Truth About Jesus. Is He a Myth? — 17 - Appendix, part 1

APPENDIX

The argument in this volume will be better understood if we give to our readers the comments and criticisms which our little pamphlet, _Jesus a Myth,_ and _The Mangasarian-Crapsey Debate on the Historicity of Jesus, _[Footnote: Price, 25c.

Independent Religious Society, Orchestra Hall, Chicago.

] called forth from orthodox and liberal clergymen.

We shall present these together with our reply as they appeared on the Sunday Programs of the Independent Religious Society.

Criticism is welcome.

If the criticism is just, it prevents us from making the same mistake twice; if it is unjust, it gives us an opportunity to correct the error our critic has fallen into.

No one's knowledge is perfect.

But the question is, does a teacher suppress the facts?

Does he insist on remaining ignorant of the facts?

FROM THE SUNDAY PROGRAMS

I

Now that the debate on one of the most vital questions of modern religious thought--The Historicity of Jesus--is in print, a few further reflections on some minor points in Dr. Crapsey's argument may add to the value of the published copy.

REV.

DR.

CRAPSEY: "Now, I say this is the great law of religious variation, that in almost every instance, indeed, I think, in every single instance in history, all such movements begin with a _single_ personality."

(P.

5, _Mangasarian-Crapsey Debate.

_) ANSWER: The only way this question can be settled is by appealing to history.

Mithraism is a variant religion, which at one time spread over the Roman Empire and came near outclassing Christianity.

Yet, Mithra, represented as a young man, and worshiped as a god, is a myth.

How, then, did Mithraism arise?

Religions, as well as their variations, appear as new branches do upon an old tree.

The new branch is quite as much the product of the soil and climate as the parent tree.

Like Brahmanism, Judaism, Shinto and the Babylonian and Egyptian Cults, which had no _single_ founders, Christianity is a _deposit_ to which Hellenic, Judaic and Latin tendencies have each contributed its quota.

But the popular imagination craves a Maker for the Universe, a founder for Rome, a first man for the human race, and a great chief as the starter of the tribe.

In the same way it fancies a divine, or semi- divine being as the author of its _credo.

_ Because Mohammed is historical, it does not follow that Moses is also historical.

That argument would prove too much.

REV.

DR.

CRAPSEY: "We would be in the same position that the astronomers were when they discovered the great planet Uranus--from their knowledge of the movements of these bodies they were convinced that these perturbations could be occasioned by nothing less than a great planet lying outside of the then view of mankind."

(P.

6, _Ibid.

_) ANSWER: But the astronomers did not rest until they converted the _probability_ of a near-by planet into _demonstration.

_ Jesus is still a probability.

REV.

DR.

CRAPSEY: "We have of Jesus a very distinctly outlined history.

There is nothing vague about him."

(P.

12, _Ibid_.

) ANSWER: But in the same sentence the doctor takes all this back by adding: "There are a great many things in his history that are not historical."

If so, then we do not possess "a very distinctly outlined history," but at best a mixture of fact and fiction.

REV.

DR.

CRAPSEY: "We can follow Jesus' history from the time that he entered upon his public career until the time that career closed, just as easily as we can follow Caesar, etc." (P.

12, _Ibid_.

) ANSWER: How long was "the time from the opening of Jesus' public career until the time that it closed?"

--One year!

--according to the three gospels.

It sounds quite a period to speak of "following his public career" from beginning to end, especially when compared with Caesar's, until it is remembered that the entire public career of Jesus covers the space of only one year.

This is a most decisive argument against the historicity of Jesus.

With the exception of one year, his whole life is hid in impenetrable darkness.

We know nothing of his childhood, nothing of his old age, if he lived to be old, and of his youth, we know just enough to fill up a year.

Under the circumstances, there is no comparison between the public career of a Caesar or a Socrates covering from fifty to seventy years of time, and that of a Jesus of whose life only one brief year is thrown upon the canvas.

An historical Jesus who lived only a year!

REV.

DR.

CRAPSEY: The Christ I admit to be purely mythological....

the word Christ, you know, means the anointed one....

they (the Hebrews) expected the coming of that Christ....

But that is purely a mythical title.

(_The Debate_--P. 35. ) ANSWER: Did the Hebrews then expect the coming of a _title?

_ Were they looking forward to seeing the ancient throne of David restored by a _title?

_ By Messiah or Christ the Jews did not mean a _name,_ but a man--a real flesh and bone savior, anointed or appointed by heaven.

But if the 'Christ' which the Hebrews expected was "purely mythical," what makes the same 'Christ' in the supposed Tacitus passage historical?

The New Testament Jesus is Jesus Christ, and the apostle John speaks of those "who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"--mark his words--not Christ, but _Jesus Christ.

_ The apostle does not separate the two names.

There were those, then, in the early church who denied the historicity, not of a _title_,--for what meaning would there be in denying that a _title_ "is come in the flesh,"--but of a person, known as _Jesus Christ.

_ And what could the doctor mean when he speaks of a _title_ being "mythological?"

There are no mythological titles.

Titles are words, and we do not speak of the historicity or the non-historicity of words.

We cannot say of words as we do of men, that some are historical and others are mythical.

William Tell is a myth--not the name, but the man the name stands for.

_William_ is the name of many real people, and so is _Tell.

_ There were many anointed kings, who are historical, and the question is, Is Jesus Christ--or Jesus the Anointed--also historical?

To answer that Jesus is historical, but The Anointed is not, is to evade the question.

When Mosheim declares that "The prevalent opinion among early Christians was that Christ existed in appearance only," he could not have meant by 'Christ' only a title.

There is no meaning in saying that a man's title "existed in appearance only?"

We do not speak of a title being born, or crucified; and when some early Christians denied that Jesus Christ was ever born or ever crucified, they had in mind not a _title_ but a _person.

_ In conclusion: If the 'Christ' by whom the Hebrews meant, not a mere name, but a man, was "purely mythological," as the reverend debater plainly admits (see pages 35, 36 of _The Debate_)--that is, if when the Hebrews said: "Christ _is_ coming," they were under the influence of an illusion,--why may not the Christians when they say that 'Christ' _has_ come, be also under the influence of an illusion?

The Hebrew illusion said, Christ was coming; the Christian illusion says, Christ has come.

The Hebrews had no evidence that 'Christ' was coming, although that expectation was a great factor in their religion; and the Christians have no more evidence for saying 'Christ' has come, although that belief is a great factor in _their_ religion.

II

The minister of the South Congregational Church, who heard the debate, has publicly called your lecturer an "unscrupulous sophist," who "practices imposition upon a popular audience" and who "put forth sentence after sentence which every scholar present knew to be a perversion of the facts so outrageous as to be laughable."

As one of the leading morning papers said, the above "is not a reply to arguments made by Mr. Mangasarian."

Invited by several people to prove these charges, the Reverend replies: "In the absence of any full report of what he (M. M.

Mangasarian) said, or of any notes taken at the time, I am unable to furnish you with quotations."

When the Reverend gentleman was addressing the public his memory was strong enough to enable him to say, "sentence after sentence was put forth by Mr. Mangasarian which every scholar present knew to be a perversion of the facts."

But when called upon to mention a few of them, his memory forsakes him.

Our critic is not careful to make his statements agree with the fact.

One instance, however, he is able to remember which "when it fell upon my ears," he writes, "it struck me with such amazement, that it completely drove from my mind a series of most astonishing statements of various sorts which had just preceded it."

We refrain from commenting on the excuse given to explain so significant a failure of memory.

The instance referred to was about the denial of some in apostolic times that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."

But as Mr. Mangasarian had hardly spoken more than twenty minutes when he touched upon this point, it is not likely that it could have been "preceded by a series of most astonishing statements of various sorts."

And what was the statement which, while it crippled his memory, it did not moderate his zeal?

We will let him present it himself; "I refer to the use he made of one or two passages in the New Testament, mentioning some who deny 'that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.'

'So that,' he went on to say, 'there were those even among the early Christians themselves who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh.

Of course, they were cast out as heretics.'

_Here came an impressive pause,_ and then without further explanation or qualification, he proceeded to something else."

This is his most serious complaint.

Does it justify hasty language?

St. John writes of those who "confessed not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."

The natural meaning of the words is that even in apostolic times some denied the flesh and bone Jesus, and regarded him as an idea or an apparition--something like the Holy Ghost.

All church historians admit the existence of sects that denied the New Testament Jesus--the Gnostics, the Essenes, the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Cerinthians, etc. As the debate is now in print, further comment on this would not be necessary.

Incidents like the above, however, should change every lukewarm rationalist into a devoted soldier of truth and honor.

To us, more important than anything presented on this subject, is this evidence of the existence of a very early dispute among the first disciples of Jesus on the question of whether he was real or merely an apparition.

The Apostle John, in his epistle, clearly states that even among the faithful there were those _who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

_ This is very important.

As early as John's time, if he is the writer of the epistle, Jesus' historicity was questioned.

The gospel of John also hints at the existence in the primitive church of Christians who did not accept the reality of Jesus.

When doubting Thomas is told of the resurrection, he answers that he must feel the prints of the nails with his fingers before he will believe, and Jesus not only grants the wishes of this skeptical apostle, but he also eats in the presence of them all, which story is told evidently to silence the critics who maintained that Jesus was only a spirit, "the Wisdom of God," an emanation, a light, and not real flesh and bones.

III

The same clergyman, to whom a copy of the _Mangasarian-Crapsey Debate_ was sent, has written a five page criticism of it.

The strength of a given criticism is determined by asking: Does it in any way impair the soundness of the argument against which it is directed?

Critics have discovered mistakes in Darwin and Haeckel, but are these mistakes of such a nature as to prove fatal to the theory of evolution?

To be effective, criticism must be aimed at the _heart_ of an argument.

A man's life is not in his hat, which could be knocked off, or in his clothes--which could be torn in places by his assailant without in the least weakening his opponent's position.

It is the blow that disables which counts.

To charge that we have said 'Gospel,' where we should have said 'Epistle,' or 'Trullum' instead of 'Trullo'; that it was not Barnabas, but Nicholas who denied the Gospel Jesus, and that there were variations of this denial, does not at all disprove the fact that, according to the Christian scriptures themselves, among the apostolic followers there were those to whom Jesus Christ was only a phantom.

Milman, the Christian historian, states that the belief about Jesus Christ "adopted by almost all the Gnostic sects," was that Jesus Christ _was but an apparent human being, an impassive phantom,_ (_History of Christianity.

_ Vol. 2, P.

61).

Was ever such a view entertained of Caesar, Socrates or of any other historical character?

On page 28 of _The Debate_ we say: "The Apostle John complains of those....

who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."

To this the clergyman replies: "The Apostle John never made any such complaint.

Critical scholarship is pretty well agreed that he did not write the epistles ascribed to him."

We have a lecture on "How the Bible was Invented," and this clergyman's admission that at least parts of the bible _are_ invented is very gratifying.

In a former communication, this same clergyman tried to prove that the Apostle John's complaint does not at all imply a denial of the historical Jesus.

In his recent letter he denies that the apostle ever made such a complaint.

John did not write the epistles, then, which the Christian church for two thousand years, and at a cost of millions of dollars, and at the greater sacrifice of truth and progress has been proclaiming to the world as the work of the inspired John!

The strenuous efforts to get around this terrible text in the "Holy Bible," show what a decisive argument it is.

Every exertion to meet it only tightens the text, like a rope, around the neck of the belief in the historical Jesus.

Our desire, in engaging in this argument, is to turn the thought and love of the world from a mythical being, to humanity, which is both real and present.

On page 22 of _The Debate,_ we say: "St. Paul tells us that he lived in Jerusalem at a time when Jesus must have been holding the attention of the city; yet he never met him."

To this the clergyman replies: "Paul tells us nothing of the kind.

In a speech which is put into the mouth of Paul"--_put into the mouth of Paul!

_ Is this another instance of forgery?

John did not write the epistles, and Paul's speech in the Book of Acts was put into his mouth!

Will the clergyman tell us which parts of the bible are _not_ invented?

Let us make a remark: The church people blame us for not believing in the trustworthiness of the bible; but when we reply that if the bible is trustworthy, then Paul must have been in Jerusalem with Jesus, and John admits that some denied the historical Jesus, we are blamed for not knowing better than to prove anything by quoting Paul and John as if everything they said was trustworthy.

In other words, only those passages in the bible are authentic which the clergy quote; those which the rationalists quote are spurious.

In the meantime, the authentic as well as the spurious passages together compose the churches' _Word of God_.

IV

In a letter of protest to Mr. Mangasarian, Rabbi Hirsch, of this city, asks: "Was it right for you to assume that I was correctly reported by the _News?"

_ After stating what he had said in his interview with the reporter, the Rabbi continues: "But said I to the reporter all these possible allusions do not prove that Jesus existed....

You see in reality I agreed with you.

I personally believe Jesus lived.

But I have no proof for this beyond my feeling that the movement with which the name is associated could even for Paul not have taken its nomenclature without a personal substratum.

But, and this I told the reporter also, this does not prove that the Jesus of the Gospels is historical."

Rabbi Hirsch writes in this same letter that he did not say Jesus was mentioned in the Rabbinical Books.

The News reports the Rabbi as saying, "But we know through the Rabbinical Books that Jesus lived."

A committee from our Society waited on the editor of the _Daily News_ for an explanation.

The editor promised to locate the responsibility for the contradiction.

As the report in the _News_ was allowed to stand for four days without correction, and as Rabbi Hirsch did not even privately, by letter or by phone, disclaim responsibility for the article, to Mr. Mangasarian, the latter claims he was justified in assuming that the published report was reliable.

But it is with pleasure that the Independent Religious Society gives Rabbi Hirsch this opportunity to explain his position.

We hope he will also let us know whether he said to the reporter: "I do not believe in Mr. Mangasarian's argument that Christianity has inspired massacres, wars and inquisitions.

It is a stock argument and not to the point."

This is extraordinary; and as the Rabbi does not question the statement, we infer that it is a correct report of what he said.

Though we have room for only one quotation from the Jewish-Christian Scriptures, it will be enough to show the relation of religion to persecution: "And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord, thy God, shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them."

Why were women put to death as witches?

Why were Quakers hanged?

For what "economic and political reasons," which the Rabbi thinks are responsible for persecution, was the blind Derby girl who doubted the Real Presence, burned alive at the age of twenty-two?