by John G. Jackson (1907 - 1993)
Originally
published in 1941
Part Two: The Christ Myth
The
triumph of the doctrine of evolution has reconciled the more literate
Christians to the non-historicity of Adam. As the historicity of Jesus,
however, is now widely questioned, even the most liberal defenders of the faith
find themselves in a very uncomfortable position, being belabored by both
fundamentalists and ultra-rationalists alike. After surrendering the
theological Christ, the liberal Christian apologist finds out, much to his
chagrin, that practically nothing is known about the historical Jesus. Our
chief sources of information concerning Jesus Christ are the so-called genuine
Pauline Epistles and references to Jesus by Jewish and pagan writers, but most
of these are of extremely doubtful authenticity.
There
is a famous passage in The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Jesephus,1 in which reference is made to
Jesus Christ, but it is generally regarded as a forgery, even by Christian
scholars. The passage is not mentioned by any Christian writer before Eusebius,
in the early part of the fourth century.
Cornelius
Tacitus, the Roman historian, in his celebrated Annals,2 refers to the burning of Rome
in 64 A.D. and the Neroian persecution of the
Christians. He describes them as a "vast multitude" and says that the
cult was founded by Christus, who was punished as a
criminal by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. Eusebius3 made a list of Jewish and
pagan references to Christianity, but Tactus is not
mentioned by him. In fact, the passage in question was not quoted by any
Christian writer before the fifteenth century. Pliny the younger, proconsul of
Bithynia, wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor Tragan
(early second century), in which he reported the presence in his province of a
group of people who gathered before daybreak on a certain day and sang hymns to
Christ as a god. There is no evidence that this Christ was the Jesus of the
Gospels. The Emperor Hadrian in a letter to the Consul Servianus
(A.D. 134), asserts that the worshippers of the sun-god Serapis,
in Egypt, were Christians, and that these sun-worshippers called themselves
"Bishops of Christ." The worship of Serapis
was imported into Egypt from Pontus, a province bordering on Bithynia. The
Christians mentioned by Pliny the Younger4 were in all probability
worshippers of Serapis.
Suetonius5 in his "Life of
Claudius" relates that "He (Claudius) drove the Jews, who at the
instigation of Christas were constantly rioting, out
of Rome." This is said to have taken place about fifteen years after the
crucifixion of Jesus. So Chistas could hardly have
been Jesus Christ. Philo, an eminent Jewish philosopher and historian, was a
contemporary of Christ, but makes no mention of Jesus. Philo developed the
doctrine of the Logos, and although according to Christian theology Jesus
Christ was the Logos, he was not aware of the identity. Justus of Tiberias, a native of Galilee, wrote a history covering the
period in which Justus is said to have lived, but does not in any instance call
the name of the Christ. The works of Justus have now all perished, but they
were read by Photius, a Christian bishop and scholar,
of Constantinople (ninth century). Says Photius:
"He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of
what things happened to him, or of the wonderful work that he did.6 The paucity of our information
concerning the Christian savior is concisely expressed by Mr. Robert Keable, in his work, The Great Galilean:
No
man knows sufficient of the early life of Jesus to write a biography of him.
For that matter, no one knows enough for the normal Times obituary notice of a
great man. If regard were had to what we should call, in correct speech,
definitely historical facts, scarcely three lines could be filled. Moreover, if
newspapers had been in existence, and if that obituary notice had had to be
written in the year of his death, no editor could have found in the literature
of his day so much as his name. Yet few periods of the ancient world were so
well documented as the period of Augustus and Tiberius. But no contemporary
knew of his existence. Even a generation later, a spurious passage in Josephus,
a questionable reference in Suetonius, and the mention of a name that may be
his by Tacitus—that is all. His first mention in any surviving document,
secular or religious, is twenty years after.
The
so-called genuine Pauline Epistles, in the New Testament, are Romans, 1 and 2
Corinthians, and Galatians. The other letters attributed to St. Paul are
regarded as spurious. The genuine Epistles were written from about A.D. 52 to
64.
The
dates of origin of the Four Gospels have been estimated as follows: Mark—A.D.
70 to 100; Luke—about A.D. 100; Matthew—A.D. 100 to 110; John—sometime between
A.D. 100 and 160. That these Gospels stories are replete with inaccuracies and
contradictions is obvious to all who read with a discerning eye. In Mathew 2:1,
we are told that Jesus Christ was born "in the days of Herod." But in
Luke 2:2, were are told that the Christ child first saw the light of day,
"when Cyrenious was governor of Syria."
There is here a discrepancy of at least ten years, for Herod died in the year
4. B.C. while Cyrenius, or Quirinius,
as he is known in Roman history, did not become governor of Syria until the
year A.D. 7. According to the Rev. Dr. Giles, in his Hebrew and Christian
Records: "We have no clue to either the day or the time of year, or even
the year itself, in which Christ was born." Matthew 1:6–16 lists
twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus while Luke 3:23–38 tabulates
forty-three. According to John, Jesus visited Jerusalem at least four times,
but the Synoptics (Mark, Luke and Matthew) assure us
that he journeyed to that city only once. As to the length of the Jesus'
ministry the Synoptics say one year, but John says at
least three years. From the Synoptical account, we
gather that the savior carried out his work chiefly in Galilee, but John
informs us that Judea was the principal theater of the ministry of Christ.
The
hour of the crucifixion is likewise uncertain. One account fixes the time at
the third hour (9 A.M.).7 Another account says it
occurred at about the sixth hour (Noon).8 It is alleged that Jesus
predicted that he would sojourn in the tomb for three days and three nights.9 But in the Synoptic accounts
of the event, as it is said to have actually happened, the time is given as two
nights and one day, i.e., one day and a half.
Should
we inquire as to who visited the tomb first, we receive four different answers.
John says one woman; Mathew, two women; Mark, three women; and Luke, a crowd of
women. When we ask whom did the women meet at the tomb, we again receive four
replies. Matthew asserts that they saw one angel, whereas Mark declares it was
one young man. According to Luke, the women saw two men. And John says that
they saw two angels. These women also saw Jesus, if we believe Matthew (chapter
28). If we give credence to Like (chapter 24), the women did not see Jesus.
Nor
do these inspired scribes display unanimity regarding the number of days
between the resurrection and the ascension. The elapsed time was only one day,
if we follow Luke, and at least ten days if we take the work of John. The Book
of Acts extends the period to forty days. Since both the Gospel according to
Luke and the Book of Acts are said to have been written by the Author, these
discrepancies are very puzzling, to say the least. According to Holy Writ,
Jesus the Christ terminated his earthy pilgrimage by ascending to heaven. The
exact location of his departure, it seems, it unknown. The ascension took place
in Jerusalem, if Mark wrote correctly. Not so, if Luke knew whereof he spoke,
for he relates that it was at Bethany. Acts (1:12) gives Mt. Olivet as the
scene of the momentous event. Let it be noted that Matthew and John make no
mention of the ascension; that it occurs in Mark in the Spurious Addendum (the
last twelve verses, which were not in the original manuscript), and that Luke's
version does not appear in the Codes Sinaiticus, a
fourth-century manuscript now in the British Museum. The Gospel writers advance
three views as to the nature of Jesus. Mark regards him as the Son of Man.
Matthew and Luke hail him as the Son of God, while John recognizes him as God
himself.
A
consideration of pagan parallels will put the Gospel records in a clearer
light. Let us become as little children, and travel backwards in time, with a
venerable bishop as our guide:
Suppose
you had been a child living in Rome 1940 years ago; that is, a few years before
Jesus is supposed to have been born. About a week before December twenty-fifth,
you could have found everybody preparing for a great feast, just as they do in
Europe today. To those Romans December twenty-fifth was the birthday of the
sun. They wrote that in gold letters in their calendar. Every year about that
time, the middle of winter, the sun was born once more and it was going to put
an end to the darkness and misery of winter. So they had a great feast, with
presents and dolls for everybody, and the best day of all was December
twenty-fifth. That feast, they would tell you, was thousands of years old—before
Christ was ever heard of. …
Just
outside Rome there was an underground temple of the Persian God Mithra. Well, at midnight, the first minute of December
twenty-fifth, you would have seen that temple all lit up with candles, and
priests in white garments at the altar, and boys burning incense; exactly as
you will see in a Roman Catholic church at midnight on December twenty-fourth
in our own time. And the worshippers of Mithra would
have told you that Mithra was a good God who had come
from heaven to be born as a man and redeem men from their sins; and he was born
in a dark cave or stable on December twenty-fifth.
Then
suppose you asked somebody where the Egyptians who lived in Rome had their
temple. You would have found these also celebrating the birth of their saviour-god Horus who was born of a virgin in a stable on
December twenty-fifth. In the temple you would find a statue of figure of the
infant-god Horus lying in a manger, and a statue of his virgin-mother Isis
standing beside it; just as in a Roman Catholic church on Christmas day you
will find a stable or cave rigged up and the infant Jesus in a manger and a
figure of Mary beside it.
Then
you might go to the Greek temple, and find them paying respect to the figure of
their saviour-god in a manger or cradle. And if you
found the quarters of the gladiators, the war-captives from Germany, you would
have found these also holding a feast, and they would explain that December
twenty-fifth (or mid-winter) was, all over Europe, the great feast of Yule, or the
Wheel, which means that the sun had turned back, like a wheel, and was going
once more to redeem men from the hell of winter to the heaven of summer.10
Footnotes:
1. Flavius Josephus (ca A.D. 37–A.D.
100), Jewish historian, The Works of Flavius Josephus: Comprising the
Antiquities of he Jews; A History of the Jewish Wars;
and Life of Flavius Josephus, written by himself, 2 vols. Trans. William Whiston (Philadelphia: Jas. B. Smith & Co., 1859).
2. Cornelius Tacitus (ca 56—ca 120),
Roman historians Annals, trans. Arthur Murphy (London; Jones & Co., 1830).
3. Eusebius (ca 260—ca 339),
theologian and church historian, bishop of Caesarea, Eccliesiastical
History, trans. C. F. Cruse (London: George Bell & Sons, 1874).
4. Gaius Plinius
Caecilius Secundus [Pliny
the ] Younger (A.D. 61 [or 62]–ca A.D. 113) "Letters to the Emperor
Trajan," Letters of The Younger Pliny, 2 vols. (1978 reprint;
Philadelphia: R. West).
5. G. Suetonius Tranquillus
(ca A.D. 69–after 122), Roman biographer and historian, Lives of the First
Caesars (reprint 1976; New York: AMS Press, 1970).
6. Photius
(ca 820–891), patriarch of Constantinople (858–876 and 878–886), Codices.
7. Mark 15:25.
8. Luke 23:44.
9. Matthew 12:40.
10. Bishop William Montgomery Brown,
Science and History for Girls and Boys (Galion, OH: The Bradford-Brown
Educational Company, 1932), pp. 138–139.f\