1 Der vorchristliche Jesus, 1906, Vorwort by Schmiedel, p. vii, and pp. 27–28. Ecce Deus, 1912, pp. 18, 332. ↑
2 Ecce Deus, pp. 16, 18, 50 sq., 70, 135; Der vorchr. Jesus, p. 40. But see Ecce Deus, pp. 66 and 196, where the thesis is modified. ↑
3 In the Literary Guide of June, 1913, Professor Smith defends his thesis against another critic. The reader should consult that article. ↑
6 On this problem cp. Prof. Smith, Ecce Deus, 251 sq.; and Prof. Drews, Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, Eng. tr. p. 19. ↑
7 Enoch, xxxviii, 2; liii, 6. ↑
13 Dr. Rendel Harris, Odes of Solomon, 1909, introd. p. 72. ↑
14 Harris, as cited, pp. 118, 125, 128, etc. ↑
15 Dr. Harris pronounces that an account in the Odes of the Virgin Birth (xix) must be later than the first century (p. 116). But this begs the question as to the source of that myth. ↑
16 Apropos d’hist. des religions, p. 272. ↑
17 Refutation of all Heresies, v, 5 (11). ↑
18 Cp. Drews, The Christ Myth, p. 54; and 2nd ed. of original, p. 24. ↑
19 Drews, p. 59; Loisy, p. 273. ↑
26 Der vorchristliche Jesus, pp. 42–70; Ecce Deus, pt. vi. ↑
28 Paper on “The Syriac Forms of New Testament Names,” in Proc. of the British Academy, vol. v, 1912, pp. 17–18. ↑
29 C.M. 312. The thesis was put by me twenty-eight years ago. ↑
30 Der vorchr. Jesus, p. 54 sq. ↑
32 Der vorchr. Jesus, pp. 56, 65. ↑
33 Cp. Philo Judæus, De Profugis:—“The Divine Word ... existing as the image of God, is the eldest of all things that can be known, placed nearest, and without anything intervening, to him who alone is the self-existent.” ↑
34 Friedländer’s thesis that the Minim were early Gnostics seems to be completely upset by Mr. Herford, Christianity in Talmud, p. 368 sq. ↑
36 The fact that the Talmudic allusions to the Minim include no discussion of the Christist doctrine of the Messiah (Herford, pp. 277, 279) goes to show that a Messianic doctrine had been no part of the early cult, and that among the Jesuists who kept up their connection with Judaism it gathered, or kept, no hold. ↑
37 Cp. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu, 1857, p. 287. ↑
40 See the whole subject discussed in Appendix B. ↑
43 Ecce Deus, p. 68. In his article in the Literary Guide, June, 1913, Professor Smith argues that only as a protest against idolatry and a crusade for monotheism could Proto-Christianity have succeeded with the Gentiles. But that was simply the line of Judaism, which had no Son-God to cloud its monotheism. Surely Jesuism appealed to the Gentiles primarily as did other Saviour-cults, ultimately distancing these by reason of organization. ↑
44 Cp. Les Apôtres, p. 107; Saint Paul, pp. 562–3. ↑
53 The Jesus of History and the Jesus of Tradition Identified. By George Solomon. Reeves and Turner, 1880. ↑
54 Here Mr. Solomon, without offering any explanation, identifies Josephus’s Jesus son of Sapphias, who was chief magistrate in Tiberias, with Jesus the robber captain of the borders of Ptolemais (§ 22)—a different person. I give his theory as he puts it. (Work cited, pp. 164–179.) ↑
55 Dr. Conybeare puts it as axiomatic that Jesus always speaks in Mark “as a Jew to Jews.” Thus are facts “gross as a mountain, open, palpable,” sought to be outfaced by verbiage. ↑
56 This aspect of the problem seems to be ignored by Erich Haupt (Zum Verständnis des Apostolats im neuen Testament 1896), who finds the choice of the twelve historical. ↑
57 See the passage in Baring Gould’s Lost and Hostile Gospels, 1874, p. 61; and in Herford’s Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 1903, p. 90. ↑
58 Hibbert Journal, July, 1911, cited by Prof. Smith, Ecce Deus, p. 318. ↑
59 C.M. 344. For the convenience of the reader I reprint in an Appendix an annotated translation I published in 1891—a revision of that of Messrs. Hitchcock and Brown, compared with a number of others. ↑
60 Cp. “His Servant Jesus” in Acts iii, 13, 26; iv, 27, 30. ↑
62 Supernatural Religion, R.P.A. rep. p. 153. ↑
63 See the notes to translation in Appendix. ↑
64 It goes back to Jeremiah, xxi, 8. ↑
66 Cp. Prof. A. Seeberg, Die Didache des Judentums und der Urchristenheit, 1908, p. 8; and his previous works, cited by him. ↑
68 A. Seeberg, work cited, p. 1. ↑
69 Dr. Conybeare nevertheless (Histor. Christ, p. 3) calls it a “characteristically Christian document,” in an argument which maintains the early currency and general historicity of Mark. ↑
70 This thesis was put in C.M. 345. Yet Dr. Conybeare alleges (p. 20) that I represent Jesus as surrounded by twelve disciples solely because of the twelve signs of the zodiac. The latter item is given simply as an explanation of the calling of the twelve on a mountain (412), which Dr. Conybeare finds quite historical. ↑
71 It was probably about the year 80 that the Jewish authorities framed the formula by which they sought to mark off “the Minim” from the Judaic fold.—Herford, Christianity in Talmud, pp. 135, 385–7. ↑
72 Mr. Lester (The Historic Jesus, p. 84) argues that the baptism of Jesus by John must be historical, since to invent it would be gratuitously to make him “in a way subordinate to John.” But when John is put as the Forerunner, acclaiming the Messiah, where is the subordination? ↑
75 Encyc. Bib. art. Baptism. ↑
76 A temporary Messianic Kingdom is set forth about 100 B.C. in the Book of Jubilees (ed. Charles, 1902, introd. p. lxxxvii). ↑
77 Charles, introd. to the Assumption of Moses, 1897, pp. xiii–xiv, liv. ↑
79 Charles, introd. to the Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896, pp. vii–viii. ↑
84 In Hebrews vi, 2, also, baptism appears to be disparaged. But vv. 1–2 are incoherent. Green’s translation gives a passable sense: the R.V. does not. ↑
86 Mt. xxviii, 19. Cp. Mk. xvi, 16. ↑
87 Testaments, ed. Charles, 1908, pp. xvi, 121. ↑
89 Van Manen, as summarized by Mr. Whittaker, Origins of Christianity, ed. 1914, p. 78, citing Epiphanius, Hær. xxx, 16. ↑
91 Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. iii, 24. ↑
92 Cp. Van Manen in Whittaker, p. 182. ↑
93 E.g. the dating of the rising of Theudas before the “enrolment” of Luke (6 C.E.); whereas Josephus places it about the year 45. ↑
94 The reference to “Aretas the King” in 2 Cor. xi, 32, one of the few possible clues in the Epistles, yields no certain date, and indeed creates a crux for the historians. See art. Aretas in Encyc. Bib. ↑
97 Cp. Schmiedel, art. Gospels in Encyc. Bib. col. 1890. ↑
100 See S.H.F., chs. iii and v; and cp. Whittaker, Priests, Philosophers, and Prophets, 1911. ↑
103 First put by M. Maurice Vernes, Du prétendu polythéisme des Hebreux, 1891. ↑
104 See The Source of the Christian Tradition, by E. Dujardin: Eng. trans. R.P.A., p. 32; and the citations from MM. Vernes and Dujardin in Mr. Whittaker’s Priests, Philosophers, and Prophets, 1911, pp. 124–127. ↑
105 Mr. Whittaker (p. 128) puts the view that Jewish monotheism was really a reduction of the universalist monotheism of the Mesopotamian priesthoods to the purposes of a nationalist God-cult. ↑
107 Even Dean Inge avows that “The distinctive feature of the Jewish religion is not, as is often supposed, its monotheism. Hebrew religion in its golden age was monolatry rather than monotheism; and when Jehovah became more strictly the only God, the cult of intermediate beings came in, and restored a quasi-polytheism.”—Art. “St. Paul” in Quarterly Review, Jan. 1914, p. 54. ↑
108 See, however, the contrary thesis maintained by Dr. A. Causse, Les Prophètes d’Israel et les religions de l’orient, 1913. ↑
110 Cp. Whittaker, Priests, Philosophers, and Prophets, p. 45. ↑
111 Cp. Supernatural Religion, ch. iv. ↑
112 E.g. Art. in The Atlantic Monthly, Nov. 1916, p. 605. ↑
113 Cp. J. A. Farrer, Paganism and Christianity, R.P.A. rep. pp., 19–20; Dr. J. E. Carpenter, Phases of Early Christianity, 1916, p. 57 sq. ↑
114 It may be argued that the really swift triumph of Islam in a later age goes to support Professor Smith’s thesis. But the triumph of Islam was primarily military. And Islam too kept its cortège of “demons.” ↑