God and my Neighbour Part 19

John E. Remsburg, author of the newly-published American book, _The Bible_, says:

That these admissions are true, that primitive Christianity was propagated chiefly by falsehood, is tacitly admitted by all Christians. They characterise as forgeries, or unworthy of credit, three-fourths of the early Christian writings.

Mr. Lecky, the historian, in his _European Morals_, writes in the following uncompromising style:

The very large part that must be a.s.signed to deliberate forgeries in the early apologetic literature of the Church we have already seen; and no impartial reader can, I think, investigate the innumerable grotesque and lying legends that, during the whole course of the Middle Ages, were deliberately palmed upon mankind as undoubted facts, can follow the history of the false decretals, and the discussions that were connected with them, or can observe the complete and absolute incapacity most Catholic historians have displayed of conceiving any good thing in the ranks of their opponents, or of stating with common fairness any consideration that can tell against their cause, without acknowledging how serious and how inveterate has been the evil. It is this which makes it so unspeakably repulsive to all independent and impartial thinkers, and has led a great German historian (Herder) to declare, with much bitterness, that the phrase "Christian veracity" deserves to rank with the phrase "Punic faith."

I could go on quoting such pa.s.sages. I could give specific instances of forgery by the dozen, but I do not think it necessary. It is sufficient to show that forgery was common, and has been always common, amongst all kinds of priests, and that therefore we cannot accept the Gospels as genuine and unaltered doc.u.ments.

Yet upon these doc.u.ments rests the whole fabric of Christianity.

Professor Huxley says:

There is no proof, nothing more than a fair presumption, that any one of the Gospels existed, in the state in which we find it in the authorised version of the Bible, before the second century, or, in other words, sixty or seventy years after the events recorded. And between that time and the date of the oldest extant ma.n.u.scripts of the Gospel there is no telling what additions and alterations and interpolations may have been made. It may be said that this is all mere speculation, but it is a good deal more. As competent scholars and honest men, our revisers have felt compelled to point out that such things have happened even since the date of the oldest known ma.n.u.scripts. The oldest two copies of the second Gospel end with the eighth verse of the sixteenth chapter; the remaining twelve verses are spurious, and it is noteworthy that the maker of the addition has not hesitated to introduce a speech in which Jesus promises His disciples that "in My name shall they cast out devils."

The other pa.s.sage "rejected to the margin" is still more instructive. It is that touching apologue, with its profound ethical sense, of the woman taken in adultery--which, if internal evidence were an infallible guide, might well be affirmed to be a typical example of the teaching of Jesus.

Yet, say the revisers, pitilessly, "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11." Now, let any reasonable man ask himself this question: if after an approximate settlement of the canon of the New Testament, and even later than the fourth or fifth centuries, literary fabricators had the skill and the audacity to make such additions and interpolations as these, what may they have done when no one had thought of a canon; when oral tradition still unfixed, was regarded as more valuable than such written records as may have existed in the latter portion of the first century? Or, to take the other alternative, if those who gradually settled the canon did not know of the oldest codices which have come down to us; or, if knowing them, they rejected their authority, what is to be thought of their competency as critics of the text?

Since alterations have been made in the text of Scripture we can never be certain that any particular text is genuine, and this circ.u.mstance militates seriously against the value of the evidence for the Resurrection.

CHRISTIANITY BEFORE CHRIST

If the story of Christ's life were true, we should not expect to find that nearly all the princ.i.p.al events of that life had previously happened in the lives of some earlier G.o.d or G.o.ds, long since acknowledged to be mythical.

If the Gospel record were the _only_ record of a G.o.d coming upon earth, of a G.o.d born of a virgin, of a G.o.d slain by men, that record would seem to us more plausible than it will seem if we discover proof that other and earlier G.o.ds have been fabled to have come on earth, to have been born of virgins, to have lived and taught on earth, and to have been slain by men.

Because, if the events related in the life of Christ have been previously related as parts of the lives of earlier mythical G.o.ds, we find ourselves confronted by the possibilities that what is mythical in one narrative may be mythical in another; that if one G.o.d is a myth another G.o.d may be a myth; that if 400,000,000 of Buddhists have been deluded, 200,000,000 of Christians may be deluded; that if the events of Christ's life were alleged to have happened before to another person, they may have been adopted from the older story, and made features of the new.

If Christ was G.o.d--the omnipotent, eternal, and _only_ G.o.d--come on earth, He would not be likely to repeat acts, to re-act the adventures of earlier and spurious G.o.ds; nor would His divine teachings be mere shreds and patches made up of quotations, paraphrases, and repet.i.tions of earlier teachings, uttered by mere mortals, or mere myths.

What are we to think, then when we find that there are hardly any events in the life of Christ which were not, before His birth, attributed to mythical G.o.ds; that there are hardly any acts of Christ's which may not be paralleled by acts attributed to mythical G.o.ds before His advent; that there are hardly any important thoughts attributed to Christ which had not been uttered by other men, or by mythical G.o.ds, in earlier times? What _are_ we to think if the facts be thus?

Mr. Parsons, in _Our Sun G.o.d_, quotes the following pa.s.sage from a Latin work by St. Augustine:

Again, in that I said, "This is in our time the Christian religion, which to know and also follow is most sure and certain salvation," it is affirmed in regard to this name, not in regard to the sacred thing itself to which the name belongs. For the sacred thing which is now called the Christian religion existed in ancient times, nor, indeed, was it absent from the beginning of the human race until the Christ Himself came in the flesh, whence the true religion which already existed came to be called "the Christian." So when, after His resurrection and ascension to heaven, the Apostles began to preach and many believed, it is thus written, "The followers were first called Christians at Antioch."

Therefore I said, "This is in our time the Christian religion,"

not because it did not exist in earlier times, but as having in later times received this particular name.

From Eusebius, the great Christian historian, Mr. Parsons, quotes as follows:

What is called the Christian religion is neither new nor strange, but--_if it be lawful to testify as to the truth_-- was known to the ancients.

Mr. Arthur Lillie, in _Buddha and Buddhism_, quotes M. Burnouf as saying:

History and comparative mythology are teaching every day more plainly that creeds grow slowly up. None came into the world ready-made, and as if by magic. The origin of events is lost in the infinite. A great Indian poet has said: "The beginning of things evades us; their end evades us also; we see only the middle."

Before Darwin's day it was considered absurd and impious to talk of "pre-Adamite man," and it will still, by many, be held absurd and impious to talk of "Christianity before Christ."

And yet the incidents of the life and death of Christ, the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, and the rites and mysteries of the Christian Church can all be paralleled by similar incidents, ethics, and ceremonies embodied in religions long anterior to the birth of Jesus.

Christ is said to have been G.o.d come down upon the earth. The idea of a G.o.d coming down upon the earth was quite an old and popular idea at the time when the Gospels were written. In the Old Testament G.o.d makes many visits to the earth; and the instances in the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythologies of G.o.ds coming amongst men and taking part in human affairs are well known.

Christ is said to have been the Son of G.o.d. But the idea of a son-G.o.d is very much older than the Christian religion.

Christ is said to have been a redeemer, and to have descended from a line of kings. But the idea of a king's son as a redeemer is very much older than the Christian religion.

Christ is said to have been born of a virgin. But many heroes before Him were declared to have been born of virgins.

Christ is said to have been born in a cave or stable while His parents were on a journey. But this also was an old legend long before the Christian religion.

Christ is said to have been crucified. But very many kings, kings' sons, son-G.o.ds, and heroes had been crucified ages before Him.

Christ is said to have been a sacrifice offered up for the salvation of man. But thousands and thousands of men before Him had been slain as sacrifices for the general good, or as atonements for general or particular sins.

Christ is said to have risen from the dead. But that had been said of other G.o.ds before Him.

Christ is said to have ascended into Heaven. But this also was a very old idea.

Christ is said to have worked miracles. But all the G.o.ds and saints of all the older religions were said to have worked miracles.

Christ is said to have brought to men, direct from Heaven, a new message of salvation. But the message He brought was in nowise new.

Christ is said to have preached a new ethic of mercy and peace and good-will to all men. But this ethic had been preached centuries before His supposed advent.

The Christians changed the Sabbath from Sat.u.r.day to Sunday. Sun-day is the day of the Sun G.o.d.

Christ's birthday was fixed on the 25th of December. But the 25th of December is the day of the Winter solstice--the birthday, of Apollo, the Sun G.o.d--and had been from time immemorial the birthday of the sun G.o.ds in all religions. The Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Phoenicians, and Teutonic races all kept the 25th of December as the birthday of the Sun G.o.d.

The Christians departed from the monotheism of the Jews, and made their G.o.d a Trinity. The Buddhists and the Egyptians had Holy Trinities long before. But whereas the Christian Trinity is unreasonable, the older idea of the Trinity was based upon a perfectly lucid and natural conception.

Christ is supposed by many to have first laid down the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you." But the Golden Rule was laid down centuries before the Christian era.

Two of the most important of the utterances attributed to Christ are the Lord's Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount. But there is very strong evidence that the Lord's Prayer was used before Christ's time, and still stronger evidence that the Sermon on the Mount was a compilation, and was never uttered by Christ or any other preacher in the form in which it is given by St. Matthew.

Christ is said to have been tempted of the Devil. But apart from the utter absurdity of the Devil's tempting G.o.d by offering Him the sovereignty of the earth--when G.o.d had already the sovereignty of twenty millions of suns--it is related of Buddha that he also was tempted of the Devil centuries before Christ was born.

The idea that one man should die as a sacrifice to the G.o.ds on behalf of many, the idea that the G.o.d should be slain for the good of men, the idea that the blood of the human or animal "scapegoat" had power to purify or to save, the idea that a king or a king's son should expiate the sins of a tribe by his death, and the idea that a G.o.d should offer himself as a sacrifice to himself in atonement for the sins of his people--all these were old ideas, and ideas well known to the founders of Christianity.

The resemblances of the legendary lives of Christ and Buddha are surprising: so also are the resemblances of forms and ethics of the ancient Buddhists and the early Christians.

Mr. Arthur Lillie, in _Buddha and Buddhism_, makes the following quotation from M. Leon de Rosny:

The astonis.h.i.+ng points of contact between the popular legend of Buddha and that of Christ, the almost absolute similarity of the moral lessons given to the world between these two peerless teachers of the human race, the striking affinities between the customs of the Buddhists and the Essenes, of whom Christ must have been a disciple, suggest at once an Indian origin to Primitive Christianity.

Mr. Lillie goes on to say that there was a sect of Essenes in Palestine fifty years B.C., and that fifty years after the death of Christ there existed in Palestine a similar sect, from whom Christianity was derived.