y y

WMm ± mi

V ME MORI AL^—
COLLLCTION

Yale University Library

The Mental Condition and Career

OP

JESUS OF NAZARETH

Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge

HENRY LEFFMANN, A. M., M. D.

PHILADELPHIA, PA.

1904

The text of this essay, in a cruder form, was read to an
audience of about fifty persons, men and women, representa
tive of the learned professions, science, literature and general
culture. It was subsequently printed slightly amended, and
distributed to persons who had not heard it. The commenda
tions that I have received from competent critics, have been
so expressed that I cannot doubt their sincerity. I have
thought it best to modify the essay before giving it wider dis
tribution, eliminating some irrelevant matters.
The fundamental views, namely, that Jesus was a megalo
maniac, and that many of the phenomena of his career are in
stances of hypnosis and suggestion, are derived from my own
studies, but I am not unaware that hints of such doctrines are
to be found in the writings of Renan and Lombroso. My
knowledge of their views is subsequent to forming my own
conclusions. Similarly, I am familiar with the essay by Holtz
mann, of Giessen, "War Jesus Ekstatiker?" issued in latter
part of last year, but this also came to my knowledge subse
quent to the completion of my essay and is developed along a
different line.
I am fully cognizant of the antagonism that this essay will
induce in some circles, but I am quite sufficiently familiar with
the writings of present-day Protestant theologians, high in
church circles in this country, England and Germany, to know
that their statements, followed to logical conclusions, leave no
more of the ancient faith than that which is the basis of this
essay. Orthodox critics treat the fundamental dogmas with
great caution but none the less destructively. They tear the
Bible to pieces and then, holding the fragments up to the mul
titude, cry, "Behold the word of God."
An instance of this is to be found in Sayce's recent work
"Monumental Facts and Higher Critical Fallacies."
"We have learnt that the Old Testament Scriptures are as
truly a literature as the classical productions of Greece and
Rome, that they were written by men, not by machines, and
that they reflect the individual qualities of those who wrote
them, and the coloring of the various ages at which they were
composed." If these words mean anything, they mean that the Bible is an
imperfect, human document.
119 South Fourth Street,
Philadelphia, Pa., June, 1904.

The Mental Condition and Career of Jesus of Nazareth
Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge,

HENRY LEFFMANN, A. M., M. D.

No man that has trodden this earth has influenced the
course of human history as profoundly as has Jesus of Nazar
eth. If the controlling powers of nature have insight into the
future, we need not wonder that the order of the universe was
disturbed at his birth, and that portents excited the inhabi
tants of land. The star that rose in the east, and fixed itself
in the zenith above his humble village, might be as bright as
the sun at noonday, and be no more than commensurate with
the light that was to shine upon the Roman Empire. Within
less than a half-century, public and private institutions that
had been growing up to might for over five hundred years,
were to be challenged by a host of devoted men and women,
who stood ready to suffer anything in furtherance of their
endeavors. I dismiss, as unworthy of belief, the stories of the portents,
and hold that neither Jesus himself, nor any of his imme
diate followers appreciated the scope of the events in which
they were concerned. Indirectly, through his ministry, the He
brew Scriptures have become the basis of the greatest propa
ganda of religion that the world has ever seen. It is true
that a careful study of the events immediately following the
death of the founder leads to the view that the influence of
Paul was largely responsible for the extension of Christianity.
He knew nothing personally of Jesus, but in some way that
cannot be explained (and which he, himself, does not seem to

have understood) he was changed suddenly from a zealous
antagonist to a zealous advocate, illustrating vividly the well
known "zeal of the convert." It is to Paul, largely, that the
world owes the broadening of the mission of Christianity, so
as to include others than those of the circumcision. We may
partly account for this by Paul's education. He was born
and reared in Asia Minor, far away from the narrow life of
Judea, and in close association with an intellectual Greek
community. He spoke the Gentile languages, Latin and
Greek in their cultivated form, as well as Hebrew, while Jesus
and his immediate disciples spoke only a dialect of Hebrew.
That Jesus came only to the lost sheep of Israel, as he said on
one occasion, was held in Jewry for a long time, for the first
fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews.
In studying the career of Jesus of Nazareth in the light of
modern knowledge, we must take into consideration the re
sults of modern criticism, but it will not be necessary to
adopt in full the tenets of any particular critic or school. The
literature of the subject is immense. The British Museum
catalogue of printed books has about 40,000 items under the
title "Bible," and 1500 under that of "Jesus Christ." More
than ninety per cent, of all this can be passed without notice
for it is merely dogmatic or homiletic, developed without re
gard to textual criticism or the facts of history. Although
some of the earlier fathers had doubts as to the validity of
some portions of the Christian writings, the establishment of
the canon and the extinguishment of the great heresies, sup
pressed the opportunity for free inquiry, and the books were
accepted as literally correct until a comparatively recent per
iod. The higher criticism of the Old Testament has become
familiar to English speaking people; the composite nature of
the Hebrew scriptures and the late origin of most of them
are now almost universally acknowledged, but the destruct
ive nature of New Testament criticism is not so widely known,
although it has been sufficient as to impair materially the
historic value of the books. 2

The trustworthy material for the study of the life of Jesus,
is to be found in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, the
former being the earliest narrative form that has come down
to us. The latter is not the original account of Matthew the
publican, who was early chosen as a disciple. He prepared a
collection of the sayings of Jesus, in the language in which
they were uttered, that is, in Aramaic. The Gospel of Luke
is, by its own testimony, late in origin, and not by one of the
immediate attendants of Jesus. The Gospel of John was
written late in the first century, or early in the second, gives
a view of Jesus that is strongly tinged with metaphysical
speculation, and shows also marked antisemitic feeling. All
critics have recognized the difference between the first three
Gospels and the fourth. For reasons that need not be dis
cussed here, modern theologians have been strongly inclined
to take the fourth Gospel in preference as the basis of the
exemplification of the life and work of Jesus, but I believe
that the synoptics will be safer guides. In addition to the
Gospel narratives, the Book of Acts of the Apostles throws
an interesting light on the condition of affairs during the close
of Jesus' ministry, and some further information may be
gleaned from other New Testament books and contemporary
Gentile history.
This literature cannot be accepted in its entirety. It has
suffered much by the vicissitudes of the early centuries, and,
unintentionally at the hands of copyists, it has been inten
tionally modified by dogmatists and zealots, and it is in
herently incomplete on account of the lack of the historic
sense on the part of the original writers. Some of the inter
polations and misrepresentations can be noted by any observ
ant reader, but many are so dextrously interwoven with the
original text that no degree of critical acumen can distinguish
them with certainty. In my opinion, no one untrammeled
by theologic dogmas can read these writings without justify
ing Strauss' judgment that in interpreting them a large al
lowance must be made for the hypothesis of conscious and
intentional falsification. Out of this uncertainty and obscur-

ity some facts are ascertainable that can be used as a basis.
The facts are briefly as follows : Jesus was born of humble
parents in Galilee about the year of Rome 750. His childhood
was uneventful, but possibly he showed a tendency to brood
over religious questions. During this childhood, he witnessed
at least two popular movements in response to the preaching
of false Messiahs. About his thirtieth year he became in
terested in the work of another agitator, who did not claim
messianic function, but proclaimed the near approach of the
vengeance of God, and sought to lead men to repentance and
a better life. By reason of the rite which this man employed
in receiving converts, he was known as John the Baptizer.
Jesus accepted John's baptism, but became soon dissatisfied
with such a limited ministry, and after some intense internal
struggles, he entered upon an independent career, which, in
about a year, terminated in his arrest and punishment for
sedition. The gospel history cannot be understood without some
knowledge of the Messianic ideas prevalent at the time. The
Jewish kingdom had declined in the course of centuries from
a dominating power in Western Asia, exhibiting all the gran
deur of oriental absolutism, to a province of the Roman Em
pire under the control of pagans. It is true that at the time
of the birth of Jesus, Judea was not directly under Roman
control, but it was substantially in the Caesar's power, and
the local ruler, Herod the King, was but nominally Jewish. A
people of strongly emotional character, with memories of past
glories and dominion, memories that were kept vivid by a rich
literature, much of which was contemporaneous with the
events it described, would naturally cherish hopes of restora
tion and of release from alien oppressors. The.se hopes were
nourished by many allusions, some evident and some vague,
in these scriptures, declaring the purpose of the God of Israel
to restore his chosen nation to its glories. The general trend
of opinion among the learned Jews was that such restora
tion would be brought about by the direct intervention of the

deity. It must not be overlooked that at this period the doc
trine of an orderly course of nature in strict obedience to
natural laws was not prevalent. All nations and all classes
of men, from the most learned to the most ignorant, freely
assumed the existence of beings possessing free will and
capacities above those of humanity, who could at any time
interrupt the order of events. The Jews believed that their
God was a being of great power, who could sway the entire
universe to his wishes, and had taken them under his protec
tion, and would, in his own time, move against their enemies,
confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks, and
restore the former glories. It is not possible to obtain at the
present day a clear view of all the phases tha+ this hope ex
hibited in the minds of the people of Israel. Probably some
believed that the change would be brought about by purely
spiritual means. God had hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and,
at the challenge of Satan, the enemy of God and mankind, had
afflicted a pious and good man, in many ways, and he could
certainly conquer the enemies of the seed of Jacob. Bearing
in mind, however, that the masses were largely anthropomor
phic in their opinions, it is likely that they expected that the
arrival of the Messiah would be attended with portents, great
terrestrial and celestial disturbances, and that God himself,
accompanied by cherubim and seraphim and followed by the
heavenly host, would come in glory and overwhelm all but
the true believers. It seems that a not inconsiderable por
tion of the Jewish people believed that the Messiah, who was
to be king, must be a descendant of the line of David, hence
the genealogies which some enthusiasts interpolated into the
Gospels according to Matthew and Luke, for which zeal,
modern orthodox critics are probably anything but thankful,
for these lists have given a deal of trouble to the harmoniz-
ers, and the end is not yet.
Historians seem to be agreed that at this period the con
trolling theologic influences among the Jews had reduced the
religion to a dry and spiritless form. The rabbis found the
religious books and commentaries thereon, sufficient for all
intellectual activity. They cared little or nothing for natural
5

science or deductive philosophy. In proportion as they push
ed the material, living, pulsing world away, they drew to them
the person of deity, and,incapable, as all men are, of de
veloping from the imagination anything that is not corre
lated with experience, their idea of God became merely that
of a man of higher functions. Some of the rabbis taught
that God spends three hours a day in study of the law, ob
serves the Sabbath, makes and fulfills vows.
This messianic hope, a widespread intense longing, stimu
lated both well-balanced and ill-balanced minds, and led some
of the latter class to assume the claim to messianic function.
Two such are specifically mentioned in Acts. Whether either
or both of these were deliberate deceivers, or were honest
enthusiasts who believed themselves chosen of God, cannot
now be ascertained, but the latter supposition is the more
charitable and the more probable. The information at hand
is scanty, but nevertheless throws a strong light on the tem
per of the times, and could not have been without influence
on the child Jesus. Gamaliel mentions Theudas and Judas.
Both secured followers, but were soon arrested and execut
ed, and their adherents scattered.
Into this environment Jesus was born. The date cannot be
fixed for the chronology of the Gospels is confused. The pious
monk who centuries later established the system of reckoning
by "the year of our Lord," was somewhat in error in his retro
grade counting. It is generally supposed that the year i of the
Christian era, corresponds with the fourth year after the
birth of Jesus, but chronologists do not agree. That the
birth did not occur in December is an opinion of
many critics. The exact date and time are unimportant here.
It is sufficient to note that he was born when the power of
Augustus Caesar was fully established. Rome was mistress
of the civilized world. Greek civilization had been for at
least two centuries spread over the region in which Jesus
lived. He could not be entirely uninfluenced by it, but his
teachings show but little of it. He was a Jew, he knew no
literature but Jewish literature, no standards of lifp but Jew
ish standards.

Bethlehem is indicated as the place of his birth, but this is
probably a falsification of later years. His parents were of
Nazareth and he is called a Nazarene. A prophetic allusion
that was applied to him possibly long after his death, re
quired that he should be born at Bethlehem, and it was easy
to insert this in the narrative. It was, however, more difficult
to produce a reason for the temporary change of residence,
and the clumsy expedient of the enrollment ordered by Augus
tus, was devised, an incident not known to profane history,
improbable, and further, one that would seemingly not have
required Mary to have made the journey.
I reject, without hesitation, the story of his conception. A
more monstrous fiction has never been related to mankind.
No intelligent person can be deceived by it, but it is lament
able that any should pretend to believe it and endeavor to in
duce a belief in others. In addition to the biologic objec
tions it is not an essential part of the narrative. It is not
in evidence except where it has been interpolated. Mark, who,
according to tradition, obtained the data for his Gospel from
Peter, knows nothing of the story. Paul, who was so zealous
and so urgent in injecting the personality of Jesus into his
preaching, never mentions it. The fourth Gospel, which
comes nearest of any to a presenting a mystic view of Jesus,
does not detail the incident. Even if we assume, as some
zealous apologists have suggested, that the exceptional inci
dent was not generally known, it cannot have been concealed
from his parents; at least, the mother must have known it,
yet his family whenever their attitude is presented to us, has
not the least notion that he is of different nature from others.
They expect no more from him than from his brothers and
sisters. Indeed, his attempts to step outside the home circle
are viewed with alarm as well as astonishment.
We have no Gospel accounts of his life up to the period of
his maturity, except the incident recorded in Luke, and that
does not mean much. It is often given as evidence of won
derful precocity, but that a boy of twelve who had been
reared amidst strong religious longings and turmoil, should

formulate views on theology, and endeavor to puzzle wiser
heads, is not remarkable. It has occurred at all periods of the
world's history. Even if we suppose that the conversation
was more than usually intelligent, we have still no unique
phenomenon. I cannot accept the story of Luke in its entirety. Three
days seem much too long for a search by anxious parents in
a small city. They surely would have gone to the Temple
at first. I am tempted to follow a custom of the higher crit
ics and amend the text by reading "hours" for "days," but a
more important phase of the narrative deserves attention,
namely its bearing on the doctrine of the conception. The
parents, evidently astonished that the child should interest
himself in such a discussion, upbraid him for his neglect of
them. His reply was unintelligible to them but the inci
dent warned them; they deemed it necessary to assert their
authority, and his mother fretted over the matter. She kept,
says the text, "the sayings in her heart."
The incompleteness of the history of the infancy and child
hood of Jesus appealed strongly to the early Christians, and
they did not hesitate to fill the gap by bold and extravagant
inventions. There is an abundant literature on this point,
but it has long since been abandoned even by the orthodox
theologians. A perusal of it will justify this decision, and it
would be a waste of time to discuss it.
Giving, then, no useful information of his early life, the Gos
pels bring him before us when he had arrived at maturity.
He began by espousing the cause of an agitator, who seems
to have differed materially from most of those that appeared
in that age. The personality of John the Baptizer stands
prominently among the figures of the Gospels. His historicity
is attested by the narrative of Josephus, and his mission and
its relation to Jesus are mentioned by all the evangelists. I can
not accept the extravagant language of the fourth Gospel,
nor Luke's story of the annunciation of John's birth.
John did not claim to be the Messiah. It is not unlikely
that he had lived longer, and met with much success in secur-
8

ing converts, he would have developed some ideas of messian-
nic functions and the world might have been afforded the in
teresting spectacle of contemporary rival claimants to this
honor. At the time Jesus came under the influence of John's
teaching the latter was leading the life of self-denial and exhor-
tion, preaching ".repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand." He lived apart from men, was clothed in camel's hair
garments, wore a leather girdle about his loins, and fed on
locusts and wild honey.
John's preaching was successful, a result that need not
astonish us, for similar phenomena have been observed in
many lands and at many times. Not only from the country
side, but from the cities, the throngs poured forth, confessing
their sins and receiving baptism in the Jordan, believing that
they were absolved and fitted for the enjoyments of the glories
at hand. It is declared by the first Gospel that even the in
tellectual classes were influenced, the devout Pharisees and
the skeptical Sadducees, but that John refused his offices
to these, and abused them roundly.
The success of John's work originated an opinion that he
was the Messiah, but he protested against this. Later, he
was thrown into jail, and, while there, sent word to ask if
Jesus was the Messiah, or was another expected. John must
have heard of the deeds of his convert, but incidentally this
incident contradicts the extravagant words that the author of
the fourth Gospel puts into the mouth of John.
The critical literature dealing with the Gospel history, re
presents almost every possible variety of opinion, ranging
from the orthodox view of the literal, plenary inspiration of
the text, to the extreme skepticism that seeks to reduce the
personality of Jesus to a myth. Much of the literature is not
worth serious consideration, except as exemplification of the
range of aberration of the human reason, but some of it is
sincere, scientific and cautious. An examination of the later
works of the latter character seems to me to show that the
view is gaining ground that the messianic aspirations of
Jesus were an evolution; that is, that in his earlier work he

was merely a man filled with zeal for bettering the condi
tion of his people.
At all times religion has had associations with medicine.
Even in this age, which boasts of its enlightenment, and of
its scientific pathology and etiology, millions of people believe
that disease is due to supernatural beings, and may be cured
by prayers, offerings or sacrifices. These opinions are not
limited to Amerinds, Hottentots or Igorrotes, but are abund
antly exemplified in the intellectual circles of America and
Europe. This aspect of religion has led to a constant exercise
of the healing art by religious propagandists. The Hebrew
scriptures abound in illustrations of such performances, but
it is to be noted that there is often an accessory element, the
administration of a medicine or the enforcement of a regimen.
Two instances of this may be cited: the healing of Naaman's
leprosy by Elisha, and of Hezekiah's abscess by Isaiah. In
the former no strictly religious services were enjoined, but
the seven-fold immersion in the Jordan has a mystical sug-
gestiveness. In the latter case the prophet interceded with
the Lord in the King's behalf (presumably by prayer) but he
also applied a fig-poultice to the abscess.
There is no scientific objection to accepting as true many
of the stories of healing by prayer or exorcism. Modern in
vestigation has shown that the so-called "suggestion" with or
without hypnotism has a wide range of applicability in thera
peutics. I need not discuss the details. They will be found
fully set forth in recent works issued under the most exacting
scientific auspices. Many diseases, even many that show
severe symptoms and apparent pathologic changes, are but
functional disturbances, and can be cured or, at least, alle
viated by influences upon the mind. It must also not be
forgotten that many affections are subject to an ebb and flow
of severity. Symptoms may remit or intermit, even though
the disease is not one of the true periodic type. A toothache,
for example, will be suspended for hours without apparent
cause, and appear again with apparently equal spontaneity.
A cessation of some symptom, or combination of symptoms,
io

may be mistaken for a cure. Many a patient who has been
registered in a hospital record or in a physician's private
docket as cured, has been only temporarily relieved. Noth
ing is more commonly observed in medical practice than the
apparent improvement that follows the initial visit of the
doctor. The calling and election of a disciple of the Baptizer did
not meet the aspirations of Jesus. The spirit of independent
energetic religious work was in his heart, and drove him for
ward to an active ministry. He struggled with the question,
and was so intensely wrought up that he separated himself
for some time from everyone, and in the solitude of a remote,
unpeopled section, finally threw off the trammels of his bap
tism and found the strength to enter upon an independent
life. He called this a period of temptation, and we can easily
believe that one to whom the existence of Satan and his ser
vant demons was an unquestioned doctrine, would see and
hear the arch-fiend, and be perfectly honest in regarding
himself as having resisted his personal efforts. He was borne
up by the faith that good angels were watching over him, and
when the days of his struggle were over, he returned to the
haunts of men to begin his work. At first he preached some
what in the manner of John, but without specific rites and
without any of John's ascetic habits. Indeed, if we accept the
narrative of the miracle at Cana, and the incident of the call
ing of Matthew to the discipleship, we will consider Jesus the
opposite of an ascetic.
His preaching was at once successful; he gathered a few
active supporters whose names have been preserved. He
did not separate himself from his co-religionists. He entered
into the synagogue at Capernaum and assumed the role of a
teacher. Here occurred an incident that exercised a powerful
effect on his career. A man suffering from an active neurosis
became susceptible of some hypnotic power on the part of
Jesus and was apparently healed. This incident could not
fail to attract attention, to develop new and strange feelings
in the mind of the young preacher, and to add to his influence
ii

with the populace. We see the effect at once. He went from
the synagogue, doubtless flushed with pardonable pride, di
rect to the bedside of a member of the family of one of his
followers, to again exercise his powers as a healer, and again
with success. His fame was established and for most of the
remainder of his brief career, he was busy in this work-. On-
the first day he was engaged in healing the sick, even to the
set of sun, and all the city, we are told, was gathered at his
door. The explanation of these cures is to be sought along several
lines. Many were probably only temporarily relieved, the
effect being due to the psychic influence. I have referred to
the manner in which- powerful nervous impressions may
abate severe symptoms. I saw a man grasp a rope in an effort
to save himself from drowning, and when he was
rescued and taken into the engine-room of a tug-boat, it was
found that a large portion of the skin of the fingers had been
stripped off,' yet he did not know it until he looked at his
hands. That faith-healing is likely to be successful only when
the patient has confidence in the healer is well-known. Even
in the ordinary practice of medicine, every doctor, however
much of a medical skeptic he may be, recognizes the value
of confidence and hopefulness. It is well understood that
the success of some members of the profession is due in part
to their personal influence upon the minds of their patients.
An encouraging, cheerful, hopeful manner is one of the most
valuable assets of the physician. Jesus came on the scene at
a great psychologic moment, and to use one of his own com
parisons, he sowed the seed of his work in good ground. Re
ligious agitators had preceded him and others were to follow
him, but no one was to equal him in the work that he had
chosen. It is not unlikely that his personal appearance and
bearing had much to do with his success. There is no reason
to believe that he was unattractive. He was no eccentric like
John, who wore skins for garments and fed on wild fruits.
Jesus dressed in the attire of- the people, indeed, somewhat
12

more elegantly than many, for his tunic was of one piece and
of such value that the Roman soldiers who divided his effects
at the crucifixion, cast lots for it, that it might not be cut.
He took part in the livelier customs of the world. He did
not disdain to go to a wedding feast at which much wine was
consumed, and he accepted the honors of a banquet tendered
him by Matthew, his newly-appointed disciple. The learned
Dr. Lardner assures us that there is no reason to suppose
that the expense of this banquet was defrayed out of any
funds that Matthew might have obtained in the course of
his service as a tax-gatherer.
There is no doubt that Jesus exercised a strong influence
over the female portion of the community. He spoke with
them freely, even entering without hesitation into conversa
tion with a Samaritan woman, who did not know him and
with whom conversation was forbidden by Jewish ethics. Nor
was he insusceptible to the appreciation of him by the gentler
sex. He rebuked Martha for complaining that Mary was
listening to him and neglecting her household duties. He
praised the action of the woman who poured the costly oint
ment over him.
Another point in the explanation of the cures wrought by
Jesus is that many who appealed to him were probably merely
pretending illness. His triumphal progress would lead many
to seek to attract his attention out of mere vanity.
It is an established principle of faith-healing that the pres
ence of antagonistic persons, especially those strongly skepti
cal, may interfere with the success of the method. Jesus
clearly recognized this fact. When called upon for the diffi
cult task of restoring to life the daughter of Jairus, he found
the house filled with skeptical neighbors, who laughed at him
when he said she was living. He began by expelling all
these leaving only the parents and their nearest friends.
It is obvious from these considerations that I hold the
opinion that Jesus' healing was a manifestation of high
psychic power, supplemented by extremely favorable condi-
13

tions, but in no sense due to divine inspiration. A proof of
the purely human limitations of Jesus' work is to be found in
the Gospels themselves. It is one of those interesting re
mainders of the natural features of the story, the significance
of which escaped the notice of the early Christians who modi
fied the books to make them more acceptable from a dogmatic
point of view. When Jesus attempted to exercise his powers
among those with whom he had been brought up, his work
failed. Now a divine gift could not have been limited by such
bounds, but they are precisely the limits of human influences.
That he accomplished but little in his own neighborhood is
one of the best attested incidents of his life. It is noticed by
all four evangelists, being one of the few points on which
they agree, and it is referred to in the recently discovered
Logia. In the third and fourth Gospels, and in the Logia, it is
simply in the dogmatic form that a prophet is not honored in
his own home, but in the first and second Gospels, the explana
tion is given in the fact that his family and neighbors dis
believed in him, and he could do no mighty works there.
It would be interesting to speculate as to what might have
been the history of this life if it had run an ordinary course.
Nothing in this universe, as we know it, escapes the sequence
of birth, maturation and death. The principles of biology
and sociology indicate and the history of mankind demon
strates that the result of Jesus' work would have shown a
culmination and a decline, with an arrest at obscurity, in
activity or the dead level of the commonplace. The course
of events was suddenly changed. A mental feature of a
different type appeared. In the brief period between his bap
tism and the final catastrophe, .this mental feature colors
the whole. narrative. Unfortunately, the incompleteness of
the Gospels renders this new phase less conspicuous than it
would have been in a critically written history, still as the
manifestations of Jesus' condition were frequent and well-
marked, sufficient of them have come down to us to lead to the
correct diagnosis.
An account of an early manifestation of this condition is in
14

Mark iii :20. The text is another one of those accidental sur
vivals of the original simple narrative, which are like islands
in an area that has been swept by a deluge. It has come to
us through the ages without its significance being noted. The
alarm of his friends at his eccentric conduct is here clearly
indicated. The dangerous exaltation of the self-consciousness
is exhibited. He promptly delivered himself of a
denunciatory speech directed against those who exhibited a
disposition to ignore him. The narrative in Mark is probably
the fragmentary report of a striking scene, for the failure
of his friends to control him leads at once to similar efforts
by his immediate family, and as might be expected, instead
of exercising a favorable influence, his irritation is increased
and he repudiates his mother and brothers.
Again, in the journey into Caesarea Philippi, he exhibited a
degree of self-consciousness, strangely in contrast with that
humility that we are so constantly told was his great charac
teristic. He asked his disciples the question, "Who do men
say that I am?" The answer does not appease him. He is
told, "Some say that you are John the Baptist, some Elijah,
others one of the prophets risen again." Then follows the
closer, egoistic question, "But who do you say that I am?"
The confident answer of Peter, "Thou art the anointed one,"
is received with great approval. It is declared to be a revela
tion from heaven, and Peter receives that blessing from
which his successors derive those powers to bind and loosen
at their sweet will, that they have for so many centuries en
joyed. Perceiving, probably, the favorable state of mind of certain
disciples, Jesus now carries out a procedure that I regard as
the most interesting and striking example of hypnotic sug
gestion on record. It shows clearly his power in this respect.
The incident is vividly described by all the synoptics, but
not in the fourth Gospel, which omission is of interest to the
textual critic, because all the accounts mention the presence
of the reputed author of the fourth Gospel. A brief reference is
made to it also in the second epistle of Peter. The accounts
15

agree very well, but that in Luke is the best, and gives us the
clue clearly. Jesus made a selection of the three apostles,
Peter, James and John, presumably those whom he recognized
as the most susceptible to his influence, and took them to a
desolate mountain top. It must not be overlooked that a
mountain top was a sacred spot. Olympus, Sinai and the
Mount of Olives are well known instances. The disciples
must, therefore, have been deeply impressed with the solemn
ity of the occasion, and must have anticipated a display of the
supernatural of more than ordinary impressiveness. When
I say that Jesus selected the more susceptible of his followers
and selected an unusually impressive environment, I do not
wish to be understood as insinuating deliberate fraud. The
powerful mental pressure under which he labored controlled
his actions unconsciously, and he was obeying emotions rather
than judgment.
By his power he put his three companions into hypnotic
sleep, and then imposed upon them a series of suggestions,
which they accepted. As I have elsewhere remarked the pure
ly human limitations of all parties prevented any suggestion
outside of the limits of human experience, hence we find that
the phenomenon known as the Transfiguration was a crude
manifestation, exhibiting nothing that an intelligent modern
can accept as suggestive of divinity. In fact, the description
indicates that his garments were more profoundly transfigured
than his person. To this suggestion was added that of the
appearance of two noted Hebrew leaders, Moses and
Elijah, the latter probably because, as we note in the Gospels,
his appearance was expected in connection with that of the
Messiah. The three disciples were aroused from their sleep.
Under the influence of the post-hypnotic suggestion, Peter
became incoherent, seeking to establish places of worship, as
the text says, not knowing what he said. They were again
put under the influence, now probably an easy task, and the
bolder suggestion impressed ; a voice from God himself, saying
"This is my son, my chosen, hear him." The spell was then
dissolved, and the disciples returning to normal consciousness
saw no one but their master. 16

A prominent characteristic of unbalanced minds is sudden
and extreme changes of temper not commensurate with ex
ternal conditions. The individual varies from cheerfulness or
quietude to anger or excitement, or the reverse in a most
unexpected manner, and is not amenable to reason. Re
ligious insanity, however, frequently manifests itself as a
marked depression from which periods of cheerfulness or
quiet are absent. Another form of religious mania, is
that of exaltation, accompanied with delusions of grandeur.
Here will be found no thought of disfavor with Deity. On
the contrary, the patient enjoys the special confidence of God,
receives frequent communications from him, and is often
charged with some great mission. Such a mental condition
does not withdraw the patient from the world, as may occur
in the melancholia, but tends to publicity. Outbursts of pas
sion occur, sometimes without apparent cause, but often as a
sequence to the antagonism or indifference of the public to
the extravagant claims. Sudden and extreme passion, such
as are termed by alienists "episodes of frenzy," are to be noted
several times in the Gospel narrative, and others are suggested
by the tone of the narrative. It is frequently stated that Jesus
inspired fear in those with whom he came in contact. The
Gerasenes begged that he would depart from their land.
The disciples were sometimes quite unable to understand
his utterances or actions and were "sore afraid."
Of specific instances, I will mention the rebuking of Peter
(Mat. 16:21) ; the prediction in Mat. 10:34, and the cursing of
the fig tree. Denunciations of those who did not admit his
claims to a divine mission are very common. As is almost
always the case with those of humble origin and poor who
undertake such public work, Jesus finds the ruling and wealthy
classes his greatest enemies. We may readily admit that in
his age and country, perhaps more than in this, much wealth
was acquired dishonestly, and we can sympathize with much
of his denunciation, but he goes far beyond reasonable bounds,
for he rails against thrift and industry. His maxim that we
should take no thought for the morrow and his declaration

17

that any one who wishes to be wholly righteous should ac
quire no property are destructive of all practical life, and the
world is fortunate in the fact that while it has pretended for
centuries to approve these doctrines, it has never seriously
followed them.
The rebuking of Peter is a noticeable incident, following as
it did upon an equally unreasonable approval of another ut
terance of that apostle. Both utterances exemplify the high
ly emotional tension of the Master's mind.
The cursing of the fig tree is an incident that must give
pain to every Christian. In no part of his life does the Master
appear to more disadvantage. It is acknowledged by the
evangelist that the season for fruiting was not at hand. From
the point of view of orthodox Christianity the incident is in
explicable, but it is intelligible from a psychiatric point of
view. It followed close upon a series of events that were
sure to lead to exaggerated self-esteem, namely the triumphal
entry into Jerusalem. Even a normal mind would have been
disturbed by such enthusiasm. How much more then must
have been the upsetting effect upon the poor megalomaniac
who, surrounded by a multitude, spreading garments and
branches before him, was entering the city of the great king,
the abode of Jahve, amidst the shouts "Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord," "Hosanna in the highest."
No wonder that he assumed dominion over the powers of
nature, and in the disappointment the next day at not being
able to gather figs, an episode of frensy caused him to pro
nounce a deep and lasting curse.
The scene in the garden at Gethsemane, commonly known
as the Agony, presents much difficulty. It bears some resem
blance to the transfiguration. The same three disciples are
selected, Peter, James and John. Whether his actions were
due to a temporary condition of collapse as a reaction from
the intense exaltation of the immediately preceding period or
from the consciousness that his career had at last brought
about a conflict with authorities, is an open question. It is
plain that his arrest on serious charges was near and that he
18

knew it, for the incident closes with the arrival of Judas and
the police. The scene is described in some detail in the first
and second Gospels, more briefly in the third Gospel which in
troduces the appearance of an angel, but is not mentioned in
the fourth Gospel. It is from the first two Gospels that we
learn the names of the disciples present, the same as were
present at the transfiguration, Peter, James and John. I have
already alluded to the critical interest which attaches to the
non-mention of the transfiguration by the fourth Gospel, and
here is another equally puzzling incident. It does seem to
me reasonable to assume that the author of the fourth
Gospel could not have been one of the persons who took part
in either the transfiguration or the agony.
A striking feature of the latter incident is the evidence
of the high susceptibility to hypnotic influences that had been
acquired by the disciples. Jesus fell on his face, and imme
diately all three went into a condition of unconsciousness from
which they were aroused by their master. The mere sight
of him in an apparent condition of repose was sufficient to
induce an actual state of unconsciousness in them.
Two aberrations often observed in the insane are delusions
of the special senses and uncleanly habits. The former
are not infrequently exhibited as auditory delusions, the pa
tient hearing voices either of human or supernatural beings.
Jesus showed marked evidence of this aberration. At the
time of his baptism he heard the voice from heaven saying,
"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." The
auditory delusions in the period called the Temptation were
numerous and vivid. He heard Satan himself, not in broken
or rhapsodical utterances, but in connected conversation and
argument. Jesus' frequent allusions to the Father, indicate
that he believed himself to be in direct communication with
the deity. There is no evidence that he based his utterances
on experiences in dream or trance states. He received his
communications during his waking hours. In one instance,
mentioned in the fourth Gospel, he heard a voice from heaven,
but the bystanders heard only a thunderclap. It is not diffi-
19

cult to understand that in the highly disturbed condition of
his mind, he would misconceive some ordinary noise, and in
terpret it as the voice of God.
The tendency to unclean habits is expressed also by a few
incidents in the Gospels. Jesus omitted some of the Jewish
ritual, notably that which imposes the duty of washing the
hands before eating. There could be no scientific or religious
justification of this. Modern science has shown clearly that
eating with unclean hands is a fertile cause of serious disease.
Statistics recently published prove that in tropical and sub
tropical regions, thousands of death occur annually from eat
ing with the hands contaminated with earth. In thus depart
ing from the Jewish ritual, Jesus might have set a most
destructive example, but, fortunately in this, as in many other
instances, mankind has not followed his suggestions.
The insanity of Jesus may have been of that form known as
"circular insanity." In this, periods of excitement, depression
and lucidity are exhibited in varying succession. In some
cases, lucid intervals occur between all abnormal phases, in
other cases, the abnormal conditions follow in direct succes
sion. In the case of Jesus, we may distinguish in the occur
rences at the baptism, a period of excitement, followed quickly
by one of marked depression, the temptation, then a period
of elation as recorded in the third chapter of Mark. The suc
cess as a healer maintained for some time this period of elation.
Episodes of frenzy occasionally developed. The period of high
exaltation attending the entrance into Jerusalem, was followed
by an episode of frenzy, the cursing of the fig tree, and by a
period of profound depression, the agony at Gethsemane.
The crucifixion and resurrection are features peculiar to
Christianity. So far as I can judge, these do not form a part
of the Jewish messianic hope. That was essentially the belief
in the establishment of the Jewish kingdom in a state of
holiness and independence of everything but direct loyalty to
Jahve. It would be a long task to determine the methods by
which these features were engrafted upon the new faith, but a
large part of this change was due to the influence of actual
20

incidents. We need not doubt that Jesiis was crucified. It
was a common method of punishment, finding its popularity
not only the delight of cruelty, a tendency by no means eradi
cated at the present day, but also its great deterrent quality
recommended it to the Romans in dealing with insurgents.
While not a punishment approved by the Jews, yet the leading
Jews were probably not unwilling to leave the matter
to the Romans, regarding Jesus as dangerous to themselves
as well as to Roman supremacy.
More than one critic has raised the suggestion that Jesus
was not dead when taken down from the cross. Strauss dis
cussed this theory and rejected it, but I think not on suffi
cient grounds. It finds some support from an incident related
by Josephus. In the course of a journey through Palestine,
he found a number of rebels who had been crucified by their
Roman captors, and recognized several of them as his friends.
He returned to Titus and begged him to order the release of
these. The Emperor immediately granted the request and
ordered that the best medical attendance should be given to
the unfortunates. Some of them were saved. It is probable
that they had been hanging for many hours before they were
relieved. Jesus was on the cross six hours. Great as is the
suffering in such a condition, it does not seem likely that he
would die in that time, although he might become lethargic
and be regarded as dead. It is not impossible that some of
the high officials, especially Pilate, would connive at an at
tempt to take him down before death, under the condition that
his friends should keep him out of further activity. In this
way he would have been seen by several who could be trusted.
It is to be noticed that no independent person, Jew or Roman,
was favored by a sight of him after the crucifixion. He was
tenderly cared for, probably by the mother and brothers whom
he had disowned and scorned, and quietly buried after his
death, which may have occurred very soon afterwards.
It is customary to present Jesus as an exemplification of
the highest type of human character. His humility, tender
ness, sincerity, forgiving spirit and self-denial have been pro-

21

claimed from thousands of pulpits, and by hundreds of thous
ands of preachers and writers. It is a quality of humanity
that by persistent, strenuous iteration of any opinion, it will
come finally to general acceptance, and be in turn the axio
matic basis of further dogmatism. The declarations in regard
to Jesus have been so loud and long, that not only have all
professing Christians been won over to the firm belief in his
greatness in every respect, but even Jews and free-thinkers
have been drawn under the spell. In the extensive literature
relating to this subject, but little of challenge to the extreme
view is seen, but the voice of intelligent, free criticism is not
wholly silent. Strauss pointed out that the character as pre
sented in the Gospels is by no means complete. One very im
portant feature, the life of a man as husband and father, is
left by the teacher, himself solitary, wholly unexemplified.
Huxley has more strenuously expressed dissent from the
general view. In a discussion of the affair of the Gadarene
swine he declares that the act of Jesus was highly unethical, if
not illegal. No better example of Huxley's ability as a scholar
and polemic can be found than his essay on the ownership of
the Gaderene swine.
I confess that my reading of the Gospels has reduced con
siderably the favorable view I formed, from my early teaching
and reading of the character of the founder of Christianity.
I have not been able to find as much of those admirable quali
ties as the voluminous homilies set forth. On the contrary,
he appears often as narrow, unforgiving and inconsiderate.
He denounces those who thwart his efforts. In his bursts of
passion, he is willing to inflict disaster on the innocent as well
as on the guilty. Witness his threats against the communi
ties and houses that do not receive the teaching of the
Apostles, and his denunciations of those cities which met his
mission with unbelief (Matt. 10:13; 11:20). His words, in
many cases, bear an unpleasant foreshadowing of those utter
ed many centuries later, by one of his orthodox followers.
"Kill all, the Lord will know his own."
Even the specific instances of fortitude and forgiveness,
22

which are so favorite a theme with the orthodox, fade much
in the light of careful reading and textual criticism. Accord
ing to Matthew and Mark both the malefactors that were
crucified with him, bore their sufferings as well as he did, and
mocked him. Luke alone records the famous utterance,
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," and
this is absent from the best manuscripts of that Gospel.
There is no indication that Jesus had any interest in the
phenomena of nature, or that he possessed any artistic sense.
The grandeur of sky and earth, the beauties of dawn and sun
set, attracted him not. The year grew green and the year
grew brown, but the changing panorama awakened no feeling
in him. He took himself too seriously to share himself with
nature. He finds in the flowers no lesson but that of idleness.
As a matter of fact his biology is as far wrong as that of Paul.
The flowers do toil and spin assiduously. Throughout the
Gospels we see no effort or suggestion that would lead man
to a real interest in nature, nor even anything that would
lead to the broadly charitable doctrines that in our own time
take in not only all men but all living creatures.

23

•