Chapter II: The Jesus of the Gospels (3)

In all this the influence of Gnosticism and of the Philonic doctrine of the Logos is unmistakable, and it is very probable that the author of the fourth Gospel was influenced by the recollection, still living at Ephesus, of the Ephesian Heraclitus' Logos, in his attachment to Philo and to the latter's more detailed exposition of the Hellenic Logos-philosophy. But he fundamentally differs from Philo and Gnosticism in his assertion that the Logos "was made flesh," sojourned on earth in the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, and suffered death. It is true, however, that the Evangelist is more persistent in this assertion than successful in delineating a real man, notwithstanding his use of the Synoptic accounts of the personal fate of Jesus. The idea of the divine nature of the Saviour is the one that prevails in his writings. The "historical picture" which came down to him was forcibly rectified, and the personality of Jesus was worked up into something so wonderful, extraordinary, and supernatural that, if we were in possession of the fourth Gospel alone, in all probability the idea would hardly have occurred to any one that it was a treatment of the life-story of an historical individual. And yet in this the difference between the Johannine and the Synoptic Gospels is only a slight one. For the Synoptic Jesus also is not really a man, but a "superman," the original Christian community's God-man, cult-hero, and mediator of salvation. And if it is settled that the quarrel between the Church teachers and the Gnostic heretics hinged, not on the divinity of Christ, in which they agreed, but rather on the kind and degree of his humanity, then this "paradoxical fact" is by itself sufficient to corroborate the assertion that the divinity of the mediator of redemption was the only originally determined and self-evident presupposition of the whole Christian faith; and that, on the contrary, his humanity was doubtful even in the earliest times, and for this reason alone could become a subject of the bitterest strife.

Indeed, even the author of the fourth Gospel did not bring about a real fusion between the human person Jesus and the mythological person, the Gnostic Son of God, who with Philo wavered, also in the form of the Logos, between impersonal being and allegorical personality. All the efforts to render comprehensible "the interfusion of the divine and the human in the unity of the personal, its basis (essence) being divine, its appearance a human life of Jesus," are frustrated even with the so-called John by one fact. This fact is that a Logos considered as a person can never be at once a human personality and yet have as its basis and essence a divine personality, but can only be demoniacally possessed by this latter, and can never be this latter itself. And so, as Pfleiderer says, the Johannine Christ wavers throughout "between a sublime truth and a ghostly monstrosity; the former, in so far as he represents the ideal of the Son of God, and so the religion of mankind, separated from all the accidents and limits of individuality and nationality, of space and time--and the latter so far as he is the mythical covering of a God sojourning on earth in human form." [506]

It is true that this fusion of the Gnostic Son of God and the Philonic Logos with the Synoptic Jesus first fixed the hazy uncertainty of mythological speculation and abstract thought in the clear form and living individuality of the personal mediator of redemption. It brought this personality nearer to the hearts of the faithful than any other figure of religious belief, and thereby procured for the Christian cult-god Jesus, in his pure humanity, his overflowing goodness and benevolence, such a predominance over his divine competitors, Mithras, Attis, and others, that by the side of Jesus these faded away into empty shadows. The Gnostic ideal man, that is, the Platonic idea, and the moral ideal of man merged in him directly into a unity. The miracle of the union of God and man, over which the ancient world had so hotly and so fruitlessly disputed, seemed to have found its realisation in Christ. Christ was the "Wise man" of the Stoic philosophy, in whom was united for them all that is most honourable in man; more than this, he was the God-man, as he had been preached and demanded by Seneca for the moral elevation of mankind. [507] The world was consequently so ready to receive and so well prepared for his fundamental ideas that we easily see why the Church Christianity took its stand on the human personality of its redeeming principle with almost more decision than on the divine character of Jesus. Nevertheless, in spite of the majesty and sublimity, in spite of the immeasurable significance which the accentuation of the true humanity of Jesus has had for the development of Christianity, it remains true that on the other hand it is just this which is the source of all the insoluble contradictions, of all the insurmountable difficulties from which the Christian view of the world suffers. This is the reason why that great idea, which Christianity brought to the consciousness of the men of the West, and through which it conquered Judaism--the idea of the God-man--was utterly destroyed, and the true content of this religion was obscured, hidden, and misrepresented in such disastrous fashion, that to-day it is no longer possible to assent to its doctrine of redemption without the sacrifice of the intellect.

THE RELIGIOUS PROBLEM OF THE PRESENT

In the opinion of liberal theologians, not the God but rather the man Jesus forms the valuable religious essence of Christianity. [508] In saying this it says nothing less than that the whole of Christendom up to the present day--that is, till the appearance of a Harnack, Bousset, Wernle, and others of like mind--was in error about itself, and did not recognise its own essence. For Christianity, as the present account shows, from the very first conceived the God Jesus, or rather the God-man, the Incarnate, the God-redeemer, suffering with man and sacrificing himself for humanity, as the central point of its doctrine. The declaration of the real manhood of Jesus appears, on the other hand, but as an after-concession of this religion to outer circumstances, wrung from it only later by its opponents, and so expressly championed by it only because of its forming the unavoidable condition of its permanence in history and of its practical success. Only the God, therefore, not the man Jesus, can be termed the "founder" of the Christian religion.

It is in fact the fundamental error of the liberal theology to think that the development of the Christian Church took its rise from an historical individual, from the man Jesus. The view is becoming more common that the original Christian movement under the name of Jesus would have remained an insignificant and transient movement within Judaism but for Paul, who first gave it a religious view of the world by his metaphysics of redemption, and who by his break with the Jewish Law really founded the new religion. It will not be long before the further concession is found necessary, that an historical Jesus, as the Gospels portray him, and as he lives in the minds of the liberal theologians of to-day, never existed at all; so that he never founded the insignificant and diminutive community of the Messiah at Jerusalem. It will be necessary to concede that the Christ-faith arose quite independently of any historical personality known to us; that indeed Jesus was in this sense a product of the religious "social soul" and was made by Paul, with the required amount of reinterpretation and reconstruction, the chief interest of those communities founded by him. The "historical" Jesus is not earlier but later than Paul; and as such he has always existed merely as an idea, as a pious fiction in the minds of members of the community. The New Testament with its four Gospels is not previous to the Church, but the latter is antecedent to them; and the Gospels are the derivatives, consequently forming a support for the propaganda of the Church, and being without any claim to historical significance.

Nothing at all, as Kalthoff shows, is to be gained for the understanding of Christianity from the completely modern view that religion is an entirely personal life and experience. Religion is such personal life only in an age which is differentiated into personalities; it is such only in so far as this differentiation has been accomplished. From the very beginning religion makes its appearance as a phenomenon of social life; it is a group-religion, a folk-religion, a State religion; and this social character is naturally transferred to the free associations which are formed within the limits of tribe and the State. The talk about personality as the centre of all religious life is with regard to the origin of Christianity absurd and unhistorical, for the reason that Christianity grew up in religious associations, in communities. From this social religion our personal religion has only been developed in a history lasting centuries. Only after great struggles has personal religion been able to succeed against an essentially older form. What devout people of to-day call Christianity, a religion of the individual, a principle of personal salvation, would have been an offence and an absurdity to the whole of ancient Christendom. It would have been to it the sin against the Holy Ghost which was never to be forgiven; for the Holy Ghost was the spirit of the Church's unity, the connection of the religious community, the spirit of the subordination of the flock to the shepherd. For this reason individual religion existed in old Christendom only through the medium of the association of the community of the Church. A private setting up of one's own religion was heresy, separation from the body of Christ. [509]

We cannot refuse to concede to the "Catholic" Church, both Roman and Greek, that in this respect it has most faithfully preserved the spirit of the earliest Christendom. This alone is to-day what Christianity in essence once was--the religion of an association in the sense to which we have referred. Thus Catholicism justly refers to "tradition" for the truth of its religious view of the world and for the correctness of its hierarchical claims. But Catholicism itself beyond doubt first established this "tradition" in its own interests. It teaches also an "historical" Jesus, but clearly one that is historical merely by tradition, and of whose actual historical existence not the least indication has yet been established. Protestantism, on the other hand, is completely unhistoric in passing off the Gospels as the sources, as the "revealed" basis of the faith in Christ, as if they had arisen independently of the Church and represented the true beginnings of Christianity. Consequently one cannot base one's religious faith on the Gospel and wish nevertheless to stand outside of that community, since the writings of the New Testament can only pass as the expression of the community's life. One cannot therefore be Christian in the sense of the original community without obliterating one's own personality and uniting oneself as a member with the "Body of Christ"--that is, with the Church. The spirit of obedience and humility, which Christ demanded of his followers, is nothing but the spirit of subordination to the system of rules of conduct observed by the society of worship passing under his name. Christianity in the original sense is nothing but--"Catholic" Christianity; and this is the faith of the Church in the work of redemption accomplished by the God-man Christ in his Church and by means of the organisation infused with his "spirit."

On purely religious grounds the wrongly so-called "Catholicism" could very probably dispense with the fiction of an historical Jesus, and go back to Paul's standpoint before the origin of the Gospels, if it could have faith to-day in its mythological conception, of the God sacrificing himself for mankind, without that fiction. In its present form, however, it stands or falls as a Church with the belief in the historical truth of the God-redeemer; because all the Church's hierarchical claims and authority are based on this authority having been entrusted to her by an historical Jesus through the apostles. Catholicism relies for this, as it has been said, on "tradition." But Catholicism itself called this tradition into life, just as the priests at Jerusalem worked up the tradition of an historical Moses in order to trace back to him their claim to authority. It is the "Irony of World-History" that that very tradition soon afterwards forced the Church, with regard to the historical Christ, to conceal its real nature from the crowd, and to forbid the laity to read the Gospels, on account of the contradiction between the power of the Church and the traditional Christ it had produced. But the position of Protestantism is even more contradictory and more desperate than that of the Catholic Church, in view of our insight into the fictitious character of the Gospels. For Protestantism has no means but history for the foundation of its religious metaphysics; and history, viewed impartially, leads away from those roots of Christianity to which Protestantism strives, instead of towards them.

If this is true of Protestant orthodoxy it is even more true of that form of Protestantism which thinks it can maintain Christianity apart from its metaphysical doctrine of redemption because this doctrine is "no longer suitable to the age." Liberal Protestantism is and wishes to be nothing but a mere faith in the historical personality of a man who is supposed to have been born 1,900 years ago in Palestine, and through his exemplary life to have become the founder of a new religion; being crucified and dying in conflict with the authorities at Jerusalem, being raised up then as a God in the minds of his enthusiastic disciples. It is a faith in the "loving God the Father," because Jesus is supposed to have believed in him; in the personal immortality of man, because this is supposed to have been the presupposition of Jesus' appearance and doctrines; in the "incomparable" value of moral instructions, because they stand in a book which is supposed to have been produced under the immediate influence of the prophet of Nazareth. Liberal Protestantism supports morality on this, that Jesus was such a good man, and that for this reason it is necessary for each individual man to follow the call of Jesus. But it bases the faith in Jesus once and for all on the historical significance of the Gospels; though it cannot conceal from itself, after careful consideration, that the belief in their historical value rests on extremely weak grounds, and that we know nothing of that Jesus, not even that he ever lived. In any case we know nothing which could be of influential religious significance, and which could not be put together just as well or better from other less doubtful sources. [510] It is pierced to the heart by the denial of the historical personality of Jesus, not, like Catholicism, merely as a Church, but in its very essence, as a Religion. And as to its real religious kernel it consists in a few fine-sounding phrases and some scattered references to a metaphysics which was once living, but which is now degraded into a mere ornament for modest minds. And after disposing of its would-be historical value there is left only a dimly smouldering spark of "homeless sentiments," which would suit any style of religious faith. Liberal Protestantism proclaims itself as the really "modern" Christianity. Confronted by the philosophic spirit of our day, it lays stress upon having no philosophy. It sets aside all religious speculation as "Myth," if possible with reference to Kant, as this is "modern," without noticing that it is itself most deeply imbedded in mythology with its "historical" Jesus. It believes that, in its exclusive reverence for the man Jesus, it has brought Christianity to the "height of present culture." As to this Stendel justly says: "Of the whole apologetic art with which the modern Jesus-theology undertakes to save Christianity for our time, it can be said that there is no historical religion which could not just as well be brought into accord with the modern mind as that of the New Testament." [511] We have no occasion to weep for the complete collapse of such a "religion." This form of Christianity has already been proved by Hartmann to be worthless from the religious point of view; [512] and it is only a proof of the fascinating power of phrases, of the laxity in our creeds, and the thoughtlessness of the mob in religious matters, that it is even yet alive. For such reasons it is even allowed, under the lead of the so-called critical theology, to proclaim itself as the pure Christianity, now known for the first time. Thus it finds sympathy. This unsystematic collection of thoughts, arbitrarily selected from the view of the world and of life given by the Gospels, which even so requires to be rhetorically puffed out and artistically modified before it is made acceptable to the present age,--this unspeculative doctrine of redemption, which at bottom is uncertain of itself,--this sentimental, æsthetic, Jesus-worship of a Harnack, Bousset, and the rest on whom W. v. Schnehen so pitilessly broke his lance; [513] this whole so-called Christianity of cultured pastors and a laity in need of redemption, would have long since come to grief through its poverty of ideas, its sickening sweetness, if it were not considered necessary to maintain Christianity at all costs, were it even that of the complete deprivation of its spiritual content. The recognition of the fact that the "historical" Jesus has no religious interest at all, but at most concerns historians and philologists, is indeed at present commencing to make its way into wider circles. [514] If one only knew a way out of the difficulty! If one were only not afraid of following a clear lead just because one might then possibly be forced beyond the existing religion in the course of his ideas--as the example of Kalthoff showed! If only one had not such a fearful respect for the past and such a tender "historic unconsciousness" and such immense respect for the "historical basis" of existing religion! The reference to history and the so-called "historical continuity of the religious development" is indeed on the face of it merely a way out of a difficulty, and another way of putting the fact that one is not desired to draw the consequences of his presuppositions. As if there can still be talk of a "historical basis" where there is no history, but pure myth! As if the "preservation of historical continuity" could consist in maintaining as history what are mythical fictions, just because they have hitherto passed for historic truth, though we have seen through their purely fictitious and unreal character! As if the difficulty of the redemption of present-day civilisation from the chaos of superstition, social deceit, cowardice, and intellectual servitude which are connected with the name of Christianity, lay in a purely spiritual sphere and not rather in the sentiment, in the slovenly piety, in the heavy weight of ancient tradition, above all in the economic, social, and practical relations which unite our churches with the past! Faith in the future of Christianity is still built not so much on the persuasive inner truth of its doctrine, but much more on the inborn religious feeling of the members of the community, on the religious education in school and home, and the consequent increasing store of metaphysical and ethical ideas, on protection by the State and--on the law of inertia in the spiritual life of the mob. For the rest, in pulpit, in parish papers, and in public life, a method of expression is used which is not essentially different from that of orthodoxy, but is so adapted as to allow every man to think what he deems best for himself. We are enthusiastically told that thus we are able to keep the rudderless ship of Protestantism still a while above water, and that we have "reconciled" faith with modern culture in "the further development of Christianity."

Thus nineteen hundred years of religious development were completely in error. Is no other course open to us but a complete break with the Christian doctrine of redemption? This doctrine, however--such was the result of our previous examination--is independent of the belief in an historical Jesus. Its centre of gravity lies in the conception of the "incarnation" of God, who suffers in the world but is finally victorious over this suffering; and through union with whom Mankind also "prevails over the world" and gains a new life in a higher sphere of existence. That the form of this divine Redeemer of the world coalesced, in the minds of the Christian community, with that of a man Jesus; that, consequent on this, the act of redemption was fixed as to time and place, is only the consequence of the conditions under which the new religion appeared.

For this reason it can only claim, in and for itself, a transient practical significance, and not a special religious value; while on the other hand it has become the doom of Christianity that just this making into history of the principle of redemption makes it impossible for us still to acknowledge this religion. But then the preservation of historical continuity or the "further development" of Christianity in its proper sense probably does not consist in separating this chance historical side of the Christian doctrine of redemption from its connection with the whole Christian view of the world and setting it up by itself, but only in going back to the essential and fundamental idea of the Christian religion, and stating its metaphysical doctrine of redemption in a manner more nearly answering to the ideas of the day.

From the conception of a personal God-redeemer arose the possibility of sacrificing a man in God's place, and of seeing the divine and ideal man, that is, the Idea of Man, in an actual man. From the growing Church's desire for authority, from its opposition to Gnostic phantasy with its intellectual volatilising of the religious-moral kernel of the Pauline doctrine of redemption, and from the wish not to give up the historical connection with Judaism on opportunist grounds, arose the necessity of portraying the divine-human expiatory sacrifice as the sacrifice of an historical person who had arisen in Judaism. All these different reasons, which led to the formation of the belief in an "historical" Jesus, have no force with us, particularly after it has been shown that the personality of the principle of redemption, this fundamental presupposition of the evangelical "history," is in the end to blame for all the contradictions and shortcomings of that religion. To lead back to its real essence the Christian doctrine of redemption can consequently mean nothing but placing the idea of the God-man, as it lies at the basis of that doctrine, in the central point of the religious view of the world, through the stripping off of the mythical personality of the Logos.

God must become man, so that Man can become God and be redeemed from the bounds of the finite. The idea of Man which is realised in the world must itself be a divine idea, an idea of the Deity, and so God must be the common root and essence of all individual men and things; only then may Man attain his existence in God and freedom from the world, through this consciousness of his supernatural divine essence. Man's consciousness of himself and of his true essence must itself be a divine consciousness. Man, and indeed every man, must be a purely finite phenomenon, an individual limitation, the clothing of the Deity with a human form. In possibility he is a God-man, to be born again an actual God-man through his moral activity, and consequently to become really one with God. In this conception all the contradictions of Christian dogmatism are solved, and the kernel of its doctrine of redemption is preserved without being divested of its true significance by the introduction of mythical phantasy or of historical coincidences, as is the case in Christianity.

If we are still to use the language of the past, and to call the divine essence of mankind the immanent Godhead, "Christ," then any advance of religion can only consist in the development and working out of this "inner Christ," that is, of the spiritual-moral tendencies dwelling in mankind, in the carrying of it back to its absolute and divine basis, but not in the historical personification of this inner human nature. Any reality of the God-man consequently consists in "Christ's" activity in Man, in the proving of his "true self," of his personal, spiritual essence, in the raising of one's self to personality on the ground of Man's divine nature, but not in the magical efficacy of an external divine personality. This, indeed, is nothing but the religious ideal of mankind, which men have projected on to an historical figure, in order to assure themselves of the "reality" of the ideal. It is not true that it is "essential" to the religious consciousness to consider its ideal in human form, and that for this reason the historical Jesus is indispensable for the religious life. Were this true, religion would not be, in principle, in a position to raise itself above the mythical and primitive stage of God's externality and appearance to the senses, and to conquer these Gods, working them more and more into the forms of an inner nature. This, however, is the essence of religious development. Religion would otherwise be confined to a lower province in the human life of the spirit; and it would be overthrown whenever the fiction of that projection and separation of God from one's own self was seen through. It is only to orthodox Christianity that it is necessary to represent the God in Man as a God outside of Man, as the "unique" personality of a historical God-man; and that because it still remains with one foot in religious naturalism and mythology, and the historical circumstances of another age occasioned the choice of that representation and falsification of the idea of the God-man.

To think of the world's activity as God's activity; of mankind's development, filled with struggles and sufferings, as the story of a divine struggle and Passion; of the world-process as the process of a God, who in each individual creature fights, suffers, conquers and dies, so that he may overcome the limitations of the finite in the religious consciousness of man and anticipate his future triumph over all the suffering of the world--that is the real Christian doctrine of redemption. To revive in this sense the fundamental conception from which Christianity sprang--and which is independent of any historical reference--is, indeed, to return to this religious starting-point. Protestantism, on the contrary, which repudiates Paul's religion and sets up the Gospels as the foundation of its belief, nevertheless does not go behind Christianity's development into the Church, back to the origin of Christianity, but remains always within this development, and deceives itself if it thinks that it can prevail over the Church from the point of view of the Gospel. [515]

In such an interpretation and development of the Christian conception of redemption "historical continuity" is preserved just as decidedly as it is in the one-sided making into history of that thought on the side of liberal Protestantism. What is in opposition to it is, on the one hand, completely unhistorical belief in an historical Jesus; on the other hand, the prejudice against the "immanent God," or against Pantheism. But this prejudice is based entirely on that fiction of an historical "mediator" and the hypothesis contained therein of a dualistic separation of world and God. The representatives of the monistic conception--who began to organise themselves a short time ago--should be clearer as to the significance of that conception than they are for the most part even at the present day. They must perceive that the true doctrine of unity can only be the doctrine of the all in one. There must be an idealistic monism in opposition to the naturalistic monism of Haeckel, which is prevalent even to-day. This monism must not exclude but include God's existence; and its present unfruitful negation of all religion must deepen into a positive and religiously valuable view of the world. Then, and not till then, will it be able to effect a genuine separation from the Church, and the monistic movement, still in its childhood, may lead to an inner improvement and renovation of our spiritual life in general. It requires much short-sightedness on the part of the exponents of a purely historical Christianity to suppose that the soulless and poor faith in the personal, or as it is considered better expressed to-day, in the "living" God, in freedom and immortality, supported by the authority of the "unique" personality of a man Jesus who died two thousand years ago, will be in a position permanently to satisfy religious needs, even when the metaphysic of redemption, still connected with it at all points, and the pious attitude based upon this are completely stripped off from it. The earlier the orthodox Christians, by giving up their superstition in an historical Jesus, and the Monists, by sacrificing their equally fatal superstition in the sole reality of matter and in the redeeming truths of physical science which alone can give happiness, come to a mutual reconciliation, the better it will be for both. The more surely we shall avoid the total obliteration of the religious consciousness; and the civilised nations of Europe will be saved from the loss of their spiritual ballast--towards which loss there seems at the present day to be a continuous movement on all sides. At present there are only two possibilities--either to look on quietly while the tidal wave of naturalism, getting ever more powerful from day to day, sweeps away the last vestige of religious thought, or to transfer the sinking fire of religion to the ground of Pantheism, in a religion independent of any ecclesiastical guardianship. The time of dualistic Theism has gone by. At present all the advancing spirits, in spheres most widely different, concur in striving towards Monism. This striving is so deeply grounded and so well warranted, that the Church will not be able to suppress it for ever. [516] The chief obstacle to a monistic religion and attitude is the belief, irreconcilable with reason or history, in the historical reality of a "unique," ideal, and unsurpassable Redeemer.

NOTES

[1] Cf. also his "Kritik der Evangelien," 2 vols. (1850-51).

[2] "Kultur d. Gegenwart: Gesch. d. christl. Religion," 2nd ed., 1909, 47.

[3] The same is true of Clemen, who, judging by his "Religionsgeschichtl. Erklärung d. N.T." (1909), appears to be acquainted with Robertson's masterpiece, "Christianity and Mythology," only from a would-be witty notice of Réville, and furthermore only cites the author when he thinks he can demolish him with ease.

[4] A. Hausrath, in his work "Jesus u. die neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller," vol. i. (1908), offers a striking example of how light a matter our theologians make it to overthrow the attacks of the opponents of an historical Jesus. In scarcely three pages at the commencement of his compendious work he rejects the myth theory of Bruno Bauer with the favourite appeal to a few individual and historical features of the Gospel tradition which are intrinsically of no significance, finishing up this "refutation" with a reckless citation from Weinel which proves nothing for the historical character of Jesus.

[5] Cf. also his work "Moses, Jesus, Paulus. Drei sagen varianten des babylonischen Gottmenschen Gilgamesch," 2nd ed., 1909.

[6] Cf., for example, "Jesus Vier Vorträge, geh. in Frankf." 1910.

[7] In other respects the "progress" in the province of religious history is not so great as I formerly believed I could assume. That is to say, in essentials modern learning in this connection has only brought facts to light and given a new focus to points of view which were already possessed (cf. Dupuis and Volney) by the eighteenth century. In the twenties and forties of the nineteenth century investigations, unprejudiced and independent of theology, had already reached in the case of some of their representatives, such as Gfrörer, Lützelberger, Ghillany, Nork, and others, the point which is to-day again represented by the most advanced learning. The revolution of 1848 and the reaction consequent on it in ecclesiastical matters then again shook, on account of their radical tendency, those views which had been already arrived at. The liberal Protestantism, too, that rose as a recoil against orthodoxy in its effort to work out the "historical" Jesus as the kernel of Christianity on its part had no interest in again bringing up the old results. Indeed, it actually makes it a reproach to a person of the present day if he quotes the works of those earlier investigators, and reminds him that religious learning did not begin only with the modern Coryphaei, with Holtzmann, Harnack, &c. Whoever looks upon things from this point of view can most probably agree in the melancholy reflection of a reviewer of the first edition of "The Christ Myth," when he says with reference to the "latest investigations": "Apparently the whole learning of the nineteenth century so far as relates to investigations into the moving forces of civilisation and national upheavals will be considered by future research as an arsenal of errors" (O. Hauser in the Neue Freie Presse, August 8, 1909).

[8] It has also been reckoned as a want of "method" in this work that I have often made use of a cautious and restrained mode of expression, that I have spoken of mere "suppositions" and employed locutions such as "it appears," &c., when it has been for the time being impossible for science or myself to give complete certainty to an assertion. This reproach sounds strange in the mouths of such as plume themselves upon "scientific method." For I should think that it was indeed more scientific in the given cases to express oneself in the manner chosen by me, than by an unmeasured certainty in assertions to puff out pure suppositions into undoubted facts. I must leave such a mode of proceeding to the historical theologians. They work purely with hypotheses. All their endeavours to obtain an historical kernel from the Gospels rest upon conjectures simply. Above everything, their explanation of the origin of Christianity simply from an historical Jesus is, in spite of the certainty and self-confidence with which it comes out, a pure hypothesis, and that of very doubtful value. For that in reality the new religion should have been called into life by the "all-subduing influence of the personality of Jesus" and its accompaniments, the visions and hallucinations of the disciples worked up into ecstasies, is so improbable, and the whole view is psychologically so assailable, and, moreover, so futile, that even a liberal theologian like Gunkel declares it entirely insufficient ("Zum religionsgesichtl. Verständnis d. N.T.," 89 sq.). With this explanation, however, stands or falls the whole modern Jesus-religion. For if they cannot show how the Pauline and Johannine Christology could develop from the mere existence of an historical Jesus, if this now forms "the problem of problems of New Testament research" (Gunkel, op. cit.), then their whole conception of the rise of Christianity disappears into air, and they have no right to hold up against others who seek a better explanation the partially hypothetical character of the views advanced by them.

[9] Op. cit., 10 sq.

[10] Cf. K. Dunkmann, "Der historische Jesus, der mythologische Christus, und Jesus der Christ" (1910). Cf. also Pfleiderer, "Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung" (1903), 6 sq. Here, too, it is pointed out that modern scientific theology in its description of the figure of Christ proceeds in anything but an unprejudiced manner. Out of the belief in Christ as contained in the New Testament it "only draws forth what is acceptable to present modes of thinking--passing over everything else and reading in much that is its own--in order to construct an ideal Christ according to modern taste." Pfleiderer declares it a "great illusion" to believe that the pictures of Christ in works such as Harnack's "Wesen des Christentums," each differently drawn according to the peculiarities of their composers, but all more or less in the modern style, are the result of scientific historical research, and are related to the old conceptions of Christ like truth to error. "One should," he says, "be reasonable and honourable enough to confess that both the modern and the antique conceptions of Christ are alike creations of the common religious spirit of their times and sprung from the natural need of faith to fix its special principle in a typical figure and to illustrate it. The differences between the two correspond to the differences of the times, the former a simple mythical Epic, the latter a sentimental and conscious Romance." In the same sense Alb. Schweitzer also characterises the famous "method" of historical theology as "a continual experimentation according to settled hypotheses in which the leading thought rests in the last resort upon an intuition" ("Von Reimarus bis Wrede," 1906). Indeed, Weinel himself, who cannot hold up against the author with sufficient scorn his lack of method and his dilettantism has to confess that the same blemishes which in his opinion characterise dilettantism are to be found even in the most prominent representatives of historical theology, in a Wrede or a Wellhausen. He reproaches both of these with the fact that in their researches "serious faults of a general nature and in method" are present (21). He advises the greatest prudence in respect to Wellhausen's Gospel Commentaries "on account of their serious general blemishes" (26). He objects to Wrede that to be consistent he must himself go over to radical dilettantism (22). He charges Schweitzer actually with dilettantism and blind bias which cause every literary consideration to be lacking (25 sq.). Indeed, he finds himself, in face of the "dilettante endeavours" to deny the historical Jesus, compelled even to admit that liberal theology for the future "must learn to express itself with more caution and to exhibit more surely the method of religious historical comparison" (14). He blames Gunkel for imprudence in declaring Christianity to be a syncretic religion, and demands that the historical works of liberal theology "should be clearer in their results and more convincing in their methods" (16). He says that the method which they employ is at present not sure and clear enough since "it has been spoken of generally in very loose if not misleading terms," and he confesses: "We have apparently not made the measure, according to which we decide upon what is authentic and what not so in the tradition, so plain that it can always be recognised with security" (29). Now, if matters are in such a position, we non-theologians need not take too tragically the reproach of dilettantism and lack of scientific method, since it appears very much as though historical theology, with the exception at most of Herr Weinel, has no sure method.

[11] Cf. W. v. Schnehen, "Der moderne Jesuskultus," 2nd ed., 1907, p. 41, a work with which even a Pfleiderer has agreed in the main points; also the same author's "Fr. Naumann vor dem Bankrott des Christentums," 1907.

[12] The excursus on "The Legend of Peter" which was contained in the first edition of this work, and there appears to have been rather misunderstood, has recently (1910) appeared more closely worked out and reasoned in an independent form in the Neuer Frankfurter Verlag under the title "Die Petrus Legende. Ein Beitrag zur Mythologie des Christentums."

[13] Op cit., 82.

[14] Ep. ad Luc. 41.

[15] E. v. Mommsen and Wilamowitz in the Transactions of the German Archæological Institute, xxiii. Part iii.; "Christl. Welt," 1899, No. 57. Compare as a specially characteristic expression of that period's longing for redemption the famous Fourth Eclogue of Virgil. Also Jeremias, "Babylonisches im Neuen Testament," 1905, pp. 57 sqq. Lietzmann, "Der Weltheiland," 1909.

[16] It is certain that the old Israelite Jahwe only attained that spiritualised character for which he is nowadays extolled under the influence of the Persians' imageless worship of God. All efforts to construct, in spite of this admission, a "qualitative" difference between Jahwe and Ahuramazda, as, for example, Stave does in his work ("Der Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum," 1898, 122 sq.) are unavailing. According to Stave, the conception of good and evil is not grasped in Mazdeism in all its purity and truth, but "has been confused with the natural." But is that distinction "grasped in all its purity" in Judaism with its ritualistic legality? Indeed, has it come to a really pure realisation even in Christianity, in which piety and attachment to the Church so often pass as identical ideas? Let us give to each religion its due, and cease to be subtle in drawing such artificial distinctions in favour of our own--distinctions which fall into nothingness before every unprejudiced consideration.

[17] Exod. iv. 22; Deut. xxxii. 6; Hosea xi. 1.

[18] Isa. xlix. 6, 8.

[19] Id. li. 16.

[20] Isa. xliv. 28, xlv. 1 sq.

[21] Cumont, "Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra," 1899, vol. i. 188.

[22] Isa. xi. 65, 17 sqq.

[23] Isa. ix. 6; Micah v. 1.

[24] Psa. xlvii. 6, 9, lvii. 12.

[25] Ch. xlv.-li.

[26] Ch. vi. 1 sqq.

[27] Cf. Gunkel, "Zum religionsgesch. Verständnis des Neuen Testaments," 1903, p. 23, note 4.

[28] Revelation xxii.; cf. Pfleiderer, "Das Urchristentum. Seine Schriften und seine Lehren," 2nd edit., 1902, vol. ii. 54 sqq.

[29] Dan. xii. 3.

[30] The assertion advanced by Grätz and Lucius that the work mentioned is a forgery of a fourth-century Christian foisted upon Philo with the object of recommending the Christian "Ascesis," and that a sect of Therapeutes never existed, can now be considered disposed of, since its refutation by Massebiau and Conybeare. Cf. Pfleiderer, "Urchristentum," ii. 5 sq.

[31] Cf. as regards the Essenes, Schürer, "Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi," 1898, II. 573-584.

[32] Regarding the connection between the Essenes and the Apocalypse, cf. Hilgenfeld, "Die jüdische Apokalyptik," 1857, p. 253 sqq.

[33] On this point, cf. Brandt, "Die mandäische Religion," 1899; "Realenzyklop, f.d. protest. Theologie u. Kirche," xii. 160 sqq.; Gunkel, op. cit., 18 sqq.

[34] Cf. Hilgenfeld, "Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums," 1884.

[35] Gunkel, op. cit., 29.

[36] Gen. xxxii. 24.

[37] Numb. xx. 16; Exod. xiii. 21.

[38] Exod. xxxiii. 14; 2 Sam. v. 23.

[39] 1 Kings i. 3; Ezek. xliii. 5.

[40] Isa. lxiii. 9 sqq.

[41] Psa. ii.

[42] Cf. Ghillany, "Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebräer," 1842, 326-334; Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judentum," 1711, i. 311, 395 sqq. Also Movers, "Die Phönizier," 1841; i. 398 sq.

[43] Exod. xxiii. 20 sqq.

[44] Jos. xxiv. 11.

[45] Jos. v. 2-10. The unhistorical nature of Joshua is admitted also by Stade. Stade counts him an Ephraimitic myth, recalling to mind in so doing that the Samaritans possessed an apocryphal book of the same name in place of our Book of Joshua ("Gesch. d. Volkes Israel," 1887, i. 64 sqq., 135). The Samaritan Book of Joshua (Chronicum Samaritanum, published 1848) was written in Arabic during the thirteenth century in Egypt, and is based upon an old work composed in the third century B.C. containing stories which in part do not appear in our Book of Joshua.

[46] That the hypothesis of Smith here mentioned is quite admissible from the linguistic point of view has lately been maintained by Schmiedel in opposition to Weinel (Protestantenbl., 1910, No. 17, 438).

[47] Epiph., "Hæresiol." xxix.

[48] Smith, op. cit., 37 sq., 54.

[49] Isa. ii. 1. Cf. Epiphanius, op. cit.

[50] Id. xxix. 6.

[51] "Enc. Bibl.," art. "Nazareth."

[52] "Since ha-nosrîm was a very usual term for guardians or protectors, it follows that when the term or its Greek equivalent hoi Nazoraioi was used the adoption of its well-known meaning was unavoidable. Even if the name was really derived from the village of Nazareth, no one would have thought of it. Every one would have unavoidably struck at once upon the current meaning. If a class of persons was called protectors, every one would understand that as meaning that they protected something. No one would hit upon it to derive their name from an otherwise unknown village named Protection" (Smith, op. cit., 47).

[53] Cf. in this connection Smith, op. cit., 36 sq., 42 sqq.

[54] Cf. Cumont, op. cit., 195 sq.

[55] Matt. ii. 25.

[56] Zech. iii. 10.

[57] Jeremias, op. cit., 56; cf. also 33 and 46, notes.

[58] Robertson, "A Short History of Christianity," 1902, 9 sqq.

[59] Gunkel, op. cit., 34.

[60] Id., op. cit., 39-63; cf. also Robertson, "Pagan Christs," 1903, 155 seq.

[61] Cf. Robertson, op. cit., 156.

[62] Mark v. 27; Luke xxiv. 19; Acts xviii. 25, xxviii. 31.

[63] Luke ix. 49, x. 17; Acts iii. 16; James v. 14 sq. For more details regarding Name magic, see W. Heitmüller, "Im Namen Jesu," 1903.

[64] Cf. on whole subject Robertson, op. cit., 153-160.

[65] Ch. vii. 29.

[66] Isa. iii.

[67] Ch. xii. 10 sqq.; cf. Movers, op. cit., i. 196.

[68] Ch. viii. 14.

[69] Op. cit., 78.

[70] Frazer, "The Golden Bough," 1900, ii. 196 sq.

[71] Frazer, "Adonis, Attis, Osiris," 1908, 128 sqq.

[72] "The Golden Bough," i., iii. 20 sq.

[73] Verse 14.

[74] Op. cit., viii. 24-29.

[75] 1 Gen. xv. 17.

[76] Ghillany, op. cit., 148, 195, 279, 299, 318 sqq. Cf. especially the chapter "Der alte hebräische Nationalgott Jahve," 264 sqq.

[77] J. M. Robertson, "Pagan Christs," 140-148. It cannot be sufficiently insisted upon that it was only under Persian influence that Jahwe was separated from the Gods of the other Semitic races, from Baal, Melkart, Moloch, Chemosh, &c., with whom hitherto he had been almost completely identified; also that it was only through being worked upon by Hellenistic civilisation that he became that "unique" God, of whom we usually think on hearing the name. The idea of a special religious position of the Jewish people, the expression of which was Jahwe, above all belongs to those myths of religious history which one repeats to another without thought, but which science should finally put out of the way.

[78] "Golden Bough," iii. 138-146.

[79] Movers, op. cit., 480 sqq.

[80] VI. 47 sqq., 209 sqq.

[81] Cf. Gunkel, "Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit," 1895. 309 sq. E. Schrader, "Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament," 1902, 514-520.

[82] Ch. viii. 15. Cf. also vi. 8, 9.

[83] "Abhandlungen d. Kgl. Ges. d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen," xxxiv.

[84] Cf. also P. Wendland, "Ztschr. Hermes," xxxiii., 1898, 175 sqq., and Robertson, op. cit., 138, note 1.

[85] In the same way the Phrygian Attis, whose name characterises him as himself the "father," was also honoured as the "son," beloved and spouse of Cybele, the mother Goddess. He thus varied between a Father God, the high King of Heaven, and the divine Son of that God.

[86] Frazer, op. cit., iii. 138-200. Cf. also Robertson, "Pagan Christs," 136-140.

[87] Keim, "Geschichte Jesu," 1873, 331 note.

[88] Ghillany, op. cit., 510 sqq.

[89] Id. 505.

[90] 2 Sam. xxi. 9; cf. Lev. xxiii. 10-14.

[91] "Hist.," xviii. 7.

[92] 2 Kings iii. 27.

[93] "Hist. Nat.," xxxiv. 4, § 26.

[94] Mentioned in Eusebius, "Praeparatio Evangelica," i. 10. Cf. Movers, op. cit., 303 sq.

[95] "Der Mythus bei den Hebräern," 1876, 109-113.

[96] Cf. Ghillany, op. cit., 451 sqq.; Daumer, op. cit., 34 sqq., 111.

[97] Numb. xx. 22 sqq., xxvii. 12 sqq., xxxiii. 37 sqq., Deut. xxxii. 48 sqq. Cf. Ghillany, op. cit., 709-721.

[98] Deut. xviii. 15.

[99] Cf. Heb. v.

[100] Diodorus Siculus, ii. 44.

[101] Justin, "Dial. cum Tryphone," cap. xc.

[102] Schürer, op. cit., ii. 555. Cf. also Wünsche, "Die Leiden des Messias," 1870.

[103] See above, page 40 sqq.

[104] Cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., ii. 720 sqq.; Gfrörer, "Das Jahrhundert des Heils," 1838, ii. 260 sqq.; Lützelberger, "Die kirchl. Tradition über den Apostel Johannes u. s. Schriften," 1840, 224-229; Dalman, "Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synagoge im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend," 1888; Bousset, "Die Religion des Judentums, im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter," 1903, 218 sq.; Jeremias, op. cit., 40 sq.

[105] Op. cit., 21.

[106] Op. cit., 71 sq.

[107] Kautzsch, "Pseudoepigraphen," 500.

[108] Winckler, op. cit., 67-77. Cf. also Jeremias, op. cit., 40, and his "Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients," 1904, 239 sq.

[109] Gen. xl.

[110] Luke xxiii. 39-43; cf. also Isa. lxxx. 12.

[111] Jos. v. 2 sqq.

[112] Amos viii. 10; cf. Movers, op. cit., 243.

[113] Cf. Robertson, "Pagan Christs," 157.

[114] Numb. xiv.

[115] Id. xiii. 9; Gen. xlviii. 16.

[116] Id. xiii. 7; Gen. xlix. 9.

[117] 1 Chron. iv. 11.

[118] Judges ii. 9.

[119] Id. iv.

[120] Cf. Nork, "Realwörterbuch," 1843-5, ii. 301 sq.

[121] Cf. on whole subject Martin Brückner, "Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen Religionen und ihr Verhältnis zum Christentum. Religionsgesch. Volksbücher," 1908.

[122] Ch. ii. 12-20.

[123] Ch. iii. 1-8.

[124] Ch. v. 3-5.

[125] Ch. xii.

[126] "Zum religionsgesch. Verst. d. N.T.," 54.

[127] "L'origine de tous les cultes," 1795, v. 133.

[128] "Abraxas," 117.

[129] Cf. regarding the mythical nature of Moses, who is to be looked upon as an offshoot of Jahwe and Tammuz, Winckler, op. cit., 86-95.

[130] Cf. also O. Pfleiderer, "Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens in religionsgesch. Beleuchtung," 1903, 37. Also Jeremias, "Das A.T. im Lichte des alten Orients," 254.

[131] I. 107.

[132] Cf. Plutarch, "Artaxerxes," ch. i.

[133] Movers, op. cit., 228.

[134] II. 9, 2.

[135] Bousset, "Das Judentum," 220.

[136] 1 Kings xi. 14 sq.

[137] Schrader, "Die Keilinschriften u. d. A.T.," 225.

[138] Winckler, op. cit., 172 sqq., Jeremias, "Das A.T. im Lichte d. a. O.," 2nd. ed., 488 sqq.; cf. also Baentsch, "David und sein Zeitalter. Wissenschaft u. Bildung," 1907.

[139] Ep. viii. 3.

[140] Id. xlii. 58.

[141] Ch. v. 1.

[142] Gen. xxxv. 11-19; Deut. xxxiii. 12; Gen. xliv. 26.

[143] Cf. Nork, "Realwörterbuch," i. 240 sq.

[144] The other famous "prophecy" supposed to refer to the birth of the Messiah, viz., Isaiah vii. 14, is at present no longer regarded as such by many. The passage obviously does not refer to the Messiah. This is shown by a glance at the text, and it would hardly have been considered so long as bearing that meaning, if any one had taken the trouble to read it in its context. Consider the situation. Queen Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel march against the Jewish King Ahaz, who is therefore much troubled. At the command of Jahwe the prophet goes to the king in order to exhort him to courage, and urges him to pray for a sign of the happy outcome of the fight. He, however, refuses to tempt God. Thereupon Isaiah himself gives him a sign. "Behold," he says, "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, God be with us. Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken." And undisturbed by the fact that this prophecy for the moment can give but little encouragement to the king, Isaiah goes with the help of two witnesses(!) to a prophetess and gets her with child in order to make his words true(!). The text does not say in what relationship the woman stood to Isaiah. The Hebrew word Almah may mean "young woman" as well as "virgin." The Septuagint, however, thoughtlessly making the passage refer to the Messiah, and having before its eyes very possibly the stories of the miraculous birth of the heathen Redeemer Gods, translates the word straightway by "virgin," without thinking what possible light it thereby threw upon Isaiah.

[145] Ch. lx. 1 sqq.

[146] Psa. lxviii. 32 sq.

[147] Dupuis, op. cit., 268.

[148] Matt. i. 14 sq.

[149] The feasts of the Gods in question also correspond to this in character. They fell upon the solstice (the birthday or day of death of the sun), so far as their connection with the sun was emphasized. On the contrary, upon the equinoxes, so far as their connection with vegetation was concerned, sowing and harvest were brought into prominence. Usually, however, death and reappearance were joined in one single feast, and this was celebrated at the time in spring when day and night were of equal length, when vegetation was at its highest, and in the East the harvest was begun. Cf. Jeremias, "Babylonisches im N.T.," 10 sq.