CHAPTER XII
How Christianity was invented
The account of the meek Jesus given by Josephus may be called dramatic history, but when embellished in tradition by combination with the character and the events in the life of the other, it becomes dramatic history combined with fiction. The former is infinitely preferable, although much less sensational.
The vices when thus combined with the virtues escape recognition, and become invested with a certain halo of sacredness. It is so the Christian has come to regard the picture given in the Gospels; hence he falls before the character portrayed as a paragon of perfection to be only worshipped and historical reality is lost in the indiscriminate glamour.
We have endeavored to some extent to disconnect the traditional links which bound together into one the two Jesus, and we have shown that the imagined traditional unity is a compound of two personalities. They are to be seen as two separate individuals in history, and turn up as one individual first in tradition. The moral character of the one nature that of the meek sufferer is tarnished by the blending of the defects of the other, that of the violent innovator and the disharmony first appears when we have resolved the two into distinct persons.
The meek Jesus is not responsible for all this abuse and idolatry. He suffered because his countrymen resented his warning of woe and the implied condemnation; and if his prophetic utterances are to be judged by their fulfilment, he must be acknowledged to have been a prophet. The “divine fury" or passion ascribed to him by the historian testifies impressively to the effect of his mission upon his contemporaries. Indeed the pages of Josephus yield the only historical account the world to this hour possesses of the impression made by that "divine fury" of his on the minds of his contemporaries, and his appearance at the time in the Judean world.
It has been our sad task to show how often the four Greek writers blend events and characters which can only be disintegrated by research into the facts of history. A further instance occurs in confirmation of the charge in connection with the deaths of the two Herods — that of Herod the first, "who was eaten up of worms," and that of his grandson, Agrippa the Great, both described by the historian. This is his relation of the latter event: — "Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower, and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment, being illuminated by the first reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place and another from another (though not for his good), that he was a god; and they added, ‘Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.’ Upon this the king did neither rebuke them nor reject their impious flattery; but as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him, and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, ‘I whom you call a god am commanded presently to depart this life, while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner.' When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumour went abroad everywhere that he would certainly die in a little time." (Antiquities, Book xix. Chap. 8, sec. 2)
In conclusion, Josephus continues: — "When he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age and the seventh year of his reign."
Our readers will observe that this account of the death of Agrippa the Great, the grandson of the first Herod, is a separate and different account from that of the death of his grandfather many years previously; and the following quotation from the Acts shows that the traditional accounts have again blended into one the deaths of the grandfather and the grandson: — "And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory; and he was eaten up of worms, and gave up the ghost." (Acts 12: 21, 22)
In this version an angel of the Lord is introduced, instead of the owl seen by the king in the historian's account, agreeably to a style these writers have of representing calamities that overtake the persecutors of their faith as special judgments from the Lord in their behalf. But apart from the false idea thus conveyed in regard to the interposition of Providence, the facts are jumbled in the usual way, and the same disregard appears of real history. Let us briefly review our findings so far, in regard to facts: We have separated the Pontius Pilate pretender from all connection with the Jesus of the Gospels, the meek Jesus of Jerusalem from the Galilean Jesus of the sword, the death of Herod the Great from that of his grandson Agrippa, and we have referred the doctrine of the immortality of the soul to the early Jewish sects, and the gospel which first preached the kingdom of God to Judas of Galilee. The light in the heavens and the miraculous opening of the great gate, reported in connection with the imprisonment of Simon Peter, are proved to have taken place in the time of the historical Jesus. The birth on a Passover of a lamb from a heifer in the stables of the Temple, which had been brought there to be offered in sacrifice for the sins of the people, and the star that appeared in the heavens above the house at about the same time, together with other supernatural manifestations, are evidently the basis of certain well- known traditions in the Gospel story. It is known to be a fact that Herodias had but one daughter by her first husband, named Salome, who was married to her uncle Philip, who, dying a year and a half before Tiberius, left her a widow; and yet she is called a ‘damsel’ (‘a girl’) by the Greek writers, who represent her as asking her stepfather for the head of John the Baptist, and that during the lifetime of her husband, the matter being reported, as usual, in disregard of the facts. Neither is there any historical evidence of a person existing at the time answering to the character of John. The baptizer Banus, who is the only historical personage mentioned by Josephus as having any connection with the symbolical use of water, must have been a comparatively young man to have gained the reputation he enjoyed when Josephus was his disciple. He was, no doubt, the original John, born therefore at the time Luke says Jesus was. Had Banus had a predecessor in the same line named John, he would not have failed to mention it to Josephus when he stayed with him, and Josephus would not have failed to record what he heard, interested as he was to leave behind him, as the main labor of his life, a record of the religious movements of his time and country.
Now all this, taken in connection with the proved historical untrustworthiness of the traditional accounts, points to but one conclusion, and that is that the accounts given by Josephus of the Pontius Pilate pretender, of Banus, and of the two Jesus — the appearance of which last was accompanied by portents without precedent in merely secular history — form the basis of the story of the characters and events that figure on the pages of the traditional narratives known as the New Testament. Christianity is, therefore a purely mythical invention without any real historical groundwork whatever. It is only faith in four obscure writers, who are contradicted by the Bible, contradicted by history, contradicted by their ancestors, contradicted by their contemporaries, contradicted by themselves, and contradicted by one another. No faith can be placed in such writings. Never, either in works of controversy or in the courts of justice is any reliance placed on the asseverations of persons who stand convicted of untruth and unreason, albeit it is to the statements of these four men that the Church compels obedience, and generations of the people have yielded submission.