Is Jesus Christ an Historical Personage

8/2/2019 Is Jesus Christ an Historical Personage

1/18

A n t i - R a t i o n a l i s t i c l e c t u f a s -DBL!VBRBD A"T

EAST STREET MISSION HALL, AUOKLAND,

. By GEO. ALDRIDGE,


2/18

No. 1.

Is Jesus Christ anHistorical Personage?


3/18

Is Jesus Christ an HistoricalPersonage?From its very introduction Christianity has had to

encounter two mental attitudes-the attitude of sublime in-difference to its claims, and the attitude of open hostility; ofthe two the latter is more preferable. The attitude of in-difference from without has sometimes invaded the Churchitself, and acted as a narcotic upon it, stifling its workings andcramping its life. ,The attitude of hostility towards Christianityhas roused it into activity, and endued it with new vigour.There are some of us here who are old enough to rememberthe passage of Christianity through one severe trial. I supposethat which occurred some 30 or 40 years ago was one of theseverest encounters which it has yet experienced; but it sur-vived that, and to-day is facing another which is attacking itfrom another standpoint. You will pardon me if I believe frommy little knowledge of history, and from personal experience ofthat to which I have referred, that the Christianity which haswithstood the storms of past centuries will win safely throughthe present gale.Those who read at all the history of Christianity willknow that in the very earliest days it had to encounter opposi-tion. The German, Baur, one of the higher critics of some halfcentury ago has said that in acuteness, in dialectic aptitude, inmany-sided culture, Celsus stands behind no opponent ofChristianity, " and he refers to an opposition which took placein the second century of our era.

Some of us will remember how 35 years ago men used torefer with something like awe to the writings of Voltaire, thekeen-witted Frenchman, who wrote so sarcastically against theChristian religion, of whom it is reported that he said that ittook twelve men to found Christianity, but he would show theworld that it needed but one man to overthrow it. Needless tosay, Christianity still stands as firmly on its basis as when Vol-taire wrote so strongly against it.

I have referred to the free-thought of my early days. I canremember the strong language that was used, and how menspoke with fire and enthusiasm on behalf of free-thought, andused the coarsest invectives against Christianity. They prophe-

3


4/18

sied its overthrow. It was prophesied later, in this City, too,but Christianity still stands. I repeat that the religion whichhas passed through the crises of the past century is not to bequite so easily overturned as some of our modern teachers wouldhave us believe. As you know, in this City recently, Chris-tianity has been attacked from a new side-probably not new tothose who keep abreast of things-but new at all events to themajority of the people of this City. It has been attacked underthe banner of Socialism. The particular phase of Socialismwhich is being asserted in this City is one which, strangelyenough, seems to demand that it shall go hand in hand with anassault upon Christianity and its principles. Perhaps I oughtnot to make a statement of that kind without some attemptat verification.I hold in my hand a copy of the Socialistic paper publishedin this City (you see I read that, too). This paper was sentto me by some member of the organisation. It contains an openletter addressed to the Auckland lHinisters' Association, inwhich the writer states: " In the first place, Socialism is neitherChristian nor anti-Christian" (I think so, too) " no more thanLiberalism is-8o when you deliver your antidotes to anti-Chris-tian Socialism you attack a thing which has no existence." Thesame objection has been stated from the public platform, andhas also been published in the daily press.

Now, we can only judge on that point from what seems tobe very clear evidence indeed, and to support the statementwhich I have made, I can but say that the attacks upon Chris-tianity have been publicly made from the platform of the OperaHouse, and the advertisements stated that the addresses weregiven under the auspices of the N.Z. Socialistic Party. It isquite probable that the lecturer has had a perfectly free handand is simply voicing his own sentiments, but I am not awarethat the Socialistic Party has repudiated anything thereinadvanced by its lecturer. I discover, too, when I read Social-istic literature, that there is in some of it a veiled, and in othersan open attack on Christianity. In Karl Man's Capital thereare innuendoes directed against religion, and, whilst he does notopenly state his opposition to it, he certainly makes.it clear thathe is opposed thereto. Hyndman and Belfort Bax may be alsonamed as strong opponents to Christianity. In LaurenceGronlund's Co-operative Commonwealth occurs the following:" If, however, by religion you mean this dogmatic theology,Socialists do profess to help drive it out. Socialism is theinveterate foe to theology, a fact of which our ecclesiasticalauthorities are well aware. Wherefore they are perfectly rightin damning it." Robert Blatchford very definitely states inGod and My N eiqhbour that he is warring against Christianity,

4


5/18

because he finds it a bar to human progress. In the latter partof that book he says: " I have been asked why I have gone outof my way to attack religion; why I do not confine myself tomy own sphere of work for Socialism; and what good I expectto do by pulling down without building up? In reply, I beg tosay that I have not gone out of my way to attack it. It W I!-Sbecause I found religion in my way that I attacked it, though Iam working for Socialism when I attack a religion which ishindering Socialism." .

Now,can I not say that I have vindicated my statementthat the form of Socialism with which we have become familiarlately is opposed to that form of religion which we denominateChristianity? The historical existence of Jesus Christ is im-pugned. -It is to me a strange thing that the attack upon Chris-tianity should come from that side-the more strange whenhistorical writers inform us that when it came into existence itwas on the side of the proletariat. It is a singular thing there-fore that it should now be supposed to be altogether in theinterests of a party which is oppressing the poor and exploitingthe labourer.

Lecky states in his History of Morality: "Whatever mis-takes may have been made, the entire movement I have traceddisplays an anxiety not only for the life, but also for the moralwell-being of the castaways of Society, such as the most humanenations of antiquity had never reached. This minute andscrupulous care for human life and human virtue in the hum-blest forms-in the slave, the gladiator, the savage or the infant,and was, indeed, wholly foreign to the genius of Paganism. . .It is the distinguishing and transcendent character of everySociety into which the spirit of Christianity has passed." Heis referring to those early days when Christanity came in. Imark it, therefore, as a singular change that there should be inthose days a supposition that Christianity is on the side of thewealthy and against the well-being of the people, and thattherefore it must be withstood.

In dealing with the matter which comes before me thisafternoon, I wish to state that I take it because it is the verycentral part of the religion in which I believe-the very core ofChristianity. You may take away from other religions theperson of their founders, and they still stand unaffected by theloss of the persons who established them. But if you take awayfrom Christianity its centre-the person-the Lord JesusChrist, you have taken away that which gives it its value to thesons of men.

I propose, therefore, now to speak to the historicity of theLord Jesus Christ. There are many who believe that He didlive as a person, but that many of the sayings and doings attri-

5


6/18

buted to' Him were purely mythical and untrue-and some denythat He ever lived. Let me say that the question is not to besettled simply' by attacks upon it, by objections to it, or by ridi-cule. The man who assails Christianity by ridicule may havebehind him reasons for what he affirms, or he may not, but heis hardly in a fair state of mind to deal with the evidence thatmay be advanced in favour of it. Huxley says in his Essays onControverted Questions: "It appears to me that if there isanybody more objectionable than the orthodox Bibliolater, it isthe heterodox Philistine who can discover in the literaturewhich in some respects has no superior nothing but a subject forscoffing, an occasion for the display of his conceited ignoranceof the. debt he owes to former generations."

I should like that in dealing with this matter, we should doso calmly, and weigh the evidence as those who desire to arriveat a definite conclusion from following the lines of clear testi-mony. Christianity has a long story behind it. It has had awonderful influence for good. Whatever we may say of it now,its past history, in the early days at all events, bears testimonyto the beneficial influence which flowed from it. It is now thecherished possession of multitudes of our own kith and kin, andis prized by thousands in this City, and, because of this, if forno other reason, it deserves to be handled very carefully, so thatwe do not wilfully and unreasonably upset the equilibrium: ofthe dear people who believe in it. If it is to be overturned itmust be by solid evidence-evidence that will convince thereason. Our friends on the other side seem to think they havea monopoly of reason ; they call themselves "Rationalists."You see this is a matter which must be determined by everyperson for himself, and if my friends claim to have supremacyof reason, all I can say is my reason must determine this matterfor me, even though it be not so good in quality or so great inquantity as theirs. No person can force a decision on this' uponanother. It is to be decided by the weight of"evidence that ispresented, and if the evidence presented appeals to me as con-vincing, what other can 1 do than receive it, and believe it, andpr.each it 1 If it does not appeal to you there must be a gulfbetween us, but I must respond to it and proclaim it. Theresurely can be no person who can rightly claim to have a reasonstrong enough' to decide for himself and for all others as well.I say this because I have noticed that from the public platformssome Rationalist advocates seem to claim a monopoly of reason.From the exercise' of our own reason upon the facts our judg-ment must decide, and our actions must follow accordingly. Iwish, then, to, present to you' those things which appeal to myreason, and which seem convincingly to answer in the affirma-tive eur, question.

6


7/18

It was a first-rate theologian who said: "The doctrinewhich cannot stand the test of rational investigation is nottrue. ' , I will endorse that, and I think so will you.

I will put another proposition: "All reasoning againstfacts is false." If so be that the historic personality of JesusChrist is a fact, all reasoning against it is false. The opposi-tion may be very rhetorical, but if the fact itself exists, allreasoning against it is necessarily fallacious.

Another proposition: "Truth is dangerous only to itsenemies, and error is worthless to its friends."

On the basis of these propositions I desire to proceed thisafternoon. Let me say first-Christianity is an existent fact.We are not speaking of something which is in the clouds, but ofsomething which is here. So far as the outward and visiblemanifestations of it are concerned, they are here, in this City ofours, in this land, the world wide over-under every clime andamongst nations of _every race and colour. How did it come ?Mr. Cooper, in his'little book, The Bridge of History over theGt~lf of Time, gives a .line of reasoning which I think is wellworthy of investigation. If a man will carefully study it, hemay find faults, but I think the main line of reasoning willstand. Let me further say, the religion which is in existencenow had an origin. It has come to us through a long line ofdescent, and it claims to be to-day what it was at the first. Itdoes not claim to have advanced away from what it was in theearly days. Those who then believed it laid the foundation,and if we have built upon it, the basis remains as unchanged aswhen first put down. It is here, and its presence has to beexplained. In the days to which I have referred, and which Iremember so well, when one used to listen to Bradlaugh, Foote,and others, the attack was made upon the untrustworthiness ofthe documents. It was claimed by Mr. Bradlaugh and hisfriends that no one could trace the documents back beyond themiddle of the 2nd century. He who makes that assertion to-day, makes it without the support of the best evidence. Recentinvestigators, and these the finest scholars of the age, are agreedthat you can push certainty much further back; that you cango back into the second half of the first century to find theearliest documents. Some objectors say that the stories in themoriginated from myths, and have slowly changed and growninto their present form. Christianity is an existent fact-itmust have had an origin, and we claim that at its origin it wasprecisely the same as it is to-day so far as its documents andthe main features of its teachings are concerned. This claimis 'not to be dismissed with a contemptuous sneer.

I purpose that we shall leap back 15 eentunies to the time-ofConstantine, when Christianity unfortunately became linked

7


8/18

with the State. I say unfortunately, because it has never beenin the interests of Christianity that it should be linked to aState. The State may have given her place and power, but whenshe joined hands with the State, Christianity trailed her whiterobes of purity in the dust, and henceforth lost her vigour andbecame weak. But referring to thetime of Constantine, ereshe came into the position of power, Christianity was widelyextended throughout the whole of the Roman Empire. I needhardly cite the evidence for you. Let him who will, read thestory in Gibbon's remarkable work on the Decline of the RomanEmpire, in the 16th chapter. Throughout the length andbreadth of the Roman Empire, from Gaul to Asia Minor, fromEgypt to the River Euphrates, Christianity found a home.Over the wide extent of that empire Churches were in existence.There were thousands upon thousands of believers, and in thosedays they had in their possession the originals of the documentswe have now, and their Christianity (varied, may be, in itspresentation by the difference of time) was precisely the sameas we have it to-day.

Are the New Testament documents genuine and authenticrecords ~ When I speak of genuine documents I mean thosewritten by persons whose names they bear, and by authenticdocument I mean one which relates to facts, whether it bears thewriter's name or not. If a document be a work of fiction andyet bears the name of the author, it is genuine. It may be anhistorical fact, but it is not genuine if it is written under afictitious name.

If the books of the New Testament are not genuine and notauthentic, when did they come into being? These books couldnot have come into existence before the time when the thingsthemselves are said to have been done, and they did not origi-nate after the time of Constantine. They were in existenceearly in the Fourth Century-between that period of time then,say, 200 to 250 years, these books came into being. They couldnot come before, they have not come afterwards, as, at the closeof that period all the Churches referred to at least eight-ninthsof them, as the books on which their doctrines rested.

Note this statement from the writings of Tertullian: " Weare but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you,ci~ies, islands, .fortresses, towns, market places, the very camp,tribes, compames, palace, senate, forum. We have left nothingto you but the temples of your gods. Without arms even andraising no insurrectionary banner, but simply in enmity to you,we could carry on the contest with you by an ill-willed severancealone, for if such multitudes of men were to break away fromyou and betake themselves to some remote corner of the worldwhy, the very loss of so many' citizens would cover the Empir~

8


9/18

with shame." This was long before the later date to which Iam referring, and the documents, as we have them to-day, arethose to which he appeals as the grounds upon which the doc-trines of Christianity rest, and the cause of the numericalextent of believers.

Now, what means of knowledge did the people in those dayspossess to find out whether or not the documents were authenticand genuine? This is not the same question as one might putand say: " What means have we?" What means had they inthose days ~ For if the reasons which would be convincing tothem were good enough, the same facts are valid to-day. Afact does not become the less a fact by the lapse of time. Atestimony valid 15 centuries ago is valid to-day-it remains asstrong and forceful through the centuries-times does not makeit invalid.

We have just celebrated the tercentenary of the issue ofthe Authorised Version of the Bible. That is a longer periodthan the lapse of time between the time of Nero and the Decreeof Toleration in 313 A.D. All through the lands of the English-speaking peoples there have been meetings to celebrate whatwas considered by many men an important event. We havejust finished the third century. Who will dare to say therenever was a Hampden Court Conference, and that the 50 or 60men were not selected, and that the whole work upon theAuthorised Version never took place? Yet there are few whoknow the facts about that work. We know there was a Con-ference, but men have disputed whether there was such and sucha number who took part in it; and yet we know it has neverbeen disputed as a fact that there was such a work, and thatthose men did take a hand in it, and that the work has beenhanded down to us to-day. How do we know it took place ~Well, you may say, here is the Authorised Version. Yes, butwhat proof have we? There are two kinds of proof. Somethings can be mathematically proved, others are established bythe balance of probabilities. Suppose I ask a man what is hisname; he answers " It is John Robinson." "Yes, but how doyou know?" "Well, I have always been called by thatname. " "Yes, but how do you know it is your name? Manymen have an alias, and their friends all know them by thatname." , , Well, sir, I was christened." "How do you knowyou were given that name ?" "Well, sir, we have a familyBible at home, and it is written there." "Did you write it?"" No, sir, someone else." " Well, then, how do you know thatit refers to you at all ? " "Well, sir, I have my birth certifi-cate. " , , Yes, but how do you know you were not changed inthe cradle and that the real John Robinson is somewhere elseunder another name 1" It is like saying to a man who has the


10/18

toothaehe : "Haw can you prove it ~" He will probably tellyou to wait until you get it, and then you will know,

Where you get the greatest number of probabilities theremust be your line of proof far the particular subject which youare trying to trace. What could they do in the way of deter-mining that the documents they held were sufficiently soundfar them to erect their faith upan ~ The records contain thelife, character, and teachings of Jesus Christ and His disciplesin three provinces in the land of Palestine. They record, fur-ther, that the Apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, travelled throughAsia Minor into Greece, and into Italy, that wherever he wentthere were churches established, and not only sa, but to manyof thase churches he wrote letters-ta Corinth, Ephesus, Thes-saloniea, etc. Here is a wide extent of country covered, notjust one little isolated corner, but there was a wide and Imperialwork. He left his footprints wherever he went-he sent hisletters, and the churches received them. In those days theremust have been hundreds and thousands who read .or heard ofthose letters which 'he sent. In the davs of Constantine theremust have been thousands of people wha were descended fromthese people lineally, and who could say: " Our grandfathersheard these letters, and, so far as we know, there has neverbeen a change in the documents since then, and we, as de-scendants of the early Christians, are holding to the samethings which they held." They could say: " We know thatthe Emperar Nero persecuted the early believers, and thoseearly believers held the same things as we hold to-day. Theywere named Christians, and all the evidence we have attachedto that name goes to show that they held precisely the same viewsthat we do naw."

I might here bring in a side argument from the geo-graphical and other recent researches as confirmatory of theearly spread of Christianity. Professor Ramsay, who haswritten same remarkable monographs an Asia Minor, refers toLuke's statements concerning persons and places as showingthat the writer must have had first-hand knowledge and was inpersonal touch with the things of which he wrate. That is aremarkable side light, to which I cannot now give time.

There are three grounds upon which the people of that daycould determine the veracity of the narratives:(1) If the early disciples sealed their faith with theirblood, the memorials of those men and of their death must stillexist in the days of Canstantine.

(2) If the Church existed as a society far 250 years, itmust have had a copious literature which would justify verylargely its position and its claims.

(3) If these were of sufficient magnitude and importanceN


11/18

...,.... ------

to be alluded to in secular history, there will be somewhere inthe writings of the secular historians a reference to them.

In those times, there were men who were as sceptical asmen are now. The statement is made by Mr. McCabe that theRoman Empire had reached its summit in point of civilisation,schools werein every town, secondary and primary, and in manycities were what we should call universities. The men of thattime had advanced along the line of civilisation; they were notbarbarians ; many were scholarly and as keen-witted as men areto-day. They would investigate then as men do now, and theydid. 'The evidences that have come down to us from the Chris-tian fathers show that those' who were opposed to Christianitywere as strongly opposed as are the modern opponents, and thatthey were met by argument and by clear and decisive proof, forthose who held Christianity still to hold it, and say that theobjections were valueless. I want to lift your minds out of theidea that Christianity was imposed on the people; and that theywere .not capable of judging for themselves ,whether it wasworthy of acceptance or not. That is not so. I have long sincecome to the conclusion that the days of the early Roman Empirewere days of advanced civilisation; the conditions have nowchanged, but those men were mentally abreast of the men ofto-day; the keen wit, the shaft of ridicule, and the powers ofjudgment were as active among the men of that age as to-day.I repeat if the matters were -then of sufficient magnitude to berecorded in history, there will be some allusion made to them bythe writers of the time, so that the appeal could then be madeto those sources, the first sources I refer to being the memorialsof those who suffered for their faith, copious literature, andsecular historians. -

I wish to deal with the secular historians first. Here is aremarkable thing, to which Imust call attention. There is nobody of people anywhere that ever expects to find a truthfuland accurate historian of any movement in the ranks of itsenemies. It is stated in the letter I referred to that the mem-bers of the Ministers' Association did not understand Socialism.Those gentlemen stated what they believed concerning it,whether right or wrong, and I have no doubt they had the deepconviction that what they were saying was true. My friends inthe opposite camp say: " But it is not true." That enables meto say that those who are opposed to any cause are not and can-not be historians of that ,.cause. They cannot be trusted, what-ever their convictions may be, to give it truthfully. If a manrose who was opposed to your movement altogether, and hesaid: " I will write for you a history of Socialism," would youtrust that man to write it ~ You would say" No, certainlyn()t." The men who are in the movement, who know it -best,

H


12/18

are those who must be the true historians. The partisans ofany movement will be the true recorders.

I state that for this reason: The question is sometimesasked: "Where are the historians who have referred to theevents of the gospels ~" I have heard it asked in this City:" Where are the secular historians who refer to these things ~"I say the historians of Christianity must be found within Chris-tianity itself, not outside of it, and if a person says that Chris-tian historians are untrustworthy-as Mr. Vivian does-I tellhim that he is begging the question. I for one do not expect thata person who is outside or opposed to any movement is going tobe a historian of that movement. The man who is inside is theone who is going to telT the truth about it. Whatever you maysay about Eusebius, Socrates, and others, they are historians ofthe movement, and must be respected accordingly. What kindof notice do you expect to be made by secular historians ~ Tothe one who objects and says he must have the writings ofsecular historians, I would say: "Who are the secular his-torians of that period ~" Shall I tell you 7 At that periodthere are just nine names which stand out as historians fromthe very beginning of our era to the time of which I am speak-ing. Two were Greeks-Appian and Pausanias-seven wereRomans, and of the entire number there were seven whoserecords terminate before, or with, the reiin of Tiberius A.D. 37.You could not expect those men to refer to the introduction ofChristianity, whatever you may think of their silence on certainthings contained in the gospels. You have, then, two remaining-Tacitus and Suetonius, and they have alluded to it. I willnow quote from The Ohurches and Modern Thought: " Thepassage occurs in Tacitus, Annals 15/24, and runs as fol-lows :-' Consequently to get rid of the accusation, Nero fastenedthe guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a classhated for their abominations called by the people Christians.Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered theextreme penalty during the reign of 'I'iberius at the hands of oneof our Procurators, Pontius Pilate. A most mischievous super-stition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not onlyin Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, whereall things hideous and shameful from every part of the worldfind their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrestwas first made of all who pleaded guilty, then upon their infor-mation an immense multitude was convicted not so much of thecrime of firing the City as of hatred M mankind.' "

Observe that here is an allusion by Tacitus, who is writingthe annals of the Empire, and he states that in the days of Nerothere were some who were sufficiently numerous, called Chris-tians, whose beliefs (in a person named Christ) were sufficiently

12


13/18

opposed to the Palace faith to be fastened upon as the cause ofthe burning of Rome when Nero was himself the incendiary.

Here are men clamouring for secular history, and weproduce it, but the moment it is brought forward they say:" Ah, but that is an interpolation." How do you know 1 Iturn to Gibbon, and this is what I find him saying: " The mostsceptical criticism is obliged to respect the truth of thisextraordinary fact and the integrity of this celebrated pas-sage of Tacitus. The former is confirmed by the diligent andaccurate Suetonius, who mentions the punishment which Neroinflicted on the Christians, a sect of men who had embraceda new and criminal superstition. The latter may be provedby the consent of the most ancient manuscripts, by the inimi-table character of the style of Tacitus, by his reputation, etc."Gibbon, a sceptical historian, says that. He who affirms it tobe an interpolation must prove it, for there is no manuscript inexistence but that has that passage. I would say the sameconcerning the well-known extract from Josephus. Some-Christian writers admit that it is an interpolation, but I am notready to concede that ground. There is not only that passagein Josephus, but there is..another also which is seldom mentioned,which states that in the days of the High Priest Ananus he hadassembled the Sanhedrin to hear an accusation against thebrother of Jesus (who was called Christ), whose name WasJ ames; and that is not questioned. What right has a man tosay that the first is an interpolation? If he can refer to amanuscript without it, then there is some ground for the suppo-sition, but when that cannot be found, I object, and say that theobjection is not admissible.

In the early part of this year, a remarkable demonstrationtook place in Berlin. An eminent professor (Dr. Drews) wasdelivering a lecture against the historicity of Jesus Christ, andclaimed that Jesus Christ was a mythical person, and that, asyou know, aroused the whole city of Berlin. The people cametogether in a mass meeting and protested against the idea thatJesus Christ was a mythical person. Here is a noteworthything arising out of that incident: A learned Divine in America(Dr. Sanderlin) has said: " Why does not Dr. Drews refer tothe Talmud?" I have spoken with Jews and have not comeacross one yet who denies that Jesus Christ was a historicalpersonage. The Talmud has declared that Jesus Christ lived,that He was put on trial by the Sanhedrin of the Jews, and thatHe was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, and it refers toHim in such courteous terms as " Jesus, The Hung." Dr.Sanderlin says: "For a man of learning, Prof. Drews did amost singular thing. While apparently exhausting the field ofanti-Christian research, he overlooked one source from which

1 3


14/18

he ought to have sought information-the Talmud. Everynotable Jewish scholar to-day knows that the Talmud, up tothe year 1631, A.D., did contain a record of the accusation,arrest, trial, and conviction of Jesus. This record was written,of course, from the Jewish standpoint, but it appeared in everycopy of the Talmud from the first century of the Christian eraup to the 17th century. Owing to the bitter persecution of theJews in Europe, the Jewish World Synod, held at Jaroslav,Poland, in 1631, ordained by formal proclamation that in everycopy of the Talmud thereafter, all reference to Jesus Christ andeverything relating to His life and death should be omitted, andthe sign of a circle should stand instead of such reference whichwould be understood by the initiated. It was explained in theSynod's proclamation that this action was taken because thereferences- to Jesus Christ in the Talmud had provoked Jewishpersecution, and that their removal would leave the people inthe enjoyment of peace. There are copies of the ancient Talmudstill in existence containing all of this subsequently prohibitedrecord."

You will pardon me now if I say, using the language ofGrant Allen: " Whatever else may be said about the origin ofChristianity, it is at least fairly agreed on either side, both byfriends and foes, that this great religion took its rise around thepersonality of a certain particular Galilean teacher by nameJesus, concerning whom, if we know anything at all with ap-proach to certainty, we know at least that He was a man of thepeople, hung on the Cross in Jerusalem in the procuratorshipof Caius Pontius Pilate."

But now I remark that covering the period between Nero'sday and the opening of the reign of Constantine, there was pro-duced a mass of Christian literature. This has been publishedin English by Messrs. Clark, of Edinburgh, in volumes whichcontain in all about 12,000 pages. In these writings are statedfacts concerning the life and labours of Ohrist, and the maindoetrizas of Christianity. It is claimed that from these alonethe whole of the New Testament could be reproduced with theexception of about twelve verses. It is instructive to noticewhat a wide extent of country is covered by these writings;from Gaul to Antioch; from Egypt to Phrygia; in a word, theRoman Empire was dotted over by men whose very situationargued a wide extension of the cult of Christianity within abrief period, and a -widespread and deep belief in the veracityof the facts on which it was based. ~l:ake what you will of it,the literature of any time must supply the explanation of theevents of that time, and the extant literature of that period,whether written by friend or foe, assigns one basis for theChristian faith. Before the date given, Christianity had no

14


15/18

I read the Old Testament record, observe the promises, thecovenants, the preparatory history; I can see how the purposeswere wrought into human history until there came that pureand lovely form which stands before us in the person of Jesusof Nazareth, and in Him there is the completion of all that wentbefore. He is the seed of the woman who should crush theserpent's head; He is the Prophet like unto Moses; He is theSon of David; He is the One set before the world as God's idealof humanity through Whom shall come a salvation which mancannot improve upon, nor hinder.

" Whence but from heaven could men unskilled in arts,In several ages born, in several parts,Weave such agreeing truths, or how, or why,Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie 1Unasked their pains, ungrateful their advice,Starving their gains and martyrdom their price.Then for the style, majestic and divineIt speaks no less than God in every line.

QUESTIONS.Question: What does it concern the millions of unemployed

who starve and live in hovels to-day whether Jesus lived or not ~Answer: Jesus Christ came into the world to bring for manwhat He termed salvation, and those who will read carefully

what He has said, will know that the salvation He came to preachtakes in every possible need of man. I am not one of those whobelieve in what is called simply a spiritual salvation, but in aperfected salvation, which deals not only with my individualdeeds as a moral wrong-doer, but also with the needs that springfrom my socilli conditions and physical ill-being. He is-a Saviourwho is designed of God to bring in a perfected salvation, andthe reason why it has not come is because men do not receive it.Question: Does it not say that if Christ had not been raisedfrom the dead then your preaching and faith is vain?

Answer: It does.Question: Have you established that Jesus Christ did rise

from the dead 1Answer: So far as that particular matter is concerned, theevidence that I have adduced includes that. There is no expla-

nation of the Christian Church either in its origin or its con-tinuance apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ from thedead. No explanation whatever. And the evidence which Ihave adduced to an extent, at all events, deals with that parti-cular question that Jesus Christ did rise from the dead. Thegeneral question was put: " Is Jesus Christ an historical per-

1 6


16/18

sonage ? " and my first step was to show that such a personactually did live.Question: Luke says Jesus was born when Quirinius was

Governor. Matthew says it was when King Herod reigned.How does the lecturer account for the contradiction as to thetime of the birth of Jesus, seeing that Quirinius was not ap-pointed Governor until after Herod's death 1

Answer: A believer in the New Testament is inclined toaccept Luke as "an historian equally competent with profanehistorians. However, as a matter of fact, the Roman lists ofGovernors fail us here, but the examination of the matter byAugustus Zumpt has shown with high probability that Quiri-nius was Governor twice, on the second occasion A.D. 6, and atthe first at the time assigned by Luke.

Qtlestion: I understand that the documents relating to thequestion of this afternoon were selected at the Council of Niceain the reign of Constantine. How does Mr. Aldridge know thatthose gentlemen selected reliable documents and left thespurious ones out ?

Answer: How do you know that the question came up atthe Council of Nicea j As a matter of fact, the question of theCanon of Scriptures never came before the Council at all. Ithas been stated again and again that at the Council all theBishops knelt down and prayed, first of all having put all thegospels under the table, and that when they prayed the truegospels separated from the others, and ca~e up and lay uponthe table. I repeat, there is no historical evidence that ever thequestion of the Canon of Scripture came before the Council ofNicea.

Question: These matters must be determined by every manfor himself. I was brought up in the Church of England.What creed or sect is there which agrees with you that a mancan either accept or reject Christianity and still remain aChristian?

Answer: I did not say that a man could either reject oraccept and still remain a Christian. You might as well say thata person could reject the teachings of Socialism and yet be aSocialist.

Question: You say that men should use their reason. Whatreason can accept a Christianity which teaches that he that be-lieveth not shall be damned to everlasting torture?

Answer: When you can prove to me that Christianitydamns a man to everlasting torture, I will give an answer toyour question.

1 7


17/18

Question: Do you not think by far the more importantquestion is the historicity of the fundamental miracles on whichChristianity rests-the incarnation, resurrection and ascension ~Answm': My friends here have a list of subjects which I amwilling to lecture upon, and the second lecture is to be " TheVirgin Birth."Question : You claim for every man the free use of his

reason, but " he that believeth not shall be damned." .Answer: Certainly. If conditions are off~red to a man,

conditions which imply that he may have life if he will acceptthem, and he declines to accept those conditions, what is to bedime with him? Give him life which he will not have?

Question: Can a man be a good man without being aChristian?

Answer: Oh, yes.Qtestion: Does it really matter, in any conceivable parti-cular, to anyone at any time, whether the Jesus of historyexisted or not; and is not the only thing that matters to anyoneat any time, the integrity of life, character, and conduct ofthat One?Answer: There are people who are contented with theirstate. It is a good thing for men and for society that everybodyshould live up to a line. But it does not matter- what yourstandard may be, sometimes you fall below it. A man cannever be better than he ought to be. It is an utter impossibility.He -ean be-he often is-a good deal worse than he should be,and there is absolutely nothing which he himself can do to makeup for his lapses from the standard. If I believe that therecomes into human history a revelation which tells of a life to

come in which there shall be no ill of any kind, and perfectsocial conditions shall be on this earth of ours for which ourSocialistic friends yearn, I want to be there.Qtestion: Why do you ignore the story of the rich man and

Lazarus ?Answer: For 30 years in this Dominion I have lecturedupon subjects relating to man's nature and destiny, and the

man who says I ignore that, is himself ignorant of facts. (Re-ference to pamphlet on the subject, written by the lecturer.)

Q1estion:Assuming that Jesus -.did live, is it not a fact thatHe never wrote anything Himself, and that all those statementsabout being cursed and damned were put in at a later period ?Origen believed in reincarnation. Is that not a more likelything ~

18


18/18

Answer': Origen is said to have taught reincarnation, orbelieved it, anyway. A great many Egyptians believed in re-incarnation or metempsychosis. But there can be no possibleappeal to the New Testament for that, for the reason that it doesnot admit that any personality of man can be, apart from hisorganism.Question: I understand you to question whether the Bibleteaches. everlasting torment. Does not it tell us of everlastingfire ~

Answer: Certainly; but what will that fire do? Listen:" Behold the day cometh; it burneth as a furnace, and all theproud, and all that work wickedness shall be stubble; and the.day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts,that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

I

1 9

Is Jesus Christ an Historical Personage

Documents

Transcript of Is Jesus Christ an Historical Personage