CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE GIFT OF ALFRED C. BARNES 1899 Cornell University Library BS2940.T5 R65 Jesus problem: a restatement of the myth 3 1924 029 296 147 olin Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029296147 THE JESUS PEOBLEM BY THE SAME AtJTHOE THE HISTORICAL JESUS : A Survey of Positions. CHRISTIANITY AND MYTHOLOGY. Second edition. PAGAN CHRISTS. Second edition. A SHORT HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. Second edition. A SHORT HISTORY OF FREETHOUGHT. 2 vols. Third edition. RATIONALISM. THE DYNAMICS OF RELIGION. (Out'of print.) STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS FALLACY. (Out of print.) XETTERS ON REASONING. Second edition. THE JESUS PROBLEM A RESTATEMENT OE THE MYTH THEORY BY J. M. ROBERTSON, M.P. [issued for the rationalist press association, limited]" London : WATTS & CO., 17 JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.G. 4 1917 . conteis:ts PAGE Prefatory Note ..... vii Chapter I.—THE APPROACH . Chapter II.—THE CENTRAL MYTH 24 § 1. The Ground of Conflict . 24 §2. The Sacrificial Rite . 31 § 3. Contingent Elements 39 § 4. The Mock-King Ritual 50 § 5. Doctrinal Additions . 53 § 6. Minor Ritual and Myth Elements 57 §7. The Cross .... 61 § 8. The Suffering Messiah 64 §9. The Rock Tomb 67 § 10. The Resurrection 70 Chapter III.—ROOTS OF THE MYTH 72 § 1. Historical Data 72 § 2. Prototypes .... 91 § 3. The Mystery-Drama 96 Chapter IV.—EVOLUTION OF THE CULT 107 § ] . The Primary Impulsion 107 § 2. The Silence of Josephus . 121 § 3. The Myth of the Twelve Apostles . 126 § 4. The Process of Propaganda 135 § 5. Real Determinants .... 148 Chapter V.—ORGANIZATION AND ECONOMICS 157 § 1. The Economic Side ..... 157 § 2. Organization .... 162 Chapter VI.—EARLY BOOK-MAKING . 170 §1. The "Didach^" 170 § 2. The Apocalypse .... 173 §3. Epistles 176 vi CONTENTS PAGE Chaptek VII.—gospel-making 18^ § 1. Tradition . 182 §2. Schmiedel's Tests 188 §3. Tendential Tests . 192 § 4. Historic Summary ........ 202 Chapter VIII.—SUPPLEMENTARY MYTH . 207 § L Myths of Healing ... ... 207 ' § 2. Birth Myths . .209 §3. Minor Myths ... .... 217 Chapter IX.—CONCLUSION 223 Appendix A.—TRANSLATION OE "THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES," WITH NOTES . .235 Appendix B.—THE MYTH OF SIMON MAGUS . 248 Index . 261 PREFATORY NOTE Most of the propositions in mythology and anthropology in this book are founded on bodies of evidence given in the larger works of the author. It seemed fitting, there- fore, to refer to those works instead of repeating hundreds of references there given. Readers concerned to in- vestigate the issues are thus invited and enabled to do so. For brevity's sake, Christianity and Mythology is cited as CM. ; Pagan Christs as P.C. ; and the Short Histories of Christianity and Freethought as S.H.C. and S.H.F. respectively. In the first three cases the references are to the second editions ; in the last case, to the third. The Evolution of States is cited as E.S. Another work often referred to is Sir J. G. Frazer's great thesaurus, The Golden Bough, which is cited as G.B., the references being to the last edition. Other new references are given in the usual way. The Ecce Deus of Professor W. B. Smith is cited in the English edition. Passages in brackets, in unleaded type, may be passed at a first perusal by readers concerned mainly to follow the constructive theory. Such passages deal contro- versially with counter-polemic. THE JESUS PEOBLEM Chapter I THE APPROACH As was explained in the preamble to The Historical Jesus (1916), that work was offered as prolegomena to a concise restatement of the theory that the Gospel Jesus is a mythical construction. That theory had been dis- cursively expounded by the writer in two large volumes, Christianity and Mythology and Pagan Christs, and summarily in A Short History of Christianity, the argument in the two former combining a negative criticism of the New Testament narrative with an exposition of the myth-evidence. Criticism having in large part taken the form of a denial that the records were unhistorical, it was necessary to clear the ground by showing that all the various attempts of the past generation to find in the gospels a historical residuum have entirely failed to meet critical tests. Those attempts, conflicting as they do with each other, and collapsing as they do in themselves, give undesigned support to the conclusion that the gospel story is without historic basis. It remains to restate with equal brevity the myth- theory which, long ago propounded on a very narrow basis, has latterly been re-developed in the light of modem mythology and anthropology, and has in recent years THE JESUS PROBLEM found rapidly increasing acceptance. Inevitably the different lines of approach have involved varieties of speculation ; Professors Drews and W. B. Smith have ably and independently developed the theory in various ways ; and a conspectus and restatement has become necessary for the sake of the theory itself no less than for the sake of those readers who call for a condensed statement. This in turn is in itself tentative. If the progressive analysis of the subject matter from the point of view of its historicity has meant a century and a half of debate and an immense special literature, it is not to be supposed that the theory which negates the fundamental assump- tions of that literature can be fully developed and estab- lished in one lifetime, at the hands of a few writers. The " " problem What really happened ? is in fact a far wider one for the advocate of the myth-theory than for the critic who undertakes to extract a biography from the documents. In its first form, as propounded by Dupuis and Volney, the myth-theory was confined simply to certain parallelisms between Christian and Pagan myth, and to the astronomical basis of a number of these. From this standpoint the actual historic inception of the cult was little considered. Strauss, again, developed with great power and precision the view that most of the detail in the gospel narrative is myth construction on the lines of Jewish prophecy and dogma. But Strauss never fully accepted the myth-theory, having always assumed the existence of a teacher as a nucleus for the whole. As apart from the continuators of Dupuis and Volney, it was Bruno Bauer who, setting out with the purpose of extracting a biography from the gospels, and finding no standing ground, first propounded a myth- theory from that point of view. ; THE APPROACH His construction, being the substantially arbitrary one of a hypothetical evangelist who created a myth and thereby founded the cultus, naturally made no headway and its artificiality strengthened the hands of those who claimed to work inductively on the documents. It was by reason of a similar failure to find a historic footing where he had at first taken it for granted that the present writer was gradually led, on lines of comparative hierology and comparative mythology and anthropology, to the conception of the evolution of the Jesus -cult from the roots of a " pre-Christian " one. The fact that this view has been independently reached by such a student as Professor W. B. Smith, who approached the problem from within rather than by way of the comparative method, seems in itself a very important confirmation. What is now to be done is to revise the general theory in the light of further study as well as of the highly important expositions of it by Professor Smith and other scholars. An attempt is now definitely made not merely to combine concisely the evidence for a pre-Christian Jesus-cult, but to show how that historically grew into *' Christianity/' thus substituting a defensible historical view for a mythic narrative of beginnings. And this, of course, is a heavy undertaking. The question, ''What do you put in its place? " is often addressed to the destructive critic of a belief, not with any philosophic perception of the fact that com- plete removal is effected only by putting a tested or tenable judgment in place of an untested or untenable one, but with a sense of injury, as if a false belief were a personal possession, for the removal of which there must be " compensation." In point of fact, the destructive process is rarely attempted without a coincident process of substitution. Even to say that a particular text is THE JESUS PROBLEM spurious is to say that some one forged or inserted it " where it is, for a purpose. That concept is something in its place." Some Comtists, again, are wont to commit the contradiction of affirming that ''no belief is really destroyed without replacement," and, in the next breath, of condemning rationalists who '' destroy without replacing." Both propositions cannot stand. If it be meant merely to insist that explanation is replacement, and that explanation is a necessary part of a successful or complete process of destruction, the answer is that it is hardly possible even to attempt to cancel a belief without putting a different belief in its place ; and that it is nearly always by way of positing a new belief that an old one is assailed. The old charge against rationalism, of " destroying without building up," is historically quite false. Almost invariably, the innovator has offered a new doctrine or conception in place of the old. True, it might not be ostensibly an equivalent, for the believer who wanted an equivalent in kind. An exploded God-idea is not for me replaceable " " by another God-idea : the only rational replacement is a substitution of a reasoned for an authoritarian cosmology and ethic.