1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/09a0642b957d63b4cb554644071a1819.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VxUsj1j8aNH3jSYMghkqNgiCZKD-SOp0FVF5vWXXZhbx6WwToBqn-T0hS5opGn79At3b9rHLspXZIkhhlFOp29bZJ4NHEh3rw7h8X3LkAm4ewy6mA6oK1qrr5JjNrBPkN%7EdMQDyNRL1AM-N4ltLDeDieAbV6hWq7YLXFRGSNiwTVJNl5ph1sPPXcdC4RpnrgcT3IRpQk8T2ZwTQUfzb4KofWvLnExyBzxw3dqtNhs%7Ele0e0kfVr1ExRycDsrm356-95FXT9tIA9FJch6-fRAWGj-b1n70OLFxNyeX5Q8Q397JUMa-4pU6akWTC8iyt81Qoo%7E4oiVpjISRbOIrliiVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5187f80bf0035313cf8b14ed8f138322
PDF Text
Text
B ^55 4. ,
h —7
(3
•Mjzz)
~T.
i^CWALSECULARSOCIErai
THE TRANSFORMATION OF
CHRISTIANITY
A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS
EMBODIED IN THE “ENCYCLOPAEDIA
BIBLICA”
Once upon a time there was a system of Christian Theology. It was
a wonderful though a highly artificial structure, composed of fine old
crusted dogmas which no one could prove, but very few dared to
dispute. There was the “ magnified man ” in the sky, the Infallible
Bible, dictated by the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, the Fall, the Atonement,
Predestination and Grace, Justification by Faith, a Chosen People, a
practically omnipotent Devil, myriads of Evil Spirits, an eternity of
bliss to be obtained for nothing, and endless torment for those who did
not avail themselves of the offer.
Now, the house of cards has tumbled to pieces, or rather it is
slowly dissolving, as Shakespeare says, “ like the baseless fabric of a.
vision.” The Biblical chronology, history, ethics, all are alike found to
be defective and doubtful. Divine Revelation has become discredited ;
a Human Record takes its place. What has brought about this start
ling change ? The answer is, Knowledge. Thought, research, criticism,
have shown that the traditional theories of the Bible can no longer be
maintained. The logic of facts has confirmed the reasonings of the
independent thinker, and placed the dogmatist in a dilemma which
grows ever more acute. The result is not pleasant for the believer
but it is well that the real state of things should be known, that the
kernel of truth should be separated from the overgrown husk of
tradition.
During the last few years a work has been issued which sums up the
conclusions of modern criticism better than any other book. It is
called the Encyclopaedia Biblica, and its four volumes tersely and ably
set forth the new views, and support them by a mass of learning which
deserves serious consideration. And the most significant thing about
it is not merely that the entire doctrinal system of Christianity hasundergone a radical change, but that this change has largely been
brought about by Christian scholars themselves. A rapid glance at
�2
THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
this store-house of heresy will give the reader some idea of the extent of
the surrender which Christianity has made to the forces of Rationalism.
It must be premised that space will permit of the conclusions only
being given, without the detailed evidence by which they are supported.
THE CREATION MYTH.
Let us begin with our supposed first parents. Is the story of Adam
and Eve a true story ? There are, we are told, decisive reasons why
we cannot regard it as historical, and probably the writer himself never
supposed that he was relating history. It is not a mere myth, but an
idealistic narrative, containing moral as well as mythical elements.
This means that it is simply an imaginative reflection of what the
original author or authors believed—-a very different thing from a
Divine revelation. The Creation story originated in a stock of primitive
myths common to the Semitic races, and passed through a long period
of development before it was incorporated in the book of Genesis. Its
coincidences with the Babylonian myth are so numerous that it is
impossible to doubt there was a real historical connection between
them. The legend was not taken over as it stands from the earlier
account, but many important features in it cannot be explained except
on the supposition that they were borrowed from the Babylonian myth.
The latter gives the key to understanding the Biblical story by revealing
the principal source from which it was drawn. Its differences are due
to its independent development; its striking resemblances to the
Chaldean legend prove its origin. The Amarna tablets furnish evidence
that Babylonian influence had penetrated to the shores of the Mediter
ranean by the fifteenth century b.c.; but even if the Biblical account
originated so early it could not have assumed its final form till very
much later—in fact, many indications show that not till after the Exile
in the sixth century did the story take its present shape. If, then, it is
the fact, as Christian scholars assert, that this story of the Creation
originated in a pagan myth, and was shaped and altered by unknown
hands for nearly a thousand years, it is nothing more nor less than
superstition to hold that it is divinely true.
THE PATRIARCHS.
As for the Old Testament patriarchs, we now learn that their very
existence is uncertain. The tradition concerning Abraham is, as it
stands, inadmissible ; he is not so much a historical personage as an
ideal type of character, whose actual existence is as doubtful as that of
other heroes. All the stories of the patriarchs are legendary ; they may
contain some truth, though how much will probably never be known;
�THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
3
to suppose them entirely true is to throw historical criticism overboard
altogether,
HISTORY OR LEGEND ?
The whole book of Genesis, in fact, is not history at all, as we
understand history. It is a composite narrative, based on older records
long since lost, and the parts of which it is made up can be separated
in such a way that each reads as a consecutive story. Many indications
of later date are found in this book, such as the Egyptian names
appearing in the story of Joseph, which point to its having been
compiled in the seventh century b.c. The welding together of the two
main narratives appears to have been effected about the same period,
though both accounts were added to at still later dates. The story of
the Deluge is, of course, a Hebrew version of the Babylonian epic.
I The book of Exodus is another composite legend which has long
been mistaken for history. Vast ingenuity has been expended in
attempts to reconcile the narrative with known facts, but the particulars
of the supposed exodus, and the route followed by the Israelites, remain
in hopeless obscurity. The tradition is inconsistent; the element of
legend is predominant; sober history gives no warrant for supposing
that the signs and wonders wrought by Moses ever occurred, that the
first-born of Egypt were ever slain, or that Pharaoh was ever drowned
in the Red Sea.
MOSES.
The historical character of Moses has not been established, and it is
doubtful whether the name is that of an individual or that of a clan.
The story of his being exposed in an ark of bulrushes is a myth probably
derived from the similar and much earlier myth of Sargon. Quite
possibly some elements of truth underlie the account of Moses, for, if
the Israelites were really delivered from Egypt, they had no doubt a
leader, but who he was and what he did cannot be ascertained with
certainty. The alleged origin of the Ten Commandments is purely
traditional; it is probable that they were framed not earlier than the
time of Amos, on the basis of the old laws of the tribe, which we find
embodied in the later chapters of Exodus. It is admitted by even
conservative critics that the original worship of the Israelites was not of
an ethical character.
The popular opinion that the book of Deuteronomy was written by
Moses is at variance with both internal and external evidence. The
work has many signs of later date, and appears to have been unknown
before the seventh century b.c. Originally it may have consisted
merely of the long speech attributed to Moses, and this may have been
the book which was “ found ” in the temple in the reign of Josiah, the
�4
THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
rest of the work being added shortly afterwards. As it is difficult to
believe that such a work would have remained in the temple undis
covered for 800 years, it is reasonable to conclude that the book was
placed there by men who thought the time ripe for religious reforms—in
fact, that a “pious fraud” was perpetrated. Evidence of every kind
concurs to prove that in its original form it was a product of the seventh,
not of the fifteenth, century b.c. In its present form Deuteronomy is a
composite and considerably modified version of the older work.
THE PSALMS A COMPOSITE BOOK.
The fond illusion that all the Psalms were written by David except
where otherwise stated has been entirely dispelled. The book of
Psalms is really the hymn-book of the second temple, some of its parts
possibly ancient, others clearly indicating an origin as late as the time
of the Maccabees in the second century b.c. After the victories of the
patriot Judas Maccabteus, the national worship was restored, and the
dedication of the Temple in the year 165 was accompanied with hymns
and music; and it is probable that several of the Psalms in the existing
collection were among those sung on that occasion. According to
modern criticism, it is doubtful whether David wrote any of the Psalms.
It used to be gravely questioned whether any of them were written after
the Exile ; it is now a question whether any were written before it.
One critic goes so far as to consider that the oldest Psalm of all (No. 137)
was only written during the Exile, and that even that one was afterwards
put into its present shape. As to Proverbs, it is impossible to suppose
that Solomon was the author of the book, though it is not denied that
he might have collected or written proverbs of some sort. The book
may date from the fourth and third centuries b.c.
POETRY AND PROPHETIC LITERATURE.
The book of Job has sometimes been thought the oldest book in the
world. Criticism will not admit the claim. It is, we are told, impossible
to place it very early; it is best understood as representing special
influences which existed after the Exile, and at no other time. The
book is not a literary unity, nor was it written with any particular
purpose ; it is not a manufacture, but a growth. The romance of Esther
is a very late production, written probably after the time of Alexander
the Great, and is without even a kernel of historical truth. Jeremiah is
a composite work, containing spurious passages, some written as late as
the second century; while Ezekiel, though probably in the main a
genuine production of the prophet, contains numerous errors, additions,
and changes of the text. Ecclesiastes dates from the third century b.c.,
�THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
while Jonah is a Jewish midrash or tradition, like the histories of Tobit
and Susanna, and was certainly written after the Exile. The great book
of Isaiah is the work of several authors, some of them probably disciples
of Isaiah, though it is doubtful whether Isaiah himself wrote any of it.
Some parts appear to have been written during the Exile, and the earlier
portion edited during the third century b.c. Later criticism, we are
assured, deepens our sense of the gulf between the first and second
portions of Isaiah.
The book of Daniel was once assumed to be the most definitely
prophetical of the Old Testament writings—a notion which is seriously
discounted by the discovery that it was beyond question written in the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes, after or during the happening of the events
which were supposed to be foretold, and nearly 500 years after the time
of its supposed author. It is questionable whether such a person as
Daniel ever existed; but it is certain that his adventure in the den of
lions, and that of Shadrach and his companions in the fiery furnace, are
as fabulous as if they formed part of the collection of zEsop. In the
very first verse a subsequent origin is indicated by the name of the king
of Babylon being given in a late and inaccurate form. In a historical
sense the book i$ utterly unreliable. The prophetical literature generally
cannot be accepted as having the character of literal accuracy.
NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY.
Turning to the New Testament, we find that modern critical research
only brings out more clearly than ever the extraordinary vagueness and
uncertainty which enshroud every detail of the narrative. From the
article on ‘‘Chronology ” we learn that everything in the Gospels is too
uncertain to be accepted as historical fact. There are numerous
questions which it is “ wholly impossible to decide.” We do not know
when Jesus was born, or when he died, or who was his father, or what
was the duration of his ministry. As these are matters on which the
Gospel writers purport to give information, the fact of their failure to do
so settles the question of their competency as historians. As to the
birth of Jesus, the only account which claims to give indications of date
rests on a series of mistakes. No census was possible under Herod,
and none took place under “Cyrenius” until a.d. 7. The tradition as
to the age of Jesus is meagre, and leaves the question undecided. With
regard to the Crucifixion, we may assume any date between the years
26 and 35 without making any approach to certainty. The narrative of
Matthew in particular is full of “ suspicious circumstances,” and the only
results which have a high degree of probability are the date 30 a.d. for
the death of Jesus, and the period of about one year for the length of
his public ministry.
�6
THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
THE VIRGIN BIRTH.
The supposed supernatural birth of Jesus has of late exercised the
minds of theologians. It is not surprising that some of them should
reject the notion, for it is one without a shred of evidence in its favour.
Setting aside the well-known fact that many other religions assume a
similar origin for their founders, we may note that the New Testament
accounts are in such hopeless conflict with each other that reconciliation
is impossible. The Gospels themselves afford the amplest justification
for a criticism of their narratives. It is of little avail for Luke to tell us
that Jesus was born of a virgin when, in other parts of the same book,
his natural relationship to his father and mother is explicitly recognised.
Jesus himself made no appeal to his supposed miraculous birth, and it
is clear that it is excluded by the subsequent bestowal of the holy spirit
at his baptism. The only two verses in the first chapter of Luke which
clearly express the idea of a supernatural birth so disturb the connection
that we are compelled to regard them as an interpolation. As to the
date, there is a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke of at least ten
years, the one placing the event at about 4 b.c., the other not earlier
than 6 a.d. There is ample evidence that the belief in the divinity of
Jesus was a growth which went on during a long period. This develop
ing belief led to a desire to bring him into closer relationship with God,
and out of such anxiety arose the story of the nativity. Among the Jews
the notion of supernatural birth did not attach to their conception of
the Messiah. It is therefore probable that the idea was originally absent
from both Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels. The genealogy of Joseph,
given in the first Gospel, is prior in date to the story of the virgin birth,
and could have been drawn up only while he was regarded as the real
father of Jesus. Luke so frequently coincides with Matthew that he
probably had the latter’s Gospel before him; but, on the other hand,
his differences as to the birth and genealogy are so marked that it is
unlikely these particulars then formed part of Matthew’s work. Paul’s
statement also, that Jesus was born of the seed of David according to
the flesh, cannot be reconciled with the account of his having been born
of a virgin. It is clear that there was an endeavour to invest the birth
and childhood of Jesus with a miraculous halo. It must be added,
finally, that “ for the whole birth and childhood story of Matthew, in
its every detail, it is possible to trace a pagan substratum.” Further
comment is unnecessary.
JESUS.
The article on “Jesus,” by Professor A. B. Bruce, shows a
cautiously critical tendency, but points out that, while the Gospels may
be regarded as in the main a trustworthy tradition, they are unreliable
�THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
7
in many of their details. They raise so many perplexing questions, to
which they afford no solution, that anything like a dogmatic tone is
inadmissible. The account of the Temptation is a symbolic represen
tation of a spiritual experience. The story of the Crucifixion, even in
its most historic form, is not pure truth, but truth mixed with doubtful
legend. The bare facts of the betrayal, the desertion, the sentence, the
crucifixion and death, are regarded as historical, while the picturesque
accessories, such as the night-trial, the mocking, the incident of
Barabbas, the two thieves, and the preternatural concomitants of the
death, are of doubtful authenticity.
We may discover in the Gospels many indications that Jesus was
the product of his time and nation. His conception of Messiahship
was greatly influenced by the later Isaiah ; but the ideal he had formed
was not in harmony with that of the Jewish teachers of his day. In
fact, “ his attitude towards the whole circle of ideas associated with
conventional religion was without doubt that of a radical sceptic ” :
while his language concerning the Father shows limitation of vision, his
spiritual intuitions are pure truth, valid for all ages. His acts of healing
are considered to have been real, though it does not follow that they
were miraculous. It is assumed by the writer of the article that these
beneficent deeds must have taken place, or the family of Jesus would'
not have thought him mad—surely a very slender ground on which to
assume that the works of healing actually occurred. Referring to the
strange statement that Jesus declined to expound his parables to the
people, lest they should be converted, we are assured that it is not
credible that Jesus would either cherish or avow such an inhuman
intention, though it is possible that in his disappointment he may have
expressed himself in such a way as to be misunderstood.
It is pointed out that, while in the Gospel of Luke Jesus is called
“the Lord ” about a dozen times, the earlier Gospels of Matthew and
Mark refer to him simply as “Jesus”—a fact which seems to indicate
the gradual evolution of the belief in his divinity.
THE RESURRECTION.
The important subject of the “ Resurrection ” is treated by Professor
P. W. Schmiedel, of Zurich, who tells us that the Gospel accounts
“exhibit contradictions of the most glaring kind.” Referring to the
contention that, in spite of these discrepancies, the event may have
really happened, it is pointed out that the actuality of the resurrection
depends for its establishment upon these very narratives, and in such a
case unimpeachable witnesses are naturally demanded. Such unim
peachable witnesses, of course, do not exist. In view of these contra
dictions, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the Gospel writers were
�8
THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
far removed from the events they describe. Another, point to notice is
that the canonical accounts do not actually describe any resurrection;
they merely treat it as having already occurred. It is inferred from the
statements that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his death ; but the
reality of the appearances has ever since been in dispute. The first of
these appearances, it is held, must have been believed to have taken
place in Galilee. There were strong reasons for placing them in
Jerusalem, where the Crucifixion had taken place; there must, there
fore, have been stronger reasons for stating that they occurred at a
distance. The account of the watch at the sepulchre and the sealing
of the tomb is now given up as unhistorical even by those who accept
the story as a whole. It is entirely excluded by the question of the
women, “Who shall roll away the stone?” The many attempts which
have been made to explain the disappearance of the body become
superfluous on the adoption of the view that the statements as to the
empty sepulchre are unhistorical. Moreover, the silence of Paul with
regard to these details is unaccountable, if the story of the Resurrection
is true. An apologetic tendency is perceptible in the Gospel accounts,
and this may help to explain the rise of unhistorical elements. It is
probable that, in the absence of knowledge, conjectures were freely
made, and many questions asked, the replies to which were afterwards
assumed to be facts.
PAUL’S BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION.
Paul’s statements regarding the appearances of the risen Jesus are
in themselves fairly consistent; the difficulty is that they do not agree
with the Gospel accounts, though Paul purports to give a categorical
relation. It must be remembered that he wrote, so far as we are
aware, long before any of our present Gospels were in existence, and,
as the Resurrection was the cornerstone of his theology, his testimony
is of particular interest. For him nothing less than the truth of
Christianity rested on the actuality of the resurrection of Jesus. As he
had found it hard to believe, he must have sought the more carefully to
inform himself of all that could be said in favour of such an astounding
event. During his visit to Jerusalem he had had opportunities of
acquiring knowledge relating to it, and it may naturally be assumed
that, when endeavouring to prove to the Corinthians the truth of the
Resurrection, he would state fully and clearly all that he knew about it.
Paul, however, does not say that he ever saw the risen Jesus in bodily
form. It is admitted on all hands that the appearance recorded by
him was in the nature of a vision—in other words, a purely subjective
experience. It is not even clear that he heard the words supposed to
have been addressed to him by Jesus, for we must put on one side the
�THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
9
accounts recorded in the Acts, which are so contradictory that no
reliance can be placed upon them. And it is well known that Paul
uses the same Greek word to describe both the appearance to himself
and the appearances to the original disciples, thereby implying the
possibility that the latter also were of a subjective or visionary
character.
THE GOSPELS.
The article on the Gospels by Dr. E. A. Abbott and Professor
Schmiedel is crammed with criticism of a kind most damaging to every
form of the orthodox faith. The view hitherto current, that the four
Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and appeared
thirty or forty years after the death of Jesus, can, it is stated, no longer
be maintained. In a matter of this sort, where the whole of the
material is not merely scanty, but deeply tinged with superstition,
criticism is compelled to be mainly of a negative character, and modern
research, far from clearing up the admitted difficulties, has only brought
them into greater prominence, and removed their solution to an
immeasurable distance. The idea that we are at liberty to treat as true
everything in the Gospels which cannot be proved false is wholly
fallacious. Some of their statements of fact are quite erroneous, and
the data often in direct contradiction to one another. The element of
miracle cannot fail to give rise to doubts, and the evangelists made it
clear that they wrote with a lack of concern for historical precision,
while the chronological framework of the Gospels must be classed
among their most untrustworthy features. Several of the reported
sayings of Jesus clearly bear the impress of a time which he did not
live to see ; in plain English, they were put into his mouth by later
writers. All the Gospels are marked by “ tendencies ”—that is, they
reveal traces of the special purpose for which they were compiled; each
Evangelist is influenced by, and seeks to serve, an apologetic interest.
It need hardly be said that, if these general conclusions can be
supported by a reasonable amount of evidence (and it is not to be
supposed that Christian scholars would recklessly proclaim them), they
entirely do away with the idea that the Gospels are credible and
trustworthy narratives.
A few brief references to details will serve to illustrate the main
conclusions of this article.
With regard to the Virgin Birth, it is pointed out that, in the school
of thought of which Philo was the head, there were traditions that every
child of promise was born of a virgin. The genealogies were written
first, and implicitly deny the miraculous conception which the Gospels
themselves affirm. The alleged eclipse of the sun at the Crucifixion is
impossible. One of the orthodox shifts respecting this phenomenon is
�10
THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
that it was an eclipse of the moon ! Matthew’s statement as to the
empty sepulchre must be rejected as a later innovation, while his
account of a watch being placed over the tomb was inserted merely to
exclude the charge that the body had been removed. The saying of
Jesus in Matthew xvi. n as to spiritual bread is unaccountable if the
previous miracles of feeding the multitudes had been actual occurrences.
The only sense in which the words could have been understood at the
time was that of the material bread which had been provided. The
deduction, therefore, is that the feeding of the four or five thousand was
a parable which had been misunderstood. Only if the term “ bread ”
represents spiritual truth (and Jesus actually employed the word in this
sense) can we understand more being left over than was originally used,
since truth is not consumed by being made known. Both Matthew
and Mark, in fact, seem to have read into the utterances of Jesus details
borrowed from subsequent facts or controversies.
The third Gospel is also untrustworthy, its historical value beinglowered by evidence of the writer’s errors and misunderstandings. It
is the most beautiful and picturesque of the four, but in point of bald
fact probably the least authoritative. It has been widely assumed that
it was written by the physician Luke, and that Luke was a companion
of Paul. This view of its Pauline character, however, can now be;
maintained only in a very limited sense. It is clear that the third
Gospel and the Acts are by the same author, but that author was not
Luke. The silence of Papias, who lived at the end of the first century,,
with regard to the third and fourth Gospels, implies that either he did
not know them at all, or that he did not regard them as of equal
authority with Matthew and Mark.
In the fourth Gospel we find more ambiguities than in all the
other three together. The story of the raising of Lazarus cannot beadmitted as historical; it is not a pure myth, but a poetic development,
an allegory intended to illustrate man’s conversion from spiritual death
to spiritual life. An incident is referred to of a youth who was converted
by one of the Apostles, and thereafter regarded as a “trophy of the
resurrection.” In an age which appears to have been very prone to'
misunderstand metaphor and to materialise inner experiences, it is more
than probable that expressions indicating spiritual death were assumed
to imply physical death, and the growth of new feelings to imply a
return to material life. We may reasonably suspect that this peculiarity
influenced the belief in the resurrection of Jesus himself.
It is important to note that Justin Martyr, who lived about the
middle of the second century, and was the most famous Christian
writer of that time, makes no clear reference to the fourth Gospel,
though it would have added great weight to his arguments if he could
�THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
11
have quoted it as a genuine apostolic writing. Up to the time of Justin
there is nothing to prove, or even to suggest, that the fourth Gospel
was recognised in this sense by the early Church, and Justin markedly
abstains from employing it as an authority. This is unaccountable if it
was then in existence and believed to be the work of an Apostle. The
allusions which Justin is supposed to have made to it are really
references to the Old Testament, the Gospel of Barnabas, or the general
Christian tradition. We are plainly warned that “ it is vain to look to
the Church fathers for trustworthy information on the subject of the
origin of the Gospels.”
The imperfection of the Gospel accounts is everywhere manifest.
An extremely small proportion of the actual words of Jesus can have
come down to us. His longest discourse would occupy only about five
minutes to deliver, even if uttered as it stands, which is a most unlikely
supposition. Even if his ministry lasted only a few months, he must
have said a thousand-fold more, and repeated his sayings with many
variations. And the text must not be taken as a trustworthy guide to
its original meaning. It merely shows us what the Evangelists, or
their predecessors, believed it to mean. The situations in which the
words of Jesus are said to have been spoken cannot be implicitly
accepted. We are left in doubt whether the Lord’s Prayer was uttered
in response to the request of the disciples or voluntarily to the public
in the Sermon on the Mount. The announcement that, whatsoever the
disciples should bind or loose, their decision would be ratified could
not have been made either to them or to Peter. The Trinitarian
formula of baptism put into the mouth of Jesus is of later date, not
having come into use till the time of Justin Martyr. If Jesus had
enjoined the mission to the Gentiles upon his Apostles, it is simply
incredible that they could have hotly disputed with Paul on that very
point. The names of the women at the cross, and even the names of
the Twelve Apostles, are not given in two places alike. Matthew xxii. 7
clearly pre-supposes the destruction of Jerusalem as already past. The
Gospel incidents are often grouped together for purely arbitrary reasons,
sometimes even for the sake of a word, such as “salt,” “light,” “ fire,”
where it is impossible to suppose that Jesus uttered such disconnected
sayings together. Sometimes the statements are in direct contradiction,
sometimes they are inconsistent, as when we come across a prohibition
of making deeds of healing known, though crowds of people are stated
to have just been healed. Even the least supernatural of the writers,
we are told, is not to be considered as entitled to credibility because he
has less of the miraculous element. The Lord’s Prayer affords a
significant example of the scantiness and incompleteness of the Gospel
tradition. It is not found in the second Gospel, which is probably the
�12
THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
oldest, and the others give it in slightly different forms. The narrative
of Nicodemus is stamped as unhistorical by the expression attributed
to the Jews : “ Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” It is impossible
that Jews could have used it, as they well knew that several of the
prophets were Galileans. Among the few statements that may be
accepted with some confidence are those which place the first appear
ances of the risen Jesus in Galilee, whither the disciples had already
fled. But even these indicate the belief that he had appeared there,
rather than the fact that he did so appear, and they, of course, conflict
with the statement that the first appearances occurred at Jerusalem,
where the disciples remained. Considering that it was a duty to bring
forward convincing evidence of the resurrection, the inadequacy of the
Gospel accounts is the more striking, and it becomes necessary to
withhold belief from what the writers actually do say. The account of
Jesus having eaten and been touched is incredible. It is suggested that
the story of the betrayal by Judas may have been invented to account
for the ease with which Jesus was captured, and the ignorance of the
real circumstances on the part of his followers.
THE SLENDER BASIS OF FACT.
We thus find that modern criticism decides that no confidence
whatever can be placed in the reliability of the Gospels as historical
narratives, or in the chronology of the events which they relate. It
may even seem to justify a doubt whether any credible elements at all
are to be found in them. Yet it is believed that some such credible
elements do exist. Five passages prove by their character that Jesus
was a real person, and that we have some trustworthy facts about him.
These passages are : Matthew xii. 31, Markx. 17, Mark iii. 21, Mark xiii.
32, and Mark xv. 34, and the corresponding passage in Matthew xxvii. 46,
though these last two are not found in Luke. Four other passages have
a high degree of probability—viz., Mark viii. 12, Mark vi. 5, Mark viii.
14-21, and Matthew xi. 5, with the corresponding passage in Luke vii.
22. These texts, however, disclose nothing of a preternatural character.
They merely prove that in Jesus we have to do with a completely
human being, and that the divine is to be sought in him only in the
form in which it is capable of being found in all men.
The four Gospels were compiled from earlier materials which have
perished, and the dates when they first appeared in their present form
are given as follows :—Mark, certainly after the destruction of Jerusalem
in the year 70; Matthew’, about 119 a.d.; Luke, between 100 and no;
and John, between 132 and 140. But even if they appeared about
a.d. 50, that would not, of course, affect the conclusions of criticism as
to their contents.
�THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
The sections of this book in which the narrative is written in the
first person plural may (says Professor Schmiedel) be implicitly accepted,
but it is equally certain that they are not by the same hand as the rest
of the book. The writer purposely wrote as if the whole work was from
the pen of an eye-witness, when it was not. Nor can he be absolved
from the “ tendency ” of writing in order to justify to himself and to his
time a form of Christianity which was already on the way to Catholicism.
This is the only view which reconciles the numerous discrepancies and
inaccuracies of the work. Apart from the “ we ” sections, no statement
merits immediate acceptance on the mere ground of its presence in the
book. All that contradicts the Pauline Epistles must be absolutely
given up, unless the latter are to be regarded as spurious. Positive
proofs of the trustworthiness of Acts must be tested with the greatest
caution. The speeches are constructed by the author in accordance
with his own conceptions. The book does not come from a companion
of Paul; its date may be set down as between a.d. 105 and 130.
THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.
The question just alluded to, of the genuineness of the Pauline
Epistles, is now far from being so clear as was once universally
supposed. Advanced criticism, Professor van Manen tells us in his
elaborate article on “ Paul,” has learned to recognise that none of these
Epistles are by him, not even the four generally regarded as unassailable.
They are not letters to individuals, but books or pamphlets emanating
from a particular school. We know little, in reality, of the facts of
Paul’s life, or of his death : all is uncertain. The unmistakable tracesof late origin indicate that the Epistles probably did not appear till the
second century.
MINOR EPISTLES.
The Epistles of Peter, James, and Jude are none of them held to be
the work of the Apostles. They probably first saw the light in thesecond century ; the second Epistle of Peter may even belong to the
latter half of that period. It is well known that they were not received
into the Canon without considerable opposition.
THE APOCALYPSE.
The strange book of Revelation is not of purely Christian origin..
Criticism has clearly shown that it can no longer be regarded as a
literary unit, but is an admixture of Jewish with Christian ideas and
speculations. Ancient testimony, that of Papias in particular, assumed
the Presbyter John, and not the Apostle, as its author or redactor.
�]4
THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
DOCTRINAL CHRISTIANITY ABANDONED.
All the above conclusions are summarised, as nearly as may be, in
the words of the authors of the respective articles. Their significance
is surely enormous. Right or wrong, eminent Christian scholars here
proclaim results in complete antagonism to the ideas usually accepted
as forming the true basis of the Christian faith. They amount, in fact,
to a complete and unconditional surrender of the whole dogmatic
framework which has hitherto been held as divinely revealed, and
therefore divinely true.
Charles T. Gorham.*
* Author of “ The First Easter Dawn,” etc.
Cloth, xii.-32O pp., 4s. 6d. net, by post 4s. iod.
THE FIRST EASTER DAWN:
AN INQUIRY INTO THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
RESURRECTION OF JESUS
By Charles T. Gorham.
“In writing this book Mr. Gorham has performed a great service to the cause of
Rationalism, and he has performed it well. The First Easter Dawn fills a gap in
Rationalist literature. No other English work deals with the subject of the Resur
rection in a fashion so exhaustive and complete. Mr. Gorham always writes in a
clear and interesting style, and his book is a model of calm and cogent reasoning. It
deserves to be placed in the. hands of Christian believers, and it should be pressed
upon the attention of Christian advocates. Let them answer it if they can. But,
whatever may be their attitude, Mr. Gorham’s book will hold its own as a full and
powerful statement of the Rationalist case against the central doctrine of the Christian
religion—that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.”—The Literary Guide.
“To what shifts of intellectual controversy apologists have been driven has been
•exposed over and over again by Rationalist writers, but seldom, if ever, more patiently
or with more persuasive effect than in this erudite and lucidly argued volume.”—
Scotsman.
“The book is well written, is marked by conscientious study, and takes a wide
survey of the field.”—Edinburgh Evening News.
“The weakness of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus has often been
exposed, and never more dispassionately than by Mr. Gorham.”—Clarion.
. “The book bristles with arguments of fine temper, and is written in a judicial
spirit, weighing the evidence on both sides impartially.”—Winnipeg Telegram.
London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�GET “THE DETAILED EVIDENCE” FROM
THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA.
Before you decide for YOURSELF on this, the most important, the most vital matter
upon which anyone can have to make a decision, get “ the detailed evidence ” upon which
the conclusions given in this booklet are based—THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA
itself.
THE ENCYCLOP/EDIA BIBLICA is unique. It is the most complete Bible
Dictionary ever compiled. But it is a great deal more than this. It is an international
“forum” from which the greatest of the world’s Biblical students expound their opinions
on controversial Biblical matters, each giving the evidence which has ybrf^Yhim to take
up the attitude he has. All shades of opinion are represented in its pages, the Editors—
Professor T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D., and J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A.—
having thrown open its columns to all existing schools of thought.
The careful study of the work will enable you to separate the wheat from the chaff;
authentic history from mere legend ; fact from myth. No other work on this allimportant subject can be properly understood without the ENCYCLOPAEDIA
BIBLICA at hand for reference. It should be in every thoughtful man’s library.
SOME OF THE 102 CONTRIBUTORS.
Col. Conder, R.E.
Prof. A. B. Bruee. Prof. W. Ridgeway.
T. G. Pinches.
D.D. Prof. G. B. Gray.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
Prof. G. A. Smith.
Prof. W. C. van
Rev. W. C. Addis.
Manen. Maurice A. Canney,M.A.
Prof. P. W. SehmieProf. R. H. Charles.
H. W. Hogg, M.A.
del.
Sir W. T. ThistletonProf. C. P. Tiele.
Prof. W. H. Kosters.
Prof. Noldeke.
Dyer.
Prof. G. F. Moore.
Prof. A. A. Bevan.
Prof. S. R. Driver.
Canon J. A. Robinson.
Prin. O. C. Whitehouse.
Prof. W. Max Muller.
James G. Fraser,
D. C.L., LL.D., Litt. D.
Dr. E. A. Abbott.
The “ make-up ” of a book of reference of so great a scope is of the utmost
importance, therefore the Publishers have taken care to ensure that in matters of type,
white margins, and binding the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA should compare more
than favourably with any other work. There are two styles of binding, both very strong,
and calculated to stand hard and constant use—half morocco at ^5 net, and cloth f4 net.
NOW WITHIN THE REACH OF ALL RATIONALISTS.
Hitherto this work has been unobtainable by all but the most affluent. Now,
however, we have made arrangements with the Publishers to supply the complete work,
carriage paid on receipt of 8s., the balance of the price being forwarded by nine
further monthly payments of the same small sum. Note that there is no increase in
price. The work is offered on these exceptional terms at the cash price.
SEND THE ORDER FORM AND P.O. NOW.
MESSES. WATTS
CO.,
17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C.
Please supply me with a copy of ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA, in four volumes,
Cloth (or Leather), carriage paid, for which I enclose herewith Eight Shillings, and
agree to remit to you, or whomsoever you depute, a similar sum each month until net
price, ¿4 Cloth (or
Leather), is paid.
Name............................................................
Profession...........................................
Address........................................................................................................
[Ort foreign orders the difference between English and foreign postage will be charged.
in most cases cover this extra.]
Eight shillings will
�LIST OF R.P.A.
SIXPENNY PUBLICATION
Cheap i
1. HUXLEY’S LECTURES AND ESSAYS. (A
¿selection.) With Autobiography.
2. THE PIONEERS OF EVOLUTION. By Edward
Clodd.
3. MODERN SCIENCE & MODERN THOUGHT.
By Samuel Laing.
With Illustrations.
18. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OF HERBERT SPENCER. B.-”r
Hudson.
19. THREE ESSAYS ON RELIG1C
Stuart Mill.
CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. E' V
THE APOSTLES. By Ernest Rj .
PROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE. T;-,
WONDERS OF LIFE. By Erns?—•t
JESUS OF NAZARETH. By Ed{4
*GOD AND THE BIBLE. By Matth1,1
JTHE EVOLUTION F MAN. ft
6. ^EDUCATION : Intellectual, Moral, and Phy
sical. By Herbert Spencer.
7. THE EVOLUTION OF THE IDEA OF GOD.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
8. HUMAN ORIGINS. By Samuel Laing.
9. THE SERVICE OF MAN. By J. Cotter
27. tTHE EVOLUTION OF MAN. VoU
28. HUME’S ESSAYS : I.—An Inquiry
4. *LITERATURE AND DOGMA.
Arnold,
5. THE RIDDLE
OF
Ernst Haeckel.
THE
By Matthew
UNIVERSE.
By
By Grant Allen.
Selection.)
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
(A
With Biographical Sketch.
THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. By C. Darwin.
EMERSON’S ADDRESSES AND ESSAYS.
ON LIBERTY. By John Stuart Mill.
*THE STORY OF CREATION. By E. Clodd.
LAN AGNOSTIC’S APOLOGY. By Sir Leslie
Stephen.
16. LIFE OF JESUS. By Ernest Renan.
17. A MODERN ZOROASTRIAN. By S. Laing.
Vol. I.
Human Understanding. II.—An 1
cerning the Principles of Morals.
Morison.
10. TYNDALL’S LECTURES AND ESSAYS.
Haeckel.
29. HERBERT SPENCER’S ESSAYS. T
30. AN EASY OUTLINE OF EVOLU
the Twentieth Century.
2. HAECKEL’S
By Count de Renesse.
CRITICS
Joseph McCabe.
ANSWERED.
3. SCIENCE AND SPECULATION.
Lewes.
By
By G. H.
4. NEW LIGHT ON OLD PROBLEMS. By John
Wilson, M.A.
5. ETHICS OF THE GREAT RELIGIONS. By
C. T. Gorham.
6. A NEW CATECHISM. By M. M. Mangasarian.
7. THE RELIGION OF WOMAN. By J. McCabe.
•>
ost
•on
Mr.
ie
.at
Dennis Hird, M.A.
PHASES OF FAITH. By F. W...
ASIATIC STUDIES. By Sir A. C.T.<
MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE. By'I,
THE ORIGINS OF RELIGION, A
ESSAYS. By Andrew Lang.
35. TWELVE LECTURES AND Et
T. H. Huxley.
31.
32.
33.
34.
iste,
.zZ.
-.ons
quali'.;ear-l
Extra Series.
1. JESUS CHRIST: His Apostles and Disciples in
' I5’
8. THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPE
POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY. By A
9. ETHICAL RELIGION. By W. M*.
10. RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION, f s'
Haynes.
11. THE OLDEST LAWS IN THE
Chilperic Edwards.
12. THE SCIENCE OF EDUCATI
OF HERBART). By F. H. i. ;rM.A., B.Sc.
13. CONCERNING CHILDREN. IL
Perkins Gilman.
14. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOL.
Picton, M.A.
Bv^'
ury. '
-P
ost
ms
-11-
Various.
THE CHILDREN’S BOOK OF MORAL LESSONS.
By F. J. Gould.
First Series.
CHRISTIANITY AND RATIONALISM ON TRIAL.
The Christian Defences Answered. By Joseph
McCabe, J. M. Robertson, and others
DO WE BELIEVE ?
A Brief Exposition of the
Chief Tenets of the Rationalist Faith, By J. A.
Hedderwick.
THE TRUTH ABOUT SECULAM'-3
Its History and Results. By
'?
.
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE: Its t;
Meaning. By W. W. Hardwick '.
THE R. P. A. ANNUAL: 1909. Cc‘-^»'J
by Professor Cesare Lombroso,
’
Brandes, Professor Lester W.v,„
Benn, J. M. Robertson, Joseph.».?! .<
others.
The whole of the above List, with the exception of those marked with an asterisk, are supplied in
t Published at 6d. net,
7____ _
__________________ ___ _____ _____________________________
i&zXi
’
J Jr .
PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON. E.C.
this
il
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The transformation of Christianity : a summary of the principal conclusions embodied in the "Encyclopaedia Biblica"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gorham, Charles Turner [1856-1933]
Cheyne, T. K. (Thomas Kelly) [1841-1915] (ed)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements, p.14, inside and on back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1908]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N287
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The transformation of Christianity : a summary of the principal conclusions embodied in the "Encyclopaedia Biblica"), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Criticism
Christianity
Encyclopaedia Biblica
NSS