The Jesus of history and the Jesus of tradition identified

Preface

The present age is remarkable for the rise and development of an extraordinary interest in the history of Jesus of Nazareth. The enthusiasm witli which this subject is investigated has infected the scientific mind universally, and the questions raised have agitated the thoughts and disturbed the dreams of people of nearly every rank and class over the Christian world.

At the head of those who have contributed to awaken and keep alive this interest stand the names of Strauss and Renan ; and to this subject these authors, aided by philosophy, have applied, the one the utmost keenness of criticism, and the other the utmost iugenuity of constructive art. Nevertheless, though both are men of much thoughtful originality, and possessed of that width of vision and range of culture which are due to intense study and profound scholarship, and while the writings of the one are marked by strength vi Preface.

and subtilty of dialectic, and those of tlie other by poetic, almost dramatic, sensibility and power, there is in both a deficiency, if not a total want, of that practical sagacity which is an essential reqnisite to any trustworthy criticism of matters of fact, such as offer themselves to scientific reo-ard in the debated narratives.

The hypothesis of Strauss, as is known, is that Jesus is the impersonation of an ideal of purely mythic derivation, so that, having existed in idea, he was afterwards conceived to have had a corresponding existence in fact ; in which view he is partly supported and partly contradicted by the Church theology, for while this asserts in confirmation that "'Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world," it also asserts in opposition that he was slain again in the flesh when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea ; that, in other words, the ideal became real. But this theory is unsatisfactory, because it is not historically grounded, and because no authentic historical explanation is supplied to account for the rise and spread of the fervid traditional belief,

Kenan's theory, as given in his romantic Vie de Jesus, is as fanciful in conception as that of Strauss, and is formed in equal disregard of historical accuracy. His chief interest is in the beauty and sublimity of

Preface, vii

tlie moral teachings of Jesus, as these are reported by the four Evangelists, and he refers all in the subject jof the story to a central self-consciousness in him, which, he maintains, because it is absolutely human, boldly asserts itself to be equally divine; but he leaves unanalysed certain anomalies of character inconsistent therewith, which contrast darkly with his idyllic picture and detract seriously from its dramatic truth.

Both these theories rather reflect the philosophical opinions of their respective authors than any sound criticism of history, the one being conceived in the spirit of the abstract speculation of Germany, and the other after the romantico-poetic sentimentalism of -France, but neither representing or affecting to any material extent the public mind or its movements.

In England these theories have been received with very partial favour, and are not likely to be adopted into the national creed. The English people are intensely conservative, and are prone to look askance on any departure from ancestral belief. For theories of all kinds they have but a cold affection, and will not be persuaded to adopt anything novel, unless it can convincingly show itself to be grounded ou the secure basis of fact. It is their respect for this latter quality, or that virtue in things which has viii Preface.

power to actualise itself, that lias encouraged the author to venture on the present undertaking, and to attempt the proof that the story of the traditional Jesus is a development from a historical root.

Hitherto the traditional accounts have only been explicated in a speculative interest; in these pages the first attempt is made to introduce the Christian world to Jesus as known to history before his figure was distorted by popular belief. It is in no spirit of arrogance this task is undertaken, but rather of unfeigned surprise that the proof the author has to offer, though within the reach of every one, is only now for the first time submitted to the light. That proof he commends to the candid consideration of the reader, concerned only that the novelty of his premises may not prejudice their reliability, and that his arguments may secure an impartial verdict from an intelligent public.

Kingston, Jamaica, 1880.

Chapter I

The present attempt, its boldness cand seeming arrogance. — Autlior's justification and expectation. — Aim of the work. — Tlie accounts of tlie Messianic age, tlie traditional and the contemporary. — The business of the liistorian. — Flavius Josephus, his reputation and historical accuracy, his qualifications and title to regard. — His father a contem])orary of the traditional Christ, therefore an authority in regard to the events of the time. — Josephus's own account of himself in his youth. — At school under Ban us. — He attaches himself to the Pharisees. — His religiousness and disposition to asceticism. — Interested in the religious sects of his time, he yet ignores Christianity. — His account of these sects : the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and that of Judas of Galilee. — Christianity more or less anticipated by all of these, and specially by one. — Two historical facta established : the existence at the time of only four sects, and the current acceptance of the doctrine of immortality and future retribution.— The sect of Judas and its possible identification with that of Jesus.— The Christian^ sect not then existent.— Its rise afterwards under traditional reports, 1-17

ICHAPTER II.

The so-called apostolical accounts necessarily uncertain. — The most reliable source of information, the trustworthy evidence of a contemporary.— The silence of Josephus inconceivable on the received hypothesis. — Contemporary criticism of the documents, and of the relative veracity and unveracity of their authors. — An objection removed. — The relative credibility of the authorities obvious. — Deference due to the most authentic accounts. — The relation of Josephus and the Evangelical writers to the old biblical accounts. — The dogmatic of the Evangelical writers irrational and unbiblical ; their doctrine of the Trinity absurd in itself and dishonouring to God. — No compromise possible between the accounts of the Evangelists and those of Josephus, . 18-26

Contents.

Chapter III. Pac

SUMMARY contrast between Joseplius and tlie Apostolical writers. — Tlie imtrustwortliiness of the Evangelical writers certified by their interualandmutnal inconsistencies. — Their historical inaccuracy not surprising. — Josephus's opportunities of obtaining information. — His virtual denial of the existence of the Christian sect. — The Evangelical accounts not altogether fabulous. — St. Luke's assertion of their historical truth, and reference to eye-witnesses. — The respective designs of St. Luke and Joseplius different. — Agreement, in spite of discrepancies, between the adverse accounts. — Joseplius' account of the false prophet slain by Pilate, and Pilate's recall, in which he partly agrees with, and partly differs .from, the Evangelical accounts. — Improbabilily of Josephus omitting all mention of another prophet slain by Pilate, if such e.visted. — The significance of this silence. — Tlie chronology of the Evangelical accounts necessarily at fault. — Ditlicultj^ in these accounts in the matter of Herod and John tlie Baptist. — Josephus quoted in regard to Herod's incestuous connection with his brother's wife. — Important chronological inferences.- — Remarkable coincidences between the contemporary and traditional accounts. — Why the attempt to eliminate the historical element from the merely traditional has never yet been essaj-ed. — This the first attempt. — The idea of drawing a historical parallel strangely new. — The materials within the reach of every one. — A. summary of the more obvious parallels. — The author only breaks ground, does not attempt an extended analysis. — Analogy between the accounts given of Banus and that of John the Baptist referred to. — The difficulty of identifying these two removed. — Tiie two quantities to be eliminated to secure a literal agreement between the opposing accounts. — Evidence in the Gospels that they were written after the destruction of Jerusalem. — Manifest delusion on the day of Pentecost in respect to the advent' of • the last days. — Modern parallel enthusiasms and their confessed deceptiveness. — The temper of the day more tolerant of ancient than of modern pretensions, , . 27-^

Chapter IV

Thio author's controversy with hallucination only. — His thesis re-stated. — Two accounts compared in proof. — St. Matthew's and St. Luke's on the birth of Christ. — St. Matthew's account unsupported by even the other Gospels. — Its sum. • — Prophecies said by St. Matthew to be fulfilled, which were not. — His account of Christ's genealogy as absurd as his account of his birth is fabulous. — St. Luke's version subversive of St, Matthew's, and more probably correct, as

: •'; regards .date anyhow. — Josephus quoted in confirmation. —

Contents. xi

His explanation of the appointment of Cyrenius, and las account of the revolt of Judas and Sadduc. — The rise of the sect of Judas coincident with birth of Christ according to St. Luke. — Inference regarding the age of Christ at the time of Pilate's procuratorship. — Christianity an offshoot of the sect of Judas. — The historical importance of this latter sect. — Its justification in its determined antagonism to the ethnic element, ^hich would merge the divine in the human, and subject God to Ca3sar. — Fierce liatred to the domination of Rome as represented in the unjust rule of the procurator. — Josejjhus's account of the Sicarii and the deceptions of the false prophets.— Rise of the enthusiasm for the kingdom of God, 49-^4

Chapter V

The Gospel narratives first told by Greeks in Greek. — The writings of Josephus accessible only to them. — The Gospels referable partly to his narrative and mainly to traditional report, conceived under the inspiration of a false philosophy in conflict with the Bible. — Account of the Jewish fanaticism in which the Christian religion took its rise. — Tlie religion of Judas of Galilee professedly grounded in the theocratic idea of Moses. — Its combination with an enthusiasm for liberty and the Messianic idea. — The Jews goaded into fanaticism by the tyranny of their Roman rulers. — Pilate's tyraTiny. — The false prophet slain by him confounded Avith the founder of Christianity. — The teaching of Judas and that ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel opposed. — Their idea of Messiah and his claims different. — The Greek writers and Paul accountable for the invention of the God-man dogma. — Josephus's account unaccountably different. — Which to trust. — The issue a historical one. — An inconceivable hypothesis. — The Greek writers sacrificed truth to sentiment, 65-76

Chapter VI

Josephus ignored by the Greek writers. — Their method of composition by vicarious statement. — The main plot not of their invention, only the details. — They and Josephus write from different standpoints and for different ends. — The burden of the Greek evangel. — Its doctrine of the Godmanhood stated and viewed as glorifying to the Jewish race, and especially the dynasty of David. — Transfer of David's throne to heaven, and the idea of the establishment thereof a new Jerusalem, 11-^1)

Chapter VII

The power of accepted beliefs. — The present spiiit of inquiry and the Church's claim. — The irrational quality, of Christian xii Contents, dogmatic. — The son of God begotten in eternity and begotten in time. — Conceived and not conceived. — The Logos in relation to him. — His three paternities.- — His infancy in rehxtion to his divinity. — His conception. — His humanity only moi'tal.— His divinity in the tomb. — The uncertain relation of the divinity to the lumianity. — The cry on the cross. — His relation to the Holy Ghost. — The doctrine of the divine sonship an essential one iu the Christian system. — The Church's laith in mystery and fear of heresy, . . 84-96

CHAPTER Vni.

The Apostles. — James, the Lord's brother. — The relationship indicated not spiritual, but literal. — Discrepancy between John and Paul as to Cephas. — Cephas and Peter, according to Paul, two separate personages. — A perfect network of inconsistencies. — The question of the subsequent chapters, how the name Jesus was substituted for Judas. — The criticism of the Gospels still very imperfect. — The leading points sought to be established, 97-104

Chapter IX

The Messianic age. — The historian of it. — Its leading idea, — Its commencement with Judas of Galilee. — The fanaticism it led to. — Theudas, but no Jesus. — Impostors under Felix, but no word of Jesus. — The fanaticism leads to violence, all which is on record, and yet no mention of Jesus. — Another impostor under Festus. — A Jesus comes to light at last, preceded by Banus. — Banus probably the original John. — Chronological data. — No Jesus till the reign of Nero. — The sect of Judas, its spirit and aims. — The interest and jealousy with which the Romans regarded the movement. — The enthusiasm exclusively connected with the hope of a Messiah, a hope confined to the Jews, and which died out only with the destruction of the city. — The Jews faithful unto death, 105-115

Chapter X

The procurators hips of Albinus and Gessius Floras. — The liistorical Jesus appears. — Josephus's account of him. — His character and fateful cry. — Meekness uiuler suffering. — Disappearance and imagined resurrection. — His end, and presentiment thereof. — The enthusiasm he awakened. — His fame. — Prodigies. — Their parallels in the Gospels. — None such in Pontius Pilate period.- — The day of Pentecost. — The traditional reports thus historically grounded. — Parallels.— The charge of insanity preferred against the Jesus of the Gospels. — The mother and the son. — An impossible conception. — The Jesus of Josephus the same as that of the Go-spels, 1 16-132

Contents. xiii

Chapter XI. Page

The fatal obstinacy of the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem. — Clemency of Titus. — The literal fulfilment of the prophecy of the historical Jesus. — Its fulfilment due to an unseen agency. — The expectation of the Jews, though erroneous and disastrous, not idolatrous. — The Jews answerable for the idolatry of Christendom. — Their sufferings in consequence.— The Christian Messianic period a huge delusion, with its doctrine of the last days. — The Evangelists in a dilemma in asserting the coincidence of the advent of the Messiah and the latter days.- — A leconciliation between Jew and Christian proposed. — -The infatuation of the Jews due to the teaching of false prophets, which the historical Jesus denounced. — Jewish antagonism to Christianity due to the exaggerated distortions of tradition. — -The Jesus of tradition not the Pontius Pilate deceiver. — The Evangelists wrong in theii- chronology, not Josephus, 133-143

Chapter XII

The Jesus of the Gospels a dual character. — This duality due to a mingling of two personalities. — The main chronological errors in the traditional accounts e.xplained. — The connection supplied by Jose^^hus. — The Pontius Pilate 2>retendev must be set aside as prototype of the traditional Jesus. —The promise of Jesus about his return. — The truth not acknowledged in regard to this, out of respect to expediency.— An apology for the Evangelists. — How the conception of the traditional Jesiis developed, beginning with the memory of the martyr of Jerusalem. — Inconsistencies in the portraiture to be exjjected. — Surprising that a story with so many of these should be accepted.— The two natures present in the ti'aditional Jesus shown in his contradictory teachings. — The character presented not consistently meek and merciful. — An impossible one, clearly referable to two, .... ... 144-157

Chapter XIII

Arch^logy a vain refuge. — Fanatical enthusiasms, ancient and modern. — Ancient fortified by penaltie-*. — The bonds relaxing.— The destiny of Christianity in the hands of the English. — The missing-link. — The other Jesus. — Zealous for the law of Moses. — Described by Josephus. — Parallels between him and the traditional one. — His coadjutors and following. — Traces of him in tlie Gospels. — The source of incongruities in the portraiture of the Jesus as given there, and the malefactor described in them. — Master-error of the traditional narratives, 158-179 xiv Contents.

Chapter XIV. Page

JosEPHUs and tlie Galilean Jesus.^The latter a disciple of Judas, whom, in liis zeal, he supersedes. — Josephus a sure authority. — His opportunities of knowledj^e. — Says nothing of Jesus of the Gospels. — His account of his own historical labours. — The false chronology of the Gospels not due to him. — The simplicity of the Evangelists. — Unfair treatment of Josephus's testimony. — A parallel drawn between the Evangelical account and an imagined post-historical account of Napoleon. — The character of Jesus self-contradictory, 180-189

Chapter XV

The divine element overpowering. — Subtleties' and subterfuges resorted to in vindi(;ation. — Truth here sacrificed to sympathy.— That found in Josephus. — The Evangelists imaginativeauthors. — Josephus not to beexplained away or spiiitualised.— The Herods, grandfather and grandson, confounded. — Original facts. — John the same as Banus. — The Gospels jprlma facie historical. — The Christian dogmatic and morality not self-derived. — Its plagiarisms. — Parseeism, Hinduism, Judaism appropriated by it. — European constitutionalism enslaved to it. — Bethune English quoted from. — The prophecy about the Virgin misinterpreted. — The Christian dogmatic heterogeneous, and a source of discord, . 190-208

Chapter XVI

The meek elements and the severe in the traditional Jesus from two difterent historical roots. — Traces of this. — The meek Jesus the vital germ of tradition. — Too sacred to be criticised. — Presence of a baser element affirmed. — Instances. — The inconsistencies recognised before, but not rightly explained. — The Christian theory of the two natures only speculatively based. — The Messiah to be an earthly king, not a God. — Unscrupulous perversions of prophecy. ^ — Pious frauds denounced as immoral. — The philosophy so supported baseless. — The doctrine of God. — Doctrines, separately false, true when blended into on&. — The theology of the Bible opposed ; its laws annulled. — Rival Gods. — Jesus represented as both God and less than God. — Christian ethics. — Divinity disclaimed by Jesus. — Sophistry of Canon Liddon. — The divine humbled and the human not exalted. — Judaism spiritually superior to Christianity. — Christianity without scientific frontier. — Developed anomalously. — Not heard of at the time it arose, only long after. — Began in Jewish memories of the meek Jesus, and the signs connected with liis appearance. — Evidence that it dates from him ; and had no existence before the fall of Jerusalen. — The one speck of error. — Coincidences proving that the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesuses of Josephus are the same, . . 209-235

Contents. xv

Chapter XVII. Page

The Jews responsible for the fall of tlie Holy City. — Driven desperate by the false expectation of a Messiah. — Jewish economy supposed to be at an end. — Men's thoughts turned to him who predicted the downfall. — The allegation of an earlier Jesus a sheer anachronism.— J osephus's silence. — The Christian writings not known in his time, or marked private and confidential. — Josophus denies the existence of any sect answering to the Christian. — The mention of the Jesus of tlie Gospels ascribed to him proved to be an interpolation.— Gibbon adduced in confirmation. — Paul's Epistles written after the fall of Jerusalem, .... 236-253

Chapter XVIII

A REMARKABLE Coincidence. — The Pontius Pilate pretender not the Jesus of tradition. — The Messianic enthusiasm hails from Galilee. — Quotation from Gibbon. — Character and principles of the traditional Jesus opposed to those of the meek Jesus. — Evidence of the twofold character. — Contradictory features. — The character not objected to, because deemed divine. — The anointing of Jesus. — Two inconceivabilities.— The record of St. John. — His doctrine of the Logos unphilosophical. — His picture of the New Jerusalem drawn from Josephus's description of the old. — His spiritual Jerusalem of the earth, earthy. — Leaves us in the dark about what concerns us more. — Blunders in earthly matters, yet demands absolute faith in his statements. — His ideas about the employment of the saints in heaven. — Our conclusions confirmed by him. — The historical Jesus. — ■ The failure of the attempt to humanise divinity and deify humanity. — Aiithor's review of his work. — Final remarks, 254-282

AND

TRADITION IDENTIFIED.

Chapter I

The question, its difficulties and tJie dociwients^/osephus, his con- 7iections a7id qualifications — His account of the Jewish sects.

It is a bold, and not a pleasant or gracious, task to assail and try to undermine old beliefs, and essay to refute what the world has for centuries received as sacred historic truth. Such an attempt will needs be stigmatised by most as both an arrogant and an offensive one. When we take into account the character, learning, and ingenuity of those who have made this subject their earnest study, and whose conclusions thereon have been subjected to the sharpest critical tests, such an undertaking might well seem censurable, unless it shall appear, as we trust it will, that we are forced into the arena in the simple interest of truth.

The general public, moreover, is always reluctant to listen to an obscure writer, and tolerate from him opinions contradictory to those which it has received under the sanction of venerated names in wliicli it Las placed implicit trust ; and this not only renders the task we have undertaken doubly arduous, but is apt to impart to our enterprise from the outset a certain sense of mistrust. There is, however, to balance this, the I'eassuring persuasion that comes from deejD conviction, such as gives strength to the weakest and courage to the most faint-hearted. This beino; the feelinsf which inspires us, we have made up our mind at all hazards to venture on the strife, and we throw down the gauntlet to whosoever may accept its gage, with the assurance that, however much our arguments may be underrated, our honesty of purpose will obtain respect, and that a time is coming when, if not in all particulars, then in the main, the view we plead for will secure assent. Nor will the argument rest in the state in which we leave it; abler minds, it is hoped, will take up the ground we advocate, and array before the world in a more complete and conclusive form the evidence that may be adduced.

It will be our business to show that the history of the events recorded in the Apostolic writings is partly confirmed and partly refuted by a writer who lived contemporarily with the events themselves, whose version, as we maintain, deserves a confidence which ou2;ht not to be accorded to traditions that took shape in a subsequent period, and which were avowedly committed to writing after the composition of his contemporary historical account.

The traditional accounts given by the Apostolic writino:s of tlie so-called Messianic ao^e are not altogether fancy pictures. The chronology is very seriously at fault, but certain main points are substantiated by the great contemporary writer referred to, though they occupy a less imposing position in his pages, and are all but hidden in the " relation of other events, which he deemed it of greater importance to record, — never dreaming for a moment that the posterity for which he wrote would be deluded, as it has been, by its faith in writings which were written lonof after, when no witnesses survived to contradict them or confirm their truth.

It is not possible for any historian, however careful and circumspect, to anticipate and forecast the delusions of a subsequent age. He discharges his duty and performs the service imposed upon him, if he faithfully record the facts and incidents as they happened, after diligent study of documents and sifting of the evidence within his reach. It is his business, indeed, to record and weigh the delusions of the age of which he writes, whether his own or any preceding one, in order to hand down to subsequent generations a truthful account of its vices as well as its virtues, its superstitions and shortcomings as well as its heroic achievements in word or act ; but he is nowise responsible for the use posterity may make of his faithful narrative, whether they turn it to good or to bad account. Historians, indeed, who write for their own generation, are, as a rule, more careful to withhold unpalatable truths than those who address themselves to a subsequent one, but tliey cannot be silent in regard to events tliat were openly transacted, and that, as in the case before us, also challenged, and on high grounds too, the attention of all. In professing to relate the history of the time, they cannot leave untold what is known to all their contemporaries, and at the same time lay claim to, still less obtain credit for, historical fairness and veracity.

Of all the ancient historians whose works have come down to ns, there is no one who has a reputation for historic justice and impartiality superior, or even equal, to Flavins Josephus. In his own days he was respected at once for his sagacious, veracious intellect, his immense learning, his wide experience of affairs, and his unbiassed love of truth : as he himself expresses it, "neither concealing anything nor adding anything to the known fact of things." He did what in him lay to clear the minds of hrs countrymen of false ideas of their past history, and made it a point of conscience to transmit to posterity a faithful record of contemporary events.

He challenged his own world, while the witnesses of the facts related were still alive, to impeach the accuracy of his own version, and he did so for the express purpose of guarding posterity against being deceived by the numerous spurious accounts in circulation, whose falsehoods were known to him. Nay, he even ventured in vindication to enter the arena of literary disputation ; and he not only vanquished his adversaries, but made good his point, and in so doing afforded tlie most absolute proof it is possible for subsequent generations to have of uuimpeacliable integrity and veracity, as well as distinguished fitness for the work he undertook in behalf of his own and after generations. His qualifications for this task, as well as his success in its accomplishment, thus expressly vouched for by his own contemporaries, and through them to us, are sufficient to give weight to his writings, which afford the most abundant evidence, such as no other record of the period possesses, of the most thorough integrity and intelligence, truthfulness of purpose and reliability of account. Is it not surprising, then, seeing that Josephus possessed such pre-eminent qualifications, and that he is by express definition the historian of the Messianic age, — about the events of which there has been more disputation than about those of any other period of history, — that no inquiry has ever been instituted or analysis attempted to establish a parallel, if any, between his account of the time and that of those chroniclers who have since his day gained the ear of Christendom, — a time on the memory of which more is alleged to depend than on the memory of any other in the recorded traditions of the world ? This fact is surely warrant enough for the present venture, and alone justifies, and may excuse, any attempt, however rude in form, to broach the subject and break ground upon it. And this we do with the firm persuasion that the author referred to is the one reliable historian of the place and period to which the events in question relate, and that it is, at lowest, but fair his voice should be beard and Ms vote taken in so weighty a discussion.

Matthias, the father of Josephus, was a man of eminence in the Jewish state and a contemporary of Pontius Pilate ; and it is thus the son, in his account of his times, speaks of his parent : —

" Now, my father Matthias was not only eminent on account of his nobility, but had a higher commendation on account of his righteousness ; and was in great reputation in Jerusalem, the greatest city we have."

This notice of his father, as regards his position at least, is borne out by the fact of the high appointment in Galilee afterwards conferred upon Josephus himself. There is other evidence of the most satisfactory kind to show, further, that Matthias was connected by family with those who had held the high-priesthood ; that he lived in the days, as we have said, of Pontius Pilate, and must therefore, according to Apostolic writings, have been a contemporary of Jesus Christ. He must accordingly have been, not only a witness, but an active participant in those great events which, according to the same authorities, in those days, owing to their marvellous character, astonished the Jerusalem world. He must, if their account is correct, have seen or known of the rent in the Temple occasioned by the earthquake which is said to have occurred when Jesus Avas crucified. He must have known the doctrine of Jesus as taught by himself in his frequent preachings both in and out of and Traditioji Identified. *f

the Temple. He must have familiarly kuowii those about the Temple whose diseases were miraculouslycured by Jesus, and of the thousands who, with more or less of rapt enthusiasm, as these authorities assure us, followed him as, in the regard of some, '' the desire of all nations," and of others, " the consolation of Israel." His knowledge of the occurrences of the time could not, owing to his position, have been less than that of the common j)eople, not to say the very women and children of the district. Indeed, all the inhabitants of Jerusalem must have either seen or heard of those wonderful miracles which are recorded as the distinctive badge of the Prophet of Nazareth and the j)ledge of his Messiahship.