Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions Part 140

Add to this medley the fact that St. Irenaeus (A. D. 192), one of the most celebrated, most respected, and most quoted of the early Christian Fathers, tells us on the authority of his master, Polycarp, who had it from St. John himself, and from all the old people of Asia, that Jesus was not crucified at the time stated in the Gospels, but that he lived to be nearly _fifty_ years old. The pa.s.sage which, most fortunately, has escaped the destroyers of all such evidence, is to be found in Irenaeus'

second book against heresies,[515:4] of which the following is a portion:

"As the chief part of thirty years belongs to youth, and every one will confess him to be such till the fortieth year: but from the fortieth year to the fiftieth he declines into old age, _which our Lord (Jesus) having attained he taught us the Gospel, and all the elders who, in Asia, a.s.sembled with John, the disciple of the Lord, testify; and as John himself had taught them_. And he (John?) remained with them till the time of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John but other Apostles, _and heard the same thing from them, and bear the same testimony to this revelation_."

The escape of this pa.s.sage from the destroyers can be accounted for only in the same way as the pa.s.sage of Minucius Felix (quoted in Chapter XX.) concerning the Pagans worshiping a crucifix. These two pa.s.sages escaped from among, probably, hundreds destroyed, of which we know nothing, under the decrees of the emperors, yet remaining, by which they were ordered to be destroyed.

In John viii. 56, Jesus is made to say to the Jews: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it and was glad." Then said the Jews unto him: "Thou art not yet _fifty_ years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?"

If Jesus was then but about _thirty_ years of age, the Jews would evidently have said: "thou art not yet _forty_ years old," and would not have been likely to say: "thou art not yet _fifty_ years old," unless he was past forty.

There was a tradition current among the early Christians, that _Annas_ was high-priest when Jesus was crucified. This is evident from the _Acts_.[516:1] Now, Annas, or Ananias, _was not high-priest until about the year 48 A. D._;[516:2] therefore, if Jesus was crucified at that time he must have been about _fifty_ years of age;[516:3] but, as we remarked elsewhere, there exists, outside of the New Testament, no evidence whatever, in book, inscription, or monument, that Jesus of Nazareth was either scourged or crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Josephus, Tacitus, Plinius, Philo, nor any of their contemporaries, ever refer to the fact of this crucifixion, or express any belief thereon.[516:4] In the Talmud--the book containing Jewish traditions--Jesus is not referred to as the "crucified one," but as the "hanged one,"[516:5] while elsewhere it is narrated he was _stoned_ to death; so that it is evident they were ignorant of the manner of death which he suffered.[516:6]

In _Sanhedr. 43 a_, Jesus it said to have had five disciples, among whom were Mattheaus and Thaddeus. He is called "That Man," "The Nazarine," "The Fool," and "The Hung." Thus Aben Ezra says that Constantine put on his _labarum_ "a figure of the hung;" and, according to R. Bechai, the Christians were called "Worshipers of the Hung."

Little is said about Jesus in the _Talmud_, except that he was a scholar of Joshua Ben Perachiah (who lived a century before the time a.s.signed by the Christians for the birth of Jesus), accompanied him into Egypt, there learned magic, and was a seducer of the people, and was finally put to death by being stoned, and then hung as a blasphemer.

"The conclusion is, that no clearly defined traces of the personal Jesus remain on the surface, or beneath the surface, of Christendom. The silence of Josephus and other secular historians may be accounted for without falling back on a theory of hostility or contempt.[517:1] The _Christ_-idea cannot be spared from Christian development, but the personal Jesus, in some measure, can be."

"The person of Jesus, though it may have been immense, is indistinct.

That a great character was there may be conceded; but precisely wherein the character was great, is left to our _conjecture_. Of the eminent persons who have swayed the spiritual destinies of mankind, none has more completely disappeared from the critical view. The ideal image which Christians have, for nearly two thousand years, worshiped under the name of Jesus, has no authentic, distinctly visible, counterpart in history."

"His followers have gone on with the process of idealization, placing him higher and higher; making his personal existence more and more essential; insisting more and more urgently on the necessity of private intercourse with him; letting the Father subside into the background, as an 'effluence,' and the Holy Ghost lapse from individual ident.i.ty into impersonal influence, in order that he might be all in all as Regenerator and Saviour. From age to age the personal Jesus has been made the object of an extreme adoration, till now _faith_ in the living Christ is the heart of the Gospel; philosophy, science, culture, humanity are thrust resolutely aside, and the great teachers of the age are extinguished in order that _his_ light may shine." But, as Mr.

Frothingham remarks, in "The Cradle of the Christ": "In the order of experience, historical and biographical truth is discovered by stripping off layer after layer of exaggeration, and going back to the statements of contemporaries. As a rule, figures are _reduced_, not enlarged, by criticism. The influence of admiration is recognized as distorting and falsifying, while exalting. The process of legend-making begins immediately, goes on rapidly and with accelerating speed, and must be liberally allowed for by the seeker after truth. In scores of instances the historical individual turns out to be very much smaller than he was painted by his terrified or loving worshipers. In no single case has it been established that he was greater, or as great. It is, no doubt, conceivable that such a case should occur, but it never has occurred, in known instances, and cannot be presumed to have occurred in any particular instance. The presumptions are against the correctness of the glorified image. The disposition to exaggerate is so much stronger than the disposition to underrate, that even really great men are placed higher than they belong oftener than lower. The historical method works backwards. Knowledge shrinks the man."[518:1]

As we are allowed to _conjecture_ as to what is true in the Gospel history, we shall now do so.

The death of Herod, which occurred a few years before the time a.s.signed for the birth of Jesus, was followed by frightful social and political convulsions in Judea. For two or three years all the elements of disorder were abroad. Between pretenders to the vacant throne of Herod, _and aspirants to the Messianic throne of David_, Judea was torn and devastated. Revolt a.s.sumed the wildest form, the higher enthusiasm of faith yielded to the lower fury of _fanaticism_; the celestial visions of a kingdom of heaven were completely banished by the smoke and flame of political hate. _Claimant after claimant of the dangerous supremacy of the Messiah appeared, pitched a camp in the wilderness, raised the banner, gathered a force, was attacked, defeated, banished or crucified_; but _the frenzy did not abate_.

The popular aspect of the Messianic hope was _political_, not religious or moral. The name _Messiah_ was synonymous with _King of the Jews_; it suggested _political designs and aspirations_. The a.s.sumption of that character by any individual drew on him the vigilance of the police.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. No. 42]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. No. 43]

That Jesus of Nazareth a.s.sumed the character of "_Messiah_," as did many before and after him, and that his crucifixion[520:1] was simply an act of the law on _political grounds_, just as it was in the case of other so-called _Messiahs_, we believe to be the truth of the matter.[520:2]

"He is represented as being a native of _Galilee_, the _insurgent district of the country_; nurtured, if not born, in Nazareth, one of its chief cities; reared as a youth amid traditions of patriotic devotion, and amid scenes a.s.sociated with heroic dreams and endeavors. The Galileans were restless, excitable people, beyond the reach of conventionalities, remote from the centre of power, ecclesiastical and secular, simple in their lives, bold of speech, independent in thought, thoroughgoing in the sort of radicalism that is common among people who live 'out of the world,' who have leisure to discuss the exciting topics of the day, but too little knowledge, culture, or sense of social responsibility to discuss them soundly. Their mental discontent and moral intractability were proverbial. They were belligerents. The Romans had more trouble with them than with the natives of any other province.

_The Messiahs all started out from Galilee, and never failed to collect followers round their standard._ The Galileans, more than others, lived in the antic.i.p.ation of the Deliverer. The reference of the Messiah to Galilee is therefore already an indication of the character he is to a.s.sume."

To show the state the country must have been in at that time, we will quote an incident or two from Josephus.

A religious enthusiast called the Samaritans together upon Mount Gerizim, and a.s.sured them that he would work a miracle. "So they came thither _armed_, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together of them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great mult.i.tude together: but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon the roads by a great band of hors.e.m.e.n and footmen, who fell upon those who were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the princ.i.p.al of whom, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain."[521:1]

Not long before this Pilate pillaged the temple treasury, and used the "sacred money" to bring a current of water to Jerusalem. The _Jews_ were displeased with this, "and many ten thousands of the people got together and made a clamor against him. Some of them used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habits, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bade the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them with much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition."[522:1]

It was such deeds as these, inflicted upon the Jews by their oppressors, that made them think of the promised Messiah who was to deliver them from bondage, and which made many zealous fanatics imagine themselves to be "He who should come."[522:2]

There is reason to believe, as we have said, that Jesus of Nazareth a.s.sumed the t.i.tle of "_Messiah_." His age was throbbing and bursting with suppressed energy. The pressure of the Roman Empire was required to keep it down. "The Messianic hope had such vitality that it condensed into moments the moral result of ages. The common people were watching to see the heavens open, interpreted peals of thunder as angel voices, and saw divine potents in the flight of birds. Mothers dreamed their boys would be Messiah. The wildest preacher drew a crowd. The heart of the nation swelled big with the conviction that the hour of destiny was about to strike, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. _The crown was ready for any kingly head that might a.s.sume it._"[522:3]

The actions of this man, throughout his public career, we believe to be those of a zealot whose zeal overrode considerations of wisdom; in fact, a Galilean fanatic. Pilate condemns him reluctantly, feeling that he is a harmless visionary, but is obliged to condemn him as one of the many who persistently claimed to be the "_Messiah_," or "_King of the Jews_,"

an enemy of Caesar, an instrument against the empire, a pretender to the throne, a bold inciter to rebellion. The death he undergoes is the death of the traitor and mutineer,[522:4] the death that was inflicted on many such claimants, the death that would have been decreed to Judas the Galilean,[522:5] had he been captured, and that was inflicted on thousands of his deluded followers. _It was the Romans, then, who crucified the man Jesus, and not the Jews._

"In the Roman law the _State_ is the main object, for which the individual must live and die, with or against his will. In Jewish law, the _person_ is made the main object, for which the State must live and die; because the fundamental idea of the Roman law is power, and the fundamental idea of Jewish law is justice."[523:1] _Therefore Caiaphas and his conspirators did not act from the Jewish standpoint._ They represented _Rome_, her principles, interest, and barbarous caprices.[523:2] Not one point in the whole trial agrees with Jewish laws and custom.[523:3] It is impossible to save it; it must be given up as a transparent and unskilled invention of a _Gentile Christian_, who knew nothing of Jewish law and custom, and was ignorant of the state of civilization in Palestine, in the time of Jesus.

Jesus had been proclaimed the "_Messiah_," the "_Ruler of the Jews_,"

and the restorer of the kingdom of heaven. No Roman ear could understand these pretensions, otherwise than in their rebellious sense. That Pontius Pilate certainly understood under the t.i.tle, "_Messiah_," the king (the political chief of the nation), is evident from the subscription of the cross, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews," which he did not remove in spite of all protestations of the Jews. There is only one point in which the _four_ Gospels agree, and that is, that early in the morning Jesus was delivered over to the _Roman governor_, Pilate; that he was accused of high-treason against _Rome_--having been proclaimed King of the Jews--and that in consequence thereof he was condemned first to be scourged, and then to be crucified; all of which was done in hot haste. _In all other points the narratives of the Evangelists differ widely_, and so essentially that one story cannot be made of the four accounts; nor can any particular points stand the test of historical criticism, and vindicate its substantiality as a fact.

The Jews could not have crucified Jesus, _according to their laws_, if they had inflicted on him the highest penalty of the law, since crucifixion was _exclusively Roman_.[524:1] If the priests, elders, Pharisees, Jews, or all of them wanted Jesus out of the way so badly, why did they not have him quietly put to death while he was in their power, and done at once. The writer of the fourth Gospel seems to have understood this difficulty, and informs us that they could not kill him, _because he had prophesied what death he should die_; so he could die no other. It was dire necessity, that the heathen symbol of life and immortality--the cross[524:2]--should be brought to honor among the early Christians, and Jesus had to die on the cross (the Roman Gibbet), _according to John_[524:3] simply because it was so _prophesied_. The fact is, the crucifixion story, like the symbol of the crucifix itself, _came from abroad_.[524:4] It was told with the avowed intention of exonerating the Romans, and criminating the Jews, so they make the Roman governor take water, "and wash his hands before the mult.i.tude, saying, _I_ am innocent of the blood of this _just person_: see _ye_ to it." To be sure of their case, they make the Jews say: "_His blood be on us, and on our children._"[524:5]

"Another fact is this. Just at the period of time when misfortune and ruination befell the Jews most severely, in the first post-apostolic generation, the Christians were most active in making proselytes among Gentiles. To have then preached that _a crucified Jewish Rabbi of Galilee_ was their Saviour, would have sounded supremely ridiculous to those heathens. To have added thereto, that the said Rabbi was crucified by command of a Roman Governor, because he had been proclaimed 'King of the Jews,' would have been fatal to the whole scheme. In the opinion of the vulgar heathen, where the Roman Governor and Jewish Rabbi came in conflict, the former must unquestionably be right, and the latter decidedly wrong. To have preached a Saviour who was justly condemned to die the death of a slave and villain, would certainly have proved fatal to the whole enterprise. Therefore it was necessary to exonerate Pilate and the Romans, and to throw the whole burden upon the Jews, in order to establish the innocence and martyrdom of Jesus in the heathen mind."

That the crucifixion story, as related in the synoptic Gospels, was written _abroad_, and _not_ in the Hebrew, or in the dialect spoken by the Hebrews of Palestine, is evident from the following particular points, noticed by Dr. Isaac M. Wise, a learned Hebrew scholar:

The _Mark_ and _Matthew_ narrators call the place of crucifixion "_Golgotha_," to which the Mark narrator adds, "which is, being interpreted, _the place of skulls_." The Matthew narrator adds the same interpretation, which the John narrator copies without the word "_Golgotha_," and adds, _it was a place near Jerusalem_. The Luke narrator calls the place of crucifixion "_Calvary_," which is the LATIN _Calvaria_, viz., "_the place of bare skulls_." Therefore the name does not refer to the form of the hill, _but to the bare skulls upon it_.[525:1] Now "_there is no such word as GOLGOTHA anywhere in Jewish literature, and there is no such place mentioned anywhere near Jerusalem or in Palestine by any writer_; and, in fact, there was no such place; there could have been none near Jerusalem. The Jews buried their dead carefully. Also the executed convict had to be buried before night. No bare skulls, bleaching in the sun, could be found in Palestine, especially not near Jerusalem. _It was law, that a bare skull, the bare spinal column, and also the imperfect skeleton of any human being, make man unclean by contact, and also by having either in the house._ Man, thus made unclean, could not eat of any sacrificial meal, or of the sacred t.i.the, before he had gone through the ceremonies of purification; and whatever he touched was also unclean (Maimonides, Hil. Tumath Meth., iii. 1). Any impartial reader can see that the object of this law was to prevent the barbarous practice of heathens of having human skulls and skeletons lie about exposed to the decomposing influences of the atmosphere, as the Romans did in Palestine after the fall of Bethar, when for a long time they would give no permission to bury the dead patriots. This law was certainly enforced most rigidly in the vicinity of Jerusalem, of which they maintained "Jerusalem is more holy than all other cities surrounded with walls," so that it was not permitted to keep a dead body over night in the city, or to transport through it human bones. Jerusalem was the place of the sacrificial meals and the consumption of the sacred t.i.the, which was considered very holy (Maimonides, Hil. Beth Habchirah, vii. 14); there, and in the surroundings, skulls and skeletons were certainly never seen on the surface of the earth, and consequently there was no place called "_Golgotha_," and there was no such word in the Hebrew dialect. It is a word coined by the Mark narrator to translate the Latin term "_Calvaria_," which, together with the crucifixion story, _came from Rome_. But after the Syrian word was made, n.o.body understood it, and the Mark narrator was obliged to expound it."[526:1]

In the face of the arguments produced, the crucifixion story, as related in the Gospels, cannot be upheld as an historical fact. There exists, certainly, no rational ground whatever for the belief that the affair took place _in the manner the Evangelists describe it_. All that can be saved of the whole story is, that after Jesus had answered the first question before Pilate, viz., "Art thou the King of the Jews?" which it is natural to suppose he was asked, and also this can be supposed only, he was given over to the Roman soldiers to be disposed of as soon as possible, before his admirers and followers could come to his rescue, or any demonstration in his favor be made. He was captured in the night, as quietly as possible, and guarded in some place, probably in the high-priest's court, completely secluded from the eyes of the populace; and early in the morning he was brought before Pilate as cautiously and quietly as it could be done, and at _his_ command, disposed of by the soldiers as quickly as practicable, and in a manner not known to the ma.s.s of the people. All this was done, most likely, while the mult.i.tude worshiped on Mount Moriah, and n.o.body had an intimation of the tragical end of the Man of Nazareth.

The bitter cry of Jesus, as he hung on the tree, "My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me?" disclosed the hope of deliverance that till the last moment sustained his heart, and betrayed the anguish felt when the hope was blighted; the sneers and hooting of the Roman soldiers expressed their conviction that he had pretended to be what he was not.

The miracles ascribed to him, and the moral precepts put into his mouth, in after years, are what might be expected; history was simply repeating itself; the same thing had been done for others. "The preacher of the Mount, the prophet of the Beat.i.tudes, does but repeat, with persuasive lips, what the law-givers of his race proclaimed in mighty tones of command."[527:1]

The martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth has been gratefully acknowledged by his disciples, whose lives he saved by the sacrifice of his own, and by their friends, who would have fallen by the score had he not prevented the rebellion ripe at Jerusalem.[527:2] Posterity, infatuated with Pagan apotheoses, made of that simple martyrdom an interesting legend, colored with the myths of resurrection and ascension to that very heaven which the telescope has put out of man's way. It is a novel myth, made to suit the gross conceptions of ex-heathens. Modern theology, understanding well enough that the myth cannot be saved, seeks refuge in the greatness and self-denial of the man who died for an idea, as though Jesus had been the only man who had died for an idea. Thousands, tens of thousands of Jews, Christians, Mohammedans and Heathens, have died for ideas, and some of them were very foolish. But Jesus did not die for an idea. He never advanced anything new, that we know of, to die for. He was not accused of saying or teaching anything _original_. n.o.body has ever been able to discover anything new and original in the Gospels. He evidently died to save the lives of his friends, and this is much more meritorious than if he had died for a questionable idea. But then the whole fabric of vicarious atonement is demolished, and modern theology cannot get over the absurdity that the Almighty Lord of the Universe, the infinite and eternal cause of all causes, had to kill some innocent person in order to be reconciled to the human race. However abstractly they speculate and subtilize, there is always an undigested bone of man-G.o.d, G.o.d-man, and vicarious atonement in the theological stomach. Therefore theology appears so ridiculous in the eyes of modern philosophy. The theological speculation cannot go far enough to hold pace with modern astronomy. However nicely the idea may be dressed, the great G.o.d of the immense universe looks too small upon the cross of Calvary; and the human family is too large, has too numerous virtues and vices, to be perfectly represented by, and dependent on, one Rabbi of Galilee.

Speculate as they may, one way or another, they must connect the Eternal and the fate of the human family with the person and fate of Jesus. That is the very thing which deprives Jesus of his crown of martyrdom, and brings religion in perpetual conflict with philosophy. It was not the religious idea which was crucified in Jesus and resurrected with him, as with all its martyrs; although his belief in immortality may have strengthened him in the agony of death. It was the idea of duty to his disciples and friends which led him to the realms of death. This deserves admiration, but no more. It demonstrates the n.o.bility of human nature, but proves nothing in regard to providence, or the providential scheme of government.

The Christian story, _as the Gospels narrate it_, cannot stand the test of criticism. You approach it critically and it falls. _Dogmatic Christology_ built upon it, has, therefore, a very frail foundation.

Most so-called lives of Christ, or biographies of Jesus, are works of fiction, erected by imagination on the shifting foundation of meagre and unreliable records. There are very few pa.s.sages in the Gospels which can stand the rigid application of honest criticism. In modern science and philosophy, orthodox _Christology_ is out of the question.

"This 'sacred tradition' has in itself a glorious vitality, which Christians may unblameably ent.i.tle immortal. But it certainly will not lose in beauty, grandeur, or truth, if all the details concerning Jesus which are current in the Gospels, and all the mythology of his person, be forgotten or discredited. Christianity will remain without Christ.

"This formula has in it nothing paradoxical. Rightly interpreted, it simply means: _All that is best in Judaeo-Christian sentiment, moral or spiritual, will survive, without Rabbinical fancies, cultured by perverse logic; without huge piles of fable built upon them: without the Oriental Satan, a formidable rival to the throne of G.o.d; without the Pagan invention of h.e.l.l and Devils_."

In modern criticism, the Gospel sources become so utterly worthless and unreliable, that it takes more than ordinary faith to believe a large portion thereof to be true. The _Eucharist_ was not established by Jesus, and cannot be called a sacrament. The trials of Jesus are positively not true: they are pure inventions.[528:1] The crucifixion story, _as narrated_, is certainly not true, and it is extremely difficult to save the bare fact that Jesus was crucified. What can the critic do with books in which a few facts must be ingeniously guessed from under the mountain of ghost stories,[528:2] childish miracles,[529:1] and dogmatic tendencies?[529:2] It is absurd to expect of him to regard them as sources of religious instruction, in preference to any other mythologies and legends. That is the point at which modern critics have arrived, therefore, the Gospels have become books for the museum and archaeologist, for students of mythology and ancient literature.

The spirit of dogmatic Christology hovers still over a portion of civilized society, in antic organizations, disciplines, and hereditary forms of faith and worship; in science and philosophy, in the realm of criticism, its day is past. The universal, religious, and ethical element of Christianity has no connection whatever with Jesus or his apostles, with the Gospel, or the Gospel story; _it exists independent of any person or story_. Therefore it needs neither the Gospel story nor its heroes. If we profit by the example, by the teachings, or the discoveries of men of past ages, to these men we are indebted, and are in duty bound to acknowledge our indebtedness; but why should we give to _one_ individual, Jesus of Nazareth, the credit of it _all_? It is true, that by selecting from the Gospels whatever portions one may choose, a _common practice among Christian writers_, a n.o.ble and grand character may be depicted, _but who was the original of this character_? We may find the same individual outside of the Gospels, and before the time of Jesus. The moral precepts of the Gospels, also, were in existence before the Gospels themselves were in existence.[529:3] Why, then, extol the hero of the Gospels, and forget all others?

As it was at the end of Roman Paganism, so is it now: the ma.s.ses are deceived and fooled, or do it for themselves, and persons of vivacious fantasies prefer the masquerade of delusion, to the simple sublimity of naked but majestic truth. The decline of the church as a political power proves beyond a doubt the decline of Christian faith. The conflicts of Church and State all over the European continent, and the hostility between intelligence and _dogmatic Christianity_, demonstrates the death of _Christology_ in the consciousness of modern culture. It is useless to shut our eyes to these facts. Like rabbinical Judaism, dogmatic Christianity was the product of ages without typography, telescopes, microscopes, telegraphs, and power of steam. "These right arms of intelligence have fought the t.i.tanic battles, conquered and demolished the ancient castles, and remove now the debris, preparing the ground upon which there shall be the gorgeous temple of humanity, one universal republic, one universal religion of intelligence, and one great universal brotherhood. This is the new covenant, the gospel of humanity and reason."

"----h.o.a.ryheaded selfishness has felt Its death-blow, and is tottering to the grave: A brighter morn awaits the human day; War with its million horrors, and fierce h.e.l.l, Shall live but in the memory of time, Who, like a penitent libertine, shall start, Look back, and shudder at his younger years."

FOOTNOTES:

[508:1] "For knowledge of the man Jesus, of his idea and his aims, and of the outward form of his career, the _New Testament_ is our only hope.

If this hope fails, the pillared firmament of his starry fame is rottenness; the base of Christianity, so far as it was personal and individual, is built on stubble." (John W. Chadwick.)

[508:2] M. Renan, after declaring Jesus to be a "_fanatic_," and admitting that, "his friends thought him, at moments, beside himself;"

and that, "his enemies declared him possessed by a devil," says: "The man here delineated merits a place at the summit of human grandeur."

"This is the Supreme man, a sublime personage;" "to call him divine is no exaggeration." Other liberal writers have written in the same strain.