YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS THE UNIVERSITY OP CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Bgents THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY NEW YOKE THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON AND EDINBURGH THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS A CRITICISM OF THE CONTENTION THAT JESUS NEVER LIVED, A STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR HIS EXISTENCE, AN ESTIMATE OF HIS RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY By SHIRLEY JACKSON CASE of the Department of Neno Testament Literature and Interpretation in the University of Chicago THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Copyright 1912 By The University of Chicago All Rights Reserved Published March 1912 Composed and Printed By The University of Chicago Press Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. PREFACE The main purpose of the present volume is to set forth the evidence for believing in the his torical reality of Jesus' existence upon earth. By way of approach, the characteristic features of more recent opinion regarding the historical Jesus have been surveyed, and, on the other hand, the views of those who deny his existence have been examined in detail. The negative arguments have been carefully analyzed in order accurately to comprehend the problem. In presenting the evidence for Jesus' historicity, an effort has been made both to meet oppo nents' objections and at the same time to give a fairly complete collection of the historical data upon which belief in his existence rests. Finally, the practical bearing of the discussion has been indicated by briefly considering Jesus' personal relation to the founding of the Chris tian movement and his significance for modern religion. The needs of two classes of readers have been kept in mind. The general public, it is believed, will find the treatment suited to their tastes. vi Preface By a free use of footnotes the more technical side of the subject has also been presented for the benefit of -readers wishing to study the question more minutely. No important phase in the history or in the present status of the problem has intentionally been ignored. The author has made free use of some opinions which he had already expressed in the pages of the Biblical World and the American Journal of Theology, but these materials have been largely recast in becoming an integral part of the present work. Shirley Jackson Case The University of Chicago February 15, 1912. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAG I. The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology .... . i II. The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism . . . ... 32 III. An Estimate of the Negative Argu ment: Its Treatment of the Tra ditional Evidence . . . 62 IV. An Estimate of the Negative Argu ment: Its Proposed Explanation of the Origin of Christianity ... 89 V. Pragmatic Phases of Primitive Tradition .... .... 133 VI. The Pauline Evidence for Jesus' Existence .... .... 178 VII. The Gospel Evidence for Jesus' Existence .... .... 202 VIII. Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus' Existence . 238 IX. Jesus the Historical Founder of Christianity ... . . .271 X. Jesus' Significance for Modern Religion 304 CHAPTER I THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF "LIBERAL" THEOLOGY Is Jesus of Nazareth a historical individual, or is he purely a creation of fancy ? While he is commonly thought to have lived in Palestine nineteen hundred years ago, Christendom has recently been disturbed by occasional voices proclaiming that this current behef is altogether without foundation in fact. Jesus' life of asso ciation with disciples, his ministry of healing and teaching, his conflicts with the religious leaders of that day, his death on the cross, in fact the whole of his alleged earthly career depicted in the New Testament is held to be entirely fictitious. He is not to be classed among those historical founders of religion who left so strong an impression upon their con temporaries that after death their memory was held in peculiar reverence by their followers; he belongs rather with those heroes of mythol ogy who never had any earthly existence except that created for them by the anthropomorphiz ing fancy of nai've and primitive peoples. This doubt about Jesus' existence is not an 2 The Historicity of Jesus entirely new problem. Its classic expression is to be found with Bruno Bauer more than half a century ago. Yet in its modern form it has new and important characteristics. Not only has it won a larger following than formerly, but it has been argued in a variety of ways and from several different points of view. It is often presented with a zeal which challenges attention even when the argument would not always command a hearing. Its advocates are occasionally accused, and perhaps not always unjustly, of displaying a partisan temper not consistent with the spirit of a truly scientific research, yet they sometimes vigorously declare themselves to be working primarily in the inter ests of genuine religion. Even though their position may ultimately be found untenable, the variety and insistency with which it is advocated cannot well be ignored. There is also a certain degree of pertinency about this recent protest against Jesus' his toricity. The problem has not been forced to the front in a purely arbitrary fashion. It might have been expected as one of the accom paniments — a kind of by-product one might almost say — of modern criticism's research upon the life of Jesus. When one sees how radically The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 3 the traditional conception of Jesus' person has been reconstructed by recent criticism, the possibility of denying his very existence is at least suggested. This question would have needed consideration even had it not arisen in the peculiar and somewhat unfortunate manner in which it has recently been presented. Too often its discussion has been left to those whose tastes are seemingly not primarily historical, and for whom the mere possibility of proposing this query seems to have meant a strong pre supposition in favor of a negative answer. Moreover the so-called historical Jesus of liberal theology is the specific target at which the skeptical arguments are aimed. The as sailants, assuming that the traditional view of Jesus is unhistorical, believe that they can also demolish this figure which the liberal theologians set up as the Jesus of history. Has modern criticism, through its rejection of the older views about Jesus, set in motion a skeptical movement which proves equally destructive when directed against its own reconstruction of the history? This seems to be the point from which the problem of Jesus' historicity must at present be approached. To what extent has the newer method of 4 The Historicity of Jesus study provoked doubt, or even supplied a plausible basis for questioning Jesus' existence ? An examination of the chief critical attempts^ to reconstruct the picture of Jesus reveals the following significant elements of the so-called "liberal" thought. In the first place, the philosophical presup positions formerly underlying christological speculation have been supplanted by a world- view in which natural law is given a higher and more absolutely dominant position. Conse quently the gospel stories of Jesus' mighty works are reinterpreted to bring them within the range of natural events, or else they are dismissed as utterly unhistorical. The ancients we are told were unable to distinguish critically between natural and supernatural activities, so that many events which today would be ac counted perfectly normal, seemed in antiquity wholly abnormal and miraculous. Just as sick ness and death were connected in thought with the action of superhuman agencies, so to calm the excitement of a lunatic, to stimulate by mental suggestion the withered nerves of a para lytic, to arouse a sick person from a death-like coma immediately became miracles of healing and resurrection. The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 5 Or, again, events that might not of them selves have seemed unusual may have been unduly magnified by an uncritical and miracle- loving imagination. To illustrate, it is held that the generous example of Jesus and his disciples in sharing their food with the members of the multitude who had no provisions in spired a similar generosity on the part of others in the crowd, and out of this circumstance grew the gospel stories of Jesus' feeding the five thousand and the four thousand. Simi larly Jesus' instruction to Peter to catch a fish and sell it to procure money for the payment of the temple tax becomes a miraculous predic tion about a coin to be found in a fish's mouth. A parable about a barren fig tree grows into a story of Jesus' unusual power to wither a tree which failed to supply him food for his break fast. Many other miracle stories admit of a similar explanation, so it is asserted. Again, it is thought that literary inventive ness, the use of the Old Testament, legends about the wonderful doings of the heroes of other religions, and a desire so to picture Jesus' career as to create admiration and awe may have combined to produce narratives which have not even a natural basis in the actual 6 The Historicity of Jesus history. To this class the nativity stories, the descent of the dove at baptism, the transfigura tion incident, the resurrection and ascension narratives, and even the greater number of Jesus' alleged miracles, might conceivably be assigned. But whether they were originally unusual natural events, or ordinary happenings magnified into the miraculous, or mere creations of the narrator's imagination, the result is the same for modern thought of Jesus. He is no longer the miracle-working individual whom the gospels portray.1 And if in this particular the gospel representation is fictitious perhaps it is not surprising that some persons should ask whether the whole portrait may not be a work of fancy. 1 With the Deistic movement in England in the seventeenth century, and rationalism in Germany a century later, there appeared a pronounced tendency to rid Christianity of the miracu lous. In 1696 Toland wrote Christianity not Mysterious, a Proof That in the Gospels Nothing Is Opposed to or Beyond Reason. Reimarus {Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jiinger: Noch ein Fragment des WolfenbiUtelschen Ungenannten, Herausgegeben von G. E. Lessing, Braunschweig, 1778) expressed the opinion that Jesus had not worked miracles, for had he possessed this ability his failure to meet the demand for a sign, and his allowing the crisis at Jerusalem to pass without displaying his power to the utmost, would be incomprehensible. The "Rationalists," of whom Paulus (Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums, Heidelberg,i828) is one of the best representa tives, explained all miracles as natural events. But Strauss (Das The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 7 Furthermore, religious knowledge is no longer thought to be supernaturally acquired. Instead of relying upon some record of a sup posedly supernatural revelation as a basis for authentic religious knowledge, reason and human experience have been made funda mental. It is now said that even the Bible writers were wholly conditioned by their own mental grasp upon the world of thought sur rounding them. For then the earth was a disk with the arched roof of heaven above, the abode of the departed beneath, and God and spirits plying back and forth in these regions n truly anthropomorphic fashion. Not only were all religious ideas limited to the intellec tual outlook of that age, but the religious experi ence of the ancients was primarily the outcome of their own spiritual reaction upon their world. So historical events and persons are significant for the present chiefly as a means of enlarging our sphere of reality, thus supplying a domain Leben Jesu, Tubingen, 1835 and 1836) easily showed to what absurdities such attempts led, and he accordingly regarded the miracle stories as pure fictions. Since Strauss, "liberal" theology has not concerned itself very seriously with this problem. By general agreement the supernaturalistic faith of former times is rejected. The rationalistic explanation is applied to part of the gospel miracles, while for others the mythical theory of Strauss is adopted. 8 The Historicity of Jesus for the enrichment of thought and experience. In other words, religious knowledge must be acquired by the same laws and through the same channels — and through no others — em ployed for the acquirement of human knowledge in general. It follows that so far as religion can claim to be "truthful" this quality must inhere in its very nature — it cannot be derived from an external authority. Nearly a century and a half ago Lessing expressed the idea tersely in his ninth "axiom": "Religion is not true because the evangelists and apostles taught it, but they taught it because it is true" — or because it seemed to them true, moderns would add.1 What has been recorded may represent the noblest thought of a past age, but no fact of history can be established so surely, and no notion of the past stands so wholly above the limited ideas of its own age, that a later genera tion may safely make these things objective norms for testing the validity of its knowledge. A world-view cannot be built on scripture, nor 1 Axiom 10 also puts the main point clearly: "Aus ihrer innern Wahrheit miissen die schrif tlichen Ueberlieferungen erklaret wer- den, und alle schrif tliche Ueberlieferungen konnen ihr keine innern Wahrheit geben, wenn sie keine hat." And again: "Zufallige Geschichtswahrheiten konnen der Beweis von notwendigen Ver- nunftwahrheiten nie werden." The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 9 can the highest type of religious experience result merely from acceptance of an objectively authenticated creed. In the opinion of "lib eral" theologians, if the content of Christian thinking today would be "truthful" it must answer to the highest intellectual demands of modern times and must be in harmony with the noblest type of spiritual ideals at present attainable. Accordingly the religious values of life are no longer thought to be conditioned by the truth or falsity of alleged historic facts. These values have a self-attesting quality quite apart from any supposition as to where or how the recognition of their worth first came to expres sion in history. Indeed, to condition present- day religious ideals by norms and decrees of a past age, or to measure values by past standards, is now thought detrimental to the highest type of spiritual attainment. Bondage to legalism, whether in the realm of thought or conduct, means a deadening of the genuine life of the spirit, hence the need to break the "entangling alliance" between religion and history in order to give the spirit liberty. Reflection upon the life of the past may prove helpful and even inspirational if one avoids 10 The Historicity of Jesus thinking of it in terms of a deadening legalism. But the greatest values of religion are not to be found fossilized in the strata of Jewish and Christian history; they still await production in the present and the future. When this modern attitude on the general question of religious authority is brought to bear upon one's thought of the historical Jesus the traditional conception of his authority is radically modified. Since the "liberals" main tain that religious knowledge is neither acquired nor made valid by supernatural means and that spiritual attainments have not been standard ized once and for all time by supernatural demonstrations, even if Jesus is assumed to be the fountain of supernaturally revealed religious knowledge, there is now no absolutely certain means of knowing just what had been thus re vealed. The evangelists wrote about him, as about everything else, in terms of the limited notions of their time. Their ideas — and, so far as our information goes, his ideas too — moved only in the atmosphere of first-century thinking, and so cannot be normative for the truthfulness of twentieth-century thought. And since religi ous values today must be judged by the tests of modern demands, past values, though they The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology n proved sufficient for the first century, may no longer have abiding worth. If they do retain their value this is not because of their historic origin, even should that be Jesus himself, but is wholly due to their modern efficiency. Had they never before existed, in all probability modern needs would have produced them just as new values are being created today to meet contemporary needs. Thus Jesus becomes so relatively insignificant as an authority in religi ous matters that it is scarcely strange to find an inclination in some quarters to deny his existence outright. Still more disturbing is the fact that the Jesus of "liberal" theology is not a super natural person, at least not in any real sense of that term as understood by the traditional Christology. The Johannine logos-idea and the Pauline notion of pre-existence are not now treated as fundamental items in one's thought of the historical Jesus; these are rather the product of primitive interpretation. Also the stories in Matthew and Luke about unusual happenings attending Jesus' entrance into the life of humanity are believed to be merely the attempts of early faith to supply an appro priate background in the imagery of that day 12 The Historicity of Jesus for its conception of his uniqueness. Jesus, it is affirmed, can be best and most truly known as a man among men, and his personality is to be estimated in terms of the qualities dis played in the ordinary activities of his earthly life. All efforts to make his origin supernatural are held to be the work of interpretation, originating in an age which found its highest thought-categories in supernaturalism. Likewise the constitution of his personality in general is regarded by the "liberals" as belonging wholly in the natural sphere. His thinking had a truly physical basis in its con tact with local phenomena, and its processes, so far as they were normal, were in line with regular psychological laws. If they were ab normal they are to be placed on the same basis as abnormal mental processes in general. Descriptions of personal contact with Satan, ministrations of angels, personal communica tions with a Moses or an Elijah, and the like, are all taken as pictures to express vividly normally conditioned spiritual experiences of Jesus; otherwise he must have been the victim of hallucinations. Those who hold this view would not deny that Jesus' experience was of an exceedingly rich and pure type, but only The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 13 that it was not something miraculously given to him from without. It was rather a personal attainment through the ordinary processes of spiritual activity, and his uniqueness lay in the f exceptional way in which he cultivated these processes and in the unusual quality of perfec- ' tion he thus attained. With respect to Jesus' mental activities, "liberal" interpretation seems not to have worked its view out quite so consistently and clearly as at some other points. This is particu larly true regarding the question of his messianic self-consciousness. Beyond all question his mental condition as viewed by the evangelists is explicable only on the assumption that his thinking was supernaturaUy controlled, or that he was mentaUy unbalanced. The alternative is to make the blurred gospel picture of him responsible for the distortion, and this is the solution usually adopted by "liberal" interpre tation. Yet Jesus is allowed to set himself forward in all seriousness as the Messiah. At once the question arises, How far and in what sense can he have claimed messiahship and still have preserved mental normality? We are usually told that he arrived at this conviction experientially; it was a deduction drawn 14 The Historicity of Jesus from his sense of unique spiritual kinship to God. He transfused the current conception of messiahship with a supremely spiritual inter pretation; yet as his work on earth failed to bring about the complete establishment of the kingdom, Jesus came to believe, and announced his conviction to his followers, that he would in the near future come upon the clouds to set up the kingdom in its perfection. But for any individual whose personality is ex hypothesi non-supernatural, to confer upon himself the prerogatives of that superhuman messianic figure of apocalyptic imagery is a severe strain upon our notion of normal mental action even in that age.1 Hence it is not so strange that some interpreters should find Jesus making no 1 DeLoosten, Jesus Christus vom Slandpunkte des Psychiaters (Bamberg, 1905), thinks Jesus was mentally unsound and so sub ject to delusions. For Rasmussen, Jesus: Eine vergleichende psy- chopathologisohe Studie (Leipzig, 1905; translated from the Dan ish Jesus, en sammenlignende Studie, 1905), Jesus was an epileptic. Against these views frequent protests have been made. Kneib, Moderne Leben-Jesu-Forschung unter dem Einflusse der Psychiatrie (Mainz, 1908), lays the blame for these theories upon what seems to him the a-priori exclusion of supernaturalism from Jesus' per son. His abnormality is to be explained by his divinity: "ent- weder war Jesus Christus geisteskrank oder er war Gottmensch." Werner, Die psychische Gesundheit Jesu (Gross-Lichterfelde, 1909), contends for the mental soundness of Jesus, but, like Kneib, thinks that any interpretation which brings Jesus down to a purely human level must admit his insanity. Weidel, Jesu Personlich- The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 15 personal claims to messiahship; or that the more radical critics should imagine that his first interpreters, who admittedly created his superhuman personality, may also have evolved out of their own fancy the entire picture of his earthly career. The religion and worship which grew up in the Apostolic age about the name of Jesus the Messiah formerly was thought to have been founded upon, and fostered by, special super natural manifestations. But the "liberal" estimate of Christianity's historical origin would also ehminate these features. The miraculous resurrection of Jesus is undoubtedly a tenet of the first Christians' faith, but to go back of that faith and establish by critical tests the reliability of any corresponding objective fact keit: Eine psychologische Studie (Halle a.S., 1908), adopting the results of modern gospel criticism, still finds Jesus to have acted quite unusually but credits this to his possession of an unusual volitional energy. Schaefer, Jesus in psychiatrischer Beleuchtung: Eine Kontroverse (Berlin, 1910), from the standpoint of a physi cian who is at the same time inclined to liberal theological views, protests especially against deLoosten's treatment of Jesus as a paranoiac. Sanday, Christologies Ancient and Modern (Oxford, 1910), though not discussing this particular topic, finds, in the subliminal regions of Jesus' mental life, a special, divine influence which produced a unique effect in his conscious mental activities. The real problem is thus pushed a little farther back but is still left unsolved. Cf. Coe, "Religion and the Subconscious," American Journal of Theology, XIH (1909), 337-49- 1 6 The Historicity of Jesus is held to be no longer possible. Furthermore, the point of departure for the early behef in Jesus' resurrection is said to be a conviction on the part of certain persons that Jesus had been seen by them after his burial,1 and these visions may have been due to a combination of purely natural circumstances. For a long time the disciples had been under a severe strain; they had passed through particularly unnerving experiences at Jerusalem; then they returned to scenes of former association with Jesus where memories of him were newly awakened and former hopes revived with increased power. These circumstances brought about unusual psychic experiences interpreted by those who shared them as visions of the risen Jesus. Thus the indehble impression of his historical personality upon their lives bore its natural fruitage. He was " risen " more truly than they realized. Not ecstatic experiences induced by an over-wrought nervous condition, nor an 1 In the New Testament tradition about the origin of the resurrection faith, one readily recognizes the subordinate place occupied by the empty tomb. Its discovery meant nothing until some member of the company experienced an "appearance." Cf. Lake, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (London and New York, 1907, pp. 241-53); and the present writer's article "The Resurrection Faith of the First Disciples" in the American Jour nal of Theology, XIII (1909), 169-92. The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 17 interpretation of these experiences in terms of current notions about the visibility of angels and spirits, but their own renewed and increased spiritual energy truly proved Jesus' return to life. The real corner-stone of the new religion was not the resurrection appearances, but the "Easter faith" by which the spirit of Jesus' own life found living expression in the person of his disciples. Similarly the whole range of the early church's enthusiastic life, once imagined to be a miraculous attestation of the genuineness of the new faith, is now explained on the purely natural basis of religious psychology. The early believers, like most men of that time, were highly emotional and superstitious. They peopled the world about them with a generous supply of spirits, evil as weU as good. Any unusual state of nervous excitement took on a highly religious significance, and even ordinary events were readily magnified into marvelous manifestations of the supernatural. Conse quently the abnormal phases of life loomed largest in their vision, and they turned to this region above all others to find evidence for the validity of their new faith. Nor was their search in vain. Soon they found themselves 1 8 The Historicity of Jesus able to speak with "tongues," they performed "miracles," they saw visions and dreamed dreams, angels ministered to them in moments of special distress, and, indeed, at times God drew so near that the earth trembled as did Mount Sinai in days of old. For the primitive Christians these experiences were the divinely given anticipatory signs of the coming messianic age; for moderns the whole ecstatic life of that period seems to have become only an interesting study in folk psychology. Even the whole scheme of theological think ing constructed about the person of the heavenly Christ is now regarded as mainly a product of the first interpreters' fancy. Paul and his con temporaries built largely upon the expectation of Jesus' early return to bring an end to the present world-order. The fact of his ignomini ous death seemed a serious objection to the doctrine of his messiahship, so believers were compeUed to find some explanation that would bring this event into harmony with their mes sianic faith. Paul was exceptionally successful in this effort, in that he made Jesus' death a fundamental element in the Messiah's saving mission. By reflection this figure of the heavenly Messiah grew in prominence until he became The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 19 the object of a godlike reverence and worship. In fact, by degrees, believers began to transfer to the risen Jesus many notions which they formerly would have entertained with reference to God only. In like manner the tenets of first-century Christology were worked out to meet various inclinations and necessities of contemporary thinking. Hence the religion which has Jesus as its object is to be sharply distinguished from the personal religion of Jesus. It is now believed by the "liberals" that he did not set himself forward as an object for reverence and worship, but that his primary concern was to point men directly to God, the God whom he himself worshiped with full devotion of heart, soul, and mind. In this way he entered into a rich realization of sonship to God and he craved for all men the blessings of a similar attainment. As for his own position, the attitude of deifica tion assumed by the early church after his death was farthest from his thoughts. "He desired no other belief in his person and no other attachment to it than is contained in the keeping of his commandments This feeling, praying, working, struggling, and suffer ing individual is a man who in the face of his 2o The Historicity of Jesus God also associates himself with other men."1 Lessing's sentences on the "Religion of Christ" state the point so clearly, showing at the same time how keenly the problem was grasped more than a century ago, that we venture to repeat them slightly condensed: Whether Christ [i.e., "Jesus," in modern usage] was more than man is a problem. That he was truly man, if he was man at all, and that he never ceased being man, is admitted. Consequently the religion of Christ and the Christian religion are two quite distinct things. The former is that religion which he himself as a man recognized and practiced, and which every man can have in common with him. The latter is that religion which assumes that he was more than a man and makes him as such the object of its worship. The existence of these two religions in Christ [i.e., in "Jesus"] as in one and the same person is inconceivable. The teachings and principles of both are scarcely to be found in one and the same book; at least it is clear that the religion of Christ and the Christian religion are quite differently contained in the gospels. The former is there expressed most clearly and distinctly. The latter, on the other hand, is so uncertain and ambiguous that there is hardly a single passage with which any two persons have connected the same thought. But in the New Testament story of the Apos tolic age this supernatural figure of the heavenly 1 Harnack, What Is Christianity (London and New York, 1901, pp. 125 f.; Das Wesen des Christentums, Leipzig, T900). The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 21 Christ certainly stands in the foreground. The early Christians' gaze was directed mainly to the future, not to the past. Their hope was in the Coming One. Recognition of Paul's lack of concern with the earthly Jesus and his whole-souled devotion to the heavenly Christ is a commonplace of modern thinking. Under these circumstances it would appear that we must expect to find the story of Jesus' earthly career so portrayed as to show supernatural traits befitting one who will later enjoy mes sianic honors in the divine sphere. But if the first Christians in their religion and worship formed this highly colored picture of the Christ largely out of subjective elements of their own thinking, as the "liberals" tell us, and then carried back into an earthly career foreshadowings of his dignity and power, may not the very idea of an earthly existence have the same subjective origin ? If so, the anthro pomorphizing interest was merely one of the steps in the general process of making concrete and objective those notions which seemed of greatest worth in primitive religious thinking. It is at least only fair to admit that modern critical study has prepared the soil out of which queries of this sort readily spring. Perhaps 22 The Historicity of Jesus they are only a mushroom growth, yet it is not so surprising that they should seem to some eyes to be the seedlings of giant oaks. It must be admitted that modern critical study, on its negative side, largely discounts the traditional history of Jesus, if it does not indeed provoke doubt about his very existence. Yet "liberal" theology's own belief in the his toricity of Jesus is not in the least disturbed. When the traditional view of him has been virtually demolished, moderns assert that they have only removed fungoid growths from his real historical form, and that they would thus not only restore his original figure but also make him more significant for religious thought. Accordingly they propose to return to Jesus — not merely to the gospel representation of him, and not even to the oldest available sources' picture of him, but back beyond all these "interpretations" to the original Jesus un adorned by the fancy of his admiring followers. While this task is not easy, it is thought to be possible by means of a careful literary and historical criticism. Its advocates do not claim to be able to produce fuU details of Jesus' career but only to restore a partial, yet real, glimpse of his personality. The main features The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 23 of his activity, the essential elements of his teaching, and the deep impression which his life made upon his associates are held to be recoverable. Of course not aU "liberal" investigators agree exactly in their positive results, and this fact is sometimes used as an argument against the reliability of any of their work. Yet, in what they regard as essentials, there is in the main uniformity of opinion. It is commonly agreed that Jesus' own personal religious life shall be made the basis for estimating his character and significance. Abandoning meta physical speculations about his origin and nature, we are asked to fix attention upon him as a man among men in order that we may discover the content of that religion which he actually embodied in his own life, and sought by example and precept to persuade others to realize for themselves. He met life's issues in a perfectly natural way, yet he shared that full inspiration of spirit which is available for every noble, normal, spiritually minded individual. For him religion meant perfect feUowship with God and loyalty to the highest ideals of per sonal duty toward one's feUows. In revealing this noblest thought of the divine, Jesus was 24 The Historicity of Jesus revealing God, and so was performing a saving work for mankind. Thus the historically reliable and important features of his career are not his alleged display of miracle-working ability, or any other demonstrations of supernatural and messianic authority, but his impressive personal religious life. As for his teaching, it was chiefly concerned with the establishment of God's kingdom. This, more specifically, meant the reahzation on man's part of true sonship to God, who, in his essentiaUy loving attitude toward humanity, was the Father. The. highest privileges for men lay in becoming sons of God through the cultivation in their own lives of this divine quality of love. Only in the light of this thought could the values of life be estimated aright. The human soul and its eternal welfare was the thing of first importance. The soul's safety was to be insured by a life of fidelity to the divine wiU, the individual trusting at the same time in the goodness of the heavenly Father who was more willing to forgive and love men than human parents were to show a similar attitude toward their children. For the true son of God, heart righteousness was funda mental. Casuistry and formality were to be The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 25 eliminated; only that which was essential and genuinely sincere was worth while. When formalism was set aside and men turned in sincerity to the Father, salvation was assured. Thus Jesus' teaching was fundamentally a message of salvation — not a salvation whose realization must be awaited in some far-away time, but a present spiritual possession. During Jesus' lifetime the significance of his work and teaching had, according to this inter pretation, been but very imperfectly compre hended. Traditional notions about a Messiah who was to deliver the Jews from their bondage to foreign rulers bulked so large in men's thoughts that Jesus' emphasis upon the more distinctly spiritual values of religion received only a feeble response. Yet when his death shattered the disciples' last lingering hopes that he would relieve Israel from Roman oppression, they did not dismiss him from their thoughts and count him among those mistaken messianic agitators with whom the Jewish people, since the time of Judas of Gamala, had become more or less familiar. Instead of abandoning hope Jesus' disciples built, on the foundation of their memory of personal association with him, the daring structure of 26 The Historicity of Jesus new hope such as no one in Israel had ever before ventured to surmise. They confidently proclaimed that a human being, even a man who had died, was to figure as the super natural Messiah coming in glory on the clouds. This new messianism was not however the heart of the new faith; it was only the outward expression of an inward life-stimulus which went back to Jesus as its source. The new hope served as a vehicle to bear along for a few generations this new spiritual energy which had emanated from Jesus, but ultimately the vehicle was to be discarded. History soon proved that these hopes were false. Yet the Jesus-life continued to make a successful appeal to men, prompting new interpretations of his person and work. Thus began that struggle which has sometimes caused great distress in religious thinking — the struggle to readjust christological speculations. But Jesus' place in the founding and perpetuating of Christianity is one of life rather than of theory, and "liberal" interpreters are disposed to confine thought of him to the former realm. We need not, it is said, go beyond this simple picture of Jesus' life and teaching, the power of which has been practically demonstrated The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 27 in the founding of Christianity, to find those features which give his personality its para mount significance for religion today. As stated by some of the best-known representa tives of the liberal view: The nearer we draw to Jesus in the tradition the more does all dogmatic theology recede. We behold a man who, more than any other, by his clear word makes us understand ourselves, the world, and God, and who goes with us amid the needs and struggles of our time as the truest friend and guide on whom we may rely for comfort.1 In spite of our remoteness in time and the frequently painful uncertainty of the tradition, we who are thus distantly connected with the great story of Jesus handed down through the centuries can still find him, in his trust in God and his nearness to God, in his relentless moral earnestness, in his conquest over pain, in his certainty of the forgiveness of sins, and in his eternal hope, to be the guide of our souls to God.2 This unique historical personality, apart from all outer forces, alone through his inner greatness created the world-encompassing spiritual movement of Chris tianity He is the founder of our inner Christian life as well His powerful personality constrains us to share both his faith in God's holy and fatherly 1 Wernle, Sources of Our Knowledge of the Life of Jesus (Lon don, 1907, p. 163; Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu, Tubingen, 1905). 2 Bousset, Jesus (3. Aufl., Tubingen, 1907, pp. 99 f.; cf. Eng lish tr., Jesus, London and New York, 1906, p. 211). 28 The Historicity of Jesus love and his own life of holy love. Thus he makes us truly joyous and happy, giving to our life true worth and abiding meaning.1 Such in brief is the historical Jesus of "liberal" theology. Needless to say, this reconstruction of Jesus' career, and this inter pretation of his significance, have met with severe opposition from different quarters. Of necessity adherents of the older Christology must declare unceasing war upon so free a treatment of the traditions, and especially upon so thor oughgoing a rejection of supernaturalism. This complete elimination of supernaturalism is also repellant to the semi-liberal school of theo logians who have come to be known as "modern positivists."2 All these opponents urge that Jesus' person and worth have been seriously underestimated. On the other hand, a radical type of interpretation insists that too high a value has been placed upon him. We are told that he has no such significance for modern religion as even the "liberals" imagine. His ideal individuality, his high ethico-religious 1 A. Meyer, Was uns Jesus heute ist (Tubingen, 1907, pp. 41 f .). 2 A convenient summary of their position is given by Bousset in the Theologische Rundschau, IX (1906), 287-302, 327-40, 371-81, 413-24; and by G. B. Smith in the American Journal of Theology, XIII (1909), 92-99. The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 29 thought, and the like, are said to be only modern ideas read back into his historic figure. This process is held not to be different in prin ciple from that employed by the first-century interpreters in constructing a Christology which should embody the most valuable ideas of their age. Furthermore this modern "Jesusism" is declared to be inadequate to meet the demands of modern fife. Ethically it does not supply sufficient values, sociaUy it is not closely enough in touch with present-day conditions, intel lectually it ignores metaphysical questions and philosophical problems in general with too easy a conscience. And then come the extremists who would wipe the historical Jesus entirely off the slate. They subscribe to the objections raised above, combining and supplementing them in a way to prove, they think, that Jesus never lived. The conservative theologians also unite with these extreme radicals in contending that the historical Jesus whom modern critical study posits never could have supplied to primitive Christianity its initial incentive. His person ality is too shadowy, too ordinary, to have exerted so unique an influence — his figure must be greatly enlarged. But in what direction 30 The Historicity of Jesus shall the enlargement be made ? At this point conservatives and radicals come to a sharp parting of the ways. The former maintain that a genuinely historical Jesus must be identi fied with the real supernatural Christ, the latter hold that an alleged historical Jesus must give place to the fanciful image of a mythical Christ. When the conservatives rejoice over the fate which the Jesus of liberal theology has met at the hands of these modern radicals, they would seem to be sounding the death knell of their own christological views. For if the earthly Jesus must go, how much more com pletely must any supposed reality of a super natural Christ be abandoned! Indeed he is denied existence by the very presuppositions of the radicals' thought, while the earthly Jesus is, at least ostensibly, argued out of existence. Hence an attempt from the conservative point of view to refute the particular type of denial at present urged against Jesus' his toricity could in the nature of the case amount to but little more than the assertion of one set of presuppositions as over against another set. There is no common ground on which arguments pro and contra may rest. One view places The Historical Jesus of "Liberal" Theology 31 primary stress on supernaturalism, the other dismisses supernaturalism before argumenta tion begins. Therefore, for practical purposes, if on no other grounds, it is desirable to meet the opposition at its own point of attack. And since denial of Jesus' existence proceeds directly against the so-called liberal interpretation, the most immediate and practical question is, Can his existence be successfully defended from the "liberal" theology's own position? This is the present problem. CHAPTER II THE MYTHICAL CHRIST OF RADICAL CRITICISM The modern denial of Jesus' historicity is not without its antecedents. As early as the end of the eighteenth century certain French writers classed Christianity among the mythical religions of antiquity, and Jesus' person took on a correspondingly shadowy form.1 Both Judaism and Christianity were explained as mainly a composite of primitive oriental ideas, derived more particularly from Persia and ultimately going back to astral myths. Contemporaneously in Germany Bahrdt2 and Venturini3 introduced a skeptical movement in 1 reaction against the prevailing supernaturalism of current interpretation. They had no inten- 1 E.g., Volney, Les ruines (Paris, 1791); Dupuis, Origine de tous les cultes (Paris,, 1794; German tr., Ursprung der Gottes- verehrung, Leipzig, 1910). Cf. Geneval, Jesus devant I'histoire n' a jamais vicu (Geneva, 1874). 2 Brief e uber die Bibel im Volkston. Eine W ochenschrift von einem Prediger auf dem Lande (Halle, 1782); A usfuhrung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. In Brief en an Wahrheit suchende Leser (11 vols., Berlin, 1784-92) ; Die samtlichen Reden Jesu aus den Evangelisten ausgezogen (Berlin, 1786). 3 Natiirliche Geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazareth (4 vols., Bethlehem [Copenhagen], 1800-2, 18062). 32 The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 33 tion of denying Jesus' existence, yet their reconstruction of his life so far forsook the gospel representation as to leave his real his torical form largely a matter of conjecture. They found the secret of his career in his connec tion with the Essenes. This order was believed to have drawn upon Babylonia, Egypt, India, and Greece for secret wisdom. Jesus was not only a member of this brotherhood, he was also its protege. In youth he had been trained in its secrets, and during his public ministry he was closely in touch with the leading brethren. Thus the Jesus of the gospels is virtually a myth, while the true Jesus was the exponent of this ancient and secret wisdom. This general interpretation has been reproduced in England by HennelL1 in France by Salvator,2 and it has been foUowed in Germany by von Langsdorf,3 1 An Inquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity (London, 1838). Cf. Fiebig, "Die Worte Jesu," Die Christliche Welt, 1911, 26-29, S°-S3- 'Jesus-Christ et sa doctrine (2 vols., Paris. 1838). Also de Regla (Desjardin), JSsus de Nazareth au point de vue historique, scientifique et social (Paris, 1891; German tr., Jesus von Nazareth, Leipzig, 1894); Notowitsch, La vie inconnue de Jesus-Christ (Paris, 18943; German tr., Die Liiche im Leben Jesu, Stuttgart, 1894; English tr., The Unknown Life of Christ, Chicago [no date]) ; Bosc, La vie isoterique de Jesus de Nazareth el les origines orientates du Christianisme (Paris, 1902). 3 Wohlgeprufle Darstellung des Lebens Jesu (Mannheim, 1831). 34 The Historicity of Jesus Gfrorer,1 von der Aim (Ghillany),2 and Noack,3 who in turn contribute some items to the views of the modern extremists. Strauss's application of the mythical theory to the gospel narratives is a much more master ful piece of work and it has, accordingly, exerted a much greater influence. Strauss never seems to have doubted Jesus' actual existence, nor did he attempt, after the manner 1 Krilische Geschichte des Urchristentums (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1831-38). 2 Theologische Brief e an die Gebildeten der deulschen Nation (3 vols., Leipzig, 1863); cf. also Die Urteile heidnischer und christ- licher Schriftsteller der vier erslen christlichen Jahrhunderte iiber Jesus (ibid., 1864). 3 Aus der Jordanwiege nach Golgatha: vier Biicher iiber das Evangelium und die Evangelien (Mannheim, 1870-71); a second edition with changed title, Die Geschichte Jesu auf Grund freier geschichtlicher Untersuchungen iiber das Evangelium und die Evange lien (1876). Of a similarly fictitious character are the following anonymous publications: Wichtige Enthiillungen iiber die wirk- liche Todesart Jesu. Nach einem alten, zu Alexandria gefundenen Manuskripte von einem Zeitgenossen Jesu aus dem heiligen Orden der Essder (Leipzig, 1849s); Historische Enthiillungen iiber die wirklichen Ereignisse der Geburt und Jugend Jesu. Als Fort- setzung der zu Alexandria auf gefundenen alten Urkunden aus dem Essaerorden (Leipzig, 18492); Wer war Jesus? Authentische Milteilungen eines Zeitgenossen Jesu iiber Geburt, Jugend, Leben und Todesart, sowie iiber die Mutter des Nazareners. Nach einem alien, zu Alexandrien aufgefundenen Manuskripte. Aus einer lateinischen Abschrift des Originals iiberselzt (Oranienburg bei Berlin, 1906); The Crucifixion, by an Eye-Witness (Chicago, 1907). The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 35 of Bahrdt and Venturing a fanciful rehabilita tion of Jesus' figure. Yet his work prepared the way for that champion of radicalism, Bruno Bauer, who has given classic expression to the arguments against Jesus' historicity. In the controversy which f ollowed the appear ance of Strauss's Life of Jesus, Bauer found himself compelled to oppose the contemporary apologists. He, like Strauss, belonged to the Hegelian school, from which he derived his notion of the supremacy of the idea. Between the idea and the reality there is a perpetual antithesis. The idea is, as it were, a fleeing goal which men sight now and then but never ultimately apprehend. Indeed the idea never can be perfectly realized in a historic mani festation — that would mean its death. So Bauer revolted against the current theological method of forcing Jesus' personality into a hard-and-fast system of theology, with the accompanying claim of finality. True religion, for Bauer, is attained by the self-conscious ego setting itself up in antithesis to, and struggling to triumph over, the world. This victory is not to be won through violence, through man's fighting against Nature, as the doctrine of miracle implies; it is brought about by man's 36 The Historicity of Jesus realization of his own personality. "Spirit does not bluster, rave, storm, and rage against Nature as is implied in miracle — this would be a denial of its inner law, but it works its own way through the antithesis." A second anti thesis of which men are conscious is the separa tion between God and man, and this too is to be overcome not by external means, but through an inward triumph of spirit. One who in his inner consciousness has brought about the synthesis of this double antithesis has attained genuine religion. Under these circumstances it is scarcely sur prising that Bauer should protest against what must have seemed to him the false and grossly externalizing features in the theological think ing of his day. At the outset he apparently had no thought of denying the existence of a historical Jesus. He aimed rather to exhibit what seemed to him the falsehood and intellect ual dishonesty of the apologetic methods used by the critics of Strauss. So he began a critical examination of the gospels, the authori ties to which the theologians appealed in support of their position. Bauer first demon strated, as he thought, that the picture of Jesus given in the Fourth Gospel was not historical The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 37 but was a creation of primitive theological reflection.1 Attention was next directed to the Synoptists, where the recent conclusions of Weisse and Wilke as to the priority of Mark were adopted. But if Mark was the main source for the first and third evangelists, then the united testimony of all three gospels is in reality the testimony of one witness only; and this upon further examination also proved untrustworthy. The Gospel of Mark was thought to be merely a literary fiction, the product of an original evangelist's theological reflections. Consequently all three Synoptists were to be set aside as entirely unhistorical.2 A similar result attended Bauer's study of the Pauline literature.3 The so-called Pauline epistles were all found to be pseudonymous products of the second century a.d. Accord ingly all evidence for Jesus' existence vanished. He was not Christianity's founder; he was merely its fictitious product. 1 Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes (Bremen, 1840). 2 Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (3 vols., Leipzig, 1841-42); 2d ed., Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs (2 vols., Berlin, 1850-51). 3 Kritik der paulinischen Brief e. In drei Abteilungen (Berlin, 1850-52). 38 The Historicity of Jesus How then did the new movement originate ? In answering this question Bauer allowed his fancy free play.1 The absence of reference to the new religion in the non-Christian writings of the first century was cited as evidence of its late origin. It was a gradual outcome of con ditions prevailing in the Graeco-Roman world of the first and second centuries a.d. In general the Stoics, and particularly Seneca, had attained a consciousness of the antithesis between man and the world; and conditions under Nero and Domitian, especially with the introduction of neo-Platonic ideas, showed a marked development in the spiritual history of humanity. Moreover in this period Judaism was being denationalized, as in the case of Philo and Josephus, and thus its spiritual solution for the antithesis between God and man was made available for the gentile world. In this way a new type of thought arose which received the name Christianity — a compound of Stoicism, neo-Platonism and Judaism. Rome and Alex andria were its two centers, and it first attracted public notice in the time of Trajan. Bauer's results finally passed almost un- 1 Christus und die Caesar en. Der Ur sprung des Christentums aus dem romischen Griechentum (Berlin, 1877, l8792). The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 39 noticed, yet the fundamental lines of his work are not so very different from those followed by the modern radicals. Summarized, the main items of his criticism are: (1) emphasis upon definite speculative presuppositions, (2) an unqualified treatment of the New Testament books as tendency writings, (3) stress upon the lack of non-Christian evidence for the existence of Christianity in the first century, and (4) a belief that all factors necessary to account for the origin of Christianity without reference to a historical Jesus can be found in the life of the ancient world. Within the last decade doubts about Jesus' existence have been advanced in several quar ters,1 but nowhere so insistently as in Germany. There the skeptical movement has become a regular propaganda.7 The present status of 1 E.g., in America by W. B. Smith; in England by J. M. Robertson, Mead, Whittaker; in Holland by Bolland; in France by Virolleaud (La Ugende du Christ, Paris, 1908); in Italy by Bossi (Gesu Christo non e mai esistito, Milan, 1904); in Poland by Niemojewski; in Germany by Kalthoff , Jensen, Drews, Lublinski, and several others. 2 Its foremost champion is Arthur Drews, professor of philoso phy in Karlsruhe Technical High School. Since the appearance of his Christusmyihe in 1909 the subject has been kept before the public by means of debates held in various places, particularly at some important university centers such as Jena, Marburg, Giessen, Leipzig, Berlin. In these debates Jesus' historicity has 40 The Historicity of Jesus this contention for a purely mythical Jesus will perhaps best be understood by observing some of its typical forms. The late Albert Kalthoff , a pastor in Bremen and at one time president of the "Monisten- bund," revived the views of Bauer with slight modifications. The distinctive feature of Kalthoff's view is his emphasis upon the social idea.1 He reacts strongly against the indi vidualism of modern Christianity, a feature in been defended by various New Testament scholars of the first rank. A debate which attracted special attention was held at Berlin under the direction of the "Monistenbund" on the even ings of January 31 and February 1, 1910. Drews and von Soden led opposite sides of the discussion, of which the complete steno graphic report is published as Berliner Religionsgesprach: Hat Jesus gelebt? (Berlin and Leipzig, 1910). The literature called forth by the general controversy is already large and is still increasing. 1 Das Christus-Problem: Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie (Leipzig, 1902, 19032); Die Entstehung des Christentums: Neue Beitrage zum Christusproblem (Leipzig, 1904). Cf. the similar interest of Nieuwenhuis, Das Leben Jesu: Eine historisch-kri- tische Abhandlung zur Aufkldrung des arbeitenden Volkes (Biele feld, 1893), who thinks Jesus' existence may be questioned. Kalthoff's position was opposed, e.g., by Thikotter, Kalthoffs Schrift "Das Christusproblem" beleuchtet and Dr. Kalthofs Replik beleuchtet (Bremen, 1903; cf. Kalthoff, D. Thikotter und das Christusproblem: Eine Replik, Bremen, 1903); Tschirn, Hat Christus iiberhaupt gelebt? (Bamberg, 1903); Bousset, Was wissen wir von Jesus ? Vortrage im Protestantenverein zu Bremen (Halle, 1904; cf. Kalthoff, Was wissen wir von Jesus? Eine Abrechnung mit Professor Bousset in Gotiingen, Berlin, 1904); Kapp, Das Christus- und Christentumsproblem bei Kalthof (Strassburg, i-9°S); Titius, Der Bremer Radikalismus (Tubingen, 1908). The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 41 his opinion not to be found in the primitive form of this faith. Originally Christianity was purely a socio-religious or socio-ethical move ment of the masses, and so free from individual ism that the notion of a personal founder was itself wanting. An individual by the name of Jesus may have lived about the opening of our era, but he had no unique significance for the rise of the new religion. Not Judea but Rome was the seat of its origin; Jewish messianism, Stoic philosophy, and the communistic clubs of the time supplied its source elements; its literature was a poetic creation projecting into the past the more immediate experiences of the present, as when the picture of a suffering, dying, and rising Christ typified the com munity's own life of persecution and martyr dom. The gospel Jesus was created for practical purposes, thus giving a concrete and so a more permanent form to the principles and ideals of the new faith.1 1 Socialists of Losinsky's type (cf. his Waren die Urchrislen wirklich Sozialisten ? Berlin, 1907) deny that Christianity has any significance for socialism; others hold more nearly to the views of Kalthoff, though their method of handling the alleged historical Jesus is not always quite so radical. For example, Kautsky, Der Ursprung des Christenlums (Stuttgart, 1908), also "Jesus der Rebell" in Die neue Zeit, XXVIII (1910, 13-17, 44-52). treats the Christian literature with so free a hand as to make Jesus a 42 The Historicity of Jesus Other investigators draw more largely upon the religions of the ancient Orient for data to explain the rise of Christianity. As compared with the reconstructions of Bauer and Kalthoff, this method usually results in an earlier date and a different provenance for the origin of the new faith. While the representatives of the religions geschichtliche school are usually content with maintaining that the gospel accounts of Jesus are more or less heightened by the introduction of foreign elements,1 many of its political and social revolutionist, a typical "Marxist." For a reply to Kautsky see Windisch, Der messianische Krieg und das Urchrislentum (Tubingen, 1909) and "Jesus ein Rebell?" in Evangelisch-Sozial, 1910, 33-44. Maurenbrecher, Von Nazareth nach Golgalha: Eine Untersuchung iiber die weltgeschichtlichen Zusammenhdnge des Urchristentums (Schoneberg-Berlin, 1909) and Von Jerusalem nach Rom: Weitere Untersuchungen iiber die welt geschichtlichen Zusammenhdnge des Urchristentums (ibid., 1910) takes the sources more seriously than Kautsky does, yet he assigns no very serious r61e to the historical Jesus as the founder of Christianity. He actually existed, for his life and death were the indispensable incentive for the new religion, but the real secret of its origin is the activity of the Son of Man myth which fixed itself upon the person of Jesus after his death, and in which the hopes of the common people found expression. Jesus had not put himself forward as Messiah. He had spoken of the Son of Man, whose coming he believed to be near at hand, only in the third person. Jesus was moved mainly by the proletarian instinct, which also dominated the thinking of the disciples. The giving of themselves to this ideal after Jesus' death was the birth day of Christianity. 1 Cf. Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklarung des Neuen Testaments (Giessen, 1909) for a convenient summary of the literature. The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 43 conclusions can readily be made to serve the interests of those who argue against Jesus' historicity. The entire New Testament repre sentation of the life and thought of primitive Christianity becomes for these interpreters a congeries of ideas and practices borrowed from the ancient religions. This general principle for solving the problem is applied in several different ways. J. M. Robertson, who writes in the interests of "naturalism" as against "credulity and organized ecclesiasticism," thinks to prove that the gospels' account of both the life and the teaching of Jesus is a composite of pagan myths.1 Two lines of evidence for this con clusion are, (1) the character of the "Jesus" whom Paul knows, who is not a Jesus of action and teaching but a "speechless sacrifice"; and (2) the certainty with which everything in the gospels can be paralleled in pagan mythology. Constructively, the germ of Christianity may supposably be a primitive Semitic behef in a Palestinian Savior-Sun-God, Joshua the son of the mythical Miriam, that is, Jesus the son of 1 Christianity and Mythology (London, 1900) ; German tr. of third part, Die Evangelienmyihen (Jena, 19 10); A Short History of Christianity (London, 1902) ; Pagan Christs; Studies in Compara tive Hierology (London, 1903). 44 The Historicity of Jesus Mary. Thus Christianity is ultimately a primitive cult. Its "Jesus" may be a recollec tion of some vague figure such as Jesus ben Pandera of the Talmud, put to death for probably anti- Judaic teachings, and of whom the epistles of Paul preserve only the tradition of his crucifixion. But the more important part is played by the Joshua- Jesus god of the cult.1 Jensen determines more specifically than Robertson does the source from which the myth-making fancy of the gospel writers is thought to have taken its start. He holds that the careers of both Jesus and Paul, as recorded in the New Testament, are reproductions in variant form of the Babylonian legend of Gilgamesh. The proof for this position is found in a series of similarities in content and form which appear on comparing the Gilgamesh epic with the gospels and the Pauline epistles.2 While Jensen, in his reply to Julicher, protests 1 This notion of a pre-Christian Jesus has been argued some what hesitatingly by Mead, and with strong conviction by W. B. Smith. It has been adopted also by Bolland, Drews, Niemo- jewski, and others. 2 Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Wellliteralur (Strassburg, 1906; see especially pp. 811-1030); Moses, Jesus, Paulus: DreiVarian- ten des babylonischen Gottmenschen Gilgamesch (Frankfurt, 1909); Hat der Jesus der Evangelien wirklich gelebt? Eine Antworl an Prof. Dr. Julicher (Frankfurt, 1910; cf. Julicher, Hat Jesus gelebt? Vortrag gehalten zu Marburg am 1. Mdrz 1910, Marburg, 1910.) The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 45 against being classed among those who deny absolutely the existence of a historical Jesus, his position is, in effect, the same as theirs. He says: "Of the career of the alleged founder of Christianity we know nothing, or at least as good as nothing," and "we serve in our cathe drals and houses of prayer, in our churches and schools, in palace and hut, a Babylonian god, Babylonian gods." All this is due to the remarkable vitality and perpetuative momen tum of the Gilgamesh-story. In Niemojewski's bulky volume astral mythology is made the main source of Chris tian origins.1 This emphasis upon the astral origin of religious notions is a revival of Dupuis' views, recast under the influence of the modern school of Winckler.2 Niemojewski finds that the New Testament writings are not altogether uniform in their representation of Jesus as a 1 Gott Jesus im Lichte fremder und eigener Forschungen samt Darstellung der evangelischen Astralstoffe, Astralscenen und Astral- systeme (Munich, 1910; from the Polish Bdg Jezus, Warsaw,i909). Cf. also Koch, Die Sage von Jesus dem Sonnengott (Berlin, 191 1). 2 In the realm of gospel study a novel product of the Winckler school may be seen in W. Erbt's Das Marcusevangelium: Eine Untersuckung iiber die Form der Petruserinnerungen und die Geschichte der Urgemeinde (Leipzig, 191 1) . Mark's story of Jesus' life is thought to be constructed on a solar scheme starting with December 22, when the sun turns again on its upward course in the heavens. Thus Jesus is depicted in the gospel as the renewer. The gospel falls into twenty-eight sections, each representing one 46 The Historicity of Jesus mythical personage, except in their consistent treatment of him as a deity. In the epistles he is nothing other than a variant of Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Adonis. For Matthew he is the Sun-god. For Luke the supreme deity is the sun and his son is the moon. Again the Holy Spirit is the sun. Various gospel names and characters, as Arimathea, Cyrene, Galilee, Judea, have an astral significance; while Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, Herodias, Salome, are the counterparts respectively of the con stellations Hydrus, Scorpio, Cassiopeia, Androm eda. The cross of Jesus is the Milky Way, the tree of the world. Another school of writers finds the key to Christian origins in the activity of a primitive doctrine of "gnosis," or in some type of esoteric teaching fostered by secret cults, mysteries, and similar phenomena in the life of the ancient world. Mead1 suggests that such movements of the twelve months of the year — reckoning Jesus' ministry as two years and four months long — and each of these sections pic tures Jesus in terms of ideas which the Babylonians connected with the respective months. Peter, it is held, was responsible for this arrangement of the calendar year. It was forsaken when James became head of the church, under whose leadership Chris tianity reverted to a more distinctly Jewish type of thought. 1 Did Jesus Live ioo B.C.? (London and Benares, 1903); cf. the same author's Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (London, 1900; German tr., Fragmenten eines verschollenen Glaubens, Berlin, 1902). The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 47 had already gained a footing within Judaism, prior to the Christian era. Indeed he questions the presence of any widespread orthodoxy in Judaism before the days of the Mishnaic rabbis. The seventy esoteric books of II Esd. 14:46 ff., which contain "the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge," and which are to be delivered only to "the wise among the people," are thought to presuppose for an earlier date the existence of esotericists representing tendencies which may be traced in Essenism, Therapeutism, Philon- ism, Hermeticism, and Gnosticism. May not the origins of Christianity lie hidden among the pledged members of these mystic com munities and ascetic orders? Mead feels himself compelled to ask this question because of (1) the impossibility of historical certainty regarding any objective fact in the traditional narratives of Jesus' career, (2) the silence of extra-Christian sources in the first century a.d., and (3) certain obscure data which seem absolutely contradictory to the current Chris tian tradition. These contradictory data, found mainly in the Talmud, the "Toledoth Jeshu," and Epiphanius, are thought to indicate that the Jesus of gospel tradition really lived about 48 The Historicity of Jesus ioo B.C. He was not, however, a very sig nificant personage for the origin of the new movement. Practically all that can be known of him historically is that he was a contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus, that he was called Jeshu1 ben Pandera (and sometimes ben Stada), that he had spent some time in Egypt, and that he belonged to one of the secret communities from which he was expelled for teaching its wisdom to non-initiates. The new movement would probably never have arisen out of reverence for this historical person, since the basal thought of the new faith was the "drama of the Christ- mystery." In its literature Jesus appears merely as one of the characters for a "historical romance" into which allegories, parables, and actual mystery doings are woven, as was common in the methods of haggada and apocalyptic of that day. The "common docu ment " of the gospels arose about 75 a.d., but our present gospels are second-century products.2 Paul is a genuine historical character who 1 The Talmud usually writes "1H5"1 when speaking of Jesus, in distinction from SIIZJ" (Joshua), though the two names are originally the same in Hebrew. 2 Cft Mead, The Gospels and the Gospel: A Study in the Most Recent Results of the Lower and the Higher Criticism (London, 1902). The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 49 wrote the principal letters traditionally assigned to him, but he is fundamentally interested in the Christ-mystery, a gnostic type of faith. Moreover, when his letters are read aright they show that he was writing to communities which had existed before his day and were already familiar with gnostic nomenclature. Thus before Paul's time pre-Christian Christianity was in existence not only in Palestine but also in the Diaspora. W. B. Smith likewise holds that Christianity arose out of a Jesus-cult existing in the first century B.C.1 From the statement of Acts 18:25, that Apollos taught carefuUy "the things concerning Jesus knowing only the baptism of John," it is inferred that Apollos was not yet a "Christian," but that he was an enthusiastic missionary of the pre-Christian Jesus-sect, which at the time was particularly strong in Alexandria. But this cult was also strong in other centers, and Cyprus is thought to have been the place whence that form of the cult which came to be known as Christianity took its start. Yet it must not be said that Christianity arose from any one center; it was 1 Der vorchristliche Jesus (Giessen, 1906, 191 12); Ecce Deus: Die urchristliche Lehre des reingottlichen Jesu (Jena, 1911). 5° The Historicity of Jesus multifocal. The "things concerning Jesus" should not be understood, it is claimed, as information about the earthly career of a human Jesus, but as a doctrine about a divinity, a Savior-god. The characteristic feature of primitive Christianity, its fundamental essence, was its emphasis upon monotheism; the anthropomorphized Jesus-god of the New Tes tament writings is a secondary product. This monotheistic teaching was very timely. It answered to the broader outlook which the unification of empire under Alexander and under the Romans had brought about, and it also met the needs of the masses who longed for deliver ance from the enslaving forces in the thought and life of their world. But this new teaching could not at first be openly propagated without incurring the danger of disastrous opposition, consequently the new religion appears first as a secret cult mediating to its initiates the knowl edge of the true God. Now this search for knowledge of the highest God was virtually the problem of Gnosticism, accordingly many gnostic notions have contributed to the forma tion of the New Testament thought. Boiland, professor of philosophy in Leiden, makes even more of gnostic speculation as a The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 51 factor in the rise of Christianity. Encouraged by his belief that Vatke by philosophical inquiry in 1835 really anticipated the outcome of later study upon the Pentateuch, BoUand thinks that he, by applying a similar type of Hegelian specu lation to the problem of Christian origins, can pronounce the final word upon this subject. As a result of his "philosophievrij onderzoek," Christianity is found to be an evolution of Judeo-gnostic ideas starting from Alexandria and gradually spreading north and west. The Christian Jesus is merely an allegorical rehabili tation of the Old Testament Joshua,1 the successor of Moses, who led the people into the land of promise. Hence the appropriateness of the Jesus- Joshua name, since both etymologi- cally and traditionally it stands for God's salvation. The gospels, which announce the coming of the true Joshua, are a product of 'Met eerste Evangelic in het Licht van Oude gegevens: Eene Bijdrage tot de Wordingsgeschiedenis des Christendoms (Leiden, 1906); De evangelische Jozua: Eene Poging tot Aanwijzing van den Oorsprong des Christendoms (Leiden, 1907) ; 2d ed., Het Evangelie: Eene "vernieuwde'' Poging tot Aanwijzing van den Oorsprong des Christendoms (ibid., 1910). Also Gnosis en Evangelie: Eene historische Studie (1906); Het Lijden en Sterven van Jezus Christus (1907); De Achlergrond der Evangelien: Eene Bijdrage tot de Kennis van de Wording des Christendoms (1907). Cf. de Zwaan, "De Oorsprong des Christendoms volgens Prof. BoUand," Theolo- gisch Tijdschrift, XLV (1911), 38-87, 119-78. 52 The Historicity of Jesus the allegorizing exegesis of Alexandria— purely a Jesus-romance. Traces of gnostic notions are discovered throughout the New Testament literature. In the gospels, for example, these appear in the parable of the sower, in Jesus' statement that God only is good, in the saying about truth revealed unto babes, in the con fession of Peter, in the miracle narratives, and in the passion and resurrection stories. The earliest form of gospel tradition is to be seen in certain non-canonical fragments, particularly in the so-called Gospel of the Egyptians, an Alex andrian proto-Mark. This was later re-worked, perhaps in Rome, to produce the Judaistic Matthew, the Hellenistic Luke, the neutral and universalistic Mark. The Fourth Gospel rep resents a Samaritan form of Alexandrian Gnosticism, and was probably written at Ephesus. Paul's letters are all spurious and are products of clerical circles in Rome about 135 a.d. Here Bolland is in line with the extreme school of Dutch criticism, as represented for instance by Van Manen.1 1 Whittaker (The Origins of Christianity, London, rgo4, 19092), adopting Van Manen's conclusions regarding the spuriousness of all the Pauline letters, pushes his doubts almost to the point of denying Jesus' existence. All the New Testament books are placed in the 2d century, following a period of oral myth-making The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 53 Lublinski, the late Weimar Schrif tsteller , traces Christianity to an original pre-Christian gnostic sect,1 but this sect was strictly Jewish and did not differentiate itself from Judaism until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. According to Lublinski, gnostic tendencies must have been circulating in the Orient from the time of the Persian supremacy on, and the Jews cannot have escaped this influence. It pervaded the whole culture of the ancient world. With it came theosophy, mystery religion, secret cults, and the like. Its actual presence in Judaism is thought to be seen in such sects as the Essenes, the Therapeutes, the Gnostics of Justin, the Naassenes, and similar movements of which no records have been preserved. Of such an origin was Christianity. But gnostic thought could hardly concern itself primarily with a man-deity, Jesus; its first in the 1st century. It was not until after the year 70 a.d. that the Christian movement began to appear, and at the same time the story of Jesus' life and death was formulated. Before that date it cannot be said that Christianity existed, except as a vague messianic movement associated with some obscure cult. Jesus may not be an entirely fictitious person, yet the gospel stories are almost wholly mythical. 1 Der urchristliche Erdkreis und sein Mythos: I, Die Entslehung des Christentums aus der antiken Kultur; II, Das werdende Dogma vom Leben Jesu (Jena, 1910). 54 The Historicity of Jesus interest could only be in a divine nature, Christ. Hence the Jesus of gospel history and the story of his followers in the first century are creations of mythical fancy. Drews has absorbed, perhaps more thor oughly than any of the other extremists, the main features of these radical positions.1 The five theses which he presented for discussion at the Berlin conference are a very good epitome of his position:2 i. Before the Jesus of the gospels there existed already among Jewish sects a Jesus-god and a cult of this god which in all probability goes back to the Old Testament Joshua, and with this were blended on the one hand Jewish apocalyptic ideas and on the other the heathen notion of a dying and rising divine redeemer. 2. Paul, the oldest witness for Christianity, knows nothing of a "historical" Jesus. His incarnated Son of God is just that Jewish- heathen redeeming divinity Jesus whom Paul 1 Die Christusmythe (Jena, 1909, 19103; English tr., The Christ Myth, London and Chicago, 191 1); Die Christusmythe: II. Teil, Die Zeugnisse fiir die Geschichtlichkeit Jesu: Eine Antwort an die Schrif tgelehrten mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der theologischen Methode (Jena, 1911); cf. also Die Petruslegende: Ein Beitrag zur Mythologie des Christentums (Frankfurt, 1910). 2 Berliner Religionsgesprach, p. 34. The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 55 merely set in the center of his religious world- view and elevated to a higher degree of religio- ethical reflection. 3. The gospels do not contain the history of an actual man, but only the myth of the god- man Jesus clothed in historical form, so that not only the Israehtish prophets along with the Old Testament types of the Messiah, a Moses, Ehjah, Elisha, etc., but also certain mythical notions of the Jews' heathen neighbors concerning behef in the redeeming divinity made their contribution to the "history" of that Jesus. 4. With this method of explanation an " undis- coverable" remainder which cannot be derived from the sources indicated may still exist, yet this relates only to secondary and unimportant matters which do not affect the religious belief in Jesus; while on the contrary aU that is important, religiously significant, and decisive in this faith, as the Baptism, the Lord's Supper, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection of Jesus, is borrowed from the cult-symbolism of the mythical Jesus, and owes its origin not to a historical fact but to the pre-Christian belief in the Jewish-heathen redeeming divinity. 5. The "historical" Jesus, as determined by 56 The Historicity of Jesus the critical theology, is at any rate of so doubt ful, intangible, and faded a form that faith in him cannot possibly longer be regarded as the indispensable condition of religious salvation. Thus modern radical criticism sets up its mythical Christ over against the historical Jesus of liberal theology. While there is much variety in the details, the main outlines of the radicals' contention are clearly defined. They all agree in treating the evidence for a historical Jesus as wholly unrehable. This involves in most instances the hypothesis of a second- century date for the New Testament writings. Robertson, Mead, and Drews hold to the genuineness of the principal Pauline letters,1 ^ yet they so read them as to find there no proof for Jesus' existence. Much stress is usually placed upon the paucity of the non-Christian references to the new religion and its aUeged founder in the first century a.d. On the positive side, a theory of Christianity's origin is con structed out of more obscure and remote data gleaned from the life and thought of the ancient world. Although at this point there are wide variations in the items chosen, the choice is 1 W. B. Smith seems at present to be vacillating on this ques tion; cf. Ecce Dens, p. 150. The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 57 regulated by a uniform principle, namely, ideas not persons are the significant factors in the origin of a religion. As a corollary of this principle, it follows that a Christ-idea, not a historical Jesus, is the primal formative element in the genesis of Christianity. Not only can any unique historical founder be dispensed with, but this possibility proves so aUuring that his person is forthwith eliminated from the history. Consequently the liberal theologians' contention for the significance of Jesus, both as a figure in the past and for the thought of the present, seems to the radicals wholly fallacious. Thus ultimately this problem, which ap peared at first sight to be purely historical, a question of gathering data and testing their reliability, really involves the interpretation of the data in terms of presuppositions as to the nature of religious origins, and especiaUy as to the nature of primitive Christianity. And these presuppositions are inseparably bound up with the question of what is vitally important for religion today. Not all writers of the radical school recognize this fact so clearly as does Drews — at least they rarely express themselves so clearly on this phase of the 58 The Historicity of Jesus subject. In closing the Berlin debate he asked two questions which he regards as fundamental: What is the secret of Christianity's origin in the light of which it can be revitalized for modern times ? and What can Christ be to us today? His reply to both questions is an appeal for the recognition of the supreme significance of the Christ-myth. It is not a historical Jesus but Christ as an idea, an idea of the divine humanity, which explains the rise of Christianity and makes possible its modern revitalization. Furthermore, in his preface to the Christusmythe Drews declares that the book was written "directly in the interests of religion from the conviction that the forms hitherto prevailing are no longer sufficient for the present, that especiaUy the 'Jesusism' of the modern theology is fundamentaUy irreligious and itself presents the greatest hindrance to all true religious progress."1 1 Similarly in his second volume Drews emphasizes this idea: "Der Kampf um die Christusmythe ist zugleich ein Kampf um die Freiheit und Selbstandigkeit des modernen Geisteslebens, um die Unabhangigkeit der Wissenschaft und Weltanschauung Der Kampf um die 'Christusmythe' ist aber auch zugleich ein Kampf um die Religion. Alle Religion ist ein Leben aus den Tiefen des eigenen unmittelbaren Selbst heraus, ein Wirken im Geist und in der Freiheit. Aller religiose Fortschritt vollzieht sich in der Verinnerlichung des Glaubens, in der Verlegung des The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 59 This opposition to the "theologians" some times induces a polemical tone which tends to obscure the main issues of the problem.1 Argument is in danger of becoming mere special pleading for a "cause." It is an obvious fact that the champions of this modern radicalism have not approached their task as specialists in the field of early Christian history, nor are they thoroughly equipped to use the tools of that science. Not only so, but they deliberately discard those tools and condemn the methods of the historical theo logian as unscientific, because he aUows Jesus an especiaUy significant place and refuses to push critical skepticism to what they regard the logical issue — that is, the denial of Jesus' existence. This animosity toward the theo logian sometimes leads to a misunderstanding, or even to a misrepresentation, of his position. For example, Drews's fifth thesis implies a Schwerpunktes des Seins aus der objektiven in die subjektive Welt, in der vertrauensvollen Hingabe an den Gott in uns (p. xviii f.; cf. Drews, Die Religion als Selbst-Bewusstsein Gottes, Jena, 1906). 1 Cf. Steudel, Wir Gelehrten vom Fachl Eine Streitsckrift gegen Professor D. von Sodens "Hat Jesus gelebt?" (Frankfurt, 1910), Im Kampf um die Christusmythe. Eine Auseinandersetzung ins- besondere mit J. Weiss, P. W. Schmiedel, A. Harnack, D. Chwolson (Jena, 1910). 60 The Historicity of Jesus criticism of the "critical theology" which is hardly just, if the reference is to leading representatives of New Testament critical study in Germany. Nor is it true, as Drews again insinuates, that these scholars think religion today is to be explained and established "only through textual criticism in a philological way."1 They hold neither that an accurate critical text, nor that faith in a "historical" Jesus, in the sense of accepting any given number of doctrines about him, constitutes the essentials of religion. It seems very evident, however, that one feature of the pres ent radical movement, and one which looms large in the vision of many of its advocates, is a hatred for "theology" and the "theologians."2 WhUe this bitterness has, doubtless, been aggravated by the scathing denunciations which the radicals have sometimes received at the hands of their opponents, its fundamental ground is the question of what religious sig nificance shaU be attached to Jesus. The 1 Berliner Religionsgesprach, pp. 93 f. 2 Drews expresses his sentiments thus (parodying Luther) : "Und wenn die Welt voll T — heologen war' und wollt' uns gar verschlingen, so furchten wir uns nicht so sehr: es soil uns doch gelingen!" The Mythical Christ of Radical Criticism 61 "mythologists" are determined that this shaU be nil. Under these circumstances our present task involves not only a critical estimate of the negative arguments, foUowed by a constructive statement of the extent and worth of the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, but also some consideration of his significance as a historical personage for the origin and perpetuation of our religion. CHAPTER III AN ESTIMATE OF THE NEGATIVE ARGU MENT: ITS TREATMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE Until recently the arguments of the extrem ists have been more generaUy ignored than criticized. Very little attention was paid to Bauer's work, Kalthoff's views were dismissed rather summarily by the world of New Testa ment scholarship, Robertson, Mead, Smith, and Jensen were hardly taken seriously, and a similar fate awaited others of like opinion until Drews appeared upon the scene. He has been more successful than his predecessors in arous ing critical opposition, and this criticism has come from several scholars of first rank in the field of New Testament study. In view of this success Drews congratulates himself on having "hit the buU's-eye." For the most part these refutations are in the form of published addresses or popular lectures, pointing out the defects of the radical position and restating the case for Jesus' his toricity from the standpoint of modern critical scholarship. But these criticisms do not repre- 62 An Estimate of the Negative Argument 63 sent merely one phase or one school of modern thinking; they emanate from various sources. Even a Jewish rabbi has come forward in defense of Jesus ' historical personality,1 though Jewish interest in this subject would naturaUy not be great. Nor would it be strange if Roman Catholic scholars should dismiss this question, on which the authority of the church speaks so clearly, without serious discussion. Yet a work like that of Meffert2 shows an appreci ation of the problem and meets it strongly, from the Catholic point of view. The more conservative type of Protestant thought, repre sented for example by Dunkmann,3 whUe sympathizing with the extremists' condemna tion of the "liberal" interpretation of Jesus, stoutly maintains a historical basis for the Christ of faith. Even recent writers of the religions geschichtliche school are quite unwilling to carry skepticism to its extreme limit.4 1 G. Klein, Ist Jesus eine historische Personlichkeit? (Tubingen, 1910; from the Swedish, Aer Jesus en hisiorisk personlighet? Stockholm, 1910). 'Die geschichtliche Existenz Christi (Munich, 1904, 19102). 3 Der historische Jesus, der mythologische Christus und Jesus der Christ (Leipzig, 1910). 4 Cf. Zimmern, Zum Slreil um die "Christusmythe": Das baby- lonische Material in seinen Hauptpunkten dargestelll (Berlin, 1910) ; Bruckner, Das fiinfle Evangelium (Tubingen, 1910); Jeremias, Hat Jesus Christus gelebt? (Leipzig, 19TJ). 64 The Historicity of Jesus As was to be expected, however, the chief opponents of the " my thologists " belong to the so-caUed liberal school of modern theology. Von Soden replied to Drews at the Berlin con ference, and he also issued a smaU pamphlet1 in which he sought to show the value of the Christian evidence and to exhibit the defects of the opponents' position. Julicher 's lec ture,2 though written with special reference to Jensen's radicalism, gives less attention to the views of opponents than to a positive statement of the reliabUity of Christian tradi tion. After defining the nature of "historical" proof, he dweUs upon the worth of our sources of information and condemns Jensen's methods as erroneous scientificaUy. EspeciaUy note worthy surveys of the radical movement as a whole are made by Weinel,3 J. Weiss,4 and 1 Hal Jesus gelebt ? Aus den geschichtlichen Urkunden beant- wortet (Berlin, 1910). 2 Hal Jesus gelebt? (Marburg, 1910). 3 Ist das "liberate" Jesusbild widerlegt? Eine Antwort an seine " posiliven" und seine radikalen Gegner mit besonderer Riick- sicht auf A. Drews, Die Christusmythe (Tubingen, 1910; enlarged from the same author's "Ist unsere Verkundigung von Jesus unhaltbar geworden?" Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche, XX [1910], 1-38, 89-129). * Jesus von Nazareth, Mythus oder Geschichte? Eine Ausein- andersetzung mit Kalthoff, Drews, Jensen (Tubingen, 1910). An Estimate of the Negative Argument 65 Clemen.1 Each analyzes somewhat minutely the different phases of the problem, criticizing at length the radical position and setting over against it his own understanding of the valid elements of Christian tradition. Each author has his distinctive purpose, as the subtitles of the several books indicate, but the writers are in general, agreement as to their main conclusions. They have handled the problem so candidly and thoroughly that the radicals can no longer justly complain of inattention.2 'Der geschichtliche Jesus: Eine allgemeinverstdndliche Unter- suchung der Frage: hat Jesus gelebt, und was wollte er? (Giessen, 1911). 2 Further defenses of Jesus' historicity, mostly in pamphlet form and from different points of view, are: Beth; Hat Jesus gelebt? (Berlin, 1910); Bornemann, Jesus als Problem (Frankfurt, 1909); Brephol, Die Wahrheit iiber Jesus von Nazareth (Berlin, 1911); Broecker, Die Wahrheit iiber Jesus (Hamburg, 1911); Carpenter, The Historical Jesus and the Theological Christ (Lon don, 1911) ; Chwolson, Ueber die Frage, ob Jesus gelebt hat (Leipzig, 1910); Delbriick, Hat Jesus Christus gelebt? (Berlin, 1910); Dietze, Kritische Bemerkungen zur neuesten Auflage von A. Drews, Christusmythe (Bremen, T910); Fiebig, Jiidische Wundergeschich- ten des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Tubingen, 191 1); Griitz- macher, Jesusverehrung oder Christus glaube? (Rostock, 1911); Hauck, Hat Jesus gelebt? (Berlin, 1910); Kiihn, Ist Christus eine geschichtliche Person? (Halle a.S., 1910); Loisy, A propos d'kistoire des religions (Paris, 1911 ; chap, v deals with the " Christ- myth"); Rossington, Did Jesus Really Live? A Reply to "The Christ Myth" (London, 191 1); Schmidt, F. J., Der Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte (Frankfurt, 1910); Valensin, Jesus-Christ el Vetude comparee des religions (Paris, 1911). Sur- 66 The Historicity of Jesus In forming an estimate of the value of the negative argument, there are two important questions which one may ask. Does it suc cessfully dispose of the traditional evidence for the origin of Christianity ? and, Does it sub stitute an adequate reconstruction of the his tory? Bruno Bauer, as we have already observed, was graduaUy led to his conclusions by his critical examination of the gospels and the Pauline epistles. Consequently the formu lation of a new theory of Christian origins was the last stage in his work. Today this process is usuaUy inverted. The radicals come to a study of the New Testament with a fixed notion of the way Christianity arose, hence they are not greatly concerned with the Christ- tian literature except to demonstrate that its content can be explained in accordance with their hypothesis. This method may be legiti- veys of the literature are made by Bacon in the Hibbert Journal, IX (1911), 731-53; Case in the American Journal of Theology, XV (1911), 20-42; Dibelius in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1910, cols. 545-52, and I9rr, cols. 135-40; Esser in the Theolo gische Revue, 1911, cols. 1-6 and 41-47; Loisy in the Revue d'histoire et de littirature religieuses (nouvelle s6rie), I (1910), 401-35; Mehlhorn, Prolestantische Monatshefte, XIV (r9io), 415- 21 and XV (1911), 17-27; Muirhead, Review of Theology and Phil osophy, VI (1911), 577-86 and 633-46; N. Schmidt, Intern. Journal of Ethics, XXII (1911), 19-39; Windisch, Theologische Rundschau XIII (1910), 163-82, 199-220, and XIV (19T1), 114-37. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 67 mate if it satisfies two conditions, namely, if it treats fairly the traditional evidence which it proposes to set aside, and if its constructive hypothesis is otherwise properly substantiated. In the first place, is the explicit New Testa ment testimony to the existence of Jesus as a historical person adequately disposed of on the theory that he never lived at aU ? If he is not a historical character this supposed testimony to his existence is either fictitious or else it has commonly been misread. Appeal is sometimes made to each of these possibfiities. It has already been noted that several repre sentatives of the modern radical movement think aU the New Testament literature is spuri ous, a late product of theological and literary fancy. But the general arguments for this opinion are open to serious criticism. They commonly ignore, or unceremoniously dismiss, aU external testimony for the early existence of the New Testament books. They lay great stress upon aUeged paraUelisms between Chris tianity and earlier or contemporary heathenism, inferring that this proves the secondary char acter of the Christian literature. But the mere fact of parahelism in even a large number of points can hardly prove more than the very 68 The Historicity of Jesus evident fact that the founders of Christianity were men of their own age. Furthermore this skill in discovering parallels often seems greatly overworked, whfie the distinctive features of Christianity are unduly minimized. Even if the New Testament writers sometimes used gnostic nomenclature, or appropriated ideas and terms fanuliar to the worshipers of Adonis, it is stiU perfectly clear that they purport to be preaching a new religion. No amount of parallelism, not even demonstrable "borrow ing, " disposes of the genuineness of these writ ings unless it can be demonstrated that the personal note contained in them is not genuine and that the idea of newness is itself fictitious. In general this radical rejection of the New Testament evidence seems to rest on unreli able grounds, and is not sufficiently thorough going to touch the heart of the problem. EspeciaUy important in this connection is the treatment of the Pauline letters. Accord ing to tradition they were written mostly in the sixth decade of the first century, and they are so definite in their reference to a historical Jesus that their spuriousness, either wholly or in part, is commonly admitted to be a necessary presupposition for the denial of Jesus' historicity. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 69 Some would maintain that the whole Paul ine section of the New Testament literature is a pseudepigraphic product. This theory is not of itself impossible, particularly for an age whose literary method was to set forth teach ing under the authority of persons prominent in the past. The names of Moses, Enoch, Elijah, Isaiah, Daniel, were used in this way, so that prominent figures in early church his tory were quite naturaUy made to play a similar role. And since the Christians of the second and third centuries rejected some writ ings put forward under the name of Peter and of Paul, because the marks of pseudepigraphy seemed evident, it is certainly proper in the interests of accurate scholarship to ask whether those who made the canonical selection were sufficiently exact in distinguishing between the genuine and the spurious. The very fact that some pseudepigraphic writings are known to have been in circulation opens the way for the supposition that still more may have been of this character. Indeed present-day criti cism of even the moderately conservative type has accustomed us to thinking of the so-caUed Pastoral Epistles, if not indeed of some other aUeged Pauline letters, as belonging in this 70 The Historicity of Jesus class of literature. But if some letters are spurious, then may not aU be so? The radi cals not only admit this as a possibility but claim it as a probabUity. From this conclusion it foUows that this literature must have arisen at a time when the supposed Jesus and Paul belonged to so remote a past that there was little danger of any serious difficulty in accepting as real their assumed existence. It is true that among primitive peoples historical feeling is not exact ing in its demands. The borderland between fancy and fact is often vague, so perhaps the lapse of only a few decades would make the launching of this fiction possible. Yet it can hardly have been successfuUy accomphshed among men who personaUy knew the times and places in which these fictitious charac ters were assumed to have lived. Therefore these letters, if not genuine, must be, at the earliest, second-century products. But when one examines the argument for the spuriousness and the late dating of the letters, he finds that it amounts to Uttle more than an assertion of skepticism, which on being repeated by its advocates is too easUy given the credentials of a demonstration. In all An Estimate of the Negative Argument 71 fairness to the modern radical movement it may be said that its exponents have presented no thoroughgoing argument for the spurious ness of aU the Pauline letters. Bauer's results are referred to occasionaUy, and the negative position of the Dutch school represented more recently by Van Manen, or the skepticism of Steck, is sometimes cited in this connection. But aU of these positions certainly need at least to be revised and supplemented before the world of historical scholarship can be expected to treat them seriously. Jensen's attempt to derive the Pauline literature from the GUgamesh legend and W. B. Smith's criti cism of Romans are similarly unsatisfactory. Jensen's treatment is only incidental to his discussion of the gospels, and Smith's con clusions have not only suffered severely under the criticism of Schmiedel, but, if valid, scarcely touch the main problem. When reduced to its lowest terms, the argument for the spuriousness of aU the Pauline writings seems to be chiefly a refusal to treat seriously the probabUity of genuineness in the case of any one of these letters. Thus an attempt is made to throw the whole burden of proof upon the one who entertains the more usual opinion that the 72 The Historicity of Jesus chief epistles of Paul are historical documents of first importance. It is fair enough to de mand that one justify his belief in the genuine ness of these letters, but it is equaUy fair to point out that the bald assertion of disbelief is not an adequate argument for spuriousness. A second type of this general skepticism admits the reality of Paul as" an important individual for the founding of the new religion, but holds that his letters in their present form are the result of considerable reworking on the part of later Christians. Drews in particular would save Paul in so far as the latter can be cited as the exponent of a religion buUt upon faith in an idea — the item which Drews regards as central in aU reUgion. As might be expected, the fundamental problems of Pauline study are scarcely touched and no fixed principles of critical investigation are foUowed. One takes from the literature what he pleases and leaves what he pleases. We are told at the start that no compelling proof for the authenticity of any of the letters can be produced, and yet from them a somewhat elaborate and confident expo sition of alleged Pauline thought is derived. Anything in these writings supposedly pointing to the historicity of Jesus is explained other- An Estimate of the Negative Argument 73 wise, or is called a later insertion. Finally it is asserted that "the Pauline letters contain no compulsion of any sort for the supposition of a historical Jesus, and no man would be likely to find such there if it were not already for him an established assumption." At once several fanuliar passages demand explanation. For instance I Cor. 11:235., describing the last supper on the night of Jesus' betrayal, seems to point very clearly to a specific event in the life of a historical individual. This difficulty is avoided by assuming that "we have here to do with a clearly later insertion, " at least the reference to the betrayal is "certainly inserted. " SimUarly the implication of a historical Jesus in I Cor. 15 : 5ff. is either another interpolation, or else these experiences are purely ecstatic in character and do not imply, as is commonly supposed, any thought of a definite historical person whose death preceded these unusual manifestations.1 It is a convenient elasticity of critical method which can aUow these options. Again, the men- 1 Similarly Steudel, speaking of these and kindred passages says: "Wenn diese Stellen nicht eingeschoben sind, dann gibt es im Alten und Neuen Testament iiberhaupt keine Interpolate." — Wir Gelehrten vom Fach! p. 65. W. B. Smith also falls into line here (Ecce Deus, pp. 148 ff.). 74 The Historicity of Jesus tion of "brothers" of the Lord, as in I Cor. 9:5 and Gal. 1:19, is to be understood in the sense of community brotherhood. Yet we are not told why Paul in the same context should not have included Peter and Barnabas in this brotherhood. Moreover brothers in the Lord, not brothers of the Lord, is Paul's mode of thought for the community relationship. These are typical examples of both the brevity and the method Drews uses in disposing of the Pauline evidence. It is difficult to take argu ments of this sort seriously, particularly when they are presented so briefly and with no appar ent ground of justification except the presup position that a historical Jesus must not be recognized. The gospel evidence is disposed of in a simi lar manner. To take Drews 's method as a sample of the radical treatment, the earliest external testimony to the gospels' origin is set aside on the ground of Eusebius' "notorious unreliabUity. " Upon the fact, now widely recognized, that the evangelists combined inter pretation with historical narrative, is based the broad generalization that all is fiction. The efforts of critical study to determine more accurately the real historical background are An Estimate of the Negative Argument 75 characterized as a "half comic, half sad per formance ' ' and a ' ' horrible fiasco . ' ' Yet appar ently without any suspicion of the comic, we are asked to believe that so matter-of-fact a circum stance as Jesus' association with his disciples is merely a variation of the myth about Jason's search for the golden fleece. Drews 's handling of the gospel evidence is fairly representative of the radicals' general method. The more substantial results of the modern critical school of gospel study are not recognized as having any value. AU emphasis faUs upon the negative aspects of this work, and its most extreme negative conclusions are constantly set in the foreground. Much is made of the critics' disagreement on questions of detaU, and of their inabUity to fix upon a definite quantum of information, no item of which could conceivably be questioned. We are often reminded of the fact that none of our gospels belong to Jesus' own generation, that they are aU admittedly more or less interested in expounding Christian doctrine, and that many of their ideas may quite Ukely be colored by current Jewish or heathen notions. But what would all this prove ? The immediate conclusion can hardly be, as the radicals would 76 The Historicity of Jesus contend, that there was no historical person Jesus. The only warranted inference would be that the preachers of the second and third gen erations of Christians were primarUy interested in producing edifying narrative about Jesus. For example if it were proved beyond question that the disciples' interpretation of his death was phrased in terms of heathen notions about the saving value of the death of an imaginary savior-deity, it would by no means foUow as a logical imperative that Jesus' aUeged death is fictitious. In fact the logical inference would seem to be that memory of his actual death was a necessary incentive for the new form of inter pretation. The defectiveness of this treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentaUy it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criti cism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skep ticism forward in the garb of valid demon- An Estimate of the Negative Argument 77 stration, and the same ever present predis position against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence. WhUe these criticisms apply to the extremists in general, there is a distinctiveness about Jensen's method which in a certain sense puts it in a class by itself. For most of the modern radicals the question of eliminating the gospel evidence is one of secondary importance in comparison with the defence of their theory of Christian origins. This is not so true of Jensen. At least whatever his ultimate interest may be, his argument concerns itself primarUy with the gospel materials. Moreover his explanation of the gospels' origin, as a phase of the modern skeptical movement, stands in a somewhat isolated position. While he is approvingly referred to as an example of skepticism, his results have not been incorporated at all exten sively into the work of the later representa tives of this school. For these reasons his views caU for a separate examination. His theory of gospel origins is that these writings are merely literary imitations of the Babylonian GUgamesh epic. This is thought to be proved by the discovery of a series of paraUels between the incidents of the gospel 78 The Historicity of Jesus narrative and the GUgamesh story. Agree ments are found not alone in individual items but also in the successive arrangement of the events. On this latter point the author places much emphasis. Hence the force of his argu ment can be estimated best by citing a section of the most important paraUels, preserving the order of incidents as arranged by the author:1 i. At the beginning of the Gilgamesh legend Eabani was created by a miracle at the command of the gods. 2. Eabani lived far from men in the steppe (wilderness). 3. Eabani (is hairy and) has long hair on his head. Pre sumably he is clad with skins. 4. Eabani lives as the beasts of the steppe (wilderness) on grass and herbs and water. 5. Gilgamesh dreams of a star resembling a host of the heavenly Lord who is stronger than he, then of a man (human being), and this star, as well as the man, is symbolic of Eabani who thereupon comes immedi ately to Gilgamesh. At the beginning of the Jesus story John was produced by a miracle in accordance with an announcement by an angel. John lived in the steppe (wil derness) near the Jordan. John, as a Nazirite, wears his hair uncut and long. He is clad with a garment of camel's hair and girded with a belt of leather or skin. John lives on what is to be found in the wilderness: on grasshoppers and wild honey, and, like a Nazirite, drinks no wine. John knows (by revelation) and prophesies of Jesus' com ing as the coming of a man who is stronger than he, and soon afterward this Jesus comes to John. 1 Moses, Jesus, Paulus, pp. 27-30. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 79 6. To all appearances Eabani afterward flees into the steppe (wilderness). 7. The sun-god calls from heaven to Eabani in the steppe (wilderness) with kind words and speaks to him of delicious food or loaves and of the kiss ing of his feet by the kings of the earth. 8. Eabani returns from the steppe (wilderness) to his abode, the home of Gilgamesh. 9. The dominion of [the great serpent and] the great lion is conquered by a god who comes down on a cloud ( ?) to whom the dominion of the world is to be transferred. 10. [Conquest of the great serpent.] 1 1 . A fever plague, Xisuthros intercedes for plagued human ity and in this way probably the plague was brought to an end. 12. Xisuthros builds himself a ship and keeps it ready. 13. On an evening Xisuthros, with his family and his nearest friends, enters the ship. 14. A storm arises and ceases. Jesus afterward flees into the wilderness. Immediately before his flight into the wilderness the spirit of God descends from heaven upon Jesus and a voice from heaven calls him God's beloved Son. In the wilderness, more over, someone (i.e., the devil) speaks with Jesus about bread (which Jesus should make from stones) and about the fact that Jesus should rule all kingdoms of the earth if he kissed the devil's feet. Jesus returns from the wil derness to" his native place. The kingdom of heaven and of God is near, which is to be introduced by Jesus' coming on the clouds. Expulsion of the demon in the synagogue at Capernaum. Peter's mother-in-law is sick with fever and Jesus makes her well. A boat is kept ready for Jesus. On an evening Jesus with his disciples enters the boat. A storm arises and ceases. 8o The Historicity of Jesus 15. Xisuthros lands with his family far from his abode. 16. Sinful humanity and most beasts, among them also the swine, are drowned in the flood. 17. On a seventh day, after an interview with three inti mate persons, Xisuthros comes to the top of the high mountain of the deluge and then is deified. 1 8. The voice of the invisible Xisuthros out of the air to his ship companions says: You are to be pious. 19. Chumbaba adventure. 20. Gilgamesh reproaches Ishtar for her love affairs and the evils she has done her lovers. 21. The bull adventure. 22. Eabani dies. Jesus lands in Perea opposite his native place. Two thousand or more demons, and two thousand swine, are drowned in the sea over which Jesus went. After six or eight days, thus certainly originally after a week of seven days, Jesus with three most intimate persons went on to a high mountain and was glorified and called God's Son. The voice out of the cloud on the mountain of transfiguration says : You are to hear Jesus. [Apparently omitted but is in a new place.] John blames Herod for hav ing married his second wife, Herodias, and for his evil deeds. [Apparently omitted but is in quite a new place.] John the Baptist dies (at a corresponding place in the story). And so on untU the end of Jesus' career is reached. 39. [Gilgamesh dies.] Jesus dies. It is evident that no importance can be attached to any likeness between individuals. At first John is Eabani, then he becomes An Estimate of the Negative Argument 81 GUgamesh and Jesus is Eabani (No. 5), then Jesus becomes Xisuthros (Nos. n-17), then Xisuthros is God (No .18). When John reproves Herod he is GUgamesh (No. 20), but when he dies in consequence of this boldness he is Eabani (No. 22). In the uncited parallels which f oUow there is the same confusion : when Jesus starts across the lake with the disciples he is GUgamesh; when the storm arises he is Xisuthros; again, GUgamesh represents the rich young ruler, but in the immediately foUowing incident he represents Jesus' disciples; Jesus is Xisuthros when he gives the loaves to the disciples and they are GUgamesh, but in the very next paraUel Jesus is again GUgamesh; then Jesus is Xisuthros and Peter is GUgamesh, though immediately afterward the rich man in hell is GUgamesh and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom is Eabani, notwithstanding the corre spondence between Eabani and John the Bap tist at the time of the latter 's death. It cannot be said that the life-story of any hero in the Babylonian legend paraUels that of any New Testament character, and indeed, so far as the support of the argument is concerned, the proper names may as well be struck from the list. 82 The Historicity of Jesus As to the resemblance between individual events, it is insignificant and often trifling in content; for example, two characters are alike in that each is in the wUderness — among orientals a natural place for meditation; one has a hairy body, the other wears a garment made of hair; one eats grass, the other eats grasshoppers; and, finaUy, both die — hardly a remarkable fact when there is no resemblance in the circumstances attending their deaths. But what of the alleged "essentiaUy siimlar succession of events"? This is not true of persons with whom the action is associated, for, as already observed, first one person and then another is introduced without regard to orderly procedure. Moreover, it is not true that the action, as arranged in these paraUels, preserves the order of events in the gospels. The reference to Jesus' coming on the clouds (No. 9) appears in the gospels not at the begin ning of Jesus' preaching but toward the close. The connection between holding a boat ready (No. 12) and entering the boat (No. 13) is a misrepresentation of the gospel narrative. Xisuthros enters the ship that he prepares and holds in readiness, but the occasion on which a boat is held ready for Jesus (Mark 3:9) is An Estimate of the Negative Argument 83 entirely different from that on which he enters a boat to go across the lake (Mark 4:35), and an important part of his work in Galilee is done in the meantime. It is exceptionaUy irregular to place the transfiguration in connection with the story of the Gadarene demoniacs (Nos. 16- 18). According to the gospel order a wide gap intervenes in which belong several incidents mentioned later in Jensen's series. Again, the order of Mark is violated when Jesus' conver sation with the rich young ruler is placed before Jesus' reference to the "loaves"; and the order of Luke suffers when the story of the rich young ruler is put before the parable of the rich man in hades. The aUeged points of likeness are even more insignificant when one views them in their original contexts. It is only by a generous omission of the main features of the narrative that a theory of resemblance can be made even plausible. To take a single Ulustration, the gospel story of Jesus' baptism and temptation teUs of an individual with a new consciousness of his mission in Ufe reflecting in solitude upon the means he wiU use for its accomplishment. Though he is hungry and has power to turn stones into bread, he wUl not, for God is more 84 The Historicity of Jesus to him than bread; nor wUl he ask God to show him favoritism either in the display of unusual acts or in the granting of earthly dominion. These are aU inferior motives — temptations of Satan — in contrast with the ideal of perfect submission to the wUl of God. On the other hand, the portion of the Babylon ian legend, of which the gospel narrative is supposed to be a reproduction, pictures Eabani as a wUd creature sporting with the beasts and protecting them from the hunter. The latter complains to GUgamesh, the ruler of the city of Erech, who promises to lure Eabani away by means of a prostitute. The plan succeeds and finally Eabani is persuaded to enter the city and live in friendship with GUgamesh. Later (lacunae in the records leave the exact con nection uncertain) f oUows the so-caUed tempta tion parallel, which, however, is no temptation at all but a speech of comfort and exhortation from Shamash the sun-god. Eabani is evidently restive under the restraints of civUization, and Shamash says, in effect, Why, Eabani, do you long for the harlot, the prostitute ? Have you not been supplied with food and clothing at the court of GUgamesh who wUl aUow you to sit on an easy seat at his right hand An Estimate of the Negative Argument 85 and the kings of the earth will kiss your feet? And when the dawn of morning broke "the words of Shamash, the mighty, loosened the bands of Eabani and his furious heart came to rest." These narratives certainly have no essential feature in common, and a theory of the derivation of the gospel story from the Babylonian, when the argument rests wholly on internal resemblance, is nothing less than absurd. Perhaps the greatest weakness of this whole theory lies in its omissions. Large sections of both the gospel history and the Babylonian epic have to be suppressed in order to establish even the faintest semblance of parallelism. Practically aU of Jesus' teaching is overlooked and his career taken as a whole has no counter part in the epic. There is no character there whose religious ideas, whose inner experiences, whose motives and impulses, whose attitude toward men and God, and whose relations in life have the least resemblance to these traits in the gospel picture of Jesus. In no respect does Jensen's hypothesis, as a theory to explain the origin of the gospels without reference to a historical Jesus, seem to have any validity. When once the gospels and the Pauline 86 The Historicity of Jesus epistles have been disposed of, the remaining traditional evidence for Jesus' existence is easily dismissed by simUar methods. The Book of Acts readUy takes its place with the gospels and the writings of Paul, whUe other New Testament books are said either to know no historical Jesus, or to contain only spurious references to him. The testimony furnished by the Apostolic Fathers is simUarly estimated as of no account. To be sure, critical historians quite generaUy admit that Josephus' principal reference to Jesus is unauthentic. The very language used — the implication of Jesus' divin ity, reference to his miracles, recognition of his messiahship, etc.1 — seems to mark the material as a Christian interpolation. It is also true that Roman history yields no important data untU the second century a.d., and even then the evidence is of a meager sort. Suetonius and Pliny mention Christians, but their words shed no valuable light upon the problem of Jesus' actual existence. Tacitus, however, ex plicitly states that the Christians of Nero's day traced their origin to one named Christ ' Ant., XVIII, iii, 3. The reference to James, "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ" (Ant., XX, ix, 1) is perhaps less open to doubt. See below, chap. viii. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 87 who was put to death by Pontius Pilate in Judea during the reign of Tiberius. This is damaging testimony for the radical position, but its force is avoided in the usual way: either Tacitus is merely reporting from hearsay a fictitious Christian tradition, or the paragraph is a " Christian " interpolation.1 Neither explan ation is satisfactory. The first certainly has no value untU the Christian tradition has been shown to be fictitious; and as for the second, the very language of the paragraph, which certainly is not Christian in its point of view,2 testifies to the contrary. We need not dweU longer upon the negative treatment of the traditional evidence for Jesus ' 1 This view is mainly a reiteration of the doubts of Hochart, Etudes au sujet de la persecution des Chretiens sous N&ron (Paris, 1885). 2 Annals, XV, 44, cf. especially the clause describing the early spread of Christianity after Jesus' death : " repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat non modo per Judaeam, originem eius mail, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque." Of course it may be urged that this only shows good historical perspective on the part of the artist interpolator. But that would imply that his main object was to testify to the bare statement of Jesus' human existence. In other words, it must be assumed that the modern radicals' problem was the supposed interpolator's prob lem — a manifest begging of the question. It is evident from the passage in Josephus that the Christian interpolator's interest was "theological" rather than "historical." 88 The Historicity of Jesus historicity. Occasional monographs on special topics, like Drews 's Petruslegende and W. B. Smith's "Judas Iscariot,"1 Ulustrate the de- taUed application of the negative arguments, without, however, strengthening our estimate of their worth. Taken altogether, they sig nally faU in their proposed disposition of the evidence which has usuaUy been regarded as establishing belief in the historical reality of Jesus. If the possibUity of his non-historicity is to be entertained at all it must be brought about by reconstructing, without reference to him, so strong a theory of Christian origins that the traditional view wUl pale before it as a lesser light in the presence of a greater luminary. Will the radicals' constructive hypothesis stand this test ? ' Hibbert Journal, IX, 3 (April, 1911), 529-44; reproduced in Ecce Deus, pp. 295 ff. CHAPTER IV AN ESTIMATE OF THE NEGATIVE ARGU MENT: ITS PROPOSED EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY Most proposed reconstructions of Christian origins make the idea of salvation the basal thought of the new religion. The validity of this assumption can scarcely be doubted. Christianity from the beginning was unques tionably and pre-eminently a religion of salva tion — a salvation which is primarily of divine origin and which is revealed and mediated in the career of a Jesus who thereby becomes the unique object of men's faith and reverence. These are essential items in Christian thinking at a very early date. What is the incentive which starts this new religion on its way? This is the question on which opinion divides. UsuaUy it has been supposed that a unique historical personality, known in tradition as Jesus of Nazareth, made so strong an impression upon men that a new faith reared itself about his person. The critics whose views we are investigating pro pose a very different answer. They think it 90 The Historicity of Jesus absurd to imagine that any historical individual could be given so elevated a position in the thought of men with whom he had been per sonally associated. His supposed historical form is merely a fanciful portrait giving a con crete setting to the abstract notion that sal vation is the outcome of the deity's own activity. Thus the modern radicals hyposta- tize the salvation-idea, making it of itself the creative force in the genesis of the new reli gion. The problem of Christianity's origin then becomes the question, How did this conception come into being, and where and when are its earliest "Christian" manifestations to be found ? Bauer and Kalthoff, it wUl be remembered, looked for the answer to these questions in the Graeco-Roman hfe of the first and second centuries a.d. Their solution is now generaUy discarded even by the radicals, who admit that in the third century Christianity is too strongly entrenched in the Roman empire to bring the date of its origin down as late as Bauer and Kalthoff proposed. Moreover the Jewish back ground of the new religion is too evident to permit of so unconditional a transfer of its birthplace to heathen soil. The solution more commonly offered nowadays finds the primitive An Estimate of the Negative Argument 91 Christians' doctrine of salvation to be less a product of their own experience and more a loan from the contemporary heathen religions. It is pointed out that belief in a redeeming divinity was current at an early date and had found expression in nature myths, in the tenets and practices of secret cults, and in gnostic speculations. Christianity represents the re sult of a borrowing and recasting of this funda mental conception. The beginnings of the process can no longer be traced with certainty, but they are assigned with confidence to pre- Christian times. This evolution went on both in Palestine and in Hellenistic Judaism, and attained the status of an independent religion at about the time Christianity is traditionaUy said to have come into existence. Such, in outline, is the radicals' understanding of Chris tianity's origin. If the kernel of Christianity, the salvation- idea, was thus merely a notion borrowed from the ancient faiths, why did it create for itself a new divinity in the person of Jesus, and whence did it derive its unique vitahty ? These would seem to be crucial questions for the radicals' constructive hypothesis to answer. Bauer and Kalthoff attempted to meet 92 The Historicity of Jesus simUar problems by depicting a new set of human experiences as the source of Chris tianity's new thought and power. A new type of experience caUed forth the Jesus- portrait, whUe the timely elements incorporated in the picture assured his prestige. The later representatives of the radical school do not entirely discard this line of thought, though they find these new experiences to be the prod uct of a different set of surroundings. The struggle of ideas in the life and culture of the ancient world are held to have made important contributions to nascent Christianity. Indeed, its success is ascribed in no smaU degree to its fortunate practice of gathering to itseh the best elements in the thought of the time, yet funda mental to aU this is the notion of a redeeming savior-god, Jesus. He is not the product of this experience; belief in him was anterior to, and was the norm for determining the interpre tation of, these new experiences, according to the more recent theory of Christian origins. But if Jesus' career is mainly a replica, so to speak, of the career of Adonis- At tis-etc, why was his figure created ? Why posit a new god to embody an old idea ? The radicals are now meeting this question by asserting that Jesus is An Estimate of the Negative Argument 93 not a new god. Just as the various peoples of the Orient were wont to rebaptize old divinities with new or reconstructed attributes, so the Christian Jesus is merely a rehabUitation of Joshua, who is said to be originaUy the deified personification of the salvation-concept of the Hebrews. By thus admitting a substantial Jewish basis for the new religion, our question as to why Christian thought did not revolve about the person of some heathen deity is answered. This Jesus-divinity accordingly antedates the Jesus of the gospels, and supplants him as the concrete focus about which that type of think ing, ultimately denominated "Christianity," first gathers. Here our second question, re garding the secret of the new religion's vitality, also would seem to find its answer. To insure effectiveness for the salvation-idea it must be attached to the career of a person. In other words it must be dramatized, even though the dramatis persona be a fictitious character. As evidence of this demand for personification, one may point to the figure of Adonis among the Syrians, Attis among the Phrygians, the Persian Mithra, the Babylonian Tammuz, the Egyptian Osiris. When the historical 94 The Historicity of Jesus Jesus, who is usuaUy supposed to have played this r61e for Christians, disappears, his place is filled by this fictitious Joshua- Jesus character whose personality, it is maintained, supplies the vitalizing element for the primitive Chris tian faith. And by a happy combination, in this idealized person, of the best elements of Jewish as weU as heathen thought, he thus becomes a uniquely powerful centrifugal force not only in the genesis but also in the expansion of the new religion, even though this new move ment early grew to be a competitor in the same field with its assumed ancestral kinsmen. Thus this pre-Christian Jesus-divinity is a figure of great importance for the modern radicals. It is true that not aU writers of this school place equal stress upon his importance, for they do not aU give equal attention to the minuter problems pertaining to a constructive theory of Christian origins. But just in pro portion as they overlook him do they faU to make any serious attempt to show why primi tive Christianity was so characteristicaUy a religion of faith in Jesus the Messiah, whUe they also f aU to supply in any plausible way a concrete initial force for the origin of the new religion. Nor do they provide any vital focus, An Estimate of the Negative Argument 95 even theoreticaUy, for the distinctive thought of early Christianity. But what if it should turn out upon investiga tion that the doctrine of a pre-Christian Jesus- divinity never had any vogue in ancient times ! Can the historicity of this belief be demon strated? Or is the doctrine created by the modern skeptics in their search for a personal substitute — and most of them are now taking their problem seriously enough to realize the need of this personal substitute— for the aUeged Jesus of gospel history ? We shall not pronounce upon this question without a careful examination of the data. Therefore we present with some minuteness the supposed evidence for a primitive beUef in a pre-Christian Jesus. To begin with, there is no gainsaying the fact that the word "Jesus" is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Joshua." But this coincidence cannot of itself establish any con nection between these individuals. If other men did not bear the same name the case might be different, but the name is a very common one among the Jews. According to Weinel,1 it belongs to no less than twenty different persons in Josephus' narrative alone. Proof for the 1 1st das "liberate" Jesusbild widerlegt ? p. 92. 96 The Historicity of Jesus contention that Jesus is the perpetuation of a Joshua-deity needs a more substantial basis than the mere identity of names. As a further argument it is urged, by Drews for example, that Joshua was a cult-god, and that the points of resemblance between his career and the life of Jesus, portrayed in the gospels, estabhsh the identity of the two as originaUy a Jewish divinity. To Ulustrate, each name signifies "deliverer," "savior"; Joshua's mother (ac cording to an Arabic tradition!) was Miriam, and the mother of Jesus was Mary (Miriam); Joshua led Israel out of distress in the wUder- ness into the land of promise where mUk and honey flowed, that is, the land of the Milky Way and the moon, and Jesus also led his foUowers into the heavenly kingdom. AU this is in turn traceable to an ancient cult of the sun, the Greek legend of Jason forming the connecting link. Jason = Joshua = Jesus. Jesus with his twelve disciples passing through GalUee came to the Passover feast at Jerusalem, Joshua with his twelve helpers passed through the Jordan and offered the Paschal lamb on the other shore, Jason with his twelve companions went after the golden fleece of the lamb, and all originaUy was the myth of the sun's wandering An Estimate of the Negative Argument 97 through the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Thus Joshua- Jesus was an old Ephraimitish god of the sun and of fertility, worshiped among many Jewish sects as the hero-deliverer of ancient Israel and the future messianic savior. This is a bold reconstruction, but it is fatally weak at some essential points. When one asks for explicit evidence of a Joshua-cult among the Jews he finds no answer. Again, is there anywhere in Judaism a clear intimation that Joshua was the hero about whom messianic hopes centered? Here also evidence fails. And as for resemblances between the Jesus of the gospels and this aUeged cult-god, Joshua, they do not touch the main features in the career of either personage. Take even the notion of the death and resurrection of a savior- god, which is the item so much emphasized by the radicals, and there is no paraUel in this respect between Joshua and Jesus. In fact the only real link between them is the identity of name, a feature of no consequence as we have already observed, when one recaUs the fre quency of this name among the Jews. The most explicit statement that Jesus belongs to pre-Christian times is found in Epiphanius, and is corroborated by the Baby- 98 The Historicity of Jesus Ionian Talmud. Epiphanius, arguing that the high-priestly office in the church is in the line of direct succession from David,1 sees a prophetic significance in such scriptures as Ps. 132 :nf. and Gen. 49 : 10, which affirm that David's seed should continue to occupy his throne, and the scepter should not depart from Israel, until that final successor of David, in whom the people's hopes were to find consummation, should appear. On this basis Epiphanius inter prets history as foUows:2 The priesthood in the holy church is David's throne and kingly seat, for the Lord joined together and gave to his holy church both the kingly and the high-priestly dignity, transferring to it the never-failing [^ SiaXei- irovTa eis tov aiStva] throne of David. For David's throne endured in line of succession until the time of Christ himself, rulers from Judah not failing until he came "to whom the things kept in reserve belonged. And he was the expectation of the gentiles." With the advent of the Christ the rulers in line of succession from Judah, reigning until the time of the Christ himself, ceased. For the line fell away and stopped from the time when he was born in Bethlehem of Judea under Alexander, who was of priestly and royal race. From Alexander on this office ceased — from the days of Alexander and Salina, who is also 1 Cf. a similar interest in Justin, Dial., LII, 3. * Haer., XXIX, 3. Cf. LI, 22 ff. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 99 called Alexandra, to the days of Herod the king and Augustus the Roman emperor. After remarking upon the fact that Alexander was both king and high priest, Epiphanius continues : Then afterward a foreign king, Herod, and no longer those who were of the family of David, put on the crown; while in Christ the kingly seat passed over to the church, the kingly dignity being transferred from the fleshly house of Judah and Jerusalem; and the throne is set up in the holy church of God forever, having a double dignity because of both its kingly and its high-priestly character. In this argument Epiphanius' chief interest clearly is dogmatical rather than historical. Thinking, as he does, that Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B.C.) was the last of the Jewish kings to combine in one person the offices of both king and high priest, he is led by his Old Testa ment proof-texts to assume that Jesus was the immediate successor of Alexander. Then Jesus must have been born during Alexander's reign.1 This is the logic of dogma. But with magnifi cent inconsistency Epiphanius returns to his tory and speaks of a gap extending from the time of Alexander to the time of Herod. Why 1 Cf. the anachronism of Justin, Apol., 1, 31, making Herod and Ptolemy Philadelphus contemporary. ioo The Historicity of Jesus mention an interim whose ulterior limit is fixed by the names of Herod and Augustus? Doubtless because this limit marks the actual appearance of Jesus upon the scene, as Epipha nius is well aware. Indeed he is very emphatic in affirming that Jesus was born in the forty- second year of Augustus' reign.1 By forcing Epiphanius to read us a new lesson in history, when he is primarUy concerned to prove the kingly and high-priestly inheritance of the church in an unbroken succession from David, we do him a great injustice. We should remem ber that the major premise of his thinking is that no word of Scripture fails.2 It is not at aU improbable that he was weU aware of the contradiction involved in placing Christ's birth in the time of Alexander — his lan guage does not imply that he held any doc trine about the "hiding" of the Messiah — but he took refuge in the pious reflection that Scripture might be enigmatical but could not be erroneous.3 Yet his inconsistency ought not to cause serious trouble for moderns, who 1 Haer., LI, 22. Epiphanius apparently reckons the beginning of Augustus' reign from Julius Caesar's death in 44 B.C. 'oide/ila. yhp X^£is rijs aylas toO 0eov ypatpijs StairlirTei . 3 oi yhp SrffiapTt ti tG>v airb tjjs Ay las ypaipijs alvi.yiJ.dTwv. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 101 have discarded the ancient custom of using assumed Old Testament predictions as source materials for the writing of later history. Epiphanius clearly was trapped by the logic of his dogmatic into suggesting that Jesus was born under Alexander. The Babylonian Talmud twice narrates the story of a certain Jeshu who lived in the days of King Jannaeus, and who is said to have practiced magic, and corrupted and misled Israel.1 The Christian Jesus is evidently meant, since "Jeshu" is a common Talmudic desig nation for him. But the historical reliabUity of the story is very doubtful. It so happens that the older Palestinian Talmud contains a paraUel to this story,2 in which there is no men tion of "Jeshu." An undesignated disciple of Jehuda ben Tabai stands in his place. Evidently the Babylonian form of the story has been worked up in the interest of Jewish polemic against Christianity. And since most of the Talmudic references to Jesus seem to have been inspired by some item of Christian teaching, 1 Sanhedrin 107J and Sola 47a. For the full narrative see Strack, Jesus, die Hdretiker und die Christen nach den altesten jiidischen Angaben (Leipzig, 1910), pp. 10 f. 'Hag. 2, 2; cf. Strack, op. cil., pp. 9 f. 102 The Historicity of Jesus it is barely possible that just the sort of argu ment Epiphanius used to prove that the church was in the line- of direct succession from David, thus connecting Jesus with Alexander, is behind this simUar Talmudic tradition. Epiphanius makes two further statements which are sometimes thought to point to a pre- Christian Jesus. He says that there were Nazarees (or Nasarees)1 before Christ, and that PhUo once wrote a treatise describing the early Christian community in Egypt.2 If there was a weU established Christian church in Egypt in Philo's day, and if the Nazarees were in exist ence in pre-Christian times, are we not to infer that Christianity was known in the first century B.C. ? Epiphanius himself says that Christians were first known as Nazorees, so that the simUarity of names suggests a close relation for the two bodies. Moreover PhUo, who was a man of advanced age in 40 a.d. when he headed the Jewish embassy to Rome, can hardly 1 He uses the form Nafa/rafoi in Haer., XVIII, 1-3, and XIX, 5, but Nao-apaZbi in XXLX, 6. Cf. Schwen in Proteslantische Monatshefte, XIV (1910), 208-13 and Nestle in ibid., 349 f. On the genesis of Epiphanius' phraseology, cf. Schmidtke, Neue Fragmente und Unlersuchungen zu den Judenchrisllichen Evange- lien (Leipzig, 1911), pp. 90 ff.; cf. Bousset in Theologische Rundschau, XIV (1911), 373 ff. 2 Haer., XXIX, 5. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 103 have seen Christianity, on the traditional view of its origin, so firmly established in Egypt as is implied in the treatise to which Epiphanius refers. Hence we are to look for the beginnings of the new religion in the first century B.C., so the argument runs. On examining the data more closely it very soon becomes evident that Epiphanius has no thought of connecting Christianity with the Jewish Nazarite heresy. He places the latter's origin before the Christian era and classes it along with the Hemerobaptists, etc. On the other hand, he describes Christian heretics whom he designates Nazorees [Na^apaioi], distinguishing with perfect clearness between them and the Jewish non-Christian Nazarees. The difference is not merely one of name; they have very distinct characteristics. The Naza rees are distinguished for the unorthodoxy of their Jewish beliefs and practices; the Nazorees are pre-eminently rigid Jews who have added to their Judaism a smattering of Christian belief. Hence, they derive their name from Jesus the Nazorite, the name by which the Christians were caUed before they received the designation "Christians" at Antioch. Epipha nius' thought is often very hazy, but on this 104 The Historicity of Jesus subject he is perfectly clear. There was among the Jews even before the Christian era a heresy of the Nazarees; then came the Christian movement, which at first was known as the sect of the Nazorees and which finds its proper continuation, as Epiphanius takes great pains to prove, in the catholic church; and finaUy there was a third class who took upon them selves the primitive Christian name of Nazorees but who adhered so rigidly to Judaism that Epiphanius curtly remarks, "they are Jews and nothing else."1 Whether there ever was such an array of sects bearing a similar name — and Epiphanius adds yet another, the Nazirees, represented by Samson in the Old Testament and later by John the Baptist2 — may be questioned. Judg ing from the same writer's skUl in splitting the original Essenes up into Jessees, Ossenes, and Ossees, we may wonder whether he did not occasionaUy invent a name, in his ardor to defend Nicene orthodoxy against every "hydra- headed serpent of error" that could ever pos sibly have existed whether commonly known or not. But one thing at least is clear. His 1 Haer., XXIX, 7. 2 Ibid., XXIX, 5. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 105 statements about Nazarees, Nasarees, Nazorees, and Nazirees involve no ambiguity whatever as to the date of Christianity's origin. The traditional date is the only one suggested. Those who argue for a pre-Christian Jesus can find nothing for their purpose here except the bare mention of the early existence of a Jewish Nazarite heresy. To prove the reliabUity of this statement, and to show further that the sect was "Christian" in character, is another problem. Epiphanius suppUes no argument for this. He does not even so describe the Nazarees as to suggest characteristics which show them to have been precursors of the Christian movement. On the other hand, Epiphanius clearly states that there was in Egypt a Christian community about which PhUo wrote. If this is so, then in aU probabUity it existed before, or at least contemporaneously with, the Jesus of the gospels. Here it is a question of tracing and testing Epiphanius' sources of information. He was writing in the latter part of the fourth century, and we may suppose that he avaUed himself of the works of PhUo, Josephus, and Eusebius. He may indeed have had other sources of which we now have no knowledge, 106 The Historicity of Jesus but on the basis of these alone some of his riddles can be unraveled.1 PhUo, in his tractate Quod omnis probus liber, describes a sect of Jews caUed Essees [' Eo-o-cuoi] because of their saintly [00-109] character. These are readUy recognized as the Essenes ['Eo-cttjvoi] mentioned by Josephus.2 Their characteristics are too weU known to need further comment.3 In another treatise4 PhUo 1 The character of Epiphanius' sources of information and the historical value of his statements are puzzling problems which need reworking. Cf. the still valuable works of Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanius (Wien, 1865) and Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzer geschichte des Urchristentums (Leipzig, 1884). Tradition represents him to have been a man of great learning who had traveled much and read widely, yet it is evident that he was swayed by a tremendous zeal for orthodoxy. 2 Philo had no scruples in deriving the name of a Jewish sect from a Greek source. But the variation of spelling seems to point rather to an Aramaic original, 'pOn and fcCO!"!, which are plural forms from XDn. 3 See Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeilalter Jesu Chrisii (Leipzig, 19043, II, 561-80. English tr., History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, New York, 1891, Div. II, Vol. II, 188-218); also article "Essenes" in the Bible diction aries. 4 The authorship of De vita contemplativa, so long debated, seems finally to have been decided in Philo's favor. See F. C. Conybeare, Philo about the Contemplative Life (Oxford, 1895); Massebieau, "Le traite de la vie contemplative et la question des therapeutes," Revue de I'histoire des religions, XVI (1887), 170-98 and 284-319; Wendland, "Die Therapeuten" in Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie, XXII (Suppl.), 1896, 692-770. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 107 describes a sect somewhat akin to the Essenes, but less widely diffused among the Jews and more distinctly monastic in its type of life. Its prin cipal colony was on an eminence on the southern shore of Lake Mareotis near Alexandria. The members of the society caUed themselves Therapeutes [depairevTai,], either meaning "heal ers" of men's souls, or "servants" of God. In Eusebius' day, when the Christians had come to prize highly the monastic ideal, this early sect seemed to be the natural precursor of Egyptian encratic Christian orders of the late third century a.d. Accordingly it was assumed that at this early date Christianity had been planted in Egypt through the labors of John Mark. And to account for PhUo's friendliness toward the movement — for he wrote of the Therapeutes in terms of evident approval — it was suggested that at the time he conducted the embassy to Rome he had met and been favorably impressed by Peter.1 When these materials pass under the magic touch of Epiphanius, what is the result?. In the first place, the Essees (or Essenes) of PhUo and Josephus disappear. Epiphanius' Essenes, 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., II, 16 f. According to later tradition Philo became a convert under Peter's preaching (Photius, Cod, i°5)- 108 The Historicity of Jesus who later become Ossenes and stiU later Ossees, are one of four subdivisions of the Samaritans. It may seem very strange that he should leave a lacuna in his array of heretics by removing the Essenes from among the Jews. But does he leave any vacancy by this removal ? Has he not fiUed the gap with his pre-Christian Jewish heresy of the Nazarees, of which we have already spoken ? In describing them1 he made it one of their chief characteristics that they rejected the system of animal sacrifice connected with the Temple; and this was a notable tenet of the Essenes, as described by PhUo and Josephus. The name "Nazarees" may have been suggested by the Old Testament Nazirees, whom Epiphanius is so careful to distinguish from the Christian heresy of the Nazorees. Thus the Essenes, who straightway become Jessees, Ossenes, etc., are reserved for a yet more important service. We may pass by the Ossenes-Ossees (was the speUing suggested by PhUo's derivation of the name from ooxos ?) without further comment. Our interest is with the Jessees. Epiphanius adopts the Eusebian tradition that Christianity was planted in Egypt by 'Haer., XVIII, 1-3. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 109 Mark,1 and that PhUo's Therapeutes were the primitive Christians. But the title of PhUo's treatise was, according to Epiphanius, Con cerning Jessees [irepl 'IecrcraiW]. In the open ing paragraph of De vita contemplativa PhUo speaks of the Therapeutes in a way to indi cate that he regarded them as a type of Essees (Essenes). They were the Essees of the con templative Ufe in contrast with the Essees of the practical life. So it would not have been whoUy incongruous to refer to his tractate as Concerning Essees [rrepl 'EcrcraiW]. But whence came Concerning Jessees?2 Epiphanius intro duces the subject of the Jessees as a part of his argument for the continuation of the Davidic throne in the catholic church. Speak ing of the early foUowers of Jesus before they were first caUed Christians at Antioch, he says: They were called Jessees after Jesse, I think. Since David was descended from Jesse, and Mary was in the direct line of succession from the seed of David, the Divine Scriptures according to the Old Testament are fulfilled, the Lord having said to David, "of the fruit of thy loins I will place one upon thy throne." 1 Haer., XXIX, 5; LI, 6. 2 The regular title is Trepl fttov BewprirtKoO, or lairm f) irepl iperHv rb 8'. no The Historicity of Jesus After carrying through his argument along this line, Epiphanius comes back to the word "Jessees" and admits the opportunist character of his previous explanation. He stiU thinks it may have come from "Jesse," yet it may have come from "Jesus," "for Jesus in the Hebrew dialect signifies Therapeute [OepairevTij';], i.e., physician and savior."1 Why are we here intro duced to the Therapeutes ? Evidently because the objective basis of the author's thought in this connection is PhUo's Therapeutes, coupled with the Eusebian tradition that these were primitive Christians. Epiphanius wishes to find them a more appropriate name, and this he has done to his satisfaction in the word Jessees. It answers his purpose in several directions. He can check it off theologicaUy with Jesse, etymologicaUy (through Therapeutes) with Jesus, analogicaUy with Essees (the general class of which PhUo speaks), and historicaUy with Therapeutes (the specific term used by PhUo). Thus Epiphanius, as a witness for the pre- Christian date of Jesus and of Christianity, is a distinct faUure. We have dwelt thus at length upon this subject because his assertion 'See Haer., XXIX, 1,4. An Estimate of the Negative Argument in that Jesus was born in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, his mention of pre-Christian Naza rees, and his suggestion of a connection be tween "Jesus" and "Therapeutes" seem to us to represent the most substantial data which the radicals have to offer in support of their position. There are however a few other items of evidence which they regard as giving further positive substantiation to their hypothesis. Among the most explicit of these are two passages from a papyrus fragment containing formulas of exorcism. They run as follows:1 opKL^o) ere Kara tov papnapKovpiO • vacraa.pi • .... (1. 1549) and opKL^co ere Kara 0eov tcov EySjOataii' r^crovs" Ia/8a • Iaij • . . . . (11. 3019 f.). The significant word in the first formula is vaa-aapi, since it is thought to be a reference to the "Nazarite." But the import of the second passage is much more certain. Here Jesus is clearly mentioned: "I adjure thee by the god of the Hebrews, Jesus, Jaba, Jae, etc." If the formula is pre-Christian it would seem to be positive evidence for the 1 The fragment is at Paris in the Bibliotheque Nationale (No. 574, Supplement grec). It has been edited by Wessely, Denk- schriften der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien (1888, XXXVI, 27-208). 112 The Historicity of Jesus existence of an early Hebrew deity by the name of "Jesus" or even "Jesus the Nazarite." But the manuscript from which aU this is taken is conceded to belong between 300 and 400 a.d. This fact of itself puts the document out of court as first-hand testimony for customs in the first century B.C., especiaUy when we recall how easUy magical formulas gathered to themselves aU sorts of accretions quite regard less of rhyme or reason. The word "Jesus" is here evidently a pagan supplement made by a copyist who did not distinguish between Jews and Christians.1 Another piece of aUeged evidence for a pre- Christian Jesus is taken from Hippolytus. This church father, who it wUl be recaUed wrote in the early third century a.d., cites a hymn used by the gnostic sect of the Naassenes in which Jesus' name occurs. He is represented as 1 Cf. Deissmann, Licht vom Oslen (Tubingen, 19082), p. 186, u. 14. The heathen scribe may have been betrayed into the error of calling Jesus "God of the Hebrews" by the custom among Jewish magicians in the Diaspora of employing names borrowed from various sources. And that there was, indeed, some disposition among Jews in the rabbinical period to use the name of the Christian Jesus in magic, is seen in Jacob of Kephar Sama's proposal to heal R. Eleazar of snake bite "in the name of Joshua ben Pandera." Against objections raised by R. Ishmael, R. Eleazar contended that the act could be justified, but he died before the proof was completed. (Tosephta, Hullin, n: 21-23). An Estimate of the Negative Argument 113 asking the Father's permission to visit the earth in order to teach men the secrets of "gnosis" and thus to relieve their distressed condition.1 Both Smith and Drews use this in support of their position, but without making any serious attempt to prove that the passage originated before the Christian era. Smith excuses himself from discussing the date, while Drews says "to aU appearances pre-Christian," and cites a Babylonian paraUel to the hymn, which, however, may only signify that Baby lonian and Christian materials were used in its composition. When we turn to Hippolytus' own testimony we find no hint that the Chris tian elements in the Naassene system are "pre-Christian." In fact he explicitly affirms that the heretics themselves cited "James the brother of the Lord" as the source of their teaching.2 Whatever the antiquity of the sect itself may be, as described by Hippolytus it is a heretical Christian sect, and the supposi tion that the reference to Jesus is a pre-Christian feature lacks support. Two other points emphasized by W. B. Smith as having special evidential value are the 1 Hippolytus, Refutation, v, 5. 2 Ibid., v, 2. 1 14 The Historicity of Jesus statement in Acts 18:25 that ApoUos was preaching "the things concerning Jesus" whUe he as yet knew only the baptism of John, and the use of "Nazarite" as an appellation for Jesus. From the former it is inferred that a "doctrine" concerning Jesus, sufficiently de finite and vital to form the background of a vigorous propaganda, existed in pre-Christian times. But this can be maintained only by a very liberal reading between the lines in the narrative of Acts. The natural meaning of the passage is quite different. The writer of Acts, perhaps more from necessity than from choice, has left us in the dark regarding many phases of early Christianity. One of these obscure items is the early practice of baptism. Even Paul has very little to say upon this subject, yet he seems to have regarded the ordinance as typifying, if not effecting in some magical way, the believer's entrance "into Christ." Con sequently it was naturaUy attended by the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.1 Another idea early connected with the ordinance is the notion of repentance. WhUe both repentance and the giving of the Spirit are connected with the rite in Acts, chap. 2, it is not improbable that 'Cf. I Cor. 12:13. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 115 repentance baptism, such as John the Baptist and his foUowers preached, was the notion adopted by the first Christians. The "mysti cal union" interpretation, accompanied by the doctrine of endowment by the Holy Spirit, may have been a Pauline contribution to the history of dogma. On this understanding of the situa tion aU becomes clear in Acts 18:255. Apollos had been first introduced to Christianity by non-PauUne Christians. Later he was "Pauli- nized" — not christianized — by PriscUla and AquUa. Smith's second point rests upon an argument from sUence. No mention of the viUage of Nazareth, either before or in the early part of the Christian era, has been found anywhere except in Christian writings. Hence it is con cluded that this place-name has been derived simply from the phrase "Jesus the Nazarite." Jesus was not, as is commonly supposed, called the "Nazarite" because his home was in Naza reth; an imaginary Nazareth was created be cause Jesus was caUed the "Nazarite." The real genesis of the title must therefore be sought in the Hebrew root N-S-R, meaning to watch, protect, etc. The Nazarite then is a primitive cult-god worshiped as the watcher, protector, 116 The Historicity of Jesus savior. It wUl be observed that this reversal of the ordinary interpretation of the data rests on the assumption that the village of Nazareth never existed,1 a conclusion which in turn is derived solely from the sUence of non-Christian writers. But this sUence about a smaU GalUean town can hardly be so very significant. Recal ling the apologetic difficulties caused by the statement that Jesus' home was Nazareth, when christological speculation felt compeUed to connect him with David's city, Bethlehem, it seems quite unlikely that Christians would have invented, or at least have faUed to chaUenge, so unprofitable a fiction. A few simUar "proofs," as presented by Drews, may be noted in passing. Evidence for a long history of the name Jesus is seen in the magical power attached to the name already " at the beginning of the Christian propaganda," " an entirely inconceivable fact if its bearer had been a mere man." But the ancients who used magic were not given to critical skepticism in such matters. It would be quite sufficient for them to know that Jesus' foUowers beheved him now to occupy a place of authority in the 1 Cf. the view of Cheyne (Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. "Naza reth ") and of Mead, that Nazareth = Galilee, a theory which does not serve Smith's purpose. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 117 divine realm. Moreover the date and extent of the magical use of Jesus' name is a more doubtful problem than is here assumed to be the case.1 Another point is made of the type of Christology in the Book of Revelation and in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The "Jesus" in these books is thought to have "nothing in common with the Christian Jesus" and to be "in aU probabUity " taken over from a pre-Christian cult. But we have previously been told that the Christian Jesus also came from this source. Then why the variation in type? Not only does the assertion that they have nothing in common seem iU-advised, but the differences may easUy be accounted for by conditions within the history of Christianity. The above arguments may be designated "direct" evidence for the existence of Jesus as a pre-Christian cult-god. The effort to find a place for him among the Jews results in a few more arguments of a supplementary character. It is urged that the idea of a suffering Messiah 1 Paul gives a hint of this practice in his day (Phil. 2 :g f.), and Acts, chap. 3, shows the early believers defending their right so to use Jesus' name. But how extensively this was done at an early date is not known. It was natural enough for the custom to arise, in view of contemporary ideas regarding the magical significance of a name. Cf. Heitmiiller, "Im Namen Jesu" (Gottingen, 1903, pp. 132-222). 118 The Historicity of Jesus is not distinctively Christian but was earlier a Jewish doctrine, having been taken over from the heathen notion of a suffering, dying, and rising god. To be sure, nature myths personi fying the death of winter and the revival to new life in the spring are common in the heathen mythologies of Asia Minor. Acquaintance with these on the part of the Jews is possible and even probable, but evidence that these notions formed an important part in the construction of their messianic hope is scanty. Certainly a mere collection of isolated points suggesting simUarities of ideas is not sufficient proof of borrowing, particularly when the Jewish litera ture shows so little to confirm the supposition. Isaiah, chap. 53, is sometimes cited in this con nection. But granting that its thought may be of heathen origin and its significance mes sianic1 — both doubtful points — it is still true that official Judaism did not interpret the suffering servant of Isaiah messianicaUy; nor did early Christianity, which ex hypothesi represents the unofficial side of Jewish thought, make extensive use of the passage. Paul, whom Drews wiU concede to be a historical 1 So Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jiidischen Eschalologie (Gottingen, 1906), pp. 302-33. An Estimate of the Negative Argument 119 personahty of primal importance for the new movement, employs the idea of the offered victim in the Jewish sacrificial system rather than that of the "suffering servant." The gospels show that Jesus' personal a'ssociates were utterly unprepared for his death, and Paul says that the early Christian preaching about a dying Messiah was a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks. This is a very strange situation if the notion was originaUy heathen and had been early adopted by Juda ism. The primitive Christians had too much difficulty in defending their belief in a suffering Messiah to allow us to suppose that they found the idea current in Judaism, or even that the heathen notion of a dying and rising divinity was recognized as having any essential simUarity with their preaching about "Jesus Christ and him crucified." The attempt to locate a pre-Christian Jesus in orthodox Judaism is implicitly admitted by the radicals to be hopeless. Hence they resort to the hypothesis of secret sects whose worship, ritual, and dogma centered about this Jesus-god of the cult. That there were divers sects within Judaism in pre-Christian times is a fairly weU established fact. PhUo, Josephus, the New 120 The Historicity of J esus Testament, the early Fathers, and the Talmud, all support, more or less strongly, this opinion. We hear of Samaritans, Pharisees, Herodians, Essenes, Therapeutes, to say nothmg of groups of followers coUected from time to time by messianic pretenders, and the possible pre- Christian origin of various heresies mentioned at a later date in the Patristic literature and the Talmud. From the time of Antiochus Epiphanes down to about the close of the first century a.d., the Jews were passing through turbulent experiences, when factions within and forces from without were strongly affecting their life and thought. It is not at aU impos sible that by the end of the first century a.d. there may have been in circulation a body of literature roughly answering to the seventy books of II Esd. 14:46. But what value have these facts for the idea of a pre-Christian Jesus? Is he mentioned anywhere in connection with these sects, or in any of the non-canonical Jewish writings that have come to us from this period? He cer tainly is not. In what we know of the tenets and practices of these sects is there anything to indicate his existence? Here, too, specific evidence for an affirmative answer faUs. It is An Estimate of the Negative Argument 121 true that our knowledge of these movements is relatively meager and mostly secondary. Yet such descriptions as are given by Philo and Josephus are usually thought to be reliable, and nothing appears here to indicate that the worship of a special cult-god characterized any of the sects or parties then known. A recently discovered document published by Schechter is of great importance.1 It gives us new in formation about one of these obscure Jewish movements, but there is not the slightest intimation that these sectaries worshiped a special cult-god. They looked back with rever ence to a "teacher of righteousness" who was the founder of their society, and awaited the time when "the teacher of righteousness shaU arise in the last days" and "the anointed shall arise from Israel and Aaron." Whether the teacher yet to appear was the same who had died is disputed,2 but at any rate this individual 1 Documents of Jewish Sectaries, I, Fragments of a Zadokite Work. Edited with Translation, Introduction, and Notes by Schechter (Cambridge University Press, 1910). 2 The editor of the document thinks a resurrection is implied; G. F. Moore is of the contrary opinion ("The Covenanters of Damascus; a Hitherto Unknown Jewish Sect" in the Harvard Theological Review, IV [1911], 330-77). Cf. Kohler, "Dositheus, the Samaritan Heresiarch, etc.," in the American Journal of Theology, XV (1911), 404-35, who sees here an example of the Samaritan doctrine of the Messiah's disappearing and reappearing at will. 122 The Historicity of Jesus is no dying and rising Adonis-like savior-deity. Jehovah the God of Israel is the sole object of worship. So in general the thought-content of Jewish parties or heresies, as far as known at present, did not concern itself with the worship of any special deities, but with the best means of rendering acceptable service to the common god of their fathers. Thus the sectaries were often rigid separatists, but they were not worshipers of other deities. The extremes to which the radicals are driven in their endeavor to make room for the pre- Christian Jesus of their hypothesis is illustrated in Drews's assertions regarding secret cults in Judaism. He says that not only have the world- views of Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks influenced Judaism polytheistically, but from the beginning, side by side with the priestly and officiaUy accentuated view of the One God, went a faith in other gods, a faith which not only received constantly new nour ishment from foreign influences but, above aU, which seemed to be fostered in the secret sects. This seems to be a very injudicious statement of the situation. That the main line of Judaism contained syncretistic elements is now generaUy recognized, and the early and continued activity An Estimate of the Negative Argument 123 of separatist parties of various types cannot be disputed, but the perpetual and widespread existence of secret polytheistic cults among the Jews is not supported by any substantial evidence. Jesus' name can be connected with these sects, which are aUeged to have worshiped him as a cult-god, only by a precarious process of ety mologizing, a method by which one may usuaUy argue much and prove nothing. Already we have noted the futUity of the argument based on the equation, Joshua = Jesus. As a sample of the way he is discovered to have been the special object of reverence among the Essenes and Therapeutes, we are reminded that PhUo indicates a kinship between the Essenes, whose name means "pious," "God-fearing," and the Therapeutes, meaning "physicians." Also "Jesus" signifies in Hebrew "helper," "de liverer." Then the argument proceeds: "The Therapeutes and Essenes looked upon them selves as physicians" — did the Essenes? — "especiaUy as physicians of souls, accordingly it is not at aU improbable that they worshiped their cult-god under this name," that is, the name Jesus. Can an argument of this sort establish even a shadow of likelihood, not to 124 The Historicity of Jesus mention probabUities ? We are also told that the pre-Christian Nazarees mentioned by Epiphanius wUl unquestionably have worshiped the "Nazarite" whose attributes as protector, savior (Jesus), have already been derived from the Hebrew root N-S-R. In addition to this point of Smith's, Drews notes that the Hebrew word netzer, the "shoot out of Jesse" mentioned in Isaiah, is the symbol of the "Redeemer" in his character of a deity of vegetation and life, "an idea which also may have made itself felt in the name of the Nazarees." The futility of arguments of this sort is self-evident, even without noting their occasional absurdity from a purely linguistic point of view.1 When the doctrine of a pre-Christian Jesus is apphed more specificaUy to the origin of Chris tianity, the inadequacy of the hypothesis be comes stUl more evident. As a concrete instance, we may take Drews's application of 1 We can imagine that the Zadokite sectaries, to use Schechter's designation, by the application of a similar argument may also be made worshipers of the pre-Christian Jesus. For do we not find in their writings the statement that God "made bud for Israel and Aaron a root of a plant to inherit his lands" ? To be sure, the Hebrew for root is shoresh, but the thought is very similar to Isa. 60: 21, where netzer occurs. So we have the pro gression shoresh, netzer, "Nazarite," the cult-god Jesus. Ridicu lous indeed, but hardly impossible, we should think, for one suffering from chronic "etymologitis.'' An Estimate of the Negative Argument 125 the theory to explain the Christianity of Paul. In Tarsus, where heathen religious notions flourished, Paul had heard of a Jewish sect-god, Jesus. Paul's sympathies, however, were with official Judaism, and he studied to become a teacher of the law. The gospel of "Jesus," which was originaUy "nothing other than a Judaized and spiritualized Adonis-cult," was first preached by men of Cyprus and Cyrene, and Paul opposed this preaching because the law pronounced a curse upon everyone who hung upon a tree. Then suddenly there came over him a great enlightenment. The dying Adonis became a self-sacrificing god, surrender ing his Ufe for the world. This was "the moment of Christianity's birth as a religion of Paul." This attempted derivation of Pauline Chris tianity from the cult of Adonis faUs not only because it is too highly fanciful, but because of its serious omissions. On the one hand, im portant features in Adonis' career find no place in Paul's picture of Jesus — for example, the youthful god slain by the wUd boar, and the mourning of his goddess sweetheart. But more significant is the faUure of the Adonis legend to suggest some of the most specific and 126 The Historicity of Jesus important items in Paul's thought of Jesus, such as his human ancestry and famUy connections,1 his association with disciples,2 his righteous life3 lived in worldly poverty,4 his self-sacrificing service,5 his heavenly exaltation as a reward for obedience,6 the circumstances of his death,7 the awakening of faith through his appearances,8 and finally the stress Paul puts on the Messiah's future coming, and his present significance for the spiritual life of believers. It is also doubtful whether the idea of a suffering deity is so geneticaUy vital to Paul's thought as Drews assumes. Is it the God-man Jesus or the Man-god Jesus that stands as the corner-stone of the Pauline gospel ? We must not forget that for Paul there is but one supreme deity, the activity of whose wiU is manifest in aU things. Although Jesus was a pre-existent being who voluntarUy surrendered his heavenly position, stiU it is God who sent him to earth, God raised him from the dead and 'Rom. 1:3; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. r:i9; 4:4. 2I Cor. 15:5; Gal. i:i7f., etc. 3 Rom. 5:i8f.; II Cor. 5:21.