1 1 Cor. x, 21. I say “Paul” as I say “Matthew” or “John,” for brevity’s sake, not at all as accepting the ascriptions of the books. Van Manen’s thesis that all the Epistles of “Paul” are pseudepigraphic is probably very near the truth. ↑
2 The retention of “devils” in the Revised Version, with “Gr. demons” only in the margin, is an abuse. For the Greeks, there were good daimons as well as bad; and “demon” is not the real equivalent of “daimon.” ↑
4 Cp. Athenæus, vi, 26–27; Schömann, Griechische Alterthümer, 3te Aufl. ii, 418–19; Foucart, Des associations religieuses, 50–52; Miss Harrison, Themis, p. 154; Menzies, History of Religion, p. 292. ↑
5 P.C. 194 sq., 306; C.M. 381, note. ↑
7 On the points enumerated under heads 4–7 see Schürer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ, Eng. tr. Div. II, i, 11–36. In regard to my former specification of such influences (P.C. 204), Dr. Conybeare alleges (p. 49) that I “hint” that the Jesuist mystery-play was performed “in the temples (sic) built by Herod at Damascus and Jericho, and in the theatres of the Greek town at Gadara.” This cannot be regarded as one of Dr. Conybeare’s hallucinations: it is one of his random falsifications. No “hint” of the kind was ever given. The mystery-play is always represented by me as secretly performed. ↑
10 Schürer, as cited, iii, 225. ↑
11 Thus Dr. Conybeare, constantly. Upon his view, the Essenes can never have existed. ↑
12 Schürer, as cited, i, 3–4. ↑
13 Cp. Gunkel, Zum Verständnis des N.T., as cited, p. 20. ↑
14 The later documentists in such cases substituted an angel; but that was certainly not the early idea. See C.M. 112; Etheridge, Targums on the Pentateuch, i, 1862, p. 5. ↑
19 E.g. the Biblical accounts of the adoption of Canaanite Gods by Israelites who married Canaanite women. ↑
20 E.g. the special adoption of Greek deities by Romans, apart from the political practice of enrolling deities of conquered States in the Roman Pantheon. ↑
24 See many details in C.M., pp. 52–57. ↑
25 Refs. in P.C. 51, note 6. Dr. Conybeare (pp. 29, 30) meets such conclusions of scholars (Stade, Winckler, Sayce, etc.) by excluding them from his list of “serious Semitic scholars.” ↑
28 Heb. vii, 3. Cp. v, 6, 10; vii, 11, 17. ↑
30 E.S. 115; Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, p. 291 sq. ↑
31 Or Jehoshua—the Hebrew name of which Iesous is the Greek equivalent. ↑
33 The miracle of hastening the sun’s setting is in Homer (Il. xviii, 239) assigned to Hêrê, the chief Goddess. ↑
35 Josh. v, 13–15 is clearly late. In ch. xxiv the angel is not mentioned. ↑
37 Etheridge, The Targums on the Pentateuch, 1862, p. 5. ↑
38 The Samaritans have a late book ascribing to him many feats not given in the Jewish records. Concerning this Professor Drews wrote (Christ Myth, p. 57, note):—“The Samaritan Book of Joshua (Chronicon Samaritanum, published 1848) was written in Arabic during the thirteenth century in Egypt, and is based upon an old work compiled in the third century B.C.” Dr. Conybeare (Hist. Christ, p. 33) declares the last statement to be “founded on pure ignorance,” adding: “and the Encyclopædia Biblica declares it to be a medieval production of no value to anyone except the student of the Samaritan sect under Moslem rule.” Be it observed (1) that Dr. Drews had actually described the book as a medieval production; (2), that his whole point was that it was legendary, not historical; and (3) that the Ency. Bib. article, which bears out both propositions, uses no such language as Dr. Conybeare ascribes to it after the word “production,” and says nothing whatever on the hypothesis that the book is founded on a compilation of the third century B.C. That hypothesis, framed by Hebraists, is one upon which Dr. Conybeare has not the slightest right to an opinion. Dr. A. E. Cowley, in the Encyc. Brit., describes the book as derived from “sources of various dates.” That being so, Dr. Conybeare, who as usual has wholly failed to understand what he is attacking, has never touched the position, which is that Joshua legends so flourished among the Samaritans that they are preserved in a medieval book—unless he means to allege that the legends are of medieval invention, a proposition which, indeed, would fitly consummate his excursion. ↑
39 Yeho-shua = “Yah [or Yeho] is welfare.” ↑
40 Cp. Josh. v, 2–10. ↑
41 Canon Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 1902, p. 9, note 29. ↑
42 This thesis was substantially put by me in the first edition of Pagan Christs (1903). Dr. Conybeare, who appears incapable of accuracy in such matters, ascribes the Joshua theory (Hist. Christ, pp. 32, 35) and the special hypothesis that Joshua was mythically the son of Miriam, to Professor Smith, who never broached either. His pretext is a passage in the preface to the second edition of Christianity and Mythology, which he perverts in defiance of the context. On this basis he proceeds to charge “imitation.” Aspersion in Dr. Conybeare’s polemic is usually thus independent of fact. ↑
43 Historical Christ, p. 17. ↑
45 Neither is it put by Prof. Drews, who merely cites (above, p. 41, note) from Niemojewski, without endorsing it, an “astral” theory of Jesus and Pilate. Dr. Conybeare appears incapable of giving a true account of anything he antagonizes, whether in politics or in religion. Elsewhere Drews speaks of astral elements in the Christ story; but so do those adherents of the biographical school who recognize the zodiacal source of the Woman-and-Child myth in Revelation. ↑
46 At another point (p. 87, note) Dr. Conybeare triumphantly cites Winckler as saying that “the humanization of the Joshua myth was complete when the book of Joshua was compiled.” This grants the whole case. “Humanization” tells of previous deity; and just as Achilles remained a God after being presented in the Iliad, Joshua was “human” only for those whose sole lore concerning him was that of the Hexateuch. ↑
47 Der vorchristliche Jesus, p. 1 sq. ↑
48 Mk. v, 27; Lk. xxiv, 19; Acts xviii, 25; xxviii, 31. ↑
49 Perhaps an exception should be made of Dr. Conybeare, who believes Jesus to have been a “successful exorcist” (M.M.M. p. 142). This writer sees no difficulty in the fact that in Mark Jesus is no exorcist at Nazareth, and refuses to work wonders. ↑
55 Origins of Christianity, ed. 1914, p. 27. ↑
56 Found in the Alexandrian and Vatican codices, and preferred by Lachmann, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. ↑
57 τὸ δεύτερον. The R.V. puts “afterward” in the text, with “Gr. the second time” in the margin. Mr. Whittaker reads “afterward” also, after “the second time”—apparently by oversight. ↑
58 Deane, Pseudepigrapha, 1891, p. 312. ↑
59 Josh. xxiv, 31, in Septuagint. ↑
61 Art. by H. G. Wood in The Cambridge Magazine, Jan. 20, 1917, p. 216. ↑
63 Cambridge Magazine, Feb. 3, 1917, p. 289. ↑
64 G.B. v, 45 sq., 223; P.C. 364, 373–4. ↑
65 P.C. 112 sq., 131 sq., 140, 142, 144, 352, 362–4, 368. ↑
66 C.M. 354. I find that Volkmar (there cited) had in one of his later works put the theory that the traitor, whom he held to be an invention of the later Paulinists, would be named Juda as typifying Judaism. The myth-theory is not necessarily committed to the whole of this thesis, but the objections of Brandt (Die evang. Gesch. pp. 15–18) seem to me invalid. He always reasons on the presupposition of a central historicity, and argues as if Mark could not have been interpolated at the points where Judas is named. ↑