ah ha ke 1920 Ci & NR aOR ERO Ss My DEEP IMCU TION MAG Nur Maca Viniecme ron” iba cham, Mh Wi COATS! Moreh Vili CHAPTER I. II. III. CONTENTS CHAPTER V THE APOSTLE PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION THE EPISTLES OF PAUL ois i. A aed PAUL, BEFORE His CONVERSION, A Witenes TO THE Cross : PAUL AND THE UNITY OF opaiarrntye (am orNs TTY aes ee : THE BROTHERS OF “Jesus AND THE JERUSALEM APOSTLES BEG : EXAMINATION OF TEXTS openers TO Conran ALLUSIONS TO A CHrist MytTH THE! GOSPEL TRADITION INTE AULS A Jers CHAPTER VI THE THEOLOGY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL Tue CHARACTER OF PAULINE DLHOUGHT 59) 2% Gop AND DEMONS. . . SIN AND IVI Clana tek nolan oe tate ea Tue REDEMPTION. . att Fe a Bio a hy he Ge THE CHRIST AND HIs Work HORA Sea THE JUSTIFICATION AND REDEMPTION OF THE SINNER 0! f nih THE GENESIS OF THE aera TeHOLOGe ie CHAPTER VII THE NONPAULINE EPISTLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT T BETR (CHARACTER | °)) 207.0 Wy ne ae THE PASTORAL 7 EPISTLES «|. 4 1) * ee Tue EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS... Tue First Epistle oF PETER, EPISTLE OF : June, THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER AND THE EPISTLE OF JAMES’, \°.. 0 Caan CONCLUSION 1) ti. d acme oy al nth ha ae CHAPTER VIII THE CHRIST OF THE APOCALYPSE CHARACTER OF THE APOCALYPSE (“Revelations”) THE VISION OF THE WOMAN AND THE DRAGON PAGE 03 95 99 100 103 121 135 136 139 Ti4 149 159 168 173 175 182 184 186 188 192 CONTENTS ix CHAPTER IX THE THEORY OF THE PROPHETIC ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL TRADITION CHAPTER PAGE I. THe FuNcCTION OF THE PROPHETIC ARGUMENT IN PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY . . . vith OO II. Tue RELATIONS oF PROPHECY AND THE GosPEt. FETS TORV ese LO. Saks chess trea Re ea dg RE CES 1. CREATIONS DUE To PROPHETIC EXEGESIS . . 203 2. MopiricaTions Dur To PropHETIC EXEGESIS 205 III. INFLUENCE OF PROPHECY ON THE FACTS . . . 212 IV. FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECIES DISCOVERED AFTER PHEG VAL Ta one (hc hoi he bal due!) eek gh OUD ayn emt eee rs VAP FOR CORUCEET RIGOra Niner kt feet a's hel! gti yt earthy mw Ree) Rei RL ERIS TUT Hi PAR OREAB OLA MBG a pi GCA rain eo ea ra) CHAPTER X THE GOSPEL TRADITION Hun COMPOSITION: OF ‘THES GOSPELS ea ns ee Taare Gosprt.: Tora sn) OG ree Un 234 III. Tue ABSENCE OF CHRONOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 239 IV. THe PLAN OF THE GOSPELS . . 244 V. CoNcERNING CERTAIN FACTORS IN THE - DEvELor- MENT OF THE GOSPEL TRADITION. . . . 264 TAPE OLKULORE * 62)3 Red nath er pep ranean Maaele 2. INSPIRATION AND Vist0ns aN bie 267 3. THe TRANSFERENCE OF MATERIAL BorrowEp FROM THE APOSTOLIC History . . . . 270 EE IPT IIR Ge My Vay ee ach NY of tenis Le ere Rat te aes CHAPTER XI THE ORIGIN OF THE FAITH IN THE RESURRECTION AND ITS FUNCTION IN PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY I. THe ReEsurRRECTION PROBLEM. . pee ter Il. Tue PAULINE CONCEPTION OF CHRIST’S ha eanice PIOW se) 0: 283 III. Tue CoNcCEPT OF THE Geranes OF n CaRier i! TO Ma- MEGTATSUEPE Vel any Ulead Tee sneha kak ke SOO x CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE IV. PriMitTivE FoRM OF THE RESURRECTION BELIEF . 290 V. How Tue BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION AROSE . 204 VI. Tue BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION AND THE MEs- SIANIC! BELIER Als gery ne epee Ls See Vil CONCLUSION 1/.) Jaime hoone teas tire re “Dk GENERAL’ CONCLUSION): cilia) Wee eis fe) neues ee vr ee PNDEX e615 lee ks eee es Ee INST gT VU a! meats Dg ee gem a JESUS THE NAZARENE * »* MYTH OR HISTORY? # tia’ 4A “wd 4o: I... Mas; er aq JESUS THE NAZARENE MYTH OR HISTORY? CHAPTER I NONHISTORICAL THEORIES I. Tue THeories oF NONHISTORICITY UP TO THE CLOSE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY BAYLE relates that one of the greatest scholars of the Renaissance, Laurentius Valla, during a banquet, said one day to Antoine Panormita, who was as much scandalized as shocked by the remark, that he had in his quiver weapons against the Messiah Himself.* Did he mean by this to throw doubt upon the manner in which tradition presented the Gospel history? Or did he go so far as to question the historical reality of the person of Jesus? The manner in which the conversation is related does not permit us to decide the point. Up to the eighteenth century the authority of the | Gospels was unquestioned. Each one contented him- | self by paraphrasing with more or less freedom the data of the accounts. So long as Protestants, equally with Catholics, continued to be dominated by the principle of the literal inspiration of Scripture it could not be otherwise. 1 Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, article “Valla.” Nips JESUS THE NAZARENE The sole problem which existed was that concern- ‘ing the arrangement and disposition of the parallel records. From the sixteenth up to the eighteenth century, from Osiander to Griesbach, marvelous in- genuity had been displayed to codrdinate these in such a manner that, according to the very words of Osiander,? no word of any record should be omitted, that nothing foreign should be added, and that the order of no evangelist should be modified.® If this “reconciling” was not yet a true critical study of the life of Jesus, it at all events, owing to the complexity and improbability of the hypotheses it was compelled to construct, helped to show that the prob- lem as then presented remained insoluble, and that in consequence it was necessary to transfer it to another field. It was during the eighteenth century that this trans- ference took place. This revolution, the consequences of which were only gradually revealed, took place almost simultaneously in England under the influence of the Deists, in France under that of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists, in Germany under that of the School of Enlightenment (Aufklarung), which received the adhesion of Reimarus and Lessing.‘ The first scientific essay on the life of Jesus is that 2See his Harmonie, published in Basle in 1537. 3 Concerning L’Harmonistique, see M. Goguel, Introd., i. pp. 49, et seq. “Concerning the beginnings of the critical history of the life of Jesus, see Albert Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben Jesu-Forschung, Tubingen, 1913, pp. 13-26; also Chas. Guignebert, Le Probléme de Jésus, Paris, 1914, pp. 7-21. The part played by English Deists and French writers, completely ignored by Schweitzer, has been well emphasized by Guignebert. NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 3 published by Lessing between 1774 and 1778. It consists of seven fragments obtained from a volu- minous manuscript left by Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768). The author of this had for his ob- ject the justification of natural religion in show- ing that Christianity had but a feeble base of sup- port. of eee a new teligion. His preaching, exclusively eschatological and terrestrial, had solely in view His manifestation as Messiah, the son of David. ~~Jesus perished at Jerusalem at the time that He attempted to get Himself proclaimed King. After His death His disciples imagined the idea of a second coming of the Messiah and of a spiritual redemption | through His death. ne Reimarus has a double merit. He from the first recognized the importance of eschatology in the thought of Jesus, and tried to discover a natural connection of cause and effect, not only in the history of Jesus, but also in that of primitive Christianity. By the manner in which he presents the life and the teaching of Jesus, Reimarus claims to undermine tra- ditional Christianity at the base. This intention intro- duces a philosophical element into his research, which is as much a disturbing factor as the dogmatic preju- dices for which Reimarus reproaches his antag- onists. The same may be said of the rationalists, whose activity extends from about the middle of the eighteenth century up to about 1830. Eliminating every supernatural element, they aimed at portraying Jesus as a master of virtue whose teaching accorded 4 JESUS THE NAZARENE with their own. Such is specially the character of the works of Herder ® and of Paulus.® The latter is particularly given to the interpretation of miracles. He sees in them real but perfectly natural facts which his contemporaries have not understood, and which they have considered as having the character of prodigies. If, for example, it has been believed that Jesus mul- tiplied the loaves, this is because, in the desert where the crowd had followed Him, He had given an ex- ample of distributing the few loaves at His own dis- posal, an example followed by those of His hearers who possessed provisions.” The rationalist conception of the life of Jesus does not differ in essentials from the supernatural conception. The former limits itself to the recitation of the facts recorded while combin- ing more or less happily the Synoptic and the Johannine statements, but instead of having perpetual recourse to miracle, the rationalists display an extreme ingenuity in giving to events a natural interpretation. The work of the French rationalists of the eighteenth century possesses a less systematic char- acter; its import is only the greater for that. It rests upon no profound work of exegesis, and does not 5 Herder, Vom Erléser der Menschen nach unsern drei ersten Evan- gelien: Vom Gottessohn der Welt Heiland nach Johannesevangelium, Riga, 1797. 6 Paulus, Das leben Jesu al Grundlage einer reinen Gesch. des Urchristentums, Heidelberg, 1828. 7 7 With rationalism may be connected the works of Bahrdt (Aus- fiihrung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu, 1784-92), Venturini (Natiirliche Gesch. des grossen propheten von Nazareth, 1800-1802), which repre- sent Jesus as an agent of the sect of the Essenes. Concerning these authors see Schweitzer (Gesch., pp. 38-48). NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 5 end in opposing a new conception of primitive Chris- tianity to traditional opinion. In the involved and prudent manner forced upon him, Voltaire pointed out the small documentary value of Gospels “written by persons acquainted with noth- ing, full of contradictions and imposture”’ *—the im- probability of the eschatological prophecies, against which good sense rebelled. ‘‘Let each ask himself,’’ he writes, “if he sees the possibility of pushing imposture and the stupidity of fanaticism farther.” ® ‘“‘The whole history of Jesus—only a fanatic or a stupid knave would deny it—should be examined in the light of reason. *° Voltaire on several occasions draws atten- tion to the silence of non-Christian authors concerning the Gospel history.** Obviously, Christian tradition does not inspire in him any confidence. However, he does not go so far as to maintain that it corresponds to no reality at all. He is aware that “certain followers of Bolingbroke, more ingenious than erudite,’ consid- ered themselves authorized by the obscurities and con- tradictions of the Gospel tradition to deny the exist- ence of Jesus.” In so far as he is concerned, he rejects this con- clusion, and it appears that this is not entirely for rea- sons of prudence, as is sometimes the case when he wishes to hint at opinions which it might be dangerous 8 Voltaire, Examen important de Milord Bolingbroke (Edition Kehl), xxxiii, pp. 44-60. Cp. Sermon des cinquant, xxxil, pp. 399-400; Hist. de Vétabt. du christianisme, xxxv, pp. 274-93. 9Jd., Ex. de Milord Bolingbroke, xxxiii, p. 68. 10Jd., Dieu et les Hommes, xxxiii, p. 271. 11Jd., ib., p. 272; Sermon des cinguant, xxxii, p. 401; Hist. de Pétabt. du christianisme, xxxv, p. 274. 12 Jd., Dieu et les Hommes, xxxiii, p. 273. 6 JESUS THE NAZARENE to profess openly. Indeed, Voltaire in this case gives weighty reasons for setting aside the negations he cites. He quotes precise cases of forged genealogies, of stories embellished and transfiguted, and as for the disproportion which appears to exist between the hu- mility of the person of Jesus and the importance of the movement which He inaugurated, he relates the case of Fox, “a very ignorant shoemaker, founder of the sect of Quakers.’’ He concludes: “It is necessary, whilst awaiting faith, to limit oneself to drawing this conclusion: There did exist an obscure Jew, from the dregs of the people, named Jesus, who was crucified as a blasphemer in the time of the Emperor Tiberius, it being impossible to determine in which year.” ** | Voltaire has not sketched any history of the origins of Christianity. His effort to place the study of the documents within the province of reason—we should say in modern phrase the province of history—is none the less very remarkable. In doing so he dealt the traditional conception decisive blows. The almost entirely negative character of the criti- cisms of Voltaire explains the extreme conclusions stated at the end of the eighteenth century by Volney and Dupuis. In his work called Les Ruines ou Medi- tations sur les Revolutions des Empires (Paris 1798- | 1808) Volney conceives a vision unfolded among the ruins of Palmyra. The representatives of the various 18 Voltaire, Dieu et les Hommes, xxxiii, p. 279. Further to what has been quoted it is necessary to read L’Essai sur les maurs (especially Chap. ix); Les Homelies prononcées a Londres, 1765, xxxii; Conseils raisonnables a M. Bergier, xxxiii; Questions de Zapata, xxxiii; Epitre aux Romains, xxxiii, many articles in the Dictionnaire philosophique, xxxvii to xliii. With the ideas of Voltaire may be compared those of Holbach, Systéme de nature, Londres, 1770; under the name of Mirabeau, Le bons sens du curé Meslier, Londres, 1772. NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 7 religions explain, each in his turn, how priests have deceived mankind in inventing dogmas which obscured the real religion, spiritual in its essence. In Volney’s view, the entire Gospel tradition represented an astral myth.** The views of Dupuis** closely resemble those of Volney.*® According to him, the philosophers who have made a man of Jesus are not less seriously in error than the theologians who have made of Him a God: “Jesus is still less man than God. He is, like all the deities that men have adored, the sun; Christian- ity is asolar myth. When we shall have shown,” writes Dupuis, “that the pretended history of a God, who is born of a virgin in the winter solstice, who is resusci- tated at Easter or at the Vernal equinox, after having descended into hell, who brings with Him a retinue of twelve apostles whose chief possesses all the attributes of Janus—a God, conqueror of the prince of darkness, who translates mankind into the empire of light, and who heals the woes of the world, is only a solar fable, . . . it will be almost as unnecessary to inquire whether there was a man called Christ as it is to inquire whether some prince is called Hercules. Provided that it be proven that the being consecrated by worship under the name of Christ is the sun, and that the miraculous 14 Napoleon I was under the influence of Volney when, in a con- versation that he had with Wieland at Weimar, in 1808, he said it was a great question to decide whether Jesus had existed (Schweitzer, Gesch., p. 445). 15 Dupuis, L’Origine de tous les cultes ou la religion universelle, Paris, anno III (1794); Abrégé de lorigine de tous les cultes, Paris, anno VII (1798). These two works have been reprinted several times. 16J]t was during a conversation with Dupuis that Volney con- ceived the project of his book. 8 JESUS THE NAZARENE element in the legend or the poem has this star for its object, then it will appear proven that the Christians are but sun worshippers, and that their priests have the same religion as those of Peru, whose throats they have cut.” *” | The year 1835 was that of the publication of the first Life of Jesus, by Strauss,** and it is a date of primary importance in the history of evangelical criti- cism. Strauss attacks the problem with the absolute indifference to dogma which he owed to the philosophy of Hegel. The fundamental idea of religion in his view is that of the ‘‘Gottmenschlichkeit,” and it is of small import whether this idea has been realized in phenomena or not. It is the idea which is important, and not history. The first Gospel accounts, in Strauss’s opinion, have not been drawn up from an historical point of view. They do not relate the event as these took place, but express certain ideas by means of images and symbols, or to employ the exact term that Strauss makes use of, by myths. What is important in the notion of the myth is not the idea of unreality, ‘but that of a symbolical expression of a higher truth. The mythical explanation seems to Strauss the syn- thesis which resolves the antithesis between the nat- uralist and the supernatural explanations of the life of Jesus. The Life of Jesus of Strauss contains an- other novelty: it put forward as had never been done 17 Dupuis, Abrégé, p. 251. The views of Dupuis have been wittily criticized by J. B. Perés, librarian of the town of Agen, in a curious booklet in which he applied the method of Dupuis to the History of Napoleon to prove the latter had never existed. 18 Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, Tubingen, 1835, 1836, 1840. Concern- ing Strauss see Schweitzer, Gesch., p. 69; also A. Levy, David Fred- erick Strauss, Paris, 1910; Guignebert, pp. xxii seq. NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 9 hitherto the problem of the relation between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics. So long as one was content, as before Strauss, to combine the statements of the four evangelists, Strauss considers that the two traditions are irreconcilable with each other, and he solves the problem offered by their coexistence in a manner unfavorable to the fourth evangelist. The weak point of Strauss’s construction was that it was not built upon a sufficiently thorough study of the sources. This omission was filled up simultaneously by the works of F. C. Baur and his disciples and by those of a series of critics who combated the theses of the Tubingen school, such as Weisse, Wilke, Reuss, Albert Reville, H. J. Holtzmann, Bernhard Weiss.”® The outcome of the discussions which took place on the evangelical problem was a theory whose essential points are that at the base of the evangelical literature are two principal sources: The Gospel of Mark, either under its present form orjone slightly different (proto- Mark), and a collection of discourses (the Logia) ,”° the fourth evangelist being considered by the majority of critics as a secondary form of the tradition, domi- nated by dogmatic and allegorical ideas. The life of Jesus which would be the result of all this critical work has never been written; it is, so to speak, involved in the work of H. J. Holtzmann.” To the school of Baur belong the works of Bruno 12 Concerning these works see Maurice Goguel, Introd., i, p. 67, and ii, p. 27. 20 Usually referred to in England and Germany by the letter Q (Quelle). ' 21 Schweitzer, Gesch., pp. 124-40. 10 JESUS THE NAZARENE Bauer,” who in 1841 supported the priority of the Gospel of Mark. He explained the peculiarities of the other records by what he termed the creative power of the evangelists, and clearly showed the part played in the evolution of tradition by dogmatic and theological notions. But he did not stop there, and maintained that the forces which had guided the transformation of primitive tradition explained also the genesis of Mark’s record. In Bauer’s view the primitive evangel- ist was a creator, and his work is the product of the faith of the early Christians.) Christianity was born at the beginning of the second century from the meet- ing of the different currents of thought originating in Judea, Greece and Rome. The person of Jesus was merely a literary fiction. ey is the product, not the creator, of Christianity. _, Bruno Bauer Penney a solitary. His ideas had but little influence. When, at a later period, analogous ideas to his were expressed, either by the radical Dutch school or by certain modern mythologists, it was not under his influence, and it was only after their expres- sion that the authors of certain theories believed to be new found out that in Bruno Bauer they had a pioneer. The publication of the Vie de Jésus by Renan in 1863 marks a no less important date than that of Strauss’s work on the history of criticism. This is not because the work was particularly original. Almost its entire substance was borrowed from the German 22 Bruno Bauer, Kritik des Evangelischen Gesch. des Johannes, Bre- men, 1840; Kritik der Evangelischen Gesch. der Synoptiker, Leipzig, 1841-42; Kritik der Evangelien, Berlin, 1850-51; Christus und die Cdsaren, Berlin 1877. Concerning Bruno Bauer see M. Kegel, Bruno Bauer und seine Theorie tiber die Entstehung des Christentums, 1908. — NONHISTORICAL THEORIES II criticism, but although the work of Strauss had been translated, that of Renan was the first French work on the question. It attracted all the more attention in that it was addressed to the general public. It thus produced an enormous effect.” Possessing in reality but little originality, the Vie de Jésus of Renan is, from the literary point of view, a first-class work.” | Renan makes of Jesus a kind of gentle dreamer who oy through the midst of the Galilean countryside smiling at life, and as though surprised at the drama in which He takes part. When he disappears, the passion of a deluded woman gives to the world a risen God. | years of the nineteenth century by a large number of other “Lives,” from Keim to Oskar Holtzmann.”® They all aim at presenting the results of literary criticism, often while combining, as Renan had already done, the facts of the fourth evangelist with those of the Synoptics. The point of view as to miracles varies, but in almost all there are found attempts at the psychological explanation of the Messiahship of Jesus and of the manner in which He had concealed it from 23 See Schweitzer (Gesch., pp. 647-51) for a list of eighty-five books and pamphlets published in 1863-64 concerning Renan’s work. 24'There are, however, in Renan’s work certain errors in taste. “There is no work,” writes Schweitzer, “which swarms with so many and such grave errors in taste as the Vie de Jésus. It is Christian art in the worst sense of the word—an art of waxen figures. The gentle Jesus, the pretty Maries, the refined Galileans who make up the retinue of the charming carpenter have been taken from the windows of a shop in the Place St. Sulpice.” See also opinion of Marcel Proust on the style of the work—“A sort of Lovely Helen of Christianity” (Revue de Paris, Nov. 15, 1920). 25 Schweitzer, Gesch., pp. 193-221. 12 JESUS THE NAZARENE the people and revealed it to His disciples. The principal effort made is the explanation of the scene at Cesarea Philippi (Mark viii. 27-33). In many of these “Lives” there is an effort to di- minish the importance of the eschatological element, with the preoccupation—more or less conscious—of discovering a Christ who shall not be too unfamiliar for the modern man and at the same time an ideal representative of true religion, such as is conceived by Protestantism of the liberal school. In the neighborhood of 1890 a new period in the history of the “Lives” of Jesus begins. Discussion was concentrated principally on the Messianic consciousness and eschatology—two prob- lems intimately connected. Already had Reimarus emphasized the eschatolog- ical views of Jesus, and Strauss had accorded them a certain importance. But in a general way these writers had scarcely been followed, and the aim was to give to the eschatological declarations of Jesus an inter- pretation which eliminated, while spiritualizing them. Attention was brought back again to this problem ** by the progress of the study of religions in the world of antiquity and of contemporary Judaism (with Jesus), in which eschatological ideas occupy a central position; also by the success of the school of Ritschl, who assigned capital importance to the notion of the Church—more or less explicitly identified with the idea of the Kingdom of God—preached by Jesus. The examination of the Biblical base of this doctrine led 26 Sometimes these were simply declared unauthentic, particularly by Colani, Jésus Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps, Strasbourg, 1864. NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 13 Johannes Weiss, disciple and son-in-law of Ritschl, to state conclusions of great import in a leading work dealing with the preaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God.’ In his view Jesus preached a Kingdom of God plainly and exclusively eschatological; He considered Himself asthe King of this Kingdom—that is to say, the Messiah. The thesis of Weiss was repeated and pushed to its farthest.consequences-by. Albert-Schweit- Tere If the exegesis of the end of the nineteenth century has thrown light on the importance of the eschato- logical and Messianic element in primitive Christianity, agreement, however, was far from being complete on the interpretation of the facts noted. A whole group of scholars threw doubt on a notion of the Messiah- ship of Jesus being a primitive element of Christianity. This conception was formulated by William. Wrede-in- a very acute work upon the Gospel of Mark.”® In his view the oldest Gospel tradition suffers from a funda- mental contradiction. It presents as Messianic a his- tory which really was not Messianic. The contradic- tion is concealed and resolved—imperfectly it is true— by the theory of secrecy observed and imposed by Jesus. Wrede takes pains to show that the Messianic secret must not be interpreted as a kind of pedagogic proceeding employed by Jesus to prevent His followers 27 Johannes Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, Gottingen, 1892. 28 A. Schweitzer, Das Leidens- und Messiasgeheimniss, Tibingen, Leipzig, 1901; Gesch., pp. 390-443; Die psychiatrische Beurteilung Jesu, Tiibingen, 1913. 29 W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimniss in den Evangelien, Gottingen, 1901; Paulus, Halle, 1904. 14 JESUS THE NAZARENE throwing themselves into a movement of political Messianism which He would have been unable to ap- prove, and whose control would have eluded Him. He sees in the Messianic secret a literary device, thanks to which the conceptions and beliefs of the Christian community have been inserted into the Gos- pel history. This theory has been discussed in the many studies devoted at the beginning of the nine- teenth century to the problem of the relations between Paul and Jesus.*° The problem discussed is this: Who is the real ' founder of Christianity? Is it Jesus Himself, or is it -not the apostle Paul, who introduced into the Church the notions of Messiahship and redemption foreign to the thought of Jesus and the faith of His first dis- ciples? The theories of Wrede did not, doubtless, go so far as to deny the historical reality of the person of Jesus; they end, nevertheless, in rendering it practically un- necessary, and they reduce the part played by Him to ,that of the occasional cause of the development of Christianity." From the notion of a Jesus having been, if one may so put it, only the pretext for the birth of Christianity to the thesis of His nonhistorical character there is but a shade of difference. We are thus brought to examine the modern forms of the myth 80 Concerning this literature see Schweitzer, Gesch. der Paulini- schen Forschung, 1911, pp. 119-40. 81 Such appears to be the point of view reached by M. Loisy. Under the influence of the sociological school, many critics in recent years insist upon the part played by the community, and specially of worship, in the development of Christianity and of the evangelical tradition. As characteristic of this tendency we cite the work of Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu und der Christuskult, Gottingen, 1922. NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 15 concept formerly stated by Volney, Dupuis and Bruno. Bauer. ~ In the last twenty years of the nineteenth century the myth concept is only represented by an anonymous work published in London in 1887 under the title of Antiqua Mater and by some criticisms of the radical Dutch school,*? which is, however, as a general rule, more occupied with the apostle Paul and his epistles than with Jesus and the Gospels. Pierson, Matthes, Naber, Van Loon, and for some time Loman, have decided against the historicity of Jesus. The reasons which determined their conclusions are principally of the negative order. ‘These authors insist on the uncertainty of the Gospel tradition, the absence of all external testimony, and thus consider as justified not only a skepticism regarding the possibility of reaching a positive conception of the life of Jesus, but also of His existence. The fact that they have failed to give from their point of view a coherent explanation of the origins of Christianity and of the formation of the Gospel tradi- tion explains the slight influence that their theories have exercised. II. NONHISTORICAL THEORIES IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY That there existed in the indifference which the theories of the Dutch school met with something more than a conspiracy of silence is proved by the volume 82 On this school, see a book, somewhat one-sided, by G. Van den Bergh van Eysinga, Die hollandische radikale Kritik des Neuen Testaments, Jena, 1912. 16 JESUS THE NAZARENE of discussion since the opening of the twentieth cen- tury upon the historical character of Jesus. According to J. M. Robertson,* religions develop by a regular law, continually producing new gods, who are substituted for or added to the old ones, some- times presenting themselves as sons of the latter. Jew- ish Monotheism thus gave birth to the Messianic cult. The adoration of Jesus is only the reappearance of an old religion which existed in Israel at the time when Abraham, Isaac, Moses and Joshua were still deities. Among these cults the most important was that of Joshua, the solar-deity of Ephraim, worshiped under the symbols of the lamb and the ram. This god Joshua is not unrelated to the Syrian Adonis and the Baby- lonian Thammuz. The new cult of Jesus-Joshua spe- cially developed after the destruction of the Temple. It created a whole legendary tradition, whose prin- cipal elements have a distinctly mythical character. It is possible, however, that in these developments there may have been included certain historical souve- nirs relating particularly to John the Baptist and to a certain Jesus Ben-Pandera, put to death under Alex- ander Janneus (106-79 B.c.) Albert Kalthoff ** con- 33 Robertson, Christianity and Mythology, London, 1900, 1910; Short — History of Christianity, 1902; Pagan Christs, Studies in Comparative Theology, 1902-11; The Jesus Problem—Restatement of the Myth Theory, 1917. Concerning Robertson, see Schweitzer (Gesch.), Guignebert (p. 88). Some ideas of Robertson resemble the astral theories developed by Niemojewski (Gott Jesu im Lichte fremder, etc., Miinchen, 1910; Das werwende Dogma vom Leben Jesu, Jena, 1910); and by C. P. Fuhrmann (Der Astralmythus von Christus, 1912). The idea of a pre-Christian cult of Jesus-Joshua is also ad- mitted by Bolland (De Evangelische Jozua—Het Evangelien), Leiden, 1907-10. Cp. also W. Erbt, Von Jerusalem nach Rome, Untersuchun- gen zur Geschichte des Urchristentums, Leipzig, 1912. 34 Kalthoff, Das Christusproblem, Grundlinien zu einer Sozial- NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 17 siders Christianity to be a social phenomenon. The new religion was born when the proletarian masses, op- pressed in the Roman world, came into contact with Jewish Messianic aspirations. The history of Jesus is only that of the idea of the Christ—it reflects the development of the community. Jensen * concedes that there may be an historical element at the base of the Gospel tradition, but this fact is without import. Whatever the history of the man Jesus may have been, the Christ of the Faith was born of the transformation of the Babylonian myth of Gilgamesch. Like Jesus, Gilgamesch is a person partly human, partly divine; his history, in which Jensen finds an astral character, is that of the quest of immor- tality.** William Benjamin Smith,*” mathematical teacher at New Orleans, sets out with a triple observation. It is inconceivable that one simple personality could have inspired such an important religious movement as Christianity. In the second place, there are in the writ- theologie, Leipzig, 1902-3; Die Entstehung des Christentums, Leipzig, 19043; Was wissen wir von Jesus? Berlin, 1904. Concerning Kal- thoff see Schweitzer (Gesch., p. 345) and Guignebert, p. 78. 35P, Jensen, Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Weltlitteratur, Stras- bourg, 1906; Moses, Jesus, Paulus, Drei Varianten des Babylonischen Gottmenschen Gilgamesch—Eine Anklage wider die Theologie ein Appel an die Laien, Frankfurt-a-M., 1906-9; Hat der Jesus der Evangelien wirklich gelebt? On Jensen see Schweitzer (Gesch., p. 466) and Guignebert, p. 85. 86H. Zimmern (Zum Streit un den Christusmythe, Das Babylonische Material in seinen Hauptpunkten dargestellt, 1910) admits, in addi- tion to the influence of Gilgamesch, that of the cults of Marduk, Mithra and Thammuz. 37 W. B. Smith, Der vorchristliche Jesus (Giessen, 1906); Ecce Deus; The pre-Christian Jesus (American Journal of Theology, 1911). Resembling the ideas of W. B. Smith are those of G. T. Sadler, Behind the New Testament, London, 1921. 18 JESUS THE NAZARENE ings of the apostle Paul and the first Christian apologists but few allusions to the public activity of Jesus. In the third place, no man could have been so easily deified as modern theologians suppose. In this mode Smith is led to adopt the idea of a divine pre-Christian Jesus. It is this person who was worshiped by the Naassene Gnostics, known to Hip- polytus, and the Jewish sect of Nazarenes (or Nazo- renes), known to Epiphanius (see later Chap. III, Section II). The name of this sect is not derived from the village of Nazareth, whose existence is very doubt- ful. In the name is found the root NSR, which ex- presses the idea of protection and salvation. In sup- port of his theory of a pre-Christian Jesus, Smith cites a series of other proofs, such as the conjuration “by the god of the Hebrews, Jesus,”’ in the magic papyrus of Paris, which, in truth, only dates from the fourth cen- tury after Jesus Christ; or, again, the case of Apollos and the disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus (Acts XVili. 24—28 and xix. 1-7), who know the ‘“‘things con- cerning Jesus’ before their meeting with Paul. The magician Elymas, surnamed ‘Bar-Jesus (Acts xiii. 6- 12) and Simon (Acts viii. 9-13) were worshipers of this pre-Christian Jesus. His name (the Hellenized form of the name of Joshua) signifies deliverance, and is also related to the root of the Greek verb meaning ‘to heal.’ The history of Jesus had been created by the worshipers of the pre-Christian Jesus; it en- shrines the history of the primitive community. The theories of W. B. Smith were welcomed with enthusiasm by Arthur Drews,** who, in a work of 88 A. Drews, Die Christusmythe, Jena, 1909-11; Die Petruslegende, Frankfurt, 1910; Das Markuysevangelium als Zeugnis gegen die NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 19 religious philosophy published in 1906, maintained that the cult of Jesus was a relic of fetishism from which it was necessary to purge religion. Smith’s sys- tem seemed to him adapted to bring about the religious reform he desired. He therefore adopted the theory of a pre-Christian Jesus, while combining it with an astral system, and adding to the product certain conceptions of his own devising, in particular a conjunction—un- expected, to say the least—between the Christ as lamb of God (Agnus Dei) and the Vedic lamb. The theories, among which we have been sum- marizing the most characteristic, have in Germany, during the early years of the twentieth century, been made the object of an intense propaganda. The con- troversy was not only carried on in scientific publica- tions, but in a large number of tracts designed for the general public, in popular lectures, sometimes as public debates, in the presence of huge audiences. The negative theses called forth a multitude of replies.*° Geschichtlichkeit Jesu, Jena; Die Entstehung des Christentums ausdem Gnostizismus. Concerning Drews see Schweitzer (Gesch., p. 483), Guignebert (p. 107). 89 See particularly the public debates in Berlin in 1910, published by the German Monist Union and translated into French by A. Lip- man, Jésus—a-t-il existé? (Paris, 1912). 40 Among all this literature we shall only cite: Bousset, Was wissen wir von Jesu?; L. C. Fillion, L’Existence historique de Jésus et le rationalisme contemporain; Jilicher, Hat Jesus gelebt? H. von Soden, Hat Jesus gelebt? 1910; Weinel, Ist das “liberale”’ Jesus-bild wider- legt? 1910; Joh. Weiss, Jesus von Nazareth, Mythus oder Geschichtz? 1910; Dunkmann, Der historische Jesus, der mythologische Christus, 1910; S. J. Case, Historicity of Jesus, 1912; Guignebert, Le Probléme de Jésus, 1914. The method employed by Pérés against Dupuis (see Section I) has been turned against the modern mythologists by J. Naumann (see Die Bismarcksmythe) and by an anonymous writer to show that Martin Luther never existed (Beweis dass Docktor M. Luther nie existiert hat). 20 JESUS THE NAZARENE In France, if one passes over certain controversial- ists whose work has more resemblance to an historical , romance than to history,** the thesis of nonhistoricity has been supported, with certain reservations, by M. Salomon Reinach, and in its entirety by M. Couchoud and M. Stahl. M. Salomon Reinach * does not formally give his verdict for the negative thesis, owing to the testimony of the Pauline epistles, which he is unable to consider as unauthentic. But while admitting that Jesus lived, Reinach insists upon three objections to the historicity of the Passion. The first is on the ground of the si- lence of non-Christian authors—particularly the ab- sence of a report of Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius upon the condemnation and execution of the Nazarene. The second argument is that the history of the Passion fulfils certain prophecies, particularly that of verse 17 of Psa. xxii. The last argument is based 41 The most prolific of these authors is Arthur Heulhard (le Men- songe chrétien, Jésus Christ n’a pas existé, Paris, 1908-10, 11 vol.; la Vérité Barabbas, le Mensonge Jésus; Tu est Petrus Vhistoire et la legende, Paris, 1913-14). Heulhard sums up his theory in the two following theses:— “ry. It was the Jew known as John the Baptist who said he was Christ and Bar Abba (son of the father), and he was certainly not beheaded. . “2. It was Barabbas who, condemned to death for his public crimes—such as assassination, robbery and treason—was crucified at Guol Golta by Pilate. The evangelists are a mystification invented more than a century after the execution of this scoundrel. It is Bar- abbas that the Church worships under the name of Jesus, an imagi- nary personage substituted by the evangelists for the crucified, and invented by them to impart the hue of innocence to the individual by whose invention they exploited lucratively the remission of sins by baptism.” #2 Salomon Reinach, Orpheus, 1909; Le Verset 17 du Psaume xxii; A propos de la curiosité de Tibére; Bossuet et Pargument des pro- pheties; Simon de Cyréne; Une source biblique du Docétisme. NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 21 upon the Docetist heresy—that is, the opinion which reduced the historical and human life of Jesus to a pure appearance. A very interesting attempt has been made by M. Couchoud ** to present the Pauline testimony as concerned with a Christ purely ideal, and so eliminate the difficulty which prevented M. Salomon Reinach formally supporting the thesis of nonhis- toricity of Jesus. M. Couchoud differs essentially from the mythologists in that he refuses to make Jesus a mythical being, but a spiritual being—in fact, he pos- sesses a comprehension of the spiritual value of Chris- tianity and of the religious influence of belief in Jesus which distinguishes him radically from such theoreti- cians as Drews, Smith, or Robertson. In M. Couchoud’s opinion, the method in which his- torians, from Renan to Loisy, attempt to understand the history of Jesus and the genesis of Christianity is liable to two main difficulties. The first is that it is in- conceivable that in less than a single generation a man should be deified, and this within the territory of Jew- ish monotheism. The second is that historically Jesus escapes us. [he testimony of Josephus is an established forgery. The Talmud contains nothing about Jesus which does not come from Christian tradition. Out of 43 Couchoud, L’Enigme de Jésus (translated into English by Mrs. G. Whale); Enigma of Jesus, with introduction by Sir J. G. Fraser; Le Mystere de Jésus (Mercure de France). The first article in the Mercure de France by M. Couchoud was dis- cussed by me. Under the pretext that it was not a review of religious history, the Mercure refused to insert an article in which I discussed the second article of M. Couchoud. On the other hand, M. Couchoud has explained his views in a series of informal discussions at the Union pour la Vérité (Jan—April, 1924). The development of the objections made by me on these occasions will be found in the pres- ent volume. 22 JESUS THE NAZARENE three of the oldest pagan testimonies there is one— that of Suetonius—which may refer to an unknown Jewish agitator known as Chrestos. The other two— those of Pliny and Tacitus—establish only the exist- ence of a Christian movement, but as regards its ori- | gins, they give only information borrowed from the Christians themselves. As for the evangelists, M. Couchoud points out that these are not histories, but outlines of the good news; in other words, they are writings of an essentially mystical character. They have two sources: the in- spired writings and the visions. The Gospel of Mark, the oldest, is the apocalypse of a man without elo- quence; it is the creation of imaginative exegesis, not an historical document; it is a free commentary made up of Biblical texts and spiritual memoirs, on which the Christian faith is fused. One must not ask from such a book humble and commonplace historical informa- tion. Beyond the evangelists it is requisite to go back to the oldest form of the Christian faith, such as the epistles of Paul bring to our knowledge. The Christi- anity of Paul is neither the deification nor the cult of a man. His Christ is but a new form of the old God of Israel, Yahveh, as Messiah. When, after the fall of Jerusalem, the populace entered the Church, a kind of © transformation took place in the Christian faith. The mystery of Jesus became fixed in record, and passed from the lyrical to the narrative form. The ineffable epic of Paul became an artificial legend. The bold in- vention of popular preachers did its work; but this secondary form of Christianity has but disguised the real nature of the Gospel. In reality Jesus is not a man progressively deified; NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 2a He is a God progressively humanized. He is not a founder of religion, but a new God. In his article in 1924, after emphasizing the very special character of the problem of Jesus, M. Couch- oud applies himself to define his theory. “At the origin of Christianity there is, if I am right,’’ he says, ‘‘not a personal biography, but a collective mystical experi- ence, sustaining a divine history mystically revealed.” * At the beginning Jesus was not a man, but a Spirit which manifested itself. Men believed in this Spirit, because of its manifesta- tions, and because it was supposed that its existence and history could be discovered and read in Isaiah and the Psalms. And M. Couchoud aims to show that it is in- deed to a spiritual being that the Pauline testimony refers. As to the origin of the tradition concerning the words of Jesus, the Pauline epistles would enable one to solve this problem in reading them. It was from the Lord, Paul says emphatically, that he re- ceived the account he gives of the last repast of Jesus. Exegesis of prophetic texts, visions and revelations, projection into the past, and the attribution to Jesus of the facts of apostolic history in which the activity of the Spirit had been discerned—such are the sources from which the Gospel tradition has sprung. Jesus must, then, have been at the beginning the God of a mystery. At the time of Paul neither the God nor the mystery had become historical. They were to become so in the period to follow the creative age, when it would be no longer possible to understand the high spirituality which had inspired the primitive faith, and when the celestial drama upon which Chris- 44 See Couchoud, Le Mystére de Jésus, p. 117. 24 JESUS THE NAZARENE tianity of the first generation had lived had been trans- ported to earth. The two articles published by M. Couchoud in the Mercure de France have been almost literally repro- duced, under the title Le Mystere de Jésus, in the third volume of the collection, Christianity, published under his direction. The objections which were offered in this review on the part of the Rev. Father de Grandmaison or myself, as well as those advanced in the public dis- cussions (Union de la Verité), have been completely ignored by M. Couchoud; they have not persuaded him to modify his views in the slightest degree; he has not even considered it advisable to state in what respect he thought them ill-founded. He contented himself by adding three chapters to his previous ex- position. In the first he attempts to demonstrate that the study of the Apocalypse and the non-Pauline epistles of the New Testament confirm the conclusion to which his study of the Pauline epistles had led him; in the second he returns to what he had already said concerning the Gospel tradition; and in the last he summarizes the conclusions of his research. We shall call attention also to an original but very paradoxical work by Monsieur R. Stahl,** which has . the somewhat enigmatical title The Document 7o. This ‘document 70” is the fragment of the Jewish Apocalypse which Wellhausen has disentangled from Chap. xi of the Johannine Apocalypse. In this is found the idea of a Messiah transported to heaven im- mediately after His birth. While Wellhausen sees in the Apacdivese of the 45 R. Stahl, Le Document 70, Paris and Strasbourg, 1923. On this book see the observations of M. Alfaric, Revue d’histoire, 1924. NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 25 year 70 a Jewish fragment made use of by the Chris- tian author of our Apocalypse, M. Stahl thinks he can recognize in it the oldest Christian document—one might almost call it the birth certificate of Christianity. The Apocalyptic Messiah referred to must have been first presented as an actual individual, in a sym- bolic manner, in the fourth Gospel, and later in a more material way in the Synoptic Gospels, which would be younger than the Gospel of John. The letters of Paul are all unauthentic. Paul is not, however, a completely imaginary individual, but the real person, whose por- trait has been somewhat modified, has been preserved for us in the book of Acts: He was merely a Pharisee missionary who had some quarrels with the Sadducees concerning the resurrection of the dead. M. Stahl has tried to sketch the development of Christianity as he represents it. It might be summarized in the following series: Document 70—A pocalypse—Fourth Gospel— Synoptics. He has no explanation of the first manifesta- tions of Christianity in Rome, and particularly of the persecution by Nero. To get rid of this it would be necessary to overthrow the accepted ideas on Latin literature as well as those which appear the best estab- lished upon the books of the New Testament. Ill. THe PropLtem The review which we have presented to the princi- pal theories, which (while utilizing the critical work of the nineteenth century) have during the last twenty years opposed the traditional acceptance of the his- toricity of Jesus, gives occasion to make several ob- servations. The difficulty of the problem consists not 26 JESUS THE NAZARENE only in the complexity and obscurity of its data, but also in the fact that in a certain sense it is a unique problem without analogy in the whole history of re- ligion. M. Couchoud has much insisted on this fact.** ‘The problem of Jesus,” he writes, “is no ordinary his- torical difficulty. The case of Jesus is unique. For the historian, unique cases are enigmas.’ But history, even in contemplating less exceptional cases, is never- theless not exclusively a science of the particular. The wish to remove from its jurisdiction everything which does not present the character of collective fact is simply to prohibit it dealing with great personalities, and to exclude from its domain a Julius Cesar, a Ma- homet, a Luther, and a Napoleon, and thus to suppress one of the most important factors on human evolution. So also, when it is claimed that the problem of Jesus is no historical problem, it is nevertheless (and here M. Couchoud is no exception) by the methods of his- torical criticism that it is attempted to solve it. It is important, we think, to distinguish carefully the observation of facts from their interpretation. If in this second part of historical research there is more or less a philosophical element, it is not the same thing for the first part. To carry the work out properly it is necessary to make an effort to reach impartiality, to free oneself from all preconceived ideas, and to see the texts as they are, to extract from them what they contain, and not what one would like them to say. But is perfect objectivity possible in a question whose solution cannot fail to have a very direct bear- 46 See Couchoud, Le Mystére de Jésus and Mercure de France (March 1924). NONHISTORICAL THEORIES 27 ing upon our philosophical and religious concepts? The objection is a grave one; it does not seem to us decisive if only we consent to admit as the first premise of every religious philosophy that it is not the facts which must be adapted to our theories, but rather that it is our theories which must, if necessary, be corrected and rectified to put them in harmony with the facts. It is in the religious domain more than in any other that the principle proclaimed by Paul holds most truly. ‘“‘We can do nothing contrary to the truth; we have no strength except in the truth” (2 Cor. xii. 8). This principle was also proclaimed by one of the most emi- nent representatives of German theology, Herrmann, at the beginning of this century, who delighted to repeat: ‘‘Die erste Pflicht der Religion ist Wahrhaf- tigkeit.” It is a question of fact which is before us: Are there historical proofs of value for the actual existence of Jesus? We shall therefore leave on one side the discussion of the more or less complicated theories offered to explain (other than by the existence and activity of Jesus) the appearance and development of Christianity. It would be easy to show how much there enters of the conjectural, of superficial re- semblances, of debatable interpretation into the sys- tems of the Drews, the Robertsons, the W. B. Smiths, the Couchouds, or the Stahls. We shall not linger on the way to doit. We shall not discuss theories which to a greater or less extent are inspired by considera- tions depending neither on history nor on’criticism, but upon religious philosophy.** 47 This has been well noted by Guignebert (p. 23). Let us recall only, for example, the case which Drews has pointed out (p. 25, French edition). There is something similar with M. Couchoud, 28 JESUS THE NAZARENE If there are sufficient proofs of the historical exist- ence of Jesus, it is above all things necessary that the theory offered of the origin of Christianity should ac- commodate itself to them. And even if there were no proofs, it might still happen that the explanation of the genesis of Christianity as due to the work and teaching of the prophet of Nazareth would be less conjectural than the theories which bring in the epic of Gilgamesch, the astral system, the pre-Christian cult of Joshua-Jesus, a collective mental representation, or the “document 70.” who, pointing out how the concept formed about Jesus was trans- formed according to the particular epoch, foresees that this evolu- tion will, continue and that in “about 1940 Jesus in His entirety will have passed from the historical stage to that of collective mental representations” (Le Mystére de Jésus). Have we not here a theory upon the essence of religious facts? The same author supposes that if Christianity had really arisen from the deification of an historical personage it would be something very mean, a religion of a low type, on the commonplace level of the Imperial Roman Cult, in any case quite inferior to Judaism and Islamism, which have taken great care that neither Moses nor Mahomet should be taken for gods. For him this is an objection to the historicity of Jesus, at any rate, “be- cause he has a vague idea that Christianity is not there.” We can hardly fail to recognize in this an a priori opinion calculated to hinder historical inquiry. CHAPTER II THE NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY? I. Fravius JosepHus THE most ancient nonChristian testimony concerning Jesus is—or rather would be, if it were authentic— that of Josephus. In his works, as we read them, Jesus is mentioned twice,? in the eighteenth and the twentieth book of Jewish Antiquities. The first of these reads thus: “‘At this time Jesus appeared—a wise man, if He can be called man. For He accomplished marvelous things, was the Master of those who received with joy the truth, and led away many Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. Upon the denunciation of the leaders of our nation, Pilate condemned Him to the cross; but: those who had loved Him from the first ceased not to revere Him, for He appeared to them on the third day, raised again from the dead, as had announced the divine prophets, as well as a thousand other marvelous things concern- ing Him. There still exists to-day the sect which, after Him, received the name of ‘Christians.’ * 1K. Linck, De antiquissimis que ad Jesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis, Giessen, 1913. 2The best edition of Josephus’ works is that of Niese (Berlin, 1885-95) in six volumes. A French translation is appearing under the direction of Th. Reinach (Paris, 1900). Concerning Josephus see Schiirer (Gesch., i, pp. 74-106), with very complete bibliography. 3 Ant. Jud., xviii, pp. 63-64. To the bibliography given by Schtirer must be added the follow- ing: Burkitt (Josephus and Christ), Harnack (Der judische Geschicht- 29 30 JESUS THE NAZARENE This text is given by three known manuscripts, of which none, it must be admitted, goes farther back than the eleventh century. Eusebius (H., i, p. 11, and Dem. ev.) knew of it. But Origen seems to ignore it, for upon two occasions he quotes the praise given by Josephus to James, while remarking that nevertheless Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the Christ (Comm. in Mait. x., c. 17, also Contra Celsius, 1, 47). From the point of view of external criticism, the passage is therefore strongly suspected, at least, to be an interpolation.* The arguments from internal criticism appear to be still more convincing. If Josephus had said of Jesus, ‘if He can be called a man” and ‘‘He was the Christ,” if he had spoken of resurrection, of miracles, the fulfillment of prophecies, he would have been a Christian. From the sixteenth century the authenticity of this passage has been questioned, specially by Osiander; schreiber Josephus und Jesus Christus), Smith (De Katholieck, as re- gards authenticity), Batiffol (Orpheus et ’Evangile), K. Linck (op. cit.), Norden (Josephus und Tacitus iiber Jesus Christus und Mess- tanische Prophetie), Seitz (Das Christuszeugniss des Josephus Flavius), Jacoby (Jesus bei Josephus), Ed. Meyer (Ursprung und Anfdnge des Christentums, for authenticity), Goetz (Die Urs piing- liche Fassung des Stelle Ant.), Corssen (Die Zeugnisse des Tacitus und Pseudo-Josephus iiber Christus), Goethals (Mélanges d’histoire chrétienne), Brine (St. u. Kr., unauthentic text, but substituted for a text in which Josephus spoke of Jesus), R. Laqueur (Josephus, passage added afterwards by Josephus himself). 4 The text of Josephus seems to have existed under another form, for in an Apocryphal dialogue concerning a religious discussion at the court of Sassanides we read: “Josephus spoke of the Christ as a just and good man manifested by Divine Grace by means of signs and miracles, and who did good to many.’ (Bratke, Das sogenannte Religionsgesprach am Hofe der Sassaniden). NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY 31 one feels a certain difficulty in understanding how such a critic as Harnack has been able to defend it.® The passage that we read betrays with evidence a Christian hand, but has not the interpolator con- fined himself to retouching that which Josephus had written? *® And if this hypothesis be accepted, is it possible to reconstruct the original text? Or is one simply to maintain that he spoke of Jesus, which in itself would be a fact of importance? Schurer has observed that if the expressions and phrases whose origin is certainly Christian are put aside, the re- mainder is very insignificant. But the interpolator could easily have mutilated the primitive passage at the same time as he exaggerated it. Norden remarks that the account of Pilate’s government in the eight- eenth book of the Antiquities consists of a series of episodes presented as troubles which arose among the Jews, the word OdpuBoc¢ (noise, clamor, disturb- ance) being the Jeit motif of the account. The general plan is interrupted by paragraphs 63 and 64, which speak of Jesus. If these are removed, paragraphs 62 and 65 are in perfect connection with each other. The bond between them is broken by what is said to Jesus. Norden therefore considers this frag- ment to be quite unauthentic. But Corssen replies against this that the general plan of the account is 5 Among the most recent defenders of authenticity we may cite Bole (Flavius Josephus tiber Christus und die Christen in den judi- schen altertiimern), Kneller (Flavius Josephus tiber Christus, Sttmmen aus Maria Laach), Burkitt, Harnack, etc. 6 The thesis of unauthenticity is admitted, besides authors quoted, by Schirer, Niese (De testimonio christiano quod est apud Josephum) ; that of interpolation by Reinach (Josephe sur Jésus), etc, 32 JESUS THE NAZARENE artificial. The events related are not all, in the strict sense of the word, troubles. There is, for instance, in paragraph 62 a reference to an incident which hap- pened in Rome and in which the Jews were not im- plicated, and in paragraph 65 it is not a question of troubles among the Jews, but of measures directed against them. It might therefore be supposed, if the original passage had contained anything about Jesus, that His history would equally have been presented as that of an agitation. The reasoning which Corssen uses against Norden’s theory seems to us decisive, but — still it only establishes a mere possibility. Is it possible to go farther? In the retouching of a passage there very often appear certain peculiarities of the primitive form. According to Corssen this is the case in the passage we are concerned with. ‘The expression “‘re- ceive with pleasure”’ is a formula that Josephus is very fond of, and which he uses no less than seven times in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities. The words, “the chief among us” are also quite his style. It would be possible to say as much of the epithet ‘wise man,’ as applied to Jesus; it would be difficult to understand from the pen of a Christian, while it accords well with the tendency of Josephus to class as philosophical schools such Jewish movements, essen- tially religious, as those of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. ‘The idea of the Greeks allying them- selves with Jesus is also very characteristic. It may be that the Christian editor of our passage took pains to imitate the style of Josephus; it is neverthless difficult to suppose that he succeeded so well init. The passage might therefore be the retouching of one written by NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY 33 Josephus himself. This conclusion seems confirmed by the fact that in the passage in the twentieth book, where the death of James is referred to, the latter is presented as “the brother of Jesus, surnamed the Christ,” which would seem to indicate that this Jesus was a personage already known to the readers, of whom therefore Josephus must have made mention. Is it possible to reconstruct, by surmise, the original passage of Josephus? Theodore Reinach thinks it is, and, eliminating that coming from a Christian hand, he restores the following passage: ‘‘At this time there appeared Jesus, called Christ, an able man (for He was a worker of miracles) who preached to those eager for novelties, and He led away many Jews and also many Greeks. Albeit that Pilate upon the denuncia- tion of the leaders among us, condemned Him to the cross, those who had loved Him from the beginning (or those whom He had deceived from the beginning) ceased not to be attached to Him, and to-day there still exists the sect which from Him had taken the name of Christians.” Here is nothing more than a conjecture, for if it is easy to recognize in the actual text that which comes from a Christian hand, it is not so easy to guess at what the portions suppressed by the inter- polator might have contained. In the twentieth book of the Antiquities (paragraph 200) there is another mention of Jesus. It is found in the account of the death of James whom the high priest Annas caused to be tried, and put to death by stoning, during the period between the death of Festus and the arrival of his successor, Albinus. At this time Roman authority seemed to be somewhat lax at Jeru- 34 JESUS THE NAZARENE salem. ‘Annas,’ says the text, ‘‘called the Sanhedrin together, and summoned to appear before it the brother of Jesus, surnamed Christ, and certain others under the charge of illegality, and caused them to be stoned to death.’’ Eusebius cites this passage (7., II, xxiii, pars. 21-24), but Origen, who on three occa- sions” establishes. (following Josephus) a relation between the death of James and the destruction of the Temple, has read the passage in a text retouched by a Christian. Schiirer (Gesch., i, p. 581) concludes from this that the existing text is also to be suspected of interpolation. This conclusion goes too far. Admitting that this passage is among those that the Christians might have been tempted to exaggerate, it does not at all follow that they did it. Besides, between the expression ‘‘Jesus, surnamed Christ,’ and the cate- gorical declaration ‘““He was the Christ” of the eight- eenth book there is a great difference. The words may then be authentic.? Mer. Batiffol® has believed it possible to deduce from this passage an important conclusion. The accusation brought against James and his associates is couched in ambiguous terms which may just as well refer to the violation of Roman laws as to that of the Jewish Law. In order to admit that the ground of the charge against James was revolt against Roman law, it would be necessary to attribute to the high priest and the Sanhedrin a scrupulous loy- alty to the Roman power which seems very far from likely to have been the case. On this hypothesis it 7 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 17 and Contra Celsum, i, 473 ii, 13. 8 This, for instance, is the opinion of K. Linck. ® Batiffol, Orpheus et ’Evangile. NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY 35 would be difficult to understand why (as Josephus says) they were accused of this before the Governor by the Jews.” | What, asks Mer. Batiffol, would constitute a revolt against religion if it were not the Christianity of the accused? ‘This argument is in conflict with a difficulty, for tradition presents James as a very strict observer of the “Law.” The text of Josephus seems to us too concise to allow us to maintain that there could have been no other motive of opposition between the high priest and James other than Christianity.* Even if it be recognized that the silence of Josephus concerning Jesus and Christianity is not so complete as was formerly said, the extremely brief character of the allusions found in his work (under even the most favorable hypothesis) is none the less striking. How explain it, seeing’that the work of Josephus deals 10 Mgr. Batiffol adds that the punishment inflicted—stoning to death—presupposes a crime of a religious character. This is not convincing, for it does not appear that blasphemers alone were stoned to death. 11 A Slavonic verson of the De Bello Judaico contains various ad- ditions to the Greek text in which Jesus is referred to. It will suffice to establish its character of secondary importance to summarize what is said of the death of Jesus in the first portion: Jesus remains on the Mount of Olives and refuses to humble Himself as He is ordered by Pilate and the Roman authorities. The Jews accuse Him then of fomenting a conspiracy, in the presence of the Procurator. The latter, after having massacred many innocent persons, seizes Jesus, and finding that He is no malefactor sets Him free, after having obtained from Him the healing of his wife. The Jews, jealous of this success, give thirty pieces of silver to Pilate, and so obtain the right to crucify Jesus. It is difficult to understand how the first editor, A. Berendts (Zie Zeugnisse von Christo im Slavischem De Bello Judaico des Josephus) has been able to find in such accounts the authentic ele- ments that Josephus made away with in translating his work from Aramaic into Greek. 36 JESUS THE NAZARENE precisely with the environment and the epoch in which Christianity was born and began to develop? Is it not surprising that an author who spoke of the Phari- sees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Samaritans has said nothing, or has said so little, about the Chris- tians? So complete a silence is perhaps more embar- rassing for the mythologists than for their opponents. By what right, indeed, should it be permissible to con- clude from it that Jesus never existed, and not per- missible to deny that a Christian movement existed in Palestine prior to the year 70? Since Josephus has been silent not only concerning Jesus, but also concern- ing Christianity, how is his silence to be explained? Uniquely by his character and the object of his work. The writer desired to flatter the Romans and gain their good graces. To do this he expunged from the picture he drew everything likely to offend or excite their apprehension. ‘Thus it is that he has scarcely at all spoken of the Messianic cult which nevertheless con- stituted the center of Jewish thought in the first cen- tury. That he did so was because this cult was a menace to Rome, for the Kingdom of the Messiah could only be built upon the ruins of the Empire. Josephus portrays John the Baptist as a moral ' preacher, and passes by unnoticed everything which presented him as the prophet of the Messiah, the one to announce the baptism of fire (Antiquities, xvill. pp. 116-19). The preaching of repentance is thus de- prived by him of everything lending its support and giving it any signification. The little that Josephus preserves of Messianism is used by him to flatter basely authority in connecting the Messianic prophecies with NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY 37 Vespasian.” It was not possible to speak of Chris- tianity while amputating it from Messianism. Jo- sephus therefore maintained silence on the subject. It might besides have been determined by another reason. At the time he wrote—and at least since the persecution by Nero—Christianity was separated from Judaism. Josephus could thus consider it as outside the history that he wished to write.** Doubtless the same thing was not the case as regards Palestine Chris- tianity, but Josephus could not have spoken of it with- out exposing Judaism to the accusation of a compromis- ing solidarity with a dangerous movement, odious to the governing class, and to which, it has been supposed, he had contributed to draw the attention of the court of Nero.* The silence of Josephus is not therefore the silence of ignorance; it is the silence of prudence and fear—a silence actuated by interest. Far from proving that Jesus and the Christian movement did not exist in Palestine in the first century, it only proves that Josephus did not wish, by speaking of it, to com- promise himself, and with himself the Jewish people.” The reasons which explain the silence or the dis- cretion of Josephus account also for the fact that, according to Photius (Codex 13), Justus of Tiberiade (author of a chronicle and a history of the Jewish war, written at the same time and in the same spirit as the 12 De Bello Jud., vi, pp. 310-14. The same thing is found in Taci- tus (History, v., p. 13), and in Suetonius (Vesp., p. 4), who have prob- ably borrowed in this matter from Josephus. 18 Ed. Meyer, Ursprung und Anf. i, p. 211. 14 So Corssen thinks (Z.N.T.W., xv, p. 135), who points out that Josephus was in Rome at the time of the fire, and that he was in relation with the empress Poppeea. 15 Joh. Weiss, Jesus von Nazareth, Mythus oder Geschichte, p. 89. 38 JESUS THE NAZARENE work of Josephus) has not mentioned Jesus or Chris- tianity either. As regards Philo, astonishment is sometimes ex- pressed that in his works no mention is found of the Gospel. But it suffices to remember that he died shortly after the year 40,*° and there is nothing to prove that Christianity had reached Alexandria before this date. That the Talmud and other Jewish sources*’ say nothing about Jesus which is not the distortion of Christian tradition is sufficiently explained by the date of these documents and the fact that those who compiled them were governed by entirely polemical considerations. Their sole object was to combat the Christians; they were not interested in writing the history of their religion. The first mention of the Christians in this Jewish literature is the curse con- tained in the “‘Schemone Esré,” the daily prayer of the Jews (at close of the first century), ““May the Naza- renes and the Minim perish!” Il. Tue Latin AuTHORS The first Latin text to mention the name of Christ is dated A.D. 110. Itis the letter from Pliny to Trajan concerning the conduct to be observed toward the 16 Philo was one of an embassy sent to Rome by the Jews of Alexandria in A.D. 40, and he was then very old. He speaks of him- self as an old man (Leg. ad Gaium, par. 28). The account of the embassy was written immediately after. 17 Concerning this literature see H. Laible (Jesus Christus im Thalmud), an English edition published in Cambridge (1893), with additions of Dalman and Streeter (Jesus Christ in the Talmud, etc.). See also R. T. Herford (Christianity in Talmud), A. Meyer (Jesus im Talmud), H. L. Strack (Jesus die Hareteker, Leipzig, 1910). NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY 39 Christians.1* He recounts his methods of action, punishing those for obstinacy, who, after two or three interrogations, persisted in the confession of Christi- anity, releasing those, who denounced as being Chris- tians, denied the charge, and who in the Governor's presence invoked the gods, offered wine and incense before the statue of the emperor, and cursed the name of Christ. The case of those who confessed they were formerly Christians, but declared they were so no longer, caused Pliny some embarrassment: he had questioned them and compared their replies with in- formation obtained by putting two deaconesses to the torture. He had only discovered, he declares, a coarse and exaggerated superstition. From what he states concerning Christian practices one point may be noted: The Christians were in the habit of meeting upon a cer- tain day and singing a hymn (carmen dicere), or, in other words, invoking Christ as a God. This text is evidence of the cult of Christ, but it does not say explicitly whether He was conceived to be a personage having lived on earth or a being of en- tirely spiritual nature. The expression “Christo quasi Deo” appears to mean, however, that for Pliny, Christ was not a God like unto others. Was not the fact that He had lived on earth, that which dis- tinguished Him from others? The testimony of Tacitus in the Annales, written between 115 and 117, 18 X, p. 96. The authenticity of this text has often been challenged since Semler. It is, however, generally admitted. See E. C. Babut (Remarques sur les deux lettres de Pline et de Trajan relatives aux Chrétiens de Bithynie), Linck (pp. 33-60), Reinach (Orpheus, p. 371), Couchoud (Le Mystére de Jésus). There may be in Pliny’s letter some Christian interpolations (cp. Guignebert, Tertullien, pp. 77 et seq.), M. Goguel (L’Eucharistie des origens a Justin Martyr, pp. 259 et seq.). From our present point of view we may neglect them. 40 JESUS THE NAZARENE is more explicit: “To destroy the rumor [which accused him as guilty of the burning of Rome] Nero invented some culprits, and inflicted on them the most excru- ciating punishments; they were those who, detested for their infamies, were called by the populace, Christians. The author of this name, Christ, had under the reign of Tiberius been condemned to death by the Procur- ator Pontius Pilate. This execrable superstition, held in check for a time, broke out anew, not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but also in the city jn which all atrocities congregate and flourish.” 7° There are two remarks in this passage whose authen- ticity is certain.*° ‘The first concerns the burning of Rome and the persecution of the Christians; the second concerns the Christ.** The first reflects the point of view of the contemporaries of Tacitus. It is a question of the hatred and contempt excited by the Christians and the infamies with which they were re- proached, whilst it is precisely the accusation launched by Nero against them which seems to have unchained this hatred and contempt. The second must originate in some documentary source, since it contains no such word as “dicunt’”’ or “ferunt,’ which would authorize us to suppose that Tacitus is only relating gossip. , There is in this remark a characteristic idea—namely, 19 Annales, xv, 44. See further certain studies cited respecting Josephus, Linck, pp. 61-103; also Batiffol (Orpheus et ’Evangile, pp. 44-47). 20 It is admitted without any reserve by S. Reinach (Orpheus). Ho- chart, after discovering in this passage an interpolation (Etudes au sujet de la persecution des Chrétiens sous Neron), maintains that the entire work of Tacitus was an invention of the fifteenth century (De lauthenticité des annales et des histoires de Tacite). Hochart’s theory has only been admitted by Drews (Die Christusmythe). 21 Corssen, Z.N.T.W., xiv, 1913, p. 135 (Zeitschrift fiir die Neus- testamenliche Wissenschaft). NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY Al that Christianity had been crushed out by the death of Christ, and had only reappeared about the year 64, simultaneously in Rome and in Judea. This resurrec- tion of the execrable superstition in Judea can only be understood if we suppose that Tacitus does not make any distinction between the two manifestations of Mes- sianism—Christianity and Judaism. The words ‘“‘not only in Judea” would imply, then, the sudden outbreak of nationalism which caused the revolt and the Jewish war.” We can here form an idea of the character of the source: it was not Christian, since it presumed an eclipse of Christianity after the death of Jesus; neither was it Jewish, for no Jewish document would have called Jesus ‘‘Christ,” nor would it have pre- sented Judaism as solidary with Christianity.** The hypothesis which asserts that Tacitus could have consulted official documents preserved in the im- perial archives can only be mentioned to be passed by, seeing that these archives were secret, and there is nothing to authorize our supposing that any excep- 22 Corssen, Z.N.T.W., xiv, 1913, Pp. 123. 23In this argument the hypothesis of Meyer (who thinks the de- tails made use of by Tacitus relate to a form of confession of the Christian faith) is invalidated. Meyer thinks that Tacitus was obliged to occupy himself with the Christians during his government of Asia, and that he had made an inquiry into the origin of their movement. Meyer thinks he can recognize an affinity between the phrase of Tacitus, “per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio ad- fectus,’ and that found in Timothy, “He bore witness before Pontius Pilate.’ He also supposes that Tacitus became acquainted with the Christian faith by his examination of those who were persecuted. Besides what has already been said, it must be replied against Meyer’s opinion that on one side it is merely a question of a con- demnation pronounced by the Procurator, and on the other side the profession of faith of Jesus. The two things are far from being equivalent. 24These two points have: been well emphasized by Batiffol. 42 JESUS THE NAZARENE tion to a general rule was made in the historian’s favor. The dependence of Tacitus upon Josephus, as sup- posed by Harnack, has generally been discarded, par- ticularly by Goetz, Norden and Corssen. The fact that in the account which he gives of the Jewish war, Tacitus has utilized the De Bello Judaico of Josephus ** is hardly conclusive, because if it were dificult for Tacitus to ignore so important a document as Josephus’ account of the war, there is no reason at all to suppose that Tacitus, for whom Judaism was an object of the most profound contempt, had read the Antiquities of the Jews, and that he had sought therein any information to complete his account of the burning of Rome. Between the text of Tacitus and the pas- sages of Josephus there are, besides, appreciable dif- ferences. The text of Josephus states that Jesus’ death was not the cause of a cessation of faith among his disciples; Tacitus, on the contrary, supposes that Christianity temporarily disappeared after the death of its founder. The judgment of Josephus upon Christianity is upon the whole a favorable one; that of Tacitus was one of supreme contempt. Finally, Tacitus appears to accept the word Christ as the name of the founder of the sect, while Josephus is aware that this founder was called Jesus, and that the word Christ designates the dignity to which he laid claim. Goetz ** has surmised that Tacitus obtained his in- formation concerning Christianity from his friend, Pliny the Younger. The two writers certainly con- template Christianity from the same point of view— that of the police—but this fact is characteristic of all 25 History, v, 13, depends upon De Bello Jud., vi, 310-14. 26 Goetz, Z.N.T.W., xiv, 1913, Pp. 295. NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY 43 the Romans. On the other hand, between Pliny and Tacitus there is an important difference. If they are in agreement in only seeing in Christianity a super- stition, the first considers it an innocent one, the second calls it execrable, and appears to endorse the infamous accusations brought against the Christians. Mer. Batiffol,?* dwelling on the fact that Tacitus made use of the history of Pliny the Elder, has surmised that he borrowed from it his notes about the Christians. That is a supposition which in its nature one is unable to verify. But one fact is certain, and that is, Tacitus knew of a document, which was neither Jewish nor Christian, which connected Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pontius Pilate. The importance of this observation does not require to be emphasized. In his Life of Nero (Chap. xvi) Suetonius mentions the persecution of the Christians, but he says nothing concerning their teachings. In the Life of Claudius (xxv, p. 4) he refers in passing to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, to which the book of Acts also makes allusion (xviii. 2) : ““Judzos, impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit’”’ (He expelled from Rome the Jews, who under the impulsion of Christ did not cease to make tumult) .*§ Is one obliged to see in “Chrestos” ?? an unknown Jewish agitator, as do certain critics,*° and thence con- clude that the text does not relate to the Christians? 27 Batiffol, Orpheus et l’Evangile, p. 46. 28 Here again Hochart has in a very arbitrary way suspected a Christian interpolation. This thesis is indefensible, for no Christian would ever have expressed himself as Suetonius does. 29 Linck gives a list of more than eighty inscriptions at Rome in which the name of Chrestos is found. 80 Linck, also Reinach and Couchoud, consider this interpretation possible. 44 JESUS THE NAZARENE Or, stressing the fact that at Rome the Christians seem to have been called “‘Chresitanoi” and not ‘“Chris- tianoi,”’ ** must we suppose that it is Christ who is referred to, and that it was the disputes concerning Him which stirred up the Jewry of Rome and provoked the action of Claudius? ‘The fact that Suetonius men- tions Chrestos as a known personage without joining to his name quodam or aliquo® is favorable to the second interpretation, and it is also the one generally accepted.** ‘The text of Suetonius tells us only that Christianity had reached Rome under the reign of Claudius, and that it was considered to have connection with a personage of the name of Chrestos. But Sue- tonius could have believed that Chrestos had come to Rome in the time of Claudius,** and this proves how slightly the Romans interested themselves at the be- ginning of the second century in the traditions which the Christians invoked. What the Roman authors say about Jesus and Chris- tianity amounts to very little indeed. Only the testi- mony of Tacitus is plainly incompatible with the theory of a Christ entirely ideal. ‘The rarity of the details furnished by the Latin authors is, however, striking. One is aware how prudent one must be in handling the 31 Tacitus, Annales, v (Codex Mediceus), has the form “Chres- tianos.” In the three passages only in the New Testament where the word “Christians” is found (Acts xi. 26, xxvi. 28; I Pet. iv. 16), the first copy of the Sinaiticus has Xpyormavoil. The MS. (B) Vaticanus has Xpevorcavoé. Compare with Justin (I Afpol. 4), Tertullian (Apol. 3). The form “Chrestianoi”’ is frequent in the inscriptions. Com- pare with Linck. 82 Batiffol, Orpheus et l’Evangile, p. 43. 83 Meyer, Ursprung und Anf., iii, 463. 34Preuschen (Chresto impulsore) supposed that some connection existed between the details given by Suetonius and the tradition that Jesus died under Claudius. (See Chap. X, Section III.) NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY 45 ‘argument from silence” (ex silentio). To make it convincing it requires two conditions which are not satisfied in the case before us. In the first place the silence must be complete, which it is not, without taking any account of what the portion not preserved of con- temporary literature might contain. In the second place the silence must have a real signification; in other words, the authors considered must have been obliged to mention, had they known them, the facts of which they say nothing. Now this second condition has not been satisfied either. Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius agree in seeing in Christianity only a contemptible superstition. It only interested them just so far as it was a cause of social disturbance. They only mention it to relate the measures directed against it, not to inquire into its origin, and still less to write the history of its real or supposed founder. The importance that Christianity eventually reached leads many modern minds to commit a strange error in perspective. Because the birth of Christianity appears to them as the most pregnant fact in the whole of first- century history, they find it difficult to understand that the ancients did not see things from the same point of view, and only paid any attention to Christianity at the happening of certain events which had no essential importance for its development. III. “Acta Pirati”’ (THE Acts oF PILATE) There is no reason to suppose that there has ever existed in Rome any official document which refers to the condemnation of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.* 35 Concerning an examination of documents and archives which, 46 JESUS THE NAZARENE It is true that in two passages in his Apology, addressed (toward the middle of the second century) to Antoninus the Pious, to Marcus Aurelius, to Lucius Verus, to the Senate and all the Roman people, Justin Martyr invokes (to confirm the account he gives of the Passion and miracles of Jesus) the ‘‘Acts of Pon- tius Pilate” (I Apol., xxxv, 48). Tertullian also in his Apologeticum, dating from 197, mentions a report that Pontius Pilate, already a Christian in his inner conscience (‘jam pro sua con- scientia christianus”’), had sent to Tiberius. Eusebius, who cites Chapter v of the 4pologeticum, does not appear to know the document of which he speaks, while in another passage he refers to the ‘‘Acts of Pilate” as forged by the pagans as an arm against Christianity. There has existed a whole literature of ‘Acts of Pilate,” which (particularly in the form it has assumed in the Gospel of Nicodemus) enjoyed great favor in the Middle Ages.** Critics are in agree- ment in considering this literature, in the form in which we know it, to be of a later age, and in any case not older than the fifth century, but it is not certain that its primitive element does not go farther back, since Epiphanius (fourth century) knew of the “‘Acta Pilati” (Her., 50-51). The narratives for which Justin and Tertullian in- voke the authority of the “Acta Pilati,” or of a report sent by the Procurator to the Emperor, rest on evan- according to S. Reinach, was made at Antioch in the time of Ignatius, see later (Chap. IV). 86 Concerning this literature consult R. A. Lipsius (Die Pilatusak- ten), Harnack (Gesch. des altchristlichen Litt. bis Eusebius), Barden- hewer (Gesch. des Altkirchlichen Litt.), A. Stuelken (Pilatusakten) in Hennecke (Handbuch Neutestamentischen A pokryphen). NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY 47 gelical tradition, and merely accentuate its tendency to portray Pilate as well disposed toward Jesus and convinced of His innocence.*7 The documents desig- nated by them would therefore be of Christian editing, but is it certain that they were acquainted with them or had done anything more than suppose their ex- istence ? Justin would not have expressed himself other than he does if he had merely heard the “‘Acts of Pilate” spoken of or had presumed their existence. Many writers have therefore considered that these “Acts” did not exist in his time,?* and the fact that in another passage of the Apology (I, xxiv, p. 2) he quotes in the same way the census registers of Quirin- ius confirms this opinion. It has been objected that Justin cited the ‘‘Acts” not only to support his narra- tion of the Passion, but also to support the account he gives of the miracles of Jesus. He must, therefore, it is thought, have known this document, or at any rate something about its contents.*® But the first hypothesis is excluded by the somewhat vague way in which the ‘‘Acts’’ are cited; the second is not without some difficulties. If such an important document had ' existed, how is it that Justin should only have known it by hearsay? It is doubtless by mere conjecture that he supposed the ‘“‘Acta Pilati’ must have narrated both the trial and the career of Jesus. Certain authors, however, following H. von Schu- 87 Concerning this tendency see M. Goguel, Les Chrétiens et ?Em- pire Romain a Epoque du N.T.; Juifs et Romains dans Vhistoire de la Passion. 88 This is the opinion of Lipsius, Harnack, Bardenhewer, and also of Mgr. Batiffol. 89 Stuelken (Handbuch). 48 JESUS THE NAZARENE bert,*° have thought that a trace of the primary elements of the “Acta Pilati’ was to be found prior to Justin’s period. They rest their case upon the fact that the Gospel of Peter and Justin (I dpol., xxxv) state that, to mock Him, Jesus was made to seat Himself in a chair, and invited to act as a Judge.*t Seeing that the hypothesis of a direct connection between the Gospel of Peter and Justin encounters certain difficulties, it has been sup- posed that both were dependent upon a common source. But even if this were so, there is nothing to prove that — this source was anything other than a mere extra-canon- ical tradition. | As regards Tertullian, Harnack considers that he has simply made use of what he found in Justin, and that it is his work which suggested the composition of the letter from Pilate to the Emperor which is found in Chapters xl—xlii of’ the Acts of Peter and Paul.* The last words of this letter reveal, indeed, its polem- ical character, and show that it must have been com- piled to combat the pagan Acts spoken of by Eusebius. Nevertheless, Justin and Tertullian do not invoke the testimony of Pilate in reference to the same facts, and the document is presented by Justin as the acts, and by Tertullian as a letter of Pilate to the Emperor. Tertullian, for his part, only makes one allusion, some- what vague, to the document, and he does not know it 40H. von Schubert, Die Komposition des pseudopetrinischen Evan- gelienfragments. 41'There is no trace of any such episode in the canonical Gospels unless, perhaps, in John xix. 13, if there is given to the verb a transi- tive sense. But even thus the scene would have quite another char- acter than in Justin and the Gospel of Peter. #2 Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (edition Lipsius and Bonnet, 1891). NONCHRISTIAN TESTIMONY 49 at first-hand. At the most he has heard it spoken of, if he does not altogether guess at its existence. As neither Origen nor Eusebius make any allusion to the “Acts of Pilate,” ** it may be considered that the work did not exist in their time. What is the interpretation of this absence of testi- mony from Pilate concerning the punishment of Jesus? For M. Salomon Reinach it is decisive: “There was no official report, while there ought to have been one,” he says. ‘The conclusion which is forced upon one is assuredly not favorable to the his- toricity of the Passion.” * So radical a conclusion appears to us unwarranted. From the fact that spurious ‘Acta Pilati’ have been fabricated as well by Christians as by their opponents, it does not follow that an authentic work never existed. The conclusion is simply that these ‘‘Acts,”’ if they existed, were not at the disposal of those whose inter- est it was to consult them. We know that the archives of the emperors were not accessible to the Senate. Tacitus himself, notwithstanding his relations with Neva and Trajan, seems to have been unable to obtain access to them.** Still less reason existed to permit access to them by private persons, and Christian apolo- gists could make no examination of them. If their opponents had been more favored and authorized to make researches which remained fruitless, they would 48 The silence of these two men is important owing to their vast erudition. That of Eusebius is particularly significant. There are at least three passages in his Ecclesiastical History where it was ’ difficult to avoid mention of the “Acta Pilati’—had he known the work. These are: i, 9 (concerning Pilate), ii, 2 (quoting Tertullian’s Apology), ix. 5-7 (quoting the pagan “Acta Pilati’). 44S, Reinach, A propos de la curiosité de Tibere. 45 Ph. Fabia, Les Sources de Tacite, p. 324. 50 JESUS THE NAZARENE have made a point about it in their polemic. Because an official document has not been produced, no one 1s authorized to conclude that it could not have existed. But, even if it were proved that no report was made by Pilate to Tiberius, what would be the significance of this fact? Justin, who had presumed the existence of a report, says M. Salomon Reinach, was in a better position than we are to estimate the obligations of a Procurator. But the death of Jesus was in his eyes an event of such capital importance that it was difficult for him to see that for Pilate it may only have been an incident without importance. Besides, Justin is influenced by the tendency to make of Pilate a witness favorable to Jesus and opposed to the Jews. Every- thing that we know concerning Pilate shows him to us as a cruel and unscrupulous man, for whom the lives of those under his jurisdiction had but little impor- tance; he had no hesitation in sending to execution whomsoever resisted him or became a pretext for agi- tation. Jesus was certainly not the sole victim of his procedure of summary justice. To condemn to death was for him merely an act of administrative routine. Is it to be supposed that in each particular case he considered it necessary to send a report to the Em- peror, and in so doing furnish arms to his enemies by allowing them to accuse him of cruelty and injustice? No more than the almost complete silence of Josephus, or the rarity and paucity of the details fur- nished by the Latin historians, does the absence of any report from Pilate to the Emperor constitute an objection against the historical character of Jesus. CHAPTER III HYPOTHESIS OF A PRE-CHRISTIANITY I. JEsus THE NAZARENE Does the name of Jesus the Nazarene—or rather do the two names associated in this expression—designate an historical person or the hero of a cult? Does the term Nazarene signify ‘Saviour Protector,” and should it be considered as a divine name of similar character to Zeus Xenios, Hermes Psychopompos, or Jahveh Sabaoth? ‘There is every reason to think,” writes Drews, ‘‘that the name of Joshua or Jesus was that under which the expected Messiah was worshiped in certain Jewish sects.”’* Upon examination the argu- ments offered in support of this opinion seem somewhat shallow. Robertson? finds in the worship of Jesus a new form of the old Ephraim cult of Joshua, a solar divinity. A trace of this cult is to be found in a pas- sage in the book of the prophet Zechariah, where the high priest Joshua appears before the Angel of the Eternal, who causes him to take off his soiled garments and put on festal clothing. He receives this promise: “Tf thou wilt walk in My ways, and if thou wilt keep My charge, then shalt thou also judge My house and shalt also keep My courts” (Zech. ii. 7). Jesus was a divine name, Jesus the Lord was God, considered in His essential character as liberator, healer, guardian, 1 Drews, Die Christusmythe, i. p. 23. 2 Robertson, 4 Short History of Christianity, p. 8. 51 52 JESUS THE NAZARENE and saviour. Is it not said, indeed, in Matt. 1. 21: ‘Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins?” * It is unnecessary to inquire if Joshua, at a certain period, was a solar divinity; it suffices to note that at the epoch with which we are concerned, the Jews who read his history in the sixth book of the Bible saw in him a national hero, the successor of Moses, and the continuator of his work. He was one of the most popular heroes in Israelitish history, as is proved by the number of persons named after him, and of whom there is no temptation to make a mythical being or a divine hero. The high priest Joshua, mentioned by Zechariah, is also an historical personage; so little is he to be identified with Messiah that he receives the promise of the coming of the latter (Zech. ili. 9). Robertson and Drews also find mention of a pre- Christian Jesus in the magic papyrus of the Biblio- théeque Nationale, where occurs the formula, “I adjure thee by the God of the Hebrews, Jesus.’’ ‘Chis papyrus, which is not earlier than the fourth century of our era, may doubtless reproduce a more ancient formula; there is nothing, however, to authorize us to date it so far back as the mythologists would like. ‘The form of , words must doubtless be attributed to a pagan. It merely proves that the name of Jesus was considered to have great power, a thing which is explained by the great part played by exorcism in primitive Christian- ity. The magical pagan formulas have readily adopted Jewish and Christian names.° ‘That does not 3 “Jesus” signifies “Jahveh aids.” # Joh. Weiss, Jesus von Nazareth, p. 19. 5 Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, Tiibingen, 1909. A PRE-CHRISTIANITY (sie) prove as Reitzenstein remarks,° that their authors were really acquainted with and understood Judaism or Christianity. This is proved, for instance, in a text cited by Dieterich,’ in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are taken to be names for the God of Israel. If there is nothing to authorize us to consider the name of Jesus as a divine name, is the same the case with the designation ‘‘Nazarene’”’ which accompanies it? Outside the New Testament, no text attests the existence in Galilee of a village called Nazareth. Neither the Old Testament, nor Josephus, nor the Talmud mention it, but it is not legitimate to conclude from this silence, as Cheyne * does, and as the myth- ologists willingly suppose as proved, that Nazareth is only a geographical fiction. We know from Josephus that Galilee was densely populated, and that it boasted 204 villages and 15 fortified towns. We only know a small part of these 219 localities, and even if the figures given by Josephus were exaggerated, many Galilean townships would not be mentioned in any text.° ‘There is nothing astonishing in the supposition that Nazareth” a village of very trifling importance, should be among the number.” 6 Reitzenstein, Poimandres, Leipzig, 1904. 7 Dieterich, Abraxas, Leipzig, 1891. 8 Cheyne, article in Encyclop. Biblica, iii, “Nazareth.” 9 Josephus, Vita, par 235. 10 Meyer, Ursprung und Anf., iii. 11 Wellhausen has suggested that the word Nazareth designates Galilee in the form Gennesar (Garden of Nesar), met with in 1 Macc. ii. 67, Matt. xiv. 34, Mark vi. 53. The similarity of Matt. xxvi. 69 and 71 proves the equivalence of Galilean and Nazarene. This ingenious hypothesis collides with the fact that if Galilee was commonly designated by the word Nazar or Nazareth, it is very strange that it is nowhere clearly found. 12 The fact that later tradition was acquainted with Nazareth proves 54 JESUS THE NAZARENE The fact that evangelical tradition represents Jesus as coming from Nazareth ** is far from being without significance. According to Messianic dogma the Mes- siah was to be born at Bethlehem, and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in different ways, which are mutu- ally irreconcilable, strive to keep to this postulate.’ Christian tradition would not have created the fact destined to cause it so much embarrassment, that of the birth of Jesus at Nazareth. The explanations of the term Nazarene offered by the mythologists scarcely seem probable either. This term, which constitutes the most ancient designation of the Christians, is derived, according to W. B. Smith, from the root NSR, which is found sixty-three times in the Old Testament in the sense of protector and guardian. It is even more ancient still, for the Baby- lonian term Na-Sa-Ru is met with seven times in the code of Hammurabi. The Syrian form Nasaryu, in which is to be recognized the divine name Yah, signi- fies ‘God is Protector.” It is not a term of geographi- cal origin, but a cultural name. This hypothesis could only be entertained if there were some real proofs of the existence of a pre-Christian sect of Nazarenes. , nothing. So soon as one was persuaded that the place has existed, failure to find it again was impossible. 13 Matt. xxi. 11, Mark i. 9, John i. 45, Acts x. 38. The comparison between Mark vi. 1 and Luke iv. 16 shows that Nazareth was con- sidered to be the birthplace of Jesus. 14 Matt. ii. 13-23 states that the family of Jesus was originally settled at Bethlehem, and returned after the flight to Egypt to live in Nazareth to escape the jurisdiction of Archelaus, grandson of Herod. Luke ii. 1-7 states that Jesus was born during a journey of his parents to Jerusalem on the occasion of the census made by Quirinius. 15 The birth of Jesus in Galilee constituted one of the Jewish ob- jections to his Messiahship. Cp. John vii. 41. A PRE-CHRISTIANITY 55 The indications which the mythologists invoke cannot take the place of these. There is in the Gospel of Matthew a passage which puzzles interpreters. After the death of Herod, Joseph and Mary leave Egypt to settle in Nazareth of Galilee. The evangelist says that this was “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets—he shall be called a Nazarene” (Matt. ii. 23). It is impossible to identify with certitude the prophecy here alluded to, and if it be desired to avoid recourse to the gratui- tous hypothesis of the use of some apocryphal work which has not been preserved, it is necessary to sup- pose that the evangelist connects the word Nazarene with some passage of Scripture containing a word from the same root or having some assonance with it.” There would be here a play on the words which we should (owing to its obscurity) be unable to under- stand. One cannot suppose that this is the true origin of the word Nazarene. Rather would it be incumbent to suppose an assimilation worked out by Matthew, who always aims at showing in the Gospel history the fulfillment of prophecy. The word Nazarene contains perhaps an allusion to John the Baptist and his disciples, with whom Jesus was certainly in relation at the beginning of His ministry. It is well-known that the Mandzan tradi- tion represents Jesus as an apostate from the Baptist LE rn 16H, J. Holtzmann (Die Synoptiker) and F. Nicolardot (Procédés de redaction des trois premiers evangelistes) think of Es.
—how would the central question of the existence of Jesus have been treated otherwise than for other controverted questions? Would not opponents have made capital out of this attitude, which would have been an avowal? Although no polemical anti- Christian document belonging to the first century has come down to us, it is possible to form an idea of its quality by the influence which it exerted upon Christian tradition. The comparative study of the four evangelists shows that solicitude for apologetics was one of the factors which most di- rectly influenced the form into which they were cast.” It could not be otherwise, for the Gospels were not written to satisfy the curiosity of historians, but to 5 Exception is made of opponents whom Ignatius combated in the Epistle to the Philadelphians. We shall return to this passage when treating of Docetism. 6S. Reinach, Questions sur le Docetisme. * Baldensperger, L’apologetique de la primitive Eglise; Urchristliche A pologie. THE NONHISTORICAL THESIS 81 gain men to the faith and to strengthen the convic- tions of those already won.® The editors therefore had to present the facts in the way the most likely to answer the objections of op- ponents in advance. Now in none of the four Gospels is there to be found anything which directly or indi- rectly is directed against the thesis that the person Jesus had no historical reality. There are in several accounts of apparitions, remarks to emphasize the reality of the body of Jesus, resurrected,® but never does any evangelist feel the need to affirm the reality of the body of Jesus during His ministry. This is because they were not engaged with opponents who denied it. The importance of this fact is considerable, for it was on the morrow of His birth that Christianity was confronted with Jewish opposition. How is it possible to suppose that the first antagonists of the Church could have been ignorant of the fact that the entire story of Jesus, His teaching, and His death corre- sponded to no reality at all? That it might have been ignored in the Diaspora may be admitted, but it ap- pears impossible at Jerusalem; and if such a thing had been known, how did the opponents of Christi- anity come to neglect the use of so terrible an argu- ment, or how, supposing they made use of it, does it happen that the Christians succeeded in so completely refuting them that not a trace of the controversy has been preserved by the disputants of the second century? 8 This is evident from the express declaration of Luke (i. 4) and John (xx. 31). ®Luke xxiv. 39-42; John xx. 25-29. 82 JESUS THE NAZARENE Against this argument the opponents of the histor- ical thesis may be tempted to rejoin that no decisive case can be based upon our Gospels, since under the most favorable hypothesis the oldest among them was not compiled less than forty years after the events which they relate or are supposed to relate. In a pe- riod of intense religious ferment, forty years suffice for exact memories to disappear or undergo profound transformation, or for the birth of a legend ready made. But our Gospels are not the first narrations which saw the light; and before their compilation had begun there existed an oral tradition capable of pre- serving the facts with remarkable fidelity.*° The Gos- pel tradition in its essential elements goes much far- ther back than the compilation of the first written Gospels. We shall attempt in a later chapter to prove that the theology of Paul implies this fact. II. DocetTism Docetism is the opinion of those who believed that in the person of Jesus the human element was only an appearance. Such as we find this belief, for instance 10M. Hubert Pernot (Etudes de litterature grecque moderne) has quoted a very curious case of the fidelity of oral tradition. It refers to a Cretan poem (La Belle Bergére). “In 1890,” writes M. Pernot, “an inhabitant of Chio, Constantine Kaneallakis, gave, with- out knowing its ancient origin, a version of it, which is a guarantee of authenticity so complete that I supposed it to be a revised copy of one of the Venetian editions, until one day this conscientious worker told me that he had picked it up at Nenita, his native village, from an old peasant woman. ‘The women of middle life being all illiterate in these places, the latter had only been able to hear the poem read. This is a characteristic example of the astonishing facility with which people, whose memory has not yet been enfeebled by the use of writing, are capable of retaining works of considerable length.” THE NONHISTORICAL THESIS 83 in Marcion and in many second-century Gnostics, Docetism is not an affirmation of historical order: it is an interpretation of the history on which the Chris- tian faith was based. Among the second-century theo- logians, and even those of the first century, there are found side by side these two theses: Jesus is a man and He is God. Herein was presented a problem for Christian thought: How define in the person of the Christ the relation between the human element and the divine? The most diverse attempts were made in ancient Christianity to solve this problem up to the time when the orthodox doctrine was fixed. ‘There were attempts which sacrificed one of the terms of the problem, either in making of the Christ a mere man raised to the heavens by His resurrection, or, on the contrary, by reducing the humanity in Him to but a mere appearance. That which the Docetists of the second century de- nied, was not that the story narrated by the evangelists was real, but that the humanity of the person to whom the story referred was anything more than a mere ap- pearance or a garment worn by a divine Being. Docetism is a theological opinion; it is not an his- torical affirmation.” Such is particularly the character of Marcion’s sys- tem,** that deep and daring thinker who in the first half of the second century gave, concerning the Chris- 11 Justin, De resurrectione, ii; Tractatus Origensis; Origen, Contra Celsum, ii, 16. 12 Concerning the character of Docetism, see Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 13 Concerning the Doceticism of Marcion, see De Faye, Gnostiques et Gnosticisme; also Harnack, Marcion, Das Evangelium vom frem- den Gott. 84 JESUS THE NAZARENE tianity which he sought to free from every link with Judaism, an interpretation so original and so fertile, and which Harnack compares to those of the apostle Paul and St. Augustine. In Marcion’s view Christ had | not been begotten; He had nothing of the human about Him; He was and remains a Spirit. He appeared in human form (in hominis forma); His body was but an appearance.** It is necessary to conceive Him as like the angels who appeared to Abraham, who ate and drank and performed all the actions of human life™ (Gen. xviii. 2-8). Harnack writes: ‘“The Christ of Marcion is a God who appears in human form, feels, acts and suffers like a man, although the identification with a carnal body, naturally begotten, is in His case merely an appearance. It is incorrect, then, to assert that according to Marcion Christ did not suffer, and only died in appearance. ‘This is the opinion His ad- versaries attributed to Him, but He only predicated appearance to the substance of the flesh of Christ.” ** Marcion was so far from denying the Gospel history that he accepted a Gospel (that of Luke) which he had only purged of what he considered Judaising addi- tions. This he adapted to his ideas, particularly in, suppressing the narration of the birth of Jesus and in making His history begin at the baptism. The Gnostic Cerinthe also believed that Christ was only united with the man Jesus at the time of bap- tism, and separated from Him at the time of the Passion, so that Christ Himself had not suffered.*’ 14JTreneus, Adv.,Her., iii, 16, 1. 15 Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, iii, 9. 16 Harnack, Marcion. 17 Treneus, Adv. Her., i, 26. THE NONHISTORICAL THESIS 85 This solicitude to preserve the full divinity of Christ by discarding the idea of suffering gave rise to rather strange interpretations of the story of the Passion. Ireneus, for instance, states that Basilides*® taught that Simon of Cyrene not only carried the cross of Jesus, but that he had been miraculously substituted for the latter, been crucified in His stead, while Jesus, lost in the crowd, looked on, laughing at the punishment of his double.° In the Acta Johannis (Chap. xcvii) there may be read how at the moment of the crucifixion Jesus appeared unto John, who had fled, and said to him: ‘John, for the people who are there, at Jeru- salem, I am crucified; I am pierced with thrusts of lance, I have vinegar and honey to drink, but to thee I speak; harken to what I tell thee.”’ All these legends do not deny the story of the Passion; they develop upon the basis of the Gospel tradition an interpretation of the facts which eliminates the idea of the suffering and the death of a God. If such was the Docetism of the second century, it would be surprising if there had been previously a Docetism of an entirely different character. ‘That Docetism is met with at the beginning of the second century, and perhaps earlier, there is no room to doubt. Jerome attests its high antiquity when he says that the blood of Christ was still fresh in Judea, and the 18 De Faye (Gnostiques et Gnosticisme) thinks that if Clement of Alexandria had known of this theory of Basilides, he would not have failed to attack it, and for this reason it should be only attributed to later adepts of the sect. 19 If one may judge by the formula of abjuration imposed upon them, the Manicheans seem to have had the same opinion (Kessler). The same thing is found, according to Photius, in the “Acts of John” (Leucius Charinus). ‘There is also a legend which has it that it was Judas who was crucified in the place of Jesus (Liepsius). 86 JESUS THE NAZARENE apostles were still living when men could be found | to affirm that the body of the Lord was merely a phantom.” M. Loisy has with justice pointed out, as is shown in the context, that there is in the passage from St. Jerome an oratorical exaggeration in which hyperbole and inaccuracy abound. The phrase about the blood of Christ has no more significance than the statement concerning the apostles. As regards the latter, its sole origin is in the fact that Docetism was combated in the Johannine Epistles (1, iv. 2 and 2, 7). The formula in the first Epistle of John about the confession of Jesus Christ having come in the flesh (I, iv. 2) is not sufficiently precise to enable the thesis to which it is opposed to be reconstructed. This might just as well have been a negation of the Messianic character of the personality of Jesus as of the reality ot His body. It is doubtless in the second sense that the testimony of the Johannine Epistle should be inter- preted, because of an analogous, although more precise, controversy found in the Epistles of Ignatius. The Bishop of Antioch insists upon the reality of the facts of the Gospel history. To show this it suffices to quote a passage from the Epistle to the Christians of ‘Tralles. It refers to Jesus Christ, “who had really been begot- ten, who had eaten and drunk, who had really been judged under Pontius Pilate, really crucified and put to death . .. who had really been raised from the dead.” And Ignatius in his next chapter formally op- poses the opinion thus stated to those of the unbe- lievers, who maintained that He only appeared to suf- 20 Jerome, Adv. Luciferum, 23. THE NONHISTORICAL THESIS 87 fer.2t The Docetism attacked by Ignatius may have been associated with Judaising tendencies combated in Philadelphians ix. 1.2? The evidence of Jerome on the Palestinian origin of Docetism is favorable to this in- terpretation. According to M. Salomon Reinach,”* Docetism is far older than Ignatius; already it is found attacked in the Gospels, particularly in the episode concerning Simon of Cyrene, who at the time when Jesus was led to Calvary was forced by the soldiers to carry the cross (Mark xv. 21; Matt. xxvii. 32; Luke xxiii. 26). Mark alone states that this Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus.** In Reinach’s view the his- torical character of this episode is inadmissible, in the first place because there is no instance of any requisi- tion similar to that of which Simon was the object, and in the next place because the condemned was obliged to carry the patibulum himself, and lastly because the ce kt teed eae 21Cp. Eph. vii. 18; Smyrn. i, 2; Polycarpe, PAil., vii, p. 1. A trace of Docetism is also found in the Gospel of Peter, where it is said that Jesus, when crucified, kept silent, as though He felt no pain. M. Reinach (Source biblique du docetisme) has with justice proposed to seek the origin of this idea in the passage in Isa. bee “T have made my face like unto a rock.” 22 This is admitted, for instance, by W. Bauer (Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antioch, etc.). 23 Reinach, Simon de Cyrene. The criticism of Reinach by Loisy should be read (Rewue d’Histoire et de litterature religieuses, 1913). 24 This episode is not found in the fourth Gospel. Some authors, such as Jean Réville (Quatriéme évangile), consider that the evan- gelist has omitted it in the interest of anti-Docetism; others, like Holtzmann-Bauer, believe that he was influenced by the words of Jesus on the necessity of carrying one’s cross, or by the story of Isaac, who himself carried the wood for the burnt-offering. The fact that John has allowed other details of the Passion to be passed over leads us to consider it a simplification of the narra- tive, designed to concentrate all attention upon Jesus. The inci- dent is wanting also in the Gospel of Peter. (M. Goguel, Introd. au N.T., ii.) 88 JESUS THE NAZARENE whole episode is only the illustration of the words of Jesus, “Whosoever will come after Me, let him take up his cross and follow Me.”’ None of these three arguments is convincing. The requisition of Simon the Cyrenian was certainly not legal; one must see in it one of the thousand daily annoyances the Romans did not hesitate to inflict on the Jews. It must not be explained by the compassion that Jesus would have inspired in the soldiers, but by the physical impossibility for Him, after flagellation, to carry the cross. Lastly, it is in- conceivable that the episode should have been sug- gested by words in which it is a question not of carry- ing Jesus’ cross, but one’s own cross. There is therefore no reason to recognize in the account the remains of a tradition analogous to the conception of the Gnostic Docetists concerning the crucifixion of Simon of Cyrene. If the evangelist had substituted Jesus for Simon, who really was crucified, it is not comprehensible why they should not have pushed the substitution to the end, but instead have preserved the details of the carrying of the cross by Simon. As for the names Alexander and Rufus, which are found only in Mark, these are generally explained by: saying that these persons must have been known in the community in which the second Gospel was com- posed.”° Matthew and Luke neglected this detail, which had no interest for them or their readers. M. Reinach, on the contrary, considers that the names Alexander and Rufus were added afterwards in Mark because ~ of a tradition which represented them as associates of 25 This community was probably Roman. (See M. Goguel, Introd. au N.T., i.) THE NONHISTORICAL THESIS 89 Peter.** But this tradition is only supported by a text of very recent date, ‘The Acts of Peter and Andrew’’; and if Alexander and Rufus had been persons suffi- ciently known to make it worth while to invoke their testimony (which, moreover, is only done in Mark ina very indirect way), it would not be intelligible that their names should have been omitted in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. It is not legitimate, therefore, to dispute the authenticity of the incident of Simon carrying the cross of Jesus. The system which boldly dates back to the period which preceded the composition of the Gospels—a form of Docetism for which Irenzus is the first wit- ness—and claims to explain the origin of the episode of Simon as a reaction against it, must be considered an arbitrary construction. The conclusion to which we are thus led is that there is no evidence for the exist- ence of Docetism older than is to be found in the Epistles of John and Ignatius. The Docetism at the beginning of the second cen- tury must have arisen from the same beliefs which inspired the theories of Gnostic Docetism. It is neces- sary, therefore, to see in it, not a negation of the Gos- pel history, but an attempt to interpret it, which in no degree compromises the transcendent character of the Saviour by representing Him as accomplishing His work on humanity without partaking of the frailty of human nature. A different interpretation has been proposed by M. Salomon Reinach,”’ who finds in Docetism an attempt to reconcile the Christian affirmations about Christ 26 Reinach. 27 Id., Questions sur le docetisme (Revue Moderniste). 90 JESUS THE NAZARENE with a Jewish ‘‘X”’ who is the negation of the whole Gospel history. The Christians, incapable of opposing to this nega- tion positive proofs based upon authentic documents, replied that Jesus was a kind of divine phantom, a Be- ing ethereal and entirely spiritual, that human eyes had seen, and whose voice human ears had heard, but who could not be touched. ~ To this theory M. Couissin ”* rightly objects that the answer to the Jewish negation would have been without efficacy, since the Jews denied precisely that which the Docetists affirmed, namely that Jesus had been seen and heard, either as an illusion or otherwise. M. Loisy observes that the answer of the Docetists would have been a “‘masterpiece of human stupidity,” and that ‘‘we are here in the domain of pure phantasy, of stark improbability, of conjecture based upon nothing.” Indeed, the question discussed by the Docetists was not whether there had lived a man in the time of Pilate named Jesus, who acted, suffered and died, but the problem was to determine the nature of His mani- festation. Here it is that M. Reinach *° thinks he finds: a decisive argument in favor of his theory in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians.* “I have heard certain men say,” writes Ignatius, “if I do not find (a certain thing) in the archives, I do not believe in the Gospel. And as I replied to them: It is written (in the Old Testament), they answered: ‘That is the 28P, L. Couissin, Quelques reflexions sur la lettre de M. Reinach, Revue Moderniste, reproduced by Reinach. 29 Reinach, St. Ignace et le Docetisme. 80M. Reinach’s translation is given. ‘The text of the passage is not certain. For basis of discussion we accept that of M. Reinach. THE NONHISTORICAL THESIS gI very question.’ But for me the archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death, His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”’ It is generally understood that Ignatius in this pas- sage replies to those who demanded proofs drawn from the Old Testament before they accepted the afirma- tions of the Christian faith. He declares that these proofs exist, and as his adversaries dispute their value, he appeals to what is for him the supreme demonstra- tion, Jesus Christ. In M. Reinach’s view the archives referred to in the first part of the phrase are those of Cesarea, the capital of Palestine. Ignatius had to deal with ‘“‘a critical school, which, demanding documents concerning the terrestrial life of Jesus, and seeking these vainly among the archives, annoyed Ignatius with its negations.” These critics are also aimed at in Ephesians (xix) where Ignatius says that the prince of this world had no knowledge either of the virginity of Mary or of the death of the Lord. If this critical school of Antioch had existed, it would be inexplicable that its arguments have not been used again by later controversialists. But that is not all. If the word “archives” can be rigorously applied to the archives of Caesarea, it holds none the less that Ignatius thinks he replies to the demands of his op- ponents in proving that the facts referred to are at- tested by the Old Testament, for the words lth 1s written” cannot, as M. Reinach recognizes, refer to anything except the Old Testament. His opponents do not deny that the proof offered by Ignatius, if it were really furnished, would be convincing. They only doubt that it is really given. If they had insisted on documents from archives, why should they have been 92 JESUS THE NAZARENE able to content themselves with scriptural proofs? There must be some correspondence between the de- mand and the answer. If Ignatius were dealing with persons requiring documentary proofs of the Gospel © history, why should he not have attempted to give them? In ignoring the question he would have given his opponents a manifest proof of feebleness. It ap- pears, as M. Loisy admits, that it was not the Doce- tists, but the Judaising Christians who, while admitting in their generality the evangelical facts, disputed the interpretation that Ignatius gave of them. The con- clusion we reach is therefore quite clear: ‘The Doce- tists did not contest the Gospel history. They were Christian idealists, attached above all to the notion of the divinity of Christ and the celestial character of His person, who attempted to give it an interpretation harmonizing with their ideas. So understood, Doce- tism was only able to develop in the soil of evangelical tradition. If the Docetists had had the slightest rea- son to think that Christ was no more than an ideal person without historical reality, they would not have expended such treasures of ingenuity to give an inter- pretation of His story which cut Him off completely from too intimate contact with humanity. The Doce- tists thus appear as witness to Gospel tradition. CHAPTER V THE APOSTLE PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION I. Tue Epistres oF PauL* Tue canon of Muratori, a Roman document of the second half of the second century, states that what the apostle Paul wrote to the Christians of a particular church is meant for all (omnibus dicit). This is the conception which inspired the canonization of the Epistles, and which has prevailed, but it was certainly not with the idea that his letters would become ele- ments of a sacred collection that the apostle wrote them. It is only by a kind of transposition—at times not without prejudice to their true spirit—that these letters, which spring spontaneously from a sensitive personality, whose emotions, enthusiasms and indigna- tion they reveal, have been changed into encyclicals or dogmatic treatises and interpreted in the style of a code. Deissmann has maintained that it is a radical mis- ree Mr ng Wh ib a en RT SN ee 1 We consider the letters of Paul as authentic with the exception of that to the Ephesians and the Pastorals (1 and 2 Tim. and Titus). This conception, generally admitted to-day, will be vin- dicated in Book IV of our Introduction. The majority of those who deny the historical character of Jesus repudiate the testimony of Paul’s Epistles. M. Couchoud is the sole exception. The position of Drews is uncertain. Nevertheless, he takes some account of their testimony—not, it is true, without dismissing (as interpolated) certain important texts, such as 1 Cor. xi. 23 et seg. (See Die Chris- tusmythe, i, p. 121, by Drews.) 93 94 JESUS THE NAZARENE take to consider the Epistles of Paul as literary works, for they were only written as substitutes for conversa- tions which distance rendered impossible. They are not in the technical sense of the word ‘Epistles’ — that is, works which in an epistolary form are intended for a larger public in time and space than those to whom they are addressed, and treat of questions which might just as well be the object of a dissertation or a book. To thoroughly understand the Epistles of Paul it is necessary to forget the halo which for eighteen centuries has surrounded them, but which, while glori- fying, distorts them. They are writings adapted to circumstances, improvised hastily between two jour- neys, dictated in the evening after a day devoted to manual work or to preaching, to meet some unfore- seen circumstance, to solve some difficulty, to give instruction or warning, or to prevent a misunderstand- ing. Each one of them answers to some complex situa- tion, which, having disappeared, the main reason for its existence has disappeared also. Further, there ap- pears no trace of any custom on the part of the churches of the apostolic age of regularly reading the Epistles of Paul. ‘They were communicated to the assembly when they were received; perhaps they were read again as it happened, so long as the question which had dictated their composition was not settled, but afterwards they were simply preserved in the archives, and that, it appears, with but little care. Many of these letters have disappeared, and among those preserved to us several seem to have undergone various alterations. When in Thessalonians (1, v. 27) Paul writes, “I charge you in the name of the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the Brethren,” he PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION _ 95 merely requests that all may be informed of his mes- sage, and in no wise thinks of a second reading. To the Colossians Paul writes: ‘‘When this letter is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from the Laodiceans” (Col. iv. 16). The apostle is so far from the idea of a regular reading that he speaks of the dispatch, not of a copy, but of the original itself. There is nothing more unsound than to see in the Paul- ine Epistles theological treatises. Therefore complete expositions of the faith or system of thought of the apostle must not be sought in them. Written for those who had received his teaching, they lay stress upon what these persons knew, and proceed very often by allusions to what he had taught and the common tra- dition of Christianity. The fundamental doctrines are not more systematically treated than the facts upon which they rest. The initiates to whom they were ad- dressed knew both, and had no need to have them recalled. II. PAuL, BEFORE His CONVERSION, A WITNESS TO THE CRoss Through the narratives in the book of Acts (vil. 58, Vill. I-3, ix. I, 2), and particularly through the narra- tive of Paul himself (1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 13, 233; Phil. iii. 6), we know that before his conversion Paul was a bitter persecutor of the Christians. It is scarcely prob- able that the future apostle ever saw Jesus Himself, in spite of the passage in which he says: “If even we have known Christ after the flesh, we know Him no more” (2 Cor. v. 16). The words “after the flesh” 96 JESUS THE NAZARENE may as well belong to “we know Him no more” as to “Christ.” It is therefore possible to understand this as ‘“‘we have known Jesus during His earthly life,” or ‘‘we have had a carnal and Judaic conception of the Messiah.”’ Even if the first of these two interpreta- tions is to be preferred, account must be taken of the hypothetical element contained in the phrase. Paul appears to allude, in order to contest its value, to a privilege of which certain of his opponents boasted. In this passage merely an hypothesis is outlined. It must be added that if Paul had known Jesus he would have been among His enemies. Why should he who accuses himself of persecuting the disciples not have said that he had fought against the Master Himself ? ? It was in the period which immediately followed the drama of Calvary that Paul must have come into contact with Christianity.* Even if it be supposed that the disciples of Jesus had only seen in Him, during His ministry, a prophet or a doctor, it is impossible to hold that after the Passion they remained grouped together in His name without attributing to His personality a quite peculiar value. They must have been led to see 2 Among the critics who believe that Paul had seen Jesus we may name Sabatier, Joh. Weiss, Machen. The opposite opinion is held by Renan, Weillhausen, Feine, Prat. Some few writers, like Pfleiderer, consider the question insoluble (Das Urchristentism). 3’The time when Paul came into contact with Christianity cannot be very much after the Passion. We consider that Jesus must have died at Easter, in the year 28, and that the conversion of Paul must be placed at the end of 29. Concerning the fixing of these two dates see my works Essai sur la Chronologie Paulinienne and Notes dhistoire evangelique! Le probléme Chronologique. While pursuing an entirely different method from that I have followed, Meyer ends by putting the death of Jesus in 27 or 28 and the conversion of Paul in 28 or 29. PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION — 94 in His death the realization of a plan conceived by God for the salvation of humanity. We do not know how far Christology had developed before the conversion of Paul. It suffices to explain his sentiments and the attitude which they imposed upon him to know that the Christians continued to invoke Jesus, and to con- sider Him as one sent from God. Saul of Tarsus—to give him the name by which he seems to have been known in the Jewish world—was then a young Rabbi, full of fanaticism and zeal for the Law. He must have been profoundly scandalized by the attitude of men who proclaimed themselves dis- ciples of a madman whose pretensions had been con- demned by the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish tribunal, and who had perished at the hands of the Roman au- thorities. The attitude of Paul is characterized by the phrase he was to employ later on: ‘‘Christ crucified, a scandal to the Jews” (1 Cor. 1. 23; cp. Gal. v.11). It epitomizes at once his experiences as a missionary to the Jews and his personal feelings before he was yet a Christian. His thought was dominated by the princi- ple of the Law, which he recalls in his Epistle to the Galatians, “Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree”’ (Gal. iii. 13; cp. with Deut. xxi. 23). In permitting Him to die this infamous death, God Himself had pro- nounced against Jesus, and declared Him accursed. Those therefore who declared that this accursed one was the Son of God, the promised Messiah of Israel, were guilty of an appalling blasphemy. Wellhausen has supposed that, taught wisdom by hatred, Paul from this time recognized in Christianity a doctrine whose development would ruin Judaism. To admit this would be to misunderstand Paul’s fanaticism and 98 JESUS THE NAZARENE the depth of his faith in the destiny of Israel. It is still more rash to suppose, as does Pfleiderer, that the things which Paul knew and heard concerning Jesus exercised upon him a secret attraction, and that he was impressed by the spectacle of the lives of the Christians. That would have been the spur for him to kick against,‘ the secret anxiety which he would have wished to silence by persecuting the Christians. That Paul, un- known to himself, may have been influenced by Chris- tianity in the Jewish period of his life is, a priori, very plausible, but that he was at all conscious of it appears less likely. The testimony which he gives of himself when speaking of the persecutions directed by him against the Christians does not permit any doubt of the sincerity of his motives. The explanation of his attitude is more simple. Paul considered the Christians blasphemers and sacrilegious. Now blasphemy and sacrilege, in antiquity, were not sins which it belonged alone to God to judge; they were crimes which ex- posed the nation to the risk of divine anger. In this respect the judicial authorities had to take cognizance of them, and it was part of the duty of every one to aid them, and if need be to stimulate their zeal. An impor- tant consequence flows from this fact; it is that the cross had dominated the period of Paul’s antagonism to Christianity, just as later it was to dominate his Christian thought. Paul the persecutor—and not only Paul the Christian—thus appears to us as a witness to * Acts xxvi. 14. If this detail is authentic, it is astonishing that it is only met with in one of the three narratives in the Acts. Moreover, we do not believe that these narratives can be taken to be rigorously historical, although sometimes, and especially in recent times, their value has been too much depreciated. PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION 99 the cross, and this also within the few months which followed the day of its erection on Calvary. Here is a decisive objection against the doctrine that the entire Gospel history has been deduced from a theory or from a preéxisting myth and, if the word is allowed, from the supernatural life of an ideal Christ of whom the experiences of Peter and the primitive Christians were the initial manifestations. Ill. PAuL AND THE UNITY OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY Notwithstanding the opposition (exaggerated by the Tubingen school, nevertheless real) which existed between the apostle Paul and the Jerusalem Christians, who remained more attached to Judaism and its tra- ditional ritual than he was himself, there existed with- in primitive Christianity a fundamental unity. Paul was conscious of it when summing up the essentials of Christian teaching. He said: ‘“Therefore whether it were I or they (the apostles at Jerusalem) so we preach and so ye believed” (1 Cor. xv. 11). Upon their side the Jerusalemites had confirmed this unity in offering Paul the hand of fellowship and in recog- nizing that he had received the mission to preach the gospel to the pagans (Gal. ii. 7-10). How is it possi- ble to explain this fundamental unity of Christianity if at its origin there only existed conceptions relating to an ideal Christ and to His spiritual manifestations? Paul insists in the most formal way that his conversion took place without direct contact with the Jerusalem church. He declares himself ‘‘Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God 100 JESUS THE NAZARENE the Father, who raised him from the dead” (Gal. i. 1). How is it possible to reconcile this absolute inde- pendence of Christianity and the apostleship of Paul with the unity of primitive Christianity unless by the fact that the apostle recognized in the activity of the celestial Christ, to whom he attributed the birth of his faith, the continuation and consequence of the histor- ical ministry of Jesus to which the Christianity of the Twelve and the Jerusalem church owed its origin? IV. THe BroTuers or Jesus AND THE JERUSALEM APOSTLES Before examining the testimony that the apostle Paul renders directly to the evangelical tradition, it will be convenient to point out two facts which prove that the Pauline Christ is indeed a real human person- ality. On two occasions the apostle speaks incidentally of James and other brothers of the Lord (Gal. 1. 19; 1 Cor. ix. 5). In neither of these two passages is it possible unless the text be distorted in an inadmissible manner,® to give to the word “‘brothers’”’ any other in- terpretation than that which belongs to it in its natural sense.© There were then in the Jerusalem church (Paul knew it, and the churches of the Diaspora were not 5 There can be no reason to see in the phrase “brother of the Lord” the designation of an ecclesiastical function or title, first because it would be a conjecture resting upon no foundation, and secondly because it would not be possible to differentiate this function from the apostolate, with which, nevertheless, it could not be identified. 6If, as is done by Catholic exegesis, there were given to the phrase “brothers of Jesus” the meaning of half brothers (sons of a premier marriage of Joseph) or of cousins of Jesus, the force of our argument would not be seriously affected. PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION _ tor ignorant of it) men who passed for being the brothers of Jesus according to the flesh. How can this well-established fact be reconciled with the theory that the Christ preached by Paul was a purely ideal personage?“ Drews,’ it is true, has main- tained that the phrase “‘brother of the Lord” meant simply member of the community, but to designate the faithful the apostle merely said “the brothers’ or “the brethren in the Lord,” and in the passages in which the brothers of Jesus are referred to Paul names them besides other Christians, the apostles and Cephas, and he does not confuse them with these. In 1 Cor. ix. 5, in particular, it is remarkable that Paul, in speaking of the wife that he might have, says quite simply “sister,” while he says “brethren of the Lord” concerning the persons to whom he compares himself.” One other fact imposes a similar conclusion. Paul assimilates his apostleship entirely to that of the Twelve; he obtained, not without difficulty, the recog- nition of the validity of his vocation by the Jerusalem church (Gal. ii. 1-10). He connects his apostleship, like that of the Twelve, with an apparition of the risen Christ,’° but he must have been obliged to fight a hard and persevering battle to establish that he was in noth- ing inferior to those whom in derision he called the archapostles (2 Cor. xi. 5 and xii. 11). ‘The latter, or at any rate their partisans, must have maintained that Paul lacked a qualification of which his rivals could 7 There is also a reference to the brothers and sisters of Jesus in Mark iii. 31; Matt. xii. 46, xiii, 55; Luke viii. 19; John ii. 12, vil. 3-5; Acts i. 14. 8 Drews, Die Christusmythe, i, pp. 125-27. 9 Joh. Weiss, Jesus von Nazareth. 10 This follows by comparing 1 Cor. ix. 1 and 1 Cor, xy. 8. 102 JESUS THE NAZARENE boast. It was impossible to question either the qualifi- cations of Paul from the Judaic point of view (Phil. ili. 4-6; 2 Cor. x1. 21, 22) or his services to the cause of the Gospel and the sufferings accepted by him for it7**) (1 Cora xv. 10; 2 Cor. x1..23-33; Galina the signs accomplished and visions obtained by him (2 Cor. xii. 1-12). A text in the epistle to the Gala- tians enables us to understand the nature of the objec- tion raised against the Pauline apostleship. Concern- ing the apostles at Jerusalem Paul said:* ‘But of these who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person)—for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me’’ (Gal. ii. 6). The qualification on which the Jerusalem apostles prided themselves and which Paul lacked, referred to the past. The Twelve could boast of having been Christians and apostles before Paul, but he in no wise attempted to hide the fact that he had formerly perse- cuted the church and that he was a late recruit for the Gospel.** On the contrary, he boasted of it as some- thing to be proud of (1 Cor. xv. 8-10), because he considered it a manifest proof of the intervention of. God in his life. What could this former qualification of which the Jerusalem apostles boasted be, other than that they had been witnesses and associates of the historical scars from blows received in the service of Christ. 12 There are three designations of the Jerusalem apostles employed in the Galatians. It appears that Paul alludes to a current designa- tion of the apostles of which it is no longer possible to find the origin. 18 This explains why in 2 Cor. v. 16 Paul seems to deny any value in the fact of having known Jesus. PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION _ 103 ministry of Jesus? The controversies between Paul and Jerusalem apostles thus establish that the latter boasted of having been witnesses of the life of Jesus— a fact which Paul did not contest. V. EXAMINATION OF TEXTs SUPPOSED TO CONTAIN ALLUSIONS TO A CHRIST MYTH In the opening salutation of the Epistle to the Romans Paul speaks of ‘“‘Christ Jesus, born of the seed of David according to the flesh, as God had an- nounced in advance by the prophets in the holy scrip- tures’ (Rom. i. 2, 3). In M. Couchoud’s view™ it follows from this passage that the human (or ap- parently human) life of Jesus was not told, but re- vealed to Paul, and that by prophecies. The fact that the apostle thought he recognized concordance between the history of Jesus and certain prophecies does not prove that the history has been deduced from the prophecy.** But this is not all. Two announcements are made in the phrase before us—one is the existence of Jesus, the other asserts His descent from David. The Davidic origin asserted by Paul on the faith of prophecies gives Jesus a human lineage. The notion of the Davidic origin of Jesus appears to have a theologi- cal source. The Gospels record no word of Jesus which supports it. It is merely implied in certain episodes to which no great importance can be attached.** The 14 Couchoud, Le Mystére de Jésus, p. 131%. 15 We shall return in a later chapter to the relations between the prophecy and evangelical history. 16 We put aside two genealogies, which are, besides, not con- cordant, found in Matt. i. 1-16 and Luke iii. 23-38. Both presume the Davidic origin of Jesus, but they are recent elements of the tradition wanting in Mark. 104 JESUS THE NAZARENE blind man, Bartimeus, addressed Jesus once as ‘‘Jesus, Son of David,” and on another occasion as “Son of David,” according to Mark (x. 47, 48) and Luke (xviii. 38, 39), while Matthew has on both occasions simply ‘‘Son of David.” ** In the narrative of the entry into Jerusalem, organized to fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah (ix. 9), the mention of David in the popular welcome does not occupy the same place in Mark (xi. 9g) and in Matthew (xxi. 9), and is lacking in Luke (xix. 38), which requires us, at any rate, to consider its authenticity as not certain.** One single idea re- mains from study of these texts, and that is, consid- ering Jesus in a more or less vague manner as the Messiah, He was sometimes spoken of as the Son of David. But there is nothing to show that Jesus Him- self accepted it, and still less that He claimed this title. On the contrary, in a remark whose authenticity is be- yond question,*® Jesus appears to oppose the notions of 17 Jt is the same in the narrative of Matt. ix. 27, which is only a variant of the story of Bartimeus. We do not attach much importance to Matt. xv. 22, where the Canaanitish woman calls Jesus “Lord, Son of David,” because a comparison with Mark shows that there is only a literary development involved, nor of Matt. xii. 23, where Jesus, having cured a blind and dumb demoniac, some of the bystanders ask, “Is not this man the Son of David?” because this narrative is an editorial element which offers the starting point supposed by Mark of the accusation of possession brought against Jesus. 18 The text of Zechariah contains no allusion to a Davidic Messiah. 19Jt is so because the text goes directly counter to the concep- tion of a Davidic Messiah universally received in the Church since Paul. In the ancient Church only one exception can be found. It is in the Epistle of Barnabas (xii. 10), which is directly dependent on our text, and dominated by the idea of a supernatural birth. It should also be pointed out that the fourth Gospel appears to know of the idea of the Davidic descent, but as an objection to the Messiahship of Jesus. It does not appear that the evangelist (who holds Jesus to be a Galilean) makes a reply to the objection (vii. 42). PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION tog the Messiahship and the Davidic origin one against the other. In the Temple Jesus asks: ‘‘How is it the scribes say that Christ is the Son of David? David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou upon My right hand until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.’ David himself calls Him his Lord—how then can He be his son?” (Mark xii. 35-37, Matt. xxii. 41-46, Luke xx. 41-44). In the context, as we read it, this question appears to be a subtle problem propounded by Jesus to the Scribes, and which they were not prepared to solve. It is to some extent an argument ad hominem. But it is doubt- ful, in spite of the opinion of some exegetists,”® that we have here only a flash of wit. The text has a wider implication. It establishes an antinomy between the true Messiahship that Jesus invoked and the popular and current notion of the Messiah, Son of David. The idea of the Davidic origin of Jesus has therefore a secondary character. It is a theological creation made under the influence of prophecies and popular beliefs. This tends to restrict the affirmation concerning the prophecies in Rom. i. 2—3 principally, if not exclu- sively, to the words ‘born of the seed of David.” The fact that, either by Paul or by others before him, the notion of the Davidic origin had been intro- duced into Christology is not without importance. The Jewish Messianic conception oscillated between two 20Zahn (Das Ev. des Mattheus), Wohlenburg (Das Ev. d. Markus). 21 This is admitted (with various reservations, varying according to their opinion concerning the question of the Messianic conscious- ness of Jesus) by Wellhausen, Wrede, Loisy. Klostermann and Joh. Weiss think the passage only criticizes the Jewish conception of the Messiah. Lagrange thinks that Jesus only wishes to show its inadequacy. 106 JESUS THE NAZARENE poles: the idea of a transcendent and celestial Messiah to come with power to execute the judgments of God, and that of a human Messiah, a king of the race of David, for whom and by whom the national monarchy of Israel would be restored. The first conception is found specially in the books of Daniel and Enoch, the second in the Songs of Solomon. ‘These two concep- tions have sometimes been combined; they are con- stantly so in the Christology of the primitive Church. The two currents of the Messianic conception are none the less distinct. If the Jesus of the most primitive Christianity and of Paul himself had been a purely spiritual and celestial Being with no connection with humanity except an external and unreal form, why should the apostle have contradicted himself in con- necting his Messiah to a human lineage? | In another passage M. Couchoud thinks he also un- derstands the inner significance of the debt of Paul to the prophecy of what is supposed to be an histor- ical tradition. The reference is to the passage in which — the apostle, summing up the essentials of Christian teaching, expresses himself thus: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received—how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. xv. 3, 4). Then follows an enumeration of apparitions (xv. 3-8). In the opinion of M. Couchoud, the words “according to the Scriptures’ mark the source of the knowledge. It follows therefore from this passage that faith in Jesus rests partly on the Scriptures and partly on the apparitions. The faith in Jesus is possible, but not the knowledge of Jesus implied in this faith. The apostle PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION 107 draws a parallel between “I have transmitted” and “‘I have received.” They are facts of the same class, therefore, which lead us to suppose that the apostle presents himself as witness of a tradition. ‘The teaching given and the teaching received could not be thus assimilated if on the one side there had been supernatural revelation or exegetical deduction, and on the other didactic teach- ing; the examination of the context confirms this first impression. It may be admitted with reason that the passage in question is, so to speak, the first rudiment of a confession of faith. It is unnecessary to bring in the narrative of the visions, which belongs to the affirma- tion of the resurrection, and which in its amplitude contrasts with the brevity of the phrase preceding. The account of the apparitions is added to the epitome of the faith as a confirmation of the point on which Paul makes his entire argument depend. While three facts are named in the Pauline formula, the words “‘ac- cording to the Scriptures” are only found twice in it, and these are with reference to two facts—the death and the resurrection—which possess in Paul’s thought a redemptive character. The words are wanting in respect of the burial, which has no importance in the Pauline theory of salvation, and which is only inci- dentally touched upon in the symbol of baptism (Rom. vi. 4 and Col. 11. 12). This proves that the formula ‘according to the Scriptures” has no bearing upon the facts, but upon their interpretation. What Paul knew from the Scriptures was not that Christ died, but that He died for our sins. Paul, even when he persecuted the Christians, knew perfectly well that their Master was dead; he either did not know or refused to believe 108 JESUS THE NAZARENE that He died for sins. It was the Scriptures which, once he had the certitude of the living Christ in his inner consciousness, enabled him to understand the meaning of Christ’s death. Similarly, if Paul believed in the resurrection, it was not because of the proph- ecies, but because of the apparition he had seen. Be- sides, he had read the prophecies long before he was a Christian, but he only discovered the resurrection when, in an entirely different way, the faith in the Christ still living, in spite of death, had developed within him. M. Couchoud * can only see a mystical, almost Gnostic, idea in the passage of the Epistle to the Galatians, in which Paul says that in the fulfillment of time ‘‘God had sent His Son, born of a woman”’ (Gal. iv. 4). In his view there is no historical reference. Taken alone, this text: would constitute, in fact, but a very short and insufficient biography—not even the outline of a life of Jesus. But does it not contain, at least, the idea of the historical life of Jesus? And by what right besides is this affirmation isolated? The Galatians do not separate it from the teaching in which the apostle retraced the story of the crucifixion in so vivid a manner that they had the feeling of contem- plating it with their own eyes (iii. 1). Paul does not return to this part of his teaching because it was not contradicted by the missionaries of his opponents. Be- sides, the expression “born of a woman” was not in- vented by Paul. He borrowed it from the Old Testa- ment,”* where it is used to designate man under the ordinary conditions of his birth and existence. The 22 Couchoud, of. cit., p. 130. 23 Job xi. 3-12, xiv. i, XV. 14, XxV. 4. PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION tog declaration of Galatians (iv. 4) would be unintelligible if, in Paul’s view, Jesus had not lived under the ordi- nary conditions of humanity. A very special importance attaches to the long pas- sage of the Epistle to the Philippians, in which, in a way otherwise accidental, Paul epitomizes his whole thought concerning Christ and His work. The apostle writes: ‘Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,** but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Him- self and became obedient unto death—even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name. ‘That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should con- fess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of the Father” (Phil. ii. 5—11). M. Couchoud thinks that in this passage is found the most ancient epitome we possess of the story of Jesus. It appears to him to include two elements—firstly, the descent of the divine Being into humanity and His death; and secondly, His ascension and glorification. M. Couchoud considers that a less lyrical version of this myth, but one containing more details, is found in 24 Often translated’ “as a usurpation.” This translation does not seem to us permissible, because it assumes His existence in its divine form was equal with God.—Avuruor. Translator’s Note—Modern English version, based on Westcott and Hort’s text, reads: “Though the divine nature was His from the beginning, yet He did not look upon equality with God as above all things to be clung to,” etc. IIO JESUS THE NAZARENE the Ascension of Isaiah. The prophet was caught up and carried away from world to world up to the seventh heaven. In this region he was a spectator of the mysterious drama which will mark the end of time. God commands a Being who is called the Well- Beloved, the Chosen One, or the Son, to descend through the seven heavens, the firmament, the air, and the earth down to Sheol, where He is to bind the angel of death. That His descent shall not be perceived by the angels inhabiting the successive worlds, the Son receives the power to take to Himself in each of them a form resembling that of the beings who dwell there- in. His mission accomplished, the Son ascends, this time in His own form, up to the seventh heaven. While looking upon His glorious ascension the angels are astounded. They ask how the descent of the Son of God could have escaped their perception, and they are obliged to glorify Him. The celestial Being then seats Himself at the right hand of the Supreme Glory. There are two questions to be successively ex- amined: Is the passage from the Epistle to the Philip- pians an Apocalyptic element, and is the myth it ex- presses quite identical to that we find in the Ascension of Isaiah? Seeing that the thesis of the affinity be- tween the Ascension of Isaiah and the Epistle of the Philippians only enters in a subordinate manner into the reasoning of M. Couchoud, we shall first of all examine this point. What is the Ascension of Isaiah? In the form in which we know it, it is a fairly complex whole in which three principal portions are easily distinguished: 1. A purely Jewish narrative of the martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah sawn asunder by order of Manasseh PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION rir (1. I, 2, 12, and v. 1-16). It appears once to have had an independent existence, and to have been known in this form to Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen.” 2. An Apocalyptic vision about Antichrist, the de- cadence of the Church, and the return of the Lord. In its present form this portion, whose Christian origin is not doubtful, betrays a certain dependence as regards the Ascension, properly so called. It seems that this may be owing to editorial work, for the conception of the work of Christ found in the vision differs from that in the Ascension, and can neither be considered as the germ of it nor a development from it (ii. 13- Iv. 22). 3. The Ascension, in the exact sense of the word (vi. I-11, 43), is the portion which specially interests us. Isaiah was carried away by an angel up to the seventh heaven; he received an explanation of the descent of the Well-Beloved from the higher heaven down to Sheol, whence He was to reascend to the heaven. The prophet is afterwards a witness of the events which had been announced to him. The date of the compilation of the Ascension of Isaiah, in its completeness as well as in each of the portions which constitute it, cannot be determined with absolute precision. Critics are almost agreed in con- sidering that the Ascension (in the exact sense) can- not be older than the middle of the second century. It is even possible that it may be necessary to bring the date of its composition considerably later. The fact that Origen mentions the martyrdom as a Jewish book proves that he did not know the Ascension in its present 25 Justin, Dial. c. Tryphon; Tertullian, Scorpiace, viii, De patientia, xiv; Origen, In, Matt., xxviii, Comm. in Matt., x. 18, etc. 112 JESUS THE NAZARENE form. True, it might have had an independent ex- istence before its incorporation into the book as we read it. The amount of Christian retouching which it has undergone (especially the eleventh chapter) is favorable to this hypothesis. But even supposing the Ascension not anterior to the middle of the second century, the ideas which are de- veloped in it might date back to an older period. In- deed, it appears necessary to distinguish in the Ascen- sion between a fundamental myth—that concerning the descent of the celestial Being and a Christian inter- pretation given of it. This compound of two elements explains certain peculiarities of the book. For in- stance, the Well-Beloved receives the command to transform His image into that of the beings inhabiting various spheres of the universe, so that He may arrive without difficulty at Sheol, where He is to despoil the angel of death (ix. 16), but He does not pursue His descent in a straight line (if it may be so expressed), and when He arrives on earth * He has need of the in- tervention of Satan in order that He may reach Sheol. Satan raises the jealousy of the Jews against Him, and causes them to put Him to death (xi. 19—-21).?" This compound of two dissimilar elements is to be noted in another matter. The triumph of the Well-Beloved is attained through the power He receives to transform Himself while traversing the different spheres of the universe. It is not stated that, having reached Sheol, _ 26He only attains to this through a supernatural birth (xi. 2-14), which is an evident embellishment, and by which the narrative is related to recent Apocryphal legends. 27'The incoherence betrays itself by an embellishment. In xi. 19 the Well-Beloved, crucified through the action of Satan, descends to the angel of Sheol. In xi. 20 Isaiah sees Him hung on the cross. PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION 113 He wages battle with the angel of death. It appears that the latter is incapable of resisting the Chosen One, and is conquered at the instant the Lord reaches Him. After this victory the Well-Beloved, recognized by all the angels, judges and annihilates the princes, angels and gods of this world and the world over which they have dominion. He ascends in glory, and sits down at the right hand of God (x. 12-15). ‘The triumph of the Chosen One is therefore attained by his ascen- sion. ‘This idea is quite different from the Christian conception, according to which the judgment and anni- hilation of the powers hostile to God is the work of Christ returning from the heavens to His second com- ing, and not of the Lord ascending to heaven after the resurrection. ‘There is thus recognizable behind the Christian interpretation which dominates the present form of the Ascension of Isaiah a myth of the reéstab- lishment of the sovereignty of God by a divine being who descends into Sheol to despoil the angel of death, and afterwards ascends gloriously to the heavens. It is possible that the myth may be older than Chris- tianity.”° 28 Jt does not appear to us that there is any direct contact between Paul and the Ascension of Isaiah. Outside the idea of the descent of a celestial Being, which has a general character, and that of the ignorance of the angels, developed in both in very different ways, there are only two ideas in common, but which are found elsewhere, and these are the idea of celestial garments and that of the superposed spheres, or heavens. But Paul is only carried away to the third and not to the seventh heaven, as Isaiah. In the Ascen- sion the five first heavens belong to the lower world, while Paul has the feeling of having been carried away to a higher world. In Paul the revelation takes place by audition of ineffable words. In the Ascension it is by visions commented upon. Paul cannot repeat what he heard. Isaiah relates his vision to Hezekiah and to other prophets, (Compare 2 Cor. v. 2, xii. 2, and Asc, iv. 16, Vili. 14.) II4 JESUS THE NAZARENE There is a certain affinity between this myth and the idea dominating the Christological development of the Epistle to the Philippians, but while in Paul’s thought Christ divests Himself of something, in the Ascension of Isaiah He merely transforms Himself. The development of the Epistle to the Philippians cannot have been from the myth, because (the nega- tive determination in which the development of the myth begins is a proof of it) the work of Christ is described by Paul in opposition to another myth, in which there is recognizable the story of Satan, who de- sired to raise himself to supreme power and to claim for himself the adoration of men and angels, and who as a consequence of this rebellion must be annihilated. The correspondence between the work of Satan and that of Christ is not, however, complete, since to Jew- ish thought the idea of an incarnation of Satan was unknown. The relation between the myth of Satan and the Christological drama as Paul conceives it is therefore not one of simple and direct dependence. Paul has simply interpreted the story of Jesus by a doctrine formulated in opposition to the Satanic myth. It would only be possible to see in the Christological development of the Epistle to the Philippians the old- est form of the history of Jesus if this portion had been written to make the Church known to persons who had never heard it spoken of—which is certainly not the case. The incidental manner in which the development proceeds would alone suffice to prove it, even if we did not already know that the Epistle is addressed to Christians to whom it may perhaps be necessary to ex- PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION 11s plain the importance of the work of Christ, but super- fluous to rehearse its history. Replaced in its histor- ical setting, the text of Paul is an attempt to epitomize the history of Jesus in one grand drama of redemption. That it contains dogmatic elements—or, if you prefer it, mythical elements—is undeniable, but these elements do not make up the substance of the story; they serve as comments on it, and supply the materials for the speculative construction erected upon the foundation thus furnished. Attention must be called to an idea borrowed from Judaism by Paul, and which in his eyes possesses cap- ital importance—that of preéxistence. The conception of the preéxistence of souls is found distinctly in certain Jewish texts,”® but more distinctly still that of the pre- existence of the Messiah.*° Paul affirms the preéx- istence of Christ not only when, in the Epistle to the Colossians (i. 15), he speaks of Christ’s part in cre- ation, but also when he uses such terms as the ‘man from heaven” (1 Cor. xv. 47, etc.), or again, when in a portion of rabbinical exegesis he identifies Christ with the rock which accompanied the Israelites in the desert (1 Cor. x. 4). These affirmations do not contradict the human and earthly personality of Jesus; they merely imply that humanity is unable to explain to its roots this personality and activity. Weinel observes 29 Sap. Salomon (Wisdom of Solomon), Enoch xliii. 4 and Enoch (Slavonic) xxiii. 4 and xlix. 2. 80 Enoch, also Esdras. Certain authors hold that in fourth Esdras the conception of the preéxistence of the Messiah may be due to Christian influence. Schiirer justly remarks against this idea that post-Christian Judaism had, in opposition to Christianity, particularly insisted on the humanity of the Messiah, as proved by the declaration of the Jew Tryphon, reported by Justin: “We all expect a Messiah who will be a man born of men” (Dial., xlix. 1), 116 JESUS THE NAZARENE in this connection that these ideas must only be judged by those of antiquity, when it was habitual to explain the mysterious in a personality by forces belonging to another world.** Just as Paul felt that the spiritual Christ dwelt and lived in him (Gal. ii. 20), without for that reason losing consciousness of his own human per- sonality, so also was he able to see in Christ a celestial and preéxisting Being without thereby forcibly de- priving humanity of Him. One is forced to cultivate the mentality of antiquity in order to understand the conceptions in virtue of which the theology of primi- tive Christianity (and especially that of Paul) at- tempted to explain in the person and work of Jesus that which surpassed the common standard of humanity. The notion of the Messiah furnished the idea of pre- existence; that of divine Sonship tended to identify Jesus with the hypostasis of ‘‘Wisdom” and the “Word.” In this manner, starting from soteriology, the mind was quickly led to attribute a cosmological char- acter to Christ. But the movement of Pauline Chris- tology, if so it may be called, progresses from humanity to divinity, and not from divinity to humanity. If in’ the Epistle to the Colossians Paul develops the theme of the cosmological character of Christ and the idea of His sovereignty over all celestial beings, it is because those whom he addressed were fascinated by specula- tions concerning angels, and it was of moment to show them that the worship of Christ attained the realities of the celestial world in a manner more complete and efficacious than devotion paid to angels. The whole of this side of Pauline Christology thus appears to be 81The supporters of the magician Simon also believed that in him was incarnate “the great power of God” (Acts viii. 10). PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION 117 the development of a doctrine elaborated on other grounds. The distinctly theological element of Pauline Chris- tology is not the point from which he sets out in thought. It is the conclusion of it. It is the result of an effort imposed on him in the interest of practical apologetics, rather than of speculative curiosity, to give an interpretation of the person and work of Jesus harmonizing with conceptions about spiritual beings current in his time, and with the position assigned to Jesus by the faith. At times Paul’s thought assumes a character distinctly philosophic. In certain passages we have the impression of being in presence of a cos- mological theory instead of a human history. Such, for example, is the character presented by the portion of the Epistle to the Colossians (i. 13-20) where God is referred to as He “who has delivered us from the power of darkness and brought us into the Kingdom of His well-beloved Son.” Then follows a lyrical de- scription of what this Son is like, “in Him we have redemption, the remission of sins.” ‘For Christ is the very image of the Invisible God—the first-born and head of all creation; for in Him was created all that is in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible—angels, archangels, and all the powers of heaven. All has been created through Him and for Him. He was before all things, and all things unite in Him; and He is the head of the Church, which is His body. The first-born from the dead, He is to the Church the source of its life, that He in all things may stand first. For it pleased the Father that in Him the divine nature in all its fullness should dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself 118 JESUS THE NAZARENE (making peace by the shedding of Christ’s blood offered upon the cross)—-whether on earth or in Heaven: 7? | The conception developed in this passage, where Christ appears as a divine Being, almost an hypostasis, closely resembles that found in Philo, and is certainly related to it. Are we to conclude that the Christ — of Paul is an ideal Being like the Logos of Philo? It does not seem necessary, for the ancient mentality saw no contradiction between the human character of a person and his divine character. One example of the association of the two concepts is given us by the fourth evangelist, who means to relate the story of a man who has lived on earth, and whom he identifies with the creative Logos. | The case of the Epistle to the Colossians is quite analogous; and if the historical side of the person of Jesus is only touched upon by the mention of the cross, this is explained entirely by the character of the Epistle. MM. Couchoud considers as quite decisive in favor of the nonhistorical theory the passage in which Paul speaks of the wisdom of God, “that none of the great ones of this world had known, for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the glori- fied Lord” (1 Cor. ii. 8). M. Couchoud * finds that it follows from this text that those who crucified Jesus’ were mythical beings, not persons of flesh and bone, and that the drama consequently took place between heaven and earth, in an Apocalyptic atmosphere. 32 Translator’s Note-—This passage is taken from the Twentieth Century New Testament, translated from original Greek into Modern English (Westcott and Hort’s text). 83 Couchoud, of. cit., p. 132. PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION 119 And to prove that we are certainly dealing here with a mythical theory, M. Couchoud points to the analogy that exists between our passage and the Ascen- sion of Isaiah, where it appears that if the angels had perceived the descent of the Son of God, they would have opposed it, and would have hindered the accomplishment of His work. They, however, did not collaborate in any way. The part played by them was entirely negative and unconscious.** But, on the contrary, according to Paul, when the archons crucified the Lord, they were not ignorant that He was the Savior,®* but they did not know the divine plan, nor did they realize that the death of Christ would cause their own annihilation. The two concepts differ so much that one cannot have been deduced from the other; they have only a very general theme in common, that of the demon deluded. It is consequently illegiti- mate to interpret the indication given by Paul in an incidental way by the theory developed in the Ascen- sion of Isaiah. But there is more than this. It ts doubtful if Paul attributes to the archons anything more than responsibility for the death of Christ. There is easily to be recognized in them the seventy angels to whom, according to an idea particularly de- veloped in the book of Enoch, God has confided the government of the world. They direct the nations 84'The passage referring to the crucifixion belongs, as we have seen, to a Christian modification (Asc. xi. 19). 85 At any rate, Paul does not say that the archons were ignorant of who was Christ. We cannot accept the interpretation of Dibelius, that Paul, like the author of the Ascension of Isaiah, thinks the archons were ignorant of who Christ was. 86 Enoch (Ixxxix. 59). There is also a reference in the book of Daniel to an angel of Persia, who fought with Michael, the angel of the people of Israel (see Dan. x. 13-20). 120 JESUS THE NAZARENE and inspire their actions.** In saying that they had crucified the Lord, Paul does not appear to have thought of anything other than the crucifixion of Jesus by men, but by men whom he considers as agents of demoniacal powers. This conception is in all points similar to that found in the fourth Gospel, where Jesus is arrested by the cohort and tribune (guided by Judas, into whom Satan had entered), judged, and condemned by Pilate at the instigation of the Jews, and finally crucified by soldiers. The whole drama is explained by the action of ‘‘the prince of this world’”—in other words, Satan (see John xiv. 30).** There is therefore, as Dibelius justly remarks, no contradiction between 1 Cor. 11. 8 (which holds the archons responsible for the death of Jesus) and 1 Thess. ii. 15, where it is stated that the Jews put Jesus to death. We have thus passed in review the principal pas- sages of the Pauline Epistles where allusions to a Christ myth are supposed to be found. In Paul’s writ- ings these reveal a Christological doctrine in which are incorporated elements borrowed from the dogmatic tradition of Judaism, and even fragments of myths, but it is illegitimate to reduce the whole Pauline Christology to these, and to pass over everything which in the Pauline Epistles and teaching had reference to the historical person of Jesus and to His life on earth. ’ In another chapter we shall return to the subject of the relation between these two elements. Let us only note here that this relation appears to be that between 87 They are in any case responsible, since, according to Enoch, they must be judged (xc. 22). 88 Similarly in the Ascension of Isaiah the devil excites the Jews against the Well-Beloved, who crucify Him. PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION tar admitted fact and its interpretation. Far from con- tradicting the historical personality of Jesus, the Pauline Christology would be incomprehensible if it had not made the historical facts its starting point. VI. THE Gospet TRADITION IN PAUL *” The Epistles of Paul contain but few allusions to the Gospel history, but when these are closely examined it is found that the apostle was much more familiar with the life of Jesus than a superficial reading of the Epistles would lead one to think. Paul presents Jesus as a man born of woman (1 Cor. xv. 21; Rom. v. 15; Gal. iv. 4), belonging to the race of Abraham (Gal. iii. 16; Rom. ix. 5), and descending from the family of David (Rom. i. 3). He lived under the Jewish Law (Gal. iv. 4; Rom. xv. 8). The Epistles say neither when nor where, but importance need not be attached to this, since it was only at a relatively secondary stage in the evolution of the tradition that it was considered necessary to es- tablish synchronism in the history of Jesus (Luke iii. 1).4° Paul places himself at a point of view similar to that of Mark. If Paul does not know the parents of Jesus,*? he mentions His brothers, and gives the name of one of them, James (1 Cor. ix. 5; Gal. 1. 19 and iach wor. Xv..7). It is impossible to decide how Paul conceived the 89 See upon this subject Maurice Goguel, L’Apétre Paul et Jésus Christ, 1904. In this work will be found a bibliography to which the names of Joh. Weiss and P. Olaf Moe must be added. 40 These are only indicated in relation to John the Baptist. 41In Paul’s writings there is no trace of the idea of a supernatural birth (see Lobstein, Etudes Christologiques, 1890). 122 JESUS THE NAZARENE character and moral physiognomy of the Lord. It is, in fact, not always possible to recognize whether the passages dealing with this order of ideas apply to Jesus or the Christ in His preéxistence or His glori- fication, and it does not appear that the apostle made upon this subject a very clear distinction. However, even if the passage where Christ is called ‘‘He who ~ knew not sin’ (2 Cor. v. 21) relates to the pre- existent Christ, it would at least show that Paul had a belief in the perfect sanctity of Jesus. ‘This, no doubt, is a dogmatic idea—at any rate, it cannot be that the apostle’s conception of the historical life of Jesus con- tradicts it. The exhortations to the imitation of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 1 and Col. i. 10) imply also the idea of this sanctity. | The love of Christ referred to in Rom. vill. 27, being presented as real, must be considered in connec- tion with the glorified Christ. But the gentleness and meekness of Christ, in the name of which Paul ex- horted the Corinthians (2, x. 1), refer to His char- acter, since in this passage there is a transparent allu- sion to a saying of Jesus (Matt. xi. 29). Concerning the middle period of the life of Jesus, the Epistles contain but very little indeed. Nevertheless, as we have seen, Paul knew of the existence of apostles who | were associated with the Master’s ministry. The cross occupied a predominating place in the preaching as in the theology of Paul (Gal. ili. 1 and 1 Cor. ii. 2). The death of Jesus was portrayed as an act of obedience towards God and of love towards men (Phil. ii. 8 and Gal. ii. 20). It was brought about by the enmity of the Jews (1 Thess. ii. 15) and PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION 123 through the ignorance of the celestial archons who directed them. Paul is aware that Jesus passed the evening preceding His death with His disciples, and that it was during this last meal that He instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. xi. 23). We shall return to this testimony. Does it also imply that Jesus was betrayed by one of His followers? This cannot be determined with certainty, for the term employed may just as well signify “betrayed” as “delivered over to death.’’ It has sometimes been believed that the execution of Jesus is indicated in the passage in which the apostle assimilates the death of Christ to the sac- rifice of the paschal lamb (1 Cor. v. 7). We shall see later that this interpretation is far from being certain. At almost every page of his Epistles Paul reminds his readers that Jesus died on the cross. He speaks of His violent death (2 Cor. iv. 10), of the shedding of blood (Rom. iii. 25), of the sufferings He endured (2 Cor. i. 5, 7; Rom. vili. 17; Phil. iu. ro), of the exhaustion He passed through before expiring (2 Cor. xiii. 4), of the insults He submitted to (Rom. xv. 3). Finally he specially refers to the burial of Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 4-8), and confirms the tradition concern- ing the apparitions (1 Cor. xv. 4-8). When all these indications are grouped together the impression is gained that if Paul does not provide a coherent view of the history of Jesus, he nevertheless possesses one. Furthermore, and more distinctly still, he is a witness of the sayings of Jesus. Resch * went much too far in asserting that there were a thousand 42Resch, Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu. Resch has been criticized very severely, but justly, by Wrede and Jilicher, 124 JESUS THE NAZARENE allusions to the sayings of Jesus ** in the authentic Epistles. Those which are met with may be divided into three groups: direct quotations, allusions sufh- ciently precise to authorize the admission that Paul had the saying of Jesus in mind, and finally reminis- cences almost unconscious. We shall leave aside this third series of allusions, which cannot be exactly defined, but which are far from being without signifi- cance, for they show how the mind of Paul was sus- tained by the sayings of Jesus. To reassure the Thes- salonians, anxious about the fate of believers who died before the second coming, Paul declared to them that at the time of the Savior’s return these would be resurrected to join the living, and he gives this teach- ing “in a word of the Lord” (1 Thess. iv. 15). It is not quite clear what it is in the teaching given which answers to this. The attempts which have been made to rediscover in the text an allusion to a known saying of Jesus, to a passage in the Old Testament, or to an Apocryphal work such as Esdras (iv.), have not suc- ceeded. Some writers ** think that Paul in this passage speaks by revelation, and that he is writing under the inspiration of the Spirit. This interpretation conflicts with the fact that when Paul communicates any teach- ing which he holds was revealed to him, he expressly | points this out (1 Cor. xv. $1; 2 Cor. xD )avee ee most natural thing is to suppose that Paul is quoting in this passage an agraphon, or in other words a say- 43 Exactly 925, of which 133 are in Ephesians, 100 in the pastoral Epistles, and 64 in the Pauline discourses in Acts. He only arrived at this result by stating that a parallelism existed between Paul and the Logia, when the two texts compared possessed only one word in common. 44 Lucken, and Couchoud (Le Mystére de Jésus). PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION § 125 ing of Jesus not incorporated into the Gospel tradi- tion.*® In the seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Paul gives instructions to married people. “To those who are married,” he writes, ‘“‘my direction is (yet it is not mine, but the Master’s) that a woman is not to leave her husband”’ (verse 10). The saying here referred to is the reply of Jesus to the Pharisees concerning the subject of divorce (Mark x. II, 12; Matt. xix. 9), preserved in a slightly dif- ferent form in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 32). What gives to this citation all its importance is the fact that two verses farther on, considering a particular case (that of a Christian whose wife is not a believer, or on the other hand, that of a Christian woman married to a pagan), Paul writes: “To all others ‘I. say, I, not the Master.” Similarly, in the course of the chapter, Paul says that, concerning vir- gins and unmarried women, he “thas no command from the Master” (1 Cor. vii. 25; cp. 40). He is content to give his own opinion. If the word of the Master was in Paul a revelation of the Spirit, as M. Couchoud thinks, it would be very surprising that upon a matter so important for the life of the Church, the Spirit produced no oracle. But there is more than this. In the place of the word of the Lord, Paul gives his own opinion, and he attaches great weight to it. It is not the opinion of an ordinary man, but that of one to whom the Master has given the power to be faithful, who can thus boast of being an authorized inter- preter of His thought and who possesses the Spirit. Notwithstanding this opinion, Paul takes good care not to claim an authority equal to that of the Master’s "49 Schmiedel, Dibelius, Feine. 126 JESUS THE NAZARENE words. Here is a decisive proof that it was indeed a word coming from Jesus that the apostle meant to cite, and to this word he attributes an absolute authority. In the same Epistle also Paul cites a saying of Jesus to establish the right of those who preach the gospel to be maintained by the churches. ‘“The Lord has commanded,” he writes, “that those who preach the gospel shall live by the gospel.” Here is certainly an allusion to the words spoken at the sending forth of the disciples on a mission: “If ye are received in a house, eat and drink what is set before you, for the laborer is worthy of his hire’ (Luke x. 7; Matt. x. 10). We now reach the last of the citations of the words of Jesus found in Paul’s Epistles, and it is almost the most important and the most discussed among them. In the eleventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians *° Paul, in combating the defective manner in which the Lord’s Supper was cele- brated at Corinth, recalls what took place on the last evening of Jesus.*7 He writes: “I have received from the Lord . .. and I have in turn given to you.” Many critics ** consider that the words “I have received from the Lord” indicate that there was a vision at the origin of the tradition concerning the last supper. They mean “I have received”’ 1n the sense “I have it | directly from the Lord.” Other writers adopt a less radical opinion. Loisy *® and Bousset * think that Paul, by a kind of autosuggestion, reached the point of 46 Drews (Die Christusmythe) rejects this text as an interpolation. 47 Maurice Goguel, L’Eucharistie des origines & Justin Martyr. 48 Percy Gardner, The Origin of the Lord’s Supper, 1893. 49 Loisy, Les Mystéres paiens et le mystére Chrétien, 1919. 50 Bousset, D. Schr. d. N.T., ii, p. 3. PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION 127 contemplating in vision the scene that tradition had transmitted to him. Others, like Pfleiderer™ and Haupt, * believe that Paul obtained from a revelation, not the account of the last supper of Jesus, but the knowledge of the sacramental character and signi- ficance of the Eucharist. Nothing in the text of Paul authorizes or justifies such a distinction. Neither can we accept the hypothe- sis of Lietzmann and Ed. Meyer, who suppose that Paul synthesized in the vision on the Damascus road all that he knew of Jesus. Besides, the initial vision did not determine Paul’s knowledge of Jesus; it caused his faith to be born. All intermediate solutions should be put aside. We are in face of a dilemma: Either the entire tradition about the last supper possessed for Paul a visionary origin, or the formula, “I have received from the Lord,” means something other than “T know by means of a vision.” If there had been a vision, it would not diminish in the eyes of the apostle the value of the tradition it related. On the contrary, its authority would be the more increased; it would be surprising that the apostle should not expressly relate a detail of a nature to impress his readers. Paul draws a very close parallel between the two expressions ‘I have received” and “I have trans- mitted’ (or ‘‘passed on’’). They are of the same nature, which would not be the case if on one side it was a case of a supernatural communication received by the apostle, and on the other didactic teaching im- 51 Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, i. 52 Haupt, Ueber die Urspriingliche Form und Bedeutung der Abendmahlsworte, 1894. 128 JESUS THE NAZARENE parted to the Corinthians. And, above all, nothing authorizes us to understand “‘I have received from the Lord” in the sense “I have it direct from the Lord.” The preposition “‘apo’’ which the apostle here uses marks the first origin of the tradition, but without ex- cluding an intermediary. What Paul wishes to say is that in the last analysis tradition goes back to the Lord, who pronounced the words which he relates. When in the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 1) Paul desires to affirm that he holds his apostleship direct from Christ and from God without any human inter- vention, he uses the two prepositions “‘apo” and “‘dia,” which proves that he perfectly conceives an apostle- ship coming from God, but not through human inter- mediaries. ‘The use in our passage of the single prepo- sition ‘‘apo’”’ shows that the apostle only means the first origin of the tradition. What he means to say is that the narrative comes from the Lord by the inter- mediary of men. ‘This detail did not require to be explicitly announced; for the Corinthians it was clear from the very position of the apostle. The direct study of the text and its comparison with the form of the tradition fixed in the Gospel of Mark confirms this conclusion. Doubtless the Gospel of Mark was only.compiled a couple of decades after the Epistle to the Corinthians, but the date of the com- pilation of a work like a Gospel must not be identt- fied with that of the traditions it contains. The two texts read as follows: Mark xiv. 22-25: ‘While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after saying the blessing, broke it and gave to them, and said: Take it; thisis My body. Then He took the cup, and after saying the thanksgiving, gave it to PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION 129 them, and they all drank from it. This is My cove- nant blood, He said, which is poured out on behalf of many. I tell you that I shall never again drink of the juice of the grape until that day when I shall drink it new in the Kingdom of God.” The first Epistle to the Corinthians, xi. 23-25 : “For I myself received from the Lord the account which I have in turn given to you—how the Lord Jesus, on the very night of His betrayal, took some bread, and, after saying the thanksgiving, broke it and said: This is My own body, given on your behalf. Do this in memory of Me. And in the same way with the cup, after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant made by My blood. Do this whenever you drink it, in memory of me.” *° In order to keep to the essential points, we shall note the following peculiarities: 1. Paul gives, after the passing round of the cup as well as after the distribution of bread, an order of repetition. There is none either in Mark or Matthew. Luke (xxii. 19) gives the order only after the dis- tribution of the bread. 2. To the phrase ‘“This is My body,” which accom- panies the distribution of bread, Paul adds “given 53 For the question before us we confine ourselves to comparing the texts of Paul and Mark, bringing into the question Matthew only (xxvi. 29) in a subordinate way. The latter, compared with Mark only, offers some unimportant variations. ‘The account in Luke (xxii. 15-20) appears to arise from the combination of two different traditions. For a more detailed study see M. Goguel (L’Eucharistie, Pp. 105-26). Translator’s Note-——Verses quoted are from text of Twentieth Century New Testament in Modern English, based on Westcott and Hort. 130 JESUS THE NAZARENE for you,” which has no equivalent in Mark or Mat- thew, but only in Luke. 3. Paul has no equivalent to the words which end the repast found in Mark and Matthew—that is to say, no declaration from Jesus that He would drink no more of the juice of the grape before drinking it new in the Kingdom of God. In Luke (xxii. 16) this phrase accompanies the distribution of a first cup. It must, however, be noted that in a fragment which appears no longer to form part of the narrative of the last supper, but which is really the commentary on it, Paul says: ‘“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. xi. 26). This is a reminiscence of the eschatological formula which appears to con- stitute one of the principal elements of the Lord’s Supper. All these peculiarities have a common character; they tend to assimilate the two elements constituting the rite to each other and to present them as a special institution by Jesus. They progress, therefore, exactly in the same way as the evolution of the rite. This appears to have had a double character, which at first was the transformation into the carrying out of a command of Jesus of that which at the origin had probably only been an instinctive repetition favored by the memory preserved of the last evening passed with Him. On the other hand, the evolution had as its result to form out of the distribution of the cup and the bread two parallel and equivalent symbols, while there is every reason to suppose that at the origin these two actions of Jesus had neither the same object nor the same significance. The distribution of the bread PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION 131 symbolized the gift that Jesus made of Himself to His followers and for His followers; the cup illus- trated the meeting place that He gave them in the Kingdom of God. Now the evolution of the texts must have tended continually to conform more closely the narratives to the rite. It is inconceivable, while the believer had the feeling, in celebrating the Eucharist, that he was repeating the actions of Jesus, that additions should have been made to the story which would have differentiated it from the rite. The text, then, of Paul is subordinate compared with the tradition preserved in Mark. Its origin is not to be sought in a supernatural revelation, but in an _his- torical tradition to which Paul is the witness. Beyond quotations, properly so called, there are in Paul’s writings a certain number of allusions to words of Jesus. It will suffice here to indicate the most char- acteristic: ° 1 Thess. iv. g: “Therefore he who disregards this warning, disregards not man, but God, who gives you His Holy Spirit.” Compare with Luke x. 16: “He who listens to you is listening to Me, and he who re- jects you is rejecting Me; while he who rejects Me is rejecting Him who sent Me as His Messenger.” Gal. iv. 17: “They wish to isolate you.”” Compare with Matt. xxiii. 13: “But alas for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees, hypocrites that you are. You turn the key of the Kingdom of Heaven in men’s faces. For you do not go in yourselves nor yet allow those who try to go in to do so.” 54 Translator’s Note-—The English versions are taken from the Twentieth Century New Testament, based on Westcott and Hort’s text from original Greek. 132 JESUS THE NAZARENE Gal. vi. 2: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so carry | out the Law of Christ.” Compare with Mark ix. 33: “Tf anyone wishes to be first, he must be last of all and | servant of all.” 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13: ‘“‘We meet abuse with blessings, we meet persecution with endurance, we meet slander with gentle appeals.’ Rom. xii. 14: “Bless your per- secutors, bless and never curse.’’ Compare with Matt. v. 11: “Blessed are you when people taunt you, and persecute you and say everything evil about you— untruly, and for My sake.” Luke vi. 28: ‘Show kind- ness to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who insult you.” 1 Cor. v. 4: “Having been present in spirit at your meetings when the power of the Lord Jesus was with us.” Compare: “For where two or three have come together in My name I am present with them” (Matt. XVill. 20). 1 Cor. xiii. 2: “Even though I have such faith as might move mountains.’”’ Compare Matt. xvii. 20: “If your faith were only like a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, ‘Move from this place to that,’ and it would be moved.”” Compare Mark xi. 22, Matt xxi. 21, and Luke xvii. 6. 1 Cor. xiil. 3: “Even though I give My substance’ to the poor.” Compare Luke xii.93: “Sell what be- longs to you and give in charity.” Compare Mark x. 21 and Matt. xix. 21. 2 Cor. x. 1: “I exhort you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ.” Compare Matt. xi. 29: “I am meek and lowly in heart.” Rom. xii. 17: “Never return injury for injury.” PAUL AND GOSPEL TRADITION — 133 Compare Matt. v. 39: “I say unto you, resist not evil.” Rom. xiv. 14: “I know and am persuaded that nothing is defiling in itself.” Compare Matt. xv. 11: “It is not what enters a man’s mouth that defiles him.” It is impossible to do anything except speculate on the origin of the acquaintance that the apostle Paul. had with the Gospel tradition. The nucleus of what he knew must have dated back to the period preceding his conversion, and have depended upon what was told about Jesus in the first church of Jerusalem. The knowledge which he possessed in his pre-Christian days was enriched and developed afterwards. The abundance of the allusions to the words of Jesus and the reminiscences found in the Epistles, the fact that Paul appears more often to allude to say- ings known to his readers, causes one to think he must have been acquainted with a collection of the sayings of Jesus. The majority of those to which he refers appear to belong to the tradition of the Logia. Hence one is induced to entertain the hypothesis that Paul must have been acquainted with a form of this col- lection. The Epistles of Paul afford then precise testimony in support of the existence of the Gospel tradition be- fore him. They presume a Jesus who lived, acted, taught, whose life was a model for believers, and who died on the cross. ‘True it is that in Paul are only found fragmentary and sporadic indications concern- ing the life and teachings of Jesus, but this is explained on one hand by the fact that we possess no coherent and complete exposition of the apostle’s preaching, and 134 JESUS THE NAZARENE on the other hand by the character of his interests. He had no special object in proving what no one in his time called in question—namely, that Jesus had existed. His unique aim was to prove (what the Jews refused to admit) that Jesus was the Christ. CHAPTER VI | THE THEOLOGY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL I. THe CHARACTER OF PAULINE THOUGHT THE oldest systematic form of Christian thought which we can discern is that which the Epistles of Paul (whose composition took place approximately between the years 50 and 62) makes known to us. We find therein a theology if not theoretically worked out, at any rate of very coherent character. It is important to examine its character and see whether it may be considered as a development from Jewish and Greek premises, or if it be necessary to its comprehension to bring in an historical factor—the life and death of Jesus. The fragmentary developments which we possess in the Epistles only deal with the essential points in the system ; the picture resulting from their assemblage and combination should nevertheless—with the exception of some unimportant details—give us a fairly accurate sketch of the general aspect that the apostle’s teaching must have presented. If Paul’s was a powerful and systematic mind—and the Epistle to the Romans alone suffices to prove it— his teaching was not dominated by philosophic preoccu- pations. Paul preached a gospel and did not teach a doctrine. He was the bearer of a message of salva- tion. He desired to pluck men from perdition and death, and assure their access to the Kingdom of 135 136 JESUS THE NAZARENE God, not to instruct them and reveal to them a history and an explanation of things. Religious affirmations predominate in the Epistles. But these affirmations | presuppose a very general conception, which includes not only a history of humanity, but a theory of the world and a doctrine concerning God, celestial beings, and an explanation of the origin of evil, sin and death. II. Gop Anp DEmons Although the apostle’s thought was rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, his point of view as re- gards divinity is sufficiently different from the radical and uncompromising monotheism which characterizes certain declarations of the second Isaiah or of Jere- miah: “Then shall it be for a man to burn, for he will take thereof (wood) and warm himself: yea, he kindleth it and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god and worshipeth it, he maketh it a graven image and falleth down thereto. He burneth part thereof (tree) in the fire; he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast and is satisfied; yea, he warmeth himself and saith, ‘Aha! I am warm. I have seen the fire.’ And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image” (Isa. xliv. 15-17; cp. Jer. x. 3-11). The point of view of Paul might be better styled “monolatry” than “monotheism.” “Although there are,’ he wrote, ‘either in heaven or on earth many beings which are called gods. . . . There are indeed many gods and lords, yet is there for us but one God, the Father, from whom all things proceed (and for THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 137 Him we live) and one Lord, Jesus Christ’? (1 Cor. viii. 5, 6). Practically—at least, for him who pos- sesses the gnosis—this formula amounts to that of monotheism, since Paul offers it as a commentary upon the other formula which the Corinthian Gnostics em- ployed: “We are aware that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one” (1 Cor. viii. 4). The conclusion drawn by Paul is that he who possesses the gnosis—that is, he who knows the true nature of demons—can enter with impunity into relation with them when consuming food offered to idols. He no longer pays them worship, and he no more seeks their favor than he fears their enmity. But those who have not yet attained this degree of knowledge ought to fly from communion with idols which for them would be pollution.t. Paul distinctly declares that an idol is nothing—that is to say, it is not a divine being. The worship paid to an idol is not directed to God, but to demons, and has the effect of putting the worshiper into direct relation with them, and thereby exposing himself to divine anger. There exist, therefore, other gods than the Unique Father— these are the demons who, under the guise of idols, are adored by pagans. Idolatry is an insult to God, who alone has the right to be adored. In the very fact that they have claimed worship, the demons have made themselves enemies of God. Although we do not find in the Epistles explicit theories on this point, it is very probable that Paul does not explain the origin of demons by a fundamental and irreducible dualism, but by the theory of Satan, a celestial being 1 Concerning communion with demons, see Maurice Goguel, L’Eu- charistie, p. 167. 138 JESUS THE NAZARENE who rebelled against God. An allusion to this theory is found in the great Christological passage of the Epistle to the Philippians, where the attitude of the preéxisting Christ is opposed to that of another being who sought to seize for himself full divinity—that is to say, desired to impose himself upon man to be wor- shiped. Through the rebellion of Satan, who seduced away in his train a faction of celestial beings, there was created in the face of God an army of demons hostile to Him. ‘There are the enemies referred to in 1 Cor. xv. 25, 26. ’ The last to: be ‘conquered and destroyed will be Death, who is not to be imagined as an abstract power, but as a personality, Thanatos, probably identical with Satan himself. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, whose thought upon many points is closely related to Paul’s, the devil is directly identi- fied with Thanatos in the formula, ‘the who has the power of death—that is to say, the devil’ (Heb. li. 14). he same identification is not found formally in Paul. It appears, however, to be inferable from fairly precise indications. Paul speaks of a “‘god of this world” (2 Cor. iv. 4) who is evidently the devil, and on the other hand he asserts the existing world is subjected to the dominion of death owing to sin (Rom. v. 12, vi. 23; 1 Cor. xv. 21). According to 1 Cor. v. 5, the abandonment of the incestuous to the power of Satan will have as its consequence the destruction of the flesh—that is, the death of the guilty one. According to 1 Cor. x. 10, the rebellious Israelites in the desert were delivered over to the exterminator (Satan), who destroyed them.* It follows from these 2“Through the jealousy of the devil, death entered the world” (Wisdom of Solomon). ‘The devil was a murderer from the first” THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 139 passages that Satan and Thanatos are two equivalent terms, or, more precisely, Thanatos is Satan consid- ered as exercising one of his essential functions. Satan before his rebellion was one of the beings of the army of heaven. ‘The existence of a whole hier- archy of beings inhabiting the heavens—angels, arch- angels, thrones, dominions, principalities and powers— particularly referred to in the Epistle to the Colossians (i. 16)—has nothing in it which is contrary to the will and design of God. Evil comes uniquely from the action of these beings, who, instead of keeping the subordinate position appertaining to them, dared to rise and oppose themselves to God. Thus is explained the fact that the Pauline theory not only insists upon a disorder introduced into humanity, but also of a disorder within the cosmos, making necessary the re- demption not of humanity alone, but of the entire cre- ation (Rom. viii. 19-22)—in other words, the reéstablishing of the sovereignty of God (1 Cor. xv. 24-26). III. Sin anv Evi If this notion of cosmic disorder is fundamental in the thought of Paul, and if the redemption of sinners is with him but a portion of a more general work, in his preaching and his Epistles it is the notion of human redemption which occupies the premier place. Looked at from the point of view of humanity, evil takes the form of sin. It is a state of things whose (John viii. 44). “Satan, the Evil One, and the Angel of Death are identical” (Rabbi Simon ben Lakisch). 140 JESUS THE NAZARENE essential characteristic is ignorance of God, estrange- ment and opposition to Him (1 Cor. xv. 34). Sin dishonors God (Rom. ii. 23); it is rebellion against His will and His law (Rom. ii. 8, iii. 5, xi. 30, etc.) ; it is also a state of weakness (Rom. v. 6, vi. 19). Paul does not only conceive it as an act or series of acts, but as a state characterized by the subordination of humanity to a power hostile to God (Rom. iii. 9, v. 19, Vi. 17-20, vil. 20; Gal. ili. 22). It is in the flesh that resides the power of sin, and through which it is ex- ercised (Rom. vi. 12, vil. 5-14, vill. 3).° Sin is universal. ‘The whole beginning of the Epistle to the Romans is devoted to establishing this thesis, and par- ticularly that (contrary to an idea cherished by Juda- ism) the sin of the Jews does not separate them less from God than the sin of the pagans (Rom. ii. 1-3, 18, xi. 323 Gal) i.21).) “The law,,indéed,: tsenoene means of escaping from the domination and conse- quences of sin. Its first task is to reveal it (Rom. iii. 20). In a certain sense it gives sin manifestation by transforming a tendency more or less unconscious into open rebellion (Rom. iv. 15, v. 13, vil. 7-13; Gal. iii. 22). In itself, however, the law is holy, just and good (Rom. vii. 12). It was designed to give life in showing the path to follow to obtain life, or, in other ° words, access to the Kingdom of God (Rom. vii. 10), but it has been disarmed and rendered impotent by the flesh (Rom. vii. 14, viii. 3). It is the disorder intro- duced into the world which has prevented the law pro- ducing the effects it should have done. 3'We may leave aside the question, difficult enough to answer, as to whether the flesh is the cause or only the seat of the sin, and if it is so by its very nature or as a result of a fall. THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL I4I This brings us to the question of capital importance in the interpretation of Paulinism—the origin of sin. Faithful on this point to Jewish dogma, Paul seeks the origin of sin in the disobedience of Adam. His theory is expressed in the parallel between Adam and Jesus Christ, which appears to have been one of the habitual themes of his preaching, and of which we pos- sess two examples, both incomplete, in 1 Cor. xv. 45-47, and in Rom. v. 12-21. The central affiirma- tion is that sin entered the world through the disobedience of Adam (Rom. v. 17~19). This dis- obedience has introduced a principle which produces consequences even where there are no acts of rebellion similar to that of Adam (v. 21). Paul certainly conceived the disobedience of the first man according to the narrative in Genesis (iii. Ae to which he alludes (2 Cor. xi. 3). But the disobedience of Adam is only an historical explanation of the origin of sin. It shows when, and in what conditions, sin entered the world; it does not explain why it exists. The. theory, therefore, only puts the problem further back; it does not solve it. So Paul looks at the problem again and from another point of view, and he indicates—for it is a question of indications only and not of a theory systematically worked out—how the seduction of Satan was exercised and what the relation is between the sin of man and the rebellion of Satan against God. It is in Rom. 1. 18—32, where is to be found the sole passage that might be called a philosophy of religion, that these indications are met with. The starting point of the argument is an admission of fact. The wrath of God is manifested from heaven upon the injustice and im- 142 JESUS THE NAZARENE piety of mankind (Rom. 1. 18). How is it that men are thus so opposed to truth and have refused to wor- ship God? ‘To this question—which is, besides, not expressly formulated—Paul replies by rejecting the idea of a complete ignorance of God on the part of man. God revealed Himself to men, but they fell into © idolatry (1. 19-23). he punishment of this attitude is that God abandoned men to their passions, which caused them to fall into all kinds of crime and im- purity (i. 24-32). In the beginning there was, there- fore, a kind of natural knowledge of God, whose invisible attributes, infinite power and divinity are revealed in creation (1. 19, 20). But man rejected this knowledge of God offered to him (i. 21); he refused to give the worship due to God; his heart became hardened, and has lost itself in vain specula- tions. ‘Thus came about the adoration of men and animals, rendering to the creature the worship which rightly belonged to the Creator. Idolatry is the root of all sin. The divine wrath which it provoked aban- doned man to his evil passions. These without doubt existed before this, but they were to some extent disciplined and kept under control; it was this control which was destroyed. Idolatry does not affect hu- manity alone. Paul does not conceive it as a perver- : sion of the religious sense which substitutes imaginary beings for its real object. Idolaters adore demons— that is, celestial spirits in rebellion against God. In idolatry we find in alliance two orders of beings in rebellion against God: Satan and his angels, who claim the worship which only belongs by right to God, and mankind, which consents to accord to them the wor- . ship which it refuses to God. ‘The second of these THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 143 facts is a result of the first. In 2 Cor. xi. 3 it is shown that at the beginning of sin there was a seduc- tion by Satan; it is the act whereby the demons obtained the worship of mankind. Human sin is thus in direct relation with the rebellion of Satan. Sin is thus not only a human fact; it is a cosmic fact; it is but one consequence of Satan’s rebellion, one special case of the disorder which was thus introduced into the uni- verse. In fact, notwithstanding the extremely valuable indications which are given us in the passage in Rom. Vill. 19—22, it is almost exclusively of the consequences for humanity of sin that Paul speaks. Sin involves death. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. vi. 23). But the mechanism of this consequence, if we may so term it, is presented by Paul under two different aspects. Sometimes we meet with the idea of a kind of logical and necessary relation: sin breeds death. This takes place to some degree of its own nature and with- out God intervening to exact any sanction. This is what Paul calls “the law of sin and death” (Rom. Witpeore chs vs) 12). In consequence of sin man has fallen under the dominion of death, which must reign until at the moment at the end of time, when it will be destroyed by Christ (1 Cor. xv. 24, 25). But beside this, we find almost at every page of the Pauline Epistles the idea that death is the result of a judgment. The con- cept of judgment and the return of the Lord who will execute it has such precision in Paul’s thought that, in a passage like 1 Cor. iv. 3, the word “day” * is meant in the sense of judicial authority—of judgment. Paul writes: ‘We shall all appear before the judgment Se oe NA RRS ARIS lh NS eS SO SR 4Day of Lord’s return. 144 JESUS THE NAZARENE seat of God” > (Rom. xiv. 103; cp. with 2 Cor. v. 10). With the idea of judgment must be combined that of the divine wrath which at the end of time will fall upon the guilty (1) Thess: 1,10, vo 03) Rom! 1) 1S; ais venee Col. ii. 6). There are thus in Paul’s thought two conceptions. According to one, God appears as a Judge who executes upon sin the penalty it deserves; according to the other, He is a witness, to some degree passive, or rather the penalty He imposes comes, not at the end of time, but at the very moment that sin appears in the world. It consists entirely in the fact that humanity is abandoned to the power of Satan. It is probably because he found these two concep- tions in the religious traditions of his nation that Paul allowed them to coexist in his mind, and that he perhaps was unaware of the contradiction existing between them. IV. Tue REDEMPTION The disorder in the world and the corruption of human nature demands a work of restoration, a re- demption. Paul insists greatly on the idea that the initiative of this work belongs to God alone. “But , all this is the work of God,” he wrote (2 Cor. v. 18). Man here can boast of nothing.’ It is God who calls 5 There is a certain amount of incoherence in Paul’s thought on this. The Judge is sometimes God and sometimes Christ (2 Cor. v. 10). The first is related to the ancient Hebrew tradition of Yahweh (judge); the second is more Messianic. Dialectically, the contradiction is resolved by the idea of God judging through Jesus Christ (Rom. ii. 16). In a subordinate position is found in Paul the idea of judgment of the world by the saints (see 1 Cor. vi. 2). 6In his struggle with Judeo-Christianity he insists much upon the THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 145 men to salvation’ (1 Thess. ii. 12, v. 9; 1 Cor. i. 9; Rom. viti. 28, ix. 24, xi. 32). Redemption appears at first as an effect of the love of God (Rom. v. 5, viii. 39). It is also an act of the grace of God. This notion of grace, which holds a central position in Pauline thought, is, above all, a practical one. Grace, in the life of Paul, had been an experience before it became an object of his theological meditations. There is noticeable in him a certain lack of homogeneity— at least in expression—redemption being attributed sometimes to love, sometimes to compassion, some- times to the grace of God. This would be difficult to explain if we were dealing with a logically constructed theory, but, on the contrary, it is very readily explained if experience of redemption had preceded dogmatic reflection. Paul feels that what he is as a Christian and an apostle is the work of the grace of God. “By the grace of God,” he writes, “I am what I am.” He feels that he had undergone, at the moment of his conversion, a change which his former life had not prepared; that he was thrown outside his routine ex- istence; that he had been coerced. It was this same force which was at work in his apostolic activity (1 Cor. xv. 10; 2 Cor. xii. 9). Just as the Christian life of Paul in his own eyes is an original creation and not the resultant of earlier factors, so also it is that the notion of grace which explains it has no deep roots in Judaism. Indeed, in the Septuagint the word ‘‘grace’’ means only the ideas idea that the Law is impotent to effect salvation. See, for example, MOM, 131. -19,. 411. . 20; Galsiiti) 16, 7 We may leave aside the question whether He destines all to salvation, or a part of mankind only, and whether the fact that all are not saved is explicable by divine decree or by human freedom. 146 JESUS THE NAZARENE of favor, benevolence, benediction, and pardon, and not that of a divine force which creates in man some- thing new. Its origin cannot be looked for in Hel- lenism either. In Philo’s writings grace means the natural gifts which constitute man a reasonable being, but so far away is Philo from Paul’s characteristic idea of aid accorded to a sinner, and precisely because he is a sinner, that the assertion is found of the eternal springs of grace being dried up when wickedness began to enter the world (De opificio Mundi). In the in- scriptions the term ‘“‘grace” means a gift bestowed by the sovereign authority. In certain Pauline texts grace appears, without the thought being precisely defined, as the primary source of salvation (2 Cor. viii. 9, xiv. 9; Gal. i. 16). In others it is a divine force which seizes man, calls him, transforms him, justifies him—in other words, makes of him who was condemned a ransomed being, a child of God. It is a power which takes possession of man and permeates his entire life. But its independence of man does not exclude the moral character of its action in producing a renewal and a transformation of the personality (Rom. iil. 24, iv. 4, x1. 5, 6; Gal.i. 15). Sometimes grace is hypostatized; it seems as though it were a personal power—for example, in the parallel. between Adam and Jesus Christ (Rom. v. 15-21)— but this is nothing more than a figurative mode of expression. The essential character of Pauline theology, its originality in comparison with Judaism, is to substi- tute the notion of grace for that of merit, of justice imputed for that of acts performed. Upon this point Paul is distinctly conscious of separating himself from THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 147 the religion of his fathers. It is this opposition which explains the energy with which he insists upon the absolutely gratuitous and unearned character of sal- vation. However, the independence of grace has its limits. From the thesis he afirms with so much fer- vor, Paul does not draw what would seem to be the logical deduction—namely, that the unique and all- sufficient cause of salvation is to be found in the pa- ternal heart of God. The comparison between Pauline thought and the teaching of the Gospel is here very instructive. In the parable of the prodigal son pardon is not subordinated to the accomplishment of any other condition than the repentance of the sinner—that is to say, it depends upon no relations outside those between the offender and the one offended against. In Paul it is not the same thing. For him salvation would be impossible without the cross. What is the reason of this difference? It is not enough to say that as a Pharisee Paul was too much concerned to safeguard the holiness of God to accept the idea of a free pardon for sin, for besides the holiness of God, Pharisaism insisted also upon His omnipotence. The true reason is elsewhere. Paul was obliged to explain the fact of the death of Christ, which thus appeared as one of the most essential premises of his theology. From the necessity of this explanation arose the Pauline doctrine of redemption. In Paul’s writings the pardon of God is not the effect of a free, spontaneous and immediately efficacious ini- tiative. It is subordinated to the accomplishment of a work of redemption. For Paul salvation is not only a “processus” within the divine, designed to conciliate love and justice. This 148 JESUS THE NAZARENE order of ideas which is represented in the Pauline doctrine of redemption does not exhaust it. It cor- responds to the idea of sin conceived as a violation of — the law of God and as rebellion against Him. But the divine pardon granted to man would remain fruit- less if it were not accompanied by a victory gained by God over the evil powers, who, owing to sin, exer- cised their dominion over humanity. God has con- ceived for the realization of salvation a plan which reveals a wisdom infinitely superior to that of the world. This plan of redemption is the object of the teaching imparted by the apostle to the perfect (1 Cor. ii. 6; Rom. xi. 33). This is the mystery which is re- vealed unto the elect (Col. 1. 25, ii. 2). Redemption has a double object. Man must one day appear before the judgment seat of God, and if he be abandoned to himself he will not escape condemnation. Redemption has the effect of making him the object of a judgment of acquittal, and thus having part in the divine Kingdom. On the other hand, the sinner must be delivered from the evil powers who have dominion over him. To these two elements correspond two different moments of the work of redemption— justification on one side and redemption properly so called on the other. On one side this distinction cor-' responds to that which Paul makes elsewhere between the two parts of the redeeming work of Christ, between that accomplished by His death and resurrection and that which will be accomplished at the day of His glorious return at the end of the age. The work of justification is achieved in principle, while that of redemption is only hoped for (2 Thess. it. 8; 1 Cor. | xv. 24). However, if redemption depends upon the THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 149 victory that Christ is to gain at the end of the age over all His enemies, His triumph is certain, for by His death and resurrection Jesus has conquered and despoiled the powers and dominions—that is, the spir- itual beings hostile to God to whom humanity is now enslaved (Col. ii. 15). This it is which gives to the Christian hope of Paul so special a character. The work of justification is described by Paul with much more precision than that of redemption. This is not only because the first develops upon an historical plane, while the second will take place at the end of the age, and will in consequence possess an extrahistorical character. If, in theory, redemption, on Paul’s theo- logical system, possesses as much importance as justi- fication, it is not so from the practical point of view. The whole missionary effort of Paul—and Paul was a missionary before all else—is concentrated upon the acceptation of justification by the sinner. ‘This point once gained, everything else followed, for, from the individual point of view, redemption appeared as a consequence of justification, and the spirit which the justified one receives is the assurance of it (Rom. v. 10, viii. 23; Gal. iv. 6). V. Tue CuHrist AND His Work The fundamental idea upon which the Pauline doc- trine of justification rests is that of two worlds, one succeeding the other. The present world, placed under the dominion of evil powers, has for its essential char- acteristics sin, death and impotence (Gal. 1. 4; 1 Cor. Meow, Oil, 183.2 Cor, iv..3).-1t/is: destined, to perish. The world of the future is the Kingdom of 150 JESUS THE NAZARENE Christ and of God. The time which passes between the death of Christ and His return is an intermediate period, in which the two economies (if we may so express it) overlap each other. The old dispensation (or economy) still subsists, since of the powers which reign over it, it is said that they will perish (1 Cor. il. 8, xv. 24); it is never said they have perished; their destruction is foretold for the end of time (1 Cor. xv. 26). The present world is dominated by three facts: Sin, the consequence of Adam’s fall, and death introduced by it into the world; the promise given to Abraham, which, amid the darkness of a world condemned, causes hope to shine; and finally the Law of Moses. For each of these points of view the cycle is completed by the manifestation of Christ. Through it sin is van- quished, the faithful are restored to life (1 Cor. xv. 22; Rom. v. 17), the promise made to Abraham is fulfilled (2 Cor. i. 20; Gal. ili. 16), and finally Christ is the end of the law (Rom. x. 4; cp. Gal. ill. 21, iv. 5). The redeeming work of Christ involves at once God and man. Because of its essentially moral character, it can only be accomplished by a being in close soli- darity with humanity, therefore by a man. But as humanity is radically impotent, and the initiative for ° salvation belongs to God, it can only come through a being who is not himself a sinner but in intimate union with God, therefore by a celestial being. Hence the double character of the Pauline Christ, a human per- sonality and at the same time superhuman, not God (the term is not found in Paul), but the “Son of God’’—a contradiction that the apostle solves by the idea of the incarnation of the preéxisting Christ. THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 151 Christ belongs at once to the divine and the human spheres; His personality has a double aspect (Rom. i. 4). But there is nothing in Paul to resemble that which later was to be the orthodox dogma, because his thought does not express itself in theological defini- tions, and also because he does not picture to himself a combination in the person of Christ of incongruous elements, but rather the succession of diverse phases. The Pauline idea is that of a divine Being, the image of God (2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15), a celestial man (1 Cor. xv. 48, 49), the first-born of creation (Col. i. 15), who, laying aside His celestial attributes, be- came man, and who, after His resurrection, received the name of “Lord” (Phil. 1. 5-11). Everything which concerns preéxistence is outside of experience, as Paul conceives it, and has a double origin. This proceeds from the theological system of Judaism, in which the notion of the Messiah was very developed, but also from the theological reflec- tion. If Jesus, by His death and resurrection, had brought about that which He had, in fact, accom- plished according to the experience of Paul, it neces- sarily follows that His personality must have been unlike that of other men. The name by which Paul most frequently designates Christ is that of ‘Son of God.” This is but an image, for there is nothing in the apostle’s writings which resembles the idea to be met with later, of a Son be- gotten by God. The Christ remains distinctly subor- dinate to the Father. He was created by the Father. This follows from the parallel drawn between Adam and Him, but also from the term “image of God,” which recalls the narrative of the creation of the first 152 JESUS THE NAZARENE man in the image of God (Gen. i. 27) and also of the term “first-born.” The idea of the celestial man or the typical man of 1 Cor. xy. 48 is another form of the notion of preéxistence which is affirmed in a series of explicit texts—for instance, in the declaration of the Epistle to the Romans that God had sent His Son (Rom. viii. 3; cp. Gal. iv. 4; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Phil. i. 5). It follows also from the part taken by Christ in the creation (1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 15-17). At the end of time—that is, at the moment chosen by God in the plan conceived by His wisdom (Gal. iv. 4)—-Jesus was born in the midst of the Jewish people, a descendant of Abraham and of David (Rom. i. 3). He was in all points obedient unto God (Rom. v. 17-19; Phil. 11. 8) and had in no wise known sin (2 Cor. v. 21). The texts in which a human appear- ance of Christ is spoken of (Rom. viii. 3; Phil. ul. 7) must not be interpreted against the reality of Jesus, for, as H. J. Holtzmann has very well observed, the Greek word employed is not opposed to the notion of identity, but to that of difference.2 ‘That which ex- © plicitly confirms this interpretation is the fact that Paul attributes to Christ flesh and blood (Rom. i. 3, ili. 25; 1 Cor. x. 16: Col. i. 20), while these are, in his view, elements which characterize human nature, and are 8It may appear, given the notion of the flesh, that there is a con- tradiction between the humanity of Christ and the fact that He is without sin. The solution of this is given by the parallelism drawn between Adam and Jesus Christ. Just as Adam, before the fall, was at the same time man and without sin, so it is possible to conceive that God had realized for Christ what Adam had been at the creation. It is to be noted that Jewish thought does not rigorously affirm the universality of sin. A Jewish Apocryphal book, fourth Esdras, says that nearly all men are sinners and that very few are not. This offers some striking affinities with Paul’s thought (vii. 139). THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 153 foreign to the celestial life (1 Cor. xv. 50). The essence of the work of Christ is His death upon the cross. The cross is for Paul the power and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. i. 18, 23, 24), the sole reason that man can have to be assured of his salvation (Gal. vi. 14), and for this the enemies of the Gospel are called the enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. iii. 18). If Paul combated with the energy and perseverance known to us the idea of justification by the works of the Law, and particularly by circumcision, it is in order that the offense—that is, the efficacity of the cross— may not be diminished (Gal. v. 11, vi. 12; 1 Cor. i.17). It is upon this idea that the apostle insists with the greatest emphasis (Gal. i. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 3; Rom. iv. 25, v. 10). Several concepts are introduced to explain it—for instance, that of Christ as the paschal lamb (1 Cor. v. 7), that of Christ as propitiation (that is, a means of salvation conceived as a levitical sacrifice) (Rom. iii. 25), and also that of the sacri- fice by ransom (Rom. vi. 17; Gal. iii. 13). But the governing thought which explains the process of justifi- cation is that of the condemnation of sin in the flesh of Christ (Gal. iii. 13; 2 Cor. v.21; Rom. viil. 3). Jesus, while being perfectly holy, was treated by God as though He were sin personified and condemned. This is not the idea of expiatory sacrifice incidentally indicated in Rom. iii. 25, for the victim of this sacri- fice had to be of perfect purity, while the death of ‘Jesus on the cross was that of one condemned, loaded with sin. Neither is it the equivalent of ransom, for the punishment of sin in the flesh of Jesus was a legal sanction and not a satisfaction accorded either to God or devil. Neither can it be said, as does M. Loisy, 154 JESUS THE NAZARENE who assimilates the death of Christ to the sacrifice of the ram dedicated to Azazel, that Christ took upon Himself the sins of men. ‘These sins, in fact, are not destroyed by His death. They subsist after it, with all their consequences, and are only destroyed by the virtual death of the believer realized by mystical union with Christ. We have in Paul an original conception in which juridical notions play a much greater part than in the Jewish conception of sacrifice.® The death of Christ without His resurrection would be without efficacy. The resurrection is not only for Paul a reparation accorded to Christ, a recompense for His sacrifice; still less is it a consequence of His divine nature. If Christ died without subsequent resur- rection, His sacrifice was in vain (1 Cor. xv. 14-17). He was raised again for our justification (Rom. iv. 25). When Paul uses the verb “‘to rise again” in the active voice it is always God who is the subject of the sentence. Christ did not return to life by Himself.” It is God who raised Him (1 Thess. i. 10; Gal. 1. 1; 1Cor, vi. 14; xv.15's (2 Core ivi 143) Rome Through His resurrection Christ was restored to the rank and to the possession of the attributes which He had in His preéxistence, and He is even placed at a higher rank than that which He occupied (Phil. ii. 11), 9 The question whether Paul taught a doctrine of expiation has been much discussed. There are many texts which seem to hint at it; those on which it is said that Christ died “for us” or “for our sins,” but it is not certain that “for us’ means “in our place” and not “in our interest,’ and that “for our sins’ may have the sense of “accepting responsibility for our sins,’ and not “because of our sins.” It is rather the idea of solidarity which seems to adapt itself to Paul’s thought (2 Cor. v. 15). 10 As in the case of the Johannine conception, “I have power to lay down my life and power to take it again” (John x. 18). THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 155 and seats Himself at the right hand of God (Rom. viii. 34; Col. iii. 1). He enters into the possession of the divine glory. In His glorious existence Christ was essentially spirit (1 Cor. xv. 45), and even the Spirit * (2 Cor. iii. 17; Rom. viii. 9, 10). The phrase “Christ, power of God” (1 Cor. i. 24) makes of Him almost a “mode” of the divine activity. The death and resurrection of Christ also modify His position relatively to demoniacal beings. Hence- forward, indeed, they have no power over those who belong to Christ (Rom. viii. 37). He has gained the victory and reéstablished order in the cosmos (Col. i. 18-20). He has taken the first place and brought into subjection all other powers. Nevertheless, accord- ing to 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25, the victory of Christ can only take place at the end of time. The reconciling of these two things, in appearance contradictory, seems at- tained by the idea that in the text of the Epistles to the Philippians, Romans and the Colossians they are considered as principles and in the absolute, while in the first Epistle to the Corinthians they are consid- ered in their chronological development. In the Epistle to the Romans it is a question of a certain victory, but one which does not exclude a struggle. The Satanic powers are not destroyed; they can still wage the last battle with Christ, but they will be unable to triumph. In the Epistle to the Philippians (1. 9-11) Christ receives a name before which every knee shall bow, but this does not imply that they will not attempt to rebel. On the other hand, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, if there is a battle, the LALO Se ie 11 Believers mystically in union with him ceased to be flesh to become spirit (Gal. v. 24; Rom. vi. 1). 156 JESUS THE NAZARENE issue is fixed in advance. ‘The victory of Christ is certain. According to Col. i. 20 Christ gains the victory by the blood upon the cross. ‘This may be compared with 1 Cor. ti. 8, where the statement is — made that if the archons of this world had known the wisdom of God—that is, understood His plans— they would not have crucified the glorious Lord. Why is this? Because they would not have devoted their efforts to the realization of a work which must have for them as consequence their overthrow and spolia- tion. The cross is thus the means by which the princes of this world are to be annihilated and despoiled. It is impossible to interpret with precision the thought of Paul on this point, for it proceeds only by allusions which are concerned either with the teaching he had himself given, or with the current ideas of his time— for example, those developed in the Ascension of Isaiah, and which, to appeal directly to the intelligence of his readers, it sufficed to evoke. The full and complete victory of Christ over the spirits would only be gained at the end of the age. After His resurrection Christ is seated at the right hand of God (Rom. viii. 34; Col. ii. 1). He will , reign until all enemies have been put under His foot, and the last enemy of all—death. Then He will sur- render the Kingdom to His Father, and this will be the end (1 .Cor.. xv.24; 26). How is this Pauline Christology formed? It is often said that the apostle was the creator of Chris- tology. This formula is only exact if the word “crea- tion’”’ be understood, not in the sense ex nihilo, but in the sense of a synthesis formed from preéxisting ele- THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 157 ments. The Pauline thought appears as an original solution of a problem which arose out of the circum- stances themselves, for the Christological problem existed from the very moment that one single man continued to believe in Jesus in spite of the ignominy of His death. But the solutions or the outlines of them were swept aside by the powerful synthesis of Paul, which dominated all later Christian thought. Certain elements of the Christology of Paul have a speculative origin. These are specially the notions of saintliness —in so far as it is not the observation of a fact but the affirmation of a principle—and of preéxistence. The notion, too, of the Messiahship has a theoretical and absolute character. The drama proceeds accord- ing to a necessary plan, while if we adopt the idea in the parable of the vineyard, according to the thought of Jesus, we are led to the conception that the arrival of the Messiah was a last attempt at redemption, which would not have taken place if the wickedness of man- kind had not rendered fruitless the mission of the prophets. The doctrine of the necessity of the death of Christ marks, indeed, an essential point of differ- ence between the thought of Paul and that of Jesus. For Jesus death is the supreme proof of love for His fellow men, which He will give them if it be necessary. It is like His entire ministry, but not separated from it; it is an appeal addressed to sinners; it is not—what it is according to Paul’s thought—the very cause of the pardon of God. Reflection and speculation are dom- inant in Paul. As for the preponderance accorded to the cross—one might almost say the eclipsing of Christ’s ministry in face of the unique and extraor- dinary radiance of His cross—it can only be explained 158 JESUS THE NAZARENE by the angle under which Paul entered into contact with the Gospel. There is in Paul an element whose origin is in the Jewish Messianic doctrine.” Brickner has shown that after eliminating what is specifically Christian in the Pauline Christology there is found a system of coherent ideas which finds its place in the most natural manner in the development of the Jewish Messianic doctrine. This Christology existed in Paul’s mind before his conversion. Certain Hellenic elements are also to be recognized—those treating of the relations of Christ with the spirits—but they may have been incorporated with Jewish ideas before Paul. Nothing, however, would be more erroneous than to consider the Pauline Christology as only a simple development of Jewish or Judeo-Hellenic premises. That which gives him his originality is the synthesis built up of these elements and the historical episode of the life and death of Jesus. It is not possible to reduce to a common element the historical and dogmatic constituents of the Pauline Christology, as M. Couchoud would do. This is proved by the fact that we do not find in Paul a homogeneous conception of the cause of Christ’s death, as should be the case if the entire history of Jesus, and of His death in particular, had been the postulates of a dogmatic system. According to 1 Cor. ii. 8 Christ died crucified owing to the acts of the archons or re- bellious angels against God. According to Rom. vii. 3 12 Concerning the Jewish Messianic doctrine see Schiirer (Gesch.), Bousset (Die Religion des Judentums), Baldensperger (Die Mes- sianischapokalyptischen, etc.), Briickner (Die Entstehung der Paul- ischen Christologie). THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 159 He died (although He was not in person a sinner, but through solidarity with humanity accepted by Him) because God treated Him as though He were sin itself, and inflicted the chastisement which sinners deserve. These two conceptions are not dialectically irrecon- cilable. One might imagine the archons as agents used by God to punish sin. Doubtless the two conceptions are far from having the same compass or being on the same plane. The first is only indicated in a quite incidental manner, in a dissertation which treats, not of the death of Christ, but of the wisdom of God. The second is in direct relation with the doctrine of justification, which is at the heart of the apostle’s, thought. The coexistence of these two explanations proves, however, that we are not dealing with a ready- made conception, nor with a system developed from myth or doctrine, but from the interpretation by this doctrine of an historical fact. VI. THE JUSTIFICATION AND REDEMPTION OF THE SINNER The same conclusion follows, with better evidence still, from the study of the Pauline theory of the justification and redemption of the sinner. The death of Christ, as we have seen, abolishes the consequences of sin, and contains in germ the defeat of the demons to whom humanity is subject and whose action pro- duces sin and death. But, however efficacious it be, this death does not abolish the actual consequences of sin. The theoretical destruction of its power does not save mankind from continuing to bear as a fact the 160 JESUS THE NAZARENE consequences of sins committed, and if the demon- powers are in principle condemned, mankind still under- goes the effects of its subjection to them in the past. Moreover, their power continues to be exercised up to the time when their defeat will be fully consum- mated. The work accomplished by Christ in dying on the cross does not at once justify sinners ipso facto by one act, to some extent magical; it merely makes jus- tification possible—that is to say, the acquittal of man before God’s tribunal. Justification opens to the be- liever access to the Heavenly Kingdom and gives him assurance of his future redemption. | Salvation can only be attained for the individual by a moral act. This plainly follows from the term of reconciliation employed by Paul. This term implies the change of the relation between persons. ‘‘We be- seech you in the name of Christ,’’ writes Paul, exer- cising thus what he calls the ministry of reconciliation, “be ye reconciled with God” (2 Cor. v. 20). To the act of God giving His Son there must correspond an act of man. God calls the sinner; the latter must re- spond. Justification is the act of imputing to the sinner the justice attained by Christ, who, considered as sin- ner, has put Himself through His death right with the Law, and who lives henceforth a life freed by the power of God from the dominion of sin and death. The starting point of justification is faith. This term and words derived from it are often found in Paul.* Faith is the specific phenomenon of the religious Chris- tian life. The type of believer is Abraham. In what did his faith consist? In this, that God, having 13 About 280 times in the authentic Epistles. THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 161 promised that he should be the father of a large poster- ity, he had confidence in this promise at the time when his age and that of his wife rendered its realization im- probable (Rom. iv. 17-21). Faith is therefore not founded upon the evidence of a truth, but upon the confidence inspired by God and His omnipotence. Ac- cording to 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5 faith has its origin in the power of God, and not in human reasoning. Faith is faith in God (1 Thess. i. 8), but there is also faith in Christ (Gal. ii. 16; Rom. iii. 22), because it is through Christ that God keeps His promise. To believe in Christ is to believe in the promises of God; it is there- fore also to believe in God. Faith has for its origin the preaching of the Gospel by the apostles and the missionaries whom God has appointed for this object (Rom. x. 14); it includes an intellectual element, the idea of God who by His power raised up Jesus from the dead. Paul mentions it between the gift of wisdom and that of knowledge (1 Cor. xii. 8, 9). But faith is not only knowledge and confidence; it is also (and this is the most original element in the Pauline conception) mystical union. The believer united to Christ is made a participator in everything touching Him, and partic- ularly in His death and resurrection. According to I Thess. v. 10 Jesus died in order that believers, whether sleeping or waking, may be with Him. ‘This supposes the establishing of an indissoluble bond between the believer and the Savior. In x Cor. i. 9 ‘“ccommunion’”’ with the Son of God, the Lord, appears as an ideal held up to the faithful. He who is united with the Lord becomes a spirit with Him * (1 Cor. vi. 17). In Gal. 14In this passage the idea of the union of believers with the Christ serves as the starting-point of the argument, which proves 162 JESUS THE NAZARENE ii. 19, 20 Paul declares himself to be crucified with Christ: ‘It is not I that live; it is Christ that liveth in me,” and this suppression of the individual life has for its consequence the suppression of all accidental differ- ences of race, sex and social situation (Gal. ili. 27, — etc.). According to Rom. viii. 29 the object of pre- destination is that believers may be made like unto the image of the Son of God, so that Christ may be the first-born among many brethren (Rom. vi. 3-5, xiv. Orion iy. 510, a, exicwoe The explanation of this union is furnished by the idea of the death of Christ in solidarity with human- ity. ‘‘As one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that the living should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose for them” (2 Cor. v. 14, 15). The mystical union has for its effect the rupture of the bond uniting the man to the world. Heasks again: ‘‘Can it be that you do not know that all of us who were baptized into union with Christ Jesus in our earthly baptism shared His death? Consequently, through sharing His death in our bap- tism, we were buried with Him that just as Christ was raised from the dead by a manifestion of the Father’s power, so we also may live a new life. If we have . become united with Him by the act symbolic of His death, surely we shall also become united with Him by the act symbolic of His resurrection. We recognize the truth that our old self was crucified with Christ, in order that the body, the stronghold of sin, might be rendered powerless, so that we should no longer be slaves to sin. For the man who has so died has been that we are concerned with one of the fundamental ideas of the apostle with which the faithful must have been very familiar. THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 163 pronounced righteous and released from sin. And we believe that as we have shared Christ’s death we shall also share His life. We know that Christ, having once risen from the dead, will not die again. Death has power over Him no longer. . . . So let it be with you; regard yourselves as dead to sin, but as living for God, through union with Christ Jesus” (Rom. vi. 2- 11).1° There is here no image, but a precise formula which is to be taken literally. Christ is free in regard to sin because in dying He paid His debt. Sin, death and the law have no more dominion over Him. The same thing is also true of the believer mystically united with Christ. He also is free with regard to sin, death and the law. In the last passage cited, what is said about baptism might be interpreted symbolically. But other passages show that this explanation does not suffice, and that to Paul, baptism is more than a symbol. It effectively brings about the union of the believer with Christ, “For we were all baptized to form one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or freemen” (1 Cor. xii. 12). Faith and baptism are thus presented in Gal. i. 27 as the two means through which is realized the union of the believer with the Lord, “For all of you who were baptized into union with Christ clothed yourselves with Christ.” *° That which is true of baptism is also true of the Eucharist. This, for Paul, is an act instituted by Jesus in commemoration of His sacrifice, and as a a 15 Translator’s Note.—English version from Twentieth Century New Testament, based upon Westcott and Hort’s text. 16 This is confirmed by the practice of baptism for the dead to which Paul alludes in 1 Cor. xv. 29, without pronouncing any censure or making any reservation. (Author's note.) 164 JESUS THE NAZARENE means of entering into relation with Him in His death. In this act, with which the entire Church is associated, the faithful are invited to sit down at the Lord’s table and receive His cup. ‘The bread and the wine dis- tributed to them are the flesh and blood of Christ. They put those who consume them in direct relation with Christ through His death. ‘The fruit the believer obtains by his participation in the repast is the con- sciousness of being by its means intimately united to thedying Christi t RGore x io oie. Baptism and communion, then, occupy in the Pauline system exactly the same place as faith. Like it, they are the means through which mystical union is attained. What relation exists between these two things? Have we here two notions which, if not contradictory, are at any rate different as to their origin and not reducible to each other—the idea of mystic union through faith which represents Paul’s thought, while the theory of the sacraments is only an interpretation of the rite practised in the Church? ‘This solution seems to us to encounter several difficulties. If the sacraments were in the background of Paul’s thought it would be comprehensible that he should have spoken of them in I Cor. xi, where there was an abuse to be attacked, . but not that on a quite practical question (the con- sumption of meat sacrificed to idols) he should have relied upon the meaning of the communion as a decisive argument. Neither would the texts relating to baptism be comprehensible. On the other hand, seeing that in so systematic a mind as the apostle’s the simple juxta- position of two different conceptions is very improb- able, one is forced to suppose that the mystical union attained by faith and that attained through the sacra- THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 165 ments are only two aspects of the same fact. The link uniting them is not the idea that the sacrament is only a symbol of the faith alone efficacious. The apostle, in fact, attributes a real, though harmful, action to the communion when observed without rever- ence, (1 Cor. xi. 27-30). The sacrament acts of itself ex opre operato and without the intervention of faith, but faith—that is, the conscious desire to become one with Christ—is necessary to direct its action. To understand this it is necessary to get rid of the modern ideas opposing symbol and reality to each other, and to remember that for the mind of antiquity the symbol partook of the reality of that which it represents; for instance, a name was not a simple designation, but the very substance of the thing named. The mystical union accomplished for every believer that which had been accomplished for Christ by His death and His resurrection. This is implied in the fundamental affirmation of Paulinism, “‘the believer is justified by faith.” Certain texts seem to favor an in- terpretation imputing to Paul the idea of effective justi- fication—that is, a transformation of the believer. In Rom. viii. 4, for instance, it is stated that God “‘con- demned sin in the earthly nature (of Christ) so that the requirements of the Law might be satisfied in us who live now in obedience, not to our earthly nature, but to the Spirit.” But it is a question here not of justification, but of sanctification, which while inti- mately related to, is still different from it. Similarly the exhortation to sin no more which is addressed in Gal. ii. 17 to those who have been justified by faith in Christ would have no meaning if justification were identical with sanctification. Justification is forensic; 166 JESUS THE NAZARENE it is the act of God the Judge, who proclaims “just” (that is, acquitted) the sinner who appears as the accused before Him. It is an anticipation of the Last Judgment. The mystical union in linking the fate of the believer to that of Christ breaks the fetter which keeps man the slave of sin and death. In like manner as Christ, who lived in the flesh during His earthly ministry, has become spirit, the believer also is no longer flesh, but spirit (Rom. vi. 12). But if in theory the believer has broken with sin and the carnal life, in practice this rupture is not consummated. It suffices to show this to recall the important place filled in the Pauline Epistles by exhortations to sanctification (for instance, Gal. v. 1-6, 10). In fact, sanctification is never com- pletely realized, and it is this which explains the some- what special character which the Pauline morality assumes.*’ ‘The fundamental idea upon which it rests is that of the abolition of the Law*® (Gal. ii. 24, Iv. 4, 5, v. 18; Rom. vi. 14, vil. 1-6). “I am dead unto Law,” wrote Paul (Gal. 1. 19). ‘The believer is then a free man (Gal. y. 1; Rom, vi. )18,022->r Coram I-19, etc.). His activity should, in principle, be spon- taneous. Since he belongs to God, he ought to live according to God; since he is a spirit, he ought natu- 17Upon the Pauline morality see Wernle, Der Christ und die Siinde bei Paulus; also R. Bultmann, Das Problem der Ethik bei Paulus. 18 By this is meant the abolition of the ritual part of the Law, not of its moral part. But the inadequacy of the terminology which does not allow the apostle to distinguish exactly between the two things prevents his reaching an exact statement, as is seen by the passage 1 Cor. ix. 20, where Paul declares that he is not under the Law, although he cannot be without a law, since he is under the law of Christ. THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 167 rally to produce what Paul calls the fruits of the spirit (Gal. v. 16; Rom. viii. 12). Things are not, however, so simple in reality, and obligation, abolished in principle, is restored in fact. That which seems as though it should be shown as a consequence is formulated as a postulate.” Man should strive to realize the fruits of the spirit, which are in harmony with his new nature. He ought to struggle and labor to escape indeed the very law which in theory no longer exists for him (Gal. v. 13; Rom. Vit Ts, vill. 7, 8). The morality of Paul answers to the dualism of the fact of flesh and spirit which subsists in the believer until redemption is achieved; it possesses, therefore, only a temporary value, and will be abolished when believers shall fully live the life of the spirit.”? There lies here a difference between theory and practice which must be explained. Paul has expressed in touching words which remain classic the sense of this imperfec- tion of sanctification: ‘For I am so far from habitually doing what I want to do that I find myself doing the very thing I hate. . . . But when I do what I want not to do, I am admitting that the Law is right. This being so, the action is no longer my own, but that of sin which is within me. I know there is nothing good in me—I mean in my earthly nature. .. . Miserable 19 A curious fact must be pointed out that in the exposition of the Epistle to the Romans where the modus operandi of redemption is analyzed the argument ends by an exhortation, “Being justified by law, let us have peace with God.” Logical consistency seems so plainly to require a declaration that many manuscripts have substi- tuted “we have” for “let us have.” 20 Concerning the Pauline morality should be noted among the motives proposed by the apostle the place occupied by the idea of the imitation of Jesus (1 Thess. i. 6; x Cor. xi. 1; 1 Col. ili. 13). 168 JESUS THE NAZARENE man that I am! who will deliver me from the body that is bringing me to this death?’ (Rom. vii. 15—24).°* Doubtless the apostle gives a cry of triumph to follow this lament—‘‘Thanks be unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord’’—but the motive of this cry is the hope of being delivered in the future. ‘The liberation of those who are in Christ is therefore only a potential liberation. This dualism which exists in man after justification is explained by the fact that the believer, although dead to the flesh, continues to live in the flesh. Neither his body nor the world in which he lives has been trans- formed. He has only received the promise of the Spirit as surety of that which will be fully realized later (2 Cor. 1.\22, v..5; Rom: viii. 23).% Glorysthe celestial attribute reserved for the elect, is only prom- ised him (Rom. v. 2, viii. 18). Salvation is not fully accomplished. ‘By our hope we were saved.” Again he writes: ‘Our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed’? (Rom. xiii. 11). In the same Epistle further he writes: “If while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, how much more now that we are justified by His blood shall we be saved by His life?’ ‘The Epistle to the Philippians similarly affirms that salva- tion is not yet attained (i. 6). It is at the second coming of the Lord that it shall be fully realized (Rom. viii. 18-25). VII. THe GENESIS OF THE PAULINE THEOLOGY How are we to explain this seeming contradiction in Paul’s conception of the position of the justified man, 21 Translator’s Note.-—Twentieth Century New Testament, Westcott and Hort’s text. THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 169 which is not in fact what in theory it ought to be? For the faithful it is only at the end of time that will be consummated the thing which in principle follows from the new situation in which he finds himself through mystical union with Christ. This is one of the most difficult and delicate problems which the interpretation of Paulinism presents. It is by no hazard that it is so; it is the consequence, we would say without hesita- tion it is the penalty of the association in Paul’s thought of two incongruous elements. There is, indeed, some- thing more than the complex situation in which man struggles between two antagonistic forces which alter- nately attract and repel him. The contradiction is much deeper; it lies at the very root of Pauline thought. In the way Paul conceives it, the situation of man between justification and redemption is of a provi- sional and temporary character. Paul expects the re- turn of Christ at a very early date to complete the work begun.” Justification and redemption, although separate, remain organically linked one to the other. They are two acts of the same drama. So inter-related and complementary are they that their separation can only be conceived by a complete dislocation of the Jewish doctrine of the Messianic redemption. ‘There is no equivalent for this dislocation in the whole Jewish Apocalypse. We do not think that it is possible to give any other explanation than the following: The conception of redemption, in Paul, is anterior to his Christian faith. As a Rabbi, he already expected the 22In 1 Thess. iv. 15 and 1 Cor. xv. 51 Paul conceives that the return of Christ will take place during his life. He had announced this to the Thessalonians in such a way that the latter had begun to suppose that the faithful who died before the Savior’s return would be excluded from salvation (x Thess. iv. 13). 170 JESUS THE NAZARENE arrival of a Savior who would rescue men from the | dominion of sin and death to bring them into the King- dom of the Spirit, whose advent would be marked by the triumph of the Messiah over the enemies of God. This faith was his at the time when Jesus in his eyes was only a justly condemned blasphemer. Then happened the mysterious event upon the Damascus road which gave him the conviction that Jesus was living and in glory. From this he concluded that what His disciples had said about Him was true: that Jesus had been the holy Son of God, sent upon earth to accomplish His work. Hence was established an un- expected synthesis between the doctrine of redemption (already in his mind) and the story of the Nazarene Jesus, crucified by Pontius Pilate, but raised again from the dead since He showed Himself to His friends and to Paul himself, and henceforward was living in the spirit life. The synthesis of these two elements (the story of Jesus and the doctrine of redemption) Paul was un- able to effect completely at once. There were in the mission of the Savior-Messiah certain elements which did not permit of their relation to Jesus of Nazareth. | These were all those which (to put it in one word) related to a triumphant Messiah, restorer of the sov- ereignty of God. Paul resolved the difficulty by divid- ing the mission of the Messiah into two parts and in reserving for the glorious return of Christ (which he considered very near) everything it was impossible to discover as accomplished in the life, death and resur- rection of Jesus. The Pauline doctrine thus proceeds from a dislocation of the work of redemption. It therefore has no single source; it is not born out of THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL 171 the elaboration or the transformation of a myth, but proceeds from the interpretation of an historical fact by a doctrine already preéxisting it: the fact consti- tuted by the life and the death of Jesus and by belief in His resurrection. The theology of Paul assumes therefore a double starting point for its development. One is a doctrine of redemption whose origins must be sought in Judaism;”* the other is an historical epi- sode, the life of Jesus. It is not possible, as M. Cou- choud has attempted, to attribute to it a more homogeneous character, and by reducing one of these elements to the other to maintain that the history of Jesus was deduced from a drama of redemption. Indeed, it would not be possible to find in the history of Jewish thought—more or less syncretic—an analogy to the process that must be admitted in Paul; for to presume the existence of certain forms of Judaism of the Diaspora sensibly differing from that of Pales- tine and which would not have been without a strong influence on rising Christianity would not be to state a true parallel. We know of nothing, in fact, in the Judaism of the Diaspora which offers any real analogies with the Pauline speculations on this point, and it would be unquestionably making use of an inadmissible historical method to attempt the explanation of a given fact by something which is only a conjecture. But it is not entirely the absence of any parallel which forbids us to see in Paulinism an exclusive product of specula- tion; it is also the existence of incoherences and internal contradictions which we have pointed out. If the a ae een RR 23 In a Judaism which, no doubt had not been entirely uninfluenced by foreign ideas, principally Greek and Persian. 172 JESUS THE NAZARENE Christian doctrine had come forth in its entirety from the brain of Paul, as Minerva did from that of Jupiter, it would present a homogeneous character. The manifest traces of the sutures we have discovered plainly prove its double origin and justify us in afirm- ing that the Pauline system of theology assumes and certifies the historical tradition about Jesus. CHAPTER VII THE NONPAULINE EPISTLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT I. THetr CHARACTER THE interpretation of the testimony which the non- Pauline Epistles give concerning Christ calls for the same observations already made concerning those of Pauline origin. These documents are the Epistle to the Ephesians, attributed to Paul, but in which one is obliged to perceive a secondary imitation of the Epistle to the Colossians; the pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Tim. and Titus), in which there appear to have been inserted fragments of authentic Pauline letters; the first Epistle of Peter, at the basis of which are found the essential ideas of Paul; the Epistle to the Hebrews, written by a man very familiar with the Alexandrine philosophy and exegesis; the second Epistle of Peter and that of Jude, closely related to each other, and apparently of fairly recent period; and lastly, the Epistle of James, who makes use of the traditional Jewish and Greek ethic, and shows very striking analogies with the literature of the Wisdom of the Old Testament.'' With the exception of the Epistle of James, all these works belong to the literary species which Paul created by his correspondence, and all betray the influence of his theology. 1 The three Epistles of John, which cannot be considered separately from the fourth Gospel, are not mentioned here. 173 174 JESUS THE NAZARENE None of these letters pretends to be a complete exposition of Christian faith. ‘They are written to believers, and only expound the ideas and the beliefs which they assume to be those of their readers.’ Several among them, so far as their date can be fixed with any preciseéness, were written at the time when the Gospel literature began to be spread abroad. All these Epistles should be considered as the commentary upon certain points of Christian doctrine and tradi- tion; it is illegitimate to employ in what concerns them the argument ex silentio—that is, to suppose their authors were ignorant of certain ideas because they do not give them expression. Very frequently in the Deutero-Pauline literature the idea of the imitation of Jesus is met with. ‘The idea could only have been a moral force for men who were acquainted with the human history of Jesus. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, after having proposed to his readers the imitation of the heroes of the faith spoken of in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition (xi. I-40), concludes by exhorting them to fix their eyes upon Jesus, who ‘‘endured the cross and despised the shame” (Heb. xii. 1, 2). The way in which this exhortation is connected with the examples given in the eleventh chapter is only compre- hensible if this also is referred to an historical model. The author also exhorts the faithful to suffer insult as Jesus Himself had done (xiii. 13). The writer of the first Epistle of Peter declares to his readers who are called upon to suffer persecution that they ought to 2This is illustrated by a significant fact. In the Johannine Epistles, which, as all are aware, are closely related to the fourth Gospel, there is no allusion to the facts about the life of Jesus. THE NONPAULINE EPISTLES 175 find consolation in the thought that Christ also suf- fered in the flesh (iv. 1), and has left to them an example that they may follow in His footsteps. Thus he makes his thought precise: ‘‘Reviled, He reviled not again; He suffered, but He did not threaten; He entrusted His cause to Him whose judgments are just” *® (ii, 21-23). The author of the Epistle to the Ephesians, exhort- ing the faithful to live in love for one another proposes that they should follow the example of Christ, ‘‘who loved us and gave Himself for us” (v. 2). II. THe PAsTorRAL EPISTLES It is true that in the pastoral Epistles the name of Jesus is never found, but always ‘“‘Jesus Christ,” with or without the epithet of the Lord, which is a designation of the celestial Christ, not of Jesus in His earthly ministry. It is also true that there is no direct men- tion of His death in certain passages where an allusion would seem natural* (1 Tim. 1. 14; 2 Tim. 1. 9, etc.; Titus ii. 4-7). The writer specially speaks of the manifestation of the glory of God in Jesus Christ CT bimeners 2 Timi. 9, etc.; Litus 11. 4, etcs) ; arid if he insists upon the human character of this manifesta- tion, he does so without citing any concrete detail, no doubt because these details were in the minds of his readers. Concerning this manifestation, he employs the word epifaneia (2 Tim. 1. 10; Titus iii. 4), which 8Immediately after the author speaks of the death of Christ on the cross (1 Peter ii. 24). It is evident that there is an allusion here not to an Apocalyptic drama, but to the crucifixion. 4But account must be taken of the effect upon the mind of his readers of the form of words used by the writer. 176 JESUS THE NAZARENE appears to put it in the same category with the mani- festation of Christ at His return® (1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim, iv. 1, 8; Titus 11.13), but it must netobe forgotten that the identity of the Christ expected — at the end of the age with the Jesus who had already appeared in history had for the Christian faith much importance. In the first Epistle to Timothy there is a definite allusion to a testimony given by Jesus in the presence of Pontius Pilate. The writer urges Timothy to fight the good fight of faith, to seize hold upon eternal life to which he had been called, and of which he had made confession in the presence of several witnesses. “I urge you as in the sight of God, the source of all life, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate made the great profession of faith—TI urge you to keep His commandments without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. vi. 12-14). [he mention of the Roman Procurator in the same conditions, found in Ignatius and Justin, has given rise to the suggestion that the phrase in the first Epistle to Timothy might be a first sketch of the article in the creed ‘‘He suffered under Pontius Pilate.’ *® M. : Kattenbusch thinks that the testimony of Timothy which is referred to is that given by him at the time of his baptism. Concerning Jesus Christ, the phrase “give testimony’ may have a double meaning, and relate both to the declarations of Jesus and to His sufferings. In the article of the creed the mention of Pilate is only a chronological indication. It is too 5Von Soden, Das Interesse des apostolischen Zeitalters an der Evangelischen Geschichte (Freiburg im Br., 1892). 6 Von Soden, of. cit.; Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol. THE NONPAULINE EPISTLES hy brief to have been introduced in an apologetic interest to confirm the reality of the crucifixion.’ M. Kattenbusch believes that the phrase in the creed arises from the transfer of a formula of exorcism, “In the name of Jesus Christ, crucified by Pontius Pilate.” * This theory gives rise to various objections. The parallelism which exists between the confession of Timothy and that of Jesus Christ compels us to give the term the same meaning in the two cases, and nega- tives the introduction (even in a subordinate manner) into the confession of Jesus Christ of the notion of suffering and death, which would not apply for Tim- othy. The idea of the suffering of Christ is so all- important in Christian thought that it could not have been merely suggested. This idea once excluded, there is no longer any connection (according to M. Katten- busch’s view) between the passage of the first Epistle to Timothy and the article of the creed. Nevertheless, it is dificult to admit that the coincidence between the two phrases is quite fortuitous. The explanation offered by M. Kattenbusch of the article of the creed is no more satisfactory. If the mention of Pontius Pilate possessed a chronological interest, an indication of this kind would have been more in place in reference to the birth of Jesus. The insertion into the creed of a formula of exorcism which does not seem to have had wide currency does not appear to be more natural either. An interpretation of the passage in the first Epistle to Timothy, infinitely more satisfactory than those 7If such were its character, the function of Pilate should be stated. 8 This formula is attested by Justin, by Irenzus and by Palladius. 178 JESUS THE NAZARENE hitherto proposed, has been offered by M. Baldens- perger, who seems to us to have definitely explained the meaning and scope of the text simultaneously with its relations to the article of the creed.® We shall sum up in its main features his illuminating study, of which all the conclusions (it seems to us) must be accepted. The phrase concerning the testimony of Jesus could not have had for its object to fix the time in which He lived. Neither Timothy nor the other readers of the Epistle required enlightenment on this point. Besides, the writer has no care for history or chronology. His eyes are fixed on the future and not on the past. Neither does he dream of affirming the reality of the facts of evangelical history, or, as the mythologists have it, of making history out of a myth. The mere mention of Pontius Pilate would, besides, be quite inadequate to do that. One of the preoccu- pations dominating his thought was the contest against heresies. ‘Those which he attacks have a practical character and a reference to the life of the Christians. What is known by us about the author’s thought per- mits us to affirm that if he had found himself con- fronted by a negation respecting the reality of the life . of Jesus, he would not have confined himself to a com- bat on a side issue by the phrase, ‘‘He rendered testi- mony before Pontius Pilate’’-—a phrase which, besides, was a simple allusion to an episode known to his readers and in no wise in doubt among them. The mere mention of the fact permits the argument to be drawn from it. It was a question of testimony and not of suffering; there is therefore no reason to suppose an ®Baldensperger, I] a rendu témoignage sous Ponce Pilate (Revue @hist., Paris, 1922). THE NONPAULINE EPISTLES 179 anti-Docetist polemic as is the case in other texts where Pilate is mentioned.*® The starting point of the argu- ment is not the testimony of Jesus, but that of Timothy. It is only incidentally, and as an encouragement for Timothy to persevere in his attitude, that the testimony of Jesus is recalled. M. Baldensperger does not think that it is Timothy’s baptismal confession of faith which is referred to, but a testimony which Timothy had given of his faith before the magistrates who had interrogated him on the subject. ‘One is justified in saying,’ writes M. Baldensperger, ‘that Timothy, like Christ, had been summoned before the Roman magistrates and that he had publicly confessed his faith. In this way the text of 1 Timothy is replaced in the historical environment to which it belongs by origin. It is a period of persecutions. The duty of the leaders of the Church was clearly marked out; they were obliged to insist that the disciples of Jesus should publicly confess their faith without lending themselves to more or less formal denials to save themselves from persecution.” ** And M. Baldensperger points out very appositely that a whole series of maxims found in the New Testament recalls this duty of public confes- sion. ‘‘Whosoever shall confess Me before men,” said Jesus, “I will confess him before My Father who is in heaven. Whosoever shall deny Me before men, the same will I deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. x. 32, 33). Doubtless all these declarations did not have their first origin at the period of the persecutions, but the way in which they stand out in 10 For instance, Ignatius, ad Magn., xi; ad Smyrn, i. 2; ad. Tral. x, x3 11 Baldensperger of. Cit., p. 20, etc. 180 JESUS THE NAZARENE relief reveals clearly an undeniable solicitude and shows anxiety to outline clearly to Christians their duty, as is also done in his exhortation of the First Epistle of Peter: “‘Sanctify the Lord in your hearts, — being always ready to give an account before whomso- ever may question you of the faith which is in you” * (1 Pet. iit. 15). Under these circumstances, given the importance which the idea of the Christ as a model possessed in Christian thought, it was natural that the episode of the interrogation of Jesus by Pilate should come to be insisted upon. In this was seen a living ex- ample of the attitude incumbent upon the faithful when interrogated by the judicial authorities. But why did the writer of the Epistle propose to Timothy the exam- ple of Jesus when He had already given testimony? The answer is—the history of the persecutions proves it—that generally one single interrogation of the Christians was not considered sufficient. In 2 Tim. iv. 16 there is a reference to a first appearance before the magistrates, which implies necessarily that there will be a second, and Pliny expressly states that he was in the habit of interrogating accused persons two or three times. ‘This is the reason that Timothy was , exhorted to persevere in his attitude. In the critical circumstances through which Christianity was passing, exhortation to fidelity in the confession of faith was always a present need. It was therefore originally the 12 Concerning the importance of testimony at the period of perse- cutions see Apoc. ii. 13. The fact that the Christians of Pergamos did not deny their faith at the time of the martyrdom of Antipas has caused the presence of Nicolaites among them to be considered as having little importance, while the struggle against heresy was one of the dominating occupations of the author of the letters to the seven churches. THE NONPAULINE EPISTLES 181 idea of the ‘‘Christ as model’’ for the confessors of the faith which gave birth to a symbolical formula destined to enter later into the Apostles’ Creed. There remains to explain the transformation by which the phrase “He suffered under Pontius Pilate’? was substituted for “He gave testimony before Pontius Pilate.” M. Baldens- perger supposes an error of interpretation of the word marteria, taken in the sense of martyrdom and not of confession. This explanation is perhaps not sufficient. It is difficult to accept in respect of a phrase which must have long had for Christians a great practical value. Perhaps it might be possible to think of another explanation. The various phrases of the creed which refer to Christ are so arranged as to constitute a summary of His history, and it might be asked if it was not through an assimilation with what is stated con- cerning the crucifixion and death that the general idea of martyrdom (which besides also included the notion of testimony) has been substituted for the narrower one. Whatever the explanation may be, the scope of the passage 1 Tim. vi. 13 stands out clearly through the exegesis of M. Baldensperger. It is no question of the evolution of history from a myth, as M. Couchoud thinks, nor of an effort to crystallize by a chronological detail a history which might seem inconsistent, but the utilization, with an immediately practical aim in view, of a detail in the tradition known to every one, teaching a lesson upon which it was necessary to insist. This conclusion illuminates this fact: that for the writer of the pastorals the Christian faith rested upon real history. This affirmation is found in such a form 182 JESUS THE NAZARENE that it proves the writer had no sentiment of making an innovation. Ill. Tue Epistre To THE HEBREWS Although the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes current use of the name of Jesus, and not only of Jesus Christ or the Lord, the historical person of Jesus does not in his thought possess very special importance. He who is designated by the name of Jesus is the glori- fied Lord who preéxisted and who is now in heaven. Thus it has sometimes been thought that the Christ of the Epistle to the Hebrews was a purely mythical per- sonage,’* and, indeed, as Windisch * has observed, this Jesus was a celestial Being, and not a man who had made a profound impression upon those who had known Him. His history is presented in abstract terms which almost all apply to the traditional type of the Messiah, borrowed from the Old Testament, and especially from the Psalms. What is said about His death is in some aspects lacking in everything of historical character. The Jesus of the Epistle to the. Hebrews is a High Priest who offers His own blood in sacrifice (ix. 11); He is not the condemned of the Sanhedrin, executed by the Romans.** But these fea- tures, which have considerable importance, are not the only ones to point out. If Christ preéxisted, and if He is now in celestial glory, the link which unites these two periods of His history is His incarnation. Herein, 13 Drews, Die Christusmythe; Smith, Ecce Deus; Couchoud, Le Mys- tere de Jésus. 14 Windisch, Der Hebrdarbrief. 15 Von Soden, of. cit., p. 120. THE NONPAULINE EPISTLES 183 as Von Soden has well observed, is a conception closely related to that of the Epistle to the Philippians. The idea of the human life of Jesus in the thought of our author does not play a purely minor part; it explains the redemption accomplished by Jesus—a redemption at the center of the author’s thought. He emphasizes certain features which clearly show that a history of Jesus, and in particular of His death, was familiar to him, and forms the foundation of his theology. He indicates that the manifestation of Christ took place at a recent date, in a period which he considers the last in the world’s history (i.2). The message had been brought to him by those who had first heard the preaching of Jesus (ii. 3). He describes the sufferings and temptations of Jesus in words which would be with difficulty explicable as theoretical views, and he maintains that they should be a model and a consolation to men who also have to support suffering and persecution. ‘‘Because He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor those who are tempted” (11. 18). “Although He was the Son of God, He learned obedience from His sufferings; and being made perfect, He became to all those who believe in Him the author of eternal salvation” (v. 8,9). The lot of Christ is exactly the same as that of all men, who must die once, after which is the judgment (ix. 27, 28). The whole constitutes a summary of Christ’s sufferings; there is no intention by the author to rewrite a history that in any case his readers know, but there is a certain care to depict in it a drama of redemption and the desire to attach a practical lesson to it. 184 JESUS THE NAZARENE One single detail concerning the Passion is related in the Epistle to the Hebrews. ‘This is that Jesus died outside the city (xiii. 12). This detail is not found in — any of the Gospel narratives, but seems to be implied by John (xix. 20). This is, besides, extremely prob- able, and seems to be presumed in all the accounts. Because the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews brings this detail into relief owing to the allegorical signifi- cance which he accords it, there is no legitimate reason to suppose that he postulates it for ulterior con- venience. In a speculative construction this detail would not be thus isolated; it would form part of a general picture interpreted as an allegory. In the con- ditions in which it is found, it is only to be explained by supposing that it is borrowed from a narrative of the death of Jesus, from which it is detached because of its allegorical interest. IV. Tue First Epistte oF PETER, EPISTLE OF JUDE, THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER AND THE EPISTLE OF JAMES The first Epistle of Peter, if we except the concept of the Christ as the model of the faithful, does not contain any allusion to the facts of the life and death of Jesus. ‘The Gospel history is presented as the realization of a prophetic program. ‘The holiness of Jesus is based upon Isaiah (lili. 9) and in 1 Pet. i. 22, when referring to His sufferings, the writer quotes the same prophet (lili. 4-6). The first Epistle of Peter shows how the theological interpretation of the Gospel history, already vaguely outlined in the preceding THE NONPAULINE EPISTLES 185 generation, tended to become substituted for the his- tory itself. The Epistle of Jude is too brief to author- ize any conclusions whatever, for it is rash, seeing the vagueness of the expressions employed, to suppose as does Weinel, that verse 4 is a polemic against Doce- tism. Admitting the date of its composition as prob- ably fairly late, we might pass over the second Epistle of Peter *° written at a time when the Epistles of Paul already formed a collection of recognized authority (iil. 15, 16)—that is to say, when Christianity and its doctrines were settled in their essential features. The author alludes to the account of the transfiguration as related in the Synoptic Gospels (i. 16-18). He very distinctly places himself on the ground of the Gospel tradition. This does not prevent his consider- ing the person and work of Jesus from a uniquely dog- matic point of view. Here is a manifest proof—and it does not apply to the second Epistle of Peter alone— that a theological conception of the Christ in no wise excludes the historic tradition. ‘This is an idea which must not be lost sight of when one begins an examina- tion of the Epistle of James. ‘This has a peculiar physiognomy which is not to be found in any other book of the New Testament. No allusion is found to the history of Jesus, even when the line of thought would seem necessarily to require it, as in Chapter v. 10. Beyond the opening salutation (i. 1) the name of 16 Tt is unnecessary to say that our observations would only have more force if the authenticity of the Epistle be admitted, as is done by Catholic exegesis and certain Protestant critics—for instance, Spitte (Der Zweite Brief des Petrus) and Zahn (Einleitung in das Neue Testament). 186 JESUS THE NAZARENE Jesus Christ is only found once (ii. 1), and it is intro- duced ** in a way that might suggest an interpolation. Hence the hypothesis which considers the Epistle to be a Jewish work in which the name of Jesus Christ has been introduced in two different places.** ‘This hypoth- esis does not appear admissible owing to the numerous reminiscences of Gospel phrases found in the Epistle and because they are the Pauline formulas concern- ing justification by faith (somewhat inaccurately trans- mitted, it is true) which the writer has in mind in the second chapter (ii. 14-26). The Epistle introduces us to an original type of Christianity conceived as a rule of life and a source of moral inspiration. The Gospel is the perfect law of liberty (1. 25) or the royal law (11. 8). ‘These are practical instructions given by the writer. He does not place them in any relation with a drama of redemption, historical or mythical. It is evident that from such a work no conclusion as to the character of the evangelical tradition can be drawn, the latter being ignored, or, to be more pre- cise, they are left aside. V. CONCLUSION In their entirety the non-Pauline Epistles of the New Testament show us, then, the continuation of the de- velopment which we have already recognized in the Pauline Epistles. "The Gospel history serves as the 17 “Jesus Christ, our glorified Lord.” 18 Massebieau, L’Epitre de Jacques est elle ’Geuvre d’un Chrétien?; Spitte, Der Brief des Jakobus, etc. It is interesting to note that Spitta and Massebieau developed their theories independently of each other. THE NONPAULINE EPISTLES 187 base of the development of a doctrine of redemption, and the further we advance the more does the doctrine grow in importance and tend to substitute itself for the history of which originally it was the interpre- tation.”® 19 The same development continues in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas), but it shows less and less originality. It is unnecessary to examine this in detail, for these documents were written at a time when doctrine and tradi- tion were fixed in their essential elements. CHAPTER VIII THE CHRIST OF THE APOCALYPSE I. CHARACTER OF THE APOCALYPSE (“REVELATIONS ’’ ) THE Johannine Apocalypse, as we have it, dates from the last decade of the first century—that is, from a period when a Gospel literature existed—at least in its essential elements—and the author of the Apocalypse appears to know it. ‘There is no direct reference to the contents of this literature in his book, but the nature of the work sufficiently explains it. On the other hand, one lights upon reminiscences which are clear enough to prove that the author knew the Gospel tradition. ‘‘Unless you are on the watch,’ says the Angel of the Church of Sardis, “I shall come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I am com- ing.” ‘This is almost a quotation from Matt. xxiv. 43, 44 and Luke xii. 39, 40: “If the master of the house had known at what watch of the night” (Luke, “at what hour’’) ‘the thief would come, he would have watched.” “Be ye ready, for the Son of man will come at an hour when ye think not.” ‘He who over- ' cometh,” is read in the conclusion of the same letter, ‘will I confess before My Father and before His angels.’’ This reminds us of Matt. x. 32, Luke xi. 8: ‘“Whosoever shall confess Me before men, the same will I confess before My Father who is in Heaven” (Luke has it, ‘‘before the angels of God’’). The 188 THE CHRIST OF THE APOCALYPSE 189 phrase in the Apocalypse (xiii. 10), “Whoever shall kill with the sword, the same shall be killed with the sword,” recalls Matt. xxvi. 52, “All they who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” Finally, the illustration of the Water of Life in xxi. 6 and xxii. 17 is too similar to what is found in John iv. Io, etc., vii. 37, to permit the supposition of a chance coincidence. The Apocalypse must not be taken alone. In order that it may be correctly interpreted, all the ideas and all the knowledge which it presumes must be taken into account. The Christ of the Apocalypse, notwithstanding the name Jesus by which He is most frequently designated, is a celestial Being. He is the Lord in the heavens, whose return is awaited (i. 5-13 and ili. 11), and the testimony’ rendered to the Christ, who occupies so great a place in the book, is a testimony rendered to the Lord in the heavens, as may be inferred from Chapter ii. 13. Could it be otherwise in a book whose entire outlook is towards the future? Nevertheless, this celestial Being has had a human history. The writer makes no direct mention of this, but he pre- sumes it in saying, for instance, that He died (1. 5, v. 9) or that He had been crucified at Jerusalem (xi. 8), and it is precisely this which explains his celestial dignity. It is the lamb who was slain who alone is worthy to break the seals of the book (v. 6). Among the most characteristic details of the figure of Christ is that which states that He died and returned to life. The frequent mention of the blood of the 1The word is found no less than nine times, without counting the noun “witness” (five times) and the verb “witness” (four times). 190 JESUS THE NAZARENE lamb and its purifying action presumes a doctrine of redemption, which, like those of Paul and the Deutero- Pauline Epistles, is a theological interpretation of the drama of Calvary. There is not to be found in the Apocalypse any detail which recalls the Gospel ac- counts of the Passion, but to appreciate this fact at its true significance allowance must be made for the alle- gorical character inherent in the Apocalyptic writings. The mere mention of the death of the lamb evokes for the readers of the book the souvenir of the Passion with sufficient clearness. There are, on the other hand, in the Apocalypse certain pictures which have a distinctly mythical char- acter. he Messiah there appears completely stripped of all human features. He is a Being entirely ideal. How ought these images to be interpreted? To reply to this question certain principles which are essential to the interpretation of the Apocalypse must be re- membered.” The Johannine Apocalypse belongs to a group of books whose composition in the bulk is dis- tributed over the two centuries which preceded and the two centuries which followed in the Christian era. This species of literature possesses its rules, its habits, its methods, which are found almost identical in all the writings belonging to it—Jewish as well as Chris- tian. There is an Apocalyptic tradition! which explains the affinity obeserved between the various works. , There are always the same images and symbols to be found, the same activities at work. But this is not all. The writers of this Apocalyptic literature must not be considered as visionaries—notwithstanding the im- 2 Consult on this subject the introduction to the various commen- taries, particularly those of Bousset, Charles, and Loisy. THE CHRIST OF THE APOCALYPSE 191 portant part played by inspiration in the Christian pro- ductions—but as “rabbis,’”’ not ignorant of the works of their predecessors. On the contrary, they carefully studied them, discovered their prophecies, corrected, modernized, and adapted them to new surroundings. Often they introduced in the works they composed descriptions more or less elaborate, borrowed from an older Apocalypse. The author of the canonical book has not departed from this procedure. ‘Thus are to be explained the incoherences, the doublets, the repe- titions so frequently found in his work, and of which it will suffice to give as an instance the juxtaposition of the scene at the breaking of the seven seals (v. 1-8) and that of the seven trumpet blasts (viii. 2-11), to which may be also added that of the seven bowls (xv. 1-16). Hence a double duty is incumbent upon the interpreter of the Apocalypse. The writer is far from being a mere compiler; he does not restrict him- self to sewing together and framing the fragments of previous works. If he has made use of already exist- ing material, in adding thereto portions that literary analysis cannot fail to identify, it is in order to express his own ideas and personal sentiments, and to press them into the service of the object he aimed at. Above all it is necessary to disentangle his personal thought and the signification of the picture he drew. Bousset, who has done more than any one to influence the study of the Apocalypse by the analysis of its sources, has strongly and judiciously insisted upon this point. He wrote that “the main task is to understand the Apoc- alypse as a personal and original work possessing its literary unity.” It would be a grave error to attribute directly to the author of the Apocalypse all the ideas 192 JESUS THE NAZARENE and sentiments found in the documents he used with- out taking into account the corrections in detail he made, and, above all, the indications which follow from the main plan of his work and of the part played in its development by fragments borrowed from earlier documents. Certain of these fragments express ideas and senti- ments they were not in their origin destined to convey, and among those which the writer has adopted to express an idea which dominated his mind are to be found others which are not his at all, and which have only penetrated into the book in its actual form owing to their solidarity with others belonging to the primi- tive document.® II. THE VISION OF THE WOMAN AND THE DRAGON This rule of interpretation should particularly be applied to Chapter xii,* in which M. Stahl and M. Cou- choud, independently of each other, have thought they found the concept of a Christ purely ideal. The vision of Chapter xii forms a whole complete in itself, and which possesses no organic relation either with what precedes or with what follows it. It is permissible therefore to consider it in itself. The seer says that a great portent ° shows itself in the heavens: 3'The failure to recognize these principles vitiates radically the studies of MM. Stahl and Couchoud; Stahl, Le Document 70; Couchoud, Le Mystére de Jésus. 4Upon this chapter see Wellhausen (Azalyse der Offenbarung Johannis) Stahl, Couchoud. 5 Wellhausen and Stahl think that the first scene takes place in reality on the earth, and there is only in the heaven a sign which announces it. It would be difficult, according to them, to conceive an THE CHRIST OF THE APOCALYPSE 193 A woman appears, clothed with the sun; she has the moon under her feet, and upon her head is a crown of twelve stars; she is with child, and upon the point of giving birth to it. Another portent also appears in the heavens. It is a great fiery dragon with seven heads with seven crowns. His tail swept away and hurled down to the earth the third of the stars of heaven. ‘The dragon stood before the woman about to give birth to the child and prepared to devour her child as soon as it was born. The woman gave birth to a son destined to rule the nations with a rod of iron. The child is carried away to the presence of God—before His throne. The woman flees away into the wilderness, where for a period of 1,260 days she is nourished and tended.® ‘Then ensues a battle in the heavens. Michael and his angels fight against the dragon and gain the victory—they drive their enemies from the heavens. [hey are not to be found again. The accouchement in the very heavens, and besides, the child, as soon as he is born, is caught up into the heavens, and finally it is said that the woman fled into the desert, which is opposed not to the heavens, but to another place in the earth. None of these three arguments can be admitted. One cannot insist that an Apocalyptic scene should be probable. ‘The theory of superposed heavens allows us to con- ceive readily that the child born in one of the lower heavens, or rather (seeing that stars are mentioned) in the firmament, is imme- diately after carried away to a higher heaven. He is, in fact, placed before the throne of God. This is not the place of his birth. Finally, the fact that the return of the woman on the earth is not expressly mentioned is nothing more than a piece of negligence in the form of the account. 6 These 1,260 days represent 42 months—that is, 312 years, the half of a week of years, the unit of time for Apocalyptic calculations since Daniel. Wellhausen and Stahl consider these 314 years to be the duration of the Jewish war, but as M. Alfaric remarks, with reason, the 34 years only fit this period very imperfectly. And besides, the figure of 314 years is traditional in the Apocalypse. In his work of 1907 Wellhausen has not reproduced the interpretation which he gave in 1899. 194 JESUS THE NAZARENE great dragon, the old serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, he who deceives the inhabitants of the earth, is hurled to the earth, and his angels share his fate. In heaven a voice is heard celebrating the victory. Now is the day of salvation and power and dominion of our God, and the rule of His Christ, for the accuser of our Brethren had been hurled down, he who ceased not, night and day, to accuse them before our God. Their victory was through the blood of the lamb and by the word of their testimony. In their love of life they shrank not from death. ‘Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye who inhabit them! Woe unto the earth and the sea, for the devil has descended unto you in fury, knowing that his days are counted. When the dragon saw he was conquered he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. But to the woman were given the wings of the great eagle, so that she might fly to the wilderness, where she is nourished for one year, for two years, and for half a year.’ Then the dragon poured water from his mouth like a river so that she might be drowned. But the Earth came to her help and opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. Then the dragon went away to make war upon the rest of her children—they who observe the commandments of God and are faithful to the testi- mony of Jesus—and he took his stand upon the sea- shore.® This passage is not a free creation, but the adapta- tion of a more recent Apocalyptic fragment. The 7 That is to say, 3% years, “for a time, and times, and half a time.” 8 This last part of the sentence serves to connect with the picture which follows. THE CHRIST OF THE APOCALYPSE 195 interest which is centered at the beginning on the Messiah’s birth turns in the divine canticle and its conclusion upon the destiny of believers. In the verses 7—9 the victory over the dragon is gained by Michael and his angels. According to verse 11, on the con- trary, it is by the martyrs, who through the blood of the lamb and by the faithfulness of their testimony have overthrown their accuser. There is another in- coherence not less significant between the picture given in verses I—9 and that outlined in verses 13-18. The two flights of the woman into the desert, the refuge which in both passages is represented as prepared for her, the duration of this retreat, all manifestly form a doublet. But while in the first passage the woman is the mother of the Messiah, and may, therefore, be identified as the people of Israel,° in the second passage she is the mother of believers—that is, the Church.” The image of the battle against the dragon is not one and the same throughout the chapter either. In the first passage the Messiah plays no part; He is only ®It is extremely probable, as M. Loisy has shown, that the woman was originally an astral personage and that this is a portion of an astrological myth. But for the writer the entire interest of the picture is centered in the fight with the dragon. 10 Wellhausen (Analyse), followed by Stahl, considers the woman to be Zion and the first child to be the Jewish Messiah. ‘The other children would therefore be Jews who had fled from Jerusalem because they did not rely upon arms, like the Zealots, but only on God, to reéstablish the Theocracy. Under these conditions it is strange that no mention is made of the first group of the children of Zion. It would thus be necessary to suppose much mutilation of the source of the passage, not only at the end. but in the middle, which would seem improbable. It is for this reason that we prefer to consider the verses 13-17, which follow a portion due to Christian inspiration (verses 10-12), as a glossing over the theme (developed in the Jewish fragment found at the beginning of the chapter) by the Christian editor. 196 JESUS THE NAZARENE the king destined to reign with power when order is restored in the world. It may perhaps be imagined that He will be called upon to play a part in the last phase of the struggle, but up to the supreme moment He is held in reserve in heaven and in shelter before the throne of God, the victory being gained by Michael and his angels. In the celestial hymn, on the contrary, it is through the blood of the lamb—that is thanks to the Messiah’s work—that the martyrs gain the victory. It may be added that no organic relation is per- ceptible between the statement (in the first portion of Chap. xii) of Satan being hurled to earth, and the mention of the same thing in Chapters xix, xx—chap- ters which, in their essentials at least, there is good reason to attribute to the writer of the Johannine Apocalypse. As for the character of the fragment utilized at the. beginning of Chapter xii, it does not seem possible to hesitate in recognizing it. The quite secondary part played in it by the Messiah indicates that it must be Jewish and not Christian.**. In whatever way the primitive origin of Christianity may be conceived, how can it be supposed that at the end of the first century a Christian could have imagined Christ as rapt up to the heavens immediately after His birth, while com- pletely suppressing His historical ministry and the redemption drama? * 11 Wellhausen (Azalyse), while admitting that this idea of the Messiah rapt up to the heavens immediately after his birth is not attested in Judaism, maintains that it is possible to see in it a compromise between two Messianic conceptions—the Messiah coming from the people of Israel and the Messiah of Daniel coming from heaven. This idea is found in the rabbinical tradition. (Cp. Israel Levi, Le ravissement du Messie enfant.) 12 Wellhausen, Analyse, p. 20. THE CHRIST OF THE APOCALYPSE 197 While borrowing this Jewish fragment, the Chris- tian author has made additions to it which entirely change its character. ‘The defeat of the dragon, for the sake of which he collected this fragment, must in the original have been final; in his work it is no more than a stage of the great struggle and the guarantee of future victory. The writer makes use of it to express one of the ideas to which he was most ad- dicted, which in his readers’ eyes had the greatest practical value and reality—the idea that the very rage of the devil against the Christians, as manifested in the persecutions, was the consequence of his first de- feat, and that this rage would continue to be power- less provided only that the Christians remained faithful and were able to bear their sufferings without yielding to weakness. We are unable, then, to discern in the idea of the newly born Messiah, immediately caught up to the heavens and transported before the throne of God, the primitive form of Christian Christology; it is an element borrowed, and which does not express the thought of the author of the Apocalypse. If at the beginning of the chapter there is indeed the idea of a purely mythical Messiah, it is a Jewish and not a Chris- tian idea. Chapter xii, therefore, cannot be legiti- mately invoked by the supporters of the nonhistorical character of Jesus, and the considerations above of- fered to support the thesis that the Apocalypse as- sumes the Gospel tradition maintain their force. CHAPTER VT THE THEORY OF THE PROPHETIC ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL TRADITION I. Tue FUNCTION OF THE PROPHETIC ARGUMENT IN PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY THE preceding chapters have led us to the conclusion that the theology found in the Epistles of the New Testament and in the Apocalypse necessarily presume the existence of the Gospel tradition. It is with this tradition that we have now to deal. But before be- ginning the direct study of it, we shall find it con- venient to examine a theory which, if well founded, would offer in favor of the thesis of the mythologists an argument of great weight: this is the theory which holds that the Gospel narratives—or at least the most important among them—are developed from themes supplied by the Old Testament. Already had Schelling, in a course of lectures upon the philosophy of art given at the beginning of the last century, observed that the history of Jesus was completely enveloped in fables whose creation and development had been suggested by prophecies in the Old Testament.*' After him Strauss sought to find in the Old Testament one of the sources of the Gospel myths. After this critics occupied with the history of the Gospel tradition recognized the profound influence exercised upon it by the Old Testament. 1 Schelling, Sadmmliche Werke, 1856, Stuttgart. 198 THEORY OF PROPHETIC ORIGIN 199 Returning to their observations, M. Salomon Ret- nach has stated in very harsh terms the problem which this contact poses. The solution which he gives of it 1s distinctly unfavorable to the historical character of the events related in the Gospels. His observations are confined to one particular point, the history of the crucifixion of Jesus. Indeed, here is the knot of the problem, for according as one admits or denies the reality of the cross, the historical character of the person of Jesus will be substantiated or will fall to the ground. We may, therefore, confine our observa- tions to this point of capital importance: Is the ac- count of the crucifixion of Jesus the relation of a real fact, or is it derived from the supposed fulfillment of certain prophecies previously read in the Old Testa- ment? In M. Reinach’s opinion,? and M. Couchoud entirely shares his point of view,* the problem presented is a very simple one. We are in face of a dilemma. Given agreement between a prophecy and a narrative, and two explanations only are possible: Either the prophecy is, in fact, what it is taken to be by orthodox traditional theology—that is, it rests upon a super- natural and anticipated knowledge of events—or the narrative has been suggested, and, so to speak, en- gendered, by the prophecy, and ought to be considered as totally without value. To admit the first hypothesis would be to accept a dogmatic @ priori and conse- quently to place oneself outside the conditions of his- torical research. ce eA ES, A en RR 2 Salomon Reinach, Orpheus; Le Verset 17 du Psaume xxii; Bossuet ét argument des propheties, etc. 8 Couchoud, Le Mystére de Jésus, p. 49, ete. 200 JESUS THE NAZARENE Are we, therefore, forced to accept the second alter- native, and to conclude that all the portions of Gospel history in which the recognition of the fulfillment of prophecies is possible are of a purely mythical char- | acter, even including those in which the Gospel tradi- tion itself has recognized them? First of all must be noted the conditions in which the prophetic argument. first appeared and developed in early Christianity.* Before everything else there existed an apologetic method of which the Christian missionaries made use. The history of Jesus bewildered the Jews, so contrary was it to the way in which they conceived the Messiah. The cross of Jesus had been to Paul the object which prevented his belief in what the Christians said about Him. That which was true of Paul was certainly also true of all those who had received a similar education. The Jew Tryphon is prepared to yield to Justin’s argu- ment claiming to prove by scriptural demonstration that the Messiah is called upon to suffer,® but he abso- lutely refuses to admit that the Christ had perished by the infamous punishment of the cross. In his eyes, as in those formerly of Paul, the phrase of Deu- teronomy remains an invincible obstacle: “Cursed be he who is hung on a tree’”’ (xxi. 23). Says Tryphon: ‘Your pretended Christ was with- out honor and without glory, to such a degree that He was under the most extreme malediction of the 4See concerning this subject the interesting studies of Weidel, also of Feigel; also compare with Nicolardot, Les Procédés de re- daction des trois premiers evangelistes. 5 (Dialogues \xxvi. 6 and Ixxxix. 2). Justin does not confine him- self to invoking the Scriptures to fix the meaning of the death of Jesus. He makes use of them, also the very fact of the death (see A pol., i. 35), where he invokes the testimony of Psa. xxii. THEORY OF PROPHETIC ORIGIN 201 Law—He was crucified!” (Dialogues, xxxii. 3). Again he writes: ‘“‘We are aware, accepting the argu- ment of Justin, that the Christ must suffer .. . but that He had to be crucified, that He had to die a death of such a degree of shame and dishonor—a death cursed by the Law—prove this to us, for we are totally unable to conceive it’’ (xc. 1, Ixxxix. 2, xciii. 4). Tryphon was no exception. He represented a point of view which had already evolved towards the idea of a suffering Messiah.® Before his time the passage in Isaiah (Chap. liii) had not yet been connected with the Messiah.” It is impossible to say precisely if Chris- tian ideas did not influence Judaism on this point. At all events, what is found in the pre-Christian period concerning the efficacy of suffering is at the most merely the germ of later development.* The idea of the re- deeming utility of suffering concerning the martyrs of the time of Antiochus Epiphanius is found in the sec- ond book of the Maccabees, especially in the cele- brated episode of the death of the mother and of her seven sons: ‘‘As for me, said the last of them, like 6 Schiirer writes that it is “impossible to deny that in the second century of our era certain Jewish circles were familiar with the idea of a Messiah suffering to expiate the sins of men.” 7Referring to the idea of the Messiah’s sufferings in the period following, see Dalman. See also Volz, Jiidische Eschatologie won Daniel bis Akiba. It should be noted, however, that even at the period where the idea of the suffering Messiah is commonly met with in Judaism, interpretations are given to Isaiah (Chap. liii) which do not relate to the Messiah. Origen, for example, cites, in his work Contra Celsum, the opinion of a Jew who referred the prophecy to the Jewish people, obliged to suffer, and be dispersed in the world so that many proselytes might be won over. 8 We do not attach much importance to the idea found in a passage of the fourth book of Esdras, where it is stated that the Messiah must die after reigning 400 years. There is no question there of expiation. 202 JESUS THE NAZARENE my brothers, I give my body and my life for the laws of my fathers, praying to God to show mercy quickly to my people. May the anger of the Most High, justly incited by our race, be ended at my and my brother’s death” (2 Macc. vii. 37, 38). The same idea is found in the fourth book of the Maccabees, which dates from the first century of our era. At the point of expiring, the martyr Eleazar addresses this prayer to God: ‘Have compassion upon my people; for their sake be satisfied with my punishment! Make of my blood a means of purification, and accept my life for their ransom”’ (4 Macc. vi. 29). Notwithstanding the interest and importance of the indications to be gleaned in these and some other texts, it is only possible to recognize in them materials which have been utilized later in the elaboration of a doctrine of the Messianic sufferings. But this doctrine did not exist in the Judaism of the first century, and it is this fact which made the task of the Christian apologists and missionaries a difficult one. The problem presented to Justin was presented from the first days of the life of the Church. A con- siderable effort must have been made to discover in the Scriptures a demonstration of the necessity of the Messianic sufferings. To find this must have required a quite special acquaintance with the prophecies. The © apostle Paul explains that if the Jews did not find in the Scriptures the same thing as the Christians, it was because, while reading Moses, they had a veil over their intelligence (2 Cor. ili. 15, 16). When the dis- ciples met with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, it was necessary for Him to “‘open up to them the Scriptures” (Luke xxiv. 32). While commencing with Moses, He THEORY OF PROPHETIC ORIGIN 203 expounded to them everything in the prophetic writ- ings concerning Himself, as well as the necessity for the Christ to suffer to enter into His glory (xxiv. 26, 27). The concept of the sufferings and the death of the Messiah, which the Christians had so great a need to discover in the Old Testament, was therefore, by their own admission, only contained there in such an obscure manner that a special capacity was required to find it. This renders the hypothesis that the Scrip- tures suggested the idea of the crucifixion of the Messiah one of very small a priori probability. II]. Tue RELATIONS OF PROPHECY AND THE GOSPEL HIsToRY The problem of the relations between prophecy and the Gospel history is not so simple as the dilemma formulated by M. Salomon Reinach would suppose. It is convenient, we think, to distinguish between several cases. 1. Creations due to Prophetic Exegesis There is first of all among these a series which support M. Reinach’s theory. These are the episodes or details which for the main part are only found in the youngest Gospel narratives. If the influence of prophecy does not suffice to explain them completely, it certainly appears to have taken some part in their genesis. It will suffice to mention here some examples: 204 JESUS THE NAZARENE The most ancient tradition seem to have considered Jesus the son of Joseph.® The idea of the supernatural birth, as it is found developed in Matthew (i. 18), arises partly from the application to Mary and her Son of the passage in the prophet Isaiah (vii. 14), thus phrased in the Septuagint version: ‘‘A virgin shall conceive and bear a son’’—a prophecy whose realiza- tion is emphasized by Matthew *® (i. 22, etc.) in the narrative of the birth of Jesus. Similarly, primitive tradition represented Jesus as a Galilean, born at Nazareth; but as a prophecy of Micah (v. 1) had announced that the Messiah would be born in Judea, it was found necessary to put his- tory in harmony with it. Matthew and Luke have done this in two different ways, which, besides, are not to be reconciled with each other. Matthew states that after His birth the parents of Jesus went to reside at Nazareth to flee from the wrath of Herod and his heirs (ii. 19-23). Luke affirms that the parents of Jesus resided at Nazareth, but that Jesus was born at 9 This idea is presumed, in their primitive form, by the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke. Compare the Syraic version of Sinai of Matt. i. 1-16: “Joseph, to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed, will beget a son.” This reading is supported by certain manuscripts of the old Latin version. Neither John nor Paul make the slightest reference to a supernatural birth. (See M. Goguel, Introd. au N.T., I, p. 469.) 10 The Hebrew text has a word which signifies “young woman” and not “virgin.” It has no relation whatever to the Messiah. The prophecy of Isaiah relates to the deliverance of Jerusalem, besieged by the king of Syria. A sign is given to Achaz—a young woman will became enceinte, and (it is announced to the king) before the child is born and “knows how to reject evil and choose the good” (that is to say, in a very short time) “the country whose two kings thou fearest shall be abandoned.” 11 By the way, he finds in the arrival of Jesus at Nazareth the fulfillment of a prophecy (ii. 23). THEORY OF PROPHETIC ORIGIN 205 Bethlehem, where His parents had come upon the occasion of the census taken by Quirinius (ii. 1-39). In the gospel of the infancy it is also possible to instance the flight into Egypt as having a prophetic origin (Matt. ii. 13-15), fulfilling the words of Hosea, which in the original text related to the people of Israel and not to the Messiah: ‘Out of Egypt have I called My Son.” There is also to be noted in this con- nection the massacre of the innocents (Matt. 1. 16- 18), in which the evangelist saw the fulfillment of the words of Jeremiah (xxxi. 15). 2. Modifications Due to Prophetic Exegesis Sometimes prophetic exegesis has only caused the modification or the addition of one detail. Thus Matthew (xxi. 14-16) records that after He had driven the dealers out of the Temple, Jesus was the object of an ovation on the part of the children. This detail was certainly suggested by the words of the Psalm (viii. 3): “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings Thou hast called forth praise.”’ Certain de- tails of the history of the Passion must have the same origin. Mark (xiv. 11) and Luke (xxii. 5) relate that the chief priests promised Judas a sum of money if he would deliver Jesus to them. Matthew (xxvi. 15) specifies that the sum was thirty pieces of silver, and he later (xxvii. 3-10) relates that Judas, seeing how events had happened, returns to the chief priests and the elders to say, “I have sinned in delivering up the blood of the innocent,” and he then flings the thirty pieces on the floor of the Temple and goes out to hang himself. The priests decide that this money, being the 206 JESUS THE NAZARENE price of blood, cannot be paid into the treasury, so they employ it in the purchase of a plot of ground be- longing to a potter, to be a burial ground for for- eigners. Matthew himself reveals the origin of this story by saying: ‘“Thus was fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah: they took the thirty pieces of silver—the price of Him who was valued by the people of Israel—_ and gave them for the potter’s field as the Lord had commanded me.” ” Mark relates how, at the moment when Jesus is to be crucified, He is offered aromatic vinegar to drink. The women of Jerusalem were in the habit of giving to condemned persons a stupefying drink to attenuate their sufferings..* Matthew (xxvil. 34), remembering doubtless a passage in the Psalms, “they made me to eat gall” (lxix. 22), has substituted “gall” for the aromatic drink, and has thus changed the significance of the detail. In Luke (xxii. 6-16) the episode of the appear- ance of Jesus before Herod—an episode whose his- torical character cannot possibly be admitted **—prob- ably owes its origin not only to the memory of the hostility which Herod had shown to Jesus in Galilee (Luke xiii. 31-33), but also to the words of the psalm- st: “The kings of the earth and the great ones have 12 This passage is not found in Jeremiah. It is borrowed from , Zechariah (xi. 12) with the addition of some details taken from Jeremiah (xviii. 2, xxxii. 6). 13 This custom, attested by the Talmud (Wiinsche), may originate in a passage in Proverbs: “Give strong liquors to him who perishes and wine to him who has bitterness of soul. Let him drink and for- get his poverty and let him no more remember his pain” (Winsche, Neue Beitrdge zur Erlintenung der Evangelien, etc.). 14Indeed, one cannot imagine how the Procurator, so jealous of his authority, could have recognized, even as an exceptional thing, any right of jurisdiction to Herod at Jerusalem. THEORY OF PROPHETIC ORIGIN 207 assembled together against the Lord and against His Anointed” (Psa. ii. 2), the great ones being repre- sented by the Jewish authorities and Pilate. Herod has been added to them to fulfill more completely the prophecy. Two of the phrases on the cross which do not belong to the most ancient tradition (since Luke is the only one to record them) have their origin in prophecy. It is said of the Servant of the Eternal, ‘He interceded for the guilty” (Isa. lili. 12). Luke at- tributes to the crucified Jesus this prayer: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” * (xxiii. 24); and at the moment where Mark (xv. 37) and Matthew (xxvii. 50) relate that Jesus expired in giving a loud cry, Luke puts into His mouth the sen- tence, inspired direct from the Psalms (xxxi. 6): “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit” (xxill. 46). In John’s Gospel the episode of the spear-thrust (xix. 31-37) fulfills that which the Law prescribed re- garding the paschal lamb, whose bones must not be broken (Exod. xii. 10-46; Num. ix. 12; cp. Psa. xxxiv. 21). The evangelist remarks: ‘This was done in order that the Scripture should be fulfilled: A bone of His shall not be broken” (xix. 36, 37). This in- fluence of prophecy may have also reacted upon certain narratives of the common tradition. The forty days’ fast in the desert (Mark i. 13; Matt. iv. 2; Luke iv. 2) suggest, notwithstanding the different circum- stances, the forty days which Moses passed before the 15 There is, furthermore, reason to doubt the primitive character of this sentence in Luke. The verse 34 of Chapter xxiii is lacking, in fact, in certain good texts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Codex Cantabri- giensis, and others), and no reason can be seen to explain its sup- pression. 208 JESUS THE NAZARENE Lord (Exod. xxiv. 18 and xxxiv. 28), or the forty years during which the Israelites ate manna in the desert (Exod. xvi. 35).*° The idea of the Spirit de- scending upon Jesus at the moment of baptism (Mark 1.) 103. Matt./ ii). 76 ¢