■;-iV:ri 
 ■ 
 
 ^^-> ^i 1 '- 
 
 j m lBML J -. 
 
 ■ -■ ■ 
 
 ffijjSsggpj&i 
 
 
QortteU Mtitawsits Eibrarg 
 
 3tljara. £*e» $nrk 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 HENRY W. SAGE 
 
 1891 
 
Cornell University Library 
 BS2653 .S61 1920 
 
 Rival philosophies of Jesus and of Paul; 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 293 516 
 
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/cu31924029293516 
 
THE RIVAL PHILOSOPHIES 
 OF JESUS AND OF PAUL 
 
THE RIVAL PHILO- 
 SOPHIES OF JESUS 
 AND OF PAUL : : 
 
 BEING AN EXPLANATION OF THE FAILURES 
 OF ORGANIZED CHRISTIANITY AND A VIN- 
 DICATION OF THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS, 
 WHICH ARE SHOWN TO CONTAIN A RELIGION 
 FOR ALL MEN AND FOR ALL TIMES 
 
 IGNATIUS SINGER 
 
 AUTHOR OF SOME ' UNRECOGNIZtD LAWS OF NATUBK 
 " PROBLEMS OF ' LIFE,' " ETC. 
 
 THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 CHICAGO 
 
 1920 
 
 v-OUk 
 
 i-'L- 
 
 ^ UKM'YL UUKhY 
 
TO 
 
 ALL LOVERS OF THEIR KIND, 
 
 WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF RACE, 
 
 CREED, OR COLOUR 
 
PREFACE BY REV. J. CYRIL FLOWER, M.A. 
 
 It must have been a severe shock to any sincere person 
 to realize how practically ineffective has been the witness 
 and teaching of the Christian Church : practically in- 
 effective, that is, in achieving the end which any unpre- 
 judiced student of religion would suppose to be its raison 
 d'etre. It has not, unfortunately, been ineffective in 
 producing controversies, fomenting misunderstandings, 
 erecting barriers. Nor, to do it justice, has it been in- 
 effective in producing many noble types of individual 
 life and character. Its ineffectiveness has been social. 
 It is pledged up to the hilt, and in all varieties of its 
 organization and expression, to the promotion of the 
 Reign of Righteousness and the Brotherhood of Man. 
 We do not need the terrible object-lesson of the present 
 ghastly war to compel us to recognize that progress 
 towards these ends has been appallingly slow, if even 
 taking place at all. Yet the realization of these things 
 is of infinitely greater moment than either doctrinal 
 orthodoxy or individual piety. 
 
 This plain fact has been clearty envisaged by the author 
 of this book, and he has with scientific honesty approached 
 the question — Why is organized Christianity an ineffective 
 instrument for the attainment of the supreme object for 
 which it should exist if it really believed in Jesus ? 
 
 The reply — which is the result of an honest and un- 
 biased examination of the New Testament records under- 
 taken in the spirit and with the methods of science — is 
 likely to be astonishing and upsetting to many excellent 
 and well-intentioned people. The truth is nearly always 
 upsetting. And people with theological preconceptions 
 are the most easily upset. But the earth moved round 
 the sun in spite of the theological preconceptions of Bruno's 
 
8 PREFACE 
 
 murderers ; and Jesus was a man, and a real man, in spite 
 of the theological preconceptions of those who regard him 
 as a mystery to be surrounded with pious words and mis- 
 understood titles, and not a9 a man, sage, and seer whose 
 teaching lays the foundation of the science of social life. 
 
 One of the most disquieting signs of the present time 
 is the fact that people profess very widely to reverence 
 the names and titles given to Jesus, while there is very 
 little attempt to regard him as a real person. As Bernard 
 Shaw has said, it is a sort of theological crime to speak 
 about Jesus as if he were real. It is irreverent to speak 
 about him except in terms of an ecclesiastically sanctioned 
 mythology. It is difficult — facing the facts of life — to 
 escape the conclusion that there has been a vast conspiracy 
 on the part of the professed disciples of Jesus to evade 
 the difficult task of understanding and applying his teach- 
 ing — or even facing seriously the question as to whether 
 it can be applied — by loading him with mysterious titles 
 of superstition, and surreptitiously removing him from 
 the realm of the concrete and actual. 
 
 This book, as the author takes pains to make evident, 
 claims no infallibility. It is a scientific inquiry and 
 analysis, and its thesis is set forth as a challenge to further 
 honest inquiry for proof or disproof. It would be a 
 remarkable thing if every conclusion of the author's were 
 exactly correct, or immediately commanded the agree- 
 ment of any or every reader. But the very exaggerations 
 and mistakes of a sincere inquirer are more helpful than 
 the multitudinous platitudes of the scribes who pretend 
 that their inherited dogmas and the categories of their 
 thought exhaust the whole of the truth concerning God, 
 man and the universe. Thus the author's attitude to 
 Paul, and his interpretation of Paulinism, is vehement to 
 the point of contempt. Many of us are unable to share 
 to the full his scornful dismissal of Paul. There is a great 
 deal more to be said before we fully understand or rightly 
 value what this man really meant. But that it is to 
 Paul more than any other that we owe the conversion of 
 the social and religious teaching of Jesus the Nazarene 
 into the worship of the " Lord Jesus Christ " there can 
 
PREFACE 9 
 
 scarcely be a doubt. And to any one who has rediscovered 
 the rugged majesty and sublime simplicity of the Nazarene 
 behind the cloud and thick darkness of mystification 
 commonly called " Christology " it is not unnatural that 
 Paul should seem at the very least a religious misfortune. 
 But the fact is that this is largely our own fault, owing 
 to our lamentable lack of imagination. Paul grasped 
 something of the truth, and flung it into the thought 
 forms and symbols of his time and people. To us those 
 thought forms and symbols are either meaningless or 
 impregnated with meanings quite remote from practical 
 religion. Had we but imagination, we should be able to 
 share Paul's faith, hope and love while we dispensed with 
 the poor earthenware of his extraordinary theology. 
 
 This is a book which ought to be read and studied by 
 every religious and moral teacher, and especialty by clergy 
 and ministers of all denominations. If it is not true, then 
 it is the duty of the religious instructor to show in what 
 respects and why it is not true, instead of labouring over 
 the time-worn and meaningless errors of " doctrine" and 
 theology. There is an ever increasing body of men, 
 women and children who are utterly tired of the old 
 absorption in speculative orthodoxies and heterodoxies. 
 They want to know what it is right to do, not what it 
 is correct to profess ; they demand instruction in the laws 
 of life, especially social life, not the demonstration of a 
 futile ability to manipulate the parts of a theological 
 Chinese puzzle. This book expresses, with simplicity and 
 power, what a vast number of people do not perhaps 
 consciously think, but what is slowly being borne in upon 
 them by the manifold influences of actual life and experi- 
 ence. If it is all a mistake, the Church and its leaders 
 will do well, in the interests of the Truth they are supposed 
 to serve, to face and tackle what is at any rate real, instead 
 of beating the empty air of theological make-believe. 
 
 But if it is true — if in spite of the almost inevitable 
 fact of many minor errors and mistaken conclusions the 
 main thesis of the book is true — then even more it is 
 time for religious teachers, clergy, ministers to awake out 
 of sleep. They will have then to face the question how 
 
io PREFACE 
 
 they can make use of the vast machinery of the Church 
 to inculcate the truth and cause it to be practised. The 
 mere attendance at " divine worship/' the mere external 
 signs of devotion to and reverence for Jesus under the 
 name of Christ, will no longer be an adequate end for the 
 existence of ecclesiastical systems. It will become neces- 
 sary to use the whole of the resources of the Church — 
 of all the religious bodies — to train up disciples of Jesus 
 the Nazarene, seekers and workers for the Reign of God, 
 the Rule of Righteousness and Justice : men, women and 
 children touched to the quick with the revolutionary 
 spirit of progress : a community for whom the " spiritual 
 life " is no longer a thin and bloodless abstraction remote 
 from the actualities of life and fact, but is the very sum 
 and essence of healthy, happy social life. If this book 
 helps to stir up even a few to realize and strive for this 
 supreme end for which Jesus lived and taught and died, 
 it will not have been written in vain, but will help in that 
 rebirth of religion without which there is little hope for 
 the world. 
 
 J CYRIL FLOWER. 
 Bolton. 
 
LETTER FROM THE REV. VIVIAN T. 
 POMEROY, B.A., TO THE AUTHOR 
 
 You have allowed me to read the MS. of your book. 
 Your central contention has profoundly stimulated my 
 thought, and I will say frankly that you have been the 
 means of making a turning-point in my endeavour to 
 preach the religion of Jesus and apply that religion to 
 the crying needs of the present time. 
 
 My gratitude to you takes the form of an ardent desire 
 to see your work published. I urge you to spare no 
 pains to this end. I am convinced that many ministers, 
 especially those of the younger generation, have a painful 
 sense of dissatisfaction with conventional Christianity, 
 but they have not possessed themselves of the clue which 
 will enable them to discover and comprehend the potent, 
 life-bringing philosophy which conventional Christianity 
 has overlaid. I believe your work supplies that clue. You 
 have vindicated Jesus as being, not the unpractical 
 dreamer we have tacitly taken him to be, but the sanest 
 teacher who has ever spoken to the world, and the saviour 
 of mankind in a sense to which pa9t and present theology 
 has blinded us. Your book, if published, will provoke 
 much discussion and probably • antagonism ; but the 
 points you have raised are precisely those which require 
 discussion to-day. From such discussion I am sure 
 nothing but good can result. 
 
 I keenly hope that before long your work will be in 
 the hands of many of my brother ministers. 
 
 I am, 
 
 Yours sincerely, 
 
 VIVIAN T. POMEROY. 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFATORY NOTE 
 
 "With all earnestness I invite, for these Reports, the study and 
 thought of men and women of good-will. We shall not all agree 
 about the various recommendations. We want critics as well as 
 advocates.'* (The italics are not in the original.) 
 
 Thus His Grace, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his 
 Foreword to " The Teaching Office of the Church." 
 
 The present volume has not been written in reply to 
 these Reports. Indeed, most of it had been written for 
 some years past. But the time being opportune, I humbly 
 submit this volume as a layman's contribution to the 
 discussion asked for by His Grace. 
 
 The question to which an answer is sought just now 
 by all thinking people is not merely Why has the Church 
 failed ? — which seems to have been the chief point of 
 reference to the Committee appointed by the Archbishops 
 of Canterbury and York — but Why has Christianity 
 failed in its mission ? 
 
 The obvious a priori answer seems to be, Because 
 either the doctrine, or the teaching of it, is faulty. 
 , It is from this point of view that the writer has pur- 
 sued his inquiry. We shall not all agree about the con- 
 clusions arrived at. But the points raised are just those 
 issues which will have to be discussed before an answer 
 to the most burning question of to-day is at all possible. 
 Needless to say that such a discussion can be profitable 
 only if carried on in a spirit of sincerity and of truth, 
 and not from the narrow point of view of the propa- 
 gandist or advocate. 
 
 As the search of truth was the sole object of the writer, 
 he of necessity had to ignore creeds and conventions. 
 Those, therefore, who may resent the freedom with which 
 
14 AUTHOR'S PREFATORY NOTE 
 
 I have examined facts and doctrines I would remind 
 that freedom of discussion is essential in any inquiry 
 which is meant to be real, and not a mere sham. Whilst 
 to the timid I will quote from a private communication 
 the following weighty words of the Rev. Dr. J. Clifford : — 
 
 "It is not the truth that suffers from the most searching 
 investigation ; they suffer who will not undertake it, and who 
 would hinder others from seeking it." 
 
 THE AUTHOR, 
 
 October 1918. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 IX. SONS OF GOD . 
 X. THE HOLY GHOST 
 XI. GENERAL SURVEY 
 
 PAGE 
 
 PREFACE BY REV. J. CYRIL FLOWER, M.A. . . • 7 
 
 LETTER BY REV. VIVIAN T. POMEROY, B.A. . . II 
 
 AUTHOR'S PREFATORY NOTE . . . . . 13 
 
 FOREWORD . . . . . . . 19 
 
 PART I 
 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 CHAPTF.R 
 
 I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . • -7 
 
 3* 
 
 II. RELICS OF AN ANCIENT GOSPEL 
 
 III. THE GOSPELS ... . . 1 
 
 IV. THE EVANGELISTS ... . 56 
 
 V. THE ANOMALOUS DI-UNE "JESUS CHRIST" . . 63 
 
 VI. ORIGIN OF THE CHRIST-MYTH . . -7° 
 
 VII. THE GOSPEL OF PAUL , 
 
 VIII. THE GOSPEL OF JESUS . 
 
 75 
 
 83 
 
 94 
 
 103 
 
 "3 
 
 XII. VALUE OF LEGENDS AS SOURCES OF HISTORY . 125 
 
 15 
 
i6 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 XIII. THE CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH OF JESUS 
 
 XIV. THE TEMPTATION .... 
 
 XV. AFTER THE STORM .... 
 
 XVI. THE "METAMORPHOSIS" OF JESUS . 
 
 XVII. THE TIMES, THE PEOPLE, AND THE CONDITIONS OF 
 JUD^A ..... 
 
 XVIII. THE ALLEGED MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS 
 
 XIX. PAULINE INFLUENCE ON ANTE-PAULINE HISTORY 
 
 XX. THE PAULINE SHADOW 
 
 XXI. THE APOSTLES AND " THEY WHO BELIEVED " 
 
 XXII. u ECCE HOMO" .... 
 
 XXIII. THE PROPAGANDA OF JESUS . 
 
 XXIV. THE ARREST, TRIAL, AND CRUCIFIXION 
 
 rAGE 
 
 132 
 
 138 
 
 147 
 154 
 
 161 
 
 171 
 180 
 188 
 193 
 
 200 
 203 
 
 208 
 
 PART II 
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 XXV. THE PLACE OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 XXVI. THE EVOLUTION OF MORALS . 
 
 XXVII. "GOD" OR "NATURE" 
 
 XXVIII. DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF NATURE 
 
 XXIX. THE MORAL " LAW " . 
 
 XXX. THE DESTINY OF MAN 
 
 XXXI. ANCIENT WISDOM AND MODERN SCIENCE 
 
 XXXII. A TEST OF TRUTH 
 
 217 
 222 
 
 228 
 
 235 
 34O 
 247 
 252 
 2 S9 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 17 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 XXXIII. THE u SAYINGS" OF JESUS . 
 
 xxxiv. the "sayings" of jesus (continued) 
 
 XXXV. " THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL " 
 
 xxxvi. u the source of all evil " (continued) 
 
 XXXVII. the upas-tree 
 
 XXXVIII, the theocracy of jesus . 
 
 XXXIX. false prophets 
 
 xl. -false prophets (continued) 
 
 xli. false prophets (continued) 
 
 xlii. the great stumbling-block 
 
 xliii. light at last 
 
 267 
 272 
 278 
 288 
 
 2 93 
 301 
 
 307 
 315 
 327 
 
 334 
 34i 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 This work was forced upon me in connection with the 
 education of my children in a way that I will briefly 
 outline. 
 
 In common with so many others, I dissociated myself 
 at an early age from what is conventionally called religion. 
 Many years later only did I learn that what I abandoned 
 was not religion, but a superstitious system of belief and 
 worship which usurps its place. 
 
 Theology is not religion ; nor are creeds, rites, beliefs, 
 formulae or ceremonials. I will not even concede that 
 these are adjuncts of or in any way related to true reli- 
 gion, any more than are the beliefs, doctrines or cere- 
 monials of other creeds or systems of worship which the 
 reader himself regards as mere superstitions. The com- 
 monly accepted connotations of the word " religion" have 
 really nothing whatever to do with the subject at all. 
 True religion — if such a thing is possible, as I firmly 
 believe that it is — must be also a true science : a Science 
 of Conduct. 
 
 But this is not the occasion to argue these matters. 
 The point is that I believed in these views and conse- 
 quently desired to inculcate them in my children, and 
 that this caused me no end of trouble and embarrassment. 
 
 Broadly speaking, the spiritual teachings of our times 
 may be divided into two great systems of thought : one 
 embracing doctrinal theology, supposed to represent reli- 
 gion ; and the other science and philosophy, which are 
 supposed to be anti-religious. The most superficial reflec- 
 tion must convince the reader how erroneous is this classi- 
 fication, and how mistakenly the thrusts at theology and 
 creeds and the jibes at senseless dogmas or childish 
 legends are described as " Conflicts between Science and 
 Religion." 
 
50 FOREWORD 
 
 There are, and there can be, no such conflicts. The 
 conflicts have been and are with theology, with creed, 
 with doctrine and dogma, and with supposed miracles 
 which — whether credible or not— have nothing whatever 
 to do with religion itself. 
 
 Thus, whichever side I might have chosen, the children 
 were bound to be falsely educated ; for religion, though 
 practised in both camps, is taught in neither. The conse- 
 quence of this unsettled state of affairs is the spiritual 
 unrest so characteristic of our times, which has penetrated 
 even to the seminaries and the pulpits. 
 
 It is this uncertainty where to find that undefined 
 " something " for which mankind is instinctively groping 
 that keeps people from the churches, and not — as is so 
 foolishly asserted — the decadence of religion or religious 
 sentiment. Quite the opposite is the truth. Never 
 before has mankind been agitated by such a strong, 
 genuinely religious spirit the world over as at the present 
 day. There is certainly a great and growing falling off 
 of attendance at public worship ; but it would be easy 
 to show that this is due to the renascence of religion 
 rather than to its decadence. 
 
 The atmosphere is charged with a desire for a higher, 
 nobler and more unselfish life. Doctrines are questioned, 
 institutions are recast, old beliefs are re-examined, all 
 with practically one end and one aim in view, variously 
 stated as the demands of " humanity/' of " civilization/' 
 the " higher life/' " altruism/' etc. There is a striving 
 and a yearning after something which Churches — qua 
 Churches — do not supply ; a thirst which they seem unable 
 to quench. 
 
 It is this " new spirit " — as it is sometimes called — 
 which seeks to find expression in so many different ways 
 that is the true religion. It seeks to express itself in deeds 
 rather than in ceremonials, and puts the present welfare 
 of others before the future bliss of self. 
 
 The reason why this nameless "new spirit" is not 
 recognized as religion is because theologians have appro- 
 priated that word for their dogmas, creeds, and rites ; 
 and have stigmatized all that concerns the life of " the 
 
FOREWORD 21 
 
 children of our Father which is in heaven'*' as " secular/' 
 "worldly" or "earthly." 
 
 Ministers and congregations who are taking their full 
 share in this onward and upward movement, themselves 
 regard it as something outside the true functions of the 
 Churches ; as something that is desirable, good and com- 
 mendable, but which is not " spiritual." Yet it is this 
 nameless spirit which is striving for recognition, which is 
 gaining in strength and volume, and is emptying the 
 churches because they do not recognize it. 
 
 This state of things seems to be accepted as final and 
 inevitable. That which is conventionally called religion no 
 one really believes in. The ceremonials and rites are 
 kept up partly from habit, and partly from a foolish fear 
 of the effects on society if it were admitted that most 
 of what is called "religion" is mere make-believe. 
 
 But why all this unrest and doubt ? The answer is, 
 because the Authority on which the Churches relied is 
 gone. The Bible is not the inspired book it has been 
 thought to be, is not infallible, is not even always reliable. 
 Science has immolated it on the altar of Truth. The 
 Churches had built their house on the sands of theology — 
 " And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the 
 winds blew, and beat upon that house ; and it fell ; and 
 great was the fall of it." 
 
 But it was theology that fell, and not religion. The 
 principles of religion are older than that house, or the 
 sand-hill on which it was built ; aye, older than Jesus 
 who proclaimed them — coeval with the universe itself, 
 and as eternal. 
 
 It is really too absurd to think that with all the scien- 
 tific knowledge of the age our belief in a " World Spirit " 
 (or " God ") should still depend on the authorship or the 
 authenticity of a collection of writings, or that it should 
 be thought that if these were lost, or if they had never 
 been written, we should be without knowledge of a ruling 
 or governing power in the universe. 
 
 It is a poor foundation to rest one's faith on, and I 
 wanted my children to build on firmer ground. 
 
 They have learnt geometry, and believe Euclid to have 
 
22 FOREWORD 
 
 been the founder of the science. It may be doubted 
 whether he really was the originator ; evidence may be 
 forthcoming that he was not ; that he borrowed his know- 
 ledge from previous writers. Some one may even hazard 
 a theory that no such person ever existed ; that Euclid 
 was the name of an idol who was credited with having 
 taught mankind the mysteries of mathematics. It will 
 not matter in the least. Their faith in the principles 
 taught by Euclid, or in the name of Euclid, would not 
 be shaken, for the truth of these does not depend on 
 authority. They carry their own internal evidence. 
 
 But how about the children's religion ? Had I taught 
 them as conventionality demands, and allowed them to 
 leave my protecting roof uninformed as to the truth which 
 we all know but are too shy to express, the first breeze 
 that came their way, wafting a new fact towards them, 
 might have shaken their faith in religion itself, as it has 
 done and is doing with so many ; as at one time it did 
 in my own case. 
 
 I have said enough, I believe, to show the reader the 
 peculiar situation in which I found myself in relation to 
 my children — a situation which is by no means an isolated 
 or an exceptional one. Whilst they were too young to 
 appreciate nice distinctions and disquisitions, I had trouble 
 to prevent their receptive minds from being marred by 
 false doctrines or popular prejudices. For although I was 
 careful not to sow anything myself that might want up- 
 rooting later on, I could not prevent some of the tares 
 which were scattered broadcast in the land from falling 
 among my carefully winnowed seed. Nor was it possible 
 always to antidote what the children were taught at school, 
 heard from the pulpit, or picked up from their companions 
 on the playground. I had constantly to watch and to 
 do much weeding ; sometimes even had to allow the tares 
 to remain, lest in uprooting them I might pull up some of 
 the wheat also. 
 
 This led to many embarrassing discussions, which 
 generally ended on my part in the promise that I would 
 explain when they were old enough to understand. I did 
 so as they grew older, and by degrees told them about 
 
FOREWORD 23 
 
 the Bible and religion, what they were bound to learn 
 in any case on entering the broader path of life. I pre- 
 ferred to tell them myself, and at the same time to teach 
 them a truer, a better and a more enduring religion than 
 that which is " teaching for doctrines the commandments 
 of men " (Matt. xv. 9). 
 
 The inevitable consequences followed. The children 
 felt, what the mass of educated people are feeling, the 
 want of some reliable guide, and urged me to write down 
 in a connected form the instructions I had given them 
 piecemeal at various times, as occasion arose. 
 
 I promised to do so, and these chapters are the fulfil- 
 ment of that promise. 
 
 Originally my intention was merely to give a brief 
 outline of my views on religion, which was to embrace 
 the ethical teachings of Jesus, and not to trouble at all 
 about the myths which have grown around the Teacher's 
 name. But it soon became increasingly obvious that the 
 plan was unworkable. It was my aim to convince rather 
 than to persuade, and this involved greater labour than 
 I had anticipated. It is one thing to have a general 
 conception of a subject which satisfies one's self ; and 
 quite another thing to write those opinions down in cold 
 black-on- white so as to be equally clear and convincing 
 to others ; and so I was forced into a study which originally 
 I had not contemplated. 
 
 If I were to accomplish the object I had in view, it was 
 not sufficient merely to set forth what Jesus undoubtedly 
 did teach, but also what he did not teach, although such 
 teaching had been fathered upon him. And to do this 
 with any hope of success it became necessary to enter 
 into the origin of those myths and fables which have 
 been associated with Jesus, although it can be clearly 
 proved that these are all of a later date, and had not 
 been current during the lifetime of the Great Teacher. 
 To see the philosophy that is genuinely his in all its pro- 
 fundity and purity, it is not sufficient to look at the few 
 ivy-covered fragments which are jutting out from beneath 
 the accumulations of centuries ; we must lay bare the 
 foundations, even though in doing so some of the flimsy 
 
24 FOREWORD 
 
 structures which cover the mound have to be disturbed. 
 It is not pleasant work, but we must not shrink from plying 
 the spade, or using brush and duster, when the precious 
 relics cannot be revealed in any other way. 
 
 Thus it happened that the brief outline which I had 
 originally intended, strictly for the guidance of my own 
 children only, has been expanded into the present work. 
 I publish it because I think it may be of help to others 
 who are circumstanced as I was, and in the conviction 
 that by doing so I am serving the best interests of genuine 
 religion. 
 
 I have received much help of one kind and another 
 from friends — in some cases from strangers through the 
 kind mediation of friends — in the preparing of this essay, 
 to all of whom I herewith tender my best thanks. I am 
 indebted to the Rev. Vivian T. Pomeroy, B.A., and the 
 Rev. J. Cyril Flower, M.A., who, in addition to their help 
 in revising the MS. and making many useful suggestions 
 and corrections, have volunteered the commendatory 
 introductions which grace the opening pages of this 
 volume. I owe special thanks to my old-time friends, 
 Mr. Ch. H. Smithson and Mr. Jabez Crabtree, who for 
 years past have taken a keen interest in the production 
 of this essay ; who have assisted the work in many 
 ways ; and whose zeal and effort have made the publica- 
 tion of the work possible in these trying times. Lastly, 
 though not in any lessened degree, I wish to express my 
 gratitude to Mrs. Ch. H. Smithson for her freely given 
 help in preparing the manuscript for the press. 
 
 I also desire to record that I am indebted to Mr. F. R. 
 Eeles, now of New York, and to the Hon. George Fowlds, 
 of Auckland, N.Z., who in years past, in the trying 
 initial stages of this arduous task, have been helpful 
 to me by their frank if severe criticisms. 
 
 It does not follow that those who have thus helped 
 me agree with all my conclusions. For these, as well as 
 for any remaining defects, the only person responsible is 
 
 THE AUTHOR, 
 
PART I 
 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Our only sources of information concerning Jesus or his 
 teachings are the canonical writings of the New Testament 
 and the New Testament Apocrypha. We shall accept 
 these as what they are : a miscellaneous collection of 
 ancient documents which, like other similar collections, 
 contain a record of traditions, legends, beliefs and a mass 
 of anecdotal matter relating to persons and events, some 
 of them historical, some mythical, all jumbled together 
 without coherence, system or method. 
 
 Apart from the inherent and natural difficulties which 
 such a motley collection of matter presents to the student, 
 these writings — until quite recently — have been en- 
 shrouded in a halo of mystery and sanctity which made 
 a frank and rational examination of their contents well- 
 nigh impossible. 
 
 It is safe to say that on no other book or books has 
 so much thought been spent, or so much ink spilt, as on 
 the Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament. 
 Notwithstanding, it is equally certain that these truly 
 human documents have never yet been examined with 
 that impartiality and cool judgment that would and should 
 have been accorded them but for the claims of divine 
 authorship and authority that have been made on their 
 behalf. 
 
 As far as their actual contents are concerned, the 
 Gospels are practically still unexplored. The contro- 
 versies have mainly been about extraneous matters — 
 doctrines or creed9 that have been based upon them — 
 
 and combatants have searched the Gospels, not for what 
 
 27 
 
28 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 is buried in them, but for arguments in support of their 
 contentions, to prove or to disprove a point of doctrine. 
 
 These thoughts occur to me in reply to a reflection 
 whether it is not rather venturesome for a layman to enter 
 a field of research where so many eminent scholars have 
 been working so strenuously without any result that is 
 worth mentioning. To be quite frank, I am trying to 
 satisfy myself that my conduct does not bring me within 
 the meaning of a certain adage. But, after due con- 
 sideration, I have come to the conclusion that whatever 
 may be my own shortcomings, those who have been 
 treading here before me — whether in fear and trembling 
 or with the boldness of self-assurance — were certainly not 
 " angels/' whether judged by their methods, their results 
 or their estimate of one another. 
 
 Before me I have several volumes on The Life of Jesus, 
 each by an acknowledged scholar and authority on the 
 subject. Among them are Neander, Strauss, Renan and 
 Farrar. I have read them and admired the industry and 
 learning each has displayed in trying' to prove his own 
 theory — one that Jesus was God ; the other that he could 
 not have been ; the third making out that he was a 
 thaumaturgist and charlatan ; and the fourth trying to 
 hide behind a florid rhetoric the fact that he did not 
 himself believe in the miracles he was reciting, but did 
 not care or dare to say so. To my mind, instead of 
 regarding it as arrogant to ignore conclusions so vastly 
 divergent, I think it would be folly rather to attach any 
 importance to them. 
 
 As I have already stated, I look upon the New Testa- 
 ment as a collection of ancient documents, and as such 
 I propose to examine them for what they contain, with 
 the help of the usual laws of evidence. 
 
 I can hear it objected that after having destroyed their 
 authority, it no longer matters what the Gospels con- 
 tain, since then they will have lost all force. My answer 
 is that these fears are groundless. Whatever truth the 
 Gospels harbour will be able to take care of itself. That 
 which carries its own evidence possesses also its own 
 force ; and that which has nothing else to support it 
 
INTRODUCTION 29 
 
 than authority is not worth retaining. In fact, any such 
 doctrinal or legendary matter which depends on authority 
 or sentiment for its acceptance is the very bane of religion, 
 and that for the following reason : The object of religion 
 is to unite mankind ; whereas doctrines or legends that 
 must be accepted on trust or authority have the very 
 opposite effect : they separate us. 
 
 Therein lies the great civilizing power of science, that 
 it makes no demands on credulity, imposes no penalties 
 on disbelief, knows nothing of authority, and recognizes 
 no boundaries, geographical or racial. All nations accept 
 the facts of science no matter who may have been the 
 discoverer. Science is international, republican and demo- 
 cratic. What there is of comity between nations is far 
 more due to science and commerce than to any of the 
 creeds. 
 
 One of my objects is to show that the same is true of 
 the Religion of Jesus, as distinct from and opposed to 
 doctrinal Christianity. I desire to establish further that 
 Jesus was not the founder of Christianity ; that the Christ- 
 myth had no existence until many years after his death ; 
 that his teachings and the teachings of doctrinal Christianity 
 are mutually exclusive and opposed to each other. I desire 
 further to show that whilst there was a real Jesus, the 
 " Christ " of the Gospels is a myth ; and I desire to 
 establish this by tracing the origin and evolution of the 
 latter. And I propose doing so without going outside the 
 New Testament writings for evidence. 
 
 The nature of this evidence will be unfolded as I proceed. 
 But I may be allowed to say here that I have not — as is 
 so often the case — searched the Gospels for arguments 
 to prove a foregone conclusion. The facts which are dis- 
 closed in these pages were unknown to me when I commenced 
 writing, and have been as surprising to myself as gradually 
 they came to light as probably they will be to many 
 others ! 
 
 I have no new creed to preach, nor old ones to disprove. 
 I have no concern with creeds at all. The task I am 
 engaged on is to trace the history and philosophy of a 
 great teacher, as yet little known because of the super- 
 
30 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 stitions, myths and legends that have been woven round 
 his name. 
 
 I hope to depict (1 believe now for the first time) a 
 sage about whose historicity there can be no doubt ; 
 whose philosophy will stand the severest scrutiny of 
 modern science ; and whose postulates — so much derided 
 even by his professed followers — are the only possible 
 foundation for a sound philosophy. 
 
 But how shall we set to work ? How obtain a lead 
 amidst such chaos as we are confronted with ? 
 
 The plan T propose to follow is that which an archaeolo- 
 gist would adopt in the investigation of an ancient ruin 
 the history of which is unknown. His first step would 
 necessarily be to get rid of the weeds, rubble and all 
 those accumulations of time which obviously did not 
 belong to the original structure, and thus lay bare what 
 of the latter has escaped the ravages of time, and then 
 examine what is left. More than once have we seen such 
 ruins on our holiday wanderings, and by help of what 
 wa9 left tried to reconstruct mentally the edifice as it 
 may have been at one time. 
 
 We saw, maybe, a row of columns, most of them broken, 
 all of them damaged more or less. Parallel to them at 
 equal distances there would be remnants of masonry which 
 resembled the base of the columns still standing. In 
 parts even these were missing, their sites being bare and 
 level with the ground. Nevertheless, from a portion of 
 an arch that was still projecting from the top of one of 
 the columns we had no difficulty in reconstructing mentally 
 the cloisters which undoubtedly once covered the ground, 
 and the Gothic arches which these columns at one time 
 must have supported. 
 
 Continuing our explorations, we could locate in the ruins 
 the sites once occupied by the dormitory, the refectory, 
 the chapel, the cells, etc. Parts of the buildings we could 
 recognize as later additions, not contemplated by the 
 original designer, from the fact of their being distinct in 
 material, style and purpose from the main structure. We 
 had no difficulty in concluding that a building close by 
 had been built at a much later date — not, in fact, until 
 
INTRODUCTION 31 
 
 after the destruction of the main building, because it had 
 been constructed with materials mostly taken from the 
 ruined structure. Many of the stones in this compara- 
 tively recent and uncouth erection could be identified by 
 their shape, or the carvings on them, and we could often 
 tell what part or position they had once occupied in the 
 original structure. The fact that in the newer building 
 these stones were thrown together without definite plan 
 or system, and without regard to shape, size, purpose or 
 position, made it evident that originally these stones had 
 been intended for a different purpose, and once formed 
 part of an altogether different edifice. 
 
 This picture fairly represents the state in which we 
 find the Gospels ; and the method of investigation here 
 indicated is the one which I intend to apply to these 
 ancient documents. It is the method of common 9ense 
 which has yielded such splendid results in every branch 
 of knowledge to which it has been applied. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 RELICS FROM AN ANCIENT GOSPEL 
 
 But the second is like unto it : Love thy neighbour as thyself . 
 
 As in the case of the contemplated ruin, let us begin 
 our inquiry by examining those few remnants which, 
 having withstood the ravages of time, are jutting out like 
 pillars — as it were — from beneath the mound, and betoken 
 by every test that can be applied that they are unmis- 
 takably of more ancient origin than the flimsy fabrics 
 around them. 
 
 I will begin with what is known as the Parable of the 
 Good Samaritan, but will rename it " The Parable of the 
 Priest, the Levite and the Samaritan." 
 
 The parable is chiefly remembered for what it is taught 
 as in Bible classes : as a lesson to be kind to your neigh- 
 bours and to succour suffering. But these lessons are 
 incidental only, and of quite subsidiary importance to the 
 main issue, which concerns the foundation of the religion 
 of Jesus. True, the parable is the gem of the narrative ; 
 but its value, nevertheless, is in the setting of it, and not 
 in the lesson of kindliness which it incidentally inculcates. 
 
 To understand the real and full significance of this 
 parable we must note what has led up to it. A lawyer 
 came to heckle Jesus. Like every great reformer, Jesus 
 had his opponents, great and small. There were those 
 who were uncompromisingly hostile either from mental 
 bias or interested motives. There were the sectarians 
 who opposed the new teaching on doctrinal grounds. 
 And there were those who claimed to be liberal-minded, 
 but who regarded the doctrines preached by Jesus as 
 
 far-fetched, Utopian and altogether impracticable. 
 
 32 
 
RELICS FROM AN ANCIENT GOSPEL 33 
 
 To this latter class belonged, evidently, the lawyer who 
 9tood up and " tempted " Jesus, saying, " Teacher, what 
 shall I do to inherit eternal life ? " 
 
 He did not ask the question as one desiring to be in- 
 structed, but " temptingly." It was a challenge, as from 
 one knowing what answer he would get and who is prepared 
 to prick the bladder with a pointed question held in 
 readiness. But in this he was mistaken. For answer 
 Jesus simply referred him to the law : " What is written 
 in the law ? How readest thou ? " 
 
 The lawyer rattled off : " Thou shalt love the Lord 
 thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy sou], and 
 with all thy strength, and with all thy mind ; and thy 
 neighbour as thyself. And Jesus said to him : Thou 
 hast answered right : this do and thou shalt live " 
 (Luke x. 27-28). 
 
 The narrative goes on to say that the lawyer, willing 
 to justify himself, said unto Jesus, "And who is my. 
 neighbour ? " 
 
 Here let us pause for a moment to analyse the situation. 
 It will be noticed that the lawyer's question, " And who 
 is my neighbour ? " refers to the second part of the law 
 only, whereas the reply of Jesus, " This do," made no 
 such discrimination but referred to both laws. To ap- 
 preciate the meaning of the lawyer's question as to" who 
 was neighbour " we must understand the issue about 
 which the lawyer intended to heckle Jesus. 
 
 There were two " laws " or " commandments " which 
 were fundamental in Jewish philosophy. These were 
 " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God " and " Love thy 
 neighbour as thyself." The scribes and the Pharisees — 
 that is, the ruling classes — laid all the emphasis on the 
 first and Jesus on the second commandment. 
 
 The " Pharisees " 1 interpreted the " love of God " to 
 mean prayer, adulation, sacrifice and worship. They 
 glorified God in a manner that would gratify a human 
 despot. As for the second commandment, it was entirely 
 subordinate and its fulfilment consisted at best in alnis- 
 
 1 I am retaining the phrase as used by the evangelists, although it is 
 used in a sense which is incorrect and misleading. 
 
 3 
 
34 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 giving. Jesus, on the other hand, regarded the second 
 commandment as arising out of the first, and, therefore, 
 as its corollary. There was no way of loving God save 
 by taking care of his children. God was the Father of 
 us all. We must hallow him in his fatherhood : " Our 
 Father . . . hallowed be thy name." This can only be 
 done by a full recognition of our brotherhood. " One is 
 your Master and all ye are brethren." This idea of the 
 Fatherhood of God of all mankind is the foundation of 
 all his precepts and teachings. It was the will of " our 
 Father which is in heaven " that none of his children 
 should suffer at the hands of each other. " Inasmuch as 
 ye have done it to one of these, ye have done it unto me." 
 " If any offend one of these little ones, better a millstone 
 were hung round his neck, and that he were drowned 
 at the bottom of the sea." Or again, " If thou bring 
 thy sacrifice to the altar and there rememberest that 
 thy brother hatrK^ught against thee, leave there thy gift 
 before the altar ansLbe reconciled first to thy brother." 
 Thus, and thus only, can you glorify your " Father which 
 is in heaven." Therefore the first commandment can 
 
 BE FULFILLED ONLY BY THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SECOND. 
 
 It is the pivot of all his teaching, and it is on this point 
 that Jesus met with the strongest opposition. 
 
 This led to quibblings as to the relative importance of 
 the two commandments, the first, on which the " scribes 
 and Pharisees " relied ; or the second, on which centred 
 the teaching of Jesus and which he contended was " like 
 unto the first." 
 
 When, therefore, Jesus simply referred the lawyer to 
 " the law," he made no distinction as between the first 
 and second commandment, for to Jesus the two meant 
 one and the same thing. 
 
 Not so, however, with the lawyer. Not having received 
 the answer in the form in which he had expected it, and 
 " willing to justify himself," he said to Jesus, " And who 
 is my neighbour ? " That is, he took up Jesus on the 
 second commandment, evidently trying to show the im- 
 practicability of his teaching. 
 
 And now came for answer the illuminating parable, 
 
RELICS FR^M AN ANCIENT GOSPEL 35 
 
 which I will quote in full : " And Jesus answering said, 
 A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and 
 fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, 
 and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 
 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way : 
 and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 
 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came 
 and looked at him, and passed by on the other side. But 
 a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was : 
 and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and 
 went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil 
 and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought 
 him to an inn and took care of him. And on the morrow 
 when he departed, he took out two coins, and gave them 
 to the host, and said unto him : Take care of him, and 
 whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I 
 will repay thee. Which of these three, thinkest thou, was 
 neighbour unto him that fell among thieves ? " (Luke x. 
 
 30-36)* 
 
 Reluctantly and evasively the lawyer admitted, ft He 
 
 that showed mercy on him." Again he was made to 
 
 answer his own question. 
 
 But the chief significance of the parable he evaded, as 
 do most of our Bible expositors of to-day. For, had it 
 been the object of Jesus merely to teach the lawyer that 
 " he that showed mercy was neighbour," he could have 
 chosen any three men for his parable, whereas he selected 
 a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan. 
 
 It is just in the selection of the characters that the 
 importance of the lesson is comprised. For the first man 
 whom Jesus made to pass by on the other side was a 
 priest, a man of prayer and fasting, of rites and ceremonials, 
 looked upon as holy by his people. The second man 
 was a patrician, equally punctilious in all the rituals of 
 the synagogue. And the third ? A despised alien, a 
 Gentile, an unbeliever, a pariah, loathed by every self- 
 respecting Jew in those days as is a negro to-day in 
 Christian America. 
 
 Among these Jesus bade the lawyer to choose : 
 
 " Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour 
 to him that fell among thieves ? " 
 
36 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 The lawyer cleverly evaded the main issue by ignoring 
 the status of the three persons named, and according 
 his verdict to "him that showed mercy/' To say out- 
 right, " The Samaritan/' was perhaps too much to expect. 
 He could not so debase priest and patrician, co-religionists 
 and compatriots, as to prefer a Samaritan to them by name. 
 
 But, notwithstanding his fencing, he had to admit more 
 than he was probably aware of at the time, and that 
 is, that religion of deed comes before profession of creed. 
 And that is the lesson of the " Parable of the Priest, the 
 Levite and Samaritan/' To speak of it as the " Parable 
 of the Good Samaritan " only is to ignore its chief lesson. 
 
 Jesus explained to the lawyer, and to us, what his 
 religion was : Creed, prayer and fasting ; patriotism, 
 race, nationality, clanship ; wealth and social position ; 
 were all brushed aside so as to accord place of honour 
 to a good deed, even though performed by one of the 
 least of the sons of " our Father which is in heaven." 
 
 In the view of Jesus conventional piety, unsupported 
 by good conduct, counted for nothing ; whilst a good 
 deed did not lose anything of its merits because performed 
 by a person not belonging to a particular or to any sect. 
 We shall see further on that the absence of creed was an 
 essential feature of the religion of Jesus, as in true religion 
 it is bound to be. 
 
 This narrative is by no means an isolated passage, but 
 one out of many, all to the same purpose. As our in- 
 vestigation proceeds it will be seen that Jesus never 
 uttered a word that is ever so remotely inconsistent with 
 the spirit displayed in this brief but telling narrative. 
 That there are many sayings in the Gospels attributed 
 to Jesus which are diametrically opposed to it is, of 
 course, admitted. But we shall not find it difficult to 
 show that all such passages are apocryphal. 
 
 In this parable we have the key to the religion of Jesus. 
 Theology could extract nothing more from it than an 
 exhortation to be kind and to succour the weak. Blinded 
 by its own dogmas, it never noticed the two leading prin- 
 ciples that inspired it, that are the essence of it, and that 
 must be the basis of true religion, if a true religion is 
 
RELICS FROM AN ANCIENT GOSPEL 37 
 
 possible at all. These are its catholicity and its tendency 
 to unity, concord and fellowship, in sharp contrast to 
 the discordant and disruptive tendencies of the creeds 
 which theology has evolved. 
 
 We will but briefly note these at present, for we shall 
 see these two principles permeating the philosophy of Jesus. 
 
 Take, for instance, the lesson just noticed which Jesus 
 imparted to an antagonist. The lawyer asked, " Who is 
 my neighbour ? " Jesus made him answer his own 
 question and in a way he neither anticipated nor intended. 
 
 In this instance a bigoted Jew had to answer his 
 own question contrary to his prejudices. We might 
 submit the same problem, thus clearly stated, to 
 Brahmin, Buddhist, Mohammedan or Freethinker with 
 the same result. Its catholicity is clearly due to the total 
 absence of any suggestion of theology, creed or dogma. 
 
 Even the name of the author might be eliminated 
 without weakening the force of the lesson ; for the fact 
 that Jesus was the propounder of it clearly could not 
 weigh in its favour with the heckling antagonist. It is 
 characteristic of all the precepts of Jesus that they in- 
 trinsically make for unity, peace and concord, without 
 needing any other support. 
 
 Obviously there can be but one true religion, and there- 
 fore such a religion — if possible at all — must tend to unite 
 mankind. Indeed, this is the test whereby to distinguish 
 true religion from its counterfeits : " By their fruits ye 
 shall know them/' 
 
 What are the fruits of the pseudo -religions with which 
 we are acquainted — not excepting any ? They are known 
 to history as religious dissensions, religious feuds, religious 
 wars, religious frauds, and even as religious crimes. 
 Surely no sadder commentary is possible on the general 
 conception of religion than the linking of the word with 
 ideas which stand for its opposite, without anybody 
 being shocked by the incongruity of the combinations, 
 or the paradoxes which they suggest. 1 
 
 1 Of course it is acknowledged that there were within the pale of the 
 several creeds people whose sentiments, thoughts and actions were abore 
 
3$ THE HISTORY OP JESUS 
 
 Here is another one of these "pillars" of a similar 
 design and in an almost perfect state of preservation. 
 
 On a certain other occasion another lawyer asked 
 Jesus — also " temptingly " — " Teacher, i which is the great 
 commandment in the law?" 
 
 Save for the purpose of challenging a statement or an 
 argument, there would be no sense in asking this question 
 of a Jew. As well ask him whether he knows his own 
 name. 
 
 Nor was Jesus an ordinary Jew, or considered such by 
 the heckling lawyer, who addressed him as "rabbi," i.e. 
 " teacher." To assume, therefore, that the lawyer merely 
 wanted to find out whether Jesus knew the commandment 
 is too absurd for even a moment's consideration. More- 
 over, the narrator plainly says that the question was 
 asked " temptingly," which in itself indicates that an 
 argument was at issue between the lawyer and Jesus. 
 The context not only shows this to have been the case, 
 but from the answer of Jesus, as well as the conversation 
 that followed it, we are able to gather the nature of the 
 argument. 
 
 As has already been pointed out, Jesus laid great stress 
 on the second commandment — " Love thy neighbour as 
 thyself " ; whereas the " scribes and Pharisees " held 
 the first to be the supreme law. Hence the challenge 
 of the lawyer, as if saying, " In your concern for man- 
 kind you are forgetting God. Do you not know the great 
 commandment in the law ? " 
 
 For answer Jesus recited the law and then added : 
 " This is the first and great commandment. But the 
 second is like unto it : Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
 as thyself." 
 
 the narrowness of the faith which they professed. It is not the people 
 who are here criticized but the philosophy in which they have been 
 brought up. Most people are better than their creed. 
 
 1 The Greek word " didaskale " [\.e, "teacher"') has been rendered 
 " master " in the A.V., which often obscures the true meaning of certain 
 passages. Thus, for instance, when a disciple addressed Jesus according 
 to the English translation as " Good Master," Jesus rebuked the disciple 
 for calling him " good " yet accepted the " master." But if " teacher " 
 is substituted for "master ' this seeming inconsistency in Jesus is re- 
 moved. 
 
RELICS FROM AN ANCIENT GOSPEL 39 
 
 This makes sense of a narrative which, in the form in 
 which it is presented in the English Version, is meaning- 
 less. There Jesus is made to say, " And the second is 
 like unto it " — rendering the Greek particle " de " by 
 the conjunction " and " instead of the argumentative 
 particle " but " — which robs the passage of its meaning. 
 For it is not likely that Jesus would have thought it 
 necessary to inform an exponent of the law what the 
 wording of the second commandment was. 
 
 This, or a similar incident, is also recorded in Mark, 
 the wording being slightly different. Jesus is there said 
 to have added, " There is none other commandment greater 
 than these two." 
 
 There is no contradiction in the two accounts, but 
 rather corroboration. Very probably both versions are 
 correct, the different wordings having been used on 
 different occasions. The accusation that Jesus was 
 ignoring the great law, and that he was teaching heretical 
 and revolutionary doctrines, could not have been an 
 isolated occurrence, but must have followed him to the 
 cross. As constant must have been his reiterations that 
 if the second law was like unto the first/' Had the 
 incident occurred once only, it would scarcely have sur- 
 vived or been handed down to us. 
 
 According to Mark there was a dramatic sequel to this 
 episode. The lawyer was struck by the answer and the 
 interpretation Jesus gave to the two commandments. 
 " And the scribe said unto him, Well, Teacher, thou 
 hast said the truth : for there is one God and there is 
 none other but he : and to love him with all the heart, 
 and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, 
 and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as 
 himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacri- 
 fices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, 
 he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of 
 God (Mark xii. 32-34). 
 
 Note the consistency with his reply given to the other 
 lawyer : " Thou hast said right, this do and thou shalt 
 live/' That is, obey the two commandments. And now 
 again when this lawyer says that the observance of 
 
40 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 these two laws " is more than all the burnt offerings and 
 sacrifices/' Jesus said to him, " Thou art not far from the 
 kingdom of God " ; " On these two commandments hang 
 all the law and the prophets " ; and " There is none greater 
 than these two commandments." True, indeed, that 
 he had not come to destroy the law or the prophets, 
 but to fulfil. 
 
 But here I must digress in order to restore to the 
 phrase "kingdom of God" its original meaning and to 
 correct a grave blunder committed by the early Christians, 
 that has been perpetuated to this day. The Greek word 
 " basileia," here and, elsewhere translated "kingdom/' 
 has two meanings. Like the English word " dominion " 
 it may refer to the rule of a king (which is the original 
 meaning of the word) or, metaphorically, to the territory 
 ruled over. We shall see in a later chapter that many 
 of the legends and miracles had their origin in giving 
 such material interpretations to abstract words or phrases. 
 
 Jesus never used the phrase in any other sense than 
 " the rule of God " or " reign of God," as is clear in each 
 case from the context. When, for instance, he said to 
 the lawyer " Thou art not far from the kingdom of God," 
 the phrase can have meaning only if Jesus meant — as 
 evidently he did mean — that the lawyer was not far 
 removed from the " rule " or " law " of God. It is 
 obvious that merely by assenting to a proposition he 
 could not be any nearer to a locality. Compare also 
 "Thy kingdom (i.e. ' rule ' or ' reign ') come : Thy will 
 be done on earth/' etc. 
 
 The Gospels are full of such blundering errors of 
 translation and misinterpretation — sometimes due to the 
 ignorance of the scribes and sometimes to theological bias 
 — which makes the student's task often very tedious. 
 
 What Jesus meant by the " kingdom " he desired to 
 establish on earth will become even more clear when we 
 examine yet another of these relics which we find in the 
 Gospels. 
 
 A certain ruler came saying, " Good Teacher, what 
 good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life ? " 
 Not temptingly, but Math desire for information. 
 
RELICS FROM AN ANCIENT GOSPEL 41 
 
 Three of the Gospels record this incident — Matthew, 
 Mark and Luke ; and, barring verbal differences, their 
 agreement as to everything that is essential leaves little 
 to be desired. He was not a heckler. According to all 
 the accounts this man was genuinely desirous of knowing 
 what he should do to inherit eternal life. He was a true 
 disciple, for we are told that Jesus, beholding him, "loved 
 him/' Therefore, if ever there was an occasion or an 
 opportunity in the whole career of Jesus to declare his 
 scheme of salvation, surely this was the supreme moment. 
 And for myself I have not the least doubt that he did do 
 so, and that his answer is correctly reported. The consis- 
 tency is proof of this. In the first place Jesus rebuked 
 the disciple for giving him a distinctive predicate : 
 " Why callest thou me good ? there is none good but 
 one, that is God." Then he gave him this simple 
 direction : " Keep the commandments." 
 
 " Which ? " asked the disciple, and the answer was 
 explicit : " Thou 9halt do no murder, Thou shalt not 
 commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not 
 bear false witness, Honour thy father and mother, and 
 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." T 
 
 Not a word about believing. No hint about the necessity 
 of baptism. Not even an intimation about attendance at 
 the synagogue, about burnt offerings, sacrifices or fastings. 
 Or shall we suppose that such instruction had been given, 
 but had been lost in the transmission ? Is the account 
 as it has reached us perhaps incomplete ? Not so. The 
 narrative does not leave us in any doubt, for it goes on 
 to say that the young man, wishing to be certain about 
 his duties, said : " All these I do already, what lack I 
 yet ? " For answer, Jesus said that if he wanted to be 
 perfect, all he could do was to 9ell what he had, give it 
 to the poor, and help him to preach the same gospel to 
 the rest of mankind. 
 
 There i9 not only agreement between these scattered 
 narratives, in sharp contrast to the tenor of the rest of 
 the Gospels, but a most remarkable consistency of aim 
 and purpose— not merely as between the three incidents 
 
 1 Matt, xix, 16-21. 
 
42 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 we have noticed, but also with the exhortations of the 
 Sermon on the Mount, which — by universal admission — 
 constitute the essence of the teachings of Jesus. 
 
 Here as elsewhere — that is, in those portions of the 
 Gospels which in style and diction no less than in doctrine 
 are so easily distinguishable from the rest— Jesus is 
 laying emphasis on what he himself calls " the greatest 
 of all commandments " : " Love thy neighbour as thy- 
 self." In so doing, that is, in loving our "neighbours," 
 whosoever they may be, we are hallowing the Fatherhood 
 of God. 
 
 Rites and ceremonials were of no account at all. They 
 were not condemned, but at the same time were admissible 
 only after due observance of the law. Every trespass 
 against a fellow-man, even the slightest, was an error 
 which no amount of prayer or sacrifice could condone. 
 
 All his precepts and all his arguments are centred 
 around this principle. Our ideal was to be God, the 
 Father which is in heaven : " For he maketh his sun to 
 rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on 
 the just and unjust." 
 
 Contrast now with these pure and sublime teachings 
 the following words which are put into the mouth of 
 Jesus by Mark : 
 
 "And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the 
 world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that 
 believeth not shall be damned." x 
 
 Compare this illogical, incomprehensible and brutal 
 decree with the reasoned, humane and gentle exhor- 
 tation : 
 
 " Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do 
 good to them that hate you, and pray for them that 
 despitefully use you and persecute you ; thai ye may be 
 the children of your Father which is in heaven/' 
 
 Is it possible to believe that the same teacher, so 
 
 1 To save some critic an unnecessary trouble, I may point out that it 
 is known to me that it has been questioned whether Mark wrote the verses 
 in which this passage occurs. But if he did not, some other scribe did ; 
 and the words summarize well the basic doctrine of Christianity. 
 
RELICS FROM AN ANCIENT GOSPEL 43 
 
 consistent, so clear and logical, and so meticulously just 
 and gentle as is the author of the Sermon on the Mount 
 could have pronounced so unutterably absurd a decree ? 
 What, if we accept this as genuine, are we to make of 
 the other injunction which bids us to be " like our Father 
 which is in heaven " ? The proposition is too absurd 
 for serious argument. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Let not the reader be shocked at the freedom with which 
 I am handling these precious documents — precious 
 because of the treasures that are buried in them, but 
 not because of the false reverence which has made them 
 into a fetich. It is too late in the day to contend that 
 there are no errors or contradictions in the Gospels, or 
 that their authors were infallible ; and my object is to 
 expose error and not to reverence it. Much as I should 
 like to avoid anything of a controversial nature, it is 
 quite impossible to get at the truth without disturbing 
 some of the cobwebs that cling to it. But let the reader 
 remember that it is less impious to say that men have 
 blundered than to attribute manifest absurdities to 
 divine inspiration. Nor can it be irreverent to prove — 
 as I hope I shall — that where doctrine and common 
 sense clash, it was the scribes and commentators who 
 blundered and not Jesus. 
 
 There are plenty of contradictions in the Gospels ; not 
 merely as between one another, but doctrines of far- 
 reaching import that are diametrically opposed can be 
 found in the same Gospel. The explanation, however, 
 is a simple one. There are two distinct philosophies promis- 
 cuously mixed up in the Gospels, each consistent with itself, 
 but irreconcilably opposed to the other : hence the confusion, 
 contradictions, absurdities and paradoxes. 
 
 We must look upon these writings not as records, but 
 as relics of such. Fragments of some former work con- 
 cerning a great man and his teachings which have es- 
 caped the ravages of time have been collected and 
 treasured — as such relics are — by disciples of the teacher, 
 
 44 
 
THE GOSPELS 45 
 
 and handed down from generation to generation, embel- 
 lished with anecdotal lore. We shall see further on how 
 these ancient relics came to be incorporated in the Gospels 
 we possess. 
 
 Time is a dual force. Its devastations are* as often due 
 to its creative as to its destructive powers. It not only 
 wears and dilapidates, but also contaminates and corrupts, 
 until it becomes difficult to distinguish the original from 
 the later accretions and transformations. This is true 
 of organisms as soon as life is extinct and they are no 
 longer able to withstand the power of external influences. 
 It is true of the works of man, when the care and trouble 
 necessary for their preservation no longer shields them 
 against the destructive powers of nature. And it is 
 doubly and trebly true of historical records that have 
 been left to the care of tradition. 
 
 It is obvious that at the time when the Gospels were 
 written a cult had already grown around the name of 
 Jesus and that the Christ-myth, with all its legends and 
 doctrines, must have been established — else they could 
 not have been written about as they have been. Let us 
 clearly grasp this fact : What the evangelists recorded 
 was not contemporaneous history, but traditions — then 
 already old — extant in those days, as is clearly stated by 
 the author of Luke's Gospel. Therefore, at the time the 
 Gospels were written — " compiled " would probably be a 
 more correct w r ord to use — time had already done so 
 much of its devastating work — destructive as well as 
 creative — as to require great skill and critical acumen to 
 separate fact from fiction, history from legend, or the 
 teachings of Jesus from the doctrines of a sect which 
 built its creed around his name and fame after the manner 
 of the iv}? that clings to the oak for support and in the 
 end strangles it. 
 
 But the evangelists possessed no such talents and made 
 no attempt at criticism. In the words of Luke, they 
 accepted all " as even it was delivered." They came to 
 the ancient ruins — the literary relics of Jesus — when 
 tradition and legend had already covered them with 
 shrines and altars ; and they remained, not to inquire 
 
46 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 and to examine, but to believe and to worship according 
 to already established custom. 
 
 To us the value of the Gospels lies in the fact that 
 they disclose the ancient relics almost as the evangelists 
 found them. I say almost, because transcribers and 
 translators have made notable changes, as we shall learn 
 further on. The evangelists themselves, however, seemed 
 to have preserved unaltered what tradition had handed 
 down to them. They do not seem to have disturbed 
 anything. Their genuine respect for everything that 
 was even remotely associated with the name of Jesus 
 forbade them to do so ; and their ignorance and want 
 of any vestige of critical acumen concealed from them 
 the often glaring discrepancies between the few genuine 
 remnants of a more ancient gospel and their own doctrines 
 and beliefs. Thus it came that they did not feel the 
 necessity for deliberately tampering with the text as 
 theologians of a later date felt constrained to do. And 
 thus it happens that we have two incompatible and 
 mutually exclusive philosophies in the Gospels — not side 
 by side, but interspersed and interlarded in the most 
 haphazard fashion — one being the teachings of Jesus 
 and the other expressing the beliefs and doctrines of a 
 sect who — mistakenly, as we shall see — regarded Jesus as 
 their founder. 
 
 Of these the older and the sounder one — the philosophy 
 of Jesus — is overshadowed by the Christology of a much 
 later date. Nevertheless the latter is but a parasitic 
 growth on the former, as is the mistletoe on the tree on 
 which it thrives and from which it derives its sustenance, 
 but which it neither resembles nor is in any way re- 
 lated to. 
 
 Instead of accepting the Gospels as " sacred " — a theory 
 which nowadays no educated person, lay or cleric, really 
 believes in — let us inquire what claim these documents 
 have to be regarded as possessing any authority at all. 
 Let us tabulate what is known about the New Testament 
 writings. I shall state such facts only as are undisputed 
 and indisputable. 
 
 i. We do not possess, as far as is known, a scrap written 
 
THE GOSPELS 47 
 
 by Jesus himself. We do not even know whether he 
 has ever written anything on preservable material. The 
 only record of his ever having written anything at all 
 is that " he wrote with his finger on the ground " on a 
 certain memorable occasion. 
 
 2. We do not possess any records written by eye or ear 
 witnesses, or by contemporaries of Jesus. Not one of 
 the manuscripts that we possess is in the handwriting 
 of its author, all of them being copies or translations 
 made, we know not by whom, when or where, and are 
 derived probably from a long series of successive copies. 
 In the words of Dr. F. Blass x : " No two different editions 
 (of the Gospels) are absolutely identical, nor are any two 
 written copies, nor is any edition or copy identical with 
 the original writing." 
 
 3. Not only do we not possess the originals of these 
 writings, but we do not even know always in what 
 language they may have been written ; so that in many 
 cases it is not only copies, but translations which we 
 possess, without being able to check the accuracy of 
 either copyist or translator. 
 
 4. It is proved beyond doubt that these writings have 
 been corrupted by alterations, omissions, or additions, 
 sometimes from ignorance in translation or transcription, 
 and sometimes from design. Dr. Blass, 3 having pointed 
 out some such mutilations, says : " At any rate we clearly 
 see that there have been very ancient readers who did 
 not shrink from wilful alterations of the sacred text, 
 if it did not suit their dogmatic convictions, or if it might 
 give support to opposite tenets." 3 
 
 5. All the New Testament documents were avowedly 
 written by their authors after the death of Jesus, and 
 hence even the originals were only records of traditions. 
 
 (In subsequent chapters I hope to trace some of the 
 legends to their source, and to prove that the Gospels 
 must have been written after such legends had been 
 established and their true origin forgotten.) 
 
 6. The Gospels contradict each other on many material 
 
 1 The Philology of the Gospels, p. 54. * Loc. cit., p. 89. 
 
 3 Of this sin the English translators and revisers are not guiltless. 
 
48 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 points, and often the writer of the same Gospel records 
 doctrines, or attributes sayings to Jesus, that are diamet- 
 rically opposed to each other, without himself seeming 
 to have been aware of the contradiction. 
 
 7. The Gospels contain many absurdities, paltry 
 miracles such as ignorant people or children delight in 
 telling of their heroes, often introduced without necessity 
 or any apparent rhyme or reason. 
 
 If we examine the contents of these documents for 
 internal evidence, the uncertainty and confusion become 
 greater still. 
 
 Words and phrases have changed their meaning between 
 the times of Jesus and the evangelists, and again since 
 the time of the evangelists to now. Many words were 
 used by Jesus in a technical or a metaphorical sense to 
 which the evangelists gave literal interpretations ; and 
 the same thing has happened when theologians trans- 
 lated and interpreted the already misconstrued and 
 distorted accounts which these scribes gave of the sayings 
 and doings of Jesus. Many of the " miracles " have 
 no other foundation than such perversion of simple 
 matters of fact by the stupendous ignorance and credulity 
 of wonder-mongering zealots. 
 
 All these bhmderings, corruptions and falsifications — 
 some accidental and some of them wilful — added to the 
 inherent difficulties in reading ancient documents owing 
 to the changed meanings of words and phrases, make it 
 impossible to quote a text from the English translation 
 without — in many cases — the necessity of first confirming 
 the translation or removing a false interpretation given 
 to it by the translators. 
 
 We do not know for certain in what language Jesus 
 spoke, except that it was not Greek. There did not 
 exist in those days — certainly not among the fishermen 
 and tentmakers of Galilee — a vocabulary capable of 
 expressing facts in nature, or philosophical theories, 
 that were clear and incapable of misinterpretation by 
 the vulgar. On the other hand, the facts of nature (or 
 the "reign of law") were the same then as ever; and 
 although there did not exist a system of science such as 
 
THE GOSPELS 49 
 
 we know to-day with a terminology of its own, there 
 were at all times men who, " by extraordinary genius 
 or by the accidental acquisition of a good set of intel- 
 lectual habits " — to borrow a passage from J. S. Mill — 
 saw and recognized the uniformities of nature in the 
 midst of what to the mass of mankind seemed mere 
 chance and chaos. I am unable to find a phrase that 
 would correctly express what is so vaguely and so mis- 
 leadingly called " the reign of law " or " forces of nature/' 
 notwithstanding that I am thinking in the rich English 
 language of the twentieth century. What must have 
 been the difficulties of a philosopher two thousand years 
 ago, who desired to communicate any such ideas to his 
 ignorant and superstitious contemporaries, with only a 
 limited vocabulary at his disposal ? Jesus perforce had 
 to pour the " new wine into old bottles " and the conse- 
 quences followed a9 a matter of course. 
 
 We do not find in the Greek of the Gospels words for 
 " space," " universe/' or " nature," in their modern 
 philosophical sense. The word " nature " is used to-day 
 to include the universe or existence, in the most compre- 
 hensive sense. The Greek word " physis " had no such 
 meaning — certainly not among the writers of the New 
 Testament. Nor did they have a corresponding single 
 term to express the same idea. They had the words 
 " God " and " heavens " ; the latter to express the idea 
 of " space " or " universe/' and the former for its govern- 
 ment. We still are using both these words in the same 
 sense, although we have a choice of others whereby to 
 define their meanings ; as, for instance, when we say 
 that the astronomer " scans the heavens " in search of 
 the "laws of God/' 
 
 But what different meanings may be given to the 
 words "heaven," "God" and "law" by a philosopher 
 and an ignorant and credulous rabble, we shall 
 presently see. 
 
 Jesus, for instance, frequently spoke of " the kingdom 
 of God " or the " kingdom of heaven." The Greek 
 word " basileia," as previously explained, has two mean- 
 ings ; firstly, it means dominion, reign, exercise of kingly 
 
 4 
 
So THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 power ; and sometimes (metonymically only) it meant 
 also realm or territory under kingly rule. Jesus obviously 
 used it in the former sense when, for instance, he prays 
 " Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is 
 in heaven " ; or when he said to the lawyer who approved 
 of the principles of the two great commandments, ' Thou 
 art not far from the kingdom of God." * 
 
 Either passage has meaning only if kingdom is rendered 
 by " dominion/' "reign," or " rule." 
 
 Perhaps even more clearly is this meaning of the word 
 " basileia " indicated in Matthew xii, verses 26-28, where 
 the dominion of Satan is contrasted with that of God. 
 Jesus, having been accused' of " casting out devils," 2 
 argued as follows : "If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided 
 against himself ; how shall then his kingdom stand ? . . . 
 But if I cast out devils by the spirit of God, then the 
 kingdom of God is come unto you." 
 
 That Jesus did not mean a territory, or a " kingdom " 
 in space, is clear also from the difficulty he had in explain- 
 ing his meaning to the multitude, as well as from the 
 parables which he used to illustrate his meaning. He 
 would not have needed parables to explain what a realm 
 ruled over by a king meant ; nor would he have had 
 occasion to say, " Therefore speak I to them in parables, 
 because they seeing see not ; and hearing they hear not, 
 neither do they understand." 3 The parables themselves 
 have no reference at all to a realm or territory, and by 
 no stretch of the imagination will they bear such an 
 interpretation. The parables of the sower, of the mustard 
 seed, and the leaven, are all intended to illustrate the 
 spread of truth once it has taken root. The actual words 
 are " logon tys basileias " ; literally " the laws of the 
 reign," but have been translated by the meaningless 
 phrase " the word of the kingdom." Here are the two 
 latter parables as printed in the Authorised Version, and 
 
 1 Mark xii. 34. 
 
 a " Casting out devils " meant dispelling wrong opinions, that is M false 
 spirit?," and substituting " good spirits " for them, the modern equivalent 
 for which is the phrase *' making converts." See chapter on " The Holy 
 Ghost," forward. 
 
 3 Matt, xiii. 13. 
 
THE GOSPELS 51 
 
 the reader may judge for himself whether they bear the 
 meanings given to them by the evangelists : — 
 
 "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain, of mustard 
 seed . . . which indeed is the least of all seeds ; but 
 when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and 
 becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and 
 lodge in the branches thereof." And " The kingdom of 
 heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid 
 in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened/' 
 
 All this is understandable when " basileia " (here 
 translated by " kingdom ") is understood to mean 
 " dominion " : a doctrine, a law, a principle, an abstract 
 truth which may " come " or be imparted to us ; which 
 can " grow " like a mustard seed, " spread " like leaven ; 
 " which cometh not by observation " but " is within you." 
 
 That, however, is not what the evangelists understood 
 by it. Theirs was a grossly material kingdom, differing 
 from the earthly kingdom they were acquainted with 
 in the same degree only as the happy hunting-grounds 
 of the Indians differed from the toilsome hills and forests 
 of their native haunts. That is, they were looking for a 
 realm in the clouds where there was to be peace and 
 plenty, to which the wicked were not to have access, 
 and where death and tribulation were to be unknown. 
 
 The King himself in this kingdom differed from the 
 earthly king only in being more just, rewarding the 
 deserving and punishing the transgressors. " Ye are 
 they which have continued with me in my temptations/' 
 Jesus is made to say, " and I appoint unto you a kingdom, 
 as my Father hath appointed unto me ; that ye may eat 
 and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones 
 judging the twelve tribes of Israel." * 
 
 It was not a "kingdom" that could "come" to 
 them, but one they had to be taken to ; and the same 
 gospel which says the " kingdom of God cometh not 
 with observation" also warned the "faithful" that the 
 coming of the Lord to fetch them would be heralded by 
 a commotion and a turbulence such as had never been 
 witnessed before : " There shall be signs in the sun, and 
 
 1 Luke xxii. 28-30. 
 
52 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 in the moon, and in the stars ; and upon the earth distress 
 of nations, with perplexity ; the sea and the waves roaring ; 
 men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after 
 those things which are coming on earth ; for the powers 
 of heaven shall be shaken." I 
 
 The author of Matthew's Gospel was even more sen- 
 sational, for he says that " Immediately after the tribu- 
 lation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the 
 moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from 
 heaven . . . and the Son of Man . . . shall send his 
 angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall 
 gather together his elect from the four winds, from one 
 end of heaven to the other." 2 
 
 This is the kind of " kingdom " the founders of 
 Christianity were waiting and looking for — a realm in 
 the clouds, after the world has come to an end, a kingdom 
 that not only did " come with observation," but with a 
 turbulence enough to waken the dead. Notwithstanding, 
 the faithful were warned to keep careful watch lest they 
 be asleep at the moment. "Take heed to yourselves, 
 lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with sur- 
 feiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so 
 that day come upon you unawares. . . . Watch ye 
 therefore. ..." 3 
 
 Moreover, they expected to get into the new kingdom 
 in the flesh. These childish zealots who could think of 
 concrete things only, who could conceive of the " stars 
 falling " and of the heavens being " rolled up like a 
 scroll," were unable to conceive of existence apart from 
 the body, although the doctrine was believed in and 
 taught by some of the sects of their time. 
 
 Life eternal meant to them exactly what the words 
 mean in their literal sense. They hoped to get into the 
 new kingdom in the clouds alive, and in the body. They 
 had no conception of a spiritual existence. It is in his 
 body, in the actual flesh, that the evangelists believed 
 Jesus to have risen. For when he appeared in the 
 midst of his disciples — as we are told- — they did not 
 believe in his resurrection until he assured them thus : — 
 
 1 Luke xxi. 25-26. 2 Matt. xxiv. 25-31. 3 Luke xxi. 34-36. 
 
THE GOSPELS S3 
 
 " Why are ye troubled ? And why do thoughts arise 
 in your hearts ? Behold my hands and feet, that it is 
 myself ; handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh 
 and bones, as ye see me have." x 
 
 And as if to allay their last doubt he is represented 
 as having asked, " Have ye here any meat ? And they 
 gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb ; 
 and he took it and did eat before them/* 3 
 
 These are fair specimens of the understanding, as well 
 as of the reasoning powers, of the authors of the Gospels. 
 It will be seen that abstract words and phrases were 
 taken with a wooden literalness, and difficulties were 
 got rid of by analogies and dialectics. Jesus spoke of 
 a " kingdom of heaven/' and they conceived it as a 
 locality in the sky. He hoped to bring about a reform — 
 alas ! as so many have imagined who saw a truth and 
 thought it needed only to be uttered in order to meet 
 with universal acceptance — within a measurable time ; 
 said something about " This generation shall not pass 
 away " or " There are some among you who shall not 
 taste of death before the dominion of God shall be estab- 
 lished " — and these ingenuous zealots, in their childlike 
 simplicity, interpreted the hope thus expressed into a 
 promise of being translated into a new realm where death 
 shall be unknown, and where there shall be peace and 
 plenty. 
 
 In like manner he may have said — and doubtless did 
 say, "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away 
 than for one tittle of the law to fail " — meaning, of course, 
 that a principle ("logos" or " entole ") is eternal — and 
 they turned it into a prophecy that heaven and earth 
 shall pass away. Hence it is that they located their 
 " kingdom " in the clouds. 
 
 They believed it all, too, and lived up to their belief ; 
 sold their earthly possessions and made common cause. 
 What need of hoarding these corruptible things when 
 they are shortly to enter into their glorious inheritance ? 
 " Behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 
 
 They prayed, and watched, and waited, and beguiled 
 1 Luke xxiv. 38-9. 2 Ibid. 41-43. 
 
54 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 the time by telling and retelling those thrilling tales 
 about " the Lord Jesus Christ " and his promises, and 
 the glories of which they were to be the sharers. Many 
 were the tales of the adventures and experiences of the 
 Lord that were told. Here is one of these, which sheds 
 a sombre light on the intelligence of these poor dupes : 
 " Then came to him the mother of Zebed'ee's children 
 with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain 
 thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou ? 
 She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may 
 sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, 
 in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know 
 not what ye ask ... To sit on my right hand, and on 
 my left, is not mine to give. . . . And when the ten 
 heard it, they were moved with indignation against the 
 two brethren." J As well they might be, for this really 
 savoured of things that were earthly. 
 
 Examples might be multiplied. But these are sufficient 
 to show that we need not be so overawed by the authority 
 of these scribes as to condemn the author of the Sermon 
 on the Mount on their unsupported testimony. 
 
 The object of this chapter was to inquire into the 
 authenticity of the Gospels. I trust the unprejudiced 
 reader will agree with me that far from being " in- 
 spired/' "literally true," or "divinely authenticated," 
 it would be difficult to find any writings — ancient or 
 modern — in the world's literature which exhibit more 
 grossly all the marks of human origin and human frailty 
 than these so-called " sacred " writings. Nor need we 
 be either surprised or dismayed at this. Centuries of 
 experience and education have failed to produce an 
 infallible man, or a book free from error of some kind 
 or other ; so that it seems irrational (rather than pious) 
 to look for such infallibility in the manifestly ignorant 
 and superstitious authors of the Gospels. 
 
 The question for us to decide— each for himself, of 
 
 course — is : Shall we say so ? Or shall we " in the interest 
 
 of religion " — as some seem to think— pretend to a belief 
 
 that is not sincere ? Put thus bluntly, another question 
 
 1 Matt. xx. 2o-24. 
 
THE GOSPELS 55 
 
 suggests itself : What kind of a " religion " is it that 
 needs the support of a falsehood ? Or, what is to be 
 expected from a " religion " that is based on insincerity 
 and untruth ? 
 
 At these cross roads I accept the common-sense guidance 
 of Jesus : " Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit ; 
 but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit/' I am quite 
 unable to see any profanity in saying that certain fisher- 
 men of Galilee were not infallible ; nor any piety in 
 attributing their errors and blunders to God. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE EVANGELISTS 
 
 A mere perusal of the Gospels, if unbiased, is sufficient 
 to reveal the manner in which they were composed, even 
 if the author of Luke's Gospel had not frankly told the 
 " most excellent Theophilus," to whom his treatise was 
 addressed, that " Many have taken in hand to set forth 
 in order a declaration of those things which are most 
 surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto 
 us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and 
 ministers of the word." 
 
 This means that the Gospels are not original histories 
 of facts personally known to their authors, but records 
 of traditions that were " surely believed among us " — 
 that is, the members of the sect to which the writer 
 belonged— as they have been handed down by those who 
 from the beginning were supposed to have been eye- 
 witnesses and " ministers of the word." 
 
 It is sufficiently plain from this, as well as from an 
 unbiased examination of the other Gospels, that at the 
 time they were written the Christ-myth had been fully 
 developed and the Christian cult had been established. 
 The " most excellent Theophilus " had been brought up 
 in that faith and there were already " ministers " who 
 preached the word. In other words, the sect called 
 " Christians " for the first time at Antioch J many years 
 after the death of Jesus, was already established when the 
 Gospels were written. 
 
 How the sect originated, what were its tenets and 
 beliefs, and other matters concerning it and its members, 
 we shall learn by and by. Here I will only say — what 
 
 1 See Acts xi. 26. 
 
THE EVANGELISTS 57 
 
 is already sufficiently apparent — that Jesus was neither 
 the founder nor a member of the sect ; that the latter 
 did not come into being until many years after his death ; 
 and that he was no more responsible for Christianity or 
 its strange doctrines than he was for Mohammedanism 
 or Mormonism. 
 
 The evangelists had collected the traditions of their 
 sect and anecdotes concerning its supposed founder 
 and " set them forth in order " — that is, one item follow- 
 ing the other as each was remembered or came to hand — 
 without reference to contents, coherence, or logical 
 sequence. There was not the slightest attempt at 
 assimilation or editing. 
 
 This, no doubt, accounts for the patchy, mosaic character 
 of their compilations. It also accounts for the many 
 contradictions and antagonistic doctrines of which there 
 is a superabundance in each of the four Gospels. Any 
 scrap of writing relating to Jesus would naturally be 
 treasured by its possessor, and when the authors of the 
 Gospels were fortunate enough to get access to such, 
 or heard of some by word of mouth — in the latter case 
 distorted sometimes beyond recognition— they would set 
 it down without reference to what preceded it or what 
 was to follow. 
 
 In this way can we account for the fact that we find 
 two distinct and antagonistic philosophies interspersed 
 and interlarded in these " scrap books " — we can hardly 
 call them anything else — without any intention, and 
 apparently also without the knowledge of their authors. 
 
 This circumstance has caused much embarrassment to 
 " divines " of later generations, and has been the occasion 
 of much spilling of ink in the attempt to harmonize that 
 which is irreconcilable. But we of this generation have 
 reason to be thankful for this fortuitous and fortunate 
 combination of reverence and ignorance, for it is to this 
 circumstance that we are indebted for the preservation 
 of those few relics of a much older gospel which enable 
 us to obtain a glimpse of what Jesus did teach, and to 
 dissociate it from the doctrines that have been fathered 
 upon him. 
 
58 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 It is not difficult to pick out the former from among 
 the latter, as they differ not only in doctrine, but also in 
 style, diction, method of reasoning, sentiment, aim and 
 purpose. From whichever point of view we may choose 
 to regard them, the compositions of the evangelists and 
 these intercalated excerpta are as different from each 
 other as any two compositions could possibly be. 
 
 If we separate the contents of the Gospels on these 
 lines into two portions, most of the contradictions and 
 many of the absurdities — mostly due to the mixing up 
 of two mutually exclusive philosophies — disappear. We 
 then find all the legends, superstitions, and absurdities 
 in the one part ; and a well thought out, coherent, 
 and singularly lucid and consistent philosophy in the 
 other. 
 
 There are many doubtful passages which, either in 
 form or doctrine, are reminiscent of the style of Jesus, 
 but which in transmission have been corrupted, sometimes 
 beyond recognition. But once we have become acquainted 
 with the peculiarities of each style and the trend of thought 
 of the respective authors, it is often possible to trace such 
 corruptions to their source. (Several such examples 
 will be given.) 
 
 To see the difference in style and diction we need only 
 compare the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew (com- 
 mencing verse 3, chapter v, to verse 27, chapter vii) with 
 what precedes and what immediately follows it. The 
 Sermon is introduced abruptly, as if this had been the 
 beginning of the ministry of Jesus, and as abruptly the 
 style changes again to what it was before. 
 
 It might be said that this is but natural, since the Sermon 
 would be reported in the preacher's own words, and hence 
 the difference in style. No doubt that is the actual 
 fact. But whence, I ask, did the writer get his verbatim 
 report ? The Gospel of Matthew was certainly not 
 written until years after the Sermon had been preached. 
 We shall see in a later chapter that it could not have 
 been written until generations later. For my present 
 argument, however, it is sufficient to say that it was 
 years after. So much is manifest from a mere perusal 
 
THE EVANGELISTS 59 
 
 of the Gospel itself, since it is not in the style of a chronicle 
 written up day by day, as the events which it records 
 have happened, but is professedly an account of past 
 events, written after the death of Jesus. 
 
 How long after we may infer from such passages as 
 these : " In those days came John the Baptist . . ." 
 (chap. iii. i). 
 
 " Wherefore that field was called the field of blood 
 unto this day " (chap, xxvii. 8). 
 
 " So they (the soldiers) took the money, and did as 
 they were taught ; and this saying is commonly reported 
 among the Jews until this day " (chap, xxviii. 15). 
 
 Such phrases are not used except after a lapse of a 
 considerable number of years. 
 
 Now my contention is that the writer of this Gospel 
 could not have reproduced the Sermon from memory 
 after so many years without impressing his own style 
 and diction on it. The style of the "Sermon" is not 
 only essentially and characteristically different from 
 that of the evangelist , but is in every way identical with 
 that of the three narratives we have noticed in a previous 
 chapter, and others yet to be discussed. 
 
 Let me give an illustration in support of my contention. 
 Almost the whole of chapter xi purports to be matter 
 spoken by Jesus ; but there can be no doubt that the 
 composition is the evangelist's own. We need only 
 compare what Jesus is here made to say with the peculiar 
 style of the Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 Jesus never appealed to prophecies, nor did he rely 
 on ancient authorities in support of his teachings. His 
 style of address was : " Ye have heard of them of old 
 time . . . but I say unto you ..." justifying his new 
 interpretation of the ancient law by arguments that 
 made direct appeal to the understanding ; as when, 
 after having enjoined his hearers to love not only their 
 neighbours, but also their enemies, he says : — 
 
 " For if ye love them which love you, what merits 
 have you ; do not even the publicans the same ? And 
 if you salute your brethren only, what do you more than 
 others ? " 
 
60 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 In the words of the evangelist, " He taught as one 
 having authority and not as the scribes/' 
 
 On the other hand, the style of the evangelist — who- 
 ever he was — was typically that of the scribe, whose 
 office it was to interpret the scriptures and who was 
 in the habit of fortifying his own opinions by constant 
 appeals to the prophets. Here are a few specimens of 
 his style : — 
 
 " Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which 
 was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying . . . " J 
 
 " That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the 
 Lord. 
 
 " Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by 
 Jeremy. . . . " 3 
 
 '* And he [Jesus] came and dwelt in Nazareth ; that it 
 might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. . . ." 4 
 
 " That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 
 Esaias. ..." 5 
 
 And so on throughout. 
 
 Now, although Jesus in the Sermon gives most impor- 
 tant and far-reaching directions, he never makes any 
 such appeals to authorities, but rather brushes them 
 aside, always substituting logical argument for authority. 
 
 Comparing these two styles, it is easy to see that when 
 the evangelist makes Jesus say — as he does in chap. xi. 
 io — " For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I 
 send my messenger before thy face . . . " ; or *' And 
 if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was to come " ; 
 he is putting his own words into the mouth of Jesus. 
 The apocryphal character of this discourse is still more 
 manifest in verse 12, where Jesus is made to say, " From 
 the days of John the Baptist until now . . . ," a manner 
 of speech which implies a considerable lapse of time, 
 whereas John predeceased Jesus by only two years ! 
 
 The phrase is intelligible when used years after the 
 event by an ignorant scribe, who is hardly likely to 
 notice the implied anachronism ; but it would have been 
 meaningless in the mouth of Jesus. 
 
 My contention is that the Sermon, the three narratives 
 
 l Matt. i. 22. 2 ii. 15. 3 ii. 17. 4 ii. 23. 5 iv, 1^. 
 
THE EVANGELISTS 61 
 
 I have already quoted, and several others, were not the 
 composition of the author of the Gospel, nor were they 
 oral traditions, but must have been copied from some 
 more ancient manuscript, of which fragments only existed 
 at the time when the Gospels we possess were written. 
 I am also inclined to think that these compositions were 
 written down by their original author, and that because 
 nobody else could possibly have done so in the terse, 
 forcible and convincing language save the mind that had 
 thought them out and was familiar with the philosophy 
 that was underlying them all. The author of the Gospel 
 could never have written the Sermon, for instance, as 
 we find it in Matthew. 
 
 Either, therefore, the Sermon had been taken down 
 verbatim when it was delivered, or Jesus must have 
 written it down himself. In either case the evangelist 
 must have copied it, as well as the narratives which are 
 in the same style, from some older manuscripts, but 
 of which he could have seen fragments only. 
 
 These compositions are not like fantastic ebullitions 
 of a doctrinaire enthusiast, but are the deliberate, weighed 
 and carefully chosen words of a clear thinker who shows 
 much logical acumen and an extraordinary power of 
 concentration. Each sentence, and each word in each 
 sentence, is part of a well thought out system. Moreover, 
 none but he who had thought out the philosophy, and 
 therefore had perfect command of all its ramifications, 
 could, have met the objections of the heckling lawyer, 
 for instance, as did Jesus when in a few well chosen words 
 he confounded the objector and made him answer his 
 own objections. 
 
 The scribes who naively tell us of the miraculous con- 
 ception and the birth of Jesus ; who could believe that 
 " The star which they (the wise men) saw in the east 
 went before them till it came and stood over where the 
 young child was " ; who expected the stars to drop from 
 heaven, and that heaven and earth would be rolled up 
 like some stage property, and similar absurdities ; who, 
 in short, could record two such mutually exclusive doctrines 
 as coming from the same teacher without being aware 
 
62 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 of the absurdity or commenting thereon : could not have 
 invented the dialogue between Jesus and the lawyer, 
 nor written the Sermon as we find it in Matthew, even 
 if we leave questions of doctrine out of consideration. 
 
 It is as unthinkable that the authors of these Gospels 
 should have written any of these narratives or the Sermon, 
 as that their true author could have said, according to 
 Matthew :— 
 
 " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost " ; or according to Mark : — 
 
 " He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved ; 
 but he that believeth not shall be damned " ; or according 
 to Luke : — 
 
 " Lest they should believe and be saved/' 
 
 But this brings me from difference in style to difference 
 of doctrine, which will be best discussed in a separate 
 chapter. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE ANOMALOUS DI-UNE "JESUS-CHRIST" 
 
 My object really is not so much to establish the actual 
 authorship of Jesus for these few scattered literary relics 
 — though every consideration seems to support that 
 theory — as to prove dual authorship of the writings in 
 the Gospels and likewise duality of doctrine. I believe 
 that what I have already said would be sufficient to 
 establish both contentions in respect of any other book. 
 I do not flatter myself that I have effected this in the 
 present case, particularly with those readers who from 
 infancy have been taught to look upon the Gospels as 
 they would on no other book. 
 
 Jesus is credited with having been the founder of 
 " Christianity " ; that is, it is alleged that he has pro- 
 pounded those basic doctrines which are the foundation 
 of every Christian creed. 
 
 Now anything more incompatible with the principles 
 of the philosophy of Jesus than the basic doctrines of 
 Christianity it would be difficult to conceive. I shall 
 show in a later chapter — without going outside the New 
 Testament — that during the lifetime of Jesus neither 
 " Christ " nor "Christianity" was even thought of; 
 which, of course, must dispose of any connection between 
 the historical Jesus and the Christ-myth. My present 
 object, however, is to show the utter incompatibility of 
 the character and doctrines attributed to " Christ " 
 with the character and teaching of Jesus. 
 
 In the first place, it is quite unthinkable that the teacher 
 who laid such stress on the exclusive Fatherhood of God 
 and exhorted his followers not to give distinctive titles 
 
 to any but to " the Father which is in heaven " ; who 
 
 6 3 
 
64 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 objected to be called " Rabbi " ; who rebuked a disciple 
 for calling him " good " ; would allow himself to be called 
 the " Lord Jesus Christ/' much less command it and 
 require worship of himself on pain of eternal damnation. 
 Yet that is at the foundation of the creeds which claim 
 authority from Jesus. " To believe on the Lord Jesus 
 and to be baptized" is the fundamental doctrine of the 
 evangelists as it is of the Christian faith. 
 
 That Jesus himself did not think so — quite apart from 
 incompatibility with his teaching — is sufficiently evident 
 from the instructions he is reported to have given to 
 the young ruler who, "kneeling," asked him what he 
 must do to "inherit eternal life/' 1 In the answer of 
 Jesus there is no suggestion of either " baptism " or 
 " believing." As previously pointed out, 3 there is no 
 room for supposing that the narrative is incomplete, 
 that the passage relating to "belief" and "baptism" 
 might have been lost. The final question and answer 
 dispose of any such theory. Besides, if the evangelists 
 are right, these injunctions should have had precedence 
 before all else. 
 
 There are only two very far-fetched and improbable 
 hypotheses possible to account for the omission of 
 " believing on the Lord Jesus Christ " and of being 
 " baptized " in the answer of Jesus, if they really formed 
 part of his scheme of salvation. Either Jesus deliber- 
 ately withheld from the inquirer that which — according 
 to the evangelists — was most essential, and to teach 
 which he expressly came into the world in such a dramatic 
 fashion and left it so tragically ; or, that all three evange- 
 lists have deliberately excised and suppressed just that 
 portion of the answer which they themselves considered 
 the most essential part of it. 
 
 Either supposition is too absurd for serious argument. 
 Such a defence, moreover, would be self-destructive, 
 
 1 " Eternal life." The reader need not take these words too literally. 
 Scribes, copyists, and translators have all helped to impart a theological 
 and sepulchral flavour to words and phrases which was never intended 
 originally. I shall deal with these in a later chapter. It is not prac- 
 ticable to stop at every instance to expose such errors. 
 
 * See Chapter II. 
 
THE ANOMALOUS DI-UNE "JESUS-CHRIST" 65 
 
 inasmuch as it would dispose of the trustworthiness of 
 Christ, evangelists, and Gospels alike. 
 
 But, apart from dialectical arguments, the teaching 
 of Jesus in those passages which are unmistakably in 
 his style is so fundamentally opposed to these illogical 
 and absurd doctrines as to make it quite impossible to 
 attribute both to one and the same person without seri- 
 ously calling in question the sanity, or the moral integrity 
 — or both — of such a person. 
 
 There is only one rational theory possible to explain 
 these inconsistencies, and that is supplied by the Gospels 
 themselves, if we examine them without prejudice. They 
 contain — as I have said already — two distinct systems 
 of philosophy, one being there by design and the other 
 by accident. This explains all the inconsistencies and 
 absurdities ; for whatever estimate we may form of the 
 creed of the evangelists, it is perfectly consistent with 
 itself and — judged from their point of view — quite in- 
 telligible if we eliminate the sayings of Jesus. The absurd- 
 ities become manifest only when both doctrines are 
 attributed to Jesus and we are trying to harmonize them 
 with each other or with his character. 
 
 It is obvious that by promiscuous quotations from 
 the Gospels, without having previously separated the 
 contents into their component parts, almost any theory 
 could be " proved/' and just as easily disproved. On 
 the other hand, unless we thus separate from each other 
 what are so clearly two distinct trains of thought, it is 
 quite impossible to form a rational conception of what 
 the Gospels teach or enjoin, or to delineate a character 
 of the supposed teacher that shall be consistent or 
 rational. 
 
 In the Gospels the real Jesus and a legendary Christ 
 have been combined into an impossible monstrosity. 1 
 Some fanatics — earnest and ignorant at the same time, 
 as all fanatics are — have made themselves an idol of 
 clay, into the composition of which entered some shards 
 
 1 How it came about that the name of Jesus became associated with 
 doctrines that are so contrary to the spirit of his teaching we shall learn 
 in a future chapter. 
 
 5 
 
66 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 that were associated with the name of a great sage who 
 lived generations before their time, but concerning whom 
 and whose teaching they only knew what tradition had 
 handed down to them. The idol is Christ ; the illumin- 
 ated shards in this image of clay are all there is left of the 
 real Jesus. They are there as is the " ballast " in the 
 concrete, as a foreign matter just thrown in. Thus 
 viewed as a sort of literary bric-a-brac, the Gospels are 
 intelligible and form most interesting human documents, 
 which well repay a careful study. From any other point 
 of view they constitute a confused mass of incoherent 
 statements. 
 
 This explains the divergent and discordant conclusions 
 that have been arrived at concerning the character of 
 Jesus, which range from the God-man to the charlatan ; 
 the incomparable sage to the fool and madman ; the 
 personification of unselfishness to the self-seeking, tricky 
 Oriental ; the wonder-worker to the deceptive and 
 fraudulent conjurer. 
 
 This survey does not include opinions of extremists, 
 of writers who are openly hostile to Christianity or 
 religion ; nor of iconoclasts who roundly deny that there 
 ever has been a historical Jesus ; but are the conclusions 
 forced upon thoughtful and sympathetic scholars who 
 have honestly tried to reconcile the many contradictions 
 that are so embarrassing even to the most devout doctors 
 of divinity. 
 
 I will quote but one of his many biographers, the genial 
 French savant, Ernest Renan, who actually assumed the 
 role of special pleader to justify in Jesus what he himself 
 considered as contraventions of the moral code. 
 
 Here are a few specimens of how he tried to explain 
 the extraordinary things attributed to Jesus : — 
 
 " The man who is destitute of any notion of physical 
 laws, who believes that by praying he can change the 
 clouds in their courses, stay disease and even death, 
 finds nothing extraordinary in miracles, since to him the 
 whole course of things is the result of the free will of 
 the Deity." ' 
 
 1 Life of Jesus, chap. iii. 
 
THE ANOMALOUS DI-UNE "JESUS-CHRIST" 67 
 
 " It is evident that the title Rabbi, with which he was 
 at first contented, no longer sufficed him ; even the title 
 of prophet or messenger of God corresponded no longer 
 with the ideas. The position he attributed to himself 
 was that of a superhuman being, and he wished to be 
 regarded as possessing a higher relationship with God 
 than other men." * 
 
 " The need which Jesus had of gaining reputation and 
 the enthusiasm of his disciples, caused contradictory 
 notions to accumulate. To men specially filled with 
 hopes of the coming of Messiah, and to ardent readers 
 of the Books of Daniel and Enoch, he was Son of man ; 
 to Jews holding the ordinary faith and to readers of 
 Isaiah and Micah, he was Son of David ; to his disciples 
 he was Son of God, or simply the Son. Others . . . took 
 him for John the Baptist risen from the dead, for Elias, 
 or for Jeremiah. Absolute conviction, or rather an 
 enthusiasm which shielded him from even the possi- 
 bility of doubt, covered all these audacities." 3 
 
 What are we to make of conclusions like these, or of 
 the Gospels which have forced them upon an evidently 
 sympathetic and learned scholar against his own will ? 
 The fault, I submit, is neither in the Gospels nor in the 
 scholar, but in the insistence on a fetish — which has 
 grown into an established habit of thought — that the 
 Gospels are authentic documents, and that, however much 
 we doubt that which they record, we are not free to 
 question their trustworthiness. We may disbelieve the 
 evidence, but we must not doubt the witness, however 
 contradictory are his depositions. That explains how 
 Renan could arrive at the conclusion that the author of 
 the Sermon on the Mount — based though this is on first 
 principles — was a superstitious ignoramus ; that he who 
 enjoined on the people to " call no man master " ; who 
 censured the Pharisees for loving to be greeted as " Rabbi "; 
 who rebuked a disciple for calling him " good," was no 
 longer satisfied with such titles as " Rabbi," " Prophet " 
 or " Messenger of God " ; and that the teacher of the 
 highest ethical code was himself a dissembler, being all 
 1 Life of Jesus, chap. xv. * Ibid., chap. xv. 
 
68 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 things to all men, in order to satisfy the paltry ambition 
 of being thought " great among men " ! 
 
 But all these accusations are as nothing in comparison 
 with what is implied in the " defence " which this gallant 
 French savant felt himself called upon to make on behalf 
 of the hero of his book. Here is a specimen of his 
 " vindication " : — 
 
 " To us, members of deeply serious races, conviction 
 means sincerity to one's self. But sincerity to one's 
 self has not much meaning to Oriental people, little 
 accustomed as they are to the subtleties of the critical 
 spirit. Good faith and imposture are words which, in 
 our rigid consciences, are opposed as two irreconcilable 
 terms. In the East there are numberless loopholes of 
 escape and circuitous paths from one to the other. . . . 
 Literal truth is of very little use to the Oriental ; he 
 sees everything through the medium of his ideas, his 
 interests, and his passions/' x 
 
 I shall not waste time to comment thereon, because 
 I hope that the chapters that are to follow will effectively 
 dispose of this libel. But it is of interest to note to what 
 straits those are put who accept the gospel narratives 
 as trustworthy and try to make sense of them. 
 
 For it must be admitted that many passages might be 
 quoted from the Gospels in support of Renan's contention 
 — just as easily as in refutation of it. But what is not 
 possible is to conceive of so variegated a character as 
 results when we try to combine in one and the same 
 person all that is attributed to " Jesus-Christ." Even 
 theology has been unable to do so, notwithstanding the 
 amphibious character it has evolved for the purpose and 
 assigned to the di-une man-god or god-man " Jesus-Christ." 
 ■ The mistake which Renan — in common with others — 
 has made is that he confused the Christ of the evangelists 
 with the Jesus of history — two characters that cannot 
 be amalgamated into one. 
 
 Great as is the perplexity of learned scholars concerning 
 the character and teaching of the composite Jesus-Christ, 
 the matter at issue is really a very simple one, and may 
 1 Life of Jesits, chap, xv- 
 
THE ANOMALOUS Dl-UNE " JESUS-CHRIST*' 6g 
 
 be settled consistently with common sense and reason 
 without having to go outside the four Gospels. The 
 nature of the solution I have already indicated ; we must 
 resolve the impossible monstrosity into its components, 
 the historical Jesus and the mythical Christ. We then 
 gel two characters as far asunder as are the two poles, 
 but each consistent with itself. 
 
 That disposes of all the many difficulties which scholars 
 have hitherto vainly tried to solve ; but, of course, it 
 also disposes of the authenticity of the Gospels. Here 
 are the two horns of the dilemma. Either we admit the 
 claim put forward that the Gospels contain nothing that 
 is doubtful or questionable — in which case we must also 
 admit all the contradictions and inconsistencies ascribed 
 to Jesus ; or we must assume the possibility of error on 
 the part of some unknown scribes who are responsible 
 for the gospel narratives. 
 
 Renan — in common with others, of whatever school 
 of thought — accepted the former of the two hypotheses, 
 but without succeeding in making sense of the Gospels. 
 As we have seen, he is content to accept all the conse- 
 quences of the step, and makes out Jesus to have been 
 a sly, cunning, crafty, self-seeking, ambitious Oriental. 
 Of the other Jesus, who is the very opposite of all this, 
 he gets rid by allowing that at first he may have been 
 sincere, that he " only became a thaumaturgist late in 
 life and against his own inclinations . . ." and that 
 " In a general sense, therefore, it may be truly said that 
 Jesus was a thaumaturgist and exorcist in spite of him- 
 self/' Renan thus — unconsciously, perhaps — maintains 
 the integrity of the Gospels by sacrificing him of whom 
 they are testifying. But, in so doing, he is cutting off 
 the branch that is supporting him. One cannot reject 
 the evidence of a witness and yet retain confidence in 
 his trustworthiness. 
 
 The fact is, we cannot retain confidence in the authors 
 of the Gospels and in Jesus at the same time. Jesus, so 
 far, has been condemned unheard. Yet a very simple and 
 most effective defence on his behalf is possible — an alibi, 
 in fact. But that we shall reserve for a subsequent chapter. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE CHRIST-MYTH 
 
 In a work of archaeological exploration — which the 
 present enterprise so closely resembles — there can be no 
 fixed plan or method of procedure. We dig, examine, 
 and reflect on each new fact as it comes to light. 
 
 We have found so far — in the language of our metaphor 
 — the solid foundations of an ancient temple, for the 
 most part buried beneath a mass of accumulated rubble, 
 surmounted by strange altars, tabernacles, and shrines, 
 all in honour of some prophet, god, or idol, represented 
 by a different icon in each, no two alike, and often without 
 any resemblance or apparent relationship with each other 
 beyond the identity of name under which these images 
 are worshipped. 
 
 Already we have seen that there is no connection what- 
 ever between the flimsy fabrics which crown the mound 
 and the foundations that are buried under it. Here 
 and there, scattered among these shrines, may be seen 
 jutting out a buttress, a pillar, or a portion of massive 
 masonry ; but these are in no wise connected with the 
 former, and only serve to emphasize the great contrast 
 between them. 
 
 The question that naturally forces itself on the mind 
 is, How came these worshippers to be attracted to just 
 this spot, to erect their altars and to preach their jarring 
 and discordant doctrines on the ruins of the Temple of 
 Peace and Concord, to which their mind-cramping creeds 
 are such perfect strangers ? Or, to drop the metaphor, 
 how came these quarrelsome sectarians — for already in 
 the days of Paul and Peter there were serious dissensions 
 
 and reciprocal anathemas — to select as their prophet a 
 
 70 
 
ORIGIN OF THE CHRIST-MYTH n 
 
 teacher whose every word seemed to say to these disputing, 
 wrangling, sacerdotal fanatics, " Depart from me, ye who 
 work iniquity, for I know ye not " ? 
 
 Before we may hope to find an answer to this question, 
 we shall have to solve another problem. If it was not 
 Jesus who attracted these worshippers, who was it ? 
 Who is the author of the other, the dominant philosophy 
 in the Gospels ? And how came it to be fathered on 
 Jesus, to whose teaching it was so radically opposed ? 
 And lastly, who was it who declared Jesus to be " both 
 Lord and Christ " ? 
 
 That it was not Jesus himself we may safely conclude 
 from the few relics of his teaching that have been pre- 
 served for us. Nor is it possible to believe that he would 
 have tolerated any such distinction to be conferred on 
 himself by others. That would have meant the negation 
 of all that he taught and strove and died for, and would 
 have stamped him the insincere adventurer Renan thought 
 him to have been. We may dismiss the idea without 
 further argument ; for such a character could not have 
 been the author of the Sermon on the Mount or of the 
 Parable of the Last Judgment. 
 
 The truth is — as we shall presently learn — that there 
 was no " Christ " and there were no " Christians " during 
 the lifetime of Jesus, and his Messiahship was not thought 
 of until many years after the death of Jesus it occurred to 
 the fertile brain of one Saul or Paul, a tentmaker from 
 Tarsus, that " this Jesus whom the Jews have crucified " 
 was the promised Messiah. 
 
 The tale is told in the Acts of the Apostles and by 
 Paul himself in the Epistles that bear his name. If we 
 study these writings, the history of the Christ-myth can 
 be traced to its very inception, and its evolution may 
 then be followed step by step, down to our own times. 
 
 But to be able to do so we must detach our mind from 
 notions that have been indoctrinated into us from infancy, 
 and which we have been in the habit of looking upon as 
 facts beyond doubt or cavil. It is the common belief, 
 for instance, that the Gospels are the oldest documents 
 of the New Testament writings. We shall have to dis- 
 
72 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 miss that theory as altogether untenable. 1 I shall not 
 stop now to prove this contention, for as our investigation 
 is proceeding, fact after fa ; ct will be uncovered which 
 will prove beyond doubt that — with Revelation as the 
 only possible exception — the Gospels are the most recent 
 and the Epistles of Paul the oldest of the New Testament 
 writings. (Excepting, of course, the few ancient relics 
 from the gospel of Jesus which the evangelists have 
 incorporated in their works, and which are older than 
 either.) 
 
 This view creates an entirely new situation. It enables 
 us to identify Paul as the author of the Christ-myth and 
 the founder of Christianity. It is he — as we shall see 
 — who first conceived the idea that Jesus was Christ, 
 and who built so vast a superstructure on so weak a 
 foundation. For, let it be noted, the only evidence on 
 which Paul relied to prove his basic " fact " is — Scripture 
 evidence ! His method was to quote some passage from 
 the prophets (after the manner of the times and in 
 particular of the sect to which he then belonged), assign 
 a meaning to it which it may or may not have had, and 
 then he argued that *' this Scripture must needs have 
 been fulfilled," and therefore " this Jesus whom the Jews 
 have crucified is both Lord and Christ." Why ? Because 
 to assume the contrary would mean either that Scripture 
 prophecy could not be depended upon, or that it did 
 not mean what Paul said it did. 
 
 It was the general belief among the Biblists of those 
 days that the Scriptures " must needs have been fulfilled " ; 
 hence Paul's contention that if he could establish a 
 prophecy in the Scriptures, he has also proved its fulfilment. 
 Thus he went from place to place, proving from the Scrip- 
 tures that Jesus was Christ. 
 
 At Thessalonica, for instance, " where was a synagogue 
 of the Jews, Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, 
 and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the 
 Scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs 
 have suffered, and risen again from the dead ; and that 
 
 1 I have learnt since the above was written that I am cot the first 
 to have made this discovery. 
 
ORIGIN OP THE CHRIST-MYTH 73 
 
 this Jesus whom I preach unto you is Christ." T Another 
 time, when in Achaia, " he mightily convinced the Jews 
 . . . showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ/' a 
 
 Let there be no mistake about this : the only evidence 
 on which rests the stupendous assertion that Jesus was 
 Christy with all that is involved in the theory, is the Biblical 
 evidence of Paul. There is not a shred of any other 
 admissible evidence in the Bible or in any other writings. 
 
 The supposed testimony of eye-witnesses of the baptism 
 by John ; the appearance of the star of Bethlehem ; 
 all the miracles supposed to have been performed by 
 Jesus himself ; the earthquake at his death ; the rending 
 of the curtain in the Temple ; the eye-witnesses of the 
 resurrection of Jesus ; the angels in the empty tomb ; 
 the reappearance of Jesus to his apostles ; and finally 
 his ascension into heaven in the full view of the multitude, 
 we may all brush aside, since these were not sufficient to 
 convince Paul himself. He not only disbelieved it all, 
 but actually persecuted those who believed it. 
 
 That is, if we suppose, as is commonly accepted, that 
 all these miracles were current already in the days of 
 Paul. This, however, is more than doubtful ; for the 
 Gospels in which they are recorded were not written until 
 years — probably generations — after the death of Paul ; 
 not, in fact, until the legend of the annunciation and 
 miraculous conception had been established, about which 
 Paul knew nothing. 
 
 The belief that Jesus had risen from the dead was held 
 by this sect before Paul joined it. At first strongly 
 opposed to the doctrine of the resurrection, he eventually 
 became a convert to it, and built on that belief his scheme 
 of salvation, as we shall learn more fully further on. 
 On this theory, and not on anything which Jesus ever 
 said or did, rests the whole fabric of Christianity : " For 
 I delivered unto you," said Paul, " first of all that which 
 I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according 
 to the Scriptures" 3 
 
 Let it be borne in mind also that it is the body of Jesus 
 which these people — including Paul — believed to have 
 
 1 Acts xvii. 1-3. a Ibid, xviii. 28. 3 1 Cor. xv. 3. 
 
74 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 come to life again, and that this belief in the resurrection 
 of the body was the essential basis of Paul's Christology. 
 This is not mere inference, nor a matter that is arguable. 
 Paul is too explicit to admit of any doubt as to what 
 he considered the " basic fact " of his doctrines. Here 
 are his own words : " Now if Christ be preached that 
 he rose from the dead, how say some among you that 
 there is no resurrection of the dead ? " 
 
 (Let us note here in passing the words " if Christ be 
 preached " ; i.e. that it was not " Christ " himself who 
 preached it, but others of him.) 
 
 " But/' Paul goes on to argue, " if there be no resur- 
 rection of the dead, then is Christ not risen : and if Christ 
 be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith 
 is also vain/' And again, " For if the dead rise not, then 
 is not Christ raised ; and if Christ be not raised, your 
 faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also 
 which are fallen asleep in Christ perished " (i Cor. 
 xv. 12-18). 
 
 This is a fair specimen of the " mighty arguments " 
 with which Paul convinced his followers, and testifies to 
 the degree of intelligence of both teacher and disciples. 
 One thing is clear, however : all his deductions depended 
 on the truth of the resurrection. If there is no resurrection, 
 then Christ could not have risen ; and if Christ is not 
 risen, then Paul has built on sand. 
 
 That, however, is of secondary importance only at 
 present. The point I desire to make is that the Christ 
 idea had not been current until after the death of Jesus, 
 and that therefore Jesus could have had no share in its 
 promulgation. The evidence of this will appear in the 
 succeeding chapters. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF PAUL 
 
 It is not difficult to trace Paul's conversion and the genesis 
 of his philosophy out of his own writings. His mind at 
 the time when he journeyed to Damascus was obsessed 
 by two sets of ideas : the heresy of the Nazarenes and 
 the Scriptures. As his zeal drove him from place to place 
 hunting for heretics, his restless brain must have been 
 actively searching the Scriptures for arguments to confound 
 these dissenters from orthodoxy, with the result — as 
 happens so often in like circumstances — that suddenly the 
 other side of the shield flashed into view and gave a new 
 direction to his thoughts. 
 
 He was present at the stoning of Stephen, and heard 
 the latter's defence of his belief. He must have listened 
 to many such speeches and arguments (based on Scripture 
 texts) from those of the sect whom he hunted down and 
 dragged before the priestly tribunals. Their arguments 
 are bound to have left impressions on his mind, which 
 gradually would create doubts as to his own beliefs. 
 
 If at any time such a doubt arose in Paul's mind — 
 and we know that it did arise — there was but one way 
 of settling it ; namely by the Scriptures. 
 
 We have seen what were Paul's conclusions and the kind 
 of arguments on which these were based. The Messiah, 
 it occurred to him, had been promised ; therefore that 
 promise " needs must have been fulfilled." There was no 
 getting over that "fact." Not only had Paul nothing 
 more substantial to start with or to build upon, but it 
 would have been quite impossible to suggest to him any- 
 thing more convincing or reliable than Scripture prophecy. 
 
76 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 For him — at that time — there was, and there could be, 
 no more solid fact.* 
 
 Once such a thought has taken root in a mind like 
 Paul's, all the rest is bound to follow as mere matter 
 of logic. There is no objection that cannot be met, nor 
 contradiction that cannot be explained — according to the 
 Scriptures. The Messiah had been promised, so that 
 promise must have been fulfilled. 
 
 But who was the Messiah ? There seems to have been 
 some doubt at first whether this distinction belonged to 
 John the Baptist or to Jesus. It was settled, if not by 
 Paul then by someone before him, in the only way in 
 which everything relating to Christ has been settled from 
 the days of Paul down to our own time : " It is written 
 in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy 
 face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." 2 That 
 settled it. John came first, so he was the messenger and 
 therefore Jesus was the Messiah. 
 
 But no sooner had one such difficulty been solved than 
 others cropped up, which kept Paul busy all his life — 
 and others after him to the present day. It was satis- 
 factorily settled that Jesus was Christ the Saviour. But, 
 being Saviour, he should have saved. He died, however, 
 and left things pretts' much as he found them. Shall 
 it be said then that Christ has failed in his mission ? 
 " God forbid," says Paul; let us search the Scriptures. 
 
 Paul never went to that oracle in vain. He discovered 
 what till then had been hidden from all the w T ise, Jesus 
 included, that in and through Adam ail have sinned : and 
 so he argued that " As by one man's disobedience many 
 were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many 
 be made righteous." 3 " For since by man came death, 
 by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in 
 Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 4 
 Therefore Jesus saved us by dying for our sins. His dea/th 
 was the act of salvation : he gave himself as a ransom. Not, 
 however, for everybody, but for those only who believed 
 in him. This limitation was obviously necessary, or there 
 
 1 In later years he substituted his own gospel for the Scriptures. 
 3 Mark i, 2. 3 Roin. v. 19. 4 1 Cor. xv. 21-2. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF PAUL 77 
 
 would have been no further need for Paul or his gospel. 
 Salvation, therefore, was made conditional on belief in 
 the gospel of Paul. Mankind were still in their sins, not- 
 withstanding the ransom ; but by " believing " and by 
 " baptism " anybody could bring himself within the 
 operation of this " new dispensation." This is where 
 " faith " came in, and explains the necessity for the 
 strangest of all doctrines, tha,t faith counts for more than 
 works. From such reasoning it follows almost as a 
 logical necessity that " he who believes and is baptized 
 shall be saved, and he who believes not shall be damned." 
 
 In this way Paul solved difficulty after difficulty, 
 built up by successive stages his theory of salvation, and 
 established his own authority above all else, in the end 
 even over the Scriptures. 
 
 There were disappointments which, in the case of a 
 less resourceful dialectician, might have proved fatal to 
 such reasoning. His deductions did not always work out 
 in fact as logic led him to anticipate. " Salvation," he 
 taught, meant exemption from death. But nevertheless 
 some of his " saints " died just like other folks. Such 
 contrariness did not perturb Paul's faith in his own de- 
 ductions any more than it would affect a theologian of 
 to-day. The incident merely required explaining ; and 
 Paul " proved," quite satisfactorily it seems, to his misled 
 followers, that in their case death was only a quickening 
 process to prepare them for the new kingdom. " Behold, 
 I show you a mystery ; we shall not all sleep, but we 
 shall all be changed ; in a moment, in the twinkling of 
 an eye, at the last trump : for the trumpet shall sound, 
 and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall 
 be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, 
 and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this 
 corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal 
 shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to 
 pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up 
 in victory." * 
 
 Thus what to most men would have meant a crushing 
 defeat, Paul turned into a victory which enabled him to 
 
 1 1 Cor, xv. 51-54. 
 
78 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 comfort his doubting followers. " For this we say unto 
 you by the word of the Lord, 1 that we which are alive and 
 remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent 
 them which are asLeep. For the Lord himself shall descend 
 from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, 
 and with the trump of God : and the dead in Christ shall 
 rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be 
 caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the 
 Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the 
 Lord." * 
 
 So that those who "are fallen asleep in the Lord" 
 actually had a slight advantage over those who remained ; 
 for they, being already in possession of their new and 
 incorruptible bodies, will have precedence over the others. 
 " Wherefore comfort one another with these words." 3 
 
 The " comfort of these words " seems still necessary 
 after about eighteen centuries of waiting ! 
 
 Many other such difficulties cropped up, one after the 
 other, but they all had to yield to Paul's irresistible logic. 
 Whenever the facts were against his conclusions, so much 
 the worse for the facts. And the Scriptures, the source 
 of his inspiration and his sole authority, fared no better. 
 When, for instance, he was spurned by the Jews (among 
 whom he had only a scant following) and had to turn 
 to the " heathen " to get a hearing — though still insisting 
 on " the Jew first " — he had neither difficulty nor scruples 
 in " proving " that " uncircumcision was no bar to salva- 
 tion," since the law no longer applied. For, he argued, 
 " if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made 
 void and the promise made of none effect." 4 
 
 What "promise"? One made by Jesus ? Far from it. 
 Jesus is never so much as quoted by this self-appointed 
 apostle of " Christ." 5 It is another Scripture text 
 which he had uuearthed — a "prophecy" — that had not 
 the slightest bearing on the matter he was discussing, 
 
 x Clearly, the "' audacity ' which Renan imputed to Jesus must be 
 ascribed to Paul, the self-appointed ambassador of God. 
 
 2 i Thess. iv. 15-17. 3 Ibid. 18. 4 Rom. iv. 14. 
 
 5 In Acts xx. 35 Paul is represented as quoting from Jesus, " It is more 
 blessed to give than to receive." But nowhere in his epistles does he 
 quote him. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF PAUL 79 
 
 and the sole office of which was to lend support to his 
 fanciful theories. Here is the " promise " as quoted by 
 Paul : " As it is written, I have made thee a father of 
 many nations/' r Therefore, argues Paul, " if they which 
 are of the law be heirs, faith is made void and the promise 
 to Abraham of none effect/* 
 
 In this wise he argued difficulties out of his way, showing 
 from the Scriptures how this or that proposition of his 
 must needs be so, until, by a master-stroke, he proved — 
 from the Scriptures — that the Scriptures were no longer 
 of any account at all : " For Christ is the end of the law 
 for righteousness to every one that believeth." 2 " For 
 whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be 
 saved." 3 " But now we are delivered from the law, that 
 being dead wherein we were held ; that we should serve 
 in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter/' 4 
 " For the priesthood being changed, there is made of 
 necessity a change also of the law/' 5 ". Therefore we 
 conclude that a man is justified by faith without the 
 deeds of the law." 6 " For sin shall not have dominion 
 over you : for ye are not under the law, but under 
 grace." 7 
 
 This is the way Paul met the objections of the Jews 
 when they opposed the Scriptures to his teachings. Not 
 being able to meet their arguments, he got rid of the 
 Scriptures themselves. The old " covenant " has lapsed 
 and a new one has taken its place. " In that he (God) 
 says, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now 
 that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish 
 away." 8 " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the 
 law." 9 " The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto 
 Christ." *o 
 
 Then what has taken its place ? I will let Paul himself 
 answer this question : " Remember that Jesus Christ of 
 the seed of David was raised from the dead according to 
 my gospel ." « No longer, be it noted, " according to the 
 
 1 Rom. iv. 17. 2 Ibid. x. 4. 3 Ibid. x. 13. 
 
 4 Ibid. vii. 6. 5 Heb. vii. 12 6 Rom. iii. 4. 
 
 7 Ibid. vi. 14. 8 Heb. viii. 13. 9 Gal. iii. 13. 
 
 »• Ibid. iii. 24, V- 2 Tim. ii. 8. 
 
80 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 Scriptures/' but " according to my gospel." " In the day 
 when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ 
 according to my gospel." 1 " But though we, or an angel 
 from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than 
 that which we have preached unto you, let him be 
 accursed." * 
 
 Whence had Paul his gospel, for which he claimed such 
 authority that he would tolerate no interference with its 
 decrees even by an angel from heaven ? I will again let 
 Paul give his own answer : "I neither received it of 
 man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus 
 Christ." 3 
 
 In a trance, that is ; for, as we shall presently see, 
 Paul never had any communication with Jesus himself 
 either directly or indirectly ; never even troubled to 
 inform himself what Jesus taught by consulting those who 
 might have known. Indeed, it is his boast that his know- 
 ledge is all derived by "inspiration." Here are his own 
 words : " I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went 
 I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before 
 me." 4 Again, "It pleased God ... to reveal his Son 
 in me, that I might preach him among the heathen." 5 
 {Note that the Son was " revealed in me " and not 
 " to me. ") 
 
 We cannot know, of course, what communications Paul 
 had with God ; but we can prove for certain that he had 
 none with Jesus ; for his conversion did not take place 
 until after the death of Jesus. How long after may be 
 surmised from a statement of Paul's to the Corinthians : 
 " He (Jesus) was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve : 
 after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at 
 once : of whom the greater part remain unto this present, 
 but some are fallen asleep." 6 
 
 All these are cited as witnesses to the resurrection of 
 Jesus, so they are witnesses of the resurrected Christ only. 
 There is no mention of any one of them having known 
 Jesus when still living. Now, whatever may be the value 
 
 1 Rom. ii. 16. 2 Gal. i. 8. 3 Ibid. i. 12. 
 
 4 Gal i, 16-17, 5 Ibid. i. i£-*6. 6 1 Cor. xv. 5-6. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF PAUL 81 
 
 of their testimony in this connection, it is good evidence 
 that Jesus had been dead at the time when there was 
 a sect in existence of "above five hundred brethren" 
 whom Paul had persecuted ; x which again is good evi- 
 dence that Paul did not join them until years after, when 
 " some had fallen asleep." 
 
 What this sect was we shall learn in a subsequent 
 chapter. They evidently were among those who believed 
 in the resurrection of the body, a doctrine which, accord- 
 ing to Josephus, was held by some of the Jewish sects. 
 Some of these evidently believed that Jesus had risen. 
 The disappearance of his body — removed probably by his 
 friends so as to protect it against desecration by his 
 enemies — may have given rise to this belief. The memory 
 of Jesus was held in reverence by many of the Essenes, 
 and particularly by the " Nazarenes," as the sect was 
 called when Paul joined it. 3 But he was not known to 
 them as " Christ," and they were not known as " Chris- 
 tians," until after Paul had become a convert and suc- 
 ceeded in convincing some of them of his theories, as is 
 plainly set forth in Acts xi. 25-6 : — 
 
 " Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Paul : 
 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. 
 And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled 
 themselves with the church [of the Nazarenes], and 
 taught much people. And the disciples were called Chris- 
 tians first at Antioch." 3 The " disciples " were those of 
 Paul, of course. 
 
 It is as plainly established, therefore, as any fact in 
 history can be established, that it was Paul who conceived 
 the idea of the " Christ," and that this must have happened 
 many years after the death of Jesus. 
 
 When, therefore, Paul claims to have received his 
 apostleship directly from " Jesus Christ," it must be 
 understood that he refers to the Christ of his hallucina- 
 
 1 " For ye have heard ... in time past . . . how that beyond measure 
 I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it " (Gal. i. 13). 
 
 J " For we have found this man (Paul) ... a ringleader of the sect 
 of the Nazarenes" (Acts xxiv. 5). 
 
 3 Acts xi. 25-6. 
 
 6 
 
82 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 tions, and not to the real Jesus, whom he had never met. 
 . Indeed, it is highly doubtful whether Jesus and Paul 
 were contemporaries. 1 
 
 1 I base this statement on the following considerations. The stoning 
 of Stephen must have taken place some yeais after the death of Jesus, 
 for at that time already there was " a church which was at Jerusalem " 
 (Acts viii. i). Paul, who was present at this stoning, was then " a youth," 
 who looked alter the garments of those who performed the stoning. Much 
 later — that is, when he arrived at manhood's estate — Paul persecuted 
 the Nazarenes, and must have been fairly advanced in age when he became 
 a convert himself ; for he says of himself (i Cor. xv. 8) that he " was 
 born out ot due time " — i.e. late in age. (Cf. also Philemon v. 9, " Paul 
 the aged.") Now, the " youth " could scarcely have been described as 
 such had he been older than say twenty years ; and Paul could hardly 
 have been less than forty years at the time of his conversion. This makes 
 twenty years between the stoning of Stephen and the conversion of Paul. 
 To this would have to be added the years which elapsed between the 
 cruci6xion of Jesus and the stoning of Stephen. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF JESUS 
 
 Paul, if not the actual originator of the Christ-myth, 
 was certainly the author of the Christian scheme of salva- 
 tion, which in every essential is the ' antithesis of the 
 teachings of Jesus. 
 
 It will be interesting here to contrast this gospel of 
 Paul with that of Jesus. 
 
 We possess an excellent summary of the latter in the 
 Parable of the Last Judgment, which I will quote in full : — 
 
 " And before him [the King] shall be gathered all nations : 
 and he shall separate them one from another, as a 
 shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall 
 set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 
 
 " Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 
 Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom 
 prepared for you from the foundation of the world : for 
 I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat : I was thirsty, 
 and ye gave me drink : I was a stranger, and ye took 
 me in : naked, and ye clothed me : I was sick, and ye 
 visited me : I was in prison and ye came unto me. 
 
 " Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, 
 when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee ? Or 
 thirsty, and gave thee drink ? Or when saw we thee a 
 stranger, and took thee in? Or naked, and clothed 
 thee ? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and 
 came unto thee ? 
 
 " And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily 
 I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto 
 one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it 
 unto me. 1 
 
 1 Not unto Jesus, that is, but unto the " King " who is the speaker 
 in the parable. 
 
 83 
 
84 THE HISTORY OP JESUS 
 
 " Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 
 Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared 
 for the devil and his angels : for I was an hungred, 
 and ye gave me no meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me 
 no drink : I was a stranger, and ye took me not in : naked, 
 and ye clothed me not : sick, and in prison, and ye 
 visited me not. 
 
 " Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when 
 saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or 
 naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee ? 
 
 " Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say 
 unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least 
 of these, ye did it not to me." x 
 
 As may readily be seen, in all that is essential this 
 parable is the very antithesis of the philosophy of Paul. 
 On the other hand, the reader will not fail to note the 
 remarkable agreement of this parable, down to the 
 minutest detail, with the narratives already quoted ; not 
 only as regards doctrine, but also in respect of style and 
 diction. 
 
 Paul was a mystic, ever harking after the supernatural, 
 the mysterious, and the miraculous. We find nothing of 
 the kind in Jesus. All his utterances relate to the mundane 
 affairs of man. His parables are all centred around 
 some familiar, homely event that appeals to the under- 
 standing ; and the lesson is always such that it is difficult 
 to withhold our approval or assent. 
 
 Though there are many lessons crowded into this 
 parable, the one which — by way of contrast with the 
 teachings of Paul — is perhaps more obtrusively manifest 
 than any other is the implied scheme of " salvation." 2 
 
 1 Matt. xxv. 32-45. 
 
 a Cf. Rom. x. 13. This and many other such words have been invested 
 with theological meanings they were not intended originally to convey. 
 As our inquiry proceeds, many such words will contextually receive more 
 rational interpretations. Others, when needed, will be explained philo- 
 logically. But it is not convenient constantly to interrupt an argument 
 for the purpose of showing how words have been mistranslated or mis- 
 interpreted so as to make them fit in with doctrinal theology. Jesus 
 certainly did not understand by " salvation ' transportation to a kingdom 
 in the clouds, as has already been explained and as will abundantly appear 
 in due course. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS 85 
 
 According to Paul, anybody might save himself most 
 easily by " believing on the Lord Jesus Christ according 
 to my gospel/' quite regardless of what became of the 
 rest of mankind. 
 
 According to Jesus, you cannot save yourself at all, 
 except only by saving others. Those who seek to save 
 themselves, heedless as to what befalls their neighbours, 
 are merely pursuing a will-o'-the-wisp. This is the mean- 
 ing of that seeming paradox that " Whosoever will seek 
 his life shall lose it : and whosoever will lose his life 
 because of me shall find it." J We shall presently see 
 that this is not mere sentiment, but a necessary truth. 
 It means that you cannot save yourself by fasting, incanta- 
 tions, or that form of almsgiving which is of the nature 
 of a bribe to the gods. Your individual safety is bound 
 up with that of your neighbours. Therefore to save 
 yourself you must see to it that there shall be none 
 neglected or oppressed ; that there are no pitfalls (or 
 temptations), and that none are menaced. In short, you 
 can assure your own salvation only by making sure that 
 none need perish. 
 
 Another remarkable feature of the parable is the sur- 
 prise of both the " blessed " and the " condemned " ; for 
 apparently neither of them expected things to turn out 
 as they did. The wonder is, how this lesson could have 
 remained all these centuries buried in the Gospels un- 
 noticed and unheeded. 
 
 The " blessed " were quite unaware of having done 
 anything meritorious. They probably were simple folk 
 who attended to the daily affairs of life, feeding and 
 clothing those dependent on them, and giving help where 
 such was needed ; not with any ulterior motive or expec- 
 tation of reward, but just as part of the daily round of 
 duties. And as part of those duties they fed the hungry, 
 clothed the naked, succoured the weak, and comforted 
 
 1 " Because o£ me," i.e. in consequence of my teachings, or by obeying 
 these " laws " which I preach unto you. The Greek words are evskev I/iov, 
 which have been translated " for my sake " ; a rendering which is agree- 
 able to Pauline theology, but quite inconsistent with the character and 
 teachings of Jesus, and not warranted by the context, 
 
86 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 those that mourned. It was these deeds that constituted 
 them " the blessed of the Father." We are not told of 
 any other merits of theirs, whether they ever attended 
 the synagogue or whether they were Jews even. 
 
 There is again no mention about " faith," which is so 
 strong a point with Paul ; no mention about Paul's or 
 anybody else's gospel ; about Adam's " fall " or a " pro- 
 mise " to Abraham ; nor about " believing on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ." 
 
 Just as the " blessed " were rewarded in virtue only 
 of their good deeds towards their fellow-men, and without 
 reference to their creed, sect, or nationality, so the others 
 were condemned solely because they did not attend to 
 the needs of their neighbours. For aught we know to 
 the contrary, the " blessed " may have been Gentiles 
 who never attended a synagogue ; and the " cursed " 
 pious Jews — priests and Levites — who spent most of their 
 time in prayer and in fasting. Of such little account 
 did Jesus consider these rites that — as on other occasions — ■ 
 he did not even mention them ; may be so as to give 
 greater prominence to the importance of good works, so 
 little thought of by Paul. 
 
 But, I hear the reader ask, if this is as you say, what 
 was the religion of Jesus ? Was he a secularist ? 
 
 I desire the reader to note the antithesis suggested by 
 the two words and then to reflect why or whence that 
 implied contrast. When he has found the answer, it 
 will be the severest indictment of the Churches that have 
 created this antithesis and a complete condemnation of 
 their pseudo-religion. 
 
 If we turn to the dictionary we find the word " secular " 
 thus defined : " pertaining to this present world, or to 
 things not spiritual or holy ; relating to things not im- 
 mediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body ; 
 worldly ; temporal." 
 
 It is quite obvious that theology is responsible for this 
 definition. " Religion " and the " affairs of life " ; " holi- 
 ness " and " temporal duties " ; " body " and " soul " ; 
 " piety " and " duty " : these have not only been divorced, 
 but m^de antagonistic ; with the result that a religion 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS $7 
 
 and a piety have been evolved that are the consumma- 
 tion of selfishness. 
 
 To prove this we need only contemplate a piety as free 
 from " worldliness " as conditions of life permit — say 
 that of a Saint Simon Stylites — and the result will be, not 
 a saint but an anchorite ; a person who has renounced 
 this world with all its duties, who has debased even his 
 own body, in the hope of thus being able to save his 
 own soul. As if such a pitiful human wreck could have 
 any soul left worth the saving ! 
 
 I am aware that no sane person is likely to carry his 
 fervour so far as the anchorite I am contemplating. Yet 
 the latter would but carry to its logical conclusion the 
 doctrine which denounces this world and its duties as 
 "temporal" or "secular" in opposition to what the 
 Churches consider as "spiritual" or "religious." The 
 result is not " saintliness," but selfishness run mad. 
 
 There is a counterpart to such a " saint." It is the 
 self-indulgent, pleasure-seeking, sensuous egotist who cares 
 as little about what becomes of the rest of mankind in 
 this world as the anchorite cares about their fate in the 
 next. They are the two extremes of a false conception 
 of existence, actuated by like motives. The anchorite 
 sacrifices the pleasures of this world as a price for future 
 and- eternal bliss; and the "worldling" who does not 
 believe in the future life is trying to get what " pleasures " 
 he can out of this. Each of them is trying to get the 
 most for himself; they differ only in taking opposite 
 chances. That there are duties in this present world 
 which are sacred because pertaining to this present life, 
 does not occur to either ; and in consequence both are 
 classed in the parable among " the cursed." 
 
 If the parable teaches anything at all, it is this, that 
 of all the iniquities and abominations none is greater than 
 the doctrine which would divorce the duties of this life 
 and of this world from religion, or would stigmatize such 
 duties as " secular," " temporal " or " worldly," in oppo- 
 sition to " holy," " spiritual," or " religious." The classi- 
 fication is an erroneous one, based as it is on false con- 
 ceptions of life, duty, and religion. Not that which is 
 
88 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 secular or temporal is opposed to religion, but that which 
 is sordid, selfish, and iniquitous. This is the criterion that 
 is decisive in the Parable of the Last Judgment. The 
 whole religion of Jesus consists in " temporal " or " secular " 
 duties, and of course could consist in nothing else. 1 The 
 aphorism of " serving God rather than man " is but an 
 easy way of trying to escape one's duties. 
 
 You cannot serve God save by serving his children, is 
 taught by Jesus. Your praise is blasphemy ; your gifts, 
 if given as bribes for future rewards, sacrilege ; and your 
 fasts hypocrisy. The essence of religion is this : " Inas- 
 much as ye have done it to one of the least of these, you 
 have done it unto me." 
 
 To live a life of love, of justice, of mercy, of forbearing 
 and forgiving, helping the weak, succouring the needy, 
 seeing in each fellow-creature a child of the " Father 
 which is in heaven/' sanctifying that Fatherhood by 
 recognizing your brotherhood, is not worldliness, but 
 righteousness ; and to neglect these duties and to devote 
 all your time and thought to praying to God for your own 
 welfare is not "spiritual" or "holy," but sordid and 
 selfish. 
 
 The Parable of the Last Judgment leaves no room for 
 doubt as to what constituted righteousness in the eyes 
 of Jesus. 
 
 Long habit of thought and association of ideas have 
 invested the words " religion," " spiritual," and " pious " 
 with a theological flavour that assigns to them meanings 
 that are opposite to " secular," " temporal," or "worldly." 
 But, as I have already pointed out, the life of a praying 
 and fasting anchorite may be as sordid and selfish as that 
 of the sensuous egotist ; whilst a person who never goes 
 to church or chapel may — notwithstanding — be unselfish, 
 religious, and "spiritual" in the strict sense approved 
 by the reputed founder of Christianity. 
 
 Let me visualize my meaning. Let us take one of 
 
 1 Jesus desired to establish on earth what Paul hoped to find in the 
 clouds. It is difficult to detect any other difference between the 
 "spiritual" of Paul and what the Churches denounce as "temporal" 
 or " secular," 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS %g 
 
 each group of the " saints " and " sinners " of the Parable 
 of the Last Judgment, and in imagination observe each 
 in the performance of those characteristic acts which 
 resulted in such unexpected awards. I will choose the 
 priest and the Samaritan of that other parable for the 
 purpose. It is not necessary to assume that the priest 
 was cruel or callous. Maybe he was preoccupied with 
 what he considered his duty to God. Maybe he was 
 hastening to the synagogue, where a congregation was 
 awaiting him to conduct divine service, and in mind 
 was rehearsing the prayer he was going to offer. What- 
 ever the reasons, " he passed by on the other side." 
 
 Then comes the Samaritan, bent on " worldly " business, 
 carrying some oil to market, thinking how to dispose of 
 it and what to buy with the proceeds, so as best to meet 
 the needs of his household. He also sees the poor man, 
 stops, succours him, pours oil into his wounds, ties them 
 up, then raises the patient's head with his left arm, and 
 with his right hand offers him to drink. I want your 
 mind to catch him in this attitude, bent over the sufferer, 
 compassion in his eyes, but no thought of temple, psalms, 
 or God, his whole and sole concern for the moment being 
 how to help a stricken-down fellow-being. 
 
 And now behold the priest, decked out in his canonicals, 
 in front of the draped altar, with hands raised and eyes 
 upturned, chanting the praises of God ; not hypocritically, 
 but with all the fervour and devotion of a man who is 
 convinced that on the due performance of these rites 
 depends the salvation of — his own soul. 
 
 Compare now priest and Samaritan, the former con- 
 cerned about his own soul, the latter about his stricken- 
 down neighbour, and then tell me which of the two is the 
 " religious " and which the " secular " act ? Compare the 
 loud chantings of the priest and congregation with 
 the silent thanksgiving that beams from the grateful eyes 
 of the sufferer. What prayer, what hymn of praise could 
 tongue compose or lips recite to equal it ? Would you, 
 after these reflections, still call the service of the priest 
 " divine " and that of the Samaritan "secular" or 
 "worldly"? 
 
9o THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 I grant that, to the eye, the priest's is the prettier 
 picture. The priest's religion is also much the easier to 
 follow. But do not tell me that it is the " warmer/' or 
 that it can satisfy that secret yearning of a truly devout 
 soul which seeks happiness in the consciousness of having 
 done its duty. 
 
 Do not misunderstand me. I am not speaking against 
 church or priest. Far from it. Both have a mission, 
 and a sacred one, of which I intend to speak by and by. 
 It is their errors I am trying to expose. It is good for 
 people to congregate and to join in prayer, in communion 
 of thought and of sentiment. Such acts stimulate reli- 
 gion, but are not religious in themselves. They may be 
 aids to religion, but cannot be substitutes for it. 
 
 Go to church by all means. But if you would send a 
 hymn to God that shall be acceptable and the acceptance 
 of which you shall feel in your heart, take home with you 
 that hungry mother with the half-starved infant in her 
 arms standing at the street corner in the hope of an alms. 
 Feed the child and then watch the mother's eyes. Hymn 
 after hymn will thence ascend, and the divine spirit in 
 your own heart will receive and respond to this eloquent 
 though silent prayer. And although never a sound is 
 uttered, there will come the response to you : " Inasmuch 
 as ye have done it to one of the least of these, ye have 
 done it unto me." 
 
 But your duty does not end with feeding mother and 
 child and dismissing them with a present, however muni- 
 ficent. You cannot buy your salvation in this easy fashion. 
 You will have to find out the cause of that woman's 
 distress, and if it be due to some social wrong or some 
 social institution, then the fault is at your own door. No 
 amount of praying can relieve you of the duty to help 
 to remove the iniquity through which that woman has 
 been reduced to that pitiable plight. Nor can you be 
 safe yourself while that pitfall is allowed to remain. 
 
 There is an unmistakable correspondence between the 
 character of Paul and his teachings, as there is between 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS 91 
 
 the character and teachings of Jesus. But there is 
 no correspondence whatever, nor any point of contact, 
 between the two philosophies or the characters of their 
 respective authors. 
 
 Whether we compare their lives, doctrines, or trains of 
 thought, Paul is in every respect the antithesis of Jesus. 
 Paul was austere, narrow-minded, bigoted, doctrinaire, 
 superstitious, and intolerant. Jesus was in every respect 
 the opposite. 
 
 Paul cursed those who dared differ from him ; * Jesus 
 enjoined " love your enemies " — and practised it, too. 
 
 " He that doeth the will of my Father which is in 
 heaven " was the formula of Jesus ; " He that believeth 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ " was the formula of Paul. 
 
 Paul believed in the efficacy of oaths, and thought it 
 necessary even for God so to confirm his promises. 3 Jesus 
 said, " Swear not at all . . . but let your communica- 
 tions be Yea, yea ; Nay, nay : for whatsoever is more 
 than these cometh of evil." 3 
 
 Paul's God was jealous and vindictive (Heb. iv. 12), 
 from whose wrath he endeavoured to save the elect. Jesus 
 knew no such vindictive deity. His God was a loving 
 Father, who sendeth his rain on the just and on the 
 unjust, and who " is kind even to the unthankful and 
 to the evil" (Luke vi. 35). 
 
 Paul's conception of God and the kingdom of heaven 
 was that of a mighty tyrant and his court. It was a 
 glorious thing to be admitted into the royal presence and 
 to share in all the splendours ; yet everybody dreaded the 
 "furious" king. It is a grossly materialistic conception, 
 borrowed from the garish, pompous court of the volup- 
 tuous tyrant whose favours are so much to be desired, 
 and yet so much to be dreaded. For one thing, but few 
 people could ever hope to enter into the royal presence. 
 As on earth, so in heaven : " Many are called, but few 
 are chosen." 4 
 
 1 Gal. i. 8. s Heb, vi. 17. 3 Matt. v. 34-7. 
 
 4 These words are attributed to Jesus. He may have uttered them, 
 
 but never with the meaning put on them by the evangelists and theo- 
 logians generally. 
 
92 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 Hence Paul speaks of " saints "or the " elect " ; Jesus 
 never uses either of these terms, but speaks of the 
 " righteous " and the " unrighteous," and of both as " the 
 children of the Father." 
 
 Paul's sole concern was for his saints. Jesus came to 
 call sinners to repentance. 
 
 Paul's reasoning is always specious, superficial, and 
 plausible. Jesus appealed to reason and to the facts of 
 nature. " As it is written . . ." said Paul. " Ye have 
 heard that it was said by them of old time . . . but I 
 say unto you" was the form of address used by 
 Jesus. 
 
 Paul argued much against the " law," as being no longer 
 of any account. But Jesus, when asked "What must I 
 do to inherit life ? " answered, " Obey the law." 
 
 Paul is as insistent that " works without faith " are 
 of no avail as Jesus is emphatic that piety of any kind 
 without good deeds in the service of others is useless. 
 
 Paul had practically abandoned all hope in a possible 
 uplifting of mankind. " There is none righteous, no, not 
 one." 1 Jesus, on the other hand, believed in the poten- 
 tial goodness of man : "Ye are the salt of the earth " ; 
 " Ye are the light of the world." "Be ye therefore 
 perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is 
 perfect." 
 
 Paul saw no hope for any regeneration. " By the deeds 
 of the law there shall no flesh be justified " ; 2 and the 
 only salvation of mankind he could see was in the atone- 
 ment of Christ. He did not think it was in man to save 
 himself at all, save through being " ransomed." 3 
 
 According to Jesus there can be no such atonement as 
 is so confidently proclaimed by Paul. You are warned 
 off the altar even, and advised to " agree with thine 
 adversary quickly . . . lest at any time the adversary 
 deliver thee to the judge. . . . Thou shalt by no means 
 
 1 Rom. iii. io. 3 Ibid. iii. 20. 
 
 3 The very idea of ascribing to Jesus such a senseless and mischievous 
 doctrine as that one man's disobedience should be visited on all mankind, 
 or that by merely believing in the goodness of someone else people should 
 be able to atone for their own misdeeds, is too monstrous for serious 
 discussion. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS 93 
 
 come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost 
 farthing/' 1 
 
 Thus we might go on showing that every doctrine or 
 dogma of Paul was a negation of something which Jesus 
 enjoined on mankind as necessary for their regeneration. 
 
 Indeed, if it were not for the misuse of terms, Paul 
 might (mutatis mutandis) be described as the veritable 
 " Anti-Christ," in the sense of being an adversary of true 
 religion. 
 
 1 Matt. v. 25-6. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 SONS OF GOD 
 
 Paul never mentions the virgin mother of Christ, nor 
 alludes to the annunciation, the immaculate conception, 
 the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, the pilgrimage of the 
 wise men led by a star, etc. ; the reason being that these 
 legends had yet to be invented in order to explain the 
 dogma set up by Paul himself that Jesus was " Son 
 of God/ 7 
 
 We have seen how Paul and his contemporaries mis- 
 understood and misinterpreted certain phrases, with the 
 result that they expected to be transferred bodily to a 
 new kingdom somewhere in the clouds, whilst heaven and 
 earth would be annihilated. Something similar happened 
 in a later generation, when the meaning of language had 
 changed and new explanations became necessary. 
 
 When Paul declared Jesus to be the " Son of God/' he 
 meant no more than that God was the " spiritual father." 
 
 In Paul's time, " to be begotten of God" or " of the 
 spirit " had a local and sectarian meaning ; and for the 
 purpose of being so begotten an earthly mother was no 
 more necessary than an earthly father. 1 James explains 
 the process very tersely in these words : "Of his own 
 will begat he us with the word of truth," * Everyone so 
 " begotten " was a " son of God." 
 
 To understand Paul or the evangelists, we must try 
 to apprehend the meaning they intended to convey by 
 certain words and phrases, instead of interpreting these 
 
 1 Paul says of Melchisedec that he was " without father, without 
 mother, without descent but made like unto the Son of God " 
 (Heb. vii. 3). 
 
 2 James i. 18. 
 
 94 
 
SONS OF GOD 95 
 
 as if their meaning were the same to-day as then. For- 
 tunately we can generally gather from Paul what he 
 meant, as, for instance : " There is a natural body, and there 
 is a spiritual body. . . . Howbeit that was not first which 
 is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that 
 which is spiritual/' 
 
 Paul, in accordance with then current conceptions, con- 
 ceived man in a dual character. He was first of all " born 
 of the flesh " and " in corruption " ; and later he stood 
 a chance of being " born of the spirit/' This was with 
 Paul and his associates no mere figure of speech, but a 
 reality. Thus Paul speaks of " My kinsman according to 
 the flesh " ; J and although he was not married, and a 
 confirmed mysogynist, yet he speaks of " Timotheus, who 
 is my beloved son " — the explanation for which we find 
 in a preceding verse : " For though ye have many in- 
 structors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers : for 
 in Christ Jesus 1" have begotten you through the gospel." 2 
 
 In like manner Paul conceived Christ to have been 
 " begotten of God," as is sufficiently clear from the 
 following statement : " Concerning his Son Jesus Christ 
 our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according 
 to the flesh ; and declared to be the Son of God . . . 
 according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection 
 
 OF THE DEAD/' 3 
 
 It was a cardinal doctrine with this sect — which was 
 founded probably by John the Baptist — that man had 
 to be " born again " of the spirit in order to become holy 
 and fit to be saved. The first or natural birth was that 
 of " corruptible seed/' The true birth, according to them, 
 was that of the spirit (" pneuma ") t which was incorrupt- 
 ible, and which was accomplished by baptism and the 
 laying on of hands. The following quotations are suffi- 
 ciently clear and to the point : — 
 
 " Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom 
 of God." 4 
 
 1 Rom. ix. 3. 
 
 2 i Cor. iv. 15-17. Cf. also Philem. io-n : "... my son Onesimus, 
 whom I have begotten in my bonds/' i.e. Converted while in prison. Paul 
 was to Onesimus what is called nowadays " godfather." 
 
 3 Rom. i. 3-4. * John iii. 3. 
 
96 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 " Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is 
 born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the 
 spirit is spirit." x 
 
 " Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the 
 flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God/' 3 
 
 Peter likewise thanks God in these words for a like 
 mercy : — 
 
 " Blessed be the God and Father of our" Lord Jesus Christ, 
 which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten 
 us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ from the dead." s 
 
 " Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of in- 
 corruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth 
 for ever." 4 
 
 " So that they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 
 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit." 5 
 
 " For as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are 
 the sons of God." 6 
 
 " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin ; for 
 his seed remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because 
 he is born of God." i 
 
 " Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed 
 upon us, that we should be called the sons of God." 8 
 
 Paul, it would seem, was an old man when he joined 
 the sect, for he refers to the event in these words : — 
 
 " He (Jesus) was seen of me also, as one born out of due 
 time." 9 
 
 From which it will be seen that to be " begotten by 
 God " was not so great a miracle after all. In those days 
 it was quite an everyday occurrence. To-day we call it 
 "baptism" or "confirmation." 
 
 It must not be supposed, however, that these phrases 
 
 1 John iii. 5-6. 
 
 2 John i. 13. These words are put into the mouth of Jesuis by the 
 evangelist, although there is evidence even in this Gospel that Jesus was 
 not a member of this particular sect, and could certainly never have 
 spoken these words. 
 
 3 1 Pet. i. 3. 4 Ibid. 23. 5 Rom. viii. 8-9. 
 6 Ibid. viii. 14. 7 1 John iii. 9. 8 Ibid. iii. 1. 
 
 9 1 Cor. xv. 8. Seen in " spirit," of course, on his way to Damascus. 
 
SONS OF GOD 97 
 
 were used merely in an allegorical sense by these children 
 of faith. They actually believed that a new birth — a 
 spiritual birth — took place, and counted the age of their 
 saints from that day. Indeed, Paul goes so far as to 
 declare the account of Abraham having had two sons,, 
 one by a bondmaid and the other by a freewoman, 
 to have been " an allegory," T the true meaning being, 
 according to him, "... he who was of the bondwoman 
 was born after the flesh ; but he of the freewoman was 
 by promise." 3 
 
 The " spirit," which according to the general belief of 
 the time was an entity like the body, though distinct 
 from it, was held by these people to be the real thing. 
 What place the body occupied in their philosophy it is 
 difficult to surmise ; for though they speak of (< spirit " 
 and " spiritual birth," and believed that the " spirit " 
 could come and go, and be exchanged for an entirely 
 different one, they did not seem to have been able to 
 think of life or existence apart from the body. When- 
 ever mention is made of resurrection, it is always a 
 resurrection of the body. 
 
 The " spirit " was the real inner man, and in the 
 " saints " was begotten of God. There was nothing 
 strained, therefore, in their idea of a spiritual birth. A 
 saint could expel an evil spirit in one that was worthy 
 and confer the "holy spirit." We read, for instance, in 
 Acts : " When Paul laid his hands on them, the holy 
 spirit came on them." 3 
 
 On the face of it, there is the strong suggestion that 
 Jesus was " begotten of God " in like manner as were 
 Peter, Paul, and all the rest of them. Against that, 
 however, we have the circumstantial account of the miracu- 
 lous conception and the birth of Jesus in Matthew and 
 in Luke, which does not admit of any such explanation. 
 The writers of these accounts, at any rate, believed in 
 the miraculous birth of the body of Jesus. But that need 
 nor embarrass us, as it only proves that at the time when 
 
 1 Gal. iv. 24. 2 Ibid. iv. 23. 
 
 3 Acts xix. 6. The English version says " the Holy Ghost." But there 
 is no word in the Greek corresponding to " Ghost." 
 
 7 
 
98 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 these Gospels were written the legend concerning the 
 miraculous birth of Jesus had already been established 
 and was believed in by the authors of those Gospels. 
 
 This fact, however, proves something quite different 
 than the truth of the miracle. It proves that if it was 
 Paul who established — if not actually originated — the 
 idea that " this Jesus was Christ/' that in that case the 
 said Gospel could not have been written until after 
 the theories of Paul had been established. In other 
 words, that the said Gospel must be post-Pauline. 
 
 We may dismiss, so far as Paul is concerned, the legend 
 about the miraculous birth of Jesus. He had no need for 
 such a theory. His words are sufficiently explicit when 
 he says (Rom. i. 3-4): ". . . Jesus Christ our Lord . . . 
 was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and 
 declared to be trie Son of God . . . according to the spirit 
 of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." 
 (This " spirit of holiness/' by the way, is elsewhere phrased 
 " holy spirit," and when in this form it is translated as 
 " Holy Ghost " — except where such rendering might 
 clash with theological conceptions ; as, for instance, in 
 Matt. xii. 28, Rom. viii. 9, etc.). 
 
 Far from contending that Jesus had no natural father, 
 it was essential that he should have one ; for it was of 
 the utmost importance to Paul to establish his direct 
 descent from David, as was required by the prophecy. 
 It was essential to prove that Jesus was of the seed of 
 David; for, as John exclaims so dramatically, "Hath 
 not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of 
 David, and out of Bethlehem where David was ? " x 
 Hence the importance of the genealogy of Joseph, which 
 would not have been required had Joseph not been re- 
 garded as the father " according to the flesh." Hence 
 also, no doubt, the story of the journey of Joseph and Mary 
 to Jerusalem, so that on the way thither the birth should 
 happen in Bethlehem, " For it is written by the prophet, 
 And thou, Bethlehem . . :" 3 etc. 
 
 Indeed, it seems that the gravest objection of the Jews 
 to Paul's contention that Jesus was Christ was just the 
 
 1 John vii. 42. 3 Matt. ii. 5-6. 
 
SONS OF GOD 99 
 
 question of descent, for we find him more than once 
 arguing this very point ; x and in his Epistle to Titus s 
 there occurs the following significant passage : " Avoid 
 foolish questions about genealogies, and contentions . . ." 
 etc. 3 Paul evidently had some trouble in proving that 
 Jesus was of the seed of David. 
 
 On the other hand, no allusion is ever made by Paul 
 to the virgin mother or to the miraculous conception. 
 Had anything been known to Paul about a supposed 
 supernatural origin of Jesus, it would be surprising — to 
 say the least of it — that he should not have eagerly taken 
 up a doctrine so peculiarly suited to his trend of thought, 
 and one that would have afforded such rare opportunities to 
 his talent of finding Scripture evidence in support of it. 
 
 Jesus was one out of many Sons of God. John, it is 
 true, speaks of the " only begotten Son of God/' But 
 John (or whoever was the author of that Gospel) wrote 
 at a time when actual fathership was attributed to God, 
 and the legend about the immaculate conception and a 
 virgin mother had already been established. 
 
 Paul, who, as the originator of " the principles and 
 doctrines of Christ/' 4 is first authority on this subject, 
 spoke of Jesus as " the first begotten/' 5 which presupposes 
 a plurality of " Sons of God." That Paul had such a 
 spiritual birth in his mind, or what to-day would be 
 called "conversion," "baptism," or "confirmation," is 
 abundantly evident from every utterance of his concern- 
 ing the Christship of Jesus. Thus, God is made to say 
 to Jesus at the time of his " birth," and even prior to it, 
 "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; 
 therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the 
 oil of gladness above thy fellows." 6 So that Jesus " loved 
 righteousness and hated iniquity " before he was anointed 
 and before he was made " Son of God," " Captain of 
 Salvation," 7 or " Apostle and High Priest of our pro- 
 fession." 8 
 
 1 E.g. at Antioch, Acts xiii. 16-35. 2 iii- 9. 
 
 3 Ci also 1 Tim. i. 4. 4 Heb. vi. 1. 
 
 5 Ibid. i. 6. Cf. also Rev. i. 5 : " Jesus Christ, who is . . the first 
 begotten of the dead. , . .' 
 
 6 Ibid. i. 9. 7 Ibid. ii. to. 3 Ibid* iii. 1. 
 
ioo THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 He was the first, as he also was the foremost and the 
 highest, " declared to be the Son of God . . . by the 
 resurrection from the dead." J So that prior to the resur- 
 rection Jesus was neither Christ nor Son of God. 
 
 In Luke hi. 22 it is said that when Jesus was baptized 
 by John " a voice carne from heaven, which said, Thou 
 art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased." But 
 according to Paul the words were, " Thou art my Son, 
 this day have I begotten thee." 2 And again (Heb. v. 5), 
 " Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee." Such 
 words could be addressed to a person only, and not to 
 a being not yet born. 
 
 Luke also gives the information that " Jesus himself 
 began to be about thirty years of age " at the time, " being 
 (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son 
 of Heli," etc., tracing the genealogy of Joseph to David. 
 
 Dr. F. Blass, in his Philology of the Gospels, has some 
 interesting comments on this passage, of which I will 
 quote here the most essential parts only : — 
 
 " We proceed to the third chapter (of Luke), where the 
 baptism of Christ is told, and in connection with it this 
 genealogy is given. . . . Whence this connection ? . . . 
 But if we are to understand this strange sequel we have 
 only to look into ' D/ 3 ... In the passage in question 
 (iii. 22) the words from heaven are, according to the great 
 bulk of MSS., ' Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee I am 
 well pleased/ But according to ' D ' and some Latin 
 witnesses (this evidence being supported by Justin and 
 by other Fathers) the words are, ' Thou art my Son, 
 to-day have I begotten thee. . .' Now the words following 
 in Luke are these : ' And Jesus himself began to be about 
 thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of 
 Joseph which was the son of Heli/ and so on. We have 
 seen already that there is no connection between this 
 sequel and the preceding words as they are commonly 
 read ; but there is a very clear connection if we take 
 the words given by ' D/ . . . The ' to-day have I begotten 
 thee ' stands in opposition to the thirty years ; and the 
 
 1 Rom. i. 4. z Heb. i. 5. Cf. also Acts xiii. 33. 
 
 3 A manuscript Gospel of Luke in the Cambridge Library. 
 
SONS OF GOD ior 
 
 ' Thou art my Son ' likewise to ' being, as was supposed, 
 the son of Joseph.' " 
 
 This, argues Dr. Blass, after a lengthy comparison of 
 the various texts, is the true reading, and continues : — 
 
 " I will only point out that the ' began to be '(verse 23), 
 np\6fievoc appears to be a corruption of ipxofxzvoq, 
 ' when he came.' " 
 
 The difference in the spelling, it will be observed, con- 
 sists in a single letter — the substitution of a for e — the 
 former spelling being found in some manuscripts and the 
 latter in others. Dr. Blass insists that the words " as 
 was supposed " refer both to the thirty years and to the 
 fatherhood of Joseph ; and the reading he finally adopts 
 is as follows : — 
 
 " Jesus was, when he came (to the baptism), about 
 thirty years old, as was supposed, and the son of 
 Joseph . . .," etc. 
 
 Or, transcribing it into modern English by help of 
 Pauline phraseology ; Jesus the son of Joseph, and through 
 Joseph the son of David after the flesh, was thirty years 
 old when he was " declared to be the Son of God." * 
 
 This not only makes sense and history of what other- 
 wise is utter and incomprehensible nonsense, but it makes 
 it clear also why the genealogy of Joseph should be given. 
 
 This is intelligible only if the fatherhood of Joseph is 
 admitted, as undoubtedly it was by Paul. 
 
 Then what — the reader will ask — are we to make of 
 the circumstantial account in Matthew of the annunciation, 
 the dream of Joseph, the magi, the star of Bethlehem, 
 and all the other details relating to the birth of Christ ? 
 
 These accounts, are the evidence referred to, showing 
 that the Gospels in which allusion is made to the supposed 
 miraculous birth could not have been written until years 
 after Paul had established the Christship of Jesus, when 
 such phrases as " being begotten of the spirit " or " Son 
 of God " had lost their original sectarian meaning. 
 
 Conceptions changed ; the same words no longer con- 
 veyed the same ideas, and in consequence new difficulties 
 
 1 According to the evangelist only ; for Paul dates the Christship 
 from the resurrection. 
 
io2 the History of jesus 
 
 arose. The fatherhood of God was taken literally, and 
 the question then arose as to what were the relations of 
 Joseph to Mary. If the latter was with child by the 
 Holy Spirit, would not Joseph doubt her chastity, and as 
 a good Jew put her away, or even make a public example 
 of her ? 
 
 To believers the answer is almost obvious. There has 
 never been a time when a Bible expositor could not be 
 found to clear up so simple a matter ; and so someone 
 on whom had descended the mantle of Paul explained 
 that God, of course, had sent his angel to Joseph in a 
 dream — as God is in the habit of doing in such circum- 
 stances — who told him all about it. This explanation 
 would only require confirmation from the Scriptures to 
 make it into a certainty ; and sure enough, the " evi- 
 dence " was found, for lo, " All this was done that it 
 might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the 
 prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child. . .," 
 etc. 1 But this must have happened long after Paul had 
 joined those who were asleep in the Lord. 
 
 This is the way in which all the doctrines relating to 
 the Christ-myth have been settled from the time of Paul 
 to this day. A contradiction, a clashing of facts, or some 
 other difficulty is encountered. The implied facts, how- 
 ever absurd, are never questioned. The problem is not 
 how to investigate and to prove or disprove, but how to 
 explain ; and once a seemingly plausible explanation has 
 been hit upon, to find Scripture evidence in support of 
 it. It is on this principle that Paul proved Jesus to be 
 Christ ; that he established the doctrines of the fall of 
 man through Adam and salvation by faith through 
 Christ. It is thus we got the " sacrifice," the " ransom," 
 the " atonement," the " resurrection," " salvation by 
 faith," "the virgin mother," "the Holy Ghost," "the 
 Trinity," the " Athanasian creed," the " Apostles' creed," 
 " the Eucharist," "Apostolic succession," "Predestination," 
 " Papal infallibility," down to the latest dogma of to-day 
 
 1 Matt. i. 22-3. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 THE *' HOLY GHOST " 
 
 Another legend having a like ignoble origin, viz. ignor- 
 ance and superstition, the parents of all such legends — - 
 is that concerning the " Holy Ghost/' which is always 
 spelt with capital initials as a mark of reverence. I 
 propose to inquire in this chapter Who or What this 
 " Holy Ghost " is that plays such an important part in 
 Christian theology. 
 
 The problem is strictly one of philology, and has no 
 more to do with a "person" — spiritual or otherwise — 
 than have Irish " bulls " with the beef supply of England. 
 
 The Greek word which in the English Bible is variously 
 rendered as "breath," "wind," "life," "spirit" or 
 " ghost " is " pneuma " ; from which is derived the 
 English word " pneumatics " to signify the " science 
 of air." 
 
 " Pneuma " (from the root " pneo," " to breathe ") 
 signified originally " that which blows or breathes " ; 
 hence " breath," " wind," " air in motion " ; hence 
 " that which breathes in us " ; i.e. the " spirit " or " spiritual 
 being " which inhabits the body, and to which have been 
 attributed all the phenomena of life. The metaphrase 
 of the word is to be found in every language, the root- 
 idea being always " to breathe," and has reference to all 
 that pertains to the mystery of " life " ; i.e. a breathing 
 being, in contradistinction to one that is not breathing, 
 or is breathless, lifeless, or " dead." 
 
 Breath (" pneuma ") is a word which in philology 
 
 occupies a place similar to the fossils in geology : it links 
 
 us up to the remote past and affords us a glimpse of how 
 
 our ideas, and the words to express them, have originated. 
 
 103 
 
io 4 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 The phenomena of life and death must at all times 
 have been problems of engrossing interest and mystery, 
 and we can well understand how primitive man would 
 fasten on to " breath " as the distinguishing mark of life 
 and living. To this day non-medical men diagnose the 
 extinction of life by the cessation of breathing. The 
 identification of breath with wind would seem to untutored, 
 primitive man as self-evident as was the ''rising' 7 and 
 the " setting" of the sun. Thus in Genesis it says that 
 " The ruach [i.e. the wind] of God moved upon the face 
 of the waters " ; the word " ruach " being rendered in 
 English — quite correctly — by " spirit." But in Hebrew 
 not only were both ideas expressed by the same word, 
 but " wind " and " breath " were considered one and the 
 same thing. 1 
 
 In modern English we have quite a number of words 
 which stand for as many more or less distinct ideas, all 
 of which would be represented in ancient Greek — or at 
 least in gospel Greek — by the word " pneuma," with 
 or without some qualifying words. In the following 
 quotations from the New Testament the words " breath," 
 " wind," " life," " spirit," " ghost " are as many renderings 
 of tc pneuma " : — 
 
 tf Seeing he giveth to all life and breath " ; 2 
 
 " The wind bloweth where it listeth " ; 3 
 
 " And had power to give life unto the image of the 
 beast" ; 4 
 
 " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit " ; 5 
 
 " Sapphira . . . gave up the ghost." 6 
 
 As ideas expand, new words are found to distinguish 
 between the finer conceptions of our imagination. The 
 
 1 The reader will probably be reminded how the places that were 
 regarded as sacred or held in awe were always such where the wind could 
 be heard — hill-tops, groves, clefts, etc. : " Thou nearest the sound of 
 the pneuma (spirit), but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it 
 goeth." From being always windy, such places were looked upon as the 
 haunts of the " pneuma," or spirits. 
 
 2 Acts xvii. 25. 
 
 3 John iii. 8. literally, " The breath (or spirit) breatheth." 
 
 4 Rev. xiii. 15. That is, could put " breath " or " spirit * (pneuma) 
 into the lifeless idol. 
 
 5 Acts vii. 59. 6 Ibid. v. 10. 
 
THE "HOLY GHOST" 105 
 
 " breath " (or " pneuma ") of primitive man has been 
 resolved — in the English language — into the separate and 
 distinct conceptions of " wind," " life," " spirit," " ghost," 
 " soul," " mind," " reason," " intellect," " conscience," 
 and many other cognate ideas. But this expansion of 
 ideas and increase of vocabulary has not taken place to 
 an equal degree in every language. In German there is 
 the word " Geist," which has to do duty for ghost as 
 well as for spirit. In gospel Greek they had separate 
 words for " soul" and " wind," but not for most of the 
 ideas above enumerated. Of this I will speak again 
 presently. For the present I desire to point out that the 
 more ideas evolve and are resolved into several more 
 or less distinct conceptions, the narrower becomes the 
 meaning of the original word. In English, for instance, 
 the meaning of the word " spirit " has been thus 
 narrowed within comparatively recent times. 
 
 In Bacon's time, and long after, that which we now 
 call the " properties " of bodies — i.e. their qualities — 
 were called their " spirits." Not only were they so called, 
 but the qualities of bodies were conceived as being due 
 to the spirits that dwelt in them. According to Bacon, 
 the " prime matter " of all bodies was the same, and the 
 difference they exhibited were entirely due to their 
 " spirits." The " spirits " of a brick were " coarse, slow, 
 and sluggish " ; those of a diamond, " quick, subtle, 
 penetrating, and jejune " ; and if we only knew how to 
 transfer the spirits of the latter into the former, the 
 brick would be converted into a diamond. 
 
 Similar to this, apparently, must have been the con- 
 ception of the people about the time of Paul concerning 
 man. That is, not the life only but the character of a 
 person depended on the nature of " the indwelling spirit." 
 And just as Bacon believed that' a " transmutation of 
 spirits " in inanimate bodies was feasible, 1 whereby one 
 substance might be changed into another ; so the ancient 
 
 1 Bacon went so far as to suggest experiments on these lines for making 
 " congealed water that would not melt again by heat " (i.e. stalagmite, 
 which he believed to be " congealed water") and for the transmutations 
 of metals. 
 
106 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 inhabitants of Judaea believed in the possibility of 
 changing the " spirits " in man. Indeed, according to 
 their conception of " life," they must have had daily 
 proof of this ; for anyone who could effect a cure, calm 
 down an infuriated person, or change the opinions of a 
 man had " cast out a spirit " : a (( spirit of infirmity/' 
 a " violent spirit/' or an " evil spirit/' as the case might 
 be. They could not express it otherwise. When a person, 
 for instance, recovered from an illness, this fact could not 
 be otherwise conceived or described except by saying 
 that " the spirit that had troubled him had left him " ; 
 just as we still say that " the fever has left the patient " 
 or of someone that " he had caught a cold." 
 
 Such spirits were regarded as entities. They could 
 come and go, and you could hear their sound, but could 
 not see or touch them. Hence their belief in the resur- 
 rection of the body, and not merely of an incorporeal spirit. 
 
 For the spirit could depart and return ; but it could 
 neither die nor change. A spirit of infirmity was always 
 a spirit of infirmity. The cure of the person could only 
 be effected by casting out the undesirable spirit. 
 
 Bearing in mind these fundamental conceptions, we 
 shall be able to understand why Paul believed in the 
 resurrection of the body : he could not conceive of it in 
 any other way. The departed spirit had to return. The 
 body, forsooth, might be a different one ; but some sort 
 of a body was a mental necessity. This will also explain 
 the meaning of these words put into the mouth of the 
 resurrected Christ, when he is said to have appeared to 
 his disciples : — 
 
 " Handle me, and see : for a spirit hath not flesh and 
 bones as ye see me have." J 
 
 All this, however, only by the way. What is of interest 
 is the fact that the belief in " spirits inhabiting bodies " 
 — both animate and inanimate — was common to all 
 mankind and has come down almost to our own days. 
 Such expressions as " spirits of salts/' " spirits of wine," 
 " spirits of hartshorn " still remind us of how our ancestors 
 conceived certain phenomena. 
 
 1 Luke xxiv. 38-9. 
 
THE "HOLY GHOST" 107 
 
 It was a world of " spirits. " And if only we can 
 remember that it was regarded as such by England's 
 great philosopher of the seventeenth century, we shall 
 be less surprised to find that it was so regarded by the 
 fishermen and tentmakers of the first, or the evangelists 
 and their copyists in the immediately succeeding centuries. 
 
 The Bible does not contain in the original Hebrew 
 or Greek words corresponding to " mind," " intellect," 
 " common sense," " cleverness," " reason," " intelligence," 
 " intuition," " imagination," " ratiocination," " sane," 
 " sanity," " moral," " conscience," or, in short, any word 
 signifying intellectuality or mental states. 
 
 Nor was there any need for such, since the abstract 
 ideas for which these words stand did not exist. All such 
 phenomena were attributed to the hypothetical " spirits," 
 and hence we find instead of the above vocabulary an 
 assortment of such spirits, viz. poor spirits, foul spirits, 
 evil spirits, holy spirits, dumb spirits, meek spirits, good 
 spirits, spirit of Christ and of Antichrist, of prophecy, 
 of wisdom, of slumber, of sorrow or of joy, and all the rest 
 of them. 
 
 A man of sound mind, sound judgment, and — most 
 important of all — sound doctrine, was possessed of the 
 " holy spirit," which — in translation only ! — becomes 
 " holy ghost." The man of unsound mind had a " foul " 
 spirit or a "devil"; the simpleminded had a "poor" 
 spirit ; or, if a person was clever but not of sound doctrine, 
 he had forsooth the " spirit of wisdom," but not the " holy 
 spirit." This could be conferred by God only or his 
 appointed saints. 
 
 The " holy spirit " — for there is absolutely no warranty 
 in the originals to discriminate between holy spirit and 
 holy ghost — was, therefore, nothing more than right or 
 sound spirit ; i.e. what to-day we call sound judgment 
 or reason. This is more apparent in German, where the 
 word " Geist " — the metaphrase of the English " spirit " 
 or the Greek " pneuma " — still signifies intellectuality. 
 
 But really, there is no necessity to go outside the New 
 Testament to prove that holy spirit or holy ghost meant 
 nothing more than " reason " ; i.e. the understanding 
 
io8 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 or mental capacity of a person ; and I could scarcely do 
 better than quote the testimony of Paul : — 
 
 " But the manifestation of the spirit is given to every 
 man to profit withal. For to one is given by the spirit 
 the word of wisdom ; to another the word of knowledge 
 by the same spirit ; to another faith by the same spirit ; 
 to another the gifts of healing by the same spirit ; to 
 another the working of miracles ; to another prophecy ; 
 to another discerning the spirits ; to another divers 
 kinds of tongues ; to another the interpretation of tongues : 
 but all these worketh that one and the selfsame spirit, 
 dividing to every man severalty as he will." T 
 
 As already stated, the word " ghost " is sometimes 
 substituted for the word " spirit " in the English transla- 
 tion. This is not always permissible, however, as the 
 two words are not always synonymous. In the following 
 sentences, for instance : " Stephen, calling . . . Lord 
 Jesus, receive my spirit," and " Jesus . . . yielded up 
 the ghost" the meaning is the same. But in the 
 sentence : "If I cast out devils by the spirit of 
 God. . . " we could not substitute " ghost " for " spirit " 
 without causing confusion ; and that because we associate 
 with the word "ghost" something more than that only 
 which animates or actuates. 
 
 There is absolutely, no necessity for using the word 
 " ghost " at all in rendering the gospels into English 
 except for doctrinal reasons. The word "spirit" exactly 
 and accurately renders the meaning ; and wherever it 
 has been found necessary — for doctrinal purposes — to 
 use the word "ghost," the original meaning has been 
 altered, and in some cases the text even had to be cor- 
 rupted to make such substitution possible. 
 
 I shall submit but one text in support of this double 
 contention, but that should be conclusive. For I shall 
 try to unlock by means of the foregoing explanations 
 the greatest mystery of Christian theology ; to wit, the 
 sin against the Holy Ghost. I shall show that there is 
 neither mystery nor absurdity about this passage in the text, 
 except insofar as it has been imported by the translators. 
 
 1 i Cor. xii. 7-1 1. 
 
THE "HOLY GHOST" 109 
 
 There is, or is supposed to be — as everybody is aware — 
 a sin greater than any other, greater even than blasphemy 
 against God, to commit which is fatal ; yet nobody knows 
 what the sin consists in, except that it is the sin against 
 the Holy Ghost. 
 
 In the first place I desire to point out the prima facie 
 absurdity of even supposing such a possibility as that the 
 Creator should take so much trouble about the " salvation " 
 of mankind as to send " his only begotten Son " in such 
 a melodramatic fashion into the world, to undergo there 
 an atrocious death, all for the sole purpose of saving 
 mankind, then to warn them against the deadliest of all 
 sins, and never to tell even what that sin consists in ! 
 
 I venture to say that if you searched all the supersti- 
 tions of the world, you could not find a more monstrous 
 absurdity or a greater impiety than this. I am glad, 
 therefore, to be able to show that there is not a scintilla 
 in the gospels to support such a doctrine. 
 
 Jesus has, indeed, warned his hearers against " reviling 
 the spirit" and also said that such a sin is unpardonable— 
 as, of course, it is — but neither he nor those whom he 
 addressed were for a moment in doubt as to what he 
 meant. Nor need we be to-day, but for the fact that 
 eighteen centuries of theological obscurantism have 
 enveloped a perfectly clear passage with the fog of mysti- 
 cism. In fact, by a strange irony of fate, the theologians, 
 in their mental blindness, have committed the very sin 
 Jesus warned them against ; i.e. to " revile or abuse 
 your reason." 
 
 The warning is contained in all the three synoptics, 
 but only Matthew gives a full account of the circumstances. 
 Jesus had " cast out devils " ; which means that he had 
 made many converts and had an ever-growing following. 
 The " Pharisees " were displeased, but could not arrest his 
 onward march by meeting him in argument. Jesus 
 was irresistible in debate. And so his opponents resorted 
 to the only means available to unreasoning reactionaries : 
 they maligned him. " This fellow," they said, " doth not 
 cast out devils, but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils/' * 
 1 Matt. xii. 24. 
 
no THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 The self-contradiction of the accusation is absurdly 
 apparent. It is what is known in logic as a paralogism, 
 and in vernacular English as an "Irish bull." But his 
 antagonists were not aware of their own stupidity, and 
 so Jesus tried to bring it home to them by an argumentum 
 ad absurdum in a manner peculiarly his own. Here is 
 the narrative as given by Matthew x : — 
 
 " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, 
 Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desola- 
 tion ; and every city or house divided against itself shall 
 not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided 
 against himself ; how shall then his kingdom stand ? 
 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your 
 children cast them out ? therefore they shall be your 
 judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, 
 then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how 
 can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, 
 except he first bind the strong man ? and then he will 
 spoil his house. He that is not with me is against me ; 
 and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 
 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy 
 shall be forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And who- 
 soever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall 
 be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh against the 
 Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this 
 world, neither in the world to come. Either make the 
 tree good, and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt, 
 and his fruit corrupt : for the tree is known by his fruit." 
 
 Observe that the whole is one continuous argument, 
 commencing with showing up the absurdity of saying 
 that Beelzebub is at war with himself, and finishing with 
 the advice of either declaring Beelzebub a good spirit 
 that is doing good or an evil spirit that is doing evil ; 
 but you cannot say he is evil and yet is doing good, as 
 he would be doing if he were " casting out devils." 
 
 Note also that if we gave to verses 31 and 32 the 
 interpretation put on them by the Churches, then they 
 would be interpolations in the middle of an argument 
 1 Matt. xii. 25-33. 
 
THE "HOLY GHOST" in 
 
 with which they could then have no connection, and 
 without either rhyme or reason. That supposition, how- 
 ever, is ruled out by the word " Wherefore " (Greek " dia ") 
 with which verse 31 begins. This not only shows connec- 
 tion with what has gone before, but that it follows directly 
 from it. 
 
 This will become apparent when we eliminate two words 
 in verse 31 that have been interpolated by the translators 
 — " against " and " Holy " — and which have no business 
 there at all ; and by substituting spirit for ghost, for reasons 
 explained already. 
 
 Then there is the word " blasphemy," which in English 
 is limited to speaking profanely of God, whereas in Greek 
 it meant to abuse or to revile anything or anybody. Like 
 " pneuma," the word " blasphemeo " has been resolved 
 in English into several ideas, with different shades of 
 meaning, and the word (in its various forms) has been 
 rendered in the English version by the following words 
 or phrases : " to speak evil of," " to revile," " to rail 
 on," " to report slanderously," " to defame/' " to 
 blaspheme," etc. 
 
 But since in English the phrase " to blaspheme " has been 
 narrowed down to mean profaning the deity, the expression 
 should here be rendered by a word not so limited. 
 
 A correct translation of the passage would require, 
 therefore, the omission of the words " against " and 
 "Holy" in verse 31; the substitution of "spirit" for 
 " ghost " in verses 31 and 32 ; and the substitution of 
 a verb with a general meaning — such as " abusing " or 
 "reviling" — for the exclusive noun "blasphemy." The 
 verses would then read thus : — 
 
 31. " Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and 
 abuse shall be forgiven unto men : but the abuse of the 
 spirit shall not be forgiven unto men." 
 
 32. " And whosoever speaketh against the son of man, 1 
 it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh against 
 the holy spirit (i.e. reason), it shall not be forgiven him, 
 neither now nor ever." 
 
 Which, being interpreted, means : " Revile me if ytfu 
 1 I.e. against a person, " son of man " simply meaning man generically. 
 
H2 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 like and as much as you like ; but how about your own 
 reason ? Verily I say unto you, Once you take leave of 
 your reason there is no longer any help for you." 
 
 This, then, is the " Holy Ghost " by which people were 
 spiritually born, who has begotten the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and to sin against which is so serious a matter — as no 
 doubt it is. The "son of man" could commit no greater 
 blunder (i.e. " sin ") than by reviling his own reason ; 
 a sin theologians are constantly committing. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 GENERAL SURVEY 
 
 We have laid bare what has been left of the edifice which 
 the Sage of Nazareth had planned to erect, but which was 
 destroyed and laid waste before it was finished. 
 
 Very little has been preserved for us of the superstructure. 
 Here and there a buttress, a portion of wall, a column or 
 two, or a few scattered pieces of masonry is all that is 
 left of it — just enough to enable us to make out the main 
 features of the design, and no more. But the foundations 
 are still intact and promise rich rewards to the patient 
 explorer. These we may now examine at our leisure, 
 unhampered by theological casuistry or bias. 
 
 But before entering on this more profitable part of our 
 task, it will be well to make a general survey of the out- 
 standing facts which we have uncovered and by their 
 help try to find answers to certain questions which at the 
 outset of our inquiry we found so embarrassing. 
 
 First of these is the familiar poser : If Christ is a myth, 
 how do you account for Christianity ? For the Christian 
 cult — it is contended — is distinct not only from every 
 other system of faith, but differs radically and charac- 
 teristically from the Jewish cult, although it originated 
 among the Jews. 
 
 The question is based on entirely erroneous assumptions. 
 There seems to be a belief among the uninformed that 
 Christianity was a new cult at the time of its inception, 
 something which was unknown in Judaea before the 
 introduction of Christianity. Nothing could be further 
 from the truth. That which is thought to be characteristic 
 of Christianity — apart from doctrine, which is constantly 
 changing — had been known and practised by certain 
 
 8 
 
H4 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 Jewish sects— the Essenes — long before the time of either 
 Jesus or Paul. The latter has merely grafted a new 
 doctrine on to an already established cult. 
 
 From the account which Josephus gives of the various 
 systems of philosophy which then flourished among the 
 Jews, it is not difficult to identify the Nazarenes, the 
 sect which Paul at first persecuted and eventually became 
 a convert to, as a branch of the Essenes ; for there were 
 several divisions of them. They were Jews in race and 
 religion, and the peculiar customs, rites, and institutions 
 which differentiated them from other Jewish sects (of 
 which there were many) are the characteristic features 
 of the Christian cult. 
 
 Josephus speaks of them as a people of high virtues, 
 unselfish, patriotic, and heroic. But they were also pious 
 and doctrinaire, which made them exclusive, and separated 
 them from the rest of the Jews. Many of the exhortations 
 of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount were directed against 
 their excesses in piety. They denounced the pleasures 
 of life, and many of them went to extremes in their 
 asceticism — neither changing their garments until they 
 were worn to tatters nor anointing themselves. 1 
 Monastic life, celibacy, austerity, anchorism — in short, 
 all that which is characteristic of early Christianity 
 — was practised among these Essenes long before Paul 
 gave them a " Christ." They also had their saints 
 and martyrs — John the Baptist and Jesus are to be 
 counted among them — before they were " Christians " 
 by name. 
 
 But I will let Josephus speak : " These Essenes reject 
 pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the 
 conquest over our passions, to be virtue. . . . These 
 men are despisers of riches . . . nor is there any one to 
 be found among them who hath more than another ; 
 for it is a law among them that those who come to them 
 must let what they have be common to the whole order.- 
 . . . They have no certain city, but many of them dwell 
 in every city ; and if any of their sect come from other 
 places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it 
 
 i Cf. Matt. vi. 16-18. 2 Cf. Acts ii. 44-5 ; iv. 32. 
 
GENERAL SURVEY 115 
 
 were their own. . . . For which reason they carry nothing 
 with them when they travel into remote parts. 3 ' r 
 
 It is in the synagogues of these Essenes that Paul 
 " argued so mightily/' showing from the Scriptures that 
 Jesus was Christ. 
 
 He did not bring to them a new religion at all. They 
 would have stoned him had he attempted to do so. He 
 certainly would not have been allowed to enter their 
 synagogue, or to desecrate it by preaching heretical 
 doctrines. For, to quote again from Josephus : " What 
 they most of all honour, after God himself, is the name of 
 their legislator (Moses), whom if anyone blaspheme, he is 
 punished capitally." » But they welcomed new doctrines, 
 prophecies, or interpretations if based on Scripture, and 
 delighted in disputing over the meaning of Biblical texts. 
 Moreover, they would accept as final whatever could be 
 proved from the Scriptures. 
 
 This explains the force of Paul's argument that if 
 there is a prophecy in the Scriptures " it needs must have 
 been fulfilled." On that point there would be the most 
 perfect agreement. They expected the Messiah, as ortho- 
 dox Jews do to this day, and reasoned about him. Paul 
 was quite free, therefore, to argue the proposition that 
 Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus was one of their martyrs 
 and already held in high esteem. All that Paul had to 
 do was to produce his Scripture proof. 
 
 His task, therefore, was no greater than was, say, that of 
 Athanasius 3 in proposing his doctrine of the Trinity, or 
 of Calvin in promulgating his doctrine of predestination. 
 
 But to return to the account which Josephus gives of 
 these people : " And as for their piety towards God, it 
 is very extraordinary ; for before sun rising they speak 
 not a word about profane matters, but put up certain 
 prayers which they have received from their forefathers." 
 (Cf. the injunction of Jesus, " Do not use vain repetitions.") 
 " A priest says grace before meat ; and it is unlawful 
 for anyone to taste of food before grace be said. The 
 
 1 Wars of the Jews, Book II, chap. viii. 1-4. Compare with this, 
 ! ' Take neither scrip nor staff," a Loc. cit. 
 
 3 Or whoever might have been the originator of the doctrine. 
 
n6 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 same priest, when he has dined, says grace again after 
 meat ; and when they begin, and when they end, they 
 praise God. . . . They dispense their anger after a just 
 manner, and restrain their passion. They are eminent 
 for fidelity, and are the ministers of peace ; whatsoever 
 they say also is firmer than an oath ; but swearing is 
 avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than 
 perjury. . . . 
 
 " They contemn the miseries of life, and are above 
 pain, by the generosity of their mind. And as for death, 
 if it will be for their glory, they esteem it better than 
 living always ; and indeed our war with the Romans 
 gave abundant evidences what great souls they had in 
 their trials, wherein although they were tortured and 
 distorted, burnt and torn to pieces, and went through 
 all kinds of instruments of torment, that they might be 
 forced either to blaspheme their legislator or to eat what 
 w T as forbidden them, yet could they not be made to do 
 either of them, no, nor once to flatter their tormentors, 
 nor to shed a tear ; but they smiled on their very pains, 
 and laughed those to scorn who inflicted the torments 
 upon them, and resigned up their souls with great alacrity, 
 as expecting to receive them again/' r 
 
 It is often urged by Christian apologists in defence of 
 their faith that people died for it ; forgetting the martyrs 
 of other faiths, and especially those who in later years 
 became the victims of Christian persecution rather than 
 become Christians. But here we are told by a trusty 
 historian of martyrs before a Christ was preached ; and 
 many of the descendants of these Essenes are suffering 
 martyrdom to-day (e.g. in Russia) rather than forsake the 
 faith of their fathers. But martyrdom proves nothing 
 beyond the sincerity of the victim in his own convictions. 
 
 Christianity is a stupendous fact, no doubt, if judged 
 by the number of its adherents, and the hold it has even 
 on people who in their hearts no longer believe in its 
 tenets. But it is not more stupendous in this respect 
 than either Buddhism, which is a much older cult, or 
 Mohammedanism, which is of more recent date than 
 
 1 Wars of the Jews> loc. cit. 
 
GENERAL SURVEY 117 
 
 Christianity. These kind of arguments are specious at 
 best, and prove rather more than is intended by those who 
 advance them. Nor is any such explanation necessary 
 in the case of Christianity, for we are in a position to 
 account for the origin of the cult, with all its miracles, 
 dogmas, customs, rites, and ceremonials. We can trace 
 its history as we can trace that of no other ancient 
 system of worship. 
 
 Indeed, the student of folklore who desires to know 
 how legends originate, grow, and ramify until it passes 
 the understanding how they could have gained currency 
 or credence, cannot do better than study the evolution 
 of Christianity. The origin of most legends is lost in the 
 remote and forgotten past. That is not the case, however, 
 with the Christ-myth, which may still be traced back to 
 its very inception, and thence we may follow its evolution, 
 including doctrines and miracles, down to the present day. 
 
 Another question — raised in a previous chapter, but 
 still requiring to be answered — is, If Jesus was not the 
 founder of Christianity, how came he to be regarded as 
 such ? How came it about that he whose every thought 
 and word was so plainly opposed to their doctrines should 
 be looked upon by believers in the strange doctrines of 
 Paul as their prophet rather than as the veritable Anti- 
 christ ? 
 
 The answer to this question is to be found in the origin 
 of the Christ-myth and the evolution of Christianity. 
 Paul not only declared Jesus to be Christ, but attributed 
 all his own strange doctrines to him. This argues that 
 the name of Jesus must have been famous before Paul 
 raised him to the Messiahship, but not necessarily that 
 Paul knew anything about him or his teachings, beyond 
 what legend ascribed to him ; namely, that he rose from 
 the dead and continued to confer with certain of the 
 " elect " and to work miracles. Indeed, we have seen 
 that Paul knew absolutely nothing about the real Jesus 
 or his teachings. All the witnesses he mentions saw, 
 or were supposed to have seen, the resurrected Jesus, 
 Paul himself included. It was the legendary, and not 
 the real Jesus, whom Paul knew ; and him he knew as, 
 
ii8 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 such only as his own feverish fancy painted him. It was 
 Paul himself who conferred Christship on this creation 
 of his own imagination. 
 
 Two elements are necessary for the growth of a legend : 
 a great personality or some great event, and a credulous 
 and superstitious people. These given, a legend will 
 soon appear and grow and spread far beyond the rami- 
 fications of the mustard seed with which Jesus tried to 
 illustrate the fertilizing power of a truth. 
 
 Jesus was more than a great man in his days and 
 country : he was a phenomenon. The possession of a 
 great truth always confers on a person a power in debate 
 even against a more skilful dialectician, which he could 
 not otherwise command. It also has as extraordinary 
 psychological effect in unifying ideas and strengthening 
 the mental faculties. But when to that is added the 
 rare combination of gifts we can discern even now to have 
 been possessed by Jesus — clear thinking ; keen logical 
 perception ; facility of expression ; skill in debate, reaching 
 the heart of the matter under discussion in a few well- 
 chosen words ; and a rare command of telling metaphor 
 that enabled him to appeal to the multitude on most 
 abstruse questions * — a power results that is bound to 
 leave its mark in any country and at any period. 
 
 Jesus, with the message he had for mankind, the rare 
 gifts of presenting it, and his lofty character, would be a 
 commanding personality in Europe at the present day. 
 How much more must that have been the case in ancient 
 Judaea, among ignorant and credulous people, saturated 
 with a belief in the supernatural and presided over by 
 a caste or castes of scholastics steeped in dialectical dis- 
 putations and traditional sacerdotalism ? 
 
 We may well believe the evangelist who says that 
 " His fame went throughout all Syria . . and there 
 followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and 
 from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, 
 
 1 Alas ! often with disastrous results, for his metaphors were frequently 
 taken in a literal sense and have led to most absurd beliefs and doctrines 
 among the ignorant, especially in later years, when the evangelists 
 collected information for their books, 
 
GENERAL SURVEY 119 
 
 and from beyond Jordan." 1 He must indeed have been 
 11 a bright star in the East/' attracting the " wise men to 
 come to Jerusalem to reverence him " ; 3 and it is not at 
 all improbable that this is the true meaning and origin 
 of the legend about the star of Bethlehem. The " star/' 
 no doubt, was Jesus himself ; and " the wise men " did 
 not come at his birth, but when he was at the height of 
 his fame, not to " worship," but to admire and to 
 reverence. 3 
 
 The fame of such a man would be great and his influence 
 widespread, even in our own days. It is not surprising, 
 therefore, to find that the people among whom he worked 
 and taught should have repeated to each other reports 
 of his sayings and doings, or that exaggerations and mis- 
 representations should have crept into these reports 
 and gained free currency and acceptance. We need not 
 go back in mind to the Galilee of nineteen centuries ago 
 for explanations ; we can find parallels in plenty nearer 
 our own times and country. Who that will read these 
 pages has not heard of Lourdes and the many other 
 shrines in enlightened Europe where miracles and miracu- 
 lous cures are of everyday occurrence ? Or of Father 
 Iliodor ; of Madame Blavatsky ; of Mahatmas ; of haunted 
 houses ; of " mascots," spiritualistic materializations, 
 clairvoyants, fortune-tellers, and the like of them ? 4 
 
 The very common sense of his utterances, which so 
 confounded his opponents, must have seemed magic to 
 the multitude, and made Jesus appear a superior being 
 in their eyes — as undoubtedly he was. 
 
 1 Matt. iv. 24-5. 2 Ibid. ii. 2. 
 
 3 The R.V. says " to worship him/' The Greek word is " proskyneo " 
 which means " to kiss," " to reverence," or " to do homage." 
 
 4 To these I might add " the Angels of Mons," about whom so much 
 has been printed lately in quite serious publications, and the phantom 
 army of Russians which was supposed to have passed via Archangel 
 and Scotland into France. Another illustration of how legends originate 
 in the fertile soil of ignorance is afforded by a paragraph which made 
 the round of the Press, after the occupation of Zeebriigge by the Germans, 
 to the effect that German prisoners of war firmly believed that the Channel 
 had already been bridged by the Germans from Calais to Dover, the idea 
 having been suggested by the name " Zeebriigge," which means " sea 
 bridge." 
 
120 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 That Jesus had fed some hungry poor ; that he had 
 relieved suffering wherever he could ; that he comforted, 
 counselled, and soothed people who were troubled, we 
 may assume for certain from his revealed character. 
 That these simple deeds should be circulated by his 
 admirers and in the passing on be embellished until they 
 attained to miraculous . proportions even in the lifetime 
 of Jesus, is but natural if human nature was then what 
 it is to-day. And that in later generations miracles 
 should arise through the growth of language, out of errors 
 by copyists or translators, or the ignorance of commen- 
 tators, is still less of a surprise. 
 
 People at all times have been eager in telling and 
 retelling the virtues, deeds, and prowess of their favourite 
 hero. This is especially the case after he has passed away. 
 The death of every famous person brings forth its crop 
 of anecdotal matter which is eagerly devoured, enlarged 
 upon, and passed on. 
 
 Both the life and death of Jesus were out of the ordinary, 
 as was his whole personality. His exhortations appealed 
 so strongly to the common sense of mankind that it was 
 impossible to gainsay or to contradict him. If we add to 
 all this his sympathy for and championship of the poor 
 and the oppressed, it will not be found necessary to invoke 
 any other " miracle " * to account for the fact that the 
 memory of Jesus should have survived ; that it should 
 have been held in reverence ; that legends should have 
 been woven round his name, or that the ignorant and 
 credulous should have fathered their superstitions upon 
 him. Nor is it to be wondered at that some should have 
 believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. The dis- 
 appearance of his body — as previously pointed out 
 — may easily have given rise to this belief among 
 those who at that particular period were zealous in spread- 
 ing the (in Judaea) then new doctrine of the resurrection 
 of the body. 
 
 1 To myself the greatest miracle in connection with Jesus is that the 
 Judasa of those days should have produced such a man, and that he should 
 have remained misunderstood to this day, notwithstanding all the labours 
 bestowed on the study of his life. 
 
GENERAL SURVEY 121 
 
 Then Paul appears on the scene, accepts the theory 
 of the resurrection, to which at first he was opposed, 
 declares Jesus to have been the expected Messiah, and, 
 led by the ignis fatuus of his inexorable logic, loses himself 
 in a bog of metaphysics, as has been the fate of so many 
 people who, like Paul, were gifted with an active, subtle 
 brain and nothing to feed on except their own thoughts. 
 
 It was Paul who first designated Jesus as " the Lord 
 Jesus Christ " and thus linked the name of the historical 
 Jesus with his own theories concerning a mythical Christ. 
 For, as insisted on in these pages, the Christ of Paul had 
 nothing in common with the historical Jesus beyond the 
 name. 
 
 When, therefore, some generations later, the evangelists 
 compiled their narratives, they no longer discriminated 
 between the real and the mythical Jesus, but collected 
 whatever tradition reported of either, setting dow T n item 
 after item as it came to hand, without scrutiny or criticism. 
 Thus it came about that Jesus was credited with having 
 been the founder of a faith which is the antithesis of his 
 teachings ; and that two such mutually exclusive philo- 
 sophies came to be mixed up and included in the same 
 tract. 
 
 That the few genuine fragments of the teachings of 
 Jesus are there by accident only, and are entirely foreign 
 to the spirit of Pauline Christianity, is proved by the fact 
 that they have been stumbling-blocks to the " Church of 
 Christ " all these centuries. There is not a Christian 
 dogma based on these indisputably genuine relics (such 
 as the Sermon or the parables, or the dialogue between 
 the young ruler and Jesus) ; nor is there a Christian 
 doctrine or dogma which is not diametrically opposed to 
 the " ethics of Jesus," as his teachings have deprecatingly 
 been designated, so as to subordinate them to what is 
 called " spiritual Christianity/' 
 
 Before taking leave of Paul and his Christology, 
 a few words on the chronology of the New Testament 
 writings may not be out of place. 
 
 It is essential to bear in . mind that instead of being 
 contemporaries of Jesus — as is generally believed — the 
 
122 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 writers of the Gospels lived and wrote generations after 
 Paul, who himself was not a contemporary of Jesus, 
 but belonged to a succeeding generation. By so doing 
 many textual difficulties will find natural solutions in 
 the reflection that the incidents and dialogues were 
 written down by ignorant, credulous scribes, many years 
 after they were supposed to have taken place, and from 
 hearsay only. 
 
 That the Gospels are of more recent date than the 
 Pauline epistles can be proved by their contents. The 
 evidence is as follows : — 
 
 Any document in which reference is made to any 
 doctrine must necessarily have been written after such 
 doctrine had been promulgated. 
 
 The Christ-myth is obviously older than the Gospels 
 in which we find it mentioned, and is spoken of as some- 
 thing that has been handed down by former generations. 
 On the other hand, it cannot be older than the epistles, 
 in which we see it being established step by step and bit 
 by bit. 
 
 The only subject-matter that the Gospels and the 
 epistles of Paul have in common is that Jesus was Christ, 
 and that those who believe on him shall be saved. Paul's 
 epistles contain nothing else of doctrinal matter except 
 just what belongs to the Christship of Jesus and his scheme 
 of "salvation by faith through the Lord Jesus Christ." 
 In the Gospels, however, we find in addition a great deal 
 of information concerning the birth, life, ministry, and 
 death of Jesus about which no mention is made by 
 Paul. 
 
 Now, there are only three possible theories to account 
 for the presence in both the Gospels and the epistles of 
 that particular scheme of salvation which Paul has ela- 
 borated with so much pain and industry, and defended 
 so consistently in all his writings. These are : — 
 
 i. That Paul copied it from the Gospels. 
 
 2. That the evangelists copied it from the writings 
 of Paul. 
 
 3. That both Paul and the evangelists are indebted 
 to a common source* 
 
GENERAL SURVEY 123 
 
 All the indications are that it is the evangelists who 
 are indebted to Paul for the doctrine. This conclusion 
 is supported by many considerations. Paul not only 
 tells us that the gospel he preached was entirely his own, 
 but there is prima facie evidence that he spoke the truth. 
 The name of Jesus may have been, and no doubt was, 
 inscribed in the calendar of their saints by the sect of 
 the Nazarenes ; some may even have regarded him as 
 the Messiah ; but it was Paul who developed the scheme 
 of salvation, who discovered the " fall " of Adam, the 
 " promise " to Abraham, the theory of ransom, and salva- 
 tion by faith. Pie is consistent throughout, and we see 
 him developing doctrine after doctrine, as necessity arose. 
 
 Had Paul taken his ideas from the Gospels — or, to 
 put it in another way, had the Gospels been extant at the 
 time of Paul, it is scarcely conceivable that Paul should 
 never have quoted, if not some of the sayings of Jesus, at 
 least some of the miracles concerning his birth that would 
 have so strengthened his arguments. Paul relied entirely 
 on Scripture prophecies, and the Scriptures required that 
 Christ should be of the seed of David, and be born at 
 Bethlehem, the city of David. What a glorious argument 
 it would have been if Paul could have shown that he 
 actually was born there, that Joseph and Mary had to 
 go to Jerusalem, and pass through Bethlehem, so that 
 the Scriptures might be fulfilled. Equally surprising is 
 it that Paul should have failed to take notice of the alleged 
 miraculous birth by a virgin mother. 
 
 Yet not a word or even an allusion do we find in all 
 his writings to anything related in the Gospels about 
 Jesus, his birth, life, ministry, trial, or death, beyond 
 just the statement that he had been crucified and that 
 he rose again. All this is explained by supposing that 
 the Gospels did not exist, and the marvels of which they 
 tell had not been current when Paul wrote. 
 
 But this is not all. If we assume that the Gospels 
 had been written before Paul preached his own scheme of 
 salvation, then not only was his gospel not original, 
 but he must have been preaching doctrines that were 
 generations old ; for the evangelists wrote of things that 
 
124 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 had been " delivered unto them " by former generations. 
 Luke, at least, does not leave us in doubt as to this. 
 
 Paul is insistent that his gospel was his own. Luke 
 is equally explicit that what he was recording were ancient 
 doctrines ; and there seems to be no reason whatever 
 to doubt either statement. Moreover, we read in Luke's 
 Gospel (xvi. 1 6) : (< The law and the prophets were 
 until John : since that time the kingdom of God is 
 preached " ; which is a distinctly Pauline doctrine and 
 thus shows that Luke wrote subsequently to Paul. And 
 if it be true that the same scribe who wrote this Gospel 
 was also the author of the " Acts," then no further argu- 
 ment is needed ; for this document tells us of the doings 
 of Paul. 
 
 I have given prominence to Luke's Gospel because of 
 the explicit statement of its author that he was recording 
 traditions. But there is ample evidence to be found in 
 the other Gospels that the same applies to all of them. 
 They all have the character of being records of events 
 that have happened long ago. 
 
 And so we are driven to the conclusion that when the 
 evangelists compiled their Gospels they " set down in 
 order that which was assuredly believed among them, 
 even as they received it " ; and among these things 
 were fragments of an old gospel, which we may now call 
 " the gospel of Jesus," and doctrines from a later gospel, 
 which we may safely describe as " the gospel of Paul." 
 These two gospels, or what had been left of them at the 
 time, together with oral traditions, supplied the contents 
 of the four canonical Gospels. 
 
 Scholars have laboured hard in assigning correct dates 
 to the various documents of the New Testament. If 
 they will try again on the lines here indicated — with a 
 view of finding out how recent the Gospels are instead of 
 trying to make out that they are of an early date — they 
 will probably be more successful. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 VALUE OF LEGENDS AS SOURCES OF HISTORY 
 
 The history of Jesus was not such as a nation would 
 strive to perpetuate in its chronicles — at least not offi- 
 cially. He was executed as a common felon, and official 
 Judaism was scandalized by his propaganda. As a con- 
 sequence the rulers did all they could to suppress every 
 trace of him and his doctrines. 
 
 The Romans were not sufficiently interested in the 
 internal affairs of the Jews, and would scarcely take any 
 notice of Jesus or his disputations with the rabbonim. 
 And so after his death the only people who remained 
 interested in his teachings and doings were a few in- 
 telligent followers of his — such as Joseph of Arimathea, 
 Nicodemus, etc. These no doubt would preserve any 
 writings relating to Jesus or his teachings ; possibly 
 write down many of his sayings themselves ; but this 
 they could do secretly only. After their death these 
 writings would pass into the possession of people to whom 
 they would no longer have the same value or meaning, 
 be neglected, scattered, and partially destroyed ; so that 
 when — after Jesus had become the central figure of a 
 cult — the chroniclers appeared on the scene, only fragments 
 would be extant and eventually become incorporated — 
 by accident rather than design — in the chronicles of 
 Christ. 
 
 That explains why, with the exception of these few 
 relics of a more ancient gospel, only legendary matter 
 has reached us concerning so great and epoch-making 
 a teacher. Only what tradition has handed down was 
 preserved, and popular tradition delights in the marvellous 
 only. Anything that is not in itself a prodigy or that 
 
 j 25 
 
126 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 does not lend itself to be exaggerated into something 
 wonderful is ignored. 
 
 This tendency to exaggeration has been intensified in 
 the case of Jesus by his quasi-biographers, who had 
 accepted the theory of his supernatural origin and credited 
 him with supernatural powers. In such circumstances 
 they could find no use for any commonplace, humdrum 
 incident in the life of their hero, unless it could be ex- 
 aggerated into something that would excite marvel. 
 The scribe would never have recorded so commonplace 
 a matter, for instance, as the attendance of Jesus at the 
 lectures and disputations in the synagogue were it not 
 that he was able to say that he did so when a mere child, 
 and already was able to astonish grey-headed doctors 
 with his wisdom. The more monstrous or the less credible 
 an account was, the greater the miracle and, of course, 
 the more acceptable. 
 
 Yet these are the only records we possess concerning 
 the life and teachings of Jesus. Can we write history 
 from such sources ? It is not as impossible as it seems. 
 
 We cannot accept, of course, legend as history. But 
 neither can we reject it as we should pure deliberate 
 invention, as of no historical value at all. Legend differs 
 from deliberate fiction in this, that though grossly in- 
 accurate, and often far removed from the truth, it is 
 nevertheless a record of — or has been inspired by — some- 
 thing that has actually happened. Sometimes the legend 
 is a blurred picture, and sometimes an exaggerated 
 account of an event ; or, maybe, the whole account is 
 untrue in all its incidents — an account of something that 
 not only did not happen, but which is quite incredible 
 — absurd, in fact — and yet may be founded on, or be 
 the outcome of, some actual event, or be illustrative of 
 some truth. 
 
 As far as concerns character in particular, tradition 
 seldom errs ; and despite its exaggerations, and the un- 
 reliability of the incidents which it employs to convey 
 its appreciations or condemnations of the chief actors in 
 some national or world drama, is in many respects more 
 reliable than are some historical records. 
 
LEGENDS AS SOURCES OF HISTORY 127 
 
 By way of illustration let us take the legend of the 
 wedding-feast at Cana, where Jesus is said to have 
 turned water into wine. We may dismiss the miracle as 
 pure invention. We may even doubt whether Jesus was 
 actually present at that particular wedding-feast. And 
 yet, the very fact that tradition credits him with having 
 attended such festivities shows the character that would 
 inspire the tale. We could not think of such a tale in 
 connection with John the Baptist, for instance, who 
 wore a loin-cloth of camel's hair fastened with a leather 
 girdle ; lived on locusts and wild honey ; took up a position 
 at a frequented ford of the river, to molest travellers ; 
 upbraided and censured everybody, and in the end lost 
 his head for doing so. John was an ascetic — morose, 
 censorious, pessimist, and misanthropic. As such tradition 
 paints him ; and however exaggerated are the colours 
 used, the resultant character is true and consistent. 
 
 Contrast now the character of Jesus. We are told that 
 he attended at merry-makings ; that he was " a glutton 
 and a wine-bibber " (this by his enemies) and " ate with 
 publicans and sinners " ; rebuked those who made a 
 display of their piety and bade people who were fasting 
 to wash their faces, anoint their heads, and be of cheerful 
 countenance. He loved children ; counselled, cheered, 
 and helped wherever he had an opportunity ; knew the 
 weaknesses of mankind ; was full of compassion, and 
 had a kindly word even for the woman who sinned. 
 
 So that even if every one of these incidents was 
 invented, the character which they depict could still be 
 relied upon, and that far more surely than if we possessed 
 the deliberate outlines of it by three historians, one of 
 them, let us say, a hostile Pharisee, one a Roman, and 
 the third one of his own disciples. 
 
 The truth is that tradition paints characters and ten- 
 dencies of great events more faithfully than does the 
 reputed historian, and that despite the glaring colourings 
 and exaggerations it delights in. 
 
 Modern history is accurate only in its records of actual 
 events : of time, place, numbers, and such-like data. 
 But when it is a question of interpreting great national 
 
123 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 events or delineating the character of a national hero, 
 then tradition often is the more trustworthy, and that 
 for the following reasons. As far as motives and results 
 or cause and effect are concerned, the historian records 
 his own opinions. Were the opinions of other persons 
 canvassed, possibly no two might agree. The opinion 
 of a crowd, therefore, is not necessarily any nearer the truth 
 than any such individual opinion ; but tradition is more 
 than the transmitted opinion of a crowd. It is the sur- 
 vival of the aggregate spirit of the times — the vox ftopuli — 
 which gives us a moving picture of the times, so that we 
 can analyse dispassionately and apportion cause and effect. 
 
 I will not pursue the argument any further. The point 
 I desire to bring into focus is that the most profitable 
 part of history is not its chronology of events, or even the 
 accuracy of the physical data. At least, it is not so in 
 the present case, where our interests are in a philosophy 
 rather than the incidents associated with its enunciation. 
 
 I do not put this forth in the spirit of the fox who 
 expressed his contempt for the grapes that were beyond 
 his reach. Indeed, any historical detail that could be 
 ascertained in connection with the personality of Jesus 
 or his times would be of surpassing interest. I merely 
 want to refute the allegation that because the records 
 we possess are legendary, therefore they possess no 
 historical value at all ; or that because the name of Jesus 
 is so intimately interwoven with the mythical Christ, 
 therefore Jesus himself is a mythical personage. For 
 my part, I utterly reject the counsel of those who 
 say " False in part, false in all," as I do the insistence 
 of those other extremists who say we must accept the 
 whole account unquestioningly. On either basis very 
 little of early history would be left to us, were such 
 canons universally adopted. 
 
 In the case before us we shall not be able to give dates 
 of events and incidents in the life-history of Jesus. Many 
 of the recorded events — such as the slaughter of the 
 innocents, the resurrection, ascension, etc. — we shall have 
 to reject as invention. We shall doubt the accuracy in 
 matters of detail of such narratives even which deal 
 
LEGENDS AS SOURCES OF HISTORY 129 
 
 with events that undoubtedly must have happened ; as, 
 for instance, the arrest, trial, sentence, and crucifixion. 
 Concerning but few events can we fix any dates, and 
 even then approximately only. 
 
 And yet, as regards the spirit of the times, the pre- 
 vailing conditions, the general trend of events, the 
 character of the chief actors in this stirring world-drama, 
 or its chief incidents, there are few phases in the history 
 of early times of which we possess more life-like pictures. 
 Thus we possess the characters of Jesus, of John the 
 Baptist, of Annas and Caiaphas, of Pontius Pilate, etc., 
 presented to us not as individual delineations, but in 
 action, as moving pictures which enable us to follow the 
 chief events of the times and to discern the motive springs 
 that helped to produce them. 
 
 However legendary and incredible tradition may be 
 when taken literally, if carefully traced it has great 
 historical value, inasmuch as it is a record of something 
 that has happened somewhere, sometime, and somehow, 
 and that if we take the trouble to inquire into the origin 
 of these legends and apply some common sense, we can 
 write history from it. 
 
 The rule to apply is that which we employ in our every- 
 day affairs when we are trying to account for phenomena 
 or events which we have not witnessed ourselves. In 
 such cases we are seeking not merely for possible explana- 
 tions, but for natural causes and agencies which — taking all 
 the attendant circumstances into account — are the most 
 probable to explain the phenomenon. It is on reasoning 
 of this kind — that is, of tracing phenomena to their most 
 probable causes — that our knowledge of geology is based ; 
 that Darwin's theory of the origin of species is built ; 
 and that medical men diagnose disease. It is by a similar 
 process also that the criminologist combines a number 
 of seemingly unconnected incidents and circumstances 
 into a sequence of events, which then enables him to 
 " re-enact " — to use a technical phrase — the crime which 
 he cannot solve by direct evidence. 
 
 In a similar manner, and by a like process, may we 
 trace the life-history of Jesus. " The tree is known by 
 
 9 
 
I3Q THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 its fruit/' From the effect we may reason to the cause, 
 and may infer the agencies that must have contributed 
 towards it. Then, by reversing the process, we may, 
 mentally, re-enact the events of the past in their proper 
 sequence and thus account for phenomena and incidents 
 which at first seemed to defy explanation. In this re- 
 construction of past history many minor facts, which 
 at first only served to add embarrassment to the mystery, 
 fall into their places and thereby strengthen our con- 
 viction that we have reasoned correctly. 
 
 We may accept, for instance, the statement that Jesus 
 was of lowly birth, the son of Joseph the carpenter and 
 Mary his wife, and that Nazareth was his birthplace, 
 and reject his alleged descent from David without any 
 inconsistency, and that for the following reasons. 
 
 Mankind is fond of the sensational, of things that are 
 out of the common ; and if a man who has become famous 
 happens to be of humble parentage, that circumstance 
 adds poignancy to the tales which his admirers delight 
 to tell about him. Nobody is likely to take notice of 
 the village carpenter or his son. But if the latter becomes 
 famous, the fact that he was the son of the lowly carpenter 
 would be emphasized and talked about. It is this cir- 
 cumstance in fact, more than his learning and cleverness, 
 which, in the popular estimation, made him into a prodigy. 
 So long as a man remains obscure, nobody troubles about 
 his origin. Once he emerges from the crowd, his past 
 history is canvassed and anything out of the common is 
 eagerly seized upon. 
 
 We have no reason to suppose that the people of Judaea 
 differed in this respect from the rest of mankind the world 
 over. Quite the contrary : we have actual evidence — 
 though scarcely needed — that they did not. There are 
 records that the origin and parentage of Jesus were 
 discussed by his contemporaries, as was to be expected : 
 " Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty 
 works ? " asked the people of Nazareth. " Is not this 
 the carpenter's son ? Is not his mother called Mary ? 
 And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas ? 
 And his sisters, are they not all with us ? Whence then 
 
LEGENDS AS SOURCES OF HISTORY 131 
 
 hath this man all these things ? " z " How knoweth this 
 man letters, having never learned ? " * " Can there 
 any good thing come out of Nazareth ? " 3 
 
 Again I will point out that we need not trouble as to 
 whether these words were actually spoken as recorded 
 and on the occasions indicated. My argument is that 
 generations after the death of Jesus people were still 
 dwelling on the fact that the famous teacher was of lowly 
 origin, and that everybody marvelled at the fact that the 
 son of the carpenter of Nazareth possessed such wisdom. 
 We may accept this circumstance as fact all the more, 
 because it did not fit in with the romance subsequently 
 woven round his name. The legend which assigned to 
 him the Messiahship required him to be of royal blood ; 
 so that his obscure origin must have been a great stum- 
 bling-block even to Paul, with all his resourcefulness and 
 dialectical skill. It was to surmount this difficulty that 
 the genealogy of the carpenter was traced to David, so 
 as "to fulfil what was required by the Scriptures/' For 
 like reasons Bethlehem has been substituted for Nazareth 
 as his birthplace, so as to fulfil the prophecy: "Thou, 
 Bethlehem . . . out of thee shall come a governor, that 
 shall rule my people Israel" (Matt. ii. 6). Such things 
 in matters of genealogy are being done to-day whenever 
 such a necessity arises ; and there is no reason to suppose 
 that the experts in such matters in the days of Paul 
 were less able to find just what was required of them, 
 or that they were any more reliable than their modern 
 representatives 
 
 1 Matt. xiii. 54-6. 3 John vii. 15. 3 Ibid. i. 46. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 THE CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH OF JESUS 
 
 Such are the reasons why we may accept with a certain 
 degree of assurance one part of a legend and yet reject 
 the other. Wherever it was possible, the obviously partial 
 historian and biographer of Jesus represented him as 
 sublime and supreme. As a child he was a prodigy ; as a 
 man he was a god. Everywhere he conquered. Nature 
 itself was submissive to his will. Even where his supre- 
 macy was obviously in abeyance, the historian would not 
 admit defeat. Thus, when a handful of soldiers came to 
 arrest the " Son of God," and some of his followers 
 attempted to resist, Jesus, .after having deprecated the 
 use of the sword, is made to say : — 
 
 " Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, 
 and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions 
 of angels ? " l 
 
 Then why did he not do so ? This question is so obvious, 
 that it did not escape the attention even of the not 
 over-critical historian, and thus he answers it : " But 
 how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it 
 must be ? " 2 
 
 This is the key to these mystic writings. Certain 
 things were necessary " so that the Scriptures should be 
 fulfilled." These are all matters relating to the legendary 
 Christ which are not worth a moment's consideration. 
 Other things were not so necessary, and often rather 
 contrary to the requirements of the legend, which had to 
 be explained away. These things we accept as history. 
 
 Following up this clue, we are able to construct the 
 following brief biographical sketch. 
 
 Jesus was the son of Joseph, a carpenter of Nazareth, 
 
 1 Matt, xsvi. 53. 2 Ibid. 54. 
 
 132 
 
THE CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH OF JESUS 133 
 
 and his wife Mary. (We accept Nazareth as the place of 
 his nativity, because that is the tradition; and reject 
 Bethlehem, because its claim to be the birthplace of 
 Jesus is based on a prophecy.) The puerile miracles 
 told about the infancy of Jesus * imply — what we may 
 also infer from the man he grew into — that already as 
 a child he exhibited a clear intellect and a brightness of 
 spirit ; whilst the legends about his exploits at play and 
 at school show that his precociousness must have been 
 a matter of surprise, and often a source of vexation, to 
 those around him. 
 
 When at the height of his fame, all these exploits of 
 his childhood, no doubt, were remembered, exaggerated, 
 told and retold, until they grew into marvels and prodigies. 
 We know that Jesus loved nature, and are not surprised 
 to learn that as a child he did what millions of children 
 have done before and since his time : made a dam after 
 a rain, caught the streamlets of water, and out of the mud 
 fashioned sundry objects. Nor need we be surprised 
 that, when the carpenter's son became famous, his childish 
 doings should be remembered and talked about. No 
 doubt many would take credit to themselves for having 
 discerned already in the child that he would astonish the 
 world by his cleverness, and they would tell how when 
 the children made mud-pies those of Jesus excelled all 
 others ; or when he fashioned birds, how life-like they were. 
 People would vie with each other in remembering — or in 
 inventing — the numerous childish tricks with which he 
 astonished the good folks of Nazareth. That such tales 
 were circulated and freely discussed is proved by the fact 
 that many of them have survived to this day — much 
 exaggerated, of course, so as to do credit to " the Son of 
 God." The sparrows which he made out of clay were not 
 merely much more life-like than those fashioned by the 
 other children, but when he clapped his hands they 
 actually flew away. At school he exasperated his teachers 
 by asking them questions which they could not answer. 
 Somebody may have said something like " He worried 
 
 x More especially in the Apocrypha, which, from our point of view, 
 we rank as equal with the canonical documents as sources of history. 
 
134 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 the life out of them." This very probable and very natural 
 tale was sufficient for the admiring historian to record 
 how the gentle Jesus when a child actually killed teacher 
 after teacher. 1 His father gratefully remembered what 
 a great help his son was to him in former years ; how on 
 many occasions, when embarrassed over his work, or 
 when he blundered, the son's cleverness got him out of 
 difficulties. The enthusiastic biographer knows how to 
 turn even such a homely memory into a miracle. He 
 tells us how the father, by mistake, cut a plank too short, 
 or made a chair too small, and how Jesus made the blunder 
 right by requiring the father to take hold of one end whilst 
 he himself took hold of the other, and then both pulled 
 until the piece of timber had just the required length. 
 
 These childish miracles are but the counterpart of the 
 crop of anecdotes we read in our own days about the 
 childhood of famous people, and but show how ancient 
 is the calling of the maker of " news." No doubt there 
 must have been plenty of anecdotal matter about the 
 childhood of Jesus well worth the telling and retelling, 
 without any such exaggerations. Taking the circum- 
 stances and the age into account, these tales are inevitable. 
 They simply show how tradition writes history. We 
 must content ourselves concerning the history of his 
 childhood with the following summary by Luke : " And 
 the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with 
 wisdom : and the grace of God was upon him/' 3 
 
 Jesus seems to have followed the trade of his father — 
 for some time, at least ; for later on he belonged to the 
 " therapeutse " or " healers." But carpentering evi- 
 dently did not supply sufficient food for his active brain. 
 It was the custom in those days for the doctors of the law 
 to assemble in the synagogue and there to expound certain 
 texts of Scripture and to discuss points of difference. 
 The people were allowed to attend these discussions, to 
 ask questions, and to take part in them. Jesus was 
 attracted to these debates at an early age, and took an 
 absorbing interest in them. Tradition has preserved 
 for us so much information about his youth. 
 
 1 See Gospel of Thomas in Apocrypha. 2 Luke ii. 40. 
 
THE CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH OF JESUS 135 
 
 " And it came to pass, that after three days they found 
 him in the Temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, 
 both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all 
 that heard him were astonished at his understanding 
 and answers. And when they saw him, they were 
 amazed." (Tradition says "in the Temple." We may 
 substitute for it, as more probable, the synagogue of his 
 native town.) 
 
 It was here, no doubt, where he acquired his knowledge 
 of the Scriptures that in later years so surprised his 
 townsfolk. 
 
 It was not a mere occasional visit ; he must have spent 
 every spare moment among the disputing doctors, " both 
 hearing them and asking them questions/' This informa- 
 tion had not been written down until after he had become 
 famous, and it would not have been remembered or 
 recorded unless his attendance at the synagogue had been 
 a prominent feature in his early life. No doubt on many 
 an occasion when Jesus was wanted he had to be fetched 
 from these meetings, where he probably spent every 
 moment he could spare. 
 
 This seems to be the answer to the questions of the 
 people of Nazareth who, surprised at the learning of the 
 carpenter, asked : " Whence has this man this wisdom ? " l 
 " How knoweth this man letters, having never learned ? " % 
 
 For there were many that attended these lectures who 
 were not students, and Jesus was one of these. But, 
 unlike most of these passive listeners, who probably came 
 more for diversion than instruction, Jesus took a keen 
 interest in the discussions. The doctors seemed pleased 
 with the intelligent youth, for it is recorded that " He 
 increased in favour with God and man." 3 They little 
 dreamt at the time what the seed they then planted in 
 the receptive brain would ripen into. 
 
 But here we have a problem to solve ; something that 
 is truly wonderful, bordering almost on the marvellous. 
 We involuntarily feel constrained to ask once more, 
 " Whence this wisdom in the carpenter's son ? " " Can 
 there any good thing come out of Nazareth ? " He 
 
 1 Matt. xiii. 54. 2 John vii. 15. 3 Luke ii. 52. 
 
136 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 might have learnt Jewish law and Jewish tradition in 
 the synagogue there, and with it the sing-song manners 
 and methods of the Jewish scribes. But where did he 
 get his wisdom from, his insight into nature, his power of 
 analysis and of reasoning, so unlike in method from that 
 of the scribes to whom he listened so intently ? Did 
 his thirst for knowledge take him to other fountains ? 
 Was he acquainted with the Greek science of the time ? 
 Or was he a prodigy of Nature, such as she produces now 
 and then to the astonishment of mankind ? 
 
 There is a probability that he had access to Greek 
 learning. He has been away from his native Nazareth, 
 which he must have left in his youth ; for when he 
 returned to it he was already engaged in his mission. 
 Where had he spent the interval ? There is the vague 
 rumour that he was in Egypt. If we could only be sure 
 that he was in Alexandria, we should be justified in con- 
 cluding that he frequented there the seats of learning 
 as he did the debates of the synagogue, and this would 
 go far to explain the source of his education in science 
 and philosophy. (For, despite Renan, we shall have to 
 marvel at his insight into the mysteries of nature.) 
 
 Unfortunately the flight into Egypt and his return 
 thence are reported to have taken place in fulfilment of a 
 prophecy ; and this circumstance makes the tradition 
 less reliable. 
 
 He may have sojourned in Egypt, and this fact may have 
 suggested both the legend and the prophecy. But it is 
 equally possible that the prophecy may have necessi- 
 tated the legend. The Gospels do not help us out of this 
 difficulty. 
 
 Greek science was not unknown in Judaea, however, so 
 that it is not impossible that he may have been acquainted 
 with it. In any case, it is clear that he had a great insight 
 into nature. He was one of the " therapeutse " or 
 " healers/' and judging from the exaggerated accounts 
 of his successes, he must have been skilled in this art 
 far above any other of the guild. Matthew says: " Jesus 
 went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their 
 synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, 
 
THE CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH OF JESUS 137 
 
 and healing every disease among the people.' ' This no 
 doubt is the source of the many miracles which Jesus 
 is said to have performed on the sick. But such a life 
 is an education in itself, and in the case of an observant 
 and reflecting mind often of much greater value than 
 book-learning. His originality of expression seems to 
 indicate that he obtained most of his knowledge at first 
 hand by contemplating nature. But on all such points 
 his biographers are silent. Nor are we told when and how 
 Jesus forsook the carpenter's bench and devoted himself 
 to the preaching of his gospel. 
 
 But there is a significant prelude to his " ministry " 
 which we must not pass over lightly : " Then was Jesus 
 led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of 
 the devil/' x Mark records the same event in these words : 
 " And immediately [that is, after the supposed baptism 
 by John] the spirit driveth him into the wilderness, and 
 he was there . . . tempted of Satan." The temptation 
 is also recorded by Luke, who says : " And Jesus being 
 full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was 
 led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being forty days 
 tempted of the devil/' 
 
 The legend as related is too absurd to be considered as 
 history. On the other hand, tradition is too insistent to 
 be ignored. There must be a fact, a substratum of truth, 
 behind it, which gave currency to the legend. What 
 might that be ? 
 
 1 Matt. iv. 1. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 THE TEMPTATION 
 
 Legendary as is the account of the temptation when 
 taken literally as we find it in the Gospels, there is reason 
 to suppose that it harbours a truth such as many who 
 will read these pages must have experienced at some time. 
 
 A 3/outh brought up on conventional lines leaves school 
 and the parental roof, launches out into the world full 
 of cheer and hope — or, as the evangelist expressed it, 
 " full of the holy spirit " — only to suffer shipwreck on 
 his first encounter with the realities of life. His faith 
 receives a stunning blow ; the bright world of his imagin- 
 ation dissolves away like a phantom picture ; his beliefs 
 are gone ; his idols broken ; his ideals shattered ; deso- 
 lation and despair in every direction. Thus he is left 
 stranded in a barren, cheerless wilderness. At such trying 
 moments the tempter is seldom absent. The reeling 
 brain is lured by far-off visions of escape, of possible 
 success even, but which could be reached by forbidden 
 paths only, by trampling underfoot all that one was 
 taught to value as dear, holy, and precious. 
 
 That " wilderness " into which Jesus was " led by the 
 Spirit " — according to one evangelist ; or " driven " accord- 
 ing to another — is real, is still here, right in our very 
 midst ; is entered daily by thousands of our fellow-creatures 
 who are there <( tempted/' and many of whom — alas ! — 
 are daily falling a prey to these temptations. It is the 
 crucible in which souls are being tested and whence the}' 
 emerge as criminals or — philosophers. Many and devious 
 are the paths of the fallen, according to the temptations 
 to which they fell a prey — power, ambition, wealth — and 
 
 according to opportunities and circumstances. Thorny 
 
 138 
 
THE TEMPTATION 139 
 
 and forbidding is the path of the philosopher, and he that 
 enters on it is greeted by jeers. Truly, " Wide is the 
 gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, 
 and many there be which go in thereat : because strait is 
 the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth to life, 
 and few there be that find it." x 
 
 Can this be the true meaning of the " temptation " ? 
 Is it perhaps that Jesus spoke of it — having been his 
 own experience, as it needs must have been — in parables, 
 as was his manner, to warn others against false allure- 
 ments, and that his parable has been taken in a literal 
 sense, as in so many other instances ? 
 
 I myself am inclined to believe this to be the real fact 
 that has given rise to the legend of the temptation. But 
 whether this be so or not ; whether the legend of the 
 temptation be pure invention or not : Jesus the Jew, so 
 well instructed in the laws, traditions, and ceremonials of 
 his people ; Jesus the conscientious man we know him 
 to have been, must of necessity have passed through 
 this wilderness of doubt before he flung all these cere- 
 monials aside, and in the face of opposition and rigorous 
 traditions told the people of Judaea : " Ye have heard of 
 them of old times . . . but I say unto you," etc. Neither 
 his bringing up nor his environment was such as to lead 
 to such a climax. The path he had taken was not the 
 one he had been prepared for, or one that was even sus- 
 pected by himself or by those around him. Such a step 
 is not taken by accident, nor in a sportive mood. Jesus 
 must have seen the " wide gate and the broad way " with 
 all the allurements toward which the multitudes were 
 rushing. He must have been conscious that his own 
 abilities were above rather than below the average, and 
 his chances of success, were he to enter the race as a 
 competitor, reasonable. Yet he chose to enter at the 
 strait gate and on the narrow way, seen by so few, and 
 shunned by most. Such choice is not made without 
 due reflection. Jesus had his " temptations " for certain. 
 
 Scant as is the information we possess of the childhood 
 and early youth of Jesus, we are even worse off concern- 
 1 Matt. vii. 13-14. 
 
140 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 ing his transition period from youth to manhood, from 
 the carpenter's bench to the forum, from the ancient faith 
 and traditions to his new and revolutionary doctrines. 
 And yet, if we take the trouble to piece together the 
 fragments we find scattered in the Gospels, we get glimpses 
 of a picture of sufficient distinctness to enable the mind 
 to supply the missing parts and thus get an insight into 
 the history of his days and the part he played in those 
 stirring events. 
 
 Let us make the attempt. 
 
 It is a curious coincidence — if coincidence it is — that 
 all the three synoptics (John alone omits to mention it) 
 place the temptation of Jesus after his supposed baptism 
 by John, and date his ministry from that time. I say 
 his supposed baptism, for it is doubtful whether Jesus 
 ever submitted to this ritual. He certainly was not a 
 member of the sect of baptists, and himself never baptized 
 anybody except " with the Holy Ghost " ; that is, by 
 an appeal to reason. And yet the two names are 
 mentioned together in a manner which implies some 
 connection. 
 
 Who was John ? We know very little about him, 
 for the role assigned to him in the Christ legend is a sub- 
 ordinate one. He is mentioned as the herald of the 
 Messiah ; but as Jesus had nothing to do with the Messiah- 
 ship, and John had predeceased Jesus, we may dismiss 
 the role assigned to him in the Christ-myth with the 
 legend itself. 
 
 Having done so, what is there left concerning him ? 
 This : He took up a position at a frequented ford of the 
 river and called people to repentance. It is difficult 
 not to recognize in John the ascetic and the religious 
 revivalist; but evidently "the repentance" which he 
 preached was something more than a preparation for a 
 hereafter. So much, at least, is evident from the follow- 
 ing passage in Luke — almost the only one concerning 
 John apart from the Christ-myth : — 
 
 " And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the 
 trees ; every tree therefore which bringeth not forth 
 good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. And 
 
THE TEMPTATION 141 
 
 the people asked him saying, What shall we do then ? 
 He answered and saith unto them, He that hath two 
 coats, let him impart to him that hath none ; and he 
 that hath meat, let him do likewise. Then came also 
 publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, 
 what shall we do ? And he said unto them, Exact no 
 more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers 
 likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we 
 do ? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, 
 neither accuse any falsely ; and be content with your 
 wages." x 
 
 John clearly attacked what are called the " rights of 
 property." 
 
 We may compare with these words of John the follow- 
 ing spoken by Jesus : The scribes and Pharisees " bind 
 heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on 
 men's shoulders ; and they themselves will not move 
 them with one of their fingers. . . . Woe unto you, scribes 
 and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye devour widows' houses, 
 and for a pretence make long prayers." * 
 
 Here, at any rate, John and Jesus met on common 
 ground ; and we can well understand the hatred and 
 persecution both drew upon themselves from the ruling 
 classes who came in for such a large share of their censure. 
 
 It is only from such accidental fragments of some 
 ancient records which have found their way into the 
 Gospels that we can get glimpses of the history of the 
 times and the share which John and Jesus had in them 
 We can clearly see that there was great discontent in 
 Judaea at the time, and that John and Jesus were both 
 products of the same social unrest. John required the 
 rich to share their wealth with the poor; the publicans 
 were not to exact more than what was appointed to them, 
 and the soldiers were to do no violence. 
 
 This is the state of affairs against which both John 
 and Jesus revolted, each in his own way. It was an 
 economic unrest, a revolt against oppression. 
 
 John and Jesus seem to have had very little in common 
 apart from their hatred of oppression and injustice. 
 1 Luke iii. 9-14. 2 Matt, xxiii. 4-14. 
 
142 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 John appealed to what — in a restricted sense — is called 
 the religious sentiment. If people were only baptized, 
 they could not act as they did, he thought. Jesus, on 
 the other hand, made a more direct appeal to justice. 
 Of the two, Jesus was the more truly religious. But his 
 was a religion based on knowledge and reason, and there- 
 fore was free from ritual. In the words of the evangelist : 
 John baptized with water, and Jesus with " the holy 
 spirit." 
 
 John was cast into prison and eventually executed. 
 We need not heed the pretence that was put forward to 
 justify the act. We know even from that solitary frag- 
 ment preserved for us in Luke's Gospel what John preached, 
 and also that he had a large following. Herodias may 
 have hated John, and no doubt did all she could to 
 encompass his downfall. But it was his doctrines that 
 were the cause of his undoing. " Herod feared John " : l 
 " And when he would have put him to death, he feared 
 the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet." 2 
 
 John was slain with the connivance of " the scribes 
 and Pharisees ' ' because of his championship of the 
 oppressed. " And his disciples came, and took up the 
 body, and buried it, and went and told Jesus." 3 
 
 As a lightning flash will pierce the darkness and momen- 
 tarily illuminate the landscape, so this plain statement 
 of the bald fact that the disciples of John " went and 
 told Jesus " reveals to us the relation that existed between 
 the two reformers. 
 
 It is not difficult to imagine the stunning effect the 
 news must have had on a heart and mind such as we 
 know Jesus to have possessed. " When Jesus heard 
 of it" — the evangelist continues — "he departed thence 
 by a ship into a desert place apart ; and when the people 
 had heard thereof, they followed him on foot out of the 
 cities." 4 We may complete the picture for ourselves. 
 
 That John and Jesus did not preach a kingdom in 
 the clouds is obvious. They would never have been 
 molested had they done so. We know from Josephus 
 what a variety of sects existed at the time among the 
 
 i Mark vi. 20. 2 Matt. xiv. 5. 3 Ibid. xiv. 12. 4 Ibid. xiv. 13. 
 
THE TEMPTATION 143 
 
 Jews, side by side, so far apart in doctrine as some believ- 
 ing in a future state while others did not. There was 
 nothing to prevent John or Jesus proclaiming in any of 
 the synagogues that the world would come to an end and 
 that a new kingdom would be established in heaven, had 
 they been so minded. Such a thesis was welcomed for 
 discussion rather then resented. Their offence was that 
 they wanted to establish " the kingdom of heaven " or 
 " the reign of justice" here on earth) and that was as 
 great an offence in the days of John and Jesus as it is 
 to-day. 
 
 In this survey we have drifted from Jesus the youth 
 as he was listening to the doctors in the synagogue to 
 Jesus the revolutionary who is now in open enmity with 
 " the scribes and Pharisees, the hypocrites." How came 
 this great change about ? 
 
 The propaganda of Jesus began in earnest after that 
 of John had come to so untimely an end. Those in 
 power thought to choke this new spirit by killing John. 
 But in this they were mistaken, as they soon found out ; 
 for behold ! one mightier than John came to take his 
 place ; one who baptized not with water but with the 
 holy spirit. 
 
 Jesus, who as youth sat at the feet of the doctors in 
 rapt attention, astonishing them with his devotion no 
 less than his intelligence, we now behold in opposition 
 to them, and the latter seeking his life. 
 
 Let us retrace our steps, and see how this strange 
 transformation might have come about. 
 
 Jesus grew up under the influence of the scribes and 
 Pharisees. He saw them, when a youth, not as they 
 were, but as they were supposed and seemed to be : 
 guardians of the law, ministers of justice, and fathers of 
 the poor. He loved to listen to their expositions of the 
 Scriptures, and doubtless looked upon them as the incar- 
 nation of piety and rectitude, as pillars of the State, as 
 representatives of Moses. In later years he disputed 
 with them, as we know, and boldly challenged their 
 interpretation of the law. But that was not the case 
 when, in his youth, he saj: ia, the midst of them a devout 
 
144 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 pupil, eager to be instructed, reverently asking questions, 
 so that "he gained favour with God and man." 
 
 It must have been a terrible shock, therefore, when 
 the truth dawned upon him ; when he saw oppression 
 and injustice rampant, and beheld " the scribes and 
 Pharisees " as they were — people who did lip-service, but 
 whose hearts were far from what they were preaching. 1 
 
 The inevitable was bound to follow : A revulsion of 
 feeling took possession of his noble soul. His lofty ideals 
 were completely shattered. Priest and Pharisee were no 
 longer to him what hitherto they seemed to be — models 
 of piety, representatives of justice, defenders of the weak. 
 Reverence gave way to loathing. They now appeared 
 like whited sepulchres, which indeed appeared beautiful 
 outward, but which within were full of dead men's bones 
 and of all uncleanness ; who outwardly appeared righteous 
 unto men, but within were full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 3 
 
 Those only who have had a similar experience can 
 possibly gauge the anguish of such disillusionment. 
 No words are adequate to describe it. It is not so much 
 the sudden loss of something which we have prized beyond 
 all else, as the discovery that what we have so treasured 
 was the very opposite of what we supposed it to be. It 
 is as if you had been wandering in a beautiful garden, 
 where luscious fruits delighted the eye. You pick some, 
 and when about to put it to your lips, in full anticipation 
 of its enjoyment, it suddenly changes into something 
 vile, repellent, loathsome, which you throw away in 
 disgust. You are about to pick another, when you find 
 the tree has vanished, that the garden itself was but 
 an illusion, and that instead of being in Paradise you 
 are in the Valley of Hinnom, surrounded by all manner 
 of " extortion and excess." 
 
 This is the " wilderness " into which Jesus was "driven 
 by the spirit," as the author of Mark so expressively 
 puts it. The wilderness is real, though not one located 
 in space. Into it are driven daily many noble souls, 
 lovers of their kind, to be tormented there by the weeping, 
 wailing, and gnashing of teeth. 
 
 1 Mark vii. 6. ? Matt, xxiii. 27-28, 
 
THE TEMPTATION 145 
 
 It is a mental state ; the anguish of a shipwrecked 
 soul, whose faith is lost and whose hopes are shattered. 
 Surrounded by darkness and desolation, everything 
 appears then at its worst. The nobler the soul the 
 greater the desolation. The deeper the love the more 
 intense the revulsion. The beautiful dream of life has 
 dissolved into the nightmare of reality. 
 
 Those who expounded the law so glibly ; those who 
 preached the eternal justice of God ; those who sat in 
 Moses' seat charged with administering the law, with 
 protecting the innocent, and succouring the weak ; behold i 
 they were but whited sepulchres. Behind those pious 
 faces there lurked serpents and vipers full of hypocrisy 
 and iniquity. Everything had suddenly changed for 
 the worse. Even the Temple, the place where he loved to 
 spend every spare moment listening to the exposition of 
 the law, had lost its attraction and came in for his bitter 
 sarcasm : " It is written, ' My house shall be called the 
 house of prayer/ but ye have made it a den of thieves." I 
 
 It is the wail of a soul hungering for righteousness, 
 stranded in the midst of moral desolation. Doubt and 
 despair take possession of it, and then — comes the 
 temptation. 
 
 The temptation, too, is real and terrible, as is the 
 wilderness ; though not in the sense in which a childish 
 ignorance conceived and pictured it. The tempter is 
 a cynic, begotten of our own pessimism, and the tempta- 
 tion is a wholly subjective affair. It is this ghoul that 
 suggests the thoughts on which the mind feeds in such 
 moments. The form or manner only of the temptation 
 differs with different persons ; the substance is ever the 
 same. The whisperings of this ghoulish demon may 
 be summarized in the following well-worn phrases, which 
 have done, and are doing, duty on thousands of similar 
 occasions : " There is nothing wrong with the world ; 
 it is you who are acting the fool/' " There is no such 
 thing as abstract justice except in your own diseased 
 imagination/' " The world is good and pleasant to 
 live in for those who know how to use it." " The plums 
 
 1 Matt. xxi. 13. 
 IO 
 
146 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 are for the wide-awake, only for those who know how 
 to pick them. Why bother about the others ? Did they 
 ask you to do so ? Do they want you to do so ? Do 
 they thank you even for espousing their cause ? " " There 
 has always been oppression and always will be." " Nature 
 knows no mercy. She fights with fangs and claws, and 
 the weakest must go to the wall. You cannot alter it, 
 do what you will. Your only plan is to see that you 
 yourself are not among the oppressed, the downtrodden. 
 Your business is to look after yourself." 
 
 If the temptation had not been mentioned in the Gospels, 
 we should still be safe in assuming it to have happened, 
 as it was bound to do. Nor is it conceivable that 
 Jesus should not have warned his hearers of the dangers 
 of such temptations, reminded as he must have been of 
 his own mental conflicts. Very little has been preserved 
 to us of what he said : a few hundred words is all that 
 we possess of the utterances of an enthusiastic preacher. 
 Yet even among these we have the prayer " lead us not 
 into temptation/' and exhortations against riches, titles, 
 dignities or display, which might serve as occasions for 
 temptation. 
 
 The legend concerning the temptation is unquestion- 
 ably based on fact. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 AFTER THE STORM 
 
 Three temptations only are recorded as having been 
 tried by the devil on Jesus, but they are significantly 
 representative. They are the promise of wealth, of 
 dominion, or suicide. 
 
 No doubt Jesus had been advised by his friends to 
 leave alone things that were beyond him and to devote 
 himself to the furthering of his own interests. Equally 
 certain is it that he must have pondered a good deal 
 about what was the call of duty. Should he shut his 
 eyes to all the abuses he saw and " mind his own business " ? 
 Was he to ignore the wrongs, so as not to jeopardize his 
 own chances of success ? These and such-like scruples 
 are regarded by many as foolish ; yet there are, and 
 always have been, persons to whom such thoughts have 
 been a source of great concern — or there would not be 
 a civilized community to day : people who think that by 
 ignoring public wrongs, lest they may disadvantage 
 themselves, they become abettors of those wrongs. 
 
 " Let things alone that do not concern you, that you 
 cannot alter, and seek your own welfare/' is the stereo- 
 typed advice in such cases. Good advice, too, and well 
 meant ; but it does not meet every case, nor can it satisfy 
 every temperament. We all seek happiness ; but the 
 conceptions of what constitutes happiness vary. What 
 is bliss to one person may be mortification to another. 
 Jesus saw misery, oppression, and wrongdoing. In such 
 surroundings what happiness could there be for him ? 
 Is he to seek wealth ? Would wealth content him ? At 
 best it could satisfy his material needs only. But " Man 
 liveth not by bread alone " ; he has intellectual and 
 
 moral wants. 
 
 147 
 
148 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 Power ? Dominion over others ? What if he con- 
 quered the whole world and lost his own soul ? And 
 a soul such as his would certainly be lost if all that it 
 could do would be to batten on the toil of others and 
 to lord it over them. 
 
 Then what other way is there out of this misery ? 
 Suicide ? The coward's last refuge ? That would be 
 death indeed ; death of heart, of soul, and of body. Get 
 thee hence, Satan ! Get thee hence ! 
 
 The storm had spent itself, and calmer as well as wiser 
 counsels prevailed. Or, in the poetic language of the 
 Gospel narrative, " Then the devil leaveth him, and 
 behold, angels came and ministered unto him." l 
 
 It is impossible to credit the dull, unimaginative scribe 
 of the Gospel with this beautiful imagery, and I feel con- 
 strained to claim it as a fragment of one of those inimit- 
 able parables with which Jesus illuminated his discourses. 
 Since the temptation as narrated in the Gospels could 
 not have happened, and as the scribes could not have 
 invented it, I am inclined to the belief that it is an in- 
 complete and garbled report of a genuine discourse of 
 Jesus, based on his own experiences, as indeed were all 
 his sermons. 
 
 Both wilderness and storm were subjective states. 
 Jesus may have retired into solitude, but surely not 
 into a barren waste, so alien to his nature. Such sur- 
 roundings might have suited a temperament such as 
 that of John the Baptist, or of Jeremiah, or of Mahomet, 
 or even of Paul, but is unthinkable in connection with 
 Jesus. 
 
 It is far more probable that he would seek seclusion 
 under the shade of an olive-tree, in one of the groves of 
 the neighbouring hills. It is in such surroundings that 
 he loved to meditate, as is shown by his character, his 
 thoughts, his language. The fruit indicates the kind 
 of tree it must have grown on. A barren waste could 
 never have inspired the thoughts of Jesus, nor have 
 suggested his many illuminating metaphors and parables, 
 all 'taken from living nature. The tree, the vine, the 
 
 1 Matt. iv. ?*■ 
 
AFTER THE STORM 149 
 
 grass, the lily, the seed ; the plough, the sower, the reaper ; 
 the garden, the vineyard, the field, the meadow ; the 
 birds, the sheep, the shepherd ; not forgetting the children, 
 ever present in his mind, were all laid under contribution. 
 The very postulates of his philosophy r were suggested 
 by the fruit-bearing trees. 
 
 It was objects like these that his imagination fed on ; 
 amid such surroundings that his soul could breathe. 
 It was on a mountain where his most notable sermons 
 were delivered, the hills and sea-shore where the people 
 flocked to hear him ; and it was in a garden on the banks 
 of Cedron % where the soldiers found him when they 
 effected his arrest. 
 
 Not in a barren wilderness, therefore, but in some 
 place throbbing with life do I see, in imagination, the 
 young philosopher brooding over the iniquities of the 
 strong and the sufferings of the weak. Sadness in his 
 face — the eyes turned inwards, oblivious for the moment 
 to the scene around him, conscious only of the storm that 
 raged within. How truly he said in later years, remem- 
 bering probably his former experiences, " If thine eye 
 be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If 
 therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great 
 is that darkness ! " 3 The light that was in him just 
 then was darkness indeed. 
 
 Around him, however, quite another world was in 
 full action. The sun shone, the birds sang, the butter- 
 flies danced in the air, the very insects hummed joyfully 
 as they skipped from flower to flower. It was the " king- 
 dom of God " in full action. There was no need for the 
 angels to come ; they were there all the time, " ministering 
 unto him," but he perceived them not. He saw only 
 the darkness within, and heard only the whisperings 
 of the tempter. 
 
 But gradually light entered from without. The scene 
 around him claimed his attention and gave new direction 
 
 1 " A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit ; neither can a corrupt 
 tree bring forth good fruit." 
 
 3 " For Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples " (John xviii. 2.) 
 3 Matt. vi. 23. 
 
ISO THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 to his thoughts. How different was the world before 
 him to the one he contemplated ! Peace, joy,, happiness 
 everywhere around, and for every creature — except man. 
 " Foxes have holes ; the birds of the air have nests ; but 
 man has not where to lay his head." How happy the 
 birds are : yet they neither toil nor gather into barns. 
 The very grass of the fields, which to-day is, and to- 
 morrow is cast into the oven, is cared for. Is man not 
 much better than these ? Two sparrows are sold for 
 a farthing, and they are cared for. Is not man of many 
 times more value than they ? 
 
 Reflections such as these must have engaged the mind 
 of Jesus as he slowly emerged from darkness into light. 
 
 We cannot follow the workings of the mind. With 
 more than lightning speed the " spirit " that is working 
 in us sends the shuttle through the maze of unknown 
 and unsuspected threads that lie hidden in our complex 
 organization, combining and separating, until order 
 emerges out of chaos. Then result the " thoughts " or 
 " ideas " we become conscious of ; but how they have 
 been produced is hidden from us, even though our own 
 brain was the workshop in which they took form. 
 
 It is not the conscious ego that works out the new 
 thought ; it merely becomes aware of the thought when 
 completed. Certain ideas cross and recross our mind, 
 and are either not heeded at all or are rejected with the 
 same lightning speed that they appear. The conscious 
 ego knows not what to do with them or what to make of 
 them. With an insistence that will not be denied, the 
 same thought recurs again and again, knocking at the 
 door of consciousness, as it were, trying to deliver a 
 message, but cannot make itself understood. Then all 
 of a sudden a light bursts in upon us, revealing a new idea. 
 We now see and understand, and marvel how it was that 
 we did not see it before, or how we could have failed to 
 understand what now is so plain and clear. We then 
 call it — not inaptly, either — an inspiration, or an intuition. 
 
 What is taking place in the mental laboratory is some- 
 thing akin to the process of crystallization, where innumer- 
 able shapeless, invisible, minute particles group them- 
 
AFTER THE STORM 151 
 
 selves into symmetrical forms and as such become visible 
 to the eye. In like manner the many disjointed and 
 apparently disparate or discordant ideas that were 
 slumbering in the mind range themselves harmoniously 
 into a mental image which — though made up of old 
 familiar material — is to the mind a new revelation. That 
 happens especially where there is a strong desire, a long- 
 ing, an ardent wish for something the mind cannot express 
 or define in words. The soul feels the need of something, 
 but knows not what ; desires to express itself, and knows 
 not how ; when all at once, in a sudden flood of light, 
 there stands revealed what in our mental darkness we 
 were groping for. 
 
 Then, and then only, do we recognize certain stages 
 in the process. We remember — but we did not cause 
 or produce the thoughts — at least not consciously. 
 The mind — subtle agency, whatever it may be ! — did 
 its work of itself, and we become conscious of the result 
 only after the process is complete. 
 
 Throughout his career Jesus insisted on "the law/' 1 
 The idea seemed to have obsessed his being, as was but 
 natural. It was the first theoretical knowledge he had 
 acquired ; the first seed that had taken root in his fertile 
 brain. His whole and sole conception of the universe 
 was a God who created everything and whose will was 
 the law that ruled the world. But he did not at first 
 discriminate between the " logos " of God and the 
 " nomos " of man, or " the will of God " and " the 
 commandments of man " ; and so he could not under- 
 stand—as many are unable to do so to-day — how it 
 came that the "law" could be so violated; that the 
 will of God could be set at nought by man, and that 
 God should suffer it to be so ! 
 
 This has always been the great stumbling-block to 
 every thinker. There is evil in the world which revolts 
 and outrages the human soul, and is God indifferent? This 
 
 1 Not always so translated, however. He used the words "logos," 
 " entole," and " nomos " synonymously, as meaning a "commandment'" 
 or injunction," but in the translation these terms are sometimes 
 rendered by "words," "sayings," e^c, 
 
152 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 is the root-problem of religion : justice is outraged, 
 crime is stalking victoriously with head erect, whilst 
 virtue is being trampled underfoot. And God, omnipo- 
 tent God, allows it to be so ? 
 
 Whilst meditating this problem — not in a wilderness, 
 but in the midst of living active nature, the birds chirp- 
 ing, the insects humming, the cattle browsing — the new 
 light burst in upon him. For the first time he perceived 
 how each act had its own definite consequences, and 
 carried with it its own rewards and punishments. As 
 ye sow, so shall ye reap. " Do men gather grapes of 
 thorns, or figs of thistles ? " z "A good tree bringeth 
 not forth corrupt fruit ; neither doth a Corrupt tree bring 
 forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own 
 fruit." 2 That is God's law ; it is the will of our Father 
 which is in heaven. And even so it is with man. " A 
 good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth 
 forth that which is good ; and an evil man out of the 
 evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is 
 evil : for of the abundance of the heart his mouth 
 speaketh." 3 The misery is due to no divine decree, but 
 to the ignorance of man. The law of God is not violated, 
 and never can be violated ; for each act is followed by 
 its own " reward." 4 In each case the law is fulfilled to 
 the very jot and tittle. It is man's disregard of this 
 fact which is the cause of his sufferings. For God makes 
 the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth 
 rain on the just and on the unjust. But man being evil, 
 how can he expect good things ? " For out of the heart 
 proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, 
 thefts, false witness, blasphemies." 5 
 
 Amidst and behind all the perplexing chaos Jesus now 
 perceived harmony, law, and order — a reign of law so 
 entirely different from the reign of man. This was " the 
 reign of God " or " the reign of heaven," 6 which has 
 
 1 Matt. vii. 16. 2 Luke vi. 43-4. 
 
 3 Ibid. vi. 45. 
 
 4 Cp. " Verily I say unto you, they have their rewards " ; i.e. the 
 natural consequences of their acts. 
 
 5 Matt. xv. 19. 
 
 6 Uranon stood ^Iso for " universe " or "space of the heavens," 
 
AFTER THE STORM 153 
 
 been mistranslated into English as " kingdom of heaven/' 
 and which Paul and his ignorant followers took to mean 
 a locality in the clouds. He perceived an order of 
 things which he did not see before — a " law " which 
 could not be ignored without incurring the consequences ; 
 which affected rich and poor, high and low, the weak 
 and the powerful alike : a law that was no respecter of 
 persons. In that law Jesus saw " the will of God," or, 
 as we to-day so clumsily and so inaptly call it, " the law 
 of causation," or " the reign of law." 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 
 THE " METAMORPHOSIS " OF JESUS 
 
 Those who look upon religion as the negation of nature 
 and natural laws, and upon Jesus as the central figure 
 in this system of negation, will have read with incre- 
 dulity the statement I have just made. Yet nothing can 
 be more certain than that Jesus perceived the basic 
 principle on which are based the physical sciences, and 
 which — for want of a better name — is called " the law 
 of causation." He perceived order in nature where 
 caprice seemed to rule ; a Cosmos in the midst of seeming 
 chaos. 
 
 Jesus was not a mystic, though he must have seemed 
 such to most of his contemporaries. But the difficulty 
 he had in making himself understood lay in the ignorance 
 of his audience rather than in any desire on his part to 
 veil his teachings in mystic utterances. And if he has 
 the appearance of mysticism to the present generation 
 the fault rests with the translators and interpreters, who 
 were looking for some supernatural meaning in every 
 word that Jesus uttered, and so imported mysticism where 
 really none existed. Jesus can be understood only if 
 we dismiss from our mind all idea of any hidden, secret 
 signification, and give to his words the obvious common- 
 sense meaning they purport to have. 
 
 Jesus saw, understood, and spoke of the facts of nature 
 which we see and speak of to-day. But he did not, of 
 course, use our terminology. What we to-day call 
 " science " had no existence then, and there was no 
 settled scientific vocabulary. But the facts and phenomena 
 which are the subject-matter of the sciences did exist, 
 were known, and the underlying principles have been 
 applied in a thousand different ways by people who knew 
 
THE "METAMORPHOSIS" OF JESUS 155 
 
 nothing of theories or abstract principles ; just as they 
 are applied to-day by the mass of mankind without under- 
 standing the theory of what they are doing. 
 
 It is true, therefore, in a technical sense only that 
 there was no scientific knowledge in the days of Jesus. 
 Long before the facts of experience had been generalized 
 and made into a science, mankind made practical use 
 of that knowledge without understanding the theory. 
 In the words of John Stuart Mill, " Mankind judged of 
 evidence, and often correctly, before logic was a science, 
 or they never could have made it one. And they executed 
 great mechanical works before they understood the laws 
 of mechanics." The knowledge of facts always precedes 
 the knowledge of theory. 
 
 The husbandman who sows seed in the expectation 
 of being able to harvest by and by a crop of the same 
 kind ; the mason who piles up stones perpendicularly 
 so as to form a wall ; the savage who hollows out a tree 
 or builds a boat so as to enable him to keep himself afloat 
 on water ; the sailor who manipulates an outstretched 
 sheet of canvas so that the wind shall carry his craft 
 to where he wishes to go ; the huntsman who by means 
 of a bow propels an arrow with force and precision : are 
 one and all acting on the unconscious assumption of 
 " the law of causation" and the regularities (or consis- 
 tencies rather) of nature, without being aware of the 
 fact, and without having any knowledge of the laws 
 which are underlying their operations. That has always 
 been so, and is the case to-day with the great mass of 
 mankind. " The light shone in the darkness, and the 
 darkness perceived it not." * 
 
 But there have always been a few men of extraordinary 
 
 genius who, far in advance of the learning of their time, 
 
 have generalized recurrent phenomena into "laws" 
 
 which enabled them to understand the theory of what 
 
 they were doing and to lay down rules for their own 
 
 as well as for the guidance of others. There were men 
 
 who saw and understood the workings of nature before 
 
 1 John could not have been the author of these words, for he did not 
 understand their meaning. 
 
156 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 that knowledge had been reduced to text-book formulae 
 The heavens had been studied and eclipses of the sun 
 had been foretold centuries before the time of Jesus, 
 or before astronomy had been made into a science. People 
 knew how to extract metals from their ores ; how to 
 convert hide into leather ; how to build, dig, delve, sow, 
 spin, weave, and practise scores of arts — biological, 
 chemical, and mechanical — before biology, chemistry, or 
 mechanics had been thought of as a science. The mass 
 of mankind have learnt to perform these operations by 
 routine, with little more understanding — if any — than 
 is possessed by an animal that knows how to build a nest, 
 procure food, or evade an enemy. To few only is it given 
 to reflect, to reason, and to penetrate into the mysteries 
 of nature — the " kingdom of God." 
 
 Jesus was one of these privileged few. Gifted with 
 extraordinary powers of perception and intuition, he 
 saw what it is given to very few to perceive : law and 
 order in nature, in the midst of seeming chaos. To-day 
 a child is instructed at school that nothing happens with- 
 out an adequate cause ; that the world is governed by 
 immutable principles. But, needless to say, that was 
 not the case in the Judsea of the days of Jesus. The 
 rabbis taught, forsooth, that the world was ruled by 
 God ; but that was a capricious, a lawless God, and the 
 " laws " which Jesus was taught by them were — -as he 
 found out later — chiefly "the commandments of men." x 
 
 But there was another school, outside the synagogue, 
 which Jesus also frequented, and it was there, under the 
 canopy of heaven, that the mysteries of the " kingdom 
 of God " were revealed unto him. It was there where he 
 beheld the ravens and the lilies ; saw the tiny mustard 
 seed develop into a shrub large enough to afford shelter 
 for birds ; observed how each tree produced fruit after 
 its own kind ; and witnessed how, under the benign 
 influence of sunshine and rain, the world renewed itself 
 every spring. And in all this^he recognized the will of 
 a heavenly Father who, like a loving parent, dispenses 
 his blessings to all his creatures^alike and without di$- 
 
 * Mark vii. 7, 
 
THE "METAMORPHOSIS" OF JESUS 157 
 
 tinction. He saw what we call "the reign of law," but 
 what he called " the reign of God " ; which in trans- 
 lation became "the kingdom of God"; and which 
 ignorance and superstition have interpreted to mean a 
 territory in the clouds. Only by giving natural meanings 
 to his words does Jesus become intelligible. But if we 
 ascribe to them meanings which the evangelists and later 
 theologians have read into them, they become utter 
 nonsense. 
 
 By way of illustration I will quote some verses from 
 Matthew, and then show, from parallel passages in Luke 
 and in Mark, how their sense has been twisted into some- 
 thing quite different from their obvious meaning : — 
 
 " And the disciples came and said unto him, Why 
 speakest thou unto them in parables ? He answered 
 and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know 
 the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven [i.e. " the secrets 
 of nature"], but to them it is not given . . .* There- 
 fore speak I to them in parables : because they seeing 
 see not ; and hearing they hear not, neither do they 
 understand." 2 
 
 I submit that the meaning is perfectly plain. But 
 let us see now what the other evangelists make of the 
 same text. Luke transcribes it as follows : " Unto you 
 it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of 
 God : but to others in parables ; that seeing they might 
 not see, and hearing they might not understand." 3 
 
 In Matthew, it will be noted, Jesus explained that 
 he spoke in parables so that, the multitude should be able 
 to understand what he said ; whereas according to Luke 
 he spoke in parables purposely so that " they might not 
 understand." 
 
 1 The omitted verse reads as. follows : " For whosoever hath, to him 
 shall be given, and he shall have more abundance ; but whosoever hath 
 not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." I will expand 
 the sentence so as to make its meaning more apparent, and will print 
 in italics the added words : " For whosoever hath understanding of 
 these things, to him knowledge shall be given, and he shall have more 
 abundance of it ; but whosoever hath not that knowledge already, from him 
 shall be taken away even that little hnowledgehe hath" ; i.e. he would only 
 be more confused than before. 
 
 2 Matt. xiii. 10-13. 3 Luke vxii. 10, 
 
158 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 Mark still further improves on Luke, inasmuch as he 
 assigns a reason for suppressing the truth from the masses. 
 He says : " Unto you it is given to know the mystery 
 of the kingdom of God : but unto them that are without 
 [i.e. not of the elect] all these things are done in parables : 
 that seeing they may see and not perceive ; and hearing 
 they may hear, and not understand ; lest at any time 
 they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven 
 them." I 
 
 Some of the "saints" were evidently afraid of over- 
 crowding in the new kingdom, and favoured a restricted 
 immigration. But as for Jesus, far from trying to hide 
 the truth from the multitude by putting the lighted 
 candle under a bushel, he made it the aim and purpose 
 of his life to spread the knowledge thus revealed to him 
 to all the worjd, without distinction of race or creed. 
 
 Jesus saw " the kingdom of heaven " * and realized 
 the difference between it and " the kingdom/' or " rule " 
 of man. That was the great mystery that was revealed 
 to him, and for which he offered up this touching prayer 
 of thanks : " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven 
 and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the 
 wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 
 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." 3 
 
 And that is also what he referred to when, addressing 
 his disciples, he said : " Blessed are your eyes, for they 
 see : and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto 
 you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired 
 to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them ; 
 and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not 
 heard them." 4 
 
 Jesus in his inmost heart could never have shared, 
 consciously that is, the crude and harsh conceptions of 
 God we find, for instance, in Nahum, and in the much 
 later writings of Paul. He probably had not paid special 
 
 1 Mark iv. 11-12. Compare also, "Many are called, but few are 
 chosen." 
 
 a I propose to retain the wording of the R.V., but in the altered sense 
 as repeatedly explained. 
 
 3 Matt. xi. 25-6. 4 Ibid. xiii. 16-17. 
 
THE " METAMORPHOSIS " OF JESUS 159 
 
 attention to the matter up to then. During his medita- 
 tions, however, old ideas were more closely examined, 
 and had to yield to new conceptions. God to him was 
 no longer a capricious, moody tyrant, but a loving Father 
 who dispenses his bounties to the just and unjust alike. 
 
 And Jesus himself was no longer the Jew merely, but 
 a member of the human race. Henceforth he believed 
 that " whosoever shall do the will of my Father which 
 is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister." * 
 
 This is the new gospel which Jesus desired should be 
 preached to all the world ; the light that was to be set 
 on a hill so that it could not be hid ; and which was to 
 give safety to all those who accepted the new gospel, 
 had faith in it, and acted up to it. 
 
 His conceptions of God, of mankind, of the world 
 underwent a complete change, and old relationships 
 appeared to him now in quite a new perspective. In 
 the language of the Gospels, Jesus was " metamorphosed " 
 — that is, he was " a changed man " ; but in the English 
 translation the word has stupidly been rendered " trans- 
 figured/' And thus it will be seen that some historical 
 substratum may be found even for so far-fetched a legend 
 as the " metamorphosis " or " transfiguration " of Jesus. 
 
 Let us re-read the account of this supposed miracle, 
 in the light of these reflections. After the cruel execution 
 of John, Jesus retired into solitude ; or, in the language 
 of the evangelist, " he was driven of the devil into the 
 wilderness." 
 
 When he retired his body was full of darkness : he was 
 a pessimist. When he reappeared, after his meditations, 
 " his face did shine as the sun, his raiment was white 
 as the light " ; 3 and to complete the picture we need 
 only remember the cheerful message with which he greeted 
 the multitude — now no longer strangers, but each of them 
 a brother or a sister: ''Rejoice and be exceeding glad, 
 for great is your reward in heaven. ... Ye are the salt 
 of the earth. ... Ye are the light of the world. ... Be 
 ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in 
 heaven is perfect." 
 
 1 Matt. xii. 50. * Ibid. xvii. 2. 
 
160 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 Jesus had changed indeed. He retired as a pessimist 
 and reappeared as an optimist ; radiant, hopeful, and 
 self-confident. " And the people were astonished at his 
 doctrine, for he taught as one having authority and not 
 as the scribes " ; as one who had Moses to the right, and 
 Elias to the left of him. 1 
 
 1 This figure of speech has survived to this day in a Jewish prayer 
 in which occurs the following passage: "... and let Michael be to the 
 right of me, Gabriel to the left of me, and Ariel in front of me." 
 
CHAPTER XVII 
 
 THE TIMES, THE PEOPLE, AND THE CONDITIONS OF 
 JUD^A IN THE DAYS OF JESUS 
 
 The "ministry" of Jesus commenced in earnest after 
 the death of John. The word " ministry/' however, 
 which is commonly applied to the propaganda of Jesus, 
 is as inappropriate as it is misleading. It presupposes 
 a cult of which Jesus is supposed to have been both founder 
 and high-priest. But there was no such special cult in 
 existence in the days of Jesus for which he was in any 
 sense responsible, or which would justify the titles applied 
 to him by Paul, such as " Minister/' " Captain of Salva- 
 tion," "Apostle" or "High-Priest of our Profession." 
 The " profession " did not exist in the days of Jesus, so 
 he could not have been its " minister " or its " high- 
 priest." 
 
 All these designations refer to the " Christ " of Paul ; 
 belong to a subsequent generation ; and to apply them 
 to Jesus is to commit an anachronism. 
 
 Jesus is best described as a prophet in the old Hebrew 
 sense of the word ; that is, he was philosopher, teacher, 
 friend and guide ; one who taught and counselled ; who 
 took a keen interest in public affairs, denounced abuses, 
 and championed the cause of the weak and the oppressed. 
 John did not initiate — as is implied in the Gospels — the 
 movement of which he became leader, and in which 
 leadership he was followed by Jesus. Both John and 
 Jesus were the products of their time and country ; the 
 result — and not the cause — of a social unrest which then 
 agitated the people of Judsea. 
 
 It was not a religious revival, but one of those sporadic 
 outbursts of disaffection caused by an evil which is as old 
 
 ii l61 
 
162 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 as is organized society, and which, alas ! is still with us. 
 History is full of parallel cases, and our own times afford 
 examples in plenty. 
 
 The problem that John and Jesus tried to solve was 
 the same which, some seven centuries earlier, made Isaiah 
 exclaim : — 
 
 He looked for justice, but behold violence ; for righteousness, but 
 behold a cry. Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field 
 to field till there be no room, and ye be made to dwell alone in the midst 
 of the land (v. 7-8). 
 
 Three centuries later the same cry of distress was raised 
 by Nehemiah : — 
 
 We, our sons and our daughters, are many ; let us get for them corn 
 that we may eat and live. . . . We are mortgaging our fields, and our 
 vineyards, and our houses. . . . We have borrowed money for the king's 
 tribute upon our fields and vineyards . . we bring into bondage our 
 sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are 
 brought into bondage already ; neither is it in our power to help it, for 
 other men have our fields and vineyards (v. 2-5). 
 
 The same distress made John the Baptist proclaim : — 
 
 Now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees : every tree there- 
 fore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the 
 fire (Luke iii. 9). 
 
 Is it necessary — or rather, should it be necessary — to 
 point out that the revolution which John contemplated 
 was social and not cosmic ? The answers he is reported 
 to have given to the people who asked him what they 
 should do leave no room for any doubt : " He that hath 
 two coats, let him impart to him that hath none ; and he 
 that hath meat, let him do likewise" (ibid. 11). 
 
 John obviously belonged to the class of reformers 
 known as communists. And that communism was actually 
 adopted by certain sects in those days is plainly stated 
 in the Gospels, 1 in Acts, 2 and is attested by Josephus. 
 The social changes proposed by John must therefore 
 be regarded as history ; whereas his supposed Messianic 
 
 1 Matt. x. 9-1 1 ; Mark vi. 8-u ; Luke ix. 3-4, xxii. 35. 
 » Acts ii, 44-5, iv. 32. 
 
JUDAEA IN THE DAYS OF JESUS 163 
 
 mission is based on Scripture prophecy, unthought of 
 during his lifetime or that of Jesus. 
 
 Jesus is contemporary and immediate successor of 
 John in the leadership of the social revolution — for as 
 such we must regard the turmoil which then agitated 
 the people of Judaea. It was the same old cry which 
 Jesus raised when he said that those in power " fastened 
 heavy burdens on men's shoulders, grievous to be borne, 
 which they themselves did not move with one of their 
 fingers." It was the eternal lament of the weak against 
 the oppression of the strong, and there is not a shred of 
 admissible evidence in the Gospels or elsewhere that 
 the commotion of which Jesus was the central figure 
 was anything but temporal and social ; or that either 
 John or Jesus had contemplated any other but social 
 reforms. All the expectations of cosmic changes belong 
 to a later generation, to a movement led — and in its 
 essential features inaugurated — by Paul. 
 
 We do not need the testimony of the evangelists — 
 although it is available and unmistakable — to know 
 what the people of those days asked for, since we can 
 still hear the same lament in every country all over the 
 face of the globe, the burden of which is, Give us corn, 
 that we may eat and live. 
 
 John was not beheaded because he baptized people 
 into a future bliss ; and Jesus was not crucified because 
 he threatened — as is falsely alleged — to annihilate the 
 world and to revolutionize the government of heaven. 
 They were both put to death because they proposed 
 changes in the social order which were to take place then 
 and there, to benefit the living, and not the dead : in 
 short, because they " perverted the people " (Luke xxiii. 2), 
 and because the people " accounted them prophets." 
 
 Not until Paul put forth his theory of " Christ " and 
 the new " kingdom " in the clouds was there any question 
 of cosmic changes ; and these, as we shall see in a subse- 
 quent chapter, caused no uneasiness to either priests 
 or princes. 
 
 The Gospel narratives may be likened to a picture 
 superimposed on another picture, depicting the same 
 
164 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 actors but in new characters, new groupings, new colour- 
 ings, and in entirely new perspectives. 
 
 What makes it so difficult — laborious would perhaps 
 be the better word to use here — to discover the true 
 history of Jesus and his times, is not so much the want 
 of reliable data as this superimposed phantasmagoria 
 which confuses and obscures the outlines of the under- 
 lying facts. 
 
 The authors of the Gospels were neither eye-witnesses 
 of the events which they recorded nor unbiased his- 
 torians. On the contrary, they were avowedly sectarians 
 and partisans, whose first and foremost duty it was to 
 establish, promulgate, and defend the faith in which they 
 believed, and to believe in which was the essence of their 
 creed. 
 
 Writing under such conditions impartiality or sound- 
 ness of judgment is impossible, even to writers who possessed 
 some critical acumen — which the evangelists did not. 
 They neither examined nor doubted — their creed forbade 
 them to do so — but with childish credulity accepted what- 
 ever tradition recorded, whether the matter related to 
 the historical Jesus or the mythical " Christ," and attri- 
 buted all such lore indiscriminately to " the Lord Jesus 
 Christ." And from such blurred and distorted mis- 
 conceptions they wrote down what — in their imagination 
 — they saw just at the moment of writing. For not only 
 did each one of the evangelists see the same thing dif- 
 ferently, but the same writer saw a different picture with 
 every turn of the kaleidoscope — that is, with every new 
 anecdote which came to hand — never noticing that the 
 new incident which he recorded was inconsistent with 
 something he had set down previously. 
 
 Here is one illustration in place of many which might 
 be cited. In Matt. (xv. 17-20), Jesus explains that " to 
 eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man," but " those 
 things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart ; 
 
 AND THEY DEFILE A MAN." 
 
 Yet, immediately following this dictum, a tale is told 
 in which most uncharitable words are put into the mouth 
 of Jesus. " A woman of Canaan came out of the same 
 
JUD^A IN THE DAYS OF JESUS 165 
 
 coasts and cried unto Jesus, saying, Have mercy on me, O 
 Lord, thou son of David ; my daughter is grievously vexed 
 with a devil." To this appeal for mercy to a suffering 
 child Jesus is at first deaf ; then refuses help on the ground 
 that " he was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the 
 house of Israel " ; and when the distressed mother per- 
 sisted with her petition — " worshipped him, saying, Lord, 
 help me " — Jesus, still obdurate, rebuffed her, saying, 
 "It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it 
 to the dogs." 
 
 This most improbable tale immediately follows the 
 statement that "it is the things which proceed out of 
 the mouth which defile the man, 5 ' and is told by the 
 same evangelist who, in an earlier chapter, records the 
 following injunction of Jesus : " Love your enemies, bless 
 them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, 
 and pray for them which despitefully use you and 
 persecute you/' 
 
 But just then the evangelist's object was to show the 
 great potency of " faith in the Lord Jesus Christ/' and he 
 thought of nothing else. The harshness of Jesus was 
 necessary so as to emphasize the power of faith. For 
 in the end Jesus unbends, mollified not by the distress 
 of the suffering child, but by the faith of the pleading 
 mother. " Woman," exclaims the appeased Christ, 
 "great is thy faith : be it unto thee even as thou wilt." 
 
 To conclude : what the evangelists recorded were not 
 facts, but subjective mental representations of things 
 which — in the words of Luke — " were most surely be- 
 lieved " among them. 
 
 If this is kept clearly and constantly in mind, then 
 it is not impossible to extract some historical truths out 
 of the Gospel narratives. Then the very errors, contra- 
 dictions and inconsistencies may be made to disclose 
 some facts which were unknown to the writers them- 
 selves, or which they failed to interpret correctly. It 
 is not only what they testify to that we have to examine : 
 we must sift the whole of their depositions, and weigh 
 the evidence of all their statements, independently of 
 what the writers themselves believed to be true, or what 
 
i66 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 they intended to prove. We must have regard to their 
 psychology, as well as the circumstances in which they 
 were placed when writing their records. 
 
 In the following I will show how this method may be 
 usefully applied ; and I will select a theme for my object- 
 lesson which — at the same time — will enable me to correct 
 a grave historical blunder which has brought undeserved 
 contumely — often tribulation, even — on innocent people. 
 In this way I hope to perform an act of belated justice 
 to " the Jews," who have been charged with the murder 
 of the noblest Son which their race, or any other race, 
 has ever produced. 
 
 The charge, as far as the race is concerned, is as unjust 
 as it is historically untrue — as I will presently prove on 
 the evidence of those who have made the accusation. 
 Happily, we can do so without having to make counter- 
 charges of malice or dishonesty against the evangelists. 
 We have just seen how, in their zeal to magnify the power 
 of faith in Jesus, they attributed to him most uncharit- 
 able conduct towards a mother in distress. In like 
 manner — that is, acting in ignorance, but in perfect good 
 faith — they saddled " the Jews " — that is, the nation — 
 with a crime which has been committed by a corrupt 
 priesthood — Jews, certainly, but not the Jewish nation- — 
 not at the bidding of the people, but in defiance of them, 
 and with the aid of alien soldiery. 
 
 But the same witnesses who thus inadvertently made 
 this accusation have also supplied overwhelming evidence 
 to the contrary : that is, they have testified that " the 
 Jews " — the Jewish people — not only did not hate Jesus, 
 but that they loved, revered, and — if we accept the exag- 
 gerated language of the evangelists — idolized him. In- 
 deed, it is the love of the people which is given as the 
 reason why the ruling powers feared and hated the Great 
 Tribune. 
 
 Throughout the Gospels we meet with such glaringly 
 contradictory statements, which testify to the unre- 
 liability of the evangelists as historians. Nor was the 
 writing of history their object. They wrote not as they 
 saw, but "as they were taught to believe. To them Jesus 
 
JUDAEA IN THE DAYS OF JESUS 167 
 
 was Christ ; his followers were Christians ; and his antago- 
 nists were, of course, Jews. It did not occur to them that 
 in those days there was no Christ and there were no 
 Christians, but Jews only. They did not, they could 
 not remember — for they did not know — that the man 
 who was to confer the post-mortem honour of Christship 
 on Jesus was then not yet born, or could at most have 
 been an infant only. 
 
 All this must be kept in mind when sifting the evidence 
 of such witnesses. 
 
 It is quite true — there can be no doubt about it — that 
 those who brought Jesus to the cross were Jews. But 
 they were not the Jewish people (as the phrase " the Jews " 
 implies, and as is commonly believed) any more than 
 it was the English people who strangled William Tyndale 
 for having translated the Bible into English ; who cast 
 the author of Pilgrim's Progress into prison for preaching 
 the Gospels ; who placed Daniel Defoe in the pillory for 
 being a Dissenter ; or who, quite recently, forcibly ejected 
 Charles Bradlaugh from the House of Commons, whither 
 he had been sent by a section of the English people. 
 
 If whole nations were to be condemned in perpetuity 
 for the misdeeds of the few, then there is no nation 
 which would not incur like condemnation for similar 
 crimes. 
 
 This, however, by the way only. The important point 
 is that what the evangelists allege is disproved by the facts 
 which they record, as I will show by subjecting these 
 accusing witnesses to a kind of cross-examination. 
 
 Let us note as a first fact that friends and foes of Jesus 
 were all of them Jews, both in race and religion, and Jews 
 only. Indeed if we cared to accept as true the answer 
 which Jesus is credited with having made to the Canaan- 
 itish woman (" I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the 
 house of Israel ") 1 Jesus would have nothing whatever 
 to do with any but Jews. There certainly were no non- 
 Jewish " Christians " — even if we admitted this descrip- 
 tion for the followers of Jesus during his lifetime — until 
 many years later Paul, meeting with but scant success 
 
 1 Which the present writer does not accept as true. 
 
168 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 among the Jews, turned to the " heathen " in search 
 of converts. 
 
 Another indisputable fact — notwithstanding the implied 
 and often explicit statements to the contrary — is the 
 great popularity of Jesus among his contemporary com- 
 patriots. His following is always described as consisting 
 of " great multitudes/' and the people as coming " from 
 all parts " to hear him. 
 
 " There were gathered together an innumerable multi- 
 tude of people, insomuch that they trod one upon 
 another/' says Luke (xii. i). Mark's testimony is as 
 follows : "A great multitude from Galilee followed him, 
 and from Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, 
 and from beyond Jordan ; and they about Tyre and 
 Sidon, a great multitude" (in. 7-8). 
 
 According to the same witness (i. 45) his following 
 was so great and persistent that " Jesus could no more 
 openly enter into the city, but was without in open 
 places ; and they came to him from every quarter." John's 
 testimony (xii. 12-13) is, " On the next day much people 
 that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus 
 was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm-trees, 
 and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna : Blessed 
 is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the 
 Lord." In Luke (xix. 2-4) we read " Zaccheus, which 
 was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. And 
 he sought to see Jesus, and could not for the press 
 because he was little of stature, so he ran before and 
 climbed up into a sycomore-tree to see him, for he (Jesus) 
 was to pass that way." Matthew (xxi. 8-9) adds his 
 testimony to the rest : " And a very great multitude 
 spread their garments in the way ; others cut down 
 branches from the trees, and strewed them in the way, and 
 the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, 
 saying, Hosanna to the Son of David : Blessed is he that 
 cometh in the name of the Lord ; Hosanna in the highest." T 
 
 1 Hosanna, says Cruden's Concordance, is here used as "a form of 
 acclamation, of blessing, or wishing one well." The word has no such 
 meaning, and is nowhere used in this sense. Hosanna means " help," 
 and does not connote joy or the waving of palm leaves, but rather suggests 
 despair and the wringing of hands. It is a cry of distress, an appeal 
 
JUD^A IN THE DAYS OF JESUS 169 
 
 There is not a feature in the Gospels on which the 
 evangelists are more emphatic or more unanimous than 
 as to the popularity of Jesus among " the Jews " ; and 
 their testimony on this point is not the less valuable 
 because it is given incidentally rather than intentionally. 1 
 
 We accept their testimony on this point because- it is 
 tradition which they are recording, and not their own 
 deliberate opinion. For such renown handed down by 
 popular tradition in connection with a man who had 
 been executed as a common felon can be explained only 
 on the ground that he had a large and sympathetic 
 following. 
 
 Jesus was not hated by the people, but by their oppres- 
 sors : " the high-priests " and the " elders " of the people, 
 " the scribes " and the " Pharisees " ; that is, by them who 
 " laid heavy burdens on the shoulders of men/' And 
 the hatred of the ruling classes 3 is the strongest evidence 
 of the love and reverence which the people had for the 
 Tribune who championed their cause. For " the people 
 accounted Jesus a prophet/' and that is why the 
 
 AUTHORITIES FEARED HIM. 
 
 There would have been no occasion to fear Jesus had 
 his followers been few or insignificant people only. But 
 his fame spread, his influence grew apace, and his doctrines 
 
 for succour or relief, as, for instance, when (2 Sam. xiv. 4) " the woman 
 of Tekoah . . . fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and 
 said, Help, O king " ; or when Jeremiah (xxx. 7) appeals to God, " O 
 Lord, save the people, the remnant of Israel." Cf. also 2 Kings vi. 25 ; 
 Josh. x. 5 ; Psalms xii. 1, xx. 10, xxviii. 2, cxviii. 25, lxxxvi. 16, etc. 
 
 1 The attitude of Jews of later generations towards Christ has nothing 
 whatever to do with their reception of the real Jesus. The distinction 
 between '" Jew" and " Christian," with its race hatred, did not exist until 
 Paul abrogated the Jewish law and carried his gospel to the Gentiles ; 
 thus not merely establishing an entirely new system of faith, but at the 
 same time sowing the seeds of enmity and discord between his converts 
 and his former co-religionists. The subject will be dealt with in a suc- 
 ceeding chapter, when it will be shown on the evidence of the same wit- 
 nesses that the hostility of Jews was against the Christ of Paul, and not 
 against the historical Jesus. Later generations, of course, confused the 
 two. But this is a sin which is common to both Jew and Christian, and 
 is traceable to the contention of Paul that his Christ was the Jesus 
 resurrected. 
 
 2 Wrongly described in the Gospels as " scribes and Pharisees," since 
 many of these were ardent followers of Jesus. 
 
170 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 found favour with people of all classes ; for among his 
 followers " were Pharisees and doctors of the law J sitting 
 by, which were come out of every town of Galilee and 
 Judaea and Jerusalem" (Luke v. 17). The situation 
 became alarming. ' ' The Pharisees, therefore, said 
 among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing ? 
 Behold, the world is gone after him" (John xii. 19). 
 
 " And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard 
 his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But 
 when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the 
 multitude, because they took him for a prophet " (Matt. xxi. 
 45-46). 
 
 " Then assembled together the chief priests, and the 
 scribes, and the elders of the people . . . and consulted 
 that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill him. 
 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar 
 among the people " (Matt. xxvi. 3-5 and Mark xiv. 1-2). 
 
 " And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought 
 how they might destroy him ; for they feared Jesus 
 because all the people was astonished at his doctrine " 
 (Mark xi. 18 ; Luke xxii. 2). 
 
 What a different picture these admissions reveal to 
 the one conveyed by the unsupported allegations of the 
 same witnesses ! 
 
 1 Including members of the Sanhedrin even — e.g. Joseph of Arimathea, 
 Nicodemus, etc. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII 
 
 THE ALLEGED MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS 
 
 Now the axe is laid unto the root of the tree : every tree therefore 
 which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the 
 fire. — Luke iii. 9. 
 
 As before stated, the story of the real Jesus is overlaid 
 by that of the mythical Christ. When this covering 
 picture is removed, an entirely different one meets the 
 eye. Angels and demons disappear, and their place is 
 taken by real men and women engaged in the ordinary 
 pursuits of everyday life, swayed by motives, passions, 
 strifes and conflicts such as mankind has always been 
 subject to : battling with troubles which are as old 
 as the human race, and with which we ourselves are all 
 too well acquainted. After having removed this super- 
 imposed phantasmagoria, there stands revealed before 
 our eyes a picture of things which look real and 
 natural, which in many respects are commonplace, but 
 which give us an insight into the life and conditions of 
 the people of Judaea in the days of Jesus. 
 
 We have already done a good deal of this " stripping " 
 process, and — it is hoped the reader will agree — with 
 astonishing results. But much more has to be done 
 before all that which is foreign or false has been removed 
 from the canvass. 
 
 We have scraped off the halo-crowned, glorified figure 
 of " Christ," and in its place have uncovered the portrait 
 of a man plainly attired in the modest garb of a Jewish 
 rabbi in the act of addressing — not a howling mob about 
 to lynch him — but a crowd of eager, earnest listeners, 
 many of them already devoted disciples, others impressed 
 
 by the force of his facts, his arguments, his appeal. His 
 
 171 
 
172 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 is not the commanding figure of the Christ dressed in 
 royal purple, exhaling visible rays of glory : the real 
 Jesus is also a real man, outwardly not differing from 
 other men. He is humble, unassuming, kind and gentle, 
 yet with an earnestness in his face and a purposefulness 
 in his soulful eyes which make us realize what his con- 
 temporaries meant when they said of him that " he bap- 
 tized not with water, as did John, but with the holy spirit." 
 For even at this distant time we can discover in " the 
 gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth " — to 
 quote the words of the evangelist — a power which made 
 tyrants tremble with fear. 
 
 He is not despised and hated by the multitude which 
 is crowding around him — as in the covering picture — 
 nor is it he who is hiding in fear of his life : it is the 
 "priests and elders" who — whilst the beloved Tribune 
 is addressing enthusiastic crowds in temple or in public 
 places — are deliberating in secret how they might by 
 some subtle means ensnare this idol of the people without 
 causing an uproar. 
 
 We thus see how the tale told by the evangelists is 
 different from the tale revealed in their narratives. It 
 is bare justice to say that the writers, though biased 
 partisans, were not casuists. They were ignorant and 
 credulous ; but they were sincere, and told their tales 
 with the naivete of unsophisticated children, and have 
 thus unwittingly supplied in their accounts the infor- 
 mation which enables us to correct their misstatements. 
 
 It is not the Gospels which present any real difficulty 
 in the disentangling of the truth ; for— notwithstanding 
 their confused and contradictory statements — the facts 
 are staring the student in the face if only he cares to see 
 them, and is not more concerned in the bolstering up 
 of an exploded theory than in finding the truth. The 
 real difficulty the student has to contend with consists 
 in throwing off preconceptions which have been indoc- 
 trinated into his mind from his earliest infancy, and in 
 bringing an open, honest, unbiased intention to the study 
 of the subject. 
 
 As far as theologians are concerned, this has never 
 
THE ALLEGED MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS 173 
 
 yet been the case — or there would not be now any such 
 problem still requiring solution. Their object had never 
 been to find the truth, but to defend their profession 
 and their faith ; and when they criticized at all, it was 
 only to attack rival creeds or rival doctrines. The in- 
 quirer knew beforehand what conclusions he was going 
 to arrive at, and his task consisted in devising arguments 
 to prove his case, and in finding — or inventing — texts 
 in support of his contention — which often he did not 
 believe himself. 
 
 If our object is simply to discover the truth about the 
 life of Jesus and his teaching, then our course is clear 
 and comparatively simple. In the first place and as 
 a preliminary to our investigation, we must— as a matter 
 of course — eliminate from the Gospel narratives all that 
 which is recorded to have happened after the death of 
 Jesus, as being obviously irrelevant to the subject. Under 
 this heading must come all that which is distinctly Pauline 
 and — a fortiori — that which is post-VdMline ; since Paul 
 belonged to a later generation. 
 
 In this way we get rid at one fell swoop of all that has 
 happened, or is supposed to have happened, after the 
 execution of Jesus. 
 
 Whatever were the last words of Jesus on the cross, 
 with them ended his life's history. Subsequent events 
 may be referred to him in so far only as they may have 
 been the result of his acts or teaching during his lifetime. 
 We must brush aside as irrelevant the miracles which 
 are alleged to have happened at the moment when Jesus 
 breathed his last, such as the darkening of the sun, the 
 rending of the curtain in the Temple, the opening of the 
 graves, and the wa]king about of the dead : miracles 
 which do not seem to have made any impression on 
 those who were living and present at the time, and which 
 remained unknown to Paul — or which, in any case, he 
 did not believe. But let us note in passing that it is 
 these supposed " miracles " — unknown to or unbelieved 
 by Paul— which constitute the only evidence of the 
 alleged " obstinacy of the unbelieving Jews " which made 
 them "reject the Messiah/' 
 
174 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 We may also brush aside without giving it a moment's 
 consideration the legend relating to the immaculate 
 conception and the virgin birth of Jesus, together with 
 the childish stories about the magi, the piloting star, 
 the slaughter of the innocents, the flight into Egypt, 
 and all other " miracles/' without stopping to discuss 
 whether they could have happened or not, since in any 
 case they are irrelevant to our subject. And whilst on 
 the subject of miracles, we may as well dispose of the 
 arguments based on the miraculous once and for all — 
 as far as this present inquiry is concerned. 
 
 To the present writer the word " supernatural " has 
 no meaning at all ; for all that which happens, or which 
 can happen — even though the phenomenon has never 
 before been observed — is part of Nature, and is therefore 
 natural, even though to man the phenomenon may be 
 wonderful. A lt miracle/' therefore, if it is something 
 that cannot happen according to the " laws " which 
 govern the universe, is not sw^ematural, but unnatural 
 or impossible. 
 
 In any case, the performance of something rare or 
 wonderful can prove nothing more than the skill or know- 
 ledge of the performer. In every other respect, such 
 " wonderful " performances — whether real or based on 
 deception — are as much subj ect to the ordinary laws 
 of evidence as any commonplace event. In the search 
 of truth it is the probable rather than that which is merely 
 possible that is of any value in formulating a theory ; 
 and in any case a conclusion arrived at, on whatever 
 hypothesis, must be verified before its truth can be regarded 
 as established. 
 
 On such terms — and on such terms only — may we 
 admit " miracles " as evidence. 
 
 We need not waste time, therefore, in discussing what 
 value to attach to Paul's assertion that he had converse 
 with Jesus many years after the latter' s death, as we 
 are concerned solely with the living Jesus, who had 
 breathed his last many years before it occurred to Paul 
 that " according to the Scriptures " this Jesus must have 
 been " both Lord and Christ." 
 
THE ALLEGED MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS 175 
 
 The point which we have to decide is not whence or 
 how Paul derived his gospel, but whether the doctrines 
 which he promulgated in the name of Christ were iden- 
 tical with what Jesus taught ; or whether he was justified 
 in deducing his doctrines from the utterances of Jesus. 
 
 There are two ways of establishing conclusively the 
 innocence of an accused person. One is by showing that 
 according to conditions of time or place he could not 
 possibly have committed the act of which he is accused ; 
 and the other by proving that the deed had been per- 
 petrated by someone else, without the possible connivance 
 of the accused. 
 
 In the case of the alleged Messiahship of Jesus both 
 these lines of evidence are available in most complete 
 form. The alibi of time — in view of the positive assertion 
 of Paul that Jesus was declared to be Son of God " by 
 the resurrection from the dead " — is beyond question. 
 Our witness is Paul himself. He not only says so plainly 
 and positively, but actually bases an argumentum ad 
 absttrdum on the supposed " fact " — proving the reality 
 of resurrection in general by the supposed resurrection 
 of Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 12-15). 
 
 So much for the alibi. 
 
 Equally conclusive is the admission — nay, the boastful 
 claim of Paul — that the gospel which he preached was 
 his own, and that to him alone among mortals was due 
 all the credit and merit of its publication. 
 
 I take it, therefore, as incontestably established that 
 the historical Jesus — as distinct from the mythical Christ 
 — has had no share and could have had no share in the 
 conception or promulgation of his Messiahship as taught 
 by Paul, since neither Paul's gospel nor the doctrine of 
 the Messiahship — still less, of course, the doctrine of 
 salvation by faith and other doctrines based thereon — 
 was known or thought of until many years after the 
 death of Jesus. 
 
 The only question which remains to be answered there- 
 fore is, whether there was anything in the teaching of 
 Jesus which — directly or indirectly-— might have led to 
 or justified the theories.of Paul. 
 
176 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 This question is easily answered, and, indeed, has 
 been answered already in these pages. But the far- 
 reaching importance of the question, as well as the deep- 
 rooted belief in the doctrines of Paul, not only justify, 
 but make it imperatively necessary that the main facts 
 and arguments bearing on this point should here be 
 summarized, even though this may involve repetition 
 of what — in other connections — has already been stated. 
 
 There are two leading principles in the theology of 
 Paul, both of which are not only alien to Jesus, but are 
 in direct opposition to his recorded utterances. One of 
 these is that " Christ " has substituted a new dispensation 
 for the old covenant. This implies, of course, that Jesus 
 had abrogated the Mosaic law. This, in fact, is Paul's 
 contention, who — whatever were his shortcomings — was 
 always consistently logical. In his Epistle to the Romans 
 in particular he is at great pains to show that the law 
 is no longer of any account, and is a curse rather than a 
 help to those seeking salvation. 
 
 Now, not only is there no ground whatever in anything 
 that Jesus said or did to justify such a doctrine, but 
 every word of his authentic speeches which have been 
 preserved for us is opposed to any such theory. 
 
 In the Sermon on the Mount there is the declaration, 
 " Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the 
 prophets : / have not come to destroy, but to fulfil." 
 
 When challenged by a lawyer to state what he con- 
 sidered to be " the great commandment in the law," 
 Jesus recited the " Hear, O Israel/' which is the essence 
 of the " old covenant " and the basic law of Judaism. 
 ; ' This/' he said, " is the first and great commandment ; 
 but the second is like unto it : Love thy neighbour as 
 thyself." " On these two commandments hang all the law 
 and the prophets." And again, " There is none greater 
 than these two commandments." 
 
 When a heckling lawyer asked him what he must do 
 to inherit life eternal, Jesus referred him to the law. 
 When the lawyer recited the two commandments, 
 Jesus replied, " Thou sayest right ; this do and thou 
 shalt live." 
 
THE ALLEGED MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS 177 
 
 When a disciple of his — " a young ruler " — asked a 
 similar question, Jesus answered, " Obey the law." When 
 asked Which ? Jesus ' recited the decalogue, ending with 
 " and love thy neighbour as thyself." 
 
 In the Parable of the Last Judgment the fulfilment 
 of the second commandment, " which is like unto the 
 first/' is made the test by which the people are separated 
 " as are sheep from goats," and rewarded accordingly. 
 
 Even when denouncing " the scribes and Pharisees," 
 Jesus bespoke respect for their office and obedience to 
 their decrees, " because they sit in Moses seat." It was 
 rabbinic law and rabbinic traditions which he disregarded, 
 but even these he neither denounced nor forbade : he 
 simply regarded such ceremonial law as " the com- 
 mandments of men," and as such inessential and 
 immaterial. 
 
 But nowhere in the recorded speeches or parables is 
 there any suggestion of abrogating the Mosaic law, or 
 of any intention to substitute a new dispensation for the 
 old covenant. It is in Paul's epistles only that " a new 
 testament " is mentioned for the first time (2 Cor. hi. 6), 
 and that we learn that the people were not to be judged 
 according to " the great commandment in the law," as 
 illustrated by Jesus in his Parable of the Last Judgment, 
 but " according to my [i.e. Paul's] gospel." 
 
 Next in importance to the Messiahship in Paul's Christ- 
 ology is the " kingdom of heaven," which was to be 
 the reward of those " who believed on the Lord Jesus- 
 Christ." It was the thing hoped for — the cynosure of 
 the " new dispensation," whither the " saints " were to 
 be transferred so as to escape from the wrath of an 
 offended God. 
 
 Now, Jesus knew no such God who needed to be ap- 
 peased, nor a place of refuge where people could escape 
 the natural consequences of their misdeeds. As re- 
 peatedly explained in these pages, what Jesus sought to 
 establish was the dominion of God here on earth, and 
 not a " kingdom " in the clouds. A perusal of the 
 parables and exhortations of Jesus leaves no room for 
 doubt as to what he meant by " kingdom of God " or 
 
 12 
 
178 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 " kingdom of justice " ; any more than there can be 
 any mistaking the gross materialism of Paul's " king- 
 dom " in the clouds. 
 
 After all this positive evidence to the contrary, let 
 us give just a passing consideration — for it will require 
 no more — to such passages as Matt. vii. 22-23 or Luke vi. 
 46, which are cited by commentators as showing " a 
 highly developed Messianic consciousness " on the part 
 of Jesus : e.g. " Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do 
 not the things which / say ? " 
 
 A " Messianic consciousness " can be read into this 
 passage only if we think that the " me " and " I " referred 
 to Jesus himself. But if we assume that these words 
 were supposed to have been spoken by ' ' the Father 
 which is in heaven," and as such have merely been quoted 
 by Jesus, then the contention that they show " a Messianic 
 consciousness " falls to the ground. 
 
 In connection with the Parable of the Last Judgment 
 (Matt. xxv. 40) there occurs a similar passage : " In- 
 asmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these 
 (my brethren) ye have done it unto me." Obviously 
 these words might also be cited as showing " a Messianic 
 consciousness " if considered as spoken by Jesus and in 
 reference to himself. But they cannot be so interpreted 
 if it is remembered that it is " the King," i.e. God, 
 who is supposed to have spoken these words, and that 
 Jesus merely " quoted " them. 
 
 The words u my brethren " in the above passage con- 
 stitute a difficulty to such a reading, inasmuch as they 
 imply that the " King " (or God) is referring to men as 
 his tl brethren." But the context makes it sufficiently 
 clear that these words have been interpolated by a tran- 
 scriber who — in the words of Dr. J. E. Carpenter — 
 inserted them " under the potent influence of precon- 
 ceived interpretation." 
 
 Under the same influence, I suggest, some copyist has 
 suppressed some words which ascribed the passages in 
 Matt. vii. 22-23, and Luke vi. 46 to God, and as such 
 have been " quoted " by Jesus. It is on such paltry 
 " evidence " as this that the alleged Messianic claim of 
 
THE ALLEGED MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS 179 
 
 Jesus is based, in face of the overwhelming and positive 
 evidence to the contrary. 
 
 There is, as far as I know, only one more " argument " 
 which is supposed to show " a Messianic consciousness " 
 on the part of Jesus, and I deal with it not without a 
 feeling of humiliation that it should be necessary to 
 discuss such a frivolous contention in connection with so 
 serious a subject. I am referring to the alleged prophecy 
 by Jesus of his own resurrection when he said, according 
 to John ii. 19-22, " Destroy this temple, and in three 
 days I will raise it up." The only comment I will make 
 on this mendacious piece of " evidence " is that only after 
 " he was risen from the dead " did " his disciples remember 
 that he had said this unto them " ; and then only did 
 it occur to them that " he spake of the temple of his body ; 
 . . . and they believed the Scripture, and the word which 
 Jesus had said/' 
 
 The reader will thus see that whilst the whole life and 
 teachings of Jesus are a direct negation of the theory 
 of " a new dispensation," there is — as I said before — 
 not a shred of admissible evidence that Jesus himself 
 ever claimed Messiahship, or that anyone else claimed 
 it for him during his lifetime. 
 
 And this fact explains the great difficulty with which 
 the problem concerning the life and teachings of Jesus 
 is alleged to be beset. The difficulty consists in proving 
 the Messiahship of Jesus in the absence of any evidence. 
 Yet to prove this is the sole object of Christian apologists 
 and commentators. 
 
Chapter xix 
 
 PAULINE INFLUENCE ON ANTE-PAULINE HISTORY 
 
 The above heading is paradoxical. But so are the records 
 of events supposed to have happened in Judasa during 
 the lifetime of Jesus, and even prior to it. 
 
 It is a fact — paradoxical though it is — that it is im- 
 possible to understand Jesus with reference to his own 
 time, or his contemporaries with reference to himself, 
 except by studying the history of a man who lived in 
 a subsequent generation. 
 
 In the case of Paul the converse is true of the aphorism 
 that " Events cast their shadows before." Paul has 
 cast his shadow a full ■ generation behind his own time, 
 and has overshadowed — in many respects entirely obliter- 
 ated — the true history of those days. 
 
 If only that shadow had silhouetted the real Paul, 
 and projected the true history of his time, our present 
 task might be a comparatively easy one. But that was 
 not the case. The history of Paul, of his self-imposed 
 mission, of his relationships to Jesus, to the " apostles," to 
 the Jews and Gentiles ; his tactics, his temperament, his 
 psychology, have all been misdescribed, misrepresented, 
 and misinterpreted. And as the history of Paul is the 
 groundwork of what passes current as the history of 
 the period covered by the Christ-legend, we must study 
 the former before we can correct the misconceptions 
 and misstatements concerning the latter. 
 
 The fact is that the true history of Jesus or his time 
 has never yet been written — or even attempted. As 
 previously pointed out, the object of the evangelists, 
 and subsequently of their commentators, has not been 
 to write history, but to defend the faith ; and to do so 
 the needed evidence was not sought for in the pages of 
 
 iSo 
 
PAULINE INFLUENCE ON HISTORY 181 
 
 history, but was inferred from the theme the truth of 
 which was to be established. The process which was 
 followed in practically every case which presented any 
 difficulty was the familiar logical " roundabout " so 
 peculiar to theology, and may be described as follows : 
 Say that the truth of some extraordinary event required 
 to be proved, then the first step was to invent conditions 
 which might or could have produced it. The next step 
 was to construct a suitable syllogism which would " prove " 
 that nothing else could account for the alleged event. 
 (The truth of the latter is, of course, never questioned, 
 but is taken for granted.) Then from the " undoubted 
 evidence " established in this manner is drawn the " in- 
 evitable conclusion " that " thus it must have happened/' 
 
 In this way Paul " proved " the truth of the resur- 
 rection by the " fact " that " Christ rose from the dead." 
 The evangelists "proved" the truth of their incredible 
 narratives by an appeal to post- facto " prophecies " which 
 " needs must have been fulfilled." And in the same 
 way " history " has been invented by commentators to 
 account for an alleged sudden eruption of " Messianic 
 expectation " among the Jews just prior to the advent 
 of Jesus, of which there is neither record nor evidence, 
 and for which no parallel can be found in Jewish history. 1 
 
 Thus not only has the history of the period been per- 
 verted and corrupted, but the character, history, and 
 psychology of all those concerned — John, Jesus, " the 
 Jews," the " scribes and the Pharisees," the " high-priests 
 and elders," the " apostles," 2 and of Paul himself — 
 have been misrepresented, and the spirit of the times 
 has been misconceived, as a consequence. 
 
 1 Of course the Jews did expect — -as they still do — the return of Elijah 
 the prophet, who is believed to have been taken to heaven in a chariot 
 of fire without having passed through the gates of death. But there is no 
 record of any such imminent expectation of a Messiah or the Messiah, 
 or that at any time it was more than a hope and a prayer. 
 
 2 None of the " twelve " was a contemporary of Jesus. They were 
 " appointed " by the resurrected Christ " through the Holy Ghost " just 
 prior to his ascension ; after having given " commandments unto the 
 apostles whom he had chosen : to whom also he showed himself alive after 
 his passion by many infallible proofs . " etc. (Acts i. 2-3). I cannot 
 now enter more fully into the evidence. 
 
182 THE HISTQRY OF JESUS 
 
 But thanks to the ingenious naivete of the evangelists, 
 it is not necessary to call outside witnesses to prove the 
 untruth of their allegations. As I have already shown, 
 all the evidence required can be obtained from the New 
 Testament writers themselves by subjecting them to a 
 process of cross-examination. 
 
 The Jews, no doubt, clung to their Scriptures, as they 
 still do. But it is not true that they were the obstinate 
 infidels, deaf to reason, blind to facts, and inaccessible 
 to new ideas or new doctrines, as they have been 
 described. 
 
 To begin with, there were many sects in the Judaea of 
 those days as far apart in doctrine as the Sadducees, who 
 said, " There is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit," 
 and the Pharisees, who " confessed both " (Acts xxiii. 8). 
 
 Men of such divergent opinions as these met in syna- 
 gogue and in council, worshipping and striving together, 
 the Scriptures being their common bond. Subj ect to, 
 and within the limits of that supreme authority, any 
 doctrine, however contrary to accepted beliefs, could be 
 preached and debated in synagogue, temple, or council 
 chamber. Thus when Paul was brought before " the 
 chief priests and all their council," there were present 
 both Sadducees and Pharisees, and he made his appeal 
 to the latter. " Men and brethren, he cried, I am a 
 Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee ; of the hope and resurrection 
 of the dead I am called in question. And when he had 
 so said, there arose dissensions between the Pharisees 
 and the Sadducees . . and the scribes that were of the 
 Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no 
 evil in this man : but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken 
 to him, let us not fight against God." 
 
 In other words, Paul said he had a new message to 
 deliver " concerning the hope and resurrection of the 
 dead," and " the scribes that were of the Pharisees' 
 part " decided that he should be heard, " lest they fought 
 against God." 
 
 But surely this betokens an entirely different spirit 
 from the one ascribed to " the scribes and Pharisees " in 
 the Gospels, 
 
PAULINE INFLUENCE ON HISTORY 183 
 
 Another sect which deviated from commonly accepted 
 notions were the Essenes — the " peculiar people " of those 
 days — w ho " had all things in common/' and in their 
 whole mode of life and religious observances differed 
 from all the other sects. Yet " they had no particular 
 city to themselves, but lived scattered in all cities " 
 (Josephus) among their fellow- Jews who did not share 
 their views or their mode of life. 
 
 All these sects lived side by side as members of the 
 same race and the same religion, worshipping in the same 
 synagogues, sacrificing in the same Temple, believing in 
 the same Scriptures, and — subject to their divergent inter- 
 pretations — obeying the same law, the Thora. 
 
 Within that law* new interpretations of Scripture 
 passages, or new themes for discussion, were not only 
 tolerated, but were welcomed ; and Paul was free to pro- 
 pound his new doctrines in any of the synagogues, or 
 in the Temple of Jerusalem — as in fact he did — so long 
 as he did so from the Scriptures. But, of course, he had 
 to meet strong counter-proofs and arguments — -also from 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 I will quote a few passages from Acts which throw an 
 entirely new light on the character and mentality of both 
 Paul and " the Jews " whom he failed to convert to his 
 gospel. 
 
 In Thessalonica, " where was a synagogue of the Jews, 
 Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three 
 sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, 
 opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, 
 and risen again from the dead ; and that this Jesus, whom 
 I preach unto you, is Christ" (Acts xvii. 1-3). So that 
 Paul was listened to for three sabbath days, " and some 
 of them believed" ; but the majority of Jews, it seems, 
 " believed not." 
 
 It is noteworthy that not only did the Jews allow Paul 
 to preach such revolutionary doctrine in their synagogues, 
 but Greeks were freely admitted to these discussions, 
 as appears from such passages as this — " and of the devout 
 Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not 
 a, few/' believed a,nd " consorted with Pa,ul and Silas." 
 
1 84 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 (What a contrast this is between the tolerance of Jews 
 and Greeks of those ante-Christian times, as compared 
 with the reciprocal hatred between Jew and Christian 
 of to-day ! We shall see further on that there is a direct 
 causal connection between the " gospel " of Paul and this 
 change from toleration to hatred.) 
 
 Paul was not very successful among the Jews of Thessa- 
 lonica. But in Berea they " were more noble than those 
 in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with 
 readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily whether 
 those things were so" (ibid, io-ii). 
 
 The doctrine of faith, of blind acceptance of a new 
 dispensation which — as Paul himself contended later — • 
 involved the abrogation of all law, had then not yet 
 been advanced. Paul still argued " from the Scriptures " ; 
 and he received a ready hearing wherever he desired to 
 speak. 
 
 In Corinth he " reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, 
 and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks [sic !], and testi- 
 fied to the Jews that Jesus was Christ " (xviii. 2-4). 
 
 In Ephesus " he went into the synagogue, and spake 
 boldly for the space of three months " (xix. 8). In Iconium 
 both Paul and Barnabas went " into the synagogues 
 of the Jews, and so spake that a great multitude both 
 of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed (xiv. 1). 
 
 In Rome, whither he was brought as a prisoner, " Paul 
 called the chief of the Jews together/' to whom he then 
 explained what brought him to Rome. " And they said 
 unto him, We neither received letters out of Judasa con- 
 cerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came 
 showed or spake any harm of thee. But we desire to 
 hear of thee what thou thinkest ; for concerning this sect 
 we know that everywhere it is spoken against " (xxviii. 
 17-22). And notwithstanding — nay, rather because of — 
 this unfavourable report they desired to hear him. " And 
 when they had appointed him a day, there came many 
 to him into his lodging, to whom he expounded and 
 testified the kingdom of God, persuading them con- 
 cerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the 
 prophets, from morning till evening ; and some believed 
 
PAULINE INFLUENCE ON HISTORY 185 
 
 the things which were spoken, and some believed not " 
 
 (23-4). 
 
 From north to south, from east to west, all over 
 the then known world, wherever there were Jews, Paul 
 was welcomed, and in their synagogues was allowed to 
 expound his doctrine that Jesus was Christ — not to Jews 
 only, but also to Greeks — so long as he did so from the 
 Scriptures. Everywhere he was listened to and argued 
 with — -in some places for months at a stretch — and " some 
 believed " and il some believed not." 
 
 On the whole, his success among the Jews was dis- 
 appointing. He relied on Scripture passages which to 
 himself seemed conclusive, and was chagrined when he 
 found that the passages cited by him admitted of differ- 
 ent interpretations, whilst other passages were entirely 
 against him. 
 
 Evidently Paul was unable to meet their objections, 
 for in the end he had to abandon the Scriptures — both 
 the law of Moses and the prophets — and to declare all 
 law as obsolete and defunct. Not being able to meet 
 argument with argument, and the Jews not willing to 
 accept on his bare unsupported statement a theory 
 which meant the revocation of the Thora on which was 
 based their religion, their philosophy, their laws and 
 institutions, their very existence as a nation, Paul lost 
 his patience. Instead of persuading and arguing, " as 
 his manner was," he began to reprove and to threaten. 
 In anger he exclaimed : — - 
 
 Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 
 saying, Go unto this people and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall 
 not understand : and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive : for the heart 
 of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their 
 eyes have they closed ; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear 
 with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, 
 and I should heal them (Acts xxviii. 25-7). 
 
 Judging by the evidence before us by one who — 
 according to the unanimous opinion of scholars — was a 
 companion of Paul, and therefore wrote from personal 
 knowledge, Paul had no just reason for this angry out- 
 burst. For according to this witness the Jews " received 
 
1 86 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 the word with readiness of mind " ; and as Paul referred 
 them to the Scriptures for evidence, " they searched the 
 Scriptures daily whether those things were so." 
 
 But they found that " those things " were not so. 
 
 And so at Corinth, when the Jews " opposed them- 
 selves and blasphemed 1 [sic !], he shook his raiment, and 
 said unto them, " Your blood be on your heads ; I am 
 clean : from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles" 
 (Acts xviii. 6). 
 
 It is thus that Paul became " an apostle of the Gentiles," 
 driven to it by chagrin, and not by " the grace of God" 
 
 Paul, who, in his own words, was " a Pharisee and the 
 son of a Pharisee " . . " more exceedingly zealous of 
 the traditions of my fathers " than the rest of his nation ; 
 who persecuted and dragged before the priestly tribunals 
 the disciples of Jesus the Tribune, shook the dust of 
 Judaism off his feet, abrogated " both the law of Moses 
 and the prophets," and went among the heathen. 
 
 And just as he was " more exceedingly zealous of the 
 traditions of his fathers " whilst still acknowledging the 
 law of Moses, so he was exceedingly zealous in preaching 
 his own gospel among the " heathen " : he became an 
 iconoclast. The law he declared to have become a curse. 
 Christ — his Christ — "hath redeemed us from the curse 
 of the law." Henceforth " by the deeds of law no flesh 
 shall be justified"; but "God shall judge the secrets 
 of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." 
 
 Paul's gospel was to be supreme. It had to be accepted 
 on faith. There was to be no discussion about it from 
 the Scriptures. Paul, " more exceedingly zealous than 
 any other of his nation," would brook no doubt or question- 
 ing of his decrees. The Scriptures were against him, 
 so the Scriptures must go. They were of no use to him 
 among the Jews, and a stumbling-block among the 
 "heathen." To them he "certified" (Gal. i. n) that 
 " the gospel which was preached of me is not after man : 
 
 1 Surely it is safe to assume that the Jews must have thought the same 
 of Paul, who asked them to accept a doctrine which, according to his own 
 contention, involved the abrogation of the law in which " they lived 
 and moved and had their being/' 
 
PAULINE INFLUENCE ON HISTORY 187 
 
 for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught 
 it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ " — whom he 
 never met. 
 
 Therefore — 
 
 Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto 
 you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed ; 
 
 and to give due emphasis to the dictum, he repeated : — 
 
 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other 
 gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 
 
 Thus did Paul sow, not seeds of love, peace, and good- 
 will, but the dragons' teeth of hatred and discord. Up 
 till then Jews and Greeks met in " the synagogues of 
 the Jews" listening to Paul, "receiving the word with 
 readiness of mind, and searching the Scriptures daily w T hether 
 those things were so" (Acts xvii. n). But Paul put an 
 end to such friendly intercourse. He separated not only 
 " Jews " and " Greeks/' but Jews from Jews and Greeks 
 from Greeks, according as they were " believers " or 
 " unbelievers " in the gospel of Paul, the truth of which 
 he could not establish " from the Scriptures." To-day, 
 not only can Jew and Christian no longer meet in the 
 same house of God, "searching the Scriptures whether 
 those things were so " ; but Christian is forbidden to 
 meet Christian in the same church, unless both believe 
 exactly the same thing. They are separated by the 
 curse of Paul, which forbids inquiry. 
 
CHAPTER XX 
 
 THE PAULINE SHADOW 
 In the fourth Gospel we read : — 
 
 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee : for he would not walk 
 in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him (vii. i). 
 
 In a subsequent chapter the same Gospel describes the 
 entry of Jesus into Jerusalem as being the occasion of 
 great rejoicings, the people going forth to meet him waving 
 branches of palm-trees, crying "Hosanna: Blessed is the 
 King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord." 
 The four evangelists — as we have seen in the preceding 
 chapter — are vying with each other in their accounts of 
 the enthusiasm manifested by the thronging multitude 
 which came to welcome him. 
 
 Yet the evangelist, in the part just quoted, goes on to 
 say that — 
 
 when his brethren were gone up to Jerusalem, then went he [Jesus] 
 also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. 
 
 The account further says : — 
 
 Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he ? And 
 there was much murmuring among the people concerning him : for some 
 said, He is a good man ; and some said, Nay, but he deceiveth the people 
 (ibid. 10-12). 
 
 These statements are in glaring contrast with the 
 account of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, 
 and the enthusiasm with which — according to the unani- 
 mous accounts of the four evangelists — he was received 
 by the people throughout his career. When he was, 
 
 188 
 
tHE PAULINE SHADOW 189 
 
 expected to preach in Temple or synagogue, the place was 
 crowded, the people coming " early in the morning/' 
 People came from distant cities to hear him, and " multi- 
 tudes " followed him from place to place. More especially 
 must we reject the statements that " he would not walk 
 in Jewry for fear of the Jews " ; for Jewry and Jerusalem 
 were the centres of his activity. 
 
 It was in Jerusalem where he addressed enthusiastic 
 crowds, whither people from all parts of the country 
 flocked to hear him, and where he was finally arrested. 
 And he certainly did not go up to Jerusalem " as it were 
 in secret," nor teach there secretly. " I spake openly 
 to the world," Jesus is reported to have said to the high- 
 priest after his arrest; l< I ever taught in the synagogue 
 and in the Temple . . . and in secret have I said nothing" 
 And there is certainly nothing in his teaching to make us 
 doubt the truth of these words, for he taught nothing 
 which could offend Jewish ears, Jewish sentiments, 
 Jewish prejudices, or Jewish piety. 
 
 We cannot accept, therefore, the allegation that Jesus 
 was afraid to walk in Jewry, or that he went up to the 
 feast in Jerusalem secretly, or that the Jews sought to 
 kill him. 
 
 But if we substitute the name of Paul for that of Jesus 
 in the passages quoted, the statements may be accepted 
 as historically true. For it was Paul — as we shall presently 
 learn from the evidence of one who claims to have been 
 an eye-witness of the things he wrote about — who " would 
 not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him " ; 
 and " when his brethren were gone up " to Jerusalem, 
 Paul " went also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it 
 were in secret." And it was Paul, and not Jesus, whom 
 " the Jews sought at the feast, and said, Where is he ? " 
 And it was Paul concerning whom " there was much 
 murmuring among the people : for some said, He is a good 
 man ; and some said, Nay, but he deceiveth the people." 
 
 These records in the Gospel of John are shadows of 
 Paul cast back into the ante-Pauline period. 
 
 All along the picture in the Gospels which purports to 
 illustrate the hatred of the Jews for Jesus is the shadow 
 
igo THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 ®f events of a subsequent generation, in which Paul is the 
 central figure and the object of the persecutions. Here 
 is the tale itself, the shadow of which has deceived the 
 evangelists. 
 
 Paul and his company were at Caesarea (Acts xxi. 8 if.) 
 when " there came down from Judaea a certain prophet 
 named Agabus," who warned Paul against venturing to 
 go up to Jerusalem : — 
 
 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, 
 besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered . . I 
 am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name 
 of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, 
 saying, The will of the Lord be done. 
 
 (Compare with this account the statement in the Gospel 
 of John that " when his brethren were gone up, then went 
 he [Jesus] also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were 
 secretly.'') 
 
 And there went with us . . one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, 
 with whom we should lodge. And when we were come to Jerusalem, 
 the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in 
 with us unto James, and all the elders were present. And when he had 
 saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought 
 among the Gentiles by his ministry. 
 
 For this he was commended. But they rebuked him 
 severely, though in kindly language, for speaking against 
 the law of Moses, and imposed upon him a severe penance 
 for his transgression before he could be readmitted to 
 the fold. 
 
 Thou seest, brother [they said to him,] how many thousands of Jews 
 there are which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law : and they are 
 informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the 
 Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying they need not to circumcise their children, 
 neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore ? the multitude 
 must needs come together : for they will hear that thou art come. 
 
 The narrative — which the reader should read for him- 
 self — implies that if his presence became known, there 
 would be a riot against the blasphemer, which might 
 endanger his life : — 
 
THE PAULINE SHADOW 191 
 
 Do therefore this that we say to thee. We have four men which have 
 a vow on them ; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at 
 charges with them, that they may shave their heads : and all may know 
 that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing ; 
 but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Then 
 
 Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself with them, entered 
 into the Temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, 
 until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. And when 
 the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they 
 saw him in the Temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, 
 crying out, Men of Israel, help : this is the man that teacheth all men every- 
 where against the people, and the law, and this place : and further brought 
 Greeks also into the Temple, and hath polluted this holy place. And all 
 the city was moved, and the people ran together : and they took Paul, 
 and drew him out of the Temple : and forthwith the doors were shut. 
 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain 
 of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. Who immediately 
 took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them : and when they 
 saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul. Then 
 the chief captain came near, and took him and commanded him to be 
 bound with two chains ; and demanded who he was, and what he had 
 done. And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude : 
 and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded 
 him to be carried into the castle. And when he came upon the stairs, 
 so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people. 
 For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him ! 
 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, 
 May I speak unto thee ? . .1 beseech thee suffer me to speak unto the 
 people. And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and 
 beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a, 
 great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue. 
 
 Then Paul told the people of his conversion ; how 
 Jesus appeared to him in a trance when he travelled to 
 Damascus : — 
 
 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, 
 even while I prayed in the Temple, I was in a trance ; and saw him [Christ] 
 saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem ; for 
 they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. 
 
 This is how Paul explained on that occasion why he 
 left Jerusalem and fled into Galilee and walked among 
 the Gentiles. The same author who records this gave 
 another — and a more probable — reason in an earlier 
 chapter (xviii. 6), already quoted. There he says that 
 when the Jews opposed him, Paul " shook his raiment 
 and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads 
 . . . from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." 
 
192 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 The Jews, many thousands of whom "believed," were 
 not impressed by his defence :— 
 
 They gave him audience unto his word, and then lifted up their voices 
 and said, Away with such a, fellow from the earth : for it is not fit that 
 he should live. 
 
 These words, and the scene depicted, are strongly 
 reminiscent of what is recorded to have happened in the 
 court of Pontius Pilate, when the infuriated people are 
 reported to have clamoured for the death of Jesus. The 
 suggestion I make is that the alleged persecutions of Jesus 
 by the people are echoes of the persecutions of Paul. 
 
 Other texts might be quoted from the Gospels which, 
 by comparison with parallel texts in Acts, could be shown 
 to refer to incidents in the life of Paul, but which the 
 evangelists have ascribed to Jesus. For one thing, the 
 name of Paul is not so much as mentioned in the Gospels, 
 although they must have been written many years after 
 the death of Paul. But to enter into these side-issues 
 would involve writing a commentary on the whole of the 
 New Testament writings ; and that, of course, is beyond 
 the scope of the present essay. 
 
CHAPTER XXI 
 
 THE APOSTLES AND "THEY WHO BELIEVED" 
 
 The account of the doings of Paul quoted in the last 
 chapter, recorded by one who impliedly has had personal 
 knowledge of the things he wrote about, enables us now 
 to write reliable history concerning matters which till 
 now — quite unaccountably — have remained obscure and 
 wrapt in mystery. 
 
 To begin with, we can state it now with confidence 
 that the history of " the Lord Jesus-Christ " does not 
 begin with the genealogy of Jesus, as in the first Gospel ; 
 nor with the prophecy, " Behold, I send my messenger 
 before thy face, 5 ' as in the Gospel ascribed to Mark ; nor 
 with the history of Zacharias and Elisabeth, as in the 
 Gospel of Luke ; nor yet with the Logos, as in the fourth 
 Gospel ; but with the incident when — chagrined by his 
 failure to convince the Jews that " according to the 
 Scriptures" Jesus was Christ — Paul "shook his raiment, 
 and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own head; 
 I am clean; from henceforth 1 go unto the Gentiles." 
 
 And he went to the Gentiles, only to meet there with 
 new obstacles put in his way by the Scriptures. For in 
 those days, before a Gentile could join " the brethren " 
 — that is, " those who believed " — he had to become a few 
 and obey the law of Moses. 
 
 But the Gentiles did not take kindly to some of the 
 Jewish rites. Circumcision in particular proved a great 
 stumbling-block, and Paul began to realize what the 
 Jews, in another way, also tried to prove to him, that 
 the Scriptures were against him, and that either he would 
 have to abandon his own pet theory or free himself from 
 the trammels of the law. The two were obviously incom- 
 patible from every point of view. 
 
 J 3 iQj 
 
194 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 And so Paul began to speak against the law, contending 
 that circumcision and ordinances as to food were not 
 essentials and might be dispensed with. 
 
 Had Paul confined himself to making such concessions 
 to Gentiles ^merely, he would probably have met with 
 but little opposition. 1 At most the stricter members of 
 the sect might have objected to admit such half-converts 
 into full Jewish fellowship. But Paul went much further, 
 and in his zeal to assure the Gentiles that they were on 
 an equality with those who were circumcised, " he taught 
 all the Jews which were among the Gentiles to forsake 
 Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their 
 children, neither to walk after the customs/' 
 
 So long as Paul confined himself to proving from the 
 Scriptures that Jesus was Christ, he not only was left 
 unmolested by the Jews, but was eagerly listened to, 
 and " they searched the Scriptures daily whether those things 
 were so." 
 
 But when he began " to forsake Moses/' the Jews 
 drove him out of their synagogues, persecuted and waylaid 
 him, and on more than one occasion Paul narrowly 
 escaped being lynched by his outraged compatriots. 2 
 
 After these things Paul — and not Jesus, as reported 
 by John (vii. i) — " walked in Galilee : for he would not 
 walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." 
 
 And when he went up secretly to Jerusalem to justify 
 himself before " the brethren " by his successes among 
 the Gentiles, " James and all the elders " ordered him to 
 purify himself, whereas " the many thousands of Jews 
 which believed," when they discovered his presence in 
 Jerusalem, laid hands on him . . . and all the city was 
 moved, and the people ran together : and they took Paul 
 and drew him out of the Temple," and would have killed 
 him but for the timely intervention of the soldiers. 
 
 Instead of the alleged epidemic of " Messianic expecta- 
 tions " which is supposed to have raged in Judaea prior 
 
 i Cf. Acts xv. 5 ff; xxi. 25, etc 
 
 a He did not fare much better among the Greeks. They, too, were 
 willing to listen to the new doctrine. But when Paul began to blaspheme 
 their gods, the people revolted, and would have killed him but for the 
 interference of the authorities. See Acts xvii. 1 7 ff. 
 
APOSTLES AND "THEY WHO BELIEVED" 19S 
 
 to the advent of John the Baptist and of Jesus, we learn 
 now that a full generation after the death of Jesus the 
 Jews tried to kill the man who declared Jesus to have 
 been Christ — not, indeed, because of that doctrine, 
 but because he taught that that doctrine involved the abroga- 
 tion of the law of Moses. 
 
 And among the men who sought to kill him were " Jews 
 which believed," but who nevertheless were all of them 
 " zealous of the law." 
 
 Evidently it was not inconsistent, therefore, for a Jew 
 to remain under the law and yet to be a disciple of Jesus ; 
 for here we have the followers of Jesus, presided over by 
 the twelve apostles, not only obeying the law of Moses, 
 but trying to kill Paul for teaching them to disregard it. 
 
 At the time we are speaking of Jesus had been dead 
 for at least a full generation, and his disciples, including 
 the twelve apostles, were still Jews and zealous of the 
 law, knowing nothing about a new dispensation and 
 insisting on the due observance of the old covenant, 
 even to the traditional customs. The gospel of " salvation 
 by faith in the Lord Jesus-Christ," which Jesus is alleged 
 to have commanded the twelve apostles to preach to 
 all the world, had at that time not yet taken form in 
 Paul's mind. He himself was still a Jew and still under 
 the law of Moses, as we have seen. For he was ordered 
 to do penance for having transgressed the law ; and he 
 submitted to the prescribed process of purification. And 
 even when, under the protection of the soldiers, he ad- 
 dressed the Jews for the last time (Acts xxii. 1-22) 
 from the precincts of the castle, he still protested his 
 Jewish faith, referring them to " one Ananias, a devout 
 man according to the law, having a good report of all the 
 Jews which dwelt there," etc. 
 
 The Jews " gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their 
 voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth t for it is not fit 
 that he should live." 
 
 It is thus that Paul was " separated unto the Gentiles." 
 And this is the true beginning of the story of " the Lord 
 Jesus-Christ " according to the gospel of Paul. 
 
196 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 And now a few words about those Jews who thus drove 
 Paul out of Jerusalem and out of Judaea. 
 
 Who were they ? Many thousands of them were the 
 followers of Jesus, the " brethren " of the sect which Paul 
 at first persecuted and later became a convert to. They 
 constituted "the Church at Jerusalem" presided over 
 by " the apostles and elders." They were the people 
 referred to in current history as " the apostles and early 
 Christians "• — although as yet there was no Christ, and 
 there were no Christians in existence. 
 
 They were a Jewish sect, known as the Nazarenes, 
 whose members belonged to all classes of Jewish society, 
 and all of whom "were zealous of the law" : that is, 
 they were strict Jews. They would not have been toler- 
 ated in Jerusalem, or allowed to enter the Temple, had it 
 been otherwise. They were one sect among many others, 
 all of whom regarded the law of Moses as supreme and 
 inviolable, although they differed in their interpretations 
 of isolated passages. They all worshipped in the same 
 Temple, were subject to the same law, the same traditions, 
 and the same customs. In short, they were all of them 
 Jews, both in race and religion, yet holding divergent 
 opinions in matters of philosophy — so long as these did 
 not conflict with the law. 
 
 It was in the Temple and in the synagogues that Jesus 
 taught ; that Paul argued with the Jews ; and it was in 
 the Temple that Paul did his penance. 
 
 Far from forsaking Moses, those " early Christians " 
 were great sticklers for the law ; as the following incident 
 will illustrate ; — 
 
 Certain men which came down from Judsea taught the brethren and 
 said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be 
 savdd (Acts xv. i). 
 
 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and 
 disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and 
 certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and 
 elders about this question. . . . And when they were come to Jerusalem, 
 they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they 
 declared all things that God had done with them. But there arose up 
 certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful 
 to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses " 
 (ibid. 2-5). 
 
APOSTLES AND "THEY WHO BELIEVED" 197 
 
 The question at issue, be it observed, was not whether 
 a Jew might disregard the law, but whether Gentiles had 
 to comply with it before they could be admitted to mem- 
 bership of "the church." 
 
 In the end it was decided that certain concessions 
 should be made to Gentiles, relieving them from the 
 necessity of complying with certain requirements of the 
 law. But that no longer interests us. The point which 
 concerns us at present is that among the " apostles and 
 elders of the church " there was no question of forsaking 
 the law of Moses, or of substituting a " new dispensation " 
 for the old covenant, and that there were Pharisees among 
 their numbers. In the Gospels, Jesus is reported to have 
 commanded the apostles to go into all the world and 
 preach the gospel. 
 
 What was that gospel ? 
 
 It certainly could not have been the gospel of Paul, 
 which, many years after the death of Jesus, was still 
 unknown to Paul himself, and which postulated the 
 abrogation of the law as a necessity. 
 
 The " early Christians " — as we have seen — knew nothing 
 of such a necessity, but drove Paul out of Jerusalem as 
 a man " not fit to live on the earth " when he made his 
 first attack on the law. 
 
 Had Jesus himself abrogated the law — and Paul insisted 
 in later years that " Christ was the end of all law " — he 
 would not have been popular with the people of Judaea, 
 as we have seen he was. He would not have been allowed 
 to preach " openly in Temple and in synagogue " as he 
 is reported to have done ; and Paul would not have been 
 allowed to argue in the synagogues of the Jews that " this 
 Jesus whom the Jews have crucified is Christ," had Jesus 
 been guilty of the one sin which in a Jew is never for- 
 given by Jews. His name would then have been execrated, 
 as has been the name of " Christ " ever since Paul pro- 
 claimed him to be "the end of all law." And lastly, 
 had discipleship to Jesus implied ever so remotely a dis- 
 regard or disrespect of the law of Moses, the " church " 
 with its " apostles " and " elders " would not have been 
 tolerated in Jerusalem. 
 
198 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 To sum up the results of this and the preceding chapter : 
 the followers of Jesus — the " early Christians," according 
 to common belief — were about to kill the founder of 
 Christianity, before he himself was a " Christian," and 
 before he had evolved his " new dispensation." 
 
 Surely this is not a progression of history, but a retro- 
 gression ; a "reading back" into the mind of previous 
 generations a gospel which in their days had no existence, 
 and which even in the mind of its author had not taken 
 form until after he had been cast adrift by those who 
 are alleged to have believed and taught that gospel. 
 
 Then what did the "apostles" and "brethren" — the 
 true followers of Jesus — believe and teach ? 
 
 They believed in the law of Moses, the basic doctrine 
 of which is " the first and great commandment " — 
 acknowledged by all Jews, whatever sect they may belong 
 to. They also believed what Jesus taught, and what 
 other sects did not necessarily agree with, that the second 
 law, Love thy neighbour as thyself, was like unto the first. 
 
 And they taught that " on these two commandments 
 hung all the law and the prophets." 
 
 A specimen of their teaching has been preserved for 
 us in the Epistle of " James, a servant of God," addressed 
 to " the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." The 
 word " Christ " occurs twice in the epistle (ch. i. I and 
 ch. ii. i) ; but in each case is an obvious interpolation. 
 If we eliminate the words " and of the Lord Jesus Christ " 
 from the one, and " of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord 
 of glory " from the second of the indicated passages, we 
 have an exhortation which, in spirit and in detail, agrees 
 with the teachings of Jesus, but is the antithesis of the 
 doctrines of Paul. The reader can make the comparison 
 for himself. A few verses only may find here a place 
 as showing in what respects they differed from " the 
 scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat," and from 
 the later gospel of Paul. 
 
 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your- 
 selves (i. 22). 
 
 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, 
 he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be 
 blessed in his deed (v. 25). 
 
APOSTLES AND "THEY WHO BELIEVED" 199 
 
 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw 
 you before the judgment seat ? (ii. 6). 
 
 If you fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well ; but if ye have respect for persons, 
 ye commit sin, and are convicted of the law as transgressors (ii. 8-9). 
 
 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, 
 and have not works ? Can faith save him ? If a brother or sister be naked, 
 and destitute of daily food, and one of you say to them, Depart in peace, 
 be ye warmed and filled ; notwithstanding ye give them not those things 
 which are needful to the body, what doth it profit ? Even so faith, if 
 it hath not works, is dead, being alone. . . . Show me thy faith without 
 thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works (ibid. 14-18). 
 
 Verse by verse and point by point, the Epistle of James 
 is an exposition of the principles taught by Jesus in the 
 Sermon on the Mount and in the various parables. Equally 
 manifest is it that every point insisted on in this epistle 
 is the direct antithesis of the teachings of Paul. The 
 outstanding feature is this : Not only did the tenets of the 
 sect to which the twelve apostles belonged not require the 
 abrogation of the Mosaic law, but necessitated its observance ,; 
 whereas Paul taught that " Christ was the end of all law." 
 
 From the information supplied by Acts and contained 
 in the epistles of Paul, an exact history could be written 
 of the evolution in Paul's mind of his scheme of " salvation 
 by faith in the Lord Jesus-Christ. " But it would entail 
 the writing of an extensive commentary to dispel and 
 disprove the false interpretations which commentators 
 have deliberately read into these documents. 
 
CHAPTER XXII 
 
 "ECCE HOMO' 
 
 Men of Israel, This is the Man that teacheth all men everywhere against 
 the people and the law, and has polluted this holy place. 
 
 Thus cried the " many thousands of Jews which believed/' 
 all of whom were " zealous of the law." 
 
 And that man was Paul. 
 
 This is the man — and not Jesus — who forsook Moses ; 
 who abrogated the law ; who declared as of none effect 
 " the two great commandments " on which Jesus said 
 hung " all the law and the prophets " ; who substituted 
 " a new dispensation " for the old covenant ; who imposed 
 an entirely new gospel on mankind ; and who cursed in 
 advance everybody who dared doubt or question his 
 dicta. 
 
 Men of Israel- — and also Men of Christendom — this is 
 the man who has sown the dragons' teeth of discord, 
 hatred, and intolerance ; who has poisoned the springs 
 of life and religion; who "persuaded men to worship 
 God contrary to law " (Acts xviii. 13) ; who substituted 
 for the loving Father who is kind " even to the unthankful 
 and the evil " a wrathful God who had to be appeased 
 by a blood sacrifice. This is the man who proscribed the 
 gospel of love, peace, and justice, and substituted for it 
 a cult of intolerance, hatred, and fratricidal wars. 
 
 It was not " the Jews " who were stiff necked and gross 
 of heart. Paul could not complain that they did not 
 give him a fair hearing. They actually invited him to 
 expound his new doctrine. They wanted to hear him 
 " if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him — lest they 
 fought against God " (Acts xxiii. 9). 
 
 And they not only listened to him, but " searched the 
 Scriptures daily, if these things were so." 
 
* ECCE HOMO " 201 
 
 They thought " it was not so," and in the end Paul 
 came to the same conclusion ; for he found himself that 
 "the old covenant" and "the new dispensation" were 
 incompatible. Yet it was he who said of the Jews that 
 they were gross of heart, blind to facts and deaf to reason, 
 when the only obstinate and unbelieving Jew in those 
 assemblies was Paul himself. 
 
 Up to the time when, in an outburst of anger, Paul 
 cast off his Judaism, and with it Jewish law and Jewish 
 customs, Jews and Greeks could meet in the same syna- 
 gogue and discuss problems which affected the foundations 
 of their several beliefs— even to the question whether 
 there was a resurrection and whether Jesus actually rose 
 from the dead. But from that time forward Jews and 
 Christians hated, despised, and execrated each other. 
 They could no longer meet for worship in the same House 
 of God. To-day not even Christian and Christian can do 
 so, if they happen to belong to different sects. They 
 commenced to quarrel, to hate, and to persecute each 
 other from the moment that Paul sealed his " new dis- 
 pensation " with his curse of intolerance. 
 
 His gospel, thus begotten in anger, founded on deliberate 
 untruth, and established by a curse, has produced fruit 
 after its own kind. " For the tree is known by its 
 fruit." 
 
 These are not imputations of mine, but are accusations 
 brought against him by " those who believed " ; as 
 told in the " holy writ " of the New Testament ; every 
 item of which is endorsed by admissions made by Paul 
 himself in his several epistles. 
 
 Men of Israel, it is not Jesus who has forsaken Moses, 
 or who has brought contumely and tribulation on the 
 Jews. It is Paul, who is the author of all the mischief, 
 whom the Jews hated and persecuted, of whom " those 
 who believed " said that he was " a deceiver of the people " 
 and " not fit that he should live " (Acts xxii. 22). 
 
 It is Paul, and not Jesus, who is responsible for the 
 persecutions — not of Jews only, but of Christians by 
 Christians. 
 
 It is Paul's gospel, and not the Sermon on the Mount 
 
202 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 or the Parable of the Last Judgment which prevents people 
 of different beliefs from worshipping the same God in the 
 same house of prayer, as they did of yore. 
 
 The. men of Israel and the men of Christendom are both 
 labouring under the same error of confounding the Sage 
 of. Nazareth with the mongrel " Christ " of Paul. 
 
 This is the religion of Jesus as declared by 
 
 HIMSELF : — 
 
 Hear, O Israel ; the Lord is our God ; the Lord is one : 
 and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ail thy heart, 
 and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all 
 thy strength; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 
 There is none other greater than these two command- 
 ments* 
 
 Surely Jew and Christian could recite this creed standing 
 side by side in the same House of Prayer — even though 
 their beliefs on debatable matters were as far apart as 
 were those of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the 
 Essenes and the Nazarenes. 
 
CHAPTER XXIII 
 
 THE PROPAGANDA OF JESUS 
 
 After this lengthy but necessary digression into the history 
 of a later generation, we will now return to the subject 
 with which this book is more particularly concerned. 
 
 We have traced the life of Jesus up to the time when, 
 after his meditations, he began expounding his new 
 interpretation of the ancient law. For this was the extent 
 of his innovation. 
 
 There was no question of abrogating or superseding 
 the law of Moses. Had Jesus attempted anything of 
 the kind, there would have been no need to employ Roman 
 soldiery to arrest and execute him. The people would 
 have done so themselves — not only without help from the 
 imperial authorities, but in spite of them. 
 
 And whilst dwelling on this particular theme, it is of 
 interest to note that whilst Jesus was loved and revered 
 by the people and hated by the priestly rulers, the reverse 
 happened in the case of Paul. He was hated, detested, 
 and persecuted by the people, and protected by the 
 imperial authorities. 
 
 And what was the attitude of the " high-priests and 
 elders " towards this renegade ? At best — or worst — 
 it was one of unconcern. They do not seem to have been 
 shocked by his transgression of the law, or alarmed by 
 the far-reaching cosmic upheavals which he contemplated. 
 Yet he proposed to annihilate earth and heaven, blot 
 out sun and moon, and revolutionize the government of 
 heaven. But he did not interfere in worldly matters, 
 and did not embarrass the temporal authorities as did 
 Jesus. Instead of warning the people not to tolerate 
 
 any rulers to lord it over them, Paul exhorted slaves 
 
 203 
 
204 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 "to be obedient to their masters according to the flesh 
 as unto Christ." T It was their souls only he provided 
 for, and that in a future world. 
 
 This goes far to show the unconcern of the priesthood 
 and of the secular powers in matters affecting " another 
 world" or a "life after death," so long as their power 
 in the land of the living was left unchallenged. Paul 
 was left unmolested because, though he threatened to 
 change the course of nature, he respected what to-day 
 we understand by " Church " and " State." 
 
 It was otherwise with Jesus. He found no fault with 
 the universe or with its government, and accepted " the 
 first and great commandment " as the basis of all law. 
 But he tacked on to it its corollary, " Love thy neighbour 
 as thyself " ; and from these two commandments he drew 
 some very revolutionary conclusions. 
 
 Thus interpreted, the law, as it was administered by 
 " those who sat in Moses' seat," was a dead letter. They 
 preached it, but did not carry it out. They fastened 
 heavy burdens on the shoulders of others, but would not 
 move them with one of their fingers. They made broad 
 their phylacteries, occupied the uppermost seats in temple 
 and at feasts, and loved to be greeted in public places 
 and to be called Rabbi. 
 
 Such was the indictment made by Jesus against the 
 rulers of Judaea ; and it would only require to be trans- 
 scribed into modern phraseology to bring it into line with 
 the complaints of the discontented masses of any country 
 of to-day. Surely there is no need to invent far-fetched, 
 improbable theories, or to assume the intervention of 
 supernatural agencies, to explain the events which 
 agitated the people of Judaea of nineteen centuries ago. 
 The same causes which called forth the prophets, ancient 
 and modern — from Isaiah to Tolstoi, Mazzini, or Liebknecht 
 — sufficiently account for the advent of both John and 
 Jesus. And the attitude of Jesus sufficiently explains 
 
 1 Eph. vi. 5 ; Col. iii. 22 ; 1 Tim. vi. 1 ; Titus ii. 9 ; Philemon 10 if. 
 The word " servant " is an incorrect rendering of the Greek word doulos. 
 The R.V. admits in a marginal note that the word should be rendered 
 " bondservant." Its true meaning is, of course, " slave." 
 
THE PROPAGANDA OF JESUS 205 
 
 why he was loved by the masses and hated by the ruling 
 priesthood. 
 
 Jesus did not threaten the destruction of the universe : 
 he menaced the temporal powers by teaching the people 
 " One is your master, the Father which is in heaven, and 
 all ye are brethren." 
 
 To propose reforms in another world is one thing ; to 
 advocate reforms in this life is another. The high-priests 
 and elders of the people became alarmed, because Jesus 
 "perverted the nation" (Luke xxiii. 2), and they were 
 unable to meet him in argument or to arrest his rapidly 
 growing influence. 
 
 The great crime of Jesus was that he was unanswerable. 
 He attacked neither the Roman nor the Jewish State, 
 and did not interfere with ceremonials or customs. 
 
 He did not advocate any concrete measures, political 
 or social, but taught principles. Every one of his precepts 
 or injunctions embodied a principle which was self-evident 
 as soon as stated. And this was the great secret of his 
 power. 
 
 " The tree is known by his fruit." If, therefore, the 
 fruit is evil, this shows that the tree is corrupt. The 
 only remedy is to uproot such a tree and cast it into 
 the fire. 
 
 By such homely, familiar illustrations, which appealed 
 to the understanding of the unsophisticated peasant no 
 less than to the reflecting mind of the more intelligent 
 members of the nation, he created a new atmosphere 
 which alarmed those in power. 
 
 Jesus is considered to have been a dreamer, an idealist, 
 who preached abstract ethical principles which sound 
 well, but which are inapplicable to the practical affairs 
 of man. But this estimate of the value of his teaching 
 is based on the grave fallacy that human conduct is inde- 
 pendent of " law " or " principle," and dependent entirely 
 on the caprice of man. This, however, is not so. Cause 
 and effect are as closely related in social as in physical 
 phenomena. Slowly only is it brought home to our 
 philosophers that the phenomena of life, of mind, and of 
 social relationships are as much the result of cause and 
 
206 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 effect as are physical phenomena ; and one by one are 
 emerging the various " sciences " dealing with mental, 
 moral, and sociological subjects. 
 
 The precepts of Jesus are self-evident truths because 
 every one of them is based on the universal experience 
 of man. And they are regarded as " ideal " (in the 
 sense of being inapplicable in practice) because it is not 
 recognized that definite principles are underlying social 
 relationships as they are underlying any other group or ' 
 class of phenomena. 
 
 It is the recognition of this fact which distinguishes 
 Jesus from every other reformer — ancient or modern. 
 He did not advocate any political measures, but principles. 
 He did not discriminate between good or bad kings, good 
 or bad forms of government, but denounced all power of 
 man over man as an infraction of the Fatherhood of God 
 — which is bound to have evil results. Peace and goodwill 
 are impossible where man can exercise power over man ; 
 and justice is possible only where people respect in others 
 the rights which they claim for themselves. 
 
 Few people, I surmise, would consent to speak of 
 the teachings of Jesus as a " philosophy/' Yet if ever 
 any system of reasoned thought deserved this ambitious 
 appellation, it is the much-despised but little understood 
 system of ethics taught by the Nazarene Sage. 
 
 I need say little now about this philosophy, since it 
 is to be subjected to a critical examination in a series of 
 chapters which are to follow. Here I will only remark 
 that the power of Jesus was due to his possession of such 
 a complete philosophy, based not on abstract postulates 
 invented by man, but on the universal experience of man- 
 kind — the facts of life which the Great Seer has generalized 
 and formulated into precepts or rules of conduct. 
 
 And therein lay the secret of his power. It was the pos- 
 session of this knowledge of principle which enabled him 
 to state his case in a manner which was not only con- 
 vincing, but incontrovertible. 
 
 It was this fact which made the rulers of Judaea fear 
 him ; which has made tyrants tremble ever since ; which 
 explains why the translation of the New Testament was 
 
THE PROPAGANDA OF JESUS 207 
 
 So strenuously opposed, and why its interpretation was 
 for so long reserved as the exclusive privilege of a licensed 
 priesthood. This fact will also explain the many fraudu- 
 lent translations — I am making this accusation gravely 
 and deliberately — of those passages in the reported 
 speeches of Jesus in which he condemns unreservedly a 
 system bolstered up by a priesthood which professes to 
 teach the gospel of Jesus. 
 
 Jesus was — and still is — a menace to u the kingdom 
 of man," and as unanswerable then as he is to-day. It 
 was this circumstance which made it so difficult for the 
 corrupt priests to lay hold of him — in a metaphorical 
 sense, that is ; for there could have been no difficulty 
 in laying hold of his person. For, as he is reported to 
 have said when at last the alien soldiers came to arrest 
 him, " Are ye come out as against a thief with swords 
 and staves for to take me ? I sat daily with you in the 
 Temple, and ye laid no hold on me " (Matt. xxvi. 55). 
 
 The real difficulty the priests had in laying hold of Jesus 
 was not overcome even after his arrest, for they were 
 at a loss what to accuse him of. In the end the priests 
 had their way by the usual process known as " expedi- 
 ency " ; which always means a sacrifice of truth and 
 justice to class interests. The " State " came to the 
 assistance of the " Church." No matter that the former 
 was an alien power, often in conflict with the latter : 
 "State" and "Church," or "Church" and "State" 
 always supported each other, when either of them was 
 menaced. 
 
CHAPTER XXIV 
 
 THE ARREST, TRIAL, AND CRUCIFIXION 
 
 Jesus was arrested, tried, condemned, and crucified. 
 
 This much we are bound to accept as true. As to 
 details of arrest or trial, there is much room for speculation. 
 
 We are bound to admit, however, the crucifixion of 
 Jesus, because Paul spoke of it to the Jews in their 
 synagogues. 
 
 We are bound to accept the tradition that he was brought 
 to this shameful end by the connivance of the Jewish 
 priesthood, because Paul was allowed to say so without 
 any of the Jews objecting. And this latter fact is evidence 
 that the people, as a nation, did not approve of his execu- 
 tion ; on which point, as we have seen, the evidence is 
 overwhelming. 
 
 But why, it will be asked, did the people, who idolized 
 Jesus, permit his execution ? The answer to this question 
 is given by the numberless examples supplied by history 
 how such would-be reformers are got rid of. 
 
 The priests employed Roman soldiers " armed with 
 swords and staves " to arrest him. There was no legal 
 necessity for this. They could have arrested him without 
 either sanction or help from the imperial authorities. 
 They could even have tried him on a capital charge and 
 condemned him to die ; and in the latter case only would 
 there have been a necessity for obtaining confirmation 
 of the sentence by the Roman procurator. The employ- 
 ment of armed soldiery, therefore, to effect his arrest 
 is evidence of the far-reaching measures which the priests 
 took to suppress an agitation which had grown to 
 become a " public danger." 
 
 There are many rumours in the Gospels as to what 
 happened during and after the crucifixion — some of them 
 
 20S 
 
THE ARREST, TRIAL, AND CRUCIFIXION 209 
 
 obviously untrue, others that have the semblance of truth, 
 and yet others which it seems safe to regard as history. 
 
 We may safely reject as apocryphal the alleged avowal 
 of Jesus to Caiaphas, and later to Pilate, that he was 
 Christ. 
 
 Nor can we credit the story in Luke's Gospel that Jesus 
 lamented his own fate, when on his way to Calvary, in 
 these words : — 
 
 Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves 
 and for your children. . . . For if they do these things in a, green tree, 
 what shall be done in the dry ? 
 
 Nevertheless, some such words might probably have 
 been spoken, but by the daughters of Jerusalem themselves. 
 For " there followed him a great company of people, and 
 of women, which also bewailed and lamented him." 
 
 Special mention is made of " one Simon, a Cyrenian, 
 coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, 
 that he might bear it after Jesus " (Luke xxiii. 26). 
 This seemingly trivial incident is mentioned by three of 
 the evangelists in a peculiar way, to the effect that he 
 happened " to pass by " — accidentally, as it were — and 
 that they " compelled " him to carry the cross to which 
 Jesus was to be nailed. No reason is given why just 
 this man Simon " who passed by " should be singled out 
 and be " compelled " to carry the cross, except the infor- 
 mation supplied by Mark (xv. 21) that he was " the father 
 of Alexander and Rufus." This seems to afford an 
 explanation, and to throw some side-light on the spirit 
 which prevailed among the chief participants of the pro- 
 cession. Alexander and Rufus were probably friends 
 and active disciples of Jesus who fled. The father, anxious 
 about his sons, probably " came out of the country " 
 and passed by outside the palace of Pilate, expecting to 
 see his sons among the followers of Jesus, perhaps even 
 sharing his fate. He was recognized and laid hold of. 
 But not having been guilty himself of any overt support 
 of Jesus, his only crime being that he was father to 
 Alexander and Rufus, two notorious disciples, " they 
 compelled him to carry the cross," as a warning to others, 
 
 14 
 
2ic THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 For the priests now ruled with a heavy hand. Having 
 secured the leader of the movement — the second, in fact, 
 within two years — they were not likely to give anyone 
 a chance to take the place of Jesus, as he had taken that 
 of John. This time they meant to crush this new spirit 
 root and branch, and their henchmen were kept busy for 
 years to come — Saul of Tarsus among the rest. This 
 explains why the few disciples who remained loyal to 
 Jesus and who believed in his teachings had to remain 
 quiet during the persecution of the master. Those whom 
 the priests could lay hold of were cast into prison ; and 
 the others had to hide or flee the country. They were 
 powerless. 
 
 The names of only four contemporary disciples of 
 Jesus have been handed down to us ; that is, if we regard 
 Alexander and Rufus as two of them. The others are 
 Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. None of the 
 " apostles " were contemporaries of Jesus. They were 
 members of a sect which was not formed until after the 
 death of Jesus, and probably not until his " resurrec- 
 tion from the dead " had been noised about. As we 
 have seen, the apostles were respected in Jerusalem 
 and tolerated by the priests ; from which we may infer 
 that although following out in the main the teaching of 
 Jesus, they must have abandoned that part of it which 
 denounced those in power — or what we may call his 
 " republican " doctrines. 
 
 Of Nicodemus we only know that he came to assist 
 Joseph to remove the body of Jesus and to give it reverent 
 burial. " He brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 
 an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body 
 of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, 
 as the manner of the Jews is to bury/' 
 
 Of Joseph we must make special and honourable men- 
 tion. Of all the people mentioned in the Gospels, excepting 
 only Jesus himself, to him must be given a place of honour. 
 He comes next to the master whom he loved so well, for 
 whom he risked his life even when his doing so could no 
 longer be of help to Jesus. 
 
 This Joseph, tf a rich man of Arimathea/' was "an 
 
THE ARREST, TRIAL, AND CRUCIFIXION 211 
 
 honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom 
 of God." " The same had not consented to the counsel 
 and deed of them " who condemned Jesus. That is, he 
 not only avowed himself as a sympathizer, but spoke and 
 voted against the angry priests, and thereby drew upon 
 himself their hatred. 1 This same Joseph " went in boldly 
 unto Pilate/' according to Mark, or " secretly for fear of 
 the Jews," according to John, and "besought Pilate that 
 he might take away the body of Jesus." " And he bought 
 fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the 
 linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn 
 out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the 
 sepulchre." 
 
 Let us remember one other thing about this same 
 Joseph of Arimathea — and that all the more because none 
 of the evangelists have taken any notice of the fact — 
 and that is, that his name is never mentioned until after 
 the arrest of Jesus. He appears on the scene only after 
 " all his disciples forsook him and fled." When the 
 priests planned the destruction of Jesus, Joseph " did 
 not consent to the counsel and deed of them," and when 
 Jesus was dead, and it was a capital offence to be a friend 
 of his, Joseph went boldly to Pilate 3 and craved his 
 body. 
 
 Joseph was the type of the true disciple, and it is to 
 him and others like him — and not to the evangelists — 
 that we must consider ourselves indebted in the first 
 place for the preservation of the few fragments of the 
 history and gospel of Jesus that have come down to us. 
 Joseph is also the type of man whom Paul helped to 
 persecute and drag before the priests. 
 
 All the Gospels agree that Joseph of Arimathea took 
 charge of the body of Jesus and buried it in a tomb near 
 by according to Jewish custom. But there are many 
 rumours as to what became of the body subsequently. 
 However, we need not speculate as to that ; for whatever 
 
 1 There are rumours in the Apocrypha that Joseph was imprisoned 
 but that he succeeded in escaping. 
 
 2 Bound to have been " boldly," for he could not have taken away 
 the body, embalmed, and buried it without the fact being known. 
 
212 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 was done with the body, we may rest assured of this, 
 that it went the way of all flesh. 
 
 The childish belief that the body came to life again 
 we need not even consider, based as it is on an absurd 
 theory of life, and supported by nothing weightier than 
 a superstitious belief in the potency of Bible prophecies, 
 " which needs must have been fulfilled." But quite apart 
 from these considerations, we may dismiss the story of 
 the resurrection on two much stronger grounds ; firstly, 
 because the dead body could not come to life again ; and 
 secondly, because the spirit could never suffer death. 
 
 The spirit which animated Jesus was no more killed 
 when he was crucified than the heat was destroyed after 
 his body became cold. The one thesis can be proved as 
 positively as the other, and by the same method — with 
 this exception, that the immateriality — and therefore 
 the indestructibility — of " Life " is even more easily 
 demonstrable than that of heat. 
 
 The priests had killed only the body of Jesus. The 
 spirit that inspired him remained ; and though for a 
 time in abeyance, its voice having been drowned by the 
 superstitious pratings of ignorance, it has never been 
 dead nor silent. Just as a Marconi instrument will send 
 forth its invisible and soundless waves, suffusing the 
 atmosphere with information to whomsoever is capable 
 of receiving it, so the message of Jesus has filled the 
 air all these centuries, but was received only by few ; 
 and these for the most part have been martyred in con- 
 sequence. " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the 
 prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, 
 bow often would I have gathered thy children together, 
 even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, 
 and ye would not." 
 
 Though the tongue that uttered these words has 
 been silenced, the spirit that inspired them is speaking 
 still, is present everywhere around us, has been loudly 
 knocking at the portals of cathedrals, churches, and 
 chapels all these centuries, is doing so at the present day 
 louder than ever, but the chantings inside drown the 
 voice. 
 
THE ARREST, TRIAL, AND CRUCIFIXION 213 
 
 " Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts ! " chant priest 
 and congregation to the strains of the organ, with doors 
 shut and with wool in their ears, so as not to be disturbed 
 in their devotion by the sighs and groans of suffering 
 humanity. 
 
 " Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall 
 enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will 
 of my Father which is in heaven,' 1 is the unheeded response 
 of the spirit. 
 
 " We praise thee, O Lord." 
 
 The voice answers : " It is not the will of your Father 
 which is in heaven that one of these little ones shall perish." 
 
 " We serve thee, O Lord Christ, and thee only," exclaims 
 the priest, and the voice replies : " Inasmuch as ye did 
 it not to one of the least of these brethren of mine, ye did 
 it not unto me." 
 
 " Glory be to the Lord," they all chant again, and 
 remonstratingly the voice replies : " Why call ye me 
 Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say ? " 
 
 The sermon begins. " God is a jealous God, who will 
 avenge himself on his enemies." " I have not come to 
 destroy men's lives, but to save them," is the reply. 
 
 " Your rewards will be in the world to come," explains 
 the priest ; but again the voice remonstrates : " God is 
 not a God of the dead, but of the living. Ye do 
 greatly err." 
 
 " Those only can be saved who believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ." Answer : " Whosoever receiveth this 
 child in my name receiveth me." 
 
 " Unless a child is baptized, it cannot enter the kingdom 
 of God," blasphemes the priest ; and, warningly this time, 
 the voice replies : " Take heed that ye despise not one 
 of these little ones." " It were better for him that a 
 millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into 
 the sea, than that he should offend one of these little 
 ones." 
 
 But in vain. Priest and congregation do not hear. 
 
 " Let us pray," comes from the pulpit, and priest and 
 people shut their eyes — being now blind as well as deaf. 
 A sad, plaintive wail sweeps over the bent heads : " Be 
 
2i4 THE HISTORY OF JESUS 
 
 not as the hypocrites are, who love to pray standing in 
 the synagogue and in the corners of the streets, that 
 they may be seen of men . . . and use not vain repeti- 
 tions as the heathen do ; for they think that they shall 
 be heard for their much speaking." " Verily I say unto 
 you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God 
 as a little child [i.e. without guile or hypocrisy] shall in 
 nowise enter therein/' 
 
 Sunday after Sunday Jesus is called by most endear- 
 ing names, but the voice of his spirit is not heard. " Why 
 do you not understand my speech ? " Even because ye 
 cannot hear my word," is the distressing comment of the 
 voice on its own question. 
 
 A few of those furthest away from the altar and nearest 
 to the door have at last caught the sound and are trying 
 to understand the message. Let us join them, and listen 
 to the voice that for so long has been crying in the 
 wilderness. 
 
PART II 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 The earlier chapters of this second part were written 
 before the outbreak of the present war ; the later 
 chapters during the war, but before the death of Francis 
 Joseph of Austria. 
 
CHAPTER XXV 
 
 THE PLACE OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because thou hast 
 hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto 
 babes. — Matt. xi. 25. 
 
 The philosophy of Jesus could not be better summarized 
 than it has been by the Teacher himself in the sentence 
 " Love thy neighbour as thyself/' To him this was the 
 greatest of all commandments, and he made it the pivot 
 of all his teachings. 
 
 It has often been objected that the Golden Rule was 
 not original to Jesus. That undoubtedly is so. The 
 same idea has been expressed before and also since his 
 time by many thinkers independently of each other. 
 This only goes to show that it is based on the common 
 experience of mankind. In point of fact, that experience 
 — as will be explained in the next chapter — reaches back 
 into the remotest past, antedating the emergence of man 
 from his primitive beginnings. On it is based the Moral 
 Law, and it is the foundation of organized society. 
 
 Were it otherwise ; were this " Rule " merely a figment 
 of the imagination, begotten of the conceit of man — such 
 as are the postulates on which philosophers have built up 
 their elaborate systems — it would not be worth a moment's 
 consideration. We need not waste time, therefore, to 
 inquire whether this or that precept of Jesus was original 
 to him or not ; but only whether it is a correct deduction 
 from the actualities of life ; in other words, a " principle " 
 or " law " of Nature — or, as Jesus would have phrased 
 it, whether it is " the will of God." If it is, it could not 
 be new ; and if it is not, it is not worth discussing the 
 
 matter at all. 
 
 217 
 
218 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 If the principles underlying the precepts of Jesus are 
 real and true, mankind must have been actuated by them 
 from immemorial times ; just as the principle of gravita- 
 tion was applied long before Sir Isaac Newton for- 
 mulated his theory. Science (or philosophy, which in its 
 true sense is only another name for science) can do no 
 more than teach man how to discover the " principles 
 of nature " (or " laws of God ") and how to apply them. 
 Man can neither invent nor suppress a " law." 
 
 To make ancient authors intelligible it is necessary to 
 translate such of their words and phrases as have become 
 obsolete, or which in course of time have acquired totally 
 different meanings, into their modern equivalents. In the 
 case of Jesus, not only has this necessary precaution been 
 omitted, but meanings have been imported into his words 
 which he could never have intended, and which in many 
 instances could not be justified on any theory except 
 that doctrines, about which he knew nothing, required 
 it so. 
 
 Take, by way of example, the sentence " The son can 
 do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." 1 
 Translated into modern thought and imagery, it means 
 that " Man can do nothing of himself, but only what he 
 learns from Nature " — the truth of which, of course, 
 cannot be disputed. Or take this passage : " For the 
 Father loveth the son, and showeth him all the things 
 that himself doeth : and he will show him greater things 
 than these, that ye may marvel." 3 
 
 As interpreted by " divines," these quotations are 
 either meaningless or utter nonsense ; for Jesus is by them 
 represented as the natural offspring of God who astonishes 
 a gaping crowd by performing childish miracles, and 
 alleges that he has been taught these things by his clever 
 father, who will teach him yet other and greater tricks. 
 
 But if we read the same passage with an unbiased 
 mind, as we would read the works of other ancient authors 
 — say those of Homer or of Roger Bacon — making due 
 allowance for difference of concepts, of imagery, and of 
 terminology, we shall discover in these words truth and 
 
 1 John v. 19. 2 Ibid, v, 20 t 
 
PLACE OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 219 
 
 wisdom expressed in telling metaphor beside which our 
 modern way of stating the same truths appears poor and 
 colourless, without being any the less " anthropomorphic." 
 For surely, to say that " man has learnt all he knows 
 from Nature " (sometimes described as " Dame Nature ") 
 is no less an anthropomorphic conception than to say that 
 " he has been shown it by the Father/' 
 
 To the reader who has perused the previous chapters 
 it should not be necessary to point out that '* son " or 
 " son of man," when used by Jesus himself, had reference 
 to " mankind " generally, and not exclusively to himself. 
 " Son of man " is a literal translation of the Hebrew " ben 
 Adam," which may be rendered as " son of Adam " or 
 " son of man " ; Adam, in Hebrew, being used generically 
 for " man " as well as for the proper name of the " first " 
 man. It is only another instance of how ignorance has 
 read meanings into words or phrases which did not belong 
 to them. 
 
 By the way, there is a prophecy as well as a promise 
 in the sentence " He will show him greater works than 
 these, that ye may marvel. ' ' But unlike most Bible 
 prophecies, this one has literally come true ; for the more 
 " the son doeth the things which he sees the Father do," 
 the greater are the marvels which he is shown. We need 
 only transcribe the passage into modern English to see 
 the truth of the statement, and the encouragement it 
 contains to study the workings of nature. 
 
 Jesus cannot be interpreted by the same method as 
 Paul. The two philosophies are not only unlike each 
 other, but belong to different categories of thought. 
 
 Every one of the multitudinous systems of philosophy 
 may be grouped under one or other of two distinct and 
 well definable categories. One of these will embrace all 
 knowledge derived from observation (" Things which the 
 son hath seen the Father doeth himself ") \ and the 
 other the logical deductions from arbitrarily assumed 
 " axioms " or " postulates." The one is based on em- 
 piricism, which, when pursued methodically, becomes 
 science ; the other on doctrines and dialectics. The 
 former category constitutes what is known as " natural 
 
22o THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 philosophy " or " science " ; the latter embraces the vast 
 mass of worthless and useless erudition known as " meta- 
 physics.' ' The teachings of Jesus are of the former 
 category, and those of Paul of the latter. Jesus was 
 essentially a student of nature, and his utterances must 
 be judged from a strictly rational point of view. Then 
 only does it become intelligible what he meant when he 
 said, according to Matthew (v. 18), " Verily, I say unto 
 you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in 
 no wise pass from the law " ; or according to Luke, " It 
 is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for 
 one tittle of the law to fail." 
 
 It has taken mankind many centuries to rediscover 
 these truths : for indeed it is easier to conceive of heaven 
 and earth passing away than of, say, the " law " of 
 gravitation failing. 
 
 The same unshaken belief in a world ruled by eternal 
 and immutable laws becomes apparent — almost obvious — 
 in all his utterances so soon as they are stripped of the 
 mysticism with which theology has enveloped them. As, 
 for instance : " Which of you by taking thought can add 
 one cubit to his stature ? " " A sparrow shall not fall 
 on the ground without your Father " (or, in current 
 language, without an ''adequate cause"). " The very 
 hairs on your head are all numbered." " Thou canst 
 not make one hair black or white." " Do men gather 
 grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ? " " Even so every 
 good tree bringeth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree 
 bringeth forth evil fruit." 
 
 Or, again, " When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair 
 weather : for the sky is red ; and in the morning, It will 
 be foul weather to-day : for the sky is red and lowering. 
 O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but 
 can ye not discern the signs of the times ? " 
 
 All these illustrations are taken from nature and are 
 a clear indication from whence Jesus took* his lessons in 
 philosophy. 
 
 But this is a lesson which it is still necessary to insist 
 on ; for though at last the " reign of law " is recognized 
 in physical phenomena,, and tardily admitted also in many 
 
PLACE OP THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 221 
 
 branches of biology, it is still doubted whether there is 
 any natural foundation for morals — using this term in its 
 widest sense. 
 
 Now, the merit of Jesus lies in the fact that he recog- 
 nized nineteen centuries ago what to most people is 
 still a matter of doubt — that there is a natural founda- 
 tion for human conduct— or morals — and he laid down 
 a number of rules or precepts based on that foundation. 
 If mankind is still floundering in the endeavour to solve 
 the many problems of life, it is not because a complete 
 philosophy of life has not been preached, but because 
 that philosophy has not been understood, and is not 
 understood to-day. 
 
 Every religious system has for its object to prescribe 
 " correct conduct," be it towards a deity, a fetich, one's 
 tribe or country, or towards one's fellow-men generally. 
 Every religion, therefore, is intimately related to and 
 dependent on conceptions of life and existence ; or, in 
 general terms, on the " aspects of nature." 
 
 The religion of Jesus is no exception. It consists of 
 precepts for right conduct, based on his view of life and 
 existence. These precepts are set forth with sufficient 
 clearness in the Sermon on the Mount and in the Parable 
 of the Last Judgment. But to understand their full 
 meaning and importance it is necessary to have a clear 
 understanding of the problems to which they relate. 
 Then only shall we be able to form a correct estimate of 
 the value of these precepts, and whether they really are 
 so impracticable as is commonly believed. For their 
 high moral tone nobody questions, nor does anybody 
 doubt that if mankind would or could follow out their 
 dictates all social ills, or man-created evils, would become 
 a thing of the past. 
 
 I propose, therefore, to discuss first some of the funda- 
 mental problems of religious philosophy, with a view to 
 clearing away much of the dialectical garbage with which 
 this subject, more than any other, is corrupted and ob- 
 scured, and then only to analyse in greater detail the 
 philosophy of Jesus and the precepts deduced therefrom. 
 
CHAPTER XXVI 
 
 THE EVOLUTION OF MORALS 
 Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. — Jesus. 
 
 The question has often been asked, If not from God by 
 direct revelation, whence has man got his morals ? 
 Whence his sense of right and wrong ? His ideas of 
 justice, of " fair play/' of respect for the rights of his 
 neighbours ? 
 
 It certainly does not seem " natural " to man, as are 
 for instance breathing, feeding, or even self-defence. 
 Morals have to be taught to each succeeding generation, 
 just as is the case with speaking, writing, reading, or 
 any of the acquired arts. Even among highly cultured 
 peoples there is mistrust, fear, envy, and, only too often, 
 open hostility. 
 
 If we retrace our steps so as to take a rapid bird's-eye 
 view of " the march of civilization " — as this process of 
 social evolution is appropriately called — the further back 
 we get to primitive man, the less can we find of those 
 qualities which constitute the morals of mankind. And 
 if we pursue this tracing backwards far enough, we reach 
 a stage in the evolution of man void of any trace of 
 justice, fair play, or anything which might be described 
 as human sentiments. Indeed, at this stage primordial 
 man is morally undistinguishable from the brute. 
 
 Let us consider two such creatures, or their families, 
 at enmity with each other, as doubtless they often must 
 have been. (We would not have to go back quite so far 
 to find people living in stockaded villages in fear of each 
 other.) In that case it is difficult to conceive of an}' 
 thought or act on the part of either which would not 
 
THE EVOLUTION OF MORALS 223 
 
 tend only to embitter them still further against each other. 
 It is quite unthinkable that such brutes should be capable 
 of doing, or of thinking even, of something which would 
 be likely to mollify an enemy, still less of converting 
 him into a friendly neighbour. 
 
 Yet that is what has happened and is happening to- 
 day ; for the process is still going on. In the midst of 
 feverish armaments and the clang of weapons z the 
 " entente " is born ; rival nations who are taught to 
 regard each other as a menace are seeking to fraternize — 
 and some members of these peoples are even dreaming 
 of " the federation of the world " and the " parliament 
 of man/' when all distinctions of race or creed shall have 
 given way to a universal brotherhood. 
 
 It is no explanation to say that this is due to " civili- 
 zation." What is called by this name is a result and not 
 a cause of the process we are contemplating. Like religion 
 (by which I mean codified rules of conduct), " civilization " 
 may become a powerful factor once it has become an 
 institution. But it had to be established first, before 
 there was a human teacher to teach it. How did it come 
 about ? What is it which has turned the selfish, savage 
 brute into a civilized, moral being ? Who or What has 
 taught him to know right from wrong ; to wax indignant 
 on hearing that someone he does not even know has been 
 harshly dealt with; to talk of "injustice" even when 
 such an act had been committed by a properly constituted 
 judge in accordance with the laws of the land, as some- 
 times is the case ? 
 
 John Stuart Mill said of logic that " mankind judged 
 of evidence, and often correctly, before there was a science 
 of logic, or they never could have made it one." The 
 same must be true of morals. Mankind must have been 
 guided by moral considerations long before there was a 
 moral code. They must have disapproved of murder 
 before it could have been enacted " Thou shalt not kill " ; 
 and they must have considered it wrong to ill-treat a 
 stranger before hospitality was recognized as a virtue. 
 How has man learnt these lessons ? 
 
 1 These lines were written before the outbreak of war in 1914. 
 
224 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 The answer is, In the same way as he has learnt whatever 
 else of useful knowledge he has acquired — by necessity, in 
 the school of experience. 
 
 Man had to learn what to do and what to avoid from 
 the earliest beginning of his existence — or perish. The 
 history of his evolution consists in an unbroken series of 
 adaptations to conditions. 
 
 By sheer experience, forced upon him rather than self- 
 sought, man has learnt how certain conditions advantaged 
 him, while others caused him discomfort. These first 
 lessons — which are learnt unconsciously long before the 
 dawn of reason — necessarily relate to the immediate and 
 material wants only of the creature, and are learnt by 
 the lower animals as well as by man. Indeed, some ani- 
 mals exhibit a high degree of intelligence and forethought, 
 making provision for the future — be it in providing 
 shelter against weather or possible enemies or in laying 
 in stores of food. Man himself has often pointed to bees 
 and ants as examples of industry and thrift. 
 
 The same necessity which has taught these insects 
 their economies and their arts has also taught man to 
 build houses, to till the ground, to make tools, to delve, 
 spin, plot, and contrive his many arts and sciences. 
 
 And in the same school — experience — and from the 
 same teacher — necessity — has he learnt his morals, in 
 the manner which I will briefly indicate. 
 
 No matter what man undertakes, he can prosper only 
 in proportion as the conditions are in his favour or against 
 him. At first it is the physical conditions, the material 
 wants, the comforts of self only — that is, the needs and 
 the greed of the brute — that engage his attention. Next 
 come considerations of safety and provision for the future, 
 which force on him the first social obligation. For he is 
 bound to discover, not only that it is to the interest of 
 his comfort and well-being, but an essential condition of 
 his very existence, that his immediate neighbours should 
 not be hostile to him. But this he can secure in one 
 way only, and that is by not being an aggressor himself. 
 It is from sheer necessity at first, and not from any 
 innate sentiment, that primitive man has learnt to live at 
 
THE EVOLUTION OF MORALS 225 
 
 peace with his immediate neighbours, and to respect the 
 life and property of others. He had to learn this lesson, 
 for the penalty was death and extinction. 1 
 
 If, out of jealousy or vindictiveness, he should destroy 
 his neighbour's shelter, he would in all probability risk 
 having his own shelter destroyed. He would not dare do 
 that even to a much weaker neighbour. For if he thus 
 became a menace to the weak, the latter would even- 
 tually combine against him for mutual protection. 
 
 In this wise has man learnt what to do and what to 
 avoid, whether in respect of physical conditions, social 
 obligations, or moral conduct. He had to learn that it 
 is wrong to murder, to steal, to destroy his neighbour's 
 hut, to move his landmarks, or to do to his neighbour 
 anything which he would resent himself. A usage is thus 
 established which becomes a habit, and in time is crystal- 
 lized into some such maxim as "Do unto others as you 
 would that others should do unto you," and later still 
 into " Love thy neighbour as thyself." The sentiment 
 comes last of all, only after what at first was a necessity 
 has become an established social habit, and later still a 
 social law. 
 
 Thus from necessity, by the slow process of adaptation 
 to conditions (unconsciously at first, and later consciously 
 by the application of the experiences of the past), has man 
 learnt his arts, his sciences, his morals, his likes and dis- 
 likes, his sentiments, his love, his poetry, his all. 
 
 This shatters the belief in the childish legend of the 
 burning bush, and of Moses receiving " two tables of 
 stone written with the finger of God." But instead of 
 these alleged " tables of testimony " we may behold the 
 actual process of " the writing of the law by the finger 
 of God " ; not, however, on tables of stone, but in the 
 hearts and souls of mankind, in the temple of living, 
 throbbing, creative nature, so that " he who has 
 eyes may see " and need no longer be groping in the 
 dark. 
 
 1 These first beginnings of respect for the life of " neighbours " are 
 discernible already among animals, even among the carnivora. They do 
 not menace each other, however famished they may be. 
 
 is 
 
226 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 It is not to human wisdom that we are indebted for 
 what there is of organized society or comity between 
 nations. That wonderful social organization, so intri- 
 cately complex, which combines the various peoples of 
 the world, in spite of themselves, into an interdependence 
 scarcely less wonderful than is the organism of our body, 
 has not been conceived by human brain, nor called into 
 being by human skill. It grew and developed as did our 
 bodies, not by help of man, but often against his wishes 
 and strivings. The two great institutions of State and 
 Church, which affect to be responsible for the existence 
 of organized society, are themselves the product of those 
 invisible powers which they are opposing ; and com- 
 munities have to learn the " law of life " in the same 
 way as individuals. And in the same way communities 
 are floundering in the dark, often doing things which are 
 opposed to their true destiny, paying the penalty for 
 each error until they discover the right way. 
 
 State and Church have done all they could — are doing 
 so to-day — to keep the peoples apart, separated by racial, 
 political, " religious/' social, and commercial prejudices. 
 What are called " the ethics of Jesus " have no share at 
 all in the deliberate acts of society ; for if at any other 
 time than on Sundays they are mentioned at all, it is in 
 derision only at their " utter impracticability/' 
 
 And yet — greatest of all mysteries ! — mankind has been 
 influenced and educated by the very principle (" Do unto 
 others as you would that others should do unto you ") 
 which their philosophy condemns. Just as children are 
 made to do things the purport of which they neither 
 know nor suspect, so mankind are doing things which 
 they neither desire to do nor are conscious of doing. 
 Whilst denying any directing force outside of their own 
 will, they are unwittingly obeying a higher power, and are 
 being guided by a wisdom greater than their own. 
 
 What is it which, against their wishes or intentions, 
 turns unreasoning brutes into rational creatures ; savages 
 into civilized people ; enemies into friendly neighbours ; 
 and — to crown all — can gather into an " International 
 Conference of Social Service " a heterogeneous crowd of 
 
THE EVOLUTION OF MORALS 22; 
 
 persons whose very creeds require that they should hate, 
 despise, and persecute each other ? 
 
 Reason as we may, there is a power, a principle, a 
 tendency, a something — call it what you like and conceive 
 it as what you can or may — which impels us in a certain 
 direction, without our knowledge or consent, and mostly 
 against our will. 
 
 We plot and scheme and contrive ; yet it is not our 
 wishes or our own counsels which guide our steps. Like 
 children watched over by their nurse, we follow along a 
 path which has been selected for us, and within the 
 limited confines of which alone we are permitted to in- 
 dulge in whatever pranks, whims, or frivolities we please. 
 We forget the nurse, fail to realize the barriers which 
 prevent our straying too far, and are fond of believing 
 that the road along which we are gambolling is of our 
 own choosing, and that it will lead us to a place pictured 
 by our fanciful imagination. But it is all self-deception, 
 nevertheless ; for all the time we are unconsciously obey- 
 ing a power which we can neither control nor resist. 
 
 Willingly I follow. If against my will, 
 A baffled rebel, I follow still. 
 
 All the human desires, forces, and agencies tend in one 
 direction ; whereas our destiny seems to lie in another. 
 And we must reach our destiny or perish. Our only 
 choice is to live or die. 
 
 Is it fatalism, then ? the reader will probably ask. 
 Not so. At least, no more so than it is " fatalism " in 
 the physical arts to know what we must do if we would 
 succeed. The " law " and the conditions remain the same, 
 whatever may be our aspect of life. " The son can do 
 nothing of himself, but what he sees the father do/ 1 He must 
 watch " the Father " (or " Dame Nature," if preferred) 
 and learn how or what to do so that he may prosper. 
 
 Our Teacher has a peculiar method of teaching — not 
 mankind only, but the whole of organic nature. The 
 fiat is, " This do and thou shalt live ; or disobey at your 
 peril/' And there is no escape from this decree. In the 
 words of Jesus, we must "fulfil" (i.e. obey) the law, 
 or pay the penalty " to the uttermost farthing." 
 
CHAPTER XXVII 
 
 " GOD " OR " NATURE " ? 
 
 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness 
 of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or 
 that is in the water under the earth. — Exod. xx. 4. 
 
 Much as has been said and written on the subject of 
 " Godhood," the whole controversy may be resolved into 
 a matter of convenient conception and terminology. As 
 to the facts, there is no room for doubt or difference of 
 opinion. Nobody can- — nobody does — deny the existence 
 of some occult principle, force, or power in or behind the 
 world of phenomena, least of all the student of science, 
 be he " theist " or "atheist/' Science is based on the 
 reality of that nameless, incomprehensible, elusive " some- 
 thing." 
 
 On the other hand, even the most doctrinaire theo- 
 logian acknowledges — in deeds, if not in words — the 
 "reign of law" ; for although he claims for his deity 
 the power — if so minded — to change the course of nature 
 at will, he really does not expect anything of the kind 
 to happen. The fact that he describes the alleged ab- 
 normal events fabled of in the legends of his faith as 
 " supernatural " and " miraculous " shows that, whatever 
 his theories may be, in practice he recognizes an established 
 order in the universe. 
 
 Whilst, therefore, people may dispute about the " attri- 
 butes " of their tribal gods, there can be no doubt about 
 a primum mobile, or a governing principle in the universe. 
 The only room there is for difference of opinion is con- 
 cerning conception and terminology. These, in any case, 
 
 must be arbitrary ; for of that which we cannot com- 
 
 228 
 
"GOD" OR "MATURE"? 229 
 
 prehend we can form no image. We may think of a 
 " Father which is in heaven," as did Jesus, and substitute, 
 when so required, the masculine pronoun ; or speak of 
 " Nature " and use the feminine pronoun ; whilst those 
 who object to such " gross anthropomorphism " may sub- 
 stitute" " cosmic spirit," "principle," "law," or "logos," 
 and use the impersonal "it." In none of these cases will 
 it be possible to avoid " anthropomorphism " or human 
 imagery. 
 
 We cannot comprehend " God." Hence, no doubt, the 
 injunction printed at the head of this chapter. Hence 
 also — I surmise — the supposed dread to pronounce the 
 name of the deity, which in all probability arose out of 
 the fact that the sages who pondered the subject could 
 think of none. Mankind has not yet succeeded any 
 better, despite our sometimes fanciful scientific ter- 
 minology. 
 
 This, however, is far from being a denial of " God." 
 It merely is a frank recognition of our ignorance, and a 
 warning that the word " God " is merely a symbol, as 
 are such words as " gravitation," " electricity," " mag- 
 netism," etc., which in physics denote the unknown prin- 
 ciple which governs particular groups of phenomena . 
 Like the x in algebra, so " God " stands for something 
 about the reality of which there can be no doubt, but 
 about the nature of which, or its modus operandi, we 
 know nothing. 
 
 Human imagery cannot go beyond the experience of 
 the senses ; hence the impossibility of devising a 
 terminology for the occult forces which shall be free 
 from empiricism or anthropomorphism. But though 
 we cannot form a correct conception of that which 
 is incomprehensible, we should at least avoid such 
 as are incompatible with what is deducible from the 
 phenomena. 
 
 At present two theories hold the field, neither of which 
 is compatible with the phenomena. The one is that of 
 a moody, capricious being conceived in the image of 
 man; and the other that of "blind forces." We shall 
 have to reject both these theories as equally untenable. 
 
230 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 The one is as far from the truth as the other, and both 
 are equally misleading and mischievous in their influence 
 on human thought and action. 
 
 He who can think of " blind forces of nature " can have 
 but a superficial acquaintance with the wonderful facts 
 revealed by science. No adjective could be less appro- 
 priate ; for it is impossible to think of anything which 
 is more sure or more precise than these so-called " forces." 
 They are ever present, ever alert, ever ready to act, 
 never failing, never erring, always " mathematically 
 exact" in their results, whatever maybe the conditions. 
 In fact, they are " omnipresent " and " omniscient." 
 Were it not so, science would be impossible. 
 
 That these "forces" are called "blind" is only the 
 wish or intention of man. It is not the " forces " which 
 are blind, but the philosopher who can think so ; who — 
 oblivious to the fact that he himself is the product 
 of these " forces " — is yet unable to conceive of " pur- 
 posefulness ' ' apart from human volition and human 
 agencies, and who makes man the source and standard 
 of all that is understood by such words as " moral " 
 or "intellectual." 
 
 It is an aspect of nature conceived from an anthropo- 
 centric point of view, suggested by subjective inspira- 
 tions rather than deduced from the phenomena. The 
 aphorism " Not all are free who laugh at their fetters" 
 is especially applicable to a certain class of philosophers 
 who, whilst mocking at the superstitions of others, are 
 themselves the victims of false mental concepts. Few 
 people only are capable of emancipating the mind from 
 the tyranny of ideas suggested by the senses ; or can 
 contemplate nature in the abstract, and from a purely 
 objective standpoint. Fewer are they who have made 
 the attempt and have realized the great truth that 
 these occult so-called " forces of nature " are not of 
 God, but are God. 
 
 One would scarcely think to look in the Gospels for so 
 enlightened a view. Yet, by a curious combination of 
 paradoxical circumstances, it is there — or rather in one 
 of them — where the student will find the most abstruse 
 
"GOD" OR "NATURE"? 231 
 
 problem which has ever vexed the human mind — the 
 mystery of the origin of all things — stated in language 
 as concise and as near to the point as it is possible for 
 mortal man to approach, that it is hard to think how it 
 might be improved upon. 
 
 We do not always give to ancient philosophy the con- 
 sideration which it deserves. For one thing, our know- 
 ledge of it is very imperfect. Most of it has come down 
 to us garbled and corrupted, as understood and interpreted 
 by the superstitious vulgar crowd. This is particularly 
 true of the philosophy of Jesus. For the most part, his 
 actual words have been lost to mankind. But even those 
 few fragments of his teachings which have (almost miracu- 
 lously) escaped destruction have not come down to us 
 in their original language or with their original meanings. 
 Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic ; the Gospels are in 
 Greek ; and the English translation has been dominated 
 by considerations of "faith." 
 
 But even where the translation is literal, the meanings 
 of some words have changed, so that their modern con- 
 notations no longer express what at one time they did. 
 I have already given several illustrations of such per- 
 versions. The opening verses of the Gospel of " John" 
 will supply yet another striking example. 
 
 The passage, as rendered in the A.V., is as follows : 
 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
 with God, and the Word was God. The same was 
 in the beginning with God. All things were made by 
 him, and without him was not anything made that was 
 made." 
 
 The translation is far from being unassailable. To 
 begin with, " logos " has been rendered by " Word " ; 
 and as this makes the passage devoid of meaning, " Word " 
 has been interpreted to mean " Christ." 
 
 The word "logos" in the N.T. has been translated 
 into English in more than twenty different ways, with 
 meanings so far apart as " Christ " in the passage just 
 quoted, to such colourless phrase- words as " thing," 
 "rumour," "tidings," "utterance," etc. This in itself 
 is sufficient to show that the translators did not [or would 
 
232 THE PHILOSOPHY Of JESLfS 
 
 not] apprehend the sense in which this word was used 
 by the author of these verses. 
 
 " Logos " was used to express abstract ideas relative 
 to thought or intellectuality and always connoted order, 
 system, or method, as, for instance, in such words as 
 "theme," "essay," "idea," "principle," or any ordered 
 statement of a rational thought. It is in such a sense that 
 the word has found its way into the English language 
 (e.g. in " logic," " geology," " pathology," etc.) ; and it 
 is in such a sense that it was employed by Jesus, as when 
 he says in his exhortations, "Whosoever heareth these 
 ' logons toutous ' " (mistranslated as " sayings of mine ") 
 "and doeth them . . ." etc. 
 
 Jesus clearly must have referred to what in modern 
 language are called " laws " or " principles " of nature. 
 This not only appears so from the context, but is made 
 obvious by the fact that he interchanges the word " logos " 
 with " entole " (commandment) and " nomos" (" law "). 
 Thus, for instance, in Matt. xv. 3 we read, " Why do 
 ye also transgress the commandment ('entole') of God " ; 
 and in verse 5 : " Thus have you made the commandment 
 ('logos') of God of none effect." Compare also, "For 
 verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass [i.e. 
 while the universe remains] one jot or title shall in no 
 wise pass from the law (' nomon ') till all be fulfilled." 
 Or, again, "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass 
 away, than for one tittle of the law ('nomon') to fail." 
 
 If still further proof were needed as to what Jesus 
 referred to by " logous," it can be found in the fact that 
 he emphasizes that these "logous" were eternal and 
 immutable, and could not be disregarded without incurring 
 inevitable consequences. No rational man could make 
 such claims for " sayings of his." The context forbids 
 such rendering. 
 
 After this lengthy but necessary digression, let us return 
 to the opening passage in John, and consider what its 
 author may have intended to convey by it. 
 
 It evidently relates to the origin of things — including 
 the origin of God. " Who made the world ? " is a question 
 which must be as old as the thinking faculties of man- 
 
"GOD" OR "NATURE"? 233 
 
 kind. The common answer is " God." But this really 
 is no answer at all, but a mere evasion ; it only shifts 
 the problem a little further back. Automatically and 
 involuntarily the next question forces itself on the mind, 
 even though we dare not lend it a tongue, " And who 
 made God ? " 
 
 The passage in John does not give answers to these 
 questions, for there are none. But it certainly says all 
 that man can know or say on the subject. This will 
 become clear if we give to logos the meaning which belongs 
 to it, and amend the English translation accordingly. 
 The verses would then read somewhat as follows : — 
 
 " In the beginning there was the logos, and the logos 
 was with God, and (in fact) the logos was God. The 
 same (autos) is true of God also. All things originated 
 out of the same (auton) and without (or apart from) the 
 same (auton) not anything which exists was created. In 
 the same [i.e. in f logos '] was life, and that life was the 
 light of mankind. And the light shone in the darkness ; 1 
 and the darkness comprehended it not/' * 
 
 Paraphrased still further, " The law or principle is the 
 origin of all things, including the origin of God, for the 
 law was God. And this law, ever active and creative, is 
 the light which leadeth mankind, although they in their 
 ignorance [or * darkness '] know it not/' 
 
 It is the most concise general statement of what can 
 be said on the subject. Let the reader substitute for 
 logos, " unknown cause," " creative power," " active 
 principle," "energy," "law," "God," "nature," or any 
 other such abstraction which he may prefer, or which 
 appeals to his mind, and the statement will correctly 
 express his own cosmology, whatever it may happen 
 to be. 
 
 That " John " could not have been the author of the 
 passage needs hardly to be argued, for he did not under- 
 
 1 As it is doing still. 
 
 3 Note that the pronoun which has been rendered in verse 2 by the 
 impersonal " the same " and in verse 3 by the personal " him " is in 
 the Greek the same word, and that the context here does not justify the 
 use of the latter. 
 
234 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS - 
 
 stand its meaning. But it is forcibly reminiscent of the 
 concise and convincing style of the Sage of Nazareth. 1 
 It is an intelligible and a rational cosmology, for it 
 postulates that only which is manifest : eternal, immutable 
 principles or " logous," which we can behold at work as 
 he did, and so are able to verify both his observations 
 and his deductions. 
 
 1 I do not suggest, however, that Jesus was the originator of the con- 
 ception. In ancient Greek philosophy the " logos " as the principle 
 behind the phenomena was well understood. 
 
CHAPTER XXVIII 
 
 DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF NATURE 
 
 Raise the stone, and there thou shalt find me ; cleave the log, and 
 there am I. — New Sayings of Jesus. 
 
 I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. — John xiv. 20. 
 
 Wie sich Alles zum Ganzen webt ; 
 Eins ins Andre wirkt und lebt ; 
 Himmelskrafte auf und nieder steigen, 
 Und sich die goldenen Eimer reichen. 
 
 Goethe. 
 
 The philosophy of Jesus differs from modern science in 
 conception, in imagery, and in terminology ; but not in 
 principle. The basis of both is the unconditional accept- 
 ance of an order in nature, attributed by modern science 
 to the " law of causation/' and by Jesus to " the will 
 of the Father which is in heaven." Both views are neces- 
 sarily conventional only. The order exists : that is all 
 we know. We do not know why it is so ; nor who or 
 what caused it to be so. We simply give it a name because 
 of the mental necessity. And if we could only remember 
 always that the name is merely a symbol without any 
 signification of its own, it would probably not matter 
 what word or phrase we used for the purpose. That, 
 however, is not the case. Words suggest ideas, and ideas 
 conceptions, which in their turn may lead to conclusions 
 which, but for the name selected, might never have been 
 thought of. 
 
 We need consider only two such systems or aspects of 
 nature : the theistic view of Jesus and the atheistic 
 view of modern science, as they are the only two systems 
 which recognize an ordered Cosmos. With the theological 
 systems which ignore this reign of law, and which assume 
 
 the universe to be presided over by a deity who may be 
 
 235 
 
236 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 induced by incantation, flattery, or bribe to alter the course 
 of nature, we need have no further concern. 
 
 In saying that modern science is atheistic, I must not 
 be understood as saying that every natural philosopher 
 is necessarily an atheist, but merely that his science is 
 atheistic in the sense in which the ancient Greek philo- 
 sophers applied this description to those sciences the 
 theory of which was understood, and could be explained 
 without the interposition of the deity (e.g. mathematics or 
 mechanics), in contradistinction to subjects which could 
 not thus be explained, and which constituted the " divine " 
 sciences. Every science which could be reduced to prin- 
 ciples, rules, and formulae was " divine " no longer but 
 became an " atheistic " science. Astronomy is an example 
 of a science which has thus passed from one category 
 into the other. 
 
 In this sense religion itself, if based on principles de- 
 duced from known phenomena of nature, may be made 
 into an exact science which might then be described as 
 " atheistic " without any contradiction in terms. There 
 is no essential difference, for instance, between the theism 
 of Jesus and the atheism of modern science as far as 
 the study of phenomena is concerned. Each recognizes 
 eternal, immutable " laws " which are the same in their 
 effects, no matter how conceived or how named. Under 
 either view, " The sun shines and the rain descends on 
 the just and unjust alike/' without either frown or favour. 
 
 Yet there is much more involved in all this than mere 
 difference of conception or terminology ; for — as already 
 pointed out — names may suggest ideas, and ideas suggest 
 theories, until a philosophic system is evolved which 
 dominates the thought and actions of those who come 
 under its influence. 
 
 We know nothing of an objective world, and the sub- 
 jective world is essentially what we conceive it to be. 
 It is these subjective imaginings — the pictures mirrored 
 on the mind — whence man derives his philosophy, which 
 then gives direction to thought and actions and moulds 
 human character. 
 
 The conception of a " cruel, callous nature," for in- 
 
DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF NATURE 237 
 
 stance, " ruling with fangs and claws, ever favouring the 
 strong and crushing the weak/' will inspire other thoughts 
 and ideals than the imagery of " a loving Father who 
 is kind even to the unthankful and evil/' There is no 
 need to argue the point, for both views have had their 
 adherents and defenders, and we can point to actual 
 results. 
 
 Out of the former has been evolved the philosophy of 
 might, with the powerful brute — euphemistically called 
 the " superman " — as its ideal ; whilst the latter has 
 inspired the Sermon on the .Mount with its gospel of justice, 
 love, and mercy. 
 
 Nor can there be any doubt as to the different tend- 
 encies of these two schools of philosophy. Each is bound 
 to bring forth fruit after its own kind : the one may 
 produce a Cambyses, a Nero, a Napoleon, or perhaps a 
 Croesus ; and the other a Gautama, a Jesus, a Father 
 Damien, or a Florence Nightingale. 
 
 In trying to form a judgment as between these opposite 
 aspects of nature, let us guard against being misled by 
 two popular errors. One of these is that everything 
 which smacks of " religion " or " theism " is necessarily 
 baseless superstition ; and the other that whatsoever is 
 opposed to manifest superstition is necessarily sound 
 " science." 
 
 As I have already pointed out, a theistic conception of 
 the universe, such as that of Jesus, may be quite as 
 rational as an atheistic one, provided that the conception 
 is symbolic only, and no deductions are made from it. 
 There is nothing more " scientific " about a " cruel, 
 callous nature" than there is about a "kind Father." 
 Illustrations may be found, of course, in support of, as well 
 as in opposition to, either view. But this only proves 
 that neither is a true deduction from the phenomena, 
 but a mental concept only, suggested in each case by the 
 particular aspect of nature which happened to strike the 
 observer's imagination. 
 
 In precisely the same manner have originated the ideas 
 from which have been derived the terms " electricity," 
 "magnetism," "gravitation," etc., all of which are mere 
 
238 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 names or symbols of the unknown causes of the phenomena 
 to which they relate. Thus " electricity " has been 
 derived from "electron/' the Greek word for amber; 
 " magnetism " from a town in Asia where the " load- 
 stone " found; and " gravitation " from the fact that 
 bodies when unsupported fall, or gravitate, to the 
 ground. 
 
 But as Jesus contemplated mankind rather than physical 
 phenomena, it must have been as natural for him to think 
 of a " father " as it was for the philosopher who investi- 
 gated the phenomena of the "• elektron " (i.e. amber) to 
 think of " electricity " as the name for the unknown 
 cause or "law" of the phenomena. 
 
 No valid conclusions can be drawn from conceptions, 
 however derived. We can do so from well-established 
 generalizations only — the so-called "laws"- — derived by 
 observation from the phenomena to which they relate — 
 irrespective of how we conceive the phenomena to have 
 been caused. 
 
 Nevertheless, and notwithstanding repeated warnings by 
 the few more accurate thinkers, the vast majority of even 
 " educated " people have been constantly misled, and not 
 only have regarded a purely symbolical nomenclature as 
 representing entities, but, by giving precise meanings to 
 the terms, by means of definitions, proceeded to deduce 
 from them most fanciful conclusions. 
 
 Hence it has been found necessary in the pursuit of 
 the sciences to revise such general conceptions whenever 
 a closer acquaintance with the phenomena has shown them 
 to conflict with the latter. In such a case, either fresh 
 meanings have been given to the terms that were in 
 common use ; or, where this could not be done without 
 risk of confusion, an entirely new conception had to be 
 substituted for the former one. 
 
 The sciences afford illustrations in plenty of either 
 practice. Such words as " law/' " matter," " force/' 
 "energy," "property," "affinity," etc., have acquired 
 meanings in connection with science quite distinct from 
 their ordinary connotations ; whilst some conceptions had 
 to be abandoned entirely as being no longer compatible 
 
DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF NATURE 239 
 
 with ascertained facts. As examples may be mentioned 
 " spirits/' " phlogiston/' " electric fluids/' the " vis 
 vitse," etc. 
 
 These examples are sufficient to show that the manner 
 of how we conceive the phenomena to have been caused 
 need not interfere with their study or affect the truth 
 of any conclusions deduced from the phenomena. It cannot 
 be contended, for instance, that the work of the early 
 natural philosophers was any the less " scientific," or 
 their investigations any the less valuable, because certain 
 of their views of nature have since been found to be 
 inconsistent with the facts. For in this respect modern 
 science is in no better a position. We still speak of 
 "matter/' of "atoms/' of "elements," of "forms of 
 energy " and many other such hypothetical conceptions, 
 without, however, attaching any definite meaning to these 
 terms, or drawing conclusions from them as if they repre- 
 sented realities in nature. 
 
 The point I am trying to make is this, that the truths 
 of science do not depend on such fundamental conceptions 
 or general aspects of nature, but on the correctness of the 
 generalizations which are deduced directly from the pheno- 
 mena, and which constitute the "principles " or " laws " of 
 the sciences. 
 
 Thus viewed, it becomes clear that our philosophy must 
 be deduced directly from the phenomena ; and our views 
 of nature, or our general conception of it, must be based 
 thereon, and not vice versa. To assume a god, to ascribe 
 to him, her, or it certain attributes, and then deduce from 
 such imaginings a philosophy, is manifestly an inversion 
 of the method which experience teaches to be the only 
 means of obtaining trustworthy information ; i.e. by 
 observation. 
 
 But it is no less serious an error to assume " callous, 
 cruel nature " or " blind forces," and then build thereon 
 a philosophy as if the assumption were a solid fact. The 
 one course is as irrational (or " unscientific," to use a 
 common phrase) as the other. 
 
CHAPTER XXIX 
 
 THE MORAL "LAW" 
 
 There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. — 
 Shakespeare. 
 
 Therefore man is lord of the sabbath also. — Jesus. 
 
 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and the knowledge is pleasant 
 unto thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep 
 thee, to deliver thee from the way of the evil. — Prov. ii. 10-12. 
 
 Morals, as commonly understood, is largely a question 
 of time, place, and circumstances. What is virtue in one 
 place, or in the opinion of some people, may be regarded 
 elsewhere, or by other people, as abomination. Recog- 
 nized criteria which are universally applicable — such, for 
 instance, as the physical sciences afford for guidance in 
 the arts — there are none. Morals, when not a matter of 
 custom, are too often merely a matter of opinion ; and the 
 only guidance we possess so far is public sentiment or 
 the law of the land. 
 
 The question is — and it has often been asked — are there 
 any principles underlying human conduct from which 
 might be deduced a moral " law " ; i.e. a standard or 
 guiding principle by which to judge whether a certain 
 act is " right " or " wrong " ? 
 
 This question we may unhesitatingly answer in the 
 affirmative. If an act can be either " good " or " bad/' 
 " right " or " wrong " — in whatever sense — there must of 
 necessity be an underlying principle or factor which makes 
 it so. The aim of this chapter is to discover this prin- 
 ciple. 
 
 In a former chapter (xxiii) I have endeavoured to 
 trace the origin of morals to necessity — the source of 
 everything which man is, has, or knows. The whole 
 
 24Q 
 
THE MORAL "LAW" 241 
 
 existence of man is a continuous process of adaptation 
 to conditions ; and in this ceaseless struggle for existence 
 he has evolved his form, his constitution, his organism, 
 his habits, his knowledge — in short, all that he is or 
 knows. He had to learn how to do, or how not to do, 
 things so as to ensure his existence. From his earliest 
 beginnings he was groping for an answer to the question 
 " What must I do to live ? " It is the question of ques- 
 tions ; and every one of the multitudinous problems 
 which mankind are seeking to solve are but so many 
 subordinated details of this all-embracing supreme quest. 
 It is the riddle of the Sphinx which we must solve — or 
 perish. To contemporary science it is known as " the 
 struggle for existence " and "the survival of the fittest " — 
 using these phrases in the sense in which their author, 
 Charles Darwin, employed them. 
 
 It is in the course of this struggle, and as a direct result 
 of it, that form, functions, and dispositions of organic 
 beings have been evolved ; and it is only by studying 
 the incidents of this struggle — that is, the natural history 
 of man — that we may hope to learn anything about the 
 nature or the ultimate aim of this quest which man — 
 in common with the rest of organic nature— is uncon- 
 sciously pursuing. Only late in his existence, after the 
 dawn of reason, does he become aware that he is groping 
 for something without knowing what it is or how to 
 find it. 
 
 But while the struggle is the same for man and brute, 
 it is man only who is sufficiently advanced intellectually 
 to come under the category of moral considerations ; for, 
 as we shall presently see, morals depend on intelligence 
 rather than on piety or virtue. 
 
 The difference in this respect between man and beast 
 is this, that whilst the unreflecting creature is always 
 eager to satisfy the desires or needs of the moment, re- 
 gardless of future consequences, an intelligent being will 
 hesitate and consider possible later results of what he is 
 about to do. He will look ahead, and often prefer to forgo 
 the pleasures of the moment in order to ward off future 
 suffering. Thus it will be seen that the moral sense — 
 
 16 
 
242 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 that is, the faculty of being able to choose the good and 
 avoid the evil — depends on intelligence, on being able not 
 merely to foresee, but mentally to realize in anticipation, 
 future pain or pleasure. On this depends the efficacy of 
 rewards or punishments. 
 
 The further ahead a person can see, and the more 
 vividly he can realize mentally the future pain or pleasure 
 which might result from any act of his, the more powerful 
 will be the incentive for that person to do, or to abstain 
 from doing, certain things. Where this double faculty of 
 foreseeing the future and of realizing effects in anticipa- 
 tion is wanting, there can be no question of morals. 
 Such people might, nevertheless, observe the laws and 
 customs of the land — be it from habit or necessity — but 
 from a moral point of view they are little better than a 
 trained and domesticated animal. We may call such 
 people civilized, cultured, well-behaved, etc., but certainly 
 not moral in the sense of doing right because it is right. 
 
 But, then, what is " right " ? Once more we are con- 
 fronted with this question of questions ; and considering 
 that for untold centuries the greatest thinkers had their 
 powers taxed to find a satisfactory answer, the reader 
 will, I hope, be indulgent if I enter into the details of this 
 problem at greater length than the scope of the present 
 work would seem to justify, or than would be necessary 
 if the " Science of Conduct " — or Morals — were already 
 established. But it would be futile to discuss morals 
 without a clear understanding of what the word implies ; 
 or to form a judgment of the merits of any system of 
 morals without some standard to judge by. 
 
 Speaking generally, we may regard as right conduct that 
 which leads to right results. This is almost like saying 
 that the end justifies the means. Strictly speaking, that 
 is so, provided we have the ultimate ox final result in view. 
 But we must discriminate — as already indicated — between 
 the desires and necessities of the moment and the re- 
 quirements or necessities of continued existence, or life 
 in its wider and widest sense. It is obvious that the 
 latter is of greater importance than the former ; that it 
 must be profitless even to gain the whole world if the 
 
THE MORAL "LAW" 243 
 
 conquest can be made only at the sacrifice of one's exist- 
 ence. Hence it is that the intelligent being will forgo 
 certain pleasures of the moment for the sake of future 
 and more lasting happiness. 
 
 Had we clear ideas of what (in our ignorance) we are 
 striving for — our destiny — we should not be lacking that 
 guidance. We should not then be sacrificing the essential 
 to the trifling, the eternal to the frivolities of the moment, 
 as man is prone to do. For then utility (in the truest 
 sense) would no longer be antagonistic to morals ; and the 
 most selfish person would, of necessity, be also the most 
 high-minded because the wisest ; and altruistic because 
 desiring his own greatest good. For the true interest of 
 the individual is not antagonistic to, but identical with, 
 that of his fellow-men. 
 
 Where men err and stumble is in not recognizing that 
 this struggle for life is neither self-sought nor self-directed, 
 but is imposed upon us by conditions and circumstances 
 that are not of our making ; which we may control 
 within certain limits only, but from which we cannot 
 escape. To conform, therefore, to these conditions — or 
 " laws " — is not virtue but wisdom ; and to disregard 
 them is not sin or wickedness (in a theological sense) but 
 ignorance or folly. 
 
 From this view-point the injunctions of Jesus acquire 
 a meaning which is altogether different from that read 
 into them by the Churches ; as, for instance, when he 
 says : Therefore whosoever heareth these logous (i.e. prin- 
 ciples or laws) and obeyeth them, I will liken him unto 
 a wise man which built his house upon a rock . . . and 
 everyone that heareth these logous and disregards them 
 shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his 
 house upon the sand, and in consequence had to pay the 
 penalty of his folly. 
 
 This is the true and rational conception of virtue and 
 sin, right and wrong, duty and transgression. It differs 
 in no essential from right or wrong in respect of " physical " 
 acts, and there is nothing strained in the endeavour of 
 Jesus to illustrate moral right or wrong by the physical 
 process of house-building. In either case we must con- 
 
244 T HE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 form to immutable laws, or pay the penalty. " For 
 verily I say unto you, that it is easier for heaven and earth 
 to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." 
 
 A morality which is opposed to one's own true interest, 
 which constantly demands self-sacrifice, is unnatural, and 
 therefore cannot be purposive or moral. Sacrifice is, of 
 course, unavoidable if we seek lasting happiness rather 
 than merely momentary enjoyment. Such sacrifices are 
 constantly and cheerfully being made by the enlightened 
 — individuals as well as communities — and in direct pro- 
 portion to their degree of intelligence. But such sacrifices, 
 if based on forethought and wisdom, are necessarily also 
 to the interest of those who make them. Whilst those 
 who think that they can advantage themselves at the 
 expense of their neighbours are as foolish as the man 
 who built his house on sand. Their success can be tem- 
 porary only. 
 
 It would not be difficult to establish the truth of this 
 thesis by argument, were it necessary to do so. But that 
 would be quite superfluous. The evidence of experience 
 is too overwhelming to need any other proof ; for the 
 whole of our civilization and social institutions have been 
 forced on mankind by the necessity of seeking safety for 
 self by securing it to one's neighbours. The control 
 social — as it has mistakenly been called — is not the cause 
 but the result of existing amenities between individuals 
 or nations. 
 
 It is in the school of experience and from necessity 
 that man has learnt to respect the rights of his neighbour, 
 and such maxims as " Love thy neighbour as thyself " 
 or " Honesty is the best policy" are but the empirical 
 formulas in which the results of experience have been 
 expressed. 1 
 
 1 Even what is called " commercial morality " may be traced to wisdom 
 rather than to consideration for others. " Charity begins at home " 
 says another of these empirical generalizations, and expresses a funda- 
 mental truth. It must have been a wise man who first made the discovery 
 that honest dealing is preferable to what are known as " the tricks of 
 the trade " ; and he was good and honest only because he was wise in 
 the first place. No trader of intelligence or repute needs a law officer 
 to watch him in his commercial dealings. He knows that his business 
 
THE MORAL "LAW" 245 
 
 Right conduct, then, depends on a clear .understanding 
 of ultimate aims. We are seldom in doubt of what the 
 moment seems to require ; and if we hesitate neverthe- 
 less, it is because of some doubt as to future consequences. 
 The unreasoning animal is seldom r restrained by con- 
 siderations of the future. And man is so restrained in 
 direct proportion to his intelligence ; i.e. his ability to 
 foresee the future and to know how to ward off conse- 
 quences that might militate against the purpose he is 
 pursuing. 
 
 Morals, therefore, depend on knowledge and intelligence. 
 A knowledge of aim as a first condition, and intelligence 
 to be able to forgo sometimes the satisfaction of momen- 
 tary desires for the sake of future and more permanent 
 enjoyments. 
 
 From this point of view it will be seen that morals 
 and pleasure, far from being necessarily antagonistic, 
 should coincide ; that which secures the most lasting 
 happiness being also the most " moral/' Pleasure, there- 
 fore, is not sin merely because it is pleasant and gratifying ; 
 but sometimes may be foolish because leading to opposite 
 results. 
 
 This is the aim of all ethics, and of all our social laws 
 and customs. But these laws and customs do not always 
 tend in the right direction. Mankind is still groping in 
 the dark ; and although the counsels are many, they are 
 contradictory and confusing. The aim of moral philosophy 
 is (or should be) to discover some sure guidance which 
 shall enable us always to choose the good and avoid 
 the evil. 
 
 Has Jesus succeeded in discovering these rules ? Are 
 his precepts the fruits of the tree of knowledge which shall 
 
 interests would be at stake if he departed from the path of fair dealing. 
 And if, nevertheless, society has need of laws to protect itself against cheats, 
 it is only because of want of intelligence on the part of some of its members ; 
 or because of the unwisdom of social institutions which often force people, 
 through their necessities, to yield to temptations. 
 
 1 Some such considerations, however, must be conceded to many 
 animals, even when not specially trained by man. E.g. mice and rats 
 learn to avoid traps, and many animals have outposts to watch for 
 enemies. Others show foresight and forethought in their mode of nest- 
 building, in protecting their young, in laying in stores of food, etc. 
 
246 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 lead us to the tree of life ? He himself certainly claimed 
 no less for his logoi. Was he right after all ? 
 
 This much we are bound to admit, that he has not yet 
 been proved to have been wrong. His guidance has not 
 yet been accepted, and his philosophy has not been put 
 to the test. His precepts have been declared to be noble 
 in conception but impracticable and impossible. But if 
 this is true, then there can be nothing lofty or noble 
 about them ; for then they must be based on error, and 
 their author must have built his house on sand. 
 
 Fortunately there is a way out of this dilemma. For if 
 these precepts are truly based on the eternal, immutable 
 laws of " Our Father which is in heaven," then we should 
 be able to confirm his deductions ; for those laws are 
 still with us. If Jesus was right, we should be able to 
 deduce the same rules from the phenomena ; nay, then 
 we should be bound to arrive at the same conclusions. 
 But to that end we must explore '* the kingdom of heaven," 
 and not " the kingdom of man." In other words, we must 
 study the natural history of man, and not his civil history, 
 which is chiefly a record of human errors and blunders. 
 
CHAPTER XXX 
 
 THE DESTINY OF MAN 
 
 I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing : therefore 
 choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live. — Deut. xxx. 19. 
 
 Life is more than meat, and the body than raiment. — Matt. vi. 25. 
 
 It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these 
 little ones should perish. — Ibid, xviii. 14. 
 
 There can be no real difference of opinion regarding our 
 general conclusion that right conduct is more a matter of 
 wisdom than of goodness. No one intelligent enough to 
 foresee the full consequences of his actions is likely to do 
 aught to his own hurt or undoing. It is unnatural to do 
 so ; and when such acts are, nevertheless, committed — 
 as a result of despair — they are rightly regarded as ab- 
 normal and irrational. The only debatable point is as to 
 what constitutes ultimate good. 
 
 To be able to answer this question we must first seek 
 to discover the mainspring of human strivings. By which 
 I do not mean the proximate, conscious, or deliberate 
 motives for the doings of individuals or their aggregates, 
 but the primum mobile which antedates human conscious- 
 ness ; the cause or causes to which man owes his existence ; 
 the fiat which he unconsciously obeys even while denying 
 the existence of such an impelling power. In short, a 
 knowledge of " the things which are hid from the wise 
 and prudent, but have been revealed unto babes." 
 
 It is not in musty parchment or papyri where we may 
 hope to find the needed information, but in the eternal 
 records which are accessible to all who have eyes to see 
 and understanding to comprehend. That mainspring of 
 all our activities is the instinct — as it is called — of self- 
 preservation ; preservation, that is, not of self only, but, 
 
 in oven a greater measure, that of the tribe, 
 
 247 
 
248 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 The love of offspring is unquestionably one of the 
 strongest — if not the strongest — impulses in mankind ; or, 
 for that matter, throughout organic nature. The only 
 other instinct which is at all comparable to it is that 
 of individual self-preservation. To call this a sentiment 
 is to ignore that it antedates the dawn of reason and 
 self-consciousness. 
 
 As if in obedience to a fiat, care for the young has 
 at all times been the chief solicitude of parents — long 
 before there could be any question of reason or sentiment 
 in the matter. Woe betide those who neglect this obliga- 
 tion, for the punishment is extinction. 
 
 Obviously, therefore, this impulse, instinct, sentiment — 
 or whatever one may choose to call it — is not the creation 
 of man, nor the outcome of his evolution, but rather the 
 cause of it. Self-preservation and race-preservation may 
 be said to have created man, for they are the chief factors 
 in the creative process known as " evolution " or " the 
 struggle for existence." It is this process which has made 
 man what he is, whether we contemplate him morpho- 
 logically, physiologically, mentally, morally, or as a 
 sociological unit. He has evolved into his present state 
 without knowledge or intention on his own part, often in 
 spite of himself. And although, once he has become 
 cognizant of the process, man himself may take a conscious 
 part in this creative work, as yet his efforts in this 
 direction are of a limited scope and often of doubtful 
 value. 
 
 About the primum mobile just referred to there can be 
 no doubt. Consciously or unconsciously it is man's first 
 and last object to live and to propagate his species. That, 
 beyond doubt or question, is his destiny so far as his 
 earthly pilgrimage is concerned. The process is going on 
 all around us without intermission, and — despite occasional 
 ebbings and regressions — always in one direction only. 
 
 Just as the river seeks the ocean ; and just as by ob- 
 structing or diverting its course it may be retarded, but 
 can never be prevented from reaching its destination : 
 so mankind is pressing onward and forward towards 
 some destiny, and — despite doubts and follies which 
 
THE DESTINY OF MAN 249 
 
 often retard the process, sometimes even give it a 
 retrograde direction — this onward march can never be 
 arrested. 
 
 Whether that process or that destiny is " premeditated *' 
 in the sense in which finite man understands this phrase ; 
 or, as in the case of the river, is the result of necessity ; 
 or whether this necessity is " designed/' " decreed/' or 
 " premeditated," I do not propose to inquire into — any 
 more than it would occur to a chemist to ask why the 
 properties of bodies are just what they happen to be. 
 We have to content ourselves with the facts as we find 
 them. 
 
 This is the limit — for the present, at any rate — to man's 
 curiosity. He may learn what to do and how to do it ; 
 but he can know nothing about the Why or Wherefore. 
 But let us remember that this limit to human desire for 
 knowledge is the same everywhere around us, in the 
 strictly physical sciences as much as in the realms of 
 thought and mind. We know that bodies attract each 
 other ; that substances combine ; that an " electrified " 
 body will exhibit certain manifestations ; and that a seed 
 placed in the ground will germinate and transform sub- 
 stances within its reach into new compounds, to the 
 astonishment and envy of the chemist. But we do not 
 know why all this is so. 
 
 Nevertheless, by observing the conditions which give 
 rise to different phenomena, man has learnt how to pro- 
 duce these at will and to take part in the creative process. 
 We cannot, forsooth, arrest or alter the course of nature. 
 But by observing what is essential and unalterable, we 
 can accelerate or retard our own evolution, and within 
 those inexorable limits even direct it. As John Stuart 
 Mill said :— 
 
 Though we cannot emancipate ourselves from the laws of nature 
 as a whole, we can escape from any particular law of nature, if we are 
 able to withdraw ourselves from the circumstances in which it acts. 
 Though we can do nothing except through laws of nature, we can use 
 one law to counteract another. According to Bacon's maxim, we can 
 obey nature in such a manner as to command it. 1 
 
 Three Essays on Religion, 
 
250 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 And this is true of mental and moral as of physical 
 phenomena ; of the laws of life as of mechanics ; of conduct 
 as of any other incident in the sphere of human activity. 
 
 From these reflections it is possible to deduce how far 
 we are free agents, and what or where are the limits to 
 our freedom. Within these limits we are " free " to choose 
 and to act ; always bearing in mind that each act will 
 have its own definite consequences and be followed by 
 its own rewards or punishments, according as we have 
 been working against our destiny or in conformity with it. 
 And this constitutes the ultimate criterion whether any 
 action is good or bad, right or wrong. And from this 
 law there is and there can be no escape. Thus in our 
 attempts to conform to the fiat of our destiny, and our 
 failures to do so, we are tracing two parallel histories of 
 our existence. Were we to write down the sum total 
 of all the conscious, volitional efforts and doings of an 
 individual or a community, such a record would constitute 
 what we might call the civil history of that man or com- 
 munity. But behind that, and parallel with it, there is 
 another as yet unwritten history — save for some few 
 introductory chapters by Darwin and his followers — 
 which is the natural history of man. 
 
 These two histories are distinct from and independent 
 of each other. The former is a record of the doings of 
 man, of his gropings in the dark, his errors and blunder- 
 ings — on the whole, a history of guesses and failures. The 
 latter, on the contrary, were it written intelligently, 
 would tell the informing and enchanting tale of how out 
 of a speck of shapeless jelly there was evolved the shapely 
 form of man with his wonderful organization, his powers 
 of discernment, of sensibility, of consciousness, of reason : 
 a history of achievements and successes, as the other is 
 full of failures and disappointments. The former is the 
 history of " the kingdom of man/' the latter is the history 
 of " the kingdom of God." 
 
 Yet it is from this history of errors that modern philo- 
 sophers are trying to deduce what mankind should do, 
 even before they understand the precise nature of the 
 problem which they have to solve, But this search 
 
THE DESTINY OF MAN 251 
 
 among the ruins of fruitless efforts can teach us one thing 
 only : it can explain the reason of the almost unbroken 
 series of failures. 
 
 Not from the civil history, but from the natural history 
 of man, by tracing the path of evolution, may we hope 
 to be able to deduce the nature of the problem we have 
 to solve, as well as how to solve it. 
 
CHAPTER XXXI 
 
 ANCIENT WISDOM AND MODERN SCIENCE 
 Why do ye not understand my speech ? — John viii. 43. 
 
 The substance of the present chapter is really outside 
 the scope of this work ; but the digression is necessary 
 for the proper understanding of the philosophy of Jesus, 
 and the language in which it has come down to us. 
 
 The reader could not have failed to notice how, in the 
 course of this present inquiry into the arcana of life and 
 conduct, certain themes and phrases which are peculiar 
 to theology are, constantly cropping up and engaging our 
 attention. This is all the more remarkable because their 
 intrusion here is neither premeditated nor intentional. 
 As the reader may have gathered from the earlier chapters, 
 the writer is far from being partial to theology, and 
 nothing could have been further from his intention than 
 to discuss here any distinctively theological themes, or to 
 import into these pages the terminology of theology. 
 
 Yet, though unsought, we are persistently confronted 
 with such questions as " What must I do to live ? " 
 (which, after all, is only a variant of " What must I 
 do to be saved ? "), and associated therewith all the 
 problems of eschatology, such as " right conduct," " free- 
 will," " ultimate good," " destiny," etc. ; themes which 
 are held to belong exclusively to the domain of theology. 
 But they come to us in a new light and with meanings 
 so entirely novel as to make it appear doubtful whether 
 theologians — as such — can at all be credited with their 
 origination. 
 
 On further reflection, these doubts are resolved into the 
 
 certainty that they cannot ; that these are not the utteir- 
 
 352 
 
ANCIENT WISDOM AND MODERN SCIENCE 253 
 
 ances of theological scholastics, but are the indistinct, 
 almost obliterated footprints of philosophers of olden 
 times who have been exploring in these recesses of nature. 
 Theologians merely found these imprints, and without 
 comprehending their meaning or understanding their 
 signification, offered explanations of them after the manner 
 of the faculty. The mere statement of such problems, 
 however, betokens clear thinking and a deep insight into 
 the secrets of nature, both of which are alien to theology. 
 
 Even as regards distinctly theistic topics, theologians 
 have never yet risen to that detachment of mind which 
 is indispensable for an impartial investigation, and without 
 which a rational objective judgment on any subject is 
 impossible. Tethered as they have at all times been to 
 some creed or dogma, every subject has been viewed and 
 judged from that circumscribed standpoint. 
 
 It is quite impossible, for instance, to credit theolo- 
 gians — always using this term in its conventional rather 
 than in its etymological sense — with such dicta even as 
 "God is one," is "incomprehensible/' is "no respecter 
 of persons," or that the "will" or "law" of God is 
 "immutable." For not only are such conclusions im- 
 plicit evidence of philosophic speculation, but for the 
 most part are the opposite of what is taught by theology. 
 
 Even up-to-date Christianity is not quite free yet from 
 the taint of polytheism ; for not only does one of its 
 cardinal doctrines postulate a " triune " deity — whatever 
 that numerical paradox may imply — but in addition 
 affirms the existence of an evil spirit or " devil " and a 
 host of demi-gods and goddesses. It ascribes " attri- 
 butes " to the " incomprehensible " ; endeavours to alter 
 by prayer the " immutable will " of God ; and far from 
 regarding God as no respecter of persons, special rewards 
 are confidently promised to those who will comply with 
 certain rituals ; and on occasion the Deity is even ex- 
 pected to change the course of nature to please his 
 worshippers. 
 
 These ideas and conceptions of God and the universe 
 become cruder still the further back we trace their history, 
 until we reach their fons et origo deep down in the native 
 
254 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 ignorance of primitive man and the superstitions en- 
 gendered by it. It is simply unthinkable how, from such 
 a source, could have emanated the afore-mentioned 
 profoundly philosophic conclusions. They betoken the 
 philosopher rather than the curer of souls. For though 
 the latter predominates in ancient literature, there are to 
 be found the traces also of the former, and that no matter 
 how far back we may choose to go. 
 
 We speak of " science " as if it were of comparatively 
 recent origin, and think of the ancients only as steeped 
 in ignorance and superstition. But this is a narrow view 
 to take in face of the evidence of their often marvellous 
 achievements. The great engineering and architectural 
 works which they have left behind alone bear eloquent 
 testimony to the fact that already in prehistoric times 
 there were individuals who were capable of conceiving 
 such bold undertakings, and laying down plans and 
 rules for their successful execution. But such work is 
 in itself evidence that its masters must have possessed 
 a considerable knowledge of theoretical mechanics and 
 mathematics. 
 
 But to realize adequately the mental heights to which 
 some of these forgotten ancient seers could soar, we must 
 contemplate their achievements in astronomy. Without 
 instruments of any kind — unless devised by themselves 
 — and without even a semblance of that methodical 
 instruction in the principles of mechanics and mathe- 
 matics — for the pioneers had to make tnese sciences as 
 they were needed — which to-day is within such easy 
 reach of everybody, they explored the heavens, mapped 
 out the (apparent) path of the sun, located the constella- 
 tions in the zodiacal belt, computed tables, calculated 
 and foretold eclipses, centuries before the dawn of " his- 
 toric times/' And if only we care to remember that all 
 this had been accomplished without help of any pre- 
 existing literature or elaborate instruments, by men who 
 had to grope their way in a dark and trackless labyrinth 
 full of dangers and difficulties, and without any other 
 guidance than that afforded by their own intellect, we 
 shall not only have to admit that those remote centuries — 
 
ANCIENT WISDOM AND MODERN SCIENCE 255 
 
 though the masses were steeped in ignorance — were not 
 without their philosophers, but will have to acknowledge 
 even that " there were giants in those days/ 7 
 
 The question which I desire to put and find an answer 
 to is this : Is it rational that we should credit such minds 
 with nothing better than the gross superstition and non- 
 sense which is generally associated with ancient times, 
 without making a distinction between the thinkers, who 
 have always been few, and the ignorant, who are many 
 even in our own times ? 
 
 The mass of mankind, of course, were ignorant, credulous, 
 and superstitious, just as are the masses of to-day — only 
 perhaps more so ; and it will be well to remember this 
 when contrasting the " ignorance and superstition " of 
 the past with the " science and enlightenment " of to-day. 
 The truth is that no such comparison en masse of the peoples 
 of different centuries is possible. There has never been 
 a period, even in the halcyon days of superstition, which 
 has not also had its students of nature, though the latter 
 were necessarily in a hopeless minority, as they still are. 
 
 In an inquiry like the present it is necessary constantly 
 to remember that " from the beginning " there were two 
 main currents of thought : the one which concerned 
 itself mainly about extracting what explanations it could 
 from the subjective conceptions produced directly by the 
 sense impressions ; whilst the other looked behind the 
 sensations for their causes. Let us remember also that 
 there has always been an unbridgeable difference of out- 
 look between these two schools of thought, and that 
 when they met at all, it was in deadly combat. Thus 
 only shall we be able to understand the intellectual con- 
 ditions of the times, and the nature of the combat between 
 Jesus and the Jewish hierarchy of his time. 
 
 The problems of life must necessarily have engaged the 
 attention of mankind at a very early period ; and there 
 must have been at all times, as there are to-day, indi- 
 viduals gifted with extraordinary mental powers who 
 tried to solve the mystery of the origin and destiny of 
 the human race. Jesus was one of these. He was not 
 the first, nor the only one. Ancient Egypt, India, China, 
 
256 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 Persia, and peoples whose very names have been forgotten, 
 possessed men who were seers in the truest and fullest 
 sense of the word, and who have devoted their rare mental 
 powers to solving the problem of existence. The astro- 
 nomical achievements of the past show what mental efforts 
 some of these ancients were capable of. 
 
 The difference between ancient and modern science is 
 one of subject-matter rather than of method. The latter 
 is bound to be the same, in essence at least, if not in form. 
 There is only one way of studying nature, and that is 
 by observing the sequence of events and separating — 
 again by observation— the essential from the non-essential 
 conditions which partake in the production of a pheno- 
 menon. 
 
 Modern science is chiefly confined to the investigation 
 of tangible, visible, and sensible phenomena, or what is 
 known as " natural philosophy " ; whereas the ancients 
 applied their efforts chiefly to the exploration of regions 
 which can be reached by the mind only, where scalpel, 
 balance, and microscope cannot be applied, and which on 
 that account modern philosophers have declared to be 
 beyond the reach of the human intellect. That, however, 
 is due to misconceptions. Newton, La Place, and Darwin 
 — to mention three names only — have shown what may 
 be accomplished by the mind unaided by the senses, save 
 for the abstract knowledge which can be deduced from the 
 empirical information which they supply. 
 
 It is in these realms of the mind rather than in the 
 sphere of action that the ancient pioneers preferred to 
 labour. But the fruit of their toil has been all but lost 
 to us. Theology has taken possession of it, destroyed all 
 that was valuable, and preserved nothing but the empty 
 husks. The dicta above cited, the eschatological phrases 
 which have inspired this chapter, as well as such words 
 as " karma," " nirvana," " metempsychosis," and many 
 more such, bear the impress of being final conclusions of 
 some philosophic train of thought. But the nature of 
 such speculation, or the line of argument on which it 
 rested, has been lost to us, and with it the true meaning 
 in which those words had originally been used. 
 
ANCIENT WISDOM AND MODERN SCIENCE 257 
 
 One shudders to think what future generations might 
 understand by such terms as " variation/' " selection," 
 " mimicry/' " struggle for existence," " survival of the 
 fittest," etc., if the works of competent writers on evolu- 
 tion were all lost and only what ignorance and super- 
 stition could read into them survived. But that is pre- 
 cisely what has happened with the teachings of many of 
 the ancient sages, and with the teachings of Jesus in 
 particular. 
 
 The object of this rapid survey of so vast a subject is 
 to find the true place of the Sage of Nazareth in the 
 world's history of thought, and particularly in Moral 
 Philosophy. Attempts without number have been made 
 to solve the mystery of Jesus, to delineate a character 
 which shall be consistent with the records we possess of 
 him and with a rational appreciation of what seems pos- 
 sible and probable ; but so far without success. 1 But 
 then all these attempts were based on the assumption 
 that Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah, and the 
 only question which the " higher critics " (whatever this 
 phrase may mean) have set themselves to solve was 
 whether Jesus himself believed in the claims he is supposed 
 to have made, or whether he was a dissembler. Not a 
 dignified alternative, surely, in connection with a great 
 moral teacher ; and this alone should be sufficient to 
 question the grounds on which the assumption is based. 
 Yet nobody ever did so. 
 
 It has not occurred to anyone as yet — so far as the 
 present writer is aware — to regard Jesus as a philosopher, 
 
 1 I base this statement on the conclusions of Albert Schweitzer, who, 
 after an exhaustive and critical examination of the various rationalistic 
 theories published from Reimarus (1778) toWrede (1901), thus summarizes 
 his "Results":— 
 
 " The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, 
 who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom 
 of heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, 
 never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed 
 with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical 
 garb " {The Quest of the Historical Jesus). 
 
 On the above I would remark by way of reply that the Sermon on the 
 Mount and the Parable of the Last Judgment exist, neither of which could 
 have been composed by the evangelist, which must have had an author, 
 and one who was a rational thinker. 
 
 17 
 
258 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 and to seek deeper meanings in his utterances than what 
 theology has assigned to them. The reason probably 
 is that no one would think of associating a rational philo- 
 sophy with an inhabitant of Judaea. What good can come 
 out of Nazareth ? still seems to possess those who have 
 discarded the divinity of Jesus. 
 
 It is true enough to say that the Judaea of those days 
 could not have " produced " such a man. But neither 
 could the Poland of the sixteenth century — nor the whole 
 of Europe, for that matter — have " produced " a Coper- 
 nicus ; or the England of the nineteenth century a Lyell 
 or a Darwin. Such men are never the result of the wisdom 
 of their contemporaries, but rather the source of wisdom of 
 subsequent generations. They are prodigies of nature 
 which appear like shining meteors in a dark sky, and by 
 the sudden glare of the light which they shed cause alarm 
 and commotion among those who are disturbed in their 
 mental routine. 
 
 Such a meteor was Jesus ; and only by regarding him 
 as such is a rational and consistent interpretation of his 
 life, his character, his teachings, and the commotion he 
 created among the priesthood of his time, possible. 
 
CHAPTER XXXII 
 
 A TEST OF TRUTH 
 
 The son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father 
 do. — John v. 19. 
 
 Refrain from these men, and let them alone : for if this counsel or 
 this work be of men, it will come to nought : but if it be of God, ye 
 cannot overthrow it. — Acts v. 38-9. 
 
 It is a truism to say that nothing happens without a cause, 
 and that that cause is always a natural one. Neverthe- 
 less, it is necessary sometimes to remember such a truism. 
 By it is meant that any group of conditions will be followed 
 by certain definite results ; and that identical conditions 
 will always produce identical results. On the certainty of 
 this belief are based all the arts and sciences, and on it 
 depends even the reasoning faculty of man. The essence 
 of this belief is that there is nothing arbitrary or capricious 
 in nature. If there were, rational thought would be im- 
 possible. 
 
 Even when producing a phenomenon artificially, all man 
 can do is to manipulate the conditions in accordance 
 with what experience has taught him will lead to the 
 desired result. In the words of Jesus, " The son can do 
 nothing of himself, only what he seeth the Father do." 
 This statement differs from that of modern science in its 
 wording only. Its meaning is as clear as it is unassail- 
 able. 
 
 The first thing man has to learn, therefore, concerning 
 anything, before he can act intelligently, is to acquaint 
 himself with the principles which govern the phenomena 
 he desires to control. A full knowledge of the theory of 
 all the phenomena would be the highest wisdom attain- 
 able by man ; and any idea that he can do anything 
 
 contrary to these " eternal laws " is the greatest folly. 
 
 259 
 
26o THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 The " struggle for existence " consists in the quest of 
 these laws. From them, as far as they are discovered, 
 may be deduced rules for guidance, whether in respect 
 of the physical arts or of moral conduct. Where such 
 knowledge is wanting, man is groping in the dark, suc- 
 ceeding when he happens to take the right step, and 
 failing when he errs. This is the process of mental, moral, 
 and social evolution stated in the fewest words. 
 
 Thus all science consists of past experiences expressed 
 in generalizations ; and these generalizations are the so- 
 called " laws " which are applied in the arts, and which 
 enable the student to explain the phenomena of nature. 
 
 The point I desire to bring into focus so as to base an 
 argument on it is the commonplace that practice precedes 
 science. From this follows that all science must of neces- 
 sity be primarily based on empiricism, and that therefore 
 the leading facts of any group of phenomena must have 
 been known before they could be made into a science. 
 
 From this conclusion follow several others. For one 
 thing, the reproach against Jesus that his precepts were 
 not original to him loses whatever importance it is sup- 
 posed to possess. This question, in fact, no longer arises ; 
 for if based on the common experience of mankind — as 
 matters relating to life and conduct are bound to be — 
 they could not have been new. But this fact, instead of 
 militating against the validity of his conclusions, should, 
 on the contrary, give them additional weight. The facts 
 of terrestrial gravitation, for instance, were common 
 knowledge, and had been applied in many ways, centuries 
 before Sir Isaac Newton deduced from them his theory 
 which enabled him to explain the motions of the planets. 
 So likewise were known the facts of variation, selection, 
 heredity, etc., from which Charles Darwin deduced his 
 theory of evolution, by help of which he explained the 
 origin of species. The primary object of science is not to 
 discover something which is unknown — although incident- 
 ally it may enable us to do so — but to explain familiar 
 phenomena the theory of which is not yet understood. 
 As John Stuart Mill so tersely expressed it, " In science, 
 those who speak of explaining any phenomenon mean (or 
 
A TEST OF TRUTH 261 
 
 should mean) pointing out not some more familiar, but 
 merely some more general phenomenon of which it is a 
 partial exemplification." 
 
 These digressions into " methods of inquiry " are un- 
 avoidable from the fact that I am treading a new path 
 across the borderland where science and metaphysics are 
 overlapping, often with disastrous results. It is abso- 
 lutely necessary for the sake of clearness to draw a sharp 
 line of demarcation which shall separate one from the 
 other, before we can hope to make any real progress in 
 Moral Philosophy. 
 
 The existing confusion is due, in part at least, to a 
 misapprehension of the principles of science, which are 
 too often confounded with the axioms of metaphysics ; 
 that "j, they are regarded in the light of a major premise 
 from which deductions may be made with impunity, so 
 long as the rules of logic are adhered to. That, however, 
 is a fallacy. The " principles " or " laws " of science are 
 generalizations of observed facts, and any deduction made 
 from them is a hypothesis which must be confirmed by 
 observation before it can be accepted as a premise to draw 
 further conclusions from. 
 
 It is "not so with the axioms of the scholastics, who 
 rely on logic to prove the truth of their axioms as well 
 as of their deductions. There is still a widespread belief 
 abroad that a truth may be discovered (or proved) by a 
 mere process of logic. The idea is that logic, properly 
 applied, is infallible ; that if the premises are true and 
 have been correctly stated, then the logical conclusion is 
 bound to be true also. Hence the quest for an " absolute 
 truth," from which it is believed an endless chain of 
 deductions could be made, each of them as infallibly true 
 as was the first major premise. 
 
 There never was a more fatal error than this. It is 
 the ignis fatuus which has lured many a brave thinker 
 into the bog metaphysics, there to perish without having 
 accomplished so much as to leave behind him a stepping- 
 stone or a fingerpost for the next explorer. 
 
 In the first place, we have no knowledge, and can have 
 none, of the absolute. Our finite constitution precludes 
 
262 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 such a possibility. All our knowledge is of relations only. 
 In the second place, it does not follow that even if 
 our premises correctly express a fact, therefore the 
 " inevitable conclusion " must be true also. It is quite 
 true, for instance, that water expands when heated and 
 contracts on cooling. But it is not true that we can deduce 
 from this anything else than just what we have actually 
 observed. We may do so as a hypothesis ; but the 
 deduction would need verification — not by an appeal to 
 the rules of logic, however, but by actual observation. 
 It does not follow, for instance, that water will expand 
 or contract indefinitely when heated or cooled, or that 
 the ratio of expansion and contraction will be the same 
 at whatever temperature. The fact is, that neither con- 
 clusion would be true. The ratio of expansion varies for 
 each degree of temperature. Moreover, at ioo° C. water 
 changes quite unexpectedly and unforeseeably from a 
 liquid into a gas, with entirely new properties ; and on 
 cooling the contraction comes unexpectedly to an end 
 at 4 C, below which the water again commences to 
 expand, and at o° C. is changed into a solid with libera- 
 tion of heat. 
 
 This erratic behaviour of water is not an exception, 
 but is typical of what happens throughout nature. There 
 is no such regularity in nature as would enable us to 
 solve its mysteries by applying the rules of logic. Nature 
 is always consistent with itself, but never regular in the 
 sense required by logic or arithmetic. It knows nothing 
 of "axioms" or "necessary truths," and heeds not the 
 "inevitable conclusions" of oiir inflexible logic. Logic, 
 by itself, can neither discover a fact in nature, nor does 
 it enable us to deduce from already established facts 
 what will happen under modified conditions — unless we 
 know from previous experience what to expect. 
 
 Logic, be it remembered, is an instrument which can 
 teach us how to think and reason correctly ; just as grammar 
 teaches us how to express our thoughts correctly. But 
 it can neither establish a truth nor verify a conclusion. 
 Observation alone can do that. 
 
 Had philosophers been always conscious of this simple 
 
A TEST OF TRUTH 263 
 
 truth — itself abundantly verifiable by observation — many 
 an elaborate and pretentious system would never have 
 seen the light of day. In any case, such systems as 
 are based on logic and supported by nothing else are not 
 worth a moment's consideration ; and that not so much 
 because they are based on hypotheses, but because their 
 conclusions are unverifiable. 
 
 A philosophy based on the actualities of life will be 
 traceable in the phenomena to which it relates. We 
 should be able to see its principles at work, producing 
 just the phenomena the theory is trying to explain ; and 
 any legitimate deduction from its principles should be 
 verifiable. 
 
 I propose here and now to submit the rival philosophies 
 of Jesus and of Paul, which are typical of the two domi- 
 nant schools of thought, to a test which was suggested 
 by a wise Pharisee of the name of Gamaliel in the early 
 days of Christianity. When some of the " apostles " of 
 the new faith were tried for heresy before the Sanhedrin, 
 this Gamaliel counselled to leave them alone. For, he 
 said, " if this counsel or this work is of men, it will come 
 to nought, but if of God, ye cannot overthrow it/' Which 
 is perfectly true. For, making due allowance for the 
 phraseology of the time, it means that man can neither 
 create nor suppress a " principle " or " law " of nature ; 
 and that therefore, no matter what he does, he cannot 
 alter the course of nature. 
 
 As this judgment was delivered some eighteen centuries 
 ago, and both philosophies have been on trial ever since, 
 it will be interesting to submit them to this crucial test. 
 
 Let us begin with Paul. His philosophy had all the 
 support that human wit could suggest, or sword and fire 
 could enforce. The best scholarship has busied itself for 
 eighteen centuries to explain such difficulties as were 
 allowed to be pointed out ; whilst to question any of the 
 cardinal doctrines was punished capitally. Moreover, it 
 was to the interest of everybody to be "a follower of 
 Christ." The mere suspicion of scepticism was enough 
 to affect prejudicially any waverer. Every consideration, 
 every humanly created agency or tendency, has worked 
 
264 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 on behalf of Paul's system of faith, until it has "become 
 not merely a national institution, but an established 
 habit of thought. 
 
 Yet, notwithstanding all this material, mental, and 
 moral support, " the counsel of Paul " has come to nought. 
 Indeed, at no time was it more than a belief, and could 
 affect men's lives in the same way only as a belief con- 
 cerning their origin could affect the real process of trans- 
 mission or heredity. It is a philosophy detached from the 
 realities of life. At no point was there any contact, or 
 any linking up between theory and fact. It was built 
 on faith, and remained a faith. People professed it, 
 fought and died for it — as is the case with other systems 
 of faith — but at no time was it more than a disturbing 
 element in the process of evolution. Else how could it 
 ever have resulted in the universal scepticism of to-day ? 
 
 On the other hand, the precepts of Jesus have never 
 yet been accepted as a practicable philosophy of life. 
 Their high ethical standard, forsooth, is admitted univer- 
 sally, but only as a theory of no practical value. The 
 Golden Rule has never yet met with recognition in any 
 system of social philosophy or statecraft. And although 
 we find it in the Gospels, it has never been more than 
 a stumbling-block to Christian preachers. It certainly 
 has never formed an essential part of Christianity. No 
 doctrine or dogma is based on it, and its observance has 
 never been deemed as essential to salvation. Indeed, the 
 Rule was disregarded nowhere more than by the different 
 sects in their internecine quarrels. At no time would a 
 plea on behalf of a condemned heretic that, although he 
 disbelieved this or that dogma, he faithfully observed all 
 the injunctions of Jesus, have saved him from martyrdom. 
 
 But apart from church or creed, all down the centuries, 
 from the earliest times, man has been accustomed to 
 distrust his neighbour. We are doing so to-day. The 
 chief concern of nations is to protect — or to defend — 
 themselves against the sinister intentions of their neigh- 
 bours. A similar spirit — though in a lesser degree — in- 
 spires the thoughts of the individual members of each 
 nation, and gives direction to their conscious, purposive 
 
A TEST OF TRUTH 265 
 
 acts ; each person seeing in his neighbour, if not an 
 aggressor, at least a competitor for the means of life. 
 
 " Love thy neighbour as thyself " has never yet been 
 accepted as a guiding principle by either State or Church. 
 It has never yet been urged seriously as an argument 
 against war, against customs barriers, against racial or 
 sectarian conflicts, or commercial rivalries. As a practical 
 precept it has never met with anything but ridicule or 
 derision. 
 
 How comes it then that mankind, inspired by a spirit 
 which fosters distrust and enmity, have nevertheless evolved 
 a social state based on principles which are the opposite 
 of what their philosophy teaches ? How is it that not- 
 withstanding the many barriers raised by State and 
 Church, race and nationality, all calculated to keep the 
 peoples apart, mankind has become, and in spite of wars 
 is becoming, more and more international and inter- 
 dependent ? 
 
 Clearly there are agencies at work directing the evolu- 
 tion of man which are not dreamt of in our philosophies. 
 
 Notwithstanding all the disturbing and disruptive 
 human agencies, people are getting more neighbourly 
 every day. Sectarians are becoming more tolerant, not- 
 withstanding their narrow, exclusive creeds. Nations are 
 becoming more friendly, notwithstanding the often aggres- 
 sive policy of their governments, or even occasional actual 
 warfare. Business is being conducted more and more on 
 principles which beget mutual confidence even among 
 competitors, notwithstanding that material gain is con- 
 sidered the essence of success in business. Even in our 
 treatment of criminals — the " enemies " of society — there 
 is a marked tendency towards obeying one of the most 
 derided injunctions of Jesus, viz. " Love your enemies, 
 bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, 
 and pray for them that despitefully use you." 
 
 We are getting more forbearing and forgiving, more 
 neighbourly, more brotherly, more humane ; in short, more 
 " civilized " as it is called, and that, let it be remembered, 
 contrary to accepted standards of philosophy. 
 
 To sum up, just as every possible human effort has 
 
$66 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 been made to establish the philosophy of Paul, so every- 
 thing has been done to oppose that of Jesus. Yet — once 
 more adapting the words of Gamaliel — the former has come 
 to nought and the latter could not be overthrown. 
 
 The explanation is a simple one. The injunctions of 
 Jesus, far-fetched, impracticable, and sometimes even 
 nonsensical as they seem, are not human inventions at all, 
 but rules deduced from nature ; just as are the theories 
 of Newton, of Darwin, of Lyell, or as is any theory which 
 deals with actualities and is deduced from the phenomena 
 to which it relates. 
 
 His precepts seem absurd. But was there ever a new 
 theory published which did not ? And the philosophy 
 of Jesus is still new, because it has never yet been 
 listened to. 
 
CHAPTER XXXIII 
 
 THE " SAYINGS " OF JESUS 
 
 Falsch Gebild und Wort, verandern Sinn und Ort. — Goethe. 
 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. — 
 Matt, xxiii. 24. 
 
 Everybody recognizes the high moral tone of the precepts 
 of Jesus. Everybody admits their inherent self-evident 
 truth (with, perhaps, some notable exceptions to be dealt 
 with later on). Everybody concedes that if universally 
 carried out their purpose would be attained. But — it is 
 alleged — they are impracticable ; their very perfection 
 makes them inapplicable to the affairs of imperfect man. 
 
 But perfection is a fault of every true theory. It 
 attaches to the multiplication table no less than to every 
 theory of the physical sciences. Equally true is it that 
 imperfect man can seldom — if ever- — apply a theory in 
 practice with theoretical exactness. Yet, unless the 
 theory itself is perfect, it is of no use at all. But, if true, 
 it will enable a person to foresee what is attainable, or 
 how any desired result could be achieved. 
 
 Nobody having a knowledge of the principles of chem- 
 istry would nowadays waste his time in trying to effect 
 the transmutation of metals ; nor would anybody who 
 understands mechanics attempt to contrive perpetual 
 motion. On the other hand, it would not discourage any 
 man to construct, say, a power engine because he could 
 not apply the mechanical principles with mathematical 
 exactitude nor obtain from his engine the full theoretical 
 power. 
 
 In connection with the physical sciences such reflections 
 seem commonplace. But in moral philosophy it is still 
 
 necessary to emphasize these elementary truths. It is 
 
 267 
 
268 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 because of the absence of recognized principles that 
 hitherto the construction of a moral science has been 
 impossible of attainment. And it is because of the 
 absence of reliable criteria — which only a science can 
 supply — that mankind are still floundering in the dark 
 concerning matters of conduct. 1 
 
 The first question concerning any theory or principle 
 is not whether, or how far, it is attainable in practice, 
 but whether it is true. If true, there is bound to be a 
 means of applying it ; indeed, it cannot then be evaded 
 without corresponding consequences. 
 
 This was the contention of Jesus when he warned 
 mankind that unless they heeded the principles which 
 he enunciated they would be building on sand. To 
 this extent his prediction has come true. We certainly 
 cannot claim to have built upon a rock. Society is totter- 
 ing, is being shaken to its foundations by every passing 
 storm. There is security for neither individuals nor 
 nations. 
 
 Negatively at least, the Sage of Nazareth has also 
 proved to be right in his insistence that there was no 
 other road to salvation than " the strait and narrow way " 
 which he marked out by his " sayings." So far, at least, 
 none has been discovered. 
 
 May he not have been right also when he so positively 
 claimed that observance of what the English Bible de- 
 scribes as " sayings/' but what the Teacher himself 
 proclaimed as eternal and immutable laws, would 
 establish the much-desired " peace on earth and goodwill 
 towards man " ? May there not be after all something 
 more behind these embarrassing " sayings " than what 
 appears on the surface, or than what priestcraft has been 
 able to read into them ? 
 
 Mankind has been discussing many things these nine- 
 teen hundred years. People have disputed, quarrelled, 
 and fought — both metaphorically and actually — about 
 doctrines, vestments, candles, wafers, chalices, and many 
 other such senseless frivolities. They have killed each 
 
 1 I use the word " conduct " to include all that is designated by " moral 
 sciences," and for which J. S. Mill proposed the term " ethology." 
 
THE "SAYINGS" OF JESUS 269 
 
 other by the thousands and tens of thousands in their 
 frantic efforts to establish " peace and goodwill." It is 
 in the avowed interest of " a lasting peace " that Christian 
 nations are killing each other by thousands daily even 
 while these pages are being written ; but so far without 
 any result, and without confident hope or prospect of any 
 such result. Indeed, the vast majority of people are 
 resigned that there is no way out of this calamity. " It 
 has always been thus, and always will be so," is their 
 comment. 
 
 In view of all this, is it not time that we examined these 
 despised and ridiculed " sayings " a little more closely ? 
 Is it not just possible that the Teacher whose negative 
 predictions have come true, may have been right after all 
 when he said that the only way to end war is to put up 
 the sword ; that goodwill is bound to follow when nobody 
 is any longer disposed to quarrel ; that the way to make 
 an end to strife is to do away with the temptations which 
 lead to it ; and that the only sure way to get rid of an 
 enemy is to befriend him ? 
 
 These counsels may be impracticable ; but the alleged 
 absurdity is certainly not so apparent as to justify the 
 contempt with which they are brushed aside by statesmen 
 and reformers. Let us at least try to understand them ; 
 for, after what we have so far learnt about the channels 
 through which these teachings have come to us, we cannot 
 be certain whether we have correctly apprehended the 
 Teacher's meanings. His precepts and injunctions are 
 evidently final conclusions of a long train of reasoning. 
 But of the latter we know next to nothing, and of the 
 former only what has been transmitted by doctrinaires 
 and dogmatists. And we have seen what little reliance 
 can be placed in these, especially concerning anything 
 relating to the historical Jesus or his genuine utterances. 
 Moreover, the object of scholars and " divines " was not 
 to find any meanings in the " ethics " of Jesus, but rather 
 to get rid of them, since they have ever proved the greatest 
 stumbling-block to their creeds. 
 
 Let us then examine these precepts as a theory deserving 
 serious attention should be examined. Let us begin with 
 
270 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 the Golden Rule, which is the pivot of the philosophy of 
 Jesus. If it is a mere sentiment, we shall find but little 
 connection between it and the realities of life. But if, 
 on the contrary, it is a true generalization from actualities, 
 a rule deduced from the phenomena of social inter-relations, 
 then we should be able to discover it in and behind every 
 social phenomenon which makes for progress, or what 
 is broadly called " civilization." 
 
 As we have seen, " Love thy neighbour as thyself " 
 is one of those precepts which summarizes a common 
 experience of mankind. In a previous chapter I have 
 shown how its observance was enforced by necessity long 
 before its meaning had been translated into words. Its 
 great antiquity, therefore, is beyond question. But what 
 does it precisely mean ? 
 
 Stripped of every trace of mere sentimentalism, and 
 translated into modern phraseology, it means neither 
 more nor less than respect for the rights of others — our 
 " neighbours/' This principle — for such it is — is the 
 origin of civilization and the foundation of organized 
 society. Without it the social State is impossible, un- 
 thinkable. Equity, honour, justice, and all that mankind 
 have learnt to regard as the highest virtues, have no 
 meaning apart from this basic principle. 
 
 " Love thy neighbour as thyself/' therefore, far from 
 being an impracticable idealism, is actually the foundation 
 of every State, of civilization itself ; and the soundness 
 and stability of any State can be shown to be directly 
 proportional to the recognition of this basic principle in 
 its laws and institutions. It is the creative as well as the 
 controlling power of " society " — using the word in its 
 widest sense. It is the bond which unites people in common 
 fellowship. Its alternative is brute force. 
 
 Once a principle like this is recognized as such, it is 
 no longer a question whether it is " practicable " or not ; 
 but — in the first place — how far we dare deviate from it 
 without risking utter ruin ; and in the second, how we 
 might be able to comply with its requirements. For 
 there can be no sound or stable social organization where 
 this principle of " rights of neighbours'' is set at nought. 
 
THE "SAYINGS" OF JESUS 271 
 
 Now, here we have a deduction for verification, and all 
 the facts of history to 9erve us in lieu of experiments. 
 The task of doing so I must leave, however, to the reader. 
 The necessary limitations of this essay will allow me to 
 do no more than to present two extreme examples by way 
 of illustration. One of these is an ideal society — analogous 
 to the "perfect gas " or "perfect engine" assumed by 
 physicists to illustrate a principle- — a community the 
 members of which are all on a social and political equality, 
 and where there is no aggressor. Then, by way of con- 
 trast, let us think of a horde of human beings to whom 
 every freedom and every human right is denied — say a 
 gang of chattel slaves domineered by a pirate chief. One 
 thing is already apparent in the latter example, even 
 without any analysis. We could not call such a mob a 
 " community/' " society," " nation," or " state." Whether 
 chattel slavery itself is right or wrong is not now under 
 consideration, and hence the question does not arise. 
 Nor need we now discuss whether it is right or expedient 
 for one n*an, or a group of men, %o enjoy privileges which 
 are denied to others. All I wish to insist on is that just 
 in so far as the principle of " equal rights and duties "- — 
 which is the Golden Rule — is departed from, to that 
 extent are we removed from the ideal social state, and 
 vice versa. 
 
 Another deduction from these reflections is that the 
 evolution of society, or " the march of civilization," is 
 towards this ideal society. This we can see not only by 
 contrasting civilized society with savagedom, but also in 
 all the struggles of mankind. The concessions of those 
 in power, from the absolutist potentate to the elected 
 chief of State, as well as the demands of the people ruled 
 over, are all in the direction of the ideal of Jesus when 
 he said, " Call no man master upon earth, for one is your 
 master, the Father which is in heaven, and all ye are 
 brethren" 
 
 So much, then, for the truth of the central doctrine 
 on which Jesus relied. 
 
CHAPTER XXXIV 
 
 THE "SAYINGS" OF JESUS (continued) 
 
 He also that received the seed among the thorns is he that heareth 
 the word ; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, 
 choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful,— Matt. xiii. 22. 
 
 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly 
 shall they that have riches enter the kingdom of God. — Luke xviii. 24. 
 
 What shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his 
 own soul ? — Mark viii. 36. 
 
 It is a peculiarity of a truth in nature that once it is 
 recognized it can be seen where formerly it had never 
 been suspected. Variation, adaptation to conditions, and 
 the resultant " selection " or " survival " of certain forms 
 are cases in point. At first all these observations were 
 disputed, the conclusion drawn from them denied, and the 
 theory of evolution in which they culminated ridiculed 
 and rejected. But to-day we cannot look at a growing 
 animal or plant without the elements of evolution staring 
 us in the face. And yet the facts were not new when 
 Darwin published his epoch-making work. The influence 
 of conditions on growth were well known. The author of 
 Genesis actually tells us how Jacob tried to produce 
 variation artificially in Laban's flock of sheep. Jeremiah 
 speaks of " the teeth of the children being set on edge 
 because their grandparents have eaten sour grapes/' 
 Plato points out that a man having two mares would 
 select the better one to breed from. 
 
 In fact, the leading principles on which the theory of 
 evolution was based were all applied in practice, though, 
 of course, not to the same extent or with the same intel- 
 ligence as has been the case since Darwin explained their 
 
 functions in the economy of life. 
 
 272 
 
THE "SAYINGS" OF JESUS 273 
 
 Nevertheless, these facts, which to-day are so obvious 
 as to be regarded as self-evident, had to be pointed out ; 
 and it has been no small struggle to establish their truth 
 in face of the opposition with which their enunciation 
 has been met. 
 
 The ground of the opposition was not that the facts 
 on which Darwin based his generalizations were not 
 demonstrable, or that his deductions were not verifiable, 
 but — because the conclusions to which they led conflicted 
 with accepted beliefs ! It was for the same reason that 
 Galileo had to renounce the Copernican theory, and that 
 we have heard so much about the " conflicts between 
 science and religion/' 
 
 Great as has been this opposition of established beliefs 
 to the progress of the physical sciences, it is as nothing 
 compared to the opposition which vested interests have 
 always offered to the social and moral sciences. The 
 only kind of philosophy which is acceptable is one which 
 confirms existing customs and institutions — or which at 
 least does not menace them. This is the criterion by which 
 new theories have been tested all these untold centuries 
 by those in whose interest it was to do so, and who had 
 the power — if necessary— to oppose revolutionary doc- 
 trines. The truth of such theories or their effect on man- 
 kind, whether they were beneficent or otherwise, did not 
 matter at all. Two many-headed monsters, named respec- 
 tively Heresy and Sedition, kept incessant and vigilant 
 watch at the wide gate of Mammon ; and anyone who 
 dared to point out the dangers which lay beyond was 
 mercilessly destroyed. 
 
 It was for this reason that Jesus was persecuted, as 
 were so many other prophets before and since his time. 
 It was for this reason that his precepts have never received 
 from serious writers the attention which their obvious 
 and inherent truth seems to demand. For — 
 
 Wer darf das Kind beim rechten Namen nennen ? 
 Die Wenigen, die was davon erkannt, 
 Die thoricht g'nug ihr voiles Herz nicht wahrten, 
 Dem Pobel ihr Gefiihl, ihr Sehen offenbarten, 
 Hat man von jeh gekreuzigt und verbrannt. — Goethe 
 
 18 
 
274 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 The ethics of Jesus strike too mercilessly at the two root- 
 evils, power and wealth, from which spring most of the ills 
 which beset human society. They are the two great tempta- 
 tions which lure the mass of mankind to their destruction. 
 
 These circumstances create great difficulties not only 
 to the social reformer, but also to the moral philosopher, 
 of whom it is expected that he should confine his doc- 
 trines within the limits sanctioned by convention, if not 
 actually defined by law. This puts the moral philosopher 
 at a great disadvantage as compared with the physicist. 
 The latter may point to certain physical phenomena to 
 illustrate a theory or to verify a deduction without falling 
 under the suspicion of being heretic or traitor. Yet no 
 theory can be proved without reference to actual facts ; 
 and the social or moral philosopher — unless his philosophy 
 is to be a mere sham — is bound to take his illustrations 
 from actual life. 
 
 My appeal to the reader is not to prejudge a theory 
 because it may seem contrary to what he believes to 
 be right. For that is just the matter under discussion: 
 What is right ? Whatever restrictions it may be thought 
 necessary to impose on the reformer must not be imposed 
 also on the philosopher. The latter must be as free as 
 the mathematician, if his labour is to be of any value. 
 Let the reader remember that it is a theory we are now 
 considering and not a Reform Bill. 
 
 If, in the course of the presentation of it, I have to 
 allude to existing social institutions, it is because such 
 references are unavoidable, and I do so for illustration 
 onty. And if sometimes a cherished custom or institution 
 should appear of doubtful value when placed in juxta- 
 position with some of the precepts of Jesus, let the reader 
 reflect that this does not necessarily prove the absurdity 
 of the latter. 
 
 I believe I have shown to demonstration that the basic 
 principle of the philosophy of the Golden Rule is un- 
 assailable. It is to moral philosophy what gravitation 
 is to the physical universe ; and to sociology what evolu- 
 tion is to the organic world. Without it neither the one 
 nor the other is thinkable. 
 
THE "SAYINGS" OF JESUS 275 
 
 Of such a theory we shall expect to be able to trace 
 its elements in the activities and inter-relations of man- 
 kind ; just as the principle of gravitation enters into 
 almost every physical phenomenon, and the elements of 
 evolution are traceable in organic nature. That is actually 
 the case, as has already been shown in a general way 
 in the last two chapters. To the arguments there pre- 
 sented I will add yet another one of the same general 
 kind, before entering on a detailed examination of the 
 several precepts. 
 
 The object is to show how these precepts permeate our 
 social life, and how they are coming more and more into 
 vogue as civilization is advancing ; and per contra, how 
 civilization is progressing in proportion as these precepts 
 enter into our social relations. 
 
 Let us once more think of two ideal societies ; one 
 representing the Utopia of Jesus, and the other its 
 opposite. It is not difficult to imagine two such societies. 
 On a small scale we can sometimes see actual examples 
 of either. 
 
 First, then, let us think of a society such as we are 
 acquainted with, and which, therefore, is the opposite 
 of what, according to the precepts of Jesus, it should be : 
 a society where people are solicitous about the future ; 
 where encroachments of any kind are resented ; and where 
 it is considered natural for people to try " to get even " 
 with an opponent. An extreme representation of such 
 conditions may be pictured by thinking of a distribution 
 to a hungry crowd of only a limited number of loaves of 
 bread, under conditions where each is to help himself to 
 as much as he can and as best he can. 
 
 The rushing, crushing, pushing, trampling, snatching, 
 grabbing, and fighting that is bound to ensue under such 
 conditions can easily be imagined. Everybody would be 
 trying to get for himself as much as he can, regardless 
 of the needs of others or the consequences. That is 
 practically the system under which the human family 
 has started the race for life ; and the habit of it has 
 survived to this day. 
 
 Next let us think of an ideal society in which all this 
 
276 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 is reversed ; where everybody is concerned about the 
 welfare of those around him, regardless of consequences 
 to himself. The nearest mental realization of such a state 
 would be an entertainment, or a reception, given by a 
 wealthy person to his well-to-do friends. Here we shall 
 behold the opposite of what we saw in the former picture. 
 Instead of pushing and grabbing, the guests would be 
 waiting upon each other, handing the proffered refresh- 
 ments to their neighbours before touching any them- 
 selves, and politely standing aside to allow others to 
 pass, even though it may be to the buffet where the good 
 things are dispensed. 
 
 In such an assembly the people who are the best 
 behaved, and whose manners are most admired, are just 
 those whose conduct would come nearest to the ideal of 
 " the Galilean Peasant " — as Jesus has sometimes sneer- 
 ingly been described. 
 
 I fancy I can hear the objection that we could not 
 carry our drawing-room manners into our business affairs. 
 That may or may not be so, but it does not concern us 
 for the moment. My present object is to convey a clear 
 idea of the kind of society which would meet the demands 
 made by the ethics of Jesus ; and to show that, however 
 impracticable such a system may be deemed to be, it 
 is not one that is unthinkable or theoretically impossible. 
 
 We need not confine ourselves to the banquets of the 
 rich for illustrations. The same underlying principles may 
 be seen at work in many ways, for they permeate society. 
 To pass from the imaginary to the actual, let us con- 
 template two sets of passengers on one of the ocean 
 steamers, one in the saloon and the other in the steerage, 
 sitting down to dinner. Although in this case the people 
 are paying for their meals, the same spirit of mutual 
 politeness and absence of aggression would prevail in both 
 classes ; and anyone eager to help himself in advance of 
 his neighbour would be regarded as wanting in good 
 manners. That is, so long as there was enough to go round, 
 and to spare. But if there were not a sufficient supply, 
 an anxiety would manifest itself which might lead to 
 a scramble for the means of life ; when the veneer of 
 
THE "SAYINGS" OF JESUS 277 
 
 artificial culture is not always sufficient to mark the dis- 
 tinction which is observable sometimes between passengers 
 of the saloon and the steerage respectively. In such 
 circumstances conventions are, as a rule, set aside, and a 
 sterner law asserts itself. 
 
 Thus we may observe everywhere in society principles 
 at work which have led mankind from brute savagedom 
 to a state of civilization and high culture ; principles for 
 which people are groping, but fail to recognize when 
 presented to them as cut-and-dried precepts. 
 
CHAPTER XXXV 
 
 "THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL " 
 
 There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely riches 
 kept for the owners thereof to their own hurt. — Eccles. v. 13. 
 
 He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver ; nor he that 
 loveth abundance with increase. — Ibid. v. 10. 
 
 For where your treasure is, there will be your heart also. . . . Ye 
 cannot serve two masters ; ye cannot serve God and Mammon. — Jesus. 
 
 The outstanding lesson of the last chapter is that it is 
 want which brutalizes man ; and that it is the fear of 
 want which is the primary cause of the race after riches, 
 with all its attendant evils. 
 
 I shall not waste time in trying to prove by argument 
 such obvious facts. The scrambling for riches has no 
 meaning apart from providing for possible future needs ; 
 and although the desire for hoarding is almost universal, 
 it is nevertheless true that this inclination is but the 
 morbid exaggeration of a habit which has been established 
 through force of circumstances. 
 
 There is a feeling of insecurity, a fear about the future, 
 which impels people to hoard riches far in excess of any 
 possible needs, often to their own hurt, and generally to 
 the detriment of the common welfare. People are not 
 content with merely making sure of their daily bread, and 
 to trust that they will always be able to do so, but are 
 solicitous to make provision for the distant future, far 
 ahead of what seems necessary or reasonable ; and that 
 not for themselves only, but for their children and for 
 their children's children, as if fearsome that the natural 
 sources of supply might cease to be forthcoming. 
 
 Whether this anxiety to provide for future generations 
 is necessary, or how far it is justified by experience, may 
 
 be a matter for argument. But it is not at all doubtful 
 
 27s 
 
"THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL" 279 
 
 whether we should make provision for the immediate 
 future, for old age, or for the young who are not yet able 
 to provide for themselves. Common sense teaches us to 
 do so, and necessity commands it. We must lay in stores 
 of food to last at least until the next harvest. We must 
 look ahead to provide raiment ; for we must prepare 
 the ground, sow the seed, extract the fibre, prepare it, 
 spin it into yarn, and weave the cloth before it can be 
 made available for clothing. Nor is it possible to provide 
 shelter from day to day ; it must be prepared ahead, 
 and with an eye to the future as regards durability. 
 
 How then shall we reconcile with these obvious, com- 
 mon-sense conclusions the " command " or " injunction " 
 attributed to Jesus not to take thought for the morrow, 
 what we 9hall eat, or wherewithal we 9hall clothe ourselves ? 
 
 The answer is that it cannot be done. The advice as 
 it stands in the English translation (for it is not to be 
 found in the Greek texts), and as it has been interpreted 
 by " divines/' is absurd, and if followed would lead to 
 disaster. We cannot dispense with making provision for 
 the future without risk of being faced with a famine ; 
 and such actual and acute distress is hardly calculated 
 to make people better, saintlier, or more solicitous for 
 the welfare of their neighbours. Rather would it mean 
 the brutalizing of mankind, a transition to the feral state. 
 
 The passage " Take no thought for the morrow/' as 
 it stands in the A.V., as it has been interpreted, and 
 as it is generally quoted detached from the context, must 
 be pronounced to be sheer nonsense. But we must not 
 burden the Sage of Galilee with it, for he never uttered 
 such an absurdity. That it should be found in the Bible, 
 and so taught by the Churches, is only another glaring 
 illustration of the utter incompetence of " divines " to 
 deal rationally with the simplest matters in connection 
 with Bible, Jesus, or religion. 
 
 The Churches themselves prove the folly and imprac- 
 ticability of the supposed " divine injunction " when — 
 after the preacher has explained the sinfulness of " taking 
 thought for the morrow/' or of " touching filthy lucre " — 
 the collecting-box is sent round ! 
 
280 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 Jesus was too much concerned about a rational conduct 
 of life to enjoin what on the face of it is irrational, im- 
 practicable and stupid. All the duties which he taught 
 related to the mundane affairs of mankind, or what the 
 Churches are pleased to stigmatize as " secular." " The 
 blessed of the Father " were those who fed the hungry, 
 clothed the naked, sheltered the destitute, tended the 
 sick, and had compassion on those who were afflicted : 
 all of them offices which, but for thrift and forethought, 
 it would be impossible to perform. The object-lesson 
 which Jesus gave to the heckling lawyer, in the famous 
 Parable of Priest and Samaritan, is itself a sufficient dis- 
 proof of the imputation that Jesus could have enjoined 
 anything so irrational. For, let it be noted that Jesus 
 represented the Samaritan not merely as attending to 
 the immediate wants of the sufferer, but also as making 
 provision " for the morrow," and the days following the 
 morrow, by leaving some money behind for contingent 
 expenses, and a promise to pay in case the provision should 
 prove insufficient. 1 
 
 Such thoughts as are implied by the supposed injunction . 
 are quite incompatible with the character, the life, or the 
 teachings of Jesus. He was neither a recluse nor an 
 ascetic, as one who " took no thought for the morrow '' 
 would be of necessity. Quite the contrary : he rebuked 
 people for austerity, bade them anoint themselves and be 
 of cheerful countenance even when fasting. As for him- 
 self, he attended wedding-feasts, is reported to have 
 accepted a gift of precious ointment, and was denounced 
 by his enemies as " a glutton and a wine-bibber." 
 
 Moreover, the blunder — provided it is nothing worse 
 than that — is to be found in the translation only. In 
 the R.V. an attempt has been made to eliminate the 
 apparent absurdity by substituting " Be not there- 
 fore anxious for the morrow," but the correction is 
 a half-hearted one, and does not sufficiently meet 
 the case. 
 
 1 See also the parable about talents (Matt. xxv. 27), where Jesus 
 actually condemned the man who buried his talent instead of thinking 
 about the future. 
 
"THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL" 281 
 
 There are many errors and mistranslations in the dis- 
 course to which this perplexing passage belongs ; and 
 they seem all of them so purposeful and directed towards 
 one common end, that it is difficult to get rid of the im- 
 pression that they must have been introduced intention- 
 ally, with the deliberate purpose of obscuring the obvious 
 meaning of the discourse, so as to conceal the discrepancy 
 between the common-sense teachings of Jesus and that 
 of dogmatic (or "spiritual") Christianity. 
 
 This time the conflict was not between rival dogmatists, 
 nor between science and religion ; but between religion 
 and faith, between Jesus and Christianity. The task 
 before the learned divines, therefore, was a difficult one. 
 It was not how to elucidate, but how to mystify, so as 
 to protect the " faith " against the embarrassing doctrines 
 of Jesus. It is for this reason that an otherwise per- 
 fectly clear — if concise — representation of what we shall 
 presently see are obvious truisms has twisted into inco- 
 herent and unintelligible nonsense, which, whilst concealing 
 unwelcome truths, affords unlimited scope to preachers 
 for the exercise of their exegetic genius. 
 
 In the first place, we must challenge the translation 
 of several words and phrases. 
 
 Let us commence with the words " Take no thought 
 for the morrow." 
 
 The Greek word which has been rendered (A.V.) " taking 
 thought " — a phrase, by the way, which seems to have 
 been specially invented to meet the needs of the case, 
 for nowhere else, and in no other connection, is it used 
 in the English language — is " merimnao" and has been 
 translated in other parts of the N.T., and also in this 
 Gospel, by " care." Here are two such passages, one 
 from Matthew's and one from Luke's Gospel, in either 
 of which the true meaning of the word may be readily 
 inferred from the context : — 
 
 He also that received the seed among the thorns is he that heareth 
 the word ; and the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches 
 choke the word . . ." (Matt. xiii. 22.) 
 
 Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged 
 with surf eiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life . . . (Luke xxi. 34). 
 
282 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 In both these passages the unmistakable meaning of 
 the word is " worry " or " anxiety " ; and that, indeed, 
 is the rendering given in the dictionaries. It is not easy 
 to see, therefore, why the translators should have found 
 it necessary to invent a new phrase which is alien to 
 the English and unknown in the Greek language, except 
 for the purpose of obscuring the clear meaning of the 
 original text. 
 
 The word in its different grammatical forms recurs 
 about twenty-five times throughout the New Testament, 
 and is rendered (in the A.V.) fourteen times by " care " 
 and eleven times by " taking thought/' 
 
 But in each case the context shows the connotations 
 of the word to be " worry " or " anxiety," and never 
 " forethought," which the phrase " taking thought for 
 the morrow " is intended to suggest. 
 
 Let it be noted also in passing that neither the word 
 "worry" nor "anxiety" is to be found in the A.V., 
 although in the passages above quoted one or other would 
 render the original meaning of " merimnab " more faith- 
 fully than " care." " Thought " is not admissible at all ; 
 and " taking thought " — to say the least of it — is mis- 
 leading. 
 
 Then there are the words " for the morrow," which 
 obviously refer to " the future." We thus get as alter- 
 native, more accurate, and more rational renderings of 
 this perplexing passage " Do not worry about the future," 
 or " Do not be anxious about the future " ; either of which 
 is capable of quite a different interpretation — especially 
 in connection with the context — to that which is suggested 
 by the words " Take no thought for the morrow." 
 
 Indeed, in this corrected form, and read in connection 
 with the rest of the discourse, from which it is inseparable, 
 the passage does not refer to forethought at all, but to 
 the fear or anxiety about the future which is the root- 
 cause of the feverish desire to amass riches by almost 
 any means which circumstances will permit, often even 
 at the sacrifice of peace of mind, and all that which Jesus 
 meant by "the service of God." 
 
 It is this spectre of the fear about the future which Jesus 
 
"THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL" 283 
 
 tried to exorcise, by showing that such fear was not 
 justified ; that the uncertainty of the future was not 
 because the bounty of the heavenly Father could not be 
 depended upon, but because of unjust human laws and 
 faulty social conditions. 
 
 The points of the discourse (which begins with verse 19 
 and runs to the end of the chapter) may be summarized 
 as follows : — 
 
 1. The hoarding of riches is no sure safeguard against 
 possible future want ; for not only are material things 
 perishable, but there is always the menace of " thieves " 
 ■ — that is, of people who are bent on the same errand. 
 (In the current language of our own time, there are 
 the " ups and downs " of fortune-hunters.) 
 
 2. Such hoarding of treasure — or, in current speech, 
 " the amassing of wealth " — is in itself productive of 
 many evils, e.g. greed, avarice, covetousness, leading to 
 all manner of temptations and crime ; for " where your 
 treasure is, there will be your heart also." 
 
 3. Under equitable conditions — i.e. " the reign of 
 justice " (rendered in the A.V. as " kingdom of righteous- 
 ness ") — such hoarding would not be necessary, since the 
 heavenly Father always provides sufficiently for the needs 
 of his creatures. " Consider the fowls of the air : they 
 sow not, neither do they gather into barns, and yet your 
 heavenly Father feedeth them. How much more you 
 who know how to sow and how to gather into barns* ye 
 of little faith ? " 
 
 1 This is an interpretation rather than a literal translation of the original 
 text. The sentence in question (Matt. vi. 26) has been rendered in the 
 A.V. " Are ye not much better (" mallon diapherete ") than they ? '* 
 and in the R.V. " Are not ye of much move value than they ? " But 
 should be rendered, " Are ye not much more capable than they ? " Ob- 
 viously neither moral worth nor personal merit could affect the " provi- 
 sion made by the Father," and nowhere did Jesus imply or hint any such 
 absurdity. But he did say that " The sun shines, and the rain descends 
 on the just and on the unjust," and that God is kind " even to the unthank- 
 ful and the evil/' It is simply stupid to argue that " because man is 
 better than a bird, therefore he has even less reason to sow or to gather 
 into barns." But it is quite a. different thing to say that " inasmuch 
 as birds are fed, though they neither sow nor reap, there is less reason 
 for anxiety about the future for those who are so much more capable than 
 birds ; i.e. who know how to raise crops and how to garner them. 
 
284 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 4. (( Therefore I say unto you, do not worry about the 
 future, what ye shall eat or drink, or wherewithal ye shall 
 be clothed; but seek ye first . . ." 
 
 What ? 
 
 The answer is contained in verse 33, which is the pivot 
 of the whole discourse, and not the passage to which 
 translators and commentators have given such notoriety. 
 It was for the purpose of concealing the plain directions 
 given in this verse that the whole text had to be garbled, 
 and that the reassuring words not to worry have been 
 twisted into an absurd and impossible commandment. 
 But to see all this it will be necessary once more to revise 
 the translation. 
 
 The reading of the first part of this verse in the A.V. 
 is, " But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteous- 
 ness . . ." ; which has been altered in the R.V. to " But 
 seek ye first his kingdom and his righteousness . . ." 
 
 This correction is remarkable not because of any differ- 
 ence in meaning (for there is none), but as showing that 
 the Revisers were not averse to making free with the 
 text itself, and yet, whilst making the paltry alteration 
 in the reading, did not find any fault with the translation, 
 albeit it is but a travesty of the original text. 1 
 
 The two words to which objection must be taken are 
 " kingdom " and " righteousness/ ' With the former 
 word I have already dealt more than once. As used by 
 Jesus it always meant " reign," " governance," or " rule," 
 and should have been so rendered ; for there is not the 
 remotest reference here to a " kingdom " either on earth 
 or in the clouds. 
 
 The objection to the word " righteousness " is of a 
 
 1 " It is stated in the preface to their Revision that they did not esteem 
 it within their province to construct ■ a continuous and complete Greek 
 text. They adopted, however, a large number of readings which deviated 
 from the text presumed to underlie the Authorized Version " (E. Palmer, 
 in his preface to the Greek Testament, new edition). I have italicized 
 the few words so as to direct attention to the fact, not commonly 
 known to laymen, that there is no " continuous and complete Greek 
 text " of the N.T. in existence, except what has been constructed by 
 compilers, commentators, translators, or revisers ; and that these did 
 not shrink from altering the text whenever they deemed it advisable, 
 to do so. 
 
"THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL" 285 
 
 similar kind. It has a sepulchral flavour, and connotes 
 theological ideas which are not traceable in the original 
 Greek. The word " dikaiosune," for which it stands, 
 means "justice/' and nothing else; as the reader may 
 satisfy himself by consulting any Greek dictionary. It 
 is derived from " dikaios," which means just. Other 
 words from the same root are " dikastes " = " judge " ; 
 " dike " = " judgment " or " sentence " ; and with the 
 negative prefix a we get " adikea "=" wrong " ; " adike- 
 ma' , =^ t< evil-doing " or " iniquity " ; " adikos "=" un- 
 just " ; and so on. 
 
 Now, it might be argued that "righteousness" means 
 right-doing, and therefore may be substituted for " jus- 
 tice " ; just as " kingdom " may be substituted for 
 " reign." But that would be merely another misleading 
 quibble ; for it is not the etymology of a word which 
 conveys its meaning, but the connotations which custom 
 and usage have imparted to it. And theology has given 
 meanings to these two words in particular which now are 
 inseparable from the doctrines to indicate which they 
 have been coined. 
 
 If the reader will consult any dictionary he will find 
 that the various definitions which are given of " righteous- 
 ness " may all be summed up in the single word " piety " ; 
 which again means conforming to the ordinances of some 
 creed, and can in no sense be regarded as synonymous 
 with " justice." 
 
 But, after all, "the proof of the pudding is in the 
 eating"; and we need only compare the interpretation 
 which has actually been given to the passage with a 
 correct translation of it, in order to see that the 
 words " kingdom " and " righteousness " convey mean- 
 ings which are altogether different from "reign" and 
 "justice." 
 
 Here are the two renderings side by side, with the rest 
 of the verse added : — 
 
 But seek ye first the kingdom But seek ye first to establish 
 01 God and his righteousness (" zeteb ") the reign of justice 
 
 and all these things will be added unto you. 
 
286 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 The one version suggests piety which will be rewarded 
 in a hereafter ; whereas the other requires justice here 
 on earth, where also will be reaped the rewards. For, 
 of course, " all these things " which were to be " added " 
 unto other blessings referred to the necessaries of life — 
 i.e. food and raiment — which were needed here and now. 
 
 Throughout the discourse the translation is so worded 
 as to convey the idea that Jesus regarded poverty and 
 self-abnegation as virtues and the ' ' hankering after 
 wqrldly goods " as sinful. This is especially manifest in 
 verse 32, where the Greek word " ethrit " has been rendered 
 " Gentiles/' instead of " people/' 
 
 To see the change of meaning which has been effected by 
 this substitution, verses 31 and 32 must be read together: — 
 
 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat ? or, What 
 shall we drink ? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed ? For after all 
 these things do the Gentiles seek. 
 
 The suggestion here is clearly that Gentiles only — i.e. 
 irreligious, impious heathen — are capable of such sin, 
 and that no pious, God-fearing person would think of 
 doing so. 
 
 Now, the absurdity of the suggestion is on the face 
 of it. For " all these things/' as is manifest, were food 
 and raiment (or the necessaries of life, which in the 
 very next sentence, we are told, the heavenly Father 
 " knoweth that ye have need of") ; and it is sheer non- 
 sense, therefore, to suggest that " Gentiles " only are 
 concerned as to where their next meal is to come from, 
 or that it is sinful to be so concerned. 
 
 The fact is that the word " Gentiles " has no business 
 there at all. The Greek word so rendered is " ethrie," 
 the plural of " ethnos," which — according to any dic- 
 tionary the reader may consult — means " nation," 
 " people," or " multitude " ; that is, " masses of people 
 living together." And as there is nothing in the context 
 to suggest that the word here referred to non- Jews only — 
 as does the Hebrew word " Goiitn," which is the equiva- 
 lent of the Greek word " barbaroi," i.e. " foreigners " — 
 the rendering of it by " Gentiles " instead of " people " 
 
"THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL" 287 
 
 is not only uncalled for, but an unwarranted and de- 
 liberate corruption of the text. 
 
 It must be clear to the reader by now that what Jesus 
 deprecated was not that people should " seek these 
 things " — i.e. the necessaries of life — but the manner in 
 which people thought to make sure of them ; i.e. by 
 hoarding. 
 
 The argument is that the heavenly Father's bounty 
 can always be depended on, and that the " people are 
 anxious about these things " because of the uncertainties 
 due to human folly ; that under equitable conditions — 
 i.e. the reign of justice — such anxiety need no longer 
 exist. " Therefore I say unto you, Do not fret about the 
 future . . . but seek ye first to establish the reign of justice," 
 then all your worries will be at an end, and the things 
 about which you are so anxious will be added unto you. 
 
 " Do not, therefore, worry about the future, but let 
 the future take care of itself. Sufficient for the day is 
 the evil thereof." 
 
 I will make yet another correction. Even apart from 
 the mistranslations, the passage " Take no thought for the 
 morrow " is almost invariably quoted detached from 
 the context, omitting the word " therefore " with which 
 it is always introduced, and which omission constitutes 
 a misquotation even according to the corrupted English 
 version. For without the " therefore " the words have 
 the form and meaning of an injunction, forbidding — or, 
 at any rate, deprecating — the making of provision for 
 the future ; whereas with it the passage is shown to be 
 the concluding part of an argument, the nature and object 
 of which we now understand. 
 
CHAPTER XXXVI 
 
 "THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL 1 ' {continued) 
 
 The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the 
 lender. — Prov. xxii. 7. 
 
 He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth 
 to the rich, shall surely come to want. — Ibid. v. 16. 
 
 Woe unto you who join house to house and field to field, till there 
 be no place, that they may be placed alone in the mids^ of the earth. — 
 Isa. v. 8. 
 
 For they bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay 
 them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with 
 one of their fingers.— Matt, xxiii. 4. 
 
 Jesus did not — as theologians would have us believe — 
 descant on the blessings of poverty or the sinfulness of 
 sowing and gathering into barns — none but a fool could 
 do so — but discoursed on the evils of a system which was 
 based on wrong conceptions and false assumptions. 
 
 His theme (in the discourse under review) was the 
 eternal problem of the oppression of the many by the few : 
 a problem which was hoary with age already in those far- 
 off times, 1 and which, nevertheless, is still the most burn- 
 ing question of the present day. " The poor ye have 
 always with you/' and the question to which Jesus tried 
 to find an answer was not — as is the case with most 
 soi-disant reformers — what to do with them, but how to 
 eliminate from the social organization the conditions which 
 produces them. 
 
 For let it be noted that Jesus never prescribed remedies 
 — so called — but always sought to find the cause of the 
 evil, and then proposed to choke it off at its source. 
 With his postulates ever present in his mind that " Every 
 good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree 
 bringeth forth evil fruit/' he did not fall into the error, 
 
 1 See quotations at the head of this and the preceding chapter. 
 
 383 
 
"THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL" 289 
 
 so common among students of social problems, of mistaking 
 the symptoms for the malady, and then try to combat the 
 evil by palliating the effects which result from it. His 
 contention was for preventives, and not for palliatives. 
 There can be no " remedy " to correct the evil of the 
 fruit which is brought forth by a corrupt tree. You 
 cannot gather figs of thorns, nor grapes of thistles. There- 
 fore the only way of combating an evil is to destroy the 
 source whence it springs ; or, in the metaphor of the 
 Teacher, " Every tree which bringeth not forth good 
 fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." 
 
 Jesus had recognized — what indeed is apparent — that 
 the chronic poverty which, side by side with a surfeit 
 of wealth, is so characteristic an accompaniment of 
 organized society could not be due to natural conditions, 
 and that the cause thereof must be looked for in some 
 defect of the social system. For one thing, it is to be 
 found in organized society only. It is never to be met 
 with among animals, nor among primitive people living 
 in a state of nature. " Foxes have holes, and the birds 
 of the air have nests ; it is man only who does not know 
 where to lay his head." T 
 
 Nobody to-day would advance the theory that the 
 earth cannot supply, or could not be made to supply, 
 sufficient sustenance for all. For, if that were the case, 
 then all would suffer alike, as is the case with a herd of 
 animals on a poor pasture. Yet there are some . . . 
 
 But why repeat once more these commonplace reflec- 
 tions ? The facts are obvious enough, and have been 
 discussed from time immemorial and times out of number. 
 We know it is so. But why is it so ? Why this dire 
 poverty in the midst of plenty ? Why this lust for wealth 
 and this feverish race for riches, when nature — or " the 
 Father which is in heaven " — is ever ready to respond 
 to man's demands ; when " everyone that asketh, re- 
 ceiveth ; and he that seeketh findeth ; and to him that 
 knocketh, it is opened " ? Then why all this anxiety — 
 not of Gentiles only, but of all people — " What shall we 
 
 1 What different meanings the words of the Sage acquire once they 
 are freed of their theological cerements ! 
 
 19 
 
290 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 eat ? " " What shall we drink ? " " Wherewithal shall 
 we be clothed ? " 
 
 Such an analysis can lead to one result only. The 
 want of faith in the powers of nature (or " the bounties 
 of the Father ") is unjustified, and the true cause of this 
 uncertainty must be sought in unjust human laws and 
 customs. 
 
 Thus viewed, and from such a view-point only, this 
 discourse on riches becomes intelligible, and well worth 
 the most careful study ; for its few trenchant sentences 
 contain more truly practical and relevant wisdom con- 
 cerning this most important problem than is to be found 
 in many a stout volume of what has become known as 
 " the dismal science/' It is the mocking irony of fate 
 only which has characterized the teachings of the greatest 
 and wisest of thinkers as " impracticable " and " foolish," 
 and designated the artificial systems which have so 
 signally failed in their diagnoses as well as in their pre- 
 scriptions as " science " or " philosophy." 
 
 Far from being impracticable or foolish, the counsels 
 and precepts of Jesus offer the only possible solution of 
 the vexed social problems which so far mankind have 
 striven in vain to solve. His precepts are all in direct 
 line of historical development, and — as previously pointed 
 out — do what we will, we can no more evade these de- 
 spised " sayings " than we can free ourselves from the law 
 of gravitation. We may ignore them ; but we cannot 
 escape the punishment. To see this we need only study 
 the history of social evolution at any period, past or 
 present. 
 
 Jesus was not by any means the first reformer — as he 
 certainly was not the last — who deprecated the pursuit 
 of wealth for its own sake. The menace of wealth and 
 the accumulation of riches have at all times been, as they 
 are to-day, matters of grave concern, not to irresponsible 
 idealists only, but to legislators and statesmen of most 
 conservative leanings. For what else is the meaning of 
 the world-wide agitation against " capital " — as this 
 power of the rich over the poor is now designated — than 
 a, recognition of the evil which agitated the prophets 
 
"THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL" 291 
 
 of old, and which Jesus discoursed upon in his disserta- 
 tion on riches ? And what else are the many legislative 
 attempts of our own times dealing with " capital " and 
 t( labour " than attempts to grapple with the evils which 
 spring from this insensate lust for riches ? 
 
 For all so-called labour legislation is but so many 
 attempts to check, or to control, the undue accumulation 
 of wealth, and to limit the powers which it gives to the 
 rich over the poor. As such attempts must be regarded 
 the laws against unfair competition ; the fixation of the 
 age-limit, of hours of labour and rate of wages ; all 
 trade-union regulations ; graduated taxation and " super 
 taxes " ; death duties ; the limitation of profits which 
 are divisible by public companies among their share- 
 holders (vide law to this effect in the United States of 
 America), etc. 
 
 What else, I ask, can be the meaning of such legislative 
 efforts than attempts to grapple with this most ancient 
 and at the same time most burning problem of to-day ? 
 For, notwithstanding what contemporary writers have 
 said, this problem is not of recent origin. Modern indus- 
 trial methods may have aggravated the evil ; or, what 
 seems more probable, may have made the exploitation 
 of the many by the few more apparent ; the dependence 
 of the former on the latter more obvious ; and the suffer- 
 ings in the worst cases more acute. But the problem 
 itself, and the evils which constitute it a problem, are 
 probably as old as is organized society. It originated when 
 for the first time man gained mastery over man ; when for 
 the first time man departed from the rule of God — or 
 " kingdom of God "■ — and submitted to the authority of a 
 fellow-being. 
 
 And the only possible way out of this impasse is, accord- 
 ing to the Sage of Galilee, a return to the rule or reign 
 of God. 
 
 Who dare question his contention ? Who could main- 
 tain that he was wrong in his conclusion ? Who contend 
 that peace is possible where injustice reigns ? Or that 
 justice is possible in a community where one man has 
 power over another man, and can levy on him tribute 
 
292 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 without, or even against, his consent — no matter by what 
 refined process or machinery such tribute is exacted ? 
 Who can say that Jesus was wrong when he said that there 
 was no other way out of this labyrinth than by establish- 
 ing " the reign of justice " ? 
 
 The echo of nineteen centuries of experimenting and 
 tinkering calls back challengingly, Who can ? 
 
CHAPTER XXXVII 
 
 THE UPAS-TREE 
 
 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and 
 cast into the fire. — Matt. vii. 19. 
 
 Woe unto the world because of abuses ; for from abuses come afflic- 
 tions. But yet greater woe to that man through whom the abuses come. 
 — Matt, xviii. 7 (Author's translation). 
 
 You know how the rulers of the nations lord it over them heavily, 
 and how the magnates oppress them. Let it not be so among you. On 
 the contrary, whosoever would be great among you, let him be your 
 servant ; and he that would be first among you, let him be your slave. — 
 Matt. xx. 25—7 (Author's translation). 
 
 The main contentions of Jesus were directed against two 
 evils, from which sprang all the preventable afflictions 
 which beset mankind. These are the lust for material 
 wealth and the lust for power. Of these two root-evils 
 the former is probably the more potent one, as it cer- 
 tainly is the primary or tap-root of the great upas-tree. 
 
 Power, after all, can only be used as a means towards 
 an end ; and the only use (in a sordid sense) which one 
 man can make of another is to be able to command 
 his services : either in kind, or — indirectly — by levying 
 tribute on him. 
 
 But for this nobody would seek mastery over his 
 fellows. But for this power of exploitation "mastery" 
 would have no meaning at all ; would, in fact, be impos- 
 sible. " Greatness " without such power to exact service 
 or tribute would be an empty shell, unless it rested on 
 the spontaneous homage, reverence, or gratitude of the 
 people in acknowledgment of some service rendered. Such 
 greatness, however, could be achieved by those only who 
 served their fellow-men in some conspicuous and unselfish 
 
 way. It would be a homage given, and not a tribute 
 
 293 
 
294 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 exacted, " Wherefore, whosoever would be great among 
 you, let him be your servant ; and he that would be first 
 among you, let him be your slave/' That is, if anyone 
 thinks he can be of some service to you, let him show 
 it by serving you ; but on no account shall you call 
 anyone master upon earth. 
 
 From these two root-evils has sprung the upas-tree 
 which by its evil fruits has poisoned, and is poisoning, 
 the source of our social life. And what is the remedy 
 for the evils thus engendered ? 
 
 If by remedy is meant an antidote, a corrective, or a 
 palliative, then — according to Jesus — there is none. The 
 tree is known by its fruit ; and if the fruit is evil, this 
 shows that the tree which brought it forth is evil, and 
 therefore cannot bring forth good fruit. Nor is it in the 
 power of man to change the character of the fruit unless — 
 as a first condition — he changes the tree also. 
 
 Which means that, although we may determine the 
 kind of tree which shall be planted, we cannot say what 
 kind of fruit it shall bring forth, nor change the character 
 of that fruit. Or, in general terms, we may vary the 
 conditions, but not the results which shall follow from 
 any set of conditions. That has been settled for us from 
 eternity : each act is followed b}' its own definite and 
 predetermined consequences. It is a truism which has 
 found expression in the commonplace saying, "As ye sow, 
 so ye shall reap/' and which science has formulated into 
 its basic " law of causation." But its significance — at 
 least as far as social phenomena are concerned — has never 
 been appreciated as fully and as thoroughly as by the 
 Sage of Galilee. It cannot be too often insisted upon 
 that social evolution does not depend on the wishes or 
 arbitrary ordinances of men, any more than does the 
 evolution of our bodies, but is the result of unseen 
 agencies or forces which are as eternal and as immutable 
 as are the principles or "laws" which govern so-called 
 physical phenomena. And he who hopes to be able by 
 some sort of wizardry or necromancy " to gather grapes 
 of thorns or figs of thistles " has yet to learn the most 
 elementary truths of his existence. 
 
THE UPAS-TREE 295 
 
 Jesus did not try to palliate symptoms, but penetrated 
 to catcses ; for he recognized that only by changing 
 conditions could effects be modified. 
 
 We have seen in the preceding chapter how he proposed 
 to arrest the lust for treasure-hunting ; that is, by doing 
 away with the causes which led to it. Ye are worried 
 about the future — he said in effect — about the means of 
 life. Do ye not see that the response of your Father is 
 always adequate and liberal — or, in the words of the 
 proverb, God never sends a mouth, but sends a loaf also — 
 and that it is your own greed and mutual jealousies which 
 are the cause of the uncertainty that causes you so much 
 worry and anxiety ? Seek ye, therefore, first to establish 
 the reign of justice, and all else will follow as matter of 
 course. 
 
 What Jesus aimed at was to establish the reign (or 
 " kingdom ") of God in place of the anarchy of man : a 
 Theocracy which must not be confounded with a Hierarchy 
 or an Oligarchy, of whatever composition. His " kingdom " 
 was not of this world at all, and could be neither super- 
 imposed on, nor co-ordinated with, the existing rule of 
 man. The two systems were not only irreconcilable, but 
 destructive of each other. 
 
 Lust for wealth and lust for power were the twin roots 
 of the upas-tree from which emanated the exhalations 
 which poisoned the social atmosphere ; and hence the 
 only possible hope of redemption lay in the utter destruc- 
 tion of the tree itself. The reign of justice (rendered in 
 the English translation as " the kingdom of righteous- 
 ness ") would make it impossible for any man to reap 
 where he had not sown ; but neither would he any longer 
 be menaced by thieves. " Wherefore, in all things whatso- 
 ever that ye would that man should do unto you, do you 
 likewise unto them ; for on this hang all the law and the 
 prophets." 
 
 But there were obstacles, or " stumbling-blocks " 
 (" skandala"), which made the adoption of this natural 
 course (or " kingdom of heaven ") impossible. His 
 remedy was no less radical. But, as in the former case, 
 which dealt with the lust for wealth, so his utterances 
 
296 
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 regarding the hist for power have been — under the influence 
 of that very power which he proscribed — deliberately mis- 
 translated and misinterpreted. 
 
 There are two passages in particular which are explicit 
 as far as the Greek texts are concerned, but which have 
 been cunningly translated so as to twist their original 
 meaning into the very opposite of what Jesus so emphatic- 
 ally enjoined. The inaccuracy of the translation may be 
 seen by merely comparing the rendering of the A.V. with 
 that of the R.V. But when either rendering is compared 
 with the original Greek, it is impossible to avoid the 
 conclusion that the ''errors" must have been the result 
 of deliberation. 
 
 I will print here both versions side by side, with as 
 near a literal translation as the peculiarities of the two 
 languages will admit, so that the reader may judge for 
 himself how the alleged " inspired word of God " has been 
 manipulated to serve most sordidly " secular " purposes. 
 I will take the passage in Matt. xx. 25-7 first. 
 
 A.V. 
 
 Ye know that the 
 princes of the Gentiles 
 (sic !) exercise domin- 
 ion over them, and 
 they that are great exer- 
 cise authority over 
 them. But it shall 
 not be so among you : 
 but whosoever will be 
 great among you, let 
 him be your minister 
 (sic !) ; and whosoever 
 will be chief among 
 you, let him be your 
 servant. 
 
 1 KaraKVpvtvovaiv. 
 
 R.V. 
 
 Ye know that the 
 rulers of the Gentiles 
 (sic !) lord it over them, 
 and their great ones 
 exercise attthority. Not 
 so shall it be among 
 you : but whosoever 
 would become great 
 among you shall be 
 your minister (sic !) ; 
 and whosoever would 
 be first among you, 
 shall be your servant. 
 
 Author's Version. 
 
 Ye know how the 
 rulers of the nations 
 lord it over them 
 heavily * and how 
 their magnates oppress 
 them. 2 Let it not be 
 so among you. On the 
 contrary, whosoever 
 would be great among 
 you, let him be your 
 servant ; 3 and he that 
 would be first among 
 you, let him be your 
 slave. 4 
 
 Kars.Z,ovGiaZ,ov(Tiv. 
 
 3 StCtKOVOQ. 
 
 4 dovXog. 
 
 I have underlined certain parts where the deviations 
 are most marked. It will be seen that the wording in 
 the third column is plain, unequivocal, and emphatic ; 
 in striking contrast with that in the first column. Special 
 attention must again be given to the substitution of 
 " Gentiles " for " nations " in the rendering of " ethne " ; 
 
THE UPAS-TREE $97 
 
 by which ruse the passage has been deprived of its force 
 and meaning. For whereas " ethne " includes all nations, 
 the word " Gentiles " applies to non-Jews only ; that is, 
 " nations that have not received the faith, or law of God/' 
 — or, briefly, heathens. This makes it easy for a preacher 
 to prove that the strictures of Jesus did not apply to 
 " the most Christian sovereign " in whose service he may 
 happen to be, but to those only with whom he happened 
 to be at enmity, and who therefore are as bad as heathens. 
 
 That, however, was not what Jesus meant. He roundly 
 condemned all rulers, and acknowledged only " the Father 
 which is in heaven." 
 
 Perhaps still more striking is the departure from the 
 original sense in the passage of Matt, xviii. 7 : — 
 
 A.V. R.V. Author's Version. 
 
 Woe unto the Woe unto the Woe is in the 
 
 world because of of- world because of occa- world because of 
 
 fences : for it must sions of stumbling ! abuses ; for from 
 
 needs be that offences for it must needs be abuses come afflictions 
 
 come : but woe to that occasions come ; (anagkd). But yet 
 
 that man by whom the but woe to the man greater woe to that 
 
 offence cometh. through whom the man through whom 
 
 occasion cometh. the abuses come. 
 
 " Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut 
 them off, and cast them from thee : it is better for thee 
 to enter life halt or maimed, rather than having two 
 hands or two feet, and be cast into everlasting fire." * 
 
 It is obvious that Jesus spoke in parable, as was his 
 wont, and that the offending hands and feet were meant 
 to typify cherished but harmful institutions. 
 
 Jesus preached " the kingdom of God " ; but by it he 
 did not mean a realm in the clouds, which could be reached 
 through the gates of death only ; but a reign of justice 
 upon earthy where the only ruler is to be " the Father 
 which is in heaven," and where " all ye are brethren." 
 
 It was a Theocracy — the rule of God — in the strictest 
 
 1 Near Jerusalem there is a valley which was called Gehennah, or 
 " Valley of Hinnom." In it stood at one time the temple of Moloch, 
 where human sacrifices were offered. In the time of Jesus the valley 
 was used as a destructor to burn offal. Hence " the ever burning fires 
 of Gehenna," which was later identified with the " Hell " of the Greeks. 
 
298 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 sense of the word which Jesus tried to establish. But 
 that was a menace to the then existing Hierarchy and 
 Oligarchy ; just as it would be a menace to what in our 
 own days are known as "Church" and "State." And 
 this was the real issue between Jesus and the powers which 
 were opposed to him. 
 
 It is necessary to bear this issue clearly in mind, and 
 more particularly the distinction drawn by Jesus between 
 the favour which a grateful nation might bestow on some- 
 one for services rendered and the " greatness " of despots 
 who exact services. For then only is it possible to under- 
 stand the true nature of the problem which mankind has 
 to solve, and why to this day it has remained unsolved, 
 notwithstanding the great mental efforts and the rivers 
 of blood which have been spent in so many fruitless 
 attempts. Then — and then only — will the reader be able 
 to understand the purport and meaning of the counsels, 
 precepts, and injunctions of Jesus, and why the teacher 
 of such pure and lofty sentiments was nailed to the cross. 
 For that tale has yet to be told. 
 
 He certainly was not put to death because of his " ethics," 
 as these are represented and interpreted by Christian 
 " divines " ; nor because of any claim9 to divinity or 
 Messiahship with which posterity has so unjustly and 
 unjustifiably charged him. For, in the first place, he 
 never put forth any such claim ; and, secondly, had he 
 done so, it would scarcely have provoked the priesthood 
 to such implacable hatred. There is ample evidence in 
 support of both these contentions. 
 
 That Jesus himself never claimed to be " Christ " is 
 sufficiently clear from Paul's explicit statement that not 
 until after his death was he " declared " to be Christ. For 
 Paul says most plainly that " Jesus Christ our Lord . . . 
 was declared to be Son of God ... by the resurrec- 
 tion from the dead." l Paul is also a good witness for 
 the contention that, even had Jesu9 claimed Messiahship, 
 or sonship of God, this in itself would not have been 
 regarded by the ruling powers as a grave offence, since 
 Paul himself was allowed to do so for him in the syna- 
 
 1 Rom. i. 4. 
 
THE UPAS-TREE 299 
 
 gogues of the Jews ; and though the claim was hotly 
 contested on scriptural and historical grounds (vide the 
 contention about the descent from David), Paul was not 
 molested until he abrogated the Mosaic law. 
 
 Nor did the sentiments of love, kindness, and forbear- 
 ance preached by Jesus provoke resentment among his 
 compatriots, since such teachings were neither alien nor 
 new among the Jews. Jewish commentators are un- 
 questionably right when they insist that there was nothing 
 original in the Sermon on the Mount, or offensive to Jewish 
 sentiment, which could have served as a basis for an 
 accusation against its author, much less resulted in his 
 being sentenced to death for it. 
 
 Nominally Jesus was accused of blasphemy ; but that 
 charge is absurd on the face of it. Blasphemy means 
 reviling the Deity ; an offence which is simply unthink- 
 able in connection with Jesus, who placed God before 
 and above all else. 
 
 No ; the crime of Jesus was not that he did not rever- 
 ence God, but that he reverenced nothing and nobody else. 
 To him " the Father which was in heaven " was the only 
 guide ; * his " will " the only law ; and the people " were 
 all brethren." 
 
 And that was the heinous crime which Jesus had com- 
 mitted and which he had to expiate on the cross. Let 
 me repeat it : his crime was — and in the eyes of the 
 Churches still is — that he preached the reign of God, 
 which has fraudulently been rendered the kingdom of 
 God, and has been interpreted to mean a realm in the 
 clouds to be reached after death, and by those only who 
 support and obey a system which Jesus denounced as 
 an unmitigated evil. 
 
 The truth is that Jesus was guilty of two ugly — though 
 entirely artificial — crimes : crimes which in a society such 
 as he tried to establish would be impossible and unthink- 
 able, but which to this day are looked upon in every 
 
 1 Not " master," as in the English version, but " guide." The Greek 
 word is "kathegetes," which is derived from kathegomai, which means 
 " to lead the way " or "to guide." Jesus spoke of God as " Father," 
 " Teacher," or " Guide," but never as " master " or by any appellation 
 which suggests the despot, potentate, or tyrant. 
 
300 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 Christian land as the blackest crimes which it is possible 
 for man to commit. They are heresy and sedition : the 
 one meaning a disregard of the rulings of the priesthood, 
 and the other disobedience to the rulings of a prince ; 
 neither of which was to have either place or authority 
 in the Theocracy of Jesus. 
 
 Jesus fell a victim to the poison of that very tree which 
 he tried to uproot and to destroy, but which has blossomed 
 into the twin-powers of Church and State. 
 
 And here I would once more remind the reader that 
 the matter for consideration in the first place is not 
 whether the ideals of Jesus were right or wrong, practic- 
 able or impracticable, but what they were, be they right 
 or wrong. We may accept or reject his counsels ; but 
 we have no right to falsify his words so as to make them 
 coincide with our own views — or the views which people 
 may be compelled to defend, whether they were their 
 own or not. Still less can there be a moral justification 
 for attributing divinity to Jesus, and then under that 
 weighty authority promulgate doctrines to which he was 
 opposed, and for denouncing which he had to die a cruel 
 death. Rather let us face the facts as they are, even 
 if in doing so we may have to disturb some cobwebs 
 which are endeared to us by tender memories. Let us 
 remember the words of the Teacher, " Affliction cometh 
 from abuses ; wherefore if thine eye offend thee, pluck 
 it out and cast it from thee/' And surely there can be 
 no greater offence than a falsehood ; no more serious 
 abuse than the perversion of truth. 
 
CHAPTER XXXVIII 
 
 THE THEOCRACY OF JESUS 
 
 When ye see a cloud rising in the west, straightway ye say, There 
 cometh a shower ; and so it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, 
 ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites! ye 
 know how to interpret the face of the earth and the heaven ; but how 
 is it that ye fail to interpret the signs of the times ? — Luke xii. 54-6. 
 
 That Jesus preached the " kingdom of God " need not 
 be argued ; for as to that there neither is, nor can be, 
 any doubt or dispute. The only point at all debatable 
 is what he could have meant by the phrase — what was 
 precisely in his mind when he prayed " thy kingdom 
 come ; thy will be done upon earth." 
 
 It all turns on the interpretation of the word " king- 
 dom." I have dealt with this repeatedly and fully ; 
 though not, it is hoped, more so than the importance 
 of the subject demands. 
 
 If there could have been a shred of doubt left on this 
 point, the investigations of the last chapter have swept 
 it away. There can be no longer any uncertainty as to 
 what Jesus meant by " the kingdom of God " which he 
 sought to establish. It was a Theocracy in the most 
 literal sense : a Commonwealth ruled over by " the 
 Father which is in heaven," and in which no privileged 
 class — priests, princes, or magnates — was to be tolerated. 
 For such are offences which bring affliction on nations. 
 
 They bind heavy burdens on men's shoulders, but they themselves 
 will not move them with their finger. But all their works they do for 
 display . . . they love the chief seats in the synagogues, and the saluta- 
 tions in the market-places, and to be called of men, Rabbi. 1 But be ye 
 not called Rabbi : for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. 
 
 1 Rabbi is the Hebrew for " teacher," and was a recognized title of 
 
 distinction. 
 
 301 
 
302 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 Surely nothing could be plainer or more conclusive. 
 Even the subtle ruse that the remarks refer to " Gentiles " 
 only is here inapplicable, since the above denunciation 
 was explicitly directed against those who " sat in Moses' 
 seat/' His dictum, " Call no man master upon earth/' 
 was absolute. From that conclusion there is no escape, 
 and the only question which remains is whether the 
 counsel is acceptable. 
 
 In this connection two questions press for answer. 
 Firstly, is such a system at all practicable, even if desir- 
 able ? Secondly, would such a system be desirable even 
 if practicable ? 
 
 Answers to these questions are not to be sought in the 
 vague field of opinion, but must be deduced from the logic 
 of facts. We must follow the method indicated by Jesus 
 in the passage quoted at the head of this chapter, which 
 is also the method of science : that is, we must observe 
 the trend of events, and interpret tendencies as we have 
 learnt to interpret the face of the earth and the heaven. 
 
 For — let it be stated once more — it is not man's will 
 or intentions which govern the ultimate course of events — 
 if I may so express myself — but an inevitable destiny 
 which we may hasten or retard, but can no more evade 
 than we can prevent the stream from reaching the ocean 
 by throwing a dam across its path. 
 
 " Man proposes, but God disposes " is a perfectly 
 correct generalization, expressing the common experience 
 of mankind in a homely way, the real meaning of which 
 has not been appreciated by philosophers and statesmen 
 as it deserves to be. Had they done so, they would have 
 placed less reliance on their arbitrary systems. 
 
 It is not the counsels and deeds of these blind leaders 
 of the blind whence we may hope to obtain the needed 
 guidance. Let us consult history, by all means ; not, 
 however, the opinions of this or that writer, but the 
 records of actual facts. 
 
 What are they ? What is the natural trend of events ? 
 In which direction are we being carried by the stream of 
 time ? In short, What is the destiny toward which we 
 are drifting in spite of ourselves, and without being able 
 
THE THEOCRACY OF JESUS 303 
 
 to prevent it ? For then only, when we understand the 
 direction of the current by which we are carried along, 
 shall we know how to steer our craft rationally. 
 
 By help of Gamaliel's test it should not be difficult 
 to deduce from the trend of events correct answers to 
 these questions — for God [or nature] never errs. What, 
 then, are the outstanding facts of history ? 
 
 These, that for untold generations man has fought man 
 for supremacy and for the control of the means of life. 
 For thousands and thousands of years the strong or the 
 cunning who succeeded in gaining mastery over their 
 fellow-men were feared, flattered, and adored. Nations 
 were subjugated and drilled into submission. Every 
 effort had been made by rulers to ensure their dominance 
 and that of their descendants. People were taught that 
 kingship was a divine institution ; that the person of 
 the king was sacred ; and homage was paid to such 
 despots which was greater than that paid to the Deity. 
 The king was — and is — " the all-highest," the " most 
 gracious," the " most high and mighty " sovereign, whose 
 person was sacrosanct, whose will was law, and who — 
 though he could not add an inch to his stature, nor make 
 a hair black or white — had command of life and death 
 over millions of his subjects. 
 
 In this state of things mankind acquiesced, until it has 
 become a conviction that without such a supreme head 
 society could not exist — so much so that when a people 
 finds itself without a king — maybe because they have 
 just succeeded in freeing themselves from the death-grip 
 of a former tyrant — they actually scour the world in search 
 of some princeling who is to rule over them. 
 
 These are the facts of history. 
 
 Now, if it were natural for some people to rule and for 
 others to be ruled over, this tendency should have become 
 more firmly established the longer it endured, and its 
 inevitableness should by now be as much beyond doubt or 
 question as is the distinction of race or sex. 
 
 But what are the actual results ? Everywhere the 
 tendency is towards a democracy, where the power is ,to 
 emanate from the people^ to j-Qinain with the people, 
 
304 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 and where the rulers are to be the servants of the people 
 instead of being their masters. Everywhere despotism is 
 slowly yielding to democratic institutions. Everywhere 
 the impression is deepening that " the people are the salt 
 of the earth " and that all men are — or should be — 
 brethren ; and that it is a violation of " the natural 
 rights of man " that anyone should have pre-eminence 
 over his fellows. 
 
 In short, the tendency is towards Democracy ; and the 
 Theocracy of Jesus is the highest and purest form of a 
 true Democracy. 
 
 In this country at least — admittedly one of the freest 
 and best governed — it is no longer a crime to speak of " the 
 sovereign people " or " the sovereign will of the people " ; 
 and it is considered real praise when the nominal sovereign 
 is referred to as a constitutional king ; that is, as one 
 who is doing his best to serve the people by carrying out 
 their constitutionally expressed wishes. 
 
 True, we are as yet far from the ideal Commonwealth 
 as conceived by Jesus, even in the most democratically 
 governed countries. But what I wish to point out is 
 that we are tending in that direction ; that the conditions 
 laid down by Jesus are all in the direct line of social evolu- 
 tion. Indeed, it could be shown that the merits of any 
 existing form of government are those features of it which 
 comply — and insofar only as they comply — with the con- 
 ditions laid down by Jesus ) and that any shortcomings 
 from that ideal are so many defects. 
 
 But what is of even greater significance is that all 
 countries and all nations, without exception, are tending 
 in that direction, even though the ruling powers are doing 
 their utmost to suppress such tendencies. 
 
 Thus ancient Persia, autocratic Russia, 1 tyrannical 
 Turkey, despotic China, priest-ridden Spain — to mention 
 only some of the countries most removed from democratic 
 ru l e — a re all tending in one and the same direction, whilst 
 the respective rulers are striving in the opposite direction. 
 They foolishly think this democratic spirit to be a human 
 invention, engineered by this or that political " agitator/* 
 i This was written prior to the Revolution of 191 7. 
 
THE THEOCRACY OF JESUS 305 
 
 and that by killing such they can stamp out the spirit 
 which has called them into being. " Thus far and no 
 farther ! " roars the arrogant despot ; but heedless of 
 such silly outbursts the tide rolls on, slowly but surely : 
 and the ultimate issue is no more doubtful than is the 
 destination of the river or of the streamlets which feed it. 
 For, as Jesus so truly said, " Till heaven and earth pass, 
 one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law 
 till all be fulfilled." 
 
 Verily the wise Gamaliel was right when he said that 
 whatever is of man will come to nought ; and that which 
 is of God cannot be overthrown. 
 
 Strange conclusions these ; so utterly at variance with 
 all accepted notions. Yet, what does it all amount to ? 
 This, that it is not human wisdom nor man's will which 
 rules the moral world, any more than it rules the physical 
 world. That — whether we know it or not ; whether we 
 approve of it or not — there is a destiny which we have 
 to fulfil — or perish. That in the moral as in the physical 
 world, effects are the result of conditions ; and if we would 
 reap a particular crop, we must sow the right seed and in 
 the right way. That is, that whilst we are free to choose 
 the seed which shall be sown, or the tree which shall be 
 planted, we cannot say what fruits the tree shall bear, 
 once it is planted. 
 
 Let those who marvel at " the failure of Christianity " 
 and the inconsistencies of our civilization, or who despair 
 of ever finding a way out of this man-created misery, 
 ponder well over this generalization ; for it contains the 
 answer to the riddle of the Sphinx. It is a mere common- 
 place, certainly ; but it is for the lack of common sense 
 that human wisdom has failed. 
 
 And now let us return to the two questions which, in 
 the beginning of this chapter, we proposed to find 
 answers to. The answer to the first question, " Is a 
 Commonwealth such as conceived by Jesus practicable ? " 
 is that not only is it practicable, but, in the end, it is 
 inevitable. Nay, we can say more than this : No other is 
 possible ; for any social system which falls short of the 
 conditions laid down by Jesus — whatever else it might be 
 
 20 
 
306 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 called — would not be a Commonwealth. Nor could the 
 ideal of universal peace and goodwill be ensured in a 
 society where either individuals or classes enjoy privileges 
 to the exclusion, or at the expense, of the rest of the 
 community. 
 
 And so we find once more that the counsels of Jesus 
 were not the illusory ideals of a dreamer, but inevitable 
 deductions from the logic of facts. They are all in direct 
 line of social evolution, and to oppose their tendencies 
 means fighting against destiny. 
 
 The second question, " Is such a state of society 
 desirable, even if possible ? " we need not discuss at 
 all, for it is the heaven for which mankind has ever 
 been yearning. It is only because they failed to see how 
 it could be established on earth that people looked for 
 it in the clouds of their imagination. Yet nothing is 
 more within such easy reach of man, if only he could 
 be made to see and to understand the meaning of these 
 words : " The kingdom of God cometh not with observa- 
 tion, for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." 
 
 Not the seer who has perceived this ; who has con- 
 templated Nature and grasped the meaning of her mys- 
 teries ; who has recognized that the world is governed 
 by eternal, immutable laws ; who is the visionary dreamer : 
 but he who would conquer nature by force, or fancies 
 that by threats or incantations he can command the 
 tides. 
 
CHAPTER XXXIX 
 
 FALSE PROPHETS 
 By their fruits ye shall know them. — -Jesus. 
 
 As has more than once been pointed out in these pages, 
 the precepts of Jesus have never yet been considered by 
 either philosopher or statesman as deserving serious con- 
 sideration in connection with the practical affairs of life. 
 
 They were never regarded even by the Churches as 
 being more than a collection of moral maxims which were 
 useful in the training of children, but which were irrelevant 
 and inapplicable beyond the nursery or the Sunday school. 
 And it must be admitted that, in the form in which they 
 have been presented as an incoherent collection of maxims 
 or precepts, there seems to be little in them deserving 
 the attention of those charged with the responsibilities 
 of the family or the State. 
 
 It is quite different, however, when we contemplate 
 them as parts of a cogent, coherent, and consistent system 
 of philosophy which is based on the actualities of life. 
 Then each acquires a new meaning and an importance 
 never suspected by those who arrogated to themselves 
 the sole right of interpreting — and of disregarding — these 
 teachings. 
 
 Indeed, those false prophets— false in more than one 
 sense — not only have failed to interpret correctly the 
 Great Teacher, but, by corrupting the text and burying 
 the truth beneath a gigantic mass of dogmatic rubbish 
 and dialectical nonsense, have made his teachings inac- 
 cessible to the general public, and even beyond the reach 
 of the average student. 
 
 In support of this statement I would point out that 
 
 no less that two closely reasoned chapters had to be 
 
 307 
 
308 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 devoted to explain just the one sentence " Take no thought 
 for the morrow/' and to turn the nonsense which learning 
 and piety have succeeded in imparting to it into its 
 original common sense. Similarly, the injunction " Be ye 
 not called Rabbi " seems trite until we learn that the 
 objection to a seemingly harmless title only emphasized 
 the warning not to submit to any human dominance 
 whatsoever, or under whatsoever pretence. Then only do 
 we comprehend the far-reaching importance of a seemingly 
 trite injunction. 1 
 
 It is beyond the scope of this work — even if the writer 
 did not feel so acutely his lack of qualification and want 
 of opportunity for such a task — to revise the translation 
 of all the utterances of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, so 
 as to restore to them their original meaning. That task 
 must be left to more competent hands. All the present 
 writer hopes to do is to remove sufficient of the theological 
 rubbish to show that beneath it there are treasures well 
 worth the attention of experts in these matters. 
 
 But we have learnt enough of the philosophy of Jesus 
 to understand such of his precepts, counsels, or injunctions 
 which hitherto have been beyond rational comprehension. 
 Above all, we know now what he meant when he prayed 
 " Thy kingdom come," tf thy will be done on earth as it is 
 in heaven." We know now that " the kingdom of God " 
 meant the reign of equity, of impartial justice, of the 
 equality or brotherhood of man, and the absence of domi- 
 nance of man over man. We understand now also what 
 was in the Seer's mind when he said that the second law — 
 " Love thy neighbour as thyself " — was like unto the first, 
 and that " on these two commandments hung all the law 
 and the prophets." For when the meaning of this basic 
 principle is fully grasped, all the precepts and injunctions 
 of Jesus follow as mere matter of course. Then indeed 
 the whole law might be taught — as did Hillel — to any 
 inquirer whilst he could stand on one leg. 
 
 1 How well justified the warning was has been proved by the fact 
 that the plain " Rabbi " has since then blossomed into " His Holiness," 
 with princely powers, and all the mischief which follows in the wake 
 of power. 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 309 
 
 Whether the deductions from this basic principle are 
 feasible or practicable is another matter, which shall 
 presently receive our attention. 
 
 But let it be remembered that this doubt applies even 
 more strongly to the system in vogue than to the proposals 
 of Jesus, inasmuch as these have yet to be tried,, whereas 
 the prevalent systems have been tried most extensively 
 for centuries, in an endless variety of ways, and have 
 been found wanting. 
 
 I said systems ; for we shall have to consider at least 
 two — that of the religious and that of the secular powers. 
 I propose to contrast each in turn with the counsels of 
 Jesus, commencing with the former. 
 
 Dating Christianity from the time of the conversion of 
 Paul, it has had more than eighteen hundred years in 
 which to justify itself ; with the result that at the present 
 time the chief topic concerning it is an animated discussion 
 as to the causes of its utter failure. The failure itself is, 
 of course, admitted, as of necessity it must be in view 
 of the fact that Christian nations are engaged in the most 
 sanguinary and most atrociously waged war known to 
 history. And they are doing so with the approval of 
 the teachers and defenders of the Christian cult — the 
 ministers of each country blessing the instruments of war 
 wherewith " the children of the Father which is in heaven " 
 are to be killed or maimed, and praying for the victory 
 of their respective armies. 1 
 
 This is not meant in any way as a reproach to the 
 clergy, but as an indictment against the faith which they 
 promulgate. It is natural that the pastors should be in 
 sympathy with the people to whom they belong by ties 
 of blood. I merely want to point out how that which 
 is natural cannot be co-ordinated w T ith the doctrines 
 which they are teaching ; how they themselves fail to 
 comply — when it is most urgently necessary that they 
 should do so — with their own teachings. I merely desire 
 
 1 In my allusions to the war, which is here referred to for the object- 
 lessons only which it supplies, I purposely refrain from showing bias, 
 as these chapters are intended to appeal to all reasonable men, of what- 
 ever race, creed, or colour. 
 
3io THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 to point out that Christianity — no less than the wisdom 
 of the secular authorities — has failed, so as to be able to 
 trace the cause of that failure. 
 
 It is my intention to show that religion and statecraft, 
 or Church and State, have both failed because they have 
 rejected the only sound philosophy which has ever been 
 presented to mankind ; that whatever partial successes 
 either can show have been achieved only by compliance 
 with the rules of that philosophy, and in so far only as 
 these rules have been complied with. And this shall be the 
 answer to the objection that the precepts of Jesus are 
 beyond the range of what is practicable. 
 
 To guard against possible misunderstandings, I would 
 again remind the reader that he must not confuse the teach- 
 ings of Jesus with the doctrines of Christianity. In these 
 pages at least the two are not the same, but the antithesis 
 of each other. By Christianity is here meant the system 
 of faith and worship based on the Christology of Paul, 
 which enjoins* the very opposite of what Jesus taught. 
 
 If against this it should' be urged that the precepts of 
 Jesus are part of Christianity, this would only aggravate 
 the charge of falseness ; for there is not a single one of 
 his precepts or injunctions which has not been syste- 
 matically violated by official Christianity, or which is not 
 at the present moment outrageously set at naught by 
 Christian nations. 
 
 It cannot be pleaded that Christianity has failed for 
 want of opportunity or lack of support from the secular 
 powers ; for practically it made the opportunities itself 
 in every Christian State, and to a considerable extent 
 it constituted the State. Where the Church could not 
 actually dictate to the State in secular as well as in re- 
 ligious matters, it nevertheless had the full support of the 
 latter in spiritual affairs. State and Church, or Church 
 and State, have ever been faithful allies when either of 
 them was menaced by the rising spirit of the times, not- 
 withstanding mutual rivalries and occasional quarrels 
 with each other. 
 
 If, therefore, we now judge Christianity by its fruits, it 
 cannot be pleaded on its behalf that it has not had a fair 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 311 
 
 chance to unfold its powers for good. That plea might 
 be made — and is herewith made — for the precepts of 
 Jesus. But that, instead of being a defence of, is an 
 indictment against, Christianity. For the philosophy of 
 Jesus has never yet been properly examined even, let 
 alone tried, by either Church or State ; whereas Christ- 
 ianity has had for more than a thousand years the almost 
 exclusive control of the education and the training of 
 the people of Christian Europe. And in her capacity as 
 teacher, no less than as guardian, the Church knew how 
 to use the " birch/' nor did she shrink from applying it, 
 when some of her wards were mutinous or refractory. 
 
 She was sole mistress of the world, and therefore is 
 responsible for our morals, our culture, our sentiments, 
 our institutions, our religion — aye, even for the spirit of 
 revolt which now threatens her downfall. " By their fruits 
 ye shall know them." It is a most terrible harvest which 
 mankind is reaping just now as a result of the sowing 
 by Christianity. It is a calamity such as has never before 
 been known among people called " savages " or " heathens " 
 — a veritable inferno, compared with which the threatened 
 terrors of the theological hell pale into insignificance. 
 
 These are the fruits of eighteen centuries of sowing. 
 
 If, in the face of these results, it be still contended 
 that Christianity is blameless, then Jesus must have 
 been wrong when he said that a tree may be known b}' 
 its fruit. Then it should be possible to gather figs of 
 thorns, or grapes of thistles. 
 
 Or shall we say that the Churches have taught what 
 Jesus has enjoined, and that the evils are all consequent 
 on, or the result of, his teachings ? 
 
 It is a dread alternative, but we must face it : either 
 Jesus was utterly wrong, or the Churches have failed to 
 interpret him correctly. 
 
 Which was the false prophet ? 
 
 Let us see. 
 
 After more than a thousand years of teaching and 
 preaching, what is the ruling idea which Christianity has 
 instilled into the mind of the children over whose intel- 
 lectual and moral training she had practically sole control ? 
 
312 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 Let us take four main currents of thought and action 
 which go to make up the intellectual and moral life of 
 a nation: Religion, Statecraft, Philosophy, and Com- 
 mercialism. 
 
 What disparate subjects these are ! There does not 
 seem to be a point of contact between any of them. In 
 both aims and method each differs so essentially from 
 the others that a comparison from any point of view 
 seems impossible. And yet the leading motive of each 
 could be stated in identical terms. Indeed, the vox 
 populi has done so in its own expressive vernacular, by 
 the aphorism " Each for himself, and the devil take the 
 hindmost." 
 
 In business and in statecraft this maxim is frankly 
 acknowledged to be the guiding principle. Though not 
 admitted, it is nevertheless also the keynote of con- 
 temporary philosophy ; for such catch-phrases as " Utili- 
 tarianism/' " Superman/' " Struggle for existence/' 
 " Survival of the fittest," " The weakest must go to the 
 wall," etc., are but thin disguises of what is expressed 
 more bluntly, if less learnedly, in such popular saws as 
 " Self first and last," " Charity begins at home," " Take 
 care of Number One," " Have an eye to the main chance," 
 and so on. 
 
 And how about religion, which is supposed to check 
 and correct such selfish tendencies ? Alas ! it is the arch- 
 sinner — conventional religion, that is — for it enjoins as a 
 first duty on the people to make sure of the salvation of 
 their own soul, at whatever cost to themselves or to others. 
 It is self, and always self. And for this vicious outlook 
 on life, its purpose and its duties, Christianity must be 
 held responsible ; hot merely because it has failed to expose 
 the underlying fallacy, but because it upheld it by precept 
 and fostered it by example. 
 
 Christianity is based on deliberate untruths and false 
 premises : well meant, may be ; but false in every essen- 
 tial, none the less. 
 
 To begin with, it despised this life ; taught that man 
 was born in sin and corruption ; that happiness is to 
 be found on the other side of the grave only ; and 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 3*3 
 
 that the chief concern of each should be to secure this 
 happiness for himself, at all hazards. 
 
 Christianity taught — what is manifestly untrue — that a 
 person could be happy though the rest of mankind was 
 not ; and that the bliss in that far-off cloudland was of 
 such sublimity that one could enjoy the delights of 
 paradise though parent, child, friend, or neighbour were 
 suffering unspeakable torments ; that the " elect " could 
 witness the anguish and hear the groans of the " lost," 
 and still call such a place " heaven " and such a life 
 " blessed." 
 
 It is needless to point out how contrary all this is 
 to the teachings of Jesus, as well as to the common 
 experience of mankind. 
 
 Far from being a religion of love, Pauline Christianity 
 is selfishness in the extreme. 
 
 Do not, I pray, misunderstand me. I say all this of 
 Christianity, but not of Christians ; of " Christ " — alias 
 Paul — but not of Jesus ; of the impostor who with the 
 alluring false promises has hypnotized mankind, but not 
 of the victims of that deception. 
 
 Of the people themselves, all I have to say is that they 
 have been deluded and misled by false prophets ; of the 
 ministers who teach these doctrines, that they are deceived 
 deceivers. But of either as " the children of the Father 
 which is in heaven" I have to say nothing but good; 
 since even the corrupt and corrupting doctrines of Paul 
 and his followers have failed to suppress their immanent 
 goodness of heart and soul. 
 
 It is this innate kindness and mutual love which has 
 got us so far on the road of civilization, and not the jarring, 
 contentious doctrines which fostered the love of self and 
 the hatred of others ; which came between the self and 
 the objects of its desire. 
 
 It is a false and mischievous doctrine that man is born 
 in sin ; that he is incapable of righteousness ; that he is 
 unworthy of salvation ; or that he can be saved vicariously 
 only by the grace of a demon such as Paul conceived 
 God to be. The contrary of all this is true. 
 
 Man is born in love and not in sin. There is no love 
 
3H THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 greater or holier than that of mother and child. There 
 is nothing more sinless— baptized or not — than the child 
 in the mother's arms. Woe unto him who dare offend 
 one of these little ones, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 What there is good and true and noble in the Gospels — ■ 
 the " ethics " of Jesus — has been deliberately rejected by 
 the Churches as impracticable, and in doing so the only 
 thread which connected Christianity with its supposed 
 founder has been severed. And that is the reason why 
 Christianity has failed. 
 
 Christ, alias Saul of Tarsus, alias Paul, the self-appointed 
 " apostle/' stands convicted as a false prophet by every 
 test which can be applied. His premises are untrue ; his 
 deductions are wrong ; his pretence of being ambassador 
 of God or the interpreter of Jesus is false. And most 
 conclusive of all, the tree which he has planted has brought 
 forth none but evil fruit. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 ; FALSE PROPHETS {con 
 
 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye shut up 
 the kingdom of heaven against men : for ye neither go in yourselves, 
 neither suffer ye them that would enter to go in. — Matt, xxiii. 13. 
 
 Let us raise the question once more, but in a different 
 form. 
 
 It has been said that it is not the Church but civiliza- 
 tion that is a failure. By civilization, I presume, are 
 meant all the activities which do not come within the 
 scope of the Church ; in short, all the mundane affairs 
 of life. 
 
 I shall not stop to inquire what there is left as the 
 province of the Church, after these are eliminated. I 
 shall not even contend if the plea be made that 
 secular matters are no concern of the Churches, that 
 this is more than an admission of failure as affecting 
 matters pertaining to this life : it is a blank repudiation 
 of responsibility. 
 
 I will waive these and similar objections that could 
 legitimately be raised to such a plea, and accept the 
 implied accusation against the civil authorities. Let us 
 assume that this calamity has been brought on the world 
 by errors of statesmanship ; that, had the Churches 
 been consulted, it could not have happened ; that, were 
 the Churches consulted now, the evil could speedily be 
 banished, and that peace and goodwill would reign at 
 last. 
 
 I am speaking of Churches — in the plural — because 
 there are many ; which in itself is a proof that they are 
 the blind leaders of the blind. For when there is neither 
 peace nor goodwill as between one and another of these 
 
 315 
 
316 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 sectarians, how can they hope to give to the world 
 that which they do not possess themselves ? How can 
 they hope to remove the mote from the eye of the 
 secular power whilst they themselves are afflicted with 
 a beam ? 
 
 But even this objection we may waive for the moment, 
 and instead of " Churches " speak of " Christianity/' 
 Let us limit the meaning of this term to what is essential 
 and is common to all, and then ask, What counsels has 
 Christianity, thus relieved of the reproach of sectarianism, 
 to offer to the responsible rulers of the State, after having 
 eliminated the precepts and counsels of Jesus ? For 
 these not only are not part of Christianity, but have been 
 rejected by the Churches themselves as impracticable and 
 inapplicable to the mundane affairs of man. 
 
 In the present devastating war, what could be more 
 ridiculous than the conception of bishops and arch- 
 bishops waiting on the responsible authorities of the 
 State, Bible and Prayer-book in hand, for the purpose 
 of advising them what to do to end this calamity, and how 
 to make a recurrence of it impossible ? Is there a man 
 living within or without the pale of the Churches who 
 would not shrink from the very idea of their interference 
 as too frivolous in such serious circumstances ? 
 
 Could any ruler or statesman be expected to consider 
 for a single moment the suggestion that he should consult 
 the spiritual leaders what to do in exigencies which 
 threaten the existence of the nation ? Or, if he made 
 a reply at all to such a suggestion, could we expect him 
 to say more than, " Let the Churches first establish peace 
 among themselves," or " Let Christianity set us an ex- 
 ample how its doctrines are to be applied" ? 
 
 Christianity — apart from the discarded " ethics " of 
 Jesus — has nothing to offer. It is a philosophy of despair, 
 and has been conceived in despair by a pessimist who saw 
 no possible salvation for mankind. " Flesh and blood 
 cannot inherit the kingdom of God," he said, 1 and there- 
 fore he consigned this world to perdition and built his 
 hopes on another world — a kind of happy hunting-ground — 
 
 ? Cor. xv. 50. 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 3*7 
 
 to be established in the clouds after this has been 
 annihilated. 1 
 
 Not only has Christianity nothing to offer beyond a 
 vague promise of retribution beyond the grave, but it 
 has proved a barren soil for even the few seeds which by 
 mere accident have been deposited among its records. 
 Nothing would seem more absurd, for instance, than that 
 the precepts of Jesus should enter into politics even in 
 times of peace, let alone when nations are engaged in 
 deadly combat with each other. 
 
 " What is wanted," we should be told, if the suggestion 
 were at all deemed worthy of an answer, " are wisdom 
 and statesmanship." 
 
 It is the result of Christian teaching that the counsels 
 of Jesus are, by general consent, regarded as the least 
 likely source where to find either. 
 
 And yet I will risk it, and say that not only can the 
 needed guidance be found there, but that it can be found 
 nowhere else. I will undertake to show that as regards 
 human conduct no other philosophy has ever yet been 
 so completely based on, and deduced from, the actualities 
 of life as the despised " sayings " of the Nazarene Sage. 
 
 I will submit the philosophy of Jesus to the severest 
 test imaginable. I propose to use the present world-war 
 as my object-lesson, and compare what has actually been 
 done in connection therewith with what should have been 
 done had the counsels of Jesus, rather than those of some 
 Machiavelli, prevailed. 
 
 I shall make this comparison not from any moral or 
 sentimental point of view, which — thanks to centuries of. 
 Christian training — could provoke derision only ; but from 
 
 1 As the objection is almost sure to be raised in certain quarters that 
 Paul was concerned about man's " spiritual " rather than his " secular " 
 welfare, I will once more point out that no such distinction can be drawn. 
 Paul promised nothing different from what are called " secular comforts " 
 — i.e. peace and plenty. The only difference between the " spiritualism " 
 of Paul and the " secularism " of Jesus is that Paul's promises would 
 materialize on the other side of the grave only, whereas Jesus sought 
 to establish " the kingdom of God " here and now. But there is a true 
 spiritualism in the teachings of Jesus — the cultivation of the soul and mind, 
 
 the " laying up of treasures which neither moth nor rust can corrupt " • 
 
 which is lacking in the fanciful speculations of Paul. 
 
3i3 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 a strictly utilitarian standpoint, and in terms of " profit 
 and loss of effective war material " — i.e. of life or treasure — 
 agreeably to the prevailing " practical " spirit of the times. 
 And thus will I challenge a comparison of the combined 
 wisdom of all the statesmen of the world with the simple 
 common-sense philosophy of the " Galilean Peasant." 
 
 But to make such a comparison possible it will be 
 necessary to strip both facts and doctrines of all that is 
 foreign or irrelevant. We must drop all the social jargon 
 and conventional embellishments of speech which are 
 apt to make ugly things appear in bright colours, and 
 state the facts in plain, unvarnished, and unequivocal 
 language. 
 
 The first question to be dealt with is, How did this 
 conflagration which has set Europe ablaze break out ? 
 
 Observe, please, that I am not asking what has caused 
 the war, but only what has started it. For with all its 
 terrors and complications this war is an incident only in 
 a struggle which has lasted ever since brute prehistoric 
 man tried to wrest from his neighbour the fruits of 
 his toil. Much has already been written about the cause 
 of this war ; more is yet to follow from historians and 
 " experts " — diplomatic, military, economic, industrial, and 
 financial. But the real cause. of this and every other war 
 we shall presently be able to state in the Teacher s words 
 whose counsels have hitherto been regarded with derision 
 by statesmen and philosophers alike. 
 
 Once more then : What has started this war ? The 
 plain and unsophisticated facts are these : A married 
 couple, dear no doubt to their family and friends, but 
 otherwise of no special importance to the rest of mankind, 
 were murdered in a town of Southern Europe where — I 
 mention this only as a matter of fact, and not in any way 
 as justifying the crime — they were neither invited nor 
 welcome guests. 
 
 An old man felt himself aggrieved by the foul deed. 
 Not really because of the loss of two dear relatives ; that 
 he might have born with resignation, as he bore the loss 
 of his only son, or that of the mother of his children, 
 both of whom fell by the assassin's hand. Nor because 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 319 
 
 he could have been shocked by the sinfulness of murder : 
 for did he not himself sign death-warrants by the 
 dozen, ordering in cold blood the assassination of political 
 opponents ? 
 
 No ; what outraged this old man was, according to 
 published accounts, that he saw in the murder of the 
 couple "an insult to his house/' This was more than 
 his Christian humility — publicly exhibited once every 
 year by touching with a wet sponge the previously well 
 cleansed feet of some paupers — could endure ; and for- 
 getting all about the injunction against the lex talionis, 
 as well as the warning that he who uses the sword runs 
 the risk of perishing by the sword, unsheathed the 
 murderous weapon and snorted vengeance. 
 
 The rest need concern us no further in these pages. 
 
 The double murder was an outrage, of course, for which 
 no words of condemnation could be too strong. But do 
 not let us be hypnotized into seeing in the incident more 
 than there is in it. The crime consisted in the killing 
 of hitman beings — in disobeying the commandment " Thou 
 shalt not kill " — and not in any insult offered to the 
 imperial dignity of a senile monarch. It would have 
 been no less a crime had the victims been inoffensive 
 peasants instead of people who arrogated to themselves 
 prerogatives to which they had no natural rights, and 
 which are acquired and defended by brute force only. 
 
 The question will here be asked, Should the murder 
 have been left unavenged ? But that is not the first 
 nor the most important problem arising out of the incident. 
 The first question should be, Why was that crime com- 
 mitted at all ? And the answer to it is, To avenge some 
 prior act of violence ; to exact a tooth for a tooth and 
 an eye for an eye. 
 
 Whether the wrong which the misguided youth sought 
 to avenge was real or imaginary, or whether the murdered 
 couple were in any way responsible for it, is quite im- 
 material as far as the question at issue is concerned. Quite 
 probably the victims of his vengeance were — individually — 
 as guiltless of the wrong which he sought to avenge as 
 were undoubtedly most— if not all — of the millions of 
 
320 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 Serbians on whom the enraged monarch sought to wreak 
 his vengeance. 
 
 The young man of Serajevo and the old man of Vienna 
 were both swayed by a like passion. Assuming that 
 Francis Joseph had no aggressive motives besides, then 
 both were actuated by identical motives, and both could 
 plead the same justification : that is, " to punish a crime 
 so as to prevent its recurrence/' 
 
 The outstanding facts are that both have sought to 
 avenge a prior act of violence ; and if we cared to trace 
 step by step each grievance to its cause, we should find 
 that each such act was intended to avenge a prior similar 
 act, until we come — let us suppose so — to an act of un- 
 provoked aggression as the source of all the subsequent 
 misdeeds. 
 
 We might then reverse the process, and from such a 
 retrospect turn toward the future to contemplate what is 
 bound to be the outcome of either an unprovoked act of 
 aggression or of a policy of retaliation, and then compare 
 the counsels of Jesus with the philosophy of violence. 
 
 Does not the reader perceive already that the principle 
 involved is not one of piety, sentiment, or of justice even, 
 but of practical common sense ? What else can be expected 
 from a policy of retaliation than an endless succession of 
 acts of violence ? He who uses the sword will meet with 
 another sword. And if a man is still foolish enough to 
 think that he can contrive a weapon w r hich shall give him 
 ultimate and final mastery over his opponents, he must 
 be woefully ignorant of the teachings of history. 
 
 What are the lessons — one feels almost tempted to ask 
 what are the unmistakable lessons — which history teaches 
 concerning this policy of aggression or retaliation ? For 
 they are manifest to anyone whose vision is not dimmed 
 by false conceptions or perverted morals, and may be 
 summarized in a few brief sentences. 
 
 The object of the aggressor has always been to wrest 
 from his neighbour any material advantage which the 
 latter possessed. 
 
 The commandments " Thou shalt not envy/' " Thou 
 shalt not steal," " Thou shalt not kill," have not been a 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 321 
 
 sufficient restraint, because they were supposed — and are 
 still supposed — to be meant for the protection of the 
 neighbour only, and — provided one was strong enough — 
 their observance did not always seem expedient. 
 
 Force, therefore, became a necessity for both offence 
 and defence, and so everybody armed himself for attack 
 and stockaded his homestead for defence. War is an 
 ancient art which has its roots in ignorant savagedom. 
 
 The present cry is armaments. It was also the cry of 
 brute, primeval man, who saw success in brute force only, 
 and consequently sought to provide himself with better 
 weapons than those possessed by any possible antagonist. 
 It is thus that the bludgeon gave way to bow and arrow, 
 which in their turn were replaced by firearms. Then came 
 in rapid succession the " high achievements of science and 
 civilization " : the breech-loader was superseded by the 
 needle-gun, this by the rifle, the rifle by the machine 
 gun, and so forth, up to the most cunning devices for 
 murder and destruction of the present day. 
 
 These are not achievements of wisdom. They still are 
 and for ever must remain what they were originally : the 
 expedients of the unreasoning savage, who could think of 
 brute force only to achieve any desired end. For what 
 has been the result of all these discoveries ? This, that 
 the inventor has taught his opponent how to attack him. 
 
 Many learned treatises have been written on the art of 
 warfare, on methods of attack and defence, but one single 
 sentence of the despised Carpenter of Galilee nullifies all 
 their reasoning and sweeps away their conclusions as 
 completely as the morning mists dissolve before the rays 
 of the rising sun. 
 
 The sentence is : — 
 
 With whatsoever measure ye mete, it shall be measured out unto you. 
 
 Dreadnoughts, submarines, aircraft, poison-gas, liquid 
 fire, mortars, hand-grenades : what was the result of all 
 these inventions except supplying the enemy — looked at 
 from whichever standpoint — with more dreadful weapons 
 of attack ? But still this foolish policy is being pursued, 
 and our spiritual " leaders " are wringing their hands in 
 
 21 
 
322 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 despair because of their inability to find any guidance 
 in the " sayings " of their Master. 
 
 They admit themselves their utter failure. What is 
 wanted just now, they say, is " action, not sentiment ; 
 statesmanship, and not religion." And so these blind 
 leaders of the blind acquiesce in yet greater blunders, 
 and submissively consent to yet greater terrors. Women 
 must be pressed into service so as to liberate every man 
 capable of bearing arms. " We want more men ! " is the 
 cry. But alas ! the same cry is raised in the opposition 
 camp. 
 
 " Let us scatter the seeds of pestilence in the form of 
 bacilli over the enemy country " is the latest proposal 
 of our enemies, a nation which prides itself on its learning. 
 But if they think they will succeed by such means any 
 better than have warriors in the past — ancient or modern 
 ■ — they have studied human history to very little pur- 
 pose. Even seeming successes were temporary only. The 
 struggles have been renewed again so soon as the stricken 
 enemy felt he was strong enough to avenge himself. And 
 when that was impossible, there would come along someone 
 else, tempted maybe by the successes of the conqueror, 
 and offer to take from the victor his plunder in the same 
 way as he acquired it himself. 
 
 The warning that he who uses the sword will perish 
 by the sword is neither theory nor sentiment. It is an 
 indisputable fact of history, the lesson of which our states- 
 men have yet to learn. 
 
 The lesson is that " With whatsoever measure ye mete, 
 it will be measured out unto you " — that force will be 
 met by force, cunning by cunning, violence by violence, 
 as surely as you are followed by your own shadow. 
 
 It is here where the clergy have failed to interpret 
 the Master. They taught that acting justly towards a 
 neighbour was a virtue which demanded self-sacrifice, 
 whereas it is a necessity for self-defence. They did not 
 teach, because they did not know it themselves, that 
 it was to their own interest that people should mete out 
 to their neighbours such treatment only as they would 
 desire to receive themselves ; that their harvest will 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 323 
 
 depend on their sowing. Yet not only had they the 
 clear teachings of their Master to guide them, but the 
 whole of history to confirm the truth of his teachings. 
 
 Let us take a single instance only from the present 
 war as an example. Never before has hatred between 
 belligerents been more intense than it is at present between 
 Germans and Britons. The Germans in particular have 
 raised their hatred to a cult, and would exterminate every 
 man who had an English mother. Why do they not do 
 so to the thousands of British prisoners now in their 
 power ? Why do they actually allow the agents of 
 neutral countries to inspect their prison-camps, with a 
 view of having it testified that they are treating the 
 enemy in their midst humanely ? Is it merely an act 
 of grace — of piety — on their part ? Or is it not rather 
 an act of necessity, so as to ward off retaliation ? Are 
 all these lessons lost on the philosophers of this proud 
 century ? 
 
 There is much more in the counsels of Jesus than either 
 priest, prince, or philosopher has so far been able to dis- 
 cover in them. They are the result of the common ex- 
 perience of mankind, and are rooted in common sense. 
 History consists of an unbroken chain of incidents which 
 confirm the truth and wisdom of these teachings. 
 
 Henry Thomas Buckle made the attempt to write the 
 History of Civilization, but failed because he had no 
 theory, no principle to guide him. Had he adopted the 
 philosophy of Jesus, he could have shown — what indeed 
 he intended to do — that the evolution of society, including 
 its morals and sentiments, was as much the result of 
 necessity as were the phenomena of the physical universe ; 
 and that history supplied an unbroken series of object- 
 lessons illustrative and confirmatory of the contentions of 
 Jesus. 
 
 Violence has ever led to fresh acts of violence, and 
 retaliation to fresh feuds. Sometime, somehow, these 
 feuds will have to come to an end before peace is possible. 
 A reconciliation will have to take place in the end. That 
 is the conclusion of reflecting wisdom ; whereas retalia- 
 tion is dictated by the instincts of the unreasoning brute. 
 
324 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 Let us test this generalization by present happenings. 
 Supposing that this policy of mutual destruction has been 
 carried as far as possible ; supposing that as many people 
 have been killed or maimed, and as many towns have been 
 devastated as the physical means at the disposal of the 
 contending nations will enable them to do, what is to be 
 the ultimate end of the feud ? What is in the end to 
 succeed this devastating storm ? 
 
 Signs are not wanting as to the lessons to be ]earnt 
 from thib costly experiment. Thinking men are begin- 
 ning to reflect and to ask themselves the question whither 
 all this destruction of life and treasure is to lead, and I 
 am culling the following almost at random from a morning 
 paper now before me : — 
 
 The war teach.es with terrible distinctness that peace cannot be assured 
 in Europe or anywhere else merely by means of treaties and of the 
 conventions or agreements miscalled international law. War must be 
 prevented by force exerted by a few nations which unitedly and firmly 
 determine that there shall be no more war and no more aggression upon 
 any nation by another if they can prevent it. 
 
 But is that not precisely what Jesus said nineteen 
 centuries ago ? 
 
 " No more aggression " — " respect for the rights of 
 others " — " freedom for all " — " international arbitra- 
 tion " — " universal disarmament " — " no more war " are 
 the watchwords one meets in the press, or in the 
 utterances of public men. 
 
 Let us contrast with these belated conclusions some 
 of the derided " sayings " of Jesus. What were his 
 counsels ? Here is a summary of them : Do all in your 
 power to live at peace with your neighbour. Make him 
 your friend, rather than your enemy. If he is offended 
 with thee, try to reconcile him. If he should offend thee, 
 do not resent it, but meet his anger with forbearance, 
 his illwill with kindness, his hatred with love. Return 
 good for evil, that you may show yourself the worthier 
 of his friendship. Never do aught to your neighbour 
 that you would not like him to do to you. Think more 
 of your obligations to him than of his duties towards 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 32$ 
 
 yourself. Exhibit first yourself the conduct which you 
 would expect from others. Remove first the beam from 
 thine own eye, before attempting to extract the mote 
 from thy neighbour's eye. 
 
 And do all these things not for any sentimental reasons, 
 but because on your conduct depends your own welfare ; 
 because the harvest which you are to gather depends on 
 the seeds which you are sowing. 
 
 " Wherefore I say unto you, Agree with thine adversary 
 quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him ; lest at any 
 time the adversary deliver thee to the judge and the 
 judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into 
 prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means 
 come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost 
 penalty." 
 
 Wiseacres say that these are the counsels of a dreamer. 
 But what do these " practical men " hope to gain by their 
 reckless, brainless methods ? How far can this policy of 
 destruction be carried ? It cannot last for ever. How is 
 it to end ? " By making peace," is the answer. But 
 what does " making peace " mean ? If it is to be peace, 
 and not merely a temporary armistice, it can mean only 
 agreement between the combatants to respect each other's 
 rights : " You leave me alone, and I will leave you alone. 
 You respect what is mine, and I will respect what is 
 yours. Do not menace me and mine, and I will not 
 menace you and yours." 
 
 In short, in the end even the most stupid and most 
 savage brute is bound to obey the injunctions of Jesus, 
 because there is no other way. 
 
 Not piety ; not sentiment ; not because you might 
 inflict suffering on an enemy : but because it is in your 
 own interest to do so, that you should avoid by every 
 means in your power quarrels with your neighbour. Let 
 it be your first concern to befriend him ; let this take 
 precedence even before worship and sacrifice : — 
 
 Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar and there rememberest 
 that thy brother has aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the 
 altar and go thy way ; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and 
 offer thy gift. 
 
$26 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 Could anything be plainer or more to the point ? More- 
 over, is not each one of these counsels in direct line of 
 social evolution ? Is it possible that these devastating 
 wars can teach any other lessons ? Is it at all conceivable 
 that the much desired " peace on earth and goodwill 
 towards man " could ever be realized in any other way ? 
 
 But if the counsels of Jesus were right, does it not 
 follow that those who profess to be his messengers are 
 wrong ? 
 
CHAPTER XLI 
 
 FALSE PROPHETS (continued) 
 
 He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour : but a man of 
 understanding holdeth his peace. — Prov. xi. 12. 
 
 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but 
 considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye ? . . . Thou hypocrite, 
 first cast out the beam out of thine own eye ; and then shall thou see 
 clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. — Matt. vii. 3-5. 
 
 Let us return to our object-lesson — the spark which has 
 set Europe ablaze. 
 
 The murderer of Serajevo and the avenger of the 
 murder in Vienna have both rejected the counsels of 
 Jesus as " impracticable/' and both have received their 
 " reward." 
 
 Both have been actuated by a like motive : that of 
 revenge. At least we will assume this to have been the 
 case with Francis Joseph also, as it evidently was with 
 the misguided youth who committed the murder. Let us 
 charitably suppose that the aged Emperor had no sordid 
 motives besides ; that he drew the sword against the 
 Serbians solely to prevent similar outrages in the future. 
 Having thus put the most favourable interpretation on 
 the monarch's deed, let us ask these questions : Has he 
 succeeded in achieving his object ? Was there any reason- 
 able hope that he might succeed ? Is there a tittle of 
 evidence in the history of the past to justify such a hope ? 
 
 Never yet has crime been put down by crime. Nor 
 has a tyrant ever yet succeeded in conquering a people 
 by the sword. At most he subjugated them and kept 
 them in subjection for a time, until the people could 
 throw off the yoke, or until some other adventurer drove 
 
 him from power in the same way. Hence it is that every 
 
 327 
 
328 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 world-empire came to grief in the same way as it had 
 been established. 
 
 And that is precisely what Jesus meant when he said 
 that he who uses the sword will perish by the sword. 
 He simply generalized the facts of experience. 
 
 By all means let us be " practical/ 7 By all means let 
 us take the facts as we find them and deduce from them 
 what may or what should be done to accomplish certain 
 desirable results. By all means let us turn our back 
 on the theorist who in the teeth of past experiences 
 insists on trying to achieve the impossible by means 
 which have proved disastrous as often as they have been 
 tried. But first let us learn to discriminate between the 
 true and the false ; the real and the illusory ; the adept 
 and the quacksalver. 
 
 Let the reader place the counsels of Jesus in juxta- 
 position with those of the Machiavellis and Bernhardis ; 
 let him contrast the doctrine of Non-Resistance i — i.e. 
 non-retaliation — with the philosophy of force ; let him test 
 the wisdom of each in the light of past experiences as 
 recorded in history, and then let him form his ow r n judg- 
 ment as to which system is more in consonance with the 
 actualities of experience. For experience alone can teach 
 us what is " practicable." 
 
 There are two kinds of " idealisms/' In one sense it 
 means the perfect state of something which is theoretically 
 possible ; and in another sense it means a fanciful con- 
 ception of something which is unreal and unrealizable. 
 The ideals of Jesus are of the former kind ; those of the 
 wiseacres who would " conquer the kingdom of heaven 
 with violence " are of the latter. 
 
 Jesus has never yet been understood. Few people only 
 have ever tried to understand him ; but least of all those 
 who kneel before his image, calling out loudly " Lord, 
 Lord/' but do not heed his counsels. 
 
 Jesus has been represented as a dreamer, a sacerdotalist 
 who attached no value to this life, nor heeded the affairs 
 
 1 I shall deal presently with the phrase, which has been as misunderstood 
 and misinterpreted as the passage which has been rendered " Take no 
 thought for the morrow." 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 329 
 
 of this world : a character which is the very opposite 
 of the real Jesus. No thinker has ever penetrated more 
 deeply into the problems of life and society, or has more 
 thoroughly or more correctly generalized the facts of 
 experience. All his precepts and counsels are deduced 
 from, and based on, generalizations which are self-evident 
 as soon as stated. 
 
 " Love thy neighbour as thyself " ; " Love thine 
 enemies " \ " Return good for evil," etc., are not merely 
 pious sentiments of a sacerdotalist, but the counsels of 
 wisdom based on an intelligent appreciation of the uni- 
 versal experience of mankind. All the facts of history 
 prove the truth of these generalizations, and the wisdom 
 of the counsels deduced from them. And no matter how 
 our statesmen may scorn such advice, in the end they 
 are forced by sheer necessity to adopt and to obey it — 
 not as an act of " piety " (in the theological sense), but 
 out of necessity. 
 
 It is not " sentiment " or " piety " which makes belli- 
 gerents, bent on destroying each other, feed the hated 
 foe whom they have captured — especially when the captor 
 is himself short of food and not overscrupulous — any more 
 than it is " sentiment " which keeps ravening wolves 
 from trying to devour each other. We are taught our 
 morals as we are taught the necessity of feeding or of 
 seeking shelter. 
 
 We must " love our enemies," not for their sake, but 
 our own ; for — it cannot be repeated too often — as we 
 do to them, so they will do to us. 
 
 But — the reader will ask — is the principle applicable in 
 practical politics ? The answer is that not only is this 
 possible, but without it no statesmanship has ever been 
 successful. If the reader doubts this, let him read history 
 and apply its lessons as a physicist would interpret the 
 facts of nature : that is, by generalizing the facts of 
 history first, and then interpreting them by help of these 
 generalizations — as did Jesus. 
 
 Take by way of object-lessons the conduct of India, 
 Ireland, and the quite recently conquered provinces of 
 South Africa. Each of these has ranged itself on the 
 
330 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 side of the Empire, and voluntarily offered its help to 
 resist a foe who would gladly have lent a helping hand 
 to any of them to free themselves of British dominance 
 and to avenge their former subjugation. 
 
 Why did they not seize the opportunity ? In each of 
 these provinces there were a few malcontents who were 
 inclined to do so. Why ? And why have their projects 
 failed ? What has turned the former enemies of Great 
 Britain into friends in the hour of her need — which seemed 
 so favourable an opportunity for revolt and revenge ? 
 
 The answer is obvious to anyone who will take the 
 trouble to read history with open eyes and an open mind. 
 These people had been subjugated in the past by the sword, 
 and thus made into enemies. Fair treatment, kindness, 
 love and justice have subsequently conquered them by 
 turning their hatred into friendship. And the attempted 
 revolts of the few malcontents were but so many sporadic 
 eruptions of the still festering, though now happily healing, 
 wounds which had been inflicted in the past. 
 
 Compare with this the attitude of the Czechs, Slavs, 
 and Poles who have been under Austrian dominance for 
 centuries ; of the Albanians under Turkish rule ; or of 
 the Poles and Alsatians under the German heel. Nay, 
 ransack the whole of history, and you cannot find a single 
 instance which would justify — from a strictly utilitarian 
 point of view — the policy of violence, whether for the 
 purpose of aggression or of retaliation. People have been 
 subjugated, but never yet conquered, by the sword. 
 
 And is not the present calamity — if carefully analysed 
 and rightly interpreted — only another vindication of the 
 wisdom of Jesus, and a condemnation of the policy of 
 force ? 
 
 Supposing the clock could be put back to the time 
 when the ultimatum of Austria to Serbia was under 
 consideration. Supposing that Francis Joseph, or his 
 advisers, could reconsider their decision in the light of this 
 latest lesson of history ; is there any doubt as to which 
 course the offended monarch would take ? Or is there a 
 sane man who can doubt for one moment which course 
 he should have taken had he been guided by wisdom 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 33* 
 
 rather than passion; by the counsels of the Sage of 
 Nazareth rather than by the hare-brained doctrine of 
 might ? 
 
 Francis Joseph went to the altar thinking of his own 
 grievances only, and not of what " his brother " might 
 have against himself. With hatred in his heart he invoked 
 the aid of " the God of vengeance " ; probably mumbled 
 — as conventionality required him to do — the prayer 
 " Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them who tres- 
 pass against us," but without any more intelligence than 
 had it been repeated by a parrot, and received the 
 approval of his statesmen and the benediction of his 
 equally ignorant and obsequious priests. 
 
 Yet what an impressive and instructive sermon the 
 latter might have preached to their imperial master from 
 such texts as — " Judge not, that ye be not judged. For 
 with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged : and 
 with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you 
 again. And why beholdest thou the mote which is in thy 
 brother's eye, but . considerest not the beam that is in 
 thine own eye ? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, 
 Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye ; and, behold, 
 a beam is in thine own eye ? Thou hypocrite, first 
 cast out the beam out of thine own eye ; and then 
 shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy 
 brother's eye." 
 
 So far I have considered the matter from the mon- 
 arch's standpoint only, which is the narrow conventional 
 view. But, needless to say, the issues are of a much 
 wider scope — so vast, indeed, that the personality of the 
 monarch should be — according to merits — of the least and 
 last consideration. 
 
 The question whether Francis Joseph was right in de- 
 manding reparation from a neighbouring State for an act 
 committed by one of his own " subjects " (whose affection 
 he had failed to secure) should not be raised at all. Nor 
 is it of any consequence whether Francis Joseph acted 
 justly or unjustly, wisely or unwisely. The supreme 
 question is whether he — or any man living— should have 
 the power to do what he did. Whether it is safe — or 
 
332 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 " practical/' to use the cant phrase of politicians — that 
 an individual should be in a position to command millions 
 of his fellow-men to desert hearth and home, forsake 
 parents, wife, or children, and- — against their own will or 
 judgment — put their lives at the disposal of a potentate 
 who, at best, would use them to avenge a personal griev- 
 ance ; or, at worst, to subjugate yet other people who 
 are unwilling to submit to his dominance. 
 
 Such questions go to the root of the problem, and 
 supply their own inevitable answer. 
 
 Nineteen centuries ago the Sage of Nazareth asked the 
 same question, and the conclusion he reached was that 
 such power possessed by any man was an abuse, which 
 was bound to bring affliction in its wake (Matt, xviii. 7), 
 and therefore advised the people not to tolerate any poten- 
 tate to rule over them : to have servants only and not 
 masters. 
 
 Again I ask, is not this the lesson which mankind is 
 slowly learning by centuries of dearly bought experience ? 
 Is it not the lesson which this present devastating war 
 is teaching the nations ? The world over, the outcry is 
 at present for " constitutionalism/' for " popular control " 
 of policy ; for the dominance of " the will of the people," 
 and so forth ; which are only variants of the counsels 
 of Jesus not to have " rulers/' but only " servants/' 
 
 Compare these despised doctrines with those which 
 masquerade as " statesmanship," and both with the teach- 
 ings of history and the trend of the times, and then judge 
 which is the "practical" and which the " fantastic " 
 or " visionary " philosophy. 
 
 It is not an affair of kings, but a world-problem ; and as 
 such Jesus conceived and considered it. Hence it did not 
 commend itself to those who, from the low level of animal- 
 ism, were pursuing a selfish, parochial policy, making their 
 own interest antagonistic to that of the rest of man- 
 kind instead of making it identical with it. They failed 
 to perceive that the permanent well-being of the unit 
 depended on the prosperity of the larger whole. 
 
 It is because of this difference in outlook and in diagnosis 
 that the methods recommended by Jesus differ so widely 
 
FALSE PROPHETS 333 
 
 from accepted standards of statesmanship, and from 
 accepted notions generally. 
 
 Jesus was not a dreamer, but a seer in the most literal 
 sense of the word — " a light which shone in the darkness, 
 and the darkness perceived it not/' It is the priests 
 and statesmen who are the false prophets, the blind 
 leaders of the blind. 
 
CHAPTER XLII 
 
 THE GREAT STUMBLING-BLOCK 
 
 Ye have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye and a tooth 
 for a tooth ; but I say unto you that you resent not an offence. But 
 whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other 
 also ; and if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let 
 him have thy cloak also. — Matt. v. 38-9 (Author's Translation). 
 
 The injunction "Resist not evil" is undoubtedly the 
 greatest stumbling-block in the ethics of Jesus. It is 
 always cited as conclusive proof of the impracticability 
 of his teachings. 
 
 The common interpretation put upon it is that Jesus 
 enjoined absolute and unconditional submission to any 
 kind of abuse or ill-treatment, without offering any 
 resistance whatsoever. If this were a correct interpreta- 
 tion of what he meant, the exhortation would be not 
 only impracticable, but irrational. 
 
 It does not seem to have occurred to these pedants 
 of literalness that such an interpretation was not only 
 contrary to common sense, but incompatible with the life 
 and teachings of Jesus : since his life-work consisted almost 
 solely in denouncing evil and evil-doers, and in the end he 
 paid the extreme penalty for doing so. He attacked and 
 opposed not only wrong-doers of the baser and grosser 
 kind, but those who " sat in Moses' seat " and who " out- 
 wardly appeared righteous unto men/' He denounced 
 "rulers" and "magnates" for oppressing the people, 
 and insisted that " every tree which did not bring forth 
 good fruit " should be utterly destroyed. Tradition 
 credits him with having, on one occasion at least, resorted 
 even to physical force to suppress evil. 
 
 But these considerations apart, and assuming — for 
 
 334 
 
THE GREAT STUMBLING-BLOCK 335 
 
 argument's sake only — that the English version of this 
 passage is a correct rendering of the words actually used 
 by Jesus, the context itself is sufficient to make one doubt 
 whether the interpretation put upon them is the right one. 
 For it is obvious that what Jesus condemned was not 
 "resisting evil," but exacting an eye for an eye and a 
 tooth for a tooth ; or, in plain language, retaliation. 
 But condemning retaliation does not necessarily mean that 
 evil-doers should not be restrained. There is a vast 
 difference between saying " Do not retaliate " or " Do not 
 be vindictive " and " Do not interfere with evil-doers " or 
 "Tolerate evil." The life and character of Jesus forbid 
 such an interpretation. 
 
 It is quite unthinkable, for instance, that he who at 
 risk of his life denounced in such unequivocal terms " the 
 whited sepulchres who sat in Moses' seat " for deeds 
 which he thought were productive of evil, could himself 
 have stood by with folded arms while an obvious ruffian 
 robbed a widow or ill-treated a child, much less exhort 
 others not to restrain evil-doers. Such conduct would 
 not only be unnatural and reprehensible, but would con- 
 stitute a person who could witness such deeds with passive 
 unconcern an accessory to the crime. 
 
 We must, therefore, once more suspect the correctness 
 of the translation. 
 
 We do not know, of course, what were the exact words 
 used by Jesus, since it is a translation only of what he 
 said, or may have said, that we possess. But there is 
 no need to go further than the Greek version to show- 
 that the English rendering of the passage is far from being 
 unobjectionable. Yet it is the English text which is 
 mainly responsible for the irrational construction which 
 has been put upon it. 
 
 The Greek sentence which has been rendered " Resist 
 not evil " is one of those untranslatable colloquial phrases 
 that are to be found in every language, the meaning of 
 which is conventional rather than etymological, and is 
 conveyed by the context rather than the words com- 
 posing it. 
 The English phrase. " to take in " may serve as an 
 
336 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 example. It may mean literally what the words imply, 
 or it may mean "to afford shelter" or "to deceive," 
 according to the context. Such colloquialisms are un- 
 translatable, and their meaning must be rendered in other 
 languages by corresponding phrases. 
 
 The Greek word antistenai, which has been rendered 
 " resist/' belongs to this class of phrases for which an 
 exact equivalent does not exist in English ; for it does 
 not express a definite meaning, but conveys a general 
 idea of " opposition." It is compounded of the preposi- 
 tion anti — the meaning of which is the same as in English 
 — and the verb hisfemi, which — among many other things 
 — may mean, according to the context : to set up ; set 
 upright ; to raise up (as the mast in a ship) ; to raise or 
 erect buildings ; to raise, put in commotion ; to begin a 
 quarrel, etc. 1 
 
 The other word which has been rendered evil is a deri- 
 vative of ponerbs, which means causing pain or hardship ; 
 in a moral sense, bad, worthless, villainous, knavish, 
 wicked. 2 Hence an injury or offence. 
 
 The correct meaning of the sentence, Me antistenai to 
 ponero, depends, therefore, on the context. Fortunately 
 this does not leave us in any doubt as to what Jesus 
 meant by these words, for they were to express the oppo- 
 site of the ancient rule " an eye for an eye," or retalia- 
 tion. The sentence, therefore, would be more correctly 
 rendered " Do not retaliate "(i.e. return evil for evil), or — 
 better still — " Do not resent an offence " or "an injury" 
 
 This rendering not only is in conformity with the Greek 
 text, but is supported by all the other precepts of the 
 Sermon on the Mount; e.g. "return good for evil"; 
 " love your enemies " ; " do good to them that hate you," 
 etc. But all this is far from saying that evil should be 
 tolerated. On the contrary : Jesus condemned retaliation 
 because he held it was an evil itself, which in most cases 
 led to yet greater evils than was the original offence 
 which it was intended to avenge. The whole philosophy 
 of Jesus was directed against evil, and not to protect it. 
 
 1 Ci. Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, nth ed. 
 > Ibid. 
 
THE GREAT STUMBLING-BLOCK 337 
 
 The elucidatory examples which follow the exhortation 
 may be regarded as exaggerations to give emphasis to 
 the precept by a method which was quite peculiar to 
 Jesus. 1 
 
 Jesus was fond of parable and metaphor ; he seldom 
 spoke in any other way. But hyperbole is essential to 
 this form of reasoning, since it is the exaggeration which 
 in such forms of address gives emphasis to the argument. 
 Thus we get the absurdly exaggerated — and therefore 
 all the more telling — contrast between a mote and a beam 
 in the human eye ; or " straining at a gnat and swallow- 
 ing a camel." " A camel passing through the eye of a 
 needle " ; "a city set on a hill cannot be hid " ; "a 
 candle put under a bushel " ; "a mustard seed which 
 grows into a tree " ; " plucking out an offending eye," 
 or " cutting off an offending limb " are all cases in point. 
 This form of reasoning may have been adopted by Jesus 
 so as to reach the masses, and to it may be due his great 
 popularity as an orator. He relied chiefly on hyperbole 
 for his oratorical effects. Hence contrast and exaggera- 
 tion abound in all his discourses. 
 
 In heaven, for instance, there will be more joy over 
 one repentant sinner than over ninety-nine just persons. 
 We should forgive not seven times seven times, but seventy 
 times seven times. So, likewise, merely " to look at a 
 woman to lust after her " is tantamount to adultery ; 
 and to say to a brother "Thou fool" shall make the 
 offender liable to hell-fire. 
 
 It cannot be correct, therefore, to put such a literal 
 interpretation on the words " Resist not evil/' even if 
 they were a correct rendering of the Greek text, notwith- 
 standing the examples which follow the injunction by way 
 of emphasis. 
 
 But so soon as we substitute " Resent not " or " Do 
 not retaliate" for "Resist not," all doubt as to what 
 
 1 In this connection we must not forget that Jesus was addressing 
 the ignorant masses, and had to suit his language to the occasion. As 
 he himself explained to his more intimate followers : " Therefore do I 
 speak to them in parables, because seeing they see not, and hearing they 
 hear not, neither do they understand." 
 
 22 
 
338 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 Jesus meant vanishes. It is then no longer an absurdity 
 which he bids us to observe, but wise counsel endorsed 
 by experience and common sense. 
 
 It is curious — though by no means a mere accident — 
 that the present brutal war should afford the most telling 
 confirmation of the wisdom of this most derided of all 
 the counsels of Jesus. Yet such is the case. 
 
 A ruthless and truculent enemy has introduced weapons 
 and methods of warfare hitherto held to be inadmissible 
 among civilized people. He committed outrages against 
 established customs at which the civilized world stood 
 aghast, and which were provocative of resentment in the 
 extreme. Yet both the Government and the majority of 
 the people of this country have withstood retaliation, as 
 much for practical as for sentimental reasons ; because — 
 to use a current vulgarism — " it does not pay." 
 
 On the other hand, the people of this country (probably 
 without being aware of the fact) have actually obeyed 
 the no less scorned injunction which Jesus substituted for 
 retaliation : " Love your enemies, bless them that curse 
 you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them 
 which despitefully use you and persecute you/' as the 
 following incident so brilliantly illustrates. 
 
 There came to this island home some of the detested 
 enemies, hated as probably enemy has never been hated 
 before. There was no question as to their object : they 
 came to kill and to cause as much misery as they could 
 by dropping bombs from the air. Their floating craft 
 caught fire, and the would-be murderers came to earth, 
 among those whom they intended to destroy, as so many 
 lifeless bodies. 
 
 There was a time when, in similar circumstances, the 
 people would have danced round the corpses of the van- 
 quished enemy. There was a time when Christians, with 
 the sanction of the Church, buried the remains of criminals 
 at cross-roads, without any religious rites — unless the 
 driving of a stake through the dead body as a visible 
 sign of abhorrence could be regarded as such. 
 
 It i9 impossible to think of an enemy more deserving 
 of hatred than were these raiders of the air, nor of cir- 
 
THE GREAT STUMBLING-BLOCK 339 
 
 cumstances more calculated to rouse the spirit of revenge. 
 The invaders were of those people who had cast mourning 
 over the land ; who had themselves come to kill and to 
 destroy. There were the memories of the Lusitania, of 
 Miss Cavell, of Captain Fryatt, of the innocent women 
 and children who were wantonly killed by these very men 
 in former raids. 
 
 Yet what did we do to the remains of these people 
 who came to this country with the lust of murder in their 
 heart and a hymn of hate on their lips ? 
 
 Reader, bare your head in devotion and respect before 
 those truly heroic people who, notwithstanding all these 
 wicked deeds of a ruthless enemy, were brave enough to 
 conquer their passions and to give decent burial to their 
 dead foemen. They buried them with such military 
 honours as the circumstances would permit, the people 
 performing the ceremony only remembering for the moment 
 that these coffins contained the dead bodies of so many 
 mothers' sons. 
 
 How many of those who stood round those graves with 
 bared head remembered that they were then actually 
 obeying an injunction which, at other times, seemed to 
 them to be ridiculous and impossible to comply with ? 
 
 In that act the people were " laying up treasures " 
 which neither moth nor rust can corrupt and which 
 thieves cannot steal. They have sown seeds which will 
 bear fruit long after the incident itself is forgotten ; just 
 as the impulse which has led to such conduct has been 
 the result of similar sowings in the long-forgotten past. 
 
 It is to the laying up of this kind of uncorruptible 
 and imperishable treasures during the ages that mankind 
 owes its greatest and dearest treasures of to-day : human- 
 ity and civilization. It is by such " investments " only 
 that salvation can come to man. 
 
 The German papers — we have been told — recorded the 
 fact of the burial " without comment." That simple act 
 of magnanimity did what our powerful batteries failed 
 to accomplish : it silenced for the moment the " Hymn 
 of Hate/' 
 
 The same leaven is working among our foes. Or, to 
 
340 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 use a more appropriate simile, the same light is penetrating 
 the darkness which envelops our opponents as it does 
 the rest of mankind. Slowly only does it dawn on them 
 that they are pursuing a wrong path , that in thus " seek- 
 ing their life, they are losing it " ; that salvation doe9 
 not come with enmity, but with forbearance. 
 
 The following excerpt from a German paper T may be 
 taken as a sign of the breaking dawn : — 
 
 We desire, therefore, that Europe shall live — not only Germany, 
 but also other nations which have contributed so much to the advance 
 of civilization and can still do much for it. We desire that France shall 
 live, and we should see with sincere grief this country, which we have 
 never hated, bleeding to death. In the interests of Germany, France, 
 Russia, and England we wish for peace — -peace for the whole bleeding world. 
 
 But that is obtainable in one way only : by keeping 
 the commandments. Which'? 
 
 Thou shalt do no murder ; thou shalt not commit adultery ; thou 
 shalt not steal ; thou shalt not bear false witness ; honour thy father 
 and thy mother ; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself 
 
 Are these merely " temporal," tl secular " matters which 
 we can afford to disregard or to sneer at ? 
 
 Whoever thinks so has no conception of the truly 
 spiritual ; a is as far from " the kingdom of heaven " as 
 was Saul of Tarsus. " For I say unto you. That except 
 your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the 
 scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven. 1 ' 
 
 1 Vorwarts in October 1916, through Daily News. 
 » As distinct from post mortem or ghostly. 
 
CHAPTER XLIII 
 
 LIGHT AT LAST 
 
 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law ? 
 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
 heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 
 This is the first and great commandment. 
 
 But the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 
 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. 
 
 My task is done, though the work which I have com- 
 menced is far from finished. Indeed, it is scarcely 
 more than begun. All that I may claim to have accom- 
 plished is to have cut a path through the jungle of ignor- 
 ance and superstition ; to have discovered in the depth 
 of this dark forest indications of a buried city ; to have 
 cleared the site and laid bare the ruins of an ancient 
 temple — the temple of wisdom, life, and light. 
 
 Even this work is not quite complete. Further ex- 
 cavations will have to be made before this relic of the 
 past can be studied in all its aspects. 
 
 The foundations, as far as they have been uncovered, 
 are solid, sound, and of unmistakable design. But there 
 is a mass of loose material scattered about which requires 
 careful sorting out and identification. This task, however, 
 I must leave to more competent hands. 
 
 I have worked with pick and shovel, and now and then 
 had to use a coarse broom. More delicate instruments 
 are now required, as well as better trained eyes and hands, 
 to pick out from the loose lumber those fragments which 
 once formed part of the original edifice or its furnishings, 
 and to separate these from the mass of rubbish which 
 has been accumulating during the centuries of decay. 
 For on the ruins of ' this temple children of darkness 
 
 34 1 
 
342 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 have erected strange altars and worshipped idols brought 
 thither from the heathen fanes of foreign lands. 
 
 Much work has yet to be done before the ancient 
 structure can be restored to what it was — or rather to 
 what it was intended to be ; for the edifice had never 
 been completed. The plan, indeed, seems to have been 
 perfect in conception, with every detail well thought out ; 
 but it was too vast an undertaking for one man. Com- 
 petent helpers were few, the obstacles great, and the 
 opponents of the scheme too powerful. 
 
 To change the metaphor : it was a life-and-death 
 struggle between Ormazd and Ahriman ; the former 
 planting methodically seeds of wisdom, truth, and kind- 
 ness, and the latter scattering freely and plentifully 
 the seeds of envy, discord, enmity, and all manner of 
 iniquity. 
 
 The sowings of Ahriman grew much faster in the virgin 
 soil than did those of Ormazd, which could thrive in 
 prepared ground only ; and so the fields were overrun 
 with a vigorous growth of noxious weeds. But under- 
 neath the thorns and thistles, the seedlings of the much 
 more slowly growing, but all the more enduring, giant 
 perennials planted by Ormazd sent their rootlets down into 
 the ground, there to gain strength and in time to raise 
 their branching crowns high above the weeds which 
 threatened to choke them. 
 
 Ahriman triumphed for a time — a long time, as measured 
 by human standards ; but to Ormazd belongs the final 
 victory. Already we can see the breaking of the dawn, 
 the rays of light penetrating and dispelling the fogs of 
 ignorance and superstition. 
 
 Let us rest a while, and in the light of day which now 
 illuminates the scene of our explorations let us survey 
 what lies revealed before us and balance one against the 
 other, what we have gained and what we have lost by 
 our daring enterprise. 
 
 Around us lie shattered many icons of gods and demi- 
 gods, variously disguised, but which, nevertheless, are 
 identifiable as the gods of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Persia, 
 or Hellas, in new vestures and under new names. Among 
 
LIGHT AT LAST 343 
 
 these images there are many effigies of " Christ/' shattered 
 beyond repair. But it is the icons only, the products of 
 the human artificer, the things of clay or wood, which 
 have been demolished. 
 
 That which made these images dear to us — our love 
 of him which made us reverence these caricatures — has 
 been enhanced rather than diminished by the removal 
 of this sorry lumber. 
 
 We have destroyed an incomprehensible man-god 
 fashioned of wood or clay ; but instead we have gained 
 the divine man. We have parted with a deception in 
 exchange for a reality. And the exchange is for the 
 better. 
 
 It has always been the lofty ideals of Jesus, his deep 
 love and human sympathies, his sweet character and dis- 
 position, which have appealed to the heart of man ; and 
 the cruel teachings of Christian doctrines, the enforcement 
 of unnatural obligations and vague unrealizable promises, 
 which have repelled so many. We have got rid of the 
 latter only ; the former are still ours — are ours more 
 than they ever were before. We have sacrificed nothing 
 that is good and precious in the religion of Jesus. On the 
 contrary, we can see now wisdom as well as beauty ; 
 truth as well as right sentiment. 
 
 Nor need we sacrifice aught which time and habit 
 have endeared to us — not a sentiment — not even the 
 name Christ. Those to whom the preacher of the Sermon 
 on the Mount has been endeared by that name may con- 
 tinue to call him by that or any other cognomen. For 
 the essence of the religion of Jesus does not consist in 
 phrases and ceremonials, but in deeds. " Not everyone 
 that says Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father which 
 is in heaven/' 
 
 What is that will ? What are we required to do to 
 enter into life — to *' inherit the kingdom of heaven " ? 
 
 We are not left in any doubt as to the answer. The 
 law is laid down for us in the passage quoted at the head 
 of this chapter. 
 
 Anyone who still entertains any doubt how to interpret 
 
344 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 these two commandments will find explicit directions in 
 the answer which Jesus gave to the disciple who asked 
 a similar question (Matt. xix. 18-19) ; in the Sermon on 
 the Mount ; and more emphatically still in the Parable 
 of the Last Judgment (Matt. xxv. 34-40). There the 
 directions how to obey " the two Great Commandments 
 in the law " are most explicit. There it is laid down 
 beyond any possibility of doubt that the " king " — 
 which in the parable stands for the " Father in heaven " — 
 can be hallowed only by serving "his children " : For 
 inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these ye 
 have done it unto me. 
 
 As for creeds, beliefs, or rituals, they are not so much 
 as mentioned. They are neither banned nor required — 
 and that is the great merit of the religion of Jesus ; for 
 it makes it possible for people of most diverse opinions 
 to carry out its behests without doing violence to their 
 convictions. People may continue to observe any harm- 
 less rites they have been accustomed to, or believe any 
 cosmogony which appeals to their understanding. Reli- 
 gion does not consist in ceremonials or beliefs, but in the 
 observance of our obligations to our neighbours. 
 
 Under the segis of the universal " Fatherhood of God " 
 and " brotherhood of man " all people, of whatever race, 
 creed, or colour, can unite in one religion, as catholic as 
 are the already established sciences, without having to 
 sacrifice whatever is distinctive of nationality or of in- 
 dividuality. 
 
 Then — and then only — the " kingdom of heaven " shall 
 have come, and the will of the Father will be " done on 
 earth as it is in heaven/' Righteousness shall then 
 reign, and " all these things " which the people have 
 vainly been seeking to obtain by force or fraud, strife 
 and iniquity, " shall be added unto them " in addition 
 to the blessings of peace and goodwill. " The wolf 
 shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie 
 down with the kid ; and the calf and the young lion 
 and the fatling together ; and a little child shall lead 
 them/' * 
 
 1 Isa. xi. 6 f 
 
LIGHT AT LAST 345 
 
 Here, then, we have arrived at the gates of the millen- 
 nium — the dreamland of the human race. Shall we 
 ever enter it ? 
 
 The answer must come from the Churches. This is 
 their opportunity. They, and they only — that is, the 
 clergy — can open to mankind the gates of heaven ; for 
 it is they who are more in possession of the ears of the 
 masses than any other class of men. And the only way 
 to realize the " millennium " is by educating the masses ; 
 by making them realize their worth, their manhood, and 
 their power ; by bringing home to them that they are 
 the salt of the earth and responsible for the conditions 
 under which they are living, and that on themselves 
 devolves the duty of establishing the reign (or " kingdom ") 
 for which they are sighing. 
 
 The time has come for making an end to the unholy 
 alliance of religion with theology. We have arrived at 
 the parting of the ways. The choice lies between " the 
 two commandments on which hang all the law and the 
 prophets " and the irrational doctrines and dogmas of 
 theology, which in essence are the negation of these basic 
 principles. 
 
 Theology in the past — however ill founded were its 
 tenets — had at least this to its credit, that it was sincere, 
 that its votaries believed what they taught. That is no 
 longer the case. The doctrines and dogmas of theology 
 are too flagrantly out of harmony with the spirit of the 
 times. They cannot be reconciled with modern thought, 
 with present aspects of nature or of existence as revealed 
 by the wider knowledge of to-day. It is almost unthink- 
 able how an educated man can preach such obsolete 
 doctrines without doing violence to his understanding or 
 his conscience. He does so under a kind of compulsion, 
 in the belief that these tenets are as essential to religion 
 as religion itself is essential to the well-being of man. 
 But of these two propositions the latter only is true ; 
 whilst the former is the bane of true religion. 
 
 Theology has for so long arrogated to itself the sole 
 guardianship of all that concerns religion, that it has 
 become a, mental habit to regard the two as indis$oJut?ly 
 
346 THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS 
 
 connected, and not infrequently as identical ; whereas in 
 point of fact the two themes have nothing in common. 
 
 To this confusion of thought must be attributed the 
 anomalous mental attitude of the clergy which obliges 
 them to preach what in their hearts they do not — because 
 they cannot — believe themselves. They do so in the 
 mistaken belief that religion without these doctrines is 
 impossible ; and in this hypnotic state they compromise 
 between conviction and conventionalism " in the interest 
 of religion," as they persuade themselves. In truth, 
 however, they are sacrificing religion on the altar of an 
 obsolete and discredited cult. 
 
 It is an absurd fear that to jettison the shibboleths 
 of theology might react injuriously on religion itself. 
 The contrary is the truth. It is these shibboleths which 
 drive people from the Churches and discredit the belief 
 in the value or utility of religion. Their retention only 
 begets an enforced hypocrisy on the one hand and a 
 contempt for religion on the other ; whereas their aban- 
 donment would mean not decadence, but the renascence 
 of the religious spirit. 
 
 A new outlook and a new hope would infuse life into 
 the Churches ; and a new and wider sphere of action 
 would be opened to the clergy. Relieved of the incubus 
 of an enforced belief in obsolete and irrational doctrines, 
 they could preach the " kingdom of God " in sincerity 
 and in truth. They could prepare the people for " the 
 life which is to come "(the " olam habo " of the prophets), 
 and teach them how this better life is to be realized — 
 not in the clouds, but here on earth. 
 
 And in doing so the Churches would become vital and 
 vitalizing institutions, wielding a power against which 
 despots and tyrants would be impotent. For those who 
 can reach the hearts and souls of the people, to them 
 belongs the "kingdom" and the power, and — of neces- 
 sity — also the glory. 
 
 The " kingdom of heaven " is not to be taken with 
 violence. It is the meek, the gentle, the forgiving and 
 forbearing (olirp^etc), and not the violent, the haughty, 
 or arrogant aggressors who will inherit — who in the encl 
 
LIGHT AT LAST 347 
 
 must inherit — the earth. That is shown by the general 
 trend of events. Every finger-post in history points un- 
 mistakably in that direction. That is the " world to 
 come " of the ancient seers and prophets. It is the 
 millennium — a possible and practicable millennium — after 
 which mankind is groping. And that is also our destiny, 
 against which despots are fighting in vain. 
 
 Printed in Great Britain by 
 
 UN'WIN BROTHERS, LIMITED, THE GRESHAM PRESS, WOKING AND LONDON 
 
The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life 
 
 By Professor EMILE DURKHEIM. Trans, by J. W. SWAIN. 
 
 Medium 8vo, 15s. net. Postage 6d. 
 
 " The highest praise is due to Prof. Durkheim for his treatment. His 
 thought is clear and his style lucid." — Athenaeum. 
 
 Elements of Folk Psychology Outlines of a Psycho- 
 logical History of the Development of Mankind 
 By WILHELM WUNDT. Translated by EDWARD LEROY 
 SCHAUB, Ph.D. Medium 8vo, cloth, 15s. net. Postage 6d. 
 
 " Few thinkers have given so great an impetus to the science of 
 physiology and psychology as Professor Wundt, and his work at once 
 gives him a leading place as an authority on the subject." — Times. 
 
 The Concept of Consciousness 
 
 By Professor EDWIN HOLT. Demy 8vo, 12s. 6d. net. 
 
 Giambattista Vico A Study in Early Italian Philosophy 
 By BENEDETTO CROCK. Translated by R. G. COLLINGWOOD. 
 
 New Edition. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d. net. Postage 6d. 
 
 A study of an Italian philosopher and scholar of the early eighteenth 
 century by one of the most distinguished of living philosophers. Croce's 
 book is an admirably lucid exposition of Vico's ideas. 
 
 The Problem of Knowledge By douglas clive 
 
 MACINTOSH. Medium 8vo, 10s. 6d. net. Postage $d. 
 
 " A solid and satisfactory piece of work-" — Glasgow Herald. 
 
 The Church A Treatise by JOHN HUSS. Translated, with 
 Introduction, by DAVID S. SCHAFF, D.D. Royal 8vo, 10s. net. 
 
 " The Introduction is a real contribution to the doctrine of the Church 
 as well as a most useful entrance into the De Ecclesia of John Huss." 
 
 Expository Times. 
 
 Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological 
 Psychology before Aristotle. By professor g. m. 
 
 STRATTON, Author of " The Psychology of the Religious Life." 
 
 Demy 8vo, 8s. 6d. net. Postage 6d. 
 
 "An excellent translation and a careful examination of Theophrastus's 
 doctrine." — -The Observer. 
 
 Reflections on Violence By georges sorel. 
 
 Translated by T. E. HULME. Demy 8vo, 75. 6d. net. Postage $d. 
 
 "This 'classic of syndicalism' ... is one of those rare books which 
 has the supreme merit of forcing the reader to think." — New Statesman. 
 
 The Economic Anti-Christ 
 
 By the Rev. W. BLISSARD, M.A. Demy 8vo, ys. 6d. net. 
 
 " Mr. Blissard is an acute thinker, with a singular faculty for telling and 
 original presentment of ideas. There is hardly a page on which the 
 reader will not find some illuminating remark," — Times, 
 
Group Theories of Religion and the Religion 
 of the Individual By clement a j. webb, m.a. 
 
 Large Crown 8vo, 5s. net. Postage $d. 
 " Contains much extremely shrewd criticism. Especially interesting are 
 the pages on the connection between art and religion." — Observer. 
 
 Anthropomorphism and Science 
 
 A Study of the Development of Ejective Cognition in the Individual 
 and the Race. By OLIVE A. WHEELER, M.Sc. 5s. net. 
 
 " Discusses a very far-reaching topic with insight and ability." — Times. 
 
 The Secret of Human Power 
 
 By HADYN BROWN. Illustrated. Crown 8vo, 5s. net. 
 
 The Greek Tradition Essays in the Reconstruction 
 
 of Ancient Thought By J. A. K. THOMSON. With a 
 Preface by Prof. GILBERT MURRAY. Crown 8vo, 6s. net. 
 
 Nights and Days, and other Lay Sermons 
 
 By HELEN WODEHOUSE, D.Phil. 45. 6d. net. 
 
 A Call to Baptismal Reform A Bible and Prayer- 
 Book Study By " ARCHIPPUS." Crown 8vo, Cloth, 35. 6d. net. 
 
 The Coming of the World-Teacher 
 
 By M. E. ROCKE, M.D. Crown 8vo, Paper Covers, 15. net. 
 
 "A continuous chain of statement and reasoning." — Light. 
 
 The World, the War, and the Cross 
 
 By the Rev. F. J. CLARKE. Crown 8vo, Cloth, 2s. net. 
 
 "Will be appreciated by thoughtful people.'*— Aberdeen Journal. 
 
 The Stoic Philosophy 
 
 By GILBERT MURRAY. Fcap. 8vo, Cloth, is. 3d. net ; Paper, 9W. net. 
 
 Prayer and Sacrament 
 
 By the Rev. B. M. KITSON. With an Introduction by the 
 Rev. W. J. CAREY. 8d. net. 
 
 Knowledge and Character 
 
 By WILLIAM ARCHER. Demy 8vo, Paper Cover, 6d. net. 
 
 Christ and the War. Very Simple Talks 
 
 By Rev. W. HEATON RENSHAW. With Foreword by His 
 Grace the ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH. Fcap. 8vo, Sewn, 3d. net. 
 
 A Litany of Remembrance 
 
 Originally compiled for Retreats and Quiet Days for his Clergy bv 
 the Rt. Rev. GEORGE RIDDING, D.D., first Bishop of Southwell, 
 Now adapted for use at Lay Meetings and Services. 
 
 Crown 8vo, 3d. net. (or in Original Form,2tf. net). 
 
^nri^l PiimnQP A Contribution to a 
 OUCldl TUrpUbC Philosophy of Civic Society 
 
 By H. J. W. HETHERINGTON, M.A. 
 
 Professor of Logic and Philosophy in the Universicy College of 
 South Wales and Monmouthshire, Cardiff 
 
 and J. H. MUIRHEAD, LL.D. 
 
 Professor of Philosophy in the University of Birmingham 
 
 Demy $vo. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 The aim of this book is to show in greater detail than is usually done 
 how social structure shares in the purposefulness and moral values of 
 individual life. As Plato found his task in the interpretation of indi- 
 vidual life in the light of the larger lessons of the city state, the 
 particular task of modern social philosophy is to find a clue to the 
 more distant and complex life of society in the psychology of the 
 individual will and conscience. 
 
 Elements of Constructive 
 
 Priilnsnnrw By J> s " MACKENZIE > LlTT - D - 
 
 rilllObOpiiy (Camb.); Hon. LL.D. (Glasg.) 
 
 Emeritus Professor of Logic and Philosophy in University College, Cardiff; 
 formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge 
 
 Demy %vo. 12*. 6d. net. 
 
 "The book is sufficient. In its pages is all that the educated man 
 needs to know or is likely to care to know. The arrangement is 
 methodical ; the style is crisp and conclusive." — Expository Times. 
 
 God and Personality 
 
 By CLEMENT C J. WEBB, M.A. 
 
 Fellow and Tutor of Magdalen College, Oxford 
 Demy %vo. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 The recognition of Personality in God is here presented as the expres- 
 sion of the highest religious experience and also as a definite contribution 
 made by religious experience to our conception of the Supreme Unity, 
 the search for which is the central problem of Philosophy. 
 
 Scientific Synthesis By ei ^ e n n 10 
 
 Translated by W. J. GREENSTREET, M.A. 
 
 Demy 8vo. 7 J. 6</. net, postage 6d, 
 
 " Exceedingly valuable and suggestive."— Glasgow Herald. 
 "Takes the reader through many a fascinating field of research and 
 speculation. ''—Scotsman. 
 " Especially fruitful in ideas leading to further research." — Athenceum. 
 
Introduction to Mathematical 
 
 r nilOSOpny bertrand russell, f.r.s. 
 
 Demy $vo. About 10s. net. 
 
 This book is intended for those who have no previous acquaintance 
 with the topics of which it treats, and no more knowledge of mathematics 
 than can be acquired at a primary school or even at Eton. It sets 
 forth in elementary form the logical definition of number, the analysis 
 of the notion of order, the modern doctrine of the infinite, and the theory 
 of descriptions and classes as symbolic fictions. The more controversial 
 and uncertain aspects of the subject are subordinated to those which can 
 by now be regarded as acquired scientific knowledge. These are ex- 
 plained without the use of symbols, but in such a way as to give readers 
 a general understanding of the methods and purposes of mathematical 
 logic, which, it is hoped, will be of interest not only to those who wish to 
 proceed to a more serious study of the subject, but also to that wider 
 circle who feel a desire to know the bearings of this important modern 
 science. 
 
 The Metaphysical Theory 
 of the State l. t, hobhouse, d.litt. 
 
 Demy %vo. 7s, 6d. net. 
 
 This volume is a brief analysis of the political principles of Hegel 
 and his English followers. It is contended that the Hegelian theory 
 is practically mischievous, false in its conclusions, and radically 
 fallacious and sophistical in its methods. A sound political philosophy 
 will revert to the traditional methods of the English school. 
 
 Outlines of Social Philosophy 
 
 By J. S. MACKENZIE, Litt.D., LL.D. 
 
 Demy %vo. ioj. 6d. net. 
 
 The treatise is divided into three Books, and deals with the founda- 
 tions of Social Unity, National Order, and World Order. There is also 
 an Appendix, containing comments on the leading ideas of Plato's 
 " Republic." The whole work may be regarded as, to some extent, 
 taking the place of the author's " Introduction to Social Philosophy," 
 which has now been for a long time out of print. 
 
Library of Philosophy 
 
 General Editor: Professor J, H. MUIRHEAD, LL.D. 
 
 ANALYTIC PSYCHOLOGY. By G. F. Stout. Two Vols. 21s. net. 
 
 APPEARANCE AND REALITY. By F. H. BRADLEY. 12s. net, 
 
 ATTENTION. By Prof. W. B. PiLLSBURY. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOLOGY. By Prof . G. VILLA. 10s.6d.net. 
 
 HISTORY OF ESTHETIC. By Dr. B. Bosanquet. ios. td. net. 
 
 HISTORY OF ENGLISH UTILITARIANISM. By Prof. E. Albee. ios. td. net. 
 
 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. By Dr. J. E. Erdmann. 
 
 Vol. I. Ancient and Medleval. 15s. 
 
 Vol. II. Modern. 15s. 
 
 Vol. III. Since Hegel. 12s. 
 
 HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGY: Ancient and Patristic. By G. S. Brett, 
 M.A. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 MATTER AND MEMORY. By Henri Bbrgson. Translated by N. M. Paul 
 and W. S. Palmer. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 NATURAL RIGHTS. By Prof. D. G. Ritchie. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICAL ECONOMY. By Dr. J. BOXAR. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 RATIONAL THEOLOGY SINCE KANT. By Prof. O. Pfleiderer. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND. By G. W. F. Hegel. Translated by 
 J. B. Baillie. Two Vols. 21s, net. 
 
 THOUGHT AND THINGS; OR, Genetic LOGIC By Prof. M. Baldwin. 
 
 Vol. I. Functional Logic. 
 
 Vol. II. Experimental Logic. • ios.6</. net per vol. 
 
 Vol. III. Real Logic (l. ( Genetic Epistemology). , 
 
 TIME AND FREE WILL. By Henri Bergson. Translated by F. L. Pogson. 
 
 ios. (yd. net. 
 
 VALUATION: THE THEORY OF VALUE. By Prof. W. M. Urban. 
 
 ios. 6d. net. 
 
 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE. By G. M. STRATTON. 
 
 ios. 6d. net. 
 
 THE GREAT PROBLEMS. By Prof. Bernardino Varisco. Translated by 
 Prof. R. C. Lodge. ios. 6d, net. 
 
 KNOW THYSELF. By Prof. Bernardino Varisco. Translated by Dr. 
 Guglielmo Salvadori. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. By Prof. J. S. Mackenzie. 
 
 1 as. td net. 
 
 LONDON: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LIMITED