Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions Part 32

"Let altars burn and incense pour, please Jove Minerva eke; The potent Prince though nature frail, his favor you must seek, For Jove from heaven to earth him sent, lo! Alexander king, As G.o.d he comes the earth to rule, and just laws for to bring."[127:4]

_Ptolemy_, who was one of Alexander's generals in his Eastern campaigns, and into whose hands Egypt fell at the death of Alexander, was also believed to have been of divine origin. At the siege of Rhodes, Ptolemy had been of such signal service to its citizens that in grat.i.tude they paid _divine honors_ to him, and saluted him with the t.i.tle of _Soter_, _i. e._, Saviour. By that designation, "_Ptolemy Soter_," he is distinguished from the succeeding kings of the Macedonian dynasty in Egypt.[127:5]

_Cyrus_, King of Persia, was believed to have been of _divine origin_; he was called the "_Christ_," or the "_Anointed_ of G.o.d," and G.o.d's messenger.[127:6]

_Plato_, born at Athens 429 B. C., was believed to have been the son of G.o.d by a _pure virgin_, called Perictione.[127:7]

The reputed father of Plato (Aris) was admonished in a dream to respect the person of his wife until after the birth of the child of which she was then pregnant by a G.o.d.[127:8]

Prof. Draper, speaking of Plato, says:

"The Egyptian disciples of Plato would have looked with anger on those who rejected the legend that Perictione, the mother of that great philosopher, a pure virgin, had suffered an immaculate conception through the influences of (the G.o.d) Apollo, _and that the G.o.d had declared to Aris, to whom she was betrothed, the parentage of the child_."[128:1]

Here we have the legend of the angel appearing to Joseph--to whom Mary was betrothed--believed in by the disciples of Plato for centuries before the time of Christ Jesus, the only difference being that the virgin's name was Perictione instead of Mary, and the confiding husband's name Aris instead of Joseph. We have another similar case.

The mother of _Apollonius_ (B. C. 41) was informed by a G.o.d, who appeared to her, _that he himself should be born of her_.[128:2] In the course of time she gave birth to Apollonius, who became a great religious teacher, and performer of miracles.[128:3]

_Pythagoras_, born about 570 B. C., had divine honors paid him. His mother is said to have become impregnated through a _spectre_, or Holy Ghost. His father--or foster-father--was also informed that his wife should bring forth a son, who should be a benefactor to mankind.[128:4]

_aesculapius_, the great performer of miracles,[128:5] was supposed to be the son of a G.o.d and a worldly mother, Coronis. The Messenians, who consulted the oracle at Delphi to know where aesculapius was born, and of what parents, were informed that a G.o.d was his father, Coronis his mother, and that their son was born at Epidaurus.

Coronis, to conceal her pregnancy from her father, went to Epidaurus, where she was delivered of a son, whom she exposed on a mountain.

Aristhenes, a goat-herd, going in search of a goat and a dog missing from his fold, discovered the child, whom he would have carried to his home, had he not, upon approaching to lift him from the earth, _perceived his head encircled with fiery rays, which made him believe the child was divine_. The voice of fame soon published the birth of a miraculous infant, upon which the people flocked from all quarters _to behold this heaven-born child_.[128:6]

Being honored as a G.o.d in Phenicia and Egypt, his wors.h.i.+p pa.s.sed into Greece and Rome.[128:7]

_Simon the Samaritan_, surnamed "_Magus_" or the "Magician," who was contemporary with Jesus, was believed to be a _G.o.d_. In Rome, where he performed wonderful miracles, he was honored as a G.o.d, and his picture placed among the G.o.ds.[129:1]

Justin Martyr, quoted by Eusebius, tells us that Simon Magus attained great honor among the Romans. That he was believed to be a _G.o.d_, and that he was wors.h.i.+ped as such. Between two bridges upon the River Tibris, was to be seen this inscription: "Simoni Deo Sancto," _i. e._ "To Simon the Holy G.o.d."[129:2]

It was customary with all the heroes of the northern nations (Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Icelanders), to speak of themselves as sprung from their supreme deity, _Odin_. The historians of those times, that is to say, the poets, never failed to bestow the same honor on all those whose praises they sang; and thus they multiplied the descendants of Odin as much as they found convenient. The first-begotten son of Odin was Thor, whom the Eddas call the most valiant of his sons. "Baldur the Good," the "Beneficent Saviour," was the son of the Supreme Odin and the G.o.ddess Frigga, whose wors.h.i.+p was transferred to that of the Virgin Mary.[129:3]

In the mythological systems of _America_, a virgin-born G.o.d was not less clearly recognized than in those of the Old World. Among the savage tribes his origin and character were, for obvious reasons, much confused; but among the more advanced nations he occupied a well-defined position. Among the nations of Anahuac, he bore the name of _Quetzalcoatle_, and was regarded with the highest veneration.

For ages before the landing of Columbus on its sh.o.r.es, the inhabitants of ancient Mexico wors.h.i.+ped a "Saviour"--as they called him--(_Quetzalcoatle_) who was _born of a pure virgin_.[129:4] _A messenger from heaven announced to his mother that she should bear a son without connection with man._[129:5] Lord Kingsborough tells us that the annunciation of the _virgin Sochiquetzal_, mother of Quetzalcoatle,--who was styled the "_Queen of Heaven_"[129:6]--was the subject of a Mexican hieroglyph.[129:7]

The emba.s.sador was sent from heaven to this virgin, who had two sisters, Tzochitlique and Conatlique. "These three being alone in the house, two of them, on perceiving the emba.s.sador from heaven, died of fright, Sochiquetzal remaining alive, to whom the amba.s.sador announced that it was the will of G.o.d that she should conceive a son."[130:1] She therefore, according to the prediction, "conceived a son, _without connection with man_, who was called Quetzalcoatle."[130:2]

Dr. Daniel Brinton, in his "Myths of the New World," says:

"The Central figure of Toltec mythology is _Quetzalcoatle_.

Not an author on ancient Mexico, but has something to say about the glorious days when he ruled over the land. No one denies him to have been a G.o.d. _He was born of a virgin_ in the land of _Tula_ or _Tlopallan_."[130:3]

The Mayas of _Yucatan_ had a virgin-born G.o.d, corresponding entirely with Quetzalcoatle, if he was not the same under a different name, a conjecture very well sustained by the evident relations.h.i.+p between the Mexican and Mayan mythologies. He was named _Zama_, and was the only-begotten son of their supreme G.o.d, Kinchahan.[130:4]

The _Muyscas_ of Columbia had a similar hero-G.o.d. According to their traditionary history, he bore the name of _Bochica_. He was the incarnation of the Great Father, whose sovereignty and paternal care he emblematized.[130:5]

The inhabitants of _Nicaragua_ called their princ.i.p.al G.o.d Thomathoyo; and said that he had a _son_, who came down to earth, whose name was Theotbilahe, and that he was their general instructor.[130:6]

We find a corresponding character in the traditionary history of _Peru_.

The Sun--the G.o.d of the Peruvians--deploring their miserable condition, sent down his son, _Manco Capac_, to instruct them in religion, &c.[130:7]

We have also traces of a similar personage in the traditionary _Votan_ of _Guatemala_; but our accounts concerning him are more vague than in the cases above mentioned.

We find this traditional character in countries and among tribes where we would be least apt to suspect its existence. In _Brazil_, besides the common belief in an age of violence, during which the world was destroyed by water, there is a tradition of a supernatural personage called _Zome_, whose history is similar, in some respects, to that of Quetzalcoatle.[130:8]

The semi-civilized agricultural tribes of _Florida_ had like traditions.

The _Cherokees_, in particular, had a priest and law-giver _essentially corresponding to Quetzalcoatle and Bochica_. He was their great prophet, and bore the name of _Wasi_. "He told them what had been from the beginning of the world, and what would be, and gave the people in all things directions what to do. He appointed their feasts and fasts, and all the ceremonies of their religion, and enjoined upon them to obey his directions from generation to generation."[131:1]

Among the savage tribes the same notions prevailed. The _Edues_ of the Californians taught that there was a supreme Creator, _Niparaga_, and that his son, _Quaagagp_, came down upon the earth and instructed the Indians in religion, &c. Finally, through hatred, the Indians killed him; but although dead, he is incorruptible and beautiful. To him they pay adoration, as the _mediatory power_ between earth and the Supreme Niparaga.[131:2]

The _Iroquois_ also had a beneficent being, uniting in himself the character of _a G.o.d and man_, who was called _Tarengawagan_. He imparted to them the knowledge of the laws of the Great Spirit, established their form of government, &c.[131:3]

Among the _Algonquins_, and particularly among the _Ojibways_ and other remnants of that stock of the North-west, this intermediate great teacher (denominated, by Mr. Schoolcraft, in his "_Notes of the Iroquois_," "the great incarnation of the North-west") is fully recognized. He bears the name of _Michabou_, and is represented as _the first-born son of a great celestial Manitou_, or _Spirit, by an earthly mother_, and is esteemed the friend and protector of the human race.[131:4]

I think we can now say with M. Dupuis, that "the idea of a G.o.d, who came down on earth to save mankind, is neither new nor peculiar to the Christians," and with Cicero, the great Roman orator and philosopher, that "brave, famous or powerful men, after death, came to be _G.o.ds_, and they are the very ones whom we are accustomed to wors.h.i.+p, pray to and venerate."

Taking for granted that the synoptic Gospels are historical, there is no proof that Jesus ever claimed to be either G.o.d, or a G.o.d; on the other hand, it is quite the contrary.[131:5] As Viscount Amberly says: "The best proof of this is that Jesus never, at any period of his life, desired his followers to wors.h.i.+p him, either as G.o.d, or as the Son of G.o.d," in the sense in which it is now understood. Had he believed of himself what his followers subsequently believed of him, that he was one of the const.i.tuent persons in a divine Trinity, he must have enjoined his Apostles both to address him in prayer themselves, and to desire their converts to do likewise. It is quite plain that he did nothing of the kind, and that they never supposed him to have done so.

Belief in Jesus _as the Messiah_ was taught as the first dogma of Christianity, but adoration of Jesus _as G.o.d_ was not taught at all.

But we are not left in this matter to depend on conjectural inferences.

The words put into the mouth of Jesus are plain. Whenever occasion arose, _he a.s.serted his inferiority to the Father_, though, as no one had then dreamt of his equality, it is natural that the occasions should not have been frequent.

He made himself _inferior in knowledge_ when he said that of the day and hour of the day of judgment no one knew, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son; no one except the Father.[132:1]

He made himself _inferior in power_ when he said that seats on his right hand and on his left in the kingdom of heaven were not his to give.[132:2]

He made himself _inferior in virtue_ when he desired a certain man not to address him as "Good Master," for there was none good but G.o.d.[132:3]

The words of his prayer at Gethsemane, "all things are possible unto _thee_," imply that all things were _not_ possible to _him_, while its conclusion "not what _I will_, but what _thou wilt_," indicates submission to a superior, not the mere execution of a purpose of his own.[132:4] Indeed, the whole prayer would have been a mockery, useless for any purpose but the deception of his disciples, if he had himself been identical with the Being to whom he prayed, and had merely been giving effect by his death to their common counsels. While the cry of agony from the cross, "_My G.o.d, my G.o.d! why hast thou forsaken me?_"[132:5] would have been quite unmeaning if _the person forsaken_, and _the person forsaking_, had been _one and the same_.

_Either, then, we must a.s.sume that the language of Jesus has been misreported, or we must admit that he never for a moment pretended to be co-equal, co-eternal or consubstantial with G.o.d._

It also follows of necessity from _both the genealogies_,[133:1] that their compilers entertained no doubt that _Joseph_ was the father of Jesus. Otherwise the descent of Joseph would not have been in the least to the point. All attempts to reconcile this inconsistency with the doctrine of the Angel-Messiah has been without avail, although the most learned Christian divines, for many generations past, have endeavored to do so.

So, too, of the stories of the Presentation in the Temple,[133:2] and of the child Jesus at Jerusalem,[133:3] _Joseph is called his father_.

Jesus is repeatedly described as _the son of the carpenter_,[133:4] or the _son of Joseph_, without the least indication that the expression is not strictly in accordance with the fact.[133:5]

If his parents fail to understand him when he says, at twelve years old, that he must be about his Father's business;[133:6] if he afterwards declares that he finds no faith among his nearest relations;[133:7] if he exalts his faithful disciples above his _unbelieving mother_ and brothers;[133:8] above all, if Mary and her other sons put down his prophetic enthusiasm to _insanity_;[133:9]--then the untrustworthy nature of these stories of his birth is absolutely certain. If even a _little_ of what they tell us had been true, then _Mary at least_ would have believed in Jesus, and would not have failed so utterly to understand him.[133:10]

The Gospel of Mark--which, in this respect, at least, abides most faithfully by the old apostolic tradition--says not a word about Bethlehem or _the miraculous birth_. The congregation of Jerusalem to which Mary and the brothers of Jesus belonged,[133:11] and over which the eldest of them, James, presided,[133:12] can have known nothing of it; for the later Jewish-Christian communities, the so-called Ebionites, who were descended from the congregation at Jerusalem, called Jesus _the son of Joseph_. Nay, the story that the _Holy Spirit_ was the father of Jesus, must have risen among the _Greeks_, or elsewhere, and not among the first believers, who were Jews, for the Hebrew word for _spirit_ is of _the feminine gender_.[134:1]

The immediate successors of the "congregation at Jerusalem"--to which Mary, the mother of Jesus, and his brothers belonged--were, as we have seen, the Ebionites. Eusebius, the first ecclesiastical historian (born A. D. 264), speaking of the _Ebionites_ (_i. e._ "poor men"), tell us that they believed Jesus to be "_a simple and common man_," born as other men, "_of Mary and her husband_."[134:2]

The views held by the Ebionites of Jesus were, it is said, derived from the Gospel of Matthew, _and what they learned direct from the Apostles_.

Matthew had been a hearer of Jesus, a companion of the Apostles, and had seen and no doubt conversed with Mary. When he wrote his Gospel everything was fresh in his mind, and there could be no object, on his part, in writing the life of Jesus, to state falsehoods or omit important truths in order to deceive his countrymen. If what is stated in the _interpolated_ first two chapters, concerning the miraculous birth of Jesus, were true, Matthew would have known of it; and, knowing it, why should he omit it in giving an account of the life of Jesus?[134:3]