"And there was a man whose right hand was withered, and he said, I was a mason, seeking sustenance by my hands. I beseech thee, Jesus, that thou restore me to health that I may not shamefully beg for food. And Jesus healed him.
"And it was told to him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without.
"And he answered, Who is my mother and brethren?
"And he stretched out his hand over the disciples, and said, These are my brethren and mother that do the wishes of my Father.
"And behold there came to him two rich men. And one said, Good master.
"But he said, Call me not good, for he that is good is one, the Father in the heavens.
"The other of the rich men said to him, Master, what good thing shall I do and live?
"He said unto him, Man, perform the law and the prophets.
"He answered him, I have performed them.
"He said unto him, Go, sell all that thou hast and divide it with the poor, and come, follow me.
"But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not.
"And the Lord said unto him, How sayest thou, I have performed the law and the prophets? seeing that it is written in the law Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. And behold many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are clad with dung, dying for hunger, and thy house is full of much goods, and there goeth from it nought unto them.
"And he turned and said to Simon, his disciple, sitting by him, Simon, son of John, it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom of the heavens."
THE "SAYINGS OF OUR LORD." (Justin Martyr.)
"Love your enemies. Be kind and merciful as your heavenly Father is.
"To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other, and him that taketh away thy cloak or thy coat forbid not. And whosoever shall be angry shall be in danger of the fire. And every one that compelleth thee to go with him a mile follow him two. And let your good works shine before men, that they, seeing them, may glorify your Father which is in heaven.
"Give to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow, turn not away. For if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what new thing do ye? Even the publicans do this. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and where thieves break through, but lay up for yourself treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt. For what is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? And what shall a man give in exchange for it? Lay up, therefore, treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself.
"Swear not at all, but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil.
"If ye love them that love you, what new thing do ye? For even fornicators do this. But I say unto you, pray for your enemies, and love them that hate you, and bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you.
"There are some who have been made eunuchs of menand some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying.
"If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter the kingdom of heaven with one eye than having two eyes to be cast into everlasting fire.
"Whoso looketh on a woman to lust after her committeth adultery with her already in his heart before God.
"Whoso shall marry that is divorced from another husband committeth adultery.
"I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
"Fear not them that kill you and after that can do no more, but fear him who after death is able to cast both soul and body into hell.
"Except ye be born again, verily ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.
"The children of this world marry and are given in marriage, but the children of the world to come neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels in heaven.
"Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise and shall deceive many of the faithful.
"Beware of false prophets, who shall come to you clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
"And he overthrew the money-changers, and exclaimed, Woe unto ye scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because ye pay tithe of mint and rue but do not observe the love of God and justice. Ye whited sepulchres, appearing beautiful outwardly, butare within full of dead men's bones. Woe unto ye scribes, for ye have the keys, and ye do not enter in yourselves, and them that are entering in ye hinder. Ye blind guides, ye are become twofold more the children of hell.
"The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist. From that time the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
"And if you can receive it, he is Elijah who was to come. He that hath ears to hear let him hear.
"Elijah must come and restore all things. But I say unto you, Elijah is already come, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatever they chose. Then the disciples understood that he spake to them about John the Baptist.
"The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and scribes, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
"Not every one who saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. For whosoever heareth me and doeth my sayings, heareth him that sent me. And many will say unto me, Lord. Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in thy name and done wonders? And then will I say unto them, Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity. Then shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when the righteous shall shine like the sun, and the wicked are sent into everlasting fire. For many shall come in my name clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly being ravening wolves. By their works ye shallknow them. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.
"I give you power to tread on serpents and on scorpions and on scolopendras, and on all the might of the enemy.
"They shall come from the East and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness.
"There is none good but God only, who made all things.
"No man knoweth the Father but the Son, nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth him.
"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and no sign shall be given it save the sign of Jonah.
"Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's.
"In whatsoever things I shall apprehend you, in those also will I judge you."
SAYINGS FROM THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS.
"I have come to abolish sacrifices; and if ye do not cease to sacrifice, the wrath of God against you will not cease.
"Be ye approved money-changers.
"No servant can serve two masters. If we wish to serve both God and Mammon it is unprofitable to us.
"I am not come to take away from the law of Moses, nor add to the law of Moses am I come.
"It is blessed to give rather than to receive.
"Keep the mysteries for me and for the sons of my house.
"I am not come to call the just, but sinners.
"There is not thank to you if ye love them that love you; but there is thank to you if ye love your enemies and them that hate you.
"For there shall be false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, heresies, lovings of rule.
"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that doeth righteousness.
"If ye have been gathered with me into my bosom, and do not my commandments, I will cast you away and will say unto you, Depart from me, I know not whence ye are, workers of iniquity.
"And the Lord said, Ye shall be as lambkins in the midst of wolves. And Peter answered and said, If then the wolves rend the lambkins asunder? Jesus said to Peter, Let not the lambkins after they are dead fear the wolves. And do ye not fear them that kill you and can do nought unto you. But fear him who, after you are dead, hath authority over soul and body to cast into the Gehenna of fire.
"Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and bore me up to the great mountain of Tabor.
"He that hath marvelled shall reign, and he that hath reigned shall rest.
"I am he concerning whom Moses prophesied, saying, A prophet will the Lord our God raise unto you from your brethren even as me. Him hear ye in all things, for whosoever heareth not that prophet shall die."
Here is the account of the woman taken in adultery afterwards borrowed by John:—
"And they went each to his own house, and Jesus went to the Mount of Olives."And at dawn he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him; and having sat down, he taught them."And the scribes and the Pharisees brought up a woman taken up for adultery."And having placed her in the midst, they said to him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken up in adultery, in the very act;"And in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What therefore dost thou say?"And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereby to accuse him."But Jesus having bent down, kept writing with his finger upon the ground."But as they continued asking him, he unbent and said to them, Let the sinless one of you first cast against her the stone. And having bent down again he kept writing on the ground."But they having heard, went out one by one, beginning from the elder ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman."And Jesus having unbent, said to her, Mistress, where are they? Hath none condemned thee?"And she said, None, sir. And Jesus said, Neither will I condemn thee, go and from this time sin no more."
"And they went each to his own house, and Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
"And at dawn he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him; and having sat down, he taught them.
"And the scribes and the Pharisees brought up a woman taken up for adultery.
"And having placed her in the midst, they said to him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken up in adultery, in the very act;
"And in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What therefore dost thou say?
"And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereby to accuse him.
"But Jesus having bent down, kept writing with his finger upon the ground.
"But as they continued asking him, he unbent and said to them, Let the sinless one of you first cast against her the stone. And having bent down again he kept writing on the ground.
"But they having heard, went out one by one, beginning from the elder ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman.
"And Jesus having unbent, said to her, Mistress, where are they? Hath none condemned thee?
"And she said, None, sir. And Jesus said, Neither will I condemn thee, go and from this time sin no more."
The evidence accumulates. Justin gives the voicefrom the sky exactly as it is given in the Gospel of the Apostles.
"Thou art my son. This day have I begotten thee."
He then proceeds to argue against an heretical theory that these words meant that Jesus was the Son of God on receipt of the Holy Spirit at baptism, and not before. But that is plainly the meaning of the passage, for the Ebionites "assert," says Hippolytus, "that our Lord was a man in like sense with all." (L. vii. 2). This is so patent that our first gospel has changed the words to "in thee I am well pleased." Had Justin known the false Matthew's false version, he would have quoted it eagerly instead of taking the trouble to refute the heretics.
I come to a second piece of evidence. In the lives of Krishna, Râma, Buddha, etc., many incidents are plainly inserted as authority for rites. Thus Buddha has his hair cut off by the god Indra, and receives the Abhisheka (baptism) at the hands of the heavenly host; and true Buddhists are expected to imitate him in this. The baptism of the early church was called φωτισμός [Greek: phôtismos] (Illumination), Justin tells us; and in the Coptic Church, as in Buddhism, the lighting of a taper is still a part of the ceremony. Now Justin informs us that a light was kindled on the Jordan on the occasion of Christ's baptism. It is plain again here that he is quoting from the Gospel according to the Apostles, and not from our gospels, who have cut out this light altogether.
Here is another strong piece of evidence. The Gospel according to the Apostles had a passage about"false Christs, false prophets, falseapostles." Justin also has a passage about "false Christs, falseapostles" This is most important, as it refers to St. Paul. Renan shows that in the original Gospel according to the Hebrews, there must have been more than one attack on this "false apostle." He is "the enemy" who sowed tares amongst the gospel wheat. The "enemy" was his nickname with the Church of Jerusalem. Pseudo Matthew softens this to "the devil," and cuts out the "false apostle" altogether. It is plain that Justin is not quoting from him.
Renan refers to another attack on St. Paul from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
"People have prophesied and cast out devils in the name of Jesus. Jesus openly repudiates them, because they have "practised illegality.""(Les Evangiles, chap. vi.)
Stronger still is this. Justin records that when the question was put to Christ, "Show us a sign!" he answered, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and no sign shall be given them, save the sign of Jonah." Justin goes on to say that Jesus "spoke this obscurely" (Trypho, ch. vii.), and he explains the meaning of the sign. Had he possessed our Matthew, he could not possibly have done this, for in the 40th verse of the twelfth chapter, Jesus, instead of "speaking obscurely," explains that Jonah's three days' sojourn in the whale's belly typifies his own three days' sojourn in the tomb.
In many other points Justin's "Memoirs of the Apostles" differ from our gospels.
"For an ass's foal was standing at a certain entranceto a village, tied to a vine." Our gospels know nothing about the vine incident when they narrate the story of Christ's entry to Jerusalem. Justin says that Jesus wrought amongst yokes and ploughs. Of this our gospels know nothing.
He says, too, that Jesus was born in a cave. (Trypho, ch. lxxviii.) The First Gospel of the Infancy confirms him here.
"The Magifrom Arabiacame to Bethlehem and worshipped the child." (H. Trypho, ch. lxxviii.) Here again Justin is plainly using some other gospel. Our gospels know nothing of the Magi coming from Arabia.
There is one passage used in the conventional defence to show that Justin knew the fourth gospel also, but Dr. Abbott, in the "Encyclopædia Britannica," holds that this is impossible.
"Except ye be born again, verily ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."
It is so obvious that baptism is a new birth, that the Brahmins have been the "twice born" from time immemorial. The Buddhist Abhisheka too is called the "whole birth." Baptism must have been compared to a birth in the young Christian Church from an early date. And if Justin had known Christ's explanations about the birth from water and the Spirit, he could have scarcely wandered on like this. "Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to re-enter the wombs of those that bear them, is evident to all."
But there is a more overwhelming argument. Justin was a Platonic philosopher converted to Christianity, as he thought. But in the view of the sober Dr. Lamson, he brought with him into the fold Philo's doctrine of the Logos. It does not appear in Christianity until his date. This Logos, according to Justin and to Philo, was a distinct being, a second God. And in Justin's dialogue with Trypho, he tries to prove all this, enlisting three times into his argument the passage, "No man knoweth the Father but the Son." (Varied in Matt. xi. 27). Is it conceivable that if he had had at his command the opening verses of the fourth gospel, and believed them to be by an apostle of Christ, he would have spared Trypho the infliction of them? The poor Jew would have heard of nothing else.
But a new witness has surged up, coming, as it were, from the tomb. I allude to the fragment of the Gospel of Peter. Justin writes:—
"For also, as said the prophet, mocking him, they placed him on atribunal, and said, Give judgment to us." Our gospels know nothing of the incident of thetribunal, nor of the mocking speech recorded by Justin. "Let him who raised the dead save himself." Now, the newly-discovered Gospel of Peter says that they did place Christ on the judgment-seat in mockery. It affirms also at the end that it was inspired by the twelve disciples, just like the Gospel of the Hebrews.
In point of fact, the traditional argument of the advocates of the miraculous origin of our four gospels goes practically on the hypothesis that only these four gospels were in existence in Justin's time. But Dr. Giles shows that Christendom at this period wasflooded with spurious gospels, spurious "revelations," spurious "epistles." He cites from Lucian an account of a contemporary of Justin, one Peregrinus, who murdered his father.
"Consigning himself to exile, he took to flight, and wandered about from one country to another. At this time it was that he learnt the wonderful philosophy of the Christians, having kept company with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And what was the end of it? In a short time he showed them to be mere children, for he became a prophet, a leader of their processions, the marshaller of their meetings, and everything in himself alone.
"And of their books, he explained and cleared up some, and wrote many himself; and they deemed him a god, made use of him as a legislator, and enrolled him as their patron." ("Hebrew and Christian Records," p. 82.)
Irenæus bears the same testimony. "But in addition to these things, they introduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which themselves have forged, to the consternation of those that are foolish, and who do not know the writings of the truth." (Hœr. i. 19.)
But worse than the composition of imaginary gospels is the falsification of canonical scriptures. "It is obvious," says Origen, "that the difference between the copies is considerable, partly from conclusions of individual scribes, partly from the impious audacity of some in correcting what is written, partly, also, from those who add or remove what seems good to them in the work of correction." (Origen in Matt. xv. 14.)
It might be imagined that a gospel that gives to us the only authentic record of Christ's words, written down at an early date under the sanction of James, Christ's immediate successor as the head of his Church and of the other Apostles, would be cherished in Christendom as the holiest of treasures. Instead of that, it was garbled, truncated, vilified, pronounced heretical by a Pope, and finally suppressed. Why was this? This question is the crux of historical Christianity.
At present we must content ourselves with a brief analysis of the gospel, and say a few words first about the Ebionites.
The word "Ebionite" signifies "poor," and seems to be the Greek rendering of bhikshu or beggar, the word by which Buddha described his followers. The Ebionites were the earliest Christians. They composed the Church of Jerusalem. It fled to Pella, on the Jordan, just before the destruction of the Holy City. Bishop Lightfoot calls them the Essene-Ebionites, because they were plainly in all their rites simple Essenes.
The early fathers gave them five distinctive characteristics:—
1. They held Jesus to be "a man in like sense with all," as we have seen from Hippolytus.
2. They rejected the writings of Paul, and indeed all other New Testament scriptures, except the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
3. They refused to eat meat, like the Essenes.
4. Like the Essenes also they rejected wine, even in the Sacramentum. "Therefore do these men reject the co-mixture of the heavenly wine, and wish it to be the water of the world only, not receiving God so as to have union with him," says Irenæus (Hœr. v. 3) speaking of them.
5. Like the Essenes they also insisted on the rite of circumcision. Here is another passage from Irenæus, "They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner. They practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the House of God." (Hœr. iii. 1.) Irenæus says also that their opinions were similar to those of Cerinthus, who held that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary, and that at his baptism the Holy Spirit came to him.
These are the main peculiarities of the Ebionites, and they seem on the surface to show that if Christ was an Essene, and James was an Essene, and their Church after 150 years were still orthodox Essenes, the "heresy" should be sought elsewhere. But at present we will consider the Gospel according to the Apostles.
Epiphanius writes thus:—
"And they have the Gospel according to Matthew very full in Hebrew. For assuredly this is still kept amongst them as it was at outset written in Hebrew letters. But I do not know whether at the same time they have taken away the genealogies from Abraham to Christ." (Hœr. xxix. 9.)
This lets in a flood of light. The main "heresy" of the Gospel according to the Hebrews is that it contains no genealogies. But the same must be said of Mark and John. And there is a version of Luke that was used by the Marcionites that was also without the genealogies. And critics affect to show that our Luke was plainly once without them also:—
"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a dove, upon him; and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness."
This is a consecutive sentence, and yet the genealogies have been clumsily pitchforked into the middle of it. (Luke iii. 23.)
And with regard to Matthew, it can, at least, be proved that Justin Martyr knew nothing of his genealogies.
"He was the Son of Man, either because of his birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham." Plainly Justin thought that it was the Virgin and not Joseph that had descended from Abraham.
But the suppressing of genealogies that were not invented until one hundred years after the Apostles were slumbering in forgotten tombs, was only a detail of their "heresy." Their gospel makes out Christ to be not the Logos masquerading in a human form, but a man and a prophet. "A prophet will the Lord our God raise up unto you from your brethren," he says. And prophets can sin, and he can sin, for he wasplainly without the Holy Ghost until his baptism. It comes down, in the Hebrew gospel, notupon, butintohim. And he is the Son of God from that moment, not before.
"Call me not good, for he that is good is one the Father in the heavens!" Pseudo-Matthew weakens this considerably, "There is none good but one, that is God."
"He that is good is one." That was the motto of the Essenes of Jerusalem. Tertullian tells us that certain "unlearned" Christians in his day protested against the Trinity. "They declare that we proclaim two or three gods, but they, they affirm, worship only one." (Adv. Prax. c. 3.) The unlearned were the Church of Jerusalem that still clung to the text, "He that is good is One."
We come to other "heresies." The early gospel knew nothing of Matthew's interpolation about John the Baptist eating locusts, because John the Baptist, as an Essene, could do nothing of the sort. And Jerome tells us that the wicked Ebionites garbled the passage, Luke xxii. 15, to make it appear that Jesus actually refused to eat flesh at the Passover supper.
This is all that can be restored of this in the Ebionite gospel:—
"... Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?"
To this, Jesus answers:—
"Have I desired with desire to eat this flesh, the Passover, with you?"
It is very plain here that Luke is the garbler.
Still more instructive is the question of wine at theLord's Supper. Of course, the genuine gospel being written by water drinkers, had no passage about the "fruit of the vine." But Luke, fortunately, has two accounts of the celebration in chap. xxii.
"And he took the cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it amongst yourselves.
"For I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God has come.
"And he took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me.
"Likewise the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
Now it is perfectly plain that verses 17 and 18 have been clumsily added. They are not in Marcion's version. Mark and Matthew have been more clever. They have garbled the passage better. Verses 19 and 20 fairly represent, I think, the real Gospel of the Hebrews. Justin says that in the "Memoirs of the Apostles," were these words:—
"This do ye in remembrance of me. This is my body!"
In the scene of the Lord's Supper, James was apparently the most prominent character. His removal from the list of the twelve apostles in the canonical gospels is significant.
"And when the Lord had given his shroud to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him.
"For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from the hour wherein he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he saw him rising again from the dead.
"And the Lord said, Bring a table and bread.
"And he took the bread, and blessed and broke, and afterwards gave it to James the Just, and said, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from them that sleep."
Now, the suppression of all this in the orthodox gospels is, as Renan shows, of immense importance. ("Les Evangiles," ch. vi.)
"Then was he seen by James," says St. Paul (1. Cor. xv. 7), "then by all the Apostles."
This shows that the incident was known to the very earliest Church.
The Essene Jesus.
We now come to an important question, Did Christianity emerge from Essenism?
Historical questions are sometimes made more clear by being treated broadly. Let us first deal with this from the impersonal side, leaving out altogether the alleged words and deeds of Christ, Paul, etc. Fifty years before Christ's birth there was a sect dwelling in the stony waste where John prepared a people for the Lord. Fifty years after Christ's death there was a sect in the same part of Palestine. The sect that existed fifty years before Christ was called Essenes, Therapeuts, Gnostics, Nazarites. The sect that existed fifty years after Christ's death was called "Essenes or Jesseans," according to Epiphanius, Therapeuts, Gnostics, Nazarites, and not Christians until afterwards.
Each had two prominent rites: baptism and what Tertullian calls the "oblation of bread." Each had for officers, deacons, presbyters, ephemereuts. Each sect had monks, nuns, celibacy, community of goods. Each interpreted the Old Testament in a mystical way, so mystical, in fact, that it enabled each to discover that the bloody sacrifice of Mosaism was forbidden, not enjoined. The most minute likenesses have beenpointed out between these two sects by all Catholic writers from Eusebius and Origen to the poet Racine, who translated Philo's "Contemplative Life" for the benefit of pious court ladies. Was there any connection between these two sects? It is difficult to conceive that there can be two answers to such a question.
And if it can be proved, as Bishop Lightfoot affirms, that Christ was an anti-Essene, who announced that His mission was to preserve intact every jot and tittle of Mosaism as interpreted by the recognised interpreters, this would simply show that he had nothing to do with the movement to which his name has been given.
There are two Christs in the gospels. Let us consider the Essene Christ first.
The first prominent fact of His life is His baptism by John. If John was an Essene, the full meaning of this may be learnt from Josephus:—
"To one that aims at entering their sect, admission is not immediate; but he remains a whole year outside it, and is subjected to their rule of life, being invested with an axe, the girdle aforesaid, and a white garment. Provided that over this space of time he has given proof of his perseverance, he approaches nearer to this course of life, and partakes of the holier waters of cleansing; but he is not admitted to their community of life. Following the proof of his strength of control, his moral conduct is tested for two years more; and when he has made clear his worthiness, he is then adjudged to be of their number. But before he touches the common meal, he pledges to them in oaths to make one shudder, first that hewill reverence the Divine Being, and, secondly, that he will abide injustice unto men, and will injure no one, either of his own accord or by command, but will always detest the iniquitous, and strive on the side of the righteous; that he will ever show fidelity to all, and most of all to those who are in power, for to no one comes rule without God; and that, if he become a ruler himself, he will never carry insolence into his authority, or outshine those placed under him by dress or any superior adornment; that he will always love truth, and press forward to convict those that tell lies; that he will keep his hands from peculation, and his soul pure from unholy gain; that he will neither conceal anything from the brethren of his order, nor babble to others any of their secrets, even though in the presence of force, and at the hazard of his life. In addition to all this, they take oath not to communicate the doctrines to any one in any other way than as imparted to themselves; to abstain from robbery, and to keep close, with equal care, the books of their sect and the names of the angels. Such are the oaths by which they receive those that join them." (Josephus, De B. J., ii. 8, 2, 13.)
As a pendant to this, I will give the early Christian initiation from the Clementine "Homilies."
"If any one having been tested is found worthy, then they hand over to him according to the initiation of Moses, by which he delivered his books to the Seventy who succeeded to his chair."
These books are only to be delivered to "one who is good and religious, and who wishes to teach, and who is circumcised and faithful."
"Wherefore let him be proved not less than six years, and then, according to the initiation of Moses, he (the initiator) should bring him to a river or fountain, which is living water, where the regeneration of the righteous takes place." The novice then calls to witness heaven, earth, water, and air, that he will keep secret the teachings of these holy books, and guard them from falling into profane hands, under the penalty of becoming "accursed, living and dying, and being punished with everlasting punishment."
"After this let him partake of bread and salt with him who commits them to him."
Now if, as is believed by Dr. Lightfoot, the chief object of Christ's mission was to establish for ever the Mosaism of the bloody altar, and combat the main teaching of the ἀσκητής [Greek: askêtês], or mystic, which "postulates the false principle of the malignity of matter," why did He go to an ἀσκητής [Greek: askêtês] to be baptised? Whether or not Christ belonged to mystical Israel, there can be no discussion about the Baptist. He was a Nazarite "separated from his mother's womb," who had induced a whole "people" to come out to the desert and adopt the Essene rites and their community of goods. And we see, from a comparison of the Essene and early Christian initiations, what such baptism carried with it. It implied preliminary instruction and vows of implicit obedience to the instructor.
It is plain too that the Essene Christ knows at first nothing of any antagonism to his teacher.
"The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." (Luke xvi, 16.)
This shows that far from believing that he had come to preserve the Mosaism of the bloody altar, he considered that John and the Essenes had power to abrogate it.
Listen, too, to the Essene Christ's instructions to his twelve disciples:—
"As ye go, preach, saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
This is the simple Gospel of John:—
"Provide neither gold nor silver nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes."
Here again we have the barefooted Essenes without silver or gold. "He that hath two coats let him impart to him that hath none," said the Baptist. "And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men; for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; and ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when theydeliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
This passage is remarkable. No Christian disciple had yet begun to preach, and yet what do we find? A vast secret organisation in every city. It is composed of those who are "worthy" (the word used by Josephus for Essene initiates); and they are plainly bound to succour the brethren at the risk of their lives. This shows that Christ's movement was affiliated with an earlier propagandism.
There is another question. On the hypothesis that Christ was an orthodox Jew, why should he, plainly knowing beforehand what mistakes and bloodshed it would cause, make his disciples mimic the Essenes in externals? The Essenes had two main rites, baptism and the bloodless oblation. Christ adopted them. The Essenes had a new name or conversion.
"Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a stone." (John i. 42.)
The Essenes had community of goods:—
"And all that believed were together, and had all things common." (Acts ii. 44.)
"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me." (Matt. xix. 21.)
A rigid continence was exacted:—
"All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.... There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matt. xix. 11, 12.)
"And I looked, and, lo! a Lamb stood on Mount Zion, and with him an hundred and forty-four thousand, having his Father's name written on their foreheads.... These are they which were not defiled with women, for they are virgins." (Rev. xiv. 1, 4.)
Divines tell us that this first passage is to have only a "spiritual" interpretation. It forbids not marriage but excess. We might listen to this if we had not historical cognizance of a sect in Palestine at this date which enforced celibacy in its monasteries. The second passage shows that the disciples understood him literally.
The bloody sacrifice forbidden:—
"I will have mercy and not sacrifice." (Matt. ix. 13.)
"Unless ye cease from sacrificing, the wrath shall not cease from you." (Cited from Gospel of the Hebrews by Epiphanius, Hær. xxx. 16.)
Bishop Lightfoot, as I have mentioned, considers that Jesus was an orthodox Jew, whose mission was to perpetuate every jot and tittle of Mosaism; and that "emancipation" from the "swathing-bands" of the law came from the Apostles. (Com. on Galatians, pp. 286, 287.) It might be thought that this was a quaint undertaking for the Maker of the million million starry systems to come to this insignificant planet in bodily form to "perpetuate" institutionsthat Titus in thirty years was to end for ever; even if we could forget that human sacrifices, concubinage, polygamy, slavery, and border raids were amongst these institutions. But if this Christ is the historical Christ, it appears to me that we must eliminate the Christ of the gospels almost entirely. For capital offences against the Mosaic law, the recognised authorities three times sought the life of Jesus, twice after formal condemnation by the Sanhedrim. These offences were Sabbath-breaking, witchcraft, and speaking against Mosaic institutions. According to the Synoptics, he never went to Jerusalem during his ministry until just the end of it; although the three visits for the yearly festivals were rigidly exacted.
In my "Buddhism in Christendom" I give reasons for supposing that the "multitudes" whose sudden appearance in stony wastes have bewildered critics, were in reality the gatherings for the Therapeut festivals described by Philo.
Bishop Lightfoot makes much of the fact that John's gospel makes Christ go up once for the feast of tabernacles. But did he go as an orthodox worshipper, to present his offerings for the bloody sacrifice? On the contrary, on this very occasion he was accused of Sabbath-breaking and demoniac possession; and the rulers of the people sent officers to arrest him.
Leaving Mr. Gladstone and Professor Huxley to discuss whether Christ's acts in the temple among the money changers were illegal, I must point out that His dispersing the sellers of doves goes quite against the theory that He desired to perpetuate Mosaic institutions, for the sale of these doves was a necessity for the temple sacrifices.
Much has been made in modern pulpits of a vague word, "fulfilling." Christ, it is said, did not overthrow the old law, he "fulfilled" it. This is nonsense.
Mosaism was an "eternal covenant." It was a "perpetual statute," offerings of the "food of the Deity" on the altar of burnt sacrifice. It was concubinage, slavery, polygamy, thelex talionismade eternal institutions. To say that a teacher who preaches forgiveness in place of revenge, continence for concubinage, slaving for, instead of slaving others, immortality of the soul for the religion of to-day, is "fulfilling" merely an abuse of words.
The Anti-Essene Jesus.
I have said that in the New Testament there is an Essene and an anti-Essene Christ. Both are most conspicuous in the Gospel of St. Luke. Catholic and Protestant disputants are aware of this.
Until the days of Ferdinand Christian Baur, St. Luke had an immaculate reputation. He was believed to be the companion of St. Paul on his voyages. He was believed to have written the third gospel almost as early as the date of Paul's imprisonment. He was the reputed author of the Acts of the Apostles.
"Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you." (Col. iv. 14.)
In the Second Epistle to Timothy, and in the Epistle to Philemon, he is also mentioned.
But now all is changed.
In the first place, two out of the three epistles that name him are pronounced to be forgeries by all competent critics; and very few hold even the Epistle to the Colossians to be by the pen of St. Paul. Then it is pointed out that there is no mention of St. Luke's gospel or of the Acts of the Apostles until the date of Irenæus (A.D.180.)
Let us give the opening verses of the gospel as amended by that eminent Greek scholar, Dr. Giles:—
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narrative of those things which have been brought to fulfilment in us, even as they which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word have handed down to us, it hath seemed good to me also, following all accurately from the beginning, to write unto thee, in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed."
Now, here it is plain, as Dr. Giles remarks, that the author "does not profess to have been an original writer, or to have had perfect understanding of all things from the very first," which is the erroneous rendering of our authorised version, but that he follows the accounts of others, who "were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." (Giles, "Apostolical Records," p. 34.)
Next comes the pertinent question, Who was the "most excellent Theophilus?" The word used isKratistos, "which is thought by Gibbon to designate a man holding a civil or official dignity. If this be so, we might find it difficult to suppose that such a title would have been given to a Christian, even if there were any one of exalted station, within a few years after the first promulgation of Christianity." ("Apostolical Records," p. 13.)
But at Antioch, about the year 171, there was a Theophilus, the sixth bishop. He might have been called Kratistos without anything inappropriate. He was a convert late in life, which may explain the passage about "those things in which thou has been instructed." Eusebius tells us that this Theophiluswrote a treatise against Marcion. But in the view of modern critics, the forged epistles of Paul to Timothy were also levelled against Marcion.
This has its significance. For the followers of Marcion have always maintained that Luke's gospel is Marcion's gospel enlarged and falsified. One of these, Megethius, declared it was full of errors and contradictions. This controversy has been revived in modern times.
But before we deal with this important gospel, we must say a word about what the Germans call Luke's "tendency,"—his scheme of colour, to use an artistic expression.
Baur, comparing the Acts with other scriptures, was struck with the many discrepancies and absolute false statements that it contained. He perceived also that these false statements were not accidental but systematic. Soon their motive dawned upon him. It was plain that this "Luke," writing long after the animosities of Paul against the historical Apostles had ceased, desired to tone down and conceal these animosities. Hence the book of the Acts of the Apostles could not be the work of a contemporary. And a strong motive for this has been suggested by erudite Germans.
The early enemy of Christianity was the Jew. The Roman official at first treated the animosities of the dominant party as part of the incomprehensible Jewish superstition, and sided, when practicable, with the weaker section. But when Christianity began to gain ground, the Roman began to examine it more closely, and soon found much to condemn. For the Essenes proclaimed that the State gods ofthe Romans were wicked demons. The Essenes forbade the use of wine and flesh meat, important elements in the ceremonial of the Roman religion. The Essenes forbade slavery. The Essenes forbade marriage, replacing it, according to rumour, with lewd rites in their secret orgies. Soon violent persecutions arose.
Now it has been suggested by the Germans that at the date of Kratistos, the school of Antioch sought to conciliate the Roman authority by showing that Christianity was a harmless form of Judaism, equally entitled to State toleration.
This "tendency" of "Luke" must be borne in mind. It is very plain in the earlier chapters of the Acts. The gospels announce that at Christ's death consternation and cowardice were amongst his followers. The "lambs" had fled in all directions from the "wolves." St. Paul also speaks of the fierce persecutions that followed the event,—Stephen stoned, and the "havoc" and the "slaughter." And yet in the opening chapters of the Acts we find the "wolves" more gentle than the "lambs." They are "pricked in their heart." They at once allow Peter to proclaim in the temple, and also before the Sanhedrim, that there is no salvation in any name other than that of the malefactor they have just executed (by inference not even in Yahve); and that all who will not hear this malefactor shall be destroyed. And the Sanhedrim, in solemn conclave, let him go, "finding nothing how they might punish him." (Acts iv. 21.) And Gamaliel, a solemn doctor, advises his colleagues to let the hated "lambs" alone, "lest haply they befound to fight against God." Had a "wolf" talked like that, his brother "wolves" would have made short work of him.
The "tendency" here is very plain. "Luke" wants it to be understood that from the first the chief doctors saw no harm in Christianity, and allowed it to be preached in the temple. I shall not waste time over the controversy, whether "Luke" is an enlargement of Marcion's or some other shorter gospel. As we know that the earliest and only authentic gospel came from the Essene Ebionites, it is plain that all anti-Essenism is an accretion.
We now come to the opening chapters of Luke's gospel. Let us see if it is possible at this distance of time to trace how they were built up.
In the Jerusalem Talmud, and also in the Babylonish, is a somewhat fanciful account of the slaughter of a priest named Zacharias. who was killed in the court of the priests,near the altar. A great miracle now occurred: his blood began to bubble, that it might cause fury to come up to take vengeance! Soon Nebuzaradan (this fixes the date of the story to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar) arrived at the temple. He asked the meaning of the bubbling. He was told that the blood was the blood of calves, and rams, and lambs. He caused some calves, and rams, and lambs to be slaughtered; still the blood bubbled. He slaughtered a number of rabbins; still the blood bubbled. Ninety-four thousand priests were slaughtered before the blood of the dead Zacharias was appeased. (Talmud Hierosol. in Taannith, fol. 69, Lightfoot the Hebraist.)
We now come to the Protevangelion, a fanciful gospel attributed to James, the "Bishop of Bishops," as he is called on the title page. It has incorporated this story of Zacharias and his avenging blood; and tacked on to it an account of the birth of the Virgin Mary. One Joachim was much afflicted because Anna his wife had no issue. He "called to mind the patriarch Abraham, how that God in the end of his life had given him his son Isaac," and he went into the wilderness and fasted forty days. An angel appeared to Anna and promised offspring. Mary the child was born, and dedicated to God. Zacharias, the high priest, received her in the temple. When she was twelve years old a veil was wanted, and the high priest cast lots to find out what maiden should spin it. The lot fell on Mary, and from this moment Zacharias was dumb.
Meantime, Mary was espoused to Joseph, who, shortly afterwards finding his betrothed with child, was sorrowful. Both were summoned before the deputy of Zacharias, who caused them to go through the prescribed ordeal of drinking "the water of the Lord." Christ was born. The wise men came. Herod slew the infants, and murdered Zacharias in the temple. Then a mighty miracle occurred. The roofs of the temple howled, and were rent from the top to the bottom. And a voice from heaven said, "Zacharias is murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped away until the revenger of his blood shall come."
Let us now suppose that Luke comes across this story, the "Luke" of the epoch of the most excellentTheophilus, the Luke with the "tendency" to soften subversive Essenism. How would he proceed? He might argue that John the Baptist would make a more suitable hero. He could be born of old parents like Mary. And the story would certainly gain in unity and dramatic vigour, if Zacharias the priest was made the old father.
That one author has copied from the other there can be no doubt.
Hail, thou art full of grace, thou art blessed amongst women. (Prot. ix. 7.)Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name to all generations. (Prot. vii. 4.)Mary, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High overshadow thee.Wherefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be holy, and shall be called the Son of the Living God.And thou shalt call his name Jesus. (Prot. ix. 13.)For lo, as the voice of thy salutation reached my ears, that which is in me leaped and blessed me. (Prot. ix. 21.)
Hail, thou art full of grace, thou art blessed amongst women. (Prot. ix. 7.)
Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name to all generations. (Prot. vii. 4.)
Mary, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High overshadow thee.
Wherefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be holy, and shall be called the Son of the Living God.
And thou shalt call his name Jesus. (Prot. ix. 13.)
For lo, as the voice of thy salutation reached my ears, that which is in me leaped and blessed me. (Prot. ix. 21.)
Hail, thou art highly favoured. Blessed art thou among women. (Luke i. 28).My soul doth magnify the Lord. Henceforth all generations will call me blessed. (Luke i. 46, 48).The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest overshadow thee.Therefore, also that holy thing which shall be born, shall be called the Son of God. (Luke i. 35.)And shalt call his name Jesus. (Luke i. 31.)And it came to pass when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb. (Luke ii. 41.)
Hail, thou art highly favoured. Blessed art thou among women. (Luke i. 28).
My soul doth magnify the Lord. Henceforth all generations will call me blessed. (Luke i. 46, 48).
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest overshadow thee.
Therefore, also that holy thing which shall be born, shall be called the Son of God. (Luke i. 35.)
And shalt call his name Jesus. (Luke i. 31.)
And it came to pass when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb. (Luke ii. 41.)
The question now arises, Which author has copied from the other? Three theories are possible.
1. "James" copied the story from Luke, the companion of Paul.
2. James copied the story from "Luke," of a later date.
3. Luke copied from James.
1. Bishop Lightfoot is angry that an "evangelist" should be accused of copying from an "apocryphal gospel." But there is the difficulty here, that the Zacharias of both stories is plainly the Zacharias of the Talmudic narrative. So that, if the bishop could prove that "James" had stolen from Luke, there would still be an "apocryphal" document behind both. And if "Luke" was the first to use the Talmudic story, how is it that he misses the point of that story, and James copying him, hits it? That point is the avenging blood.
2. The details of the picture and the whole local colour point plainly to an age when past events have so faded away from the memory of living people that a writer can afford to play tricks with them. The huge animosity with which dominant Israel viewed spiritual Israel would have made even Torquemada feel lukewarm. Christ called the two the "wolves" and the "lambs." And yet a chief "wolf," on being informed that his son is to be a water-drinking Nazarite, a leader of the abominable schismatics who prated about the "power of Elias," and called themselves a "people prepared for the Lord," feels ecstasy rather than wrath. Imagine Philip of Spain learning that a son of his had helped to steer the English fire-ships at the great battle of Gravelines. Imagine Legree composing an original song of triumph on learning that Uncle Tom was a free citizen. If there was a historical Luke, and he was the genuine companion of Paul, he of all men would know of the "haling men and women and committing them to prison," of the "havoc and theslaughter." He would have known how the priestly party in Jerusalem would view a proposal to annul the eternal covenant of Yahve with a better, a more "holy covenant," and substitute remission of sins by penitence for remission of sins by the bloody sacrifice.
3. If the opening chapters of Luke are historical, many events in his own and the other gospels are plainly unhistorical. If John the Baptist was the cousin of Christ, brought up with him from childhood, how is it that he failed to recognise him on the Jordan (John i. 33) until the First Person of the Trinity intervened, and performed the miracle of sending down a dove to indicate him? Why, too, should he have sent, as Luke himself announces (vii. 19), messengers to his cousin to ask if he was the coming Messiah, when he must have known from his mother the announcement of the angels that his cousin was the "Son of the Highest," destined to "reign over Jacob for ever"? Why, too, did Mary, knowing all this, forget it when the boy-Christ disputed in the temple? and why did Luke forget it too? (Luke ii. 48.)
4. If John the Baptist was really the son of a chief priest, the silence of the other gospels is unaccountable. Certainly if Justin Martyr had had the opening chapters of Luke before him, he would have used them against Trypho.
5. When I first read Luke critically, I asked myself, Why has he omitted the death of Zacharias, as he has dragged him in? Then I was struck with the words that he has put into the mouth of Christ:—
"From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariaswhichperished between the altar and the temple." (Ch. xi. 51.)
This passage convinced me that he had the Protevangelion before him. It is to be remarked that this verse does not appear in Marcion's version.
Then I came across a whimsical passage in Bishop Lightfoot. He shows that an "early tradition identified the Zacharias who is mentioned in the gospels as having been slain between the temple and the altar (Matt. xxiii. 35) with this Zacharias, the father of the Baptist." ("Supernatural Religion," p. 256.) The bishop then triumphs over the author of "Supernatural Religion," who had declared that Luke makes no announcement of Zacharias's death. "He appears," says Bishop Lightfoot, "to have forgotten Luke xi. 51." (Op. cit. p. 257.)
But surely the bishop has overlooked one whimsical objection to accepting this story as historical. If the John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias, the son of Barachias, he must have been 531 years old when he baptised Christ.
Bishop Lightfoot makes much of these opening chapters, because they show that the parents of Jesus were orthodox Jews, who went up every year to the feast of the Passover, and offered doves at the prescribed times. But what about Herod and the flight into Egypt? If the first four chapters which "Luke" is accused of adding to Marcion's gospel be historical, the flight into Egypt is a fiction.
The Buddhist story about Simeon, and the Buddhist disputation with the doctors, are borrowed from the First Gospel of the Infancy. They are not in anyother canonical gospel, and the First Gospel of the Infancy is the great armoury of Buddhist legends.
It is to be remarked that a young Buddhist, that he may acquire readiness in controversy, is pestered with questions by doctors and theologians. But the rabbis at Jerusalem would scarcely have allowed a little boy to talk to them about the Messiah. (First Infancy, xxi. 3.)
We now come to the two passages most relied on by those who desire to show that Jesus condemned the asceticism of John. Let us read each with its context.
"And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist,but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him."And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the market-place, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!But wisdom is justified of all her children." (Luke vii. 24-35.)
"And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist,but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
"And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the market-place, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!But wisdom is justified of all her children." (Luke vii. 24-35.)
It is a singular fact that this short passage has been made the chief armoury of the disciples of gastronomic, and also of interior Christianity. Thus Migne's "Dictionnaire des Ascétes" cites it to show that Christ approved of the asceticism of the Baptist. Does not this at starting seem to argue two teachings, and, as a corollary, two distinct teachers? If we omit the passages that I have marked in italics it is difficult to find a more eloquent eulogy of ascetic mysticism. The Buddhist mystics are called the Sons of Wisdom (Dharma or Prajñâ), and Christ adopts the same terminology. Plainly the gist of the passage is that the children of the mystic Sophia have no rivalry and no separate baptism. The lower life of soft raiment and palaces is contrasted with John's ascetic life amongst the "reeds" that still conspicuously fringe the rushing Jordan. John is pronounced the greatest of prophets, and his teaching the "counsel of God." Then comes my first passage in italics, the statement that the most raw catechumen of Christ's instruction issuperior to this the greatest of God's prophets. It completely disconnects what follows from what precedes, and involves the silliest inconsequence, as shown by the action of Christ's hearers. It is said that they crowded to the "baptism of John." Had that speech been uttered, of course they would have stayed away from it.
The subsequent insertion of the gospel of eating and drinking, and piping and dancing, involves a greater folly. It betrays a writer completely ignorant of Jewish customs. The fierce enmity of anti-mystical Israel to the Nazarites pivoted on the very fact that the latter were pledged for life to drink neither wine nor strong drink. This was the Nazarite's banner with victory already written upon it. Hence the fierce hatred of the Jewish priesthood. If Christ in their presence had drunk one cup of wine, there would have been no crucifixion, and certainly no upbraiding.
This is the second passage that anti-mystical Christianity builds upon:—
"And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink? And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.
"And he spake also a parable unto them: No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not withthe old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better." (Luke v. 33-39.)
I have again resorted to italics. I think we have here a genuine speech of Christ, and a very important one. His doctrine was "new wine," and it was quite unfit for the "old bottles" of Mosaism. The gravity of this speech was felt by the Roman monks who were trying to force the new wine into the old bottles (with much prejudice to the wine), so they tried to nullify it with flat contradiction let in both above and below.
"For the old is better."
This completely contradicts Christ's eulogy of the Christian's "new wine." Moreover, the words are not found in Matthew's version, which makes the cheat more palpable. There, too, we have the gospel of eating and drinking, a gospel that did not require an avatâra of the Maker of the Heavens for its promulgation.
But supposing that we concede the two passages to be genuine, I do not see that the priests of materialism will gain very much.
These texts are internecine, involving contradictions due either to more than one author, or to an interpolator singularly deficient in logical consistency and common sense. The statement, as far as it is intelligible, is that Christ, having determined to forsake mystical for anti-mystical Israel, made the following enactments:—
1. That the ascetic practices that He had taken over from John the Baptist and the Nazarenes, and which in other gospels He enjoins under the phrase of "prayer and fasting" as the machinery for developing miraculous gifts, interior vision, etc., shall be discontinued by His disciples during His lifetime and then again renewed.
2. That feastings and the use of wine, which as Nazarites He and His disciples had specially forsworn, should be again resumed, with no restrictions in this case in the matter of His death. So that by one enactment His disciples after His death were to remain jovial "wine-bibbers" by the other fasting ascetics. It is scarcely necessary to bring forward the true Luke to confute the pseudo Luke.
A valuable historical transaction is recorded by the real Luke which throws a strong light on the relations between Christ and John the Baptist. Towards the close of the Saviour's career, at Jerusalem itself, the chief priests accosted Him and asked Him by what authority He did what He did. Now if the relations between Christ and John the Baptist had been what the pseudo Luke would have us believe, Christ had only to state all this and He might have saved many valuable lives. He had only to plainly announce that His movement was not from anti-mystical to mystical Israel, but from mystical to anti-mystical Israel; that he had introduced wine and oil as a protest against Essenism; that He had forbidden its ascetic fastings, and brought many disciples back from "the baptism of John" to the orthodox fold. If He had stated all this clearly, the high priest and elders wouldhave hailed Him as a friend instead of slaying Him as a foe. But the Saviour, evidently quite unaware that He had led a great movement against the Baptist, takes refuge behind John instead of condemning him. He asks the pregnant question, Was he a prophet of God, or was he not? inferring, of course, that he was, and that the prophetic gift was "authority" enough. (Luke xx. 1,et seq.) "For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist." (Luke vii. 28.) Here again we have the real Luke confronting his unskilful interpolator.