Part 15 (2/2)
”The Christian idealization demands that all imperfections in the New-Testament Jesus shall be ascribed to the misapprehensions of the disciples and the ignorance of the biographers. It is confident that Jesus must have been greater than the record shows. But we do not know that he was even so great as the record shows. We are confidently told that such an ideal as can be there discerned presupposes its actual-that no man could have drawn such a character except from life. 'Such a grand figure is not hewn out of air.' But it is quite possible to carry this kind of divination too far.
”If a man could be that, why could not a man or an age conceive that it ought to be? All that can fairly be a.s.sumed is, that there must have been an impressive life (or lives) behind all the construction; and this is not denied. But the necessities of the religious life in that time produced Jesus. Why could they not magnify their own product and improve upon it ideally as they developed into new and larger demands? If we are to insist that the idealizing faculty cannot go beyond actuality, no meaning will be left to the word ideal, and no such faculty will remain.
This is the irony to which the old belief comes....
”A pure and simple wors.h.i.+p of the Infinite and Eternal is the necessity of philosophy; it is the goal of science; it is the true ground of trust and prayer and love, of philosophic Theism and spiritual Pantheism alike; it is the parent of prophets, of mystics, of reformers, of all true builders of man's social unity and religious communion.”
No reasonable man can doubt that the Christ of Paul and the Gospels is largely, if not altogether, ideal; and in the succeeding chapter we proceed to give more specifically our reasons for thinking so.
CHAPTER XII. JESUS AND OTHER CHRISTS
_”Come now, let us reason together.”-Isa. 1:18._
_”Let me reason the case with thee.”-Jer. 12: 1._
THAT there should be held so many different views concerning the character and work of Christ is itself a very suggestive circ.u.mstance.
It implies that the evidence in the case is not direct and clear, and that there are grounds for doubt and uncertainty. That honest, well-meaning men should be left in doubt regarding the most wonderful event in history, involving their salvation, is still more astounding.
One would suppose that if so wonderful an event as the incarnation of G.o.d had taken place it would have been made so manifest that the most skeptical could not doubt it. There seems to have been great neglect or indifference regarding the matter. Contemporaneous history takes no notice of Jesus, and the biographies that we have of him cannot be shown to have had an existence until nearly two centuries after he is said to have made his advent; and Paul, who had written concerning him before these Gospels were compiled, was so ambiguous that the most learned theologians differ as to whether he regarded the Christ as an actual person or merely an impersonation. The early records of the life of Christ, if any existed, seem to have been destroyed or lost, and there are no original doc.u.ments nor authenticated copies of such records.
There can be no true faith, no genuine intelligent belief, without evidence; and where is the evidence? To believe without some reason for believing is blind credulity. The most intelligent Christian writers do not even pretend to have any doc.u.ments relating to the existence of Jesus that by any strain of language can be called evidence.
Neander, an eminent Christian writer, author of a _Life of Christ_, acknowledges in so many words his painful consciousness of the utter lack of historic evidence in regard to him, his acts, and wonderful performances. He demands, as an imperative necessity, to be permitted at the beginning to take the most important matters for granted. He asks: ”What, then, is the special presupposition with which we must approach the life of Christ? It is, in a word, the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of G.o.d in a sense that cannot be predicated of any human being, the truth that Christ is G.o.d-man being presupposed.” Neander, by making this confession, surrenders the whole question. There is no direct evidence of the existence of such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, and all fair-minded, intelligent Christian writers admit it. What is called evidence is found only in the short sketches of the New Testament, which have been shown to be no evidence at all.
We might rest the case here. It is admitted that it cannot be _proved_ that Jesus existed, and when we undertake to show to the contrary we undertake to prove a negative-a thing which is never required in a court of justice. Yet we do undertake it, and reverently invite the reader to impartially consider the points in our case.
There is in the biography of Jesus an utter want of _originality_. It is a copy of other lives. It is a significant fact that all the princ.i.p.al claims made for Jesus of Nazareth had been made for others long before him. We can only mention a few.
The birth of Buddha, like the birth of Jesus, was announced in the heavens by an asterism on the horizon which is singularly called the ”Messianic star.” When Chrishna was born his star was pointed out by Nared, a great astronomer.
The birth of every East Indian _avatar_ was announced by celestial signs. Even the Jews have similar traditions regarding Moses and Abraham. Canon Farrar admits in his _Life of Christ_ that the Greeks and Romans always held this idea of the birth and death of great men being presaged by mysterious stars, and Tacitus affirms this regarding the dethronement of Nero. All candid theologians admit that this doctrine of the announcement of the birth of extraordinary persons by the appearance of stars was a universal belief among ancient peoples.
Luke is the only evangelist who records the fact that the birth of Jesus was attended with the songs of angels from the heavenly world, and there is good reason for believing that this professed compiler drew his information from the apocryphal Gospel called ”Protevangelion.” But there is nothing novel in this idea, for the same thing had long before been recorded of Chrishna at his birth, that ”the quarters of the horizon were irradiate with joy,”... that ”the spirits and nymphs of heaven danced and sang, and at midnight the clouds emitted low pleasing sounds and poured down rain of flowers.” It is only necessary here to state that similar demonstrations are alleged to have attended the advent of other Hindoo saviors, and also of Confucius, of Osiris, of Apollonius, of Apollo, of Hercules, and of Esculapius.
It is certainly very singular that all the circ.u.mstances connected with the birth of Jesus are recorded of several other persons long before.
Chrishna was cradled among shepherds, to whom his birth was first announced, and the prophet Nared visited his father and mother and declared the child to be of divine descent. An aged hermit named Asita, like Simeon of our Gospels, visited the infant Buddha and predicted wonderful things of his life and mission, and wept because he was too old to see the day. Not only was the infant Chrishna adored by the shepherds and magi, but was presented with ”gifts of sandal-wood and perfume,” very like ”frankincense and myrrh;” and he was also presented with gifts of ”costly jewels and precious substances,” very like ”gold.”
Substantially the same things are recorded of Mithras, the Persian savior, of Socrates, and many of the Grecian and Roman demiG.o.ds.
It must suffice it to say that these incidents are too numerous and circ.u.mstantial to be mere coincidences. King Kansa was jealous of the infant Chrishna, and ordered a general slaughter of the infants under a certain age and in a# certain district, just as Herod is falsely charged with having done when Jesus was born; and as Joseph and Mary were warned in a dream to flee into Egypt to save the young child's life, so the foster-father of Chrishna was warned of danger by a ”heavenly voice,”
and he was taken to Mathura; and Canon Farrar, speaking of the sojourn of Joseph, Mary, and the infant Jesus in Egypt, writes: ”Ancient legends say that they remained two years absent from Palestine, and lived at Matarieh, a few miles northeast of Cairo.” This seems to be the same legend, but the one regarding Chrishna is sculptured upon the rocks and temples of India, while contemporary history makes no mention of the slaughter of the innocents by Herod; and further embarra.s.sment arises from the fact that Herod was not king at that time, as the taxing under Quirinus did not take place under the reign of Herod, he having been dead for several years.
It would be easy to present more than a score of instances in which persons who came to be regarded as demiG.o.ds and heroes had been obliged to flee from the wrath of the reigning monarch at their birth, as is recorded of the infant Jesus. In all centuries of olden times the reigning monarch has generally been jealous of some mysterious child, whose parents or caretakers were obliged to hide him away in some safe resort.
The long fast and temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, found in the Gospel ”according” to Matthew, have numerous parallels in the experience of other Messiahs, even in minor details. The fast generally, as in the case of Moses, the Ninevites, and Jesus, lasted forty days, but that of Buddha continued forty-seven days, and in his weakness and attenuation of body he was tempted by _Mara_, the prince of evil, who promised him all the kingdoms of the earth, ”universal empire,” on certain conditions; but, like Jesus, he said, ”Avaunt! get thee away from me!”
After the temptation and triumph both Buddha and Jesus were ministered unto by visiting angels! Zoroaster, the founder of the Persian religion, had a similar experience with the devil, of which there are fully detailed reports.
Both Chrishna and Jesus were precocious boys, disputing with doctors and astonis.h.i.+ng their teachers with their learning, which had not been acquired in the usual way; and both wandered away from their parents and became objects of anxiety and search to anxious mothers. Both preached a celebrated sermon, wrought numerous and very similar miracles, were hated and opposed by the priests of their day, and both suffered premature violent deaths at about the same age, and then arose from the dead.
<script>