Plutarch, to whom Mr. Robertson would seem
to appeal, merely says that in the court of the temple
at Sais there were graven figures of "a child and an old
man," together with those of a hawk, a fish, and a hip-

1 For the symbolism of the ass, see Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians,
val II, pp. 246 and 367.

20 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

popotamus, and adds that the two first-named stood for
"the beginning and end of life." Here we certainly get
the elderly man (together with what Plutarch thought
he symbolised) ; but what both of these examples have to
do with the story of Joseph it is impossible to see. Ap-
parently Mr. Robertson thinks that because an old man
and a donkey figure, in some connexion or other, in a
pagan cult, this fact constitutes an origin or source for
either the story of the journey of Joseph to Bethlehem,
or perhaps that of his subsequent flight with Mary and
the Child upon an ass to Egypt. This connexion here, as
the reader will see, is both highly obscure and extremely
precarious.

The parallel suggested by the aged Zacharias is more
plausible. But even here the circumstances and details
are very different. Both Zacharias and Elisabeth are
aged married people, who, it would seem, greatly desired
a son, because barrenness was a subject of reproach
amongst the Jews as a mark of God's displeasure. More-
over, the Matthaean and Lucan stories came from differ-
ent sources, 1 and the Lucan is later. In any case, it is
most unlikely that it has influenced the story of Mat-
thew or in any way suggested an elderly Joseph as an
accessory to the virginal (parthenogenetic) conception of
Mary. The whole of Mr. Robertson's argument here, in
short, is nil ad rem it is beside the mark whether these
stories are in any way historical or not.

As regards the genealogies, it will be impossible here
to deal with them in any detail. But we may advert to
two important points which tend to throw some light
upon them. Mr. Robertson has pronounced them both
to be, like the birth-stories, mythic, late, and artificially
concocted in support of the tradition of a future Messias
Ben David.

It so happens, however, that in the Jerusalem Talmud

1 This is shown, inter alia, by its difference of treatment and standpoint.

JOSEPH 21

(Miskna, Jabamoth, 490) there is a mention of an official
record of the birth of Jesus, with apparently a reference
to some genealogy. It runs thus: "Simeon ben-Azzai 1
has said: I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies;
therein was written that 'So and So' 2 is an illegitimate
son of a married woman (mamser) "

Now, it is well known that very soon after the fall of
Jerusalem (A. D. 70) and the destruction of the Jewish
state the interest in the Davidic descent of the Messiah
rapidly declined; to invent such documents, therefore,
after that date, would have been ill-timed and practically
useless. It may also be suggested that our present gen-
ealogies seem to be designed rather with a view to trac-
ing the descent of Jesus respectively from Abraham,
"the Father of the Jewish race," and from Adam, "the
father of all men." But the genealogy of the Messiah
was, in any case, more a matter of interest to the Jew
than to the Gentile. Our present lists, too, are very
artificial documents, and show signs of redaction and
adaptation.

Finally, as to Mr. Robertson's theory of a rival, and
perhaps contemporary, Messias Ben Joseph, it must suf-
fice here to reply in the words of Doctor Cheyne (Enc.
Bib., art. "Messiah," sec. 9): "The developed form of
this idea is almost certainly a product of the polemic
with Christianity in which the rabbins were hard pressed
by arguments from passages, which their own exegesis
admitted to be Messianic."

There is certainly, we may add, no evidence of its ex-
istence until after the time of Christ. That the Samar-
itans, after their rejection by the Jews (Ezra 4:3), may
have hoped for a non- Jewish Messiah is another matter,

1 Flourished end of first century A. D.

2 Or " that man," a common Talmudic and cryptic reference to Jesus, used
to avoid suppression by the Christian censor. Herod I is said (Eusebius,
H. E., I, 7; cf. Talmud, Pesachim, 6zb), to have burnt all genealogical reg-
isters in order to conceal traces of his humble birth.

22 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

and not improbable. At the same time, the Samaritan
doctrine of the Taheb ("he who returns," or "he who re-
stores") is founded entirely upon Deut. 18 : 15, where it
has no Messianic application whatever. Moreover, in the
Gospels, Joseph is not a rival Messiah but the foster-father
of the Messias Ben David (Jesus).

The additional and special points added to this argu-
ment by Professor Drews must be briefly noticed. The
comparison which he draws with Agni and his "three
fathers" 1 is almost too absurd to be taken seriously.
The reference, in the case of Agni, is to his three succes-
sive births a concept wholly different from the one with
which we are dealing here. Jahveh, too, in the Gospels,
is called the Father of Jesus, especially in the sense of
source or origin of his divine nature (n?77^ eor^ro?).
Joseph is placed in the capacity of foster-father and
guardian of the young Child and his mother. The Holy
Spirit alone is regarded by "Matthew" as bringing about
the conception of Jesus Christ.

As to Kinyras, he is stated to have been a son of
Apollo, and a king of Cyprus, as well as priest of the
Paphian Aphrodite. But Homer says distinctly that
Kinyras, "the man (or 'god') of the harp," gave the breast-
plate to (not made it for) Agamemnon. 2 This would
seem to indicate that he was not considered by Homer
to be an artisan of any kind, and therefore not at all
comparable with Joseph, the carpenter. 3 The real dif-
ficulty, in regard to Joseph, lies in none of the points
noticed above. It arises rather out of the meagre refer-

1 Savitar (sky), Tvashtar (smith), and Matarishvan (wind-god).

2 d&priKa irepl arijOeffffiv eSvvev
rbv irort ol Kivtiprjs S&ice l-etvffiov elvai.

II., XI, 20.

3 The concepts underlying the Greek god Hermes, next referred to by
Drews, are too complex and difficult for treatment here. If, however, his
nature and character are carefully studied in the light of comparative myth-
ology, it will be seen that he represents no real parallel whatever with Jesus,
as the son of an "artisan."

JOSEPH 23

ence that is made to him in the New Testament gener-
ally, and, above all, from the fact that he is not even
named in the earliest Gospel (Mark). He is mentioned
just fourteen times in all, and only by Matthew and
Luke. 1 Mark, having no birth-story, does not allude to
him, though this does not necessarily imply, as some
critics would have it, that he knew nothing of Joseph.
Certainly, had Mark been historicising a myth, he must
have heard of a birth-story of some kind, and, in that
case, he would probably have tried his hand at a trans-
position of it into history.

Whatever conclusion, therefore, we may reach with
regard to the nature of these narratives, which are not
so late in their origin as Mr. Robertson confidently as-
sumes, it will be well to remember the caution of Doctor
Cheyne (a critic who, as it is well known, is strongly dis-
posed to discount a great deal for myth) when he says
(Rnc. Bib., art. "Joseph") : "It would, however, be hasty
to assert that there is no element of truth in the expres-
sion, 'Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus, who is called the Christ (Matt, i : i6).'" 2

1 I. e., in Matt, i and 2 seven times, in Luke 1-4 also seven times, the ref-
erences in both cases being in the introductory sections of the two Gospels.
The Sin. Palimp, has " son of Joseph" (for " carpenter's son") in Matt. 13 :
55. The phrase in ia (Baba Bathra, 736), however, simply means " a car-
penter," inai nSj and it has been suggested that, as used hi the tradition, it
may mean no more than this (see Enc. Bib., art. "Joseph," 9).

2 Doctor Cheyne suggests, in the above article, that " Jesus, son of Joseph,"
may mean Jesus a member of the house [clan] of Joseph (Zech. 10 : 6).

CHAPTER II

THE ANNUNCIATION, CONCEPTION, AND BIRTH

The Annunciation and Conception

THE narratives describing the annunciations to Mary
and Elisabeth, the nature of the conception of Jesus and
his birth at Bethlehem have commonly been wholly
ruled out of history not merely by the mythicists but
also by many scholars who frankly accept an historical
Jesus. The latter, while holding the undoubted histo-
ricity of Jesus, have been accustomed to regard Matt,
i : 1 6-2 and Luke i and 2 as popular stories relating to
an actual man which have undergone in places a super-
naturalising modification at the hands of pious and well-
meaning, but ill-informed, copyists; 1 whereas the for-
mer, who regard the person of the Jesus set forth in the
Gospels as purely mythical, have looked upon these rec-
ords as substantially variants of well-known myths con-
taining no substratum whatever of historical fact. The
birth-stories, they assert, are nothing but old myths,
and as such have a meaning, though this meaning is not
historical; it is connected with an explanation of the
universe, and the gods and mankind. 2

1 E. g., Matt, i : 16 is said to have had an original reading: "And Joseph
begat Jesus, who is called Christ" ('Iw<r};0 S 4y4wi]ffe 'Iijcrovv rbv Xeyifyte-
vov XptffTdv), which was altered to the various readings now found in the
MSS.; Luke i : 34 and 35, and also the " as supposed" (<bs tvonlero)*Qf 3 : 23,
are later interpolations in the interests of a supernatural birth. The present
writer has discussed these questions at considerable length in a former work
(A Critical Examination of the Evidences for the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth,
1908), to which the reader is referred for details.

2 Dupuis (1742-1809 A. D.) is the real "father" of the more modem form
of mythicism. See L' origins de tons Us cultes (1794).

24

THE ANNUNCIATION AND CONCEPTION 25

The criticism of Strauss dealing with the annunciations
and the conception, which we will take first, is, however,
less concerned with any explanation. It is chiefly con-
centrated on the impossibility of the supernatural char-
acter commonly ascribed to these two events. It may
be summed up as follows: The announcement to the
priest Zacharias, by the angel Gabriel, that a son will be
born to him, is described as " the first point which shocks
all modern conceptions" (The Life of Jesus, English trans-
lation, 1838, chap, i, p. 98). By this he means that the
thought of the age rejects " the reality of angels," who
were unquestionably accepted by the Jews (with the
exception of the Sadducees) and the early Christians as
actual beings existent in a spiritual world, but also oc-
casionally manifesting themselves in this material sphere.
He finds, too, the "dumbness" which fell upon Zacharias
"unreasonable," and the other details of the vision incon-
sistent and incredible. The previous proposals of Paulus
to rationalise these stories are also rejected. 1

Similar objections are taken to the story of the annun-
ciation to Mary. Moreover, the accounts of Matthew
and Luke are, in several respects, held to be mutually
inconsistent and even contradictory. Thus: (i) in the
former the "apparition" is merely an "angel of the Lord"
(0776X0? Kvpfov); in Luke he is specifically called "the
angel Gabriel" (o cfyyeXo? FayS/at^X); (2) this angel ap-
pears to Joseph in Matthew; 'to Mary in Luke; (3) in
Matthew the appearance takes place in a dream; in
Luke it occurs in the wakeful state; (4) in Matthew the
communication is made after pregnancy; in Luke before
it; (5) according to Matthew its object was to tranquil-
lise Joseph; according to Luke it was to anticipate all

1 Paulus (1761-1851) has rationalised the apparition in Matthew as a
natural dream, while the appearance to Mary (recorded in Luke), he
thought, was that of some human being who announced what was a very
probable event the birth of a son. A recent work (1915) on the subject
is The Virgin Birth of Jesus in the New Testament, G. H. Box, M.A.

26 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

offense by a preliminary announcement to Mary (chap.
3, pp. 141 and 142) .*

As regards the actual conception, Strauss freely ad-
mits (chap. 3, pp. 156 and 157) that "the expression of
Matthew, 'that which is conceived in her is of the Holy
Ghost,' and the word 'overshadow' 2 employed by Luke,
clearly puts divine virtue in the place of the fecundating
principle . . . nevertheless" he maintains that "the seri-
ous difficulties which surround it scarcely allow us to fol-
low out that idea." 3

The chief difficulty in the narrative, however, is
summed up on the same page (157) in the following
sentence: "It is physiologically certain/' says Strauss,
"that the concourse of two human bodies, of different
sexes, is necessary to generate and develop the germ of
a new human being." Furthermore, it [the partheno-
genetic birth] would involve the suspension of a natural
law; "but to suspend a natural law, established by him-
self, God could not have a motive sufficient to show

1 It is more strictly correct to say that the Matthsean and Lucan narra-
tives here are intended by their compilers to be complementary, Luke deal-
ing generally with the incidents of the annunciation and conception from
a different standpoint, and also, in general, inserting much that Matthew
omits.

2 Doctor F. C. Conybeare (Myth, Magic and Morals, 1909, pp. 204 and
205), while admitting that the word ^rurndfu ("overshadow") is generally
interpreted as signifying an impregnation [ ! ] of the Virgin by the Holy
Spirit [though in such a case there would be no true virginal birth, or par-
thenogenesis], adds that it usually signifies no more than " to hide," or " con-
ceal." Among the Jews, "it was a common belief," he says, "that women
with child were peculiarly liable to the assaults of demons" (refer to Rev.
12); accordingly, "by the Holy Spirit coming upon the mother Luke may
have meant no more than that the child, conceived as usual, received a
peculiar sanctity before it was born, just as John the Baptist also (Luke
1:15) was ' to be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb.' "

3 Professor C. Clemen (Primitive Christianity and Its Non-Jewish Sources,
p. 296) argues that if the Gospel idea had been derived from Greek mythical
influences one would have expected to find "an act of divine procreation"
here. But we do not find this; and the overshadowing of Mary is, there-
fore, comparable to that referred to in Mark 9 : 7 and parallels; cf. also
Acts 5 : 15.

THE ANNUNCIATION AND CONCEPTION 27

that such a suspension was indispensable to the obtain-
ing of results worthy of him."

Finally, after noticing various alleged pagan analogues
referred to by some of the Christian fathers and others,
and noting that Isaiah 7 : 14 was applied to Jesus in the
early Christian church: "Jesus, as the Messiah," said
they, "ought, agreeably to that passage, to be born of a
virgin by a divine operation," and " that which ought to
be," they took for granted, "had really taken place";
thus, from the influence of the above tendency, and the
supposed necessity of the doctrine, he concludes that
there was developed dogmatically "a philosophic myth
upon the birth of Jesus." 1

The critical attitude of Strauss, if not very profound,
or characterised by deep spiritual insight, is at least
generally sensible, and merits even at this time careful
attention. It is, however, nowadays to some extent ob-
solete, and, moreover, has from time to time been effect-
ively dealt with by various writers. We will, therefore,
here only briefly discuss the above summary of his
objections, and then turn to the more important and
deeper-reaching criticism of our own day.

His difficulty with the question of the apparition is
thoroughly characteristic of the man and his thought,
and no doubt of the age in which he wrote. The great
idealist philosophers of Germany Kant 2 and Fichte and,
above all, Hegel had passed away. Schelling alone re-
mained, still striving to build up an ideal system which

1 Strauss (p. 160) declares that "when the Apostle Paul says that he
[Jesus] was born of a woman (Gal. 4 : 4) he could not desire to convey in that
expression a denial of the masculine participation." But the phrase yev&-
pu-vov &c 7i>wf/c6s is more correctly translated " descended from a woman"
which seems indirectly to imply an absence of male participation. And a
great deal would also depend upon whether our* present birth-stories were
current in St. Paul's time and known to him. Further, it will be remem-
bered that the rabbinical physiology of the period admitted both the pos-
sibility and the existence of abnormal conceptions.

2 Kant was a critical idealist.

28 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

would be permanent. Their systems of thought were
everywhere yielding to newer ones based upon inductive
reasoning and the modern scientific method, a fitting
prelude to the dawn of an era of great invention and
material prosperity throughout the world. 1 The influ-
ences of this coming change are discernible throughout
the Leben Jesu. This fact, indeed, explains the "shock"
which the idea of an "apparition" of any kind produces
in his mind. Such a concept is wholly outside his ken
and quite beyond the horizon of nineteenth-century ma-
terialism. Had he lived a hundred years later, or in our
own days, for example, and been able to consult, and
even verify, the carefully sorted records of the Society
for Psychical Research, the shock might have been less,
and his views upon such subjects might have been some-
what modified, or at least expressed with greater cau-
tion. If there be a spiritual world behind the mere phe-
nomena of matter, which makes up the visible universe,
is it incredible that it should have spiritual inhabitants
high intelligences, who are capable, at times, of mani-
festing themselves to, and communicating with, man? 2

Again, as regards the Jewish scheme of angels, we are
not of necessity committed to it, especially in detail.
We have no certain knowledge of the matter, and, there-
fore, may wisely defer judgment. Gabriel (^^33, " man
of God," cf. Dan. 8 : 16; 9 : 21) maybe one of those high
spiritual beings; he may, on the other hand, be merely

J The disintegrating influences of the "Left-Wing" Hegelianism, which
Strauss at that time professed, must be added to the influence of the new
scientific method. Strauss, in the end, died a materialistic monist of a pes-
simistic type.

2 It is at least worth noting that so distinguished a mathematician and
acute a lawyer as the late Professor Augustus de Morgan could write: "I
am perfectly convinced, in a manner which should make unbelief impossi-
ble, that I have seen things called spiritual, which cannot be taken by a
rational being to be capable of explanation by imposture, coincidence, or
mistake." (From Matter to Spirit, S. E. de Morgan, preface by Professor de
Morgan, p. v.).

THE ANNUNCIATION AND CONCEPTION 29

the symbol expressive of a divine communication to man.
The question of the "reality" (as we would say), and the
objectivity of apparitions of all kinds, is still one which
awaits a final solution. Are they objective facts, of a
spiritual or psychical kind, or are they, mainly, or merely,
subjective phenomena, wholly hallucinatory, perhaps, in
their nature? And even if these phenomena be ulti-
mately classed under the latter category, they may in
some cases at least retain an element of objectivity;
they may yet prove to be the symbolic reflexes of a
thought, or message, projected to our minds from the
mind of the Eternal, a thought which, in the process
of reception, we have pictorialised and posited without
our consciousness, subject to the universal forms of time
and space, under which all our concepts must be sub-
sumed in order to be comprehensible by our sense-
regulated intellects. Strauss does not even contemplate
these possibilities; he is already practically hidebound
in a crude system of materialism, and, therefore, imper-
vious to all impact of any spiritual world.

The "dumbness" of Zacharias, again, is after all a com-
mon experience of many who have found themselves or
thought that they have found themselves in the pres-
ence of the preternatural. The fear, the paralysis of
speech, the trembling of the limbs, common in every
such situation, have been universally borne witness to
in all ages and in all lands. We find those phenomena
vividly described in the words of Eliphaz the Temanite
by the writer of the book of Job (4 : 14-16) :

"Fear came upon me and a trembling,
Which caused all my bones to shake.
Then a spirit (nn) passed before my face;
The hair of my flesh rose up;

One stood [before me] whose form I could not discern;
A shape was before mine eyes;
There was silence; and I heard a voice."

30 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Such experiences, whether objective or subjective, may
be "unreasonable"; no doubt they are. But they re-
quire sufficient explanation, and mere human reason (as
Kant has shown) is perhaps hardly equal to the task
of dealing adequately with the things of a supersensual
world. It can, however, observe, and analyse, and record
its experiences.

The divergencies between the Matthaean and Lucan
narratives at this point are trivial matters in compari-
son, and doubtless are (assuming the narratives to have
some historic basis) largely due to the difficulty, always
felt in such cases, of securing full and accurate reports
of abnormal experience, and to the difference in the
apprehensive powers during the sleeping and the wak-
ing states respectively. Some harmonisation, however,
is possible here.

The difficulty arising out of the affirmed partheno-
genetic nature of the conception is a much greater and
more serious one, and Strauss, speaking from a purely
scientific point of view, is but stating a truth when he
says that human parthenogenesis is unknown in the
annals of science. But when he adds that, in order to
bring it about, God would have to suspend a natural
law established by himself, he oversteps the mark. For,
in the first place, the use even of the term "law" in the
theoretical sciences is in reality improper. There is no
such law involved in the genesis of creatures, as the
frequent examples of parthenogenesis in many groups of
beings below the vertebrates in the scale of develop-
ment clearly show. All we are entitled to affirm on this
subject is that, so far as careful observation has ex-
tended among the higher orders of creation, gamogenesis
appears to be the invariable rule. This fact, however,
is something quite different from the dogmatic assertion
that it is an absolute law even for mankind.

THE BIRTH 31

The Birth

In his statement of the mythical interpretation of the
birth-story, Professor Drews is remarkably clear. He
instances (The Christ Myth, p. 96) such gods as Mithra,
"the sol inmctus of the Romans"; Dionysus, "closely re-
lated to the season gods of nearer Asia," who was hon-
oured as "Liknites," the infant in the cradle (the win-
nowing fan). At the annual celebration of the birth of
Osiris, on the 6th of January, "the priests produced the
figure of an infant from the sanctuary, and showed it to
the people, as a picture of a new-born god." He then
further proceeds as follows (pp. cit., pp. 100 and 101) :

"There is no doubt that we have before us in the Vedic
Agni-cult the original source of all the stories of the
birth of the fire-gods and sun-gods. These gods usually
enter life in darkness and concealment. Thus the Cre-
tan Zeus was born in a cavern, Mithras, Dionysus, and
Hermes in a gloomy grotto, Horus in the stable (temple)
of the holy cow (Isis). Jesus, too, was born at dead
of night in a lowly stable at Bethlehem. 1 The original
ground for this consists in the fact that Agni, in the form
of a spark, comes into existence in the dark hollow of the
hole bored in the [fire-]stick. The hymns of the Rig-
Veda often speak of the 'secret birth' and the conceal-
ment of Agni. They describe the gods as they set out
in order to seek the infant. They make the Angiras dis-
cover it lying in concealment, and it grows up in hiding
(see Rig-Veda, I, 72, 2; V, n, 6, etc.). But the idea of
the fire-god being born in a stable is also foreshadowed
in the Rig-Veda. For not only are the vessels of milk
and butter ready for the anointing compared with cows,

1 In a note hie adds: "According to early Christian writers, such as Justin
and Origen, Jesus also came into the world in a cave, and Jerome complains
(Ep. 58) that in his tune the heathens celebrated the feast of the birth of
Tammuz at Bethlehem in the same cave in which Jesus was born."

32 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

but Ushas, the goddess of dawn, who is present at his
birth, is called a red milch cow, and of men it is said
that they flocked like cows to a warm stable to see Agni,
whom his mother held lovingly upon her lap" (Rig-Veda,
III, i, 7; X, 4, 2, etc.).

Again (p. 102): "The metaphorical name of stable for
the place of sacrifice attains a new significance from the
fact that the sun, during a certain epoch of the world
(something between 3000 and 800 B. C.), at the begin-
ning of spring passed through the constellation of the
Bull and at the time of the winter solstice commenced
its course between the Ox (Bull) and the Great Bear,
which anciently was also called the Ass. 1 The birth of
the god is said to have been in secret because it took
place at night. His mother is a virgin, since at midnight
of the winter solstice the constellation of the Virgin is on
the eastern horizon (Jeremias, Babylonisches im N. T.,
35, note i; cf. Dupuis, L'origine de tons les cultes, in /.).
Similarly, Mr. Robertson (Christianity and Mythology,
p. 212): "We should not forget the suggestion of Dupuis
and Volney, that the birth of the sun-child between the
ox and ass is simply a fable based on the fact that in the
zodiacal celestial sphere the sun would come at the win-
ter solstice between the Bull and Ursa Major, 2 sometimes
represented by the ancients as a Boar, sometimes as a
Hippopotamus, sometimes as the Ass of Typhon. But
the conception may be older than the zodiac, the funda-
mental idea of the stable being, as we have seen, the sky
as the home of the cloud cows. The sun-god is, in this

1 Cf. Volney, Die Ruinen, 1791 (Reclam), note 83 to chap. 13. " This is
the reason why the infant Christ was represented in early Christian pic-
tures lying in his mother's lap, or in a cradle between an Ox and an Ass."
But Volney merely represents the constellation on his planisphere as a boar,
and labels it "Bear Boar, Ass Typhon." He appears to have no authority
for this !

2 But see ibid., p. 142, where the sun in the Bull is said to open the spring !
Now it is between the Bull and the Bear from May to August.

THE BIRTH 33

primary sense, born of two mothers, Earth and Sky, of
the earth in the cave, of the sky in the stable."

Mr. Robertson also maintains (op. tit., p. 257) that
the late Christian myth of the "synchronous birth" of
Christ's cousin John the Baptist is reasonably to be traced
to the Buddhist myth of the synchronous birth of the
Buddha's cousin Ananda rather than to the Krishnaite
motive of Arjuna, or Bala Rama. This course,, he thinks,
is reasonable, chiefly because the Krishnaite system gives
an origin to the Buddhist myth. : j

The general relation which such gods of nature-cults
as Mithra, Dionysus, Osiris, etc., bear to Jesus if there
be any will be dealt with from time to time through-
out this work. Meanwhile, we may remark here that
the birthday of Mithra, as a solar deity, was celebrated
just after the winter solstice, when the power of the sun
begins to revive again. That Jesus was not a mere equiv-
alent of Mithra is shown partly by the fact that there is
a good deal of evidence to indicate that he was born in
the month of October. 1

The myth of Zagreus, "the winter Dionysus," seems
to have originated in Crete. The story ran that the hand
of Persephone, daughter of Demeter, the earth-goddess,
had been sought by all the gods. But her mother con-
cealed her in a cave. Zeus, having discovered her re-
treat, and changed his form into that of a serpent, vis-
ited her, and the fruit of their union was Zagreus.

The epithet "Liknites," as applied to Dionysus, was
derived from the \IKVOV } a broad basket in which the

1 This is founded partly upon what is known of the order in which "the
course of Abia" (Luke i : 5) served in the temple. Moreover, in Judaea,
December comes in the height of the rainy season, when cattle and sheep
are not out on the hills, but stabled for the winter. The earliest church
commemorated it at various times from September to March, until in 354
A. D. Pope Julius I assimilated the festival with that of the birth of Mithra
(December 25), hi order to facilitate the more complete Christianisation of
the empire.

34 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

corn was placed after threshing. It was sacred to Diony-
sus, and was carried about at his festivals with the sacred
utensils and first-fruits, and the infant Dionysus, repre-
sented by a small doll, was sometimes carried in it. 1

The attempt to find an analogue for this in the man-
ger ((jxtTvi)) of Luke, which Mr. Robertson calls the
"manger-basket," is vain. The one was a basket for
corn, the chief of the fruits of the earth-goddess, some-
times used by the country folk as a cradle; the other
was merely a feeding-trough for cattle, a totally different
thing, and (unlike the liknon) possessing no mythical
significance whatever.

The birth-story found in the Gospels cannot by any
possibility be regarded as an analogue, or an historicised
variant of this sensual myth, which really represents
simply the fecundation of earth by sky, and the produc-
tion thereby of the various fruits, children of the earth-
mother.

Osiris, again, whose rebirth, celebrated under the form
of the young Horus (the Osiris, or sun, of the next day)
was closely connected with the mysteries of Isis, the
sister-wife of Osiris the father. These Isiac mysteries
were among the secret (i. e., sexual) ones, and abounded
in gross superstition, vile juggling, and scandalous inde-
cency. Here, too, a small effigy of Osiris (as Horus) was
shown to the people by the priests of Isis. 2 But it still
remains to be demonstrated that the Bethlehem birth-

1 For the use of the winnowing-f an as a cradle, and the meaning of] the
custom, see "The Golden Bough," The Spirits of the Corn and of the Wild,
vol. I, pp. sff.

2 Macrobius, Saturn., 1, 18. Perhaps this practise in later ages was imi-
tated by many churches, and doubtless is the origin of the somewhat child-
ish " Bethlehem Tableaux " frequently exhibited at Christmas time. Indeed,
Conrady (Die Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu) derives the
birth-story of Jesus from the Isis-rayth; that is, from Egyptian in prefer-
ence to Babylonian, or Hellenistic, sources. The well-known legend cut on
the Metternich Stele says that Isis brought forth her son Horus among the
papyrus swamps of Egypt and reared him there.

THE BIRTH OF AGNI 35

narrative bears any real relation to such mythic stories,
or that the early Christians had any such mysteries,
wherein effigies of the infant Jesus, or, indeed, any ob-
jects, were exhibited to initiates. Neither is it in the
least degree probable that the first-century Christians
recognised any kinship between the story of Christ and
these myths; where they mention them it is to con-
trast, not to identify, a thing which they would gladly
have done to gain converts had Jesus been regarded as
one of the cult-gods.

The Birth of Agni

We next come to what is the main point in the astral
system of Drews the original source of all the stories
of the fire-gods and sun-gods: this is the Agm-cult.
The birth of the earthly fire-god (Agni) was celebrated
by the ceremony of kindling the spark in the fire-sticks.
The spark, produced by friction, was the infant Agni, who
grew to be a fire the earthly manifestation of the god.

Now, Professor Drews emphasises several points: (i)
These gods were usually born in darkness or caverns;
in the case of Agni hi the dark hollow of the wood (the
stable) in which the drilling-stick was twirled. This
ceremony is (2) held to be comparable with the birth of
Jesus, because hi the Rig-Veda the vessels of milk and
butter 1 near by are compared to cows, and Ushas, the
dawn-goddess, who is present, is called a red milch cow;
furthermore, it is said that men flocked to see Agni in his
mother's lap, "like cows to a warm stable."

1 The butter was for pouring upon the newly kindled fire (Agni). The
Agni-hotra was a sacrifice consisting of burnt offerings and libations of but-
ter and milk made every morning, and was one of. the five religious duties
of the Hindu householder. The "birth" of Agni, as the earthly fire, was
thus celebrated daily. "Born from the floods of heaven (the Thunder-
shower) he first came down to earth as lightning . . . and remained hid-
den in the recesses of wood until called forth by friction, when he suddenly
springs forth into gleaming brightness."

36 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

We must confess that we do not see how all this affects ;
the question, or establishes any parallel between the birth
of Agni and the birth of Jesus ! Jesus was born in the dead
of night, says Professor Drews. Whence does he derive
this information? The narrative of Luke merely says
that the shepherds were informed of the fact during the
night. The event might, therefore, have taken place dur-
ing the day, or earlier in the evening. (See Luke 2 : 8
and n.) Neither can we say that it happened in dark-
ness, or that the stable was a cave. It is true that caves
were then often used as stables; also that Justin and Je-
rome say that it was a cave. But their information seems
to have been derived from later legends, which, largely fol-
lowing the pagan myths, are all for a cave. 1 There is
much assumption in this hypothesis of Doctor Drews,
and much is quoted from dubious sources. The myth-
ical additions to the original story are elaborately worked
up in the Apocryphs, 2 which differ toto ccelo both in style
and matter from the canonical Gospels.

Lastly, as regards the details in the story as thus de-
veloped, the idea that the birth of Jesus took place in
the midst of the stabled animals is certainly inconsist-
ent with Luke's definite statement that these were out
on the hills, and being watched by shepherds. The ass 3

1 Doctor Plummer says (St. Luke, "Critical Commentaries"): "In Ori-
gen's time the cave was shown, and the manger also (Cont. Cds., I, 51).
One suspects that the cave may be a supposed prophecy turned into history.
. . . Isaiah 33 : 16, LXX version (oDros olK^cret v inf/ijKQ tririfraly ir^rpaj
<5x"p3s) was supposed to point to birth in a cave, and then the cave may
have been imagined in order to fit." It is very probable.

2 These, however, declare that there was a great light, suffusing the cave I

3 The statement, borrowed by Robertson and Drews, that the Great Bear
was anciently called " the Ass," is more than highly questionable, and the
authorities cited (Dupuis and Volney) are worthless upon such questions.
If it ever were so named it would be found in the Egyptian version of the
constellations; but it certainly does not occur there or hi the Chaldean
and Greek lists. On the planisphere of Dendera, however (our chief au-
thority for Egypt), near the place of the Great Bear, a figure usually called
"The Thigh" is shown, and close by it is another one, erect and supposed

THE BIRTH OF AGNI 37

might, of course, be regarded as the beast of some travel-
ler; but the ox would not be in his stall at night at that
time of the year. As for the scene, represented in much
later Christian art, of the Holy Family grouped together
amidst these animals, this concept was derived wholly
from the fifth-century apocryphal Gospel of the Pseudo-
Matthew, chap. 14, and the passage so often quoted from
Hab. 3 : 2 (M. T.) "O Jahveh, revive thy work in the
midst of the years; in the midst of the years make it
known" in the LXX version reads, "in the midst of two
animals thou shalt be known"; 1 being in this version ap-
parently derived from Isaiah i : 3 "The ox knoweth his
owner, and the ass his master's manger; but Israel doth
not know, my people doth not consider" a passage void
of all Messianic implications. The LXX version here is
really a mere misreading of the older Hebrew text and of
no critical value.

Professor Drews's further explanation that the mother
of Jesus was termed a "virgin" because at midnight of
the winter solstice the constellation of the Virgin is on
the eastern horizon cannot be upheld, since, as we have
seen, it is practically certain that the birth of Jesus did
not take place at that time of the year, and was not even .

to be a Hippopotamus. This latter was probably merely an Egyptian vari-
ant of the Great Bear of the Greeks; for the Hippopotamus was familiar
to the Egyptians, whereas the Bear was not. The Dendera planisphere
occurs in a temple, erected about the time of Hadrian (early second cen-
tury A. D.), and is, therefore, late. Moreover, it is also merely an Egyptian
variant of the ancient constellations preserved for us in the writings of
Aratus, Hipparchus, and Ptolemy. It will be found figured on Plate HI of
Boll's Sphara, and 'may be compared with the Farnese globe of about A. D.
300. Doctor Budge says (The Gods of the Egyptians, vol. H, p. 312) that the
Egyptian equivalent of our Great Bear was the Bull Meskheti.

1 7. e., nun ow (v /tr<j3 5i5o ftiwv) for -inin DW. This latter reading
is, according to Driver, the older and the true one. See an able article on
the subject by A. Frost, Contemp. Rev., December, 1903, pp. 873 jf. Pro-
fessor Weber, the eminent Sanscritist, states that the ox and the ass figuring
in the Krishna birth-ritual are borrowed from debased Christian sources,
doubtless the very late apocryph referred to above.

38 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

commemorated then until the fourth century. 1 Indeed,
the whole set of correspondences which are worked out
between the earthly celebration of the birth of the sun
(or fire) god, regarded as a reflexion of the same drama
enacted mystically in the heavens, and the birth of Jesus,
though it is an ingenious speculation, and its working
out a clever piece of special pleading, is thoroughly un-
real. The entire theory, in short, when carefully exam-
ined, is full of flaws, and, as a consequence of this, it is
unconvincing to the thoughtful reader.

But we have, besides all this, the usual parallels drawn
from India. Both Mr. Robertson (Christianity and Myth-
ology, p. 319) and Professor Drews (The Christ Myth,
p. 105) not to mention other writers have laid great
stress on the older legend of Krishna. The former, in par-
ticular, regards the bringing forth of the god-child on a
journey as an incident quite common in this type of myth.

But other men besides "god-children" have been born
on a journey, and Mr. Robertson's half-dozen examples,
when carefully examined, are not always quite appo-
site. Neither can Jesus be correctly termed a "god-
child," in the pagan sense of the term. In the myths,
the gods when desirous of becoming the fathers of chil-
dren by mortal women usually presented themselves in
mortal or animal guise to the prospective mothers, some-
times even as duplicates of the women's husbands. 2 Nei-
ther, again, were the mothers of such god-children as
Krishna, Cyrus, etc., "virgins" in the Biblical sense of
that term. 3 Both Devaki and Mandane, and indeed all
the mothers that have been quoted in this connexion,

lt( To adapt Christian festivals to pagan ones" (Chrysostom, Homily
XXXI).

2 The credulity formerly displayed by many, even educated, women in
matters of this kind is well illustrated by the disgraceful story told by
Jos., Ant., XVIII, 3, 4.

3 The term "virgin," as used in pagan cults, meant only an "independ-
ence of the marriage-tie"; i. e., that the goddess had no recognised male
partner.

THE BIRTH OF GAUTAMA 39

were married women, and, therefore, the births of their
sons cannot in any sense be termed parthenogenetic.

The Birth of Krishna

It is true, as he states, that, according to one account,
Krishna was born in a cow-shed, or stable; but the
Puranic version of the event locates it in Kansa's for-
tress. A careful survey, indeed, of the whole of Krishna's
birth-story in its later form points to the Apocryphs as
its real source. 1

Professor Drews also mentions several points which
.confirm the above view: the dungeon is filled with light;
the parents, as well as others, fall down before the child;
and additional marvels not found even in the most de-
based Christian writings. The marvellous powers of the
apocryphal infant Jesus are likewise quite outdone by
the babe Krishna, who, like Herakles, strangled a deadly
snake with his own hand. 2

The Birth of Gautama

From this we pass on to the birth of Gautama. Here,
again, the mother is no "virgin," as De Bunsen (The
Angel Messiah of Buddhists, Essenes, and Christians, p. 33)
asserts. 3 The Lalita vistara says that the mother of a

1 It may be added that the ritual for Krishna's birthday is drawn largely
from Christian sources, for it differs from the early Hindu stories precisely
in the points where it approximates to the accounts of the nativity of Jesus.'

2 We may add here that the "taxing-motive" of Vasudeva's journey
is plainly a borrowing of the mistranslation of the Lucan diroypd^effOai
(2 : 1-5), which word means not taxing (as in A. V.), but " enrolment in a
census of the population." This is mere ignorant copying, apparently from
the A. V.

3 The Abhiniskkramana Sutra, in the Chinese version, says that Maya
was married and lived with her husband. So also does the Lalita vistara.
Mr. de Bunsen, however, speaks of the Buddha as "conceived of the Holy
Ghost and born of the virgin Maya"; and says again that, according to
Buddhist authorities: "It was the Holy Ghost, or Shing-Shin, which de-
scended upon the virgin Maya." But he gives no authority for the state-
ment, and we may add that Buddhism recognises no "Holy Ghost" I Mr.

40 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Buddha must have thirty-two special marks, and the
thirty-first of these must be "faithfulness to marriage
vows." Maya, again, like Devaki, does not accompany
her husband, for the same reason as Mary. We are told
that she begged permission of the king to return to the
town of her own people. To this he consented, and the
future Buddha was born, not in a cave or a cow-shed, but
under the shelter of the grove Lumbini. 1

The conception of Maya, too, though distinctly super-
natural, is, again, neither parthenogenetic nor due to
divine power. She dreamt, we learn, that she saw the
future Buddha approaching her in the form of a six-
tusked white elephant, and holding a lotus flower. After
making an obeisance he seemed to enter her right side. 2
Thereupon wonderful prodigies happened, far beyond
any recorded even in the most extravagant of the Chris-
tian Apocryphs. The ten thousand world systems were
shaken, a great light appeared in all of them, the blind,
deaf, and lame were healed, and all the hungry manes
(ghosts) were miraculously fed.

Maya was thenceforward, to the time of her delivery,
guarded by four supernatural beings with drawn swords.
At the time of the birth, refreshing showers from heaven
fell upon the Bodhisat and his mother. Four kings re-
ceived the babe at the hands of the gods, and as soon
as he was born, when set upon his feet, the child walked,
and at every seventh step called out: "I am the chief
of the world," etc. 3

Hardy also speaks (Manual of Buddhism, 1880, p. 145, note) of the Tibetan
scholar Csoma as stating that the Mongolian accounts affirm the virginity
of Maya, but adds that the Tibetan records make no mention of it. Pro-
fessor Rhys Davids says (Buddhism, Hibb. Lects., 1881, p. 183, note i)
that the above reference " has not been confirmed."

1 So the Nidana Katha; the Lalita vistara merely mentions a request to
go to the grove.

2 The Lalita vistara affirms that he did enter.

3 The Lalita vistara may be consulted for these narratives in Rajendral
Mitra's translation. The whole system of Buddhist "parallels" is elabo-

THE BIRTH OF SAOSHYANT 41

In all this silly and bombastic nonsense we may, per-
haps, recognise here and there a faint gleam reflected
from the birth-stories of the New Testament. But one
thing is very clear, viz., that the Gospel stories are neither
borrowed from, nor mere variants of, the above accounts.
Myths are frequently superposed upon historical stories;
historical stories never grow out of myths pruned down
and rendered acceptable to thinking people.

The Birth of Saoshyant

Lastly, as regards the birth-parallel in the story of
Saoshyant, we have a case of preternatural birth more
akin to rabbinical ideas of agamo genesis 1 than what is,
strictly speaking, termed parthenogenesis. The seed of
Zarathustra was said to have been miraculously pre-
served in the water of a certain pool, 2 in which three
maidens successively bathed, and of these one became
the mother of this Persian Messiah. It has been sur-
mised .that perhaps the author of II Esdras 12 : 3, 25,
51, who imagined that the Jewish Messiah would come
out of the sea, thought that the seed of David might be
preserved in a similar manner, and the Messiah thus
agamogenetically conceived. This, however, is all very
problematical, and, in any case, there is no real parallel
here with a strictly parthenogenetic conception.

rately worked out in Professor Seydel's Das Evangelium -aon Jesu in Seinen
Verhaltnissen zu Buddha-Saga und 'Buddha-Lehre (1882). Also see his Die
Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu, etc. (1889).

1 Doctor Conybeafe holds that Philo's allegorical language in De Chertt-
bim, xiii /., respecting the wives of the patriarchs as symbolical charac-
ters, implies the belief that their sons were conceived parthenogenetically.
In other words, Philo's statement, e. g., that Sepfora (the wife of Moses (=
Virtue) finds herself pregnant otidevos Brqrov ("by no mortal") = the
fv yaffrpl exowra & HvetfMTos ayiov of Matt, i : 18. But this is very
doubtful. Angels or demons may be referred to, and the conception re-
garded as gamogenetic (cf. Gen. 6 : 2, and see The Academy, November 17,
1894, p. 401).

2 "The triumphant Saoshyans will be born out of the water Kaosya from
the Eastern quarter" (Vendidad, Fargard XIX, 5).

42 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

The conclusion of the whole matter, therefore, up .to
the present time, may be thus stated: The Gospel story '
of the conception and birth whether it be historical or
otherwise presupposes a peculiar case of true partheno-
genesis, the idea of which has not been borrowed from
either Jewish or Gentile sources.

CHAPTER in

THE NARRATIVES OF THE INFANCY AND CHILDHOOD

WE have now to consider a number of narratives deal-
ing with the stories related about the birth and child-
hood of Jesus. The form in which these narratives have
reached us suggests that, if they are to be regarded as
historical in the true sense of the word, we must look
upon them as popularised versions of the incidents in
question, which have, in some degree, undergone a
change of form in order to adapt them to the intelligence
of the simple folk who formed the bulk of the earliest
converts to Christianity.

The Shepherds

The episode of the shepherds' visit an event in itself
natural enough but for its connexion with a supernat-
ural apparition is either ignored or summarily dealt with
by the mythicists.

Mr. J. M. Robertson, in particular, quickly rids him-
self of the whole story. He says: "The shepherds come
from the same prehistoric sources as the rest. They be-
loiig to the myths of Cyrus and Krishna, and they are
more or less implied in that of Hermes, who, on the day
of his divine birth, stole the cloud cows 1 of Apollo, him-
self a divine shepherd and god of shepherds" 2 (Christian-
ity and Mythology, sec. " The Cow and Stable Birth," pp.

320/.).

1 This idea is found in the Rig-Veda, where the clouds are called the
"cows of Indra."

- Strauss (Life of Jesus, vol. I', p. 214) attempts to explain the story of
the shepherds by the pagan idea that the gods frequently appeared to
shepherds. But there is no suggestion of the kind in this story.

43

44 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

The absurdity of this derivation of the story must be
patent to every reader who gives real thought to the
matter. Whether the story of the shepherds be true or
untrue, the connexion of both Cyrus and Krishna with
shepherds is wholly different from that of these Jewish
shepherds with Jesus. Cyrus, for instance, is carried off
by one, in infancy, to be exposed, with a view to his de-
struction (Herod., I, 107-110); Krishna was exchanged
by his father for a shepherd's son, shortly after his birth,
in order that he might escape the destructive wrath of
Kansa {Vishnu Pur ana, Wilson's translation, p. 502. Cf.
also the story in the Bhagavata Pur ana).

In the Lucan narrative the Bethlehemite shepherds
merely visit the stable of the inn to see the young child
and, perhaps, to attest the fact of his birth. There is
here absolutely no reason to suppose that the narrative
whether historical or not is borrowed either from In-
dian or Persian sources, as Mr. Robertson dogmatically
asserts. As for the fact that shepherds are concerned
in all three (or even four) stories, in ancient civilisations
of the pastoral type it is only probable that they would
be involved in many events connected with the lives
and acts of the more important individuals of their re-
spective countries. 1

The Presentation in the Temple

This ceremony is strictly in accordance with the spirit
of the Jewish law (Num. 18 : 15 and 16). It is, however,
recorded chiefly on account of the public recognition at
the time of the infant Jesus as the future Messiah by
Simeon the Levite and Anna a prophetess.

But two Buddhist stories are told which are often sup-
posed to be parallels and sources of the canonical ac-
count of the blessing of Simeon, which was given on this
occasion.

1 The Talmud, Sanh. 3, disallows the evidence of shepherds.

THE PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE 45

On the day of Gautama's birth a venerable ascetic
named Asita, 1 who, after eating his midday meal, had
gone to heaven to rest during the heat of the day, saw
the heavenly hosts rejoicing, and learning the cause he
immediately hastened down to earth to see the new-
born and future Buddha. When the old man came into
his presence, Maya tried to make the child salute him,
but the latter insisted on presenting his feet instead of
his head to the saint. The old ascetic then took the in-
fant up in his arms, and when Suddhodana urged that
the sage must be reverenced, the latter replied: "Say
not so, O king; on the contrary, both I and the gods
and men should rather reverence him." He then exam-
ined the body of the child to see whether the three hun-
dred and twenty-eight marks of a supreme Buddha were
upon him. Then follows what has been termed a "bless-
ing" of Gautama by the old saint, who, we are told,

"Began to weep like a broken water-vessel and cried:
'By grief and regret I am completely overpowered,
Not to meet him when he shall have attained to supreme
wisdom!'"

This is all very different from the narrative describing
Simeon's blessing (Luke 2 : 25), though it may be a
faint echo of that story, modified to suit a different set
of tastes and circumstances. On the fifth day the cere-
mony of naming the child took place.

Later on, during his boyhood, another kind of presenta-
tion in a temple occurred, which is still more unlike that
described in the Lucan narrative. On this occasion one
hundred thousand gods harnessed themselves to the car
which conveyed the boy thither; blossoms were showered
down upon him by heavenly nymphs; the earth shook as

1 In the Nidana Katha he is called Kala Devala. The story will be found
in Seal's The Romantic Legend of Sakhya Buddha, a translation of the Fo-
pen-bing, which is a Chinese version of the Abhinishkramana Sutra.

46 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

he entered the temple; music was heard, played by invisi-
ble performers in heaven; the images in the temple de-
scended from their pedestals and came and prostrated
themselves before him. Finally, the scene was con-
cluded by a hymn of praise sung by the gods. Kuenen
remarks upon the story (National and Universal Re-
ligions, Hibb. Lects., 1882, p. 326): "The simple scene
in the temple at Jerusalem is really no parallel at all to the
homage rendered to the Buddha-child."

The story of the prophetess Anna (Luke 2 : 36-38)
Seydel derives from the account of the old women who
came to wish Gautama good luck, an impossible derivation.
(See The Romantic Legend of Sakhya Buddha.)

Neither does it seem to be possible to extract a myth-
ical meaning from these narratives.

The Magi

Probably none of the stories told of the childhood of
Jesus have given rise to more interest and speculation
than this one. The visit to Bethlehem of the "Wise
Men from the East" (Mdyoi UTTO avaToXanJ), who came to
"worship" (Trpoa-fcvvfjcrai) the new-born "King of the
Jews," is unique even among the most touching and
vivid of the Biblical narratives. Who were they? what
were they? from whence did they come? what was their
star? 1 is the story in any sense historical? These are
the questions which have exercised the minds of men
for generations.

Strauss writing from the older mythical standpoint
has dealt at some length, and in an unsatisfactory
manner, with the story in his Life of Jesus, IV, pp. 213-
231. His conclusion, wholly predetermined by the nat-
ural bias of his mind, practically amounts to this: The
prediction of Balaam (Num. 24 : 17) "was not the rea-

1 There was an interesting correspondence on this subject in The English
Mechanic, March 17, 1893.

THE MAGI 47

son why the Magi took a star for that of the Messiah,
and went to Jerusalem." . . . "But it was the cause
why the legend supposed a star would appear at the birth
of Jesus, which should be recognised by the astrologers
as that of the Messiah."

There are several assumptions here, which we will
notice later. Meanwhile, we will turn to a more modern
statement of the mythical view, as expressed by Pro-
fessor Drews at some length in The Christ Myth (pp. 93
and 94).

Hadad-Adonis, he observes, is the god of vegetation
and fruitfulness, and, like the sun, dies in winter and is
born anew in the spring. "Something of the kind," he
rather vaguely adds, "may well have passed before the
mind of. Isaiah when he foretold the future glory of the
people of God, under the image of a new birth of the sun
from out of the blackness of night" (Isaiah 60 : i^.).

"As is well known, later generations were continually
setting' out this idea in a still more exuberant form.
The imagination of the enslaved and impoverished Jews
feasted upon the thought that the nations and their
princes would do homage to the Messiah with gifts,
while uncounted treasures poured into the temple at
Jerusalem (cf. Psalm 68 : 32 /.). This is the foundation
of the story of the Magi, who lay their treasures at the
feet of the new-born Christ and his virgin mother.

"But that we have here, in reality, to do with the
new birth of the sun at the time of the winter solstice
appears from the connexion between the Magi, or Kings,
and the stars. For these Magi are nothing else than the
three stars hi the sword-belt of Orion, 1 which at the win-
ter solstice are opposed in the west to the constellations

1 1. e., Alnitak (Arab., nitak al-djanza, " the girdle of the giant"), Alnilam
(Arab., al-nizham, " a string of pearls "), and Mintaka (" a girdle "; Arab, and
Pers., natak, "to gird"). The Persians seem to have identified Orion with
Nimrod, the " mighty hunter before Jahveh" (Gen. 10 : 9). See Gore's As-
tron. Essays, p. 83.

48 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

of the Virgin in the east; 1 stars which, according to the
Persian ideas, at this time seek the son of the Queen of
Heaven that is, the lately rejuvenated sun Mithras." 2

The former of these theories, as the reader will see,
reduces the figures of the Magi to a mere poetic fiction
suggested by ancient prophecies; in the latter the Magi
become merely the three central stars in the constella-
tion Orion.

The theory of Strauss must again be pronounced emi-
nently unsatisfactory. It is highly improbable that a
wholly untrue story of a recognition by certain (to the
legalistic Jewish Christians) heathen astrologers would
be attached to a Messianic birth-story of Palestinian
origin. 3 It would be utterly foreign to their conceptions
derived from Old Testament predictions, and distaste-
ful to all their preconceived ideas. Balaam's prophecy
might be accepted as an inspiration of Jahveh; but Ba-
laam's magical, as also his astrological, practises were
repugnant to the early Christian mind (cf. Acts 19 : 19).
There is no probability whatever in this suggestion.

Neither is it possible to see any connexion between
these Magi and the stars in the belt of Orion. Even if
we admit the (unproved) tradition that they were kings
a most unlikely supposition we are nowhere told
authoritatively that there were three in number; 4 this
was merely inferred later on from the fact that three
gifts were offered, and it was supposed that each Magus
contributed one. 5

1 The constellation of the Virgin is always, at all times of the year, " op-
posed" to the belt stars, *. e., when she is rising they are setting.

2 Dupuis, L'origine de tons les cultes, etc. (1795), p. 268.
'"Matthew" compiles from that standpoint.

4 Named respectively Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar. This legend is
very late and quite worthless. It is probably derived from a misuse of
Psalm 72 : 16-15 and Isaiah 60 : 6.

6 M. Jean Reveille thinks (fctudes pulliees en hommage d lafaculte de theolo-
gie de Montauban, 1901, pp. 339 jf.) that the adoration of the Magi was sug-
gested by the Mithraic legend. But he admits that he has no proof of this.

THE MAGI 49

Herodotus (I, 101) refers to the Magi as a Median
"tribe" (? caste), and in VII, 19, he calls them "sooth-
sayers." Plato, again, speaks of the magianism of Zoro-
aster (Alk., i). The "Magi of Chaldea" are mentioned
in Daniel i : 20; 7 : n, etc. (cf. the Simon Magus of
Acts 8:9). Of the earlier Fathers, some trace their
origin to Persia, others regard them as coming from
Arabia.

Professor Clemen says (Primitive Christianity and Its
Non-Jewish Sources, pp. 298 /.)' that the narrative of the
visit of these wise men "is beset by so many difficulties 1
that it cannot be regarded as historical." In spite of
this judgment from a not unfriendly critic, there would
seem to be rio valid objection to the existence of a con-
siderable substratum of truth in the narrative. 2

This is the view taken by Doctor Voigt, of Halle (Die
Geschichte Jesu und die Astrologie, 1912), who thinks
that our existing narrative is based upon an earlier and
unpopularised version embodying, historic facts. His
reason for this conclusion will appear when we examine
the problem of the star.

Cumont comments upon this view, which is also held by Dieterich (The
Mysteries of Mithra, p. 195, note) : "But I must remark that the Mazdeean
beliefs regarding the entrance of Mithra into the world have strangely
varied."

1 Referring to the exhaustive discussion in Strauss's Life of Jesw, I, pp.

231 /

2 An historical derivation of the story from the recorded visit of Tiridates,
King of Parthia (A. D. 66), to do homage to Nero as Mithra, is favoured by
some scholars. Pliny (Nat. Hist., XXX, 16) even calls Tiridates a magus,
and states that magos secum adduxerat, from whom the emperor hoped to
learn magic. But it is probable that the Christian story was in circulation
before that date; and Gruppe (Mythologie, 1620), Cheyne (Bible Problems,
pp. 246 /.), Jeremias (Babylonisches, p. 55), Fiebig (Babel, pp. 16 /.), and
.Nestle ("Zu. Matt. 2," Zeitschr. f. d. Neatest. Wiss., 1907, p. 73) for various

reasons reject this explanation. It is not wholly improbable hat Tiridates
was inspired by the previous examples of Magi hailing monarchs and others
born under favourable conditions.

50 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

The Star

This celestial phenomenon, which is stated by Mat-
thew to have synchronised with the birth of Jesus, and
to have been the cause of the visit of the Magi to Bethle-
hem, has been the subject of much conjecture. It has
been variously regarded as a comet a highly improb-
able suggestion a stetta nova, and an astronomical con-
junction of planets.

A remarkable instance of the second of these phe-
nomena occurred in 1572-3, when a new star suddenly
flamed out in the constellation Cassiopeia, surpassing in
brilliancy the planet Jupiter. Theodore Beza interpreted
it as heralding the second coming of Christ.

Again, on September 30, 1604, there occurred a triple
conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn and (subsequently)
Mars, which was accompanied by a new star appearing
in the constellation Pisces. 1 Kepler then suggested that
the natal star of Bethlehem might be a mere conjunc-
tion of planets, and calculated that a similar association
of Jupiter and Saturn had occurred in 7 B. C. He fur-
ther surmised that it might have been accompanied by
a stella nova, which was, perhaps, the star seen by the
Magi. This view, however, is open to various objections
amongst others, from the calculations made by the late
Doctor Pritchard, of Oxford, it would seem that when
the planets Jupiter and Saturn were in conjunction in
B. C. 7 they were separated by a space equal to about
twice the apparent diameter of the moon. Moreover,
there is no reason for supposing that any such temporary
star was seen anywhere in that year.

There can be little doubt, indeed, that the solution
of this problem must be sought in astrology rather than
in astronomy. This is the opinion of Doctor Voigt,

1 See Kepler's Judicium de Irigono igneo, dedicated to the Emperor Ru-
dolph IE (1603), and his Stella nova in pede Serpentarii (1606).

THE STAR 51

quoted above. He holds that the former "science" had
specially connected Jupiter "with the God of the Jews,
and that his ascendency in Aries, in the spring of B. C. 6,
was held to be of good augury for Jewish welfare. The
Magi, he thinks, would reason thus: A king is born in
Judaea; his destiny, according to the heavens, indicates
beneficence and world-wide dominion.

But the date of this phenomenon may prove to be a
difficulty, unless we may suppose that the visit was paid
when Jesus was somewhat older than Matthew appears
to contemplate in his Gospel. 1

Another objection yet remains. The statement that
the star was seen in the east (ev TTJ avaro\y) by the Magi,
who nevertheless went westward, preceded, it would
seem, by the star, seems to be irreconcilable with all
known astronomical phenomena. This question, a short
time ago, attracted the attention of Mrs. A. S. Lewis,
the discoverer of the Syriac palimpsest of the Gospels at
Mount 'Sinai, when she found that it was quite possible to
read the passage otherwise than it is usually translated.
We may, she thinks, render the Greek: "We [being] in
the East have seen his star," 2 etc.

To the obvious .reply that this rendering is a some-
what strained one, the answer would be that the con-
struction here, as frequently in popular language, is loose
when judged by a purely literary standard. But the
New Testament Greek, as we now know, represents the
ordinary popular and non-literary language of the time.

Lastly, the statement that the "star" went with them
and "stood over the place where the young child was" is
due, no doubt, to the popularising of the original story

1 J. e., assuming that the birth took place In B. C. 8, as now seems prob-
able. See Appendix A (i).

2 EftSoftep 7&p airrov rbv Atrripa. [Svres] Iv T% draroXjf. It may be also
noted that if by the "star" a constellation were meant, &<rrpov (Aa-rpa)
would probably have been used instead of bar-lip, which, strictly speaking,
means a single star.

52 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

unless we may take the whole matter as a purely sub-
jective phenomenon. It is, in fact, discounted at the
outset by the narrative itself, which states that the
Magi, when they reached Jerusalem, were at a loss how
to proceed farther, until they were directed by the
priests and scribes to go to Bethlehem. Thus the main
difficulties connected with the "star" disappear when
the narrative is more carefully examined in the light of
modern knowledge.

The Gifts

It is a common practise amongst some modern critics
to lay stress upon the fact that the Gentiles had long
been expected by the Jews to offer gifts to the Messiah
when he appeared, though the idea certainly seems to
have been that they would not do so until they had been
conquered by him. Isaiah says (9:6), "They shall
bring gold and frankincense," but myrrh is not men-
tioned. Again, Fiebig and Jeremias suppose that these
gifts were offered to Jesus as the new-born sun-god.
Matthew's list of presents, however, differs consider-
ably from those usually presented to that deity. Ac-
cording to Kircher, ambergris and honey were also
included. Further, the rebirth of the sun-god could
hardly be thought of as announced by a star. It would
surely be heralded by the appearance of the sun him-
self, either immediately after the winter solstice or at
the vernal point of the ecliptic.

The gifts here mentioned, we must also remember,
merely symbolise the acceptance of Jesus by the "wise
men" as the future King of the East, where divinity
and priestly office are almost inseparably connected with
the monarch. 1

1 It is also stated in our English versions that the Magi " worshipped him."
But it is very doubtful whether we should translate vpdffKAv^ffav (Matt. 2 :
n) in this way. It may mean merely "did obeisance to," more Orientals,

THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT 53

This incident has been "paralleled" with a Buddhist
story (The Romantic Legend of Sakhya Buddha, S. Beal,
pp. 65 and 66), from which some would derive it, and which
bears a slight general resemblance to the Biblical event.
Presents are likewise brought to the young Bodhisat.
King Suddhodana and five hundred Sakhyas brought
"bracelets for the arms and wrists, for the legs and
ankles, necklets composed of every species of precious
stones, and cinctures, turbans, and coronels." While
these were being put upon him five hundred -Brahmans
"began in endless laudatory phrases to congratulate the
prince"; but the glory of the prince's body eclipsed the
glory of the gems, so that their brightness was not seen
"they all appeared dark and black, even as a drop of
ink, utterly lustreless."

But of a star, by which all these men were urged to go
and pay their respects, there is no mention, though Sey-
del (Das Evangelium von Jesu, etc., 1882, pp. 135 and 298),
and Fr.ancke (Deutsche Lit-Zeitung, 1901, 27, 65), have
made great efforts to find one.

The Flight into Egypt

Professor Drews remarks (The Christ Myth, p. 94)
that Hadad, besides his association with Adonis as a god
of vegetation, "is also the name of the sun-god, and the
Hadad of the Old Testament returns to his original home
out of Egypt, whither he had fled from David. Thus,"
he continues, "we can understand how Hosea n : i, 'I
called my son out of Egypt,' could be referred to the Mes-
siah, and how the story that Jesus passed his early youth
in Egypt could be derived from it (Matt. 2 : i4/.)."

Professor Drews's meaning in the above-quoted pas-

and not that the Magi recognised the divinity of Jesus. The probability is
that they foresaw in him a future great king, having, like Cyrus (?), a mon-
otheistic faith, and nothing more.'

For a recent study of Iranism and Magism, see Professor J. H. Moulton's
Hibb. Lects. on Early Zoroastrianism (1912).

54 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

sage is not very clear. But, if we rightly understand
him, he desires to mythicise both the story of Jesus in
Egypt and the story of Ader, or Hadad, found in Jose-
phus, Ant., VIII, 6. 1

Hadad the Edomite, we gather, was saved from a mas-
sacre of the Edomites by David, and fled (or was taken
as a child) to Egypt. When he heard that David was
dead, and Solomon was in a position of some difficulty,
he returned to Edom, but was unable to persuade that
nation to revolt. He then went to Syria, where he joined
a certain Rezon, the captain of a band of robbers, and
contrived to be made king of a part of Syria, from whence
he invaded Israel and did much damage to Solomon's
kingdom.

Now Hadad, the Syrian god, is a form of Tammuz, a
vegetative(-solar) deity, and, if this story be a myth, it
would seem that the passage in Hosea is referred by
Doctor Drews both to this particular variant form of the
sun-myth and to the story of Jesus, which, according
to this view, is merely another version of it. But the
narrative in the book of Kings professes to be history,
and undoubtedly is such in its nature, whatever confu-
sion, or variations, may have been introduced into it be-
fore it was recorded in the Bible. Further, we do not
believe that the passage in Hosea, referred to above, has
any mythical significance whatever, or that the story of
Jesus' sojourn in Egypt was suggested by it. 2 The refer-
ence is plainly to the stay of the people of Israel in Egypt,
who are, according to the prophetical writers, frequently
termed "my son" by Jahveh.

1 See also I Things n : 14-25. This story has been carefully examined by
Doctor Winckler (Atttest. Unters., pp. 1-15), who thinks that it is made
up of two ancient and independent narratives.

2 "Matthew," it must be granted, introduces the reference in a forced
and unnatural manner. Usener derives the idea of the journey to Egypt
from the flight of the gods before Typhon (Zeitschr. f. d. N. T. Wiss., 1903,
P- 21).

THE MASSACRE OF THE CHILDREN 55

Again, a wide-spread tradition exists among the Jews
that Jesus lived for some -time in Egypt, though not
during the period of his infancy, as stated by Matthew.
It was from that country, say both the Talmud 1 and the
Toledoth Jescku, that he brought the magic by means
of which he wrought his mighty works. It would seem
probable, therefore, that there is some historical basis
for the story of a sojourn in Egypt, and, if the narrative
of the visit of the Magi and the subsequent massacre
of the infants of Bethlehem be facts, we have the motif
for the journey to Egypt, where many Jews were set-
tled, as well as for the occurrence of this incident during
the childhood of Jesus, as Matthew states.

The Massacre of the Children

Strauss says of this story (Life of Jesus, IV, pp. 234-
236): "The primitive Christian legend was interested
in making Herod commit this crime in order to take away
the life of Jesus; for in all times, according to tradition,
the birth of great men has been celebrated by murders
and persecution. The more danger they ran, the greater
they were esteemed, the more unexpectedly they were
preserved, the more importance seemed to be attached
to their persons by heaven.

"We find this exemplified in the account of the in-
fancy of Cyrus by Herodotus, in that of Romulus by
Livy, and, more recently, in the account of the infancy
of Augustus by Suetonius. The Hebrew legend gives
a similar account of Moses; and it is somewhat singular
that this recital concerning Moses is very similar to that
given by the evangelists respecting Jesus. In both
cases the sentence of death was not passed against the
individuals themselves, but against a certain class of
children, in which it was thought they would be included.

1 See Tract. Shabbath, isd, 104, 6.

56 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Thus, in Moses' case, it was against all the male chil-
dren; in Jesus' case it was against all 1 children of a cer-
tain age. In fact, according to Exodus, the decree of
death was not against Moses, for Pharaoh did not then
suspect his birth, and he was only accidentally put in
danger; but the tradition, which was formed in the bosom
of the Hebrew people, did not think the intention suffi-
ciently strong; and in consequence, about the time of
the historian Josephus, a turn was given to it which
made it much more like the traditions about Cyrus and
Augustus, and consequently more like the recital of
Matthew." This last-named version is a variant of no
authority whatever, as Strauss practically admits.

A similar rabbinical story is related of Abraham and the
Chaldean Nimrod. "The Chaldean sages," says Strauss,
"whose attention was awakened by a remarkable star,
announced to the Babylonian prince that a son would
be born to Terah, from whom would spring a powerful
people; and upon this declaration Nimrod declared a
massacre from which Abraham luckily escaped."

This is, no doubt, a case of astrological prediction so
common in ancient, and even modern, history down to
quite recent times. It differs from the Biblical story,
however, in at least one very important particular: the
Magi did not predict that a child would be, but believed
that he had been, born.

Professor Drews, on the other hand, affiliates the story
of the massacre with a somewhat similar incident in the
life of Krishna. 2 Like Herod and Astyages, King Kansa,

1 Strauss seems in error here. The MSS. read irdvras rots iraTSas, all the
male children. If both sexes had been meant, rimia., no doubt, would have
been used.

2 See the story in the later works, the Bhagavata Purana and the Prem
Sagar. In the Buddhist variant of this anecdote, King Bimbasara refuses
to kill the youth Gautama, when he is pointed out as a likely rival in the
future, and does not massacre any children (see The Romantic Legend of
Sdkkya Buddha, pp. 103 and 104).

THE MASSACRE OF THE CHILDREN 57

in order to prevent any danger arising in tthe future to
himself, or his successor, from his sister's son, against
whom he had been warned by an oracle, cast both Va-
sudeva and Devaki into prison. After the former had
escaped with the new-born babe, and returned with the
child of Nanda the shepherd, Kansa himself came to
take the infant away. And when the child had disap-
peared before his eyes, he gave orders that all the new-
born children in his country, under the age of two years,
should be slain.

Doctor Cheyne (Bib. Probs., p. 249) regards the story as
an analogue of Ex. i : 22; cf. Ezek. 29 : 30; but the stories
are obviously different.

The critiques of both Strauss and Drews are founded
upon the alleged fact that in Eastern countries the births
of all great men are traditionally celebrated by murders
and persecution. This is to some extent true, not only
in tradition, but in actual history. In barbarous civili-
sations, where highly placed men and their prospective
successors are the centres of intrigue and plot, it is only
what we might naturally expect to find. But, at the same
time, the fact is not so universal, even in tradition and
legend, as Strauss supposes. The examples which are
picked out by him from Jewish, Persian, and Roman
history, after all, form but a very small number in com-
parison with the numerous names which could be men-
tioned concerning whom no tradition, or legend, of an
attempted murder exists. This line of argument, in-
deed, leads to no conclusion and proves nothing.

Neither, again, does the story of Rajah Kansa and
the young Krishna prove anything more than either a
mere coincidence or, more probably, one of those nu-
merous borrowings from Christianity with which the later
versions of the story of Krishna, found in such works as
the Bkdgavafa Pura^a, abound. The true tests for the
historical truth, or probability, of stories such as this

58 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

are first of all the corroboration which they find else-
where in contemporary literature, and, secondly, the like-
lihood of the situation to produce such a crisis. Let us
examine this narrative from both of these points of
view.

It so happens that in the case of the Biblical story
there is some external evidence of an historical character
which tells in its favour. The reference alluded to here
is a passage found in the works of Macrobius, a heathen
writer of considerable repute and a learned collector of
the curiosities of ancient literature, who flourished at
the end of the fourth century A. D. It runs as follows:
"When Augustus [Caesar] had heard," he says, "that
among the children in Syria, whom Herod the King of
the Jews had ordered to be slain, within the age of two
years, his own son also had been killed, he said: 'It is bet-
ter to be Herod's hog [&v] than his son [vlov]'" l

Various objections have been raised against this testi-
mony: e. g., that the original reporter of the story must
have mistaken the reference; that it was much more
likely to have been suggested by the execution, at the
order of Herod, of his two sons Alexander and Aristobu-
lus; or, again, that it refers to the murder of Antipater

ltf Cum audisset Augustus inter pueros, quos in Syria, Herodes, rex
Judasorum, intra bimatum jussit interfeci, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait:
'Melius est Herodis porcum esse quam jKiwwz'" (Saturnalia, n, 4).

It should be noted that Augustus is reported by Macrobius as having ut-
tered this Ion mot in Latin. But it was a common custom, in the reign of this
emperor, and subsequently, for the upper and more cultured classes in Rome
to speak in Greek; and, as will be seen, the pun is only appreciable in that
language, where tie pronunciation of tv (kiln) and vl6v (wheon) are suffi-
ciently alike to warrant a fairly good royal jest. The note of Gronovius,
that this seems to be an imitation of an old saying of Diogenes the Cynic
against the Megarians, as caring more for the breeding of their rams than
for their children, does not explain it.

But the jest in the mouth of a Roman, and the reference to the absti-
nence from pork, which Herod (though not a Jew) was practically obliged
to practise, out of compliment to the scruples of his fanatical subjects,
has in it a sarcasm which is wholly wanting in the remark as attributed to
Diogenes.

THE MASSACEE OF THE CHILDEEN 59

two years later; or, once more, that it is improbable
that Herod had an infant son at that time.

To the first of these objections we may reply that there
is no reason whatever to suspect any misunderstand-
ing;, the report, whether true or untrue, is clear and defi-
nite. As regards its application to others of Herod's
sons, the distinct reference to a massacre of a number of
children under the age of two years negatives this ex-
planation.

Again, as Herod was at that time sixty-seven years of
age, it is quite possible that he had, by a young wife of
his harem, an infant who was (perhaps unknown to him)
out at nurse in Bethlehem. 1

A final objection, that Josephus ignores the incident,
is an argument of very trifling value. No historian no-
tices everything that happens, and the fact of a dozen,
or even a score, of small children being done to death,
by the orders of a cruel and arbitrary despot, was not a
matter of sufficient importance to attract much notice
at that time from the outside world. Josephus had
abundance of matter for his records, all of much greater
interest to the Roman people than the sufferings of a few
peasant children in an insignificant village of Judaea.

Lastly, as to the probability of such an occurrence,
the records of Herod's life supply abundant justification.
A man who could deliberately order two of his sons to
be strangled, on mere suspicion, and a third son after-
wards to be put to death, whilst he himself was upon his
death-bed; who, when summoned by Antony to Rhodes,
left his best-loved wife Mariamme in charge of one of
his friends, with orders that she should at once be put to
death, should any misfortune befall him, and actually
himself executed her on his return; who, moreover, on
his accession massacred all the members of the Sanhe-

1 It is still more improbable that Macrobius borrowed the story from
"Matthew" and invented the jest.

60 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

drin but two, and caused the young Aristobulus, brother
of Mariamme, whom he had appointed high priest, to be
treacherously drowned, and, doubtless, was guilty also of
numerous other unrecorded crimes: such a man, we un-
hesitatingly affirm, was capable of anything.

That a man of this type, if he had heard even the
faintest breath of rumour that the Messiah-King of the
Jews was lately born, would scruple for one moment to
sacrifice a few obscure infants in order to make sure of
the death of a future rival to himself, or his dynasty, is
wholly incredible. Herod, we may be sure, would not
have hesitated to sacrifice, if need be, a thousand such
children in order to insure his own stability or that of
his house upon the throne of Judaea;

A suggested mythical explanation of the narrative*
that it is "simply a detail in the universal sun-myth of
the attempted slaying of the child sun-god, the disap-
pearance of the stars at morning suggesting a massacre,
from which the sun-child escapes" (Christianity and
Mythology, pp. 322 and 323) is too fanciful to merit any
serious notice. A really clever person can find ana-
logues in the sun-myth to almost anything and every-
thing that happens upon the surface of the earth. But
this fact has no necessary bearing upon the historicity
or non-historicity of the event in question. 1

The Discourse with the Doctors of the Law

This incident has been correlated with a story of the
young Bodhisat, who, it is said, at the age of eight years,
was sent to the "Hall of Learning" to be instructed by
the erudite Visvamitra. The child so astonished the

1 An important point, but one upon which too much stress is often laid
by negative critics, is that " Matthew," in describing the return of the Holy
Family from Egypt, appears to be ignorant of any previous residence in
Galilee. This is the more remarkable because "Matthew," in general,
records the Galilean tradition. It is, however, probably due to defective
sources of information.

A "PARALLEL" FROM DELPHI 61

pundit with his command of all the learning then known
to India that the latter chanted this song:

"Whatever arts there are in the world,
Whatever Sutras and Sasters,
This (child) is thoroughly acquainted with all
And is able to teach them to others." 1
The Romantic Legend of Sakhya Buddha, pp. 67 and 68.

A "Parallel" from Delphi

Mr. J. M. Robertson, on the other hand (Christianity
and Mythology, p. 334), can find no better "parallel" to
the story of Luke than the following anecdote. Strabo,
he says, narrates how certain "parents went to Delphi,
anxious to learn whether the child which had been ex-
posed [to perish] was still living, while the child itself
had gone to the temple of Apollo in the hope of discov-
ering its parents."

It is only necessary to add, in reference to both of
these stories, that, if the unbiassed reader will study
carefully Luke's narrative and compare it with them,
he will see that neither bears the slightest resemblance
to it nor shows the remotest connexion. That children,
afterwards famous in history, have frequently been re-
ported as displaying precocity at an early period of their
lives is quite true. But there all resemblance ends.

According to the rabbi Judah ben-Terna, every Jewish
boy at five years of age studied the Hebrew Scriptures,
at ten years the Mishna, at thirteen the Gemara, the
two last forming the Talmud. Josephus, too, tells us
(Life, II), that his own progress in learning was so great
that at the age of fourteen years he was often consulted
by the chief priests, and various other prominent, mem-
bers of the Jewish state, upon difficult points of the law.

1 Cf. with this Luke 2 : 46 and 47, and the ridiculous account in the Gos-
pd of the Infancy, where the boy discourses upon " physics and metaphysics,
hyperphysics and hypophysics."

62 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

With examples like these before us we cannot wonder
at the wisdom and knowledge which the young Jesus
showed at the age of twelve years; the more so that
Luke frankly tells us that even he "increased in wisdom
as in age, and in favour with God and man."

CHAPTER IV

JESUS. CHRIST. PRE-CHRISTIAN CHRIST AND JESUS-CULTS

Jesus

THE name "Jesus" ('I^o-ou?) is used both in the LXX
version and in the N. T. as the equivalent of the Heb.
Jehoshua (J^irP) or Joshua (original form Hoskea JJ^in,
"help," Num. 13 : 8), which is commonly interpreted as
meaning "Jah (or Jahveh) is help," or "salvation" (cf.
Matt. IC2I). 1

^Similarly, Philo Judaeus (born 20-10 B. C.) explains Joshua (Jesus) as
- 'Iijo-cus tpneveterai ffurtjpla. Kvplov: "Jesus (Joshua) is interpreted safety
of the Lord."

Doctor Cheyne, however, appears to reject this view (see Hibbert Journal,
April, 1911, pp. 658 and 659). After admitting that " the direct evidence for
the divine name Joshua in pre-Christian tunes is both scanty and disputa-
ble," and adding that "if the belief in such a god-man was taken over by
the Christists, we are entitled to presume that they did not leave behind the
celestial name of the god-man. And that name ought to underlie the pop-
ular form Jehoshua, whence the late form Jeshua or Jeshu has come"; he
then goes on to urge that this is the case; that the ritual lamentations in
the valley of Megiddon were for Hadad-Rimmon, the only or first-born son.
of the Supreme God, i. e., Adonis, and that this name was a compound of
the names of two related deities (see Zech. 12 : 10 and n), referring for de-
tails to his The Two Religions of Israel, pp. 183 and 213. See also Crit. Bib.,
p. 191.

He also finds a parallel to this duplication of names in Jahu-Ishma, where
Jahu is an alternative form for Jahveh and Ishma (=Shema) is short for
Ishmael. "The origin of the latter name," he contends, "is as uncertain as
that of Yahwe, but at any rate it is a god-name (Two Religions, pp. 65 and
400), and does not mean 'God hears' any more than Joshua means 'YahwS-
help.'" Finally, "it appears that Jeshua, or Jeshu, is a corruption of the
second part of tie cultural divine name Jehu-Ishma[el]."

But, if the whole matter is so uncertain, and the evidence is so "scanty
and disputable," how does Doctor Cheyne know aH this? Here philology
alone is an uncertain basis for both theological and historical theories, and
few reputable scholars appear to have indorsed Doctor Cheyne's conclu-
sions.

Moreover, it is a mere surmise that the compound word "Hadad-Rim-

63

64 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Professor Drews seems to accept this explanation,
for he says {The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, p.
195): "Joshua, however, means something like 'Jahveh
is salvation/ ' Jah-Help,' and corresponds to the German
name 'Gotthilf.'"

\ But he directly afterwards launches out into a num-
I ber of highly disputable and often erroneous statements
/ as to the connexion of its Hellenistic Greek substitute

f

( ("Jesus") with those of various mythical, or semi-
mythical, personages in heathen cults. Thus: "The
name [Jesus] was fairly common among the Jews, and
in this connection it is equivalent among the Hellenistic
Jews to the name Jason, or Jasios, which again is merely
a Greek version of Jesus (cf. II Mace. 4)." He then
goes on to say that Jaso (from iasthai, "to heal") was
the name of the daughter of the saver and physician
Asclepios, who "himself was in many places worshipped
under the name of Jason in a widely spread cult."
Furthermore, this Jason was practically identical with
Jasios (=Jasius= Janus Quirinus, Verg., Mn.> III, 168).
The whole argument, in short, is clearly directed to
proving that Jesus and Jason (with its assumed variant
forms) were practically one and the same pre-Christian
cultual god who was worshipped as the "healer" and
"helper" of mankind.

mon" is the name of a deity. Because both Hadad and Tammuz (Adonis)
were worshipped in the Phoenician city of Byblus, it has been conjectured
that the two deities may have been amalgamated, or confused, so that there
was a wailing for a Hadad-Rimmon similar to that for Tammuz. But no
evidence for this has so far been adduced. See Baudissin, in Real-Enc, /.
Prof. Th. u. Kir. (Herzog), VII (1889), s. v.

The whole of Doctor Cheyne's theory, indeed, like that of Professor
Drews is ultimately based upon the assumption that Joshua is a purely
mythical character, and not a tribal hero, whose exploits and share in the
conquest of Canaan have been, perhaps, magnified by the patriotism of
later historians and chroniclers. But Doctor Cheyne at least allows (p.
658) that it is "still possible that [in New Testament tunes] there was a great
teacher and healer bearing the same name who was confounded with that
supposed deity"!

JESUS 65

But there appears to be a great deal of both reckless
assertion and groundless assumption here. In the first
place, as regards the identification of Jesus and Jason,
the prosaic facts are these. Soon after the time of Alex-
ander Jannseus (d. 78 B. C.) Greek names began to be
fashionable among the Jews, especially throughout the up-
per classes. Thus, a high priest of the period changed his
name 'I^o-ou? (JflEfy Jeshua) to 'Idacav (Jason), just as a
certain 'IdKipos (Q 11 ^, Jakim) called himself 'AA/a/ao? (Al-
cimus), and S&a? (Silas) was transformed into SiXovawfc
(Silvanus).

From that time onward Jason became a common
name amongst the Jews. The brother of the above-
mentioned Jason, 'Ovtas (rPiin, Honias) also bestowed
upon himself the Greek name MeveXao? (Menelaus) [see
Noldeke, Enc. Bib., art. "Names," sec. 86].

This practise was no doubt partly suggested by the
rough equivalency of healer (in a physical sense) and
helper (in, perhaps, both a spiritual and a temporal
sense) ; but there was no identification of a Gentile cult-
god Jason with a Jewish cult-god Jesus; it was simply
a Grecising fashion which had sprung up subsequently
to the spread of Greek power and influence in the East,
owing to the conquests of Alexander the Great.

Again, the assumed identification of Jason with Jasios
(Jasius), or Jasion, is, to say the least of it, highly im-
probable. It is more likely a case of confusion of differ-
ent myths. We have not space here for entering into the
question in detail, and can only add that Jasios, or
Jasion, appears to have been connected with the mys-
teries of Demeter, and the name is usually derived from
Idopat, "to heal"; but the etymology is doubtful. Jason,
on the other hand, is the hero of the Medea myth, a
wholly different story, it would seem. 1

1 Doctor Cheyne, who is, on the whole, kindly disposed to the mythical
theory, makes the following admission (Hibbert Journal, April, 1911, p. 658)

66 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Once more: the equating of any of the above names
with the Roman Janus is more than problematical.
The Romans themselves thought that Janus and the
feminine Jana (= Diana) were the sun and moon, and
commonly assimilated the former to the Greek Z^v, i. e.,
ki-rjv. And the Janiculum (hill of Janus), which was
probably the original seat of this worship in Rome, lay
on the north, or Etruscan, side of the Tiber, so that an
Etruscan origin of the cult is suggested. And as the sun,
by its revival after the winter solstice, starts the year,
so Janus is the god of opening and beginning; hence
January (in later times) the month of opening or begin-
ning of the year. But Janus was no "healer "-god.

We next come to a passage (The Witnesses to the His-
toricity of Jesus, p. 197, note) containing still wilder
speculations and more reckless assertion, which, to do
him justice, we must first quote almost verbatim: "Jes
Crishna was the name of the ninth 1 incarnation of
Jesnu, or Vishnu, whose animal is the fish, as in the case
oi Joshua, the son of the fish Nun. . . . Jes is a title of
the sun. . . . The word also occurs in the name of Osiris
Jes-iris, or Hes-iris (according to Hellenicus) [and] in
Hesus (the name of a Celtic god). . . . The mother of
all these gods whose name contains Jes is a virgin (Maya,
Mariamma, Maritala, Mariam, etc.); her symbol is the
cross, the fish, or the lamb; her feast is the Huli (Jul),
from which Cassar took the name Julus or Julius when he
was deified in the temple of Jupiter Ammon; and her

regarding the theory that Joshua means "Saviour"; that he was probably
an Ephraimite form of the sun-god; that his name conveys the idea of
healer (so Epiphanius), and that it is connected with Jason, or Jasios, the
mythical name of a pupil of Cheiron in the art of healing: "I am sorry to
say that almost every word of this is contrary to the present decisions of
scholarship."

1 Krishna was the eighth avatar of Vishnu. The ninth was the Buddha,
"the great sceptical philosopher," to delude the Daityas into neglecting
the worship of the gods.

JESUS 67

history agrees with that of Jesus Christ." 1 We will now
deal with this extraordinary tissue of assertions as fully
as our limits of space will allow.

The question of the "virginity" of the various mother-
goddesses, and their connexion with the Mary of the
Gospels, has been discussed in the first and second chap-
ters of this work, to which the reader is referred. And
in the first place let us inquire into the use of the name
Jes, in the designation " Jes Crishna," leaving the addi-
tion "Crishna" to be dealt with later on in the present
chapter.

In its fuller form "Jes" is written " Jeseus" ("Jezeus")
or "Yeseus." Concerning this appellation the late Pro-
fessor Max Muller writes (Trans, of the Viet. Inst., vol.
XXI, p. 179): "The name Yeseus [Jezeus] was invented,
I believe, by Jacolliot, 2 and is a mere corruption of Yadu.
I answered Jacolliot once; 3 but these books hardly de-
serve notice."

On the other hand, such eminent Sanscritists as the
late Sir Monier Williams, of Oxford, and the late Pro-
fessor Cowell, of Cambridge, while holding to the spu-
riousness of "Jes" and "Jeseus" as ancient names of
Krishna, think that these appellations may be corrup-
tions of Isa ("ruler," "chief"), which properly be-
longs as a title to Siva as regent of the northeastern
quarter.

The conclusion of the matter, in either case, is that
the prefixing of the name Jeseus, or Jes, to Krishna has
absolutely no warrant from any ancient Hindu book or
custom.

1 Referring here especially to The Worship of Augustus Casar, by Alex-
ander del Mar (New York, 1900). Cf. this passage with one in Ecce Deus,
W. B. Smith, p. 17, where the argument is similar. Drews appears to ac-
cept Del Mar's statements unreservedly.

2 In his La Bible dans I'lnde.

* Cf. his Lectures on the Science of Religion (1884), pp. 24 and 25. Also
his Chips from a German Workshop (1895), vol. IV, pp. 228 jf.

68 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

In a similar manner there is no ancient authority for
the form "Jes-nu" as a variant of Vishnu. 1

We will next turn to the attempt to foist the spurious
word " Jes," as a divine appellation, into the name of the
Egyptian deity Osiris. "The name of Osiris," says Pro-
fessor Flinders Petrie, 2 "is written with the J, 'the
throne,' AS, or, perhaps, in early times IS. The vocali-
sation of signs varied much, and on Greek authority we
know that it was sounded in later times as OS." 3 Ac-

1 Vishnu's connexion with the fish appears only in the later Indian account
of the deluge found in the Bhagavata Purdna, where tie fish is represented
as an incarnation of this god. His object in becoming a fish seems to have
been to steer the ship. In the earlier account found 'in the Satapatha Brah-
mana (I, 8, i, i), the fish was an incarnation of BrahmS.

It may be also added here that there is some doubt as to the meaning of
Nun, as the name of the father of Joshua. It may mean a serpent, and have,
perhaps, a totemic signification. Again, it is quite possible that it is a con-
traction (and corruption) of an Edomite name (see Enc. Bib., s. v.).

2 Extract from a letter to the present writer.

8 According to Del Mar (The Worship of Augustus Ccssar, pp. 88 and 89),
the word "les-iris" signified "son of God" ! And he adds: "les-iris (from
Hellenicus) is probably correct," adducing as evidence Plutarch, On Isis
and Osiris, 34. But Plutarch there merely says that "Hellenicus [fifth cen-
tury B. C.] has recorded that he heard Osiris called Ysiris (*T<rtpcy) by the
priests," which simply indicates a vocalisation of the first sign as US (=OS),
not the use of the title of a cult-god, "Jes" I

With regard to the derivation and meaning of the name Osiris, Doctor
Budge says (The Gods of the Egyptians, vol. II, pp. 113 and 114) : "The oldest
and simplest form of the name [Osiris] is J, that is to say, it is written by
means of two hieroglyphics, the upper of which represents a 'throne' and
the lower an 'eye,' but the exact meaning attached to the combination of
the two pictures by those who first used them to express the name of the
god, and the signification of the name in the minds of those who invented
it, cannot be said. In the late dynastic period the first syllable of the name
appears to have been pronounced A US, or US, and by punning it was made
to have the meaning of the word USR, 'strength,' 'might,' 'power,' and
the like, and there is little doubt that the Egyptians at that time supposed
the name of the god to mean something like the 'Strength of the Eye,' i, e. t
the strength of the sun-god Ra. This meaning may very well have suited
their conception of the god Osiris, but it cannot be accepted as the correct
signification of the name. For similar reasons the suggestion that the name
AS-AR is connected with the Egyptian word for 'prince,' or 'chief (ser)
cannot be entertained. It is probable that the second hieroglyphic in the
name AS-AR is to be understood as referring to the great Eye of Heaven,

JESUS 69

cordingly, we see that the first syllable of this compound
word (whether written AS or IS, or later US OS) is not
a divine name prefixed to the main part of the name, but
the vocalisation of a sign denoting a throne, and its precise
meaning here is unknown.

Next, according to Professor Drews, we meet with the
cultual divine name, or title, " Jes" in "Hesus," the name
of a Celtic god. Now, Hesus, or Esus, has very gener-
ally been thought to be radically the same word as the
Aisa 1 (A-ia-a) of the Greeks, and was the type of an abso-
lutely Supreme Being whose symbol on earth was the oak.

M. Salamon Reinach, however, avers (Orpheus, pp. 116
and 117, an English translation) that "We find a divine
woodman named Esus associated with the Roman gods
Jupiter and Vulcan. This Esus," he continues, "is men-
tioned by Lucan (circ. A. D. 60), together with Teutates
and Taranis; according to the poet they are sanguinary
deities who exact human sacrifices. It has been wrongly
supposed that these three gods constituted a sort of Cel-
tic trinity; in reality, as the passage in Lucan proves,
they were deities venerated by a few tribes to the north
of the Loire, among others the Parisii. Esus seems to
have been the same word as the Latin herus, 2 and per-
haps the Indo-Iranian Asuras. Teutates was the god of
the people, Taranis the god of thunder. The reason for
representing Esus as a woodman is not apparent."

Whichever of the above explanations we may adopt,
or even if, with Professor Anwyl, we regard Esus merely
as "the eponymous god of the Esuvii" (Celtic Religion,

i. e., R5, but the connexion of the first is not so clear, and, as we have no
means of knowing what attributes were assigned to the god by his earliest
worshippers, the difficulty is hardly likely to be cleared up." . See also his
Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, vol. I, chap. 2. Thus, it will seem that
Egyptologists lend no support to the theories of Mr. Del Mar and Pro-
fessor Drews.

1 Af<ra, i), like Moira (Motpa), the divinity who dispenses to every one his
lot or destiny (Lat., Parca; e. g., Horn., II., XX, 127.

* Or erus (of the gods), "a master."

70 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

p. 33), it is perfectly clear that Esus was not a cult-god
of the "saviour" or "healer" type, and therefore in no
sense comparable with Jesus as regarded in that light.
Indeed, the only connexion is due as in some other
cases to the accidental resemblance in the sound and
spelling of the two names.

Equally wild is the statement that the name "Julius,"
as borne by Augustus Csesar, is derivable from "Huli,"
the feast of "the mother of all those gods." Here, again,
the actual historical fact is that Augustus took the name
"Julius" on being adopted as his heir by Julius Ceesar,
who was a member of the ancient familia of the Juli
which can be traced back as far as the year 265 A. U. C.,
when a C. Julius Julus was consul. What Professor
Drews means by "her [the goddess-mother's] history
agrees with that of Jesus Christ" we confess ourselves
unable to understand.

Further, it would appear not improbable that the word
Jes, which Professor Drews asserts to be a title of the
sun, is really a derivative from the ancient Indo-Euro-
pean, or Aryan, root signifying "to be" or "exist," as
applied to the highest deity and means the Existing One. 1
If so, the concept would seem to be quite different from
that underlying the various solar and vegetation "sa-
viour" cults.

Finally, Professor Drews sums up his theory as follows
(The Christ Myth, p. 139): "We can scarcely doubt that
the stories in question originally referred to the annual
journey of the sun through the twelve signs of the zodiac.
Even the names (lasios, Jason, Joshua, Jesus; cf. also
Vishnu Jesudu . . .) agree, and their common root is
contained also in the name Jao (Jahwe), from which
Joshua is derived. Jao, or Jehu, however, was a mys-

1 Cf. Sans., as-mi; Gr., elfti = tr-fil; Lith., es-mi;
Slav., jes-mi; Old Bulg., yes-mi. See also Curtius, Gk. Etym., 564; Max
Muller, Oxford Essays; and PeUe, Gk. and Lot. Etym,, p. 151.

JESUS 71

tical name of Dionysus among the Greeks, and he, like
Vishnu Jesudu (Krishna), Joshua, and Jesus, roamed
about in his capacity of travelling physician and re-
deemer of the world."

With the above summary we may compare a similar
contribution of Professor W. B. Smith (Ecce Deus, p.
17), who says: "The name [Jesus 1 ] was closely connected
in form with the divine name IAO, regarded in early
gnostic circles with peculiar reverence. It is not neces-
sary to decide whether this latter is to be regarded as
the equivalent of the tetragram JHVH, or as meaning
Jah-Alpha-Omega (Rev. i :8; 21 : 6; 22 : 13; cf. Isaiah
44 : 6). It is enough that in Hellenistic early theosophic
circles the name was in approved use, a favourite desig-
nation of deity. In view of all these facts the triumph
of the name Jesus seems entirely natural."

.Whether the stories of lasios and Jason are identical
and originally referred to the annual journey of the sun
through the twelve 2 signs of the zodiac need not be dis-
cussed here. Neither is it necessary to inquire whether
the names of the various pagan cult-gods can be traced
to a common root. This is affirmed, but not demon-
strated, by Professor Drews. The points to be noted
here are that the solar character of both Joshua and
Jesus, and the etymological identity of their names with
those of these cult-gods have not been established, or
even shown to be reasonably probable. In the same
way, the facile dogmatism of Professor Drews which
is wisely avoided by Professor Smith that Jao is iden-
tical with Jahveh, a word of very uncertain origin and
meaning, 3 cannot be allowed in the present state of

1 He derives it from the Greek 'Idofuu, "I heal," which in its Ionic and
epic forms has the future 'I-fj-ffofuti, and its noun Iijo-w (gen., 'Ifo-eus).

2 Del Mar, however, states (.op. cit., pp. 6 and 298) that originally there
were first only eight and then ten signs in the ancient zodiac.

8 See art. "Names," in Encyclopaedia Biblica, sees. 109-113, with notes
appended.

72 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

knowledge. It is true that in late Greek Jahveh was
variously and loosely transliterated 'laySe, 'lave, 'laove, or
'laoyaij and that some Gnostics apparently used 'law as
an equivalent for Jahveh. Regarding this latter prac-
tise, however, Doctor Cheyne writes (Enc. Bib., art.
"Names," sec. no, note 4): "The form lao, handed '
down by the Gnostics, may be left out of account. Like
all similar forms (0. g., 'leva in Philo Byblius), it is sim-
ply the product of erroneous or misunderstood Jewish
statements. On this point cf. Baudissin, 'Der Ursprung
Gottesnamens lao,' in his Studien zur semit. ReL, 2, 181 jf.
(1876)."

Movers, again, remarks: "The forms of the Hebrew
sacred name ffiJT 1 [JHVH], in heathen writers Teua> (Philo,
Sanch.f p. 2) and 'law (Diod. Sic., I, 94), are certainly not
derived from the tetragrammaton of the Hebrew, but ac-
cording to the usual confusion of niiT 1 with Dionysus."

In the preceding paragraph he also says: "This mys-
terious triliteral, however, 'loco is manifestly irP, the
apocopated Hiphil of {Tin* 1 , 'he makes to live,' formed,
as so many names in Hebrew are, in exact correspond-
ence with the tetragrammaton iTlJT 1 , apoc. 1JT 1 , and with
the apocopated forms which appear in the names ^Kli?*,
^JtoYT 1 , etc." (see Phoniz., chap. 14, pp. 539-558).

Jao, it is true, was a mystical name of Dionysus among
the Greeks; but, as that god had probably an Oriental
origin, it was doubtless merely a Greek transliteration
of his original name, which was not, it would seem, a
form of Jahveh. It has likewise no connexion, etymo-
logically or otherwise, with the names "Joshua" or
"Jesus."

Neither can we compare the roaming about of Diony-
sus as depicted in the various forms of the myth with
the traditional work of either Joshua or Jesus. If the
accounts are compared the differences are seen to be
absolute. Dionysus was, perhaps in one sense, a form of

JESUS 73

the sun-god, and Jao was, it may be, the autumnal
phase of that deity; that either Joshua or Jesus were
solar deities remains, as we have already said, to be
proved. Their stories especially that of the former
in their minor details may have collected a few mythical
traits, during the course of transmission, but the his-
torical bases remain unshaken.

Professor Smith's alternative suggestion that Jao may
represent the compound name Jah-Alpha-Omega is no
doubt ingenious and plausible, but it rests on no basis
of fact, even if that trigrammaton were (as is probable)
"in Hellenistic early theosophic circles a favourite desig-
nation of deity." It is quite as likely, if not more so,
that such interpretation, if current in the earlier Chris-
tian centuries (of which, however, we have no proof),
sprang from the special use of Alpha and Omega, the first
and last letters in the Greek alphabet, in the passage of
the Apocalypse to which Smith refers.

Before closing this section of the present chapter, we ^~
may briefly advert to the peculiar mythical theory of
Professor P. Jensen, according to whom the Jesus of the
Gospels is really neither a personified ideal, based upon
pre-Christian Jewish and pagan models (Drews), nor an /_
anthropomorphised Jewish cult-god (Smith, and mainly
Robertson), but a reproduction, or reflection, of one or
more of the heroes whose exploits are recorded in the
ancient Babylonian Gilgamesh epic. He is to be identi-
fied, Jensen thinks, now with Eabani, the man-monster
of the story, now with Xisuthros, the Babylonian Noah,
and now with Gilgamesh himself, the chief hero of the
epic, and the King of Erech (Uruk). 1 In his Moses,
Jesus, Paulus (pp. 28-31), he works out -a series of (in the
case of Jesus) thirty "parallels," or "correspondences," in

1 See Jensen's Das GttgamescJt epos in der Weltliteratur (1906); Moses,
Jesus, Paulus: drei Varianten des babylonischen gottmenschen Gttgamesch
(1909); Hat der Jesus der Evangdien wirklich gelebt? (1910).

74 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

which he thinks the Gospels reproduce the chief episodes
of the original myth. Moses and Paul have a similar der-
ivation.

It will be impossible here to discuss in detail this
theory; but we may remark briefly that it is a priori
open to at least two very grave, and indeed insuperable,
objections. In the first place, many of the so-called
parallels are very forced and artificial. As instances of
this, two or three examples must suffice. Sinful human-
ity and most beasts, including swine, are drowned in the
great deluge. This is paralleled by the drowning of the
two thousand demons and swine in the Sea of Galilee.
Again, on the Mount of Transfiguration Peter and the
two other disciples wish to build tabernacles. The origin
of this episode is traced to Gilgamesh 1 felling some trees
before his voyage to Xisuthros, the Chaldean Noah.
Many other similar extravagant derivations might be
quoted, but these will serve our present purpose.

Secondly, the theory entirely overlooks the numerous
incidents in the Gospels to which there are no corre-
spondences in the epic. Moreover, the highly ethical
and spiritual note characteristic of the former is entirely
unaccounted for upon this hypothesis.

The theory has received a very slight support upon
the Continent, e. g., from Bruckner (Christ. WelL, 1907, p.
202) and Beer (Theol. Jakresber., 1906, p. 14) ; but prac-
tically none outside Germany. The majority of scholars
have regarded it as fanciful, and it has even been de-
scribed by such a frank and outspoken critic as Professor
B. W. Bacon (Hibbert Journal, July, 1911, p. 739) as
"elaborate bosh." At all events it cannot be regarded as
a really serious contribution to the mythical hypothesis.

1 For Gilgamesh as a form of Tammuz, see Babylonian Liturgies, by S.
Langdon, p. 20, Rev. 3, and Rev. d'Assyriologie, IX, 115, col. 3 : i.

CHRIST AND KRISHNA 75

Christ

The title "Christ" Greek, XpKrros, 1 substantive form
of xpia-Tos, "anointed" is a translation of the Hebrew,
mashiakh, "Messiah," i. e., "anointed" (Aram.,
meshiha, more fully jneshiakh Jahvek, "Jahveh's
anointed.")

Christ and Krishna

Following the example of a number of modern writers,
Professor Drews, as we have seen, primarily seeks to
identify the Christ of the Gospels with the Krishna of
the modern Hindu cult-worship. 2 Thus, he speaks of
"the Hindu Krishna, who, as saviour, conqueror of drag-
ons, and crucified, is in many respects as like Jesus as
one egg is like another" (The Witnesses to the Historicity
of Jesus, p. 214). As these "many respects" are not
detailed here, though elsewhere (op. cit>, p. 197), fol-
lowing Mr. Del Mar, he spells the name of the Hindu god
"Crishna," we are driven to an examination of the
original story of Krishna, and to contrast this with its
subsequent additions, as also to ascertain the origin of
the variant modern spelling by which it is superficially
assimilated to the characteristic Messianic title of Jesus.

The authentic sources for the legend of Krishna are
the following Sanscrit works: the Mahdbhdrata (book
V), the Bhdgavata Pur ana (book X), the Bhagavadgita
(book X), the Harhat^sa (3304 jf.), and the Vishnu
Pur ana (book V). To these, for the more highly leg-
endary and modern additions, may be added the Prem
Sagar, an edition in the vernacular Hindi of that part
of the Bhagavata which relates to the life of Krishna.
For details the reader is referred to the excellent English

attempt of Professor W. B. Smith (in Der VorcMstHche Jesus,
1906) to connect XP 10 " 1 "^ 5 with xpijorfo, xp&ofMi, "to use" (see Psalm
34 : 5) is quite untenable.
2 He admits also a subsidiary Buddhist influence.

76 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

translations of these books which are now available. It
must suffice here to refer to a few main incidents, and
to say that we learn from the most ancient and pre-
Christian authorities that the mother of Krishna was not
named "Mariamma," 1 but Devaki; that she was not a
"virgin," but the mother of eight sons, of whom Krishna
was the last; that her husband's name was not " Jama-
dagni," a village carpenter, but Vasudeva, a descendant
of the Lunar line of kings, and, finally, that Krishna was
not "crucified," 2 but (according to even the Vishnu Pu-
rana) was shot by a hunter hi mistake for a deer. But
this by the way.

Further, the legends about his putative father being
called away from home "to pay taxes," 3 his "recogni-
tion as a god by Magi," his "last supper in company
with ten disciples," and similar stories, are all pure fic-
tion and undoubtedly owe their origin to imitators of the
Gospel narratives.

Now, the question arises, when did this extraneous mat-
ter find its way into the Krishna legend and from what
sources did it come?

It probably began at an early period. The story of
Jesus Christ was carried into India at the latest before
the end of the second century A. D. (see Euseb., H. E.,
V, 10). And, according to Weber's version of a paragraph
in the Makabharata, it was also brought back to India by
Brahman travellers. Both Weber and Lassen interpret
the passage in question to mean that early in the Chris-
tian era three Brahmans visited a community of Chris-

1 This, and the other statements immediately following, are apparently
taken from Del Mar's The Worship of Augustus Casar, pp. 89-92.

2 The Hindu sculptures of a crucifixion of Krishna 'referred to by Mr.
Higgins (The Hindoo Pantheon) are unquestionably either representations
of Jesus Christ, executed by the early church in India, or later Brahman-
Jcal imitations based upon these.

3 This statement is apparently derived from the A. V. of Luke's Gospel
(2 : 3), where diro7pd$e(T0(u ("to be enrolled") is wrongly translated "to
be taxed."

CHRIST AND KRISHNA 77

tians in the East, and that on their return "they were
able to introduce improvements [!] into the hereditary
creed, and more especially to make the worship of Krishna
Vasudeva the most prominent feature of their system."

An article by an anonymous Sanscritist in the AtJie-
nceum for August 10, 1867, may also be consulted. In
this the writer shows how the Brahmans took from the
Gospels such things as suited them and used these ex-
tracts in the composition of Krishna episodes which were
interpolated into MSS. of the Mahabharata.

Another source of interpolations would seem to be
documents of an apocryphal character. Doctor L. D.
Barnett, of the British Museum, says (Hinduism, 1906,
p. 21, note): "A considerable number of the details in
the Puranic myths of Krishna's birth and childhood
seem to have come from debased Christian sources
(apocryphal Gospels and the like) such as were current
in the Christian church of Malabar."

But a great deal of interpolation of matter derived
from the Bible into Sanscrit works has undoubtedly
taken place since the British occupation of India and
the revival of Christian missions in that country. In
the latter part of the eighteenth century a certain Lieu-
tenant Wilford, of the East India Company's service,
was anxious to ascertain whether many prominent Bib-
lical characters were referred to in lie Hindu sacred
books. Accordingly, he offered rewards for any informa-
tion which would show this to be the case. Some time
afterwards many pundits came forward and placed in
his hands copies of Sanscrit MSS. which contained such
information as he was seeking. This discovery at the
time produced great enthusiasm throughout Europe, and
even such experts as Sir William Jones were induced to
accept the evidence as trustworthy.

After a time, however, suspicions were aroused, and
a critical examination showed that clever forgeries had

78 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

been committed by means of interpolations of Biblical
episodes written in Sanscrit and more or less modified
to suit the change. Lieutenant Wilford reluctantly ac-
knowledged that he had been imposed upon; but his
Essays upon the subject are still quoted by writers who
apparently are ignorant of the fraud, as also of the sub-
sequent confession of Lieutenant Wilford that he had
been grossly deceived by unscrupulous pundits. 1

We have now to deal with the question of the variant
spelling of Krishna as "Crishna," "Chrishna," or "Crist-
na," much affected by some writers, especially those of the
mythical school. And we will commence our inquiry by
quoting a distinguished modern scholar. "There is no
authority," writes Doctor Macdonell, 2 the Boden Professor
of Sanscrit at Oxford, "for spelling the name Krshna
(or Krishna) 'Crishna,' much less 'Cristna.' The in-
itial [letter] is a K, and nothing else. I cannot give
you references on this question, as any discussion there
may be on it (unknown to me) cannot have any value.
On the other hand, it is a fact that in some of the ver-
nacular forms of the word Krishna (both as an adjec-
tive meaning 'black' and as the name of a river on the
southeastern coast) a 't' often appears. Thus, in Kan-
arese you have Krisna, Krstna, Kristna, Krsta, and
Kitta, for the Sanskrit Krsna. The Anglo-Indian form
of the name is Kistna. In Kanarese and Malayalam,
'Christian' appears in the form of Kristina, 'Christ' as
Kristi; in Tamil, 'Christ' appears as Kiristi"

Similarly, Mr. Blumhardt, university lecturer on the
modern Indian dialects at Oxford, writes: "The Ben-
gali always pronounce shn as sht, with a nasalisation of
the vowel. So Krsna becomes Kristan. Next 'r* is
dropped, and the final inherent 'a' is sounded like '6.'

1 See Chips from a German Workshop, F. Max Mtiller, vol. IV, pp. 210-
213.

2 In a letter to the present writer.

CHRIST AND KRISHNA 79

Thus we have Kishton, which form is perhaps more
common than Kvishton. The similarity of the name with
Christ is purely accidental." 1

From the above-quoted expert information it is quite
clear that all theories of the type of Mr. Del Mar's (who
appears to be followed blindly by Professor Drews) of
a pre-Christian Hindu cult-god "Crishna," equatable
with "Christ" (and "Jesus"), are merely unconfirmed
guesses with no basis of fact underlying them.

Finally, Krishna, who (as Professor Drews declares) in
the oldest Indian literature (the Vedas) appears to be
not a sun-god i. e., an incarnation of Vishnu but a
demon, is, only after the Christian era, transformed into
a divine being through the agency of such comparatively
late works as the Purctyas? Hence a later Christian
origin of those episodes in the complete Krishna legend
which resemble stories found in the Gospels is the most
feasible explanation. 3

1 It may also be added that the two names have a fundamentally differ-
ent signification: Christ = "Anointed"; Krishna = "the Black one."

2 See Jacob's Manual of Hindu Pantheism, "The Vedantasara" (1891),
and Weber in the Indian Antiquary, II, p. 285. The Vishnu Purana dates
from about the ninth or tenth century A. D., the Bhagavata Purana from
about the thirteenth century A. D.

On this question Mr. J. M. Robertson very lamely remarks (Christianity
and Mythology, p. 302): "The lateness of Puranic stories in literary form
is no argument against their antiquity. Scholars are agreed that late doc-
uments often preserve extremely old mythic material." This statement
contains a germ of truth; but we may add that the lateness of Gospel stories
in literary form is invariably regarded as strong evidence against their an-
tiquity and this even by Christian critics.

3 Several other alleged parallels to the Jewish-Christian idea of a Messiah
(Christ) have been suggested: e. g., (i) When the Babylonian plague-god
Dibbarra attacks the city Erech, chaos reigns in the place and district until
after a time the Akkadian will come, overthrow all, and conquer all of
them. The anointed saviour who will remedy all this is Hammurabi, who
will open up a golden age of peace and prosperity (Relig. of Bab. and Assyr.,
M. Jastrow, Jr.; cf. Mark 13 : 8-12, and Matt. 10 : 21). (2) A Buddhist
parallel is also quoted (see Rhys David's Hibb. Lects., 1881, p, 141; cf. also
Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life, p. 101, and Enc. Bib., art. "Messiah," sec.
10).

80 MYTHICAL INTERPKETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Pre-Christian Christ and Jesus Cults

"There was . . . not merely a pre-Christian Christ,
as Gunkel admits, a belief in the death and resurrection
of Christ in Judaso-syncretist circles [refer to Gunkel's
Zum Religions geschichtL Verstandnis des Neuen Test.
(1903), p. 82], but there was also a pre-Christian Jesus,
as Jesus and Christ were only two different names for
the suffering and rising servant of God, the root of David
[Jesse] in Isaiah, and the two might be combined when
one wished to express the high-priesthood of the Mes-
sianic character of Jesus. Jesus was merely the general
name of the saviour and redeemer. ..." Thus writes
Professor Drews in his more recent supplementary work,
The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912), p. 200. .

. Now, if we understand Professor Drews aright, there are'
two, or rather three, propositions laid down here, all of a
highly disputable character. First, it seems to be main-
tamed that there was in pre-Christian times an esoteric
Christ-cult, of Judaic origin, in which a worship of (or at
least a belief in) a divine redeemer was the chief cult-
doctrine; secondly, that there was also a similar and
contemporaneous Jesus-cult (?) of Ephraimitic origin
possibly connected with an old tribal and solar god;
thirdly, that these two concepts later on became one and
the same. 1 Let us proceed to consider this thesis with
all due care and impartiality and see upon what basis it
rests,

1 Mr. Robertson (Christianity and' Mythology, pp. 326 jf.) and Professor
Drews (The Christ Myth, pp. 79-82) lay great stress upon an alleged pre-
Christian twofold idea of a Messiah Ben David and a Messiah Ben Joseph,
Drews also (lac. tit.) advancing the theory that our Gospels represent "a
reconciliation and fusion of the two concepts." The idea of an unsuccess-
ful Ephraimitic Messiah is certainly found highly developed in the Talmud,
but even its existence in pre-Christian times is problematical (see Enc. Bib.,
art. "Messiah," sec. 9).

CHRIST-CULTS 81

Christ-cults

As regards the pre-Christian Christ, the whole of the
valid part of the argument in its favour really turns
upon the meaning to be attached to two particular por-
tions of the Old Testament Scriptures Psalm 22 and
Isaiah 53. x The two rival interpretations of these docu-
ments both probably referring to the "suffering Serv-
ant of Jahveh" are that the respective writers had
in their minds either (i) an individual suffering, dying,
and rising "superman," or divine man, or God, or (2)
that they (primarily, at least) referred to the collective
remnant of Israel and its sufferings during and after
the exile and subsequent restoration to God's favour.

Now, it is a remarkable but at the same time indis-
putable fact that all the extant Jewish literature, both
pre and post exilic, apocalyptic and apocryphal alike,
and even such notices as we meet with in the greater
writing prophets, invariably depict the future Messiah
("Christ") as a triumphant conqueror and prince who
will in some way restore the ancient glories of Israel and
abase the enemies of God's ancient people. 2 Even for

1 Gressmann even goes so far as to suggest that chap. 53 is really a hymn
belonging to the "mystery" of the Adonis-cult, sung by Jewish mysia on
that god's death-day, and celebrating his birth, death, and resurrection.
But there are many and great objections to this view: e. g., Adonis is always
depicted as a beautiful youth, whereas the "servant" has "no comeliness"
and is "despised and rejected of men." There are also other differences.
Isaiah 53 : 12 was interpreted by post-Christian (and probably by pre-
Christian) Jews of Moses, who poured out his soul unto death (Er. 33 : 32),
and was numbered with the transgressors (those who died in the wilderness),
and bare the sins of many that he might atone for the sin of the golden
calf (SotsJi., 14).

2 The present writer has worked out this view at some length in his Jesus
the Christ: Historical or Mythical? (1912), chap, i, to which the reader is
referred. Drews, however, claims (The Christ Myth, p. 79) that besides
Psalm 22 and Isaiah' 53, "in Daniel 9 : 26 mention is made of a dying
Christ." This is a difficult passage but probably has no true Messianic
meaning. Driver quotes Bleek's view of it, as representing that of many

82 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Philo Judseus a contemporary of Jesus and a man well
versed in the mystical interpretation of the Old Testa-
ment Scriptures the Messiah is to be a man of war, who
will crush all the foes of Judah. 1 There is no Jewish
literature extant except, possibly, Psalm 22 and Isaiah
53 that lend any support to the theory of a pre-Chris-
tian doctrine of a suffering and rising Christ as being in
vogue amongst the Jews, and if such a notion were en-
tertained by any Judaeo-syncretist circles they have most
carefully and successfully refrained from placing their
views on record in any literary form.

On the other hand, the interpretation that the Servant
meant the faithful remnant who returned from the exile
has been the view held by Jewish teachers in all ages and
was the universal interpretation in the time of Jesus. -

Jesus-cults

The first English writer to urge this hypothesis in any
full and systematic manner was Mr. J. M. Robertson, 2
who states his theory as follows: "That Joshua is a purely
mythical personage was long ago decided by the histor-
ical criticism of the school of Colenso and Kuenen; that
he was originally a solar deity can be established at least
as satisfactorily as the solar character of Moses, if not
as that of Samson. And when we note that in Semitic
tradition (which preserves a variety of myths which the
Bible-makers, for obvious reasons, suppressed or trans-
formed) Joshua is the son of the mythical Miriam, 3 that
is to say, there was probably an ancient Palestinian sun-
modern scholars. For particulars of this, see Driver's Lit, of the 0. T., s. .
"Daniel," C, 9, and cf. the LXX reading of the passage.

1 Ka.Ta.ffTpa.Tap-x.wv Kal iro\efiQv fOvi).

2 See especially his Christianity and Mythology (1900), pp. 82 and 83. He
has since been followed by Professor W. B. Smith; see his Der Vorchrist-
liche Jesus (1906), passim.

3 Citing Baring Gould, Legends ofO. T. Characters (1871), H, 138. The
statement rests wholly upon a comparatively modern and untrustworthy
Arab tradition.

JESUS-CULTS 83

god, Jesus the son of Mary, we are led to surmise that
the elucidation of the Christ-myth is not yet complete."
The inference drawn from this is, of course, that Jesus
Christ was merely a later reflex of the same mythic idea. 1
. It would be, indeed, difficult to meet with a fuller or
more complete tissue of assumptions than we have here.
It is not going too far to state that not a single one of the
above statements has been decided at all. The whole of
this theory still remains a pure speculation with just suf-
ficient plausibility to render it a debatable proposition.

But let us leave Mr. Robertson and turn to a writer
who is more precise and careful in his presentment of
the case for a pre-Christian Jesus. Professor W. B.
Smith starts from the statement found in Acts 18 : 25,
that Apollos preached "the things of Jesus" (ra irepl rov
'Irja-ov) while he was only acquainted with the baptism
of John. These "things," he supposes, refer to some
doctrines peculiar to an old cult-god named Jesus, who
was worshipped by the Baptist and his followers.

But the explanation added by the author of the Acts,
when rightly understood, gives the true key to the mean-
ing of this brief expression. John's baptism was merely
one of repentance as a necessary preliminary to the
recognition and acceptance of the Coming One (o 'E/o%o'/*e-
vo<i). Of the doctrines of this Coming One, and, appar-
ently, even of his identity, John seems to have had very
little definite knowledge. 2 It is not probable that John
was the head, or representative, of any society, or cult,
or that he had any cult-doctrines to impart. He seems

1 Weinel says of this theory of identity (1st das liberals Jesusbild wider-
legt?, p. 91) that any argument based upon the connexion of Jesus with
Joshua is "simply grotesque." And he carries with him the great mass of
scholars.

2 It is true that, according to one account (John i : 36), the Baptist once
identified Jesus with, him; but the synoptists state that just before his
execution John sent to Jesus to ask whether he were really the One or
whether they had still to look for him elsewhere (see Matt, n : 3; Luke
7 : 19 and 20).

84 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

to have been an individual bearing a certain likeness to
the prophets of old, who felt himself compelled to come
forward to announce the speedy advent of the expected
Messiah, to say that the latter was at hand. And with
this view the Gospels agree. Such doctrines as the
cross, the resurrection, and the gift of the Holy Spirit
were yet to be unfolded. 1 This passage, in fact, affords
no proof, or even presumption, of the existence of an
ancient cult of Jesus-worshippers with peculiar doctrines
which then required (so to speak) bringing up to date.

Another supposed indication of the existence of a pre-
Christian Jesus-cult (or cults) is derived from an obscure
sect called the Jessaioi, 2 referred to by Epiphanius (fourth
century A. D., Ear ., XXIX), and believed by him to have
been in existence before the time of Christ. Professor
von Soden thinks (Hat Jesus gelebt?, English transla-
tion, p. 28; cf. Isaiah n : i-io; I Sam. 16 : i; Ro-
mans 15 : 12) that their name was derived from Jesse.
"Perhaps," he says, "it was a sect which believed in the
Messiah, and expected him, as the Son of David, to come
of the root of Jesse, or Isai." Professor Drews, on the
other hand, would prefer to think that they were more
probably named after an old cult-god Jesus.

But we cannot place any confidence here in Epipha-
nius, who was a prejudiced and credulous man. No other
ancient author even mentions these sectaries amongst
the numerous bodies of heretics.

It is also impossible to draw any conclusions as to a
Jesus-cult from their name; nor can we be even moder-
ately certain that they existed at all in pre-Christian
times. Much the same also may be said of the Naasenes,
or Ophites (serpent- worshippers), a Gnostic sect whose
chief tenet was belief in a spiritual Christ-aeon, who de-

1 The disciples of John are differentiated in the Acts and elsewhere by
their lack of the pentecostal gifts.
2> Ir<raH; also "Jessaer," "Jessacs," and "Jessenes."

JESUS-CULTS 85

scended into the material chaos to assist Sophia (Wis-
dom) in her efforts to emancipate the pre-existing souls
of men from the bondage of matter. This Christ-aeon
for a time tenanted the body of Jesus, entering it at his
baptism and leaving it before his crucifixion.

But here, again, the Christian flavour, which is dis-
cernible in their doctrines, probably dates from after
the time of Jesus. We have no proof whatever that
these elements existed among the original tenets of the
serpent-worshippers.

A great deal has also recently been made out of the
ancient Naasene hymn, preserved by Hippolytus (Ref.
of All Her., V, 5). After describing the woes and suffer-
ings of the human soul during its wanderings upon earth, 1
the writer of the hymn continues:

" But Jesus said: Father, behold
a war of evils has arisen upon the earth;
it comes from thy breath, and ever works:
Man strives to shun this bitter chaos,
but knows not how he may pass (safely) through it;
therefore, do thou, O Father, send me:
bearing thy seals I will descend (to earth);
throughout the ages I will pass;
all mysteries I will unfold,
all forms of godhead I will unveil,
all secrets of thy holy path
styled GNOSIS (knowledge) I will impart [to man]."

Now, this hymn of which the above quotation forms
the concluding part shows clearly that this sect, after
the time of Christ, professed a theosophical form of
Christianity. But we have no evidence to show that
they did so before that time, and the. identification of
the Saviour-aeon with Jesus is more likely (in the absence
of evidence to the contrary) to be a post-Christian im-

1 Metempsychosis (transmigration) is probably meant here. The hymn
in its present form is very corrupt and has been much interpolated.

86 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

provement upon an older scheme of pagan Gnosticism.
Moreover, we do not know, even approximately, the date
of this hymn. Professor W. B. Smith cautiously remarks
that it is "old no one can say how old" a sufficiently
vague statement. Professor Drews subsequently goes
beyond this, and tells us that it is, "according to all ap-
pearances, a pre-Christian hymn." It would be inter-
esting to learn what proofs there are of this; but these
are not vouchsafed to us. The mere fact that these
Naasenes made use of both St. Paul's epistles and the
fourth Gospel certainly suggests very strongly that the
semi-Christian flavour of their system was derived from
post-Christian sources. Moreover, even in the later
form of their doctrines, Jesus is not a "god" in any real
sense of the term least of all a dying and rising god. He
is merely the temporary embodiment of one of the csons
of the Pleroma, who comes down to impart divine and
saving knowledge (Tvfoa-R) to mankind. This fact, in-
deed, in itself entirely refutes the theory that the Na-
asenes worshipped a dying and reviving cult-god of any
kind, as the modern mythicist would have us believe both
the pre- and post-Christian "Jesuists" and "Christists"
did.

But the most plausible argument advanced so far is
found in the document known as the Parisian Magic
Papyrus, the date of which is referred to the fourth or
fifth century A. D. In this the following lines occur:

1. 1549. op/ci^ca &e Kara TQV fJLapiraKovpiff vavaapi.
1. 3119. opKifa ere tcara rov 0eov r&v E/3paion>

Here vcuraapi is identified with Nasaria and made inter-
changeable with TOW deov TWV Ey8/>aoz> 'I^erou, the whole
being understood to mean, "I conjure you by the Protec-
tor"; "I conjure you by Jesus the god of the Hebrews"
these being formula used in the exorcising of demons. r

JESUS-CULTS 87

Here, once more, we have not a shred of evidence to
show that these formula are, in their present shape at
least, pre-Christian. It is, indeed, far more probable
that the document, if it dates in any form from before the
time of Christ, was interpolated with the name Jesus
after this had gamed repute as a word of power (cf. Acts
3:6; 4 : 10; 19 : 13 with Mark 9 : 38; Luke 9 : 49).
In short, there are no safe indications here either of a
pre-Christian cult of any kind. 1 Indeed, Professor Drews
seems to be conscious of the weakness of this part of the
current mythical hypothesis; for at one of the public
discussions, held in Germany during 1910, he was care-
ful to. insist that his thesis that the Founder of Christian-
ity was a purely mythical character did not depend upon
the existence of a pre-Christian cult-god named Jesus,
thus differing from both Robertson and Smith, who make
it the basis and main support of their respective theories.

Finally, in regard to the statement that the two ideas
a "Christ" and a "Jesus" might.be combined, and
that Jesus was merely, the general name for the saviour
and redeemer, it would be interesting to learn where, in
pre-Christian literature, the expected Messiah, or Christ,
is, by anticipation, named Jesus, 2 or the expectation itself

1 As against the cult-god theory, the following passages in the Gospels
should be carefully studied: Matt. 16 : 22 /.; 20 : 17-19; Mark 8 : 31-33;
9 : 31; 10 : 33; Luke 9 : 22-24. The synoptists unanimously declare that
when Jesus announced his resolve to become a sacrifice at Jerusalem his
disciples rejected this view of the Messianic office, Luke adding that "they
understood none of these things." Had the disciples been members of a
cult or brotherhood worshipping a suffering Messiah, or a cult-god named
Jesus, as Professor Drews postulates, it would have been at once intelligible
to them and they would have been represented as encouraging him in his
resolution.

2 Professor Drews appears to think (The Witnesses to the Historicity of
Jesus, p. 195) that because "Matthew" says that the Child of Mary was to
be called Jesus (i : 21), and then identifies him with the virgin's son of
Isaiah 7 : 14 (Matt, i :'23), Immanuel "is also the meaning of Jesus"!
This is not so in the sense required by his theory; and, moreover, would
be, in any case, post- (and not pre-) Christian evidence for that hypothesis.

For an analysis and discussion of the Hebrew word fr-lmah, and its Greek

88 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

regarded as in any sense identical with the cultual wor-
ship of a god of that name who had previously effected
a temporal salvation for the Hebrew people. Until this
evidence is forthcoming the theory must remain a mere
unsubstantiated speculation.

equivalents, irapfftvos and veZvts, see the present writer's A Critical Ex-
amination of the Evidences for the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth, Appendix E
(1908).

CHAPTER V

BETHLEHEM. NAZARETH AND NAZAREAN. GALILEE

Bethlehem

IT is, perhaps, somewhat remarkable, in view of mod-
ern controversies respecting the birth of Jesus, that
there should be in Palestine two places bearing the name
of Bethlehem. The less famous of these, now repre-
sented by the little village called Beit Lahm, is situated
about seven miles northwest of the present town of Naz-
areth. It is mentioned in the book of Joshua (19 : 15),
where it is stated to be a portion of "the inheritance of
the children of Zebulun." 1

The other Bethlehem about six miles from Jerusalem
often distinguished from the former by the addition of
the word "Judah" (Judges 17 : 8 and 9; 19 : 18; Ruth
i : i), or "Ephratah" (Micah 5 : 2), is generally sup-
posed to have derived the latter appellation from be-
ing situated in a district so named (I Sam. 17 : 12).
Bethlehem Ephratah (nrnjDK D^" n<! 3) is the reading of the
Massoretic text in Micah 5 : 2, though here the LXX
has "Bethlehem house of Ephratah" (Bi^Xee/i oweo? [roO]
'T&$pada) } which doubtless has suggested to Professor
G. A. Smith the omission of -lehem and the writing
of the word "Beth-Ephratah." The usual interpreta-
tion of Bethlehem, "house of bread," and of Ephratah,
"fruitful," are no doubt allusions to the- former fertility
of the district. A doubtful proposal, however, has re-
cently been made to find in Bethlehem the name of the

1 In the Talmud it is termed n"ix , commonly regarded as a corruption
of mnxj, "of Nazareth."

89

90 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

god Lakkmu, which is known to us from the opening
of the Babylonian creation epic. But here Professor
Konig protests (Expository Times, September, 1913, p.
547): "Are we to suppose," he asks, "that even David
worshipped Lachmu in Bethlehem?" And he points
out that the prefix "Beth- also occurs in combination
with many other words which do not designate any god,
as, for instance, in Beth Diblathayim." 1
: Now, since many modern scholars, including the vast
majority of German critics, while holding to the historic-
ity of Jesus, reject the traditional place of his birth for
one which they would place in Galilee, it might be worth
while to consider whether there has been, either before
or subsequent to the time of Christ, any confusion be-
tween these two Bethlehems. If the Messiah really were
ever said to have been, or to be destined to be, born
in Galilee, according to some Ephraimitic or northern
tradition now lost, then the Bethlehem Zebulun if that
place were named either in tradition or prophecy
might possibly have been changed by the compilers of
the two birth-stories to Bethlehem- Judah (Ephratah),
in order to fulfil the prophecy recorded in our present
text of the book of Micah. 2 Such a theory, however,
would seem to have very little, if any, evidence to sup-
port it.

Turning now to the views of the present-day mythi-
cists, we find Professor Drews asserting a theory some-
what similar. The Messiah of the Israelite-myth was,
he says (The Christ Myth, p. 81), to be undoubtedly a
Galilean by birth; but the authors of the birth-narra-
tives "invented the abstruse story of the journey of his
parents to Bethlehem" in order to connect Jesus with

Professor Sayce, however, says (Patriarchal Palestine, p. 82): "Mr.
Tomkins is probably right in seeing even in Bethlehem the name of the
primeval Chaldean deity Lakhmu" (later Ann; cf. also op. cit., p. 260).

- Or, perchance, altered previously in the text of Micah by the Masso-
retic redactors?

BETHLEHEM 91

the House of David, from which the southern, or Judah-
ite, mythical Messiah was to be descended (Micah 5:2).

Mr. J. M. Robertson, on the other hand, has a rather
different explanation of the choice of Bethlehem. It
was selected purely for mythical reasons. "The cave
of Bethlehem," he asserts (Christianity and Mythology, p.
329), "had been from time immemorial a place of wor-
ship in the cult of Tammuz, as it actually was in the
time of Jerome; and, as the quasi-historic David bore
the name of the sun-god Daoud, or Dodo (Sayce, Hibb.
Lects., pp. 56 and 57), who was identical with Tammuz,
it was not improbable on that account that Bethle-
hem was traditionally the city of David, and therefore,
no doubt, was deemed by the New Testament myth-
makers the most suitable place for the birth of Jesus, 1
the mythical descendant of that quasi-historical mon-
arch and the pseudo-historical embodiment of the god
Tammuz, or Adonis." We will take Mr. Robertson's
view of the matter first of all.

The statement that Bethlehem had been "from time
immemorial a place of worship in the cult of Tammuz"
has no historical foundation. The emperor Hadrian,
it is said, to annoy the Jews, set up an image of Venus
(the mother of Adonis) on the site of the temple at
Jerusalem, while the Christians were similarly punished
by the devastation of Bethlehem and the planting of a
grove dedicated to Adonis upon the spot (Jerome, Ep.
ad Paul., 58, 3). Whether the cult of the latter god
had ever been previously carried on in that place is
wholly unknown (see Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, 3d
ed., vol. I, p. 257). As regards his further speculation
that Bethlehem was probably called "the city of David,"
because the king thus designated "bore the name of the

1 Cf. the extraordinary statement in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhoth,
f . 5, i) that the Messiah was born at Bethlehem on the day of the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, but carried off from his mother by a strong gale !

92 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

sun-god Daoud, or Dodo," who was worshipped there,
Doctor Sayce (quoted by Mr. Robertson) also points
out that while Tammuz bore the epithet (not name)
Dod ("beloved"), the same word is also used of Jahveh,
who is addressed as Dodi ("my beloved," Isaiah 5 : i),
and he truly adds: "We can easily understand how a
name of this kind, with such a signification, should have
been transferred by popular affection from the deity
[Jahveh] to the king, of whom it is said that 'all Israel
and Judah loved him' (I Sam. 18 : 6)."

There can be little doubt, therefore, that Bethlehem
was called the city of David, not from a local worship of
Adonis carried on there, but because all Hebrew tradi-
tion unanimously declared that the beloved king was the
son of a great sheep-master of Bethlehem and was born
and spent his early youth in that place. 1

Thus Mr. Robertson's hypothesis, all through, is, to
say the least of it, purely speculative and improbable.

Professor Drews's theory of an abstruse story of a jour-
ney to Bethlehem, invented to secure for Jesus a place
in the pedigree of the Davidic, or southern, Messiah,
can now be most satisfactorily met by showing that the
story referred to is neither so entirely abstruse nor neces-
sarily such a pure invention as it was somewhat hastily
decided to be by Strauss and later mythicists. The re-
cent researches of Sir W. M. Ramsay have now at least
practically settled two much-disputed historical points
in connexion with the birth-story, viz.: (i) that Qui-
rinus was, as Luke states, governing Syria about the
time of the first census (9-8 B. C.) ordered by Augustus,
and (2) the fact that all persons residing out of their
own proper names had to return thither for registration
therein. 2 In view of these important facts, so long con-

1 David has been explained as meaning either (i) "beloved," (2) "pa-
ternal uncle" (pron. in), or (3) as an abbreviation of Dodijah, "Jahveh
is patron" (= Dodai) best of all.

3 See Appendix A (i).

NAZARETH 93

tested, it is for Professor Drews to demonstrate more
clearly that this particular journey must have been a
pure invention and wholly contrary to established cus-
toms. Moreover, that simple and unsophisticated writers
like the synoptists, in telling this straightforward story,
made such an elaborate and artificial selection from al-
leged rival and conflicting Messianic expectations, and in-
vented the stories, is in the highest degree unlikely. Such
a view demands considerably greater proof than has been
adduced so far.

Nazareth

Professor Drews is extremely doubtful about the very
existence of Nazareth in pre-Christian times (The Christ
Myth, p. 59; cf. The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus,
p. 200). His chief reason for this doubt is: "Such a place
is not mentioned either in the Old Testament or in the
Talmud, which, however, mentions more than sixty Gal-
ilean towns, nor again by the Jewish historian Josephus,
nor in the Apocrypha."

This seems, at first sight, a formidable array of adverse
evidence, though only of a negative type. But when we
look further into the matter such testimony is by no
means convincing. That a small and insignificant vil-
lage (cf. John i : 46), buried miles away in the remote
Galilean hills, should not be mentioned in our extant
Jewish records is in no way remarkable. Why should it
be referred to ? Nothing ever happened there. It had
in pre-Christian days and from the point of view of the
writers of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, as also
from that of Josephus no importance whatever. The
compilers of the Talmud, too, which is believed to have
begun to take a written form towards the end of the
second century, must have at least known of its exist-
ence in the fourth century, and for some time previously,
although they do not refer to it; for Epiphanius ob-

94 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

serves (Hcsr., I, 136) that until the time of Constantine
it was inhabited only by Jews, while Jerome refers
(Ep. 86) to Paula passing through it in his time. Ac-
cordingly, if before the fourth century A. D. there was
a village of that name peopled exclusively by Jews, it is
clear that the place did not, at a comparatively late
date, owe its origin and name to mythical Christian
tradition and piety, while it is also probable that it must
have existed there for some time before the reign of Con-
stantine. We cannot, of course, absolutely prove this,
owing to the paucity of records; but it is, nevertheless,
the most likely explanation of the facts of the case as
these are known to us. 1

Again, in replying to the argument of Weiss that it
"cannot be denied that it was firmly believed by the
Christians of the first century that Jesus came from
Nazareth," Drews can merely say that this statement
"is based on the unproved assumption that the Gospels
already existed then in their present form."

It is true that here, again, owing to the literary bar-
renness of the first century, we have little evidence of an
external character as to the dates of the canonical Gos-
pels. Still, there is a great mass of internal evidence,

1 The Jewish Encyclopedia, art. "Nazareth," says that "Eleazir Kalir
(eighth and ninth centuries A. D.), in the elegy 'Ekah Yashebah,' mentions
the priestly class of Nazareth (msj = 'Mishmeret'), doubtless on the basis
of some ancient authority." Doctor Cheyne's latest views on Nazareth
are expressed in his Fresh Voyages in Unfrequented Waters (1914) : Naza-
reth is an old synonym for Galil, i. e., the southern Galilee. The old form
of the synonym is Resin or Rezon. But this, again, is a corruption of Bar-
Sin, and Bar-Sin is a shortened form of Arab-Sibon, which is Arabian Ish-
mael, which is Jerahme'el ! The ending of Nazareth, however (-etK), shows
that it was really the name of a goddess, not of a town. Finally, "the
original form of the gracious deity's name was Yarhu-AsshvuvRabsinath''
a remarkable genealogy'

Paul Haupt regards Nazareth as the new name of the old city Hinnatuni
(Hinnathon, Joshua 19 : 44; Hethlon [ ? ], Ezek. 47 : 15. The Open Court,
April, 1909, p. 198). Their common meaning is supposed to be "defense";
but this and the identifications are very doubtful.

NAZORAEAN 95

chiefly appreciable by scholars and impossible to detail
here, which goes 'a very long way to establish that con-
clusion. And even to the ordinary reader it is very
obvious that the synoptic Gospels, at least, differ wholly
in their literary style and phraseology, as well as in
matter, from all extant documents of the second and
third, and later, centuries. The ideas which they con-
tain, the references and local colour, no less than the
ethical and spiritual standpoint, all belong undoubtedly
to the first century A. D. And these facts, amongst
others, are at any rate very strong proofs of a relative,
if not absolute, character in their favour.

Nazoraean

For an explanation of this designation of Jesus the
modern mythicist usually pins his faith to a critical
theory advanced by Professor W. B. Smith in his Der
Vorchristliche Jesus (1906) and repeated in Ecce Deus
(1912). According to this hypothesis, Jesus derived it
from being the cult-god of a sect who were known as Naz-
oraeans (Na^o/aatot), 1 and had existed in pre-Christian
times (see Epiphanius, Ear., XXIX, 6).

Professor Smith's derivation of the title and its mean-
ing may be summarised as follows {Der Vorchristliche
Jesus, pp. 142 Jf.; cf. s6/.; also The Monist, 1905, "The
Meaning of the Epithet Nazorean," pp. 25 jf.). It
comes, he says, from an old Hebrew root NSR [or NZR],
which has the meaning of "guardian," "protector," or

1 The chief codices vary between Nofwpatos, Nafopa?os, Nafapa?os, Naira-
pcuos, and Nafapiji><5s, the last-mentioned being very frequent in the MSS.
generally, but the first-named now appears uniformly in critical texts.
Similarly, the town is commonly written Nafap^ or Nafap/r; Nofapd is
also found in some MSS., and Keim (Jesus of Nazara) argues strongly in
favour of this reading, and regards Nafapijvfc (Nazarene) as a true de-
rivative from it. When the common readings have been corrected, and
Jesus appears as the "Nazoraean," there are yet six passages left (Mark
i : g; Matt. 2 : 23; 21 : n; Luke 2 : 4; John i : 45 and 46; also Acts 10 :
38) where Nazareth appears as a place.

96 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

"keeper." This view is adopted by Drews, who adds
(The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, p. 202): "In
his [Smith's] opinion the name can be traced to the an-
cient root N-Z-R, which means something like watcher,
protector, guardian, saviour. Hence Jesus the Nazoraean,
or Nazarene, was Jesus the protector, just as Jahveh
(Psalm 121 : 5) or the archangel Michael, the angel-
prince, who often takes the place of the Messiah,
is known as the 'protector of Israel,' 1 its spokesman
with God, and its deliverer from all its cares (Daniel
19 : 13; 12 : i; Gen. 48 : 16); the rabbinical Metatron
also plays this part of protector and supporter of the
Jewish people, and is regarded as the angel of redemp-
tion, especially of the damned suffering in hell. The fol-
lowers of Jesus will, therefore, have called themselves
Nazoraeans 2 because they primarily conceived the ex-
pected Messiah in the sense of a Michael or Metatron, a
protector; that is, at all events, more probable than
that they took their name from the place Nazareth, with
which they had no close connection. It is not at all im-
probable that the place Nazareth took its name from the
sect of the Nazoraeans, instead of the reverse, as is ad-
mitted by so distinguished a scholar as W. Nestle." 3

1 It is claimed that in the nomen restaurationis of Marcus (Irenasus, Adv.
Ear., I, 21, 3) Jesus has this surname (Nazaria); further, that in the
Parisian Magical Papyrus (I. 1548), a god of that name is mentioned (see
chap. 3, p. 36). In the former Jesus Nazaria is taken as Jesus Nazar-jah,
i. e., "Jesus (the) Protector Jah."

In reply to any objection that Jahveh as protector is described by the
psalmist as shomer (ID;?), and not as no$er (iJ'J), Drew urges that "we are
concerned here not with the word itself but its meaning." But the main
point in Smith's argument seems to be the special connexion of the root
NZR with divine beings as "protectors of men." The reference to Psalm
121, therefore, falls somewhat flat, as it would be more to the point to quote
a case where Jahveh had the latter designation.

2 Smith further maintains: "They were close to the Jessaioi (or Jessees),
who adored the same god as Samour, or Jesus, who were themselves nearly
related to the more Hellenic Gnostics, who worshipped the same god as
Soter, or Samour" (The Open Court, January, 1910, p. 15).

3 Citing Siidwesldeutsche Schulblalter (1910), Heft 4 and 5, p. 163.

NAZORAEAN 97

This explanation of Professor Smith's is sharply criti-
cised by Doctor Cheyne, who declares that his view of
the word is impossible. "Need I remark," he writes
(Hibbert Journal, 1911, p. 892), "that in Hebrew the
guardian would be ha-noser, not ha-nosri?" 1

Professor Smith's reply to this question will be found
in his Ecce Deus (pp. 320 and 321): "Inasmuch as three
pages of Der Vorchristliche Jesus (47-50) are given to
the consideration of this point, the answer would seem
to be that one need not. 2

"But when it is said that surely neither Hannathon
nor Nazareth means defense, it must be said that author-
ities seem to differ. Professor Cheyne refers to 'Han-
nathon' and 'Nazareth' in the Encyclopedia Biblica.
One may read the nine lines on 'Hannathon' and
the interesting article on 'Nazareth' repeatedly without
finding any reason for the statement just quoted. Pro-
fessor Haupt declares: 'Both Hittalon and Hinnathon
mean protection' a judgment, so far as Hinnatuni is
concerned, confirmed by other most eminent Assyriolo-
gists. As to Nazareth, the force of the termination may
be uncertain, even as the termination itself is, but hardly
the stem Nazar, which appears in the older form Nasa-
raioi; and about the Hebrew Nasar (to guard) there is
no doubt." . . . "Nasaree was a religious term or des-
ignation; it expressed some religious peculiarity of the
sect that bore it; and when the multiplied conceits of
linguistic ingenuity are all finally laid to rest, the obvious

1 The Hebrew letter Tsade (s) is variously transliterated as ts, Q, tz, ss, and
j; also, commonly by Professor Smith (in Naar), as z; e. g., Nazar. Modern
Hebraists generally write Nasar and Nasoraean for Nazoraean.

2 The Talmudic name of Jesus, Jeshu Ha-nosri ('"plan wj, Sanh. 43, a,
etc.), seems to be strong evidence against Smith's theory. Similarly, No$rim
(onsij) cannot be the "protectors." Smith's contention, however, is that
either Ha-nosri = Ha-noser (isijn) or it is a rabbinical disguise of that
term, or, again, more probably, an abbreviation of N R I H, "keeper of
Jahveh," or "Jahveh, the keeper."

98 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

reference will be seen to be to the perfectly familiar and
apparent Hebrew stem nasar (to guard) . As Winckler has
so well expressed it: 'From the concept neqer [or neser] is
named the religion of those who believe on the "Saviour";
Nazarene Christians and Nazairier. Nazareth, as the
home of Jesus, forms only a confirmation of his saviour
nature in the symbolising play of words.' The notions
of guardian and saviour are so closely akin that servator
and salvator are used almost interchangeably as applied
to the Jesus."

It is extremely difficult not to say hazardous for
any one who is not a specialist in Hebrew 1 to pronounce
definitely upon the point at issue here. Nevertheless, it
seems to the present writer that, so far, the balance of evi-
dence lies with the Hebraists as against the mythicists..

Professor Smith lays great stress upon the evidence
afforded by Epiphanius in favour of his theory that
"careful and erudite heresiograph," as he calls him (The
Open Court, January, 1910, p. 14). Epiphanius says:
"All men called the Christians Nazoraeans" that is, in
his time. And again: "The heresy of the Nazarees was
before Christ, and knew not Christ." 2

"There!" exclaims Smith, "the cat is out of the bag."
But is it? Let us examine into the matter a little more
carefully.

Beginning with the statements of Epiphanius, we have:
"The heresy of the Nazarees was before Christ, and knew
no} Christ." Surely, if this means anything, it is that Je-
sus Christ was not a cult-god of this sect ! Further, Epi-

1 Drews affirms (The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, p. 202, note 2)
that "Schmiedel has recently maintained against Weinel, in the Protestan-
tenblatt (1910, no. 17, p. 438), that Smith's hypothesis is philologically ad-
missible. Hence the charge of 'gross ignorance of the Semitic languages,'
which Weinel brings against Smith, is quite unjustified."

2 Hcsr., XXIX, 6, %v yap ij aipecns -rQv TSo.ffa.pa.lwv vpb XpwroD, xa.1

ofis $. AXX& Kal TT&vres Hvdpuiroi rods X/JtartavoDs "Sa.fwpa.lovs

mZORAEAN 99

phanius gives a very confused account of them, and seems
to think that, while the;Nazoraeans were Christians, the
Nazaraeans (Nazarees) were Jews. 1 Indeed, his state-
ments about them all through are both careless and un-
critical, and this fact alone detracts greatly from their
value as really serious evidence in the case.

Again, Marcus, who is called in as witness (p. 96, note
i), was a second-century heretic, and the statement that
the invocation of Jesus Nazaria "goes back very obvi-
ously and probably to the remotest antiquity" has no
historical evidence to back it. Neither has it been shown
that the Nao-aapi of the Paris magical formula is con-
nected with the Nao/3ato9 of the New Testament. And,
even if it be considered as proved that Nazoraean means
"guardian," it still remains to be shown that this word
is practically identical in meaning with Jesus, and still
more that either Jesus or Nazoraios was a pre-Christian
cult-god.

As a matter of fact, however, from the stem N Z R (lJ)
comes also the substantive nezer, or neser (^), "shoot,"
"branch" and, figuratively, "scion" (cf. Isaiah 9 : 21;
60 : 21). And in n : i the prophet promises that a
"branch" (or "scion") of the stem of Jesse shall be
born; it seems, therefore, most probable that this is
what is referred to by Matthew when he says that it was
predicted by prophets that Jesus should be called a
Nazoraean. 2 He plays (so to say) upon the similarity
between the two words as regards their three root letters,
and declares in effect that the ]V(a)s(o)y-aean represents

1 See Meyboom, "Jezus de Nazoraer," Theol. Tijdschrift. (1905), pp.
529^. Cf. Lepsius, Zur Qudlenkritik des Epiphanios (1865),. pp. 130^.

2 " 'Nafwpa?os KXij0i5ffereu' summarises the prophecies referred to. Isaiah
ii : i had called the Messiah (soTarg.) "J = branch; Jer. 23 : 5; 33 : 15
had called him fins branch, and Isaiah 4 : 2, HDX (Targ. has 'Messiah')."
Archdeacon Allen on St. Matthew in loco. The Arabic name for Christians
(Nasara, Koran, Sura V) has been derived from nasara, "to help," but this
is doubtful.

100 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

the N(e)3(e)r-aean/ whose coming was foretold in proph-
ecy, not any "watchman-god" or "guardian-god" of some
ancient cult-idea.

Finally and Doctor Cheyne's explanation of the ori-
gin and meaning of "Nazareth" supports the conclusion
it is also probable that The Nazoraean, or Nasoraean
means simply "The Galilean," a name by which Jesus,
especially later on, was known, and particularly by pagan
writers. The present-day Mohammedan designation of
Christians as Nazarenes (i. e., Nasoraeans) is merely the
equivalent of Galileans, as the Emperor Julian always
insisted on their being called, i. e., followers of the Prophet
from Galilee. 2

After references to Isaiah 41 : 25; 9 : i, 2, 3, 6, and 7
as having, in the eyes of at least many of the Jews of
the time of Christ, a Messianic significance, Professor
Drews proceeds as follows (The Witnesses to the Historic-
ity of Jesus, pp. 210 and 211 and note i):

Galilee

"It is the word of the prophet [Isaiah], not a hard
fact of history, that demands the birth of the Saviour.
Then Nazareth, with its relation to nazar, occurred at
once as the proper birthplace of Jesus, as soon as men
began to conceive the episode historically. Astral con-
siderations may have co-operated. Galilee, from galU,
circle, connects with the zodiacal circle, 3 which the sun
traverses; even in the prophet the Saviour is associated
with the sun. 4 The people that walk in darkness and
that 'dwell in the land of the shadow' might easily be
identified with the 'familiar spirits' of whom Isaiah

1 Ancient Hebrew was written originally without the vowel-pointing in
MSS. "Nezoraeans" would mean "Disciples of the Branch."

2 Doctor Cheyne also notes (Enc. Bib., art. "Joseph," sec. 9) that the Ara-
maic n'sar (Heb. 1^4) means to saw; so that "Jesus the Nazarene," or (?)
"Nasarene," might merely mean "Jesus the carpenter" (cf. Mark 6 : 3).

8 Cf. also The Christ Myth, p. 240.

4 Isaiah merely compares him to the sun.

GALILEE 101

speaks (8 : 19), in whom there is no light, who 'pass
through' the land 'hardly bestead and hungry; and it
shall come to pass that when they shall be hungry, they
shall fret themselves and curse their king and their god,
and look upward; and they shall look into the earth,
and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish,
and they shall be driven to darkness.' They suggest,"
he continues, "the souls in the nether world, the stars
in their course below the celestial equator which rejoice
at the birth of the 'great light' at the winter solstice,
and are led to their time of brilliancy. 1 On this view,
Galilee of the Gentiles (Galll ha-goim) coincides with
the lower half of the 'water region' of the zodiac, in
which are found the aquatic signs of the Southern Fish,
Aquarius, the Fishes, the Whale, and Eridanus." In a
note to the above he further adds: "In truth, Zebulun,
according to Gen. 49, relates to the sign of the zodiac
Capricorn and Naphtali to Aries, both of which belong
to the water region of the zodiac, the dark part of the
year (cf. A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alien Orients, p. 398). According to M. Miiller, galll
means, in a derivative from the Coptic, the 'water-
wheel.' A water-wheel might (according to Fuhrmann)
be traced in the constellation Orion, the spokes being
represented by the four chief stars and the axis by the
stars of the belt, the wheel being set in motion by the
falling water of the Milky Way. 2 In so far as Orion is

1 It would be interesting to know what evidence there is for the mythical
interpretation of these "spirits of the dead" (obotJi) as equivalent here
either to the people that dwell in darkness (= distressed Israelites) or to
stars "below the celestial equator" ! The words here have merely a plain
literal meaning. The prophet is denouncing the use of necromancy, as a
means of prying into the future, and what it may bring forth, by a suffer-
ing people, and he means nothing more than this. Any such mythical in-
terpretation would be purely modern and fanciful.

2 Is not Professor Drews here confusing the Milky Way with the constel-
lation Eridanus? The Chinese, however, seem to have called the Milky
Way the Celestial River (tien ho). And the Egyptians (later) regarded the

102 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

the Hanging Figure of the 22d Psalm, we may note that
the latter is a galll (Galilean), and as the constellation
Orion is, as we saw, 1 astrally related to the nazar (the
Hyades), the birth of the Saviour in Nazareth might be
deduced from this (see Niemojewski, Gott Jesus, pp. 161
and 193)."

But to return to the text. "We thus," he continues,
"understand why Galilee, 'the way to the sea, the land
by the Jordan,' 2 plays so great a part in the story of
Jesus; it was bound to be recognised in a Messianic age.
Hence this watery region of the sky is the chief theatre
of the Saviour's life; hence in the Gospels the 'Sea of
Galilee/ the Sea of Gennesaret, and the many names of
places in the district. For the Greeks and Romans they
had no ulterior [i. e., mythical] significance, and were
mere names, but much like the names of places in Homer
or Vergil, or the description of the voyage of the Argo-
naut by Apollonius of Rhodes. It is incredible that
von Soden should seek a proof of the historicity of the
Gospel narrative in these names."

Again (p. 212), he further seems to attack even the
geographical existence of one of the chief towns of Gali-
lee at that time: "It may be the same with other sup-
posed names of places. In regard to the most important
of them all, Capernaum, Steudel has called attention
to Zech. 13 : i, where it is said: ' In that day there shall
be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness,'

Milky Way as the Heavenly Nile. Elsewhere Professor Drews speaks of
it as the celestial form of the world-tree! And this, again, is equated with
the cross t

1 Note, pp. 203 and 204: "Possibly nazar has also an astral significance as
the Hyades in Taurus have the form of a branch [nazar ( ? nezer) ; in Zechariah
semah]; and Orion, in which we have already suspected the Baptist, seems
to bring the twig (Fuhrmann)."

2 On the next page he says that the Jordan has an astral significance in
the Gospels and corresponds to the celestial Eridanus (Egypt., iero, or iera,
"the river," see chap. 5, p. 107).

GALILEE 103

and reminds us that in his Jewish Wars (III, io, 8) Jose-
phus mentions 'a very strong' and fertilising spring
'which is called Capharnaum by the inhabitants of the
district.' When we read in Josephus the description of
the fish-abounding sea of Gennesaret and the country
about it, with its beauty and charm, its palms, nuts and
olives, and fruit-trees of all kinds, we feel that no other
knowledge of the locality was needed in order to invent
the whole regional background of the life of Jesus with
the aid of these indications."

Now, in Isaiah 9 : 1-7 we have, in the first place, an
historic reference to the northern districts of Israel,
which had been ravaged by Assyria in 734 B. C. (II
Kings 15 : 29), followed by a prediction that a "great
light" would shine upon the desolate land and its despair-
ing inhabitants. This relief is to come through a Davidic
king, though how he is to exercise authority over a sep-
arate kingdom of Israel is not clear. Probably the text
of this prophecy is corrupt, or we have not the whole
of the original, or, again, the prophet perhaps contem-
plates a reunion by conquest, or agreement, of the two
kingdoms as a part of the mission of this Messiah-prince.
In 41 : 25 the work of another "Isaiah" the deliv-
erer, who will be raised up by God, is to be a great war-
rior from the northeast, i. ., Cyrus (vs. 2), who will
restore "Israel" to his own land. This is a later view
of the contemplated restoration. In n : i the deliv-
erer is to be (as in chap. 9) a Davidic prince, more defi-
nitely a "branch" (IW) of the stock of Jesse. And here
we come again to the main point in this part of Pro-
fessor Drews's thesis. This nezer, or .neser ("branch"),
has suggested to the Gospel writers a pseudo-historical Naz-
areth as the birth'place of this deliverer (Jesus), as soon as
the idea came to be historicised. 1

1 Similarly, Doctor Winckler (Ex oriente lux, Band II, 1906, p. 59,
note): "From the word neger comes the religion of those who believe in the

104 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

But this is just what did not happen ! Christian tradi-
tion, as we have already pointed out, uniformly con-
nects the birth of Jesus, not with Nazareth, but with
Bethlehem. The Nazareth-birth is a modern critical
theory and opposed to all tradition both documentary
and oral. And whatever may be the origin of the place
Nazareth and its relation to Jesus it is difficult to be-
lieve that almost contemporary writers would be so
foolish as to link him with a then non-existent village
we would maintain that it is more probable that (as
Matthew seems to say) an actual Jesus was called the
Nazor-aean (i. e., Nezer-aean) and his disciples the Nazor-
aeans, through a punning upon the identity of the con-
sonants in both words, which are derived from the same
Hebrew root (N Z R or N R), than that he was a mere
pseudo-embodiment of a supposed "guardian-god" which
was worshipped by a sect hypothetically existent in pre-
Christian days. The play upon the words is a good one
in Hebrew, since the ideas of both the branch of proph-
ecy and the domicile (Galilee) of the youth and early
manhood of Jesus are combined and expressed under
the same term. 1

We will now turn, in conclusion, to the astral con-
siderations brought forward by Professor Drews. It is
very evident to a careful and thoughtful reader that,
to a great extent underlying the whole conception of a
mythical Jesus, there is an a priori astral and zodiacal
theory which is assumed to have been current in Pales-
tine at that time. Into this preconceived and unde'rly-

Saviour the Nazarene Christians, or Nazaraeans. Nazareth as the home
of Jesus is merely a confirmation of his character as Saviour for the symbolis-
ing tendency." (Italics ours.)

l Cf. the expression ^Sja unj?. ("Kedesh in Galilee"). The view taken
by Doctor E. A. Abbott, in Miscellanea Evangelica (i), is that "Nazarene"
and "Nazoraean" are not different forms of the same adjective, but that,
while the former means "man of Nazareth," the latter means the neser, or
"Rod of Jesse" of Isaiah; and that the people, recognising Jesus as the
life-giving healer, called him the "Nazoraean" instead of the "Nazarene."

GALILEE 105

ing framework the mythicist literally forces as we will
see from time to time all (or nearly all) the Gospel
narrative, whether it bears reference to persons, events,
or even places. Let us take, first of all, the term " Gal-
ilee."

The word gatil, "circle," "circuit," is used in the
Bible in reference to a region containing twenty small
towns grouped round the city Kedesh, 1 inhabited mainly
by Gentile races, and hence means nothing more than dis-
trict. It is so used in the lists of Tiglath-Pileser's con-
quests (II Kings 15 : 29; cf. I Kings 9 : n) and also hi
Isaiah 9 : i (A. V.). In the LXX we find it in the same
sense, Ta\L\ata aXXo<uA.G>i>, "Galilee of the Gentiles" (I
Mace. 5 : 15), and 17 Td\i\ata simply occurs often in I
Maccabees with the same meaning. But Professor Drews
asks us to believe that in the Gospels it has simply an
"astral" (or mystical) sense; that, in fact, Galilee rep-
resents merely the lower half, the water region, of the
zodiac. Now, what proof does he offer for this mystical
interpretation of what is, on the surface at least, a plain
historical narrative? He instances several zodiacal signs
which, he avers, find their counterparts (so to speak) in
Galilee. Let us examine these severally. Zebulun, he
says, relates to the sign Capricornus (he-goat), referring to
Gen. 49 : 13.

Now, in the "Blessing of Jacob," the dying patriarch
is made to predict mainly that the tribe will, in the fu-
ture, dwell along some coast-line and engage in some kind
of maritime business (cf. Deut. 33 : 18 and 19). There is
certainly no reference to Capricornus here and no mys-
tical meaning involved! According to Josephus (Ant.,
V, i, 22), the Zebulunites were settled in the north as
far as the coast of Gennesaret and perhaps touched
the Mediterranean shores. Again, Naphtali is described
(Gen. 49 : 21, A. V. and R. V., cf. Deut. 33 : 23) as

1 See also Nazareth and the Beginnings of Christianity, by C. Barrage.

106 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

"a hind (fi*N, ajjalati) let loose." This, we presume, has
suggested the zodiacal Aries (Ram). 1 But, unfortunately,
the Hebrew word never means a "ram" (though a word
slightly resembling it [^N, ajil] has that signification).
It means a "female deer," or, according to some author-
ities, perhaps a "wild she-goat." Moreover, the text
here is probably corrupt; for in the LXX we have in
place of the Massoretic reading N. oreXe^os aveipevov eVt-
StSous ev rat yevvrffiaTi /ca\Xo? ("N. [is] a growing stem
producing beauty by its budding"). Instead of H^**?,
"hind," many scholars read fiTfrf, a "spreading tere-
binth" (which seems to be implied by crreXe^o? above).
The following clause, "giveth goodly words," makes no
sense with either reading. Two emendations have, there-
fore, been proposed as alternatives, ""IPK, "producing
goodly shoots," and t| !'p^, "yielding goodly lambs." This
latter would give a slight support to the theory of some
connexion with Aries; but it cannot have been the
original reading, since 1BK, "lamb," is not Hebrew,
though it is found in Assyrian, Phoenician, Aramaic, and
Armenian. There is, in any case, here no reference to
the zodiacal Aries, or the dark part of the solar year,
and such exegesis can only be termed fanciful.

The connexion of the zodiacal signs mentioned by
Professor Drews with the mythical scheme seems very
vague; perhaps Aquarius might represent the source of
the Jordan and Pisces might then stand for the numer-
ous fish to be found in Gennesaret. But, going outside
the zodiac, Professor Drews contrives to bring in several
other and southern signs.

1 Mr. J. F. Blake, in his scheme of identifications of the patriarchs with
the zodiacal signs, makes Zebulun = Pisces and Naphtali = Capricornus
(Astronomical Myths, 1877, p. 106). Others, again, have traced the names
of the heads of the tribes to a totemic origin. See Professor Smith's article
on the personal totem names in the Enc. Bib.; Doctor H. J. D. Astley's art.
on "Totemism in the 0. T.," hi The Quest for April, 1912.

GALILEE 107

Eridanus is, of course, represented by the Jordan, its
earthly reflection. The most important, however, of these
signs, external to the zodiac, is the great constellation Orion.
This seems to play a variety of parts in the astral scheme.

First, it may, we are told, be regarded as somewhat
resembling a water-wheel. This, of course, fits in with
the idea of galil, "a circle," and Galilee as the zodiac.
But Orion is outside of the zodiac and therefore does
not seem to have any particular significance in this
sense. Neither does it seem, from inquiries made by the
present writer, to suggest to any one the slightest re-
semblance to a wheel of any kind. True, Eridanus comes
up to the left foot and the Milky Way up to the right
hand of Orion, as the stream of water does to the mill-
wheel which it turns. Here, therefore, a parallel of a
sort might be drawn.

But Professor Drews sees something still more im-
portant signified by Orion, viz., the "Hanging Figure"
of the 22d Psalm interpreted in a Messianic sense. 1
This, however, does not seem to have suggested itself
to any pre-Christian Jews. The picture drawn by the
psalmist is also rather that of a solitary and exhausted
man (signifying probably the pious portion of Israel)
ringed in by armed enemies. These are graphically com-
pared to a pack of pariah dogs (Cheyne reads "lions")
and a herd of wild oxen which "pierce his hands and
feet" with their teeth and horns.

The applicability of this psalm to the suffering Jesus
was an afterthought of Christian interpreters and sug-
gested probably by the quotation from it included in
the "Seven Words" from the cross -and the obvious
similarity of some of the verses to the description of the
crucifixion scene.'

Furthermore, it is probable that Orion had to the
Jews and early Christians another and quite differ-

1 See Appendix C.

108 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

ent signification. It is generally regarded as the K8sil,
or "Fool," who rebelled against God (Amos 5:8; cf.
Job 9 : i; 38 : si). 1

The constellation certainly suggests the figure of a
gigantic man armed with a sword at his side rather
than any hanging figure or wheel. Even if we imagined
the four stars of the (roughly) rectangular figure to repre-
sent the hands and feet of a man stretched upon an
X-shaped cross, the belt would be all awry. The fur-
ther suggestion (taken from Fuhrmann) that the star
group known as the Hyades, which, along with the Plei-
ades (above it), are situated in the head of Taurus (Bull),
have the form of, and represent, the "branch" (nesef)
brought by John the Baptist (Orion) is fanciful in the
extreme. They are a small cluster of stars having the
form of nothing in particular, and Orion has generally
been regarded as holding in his left hand a skin, or shield,
while with his right 2 he is striking with a club the charg-
ing Bull. But we have so many suggested identifications
associated with this great constellation and zodiacal
sign a water-wheel, the "Hanging Figure" of the 22d
Psalm, and, lastly, John the Baptist that we may well
pause and ask ourselves whether, according to this
method of interpretation, it be not possible to make the
various zodiacal signs and constellations mean almost
anybody and anything, according to the exuberant wit
and fancy of the critic or the needs of the critical theory !
What proof is there we ask once more that the people,
the mystics even, of two thousand or more years 'ago
read all this into the heavens; that they regarded the
various divisions and towns, and the river and the name
of Galilee, as mystical and earthly reflexes of these celes-
tial phenomena?

1 So also in Arabian and Semitic literature generally. Later writers refer
to a Persian identification with Nimrod.

2 The view, it must be remembered, is from the inside of a sphere.

GALILEE 109

With regard to Capernaum, 1 the most important of the
supposed names of places, Professor Drews would seem
to regard the town as wholly imaginary, though he re-
fers to the spring Capharnaum mentioned by Josephus.
He would rather connect the latter with the mystical
fountain spoken of in Zech. 13 : i. Here, however,
Zechariah is certainly thinking of some person of tran-
scendent spiritual powers and goodness, while the writ-
ers of the Gospel state plainly that they mean by Ca-
pernaum a town where such a person lived and exercised
his beneficent powers for the good of his countrymen
and all mankind. The town, no doubt, was destroyed
in the great war with Rome, but it is, perhaps, still to be
'identified with the ruins known as Kkirbet el-Minyeh on
the northern shore of the lake. 2

Bearing in mind all these various facts detailed above,
we think there is little need for wonder that Professor
von Soden should, in part, base the historicity of the
general Gospel narratives on 'the various documentary
references to Galilean places which we find throughout
the records of the evangelists. These were written while
the various towns were (recently) existent and while
the events referred to were yet comparatively fresh in
the minds of men. And if their statements are not to
be taken in their natural and historic sense, then we
must hold that in ancient literature it is more than
doubtful whether writers ever mean precisely what they
say.

1 City of Nahum (? the prophet).

2 Macalister affirms (A Hist, of Civilization in Palestine, 1912) that Tell
Hum is the correct site.

CHAPTER VI

THE BAPTISM

IT is exactly one hundred and twenty-one years since
C. F. Dupuis published his once famous book, L'Origine
de tons les Cultes, ou la Religion Universelle (Paris, 1795),
in which he asserted (vol. Ill, pp. 619 jf. and 683) that
John the Baptist was a purely mythical personage and
identified his name with that of the Babylonian fish-god
of Berossus, Oannes, or lannes; the Ea (Aa, Ae) of the
more ancient Sumerians. This theory, which depends
chiefly upon an alleged identity of names, has of late
years been dragged forth by Professor Drews and others
from the obscurity and neglect into which both it and
Dupuis's clever but superficial and inaccurate 1 work had
long fallen, and used by the former scholar as one of the
main props of his mythical theory of Christianity. We
will, however, defer its discussion until we come to the
consideration of the more modern form, and meanwhile
pass on directly to the criticism of D. F. Strauss.

Strauss attacks (Life of Jesus, 1835, vol. II, sec. 48,
pp. 49-51) the narrative of the baptism from an entirely
opposite standpoint to that of Drews. He makes great
capital out of the practical difficulties in which he thinks
the story is involved. Thus he remarks: "First, if we
suppose that for a divine being to descend on the earth
the heavens were opened to allow a passage from his

1 Mr. E. Walter Maunder, F.R.A.S., late of Greenwich Observatory,
states, in a letter to the present writer, that "Dupuis dated the constella-
tions, as designed, at the very tune when the unmapped space in the south
was farthest removed from a position having its centre at the south pole
of the time. In other words, he was between twelve and thirteen thousand
years wrong"!

110

THE BAPTISM 111

habitual residence, we adopt an opinion which belongs
to a time when people fancied that God dwelt above
the sky. Besides/' he continues, "the Holy Ghost is,
according to just ideas, the divine energy which fills the
universe; how, then, can we conceive that it would move
from one place to another, like a finite being, and even
metamorphose itself into a dove? And, lastly, to im-
agine that God pronounced certain words in human lan-
guage has been considered, and with good reason, highly
extravagant."

The above criticism, of the "common-sense order," is,
superficially at least, very acute and, in a sense, reason-
able; but in the next paragraph Strauss very justly modi-
fies it considerably with worthier views of spiritual phe-
nomena. We will also quote this passage in extenso:

."In the ancient church the most reflective amongst
the fathers considered that the celestial Voice of the Old
Testament was not, like an ordinary voice, produced by
a vibration of the air and apparent to the organs of
sense, but an internal impression which God produced
in those with whom he desired to communicate; 1 and
it is in this way that Origen and Theodore of Mopsuete
have maintained previously that the apparition at the
time of the baptism of Jesus was a vision and not a ma-
terial reality. Simple people, says Origen, in their sim-
plicity, think it a light matter for the universe to be put
in motion or for the heavens to be rent asunder; but
those who think more profoundly on these matters see
in these superior revelations how it is that chosen people
believe, in their watchings, and more particularly in their
dreams, that they have had evidence .by their corporeal
senses, while it has simply been a movement of their
minds. It is necessary, therefore, to conceive all the scene
of the baptism, not as an exterior reality, but as an in-
ternal vision operated by God; and it is in this way

1 See also The Transfiguration, chap. 8, p. 163. .

112 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

that most modern theologians have considered the sub-
ject."

We might, perhaps, take exception to the particular
use of the phrase, "an exterior reality," as here prac-
tically equivalent to a material phenomenon; otherwise
Strauss's quotation and comments are, in the main, very
just and true. Had Strauss, however, lived in an age of
psychical research, like our own, he would have seen
and grasped all these facts still more clearly.

The spiritual view (if we may so term it) of the phe-
nomena he then discusses in greater detail. "This mode
of explanation," he goes on to say, "is also supported by
certain expressions in the First and Fourth Gospels; as,
for instance, 'the heavens were opened unto him' 'I
saw,' and others, which appear to give the scene the
character of an internal vision; and it is in this sense
that Theodore of Mopsuete has said that the descent of
the Holy Ghost was not seen by all the assistants, but
that by a certain spiritual contemplation it was seen by
John alone; but, according to Mark, it was seen by
Jesus as well."

So far, Strauss writes intelligibly and consistently.
But at this point he seems to drop the clew which has
carried him along safely thus far, for he continues: "In
Luke, on the contrary, the expressions employed carry
a totally different meaning, such, for instance, as 'the
heaven was opened' 'the Holy Ghost descended in a
bodily shape'! This," he avers, "is decidedly exterior
and objective; consequently, if the complete truth of all
the evangelical recitals be contended for, it will be nec-
essary, since the recital of Luke is quite precise, to in-
terpret all the others, which are less so, by it and to
suppose that the scene they relate was not confined to
John the Baptist and Jesus. Olshausen had good reason,
then, for admitting by concession to the recital of Luke
that a crowd of people were present at the scene and

THE BAPTISM 113

both heard and saw something; but he stops there, and
says that this something was undetermined and incom-
prehensible. According to this mode of interpretation,
though on one side the theologian leaves the ground of
subjective visions and passes to that of objective appari-
tions, still, on the other side, he assures us that the dove
which appeared was not visible to the physical eye but
to the spiritual eye, and that the Voice was not heard by
the external ear but by the internal perception. We do
not," he adds, "comprehend this pneumatology of Ols-
hausen in which sensible realities are placed above the
senses; we shall, therefore, leave this obscure interpre-
tation and pass to the more lucid one which says sim-
ply that the scene was undoubtedly exterior but purely
natural."

. Here Strauss diverges to the views of such rationalists
as Paulus, who explained the opening of the heavens by
a sudden dispersion of the clouds or by a flash of light-
ning, the appearance of the "dove" by the advent of a
material bird of that species, and the Voice by a clap of
thunder, and so forth.

Now, at this point it will be seen that Strauss, through
a materialised rendering of the narrative of Luke, en-
tirely drops the suggestion of immaterial phenomena of
a symbolical character, expressing some actual spiritual
reality, in which he seemed, at the outset, more or less
inclined to acquiesce. Luke, he thinks, narrates the
scene both as objective and material, therefore we must,
for consistency's sake, take all the other narratives in a
similar sense.

But there are two great assumptions implied in this
view of the matter: first, that what is subjectively ap-
prehended, without the active co-operation of the normal
senses, as in ordinary perception, is of necessity wholly
non-objective in character, and this because the said
senses do not testify to it as a material existence; and,

114 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

secondly, that the use of language, ordinarily applied
to sensational phenomena, implies in the mind of the
writer materiality in the phenomenon.

But does Luke describe mere material phenomena as
occurring after the baptism? Or, again, does he ever
represent these phenomena as being seen and heard by
all the people who were present? We very much ques-
tion both of these assumptions. His narrative, no doubt,
can be forced into this sense, but not naturally, we
think. Luke, for .instance, speaks of the "Spirit" as
having a "bodily shape," or "form" (o-avtaTi/cw el'Set),
which was "like (o>?) a dove." But there is really no
materialising here; even a spirit may be conceived as
having, symbolically, a "form," or "shape" (elSosr), rel-
atively to the observer; but this does not necessarily
imply materiality, and the next word (?) distinctly im-
plies that it was not a "real dove" of any kind. 1 It is
difficult to see how the spiritual can be expressed in
human speech except in words that have ordinarily
a material signification! Luke certainly does not say
specifically (or, it would seem, imply) that all the people
saw the dove or heard the "Voice." The Voice, too, it
should be noted, is addressed solely to Jesus: "Thou
art [not here, "This is"] my beloved son," etc. On the
whole, there is very decided evidence to show that Luke
had not in his mind a material body and an audible
normal voice when writing his account of this scene. 2
As for the necessity of bringing the other accounts into
line with that of Luke, Strauss lived in days of, for the
most part, a very mechanical and unintelligent theory
of inspiration and exegesis, and when orthodoxy was

. * Cf. Acts 2:3. uffel irvpds is analogous to is irepurrep&v.
* De Loosten says (Jesus Christus wm Standpunkt des Psychiaters, 1905)
that the phenomena attending the baptism were "a case of combined op-
tical and auditory hallucinations." So also W. Hirsch, Religion und Zivili-
sation wm Standpunkte des Psychiaters, and Binet-Sangl6, La folie de Jesus

(iQICr-Il).

THE BAPTISM 115

lamentably wanting in imagination. Certainly, if Luke
were, as tradition avers, a physician, we might expect
his mind to have a materialistic bias, or at least his ac-
counts of spiritual phenomena to be couched in mate-
rialistic terms. But, in any case, the version of Mark is
prior in point of time and preferable in point of diction
and simplicity, so we may take it as the typical and
original account of this event and decline to adapt its
interpretation in any detailed sense to those of other
narratives.

We now come to the recent and important critique
of Professor Drews, who has dealt with the subject of
the baptism more fully than any other mythicist and
takes up the thread of the story where it was dropped
by Dupuis. He attacks these narratives, however, upon
historical as well as upon mythical grounds. We will
deal first of all with his historical objections.

He says (The Christ Myth, p. 121): "John the Bap-
tist, as we meet him in the Gospels, was not an histor-
ical personage. Apart from the Gospels he is mentioned
by Josephus, and this passage, although it was known to
Origen (second century, Cont. Cels., I, 47) in early days,
is exposed to a strong suspicion of being a forgery by
some Christian hand." In a foot-note to this page he
quotes as his authority Graetz, who designates it (Gesch.
d. Juden, 1888, III, p. 278) "a shameless interpolation";
but he offers no proof of this statement.

Again, Drews further continues (The Witnesses to the
Historicity of Jesus, 1912, pp. 192 and 193): "It is useless
to oppose to this [mythical] conception of John the fa-
miliar passage of Josephus 1 as proving the historicity

1 "Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army
[by Aretas, King of Arabia] came from God, and that very justly as a pun-
ishment for what he did against John who was surnamed the Baptist
('ludvvov rod hruca\ovfjJvov BairTWToO).

" For Herod slew him, who was a good man and commanded the Jews to
exercise virtue both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety

116 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

of the Baptist. The genuineness of the passage is just
as doubtful as that of the two references in Josephus
to Jesus. Not only does the way in which it interrupts
the narrative show it to be an interpolation, but the
chronology of the Jewish historian in regard to John is
in irreconcilable contradiction to that of the Gospels.
According to the Gospels, the appearance or the death
of John must have taken place in the year 28 or 29
[A. D.]; whereas the war of Herod with the Nabatasan
Aretas, the unfortunate result of which was, according
to Josephus [?], to be regarded as a punishment for the
execution of John, falls in the years 35 and 36 of the
present era. Moreover, the complaints against Herod
Antipas, on account of his incestuous marriage with his
brother's wife, which are supposed to have occasioned
the death of John, cannot have been made before then. 1
In fine, John might be an historical personality without
there being any historical truth in what the Gospels
say of him. His connexion with the story of Jesus is
certainly due to astral considerations and the passage
we quoted [p. 184] from Isaiah 40 : 3-5.

"We have, therefore, no reason to regard it as histor-
ical." Let us now take account of these objections.

Our knowledge with regard to the two chief dates
(the birth and death) in the life of Jesus has, up to now,
unfortunately, been very uncertain. During quite recent
years, however, owing to the researches of Sir W. M.
Ramsay, Lieutenant-Colonel Mackinlay, and others, this
uncertainty has, to a very great extent, been cleared up,
and we may now affirm, with a close -approximation
to certainty, that Jesus was born in B. C. 8 and was

towards God, and so come to baptism; for that the washing [with water]
would be acceptable to him, not for the putting away of some sins [only],
but for the purification of the body, supposing still that the soul was
thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness (Ant., XVIII, 5, 2)."

1 See Professor Lake's article on "The Date of Herod's Marriage and
the Chronology of the Gospels" (The Expositor, November, 1912).

THE BAPTISM 117

crucified in A. D. 29. Now, assuming, as is most prob-
able, a three years' ministry, 1 the baptism must have
taken place in A. D. 26. It was probably in this year
that Herod Antipas divorced his wife (the daughter of
Aretas) for Herodias. His war with his wife's father,
on the other hand, could well have begun in A. D. 28,
and, indeed, it lasted some six or seven years before
coming to a decisive issue. Accordingly, there was a
sufficient period of time between A. D. 26 and 28 for
John's rebuke to be administered and his imprisonment
and execution to take place before the death of Jesus in
A. D. 29. Hence, so far as this objection goes, there is
no case whatever against the historicity of the Gospel
narrative.

As regards Drews's two other arguments, it will suffice
here to say that the passage occurs very naturally and
appropriately in an historical digression relating to the
affairs of the Herod family, and the very fact that
the reason there given by Josephus for the execution of
John differs from the statement in the Gospels (cf. Ant.,
XVIII, 5, 2 with Mark 6 : 17-27) is the strongest possi-
ble evidence against the former being a Christian inter-
polation. If it had been concocted at a later period
after Josephus wrote in order to bolster up the account
given in the Gospels, the writer would have been care-
ful to make it agree with them on this important point.
But it does not. Josephus, of course, may have been
better informed than Mark; but this is not likely, as he

1 For the arguments in support of a one-year ministry see Keim, Jesus
of Nazara, II, p. 398; for a two years' see Turner's article in Hastirigs's
Diet, of Bible; for a three years' see Andrews's The Life of Our Lord, z& ed.
(1892). For patristic views see Hastings's Diet . of Bible, 1, 410. The minis-
try of only one year's duration is always assumed by the modern mythicist
and, indeed, is essential to his theory. Cf. Sepp., Heident. und dess. Bedeut.
fitr das Christ (1883), I, i68/.; also Winckler, Die Babylon. Geisteskult., 89
and 100 /. It is the mythological year of the sun's course through the wa-
tery region in January and February until the complete exhaustion of its
strength hi December.

118 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

wrote some thirty years later, and Mark probably got
bis information directly from some of the disciples of
John who had joined the Apostolic Church. We may,
therefore, without the least hesitation, indorse the em-
phatic verdict of the learned and judicious Keim, who
pronounced it (Jesus of Nazara, I, p. 16) "a splendid
and unassailable account," worthy in every sense of
being accepted as authentic history. 1

But here Professor Drews, as though anticipating this
conclusion, shifts his ground, and urges that, even if
John be an historical personality, there "might" be no
historical truth in the Gospel story of his life. "His con-
nexion with the story of Jesus," he says, "is certainly
due to astral considerations" in other words, it is en-
tirely mythical. This view is set forth in detail in the
following words (The Christ Myth, p. 122): "Under the
name John, which in Hebrew means 'pleasing to God,'
is concealed the Babylonian water-god Cannes (Ea).
Baptism is connected with this worship, and the baptism
of Jesus in the Jordan represents the reflection upon earth
of what originally took place among the stars? That is to
say, the sun begins its yearly course with a baptism, en-
tering as it does immediately after its birth the constel-
lations of the Water-carrier [Aquarius] and the Fishes
[Pisces}. But this celestial water-kingdom, in which each
year the day-star [sun] is purified and born again, is the
Eridanus, the heavenly Jordan, or Year-stream (Egyp-
tian, iaro, or iero, the river), wherein the original bap-
tism of the Divine Saviour of the world took place."

Before going any further into his detailed statements
of the theory, let us carefully consider the above points.

Now, in ancient Babylonia, the home of astrology

1 John the Baptist was believed by the Jews to have been born in a 7r6Xts
Ioi55a (according to rabbinical tradition at Hebron, but according to a

modern ingenious interpretation of the phrase at Jutta) in the beginning
of the second half of the year 749 A. U. C. (4 B. C.).

2 Italics ours.

THE BAPTISM 119

and zodiacal mythology, the eleventh month of the year
(approximately our January) found the sun, at that pe-
riod, in the sign Aquarius, 1 the Water-bearer, out of whose
jar is poured forth the Heavenly Stream (Eridanus), one
of the extra-zodiacal and southern constellations.

In this month, too, the sun-god revived from his (par-
tial) death at the winter solstice (circ. December 25)
and once more started upon his annual journey through
the sky. The resurrection of the vegetation-spirit (or
god), on the other hand, took place in most cases some
weeks later, at the commencement of spring. And, if
we may believe Doctor Drews, this celestial phenomenon
the baptism of the young (revived) sun-god in the
waters of Eridanus, while that luminary was in the sign
Aquarius, from which it emerged into the succeeding
sign Pisces had its reflection upon earth as Jesus (his-
torically representing the sun-spirit) being baptised in the
Jordan, from whence he emerged as the divine fish (Ea or
Cannes), and, passing through the other zodiacal signs,
reached the height of his power, and from that time on-
ward steadily declined until his death by crucifixion. 2

The latter portion of this theory we will defer dealing
with until we come to Chap. 12, "The Crucifixion"; mean-
while, we will say generally that Professor Drews's theory
viz., that the earliest Christians saw in these natural
phenomena occurring annually in the heavens a kind of
prophecy, or forecast, of what was to happen on earth
afterwards is a very great and unwarranted assump-
tion; it is, indeed, the irp&Tov tyevSos of the whole myth-
ical theory. But let us first review the actual facts a
little more carefully.

The Babylonians (like the Egyptians) lived beside a

1 In the Gilgamesh epic it is marked on the tablet by the story of the
deluge told by the "Chaldean Noah" to Gilgamesh, which comes in quite
fittingly, when the sun is passing through the Watery Sign.

2 See further, Chap, n, "Barabbas."

120 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

great river, which powerfully affected (for good and evil)
their whole lives and fortunes. Both of the months,
December and January, were marked by great rains,
and floods caused by the overflowing of the Euphrates,
with the concomitant effects of sickness and destruction
far and wide. Vegetation, too, was seemingly dead, and
the sun was at the nadir of its powers of stimulating
reproduction in nature. And the question arose: What
was the cause of all this what did it mean ? The sooth-
sayer (or astrologer) accordingly lifted his eyes to the
heavens and very naturally tried to discover a parallel
there to what he saw occurring upon earth. And his
imagination soon enabled him to find one. Out of a few
conspicuous stars he depicted a man-like figure carrying
a water-pot; a straggling line of stars extending onward
suggested a stream of water issuing from the jar the
heavenly Euphrates (Eridanus). This river would then
suggest fish and a connexion with the fish-god (Ea).
In such an imaginative way there would spring up and
gradually develop heavenly duplicates of the chief nat-
ural phenomena occurring upon earth. These were re-
flected in the heaven, as it were. Later on, no doubt,
when the more abiding nature of the heavenly phenomena
was noted, the process would be reversed, and the earthly
duplicates then came to be regarded as reflexions of the
heavenly.

But all this referred to the phenomena of nature only.
The myth proper is an explanation of some occurrence
in nature not in history, which deals chiefly with leg-
end in its early stages. The personifications which take
place in myths, however, help to link nature with his-
tory and to parallel events and persons in history with
the phenomena of nature. Thus legendary, and even
historical, stories often became paralleled, and even con-
fused, with mythical ones. Such a process, however, in
no way detracts from the historicity of persons whose

THE BAPTISM 121

lives and exploits have become regarded as analogues of
natural phenomena. This fact is clearly shown by the
many instances occurring during recent years, where
kings and others, formerly regarded as wholly mythical,
have been found to be real figures of living men who
had become confused with mythical personifications of
natural phenomena. 1

In this way it is probable that John (and in a certain
sense, as we shall see later, Jesus also) became analogues
of personified natural phenomena. To the modern and
European mind this process obscures and weakens the
historical character of the human counterpart; to the
ancient and Oriental mind it merely added vividness
and reality to his picture.

We now come to the most important point in Drews's
theory of the mythical nature of both Jesus and John,
viz., that both represent different phases of the sun in
its two great periods of ascent and descent in the heavens
between two winter solstices. Thus, according to this
view, John will be the sun-god from July to December,
after the advent of Jesus ("he [Jesus] must increase
whilst I must decrease," John 3 : 30), while Jesus repre-
sents the god from January to June. 2 This view he fur-
ther supports by, inter alia, a number of questionable
etymologies and identities, etc., which we will summarise
below.

(i) Jesus is called by the author of the Fourth Gospel
"the true light" (TO <a>? TO a\rj0ivov } 1:9); whilst Jesus
calls John (5 : 35) the "lamp (Xu^i/o?) that burneth and
shineth." (2) John is said (Luke i : 26) to have been
born six months before Jesus. This indicates the solar

1 Many examples could be given of this: e. g., Minos, King of Crete, and
(probably) Melchisedek,' Priest-King of Salem, etc.

2 So, again, in the case of Barabbas and Jesus (Chap. 13); the former, he
says, represents the sun ascending to the summer solstice (circ. June 25);
the latter, the sun descending to the winter solstice, when it "dies" (see
Chap. n).

122 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

and duplex character of both. (3) John wears a cloak
of camel's hair with a leathern belt (Matt. 3:4). This
is supposed to equate him with Elijah (II Kings i : 8;
cf. Matt, ii : 14); and Elijah is a form of the sun-god
transferred to history; and, further, the latter is the same
as the Greek Helios (*HXto?), the German Heljas, and the
Ossetic Ilia. This statement, however, Drews modifies
directly after making it by saying that "at any rate
characteristics of this god have been transferred to the
figure of the prophet" : (cf. Nork, Realworterbuch, I, 451 Jf.)
a very different thing.

Now, (4) in his subsidiary work (The Witnesses to the
Historicity of Jesus, p. 190) we find a few further touches
added to his theory of the identification of John with
Cannes (Ea), and, moreover, of both with the zodiacal
sign Aquarius. He says: "Possibly, however, he [Oan-
nes] was originally Aquarius, as this constellation is
depicted as a fish-man in the old Oriental sphere, and
the constellation of the Fishes was afterwards detached
from it" (see Creuzer, Symbolik und Mythologie der Alien
Vb'lker, 1820, II, p. 78). And, again (5): "We have a
reminiscence of this primitive astral significance of John
in the fact that we still celebrate his festival on the day
of the solstice 21 when the constellation of the Southern
Fishes rises as the sun sets and disappears as the sun
rises." And also (6): "The newly baptised Christians
used to be called 'fishes' (pisciculi, in Tertullian), and
the baptismal font is still called the piscina, or 'fish-
pond.'"

But the identification of Cannes- John- Jesus with Aqua-
rius is, after all, insufficient for the theory, and, stand-
ing by itself, would in reality be damaging to it; so a
further identification becomes necessary. Accordingly,
we find the following convenient one (The Witnesses to
the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 191-193) ready to hand: (7)

1 Italics ours. 2 Italics ours.

THE BAPTISM 123

"As the one who indicates the solstices and divides the
year, 1 Cannes becomes identical -with the sun itself 1 as a
rising and setting star. In this way he entered the myth-
group of Joshua, Jason, and Jesus, and, indeed, corre-
sponds to the Old Testament Caleb as representative of
the summer solstice, when the dog-star (Sinus) sets in
the month of the Lion, or of the autumnal equinox, which
is the division of the year equivalent to the former, when
the sun descends below the celestial equator into the land
of winter. Joshua (Jesus), on the other hand, represented
the winter solstice. , l at which the days begin to grow longer,
or the vernal equinox, 2 when the sun again advances be-
yond the equator and enters victoriously the 'Promised
Land' beyond the Jordan (or the Milky Way) of the
heavenly Eridanus, the watery region of the heavens, in
which the zodiacal signs of Aquarius and Pisces predomi-
nate."

The remaining portion of Doctor Drews's theory must
be briefly summarised: There is also (8) a further iden-
tification of the Baptist with Orion, "near which the
sun is found at the vernal equinox." Orion stands in
the celestial Eridanus, in the Milky Way, at Bethabara
(John i : 28), "the place of setting," 3 i. e., near the spot
where the sun crosses the Milky Way in the zodiac.
"With one foot it [Orion] emerges from Eridanus, which
connects with the Milky Way and seems to draw water
from it with the right hand, at the same time raising the
left as if blessing really a very vivid astral figure of the
Baptist: we have also the three stars of Orion's belt in
the (leathern) girdle which the Gospels give to the Bap-
tist, and the people are seen in the constellations about
Orion, 4 and, according to Babylonian ideas, a meeting of

1 Italics ours. 2 Italics ours.

3 Bethabara means "house," or "place, of the ford"!

4 "I borrow this indication of the connection of the Baptist with the
constellation Orion from Fuhnnann's work, Der Astralmythos wn Christus."

124 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

the gods takes place at the vernal equinox, when the sun
has run its course through the zodiac."

Finally, referring again to the phenomena attending
the baptism of Jesus, Drews says of the "dove" (The
Christ Myth, p. 118, note 3): (9) "Phereda, or Phere-
det, the dove, is the Chaldaic root of the name Aphrodite,
as the goddess in the car drawn by two doves was called
among the Greeks. In the whole of Nearer Asia the cult
of doves was connected with that of the mother-god-
dess." !

We will now deal with the above points (1-9) seriatim
and as concisely as possible.

(i) The term "true light," as applied to Jesus by the
fourth evangelist, and "the lamp," which Jesus is said
by the latter writer to have applied to John, have a much
simpler source than the astral-mythical origin proposed
by Doctor Drews. Light was everywhere associated in
ancient religions with God and goodness, just as the re-
verse of these terms was identified with darkness in both
a literal and a figurative sense. In the Aryan Rig-Veda,
Mitra was the representative of the heaven of day, as
yet expressly distinguished from the sun. Later Mith-
raism identified him with the sun as both the god of
light and goodness. Among the Semitic Hebrews we
find a similar use of light as, at least, emblematic and
symbolical of God and his attributes. Thus, the Psalm-
ist says (27 : i): "Jahveh is my light and my salva-
tion"; and, again (118 : 27): "Jahveh who hath showed

Also see, as to the astral features of the Baptist, Niemojewski's Bog Jezus
(1909), a book which rests on the astral-mythical theories of Dupuis and of
the modern school of Winckler.

*In The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, p. 214, note i, he says:
"Jesus . . . seems originally to have had a dove for a mother, as the bap-
tism hi the Jordan was, according to some, the act of the birth of the Saviour;
and the Holy Ghost, who descended on him in fire and flame [ ! ] in the
form of a dove, was represented in certain Gnostic sects as the mother of
Jesus." The real explanation here is that certain Gnostic sects adapted
the story with fanciful additions to their own theosophical speculations.

THE BAPTISM 125

us light." Here God is expressly separated from the
light, which is merely manifested by him, as in the case
of the Shekinah.

Again, and especially in Isaiah 60 : i, 3, 19, and 20,
we find light used figuratively of God and his revela-
tion of himself. We cannot be surprised, therefore, that
the author of the Fourth Gospel should describe Jesus,
whom he regards as a. special manifestation of God, as
"the true light." Neither can we wonder that it should
be recorded that Jesus had spoken of John, who "pre-
pared the way before him," as "the lamp that burneth
and .shineth," and thereby dispelled the mists of prej-
udice and error. It is no doubt possible to force these
" and similar expressions into supports for the hypothesis
which would make Jesus and John coequal half-yearly
phases, or aspects, of the ascending or declining sun.
But this is not their original and simpler signification.
We may, therefore, follow here the philosophical maxim
and adopt the simpler and nearer explanation in prefer-
ence to the more recondite and remote.

(2) As regards the births of Jesus and John, 1 modern
research has practically shown that these events cannot
have represented solstitial solar phenomena, as main-
tained by Drews and his school. There is very good rea-
son, as we have seen, for believing that Jesus was born
in the month of October; in that case, John must have
been born in the preceding April (Luke i : 36). These
dates also do not coincide with the equinoxes. The rea-
sonable conclusion, therefore, is that the events in ques-
tion never represented an "historisation" of either solar

1 Mr. J. M. Robertson thinks (Christianity and Mythology, 1900, p. 257)
that "the late Christian myth of the synchronous ( ! ) birth of the Christ's
cousin John the Baptist is reasonably to be traced to the Budklhist myth
of the synchronous birth of the Buddha's cousin Ananda (Bigandet's Life
of Gaudama, Triibner's ed., I, 36) rather than to the Krishnaite motive of
Arjuna or Bala Rama." The latter is probably later and has even less
likeness to the Lucan story.

126 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

or vegetal phenomena. In any case, it is clear that the
mere fact of the two births occurring at intervals of six
months, though exceedingly convenient for this theory,
is a very slender and speculative basis to build upon,
and it is, to say the least, much more probable that it
has no special significance whatever.

(3) John's cloak of camel's-hair cloth and his leathern
belt are stated (Zech. 13 : 4) to have been the regular
garb of the itinerant prophet or religious teacher in the
East. The assumption that Elijah (with whom John
is compared) is a form of the sun-god transferred to his-
tory is once more convenient but, at the same time,
rests upon very slender evidence. Indeed, the known
facts seem directly to negative such a supposition. For
the name Elijah, i. e., Elijjahu 0n^X) = "My God is
Jahu (Jahveh)," tells against it. In the story, as recorded
in the book of Kings, Elijah acts on Jahveh's behalf
against the Sidonian Ba'al, who was probably a solar
member of the Ba'alim group rather than one of the
Canaanitish gods of fertility. It is true that Jahveh
was once regarded by a few German scholars as a fire-
god (Daumer, Der Feuer-und Molock-dienst, pp. 18-22;
Ghillany, Die Menschenopfer, pp. 278-298; cf. also Kue-
nen, Tilbinger TheoL Jahrb., 1842, p. 473) and therefore
might be regarded as representing the sun, the central
fire of the solar system. But this view of his nature has
not found general acceptance. It is more in accord-
ance with known fact to assert that Jahveh was said
often to manifest his presence by means of fire, as at
Sinai and Horeb. In the latter case, however, we are
expressly told by the chronicler that "Jahveh was not in
the fire." Neither has Elijah's name the least etymo-
logical affinity, as Drews seems to maintain, with Helios,
Heljas, and Ilia, though its shortened form Elias has a
superficial resemblance to these words. Helios ("HXto?
and 'He'Xio?) is connected by Curtius (Gr. Etyrn., 612)

THE BAPTISM 127

with the Aryan root US, the original form being av(a)e-
7uo9. The v then either fell out altogether (as in the
common Greek form deXto?) or hardened itself into ft
(as in Cretan d/3eXw?). And its meaning is the "burn-
ing one."

Bearing all these and similar facts in mind, it is diffi-
cult to maintain the solar character of either John or
Elias. Still more outrageous are such derivations and
statements as the following: "Elijah (Eli-scha) and
Jeho-scha (Joshua, Jesus) agree even in their names [ ! ],
so that on this ground alone it would not have been
strange if the prophet of the Old Testament had served
as a prototype of his evangelical namesake" (see Matt.
g : ii /.; 15 : i jf., 11 and 20; 28 : 18). (The Christ Myth,
p. 238.) . ^

(4) The identification of John with Ea or Aa (Ae) is
in the highest degree precarious, especially if John is
considered to be a form of the sun-god. Ea was one of
the great triad of Sumerian deities, Anna (Anu), Enlil
(Bel), and Enki (Ea), who were respectively the gods of
heaven, earth, and the abyss of waters beneath the earth.
Ea is said to have emerged daily in a fish form (or clad
in a garb of fish-skins) from the waters of the Persian
Gulf, in order to teach the early inhabitants of Babylonia
the arts of civilisation. The Chaldean priest Berossus,
who flourished in the time of Alexander the Great, calls
this god, in his Greek narrative, Cannes ('flaw^s), or
lannes ('law???).

Now, 'I<i)dvvr)<s ("John") is the Hellenistic Greek form
of the Hebrew, ^n'T 1 (a shorter form of l^nin 1 ;, Jehohanari),
which means "Jahveh (Jeho) is gracious" (not "pleas-
ing to God"). This word is undoubtedly quite different,
both in meaning and etymology, to Ea, which Doctor
Pinches thinks (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, p. 51)
may mean, in the form Aa, "waters," or, if read Ea,
"house of water." Indeed, in any case, Jahveh is a god of

128 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

heaven, while Ea rules over the abyss, which is connected
with the waters of the sea. There is, therefore, no rela-
tion here except the accidental similarity in the Greek
names Johannes and Oannes, which, of course, proves
nothing.

Doctor Eisler, in a learned and instructive article on
"John- Jonah-Cannes" (The Quest, April, 1912, pp. 474-
495), shows that in two places the MSS. would allow us
to read 'ladvvTjs instead of 'Haw?;?, and he regards the
former word as "a possible rendering" of the form Ea-
khan ("Ea the fish"), which was believed by Lenormant
to be the original form of Berossus's enigmatical Greek
word. This, however whether it be the case or not
does not lend any support to Drews's mythical theory.
For, in the first place, it is very problematical whether
Lenormant was right in his conjecture, and, in the second,
a (later) assimilation by copyists of 'ilavwj? and 'leoavwj?
would almost certainly take place occasionally, for the
latter form, being a common name in Hellenistic Greek,
would be better known to many scribes.

In like manner, the attempt to identify Jonah (Wi*,
'Iwms, "a dove") a name which Robertson Smith
thought (Jour. Phil., IX, 85) was connected with totem-
ism with 'flaW??? or 'Io)dwT)<s (or both) is probably ren-
dered invalid by the difference in derivation and mean-
ing. Jonah, Cheyne thinks, is possibly due to a corrup-
tion from JfiJin, a word which we find in Jf^i 11 , " Jahveh
gives"; but the whole subject is extremely obscure, and
where little is known it is dangerous to theorise dogmat-
ically.

Furthermore, the characters and functions of these
three beings whether they be historical or mythical
appear to be quite separate and distinct, and the alleged
identities seem, for the most part, to be merely due to a
play upon similarly sounding names. Professor Drews's
further supposition that Oannes (or Ea) was perhaps

THE BAPTISM 129

originally Aquarius, "as this constellation is depicted as
a fish-man," seems to rest upon one of the many wild
theories of Creuzer, whose fanciful hypotheses were se-
verely criticised by Lobeck in his Aglaophamus. The sign
Aquarius was represented in Babylonian zodiacal sym-
bolism by the god Ramman, crowned with a tiara and
pouring water from a vase, much as it is depicted at the
present time. More . frequently, however, the vase and
water alone were used. The eleventh month of the year,
with which the sign was associated, was known at Baby-
lon as that of "want and rain," hence the water and jar,
and (sometimes) the figure of Ramman, the atmospheric
god of rain and storms.

(5) The festival of St. John the Baptist is celebrated
in the Western church on the 24th of June, but in the
Eastern church it is held on January 7. It was prob-
ably not observed at all anywhere before 300 A. D.,
since it is not mentioned earlier than Maximus, Bishop
of Turin (400 A. D..), and in several homilies of St. Au-
gustine. The date (24th of June) was probably chosen
by the Western church when the birthday of Christ was
officially fixed by Pope Julius I (in 354 A. D.) on De-
cember 25, in order to assimilate it to the pagan festival
of the birth of the sun-god, observed annually at the
time of the winter solstice.

(6) It is quite natural that the newly baptised Chris-
tians should be popularly termed "little fishes" (pisci-
culi), seeing that they were actually brought up out of
the water at baptism. Such a ceremony would inevit-
ably suggest the analogy of fishing to every witness of
the scene.

Professor Drews, however, is in error in regarding the
piscina as the 'name of the baptismal font. The piscina
is the basin-like cavity in the wall (generally) found near
the altar, in which the priest performed the ablutions
after the celebration of the eucharist.

130 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

(7) But it now becomes necessary to identify Cannes
with the sun. From being the god of the abyss and
the waters (super- as well as subterranean), he must be
identified with the god of heaven. This is cleverly man-
aged by means of the argument that Cannes "indicates
the solstices" and thereby "divides the year" into two
equal parts, just as the sun does by ascending and de-
scending the ecliptic. But where is the proof that Cannes
was even thus used or recognised as a "year-divider"?
Certainly he was said to have instructed mankind; but
this item of knowledge does not seem to have been in-
cluded among the "arts" of life. We doubt very much
whether Ea was ever regarded by the Babylonians in
any such capacity. Their time-measurers were the sun
and moon, and, though no doubt they would observe the
various constellations and stars, which appeared, disap-
peared, and reappeared at fixed intervals, the sun and
moon were practically their sole (and sufficient) guides
in these matters.

There is no evidence either to show that Ea ever en-
tered the "myth-group of Joshua, Jason, and Jesus,"
whose alleged connexion with the sun also in each case
still awaits proof .

(8) The next identification is that of John with the
constellation Orion "near which the sun is at the vernal
equinox." This is even more fanciful than the preced-
ing identifications. The sun, it is true, two thousand
years ago, was rather near Orion at the vernal equinox.
And the latter constellation certainly "stands with one
foot in the heavenly Eridanus; but how Professor Drews
makes out that he seems to draw water from it with the
right hand, at the same time blessing with the left," 1 it
would be extremely difficult to say. Really, he is gener-
ally supposed to be holding in his left hand the charac-
teristic lion's skin, perhaps as a kind of shield, while

1 This should be "right," as it is viewed from the interior of a sphere.

THE BAPTISM 131

with his right he brandishes the club and threatens the
bull, who is charging down upon him. Furthermore,
there is no question of a "blessing," which, if given with
the left hand, would have been regarded as of very sinis-
ter effect.

To this may be added the fact that the true reading
in John i : 28 is not 'BrjQafiapa ("house of the ford") but
BTJ&WIO ("Bethany"), as shown by Westcott and Hort
(cf. Judges 7 : 24). The reading "Betharaba" is due to
a conjecture of Origen, who could find no traces of any
place named Bethany "beyond" Jordan in his day.
Orion, again, like the Baptist, certainly has a "belt," but
there is no reference in the leathern girdle of the lat-
ter to the three belt stars of the former; and to see in
the "figures" (nearly all animals!) of the constellations
round about Orion any expression of the meeting of the
Babylonian gods at the vernal equinox is to let the im-
agination run to an excess of riot. Moreover, as we
have pointed out, all this occurs in the zodiac, not at the
vernal equinox, but at the summer solstice.

(9) Lastly, we have to consider the use which Pro-
fessor Drews makes of the "dove." It does not seem
certain that the root of the Greek Aphrodite is to be
found in the "Chaldaic" word Phereda (or Pheredet).
The common derivation is, of course, from a$po'?, "foam"
(Liddell and Scott, Gr. Lex., s. .). The goddess was said
by the Greeks to be Aphrogeneia, "foam-born," l and
in a moral sense she was the patroness of light love,
though there are ( ? earlier) indications of a chaster view.

But even if it be so, that fact by no means establishes
his case. The cult of the dove was, it is true, connected
with the worship of the great mother-goddess all through

1 See Hesiod, Tkeog., 187-206. It would seem probable, however, that
her common by-name of worship, Qtipavta. ("the heavenly one"), is an
older term, which would connect her ultimately with the Semitic Astarte
(IStar).

132 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Asia Minor, except amongst the Jews, with whom that
bird had only a partially sacrosanct and symbolical char-
acter. Its gentle and affectionate disposition was sug-
gestive of those endearing qualities in human nature and
even in the nature of God. The connexion of the dove
with the Virgin Mary is merely a conceit of the artists
of the Renaissance period, who drew their inspiration
and concepts largely from pagan sources; for the evan-
gelists are careful, as we have seen, to regard the Virgin
Mary purely as a woman.

Finally, we may conclude with a "parallel" (and
"origin") of the baptism which has been found in India.
Professor Seydel tells us (Das Evangelium von Jesu, etc.,
1882, S. 155 and 156) that, according to the Rgya tchef
rol pa, 1 while the future Buddha was bathing, "thousands
of the sons of the gods, wishing to render offerings to the
Bodhisat, strewed divine aloes and sandal powder and
celestial essences and flowers of all colours over the wa-
ter, so that, in this moment, the great river Nairanjana
flowed on full of divine perfumes and flowers."

It would be, indeed, difficult to meet with a more im-
possible "parallel" than this; the two stories are abso-
lutely and completely dissimilar, and neither suggests or
implies the other.

1 The Tibetan recension of the Ldita vistara.

CHAPTER VII

THE TEMPTATION

The Temptation of Jesus

IT will be fitting to commence our study of the temp-
tation with the view of it which was taken by "the
father of modern mythical criticism," D. F. Strauss.
His explanation of the matter, which at least has the
merits of sanity and moderation, takes the following
form (Leben Jesu, 1835, English translation, II, sec. 54,
pp. 84-87).

. The first temptation of Jesus in both of the fuller syn-
optic accounts was, he notes, that of hunger. This was
predetermined for the early Christian imagination by
two facts well known to them. "The people of Israel
had been particularly tried by hunger in the desert."
And, "in the same way, among the different tempta-
tions to which, according to the rabbis, Abraham was
exposed, hunger is enumerated." There are, however,
he admits, many other examples of voluntary abstinence
from food in the Old Testament, so that it is by no means
clear why the example of Israel, or even of Moses, should
be so suggestive to the early Christian mind. "But,"
Strauss continues, "one temptation was not sufficient;
according to the rabbis, Abraham was subjected to ten."
This number, he thinks, was too many for a dramatic
exposition such as we have in the two longer Gospel rec-
ords. A smaller number must be selected if a real effect
were to be produced. And, if so, that number would
surely be the sacred number three. That number, in-
deed, frequently recurs in various connexions in the
Gospels: thus, three times does Jesus withdraw to pray

133

134 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

in Gethsemane; three times did Peter deny his Master;
and three times did Jesus test the love which Peter bore
towards him.

Again, this sacred number reappears "in the rabbinical
passage where the devil personally tempts Abraham; the
patriarch endures three assaults"; 1 the parallel is still
further heightened and strengthened by the fact that the
attacks and repulses are accompanied in every case by
quotations from the Old Testament.

The second temptation, in the Matthasan order, that
Jesus should throw himself from a pinnacle of the tem-
ple, Strauss says, "appears suddenly, and the choice
seems fortuitous and arbitrary." But this, again, is to
be explained in a similar way; "it is borrowed from the
conduct of the Jewish people in the desert (Deut. 6 : 16;
Num. 21 : 4 jf.), the people tempted the Lord." '

The third temptation, "that of worshipping the devil,"
Strauss admits, is not manifestly got from any definite
Old Testament instance. He remarks, however, that
one of the sins into which the Israelites fell in the desert
was idolatry (I Cor. 10 : 7). This, he adds, was "at-
tributed to the suggestion of Satan; and later Jews re-
garded idolatry as the worship of the devil."

It may be remarked here that Strauss is not very
happy in his "parallel" for the last temptation. Israel
did fall into idolatry; but this fact seems to have been
put down, at least by the earlier Israelites themselves,
to their natural " stiff -neckedness " rather than to the
wiles of a personal arch-tempter, which was a later con-
ception altogether. Even in the post-exilic book of Job
Satan is one of the servants of Jahveh, not a seducer to
sin in antagonism to God, and the worship of the devil

1 Strauss does consider the question of the date of the rabbinical stories,
which are undoubtedly post-Christian! For late rabbinical parallels of
Satan tempting Abraham, Moses, and Israel, see Gforer, Jahrhundert d.
Heils., part 2, pp. 379 jf. Cf. also the temptations of Adam and Job.

THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS 135

was unknown amongst the Jews both before and after
the close of the Old Testament canon.

Finally, Strauss thinks that the ministry of angels,
after the temptation was over, recorded by Matthew and
Mark, has its type in and was suggested by the angel
who brought food to Elijah after his long fast (I Kings
19:5 and 6), helped out, he further supposes, by the fact
that the manna of the wilderness was called angels' food
(Psalm 78 : 25; cf. Wisd. 16 : 20) and would suggest it-
self to the Christian narrator as suitable in such a case.

It is quite true that in the Old Testament the servants
and messengers of God are represented as fasting as well
as often being severely tested by trials of various kinds
during the discharge of their appointed missions and
duties. . But it would be difficult to establish that such a
.view of the Messiah who was expected by the Jews had
ever prevailed amongst the latter people. In Isaiah 53
and in Psalm 22 we read of the trials and sufferings of
the "Servant of Jahveh"; but whether any pre-Christian
Jews ever applied these pictures to the Messianic life is
more than doubtful. 1 It is clear that the Messianic con-
cepts of the Jews, before the time of Christ, were em-
bodied in the picture of a victorious and successful tem-
poral Prince, or Deliverer, who should free the nation
from their bondage and punish all the foes of Israel.
The notes of suffering and trial of a passive kind, as tests
of fitness for the office, are conspicuously absent in the
Messianic literature. There seems to be, therefore, no
probability even that the contemporary biographers of
Jesus should deliberately insert into their narratives a
story setting forth a series of grave disciplinary trials as
having been undergone by> Jesus before entering upon
his Messianic career among men.

These difficulties in the way of accepting the explana-
tion offered by Strauss of the genesis of the temptation-

l Enc. Bib., art. "Messiah," sec. 9.

136 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

myth have evidently been felt by succeeding mythicists,
for we find that the derivation of it from Old Testament
analogies has been practically abandoned by them. In
its stead we have now offered to us a succession of pagan
parallels which, it is supposed, suggested the idea and,
perhaps, even some of the detailed matter in the narra-
tives. This is the view taken, for example, by Mr. J. M.
Robertson (Christianity and Mythology, 1900, pp. 343-356).
"The temptation of the God," he says, "is a myth of a
specifically Oriental stamp"; but, he adds, it is "not to
be found in that form in Hellenistic mythology before
the rise of Christism. The latter myth, however, turns
out to be at bottom only a variant of the former, differ-
ent as the stories are; and the proof is reached through'
certain Hellenic myths of which the origin has not hith-
erto been traced."

The Christian form of the temptation-story is, he
thinks, a fairly close analogue of the temptation of the
Buddha; and it has a remoter parallel in the temptation
of Zarathustra. 1 But, at the same time, he holds that
"there are decisive reasons for concluding that the Chris-
tian story was evolved on another line." The first clew
to its origin he finds in the detail of the exceeding high
mountain of the First and Third Gospels, which has a
"marked parallel in a minor Greek myth." 2 This turns
out to be contained in a story of Ennius preserved by
Lactantius (Div. Inst., I, n), where Pan is said to lead
Jupiter to the mountain called the "Pillar of Heaven";

1 These temptations have been traced by M. Darmsteter (Ormuzd et
Ahriman, pp. 195-203) to the account of the cows of India, which, when
stolen by the Panis (evil demons), the dog Sarama (India's messenger) is
sent to bring back again (see Rig-Veda, X, 108). A far-fetched derivation,
it .would seem.

2 It has more marked parallels in Semitic myth (cf. the Bab. "mountain
of the gods"); also in Hebrew prophecy and Jewish and Christian apocalyp-
tic. See Ezek. 28 : 16; 40 : 2; Rev. 21 : 10, with Herm., SimiL, IX, i,
i, etc.; also Apoc. Bar. 76 :8. And, indeed, transport (in body or spirit
merely) to a hilltop is a marked peculiarity of Jewish apocalyptic.

THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS 137

this hill Jupiter ascended after offering a sacrifice, and
"looked up to heaven, as we now call it." This myth,
Mr. Robertson thinks, "taken as a starting-point," would
suffice, "when represented either dramatically or in art,
to give the Christists the basis for their story."

Further, Pan, he believes, since he was furnished with
horns and hoofs and a tail, "represents the devil as
conceived by Christians from time immemorial." And
"Satan showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world,
and asking to be worshipped, is thus merely an ethical
adaptation of the Greek story" * (!). And then follows
a passage which expresses so characteristically Mr.
Robertson's line of thought and argument that we will
transcribe it in full so as to avoid all risk of misrepre-
senting him: "Any representation of that [scene] would
show the young god [Jupiter] standing by the demon
[Pan] and the altar on the mountain top; and to a Chris-
tian eye this could only mean that the devil was asking
to be worshipped in return for the kingdoms of the earth
to which he was pointing; 2 though, for a pagan, Pan
was in his natural place as the god of mountains (Ho-
meric Hymn to Pan). The oddest aspect of the Christian
story is the na/tf recognition of Satan's complete domin-
ion over the earth, another of the many illustrations of
the perpetual lapse of Semitic and other ancient mono-
theism into dualism. But, as such an extreme conception
of the power of Satan is not normally present in the
Gospels, the episode in question is the more likely to have
been fortuitously introduced." 3

Limits of space will prevent us from making more than
a brief reference to the remainder of Mr. Robertson's
imaginative and interesting sketch of early Christian de-
velopment as applied to the temptation-narratives.

1 Italics ours.

a In the story he is not said to be "pointing" at anything!

8 Italics ours.

138 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

He further suggests, however, that there is also a link
here with the zodiacal astrology of the period. In this
Jesus would naturally be associated at the outset of his
career with the sign of Capricorn, which "'leads the sun
from the lower places (ab inferis partibus),' and, in virtue
of the goat nature, proceeds always 'from low places to
the highest rocks' (Macrobius, Sat., I, 21, end)." With
Capricorn, too, Pan "the goat-god" was primarily asso-
ciated through his goat legs, and is further directly asso-
ciated in the myth, where he assists Jupiter in his fight
with the Titans. He also works out an imaginative con-
nexion between Satan and the Hebrew demon Azazel,
said to be "identified" with the goat (in Lev. 16 : 8,
A. V., and R. V., margin), and a variant of the Babylo-
nian goat-god A zaga-suga, which in turn goes back to the
Akkadian sacred goat, which was at once a god and the
Capricorn of the zodiac.

Any criticism of this imaginative hypothesis of Mr.
Robertson must, primarily at least, take the form of
pointing out the numerous assumptions and inaccura-
cies which it contains throughout. When these have
been marked off and removed it would be time enough
to see what remains of solid value.

And, first of all, Mr. Robertson's idea of "the devil as
conceived by Christians from time immemorial" makes us
wonder greatly with what type of Christians his lot has
been cast ! It is true that among the crude religious con-
cepts of ignorant and illiterate folk, and especially during
the darkness of the Middle Ages, Satan was largely figured
in the popular imagination as furnished with horns and
also hoofs and a tail. It would be difficult, though, to
establish this concept as being that of, at least, the early
Christian writers. Moreover, there is no identity what-
ever between the demon Azazel and the Hebrew Satan. 1

1 Mr. Robertson here quite misunderstands his references. Azazel is not
"identified with the goat" (see Enc. Bib., art. "Azazel," sec. i). Two goats

THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS 139

Few people either would see the slightest parallel be-
tween Jupiter "looking up to heaven" (even with Pan at
his side) and "Satan showing Jesus all the kingdoms of
the world and asking to be worshipped," unless Mr.
Robertson here supposes that Pan was seeking the adora-
tion of Jupiter. There is no fasting either in the heathen
story, and, above all, no temptation. And how the
Christian narrative can, by any stretch of imagination,
be regarded as an ethical adaptation of the myth passes
all comprehension. Myths were notoriously wwethical
and personal morals were wholly negligible factors in
all pagan religions.

Furthermore, the Christian story nowhere recognises
"Satan's complete dominion over the earth." Such a
view prevails neither in the Gospels generally (as Mr.
Robertson practically admits) nor in this story. The
Christian view is, and ever has been, that Satan, once a
spiritual servant and agent of God, has lapsed into a po-
sition of revolt against his authority, and that God, in
his wisdom, and for some sufficient and good reason
perhaps the discipline of mankind is permitting this,
for a time, in the sphere of this world.

Neither is there in the evangelist's story any illustra-
tion of a lapse from monotheism into dualism. The lat-
ter admits two co-ordinate and almost eternal powers,
one good and the other evil. This is exemplified only in
one Aryan religion, the faith founded by Zarathustra.
Semitic monotheistic religious systems are wholly exempt
from it, as witness the case of Mohammedanism to-day.
Mr. Robertson's pagan Satan (Pan), too, is here a power
not adverse to, but in accord with, -Jupiter a concept

were set apart, one for Jahveh, one for Azazel, who was a fallen angel, one
of the sons of Elohim, evil in character, but not altogether unfriendly to
man. See Enoch 6 : 6 /. ; 8 : i, and especially 10 : 4-8; 13 : i. The reader
may also be referred to a very illuminative article on "The Scapegoat in
Bab. Rel.," Expository Times, October, 1912, pp. 9-13.

140 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

wholly unlike that of both the Hebrew and Christian
Satan.

In short, it is only by drawing a caricature of the
Christian system, and adopting the popular and cruder
presentations of that religion, that he can make out a
case at all. His other mythical and astrological clews we
cannot deal with here in detail. We would, however,
point out, before concluding, that in all probability the
exceeding high mountain was not a part of, at least, the
original tradition as recorded by Mark. In Mark Jesus
was merely in the "wilderness," that is, one of the broken
and stony deserts to the south or east of Judaea (the re-
sort of ascetics in all ages), "forty days tempted (i.e.,
tried) of Satan." Even in the narrative of Matthew only
one of the trials takes place on a mountain; the last
temptation takes place upon a pinnacle of the temple. 1
A mountain has, indeed, but little, if anything, to do
with the story; for, as we will see presently, Jesus being
taken to either mountain top or pinnacle of the temple is,
without doubt, merely a symbolic expression. He was
in propria persona in the wilderness throughout it all.

And now we may turn to Professor Drews. Robert-
son's elaborate hypothesis is practically passed over by
him. He merely says (The Christ Myth, English trans-
lation, p. 236) : "The account of the temptation of Jesus
sounds very much like the temptation of Buddha, so far
as it is not derived from the temptation of Zarathustra
by Ahriman, or the temptation of Moses by the devil,

*A fragment of doubtful source and connexion, preserved by Origen
(Comm. in Johan, III, 63) and supposed to be from the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, speaks of Jesus being conveyed by his "mother, the Holy
Spirit," to the mountain Tabor. Hilgenfeld says (Nov. Test, extra Can.
Recept., IV, 23) that this passage is commonly referred to the Temptation,
but that Baur (Manichaisches Religionssystem, 485) rightly assigns it to the
Transfiguration. The mountain, in any case, as Cheyne says, was later
probably supposed to be the old mythical earth's centre, or navel of the
Hebrew paradise (Ezek. 28 : 16, etc.), and this, he thinks, was placed by
early tradition in the Jerahmeelite Negeb (cf. Isaiah 28 : 16).

THE TEMPTATION OF ZARATHUSTRA 141

of which the rabbis told." We will, therefore, turn to
the first two of these narratives and give them here as
fully as our space-limits will admit.

The Temptation of Zarathustra

In the temptation of Zarathustra 1 the scene is opened
by the rush from the regions of the north 2 of Angra
Mainyu, 3 the dava of the daevas, who orders a fiend 4
(drug) to destroy Zarathustra. But the attack of the
daeva was repulsed by the chanting of the Ahuna Vairya 5
by Zarathustra, and the fiend returned to report his ill
success.

Meanwhile, Zarathustra, who "saw (all this) from
within his soul" (or, in modern phraseology, subcon-
sciously) started forward swinging large stones "as big as
a house," obtained from Ahura Mazda, 6 with which he
threatens Angra Mainyu and the daevas. The former
begs Zarathustra not to harm his creatures, and, chang-
ing his tactics, promises him a "great boon" if he will
renounce the "good law of the worshippers of Mazda" (cf.
Matt. 4: 8 and 9). This Zarathustra emphatically refuses
to do, and the arch-fiend then asks what weapons he has
that will avail in a fight. To this Zarathustra replies
that his weapons are the haomd 1 and the words taught by

1 For the English translation of the full text of this narrative, see The
Zend-Avesta, Vendidad, Fargad XIX (Sacred Books of the Easf), by Jas.
Darmsteter, pp. 204-207 and 217-219.

2 1. e., from hell, which lies in the north (cf. XIX, 2; Yt., XXII, 25).

3 The "hostile" or destroying spirit; afterwards contracted to Ahriman.
In the Vedas the dafevas are good spirits.

4 This fiend is said to have propounded "malignant riddles," after the
manner of (Edipus and the Sphinx.

5 A prayer formula considered to have great (magic) power.

6 "Lord all-wise," afterwards contracted to Ormazd (Ormuz) = the good
spirit.

7 The soma of the Vedas, an intoxicating drink used at certain sacrifices
and regarded as conveying spiritual inspiration from the gods.

142 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Mazda (i. e., the sacred magical formulas for compelling
evil spirits), the Ahuna Vairya, and again he chants this
aloud.

Then Zarathustra applies to Ahura Mazda for a reve-
lation of "the law." He is taught how the fiend may be
still more effectually repelled, how the creation of Mazda
is to be worshipped, how uncleanness is to be washed
away, and what becomes of the soul after death. The
narrative next describes the rout of Angra Mainyu and
his host.

Angra Mainyu next tries to rally his daeVas, and or-
ders them to "gather together at the head of Arezura "*
for a fresh attack. Upon which, we are told, the "evil-
doing daevas" run away, casting the evil eye. "Let us
gather together," they say, "at the head of Arezura."
But they refuse, after all, to attack Zarathustra again.
"How can we procure his death?" they urge by way of
remonstrance with their leader. "He is the stroke that
fells the fiends; he is a counter-fiend; he is a drug of the
drugs." The task is an impossible one; and so, finally,
" they rush away, the wicked, evil-doing daSvas, into the
depths of the dark, horrid world of hell," and the temp-
tation of the holy Zarathustra is at an end.

The Temptation of Gautama

We will now turn to the corresponding trial of Gau-
tama, 2 which is properly prefaced by the "Great Re-
nunciation." In this he leaves his father's palace, and a
life of ease and pleasure, and rides forth into the world
to discover the great secrets of all being and happiness.
His father had ordered the city gates to be shut against
his egress; "but the angel residing at the gate opened
it." At the very moment of leaving the city, however,

1 The gate of hell.

2 For the complete narrative in the Nidanakatha, see Biiddhist Birth
Stories, by T. W. Rhys Davids, pp. 83-84, 96-101, and 106 Jf.

THE TEMPTATION OF GAUTAMA 143

Mara 1 appeared and endeavoured to stay the Bodhisat.
Standing in the air before him, he exclaimed: "Depart
not, my lord ! In seven days from now the wheel of
empire will appear and will make you sovereign over
the four continents and the two thousand adjacent
isles; stop, my lord!" (Cf. Matt. 4 : 8 and 9.) The
Bodhisat informs the evil spirit that he does not desire
sovereignty over the world, but wishes to become a
Buddha, 2 and by so becoming achieve something greater
than earthly sovereignty; he will thereby "make the ten
thousand world systems shout for joy." Thereupon the
fiend resolves to follow Gautama and watch for any
thought of lust or anger or malice in his heart; and so,
the account proceeds, he followed, "ever watching for
some slip as closely as a shadow which never leaves its
object."

We have next the journey to the Bo-tree and the "temp-
tation" thereunder to abandon his aspirations to Buddha-
hood and complete enlightenment, of which the following
is an abstract:

The Bodhisat seated himself with his back to the
trunk of the Bo-tree, 3 and resolved never to move from
his seat there until he had attained to "complete in-
sight." Then, we are told, the army of Mara advanced
against him in due order. It stretched "twelve leagues
before him," and as many on either side, while behind
him it reached to the rocky limits of the world; above
him it was nine leagues in height, and the sound of its
war-cry was heard twelve leagues away, "like the sound
of a great earthquake." At the head of this host rode
"Mara the Angel," upon an elephant two hundred and

1 The evil spirit. Sansc., j~ri, "to cause to die," "to kill." Cf. Hebrew,
Satan, "adversary."'

3 An enlightened person.

3 The older Pali texts refer to Mara as the adversary of the Buddha but
are silent as to the "great temptation" under the Bo-tree, of which the
later legend, as we have it, has so much to say.

144 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

fifty leagues high. And he had "created for himself a
thousand arms and seized all kinds of weapons." With
these he and his army "went on to overwhelm the great
being." On the other hand, the good angels of "the ten
thousand world systems," who are described as ranged
on the side of the Buddha, are said to have been mean-
while speaking his praises; and their King Sakka blew
upon his great trumpet, which was one hundred and
twenty cubits long and which gave forth a blast that re-
sounded for four months. But, on the approach of Mara
and his host, they all pusillanimously turned and fled,
and the Buddha was left alone. i i

Thereupon the arch-fiend and his satellites commenced
their onset from behind Gautama, and the latter, looking
all around and seeing that he was wholly deserted even
by the "gods, " reflected: "No father is here, nor mother,
nor any other relative to help me. But those Ten Car-
dinal virtues have long been to me as retainers fed from
my store. So, making the virtues my shield, I must
strike this host with the sword of virtue and thus over-
whelm it. And so he sat meditating on the Ten Perfec-
tions."

Then Mara began his attack with a great whirlwind
from all the four corners of the earthj with the intent to
drive away Gautama from his seat; but he failed to do so.
The whirlwind was succeeded by a great rain from hun-
dreds and thousands of immense clouds, and the great
flood thereby caused overtopped the trees of the forest;
but it was unable to wet even the robe of the Buddha.

After this, then, followed a great shower of rocks
"mighty mountain peaks came hurtling through the air"
upon Gautama. But all these changed into bouquets
of heavenly flowers when they reached the Bo-tree.
These, again, were succeeded by volleys of deadly weap-
ons swords, spears, and arrows; but these, likewise, be-
came flowers when they struck the Buddha. Storms of

THE TEMPTATION OF GAUTAMA 145

red-hot charcoal, hot ashes, sand, and mud next came
successively "flaming through the air"; but they fell
at the Buddha's feet as heavenly perfume. Finally,
there fell upon him a thick darkness; but this also dis-
appeared on reaching the Bo-tree.

Then Mara, mounting upon the "Mountain Girded," 1
ordered Gautama to get up and surrender to him the
seat beneath the Bo-tree. " Get up, Siddhatta, f^om that
seat!" he cried. "It is meant for me!" But Gautama
reminded Mara that he had not perfected the ten car-
dinal virtues; he had not sacrificed himself in the five
great acts of self-renunciation and the salvation of the
world and the attainment of wisdom. The seat did not
belong to him, but to the Buddha.

Thereupon Mara threw at him the great sceptre-
javelin which he carried; but this became a garland of
flowers, which remained as a canopy over him; also the
fresh masses of rock hurled by the host became bouquets
at his feet, though the angels had now given him up for
lost.

The tempter's next move was to accuse Gautama of
not having given alms. But the latter, raising his right
hand from beneath his robe, called upon the earth to
bear him witness of "the seven-hundred-fold great gift"
he had made in his former birth as Wessantara; and the
earth gave reply: "I am witness to thee of that."

And then the great elephant of Mara fell down upon
his knees when he realised the generosity of Wessantara;
and the army of Mara "fled this way and that way, so
that not even two were left together; throwing off their
clothes and their turbans, they fled each one straight on
before him. But the heavenly host, when they saw that
the army of Mara had fled, cried out: "The tempter is
overcome ! Siddhatta the prince has prevailed ! Come,
let us honour the victor," etc.

1 The name of Mara's great elephant.

146 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

The baffled arch-fiend now changed his tactics, and
despatched his seductive daughters, among whom were
Craving, Discontent, and Lust, to try gentler meth-
ods. But their charms were also unavailing. Gautama
remained calm and impassive, and, rebuking them for
their boldness, forces them to retire discomfited and dis-
graced. 1

Before discussing the above narratives, we may briefly
mention here another "source" (and, in a certain sense,
a "parallel") of the Biblical temptation-story which has
been since advanced by Professor Jensen, the distin-
guished Assyriologist. This is drawn from trie Gilgamesh
epic of Babylon, which is, he thinks, the basis and real
original source of the whole story of Jesus as related in
the Gospels and Epistles. 2

In this myth Eabani, a monster specially created by
the goddess Aruru, is held by Jensen to be a mythical
"parallel" of Jesus, 3 and the alleged correspondences to
the temptation-narrative are worked out by him as fol-
lows. Eab.ani, after visiting Gilgamesh at the city of
Erech, flees to the steppe. In like manner, after his
baptism, Jesus flees into the wilderness. Then the sun-
god (SkamasK) calls from heaven to Eabani in the desert
with kind words, and speaks to him of delicious food,
of loaves of brea'd, and of his feet being kissed by the
kings of the earth. This incident is supposed to appear
in the Christian "myth" as "the devil speaking to Jesus
about bread, which he is urged to make from stones,"

1 In the Kkadirangara Jataka ("Birth Stories"), pp. 334~337j there is
another so-called "temptation" of the Bodhisat, wherein Mara attempts
to put a stop to his almsgiving and destroy him. After this failed Mara
went away to the place where he dwelt, and the Bodhisat, "standing on the
lotus [flower], preached the law to the people in praise of charity and right-
eousness, and then returned to his house surrounded by the multitude."

2 Moses, Jesus, P embus : drei varianten des babylonischen goltmenschen Gil-
gamesch. (1909), pp. 27-30.

3 Other prototypes of Jesus in this myth are said to be Xisuthros and
Gilgamesh himself.

THE TEMPTATION OF GAUTAMA

147

and about "Jesus ruling all the kingdoms of the earth
if he would kiss the devil's feet." Finally, Eabani re-
turns from the steppe to Erech and lives there with Gil-
gamesh once more. Similarly, Jesus returns from the
wilderness to his native place.

In reviewing the temptation-narratives of both Zara-
thustra and the Buddha, the first thing that strikes the
reader is the exaggerated use in both of hyperbole and
symbolism. To treat these stories as being ever regarded
by any one as historical, in our Western and modern sense
of the term, seems to the present writer wholly to mis-
understand their entire purport and meaning. They
are, it is quite evident, highly, if not wholly, symbolic
and must be interpreted from that point t>f view. But,
after the. usual Oriental fashion, the symbolism is char-
acterised by exaggeration of the grossest and most ab-
surd kind; this, however, is ever the Eastern manner
whenever the "supernatural" is in question.

Again, there can be no doubt that both of these sto-
ries, in their primitive form at least, are older than the
corresponding Gospel narratives and have undergone
considerable development and elaboration. The Gos-
pel stories, on the other hand, are moderate in their
symbolism, and even prosaic by comparison, and if
borrowed from these even as regards ideas must have
undergone much pruning and toning down. That they
have not done this, however, is pretty clear from the
older and simpler form of the temptation-narrative in
Mark, and also from the fact that myths never lose
their elaboration by passing into the literature of other
peoples, though they often change the modes of expres-
sion. All this tells strongly against any theory of bor-
rowing by the' evangelists, whether of the details or of
the ideas embodied in the story. Moreover, there is,
as we have seen," only one temptation which they have in
common with the fuller Gospel narratives that of the

148 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OP THE GOSPELS

bribe of earthly sovereignty. Everything else is wholly
different, and even that temptation differs greatly from
the one recorded in the Gospels. In the Buddhist story
Gautama is to have a world empire if he will stay at
home and renounce all aspirations to enlightenment,
while Zarathustra is somewhat vaguely promised a
"gre.at boon" if he will abjure the "good law of the wor-
shippers of Mazda." On the other hand, Jesus is offered
the sovereignty of the world if he will "worship Satan,"
which we may take to mean, aspire to an earthly and
temporal. Messianic kingdom such as the Jews dreamt
of instead of that kingdom which was not of this world.
The physical violence offered to both Zarathustra and
Gautama, as well as the malignant riddles of the demon,
together with all the exuberant flights of fancy found
in both the pagan stories, are likewise conspicuously
absent from the Gospels and, above all, from the chaste
and subdued narrative of Mark.

We may, therefore, take it as certain that there has
been no Zoroastrian or Buddhist influence directly at
work in the composition of the narratives of any of the
evangelists. That the spiritual concepts of the age have
coloured the fuller presentments by Matthew and Luke
is more than probable; such a colouration would, in any
circumstances, be unavoidable. These points are freely
admitted by Doctor Cheyne, who says most distinctly
(Enc. Bib., art. "Temptation of Jesus," sec. 14) that the
mythic elements in the temptation of Jesus cannot be
traced to imitations of either of the two parallel stories,
and adds: "So far as we know as yet, it is only in the
Apocryphal Gospels (150-700 A. D.) that Buddhist in-
fluence can be traced." This is also the view of the great
majority of competent authorities on Buddhism. Pro-
fessor Oldenberg says emphatically (Buddha sein Leben,
seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde, S. 118): "Influences of the
Buddhist tradition on the Christian are not to be thought

THE TEMPTATION OF GAUTAMA

149

of." It is unnecessary to multiply cases of such expert
opinion. 1

Comment upon such a scheme of "parallels" as those
drawn from the Gilgamesh epic seems really unneces-
sary even when they are advanced by so brilliant a
scholar as Doctor Jensen. Still we may, perhaps, point
out that the so-called "temptation" is no temptation
at all. It is merely an assurance of Shamash the sun-
god that his wants will be provided for. Eabani had
grown restive under the restraints of civilisation in
Erech, and the sun-god practically asks him why he
longed for his former wild life amongst the animals of
the desert. Had not Gilgamesh supplied him with food
and clothing, and would he not give him an easy seat on
his right hand and oblige the kings of the earth to kiss
his feet? And then we read that at daybreak " the words
of Shamash the mighty loosed the bands of Eabani and
his furious heart came to rest." The whole argument is,
however, in reality absurd; and it is difficult even to
take Professor Jensen seriously.

But, it may be justly observed, all this is so far mere
destructive criticism; what can we put in its place?
The Biblical story is evidently not history in the modern
sense; what, then, is its origin and meaning? This is a
fair question, and we will endeavour to answer it frankly.

The story of the temptation of Jesus is, we believe, a
symbolic narrative expressive of one of those psychical
experiences which affect the innermost core of our spirit-
ual being. 2 It was customary in the East for all founders

1 For an able and modern article on supposed Buddhist parallels and in-
fluences, see M. L. de la Vallee Poussin's "History of the Religions of India
in Its Bearings on Christian Apologetics" (Revue ties Sciences Philosophiqiies
el Theologiques, July, 1912).

2 Cf. with this scene "The Transfiguration," chap. 8. The same may be
said of the experiences ascribed to Zarathustra and Gautama, assuming them
to have been historical characters, as seems more than probable. In their
case, however, the descriptive narratives have been so loaded with extrav-
agant hyperbole and exaggerated symbolism as to place them beyond all

150 MYTHICAL INTERPBETATION OF THE GOSPELS

and reformers of religion, as well as prophets, to retire
for a while to the broken and desolate country in their
respective neighbourhoods and there, by means of a
course of fasting and severe mental introspection, to pre-
pare themselves for the mission which they felt called
upon to undertake. Here, in places firmly believed to
be the special haunts of spirits, chiefly evil or mischiev-
ous, 1 as well as wild beasts (cf. Mark i : 13), inward
doubts and questions, and visions, often hallucinatory
in character, as a rule, speedily supervened. These ex-
periences, whether hallucinatory or veridical, in a spirit-
ual sense were sometimes recorded in highly symbolical
language for the edification and warning of mankind.
Doctor Cheyne thinks that all temptation-stories in
general originated in the mythical conflict between the
light-god and the storm-spirit. This is no doubt true
in a sense; but we must remember that the light-god
and the storm-spirit themselves were but symbols of
spiritual powers by whom men were ultimately con-
trolled and to whom obedience or resistance was due.
For there can be no temptation to reject the good and
choose the evil, even in the most rudimentary sense of
the term, unless there is a spiritual and ethical note in
the experience.

Now, Jesus must, at the outset of his earthly career,
have been beset by three great temptations, affecting,
respectively, body, soul, and spirit, to employ the con-
ventional divisions in general use. 2 He was tempted, no

comparison with those of the evangelists. Binet-Sangle" finds (La fdlie de
Jesus, pp. 356 jf.) in the narrative of the Temptation seven hallucinations,
two purely optical and five which were at once optical and auditives ver-
bales. He attributes them to the combined influence of excitement, night,
loneliness, and abstinence. See chap. 6, p. 114, note 2.

l Such as, especially, the Hebrew, one/ ("violent ones"), and on'j?tf
("hairy ones," Isaiah 13 : 21; 34 : 14, etc.); cf. the Arab., Jinns, Assyr.,
Utukkus, etc., and the Greek, SO.IIMVK, Sai^via, ("demons"), etc.

2 The order of Luke is preferable as giving them in the natural sequence
from lowest to highest.

THE TEMPTATION OF GAUTAMA 151

doubt, to choose the life of greater bodily ease and com-
fort instead of that path wherein he was often an hun-
gered and had not where to lay his head. Further, there
was the temptation to accept the national ideal of a suc-
cessful earthly monarch and to rule over a greater king-
dom than that of Solomon. And, lastly, he would be
tempted to mistrust the good-will and support of his
Father in heaven, especially in hours of bodily weak-
ness and depression. Ought he not, therefore, to test
("tempt") this in some way at the outset, in order to
assure himself that the mission was in truth his Father's
will and no mere dream of his own mind? Through all
these successive temptations he must have passed one
by one; and they would doubtless be related by him
afterwards to at least the innermost group of his disciples.
And these trials of faith were recorded more Orientali,
in the language of symbol and hyperbole, by the two
later synoptists. As a modern scholar very truly writes:
"He was made like to his brethren; he was touched with
the feelings of our infirmities; he was able to sympathise
(Svpvd/jLevov {rvpTradijTai) } for he was tempted in all re-
spects like us. In the Gospel as it is handed down to us
the Temptation of Christ is summed up in three episodes
set at the beginning of the story, and told in a symbolic
form, which may or may not have been given to them by
Jesus himself." l

Finally, there remains for our consideration one more
point which is frequently regarded as of vital impor-
tance in such questions as these. Had these spiritual
experiences, as described, the objective reality which
the narratives seem to imply? Above all, was there an
actual arch-spirit of evil in person testing the fitness of
the future Messiah? Or were they, severally and col-
lectively, merely the questionings and strivings of that

1 Mr. T. R. Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire,
p. 127.

152 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

mysterious superconsciousness which ever lies at the
back of all our normal mental activities and which
seems as yet to be called into activity only by extraor-
dinary exigencies in the life of man? The present writer
will endeavour, in compliance with his promise, to deal
frankly with the reader upon this point also.

The question asked is a difficult if not an impossible
one to answer, even partially, at the present time. To
put it in other words, it is practically to inquire how,
in all such cases, the merely subjective and hallucinatory
is to be separated and distinguished from the spiritually
objective and veridical. This important problem of the
future is now engaging the serious attention of psychical
research. Modern orthodox psychology has, it is true,
discouraged such inquiries and in some cases even denied
the objectivity and independent reality of spiritual phe-
nomena no less than the existence of the indwelling soul
which experiences them; 1 but at the same time it has
certainly not established the entire subjectivity of either.
Neither can the existence or non-existence of an un-
friendly spirit, or spirits, be proved or disproved to-day.
At the same time the diabolical character of much of the
evil in the world seems hard to reconcile with the theory
of neuroses. External influences of a demoniacal nature
are, it is true, out of fashion just now; but they might
any day be discovered to have some elements of fact in
them. 2 The true attitude for the moment, therefore, is
one of suspended judgment.

But even if it be ultimately established that .all the

1 E. g., "Souls are out of fashion" (William James at Oxford in 1910).
See, however, the more recent work, Body and Mind, by Professor William
McDougall, of Oxford, who reaffirms, from the scientific standpoint, the
highly probable objective reality of the spiritual element in man and its
experiences. The reader is also referred to the researches found in the
modern works on psychical research.

2 See Daemon Possession in China and Allied Themes, by Doctor J. L. Nae-
vius (1896), and Daemonic Possession, by Doctor W. M. Alexander (1902).

THE TEMPTATION OF GAUTAMA 153

temptations and sins incident to man are the outcome of
subjective stirrings and impulses of a lower type, even
if man were proved to be "his own devil," the spiritual
value of each experience would still remain. The lower
self, with all its tendencies and strivings to what is base
and earthly, would still need to be conquered by the
higher self, with all its nobler aims and aspirations.
After all, it matters but little whether evil thoughts and
temptations are injected ab extra by a personal power or
engendered by internal causes and movements. The re-
sult in either case is the same. The higher self, strength-
ened and sustained by powers and energies of spiritual
origin, and emanating from the source of all spiritual life
and energy, must ever grapple with and strive against
the lower self, until the tempter is finally overcome and
man enters upon that spiritual inheritance where, we are
assured, there is no more temptation and from whence
sin and pain and sorrow will have for ever fled away.

CHAPTER VIII

THE TRANSFIGURATION

WE may once more conveniently open our discussion
of this event in the life of Jesus with a short summary
of the view of it taken by D. F. Strauss, which may be
quoted as a fair sample of what we have termed the
"common-sense" type of mythical criticism. He com-
ments upon it (Life of Jesus, III, pp. 247 and 248) as
follows:

"To comprehend how such a narrative could be formed
by the legend, we should examine, in the first place, the
peculiarity to the essence of which the other peculiari-
ties most readily attach themselves, viz., the brilliance
which rendered the face of Jesus like the sun and the
bright light with which even his garments were invested.
For the Orientals, and in particular for the Hebrews, the
fine and majestic is almost always connected with some-
thing luminous. Solomon in his Songs compares his be-
loved to the morning, to the noon, to the sun (6 : 10) ;
pious men sustained by the divine blessing are compared
to the sun in his glory (Judges 5 : 31); and especially
the future life of the blessed is compared to the bril-
liance of the firmament (Daniel 13 : 3; Matt. 13 : 43).
In consequence, not only does God appear in a burst of
light, and the angels with luminous countenances and
shining garments (Psalm 50 : 2 and 3; Daniel 7:9; 10 : 5
and 6; Luke 24 : 4; Rev. i : 13-16), but also the pious
individuals of Jewish antiquity. . . .

"In the same way the Jewish posterior legend endowed

154

THE TRANSFIGURATION 155

distinguished rabbins with supernatural light in certain
moments of exaltation. . . .

"The fact is," he adds, somewhat inconsequently, "it
was expected that the Messiah would have a bright and
shining countenance like that of Moses, or even surpass-
ing that in splendour, and a Jewish work, which takes
no notice of this history of the transfiguration, draws
an argument altogether in the spirit of the Jews when
he [the author] affirms that Jesus could not have been
the Messiah inasmuch as his face had not the bright-
ness of the face of Moses much less any superior bright-
ness. The first Christians must have heard like objec-
tions on the part of the Jews or they must have made
them to themselves; the necessary consequence of which
would be, in the most ancient church, a tendency to re-
produce in the life of Jesus this trait from the life of
Moses, to exaggerate it even in a certain respect, and to
attribute to Jesus, were it only for a short space of time,
instead of a shining face, which might have been covered
with a cloth, a brilliance which was spread even over his
garments."

This argument is entirely in line with the method of
Strauss all throughout his critique of the Gospels. Ev-
erything was anticipated by the Jews and later on
supplied to order by the early Christians. And the his-
torical Jesus was a mere peg upon which to hang these
anticipations. But Strauss concludes with the practical
question: "If . . . the splendour with which Jesus was
surrounded was an accidental optical phenomenon, and
if the two apparitions were the images of a dream, or
unknown individuals, what becomes of the meaning of
the adventure? What purpose could be answered in
preserving in the first Christian association so useless
an anecdote, one so destitute of meaning, founded upon
superstition and a vulgar illusion?"

This criticism of Strauss, though expressed with some

156 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

reserve and a modicum of real insight of a commonplace
sort, is, nevertheless, in itself not of a very illuminative
character and, moreover, ends with the trite argument that
because he can see no purpose served by the anecdote
none can possibly exist a great as well as a gratuitous
assumption in any case. It is clear that the evange-
lists were persuaded that the ultimate sources of their
information (probably one or more of the disciples, who
had been present on the occasion) were sufficiently trust-
worthy to exclude the possibility of a mere accidental
optical phenomenon, the images of a dream, or even the
suggestion of unknown individuals who, whether by de-
sign or accident, were present upon the mountain at
the time. And the very obvious purpose of the evan-
gelists in preserving this story (assuming for a moment
its historicity) was that they might show how the three
chosen disciples had clearly and fully unfolded to them
the true Messianic character and divine nature of their
Master. The remainder of his criticism we will leave
until we discuss the narrative itself in greater detail at
the end of the present chapter.

We may now turn to later mythical criticism, and in
connexion with the mythic sources and parallels of this
narrative we may note the following story, which has
been termed the "Transfiguration of the Buddha" and
placed under suspicion as a source of our narratives.
Shortly before the death of Gautama, we are told in the
Makaparinibbana Sutta, IV, sees. 47-50 (Sacred Books
of the East, vol. XI, pp. 80 and 81), that "The venerable
Ananda placed a pair of robes of cloth of gold, burnished
and ready for wear, on the body of the Blessed One, and
when it was so placed on the body of the Blessed One
it appeared to have lost its splendour. Then the vener-
able Ananda said to the Blessed One: 'How wonderful a
thing it is, lord, and how marvellous, that the colour of
the skin of the Blessed One should be so clear, so exceed-
ing bright! For when I placed even this pair of robes

THE TRANSFIGURATION 157

of burnished cloth of gold on the body of the Blessed One,
lo ! it seemed as if they had lost their splendour.' "

Thereupon the Buddha explained the mystery: "On
the night, Ananda, on which a Tathagata 1 attains to the
supreme and perfect insight, and on the night in which
he passes finally away, in that utter passing away which
leaves nothing whatever remaining, on these occasions
the colour of the skin of the Tathagata becomes clear
and exceeding bright."

There is some resemblance here, but only of a very
general character, which certainly does not suggest bor-
rowing of any kind either way. And, in any case, that
hypothesis opens up a number of complex and difficult
problems both here and elsewhere, each of which would
require a settlement before any definite conclusion could
be reached; e. g. : (i) Does the Sutta, in which this story is
preserved, date, in its present form, from before the time
of Christ? 2 (2) Can any literary borrowing between
Palestine and India before that period be shown to be
even probable? (3) If borrowing of idea there be here,
could not the early Christian compilers have got the
idea more readily and directly from the Old Testament,
as Strauss thought? After making every allowance, the
theory of a Buddhist source seems, to say the least of it,
highly improbable; and undoubtedly similar ideas and
stories frequently spring up simultaneously in different
countries and places, so there is probably no connexion
whatever between the two narratives. This is also the
view of Lester, who says (The Historic Jesus, 1912) : "The

1 De Bunsen thinks (Angel Messiah of Buddhists, Essenes, and Christians,
1880) that this = the Jewish Messianic title Habba (6 'Ep^i/nei/os), "the
Coming One." But it is a derivative from the'Sansc., tatha, "so," and
either gata, "gone," or agata, "come," and accordingly means "so gone" or
"so come." Burnouf (Hist, du Buddh. Ind., pp. 75 and 76) says that the
Tibetan scholar Csoma thought it meant "the One who has gone through
his career like his predecessors" (the previous Buddhas).

2 Rhys Davids thinks that the Suttanta date from about the fourth cen-
tury B. C. But Indian dates are proverbially very uncertain. And there
is the question of interpolation.

158 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

details for the story were abundantly supplied in the
legend of Moses (Ex. 25). The six days, the three fa-
voured friends, the light of the divine glory were all to
be found in that ancient tale; while the whiteness of the
garments, surpassing the brightness of the sun and the
whiteness of snow, came from the Apocalypse of Enoch
(see The Secrets of Enoch 22 : 8-10)."

We will now turn to Professor Drews, who, as we
might expect, links up the event with ancient astral-
mythic ideas that had been long current in other parts
of Asia Minor and, further, parallels the details of the
story with those of the baptism. On the basis of the
theory that the synoptists represent the public career
of Jesus as occupying only one year (instead of three, as
commonly supposed) a precarious hypothesis he pro-
ceeds as follows [The Christ Myth, English translation, pp.
126 and 127]: "As at the baptism, so here, too, Jesus was
proclaimed by a heavenly voice as the Son or beloved
of God, or rather of the Holy Spirit. As the latter is
in Hebrew of feminine gender, 1 it consequently appears
that in this passage we have before us a parallel to the
baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The incident is gener-
ally looked upon as though by it was emphasised the
higher significance of Jesus in comparison with the two
chief representatives of the old order and as though
Jesus was extolled before Moses and Elijah by the trans-
figuration. Here, too, however, the sun-god Helios is
obviously concealed beneath the form of the Israelite
Elijah. On this account Christianity changed the old
places of worship of Zeus and Helios [? Zeus-Herakles]
upon eminences into chapels of Elijah; and Moses is no
other than the moon-god, 2 the Men of Asia Minor. And

x The Hebrew word for spirit is generally feminine. But the Hebrews
had no feminine principle in the godhead.

2 Moses, however (p. 89, note), "is to be looked upon as an offshoot of
Jahwe and Tammuz" I

THE TRANSFIGURATION 159

he has been introduced into the story because the divine
lawgivers in almost all mythologies are the same as the
moon, the measurer of time and regulator of all that
happens (cf. Manu among the Indians, Minos among
the Greeks, Men [Min] among the Egyptians)," adding
in a note (p. 127): "The horns (crescent) which he also
shares with Jahwe, as the Syrian Hadah shows, recalls
to mind the moon-nature of Moses."

And, lastly, he sums up as follows (p. 127): "Accord-
ingly, we have before us in the story of the transfigura-
tion in the Gospels only another view of the story of the
birth of the light-god, or fire-god, such as lies at the
root of the story of the baptism of the Christian Saviour.
And with the thought of the new birth of the Saviour
is associated that of the baptism of Jesus, and particu-
larly that of the fire baptism of which the sun partakes
at the height of its power."

It will be convenient to discuss first of all Doctor
Drews's derivations.

"Moses is, as regards his name [i/ma, mo], the 'water-
drawer'" (p. 127, note). Now, in the Old Testament the
name appears as H^D (Mosheti), and, if this be the cor-
rect form, its meaning would be "deliverer" (l/n^D,
"to draw out," cf. II Sam. 22 : 17; Psalm 18 : 17). But
this view is open to doubt, and Lepsius (Chronologic, 326)
has suggested a derivation from the Egyptian mes (or
mesu; W. H. Miiller writes it mose), meaning child,
which occurs as a name by itself and also as part of a
theophorous name (e. g., Thothmes, etc., see Enc. Bib.,
art. "Moses," sec. 2). With this derivation Doctor Sayce
agrees (Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, pp. 64
and 65), and Dillmann holds (Ex.-Lev. 16) that Moses
( = Mesu) was, the original name. The chief objection
to this theory, that the Hebrews would not have ac-
cepted a name for their hero from their Egyptian op-
pressors, is not a valid one. Moses was believed by the

160 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

former to be of Hebrew birth, and a very slight change in
the spelling of his name would give the Hebraic word
for "deliverer," a most suitable appellation in their view.
In order to connect Moses with the Asiatic moon-god,
Drews lays great stress upon "the horns (crescent),
which he also shares with Jahwe, as the Syrian Hadah
shows" (p. 127, note) another very dubious support
to his hypothesis. Horns, in Eastern countries, were
symbolical of power and were commonly an adjunct
to the head-dresses oi gods and kings. In Ex. 34 : 29
it is stated in the Massoretic text that when Moses came
down from the mount his face "emitted rays," "shone"
(H). The LXX, in the Vatican text, reads SeSdgaa-Tcu,
"was endowed with glory," "shone"; but in the Latin
Vulgate we find cornuta esset, "was horned." This re-
sult is attained by reading pp as pp y , instead of pj?,
and Jerome states that Aquila, in his version of the LXX,
followed this reading. 1 Cheyne thinks that this reading,
or perhaps the idea upon which it is based, may be traced
to the two horns of Am(m)on (Amun), the god of Thebes,
which Alexander the Great affixed to the effigy of him-
self on coins, and from which he was later styled "the
two-horned king" in the Koran (Sur. 18 : 85). "The
original reading," he thinks, "must have been not p_j?
but p^3" (barak, "lightened"; cf. Phcen., b&rcd), and he
adds: "It would be going too far off to compare the horns
[crescent] of the moon-god Sin, whose emblem was a crown
or mitre adorned with horns" (Enc. Bib., art. "Horn").
That Moses represents the Semitic moon-god is a mere
speculation due to the ingenuity of Winckler, and the
alleged affinity of his name to Manu, Minos (so pressed
by Drews), is probably due only to the mere alliteration
in the words. It is highly probable, indeed, that the
name Minos is only a variant of an original Manva, i. e.,

1 Gesenius, in his Hebrew Lexicon (1833), comments thus: "Ridicule Aqu.
et Vulg. cornuta esset."

THE TRANSFIGURATION 161

"(the being) endowed with thinking," as we see in the
Hindu Manu and the German Mann. In any case; if
Manu and Minos are astral deities, they must be forms
of the sun-god and not connected with the moon at all;
for, inter alia, the wife of Minos is Pasiphae, the moon-
goddess. Amsu, or Min (Men), is also a personification
of the male reproductive powers of nature and was iden-
tified with Pan by the Greeks. In short, we have here,
in Doctor Drews's book, a mere mass of unverified and
loose speculation upon which no sound hypothesis can
be raised.

Again, with regard to Elijah, surely he cannot mean
to equate Elijah 1 (Elijahu) with Helios and (above all)
with Jesus. 2 Elijah means "Jah is my God," while
Helios is derived, according to Peile (Gk. and Lot. Etym.,
p. 152), from T/W^ "to burn," with an original form
au(o-)e'Xto5, ae'Xto?, with Cretan a/3eXib? (see also Curtius,
Gr. Etym., no. i62). 3

By no possible process can we legitimately find Helios
concealed beneath the form of the Israelite Elijah, and
no sound theory of identification can be built upon the
similarity of certain forms of their names or the functions
assigned to each of them.

Lastly, Drews's view that the transfiguration repre-
sents the sun-god undergoing his baptism of fire at the
highest and turning-point of his annual career is dis-
posed of by this simple fact alone that, as we have al-
ready seen (chap. 4), a careful examination of the name
Jesus, and of the circumstances of his career, shows that
he was not in any sense of the word a sun-god at all.

1 Also written Helias (IV Esd. 7 : 30). This form offers a great temptation
to identify the name with Helios (Helius) the sun !

2 For "Elijah (El^-scha) and Jeho-schua (Joshua, Jesus) agrees even in
their names"! (The Christ Myth, p. 238).

3 From this Aryan root comes the old Etruscan solar-god Usil, "the
burning one," identified subsequently by the Greeks with Apollo (cf. Ro-
man, Sol). But Jahveh was almost certainly not a swn-god.

162 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

We will now turn to the Greek text of the narratives
of this event and see what light a careful examination
of them will throw upon the matter.

In describing the change which all three synoptists
state came over Jesus, Mark and Matthew use exactly
the same phrase /cal neTafjLopcfxba-di] efiTrpoo-Oev avr&v ("and
he underwent a change in their presence") which, no
doubt, in each case points to a quotation from a com-
mon source. Luke, however, adopts a verbally different
phrase, and perhaps describes the change in his own
words eyenero ... TO elSo? TOV irpoaatirov avrov erepbv
("the form [or expression] of his countenance became
different," or "changed") a general equivalent of the
former phrase. All three also note that this change ap-
peared to extend to the clothing; the raiment became
white. Now the verb ^era/iop^oo/iat is used of a spiritual
change in Romans 12:2, and also in II Cor. 3 : 18, with
apparently a reference to this scene, for a comparison
with the case of Moses (Ex. 34 : 16) is instituted. This
event seems also to be referred to in II Peter i : 16
and perhaps in John i : 14.

Now, it is evident that the evangelists here are trying
to describe what they regard rather as spiritual phe-
nomena than as physical. Indeed, Matthew appears to
say so distinctly. Jesus afterwards told them, he adds,
to tell the vision (o/aa/xa 1 ) to no one. No doubt opafjut
can also be taken to mean some object or other presented
to the ordinary normal sight; but it can also, and does
frequently, mean the higher vision of the spiritual, na-
ture, as it seems to do in this case. 2 And herein lies the
answer to the chief difficulty felt by Strauss and prob-

is the regular technical word for immaterial phenomena. But
this cannot be pressed.

2 Cf. the case of Stephen (Acts 6 : 15), where Luke, it may be noted,
again avoids the word /tera/top0<5o/wu and compares the spiritualisation
of Stephen's face to the expression of an "angel."

THE TRANSFIGURATION 163

ably by many other readers. The brilliance which he
failed to understand, and mistook for a physical light, is
not intended to be taken as a mere physical phenome-
non. The writers are endeavouring to describe phenomena
of an abnormal, superphysical a spiritual character in
terminology, which is really only adapted to normal and
purely physical occurrences (cf. Acts 2 : 4, etc.), and
therefore must fail to describe them adequately owing to
the insufficiency of language itself.

A similar criticism will apply to the "voice" (<&"7),
which is also mentioned 1 and regarded by the mythi-
cists as a further mark of pseudo-historicity. But the
subjective character of such voices, as regards the merely
bodily senses, was recognised at least as far back as the
fourth century. "What is meant," writes Basil the
Great (Horn, in Ps. 28, "by the voice of the Lord? Are
we to understand thereby a disturbance caused in the air
by the vocal organs? Is it not rather a lively image, a
clear and sensible vision imprinted on the mind of those
to whom God wishes to communicate his thought, a vi-
sion 2 analogous to what is imprinted on the mind when
we dream."

Now, it would be a great error to suppose hastily, as
no doubt many readers will do, that all such experiences
as these may, after all, be referred merely to the imagi-

1 Jensen identifies this "voice" (Moses, Jesus, Paulus) with the voice
of the invisible Xisuthros, who calls out to his shipmates: "You are to be
pious." It is difficult, we repeat, to take such "parallels" seriously.

2 Schmiedel lays down (Ewe. Bib., art. "Res. and Asc. Nar.," sec. 34)
the psychological antecedents of a vision (= here hallucination) as follows:
(r) a high degree of psychical excitement; (2) all the elements which are
requisite for the formation of a visionary image, whether it be views or
ideas, are previously present in the mind and have engaged its activities."

This, no doubt, Js true of hallucinatory experiences self-engendered in
the subconsciousness; but it is not so of veridical ones, such as a picture
or message transmitted telepathically from an agent to a recipient through
the superconsciousness. The real difficulty lies in distinguishing between
the two visions.

164 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

nation, perhaps that day-dreaming which belongs to the
borderland between waking and sleeping.

Luke, it is true, adds (9 : 32) that the disciples were
heavy with sleep (virvm), but adds directly afterwards
that they became fully awake during the vision itself.
Probably he refers here to ordinary sleep; but he may
be thinking of that hypnotic condition which often
closely resembles sleep and which so frequently accom-
panies manifestations of the superconsciousness. His re-
mark, however, has given critics of the type of Mr. J.
M. Robertson the welcome opportunity of saying that
the incident cannot be historical because Luke practi-
cally admits that they were all asleep and dreamt the
whole thing. But similar phenomena have been fre-
quently recorded by credible witnesses as having been
manifested by many of the great saints and mystics of
various ages. In moments of great spiritual exaltation,
and in ecstasies, when the superconscious has come
forcibly into play while the ordinary consciousness is,
perhaps, not wholly withdrawn as it is in the state of
deep trance, such a lighting up of the face, and even of
the bodily form, has been put on record. Even dying
persons who have lived lives of peculiar piety and be-
nevolence have been observed to undergo a remarkable
spiritualisation of features during their last moments.

This view of the transfiguration of Jesus has been re-
cently very ably urged by a well-known modern writer 1
upon these obscure religious phenomena. She regards
and rightly so, we believe the visual and auditory phe-
nomena of this scene as the outcome of a state of spirit-
ual ecstasy in which all present shared to some extent,
"The kernel of this story," she writes, "no doubt elab-
orated by successive editors, possessed by the passion
for the marvellous which Jesus unsparingly condemned,
seems to be the account of a great ecstasy experienced

1 Miss E. Underbill, in The Mystic Way, p. 117.

THE TRANSFIGURATION 165

by him in one of these wild and solitary mountain places
where the soul of the mystic is so easily snatched up to
communion with the supreme reality."

With this view of the matter the modern theologian,
especially if he be versed in the psychology of the ab-
normal and superconscious, may well, in the main at
least, agree.

But it must also be borne in mind that the habit of
describing experiences of a supersensual and religious
type in terms of a vivid and symbolic imagery is deeply
rooted in the Eastern mind of all ages. It is to this fact,
perhaps, rather than to the passion for the marvellous,
that we owe this intensely realistic picture of a great
spiritual event.

It was by prayer, too, *. e., by a profound and delib-
erate absorption into the divine life, Miss Underhill
thinks and we may note that Luke (only) records this
(vs. 28) that Jesus attained to this transfigured state.
Hence it was that the disciples, whose minds were up-
lifted in some degree, shared in the spiritual exaltation
of their Master. And the impression thus made on them
was, as we might expect, recorded in a symbolic form.
To their minds, full of recollections of the past and of
similar experiences to that in which they now had a
share, Moses and Elijah appeared and talked with their
Master, though not with them. And even when the
vision faded the three disciples were left with a joint
and abiding sense of the reality of their experience a
reality, not in the material and earthly sense, but reality
in the higher and spiritual sense, which, unlike earthly
realities, does not pass away but abides with us for ever. 1

1 Certain medical and scientific writers, as, e. g., De Loosten, Hirsch, and
Binet-Sangle", ascribe the visions o Jesus to paranoia (a chronic form of
insanity developing hi a neuropathic constitution and presenting systema-
tised delusions).

But Schweitzer very justly says that their researches have "simply as-

166 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

sumed that what for us is strange and unfamiliar is, therefore, morbid."
And, further, that "this identification of the unfamiliar with the morbid,
which we find in the statements of the historical and medical writers here
in view, is not legitimate, according to the standards established by mod-
ern psychiatry."

As a matter of fact, a precise line of demarcation between the above and
the really healthy spiritual experiences is badly needed and is being dili-
gently sought for by students of psychical research. Meanwhile, we may
perhaps add that the merely morbid and hallucinatory has at least as a
rule no ethical note about it. Cf. Strauss, Das Leben Jesufiir das deutsche
Volk bearbeitet (1864), pp. 631 jf.; also 0. Holtzmann, War Jesus Ekstati-
ker? (1903).

CHAPTER IX

THE ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM AND THE EXPULSION OF

THE TRADERS

AMONG the earlier of the recent attacks made upon
the historical character of these two narratives, perhaps
that of Mr. J. M. Robertson stands out most conspicu-
ously and, at first sight, as the most plausible. He tells
us (Christianity and Mythology, pp. 310 Jf.) that these
stories contain "not a single item of credible history";
the former, indeed, he avers, is nothing more nor less
than an old myth pseudo-historicised. 1

The Entry into Jerusalem

After rebuking Professor Percy Gardner for "repeating
once more the fallacious explanation which has imposed
(sic) on so many of us," he adds that "a glance at the
story of Bacchus [Dionysus] crossing a marsh on two
asses" and "at the Greek sign for the constellation Can-
cer (an ass and its foal) would have shown him that he
was dealing with a zodiacal myth."

The basis of Mr. Robertson's authority for the above
confident statement (though not quoted by him) is the
Poeticon Astronomicon of Hyginus (flourished A. D. 4).
There we read (book II, "Cancer") that "when Bacchus
had come to a certain great marsh, which he was unable
to cross, having come across two young asses, he is said
to have caught one of them, 2 and in this way was carried
across so that he did not touch the water at all."

1 Cf. with this treatment that of Renan (Life of Jesus, XXHI).

2 Dicitur unum deprendisse eorum. It is obvious, therefore, that even in
the myth two asses were not ridden.

167

168 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Now, in the constellation Cancer there are two stars
(<y and &, Cancri) in the body of the Crab which were
named by the astronomer Ptolemy "the two asses"
TO) ovca(cf. Theoc., Idyl., XXII, 21; Arat., 890-898;
Theophr., Sign. Pluv., IV, 2; Pliny, XVIII, 20), and the
luminous patch (Prcesepe) seen between these two stars
was known as the "Manger" (<f>dTvij) . l And the above
story of Dionysus has been interpreted to be a symboli-
cal explanation of the astronomical fact that the sun
when in the midst of the zodiacal sign Cancer is said,
figuratively speaking, to be "riding upon two asses," as
the Greek astronomers expressed it, and shortly after-
wards reaches the zenith of its power, when its light and
heat gradually but steadily decline, until it reaches. its
death at the hibernal solstice in December. We will
study this interesting hypothesis, and its application to
Christian historic documents, in some detail.

The twelve signs of the zodiac are, as is generally
known, those stellar constellations through which the sun
passes in its annual journey across the heavens. At a
remote period of past time that orb, when crossing the
equator at the vernal equinox, was in the sign Taurus
(Bull), and the new year was then opened by the sun,
conceived as a bull entering upon the great furrow of
heaven (the ecliptic) as he ploughed his way through
the starry field which forms the sky. Owing, however,
to the astronomical phenomenon known as the preces-
sion of the equinoxes, the sun each succeeding year en-
tered upon its annual course, at the equinox, at a slightly
different point in the heavens, until by the time of Christ
it had come to start the year of nature in the sign (or
constellation) Aries* (Ram). The sign of the Crab (Can-

1 This figures largely in the Iranian myth of Tistar, "the angel of the
rain." The Greeks undoubtedly borrowed many of their astronomical
ideas and terms from the Babylonians.

2 It now starts the year from the sign Pisces (Fishes); but the sign for
Aries (Ram), *, is conventionally used by agreement amongst astronomers

THE ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM 169

cer) was, therefore,- at that period not reached until the
time of the summer solstice (end of June).

But if, after the manner of Mr. Robertson, we apply
the above astronomical facts to the story of Jesus' entry
into Jerusalem we are at once involved in serious dis-
crepancies and difficulties. That entry is clearly stated
by all four evangelists to have taken place just before
the Passover; that is to say, about the time of the vernal
equinox, when the sun was in Aries. In other words, the
story of Dionysus "riding upon the two asses" (sic)
could not be the explanation of a vernal phenomenon,
because it could only refer to one taking place at mid-
summer, namely, when the position of the sun was in
Cancer, at the end of June. Indeed, it happened at
quite the wrong time of year to suit any such astronom-
ical explanation. The truth of the matter, however, is
that Robertson's theory is entirely dependent upon the
version given by Matthew of that event, which, it so
happens, erroneously lends itself to this recondite and
ridiculous interpretation. Let us, therefore, turn next
to the Gospel narratives and see how this error arose.

We will notice, in the first place, that the editor of
"Matthew" assures his readers (21 14) that this event
was a fulfilment of Zechariah's prophecy (9 : 9). The
latter, in the Massoretic text, tells us that the future
Messianic King was one day to enter his city riding upon
(literally)

"

An ass, even upon a foal, a son of she-asses.

This prophecy is, as prophetic utterances in the Old
Testament usually are, expressed in accordance with a

as the astronomical starting-point, or equinox. It takes about 2,200 years
for the sun to pass through one sign and -enter upon the next and about
26,000 years to pass through the twelve signs and reach the original start-
ing-point.

170 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

notable rule of Hebrew poetical composition, namely, in
a system of parallelism in the lines, in which the second
half of a line, or the second member of a couplet, repeats
in different words the idea expressed in the first half of
the line or the previous line itself. In such a case the
two halves of the line (or the two lines) are frequently
coupled together by the conjunction Vav (l), which,
ordinarily, has the meaning "and," but in positions of
this kind means "even." l This is termed by gramma-
rians the epexegetical (explanatory) use of Vav. The
Greek equivalent feat has a similar double use and double
meaning.

Now, let us turn to the Greek LXX translation of
Zechariah (Vat. text), and we will find the following
literal rendering of the Massoretic version:

"Riding upon a beast of burden, even (icaC) a young

ass-foal."

(e7ri/3e/3?ja><? errl VTTO^VJIOV teal tr&Xov veov.)

Here the conjunction (KCU) is epexegetical. It should
also be noticed that the preposition eirC ("upon") is not
repeated after the /cat, as it would be if the writer meant,
"upon a beast of burden, and upon a young ass," i. e.,
upon two asses, as the A. V. (but not the R. V.) wrongly
translates both versions.

But let us turn to the other Gospels and see how far
they corroborate this explanation of the matter. Mark
(u : 7) tells us that only one ass, and that a young foal,
was brought to Jesus:

"They bring the foal to Jesus and put their cloaks
upon him, and he sat upon him."

TOV irw\ov Trpos TOV 'Irjcrovv ual e7ri@d\\ovcriv
TO, Ifjidna [aurftM/] /cat etcddio-ev ITT aurov.)

Some scholars translate it "yea.

THE ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM 171

Luke (ig : 35) records the matter thus:

"And they brought him [the foal] to Jesus, and hav-
ing thrown their cloaks upon the foal they set Jesus
upon him."

(/cal ij<yayov avrbv TT/JO? TOV 'lycrovv teal eTripphfravTes
TO, IpaTia eTrl TOV ir5)\ov eTrejSifiaa-av TOV 'Irjcrovv.}

The Fourth Gospel (John 12 : 14 and 15) agrees with
both these synoptists:

"And Jesus having found a young ass sat upon ii,
as it is written:

"Fear not, daughter of Zion:
Behold thy King comes
Sitting upon a foal of an ass."
(evpcbv Be 6 'I^croO? ovdpiov eicddta-ev erf avTO } KaOfa ICTTIV

crou

eirl irSikov ovov.)

Turning next to the corresponding Matthasan version
of the story, we find it differently stated. In 21 : 2 we
read:

"Ye will find an ass tied, and a foal with her"
ovov SeSefifjievrjv /cal TT&\OV

i. e., two asses. The /cat here, it will be seen, is not epex-
egetical.

Again, in vs. 5, the writer says, professing to translate
the prophecy of Zechariah:

"Thy king, comes to thee . . . sitting upon an ass,

and upon a foal, a son of a beast of burden."
(o /3acrtA,eu9 crov ep%eTat croi . . . eTrt^eyS^/ccbs e^rl ovov,
KOI eirl TreoXoi/ wov

172 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS
Again (vs. 7) he further says:

"And they led the she-ass, and the foal [to Jesus],
and placed their cloaks upon them, and he sat upon
them.

(yya'yov rrjv ovov Kal rbv TnaXov, Kal eTreOrjfcev ITT' avr&v

TO, ipdria^ Kal eTreKaOurev eiravo* avr&v.} 1

Here it is very evident that Matthew and (following
him) Mr. Robertson have misunderstood both Zecha-
riah and the LXX. And this primary mistake on the
part of Matthew has led Mr. Robertson on to his error
in identifying the story with that told of Dionysus in
the Greek myth, which, as we have seen, he misquotes.
In short, his explanation breaks down completely for two
main reasons. First, Dionysus riding upon two asses as-
tronomically was a solstitial and not an equinoctial phe-
nomenon at, and long before, the time of Christ; and,
secondly, neither the Hebrew prophet nor the LXX, nor
any of the evangelists except Matthew, say that Jesus
rode upon two asses a statement which, in actual fact at
least, would be a gross and palpable absurdity to every
thoughtful person.

But other writers belonging to this school of interpreta-
tion have sought for different sources of this picturesque
and very natural story. Thus, Drews, abandoning for
once a mythical explanation, urges (The Witnesses to the
Historicity of Jesus, pp. 207 and 208) that the story might
easily grow up out of the study of such passages as Isaiah
52 : 7 (cf. 12 : 6 and 26 : 2) and Zech. 9:9. He falls,
however, into the same error as Robertson, translating the
prophecy wrongly as referring to two asses and quoting
in support of his interpretation Gen. 49 : n, "Binding his

1 Zahn and Blass adopt another explanation; the former reads "him"
(airrbv) instead of the first "them" (airrwv), and applies it to the foal, re-
ferring the second "them" to the cloaks of the people. The latter adopts
a similar correction, but strikes out the second atiruv and seems to over-
look the fact that the Kal (and the i ) is an instance of epexegetical use.

THE ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM 173

foal unto the vine, and 1 his ass's colt unto the choice
vine," as being probably in the mind of the evangelist
when he recorded the story. But there is no parallel here
and no probability even that the evangelist thought of
this passage at all. This fact also is brought out more
clearly when it is remembered that he is, throughout
the Gospel, describing a suffering and not a triumphant
Messiah.

Equally improbable, again, is the view that Mark's
added statement that no man had ever ridden the ass
previously is a reflection of Num. 19 : 2 (cf. Deut. 21 13),
which orders that a "faultless cow" upon which "never
yoke came," shall be brought to Eleazar the priest.
There is absolutely no connexion here either in act or
thought. .

Drews, however, further accuses Matthew of proba-
bly misunderstanding the cry "Hosanna" (Hoschia-na),
"Save now," and making it a cry of joy. This is more
reasonable and not altogether unlikely, especially since,
as we have seen, Matthew quite misunderstood the
prophet's reference to the ass; at the same time it is
not quite clear, from the text of his version of the story,
that he did so. 2

It is also possible, if not probable, that the words of
Jesus recorded in Luke 19 : 40 were suggested to him
by Habakkuk, as they were certainly appropriate to the
occasion and readily lent themselves to quotation. But
it by no means follows from this fact that the latter's
prophecy was the sole or even the principal basis of the
whole story. In fine, we can see no reasonable probabil-
ity that these various quotations from the Old Testa-
ment suggested the material for a pseudo-historical story
to the writers of the Gospels.

It is much more probable that we have here some four

1 But here, too, the i and Kal are probably epexegetical.

* And surely our "God save the long !" is a cry of joy and welcome.

174 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

more or less independent records of an actual event,
the main features and details of which are quite in ac-
cord with the times and the place to which they refer. 1

The Expulsion of the Traders

A more important suggestion has been made by Mr.
Butler in an article on "The Greek Mysteries and the
Gospels" (The Nineteenth Century and After, March, 1905).
Starting from the precarious assumption that the public
ministry of Jesus lasted only one year, he parallels the
public entry of Jesus into Jerusalem with one of the pro-
cessions which took place during the celebration of the
greater mysteries at Eleusis.

On these occasions the mystce ("initiated") were ac-
companied by great crowds to the temple, where the
mystes was admitted to the higher grade of epoptes
("beholder"). But the act in the ritual of the myste-
ries upon which Butler lays special stress is that the
bearing of a Kepvos 2 by the mystes reappears in the pro-
hibition which Jesus (subsequently) issued (Mark n : 16)
that none should carry a vessel through the temple.

Mr. Butler, however, has fallen into some error of de-
tail here. The kernos was not carried by one of the
mystce. It was borne by a priest or priestess called the
Kepvotfrdpo? ("kernos-bearer"), or /ee/jwi?, and, moreover,
was an item in the procession itself. The prohibition of
Jesus, on the other hand, had nothing to do with the
procession and was probably directed merely against the

1 Franke thinks (Deuts. Lit. Ztg., 1901, pp. 2758/0 that this has " corre-
spondencies " with the solemn entry of Buddha Dipankhara (Baddkavamsa,
II), where it is stated that, "the people swept the pathway, the gods strewed
flowers on the road and branches of the coral-tree, the men bore boughs of
all manner of trees, and the Bodhisattva Sumedha spread his garments in
the mire, and men and gods shouted 'All hail.' "

- A large earthenware dish made with wells, or hollows, in the bottom,
in which various fruits were offered in the rites of the Corybantes. See
Liddell and Scott's Lex., sub. Kfyvos. Mark refers to a ovceuos, "a vessel or
implement of any kind."

THE "CURSING" OF THE FIG-TREE 175

excessive formalism and irreverence which characterised
the Jewish official worship of the day. The two stories,
indeed, are utterly unlike except for the reference in each
to vessels of some kind.

The "Cursing" of the Fig-Tree

Equally inconclusive, too, is his attempt to explain the
incident of the fig-tree recorded in Matt. 21 : 18 and 19.

"At Athens," he continues, "there was a sacred fig-
tree at which one of the processions always halted to offer
sacrifices and perform certain mystic rites," the fig being
one of several trees having especial significance in the
cults of Dionysus and the goddess-mother. But the in-
cident mentioned in the Gospel did not occur during a
procession; it took place, we are told, on the morning
after, as he returned to the city from Bethany, where
the night was spent; also there is no trace whatever of
any mystic meaning in the circumstance. It was ap-
parently a mere picturesque and vivid way of calling
the attention of his disciples to the fact that the whole
sacrificial and religious system of the Jews of that time,
while making a fair show and great promise of fruit, was,
on a closer view, wholly barren and fruitless.

On the other hand, this order concerning the temple
vessels and the expulsion of the traders, Drews thinks,
was suggested by the Targum translation of Zech. 14 : 21:
"Every vessel in Jerusalem will be consecrated to the
Lord, etc.; and at that time there will no longer be
shopkeepers in the house of the Lord" {The Christ
Myth, p. 237, note 2). In this prophecy he imagines
"there may have been a further inducement for the
evangelists to state that Jesus chases the tradesmen
from the temple." It would seem much more probable
that this prophecy might suggest the act to Jesus him-
self, who was undoubtedly scandalised at the shameless
traffic which had sprung up and flourished in the outer

176 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

court of that building. In the Fourth Gospel (John
2 : 15 and 16) a similar act on the part of Jesus is re-
. corded which, according to some exegetes, refers to the
same event but has been misplaced by the editor. Here
Jesus is described as making a scourge of small cords
previous to driving out the traders. This view is open
to some doubt; but it affords Mr. Robertson an op-
portunity of saying (Christianity and Mythology, XII,
P- 358) that "in the Assyrian and Egyptian systems a
scourge-bearing god is a very common thing on the
monuments." This is true; but that fact, as a modern
writer has justly observed, "not being an historical one,
is apparently supposed here to prove that the story nar-
rated in all four Gospels is also unhistorical a curious
application," he adds, "of the logical syllogism!" The
whip, or flail, depicted on ancient monuments as being
often carried by gods and in particular by Osiris is,
however, a general symbol of authority and power. 1
But the Jews were already very familiar with the idea;
the thirteen-thonged whip with which the "forty stripes
save one" (II Cor. n : 24; cf. Deut. 25 : 3), were in-
flicted was a well-known institution in the Jewish penal
code.

Finally, we may notice the explanation put forward
by Fries (Studien zur Odyssea) that we have in the story
of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem simply a variant of
the astromythological myth of the spring-god entering
his temple, or of Odysseus the ascetic bhikshu. 2 The
cleansing of the temple also, in his view, represents .the
destruction of chaos by the god (Marduk) and the estab-
lishment of a new world. But it is very difficult to see
how these ancient cosmogonic concepts could suggest to

1 Mr. Robertson seems rather to imply (loc. cit.) that the flail (or whip)
is a "sign" of Osiris as the "Egyptian Christ." But this sign of power is
also carried by representations of Ptah, the creator, and Jesus in using the
whip is certainly not ipso facto figuring as a god !

2 A kind of mendicant friar in India.

THE "CURSING" OF THE FIG-TREE 177

the mind of any scribe or compiler such a matter-of-fact
story. The whole narrative undoubtedly suggests strongly
to every unbiassed reader that it is a plain account of
an actual event which occurred at the beginning of the
great and final crisis in the life and work of the great
Galilean teacher.

CHAPTER X

THE EUCHARIST AND THE MYSTERY-CULTS

The Institution of the Eucharist

WE will commence our necessarily brief examination
of this most important subject with a statement of Doc-
tor Drews's fundamental position taken from The Wit-
nesses to the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 81-83.

"Historical theology," he says, "generally regards the
passage in Corinthians [I Cor. n : 23] as the earliest
version we have of the words used at the institution of
the supper. But a particularly striking reason that pre-
vents us from seeing in St. Paul the oldest tradition of
the words at the Last Supper is their obviously litur-
gical form and the meaning which the apostle puts on
the words. It is very remarkable that Paul and Luke
alone regard the Lord's Supper as instituted by Jesus
in memory of him; Mark and Matthew know nothing
of this. They have a much simpler text than the other
two. Hence Jiilicher, against Weizsacker and Harnack,
rightly doubts whether the supper was founded by Jesus
(Theol. Abhandlungen fur C. Weizsacker, 1892, p. 232).
He did not institute or found anything; that remained
for the time when he came into his father's kingdom.
He made no provision for his memory; having spoken
as he did in Matt. 26 : 29, he had no idea of so long a
period of future time (p. 244).

"Paul, therefore," Drews continues, "according to Jii-
licher, indicates a later stage of the tradition in regard
to the first eucharist than Mark and Matthew, and the
earliest tradition does not make Jesus show the least

178

THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST 179

sign that he wishes these material actions to be per-
formed in future by his followers (p. 238). If this is so,
the words of the institution were interpolated subsequently
in the text of Paul, 1 as the liturgical use of them in the
Pauline sense became established in the church, in order
to support them with the authority of the apostle, and
the words 'For I have received from the Lord' serve to
give further proof of their authentic character; or else
the first epistle to the Corinthians was not written by
the apostle Paul, as, in spite of Julicher, it is difficult to
believe that Paul could at so early a stage give a version
of the Lord's Supper that differed so much from that of
the primitive community."

And he finally concludes (p. 83): "The mysticism of
the festive supper cannot have been instituted by Jesus,
but is base'd on the cult of the Christian community and
was subsequently put in the mouth of the supposed founder." z
Let us examine the chief statements in the above passage
seriatim.

Doctor Drews asserts here that the Pauline version
of the words of institution of the Eucharist are pre-
cluded from acceptance as the oldest version by their
"obviously liturgical form." Now, this objection would
seem to imply that the early church, soon after the end
of the first century, possessed in some form or other a
set liturgy at least for celebrating the weekly Eucharist.
But this is certainly not the view held by liturgiologists,
who are agreed that no set form of liturgical words com-
mitted to writing was used by the church before the end
of the second century. There is, for example, no men-
tion of any ritual books amongst those delivered up by
the traditores in the persecutions under Diocletian. In-
deed, the earliest extrabiblical account of the manner of
celebrating the Eucharist is probably that of Justin Mar-
tyr (ApoL, I, 65 and 66), which, on the whole, appears

1 Italics ours. * Italics ours.

180 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

to follow the Lucan form of words for the consecration.
The fact, no doubt, is that each church probably re-
peated the words of institution and consecration from
memory, according as they were handed down in their
traditions, which naturally, while agreeing in principle,
varied in detail as all oral (even the most trustworthy)
traditions tend to do.

Neither can we see any grounds here for Doctor
Drews's theory of a first-century development espe-
cially in the idea of a commemoration in the Eucharist.
If this were the case we should expect to find a steady
increase in the prominence given to such a memorial
aspect of the Eucharist in documents written subse-
quently to St. Paul's time. But we do not find this.
For, taking the later documents in the order agreed
upon by a consensus of critical scholars, 1 we have in
Mark the shortest form of words; in Matthew a. formula
almost identical with that of Mark; while in Luke, who
wrote something like a quarter of a century after St.
Paul, the "memorial" is only mentioned incidentally
after the consecration of the bread. And this some
thirty years after, as we are told, a liturgical develop-
ment and a growth of the idea of the "memorial" had
sprung up! These facts as we have them do not bear
out this hypothesis; for the "development" in A. D. 85
is clearly less than it was in A. D. 55. And the only
way out of this difficulty is to postulate hypothetically
a much later interpolation in I Cor. n : 23, for which
there is not the smallest textual or other evidence what-
ever.

Neither, again, do we find any reference to this litur-
gical and memorial development in the Acts, i. e., about
A. D. 90; nor is it conspicuous later on in the Fourth
Gospel, where, according to the theory, it ought, above

l l. e., I Corinthians, 52-55; Mark, 65-68; Matthew, 70-75; Luke,
80-85; Acts, 85-90; John, 90-95 A. D.

THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST 181

all, to be met with. In the discourse found in the sixth
chapter, following upon the feeding of the five thousand,
a meal with probably eucharistic characteristics, 1 there
is absolutely no direct mention of the memorial view.
We cannot, therefore, regard the mere fact that Mark
and Matthew do not refer to it as a "memorial" as
indicating beyond question that this view of the Eu-
charist was undeveloped in the original and still earlier
written Pauline letter. We cannot, indeed, draw any
such sweeping conclusions from a mere omission in two
of the records of direct reference to the memorial as-
pect of the Eucharist. Mark and Matthew are con-
tent to emphasise the most important portions of the
formula of consecration: "This is my body this is my
blood." To draw further conclusions, on the ground of
omission, is just as reasonable as to argue that because
Mark (14 : 22) omits the injunction "eat" 2 it was not
customary at first to do more than handle the eucharistic
bread, as was done in the case of some of the sacra in
the mysteries. Mark also omits the Matthasan injunc-
tion, "drink ye all of it" i. e., the wine; but he adds,
nevertheless, that "they all drank of it." The truth is,
the argument, from mere omission, is always an unsatis-
factory and a dangerous one; but the theory of develop-
ment is more dangerous still when the facts under con-
sideration have to be seriously distorted in order to
justify some preconceived idea, which is certainly the
case here.

There is also, however, a very strong and direct reason
for holding that the idea of a "memorial" (ara/w^o-w,
Luke 22 : 19) was attached to the Eucharist in the two
earliest Gospels. All three synoptists (correctly or in-

1 It is probable tliat the Last Supper was not the first, or the only one,
of these consecrated meals. Whether it is or is not to be identified with the
Passover meal is another question.

* Absent in the best codices.

182 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

correctly) regard the Last Supper as trie Passover meal. 1
This latter feast was always regarded as a "memorial"
(fwr)paawov, LXX, Ex. 12 : 14) of a great deliverance.
It is evident, therefore, that by associating the Euchar-
ist itself so closely with what they believed to be the
paschal supper they meant to imply that the former
of these was in like manner a "memorial" of another
deliverance wrought by Jesus, which was a spiritual
analogue of the deliverance from Egypt. Luke, it is
true, uses a different word for the idea ara//??eri9 2 instead
of the pvrj pdcrvvov of the LXX but the distinction here,
if any, in their meaning is trifling and unimportant and
does not affect the question. 3

It is, moreover, quite unthinkable that Jesus, even if
he did regard his own teaching merely as an interimse-
thik which has not been demonstrated did not estab-

1 The author of the Fourth Gospel, as is well known, apparently does
not regard the Last Supper as the Passover. Much has been written on
the question and many attempts have been made to harmonise the two
positions. The following explanation of the difficulty proffered by Doc-
tor S. Rrauss, in an article on the "Passover" in the Jewish Encyclopedia,
seems to be especially worthy of notice: "Chwolson (Das Letzte Passamahl
Christi, St. Petersburg, 1893) has ingeniously suggested that the priests
were guided by the older Halakah, according to which the law of the Pass-
over was regarded as superior to that of the Sabbath, so that the lamb
could be sacrificed even on Friday night [the preparation for the Sabbath];
whereas Jesus and his disciples would seem to have adopted the more
rigorous view of the Pharisees, by which the paschal lamb ought to be
sacrificed on the eve of the i4th of Nisan when the i$th coincided with
the Sabbath (see Bacher, in Jew. Quart. Rev., pp. 683-686)." But cf. also
Doctor Sanday's opinion in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible, art. "Jesus
Christ." Mr. G. H. Box (Journ. of Theol. Studies, III, 357-369) regards
the Last Supper as the weekly Kiddusk, a service held hi the house.

- It should be remembered, however, that some authorities (e. g., W. and
H.) regard Luke 22 : igb and 20 as no part of the original text but due to
a "Western non-interpolation."

3 According to Liddell and Scott, &v&pvriffis in classical Greek =the "act
of remembering," whereas invinj.6trwov means a "remembrance" or "me-
morial" of some thing or person. But these finely drawn distinctions, even
if they were always (?) observed in the classical period, are often quite
set aside in late Greek. Both words here are undoubtedly synonyms.

THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST 183

lish this sacrament and give to it also its memorial as-
pect. Such a bond of unity and source of power and
inspiration would be necessary to keep the body of dis-
ciples together and to perpetuate his authority for a
period of even a few years. And how much more neces-
sary for a longer period! Hence the idea that the Eu-
charist was instituted by St. Paul, or in his time, on the
analogy of the meals of the mystery-cults is, for this rea-
son alone, quite incredible.

Once more, it is impossible to accept the view of Doc-
tor Julicher as against Professors Harnack and Weiz-
sacker that Matt. 26 : 29 implies that Jesus had "no
idea of so long a period of future time" intervening be-
fore he came into his Father's kingdom, and therefore
did not institute or found anything and made no pro-
vision for his memory. This view is, indeed, negatived
by the following facts. In Mark 13 : 32 (cf. Matt.
24 : 36) he expressly states: "Of that day and of that
hour knoweth none, not any angel in heaven, not even
the Son, but the Father." It is true that elsewhere it is
stated that upon occasion he once leant to the expectation
that it might all come to pass during the lifetime of that
generation. But he had no certainty on this point, and,
in any case, a period of some years would probably be
involved during which some "memorial" of himself and
his work would be needed.

And with this view of the matter the words of Matt.
26 : 29 agree. Here Jesus does not say that the disciples
will not again eat of that bread and drink of that wine
before the inauguration of his Father's kingdom, but
that he himself will not do so until the day when he
would celebrate it in his Father's kingdom. . It is the
last occasion during the earth life for him, but, by im-
plication, it is not the last time for them. This and
nothing else is the plain meaning of this passage, which
has been either summarily dismissed or perverted in its

184 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

meaning in order to support a special theory of escha-
tology.

In a similar manner Doctor Drews's suggestion that
the words of the institution were interpolated 1 subse-
quently [to A. D. 55] in the text of St. Paul's letter as
the liturgical use of them (in the Pauline sense) became
established in the church is a mere makeshift hypothe-
sis for bolstering up the view that the mysticism of the
"festive" [!] supper cannot have been instituted by
Jesus, but is based on the cult of the Christian commu-
nity and was subsequently put in the mouth of its sup-
posed founder. If, as Doctor Drews holds, Jesus Christ
never existed, and Christianity as handed down to us
from the middle of the first century is a system of mere
cult-worship and ritual devised by the Christian com-
munity itself, what need is there for maintaining that
St. Paul's version of the institutive words is a develop-
ment of the older form (?) found in the Gospels of
Mark and Matthew? This seems to come perilously
near to the vicious system of "circular reasoning," for,
if neither St. Paul's version nor those of Mark and
Matthew represent the words of an actual founder,
then all these alike, with the version of Luke, are mere
liturgical formula used in a pseudo-memorial sense.
But ex kypothesi the formula of Mark and Matthew do
not show this liturgical form and use. The conclusion,
therefore, is irresistible, even from Doctor Drews's own
reasoning, that the words recorded by Mark and Mat-
thew must be those of a personal founder handed down
in a somewhat brief and incomplete form which is often
assumed by early tradition, but which, nevertheless, pre-
serves the most vital portion of the utterances. It is,
indeed, as Doctor Drews himself confesses, difficult to
believe that Paul could at so early a stage give a ver-
sion of the Lord's Supper that differed so much from

1 Or else the letter is not Pauline !

THE ACTS AND WORDS OF INSTITUTION 185

that of the primitive community; but this fact if it be
a fact does not indicate that the community invented
the memorial portion and then foisted it on to a sup-
posed founder. Rather, it shows that the community
had treasured up the various slightly differing tradi-
tional forms, which St. Paul doubtless learned from the
apostles themselves when he met them in council at
Antioch (Gal. 2 : n) and afterwards combined when he
wrote his letter to the Corinthian church. This view of
the matter at least has all the facts, as we know them,
wholly in its favour.

The Acts and Words of Institution

We will now turn from the fact of the institution of
the Eucharist by Jesus to the acts and words by which
it was instituted, and in so doing endeavour to approach
this great subject in the spirit of, and with the eyes of,
.the man of the first century. And to do this we must
first of all disembarrass ourselves of all sacramental the-
ories of a metaphysical nature, whether they be those
of the Middle Ages or of the sixteenth century and later.

In the view of the men assembled in the upper room
in Jerusalem, and others of their age, a being of a heav-
enly origin such as the Messiah, by virtue of the divine
power within him, was a person "charged" (so to speak)
with a living, spiritual energy (Aura/u? 1 ) which could be,
and indeed often was, communicated to others. Such
transfer, too, was commonly made, voluntarily or even
involuntarily, by the bodily touch or by the spoken word;
sometimes, and perhaps more effectually in certain cases,
by the two combined.

There are numerous examples of this- fact recorded in
the books of both the Old and New Testaments. Thus
we read (Mark 5 : 30) that when Jesus was on his way

1 Hebrew, IKIJ, "strength," "force" (spiritual). See Deut. 6:5; Isaiah
47 : 9, etc.

186 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

to the house of the head of the synagogue he was touched
by the woman with an issue of blood. He then became
conscious that power (Suva/wi) had gone out of him, and
asked: "Who touched me?" (cf. Luke 8 : 46). Again,
in Luke 6 : 19, we find: "And the whole multitude
sought to touch him; for there went power out of him
(SvvafiK Trap avrov), and it healed them all." Here we
have, perhaps, an instance of the involuntary and sub-
conscious transfer of this innate and spiritual life-energy
in response to the purposive touch of faith.

Further, we read again in Matt. 8:8 of the centu-
rion who besought the help of Jesus for a sick child, say-
ing: "Only speak the word (\djov) , and my boy shall
be healed." The spoken word is here regarded as the
vehicle of this mysterious life-giving energy which (so
to say) streams, or is projected, from Jesus under cer-
tain conditions and in certain circumstances. Instances
of this transfer, as we may term it, drawn from the
recorded miracles of healing, might easily be multiplied,
but it is needless to do so. We will, however, mention
just one other by which a combination of these methods
is illustrated. In the case of the "raising" of the son
of the widow of Nain, it is stated that "he came and
touched the bier . . . and he said, Young man, I say
unto thee, arise!"; and the dead man, says the evange-
list, sat up and began to speak. 1

But here it is necessary to enter a caveat. This power,
or spiritual essence, which is thus transferred by touch
or projected by word or transferred by these methods

1 The reader will clearly understand that throughout this exposition we
are merely trying to place ourselves in the position of the man of the first
century. Modern psychology would doubtless explain the miracles of
healing differently; but it is needless to discuss that question here. Doubt-
less the problem thus stated will call to mind the long discussion carried
on between the mesmerists, who postulated a fluidic substance (the od or
o&ylic force of von Reichenbach), which was transferred from the opera-
tor to the subject, and the hypnotists, who explained the effects as entirely
due to mental suggestion.

THE ACTS AND WORDS OF INSTITUTION 187

conjointly is not necessarily operative for good or even
operative at all. This one test, indeed, separates it wholly
from, magic pure et simple, with which superficial modern
readers have frequently confounded it. Magic is always
regarded as operative, in accordance with the will of the
magician, whatever the state of mind of the victim; that
is, unless the latter can bring into play some more power-
ful counter-magic. Thus we read (Matt. 13 : 5 and 8):
"And he did not many works of power (Sura/*e -rroXXa?)
there because of their unbelief. 33 Failure on the part of
the recipients to respond to and to utilise the power be-
stowed rendered the efforts of Jesus nugatory. So also
did a want of faith in the agent to whom the power was
delegated render him incapable of transferring the gift
(cf. Matt. 17 : 20; Mark 16 : 14). In short, if we may
express the matter in modern scientific terminology, this
spiritual power, or energy, when transmitted was usually
in potentia; it had to be transmuted by the recipient
through faith into the kinetic form before it was really
effective for its purpose.

Once more, the power thus transferred was, in cer-
tain cases and spiritual states, not only ineffective but
positively harmful to the recipient in both a spiritual
and a physical sense, even when transmitted through
the medium of food. 1 Perhaps the most striking Biblical
instance of this is the case of Judas. It is not certain
whether we are to understand from the records that he
was present or not at the institution of the Eucharist.
But in any case he was present at the preceding sup-

*/. e., it was regarded as effective in resisting the entrance of demons
and expelling them, or, again, in case of misuse of it, of promoting their
entrance into the man. An instance of injurious physical effect is related
in the Acts of Thomas (501) : "Now, there was there a young man who had
committed a crime [murder], and he came to and partook of the Eucharist,
and both of his hands became withered [paralysed], so that he could not
move either of them to his mouth." This story (though uncorroborated)
may be quite true, and in that case would doubtless be explained by the
modern psychologist as the effect of autosuggestion.

188 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

per, whether that were paschal or non-paschal. And we
read (John 13 : 26) that Jesus explained to the disciples
that his betrayer would be the man "for whom I shall
dip the sop (-fy-apCov) and give to him." Then he dipped
and gave it to Judas, "and," adds the writer very sig-
nificantly, "after the sop Satan entered into Mm." This
passage has been at all times a sore stumbling-block to
many who have failed to grasp its real significance
Jesus deliberately handing over Judas to Satan! Not
only was no effort made to save the wretched man,
but he was even placed in the power of the prince of
evil ! How shocking ! But this view shows a total mis-
apprehension of the idea underlying the whole act. The
"sop" (only mentioned in this Gospel x ) was a special
morsel which Jesus took up at this moment and handed
to Judas, perhaps in accordance with a common East-
ern custom. But it had been touched by Jesus, and
consequently was fraught with spiritual power, which,
if received with faith and a real desire to resist tempta-
tion, would have saved the man. The latter, however,
rejected the opportunity and wilfully perverted the gift
to his own destruction. Jesus intuitively and swiftly
realises this, and then adds in an undertone: "What
thou doest, do quickly!" No more sympathy can be
felt for the man; he had been given and had lost his
last opportunity. He must now work out the conse-
quences of his final decision and reap his due reward.

The action of this power, therefore, it will be seen,
was not like that of magic generally; it was not that
expressed in later times by the scholastic phrase opus
operatum; it was conditional and dependent as well
upon the faith and will of the recipient for its effective-
ness for good or evil.

Now, the synoptists all tell us that when instituting
the Eucharist after the Last Supper Jesus, after pro-

1 The question of its historicity does not affect the argument.

THE ACTS AND WORDS OF INSTITUTION 189

nouncing a blessing upon it, 1 took bread and brake it.
Then he gave it to the disciples, saying: "Take [eat],
this is my body" (TOUTO eort TO o-w/ia /iov). 2 Next, re-
peating the blessing over one or more of the cups of
wine, he said: "This is my blood (TOUTO e<ra TO alfia
pov) of the [new] covenant." Probably all readers are
familiar with the outlines at least of the long and acri-
monious controversy which has raged over the precise
meaning of these words of institution a controversy
which, by appealing rather to passion and prejudice
than to an intelligent effort to understand the mental
outlook of the first century, has been largely barren of
fruitful results. 3 Viewed from the standpoint of those
assembled in the upper room, we have here the touch of
power and the word of power, each effectual for the pur-
pose underlying the act. Hence these phrases, though
in a sense symbolic, are not, however, mere symbols, as

1 The modern Jewish blessing upon the paschal bread and wine runs as
follows: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who
bringest forth bread from the earth. . . . Blessed, etc. . . . who Greatest the
fruit of the vine." In the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, chaps. 9 /., are
several eucharistic thanksgivings which are probably modifications of an-
cient Jewish graces. The cup was very likely the third one of the paschal
meal.

2 Thefortmela given by Mark (see p. 181, note 2).

3 From the linguistic point of view, it must be remembered that Jesus
almost certainly spoke in Aramaic. The copula ("is"), in that case, would
probably not be used. Moreover, the verb "to be" in all languages is
used, in a sense, figuratively. Thus, "I am the way," or "the door," etc.,
are equivalent to "I represent the way," "door," etc., that is, "I have the
value of it."

We have no evidence that there was any sacramental partaking of the
body of such gods as Osiris, Adonis, or Attis in their cult feasts. As regards
Dionysus, see The Asiatic Dionysus, G. M. N. Davis, p. 232.

So also, speaking of the Babylonians, Doctor Langdon says (Tammnz
and Ishtar, pp. 183 and 184): "They failed to evolve a universal and eth-
ical creed of faith in a vicarious martyr, and, so far as I can see, they failed
to institute any real sacrament with elements of grain, liquor, and bread,
which symbolised their own gods."

For evidence of the doctrine of transubstantiation and theophagy amongst
the ancient Mexicans (Aztecs) and the Hindus, see Frazer's Golden Bough,
" Spirits of the Corn and of the Wild." vol. II, pp. 89 and 90.

190 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

some have hastily concluded, but symbols teeming with
the divine life-energy of Jesus, which has (so to speak)
flowed into them, and can pass by means of the elements
themselves into the soul of the recipient and affect him
either for good or ill, or, it may be, not affect him at all,
according to the mental and volitional attitude with which
he receives them. The ordinary thinkers of the first cen-
tury, it must be remembered, were all vitalists 1 to a man,
and they regarded the body as the habitation of this op-
erative, personal, and spiritual life-energy and the blood
as par excellence the channel of its distribution therein.
And just as the body and blood of the man hold, locked
up within them during life, the human vital power, or
soul, so, too, did these creatures of bread and wine .hold,
transferred to and locked up within them, the vivifying
divine life-power (Swa/it?) of Jesus. There is here, it will
be evident, no subtle transmutation of an hypothetical
substantia of the bread and the wine, whilst the acci-
dentia remain; 2 there is no question of simple represen-
tation by mere symbols an almost incomprehensible
thought to the men of that period; the elements are
thus operative representatives of the Divine Being which
discharge the actual divine energy into the soul of the
communicant. This idea is, in effect, the highest possi-
ble development of a primitive vitalistic animism, which
early Christianity, in this greatest of all sacraments, in-
corporated in its system and raised to its utmost limit
of spiritual value. And it is, we repeat, inconceivable
that Jesus should have omitted to institute such a neces-
sary and crowning sacrament of his life and work before
ceasing to be visibly present amongst men.

1 This theory (vitalism) has been revived in modern times in an improved
form by Doctor Hans Driesch (The History and Theory of Vitalism, 1914).
See also his Gifford Lectures for 1907. It has for many years been prac-
tically replaced by the mechanistic hypothesis of life.

2 This view is really founded upon an obsolete theory of matter devised
in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas and adopted by the Thomist school.

THE COMMON MEAL AT ELEUSIS 191

The Common Meal at Eleusis

We will, in the next place, examine Mr. Slade But-
ler's case for a eucharistic derivation from, or at least
a parallel to, the common meal partaken of by all the
mysta at Eleusis 1 ("The Greek Mysteries and the Gos-
pels," pp. 492 jj., The Nineteenth Century and After,
March, 1905), and quote him -verbatim: "It was after a
purification on the evening of the fifth or sixth day of
the celebration that the mystas partook together of a
meal called the KVKC&V [kykeon], a mixture which was
both food and drink, being a thickened liquid com-
pounded of barley-meal, mint, and water. The partak-
ing of the KVKe&v by all the mystae in common was the
Eleusinian sacramental meal and was an essential and
necessary rite before any mystes could pass to the higher
grade [epoptes]. The parallel between the common meal
of the mysteries and the Last Supper of the Gospels is
especially noticeable in Luke's account (22 : 14-20). As
regards the substance of the KVKC&V, it seems to have
been a mixture of such consistence as to be considered
either food or drink. Had the writer of John 6 : 55 the
KVKG&V in his mind when he represents Christ as say-
ing: 'My flesh is true fond, and my blood is true drink'?
for there is nothing in his allusion to the manna in the
wilderness (vs. 49) to suggest the idea of drink, 2 whereas
the KVfcea>v partook of the nature of both food and drink.

"The next ceremony in the mysteries was the most
solemn of all the rites which preceded the last scene in
the drama, and was known as the TrapdSoa-v} T>V lepStv,
'the handing over of the holy things' or 'the giving

1 The Eleusinian mysteries were sacred to Dimeter, the earth-mother, and
her daughter Kore.

2 The mere reference to the wilderness, however, where water was very
scarce, would suggest drink with the food {manna).

192 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

in turn of the consecrated objects.' In this ceremony,
which took place after the partaking of the tcvtcecov in
common, ' the mystas were admitted one by one to touch,
to kiss the holy things, to lift them from the cist, and to
pronounce the sacred formula' (Ramsay). In Mark we
are told (14 : 22), 'And as they were eating he took
(Xa/3o>z>) the bread (or unleavened cake), and, having
blessed it, he broke it, and gave (eSawe?) to them and said :
Take ye (XaySere).' In Matthew (26 : 26) the word 'eat'
is added after 'take.'

"The sacred formula which was pronounced by each
mystes during or immediately after the irapdSocris T>V
lepav is thus given by Clement of Alexandria:
eirtov TOV KVKea>va } eXaySoi/ IK Kurrt)^ eyyeva'dfjifv
els tcd\adov } teal eic KakdOov eh KLO-TIJV, 'I fasted, I drank
the kykeon, I took from the chest, I tasted, I placed in
the basket, and from the basket into the chest.' The
Kta-Tt] was the sacred box or chest in which the lepd or
'holy things' wrapped in linen cloths were preserved: e<y-
tyeva-dfievos signifies 'having tasted' the lepd, or some of
them, such as the sesame-cake and the pomegranate, which
seem to be too sacred to be mentioned by name.

"In reference to this formula in which the KUKC&V is
regarded as a drink and not as a food, we may notice
that Luke (22 : 17) says: 'And he received a cup . . .
and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves/
where it is plain that the cup of vs. 17 was an earlier cup
than that mentioned in vs. 20 'and the cup in like man-
ner after supper saying: This cup is the new covenant';
that is to say, there seems to have been a second Trapd-
00-19, or handing over of the cup by Christ. 1 Now, in
some celebrations of the mysteries 2 there was a second
r&v Zepwv, which appears to have been preserved

1 See p. 198.

2 Those of Cybele (Ma) with Attis, which differed from the Eleusinia,
appear to be referred to here.

THE COMMON MEAL AT ELEUSIS 193

for the mystEe who proceeded to the highest grade. In
these cases something was eaten, not merely tasted, and
something was drunk, which was not the tcv/cewv; this
seems clear from the formula then used: e/c
e<payov } IK /cvpfidKov GTTIOV, e/eepi/otj&opTjera VTTO rov
VTT&VV, 'I ate from a drum; I drank from a cymbal; I
carried the vessel, the tcepvos; I went in under the curtain.'
The icepvos was a large earthenware vessel, or dish, in
which was placed the fruit offerings, and the curtain
(TraoToV) was the variegated veil in the temple of Deme-
ter. Only those mystae or epoptas who proceeded to the
highest grade probably to the priesthood of the mys-
teries performed the ceremonial acts mentioned in this
formula.

"Now, it seems that, though the essential words of
these two. formula of the mysteries appear in the Gos-
pel narrative of the 'handing over' of the bread and
the cup take, eat, drink (Matt. 26 : 26-29) the word
irapd8o<TK is not used of the ceremony itself; but it is
remarkable that the. word occurs in the verses immedi-
ately preceding the 'handing over' of the bread and cup
vss. 21-25) in the form of a verb 'one of you will hand
me over' TrapaBaxrei (vs. 21); 'he thatdippeth his hand
with me in the dish, this man shall hand me over' (irapa-
Soxro fji, vs. 23). For the true meaning of irapa&iSa/M is
to 'hand over' from one to another, as a torch in the
torch-race, TrpoStSta/u being the usual word to express be-
trayal; and it is plain that if Christ uttered the words
recorded in vs. 21 the Aramaic verb used by him must
have been indefinite in meaning, and suggestive of treach-
ery only by reference to subsequent events, otherwise it
would have been impossible that all every one (vs. 22)
of the disciples should have asked: 'Is it I? Am I
the traitor?' In Luke, though the order of the narra-
tive is reversed, the connexion between the irapd^oa-K
of the bread and cup and the use of the word irapa-

194 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

8t8a>iu is quite as close, for (Luke 22 : 21) as Christ
hands over the cup to the disciples he breaks off, saying:
'But the hand of him who is handing me over (TOU
TrapaStSdvTos pe) is with me at the table'; and in I Cor.
ii : 23 the connexion is closer still: 'The Lord Jesus
in the night in which he was handed over (irapeSiSoTo)
took (eXa/3ev) bread.' So, again, just as the lepd in the
mysteries were kissed during the TrapaSoo-t?, or while they
were being handed over, so we read in Matthew (21 :
48): 'He who handed him over (o irapaBiSovs) gave them
a sign saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he.' And
in John 20 : 17 we meet with the word 'touch' in the ex-
pression 'touch me not,' that is, 'do not hold me now/
for my TrapaSoo-i? is over and completed.

"Returning for a moment to the question asked 'by
the disciples, 'Is it I? Am I to hand you over?' it is
to be noticed that in the mysteries the ceremony of hand-
ing over the holy things was necessarily performed by
the mystse one at a time, 'one by one,' and in Mark
(14 : 19), the earliest known Gospel, we find these words
occur: 'They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one
by one, Is it I?' The expression one by one is not to be
found in any of the later Gospels the phrase is changed
in Matthew (26 : 22), it is almost gone from Luke (22 :
23), and has quite disappeared from John (13 : 21 and
26). This seems to indicate that the later writers did
not recognise the source from whence the words one by
one came or that they wished to conceal it. The phrase
in Mark, el? /cad' el?, 'one after one,' 'one after the other,'
is remarkable for the peculiar use of the word Kara, which
seems to be an adverb rather than a preposition. This
strange expression seems to indicate that the writer of
Mark's Gospel had found the words so written in some
Greek note or document which he was using as the foun-
dation of his narrative, a note or document of weight and
authority sufficient to induce him to retain the phrase in

THE PURIFICATION IN THE MYSTERIES 195

his own history; for a translator from some Aramaic or
Hebrew writing, or a transcriber of oral tradition, would
almost certainly have made use of the ordinary and well-
known expression tcaO' eva. However, the words ek KaQ" 1
eis express in the plainest manner that the question was
asked by all in turn, one at a time, that is to say, one fol-
lowing after the other."

We will proceed shortly to examine this somewhat
lengthy quotation in as great detail as our limits of space
will admit of. But previously another matter.

The Purification in the Mysteries

On the second day of the greater Eleusinia at Athens
the cry was raised: "*AXa8e ; /iucrrat" ("To the sea, mys-
tas !"). A procession was then formed, and, going to the
shore, the. candidates underwent a preliminary purifica-
tion (icaQapiias) by bathing in the sea. 1 This is compared
somewhat vaguely by Mr. Butler with the washing of
the disciples' feet (John 13 : 4-11). No mention of this,
he admits, occurs in the synoptics; but in Mark and
Luke, he says, there is the man bearing the pitcher of
water, which he rather hastily seems to assume has an
indirect reference to this purification.

Now, there is no evidence in the Gospels or elsewhere
to show that this washing of the feet occupied in the in-
stitution of the Eucharist anything like an analogous posi-
tion to the preliminary cleansing of the greater mysteries.
It is more akin to the purely social usage common to
Eastern peoples (Gen. 18 14; 19 : 2; 24 : 32, etc.). It
is true that Jesus condemned the merely formal hand-
washing of the Pharisees; but this stands on a some-
what different footing. Each mystes, too, was ritually
clean after his sea bath; but Jesus' very significantly

1 According to Plutarch (Vita Phoc., XXVIII), each candidate took down
to the sea a young pig and bathed with it. Sacrificer and sacrifice were
together purified by the salt water. It was a rite of "riddance" (cf.
Lev. 16 : 21).

196 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

remarks after this ceremony, "Ye are not all clean,"
doubtless meaning thereby Judas, who was not spiritu-
ally cleansed despite the washing. That the ceremony
was symbolic of a higher purity is no doubt true; but
it had no effect ex opere operate; and the personal act of
Jesus was primarily an example of true humility (vs. 14).

Again, as regards the mystic meals of the Eleusinia
and other mysteries, we have little real information on
the subject. The Eleusinian formula preserved by Clem-
ent says: "I fasted; I drank of the kykeon" * Did the
disciples fast before partaking of this Eucharist? Not
absolutely, in any case, for they partook of the frugal
supper shortly before. The kykeon of the mysteries, too,
was a kind of thin gruel. In Homer's time (IL, XI, 638
jf.) it was commonly made of barley-meal, goat's-rriilk
cheese, and Pramnian wine; to those ingredients Circe
added honey and magical herbs (Od., X, 234^.). But
the kykeon referred to in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter
(11. 208 /.) which was, no doubt, identical with that
used in the Eleusinia was made of barley-meal, water,
and pennyroyal.

A similar description of the meal partaken of in the
mystery-cult of the Great Mother with Attis is recorded
by Firmicus Maternus (flourished circ. 374 A. D.). Here
the initiate says (De Errore Prof. Relig., XVIII): "I
have eaten out of a drum; I have drunk out of a cymbal;
I am become a mystes of Attis" (etc rvpirdvov fiefipcoKa
etc tcvfifidXov TreircoKa' y&yova (tva-Tr)? "Arreft)?). Here there
is a definite eating and drinking perhaps, in this case,
of bread and wine spoken of. But what did it signify
here? Was it anything beyond an identification of the
initiate with the Great Mother through the medium of
these fruits of the earth, her children?

Again, in the Eleusinia, besides the drinking of the ky-

1 Equivalent to "I tasted of the first fruits," which were previously under
a tabil (= forbidden).

THE PURIFICATION IN THE MYSTERIES 197

keon, Clement of Alexandria also specifies certain of the
ritual acts: " I took [the sacra] out of the chest
and, having tasted, I placed [them] in the basket
6ov), and from the basket into the chest." What were
thus taken out, transferred, and put in again? It will be
worth while to quote Clement's description of them, which
is all the more valuable because he himself was an ini-
tiate in more than one of the various mysteries (Euse-
bius, Pr&p. Evan., II, 2, 35). Clement asks: "What are
these mystic chests? for I must expose their sacred
things (tepa) and disclose a state of affairs not fit for
speech." He then interrogatively enumerates these vari-
ous sacra as follows: "Are they not sesame-cakes, and
pyramidal cakes, and globular and flat cakes, embossed
" all over, and lumps of salt, and a serpent, the symbol of
Dionysus .Bassareus? And, besides these, are there not
pomegranates, and branches, and ivy leaves? And, fur-
ther, round cakes and poppy seeds? In addition to these
there are the unmentionable symbols of Themis, mar-
joram, a lamp, a sword, a woman ? s comb, which is a
euphemism and mystical expression for the genitalia mu~
liebria" 1 (Tet? ywaiKeio<s } 5 evriv ev^/weo? /cal fiva TWCCO?
etTretv, fjaptov yvvauceiov).

Truly an edifying list! And we cannot wonder that
the worthy father liberal-minded and cultured scholar
as he was indignantly adds: "Such are the mysteries
of the atheists. And with reason I call those atheists
who know not the true God, but pay shameless worship
to a boy torn to pieces by the Titans, and to a woman
in distress, and to parts of the body which in truth can-
not be mentioned for shame. . . ."

1 The same writer states that the sacra in the mysteries of Dionysus-
[Zagreus] were dice, a ball, a hoop, apples, a top '(/S6/tj3os, ? "bull-roarer"),
a mirror, and a tuft of wool, with which, according to the later myth, the
Titans beguiled the youthful Dionysus before they tore him limb from
limb. He further describes the mysteries of Dionysus as "wholly inhu-
man," a conclusion to which we may readily assent.

198 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Now, the problem which lies before us is, What con-
nexion have these cult-meals with the Eucharist as insti-
tuted in the early church? And the answer to this,
despite the opinions of some eminent scholars to the
contrary, would seem to be, they have little if, indeed,
any at all. When the primitive Eucharist is closely
and carefully examined it will be seen, we think, that
its affinities are almost wholly with the paschal feast;
it is, in fact, an outgrowth from this, but possessing spe-
cial characteristics and peculiarities of its own.

The ancient Passover, as described in Ex. 12 : n /.,
soon underwent considerable modifications, and at the
centralisation of all sacrifices at the one sanctuary by the
Deuteronomic code the old spring pastoral feast coalesced
with the (later) agricultural Massoth (Deut. 16 : i).

In the time of Jesus various additional ceremonies
were observed, the chief of which were: (i) Four cups
of wine mixed with water were drunk at different stages
of the feast; (2) the Hallel 1 was sung; (3) the various
articles of food (the lamb and the unleavened cakes)
were not dipped in the sauce of bitter herbs; and (4)
the feast was not eaten standing, but reclining. The
unleavened bread was broken, and this with the wine
in each cup, after being duly blessed, was passed round
to the guests by the head of the household, though this
passing round is nowhere called a Trapdo<ns and bore
no analogy to that ceremony in the cult-feasts. Mr.
Butler refers to a "second irapaSoarvs of the cup by
Christ." But there were in all four so-called "para-
doses," since there were four cups; and it is probable
that either the third or fourth cup was the one reserved
for the sacrament of the Eucharist. In short, the whole
manner of celebrating this supper and the subsequent
institution of the Eucharist is clearly based upon the

1 Probably not identical with the later Hallel (Psalms 113-118); cf. Bab.
Talm., Pesach. g : 3.

"HANDING OVER" OR "BETRAYAL"? 199

contemporary mode of celebrating the paschal feast,
and all such practises as the exhibition of carefully pre-
served sacra, whether food or symbolic objects, all hand-
ing of these round and kissing of them by the initiates
in turn, are altogether absent. In its form, as found
in the Gospels, the Eucharist is typically Jewish and
in no sense pagan, whatever non- Jewish ideas and prac-
tises may have crept in during the second century when
the church had become flooded with Gentile converts,
many of whom were initiates in the mysteries and
brought with them, at least to some extent, the habits
of thought which were characteristic of their pre-Chris-
tian frame of mind.

"Handing Over" or "Betrayal"?

We now come to a passage in Mr. Butler's article in
which the "handing over" (TrapaBoani) of the various
sacra in the cult-suppers is deliberately compared by
him to the "handing over" of Jesus to the priests by
Judas Iscariot. Strictly speaking, of course as Mr.
Butler admits any such comparison should be with the
distribution of the bread and wine to each recipient;
but, unfortunately for his purpose, these acts are not
termed a TrapdSoa-is by the evangelists. At the same
time it so happens that Jesus remarked during the sup-
per: "One of you will hand me over" (irapaSdxret). Here,
Mr. Butler seems to think, we have the link with the
TrapdSoavi of the mysteries. In the Christian "mystery-
drama" the handing over is not that of the objects
(sacra), but that of the Christ, or, as Professor W. B.
Smith states it, of the "Christ-idea" from the Jews to
the Gentiles.

Now, the somewhat elaborate argument by which
Mr. Butler supports his case is wholly dependent for
its validity upon a distinction, which he introduces and
presses vigorously, between the meaning of the Greek

200 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

verbs TrapaSiBcofu and irpoBiScofu; the former, he argues,
always means to "hand over," whilst to "betray" is in-
variably expressed by the latter verb. This question,
which is also raised by Professor Smith in connexion
with Judas Iscariot, will be fully dealt with under that
heading in chap. 13 (pp. 253-256). Here it must suffice
to say (i) that the distinction drawn above, and gener-
ally (but not invariably) made in classical Greek, does
not at all hold good in the popular and post-classical
Greek of the first century, as will be shown by examples; 1
(2) that Judas has in one instance (Luke 6 : 16) the
term Tr/aoSor^? ("betrayer") applied to him, which shows
that his act of "handing over" of Jesus was not regarded
by first-century Christians as a mere ritual act in some
Jewish or Gentile mystery-drama akin to the Greek Eleu-
sinia, but was looked upon as a piece of actual treachery
on his part. Accordingly, upon the complete breakdown
of this alleged distinction in meaning, the analogy which
Mr. Butler attempts to draw between the kissing of the
sacra from the chest and the kiss of the traitor 2 bestowed
upon Jesus in Gethsemane loses its entire force.

Again, Mr. Butler's further effort to associate the touch-
ing of the various sacra in the mysteries with the touch
referred to in John 20 : 17, where Jesus forbids Mary
Magdalene to hold to him (/*^ /toy UTTTOV), " for my Trapd-
800-15 is over and completed," is a pure fiction of Mr.
Butler's own mind. The writer of that Gospel says that
Jesus forbade the act because " I have not yet ascended
to my Father" (OUTTG) yap avafBefBi]Ka Trpo? TOV Trarepa), a

*We may mention here that Liddell and Scott quote, as examples of
this, Xen., Cyr., V, i, 28; iv, 51, etc. Another case occurs in Thucy., VII,
68; but it is not common in classical times. In the LXX and the New
Testament irpoStSiafu appears to be rarely used at all.

2 The Gospels vary considerably here in details. While Mark and Mat-
thew say that Judas "kissed him affectionately" (KareipCKijffev atrdv)
a form of salutation more accordant with deliberate Oriental treachery
than the formal kiss of a mystery-dramaLuke and John do not mention
any kiss at all.

"HANDING OVER" OR "BETRAYAL"? 201

reason which, whatever its precise meaning may be, shows
clearly that the author had not Mr. Butler's thought in
view when he penned the passage.

Mr. Butler next proceeds to deal with the question,
"Is it I?" asked severally by the disciples when Jesus
announced his foreknowledge of the coming betrayal, and
in so doing lays great stress upon the peculiar (and
ungrammatical) expression used by Mark, et? Kaff el?,
"one after one," i. e., "one after the other." "This
strange expression," he urges, "seems to indicate that
the writer of Mark's Gospel had found the words so
written in some Greek note or document which he was using
as the foundation of his narrative, 1 a note or document
of weight or authority sufficient to induce him to retain
the phrase in his own history. Otherwise he would have
used the ordinary phrase [el?] ttaff era.

If Mr. Butler means by this remark that the above
(hypothetical) Greek note or document was, perhaps,
a kind of rubric attached to some MS. of a mystery-
drama in which there was enacted a ceremonial hand-
ing over of any sacred things or sacred person by any
one, or by a succession of initiates, we can only remark
here that this is a purely fanciful hypothesis which
practically begs the whole question at issue. There is
no evidence whatever of such dramas as existent amongst
the Jews or early Christians. And, so far as the phrase
el? KGL& el? is concerned, it is merely a late and ungram-
matical variant of the classical [el?] Kaff era. So far, too,
from being absolutely strange and unusual, it is found
elsewhere in at least one passage of the New Testament
(John 8 : i-n), where we read that the scribes and
Pharisees "went out one by one (et? /cad' efc), beginning
from the eldest even to the youngest." 2

A diligent search in the later and popular Greek litera-

1 Italics ours.

1 This story is expunged from modern critical texts.

202 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

ture of Asia Minor, etc., would doubtless reveal many
more instances of the use of this unclassical expression.
Lastly, as regards the question itself, its evident mean-
ing is that the disciples apprehended some severe crisis to
be at hand, and each misdoubted the firmness of his own
courage and resolutions. This view is quite in harmony
with the psychology of the occasion, and the reference
to it is a characteristic touch thoroughly in accordance
with human nature as we find it in all ages.

A Mithraic Parallel

But a prototype of the Christian Eucharist has also
been found in the Mithraic mysteries (0. Pneiderer,
ChristusHld, English translation, pp. 129 ff., and Heit-
muller, Taufe, p. 46). This derivation appears to be
largely based upon the fact that bas-reliefs representing
the sacred repast in the cult of Mithra have been found
in recent years in Bosnia and Rome (see Cumont, Textes,
I, p. 176; "Notice sur deux bas-reliefs mithriaques,"
Revue Arch&oL, 1902, pp. 10 jj.). In these two mystag
are shown reclining at a table standing behind a tripod on
which small loaves of bread are placed. One of the sur-
rounding figures ( ? initiates) holds a horn in his hand. 1

M. Cumont, however, refers this bas-relief to the
third century A. D. If this view be correct, the sculp-
ture lends no support to any theory of the derivation of
the Eucharist from Mithraic sources; it would, indeed,
rather suggest a loan from Christianity to Mithraism.

1 The sculpture perhaps has reference to the banquet which Mithra cel-
ebrated along with Helios (the Sun), after his work of rescuing mankind
from the great deluge, which was followed by a general conflagration, and
before his return to heaven.

In the supper of the fully developed Mithraic mysteries, as depicted on
the bas-relief (reverse) found at Heddernheim, Mithra stands behind the
slain bull holding a rJtyton (drinking-horn) and receiving from Helios a
bunch of grapes, a symbol of the divine juice into which the blood of the
victim was transmuted by celestial alchemy. This is rather an example
of a conversion of blood into wine (grape-juice).

TAUROBOLIA AND CRIOBOLIA OF MYSTERIES 203

As a matter of fact, we have no really complete and
authentic description of the Mithraic cult-supper. The
brief notice of it given by Justin Martyr, who says
(Apol., I, 66) that "the wicked demons (ol Trovrjpol Sai-
juoz/e?) have imitated [the Eucharist] in the mysteries of
Mithra, commanding the same thing to be done," 1 does
not carry us very far in our search for "origins." The
meal may have had (like the Eucharist) a sacramental
character; but there seems to have been nothing about
it reminiscent, or commemorative, of a death or sacrifice,
which is one chief characteristic of the Christian institu-
tion.

The Taurobolia and Criobolia of Asian Mysteries

This last-named objection, however, has been met
by Pfleiderer (op. cit., p. 131) with the following argu-
ment: "Though there is no parallel in the banquet of
Mithras to this blood-symbolism of the Christian sacra-
ment, one is certainly found in the blood-baptism of the
taurobolia [bull-slaying] and the criobolia [ram-slaying]
which belongs to the mysteries of Cybele and perhaps
also to those of Mithras." 2 In the former of these cere-
monies a bull was slain on a latticed platform and its
blood was allowed to fall down upon a mystes lying in a
pit below. This was a very ancient practise in western
Asia, and was carried on in the sanctuaries of Ma and
Anahita long before the rise of Mithraism. It was based
upon the wide-spread notion among primitive races that
the blood is the vehicle of the spiritual life. 3 M. Cumont

1 He says, however, that "bread and a cup of water" were used instead
of bread and wine.

2 Italics ours.

3 Sham ritual-murder was probably practised in the mysteries of Mithra
(see Frazer, Golden Bough, 1900, pp. 445 /.; Dieterich, Mit hrasliturgie, pp.
164 /.). Indeed, the Emperor Commodus is said (Vita Commodi, IX) to
have actually murdered a man at one of the celebrations. It was also prob-
ably the case in the mysteries of Dionysus, though generally the victim was
an animal, which was torn in pieces and eaten raw.

204 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

writes (The Mysteries of Mitkra, p. 181) of its meaning
in Mithraism: "But, under the influence of the Mazdean
beliefs regarding the future life, a more profound sig-
nificance was attributed to this baptism of blood. In
taking it the devotees no longer imagined they acquired
the strength of the bull; it was no longer a renewal of
physical strength that the life-sustaining liquid was now
thought to communicate, but a renovation, temporary
or even perpetual, of the human soul." But this cere-
mony was no part of the original Mithraic cult, and it
was only introduced in the second century A. D. into
that of Cybele, from whence it passed into the later
Mithraic system. And this fact at once precludes all
derivation of the Christian sacraments from Mithraism.

A Parallel from Mexico

A "parallel," if not a source, has been found in Mexico
by Mr. J. M. Robertson, who says (Christianity and Myth-
ology, p. 408) that there the sacred tree was "made into a
cross on which was exposed a baked dough image of a
saviour-god, and this [image] was, after a time, climbed
for, taken down, and sacramentally eaten." This passage
at first sight reads very much like a blend of a eucha-
ristic and a crucifixion narrative; but on reference to
Mr. H. H. Bancroft's Native Races of the Pacific States
of North America, from which it is professedly taken, 1
we find it stated in vol. II, p. 321, that at the festival
of Huitzilopochtli, the Mexican god of war, a life-sized
image of the god was made of wickerwork and covered
with dough made of amaranth and other seeds. A paper
cap set with plumes was then put upon the head of this
idol.

Again, the author says (pp. 330 and 331) that the Te-
panecs had a festival in which "a bird of dough" was

1 Mr. Robertson (ist ed.) gave the reference as pp. 386 and 509. But this
was clearly an error.

THE COMMON TERMS 205

placed at the top' of a huge tree, and then "women
dressed in the finest garments, and holding small dough
idols . in their hands, danced round the pole, while the
youths struggled wildly to reach and knock down the
dough image." When thus resolved into its two original
and constituent parts, and stripped of the imaginative
additions "the sacred tree formed into a cross," etc.
the story loses even its superficial resemblance to the
narratives of the crucifixion and institution of the Eu-
charist. Moreover, it is a far cry from Palestine to
Mexico, and the parallel, such as it is, cannot have had
any suggestive value for either Jews or early Christians.
In addition to this fact, there is really very little likeness
and absolutely no correspondence in meaning between
these ceremonies and the Gospel events.

The Common Terms

But the great gulf which exists between the Christian
scheme and the various mystery-cults, even in their highest
and best forms, is still more clearly shown by the differ-
ence in meanings attached to the technical terms which
are common to both; Thus, the term pva-Tripiov, "mys-
tery" (pi., fW(TT7Jpia) , which is found in Mark 4 : n; Ro-
mans ii : 25; 16 : 25 and 26; / Cor. 2 : 7, etc., is used
in the New Testament in the sense of a secret which
can only be known through a revelation from God. In
the mystery-cults the whole idea underlying the term is
merely that of concealment from the uninitiated. Thus
the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world
is termed (Romans 16 : 25) a fwa-T^piov xpdvots aiaviois
o-ea-iyfjievov, Qaveptadev Se vvv, while in the Eleusinia and
kindred systems fwarfpia stands for the knowledge of
certain secret rites which have a magical efficacy in pro-
moting man's prosperity in both temporal and spiritual
affairs.

Again, in the mysteries a man was pronounced "per-

206 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

feet" (re'Xew?) when the ritual ceremonies of his initia-
tions had all been duly performed and he knew the
secrets which underlay the whole of the proceedings.

In the Gospels, on the contrary, where each disciple
is enjoined to be "perfect" even as his Father in heaven
is perfect, the word has an ethical content wholly want-
ing in the former; those Christians only are "perfect"
who have duly ordered their lives according to the divine
precepts and model as set forth in Jesus Christ (Romans
12 : 2).

Once more, in the mystery-cults a-arijpia ("safety,"
"salvation") was merely a rescuing of the individual
from the pressure of such burdens upon the soul as the
thought of the brevity of life and the dark shadow of
an ever-impending death and the dim prospect beyond
the grave. By the mere union of the life essence of the
initiate with that of the cult-god he was secured against
these things. And this happy result was wholly brought
about "&3> the exact performance of sacred ceremonies"
(Cumont), and such a union, once obtained, was, in its
character and effects, indelible; it could not be blotted
out or annulled. This concept of divine union is espe-
cially notable from the absence of any high moral ideal
or practise. "We have no reason to think," observes
Professor Percy Gardner (The Religious Experiences of
St. Paul, p. 87), "that those who claimed salvation
through Isis or Mithras were much better than their
neighbours. They felt secure of the help of their patron
deity in the affairs of life and the future world, but they
did not, therefore, live at a higher level."

In the New Testament use of the word wrypla, on
the contrary, the term is full of moral implications and
conditions from which it cannot be detached. Those
disciples who have entered upon the state of safety
henceforth are debtors (o^et\erat) "not to live accord-
ing to the flesh" (Romans 8 : 12; cf. II Cor. 5 : 14 and

THE COMMON TERMS 207

15); and if they fail wilfully and persistently in this ob-
ligation they ipso facto cease to continue in that state of
safety.

Again, the law of admission to the mysteries of Eleu-
sis required that a man should be "pure and pious and
good" (71/0? real ev<re{3r)<i nal ay adds; see Foucart, As-
sociations religieuses, pp. 146 jf.). But what did these
words connote among the ancient Greeks and others of
that period? 'A.<yvds, "pure," or "chaste," merely meant
in the mysteries that candidates for initiation must ob-
serve continence for a few days and abstain from cer-
tain kinds of food. It was rather a Levitical than a
Christian purity which was demanded.

Yet again, a man was evcre/37j<?, "pious," when he had
duly performed all the rites of his special cult. Of the
ethical and 'spiritual implications of the word, so familiar
to us in these later days after more than eighteen cen-
turies of Christian teaching, there were absolutely none.

Finally, the term ayaOds, "good," was then in com-
mon use for describing a man who was, in a civic sense,
a good citizen, a man public-spirited and liberal with his
wealth or services. If well-born and honourable, too, he
was Ka\oKa<ya0d<? "a perfect gentleman." This, it will
be seen, refers purely to a worldly standard of excellence,
desirable enough in its way, but not going very far, fall-
ing short, in any case, of what we would now call "good-
ness." But this was the highest ideal of the pagan. 1

1 For an excellent and quite recent treatment of the subject of this
chapter, see The Christian Eucharist and the Pagan Cults (Bohlen Lectures,
U. S. A., 1913), by W. M. Groton, S.T.D.

CHAPTER XI

GETHSEMANE. THE BETRAYAL AND ARREST. THE
YOUNG MAN WHO FLED AWAY NAKED

AFTER singing the "hymn" at the conclusion of the
Last Supper, Jesus and his disciples, we are told, left the
upper room and, issuing from the city by the gate of
the valley of Jehoshaphat, which was identical with or
near to the present Bab Sitti Maryam (St. Stephen's
Gate), crossed the Kedron valley and entered the groves
at the foot of the Mount of Olives, an enclosed portion
of which is said to have borne the name Gethsemane.

Gethsemane

But at this point we are again met by the mythical
critic. Drews says roundly (The Witnesses to the His-
toricity of Jesus, 1912, p. 204): "There was probably no
such place as Gethsemane." And again (ibid., pp. 208
and 209): "Even the name 'Gethsemane,' which is no-
where else found as the name of a place, is, as Smith ob-
serves, inspired by Isaiah. . . . Here [63 : 2] we have
a clear relation to the abandonment of Jesus on Geth-
semane, and his comforting by an angel (Luke 22 : 43),
and the reference to the blood (Luke 22 : 44) accords.
Jahveh's vengeance on the Gentiles is transformed in
the Gospels into the contrary act of the self-oblation of
Jesus; and, whereas in Isaiah it is the wine of anger and
vengeance that flows from the press, here it is the oil of
healing and salvation that pours from the press (gatK)
over the peoples" truly a great and incredible trans-
formation of the prophet's words and meaning !

208

GETHSEMANE 209

Professor Smith continues (Ecce Deus, 1912, pp. 295
and 296) in a similar strain: "As to the place called Geth-
semane,.i. e., 'wine-press [?] of olives,' no one knows
anything whatever about it, and its topographic real-
ity appears highly problematic. The conjecture seems
to be close at hand that the name is purely symboli-
cal, suggested by the famous passage in Isaiah [63 : 2]:
'Thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-vat
(gath}.' This latter term means wine-press, and appar-
ently never anything but wine-press. 1 The combination
of Gathshemani (wine-press of oil, or olives) is singular,
and it seems very unlikely as the name of a place. But
why may it not mean simply 'wine-press of Olivet' ? As
Wellhausen well remarks, the word is not Aramaic but
Hebrew. Such a name must have descended through
centuries, if it was a name at all. This it would hardly
have done had it not designated some place of impor-
tance, and in that case we should probably have heard
of it. It is very unlikely, then, that there was any place
named wine-press of .olives. The symbolism seems per-
fectly obvious. The wine-press is that of Isaiah 63 : 2
the wine-press of divine suffering. This explanation
seems so perfectly satisfying in every way that it ap-
pears gratuitous to look further. That the evangelist was
thinking of Isaiah seems clear from his separating Jesus
at this point from his disciples: 'I have trodden the
wine-press alone, and of the people no man was with
me y ; and (the later?) Luke adds, 'Here there appeared
to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him,' z not
human but divine help was needed. Herewith is ex-
plained the 'impremonition' of the disciples, which Well-
hausen finds so puzzling and inconsistent (Ev. Matt., p.

1 Professor Smith here adds a note in which the following occurs: "The
word gath may sometimes have been used inaccurately for the word bad
(<2), which regularly means 'olive-press' " !

2 Vss. 43 and 44 of chap. 22 are not found in some of the oldest and best
codices and are therefore considered by many critics an interpolation.

210 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

130). The whole scene is designed to pathetise the idea
of a suffering god and at the same time to fulfil the
words of the prophet in a far higher than the prophet's
sense. There was need thus to import pathos, for the
notion of suffering was naturally so foreign to the idea
of God, though native to the idea of man, that the repre-
sentation ran the risk of appearing unreal, a transparent
make-believe. Hence the increasing care with which
each succeeding evangelist elaborates the details of the
wondrous picture with sublime success."

Before discussing these two practically, identical views
as to the meaning of Gethsemane and of the scene
depicted in the Gospels as taking place in that garden
(grove), we may, perhaps, interpose here a few general
remarks bearing upon Isaiah 63, which figures so promi-
nently in the theories of both Drews and Smith. This
chapter forms a portion of the latter part of our present
book of Isaiah (chaps. 40-66), which has been named
by Konig "The Exiles' Book of Consolation," and consists
of a number of sections referring to the sufferings of the
ideal "Servant of Jahveh," who is regarded by almost
all modern critical scholars as being, primarily at least,
the pious section of the Jewish community, suffering un-
deservedly, as it would seem, through the faults of the
idolatrous and degenerate mass of their fellow country-
men in exile. Setting aside this view, which is too in-
tricate for full discussion here, we will now turn, in the
first place, to the question of the derivation and mean-
ing of the word " Gethsemane."

Gethsemane is compounded (Lightfoot and others) of
fiS (gath), "a press," and ]W (shemen), "oil." Professor
Smith appears to hold (Ecce Deus, p. 295), that such a
press "might be used for various purposes," including,
no doubt, the ex-pression of grapes for making wine,
his intention (as also that of Drews) being to affiliate the
whole scene taking place there with Isaiah 63 : 2 and 3,

GETHSEMANE 211

where he thinks the agonies of a suffering god are set
forth.

Now, the regular Hebrew word for a wine-press is
rniS (pur ah, Isaiah 63 : 3, the passage here referred to;
cf. also Hag. 2 : 16), and, although gath is used (cf. Joel
3 : 13; Neh. 13 : 15; Lam. i : 15) absolutely in the
sense of wine-press, the addition here of the word she-
men shows clearly that a wine-press is not meant but a
press for extracting oil from some kind of fruit. In addi-
tion to the olive (the principal source of vegetable oil),
there was another tree, ]B$ f J? (Is shemen), "oleaster"
(?.), from the fruit of which an inferior kind of oil was
expressed; but the word shemen normally signifies olive
oil, as in Gen. 28 and elsewhere.

Further, the oil-press differed considerably in construc-
tion and size from the wine-press. The former usually
consisted of a large, circular trough in which the olives
were crushed by a heavy stone wheel, while the latter
was a kind of narrow stone or cemented trough in which
the grapes were often . trodden by the feet. It was also,
as a rule, much smaller in size than the oil-press.

Again, the "garden," or enclosure, called Gethsemane
was situated (Luke 22 : 39) in the Kedron valley, prob-
ably somewhere near the foot of the Mount of Olives, so
called from the groves of olive-trees which once covered
its western slopes. No grapes were grown there, and a
wine-press, accordingly, would not be found on or near
that spot.

Now, the above-mentioned facts show clearly that it
is quite incorrect (i) to connect Gethsemane with the
wine-vat (or trough) spoken of in Isaiah 63 : 2 and 3,
and (2) to assert that the "topographic reality" of Geth-
semane appears highly problematic. Of course, after
the cutting down of all the ancient trees (Jos., B. /.,
VI, i, i) and the thorough effacement of many ancient
landmarks by the Romans during the great siege of

212 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

A. D. 70, any exact identification of the position of this
grove is no doubt impracticable. Professor Lucien Gau-
tier, however, says (Enc. Bib., art. "Gethsemane") of
the traditional site, that, while its authenticity is not
demonstrable, neither is it wholly improbable. That a
press for olives would then exist at or near the foot of
the hill is almost certain, and that any such enclosure
wherein it was situated would, sooner or later, bear the
name Gethsemane is equally probable. At the same
time, as the spot was not remarkable for anything else,
it would in all likelihood not be mentioned in any Jew-
ish historical or topographical literature which has come
down to us. Indeed, had not Jesus resorted thither at
intervals for the purpose of retirement and prayer, it
probably would have remained wholly unchronicled and
unknown to succeeding generations after the destruction
of the city. 1

Turning now to the Isaianic prophecy, upon which
both Drews and Smith lay so great stress, we find that
it seems to have no direct or immediate bearing upon
the scene described in the Gospels. "Who is this," asks
the prophet, "that cometh from Edom, with dyed gar-
ments from Bozrah?" These garments are stained red
(vs. 2), like the garments of those who have been tread-
ing the red grapes in the wine-trough. Here there is
certainly no reference to an o^-press, where the fruit
was crushed by a stone, and where, moreover, the gar-
ment of any one stepping into the press would contract
not a red but a yellow stain from the oil! The writer
of Mark 14 : 51, therefore, cannot have had Isaiah 63
in his mind when he penned the chapter. Neither did
the Jews of that or any other preceding period refer this

1 Doctor Cheyne (EiVbert Journal, July, 1913, pp. 920 and 921) thinks that
" Gethsemane is certainly from Gilead Ishmael," and, moreover, must have
been brought (as also the names Golgotha and Gabbatha) by the north
Arabians in the great migration and have been preserved by tradition !

THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN 213

chapter to Messianic sufferings, but rather regarded it
as descriptive of the sufferings of the faithful remnant
who shared in the exile of the unfaithful majority of
their fellow countrymen. 1 That the prophecy was, after
the resurrection, seen by the evangelists and others to be
very applicable, in a secondary and metaphorical sense,
to the sufferings undergone by Jesus is another matter,
and beyond dispute.

Neither, again, can we affirm that the prophet here "de-
signed to pathetise a suffering God." A God pure and
simple cannot be conceived as "suffering," though a god-
man or an anthropomorphic deity can. But such suffer-
ings as those undergone by Jesus are rather the pains and
sorrows endured by a highly strung and sensitive human
nature. There seems, therefore, no reason to doubt the
probability of either the existence of the place called
Gethsemane or the historic nature of the scene which is
said to have taken place there.

The Agony in the Garden

Another objection, however, raised by both Mr. J. M.
Robertson and Professor Drews to the account of the
agony in the garden is that the scene, as described, can-
not be historical because Jesus is stated by the evangel-
ists to have been alone the greater part of the time of
his ordeal, and the three disciples are said to have been
asleep. The reported words and acts cannot, therefore,
have been derived from them. But this kind of diffi-
culty not unfrequently arises out of a careless reading
of the narrative. The attentive student of Matt. 26 :
36-44 will readily see that (i) Jesus merely went for-

1 The earliest Jewish references to a suffering Messiah are to be found in
the Talmud, Sanh. gsb, g6b, 9?a, Q8a and b (cf. Justin Martyr's Dial. c.
Try., chaps. 68, Sp/and 90). But these are all second-century A. D. refer-
ences. That the idea was unknown to the Jews (temp. Chr.) is shown by
Matt. 16 : 22; Luke 18 : 34; 24 : 21; John 12 : 34. It was, later on,
forced on the rabbins by Christian polemic.

214 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

ward a little (vs. 39) from the disciples; (2) they only
heard (and reported) fragments of his prayers and (3)
they were twice awoke by him and would, doubtless, on
each occasion, make a strong effort to keep awake for
some time. In any case, it is evident that they were
not all three asleep and out of hearing the whole time.
The record, indeed, has just the fragmentary and dis-
jointed character which we would expect it to have un-
der the circumstances.

The Betrayal

In dealing with the betrayal Professor Drews is very
emphatic in his criticism. "The thing is historically so
improbable," he writes (The Witnesses to the Historicity
of Jesus, p. 83), "the whole story of the betrayal is so
absurd historically and psychologically, that only a few
thoughtless Bible readers can accept it with compla-
cency" ! We should have thought, on the contrary,
that such cases of treachery and bad faith on the part of
some disappointed adherent towards his leader were com-
monplaces in history. Let us look at the facts. Jesus
had come to be regarded by all his disciples as the
expected Messiah (Mark 8 : 29; Matt. 16 : 16). Their
Messianic ideal, however, was, like that of their con-
temporaries, a temporal one a conquering monarch and
an earthly sovereignty. But Jesus at once repudiated
this view as not his mission (Matt. 16 : 20 and 21;
cf. John 1 8 : 36). The disciples were disappointed at
first, and Peter in particular remonstrated with Jesus
(Matt. 16. : 22). Later on, Judas, the record says, went
a step further and resolved to give him up to the au-
thorities. Then, he perhaps reasoned with himself, if
he really be the Messiah, he will be forced to act; if not,
he will pay the penalty of his false pretensions. Or we
may go further and hold (as one of the evangelists says
plainly) that Judas was an unprincipled and dishonest

THE BETRAYAL 215

man who had had his opportunity of redemption and
deliberately rejected it. The whole matter is really
under this aspect so probable, and so natural psycholog-
ically, that it seems that every one should easily grasp
the situation.

But Professor Drews's sense of justice is also aroused.
"Imagine," he says (ibid., p. 83), "the ideal man Jesus
knowing that one of his disciples is about to betray him,
and thus forfeit his eternal salvation, yet doing nothing
to restrain the miserable man, but rather confirming
him in it ! " How does Professor Drews know all this ?
In many places in the narrative we are told that Jesus
declared he knew what was coming upon him, and he
even openly avowed (Matt. 26 : 21-25) that he knew
who would bring it about and the consequences to that
man of his act (Mark 14 : 20 and 21; Matt. 26 : 23-25).
Judas, it is clear, was fairly warned and, for aught we
know to the contrary, may have received other intima-
tions that his purpose was no secret. In either case,
Jesus, who knew what was in man, no doubt rightly
concluded that remonstrance and appeal were vain with
a man of the character and temperament of Judas. And
do not such cases occur almost every day? Why, for
instance, does not God intervene and directly prevent
us from falling into some great sin when we are on the
point of doing so ? This question is equally apposite
and the answer is the same: God gives to all of us grace
in due measure to resist sin as well as a certain amount
of free choice in all our actions. We accept the helping
grace and conquer the temptation, or we reject it and
perish miserably. And Judas in this instance chose the
latter of these two alternatives.

But further: "Imagine a Judas demanding money
from the high priest for the betrayal of a man who walks
the streets of Jerusalem daily and whose sojourn at
night could assuredly be discovered without any treach-

216 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

ery !" And he quotes, with approval, Kautsky, who says
(Der Ursprung des Christentums, 1910, p. 388): "For
Judas to have betrayed Jesus is much the same as if
the Berlin police were to pay a spy to point out to
them the man named Bebel." Let us again look at the
facts before indorsing this remark. From the point of
view of the Jewish authorities, there was a man named
Jesus going about the country who had exhibited hos-
tility towards them. This man seemed to have many
adherents 1 how many it was difficult to determine. In
any case, he had undoubtedly come to be regarded by
many as the promised Messiah, and he himself, it seemed,
might also have come to that conclusion. He threat-
ened, therefore, to become a serious danger to them and
their authority, and something must evidently be done.
But what and how and when? There were, we can
well understand, great discussions and dissensions in the
Sanhedrin. Lawyers like Gamaliel would be in favour
of a waiting policy. Probably Jesus had a* few secret
sympathisers in the council itself; we hear of one or
two in the Gospels (John 3:1; 19 : 38 and 39; Mark
15 : 43). And in the midst of all this confusion and
indecision one of the man's adherents suddenly offers to
place him in their hands secretly and without exciting
the public mind. He knows of a quiet spot where the
man retires to pray and meditate away from the crowds
who throng him in the city and in the fields and on the
highways. His terms, too, are very reasonable thirty
shekels 2 a mere trifle to the rulers of a nation but a con-
siderable amount in the eyes of a poor peasant who had
probably never handled so large a sum before. This offer
(they would argue) will solve the problem without any
great shock to the people, whose temper is uncertain.

1 E. g., The five hundred; but great crowds everywhere followed him and
acclaimed his entry into the city.

2 About 3, 153. in English money, or $19.00 in United States currency
(c/. Ex. 21 : 32).

THE BETRAYAL 217

This, we take it, was the natural attitude and reason-
ing of the Jewish authorities. They wished, no doubt,
when the arrest was made, that there should be no at-
tempt at a rescue, which, if successful, might precipitate
a revolution, especially as the Passover was near and
the Jews from a distance were already assembling in
great numbers. As for Kautsky's criticism, we have no
doubt whatever that the Berlin police did pay many
spies, not to point out to them the man named Bebel,
but to inform them of his acts and words and where
they could best lay hands upon him if he were ever
wanted by them. There is nothing novel or improbable
in the course of action as depicted by the evangelists;
it is, in fact, the course pursued in all ages by all author-
ities and rulers, whether aristocratic or democratic, civil
or military, the whole world over. And the sudden ac-
ceptance of the offer made by Judas at the eleventh hour
was the very natural outcome of the irresolution and
divided opinions and the uncertainty in which the chief
priests and scribes and Pharisees found themselves.

As regards the further question here about the mean-
ing of the Greek verb paradidonai ("to hand over" or
"betray") and its relation to the paredotke ("was given
up" or "betrayed") of Isaiah 53 : 12, the reader is re-
ferred to chap. 13, where the verb is discussed.

Finally, Professor Drews concludes that "the whole
story of the betrayal is a late invention founded on that
passage in the prophet; 1 and Judas is not an historical
personality but, as Robertson believes, a representative
of the Jewish people, hated by the Christians, who were
believed to have caused the death of the Saviour."

We do not know what precise meaning Professor Drews

1 Isaiah 53 : 12. Elsewhere, however (The Christ Myth, p. 237), he says:
"The account of the betrayal, of the thirty pieces of silver, and of Judas's
death have their source in the Old Testament, viz., in the betrayal and
death of Ahitophel" ! (refs. to II Sam. 17 : 23; c/. Zech. n : 12 and Psalm
41 : 10).

218 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

attaches to the expression "a late invention"; it is cer-
tain, however, that the story was put on record 1 (in the
Marcan form) by A. D. 65 at the latest, a time when
many who well remembered the events of some five and
thirty years previously were still alive; and these would
certainly know whether Judas no less than Jesus were
historical and also whether the betrayal and death of
the Saviour were an actual event or a mere supposition.
And the simple fact that St. Paul does not mention the
details of the betrayal in any of his writings is no adverse
argument whatever against the historicity of the mat-
ter. To reason thus as some critics persist in doing
is -merely to abuse the dangerous argumentum e silentio,
which it is too frequently the fashion nowadays to em-
ploy in a reckless manner.

Professor Preserved Smith (Hibbert Journal, July, 1913,
P- 735) sees "a minor though significant contradiction"
in the statement that all forsook him and fled (Mark
14 : 50) and "the assertion that Peter followed." We
need only remark here that it is clear that Professor
Smith has but a small acquaintance with the psychol-
ogy of impulsive people.

The Arrest and the Young Man Who Fled Away Naked

We next come to another minor but interesting epi-
sode in the narrative of the arrest, commonly known as
"the young man who fled away naked" (Mark 14 : 51
and 52). And it is upon this that Professor W. B. Smith
in particular pours the phials of his critical wrath and

1 The variations amongst the four evangelists with regard to the words
spoken and the kiss given at the time of the arrest arise very naturally out
of the confusion and terror of the night. The remonstrance of Jesus chron-
icled by Matthew, 'Ertupe, J<' 5 irdpei, unnatural under the circumstances
and almost untranslatable, is thus ingeniously explained by Cheyne: Eratpe
should come after o irapei and is a corruption of a dittographed o iropet.
The true reading, he believes, is viroicpivei, "thou feignest," "thou actest a
part" (Enc. Bib., art. "Judas," sec. 7).

THE YOUNG MAN WHO FLED AWAY NAKED 219

contempt. "For nearly eighteen hundred years," he
avers (Ecce Deus, pp. 111-113), "this youth has been
the despair of exegesis. Wellhausen thinks that he was
merely some unknown fellow in the neighbourhood who
heard the racket of the arrest, jumped out of bed with
only a night-robe around him, and rushed to the scene
as young America hastens to a dog fight . . ." !

But, to turn to his criticism: "These verses appear
at first sight to be quite inexplicable, and yet they yield
their meaning readily enough. We note that the term
young man is not frequent in Mark; it occurs only here
and in 16 : 5. In both cases it is a 'youth wrapt all
about' (7repi/3e/3\77/Aez/o?) ; in this case in fine and costly
linen cloth (a-ivBdva), especially used for cerements; in
16 : 5, in a white robe (arro\r}v Xeu/e^z/). Even Leib-
nitz would have admitted the two figures to be almost
indiscernibles. The garment in both cases is white, and
it is the only garment (eVi yvpvov, 14 : 51; 71^1/09, 52).
'. . . Are they related ? x . . . It seems, then, that we
are dealing with a technical expression for a celestial
personage (cf. Rev. 19 : 14). ... The celestial per-
sonage is the angel-self of Jewish anthropology, the
Persian ferhouer (represented on an extant coin as
Sapor II, the rival of Julian the Emperor), a kind of
astral body that follows along with Jesus, 2 robed in white

1 Professor Smith refers here to Ezek. 9:2; Daniel 10 : 5; 12:6 and 7.
These references, however, are not to the point. The "six men" (t% &vSpes)
of Ezekiel and "the man clad in linen cloth" (AvOpuiros iveSva-^vos fifa-
<riv) of Daniel are mere symbolical figures seen in a vision, or trance, a fact
which differentiates them from the "young man" seen at the sepulchre
and the other young man whose arrest was attempted at Gethsemane.

2 Professor Smith follows the translation of the R. V. But both this and
the A. V. appear to be wrong. W. and H. read veavia-Kos TIS <ryvr}Ko\o60ei
atT$, and the preposition prefixed to the verb, if it referred to Jesus, would
be repeated with the ai>T$ <ri>v airy (cf. Mark 5 : 37). What Mark's ex-
pression really means is, that the young man, along with others, followed
Jesus. That is to say, he mixed with the crowd, but was seen to be a sus-
picious person, and when a guard tried to arrest him he broke away, as
it is related.

220 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

linen to abate its intolerable splendour. The soldiers
try to seize it, but it flees away naked, leaving only the
linen investiture behind. The fact that such an idea
was not strange to the evangelists is clearly witnessed
by Matt. 18 : 10 ('Their angels do always behold, i. e.,
have access unto, the face of my Father'). What does
the evangelist mean to say by these perplexing words?
Thus far he has represented the Jesus exclusively as a
God [!], a being of infinite power; and now this divin-
ity is arrested and carried away to trial, condemnation,
and death! Arrest, judge, condemn, execute a God!
How can these things be? Apparently the evangelist
would give us a hint that he is not to be taken literally.
He would whisper to his reader: Of course the God Jesus
could not be arrested, but only the garment concealing
his divinity, the garment of flesh that he has put on in
this symbolical narrative. Hence the repeated use of
the word naked both in 51 and 52. Now, 'naked' (jvfi-
wfc) is the equivalent of disembodied when applied to a
spirit, as in II Cor. 5 : 3- 1 Of the exact shade and shape
of the evangelist's thought we may not, indeed, be quite
sure, but there seems to be no doubt of the general iden-
tification of the 'young man' as a supernatural being. . . .
Originally it [the Marcan Gospel] may very well have
squinted towards Docetism."

On pages 198-201 we have this theory worked out in
greater detail and illustrated from the epistle to the Phi-
lippians 2 : 5-11 (cf. also Romans 15 : 3, II Cor. 8 : 9,
and Col. 2 : 14 and 15). And he concludes by saying:
"The doctrine [of the Docetic Gnostics] above set forth
[p. 199] may, in its elaborated form, very well be later
than the Gospel, but it is manifest, and it is enough,

1 As applied to a human being, however, yv/aip6s does not, in common
parlance, mean "naked," but rather "lightly clad." Here (assuming an
actual young man) it would signify bereft of all the outer garments. St.
Paul certainly employs the word in one place of the disembodied spirit.
But it is not the usual Greek word for that concept.

THE YOUNG MAN WHO FLED AWAY NAKED 221

that the central idea is one and the same namely,
that on the cross the true God, the Jesus, laid aside the
form of flesh, temporarily assumed, and escaped, whether
as a 'naked' (yvpvdv), disembodied spirit or as clothed
upon with an ectypal or spiritual body. That the ancient
mind shrank from the notion of a naked (bodiless) spirit
is seen clearly in I Cor. 15, where the apostle argues so
powerfully for a body for spirit as well as a body for
soul, and also in II Cor. 5 : 1-4, where he deprecates
being found naked (a bodiless spirit)."

With the above theory Doctor Cheyne seems (Hibbert
Journal, July, 1913, pp. 921 and 922) to be in accord. He
writes: "The arguments which he [Professor Smith] has
adduced seem to me conclusive. . . . We know that
there are celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial (I Cor.
15 : 40), and in the Book of Adam, and Eve, translated
from the Ethiopic by Malan (p. 16), God says: 'I made
thee of the light, and I wished to bring out children of
' the light from thee.' The conception is that of luminous
matter; but the body of unveiled heavenly light would
have been too dazzling for ordinary human vision. The
fine white linen robe was just what was requisite to miti-
gate the excess of light. But what has the angelic being
to do here? The answer is that the Saviour, according
to Mark, was a divine manifestation. To have made
him, however, go about in a rich white linen robe would
have defeated his object, which was, at any rate, quasi-
historical. He determined, therefore, before the diffi-
cult crucifixion scene, that the true divine Jesus could
not be arrested and crucified. . . . The 'young man'
is, in fact, very like the fravashi of the Zoroastrians, the
heavenly self."

Professor Smith's highly ingenious 'theory is at first
sight extremely plausible. But after a careful consid-
eration of it, as also of the phenomena following upon
the resurrection of Jesus (to which he appeals in sup-

222 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

port of it), we cannot see any real grounds for its accept-
ance. Had Mark's narrative alone come down to us,
it might, perhaps, have been more convincing. But let
us, first of all, compare his story with that of the other
evangelists.

Mark says that the women who visited the tomb saw
a "young man" (yeavlaKov) clothed in a white garment
sitting on the right side of it. This apparition is dis-
tinctly stated by Matthew (28 : 2) to have been that of
an "angel of the Lord" (cfyyeXo? Ku/nW) who had some
time previously descended from heaven and rolled back
the stone from the doorway of the tomb and sat upon
it. Turning next to the Lucan and Johannine versions,
we find some variations. The former authority says
that "two men" 2 (avtyes Svo) appeared suddenly. The
latter, on the other hand, differs considerably here; it
states that Mary Magdalene alone, on her second visit,
stooped and looked into the tomb and saw "two angels
in white" (Svo ayyeXovs ev Xeu/cot?) sitting at either end
of the spot where the body had lain.

Now, it will be seen that the apparition which Mark
describes as a "young man" Matthew (who wrote very
closely upon him) defines as an "angel of the Lord."
Similarly, the two men of Luke are described in the
Fourth Gospel as "angels." It is clear, therefore, that
both this young man of Mark and the two men of
Luke were regarded by the Christians of apostolic times

1 There is, unfortunately, some ambiguity about the word Kvpfou ("Lord")
here. Professor Smith would, perhaps, argue that it refers to Jesus and that
the phrase means " the angel (heavenly self) of the Master (Lord) ." But the
phrase &yye\os TLvptov means, invariably, "angel (messenger) of Jahveh"
both in the Old and New Testaments. The duplication of the one Ayyehos
(or dvjjp) in the Lucan and Johannine traditions also supports the view that
it does not represent the "heavenly self" of Jesus.

2 Angels (4-yyeXoi, literally, "messengers") appear to be frequently called
men in the New Testament (cf. Acts i : 10, etc). This is probably because
they were regarded as manifesting themselves in human form. A human
agent is also occasionally called an &yye\os (Luke 9 : 52; James 2 : 25, etc.).

THE YOUNG MAN WHO FLED AWAY NAKED 223

(including the evangelists themselves) as manifestations
of spiritual beings of a higher order of existence and
quite distinct from men whether living or dead. In
fact, we have to do here, not with a spiritual duplicate
of a material and terrestrial self, but with an ordinary
angelophany similar to those so frequently referred to in
the Old and New Testaments and stated therein to be
"messengers of the Lord."

Again, Professor Smith appears to be in some error with
regard to theferhouer (frohar), orfravashi, 1 i. e., "heavenly
self" of the Zoroastrians, an idea which Jesus appears to
sanction in Matt. 18 : 10 (cf. also Acts 12 : 15).

This certainly bears no resemblance to the "astral
body" of the ancient or neo-Buddhists and others. The
astral body, properly so called, is held to be an ethereal
embodiment of the ^u%^, or "lower soul," which is be-
lieved to appear occasionally after death and (it would
seem) is at times detachable and visible during life in
the form of a facsimile (double) of the person of whom
it forms a part. It is, perhaps, the equivalent of what is
commonly known as the "ghost" of the deceased. The
fravashi, on the other hand, bore almost exactly the
same relation to the individual to whom it belonged as
the celestial TSea ("Idea") of Plato bore to its terres-
trial and material copy, or counterpart (see M. Haug,
The Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsis, pp.

2O6, I2Q). 2

Moreover, the "heavenly self," or spiritual duplicate,
was neither embodied in the earthly clay of its copy nor
(it would seem) accompanied it, but apparently lived in

1 In Professor Moulton's Early Zoroastrianism (Hibb. Lects., 1912) these
figures are traced back to a combination of ancestor-worship and the belief
in the external soul. See also Zend-Avesta, Dannsteter (1883), part 2, p. 179,
and Tiele's Gesch. der Relig. im Alt. (1896-1903), II, 256, where a different
view is taken.

VThese frohars, or fravashis, acted as "protectors" or as (in a sense)
"guardian angels" of their terrestrial duplicates.

224 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

heaven ("in heaven their angels do always behold the
face of my Father," i. e., they are continually there,
Matt. 1 8 : 10). At least this seems to have been the
Jewish view of the matter. The astral body, on the other
hand, is embodied in the person on earth, and after death
persists upon the "astral plane," an intermediate etheric
state of being above the earth plane but below 'the
heavenly (metethereal) condition.

Again, Professor Smith seems to have misunderstood
St. Paul (I Cor. 15 : 40 and 44), whose "spiritual body"
(o-oi/ta TrvevpaTtKov) is to be a new and (? final) post-
resurrection embodiment of the spirit (TireO/ia), while his
"natural (psychical) body" (o-w/ia tyvxiicov) appears to be
identical with the body of flesh which forms a man's
vehicle, or embodiment, while he is upon earth. 1 This
fact, indeed, entirely distinguishes the concept of a spir-
itual body from both the "heavenly self" (frohar, or
fravashi) of the ancient Persians and the astral body of
the Buddhists and modern theosophists.

From these and other considerations which we have
not space to particularise here, it seems clear that Mark
cannot be referring in this story (14 : 51 and 52) to a
duplicate and spiritual or heavenly self of Jesus who
attended the material and earthly Jesus, and finally fled
from him either when he was arrested in the garden or
just before his crucifixion, 2 but that he means some actual

1 Theosophists, however, appear to identify the "psychical body" with
an immaterial "double" (astral body) existing in the fleshly (sarcical) body
of our present state.

2 The Docete, it will be remembered, regarded the spiritual being who left
Jesus at the crucifixion not exactly as the heavenly self but as the ason Chrfs-
tjts who had joined himself to Jesus at his baptism. Doctor Cheyne thinks
(Hibbert Journal, July, 1913, p. 922) that Smith's view of this young man
sheds a light upon the "word from the cross" (Mark 15 : 34 and parallel).
If so, then 'EXwf (said by Mark to be equivalent to Qefc /wu) is wrongly
stated. The heavenly self, even if 0os in its ultimate nature, was never
6f6s. Matthew writes 'HXf = 8e^ IMV (27 : 46). Mark, it will be noticed,
uses the vernacular Aramaic.

THE YOUNG MAN WHO FLED AWAY NAKED 225

young man who happened to be in Gethsemane at the
time of the arrest and fled, as did the disciples themselves,
when he was seized by the soldiers.

Finally, we can see no valid historical or other objection
to this -last-named view of the episode. Matthew and
Mark describe a "multitude," or "crowd" (o%Xo?), as
coming to arrest Jesus; Luke uses the same term; while
John (18 : 3) speaks of a "band" (WetpazA) . Now, it is
most probable that the Jewish authorities were careful
to impress upon Pilate the urgency of the matter. Jesus
had acknowledged that he was the Messiah and prob-
ably a king; consequently, a formidable Messianic in-
surrection was about to take place. In that case Pilate
would undoubtedly send a sufficiently strong force to
Gethsemane to insure the arrest of Jesus and to nip in
the bud any attempt at rescue or violence on the part
of the people. 2 The measured tramp of troops through
the streets at so late an hour, would attract attention,
and doubtless more than one man "jumped out of bed,
with only a night-robe around him, and rushed to the
scene," as Professor Smith somewhat contemptuously
phrases it. He rightly rejects Professor Bacon's para-
phrase ("But a certain man was there, who had followed
him thither from his bed, having the sheet wrapped
around him"), but he is equally wrong in his own inter-
pretation of (TvvijKoXovdet avra>. The imperfect tense of
a verb has not generally the meaning " was habitually "
performing an act; neither is there any reference here to
the heavenly self in the form of a young man following
Jesus -about. The verb "was following" here means, as

l l. ., a manipulus, which consisted at that time of two centuries, or
(about) two hundred men. This would probably not include the body of
Jewish temple police sent with the Roman force. The alternative marginal
translation calls it a cohort (of. Acts 10 : i), which would mean from five
hundred to six hundred mea.

2 This is not directly so stated; but it seems to be implied in the Johan-
nine narrative.

226 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

we have pointed out, that the young man after the dis-
ciples had scattered amongst the trees had mingled with
the throng who were escorting Jesus away and was ac-
companying them to see what further transpired. . One
or more of the soldiers or the temple guard, however,
suspecting that he was probably an accomplice of Jesus,
attempted to arrest him also. The tense here indicates
action extending over some time, and really unfinished,
not merely momentary and completed, as in the case of
the aorist. Probably the party had gone a little distance
before the presence of a suspicious stranger was noticed.

There is no doubt, on the other hand, that Zahn's
identification of the young man with Mark himself is
precarious. Still, it is not impossible. The reference of
Keim and others (so also, recently, S. Reinach, Orpheus,
pp. 216 and 217) to Amos 2 : 16 as the source of the
"legend" does not, as Smith says, explain the origin
of the story. This prophecy was not a very promi-
nent one in Jewish literature, neither had it any sugges-
tive Messianic connexions in after years. Besides this,
Mark (unlike Matthew) is not given to seeking "fulfil-
ments" of prophecy in every incident connected with
the life or sayings of Jesus. The fact is, the plain, lit-
eral sense of this story is perfectly acceptable, much more
so, indeed, than any occult interpretation such as Pro-
fessor Smith here offers.

With regard to the "linen cloth," a wide garment of
linen (j^D) was worn over the body by all classes, under
the over-clothes. This garment is called, in the LXX
(Judges 14 : 12 and 13; Prov. 31 : 24), a-ivBwv, the very
word used here by the evangelist. Or perhaps we might
regard the sindon here as a night-wrapper of fine linen
at that time often worn by the inhabitants of Palestine. 1
In either case there is nothing extraordinary in the man

1 Herodotus, II, 95, speaks of the ffiv6t>v as the usual night-dress of the
Egyptians.

THE YOUNG MAN WHO FLED AWAY NAKED 227

being abroad in the groves of Gethsemane during a spring
night with only his usual (working) undergarment or per-
haps his night-wrapper upon him. 1 The city was at this
time under the influence of the excitement and ferment
of the approaching Passover, and restless or adventurous
spirits would probably not be abed. A further argument
against Professor Smith's ferhouer would be the fact, al-
ready referred to, that Mark never anywhere else even
hints at a "heavenly self" accompanying Jesus, and the
present Gospel, even if it be (which is doubtful) a re-
vised edition of an older (and ? Aramaic) version, can-
not by any stretch of imagination be said to "squint"
even in the smallest degree at Docetism.

1 John 18 : 18, it is true, says that the night was cold. Still, the man
would be, speaking technically, "naked" if he had his usual day under-
garment left when any wrapper put over it was snatched away.

CHAPTER XII

THE TRIALS. PETER. PILATE. LITHOSTROTON-
GABBATHA. ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS

The Trials

AN outstanding difference between the "Christ-myth"
and the myths of all the numerous "suffering saviours"
of cult-worship is the fact that the former has a detailed
description of an impressive trial, 1 while the various
mythic sun-gods, or vegetation-spirits, who have been so
freely designated as "saviours," died, or were put to
death, without any pretense of the kind.

The narrative of the trial, or trials, of Jesus, however,
is regarded by Professor Drews and the other mythi-
cists as a part of the process of quasi-historicising the
myth and as due wholly to the inventive genius of the
early Christians. But it is very evident, at any rate to
the careful reader who is well acquainted with both the
Jewish and Roman judicial systems, that if the trials, as
described by the evangelists, closely agree with Jewish
and Roman methods of procedure in such cases, due
allowance being made for the irregularities and haste
which, under such special circumstances, would be likely
to characterise them, a powerful argument is furnished
for the actual historicity of the whole affair.

Now, the entire procedure, as set forth in the Gospels,
occupies four distinct stages: (i) A preliminary exami-

1 As a discussion of the historico-legal aspect of the trials of Jesus does
not come within the scope of this work, the reader is referred, for a full
discussion of them, to The Trial of Jesus Christ: A Legal Monograph, by
Doctor A. Taylor* Iniies, and the excellent little book, The Trial of Jesus
Illustrated from Talmud and Roman Law, by S. Buss, LL.B.

228

THE TRIALS 229

nation of a semi-private character before Annas (Hanan)
previous to a delivery to the Sanhedrin. (2) The actual
Jewish trial before the Sanhedrin, as the chief tribunal
of judicial administration (cf. Num. n : 16; Jos., Ant.,
XIV, 9, 2), presided over on this occasion by Caiaphas. 1
The charges here brought against Jesus may be com-
prised under two heads: (a) false teaching and (5)
blasphemy. (3) The examination before the Roman
procurator, together with (according to Luke) an irrregu-
lar interview with Herod Antipas. Jesus was, in the
former of these, accused by the Jews of perverting the
nation by (a) forbidding payment of tribute to Cassar
and (6) claiming to be the Messianic King. 2 (4) The sub-
sequent irregular proceedings in which the procurator,
under pressure from a furious mob which had been in-
cited by the priests, yielded "to the general clamour for a
sentence of death.

In view of the fact that the records of the former trial
have been pronounced unsatisfactory, as showing errors
in the matter of procedure, etc., we may notice here the
chief infringements of strict Jewish law which it presents.

As the arrest of Jesus was effected during the night,
the legal course would have been to detain the prisoner
in custody, after the preliminary examination by Annas,
until the next day (cf. Acts 4 : 3). 3 This was not done;
consequently the whole of the proceedings before the
Sanhedrin were technically irregular and therefore legally
null and void. Also, according to Luke 23 : 51, Joseph

1 Edersheim says (Life of Jesus of Nazareth, II, p. 556) that in great crim-
inal cases or important investigations the high priest always presided. In
legal and ritual questions the Nasi presided, who, at this time, was Gamaliel
(Acts 5 : 34). On the confusion hi the narrative in the synoptics and John 18
and its explanation, see Blass, Philology of the Gospels, pp. 56-59.

- This trial (John 18 : 33-38) really ended in an acquittal and was quite
in accordance with Roman law as then administered in the provinces.

3 1. e., between 6 Ai M. and 6 p. M. (Sanh. iv). The next day, however,
was equally precluded, being the eve of a Sabbath -and perhaps the paschal
festival.

230 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

of Arimathasa (and possibly Gamaliel and some others)
had been opposed to the proceedings and probably the
verdict. This was another irregularity, as the whole of
the seventy-one members ought to have concurred in a
verdict and sentence of death against a false prophet.
But as the trial ended, after Pilate's examination, in a
sudden outburst of mob-violence, these points were all
ignored 1 and cannot be laid to the charge of the evan-
gelists. 2 And now let us consider the various objections
which have been raised by the advocates of the mythical
hypothesis.

In the first place, Mr. J. M. Robertson assures us
(Pagan Christs, p. 197) that these narratives in the Gos-
pels are clearly unhistorical because, it would seem, so
many events are said to have happened all in the space
of one night. This objection is developed still further
by Doctor Anderson in an article, "The Essence of the
Faith," in The Quest for April, 1912, where he says:
"The critic . . . will proceed to prove that the stories of
the trial, arrest, and crucifixion are quite understandable
as scenes of a mystery-play but are quite inexplicable
as facts of history. The trial is represented as lasting
through one night, when, as Renan points out, an East-
ern city is wrapt in silence and darkness, quite natural
as scenes in a mystery-play but not as actual history."

Let us deal first of all with this latter and more seri-

1 A similar instance of a trial before the Sanhedrin, irregularly conducted
by the high priest Annas (circ. 63 A. D.), is mentioned by Josephus (Ant.,
XX, 9, i).

2 Quite recently Professor Goethals (Melanges d'Histoire du Christian-
isme, "HI Jesus a Jerusalem," 1912) thinks that Mark's version of the
trial is largely hagiographical. It was, he says, " worked over at Rome after
64 A. D., and aims at showing Jesus as the prototype of confessors and mar-
tyrs." He follows in preference the account given in the Additamenla, ac-
cording to which there was an actual plot formed by one hundred and fifty
of the followers of Jesus to make him a Messianic King. This conspiracy
was revealed to the Sanhedrin, and he was taken before Pilate, tried, and
discharged. Then came the arrest by the Jews and his condemnation by
the Sanhedrin as a false prophet.

THE TRIALS 231

cms objection. Had either Renan or Doctor Anderson
really thought twice, the former would never have penned
these words and the latter would not have quoted them.
"Darkness," with the paschal moon almost full and in
the clear, bright atmosphere of an Eastern sky ! Again,
"silence" with the crowds of foreign Jews arriving
hourly, day and night, and the whole city seething with
the bustle and excitement of the approaching Passover
which began the next day! This excitement may also
have been increased by rumours of an intended out-
break and proclamation of a Messianic King; in which
case both Romans and Jews would be in a state of ex-
pectancy and readiness during the night and day preced-
ing the celebration of the great feast, the one in order to
be ready to crush the movement in the bud, the other
in order to be ready to give whatever support might be
deemed necessary and prudent. Ordinarily, no doubt,
an Oriental city is buried in silence and sleep during the
night, but not on critical occasions like this.

As regards the number of events happening during
the space of one night and the alleged impossibility of
crowding them into so small a space of time, we may add
that if Jesus were arrested about i A. M., as seems prob-
able, and brought before Annas about 2 A. M., the ex-
aminations before the Sanhedrin and Pilate, and even the
interview with Herod, could all very well have been car-
ried out, as described, during the next five hours, since
all these judges would be lodged within a short distance
of one another in the temple area and in the adjoining
tower of Antonia. And this would allow sufficient time
for Jesus to be crucified at 9 o'clock, as one evangelist
states. 1

Turning to Professor Drews, we find -that he indorses

1 Mark 15 : 25. See an article (Expository Times, January, 1909, p. 183)
by Mrs. M. D. Gibson, who produces evidence to show that Mark is right
and that the sixth hour of John 19 : 14 is due to the error of a scribe.

232 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

the view of Mr. Robertson, but also finds fault with the
narrative of the trial. He says (The Christ Myth, pp.
241 and 242): "But where the authors of the Gospel
have really found something new, e. g., in the account of
Jesus' trial, of the Roman and Jewish procedure, they
have worked it out in such an ignorant (sic) way, and,
to one who knows something about it, betray so signifi-
cantly the fictitious nature of their account, that here
really there is nothing to wonder at except, perhaps,
the naivete of those who still consider that account his-
torical and pique themselves a little on their historical
exactness and scientific method." *

This, however, is not so. An examination of the
works above referred to (p. 228, note i) will show con-
clusively that the evangelists understood very well what
they were writing about and, though mere laymen in legal
matters, have given a very generally correct version of
the adherence to the chief rules of Jewish procedure and
the requirements of Roman law, as also of the effects of
mob-violence, which ultimately defeated Pilate's efforts to
get a very just Roman verdict carried into effect. We
would strongly recommend Doctor Drews to reread care-
fully the records of the trial in the light of both Jewish
and Roman law.

Again, a reference to the evidence of the Talmud
with regard to the trial must be preceded by a care-
ful consideration of several points of great importance.
None of the Talmud, as we now possess it, was, in all
probability, in writing before 200 A. D.; all contempo-
rary documents, too, must have been destroyed in the
sack and burning of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. During this
intervening period of one hundred and thirty years or
thereabouts the story of Jesus and his trial and execu-
tion must have been to the Jews an oral tradition, liable,
as such traditions are, to variations in its details as well

1 Reference here to Brandt, Die Evangelische Gesckichte, especially 53 jf .

THE TRIALS 233

as misrepresentation from religious prejudices. Add to
these the fact that, when it had been committed by them
to writing, the church was rapidly becoming a dominant
power, in the Roman world. By the fourth century, in-
deed, or soon afterwards, it had become unsafe even to
refer openly to the Man whom the Jews have ever spoken
of as the false Messiah. Accordingly, in such Jewish
references as we find, there is a great deal of perhaps
intentional vagueness of statement and confusion in de-
tails. Jesus is not often referred to directly by name, but
generally as Ben Stada (though sometimes as Ben Pandera)
and, it would almost seem, purposely confused with some
other (actual or supposititious) Jesus who appears to have
incurred the displeasure of the Sanhedrin about one hun-
dred years previously and been stoned to death. At all
events, we read that Jesus "was tried by the Beth-Din,
condemned, and executed at Lud (Lydda) 1 on the eve of
the Passover, which was also the eve of the Sabbath. He
was stoned and hanged (= crucified) . . .by Pinhas the
robber, 2 and was at the time thirty-three years of age." 3
This reference, in spite of the minor errors of fact which
it contains, is amply sufficient for purposes of identifica-
tion.

It has been suggested, however, that in any case the
Jewish writers must have derived their information
from the Gospels, which, after 200 A. D., were very
widely circulated. This view very largely ignores the
strength and tenacity of oral tradition in Eastern coun-
tries; and it is in the highest degree improbable that
the Jews would set aside any religious tradition of their
own or adopt any story from the Gospels which had no
basis in their own oral records. In short, the evidence of

1 A small town near Joppa.

2 Pontius Pilate (?), who was afterwards accused of extortion and rob-
bery during his term of office.

3 See particularly Pales. Talm., Sanh. Tract., Ill, zsd, and Bab. Talm.,
Sanh. Tract., 6?a.

234 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

the Talmud, in spite of the obscurity and errors which
it contains, confirms indirectly the story of the evange-
lists, a fact which the Jews of all ages, without a dissen-
tient voice, have always admitted.

Peter

According to Mr. J. M. Robertson (Christianity and
Mythology, p. 379): "It is one of the many valuable
solutions advanced by Dupuis that Peter's legend is
substantially constructed on the Roman myth of Janus.
Janus, like Peter, bears the keys and the rod; and, as
the opener of the year (hence the name of January),
he stands at the head of the twelve months as Peter
stands at the head of the twelve apostles. . . . Origi-
nally Dianus, the sun-god (Macr., Sat., I, 9), as Diana
was moon-goddess, he came to hold a subordinate though
always popular place in the god-group and was for the
later Roman world especially the key-keeper, the opener
(patulcius) and closer (clusius). 1 There could not be a
more exact parallel to the Petrine claims. . . .

"As the mythical Peter is a fisherman, so to Janus, on
coins, belongs the symbol of a bark, and he is the god
of havens. Further, he is the source or deity of wells,
rivers, and streams. It is not unlikely, by the way, that
a representation of Janus beside Poseidon, in his capac-
ity of sea-regent, may have motived the introduction of
Peter into the myth of Jesus walking on the waves,
though, as before suggested [p. 358], the rock may have
given the idea."

Further, in his Pagan Christs (p. 353), Mr. Robert-
son continues and expands this theory. There he lays
great stress upon the two faces of the god, and further
seeks to establish an identity between Janus and Jesus,
who "has constructively several of the attributes of
Proteus- Janus," instancing "I am the door," "I stand

1 See Ovid, Fasti, I, 129 and 130.

PETER 235

at the door and knock," "I am in the Father and the
Father in me" ("Janus with the two faces, old and
young, seated in the midst of the twelve altars"), "I
have the keys of death and Hades." "The function of
Janus as god of war is also associable with the dictum:
'I came not to bring peace but a sword'. . . !"

Again, he finds the further remarkable coincidence that
in the Egyptian Book of the Dead (chap. 68, Doctor
Budge's translation, p. 123) Petra is the name of the
divine doorkeeper of heaven. This suggests an ancient
connexion between the Egyptian and Asiatic cults. Fur-
thermore, he thinks that certain early Christian sculp-
tures, which represent the story of Jesus and Peter and
the cock-crowing, 1 "suggest that it [the story] originated
as an interpretation of some such sculpture." These
sculptures he further wishes to connect with a Mithraic
source, because in the Zend-Avesta (Bundahish XIX and
Vendidad, Farg. XVIII, 2) the cock is mentioned as a
bird symbolic of the sun-god.

Lastly, he thinks (Christianity and Mythology, p. 381)
that "the two-faced image of Janus connects alike with
the dual aspect of Mithra, who is two-sexed, and the
myth of Peter's repudiation of Jesus." And this be-
cause the term bifrons ("two-faced") does not seem to
have become for the Romans, as it is for us, a term sig-
nifying treachery or duplicity, doubtless because Janus,
to whom it belonged, was a benign god. "But," he adds,
"in connexion with a new cult which rejected the old
theosophies, nothing could be more natural than the sur-

1 It has been suggested that this incident, connected with Peter's denial
of Jesus (Mark 14 : 68-72), has reference to the restrictions supposed by
the Jews to be kid upon mazzi&n (pj? v tD), evil spirits, or demons. These
beings, and the similar jinns of the Arabs, etc., carried on their practises
of seducing mankind into, various sins and errors during the night. But the
moment the cock crew their powers were suspended. See Weber, Jtidische
Theologie (Leipzig, 1897), p. 255. There may be some connexion; but why
did the cock, according to some authorities, crow twice?

236 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

mise that the personage with two faces, looking forward
and backward, had been guilty of some act of double
dealing!" We will now deal with these views in some
detail.

Mr. Robertson's statement of the matter, as set forth
above, is characterised by several errors of fact as well
as some confusion of thought. When these are elimi-
nated it will be seen that the Janus-(? Dianus) myth is
anything but an exact parallel to the "myth" of Peter.

Now, in the first place, it is quite wrong to assert that
Janus (as the month January) was "the opener of the
year" and that "he stood at the head of the twelve
months as Peter stands at the head of the twelve apos-
tles." The old Roman year began in March, as the names
of the four last months of our present calendar show.
Peter, too, was not the head of the apostolic college.
So far as there was a head, that position was occupied by
James (Acts 12 : 17; 15 : 13 and 19; 21 : 18; Gal. 2 : 9).
Moreover, it is not at all certain that Janus is a deriv-
ative of and equivalent to an older Dianus. The later
'Romans thought so; but there are several good reasons
for identifying him with the old Etruscan deity Ani.

Again, the Roman as bore the impression of a ship on
the obverse of the head of Janus, because the latter
was the god presiding over all journeyings, whether by
land or sea, and was regarded by the Romans as the dis-
coverer of the art of ship-building and described as the
husband of the sea-goddess Venilia. This does not in
the least connect him with Peter, whose actual name was
Simon 1 Bar- Jonas and who was merely a fisherman- on
an inland lake. Neither does the fact of Janus being re-
garded as the god of wells, rivers, and streams point to
a connexion with Peter, who had nothing whatever to
do with them. The former was connected with these
and indirectly through them with Poseidon (Neptune),

1 ? = snub-nosed. A Greek name common in post-exilic times.

PETER 237

the god of the sea,, because the source of all organic life
was moisture and especially moving (vivus) water. There
is here not the remotest connexion with the story of Jesus
walking upon the waves.

Further, the connexion of Janus with the door arose
from the fact that he was originally a god of the light,
who opened the gates of heaven on the sun's going forth
in the morning and closed them on his withdrawal at
evening. And so, in course of time, he became the god
of all going out and coming in, to whom all places of
egress and passage, all doors and gates, were holy. Had
Jesus been named "the guardian of the door," a paral-
lel might have been drawn. But by such phrases as "I
am the door," etc., he really means that he is the sole
means of spiritual access to the Father, a widely differ-
ent notion.. And the Janus with the "two faces, old and
young," is a product of Mr. Robertson's imagination.
On the Roman as, as he can see on reference to a speci-
men of that coin, both faces of Janus are duplicates as
regards age and appearance, and in later times both were
bearded. 1

Janus, it is true, as the god of doorways, is depicted
with the porter's keys and staff, and Peter is also stated
by Matthew (16 : 19) to have had intrusted to him the
"keys" of the kingdom of heaven. But it may be added
here that (i) this commission is not found in the oldest
authority (Mark) and may, therefore, be a later addi-
tion, and (2) "7 have the keys of death and of Hades"
(Rev. i : 9) seems to imply that the early church did not
consider that these keys had been put in commission
absolutely to Peter, who had on occasion been summa-
rily rebuked and set right by Paul, and who, moreover,

1 According to Servius (a contemporary of Macrobius), Romulus and
Tatius, i. e., the Romans and Sabines, when they agreed to coalesce into
one people, made an image of Janus Bif rons as a symbol of their union and
distinction (On Mn., I, 291).

238 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

as we have seen, is invariably mentioned after James.
The contrary view certainly sprang up during the sec-
ond century, possibly at first suggested by the Janus-
myth, and was soon welcomed in certain quarters for the
support it offered to the growing claims of the bishops
of Rome.

Further, Janus was not in any strict sense a "god of
war," but was merely let out to the aid of the Romans
when on campaign and kept shut up in his temple when
Rome was at peace. And the meaning of the saying of
Jesus, "I came not to bring peace but a sword," is that
the Gospel will, through its rejection by many, also cause
grave dissensions in families and communities instead of the
peace and harmony which it was intended to bring about.

Once again, the Egyptian god Petr'a is, according to the
Book of the Dead (loc. cit.), the doorkeeper of heaven;
but this fact does not support any philological theory
of identification with Peter (Uerpo?). Petr'a has nothing
to do with the Greek petra ("rock"), but means "the
seer," "the all-seeing one," 1 and is, no doubt, express-
ive of the vigilant sight and attentiveness which all door-
keepers should exercise. Petra, on the contrary, implies
steadfastness of purpose, the possession of which, in Pe-
ter's case, is said to have procured for him the title of
Petros (-Trer/ao?, "stone") from Jesus. 2

1 Doctor Budge, in a letter to the present writer.

2 Attempts have been made by several German scholars to identify the
twelve disciples with the twelve signs of the zodiac. This idea was ad-
vanced over a century ago by Dupuis (L'origine, etc., Ill, 47), who con-
nected the twelve with the angels of the zodiac.

A few specimens of the arguments used will suffice here to illustrate -the
methods employed.

Winckler (Forschungen, II, p. 387), Jeremias (Babylonisches, p. 92), and
Fiebig (Babel u. das N. T., p. 18) derive Alphaus (Mark 3 : 18) from Bab.,
Alpu=Taurus. As this explanation is open to the trifling objection that
it was James himself, and not his father, who represents the sign, Fiebig
replies that the names of fathers are not always intended in the genealogical
sense.

Again, Thomas (Heb., D1N ?, Bab., htanm, Syr., tMma, "a twin") is identi-

PETER 239

Further, Mr. Robertson's interpretation of the early
Christian sculpture's descriptive of the story of the de-
nials and the cock-crowing is most certainly a direct
inversion of facts. Those incidents would be likely to
suggest the sculptures; but the sculptures would not
suggest the incident to any writer, even if the cock were
recognised as being a symbol of the sun-god in his ear-
liest morning phase.

Lastly, as regards the origin of the two-faced concep-
tion of Janus, the ordinary explanation is that it arose
out of the fact that all doors and gates looked both ways
(inward and outward). Doctor Budge, however, thinks
that the idea was probably suggested by the two-headed
god, the Horus-Set of old Egypt. In any case, it cannot
.have arisen out of the dual aspect of Mithra, "who is
two-sexed" [ ? ]. Neither Janus nor "Peter- Jesus" (whom
Mr. Robertson appears to regard as a sort of duplex
representation [Proteus- Janus] of the sun) could be in
any sense termed " two-sexed " ! The mythical view of
the matter is further weakened by Mr. Robertson's own
subsequent admission that the title Janus Bifrons had
no sign of duplicity or treachery about it, and conse-
quently the two-faced god cannot have suggested Peter's
facing both ways during the period of suspense and
stress at the trial. Neither, in point of fact, have we
any evidence to show that the concept of Janus, the be-
nign god, was ever changed by the "new cult" into one
implying some act of double dealing.

fied with the zodiacal constellation Gemini merely because the two words
signify nearly the same thing; and so forth.

These several arguments are further enforced in a collective sense by a
reference to the saying of Jesus in Matt. 19 : 28; cf. Luke 22 : 30, from
which it is inferred that there are twelve disciples because there were twelve
tribes. From this fact it would seem to follow that the sons of Jacob and
the twelve tribes of Israel must also be personifications of the twelve signs
of the zodiac (see Gen. 49 : 328) as, indeed, they have been pronounced
to be. Most readers will agree that such demonstrations are exceedingly
unsatisfactory (see Astronomical Myths, J. E. Blake, 1877, pp. 106^".).

240 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Accordingly, Mr. Robertson's entire hypothesis of Pe-
ter, as representing a kind of Christianised Roman Janus,
or Egyptian Petra, and as ultimately a mere mythical
character derived from a pagan source, is wholly unten-
able.

Pilate

The semi-mythologising of Pontius Pilate by Professor
Drews is really one of the strongest proofs of the rad-
ical unsoundness of his whole system of exegesis. The
ease with which well-known and undoubtedly historical
characters can be made to lend themselves to this kind of
treatment, in the hands of an expert at such schemes, is
here most clearly exemplified.

We know from history that Pilate was the fifth of the
seven procurators who administered the Roman province
of Judeea during the period 26-36 A. D. (cf. Jos., Ant.,
XVIII, 4, 2). His nomen is suggestive of a connexion
with the Samnite Pontii, while his cognomen may be
derived either from pileatus, i. e., wearing the pileus, or
felt cap, of the manumitted slave, or (more probably)
from pilatus, the man armed with the javelin, i. e., the
legionary soldier. He seems to have been a man of
inferior birth and culture and to have treated Jewish
customs and idiosyncrasies with more than ordinary Ro-
man contempt. His portrait, however, as sketched by
Josephus, is doubtless drawn from a purely Jewish and
unfriendly standpoint. 1 Pilate's hostility to the Jews
themselves may, perhaps, partly account for his evident
desire to be fair, and even sympathetic, towards Jesus
until events proved too strong for him; at any rate,
the fierce and uncompromising hatred displayed by the
priesthood towards the meek and uncomplaining pris-
oner evidently touched chords of both pity and indig-

1 So also that of Philo Judasus, who says (Leg. ad Caium, 38) that Agrippa
I described him as r^v <j>vfflv

PILATE 241

nation in his breast, which for a time at least prevailed
over Roman truculence and indifference to suffering and
wrong.

But all this evidence, set forth so naturally and sim-
ply by the Gospel writers, is brushed aside by Professor
Drews, who prefers (The Witnesses to the Historicity of
Jesus, pp. 55, 158, and 159) to follow the speculations of
Niemojewski 1 to that of ancient and almost contempo-
rary writers and biographers. Accordingly, the Pilate
of the Gospels is identified with the constellation Orion,
who is said to be the "javelin man" (pilatus), with the
"arrow, or lance constellation" (sagitta). This "arrow,"
or "lance," in the Greek form of the zodiacal myth, is, he
says, very long, and the wielder of it appears in "the
.Christian [apocryphal] legend" as the soldier Longinus
who pierces the side of Jesus with a spear faoyxij, John
19 : 34). To summarise Drews's theory in his own words:
"In the astral-myth, the Christ hanging on the cross, or
world- tree (i. e., the Milky Way), is killed by the lance of
Pilatus." 2

But we must not hastily conclude from this that Doc-
tor Drews disbelieves in the existence of the historic
Pilate. He thinks, with Niemojewski, that the Christian
populace told the legend of a javelin-man, a certain Pi-
latus, who was supposed (sic) to have been responsible
for the death of the Saviour. "This," he recklessly adds,
"wholly sufficed for Tacitus to recognise in him the proc-
urator in the reign of Tiberius, who must have been known
to the Roman historian from the books of Josephus on the
'Jewish War' which were destined for the imperial house" 3

1 In his Gott Jesus im Lichte.fremder und eigener Forschungen samt Dar-
stettung der evangelischen Astrolstoffe Astralszenen und Astralsysteme (1910).

2 See, however, Appendix C, where, in the "astral drama" of the cruci-
fixion, Orion represents not (as here) the slayer of the Christ but the Christ
himself ! This is flat self-contradiction.

3 Italics ours. On p. 158 (op. tit.), however, Professor Drews states his
theory less dogmatically: "// is not certain [italics ours] that we have not

242 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

To offer such an explanation of the "Story of the
Cross," as told by Tacitus, the "Gibbon of the ancient
Roman world," is to credit that great and philosophical
historian with a carelessness and lack of judgment, not
to say of common sense, which is wholly undeserved by
him. Finally, Drews adds: "In point of fact, the proc-
urator Pontius Pilate plays a part in the Gospels so sig-
nally opposed to the part of the historical Pilate, as
Josephus describes him, that we can very well suspect
a later introduction of an historical personage into the
quasi-historical narrative."

But the historical Pilate as we have already remarked
in the reports of the trial, merely plays the part of
a Roman official who is personally hostile to and sus-
picious of the Jewish authorities, as he is described by
Josephus to have been. And even the unscrupulousness,
which is stated both by Josephus and Philo to have been
a fundamental ingredient in his character, is clearly
shown by his finally yielding up Jesus to save himself,
contrary to a momentary better impulse which had pos-
sessed him. In fine, his conduct throughout the trial is
entirely consonant with what we know of human nature,
where sound principles are lacking.

Liihostroton-Gablatha

"Let us now pass on," as Professor W. B. Smith says
(Ecce Deus, pp. 297 and 298), "to the place called Lith-
ostroton, but' in the Hebrew Gabbatha" (John 19 : 13).
"However," he adds, "we need not tarry there long. It
is well known that all attempts in all ages, even by the

here an astral-myth in which the Homo Pilatus (the javelin-man Orion)
played a part converted into history on the strength of a similarity of name
with the Roman procurator Pilate and that the whole story was not on this
account placed in the time of the first two Roman emperors." It can, he
thinks, be detached from that period without suffering any essential change
a characteristic of myths.

LITHOSTROTON-GABBATHA 243

most ingenious and erudite and sympathetic scholars, to
locate this stone-strewn spot have failed utterly. Now,
at least it has become clear that they have all the while
been seeking in the wrong region, in Jerusalem, whereas
the pavement glittered only in the fancy of the evan-
gelist."

With this view of the matter Professor Canney (Enc.
Bib., art. "Pavement") seems to have some sympathy. 1

Let us, however, examine this question afresh. And,
first of all, we will turn to Josephus, our great and al-
most sole authority on the topography of ancient Jeru-
salem. He says (B. J., V, 5, 8): "Now, as regards the
tower, of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two
cloisters of the court of the temple, of that on the west
and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of
fifty cubits in height and was on a great precipice; it
was the work of King Herod, wherein he demonstrated
his natural magnanimity. In the first place, the rock
itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from
its foundation, both for ornament and that any one
who would either try to get up or to go down it might
not be able to maintain his footing upon it." In other
words, this rock, whereon the citadel of Jerusalem was
built the Prastorium 2 of the later procuratorial days
was covered over, both sides and flat top, with a layer
of smooth slabs of stone. The top of this rock, therefore,

t

1 Doctor Cheyne, in commenting on this, says (Hibbert Journal, July, 1913,
p. 921): "Gab in Gabbatha, like the name of the New Testament prophet
Agab(us), and that of the great Babylonian banker Egibi, comes ultimately
from 'Ah'ab' (i. e., Arabian, Ashhur)." Keim, however (Jesus of Nazara,
VI, p. 86, note 2) derives it from gib(e)ba, or gibba (Targ. Rabb., Buxt., p.
377), emphatic gibbata, Greek, ra|3/3a0a (a).

2 There is some confusion here in Mark 15 : 16 and Matt. 27 : 27. It
is not clear whether by the "Prsetorium" the hall of the castle Antonia is
meant or that of the palace of Herod the Great, on the western hill, which
was connected with the eastern, or temple hill, by means of a bridge. On
the whole, the former seems more probable, as it was a fortress, and the
palace of Herod would most probably be reserved for the use of Herod
Antipas.

244 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

evidently answers to the descriptive name
i. e., a pavement "laid with stone."

Again, the Aramaic word Nri33 ("Gabbatha") means
a "height" or "a back ridge," and, as the only important
heights in Jerusalem were the adjoining ones, on which
Herod's palace and the temple and the tower of Antonia
were built, it is a fair inference to regard one of these as
the height Josephus speaks of as furnished with an arti-
ficial layer of smooth stones. That is, in effect, Liiho-
stroton is not a translation of Gabbatha (or Gabbatha of
Lithostroton) ; but the older name of the place was " the
height" and the newer Greek appellation, doubtless given
after Herod had covered it with a sort of veneer of stone,
was " the pavement."

Now, at the time of the Passover, when, owing to the
excited and tumultuous state of the city, disturbances
were greatly to be feared, the Roman procurator, who
ordinarily resided at Cassarea, came to Jerusalem attended
by a strong body of troops and took up his quarters in
the citadel of Antonia. And, at the trial of Jesus, we are
told that he was led by Caiaphas to the Praetorium (John
1 8 : 28) at an early hour of the morning. The members
of the Sanhedrin, however, entered not into the judgment-
hall [Pragtorium], that they might not be defiled, but
might eat the Passover. 1

Accordingly, Jesus was taken in alone by Roman
guards and closely questioned by Pilate as to his Mes-
sianic and regal claims. When he had declared that his
kingdom was not of this world, Pilate went outside and
offered his famous solution of the difficulty, viz., that
Jesus should be released in compliance with a custom
generally adopted at that time, just before the Passover
(vs. 39). This offer was rejected by the Jews, and Pilate

1 The imperators had a kind of portable mosaic floor, which they often
carried about with them and upon which their tribunal was set. But this
is plainly riot what the Gospel here refers to.

ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS 245

then went back and further questioned Jesus. Finally,
according to John, he brought him out on to the pave-
ment and presented him to the waiting crowd of Jews
with the significant but ironical words: "ISe o avOpcoTros,
"Behold the man!"

Now, it would seem that quite unnecessary difficulties
have been raised about the names Lithostroton and Gab-
batka. They are, indeed, not equivalent to one another
as regards meaning, but apparently different names for
the same spot. And, although the four evangelists give
a somewhat confused account and differ a good deal in
details in their versions of the trial scenes, and the synop-
tists do not mention this incident at all, there seems to
be no reason whatever to doubt the historicity of the
narrative. As a consequence of this conclusion, we can-
not see any justification for such a statement as that
"probably Lithostroton-Gabbatha existed as a definite
locality only in the mind of the author." At the same
time we can well understand that the relegation of the
place to the category of imagination is a great help to
the theory that the entire story of Jesus is wholly unhis-
torical. The evidence for this hypothesis must neces-
sarily be presented in a detailed and cumulative form,
and every little incident that can be disposed of as myth-
ical goes a long way towards helping out the case.

Annas and Caiaphas

Doctor Drews tells us (The Witnesses to the Historicity
of Jesus, p. 212 and note) that "Many names of sup-
posed historical persons seem to have been originally of
an astral character and to have been later pressed into
the historical scheme; such are Herod, 1 the high priests
Annas and Caiaphas, and Pilate."

1 An interesting and' able study of Herod and his connexion with the trial
of Jesus, by the late Professor A. W. Verrall, will be found in the Jour, of
Theo. Studies, April, 1909.

246 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Annas is said to be "identical in name with the proph-
etess Anna (Sib-Zi-Anna of the Babylonians, Anna Pe-
renna of the Romans) and, according to Niemojewski,
corresponds to the star 7 in Gemini, but, according to
Fuhrmann, to the constellation Cassiopeia, which 'dwells
in the temple' or at the highest point of the Milky Way.
Caiaphas is clearly, in that case, the constellation Cepheus,
near Cassiopeia; and the two names were subsequently
applied to the Jewish high priests on account of the sim-
ilarity. The Talmud enumerates the names of the prin-
cipal men who directed the Sanhedrin from Antigonas
(B. C. 250) until the destruction of the temple; a Caia-
phas is not to be found among the number. He was
high priest for eighteen years; but this also is not men-
tioned in the Talmud, although it gives the names of all
who have been high priests for ten years or more."

It is really difficult to understand the force of the above-
quoted remarks. Annas (called by Josephus v Awwo?) 3 or
Hanan, "gracious," is the masculine form of the name
Anna ("Awa), or Hannah (cf. I Sam. i : 2 with Luke 2 :
36). He was appointed high priest by Quirinus and held
the office for seven years (A. D. 7-14). See Jos., Ant.,
XVIII, 2, i.

Caiaphas 1 was appointed high priest by Valerius Gra-
tus (the predecessor of Pilate) in A. D. 25 and was
deposed by Vitellius in A. D. 36. Josephus says (Ant.,
XVIII, 2, 2) that after the deposition of Eleazer, the
son of Annas by Gratus, the high-priesthood was con-
ferred upon Simon the son of Camithus, and "when he
had possessed that dignity no longer than a year Joseph
Caiaphas was made his successor." 2

1 Aram., KB\a. Buxt, Lex. Chald., 1076. Perhaps from Arab., Ka'if,
"soothsayer," cf. John 18 : 33-38. According to Josephus (Ant. VI, 6, 3),
the high priest was generally regarded as having prophetic powers; cf.
Philo, De Great. Princ., VTH (ed. Mangey, H, p. 367).

2 'ItiffijTTOs 6 KO.I Kai'<0as Siddoxos fjv atrip, cf. XV 111, 4. '\ijiat\irov rbv na.1
iTriKa\o6/j.evov, "J., who was surnamed Caiaphas."

ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS

247

In the face of this plain historical testimony such guess-
work mythical identifications as that of Annas with the
"Sib-Zi-Anna of the Babylonians" and the "Anna Pe-
renna of the Romans," who "corresponds to the star 7
in Gemini," or to "the constellation Cassiopeia, or, again,
that of Caiaphas with "the constellation Cepheus," are
worthless. If the name of Caiaphas does not occur in the
extant Talmudic list of the high priests, that fact need
not prove anything but the faultiness of that record. 1
Perhaps he was better known as Joseph simply; or is it
that we have here another instance of "Christian inter-
polation" in Josephus, the common and final argument
when none other is forthcoming?

1 Caiaphas seems to have earned unpopularity amongst the Jews, per-
haps as an intruder into the high-priesthood.

CHAPTER XIII

JUDAS ISCARIOT AND [jESUS?] BARABBAS

Judas Iscariot

THE name Judas Iscariot presents a great puzzle to
the modern critical scholar. Its traditional interpreta-
tion, "Judas, man of Kerioth" (fii*lj? tf, ish Kerijjotti),
has of late years been much questioned, especially by
critics of avowedly mythical views. The chief objections
raised to this explanation of the name are: (i) It is doubt-
ful whether the initial syllable "Is-" really represents
the Heb., t&'K (ish = man), the '&,' perhaps, belonging
rather to the latter word (cf. Syr., skariota), though this
conclusion is at least uncertain. (2) Kerioth (Karioth)
seems not to be a place, but to refer to a district, or rather
a group of towns (cf. Joshua 15 : 25, but see Jer. 48 : 24
and 41, where a Kerioth in Moab is mentioned). (3) Had
Judas come from any such place, or even district, we
would expect his designation to be I. airo Keptwd.

Now, there is, as Doctor Cheyne noted (Enc. Bib., art.
"Judas Iscariot," 1899), "a well-supported reading in
John, airo KapvcoTov, which, according to Zahn and Nes-
tle, confirms the view that it is derived from the Heb.,
Jl'i'njp $K-" Doctor Cheyne, however, thought it more
probable that the name may have been incorrectly trans-
mitted to us, and suggested (loc. cit.) that Judas's true
appellation may have been 'Ie/3t%&)T^5, "man of Jericho."
Subsequently, in the light of further inquiry, he seems
to have decided (Hibbert Journal, July, 1911, p. 891, and
July, 1913, pp. 919 and 920) that "Iscariot comes from

248

JUDAS ISCARIOT 249

Ashharti, which is practically equivalent to Ashhurite
(northern Arabia), a -family surname." *

It is perhaps too early as yet to pronounce definitely
upon this last-mentioned suggestion. Professor Smith,
however (Ecce Deus, pp. 319 and 320), admits that it is a
"most ingenious hypothesis," though he doubts whether
it will hold good; meanwhile, he asks for evidence in
support of it, and points out that Cheyne elsewhere ad-
mits that Jesus was not betrayed, or even handed over,
to the Jewish authorities by "Judas" or any one else;
further, that he says: "the twelve apostles are to me as
unhistorical as the seventy disciples," a somewhat effec-
tive retort in the circumstances of the case.

The various etymological difficulties which are encoun-
tered in the derivation of this word, however, cannot be
used, even indirectly, in any proper sense of the term,
as an argument against the actual existence of Judas as
a man. Names, like numbers, are readily open to serious
misunderstanding and corruption in ancient MSS., and
it is quite possible, if not probable, that the name has
been incorrectly transmitted to us.

At the same time it can be affirmed that there is no
absolute and insuperable objection to "man from Keri-
oth (Karioth)," a view which is still held by some com-
petent scholars (e. g., Holtzmann, Hand-commentar, I, p.
97); and Keim (1867-72) even went so far as to assert
(Jesus of Nazara, III, p. 276) that "undoubtedly Judas
Iscariot means man of Kariot," and he identifies the place
as "most probably the Kerijot (Josephus, Koreae, Korea)
on the northern boundary of Judaea, half a league north
of Shiloh, and now Kuriut" He further suggests that
perhaps Judas's father had migrated to Galilee from
Judaea.

*It may also be noted here that in the Fourth Gospel Judas is twice
designated (6 : 71; 12 : 4) "son of Simon," to whom (6 : 71) in many old
MSS. the appellation "Iscariot" is transferred.

250 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

But we have of recent years passed from the verbal
difficulties and doubts engendered by etymology to those
which find their origin in history and myth. In the
year 1900 Mr. J. M. Robertson inaugurated a fresh at-
tack upon the historical character of Judas Iscariot, and
urged with great vigour that he was but a mere drama-
tis persona in a primitive "mystery play," or "ritual
drama," such as was enacted in the Eleusinian and
other mysteries. "In the Gospel of Peter" he writes
(Christianity and Mythology, p. 385), "the Jews figure
as equivalent factors with Herod and Pilate in the cruci-
fixion, and in a ritual drama written for an audience so
prepared unnamed Jews would figure as the god's ene-
mies and captors. At a later period the anti- Jewish
animus which led to the presentment of the whole twelve
in the Gospel ' story as deserting their Lord at the su-
preme moment would easily develop into the idea of the
actual treachery of one of the twelve, and to him would
be allotted the part of the leading captor, who to start
with had been simply loudaios, 'a Jew.' A bag to hold
the reward would be a natural stage accessory. In this
way would arise the further myth that the traitor who
carried the bag was treasurer of the group and a miser
and a thief at that; while out of the loudaios would grow
the name Judas." *

It will be readily seen from the above quotation that
Mr. Robertson's whole case practically rests upon the
hypothetical existence in the first century A. D., and
perhaps previously, of certain mystery-dramas amongst
the early Christians, whether Gentile or Jewish. Now,
we know that during the Middle Ages the Gospel narra-
tives were dramatised chiefly for the better instruction
of the "masses"; but for the existence of any similar
presentation of the tenets of Christianity in the first cen-

1 Elsewhere he connects Jesus with a pre-Christian Ephraimitic sun-god
Joshua (Jesus).

JUDAS ISCARIOT 251

tury there is absolutely no evidence whatever. Even
W. B. Smith's "Jesus-cults," * and the supposed worship
of a pre-Christian god named "Jesus," fall short of what
is presupposed in the above imaginative sketch. It is
true that many peoples of Asia Minor, as also the Greeks
and the Egyptians, had at that time, and long previ-
ously, their "mysteries," in which the cosmic processes
of birth and death, and rebirth and reproduction, in na-
ture, and life after death, were mythicised and set forth
dramatically at Eleusis and elsewhere. But of any mys-
teries even remotely resembling those among the Jews of
that period, or among the early Christians, we are abso-
lutely ignorant. The former people had long been sat-
urated with the spirit of a post-exilic Mosaic legalism
and held all kinds of idolatry, -however artistically repre-
sented, in the greatest abhorrence, whilst, as regards the
Christians, we have abundant evidence to show that, both
as individuals and as a body, they shrank from all par-
ticipation in such pagan mysteries and even from any in-
tercourse with their initiates and devotees.

Neither can the theory that Judas is merely a dram-
atised and personified form of loudaios be sustained.
Judas is the Hellenistic form of Judah, which name had
been, for many years before the time of Christ, not only
a tribal or national designation, but also a common and
very popular personal, or circumcision, name amongst
the Jews. In short, Mr. Robertson's picture of the devel-
opment of the ideal Jew into Judas, and the evolution of
the money-bag, together with the appellations of "miser"
and "thief" and "villain," are purely imaginative con-
structions of history, clever, no doubt, but not facts in
any true sense of that term.

Again, practically the same view of Judas is taken by
Professor Drews (The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus,

1 This question is treated somewhat fully in the present writer's Jesus
the Christ : Historical or Mythical ? chap. 7.

252 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

1912, English translation, p. 83), who says: "Judas is
not an historical personality, but, as Mr. Robertson be-
lieves, a representative of the Jewish people, hated by the
Christians, who [i. e., the Jews] were believed to have
caused the death of the Saviour." It will be observed,
however, from the above statement, that during the last
dozen years no conclusive evidence in support of this
thesis has been forthcoming; we must, therefore, infer
that it still rests upon the same purely hypothetical basis
as when Robertson first advocated it.

Professor W. B. Smith, on the other hand, had in the
previous year put forth another defense of the mythical
hypothesis (Hibbert Journal, April, 1911, pp. 529-544).
After discussing at some length the variant forms (I) ska-
riot (h), Iskariotes (Mark 14 : 43), Kariotes (S John 6 :
71, etc.), and Skariotes (D. Matt. 10 : 4, etc.), he dis-
misses the traditional view of the meaning of the name.
"For every reason," he writes, "we must reject the ac-
cepted interpretation 'man of Kerioth.'" Wellhausen
also, he says, rejects the interpretation and wisely in-
clines to regard it as a "name of reproach like Bandit
(Stearins)." -

He further refers to in passing, but does not adopt,
the suggestion of the Honorable Willis Brown (The Open
Court, August, 1909) that the name is connected with the
Hebrew root -Dfc (S K R) and means "hired" (cf. Matt.
28 : 9 with Zech. n : 12); but Mark (probably an older
authority than Matthew) omits any mention of hire.

There is, however, he continues, another Hebrew root
of very nearly the same letters, "OD (S K R), which ap-
pears once (Isaiah 14 : 4) in exactly the sense which is
needed in this story. At the same time he admits that
this latter stem, as a rule, means "shut up" in Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Syriac, and may be rendered thus here
(Cheyne); and that in another passage (Ezek. 30 : 12),
the initial D (s) may be an error for (m), as many

JUDAS ISCARIOT

253

scholars think. But neither of these facts, in his view,
materially affect the question, and the translation of
if sikkarti (VflSDl, Isaiah 19 : 4) by the LXX version as
teal 7ra/>a8(0o-&>, "and I will deliver up," corresponds ex-
actly to the words of Matt. 26 : 15.

Accordingly, he infers that since the Greek verb here
(irapaSiBovai) means strictly "to hand over," or "sur-
render," rather than "to betray" (in the bad sense),
"Iscariot means merely 'the deliverer up' not 'the
traitor.' x In that case, Iscariot is precisely what Well-
hausen felt it must be, a 'Schimpfname,' a sobriquet, an
opprobrious nickname, the most appropriate and even
unavoidable."

Finally, the conclusion which he draws is stated thus:
"I suspect that the oldest thought was one of the sur-
render of the great idea of the Jesus of the Jesus-cult by
the Jews to the heathen. 2 This, in fact, was the supreme,
the astounding fact of early Christian history and en-
gaged intensely the minds of men." Further: "That
Judas Iscariot typifies the Jewish people in its rejection
of the Jesus-cult seems so obvious, it seems to meet us
so close to the threshold of the inner sense of the New
Testament, that it may move our wonder that any one
should overlook it."

This critical theory, put forward by Professor Smith,
is argued with so much scholarship and persuasive power
that even the critically minded reader is disposed on
first reading to adopt it. But on a closer inspection it
will not do. Let us examine it carefully and in detail.

Now, the foundation of the whole hypothesis is the hard
and fast distinction which Professor Smith attempts to
draw between the compound Greek verbs TrpooY&o/w and

1 Mr. Slade Butler also draws ("The Greek Mysteries and the Gospels,"
The Nineteenth Century and After, March, 1905, pp. 494 and 495) a similar
distinction between the use of irapaStSiaiu and vpoStSufu. See chap. 10,
pp. 199-200.

3 Italics ours.

254 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Trapa8i8a>fu. The former, he says, means "to betray"; the
latter always means merely "to hand over" (in a neutral
sense). This is true as a broad general statement ex-
pressing a grammarian's rule, but it is not true abso-
lutely and as regards the practise of writers in Greek.
An examination of several authoritative Greek lexicons
will reveal the fact that irapa&C&coiu has also a well-
established and subsidiary meaning of "to hand over/'
with a collateral notion of treachery; in other words, "to
betray." Liddell and Scott, e. g., give, as examples of
this secondary meaning, Xen., Cyr., V, i, 28; V, 4, 51,
etc. To these may be added Xen., Hell., VII, 3, 8, and
Ceb., Tab., IX, in the latter of which the two verbs occur
close to each other in practically a similar sense. A more
searching examination would undoubtedly reveal many
other instances in classical writers.

But let us now turn to the LXX version and the Greek
Testament. In the former an example of the sinister use
of TrapaStSa/w occurs in I Chron. 12 : 17, where David
refers to the possibility that certain men of Judah had
joined his band with a view to handing him over (= be-
traying him) to his enemies. Turning next to the New
Testament, we find many instances of its use, in the
greater number of which the verb can be translated
"hand over"; but it would be difficult to maintain that
the sinister shade of meaning is wanting in all of them.
Thus, in Matt. 24 : 10, "They shall hand over (= be-
tray, irapaSdxrovcri) one another," there is a decided mean-
ing of treachery implicit in the verb. Compare with
this the parallels, where irapa^oxrei (Mark 13 : 12) and
jrapaSwdqa-ea-de (Luke 21 : 16) have a similar sinister
note. We have so far purposely omitted the passages
referring specifically to the conduct of Judas, 1 because

1 The chief are Matt. 10 : 4; 17 : 22; 20 : 18; 26 : 16, 21, 24, 46, and 48;
Mark 3 : 19; 14 : n, 18, 21, 41, 42, and 44; Luke 22 : 4, 6, 21, 22, and
48; John 12:4; 13 : 21 ; 18 : 2 and 5. In each of these cases the verb is

JUDAS ISCARIOT

255

in these, if they are taken out of the context, it is pos-
sible to translate the word used "hand over." But the
other sense is equally and even more suitable, if we
take the whole context of the passage into considera-
tion. The fact is that in the New Testament the word
TrpoSiSco/it, with its allied noun TrpoSoTi*]? ("a betrayer"),
are but seldom used, the chief examples being Luke
6 : 16; Acts 7 : 52; and II Tim. 3 : 4. Luke, however,
does once apply the stronger term to Judas (6 : 16),
"Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor" (irpoSdr^} not
simply "a deliverer up" (cf. 05 Kal 'jrapeSooicev afodv [Mark]
and o KOI irapaSovs avrov [Matthew]) .

We may also allow largely for the unwillingness of the
New Testament writers to use the stronger term to
Judas. His conduct is never alluded to in a spirit of
harshness, but rather with a feeling of sorrow and sym-
pathy for the unhappy man who had fallen so far below
his former estate. The only (apparent) exception to
this occurs in John 6 : 70. Here the writer reports Jesus
as saying: "Did I not choose you twelve, and one of
you is a SidfioXos ? " This last word is rendered, in both
A. V. and R. V., "devil." But it is a very doubtful trans-
lation, making every allowance for the wide-spread de-
monism of the age. Ata/3oXo? is literally "slanderer,"
and hence "adversary" (Saram?, 2araz>), and in that role
even Peter once figured (Mark 8 : 33 and Matt. 16 : 23).
It is preferable, therefore, here to render the word "ad-
versary," in the malevolent sense of spy or traitor, as
Judas afterwards proved himself to be.

In short, Professor Smith has not proved his primary
contention. He has no real warrant for the hard and
fast distinction which he draws, nor for the implication
that Judas is never called "a traitor." (Tr/ao&m??) but
always merely "a deliverer up." And, since such is the
case, the whole foundation of his argument for the non-
historicity of Judas falls to the ground. It was possibly

256 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

the fact of this general distinction between
and TrpoSiStQfu which also led De Quincey to frame his
famous apology for Judas. The latter, he said, merely
handed over Jesus to the Jewish authorities, not with
the idea of betraying him to his death, but in order to
force his hand to compel him to come forward as the
Messiah. It was time (he thought) to put an end to the
timidity and hesitation which was hindering that desired
result.

This theory, however, has not received any assent
from scholars. It is unnecessary to attempt to free
irapaBiSoofu from its not unfrequent sinister shade of
meaning. And, in any case, before we could accept any
mythical explanation of Judas Iscariot it would be nec-
essary to show that Jesus himself was unhistorical. This
has not yet been accomplished; indeed, it is still very
far from having been done.

Finally, with regard to the theory that Iscariot is
a mere sobriquet, or nickname, expressive of contempt,
Doctor Cheyne asserts (op. cit., supra) that "a more
thorough examination of the names and surnames of
the early disciples should convince any one that they
were never either opprobrious or nicknames."

We may, therefore, conclude this inquiry by saying that
Professor Smith has neither established his views regard-
ing Judas nor advanced any sound arguments which ren-
der such a view even probable. 1

[? Jesus] Barabbas

M. Salomon Reinach reminds us (Orpheus, pp. 229 and
230, English translation, 1909) that "at the so-called

1 In the Jewish Quarterly Review (September, 1913, pp. 197-207) Doctor
E. Krauss, of Vienna, shows, as against Professor Smith and also Wellhau-
sen, that there is no philological reason against the explanation of Iscariot
as "man (or citizen) of Karioth." He also rejects the theory, which he calls
a "methodological error," that Judas was meant to typify the Jewish people.

[? JESUS] BARABBAS

257

feast of the Sacaea, in Babylonia and Persia, there was a
triumphant procession of a condemned criminal dressed
as a king; at the end of the festival he was stripped of
his fine raiment, scourged, hanged [? impaled], or cruci-
fied." Further: "We know from Philo that the pop-
ulace of Alexandria gave the name Karabas to one of
these improvised kings, who was overwhelmed with mock
honours and afterwards ill treated.

"But Karabas," he continues, "has no meaning either
in Aramaic or Greek. . It must be emended to read
Barabbas, which means, in Aramaic, 'son of the father.'
In the Gospels we see Jesus called the King of the Jews,
crowned with thorns, and given a reed for a sceptre
(Matt. 27 : 26-31); he was, therefore, treated exactly
like a Barabbas.

"But what are we then to believe of the incident of
the seditious Barabbas and of the choice given to the
populace between Jesus and Barabbas? In addition to
all this, we learn that about the year 250 [A. D.] Origen
read in a very ancient MS. of St. Matthew's Gospel that
Barabbas was called .'Jesus Barabbas.' By comparing
these various statements we are led to the conclusion
that Jesus was put to death, not instead of Barabbas,
but in the character of a Barabbas. The evangelists nei-
ther understood the ceremony they described nor the
nature of the derisive honours bestowed on Jesus; they
made a myth of what was palpably a rite. If there is
an historic fact embedded in the narrative it is so over-
laid with legend that it is impossible to disengage it."

The question of these mock-kings and their alleged
connexion with the passion of Jesus will be dealt with
directly. We will, meanwhile, proceed to an examina-
tion of this interesting extract from M. Reinaeh's work.

It is unfortunate that the distinguished author of j
Orpheus should 'have made no less than four distinct {
errors and misstatements in the space of a single para-

258 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

graph; but such, nevertheless, is the case. Let us, how-
ever, in the first place, see what Philo himself says.

At the time of King Agrippa's entry into Alexandria,
"there was," he says (Works, "Against Flaccus," VI,
Yonge's translation, vol. IV, pp. 68 and 69), "a certain
madman named Carabbas 1 (Ka/aajSas), afflicted, not with
a wild, savage, and dangerous madness (for that comes
on in fits, without being expected either by the patient
or by the bystanders), but with an intermittent and
more gentle kind. This man spent all his days and nights
naked (7U/W?) in the roads, minding neither cold nor
heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; and
they [the mob of Alexandria], driving the poor wretch
as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there
on high, that he might be seen by everybody, flattened
out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a
diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a com-
mon door-mat instead of a cloak, and instead of a scep-
tre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papy-
rus, which they found lying by the wayside and gave to
him; and when, like the actors in theatrical spectacles,
he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and
had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men,
bearing sticks on their shoulders, stood on each side of
him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the body-
guards, and then others came up, some as if to salute
him, and others making as though they wished to plead
their causes before him, and others pretending to consult
with him about the affairs of the state.

"Then, from the multitude of those who were stand-
ing around, there arose a wonderful shout of men calling
out ' Maris.' Now, this is the name by which it is said
they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that
Agrippa was by birth a Syrian and also that he was pos-
sessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the

1 Mr. Yonge has also altered the spelling.

6? JESUS] BARABBAS

259

sovereign. When Flaccus 1 heard, or rather when he saw,
this he would have done right if he had apprehended the
maniac and put him in prison, that he might not give
to those who reviled him [Agrippa] an opportunity or
excuse for insulting their superiors, and if he had chas-
tised those who dressed him up, for having dared both
openly and disguisedly, both with words and actions, to
insult a king, and a friend of Caesar, and one who had
been honoured by the Roman Senate with imperial au-
thority; but he not only did not punish them, he did
not think fit even to check them, but gave complete
license and impunity to all those who designed ill, and
who were disposed to show their enmity and spite to the
king, pretending not to see what he did see and not to
hear what he did hear."

Now, it is perfectly clear from a comparison of this
statement of Philo with that of M. Reinach that (i) the
mob did not bestow the name Karabas upon this man.
His name was Karabas (whatever that may mean) be-
forehand. It cannot, therefore, have been the name of
a character in a drama or carnival, as the latter sup-
poses. (2) This Karabas, we find, was not ill treated and
put to death afterwards by the mob, as the mock-kings
in the spring carnivals are said to have been, but allowed
to go his way unharmed after the jest was over. Again,
we find (3) in the oldest account (Mark's) it is stated
that when the multitude asked Pilate to release the
prisoner of their choice, in accordance with his custom,
he replied by offering Jesus. Only Matthew represents
him as giving the choice between Jesus and Barabbas.
The mob, however, at the instigation of the priests, riot-
ously demanded Barabbas instead, and Pilate ultimately
gave way to avoid a tumult. (4) Furthermore, Jesus is
nowhere, in the story, said to have been put to death
instead of Barabbas. Neither has it been shown that he

1 Appointed viceroy of Alexandria by Tiberius Cassar.

260 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

was executed in the character of a Barabbas. The priests'
dexterously twisted his avowed claim to be the Mes-
sianic king into a charge of treason against Caesar. In-
deed, as Monsignor Batififol has very justly remarked (The
Credibility of the Gospel, 1912, pp. 213 and 214): "Salo-
mon Reinach has taken an incident for a custom, an
improvised jest for an annual festival, and has never
suspected, perhaps from not rereading his Philo, that
the students of Alexandria, anti-Semitic and seditious,
were that day mocking at the Jews as being friendly to
Caesar."

Again, with reference to the name Karabas, M. Rei-
nach makes one or two rather hasty statements. Karabas,
he urges, has no meaning either in Aramaic or Greek;
ergo it must be emended to Barabbas. We do not follow
this reasoning. To do so will, no doubt, be very conve-
nient for the mythical theory, but logically it is a non
sequitur. 1 On the other hand, Lagrange has pointed out
(Quelques Remarques, pp. 34 and 48) that a Palmyrene in-
scription has the word ttolp (Keraba, "war," "battle")
as the name of a female, and remarks that it would be
more fitting to a man. 2 Certainly it would be very suit-
able to Barabbas, who was doubtless one of the fanatical
body known as Zealots (^Xto-rat), or Assassins (Sicarii),
that waged such constant and relentless warfare with
the Romans. The meaning of the name Barabbas M.
Reinach also assumes to be "son of a father." This
is the ordinary explanation; but it does not seem to be
established beyond all doubt. It has been regarded (so
Monsignor Batiffol) as signifying "son of a rabbi" (Bar
Rabbdn), and Jerome states (Comm. in Matt., XXVI, 16)
that it was translated "Filius magistri eorum" in the

1 To quote Monsignor Batiffol again, this is "a twofold fault of criticism,
an inexact reading, and an arbitrary correction" (Karabas = Barabas =
Barabbas).

2 E. g., we might get Bar %eraba(s), "son of war."

t? JESUS] BARABBAS

261

Gospel According to the Hebrews. Mr. Nicholson, however,
affirms that there is. next to no authority in the New
Testament for doubling the r, though this form is met
with in the Harklean Syriac (fifth century) and it is the
regular form found in the Ada Pilati. 1

Let us now turn to Professor Drews. He, in the main,
follows Reinach, and alters Karabas to Barabbas, of
which he thinks it is probably a corruption. He then
proceeds, in some detail, to link up the story of the Pas-
sion with the two pagan festivals, closely allied (he
thinks) with one another, the Babylonian Sacaea 2 and
the Persian feast of "the Beardless One," the former of
which he specially identifies with the Roman Saturnalia.
The Babylonian and Persian festivals, he believes, were
blended and adopted by the Jews during the period of
their exile, and appeared subsequently in their history
as the feast of Purim, the origin of which is erroneously
stated in the book of Esther. In this last-named festival
Drews holds that, while Haman represents the old and
dying year, Mordecai is the representative of the new life
rising from the dead (i. e., the new year of nature). He
says ( The Christ Myth, English translation, pp. 75 and 76) :
"While the former was put to death at the Purim feast,
the latter, a criminal chosen by lot, was given his free-
dom on this occasion, clothed with the insignia of the
dead man, and honoured as the representative of Mor-

1 See, however, Enc. Bib., art. "Barabbas," sec. z. The word is also found
spelt Barrabas (Tert., Marc., IV, 42) and abbreviated as Barla(s) in the
Talmud.

2 Identified by Frazer with the Zalmuk, a Babylonian New Year's fes-
tival.

Doctor Cheyne also, but less positively, takes this view. He says (Hib-
bert Journal, April, 1911, pp. 661 and 662) that "the Barabbas story may
be most simply explained from a Babylonian source"; but he admits that
"on occasion of what ceremony this took place does not appear." He adds:
"As for the name Barabbas, it is surely a corruption of Karabas (the form
in the strange story of Philo), which probably indicates the Arabian origin
of this supposed fierce bandit." But why not Karabas from Barabbas ? It
is no more unlikely ! But see Cheyne, Fresh Voyages, etc., p. 163.

262 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

decai rewarded by Ahasuerus [Xerxes] for his services."
And further: "In their account of the last events of the
life of the Messiah, Jesus, the custom at the Jewish
Purim feast, already referred to, passed through the
minds of the evangelists. They described Jesus as the
Haman, Barabbas as the Mordecai of the year, and in
so doing, on account of the symbol of the lamb of sacri-
fice, they merged the Purim feast in the feast of Easter,
celebrated a little later. 1 They, however, transferred the
festive entry into Jerusalem of the Beardless One, his
hostile measures against the shopkeepers and money-
changers, and his being crowned in mockery as 'King of
the Jews,' 2 from Mordecai-Barabbas to Haman- Jesus,
thus anticipating symbolically the occurrences which
should only have been completed on the resurrection of
the Marduk of the new year."

Let us now see what solid facts we can extract from
this tangle of theories and suppositions. Most critical
scholars seem to be agreed that the Purim festival is not
entirely of Jewish origin; further than this they are by
no means in accord. But while there may be in Purim
survivals of former festivals of some kind, whether of a
vegetative or a solar character, there is no evidence to
indicate that the Jews took over the current interpretation
of these festivals into the celebration of their new feast.
Neither can there be said to exist any evidence to show
that the various royal "privileges" of the old festivals
were ever attached to Purim. Drews's further sugges-

1 Italics ours.

2 Doctors Zimmern and Langdon think that a hymn from the temple serv-
ice of the city of Isin commemorates certain Semitic kings who played the
part of Tammuz and died for the life of their cities. Doctors Radau and
Sayce, however, think that it refers to Istar's visit to Hades where she
wishes to rest with the deceased kings of Isin. Doctor Sayce says: "I can
find no evidence either in Babylonia or in any other part of the Semitic
world for Sir J. G. Frazer's theory of a king who takes the place of a god
and has to pay the penalty of his divine kingship by being put to death"
(Expository Times, August, 1914, p. 521).

[? JESUS] BARABBAS

263

tion that the ironical investiture of Jesus with the crown
of thorns, and the inscription over the cross, together
with the selection of Barabbas, had anything to do with
Purim must also, as Professor Jacobs says (Encyclopedia
Britannica, nth ed., art. "Purim"), be rejected. "The
connexion of the Passion with the Passover rather than
Purim," he rightly adds, "would alone be sufficient to
nullify the suggestion."

Purim was celebrated on the i4th and i5th of Adar
(the twelfth month), whilst the Passover was held on
the i4th of Abib or Nisan (the first month), that is to
say, in any case, several weeks later. 1 It is most improb-
able, to say the least, that the Jews, when in Babylonia,
should ever have learned to connect the death of a hu-
man representative of the vegetation (or solar) spirit
with Purim, when a connexion with the Passover would
be so much, more obvious, especially if the latter festival
had originally that kind of signification. And it is still
more incredible that the evangelists should commit such
a glaring historical error as the merging of the Purim
feast in the feast of Easter, celebrated a little later.

Sir James Frazer remarks, apropos of Doctor Drews's
derivation of the Crucifixion story (The Golden Bough,
part 6, "The Scapegoat," pp. 414 /.), that Jesus may
have really perished in the character of Haman; but at
the same time he says that the crucifixion occurred at
the Passover 2 on the i4th of Nisan, whereas the feast of
Purim, at which the "hanging" of Haman would take
place, fell exactly a month earlier, on the i4th of Adar.
And he adds (note 2) that Professor C. F. Lehmann-
Haupt writes to him as follows: "I regard it as out of the

1 Some two months, if a second and intercalary Adar were inserted, as
was sometimes necessary.

* The paschal lamb is considered by some scholars to be merely a later
substitute for a human being (see Frazer's theory, The Golden Bough, part 3,
"The Dying God," chap. 6, pp. 166-179). Qr. John n : 50 and 51.

264 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

question that Christian tradition shifted the date of the
crucifixion by a month. You yourself regard it as im-
probable; but in my opinion it is impossible. . . . With-
out the background of the [Passover] festival all that we
know of the crucifixion and of what led up to it is totally
unintelligible."

Such a proceeding would certainly have made the
whole story a confused anachronism, which would at
once have been noted by the Jews as unhistorical and
untrue. Moreover, we repeat that in most respects the
story of Jesus is utterly unlike that of the feast of the
Sacaea. The license accorded to the condemned criminal
in the latter has absolutely no parallel in the case of
Jesus, 1 whilst the setting free of Barabbas was clearly
not part of a predetermined plan, as in the case of the re-
leased man in the Babylonian carnival, but a mere after-
thought and desperate expedient of Pilate to evade an
issue which he felt unequal to contest. We may, there-
fore, take it as certain that this story of Jesus and Barab-
bas has no connexion with either of these feasts, neither
does it resemble the story of Karabas in origin or issue;
there are, in short, no real parallels in it with any of
these events.

We will now proceed to a consideration of the per-
sonal or circumcision name of Barabbas. It must have
been noticed by every careful reader that in our modern
texts, at least, all the evangelists concur in withholding it.
Now, this must be due to one or other of three reasons:
either (i) they did not know it, not an altogether im-
probable supposition, or (2) they saw no necessity for its
insertion, or (3) they inserted it in the original texts from
which it was afterwards removed. As the last-mentioned
alternative is the one universally adopted by the mythi-
cists, we will give it a careful and detailed consideration.
Professor Drews, indeed, builds upon it one of his proofs

1 See The Golden Bough, 1890, vol. I, pp. 226 and 227.

[? JESUS] BARABBAS

265

for the mythical character of Jesus. Let us, therefore,
hear his statement of the case.

He says (The Christ Myth, pp. 75 and 76): "Accord-
ing to an old reading of Matt. 27 : 17 et seq., which,
however, has disappeared from our texts since Origen,
Barabbas the criminal set against the Saviour is called
Jesus Barabbas, that is, Jesus the son of the Father.
May an indication of the true state of the facts not lie
herein, and may the figure of Jesus Barabbas, the God
of the year, corresponding to both halves of the year,
that is, of the sun's course both upward and downward,
not have separated into two distinct personalities on the
occasion of the New Year's feast?" We will, however,
turn to the text of the Gospel before adventuring any
further on this road.

In Matt. 27 : 16 and 17 five cursive MSS. (together
with the Syriac, Armenian, and Jerome's versions) have
the reading Jesus Barabbas instead of Barabbas. In ad-
dition to this, twenty-one MSS. contain the following
marginal note variously ascribed to Chrysostom (who,
however, does not refer to the matter in his commentary)
and Anastasius of Sinai (end of sixth century A. D.):
"In some very ancient MSS. which I came across I
found Barabbas himself also called Jesus, so that in these
the question of Pilate ran thus, Whether of the twain will
ye that I release unto you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who
is called Christ? For, as it seems, Barabbas, which is
interpreted 'teacher's son,' was the robber's sire name."

As a set-off against these facts, none of the existing
great (and more ancient) uncial MSS. have this reading
in these verses. Neither have the numerous other cur-
sives; even the above-mentioned five do not read Jesus
Barabbas elsewhere. But a passage in the Latin trans-
lation of Origen's Comm. in Matt, should also be noted.
It runs in literal .translation from the Latin (the Greek
original being now lost): "In many MSS. it is not con-

266 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

tained that Barabbas was also called Jesus, and, per-
haps, rightly, so that the name Jesus should not belong
to any sinner." This would seem, at first sight, to imply
that Jesus Barabbas was at that time the reading of
most of the MSS. [uncials] that Origen had met with. 1
Indeed, the late Mr. Nicholson (Gospel According to the
Hebrews, p. 141) pronounced this the heaviest external
evidence in favour of this reading. But its evidence is
by no means conclusive; for (i) it is not certain that the
Latin is an exact equivalent of Origen's Greek, the latter
part of the quotation suggesting the addition of some
translator or copyist; and (2) "many" is a vague term
and probably does not mean here a small minority. In
all probability, too, Origen had not access to a very large
and varied number of MSS. 2

Furthermore, there are several much simpler and at
least very probable explanations of the intrusion of
"Jesus" into the text of vss. 16 and 17 of Matt. 27.
The best of these is undoubtedly that of Tregelles, who
thinks that it is due to an instance of the error known as
dittography, to which air scribes were very liable. In his
view, the final iv of vpiv was accidentally written twice,
thus:

a7ro\V(ra>v^iVLV^apal3^av. K.T.\.

Now, iv is the usual cursive abbreviation for itjarow
("Jesus"), and Tregelles believed that the scribe, on
seeing his error, subsequently deleted the superfluous
syllable (underlined above) in the usual way with super-
posed dots, thus: iv. This iv was then mistaken by a
subsequent scribe (or scribes) for iv, the usual cursive

1 Monsignor Batiffol here very aptly remarks (op. tit., p. 212, note i):
"If it be true that the full name of Barabbas was Jesus Barabbas, as
Origen thought, the name Barabbas would be all the more the name of
an individual."

2 It must also be remarked that in the Latin version of Origen's Commen-
tary on Matthew Jesus stands before Barabbas in vs. 17 but not in vs. 16.

[? JESUS] BARABBAS 267

abbreviation for trja-ovv, and this the more readily be-
cause (3apa/3@av in the passage appears to be a patro-
nymic. In this way, then, in the course of a number of
years, a well-established textual reading would originate
and spread especially in a certain group of codices.

Alford explains the matter differently. He thought
that some ignorant scribe, unwilling to concede the
epithet (in the text), eirurijftov ("notable") to Barabbas,
wrote in the margin MJO-QW, and that when the MS. was
recopied this gloss found its way into the text in vs. 16,
and, when once supposed to be a name of Barabbas, from
thence into vs. 17 also. Other arguments, both pro and
con, are: "Jesus" was a common and popular Jewish cir-
cumcision, or personal, name; it is, therefore, not im-
probable that Barabbas may have been also so named.
Then "Jesus," in that case, was probably struck out
either from motives of reverence or with the idea that
it was an accidental and superfluous insertion. The
.balance of the two clauses also rather suggests that
originally both had personal nair.es. Furthermore, from
vss. 17 to 22 Pilate says: "Jesus who is called Christ."
But a strong counter-argument to this will lie in the fact
that in vs. 20 we read: tva alrijo-covTai TOV fiapafifiav TOV
Se 'It)<rovv airoiKea'wa'iv ("In order that they should ask
for Barabbas and destroy Jesus"), where both fiapafifiav
and 'Ii](rovv } by the article TOV prefixed to each, appear
to indicate that previously he was simply designated
"Barabbas."

Again, another and stronger contra argument would lie
in the fact that no MSS. of the other synoptic Gospels
(and above all the older Mark) have any vestige of such
a reading as "Jesus Barabbas." x It is, of course, quite
possible that it had been thoroughly eliminated in these,
and only partly so in the MSS. of Matthew, from mis-

1 Mark, however (15 : 7), speaks of the "so-called Barabbas" (6

268 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

taken notions of reverence; but it is at least curious, if
this be so, that the sole traces left of the old reading
are to be found in later cursives and in Matthew (in this
place only) of all the Gospels.

On the whole, it would seem that at present a verdict
of "not proven" is alone possible. As, however, the
reader may wish to know the decisions of various emi-
nent modern textual critics, we will conclude this chap-
ter with a brief summary of the more important. Meyer
and Fritzsche defend the insertion of iija-ovv here and
think that the copyists erased it from motives of rever-
ence. Tischendorf inserted it in the earlier editions of
his text but omitted it in the later ones. Finally, he con-
cluded that it arose out of Jerome's account of the paral-
lel reading in the Gospel According to the Hebrews.

In more recent times Westcott and Hort and Scrive-
ner, and most modern textual editors, omit Jesus from
before Barabbas in these verses, though not, we think,
from motives of reverence. The chief other modern
scholars who favour its retention are Zahn with Burkitt
and Nicholson. At the same time it is rejected by such
an advanced critic as P. Schmiedel, who says (Enc. Bib.,
art. "Barabbas"): "In any case, it is remarkable that
in all the MSS. in question Barabbas should have the
name Jesus exclusively in Matthew, and there only in
two verses, while vss. 20 and 26 have simply rbv @apa/3-
j6az>, with TOV 8e 'Irjcrovv, as an antithesis." And he con-
cludes: "Thus we may be tolerably certain that the
name 'Jesus,' as given to Barabbas, has arisen merely
from a mistake."

But even if we admit the reading Jesus Barabbas, the
highly hypothetical though picturesque theory of Pro-
fessor Drews by no means follows. There can be no doubt
in the mind of any one who has not prejudged the case in
the interests of the mythical hypothesis that the histori-
cal explanation best fits the narrative, taken as a whole.

[? JESUS] BARABBAS

269

In any case, the Jesus Barabbas of a merely supposed
Jewish custom cannot be used as evidence to prop up the
theory of a mythical Jesus, which still awaits proof of
unequivocal character.

CHAPTER XIV

THE' MOCKERY OF JESUS. SIMON OF CYRENE. GOLGOTHA

AND THE PHALLIC CONES. THE CROSS AND ITS

ASTRAL SIGNIFICANCE. THE CRUCIFIXION.

THE BURIAL IN THE NEW TOMB

The Mockery of Jesus

WE have already seen in the last chapter that Pro-
fessor Drews endeavours to connect the account of the
mockery of Jesus after his condemnation to death, as
narrated in the first two synoptic Gospels, with the rid-
icule heaped upon the doomed criminal in the Babylo-
nian feast of the Sacaea and the Persian feast of the
Beardless One (The Christ Myth, pp. 75 and 76). In
these annual solar festivals a malefactor, supposed to be
a representative of the declining sun, was, after derision
and ill treatment, put to death, while a fellow criminal
was set free.

This theory, however, is, as we saw, completely bound
up with and dependent upon another viz., that two
Jesuses figure here, an hypothesis which, after a careful
examination, was found to be unproven. As a conse-
quence, therefore, it will be unnecessary to detail its
corollary here (see chap. 13, pp. 261-266).

But another connexion had previously been proposed
and worked out in some detail by Mr. Slade Butler
("The Greek Mysteries and the Gospels," Nineteenth
Century and After, March, 1905, pp. 495 /.). He would
equate the mockery with the oTceo/A/iara, "jests," and
yefivpia-inos, "abuse," practised in the Eleusinian mys-
teries and supposed to have been reminiscent of the

270

THE MOCKERY OF JESUS

271

witticisms by means of which the grief of the goddess-
mother Demeter for her lost daughter Persephone was
assuaged. 1 "These jestings and revilings," says Mr.
Butler, "were not peculiar to the Eleusmian mysteries
but seem to have been necessary elements in or adjuncts
to all mystical celebrations; thus the TO, e a/ia<az/, 'the
words from wagons/ in the mysteries of Dionysus, and
the ffrijwa in the Thesmophoria, were jibes and sneers of
the lowest and grossest character. These extraordinary
proceedings, so incongruous with religious worship, origi-
nated in very early times, and were probably intended
for the purpose of attracting the notice of the populace
and by this means inducing them to take some part in
the observances and ceremonies which were being cele-
brated."

, Mr. Butler next refers to the account of the mockery
given by Justin Martyr and in the fragment of the
apocryphal Gospel of Peter. The former says: "The
soldiers dragging him about (Stao-u/oovre?) made him sit
down upon the judgment-seat, and said [to him]: 'Judge
us!' " In the latter narrative we find: "But they took
the Lord, and pushed him as they ran, and said: 'Let
us drag away the son of God, having obtained power
over him.' And they clothed him with purple and set
him on the seat of judgment, saying: 'Judge righteously,
O King of Israel ! ' And one of them brought a crown
of thorns and put it on the head of the Lord. And
others stood and spat in his eyes and others smote his
cheeks; others pricked him with a reed, and some
scourged him, saying: 'With this honour let us honour
the son of God.' " "These variations," adds Mr. But-
ler, "seem to indicate some origin not strictly historical,
and to a Greek who had seen the mystes upon the bridge

1 Apollodorus (circ. 140 B. C.) relates that when the goddess came to the
house of Metanira, in Attica, her servant lambe ffK&ij/aa-a. rty Otbv
M5t<rat, "joked the goddess and made her smile."

268 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

taken notions of reverence; but it is at least curious, if
this be so, that the sole traces left of the old reading
are to be found in later cursives and in Matthew (in this
place only) of all the Gospels.

On the whole, it would seem that at present a verdict
of "not proven" is alone possible. As, however, the
reader may wish to know the decisions of various emi-
nent modern textual critics, we will conclude this chap-
ter with a brief summary of the more important. Meyer
and Fritzsche defend the insertion of nj&ovv here and
think that the copyists erased it from motives of rever-
ence. Tischendorf inserted it in the earlier editions of
his text but omitted it in the later ones. Finally, he con-
cluded that it arose out of Jerome's account of the paral-
lel reading in the Gospel According to the Hebrews.

In more recent times Westcott and Hort and Scrive-
ner, and most modern textual editors, omit Jesus from
before Barabbas in these verses, though not, we think,
from motives of reverence. The chief other modern
scholars who favour its retention are Zahn with Burkitt
and Nicholson. At the same time it is rejected by such
an advanced critic as P. Schmiedel, who says (Enc. Bib.,
art. "Barabbas"): "In any case, it is remarkable that
in all the MSS. in question Barabbas should have the
name Jesus exclusively in Matthew, and there only in
two verses, while vss. 20 and 26 have simply TOV fiapafB-
fiav, with rbv Se 'Iijcrovv, as an antithesis." And he con-
cludes: "Thus we may be tolerably certain that the
name 'Jesus,' as given to Barabbas, has arisen merely
from a mistake."

But even if we admit the reading Jesus Barabbas, the
highly hypothetical though picturesque theory of Pro-
fessor Drews by no means follows. There can be no doubt
in the mind of any one who has not prejudged the case in
the interests of the mythical hypothesis that the histori-
cal explanation best fits the narrative, taken as a whole.

[? JESUS] BARABBAS 269

In any case, the Jesus Barabbas of a merely supposed
Jewish custom cannot be used as evidence to prop up 'the
theory of a mythical Jesus, which still awaits proof of
unequivocal character.

CHAPTER XIV

THE" MOCKERY OP JESUS. SIMON OF CYRENE. GOLGOTHA

AND THE PHALLIC CONES. THE CROSS AND ITS

ASTRAL SIGNIFICANCE. THE CRUCIFIXION.

THE BURIAL IN THE NEW TOMB

The Mockery of Jesus

WE have already seen in the last chapter that Pro-
fessor Drews endeavours to connect the account of the
mockery of Jesus after his condemnation to death, as
narrated in the first two synoptic Gospels, with the rid-
icule heaped upon the doomed criminal in the Babylo-
nian feast of the Sacaea and the Persian feast of the
Beardless One (The Christ Myth, pp. 75 and 76). In
these annual solar festivals a malefactor, supposed to be
a representative of the declining sun, was, after derision
and ill treatment, put to death, while a fellow criminal
was set free.

This theory, however, is, as we saw, completely bound
up with and dependent upon another viz., that two
Jesuses figure here, an hypothesis which, after a careful
examination, was found to be unproven. As a conse-
quence, therefore, it will be unnecessary to detail its
corollary here (see chap. 13, pp. 261-266).

But another connexion had previously been proposed
and worked out in some detail by Mr. Slade Butler
("The Greek Mysteries and the Gospels," Nineteenth
Century and After, March, 1905, pp. 495 /.). He would
equate the mockery with the ovoo/u/taTa, "jests," and
ryefapia-fios, "abuse," practised in the Eleusinian mys-
teries and supposed to have been reminiscent of the

270

THE MOCKERY OF JESUS 271

witticisms by means of which the grief of the goddess-
mother Demeter for her lost daughter Persephone was
assuaged. 1 "These jestings and revilings," says Mr.
Butler, "were not peculiar to the Eleusinian mysteries
but seem to have been necessary elements in or adjuncts
to all mystical celebrations; thus the TO, eg a^af<5w 3 'the
words from wagons/ in the mysteries of Dionysus, and
the a-Tijvia in the Thesmophoria, were jibes and sneers of
the lowest and grossest character. These extraordinary
proceedings, so incongruous with religious worship, origi-
nated in very early times, and were probably intended
for the purpose of attracting the notice of the populace
and by this means inducing them to take some part in
the observances and ceremonies which were being cele-
brated."

, Mr. Butler next refers to the account of the mockery
given by Justin Martyr and in the fragment of the
apocryphal Gospel of Peter. The former says: "The
soldiers dragging him about (Stao-upoi/re?) made him sit
down upon the judgment-seat, and said [to him]: 'Judge
us !' " In the latter narrative we find: "But they took
the Lord, and pushed him as they ran, and said: 'Let
us drag away the son of God, having obtained power
over him.' And they clothed him with purple and set
him on the seat of judgment, saying: 'Judge righteously,
O King of Israel 1 ' And one of them brought a crown
of thorns and put it on the head of the Lord. And
others stood and spat in his eyes and others smote his
cheeks; others pricked him with a reed, and some
scourged him, saying: 'With this honour let us honour
the son of God.' " "These variations," adds Mr. But-
ler, "seem to indicate some origin not strictly historical,
and to a Greek who had seen the mystes upon the bridge

1 Apollodorus (circ. 140 B. C.) relates that when the goddess came to the
house of Metanira, in Attica, her servant lambe ovctiyi'acra TTJV Oebv tirolijcre
[ji.eiSiS.ffai, "joked the goddess and made her smile."

272 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

at Athens, or before the temple of Demeter, that origin
would plainly appear to be the tr/eco/A/iara, or 'mocking
jests' of the mysteries."

Further, in reference to the additional mockery which
took place whilst Jesus was upon the cross, he continues:
"And must we not attribute to the same source the rail-
ing and reviling in which all classes of the people are
made to indulge (Mark 15 : 29-32)? that is to say, the
people, who less than a fortnight ago had hailed him as a
prophet, now blasphemed him; the priests of God came
down from the temple to jeer at him in his agony; the
criminals heaped insults upon him; and the soldiers, not
content with the acanthine wreath and the crimson robe,
began to mock him again. Is this" he asks finally "a
true picture of human nature in the face of death and
undeserved suffering, or is it the yefapia-fids and the <nrfvia
of the Greek mysteries ? " ,

Before examining the case presented by Mr. Butler,
we may mention in passing a somewhat similar theory
which would identify this mockery with the coarse wit
and general license which was annually indulged in by
the Romans at the Saturnalia, an old feast of Saturn
celebrated just before the winter solstice. All class dis-
tinctions were laid aside, schools were closed, and no
punishment was inflicted. The utmost freedom of speech
was allowed to all, gambling with dice, at other times
illegal, was permitted, and gifts were generally ex-
changed, the commonest being wax tapers and clay
dolls. Varro thought that the last-named represented
original sacrifices of human beings to the infernal god.
There certainly existed a tradition that human sacrifices
were once offered to Saturn, and the Greeks and Romans
gave the name of Kronos and Saturnus to a particularly
cruel Phoenician Ba'al to whom children were sacrificed,
e. g., at Carthage. It is probable, however, that the
Saturnalia were in their origin a celebration of the new

THE MOCKERY OF JESUS 273

birth of the sun at the winter solstice and not an equi-
noctial festival of any kind.

The connexion between the mockery of Jesus and the
jests and "abuse" of the mysteries, suggested here by
Mr. Butler, will be found to have no really valid evi-
dence in its favour. The latter, like the Saturnalia,
occurred at stated intervals and were merely, in later
times, opportunities for a general exchange of gross wit
and badinage during a period of universal license. If Mr.
Butler's explanation, that they were intended to arouse
the interest of the public in the celebration of the mys-
teries, be the true one, that fact alone would tend to
differentiate them from the mockery of Jesus. The lat-
ter proceedings were initiated solely by the Roman sol-
diers of the garrison and, it would seem from the
absence of any other recorded instances were not an ex-
ample of any periodically observed festival. The whole
affair seems to have been merely a kind of rough mili-
tary horse-play, an exhibition of the coarse mental vul-
garity so innate in the lower and middle-class Roman
of the period. We can, indeed, only regard such occa-
sional outbursts as compensatory relaxations of the iron
discipline commonly exacted in the Roman armies, by
means of which the man in the ranks was reconciled to
the severity of the control in which he was normally
kept by his superior officers.

Again, the slightly different versions given by Justin
and in the Gospel of. Peter are not at all suggestive of
non-historicity. All accounts of an event by different
reporters, however truthful, vary in details, and it is
a legal maxim that these minor differences in evidence
tend rather to establish the truth of a story than other-
wise. The motif here, too, is quite different to those in
the Mysteries and the Saturnalia. Jesus is mocked and
jeered at by the soldiers as a helpless and unsuccessful
claimant to royalty, not as a man who is in possession

274 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

of some (perhaps silly) secret, as in the case of the
mystas.

In reply to the further suggestion that the subsequent
jeers and scoffs of both Jews and Romans around the
cross are not a true picture of human nature in the face
of death and undeserved suffering, it is sufficient to say
that Mr. Butler is judging purely from the point of view
of the hypersensitive humanitarianism of the present day.
Such feelings were entirely unknown to either the aver-
age Jew or Roman of that time, as the brutal severity
of their criminal codes and daily practises abundantly
show. 1 The fickleness of the mob is also proverbial and
their reputation for it well deserved. Little value, in
short, was set upon either human life or feelings in any
case; none whatever when the person concerned was a
criminal condemned by the laws of his country.

The Crown of Thorns, the Reed, and the Purple Robe

The historicity of the incident of the crown of thorns
is denied by Mr. J. M. Robertson (Christianity and
Mythology, p. 397) mainly on two grounds: (i) it finds
its root motive in the nimbus of the sun-god, and (2) be-
cause St. Paul makes no reference to it in his letters.
Mr. Slade Butler, on the other hand, appears to object
to the story chiefly because, according to Mark (15 : 16;
cf. Matt. 27 : 27), this crowning took place in the paved
court of the Praetorium, where there would be some diffi-
culty in obtaining the acanthus and perhaps also the reed
for a sceptre; whereas, in Luke 23 : n it is said to have
occurred in Herod's palace; and, again, in John, Pilate
is said to have been present at the scene.

1 We need not go outside of our own country and comparatively mod-
ern times for similar examples. Sir William Wallace, at his trial in London,
wore a laurel crown in mockery of his claims, and Athol was murdered by
having a red-hot crown forced upon his head ! (Magic and Religion, A.
Lang, 1901, p. 203.)

CROWN OF THORNS, REED, PURPLE ROBE 275

Mr. Robertson's connexion of the idea of the crown
of thorns with the nimbus of the sun-god x is certainly
far-fetched. The former was, as Doctor Estlin Carpenter
observes, "a chaplet of pain" and was bestowed in de-
rision. The nimbus, or wreath of solar rays, on the other
hand, was regarded as the glorious diadem of the "Sol
Invictus," whose representative was furnished with it as
a mark of honour and worship.

Mr. Butler's objections, too, do not present any diffi-
culty. The acanthus here is probably the nabk, a prickly
shrub with pale green, ivy-shaped leaves which grows
freely outside Jerusalem. As regards St. Paul's omission
to mention the mockery, that apostle appears system-
atically to avoid such biographical details in his scat-
tered references to Jesus. He does not profess to give us
a life of Jesus, and consequently such incidents have no
place in his letters to the various churches.

By the "reed" (/eaXa/40?), used as a sceptre, is prob-
ably meant some cane (Kaneh = Canna) found on the
margins of streams in Palestine and no doubt as readily
procurable as the nabk in the neighbourhood of Jerusa-
lem. The Romans flogged criminals condemned to the
cross with a whip; but lesser offenders were beaten with
rods or canes (cf. II Cor. n : 35). Such rods would
doubtless be kept in readiness in the Prsetorium, and one
of them would admirably serve the purpose of a mock
sceptre.

The robe "purple" in Mark's version, but "scarlet"
according to Matthew apparently has not yet been
mythicised. Its historical explanation, however, is that
it was probably the sagum, or military cloak, of some
centurion; "possibly," as Doctor Swete suggests, "a

1 Elsewhere in the same work he appears to connect this crown with the
wisp pad worn by Herakles in his eleventh labour and, again, with the
crown of osiers and an iron ring worn by Prometheus (Athenseus, Deipnoso-
phistae, XV, 13 and 16) "as a memorial of a sacrifice undergone for the good
of mankind."

276 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

cast-off and faded rag, but with colour enough left in
it to suggest the imperial purple." This robe was also
bestowed in ridicule of the kingly pretensions of Jesus. 1

Simon of Cyrene

In accordance with the usual custom in the case of
condemned criminals, Jesus had to bear the horizontal
beam (patibulum) of his cross to the place of execution.
Falling by the way from pain and exhaustion, we are
told (Mark 15 : 21) that the soldiers "compel one Simon
a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country,
the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross."
Mr. Robertson mythicises this incident as follows (Chris-
tianity and Mythology, p. 410): Simon is the nearest
Greek name form to Samson, who is a sun-god, one of
whose exploits was the carrying away of the gate-posts
of Gaza. Herakles, too, a Greek form of the sun-god,
carried two pillars to Gades. Consequently it is in-
ferred Simon the Cyrenian must also be a sun-god, and
it would seem, in that case, that we have here portrayed
two solar heroes each representing the doomed orb !

The reasoning displayed above is remarkable but far
from convincing. Moreover, the scenic effect of this
portion of the mystery-drama is wholly marred by the
introduction of a second solar hero. As regards the ety-
mological side of the argument, the name Simon (fi&W)
has the signification "snub-nosed" and was a common
Hebrew and Aramaic name; the latter appellation Sam-
son (]1^D v v^, Shimshon) means "solar." Perhaps the slight
similarity in spelling between the variant form Simeon

*In Luke 23 : n Jesus is said to have been arrayed in "gorgeous ap-
parel" (ItrBTjTa \anirp6v) and mocked by Herod and his soldiers. It is un-
certain whether the author here regards this as a previous mockery or was
misinformed on the point. Doctor Verrall (Jour, of TJteol. Studies, April,
igog) points out that Xajwrp6s means "bright" and is frequently used of
snow-white cloths. The Hebrew royal colour was white (cf. Matt. 6 : 28
and 29). Hence white is probably the colour here meant by Luke.

; GOLGOTHA AND THE PHALLIC CONES 277

and the more strictly Hebrew Shimshon suggested the
proposed identification. But there is no real connexion,
etymological or otherwise, between the words. And,
while the story of Samson has been regarded as a solar
myth 1 (though he is more probably a primitive and local
hero around whom some solar-mythic exploits have
gathered), there is nothing whatever mythical about
Simon of Cyrene, 2 whose sons, Alexander and Rufus, ap-
pear to have been well known in Marcan circles of the
early church about the middle of the first century. A
mythologist constructing a mystery-drama of the pas-
sion of a god would never have thought of introducing
so human and characteristic a touch as this.

Golgotha and the Phallic Cones

"The Gospel," says Professor Drews (The Christ Myth,
p. 186), "was in origin nothing but a Judaised and spir-
itualised Adonis-cult." 3 This view he further works out
in detail in a foot-note to the same page as follows: " I
am A and H, 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 Aphro-

1 Wellhausen, e.. g. (Composition des Hexateuchs), rejects this view but
regards him as unhistorical.

- The Basilidian Gnostics believed that he died on the cross in the place
of Jesus.

3 In The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, however (pp. 215 and 216),
he asserts that it originated in Gnosticism. "The Gnostic sects from which
Christianity originated," he says, "knew at first only an astral Jesus, whose
mythic history was composed of passages from the prophets, Isaiah, the
Twenty-second Psalm, and Wisdom." These questions have been dealt
with in detail in their proper place. Here we need only remark that Jesus
is not mentioned at all in pre-Christian Gnosticism but was merely a post-
Christian graft upon the older scheme of Gnosis.

278 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

dite (Maia) is said (Schol. on Tkeoc., XV, 100) to have
been called Golgos. His name is connected with the phal-
lic 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 golgon anassai (queens of the golgoi), and is the same
as the Hebraic plural Golgotha* (Sepp, Heidenthum, I,

"

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 a statue of Venus was erected
in the time of Hadrian, 2 selected for the place of execu-
tion of the Christian Saviour because it was connected
with the real sacrifice of a man in the rdle of Adonis
(Tammuz) ? " Let us, first of all, put this theory into
other and simpler words.

He appears to think that on the summit of some
hill (thereafter named Golgotha), just outside Jerusalem,
there was held in ancient times a kind of cult-worship of
the vegetation spirit Adonis, and that on this very spot
a phallic cone, symbolical of the procreative powers of
the god (numen), had been set up, and that subsequently
a ritual drama consisting of the mock sacrifice and death
of his image originally, perhaps, a real man was slain
was enacted, and that this image, possibly by some jug-
gling process, was, after lamentation by women and bur-
ial, produced "alive" to the people. Our gospels, in
short, contain a literary resume and presentment of this
symbolic nature drama expressed in pseudo-historic terms.

1 Italics ours.

2 Renan says of this (Life of Jesus, p. 286): "The erection of the temple
of Venus on Golgotha proves little. Eusebius (Vit. Const., Ill, 26), Soc-
rates (H. F., I, 17), Sozomen (H. E., II, i), Jerome (Ep., XLIX, Ad Paul.)
say, indeed, that there was a sanctuary of Venus on the site which they
imagined to be that of the holy tomb; but it is not certain that Hadrian
erected it ,*or that he erected it in a place which was in his tune called ' Gol-
gotha,' or that he had intended to erect it at the place where Jesus suf-
fered death."

GOLGOTHA AND THE PHALLIC CONES 279

We will now see what real grounds there are for taking
this view of the matter.

In the pre-exilic days we read of various kinds of idola-
tries as being prevalent in Israel and Judah; but there
is little mention of any native cult of Tammuz (Adonis). 1
Had any such worship existed in Judah the writing proph-
ets and historians would certainly have mentioned it
along with the various forms of idolatry which are chron-
icled by them. We read in our extant records, in connex-
ion with the many Ba'al-cults, of certain asherim (wooden
posts or trunks of trees) and masseboth (upright stones) set
up beside the altars of the Ba'alim (and even of Jahveh)
upon the hilltops of Canaan. 2 Oort (Worship of the Ba-
alim), Movers (De Phonizier), and Collins (Proc. Soc. Bib.
ArchceoL, XI, p. 291) think that these were phallic em-
blems sacred to Ba'al; but the latest modern scholar-
ship rejects this view. 3 Perhaps the asherah was a con-
ventionalised aniconic representation of the vegetation
spirit, while the stone pillars may have served some pur-

1 Isaiah 17 : n contains references to "Gardens of Adonis," which show
that the northern kingdom was tainted at times with the Adonis-cult. Ezek.
8 : 14 and 18 also refers to a case of men worshipping the sun (? Mithra-
cult), but neither they nor any other prophet or chronicler mention "phal-
lic cones" nor indicate any systematic Adonis-cult in either kingdom.

2 Any single sacred stone, as an object of reverence, or as a sepulchral
stele, or boundary stone, was usually called a massebah. The asherah was
probably a conventional representation of the "holy tree" (Assyr., Asher),
or "tree of life."

3 See Enc. Bib., art. "Baal," and W. R. Smith (Rel. of the Sem., p. 457, etc.).
The latter says: "Indeed, the whole phallic theory seems to be wrecked
upon the fact that the massebah represents male and female deities indif-
ferently." The chief evidence in its favour is found in Herod., II, 106, and
Lucian, De Dea Syr., XVI (but see XXVHI). Movers also cites (I, 680)
Arnobius, Adv. Gent., V, 19, as supporting that view. A great deal of non-
sense, however, has been written on phallicism, e. g., Sex Worship, the Phal-
lic Origin of Religion, by Clifford Howard (1908), which tries to base all re-
ligion ultimately on phallic worship; Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient
Names, by Thomas Inman (1872), which insists upon the universality of
phallicism. This is gross exaggeration. Phallicism is only prevalent among
peoples of a decadent type, whether civilised or savage.

280 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

pose in solar- worship, e. g., indicating the time of the
solstices and equinoxes. This is all very problematical,
however, and the real meaning and use of both is un-
known.

Turning next to the New Testament, Professor Drews's
exposition of the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega," etc.,
is certainly open to the gravest objection. A and &>,
though they are the first and last letters of the Greek
alphabet, are not the first and last letters of Aoos (? =
Ao) alleged by him to be a Greek [Doric] name for Adonis.
Cilicia, the land of the dawn, or East, was sometimes
called Ada (Eda) by the Greeks; but this fact appears
to have no connexion whatever with Adonis as a vege-
tation spirit, but to be derived from the goddess Eos
(Ads), who was said to be a daughter of the Titan Hy-
perion and Theia. It is very improbable that the Dorian
Greeks applied the same name, Ao(s) = Eo(s), to the male
spirit of vegetation (Adonis) and to the goddess of the
dawn. Moreover, Adonis was not really the name of the
god. 1 The Greeks had heard the Syrian women bewailing
his fate and addressing him as Adoni ("my Lord"). This
they hastily assumed to be his name ("AScowj).

The alleged connexion between Golgotha and Golgos,
too, and the precise signification of the latter word, is
at least as worked out by Professor Drews highly prob-
lematical. In Theocritus, Idylls, XV, 100, To\joi)<} (To\-
70 1) is coupled with 'I8aXioz and is obviously a town and
not a "phallic cone," the two places being famous seats
of the worship of the Cyprian Aphrodite. The scholiast
on the passage may, perhaps, mean that the people of

J He was a variant of the Sumerian dumu-zi, "the faithful son" of the
great earth-goddess, who also appears under many variant names and char-
acters (Tammuz and Ishtar, Langdon, 1914). He also thinks (p. 8) that
"the original name of the divine son appears to have been ab-ti, 'the father
of plants and vegetation.' " See Doctor J. C. Ball on "Tammur the Swine-
God" (Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch., vol. XVI, pp. 198-200) for a discussion on the
origin and meaning of Tammuz.

GOLGOTHA AND THE PHALLIC CONES 281

the former place claimed descent from an eponymous
ancestor Golgos (possibly a son of the goddess), and In
consequence may have called themselves Golgoi; but
this, if it be so, does not support any argument for a
connexion with Golgotha.

Golgotha, on the other hand, said by the evangelists
to mean "the place of a skull" (not skulls; it does not
appear to be plural), hasjbeen variously derived from the
Hebrew, gii(u)lgolet (Vgalal, "to roll"), and got goatha
(Jer. 31 : 39) (?), "hill of dying"; but the actual origin
and meaning of the word are still unknown. 1 Even the
latter of these derivations, if it be correct, does not neces-
sarily support Doctor Drews's theory, since it may in-
dicate merely that the spot had been a place of execu-
tion for criminals before the time of Christ. 2

There is, however, another possible clew to the origin
and signification of Golgotha which may be worthy of
consideration. All students of the Old Testament are
familiar with the various local centres of ancient Canaan-
ite worship known as "gilgals" (^3 } TO, <ya\ya\a } "a cir-
cle"). 3 These consisted of rings of sacred stones similar
to those called by modern archaeologists "cromlechs."
They were probably once very numerous in Palestine;
but during and after the religious reformation of Josiah
they were mostly destroyed. These stones were, no
doubt, originally regarded as the habitats of the local
nature spirits (numina, (?) early Elohim). It seems

1 Cheyne derives Gtilgoleth from Galuth, a form of Gilead (see Hibbert
Journal, July, 1913, p. 921).

2 A Jewish tradition as early as the second century identifies it with the
place of execution mentioned in the Talmud (Mishnah, Sanh., vol. VI, i).
Luke translates it Kpaviov, "skull."

3 Ex. 24 : 4 refers to an interesting example of one of these circles which
Moses himself is said to have erected alongside of (or around) an altar which
he "builded" to Jahveh. The chief gilgal where Samuel and Saul sacrificed
(I Sam. 10 : 8, etc.)> where prophets dwelt (II Kings 4 : 38), and where also
the worship of (? aniconic) idols was practised (Judges 3 : 19; Hosea 4 : 15;
Amos 5 : 5) was in historic times a town or village.

282 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

possible, therefore, that a connexion of some kind be-
tween a gilgal and a golgotha may exist which will throw
some light upon the origin and meaning of the latter
name. 1

The Cross and Its Astral Significance

Not only Professor Drews and Mr. J. M. Robertson,
but also almost all writers of the mythical school labour
hard and for the most part quite unnecessarily to
prove that the cross is a pre-Christian symbol.

Mr. Robertson, for instance, finds evidence of its use in
both ancient Mexico and Central America. In support
of the former he cites Mr. Bancroft as stating in his
Native Races of the Pacific States of North America (1875),
vol. II, p. 386, that "the sacred tree" was there made into
a cross (Christianity and Mythology, p. 408). A careful
examination of that work, however, has failed to verify
either the reference or the statement.

His other quotation is from Mr. Stephens's Central
America (1842), vol. II, p. 346, where the author states
that in an ancient ruin in Yucatan he found a stone tab-
let with an inscribed cross upon it, surmounted by a bird,

1 The following points are to be noted in connexion with the two names.
We have the three Hebrew words: hih), gilgal, "a circle"; nhihz, gtilgoleth,
"skull," "head" (hi the Rabb. nSitan jw = "a poll-tax"), with its cor-
responding Aram., Nrfoi&w (see Targ. Onk. on Ex. 16 : 16).

In the Greek transliteration the second ^ of the original word has gen-
erally been dropped to facilitate pronunciation.

In the MSS. of the LXX version we find a variety of renderings of
the chief of which are ya\ya\a,, ya.\ya\ and even (BA. Deut. n : 30)
[Eusebius writes 7oX7wX] and (F) 70X70. Here we come very near to 7oX-
7o0a for 70X70X00 (giilgo(l)tha).

The stones in these gilgals, however, were certainly not phallic cones, but
were doubtless originally regarded as abodes of the various local numina,
who promoted the fertility and the prosperity of the neighbourhood, and
were anointed with oil, etc. (See Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites,
" Sacred Pillars," pp. 203 and 456.) A conical stone (depicted on coins as
resting upon an altar) was the emblem of Elagabal, originally a god of fer-
tility, who by the third century had become a solar deity, partially identified
with Apollo.

THE CROSS AND ITS ASTRAL SIGNIFICANCE 283

and with two human figures [males?], one on either side.
This Mr. Robertson would like to consider a represe*n-
tation of a crucifixion scene. But there is no figure on
the cross, and Mr. Stephens wisely contents himself with
remarking that the cross was known and had a symboli-
cal meaning among ancient nations long before it was
established as the emblem of the Christian faith.

Again, Professor Drews also asserts that "in all private
associations and secret cults of later antiquity the mem-
bers have made use of a secret sign of recognition or
union. . . . Among these signs was the cross, and it
was usually described under the name of 'Tau/ after the
letter of the old Phoenician alphabet." Such an applica-
tion of the cross to mystic or religious ends, he thinks,
reaches back "into grey antiquity" (The Christ Myth,
p. 149).

This statement the latter portion of it, at least is
true. Amongst the numerous examples of the fact we
find its use in ancient Egypt, especially in the cult of
Isis and her son Horus. It was also worn by both kings
and priests in Assyria and Persia. Among the Greeks
it was placed upon the images of such gods as Apollo,
Artemis, and Demeter, while in Rome it was used partly
as an ornament by the vestal virgins.

Among the Norsemen, again, it appears in Runic in-
scriptions and, in the form of the crux commissa, as Thor's
hammer. Imaginative persons have also detected its
use in the mystic mark made in blood by the ancient
Israelites on the door-posts of their houses before eating
the Passover, and even in the attitude of Moses when he
stood with outstretched arms upon the hilltop watching
the battle between Israel and Amalek.

In like manner, M. Salomon Reinach writes (Orpheus,
p. 77): "A chapel in the palace of Cnossus contained an
equilateral cross in marble, a token of the religious char-
acter of this symbol more than fifteen centuries before

284 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Christ. Another form of cross, known as the gamma-
dion, or svastika 1 (a Sanskrit word), is frequent at Troy
(on votive objects) and at Cyprus. It reappears on Greek
pottery about the year 800, then on archaic coins, and
becomes rare in the classic period, to show itself again
in the Christian era in the catacombs of Rome and on
the funeral stelae of Asia Minor. The svastika is also
frequently employed in the Buddhist art of India and
China." He further thinks that this mystic sign, "to
which Indian literature attributed a magic power," may
perhaps have been formed by "the conventionalisation
of the image of a large bird like the stork" an origin, it
would seem, to say the least of it, improbable.

The attempt sometimes made to identify the Hebrew
in (Tau) with the Greek a-Tavpfa, as meaning "cross,"
has been emphatically condemned by Doctor Cheyne,
who remarks: "Unfortunately, the sense of 'cross' (orau-
po?) for -in is justified neither by its etymology (see Ges-
Buht) z nor by usage. Taw means properly a tribal or
religious sign, and is used in Ezek. 9 : 46 3 for a mark
of religious import on the forehead and in Job 31 : 35
(if the text is right) for a signature. No Jews would
have used in for a-ravpds, though the crux commissa, being
in the shape of a T, the cross is often referred to by early

1 1. e., a hooked cross (W), said by Beal (Tlie Romantic LegeiuL of Sakhya
Buddha, p. 59, note i) to be " the symbol of the sun's apparent movement
from left to right." But see Buddhism, Monier Williams, pp. 522 and 523.

2 The mythical school is generally very insistent on the fact that a-ravp&s
merely meant a stake and not a cross!

3 We read here of the marking of the forehead of the faithful Judahites
with a Tau, the symbol of life (cf. the Egyptian f 'nh, "life," with t, the Phoe-
nician form of the letter Tau found in the older variant of the language,
e. g., on the Moabite stone and in the Siloam inscription), to save them
from slaughter. See also Rev. 7 : 3 /. ; 13 : 16 /. ; 20 : 4, and perhaps Gal.
6 : 17. "The magic virtue ascribed to the cross has, doubtless, a non-
Christian origin" (Cheyne). With regard to the 'nh (dnkK) Doctor Budge
writes: "The object which is represented by this amulet is unknown, and
of all the suggestions which have been made none is more unlikely than
that which would give it a phallic origin" (Egyptian Magic, 1901, p. 58).

THE CROSS AND ITS ASTRAL SIGNIFICANCE 285

writers as the mystical Tau" (Enc. Bib., art. "Cross,"
sec. 7).

But the real question, after all, is, what has this to do
with the specific use of the cross in Christian symbolism ?
And the answer thereto would seem to be, little or noth-
ing, except in so far as its appropriateness was suggested
to the Christians of the first and later centuries by the
fact of the crucifixion of Jesus. There is no proof what-
ever that it was used by them as a secret society symbol
during the lifetime of Jesus or that the alleged pre-
Christian cults of Jesus and Christ ever employed it. Its
use, too, amongst the earlier Jews, legalists or mystics,
is unproven and at least doubtful. As for its mystical
and perhaps religious uses in various parts of the world,
an ample justification is found in the fact that it is a sym-
bol easily drawn and remembered, and commonly used
everywhere, not only in religion, but as a brief memoran-
dum of matters pertaining to daily life. Some writers
have regarded it as an ancient symbol deriving its origin
from astral worship and expressive of the sun crossing
the equatorial line twice yearly, at the vernal and autum-
nal equinoxes. This is quite possible, as we know that
these periods, as also the solstices, were important fes-
tivals in all forms of sun-worship. But, whether or not
it was primarily suggested to the first Christians by an-
cient usage, it is quite certain that its adoption was
sanctioned chiefly by their firm conviction that it was
the instrument by which their Master suffered death, and
that it was, in addition, a fitting symbol of the Christian
life of tribulation in this present world. 1

1 Mr. J. M. Robertson refers without offering proof to "the phallic
significance of the cross "as he terms it.

We may presume that he is thinking of the Egyptian dnkk, or handled
cross, carried by certain gods and used as a symbol of enduring life. But
this is quite different from the phallus, which was only used in the coarser
ethnic nature-cults as a symbol of reproductive energy.

286 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

The Crucifixion

Professor Drews calls into serious question (The Christ
Myth, pp. 146 jf.) not merely the fact of the crucifixion
of Jesus, but even the correctness in detail of the de-
scription of that event as given by the several evange-
lists. We will deal first with the latter of these objec-
tions and state his thesis in his own words:

"In the whole of Christendom it passes as a settled
matter that Jesus died upon the cross; but this has the
shape, as it is usually represented among painters, of the
so-called Latin cross, in which the horizontal crosspiece
is shorter than the vertical beam. On what, then, does
the opinion rest that the cross is the gibbet? The evan-
gelists themselves give us no information on this point.
The Jews described the instrument which they made use
of in executions by the expression "wood" [i-v\ov], or
"tree" [SevSpov, arbor]. Under this description it often
occurs in the Greek translation of the Old Testament,
in which the gibbet is rendered by xulon, the same expres-
sion being also found in the Gospels. Usually, however,
the gibbet is described as stauros [o-rav/aoV], i. e., "stake,"
so much so that stauros and xulon pass for synonyms.
The Latin translation of both these words is crux
["cross"]. By this the Romans understood any appara-
tus for the execution of men generally, without think-
ing, however, as a rule, of anything else than a stake or
gallows (patibulum, stipes), upon which, as Livy tells us 1
(I, 26), the delinquent was bound with chains or ropes
and so deh'vered over to death.

"That the method of execution in Palestine differed
in any way from this is not in any way shown. Among
the Jews also the condemned used to be hanged upon a
simple stake or beam and exposed to a lingering death
from heat, hunger, and thirst, as well as from the natural

1 Cf. Cic., Pro Rab., 4, etc.

THE CRUCIFIXION 287

tension of his muscles. 'To fasten to the cross' (st&u-
roun, affigere cruci), accordingly, does not mean either in
East or West to crucify in our sense, 1 but at first simply
'to torture' or 'martyr[ise],' and later to hang upon a
stake or gallows. ..." As there are many errors con-
tained in the above statement, we will now submit it to
a close examination.

In the earlier Roman times capital punishment appears
to have been inflicted by tying the offender to the furca
(a heavy wooden instrument shaped liked the Greek let-
ter A) or to the patibulum (supposed to have the form of
the Greek II). He was then either flogged to death or
allowed to die of the combined effects of the flogging and
exposure. 2 Contact with the East, however, introduced
what Lipsius (De Cruce, I, 5-9) and Gretzer (De Cruce
Christi, I, i) call the crux simplex, i. e., a single upright
stake, similar to that used in Eastern countries for the
purpose of impalement, to which the criminal was tied.

But during the second Punic war the Romans became
acquainted with the crux composita, or true cross, to
which the Carthaginians were accustomed to affix the
condemned man by means of nails driven through the
hands and feet, leaving him to die of pain and exhaus-
tion. To both of these instruments of death the term
o-ravjoo? (crux) was applied.

In the case of Jews the earliest and authorised form
of capital punishment was stoning (Lev. 20 : 20; Deut.
13 : 10); but in post-exilic times a limited use of the
crux simplex, or stake, grew up. To this stake the of-
fender was fastened and either strangled or left to perish
from exposure. During the reign of Alexander Jannasus
(reigned 104-79 B. C.) true crucifixion was, perhaps, used,
and according to Josephus (Ant., XIII, 14, 2) many
Pharisees perished in this way.

1 Italics ours. The Das Kreuz Chrisii of Zockler should be consulted here.

2 Cf. Livy, I, 26, snb furca vinclus inter verbera el cmciatus.

288 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Turning next to the Greek terms employed in the LXX
version and the New Testament, we find in the former
work a general use of Kpe^dvvfM (Heb., n^JH, talati), "to
suspend" or "hang." There are several classical examples
of this in the book of Esther (2 : 23; 5 : 14; 6:4; 7 : 10;
8:7; 9 : 13). In 7 : 9, however, we find a-TavpT]6^T(o }
and it would seem that the meaning here in each case is
suspension from a post and not impalement.

Taking the New Testament, we find in the four loci
classid (Mark 15 : 25; Matt. 28 : 35; Luke 23 : 33;
John 19 : 19) the verb a-Tavpoca used, and the real ques-
tion is in what sense it is to be taken. In earlier times
it would probably have meant merely bound to a stake;
but in the first century A. D. it undoubtedly means, for
reasons given above, crucifixion in its later sense, i. e., a
literal nailing to the cross and nothing else. 1 And the
mere fact that the old term xpewdwiu ("hang") is still
employed is no argument to the contrary; for a man
nailed to a cross and "lifted up" may just as fitly be
said to hang there. 2

But Professor Drews seems to dispute this conclusion.
He continues (op. cit., p. 147): "And in this connexion
it appears that the piercing of hands and feet with nails,
at least at the time at which the execution of Jesus is
said to have occurred, was something quite unusual, if
it was ever employed at all. 3 The expressions prospassa-

i

1 Cf. also Acts 2 : 36; 4 : 10; I Cor. i : 13 and 23; 2:2 and 8; Gal. 3 : i;
Rev. ii : 8.

On p. 498 of his article, referred to above, Mr. Butler (in support of a
theory that the tomb of John 19 : 41 was merely a "memorial place")
urges that the verb ffravp6u never signified, in true classical Greek, "to cru-
cify," but "to impalisade" or "fence off." This is true; but the Gospels
were written neither in classical Greek nor in classical times, and words had
frequently acquired a new meaning in the days of the Roman supremacy.
Consequently, his rendering of both iffravptLdtj and fj.vriti.eiov in the above
passage of the Fourth Gospel Is untenable, and there is no analogy, as he
supposes, between the tomb and the mystical 0-17x65 of Demeter.

3 Italics ours.

THE CRUCIFIXION 289

leuein and proseloun, moreover, usually signify only t "to
fasten," "to hang upon a nail," but not at all "to nail
to" in the special sense required.

"There is not, then," he adds, "the least occasion for
assuming that according to original Christian views an
exception to this mode of proceeding was made at the
execution of Jesus. The only place in the Gospels where
there is any mention of the "marks of the nails" (viz.,
John 20 : 25) belongs, as does the whole Gospel, to a
relatively later time, and appears, as does much in John,
as a mere strengthening and exaggeration of the original
story. For example, Luke 24 : 39, upon which John is
based, does not speak at all of nail-marks, but merely of
the marks of the wounds which the condemned must
naturally have received as a consequence of being fast-
ened to the stake. Accordingly, the idea that Christ
was ' nailed' to the cross was in the earliest Christian-
ity by no means the ruling one."

If Doctor Drews means in the above passage that nails
were not usually employed by the Romans as early as,
and even earlier than, A. D. 30 to affix criminals to the
cross, he certainly cannot have consulted the Latin wri-
ters. Thus, Plautus, who died as early as B. C. 184, re-
fers (Most., II, i, 13) to a man condemned to the cross
who seeks a substitute, humorously promising a reward
on the condition that "they [the nails] are driven twice
into the feet and twice into the arms," x an expression
not in any way suggestive of roping or chaining, but
plainly meaning that each foot and hand should be sev-
erally affixed by means of a nail. This view is also sup-
ported by Jewish evidence (Hor. Heb., p. 57, Lightfoot),

1 Ojfigantur bis pedes, bis brachia. A nail from the cross was also used in
certain magical ceremonies (Apuleius, Metamorphoses, book III, Bonn's
translation, p. 59; Pliny, E. N., XXVIII, n). In Col. 2 : 14 we have the
phrase irpotrrjKdjffa.^ airrb T$ ffravpy, "nailing it to his (lit., the) cross," re-
ferring to an ancient method of cancelling bonds by driving a nail through
them.

290 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

and Josephus tells us (Life, 75) that out of three friends
whom he had once rescued from the cross only one sur-
vived, though they were most carefully tended by a phy-
sician. This again points strongly to death from actual
wounds rather than from exposure or any preliminary
flogging which they may have received.

Further, although the evidence of John 20 : 25, with
its reference to the nail-holes in the feet and hands, is
late and, therefore, perhaps inconclusive, the statement
in Luke 24 : 39 undoubtedly means that the wounds
were caused by the piercing of the limbs and were not
mere abrasions caused by ropes or chains, which would
cause much less severe injuries.

But Doctor Drews's object in bringing into the discus-
sion the Greek word irpoa-7racra-a\eviv is not clear, since
the word does not occur in the New Testament; and
Trpoo-eXouv, which is seldom used, could not here mean,
as he urges, to "hang upon a nail," because the cruciarii
were never hung upon nails, but either tied to the cross
itself or, in the case of slaves and persons convicted of
treason (perduellio), literally nailed to the wood, as is
abundantly testified by ancient writers. 1

M. Salomon Reinach, to whom we will turn next, ap-
pears to waver in his view of the origin of the idea of
the crucifixion of Jesus. At one time (Orpheus, p. 32) he
quotes, "They pierced my hands and my feet" (Psalm
22 : 17), and says: "We must admit that this verse in
the Psalms may be the origin of the tradition that Jesus
was crucified." But at another time he appears to re-

1 The whole scene of a Roman crucifixion is, indeed, most carefully and
accurately described by the evangelists. We have the preliminary flogging
of the cruciarius, who generally carried his alrta ("charge") suspended
round his neck to the place of execution. Soldiers were set to watch him
and a stupefying draught was offered (cf. Bab. Talm., Sanh. Tract., /. 43, i)
to lull the pain caused by the nails. The breaking of the legs (crurifragium)
was also distinctively a Roman practise, especially in the case of slaves
(Seneca, De Ira, III, 32; Suet., Aug., 67; Tert., Ap. 21).

THE CRUCIFIXION 291

gard the story as an "orphic projection made through
the lens of a passage in Plato's Republic about the im-
palement of the perfectly just man who should happen
to stray into, or turn up in, a community of unjust men"
(J. Rendel Harris).

In a similar manner Professor W. B. Smith (Ecce Deus,
p. 142) lays a great stress upon this ill treatment of the
"just man." He says: "The notion of the impalement
of the righteous man found its classical and immortal
expression in the second book of The Republic in a con-
text of matchless moral sublimity. Glaucon, putting
Socrates on his mettle, draws the liveliest possible pic-
ture of the sufferings of the just who is thought unjust:
' He will be scourged, will be racked, will be bound, will
have his eyes burned out, (and) at last, having suffered
every ill, he will be crucified (361 D).'

"The last verb (arao-%w;8uXev&)) is commonly rendered
by 'impale' and is rare; but it is the exact equivalent of
avaovcoXo7r/(, which, again, is exactly the same as avaar-
ravpdco (as in Philo, I, 237 and 687), which appears in
Heb. 6 : 6 (where it has been falsely rendered 'crucify
again') and is the regular Greek word for 'crucify/
shortened also into a-ravpda, the New Testament term.
The ava means 'up' and not 'again.' "

Dealing first of all with the former suggestion of M.
Reinach, we would reply that the passage in the Psalms
is undoubtedly corrupt and the reading here rendered
"pierced" consequently uncertain. But, in any case,
*ntO (ka-ari) does not mean "pierced" as in a crucifixion.
It refers here rather to the biting of wild animals of some
kind (see Appendix C).

As to the passage from The Republic of Plato, the late
Professor Jowett (The Dialogues of Plato, vol. Ill, p. 41)
translates the verb am<rjjwuXet/&>, "impaled," and not
"crucified." Turning to the lexicon of Liddell and Scott,
we find that the verbs ai>aayeo\o7ri'|;o> and avacrravpoa) be-

292 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

came practically synonymous in later Greek; but they
certainly were not so in Plato's time. Therefore, we have
no authority for treating avaa-^ivSvXeva) as the equivalent
of avaa-Tavpoco and translating the former verb (as used
by. Plato) "crucified."

As a matter of fact, true crucifixion was unknown to
the Greeks of Plato's day and was not at that time prac-
tised in western Asia. The force of ava in composition,
we may add, according to Liddell and Scott, is frequently
that of repetition as well as "up." Hence the rendering
"crucify afresh" or "again," in Heb. 6 : 6, cannot be
termed "false." As it makes the better sense, too, with
the context, it is probably the correct one.

Orpheus, in the myth, is merely one of the many repre-
sentatives of the god torn to pieces every year by the
envious powers of nature, a ceremony which was enacted
by the Bacchae in earlier times with a man, but after-
wards with a bull who represented the god. The god of
all these nature-myths is ever a manifestation of the re-
productive power of nature, and how it could in any way
be syncretised with the ethical "just man" of Plato, or
the ethrcal and spiritual figure of Jesus, is not explained
and, moreover, is impossible to understand.

Finally, Mr. J.M. Robertson endeavours (Pagan Christs,
1911, pp. 108 /.) to explain the idea of the story from a
custom which formerly prevailed among the Khonds of
India. The victim was garlanded with flowers and wor-
shipped. He was then inserted into the trunk of a tree
in such a manner that he and the tree formed a cross.
His arms and legs were then broken and he was made
insensible with opium, or datura, and finally put to
death. 1

There is some very vague resemblance here to the story
of the crucifixion; but it is not explained how this came

1 See Frazer's Golden Bough, "The Dying God," sd ed., p. 139. On Odin
as the "hanged god," see Adonis, Attis, Osiris, sd ed., pp. 288 J".

THE TWO THIEVES 293

to be adopted by the earliest Christians, who were bit-
terly hostile to all heathen ideas and practises. It would
seem that any such theory of origins must be the last
resource of some desperate anthropologist. 1

The Two Thieves

In his article, "Die Kreuzigung Jesu," in the Zeitschrift
filr die neutestamentliche Wissensckaft, II (1901), pp. 339-
341, Doctor W. R. Paton has hazarded the opinion that
the crucifixion of Jesus between the two robbers had a
ritual significance "as an expiatory sacrifice to a triple
god." It seems that a Persian martyr, St. Hiztibouzit,
is said to have been crucified between two malefactors
on a hilltop opposite the sun (see The Apology and Acts of
Apollonius and Other Monuments of Early Christianity,
1894, by F. C. Conybeare, pp. 257 jf.). The narrator,
however, does not attach any religious significance to
the triple execution, and we may readily agree with Sir
James Frazer that "the grounds for the conjecture are
somewhat slender" (" The Scapegoat," p. 413, note 2).

Professor Drews, again (The Christ Myth, pp. 82 and
83), finds another explanation of the two criminals who
were crucified with Jesus.

"The story," he writes, "of the two fellow prisoners
of Joseph, the baker and the cup-bearer of Pharaoh, one
of w,hom, as Joseph foretold, was hanged, while the other
was received into favour by the king, was transformed
by them [i. e., the evangelists] into the story of the two
robbers who were executed at the same time as Jesus,
one of whom "mocked the Saviour, while the other be-

1 Fiebig says of the " darkness" which is said to have occurred at the time
of the crucifixion that it is " certainly mythical." But fficdros (Matt. 27 : 45)
also means "gloom," and Humboldt relates in his Cosmos that "in the year
358, before the earthquake of Numidia, the darkness was very intense for
two or three hours." According to vs. 51 there was an earthquake on this
occasion also.

294 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

sought him to remember him when he entered into his
heavenly kingdom."

The two stories, it must be pointed out, are utterly
unlike, and it is inconceivable that either of them should
suggest the other. But, setting this fact aside, Professor
Drews's dogmatic statement raises a number of recon-
dite and difficult questions. In the first place, was Jo-
seph a divine being, the representative, like the various
solar heroes, and (Doctor Drews would add) Jesus, of
the sun ? 1 It is impossible to dogmatise here, but any
theory based upon such assumptions is precarious in the
highest degree.

Again, Mr. Robertson (Pagan Christs, 1911, pp. io8/.)
explains the origin of this incident as follows: In former
ages a king's son was sacrificed; later, when criminals
were substituted, one of them was represented as a king
by having two others in their real character as evil-doers
set up by his side. But where is the proof of this? None
is offered, and as the statement stands in the book it is
mere fanciful assertion. Without specific examples of
such a custom these "explanations" explain nothing.
On the other hand, the story of the evangelists is quite
as consistent with actual Roman practise as it is with
unregenerate human nature at all times and in all places.

The Seamless Tunic

f
The idea of providing a pseudo-historical Jesus with a

seamless coat was, if we may credit Mr. J. M. Robertson
(Christianity and Mythology, pp. 414 and 415), derived
from the story of the chiton woven for Apollo or the shawl
woven for Here at Elis. These garments have, he says
(ostensibly quoting Plutarch), a mystical significance,

1 The name Joseph may be taken as Jo-SePh (Ja-SePh), " Jahveh add to
me another son," Gen. 30 : 24). In vs. 23 it is explained as "God has taken
away (a-SaPh) my reproach. See Sayce, Hibb. Lects. (1887), pp. 50-52;
also The Higher Criticism and tlte Monuments, pp. 337-339.

THE LAST WORDS OF JESUS 295

since they represent "the robe of the solar Osiris, which
is one and indivisible, that robe being the universal
light."

The reference here is evidently to the De Iside et Osi-
ride, 78, where Plutarch writes: "That [vestment] of
Osiris has no shadow nor variation, but is one, simple,
the image of light." The quotation, it will be observed,
is inaccurate and the inference drawn inexact.

We need not, however, depart from plain, sober his-
tory here. Jewish tunics, as a rule, consisted of two sep-
arate parts which were held together by clasps; but
Josephus tells us (Ant., Ill, 7, 4) that a single seamless
tunic was habitually worn by the high priests. It is
clear, therefore, that single tunics were in some cases
woven all in one without any seam. 1

The writer of the Fourth Gospel, it is true, lays some
stress upon the seamlessness of the garment. He seems
to nd in it a mystical meaning, perhaps that of indicat-
ing that Jesus acted as his own high priest in the sacri-
fice of himself. But this, in any case, does not affect the
question at issue.

The Last Words of Jesus

Here we must again quote Mr. Slade Butler (Art. cit.,
p. 496): "After the illumination or consecration of the
mystes was completed," he says, "a sacred formula was
uttered to show that the ceremony was over. What that
formula was does not seem to be known, though it has
been said by some to have been the words #o'<y

1 Seydel (Evangelium, etc., pp. 282 and 299; cf. Buddha Legende, p. 123, re-
fers the story of the division of the clothes of Jesus (John 19 : 23 /.) to one
told in the Mahdparinibbana Sutta, VI, 51 jf.) of a quarrel over the relics
of the defunct Buddha, which is finally settled by a Brahman. It is un-
necessary here to say more than that the two stories are totally unlike
and that the clothes of a condemned man have ever been the perquisite
of the executioner.

There arises also the question of priority of the narratives.

296 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

or tcoyt; o/jbofos Trclt;, 1 the first word denoting the sound
made by the voting pebble as it fell into the urn, and so
'the vote is cast,' the other words meaning 'likewise
enough,' the formula, therefore, signifying 'all is over.'
Now, the last saying, or utterance, on the cross is, in the
Fourth Gospel (John 19 : 30), represented by the word
TereXecrrcu, which in one sense means 'it is finished';
but TeXeo>, 'to perform,' has in the passive a further
meaning, viz., 'to be initiated' or 'consecrated' in the
mysteries and more particularly in the last or highest
grade of the Eleusinian mysteries just as reXer^ means
'the end' as well as 'the rite of initiation.' To a Greek
and especially one who had passed through the mys-
teries the word rereXeo-Tat would have the double mean-
ing 'all is over' and 'the consecration is complete.'

"It is to be noticed that the words of the last utterance
on the cross are omitted in Mark (15 : 37) and in Mat-
thew (28 : 50), as though they were not known or were
too sacred to be reproduced in writing."

Mr. Butler's attempt to equate the final TeTe'Xeorai
("It is finished") of the Fourth Gospel with the myste-
rious formula used as the final benediction of the hiero-
phant of Eleusis is a very precarious essay in criticism.
The konx om pax of the latter has absolutely no meaning
in its Greek form, and is generally believed to have been
derived from the East, where perhaps it had a mystical
sense attached to it. Wilford gives the words a Sanscrit
origin and explains them as follows : konx from kansha =
the object of strongest desire; om from oum (aum) = the
soul of Brahma; pax from pasha = turn, change, cycle.
This apparently meaningless jumble of words, he con-
cludes, signifies: "May thy desires be fulfilled; return
to the universal soul ! "

But this interpretation is doubtful in the extreme, and
it is practically certain that the real meaning of the Eleu-

1 Konx ompax or konx homoios pax.

LANCE WOUND AND BREAKING OF THE LEGS 297

sinian formula is lost. One thing, however, may safely
be taken as fact; whatever it may mean it does not
signify "It is finished" (rexe'Tieo-Tai).

The last "word from the cross" is the final exclama-
tion of a weary man who has just fought and finished a
long and bitter fight and feels that at last he has come
off conqueror. It is in no sense a benediction either; the
final benediction of Jesus upon his murderers and their
wretched tools was fitly expressed in that other "word"
recorded in Luke 23 : 34: "Father, forgive them; for they
know not what they do." l

The Lance Wound and the Breaking of the Legs

"The transfixing of the victim with the holy lance,"
writes Professor Drews {The Christ Myth, p. 97, note 3),
"as we meet it in John 19 : 34, appears to be a very old
sacrificial custom which is found among the most differ-
ent races. For example, [it is met with] both among the
Scythian tribes in Albania, in the worship of Astarte
(Strabo), and in Salamis, in the island of Cyprus, in that
of Moloch (Eusebius, Prap. Evang., IV, 16). 'The lance
thrust,' says Ghillany, with reference to the death of
Jesus, was not given with the object of testing whether
the sufferer was still alive, but was in order to correspond

1 On p. 497 of the same article we also find: "There are also other details
in the Gospel narrative in which a Greek might see allusions to the mysteries
just as a Jew might recognise in the same words a reference to his prophets;
thus in the words, 'but he held his peace and answered nothing' (Mark
14 : 61; Matt. 26 : 63) 'and he gave him no answer, not even to one
word' (Matt. 27 : 14), a Greek would recognise the closed, sealed lips of
the mystes, while a Jew might think that he saw in them a reference to the
writings." The very vague analogies to the mysteries pointed out here
really prove nothing; and the mere fact that to the Jew they had quite a
different meaning shows this very clearly. Jesus held his peace when a false
charge was preferred against him and when he knew that his death had been
predetermined by the Jewish authorities. No purpose was served by mak-
ing any answer. The mystes, on the other hand, was imite because a secret
had been confided to him in initiation which he must not divulge.

The two cases are poles apart and all comparison between them is fanci-
ful and unreal.

298 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

with the old method of sacrificing. The legs were not
broken because the victim could not be mutilated. In
the evening the corpse had to be taken down, just as
Joshua only allowed the kings sacrificed to the sun to
remain until the evening on the cross.' "

The learned German writer above cited is apparently
under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the author
of the Fourth Gospel. The latter does not say, or imply,
that the soldier thought Jesus might be alive, for in vs. 32
it is distinctly stated that they saw that he was dead al-
ready. But the "holy lance," as used in early times in
the sacrifices of nomadic races, was certainly employed
for the slaying of the victim whatever the later import
of the act may have been. Had the Gospel writer in-
tended to illustrate any such later custom here he would
probably have inserted the incident earlier in the chap-
ter or else omitted vs. 32. As matters stand, his object in
mentioning the incident is clear to any one whose mind
is not obsessed by some other and a priori theory. He
states that he was an eye-witness of the scene. He saw
the soldiers set about the crurifragium, and noticed the
exemption accorded to Jesus, for the reason which he
gives. But a sudden and irrational impulse to stab the
body with his spear seized one of the soldiers. Both
these events struck the writer as being unconscious and
involuntary fulfilments of two scriptures 1 not as an-
cient sacrificial customs. He was struck also with what
appeared to him as blood and water flowing from the
spear wound. 2 This, on reflection, appeared to have a
spiritual significance (cf. I John 5 : 6), as symbolical of

1 (i) Ex. 12 : 46. This rule is commonly laid down in the ritual of all
religious sacrifices. The victims must be perfect. (2) Psalm 22 : 16 and 17.
This quotation is not apposite. The Hebrew word used means "to gnaw,"
or " bite, " like a dog or lion. See Appendix C.

2 A book has been written (A Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death
of Christ, by W. Stroud, M.D., ist ed., 1847) explaining the death of Jesus
as due to rupture of the heart, the blood in which, the author thinks, may

THE BURIAL IN THE NEW TOMB . 299

the work of redemption (by blood, Lev. 4 : 6) and regen-
eration (by water, Num. 8:7). There is not a shadow
of reason to suppose here that the writer is, consciously or
unconsciously, perpetrating on his readers a mere pseudo-
historisation of an ancient custom, though it may hap-
pen that this incident has some affinity with the Jewish
sacrificial rules, of which he was evidently thinking at the
time of writing. Moreover, had the evangelist regarded
the scene he describes as merely a sacrificial drama he
would have probably included the thieves also, whose
legs in that case, like those of the chief victim, would
have remained unbroken.

Doctor Ghillany's assumption that the five kings hanged
on stakes (Joshua 10 : 26) were a sacrifice to the sun-god
is a mere begging of the question. Makfcedak ("place of
shepherds," Ges. Lex.) has no apparent connexion with
any solar cult. The war in which they are said to have
lost their lives seems to have been one of those semi-
barbarous contests, on a small scale, in which a subse-
quent massacre of important prisoners is a common fea-
ture. And the reason for their burial at sundown (as also
for the taking down of Jesus and the two malefactors)
"that the land be not defiled" was part of an old crim-
inal code afterwards embodied in Deut. 21 : 23.

The Burial in the New Tomb

This event, as recorded in the Gospel narratives, is
traced to Greek mystical sources by Mr. Slade Butler.
He says in the article already quoted: "In the mysteries
we are told that 'some kind of memento of the ceremony

have escaped into the pericardium, where it separated into a mass of clotted
red corpuscles and serum, which was set free by the spear piercing the sac.
This theory has been adversely criticised by Doctor Creighton (Enc. Bib.,
art. "Cross," sec. 6). The most probable explanation is that death ensued
from syncope; but the witness observing the blood mingled with the death
sweat (often copious before a painful death) incorrectly assumed that both
issued from the spear wound.

300 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

(the Tra/aaSoo-i? r&v lep&v) was given by the priests to the
votaries, which a believer used to keep in a linen cloth.'
In Mark (15 : 46) we read of Joseph of Arimathaea, 'who
also himself was Jesus' disciple,' that 'he bought a linen
cloth and, taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth,
and laid him in a memorial place (^vijfieim) which had
been hewn out of a rock.' Why is this word pvrjfiLelov
used to signify 'a tomb' instead of the usual and ordi-
nary word TCE<O?? ~M.vt)fAeiov (fufj,w>i(7KofMu } 'to bear in
mind'; fia'o>, 'to desire') means 'remembrance,' then 'a
memorial,' and so 'a monument' raised in memory of
the dead [a cenotaph], but not the tomb in which the
dead body was laid; yet in the Gospels the word seems
to be intended to signify 'tomb' as well as 'remem-
brance' a 'tomb of memory.' The reason for this use
of the word fivrj^eiov in place of and with the meaning
of ra(o? cannot be explained by the suggestion that the
word ra$o? had fallen into disuse, for in Matthew's ac-
count, which was written some time after Mark's Gospel
was compiled, we find that the word ra$o? appears ex-
actly as many times four times as iwripdov is used, as
though the writer had some apprehension that the word
fjivrjpeiov, which he had taken and adapted from Mark (or
the source of information used by Mark), might be mis-
understood."

In this thesis presented by Mr. Butler the whole stress
of his argument is laid upon the use of the word fj.vrj/j.eiov
instead of ratios. Now, undoubtedly, the earliest and
general Greek prose word for grave, after the time of
Homer, was ra$o5. But in later and post-classical times,
as the stones which were set over or before graves be-
came more and more elaborate, and served more and
more the purposes of memorials, especially in the case
of notable men, the term ra^os, though still used, largely
gave place to the word i^vrj^elov (/ttwy/ia), by which the
burying-place of the dead man was kept in mind by sue-

THE BURIAL IN THE NEW TOMB 301

ceeding generations. And in the New Testament pe-
riod this later word was often used in Greece and else-
where almost exclusively for TO$OS in such cases.

But let us turn to the LXX version and see how far
that work supports this view. In Gen. 23 we readily find
four examples (vss. 6, g, 20 twice). In three of these
(jLVTjfieiov is undoubtedly used where a tomb containing a
body is meant. In vs. 20, however, this is first named
a racjbos, and then, in the same verse, called a fanjfjxiov.
Other examples in the LXX version, taken at random,
are Ex. 14 : n, where \wr\iia means a grave, not a cen-
otaph or mere memorial place; Num. n : 34 and 35;
19 : 16; and Ezek. 33 : 23. Another example occurs [in
Josephus, Ant., XIII, 6, 6. In the face of these facts
which might be multiplied considerably it is impossible
to maintain that iafr]^elov in later times invariably meant
a cenotaph, or other mere memorial of a dead person, and
never a tomb which was the actual grave of the deceased.

This conclusion is further borne out by the New Testa-
ment use of the word. The present writer, in making a
by no means exhaustive list, has found therein nineteen
examples of iivvj^eiov (with three of /w/ij/ia), as opposed
to four cases of ra^o? in Matthew. Some of these un-
doubtedly refer to actual graves, e. g., Matt. 8 : 28, where
the allusion is to the rock tombs by the side of the
lake Gennesaret, the abode of the demoniacs who dwelt
among the bodies of the dead.

As for the subsidiary details, Mr. Butler surely can-
not mean to compare the memento, wrapped in linen
cloth, given to initiates in the higher mysteries, with the
body of Jesus wound in linen bands by Joseph of Ari-
mathsea ! A corpse was not wrapt in linen and given to
any one as a memento of initiation ! Neither is Joseph
himself supposed to be keeping it as a memorial. And
linen cloths have served to enwrap many other things
besides bodies and mementos.

CHAPTER XV

THE DESCENSION TO HADES. THE RESURRECTION AND
ASCENSION TO HEAVEN

The Descension to Hades

THE theological tradition of the descent of Jesus to the
nether world, which forms a separate article of the faith
in the so-called Apostles' Creed (though it was omitted
in the symbol of Nicsea), is largely based upon the well-
known passage in I Peter 3 : ig l (cf. Eph. 8:9).

It has been the practise of many scholars for some
years past to trace this tradition back to the mytholog-
ical conceptions of various races and nations Mandae-
ans, Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, etc. Even Buddhist
eschatology has been drawn upon in the search for "ori-
gins" or at least "parallels." We will now examine the
chief of these and see how far they can be said to corre-
spond with Christian ideas and teaching.

Perhaps the oldest extant story of this kind is that of
the now well-known "Descent of Istar" to the under-
world "the land of no return," 2 as it is pathetically

1 It is doubtful here, however, whether the preacher is Christ or Enoch.
Doctor Rendel Harris reads v $ Kdl'EpcSx (Expositor, April, 1901), which
is a plausible correction, as a copyist might easily omit 'T&v&x after tv $. It
is also uncertain whether the "spirits in prison" are not the rebel angels
spoken of in the book of Enoch.

Other passages more or less definitely referring to the descent, or perhaps
throwing light upon it, are: Matt. 12 : 40; Luke 23 : 43; Acts 2 : 24, 27,
and 31; Romans 10 : 7 (on Deut. 30 : 13), but note alteration in text of the
LXX version here; Eph. 4 : 9; Rev. i : 18. See also Wisd. (Latin text)
24 : 32, where "Penetrabo omnes inferiores partes terrae, et inspiciam omnes
dormientes et illuminabo omnes sperantes in Domino" has been deemed an
influence towards formulating the doctrine.

2 The ghost (utukktt) of Eabani, the man-monster of the Gilgamesh Epic,
however, returns when summoned, and appears to Gilgamesh for a brief

302

THE DESCENSION TO HADES 303

termed preserved in a Babylonian poem probably based
upon Sumerian materials. The goddess visits the abode
of the dead, the city of Arallu

"the house of gloom, the dwelling of Irkalla,
the house from which those who enter depart not. . . .
the house where those who enter are deprived of light;
a place where dust is their nourishment, clay their food;
... in thick darkness they dwell;
they are clad like bats in a garb of wings;
on door and bolt the dust is laid"

in order that she might find Tammuz, the husband of her
youth, and give him to drink of the waters of life which
gushed up under the throne of the spirits of the earth,
and so bring him once more back to the light and life
of earth. This myth has been commonly interpreted as
a version of the ubiquitous story of the mutual wooing
of the sun-god and the earth-goddess (or of the latter
by the spirit of vegetation) in order that the earth may
bring forth its fruits in the following spring.

In the Mandaean story of Hibil Ziva's 1 descent into
the underworld we have the Babylonian myth raised to
a higher level ethically and spiritually. He was commis-
sioned by the "great ones" 2 to go and wage a successful
war with the king of darkness (Ahriman), and to liberate
the souls of the righteous detained there and to restore
them to the world of light. The story, it will be seen,
has now assimilated some of the elements of Persian dual-

space. Notable men, or heroes, it was thought, could be recalled to earth
for a little while in order to be consulted (cf. I Sam. 28 : 7-21; Horn., Od.,
II, 488$.). Hence some scholars derive Sheol from Assyr., Siialu (? ), and
interpret its meaning as "the place where oracles may be obtained."

1 A divine hero, son of Manda d' Hajje (see Brandt, Mandaische Schrif-
ten, pp. 138 jf. ; Hand. Relig.,pp. 182-184; Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos,
pp. 364 and 382.

2 Are these equivalents of the (original) Hebrew Elohim ?

304 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

ism. "The representation of the hero as fighting with
the powers of darkness," says Doctor Cheyne (Bib. Probs.,
p. 104), "seems at first sight to fill a gap in the Biblical
myth. The Christ, as one might think, must have had to
fight with these potentates before he could quit the city
of death as a victor." And he thinks it very probable
that "the Jews had a Messiah story (now lost) which
agreed with the Mandaean in this respect."

A Zoroastrian "parallel," or at least a story contain-
ing a similar idea, which has "arisen out of the same
need" (noted by Tiele, Geschichte, II, pp. 267 /.) has been
found in the Avesta, Vendidad Fargad, II, 42, where, in
reply to the question, "Who propagated there the Mazda-
yasnian religion in these enclosures which Yima made?"
Ahura Mazda makes reply: "The bird Karshipta, Spi-
tama Zarathustral" 1

Ancient Greek and Roman literature, moreover, abound,
comparatively speaking, in stories of legendary/' descents"
to Hades. For example, there is the descent of Herakles
to bring up Cerberus; that of Dionysus to bring back
his mother Semele and carry her to heaven; of Orpheus
to recover his beloved wife; of ^Eneas, the Trojan hero,
to consult his father Anchises; of Hermes, sent by Zeus
to find the lost Persephone, etc. All these have at one
time or other been suggested as possible "sources" or
as, at least in a sense, "parallels" of the idea of the
descent of Jesus to the nether world of the dead.

But when we come to look closely into these several
stories their insufficiency is very obvious. In the cases
just quoted the whole object of the journey as well as
its mythical framework is totally different. Moreover,
in these stories the anthropomorphic hero (or heroine)
is generally represented as visiting Hades in his (her)
lifetime, not after death. There is, in short, no possible
comparison to be made.

1 7. e., Zoroaster.

THE DESCENSION TO HADES 305

The Avestan parallel, again, is also unlike for similar
reasons. It is not the after-death visit of a man. Jesus
is thought to have fulfilled this part of his mission dur-
ing the "three days" immediately succeeding his death.
It is worth noting also that Zoroaster's teaching (Khor-
dah Avesta, XXII) is that the soul of a deceased man re-
mains near the head of the corpse for three days and
nights; after this it goes to "its own place." A similar
Jewish rabbinical belief held that it stayed near the body
for that period of time in the hope of being able to
return to it; but on the fourth day the face became so
changed that it realised the impossibility of reanimation
(cf. John ii : 39 and The Rest of the Words of BarucJi,
IX, 7-13). This belief would seem to preclude the idea
of such a journey arising in the early Christian mind from
Zoroastrian or Jewish sources.

As compared with the Mandaean story, in the case of
Jesus there is no "war" with the powers of darkness or
evil. Doctor Cheyne, as we have seen, suggests that,
in the Jewish Messianic cycle of ideas this part has been
dropped, and that "evidently the Christian instinct was
against it"; and this because "the New Testament wri-
ters, as a rule, prefer to represent the battle between
Jesus Christ and the demons as having taken place in
his earthly lifetime" (Matt. 12 : 29; Luke 10 : 18; John
12 : 31; 14 : 30; 16 : 11). But these examples do not
refer to "battles" with demons. The latter are invaria-
bly expelled with a -word! And in Rev. 12 : 7-11 we are
told that the divine armies which overcome Satan are
led by the archangel Michael. This, it is true, has been
unsatisfactorily explained by saying that Michael repre-
sents Jesus Christ in his relation to the angels ! * But
why should not the simpler explanation suffice, viz., that
in the "descent" of Jesus no battle at all, with an al-

1 In vs. ii Michael and Jesus (" the Lamb ") appear to be regarded as
different persons.

306 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

most coequal power (as in the view of Mazdeism) was
thought of?

But we have still to consider the Buddhist "parallels."
Thejirst of these is recommended by Mr. J. M. Robert-
son, who says (Christianity and Mythology, p. 257): "The
motive of the descent into hell [Hades] may have been
taken by the Christists from the [Chinese] Buddhists'
fable of Buddha's expedition to preach, like all former
Buddhas, to his mother 1 in the upper world of Tawa-
deintha" (cf. Bigandet's Life of Gaudama, I, pp. 219-
225).

Setting aside the fact that this story is not found in
early Buddhist scriptures, and is not improbably derived
from corrupt Christian sources, the whole motif is dif-
ferent to that in the story of Jesus, who does not go dur-
ing his earthly lifetime to the "upper world" to preach
either to his mother or to the gods, as another version
puts it, but, it is said, to proclaim his message to "the
spirits in ward, who formerly disobeyed, when the long-
suffering of God waited in the days of Noe" that is,
perhaps, in other words, to the generations preceding his
advent into the world.

Another Buddhist story, regarded apparently as in
some sense a "parallel" by Doctor Van den Bergh Van
Eysinga (Einflusse, pp. 87 /.), is the one referred to by
the late Professor Cowell as "The Northern Buddhist
Legend of Avalokiteswara's Descent into the Hell Avichi"
(Jour, of Philology, vol. VI, 1876, pp. 222 jf.). He says:
"The name and attributes of Avalokiteswara 2 are entirely

1 In the Tibetan version the preaching is to the gods. There is an allu-
sion to a visit to hell of the Buddha in the Lalita vistara, z Gatha, 8, trad,
pour Foucaux, I, 14; cf. Lefmann, Lalita vistara, I (1874), p. 98, which is
declared by Seydel (Evangelium, etc., 183, 267 /., and Buddha-Legende, p.
35) to be a "parallel." But there is no mention in it of preaching or of re-
leasing captives.

- In northern India he was regarded as a Bodhisattva (potential Buddha);
but in China he is worshipped, under a female form, as the Buddha's per-

THE DESCENSION TO HADES 307

unknown to the southern Buddhists and his worship is
one of the later additions which have attached themselves
to the simpler original system. . . . The two best-known
northern works which contain details respecting Avalo-
kiteswara are the Karanda-vyuha and the Saddharma-
Pundarika.

"The first few chapters of the former work are occu-
pied with a description of Avalokiteswara's descent into
the hell Avichi ['no-joy'] to deliver the souls there held
captive by Yama the lord of the lower world. . . .
These seem to me to bear a curious resemblance to the
Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. . . "

He then sums up the question of priority thus: "Is the
resemblance of the two legends accidental, or is it possi-
ble that in the Buddhist account we have one of those
faint reflections of Christian influence (derived, perhaps,
from Persian Christians settled in western and southern
India) which Professor Weber has endeavoured to trace
in the doctrine of faith as taught in the Bhagavad Gita
and some of the mediaeval schools of the Vedanta? Much
must depend on the date of the Apocryphal Gospel of
Nicodemus. Maury and Cooper would place it as low as
the fifth century; but Tischendorf with greater prob-
ability would refer it to the second. 1 Even if the present
form in which we have the legend is interpolated, much
of it must surely be of an early date; and we find direct
allusions to events described there in the pseudo-Epi-
phanius homily 'in Sepulchrum Christi ' and in the fif-
teenth sermon of Eusebius of Alexandria.

"At the same time we have no reason to suppose that
the Buddhist legend was connected with the earliest wor-
ship of Avalokiteswara. It is not alluded to by Chinese

sonified power (see S. Beal, A Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese,
pp. 282, note 2; 383-409).

1 In more recent times Doctors Harnack and Van Manen have regarded
it as "not earlier than the fourth century"; but Doctor Rendel Harris has
lately supported the view of the early date.

308 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

travellers in India; and the date of the Karanda-vyuha
can only be so far fixed that it seems to have been trans-
lated into Tibetan in the ninth century."

There can be little doubt, we think, that the idea con-
tained in this story whatever its historical value may
be was not borrowed by the early Christians from any
of the above-mentioned sources. Jesus, as man, would
be universally expected to descend at death to the world
of the dead; it would also be natural to suppose that his
mission to mankind would be extended to that state of
being also. The phraseology in which these concepts are
expressed is no doubt largely symbolical; but we are, at
least in the canonical books, spared the lurid sensational-
ism which marks the account in the Gospel of Nicodemus.

The Three Days

On the subject of the traditional interval between the
death and the resurrection, Professor Drews comments
as follows (The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, pp.
164 and 165): "Whether, e.g., the traditional 'after
three days' in the account of the resurrection has been
chosen on astral grounds, and is related to the three
winter months from the shortest day when the sun dies
to the vernal equinox when it triumphs definitely over
the winter and so the months are condensed into three
days in the myth, or whether the moon has furnished the
data for the three days and three nights, as it is invisible
for that period, and, as so often happens in myths, the
moon and the sun have been blended, we need not con-
sider here. Possibly the number may be explained by
the popular belief in Persia and Judaea that the soul re-
mains three days and three nights in the neighbourhood
of the body, only departing to its place on the fourth
morning. Possibly, again, the number was determined
by Hosea 6:2, where we read: After two days he will
revive us. In any case, where there are so many possible

THE THREE DAYS 309

explanations, we have no convincing reasons to regard ,the
account in the Gospels as historical." i

In discoursing on this matter in the neighbourhood of
Caesarea Philippi, Jesus is variously reported to have
said that "after three days" he would rise again (Mark
8 : 31); be raised again "the third day" (Matt. 16 : 21);
and be raised "the third day" (Luke 9 : 22). To these
statements may be added the testimony of St. Paul who
affirms (I Cor. 15:4) that he rose again the third day. 2

Now, the statement in Mark (which may be taken as
the original version, of which the other two are variants)
"after three days" is really quite satisfied by the narra-
tives themselves. These all imply that the body lay in
the tomb -about thirty-six hours, distributed over three suc-
cessive days, which corresponds to the Hebraic expres-
sion "on the third day" of II Kings 20 : 5, and Hosea
6:2; but not to the statement in Jonah i -.17, where the
analogy is at best only very approximate. This, again,
is corroborated by the form used in Matthew and Luke
and by St. Paul.

Turning next to Professor Drews's attempt to show that
this statement is "unhistorical," we have first the sug-
gestion that what is really in the writer's mind is, per-
haps, "the three months from the shortest day, when
the sun dies, to the vernal equinox, when it triumphs

1 On p. 77 (op. cit.) Doctor Drews refers also to Isaiah 53 and Jonah 2 : r,
and adds: "The story of Jonah itself seems to have been originally only an
historical embodiment of the myth of the dead, buried, and risen Saviour;
in fact, Jesus refers to the prophet in this sense (Matt. 12 : 40)."

In the next verse, however, Jesus says: "A greater than Jonas is here !"
This remark does not harmonise with any view that both were mere histori-
cal embodiments of the myth of the dead, buried, and risen Saviour. There
is comparison of missions but no identity of persons.

2 In the Jewish mode of computing time any portion of a day was popu-
larly and loosely spoken of as the whole. And the portion of time beyond
a whole day was referred to as "a third day" (cf. Gen. n : 13; I Sam.
30 : 12; and II Chron. 10 : 5). John says (2 : 19 and 21) tv rpurlv
"within three days," which is less Hebraic.

310 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

definitely over the winter, 1 and so" he continues "the
three months are condensed into three days" But what
authority has he for asserting that a definite statement
like this, repeated over and over again, may mean three
months? This is a monstrous and unwarrantable as-
sumption.

No doubt, for the conveniences of the solar-mythical
theory the literal three days is quite impossible; hence
when a sun-myth proves intractable he naturally turns
to the moon, where there is a monthly full three days'
obscuration, and consoles himself with the reflection that
in myths the sun and moon have been often blended ! 2
But the moon has never been concerned in this matter,
and its introduction here is plainly a makeshift, as is
shown directly afterwards by the fact that the Persian
and Jewish beliefs about the soul though these state

1 On p. 95 of TJte Christ Myth, he admits, "it is obvious, however, that the
sun can only be regarded from such a tragic standpoint in a land where, and
in the myths of a people for whom, it possesses in reality such a decisive sig-
nificance that there are grounds for lamenting its absence or lack of strength
during winter and for an anxious expectation of its return and revival " (see
Lobeck, Aglaopkamtis, p. 691, where the whole theory is disputed). From
this dilemma Doctor Drews tries to escape by postulating (i) that the people
originally came from a more severe climate, and (2) that the solar festivals
at the solstice became (later) conjoined with vegetative festivals at the equi-
nox. "Usually," he adds, ..." death and reappearance were joined in one
single feast, and this was celebrated at the tune in spring when day and
night were of equal length, when vegetation was at its highest, and in the
East the harvest was begun." Dupuis argues in a similar manner (L'origine
de tmis les cultes, p. 152). The cult of Dionysus-Zagreus at least affords a
striking exception to this alleged rule. Under the form of a bull he was torn
to pieces and eaten raw by women in the winter time, and further rites, repre-
senting his revival, took place in the spring I

- In true Semitic mythology (unlike Aryan) the moon, it is true, is a male
divinity, and hi some cases it is regarded as a different aspect (? nightly
representative) of the chief, or solar, god. Also there is some relation be-
tween the moon-god and Tammuz, as there is also between the sun and
Tammuz, who, like most of these vegetation spirits, developed solar and
lunar characteristics. This fact is shown inter alia by the Osiris variant
of the "Dying God" cult. But there is no evidence whatever for the
syncretism and confusion postulated by Doctor Drews.

THE EMPTY TOMB 311

the exact contrary are drawn upon as another possible
source of the idea; and a yet further source is next found
in Hosea 6:2, where "after two days" has certainly no
reference to the experience of Jesus/ though both the late
Doctor Pusey and many of the fathers have professed
to find a mystical reference here.

But the whole solar-mythical theory here really breaks
down owing to the fact that the sun is never out of sight
for three months, or even three days, except in very high
latitudes, and in the case of the moon its monthly three
days of obscuration are not comparable with the thirty-
six hours' sojourn in the tomb, because the latter is ex-
actly only one-half of three days! Hence the analogy
drawn fails to satisfy the conditions, as also does that
relating to the full three days' sojourn of the soul beside
the corpse.

The Empty Tomb

Much discussion has also taken place upon the subject
of the empty tomb. St. Paul, it is urged, in his (the
earliest) account of the resurrection, says nothing about
it, and the Gospel accounts are discrepant. 2 But St.
Paul asserts that Jesus rose again "on the third day,"
after being buried, which is another way of stating the
same thing! And had his appearances been of an hal-
lucinatory character, as Professor Schmiedel argues in
the Encyclopedia Biblica, and been regarded as appari-
tional by St. Paul himself, the latter would not have re-
ferred at all to any "rising" on the third day, because
a mere phantasmal appearance may be seen any day after
death, whether the body is or is not lying in the grave.

1 Because in the Mass, version of the text the reference is to "us." So
also the LXX version reads efavaorijcrd/iefla. There is, it is true, another
possible pointing of the Hebrew, but it does not agree so well with the con-
text as the above rendering.

2 The present writer has discussed these objections in his The Resurrec-
tion Narratives and, Modern Criticism, chap. 8.

312 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

M. Salomon Reinach, on the other hand, revives an old
and non-mythical objection when he asserts, with Strauss
and Volkmar, that Jesus never had a tomb at all. He
remarks (Orpheus, p. 255): "The discovery of the empty
tomb is the less credible in that Jesus, if he had been exe-
cuted, would have been thrown by the Roman soldiers
into the common grave of malefactors." It is to be feared
that the learned French scholar penned this passage
hastily and without having previously consulted his au-
thorities! In earlier times it was usual for bodies to be
left to decay upon the cross; but, according to Quintil-
ian (Dedam., VI), after the time of Augustus, the bodies,
if claimed, were given up to the friends for burial. 1

The First Day of the Week

The wx universa of Christian tradition has in all
ages asserted definitely and clearly that the first day of
the week was held to be a sacred day, in place of the
seventh, in commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus
from the dead. This tradition has of late years, how-
ever, been disputed. Doctor Paul Carus says (The Mon-
ist, 1906, p. 420): "Sunday was then [temp. Chr.] the
great festive day of the Mithraists, and the disciples of
St. John [Baptist] as well as the Nazarenes celebrated
the day by coming together and breaking bread in a
common meal. . . . That Sunday was celebrated prior
to Christianity is unquestionably proved by the fact that
St. Paul visits in several cities those circles of disciples
who had neither heard of the Holy Ghost nor believed
as yet on Christ Jesus, and they used to break bread in
common on the first day of the week."

Doctor Carus here does not state the facts quite fairly.
Acts 19 : 1-5 certainly affirms that St. Paul, when at

1 The Jews, too, were careful that they should be buried before sunset
(wpb dvvros TJ\(OV, Josephus).

THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK 313

Ephesus, visited a community of the disciples of Johji
the Baptist, who had not heard of the Holy Ghost or re-
ceived apostolic baptism.

But the passage does not refer to the breaking of bread
by them on any day. The Nazarenes, too, seem to have
been the more Jewishly minded of the disciples of Jesus,
though the term was also probably often loosely used
for all in the apostolic fellowship. They would, there-
fore, naturally follow the same rule, and possibly ob-
served both days in some degree.

As to the Mithraists, it is true that in the later period
of their history at least they observed Sunday, and that
in the second and third centuries A. D. their doctrines
and practises bore, in some respects, a remarkable re-
semblance to those of the Christian church. But, owing
to the loss of all early Mithraic literature, it is by no
means certain, or probable, that this was the case in pre-
Christian times. Some of the second-century Christian
writers, indeed, accuse the Mithraists of travestying both
the sacraments and the doctrines of Christianity. But,
whether this be the case or not, it is both wiser and safer
to say, with M. Franz Cumont (The Mysteries of Mithra,
1910, p. 194): "We cannot presume to unravel to-day a
question which divided contemporaries and which will
doubtless forever remain insoluble. We are too imper-
fectly acquainted with the dogmas and liturgies of Ro-
man Mazdeism, as well as the development of primitive
Christianity, to say definitely what mutual influences
were operative in their simultaneous evolution." This
pronouncement in effect amounts to a verdict of "not
proven" as against the case presented by Doctor Carus,
who would suggest a borrowing of the observance of the
first day from the Mithraists. We do not know defi-
nitely whether the pre-Christian Mithraists observed the
first day of the week; but we do know that the very earli-
est Christians firmly believed that Jesus rose again on

314 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

that day, and honoured it in consequence instead of the
older Jewish Sabbath, which it henceforward superseded
in the church. 1

The Angelophanies at the Tomb

We have already seen (chap, n, pp. 218 Jf.) how Pro-
fessor W. B. Smith has endeavoured to prove that the
"young man" (veawoveo?) of Mark 15:5 was nothing else
than the fravishi (frohar), or "heavenly self," of Jesus.
That particular phenomenon, however, we submit, stands
on precisely the same footing as the similar figures seen
at the tomb and recorded by the other synoptists and
in the Fourth Gospel.

These "angelophanies," commonly set aside without
examination by "liberal" critics, have been briefly no-
ticed by Fiebig (Babel., p. 7) in the following terms: "In
the reports of the resurrection the angelophanies are un-
doubtedly mythical in character."

But why should this conclusion be thus dogmatically
stated? There are other possibilities, e. g., visions of an
hallucinatory character. The women may have fancied
that they saw these apparitions ! Again, there is at least
the possibility that these appearances had some objec-
tive basis. It is true that (granting this possibility) the
dividing line in such matters between what is wholly sub-
jective and hallucinatory and what is (spiritually) ob-
jective and, therefore, veridical is one which is extremely
difficult to draw. But a careful study of the latest mod-
ern literature bearing upon this branch of psychical re-
search will at least prevent any thinking person from
hastily forming the opinion that because a phenomenon
of the class known as "supernatural" is reported as oc-
curring many years ago, therefore it must certainly be
mythical. It is really to a very large extent a question

1 Gunkel thinks (VerstSndnis, pp. 73^".) that Sunday was already observed
by the Jews also; but he offers no proof.

OSIRIS 315

of the intelligence and veracity of the witnesses, and per-
haps one of the best proofs of the objectivity of the phe-
nomenon is to be found in the fact that all the witnesses
in question relate very similar experiences. 1

Certain Mythical "Resurrections"

We will now proceed to state and deal with certain
alleged parallels to the resurrection of Jesus as found
among the chief dying and rising saviours of the ethnic
nature-cults.

Osiris

In the case of the Egyptian cult-god Osiris (Bab., ASari,
a form of Marduk), whose body was hacked to pieces, the
myth relates, by his brother and adversary Set, the idea
of resurrection, in the Christian sense, is but imperfectly
expressed and even that of identity is somewhat vague.
In the developed form of the Osirian religion Osiris be-
comes identified with the sun 2 of to-day (this year) which
rises to-morrow (next year) in the form of his son Horus.
Osiris himself is regarded as remaining below as king of
the underworld and judge of the dead. The idea of res-
urrection, or rather revival, was certainly moralised and
spiritualised as it never was in Babylon or elsewhere;
but the whole concept, even in Egypt, was originally ex-
pressed in a mere materialistic form, as is shown by the
primitive story told of the membra disjecta of his body,
which Anubis pieced together, and Isis, assisted by the
snake-goddess IJeptet and other gods and goddesses,

1 It is not, however, an absolute test; for collective hallucinations do oc-
cur under certain conditions. The present writer has discussed fully the
phenomena, etc., at the tomb in his The Resurrection Narratives and Modern
Criticism (1910).

2 The Book of the Dead (Budge's translation), vol. I, pp. 87 and 88. But,
doubtless, in earlier times he was a vegetation spirit and a god of fecundity.
Later, however, he became identified, or confused, in some degree with Ra
as Osiris-RS.

316 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

fanned into life again with her wings, 1 while, according to
one account, Horus by means of various magical ceremo-
nies made him to "stand up " again. Such is the Egyptian
resurrection (see Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Resur-
rection, vol. I, pp. 72, 74, and 75) ! These stories point
merely to the old material life of nature which is simply
revived; hence the practise of mummification, without
which there can be no revivification either for Osiris or
the Osirian.

Adonis

A two days' festival in honour of the death and revival
of Adonis (the Syrian Tammuz 2 ) was celebrated early in
February by the Phrenician women of Byblus. The first
day was spent in grief and lamentation, the second in
joy and triumph. In Greece, whither the rites were sub-
sequently transferred, the festival took place in summer
and was prolonged to eight days.

According to the anthropomorphic setting of the myth
Adonis was slain by the tusk of a wild boar, whilst hunt-
ing in the mountains of Lebanon, and was revived annu-
ally at his festival in the spring or in some places in mid-
summer. 3 In Ovid's poetical version of the myth (Metam.,
X, 735) his return to life would seem to be evidenced by

1 An image of Osiris was buried in a hollowed-out pine trunk, which was
kept for a year and then usually burned, as was done with the image of Attis
attached to the pine-tree (see below, and Macrobius, De Err. Prof. Rel.,
XXVTI). The myth should be studied especially in Doctor Budge's Osiris
and the Egyptian Resurrection (see also his Gods of the Egyptians, vol. II,
131-138, and Frazer's Adonis, Attis, Osiris (36. ed.), vol. II, pp. 12 and 13).
Foucart thinks that the drama was enacted at the Anthesteria, Mommensen
places it in the following month at the Lesser Mysteries.

2 Doctor Radau states (The Bab. Exped. of the Univ. of Penn. : Sumerian
Hymns and Prayers to the God Dumuzi, or Bab. Lent. Songs, 1913) that the
resurrection of Tammuz is never mentioned in the [older] dialectal texts of
southern Sumer.

3 So Milton in his Paradise Lost (book I):

"Thammuz came next behind,
Whose wounds in Lebanon allur'd

ATTIS 317

the springing up of the red anemone in the place wheje
his blood was spilt. 1

During the festival, as described by the Greek poet
Bion, 2 on the first day an image 3 of the young lover
lying on a couch and dying in the arms of Aphrodite 4
(Astarte) was exhibited. Early on the next day the statue
was carried down to the seashore, where its "wounds"
were washed by women amid great lamentations. Di-
rectly afterwards the drama of his "resurrection" was
enacted. This is described by Lucian (De Dea Syr., VI)
in a few sarcastic words: "They say mythically that he
is alive" (&eiv re \uv /u,y0oXoyeoua-t) .

Attis

The ritual in the cult of Attis, 5 the Phrygian type of
the vegetal (-solar?) god, began with the felling of the

The Syrian damsels to lament his fate
In amorous ditties all a summer's day."

But Adonis and Attis, unlike most of these cult-gods, remained to the end
almost free from solar characteristics (see Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris,
vol. I, p. 232, note).

1 Cf. also Baudissin, Adon. und. Eshmun, p. 169.

2 See Ahren's Bucolici Graci, sub Bionis reliq.

3 That this part of the ceremonies is based on old Semitic ritual, and is not
a later Greek addition, is evidenced by Lampridius, who says (Heliogab.,
VII): Salambonam (Sj?a oSs, "image of Ba'al") etiam omni planctu et jac-
tatione Syriaci cultus exhibuit.

Doctor Langdon thinks that in the case of Dumu-zi (Tammuz) "a wooden
figure of the dying god was probably placed in a skiff and given over to the
waters of the Euphrates or the Tigris, precisely as in Egypt the image of
Osiris was cast upon the sea. When the figure of the god disappeared be-
neath the waves he was supposed to pass to the underworld and maintain a
peaceful existence after the pain of death" (Tammus atid Ishtar, pp. u and
12). Dumu-zi figures here as the fertilising spirit of the inundation.

4 Aphrodite (like Istar) "descends" to Hades to bring up Adonis. There
is no "descent" of Mary in the Christian tradition!

5 Attis = "Father" (Frazer). He was variously said to have bled to death
as a consequence of self-mutilation at the foot of a pine-tree and to have
been killed (like Adonis) by a wild boar. According to Sir James Frazer he
was originally a tree spirit. In one passage Firmicus Maternus states (De
Err. Prof. Relig., 27) that a ram was sacrificed in the worship of Attis.

318 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

sacred pine-tree into which he was said to have been
changed at death. The trunk of this, swathed in bands,
like a mummy, with the effigy of a young man attached
to it, was taken to the temple where the mourning broke
forth. After a period of fasting the tree trunk was sol-
emnly buried, and those present stimulated their emo-
tions by wild dances, during which, like the priests of
Ba'al, they gashed themselves with knives till the blood 1
flowed. On the evening of the following day they again
met in the temple to celebrate the restoration of Attis
to h'fe; the grave was opened, and when a light had been
produced the priest anointed the lips of the worshippers
with oil, and said: "Be of good cheer, initiates, the god
has been saved; thus for you also there shall be salvation
from your troubles." 2 The joy of the mystae was then
expressed in a sort of carnival.

Dionysus

The grave of Dionysus, 3 who was said to have been
torn in pieces by the Titans, according to one form of the
myth, was at Thebes. His "resurrection" (revival) is
variously related. According to one version probably
an earlier form (cf. myth of Osiris) his mother pieced
him together and made him young again (Diodorus Sicu-
lus, first century A. D., Ill, 62) ; in another form it is
merely stated that he rose from the dead 4 and ascended

1 The blood, it must be remembered, was both the seat and the medium
of the life. Hence this act was probably regarded as aiding the develop-
ment of the new life.

- Oappeire, fdffra.1 rov ffeov a-effiatrfj.fvov,
tsffrai yd.p {ifiuv rlav irovuv ffurijpla.
Firmicus Maternus, De Err. Prof. Rel. (Zieg.), p. 57.

3 Probably "son of Zeus" (Atisand vvffos, a Thracian word for "son").

4 Pomegranates were supposed to have sprung from the blood of Diony-
sus, as anemones from the blood of Adonis and violets from that of Attis.
This points to the conclusion that both Dionysus and the other forms of this
annually dying god were originally "Spirits of the Corn and of the Wild"
(Frazer) and unconnected with the sun. The oldest (and aniconic) repre-
sentation of Dionysus was a consecrated post formed from a holy tree.

MITHRA 319

to heaven (Macrobius, fifth century, Comm. in Somn.
Scip., I, 12, 12; cf. Origen, Cont. Cels., IV, 17); again,
it is related that Zeus swallowed the heart of Dionysus
and then begat him afresh by Semele (Proclus, Hymn to
Minerva, see Lobeck, Aglaophamus, p. 51); finally, we
read that his heart was pounded up and given to Semele,
who swallowed it and again conceived him (Hyginus,
F alula, 167).

It will be observed that the only variant of the myth
of the (annual) revival of Dionysus (that of Macrobius)
which bears any resemblance to the story of Jesus is a
very late one and undoubtedly shows evidence of Chris-
tian syncretism. The other, and earlier, forms are ut-
terly unlike throughout.

Mithra

As the Mithra-myth is wholly lost, it is only possible
to study it tentatively by means of the Mithraic sculp-
tures which are extant. One of them, in which Mithra
is represented as struggling with a bull and plunging a
knife into its neck, is commonly supposed to display the
god in the role of a "suffering saviour." So far as the
sculpture goes, however, it would seem that it is rather
the bull which is suffering. Indeed, the whole meaning
of this symbolic representation is doubtful. Doctor St.
Clair Tisdall suggests (Mythic Christs and the True, pp.
19 and 20) that as the Avestic word gaus, besides mean-
ing "bull" is translatable "earth," and since the word
urvan ("soul") is probably a derivative of the same root
as urvara ("plant," "tree"), this sculpture really means
that the sun by piercing the earth with its rays (the
knife) causes the vegetation to spring up. 1

1 Professor Drews, however, explains it differently. He says (The Christ
Myth, p. 142) that before 800 B. C. the sun, in the shape of the constellation
of the Bull, opened the spring equinox and released the world from the power
of winter. But why the stabbing of the bull? Mr. H. Stuart Jones holds
(The Quart. Rev., July, 1914, p. 119) that we have here one of those legends

320 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

Another sculpture shows Mithra issuing from the rock.
This has been hastily pronounced by Mr. J. M. Robert-
son (Christianity and Mythology, p. 417) to represent the
resurrection of Mithra from the tomb. But there is no
extant tradition of Mithra's burial in a tomb or of his
issuing from one after death. 1 Doctor St. Clair Tisdall
thinks that since the Avestic word asman (Ved. Sansc.,
asman) means, besides "rock," "cloud" and "sky," the
reference here is to Mithra (i. e., the sun) as a child of
the sky. In both of the above cases dogmatism is impos-
sible, but the explanations suggested by Doctor Tisdall
may at least be pronounced very feasible.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

It must suffice here to point out that the two main
differences between the Christian resurrection and the
mythical revivals (incorrectly termed "resurrections")
of the cult-gods are: (i) In the case of the nature-cults
the revival of the god is merely to a fresh lease of the for-
mer type of life and reproductive energy in nature. In
the Christian resurrection (as taught by St. Paul in I Cor.
15) both Jesus himself and Christian people rise to a
new and wholly different life, in which a "spiritual body"
(a-ufjLa irvevpaTiKov) replaces the former material or "nat-
ural (psychical) body" (o-w/ta i|ru%t/eo'z>). 2 (2) The death

invented in order to explain primitive ritual in this case the sacrifice of a
bull (embodying the corn spirit) in order to promote the fertility of the
earth.

1 Justin Martyr says (Dial. c. Try., LXX): "Those who record the mys-
teries of Mithra say that he was begotten of a rock (e ir^rpas yeyevija-Oat
aijr&v)." These mysteries were, as a rule, celebrated at the spring equinox
(Cumont, Monuments figures relatifs aux mysteres de Mithra, vol. I, p. 326).
For a description of a Mithrseum near Rome, in which they were held,
see the London Athenceum for October 30 and November 6, 1886.

2 For a discussion of St. Paul's teaching on the resurrection and the spir-
itual and natural bodies, see The Resurrection Narratives and Modern Criti-
cism (1910), especially chaps. 10 and n.

THE EPIDAURIA 321

and revival of the cult-god is an annual matter: Jes,us
and the Christian die and are raised from the dead "once
for all."

The Epidauria

But a "source" of the idea has also been found in the
Eleusinian mysteries. In Mr. Slade Butler's article, al-
ready quoted, we find the following passage (p. 498):
"The last act of the sacred drama performed within the
temple of Demeter took place on the eighth day, which
appears to have been called Epidauria, in honour of
^Esculapius (Asklepios), the god of returning life. The
ceremony and ritual used on this day are not known,
but "doubtless the thought really lay in this, that ^Escu-
lapius was supposed by his wondrous skill to have raised
lacchus from the dead" (Purser). lacchus was the son
of Persephone, the maiden (Kore), but how his death
was enacted has never been ascertained; probably this
ceremony was performed when a mystes, or rather an
epoptes, was admitted to the highest grade of the priest-
hood, on which occasion the candidate would represent
lacchus and would symbolically die and be raised to life
again. In any case the ritual would be mystic and dra-
matic, showing by type and figure the passage through
death to life. The eighth day of the Eleusinian celebra-
tion was, in fact, the festival of returning life or resur-
rection."

It is not in any sense demonstrated by Mr. Butler how
this mystic ceremony, if it be rightly set forth here, could
supply the idea of the Christian resurrection, which was
certainly not that of mere "returning life," as we have
seen above. The eighth day of the mysteries, called Epi-
dauria, is said to have been added to the original num-
ber of days during which the mysteries were celebrated
because ^Esculapius, arriving too late for the ceremonies
of the sixth day, asked for initiation. But the whole idea

322 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

here also is very different to the Christian story of the
resurrection of Jesus. ^Esculapius (who may be an an-
cient physician, euhemerised) does not himself rise to re-
newed life, but raises another by his skill in the healing
art. Moreover, this takes place not on the third but on
the eighth day. "It is extremely difficult," says Pro-
fessor Clemen, "to see any connexion here," and we are
compelled to indorse his judgment.

In conclusion, we may add a Buddhist story which has
been regarded by some irresponsible writers as a "paral-
lel" to the resurrection of Jesus. It is described by Doc-
tor Edkins (Chinese Buddhism, p. 57) as follows: "After
the body of the Buddha had been consumed upon the
funeral pile, Anuruddha went up to the Tusita heaven
to announce these events to Maya, the mother of the
Buddha. Maya at once came down, and the coffin opened
of itself. The honoured one of the world rose up, joined
his hands, and said: You have condescended to come
down here from your abode far away. Then he said to
Ananda: 'You should know that it is for an example
to the unfilial of after ages that I have risen from my
coffin to address inquiries to my mother.' " 1

Comment on the above is really superfluous, but, if
any be needed, it is sufficient to add that when death
came to the Buddha it was, according to the Buddhist
scriptures (cf. Mahaparinibbana Suttanta, IV, 57; also III,
20; V, 20, etc., Sacred Books of the East, vol. XI), "with
that utter passing away in which nothing whatever re-
mains behind." 2

1 A variant form of this legend is given by Doctor Eitel, Three Lectures
on B^lddh^sm, p. 13.

2 The exact meaning of the Buddhistic Nirvana is in dispute. By many
scholars it is interpreted as simply extinction (so Rhys Davids). Pfungst,
however, maintains ("Che 5 veramente il Nirvana dei Buddhisti?", Coe-
nolium, May- June, 1907) that it is a state of being in which, while Witt
disappears, Consciousness remains.

THE ASCENSION TO HEAVEN 323

The Ascension to Heaven

We will notice in the first place, in connexion with this
event in the story of Jesus, a statement made by the well-
known and eminent critic and churchman Doctor T. K.
Cheyne, who, quoting the views of Doctor Winckler,
says (Bible Problems, 1904, pp. 114 and 115): "The same
scholar is of opinion that the forty days between the
resurrection and the ascension of Christ (Acts i : 3) may
originally (i. e., in a pre-Christian myth out of which the
Jewish and Christian representations grew) have meant
the forty days during which, as the ancients well knew,
the Pleiades become invisible.

"In this case the forty days of the evangelical tradi-
tion were properly the interval between the death and
the resurrection of Christ; i. e., from a purely archaeo-
logical point of view, the resurrection and the ascension
were one and the same thing. 1 In fact, the resurrection
and ascension of the solar heroes were naturally identi-
cal, and the archaeological theory here expounded is that
myths of solar deities supplied details for the close of the
story of the Messiah, which, according to a highly satis-
fying theory, preceded the appearance of the Christ of
history."

And he continues further: "In spite of a churchman's
natural inclination to a reverential reticence, I am bound
to say that the form of the spiritual truth of Christ's
resurrection and ascension can be explained by archaeol-
ogy. Provisionally and tentatively it may be possible
to explain the form in each case as a postulate of faith;
but in the light of what has been shown to be the prob-
able origin of the form of the belief in the descent we
cannot consider this explanation very plausible. That
there are mythic parallels for the statement (less empha-
sised in our documents than we might have expected) of

1 So Zimmern, Die Keilinschrijten . d. Alte Test. 3 , p. 389,

324 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

the ascension is beyond question. Not to dwell on the
myths of Adonis and Herakles, the Babylonian solar dei-
ties who descend (arddu) necessarily ascend (elii) after-
wards." x

The traditional period of the invisibility of the Pleiades
is, as above stated, forty days (cf. Hesiod, Works and
Days, II, 383-386). At the present time, in latitude 31,
they set, heliacally, about May 2 and rise, heliacally,
about June 6, thus giving an interval of approximately
five weeks.

In A. D. 29 the Pleiades were invisible for almost ex-
actly forty days, which, so far, would support the sugges-
tion of Winckler. But the real question here does not
depend upon any mere coincidence of this kind. The
point is, what have the Pleiades to do with the matter at
all? Have the Jews, for example, or any other people,
ever regarded this group of stars as the "astral represent-
ative" of the sun or connected them in any way with a
cult of this kind ? No proof of this has ever been brought

1 The rest of the paragraph deals with the mythic ascensions which are not
preceded by_descensions, e. g., those of Mithra,the Babylonian Etana, Enoch,
Elijah, etc. Doctor Langdon admits (Tammuz and Ishtar, p. 33) that
"The ascension of the dying god into the far-away upper regions, where he
vanished forever from mortal eyes, does not form any part of the doctrine of
the official liturgies. These adhered from first to last to the traditional view
that the divine son descended into She61, whither his mother and the demons
followed him and whence they fetched him back to the upper world [earth]."

Doctor Budge (Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, vol. I, pp. 75 JT.) thus
describes the ascension of Osiris: "When the body of Osiris was ready to
leave this earth for heaven, some difficulty, it seems, arose in raising him
up to the sky and a ladder was found to be necessary. From the text of
Pepi II (II, 975 Jf.) we learn the tradition that the wooden sides of the lad-
der were shaped by an adze wielded by the god Sasha, that the rungs were
made of the strong sinews of Kasut, the bull of the sky, and that they were
fashioned in their places on the sides of the ladder with the knotted thongs
made from the hide of the god Utes, the son of Hesat (Pepi II, II, 975 and
976). This divine ladder was set up from earth to heaven by Horus and Ra,
according to one legend, and, according to another, by Horus and Set. The
text of Unas says: Ra setteth up the ladder before Osiris in his going to his
spirit. One of them [standeth] on this side and one of them on that side."

The concepts which are set forth above are very materialistic and crude.

THE ASCENSION TO HEAVEN 325

forward in support of this theory. Ordinarily, in clas-
sical mythology, the Pleiades were regarded as the sevdn
daughters of Atlas, and their rising and setting merely
marked the opening and closing of the sailing season.
What particular constellation even the Hebrews iden-
tified with the Pleiades is uncertain (Enc. Bib., art.
"Stars"). In short, this group of stars seems to have no
connexion whatever with the sun, or with the cults of
"dying" and "rising" solar or other heroes, and the
borrowing from them of the forty days' interval before
the ascension has not even a shadow of probability.

But Doctor Cheyne admits that in these ethnic myths
the resurrection and the ascension are invariably one
and the same event. If so, why were they not in the
Christ-myth, if that story were merely another instance
of a solar-myth? As a matter of fact, in Christian tradi-
tion they have never been regarded as practically syn-
chronous, which fact alone constitutes a strong argument
for rejecting any solar or astral origin of the resurrection
and ascension 1 narratives. Furthermore, a comparison
with the story of the ascension of Adonis, the Syrian god
of vegetation, yields results which are very instructive
and, no doubt, fairly typical. Lucian, who has preserved
the story, tells us that his assembled worshippers, after
theatrically pronouncing him to be alive, "send him into
the air" (fuv . . . e? TOV yepa ire^irovcri) , probably by ut-
tering some magic formula. 2 In other words, he intimates
plainly that the whole scene was a mere make-believe
and was not looked upon by any one, even those most

1 Strenuous efforts have been made by some critics to show that the ascen-
sion of Jesus is stated by Luke (24 : 50-52) to have taken place directly
after the resurrection. But Luke's narrative here is clearly condensed; and
he (as author of Acts i : 2) says definitely that the intervening period was
one of forty days. Moreover, the number of appearances of Jesus, as given
by all authorities, strongly suggest a considerable interval.

2 Mr. Bouchier thinks (Syria as a Roman Province, p. 264) that at this
point in the ceremony an image of Adonis was thrown up into the air.

326 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

concerned, as anything more than a kind of magical cer-
emony to secure the fertility of the land during the fol-
lowing year. 1

Now, it is impossible to compare a scene of this sort
with the story of the ascension of Jesus. Whether the
apostles and the other earliest Christians were right or
wrong, they certainly believed that they had witnessed
the departure of Jesus from this world. If this were not
a fact of some order, then we are dealing with a case of
hallucination or one of imposture.

Again, in the- case of Herakles who really has no
resurrection (cited by Mr. J. M. Robertson, Christian-
ity and Mythology, p. 420) after putting on the robe
tinged with the philter of Nessus, and when the venom
contained in the latter had begun to consume his flesh,
he went to Mount Oeta, where he built a funeral pyre,
ascended it, and caused it to be set alight. While the
pyre was flaming a thunder-cloud of Zeus is said to have
conveyed the sufferer to heaven where he was endowed
with immortality. 2

Here, again, it is impossible to see how a story of this
type could have suggested to any reasonable and earnest
men, such as the early Christians were, any mere fanciful
story of an actual ascension. It is wholly different both
in motif and in detailed incidents. Even Mr. Robertson

1 The original (pre-Christian) ascension of the dying god was undoubtedly
merely from Hades to earth. Cf. the story of Tammuz (p. 324, note i),
which goes back at least 5,000 years and is, perhaps, the oldest extant form
of the myth. There is an "ascension" to heaven in Babylonian literature
by the hero Etana, who mounts thither on the back of an eagle in order to
obtain the "plant of begetting" (see Jensen, Mythen und Epen, pp. 100-
105). With this story may be compared what Doctor Budge (Osiris, etc.)
indexes as "Osiris ascends to the heaven of Sefert," as related in the pyra-
mid text of Unas. In this the deceased king (Unas), identified with Osiris,
mounted on the hawk-headed creature Sefert, who was hi charge of portions
of the body of Osiris, goes to heaven where he works magic upon or for Ra.

2 According to another variant of the myth, the god Eshmun-Iolaos re-
stored Herakles to life by giving him a quail to smell at.

THE ASCENSION TO HEAVEN 327

himself appears to see the absurdity of such a derivation
of either the story or the idea which it contains; for he
remarks (p. 420) that the suggestion of an ascension of
Jesus probably came "from the spectacle of the litten
clouds at sunset." So far as this proposed solution of
the problem is concerned, it may be remarked here that
imaginative persons have often derived many strange
ideas from the spectacle of a gorgeous sunset; but it has
nowhere else been placed on record that any one has
thought that he saw a man ascending out of his sight!
To Mr. Robertson himself the whole ssene is, of course,
"obviously a fable born of ignorance. Only," he con-
tinues, "in a world living under the primitive delusion of
a flat earth and of a solid, overarching firmament could
such a fable have been framed."

This is, no doubt, a very superior attitude to assume,
and highly satisfying to all of a like mind with Mr. Rob-
ertson himself. But before yielding to the attractions of
so facile & solution, let us for a few moments examine the
original story a little more closely.

Assuming here, provisionally and for the present pur-
pose, the existence of a spiritual world and the survival
of a spiritual element in man, the question arises whither
does this undying ego depart at death? Now, of course,
it is well known that the concept of a passage from this
lower and mainly material world to a higher and coexist-
ent spiritual universe has, among the higher races, gen-
erally been formulated and depicted in terms of time and
space as, in fact, an ascension in space, 1

1 It may not be inopportune here, in order to show to what degree of folly
the thoughtless adoption of the crude concepts of untrained minds may lead
even a distinguished modern thinker, to quote the following anecdote chron-
icled by Doctor F. C. Conybeare (Myth, Magic, and Morals, pp. 358 and
359). He says: "The Irish mathematician, Sir William Rowan Hamilton,
once allowed himself to be drawn into the speculation of how far out into
space Jesus could proceed in a certain time if he were rising at the moderate
rate which the above passage contemplates. When his calculations revealed
to him that he would not have reached yet the nearest of the fixed stars, he

328 MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS

But such descriptions have always had (except among
the ruder peoples and the more uncultured races of man-
kind) a greater or less degree of symbolical meaning at-
tached to them. And, even in the case of those races
and persons who have made considerable advances in
culture and the power of thought, there is a convenience
in this mode of representation which it would be difficult
even now wholly to dispense with. Hence we can under-
stand the use of such concepts by the more backward
people of the first century. Probably they did hold to
"the primitive delusion of a fiat earth" and "a solid, over-
arching firmament." Almost every one did in those and
even later times, and adjusted their ideas of things, spirit-
ual as well as temporal, in accordance with this common
error. But this is not really the important point here.
What the writer of the Acts is primarily endeavouring
to impress upon his readers is that Jesus, as the son of
God and man, after his death and resurrection, passed
over from this lower and material to a higher and spirit-
ual mode of existence, i. e., to the kingdom of heaven or of
God. And he expresses this idea in the only form in which
he himself and his readers, for the most part at least, can
grasp it, viz., a temporal and spatial one. And this mode
of expression is still necessary to a very large extent even
nowadays. But, on the other hand, it is also true that
there are in these times an increasing number of persons
to whom the cruder symbolisations of spiritual truths are
less necessary. Some, at least, will have learned from
the immortal work of Kant 1 that both space and time
as we know them are, perhaps, but mere forms of our
sense-perception, chiefly, if not wholly, concerned with
the phenomenal world; and we are able dimly to under-

*

began as a good Christian to recoil from his speculation and relegated the
matter as a mystery beyond the reach of human wisdom."

This story is in the highest degree instructive!

1 The Kritik of Pure Reason : The Transcendental ^Esthetic.

THE ASCENSION TO HEAVEN 329

stand that the passage from a material and phenomenal
to a spiritual and real world cannot be one of actual spatial
transition at all. It must be something different from this:
something higher, in a spiritual sense; something which
we cannot yet fully grasp and understand. "For," says
St. Paul (I Cor. 13 : 12) with great truth and insight,
"now we see in (lit., "through") a mirror obscurely (&'
ecroTTTpov ev alvfyfiaTi,}, but then" when the obscuring
veil of the senses is removed "face to face; now I know
in part," he adds, "but then I shall know fully, even as
also I was fully known."

APPENDIX A

THE DATES OF THE BIRTH AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST

MOST readers are well aware of the hitherto complete
failure of the efforts of chronologists to fix the dates of
the above-named events. This fact is sometimes urged
by mythicists as an additional argument in favour of the
non-historicity of the Gospel narratives.

During the last few years, however, some very acute
and useful researches into both of these questions have
been carried on by Sir William Ramsay and Lieutenant-
Colonel G. Mackinlay. The latter gentleman sums up
the results (The Churchman, July, 1911, p. 515) as fol-
lows: "There is a mass of secular historic evidence in
favour of 8 B. C. and 29 A. D. for the dates of the na-
tivity and the crucifixion respectively. The former date
agrees with the express statement of Tertullian that
Christ was born during the rule of Sentius Saturninus
[in Syria], and the latter date is in accord with the uni-
versal testimony of the early Latin fathers that the Lord
suffered under the rule of the Gemini."

We will give here a very brief summary of the grounds
upon which these dates are based.

The Birth. The difficulties in the way of fixing the date
of the birth of Jesus have been largely due to two ap-
parent errors in the Lucan narrative: (i) that Quirinus
was connected with the first census held in 8 B. C. and
(2) that in certain of these enrolments in the eastern prov-
inces of the empire it was the custom to require that all
should return to their ancestral homes for purposes of
registration. Both of these statements of Luke have
been frequently denied and even ridiculed by mythicists
and others who were desirous of impugning the historical
trustworthiness of that writer.

As regards the former of these points, it has now been

331

332 APPENDIX A

definitely shown by Sir William Ramsay, 1 from the indis-
putable contemporary evidence of inscriptions, that Quiri-
nus was in charge of Syria about 10-7 B. C., and prob-
ably in the exact years 9-8 B. C., the period of the first
enrolment.

The second point has also now been settled by the dis-
covery and publication of a copy of a similar edict, is-
sued by Gaius Vibius Maximus, eparch of Egypt, A. D.
104. Sir F. G. Kenyon, in an editor's note, writes 2 (p. 124) :
"It is a rescript from the prefect requiring all persons
who were residing out of their names to return to their
homes in view of the approaching census. The analogy
between this order and Luke is obvious. The census in
question is that of the seventh year of Trajan (A. D.
103-4) and the determining date is the last day of the
year. . . . The rescript is accordingly issued in Epeiph,
the last month but one, which would give time for the
necessary journeys. . . . Edicts requiring persons to re-
turn to their own homes are contained or mentioned [else-
where; four documents are cited]; these, however, have
no reference to the census but to persons who have left
their domiciles to avoid \eirovpyia [public duties]."

This perfectly plain and to ah 1 acquainted with East-
ern customs intelligible order, that every man should
return home, "each to his own hearthstone" (e7rave\6eiv
ei? TO, eavT&v e$e<7Tta) ? has, however, been curiously mis-
understood by Professor W. B. Smith, who writes ("The
Real Question of the Ancestry of Jesus," The Open Court,
January, 1910, p. 13): "On census day every one should
be at his own hearth, surely not in some distant ances-
tral city !" But this is precisely what is meant here. In
ancient law and custom a man who left his own birth-
place and that of his forefathers was a vagrant and with-
out any rights in his adopted city or country; he was not

J In his articles in The Expositor, November and December, 1912, which
complement and even supersede his former book, Was Christ Born at Beth-
lehem ?

2 Greek Papyri in the British Museum, III, 125 (1907), F. G. Kenyon and
H. I. Bell; see also Milligan's Greek Papyri, p. 73.

APPENDIX A 333

even numbered in a census of the population of the latter.
The later empire largely changed this old view; but in
the East old customs were found to be too deeply rooted
and too strong for even Roman officials to override.

A somewhat analogous parallel in modern times is the
legal status of an alien, that is, a foreigner resident in a
country which is not his own and where he has not been
naturalised. He remains there on sufferance and is liable
at any time to deportation should the exigencies of the
state demand it.

The Crucifixion took place, we are told, immediately
before a Passover, which was on the i4th day of the first
month (Ex. 12 : 6). It was also upon the eve of a Sab-
bath, i. e., on a Friday. Several dates have been pro-
posed as "historically possible" A. D. 29, 30, and 33.
Colonel Mackinlay maintains that these conditions are
best fulfilled in A. D. 29.

An objection to this date has, however, been raised by
the Reverend D. R. Fotheringham on the ground that in
A. D. 29 the i4th of Nisan did not fall on a Friday but
on a Saturday, because (he alleges) Nisan i was on March
5, when the new moon was first visible. Had Nisan i fallen
on the day previous (March 4), Nisan 14 would also have
been a day earlier (viz., Friday), in which case the calen-
dar would have agreed with the supposition that A. D. 29
was the year of the crucifixion.

Now, it will be seen that the whole question of this
date practically turns upon whether the new moon, by
which the beginning of the month was calculated, could
have been seen just after sunset on March 4 in that
year. The young moon was then about thirteen and a half
hours old, and Colonel Mackinlay maintains that it could
have been seen and duly reported by the watchers for it
to the priests. In proof of this he instances the fact that
in the year 1910 "Mr. D. W. Homer, a well-known and
careful observer, and three others, saw the new moon
[at Tunbridge Wells about six hundred feet above the
sea-level] with the naked eye on February 10 . . . when
it was only sixteen hours old." It is true that the

334 APPENDIX A

particular moon of A. D. 29 was, at the time in ques-
tion, 2.5 hours younger than Mr. Horner's moon; but
Colonel Mackinlay points out that (i) it was placed
about as favourably for visibility 1 as Mr. Horner's moon;
(2) the atmosphere of Palestine is much clearer than that
of England; (3) in the latitude of Jerusalem (31 47' N.)
darkness comes on after sunset more rapidly than in
England, consequently a young moon can be more eas-
ily seen in Palestine; (4) Jerusalem is about two thou-
sand six hundred feet above the sea-level, and celestial
objects near the horizon can there be seen with greater
clearness than from a lower level because there is a less
density of air to see through; (5) the Jewish observers
were specially trained to search for the new moon with
the naked eye; they must have known, too, approxi-
mately where to look for it a most important matter
when endeavouring to "pick up" a faint celestial body.

Mr. E. Walter Maunder, F.R.A.S., formerly superin-
tendent of the solar department in the Greenwich Ob-
servatory, discusses the question in The Churchman,
June, 1912, and decides that it was quite possible for
the moon to have been observed on March 4, as Colonel
Mackinlay contends; but he adds (p. 472) that "in
A. D. 29 the new moon of March fell very early, indeed,
to be taken as that of Nisan." This objection, however,
seems not to be in any sense final, and the date advanced
by Colonel Mackinlay remains quite possible and, all
things considered, probable. 2

1 See The Observatory, May, 1911, p. 203. The elements for the new moon
of March 4, A. D. 29, at sunset were: altitude (about) 6, difference of
azimuth from setting sun 6.5. For the moon of 1910 they were: altitude
4.5, difference of azimuth 10.

2 For further details the reader should consult the entire discussion in
The Churchman, which will be found in the numbers for March, 1910, April
and July, 1911, and April, June, September, and November, 1912. But see
also the article in the Jour, of Tkeo. Studies, October, 1910, vol. XII, p.
120, where the writer contends that the new moon in question was not seen
till March 5. In that case the choice of dates would rest between A. D.
30 and 33.

APPENDIX B

AGNI AND AGNUS

DOCTOR DREWS labours very hard to equate Agni, as
the old Vedic fire-god, with Agnus, the lamb, as sacrificed
at the Jewish Passover, which, later, was regarded by the
primitive Christians as a type of Jesus Christ. He says
(The Christ Myth, pp. 144 and 145): "In the church of
the first [?] century, at Easter, a lamb was solemnly
slaughtered upon an altar and its blood collected in a
chalice. 1

"Accordingly, in the early days of Christianity the
comparison of Christ with the light and the lamb was a
very favourite one. Above all, the Gospel of John makes
the widest use of it. As had already been done in the
Vedic cult of Agni, here, too, were identified with Christ
the creative word of God [Logos] that had existed before
the world, the life, the light, and the lamb. And he was
also called 'the light of the world' that came to light up
the darkness ruling upon the earth, as well as ' the Lamb
of God, who bore the sins of the world.' And, indeed,
the Latin express-ion for lamb (agnus) also expresses its rela-
tion to the ancient fire-god and its sanctity as a sacrificial
animal. For its root is connected with ignis 2 (Sansc., agni,

1 Reference to Doctor Hatch's Hibb. Lects. (1888), The Influence of
Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church," p. 300. The authority
given by Doctor Hatch is Mabillon, Com. Prav. ad Ord. Rom.; Muscsum Ital.
II., XCIV. Mabillon here remarks that the complaint of the Greeks that
the pope offered a lamb on the altar at St. Peter's arose from a mistake; the
lamb had been roasted for eating and was brought for the papal benedic-
tion (Migne, Patrologia Lai., LXXVIII, 907, 1044). Pope Nicholas I said
(Hardouin, Concilia, V, 309 D) that the story was a lie of the Greeks, and
JSneas, Bishop of Paris (ibid., 318 A), says that "only a fool would believe
it." Doctor Hatch has evidently been misled if he accepts such a palpably
cock-and-bull story as a statement of fact.

z Italics ours.

335

336 APPENDIX B

'the purifying fire/ and yagna, 'victim'), and also, ac-
cording to Festus Pompeius, with the Greek kagnos, 'pure/
'consecrated/ and hagnistes, 'the expiator.' In this sense
Agnus Dei, 'the Lamb of God/ as Christ is very fre-
quently called, is, in fact, nothing else than Agni Deus, since
Agnus stands in a certain measure as the Latin translation
for Agni x (Burnouf, La Science des Religions, 4th ed., 1885,
pp. 186 /.)"

Before discussing the main points involved in the
above quotation we may be allowed to cite the remarks
of Doctor Cheyne a not altogether unfriendly critic
upon the position taken up here by Doctor Drews (Hib-
bert Journal, April, 1911, p. 660): "One is sorry that the
name of Burnouf should be attached to what I may call
the Agni-heresy and, in general, that a Burnouf should
have set the example of the misuse of the Indian (Vedic)
key to religious archaeological problems." He consoles
himself, however, with the thought that it is not the
great Burnouf, but a relative, who has thus disgraced
himself.

Now, according to Professor Whitney, the eminent
philologist and lexicographer, agnus, "lamb," is proba-
bly a syncopated form of avignus (avis, older form of
ovis, "sheep"). Hence, agnus must mean "the sheep-
born animal" (i. e., ovi(g)natus for avi(g)natus) , the same
root appearing in the name for sheep in Sanscrit, am, and
in Greek as bfe (= oft?) [see Curtius, Greek Etymology,

596].

Agni, on the other hand, is derived from an old Aryan
root, ag, "to move quickly," which appears in the Latin
agilis, "agile." Fire was thought by the Vedic Indian
to be the manifestation of an active but invisible spirit
which had been born in the "fire-stick" and issued from
the wood. "Men," says Professor Max Muller (Lects.
on the Orig. of Relig., p. 212), "were struck most by his
quick movements, his sudden appearances, and so they
called him the quick, or agile; in Sanscrit, agnis; in Latin,
ignis"

1 Italics ours.

APPENDIX B 337

The god Agni was regarded by the early Vedic Indians
as the carrier to the gods of the volatile essence of the
sacrifice, and in that sense only he was spoken of as a
"mediator" between the latter and mankind.

In the face of the above considerations, therefore, it
cannot be said that Agnus Dei ("Lamb of God") is "noth-
ing else than Agni Deus"; there is really no connexion,
etymological or other, between the words.

The lamb was par excellence the sacrificial animal of
the nomadic Hebrews before their entrance into Canaan,
and was so employed, in all probability, long before the
institution of the Passover as we know it.

APPENDIX C

THE ASTRAL DRAMA OF THE CRUCIFIXION

A Mythical Exposition of Psalm 22*

ON the World-tree (the Milky Way), says Professor
Drews, Orion hangs with his arms and legs outstretched
in the form of a cross (X, crux decussata). Above and
bearing down upon him, on his left, is the Bull and the
group of stars known as the Hyades (= nazar) ; Leo is
running up on the right. Behind Orion is the Unicorn
(Monokeros), representing the herd of re'emim (D^DN"]),

"wild oxen," and about to pierce the hanging figure with
its horn. The two dogs are near by.

His detailed exposition of the Psalm is as follows:

Vss. 1-5. The Cry of the Sufferer: "My God (Eli), my
God, why hast thou forsaken me," etc. The sun is very
far away; it is the winter half of the ecliptic; Orion (as
representing the sun 2 ) seems to cry for help against the
dangers of the winter, which threaten him with extinction.

Vs. 6. "I am a worm and no man," etc. The sun in
the winter time is pale and despised and creeps over the
earth like a worm. Also, the Milky Way, in which Orion
is, stretches like a worm across the sky when Orion sets
in the beginning of winter. In the Babylonian myth the
Milky Way was Tiamat, described as a "worm" (= rep-
tile), which the sun (= Marduk) split into two halves to
form respectively the heavens and the earth.

Vs. 7. "All that see me laugh me to scorn," etc. The

1 See the Appendix to The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, A. Drews
(1912).

2 Among the Egyptians Orion, says Doctor Drews, was identified with the
sun and moon god (Boll, Sphara, 1903, p. 164; but see p. 344, note 2).

338

APPENDIX 339

various constellations look down on Orion from higher
points of the ecliptic, 1 etc.

Vs. 12. ''Many bulls have compassed me," etc. The
zodiacal sign Taurus is charging Orion, who is flourishing
his club with his right hand, while with his left he thrusts
forward the lion's skin (cf. Herakles). Professor Drews,
however, thinks that he is "blessing" with his uplifted
(?) left hand. 2

Vs. 14. "I am poured out like water," etc. The celestial
river Eridanus flows beneath the feet of Orion; it seems
to flow from his left foot; and the Milky Way, besides be-
ing regarded as a tree, may be taken as water (cf. Psalm
69 : 2 and 15).

Vs. 16. "For dogs have compassed me" etc. The stars
Sirius and Procyon, in the constellations Canis Major
and C. Minor, are behind and beneath Orion.

" The assembly of evil-doers have enclosed me." These are
the constellations Bull, Dogs, Lepus (hare), and Dioscuri,
or Gemini (twins), who are described as "wicked" (crimi-
nals, robbers) in the astral myth (cf. Gen. 49), where they
are related to the twins Simeon and Levi, and are called
"bull-slayers," 3 because they drive the zodiacal bull be-
fore them and push him out of the heavens.

"Like the lion are my hands and feet" (Massoretic text).

"They pierced my hand and my feet" (LXX version).

1 E. g., the Twins (Dioscuri, Gemini) "mock" the sun as it moves heavy
and dull on the lowest stretch of its annual path. They may also represent
the " two thieves" crucified on either side of Jesus. Niemojewski, however,
sees the two evil-doers ("thieves") in the dogs Sirius and Procyon. Drews
remarks of this view: "The difference is not great, as the dogs culminate at
the same tune as the twins and may, therefore, be substituted for them."
Castor is regarded as evil on account of his relation to winter; Pollux, good,
on account of his relation to summer. The twins also appear as the "little
boys" who jeered at Elisha (the sun): "Go up, thou baldhead" (II Kings
2 : 23). This means that the sun has lost his "hair" (=heat and light rays)
at the lowest point of his course; cf. the "solar heroes" Samson and He-
rakles.

* It is the right. Moreover, a left-banded blessing would be ominous.

8 Gen. 39 : 33 and 34, however, says that Simeon and Levi were not
twins, and in 49 : 6 that they "slew a man and houghed an ox" [oxen], *. e.,
in the sack of Shechem (Gen. 34 : 25 and 29; cf. Joshua 6 : 21; 11 : 6 and 9).

340 APPENDIX C

The former reading, which is undoubtedly corrupt, Drews
thinks may mean that the wicked (zodiacal signs) sur-
round the hands and feet of the sufferer, sicut leo.

But there may be, he adds, a cryptic reference to the
constellation Leo, whether because the chief stars in it are
distributed as in Orion, and represent a recumbent Orion,
or because of the astral relation of Orion to Leo. (He
carries the lion's skin of Herakles, who is a form of the
sun-god.)

The meaning of the LXX version is explained thus:
The (left) hand of Orion, which carries the lion's skin, goes
witli the arrow of one of the Twins (Castor), piercing the
hand; and in the period of Taurus the constellation of the
Arrow is in opposition to the arrow of Castor, the latter
rising in the east when the former sets in the west.

Vs. 17. "/ may tell all my bones," etc. These words
recall the fact that no other constellation shows as plainly
as Orion, on account of the number and distribution of its
stars having the shape of a human being with extended
limbs.

Vs. 18. " They part [by lot] my garments," etc. At the
same time the shape of Orion may be regarded as a cup
(dice-box) with the three (!) stars of the belt as dice 1
in it. The vesture of Orion is the heavens, which are
often conceived as a "starry mantle," and they seem to
be distributed among the various constellations.

Or we may take the Milky Way as his garment, the
"seamless robe," because it runs continually across the
sky, which is divided at the Twins into two halves by the
passage of the sun.

Vs. 20. "Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from
the power of the dog" The sword is that of Orion, which
is drawn up against his body. The dogs are Sirius and
Procyon.

Vs. 21. "Save me from the lion's mouth; yea, even from the
horns of the wild oxen thou hast answered me" The lion's
mouth again refers to the Hyades, or to the constellation
Leo, which seems to be running up from a distance, while

1 Elsewhere these latter are regarded as the "three" Magi!

APPENDIX C 341

the Unicorn indicates the herd of re'emim. The LXX ver-
sion translates the latter as monokeros (? unicorn). "The*
real meaning of the passage," says Doctor Drews, "is
lost when people learned in philology insist that ' the uni-
corn was really a buffalo. 5 " l

But now (vs. 22) the situation changes. Jahveh has
heard the sufferer's cry. The sun has crossed the equa-
tor and the better season (the summer half) of the year
has^begun. "The meek shall eat and be satisfied." In
fervent strains the delivered sings amid the chorus of stars
("the great congregation") the praise of Jahveh. Jahveh
once more resumes the lordship of the world and all peo-
ple gladly praise his name.

Other general features introduced into the drama are:
substituting for the "crucified" Orion of the 22d Psalm
the two other important crosses, viz., the vernal Cross
with the cup (skull) below it, the Virgin, Berenice's Hair
(megaddela = Mary Magdalene), etc., we have the ele-
ments of Niemojewski's annual "astral Via Dolorosa."

When Orion plays the part of the crucified Saviour,
the Pleiades (the "rain sisters") represent the weeping
women around the cross. Electra, the supposed centre
of the Pleiades, is the mythical mother of Jasios ( Jesus)
and is represented with a cloth over her head just as in
Christian art the Virgin Mary is. But, as Jasios was also
regarded, according to another genealogy, as the son of
Maia, the mourning Pleiad may also stand for her. More-
over, in early Christian thought the mother of Jesus is a
dove (pelias = Pleiad).

Without going into any detailed criticism of the text
or translation, we will note down the following points in
relation to the above exposition:

Doctor Cheyne regards the Hebrew text of this psalm
as very corrupt, and if his view be correct the "paral-
lels" drawn will, in any case, be considerably discounted.
E. g., in vss. 12-16, Cheyne wholly rejects the reading
dogs (B^-p) and reads only "wild oxen" and "lions."
Both of these animals, he thinks, are symbols for the op-

1 See, however, Enc. Bib., art. "Unicorn."

342 APPENDIX G

pressors of the Jews, the O l| &N*l ("wild oxen") suggesting
D^KDnv, " Jerahmeelites." Lagarde (Orientalia, II, 63 /.)
goes much further and identifies the several animals with
the rulers of various neighbouring peoples. Thus Tobiah
the Ammonite is referred to as a bull, Geshur the Ara-
bian as a lion, and Sanballat the Samaritan as a dog.
But he accepts the Massoretic text as we have it.

According to the general critical-historical theory the
sufferer is clearly the ideal community the faithful Israel
in the midst of an unfaithful nation in exile, and suffer-
ing with them, not an individual. 1

The conception of the cosmogonic or world-tree, of
which the Scandinavian Yggdrasil is the most familiar
example, is very wide-spread. The idea is met with
among the ancient Chaldeans, the Egyptians, the Per-
sians, the Hindus, and the Aryan races of northern Eu-
rope as well as in the mythology of China and Japan. It
would, however, be interesting to learn where Professor
Drews found it identified with the Milky Way! This
galaxy of stars is referred to in myth as a road, a river,
and a serpent ("worm"), or dragon, but never, to the
present writer's knowledge, as a tree?

The Cry of the Sufferer. Why should Orion seem to be
crying for help at this time? It is then that we see him
dominant in the sky !

Vs. 6. It is scarcely correct to describe the sun as
seeming to be "pale and despised" in the winters of
southern Palestine and Egypt. The diminished heat and
glare is a welcome change from the oppressiveness of
summer.

Vs. 7. If the constellations may be said to "laugh at"
Orion at one time of the year they do so at every other,
for they never change their relative positions and passive
relations to him. i

Vs. 16. In vs. 16 "they pierced" (^3) should be "they
gnawed" (lit., "dug into"). The Hebrew word was

1 A few scholars still hold to the individual interpretation, e. g., Duhm
and Winckler, etc.

2 It might be added, too, that the world-tree is not a cross.

APPENDIX C 343

translated "pierced" from a desire for a specific refer-
ence here to the crucifixion (Briggs). Professor Drews's
mythical arrangement of the various zodiacal signs is
likewise very strained. He says, e. g., that the arrow of
Castor "appears to be piercing the left hand of Orion."
It is certainly drawn on the planisphere in the same
straight line, but a long way off him, and, in the present
writer's copy (at least), the point of the arrow is turned
in the opposite direction.

The constellation Arrow, too, seems to have no connex-
ion with Orion. It is almost the antipodes of Orion, in
fact, and the Greek myth does not represent Sagitta as
a long lance. Ptolemy gives for it only five small stars
close together.

The constant changing about of the interpretation of
Orion, who is (The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus,
p. 55) now the crucified, now (on the authority of Nie-
mojewski) his slayer, and again the dice-box used in^the
division of the garments at the crucifixion, is very un-
satisfactory. It seems possible to make it mean any-
thing one chooses.

Vs. 21. Again, it is impossible to see any astral con-
nexion between the Hyades and the "lion's mouth."
And, despite all the confident assertions to the contrary,
the "unicorns" (Q" 1 !?^) probably refer to the Auroch
(Bos Primogenius}, called by Cassar (B. G., VI, 28) Urns.
This animal when sketched from the side point of view
appears to have only one horn projecting forward. It
was a larger and fiercer animal than the "fat bulls of
Bashan."

Further, Professor Drews seems to have forgotten that
the constellation Monokeros (Unicorn) was only devised
by Hevelius about 1690 A. D. It was wholly unknown
to the ancients and could not have figured in any astral
scheme ! l

For the rest we must protest against the implied iden-

1 The "astral enemy" of both the sun and his stellar reduplication Orion
seems to have been the constellational Scorpion (see The Primitive Con-
stellations, by R. Brown, Jr., 1899, vol. I, pp. 67 Jf.).

344 APPENDIX G

tification of Pleiades with peleiades. IlXetaSes is prob-
ably derived from 7rXe>, "to sail," because these stars
rose at the beginning of the sailing season in the Mediter-
ranean. IleXet'as, "a dove," on the other hand, is prob-
ably a derivative of Tre'Xeto? [opvis], "the dusky [bird]."
The later Greek poets, it is true, lengthened IlXaaSe? by
an extra syllable, thus making it Iie\ecd8e<} } because they
regarded them as doves (as also theTaSe'?, Hyades, "pig-
lings," both) fleeing before the hunter Orion, whose dog
(Sirius), we may add, was regarded as his master's faith-
ful companion and friend.

The connexion between the asterism Berenice's Hair
and Mary Magdalene is very fanciful and forced, depend-
ing, as it does, upon a second-century A. D. and slan-
derous Jewish story that the latter was a dresser of wom-
en's hair and a courtesan.

The Pleiades (p. 314, 1. 15) is apparently an error for
Hyades, who are "the weepers," because they are con-
nected with the rainy season. Electra, moreover, is a
Pleiad. As Eastern women are commonly depicted in
art as covered and veiled, there is no significance in both
the Virgin Mary and Electra being so represented. The
Virgin was sometimes represented by the symbol of the
dove; but the dove was never said to be the mother of
Jesus. 1

Finally, as regards the main points of the astral "paral-
lels," though Orion does not well represent the sun on his
annual journey, because he is quite off the latter's path
(the ecliptic), he seems to have been regarded as a celes-
tial reduplication of the sun 2 (The Primitive Constellations,
J. R. Brown, Jr., vol. I, p. 92; see also pp. 67 jf. and 93).
Also, Orion is, roughly speaking, dominant in the heavens
during the period of the sun's depression. He^cannot, how-

1 An early but futile attempt was made to identify the Holy Spirit with
the feminine principle of the Gnostic deity.

2 Doctor Budge says (The Gods of the Egyptians, vol. II, pp. 215 and 249)
that the star ["constellation"] Sah (Orion) was the abode of the soul of
Osiris (the sun). But this is hardly identifying Orion with the sun (cf.
p. 338, note 2).

APPENDIX C 345

ever, be said to " hang on" the Milky Way, for he only
just touches the end of it.

Lastly, most of the constellations comprising Niemo-
jewski's celestial Via Dolorosa are not on the sun's actual
path at all. Indeed, the whole astral scheme is fantastic
and improbable in the extreme, and no proof is offered
that it was ever devised in this form, or interpreted in this
sense, before the time of Christ.

INDEX

Abbot, Dr. E. A., on Nazarene and
Nazoraean, 104, n.

Abhinishkramana Sutra, 14.

Accidentia and subslantia, 190.

Acts of Thomas, 187.

Adam and Eve, the Book of, 221.

Additamenta, the, 230.

Adonis, 18, 91, 280; ascension of, 325;
resurrection of, 316, 317.

j?Eneas, descent of, to Hades, 504.

^Esculapius, 321.

'A7a06s, 207.

Aglaophamus, 129.

Agni, 6, 17, 22; birth of, 31, 35, 335,
336, 337; derivation of, 336, 337.

Agni-hotra, 35, n.

Agnus, derivation of, 336, 337.

Agony in the Garden, the, 213.

ATcra, 69.

Alford, Dean, on the reading of Mat-
thew 27 : 16, 267.

'Almah, 87, .

Alpha and Omega, 280.

Alphseus (= Alpu?), 238, n.

Amma (Ma), 8.

Anastasius of Sinai, 265.
291.

291, 292.

Anderson, Dr., on the trial of Jesus,
230, 231.

Angel-self, 219.

Angelophanies at the tomb, the, 222,

. 314-

Am, 236.

Ankh, as representing phallus, 284, n.,

2&s, n.

Anna Perenna, 247.
Anna, the prophetess, 44.
Annas and Caiaphas, 245, 246, 247.
Annunciation, 24.
Anonymous Sanscritist, on Christian

episodes in Krishna-myth, 77.
Anthesteria, 316, .
Anwyl, Prof., on Esus (Hesus), 69.
Aoa, 280.

Aphrodite, 124, 131, 317.

'A7ro-ype0e<r0ai, translation of, 39, n.

Apostles as signs of the zodiac, the,
238, 239, n.

Apuleius on Isiac cult, 16; on magic,
289; (Metamorphoses), 19.

Arallu, 303.

Arrest of Jesus, the, 218.

Ascension, the, of the dying god, 326;
to heaven, the, 323, 327, 328.

Ascensions, mythic, 324, n.

Asherim, 279.

Asita, blessing of, 45.

Ass, the, in myth and symbol, 36, a.

Assassins, see Zealots.

Astral body, 219, 223, 224.

Atia, 7, n.

Attis, burial of image of, 316, .; res-
urrection of, 318.

Augustus on massacre of children at
Bethlehem, 58.

Auroch, the, as the Unicorn, 343.

Avalokiteswara, descent of, to Hades,
307.

Azazel, 138, 139.

Babylonian ascensions, 326, .; litur-
gies, 13, n.

Bacchus (Dionysus), 167.

Bacon, Prof. B. W., on Jensen's theory
of Gospel origins, 74; on young man
who fled naked, 225.

Balaam and the natal star, 46.

Ball, C. J., on Tammuz, 280.

Bancroft, Mr., on the cross, 282.

Baptism of Jesus, the, no.

Barnett, Dr., on Christian sources of
Krishna-myth, 77.

Bar Rabban, 260.

Bas-reliefs of Mithraic cult-meal, 202.

Basil the Great, 163.

Batiffol, Mgr., on Karabas, 260, 266, .

Battles with demons, 305.

Beal, S., on the svastika, 284.

Beardless One, feast of, 261, 270.

347

348

INDEX

Bebel, 216.

Ben Pandira, s 233.

Ben Stada, 5, 233.

Berossus, no, 127.

Bethabara, 123, 129.

Beth-Din, 233.

Bethlehem, 89; tableaux, 34, .

Betrayal, the, 214.

Bimbasara as a prototype of Herod, 56,
n.; and the young Buddha, 56.

Binet-Sangl6, on the visions of Jesus,
114, n., 115, ., 165, w.

Birth of Jesus, the, 31; date of, 33, 331.

Blake, J. F., on the patriarchs as signs
of the zodiac, 106, n.

Blass, Dr., on reading of Matthew
21 : 7, 172, n.

Blessing of Simeon, the, 45.

Blumhardt, Mr., on "Krishna and
Christ," 78, 79.

Body, natural (psychical), 224; spirit-
ual, 224.

Book of the Dead, on Petra, 238.

Box, G. H., on the Last Supper, 182, w.

Boyd, Dr., on "Mary" (Miriam), g.

Brown, J. R., Jr., on the astral enemy
of the sun, 343, .; on Or ion as a re-
duplication of the sun, 344.

Brown, Hon. W., on Judas Iscariot, 252.

Buddha, as ninth avatar of Vishnu,
66, n.; resurrection of, 322; the temp-
tation of, 142; the transfiguration of,
156.

Budge, Dr., on the ascension of Osiris,
324, n., 326, .; on name Osiris,
68, .; on Petra, 239.

Bunsen, de, on the virgin birth of the
Buddha, 39, n.

Burial of Jesus, the, 299.

Burnouf, M., on derivation of Agni,
336.

Butler, Mr., on the betrayal of Jesus,
199 jf.; on the burial in the new tomb,
299, 300, 301; on the crown of thorns,
274, 275; on the Eleusinian sacra-
mental meal, 191; on the Epidauria,
321; on the expulsion of the traders,
174; on the last words of Jesus, 295,
296; on the mockery of Jesus, 271,
273; on irapaSLScafu and irpo8l8u[U,
193; on the phrase els K<x0' e?s, 201;
on the purification in the mysteries,
195;. on the tomb, 288, n.; on the
touching in the mystery-cults, 200.

Caiaphas (Joseph), 229, 244, 245, 247.

Cancer (Crab), 168.

Capernaum, 102, 109.

Carpenter, Dr. J. E., on the crown of
thorns, 275.

Carus, P., on the first day of the week,
311.

Cheyne, Dr. T. K., on Agni and Agnus,
336; on the ascension, 323; on Ba-
rabbas, 261, .; on lai n?, 23, .; on
the cross, 284; on the descent to
Hades, 304, 305; on Gethsemane,
212, .; on Judas Iscariot, 248, 249;
on the massacre of the children, 57;
on the Messiah Ben Joseph, 21; on
the name Jesus, 63, n., 66; on Naza-
rene, 100, n.; on Nazareth, 94, n., 97;
on the temptation of Jesus, 148; on
the text of Psalm 22, 341; on virgin
of zodiac, 15; on young man who fled,
221.

Christ-cults, 81.

Christ and Krishna, 75.

Christ, name of, 75.

Christianity introduced into India, 76.

Chrysostom, St. John, 265.

Clemen, C., on Gospel idea of the con-
ception, 26, n.; on the Magi, 49; on
the resurrection of lacchus, 322.

Clement of Alexandria, on the Eleusin-
ian mysteries, 191; on the pagan mys-
teries, 192, 197.

Coming One, the, 157, n.

Commodus, Emperor, 203, .

Common meal at Eleusis, 191.

Common terms in Christianity and
mystery-cults, 205.

Conception, 24.

Conrady, on birth of Jesus, 34, .

Conybeare, F. C., on the ascension, 323;
on the meaning of eiricrKiiifa, 26, n.
on parthenogenetic births of patri-
archs, 41, n.

Course of Abia, 33, .

Cowell, Prof. E. B., on Avalokites-
wara's descent to Hades, 306; on name
"Jes" (Jeseus, Jezeus, Yeseus), 67.

Creighton, Dr., on the cause of death of
Jesus, 299, n.

Criobolia, 203.

Cross and its astral significance, the,
282.

Crown of thorns, reed, and purple robe,
the, 274.

INDEX

349

Cruciarius, the, 290, .

Crucifixion, the, 286 Jf.; date of, 331,

333-

Crurifragium, 290, ., 297, 298.

Crux commissa, 283.

Crux composite, 287.

Crux simplex, 287.

Cumont, M., on the Mithraic bas-re-
liefs, 202; on the mysteries of Mithra,
203, 204, 313.

Cursing of the fig-tree, the, 175.

Cybele, mysteries of, 203.

Cyrus and the shepherds, 44.

Daniel 9 : 26, interpretations of, 81, n.

Daoud (Dod, Dodo), 91, 92.

David, meaning of, 92, n.

Death of Jesus, cause of, 298, n., 299, .

De Loosten, see Loosten, De.

Del Mar, Mr., on meaning of name "les-
iris," 68, w.

Delphi, a parallel from, 61.

Deluge, the, 119, .

Demeter, 4.

Demonic possession, 152.

Demons, see Mazzikim.

Dendera planisphere, 36, ., 37, .

Denials of Jesus, 238.

Descension to Hades, the, 302.

Descensions, certain mythical, 324.

Descent of Istar, 302.

Descents, mythic, 304.

Devaki, 14, 38, 40, 76.

Dibbara, 79.

Dionysus, descent of, to Hades, 304; as
a form of sun-god, 72, 73; mysteries
of, 203, n.; resurrection of, 318.

Dionysus-myth, 31.

Dionysus-Zagreus, mysteries of, 197, n.;
myth of, 310, .

Discourse with the doctors of the law,
the, 60.

Disembodied spirit, 221.

Deceits and the crucifixion, 220, 221,
224, n.

Drews, Prof. A., on Agni and Agnus,
335; on Barabbas, 261; on Bethlehem,
92; on the betrayal, 214 jf.; on the
birth of Jesus, 31, 38; on Christ and
Krishna, 75; on common derivation of
names of "saviour-gods," 70; on the
cross, 283; on the crucifixion, 286,
289; on the entry into Jerusalem, 172;
on the expulsion of the traders, 175;

on the flight into Egypt, 53; on Gali-
lee, 100, 105; on Gethsemane, 208; on
Golgotha, 280; on Hesus (Esus), 69;
on the institution of the Eucharist,
178 /.; on Jes Crishna, 66; on Jesus
Barabbas, 265; on Jesus and John as
phases of the sun, 121 f.; on John the
Baptist, 115, 116; on Judas Iscariot,
252; on the lance wound, 297; on the
Magi, 47; on the massacre of the
children, 56; on the meaning of Alpha
and Omega, 280; on Messiah Ben
David, 80, .; on Messiah Ben
Joseph, So, .; on the Mithraic bull,
319, .; on the name Jesus, 64; on
Nazareth, 93; on Nazoraean, 96; on
Peter, 234; on Pilate, 241, 242; on
the reading of Matthew 27 : 16, 265;
on the three days, 308, 309; on the
transfiguration of Jesus, 158; on the
trial of Jesus, 232; on the two thieves,
293-

Driesch, Dr. H., on vitalism, 190, n.

Dumuzi, 280.

Ai5ra/us, the, of Jesus, 185 f.; as the
cause of miracles, 186 .; in the
eucharistic elements, 189, 190.

Dupuis, 15; on the divine birth, 32; on
John the Baptist, no; on the revival
of the cult-gods, 310, .

"Dying God" cult, the, 310, .

Dying kings in Babylonia, 262, n.

Ea (Aa, Ae), 127.

Eabani, 73, 146, 302.

Edersheim, Dr., on Jewish trials, 229, n.

Edkins, Dr., on the resurrection of the

Buddha, 322.
E& Ka0' els, 194, 2or.
Eisler, Dr., on John-Jonah-Oannes, 128.
Elagabal, 282, n.
Electra (Pleiad) as the Virgin Mary,

344-

Eleusinia, 191, 196.
Eleusinian mysteries, 191 f., 271.
Elijah,' as a form of the sun-god, 122,

126; meaning of name, 161.
Eliphar the Temanite, 29.
Elisaeus, 14.

Elisha, baldness of, 339, n.
Elizabeth, 24. ,
Empty tomb, the, 311.
Entry into Jerusalem, the, 167 jf.
Eoa, see Aoa.

350

INDEX

Epidauria, the, 321.

Epiphanius, 93, 98.

Epoptas, 193.

Eridanus, 101, ., 120, 123.

Esus, see Hesus.

Eucharist, institution of , 178; and Mith-
raic cult-meal, 202; words of institu-
tion, 189.

Etf<re/3i}s, 207.

Expulsion of the traders, the, 174.

FerJiouer (frohar), 219, 223, 224, 227.

Festus Pompeius, 336.

Fiebig, on the angelophanies at the

tomb, 314; on the darkness at the

crucifixion, 293, n.; on gifts offered

to new-born sun-god, 52.
Fig-tree, "cursing" of, 175.
Firmicus Maternus, on the mystery

meal, 196.

First day of week, the, 312.
Flight into Egypt, the, 53.
Forty days, the, 324.
Fotheringham, D. R., on the date of the

crucifixion, 333.

Franckh, on virgin-goddesses, 13, n.
Franke, on the entry into Jerusalem

174, n.

Fravishi, 219, 221, 223, 224.
Frazer, Sir James G., on the crucifixion

of Jesus, 263; on kings put to death

as representing a god, 262, n.; on the

two thieves, 293.
Fries, on the expulsion of the traders,

176.
Fuhrmann, 100, 108, 123, n.

Gabbatha, see Lithostroton-Gabbatha.

Gadarene swine, Jensen on, 74.

Gain, too, 105.

Galilee, 100; and the zodiac, 101.

Gamaliel, 229, n.

Gammadion, see Svastika.

Gardner, Dr. P., on ethics of pagans,
206; on pagan and Christian purity,
207.

Gautama (Buddha), birth of, 39; temp-
tation of, 142 ff.

Gautier, L., on Gethsemane, 212.

Gennesaret, 102.

Tev6fievov IK yvvaiK6s, translation of,
27.

Gethsemane, 208; meaning of, 210.

Ghillany, F. W., on the five hanged

kings, 299; on the lance wound, 297.
Gifts at the nativity, the, 52.
Gifts offered to Gautama (Buddha), 53.
Gilgals, 281, 282.
Gilgamesh epic, as a source of story of

Jesus, 73.
Goethals, on Marcan account of trial

of Jesus, 230, n.
Golgos, 280, 281.
Golgotha, 280, 281.
Gospel of Peter, 271, 273.
Graces, Jewish, 189.
Great Mother with Attis, mysteries of,

196.

Greek names for Jewish, 65.
Gressmann, on Isaiah 53, 81, n.
s, 220.

Habakkuk 3 : 2, reading of, 37.

Hadad-Adonis, 47, 64.

Hadad-Rimmon, 63, n.

Hada the Edomite, 54.

Hadrian, Emperor, 91.

Hallel, the, 198.

Hallucinations and veridical phenom-

ena, 163, ., 165, .
Haman-Jesus, 262.
Hamilton, Sir W. R., and the ascen-

sion, 327, n.

Hammurabi as Babylonian saviour, 79.
Handing over, or betrayal, 199.
Hanging figure, the, 102, 107, 108.
Ea-noser (ha-nosri), 97.
Harris, Dr. R., on I Peter 3 : 19, 302 .
Hatch, Dr. E., on the sacrifice of a lamb

at Easter, 338, n.
Haupt, P., on Nazareth, 94, n.
Heavenly Jordan, see Eridanus.
Heavenly self, the, 221, 223.
Helios, 126.
Herakles, ascension of, to heaven, 325;

descent of, to Hades, 304.
Hermes, birth of, 31.
Herod, interview with Jesus, 229.
Herodotus, on the Magi, 49.
Hesiris, see Jes-iris.
Hesus, 69.
Hibil Ziva, 303.
Hirsch, on the visions of Jesus, 114, .,

150, ., 165, n.

Holtzmann, on Judas Iscariot, 249.
Holy Spirit, the, and the Gnostic femi-

nine principle in deity, 334, n.

INDEX

351

Horner, D. W., 333.

Horus, birth of, 34, .

Hosea 6 : 2, and the resurrection, 311.

Hour of crucifixion, 231, n.

Huitzilopochtli, 204.

Hyades, the, 344.

lacchus in the Eleusinian mysteries,

321.

'18<?a, of Plato, 223.
Idealism in Germany, founders of, 27.
Isaiah 53, interpretations of, 81.
Iscariot, Judas, 248 Jf.
Isiac mysteries, 34.
Isis, 5.
Istar, descent of, 302.

Jacobs, Prof., on Purim, 263.

Jah-Alpha-Omega, 73.

Jahveh, as a fire-god, 126.

James, W., on souls, 152.

Janus, 66, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239,
240.

Jao and JHVH, 72.

Jasios (Jasion), 4, 64, 65.

Jasius, see Jasios.

Jensen, on origin of story of Jesus, 73;
on the temptation, 146; on the trans-
figuration, 163, .; on Virgin of zodiac,

IS-

Jerahme'el, 94, .

Jeremias, on gifts offered to new-born
sun-god, 52; on Virgin of zodiac, 15.

Jerome, 94; on Pilate, 240.

Jes Crishna, 66.

Jes-iris, 66.

Jessaioi, 96, n.

Jesus [ ? Barabbas], 256".

Jesus Barabbas, list of manuscript hav-
ing this reading, 265, 266; modern
editors who adopt or reject this read-
ing, 266, 267, 268.

Jesus-cults, 82.

Jesus, date of birth of, 125; as an
Ephraimitic sun-god, 251, .; and
John as phases of the sun, 121 f.; the
name, meaning of, 63, 71.

Jewish boys' education, 61.

Jewish Encyclopedia (Nazareth), 94, n.

JHVH, derivation and meaning of/ 72.

Jinns, 235, n.

John the Baptist, 108, 118; as Cannes,
122, 123; date of festival of, 129.

Jonah, 128, 309, .

Jonah and the three days, 309.

Jones, W. S., on the stabbing of 'the
bull, 319, n.

Jordan, the astral significance of, 102, .

Joseph (N. T.), 16; (0. T.), 3.

Josephus, 93 ; on John the Baptist, 1 15, n.

Joshua (Jesous), 4; meaning of name,
63, 64, 65, n.

Jowett, B., on translation of &vaffxiv-
dv\e6w, 291.

Judas Iscariot and the betrayal, 188,
199, 217; as Ahitophel, 217; deriva-
tion of name, 248 f.

Julian, Emperor, 100.

Julius, derivation of, 70.

Just man, the, 291, 292.

Justin Martyr, and the cave of Bethle-
hem, 31, n.; on Mithra, 320; on the
mockery of Jesus, 271; on the Mith-
raic cult-supper, 203.

, 207.

Kant, I., a critical idealist, 27, ., 328.

Karabas, 257, 261.

Karshipta, 304.

Kautsky, 217.

Keim, Th., on Josephus's narrative of
the baptism, 118; on Judas Iscariot,
249; on Nazarene, 95, .; on young
man who fled, etc., 226.

Kenyon, Sir F. G., on the rescript of
Maximus, 332.

Kepler, on star of nativity, 50.

Jeraba, 260.

E.4pvo3, 174.

Kiddush, the, 182, .

Kinyras, 18, 22.

Kircher, on gifts offered to new-born
sun-god, 52.

Kiss of Judas, the, 200.
ofiottas ird.!-, 296.
, 296.

Konig, Dr., on Bethlehem, 90.

Krauss, E., on Judas Iscariot, 256, .

Krauss, S., on the law of the Passover,
182, n.

"Kpefidyvvm, 288.

Krishna, eighth avatar of Vishnu, 66,
.; birth of, 38, 39; not crucified, 76;
in early Hindu literature, 79; and the
Magi, 76; mother of, 14; and the
shepherds, 44.

Kuenen, on blessings of Jesus and Gau-
tama, 46.

352

INDEX

Lachmu, go.

Lagrange, on Kcrdba, 260.

Lake, K., on the date of Herod's mar-
riage, 116, .

Lalila vistara, 14; on the birth of the
Buddha, 40.

Lance wound, and the breaking of the
legs, 297, 298, 299.

Lang, A., 274, n.

Langdon, Dr. S., on kings who played
the part of Tammuz, 262, n.; on the
ascension of Tammuz, 324, n.

Lassen, on introduction of Christian-
ity into India, 76.

Last Supper as the Passover, 102, n.

Last words of Jesus, the, 295.

Lehmann-Haupt, C. E., on the cruci-
fixion and Purim, 263, 264.

Lewis, Mrs., on star of nativity, 51.

Liknites, 31, 33.

Lilitu, divine harlot, 13, .

Lithostroton-Gabbatha, 242, 243, 244,
245-

Lobeck, on the revival of the cult-gods,
310, .

Loosten, De, on the visions of Jesus,
114, ., 150, n., 165, .

Lost Jesus, the, 61.

Lucian, on resurrection of Adonis, 317;
on the ascension of Adonis, 325.

Ludd (Lydda), 233.

Luke 2 : 1-5, translation of, 39.

Ma, 8.

Mabillon, 335, .

Mariam, derivation and meaning of

name, 9.
Macdonell, Prof. A. A., on spellings

"Crishna" and "Cristna," 78.
McDougall, Dr. W., on vitalism, 152.
Mackinlay, Lieutenant-Colonel, 116; on

the birth of Jesus, 331; on the date of

the crucifixion, 333, 334.
Macrobius, on the massacre of the

children, 57.
Magaden, n.
Magdala, n.
Magi, the, 46.
Maia, 4, 7.
Maira (Maera), 4, 7.
Makkedah, 299.
Mandane, derivation and meaning of

name, 8, .
Manger, the, 33.

Mara, 143 jf.

Marcus, 96, .

Mariamma, 14, 76.

Maritala, 14.

Mary, 3, 7; derivation and meaning of

name, 9, 15, 20.
Mary Magdalene, 5, 12, 344.
Massacre of the children, the, 55.
Masseboth, 279.
Matthew 2 : n, meaning of, 52, n.;

i : 16, reading of, 24, .; 27 : 17,

reading of, 265, 266, 267, 268.
Maunder, Mr. E. W., on constellations

of Dupuis, no, n.; on date of cruci-
fixion, 334.

Maximus, G. V., rescript of, 332.
Max Miiller, Prof., on derivation of

Agni, 336; on name "Jes" (Jeseus,

Jezeus, Yeseus), 67.
Maya, 4; conception of, 40, 45.
Mazzikim, 235, n.
Men, 4.
Merris, 4.
Messiah, Ben David, 17, 80; Ben Joseph,

17, 21, 80.

Mexican Eucharist, 204.
Migdal, ii.
Milky Way, the, 101, n., 345; as the

garment of the crucified Saviour, 340;

as a river, 342; as Tiamat, 338; as the

world-tree, 342.
Milton, on Tammuz, 316, .
Miriam Magdala, 5; (Mariam), leprosy

of, 11.
Mirzam, 7.
Mithra (Mitra), 124; resurrection of,

319-

Mithra-myth, 13, 31, 33.

Mithraic bull, stabbing of, 319; mys-
teries, 202, 203.

Mithraists and the first day of the week,
312, 313.

Mvijjueroj' (MvT^ta), 300, 301.

Mockery of Jesus, the, 270, 276.

Monier Williams, Prof., on name "Jes"
(Jeseus, Jezeus, Yeseus), 67.

Monokeros (constellation), modern char-
acter of, 343.

Mordecai-Barabbas, 262.

Morgan, Prof. A. de, and the super-
natural, 28, n.

Moses, derivation of name, 9, n., 159.

Mother of the Buddha, special marks of,
40.

INDEX

353

Moulton, Dr., on early Zoroastrianism,

223, .

Mountain of the Gods, the, 136, 140.
Movers, on identity of Jahveh and Jao,

72; on meaning of JU.VH, 72.
Miiller, W., 101.
"HLvirT-fipiov, 205.
Mylitta (mulitta), 5.
Myrrha, 4, 7.
Mystse, 193.
Mysteries, the, 297, n.
Mythic descents, 304.

Naasene hymn, 85.

Naasenes (Ophites), 84.

Napthali as Aries, 105.

Natural body, the, 320.

Nazareth, 93, 94, .

Nazareth, origin and meaning of name,
94, n.

Nazoraean, 95, 99.

Nazar-jah, 96, .

JSeavlas, 88.

Nestle, W., on Nazareth, 96.

Nezoraean, 99, 100, .

Nicholson, E. B., on reading of Mat-
thew 27 : 16, 266.

Nicodemus, gospel of, 307, 308.

Niemojewski, on Pilate, 241; on the two
thieves, 339, n.; on the Via Dolorosa,

345-

Nirvana, 322, n.
NSR (NZR), 95.
Nun, meaning of, 68.

Cannes (lannes), 123, 127.

Objections to Christ as a cult-god, 87, .

Od, the, of von Reichenbach, 186, .

Odin as the hanged god, 292, .

Oil-press, 210, 211, 212.

Oldenberg, Prof., on the temptation of
Jesus, 148.

Ophites, 84.

Orion, as the abode of Osiris, 344, .;
as the crucified Saviour, 338, 340,
341, 342; and the Magi, 47, 101, 107,
108, 123, 130; as a reduplication of
the sun, 341; as the slayer of Christ,
241; as the sun and moon god, 338, .;
various symbolisations of, 343.

Orpheus, descent of, to Hades, 304.

Osiris, ascension of, 326, n.; birth of,
34; burial of image of, 316, .; mean-

ing of name of, 68; myth of, 310;

resurrection of, 315, 316.

Ovid, on Adonis-myth, 316, n.
Ox and ass in birth-stories, the, 37, .

Pan, 136.

ILapadldufu and irpofitSuiu, 193 Jf.,

200, 254. 255, 256.
Kap<i8o<ris, 194.

Paranoia, as an explanation of the vi-
sions of Jesus, 165.

Parisian magic papyrus, 86, 96, n., 98.
Parthenogenesis, human, 30.
IIop^vos, 88, n.
Paschal lamb and the "dying god,"

263, n.
Passover, 244; ceremonies at, 198; and

Massoth, 198.

Paton, Dr.W. R., on the crucifixion, 293.
Patriarchs, as signs of the zodiac, the,

106, ., 239, .; parthenogenetic con-
ceptions of, 41, .
Paulus, explanation of annunciation,

25, n., 113.

Pavement, the, 243, 244.
Peter, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238.
Petra, 235, 238, 240.
Petrie, Dr., W. M. F., on "Jes-iris"

(Osiris), 68.
Pfleiderer, on the Christian Eucharist,

203.

Phallic emblems, 279.
Phallicism, 279.
Phereda (Pheredet), 124, 131.
Philo, on Karabas, 258, 259; on the

Messiah, 82; on the name Jesus, 63, n.
Philo Judseus, on birth of patriarchs,

41, .; on Pilate, 240, n.
Pilate, 240, 241, 242.
Pillar of heaven, 136.
Pinches, Dr., on meaning of Ea (Aa),

127.

Pinhas the robber, 233.
Pisciculi, 122, 129.
Piscina, 129.
Plants sprung from the blood of the

dying god, 318, n.
Plautus, on crucifixion, 289.
Pleiades and Peleiades, 344.
Pleiades, the, 323, 325; as the women

round the cross, 342, 344.
Pleroma, 86.
Plummer, Dr., on cave and manger,

36, n.

354

INDEX

Plutarch, on purification, 195. > n
sculpture at Sais, 16; on vocalisa-
tion of Osiris, 68, w.

Prastorium, 243, ., 244.

Pre-Christian Christ and Jesus-cults, 80.

Presentation in the temple, 44.

Pritchard, Dr. C., on the star of na-
tivity, 50.

IlpoSirijj (traitor), applied to Judas,
200, 255 ff.

Prospassaleuein, 288.

Proteus-Janus, 234.

Psalm 22, interpretations of, 81; its
mythical exposition, 338 f.

Puranas, 14.

Puranic stories, lateness of, 70, n.

Purification in the mysteries, 195.

Purim, feast of, 261, 262, 263.

Quincy, T. de, on Judas Iscariot, 256.

Rabbinical psychology and abnormal
conceptions, 28; stories about the pa-
triarchs, 134.

Radau, Dr., on Istar's visit to Hades,
262, n.; on the resurrection of Tam-
muz, 316, .

Ramsay, Sir W., on the date of birth of
Jesus, 92, 116, 331.

Reinach, S., on Barabbas, 256, 257, 258,
259, 260; on the cross, 283; on the
empty tomb, 311; on Esus (Hesus),
69; on young man who fled, etc., 226.

Renan, on Golgotha, 278, .

Resurrection of the Buddha,- 322.

Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 320.

Reveille, on the Magi, 48.

Rig-Veda, on birth of Agni, 31.

Ritual for birthday of Krishna, sources
of, 39, n.

Ritual murder, sham, 203, n.

Robertson, Mr. J. M., on the ascension,
325, 326; on Bethlehem, 91; on birth
of Jesus, 38; on the birth of John the
Baptist, 125; on the cock crowing,
239; on the cross, 282, 283, 285, .;
on the crown of thorns, 274, 275; on
the crucifixion, 292; on the descent to
Hades, 306; on the discourse with the
doctors of the law, 61; on the divine
birth, 32; on the entry into Jerusa-
lem, 167; on the expulsion of the tra-
ders, 176; on Joseph, 16; on Joshua-
(Jesus-) cults, 82; on Judas Iscariot,

250, 251; on lateness of Puranic
stories, 79, .; on Mary, 3, 10; on
Messiah Ben David, 80, .; on a
Mexican "Eucharist," 204; on Mith-
ra's mother, 13; on Peter, 234, 235,
236; on the seamless tunic, 294, 295;
on the shepherds, 43; on Simon of
Cyrene, 276; on the temptation of
Jesus, 136; on the two thieves, 294.
Roman year, beginning of, 236.

Sacaea, feast of the, 261, 264, 270.

Sacra of the mystery-cults, the, 197.

Sacraments in the worship of cult-gods,
189.

Sagitta, as a lance, 343.

Samothracian mysteries, 4.

Samson (Shimshon), 276.

Sanhedrin and the trial of Jesus, 229,
232.

Saoshyant, 14; birth of, 41.

Saturnalia, 261, 272, 273.

"Saviours," 228.

Sayce, Dr. A. H., on David as Daoud,
91, 92; on Istar's visit to Hades, 262, .

Schmiedel, P., on the empty tomb, 311;
on hallucinations, 163, n.; on "Mary,"
9, 98, .; on the reading of Matthew
27 : 16, 268; on visions, 163, n.

Schweitzer, Dr. A., on the ascription of
paranoia to Jesus, 165, n.

Scorpion (constellation), as the enemy of
the sun, the, 343, n.

Seamless tunic, the, 294.

Semitic lungs in the role of Tammuz,
262, n.

Sentius Saturninus, 331.

Set, 315, 324, .

Seydel, R., on the baptism of Jesus, 132;
on the blessing of Jesus by Simeon
and Anna, 46; on the descent of the
Buddha to hell, 306, n.; on the di-
vision of the clothes of Jesus, 295, .;
on the presents made to the young
Buddha, 53.

Sham ritual murder, 203.

Sheol, meaning of name, 303, .

Shepherds, the, 43.

Sib-Zi-Anna, 247.

Signs of zodiac, 168; number of, 71,
101, 105, 106, 119, 122.

Simeon Ben Azzai, 21.

Simeon the Levite, 44.

Simon Bar-jonas, 236.

INDEX

355

Simon of Cyrene, 276.

StvSciv (Sindon), 219, 226.

Smith, Prof. W. B., on the derivation of
name Jesus, 71; on Gethsemane, 209,
210; on Jesus-cults, 83; on Judas Is-
cariot, 252, 253; onNazoraean, 95; on
the rescript of Maximus, 332; on the
young man who fled, etc., 218, 225,

3i4-

"So and So," 2i.
Soden, Prof, von, on derivation of the

Jessaioi, 84. ;

SiaTijpla, 206.
Soul of deceased remains near corpse,

SOS-
Spiritual body, the, 320.

Stable-birth in myth, the, 31.

Star, the, 50.

2Taup6w, meaning of, in N. T., 288.

Stauros, 286.

Stephens, Mr., on the cross, 282.

Strauss, D. K, on annunciation and
conception, 25, 27; on the baptism of
Jesus, no jf.; on the burial of Jesus,
312; on Galatians 4 : 4, 27, .; on
Hegelianism, 28; on the Magi, 46; on
the massacre of the children, 55; on
the shepherds, 43, n.; on the tempta-
tion of Jesus, 133 JT.; on the trans-
figuration of Jesus, 154 /.

Stroud, Dr. W., on the cause of the
death of Jesus, 298, ., 299, .

Substantia and accidentia, 190.

Suddhodana, 45.

Suffering Messiah, Jewish references to,
213, .

Supernatural beings and modern psy-
chical research, 28.

Svastika, 284.

Synoptists, on the Eucharist, 181 Jf.; on
the transfiguration, 162 jf.

Tabor, Mount, 140.

Tacitus, on Pilate, 241.

Taheb, 22.

Talmud, the, 12; on the evidence of
shepherds, 44, n.; on the flight into
Egypt, 55, 93; on the genealogy of
Jesus, 21; on the high priests, 246; on
the trial of Jesus, 232, 233.

Tammuz (Adonis), 279, 303, 310, .;
ascension of, 324, .; cave of, at Beth-
lehem, 31, n., 91; resurrection of,
316,

T(<os, 300, 301.

Tathagata, 157.

Tau, 283, 284.

Taurobolia, 203.

Temptation, the, 133; the scene of the,

140.

Ter^XeffTcu, 296, 297.
Theodore of Mopsuete, 112.
Theosophists, on psychical body, 224.
Thieves, the two, 293.
Thomas Aquinas and transubstantia-

tipn, 190, n.

Thomas (= Gemini?), 238, n.
The three days, 308, 309, 311.
Tiridates, visit of, to Nero, 49, n.
Tisdal, Dr. St. Clair, on meaning of

Mithraic sculpture, 319, 320.
Tishtar, 168, n.
Toledoth Jeschu, on the flight into

Egypt, ss-
Touching sacra in the mysteries, the,

200.
Transfiguration, the, 154; Jensen on the,

74-

Transubstantiation and theophagy in
Mexico and India, 189; in the Euchar-
ist, 190.

Tregelles, Dr., on the reading of Mat-
thew 27 : 16, 266.

Trials, the, 228.

Twelve disciples and the signs of the
zodiac, the, 238, n.

Underbill, Miss E., on the transfigura-
tion, 164 /.

Unicorn, see Monokeros.
Usener, on the flight into Egypt, 54, .

Vardans, the, and the Armenian War,

14.

Varro, on human sacrifice, 272.
Vasudeva, 14, 76.
Vasudeva, journey of, 39, n.
Verrall, Dr., on meaning of XojtTrpis,

276, n.

Via Dolorosa, Niemojewski's, 345.
Virginity of goddess-mothers, 13.
"Virgin," meaning of, in pagan cults,

13, n., 38, .
Virgin-harlot, 13, .
Virgin of the zodiac, the, 15, 48, 341,

344-

Vishnu, 66, 68.
Visvaroitra, 60.

356

INDEX

Vitalism, 190.

Voigt, Dr., on the Magi, 49.
Volkmar, 312. '

Volney, on the divine birth, 32, n.
V sikkarli, 253.

Weber, Prof., on early Christianity in
India, 307; on introduction of Chris-
tianity into India, 76.

Weinel, Dr., 98, n.

Wellhausen, Prof. J., on the young man,
etc., 219.

Whitney, Dr. W. D., on derivation of
Agnus, 336.

Wilford, Lieutenant, on interpolations
of Biblical episodes into Krishna
stories, 78.

Winckler, Dr. H., on Nazareth, 98, 103.

Wine-press, 210, 211, 212.

World-tree, the, 102, ., 241.

Xisuthros, 73.

JLpiffT&s and Xpt]<rr6s, 75, .

Xulon (ftfXwO, 286.

Young man at the tomb, the, 222.
Young man who fled, etc., the, 218, 225.

Zacharias, 20, 25, 29.

Zahn, Dr., on the reading of Matthew

21 : 7, 172, n.; on the young man, etc.,

225.

Zalmuk, 261, n.
Zarathustra, seed of, 14; the temptation

of, 141 ff.
Zealots, 260.

Zebulon ae Capricornus, 105.
Zunmern, Dr., on kings who played the

part of Tammuz, 262, .
Zodiac, signs of, 71, ., 101, 105, 106,

119, 122, 168, 238, .

'.iAY I -

SAW 23 I

s "
MOV fe

h^nr^p--u/w^__^

j^M^x-'^

e&f

4? 7 7-

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO