,,the ,,historical ,,jesus              
,a ,,survey ,,of ,,positions            
,,by                             ,,john 
,m4 ,,robertson              ,,issued   
,,for ,,the ,,rationalist ,,press       
,,association1 ,,limited                
,london3                                
,,watts  ,,co41                   #ag   
,,johnson',s ,,court1 ,,fleet ,,street1 
,e4,c4                                  
#aiaf                ,,contents         
,,page    ,preamble                     
xi    ,chapter ,i4--,,the ,,snare ,,of  
,,presupposition        ,presupposition 
in science4 ,the ,copernican theory4    
,the reception of      ,galileo1        
,harvey1 and ,darwin4 ,blinding effects 
of scholarship4 ,the      theological   
record4 ,mutations of ,christian        
opinion4 ,defence      of the belief in 
witchcraft4 ,leibnitz and ,newton4      
,criticism      of the ,pentateuch4     
,parvish1 ,astruc1 ,voltaire1 ,colenso1 
and the      professional scholars      
#a    ,chapter ,,ii4--,,modes ,,of      

,,conservative ,,fallacy                
,persistence of the theological temper4 
,each abandoned position      first     
defended with the same fierceness4      
,saner forms of      conservatism4      
,persistence in presupposition4 ,canon  
,inge on ,jesus      and ,paul4 ,the    
logical hiatus4 ,mill's precedent4 ,his 
dithyrambic      mood and critical      
inadequacy4 ,disregard of the           
documentary      evidence4 ,need to face
 the real problem4 ,the sociological    
process4 ,mill's dictum contrasted with 
those of ,newman and      ,baur         
#f    ,chapter ,,iii4--,,illusions ,,as 
,,to ,,gospel ,,ethic        ,mill's    
method and mind non-historical4 ,the    
historic      sense4 ,dr4 ,j4 ,e4       
,carpenter's4 ,the concept of sublimity4
 ,god      portraiture4 ,its            
limitations4 ,the ,gospel ethic4        
,significance of the                    
contradictions4 ,the parable of the     
,good ,samaritan4 ,incompetent          
verdicts of theologians4 ,the story of  

,lycurgus and      ,alcander4 ,plutarch 
on forgiveness of enemies4 ,fanaticism  
of      ,christian estimates of         
antiquity                               
#ah    ,chapter ,,iv4--,,the ,,method   
,,of ,,bluster        ,the historic     
problem4 ,its treatment by a ,unitarian 
cleric4 ,the      method of bluster4    
,the real and the pretended character of
 the      ,gospel according to ,mark4   
,wellhausen's estimate4 ,actual features
      of primitive and popular          
myth-lore4 ,biography in ,plutarch4 ,mr4
      ,mc,cabe on the ,marcan residuum4 
,the gospel figure4 ,doctrinal          
determinants                            
#cj    ,chapter ,v4--,,schmiedel ,,and  
,,derogatory ,,myth        ,collapse of 
the thesis of human characteristics4    
,the myth      and the historicity of   
,herakles4 ,the more considerate thesis 
of ,schmiedel3 argument from derogatory 
episodes4 ,kalthoff on      the human   
characteristics in ,ruth and ,jonah4    
,confusion of the new      argument4    

,jesus introduced in ,mark with divine  
characteristics4 ,the      ,unitarian   
blunder as to conventional and          
unconventional      hero-worship4       
,jewish and ,pagan heroes and ,gods     
alike put in      derogatory positions4 
,herakles1 ,dionysos1 and ,apollo4 ,need
 to      apply anthropological1         
mythological1 and hierological as well  
as      ,n4 ,t4 scholarship4 ,grounds   
for a ,christian myth of the ,founder   
as opposed by his family                
#dd    ,chapter ,,vi4--,,the ,,visionary
 ,,evangel        ,b4 ,weiss's          
,primitive ,gospel4 ,its characteristics
 common to      ,mark4 ,the enigma of   
the evangel of the ,twelve4 ,that       
problem never      rightly realized by  
the exegetes4 ,the allegorical          
explanations      to be withheld from   
the people4 ,complete deficit of        
historical      matter4 ,the evangel of 
the ,twelve a myth4 ,real origin in a   
rite1      not in an evangel4 ,the last 
hypothesis3 a political evangel that    

could not be later avowed4              
,incompatibility of this view with the  
,gospels4 ,composition of the record4   
,why the ,primitive ,gospel lacked      
the ,tragedy4 ,breakdown of the         
traditionary explanation4 ,orthodox     
avowals of anomaly                      
#ea    ,chapter ,,vii4--,,the ,,alleged 
,,consensus ,,of ,,scholars             
,resort to the myth-theory forced by the
 data4 ,unitarian attitude to      that4
 ,appeal for acceptance of the consensus
 of scholars4 ,no such      consensus   
ever attained4 ,dalman on his           
fellow-specialists4 ,his own            
presuppositions4 ,pretensions to solve  
historical problems through             
philology4 ,distinction between pedantry
 and science4 ,candour of               
,schmiedel4 ,inadequacy of his method4  
,resistance of scholarship      to      
scientific thought4 ,colenso and the    
,zulu and the orthodox      resistance4 
,attack on the ,new ,testament scholars 
by ,professor      ,blass               

#fb    ,chapter ,,viii4--,,conservative 
,,positions        ,modifications of    
conservative attitude4 ,lack of good    
faith      or of comprehension4 ,samples
 of misrepresentation4 ,the             
,unitarian attitude4 ,treatment of      
myth-solutions3 the ,myth of      the   
,temptation4 ,dr4 ,thorburn's orthodox  
solution4 ,mythology      and           
psychology4 ,psychic determinants of    
resistance to new      views4 ,attitude 
to healing powers ascribed to ,jesus4   
,force of      presupposition4          
,davidson's must4                       
#gd    ,chapter ,,ix4--,,blass ,,and    
,,flinders ,,petrie        ,the attempt 
to find an impersonal test of the       
documentary      basis4 ,dr4 ,flinders  
,petrie on ,the ,growth of the ,gospels4
 ,theory      of selection and          
compilation from logia4 ,acceptance of  
any      item as early4 ,the argument of
 ,blass as to possibility of real       
predictions4 ,case of ,savonarola4      
,nature of the problem4 ,political      

anticipation versus prophecy4           
,investigation of the ,savonarola       
case4 ,his earlier prophecies1          
conditional and absolute            #hb 
,chapter ,x4--,,the ,,savonarola        
,,fallacy        ,comparison between    
,savonarola's prediction of the ,sack of
 ,rome      and the gospel prophecy of  
the ,fall of ,jerusalem4 ,normality     
of ,savonarola's vaticinations4         
,historical blunder of the ,blass       
school as to medieval warfare4          
,frequency of sacrilege in ,christian   
war4 ,the ,christian sack of            
,constantinople                         
#ic    ,chapter ,,xi4--,,the ,,logia    
,,theory ,,and ,,the ,,historical ,,test
        ,blass on the gospel prophecy3  
analysis of the texts4 ,their           
arbitrary handling by ,blass4 ,the      
,nucleus theory of      ,dr4 ,petrie4   
,its arbitrary implications4 ,impersonal
 method      of selection not followed  
by impersonal inference from the        
results4 ,the logia theory much more    

compatible with the myth-theory         
than with the tradition4 ,test cases    
#ajd    ,chapter ,,xii4--,,failure ,,of 
,,the ,,logia ,,theory        ,the      
scientific inference4 ,omission and     
invention of logia      necessarily to  
be inferred as well as selection4       
,implicit      abandonment of certain   
prophecies1 and resulting incoherence   
of the argument4 ,reversion to the      
fundamental issue between               
supernaturalism and reason4 ,final      
futility of the attempt      to         
vindicate the documents4 ,possibilities 
as to currency      of written logia4   
,illustration from ,islam4 ,the mass of 
incompatibilities in the ,gospel        
,teaching4 ,possibilities of genuine    
self-contradiction4 ,carlyle and        
,ruskin4 ,mohammed4 ,the gospels not    
thus explicable4 ,damaging implications 
of the logia theory4 ,variety      of   
,christs4 ,papias4 ,baruch and ,enoch   
#aac    ,chapter ,,xiii4--,,resurgence  
,,of ,,the ,,historic ,,problem         

,the actually recovered logia of        
,oxyrhynchus4 ,their incompatibility    
with ,dr4 ,petrie's assumption of       
historic genuineness for      all4 ,the 
real process of composition in ,luke's  
gospel4 ,motives      for invention4    
,the myth of the ,seventy ,disciples a  
sample and      test case4 ,inadequacy  
alike of the documentary theory and that
      of scattered logia                
#abc    ,chapter ,,xiv4--,,orthodoxy    
,,and ,,the ,,oral ,,hypothesis         
,the oral hypothesis of the ,rev4 ,a4   
,wright4 ,his approximations      to the
 liberal chronology as against the      
,blass school4 ,his      candour4       
,hypothesis of fifty-two ,lessons4      
,another selection                      
theory--selection from oral traditions  
locally cherished4 ,wide      departures
 of ,mr4 ,wright from his theory4       
,unaccountableness of      apostolic    
information4 ,the tradition as to       
baptism4 ,problem of      the duration  
of the ,ministry1 and of the one or four

 visits to      ,jerusalem4 ,the oral   
hypothesis1 like the others1 more       
compatible      with the myth-theory    
than with the tradition4 ,stand on the  
,resurrection                           
#abi    ,chapter ,,xv4--,,the ,,method  
,,of ,m4 ,,loisy        ,m4 ,loisy and  
the liberal school4 ,his attitude to the
      myth-theory4 ,his certitudes4     
,disclaims biography1 and      produces 
one4 ,his treatment of the legend4 ,the 
problem of the      multitude of        
healings4 ,collapse of the assumption in
 the case      of ,nazareth4            
,inconsistency of ,m4 ,loisy's method1  
and weakness      of his solutions4 ,his
 acceptance of the ,joseph legend4 ,the 
carpenter4 ,difficulty set up by        
,origen4 ,the myth solution4 ,the       
son of ,mary4 ,dilemma set up by later  
passages4 ,problem of the               
,messianic declaration of ,peter4       
,impossibility of the personality       
set up by ,petrine and anti-,petrine    
records                       #ada      

,chapter ,,xvi4--,,the ,,trial ,,crux   
,lax treatment of the main problems by  
,m4 ,loisy4 ,acceptance      of the     
non-historical as historical4 ,the      
,purification of the      ,temple4 ,the 
,agony4 ,approximation to the true      
solution4 ,the      priestly ,trial4    
,virtual abandonment of the narrative by
      ,m4 ,loisy4 ,illicit              
reconstruction4 ,successive retreats of 
the      liberal school4 ,surrender of  
7#a7 the ,trial before ,herod1 7#b7     
the ,johannine record1 7#c7 the ,trial  
before the priests4 ,stand on      the  
,trial before ,pilate4 ,untenableness of
 that4 ,the ,roman ,trial               
admittedly a loose tradition4           
,impossible as recorded4 ,a clear       
solution supplied by the myth theory4   
,irreconcilable character      of the   
,triumphal entry and the unanimous      
hostility of the people      before     
,pilate4 ,the ,barabbas story admittedly
 unhistorical4 ,its      presence       
accounted for only by the myth-theory   

#afa    ,chapter ,,xvii4--,,the         
,,jesus-,,figure ,,of ,m4 ,,loisy       
,the dilemma of the ,evangel of the     
,twelve4 ,m4 ,loisy on the              
,teaching of ,jesus as preparative for  
the cult4 ,destructive      effect of   
his admissions as to the teaching of    
,paul4 ,his attitude      towards the   
myth-theory4 ,demanding definiteness1 he
 rests in the      indefinite4 ,his     
self-contradictions4 ,his ascription of 
originality      to quoted teachings4   
,incompatibility of his ,teacher and his
      ,messiah4 ,the teaching as to     
divorce not that of one expecting      a
 new order4 ,its prior currency4 ,bases 
of the gospel ethic4 ,the      ,good    
,samaritan documentarily a late creation
                     #agc    ,chapter   
,,xviii4--,,the ,,pauline ,,problem     
,m4 ,loisy on the testimony of ,paul4   
,his misconception as to      its       
bearings on the myth-theory4 ,van ,manen
 helped by his own      thesis to accept
 the historicity of ,jesus4 ,the        

myth-theory quite      independent of   
the dating of the ,epistles4 ,importance
 of noting      that1 early or late1    
they are interpolated4 ,m4 ,loisy's     
treatment      of the documentary       
problem4 ,van ,manen's strong case      
against the      ,epistles4 ,need to    
revise the details of the chronology4   
,also      to orient the myth-theory    
aright4 ,inadequacy of the theories of  
,kalthoff and ,kautsky                  
#ahe    ,chapter ,,xix4--,,the ,,history
 ,,of ,,the ,,discussion                
,prospects of controversy4 ,slow advance
 of the liberal      view4 ,identity of 
the final positions of ,strauss and     
,loisy4 ,tentative beginnings of the    
myth-theory4 ,effects of                
persecution and of ,strauss's final     
dialectic4 ,schweitzer on      the      
evolution from ,reimarus to ,wrede4     
,bruno ,bauer4 ,claims      for the     
,german temperament4 ,need for a truly  
scientific      temper4 ,effects of     
,bauer's flaws of mood and method4      

,schweitzer's      amenity and candour4 
,demonstrates the shortsightedness of   
,german      specialism4 ,schweitzer's  
ignorance concerning the myth-theory    
in its later developments4 ,his laxities
 in research4 ,his own      thesis      
#aic    ,chapter ,,xx4--,,the ,,ground  
,,cleared ,,for ,,the ,,myth-,,theory   
,the issue as between ,schweitzer and   
,wrede4 ,each destroys one half      of 
the liberal case for historicity4       
,schweitzer confutes ,wrede1      and   
then puts a still more untenable view4  
,his acceptance of the      triumphal   
entry into ,jerusalem as historical4    
,his ,jesus hailed      not as a        
,messiah but as ,elias4 ,schweitzer's   
new view of the      ,betrayal4 ,judas a
 revealer of his ,master's private claim
 to be      ,messiah4 ,the multitude    
supposed to be thus cleared of the      
charge      of fickleness4 ,schweitzer's
 fallacy as to ,messianic claims being  
blasphemous4 ,his service to criticism  
by clearing the ground4 ,his      final 

ethical and sociological confusion4 ,the
 fortunes of the      myth-theory in    
,england4 ,early adumbrations4          
,difference in modern      spirit and   
method1 resulting from establishment of 
anthropology as      a science4 ,lyell  
and ,tylor4 ,schweitzer's scientific    
temper4 ,the      myth-theory4 ,the     
battleground of the future4 ,positions  
of ,sir      ,j4 ,g4 ,frazer4           
,countervailing declarations by         
supporters of the      myth-theory4 ,the
 question one of science1 not sentiment 
#bja    ,conclusion                     
#baa    ,index                          
#bag                ,,preamble      ,the
 problem of the historicity of the      
,jesus of the ,gospels has been         
discussed by me in large sections of two
 bulky books1 which in other  sections  
deal with matters only indirectly       
connected with this1 while  even the    
sections directly devoted to the problem
 cover a good deal  of mythological and 
anthropological ground which not many   

readers may  care to master4 ,the myth  
theory developed in them1 therefore1 may
  not be readily grasped even by        
open-minded readers2 and the champions  
of tradition1 of whatever school1 have a
 happy hunting-ground for  desultory    
misrepresentation and mystification4 ,it
 has been felt to be  expedient1        
therefore1 by disinterested readers as  
well as by me1 to  put the problem in a 
clearer form and in a more concise      
compass4 ,the  process ought to involve 
some logical improvement1 as the        
mythological  investigation made in     
,christianity and ,mythology had been   
carried out  independently of the       
anthropological inquiry made in ,pagan  
,christs1  and the theory evolved may   
well require unification4 ,in           
particular1  the element of ,jewish     
mythology calls for fuller development4 
,and  the highly important developments 
of the myth theory by ,professor  ,drews
 and ,professor ,w4 ,b4 ,smith have to  
be considered with a view  to           

co-ordination4    ,to such a            
re-statement1 however1 certain          
preliminary steps are  necessary4 ,the  
ground needs to be cleared 7#a7 of      
priori notions  as to the subject       
matter2 7#b7 of mistaken opinions as to 
a supposed  consensus of critics2 and   
7#c7 of uncritical assumptions as to the
  character of the ,gospel narratives4  
,writers who have not gone very deeply  
into problems of normal history1        
however they may have specialized in the
 ,biblical1 are still wont to  assert   
that the historicity of non-supernatural
 data in the ,sacred  ,books is on all  
fours with that of the subject matter of
 profane  history4 ,indeed it is still  
common to hear it claimed that the      
,resurrection is as well attested as the
 assassination of ,julius  ,csar1 or    
even better4 ,in exactly the same tone  
and spirit did the  traditionalists of a
 previous generation assert that the    
stoppage of  the sun and moon in the    
interest of ,joshua was better attested 

than any  equally ancient historical    
narrative4 ,those who have decided to   
abandon  the supernatural reduce the    
claim1 of course1 to the historicity of 
the ,trial and ,crucifixion2 but as to  
these they confidently repeat  the old  
formulas4 ,yet in point of fact they    
have made no such critical  scrutiny of 
even these items as historians have long
 been used to make1  with destructive   
results1 into many episodes of ancient  
history--for  instance1 the battle of   
,thermopyl and the founding of the      
,spartan  constitution by ,lycurgus4    
,men who affect to dismiss the myth     
theory  as an ungrounded speculation are
 all the while taking for granted  the  
historicity of a record which is a mere 
tissue of incredibilities4    ,it has   
been justly remarked that serious risk  
of error is set up even  by the         
long-current claim of naturalist critics
 to treat the ,bible  like any other    
book4 ,even in their meaning the phrase 
should have run3  like any other ,sacred

 ,book of antiquity2 inasmuch as        
critical tests  and methods are called  
for in the scrutiny of such books which 
do not  apply in the case of others4    
,but inasmuch1 further1 as the          
,christian  ,sacred ,books form a       
problem by themselves1 a kind of        
scrutiny which  in the case of other    
books of cult-history might             
substantially reveal  all the facts may 
here easily fail to do so4    ,the      
unsuspecting student1 coming to a       
narrative in which supernatural  details
 are mingled with natural1 decides      
simply to reject the  former and take as
 history what is left4 ,it is the method
 of the  amateur mythologists of ancient
 ,greece1 derided by ,socrates1 and     
chronically resuscitated in all ages by 
men seeking short cuts to  certitude    
where they have no right to any4 ,if the
 narrative of the  ,trial and           
,crucifixion1 thus handled1 is found to 
be still incredible  in point of        
time-arrangement1 the adaptor meets the 

difficulty by  reducing the             
time-arrangement to probability and     
presenting the twice  redacted result as
 incontestable history4 ,all this1 as   
will be  shown in the following pages1  
is merely a begging of the question4 ,a 
scientific analysis points to a quite   
different solution1 which the  naf      
historical student has never considered4
    ,he is still kept in countenance1 it
 is true1 by specialists of the  highest
 standing4 ,the average liberal         
theologian still employs the            
explanatory method of ,toland2 and      
anthropologists still offer him         
support4 ,thus ,sir ,james ,frazer1 by  
far the most learned collector  of      
mytho-anthropological lore in his age1  
positively refuses to  apply to the     
history of the ,christian cult his own  
express rule of  mythology--formulated  
before him #a but independently         
reiterated  by him--that all peoples    
have invented myths to explain why they 
observed certain customs1 and that a    

graphic myth to explain a rite  is      
presumptively a simple transcript of a  
ceremony2 which is the  equivalent of   
the doctrine of ,robertson ,smith1 that 
in almost every  case the myth was      
derived from the ritual1 and not the    
ritual from the  myth1 and of the       
doctrine of ,k4 ,o4 ,mller that the     
mythus sprang from  the worship1 and not
 the worship from the mythus4 ,what     
justification  ,sir ,james can give for 
his refusal to act on his own principles
 is of  course a matter for full and    
careful consideration4 ,but at least the
  fact that he has to justify the       
refusal to apply in a most important    
case one of the best-established        
generalizations of comparative          
mythology is not in this case a         
recommendation of the principle of      
authority to scientific readers4        
,general phrases1 then1 as to how       
religions must have originated in  the  
personal impression made by a ,founder  
are not only unscientific               

presuppositions but are flatly          
contradictory1 in this connection1 of  a
 rule scientifically reached in the     
disinterested study of ancient          
hierology in general4    ,it is a       
delusion1 again1 to suppose1 as do some 
scholarly men1  that there is such a    
consensus of view among ,new ,testament 
scholars  as to put out of court any    
theory that cancels the traditionalist  
assumption of historicity which is the  
one position that most of  them have in 
common4 ,as we shall see1 the latest    
expert scholarship1  professionally     
recognized as such1 makes a clean sweep 
of their whole  work2 but they          
themselves1 by their insoluble          
divisions1 had already  discredited it4 
,any careful collection of their views  
will show that  the innumerable and     
vital divergences of principle and      
method of the  various schools1 and     
their constant and emphatic             
disparagement of  each other's          
conclusions1 point rather to the need   

for a radically  different theory and   
method4 ,a theory1 therefore1 which     
cancels their  conflicts by showing that
 all the data are reducible to order    
only when  their primary assumption is  
abandoned1 is entitled to the           
open-minded  attention of men who       
profess loyalty to the spirit of        
science4    ,there is need1 thirdly1 to 
bring home even to many readers who     
profess  such loyalty1 the need for a   
really critical study of the ,gospels4  
,i  have been blamed by some critics    
because1 having found that sixty  years'
 work on the documents by ,new          
,testament scholars yielded no clear    
light on the problem of origins1 ,i     
chose to approach that by way 7#a7  of  
mythology1 7#b7 of extra-evangelical    
literature and sect-history1  and 7#c7  
of anthropology4 ,the question of the   
order and composition  of the ,gospels1 
in the view of these critics1 should be 
the first  stage in the inquiry4        
,now1 for the main purposes of the      

myth-theory1 the results reached  by    
such an investigator as ,professor      
,schmiedel were quite sufficient2  and  
though at many points textual questions 
had to be considered1 it  seemed really 
not worth while to discuss in detail the
 quasi-historical  results claimed by   
the exegetes4 ,but it has become        
apparent that a  number of readers who  
claim to be emancipated have let        
themselves  be put off with descriptions
 of the ,gospel-history when they ought 
to  have read it attentively for        
themselves4 ,a confident traditionalist1
  dealt with hereinafter1 writes of the 
pretentious futilities into  which we so
 readily drop when we talk about them   
the ,gospels instead  of reading them4  
,the justice of the observation is      
unconsciously  but abundantly           
illustrated by himself2 and he certainly
 proves the  need for inducing professed
 students to read with their eyes open4 
,early in #aiad there was published a   
work on ,the ,historical ,christ1  by   

,dr4 ,f4 ,c4 ,conybeare1 in which1 as   
against the myth hypothesis1  which he  
vituperatively assailed1 a simple       
perusal of the ,gospel of  ,mark        
7procurable1 as he pointed out1 for one 
penny7 was confidently  prescribed as   
the decisive antidote to all doubts of  
the historicity  of the central figure4 
,the positions put were the conventional
 ones  of the liberal school4 ,no note  
was taken of the later professional     
criticism which1 without accepting the  
myth-theory1 shatters the  whole fabric 
of current historicity doctrine4 ,but   
that is relatively  a small matter4 ,in 
the course of his treatise1 ,dr4        
,conybeare asserted  three times over1  
with further embellishments1 that in the
 ,gospel of  ,mark ,jesus is presented  
quite naturally as the son of ,joseph   
and his  wife ,mary1 and we learn quite 
incidentally the names of his brothers  
and sisters4 ,dr4 ,conybeare's printers'
 proofs1 he stated1 had been  read for  
him by ,professor ,a4 ,c4 ,clark4 ,i    

saw1 ,i think1 fully twenty  newspaper  
notices of the book2 and in not a single
 one was there any  recognition of the  
gross and thrice-repeated blunder above 
italicized1  to modify the chorus of    
uncritical assent4 ,a professed         
,rationalist  repeated and endorsed ,dr4
 ,conybeare's assertion4 ,needless to   
say1  not only did ,dr4 ,conybeare not  
mention that ,joseph is never named in  
,mark1 he never once alluded to the fact
 that in the same ,gospel ,mary  is     
presented as not the mother of ,jesus2  
and the brothers and sisters1  by       
implication1 as not his brothers and    
sisters4    ,when aggressive scholars   
and confident reviewers thus alike      
reveal  that they have not read the     
,gospels with the amount of attention   
supposed to be bestowed on them by an   
intelligent ,sunday-school  teacher1 it 
is evidently inadvisable to take for    
granted any general  critical           
preparation even among rationalistic    
readers4 ,before men  can realize the   

need for a new theoretic interpretation 
of the whole1  they must be invited to  
note the vital incongruities 7as apart  
from  miracle stories7 in each ,gospel  
singly1 as the lay ,freethinkers of  an 
earlier generation did without          
pretending to be scholars4    ,those    
,rationalists are ill-advised who       
suppose that1 in virtue of  having      
listened to latter-day publicists who   
profess to extract a  non-supernatural  
religion from the supernaturalisms of   
the past1 they  have reached a higher   
and truer standpoint than that of the   
men who  made sheer truth their standard
 and their ideal4 ,really scholarly and 
scrupulous advocates of theism are as   
zealous to expose the historical  truth 
as the men who put that first and       
foremost2 it is the ethical             
sentimentalists who put the question of 
historic truth on one side4 ,the  fact  
that some men of scientific training in 
other fields join at times  in such     
complacent constructions does not alter 

the fact that they  are non-scientific4 
,the personal equation even of a man of 
science  is not science4 ,on these as on
 other sides of the intellectual life1  
opinion of store is cause of want1 as   
,bacon has it4    ,some of us who in our
 teens critically read the sacred books 
first and  foremost to clear our minds  
on the general question of              
supernaturalism1  and then proceeded to 
try1 with the help of the documentary   
scholars1  to trace the history of      
religion as matter of anthropology and  
sociology1 had the experience of being  
told by ,professor ,huxley1  whose own  
work we had followed1 that we were still
 at the standpoint  of ,voltaire4 ,later
 we had the edification of seeing       
,huxley expatiate  upon topics which had
 long been stale for ,secularist        
audiences1  and laboriously impugn the  
story of the ,flood and the miracle of  
the ,gadarene swine in discursive debate
 with ,gladstone1 even making           
scientific mistakes in the former       

connection4    ,in view of it all1 it   
seems still a sound discipline to treat 
all  opinions as for ever open to       
revision1 and at the same time to doubt 
whether the acceptance of any popular   
formula will place us in a  position to 
disparage unreservedly all our critical 
predecessors4 ,if we  find reason to    
dismiss as inadequate the conclusions of
 many scholars  of the past1 orthodox   
and heterodox1 we are not thereby       
entitled  to speak of the best of them  
otherwise than as powerful minds and    
strenuous toilers1 hampered by some of  
their erroneous assumptions  in the task
 of relieving their fellows of the      
burden of others4    ,it is precisely   
the habituation of the professional     
scholars to  working in a special groove
 that has so retarded the progress of   
,new  ,testament criticism4 ,the        
re-discussion of the historicity        
question  that has followed upon the    
modern exposition of the myth-theory    
has involved the reiteration by the     

historicity school of a set  of         
elementary claims from the              
long-discredited interpolation in       
,josephus and the pagan testimonies of  
,suetonius and ,tacitus2 and  ,professor
 ,w4 ,b4 ,smith has had to meet these   
with a detailed rebuttal  such as used  
to be made--of course with less care and
 fullness--on  the ordinary ,english    
,secularist platform forty or even      
seventy years  ago4 ,less advanced      
scholars once more begin to recognize   
the nullity  of the argument from the   
famous passage in the ,annals of        
,tacitus1  #b which was clear to so many
 unpretending freethinkers in the  past2
 and to other ,gelehrten vom ,fach it   
has to be again pointed out  that the   
impulsore ,chresto of ,suetonius1 so far
 from testifying to  the presence of a  
,christian multitude at ,rome under     
,nero--a thing  so incompatible with    
their own records--is rather a datum for
 the  myth-theory1 inasmuch as it posits
 a cult of a ,chrestos or ,christos  out

 of all connection with the ,christian  
movement4    ,the passage in ,josephus  
was given up long ago by hundreds of    
orthodox  scholars as a palpable        
interpolation1 proved as such by the    
total  silence in regard to it of early 
,fathers who would have rejoiced to     
cite it if it had been in existence4    
,the device of supposing it to  be a    
,christian modification of a different  
testimony by ,josephus is  a resort of  
despair1 which evades altogether the    
fact of the rupture  of context made by 
the passage--a feature only less salient
 in the  paragraph of ,tacitus4 ,but    
even if there were no reason to suspect 
the latter item of being a late echo    
from ,sulpicius ,severus1 who  is       
assumed to have copied it1 nothing can  
be proved from it for the  historicity  
of the ,gospel ,jesus1 inasmuch as it   
does but set forth from  a hostile      
standpoint the ordinary ,christian      
account of the beginnings  of the cult4 
,those who at this time of day found    

upon such data are  further from an     
appreciation of the evidential problem  
than were  their orthodox predecessors  
who debated the issue with ,freethinkers
  half a century ago4    ,i have thought
 it well1 then1 to precede a restatement
 of the  myth-theory with a critical    
survey in which a number of preliminary 
questions of scientific method and      
critical ethic are pressed upon  those  
who would deal with the main problem    
aright2 and a certain  amount of        
controversy with other critical schools 
is indulged in  by way of making plain  
the radical weakness of all the         
conventional  positions4 ,the negative  
criticism1 certainly1 will not establish
 in  advance the positive theory3 that  
must meet the ordeal of criticism  like 
every other4 ,but the preliminary       
discussion may at once serve to  free   
from waste polemic the constructive     
argument and guard readers  against     
bringing to that a delusive light from  
false assumptions4    ,a recent and more

 notorious exhibition of critical method
  by ,dr4 ,conybeare has satisfied me   
that it is needless to offer  any       
further systematic exposure of the      
nullity of his treatise1  with which ,i 
had dealt at some length in ,the        
,literary ,guide4 ,his  memorable attack
 upon the ,foreign ,secretary1 and his  
still more  memorable retractation1 may 
enable some of his laudatory reviewers  
to realize the kind of temper and the   
kind of scrutiny he brings to  bear upon
 documents and theories that kindle his 
passions4 ,all that  was relevant in his
 constructive process was really        
extracted1 with  misconceptions and     
blunders and exaggerations1 from the    
works of a  few scholars of standing    
who1 however inconclusive their work    
might  be1 set him a controversial      
example which he was unable to follow4  
,in  dealing with them1 ,i have the     
relief of no longer dealing with him4   
,as  to the constructive argument from  
comparative mythology1 anthropology1    

and hierology1 attacked by him and      
others with apparently no grasp of  the 
principles of any of these sciences1    
objections may be best dealt  with      
incidentally where they arise in the    
restatement of the case4    ,for the    
rest1 ,i can conceive that some will say
 the second year of the  ,world ,war is 
no time for the discussion even of a    
great problem of  religious history4 ,i 
answer that the ,war has actually been  
made the  pretext for endless religious 
discussions of the most futile kind1    
ranging between medieval                
miracle-mongering and the lowest forms  
of  journalistic charlatanism1 with     
chronic debates on theism and on  the   
military value of faith and prayer4 ,the
 newspaper discussions on  theism1 in   
particular1 reveal a degree of          
philosophic navet on the  theistic side 
which seems to indicate that that view  
of the universe  has of late years been 
abandoned by most men capable of        
understanding  the logical problem4     

,when dispute plays thus uselessly at   
the bidding  of emotion there must be   
some seniors1 or others withheld from   
war  service1 who in workless hours     
would as lief face soberly an inquiry   
which digs towards the roots of the     
organized religion of ,europe4 ,if  the 
end of the search should be the         
conviction that that system took  shape 
as naturally as any other cult of the   
ancient world1 and that the  sacrosanct 
records of its origin are but products  
of the mythopoeic  faculty of man1 the  
time of war1 with its soul-shaking      
challenge to  the sense of reality1 may 
not be the most unfit for the           
experience4                ,,the        
,,historical ,,jesus      ,,chapter ,i  
,,the ,,snare ,,of ,,presupposition     
,he who would approach with an alert    
mind such a question as that of  the    
historic actuality of the ,gospel ,jesus
 would do well to weigh  a preliminary  
warning4 ,though after four hundred     
years of chronic  scientific discovery  

all men are supposed to know the        
intellectual  danger of a confident and 
foregone rejection of new theories1 it  
is  scarcely likely that the vogue of   
such error is at an end4 ,after all1    
apart from the special experience in    
question1 and from the general  effect  
of the spread of science1 the average   
psychosis of men is not  profoundly     
different from what it was in the two   
centuries which passed  before the      
doctrines of ,copernicus found general  
acceptance4 ,not many  modern novelties 
of thought can so reasonably be met with
 derision  as was the proposition that  
the earth moves round the sun4    ,let  
the ingenuous reader try to make the    
supposition that he had  been brought up
 in ignorance of that truth1 and without
 any training  in astronomy1 and that in
 adolescence or mature years it had been
  casually put to him as a              
non-authoritative suggestion4 ,would he 
have  been quick to surmise that the    
paradox might be truth8 ,let him next   

try to imagine that he had been educated
 by an eccentric guardian in  the       
,ptolemaic creed1 which accounted so    
plausibly for so many solar  and stellar
 phenomena1 and that until middle life  
he had been kept  unaware of the        
,copernican heresy4 ,can he be sure     
that1 meeting it  not as an accredited  
doctrine but as a novel hypothesis1 he  
would  have been prompt to recognize    
that it was the better solution8 ,if he 
can readily say ,yes1 ,i know not       
whether his confidence is enviable  or  
otherwise4 ,reading in ,sylvester's     
translation of the ,divine  ,weeks of   
,du ,bartas1 which had such vogue in the
 days of ,james ,,vi1  the confident    
derision and confutation of the         
heliocentric theory1  ,i really cannot  
be sure that had ,i lived in those days 
,i should have  gone right where ,bacon 
went wrong4    ,to a mere historical    
student1 not conscious of any original  
insight  into the problems of nature1   
there ought to be something chastening  

in the recollection that every great    
advance in the human grasp  of them has 
been hotly or hilariously denounced and 
derided2  and that not merely by the    
average ignoramus1 but by the mass of   
the experts4 ,it was not the peasants of
 ,italy who refused to look  through    
,galileo's telescope--they were not     
invited to2 it was the  academics1 deep 
in ,aristotle4 ,it was not the laity who
 distinguished  themselves by rejecting 
,harvey's discovery of the circulation  
of the  blood2 it was all the doctors   
above forty then living1 if we can      
believe a professional saying4 ,and it  
was not merely the humdrum              
,bible-readers who scouted geology for  
generations1 or who laughed  consumedly 
for decades over the announcement that  
,darwin made out  men to be descended   
from monkeys4 ,that theory1 as it       
happened1  had been unscientifically    
enough propounded long before ,darwin2  
and1  albeit not grounded upon any such 
scientific research as served  to       

establish the ,darwinian theory in a    
generation1 yet happened  to be         
considerably nearer rationality than the
 ,semitic myth which  figured for       
instructed ,christendom as the absolute 
and divinely  revealed truth on the     
subject4 ,a recollection of the hate and
 fury  with which geologists like ,hugh 
,miller repelled the plain lesson of    
their own science when it was shown to  
clash with the sacred myth1  and a      
memory of the roar of derision and      
disgust which met ,darwin1  should set  
reasonable men on their guard when they 
find themselves  faced by propositions  
which can hardly seem more monstrous to 
this  generation than those others did  
to our fathers and grandfathers4    ,it 
is difficult1 again1 without suggesting 
contempt of that  scholarship which as  
concerning historical problems is the   
equivalent  of experimental research in 
science1 to insist aright upon the      
blinding tendency of pure scholarship in
 the face of a radically  innovating    

doctrine4 ,without scholarly survey no  
such doctrine can  maintain itself4 ,yet
 it is one of the commonest of          
experiences to  find the accredited     
scholars among the last to give an      
intelligent  hearing to a new truth4    
,only for a very few was skill in the   
,ptolemaic  astronomy a good preparation
 towards receiving the ,copernican4 ,the
  errors of ,copernicus--the inevitable 
errors of the pioneer--served  for      
generations to establish the            
,ptolemaists in theirs4 ,and where      
religious usage goes hand-in-hand with  
an error1 not one man in a  thousand can
 escape the clutch of the double habit4 
,hence the special blackness of the     
theological record in the history of    
culture4 ,in the present day the hideous
 memory of old crimes withholds  even   
the clerical class as a whole from the  
desire to employ active  persecution2   
but that abstention--forced in any      
case--cannot save  the class from the   
special snare of the belief in the      

possession of  fixed and absolute truth4
 ,since the day when ,tyndale was burned
 for  translating the ,sacred ,books1   
,english ,christians have passed through
  a dozen phases of faith1 from the     
crassest evangelicalism to the  haziest 
sentimentalism1 and in all alike they   
have felt1 mutatis  mutandis1 the same  
spontaneous aversion to the new doctrine
 that  disturbs the old4 ,who will say  
that the stern ,tyndale1 had he ever    
been in power1 would not have made      
martyrs in his turn8 ,the martyr        
,latimer had applauded the martyrdom of 
,anabaptists4 ,the martyred  ,cranmer   
had assented to martyrdoms in his day1  
though a man forgiving  enough in       
respect of his own wrongs4 ,and if the  
educated ,christians  of to-day have    
reached a level at which they can       
recognize as old  delusions not only the
 beliefs in relics and images and       
exorcisms1  once all sacrosanct1 but the
 literal acceptance of ,semitic and     
,christian myths and miracle-stories1 to

 whom do they think they owe  the       
deliverance8 ,to their accredited       
teachers8 ,not so4    ,no false belief  
from which men have been delivered since
 the day of  ,copernicus has been       
dismissed without strenuous resistance  
from men  of learning1 and even from men
 of vigorous capacity4 ,the belief in   
witchcraft was championed by ,bodin1 one
 of the most powerful minds  of his day2
 ,glanvill1 who sought to maintain it in
 ,england after the  ,restoration1 was a
 man of philosophical culture and a     
member of the  ,royal ,society2 and he  
had the countenance of the ,platonist   
,henry  ,more and the chemist ,boyle4   
,so great a man as ,leibnitz repulsed   
the cosmology of ,newton on the score   
that it expelled ,god from  the         
universe4 ,it was not professional      
theologians who invented the  higher    
criticism of the ,pentateuch1 any more  
than they introduced  geology4 ,samuel  
,parvish1 the ,guildford bookseller1 who
 discovered in  the days of ,walpole    

that ,deuteronomy belonged to the       
seventh century  ,b4,c41 is not recorded
 to have made any clerical converts2 and
 ,astruc1  the ,parisian physician who  
began the discrimination between the    
,jehovistic and ,elohistic sources in   
,genesis in #agec1 made no school in    
his country or his time4 ,voltaire1 no  
,hebraist1 demonstrated clearly  enough 
that the ,pentateuchal tale of the      
tabernacle in the wilderness  was a     
fiction2 but three toiling generations  
of ,german specialists  passed the      
demonstration by1 till a ,zulu convert  
set the good ,bishop  ,colenso upon     
applying to the legend the simple tests 
of his secular  arithmetic4 ,then the   
experts began slowly to see the point4  
,,chapter ,,ii    ,,modes ,,of          
,,conservative ,,fallacy      ,to all   
such reminders the present-day expert   
will reply1 belike1 that  he does not   
need them4 ,he1 profiting by the past1  
can commit no such  errors4 ,and yet1   
however right the present members of the

 apostolic  succession of               
truth-monopolists may be1 there is an   
astonishing  likeness in their tone and 
temper over the last heresy to that of  
their  predecessors1 down to the        
twentieth generation4 ,anger and        
bluster1  boasting and scolding1 snarl  
and sneer1 come no less spontaneously   
to the tongues of the professional      
defender of the present minimum of      
creed than they did to those of the     
full-blooded breed of the ages of  the  
maximum1 or of ,calvin and ,bonner4     
,from the defence of the real  presence 
of the ,god to that of the bare personal
 existence of the  ,man is a long       
descent2 but there is a singular        
sameness in the manner  of the          
controversy4 ,as their expert ancestors 
proved successively  the absolute truth 
of the corporal presence in the wafer1  
or the  humanity of the ,son against    
those who dubbed him merely divine1 or  
his divinity against those who          
pronounced him merely human1 or the     

inerrancy of the ,gospels against the   
blasphemers who pointed out  the        
contradictions1 or the historic         
certainty of the miracles and  the      
,virgin ,birth and the ,resurrection and
 the ,ascension against the             
materialists who put such ,christian    
myths on a level with ,pagan1  so do the
 expert demonstrators of the bare       
historicity of the now  undeified ,god  
establish by vituperation and derision1 
declamation  and contempt1 the supreme  
certainty of the minimum after all the  
supernatural certainties are gone4 ,even
 as ,swiss patriots undertook to        
demonstrate somebody and something      
behind the legend of ,william  ,tell    
when it had ceased to be possible to    
burn men at the stake for  exposing the 
apple-myth1 so do the descendants of the
 demonstrators  of the real presence now
 go about to make clear the real        
existence4    ,i speak1 of course1 of   
the ruck of the vindicators1 not of the 
believers2 and ,professor ,schmiedel and

 ,m4 ,loisy1 ,i trust1 will not  suspect
 me of classing them with men many of   
whom are as hostile to  them as to the  
thesis which those scholars seek by     
rational methods  to confute4 ,professor
 ,schmiedel has even avowed that a proof
 of  the non-historicity of the ,gospel 
,jesus would not affect his inner       
religious opinions2 and such high       
detachment has been attained to  by     
others4 ,that civilized scholars credit1
 and might at a pinch  maintain in      
debate1 the historicity of the ,gospel  
,jesus as calmly as  they might the     
historicity of ,lycurgus against its    
impugners1 ,i am  well aware4 ,and to   
such readers1 if ,i have the honour to  
obtain any1  ,i address not a warning   
but an appeal4 ,there is an attitude    
towards  the problem which incurs no    
reproach on the score of tone and       
temper1  and which will naturally       
recommend itself all the more to men of 
real  culture1 but which yet1 ,i think1 
only illustrates in another way the     

immense difficulty of all-round         
intellectual vigilance4 ,let me give  an
 example in an extract from a rather    
noteworthy pronouncement upon  the      
question in hand3--          ,of ,paul's
 divine ,master no biography can ever be
 written4 ,we have      a vivid         
impression of an unique1 effulgent      
personality4 ,we have      a            
considerable body of sayings which must 
be genuine because      they are far too
 great to have been invented by ,his    
disciples1      and1 for the rest1      
whatever royal robes and tributes of    
devotion      the ,church of ,a4,d4     
#gj-ajj thought most fitting for its    
king4 ,the      ,gospels are the        
creation of faith and love3 faith and   
love hold      the key to their         
interpretation4 7,canon ,inge1 art4 ,st4
 ,paul      in ,quarterly ,review1      
,jan41 #aiad1 p4 #de47      ,i am not   
here concerned to ask whether the       
closing words are the  expression of an 
orthodox belief2 or what orthodoxy makes

 of the  further proposition that ,with 
,st4 ,paul it is quite different4 ,he is
 a  saint without a luminous halo4 ,the 
idea seems to be that concerning  the   
saint without a nimbus we can get at the
 historical truth1  while in the other  
case we cannot--a proposition worth     
orthodox  attention4 ,but what concerns 
the open-minded investigator is the     
logic of the words ,i have italicized4  
,it is obvious that they proceed  7#a7  
on the assumption that what             
non-miraculous biography the ,gospels   
give is in the main absolutely          
trustworthy--that is to say1 that the   
accounts of the disciples and the       
teaching are historical2 and 7#b7  on   
the assumption that we are historically 
held to the traditional  view that the  
,gospel sayings originated with the     
alleged ,founder as  they purport4 ,it  
is necessary to point out that this is  
not a licit  historical induction4 ,even
 ,canon ,inge by implication admits that
  not all the ,gospel sayings have the  

quality which he regards as  certifying 
authenticity2 and on no reasonable      
ground can he claim  that the others    
must have been invented by the          
disciples4 ,the  alternative is         
spurious4 ,no one is in a position to   
deny that any  given saying may have    
been invented by non-disciples4 ,in     
point  of fact1 many professional       
theologians are agreed in tracing to    
outside sources some tolerably fine     
passages1 such as the address to        
,jerusalem 7,mt4 xxiii1 #cg2 ,lk4 xiii1 
#cd74 ,the critics in question do  not  
ascribe that deliverance to inventive   
disciples2 they infer it  to have been a
 non-,christian document4 ,many other   
critics1 again1  now pronounce the whole
 ,sermon on the ,mount--regarded by     
,baur as  signally genuine--a           
compilation from earlier ,hebrew        
literature1  ,biblical and other4 ,which
 then are the great sayings that could  
not  be thus accounted for8 ,without    
specification there can be no rational  

discussion of the problem2 and even the 
proposition about the exegetic  function
 of faith and love affects to be in     
itself rational4    ,the plain truth    
would seem to be that ,canon ,inge has  
formed for himself  no tenable critical 
position4 ,he has merely reiterated the 
fallacy  of ,mill1 who in his ,three    
,essays on ,religion 7pp4 #bec-ed7      
wrote3--          ,whatever else may be 
taken away from us by rational          
criticism1      ,christ is still left2 a
 unique figure1 not more unlike all his 
precursors than all his followers1 even 
those who had the direct      benefit of
 his personal teaching4 ,it is of no use
 to say that      ,christ as exhibited  
in the ,gospels is not historical1 and  
that      we know not how much of what  
is admirable has been superadded      by
 the tradition of his followers4 ,the   
tradition of followers      suffices to 
insert any number of marvels1 and may   
have inserted      all the miracles     
which he is reputed to have wrought4    

,but who      among his disciples or    
among their proselytes was capable of   
inventing the sayings ascribed to       
,jesus1 or of imagining the      life   
and character revealed in the ,gospels8 
,certainly not      the fishermen of    
,galilee2 as certainly not ,st4 ,paul1  
whose      character and idiosyncrasies 
were of a totally different sort2       
still less the early ,christian writers1
 in whom nothing is more      evident   
than that the good which was in them was
 all derived1      as they always       
professed that it was derived1 from the 
higher      source4 ,what could be added
 and interpolated by a disciple we      
may see in the mystical parts of ,st4   
,john1 matter imported from      ,philo 
and the ,alexandrian ,platonists and put
 into the mouth of      the ,saviour in 
long speeches about himself such as the 
other      ,gospels contain not the     
slightest vestige of1 though pretended  
to have been delivered on occasions of  
the deepest interest and      when his  

principal followers were all present2   
most prominently      at the last       
supper4 ,the ,east was full of men who  
could have stolen      767 any quantity 
of this poor stuff1 as the multitudinous
 ,oriental      sects of ,gnostics      
afterwards did4 ,but about the life and 
sayings      of ,jesus there is a stamp 
of personal originality combined with   
profundity of insight which1 if we      
abandon the idle expectation      of    
finding scientific precision where      
something very different      was aimed 
at1 must place the ,prophet of          
,nazareth1 even in the      estimation  
of those who have no belief in his      
inspiration1      in the very first rank
 of men of sublime genius of whom our   
species can boast4 ,when this           
pre-eminent genius is combined      with
 the qualities of probably the greatest 
moral reformer1 and      martyr to that 
mission1 who ever existed on earth1     
religion sic      cannot be said to have
 made a bad choice in pitching on this  

man      as the ideal representative and
 guide of humanity4444 ,add that1       
to the conception of the rational       
sceptic1 it remains a possibility       
that ,christ actually was what he       
supposed himself to be--not ,god1       
for he never made the smallest          
pretension to that character1 and       
would probably have thought such a      
pretension as blasphemous as      it    
seemed to the men who condemned him--but
 a man charged with a      special1     
express1 and unique commission from ,god
 to lead mankind      to truth and      
virtue4444      ,ein historischer ,kopf 
hatte er nicht1 is a ,german economist's
 criticism  of ,mill which ,i fear will 
have to stand in other fields than that 
of economics4 ,the man who wrote this   
unmeasured dithyramb can never  have    
read the ,gospels and the ,hebrew books 
with critical attention2  and can never 
have reflected critically upon his own  
words in this  connection4 ,the         
assumption that the fishermen of        

,galilee could not  have attained to    
thoughts which are expressly alleged to 
have been  put forth by an untaught     
carpenter of ,galilee is on the face of 
it a  flight of thoughtless declamation4
 ,had ,mill ever critically read the    
,old ,testament and the ,apocrypha1 he  
must have been aware that the main      
precepts of the ,sermon on the ,mount1  
which are presumably among the          
unspecified objects of his panegyric1   
were all there beforehand4 ,had  he     
taken the trouble to investigate before 
writing1 he could have  found in        
,hennell's ,inquiry 7#ahch71 which      
popularized the old research  of        
,schoettgen2 in ,nork's ,rabbinische    
,quellen und ,parallelen 7#ahci72  and  
in ,les ,origines du ,sermon de la      
,montagne by ,hippolyte ,rodrigues      
7#ahfh71 a copious demonstration of the 
,jewish currency of every moral  idea in
 the ,christian document1 often in saner
 forms4 ,and he ought  to have known    
from his own reading that the doctrine  

of forgiveness  for injuries1 which     
appears to be the main ground for the   
customary  panegyric of the ,sermon1 was
 common to ,greeks and ,romans before   
the  ,gospels were compiled4 ,from the  
duty of giving alms freely--which  is   
repeatedly laid down in the ,old        
,testament--to that of the sin  of      
concupiscence and the wrongness of      
divorce for trivial causes1  every moral
 idea in the ,sermon had been formulated
 alike by ,jews and  ,gentiles          
beforehand4 #c ,and if it be argued that
 the compilation  of such a set of      
precepts with a number of religious     
dicta 7equally  current in              
non-,christian ,jewry7 is evidence of a 
special ethical or  religious gift in   
the compiler1 the answer is that        
precisely the fact  of such a           
compilation is the disproof of the      
assertion in the ,gospels  that the     
whole was delivered as a sermon on a    
mountain4 ,a sermon it  never was and   
never could be2 and if the compiler was 

a man of unique  character and          
qualification he was not the ,gospel    
,jesus but the very  type of which ,mill
 denied the possibility6    ,that the   
,gospel ethic is non-original becomes   
more and more clear with  every         
extension of relevant research4 ,the    
,testaments of the ,twelve  ,patriarchs1
 written between #aji and #ajf ,b4,c4 by
 a ,quietist ,pharisee1  is found to    
yield not only origins or anticipations 
for pseudo-historic  data in the        
,gospels but patterns for its moral     
doctrine4 ,thus the  notion that the    
,twelve ,apostles are to rule over the  
tribes in the  ,messianic kingdom is    
merely an adaptation of the teaching in 
the  ,testaments that the twelve sons of
 ,jacob are so to rule4 #d ,there  too  
appears for the first time in ,jewish   
literature the formula  on ,his right   
hand2 #e and a multitude of close       
textual parallels  clearly testify to   
perusal of the book by the              
,gospel-framers and the  epistle-makers4

 ,but above all is the ,jewish book the 
original for the  doctrines of          
forgiveness and brotherly love4 ,whereas
 the ,old ,testament  leaves standing   
the ethic of revenge alongside of the   
prescription to  forgive one's enemy1   
the ,testaments give out what a highly  
competent  ,christian editor pronounces 
to be the most remarkable statement  on 
the subject of forgiveness in all       
ancient literature4 ,they show  a       
wonderful insight into the true         
psychology of the question4 ,so  perfect
 are the parallels in thought and       
diction between these  verses ,test4    
,gad1 vi1 #c-g and ,luke xvii1 #c2      
,matt4 xviii1 #ae1 #ce1  that we must   
assume our ,lord's acquaintance with    
them4 ,the meaning  of forgiveness in   
both cases is the highest and noblest   
known to  us--namely1 the restoring the 
offender to communion with us1 which  he
 had forfeited through his offence4444  
,we now see the importance  of our text4
 ,it shows that pre-,christian ,judaism 

possessed a noble  system of ethics on  
the subject of forgiveness4 #f    ,here 
the tribute goes to a ,pharisee2 in     
another connection it redounds  to the  
other butt of ,christian disparagement1 
the ,scribes4 ,as our  editor points    
out1 the collocation of the commands to 
love ,god and  one's neighbour is even  
in ,luke 7x1 #be-bg7 assigned not to    
,jesus but  to a ,scribe4 ,but this too 
is found in the ,testaments4 ,that the  
two  great commandments were already    
conjoined in the teaching of the        
,scribes at the time of our ,lord we may
 reasonably infer from our  text1 #g    
which was written #adj years earlier1   
and from the account  in ,luke4 #h ,and 
here too1 a century before the          
,christian era1  we have a ,jewish      
predication of the salvation of the     
,gentiles1 #i  in the patronizing       
,jewish sense4    ,it is only for men   
partly hypnotized by sectarian creed    
that there  can be anything surprising  
in these anticipations4 ,the notion that

  ,sacred ,books contain the highest and
 rarest thought of their respective     
periods is a delusion that any critical 
examination of probabilities  will      
destroy4 ,relatively high and rare      
thought does not find its  way into     
,sacred ,books2 what these present is   
but the thought that  is perceptible and
 acceptable to the majority1 or a strong
 minority1  of the better people2 and it
 is never purified of grave             
imperfection1  precisely because these  
never are4 ,perfect ethic is the        
possession  of the perfect people1 an   
extremely rare species4 ,the ethic of   
the  ,testaments1 which is an obvious   
improvement on that of average ,jewry1  
is in turn imperfect enough2 even as    
that of the ,gospels remains  stamped   
with ,jewish particularism1 and is      
irretrievably blemished by  the         
grotesquely iniquitous doctrine of      
damnation for non-belief4    ,such      
asseverations as ,mill's1 constantly    
repeated as they are by  educated men1  

are simply expressions of failure to    
comprehend  the nature and the          
possibilities of life1 of civilization1 
of  history4 ,the thesis is that in a   
world containing no one else capable  of
 elevated thought1 moral or religious1  
there suddenly appeared a  marvellously 
inspired teacher1 who chose a dozen     
disciples incapable  of comprehending   
his doctrine1 and during the space of   
one or many  years--no one can settle   
whether one or two or three or four or  
ten or  twenty--went about alternately  
working miracles and delivering moral   
and religious sayings 7including a      
doctrine of eternal hell-fire for  the  
unrepentant wicked1 among whom were     
included all who refused  to accept the 
new teaching72 and that after the       
execution of the  teacher on a charge of
 blasphemy or sedition the world found  
itself in  possession of a supernormal  
moral and religious code1 which         
constituted  the greatest moral reform  
in the world's history4 ,the very       

conception  is a chimera4 ,in a world in
 which no one could independently think 
the  teacher's moral thoughts there     
could be no acceptance of them4 ,if the 
code was pronounced good1 it was so     
pronounced in terms of the moral  nature
 and moral convictions of those who made
 the pronouncement4 ,the  very          
propagandists of the creed after a few  
generations were found  meeting         
gainsayers with the formula anima       
naturaliter ,christiana4                
,christianity made its way precisely    
because 7#a7 it was a construction  from
 current moral and religious material2  
and because 7#b7 it  adopted a system of
 economic organization already tested by
 ,jews  and ,gentiles2 and 7#c7 because 
its doctrines were ascribed to a ,god1  
not to a man4 ,anything like a moral    
renovation of the world it never        
effected2 that conception is a chimera  
of chimeras4 ,while ,mill1 the  amateur 
in matters of religious research1 who   
scarcely ever read a  theological book1 

#aj ascribed to ,christian morality a   
unique and  original quality1 ,newman1  
the essentially religious man1          
deliberately  affirmed with the         
,rationalists that ,there is little in  
the ethics of  ,christianity which the  
human mind may not reach by its natural 
powers1  and which here or there 444 has
 not in fact been anticipated4 #aa  ,and
 ,baur1 who gave his life and his whole 
powers to the problem  which ,mill      
assumed to dispose of by a dithyramb1   
put in a sentence  the historic truth   
which ,mill so completely failed to     
grasp3--          ,how soon would       
everything true and important that was  
taught by      ,christianity have been  
relegated to the order of the long-faded
      sayings of the noble humanitarians
 and thinking sages of antiquity1       
had not its teachings become words of   
eternal life in the mouth      of its   
,founder6 #ab      ,and a distinguished 
,scottish theologian and scholar has    
laid it  down that          there is    

probably not a single moral precept in  
the ,christian      ,scriptures which is
 not substantially also in the ,chinese 
classics4 ,there is certainly not an    
important principle in ,bishop          
,butler's ethical teachings which had   
not been explicitly set      forth by   
,mencius in the fourth century ,b4,c4   
,the ,chinese thinker      of that date 
had anticipated the entire moral theory 
of man's      constitution expounded so 
long afterwards by the most famous of   
,english moral philosophers4 #ac        
,,chapter ,,iii    ,,illusions ,,as ,,to
 ,,gospel ,,ethic      ,strictly        
speaking1 the whole problem of the moral
 value and the  historical effects of   
,christianity lies outside the present  
issue2  but we are forced to face it    
when the question of the truth of its   
historic basis is dismissed by a        
professed logician with a rhetorical    
thesis to the effect that religion      
cannot be said to have made a  bad      
choice in pitching on the personality of

 which he is challenged  to prove the   
historicity4 ,mill answers the challenge
 by begging the  question2 and where he 
was capable of such a course multitudes1
 lay  and clerical1 will long continue  
to be so4 ,for ,mill the problem was    
something extraneous to his whole way of
 thought4 ,broadly speaking1  he never  
handled a historical problem1 properly  
so called4 ,other  defenders of the     
historicity of ,jesus1 in turn1 charge a
 want of  historic sense upon all who   
venture to put the hypothesis that the  
,gospel ,jesus is a mythical creation4  
,the charge has been repeatedly  made by
 men who can make no pretence of having 
ever independently  elucidated any      
historical problem2 and in one notable  
case1 that of  ,dr4 ,j4 ,estlin         
,carpenter1 it is made by a scholar who 
has committed  himself to the assertion 
of the historicity of ,krishna4 ,such   
resorts  to blank asseveration in such  
matters are on all fours with the blank 
asseveration that the ,gospel ,jesus1 in

 virtue of the teachings ascribed  to   
him1 is a figure too sublime for human  
invention4    ,the slightest reflection 
might obtrude the thought that it is    
precisely  the invented figure that can 
most easily be made quasi-sublime4 ,is  
it  pretended that ,yahweh is not       
sublime8 ,is the ,book of ,job pretended
  to be historical8 ,the ,gospel ,jesus 
is never shown to us save in a  series  
of statuesque presentments1 healing1    
preaching1 prophesying1  blessing1      
denouncing1 suffering2 he is expressly  
detached from domestic  relationships2  
of his life apart from his ,messianic   
career there is  not a vestige of trace 
that is not nakedly mythical2 of his    
mental  processes there is not an       
attempt at explanation save in glosses  
often palpably incompetent2 and of his  
plan or purpose1 his hopes or           
expectations1 no exegete has ever framed
 a non-theological theory that  will    
stand an hour's examination4 ,those who 
claim as an evidence of  uniqueness the 

fact that he is never accused by the    
evangelists of  any wrong act do but    
prove their unpreparedness to debate any
 of the  problems involved4 ,a figure   
presented as divine1 in a document that 
aims at establishing a cult1 is ipso    
facto denuded of errancy so far  as the 
judgment of the framers of the picture  
can carry them4 ,but  all that the      
framers and redactors of the ,gospels   
could achieve was  to outline a figure  
answering to their standards of         
perfection1 free  of what they regarded 
as sin or error4 ,going to work in an   
age and  an environment in which ascetic
 principles were commonly posited as    
against normal practice1 they guard the 
,god from every suggestion  of carnal   
appetite2 and the dialecticians of faith
 childishly ask  us to contrast him with
 ancient ,pagan deities whose legends   
are the  unsifted survivals of savage   
folklore4 ,as if any new ,sacred ,book  
in  the same age would not have         
proceeded on the same standards2 and as 

if the religious ,jewish literature of  
the age of ,christian beginnings  were  
not as ascetic as the other4 ,but       
inasmuch as the compilers of  the       
,gospels could not transcend the moral  
standard of their time1  they constantly
 obtrude its limitations and its        
blemishes4 ,had ,mill  attempted        
anything beyond his dithyramb1 he would 
have been hard put  to it to apply his  
ecstatic epithets to such teachings as  
these3--          ,repent ye1 for the   
kingdom of heaven is at hand4           
,till heaven and earth pass away1 one   
jot or tittle shall in no      wise pass
 away from the law of ,moses4           
,whosoever shall say1 ,thou fool1 shall 
be in danger of the hell of      fire4  
,compare ,matt4 xxiii1 #ag3 ,ye fools   
and blind2 and ,luke xii1      #bj3     
,thou fool1 this night thy soul shall be
 required of thee4        ,whosoever    
shall marry her the woman divorced      
without good cause      shall commit    
adultery4        ,give to him that      

asketh thee4        ,lay not up for     
yourselves treasures upon the earth4    
,seek ye first      ,god's kingdom and  
his righteousness2 and all these things 
that were to be disregarded shall be    
added unto you4        ,beware of false 
prophets1 which come to you in sheep's  
clothing1      but inwardly are ravening
 wolves4 ,compare the warning against   
saying1 ,thou fool4        ,go not into 
any way of the ,gentiles1 and enter not 
into any city      of the ,samaritans4  
,whosoever shall not receive you1 444 as
 ye go forth out of that      house or  
that city1 shake off the dust of your   
feet4 ,verily ,i      say unto you1 it  
shall be more tolerable for the land of 
,sodom      and ,gomorrah in the day of 
judgment than for that city4        ,i  
send you forth as sheep in the midst of 
wolves4        ,think not that ,i come  
to send peace on the earth3 ,i came not 
to      send peace1 but a sword4444 ,he 
that loveth father or mother more       
than me is not worthy of me4        ,it 

shall be more tolerable for ,tyre and   
,sidon in the day of      judgment than 
for you ,chorazin and ,bethsaida2       
because of      non-acceptance of the   
teacher4444 ,it shall be more tolerable 
for the land of ,sodom in the day of    
judgment than for you4        ,every    
idle word that men shall speak1 they    
shall give account      thereof in the  
day of judgment4        ,therefore speak
 ,i to them in parables1 because seeing 
they see not1      and hearing they hear
 not1 neither do they understand4       
,in the end of the world the angels     
shall 444 sever the wicked      from the
 righteous1 and shall cast them into the
 furnace of fire4        ,in vain do    
they worship me1 teaching as their      
doctrines the      precepts of men4     
,is it not lawful for me to do what ,i  
will with mine own8 retort      for the 
employer who pays the same for a day's  
work and for      an hour's4        ,if 
ye have faith and doubt not 444 even if 
ye shall say unto this      mountain1   

,be thou taken up and cast into the sea1
 it shall be done4        ,and his lord 
commended the unrighteous steward       
because he had      done wisely4444 ,and
 ,i say unto you1 ,make to yourselves   
friends by      means of the mammon of  
unrighteousness2 that1 when it shall    
fail1      they may receive you into the
 eternal tabernacles4        ,i say unto
 you that unto everyone that hath shall 
be given2 but      from him that hath   
not shall be taken away even that which 
he hath4        ,and his lord was wroth1
 and delivered him to the tormentors4444
 ,so      also shall my heavenly ,father
 do unto you1 if ye forgive not         
everyone his brother from your hearts4  
,when such a mass of unmanageable       
doctrines is forced on the  notice of   
the dithyrambists1 there promptly begins
 a process of  elimination--the method  
of ,arnold1 to which ,mill would        
doubtless  have subscribed1 denying as  
he did that ,jesus ever claimed to be   
the  ,son of ,god4 ,whatever is not     

sweetly reasonable in the ,gospels1 said
  ,arnold1 cannot be the word of ,jesus2
 let us then pick and choose as we      
will4 ,and justly enough may it be      
argued that we have been listening to   
different voices4 ,it cannot be the same
 man who prohibited all anger1  vetoing 
even the use of ,thou fool1 and then    
proceeded to vituperate  ,scribes and   
,pharisees in the mass as sons of hell2 
to curse a barren  tree2 and to call the
 erring ,ye fools and blind--any more   
than it  was the same man who said1 ,i  
am meek and lowly in heart1 and ,a      
greater than ,solomon is here1 or       
annulled precepts of the law after      
declaring that not a jot or tittle of it
 should pass away4 ,but with  what      
semblance of critical righteousness     
shall it be pretended that in  a        
compilation thus palpably composite it  
was the teacher who said all  the right 
things and others who said all the      
wrong1 when as a matter of  documentary 
fact the better sayings can all be      

paralleled in older or  contemporary    
writings8 ,that challenge is never so   
much as faced by the  dithyrambists2 to 
face it honestly would be the beginning 
of their end4    ,some seem prepared to 
stake all on such a teaching as the     
parable  of the ,good ,samaritan1 which 
actually teaches that a man of the      
religiously despised race could humanely
 succour one of the despising  race when
 religious men of the same race passed  
him by4 ,is the  parable then           
assimilated by those who stress it8 ,can
 they conceive  that a ,samaritan could 
so act8 ,if yes1 why cannot they        
conceive  that a ,samaritan1 or another 
,jew than one1 could put forth such a   
doctrine8 ,here is a story of actual    
human-kindness1 paralleled in a  hundred
 tales and romances of later times1 a   
story which1 appealing  as it does to   
every reader1 may reasonably be believed
 to have been  enacted a thousand times 
by simple human beings who never heard  
of  the ,gospels4 ,yet we are asked to  

believe that only one ,jewish or        
,gentile mind in the age of ,virgil was 
capable of drawing the moral  that the  
kindly and helpful soul is the true     
neighbour1 and that the  good man will  
be neighbourly to all2 so rebuking the  
tribalism of  the average ,jew4         
,when1 fifteen years ago1 ,i wrote of   
the moderate ethical height of  the     
parable of the ,good ,samaritan1 which  
is partly precedented in ,old           
,testament teaching ,deut4 xxiii1       
#g--;an interpolation2 cp4 the ,book  of
 ,ruth1 ,dr4 ,j4 ,e4 ,carpenter         
indignantly replied3 ,the field of      
,greek literature is open2 will ,mr4    
,robertson take the ,good ,samaritan    
and from ,plato to ,plotinus find his   
match8 ,and the ,rev4 ,thomas ,james    
,thorburn1 ,d4,d41 ,,ll4,d41 in his     
later work ,jesus the ,christ3          
,historical  or ,mythical8 7#aiab71     
wrote 7p4 #fh73--          ,dr4 ,estlin 
,carpenter has invited 7we believe1 in  
vain67 ,mr4 ,robertson to produce an    

equal to this same parable      out of  
the whole range of ,greek literature1   
which undoubtedly      contains the     
choicest teaching of the ancient world4 
,dr4 ,thorburn in his bibliography cited
 the first and second 7#aiab7  editions 
of ,pagan ,christs2 he thoughtfully     
omitted1 in launching his  we believe1  
in vain61 to ascertain whether there had
 been a second  edition of ,christianity
 and ,mythology1 in which any reply ,i  
might  have to make to ,dr4 ,carpenter  
might naturally be expected to appear1  
that critic having challenged the       
proposition as put in the first         
edition4 ,a second edition had appeared1
 in #aiaj1 and there ,i had duly  given 
the simple answer which the two learned 
,doctors of ,divinity1  so conscious of 
knowing all ,greek literature from      
,plato to ,plotinus1  were unable to    
think of for themselves4 ,the field of  
,greek literature1  as ,dr4 ,carpenter  
justly observes1 is open2 and it would  
have been  fitting on his part to       

perambulate a little therein4 ,the      
demanded  instance lay to the hand of   
unlearned people in so familiar an      
author  as ,plutarch--in the tale of    
,lycurgus and ,alcander4 ,as ,dr4       
,thorburn  and ,dr4 ,carpenter1 however1
 must be supposed to have been ignorant 
of that story1 it may be well to tell it
 briefly here4    ,lycurgus having      
greatly exasperated the rich citizens by
 proposing  the institution of frugal   
common meals1 they made a tumult and    
stoned  him in the market-place1 so that
 he had to run for sanctuary in a       
temple4 ,but one of his pursuers1 a     
violent youth named ,alcander1 caught   
up with him1 and1 striking him with a   
club as he turned round1 dashed  out one
 of his eyes4 ,lycurgus then stood      
calmly facing the citizens1  letting    
them see his bleeding face1 and his eye 
destroyed4 ,all who  saw him were filled
 with shame and remorse4 ,they gave up  
,alcander  to his mercy1 and conducted  
,lycurgus in procession to his house to 

show their sympathy4 ,he thanked them   
and dismissed them1 but kept  ,alcander 
with him4 ,he did him no harm1 and used 
no reproachful words1  but kept him as  
his servant1 sending away all others4   
,and ,alcander1  dwelling with          
,lycurgus1 noting his serenity of temper
 and simplicity  of life and his        
unwearying labours1 became his warmest  
admirer1 and  ever after told his       
friends that ,lycurgus was the best of  
men4 ,in  one version of the tale       
,lycurgus gave back his freedom to      
,alcander  in presence of the citizens1 
saying1 ,you gave me a bad citizen2  ,i 
give you back a good one4    ,if our    
,doctors of ,divinity are unable to see 
that this represents  a rarer strain of 
goodness than the deed of the ,good     
,samaritan1  they must be told that they
 are lacking in that very moral judgment
  upon which they plume themselves4     
,forever sitting in the chair of        
judgment1 defaming all who dissent from 
them1 they are ethically less           

percipient than the cultured laity4     
,thousands of kindly human beings1  ,i  
repeat1 have succoured wounded          
strangers1 even those of hostile  races2
 and the tone held over the ,gospel     
parable by some ,christians  is but the 
measure of their misconception of human 
nature4 ,their  sectarian creed has bred
 in them a habit of aspersing all       
humanity1  all character1 save the      
,christian1 thus stultifying the very   
lesson  of their parable1 the framer of 
which would fain have taught men to     
transcend these very fanaticisms4 ,they 
will not be neighbours to  the pagan to 
the extent of crediting him with their  
own appreciation  of magnanimity and    
human-kindness2 they cannot even discuss
 his  claim without seeking arrogantly  
to browbeat his favourers4 ,forever     
acclaiming the beauty of the command to 
forgive injuries1 they cannot  even     
debate without insolence where they know
 their sectarian claims  are called in  
question4 ,and ,i shall be agreeably    

disappointed if they  proceed to handle 
the tale of ,lycurgus and ,alcander     
without seeking  to demonstrate that    
somehow it falls below the level of the 
,gospels1  where1 as it happens1 the    
endurance of violence and death by the  
,god-man is in effect presented as      
,god-like4 ,but for that matter1  even  
the oft-cited saying ,father1 forgive   
them1 occurs only in  ,luke of all the  
,gospels1 and1 being absent from two of 
the most  ancient codices1 betrays      
itself as a late addition to the text4  
,it  may be either ,jewish or ,gentile4 
,for ,plutarch1 the ,spartan tale is    
something edifying and gratifying1 but  
he makes no parade of it as  a marvel2  
and in his essay ,of ,profiting by our  
,enemies he speaks of  the forgiveness  
of enemies as a thing not rarely to be  
met with3--          ,to forbear to be  
revenged of an enemy if opportunity and 
occasion      is offered1 and to let him
 go when he is in thy hands1 is a point 
of great humanity and courtesy2 but him 

that hath compassion of      him when he
 is fallen into adversity1 succoureth   
him in distress1      at his request is 
ready to show goodwill to his children1 
and an      affection to sustain the    
state of his house and family being in  
affliction1 who doth not love for this  
kindness1 nor praise the      goodness  
of his nature8 7,holland's translation47
      ,had that passage appeared in a   
,gospel1 how would not our ,doctors of  
,divinity have exclaimed over the moral 
superiority of ,christian ethic1        
demonstrating that it alone appealed to 
the heart6 ,in actual fact  we find them
 denying that such passages exist4 ,the 
most disgraceful  instance known to me  
appears to implicate an ,austrian       
theologian4 ,in  the ,editor's          
,forewords to the ,early ,english ,text 
,society's volume  of ,queen            
,elizabeth's ,englishings there is a    
note on ,plutarch's ,de  ,curiositate1  
propos of ,elizabeth's translation of   
that essay3--          ,in ,de          

,curiositate1 as well as in his other   
writings1 ,plutarch      proves himself 
to be a true ,stoic philosopher1 to     
possess      first-rate moral principles
 and great fear of ,god4444 ,his        
religious views sometimes remind us1    
like those of ,seneca1      of          
,christian teaching2 but here there is  
always one important                    
omission--viz41 the commendation of     
charity or brotherly love2 of      this 
,christian virtue the stoic1 so virtuous
 in his own relations1      knows       
absolutely nothing4      ,at the close  
of the ,forewords the ,editor1 ,miss    
,caroline ,pemberton1  mentions that    
,the comments on the writings of        
,boethius and ,plutarch  are by ,dr4 ,j4
 ,schenk1 of ,meran1 ,tyrol4 ,to ,dr4   
,schenk1 then1 must  apparently be      
credited the high-water mark in         
,christian false-witness  against       
paganism4 ,either he did or he did not  
know that ,plutarch in  other writings  
had given full expression to the ethic  

of brotherly  love4 ,if he did not know1
 he was not only framing a wanton libel 
in sheer ignorance but giving a         
particularly deadly proof of his  own   
destitution of the very virtue he was so
 unctuously denying  to the pagan4 ,a   
man devoid not merely of charity but of 
decent  concern for simple justice poses
 as a moral teacher in virtue of his    
,christianism2 even as the professional 
encomiasts of the parable of  the ,good 
,samaritan demonstrate their own        
blindness to its meaning1  playing the  
,levite to the ,pagan4    ,plutarch1 so 
much better a man than his ,christian   
critic1 was in turn  no innovator in    
ethics4 ,as every student knows1 such   
doctrines as those  above cited from him
 are far older than the ,christian      
religion4 ,five  centuries before the   
,christian era ,confucius put the law of
 reciprocity  in the sane form of the   
precept that we should not do unto      
others  what we would not that they     
should do unto us4 ,are we to suppose   

that  the rule had been left to         
,confucius to invent8 ,christians who   
cannot  conform to it are not ashamed to
 disparage the precept of ,confucius as 
a negative teaching1 implying that there
 is a higher moral strain in  their     
formula which prescribes the doing to   
others what we would wish  them to do to
 us4 ,there1 if any difference of code  
be really intended1  we are urged to    
confer benefits in order to have them   
returned4 ,if  no difference is         
intended1 the disparagement is mere     
deceit4 ,in  the ancient ,hindu epic1   
the ,mahbhrata1 it is declared that ,the
  ,gods regard with delight the man who 
444 when struck does not strike  again1 
and that ,the good1 when they promote   
the welfare of others1  expect no       
reciprocity4 ,how long are we to listen 
to the childish  claim that moral maxims
 which in ,india were delivered         
millenniums  ago by forgotten men were  
framable in ,seneca's day only in       
,syria1  and there only by one unique   

and effulgent personality1 whose mere   
teaching lifted humanity to new heights8
 ,had no nameless man or woman  in      
,greece ever urged the beauty of        
non-retaliation before ,plato8    ,if   
clerics cannot rise above the old       
disingenuous sectarian spirit1  it is   
time at least that laymen should4 ,the  
more historic comprehension  a man has  
of the ancient world1 of ,plutarch's    
world1 with all its sins  and delusions1
 the less can he harbour the notion of  
the moral miracle  involved in the      
thesis of the unique teacher1 suddenly  
revealing to an  amazed humanity heights
 of moral aspiration before undreamt of4
 ,and  any considerate scrutiny of the  
logia of the ,gospels will inevitably   
force the open-minded student to        
recognize multiplicity of thought and   
ideal1 and compel him to seek some      
explanation4 ,an effort to detach  a    
possible personality by the elimination 
of impossible adjuncts is  the next     
natural step4                ,,chapter  

,,iv    ,,the ,,method ,,of ,,bluster   
,for anyone who will soberly and        
faithfully face the facts there must    
sooner or later arise the problem1 ,is  
there any unifying personality  behind  
this medley of many sets of doctrines1  
many voices1 many  schools8 ,even if it 
were possible to piece together from it 
a coherent  body of either ethical or   
religious thought1 and jettison the     
rest1  is there any reason to believe   
that the selected matter belongs to the 
,gospel ,teacher with the ,twelve       
,disciples1 crucified on the morning    
after the ,passover under ,pontius      
,pilate8 ,when the crowning doctrine  of
 sacrament and sacrifice is seen to be  
but the consummation of a  religious    
lore beginning in prehistoric and       
systematic human sacrifice1  and        
traceable in a score of ancient cults1  
is it possible to claim that  the       
palpably dramatic record of ,last       
,supper1 ,agony1 ,betrayal1 ,trial1  and
 ,crucifixion is a historic record of a 

strange coincidence between  cult       
practice and biography8 ,and if that    
goes1 what is left8 ,if1  says ,loisy1  
the condemnation of ,jesus as pretended 
,messiah by ,pilate  could be put in    
doubt1 one would have no motive for     
affirming the  existence of ,christ4 #ad
 ,and it can6    ,some1 assuming to     
settle the problem by rhetoric1 in      
effect stand  for a personality without 
any pretence of establishing what the   
personality taught4 ,and this           
inexpensive device will doubtless  long 
continue to be practised by the large   
class who insist upon  solving all such 
problems by instinct4 ,an example of    
that procedure  is afforded by an       
article headed ,a ,barren ,controversy1 
by the  ,rev4 ,frederick ,sinclair1 in a
 magazine entitled ,fellowship1 the     
organ of the ,free ,religious           
,fellowship1 ,melbourne1 issue of       
,march1  #aiae4 ,the controversy is     
certainly barren enough as ,mr4         
,sinclair  conducts it4 ,his religious  

temper is of a familiar type4 ,it is a  
hard task to prove the obvious1 he      
begins2 and no obligation is  laid on us
 to examine and refute the evidences    
alleged in support of  this or that     
cock-and-bull theory4 ,we can imagine   
how the reverend  critic would have     
shone in the sixteenth or the           
seventeenth century1  disposing of the  
,copernican theory1 which so            
presumptuously assailed  the obvious4   
,true to his principles1 he does not    
hamper himself  by meeting arguments or 
evidence4 ,mythical theories about      
,christ  have about as much scientific  
value and importance as the theories  of
 the ,baconians about ,shakespeare4     
,they 444 are products 444 of  that     
perverted credulity which will swallow  
anything1 so long as  it is not         
orthodox2 and they are best met by the  
method of satire  adopted by ,whately in
 his ',historic ,doubts' on ,napoleon4  
,and yet  our expert renounces that     
admirable instrument in favour of the   

simpler procedure vulgarly known as     
bluff4 ,he is in reality a good  example
 of the psychosis of the very ,baconism 
which he contemns1  and which he would  
probably be quite unable to confute4 ,an
 sthetic  impression of reality derived 
from a hypnotized perusal of ,mark1  and
 a feeling that only one man could      
deliver such oracles1 are the  beginning
 and end of his dialectic and scholarly 
stock-in-trade2  even as a consciousness
 that ,bacon must be the author of the  
,plays1  and that the actor ,shakespeare
 could not have written them1 is the    
beginning and end of the ignorant       
polemic of the ,baconists4    ,to do him
 justice1 it should be noted that ,mr4  
,sinclair warns  his readers both before
 and after his case that his handling of
  the theme and their preparation for   
estimating it leave a great  deal to be 
desired by those who care to see applied
 the method of  careful criticism4      
,still1 he is satisfied that it is      
adequate to  the particular question we 

have been considering4 ,and this is how 
,mr4 ,sinclair has considered3--        
,anyone who will pay this controversy   
the compliment of a few hours'          
consideration is advised to bring his   
own judgment to bear on it      in the  
following way3 ,let him begin by taking 
a copy of ,st4 ,mark's      ,gospel1    
which is the earliest of the four1 in   
either of the ,english      versions1   
and read it through1 pencil in hand1    
striking out all      the miraculous or 
quasi-miraculous stories4 ,then1        
gathering up      what remains1 let him 
read it1 first as a whole1 then singly1 
episode by episode1 always keeping the  
eye of the imagination open1            
dismissing as far as possible any       
prepossessions1 and letting the         
author make his own impression1 without 
the interfering offices      of critic  
or commentator4 ,having done this1 let  
the reader ask      of himself of each  
story3 ,is this a story which seems to  
belong      to actual life1 to be told  

of a real human being1 with distinct    
individuality1 or is it rather a        
literary invention1 designed      to add
 something to a conventional figure8    
,does the narrative      move with the  
freedom and variety of life1 or does it 
fit into      a conventional1           
symmetrical design8 ,does the writer's  
style and      method arouse the        
suspicion of literary artifice8 ,must   
one say      of this or that story that 
its reality is the reality of life1     
or of an art which cunningly            
counterfeits life8      ,the open-minded
 reader1 ,i trust1 will hardly need to  
be told that  what is here done is to   
set a false problem and ignore the real 
issue4 ,mr4 ,sinclair either cannot     
understand that issue or elects  to     
evade it4 ,probably the former is the   
explanation4 ,no critic of  the         
,gospels1 so far as ,i remember1 ever   
suggested that any of them  cunningly   
counterfeits life2 and certainly no one 
ever pretended  that ,mark #ae exhibits 

a conventional1 symmetrical design1     
though  ,wilke argued that it freely    
moulded the traditional historical      
material in pursuance of literary aims1 
and ,b4 ,weiss praises its  literary    
colouring4 ,it is a heap of unreal      
incident1 fortuitously  collocated1 #af 
and showing nothing approaching to      
symmetrical  design4 ,conventional      
raises another question2 in this as in  
all  the ,gospels there is plenty of    
convention4    ,let us but follow for a 
little the simple method of selection   
prescribed by ,mr4 ,sinclair1 and see   
what we get4 ,what we are to make of    
,mark i1 #a-i1 is far from clear4 ,it   
sets forth the advent of ,john as the   
fulfilment of a prophecy--i4e41 a       
miracle2 and it describes his mission   
in the baldest conceivable summary1 save
 for the sentence3 ,and ,john  was      
clothed with camel's hair1 and had a    
leathern girdle about his  loins1 and   
did eat locusts and wild honey4 ,is this
 convention or  reality8 ,i am not      

inclined to call it literary artifice1  
unless we  are to apply that description
 to the beginning of the average nursery
  tale1 as perhaps we should4 ,what must
 strike the inquiring reader is  that if
 we were to have a touch of reality     
about the ,baptist we  should be told   
something about his inner history1 his  
antecedents1  and what he preached4     
,what we are told is that he preached1  
saying1  ,there cometh after me he that 
is mightier than ,i4444 ,i baptized you 
with water2 but he shall baptize you    
with the ,holy ,spirit4    ,if this part
 of the narrative has not been struck   
out by  ,mr4 ,sinclair's neophytes as   
plainly belonging to the miraculous1    
the next five verses presumably must be4
 ,the non-miraculous narrative  begins  
at v4 #ad3--          ,now1 after that  
,john was delivered up1 ,jesus came into
 ,galilee1      preaching the ,gospel of
 ,god1 and saying1 ,the time is         
fulfilled1      and the kingdom of ,god 
is at hand2 repent ye1 and believe in   

the      ,gospel not a word of which has
 been communicated4        ,and passing 
along by the sea of ,galilee1 he saw    
,simon and ,andrew      the brother of  
,simon casting a net in the sea2 for    
they were      fishers4 ,and ,jesus said
 unto them1 ,come ye after me1 and ,i   
will      make you to become fishers of 
men4 ,and straightway they left the     
nets1 and followed him4 ,and going on a 
little further1 he saw      ,james the  
son of ,zebedee and ,john his brother1  
who also were      in the boat mending  
the nets4 ,and straightway he called    
them2      and they left their father   
,zebedee in the boat with the hired     
servants1 and went after him4      ,this
 episode1 for ,mr4 ,sinclair1 seems to  
belong to real life1  to be told of a   
real human being with distinct          
individuality4 ,for  critical readers it
 is a primitive conventional narrative1 
told by a  writer who has absolutely no 
historic knowledge to communicate4 ,of  
the  preaching of the ,saviour he has no

 more to tell than of the preaching  of 
the ,baptist4 ,both are as purely       
conventional1 so far1 as an  archaic    
statue of ,hermes4 ,of the freedom and  
variety of life there  is not a trace2  
,mr4 ,sinclair1 who professes to find   
these qualities1  is talking in the     
manner of a showman at a fair4 ,the     
important process  of making disciples  
resolves itself into a fairy tale3 ,come
 and ,i  will make you fishers of men2  
and they came4 ,a measure of literary   
artifice is perhaps to be assigned to   
the items of casting a net1  mending the
 net1 and left their father in the boat 
with the hired  servants2 #ag but it is 
the literary art of a thousand fairy    
tales1  savage and civilized1 and stands
 for the method of a narrator who  is   
dealing with purely conventional        
figures1 not with characters  concerning
 which he has knowledge4 ,the calling of
 the first disciples  in the rejected   
,fourth ,gospel has much more semblance 
of reality4    ,if the cautious reader  

is slow to see these plain facts on the 
pointing  of one who is avowedly an     
unbeliever in the historic tradition1   
let him  listen to a scholar of the     
highest eminence1 who1 after proving    
himself  a master in ,old ,testament    
criticism1 set himself to specialize on 
the  ,new4 ,says ,wellhausen3 ,the      
,gospel of ,mark1 in its entirety1 lacks
 the  character of history4 #ah ,and he 
makes good his judgment in detail3--    
,names of persons are rare3 even ,jairus
 is not named in codex      ,d4 ,among  
the dramatis person it is only ,jesus   
who distinctively      speaks and acts2 
the antagonists provoke him2 the        
disciples are      only figures in the  
background4 ,but of what he lived by1   
how he      dwelt1 ate1 and drank1 bore 
himself with his companions1 nothing    
is vouchsafed4 ,it is told that he      
taught in the synagogue on the          
,sabbath1 but no notion is given of the 
how2 we get only something      of what 
he said outside the synagogue1 usually  

through a special      incident which   
elicits it4 ,the normal things are never
 related1      only the                 
extraordinary4444 ,the scantiness of the
 tradition is      remarkable4 #ai      
,the local connection of the events1 the
 itinerary1 leaves as      much to be   
desired as the chronological2 seldom is 
the transit      indicated in the change
 of scene4 ,single incidents are often  
set forth in a lively way1 and this     
without any unreal or merely            
rhetorical devices1 but they are only   
anecdotally related1 rari      nantes in
 gurgite vasto4 ,they do not amount to  
material for a life      of ,jesus4 ,and
 one never gets the impression that an  
attempt had      been made among those  
who had eaten and drunk with him to give
      others a notion of his            
personality4 #bj      ,wellhausen1 it is
 true1 finds suggestions of a real and  
commanding  personality2 but they are   
very scanty1 the only concrete detail   
being the watching the people as they   

drop their offerings into  the          
collecting-chest6 ,passionate moral     
sensibility distinguishes  him4 ,he     
gives way to divine feeling in anger    
against the oppressors  of the people   
and in sympathy with the lowly4 ,but    
here too there  is qualification3--     
,but in ,mark this motive for miracles  
seldom comes out4 ,they are      meant  
to be mainly displays of the ,messiah's 
power4 ,mark does      not write de vita
 et moribus ,jesu3 he has not the aim of
 making      his person distinguishable1
 or even intelligible4 ,it is lost for  
him in the divine vocation2 he means to 
show that ,jesus is the      ,christ4   
#ba      ,then we have a significant    
balancing between the perception that   
,mark  is not history1 and that1 after  
all1 it is practically all there is3--  
,already the oral tradition which he    
found had been condensed      under the 
influence of the standpoint from which  
he set out4 ,he      is silent on this  
and that which he can omit as being     

known to      his readers--for instance1
 the names of the parents of ,jesus     
7674 ,nevertheless1 he has left little  
that is properly historical      for his
 successors to glean after him2 and what
 they know in      addition is of       
doubtful worth4444        ,why is not   
something more1 and something more      
trustworthy1      reported of the       
intercourse of the ,master with his     
disciples8 ,it      would rather seem   
that the narrative tradition in ,mark   
did not      come directly from the     
intimates of ,jesus4 ,it has on the     
whole      a somewhat rude and demotic  
cast1 as if it had previously by a      
long circulation in the mouth of the    
people come to the rough      and       
drastic style in which it lies before   
us4444 ,mark took up      what the      
tradition carried to him4      ,such is 
the outcome of a close examination by an
 original scholar who  takes for granted
 the historicity of ,jesus4 ,it is a    
poor support to  a pretence of finding a

 lifelike narrative4    ,if the reader  
under ,mr4 ,sinclair's tutelage will at 
this point vary his  study somewhat 7at 
the cost of a few extra hours7 by       
reading samples  of quite primitive     
folk-lore--say the ,hottentot ,fables   
and ,tales  collected by ,dr4 ,bleek1 in
 which the characters are mostly1 but   
not  always1 animals2 or some of the    
fairy tales in ,gill's ,myths and ,songs
  of the ,south ,pacific--and then      
proceed to the tale of ,tom ,tit ,tot1  
as given by ,mr4 ,edward ,clodd in the  
dialect of ,east ,anglia1 he will       
perhaps begin to realize that           
unsophisticated narrators not only can  
but frequently do give certain touches  
of quasi-reality to episodes  which no  
civilized reader can suppose to have    
been real4 ,in particular  he will find 
in the vivacious ,tom ,tit ,tot an      
amount of the freedom and  variety of   
life in comparison with which the       
archaic stiffness and  bareness of the  
,gospel narrative is as dumb-show beside

 drama4 ,and  if he will next pay some  
attention to the narrative of ,homer1 in
  which ,zeus and ,hr are so much more  
life-like than a multitude of  the human
 personages of the epic1 and then turn  
to see how ,plutarch  writes professed  
biography1 some of it absolutely        
mythical1 but all  of it on a           
documentary basis of some kind1 he will 
perhaps begin  to suspect that ,mr4     
,sinclair has not even perceived the    
nature of  the problem on which he      
pronounces1 and so is not in a position 
to  consider it at all4 ,plutarch is    
nearly as circumstantial about  ,theseus
 and ,herakles and ,romulus as about    
,solon4 ,but when he has real           
biographical material to go upon as to  
real personages he gives us a  freedom  
and variety of life which is as far as  
the poles asunder  from the hieratic    
figures of the ,christian ,gospel4 ,take
 his ,fabius  ,maximus4 ,after the      
pedigree1 with its due touch of myth1 we
 read3--          ,his own personal     

nickname was ,verrucosus1 because he had
 a little      wart growing on his upper
 lip4 ,the name of ,ovicula1 signifying 
sheep1 was also given him while yet a   
child1 because of his slow      and     
gentle disposition4 ,he was quiet and   
silent1 very cautious in      taking    
part in children's games1 and learned   
his lessons slowly      and with        
difficulty1 which1 combined with his    
easy obliging ways      with his        
comrades1 made those who did not know   
him think that he      was dull and     
stupid4 ,few there were who could       
discern1 hidden in      the depths of   
his soul1 his glorious and lion-like    
character4      ,this is biography1     
accurate or otherwise4 ,take again the  
,life of  ,pericles1 where after the    
brief account of parentage1 with the    
item  of the mother's dream1 we get     
this3--          ,his body was          
symmetrical1 but his head was long out  
of all      proportion2 for which reason
 in nearly all his statues he is        

represented wearing a helmet2 as the    
sculptors did not wish1      ,i suppose1
 to reproach him with this blemish4444  
,most writers      tell us that his     
tutor in music was ,damon1 whose name   
they say      should be pronounced with 
the first syllable short4 ,aristotle1   
however1 says that he studied under     
,pythocleides4 ,this ,damon1      it    
seems1 was a sophist of the highest     
order4444      ,the biographer who so   
satisfies ,mr4 ,sinclair's sense of     
actuality has  not one word of this kind
 to say of the youth1 upbringing1       
birthplace1  or appearance of the       
,teacher1 who for him was either ,god or
 ,supreme  ,man4 ,seeking for the       
alleged freedom and variety of life in  
the  narrative1 we go on to read3--     
,and they go into ,capernaum2 and       
straightway on the sabbath day he       
entered into the synagogue and taught4  
,and they were astonished      at his   
teaching3 for he taught them as having  
authority1 and not      as the scribes4 

,and straightway there was in their     
synagogue a      man with an unclean    
spirit--      and straightway we are    
back in the miraculous4 ,mr4 ,joseph    
,mc,cabe1 who  in his excellent book on 
the ,sources of the ,morality of the    
,gospels  avows that he holds by the    
belief in a historical ,jesus1 though   
unable  to assign to him with confidence
 any one utterance in the record1       
fatally anticipates ,mr4 ,sinclair by   
remarking that ,if the inquirer  will   
try the simple and interesting          
experiment of eliminating from the      
,gospel of ,mark all the episodes which 
essentially involve miracle1  he will   
find the remainder of the narrative     
amazingly paltry4 ,to  which verdict    
does the independent reader begin to    
incline8 ,thus the  episodes continue1  
after three paragraphs of the           
miraculous3--          ,and in the      
morning1 a great while before day1 he   
rose up and went      out1 and departed 
into a desert place1 and there prayed4  

,and ,simon      and they that were with
 him followed after him2 and they found 
him1      and say unto him1 ,all are    
seeking thee4 ,and he saith unto them1  
,let      us go elsewhere into the next 
towns1 that ,i may preach there also2   
for to this end came ,i forth4 ,and he  
went into their synagogues              
throughout all ,galilee1 preaching and  
casting out devils4      ,it would seem 
sufficient to say that ,mr4 ,sinclair1  
with his freedom  and variety of life1  
is incapable of critical reflection upon
 what he  reads4 ,in the opening chapter
 we have not a single touch of          
actuality2  the three meaningless and   
valueless touches of detail 7a great    
while before day is the third7 serve    
only to reveal the absolute  deficit of 
biographical knowledge4 ,we have        
reiterated statements that  there was   
teaching1 and not a syllable of what was
 taught4 ,the only  utterances recorded 
in the chapter are parts of the         
miracle-episodes1  which we are supposed

 to ignore4 ,let us then consider the   
critic's  further asseveration3--       
,it will be observed that certain       
distinct traits appear in      the      
central figure1 and that these traits   
are not merely those      of the        
conventional religious hero1 but the    
more simple human      touches of anger1
 pity1 indignation1 despondency1        
exultation2      these scattered        
touches1 each so vivid1 fuse into a     
natural and      intelligible whole4    
,the ,jesus of ,mark is a real man1 who 
moves      and speaks and feels like a  
man 767--a creature not too bright      
or good for human nature's daily food-- 
a notable variation from the more       
familiar thesis of the sublime and      
unique figure of current polemic4       
,looking for the alleged details1  we   
find ,jesus calling the fifth disciple3 
,he saith unto him1 ,follow  me4 ,and he
 arose and followed him--another touch  
of freedom and  variety4 ,then1 after a 
series of ,messianic utterances1        

including  a pronouncement against      
,sabbatarianism of the extremer sort1   
comes  the story of the healing of the  
withered hand1 with its indignant       
allocution to them in the synagogue3 ,is
 it lawful on the sabbath  day to do    
good1 or to do harm1 to save a life or  
to kill8 ,here1 in a  miracle story1 we 
have an intelligible protest against    
,sabbatarianism3  is it the protest or  
the indignation that vouches for the    
actuality  of the protesting figure8    
,nay1 if we are to elide the miraculous1
  how are we to let the allocution      
stand8    ,these protests against       
,sabbatarianism1 as it happens1 are the 
first approximations to actuality in the
 document2 and as such they  raise      
questions of which the instinctive      
school appear to have  no glimpse1 but  
which we shall later have to consider   
closely4 ,in  the present connection1 it
 may suffice to ask the question3 ,was  
anti-,sabbatarianism1 or was it not1 the
 first concrete issue raised by  the    

alleged ,teacher8 ,in the case put1 is  
it likely to have been8 ,were  the      
miraculous healing of disease1 and the  
necessity of feeding the  disciples1    
with the corollary that the ,son of ,man
 was ,lord of the  ,sabbath1 salient    
features in a popular gospel of         
repentance in view of  the coming of the
 ,kingdom of ,god8 ,if so1 it is in flat
 negation of the  insistence on the     
maintenance of the law in the ,sermon on
 the ,mount  7,mt4 v1 #ag-bj71 which    
thus becomes for us a later imposition  
on the  cultus of a purely ,judaic      
principle1 in antagonism to the other4  
,that  is to say1 a movement which began
 with anti-,sabbatarianism was after a  
time joined or directed by ,sabbatarian 
,judaists1 for whom the complete        
apparatus of the law was vital4 ,if1 on 
the other hand1 recognizing  that       
anti-,sabbatarianism1 in the terms of   
the case1 was not likely to  be a       
primary element in the new teaching1    
that its first obtrusion in  the alleged

 earliest ,gospel is in an expressly    
,messianic deliverance1  and its second 
in a miracle-story1 we proceed to strike
 out both  items upon ,mr4 ,sinclair's  
ostensible principles1 we are deprived  
of  the first touch of indignation and  
anger which would otherwise  serve to   
support his very simple thesis4         
,,chapter ,v    ,,schmiedel ,,and       
,,derogatory ,,myth      ,from this     
point onwards1 every step in the        
investigation will be found  to convict 
the ,unitarian thesis of absolute       
nullity4 ,it is indeed1  on the face of 
it1 an ignorant pronouncement4 ,the     
characteristics  of anger1 pity1        
indignation1 despondency1 exultation1   
are all  present in the myth of         
,herakles1 of whom ,diodorus ,siculus1  
expressly  distinguishing between       
mythology and history1 declares 7i1 #b7 
that  by the confession of all1 during  
his whole life he freely undertook      
great and continual labours and dangers1
 in order that by doing  good to the    

race of men he might win immortal fame4 
,herakles was1  in fact1 a ,saviour who 
went about doing good4 #bb ,the         
historicity  of ,herakles is not on that
 score accepted by instructed men2      
though ,i  have known divinity students 
no less contemptuous over the           
description  of the cognate ,samson saga
 as a sun myth than is ,mr4 ,sinclair   
over  the denial of the historicity of  
,jesus4    ,so common a feature of a    
hundred myths1 indeed1 is the set of    
characteristics founded on1 that we may 
at once come to the basis  of his       
argument1 a blundering reiteration of   
the famous thesis of  ,professor        
,schmiedel1 who is the sole source of   
,mr4 ,sinclair's latent  erudition4 ,the
 line of inquiry here suggested1 he     
explains1 has  been worked out in a     
pamphlet of ,schmiedel1 which will be   
found in  the ,fellowship library4 ,but 
the dialectic which broadly avails for  
the ,bible class will not serve their   
instructor here4 ,the essence  of the   

argument which ,professor ,schmiedel    
urges with scholarlike  sobriety is thus
 put by ,mr4 ,sinclair with the         
extravagance natural  to his species3-- 
,many compare ,schmiedel6 of the stories
 represent him ,jesus in a      light   
which1 from the point of view of        
conventional hero-worship1      is even 
derogatory2 his friends come to seize   
him as a madman2      he is estranged   
from his own mother2 he can do no mighty
 work in      the unsympathetic         
atmosphere of his own native place4     
,the traditionalist is here             
unconsciously substituting a new and    
different argument for the first4       
,hitherto the thesis has been  that of  
the vividness of the record1 the human  
touches1 the  speaking and feeling like 
a real man1 the freedom and variety of  
life4 ,apparently he has had a shadow of
 misgiving over these simple  criteria4 
,if1 indeed1 he had given an hour to the
 perusal of ,albert  ,kalthoff's ,rise  
of ,christianity1 instead of proceeding 

to vilipend a  literature of which he   
had read nothing1 he would have learned 
that  his preliminary thesis is there   
anticipated and demolished4 ,kalthoff   
meets it by the simple observation that 
the books of ,ruth and ,jonah  supply   
human touches and freedom and variety of
 life to a far  greater degree than does
 the ,gospel story considered as a life 
of  ,jesus2 though practically all      
scholars are now agreed that both of    
the former books are deliberately       
planned fictions1 or early novels  with 
a purpose4 ,ruth is skilfully framed to 
contend against the  ,jewish bigotry of 
race2 and ,jonah to substitute a humane 
ideal for  the ferocious one embalmed in
 so much of the sacred literature4 ,yet 
so vividly are the central personages   
portrayed that down till the  other day 
all the generations of ,christendom1    
educated and uneducated  alike1 accepted
 them unquestioningly as real records1  
whatever might  be thought by the       
judicious few of the miracle element in 

,jonah4    ,it is thus ostensibly quite 
expedient to substitute for the simple  
thesis of vividness in regard to the    
second ,gospel the quite  different     
argument that some of the details       
exclude the notion that  the author     
regarded ,jesus as a supernatural       
person4 ,but this thesis  instantly     
involves the defence in fresh trouble1  
besides breaking down  utterly on its   
own merits4 ,in the early chapters of   
,mark1 ,jesus is  emphatically presented
 as a supernormal person--the deity's   
beloved  ,son1 the ,holy ,one of ,god1  
who has the divine power of forgiving   
sins1 is lord even of the sabbath1 and  
is hailed by the defeated  spirits of   
evil as the ,son of ,god1 and the ,son  
of the ,most ,high  ,god4 ,either the   
conception of ,jesus in ,mark vi is     
compatible with all  this or it is not4 
,if not1 the case collapses1 for the    
derogatory  episode must be at once     
branded as an interpolation4 ,and if it 
be argued that even as an interpolation 

it testifies at once to a               
non-supernaturalist view of the         
,founder's function and a real knowledge
  of his life and actions1 we have only 
to give a list of more or less  mythical
 names in rebuttal4 ,to claim that the  
episode in ,mark vi1 #a-f1  is          
derogatory from the point of view of    
conventional hero-worship1  and         
therefore presumptively historical1 is  
to ignore alike ,jewish and  ,gentile   
hero-worship4 ,in the ,old ,testament   
,adam1 ,noah1 ,abraham1 ,jacob1  ,judah1
 ,moses1 ,aaron1 ,samson1 ,david1 and   
,solomon are all successively  placed in
 derogatory positions2 and the ,pagan   
hero-worshippers of  antiquity are      
equally with the ,jewish recalcitrant to
 ,mr4 ,sinclair's  conviction of what   
they ought to do4    ,professor         
,schmiedel is aware1 though ,mr4        
,sinclair apparently is  not1 that      
,herakles in the myth is repeatedly     
placed in derogatory  positions1 and is 
not only seized as a madman but actually

 driven  mad4 ,the reader who will      
further extend ,mr4 ,sinclair's brief   
curriculum  to a perusal of the ,bacch  
of ,euripides will find that the ,god1  
who in another story is temporarily     
driven mad by ,juno1 is there  subjected
 to even greater indignities than those 
so triumphantly  specified by our       
hierologist4 ,herakles and ,dionysos1 we
 may be told1  were only demigods1 not  
,gods4 ,but ,professor ,schmiedel's     
thesis is that  for the writer of ,mark 
or of his original document ,jesus was  
only a  holy man4 ,on the other hand--to
 say nothing of the myths of ,zeus and  
,hr1 ,ars and ,aphrodit1 ,hephaistos and
 ,poseidon--,apollo1 certainly  a ,god  
for the framers of his myth1 is there   
actually represented  as being banished 
from heaven and living in a state of    
servitude to  ,admetus for nine years4  
,a ,god1 then1 could be conceived in    
civilized  antiquity as undergoing many 
and serious indignities4 ,these simple  
priori arguments are apt to miscarry    

even in the hands of careful  and       
scrupulous scholars like ,professor     
,schmiedel1 who have failed to  realize 
that no amount of textual scholarship   
can suffice to settle  problems which in
 their very nature involve fundamental  
issues of  anthropology1 mythology1 and 
hierology4 ,as ,professor ,schmiedel is 
never  guilty of browbeating1 ,i make no
 disparagement of his solid work on the 
score that he has not taken account of  
these fields in his argument2  but when 
his untenable thesis is brandished by   
men who have neither his  form of       
scholarship nor any other1 it is apt to 
incur summary handling4    ,elsewhere ,i
 have examined ,professor ,schmiedel's  
thesis in detail4 #bc  ,here it may     
suffice to point out 7#a7 as aforesaid1 
that the argument  from derogatory      
treatment is not in the least a proof   
that in an  ancient narrative a         
personage is not regarded as superhuman2
 7#b7 that  a suffering ,messiah was    
expressly formulated in ,jewish         

literature  in the pre-,christian       
period2 #bd and 7#c7 that there are     
extremely  strong grounds for inferring 
purposive invention--of that naf kind   
which marks the whole mass of early     
hierology--in the very episodes  upon   
which he founds4 ,the first concrete    
details of the ,founder's  propaganda in
 ,mark1 as we have seen1 exhibit him as 
clashing with  the ,judaic environment4 
,in later episodes he clashes with it   
yet  further4 ,the derogatory episodes  
exhibit him as clashing with his        
personal environment1 his family and    
kin1 concerning whom there has  been no 
mention whatever at the outset1 where we
 should expect to find  it4 ,all this is
 in line with the anti-,judaic element  
of the ,gospel4 ,if  at early stages in 
the larger ,jesuine movement there were 
reasons  why the ,founder should be     
represented as detaching himself from   
the  ,mosaic law2 as being misunderstood
 and deserted by his disciples2 and  as 
disparaging even the listening ,jewish  

multitude 7concerning whom  ,mark1 iv1  
#aj sq41 makes him say that unto them   
that are without1  all things are done  
in parables1 that seeing they may see   
and not  perceive1 and hearing they may 
hear and not understand1 lest haply they
  should turn again1 and it should be   
forgiven them71 is there anything       
unlikely in his being inventively       
represented as meeting antipathetic     
treatment from his family8 #be ,at a    
time when so-called brothers of  the    
,lord ostensibly claimed authority in   
the ,judo-,gentile community1  an       
invented tale of original domestic      
hostility to the ,teacher would  be as  
likely as the presence of authorities so
 styled is unlikely  on the assumption  
that the story in ,mark was all along   
current4 ,the  very fact that allusions 
to the family of the ,lord suddenly     
appear in  a record which had introduced
 him as a heavenly messenger1 without   
mention of home or kindred or           
preparation1 tells wholly against the   

originality of the later details1 which 
in the case of the naming of  the       
carpenter and his mother have a polemic 
purpose4 #bf                ,,chapter   
,,vi    ,,the ,,visionary ,,evangel     
,all this applies1 of course1 to the    
,primitive ,gospel held to  underlie all
 of the synoptics1 ,mark included--a    
datum which reduces  to comparative     
unimportance the question of priority   
among these4 ,as  collected by the      
school of ,bernhard ,weiss1 #bg the     
primitive ,gospel1  like ,mark1 set out 
with a non-historical introduction of   
the ,messiah  to be baptized by ,john4  
,it then gives the temptation myth in   
full2  and immediately afterwards the   
,teacher is made to address to disciples
  7who have not previously been         
mentioned or in any way accounted for7  
the ,sermon on the ,mount1 with         
variations1 and without any mount4 ,in  
this place we have the uncompromising   
insistence on the ,mosaic law2  and     
soon1 after some miracles of healing and

 some ,messianic discourses1  including 
the liturgical ,come unto me all ye that
 labour1 we have  the ,sabbatarian      
question raised on the miracle of the   
healing of the  man with the dropsy1 but
 without the argument from the ,davidic 
eating  of the shewbread4 #bh    ,there 
is no more of the colour of history here
 than in ,mark3 so  obviously is it     
wanting in both that the really         
considerate exegetes  are driven to     
explain that history was not the object 
in either  writing4 ,in both the twelve 
are suddenly sent--in the case of ,mark1
  after a list of twelve had been       
inserted without any reference to  the  
first specified five2 in the            
reconstructed primitive document        
without any list whatever--to preach the
 blank gospel1 ,the kingdom of  ,god is 
at hand1 with menaces for the           
non-recipient1 the allocutions  to      
,chorazin and ,bethsaida being here made
 part of the instructions  to the       
apostles4    ,what1 then1 are the       

disciples supposed to have preached8    
,what had  the ,teacher preached as an  
evangel of the ,kingdom8 ,the record has
  expressly represented that his        
parables were incomprehensible to his   
own disciples2 and when they ask for an 
explanation they are told  that the     
parables are expressly meant to be      
unintelligible1 but that  to them an    
explanation is vouchsafed4 ,it is to the
 effect that the  seed is the word4     
,what word8 ,the ,kingdom8 ,the mystic  
allegories  on that head are avowedly   
not for the multitude3 they could not   
have  been4 ,yet those allegories are   
the sole explanations ever afforded in  
the ,gospels of the formula of the      
,kingdom which was to be the purport  of
 the evangel of the apostles to the     
multitude4 ,they themselves had  failed 
to understand the parables2 and they    
were forbidden to convey  the           
explanation4 ,what1 then1 had they to   
convey8    ,and that issue raises       
another4 ,why were there disciples at   

all8 ,disciples are understood to be    
prepared as participants in  or         
propagandists of somebody's teaching--a 
lore either exoteric  or esoteric4 ,but 
no intelligible view has ever been given
 of the  purpose of the ,gospel ,jesus  
in creating his group of ,twelve4 ,if we
  ask what he taught them1 the only     
answer given by the documents is3  7#a7 
,casting out devils2 7#b7 ,the meaning  
of parables which were meant  to be     
unintelligible to the people3 that is1  
either sheer thaumaturgy  or a teaching 
which was never to be passed on4 ,on the
 economic life  of the group not one    
gleam of light is cast4 ,judas carried a
 bag1  but as to whence came its        
contents there is no hint4 ,the whole   
concept  hangs in the air1 a baseless   
dream4 ,the myth-makers have not even   
tried to make it plausible4    ,the     
problems thus raised are not only not   
faced by the orthodox  exegetes2 they   
are not seen by them4 ,they take the    
most laudable  pains to ascertain what  

the primitive ,gospel was like1 and1    
having  settled it to the satisfaction  
of a certain number1 they rest from     
their labours4 ,yet we are only at the  
beginning of the main1 the  historic    
problem1 from which ,baur recalled      
,strauss to the documentary1  with the  
virtual promise that its solution would 
clear up the other4    ,a higher        
criticism than that so-called1 it is    
clear1 must set about  the task2 and its
 first conclusion1 ,i suggest1 must be  
that there  never was any ,christian    
evangel by the ,christ and the ,twelve4 
,these  allegories of the ,kingdom are  
framed to conceal the fact that the     
gospel-makers had no evangel to         
describe2 though it may be claimed  as a
 proof of their forensic simplicity that
 they actually represent  the ,founder  
as vetoing all popular explanation of   
the very formula  which they say he sent
 his disciples to preach to the         
populace4 ,an  idea of the ,kingdom of  
,god1 it may be argued1 was already     

current  among the ,jews3 the documents 
assert that that was the theme of the   
,baptist4 ,precisely1 but was the       
evangel of ,jesus then simply the       
evangel of ,john1 which it was to       
supersede8 ,and was the evangel of      
,john only the old evangel1 preached by 
,pharisees and others from  the time of 
the ,maccabees onwards8 #bi ,whatever it
 was1 what is  the meaning of the       
repeated ,gospel declaration that the   
nature of  the ,kingdom must not be     
explained to the people8 ,there is only 
one  inference4 ,the story of the       
sending forth of the twelve is as       
plainly  mythical as is ,luke's story of
 the sending forth of the seventy1      
which even the orthodox exegetes abandon
 as a symmetrical myth2  though they    
retain the allocution embodied in it4   
,what is in theory  the supreme episode 
in the early propaganda of the cult is  
found to  have neither historical       
content nor moral significance4 ,not    
only  is there not a word of explanation

 of the formula of the evangel1  there  
is not a word of description of the     
apostles' experience1  but simply the   
usual negation of knowledge3--          
,and the disciples returned and told him
 all that they had done1      saying1   
,lord1 even the devils are subject unto 
us through thy      name4 ,and he said1 
,i beheld ,satan as lightning fall from 
heaven2      behold ,i have given you   
power to tread on serpents and scorpions
      and over all the power of the     
enemy2 notwithstanding1 in this         
rejoice not1 that the spirits are       
subject unto you1 but rejoice           
because your names are written in       
heaven4444 7,luke x1 #ag-bj1 with       
the disciples for the seventy74         
,and this is history1 or what the early 
,christian leaders thought fit  to put  
in place of history1 for ,christian     
edification4 ,the disciples1  be it     
observed1 had exorcized in the name of  
,jesus where ,jesus had  never been1 a  
detail accepted by the faithful         

unsuspectingly1 and  temporized over no 
less unsuspectingly by the liberal      
school1 but  serving for the critical   
student to raise the question3 ,was     
there1  then1 an older cult of a        
,jesus-,god in ,palestine8 ,leaving that
 problem  for the present1 we can but   
note that the report in effect tells    
that there was no evangel to preach4 ,to
 any reflecting mind1 it is  the        
utterance of men who had nothing to     
relate1 but are inserting an  empty     
framework1 wholly mythical1 in a void   
past4 ,themselves ruled by  the crudest 
superstition1 they do but make the      
,divine ,teacher talk on  their own     
level1 babbling of ,satan falling from  
heaven1 and of treading  on serpents4   
,all the labours of the generations of  
laborious scholars  who have striven to 
get to the foundations of their         
documents have  resulted in a pastiche  
which only the more clearly reveals the 
total  absence of a historic basis such 
as the ,gospels more circumstantially   

suggest4 ,in the end we have neither    
history nor biography1 but an           
absolutely enigmatic evangel1 set in a  
miscellany of miracles and of           
discourses which are but devices to     
disguise the fact that there had  been  
no original evangel to preach4 ,if the  
early church had any creed1  it was not 
this4 ,it originated in a rite1 not in  
an evangel4    ,one hypothesis might1   
indeed1 be hazarded to save the         
possibility of  an actual evangel by the
 ,founder4 ,if1 taking him to be        
historical1  we assume him to have      
preached a political doctrine subversive
  of the ,roman rule1 and to have       
thereby met his death1 we could         
understand that1 in a later period in   
which the writers connected  with the   
movement were much concerned to         
conciliate the ,romans1 it  might have  
been felt expedient1 and indeed         
imperative1 to suppress  the facts4     
,they would not specify the evangel1    
because they dared  not4 ,on this view  

the ,founder was a ,messiah of the      
ordinary ,jewish  type1 aiming at the   
restoration of the ,jewish ,state4 ,but 
such a ,jesus  would not be the ,jesus  
of the ,gospels at all4 ,he would merely
 be  a personage of the same 7common7   
name1 who in no way answered to  the    
,gospel figure1 but had been wholly     
denaturalized to make him a             
cult-centre4 ,on this hypothesis there  
has been no escape from the             
myth-theory1 but merely a restatement of
 it4 ,a ,jesus put to death  by the     
,romans as a rebel ,mahdi refuses to    
compose with the ,teacher  who sends out
 his apostles to preach his evangel2 who
 proclaims1  if anything1 a purely      
spiritual kingdom2 and who is put to    
death as  seeking to subvert the ,jewish
 faith1 the ,roman governor giving only 
a passive and reluctant assent4 ,on the 
political hypothesis1 as on  the        
myth-theory here put1 the whole ,gospel 
narrative of the ,tragedy  which        
establishes the cult remains mythical4  

,we have but to proceed1  then1 with the
 analysis which reveals the manner of   
its composition  and of its inclusion in
 the record4    ,it is admitted by the  
reconstructors that the primitive       
,gospel had  no conclusion1 telling     
nothing of ,last ,supper1 ,agony1       
,betrayal1  ,crucifixion1 or            
,resurrection4 ,it did not even name    
,judas as the  betrayer4 ,and they      
explain that it was because of lacking  
these  details that it passed out of    
use1 superseded by the ,gospels which   
gave them4 ,as if the conclusion1 were  
it compiled in the same fashion1  could 
not have been added to the original     
document1 which ex hypothesi  had the   
prestige of priority4 ,why the composer 
of the original did not  add the        
required chapters is a question to which
 we get only the most  futile answers1  
as is natural when the exegetes have not
 critically  scrutinized the later      
matter4 ,thus even ,mr4 ,jolley is      
content to say3--          ,the omission

 of any account of the ,passion or      
,resurrection is      natural enough in 
a writing primarily intended for the    
,christians      of ,juda1 some of them 
witnesses of the ,crucifixion1 and all1 
probably1 familiar with the incidents of
 the ,saviour's ,judan      ministry1 as
 well as with the events preceding and  
following      the ,passion1 especially 
when we remember that the author had no 
intention 767 of writing a biography4   
#cj      ,here the alleged fact that    
only some had seen the ,crucifixion1    
while all knew all about the ministry1  
is given as a reason why the  ministry  
should be described and the ,crucifixion
 left undescribed  and unmentioned6     
,the problem thus impossibly disposed of
 is really of capital  importance4 ,any 
complete solution must remain           
hypothetical in the  nature of the case2
 but at least we are bound to recognize 
that  the ,primitive ,gospel may have   
had a different conclusion1 as it may   
further have contained matter not       

preserved in the synoptics4 ,that  might
 well be a sufficient ground for its    
abandonment by the ,christian           
community2 and some such suspicion      
simply cannot be excluded1 though  it   
cannot be proved4 ,but whatever we may  
surmise as to what may have  been in the
 original document1 we can offer a      
decisive reason why the  existing       
conclusion should not have been part of 
it4 ,that conclusion  is primarily      
extraneous to any gospel1 and is not    
originally a piece  of narrative at all4
    ,bernhard ,weiss ascribes to ,mark  
the original narrative of the closing   
events1 making ,matthew a simple        
copyist--a matter of no ultimate        
importance1 seeing that it is the same  
impossible and unhistorical  narrative  
in both documents4 ,like all the other  
professional exegetes1  ,bernhard ,weiss
 and his school have failed to discern  
that the document  reveals not only that
 it is not an original narrative at all1
 but that  it could not possibly be a   

narrative4 ,it was only in the history  
of the passion1 writes ,weiss1 that     
,mark could give a somewhat  connected  
account partly of what he himself had   
seen and partly of  what he gathered    
from those who witnessed the            
crucifixion4 #ca  ,whether passion here 
includes the ,agony in the ,garden is   
not clear3  as it is expressly          
distinguished from the crucifixion1     
which ,mark  by implication had not     
seen1 the meaning remains obscure4 ,like
 the  ordinary traditionalists1 ,weiss  
assumes that after ,peter's death ,mark 
began to note down his recollections of 
what the ,apostle had told him  of the  
acts and discourses of ,jesus4          
,supposing this to include the  record  
of the night of the ,betrayal1 what were
 ,mark's possible sources  for the      
description of the ,agony1 with its     
prayers1 its entrances and  exits1 when 
the only disciples present are alleged  
to have been asleep8    ,it is the      
inconceivable omission of the exegetes  

to face such problems  that forces us   
finally to insist on their serious      
inadequacy in this  regard4 ,they       
laboriously conduct an investigation up 
to the point at  which it leaves us1    
more certainly than ever1 facing the    
incredible1  and there they leave it4   
,their work is done4 ,that the story of 
the  ,last ,night was never framed as a 
narrative1 but is primarily a drama1    
which the ,gospel simply transcribes1 is
 manifest in every section1  and is     
definitely proved by the verses 7,mk4   
xiv1 #da-db7 in which1  without an      
intervening exit1 ,jesus says3 ,sleep on
 now1 and take  your rest4444 ,arise1   
let us be going4 ,the moment the        
document is  realized to be a transcript
 of a drama it becomes clear that the   
,sleep on now1 and take your rest should
 be inserted before the  otherwise      
speechless exit in verse #dj1 where the 
text says that  they wist not what to   
answer him4 ,two divergent speeches have
 by  an oversight in transcription been 

fused into one4    ,that the story of   
the tragedy is a separate composition   
has been  partly perceived by critics of
 different schools without drawing any  
elucidating inference4 ,wellhausen      
pronounces that the ,passion cannot  be 
excepted from the verdict that ,mark as 
a whole lacks the character  of history4
 ,nothing is motived and explained by   
preliminaries4 #cb  ,but we learn as    
much about the week in ,jerusalem as    
about the year in  ,galilee4 #cc ,and   
the ,rev4 ,mr4 ,wright gets further1    
though following  a wrong track3--      
,the very fact that ,s4 ,mark devotes   
six chapters out of sixteen      to     
events which took place in the precincts
 of ,jerusalem makes      me suspicious4
 ,important though the passion was1 it  
seems to      be narrated at undue      
length4 ,the proportions of the history 
are      destroyed4 #cd      ,precisely4
 ,the story of the events in ,jerusalem 
is no proper part  either of a primary  
document or of the first or second      

,gospel4 ,in its  detail it has no      
congruity with the scanty and incoherent
 narrative  of ,mark4 ,it is of another 
provenance1 although1 as ,wellhausen    
notes1  quite as unhistorical as the    
rest4 ,the non-historicity of the entire
  action is as plain as in the case of  
any episode in the ,gospels4 ,judas  is 
paid to betray a man who could easily   
have been arrested without  any process 
of betrayal2 and the conducting of the  
trial immediately  upon the arrest1     
throughout the night1 the very witnesses
 being  sought for in the darkness1 is  
plain fiction1 explicable only by  the  
dramatic obligation to continuous       
action4                ,,chapter ,,vii  
,,the ,,alleged ,,consensus ,,of        
,,scholars      ,such is the historical 
impasse at which open-minded students   
find  themselves when they would finally
 frame a reasoned conception of  the    
origin of the ,christian religion4 ,the 
documentary analysis having  yielded    
results which absolutely repel the      

accepted tradition1 however  denuded of 
supernaturalism1 we are driven to seek a
 solution which  shall be compatible    
with the data4 ,and some of us1 after   
spending  many years in shaping a       
sequence which should retain the figure 
of  the ,founder and his twelve         
disciples1 have found ourselves forced  
step by step to the conclusion that     
these are all alike products  of myth1  
intelligible and explicable only as     
such4 ,and when1 in  absolute loyalty to
 all the clues1 with no foregone        
conclusions to  support--unless the     
rejection of supernaturalism be counted 
such--we  tentatively frame for         
ourselves a hypothesis of a remote      
origin in  a sacramental cult of human  
sacrifice1 with a probable ,jesus-,god  
for its centre in ,palestine1 we are not
 surprised at being met by  the kind of 
explosion that has met every step in the
 disintegration  of traditional beliefs 
from ,copernicus to ,darwin4 ,the       
compendious  ,mr4 ,sinclair1 who makes  

no pretension to have read any of the   
works  setting forth the new theories1  
thus describes them3--          ,the    
arguments of ,baconians and mythomaniacs
 are alike made up of      the merest   
blunders as to fact and the sheerest    
misunderstanding      of the meaning of 
facts4 ,grotesque etymologies1 #ce      
arbitrary      and tasteless emendations
 of texts1 forced parallels1            
unrestrained      license of conjecture1
 the setting of conjecture above        
reasonably      established fact1 chains
 of argument in which every link is of  
straw1 appeals to anti-theological bias 
and to the miserable      egotism which 
sees heroes with the eyes of the        
valet--these are      some of the       
formidable evidences in deference to    
which we are      asked to reverse the  
verdicts of tradition1 scholarship1 and 
common      sense4 ,they have never     
imposed on anyone fairly conversant with
      the facts4 ,those who have not    
such knowledge may either simply        

appeal to the authority of scholars1    
,,or1 ,,better ,,still1 ,,support that  
authority by exercizing their own       
,,imagination ,,and ,,common ,,sense4   
,that tirade has seemed to me worth     
preserving4 ,it is perhaps a monition   
to scholars1 whose function is something
 higher than vituperation1 to  note how 
their inadequacies are sought to be eked
 out by zeal without  either scholarship
 or judgment1 and1 finally1 without     
intellectual  sincerity4 ,the publicist 
who alternately tells the unread that   
they  ought to accept the verdict of    
scholars1 and that it is better still   
to support that verdict by unaided      
imagination and common sense1  has given
 us once for all his moral measure4     
,dismissing him as having served his    
turn in illustrating  compendiously the 
temper which survives in ,unitarian as  
in ,trinitarian  traditionalism1 we may 
conclude this preliminary survey with a 
comment  on the proposition that we     
should take the verdict of scholars4 ,it

  has been put by men1 themselves       
scholars in other fields1 whom to       
bracket with ,mr4 ,sinclair would be an 
impertinence4 ,but ,i have always  been 
puzzled by their attitude4 ,they proceed
 upon three assumptions1  which are all 
alike delusions4 ,the first is that     
there is a consensus  of scholars on the
 details of this problem4 ,the second is
 that the  professional scholars have a 
command of a quite recondite knowledge  
as  regards the central issue4 ,the     
third is that there is such a thing as  
professional expertise in the diagnosis 
of ,gods1 ,demigods1 and real  ,founders
 in religious history4 ,once more1 the  
nature of the problem  has not been     
realized4    ,let us take first the case
 of a real scholar in the strictest     
sense of  the term1 ,professor ,gustaf  
,dalman1 of ,leipzig1 author of ,the    
,words  of ,jesus1 considered in the    
light of ,post-,biblical ,jewish        
,writings  and the ,aramaic ,language4  
#cf ,to me1 ,professor ,dalman appears  

to be  an expert of high competence1    
alike in ,hebrew and ,aramaic--a double 
qualification possessed by very few of  
those to whose verdict we  are told to  
bow4 ,by his account few previous       
experts in the same field  have escaped 
bad miscarriages1 as a handful of       
excerpts will show3--          ,m4      
,friedmann1 ,onkelos und ,akylas1 #ahif1
 still holds fast to the                
traditional opinion that even ,ezra had 
an ,aramaic version of the      ,tora4  
,in this he is mistaken4        ,h4     
,laible1 in ,dalman-,laible's ,jesus    
,christ in the ,talmud1 etc41           
incorrectly refers it the phrase bastard
 of a wedded wife to      ,jesus4 ,the  
discussion treats merely of the         
definition of the term      bastard4    
,adequate proof for all three parts of  
this assertion ,a4 ,neubauer's      as  
to the use of ,aramaic in parts of      
,palestine is awanting4        ,f4      
,blass 444 characterizes as ,aramaisms  
idioms which in some cases      are     

equally good ,hebraisms1 and in others  
are pure ,hebraisms and      not        
,aramaisms at all4        ,p4 ,w4       
,schmiedel 444 does not succeed in      
reaching any really      tenable        
separation of ,aramaisms and ,hebraisms4
        ,resch entirely abandons the    
region of what is linguistically        
admissible4444 ,and the statement of the
 same writer that this      444 belongs 
very specially to the epic style of     
narration in      the ,old ,testament is
 incomprehensible4        ,the idioms   
discussed above 444 show at once the    
incorrectness of      ,schmiedel's      
contention that the narrative style of  
the ,gospels      and the ,acts is the  
best witness of the ,greek that was     
spoken      among the ,jews4 ,the fact  
is that the narrative sections of the   
,synoptists have more ,hebrew features  
than the discourses of ,jesus           
communicated by them4        ,such a    
book as ,wnsche's ,neue ,beitrge1 by    
reason of quite      superficial and    

inaccurate assertions and faulty        
translations1      must even be         
characterized as directly misleading and
 confusing4        ,the want of due     
precaution in the use made of the       
,jerusalem      ,targums of the         
,pentateuch by ,j4 ,t4 ,marshall is one 
of the things      which were bound to  
render his efforts to reproduce the     
,aramaic      ,gospel a failure4        
,harnack supposes it to be an ancient   
,jewish conception that      everything 
of genuine value which successively     
appears upon earth      has its         
existence in heaven--i4e41 it exists    
with ,god--meaning in      the cognition
 of ,god1 and therefore really4 ,but    
this idea must be      pronounced       
thoroughly un-,jewish1 at all events    
un-,palestinian1      although the      
medieval ,kabbala certainly harbours    
notions of      this sort4              
,holtzmann 444 thereby evinces merely   
his own ignorance of ,jewish      legal 
processes4        ,especially must his  

,r4 ,h4 ,charles's attempts at          
retranslation      of the ,assumptio    
,mosis be pronounced almost throughout a
 failure4        ,even in the pertinent 
observations of ,wellhausen and ,nestle 
we feel the absence of a careful        
separation of ,hebrew and ,aramaic      
possibilities4444 ,he ,wellhausen must  
be reminded that the ,jewish            
literature to this day is still mainly  
composed in ,hebrew4      ,these may    
suffice to illustrate the point4 ,few of
 the other experts  escape ,dalman's    
,ithuriel spear2 and as he frankly      
confesses past  blunders of his own1 it 
is not to be doubted that some of the   
others  have returned his thrusts4 #cg  
,supposing then that this body of       
experts1 so many of them deep in        
,aramaic1 so opposed to each other  on  
so many issues clearly within the field 
of their special studies1  were to unite
 in affirming the historicity of the    
,gospel ,jesus1  what would their       
consensus signify8 ,simply that they    

were agreed in  affirming the unknown1  
the improbable1 and the unprovable1     
while they  disputed over the known4    
,their special studies do not give them 
the  slightest special authority to     
pronounce upon such an issue4 ,it is    
one of historic inference upon a mass of
 data which they among them  have made  
common property so far as it was not so 
already1 in the main  documents and in  
previous literature4 ,dalman1 who takes 
for granted  the historicity of ,jesus  
and apparently of the tradition in      
general1  pronounces 7p4 #i7 that       
the actual discourses of ,jesus in no   
way give the impression that      ,he   
had grown up in rural solitude and      
seclusion4 ,it is true only      that   
,he1 like the ,galileans generally in   
that region1 would have      little     
contact with literary erudition4        
,if ,professor ,dalman cannot see that  
the proposition in the first  sentence  
is extremely disturbing to the          
traditional belief in its  ,unitarian   

form1 and that the second is a mere     
petitio principii which  cannot save the
 situation1 other people can see it4    
,his scholarship  gives him no eminent  
domain over logic2 and it does not      
require a  knowledge of ,aramaic to     
detect the weakness of his reasoning4   
,fifty  experts in ,aramaic carry no    
weight for a thinking man on such a     
non-linguistic issue2 and he who defers 
to them as if they did is  but throwing 
away his birthright4 ,when again ,dalman
 writes 7p4 #fj7  that ,peter must have 
appeared 7,acts x1 #bd7 from a very     
early date  as a preacher in the ,greek 
language1 he again raises an insoluble  
problem for the traditionalists of all  
schools1 and his scholarly  status is   
quite irrelevant to that4    ,when1 yet 
again1 he writes 7p4 #ga7 that what is  
firmly established is  only the fact    
that ,jesus spoke in ,aramaic to the    
,jews1 his mastery  of ,aramaic has     
nothing to do with the case4 ,he is     
merely taking for  granted the          

historicity of the main tradition2 and  
until he faces the  problems he has     
ignored 7having1 as he may fairly claim1
 been occupied  with others71 and       
repelled the criticisms which that      
tradition incurs1  his vote on the      
unconsidered issue has no more value to 
a rational  judgment than any other4 ,i 
have seldom read a scholarly treatise   
more  satisfying than his within its    
special field1 or more provocative of   
astonishment at the extent to which     
specialism can close men's eyes  to the 
problems which overlap or underlie      
theirs4    ,and that is the             
consideration that has to be realized by
 those  who talk of scholarship 7meaning
 simply what is called ,new  ,testament 
scholarship7 settling a historical      
problem which turns  upon anthropology1 
mythology1 hierology1 psychology1 and   
literary  and historical science in     
general4 ,on these sides the scholars in
  question1 ,wir ,gelehrten vom ,fach1  
as the ,german specialists call         

themselves in the ,german manner1 are   
not experts at all1 not even  amateurs1 
inasmuch as they have never even        
realized that those other  sciences are 
involved4 ,they have fallen into the rle
 of the pedant1  properly so-called1 who
 presumes to regulate life by           
inapplicable  knowledge4 ,and even those
 who are wholly free of this            
presumptuous  pedantry1 the sober1      
courteous1 and sane scholars like       
,professor  ,schmiedel1 whose candour   
enables him to contribute a preface to  
such a book as ,professor ,w4 ,b4       
,smith's ,der vorchristliche ,jesus1  to
 whose thesis he does not assent--even  
these1 as we have seen1  can fail to    
realize the scope of the problem to the 
discussion of  which they have          
contributed4    ,professor ,schmiedel's 
careful argument from derogatory        
episodes  in the gospel of ,mark1 be it 
repeated1 is not merely inconclusive2   
it elicits a rebuttal which turns it    
into a defeat4 ,inadequate even  on the 

textual side1 it is wholly fallacious on
 the hierological  and the mythological2
 and no more than the ordinary          
conservative  polemic does it recognize 
the sociological problem involved4 ,for 
those who seek to study history         
comprehensively and comprehendingly1    
the residuum of the conservative case is
 a blank incredibility4 ,even  ,dalman1 
after the closest linguistic and        
literary analysis1 has  left the meaning
 of the ,kingdom of ,god a conundrum2   
#ch and the  conservative case finally  
consists in asserting that ,christianity
  as a public movement arose in the     
simple announcement of that             
conundrum--the mere utterance of the    
formula--throughout ,palestine  by a    
body of twelve apostles1 who for the    
rest cast out devils1  as instructed by 
their ,teacher4 ,the scholarship which  
contentedly  rests facing that vacuous  
conception is a scholarship not         
qualified  finally to handle a great    
historical problem as such4 ,it conducts

  itself exactly as did ,biblical       
scholarship so long in face of the      
revelations of geology1 and as did      
,hebrew scholarship so long over  the   
problem of the ,tabernacle in the       
wilderness4    ,deeply learned men1 in  
the latter case1 went on for generations
  solemnly re-writing history in the    
terms of the re-arranged documents1     
when all the while the history was      
historic myth--perceptible as such  to a
 ,zulu who had lived in a desert4 ,and  
when the ,zulu's teacher proved  the    
case by simple arithmetic1 he met at the
 hands alike of pedants  and of pietists
 a volley of malignant vituperation1 the
 religious  expert ,maurice excelling   
many of the most orthodox in the        
virulence of  his scorn2 while the      
pontifical ,arnold1 from the ,olympian  
height of his  amateurism1 severely     
lectured ,colenso for not having written
 in ,latin4    ,until the scholars and  
the amateurs alike renounce their own   
presumption1 their thrice stultified    

airs of finality1 their estimate  of    
their prejudice and their personal      
equation as a revelation from  within1  
and their sacerdotal conviction that    
their science is the  science of every  
case1 they will have to be unkindly     
reminded that they  are but blunderers  
like other men1 that in their own       
specialties they  convict each other of 
errors without number1 and that the only
 path  to truth is that of the eternal  
free play and clash of all manner of    
criticism4 ,it is an exceptionally      
candid orthodox scholar who writes3  ,it
 is a law of the human mind that        
combating error is the best way to      
advance knowledge4 ,they who have never 
joined in controversy have no  firm     
grasp of truth4 ,hateful and unchristian
 as theological disputes  are apt to    
become1 they have this merit1 that they 
open our eyes4 #ci  ,let the            
conservative disputants then be content 
to put their theses  and their arguments
 like other men1 to meet argument with  

argument  when they can1 and to hold    
their peace when they have nothing      
better  to add than boasts and          
declamation4    ,before the end of the  
nineteenth century the very school which
 we  are asked to regard as endowed with
 quasi-papal powers in matters of       
historical criticism was declared by one
 of its leading representatives  in     
,germany to have been on a wrong track  
for fifty years4 ,in the  words of      
,professor ,blass3--          ,professor
 ,harnack1 in his most recent           
publication1 even while      stating    
that now the tide has turned1 and that  
theology1 after      having strayed in  
the darkness and led others into        
darkness 7see      ,matt4 xv1 #ad7 for  
about fifty years1 has now got a better 
insight      into things1 and has come  
to a truer appreciation of the real     
trustworthiness of tradition1 still puts
 ,mark's gospel between #fe      and #gj
 ,a4,d41 ,matthew's between #gj and #ge1
 but ,luke's much later1      about     

#gh-ic4 #dj      ,and ,blass1 who dates 
,luke #ef or #fj1 goes on3--            
,has that confessedly untrustworthy     
guide of laymen1 scientific             
theology1 after so many errors committed
 during fifty years1      now of a      
sudden become a trustworthy one8 ,or    
have we good reason      to mistrust it 
as much1 or even more than we had       
before8 ,in      ordinary life no sane  
person would follow a guide who         
confessed      to having grossly misled 
him during the whole former part of     
the journey4 ,evidently that guide was  
either utterly ignorant      of the way1
 or he had some views and aims of his   
own1 of which      the traveller was    
unaware1 and he cannot be assumed now to
 have      acquired a full knowledge1 or
 to have laid those views and aims      
wholly aside4      ,thus does one       
,gelehrter vom ,fach estimate the       
pretensions of  a whole sanhedrim of    
another ,fach4 ,blass is a philologist2 
and incidentally we have seen how       

another philologist1 ,dalman1  handles  
him in that capacity4 ,elsewhere1 after 
another fling at the  theological       
scholars--with a salvo of praise to     
,harnack for his ,lukas  der ,arzt--and 
a comment on the fashion in which every 
,german critic  swears by his master1 he
 avows that we classical philologists   
444 have  seen similar follies among    
ourselves in fair number4 #da ,it is    
most  true2 and the philologists are as 
much divided as the theologians4    ,of 
course1 it is not by philology that     
,blass has reached the standpoint  from 
which he can contemn the professional   
theologians4 ,he is really  on the same 
ground as they1 making the same primary 
assumptions of  historicity3 the only   
difference is that while they1 following
 the  same historical tradition1 yet    
scruple to accept prophecies as having  
been actually made at the time assigned 
to them1 and feel bound to date  the    
prophecy after the event1 the consistent
 philologist recognizes no  such        

obligation in the present instance1 and 
puts a rather adroit but  very          
unscholarly argument on the subject1    
with which we shall have to  deal later4
 ,but for those to whom the exact dating
 of the ,gospels is a  subsidiary       
problem1 his argument has only a        
subsidiary interest2 and  the fact that 
he unquestioningly agrees with his      
flouted theological  colleagues in      
accepting the historicity of ,jesus     
gives no importance  to their consensus4
    ,if1 as he says1 they are in the    
mass utterly untrustworthy guides on    
any historical issue 7an extravagance to
 which1 as a layman1 ,i do  not         
subscribe71 their agreement can be of no
 value to him where he  and they        
coincide4 ,after telling ,harnack that  
men who have confessedly  been astray   
for fifty years have no right to expect 
to be listened to1  he makes much of    
,harnack's support as to the historicity
 of the ,acts--a  course which will not 
impose upon thoughtful readers4 ,all the

 while1  of course1 ,professor ,blass is
 simply applying a revised historical   
criticism to a single issue or set of   
issues1 and even if he chance  to be    
right on these he has set up no new     
historical method4 ,no more  than the   
others has he recognized the central    
historical problem2  and he must be well
 aware that that reversion to tradition 
announced  by ,harnack1 and at this     
point acquiesced in by him1 cannot for a
  moment be maintained as a general     
critical principle in regard to  the    
,new ,testament any more than in regard 
to the ,old4 ,all that he can  claim is 
that many theologians have confessedly  
blundered seriously  on historical      
problems4 ,but that is quite enough to  
justify us in  admonishing the mere     
middlemen and the experts alike to      
change the  tone of absurd assurance    
with which they meet further innovations
 of  historical theory4                 
,,chapter ,,viii    ,,conservative      
,,positions      ,it is only just to    

confess that the conservatives are      
already  learning to employ some        
prudential expedients4 ,met by the      
challenge to their own nakedly untenable
 positions1 and offered a  constructive 
hypothesis1 diversely elaborated from   
various quarters1  they mostly evade the
 discussion at nearly every point where 
the impossible tradition is concretely  
confronted by a thinkable  substitute1  
and spend themselves over the remoter   
issues of universal  mythology4         
,habitually misrepresenting every       
argument from comparative  mythology as 
an assertion of a historical sequence in
 the compared  data1 they expatiate over
 questions of etymology1 and are loud in
  their outcry over a suggestion that a 
given historical sequence may  be       
surmised from data more or less obscure4
 ,but to the question how  the evangel  
could possibly have begun as the record 
represents1 or  how the consummation    
could possibly have taken place as      
described1  they either attempt no      

answer whatever or offer answers which  
are worse  than evasions4 ,one          
professional disputant1 dealing with the
 proposition  that such a judicial and  
police procedure as the systematic      
search  for witnesses described in the  
,gospel story of the ,trial could not   
take place by night1 when an ,eastern   
city is as a city of the dead1  did not 
scruple to say that the thesis amounted 
to saying that in an  ,eastern city     
nothing could happen by night4 ,this    
controversialist is  an instructor of   
youth1 and claims to be an instructed   
scholar4 ,and  his is the only answer   
that ,i have seen to the challenge with 
which  it professes to deal4 ,loisy     
agrees that the challenge cannot be met4
    ,to the hypothesis that there was a 
pre-,christian cult of a ,jesus-,god1   
the traditionalist--above all1 the      
,unitarian1 who seems to feel  the pinch
 here most acutely--retorts with a      
volley of indignant  contempt4 ,he can  
see no sign of any such cult4 ,in the   

mind's eye he  can see1 as a historic   
process1 twelve ,apostles creating a    
,christian  community by simply crying  
aloud that the ,kingdom of ,heaven is at
 hand1  excommunicating for the after   
life those who will not listen1 and all 
the while assiduously casting out       
devils4 ,his records baldly tell him    
that this happened2 and we believe in   
baptism because we have seen  it done4  
,but whereas1 in the nature of the case1
 the reconstruction  of the real        
historic process must be by tentative   
inference from a  variety of data which 
for the most part the records as a      
matter of  course obscured1 he makes    
loud play with the simple fact that the 
records lack the required clear mention1
 and brands as unsupported  conjecture  
the theorem offered in place of the     
plain untruth with  which he has so long
 been satisfied4    ,in his own sifted  
and primitive records we have the       
narration of  the carrying of the       
,divine ,man to a height 7pinnacle of   

the temple  only in the supposed        
primitive ,gospel7 by ,satan for        
purposes of  temptation4 ,for a         
mythologist this myth easily falls into 
line as a  variant of the series of ,pan
 and the young ,zeus at the altar on the
  mountain top1 ,pan and ,apollo        
competing on the top of ,mount ,tmolus1 
,apollo and ,marsyas1 all deriving from 
the ,babylonian figures of the          
,goat-,god 7,capricorn7 and the         
,sun-,god on the ,mountain of the       
,world1  representing the starting of   
the sun on his yearly course4 ,that     
assignment explains at once the ,pagan  
myths and the ,christian1  which is thus
 shown to have borrowed from the myth   
material of  the ,greco-,oriental world 
in an early documentary stage4          
,challenged  to evade that solution1 he 
mentions only the ,pan-,zeus story1 says
  nothing of the series of variants or  
of the ,babylonian original1  and       
replies that he is          unable to   
trace any real and fundamental          

connection between the      stories4 ,in
 the ,buddhist narrative which had been 
cited as an      analogue #db the       
temptation to satisfy the cravings of   
hunger1      the promptings of ambition1
 and the doubts as to the overruling    
,providence of ,god1 are all wanting4   
,in the ,roman story1 too1 ,pan1      as
 representing in satyr-form the lower   
and animal propensities      of man1 is 
a very different being to the ,hebrew   
,satan2 moreover1      there is no      
tempting of ,jupiter1 as there is of    
,jesus4 ,jupiter1      likewise1 is     
wholly a god2 ,jesus is a sorely bested 
,man1 although      divine4 ,there is1  
in short1 not the least affinity between
 any      of these narratives beyond the
 general idea of trial4 #dc      ,and   
this figures as a refutation4 ,for our  
traditionalist1 comparative  mythology  
does not and cannot exist2 for him there
 can be no  fundamental connection      
between any two nominal myths unless    
they are  absolutely identical in all   

their details2 and the goat-footed ,pan 
and  the goat-footed ,satan 7certainly  
descended from the ,goat-,god ,azazel7  
are merely very different beings1 though
 ,satan for the later ,jews  and        
,jesuists actually corresponded to ,pan 
7who is not a mere satyr  for the       
,greeks7 not only in being the spirit of
 concupiscence #dd  but in being the    
,god of this world1 as the ,gospel myth 
in effect  shows him to be4 ,and this   
exhibition of ignorance of every        
principle of  mythology passes for      
scholarship1 and will be duly so        
certificated  by ,sir ,william          
,robertson ,nicoll1 who undertakes to   
preside in that  department1 as in      
politics1 with about equal              
qualifications4    ,by way of           
constructive solution of the problem we 
have from the  apologist this3--        
,if a conjecture may be hazarded here1  
we should be inclined to      say that  
the ,christian narrative largely        
presents1 in picturesque      and       

symbolic form1 the subjective           
experiences and doubts of               
,jesus--whether these were of internal  
origin merely1 or were      suggested   
externally by some malignant spiritual  
being--as to ,his      capacities and   
power for the great work which ,he had  
undertaken4      ,the thoroughly        
orthodox1 it would appear1 must still be
 catered for1  albeit only by the       
concession of the possibility of some   
malignant  spiritual being1 which seems 
a gratuitous slight to the canonical    
,satan1 whose moral dignity had         
immediately before been acclaimed4 ,but1
  after expressly insisting on the      
elements of temptation and  ambition in 
the story1 with the apparent implication
 that the young  ,teacher may have had a
 passing ambition to become a world     
conqueror1  our exegete1 in conclusion1 
collapses to the position of the ,german
  exegetes who1 the other day1 were     
still debating on the spiritual         
interpretation of what they could not   

perceive to be a pure myth  of art4     
,at this stage of enlightenment we hear 
allusions to psychology1  though ,i have
 not yet met with any explicit pretence 
that the  traditionalist scholars know  
anything about psychology that is not   
known to the rest of us4 ,in any case1  
the suggestion may be hazarded  that the
 first researches they make into        
psychology might usefully  be directed  
to their own1 which is a distressing    
illustration of the  survival of the    
intellectual methods of the ancient     
apologists for  the ,vedas and for the  
mythology of the ,greeks4    ,a severe  
scrutiny of psychic processes is indeed 
highly necessary in  this as in so many 
other disputes in which the affections  
wrestle with  the reason4 ,such a       
process of analysis gives us the real   
causation  of the testimony borne by    
,mill1 which is so widely typical4 ,for 
non-religious as for religious minds the
 conception they form of the  ,gospel   
,jesus is commonly a resultant of a few 

dominant impressions1  varying in each  
case but all cognate4 ,jesus is figured 
first to the  recipient spirit as a     
blessed babe in the arms of an idealized
 mother1  and last as dying on the      
cross1 cruelly tortured for no          
crime--the  supreme example of the      
martyred philanthropist4 ,in the interim
 he  figures as commanding his dull     
disciples to ,suffer little children to 
come unto me1 and as going about doing  
good1 all the while preaching           
forgiveness and brotherly love4 ,no     
knowledge of the impossibility of  most 
of the particularized cures will        
withhold even instructed men  from      
soothing their sensibilities by         
crediting the favourite figure  with    
some vague healing power and talking of 
the possibilities of  faith healing1    
even as they loosely accredit some      
elevating quality1  some practical      
purport1 to the visionary evangel1 so   
absolutely  mythical that the ,gospel   
writers can tell us not a word of its   

matter4    ,even ,professor ,schmiedel1 
expressly applying the tests of         
naturalism1  negates those tests at the 
outset by taking for granted the        
,teacher's  possession of unquantified  
psychic healing powers1 though the      
narratives twenty times tell of cures   
which cannot possibly be  described as  
cases of faith-healing4 #de ,if for the 
sane inquirer  the absolute miracle     
stories are false1 and these stories are
 false1  by what right does he allot    
evidential value to wholesale           
allegations  of multitudinous cures from
 the same sources8 ,by the sole right   
of his predilections4 ,the measure which
 he metes to the thousand  prodigies in 
,livy is never meted to those of the    
,gospels4 ,for him1  these are different
 things1 being seen in another          
atmosphere4    ,in men concerned to be  
intellectually law-abiding1 these       
dialectic  divagations are decently     
veiled2 by others they are passionately 
flaunted4 ,no recollection of the anger 

of ,plato at those who denied  that the 
,sun and ,planets were divine and       
blessed beings can withhold  certain    
professed scholars from the same angry  
folly in a similar  predicament4 ,but   
even where theological animus has been  
in a manner  disciplined by the long    
professional battle over documentary    
problems1  the sheer lack of logical    
challenge on fundamental issues has left
  all the disputants alike1 down till   
the other day1 taking for granted  data 
to which they had no critical right4    
,throughout the whole debate1 even in   
the case of scholars who profess  to be 
loyal to induction1 we find that there  
is a presupposition  upon which         
induction has no effect4 ,bernhard      
,weiss1 quoting from  ,holtzmann the    
profoundly subversive proposition that  
,christianity  has been 'book-learning' 
from the beginning1 in reply can only   
say1  ,god be praised that it is not so4
 ,yet the real effect of his own        
research is to show us much--to show    

that there was no oral evangel1  that   
the formula of the kingdom of heaven is 
but a phrase to fill  a blank4 ,even    
candid inquirers who see the difficulty1
 like ,samuel  ,davidson1 leave it      
unsolved4 ,says ,davidson3--            
,when we try to form a correct view of  
,jesus's utterances      regarding this 
,kingdom of ,god1 we find they have much
 vagueness      and ambiguity4 ,their   
differences also in the ,synoptic       
,gospels      and the fourth are so     
apparent that the latter must be left   
out of account in any attempt to get a  
proper sketch of ,jesus's      hopes4   
,his apostles and other early reporters 
misunderstood some      of ,his sayings1
 making them crasser4 ,oral tradition   
marred their      original form4 ,this  
is specially the case with respect to   
the      enthusiastic hopes about the   
kingdom ,he looked for4 ,but as the     
ideal did not become actual we must rest
 in the great fact that      the        
,christianity ,he introduced was the    

nucleus of a perfect system      adapted
 to universal humanity4 #df      ,we    
must do no such thing4 ,we must draw a  
licit inference4 ,the  alleged great    
fact is morally a chimera1 and          
historically a  hallucination4 ,to admit
 that all the evidence collapses1 and   
then  to posit the visionary gospel with
 a must1 is to abandon critical         
principle4 ,the must is simply the      
eternal presupposition4 ,and the  choice
 of the sincere student must be between 
that negation of  science and a fresh   
scientific search1 from which the       
presupposition1  as such1 is excluded4  
,if it can reappear as a licit          
conclusion1  so be it4 ,but it has never
 yet so arisen4                ,,chapter
 ,,ix    ,,blass ,,and ,,flinders       
,,petrie      ,a very interesting       
attempt to bring the synoptic problem to
 a new  critical test has latterly been 
made by ,dr4 ,flinders ,petrie in his   
work1 ,the ,growth of the ,gospels as   
shown by ,structural ,criticism         

7#aiaj74 ,his starting point is the     
likelihood that logia1 analogous  to the
 non-canonical fragments discovered in  
recent years1 were the  original        
material from which the ,gospels were   
built up4 ,the hypothesis  is prima     
facie quite legitimate1 there being     
nothing to repel it4 ,as he  contends1  
there is now evidence that writing was  
in much more common  use in some periods
 of antiquity than scholars had formerly
 supposed2  and scraps of writing by    
non-scholarly persons1 he argues1 may   
have  been widely current in the        
environment with which we are concerned4
 ,all  the while he is founding on data 
from the ,egypt of the third century    
for a ,palestinian environment of the   
first2 and he is obliged to stress  the 
point that ,matthew the tax-gatherer was
 a professional scribe1  while his      
argument runs that ,matthew used the    
detached jottings of  other people1 not 
his own4 ,but let us follow out his     
thesis3--          ,we cannot doubt     

writes ,dr4 ,petrie that such was the   
course      of growth when we look at   
the logia4 ,those collections of brief  
sayings could hardly have come into     
existence if full narratives      and   
sufficient standards of information in  
the ,gospels were already               
circulating4 ,they belong essentially to
 a preparatory age1 when      records   
were in course of compilation4 ,but1    
once written out1      they naturally   
survived side by side with the ,gospels1
 which had      only used a portion of  
their material4 #dg      ,it is not     
quite clear whether ,dr4 ,petrie meant  
here to claim not only  that the        
so-called ,logia ,iesou published in    
#ahig and #aijd are anterior  to and    
independent of the ,gospels 7though     
found only in third-century  ,,mss471   
but that they are on the same footing of
 credibility with the  ,gospels4 ,this1 
however1 seems inevitably to follow from
 his position1  though it appears to    
suggest to him no difficulty about the  

general  historicity of the ,gospel     
story1 which he too takes for granted4  
,let  us then note the problems raised4 
,a main feature of ,dr4 ,petrie's       
inquiry is that1 following ,professor   
,blass1 he insists on making the        
predictions of the fall of ,jerusalem   
part of the early documentary matter    
collected in the ,nucleus which  for him
 is the equivalent of ,weiss's          
,primitive ,gospel4 ,the argument of    
,blass #dh is drawn from the case of    
,savonarola1 who in #adif predicted     
that ,rome would be sacked1 and that    
horses would be stabled in the          
churches1 as actually happened in the   
year #aebg4 ,if such a prophecy  could  
be made and fulfilled in one case1 urges
 ,blass1 it might be  in another2 hence 
there can be no rigorous application of 
the canon1  ,omne vaticinium post       
eventum1 which has been relied on by the
 modern  school of critical theologians4
 ,dr4 ,petrie appears to have made no   
investigation of his own1 being content 

to quote and support ,blass2  and the   
point is well worth critical            
consideration4    ,let us premise that  
scientific criticism1 which has no      
concern with  ,unitarian predilections1 
stands quite impartially towards the    
question  of ,gospel dates4 ,the modern 
tendency to carry down those dates1     
either  for the whole or for any parts  
of the ,gospels1 towards or into the    
second century1 is originally part of   
the general liberal inclination  to put 
a ,man in place of a ,god1 though some  
believers in the ,god  acquiesce as to  
the lateness of the act of writing4     
,those who have  carried on the movement
 have always presupposed the general    
historicity  of the ,teacher1 and have  
been concerned1 however unconsciously1  
to find  a historical solution which    
saved that presupposition4 ,the rational
  critic1 making only the naturalist    
presupposition1 is committed to  no set 
of documentary dates4 ,and he is not at 
all committed to the  denial that an    

inductive historic prediction1 as       
distinguished from  a supernaturalist   
prophecy1 may be made and fulfilled4    
,many have  been4 ,much has been said of
 the marvellous prescience of ,burke in 
predicting that the anarchy of the      
,french ,revolution would end in  a     
tyranny4 ,he was in fact merely         
inferring1 as he well might1 that  what 
had happened in the history of ancient  
,rome and in the history  of ,england   
would happen in ,france4 ,by a similar  
historical method  several ,french and  
other writers in the eighteenth century 
reached  the forecast of the revolt of  
the ,american colonies from ,britain    
without getting any credit for divine   
inspiration4 ,and so1 perhaps1  might   
,savonarola at the end of the fifteenth 
century predict a sack  of ,rome1 and a 
,jew in the first century a sack of     
,jerusalem4    ,but let us see what     
,savonarola actually did4 ,he was1 so to
 speak1 a  professional prophet1 and    
while he predicted not only a sack of   

,rome  but his own death by violence1 he
 also1 by the admission of sympathetic  
biographers1 put forth many             
vaticinations of an entirely fantastic  
character4 ,here again he might very    
well have a ,jewish prototype4 ,for  us 
the first question is1 ,what did he     
actually predict in history1  and how   
and why did he predict it8 ,in #adid he 
seems to have predicted  the ,french    
invasion which took place in that year4 
,villari asserts  that he did so in the 
sermons he preached in ,lent1 but admits
 that  it is impossible to ascertain the
 precise nature of the sermons in       
question4 #di ,father ,lucas goes       
further1 and points out that there  is  
no trace in them of the alleged prophecy
 #ej which ,savonarola  in his          
,compendium ,revelationum 7#adie7 claims
 to have made but does  not date4       
,villari further admits that the sermons
 of that year are  so badly reported    
as to have lost almost every            
characteristic of ,savonarola's         

style4 ,their reporter1 unable to keep  
pace with the preacher's      words1    
only jotted down rough and fragmentary  
notes4 ,these were      afterwards      
translated into barbarous dog-,latin--by
 way of giving      them a more literary
 form--and published in ,venice4 ,for   
this      reason ,qutif and some other  
writers entertained doubts of their     
authenticity4 #ea      ,villari         
nevertheless is satisfied of it on      
internal grounds1 and we may  accept his
 estimate4 ,the main allegation is that 
in #adid ,savonarola1  who had for years
 been preaching that national sin would 
elicit  divine chastisement1          in
 those ,lenten discourses1 and also in  
some others1 foretold the      coming of
 a new ,cyrus1 who would march through  
,italy in triumph1      without         
encountering any obstacles1 and without 
breaking a single      lance4 ,we find  
numerous records of these predictions1  
and the      terrors excited by them1 in
 the historians and biographers of      

the period2 and ,fra ,benedetto reports 
his master's words in the      following
 verses thus literally translated3--    
,soon shalt thou see each tyrant        
overthrown1          ,and all ,italy    
shalt thou see vanquished1          ,to 
her shame1 disgrace1 and harm4          
,thou1 ,rome1 shalt soon be captured3   
,i see the blade of wrath come upon     
thee2          ,the time is short1 each 
day flies past3            ,my ,lord    
will renovate the ,church1          ,and
 convert every barbarian people4        
,there will be but one fold and one     
shepherd4          ,but first ,italy    
will have to mourn1          ,and so    
much of her blood will be shed          
,that her people shall everywhere be    
thinned4      ,here there is obvious    
confusion1 apart from the fact that the 
predicted  regeneration and unification 
of the church never took place4 ,the    
invader is to do no fighting1 and yet so
 much blood will be shed  that          
everywhere the people of ,italy will be 

thinned4 ,are we1 then1  to believe that
 the ,cyrus prediction was made at the  
same time8 ,is  there not ground for    
suspicion that it was interpolated post 
eventum1  in the ,latin report8 ,the    
only alternative solution seems to be   
that  ,villari or the ,italian compiler 
has mixed prophecies of different       
years4 ,in his sermon of ,november #a1  
#adid1 ,savonarola speaks of the        
,french invasion as the scourge he had  
predicted #eb--;an odd way of  speaking 
of one promised before as the ,lord's   
anointed1 even though  the ,french host 
is said to be led by the ,lord4 ,in any 
case his own  claim to have predicted of
 ,cyrus is unsupported by evidence1 and1
  even if accepted1 does not involve a  
date earlier than #adic-d4 #ec    ,to   
predict the invasion of ,italy by       
,charles ,,viii of ,france in ,lent  of 
#adid1 or even late in #adic1 was easy  
enough4 #ed ,the invasion had  been     
fully prepared1 and was expected1 even  
as was the ,armada in the  ,england of  

#aehh4 ,savonarola was very likely to   
have inside knowledge of  the scheme1   
and the ,pope positively charged him    
with having helped to  engineer it4     
,florence in effect received ,charles as
 a friend4 ,there  had been1 further1   
abundant discussion of the expedition   
both in  ,france and ,italy long before 
it set out4 ,guicciardini tells that    
wise  ,frenchmen were very apprehensive 
about it1 and that ,ferdinand of ,naples
  reckoned that it must fail4 ,fail it  
finally did4 ,savonarola might  even    
predict that the invader would not be   
resisted1 for there was no  force ready 
in ,italy to repel that led by ,charles1
 with its great train  of artillery4 ,it
 is an extreme oversight of ,villari's  
to allege #ee  that in the autumn1      
unexpectedly as a thunderclap from a    
clear sky1  came the news that a flood  
of foreign soldiery was pouring down    
from  the ,alps to the conquest of      
,italy4444 ,all felt taken unawares4    
,this  assertion is completely exploded 

by the record of ,guicciardini1 and  no 
historian will now endorse it4 ,lodovico
 ,sforza1 ,duke of ,milan1  had incited 
,charles to the invasion2 the           
preparations had been open  and         
extensive2 and they had been abundantly 
discussed both in ,france  and ,italy4  
#ef ,the statement that the ,friar alone
 had foreseen the  future is absolute   
myth4    ,the fact remains that the     
invasion was not resisted1 and that     
,rome  was captured in the sense of     
being entered by ,charles1 who did no   
military damage and marched out again4  
,but when ,charles proceeded to         
withdraw from ,italy1 having effected   
nothing1 a battle was fought  and won by
 him4 ,it was two years later that      
,savonarola1 acting on  his standing    
doctrine that sin in high places must   
elicit divine  vengeance1 resumed his   
predictions of disaster to ,rome1 whose 
,pope  was his enemy4 ,as it happened1  
#adif was again a year of expected      
invasions4 ,charles1 now the ally of    

,florence1 was announced to be          
preparing for a second inroad1 and the  
apprehensive ,sforza invited and        
furthered the intervention of the       
emperor ,maximilian as he had before    
invited ,charles4 ,predictions were     
again to be expected2 at ,bologna  at   
least one was actually made2 and the    
prophet1 one ,raffaele da  ,firenzuola1 
was tortured and banished4 #eg ,charles 
gave up his plan1  but ,maximilian came1
 albeit with a small force1 and was     
welcomed by  the ,pisans4    ,it was    
before the coming of ,maximilian #eh    
that ,savonarola resumed  his prophecy  
of the coming scourge in a series of    
sermons1 in one of  which he announces  
that ,italy will be overwhelmed because 
she is full  of sanguinary deeds2 that  
,rome will be besieged and trampled     
down2  and that because her churches    
have been full of harlots they will be  
made stables for horses and swine1 the  
which will be less displeasing  to ,god 
than seeing them made haunts of         

prostitutes4444 ,then1 ,o ,italy1       
trouble after trouble shall befall thee2
 troubles of war after famine1  troubles
 of pestilence after war4 ,again1 in    
another sermon3 ,there  will not be     
enough men left to bury the dead2 nor   
means enough to dig  graves4444 ,the    
dead will be heaped in carts and on     
horses2 they will  be piled up and      
burnt4444 ,and the people shall be so   
thinned that few  shall remain4 #ei ,at 
the same time he repeatedly predicted   
his own  death by violence4    ,on the  
latter head he had abundant reason for  
his forecast4 ,on the  former it is very
 certain that he was not thinking of    
something  that was not to happen for   
thirty years4 ,again and again he       
assured  his hearers and his            
correspondents that his predictions were
 to be  fulfilled in our time4 ,towards 
the end of #adif he described himself   
as ,the servant of ,christ ,jesus1 sent 
by him to the city of ,florence to      
announce the great scourge which is to  

come upon ,italy1 and especially  upon  
,rome1 and which is to extend itself    
over all the world in our  days and     
quickly4 #fj ,in #adig1 in a letter to  
,lodovico ,pittorio1  chancellor to     
d',este1 after speaking of the ,lord's  
prediction of the  fall of ,jerusalem1  
he writes3 ,great tribulations are      
always i4e4 in  the ,scriptures         
predicted many years before they come4  
,yet ,i do not  say that the            
tribulations which ,i have foretold will
 be so long in  coming2 nay1 they will  
come soon2 indeed ,i say that the       
tribulation  has already commenced4 #fa 
,yet again1 in #adih1 he claims in a    
sermon that a part has come to  pass1   
noting that in ,rome one has lost a     
son--a reference to the  murder of the  
,duke of ,gandia1 son of the ,pope2 and 
adding that you  have seen who has died 
here1 and ,i could tell you1 an ,i      
would1 who  is in hell--supposed to be a
 reference to ,bernardo del ,nero4 #fb  
,all this was in terms of ,savonarola's 

theological and ,biblical  conception of
 things1 the ruling political philosophy
 of his age1  as of many before4        
,wickedness and injustice1 fraud and    
oppression1  were dominant in high      
places1 and ,god must of necessity      
punish1 in  the fashion in which he was 
constantly described as doing so in the 
,sacred ,books1 from the ,deluge        
downwards4 ,in ,savonarola's view the   
cup of ,rome's abominations was full1   
and punishment had been earned  by the  
men then living1 in particular by ,pope 
,alexander4    ,within two years        
,savonarola had been put to death1 after
 many tortures2  and ,alexander died in 
#aejc 7not by poison1 as the tradition  
goes7  without having seen the predicted
 desolation4 ,it was under the more     
respectable of the two ,medicean ,popes 
that ,rome was twice sacked in  #aebg by
 the forces of ,charles ,v2 and though  
there had been infinite  slaughter and  
pestilence in ,italy1 the regeneration  
and reunion of  ,christendom predicted  

by ,savonarola did not follow4 ,when no 
reform  whatever had followed on the    
,french invasion he had explained that  
his  prediction in that case was subject
 to conditions4 ,yet he announced  that 
his prophecy of the conversion of the   
,turks was unconditional1  declaring at 
the close of the ,compendium            
,revelationum that it would  be         
fulfilled in fifteen years1 and assuring
 his hearers in #adie that  some of them
 would live to see the fulfilment4 #fc  
,,chapter ,x    ,,the ,,savonarola      
,,fallacy      ,our business1 of course1
 is not to expose the prophetic         
miscarriages  of ,savonarola1 but simply
 to make clear what manner of thing his 
prophesying was4 #fd ,it was an instance
 of a kind of vaticination  as old as   
,troy and ,jerusalem1 which had gone on 
in ,christendom for  centuries4 ,long   
before his day religious men had        
predicted wars1  pestilences1 famines1  
and the conversion of the ,turks4 #fe   
,the wars  and plagues and famines were 

very safe prognostications3 they came   
in every decade4 ,and when we come to   
his alleged prediction of the  sack of  
,rome we realize immediately1 not only  
that the one detail of  coincidence is  
wholly fortuitous1 but that1 like his   
predecessors1  he was simply predicting 
a return of common evils already        
experienced  a hundred times4 #ff       
,the argument of ,blass and others on   
this topic1 confidently accepted  and   
endorsed by ,dr4 ,petrie1 works out as  
sheer mystification4 ,they  lay special 
stress on the fact that in the sack of  
#aebg horses were  stabled in the       
churches4 ,it is likely enough3 the same
 thing has been  done a thousand times  
in the wars of ,christendom4 ,but the   
argument  has been very negligently     
conducted4 ,in the first place1 though  
he  tells of infinitely worse things1   
such as the wholesale violation  of     
women1 including nuns1 the historian    
,guicciardini does not give  the detail 
about the horses4 ,that occurs in the   

document ,il ,sacco di  ,roma1 ascribed 
latterly to his brother ,luigi1 which   
was first printed  in #affd4 ,still1 let
 us assume that the printing was        
faithful4 ,if an  interpolator had meant
 to vindicate ,savonarola he would      
presumably  have noted that the prophet 
specified not only horses but pigs1     
whereas the narrative says nothing of   
the latter4 ,we are thus left  with the 
item of the stabling of horses in the   
churches4    ,here we have to note that 
as regards the main event ,savonarola is
  predicting a thing that had repeatedly
 happened in ,catholic times1 and  that 
as regards the minor details he is      
speaking with his eye on ,jewish        
history4 ,it was not the mere presence  
of horses and pigs in churches  that he 
meant to stress1 but the defilement that
 they brought4 ,in  the case of the     
,jewish ,temple the abomination of      
desolation had  been understood to      
include the defiling of the altar with  
swine's  flesh4 #fg ,this1 in all       

likelihood1 was the origin of           
,savonarola's  prediction as to the     
bringing of pigs into the sanctuary at  
,rome1  which1 as we have seen1 was not 
fulfilled4    ,but there was nothing new
 about a ,catholic sack of ,rome4 ,the  
city had  been hideously sacked and in  
large part destroyed under ,gregory     
,,vii  7#ajhd7 by ,robert ,guiscard1 the
 ,pope's ally1 after having been        
captured  without sacking by the ,german
 ,emperor4 ,it just missed being sacked 
by  ,frederick ,,ii in #abci4 ,in #adac 
it was captured by ,ladislaus of        
,naples1  who gave all ,florentine      
property in the city to pillage4 ,no    
question  of heresy arose in these      
episodes2 nor did the forces of the     
,church  itself blench at either sack or
 sacrilege4 ,faenza was foully sacked in
  #acgf by ,hawkwood1 called in for its 
defence by the bishop of ,ostia2  and in
 #acgg the same condottiere massacred   
the population of ,cesena  under the    
express and continuous orders of        

,robert1 ,cardinal of ,geneva1  the     
papal legate1 afterwards the anti-pope  
,clement ,,vii4 ,no more  bestial       
massacre took place in the pandemonium  
of the fourteenth  century2 and the     
sacking of the churches and the         
violation of the  nuns was on the scale 
of the bloodshed4 #fh ,in view of the   
endless  atrocities of the wars of the  
,church and of ,christendom there is a  
certain ripe absurdity about the        
exegetical comments on the subject  of  
the sack of ,rome in #aebg4 ,says       
,blass3--          ,especially          
remarkable is this1 that he ,savonarola 
extends the      devastation to the     
churches of ,rome1 which in any ordinary
 capture      767 by a ,catholic army   
would have been spared1 but in this case
      were not at all respected1 because
 a great part of the conquering         
army consisted of ,german ,lutherans1   
for whom the ,roman ,catholic           
churches were rather objects of hatred  
and contempt than of      veneration4   

,now ,lutheranism did not exist in      
#adif4 #fi      ,and ,dr4 ,petrie adds3 
,such a detail seemed excessively       
unlikely before  the rise of            
,lutheranism2 yet it came to pass4 #gj  
,it is interesting  to realize the      
notions held by scholars of such        
standing in regard  to ,european history
 after a century signalized by so much  
historic  research2 and to find that    
such an ignorant proposition as that    
just  cited should for ,dr4 ,petrie     
explode the dogma that really fulfilled 
prophecies #ga have been framed post    
eventum4    ,for centuries before       
,luther the desecration of churches was 
a regular  feature in every ,christian  
war of any extent4 ,it is arguable1     
perhaps1  that in the sack of ,rome the 
,german troops might have made a special
  display of that mania for ordure as an
 instrument of war of which we  have had
 such circumstantial accounts from      
,belgium of late1 and of  which similar 
details have been preserved in the      

domestic history  of ,paris since #ahgj4
 #gb ,but the stabling of horses in     
churches  was a familiar act of warfare1
 often explicable by the simple fact    
that the horses of an army could not    
otherwise be accommodated4 ,the         
clerical chroniclers mention such things
 when they can tell a tale  of the      
divine vengeance4 ,thus ,spelman tells  
how ,richard1 ,robert1  and ,anesgot1   
sons of ,william ,sorenge1 in the time  
of ,william ,duke  of ,normandy1 wasting
 the country about ,say1 invaded the    
church of  ,st4 ,gervase1 lodging their 
soldiers there1 and making it a stable  
for their horses4 ,god deferred not the 
revenge4 #gc ,in #ajih the  ,earl of    
,shrewsbury made a dog-kennel of the    
church of ,st4 ,fridank1  laying his    
hounds in it for the night-time2 but in 
the morning he  found them mad4 #gd ,the
 putting of cattle in churches was      
sometimes a  necessity of defensive     
warfare4 ,in #aceh1 according to ,jean  
de ,venette1  many unfortified villages 

in ,france made citadels of their       
churches to  defend themselves from     
brigands2 #ge and in such cases the     
animals  would be taken indoors4 ,fine  
churches1 on the other hand1 were often 
burned in the wars of that period4 #gf  
,and when the ,turks invaded  ,friuli in
 #adgg and #adgh1 burning and ravaging1 
#gg they were likely  enough to have    
stabled their horses in churches4 ,it   
was probably of  the ,turks that        
,savonarola was thinking1 predicting as 
he so constantly  did their speedy      
conversion to ,christianity4            
,lutheranism can have had very little to
 do with the matter3 the  brutality of  
the ,german ,landsknechts was notorious 
long before ,luther  was heard of4 ,but 
there was nothing specially ,german in  
the matter  either4 ,the ,italian       
condottieri in general were full of     
contempt for  all sacred things4 #gh ,it
 is instructive to note that ,savonarola
  predicts nothing of the wholesale     
violation of nuns and other women  which

 was to take place at ,rome as it had   
done in a hundred other  sacks of       
cities3 he must have known that these   
things happened2  but the thing that    
appealed to his imagination was the     
theological  pollution resulting from   
putting horses and pigs in churches4 ,he
 was  not predicting3 he was            
remembering4 ,long before his time1     
besides1  ,church ,councils had to pass 
edicts against the use of churches as   
barns in time of peace4    ,it will be  
remembered that his main items are      
slaughters1 famines1  and pestilences4  
,there was famine and pestilence in     
,florence when he  was prophesying in   
#adif2 there was more in #adig2 #gi and 
a terrible  pestilence had visited      
,venice during the ,turkish invasions of
 #adgg and  #adgh4 ,the preacher's      
description of a plague in a city is an 
account  of what had happened a dozen   
times in the history of ,florence1      
before  and after the ,plague which     
figures in the forefront of ,boccaccio's

  ,decameron4 ,preaching from the text  
of ,amos1 he arraigns ,italy and ,rome  
as ,amos arraigns ,israel and ,judah2   
and his menaces are the menaces  of the 
,hebrew prophet1 immeasurable           
slaughters1 famine1 pestilence1  and    
captivity1 with the old corollary of    
regeneration and restoration1  in the   
case of ,italy and the ,church as in the
 case of ,israel4 ,and his  added detail
 of church desecration is at once a     
,biblical idea and a  familiar item from
 ,christian history4    ,in the historic
 crusade against the ,albigenses in     
#abji1 when ,bziers  was captured and   
every human being therein slain1 seven  
thousand were1  by the famous order of  
the ,papal ,legate1 #hj put to the sword
 in  the great church of ,st4 ,mary     
,magdalene1 to which they had fled for  
sanctuary2 and the whole city1 with its 
churches1 was burned to the  ground4    
,during the ,hundred ,years' ,war       
between ,england and ,france1  says a   
social historian1 a cleric--          in

 the rural districts of ,france the     
passage of the ravagers was      traced 
by blackened ruins1 by desecrated       
churches1 by devastated      fields1 by 
the mutilated bodies of women and       
children4444 ,strange      forms of     
disease which the chroniclers of those  
times sum up      in the names of black 
death1 or plague1 were born of hunger   
and overleapt the highest barriers 444  
and ran riot within the      overcrowded
 cities4 #ha      ,in the wars of       
,burgundy and ,france in the fifteenth  
century ,catholics  habitually plundered
 ,catholic churches4 ,at the siege of   
,saint-,denis  in #adaa the ,germans1   
the ,bretons1 and the ,gascons promised 
themselves  the pillage of the church   
and the treasures of the abbey4 #hb     
,later  the ,english1 the ,picards1 and 
the ,parisians 444 entered the monastery
  444 pillaged the apartments of the    
inmates1 and carried away the cups1  the
 utensils1 all the furniture4 #hc ,at   
,soissons1 in #adad1          the       

,germans1 the ,bretons1 and the ,gascons
 were as so many      wild beasts4 ,the 
,comte d',armagnac himself could not    
restrain      them4 ,after having       
pillaged the houses they set upon the   
convents      and the churches1 where   
the women had taken refuge4 ,they could 
not escape the brutality of the men of  
war2 the holy ornaments1      the       
reliquaries1 all was seized without     
respect2 the hostia1      the bones of  
the martyr1 trodden under foot4 ,never  
had an army      of ,christians1        
commanded by such great seignors and    
formed of so      many noble chevaliers1
 committed such horrors within the      
memory      of man4 #hd      ,the       
historian is quite mistaken2 the same   
horrors had been many times  enacted1   
and even on a greater scale4 ,at the    
sack of ,constantinople  by the         
,christian crusaders in #abjd1          
the three ,western bishops had strictly 
charged the crusaders to      respect   
the churches and the persons of the     

clergy1 the monks1 and      the nuns4   
,they were talking to the winds4 ,in the
 frantic excitement      of victory all 
restraint was flung aside1 and the      
warriors of the      cross abandoned    
themselves with ferocious greed to their
 insatiable      and filthy lewdness4   
,with disgusting gestures and in        
shameless      attire an abandoned woman
 screamed out a drunken song from the   
patriarchal chair in the church of      
,sancta ,sophia4444 ,wretches blind     
with fury drained off draughts of wine  
from the vessels of the      altar2 the 
table of oblation1 famed for its        
exquisite and costly      workmanship1  
was shattered2 the splendid pulpit with 
its silver      ornaments utterly       
defaced4 ,mules and horses were driven  
into the      churches #he to bear away 
the sacred treasures2 if they fell      
they were lashed and goaded till their  
blood streamed upon the      pavement4  
,while the savages were employed upon   
these appropriate      tasks1 the more  

devout were busy in ransacking the      
receptacles of      holy relics and     
laying up a goodly store of             
wonder-working bones      or teeth to be
 carried away to the churches of the    
great cities      on the ,rhine1 the    
,loire1 or the ,seine4 #hf              
,savonarola was simply predicting for   
,rome1 perhaps with his eye  on the     
,turks1 such a fate as befell           
,constantinople at ,christian  hands1   
regarding both as acts of divine        
vengeance1 and expecting the  capture of
 ,rome to come soon4 ,he pointed to the 
,french invasion--he  well might--as    
showing what was likely to happen4 #hg  
,the practice  of church desecration had
 never ceased in ,christendom for a     
single  generation4 ,in #acae ,edward   
,bruce1 in his raid in ,ireland1 is     
reported  to have burned churches and   
abbeys with all the people in them1  and
 to have wrecked and defaced other      
churches1 with their tombs and          
monuments4 ,during the centuries between

 the battle of ,bannockburn and  the    
union of the ,english and ,scottish     
crowns1 churches1 cathedrals1  or abbeys
 were plundered or burned on both sides 
in nearly every  great border raid4     
,frenchmen and ,burgundians wrecked each
 other's  churches4 ,in his thirteenth  
chapter ,philip de ,commines tells ,of  
the  storming1 taking1 and plundering   
the city of ,lige2 together with the    
ruin and destruction of the very        
churches4 ,the ,duke of ,burgundy set  a
 battalion of his guards to defend them1
 and killed one soldier of  those who   
tried to enter2 but later the soldiers  
forced an entrance1  and all were       
completely plundered4 ,i myself1 says   
,commines1 was  in none but the great   
church1 but ,i was told so1 and saw the 
marks  of it1 for which a long time     
after the ,pope excommunicated all such 
as had any goods belonging to the       
churches in that city unless they       
restored them2 and the duke appointed   
certain officers to go up and  down his 

country to see the ,pope's sentence put 
in execution4 #hh  ,as late as #aebd1 in
 the course of the campaign of ,henry   
,,viii in ,france1  two churches were   
held and defended as fortresses on the  
,french side1  and captured by the      
invaders2 #hi and in #adhg ,perugia     
became a  beleaguered fortress under the
 absolute despotism of the ,baglioni1   
who used even the cathedrals as         
barracks4 #ij ,savonarola could not     
have missed hearing of that4    ,if     
there was anything astonishing for      
,italians in the desecration of         
churches at the sack of ,rome1 they must
 have had short memories4 ,the          
conspiracy of the ,pazzi in #adgh1 in   
which ,giuliano de' ,medici was slain   
during high mass in the cathedral church
 of ,florence1 had been backed  by the  
,pope2 and the sacrilege of the planned 
deed was reckoned so  horrible that one 
of the first appointed assassins1 who   
blenched at it1  had to be replaced by  
priests1 who had transcended such       

scruples4 #ia  ,on the capture of       
,brescia by the ,french under ,gaston de
 ,foix in #aeab1  things sacred and     
profane1 the goods1 the honour1 and the 
life of the  inhabitants were for seven 
days delivered up to the greed1 the     
lust1  and the cruelty of the soldier1  
only the nuns being spared4 #ib  ,in    
#aebf the ,milanese told the ,constable 
,bourbon1 the general of  their ally3-- 
,frederick ,barbarossa anciently        
desolated this city2 his vengeance      
spared neither the inhabitants1 nor the 
edifices1 nor the      walls2 but that  
was nothing in comparison with the evils
 we now      suffer4 ,the barbarism of  
an enemy is less insupportable than the 
unjust cruelty of a friend 444 our      
miseries have endured more      than a  
month2 they increase every hour2 and1   
like the damned1      we suffer1 without
 hope1 evils which before this time of  
calamity      we believed to be beyond  
human endurance4 #ic      ,guicciardini 
testifies that the ,spaniards of the    

emperor's forces  had been more cruel   
than the ,germans1 #id violating the    
women and  reducing to rags the men of  
their own allies4                       
,,chapter ,,xi    ,,the ,,logia ,,theory
 ,,and ,,the ,,historical ,,text        
,so much for the especially remarkable  
fact that churches were  desecrated in  
the sack of ,rome in #aebg1 and that    
,savonarola should  in #adif have       
predicted such things for his own day4  
,we have seen  that his prediction was  
not a forecast of the event1 that he had
 no  idea of the causation of the       
ultimate sack of ,rome1 that he really  
prophesied an early event1 and that he  
was simply announcing speedy  divine    
vengeance after the manner of the       
,hebrew and many previous  ,christian   
prophets4 ,what ground for argument1    
then1 does his case  furnish for an     
inference as to the date of the         
quasi-prophecy of the  fall of          
,jerusalem in the third ,gospel8 ,blass1
 despite his especially  remarkable     

argument1 puts his case pretty low3--   
,accidentally1 you will say1 the event  
in #aebg corresponded with      the     
prophecy4 ,but that is not my point1    
whether it was accidental1      or the  
prophet had really foreseen the event2  
for in the case of      the prophecies  
recorded by ,luke you may raise the same
 controversy      if you like4 #ie      
,what then were the manner and the      
matter of the prophecy in ,luke8 ,the   
,messiah expressly grounds his          
prediction upon the non-acceptance by   
,jerusalem of him and his mission3--    
,if thou ,jerusalem hadst only known in 
this day the things which      belong   
unto peace6 but now they are hid from   
thine eyes4 ,for the      days shall    
come upon thee when thine enemies shall 
cast up a bank      about thee1 and     
compass thee round1 and keep thee in on 
every side1      and shall dash thee to 
the ground1 and thy children within     
thee2      and they shall not leave in  
thee one stone on another 7,luke xix1   

#db-dd74        ,but when ye see        
,jerusalem compassed with armies1 then  
know that      her desolation is at     
hand4 ,then let them that are in ,juda  
flee      unto the mountains4444 ,for   
these are days of vengeance1 that all   
things which are written may be         
fulfilled4444 ,and they shall fall      
by the edge of the sword1 and shall be  
led captive into all the      nations1  
and ,jerusalem shall be trodden down of 
the ,gentiles1      until the times of  
the ,gentiles be fulfilled4 ,and there  
shall      be signs in sun and moon and 
stars4444 ,and then shall they see      
the ,son of ,man coming in a cloud with 
power and great glory4 ,but      when   
these things begin to come to pass1 look
 up1 and lift up      your heads2       
because your redemption draweth nigh    
7id4 xxi1 #bj-bh74      ,i do not think1
 says ,blass1 that either the former or 
the latter  of these foretellings is    
very distinct1 since there are neither  
names  given nor peculiar circumstances 

indicated2 only the common order of     
events is described4444 ,that will      
certainly not hold in respect of  the   
shall not leave in thee one stone on    
another1 or the cast up  a bank about   
thee1 which is a distinct specification 
of the ,roman  siege method of #gj4     
,but let us follow up the implication1  
which is that a ,jewish  vaticinator1   
mindful of ,daniel1 might about the year
 #cj so predict  the events of the year 
#gj1 and a world of other events which  
never  happened1 without astonishing us 
more than does ,savonarola4    ,as we   
shall see1 not only the circumstantial  
details but the remainder  of the       
prediction completely exclude the idea  
of fortuitous real  vaticination1 even  
if it be argued that prophecies of quite
 visionary  prodigies may conceivably   
have been made at any date4 ,as to the  
prophecy of the fall of the temple1     
which is common to the three  synoptics1
 the ,professor leaves it out of the    
present discussion1  seeing that the    

liberal theologians are willing to let  
it stand as a  prophecy ante eventum4   
,certainly he may well contemn such a   
critical  method4 ,the prophecy as to   
the temple1 and that in ,matthew 7xxiv1 
#c-ca7 and ,mark 7xiii1 #c-bg7 as to the
 sequence of war1 persecution1          
dissension1 false prophets1             
evangelization of the whole world1 the  
abomination of desolation in the holy   
place1 false ,christs 7twice            
specified71 signs and wonders1 and the  
final cosmic catastrophe--all  this is  
certainly on all fours1 critically      
considered1 with the  presages in ,luke4
 ,but how shall rational criticism be   
induced to take  the whole mass of      
quasi-vaticination as the utterance of a
 wandering  thaumaturg of the year #cj8 
,it is idle for ,professor ,blass to    
explain  to us that when ,luke makes    
,jesus say ,jerusalem shall be trodden  
down  of the ,gentiles1 with mere       
reminiscence of the ,septuagint ,daniel1
 and  ,matthew and ,mark make him speak 

with exact reference to ,sept4 ,dan4 ix1
  end1 they are citing independently    
from their original4 ,their original    
may just have been the cited passage in 
,daniel1 with no intervening  document4 
,it is self-evident1 says the           
,professor1 #if that the  real speech of
 ,christ must have been longer than we  
read it now in  any ,gospel4 ,that      
thesis cannot be self-evident of which  
the subject  invites and admits a wholly
 different explanation2 and the must  is
 a sample of the ,professor's critical  
ethic4    ,similarly ,dr4 ,petrie       
assumes that there were any number of   
logia  current1 all genuine1 and that   
the gospel-makers simply cite from  them
 wherever they are found appropriate to 
the circumstances of  the moment4 ,these
 episodes1 thus brought into prominence 
by the  conditions of the time1 were    
therefore incorporated in the ,nucleus1 
or in the gospels which grew upon that4 
#ig ,it now behoves us to  consider that
 interesting development of             

traditionalist theory4    ,the ,nucleus1
 be it explained1 is ,dr4 ,petrie's     
substitute for the  ,primitive ,gospel  
of the school of ,b4 ,weiss1 and is     
constructed  by the simple and certainly
 quite objective process of selecting   
everything that is common to all three  
synoptics in a parallel  text--that is1 
occurring in all three in the same      
order4 ,this is  the structural test1   
and it yields a document which does not1
 like  the ,weiss selection1 end before 
the ,last ,supper1 but goes on to the   
,resurrection4 ,but this ,nucleus1 be it
 noted1 was practically complete  almost
 immediately after the ,founder's death4
 ,the close suggests  a document drawn  
up within a few months of the final     
events4 #ih  ,how1 then1 ,dr4 ,petrie   
can speak of logia incorporated in the  
,nucleus  in respect of the conditions  
of the time1 is not very clear4 ,by  his
 account the prevalent ,christian idea  
about the year #cj1 during  the         
,ministry1 was the proper understanding 

of the law1 which was  not yet abrogated
 in any particular4 ,at this stage1     
accordingly1  the ,sermon on the ,mount 
would be the prominent logion4 ,and when
  we notice how the fulfilling of the   
law is the main theme of the  nucleus1  
and how little even of the completed    
,gospels refer to  the ,gentile         
problems1 we must see how devoid of     
historic sense is  the anachronism of   
supposing the main body of the ,gospels 
to have  originated as late as the      
,gentile period #ii i4e4 #fj-gj64 ,but  
in #dj-ej1 with the spread of the       
,church1 as set forth in the ,acts1  the
 ,samaritans were welcomed1 and ,gentile
 proselytes such as the  centurion      
,cornelius2 whereupon the suitable logia
 would be added to  the ,gospels        
current4 ,then in #ej-fj1 when the      
,gentiles began to enter  in decisive   
numbers1 there was a special meaning in 
the parable  of the ,prodigal ,son1 and 
in the subjection to kings and rulers2  
hence further embodiments4 ,then1 after 

the fall of ,jerusalem in #gj1          
,christianity lost its sense of any tie 
to ,judaism4    ,it will be admitted    
that this is a stirring change from the 
run of  ,new ,testament criticism of the
 past seventy years4 ,that criticism    
more or less unconsciously recognized   
the problem set up by the  entire       
ignorance of gospel teaching revealed in
 the ,pauline and other  epistles4 ,dr4 
,petrie1 following ,professor ,blass in 
an unhesitating  acceptance of the      
narrative of the ,acts1 simply ignores  
the ,pauline  problem altogether4 ,he   
boldly credits the ,church with a       
,gospel before  ,paul's conversion1 and1
 like other traditionalists1 supplies   
,paul1  the gospel-less1 with a         
physician1 ,luke1 who had collected from
 the  scattered mass of logia more      
gospel than anybody else6    ,thus has  
the pendulum swung back to the furthest 
extreme from that at  which men carried 
down the ,gospel dates to accommodate   
the data4 ,as  to chronology1 ,dr4      

,petrie is practically at the orthodox  
standpoint  of ,professor ,salmon4 #ajj 
,an objective and ostensibly scientific 
method1 involving no element of personal
 bias or preference1 is  employed to    
make a selection from the ,gospels which
 shall present as  it were              
mathematically or statistically the     
earliest elements in the  synoptics4 ,on
 that selection1 however1 there is      
brought to bear no  further critical    
principle whatever4 ,it is assumed that 
it must all  come from the traditional  
founder1 a mass of whose utterances must
  have been committed by auditors to    
writing as they were delivered  7the    
power to write being held to be common  
in ,galilee and ,judea in  the first    
century because it was common in ,egypt 
in the third72 and a  nucleus collection
 of these separate documents must have  
been made soon  after the crucifixion1  
and there and then wound up4 ,at any    
rate1 such  a collection is yielded by  
selecting the groups or blocks of matter

  which occur in all three synoptics in 
the same order2 and this must  have been
 made about the year #cj1 because it is 
mainly occupied with  the problems of   
the law1 and very little with the       
,gentile problems  which so soon began  
to come to the front4 ,the history of   
the ,acts is  here taken as unassailable
 ground1 like the main ,gospel record4  
,two comments here at once suggest      
themselves4 ,dr4 ,petrie's line of      
construction might with perfect         
congruity be employed to yield evidence 
that the assumed original ,teacher was  
mainly concerned with problems  of the  
law2 and 7#b7 the inferred multitude of 
original floating dicta  may with       
immense gain in plausibility be         
transmuted into a series  of            
interpolations made by different hands  
long after the supposed  ,founder's     
death4 ,for what critical right has ,dr4
 ,petrie to subsume  a store of floating
 ,jesuine dicta which supplied the      
,church1 in its  changing circumstances1

 for three or four decades1 with        
suitable  parables and teachings to meet
 every new problem8 ,if you profess to  
seek a strictly impersonal principle of 
selection1 why not apply a  strictly    
impersonal principle of inference from  
the result8    ,obviously the additional
 logia are far more likely to have been 
invented than found4 ,such a chronic    
windfall of papyri is a  sufficiently   
fantastic hypothesis on the face of it1 
in no way  justifiable from the recent  
discovery of a few enigmatic scraps     
that had not been embodied1 and suggest 
no community of thought with  those     
embodied4 ,but even if we allow the     
probable existence of many  floating    
leaves1 where is the likelihood that    
their sayings all came  from the same   
,teacher8 ,in the terms of the          
hypothesis1 he occupied  himself mainly 
with the law 7unless the lost logia     
outbulk the saved71  while at the same  
time he duly provided for the           
,samaritans and the  ,gentiles6 ,his    

disciples and apostles1 nonetheless1    
paid no attention  to these latter      
provisions until they found that such   
provisions were  really necessary to    
accommodate the thronging converts6 ,all
 this is  very awkwardly suggestive of  
the ,moslem saying that the ,khalif     
,omar  was many a time of a certain     
opinion1 and the ,koran was revealed    
accordingly4 #aja ,it would indeed have 
been a remarkable experience  for the   
evangelist to discover the logion 7,mt4 
xvi1 #ag-ai7 as to the  founding of the 
,church on the rock of ,peter when a    
,petrine claim had  to be substantiated4
 ,to the eye of ,dr4 ,rendel ,harris1 an
 orthodox but  a candid scholar1 the    
rock text suggests an adaptation of a   
passage  in the ,odes of ,solomon in    
which ,god's rock is the foundation not 
of the ,church but of the ,kingdom4 #ajb
 ,such probabilities ,dr4 ,petrie  never
 considers4    ,let us see how ,dr4     
,petrie's method explains ,matthew x1   
#e3 ,go not  into any way of the        

,gentiles1 and enter not into any city  
of the  ,samaritans4 ,it occurs only in 
,matthew3 ,luke gives the parable of    
the ,good ,samaritan1 with its flings at
 the lawyer and at the ,jews  in        
general2 and in ,john the ,founder makes
 ,samaritan converts4 ,the              
anti-,gentile text ,dr4 ,petrie never   
discusses6 ,yet his method does not     
permit him to exclude it4 ,it belongs to
 his sixth class1 of sayings  and       
episodes which only occur in one        
,gospel4 ,these classes are almost      
entirely in ,matthew and ,luke1 and are 
the accretions which were added  after  
the ,gospels had finally parted company4
 #ajc ,so that after the  ,gentile      
period had set in1 ,matthew1 the one    
professional scribe among  the apostles1
 somehow found a logion ,iesou which    
suited the need  of the ,church to      
exclude ,samaritans and ,gentiles1 while
 ,luke found  another which suited the  
need to welcome them4 ,and yet1 in      
respect  of its very purport1 the       

anti-,gentile and anti-,samaritan       
teaching  ought1 if genuine1 to belong1 
on ,dr4 ,petrie's general principle1  to
 the earliest collection of all4 ,such  
is the dilemma to which we  are led by  
the strictly statistical method of      
selection1 conducted  without any higher
 light4                ,,chapter ,,xii  
,,failure ,,of ,,the ,,logia ,,theory   
,to the open-minded reader it must be   
already plain that1 unless we  are to be
 led into mere chaos1 there must at once
 be added to the  statistical test      
either the proviso that given sayings   
may for the  purposes of certain        
sections of the ,church have been left  
out in  certain ,gospels1 or that for   
the purposes of certain sections they   
may have been invented4 ,and the moment 
such a concession is made1  the primary 
assumption of necessary authenticity is 
destroyed4 ,if  the anti-,samaritan     
precept is the utterance of the         
,founder1 the  pro-,samaritan parable is
 not2 or else the ,founder was literally

 all  things to all men4 ,if either     
could be foisted on a gospel1 anything  
could be2 and the futile historical     
argument to save the prediction  of the 
fall of ,jerusalem--an argument         
proceeding1 as we have seen1 on  a quite
 uncritical view of one uninvestigated  
and loosely described  case--becomes    
doubly irrelevant4 ,dr4 ,petrie's       
,nucleus of triple  tradition contains  
the prophecy3--          ,the ,son of   
,man shall be betrayed unto the chief   
priests and unto      the scribes1 and  
they shall condemn him to death1 and    
shall deliver      him to the ,gentiles 
to mock1 and to scourge1 and to crucify 
him2      and the third day he shall    
rise again4      ,is that to be salved  
as historical1 on the pretext that      
,blass has  by the case of ,savonarola  
exploded the dogma of omne vaticinium   
post eventum1 or is to be salved by the 
plea that ,savonarola1 like  ,lincoln1  
predicted his own death at the hands of 
his enemies8 ,and if  prudence perforce 

abandons that course1 why was the vaguer
 prophecy  about ,jerusalem sought to be
 salved at all8 ,why was not the miracle
  prediction included in the ,savonarola
 argument8 ,considered as a whole1  the 
other is not at all a bare prediction of
 the sacking of a city1  fortuitously   
fulfilled forty years after utterance3  
it is a ,messianic  judgment1 carrying a
 whole eschatology bound up with it4    
#ajd ,and  the fact that different      
gospels give it differently is not to be
  rationally explained by ,professor    
,blass's device of saying that ,jesus   
must have said a great deal more still1 
and that ,luke selected what  would     
appeal to ,gentiles1 while ,matthew and 
,mark omitted what would  give pain to  
,jews4 ,this conception of evangelists  
playing fast and  loose with the known  
divine oracles to suit men's            
susceptibilities  ought to be disturbing
 to any believer's moral sense2 while   
that of  a set of propagandists         
inventing oracles to suit their own     

religious  aim puts the ,gospel-makers  
in a line with the whole succession of  
,jewish and early ,christian framers of 
supposititious documents1  as men of    
their age1 well-meaning1 narrow1        
deluded1 devoted4    ,we have come back 
to the fundamental issue between        
authoritarian  supernaturalism and free 
reason4 ,if the prediction of the       
betrayal1  the trial1 the scourging1 the
 mocking1 the crucifixion1 and the      
resurrection is to stand1 there need be 
no more discussion over  miracles or    
anything else4 ,it is written1 and there
 an end4 ,biblical  criticism has once  
more become blasphemy4 ,if reason is to 
have any  access to the matter1 the     
prediction must fall as a fiction2 and  
if the  exploded argument from          
,savonarola is to be revived1 it will   
have  to be restricted to the case of   
the prediction to which it was so       
prudentially applied4 ,but if one       
hopeless prophecy is to be dropped  as  
post eventum1 it is mere irrelevance to 

debate over another which  is only in   
one selected and isolated aspect less   
hopeless1 while as  a whole it is       
equally so4    ,savonarola's prediction 
of the fall of ,rome was one of many1   
motived  by religion and invited by the 
absolute fact of previous invasions1  of
 which the last had occurred only two   
years before4 ,the one concrete  detail 
in which it was fulfilled was simply a  
specification of a  common feature in   
the warfare of the age4 ,another        
invasion of ,italy  was believed to be  
imminent1 and actually took place in the
 year  of the prophecy1 without         
fulfilling that in any detail4 ,the     
,gospel  prophecy is ,messianic1 devoid 
of political motivation1 accompanied  by
 a whole apparatus of ,christian        
eschatology1 and backed by other        
predictions of pure miracle4 ,the       
details of the siege and the sequel  are
 as plainly supplied after the event as 
those of the betrayal1  the mockery1 the
 scourging1 the crucifixion1 and the    

resurrection4 ,to  hold by one set of   
predictions and abandon the other is    
mere critical  trifling4 ,even orthodox 
critics give up the early chapters of   
,luke  as late accretions4 ,what kind of
 credit is it that is to be saved by    
making him the faithful chronicler of a 
real prophecy8    ,the prediction of the
 fall of the temple1 which is in the    
,nucleus  as being common in matter and 
order to all three synoptics1 is  in no 
better case4 ,on ,dr4 ,petrie's         
principle1 it is one of the  earliest   
accepted sayings--that is1 it was       
embodied when the ,jesuist  movement was
 pre-occupied over the law1 and yet it  
did not disturb  that pre-occupation4   
,on his theory1 it should not have      
appeared in  the ,nucleus at all1 or in 
any ,gospel until the occasion arose4   
,thus  incompatible with ,dr4 ,petrie's 
own theory1 it is equally incompatible  
with any critical principle4 ,this is a 
concrete ,messianic prophecy1 not  to be
 salved by any juggling with mere       

historiography4 ,in the terms of  the   
case1 it was made at a time when there  
was no politically visible  reason for  
making it1 #aje and is not in the least 
to be explained as  were the            
vaticinations of ,savonarola4 ,on the   
principles of ,professor  ,blass1 it    
ought to have been far too painful for  
preservation by  men adhering to the    
,jewish law4    ,it is quite thinkable1 
of course1 that the compilers of the    
,gospels  may have found such           
quasi-predictions already committed to  
writing1  and merely embodied them4 ,but
 that admission only carries us back to 
the problem of authenticity4 ,if any    
current scrap of paper concerning       
,jesus or the ,lord could thus secure   
canonicity1 what trust is  to be put in 
the canon8 ,it is recorded in the       
history of ,islam that  ,abu ,daoud1 who
 collected some half-a-million          
traditions concerning  ,mohammed1       
rejected all but #d1hjj1 which included 
the authentic1 those  which seem to be  

authentic1 and those which are nearly   
so4 #ajf  ,this again1 it may be argued1
 proves that false traditions do not    
negate the historicity of the personage 
they concern4 ,and that is  clearly     
true4 ,there may conceivably have been a
 ,teacher in whose  mouth many invented 
sayings were put even in his lifetime4  
,but when we  thus come to the          
historicity problem1 there is simply no 
such basis  in the ,gospels as we have  
in the life of the confessedly          
,illiterate  ,prophet4 ,the ,gospel life
 begins and ends in miracle1 and it     
yields  no intelligible evangel apart   
from that ostensibly founded on the     
sacrificial death--the death1 that is1  
of the ,god4    ,apart from the         
sacramental rite1 the whole body of the 
,teaching is  but a mass of             
incompatibilities1 telling of a dozen   
standpoints1  legalism and              
anti-legalism1 ,judaism and ,gentilism1 
,davidism and  non-,davidism1 asceticism
 and the contrary1 a meek ,messiah and  

one  claiming to be greater than        
,solomon1 a ,teacher vetoing invective  
and  one freely indulging in it1 a      
popular and unexplained ,gospel for the 
masses who are declared to be purposely 
excluded from comprehension  of that    
very ,gospel1 whereof the esoteric      
explanations yield nothing  that could  
apply to the alleged propaganda4        
,even self-contradictions1 it may be    
argued1 do not negate the  authenticity 
of a teaching4 ,carlyle and ,buskin     
abound in them2  who escapes them8 ,many
 passages in the ,koran are contradicted
 or  abrogated by others1 #bbe verses   
being cancelled by later ones4 #ajg     
,here indeed there is plain ground for  
critical doubt2 and some of us  must    
emphatically decline to accept ,muir's  
verdict1 endorsing ,von  ,hammer's1 that
 we may upon the strongest presumption  
affirm that  every verse in the ,koran  
is the genuine and unaltered composition
 of  ,mohammed himself4 #ajh ,but even  
if we are satisfied that ,mohammed  in  

his long life deliberately modified his 
doctrine1 there is no room  for such an 
explanation in the case of a teacher who
 is never once  said to avow            
modification1 and whose whole teaching  
career ostensibly  covers but a year in 
the synoptic record4    ,as the         
tradition stands1 whether read with     
,unitarian or with  ,trinitarian        
assumptions1 it is a mere mosaic of     
enigma and  contradiction4 ,if the      
,teacher never called himself the ,son  
of  ,god in a miraculous sense1 how came
 the men for whom his word was  law1 and
 who in the terms of the thesis knew his
 life history and  parentage if any one 
did1 to call him so8 ,in ,dr4 ,petrie's 
,nucleus1  the triple tradition1 the    
,founder does assure his disciples that 
in the regeneration he will sit in the  
throne of glory1 and they  on twelve    
thrones1 judging the twelve tribes4     
,what room is there for  ,gentilism     
here8 ,and if downright miracle and     
miraculous prediction  alike be given up

 as unhistorical1 on what grounds can we
 give credence  to this as a really     
delivered oracle8    ,on the other hand1
 no fundamental difficulty remains when 
we recognize  that the whole ,gospel    
record is the composite result of a     
process of  making a life history for a 
,god4 ,the command of the ,messiah to   
,peter  to keep silence as to his       
,messianic character is quite           
intelligible  as providing at once the  
claim by ,jesus and an explanation of   
the  fact that no such ,messianic       
movement was historically recorded4 ,the
  blank enigma of the early popular     
evangel is solved when we realize  that 
there had been no such evangel2 that the
 cult had really grown  out of the      
ancient sacramental rite2 that the      
growing movement had to  evolve a       
quasi-biography when the ,god of the    
rite was to be developed  into a        
,messiah2 and that the ,judaism of the  
old ,messianic idea had  to be          
transmuted into universalism when the   

cult came to a ,gentile  growth4 ,all   
the contradictory texts fall 7more or   
less clearly7 into  their orders as     
survivals of the divergent sects formed 
by the changing  situation--or1 let us  
say1 of those changing needs of the     
widening cult  which ,dr4 ,petrie so    
arbitrarily makes a ground for the mere 
selection  of dicta from a floating mass
 of written notes1 but which may so much
  more rationally be taken as grounds   
for producing the required oracle4      
,that there were such scattered and     
floating oracles1 indeed1 we are not    
critically entitled to deny4 ,the       
,judo-,greek world was indeed familiar  
with oracles of the ,lord4 ,the ,gospel 
,jesus is made to predict that  there   
would come after him many saying ,i am  
,christ2 and while the  traditionalist  
must accept this as true prediction1 the
 historian must  pronounce that various 
,christs or quasi-,christs did come4 ,we
 have  some of their names and their    
brief secular history4 #aji ,each of    

these men would be the ,lord for his    
followers2 and some of them1  surely1   
propounded some teaching4 ,the ,gospel  
ethic of reciprocity1  we know1 was put 
in a saner form by ,hillel2 did he get  
it from the  ,jesuists8 ,christian      
scholars do not claim as much4 #aaj     
,there is no  ,messianic item in the    
,gospels1 apart from the lore of the    
sacrament1  which may not have been in  
the legend of any ,christ4 ,as it       
happens1  the best authenticated saying 
of the ,lord is one which no ,christian 
now accepts--the fantastic millenarian  
prediction given by ,papias1  who had it
 from the elders who saw ,john1 the     
disciple of the ,lord1  and textually   
quoted by ,irenus1 who is practically   
corroborated by  ,eusebius4 ,the latter1
 it is true1 pronounces ,papias very    
limited in  his comprehension2 #aaa but 
has not the same thing been said many   
times of the disciples by believers in  
the gospel ,jesus8    ,the logion       
preserved from ,papias1 we know1 is in  

the ,apocalypse of  ,baruch1 which      
imitated the ,book of ,enoch1 both of   
which are full  of oracles of the ,lord4
 ,but this only proves that oracles     
passing  current in other quarters and  
of another source could pass current    
with devout ,jesuists as oracles of     
,jesus4 ,the ,apocalypse of ,baruch is  
pronounced by ,canon ,charles1 who has  
so ably edited that and other  remains  
of ,jewish literature of the same age1 a
 beautiful book1  almost the last noble 
utterance of ,judaism before it plunged 
in the  dark and oppressive years that  
followed the destruction of ,jerusalem2 
a book written when breathing thought   
and burning word had still  their home  
in ,palestine1 and the hand of the      
,jewish artist was still  master of its 
ancient cunning4 #aab ,it was admittedly
 long more  widely current in ,christian
 than in ,jewish circles1 and fell into 
discredit only when it was felt to      
contain an implicit polemic  against    
,christianity4 ,it is to its early      

,christian vogue that we  owe its       
preservation in a ,syriac translation   
made from the ,greek3  of the ,hebrew   
original every line has perished1 save a
 few still  surviving in rabbinic       
writings4    ,who can say how many other
 such ,jewish books may not have        
furnished  items for the compilers of   
the ,gospels8 ,the ,sermon on the ,mount
  we know is a ,judaic compilation2 and 
the ,slavonic ,enoch contains  sets of  
beatitudes closely analogous to those of
 the ,sermon4 ,to the  traditionalist   
these things are matters of profound    
perplexity2 for  the rational critic    
they are evidences for the naturalist   
conception  of the rise of              
,christianity4                ,,chapter 
,,xiii    ,,resurgence ,,of ,,the       
,,historical ,,problem      ,when the   
selection theory is applied to the logia
 actually recovered  at ,oxyrhynchus it 
conspicuously fails to square these with
 the  traditionalist assumption4 ,on    
,dr4 ,petrie's principle they were left 

out of the ,nucleus and ,gospels alike  
because they met no need of the         
,christian organization4 ,that is to    
say1 oracles of the ,son of ,god  were  
simply ignored by the apostles and the  
organizers because they  did not serve  
any useful purpose4 ,independent        
criticism finds in them  plain marks of 
,judaism1 of ,gnosticism1 of ,christian 
heresy1 and of a  ,christism            
irreconcilable with the ,gospel record4 
#aac ,logion iv1 iii1  a1 runs3 ,i stood
 in the midst of the world1 and in flesh
 ,i was seen  of them2 and ,i found all 
drunken1 and none found ,i athirst among
 them  sc4 for the word--the saying of a
 retrospective ,christ1 no longer  in   
the flesh1 such as we find in the       
,gnostic ,pistis ,sophia and the  ,odes 
,of ,solomon4 #aad ,on the              
traditionalist view this at least must  
be tolerably late2 what then does the   
selection argument gain from  the       
recovered papyri8    ,but it fares no   
better when confronted with the opening 

chapters  of ,luke4 ,for the ,blass     
school these are to be dated #ej-fj4    
,already  ,luke's many #aae had drawn up
 their narratives2 and these1 we  are to
 suppose1 included the miracle story of 
the birth of ,john1  the ,annunciation1 
the kinship and intercourse of          
,elizabeth and ,mary1  the preparation  
of ,john in the desert1 a different     
account of the  birth at ,bethlehem1 the
 appearance of the ,divine ,child in the
 ,temple1  and all the rest of it2 but  
no mention of the flight into ,egypt4   
,we are  asked to believe that all these
 added narratives were current among    
the faithful from the first1 but that   
,mark and ,matthew did not see  fit to  
include them in their ,gospels1 though  
,matthew saw reason to  tell of the     
flight into ,egypt1 and ,luke to        
suppress it4 ,whatever may  be the      
outcome of the liberal method of        
handling the ,gospels1 it  is safe to   
say that this will never appease the    
critical spirit4 ,the  gospel of the    

,infancy thus embodied in ,luke is      
visibly cognate with  the apocryphal    
gospels which were never allowed into   
the canon1  but were more or less       
popular in the ,church4 ,a compromise   
between  traditionalism and the         
statistical method may set up the       
position that  the stories were current 
from the first1 although all fictitious2
  but this involves the awkward         
consequence that the whole atmosphere   
from the first is one of unrestrained   
invention4 ,would the inventors  of all 
these myths have any scruple about      
putting in the mouth of the  ,lord any  
medley of teachings collected from the  
present and the past8    ,luke inserts  
the episode of the mission of the       
seventy1 with the  usual lack of time   
measurement1 between the mission of the 
twelve and  the decisive visit to       
,jerusalem4 ,in this narrative1 the     
twelve bring  back no message1 merely   
reporting what things they had done4    
,their  mission is in effect made of no 

account3 we read of more miracles1      
predictions of the approaching tragedy1 
the ,transfiguration1 and a  series of  
episodes disparaging the disciples2 and 
then we come upon  the mission of the   
seventy1 who are sent two and two before
 his face  into every city and place    
whither he himself was about to come4   
,to the  seventy is now ascribed the    
joyful report which the ,weiss school   
calmly  assign to the ,primitive        
,gospel1 and ascribe to the returning   
twelve1  though ,matthew and ,mark have 
no mention of it4 ,thus ,luke is in     
effect  represented as connecting with a
 new mission story a result which he    
found connected in the primitive story  
with the mission of the twelve1  while  
,matthew and ,mark had seen fit to      
suppress the result altogether4    ,what
 gain in credibility1 then1 is effected 
by substituting the  selection theory   
for one in which the third evangelist is
 implicitly  represented as a framer of 
fiction8 ,for ,dr4 ,petrie1 the story of

 the  seventy is a logion ignored by the
 first two ,gospel-makers1 presumably   
as serving no purpose1 albeit one of the
 most important items in the  history4  
,what kind of narrators1 then1 were the 
men who passed it  over8 ,the           
alternatives are equally destructive to 
credence3 on either  view we are dealing
 with men who would invent anything or  
suppress  anything4 ,and yet the subject
 of the missions lies at the core of the
  historical problem4 ,to the eye of    
rational criticism it is an evolving    
legend4 ,if we take ,mark as the first  
selector or collector1 we have  the     
twelve sent forth by two and two without
 money or supplies2 with  authority over
 unclean spirits2 and with no specified 
message whatever1  though the twelve are
 to make a solemn and minatory testimony
 against  those who refuse to hear them4
 ,and they went out1 and preached that  
men should repent4 ,and they cast out   
many devils1 and anointed with  oil many
 that were sick1 and healed them4 ,they 

make no report4    ,in ,matthew1        
similarly1 the twelve are empowered to  
cast out spirits  and heal diseases1 and
 are sent forth with a peremptory veto  
on  any visit to ,samaritans or         
,gentiles1 to preach1 saying1 ,the      
kingdom  of heaven is at hand4 ,heal the
 sick1 raise the dead1 cleanse the      
lepers1 cast out devils3 freely ye      
received1 freely give4 ,as in ,mark1    
they are to go unfurnished2 and are to  
withhold their peace from the  unworthy1
 testifying as aforesaid4 ,then ensues a
 long discourse1 with  no explanation of
 the kingdom of heaven1 though the      
missioners are to  proclaim upon the    
housetops what they hear in the ear4    
,then1 when  ,jesus had made an end of  
commanding his twelve disciples1 he     
departed  thence to teach and preach in 
their cities4 ,of the mission there is  
not another word3 the disciples are not 
even mentioned as returning4    ,upon   
this kind of basis ,luke erects a new   
structure4 ,the twelve  are sent forth  

to exorcise1 heal1 and preach1          
unfurnished2 and as  before they are to 
give testimony against those who will   
not receive  them4 ,and they departed1  
and went throughout the villages1       
preaching  the ,gospel1 and healing     
everywhere4 ,and the apostles1 when they
  were returned1 declared unto him what 
things they had done4 ,the  story is not
 suppressed1 and it is supplied with a  
conclusion2 but  it is on the mission of
 the seventy that stress is visibly     
laid3  they return with joy1 and are    
told to rejoice that their names are    
written in heaven4 ,in that same hour he
 rejoiced in the ,holy ,spirit2  and    
after the discourse on the ,father and  
the ,son #aaf the disciples  are        
privately told that many prophets and   
kings had desired in vain  to see and   
hear what they had seen and heard4      
,in face of all this the methods of the 
,bernhard ,weiss school and the         
selection theory are alike invalid4     
,they furnish no explanation4 ,the      

third ,gospel is simply substituting a  
mission to the ,gentiles for a  mission 
to the ,jews1 under cover of a story of 
a preparatory mission  to all the places
 that were to be visited by the ,teacher
 on his way to  his death at ,jerusalem4
 ,the seventy--in some ,,mss4           
seventy-two--stand  for the seventy or  
seventy-two peoples into whom1 by       
,jewish tradition1  mankind was divided4
 ,the notion that a genuine logion of   
this kind was  all along lying ready to 
be used is surely fantastic4 ,it is a   
planned  myth1 eking out the main myth4 
,it yields only the same ,gospel of one 
phrase1 not meant to be understood by   
the hearers4 ,but it carries in  symbol 
a provision for the ,gentiles2 and      
immediately upon it there  follows the  
story of the ,good ,samaritan1          
demonstrating that the real  tie among  
men is not nationality but humanity1 and
 impeaching the  fanaticism and         
hypocrisy of the ,jewish leaders4       
,facing once more the sharp antithesis  

between this and the strictly  ,judaic  
command in ,matthew1 we dismiss as a    
futility the notion that  the same      
teacher delivered both about the same   
time1 and that the  pro-,gentile        
compiler merely selected one and dropped
 the other4 ,the  two sayings are framed
 for two schools or two sects2 and it is
 idle  to see history in either4 ,if the
 deified ,teacher had delivered the     
first1 the second would have been a     
daring blasphemy4 ,they are alike  but  
men's counsels ascribed to the ,lord4   
,to this conclusion we are  always      
driven4 ,the starting-point of the      
diverging sects must be looked  for in  
something else than a body of oracular  
teaching of any kind4                   
,,chapter ,,xiv    ,,orthodoxy ,,and    
,,the ,,oral ,,hypothesis      ,the     
diverging schools of documentary        
construction being thus  alike unable to
 yield a coherent notion either of the  
process of  ,gospel-making or of the    
beginnings of the cultus1 it is not     

surprising  to find yet a third school  
of scholarly interpretation undertaking 
to  do better1 and to build on an oral  
basis where others have vainly  built on
 documents4 ,this theory1 long ago      
predominant in ,germany1  #aag is       
latterly represented in ,england by the 
,rev4 ,arthur ,wright1  author of ,the  
,composition of the ,gospels1 a         
,synopsis of the ,gospels1  and ,some   
,new ,testament ,problems4    ,writing  
before the appearance of ,dr4 ,petrie's 
treatise1 ,mr4 ,wright did  not         
contemplate that development of the     
later school which gives the  earliest  
possible dates for the ,gospels2 but we 
may feel sure that  he would give it    
small quarter4 ,himself essentially     
orthodox1 and  making without question  
all the primary assumptions of          
historicity1  he dates the ,epistle of  
,james before the year #ej1 ,paul's     
,epistles to  the ,thessalonians in the 
year #eb2 ,mark about #gj2 ,matthew not 
much  later2 ,luke in #hj2 and ,john    

later still4 #aah ,he is not tied to the
  synoptics3 when they become           
unmanageable he vigorously rectifies    
them  by the aid of the ,fourth ,gospel4
 ,but on his own lines he is so candid  
that he can always be read with         
pleasure2 and his arguments are well    
worth consideration4    ,mr4 ,wright's  
theory1 in brief1 is that the ,gospels1 
one and all1  represent the late        
consignment to paper of matter preserved
 from the  first in the ,christian      
catechetical schools1 given by the      
apostles  and preserved by their pupils 
in the ,rabbinical fashion4 ,as ,matthew
  divides plausibly into fifty-one      
lessons1 and ,mark in the ,westcott and 
,hort text into forty-eight paragraphs1 
it is suggested that the plan in  both  
cases had been to attain to a set of    
fifty-one or fifty-two2 and          ,if
 there really was an attempt to provide 
every ,sunday with      a ,gospel of its
 own1 we shall understand why the       
formation of      ,gospel sections      

proceeded rapidly at first and then     
ceased2 we      shall understand why all
 our ,gospels are so short and contain  
so      little which is not essential2  
we shall understand how ,s4 ,mark's     
order became fixed4 #aai      ,this     
plausible but dangerous detail1 however1
 is not insisted on2  what is essential 
is the datum of long oral tradition4    
,orthodox  as he is1 too1 ,mr4 ,wright  
holds that ,luke i2 ii2 iii1 #bc-ch1 are
  comparatively late additions1 which   
never formed part of the primitive  oral
 teaching4 #abj ,thus he can summarily  
get rid of a number of  incredibilities 
which the other schools more prudently  
leave to be  excised by the reader as he
 sees fit4 ,but we shall find him making
  a stout fight for many others4    ,on 
the oral theory every ,church had its   
own tradition1 #aba  differing both in  
contents and wording from that of other 
,churches1 and in particular exhibiting 
much mixture and many  sayings of       
,christ which are not in our ,gospels at

 all #abb--;an  interesting             
approximation1 in effect1 to the theory 
of scattered  leaflets4 ,thus is to be  
accounted for the endless variety in    
,gospel  phrasing and detail4 ,for ,mr4 
,wright1 further1 it is inconceivable   
that any evangelist left out anything he
 knew of4 ,the common idea  7before ,dr4
 ,petrie7 that they picked and selected 
what was specially  adapted to their    
readers1 ,i most confidently reject4    
#abc ,matthew  would gladly have given  
the parable of the ,prodigal ,son1 and  
,luke the  story of the ,syrophoenician 
woman1 which would so well have suited  
his purpose4 #abd ,he did not give it   
because he had never heard of  it4      
,thus1 in brief1 ,mr4 ,wright posits    
much teaching lost even from  the oral  
tradition1 as ,dr4 ,petrie posits many  
lost leaflets4    ,but ,mr4 ,wright's   
conception of the oral tradition1 upon  
scrutiny1  becomes disquieting to the   
critical sense4 ,in one place1          
discussing  ,luther's estimate of the   

,epistle of ,james as an epistle of     
straw1 he  remarks--with a great deal   
more truth1 ,i fancy1 than he dreams    
of--that  ,james's ,epistle is          
,christianity in swaddling-clothes4 #abe
 ,again1  the opening verses of ,john's 
,gospel reveal a depth of knowledge  to 
which ,s4 ,james never attained4 ,not   
that ,s4 ,james would have  contradicted
 them or doubted their truth4 ,but it is
 one thing to  see truth when it is set 
before you2 it is another to set it     
forth  yourself4 ,there is such a thing 
as latent knowledge4 #abf ,yet on  the  
same page with the swaddling-clothes    
passage ,mr4 ,wright has said1  with    
regard to ,mark's omission of the words1
 ,come unto me all ye  that labour and  
are heavy laden1 and ,i will give you   
rest3--          ,was it humility that  
made him deliberately omit them as too  
good      for so insignificant a        
creature as himself to record8 ,or was  
it a      conscious or unconscious      
feeling that they were unsuited to his  

readers8 ,a man with such preposterous  
humility was ill-equipped      for the  
work of an evangelist4 ,readers so      
unchristian would not      value a      
,gospel4      ,what now becomes of the  
two presentments of ,james and ,john8   
,both must  presumably have known most  
that was to be known1 ex hypothesi4 ,yet
  ,james has not a word of specifically 
,christian doctrine1 and1 save  in two  
sentences1 one of which has every       
appearance of interpolation1  while the 
other is only less suspicious1 no       
mention of ,jesus4 ,john1 on  the other 
hand1 as an apostle 7whether or not the 
beloved one71 must  on the theory have  
heard many of the sayings given in the  
synoptics1  which he does not report4   
,why does he not8 ,had he never heard of
 the  ,come unto me allocution8 ,could  
he conceivably have put it aside  from a
 preposterous humility8 ,if he had not  
heard that1 had he not  heard the       
,sermon on the ,mount1 or any of the    
parable-solutions given  in the         

synoptics as specially addressed to the 
twelve disciples8 ,can  ,mr4 ,wright1   
holding by the central tradition of     
,jesus and the twelve1  believe that    
,john had heard none of the teachings   
which he does not  repeat8 ,if1 on the  
other hand1 he admits wholesale         
suppression in  ,john's case1 what      
becomes of the argument above cited8    
,it matters little that ,mr4 ,wright    
credits ,john with evolving the  ,logos 
doctrine out of his own profound        
meditation1 and with having  remoulded  
the sayings of ,jesus which he does     
give4 ,that is a standing  device of    
exegesis1 ,unitarian and ,trinitarian   
alike2 and by his account  the general  
oral tradition did the same thing       
indefinitely4 ,but all  the while ,mr4  
,wright is going a great deal further4  
,he alternately  insists that every     
evangelist told all he knew1 and assumes
 that the  two evangelists who are      
alleged to have been apostles did not4  
,if1  he writes--          ,if1 as      

becomes increasingly probable1 a        
,johannine course of      teaching was  
extant in comparatively early times1 it 
is not      strange that1 as ,s4 ,john  
dealt chiefly with the ,judan ministry1 
,s4 ,peter should have refused to       
intrude into his brother ,apostle's     
domain4 ,they may have agreed at the    
outset to divide the work      thus     
between them4      ,it is impossible to 
reconcile this with ,mr4 ,wright's      
theory of the  inclusiveness of the     
evangelists4 ,why should not ,mark do   
what ,matthew  and ,john did in the     
terms of the case8    ,of course this is
 not the true critical solution2 the    
immediate  question is the consistency  
of ,mr4 ,wright's critical principles4  
,to  the eye of unbiassed criticism the 
,come unto me logion is not a  possible 
oracle at all2 it is an unintelligently 
inserted liturgical  formula from the   
mysteries1 misplaced and meaningless as 
a public  teaching4 #abg ,as regards the
 fair historical inference from the     

wide difference between the synoptic    
,gospels and the fourth1 it is  not     
possible to accept any of ,mr4 ,wright's
 solutions1 tried by his  own tests4 ,to
 suggest that ,john had not heard of the
 ,virgin ,birth  story is for him       
impossible1 unless he post-dates that as
 he does the  birth-stories in ,luke4   
,if he follows that course1 what can he 
make of  the #acth chapter of ,john1 a  
palpable interpolation or substitution  
between the #abth and the #adth1 which  
form a sequence that the #acth          
absolutely breaks8 #abh ,if that        
interpolation be admitted1 what  exactly
 is left to fight for8    ,in any case1 
the implication that ,matthew1 the      
apostle1 had not heard  of what ,john   
declares to be the first miracle1 or of 
the raising  of ,lazarus1 is as         
destructive of every traditionalist     
assumption as  is the implication that  
,john the ,apostle had not heard of the 
,sermon  on the ,mount1 or of the       
parables of the mystery of the kingdom4 

,mark  and ,luke expressly declare that 
,john was present at the raising of     
,jairus' daughter2 and the fourth       
,gospel makes no mention of it4 ,it  was
 perhaps to meet cruces of this kind    
that ,mr4 ,wright makes ,john  and      
,peter divide between them the portions 
of the ministry2 but  such a device     
simply destroys1 as we have seen1       
another main part of  his case4 ,mr4    
,wright may well reject the thesis of   
,mr4 ,halcombe1 who1  severely          
condemning modern criticism1 produces a 
modern criticism of  his own1 which     
makes ,john's ,gospel the first--another
 of the hopeless  devices of            
traditionalist critics to escape from   
the imbroglio of the  tradition4 ,mr4   
,halcombe gravely reasons that the best 
,gospel came  first2 and ,mr4 ,wright   
pronounces that such a plan of          
composition  seems unworthy of ,god and 
incredible in man4 #abi ,but his own    
theory  presents only a different set of
 incredibilities4 ,he accepts without  a

 misgiving the most staggering          
anomalies4 ,if it were not for a  single
 incidental statement in ,s4 ,john 7iv1 
#a1 #b71 he writes1 we  should have     
concluded confidently that the sacrament
 of holy baptism  was first instituted  
after the ,resurrection4 ,john's        
statement is in  fact the sole          
intimation that ,jesus or the disciples 
ever baptized  at all2 and it is either 
a designed or redacted equivoque or a   
flat  contradiction in terms3--         
,when therefore the ,lord knew that the 
,pharisees had heard that      ,jesus   
was making and baptizing more disciples 
than ,john 7although      ,jesus himself
 baptized not1 but his disciples71 he   
left ,juda1      and departed again into
 ,galilee4      ,the exegesis which can 
take this for a historical datum1 and   
compose  it with the theory of an oral  
tradition in which baptism either by    
,jesus or by his disciples never        
appears1 is really outside serious      
discussion4 ,the proposition that1 given

 the main tradition1 either  ,jesus or  
the disciples baptized freely1 and that 
yet neither ,matthew1  ,mark1 nor ,luke 
ever heard of it1 is a mere flouting of 
the critical  reason to which it        
professes to appeal4 ,and there is no   
alternative  save an honest confession  
that the record is incredible4 ,the     
whole  ,christian tradition of baptism  
breaks down on examination1 as does  the
 record of the acceptance of the higher 
mission of ,jesus by ,john1  followed by
 statements affirming the continuance of
 ,john's movement  and teaching         
alongside of the ,jesuine4 ,mr4 ,wright 
is severe on the  orthodox harmonists in
 general4 ,if ,i am right1 he remarks1  
the  exhausting labours and tortuous    
explanations of the harmonists1  in     
their endeavour to reconcile what cannot
 be reconciled1 have  been wasted4 #acj 
,that is exactly what the attentive     
reader must  regretfully say of ,mr4    
,wright's own reconstructions4    ,his  
handling of the problems of the date of 

the crucifixion and the  duration of the
 ,ministry is a warning to every student
 who desires  to be loyal to critical   
principle4 ,by his final admission1 no  
one  can tell whether the ,ministry     
lasted one1 two1 three1 four1 ten1 or   
twenty years4 ,he frankly rejects ,sir  
,william ,ramsay's attempt to salve  as 
history ,luke's story of the census4    
,the alleged procedure1 he sees1  is    
simply impossible--,s4 ,luke evidently  
has somewhat misunderstood the          
situation--and he solves the problem by 
throwing over ,luke's opening  chapters 
as late accretions4 ,but the question of
 the duration of the  ,ministry1 which  
is bound up with that of the date of the
 crucifixion1  and thus lies at the very
 centre of the whole historic problem1  
he  is content to leave as insoluble1   
yet without a misgiving as to the       
historicity of the record4    ,john     
makes ,jesus go four times to           
,jerusalem2 while in the synoptics we   
note the extraordinary fact that they do

 not bring ,christ to ,jerusalem  until 
,he entered it to be crucified4 #aca    
,john puts the cleansing  of the temple 
at the beginning of the ,ministry1 and  
the synoptics  place it at the close4   
,orthodox exegesis then assumes two     
cleansings1  but such a repetition is1  
to say the least1 highly improbable1    
for ,mr4 ,wright4 ,what end would such a
 repetition serve8 ,and if  repeated1   
why should not ,s4 ,mark or ,s4 ,john   
have told us so8 #acb  ,why1 indeed6 ,so
 ,mr4 ,wright suggests that the         
synoptics may have  telescoped several  
years into one4 ,events in real life    
move much  more slowly4 #acc ,they      
certainly do6    ,yet1 on the other     
hand1 the one-year ministry would solve 
many  difficulties4 ,it is the only     
scheme which reconciles ,s4 ,luke1  ,s4 
,matthew1 and ,s4 ,john4 ,not improbably
 it is true3 the more ,i  consider it1  
the more attractive it appears4 #acd    
,such1 evidently1  was the view of the  
,christian and other ,gnostics4 ,but    

,irenus1 the  first ,father to handle   
the problem1 declared for a ministry of 
about  twenty years1 founding not only  
on the quotation in ,john1 ,thou art    
not yet fifty years old1 but on the fact
 that all the elders who had  known     
,john the disciple of the ,lord in ,asia
 witness that he gave them  this        
tradition4 #ace ,on the other hand1 in  
,mr4 ,wright's opinion1  ten years is   
the utmost length to which we can       
stretch the ministry  without throwing  
overboard ,s4 ,luke's chronology        
altogether4 #acf  ,yet ,bishop ,westcott
 declared concerning the record of      
,irenus that1  however strange it may   
appear1 some such view is not           
inconsistent  with the only fixed       
historical dates which we have with     
regard to the  ,lord's life1 the date of
 ,his birth1 ,his baptism1 and the      
banishment  of ,pilate4 ,thus turns the 
kaleidoscope of the tradition of which  
,harnack has latterly affirmed the      
essential rightness1 with a few         

important exceptions4    ,it is hardly  
necessary to point out that the oral    
hypothesis1 like  the documentary and   
that of scattered logia1 is more        
compatible  with the negative than with 
the affirmative answer on the question  
of historicity4 ,contradictions and     
anomalies irreconcilable with  the      
assumption of a real historical process 
present not difficulty  but confirmation
 to the theory of a fictitious          
production1 whether  documentary or     
oral1 to establish a transforming cult1 
supplying a  quasi-historical basis     
where none such existed4 ,contradictory 
episodes  and dicta stand for diverging 
sects and movements4 ,save for          
incidental  concessions1 all the        
traditionist schools alike ignore the   
grounds  for inferring a long-continued 
modification of the ,gospels at many    
hands2 though1 when ,celsus late in the 
second century alleged the  common      
practice of interpolation1 ,origen could
 only explain that it  was the work of  

heretics4 ,such a procedure is for the  
rational critic  only the natural       
continuance of the method of formation4 
,over the point upon which ,mr4 ,wright 
most completely diverges from  the      
various ,unitarian schools--his         
acceptance of the ,fourth ,gospel  as   
essentially historical--we need not here
 concern ourselves4 ,those  who can     
accept the ,fourth and the ,synoptics   
cannot be supposed to  admit the        
application of criticism to fundamentals
 at all1 however  critically they may   
handle secondary issues4 ,and they have 
their  defence4 ,the liberalizers who   
see that the ,fourth as a whole is a    
work  of invention1 making free play    
with previous material1 and yet cannot  
conceive that the synoptics had         
beforehand followed a similar method1   
can make no claim to critical           
consistency4 ,they merely realize that  
the ,fourth and the ,synoptics cannot   
all be records of a real ,life and      
,teaching1 and they decide to reject the

 last rather than the prior  documents4 
,the argument from vividness and        
lifelike detail simply  goes by the     
board4 ,in the fourth ,gospel there are 
many more lifelike  details than in the 
second2 but that is not allowed to      
count4    ,for the rational inquirer1   
however1 the fact remains that the      
dismissal of the fourth ,gospel is a    
beginning of historical as  distinct    
from documentary discrimination2 and it 
is to those who have  made such a       
beginning that a further critical       
argument falls to be  addressed4 ,mr4   
,wright1 facing a chaos of doctrinal    
contradictions and  chronological       
divergences1 falls back trustingly on   
the reflection  that after all we are   
not saved by the ,gospels1 but by       
,christ4 ,he  has no misgiving as to the
 evangelists being inspired4            
,inspiration  quickens their spiritual  
perception1 but does not altogether     
preserve  them from errors of fact3 e4g4
 ,mt4 i1 #i1 #aa2 ,mk4 iii1 #bf2 ,lk4   

ii1 #b2  ,john xii1 #c2 ,acts v1 #cf2   
vii1 #af4 #acg ,perhaps ,mr4 ,wright    
would grant  some dozens more of errors 
of fact if pressed2 but his faith would 
not  be modified unless he should be    
shaken on the resurrection4 ,history  as
 well as criticism leaves us no room to 
question this4 ,on so sure  a foundation
 is our most holy faith erected4 #ach   
,for ,mr4 ,wright  that is supremely    
certain which a myriad ,christian       
scholars now find  incredible4 ,and we  
can but take our leave of him with the  
question of  the ,jew of ,celsus1 ,did  
,jesus come into the world for this     
purpose1  that we should not believe in 
him8                ,,chapter ,,xv      
,,the ,,method ,,of ,m4 ,,loisy         
,turning away1 so to speak1 to the      
,gentiles1 we concentrate our case  in  
countering that of the emancipated      
defenders of the historicity  of the    
,founder1 as put by ,m4 ,loisy1 the     
equal of any of the ,german or  ,english
 professionals in scholarly competence1 

and the superior of  some of them in    
candour4 ,precisely because ,catholicism
 yields least  preparation for the work 
of critical science1 one who slowly     
makes his  way out of it into the       
liberal position is reasonably to be    
credited  with a special capacity for   
the task4 ,and he is on the whole the   
most  useful theorist for the purposes  
of the liberal school1 inasmuch  as he  
is prepared to give up many documentary 
items to which others  needlessly cling4
 ,nonetheless1 ,m4 ,loisy is a confident
 champion of the  historicity of the    
gospel ,jesus4 ,he does not indeed      
combine his summary  presentment of his 
case with a discussion of the myth      
theory--that  he is content to put aside
 in mass with the epithet superficial2  
but he puts his own construction all the
 more unreservedly4    ,it is           
interesting to note his certitudes4 ,no 
one of his school1  perhaps1 has more   
frequently claimed indubitability on    
points of  inference4 ,for instance3--  

,the advent of ,jesus in the time of the
 procurator ,pontius ,pilate      is a  
fact as certain as a thousand other     
facts on the subject      of which no   
one dreams of raising the slightest     
suspicion2 it is      not doubtful that 
he announced the speedy coming of the   
kingdom      of ,god 444 since that idea
 444 which is the fundamental idea of   
the preaching of ,christ in the         
synoptics1 was incontestably that       
of his first disciples and ,paul4444    
,great as are the real obscurities of   
the evangelical history1      they are  
less numerous than they seem1 and       
without doubt also      less            
considerable on the important points4   
,paul 444 does not say that ,jesus      
predicted his death and                 
resurrection4 ,he does not even say what
 was the ground for his      execution2 
but it does not seem doubtful that this 
ground was      precisely the           
announcement of that kingdom of ,god    
which the      apostles and ,paul       

himself preached4        ,paul and the  
other apostles practised exorcisms in   
the name of      ,jesus on certain      
patients4 ,it is told that ,jesus had   
done the      same1 and without doubt he
 had really done it1 with still more    
assurance and more success than his     
disciples4        ,he ,jesus without    
doubt never frequented the schools of   
the      rabbins4        ,his family was
 certainly pious4        ,one fact is   
certain1 that a seizure was concerted of
 which he      ,judas was the principal 
agent4        ,it was without doubt     
arranged at the house of the high priest
      at earliest daylight that they    
should content themselves with          
denouncing the ,galilean prophet to the 
,roman authority4        ,without doubt 
he ,jesus expected to his last moment   
the succour      which only death could 
bring him4        ,it was ,peter1 it    
would seem1 who first obtained the proof
 and      the definitive certainty of   
the resurrection that faith called      

for4 ,one day1 at dawn1 fishing on the  
lake of ,tiberias1 he saw      ,jesus4  
,already1 without doubt1 he had         
assembled around him the      other     
disciples4 #aci      ,it is enviable to 
be so sans doute on so many points in a 
narrative  of which so much has had to  
be abandoned as myth4 ,the odd thing is 
that with all these certitudes ,m4      
,loisy introduces his book with  the    
declaration1 ,we must il faut now       
renounce writing the life  of ,jesus4   
,all the critics agree in recognizing   
that the materials  are insufficient for
 such an enterprise4 #adj ,and then1    
after  an introduction in which he      
contests the view that nothing can be   
written with certainty1 he gives us a   
,life of ,jesus which is simply  ,renan 
revised6    ,it is certainly brief2 but 
that is because he is content to say    
only  what he thinks there is to say1   
whereas his predecessors were at  more  
or less pains to embed the thin thread  
of biography in a large  mat of         

non-biographical material4 ,m4 ,loisy   
seems to have become a  little confused 
in the process of prefixing a critical  
introduction  to three chapters of the  
former introduction to his commentary on
 the  synoptics4 ,the present little    
book1 he writes1 does not pretend  to be
 that history which it is impossible to 
recover4 ,naturally  not4 ,but it       
proffers a ,life of ,jesus all the same4
    ,m4 ,loisy is quite satisfied that  
there was a ,jesus of ,nazareth1  son of
 ,joseph1 a worker in wood1 carpenter1  
furniture maker1  wheelwright4 #ada ,and
 ,jesus followed originally the same    
profession4 ,when he began his preaching
 of the speedy coming of  the heavenly  
kingdom1 his mother ,mary was a widow1  
with numerous  children4 ,it is not     
certain that ,jesus was the eldest4444  
,it was  probably ,john the ,baptist    
who1 unknowingly1 awoke the vocation of 
the young carpenter of ,nazareth4 ,the  
crisis which traversed ,juda  had evoked
 a prophet4444 ,this preaching of terror

 made a great  impression4444 ,john was 
usually on the ,jordan1 baptizing in the
  river those touched by his burning    
words4 ,jesus was drawn like many       
others4444 ,he was baptized1 and        
remained some time in the desert4       
,and so it goes on4 ,what appears most  
probable is that ,jesus had  already    
passed some time in solitude4 ,a time of
 reflection and of  preparation was     
indispensable between the life of the   
carpenter and the  manifestation of the 
preacher of the evangel4 ,pushed to the 
desert by  the sentiment of his         
vocation1 ,jesus was bound 7devait7 to  
be pursued  by a more and more clear    
consciousness of that vocation4 ,thus   
,m4 ,loisy  can after all expand his    
sources4 ,it was after the imprisonment 
of the  ,baptist that ,jesus felt he was
 to replace him1 and by the better title
  because he felt himself predestined to
 become the human chief of the          
,kingdom1 there to fill the function of 
,messiah4 ,but almost in spite  of      

himself he worked miracles4 ,from his   
first stay at ,capernaum the  sick were 
brought to him to heal2 and1 fearing    
that the thaumaturg  might hurt the     
preacher of the ,kingdom1 he left the   
place1 only to  be followed up and      
forced to make cures4 ,he operated with 
a peculiar  efficacy on the category of 
patients supposed to be specially       
possessed  by the demon4444 ,he spoke to
 them with authority1 and calm returned1
  at least for a time1 to those troubled
 and unquiet souls4 ,as to the  greater 
cures1 ,m4 ,loisy observes that perhaps 
there was ascribed to  the healer the   
revivification of a dead maiden4 ,on the
 instantaneous  cures of lepers and the 
blind he naturally says nothing         
whatever4    ,the dilemma of ,m4 ,loisy 
here recalls that of ,professor         
,schmiedel over  the same problem4 ,the 
latter1 claiming that it would be       
difficult to  deny healing powers to    
,jesus1 in view of the testimonies1 is  
fain to  argue that the ,healer's       

personal claim 7,mt4 xi1 #e2 ,lk4 vii1  
#bb2 not  in ,mk47 to have healed the   
sick1 the blind1 the deaf1 the lepers1  
and  raised the dead1 meant only a      
spiritual ministration1 inasmuch as the 
claim concludes3 the poor also have the 
,gospel preached to them4 ,on  this view
 the assumed healing power really counts
 for nothing2 and  the last clause1     
which ,schmiedel contends would be an   
anti-climax  if the healings were real1 
becomes absolutely an anti-climax of    
the most hopeless kind4 ,one day men    
will dismiss such confusions  by noting 
that the theory of spiritual healing1 an
 attempt to evade  the mass of miracle1 
is only miracle-mongering of another    
kind4 ,are  we to take it that          
regeneration of the morally dead1 deaf1 
blind1  and leprous is to be effected   
wholesale by a little preaching8 ,did   
the ,christian community then consist   
wholly or mainly of these8    ,m4 ,loisy
 in turn blenches at a claim in which   
raising the dead  figures as a customary

 thing1 with cures of leprosy and       
blindness2  and he too falls back on the
 spiritual interpretation1 #adb failing 
to note the flat fallacy of making the  
preaching to the poor at once  a        
contrast and a climax to the spiritual  
healings1 which also1 on  the           
hypothesis1 are precisely matters of    
preaching4 ,the ,teacher is  made to    
say3 ,i raise the spiritually dead1 and 
cure the spiritually  leprous1 deaf1 and
 blind1 by preaching to them3 to the    
poor ,i just  preach4 ,schmiedel does   
not see that the preaching of the       
,gospel to  the poor is added as the one
 thing that could be said to be done for
  them1 who would otherwise have had no 
benefit2 and that on his own  view he   
ought to treat this as a late addition4 
,on the contrary1 he  insists that the  
evangelists could not have thought of   
adding it2  and that it makes an        
excellent climax if we take the healings
 to be  purely spiritual4    ,the       
rational argument would be1 of course1  

that the first writer did  make the     
,lord talk figuratively2 and that a     
later redactor1 taking  the words       
literally1 added the item of the poor1  
which he could not  have done if he took
 them figuratively4 ,but the irreducible
 fallacy is  the assumption that as a   
figurative claim the speech is historic1
 one  order of miracle being held       
allowable when another is not4          
,schmiedel  has exemplified his own     
saying that with very few exceptions all
  critics fall into the very grave error
 of immediately accepting a  thing as   
true as soon as they have found         
themselves able to trace  it to a       
'source'4 #adc ,it does not in the least
 follow that by  substituting spiritual 
for physical miracle we acquire a right 
to  claim historicity4 ,and by the claim
 we simply cancel the fame  of the      
records4    ,m4 ,loisy1 committing      
himself to some acts of healing where   
,schmiedel1  after accepting the general
 claim1 commits himself to none1        

balances  vaguely between acts of       
faith-healing so-called and cures of    
sheer  insanity1 and accepts the        
tradition of          an unfruitful     
point at ,nazareth4 #add ,a prophet is  
not without      honour1 save in his own
 country and among his own kin1 and in  
his own house1 ,jesus had said before   
the disdainful astonishment      of his 
fellow-citizens and the incredulity of  
his family2 and he      could work no   
miracle in that place4      ,m4 ,loisy1 
it will be observed1 here assumes that  
we are dealing with  real cures1 and    
tacitly rejects the qualifying clauses  
in ,mark vi1  #e1 and ,matthew xiii1    
#eh1 as he well may4 ,they are indeed   
stamped  with manipulation4 ,he could   
there do no mighty work save that he    
laid his hands upon a few sick folk and 
healed them1 says the first2  he did not
 many mighty works there because of     
their unbelief1 says  the other4 ,such  
passages raise in an acute form the     
question how any  statement in the      

,gospels can reasonably be taken as     
historical4 ,what  were the alleged     
mighty works done elsewhere save acts of
 healing the  sick8 ,and how many cases 
for such healing would naturally be     
presented  by one small hamlet8 ,if1    
again1 all the healings were spiritual1 
what are we left with beyond the truism 
that sinners who did not  believe were  
unbelieving8    ,as the modifications   
produce pure counter-sense1 it is       
critically  permissible to surmise that 
they were lacking in the first copies1  
and were inserted merely to guard       
against profane cavils4 ,but as the     
whole episode is found only in ,matthew 
and ,mark1 it cannot figure  in ,dr4    
,petrie's ,nucleus2 and for similar     
reasons it is absent from  the          
,primitive ,gospel of the school of     
,bernhard ,weiss4 ,m4 ,loisy1           
recognizing that it is the kind of item 
that ,luke would avoid for  tactical    
reasons1 is loyal enough to accept it as
 historical without  the modifying      

words1 and seeks no better explanation  
than that given  in the cited words of  
,jesus4    ,for those who aim at a      
rational comprehension of the documents1
  the critical induction is that the    
story was inserted for a reason2  and   
the explanation which satisfies ,m4     
,loisy is so ill-considered  that it    
only emphasizes the need4 ,a prophet is 
likely to be looked  at askance by his  
own people3 yes1 if he be an            
unimpressive one2  but upon what        
critical principles is ,m4 ,loisy       
entitled to assume1  as he constantly   
does1 that the historic ,jesus made a   
profound  and ineffaceable impression   
upon all who came in contact with him1  
from the moment of his call to his      
disciples1 and that nevertheless  he had
 not made the slightest impression of   
superiority upon his own  kinsmen and   
fellow-villagers1 up to the age of      
thirty8 ,how can such  propositions     
cohere8 ,jesus has only to leave        
,nazareth and to command  men to follow 

him1 in order to be reverently          
recognized as a ,superman3  for ,m4     
,loisy1 it is his mere personality that 
creates the faith which1  after his     
death1 makes his adherents proclaim him 
as a re-arisen  ,god4 ,is this the kind 
of personality that in an eastern       
village would  be known merely as that  
of the carpenter1 or the carpenter's    
son8    ,m4 ,loisy1 it is true1 claims  
that ,jesus had needed a period of      
solitude  and meditation in the desert  
to make him a teacher1 thus partly      
implying that before that experience the
 destined prophet might not be          
recognizable as such4 ,but is it a      
historic proposition that the short     
time of solitude had worked a complete  
transformation8 ,was a quite  normal or 
commonplace personality capable of such 
a transfiguration  in a natural sense8  
,that the critic had not even asked     
himself the  question is made plain by  
his complete failure to raise the       
cognate  question in regard to the      

marvellous healing powers with which he 
unhesitatingly credits the teacher1 on  
the strength of the wholly              
supernaturalist testimony of the        
,gospels4 ,these powers1 according  to  
,m4 ,loisy1 were also the instantaneous 
result of the short period  of solitude 
in the desert4 ,what pretensions can    
such a theory make  to be in conformity 
with historical principles8 ,cannot ,m4 
,loisy see  that he has only been       
miracle-mongering with a difference8    
,it is bad enough that we should be     
asked to take for granted1 on the       
strength of a typically ,eastern record 
of wholesale thaumaturgy1 a  real       
natural gift for healing a variety of   
nervous disorders4 ,but  a natural gift 
of such a kind at least presupposes some
 process of  development4 ,m4 ,loisy    
obliviously asks us to believe that all 
of a  sudden a man who had throughout   
his life shown no abnormal powers  or   
qualities whatever1 began to exercise   
them upon the largest scale  almost     

immediately after he had left his native
 village4 ,now1 whatever  view be taken 
of the cynical formula that a prophet   
has no honour in  his own village1 it is
 idle to ask us to believe that a great 
healer  has none4 ,the local healer of  
any sort has an easy opening2 and the   
redacted ,gospels indicate uneasy       
recognition of the plain truth that     
,jesus needed only to heal the sick at  
,nazareth as elsewhere to conquer       
unbelief4 ,it was precisely the cures   
that1 in the ,gospel story1 had  won him
 fame in the surrounding country4 ,m4   
,loisy has merely burked  the problem4  
,a little later he takes as historical  
the terrible invectives  pronounced     
against ,capernaum and the neighbouring 
cities1 which he  attempts to explain4  
,after all1 the multitude had not gone  
beyond a  benevolent curiosity1 quite   
ready to transform itself into an       
ironical  incredulity4 ,they had seen   
the miracles2 they awaited meantime the 
kingdom1 without otherwise preparing for

 it2 and as the kingdom did  not come   
they inclined less and less to believe  
in it4 ,so they were  doomed to a       
terrible judgment for their             
faithlessness4 ,but why then was        
nothing said of the wholly unbelieving  
,nazareth8 #ade ,if the towns  which    
would not receive the disciples were to 
be testified against1  what should be   
the fate of the hostile birthplace8     
,before such problems1 the method of    
liberal accommodation here as  always   
breaks down4 ,to the eye of the         
evolutionist there is no great  mystery4
 ,the avowal that the ,founder either   
could not or did not  work wonders at   
,nazareth might serve any one of several
 conceivable  purposes4 ,it might meet  
the cavils of those who in a later day  
found  and said that nothing was known  
at ,nazareth of a wonder-working ,jesus 
who had dwelt there2 even as the        
often-repeated story of the command  to 
healed persons to keep silence could    
avail to turn the attacks of            

investigating doubters in regard to the 
miraculous cures4 ,or it might  serve   
either to impugn the pretensions of     
those who at one stage of the  movement 
called themselves ,nazarenes in the     
sense of followers of the  man of       
,nazareth1 or to include the birthplace 
with the family and the  disciples in   
that disparagement of the ,jewish       
surroundings which would  arise step for
 step with the spread of the ,gentile   
movement4 ,any of  these explanations is
 reasonable beside the thesis that a man
 gifted  with marvellous healing powers1
 suddenly developed without any previous
  sign of them1 could either find no one
 in his own village to let him  try     
them1 or to recognize them even when    
applied there1 while the  country round 
about1 ex hypothesi1 was ringing with   
his fame4 ,and  the criticism which puts
 us off with such solutions is really   
not  well entitled to impute            
superficiality to those who reject it4  
,the whole carpenter story1 in which ,m4

 ,loisy sees no difficulty1 is  one of  
the weakest of the ,gospel attempts at  
circumstantiality4 ,a trade  or calling 
for the ,messiah1 as a true ,jew1 was   
perhaps as requisite  in the eyes of    
some ,jews as either a ,davidic descent 
or an argument  to prove that ,davidic  
descent was for the ,messiah            
unnecessary--both of  which requirements
 the ,gospels meet4 ,every good ,jew1 we
 are told1 was  required to have a      
handicraft or profession4 ,a            
,ben-,joseph1 again1  was called-for to 
meet the requirement1 common among the  
,samaritans  but not confined to them1  
of a ,messiah so named4 #adf ,but how   
came  it that the carpenter of ,mark is 
only the carpenter's son in  ,matthew8  
,we can conceive the ,gentilizing ,luke 
putting both statements  aside as       
ill-suited to his purpose1 his ,jesus   
being a ,god competing  with ,gentile   
,gods2 but if there really was an early 
knowledge that  ,jesus was a carpenter1 
why should ,matthew minimize it8 ,and   

how came  it that ,origen #adg knew of  
no ,gospel current in the churches  in  
which ,jesus was described as a         
carpenter8    ,in this matter1 as about 
the ,infancy generally1 the apocryphal  
gospels  are as rich in detail as the   
canonical are poor4 ,again and again    
does ,joseph figure in them as a working
 carpenter1 or plough-maker1  or        
house-builder4 #adh ,the words of       
,origen might imply that it was  from   
some such source that ,celsus drew his  
statement that ,jesus was  a carpenter2 
and yet none of the preserved apocrypha 
speaks of ,jesus  as working at         
carpentry save by way of such miracles  
as that of the  elongation of the piece 
of wood4 ,having regard to the mythical 
aspect  of the whole1 we suggest an     
easily misinterpreted ,gnostic source   
for the basis4 ,for some schools of the 
,gnostics1 the ,jewish ,god  was the    
,demiourgos1 the ,artisan or ,creator1 a
 subordinate being in  their divine     
hierarchy4 ,the word could mean an      

artisan of any kind2  and architector1  
the term in the ,latin version of       
,thomas1 points to  a reflex of the idea
 of creator which attached to the       
,gnostic term4    ,that the doctrine of 
the ,demiourgos was already current in  
,jewish  circles before the period      
commonly assigned to ,christian         
,gnosticism  has been shown with much   
probability by ,dr4 ,s4 ,karppe4 ,in a  
,talmudic  passage given as cited by    
,rabbi ,jochanan ben ,saccai before the 
middle  of the first century1 ,c4,e41   
there is denunciation of those who spare
  not the glory of the ,creator2 and    
other passages interpret this  in the   
sense of a heresy which diminishes ,god 
and sows division  between ,israel and  
his ,god4 #adi ,debate of this kind     
emerges with  the name of the           
,judo-,christian heretic ,cerinthus4    
,for him1 ,jesus1  though naturally     
born1 was entered at his baptism by     
,christ1 the son  not of the ,jewish    
,god1 the ,demiourgos1 but of the       

,supreme ,god4 #aej  ,there might well  
be1 however1 round ,cerinthus1 who      
retained ,jewish  leanings1 ,jews who   
held to the ,judo-,christian primary    
position  that ,jesus was the son of    
,yahweh4 ,by some early ,gnostics he    
could  hardly fail to be so named4      
,could not then the ,gnostic ,son of the
  ,demiourgos1 the ,artificer1 become   
for more literal ,christists son  of the
 carpenter1 even as the mystic seamless 
robe of ,pagan myth  became for some a  
garment which had to be cut in pieces to
 be divided8    ,met by such            
suggestions1 ,m4 ,loisy tells us that we
 are superficial4 ,but  is he otherwise8
 ,is he not simply evading his problem8 
,can he  see nothing strange in the     
sudden mention of the carpenter in a    
primary gospel which had set out with a 
divine personage and had  never         
mentioned his parents or upbringing8 ,on
 the mythic theory the  apparition of   
the ,messiah without antecedents is     
precisely what was to  be expected2 if  

there was any clear ,jewish expectation 
on the point1  it was that he should    
come unlooked for1 unheralded save1 on  
one view1  by ,elias4 #aea ,thus the    
,gospel record fits into the myth theory
  from the outset1 while on the         
assumption of historicity it is but a   
series of enigmas4    ,holding by that  
assumption1 ,m4 ,loisy is forced to     
violent measures to  reconcile the      
isolated ,marcan mention of the son of  
,mary and brother  of ,james and ,joses 
and ,judas and ,simon with the repeated 
mentions  in the closing chapters of    
7#a7 ,mary the mother of ,james the less
  and of ,joses and ,salome2 who when he
 was in ,galilee followed ,jesus  and   
ministered unto him2 7#b7 ,mary the     
mother of ,joses2 and 7#c7  ,mary the   
mother of ,james and ,salome4 ,in these 
closing chapters this  ,mary the mother 
of ,james and ,joses and ,salome figures
 first as simply  one who followed and  
ministered to ,jesus1 then as the mother
 of ,joses1  then as the mother of      

,james and ,salome1 but never as the    
mother of  ,jesus4 ,by what right does  
,m4 ,loisy extract his certitude from   
the  prior text8    ,his simple course  
is to decide that ,mary the mother of   
,james and of  ,joses and of ,salome in 
the closing chapters is not ,mary the   
mother of  ,james and ,joses and ,judas 
and ,simon in chapter vi4 ,certain      
,fathers1  he had noted in his great    
work on the ,synoptics 7citing in       
particular  ,chrysostom71 desirous of   
making the synoptics accord with ,john1 
identify ,mary the mother of ,james and 
,joses in ch4 xv with the  mother of    
,jesus2 but it is evident that if the   
synoptics had thought  of the mother of 
the ,saviour they would not have thus   
designated  her4 #aeb ,precisely6 ,and  
if the ,gospel of ,mark in its original 
form  had contained the passage in      
chapter vi1 how could it possibly have  
spoken in chapter xv of a ,mary the     
mother of ,james and ,joses without     
indicating either that she was or was   

not the same ,mary8 ,would it  have     
deliberately specified two ,maries1 each
 the mother of a ,james  and a ,joses1  
without a word of differentiation8      
,to the faithful critic there is only   
one course open4 ,he is bound to        
conclude that the passage in chapter vi 
is a late interpolation1 the  work of an
 inventor who had perhaps either        
accepted or anticipated  the ,johannine 
record that ,mary the mother of ,jesus  
was present at  the crucifixion1 but who
 did not--perhaps in his copy of ,mark  
could  not--completely carry out his    
purpose by making the ,mary at the      
crucifixion the mother of the crucified 
,lord4    ,we are not here concerned    
with the exegesis of those ,fathers who 
desired to save the perpetual virginity 
of ,mary2 our business is  simply with  
the texts4 ,and we can but say that if1 
with ,m4 ,loisy1 we  make the ,mary of  
chapter xv another ,mary than her of    
chapter vi1 we  are bound on the same   
principle to find a third and a fourth  

,mary in  the mother of ,joses 7xv1 #dg7
 and the mother of ,james and ,salome   
7xvi1 #a74 #aec ,it will really not do4 
,the mythological theory1 which  traces 
the mourning ,maries to an ancient      
liturgy of a ,god-sacrifice  and finds  
the mother-,mary of chapter vi an alien 
element1 may seem  to ,m4 ,loisy        
superficial1 but it meets a problem     
which he simply evades4    ,the only    
serious difficulties for ,m4 ,loisy1    
apparently1 are the  miracles and the   
prophecies4 ,on the latter he makes no  
use of the  ,savonarola argument2 and in
 his smaller work he ignores the rock   
text2 but for him the scene of ,csarea  
,philippi1 with the ,messianic          
confession of ,peter1 seems thoroughly  
historic2 and on the other hand  the    
story of ,peter's denial of his ,master 
causes him no misgiving4 ,for  a        
rational reader1 the conception of the  
shamed ,peter figuring  soon afterwards 
as the merciless judge and supernatural 
slayer of  the unhappy ,ananias is      

extremely indigestible4 ,the personage  
thus  evolved is not only detestable but
 incredible4 ,how could the coward      
apostle figure primarily and            
continuously as a pillar of the ,church 
described8 ,harnack's method1 as        
,professor ,blass complains1 #aed       
treats the denigration of ,peter as the 
result of the strife between  the       
,judaizing and the ,gentilizing sections
 of the early ,church2 it  is the       
natural hypothesis4 ,without it we are  
left to the detestable  and impossible  
figure of the apostle who denies his    
,lord and has no  mercy for a weak      
brother who merely keeps back part of a 
sum of money  when professing freely to 
donate the whole4 ,the critical reader  
will  prefer to follow ,harnack4    ,but
 if we give up the story of the ,denial1
 how shall we retain  those which exalt 
and glorify the ,judaizing apostle8 ,if 
we give up  ,matthew's rock texts1 with 
what consistency can we take as pure    
history the episode in ,mark in which   

,peter1 first of the twelve1  declares  
,thou art the ,christ1 eliciting the    
charge to tell no  man of him1 followed 
by the prediction of death and          
resurrection1  spoken openly8 ,the      
episode in ,mark passes into1 and in    
,matthew  is followed by1 the fierce    
rebuke to the expostulating ,peter1 ,get
  thee behind me1 ,satan1 for thou      
mindest not the things of ,god1 but  the
 things of men--a strange sequel to     
,matthew's ,blessed art thou1  ,simon   
,bar-,jonah2 for flesh and blood hath   
not revealed it unto thee1  but my      
,father which is in ,heaven4    ,this is
 one of the passages that force the     
conclusion either that  ,mark had before
 him the fuller record1 in ,matthew or  
elsewhere1 and  turned it from a        
,petrine to an anti-,petrine purpose1 or
 that a redactor  did so4 ,there is no  
escape from the evidence that we are    
dealing with  two sharply conflicting   
constructions4 ,the ,blessed art thou   
passage  and the ,satan passage will not

 cohere4 ,which came first8 ,had ,luke  
either before him8 ,his ,get thee behind
 me1 ,satan 7iv1 #h2 ,a4,v471  addressed
 to the devil in the ,temptation1 is    
ejected from the revised  text as being 
absent from most of the ancient codices2
 and its presence  in the ,alexandrine  
suggests an attempt to get in somewhere 
a saying  which otherwise had no place  
in the third ,gospel4 ,the absence alike
  of the blessing and the aspersion on  
,peter sets up the surmise that  both   
are quite late1 and that the insertion  
of one elicited the other4    ,again and
 again we find in the ,gospels such     
traces of a strife over  ,petrine       
pretensions4 ,in the story of the       
,denial1 which we have found  so        
incompatible with the attitude ascribed 
to ,peter in the ,acts1  everyone since 
,strauss has recognized a process of    
redaction and  interpolation4 ,m4       
,loisy1 saying nothing of the central   
problem1  avowedly finds in ,mark a     
manipulation1 deliberate and            

ill-managed1  of a more simple          
statement4 #aee ,this might have        
sufficed to put  him on his guard2 but  
all he has to say1 after reducing the   
confused  details to the inferred       
simpler statement1 is that if there is  
in any part of the second ,gospel a     
personal recollection of ,peter it  is  
the story of the denial in the form in  
which ,mark found it4 #aef  ,which makes
 sad havoc of the ,peter-,mark          
tradition2 for the story of the  denial 
betrays itself as a late anti-,petrine  
invention1 as aforesaid4                
,,chapter ,,xvi    ,,the ,,trial ,,crux 
,thus lax in his treatment of the       
subsidiary historical problems1  ,m4    
,loisy is of necessity accommodating    
when he faces those which he  recognizes
 to be central4 ,over the story of the  
purification of  the temple--which      
,origen found at once unjustifiable and 
signally  miraculous1 since it was      
inconceivable that so great a multitude 
should have yielded to the mere attack  

of one man with a scourge of  small     
cords--he has again no misgivings4 ,he  
feels that some such story  was needed  
to motive the priestly action against   
,jesus4 #aeg ,in the  story of the      
astonishing sophism ascribed to ,jesus  
on the subject of  the tribute to ,csar 
he sees only cleverness 7habilet72 and  
yet  he accepts as historical--again by 
necessity of his thesis--,jesus's       
admission that he claimed to be king of 
the ,jews4 ,in the story of  the        
betrayal he sees fit1 docilely following
 ,brandt1 to allege a  little confused  
fighting1 some blows given and received 
over and  above the cutting off of the  
ear of ,malchus1 an imagined item which 
he finds in none of the ,gospels4 ,over 
the prayers of the ,lord while  the     
disciples slept he had hesitated in his 
commentary2 #aeh falling  back on the   
notable avowal that the sort of         
incoherence which results  from         
describing a scene which passed while   
the witnesses 6 were  asleep is without 

doubt to be explained by the origin and 
character  of the narrative rather than 
by a negligence of the narrator4 ,for   
once1 ,i unreservedly assent to the sans
 doute4 ,quite unwittingly1  ,m4 ,loisy 
has put himself in line with our        
mythical theory1 which  postulates a    
drama as the origin of the narrative4   
,all the same1 he accepts the narrative 
as history2 and he sees  nothing in the 
fusion of the two speeches3 ,sleep      
on4444 ,it is  enough4444 ,arise now1444
 though he rejects the proposal of      
,bleek1  ,volkmar1 and ,wellhausen to   
turn ,sleep on into an interrogation1   
#aei and admits that the ,it is enough  
is an unclear and very  insufficient    
transition from ,sleep on to ,arise4    
,once more1 which  is the more          
superficial1 this lame handling or the  
recognition of a  transcribed drama with
 two speeches combined because of the   
omission  of an exit and an entrance1 in
 what ,m4 ,loisy admits to be a highly  
dramatic mise en scne8    ,but it is    

over the trial in the house of the high 
priest that ,m4 ,loisy  most            
astonishingly redacts the narrative4 ,in
 his commentary he  recognizes that     
,matthew's story1 in which the scribes  
and the elders  are already gathered    
together in the dead of night when      
,jesus is  brought for trial1 and the   
story of ,mark1 in which they come      
together  with the high priest1 are     
equally incredible2 and that the story  
of  the quest for witnesses in the night
 is still more so4    ,once again we    
have a sans doute with which we can     
agree4 ,the nocturnal  procedure1 no    
doubt1 did not take place4 #afj         
,recognizing further  that a ,jewish    
blasphemer was by the ,levitical law to 
be stoned1 not  crucified1 he simply    
gives up the whole narrative as a       
product of  the ,christian tradition1   
bent on saddling the ,jews rather than  
the ,romans with the responsibility of  
the crucifixion4 #afa ,in his  smaller  
work he simply cuts the knot and        

alleges3--          ,as soon as the     
first daylight had come 7ds les premiers
 lueurs      du jour71 a reunion was    
held at the house of 7chez7 the chief   
priest1 where it was without doubt 6    
arranged that they should      content  
themselves with denouncing the ,galilean
 prophet to the      ,roman authority as
 a disturber and a false ,messiah4 ,but 
it was      necessary to arrange the    
terms of the accusation and distribute  
the rles1 to get together and prepare   
the witnesses4 ,these      measures were
 soon taken4 ,as soon as morning had    
come 7ds le      matin7 the priests     
brought their prisoner chained before   
the      tribunal of ,pontius ,pilate4  
#afb      ,one certainly cannot call    
this manipulation of the texts          
superficial4 ,it is sheer deliberate    
dissolution and reconstruction  of the  
narrative1 by way of substituting       
something more plausible for  the       
incredible original1 when all the while 
the credibility of the  original is the 

thesis maintained4 ,and yet even the    
reconstruction is  so thoughtlessly     
managed that we get only a slightly less
 impossible  account4 ,only a scholar   
who never followed the details of a     
legal  process could suggest that the   
task of hunting up witnesses and        
arranging a procedure could be carried  
through between earliest dawn  and      
morning4 ,and for the headlong haste of 
such a procedure1 only  an hour or so   
after the arrest of the prisoner1 no    
explanation is  even suggested4 ,a      
violent impossibility in the record1    
destructive  of all faith in its        
historicity at this point1 is sought to 
be  saved by a violent redaction which  
simply makes hay of the very  documents 
founded on4 ,and this illicit violence  
is resorted to  because ,m4 ,loisy      
recognizes that if he is to retain a    
historical  ,jesus at all he must bring 
the whole trial story into a historical 
shape4 ,he certainly had cause to take  
drastic measures4 ,long ago it  was     

pointed out that by ,jewish law a       
prisoner must not be condemned  to death
 on the day of his trial3 ,judicia de   
capitalibus finiunt  eodem die si sint  
ad absolutionem2 si vero sint ad        
damnationem1  finiuntur die sequente4   
#afc ,this might alone suffice to bring 
into doubt the priestly trial2 to say   
nothing of the modern ,jewish  protest  
that a capital prosecution and execution
 on either the day  after or the day of 
the ,passover1 at the instance of the   
,high ,priest1  was unthinkable4 #afd   
,there were good reasons1 then1 for     
seeking to  found on the trial before   
,pilate4    ,let us now survey broadly  
the process of historical criticism thus
  far4 #a4 ,at an early stage the       
reconstructors gave up as pure fiction  
the third trial before ,herod1 which    
appears solely in ,luke4 ,they did  not 
ask what historical knowledge1 or what  
sense of history1 can have  existed in a
 community among which such an absolute 
invention found  ready currency4 #b4    

,the next step was to reject as         
unhistorical  the narrative of the      
fourth ,gospel1 in which ,jesus 7a7 is  
examined  by ,annas the high priest1 but
 in no sense tried2 7b7 is then sent    
bound to ,caiaphas the high priest2 7c7 
is immediately passed on from  ,caiaphas
 to ,pilate1 who examines him within    
doors while the priests  remain outside1
 there being thus no ,jewish witnesses2 
7d7 tells  ,pilate ,my kingdom is not of
 this world1 and convinces him that  he 
is not punishable4 ,rejecting this      
account1 as they well might1  the       
reconstructors failed to ask themselves 
what such an invention  signifies4 #c4  
,next disappears the so-called          
historical narrative of the  trial      
before the high priest and chief priests
 in the synoptics4 #afe  ,that in turn1 
taken on its merits1 is found flagrantly
 incredible2 and  now ,m4 ,loisy in     
effect puts it aside1 reducing it to a  
fundamentally  different form4    ,three
 of the trial stories are thus in turn  

rejected as hopelessly  unhistorical4   
,and now we are invited to regard as    
incontestable  the fourth1 the trial    
before ,pilate as related in the        
synoptics2 the  ,johannine version being
 dismissed as fiction4 ,in the          
scientific sense  of the word #aff the  
rejected stories have been classed as   
myths4 ,and  still we are told that the 
myth-theory is outside discussion4      
,yet1 even in coming to the trial before
 ,pilate1 ,m4 ,loisy has to  begin by   
noting the improbability that the entire
 sanhedrim should  have attended it1 as 
is alleged by the synoptics4 ,in the    
minds of  the evangelists the sanhedrim 
represents the ,jews1 and it was the    
,jews who caused the death of ,jesus4   
,hence the general expressions  which   
the redactors used the more willingly   
because they were very  incompletely    
informed on the facts4 #afg ,still1 the 
trial must stand  good4 ,judas goes the 
way of myth2 but the unintelligible     
procedure  of ,pilate must be salved4   

,with his general loyalty to the facts  
as  he sees them ,m4 ,loisy notes1 with 
,brandt1 that in the synoptics as  in   
,john there is no ,jesuist eye-witness  
or auditor to report for the  faithful  
what took place4 ,here begin the gaps in
 the ,passion-history1  remarks ,brandt4
 #afh ,tradition could learn only by    
indirect ways the  general features of  
the interrogation and the principal     
incidents which  passed between the     
morning of ,friday and the hour of the  
crucifixion1  says ,loisy4 #afi ,the    
student really concerned to get at      
history  is compelled to pronounce that 
the record thus avowed to be mainly     
guesswork is myth4 ,let us take the     
report as we have it in ,mark3--        
,and straightway after the condemnation 
by the priests in the      morning the  
chief priests1 with the elders and      
scribes and the      whole council1 held
 a consultation1 and bound ,jesus and   
carried      him away1 and delivered him
 up to ,pilate4 ,and ,pilate asked him1 

,art thou the ,king of the ,jews8 ,and  
he answering saith unto him1      ,thou 
sayest4444 ,and ,pilate again asked him1
 saying1 ,answerest      thou nothing8  
behold how many things they accuse thee 
of4 ,but      ,jesus no more answered   
anything2 insomuch that ,pilate         
marvelled4      ,to this meagre record1 
in which a capital case is carried      
before  the governor without the        
slightest documentary preliminaries1 and
 in  which he begins to interrogate     
before a word has been said about the   
indictment1 ,matthew adds nothing save  
the story of ,pilate's wife's  dream1   
which the reconstructors are fain to    
dismiss2 while ,luke1  who sees fit to  
premise specific charges of anti-,roman 
sedition1  follows them up simply by    
,pilate's question and ,jesus's         
assenting  answer2 and then1 quite      
unintelligibly1 makes ,pilate declare   
unto  the chief priests and the         
multitudes1 ,i find no fault in this    
man4    ,what can it mean8 ,all the     

exegetes now agree that the ,thou sayest
 of  ,jesus has the force of ,i am4 #agj
 ,by avowing that he called himself     
,king of the ,jews he committed a very  
grave offence towards ,rome1 unless  he 
explained the title in a mystic sense2  
and the records exclude any  such       
explanation4 ,in ,mark and ,matthew the 
effect is the same3 ,pilate  finds no   
guilt1 and proposes release2 but yields 
to the multitude and  the priests4      
,could any serious student bring himself
 to regard this  as history unless he   
presupposed the historicity of the      
crucifixion  and was ready to let pass  
any semblance of motivation for it8     
,once more we must affirm that the      
documents merely reveal entire          
ignorance of any judicial procedure4    
,pilate finally puts to death a  ,jewish
 prisoner at the request of the         
sanhedrim and the multitude on a  charge
 for which he finds no evidence4 ,that  
,pilate should make light  of a ,jew's  
life is indeed easily to be believed3 he

 is exhibited to  us by ,josephus as an 
entirely ruthless ,roman2 but both the  
synoptics  and the fourth ,gospel       
present him in an entirely different    
light2  and no record or commentary     
makes it intelligible that the ,roman   
governor should crucify a politically   
unoffending ,jew for a purely           
ecclesiastical ,jewish offence4 ,the    
offence against ,rome he is expressly   
represented as finding imaginary2 and   
yet on the other hand the offence  as   
avowed is very real4 ,by the method of  
mere accommodation or partial  critical 
rationalism the ascription of the       
prosecution to the ,jews is  accounted  
for as the result of the later developed
 anti-,judaism of the  ,christians4 ,but
 on that view what historical basis have
 we left8 ,if  the later ,christians    
could invent the trial and the          
,resurrection1  what was to prevent     
their inventing the crucifixion8 ,m4    
,loisy admits  that if the trial goes   
the historicity of ,jesus goes with it2 

then  the crucifixion becomes myth4 ,to 
say that this is impossible is to  beg  
the question3 the myth theory offers the
 solution4    ,given the datum of an    
original cult-sacrament which had grown 
out of  an ancient ritual-sacrifice1 the
 crucifixion is the first step towards  
the establishment of a biography of     
,jesus4 ,a trial and a condemnation1    
again1 are necessary preliminaries to   
that2 and when we critically  examine   
these we find that they are patently    
unhistorical4 ,upon no  theory of       
historicity can their contradictions and
 impossibilities be  explained4 ,once we
 make the hypothesis1 however1 that the 
crucifixion  is itself myth1 the        
imbroglio becomes intelligible4    ,what
 we do know historically is that the    
early ,christists included  ,judaizers  
and ,gentilizers2 this is established by
 the sect-history1  apart from the ,acts
 and the ,epistles4 ,for the ,judaizers 
an execution  by the ,romans was        
necessary2 for the ,gentilizers1 who    

were bound to  guard against official   
,roman resentment1 and whose hostility  
to the  ,jews was progressive1 a ,jewish
 prosecution was equally necessary4 ,in 
the surviving mystery-play1             
predominantly a ,gentile performance as 
it now stands in the ,gospels1 an       
impossible ,jewish trial is followed  by
 an equally impossible ,roman trial1 in 
which ,jesus by doctrinal  necessity    
avows that he is ,king of the ,jews1    
thereby salving his  ,messiahship2      
while1 to keep the guilt on ,jewish     
shoulders and  to exclude the suspicion 
of anti-,roman bias1 ,pilate is made to 
disclaim all responsibility4 ,such is1  
briefly1 the outcome of the  myth       
theory4 ,upon what other theory can the 
documents be explained8    ,upon what   
other theory1 again1 can we explain the 
vast contrast between  the triumphal    
entry into ,jerusalem a few days before 
and the absolute  unanimity of the      
priest-led multitude in demanding the   
execution  of ,jesus against the wish of

 ,pilate8 ,the reconstructors accept    
both  items1 with arbitrary             
modifications1 as historical2 though the
 story  of the entry is preceded by a   
mythical item about the choice of the   
ass-foal whereon never man had sat1 #aga
 which is much more stressed  and       
developed than the main point4 ,we are  
asked to believe that ,jesus  on his    
entry is enthusiastically acclaimed by a
 great multitude as  ,son of ,david and 
,king of ,israel2 and that a few days   
later not a  voice is raised to save his
 life4 ,gentilizing ,christians could   
easily  credit such things of the ,jews4
 ,can a historical student do so8 ,for  
the former it was enough that in the    
narrative the ,messiahship of  the ,lord
 had been publicly accepted2 coherence  
was not required4 ,but  historicity     
means coherence4    ,last of all1 the   
item of ,barabbas1 one of the elaborate 
irrelevancies  which leap to the eye in 
a narrative so destitute of essentials1 
turns out to carry a curious            

corroboration to the myth-theory4 ,this 
is  not the place to develop the        
probable kinship of the ,barabbas of the
  ,gospels with the 7misspelt7 ,karabbas
 #agb of ,philo2 but we may note  the   
probable reason for the introduction of 
the name into the myth4 ,as  the story  
stands1 it serves merely to heighten the
 guilt of the ,jews1  making them in    
mass save the life of a murderer rather 
than that of  the divine ,saviour4 ,the 
whole story is plainly unhistorical3    
neither  these details nor those which  
follow1 remarks ,m4 ,loisy 7after noting
  the extremely vague indications under 
an appearance of precision  in regard to
 the antecedents of ,barabbas71 seem    
discussible from  the point of view of  
history4 #agc ,in point of fact1 ,pilate
 is made  to release an ostensible      
ringleader of men who in the            
insurrection  unspecified had committed 
murder1 thus making his action doubly   
inconceivable4 ,why was such an item    
introduced at all8    ,it is not a case 

for very confident explanation2 but when
 we note  that ,barabbas means ,son of  
the ,father2 that the ,karabbas of      
,philo  is treated as a mock-king2 and  
that the reading ,jesus ,barabbas in    
,matt1 xxvii1 #af1 #ag1 was long the    
accepted one in the ancient church1     
#agd we are strongly led to infer 7#a7  
that the formula ,jesus the  ,son of the
 ,father was well known among the first 
,christians as  being connected with a  
popular rite--else how could such a     
strange  perplexity be introduced into  
the text8--and 7#b7 that the real reason
  for introducing it was that those     
anti-,christians who knew of the name   
and rite in question used their         
knowledge against the faith4 ,the way   
to rebut them was to present ,jesus     
,barabbas not only as a murderer  but as
 the man actually released to the       
,jewish people instead of  ,jesus the   
,christ1 proposed to be released by     
,pilate4    ,again1 then1 on the        
mythical theory1 we find a meaning and a

 sane  solution where the historical    
theory can offer none4 ,sir ,james      
,frazer's  hypothesis that the story of 
the triumphal entry may preserve a      
tradition of a mock-royal procession for
 a destined victim is only a  partial   
solution2 and his further hypothesis of 
a strangely ignored  coincidence between
 a ,barabbas rite and the actual        
crucifixion of  the ,christian ,son of  
the ,father is but a sacrifice of       
mythological  principle to the          
assumption of historicity4 ,the         
conception of ,jesus  as sacrificed lies
 at the core of early ,christian        
cult-propaganda4                        
,,chapter ,,xvii    ,,the               
,,jesus-,,figure ,,of ,m4 ,,loisy       
,it is the same1 finally1 with the story
 of the original evangel as  with the   
story of the tragedy2 ,m4 ,loisy fails  
to come within sight  of historicity in 
the one case as in the other4 ,having   
fallen back  on the thesis1 so          
popularized by ,renan1 that faith in the

 necessary  resurrection of the ,messiah
 created the legend of the empty tomb   
and  the divine apparitions1 he proceeds
 to formulate the ,teaching which  had  
created the faith4 ,the historic creed  
of ,christianity is thus  figured as a  
pyramid poised on the apex of a         
hallucination2 but we  are assured that 
the hallucination resulted from the     
greatness of  the ,personality of the   
slain ,teacher4    ,taking no note of   
any other conception of a possible      
origination of  the cult1 ,m4 ,loisy    
pronounces that to explain it we must   
hold that the  group of adherents had   
before the crucifixion evolved a        
religious  life sufficiently deep to    
sustain the feeling that the death of   
the ,master was an accident1 grave no   
doubt 6 and perturbing1 but  reparable2 
#age and to explain this religious life 
he goes back  to the ,master's doctrine4
 ,and the moment he begins his          
exposition he  vacillates anew over the 
old dilemma3--          ,jesus pursued a

 work1 not the propagation of a belief2 
he did      not explain theoretically   
the ,kingdom of ,heaven1 he prepared its
      coming by exhorting men to repent4
 ,nevertheless even the work      of    
,jesus attaches itself to the idea of   
the celestial kingdom2      it defines  
itself in that idea1 which presupposes1 
implies1 or      involves with it other 
ideas4 ,it is this combination of ideas 
familiar to ,christ that we must        
reconstruct with the help of      the   
,gospels4444 ,the idea of the kingdom of
 ,god is1 in a sense1      all the      
,gospel2 but it is also all ,judaism4444
 #agf      ,exactly4 ,jesus1 in effect1 
preached just what the ,baptist is said 
to have preached2 only without baptism4 
,the monition to repent was  simply the 
monition of all the prophets and all the
 eschatologists2  and it had not the    
attraction of baptism which the evangel 
of the  ,baptist was said to have4 ,so  
that the ,twelve1 on the showing of  ,m4
 ,loisy1 went through ,jewry uttering   

only one familiar phrase--and  casting  
out devils--and dooming those who       
refused to hear them4 ,and1  by their   
own report1 it was in casting out devils
 that they had  their success4 ,the     
simple name of ,jesus1 according to the 
,gospels1  availed for that where he had
 never appeared in person4 ,yet1 again1 
the name is used by non-adherents for   
the same purpose 7,mk4 ix1  #ch74 ,and  
still ,m4 ,loisy confidently claims that
 there is no trace of  a pre-,christian 
,jesus cult in ,palestine6 #agg         
,concerning the nullity of the original 
evangel he is quite unwittingly         
explicit when he is resisting the myth  
theory2 albeit in the act of            
contradicting himself3--          ,paul1
 indeed1 proclaims se rclame du an      
immortal ,christ1 or      more exactly a
 ,christ dead and re-arisen1 not the    
,jesus preaching      the evangel in    
,galilee and at ,jerusalem4 ,but his    
attitude is easy      to explain4444 ,he
 was aware of the circumstances of the  

death of      ,christ1 and of what was  
preached by his followers4444 ,if he    
boasted      of having learned nothing  
from the old sic apostles1 it was that1 
in reality1 he had never been at their  
school4444 ,but he was able      il lui 
arrive also to affirm the conformity of 
his teaching      with theirs3 that is  
what he did in the passage 444 touching 
the      death and resurrection of      
,jesus4 ,paul converted had nothing to  
demand of the first apostles of ,jesus1 
because he knew already      what they  
had preached4 #agh      ,so that the    
doctrine of an immortal or resurrected  
,christ was the  sole doctrine of the   
,apostles4 ,there was no other evangel4 
,and this  doctrine1 which had just been
 declared to be born of the personal    
impression made by ,jesus on his        
followers1 is also the doctrine of      
,paul1 who had never seen ,jesus4       
,the primary evangel having thus simply 
disappeared1 we revert to  the ,jesuine 
,teaching 7addressed in large part only 

to the disciples7  which had formed     
among disciples and adherents such a    
religious life  as served to develop the
 conviction that the ,master could not  
really  die1 and so prepared the        
foundation upon which ,paul built       
historic  ,christianity4 #agi ,we have  
seen how ,m4 ,loisy vacillates over the 
,founder's conception of the ,kingdom of
 ,god in relation to his moral          
teaching4 ,when it is a question of a   
myth theory1 ,m4 ,loisy insists  upon   
exactitude4 ,in order that the thesis   
should be sustainable1  it would be     
necessary that a well-defined myth      
should have existed in  some ,jewish    
sect4 #ahj ,but there is no call for    
well-defined proofs  or notions when it 
is a question of defending the          
tradition4 ,for  our critic1 ,jesus is  
first and foremost an intense believer  
in a  miraculous advent of that ,kingdom
 which had come simply to mean the      
sovereignty of ,god4 #aha ,even this    
conception is of necessity vague  to the

 last degree3--          ,the primitive 
nationalism subsisted at least in the   
framework      cadre and the exterior   
economy of the kingdom of ,god2 it      
maintained itself also in jusque dans   
the evangel of ,jesus4 ,at      the same
 time the kingdom of ,god is not a      
simple moral reform1      to safeguard  
the law of the celestial ,sovereign and 
guarantee the      happiness of the     
faithful4 ,the action of ,yahweh 444    
governs the      entire universe4444    
,the cosmological tradition developed   
the      idea of a definite triumph of  
light over darkness1 of order over      
chaos1 a triumph which was to be the    
final victory of good over      evil4444
 ,the terrestrial kingdoms 444 were to  
disappear1 to give      place to the    
reign of ,israel1 which was the reign of
 the just1      the reign of ,god4 ,in  
this great instauration of the divine   
order1      in this regeneration of the 
universe1 the divine justice was to     
manifest itself by the resurrection of  

all the true faithful4 #ahb      ,this  
transformation1 then--the long current  
dream of ,jewry--was to  be a vast      
miracle1 and in that miracle ,jesus     
believed he was to play  the part of the
 ,messiah1 the divine representative4   
,that expectation  sustained him till   
the moment of his death4 #ahc           
,nevertheless his  idea of the reign of 
,god was not a patriotic hallucination  
or the  dream of an excited exalt       
mystic4 ,the reign of ,god is the reign 
of  justice4 #ahd 7,as if the second    
sentence proved the first47 ,and yet1   
all the while3 ,on the whole1 the       
,gospel ethic is no more consistent     
than the hope of the kingdom4444        
,considered in themselves1 as the       
,gospel makes them known to us1 they are
 not mythic but mystic4 #ahe    ,thus   
helped to a definite conception1 we turn
 to the ethic1 which we  have seen to be
 in the main a compilation from ,jewish 
literature4 ,this  fact ,m4 ,loisy      
admits1 only to deny that it has any    

significance3--          ,he opposes the
 voice of his conscience to the         
tradition of the      doctors4 ,there   
lies precisely the originality of his   
teaching1      which1 if one recomposed 
the materials piece by piece1 could be  
found scattered in the ,biblical        
writings or in the sayings of the       
rabbis4 ,like every man who speaks to   
men1 ,jesus takes his ideas      in the 
common treasure of his environment and  
his time2 but as to      what he makes  
of it pour le parti qu'il en tire one   
does not      say that it proceeds from 
any one4 ,this independence results1    
probably1 at once from his character and
 from the circumstances      of his     
education4 #ahf      ,thus1 as regards  
the ,sermon on the ,mount1 the act of   
collecting a  number of ethical precepts
 and maxims from the current literature 
and  lore of one's people and curtly    
enouncing them1 without development1  is
 a proof of supreme moral originality1  
and is to be regarded as  opposing the  

voice of one's conscience to tradition4 
,had the rabbis1  then1 no conscience8  
,was their ethic a mere tradition1 even 
when they  gave out or originated the   
maxims of the ,sermon on the ,mount8    
,was  ,hillel but a mouth-piece of the  
law8 ,m4 ,loisy must in justice pardon  
us  for avowing that so far he has but  
duplicated a worn-out paralogism1  and  
that he has evaded the plain documentary
 fact that the ,sermon is  a literary   
compilation1 #ahg and not a discourse at
 all4    ,and when we turn to specific  
teachings1 his commentary does but      
compel  us to ask how the teaching which
 he insists upon taking as genuinely    
uttered by the ,teacher can be          
associated with the ,messianist he has  
been describing4 ,accepting as genuine  
the story of the woman taken in         
adultery1 now bracketed in the ,english 
,revised ,version as being absent  from 
the most ancient manuscripts1 but       
presumably found in the lost  ,gospel of
 the ,hebrews1 #ahh he remarks that the 

elect of the kingdom  must not use      
marriage2 they were to be as the angels 
in heaven2 #ahi  and at the same time he
 describes the veto on divorce as a     
trait so  personal to the teaching of   
,christ1 and so difficult to comprehend 
if  one denies all originality to that  
teaching4 #aij ,that is to say1  the    
believer in the speedy end of all       
marriage relations1 and the             
establishment of a new and angelic life 
for all who survive1 occupied  himself  
earnestly with the restriction or       
abolition of divorce6    ,at other      
junctures ,m4 ,loisy is ready to see how
 the doctrines of  sections and         
movements in the later ,christian       
,church were introduced  into the       
,gospels4 ,he will not admit of such an 
explanation here4 ,does  he then see a  
supreme moral inspiration in the        
,montanists and  other ,christian       
sectaries who set their faces against   
the sexual  instinct8 ,has he forgotten 
the text in ,malachi 7ii1 #ad-af71      

vetoing  a heartless divorce8 ,and has  
he never heard of the saying of ,rabbi  
,eliezer1 echoed elsewhere in the       
,talmud1 that the altar sheds tears     
over him who puts away his first wife8  
,is the moral originality of  the       
,gospel teaching to be established by   
merely ignoring all previous  teaching  
to the same effect8    ,but it is hardly
 necessary thus to revert to the        
question of the  ethical originality of 
the ,gospel teaching3 the essential     
issue  here is the impossible           
combination presented to us by ,m4      
,loisy as  his historical ,jesus4       
,without any sign of misgiving he offers
 us  the figure of a mystic awaiting the
 imminent end of the old order of       
things and the substitution of a new and
 heavenly order1 doubled with a         
moralist deeply preoccupied over certain
 details of the vanishing life  and a   
prescription for their regulation in the
 future in which they  were not to      
exist4 ,m4 ,loisy is1 indeed1 liable to 

be censured by the  orthodox and the    
liberals alike for his explicit avowal  
that ,it is  very superfluous to seek in
 the ,gospel a doctrine of social       
economy1  or even a program of moral    
conduct for individual existences which 
were to go on according to the order of 
nature1 in the indefinite  sequence of  
humanity4 #aia ,this seems to overlook  
the passage  7,mt4 xxv1 #cd-df7 in which
 eternal life is promised to those who  
succour the distressed4 ,such a rule for
 conduct does seem to indicate  some    
regard for the continuance of life on   
the normal lines4 ,it is1  we know1 a   
simple adaptation from the ritual of the
 ,egyptian ,book of  the ,dead1 but it  
has had from many commentators even such
 praise for  originality as ,m4 ,loisy  
has bestowed on the ,teaching in        
general4    ,such teaching is1 in point 
of fact1 quite undeserving of praise for
  spirituality1 inasmuch as it in effect
 recommends benevolence as a  way of    
securing eternal life4 ,he who succours 

the distressed on the  motive so        
supplied is plainly a long way below the
 ,good ,samaritan or  the simple        
compassionate human being of everyday   
life4 ,but this is  really the          
ground-note of all the ,gospel ethic4   
,the ,beatitudes are  promises of       
compensatory bliss2 and1 indeed1 in a   
system which founds  upon immortality   
there is no escape from this kind of    
motivation4 ,the  ,pagan appeal1 made   
alternately to nobleness and to concern 
for good  repute among one's fellows1 is
 clearly on the higher plane1 and would 
tend to maintain1 so far as mere moral  
appeal can1 a nobler type of  human     
being4 ,it is not even clear1 in the    
light of the general ,judaism  of the   
doctrine of the ,kingdom1 whether one of
 these my brethren  can mean more than  
one of the faith4    ,but however that  
may be1 we have to note that for ,m4    
,loisy the  promise of reward at the    
judgment for help given to the          
distressed  is not a ,jesuine utterance4

 ,it occurs only in ,matthew2 and we may
  readily agree that1 if such an        
allocution were really delivered by  the
 alleged ,founder1 it could not         
conceivably have been left to one       
collector to preserve it4 ,the redactor 
of the first ,gospel1 comments  ,m4     
,loisy in his best critical vein1       
thought he ought to put this here  to   
complete his collection of instructions 
concerning the parousia  and the great  
judgment4 ,it is 444 a piece in which is
 developed1  from the point of view of  
the last judgment1 the word of the      
,lord3  ',he that receiveth you         
receiveth me4' ,so that a teaching which
 still  makes a great impression on the 
,christian consciousness is confessedly 
but a development by an unknown hand of 
a bare ,messianic phrase4 ,it  has been 
visibly arranged to close the           
compilation of discourses and  parables 
made here by the redactor of the first  
,gospel4 #aib    ,yet when we come to   
the parable of the ,good ,samaritan1    

which occurs  only in ,luke1 and which  
also cannot be conceived as being       
deliberately  omitted by the previous   
evangelists if it had been uttered by   
the ,master1 ,m4 ,loisy indulges in a   
very long discourse that reads  like a  
preserved sermon1 only to conclude that 
the parable of the  ,samaritan thus     
offers itself as one of the most        
authentic testimonies  un tmoignage     
authentique entre tous of the teaching  
of ,jesus4 ,it  is clear that the       
evangelist has not invented it1 but that
 he has  found it ready made1 and that  
he has only given it a frame1 in his    
fashion4 #aic ,it is with a certain     
embarrassment over the spectacle  of a  
good scholar's divagation that one      
proceeds to point to the  absolute non  
sequitur in ,m4 ,loisy's comment4       
,supposing we agree that  the evangelist
 found the parable ready made1 wherein  
is this case  differentiated from that  
of the passage in ,matthew last noted8  
,that  is at least as likely to have    

been found ready made2 yet it is not in 
that case claimed by ,m4 ,loisy that the
 passage is therefore a record of  a    
real ,jesuine utterance4 ,he sees that  
it is a patch1 a development4    ,now1  
the parable of the ,good ,samaritan is a
 plain documentary patch1  an insertion 
without context1 between the address of 
,jesus to the  disciples after that to  
the returned ,seventy 7whose mission ,m4
 ,loisy  had somewhat nervously         
dismissed as the evangelist's figurative
  frame for the evangelizing of the     
pagans #aid7 and the resumption3  ,now1 
as they went on their way4444 ,it is    
impossible to imagine a  more palpable  
insertion4 ,first the mythic ,seventy1  
the creation of  a ,gentilizing         
,christian1 make their report on the    
exact lines of the  report of the       
,twelve2 then ,jesus addresses them2    
then he rejoices in  the ,holy ,spirit4 
,then1 turning to the disciples1 he said
 privately1  ,blessed are the eyes which
 see the things that ye see4444 ,this   

last  suggests an earlier allocution to 
the ,twelve which has had to be turned  
into a private speech to them to        
distinguish it from the reply to the    
,seventy4 #aie ,but however that may be1
 the natural sequel is verse #ch1  ,now1
 as they went on their way4444 ,and it  
is between these points  of natural     
connection that we get the parable      
episode beginning3  ,and behold1 a      
certain lawyer stood up and tempted     
him4444    ,well may ,m4 ,loisy say that
 the episode is a thing found ready     
made2  it has certainly no place in the 
original document4 ,but it was  made by 
a later hand1 and it was inserted either
 by him who made  it or by him who found
 it4 ,it is the work of a ,gentilizer1  
aiming  at ,jewish priests and ,levites1
 and in a less degree at the scribes1   
whom he treats as comparatively open to 
instruction4 ,it is part of  the        
,gentilizing propaganda which evolved   
the story of the mission of  the        
,seventy1 and it is naturally inserted  

after that episode4 ,but to  admit that 
to be a work of redaction and to call   
the parable a genuine  ,jesuine         
utterance is only to give one more      
distressing illustration of  the common 
collapse of the simplest principles of  
documentary criticism  under the sway of
 conservative prepossession4 ,m4 ,loisy 
retains the  parable of the ,good       
,samaritan as ,jesuine simply because he
 feels  that to abandon it is to come   
near making an end of the claim for the 
moral originality of the ,gospels4 ,it  
is probably from a ,gentile hand1       
though it may conceivably have come from
 an enlightened ,jew4    ,and so we find
 ,m4 ,loisy1 with all his scholarly     
painstaking and his  laudable measure of
 candour1 presenting us finally with an 
uncritical  result4 ,his historical     
,jesus will not cohere4 ,it is a blend  
of early  ,judaic eschatology with later
 ethical common sense1 early ,judaic    
humanity and particularism with later   
,gentile universalism2 even as  the     

,gospels are a mosaic of a dozen other  
diverging and conflicting  tendencies1  
early and late4 ,one can explain to     
oneself ,jesus1  exclaims ,m4 ,loisy2   
one cannot explain to oneself those who 
invented  him4 #aif ,let the reader     
judge for himself whether ,m4 ,loisy has
  given us any explanation2 and whether1
 after our survey1 there is  any        
scientific difficulty in the conception 
of an imaginary personage  produced1    
like an ideal photograph resulting from 
a whole series of  superimposed         
portraits1 by the continued travail of  
generations of  men variously bent on   
picturing a ,messiah for their hopes1 a 
,god for  their salvation1 and a        
,teacher for their lives4               
,,chapter ,,xviii    ,,the ,,pauline    
,,problem      ,how much ,m4 ,loisy is  
swayed by prepossession may be further  
gathered  from his argumentation over   
the testimony of ,paul in connection    
with his criticism of the myth theory4  
,professor ,drews1 he remarks1  does not

 follow those who contest the           
authenticity of the ,epistles1  though  
the interest of his thesis imperiously  
demands it2 and again3  ,paul is a      
dangerous witness for the mythic        
hypothesis4 #aig    ,it may be worth    
while for me here to note that a study  
of the ,pauline  epistles1 on the view  
that the four were probably genuine in  
the  main1 was a determining factor in  
my own resort to the mythical           
hypothesis4 ,the critical situation     
created by realizing that ,paul         
practically knew nothing of the ,gospel 
narratives save the detachable  item of 
the resurrection was for me almost      
exactly analogous to that  created by   
realizing that the ,israel of the ,book 
of ,judges knew nothing  of the         
,pentateuchal life in the wilderness4   
,so far from being a witness  against   
the myth theory1 the ,pauline literature
 was one of the first  clear grounds for
 that theory4 ,the school of ,van ,manen
 can realize1  what ,m4 ,loisy cannot1  

that the spuriousness of the whole      
,pauline  literature1 so far from being 
imperiously required by the myth        
theory1 sets up for that a certain      
complication4 #aih ,as a matter of      
fact1 ,van ,manen took exactly the      
converse view to that of ,m4 ,loisy3--  
,he was at bottom a man of conservative 
character1 and it was only      with    
great reluctance that he found himself  
compelled to abandon      the ,paul     
consecrated by tradition4 ,but when1 as 
a man of science1      he had once made 
this sacrifice to his convictions1 his  
belief      in an historical ,jesus     
received a fresh accession of strength2 
now at length the existence of ,jesus   
had become probable4 ,if the            
letters were written a century later    
than the time when ,jesus      lived1   
then his deification in the ,pauline    
letters ceases to be      so            
astonishing4 #aii      ,decidedly ,m4   
,loisy had been somewhat superficial in 
his estimate  of the tendencies of the  

argument over ,paul4 ,now1 the myth     
theory1  as it happens1 is neither made 
nor marred by any decision as to  the   
spuriousness of the ,pauline letters4   
,the crucial point is that1  whether    
early or late--and the dating of them as
 pseudepigrapha is a  difficult         
matter--the cardinal epistles have been 
interpolated4 ,this  became clear to me 
at an early stage in my studies1        
independently of  any previous          
criticism4 ,that the two passages1 #a   
,cor4 xi1 #bc-bh2 xv1  #c-aa1 are       
interpolations1 and that in the second  
case the interpolation  has been added  
to1 are as clear results of pure        
documentary analysis  as any in the     
whole field of the discussion4 #bjj ,and
 when ,m4 ,loisy  ascribes to ,professor
 ,drews an entirely gratuitous          
hypothesis of  interpolation1 and       
implies that such hypotheses are set up 
because  the texts are extremely awkward
 for the mythic theory1 #bja he is      
himself misled by his parti pris4       

,whereas ,i came to my conclusions  #bjb
 as to interpolation while working      
towards the myth theory1  exactly the   
same conclusions as mine1 ,i afterwards 
found1 had been  previously reached by  
at least one continental scholar #bjc   
who had  not the mythic theory in view2 
and later by others #bjd who equally    
stood aloof from it4 ,m4 ,loisy would do
 well to ask himself whether  it is not 
he who is uncritically swayed by his    
presuppositions1  and whether the men to
 whom he imputes such bias are not the  
really  disinterested critics4    ,in   
regard to the text of #a ,cor4 xv1 #c   
sq41 he describes as surprising  the    
argument that the account of the        
appearance of ,jesus to  five hundred at
 once is shown to be late by its absence
 from the  ,gospels4 ,this very silence 
of the evangelists1 he insists1 renders 
unplausible invraisemblable the entirely
 gratuitous hypothesis  of an           
interpolation4 #bje ,one is driven to   
wonder what conception  ,m4 ,loisy has  

formed of the manner of the compilation 
of the ,gospels4 ,on  his view1 ,paul   
had very early put in currency the      
record that the  risen ,jesus had       
appeared to above five hundred brethren 
at once2  yet this record1 so welcome to
 the ,church1 was never inserted in  the
 ,gospels4 ,why not8 ,in ,m4 ,loisy's   
opinion1 one of them1 at least1  was    
penned or redacted in the ,pauline      
interest3--          ,one may without   
doubt 444 affirm that the oldest of the 
synoptics1      the ,gospel of ,mark1   
was composed1 in a certain measure1 in  
favour      of ,paul4444 ,the same      
,gospel seems to have the conscious     
purpose      of lowering the ,galilean  
disciples to the advantage of ,paul and 
his disciples4 #bjf      ,and while ,m4 
,loisy justly rejects1 as opposed to the
 internal evidence1  the claim that     
,luke is the intimate of ,paul1 and even
 denies that the  third ,gospel is      
really ,pauline in tendency1 #bjg he    
will hardly say  that it is             

anti-,pauline1 or likely on that or any 
other score to repel  an important item 
of testimony to the appearances of the  
risen ,jesus1  supplied by such an      
authority as the ,apostle to the        
,gentiles4 ,he can  give no reason      
whatever1 then1 why the five hundred    
item should  appear neither in ,gospels 
nor ,acts4 ,it is in point of fact to be
  taken as a very late interpolation    
indeed4 ,and if ,m4 ,loisy1 as in  duty 
bound1 would but note the sequence3 then
 to the twelve2 then  444 to above five 
hundred 444 then to all the apostles1 he
 might1  as simple critic1 see that     
there have been successive tamperings4  
,as to the genuineness and the dating of
 the epistles1 it may be  well at this  
point to put the issue clearly4 ,the    
general case of  ,van ,manen is         
decidedly strong2 and the entire absence
 from the ,acts  of any mention of any  
public epistle by ,paul is all in ,van  
,manen's  favour4 ,the ,epistle to the  
,romans is so far dissolved under       

criticism  that it might be classed as  
neither ,pauline nor an epistle4 #bjh   
,that there are late literary elements  
in the rest of the cardinal  four ,i    
have myself argued1 #bji independently  
of the question of  the interpolations  
of quasi-history4 ,for a free historical
 student  there can be no primary       
question of how the dating of the       
epistles  will affect the problem of the
 historicity of ,jesus3 the problem is  
to be scientifically solved on its      
merits4 ,but while the school of ,van   
,manen fail to recognize interpolations 
in the epistles as they stand1  and to  
revise their chronology in the light of 
that fact1 they are  postponing the     
critical settlement4 ,that the rejection
 of all the  ,pauline epistles as       
pseudepigraphic is not at all a counter 
stroke  to the myth theory is shown by  
,mr4 ,whittaker's definite acceptance   
of both positions4 ,van ,manen was      
premature on the historicity question4  
,assuredly there is much to be done     

before the myth theory can be  reduced  
to a definitive scientific form4 ,it is 
to be hoped that1 free  as it is from   
perverting commitments1 it may be       
developed rather more  rapidly than the 
liberal theory of the human ,christ1    
which has been  on the stocks for over a
 hundred years without securing any     
higher  measure of unanimity than exists
 among the ,christian sects4 ,but it    
can have no rapid acceptance4 ,questions
 of myth analogies--always  open to the 
perverse handling of men who cannot or  
will not see that  in mythology and     
anthropology claims of analogy are not  
claims of  derivation--are apt to be    
obscure at best2 and the establishment  
of the hypothesis of a pre-,christian   
,jesus cult has been admitted  from the 
outset to be difficult4 ,and the        
sociological history of the  rise of    
,christianity1 to which the myth        
question is but preparatory1  has still 
to be written4    ,in this direction too
 there may be complications4 ,pastor    

,kalthoff's  very important treatise on 
,the ,rise of ,christianity puts the    
theory  that the ,church began as a     
communistic body2 and ,karl ,kautsky1 in
  his ,der ,ursprung des ,christenthums 
7#aijh71 has vigorously developed  that 
conception4 ,it has some strong grounds1
 and it is beset by very  serious       
difficulties1 which ,kautsky1 ,i think1 
has not met4 ,when he  denies that there
 were ,hellenistic experiments and      
propagandas which  in a later period    
could have set some ,christian          
enthusiasts upon  inventing a           
communistic beginning for the ,church1  
he seems to ignore  his own argument    
from the ,epistle of ,james1 and        
evidence which he could  have found in  
,kalthoff4 ,but unless the communistic  
theory 7adumbrated  long ago in ,de     
,quincey's rash thesis that the ,essenes
 were the first  ,christians7 is pressed
 as giving the whole origin of          
,christianity1  it remains a part rather
 of the sociological problem than of the

  hierological inquiry4 ,and ,i do not  
think that ,kalthoff1 had he lived1     
would have so pressed it4 ,he saw1 ,i   
think1 that there is a primary          
religious factor and problem1 and that  
the other is secondary4 ,there  was a   
sacramental cult before there could be  
any communism4 ,when the  origin of the 
cult is made fairly clear the question  
of communism may  be settled4 ,but the  
,acts is a very dubious basis for a     
historical  theory1 and the ,epistle of 
,james tells rather of ,ebionism than of
  communism4 ,the history of the        
,ebionites and the ,nazarenes1 which for
  me was one of the points of reversion 
to a myth theory1 seems to be  the true 
starting point for the history of the   
,church4                ,,chapter ,,xix 
,,the ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,discussion 
,in all things1 finally1 one must be    
prepared for a boundless operation  of  
the spirit of controversy1 which is as  
it were the atmosphere of  intellectual 
progress1 and1 like the physical        

atmosphere1 is traversed  by much dust1 
many gusts1 and many persistent         
currents4 ,an infinite  quantity of mere
 insolence and mere personal aspersion  
arises round  every problem that        
disturbs widespread prejudice3 we have  
seen some  of it even in a survey which 
aims solely at bringing out the main    
arguments on our issue4 ,and where a    
body of doctrine is related to  an      
economic foundation1 controversy is sure
 to be specially protracted4    ,this   
has already been abundantly seen in the 
development of the  liberal view of the 
human ,christ1 of which ,m4 ,loisy may  
be taken  as an advanced representative2
 while ,professor ,schmiedel may rank   
as an exponent too advanced to be       
otherwise than suspect for some  of the 
school4 ,it is instructive to realize   
that ,m4 ,loisy stands  to-day very much
 where ,strauss did eighty years ago4   
,what was  then revolutionary heresy is 
now become a very respectable form of   
professional theology4 ,only in his old 

age did ,strauss himself realize  to    
what philosophical conclusions his      
critical method led2 and on  the        
historicity question he seems to have   
made no serious advance at  all4        
,challenged by ,ullmann to say whether1 
on his theory1 the ,church  created the 
,christ of the ,gospels or he the       
,church1 ,strauss replied  that the     
alternative was false1 and that both    
things had happened2  the ,christ being 
created by the faith of the ,church1    
which faith in  turn was created by the 
person of the historical ,jesus4 ,from  
that  gyratory position he never really 
departed2 and that is the position  of  
,m4 ,loisy to-day4    ,if it has taken  
eighty years to yield only that amount  
of progress1  through a whole library of
 laborious scholarly literature1 there  
can  be no great weight left in the     
appeal to scholarly authority4 ,the     
authority of to-day is the heretic of   
our grandfathers' day4 ,it is  for the  
radical innovator1 on the other hand1 to

 learn the lesson  which was not duly   
learned by his predecessors1 unless it  
be that  in some cases they were merely 
silenced by orthodox hostility4 ,while  
many ,freethinkers1 probably1 had come  
privately to the view of those          
intimates of ,bolingbroke who are       
referred to by ,voltaire as denying  the
 historicity of ,jesus1 the two writers 
who first gave ,european  vogue to the  
proposition1 ,dupuis and ,volney1 staked
 everything on the  astronomical        
elements of the cult1 and on the chief  
myth-analogies  with ,pagan religions4  
,their argument was both sound and      
important1  so far as it went2 but for  
lack of investigation on the ,jewish    
side  of the problem1 and of the        
necessary analysis of the ,gospels1 they
  failed to make any serious impression 
on the scholars1 especially as so  many 
,freethinking critics1 down to ,reimarus
 and ,voltaire1 treated the  historicity
 of ,jesus as certain4 #baj ,and when an
 anonymous ,german  writer in #agii     

published a treatise on ,revelation and 
,mythology in  which1 according to      
,strauss1 he posited the whole life of  
,jesus as  pre-conceived in ,jewish myth
 and speculation1 he made no impression 
on  an age busily and vainly occupied   
with the so-called rationalizing  of    
myths and miracles by reducing them to  
natural events misunderstood4    ,later1
 another--or the same8--anonymous       
,german1 also cited by ,strauss1  in a  
review article condemned every attempt  
to find a historical basis  for the     
,gospel myths2 but in both cases the    
anonymity sufficiently  told of the     
general resentment against any such     
view4 ,and when  ,strauss himself1 the  
first to handle the problem with an     
approach to  scientific thoroughness1   
not only adhered to the central         
assumption  of historicity1 but argued  
confidently that the mythical           
dissolution  of so many of the details  
made no difference to faith1 it was     
natural  that interest in his           

undertaking should slacken4 ,the fact   
that it  had ruined his career would    
perhaps count for still more4 ,freedom  
of academic discussion in ,germany has  
never meant any minimizing of  pious    
malice2 and ,strauss all his life long  
had to bear his cross  for the offence  
of a new advance in historical science4 
,dr4 ,albert ,schweitzer1 who for almost
 the first time1 after ,schmiedel1  has 
brought the note of amenity into the    
argument for historicity as  against the
 negative1 remarks that the greatest    
,lives of ,jesus are  those which have  
been written with hate--to wit1 those by
 ,reimarus  and ,strauss4 ,reimarus1    
whom ,dr4 ,schweitzer genially          
overrates1  was indeed given to         
invective against mythological          
personages1  from ,moses downward2 but  
hate is a strange term to apply to the  
calm and judicial procedure of ,strauss4
 ,as well ascribe to hate the  rise of  
,unitarianism4 ,if hate is to be the    
term for ,strauss's mood1  what epithet 

is left for that of his opponents1 who1 
as ,dr4 ,schweitzer  relates1 circled   
him with unsleeping malignity to the    
end1 and sought  to ostracize the       
clerical friend of his youth who        
delivered an address  over his grave8   
,it is only historic religion that can  
foster and  sustain such hates as these4
 ,it is true that ,bruno ,bauer1 who so 
suddenly advanced upon ,strauss's       
position1 detecting new elements  of    
mythic construction in the ,gospels1 and
 arriving ten years later  at the       
definite doctrine of non-historicity1   
exhibited a play of  storm and stress in
 the earlier part of his inquiry4 ,he   
reviled at  that stage1 not the ,jesus  
whose life he was investigating1 but    
the theologians who had so confounded   
confusion4 ,these outbreaks  of         
bitterness1 ,dr4 ,schweitzer admits1 are
 to be explained by the  feeling of     
repulsion which ,german apologetic      
theology inspired in  every genuinely   
honest and thoughtful man by the methods

 which it  adopted in opposing ,strauss4
 #baa ,add that the same methods were   
being employed towards ,bauer1 and the  
case is perhaps simplified4    ,with    
these cases before him1 and with the    
record to write of a hundred  and thirty
 years of admittedly abortive           
discussion1 ,dr4 ,schweitzer  could not 
forgo an exordium in praise of the      
,german temperament which  had so       
wonderfully kept the discussion going4  
,such a record seems a  surprising      
ground for national pride2 but it may be
 granted him that  the ,german          
temperament will never lack material for
 self-panegyric1  which appears to be   
the breath of its nostrils4 ,to those1  
however1  for whom science is           
independent of nationality1 the lesson  
has  a somewhat different aspect4 ,what 
has been lacking is scientific          
thoroughness4 ,bruno ,bauer's flaws of  
mood and method were such that  his more
 radical penetration of the problem at  
certain points made  no such impression 

as did the orderly and temperate        
procedure of  ,strauss4 ,one might      
suppose that between the work of        
,strauss and that  of ,bauer there lay  
not five but fifty years--the critical  
work of a  whole generation4 #bab       
,bauer's ',criticism of the ,gospel     
,history'  is worth a good dozen ,lives 
of ,jesus1 because his work1 as we are  
only  now coming to recognize1 after    
half a century1 is the ablest and most  
complete collection of the difficulties 
of the ,life of ,jesus which  is        
anywhere to be found4 #bac    ,but his  
mood and his method not only made him   
fail to establish his  mythical theory2 
they meant miscarriage in the very      
conception of  it--a mere substitution  
of a subjective notion for the method of
  inductive science4 ,bauer's final way 
of putting the theory merely  discredits
 it4 ,he decides that the whole myth was
 the creation of  one evangelist1       
whereby he shows that he is no          
mythologist4 ,he never  reached the true

 myth basis4 ,after all1 the ,german    
temperament  seems to fall short1 at    
some rather essential points1 of the    
faculty  for solving great historical   
problems2 one feels it somewhat acutely 
when ,dr4 ,schweitzer comes to the      
undertaking himself4    ,the great merit
 of ,schweitzer's book is its manly and 
genial tone2  though1 as this is freely 
bestowed on the most extreme heretics1  
he may  make another impression when he 
speaks of the inconceivable stupidity   
of the average ,life of ,jesus in the   
treatment of the connection of  events4 
,what his book mainly demonstrates is   
the laborious futility  of the age-long 
discussion maintained by the            
professional theologians  of ,germany4  
,when he comes to the latest            
developments1 which are but  extensions 
of the common-sense analyses of ,bruno  
,bauer1 he is full  of admiration for   
criticisms which1 ,i can testify1 have  
occurred  spontaneously to unpretending 
,freethinkers with no claim to special  

training4 ,some of the most important   
myth elements in the ,gospels--for      
instance1 the story of ,barabbas--he    
does not even glance at1 having         
apparently1 like the other specialists1 
never realized that there is  anything  
there to explain4    ,by ,dr4           
,schweitzer's account1 the great mass of
 the ,german specialists  for a century 
past have been unable to see            
contradictions and  incompatibilities in
 the ,gospels which leap to the eyes2 to
 himself1  ,wrede's statement of some of
 them appears to be a revelation4 ,it   
would  seem that the simple old         
,secularist method of exposing these had
  covered ground which for the          
specialists was wholly unexplored4 ,thus
  it comes about that the myth theory1  
addressed to men who had never  realized
 the character of their own perpetually 
conned documents1  fared as it might    
have done if addressed to the ,council  
of ,trent4    ,of no myth-theories save 
those of ,bruno ,bauer and ,pastor      

,kalthoff1  which alike ignore the clues
 of mythology and anthropology1 does    
,dr4 ,schweitzer seem to have any       
knowledge4 ,he is capable of giving  a  
senseless account of a book he has not  
seen1 and1 it may be1  of one he has    
seen4 ,of ,christianity and ,mythology  
he alleges that  according to that work 
the ,christ-myth is merely a form of the
  ,krishna-myth--a proposition which    
tells only of absolute ignorance        
concerning the book4 ,if1 as ,i suspect1
 he has no better ground for  his       
account of ,hennell's ,inquiry as       
nothing more than ,venturini's          
',non-miraculous ,history of the ,great 
,prophet of ,nazareth' tricked  out with
 a fantastic paraphernalia of learning1 
#bad it speaks  ill for the regular     
functioning of his critical conscience4 
,but  where he has to deal with concrete
 arguments he is straightforward1       
alert1 and readily appreciative2 and his
 survey as a whole leads  up to a       
complete dismissal of the whole work of 

the liberal school  so-called4 ,in his  
summing-up1 the only critical choice    
left is between  complete scepticism and
 complete eschatology--that is1 between 
the avowal that there is no evidence for
 a historical ,jesus1 and the           
conviction that the historical ,jesus   
was purely and simply a ,jewish  hero   
and dreamer1 whose entire doctrine was  
the advent of the  kingdom of ,god1 the 
ending of the old order1 in which       
consummation  he secretly believed he   
was to figure as the ,messiah4    ,the  
bare statement of the proposition hardly
 reveals its  significance4 ,dr4        
,schweitzer's dreamer is not ,m4        
,loisy's1 who is  conceived as having   
had something to teach to his disciples1
 and even  to the multitude4 ,dr4       
,schweitzer's ,jesus has1 indeed1       
disciples for  no assignable reason1 but
 he is expressly declared to be no      
,teacher1  even as ,wrede's ,teacher is 
expressly declared to be no ,messiah4   
,the  joint result is to leave the      

ground tolerably clear for the          
scientific  myth theory1 of which ,dr4  
,schweitzer has not come within sight1  
having omitted to inquire about it4 ,as 
he sums up3--          ,supposing that  
only a half--nay1 only a third--of the  
critical      arguments which are common
 to ,wrede and the ,sketch of the ,life 
of ,jesus by ,schweitzer are sound1 then
 the modern historical      view of the 
history is wholly ruined4 ,the reader of
 ,wrede's book      cannot help feeling 
that here no quarter is given2 and any  
one      who goes carefully through the 
present writer's ,sketch must come      
to see that between the modern          
historical and the eschatological       
life of ,jesus no compromise is         
possible4 #bae      ,let us see1 then1  
to what the eschatological theory       
amounts1 considered  as a residual      
historical explanation4                 
,,chapter ,,xx    ,,the ,,ground        
,,cleared ,,for ,,the ,,myth ,,theory   
,the issue as between ,schweitzer and   

,wrede comes to this4 ,wrede sees  that 
the ,messiahship is a creation following
 upon the belief in the  resurrection1  
and only uncritically deducible from the
 documents4 ,for  him1 ,jesus is a      
,teacher who was made into a ,messiah by
 his followers  after his death1 the    
,gospels being manipulated to conceal   
the fact  that he made no ,messianic    
claims4 ,schweitzer sees that the       
,teaching  ,jesus is a documentary      
construction2 and that1 unless the      
,crucified  ,one had some ,messianic    
idea1 the ,gospel story as a whole      
crumbles to  nothing4 ,and he asks3--   
,but how did the appearance of the risen
 ,jesus suddenly become for      them   
the disciples a proof of ,his           
,messiahship and the basis of      their
 eschatology8 ,that ,wrede fails to     
explain1 and so makes this      event an
 historical miracle which in reality is 
harder to      believe than the         
supernatural event4 #baf      ,so be it3
 ,wrede's thesis is here1 after all1    

part of the common  content of the      
liberal ideal1 which cannot stand4 ,but 
how does  his critic make good the      
converse of a would-be ,messiah who was 
no ,teacher1 but yet had disciples1 and 
was finally crucified for  making a     
secret ,messianic claim8 ,the answer is 
too nave to be  guessed4 ,accepting1 in 
defiance of every suggestion of common  
sense1  the story of the triumphal entry
 into ,jerusalem1 ,dr4 ,schweitzer      
decides that the episode was ,messianic 
for ,jesus1 but not ,messianic  for the 
people4 ,with no authority save the     
documents which at  this point he       
radically and recklessly alters1 he     
decides that the  multitude had hailed  
,jesus as the ,prophet1 as ,elias1      
whatever  the texts may say2 and ,jesus1
 feeling he was the ,messiah1 played    
with his ,messianic self-consciousness  
all the while4 ,why1 then1  was he put  
to death8 ,simply because ,judas        
betrayed his secret to  the priests6    
,dr4 ,schweitzer can see well enough the

 futility of the  betrayal story as it  
stands1 inasmuch as ,judas is paid to do
 what was  not required--identifying a  
well-known public figure4 ,but rather   
than  admit myth here he will invent a  
better story for himself1 and we get    
this3 ,jesus had dropped ,messianic     
hints to his disciples1 and ,judas  sold
 the information4 ,and all the while    
none of the other disciples  knew this1 
though at the trial the priests went    
among the people  and induced them not  
to agree to the ,procurator's proposal4 
,how8 ,by  telling them why ,he was     
condemned2 by revealing to them the     
,messianic  secret4 ,that makes him at  
once from a prophet worthy of honour    
into  a deluded enthusiast and          
blasphemer4 #bag    ,in the name of the 
,prophet1 figs6 ,dr4 ,schweitzer has1 he
 believes1  saved the character of the  
mob of ,jerusalem at last2 and by what a
  device6 ,by assuming that to claim to 
be the ,messiah was to blaspheme1  which
 it certainly was not2 #bah and by      

assuming that the mob who  had 7on      
,schweitzer's view7 acclaimed an ,elias 
would be struck dumb  with horror on    
being told that ,elias claimed to be the
 ,messiah4 ,the  secret of this         
psychosis is in ,dr4 ,schweitzer's sole 
possession1  as is the explanation of   
the total absence of his statement from 
all  the literature produced by the     
generation which1 on his assumption1    
knew all about the case4 ,and this is   
what is left after a survey of  the     
,german exegesis from ,reimarus to      
,wrede4    ,it is to be feared that     
neither the scholars nor the laity will 
accept either of ,dr4 ,schweitzer's     
alternatives1 and that the nature  of   
his own prestidigitatory solution may   
tend somewhat to weaken  the effect of  
his indictment of the kaleidoscopic     
process which  has hitherto passed as a 
solution among the experts4 ,dr4        
,schweitzer  seems to realize all       
absurdities save his own4 ,none the     
less1 he has  done a critical service in

 arguing down all the rest1 though even 
in his final verdict he exhibits        
symptoms of the sacred disease1  the    
theologian's malady of                  
self-contradiction3--          ,the     
,jesus of ,nazareth who came forward    
publicly as the ,messiah1      who      
preached the ethic of the ,kingdom of   
,god1 who founded the      ,kingdom of  
,heaven upon earth1 and died to give    
,his work its final      consecration1  
never had any existence4 ,he is a figure
 designed by      rationalism1 #bai     
endowed with life by liberalism1 and    
clothed      by modern theology in an   
historical garb4444        ,he passes by
 our time and returns to his own4444    
,the historical foundation of           
,christianity as built up by            
rationalistic1 by liberal1 and by modern
 theology no longer exists2      but    
that does not mean that ,christianity   
has lost its historical                 
foundation4444        ,jesus means      
something to our world because a mighty 

spiritual force      streams forth from 
,him and flows through our time also    
#bbj4444      ,loves me1 loves me not1  
as the little girls say in counting the 
flower petals4 ,we seem entitled to     
suggest in the interests of simple      
science1 as distinguished from ,germanic
 ,kultur1 that temperament might        
perhaps usefully be left out of the     
debate2 and that the question of  what  
,jesus stands for may be left over till 
we have settled whether  the film       
presented to us by ,dr4 ,schweitzer can 
stand between us and  a scientific      
criticism which assents to all of his   
verdict save the  reservation in favour 
of his own thesis4    ,meantime1 let us 
not seem to suggest that the ,english   
handling of  the historical problem     
during the nineteenth century has been  
any  more scientific than the ,german4  
,hennell's treatment of it was but  a   
simplification of ,strauss's2 and       
,thomas ,scott's ,life of ,jesus  was   
but an honest attempt to solidify       

,renan4 ,in the early part of  the      
nineteenth century little was achieved  
beyond the indispensable  weakening of  
the reign of superstition by critical   
propaganda4 ,in early  ,victorian       
,england1 where ,freethought had been   
left to unprofessional  freelances1     
still liable to brutal prosecution1 an  
anonymous attempt  was made to carry the
 matter further in a curious book       
entitled ,the  ,existence of ,christ    
,disproved by ,irresistible ,evidence1  
in a ,series  of ,letters by a ,german  
,jew4 ,it bears no date1 but seems to   
have been  published between #ahda and  
#ahdi1 appearing serially in thirty     
penny  weekly numbers1 printed in       
,birmingham1 and published in ,london by
  ,hetherington4 ,as ,hetherington1 who 
died in #ahdi1 was imprisoned in  #ahdj 
for the blasphemous libel of publishing 
,haslam's ,letters to  the ,clergy1 but 
not earlier or later on any similar     
charge1 he would  seem to have been     
allowed to publish this without         

molestation4    ,about the author ,i    
have no information4 ,he writes ,english
 fluently  and idiomatically1 and had   
read ,strauss in the original4 ,but     
though  he presses against ,hennell the 
argument from the case of ,apollos1     
latterly developed by ,professor ,w4 ,b4
 ,smith with such scholarly skill1  the 
book as a whole has little persuasive   
power4 ,the author is one  of the       
violent and vehement men who alone1 in  
the day of persecution1  were likely to 
hazard such a thesis2 and he does it    
with an amount of  vociferation much in 
excess of his critical effort or his    
knowledge4 ,it  made1 and could make1 no
 impression whatever on the educated    
world2  and ,i never met any            
,freethinker who had seen or heard of   
it4    ,it is in another spirit1 and in 
the light of a far greater accumulation 
of evidence than was available in the   
first half of the last century1  that   
the mythical theory has been restated in
 our day4 ,in particular  it proceeds   

upon a treasury of anthropological lore 
which was lacking  to ,bruno ,bauer1 as 
it was to ,ghillany1 who was so much    
better fitted  than ,bauer to profit by 
such light4 ,as knowledge of the past   
gradually  arranges itself into science1
 and the malice of religious resistance 
recedes from point to point before the  
sapping process of culture1  the temper 
of the whole debate undergoes a         
transmutation4 ,after a  generation in  
which a ,lyell could only in privacy    
avow his views as  to the antiquity of  
man1 came that in which ,tylor1 without 
polemic1  could establish an            
anthropological method that was to mean 
the  reduction of all religious         
phenomena1 on a new line1 to the status 
of natural phenomena4 ,and even the     
malice of the bigoted faithful1  which  
will subsist while the faith endures1   
falls into its place as  one of these1  
equally with the malice of the          
conventional theorists  who meet the    
exposure of their untenable positions   

with aspersion in  defect of argument4  
,but the fact that a recent ,german     
exegete has been found capable of       
facing the problem in a spirit of       
scientific candour and good temper1  and
 with something of the old-time         
detachment which made ,rosenkranz       
marvel at ,carlyle's tone towards       
,diderot1 may be a promise of a more    
general resort to civilized             
controversial methods4 ,in any case1 the
  fact that a trained ,new ,testament   
critic1 undertaking to establish  the   
historicity of ,jesus1 has affirmed the 
scientific failure of all  the preceding
 attempts1 and offered a historic       
residuum which few will  think worth an 
hour's consideration1 seems a sufficient
 demonstration  that the mythical theory
 is the real battleground of the future4
    ,in that connection it is           
interesting to note that ,sir ,j4 ,g4   
,frazer1  who has so warmly contended   
that1 as history cannot be explained    
without the influence of great men1 we  

must accept the historicity  of ,jesus1 
#bba latterly propounds a tentative     
theory of a historic  original for      
,osiris1 whom he supposes to have been  
perhaps evolved  from the idealized     
personality of an ancient ,king ,khent1 
buried  at ,abydos4 #bbb ,it is a mere  
suggestion1 and it at once evokes the   
reminder that1 on the theorist's own    
general principles1 ,king ,khent may  be
 regarded as having been theocratically 
identified with the already  existing   
,god4 ,however that may be1 the         
hypothesis does nothing to save  ,sir   
,james's irrelevant plea about the      
operation of great men and              
extraordinary minds in the founding of  
all religions1 for he does  not suggest 
that ,king ,khent's career in any way   
resembled the myth  of ,osiris1 or that 
he first taught the things ,osiris is   
said to have  taught4 ,so that1 in the  
case of ,osiris as of ,jesus1 the       
required great  men and extraordinary   
minds may still1 in the terms of the    

claim1 be  inserted at any point rather 
than in the personage named or suggested
  as ,founder4 #bbc ,if we agree to call
 the compiler of the ,sermon on  the    
,mount and the parables of the ,kingdom 
and the ,prodigal ,son and  the ,good   
,samaritan great men and extraordinary  
minds1 ,sir ,james's very  simple       
argument is turned4 ,and we should still
 be left asking who were  the historic  
founders of the cults of ,zeus and      
,brahma and ,attis and  ,adonis1        
,dionysos and ,herakles and ,krishna and
 ,aphrodite and ,artemis4    ,on the    
other hand1 as it happens1 that very    
suggestion as to ,king  ,khent points   
afresh to the myth theory as the        
solution of the ,gospel  problem4       
,nothing emerges oftener in ,sir        
,james's great survey than the  ancient 
connection between kingship and         
liability to sacrifice4 ,it  will not   
avail to close off that connection by   
claiming ,king ,khent as  a potentate of
 an age after that of sacrificed kings4 

,the sacrificial  past would still have 
to be taken into account in explaining  
the  deification of ,king ,khent4 ,and  
it is just an analogous process that  is
 suggested in our theory of the ,jesus  
myth4 ,a long series of slain  ,jesuses1
 ritually put to death at an annual     
sacrament for the sins  of many1 is the 
ultimate anthropological ground given   
for the special  cultus out of which    
grew the mythical biography of the      
,gospels4    ,and if ,sir ,james remains
 satisfied with his charge that in      
putting  such a theory we flatter the   
vanity of the vulgar1 we may be         
permitted to ask him which line of      
propaganda is likeliest to appeal  to   
the multitude4 ,let him1 in his turn1 be
 on his guard against the  vulgarity    
which seeks support in science from     
popular prejudice4 ,as to  his          
pronouncement that the theory which he  
so inexpensively attacks  will find no  
favour with the philosophic historian1  
one must just  point out that it does   

not lie with him to draw up the         
conclusions of  philosophic history     
outside of his own great department1 or 
even1 for  that matter1 in that         
department4 ,his own historical         
generalizations1  when they seek to pass
 from the strictly anthropological to   
the  sociological status1 will often    
really not bear the slightest critical  
analysis4 ,they express at times an     
entire failure to realize the  nature of
 a historical process1 offering as they 
do mere chance  speculations which      
patently conflict with the whole mass of
 the  evidence he has himself collected4
 ,it is not an isolated opinion that  by
 such abortive attempts at philosophic  
history he has tended to  lessen the    
usefulness even of that collection1 for 
which all students  are his grateful    
debtors4 ,in short1 he would do well to 
turn from his  ill-timed incursion into 
dogmatics to the relevant problem which 
he  has forced upon so many of his      
readers--namely1 ,what has become of    

his mythological maxim that the ritual  
precedes the myth8    ,while the        
professed mythologist rejects the       
application of the  myth theory to the  
current religion in the name of         
philosophic  history1 students          
ostensibly more concerned about religion
 reject  the historicity theory in the  
name of their religious ideals1 finding 
in the myth theory the vindication of   
these4 ,thus ,professor ,drews has  from
 the first connected the argument of his
 ,das ,christusmythe with  a claim to   
regenerate religion by freeing it from  
anthropomorphism2  and ,i have seen     
other theistic pronouncements to the    
same effect2  to say nothing of the     
declarations of scholarly ,churchmen    
that for  them the ,jesus of the        
,gospels is a ,god or nothing1 and that 
for them  the historicity argument has  
no religious value4 ,such positions seem
  to me1 equation for equation1 very    
sufficiently to balance the bias  of    
,sir ,james ,frazer4 ,for my own part1  

,i am content to maintain the  theory in
 the name of science1 and it is by      
scientific tests that ,i  invite the    
reader to try it4                       
,,conclusion      ,enough has now been  
said to make it clear to the open-minded
 reader  that the myth-theory is no     
wanton challenge to belief in a clear   
and credible historical narrative4 ,it  
is not the advocates of the  myth-theory
 who have raised the issue4 ,the trouble
 began with the  attempts of the        
believers to solve their own            
difficulties4 ,before  the rise of      
criticism so-called we find them hating 
and burning  each other in their        
quarrels over the meaning of their      
central  sacrament4 ,as soon as         
criticism began to work on the problem  
of the  miracles and the contradictions 
in the narratives of these1 they set    
themselves to frame ,harmonies of the   
,gospels which only brought  into       
clearer relief their discordance4 ,after
 the spread of scientific  views had    

shaken the belief in miracles1 they set 
themselves1 still as  believers1 to     
frame explanatory ,lives of ,jesus in   
which miracles were  dissolved into     
hallucinations or natural episodes      
misunderstood2 and1  as before1 no two  
explanations coincided4 ,a consensus of 
scholars  has never existed4    ,it was 
after a whole generation of ,german     
scholars had laboured  to extract a     
historical ,jesus from the ,gospel      
mosaic that ,strauss  produced his      
powerful and sustained argument to show 
that most of  the separate episodes     
which they had arbitrarily striven to   
reduce  to history were but operations  
of the mythopoeic faculty1 proceeding   
upon the mass of ,jewish prophecy and   
legend under the impulse of the         
,messianic idea4 ,strauss was no wanton 
caviller1 but a great critic1  forced to
 his work by the failure of a multitude 
of ,gelehrten vom  ,fach to extract a   
credible result from what they admitted 
to be1  as it stood1 a history in large 

part incredible4    ,strauss1 in turn1  
believing at once in a residual         
historical ,jesus and  in the perfect   
sufficiency of a mere ideal personage as
 a standard for  men's lives and a basis
 for their churches1 left but a new     
enigma to  his successors4 ,he had      
stripped the nominal ,founder of a mass 
of mythic  accretions1 but1 attempting  
no new portrait1 left him undeniably    
more  shadowy than before4 ,later       
liberal criticism1 tacitly accepting    
,strauss's negations1 set itself anew to
 extract from the ,gospels1  by a       
process of more or less conscientious   
documentary analysis1 the  real ,jesus  
whom the critics and he agreed to have  
existed4 ,renan  undertook to do as much
 in his famous romance2 and ,german     
critics1  who so characterized his work1
 produced for their part only much      
duller  romances1 devoid of ,renan's    
wistful artistic charm4 ,and1 as before1
  every biographer in turn demurred to  
the results of the others4    ,it is the

 result of the utter inadequacy of all  
these attempts to solve  the historical 
problem1 and of the ever-growing sense  
of the inadequacy  of a mere legendary  
construction to form a code for human   
life and a  basis for a cosmic          
philosophy1 that independent inquirers  
in various  countries have set about    
finding out the real historical process 
of the  rise of ,christianity1          
dismissing the worn-out convention4     
,small-minded  conservatives at once    
exclaim1 and will doubtless go on       
saying1 that  those who thus explain    
away the historical ,jesus1 are moved by
 their  antipathy to ,christianity1 and 
to theism in general4 ,the assertion  is
 childishly false4 ,one of the leading  
exponents of the myth-theory  gives his 
theism--or pantheism--as the primary    
inspiration of his  work4 ,the present  
writer1 as he has more than once        
explained1 began  by way of writing a   
sociological history of the rise of     
,christianity  on the foundation of a   

historical ,jesus with twelve           
disciples--this  long after coming to a 
completely naturalistic view of         
religion1  which excluded theism4 ,from 
such a point of view there was no       
priori  objection whatever to a         
historical ,jesus4 ,at one time he      
sketched a  hypothesis of several       
successive ,jesuses4 ,the intangibility 
of any  historical ,jesus was the       
conclusion slowly forced by a long      
attempt  to clear the historical        
starting-point1 supposed to be          
irreducible4    ,since that discovery   
was reached1 the discrediting of the    
conventional  view has been carried to  
the verge of nihilism by men who still  
posit  a historical ,jesus1 but         
critically eliminate nearly every       
accepted  detail1 leaving only a choice 
between two shadowy and elusive         
historical concepts1 even less tenable  
than those they reject4 ,in  the works  
of ,schweitzer and ,wrede1 there is     
literally more direct  and detailed     

destruction of ,gospel-myth than had    
been attempted  by almost any advocate  
of the myth-theory who had preceded     
them2  though1 as we have seen1 it is   
not difficult to carry the process      
further4 ,in the name of the historicity
 claim1 they have gone on  eliminating  
one by one myth elements where the      
myth-theorists had  been content to     
recognize myth in mass4 ,he who would   
re-establish  the historical ,jesus has 
to combat1 first and foremost1 the      
latest  scientific champions of the     
belief in the historicity4    ,those    
,english critics who1 like ,dr4         
,conybeare1 have declaimed so  loudly of
 a consensus of critics and of          
historical common-sense on  the side of 
a historical ,christ1 are simply        
fulminating from the  standpoint of the 
,german liberalism of thirty years ago4 
,nine-tenths  of what they violently    
affirm has been definitely and          
destructively  rejected by the latest   
,german representatives of the critical 

class1  in the very name of the defence 
of the historicity of ,jesus4 ,orthodox 
,germans1 on the other hand1 have been  
pointing out that the liberal  view is  
no longer modern1 the really modern     
criticism having  shown that the        
,gospel-figure is a ,god-figure or      
nothing4 ,vainly they  hope to reinforce
 orthodoxy by the operations of a strict
 critical  method4 #bbd ,our ,english   
liberal-conservatives1 all the while1   
are fighting with obsolete 7,german7    
weapons1 and in total ignorance  of the 
real course of the campaign in recent   
years4    ,in such circumstances1 those 
of us who did our thinking for          
ourselves1  without waiting for new     
,german leads1 have perhaps some right  
to appeal  anew to readers to do the    
same4 ,there is no race quarrel         
involved4 ,but  perhaps those students  
in the ,english-speaking countries who  
in the  past have been wont to follow   
the ,german leads of the generation     
before their own1 may now realize that  

they were unduly diffident1  and proceed
 to make that use of their own faculties
 which ,germans  were always making from
 time to time4                ,,notes   
#a ,see ,christianity and ,mythology1   
#bnd ed4 p4 #agi1 note4    #b ,that is1 
even supposing the ,annals to be        
genuine4 ,professor  ,w4 ,b4 ,smith     
speaks of a contention of late that they
 are forged by  ,poggio ,bracciolini1   
but refers only to the work of ,ross1   
#ahgh4 ,the  thesis has been far more   
efficiently maintained in a series of   
works  by ,hochart 7#ahij1 etc471 which 
are worth ,professor ,smith's attention4
    #c ,see the collection of           
illustrations in ,mr4 ,joseph ,mc,cabe's
 ,sources  of the ,morality of the      
,gospels 7,r4 ,p4 ,a41 #aiad71 and his  
excellent  chapter on ,the ,parables of 
the ,gospel and the ,talmud4    #d ,the 
,testaments of the ,twelve ,patriarchs1 
ed4 by ,r4 ,h4 ,charles1  #aijh1 pp4    
lxxx1 #ig1 #abb1 #bac1 #bad4    #e ,id4 
pp4 lxxxi1 #bac4    #f ,id4 pp4         

xciii-xciv4    #g ,id4 ,test4 ,iss4 v1  
#b2 ,dan4 v1 #c2 ,iss4 vii1 #f4    #h   
,id4 p4 xcv4    #i ,id4 p4 #baj sq4     
#aj ,bain1 ,j4 ,s4 ,mill1 p4 #aci4      
#aa ,letter to ,w4 ,s4 ,lilly1 cited in 
his ,claims of ,christianity1  #ahid1   
pp4 #cj-ca4    #ab ,das ,christenthum   
444 der drei ersten ,jahrhunderte1      
#ahec1  pp4 #ce-cf4 7,eng4 trans1 i1    
#ch47    #ac ,prof4 ,flint in ,st4      
,giles ,lectures on ,the ,faiths of the 
,world1  #ahhb1 p4 #dai4    #ad ,jsus et
 la tradition vanglique1 #aiaj1 p4 #de4 
#ae ,it should be explained that in     
using1 for convenience sake1 the        
traditional ascriptions of the four     
,gospels1 ,i do not for a moment  admit 
that these hold good of the ,matthew1   
,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john of  the         
tradition4 ,in not one case is that     
tradition historically valid4    #af    
,the ,rev4 ,a4 ,wright 7,n4 ,t4         
,problems1 #ahih1 p4 #ae7 pronounces it 
completely unchronological4 ,sanday     
acquiesces 7id41 p4 #agg74    #ag ,such 

details1 imposed on an otherwise empty  
narrative1 suggest  a pictorial basis1  
as does the account of the ,baptist4    
,strauss cites  the ,hebrew             
myth-precedent of the calling of ,elisha
 from the plough  by ,elijah4    #ah    
,einleitung in die drei ersten          
,evangelien1 #aije1 p4 #ea4    #ai ,id4 
p4 #dg4    #bj ,id4 p4 #ea4    #ba ,id4 
p4 #eb4    #bb ,note the identity of    
terms1 euergeton in ,acts 7x1 #ch71     
euergetesas  in ,diodorus4    #bc       
,christianity and ,mythology1 #bnd ed4  
p4 #dda sq42 ,pagan ,christs1  #bnd ed4 
pp4 #bbi-bcf4 ,a notably effective      
criticism is passed on the  thesis in   
,prof4 ,w4 ,b4 ,smith's ,ecce ,deus1 p4 
#agg sq4 ,mr4 ,sinclair1  of course1    
does not dream of meeting such replies4 
#bd ,what else is signified by ,acts    
iii1 #ah2 xvii1 #c8    #be ,dr4 ,w4 ,b4 
,smith sees in the story a mere         
symbolizing of the  rejection of ,jesus 
by the ,jews4 ,this may very well be the
 case4    #bf ,dr4 ,flinders ,petrie    

even infers a late reference to the     
,virgin-,birth4 ,the ,growth of the     
,gospels1 #aiaj1 p4 #hf4 ,this ,loisy   
rejects4    #bg ,see the useful work of 
,mr4 ,a4 ,j4 ,jolley1 ,the ,synoptic    
,problem  for ,english ,readers1 #ahic4 
#bh ,yet ,b4 ,weiss had contended       
7,manual1 ,eng4 tr4 ii1 #bbd7 that ,mark
  ii1 #bd ff41 #bh1 must be taken from a
 larger collection of sayings in  which 
the utterances of ,jesus respecting the 
keeping of the ,sabbath  were put       
together 7,matt4 xii1 #b-h74    #bi ,cp4
 ,dr4 ,r4 ,h4 ,charles1 ,the ,book of   
,jubilees1 #aijb1 p4 xiv4    #cj ,work  
cited1 p4 #id4    #ca ,manual of        
,introd4 to the ,n4 ,t41 ,eng4 tr4      
#ahhh1 ii1 #bfa4    #cb ,einleitung1 p4 
#ea4    #cc ,id4 p4 #di4    #cd ,some   
,n4 ,t4 ,problems1 #ahih1 p4 #agf4      
#ce ,i have wasted a good deal of time  
in reading and in confuting  the        
,baconians1 but only in one or two of   
them have ,i met with any  etymologies4 
,their doctrine had no such origin1 and 

in no way rests  on etymologies4 ,not   
once have ,i seen in their books an     
appeal to  anti-theological bias1 and   
hardly ever an emendation1 though there 
are  plenty of forced parallels4 ,nor   
are etymologies primary elements  in any
 form of the myth theory4 ,mr4 ,sinclair
 seems to unpack his  mouth with words  
in terms of a ,shakespearean formula4   
#cf ,eng4 trans4 by ,prof4 ,d4 ,m4 ,kay1
 #aijb4    #cg ,wellhausen notably      
does--,einleitung in die drei ersten    
,evangelien1  #aije1 pp4 #ci-da4 ,dr4   
,r4 ,h4 ,charles1 who in his masterly   
introduction to  the ,assumption of     
,moses indicates so many blunders of    
,german scholars1  may be reckoned quite
 able to criticize ,dalman in his turn4 
#ch ,cp4 ,schechter1 ,some ,aspects of  
,rabbinic ,theology1 #aiji1 pp4 #fe-ff4 
#ci ,rev4 ,a4 ,wright1 ,some ,new       
,testament ,problems1 p4 #bab4    #dj   
,blass1 ,philology of the ,gospels1     
#ahih1 p4 #ce4    #da ,die ,entstehung  
und der ,charakter unserer ,evangelien1 

#aijg1 p4 #i4    #db ,with the customary
 bad faith of the orthodox apologist1   
,dr4 ,thorburn represents as a sudden   
change of thesis the proposition  that  
the ,christian narrative is merely an   
ethical adaptation of the  ,greek story1
 because that proposition follows on the
 remark that the  ,christian myth might 
fairly be regarded as it actually has   
been  as a later sophistication of the  
,buddhist myth4 ,on this might  there   
had actually followed1 in the text      
quoted1 the statement3 ,there  are      
fairly decisive reasons1 however1 for   
concluding that the ,christian  story   
was evolved on another line4 ,this      
sentence ,dr4 ,thorburn conceals  from  
his readers4 ,there had been no change  
of thesis whatever4    #dc ,rev4 ,dr4   
,t4 ,j4 ,thorburn1 ,jesus the ,christ3  
,historical or  ,mythical81 p4 #bca4    
#dd ,dr4 ,thorburn appears to be wholly 
unaware of this fact of ,jewish         
theology4 ,see ,dr4 ,schechter's ,some  
,aspects of ,rabbinic ,theology1  #aiji1

 ch4 xv2 ,kalisch1 ,comm4 on ,leviticus1
 ii1 #cjd4    #de ,the ,nemesis of this 
uncritical method appears in its        
development  at the hands of ,dr4       
,conybeare3 ,that ,jesus was a          
successful exorcist  we need not doubt1 
nor that he worked innumerable faith    
cures 7,myth1  ,magic1 and ,morals1     
#bnd4 ed41 p4 #adb74 ,such a writer need
 not doubt  anything he wants to        
believe4 ,in particular he need not     
doubt  that the disciples were          
successful exorcists also4    #df       
,introd4 to the ,n4 ,t41 #crd4 ed41 i1  
#d4    #dg ,work cited1 p4 #g4    #dh   
,put in the ,neue ,kirchliche           
,zeitschrift1 #ahif1 p4 #ifd sq42 and   
,philology of the ,gospels1 #ahih1 pp4  
#da-dc4 ,professor ,blass has worked    
this argument diligently4 ,see his ,die 
,entstehung und der ,charakter  unserer 
,evangelien1 #aijg1 p4 #bd4    #di      
,villari1 ,life of ,savonarola1 ,eng4   
trans4 #a-vol4 ed4 p4 #ahe4    #ej      
,herbert ,lucas1 ,s4,j41 ,fra ,girolamo 

,savonarola1 #bnd ed4 #aijf1  p4 #aaf4  
,father ,lucas does not deny that such a
 sermon might possibly  have been       
preached late in #adic4 ,cp4 p4 #aah4   
#ea ,life of ,savonarola1 as cited1 p4  
#ahf4    #eb ,villari1 p4 #bad4    #ec  
,see the investigation of ,father       
,lucas1 pp4 #aad-ah4    #ed ,i had      
written this1 and the confutation of    
,villari1 before  reading the work of   
,father ,lucas4    #ee ,as cited1 p4    
#ahi4 ,father ,lucas comments more      
mildly on the  misstatement2 but it is  
really a grave departure from historical
 truth4    #ef ,cp4 ,lucas1 p4 #aag     
note4    #eg ,lucas1 p4 #abi note4      
#eh ,this1 again1 he might well expect1 
as he avows that he had  correspondents 
in ,germany who applauded his attitude  
towards the  ,papacy4 ,villari1 pp4     
#dci1 #eai1 #fji4 ,but ,maximilian was  
invited  by ,sforza in the name of the  
,papal ,league1 by way of forestalling  
,charles4 ,id4 p4 #deh4    #ei ,villari1
 pp4 #daa-ac4 ,cp4 ,perrens's ,jrome    

,savonarole1 #ahed1 ii1  #hh sq41 #ie   
sq42 ,lucas1 p4 #bja4    #fj ,manifesto 
,a tutti li ,christiani2 ,lucas1 p4     
#bcf4    #fa ,id4 p4 #bef4    #fb ,id4  
p4 #bgh4    #fc ,lucas1 p4 #gj4    #fd  
,nor are we here concerned with the     
question of ,savonarola's  sincerity4   
,on that head it may be noted that      
,perrens the ,rationalist  and ,lucas   
the sympathetic and moderate ,catholic  
are very much at one4    #fe ,lucas1 p4 
#fi note4 ,compare the references of    
,lucas and those of  ,villari 7p4 #cag7 
for researches on the subject4    #ff   
,cp4 ,perrens1 as cited1 ii1 #id4    #fg
 #a ,mac4 i1 #dg1 #ed1 #ei4    #fh      
,refs4 in ,de ,potter1 ,l',esprit de    
l'glise1 #ahba1 iv1 #ie-ih4    #fi      
,philology of the ,gospels1 p4 #dc4     
#gj ,growth of the ,gospels1 p4 #de4    
#ga ,professed prophecies1 that is1 not 
political calculations4    #gb ,the     
systematic deposition of ordure in the  
drawers of commodes in  #ahgj1 in beds  
and rooms and on piles of food in #aiad1

 is a historical  fact4 ,as to the sack 
of ,rome1 ,cant's account is3 ,delle    
bolle papali  stabbiano i cavalli       
7,istoria degli ,italiani1 ed4 #ahgf1   
ix1 #cgb74    #gc ,history of           
,sacrilege1 #afih1 p4 #aac4    #gd ,id4 
p4 #abb4    #ge ,zeller1 ,l'histoire de 
,france raconte par les contemporains1  
vol4 #ba1 p4 #ajb4    #gf ,id4 vol4 #bb1
 p4 #ag4    #gg ,sismondi-,toccagni1    
,storia delle repub4 ital41 #aheb1 iv1  
#abc4    #gh ,burckhardt1 ,renaissance  
in ,italy1 ,eng4 tr41 ed4 #ahib1 p4 #bc4
    #gi ,villari1 pp4 #dfc1 #ecb1       
#eed-ee4    #hj ,slay all6 ,god will    
know his own6    #ha ,rev4 ,w4 ,denton1 
,england in the ,fifteenth ,century1    
#ahhh1 pp4 #ha-hb4    #hb ,barante1     
,histoire des ducs de ,bourgogne1 ed4   
#g;ime1 iii1 #bcd4    #hc ,id4 ib4 p4   
#bdh4    #hd ,id4 ib4 p4 #daf4    #he   
,this detail1 from ,niketas1 is also    
given by ,gibbon1 ch4 lx1 near  end1 and
 by ,michaud1 ,hist4 des ,croisades1 iii
 7#ahag71 #aed-ee4 ,mills  omits it4    

,michaud1 like ,cant1 stresses the point
 of ordure4 ,so does  ,fleury1 ,hist4   
ccles41 xvi1 #adi4    #hf ,rev4 ,sir ,g4
 ,w4 ,cox1 ,the ,crusades1 #hth ed4 p4  
#aeg4    #hg ,perrens1 ii1 #ie4    #hh  
,memoirs of ,philip de ,commines1 ,bohn 
trans4 i1 #aeh4    #hi ,hall's          
,chronicle1 ,hen4 ,,viii1 ed4 #aeej1    
fol4 #aab4    #ij ,burckhardt1          
,renaissance in ,italy1 ,eng4 tr4 ed4   
#ahib1 p4 #bi4    #ia ,perrens1 ,hist4  
de ,florence1 #adcd-aeca1 i1 #che4      
#ib ,guicciardini1 lib4 x1 c4 #d4    #ic
 ,id4 xvii1 #c4    #id ,though in       
reporting the sack of ,rome he makes the
 ,germans behave  the more brutally as  
regards the cardinals4    #ie ,philology
 of the ,gospels1 p4 #da4    #if ,as    
cited1 p4 #df4    #ig ,work cited1 p4   
#cd4    #ih ,id4 p4 #dj4    #ii ,id4 p4 
#ch4    #ajj ,histor4 ,introd4 to the   
,n4 ,t41 #dth ed4 #ahhi1 p4 #aaa4       
#aja ,nldeke1 ,sketches from ,eastern   
,history1 #ahib1 p4 #bh4    #ajb ,the   
,odes and ,psalms of ,solomon1 ed4      

,rendel ,harris1 #aiji1  pp4 #gd1 #aah4 
#ajc ,work cited1 p4 #di4    #ajd       
,bousset 7,the ,anti-,christ ,legend1   
,eng4 tr4 p4 #bc7 assumes1  with many   
recent expositors1 that the distinctly  
apocalyptic part of  ,matt4 xxiv and    
,mark xiii is a fragment of foreign     
origin introduced  amid genuine         
utterances of the ,lord4 ,it is also    
evident that1 compared  with that of    
,mark1 the text of ,matthew is the      
original4 ,here we have  the old        
strategy of compromise4    #aje ,the    
assertion of ,dr4 ,conybeare 7,myth1    
,magic1 and ,morals1  p4 #df71 that the 
destruction of the temple was an event  
which any  clear-sighted observer of the
 growing hostility between ,jew and     
,roman must have foreseen1 is           
characteristic of that writer's way of  
interpreting documents4 ,a second       
reading may perhaps yield him another   
impression4 ,forty years of             
non-fulfilment is a precious proof of   
the  must4    #ajf ,muir and ,weir1     

,life of ,mohammed1 ed4 #aiab1 p4 xlii4 
#ajg ,muir and ,weir1 as cited1 p4 xxvi4
    #ajh ,id4 p4 xxviii4 ,contrast the  
pronouncements of ,palmer1 ,kuenen1  and
 ,nicholson1 cited in the author's      
,history of ,freethought1 #crd  ed4 i1  
#bej4    #aji ,josephus1 ,antiq4 xx1 #e1
  #a2 ,bel4 ,jud41 vii1 #aa2 ,dio       
,cassius1  lxix2 ,orosius1 vii1 #ab4    
#aaj ,e4g4 the orthodox ,ewald1         
,geschichte ,christus' und seiner ,zeit1
  #cte ,ausg4 p4 #ca note4    #aaa      
,stupidity is ascribed to him by ,blass 
7,entstehung1 p4 #h71  who on his own   
principles has no right whatever to     
reject such a  tradition4    #aab       
,compare with this avowal of an orthodox
 scholar1 ,mill's  assumption of the    
total absence of genius in ,palestine   
apart from  ,jesus4    #aac ,see the    
collection of opinions in ,dr4 ,charles 
,taylor's ,the  ,oxyrhynchus ,logia and 
the ,apocryphal ,gospels1 #ahii1 pp4    
#ae-ai1 #bc1  #bd1 #be1 #bg1 #ci1 #db1  
etc4    #aad ,these logia1 it should be 

noted1 are always ascribed to  ,ies4    
,the full name ,iesous is never given1  
and there is no cognomen4    #aae ,many1
 says ,blass 7,entstehung1 p4 #aa71 may 
mean #c1 #d1 #e1  or even more4    #aaf 
,codices ,a and ,c preface this with    
,and turning to his disciples1  he said4
    #aag ,strauss speaks of it as having
 been firmly established4 ,das  ,leben  
,jesu1 ,einl4  #i1 end4    #aah ,some   
,new ,testament ,problems1 #ahih1 pp4   
#aig-ih4    #aai ,id4 p4 #ad4    #abj   
,id4 p4 #ae4    #aba ,elsewhere 7p4     
#bjj7 ,mr4 ,wright speaks of the        
traditions as  circulated in an oral    
form from very early times2 but he does 
not  appear to mean this in the natural 
sense4    #abb ,id4 p4 #ajb4    #abc    
,id4 p4 #bac4    #abd ,would it8 ,for   
,loisy it is stamped with ,jewish       
exclusiveness4 ,the  dog merely gets a  
compassionate crumb4    #abe ,id4 p4    
#bji4    #abf ,id4 p4 #bae4    #abg ,see
 ,christianity and ,mythology1 #bnd ed4 
p4 #chh4    #abh ,the ,arise1 let us go 

hence1 at the end of ch4 #ad1 is another
  interpolation which has no meaning in 
the context4    #abi ,work cited1 p4    
#bji4    #acj ,id4 p4 #agh4    #aca ,id4
 p4 #age4    #acb ,id4 p4 #agg4    #acc 
,id4 p4 #agf4    #acd ,id4 p4 #aia4     
#ace ,id4 p4 #ahf4    #acf ,id4 p4 #ahg4
    #acg ,id4 pp4 #bbb1 #bbc4    #ach   
,id4 p4 #abc4    #aci ,jsus et la       
tradition vanglique1 #aiaj1 pp4 #i1 #ab1
 #cf1 #dj1  #ef1 #eg1 #ii1 #ajb1 #aje1  
#aac4    #adj ,so1 for instance1        
,wernle3 ,on the basis of these oldest  
sources  we can write no biography1 no  
so-called ,life of ,jesus 7,die ,quellen
  des ,lebens ,jesu1 #aije1 p4 #hb74    
#ada ,work cited1 p4 #ef sq4    #adb    
,les vangiles1 i1 #ffc sq4    #adc      
,encyc4 ,bib4 as cited1 col4 #a1hgb4    
#add ,it should be remembered that the  
,gospels do not specify ,nazareth1  but 
speak simply of his own country         
7patris74 ,professor ,burkitt1          
recognizing the mass of difficulties in 
regard to ,nazareth1 suggests  that that

 name is a literary error1 and that the 
patris of ,jesus  was ,chorazin 7,proc4 
of ,brit4 ,acad4 vol4 v1 #aiab1 pp4     
#ag-ah74    #ade ,see above1 p4 #adg1   
note1 as to the theory of ,prof4        
,burkitt1 that  ,jesus was born at      
,chorazin4 ,on that view1 the           
unbelieving birthplace  was denounced4  
#adf ,strauss1 in pointing to this      
detail in ,jewish ,messianism 7,das     
,leben ,jesu1 ,abschn4 ,,iii1 ,kap4 i1  
#aab7 abstained from stressing it on    
the score that there are no certain     
traces of it before the ,babylonian     
,gemara1 the compilation of which took  
place in the ,christian era1  and the   
book ,sohar1 of which the age is        
doubtful4 ,principal ,drummond  7,the   
,jewish ,messiah1 #ahgg1 p4 #ceg7       
further agreed1 with ,gfrrer1 that  the 
doctrine of a ,messiah ,ben-,joseph is  
extremely unlikely to have  been        
pre-,christian4 ,the obvious answer is  
that it is overwhelmingly  unlikely to  
have been post-,christian6 ,but that    

thesis is apparently not  now maintained
 even by orthodox scholars4 ,bousset1   
who in his confused  way suggests that  
the notion of a suffering and dying     
,messiah would  seem to have been       
suggested by disputations with the      
,christians  7,the ,anti-,christ        
,legend1 #ahif1 p4 #ajc71 avows         
immediately that  ,wnsche traces a very 
distinct application of ,zechariah xii1 
#aj1  to the ,messiah ,ben ,joseph in   
the ,jerusalem ,talmud2 and goes on to  
suggest that the notions of the two     
witnesses and the two ,messiahs  may    
rest upon a common source1 which1       
however1 is still to be sought  further 
back than ,jewish tradition4    #adg    
,against ,celsus1 vi1 #cf1 end4    #adh 
,protevang41 ix1 #a2 ,pseud4 ,matt41 x1 
#a2 xxxvii1 #a sq42 ,hist4 of  ,joseph  
the ,carpenter2 ,thomas1 #ast4 ,gr4     
form1 xiii1 #a sq42 #bnd ,gr4 form1  xi1
 #a sq42 ,lat4 xi1 #b sq42 ,arabic      
,gosp4 of the ,infancy1 xxxviii1 xxxix4 
#adi ,karppe1 ,essais de critique et    

d'histoire de philosophie1 #aijb1  pp4  
#ea-eb4    #aej ,irenus1 ,ag4 ,heresies1
 i1 #bf2 ,hippolytus1 ,ref4 of all      
,heresies1  vii1 #ba4 ,see ,baur1 ,das  
,christenthum1 p4 #agd4 7,eng4 trans4 i1
 #aii47 ,the  fact that ,cerinthus is   
the earliest known ,christian ,gnostic1 
being  traditionally associated with the
 ,apostle ,john 7,euseb4 ,hist4 ,eccl4  
iii1  #bh7 goes far to support ,dr4     
,karppe's view that ,gnosticism entered 
,christianity from the ,jewish side4    
#aea ,cp4 ,apoc4 of ,baruch1 xxix1 #c2  
#d ,esdras1 vii1 #bh2 xiii1 #cb2 ,john1 
vii1 #bg2 ,justin1 ,dial4 cum ,tryph41  
#h2 and ,charles's note on ,apoc4 of    
,baruch1 as cited1 giving these and     
other references4 ,see also ,schodde's  
ed4 of the ,book of ,enoch1 pp4 #dg1    
#eg2 and the ,rev4 ,w4 ,j4 ,deane's     
,pseudepigrapha1 #ahia1 p4 #ag4    #aeb 
,les vangiles synoptiques1 #aijg-h1 ii1 
#fig4    #aec ,the varying designations1
 certainly1 point to repeated additions 
to the text4 ,but the question arises   

whether the ,maria he ,iose or  ,maria  
,iose of ,mk4 xv1 #dg1 may have been    
meant to specify ,mary the  wife of     
,joseph4    #aed ,entstehung1 p4 #bb4   
,of course ,harnack's method is really  
only  a development of ,baur's4    #aee 
,les vangiles synoptiques1 ii1 #fag4    
#aef ,id4 p4 #fah4    #aeg ,jsus et la  
tradition1 p4 #ib4    #aeh ,les vangiles
 synoptiques1 ii1 #efb4    #aei ,id4 p4 
#egj4    #afj ,id4 p4 #eii4    #afa ,id4
 p4 #faj4    #afb ,jsus et la tradition1
 p4 #ajb4    #afc ,babl4 ,sanhedrin1 ap4
 ,lightfoot1 cited by ,strauss4    #afd 
,compare the other ,jewish declarations 
collected by ,brandt1  ,die evangelische
 ,geschichte1 #ahic1 p4 #aej sq4    #afe
 ,in ,luke the high priest is not in the
 story1 and the chief  priests and      
others take as well as try the prisoner4
    #aff ,see ,christianity and         
,mythology1 #bnd ed4 pp4 xviii1 #b1     
#abb2  ,pagan ,christs1 #bnd ed4 p4     
#bhg1 note #d4    #afg ,les vangiles1   
ii1 #fbd4    #afh ,die evangelische     

,geschichte1 #ahic1 p4 #hh4    #afi ,les
 vangiles1 ii1 #fcb4    #agj ,e4g4      
,dalman1 ,the ,words of ,jesus1 p4 #cab2
 ,brandt1 ,die evangelische             
,geschichte1 p4 #hi2 ,loisy1 ,les       
vangiles1 ii1 #eag1 note2 #fjd1 note2   
#fcc4    #aga ,this is the one of the   
two stories preferred by the liberal    
school1 who dismiss the story of the two
 asses as a verbal  hallucination rather
 than recognize a zodiacal myth4 ,it    
makes no  final difference4 ,the ass the
 foal of an ass1 in their exegesis1     
still means an unbroken colt1 an        
impossible steed for a procession4      
#agb ,see ,pagan ,christs1 #bnd ed41 and
 ,christianity and ,mythology1  #bnd    
ed41 per index4    #agc ,les vangiles1  
ii1 #fdc4    #agd ,nicholson1 ,the      
,gospel ,according to the ,hebrews1     
#ahgi1 pp4 #ada-db4    #age ,jsus et la 
tradition1 p4 #aad4    #agf ,id4 pp4    
#aag-ah4    #agg ,a propos d'histoire   
des religions1 #aiaa1 pp4 #bgd-bha4     
#agh ,id4 pp4 #bif-ig4    #agi ,id4 p4  

#cad4    #ahj ,id4 p4 #bhj4    #aha ,so 
,dalman 7,the ,words of ,jesus1 p4 #id  
sq471 as well as ,loisy4 ,they  agree   
that kingdom of heaven was only a more  
reverent way of saying  the same thing4 
7,jsus et la tradition1 p4 #abh47       
#ahb ,jsus et la tradition1 pp4 #abe-bf4
    #ahc ,id4 p4 #aje4 ,cp4 p4 #afh4    
#ahd ,a propos d'histoire des religions1
 p4 #bhg4    #ahe ,id4 pp4 #bhh-hi4     
#ahf ,jsus et la tradition1 p4 #acf4    
#ahg ,schmiedel pronounces it a         
conglomerate4 ,encyc4 ,bib4 art4        
,gospels1 col4 #a1hhf4    #ahh ,see     
,nicholson1 ,the ,gospel according to   
the ,hebrews1 #ahgi1  p4 #eb sq4    #ahi
 ,jsus et la tradition1 p4 #adc4    #aij
 ,id4 ib4 and ,a propos d'histoire des  
religions1 p4 #bhh4    #aia ,jsus et la 
tradition1 p4 #ada4    #aib ,les        
vangiles synoptiques1 ii1 #dhb-hc4      
#aic ,id4 ii1 #ceg4    #aid ,id4 i1     
#aeb4    #aie ,see above1 p4 #abg4      
#aif ,a propos d'histoire des religions1
 p4 #bij4    #aig ,a propos d'histoire  

des religions1 pp4 #bia1 #cjd4    #aih  
,dr4 ,g4 ,a4 van den ,bergh van         
,eysinga1 ,radical ,views about the     
,new ,testament1 ,eng4 tr4 #aiab1 p4    
#ajb4    #aii ,id4 pp4 #aja-b4    #bjj  
,see ,christianity and ,mythology1 #bnd 
ed4 pp4 #cda1 #ceg4    #bja ,a propos   
d'histoire des religions1 p4 #bid4      
#bjb ,first published in #ahhf4    #bjc 
,j4 ,w4 ,straatman1 in ,critical        
,studies on ,first ,corinthians1        
#ahfc-fe1 cited by ,mr4 ,whittaker4     
#bjd ,w4 ,seufert1 ,der ,ursprung und   
die ,bedeutung des ,apostolates1  #ahhg1
 p4 #df2 ,sir ,g4 ,w4 ,cox1 lect4 in    
,religious ,systems of the ,world1  #crd
 ed4 p4 #bdb4    #bje ,a propos         
d'histoire des religions1 p4 #bie4      
#bjf ,id4 p4 #caj4    #bjg ,les         
vangiles1 i1 #agb1 #agc4 ,contrast the  
case put long ago by  ,zeller1 ,the     
,acts of the ,apostles1 ,eng4 tr4 #ahge1
 i1 #abi-cj4    #bjh ,compare1 however1 
the elaborate essay of ,prof4 ,g4 ,a4   
,deissmann1  in his ,bible ,studies     

7,eng4 tr4 #aija71 on ,letters and      
,epistles1 p4 #dh4    #bji ,short       
,history of ,christianity1 #bnd ed4 p4  
#d4    #baj ,wieland was something of a 
,freethinker2 but when ,napoleon in  the
 famous interview mooted the problem    
raised by ,dupuis and ,volney1  ,wieland
 treated it as pure absurdity4 ,he was  
then an old man4    #baa ,the ,quest of 
the ,historical ,jesus 7,eng4 tr4 of    
,von ,reimarus zu  ,wrede71 #aiaj1 p4   
#aec4    #bab ,schweitzer1 p4 #aea4     
#bac ,id4 p4 #aei4    #bad ,work cited1 
p4 #afa4    #bae ,id4 p4 #cbi4    #baf  
,id4 p4 #cdc4    #bag ,id4 p4 #cie4     
#bah ,compare ,dalman1 ,the ,words of   
,jesus1 p4 #cac4    #bai ,i4e41 the old 
,german rationalism so-called1 the      
theological  method of compromise with  
reason4    #bbj ,id4 pp4 #cif-ig4       
#bba ,adonis1 ,attis1 ,osiris1 #crd ed4 
7vols4 v and vi of #crd ed4 of ,the     
,golden ,bough7 i1 #cab1 note4 ,see the 
passage discussed in ,christianity  and 
,mythology1 #bnd ed4 p4 #bha4    #bbb   

,adonis1 ,attis1 ,osiris1 as cited1 ii1 
#ai sq41 and pref4 to vol4 i4    #bbc   
,compare ,prof4 ,w4 ,b4 ,smith's        
criticism of the great man theory  as   
put by ,von ,soden--,ecce ,deus1 p4 #i  
sq4    #bbd ,see the brochure of ,prof4 
,r4 ,h4 ,grtzmacher1 ,ist das liberale  
,jesusbild modern8 #aijg4