B. Croce on nature of History Benedetto Croce well remarks in his Logica (p. 195) that history in no way differs from the physical sciences, insofar as it cannot be constructed by pure reasoning, but rests upon sight or vision of the fact that has happened, the fact so perceived being the only source of history. In a methodical historical treatise6 the sources are usually divided into monuments and narratives7; by the former being understood whatever is left to us as a trace of the accomplished9 fact—e.g., a contract, a letter, or a triumphal arch; [2]while narratives consist of such accounts of it as have been transmitted to us by those who were more or less eye-witnesses thereof, or by those who have repeated the notices or traditions furnished by eye-witnesses.
Relative paucity10 of evangelic tradition Now it may be granted that we have not in the New Testament11 the same full and direct information about Jesus as we can derive12 from ancient Latin literature about Julius C?sar or Cicero. We have no monuments of him, such as are the commentaries of the one or the letters and speeches of the other. It is barely credible13 that a single one of the New Testament writers, except perhaps St. Paul, ever set eyes on him or heard his voice. It is more than doubtful whether a single one of his utterances15, as recorded in the Gospels, retains either its original form or the idiom in which it was clothed. A mass of teaching, a number of aphorisms17 and precepts18, are attributed to him; but we know little of how they were transmitted to those who repeat them to us, and it is unlikely that we possess any one of them as it left his lips.
and presence of miracles in it, And that is not all. In the four Gospels all sorts of incredible stories are told about him, such as that he was born of a virgin19 mother, unassisted by a human father; that he walked on the surface of the water; that he could foresee the future; that he stilled a storm by upbraiding20 it; that he raised the dead; that he himself rose in the flesh from the dead and left his tomb empty; that his apostles beheld21 him so risen; and that finally he disappeared behind a cloud up into the heavens.
explains and excuses the extreme negative school It is natural, therefore—and there is much excuse for him—that an uneducated man or a child, bidden [3]unceremoniously in the name of religion to accept these tales, should revolt, and hastily make up his mind that the figure of Jesus is through and through fictitious22, and that he never lived at all. One thing only is certain—namely, that insofar as the orthodox blindly accept these tales—nay23, maintain with St. Athanasius that the man Jesus was God incarnate24, a pre-existent ?on, Word of God, Creator of all things, masked in human flesh, but retaining, so far as he chose, all his exalted25 prerogatives26 and cosmic attributes in this disguise—they put themselves out of court, and deprive themselves of any faculty27 of reply to the extreme negative school of critics. The latter may be very absurd, and may betray an excess of credulity in the solutions they offer of the problem of Christian29 origins; but they can hardly go further along the path of absurdity30 and credulity than the adherents31 of the creeds32. If their arguments are to be met, if any satisfactory proof is to be advanced of the historicity of Jesus, it must come, not from those who, as Mommsen remarked, “reason in chains,” but from free thinkers.
Yet Jesus is better attested33 than most ancients Those, however, who have much acquaintance with antiquity35 must perceive at the outset that, if the thesis that Jesus never existed is to be admitted, then quite a number of other celebrities36, less well evidenced than he, must disappear from the page of history, and be ranged with Jesus in the realm of myth.
Age of the earliest Christian literature Many characteristically Christian documents, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Teaching of the Apostles, are admitted by Drews to have been written before A.D. 100.1 Not [4]only the canonical38 Gospels, he tells us,2 were still current in the first half of the second century, but several never accepted by the Church—e.g., spurious gospels ascribed to Matthew, Thomas, Bartholomew, Peter, the Twelve Apostles. These have not reached us, though we have recovered a large fragment of the so-called Peter Gospel, and find that it at least pre-supposes canonical Mark. The phrase, “Still current in the first half of the second century,” indicates that, in Dr. Drews’s opinion, these derivative39 gospels were at least as old as year 100; in that case our canonical Gospels would fall well within the first. I will not press this point; but, anyhow, we note the admission that within about seventy years of the supposed date of Jesus’s death Christians40 were reading that mass of written tradition about him which we call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were also reading a mass of less accredited41 biographies—less trustworthy, no doubt, but, nevertheless, the work of authors who entertained no doubt that Jesus had really lived, and who wished to embellish42 his story.
If Jesus never lived, neither did Solon, If, then, armed with such early records, we are yet so exacting43 of evidence as to deny that Jesus, their central figure, ever lived, what shall we say of other ancient worthies—of Solon, for example, the ancient Athenian legislator? For his life our chief sources, as Grote remarks (History of Greece, Pt. II, ch. 11), are Plutarch and Diogenes, writers who lived seven and eight hundred years after him. Moreover, the stories of Plutarch about him are, as Grote says, “contradictory as well as apocryphal45.” It is true [5]that Herodotus repeats to us the story of Solon’s travels, and of the conversations he held with Cr?sus, King of Lydia; but these conversations are obviously mere47 romance. Herodotus, too, lived not seventy, but nearly one hundred and fifty years later than Solon, so that contemporary evidence of him we have none. Plutarch preserves, no doubt, various laws and metrical aphorisms which were in his day attributed to Solon, just as the Christians attributed an extensive body of teaching to Jesus. If we deny all authenticity48 to Jesus’s teaching, what of Solon’s traditional lore49? Obviously Jesus has a far larger chance to have really existed than Solon.
or Epimenides, And the same is true of Epimenides of Crete, who was said to be the son of the nymph Balte; to have been mysteriously fed by the nymphs, since he was never seen to eat, and so forth50. He was known as the Purifier, and in that r?le healed the Athenians of plagues physical and spiritual. A poet and prophet he lived, according to some, for one hundred and fifty-four years; according to his own countrymen, for three hundred. If he lived to the latter age, then Plato, who is the first to mention him in his Laws, was his contemporary, not otherwise.
or Pythagoras, Pythagoras, again, can obviously never have lived at all, if we adopt the purist canons of Drews. For he was reputed, as Grote (Pt. II, ch. 37) reminds us, to have been inspired by the gods to reveal to men a new way of life, and found an order or brotherhood51. He is barely mentioned by any writer before Plato, who flourished one hundred and fifty years later than he. In the matter of miracles, prophecy, pre-existence, mystic observances, and asceticism52, Pythagoras equalled, if he did not excel, Jesus. [6]
or Apollonius of Tyana Apollonius of Tyana is another example. We have practically no record of him till one hundred and twenty years after his death, when the Sophist Philostratus took in hand to write his life, by his own account, with the aid of memorials left by Damis, a disciple54 of the sage55. Apollonius, like Jesus and Pythagoras, was an incarnation of an earlier being; he, too, worked miracles, and appeared after death to an incredulous follower56, and ascended57 into heaven bodily. The stories of his miracles of healing, of his expulsions of demons59, and raising of the dead, read exactly like chapters out of the Gospels. He, like Jesus and Pythagoras, had a god Proteus for his father, and was born of a virgin. His birth was marked in the heavens by meteoric60 portents62. His history bristles63 with tales closely akin64 to those which were soon told of Jesus; yet all sound scholars are agreed that his biographer did not imitate the Gospels, but wrote independently of them. If, then, Jesus never lived, much less can Apollonius have done so. Except for a passing reference in Lucian, Philostratus is our earliest authority for his reality; the life written of him by Moeragenes is lost, and we do not know when it was written. On the whole, the historicity of Jesus is much better attested and documented than that of Apollonius, whose story is equally full of miracles with Christ’s.
Miracles do not wholly invalidate a document The above examples suffice. But, with the aid of a good dictionary of antiquity, hundreds of others could be adduced of individuals for whose reality we have not a tithe66 of the evidence which we have for that of Jesus; yet no one in his senses disputes their ever having lived. We take it for certain that hundreds—nay, thousands—of people who figure on the pages [7]of ancient and medieval history were real, and that, roughly speaking, they performed the actions attributed to them—this although the earliest notices of them are only met with in Plutarch, or Suidas, or William of Tyre, or other writers who wrote one hundred, two hundred, perhaps six hundred years after them. Nor are we deterred67 from believing that they really existed by the fact that, along with some things credible, other things wholly incredible are related of them. Throughout ancient history we must learn to pick and choose. The thesis, therefore, that Jesus never lived, but was from first to last a myth, presents itself at the outset as a paradox68. Still, as it is seriously advanced, it must be seriously considered and that I now proceed to do.
Proof of the unhistoricity of Jesus, how attainable69 It can obviously not pass muster70, unless its authors furnish us with a satisfactory explanation of every single notice, direct or indirect, simple or constructive71, which ancient writers have transmitted to us. Each notice must be separately examined, and if an evidential document be composite, every part of it. Each statement in its prima facie sense must be shown to be irreconcilable72 with what we know of the age and circumstances to which it pretends to relate. And in every case the new interpretation73 must be more cogent74 and more probable than the old one. Jesus, the real man, must be driven line by line, verse by verse, out of the whole of the New Testament, and after that out of other early sources which directly or by implication attest34 his historicity. There is no other way of proving so sweeping75 a negative as that of the three authors I have named.
How to approach ancient documents For every statement of fact in an ancient author is a problem, and has to be accounted for. If it accords [8]with the context, and the entire body of statement agrees with the best scheme we can form in our mind’s eye of the epoch76, we accept it, just as we would the statement of a witness standing77 before us in a law court. If, on the other hand, the statement does not agree with our scheme, we ask why the author made it. If he obviously believed it, then how did his error arise? If he should seem to have made it without himself believing it, then we ask, Why did he wish to deceive his reader? Sometimes the only solution we can give of the matter is, that our author himself never penned the statement, but that someone covertly78 inserted it in his text, so that it might appear to have contained it. In such cases we must explain why and in whose interest the text was interpolated. In all history, of course, we never get a direct observation, or intuition, or hearing of what took place, for the photographic camera and phonograph did not exist in antiquity. We must rest content with the convictions and feelings of authors, as they put them down in books. To one circumstance, however, amid so much dubiety, we shall attach supreme81 importance; and that is to an affirmation of the same fact by two or more independent witnesses. One man may well be in error, and report to us what never occurred; but it is in the last degree improbable that two or more Value of several independent witnesses in case of Jesusindependent witnesses will join forces in testifying to what never was. Let us, then, apply this principle to the problem before us. Jesus, our authors affirm, was not a real man, but an astral myth. Now we can conceive of one ancient writer mistaking such a myth for a real man; but what if another and another witness, what if half a dozen or more come along, and, meeting us quite [9]apart from one another and by different routes, often by pure accident, conspire82 in error. If we found ourselves in such case, would we not think we were bewitched, and take to our heels?
The oldest sources about Jesus Well, I do not intend to take to my heels. I mean to stand up to the chimeras83 of Messrs. Drews, Robertson, and Benjamin Smith. And the best courage is to take one by one the ancient sources which bear witness to the man Jesus, examine and compare them, and weigh their evidence. If they are independent, if they agree, not too much—that would excite a legitimate84 suspicion—but only more or less and in a general way, then, I believe, any rational inquirer would allow them weight, even if none were strictly85 contemporaries of his and eye-witnesses of his life. In the Gospel of Mark we have the earliest narrative8 document of the New Testament. This is evident from the circumstance that the three other evangelists used it in the composition of their Gospels. Drews, indeed, admits it to be one of the “safest” results of modern discussion of the life of Jesus that this Gospel is the oldest of the surviving four. He is aware, of course, that this conclusion has been questioned; but no one will doubt it who has confronted The Gospel of Mark used in Matthew and LukeMark in parallel columns with Luke and Matthew, and noted86 how these other evangelists not only derive from it the order of the events of the life of Jesus, but copy it out verse after verse, each with occasional modifications87 of his own. Drews, however, while aware of this phenomenon, has yet not grasped the fact that it and nothing else has moved scholars to regard Mark as the most ancient of the three Synoptics; quite erroneously, as if he had never read any work of modern textual [10]criticism, he imagines that they are led to their conclusion, firstly by the superior freshness and vividness of Mark, by a picturesqueness88 which argues him to have been an eye-witness; and, secondly89, by the evidence of Papias, who, it is said, declared Mark to have been the interpreter of the Apostle Peter. In point of fact, the modern critical theologians, for whom Drews has so much contempt, attach no decisive weight in this connection either to the tradition preserved by Papias or to the graphic79 qualities of Mark’s narratives. They rest their case mainly on the internal evidence of the texts before them.
Contents of Mark What, then, do we find in Mark’s narrative?
Inasmuch as my readers can buy the book for a penny and study it for themselves, I may content myself with a very brief résumé of its contents.
It begins with an account of one John who preached round about Jud?a, but especially on the Jordan, that the Jews must repent91 of their sins in order to their remission; in token whereof he directed them to take a ritual bath in the sacred waters of the Jordan, just as a modern Hindoo washes away his sins by means of a ritual bath in the River Jumna. An old document generally called Q. (Quelle), because Luke and Matthew used it in common to supplement Mark’s rather meagre story, adds the reason why the Jews were to repent; and it was this, that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. Drews’s account of MessianismDrews, in his first chapter of The Christ Myth, traces out the idea of this Kingdom of God, which he finds so prominent in the Jewish Apocalyptics of the last century before and the first century after Christ, and attributes it to Persian and Mithraic influence. Mithras, he says, was to descend93 upon the earth, and in a last fierce struggle overwhelm [11]Angromainyu or Ahriman and his hosts, and cast them down into the nether94 world. He would then raise the dead in bodily shape, and after a general judgment95 of the whole world, in which the wicked should be condemned97 to the punishments of hell and the good raised to heavenly glory, establish the “millennial kingdom.” These ideas, he continues, penetrated98 Jewish thought, and brought about a complete transformation99 of the former belief in a messiah, a Hebrew term meaning the anointed—in Greek Christos. For, to begin with, the Christ was merely the Jewish king who represented Jahwe before the people, and the people before Jahwe. He was “Son of Jahwe,” or “Son of God” par1 excellence100; later on the name came to symbolize101 the ideal king to come—this when the Israelites lost their independence, and were humiliated102 by falling under a foreign yoke104. This ideal longed-for king was to win Jahwe’s favour; and by his heroic deeds, transcending105 those of Moses and Joshua of old, to re-establish the glory of Israel, renovate106 the face of the earth, and even make Israel Lord over all nations. But so far the Messiah was only a human being, a new David or descendant of David, a theocratic107 king, a divinely favoured prince of peace, a just ruler over the people he liberated108; and in this sense Cyrus, who delivered the Jews from the Babylonian captivity109, the rescuer and overlord of Israel, had been acclaimed110 Messiah.
At last and gradually—still under Persian influence, according to Drews—this figure assumed divine attributes, yet without forfeiting111 human ones. Secret and supernatural as was his nature, so should the birth of the Messiah be; though a divine child, he was to be born in lowly state. Nay, the personality of the [12]Messiah eventually mingled112 with that of Jahwe himself, whose son he was. Such, according to Drews, were the alternations of the Messiah between a human and a divine nature in Jewish apocalypses of the period B.C. 100 to A.D. 100. They obviously do not preclude113 the possibility of the Jews in that epoch acclaiming114 a man as their Messiah—indeed, there is no reason why they should not have attached the dignity to several; and from sources which Drews does not dispute we learn that they actually did so.
John and Jesus began as messengers of the divine kingdom on earth Let us return to Mark’s narrative. Among the Jews who came to John to confess and repent of their sins, and wash them away in the Jordan, was one named Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee; and he, as soon as John was imprisoned115 and murdered by Herod, caught up the lamp, if I may use a metaphor116, which had fallen from the hands of the stricken saint, and hurried on with it to the same goal. We read that he went to Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying: “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe in the gospel or good tidings.”
The rest of Mark is a narrative of what happened to Jesus on this self-appointed errand. We learn that he soon made many recruits, from among whom he chose a dozen as his particular missionaries118 or apostles. These, after no long time, he despatched on peculiar119 beats of their own. Jesus’s anticipations120 of its speedy adventHe was certain that the kingdom was not to be long delayed, and on occasions assured his audience that it would come in their time. When he was sending out his missionary121 disciples122, he even expressed to them his doubts as to whether it would not come even before they had [13]had time to go round the cities of Israel. He confined the promises to JewsIt was not, however, this consideration, but the instinct of exclusiveness, which he shared with most of his race, that led him to warn them against carrying the good tidings of the impending123 salvation124 of Israel to Samaritans or Gentiles; the promises were not for schismatics and heathens, but only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Some of these details are derived125 not from Mark, but from the document out of which, as I remarked above, the first and second evangelists supplemented Mark.
Was rejected by his own kindred Like Luther, Loyola, Dunstan, St. Anthony, and many other famous saints and sinners, Jesus, on the threshold of his career, encountered Satan, and overthrew126 him. A characteristically oriental fast of forty days in the wilderness127 equipped him for this feat128. Thenceforth he displayed, like Apollonius of Tyana and not a few contemporary rabbis, considerable familiarity with the demons of disease and madness. The sick flocked to him to be healed, and it was only in districts where people disbelieved in him and his message that his therapeutic129 energy met with a check. Among those who particularly flouted130 his pretensions131 were his mother and brethren, who on one occasion at least followed him in order to arrest him and put him under restraint as being beside himself or exalté. His Parables132 all turn on the coming KingdomA good many parables are attributed to him in this Gospel, and yet more in Matthew and Luke, of which the burden usually is the near approach of the dissolution of this world and of the last Judgment, which are to usher134 in the Kingdom of God on earth. We learn that the parable133 was his favourite mode of instruction, as it always has been and still is the chosen vehicle of Semitic moral teaching. No hint in the earliest sources of the miraculous135 birth of JesusOf the [14]later legend of his supernatural birth, and of the visits before his birth of angels to Mary, his mother, and to Joseph, his putative136 father, of the portents subsequently related in connection with his birth at Bethlehem, there is not a word either in Mark or in the other early document out of which Matthew and Luke supplemented Mark. In these earliest documents Jesus is presented quite naturally as the son of Joseph and his wife Mary, and we learn quite incidentally the names of his brothers and sisters.
Late recognition of Jesus as himself the MessiahTowards the middle of his career Jesus seems to have been recognized by Peter as the Son of God or Messiah. Whether he put himself forward for that r?le we cannot be sure; but so certain were his Apostles of the matter that two of them are represented as having asked him in the naivest138 way to grant them seats of honour on his left and right hand, when he should come in glory to judge the world. The Twelve expected to sit on thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel, and this idea meets us afresh in the Apocalypse, a document which in the form we have it belongs to the years 92–93.
His hopes shattered at approach of deathBut the simple faith of the Apostles in their teacher and leader was to receive a rude shock. They accompany him for the Passover to Jerusalem. An insignificant139 triumphal demonstration141 is organized for him as he enters the sacred city on an ass16; he beards the priests in the temple, and scatters142 the money-changers who sat there to change strange coins for pilgrims. The priests, who, like many others of their kind, were much too comfortable to sigh for the end of the world, and regarded enthusiasts143 as nuisances, took offence, denounced him to Pilate as a rebel and a danger to the Roman government of [15]Jud?a. He is arrested, condemned to be crucified, and as he hangs on the cross in a last moment of disillusionment utters that most pathetic of cries: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken144 me?” He had expected to witness the descent of the kingdom on earth, but instead thereof he is himself handed over helpless into the hands of the Gentiles.
Such in outline is the story Mark has to tell. The rival and supplementary145 document of which I have spoken, and which admits of some reconstruction146 from the text of Matthew and Luke, consisted mainly of parables and precepts which Jesus was supposed to have delivered. It need not engage our attention here.
The mythical147 theory of JesusNow the three writers I have named—Messrs. Drews, Robertson, and W. B. Smith—enjoy the singular good fortune to be the first to have discovered what the above narratives really mean, and of how they originated; and they are urgent that we should sell all we have, and purchase their pearl of wisdom. They assure us that in the Gospels we have not got any “tradition of a personality.” Jesus, the central figure, never existed at all, but was a purely148 mythical personage. The mythical character of the Gospels, so Drews assures us, has, in the hands of Mr. J. M. Robertson, led the way, and made a considerable advance in England; he regrets that so far official learning in Germany has not taken up a serious position regarding the mythic symbolical149 interpretation of the latter.3 Let us then ask, What [16]is the gist151 of the new system of interpretation. It is as follows:—
Jesus = Joshua, a Sun-god, object of a secret cultJesus, or Joshua, was the name under which the expected Messiah was honoured in a certain Jewish secret society which had its headquarters in Jerusalem about the beginning of our era. In view of its secret character Drews warns us not to be too curious, nor to question either his information or that of Messrs. Smith and Robertson. This recalls to me an incident in my own experience. I was once, together with a little girl, being taken for a sail by an old sailor who had many yarns152. One of the most circumstantial of them was about a ship which went down in mid80 ocean with all hands aboard; and it wound up with the remark: “And nobody never knew nothing about it.” Little girl: “Then how did you come to hear all about it?” Like our brave old sailor, Dr. Drews warns us (p. 22) not to be too inquisitive153. We must not “forget that we are dealing154 with a secret cult28, the existence of which we can decide upon only by indirect means.” His hypothesis, he tells us, “can only be rejected without more ado by such as seek the traces of the pre-Christian cult of Jesus in well-worn places, and will only allow that to be ‘proved’ which they have established by direct original documentary evidence before their eyes.” In other words, we are to set aside our copious155 and almost (in Paul’s case) contemporary evidence that Jesus was a real person in favour of a hypothesis which from the first and as such lacks all direct and documentary evidence, and is not amenable156 to any of the methods of proof recognized by sober historians. We must take Dr. Drews’s word for it, and forego all evidence.
But let our authors continue with their new revelation. [17]By Joshua, or Jesus, we are not to understand the personage concerning whose exploits the Book of Joshua was composed, but a Sun-god. The Gospels are a veiled account of the sufferings and exploits of this Sun-god. “Joshua is apparently158 [why this qualification?] an ancient Ephraimitic god of the Sun and Fruitfulness, who stood in close relation to the Feast of the Pasch and to the custom of circumcision.”4
Emptiness of the Sun-god Joshua hypothesisNow no one nowadays accepts the Book of Joshua offhand159 as sound history. It is a compilation160 of older sources, which have already been sifted161 a good deal, and will undergo yet more sifting162 in the future. The question before us does not concern its historicity, but is this: Does the Book of Joshua, whether history or not, support the hypothesis that Joshua was ever regarded as God of the Sun and of Fruitfulness? Was ever such a god known of or worshipped in the tribe of Ephraim or in Israel at large? In this old Hebrew epic163 or saga164 Joshua is a man of flesh and blood. How did these gentlemen get it into their heads that he was a Sun-god? For this statement there is not a shadow of evidence. They have invented it. As he took the Israelites dryshod over the Jordan, why have they not made a River-god of him? And as, according to Drews, he was so interested in fruitfulness and foreskins, why not suppose he was a Priapic god? They are much too modest. We should at least expect “the composite myth” to include this element, inasmuch as his mystic votaries165 at Jerusalem [18]were far from seeing eye to eye with Paul in the matter of circumcision.
The Sun-myth stage of comparative mythologyThere was years ago a stage in the Comparative History of Religions when the Sun-myth hypothesis was invoked167 to explain almost everything. The shirt of Nessus, for example, in which Heracles perished, was a parable of the sun setting amidst a wrack169 of scattered170 clouds. The Sun-myth was the key which fitted every lock, and was employed unsparingly by pioneers of comparative mythology166 like F. Max Müller and Sir George Cox. It was taken for granted that early man must have begun by deifying the great cosmic powers, by venerating171 Sun and Moon, the Heavens, the Mountains, the Sea, as holy and divine beings, because they, rather than humble172 and homelier objects, impress us moderns by their sublimity173 and overwhelming force. Man was supposed from the first to have felt his transitoriness, his frailty174 and weakness, and to have contrasted therewith the infinities175 of space and time, the majesty176 of the starry177 hosts of heaven, the majestic178 and uniform march of sun and moon, the mighty179 rumble180 of the thunder. Max Müller thought that religion began when the cowering181 savage182 was crushed by awe183 of nature and of her stupendous forces, by the infinite lapses184 of time, by the yawning abysses of space. As a matter of fact, savages185 do not entertain these sentiments of the dignity and majesty of nature. On the contrary, a primitive186 man thinks that he can impose his paltry187 will on the elements; that he knows how to unchain the wind, to oblige the rain to fall; that he can, like the ancient witches of Thessaly, control sun and moon and stars by all sorts of petty magical rites188, incantations, and gestures, as Joshua [19]made the sun stand still till his band of brigands189 had won the battle. It is to the imagination of us moderns alone that the grandeur190 of the universe appeals, and it was relatively191 late in the history of religion—so far as it can be reconstructed from the scanty192 data in our possession—that the higher nature cults193 were developed. The gods and sacred beings of an Australian or North American native are the humble vegetables and animals which surround him, objects with which he is on a footing of equality. His totems are a duck, a hare, a kangaroo, an emu, a lizard194, a grub, or a frog. In the same way, the sacred being of an early Semite’s devotion was just as likely to be a pig or a hare as the sun in heaven; the cult of an early Egyptian was centred upon a crocodile, or a cat, or a dog.5 In view of these considerations, our suspicion is aroused at the outset by finding Messrs. Drews and Robertson to be in this discarded and obsolete195 Sun-myth stage of speculation196. They are a back number. Let us, however, examine their mythic symbolic150 theory a little further, and see what sort of arguments they invoke168 in favour of it, and what their “indirect” proofs amount to.
Examples of the Sun-god theory of Jesus. The Rock-TombWhy was Jesus buried in a rock-tomb? asks Mr. Robertson. Answer: Because he was Mithras, the rock-born Sun-god. We would like to know what other sort of burial was possible round Jerusalem, where soil was so scarce that everyone was buried in a rock-tomb. Scores of such tombs remain. Are they all Mithraic? Surely a score of other considerations would equally well explain the choice of a rock-tomb for him in Christian tradition. [20]
The date of birthdayWhy was Jesus born at the winter-solstice? Answer: Because he was a Sun-god.
Our author forgets that the choice of December 25 for the feast of the physical birth of Jesus was made by the Church as late as 354 A.D. What could the cryptic197 Messianists of the first half of the first century know about a festival which was never heard of in Rome until the year 354, nor accepted in Jerusalem before the year 440? Time is evidently no element in the calculations of these authors; and they commit themselves to the most amazing anachronisms with the utmost insouciance198, or, shall we not rather say, ignorance; unless, indeed, they imagine that the mystic worshippers of the God Joshua knew all about the date, but kept it dark in order to mystify all succeeding generations.
The twelve disciples Why did Jesus surround himself with twelve disciples? Answer: Because they were the twelve signs of the Zodiac and he a Sun-god. We naturally ask, Were the twelve tribes of Israel equally representative of the Zodiac? In any case, may not Christian story have fixed199 the number of Apostles at twelve in view of the tribes being twelve? It is superfluous200 to go as far as the Zodiac for an explanation.
The Sermon on the Mount Why did Jesus preach his sermon on the Mount? Answer: Because as Sun-god he had to take his stand on the “pillar of the world.” In the same way, Moses, another Sun-god, gave his law from the Mount.
I always have heard that Moses got his tables of the law up top of a mountain, and brought them down to a people that were forbidden to approach it. He did not stand up top, and shout out his laws to them, as Mr. Robertson suggests. In any case, we merely read in Matthew v that Jesus went up into a [21]mountain or upland region, and when he had sat down his disciples came to him, and he then opened his mouth and taught them. In a country like Galilee, where you can barely walk a mile in any direction without climbing a hill, what could be more natural than for a narrator to frame such a setting for the teacher’s discourse201? It is the first rule of criticism to practise some economy of hypothesis, and not go roaming after fanciful and extravagant202 interpretations203 of quite commonplace and every-day occurrences.
The last Judgment Why was it believed that Jesus was to judge men after death? Answer: Because he was a Sun-god, and pro3 tanto identical with Osiris.
Surely the more natural interpretation is that, so soon as Jesus was identified in the minds of his followers204 with the Messiah or Christ, the task of judging Israel was passed on to him as part of the r?le. Thus in the Psalms206 of Solomon, a Jewish apocryph of about B.C. 50, we read that the Messiah will “in the assemblies judge the peoples, the tribes of the sanctified” (xvii, 48). Such references could be multiplied; are they all Osirian? If Mr. Robertson had paid a little more attention to the later apocrypha46 of Judaism, and made himself a little better acquainted with the social and religious medium which gave birth to Christianity, he would have realized how unnecessary are these Sun-mythic hypotheses, and we should have been spared his books.
The Lamb and Fish symbolism Why is Jesus represented in art and lore by the Lamb and the Fishes? Answer: As a Sun-god passing through the Zodiac.
This is amazing. We know the reason why Jesus was figured as a Lamb by the early Christians. It [22]was because they regarded the paschal lamb as a type of him. Does Mr. Robertson claim to know the reasons of their symbolism better than they did themselves?
And where did he discover that Jesus was represented as Fishes in Art and Lore? He was symbolized207 as one fish, not as several; and Tertullian has told us why. It was because, according to the popular zoology208 of the day, fishes were supposed to be born and to originate in the water, without carnal connection between their parents. For this reason the fish was taken as a symbol of Jesus, who was born again in the waters of the Jordan. A later generation explained the appellation209 of ?χθυ? (ichthus), or Fish, as an acrostic. The letters of the Greek word are the initials of the words: Iesous Christos Theou uios soter—i.e., Jesus Christ of God Son, Saviour210; but this later explanation came into vogue211 in an age when it was already heretical to say that Jesus was reborn in baptism; nor does it explain why the multitude of the baptized were symbolized as little fishes in contrast with the Big Fish, Christ.
The two asses212 Why did Jesus ride into Jerusalem before his death on two asses? Answer: Because Dionysus also rides on an ass and a foal in one of the Greek signs of Cancer (the turning point in the sun’s course). “Bacchus (p. 287) crossed a marsh213 on two asses.”
Mr. Robertson does not attempt to prove that the earliest Christians, who were Jews, must have been familiar with the rare legend of Bacchus crossing a marsh on two asses; still less with the rare representation of the zodiacal sign Cancer as an ass and its foal. It is next to impossible; and, even if they were, what induced them to transform the myth into [23]the legend of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys at once? If they had so excellent a legend of Bacchus on his asses crossing a marsh, why not be content with it? And the same question may be asked in regard to all the other transformations214 by which these “mystic sectaries,” who formed the early Church, changed myths culled216 from all times and all religions and races into a connected story of Jesus, as it lies before us in the Synoptic Gospels.
Mr. Robertson disdains217 any critical and comparative study of the Gospels, and insists on regarding them as coeval218 and independent documents. Everything inside the covers of the New Testament is for him, as for the Sunday-school teacher, on one dead level of importance. All textual criticism has passed over his head. He has never learned to look in Mark for the original form of a statement which Luke or Matthew copied out, and in transferring them to their Gospels scrupled219 not to alter or modify. Accordingly, to suit the exigencies221 of his theory that the Gospels are an allegory of a Sun-god’s exploits, he here claims to find the original text not in Mark, but in Matthew; as if a transcript222 and paraphrase223 could possibly be prior to, and more authoritative224 than, the text transcribed225 and brodé. Accordingly, he writes (p. 339) as follows: “In Mark xi and Luke xix, 30, the two asses become one?…. In the Fourth Gospel, again, we have simply the colt.” And yet by all rules of textual criticism and of common sense the underlying226 and original text is Mark xi, 1–7. In it the disciples merely bring a colt which they had found tied at a door. The author of the Gospel called of Matthew, eager to discern in every incident, no matter how commonplace, which [24]he found in Mark, a fulfilment of some prophecy, or another, drags in a tag of Zechariah: “Behold, the King cometh to thee, meek227, and riding on an ass and upon a colt, the foal of an ass.” Then, to make the story told of Jesus run on all fours with the prophecy, he writes that the disciples “brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their garments, and he (Jesus) sat on them.” He was unacquainted with Hebrew idiom, and so not aware that the words, “a colt the foal of an ass,” are no more than a rhetorical reduplication6 of an ass. There was, then, but one animal in the original form of the story, and, as the French say, it saute aux yeux that the importation of two is due to the influence of the prophecy on the mind of the transcriber229. Why, therefore, go out of the way to attribute the tale to the influence of a legend of Bacchus, so multiplying empty hypotheses? Mr. Robertson, with hopeless perversity230, takes Dr. Percy Gardner to task for repeating what he calls “the fallacious explanation, that ‘an ass and the foal of [25]an ass’ represents a Greek misconception of the Hebrew way of saying ‘an ass,’ as if Hebrews in every-day life lay under a special spell of verbal absurdity.”7 Jewish abhorrence231 of Pagan mythsBut did Hebrews in every-day life mould their ideas of the promised Messiah on out-of-the-way legends of Bacchus? Were they likely to fashion a tale of a Messianic triumph out of Gentile myths? Do we not know from a hundred sources that the Jews of that age, and the Christians who were in this matter their pupils, abhorred232 everything that savoured of Paganism. They were the last people in the world to construct a life of the Messiah out of the myths of Bacchus, and Hermes, and Osiris, and Heracles, and the fifty other heathen gods and heroes whom Mr. Robertson rolls up into what he calls the “composite myth” of the Gospels. But let us return to his criticism of Dr. Gardner. Why, it may be asked, was it à priori more absurd of Matthew to turn one ass into two in deference233 to Hebrew prophecy, than for Hebrews to set their Messiah riding into the holy city on two asses in deference to a myth of Bacchus crossing a marsh on two of them? Is it not Mr. Robertson, rather than Robertson on Drs. Gardner and CarpenterDr. Gardner, who here lies under a special spell of absurdity? “A glance at the story of Bacchus,” writes Mr. Robertson, “crossing a marsh on two asses … would have shown him that he was dealing with a zodiacal myth.” The boot is on the other foot. Had Mr. Robertson chosen to glance at the Poeticon Astronomicon of Hyginus, a late and somewhat worthless Latin author, who is the authority for this particular tale of Bacchus, he would have read [26](ii, 23) how Liber (i.e., Dionysus) was on his way to get an oracle234 at Dodona which might restore his lost sanity235: Sed cum venisset ad quandam paludem magnam, quam transire non posset, de quibusdam duobus asellis obviis factis dicitur unum deprehendisse eorum, et ita esse transvectus, ut omnino aquam non tetigerit.
In English: “But when he came to a certain spacious236 marsh, which he thought he could not get across, he is said to have met on the way two young asses, of which he caught one, and he was carried across on it so nicely that he never touched the water at all.”
Here there is no hint of Bacchus riding on two asses, and Mr. Robertson’s entire hypothesis falls to the ground like a house of cards. The astounding237 thing is that, although he insists on pages 287 and 4538 that Bacchus rode on two asses, and that here is the true Babylonian explanation of Jesus also riding on two, he gets the Greek, or rather Latin, myth right on p. 339, and recognizes that Dionysus was only mounted on one of the asses when he passed the morass238 or river on his way to Dodona. Thus, by Mr. Robertson’s own admission, Bacchus never rode on two asses at all.
The Pilate myth Why was Jesus crucified by Pilate? For an answer to this let us for a little quit “the very stimulating239 and informing works,” as Dr. Drews calls them, of Mr. Robertson, and turn to Dr. Drews’s own work on The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus.9 For there we find the true “astral myth interpretation” in all [27]its glory. The Pilate of Christian legend was, so we learn, not originally an historical person at all; the whole story of Christ is to be taken in an astral sense; and Pilate in particular represents the story of Orion, the javelin-man (Pilatus), with the Arrow or Lance constellation240 (Sagitta), which is supposed to be very long in the Greek myth, and reappears in the Christian legend under the name of Longinus?…. In the astral myth the Christ hanging on the cross or world-tree (i.e., the Milky241 Way) is killed by the lance of Pilatus?…. The Christian population of Rome told the legend of a javelin-man, a Pilatus, who was supposed to have been responsible for the death of the Saviour. Tacitus heard the myth repeated, and, like the fool he was, took it that Pilate the javelin-man was no other than Pilate the Roman procurator of Jud?a under Tiberius, who must have been known to him from the books of Josephus.10 Accordingly, Tacitus sat down and penned his account of the wholesale242 massacre243 and burning of Christians by Nero in the fifteenth book of his Annals.
We shall turn to the evidence of Tacitus later on. Meanwhile it is pertinent244 to ask where the myth of Pilatus, of which Drews here makes use, came from. The English text of Drews is somewhat confused; but presumedly Orion, with his girdle sword and lion’s skin, is no other than Pilatus; and his long lance, with which he kills Christ, further entitles him to the name of Longinus. Or is it Pilatus who stabs [28]Orion? It does not matter. Let us test this hypothesis in its essential parts.
The Longinus myth Firstly, then, Longinus was the name coined by Christian legend-mongers of the third or fourth century for the centurion245 who stabbed Jesus with a lance as he hung on the cross. How could so late a myth influence or form part of a tradition three centuries older than itself? The incident of the lance being plunged246 into the side of Jesus is related only in the Fourth Gospel, and is not found in the earlier ones. The author of that Gospel invented it in order to prove to his generation that Jesus had real blood in his body, and was not, as the Docetes maintained, a phantasm mimicking248 reality to the ears and eyes alone of those who saw and conversed249 with him. This Gospel, even according to the Christian tradition of its date, is barely earlier than A.D. 100, and the name Longinus was not heard of before A.D. 250 at the earliest. Yet Drews is ready to believe that it was on the lips of Christians in the reign103 of Nero, say in A.D. 64.
Secondly, what evidence is there that Pilatus could mean the “javelin-man” for the earliest generations of Roman Christians? The language current among them was Greek, not Latin, as the earliest Christian inscriptions250 in the catacombs of Rome testify. The language of Roman rites and popes remained Greek for three centuries. Why, then, should they have had their central myth of the crucifixion in a Latin form?
Thirdly, what evidence is there that Pilatus could mean a javelin-man even to a Latin? Many lexicographers interpret it in Virgil in the sense of packed together or dense251, and in most authors it bears the sense of bald or despoiled252. [29]
Inadequacy253 of the mythic theory But, letting that pass, we ask what evidence is there that Orion ever had the epithet254 Pilatus in this sense? What evidence that such a myth ever existed at all? There is none, absolutely none. It is not enough for these authors to ransack255 Lemprière and other dictionaries of mythology in behalf of their paradoxes256; but when these collections fail them, they proceed to coin myths of their own, and pretend that they are ancient, that the early Christians believed in them, and that Tacitus fell into the trap; as if these Christians, whom they acknowledge to have been either Jews or the converts of Jews, had not been constitutionally opposed to all pagan myths and cults alike; as if a good half of the earliest Christian literature did not consist of polemics257 against the pagan myths, which were regarded with the bitterest scorn and abhorrence; as if it were not notorious that it was their repugnance258 to and ridicule259 of pagan gods and heroes and religious myths that earned for the Christians, as for the Jews, their teachers, the hatred260 and loathing261 of the pagan populations in whose midst they lived. And yet we are asked to believe that the Christian Church, almost before it was separated from the Jewish matrix, fashioned for itself in the form of the Gospels an allegory of a Sun-god Joshua, who, though unknown to serious Semitic scholars, is yet so well known to Mr. Robertson and his friends that he identifies him with Adonis, and Osiris, and Dionysus, and Mithras, and Krishna, and Asclepius, and with any other god or demi-god that comes to hand in Lemprière’s dictionary. After hundreds of pages of such fanciful writing, Drews warns us in solemn language against the attempts “of historical theologians to reach the [30]nucleus262 of the Gospels by purely philological263 means.” The attempt, he declares, is “hopeless, and must remain hopeless, because the Gospel tradition floats in the air.” One would like to know in what medium his own hypotheses float. Joshua the Sun-god a pure invention of the mythic school Like Dr. Drews, Mr. Robertson adopts the Joshua myth as if it were beyond question. His faith in “the ancient Palestinian Saviour-Sun-God” is absolute. This otherwise unknown deity264 was the core of what is gracefully265 styled “the Jesuist myth.” On examination, however, the Joshua Sun-god turns out to be the most rickety of hypotheses. Because the chieftain who, in old tradition, led the Jews across the Jordan into the land of promise was named Joshua, certain critics, who are still in the sun-myth phase of comparative mythology—in particular, Stade and Winckler—have conjectured267 that the name Joshua conceals268 a solar hero worshipped locally by the tribe of Ephraim. Even if there ever existed such a cult, it had long vanished when the book of Joshua was compiled; for in this he is no longer represented as a solar hero, but has become in the popular tradition a human figure, a hero judge, and leader of the armies of Israel. Of a Joshua cult the book does not preserve any trace or memory; that it ever existed is an improbable and unverifiable hypothesis. We might just as well conjecture266 that Romulus, and Remus, and other half or wholly legendary269 figures of ancient history, were sun-gods and divine saviours270. But it is particularly in Jewish history that this school is apt to revel157. Moses, and Joseph, and David were all mythical beings brought down to earth; and the god David and the god Joshua, the god Moses, the god Joseph, form in the imagination of these gentlemen [31]a regular Hebrew prehistoric271 Pantheon. I say in their imagination, for it is certain that when the Pentateuch was compiled—at the latest in the fifth century B.C.—the Jews no longer revered272 David, and Joshua, and Joseph as sun-gods; while of what they worshipped even locally before that date we have little knowledge, and can form only conjectures273. In any case, that they continued to worship a sun-god under the name of Joshua as late as the first century of our era must strike anyone who has the least knowledge of Hebrew religious development, who has ever read Philo or Josephus, or studied Jewish sapiential and apocalyptic92 literature of the period B.C. 200–A.D. 100, as a wildly improbable supposition. Supposed secrecy274 of early Christian cult a literary trick Sensible that their hypothesis conflicts with all we know about the Jews of these three centuries, these three authors—Messrs. Drews, Robertson, and W. B. Smith—insist on the esoterism and secrecy of the cryptic society which in Jerusalem harboured the cult. This commonest of literary tricks enables them to evade275 any awkward questions, and whenever they are challenged to produce some evidence of the existence of such a cult they can answer that, being secret and esoteric, it could leave little or no evidence of itself, and that we must take their ipse dixit and renounce276 all hope of direct and documentary evidence. They ask of us a greater credulity than any Pope of Rome ever demanded.
Joshua ben Jehozadak also a Sun-god The divine stage of Joshua, then, if it ever existed, was past and forgotten as early as 500 B.C. It has left no traces. Of the other Joshuas, who meet us in the pages of the Jewish scriptures277, the most important one is Jeshua or Joshua ben Jehozadak, a high priest who, together with Zerubbabel, is often mentioned [32](according to the Encyclop?dia Biblica) in contemporary writings. Not only, then, have we contemporary evidence of this Joshua as of a mere man and a priest, but we know from it that he stooped to such mundane279 occupations as the rebuilding of the Temple. He also had human descendants, who are traced in Nehemiah xii, 10 fol. down to Jaddua. Of this epoch of Jewish history, in which the Temple was being rebuilt, we have among the Jewish and Aramaic papyri lately recovered at Elephantine documents that are autographs of personages with whom this Joshua may well have been in contact. His contemporaries are mentioned and even addressed in these documents, so that he and his circle are virtually as well evidenced for us as Frederick the Great and Voltaire. Is it credible in the face of such facts that the authors we are criticizing should turn this Joshua, too, into a solar god? Yet Drews turns with zest280 to the notice of this Joshua, the high priest in Zechariah iii, as “one of the many signs” which attest that “Joshua or Jesus was the name under which the expected Messiah was honoured in certain Jewish sects281.” Unless he regards this later Joshua also as a divine figure, and no mere man of flesh and blood, why does he thus drag him into his argument?
The suspicion that the compilers of the Old Testament burked evidence favourable282 to the Sun-myth hypothesis But, after all, Messrs. Drews and Robertson are uneasy about the book of Joshua, and not altogether capable of the breezy optimism of their instructor283, Mr. W. B. Smith, who, in Ecce Deus (p. 74), commits himself to the naive137 declaration that, “even if we had no evidence whatever of a pre-Christian Jesus cult, we should be compelled to affirm its existence with undiminished decision.” Accordingly, they both go out of their way to hint that the ancient Jews [33]suppressed the facts of the Joshua or Jesus Sun-God-Saviour cult. Thus Mr. Robertson (Christianity and Mythology, p. 99, note 1), after urging us to accept a late and worthless tradition about Joshua, the Son of Nave284, remarks that “the Jewish books would naturally drop the subject.” How ill-natured, to be sure, of the authors of the old Hebrew scriptures to suppress evidence that would have come in so handy for Mr. Robertson’s speculations285. Dr. Drews takes another line, and in a note draws our attention to the fact that the Samaritans possessed286 an apocryphal book of the same name as the canonical book of Joshua. This book, he informs us, is based upon an old work composed in the third century B.C., containing stories which in part do not appear in our Book of Joshua.
He here suggests that something was omitted in canonical Joshua by its authors which would have helped out his hypothesis of a Joshua Sun-god cult. He will not, however, find the Samaritan book encouraging, for it gives no hint of such a cult; of that anyone who does not mind being bored by a perusal287 of it can satisfy himself. Drews’s statement that it is based on an old work composed in the third century B.C. is founded on pure ignorance, and the Encyclop?dia Biblica declares it to be a medieval production of no value to anyone except the student of the Samaritan sect215 under Moslem288 rule.
The evidence of El Tabari about Joshua Mr. Robertson thinks he has got on a better trail in the shape of a tradition as to Joshua which he is quite sure the old Jewish scripture278 writers suppressed. Let us examine it, for it affords a capital example of his ideas of what constitutes historical evidence. “Eastern tradition,” he writes, “preserves a variety [34]of myths that the Bible-makers for obvious reasons suppressed or transformed.” In one of those traditions “Joshua is the son of the mythical Miriam; that is to say, there was probably an ancient Palestinian Saviour-Sun-God, Jesus, the son of Mary.” So on p. 285 we learn that the cult of Jesus of Nazareth was “the Survival of an ancient solar or other worship of a Babe Joshua, son of Miriam.” And he continually alludes289 to this ancient form of devotion, not as a mere hypothesis, but as a well-ascertained290 and demonstrable fact.11
Let us then explore this remarkable291 tradition by which “we are led to surmise292 that the elucidation293 of the Christ myth is not yet complete.” For such is the grandiose294 language in which he heralds295 his discovery. And what does it amount to? An Arab, El Tabari, who died in Bagdad about the year 925, compiled a Chronicle, of which some centuries later an unknown native of Persia made an abridgement in his own tongue, and inserted in it as a gloss297 “the remarkable Arab tradition,” as it is called in the Pagan Christs (p. 157) of Mr. Robertson, albeit298 he acknowledges in a footnote that it is “not in the Arabic original.” He asks us accordingly, on the faith of an unknown Persian glossator of the late Middle Ages, to believe that the canonical Book of Joshua originally contained this absurd tradition, and why? Because it would help out his hypothesis that [35]Jesus was an ancient Palestinian Saviour-Sun-God, worshipped by a cryptic society of Hebrews in Jerusalem, both before and after the beginning of the Christian era; and this is the man who writes about “the psychological resistance to evidence” of learned men, and sets it down to “malice and impercipience” that anyone should challenge his conclusions. As usual, Dr. Drews, who sets Mr. Robertson on a level with the author of the Golden Bough12 as a “leading exponent299 of his new mythico-symbolical method,” plunges300 into the pit which Mr. Robertson has dug for him, and writes that, “according to an ancient Arabian tradition, the mother of Joshua was called Mirzam (Mariam, Maria, as the mother of Jesus was).”
W. B. Smith’s hypothesis of a God Joshua The source from which Messrs. Drews and Robertson have drawn301 this particular inspiration is Dr. W. B. Smith’s work, The Pre-Christian Jesus (Der Vorchristliche Jesus). This book, we are told, “first systematically302 set forth the case for the thesis of its title.” Let us, therefore, consider its main argument. We have the following passages in Acts xviii, 24:—
Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, a learned man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and, being fervent304 in spirit, he spake and taught carefully the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But [36]when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded305 unto him the way of God more carefully. And when he was minded to pass over into Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him: and when he was come, he helped them much which had believed through grace: for he powerfully confuted the Jews, publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
Availing ourselves of the canons of interpretation laid down by Drews and Robertson, we may paraphrase the above somewhat as follows by way of getting at its true meaning:—
“A certain sun-myth hero, as his name Apollos signifies, came to Ephesus, which, being the centre of Astarte or Aphrodite worship, was obviously the right place for such a hero to pilgrimage unto. He was mighty in the Jewish Scriptures, and had been instructed in the way of the Lord Joshua, the Sun-God-Saviour of ancient Ephraim. He spake and taught carefully the things concerning this Joshua (or Adonis, or Osiris, or Dionysus, or Vegetation-god, or Horus—for you can take your choice among these and many more). But he knew only of the prehistoric ritual of baptism of Cadmus or of Oannes-Ea, the ancient culture-god of the Babylonians, who appeared in the form of a Fish-man, teaching men by day and at night going down into the sea—in his capacity of Sun-god.” This Cadmus or Oannes was worshipped at Jerusalem in the cryptic sect of the Christists or Jesuists under the name of John. His friend Apollos, the solar demi-god, began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Priscilla (presumably Cybele, mother of the gods), and Aquila, the Eagle-God, or Jupiter, heard him; she took him forthwith and [37]expounded to him the way of Jahve, who also was identical with Joshua, the Sun-god, with Osiris, etc.
His forced and far-fetched interpretations of common phrases Professor W. B. Smith is a little more modest and less thorough-going in his application of mythico-symbolic methods. He only asks us to believe that the trite306 and hackneyed phrase, “the things concerning Jesus,” refers not, as the context requires, to the history and passion of Jesus of Galilee, but to the mysteries of a prehistoric Saviour-God of the same name. We advisedly say prehistoric, for he was never mentioned by anyone before Professor Smith discovered him. The name Jesus, according to him, means what the word Essene also meant, a Healer.13 Note, in passing, that this etymology307 is wholly false, and rests on the authority of a writer so late, ignorant, and superstitious308 as Epiphanius. Now, why cannot the words, “the things about Jesus,” in this context mean the tradition of the ministry309 of Jesus as it had shaped itself at that time, beginning with the Baptism and ending with the Ascension, as we read in Acts i, 22? Apollos and the Baptism of JohnIt cannot, argues Professor Smith, because Apollos only knew the baptism of John. The reference to John’s baptism may be obscure, as much in early Christianity is bound to be obscure, except to Professor Smith and his imitators. Yet this much is clear, that it here means, what it means in the sequel, the baptism of mere repentance310 as opposed to the baptism of the Spirit, which was by laying on of hands, and conferred [38]the charismatic gifts of the Holy Ghost. The Marcionites, and after them the Manichean and Cathar sects, retained the latter rite14, and termed it Spiritual or Pneumatic Baptism; while they dropped as superfluous the Johannine baptism with water. It would appear, then, that Apollos was perfectly311 acquainted with the personal history of Jesus, and understood the purport312 of the baptism of repentance as a sacrament preparing followers of Jesus for the kingdom of Heaven, soon to be inaugurated on earth. Perhaps we get a glimpse in this passage of an age when the mission of Jesus in his primitive r?le as herald296 of the Messianic kingdom and a mere continuer of John’s mission was familiar to many who yet did not recognize him as the Messiah. For, after instruction by Priscilla and Aquila, Apollos set himself to confute the Jews who denied Jesus to have been Messiah, which, as a mere herald of the approaching kingdom of God, he was not. We know that Paul regarded him as having attained313 that dignity only through, and by, the fact of the Spirit having raised him from the dead; and did not regard him as having received it through the descent of the Spirit on him in the Jordan, as the oriental Christians presently believed. Still less did Paul know of the later teaching of the orthodox churches—viz., that the Annunciation was the critical moment in which Christ became Jesus. In any case, we must not interpret the words, “the things about Jesus,” in this passage in a forced and unnatural314 sense wholly alien to the writer of Acts. This writer again and again recapitulates315 the leading facts of the life and ministry of Jesus, and the phrase, “the things concerning Jesus,” cannot in any work of his bear any [39]other sense. Moreover, the same author uses the very same phrase elsewhere (Luke xxiv, 19) in the same sense. Here Cleopas asks Jesus (whom he had failed to recognize), and says:—
Dost thou alone sojourn316 in Jerusalem, and not know the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto him, What things? And they said unto him, the things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.
Such, then, were “the things about Jesus,” and to find in them, as Professor W. B. Smith does, an allusion317 to a pre-Christian myth of a God Joshua is to find a gigantic mare’s-nest, and fly in the face of all the evidence. He verges318 on actual absurdity when he sees the same allusion in Mark v, 26, where a sick woman, having heard “the things concerning Jesus,” went behind him, touched his garment, and was healed. Her disease was of a hysterical319 description, and in the annals of faith-healing such cures are common. What she had heard of was obviously not his fame as a Sun-god, but his power to heal sick persons like herself. Magical papyrus320 of Wessely Professor Smith tries to find support for his hardy321 conjecture in a chance phrase in a magical papyrus of Paris, No. 3,009, edited first by Wessely, and later by Dieterich in his Abraxas, p. 138. It is a form of exorcism to be inscribed322 on a tin plate and hung round the neck of a person possessed by a devil, or repeated over him by an exorcist. In this rigmarole the giants, of course, are dragged in, and the Tower of Babel and King Solomon; and the name of Jesus, the God of the Hebrews, is also invoked in the following terms: “I [40]adjure thee by Jesus the God of the Hebrews, Iabaiae Abraoth aia thoth ele, el?,” etc. The age of this papyrus is unknown; but Wessely puts it in the third century after Christ, while Dieterich shows that it can in no case be older than the second century B.C. It is clearly the composition of some exorcist who clung on to the skirts of late Judaism, for he is at pains to inform us in its last line that it is a Hebrew composition and preserved among pure men. In that age, as in after ones, not a few exorcists, trading on the fears and sufferings of superstitious people, affected323 to be pure and holy; and the mention of Jesus indicates some such charlatan324, who was more or less cognisant of Christianity and of the practice of Christian exorcists. He was also aware of the Jewish antecedents of Christianity, and did not distinguish clearly between the mother religion and its daughter. That is why he describes Jesus as a Hebrew God. We know from other sources that even in the earliest Christian age Gentiles used the name of Jesus in exorcisms. The author of the document styles Jesus God, just as Pliny informs us that the Christians sang hymns325 “to Christ as to God”—Christo quasi deo. How Professor Smith can imagine that this papyrus lends any colour to his thesis of a pre-Christian Jesus it is difficult to imagine.
Jesus a Nazor?an in what sense Still less does his thesis really profit by the text of Matthew ii, 23, in which a prophecy is adduced to the effect that the Messiah should be called a Nazor?an, and this prophecy is declared to have been fulfilled in so far as Jesus was taken by his parents to live at Nazareth in Galilee.
What prophecy the evangelist had in mind is not [41]known. But Professor W. B. Smith jumps to the conclusion that the Christians were identical with the sect of Nazor?i mentioned in Epiphanius as going back to an age before Christ; and he appeals in confirmation326 of this quite gratuitous327 hypothesis14 to Acts xxiv, 5, where the following of Jesus is described as that of the Nazor?i. It in no way helps the thesis of the non-historicity of Jesus, even if he and his followers were members of this obscure sect; it would rather prove the opposite. Drews, following W. B. Smith, pretends in the teeth of the texts that the name is applied328 to Jesus only as Guardian329 of the World, Protector and Deliverer of men from the power of sins and d?mons, and that it has no reference to an obscure and entirely330 unknown village named Nazareth. He also opines that Jesus was called a Nazarene, because he was the promised Netzer or Zemah who makes all things new, and so forth. Such talk is all in the air. Why these writers boggle so much at the name Nazor?an is not [42]easy to divine; still less to understand what Professor Smith is driving at when he writes of those whom he calls “historicists,” that “They have rightly felt that the fall of Nazareth is the fall of historicism itself.” Professor Burkitt has suggested that Nazareth is Chorazin spelt backwards331. Wellhausen explains Nazor?an from Nesar in the name Gennessaret. In any case, as we have no first-century gazetteer332 or ordnance333 survey of Galilee, it is rash to suppose that there could have been no town there of the name. True the Talmuds and the Old Testament do not name it; but they do not profess4 to give a catalogue of all the places in Galilee, so their silence counts for little.15 All we know for certain is that for the evangelist Nazor?an meant a dweller334 in Nazareth, and that he gave the word that sense when he met with it in an anonymous335 prophecy.
Mr. Robertson on myths I feel that I ought almost to apologize to my readers for investigating at such length the hypothesis of a pre-Christian Jesus, son of a mythical Mary, and for exhibiting over so many pages its fantastic, baseless, and absurd character. But Mr. Robertson himself warns us of the necessity of showing no mercy to myths when they assume the garb336 of fact. For he adduces (p. 126) the William Tell myth by way of illustrating337 once for all “the fashion in which a fiction can even in a historical [43]period find general acceptance.” Even so it is with his own fictions. We see them making their way with such startling rapidity over England and Germany as almost to make one despair of this age of popular enlightenment. It is not his fault, and I exonerate338 him from blame. His methods those of old-fashioned orthodoxyFor centuries orthodox theologians have been trying to get out of the Gospels supernaturalist conclusions which were never in them, nor could with any colour be derived from them except by deliberately340 ignoring the canons of evidence and the historical methods freely employed in the study of all other ancient monuments and narratives. They have set the example of treating the early writings of Christianity as no other ancient books would be treated. Mr. Robertson is humbly341 following in their steps, but à rebours, or in an inverse342 sense. They insist on getting more out of the New Testament than any historical testimony343 could ever furnish; he on getting less. In other respects also he imitates their methods. Thus they insist on regarding the New Testament, and in particular the four Gospels, as a homogeneous block, and will not hear of the criticism which discerns in them literary development, which detects earlier and later couches of tradition and narrative. This is what I call the Sunday-school attitude, and it lacks all perspective and orientation344. Mr. Robertson imbibed345 it in childhood, and has never been able to throw it off. For him there is no before and after in the formation of these books, no earlier and later in the emergence346 of beliefs about Jesus, no stratification of documents or of ideas. If he sometimes admits it, he withdraws the admission on the next page, as militating against his cardinal347 hypothesis. He seems never to have submitted himself [44]to systematic303 training in the methods of historical research—never, as we say, to have gone through the mill; and accordingly in the handling of documents he shows himself a mere wilful348 child.
Thus he insists on the priority in Christian tradition of the Virgin Birth legend His treatment of the legend of the Virgin Birth is an example of this mental attitude, which might be described as orthodoxy turned upside down and inside out. The Gospel of Mark is demonstrably older than those of the other two synoptists who merely copied it out with such variations, additions, omissions349, and modifications as a growing reverence350 for Jesus the Messiah imposed. It contains, no more than the Pauline Epistles and the Johannine Gospel, any hint of the supernatural birth of Jesus. It regards him quite simply and naturally as the son of Joseph and Mary. In it the neighbours of Jesus enumerate351 by way of contumely the names of his brothers and sisters. I have shown also in my Myth, Magic, and Morals that this naturalist339 tradition of his birth dominates no less the whole of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke apart from the first two chapters of each, and that even in the first chapter of Matthew the pedigree in early texts ended with the words “Joseph begat Jesus.” I have shown furthermore that the belief in the paternity of Joseph was the characteristic belief of the Palestinian Christians for over two centuries, that it prevailed in Syria to the extent of regarding Jesus and Thomas as twin brothers. I have pointed117 out that the Jewish interlocutor Trypho in Justin Martyr352’s dialogue (c. 150) maintains that Jesus was born a man of men and rejects the Virgin Birth legend as a novelty unworthy of monotheists, and that he extorts353 from his Christian antagonist354 the admission that the great majority [45]of Christians still believed in the paternity of Joseph.
His exceptional treatment of Christian tradition Now Mr. Robertson evidently reads a good deal, and must at one time or another have come across all these facts. Why, then, does he go out of his way to ignore them, and, in common with Professors Drews and W. B. Smith, insist that the miraculous tradition of Jesus’s birth was coeval with the earliest Christianity and prior to the tradition of a natural birth? Yet the texts stare him in the face and confute him. Why does he shut his eyes to them, and gibe355 perpetually at the critical students who attach weight to them? The works of all the three writers are tirades356 against the critical method which tries to disengage in the traditions of Jesus the true from the false, fact from myth, and to show how, in the pagan society which, as it were, lifted Jesus up out of his Jewish cradle, these myths inevitably357 gathered round his figure, as mists at midday thicken around a mountain crest358.
In secular359 history he uses other canons and methods, Their insistence360 that in the case of Christian origins the miraculous and the non-miraculous form a solid block of impenetrable myth is all the more remarkable, because in secular history they are prepared, nay anxious, for the separation of truth from falsehood, of history from myth, and continually urge not only its possibility, but its necessity. Mr. Robertson in particular prides himself on meting361 out to Apollonius of Tyana a measure which he refuses to Jesus the Messiah. e.g., in criticizing the story of Apollonius“The simple purport,” he writes in the Literary Guide, May 1, 1913, “of my chapter on Apollonius was to acknowledge his historicity, despite the accretions362 of myth and more or less palpable fiction to his biography.” And yet [46]there are ten testimonies363 to the historicity of Jesus where there is one to that of Apollonius; yet Apollonius was reputed to have been born miraculously364, and his birth accompanied by the portent61 of a meteor from heaven, as that of Jesus by a star from the east. Like Jesus, he controlled the devils of madness and disease, and by the power of his exorcisms dismissed them to be tortured in hell. Like Peter, he miraculously freed himself from his bonds; like Jesus, he revealed himself after death to a sceptical disciple and viva voce convinced him of his ascent365 to heaven; like him, he ascended in his body up to heaven amid the hymns of maiden366 worshippers. In life he spent seven days in the bowels367 of the earth, and gathered a band of disciples around him who acclaimed him as a divine being; long after his death temples were raised to him as to a demigod, miracles wrought368 by his relics369, and prayer and sacrifice offered to his genius. So considerable was the parallelism between his story and that of Jesus that the pagan enemies of the Christians began about the year 300 to run his cult against theirs, and it was only yesterday that the orthodox began to give up the old view that the Life of Apollonius was a blasphemous370 réchauffé of the Gospels. “There is no great reason to doubt that India was visited by Apollonius of Tyana,” writes Mr. Robertson (Christianity and Mythology, p. 273); and yet his visit in the only relation we have of it is a tissue of marvels371 and prodigies372, his Indian itinerary373 is impossible, and full of contradictions not only of what we know of Indian geography to-day, but of what was already known in that day. Yet about his pilgrimage thither374, declares Mr. Robertson, there is no more uncertainty375 than about the embassies [47]sent by Porus to Augustus, and by the king of “Taprobane” to Claudius. “There is much myth,” he writes again, p. 280, “in the life of Apollonius of Tyana, who appears to be at the bottom a real historical personage.” In the Gospels we have the story of Jairus’s daughter being raised to life from apparent death. “A closely similar story is found in Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius of Tyana, the girl in each case being spoken of in such a way as to leave open the question of her having been dead or a cataleptic.” So writes Mr. Robertson, p. 334, who thinks that “the simple form preserved in Matthew suggests the derivation from the story in Philostratus,” overlooking here, as elsewhere, the chronological376 difficulties. We can forgive him for that; but why, we must ask, does the presence of such stories in the Gospel irrevocably condemn96 Jesus to non-historicity, while their presence in the Life of Apollonius leaves his historical reality intact and unchallenged? Is it not that the application of his canons of interpretation to Apollonius would have deprived him of one of the sources from which the mythicity of Jesus by his anachronistic377 methods could be deduced?
The early passion play of the Sun-god Joshua Mr. Robertson endeavours in a halting manner to justify378 his partiality for Apollonius. “We have,” he writes (Pagan Christs, p. 283, § 16), “no reason for doubting that there was an Apollonius of Tyana?…. The reasons for not doubting are (1) that there was no cause to be served by a sheer fabrication; and (2) that it was a much easier matter to take a known name as a nucleus for a mass of marvels and theosophic teachings than to build it up, as the phrase goes about the canon, ‘round a hole.’ The [48]difference between such a case and those of Jesuism and Buddhism379 is obvious. In those cases there was a cultus and an organization to be accounted for, and a biography of the founder380 had to be forthcoming. In the case of Apollonius, despite the string of marvels attached to his name, there was no cultus.”
Let us examine the above argument. In the case of “Jesuism” (Mr. Robertson’s argot381 for early Christianity) there had to be fabricated a biography of Jesus, because there existed an organized sect that worshipped Jesus.
The organized sect consisted, according to Mr. Robertson, of “Christists” or “Jesuists,” and the chief incident for which they were organized was an annual play in which the God Jesus was betrayed, arrested, condemned, was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again. Ober Ammergau has supplied him with his main conception, and his annually382 recurring383 “Gospel mystery play,” as he imagines it to have been acted by the “Jesuists,” who were immediate384 ancestors of the Christians, is a faithful copy of the modern Passion Play. He supposes it to have been acted annually because the hypothetical Sun-God-Saviour Joshua, whose mythical sufferings and death it commemorated385, was an analogue386 of Osiris, whose sufferings and death were similarly represented in Egypt each recurring spring; also of Adonis, of Dionysus, of Mithras, and of sundry387 vegetation gods, annually slain388 to revive vegetation and secure the life of the initiate389 in the next world. Be it remarked also that the annually slain God of the Jesuists was not only an analogue of these other gods, but a “composite myth” made up of their myths. As we have seen, Mr. Robertson is ready to exhibit to us in [49]one or another of their mythologies390 the original of every single incident and actor in the Jesuist play.
Such was the cultus and organization which, according to Mr. Robertson and his imitator Dr. Drews, lies behind the Christian religion. The latter began to be when the “Jesuist” cult, having broken away from Judaism, was also concerned to break away from the paganism in contact with which the play would first arise.
The Gospels a transcript of this play A biography of the Founder of the cult was now called for, by the Founder oddly enough being meant the God himself, and not the hierophant who instituted the play. The Christian Gospels are the biography in question. They are a transcript of the annually performed ritual drama, just as Lamb’s Tales from Shakespeare are transcripts391 of Shakespeare’s plays.
The first performances of the play, we learn, probably took place in Egypt. It ceased to be acted when “it was reduced to writing as part of the gospel.” How far away from Jerusalem it was that the momentous392 decision was taken by the sect to give up play acting44 and be content with the transcript Mr. Robertson “can hardly divine.” He hints, however, that some of the latest representations took place in the temples built by Herod at Damascus and Jericho and in the theatres of the Greek town of Gadara. “The reduction of the play to narrative form put all the Churches on a level, and would remove a stumbling block from the way of the ascetic53 Christists who objected to all dramatic shows as such.”
But where did the play come from? What inspired it? Mr. Robertson makes a tour round the Mediterranean393, [50]and collects in Part II, Ch. I, of his Pagan Christs a lot of scrappy information about mock sacrifices and mystery dramas, all of them “cases and modes of modification” of actual human sacrifices that were “once normal in the Semitic world.” He assumes without a tittle of proof, and against all probability, that the annual sacrifice of a king or of a king’s son, whether in real or mimic247, held its ground among Jews as a religious ceremony right down into our era, and was “reduced among them to ritual form, like the leading worships of the surrounding Gentile world.” He fashions a new hypothesis in accordance with these earlier ones as follows:—
Joshua or Jesus slain once a year “If in any Jewish community, or in the Jewish quarter of any Eastern city, the central figure in this rite (i.e., of a mock sacrifice annually recurring of a man got up to represent a god) were customarily called Jesus Barabbas, ‘Jesus the Son of the Father’—whether or not in virtue394 of an old cultus of a God Jesus who had died annually like Attis and Tammuz—we should have a basis for the tradition so long preserved in many MSS. of the first gospel, and at the same time a basis for the whole gospel myth of the crucifixion.”
Here we have a whole string of hypotheses piled one on the other. Let us see which have any ground in fact, or cohere395 with what we know of the past, which are improbable and unproven.
Hypothesis of human sacrifice among Jews That human sacrifice was once in vogue among the Jews is probable enough, and the story of the frustrated396 sacrifice of Isaac was no doubt both a memory and a condemnation397 of the old rite of sacrificing first-born children with which we are familiar in ancient Ph?nicia and her colony of [51]Carthage. That such rites in Jud?a and in Israel did not survive the Assyrian conquest of Jerusalem is certain. The latest allusion to them is in Isaiah xxx, 27–33. This passage is post-exilic indeed; but, as Dr. Cheyne remarks (Encycl. Biblica, art. Molech, col. 3,187): “The tone of the allusion is rather that of a writer remote from these atrocities398 than of a prophet in the midst of the struggle against them.”
We may then assume (1) that the custom of human sacrifice disappeared among Jews centuries before our era; (2) that in the epoch 100 B.C. to 100 A.D. every Jew, no matter where he lived, would view such rites and reminiscences with horror. As a matter of fact, Philo dwells in eloquent399 language on the horror and abomination of them as they were still in his day sporadically400 celebrated401, not among Jews, but among pagans.
This being so, is it likely that any Jewish community would keep up even the simulacrum of such rites? In Josephus and Philo, who are our most important witnesses to the Judaism that just preceded or was contemporary with early Christianity, there is no hint of such rites as might constitute a memory and mimicry402 of human victims, whether identified with a god or not. No serious pagan writer of that age ever accused the Jews of keeping up such rites openly or in secret among themselves. Evidence of Apion accepted by Mr. RobertsonApion alone had a cock-and-bull story of how Antiochus Epiphanes, when he took Jerusalem (c. 170 B.C.), found a Greek being fattened403 up by the Jews in the adytum of the temple about to be slain and eaten in honour of their god. Of course Mr. Robertson catches at this, and writes (Pagan Christs, p. 161) that, “in view of all the clues, we cannot pronounce that story incredible.” [52]What clues has he? The undoubted survival of ritual murder among the pagans of Ph?nicia in that age is no clue, though it explains the genesis of Apion’s tale. And Mr. Robertson has one other treasure trove—to wit, the obscure reading “Jesus Barabbas” in certain MSS. of Matthew xxvii, 17: “Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? (Jesus) Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?”
The sacrificing of the mock king It has been plausibly404 suggested that the addition Jesus is due to a scribe’s reduplication, such as is common in Greek manuscripts, of the last syllable405 of the word humin = unto you. The in in uncials is a regular compendium406 for Iesun Jesus. In this way the name Jesus may have crept in before Barabbas. The entire story of Barabbas being released has an apocryphal air, for Pilate would not have let off a rebel against the Roman rule to please the Jewish mob; and the episode presupposes that it was the Sanhedrin which had condemned Jesus to death, which is equally improbable. What is probable, however, is that the Syrian soldiery to whom Pilate committed Jesus for crucifixion were accustomed to the Sac?a festival of Babylonian origin, and perhaps to the analogous407 Roman feast of the Saturnalia. In such celebrations a mock king was chosen, and vested with the costume, pomp, and privileges of kingship perhaps for as long as three days. Then the mimicry of slaying408 him was gone through, and sometimes the mock king was really put to death. Among Syrians the name Barabbas may—it is a mere hypothesis—have been the conventional appellation of the victim slain actually or in mock show on such occasions; and the soldiers of Pilate may have treated [53]him en Barabbas. Loisy suggests in his Commentary on the Synoptics that this was the genesis of the Barabbas story. That a pagan soldiery treated Jesus as a mock king, when they dressed him in purple and set a crown of thorns on his head, and, kneeling before him, cried “Hail King of the Jews,” is quite possible; and serious scholars like Paul Wendland (Hermes, Vol. XXXIII (1898), fol. 175) and Mr. W. R. Paton long ago discerned the probability.
But it was one thing for Syrians and pagans to envisage409 the crucifixion of Jesus under the aspect of a sacrifice to Molech, quite another thing for Jews—whether as his enemies or as his partisans—to do so; nor does the Gospel narrative suggest that any Jews took part in the ceremony. Perhaps it was out of respect for Jewish susceptibilities—and they were not likely to favour any mockery of their Messianic aspirations410—that Pilate caused Jesus to be divested411 of the purple insignia of royalty412 and clad in his usual garb before he was led out of the guardroom and through the streets of Jerusalem on his way to Golgotha.
Evidence of Philo We read in Philo (In Flaccum, vi) of a very similar scene enacted413 in the streets of Alexandria within ten years of the crucifixion. The young Agrippa, elevated by Caligula to the throne of Jud?a, had landed in that city, where feeling ran high between Jews and pagans. The latter, by way of ridiculing414 the pretensions of the Jews to have a king of their own, seized on a poor lunatic named Carabas who loitered night and day naked about the streets, ran him as far as the Gymnasium, and there stood him on a stool, so that all could see him, having first set a mock diadem415 of byblus on his head and thrown [54]a rug over his shoulders as a cloak of honour. In his hand they set a papyrus stem by way of sceptre. Having thus arrayed him, as in a mime416 of the theatre, with the insignia of mock royalty, the young men shouldering sticks, as if they were a bodyguard417, encircled him, while others advanced, saluted418 his mock majesty, and pretended that he was their judge and king sitting on his throne to direct the commonwealth419. Meanwhile a shout went up from the crowd around of Marin, which in the Syrian language signified Lord.
This passage of Philo goes far to prove that the mockery of Jesus in the Gospels was no more than a public ridiculing of the Jewish expectations of a national leader or Messiah who should revive the splendours of the old Davidic kingdom. In any case, the mockery is conducted at Jerusalem by Pilate’s soldiers (who were not Jews, but a pagan garrison420 put there to overawe the Jews), at Alexandria by such Greeks as Apion penned his calumnies421 to gratify. Mr. Robertson’s suggestion that the mock ceremony of the crucifixion was performed by Jews or Christians is thus as absurd as it is gratuitous. It was held in bitter despite of Jews and Christians, it was a mockery and reviling422 of their most cherished hopes and ideals; and yet he does not scruple220 to argue that it is “a basis for the whole gospel myth of the crucifixion.”
Evidence of the Khonds Thus he is left with the single calumny423 of Apion, which deserves about as much credence424 as the similar tales circulated to-day against the Jews of Bessarabia. That is the single item of evidence he has to prove what is the very hinge of his theory—the supposition, namely, that the Jews of Alexandria first, and afterwards [55]the Jews of Jerusalem, celebrated in secret once a year ritual dramas representing the ceremonial slaying of a Sun-God-Saviour Joshua, Son of the Father and of the Virgin Miriam. It is a far cry to the horrible rites of the Khonds of modern India; but Mr. Robertson, for whom wide differences of age and place matter nothing when he is explaining Christian origins, has discovered in them a key to the narrative of the crucifixion of Jesus. He runs all round the world and collects rites of ritual murder and cannibal sacraments of all ages, mixes them up, lumps them down before us, and exclaims triumphantly425, There is my “psychological clue” to Christianity. The most superficial resemblances satisfy him that an incident in Jerusalem early in our era is an essential reproduction of a Khond ritual murder in honour of the goddess Tari. Was there ever an author so hopelessly uncritical in his methods?
Origin of the Gospels The Gospels, then, are a transcript of a mock murder of the Sun-god Joshua annually performed in secret by the Jews of Jerusalem, for it had got there before it was written down and discontinued. One asks oneself why, if the Jews had tolerated so long a pagan survival among themselves, they could not keep it up a little longer; and why the “Christists” should be so anxious “to break away from paganism” at exactly the same hour. Moreover, their breach426 with paganism did not amount to much, since they kept the transcript of a ritual drama framed on pagan lines and inspired throughout by pagan ideas and myths; not only kept it, but elevated it into Holy Scripture. At the same time they retained the Old Testament, which as Jews they had immemorially [56]venerated as Holy Scripture; and for generations they went on worshipping in the Jewish temple, kept the Jewish feasts and fasts, and were zealous428 for circumcision. What a hotchpotch of a sect!
How could a Sun-god slain annually be slain by Pontius Pilate? It occurs to me to ask Mr. Robertson a few questions about this transcript. It was the annual mystery play reduced to writing. The central event of the play was the annual death and resurrection of a solar or vegetation god, whose attributes and career were borrowed from the cults of Osiris, Adonis, Dionysus, and Co. All these gods died once a year; and, I suppose, had you asked one of the votaries when his god died, he would have answered, Every spring. Now all the Gospels (in common with all Christian tradition) are unanimous that Jesus only died once, about the time of the Passover, when Pilate was Roman Governor of Jud?a, when Annas and Caiaphas were high-priests and King Herod about. This surely is an extraordinary record for a Sun-god who died once a year. And it was not in the transcript only that all these fixities of date crept in, for Mr. Robertson insists most vehemently429 that Pilate was an actor in the play. “Even the episode,” he writes (Pagan Christs, p. 193), “of the appeal of the priests and Pharisees to Pilate to keep a guard on the tomb, though it might be a later interpolation, could quite well have been a dramatic scene.” In Mark and Matthew, as containing “the earlier version” of the drama, he detects everywhere a “concrete theatricality430.” Thus he commits himself to the astonishing paralogism that Pilate and Herod, Annas and Caiaphas, and all the other personages of the closing chapters of the Gospels, were features in an annually recurring passion play of the Sun-god Joshua; and [57]this play was not a novelty introduced after the crucifixion, for there never was a real crucifixion. On the contrary, it was a secret survival among paganized Jews, a bit of Jewish pagan mummery that had been going on long ages before the actors represented in it ever lived or were heard of. Such is the reductio ad absurdum of the thesis which peeps out everywhere in Mr. Robertson’s pages. And now we have found what we were in search of—namely, the cultus and organization to account for which a biography of Jesus had to be fabricated. The Life of Apollonius, argues Mr. Robertson, cannot have been built up round a hole, and as there was no organized cult of him (this is utterly431 false), there must have been a real figure to fit the biography. In the other case the organized and pre-existing cult was the nucleus around which the Gospels grew up like fairy rings around a primal432 fungus433. It is not obvious why a cult should exclude a real founder, or, rather, a real person, in honour of whom the cult was kept up. In the worship of the Augustus or of the ancient Pharaoh, who impersonated and was Osiris, we have both. Why not have both in the case of Jesus, to whose real life and subsequent deification the Augusti and the Pharaohs offer a remarkable parallel? But there never was any pre-Christian cult and organization in Mr. Robertson’s sense. It is a monstrous434 outgrowth of his own imagination.
Historicity of Plato falls by the canons of the mythicists And as in the case of Apollonius, so in the case of other ancients, he is careful not to apply those methods of interpretation which he yet cannot pardon scholars for not applying to Jesus. Let us take another example. Of the life of Plato we know next to nothing. In the dialogues attributed to him his [58]name is only mentioned twice; and in both cases its mention could, if we adopt Mr. Robertson’s canons of interpretation, be with the utmost ease explained away as an interpolation. The only life we have of him was penned by Diogenes Laertius 600 years after he lived. The details of his life supplied by Aristoxenus, a pupil of Aristotle, are obviously false. The only notices preserved of him that can be claimed to be contemporary are the few derived from his nephew Speusippus. Now what had Speusippus to tell? Why, a story of the birth of Plato which, as Mr. Robertson (p. 293) writes, scarcely differs from the story of Matthew i, 18–25:
“In the special machinery435 of the Joseph and Mary myth—the warning in a dream and the abstention of the husband—we have a simple duplication of the relations of the father and mother of Plato, the former being warned in a dream by Apollo, so that the child was virgin-born.”
Again, just as the Christians chose a “solar date” for the birthday of Jesus, so the Platonists, according to Mr. Robertson, p. 308, “placed the master’s birthday on that of Apollo—that is, either at Christmas or at the vernal equinox.”
Now in the case of Jesus such legends and events as the above suffice to convince Mr. Robertson that the history of Jesus as told in the Gospels is a mere survival of “ancient solar or other worship of a babe Joshua, son of Miriam,” of which ancient worship nothing is known except that it looms436 large in the imagination of himself, of Dr. Drews, and of Professor W. B. Smith. On the other hand, we do know that a cult of Apollo existed, and that it is no fiction of these modern writers. Surely, then, it is time we [59]changed our opinion about the historicity of Plato. Is it not as clear as daylight that he was the survival of a pre-Platonic Apollo myth? We know the r?le assigned to Apollo of revealer of philosophic437 truth. Well, here were the dialogues and letters of Plato, calling for an explanation of their origin; a sect of Platonists who cherished these writings and kept the feast of their master on a solar date. On all the principles of the new mythico-symbolic system Plato, as a man, had no right to exist. “Without Jesus,” writes Drews, “the rise of Christianity can be quite well understood.” Yes, and, by the same logic5, no less the rise of Platonism without Plato, or of the cult of Apollonius without Apollonius. What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander. With a mere change of names we could write of Plato what on p. 282 Mr. Robertson writes of Jesus. Let us do it: “The gospel Jesus (read dialogist Plato) is as enigmatic from a humanist as from a supernaturalist point of view. Miraculously born, to the knowledge of many (read of his nephew Speusippus, of Clearchus whose testimony ‘belongs to Plato’s generation,’ of Anaxilides the historian and others), he reappears as a natural man even in the opinion of his parents (read of nephew Speusippus and the rest); the myth will not cohere. Rationally considered, he (Plato) is an unintelligible438 portent; a Galilean (read Athenian) of the common people, critically untraceable till his full manhood, when he suddenly appears as a cult-founder.”
The Virgin Birth no part of the earliest Gospel tradition Why does Mr. Robertson so incessantly439 labour the point that the belief in the supernatural birth of Jesus came first in time, and was anterior440 to the belief that he was born a man of men? This he [60]implies in the words just cited: “Miraculously born, to the knowledge of many, he reappears as a natural man.” A story almost identical with that of the Massacre of the Innocents by Herod was, Mr. Robertson tells us (p. 184), told of the Emperor Augustus in his lifetime, and appears in Suetonius “as accepted history.” And elsewhere (p. 395) he writes: “It was after these precedents441 (i.e., of Antiochus and Ptolemy) that Augustus, besides having himself given out, like Alexander, as begotten442 of a God, caused himself to be proclaimed in the East … as being born under Providence443 a Saviour and a God and the beginning of an Evangel of peace to mankind.” Like Plato’s story, then, so the official and contemporary legends of Augustus closely resembled the later ones of Jesus. Yet Mr. Robertson complacently444 accepts the historicity of Plato and Augustus, merely brushing aside the miraculous stories and supernatural r?le. Nowhere in his works does he manifest the faintest desire to apply in the domain445 of profane446 history the canons which he so rigidly447 enforces in ecclesiastical.
Yet there are passages in Mr. Robertson’s works where he seems, to use his own phrase, to “glimpse” the truth. Thus, on p. 124 of Christianity and Mythology he writes: “Jesus is said to be born of a Virgin; but not in the original version of the first gospel; and not in the second; and not in the fourth; and not in any writing or by any mouth known to or credited by the writers of the Pauline Epistles. Here we see how a myth may be superimposed on a cult.”
Does not this mean that a cult of Jesus already existed before this myth was added, and that the myth is absent in the earliest documents of the cult? Again, on p. 274, he writes that “the Christian [61]Virgin-myth and Virgin-and-child worship are certainly of pre-Christian origin, and of comparatively late Christian acceptance.” Yet, when I drew attention in the Literary Guide of December 1, 1912, to the inconsistency with this passage of the later one above cited, which asserts that, “Miraculously born, to the knowledge of many, he reappears as a natural man,” he replied (January 1, 1913) that “a reader of ordinary candour would understand that ‘acceptance’ applied to the official action of the Church.” It appears, therefore, that in the cryptic secret society of the Joshua Sun-God-Saviour, which held its séances at Jerusalem at the beginning of our era, there was an official circle which lagged behind the unofficial multitude. The latter knew from the first that their solar myth was miraculously born; but the official and controlling inner circle ignored the miracle until late in the development of the cult, and then at last issued a number of documents from which it was excluded. One wonders why. Why trouble to utter these documents in which Jesus “reappears as a natural man,” long after the sect as a whole were committed to the miraculous birth? What is the meaning of these wheels within wheels, that hardly hunt together? We await an explanation. Meanwhile let us probe the new mythico-symbolism a little further.
The cleansing448 of the temple Why did the solar God Joshua-Jesus scourge449 the money-changers out of the temple? Answer: Because it is told of Apollonius of Tyana, “that he expelled from the cities of the left bank of the Hellespont some sorcerers who were extorting450 money for a great propitiatory451 sacrifice to prevent earthquakes.” [62]
The connection is beautifully obvious like the rest of our author’s rapprochements; but we must accept it, or we shall lay ourselves open to the reproach of “psychological resistance to evidence.” Nor must we ask how the memoirs452 of Damis, that lay in a corner till Philostratus got hold of them in the year 215, enjoyed so much vogue among the “Christists” of Jerusalem long years before they can conceivably have been written.
Why on the occasion in question did Jesus make a scourge of cords with which to drive the sheep and oxen out of the Temple? Answer: “Because in the Assyrian and Egyptian systems a scourge-bearing god is a very common figure on the monuments … it is specially90 associated with Osiris, the Saviour, Judge, and Avenger453. A figure of Osiris, reverenced454 as ‘Chrestos’ the benign455 God, would suffice to set up among Christists as erewhile among pagans the demand for an explanation.”
Here we get a precious insight into the why and wherefore of the Gospels. They were intended by the “Christists” to explain the meaning of Osiris statues. Why could they not have asked one of the priests of Osiris, who as a rule might be found in the neighbourhood of his statues, what the emblem456 meant? And, after all, were statues of Osiris so plentiful457 in Jerusalem, where the sight even of a Roman eagle aroused a riot?
Janus-Peter the bifrons Who was Peter? Answer: An understudy of Mithras, who in the monuments bears two keys; or of Janus, who bears the keys and the rod, and as opener of the year (hence the name January) stands at the head of the twelve months.
Why did Peter deny Jesus? Answer: Because [63]Janus was called bifrons. The epithet puzzled the “Christists” or “Jesuists” of Jerusalem, who, instead of asking the first Roman soldier they met what it meant, proceeded to render the word bifrons in the sense of “double-faced,” quite a proper epithet they thought for Peter, who thenceforth had to be held guilty of an act of double-dealing. For we must not forget that it was the epithet which suggested to the Christists the invention of the story, and not the story that of the epithet. But even Mr. Robertson is not quite sure of this; and it does not matter, where there is such a wealth of alternatives. For Peter is also an understudy of “the fickle459 Proteus.” Janus’s double head was anyhow common on coins, and with that highly relevant observation he essays to protect his theories of Janus-Peter from any possible criticisms. Indeed, we are forbidden to call in question the above conclusions. They are quite certain, because the “Christists” were intellectually “about the business of forming myths in explanation of old ritual and old statuary” (p. 350). Wonderful people these early “Christists,” who, although they were, as Mr. Robertson informs us (p. 348), “apostles of a Judaic cult preaching circumcision,” and therefore by instinct inimical to all plastic art, nevertheless rivalled the modern arch?ologist in their desire to explain old statuary. They seem to have been the prototypes of the Jews of Wardour Street. No less wonderful were they as philologists460, in that, being Hebrews and presumably speaking Aramaic, they took such a healthy interest in the meaning of Latin words, and discovered in bifrons a sense which it never bore in any Latin author who ever used it! [64]
The keys of Peter It appears to have escaped the notice of Professor Franz Cumont that Mithras carries in his monuments two keys. The two keys were an attribute of the Mithraic Kronos, in old Persian Zervan, whom relatively late the Latins confused with Janus, who also had two heads and carried keys. That late Christian images of Peter were imitated from statues of these gods no one need doubt, and Fr. Cumont (Monuments de Mithras, i, 85) does not reject such an idea. It is quite another thing to assume dogmatically that the text Matthew xvi, 19 was suggested by a statue of Janus or of Zervan. To explain it you need not leave Jewish ground, but merely glance at Isaiah xxii, 22, where the Lord is made to say of Eliakim: “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.” The same imagery meets us in Revelation iii, 7 (copied from Isaiah), Luke xi, 52, and elsewhere. A. Sulzbach (in Ztschr. f.d. Neutest. Wissenschaft, 1903, p. 190) points out that every Jew, up to A.D. 70, would understand such imagery, for he saw every evening the temple keys ceremoniously taken from a hole under the temple floor, where they were kept under a slab461 of stone. The Levite watcher locked up the temple and replaced the keys under the slab, upon which he then laid his bed for the night. In connection with the magic power of binding462 and loosing the keys had, of course, a further and magical significance, not in Jud?a alone, but all over the world, and the Evangelists did not need to examine statues of Janus or Zervan in order to come by this bit of everyday symbolism.
N.B.—No connection of Janus-Peter of the Gospels [65]with Peter of the Pauline Epistles! The one was a mythical companion of the Sun-god, the other a man of flesh and blood, according to Mr. Robertson.
Joseph and his ass Who was Joseph? Answer: Forasmuch as “the Christian system is a patchwork463 of a hundred suggestions drawn from pagan art and ritual usage” (p. 305), and “Christism was only neo-Paganism grafted464 on Judaism” (p. 338), Joseph must be regarded as “a partial revival465 of the ancient adoration466 of the God Joseph as well as of that of the God Daoud” (p. 303). He was also, seeing that he took Mary and her child on an ass into Egypt, a reminiscence; or, shall we not say, an explanation of “the feeble old man leading an ass in the sacred procession of Isis, as described by Apuleius in his Metamorphoses.”
There is no mention of Joseph’s ass in the Gospels, but that does not matter. Dr. Drews is better informed, and would have us recognize in Joseph an understudy of Kinyras, the father of Adonis, who “is said to have been some kind of artisan, a smith, or carpenter. That is to say, he is supposed to have invented the hammer,” etc. Might I suggest the addition of the god Thor to the collection of gospel aliases467? The gods Joseph and Daoud are purely modern fictions; no ancient Jew ever heard of either.
Why was Jesus crucified?
The Crucifixion “The story of the Crucifixion may rest on the remote datum469 of an actual crucifixion of Jesus Ben Pandira, the possible Jesus of Paul, dead long before, and represented by no preserved biography or teachings whatever.”
The Christists were clearly pastmasters in the art of explaining ignotum per ignotius. For on the next page we learn that it is not known whether this [66]worthy “ever lived or was crucified.” In Pagan Christs he is acknowledged to be a “mere name.” However this be, “it was the mythic significance of crucifixion that made the early fortune of the cult, with the aid of the mythic significance of the name Jeschu = Joshua, the ancient Sun-god.”
The meaning of this oracular pronouncement is too profound for me to attempt to fathom470 it. Let us pass on to another point in the new elucidation of the Gospels.
W. B. Smith on exorcisms of devils What were the exorcisms of evil spirits ascribed to the ancient Sun-god Joshua, under his alias468 of Jesus of Nazareth?
In his Pagan Christs, as in his Christianity and Mythology, Mr. Robertson unkindly leaves us in the lurch471 about this matter, although we would dearly like to know what were the particular arch?ological researches of the “Christists” and “Jesuists” that led them to coin these myths of exorcisms performed, and of devils cast out of the mad or sick by their solar myth. Nor does Dr. Drews help us much. Never mind. Professor W. B. Smith nobly stands in the breach, so we will let him take up the parable; the more so because, in handling this problem, he may be said to have excelled himself. On p. 57, then, of Ecce Deus, he premises472, in approaching this delicate topic, that “in the activity of the Jesus and the apostles, as delineated in the Gospels, the one all-important moment is the casting-out of demons.”
With this all will agree; but what follows is barely consonant473 with the thesis of his friends. He cites in effect Mark iii, 14, 15, and the parallel passages in which Jesus is related to have sent forth the twelve disciples to preach and to have authority to cast [67]out the demons. Now, according to the mythico-symbolical theory, the career of Jesus and his disciples lay not on earth, but in that happy region where mythological474 personages live and move and have their being. As Dr. Drews says (The Christ Myth, p. 117): “In reality the whole of the family and home life of the Messiah, Jesus, took place in heaven among the gods.”
Accordingly, Dr. W. B. Smith finds it “amazing that anyone should hesitate an instant over the sense” of the demonological episodes in the Gospels, and he continues: “When we recall the fact that the early Christians uniformly understood the heathen gods to be demons, and uniformly represented the mission of Jesus to be the overthrow475 of these demon58 gods, it seems as clear as the sun at noon that this fall of Satan from heaven16 can be nothing less (and how could it possibly be anything more?) than the headlong ruin of polytheism—the complete triumph of the One Eternal God. It seems superfluous to insist on anything so palpable?…. Can any rational man for a moment believe that the Saviour sent forth his apostles and disciples with such awful solemnity to heal the few lunatics that languished476 in Galilee? Is that the way the sublimist of teachers would found the new and true religion?”
In the last sentence our author nods and lapses into the historical mood; for how can one talk of a mythical Joshua being a teacher and founding a new religion—of his sending forth the apostles and disciples? These things are done on earth, and not up in heaven “among the gods,” as Drews says. It [68]is, perhaps, impertinent, for the rest, to criticize so exalted an argument as Professor Smith’s; yet the question suggests itself, why, if the real object of the mystic sectaries who worshipped in secret the “Proto-Christian God, the Jesus,” was to acquaint the faithful with the triumph of the heavenly Jesus over the demon-gods of paganism—why, in that case, did they wrap it up in purely demonological language? All around them exorcists, Jewish and pagan, were driving out demons of madness and disease at every street corner—dumb devils, rheumatic devils, blind devils, devils of every sort and kind. Was it entirely appropriate for these mystic devotees to encourage the use of demonological terminology477, when they meant something quite else? “These early propagandists,” he tells us, p. 143, “were great men, were very great men; they conceived noble and beautiful and attractive ideas, which they defended with curious learning and logic, and recommended with captivating rhetoric228 and persuasive478 oratory479 and consuming zeal427.”
Surely it was within the competence480 of such egregious481 teachers to say without disguise what they really meant, instead of beating about the bush and penning stories which so nearly reproduced the grovelling482 superstitions483 of the common herd37 around them? They might at least have issued a Delphin edition of their gospels, with a paraphrase in the margin485 to explain the text and to save the faithful from taking these stories literally—for so they took them as far back as we can trace the documents; and, what is more, in all those derivative churches all over the world which continued the inner life of Professor Smith’s mystic sectaries, we hear from the earliest age of the appointing of vulgar exorcists, whose duty [69]was to expel from the faithful the demons of madness and of all forms of sickness.
But worse than this. We know from Mr. Robertson and Dr. Drews that the same Proto-Christian Joshua-God, who was waging war in heaven on the pagan gods and goddesses, was himself a composite myth made up of memories of Krishna, ?sculapius, Osiris, Apollo, Dionysus, Apollonius, and a hundred other fiends. Mr. Robertson attests486 this, p. 305, in these words: “As we have seen and shall see throughout this investigation487, the Christian system is a patchwork of a hundred suggestions drawn from pagan art and ritual usage.”
Is it quite appropriate that the pre-Christian Jesus or Joshua should turn and rend458 his pagan congeners in the manner described by Professor W. B. Smith? His mythical antecedents, as ascertained by Mr. Robertson and Dr. Drews, are grotesquely488 incompatible489 with the r?le of monotheistic founder assigned him by Professor W. B. Smith. Are we to suppose that the learned and eloquent propagandists of his cult were aware of this incompatibility490, and for that reason chose to veil their monotheistic propaganda in the decent obscurity of everyday demonological language?
Mary and her homonyms Who was Mary, the mother of Jesus?
Let Dr. Drews speak first:—
Now if Joseph, as we have already seen, was originally a god, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a goddess. Under the name of Maya, she is the mother of Agni—i.e., the principle of motherhood and creation simply, as which she is in the Rigveda at one time represented by the fire-producing wood, the soft pith, in which the fire-stick was whirled; at another as the earth, with which the sky has mated. She appears under the [70]same name as the mother of Buddha491 as well as of the Greek Hermes. She is identical with Maira (Maera) as, according to Pausanias, viii, 12, 48, the pleiad Maia, wife of Hephaistos was called. She appears among the Persians as the “virgin” mother of Mithras. As Myrrha she is the mother of the Syrian Adonis; as Semiramis, mother of the Babylonian Ninus (Marduk). In the Arabic legend she appears under the name of Mirzam as mother of the mythical saviour Joshua; while the Old Testament gives this name to the virgin sister of that Joshua who was so closely related to Moses; and, according to Eusebius, Merris was the name of the Egyptian princess who found Moses in a basket and became his foster mother.
The above purpureus pannus is borrowed by Dr. Drews in the second edition of his work from Mr. Robertson’s book, p. 297. Here is the original:—
It is not possible from the existing data to connect historically such a cult with its congeners; but the mere analogy of names and epithets492 goes far. The mother of Adonis, the slain “Lord” of the great Syrian cult, is Myrrha; and Myrrha in one of her myths is the weeping tree from which the babe Adonis is born. Again, Hermes, the Greek Logos, has for mother Maia, whose name has further connections with Mary. In one myth Maia is the daughter of Atlas493, thus doubling with Maira, who has the same father, and who, having “died a virgin,” was seen by Odysseus in Hades. Mythologically494, Maira is identified with the Dog-Star, which is the star of Isis. Yet again, the name appears in the East as Maya, the virgin-mother of Buddha; and it is remarkable that, according to a Jewish legend, the name of the Egyptian princess who found the babe Moses was Merris. The plot is still further thickened by the fact that, as we learn from the monuments, one of the daughters of Ramses II was named Meri. And as Meri meant “beloved,” and the name was at times given to men, besides being used in the phrase “beloved of the gods,” the field of mythic speculation is wide.
[71]
And we feel that it is, indeed, wide, when, on p. 301, the three Marias mentioned by Mark are equated495 with the three Moirai or Fates!
In another passage we meet afresh with one of these equations, p. 306. It runs thus: “On the hypothesis that the mythical Joshua, son of Miriam, was an early Hebrew deity, it may be that one form of the Tammuz cult in pre-Christian times was a worship of a mother and child—Mary and Adonis; that, in short, Maria = Myrrha, and that Jesus was a name of Adonis.”
Pre-philological arguments From such deliverances we gather that in Mr. Robertson and his disciples we have survivals of a stage of culture which may be called prephilological. A hundred years ago or more the most superficial resemblance of sound was held to be enough of a ground for connecting words and names together, and Oxford496 divines were busy deriving497 all other tongues from the Hebrew spoken in the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve. Mr. Robertson sets himself (p. 139) to ridicule these old-fashioned writers, and regales us with not a few examples of that over-facile identification of cult names that have no real mutual498 affinity499 which was then in vogue. Thus Krishna was held to be a corruption500 of Christ by certain oriental missionaries, just as, inversely501, within my memory, certain English Rationalists argued the name Christ to be a disguise of Krishna. So Brahma was identified with Abraham, and Napoleon with the Apollyon of Revelation. One had hoped that this phase of culture was past and done with; but Messrs. Robertson and Drews revive it in their books, and seem anxious to perpetuate502 it. As with names, so with myths. On their every page we encounter—to use the apt phrase [72]of M. émile Durkheim17—ces rapprochements tumultueux et sommaires qui ont discredité la méthode comparative auprès d’un certain nombre de bons esprits.
Right use of comparative method The one condition of advancing knowledge and clearing men’s minds of superstition484 and cant140 by application of the comparative method in religion, is that we should apply it, as did Robertson Smith and his great predecessor503, Dr. John Spencer,18 cautiously, and in a spirit of scientific scholarship. It does not do to argue from superficial resemblances of sound that Maria is the same name as the Greek Moira, or that the name Maia has “connections with Mary”; or, again, that “the name (Maria) appears in the East as Maya.” The least acquaintance with Hebrew would have satisfied Mr. Robertson that the original form of the name he thus conjures504 with is not Maria, but Miriam, which does not lend itself to his hardy equations. I suspect he is carried away by the parti pris which leaks out in the following passage of his henchman and imitator, Dr. Drews19: “The romantic cult of Jesus must be combated at all costs?…. This cannot be done more effectually than by taking its basis in the theory of the historical Jesus from beneath its feet.”
If “at all costs” means at the cost of common sense and scholarship, I cannot agree. I am not disposed, at the invitation of any self-constituted high priest of Rationalism, to derive old Hebrew names from Egyptian, Greek, and Buddhist505 appellations506 that [73]happen to show an initial and one or two other letters in common. I will not believe that a “Christist” of Alexandria or Jerusalem, in the streets of which the Latin language was seldom or never heard, took the epithet bifrons in a wrong sense, and straightway invented the story of a Peter who had denied Jesus. I cannot admit that the cults of Osiris, Dionysus, Apollo, or any other ancient Sun-god, are echoed in a single incident narrated507 in the primitive evangelical tradition that lies before us in Mark and the non-Marcan document used by the authors of the first and third Gospels; I do not believe that any really educated man or woman would for a moment entertain any of the equations propounded508 by Mr. Robertson, and of which I have given a few select examples.
Marett on method Mr. Marett, in his essay entitled The Birth of Humility509, by way of criticizing certain modern abuses of the comparative method in the field of the investigation of the origin of moral ideas and religious beliefs, has justly remarked that “No isolated510 fragment of custom or belief can be worth much for the purposes of comparative science. In order to be understood, it must first be viewed in the light of the whole culture, the whole corporate511 soul-life, of the particular ethnic512 group concerned. Hence the new way is to emphasize concrete differences, whereas the old way was to amass513 resemblances heedlessly abstracted from their social context. Which way is the better is a question that well-nigh answers itself.”
Apply the above rule to nascent514 Christianity. In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus ever speaks as a Jew to Jews. Jewish monotheism is presupposed by the authors of them to have been no less the heritage of Jesus than of his audiences. The rare exceptions are [74]carefully noticed by them. This consideration has so impressed Professor W. B. Smith that he urges the thesis that the Christian religion originated as a monotheist propaganda. That is no doubt an exaggeration, for it was at first a Messianic movement or impulse among Jews, and therefore did not need to set the claims of monotheism in the foreground, and, accordingly, in the Synoptic Gospels they are nowhere urged. In spite of this exaggeration, however, Mr. Smith’s book occupies a higher plane than the works of Dr. Drews and Mr. Robertson, insofar as he shows some slight insight into the original nature of the religion, whereas they show none at all. They merely, in Mr. Marett’s phrase, “amass resemblances [would they were even such!] heedlessly abstracted from their context,” and resolve a cult which, as it appears on the stage of history, is Jewish to its core, of which the Holy Scripture was no other than the Law and the Prophets, and of which the earliest documents, as Mr. Selwyn has shown, are saturated515 with the Jewish Septuagint—they try to resolve this cult into a tagrag and bobtail of Greek and Roman paganism, of Buddhism, of Brahmanism, of Mithraism (hardly yet born), of Egyptian, African, Assyrian, old Persian,20 and any other religions with which these writers have a second-hand516 and superficial acquaintance. Never once do they pause and ask themselves the simple questions: firstly, how the early Christians came to be imbued517 with so intimate [75]a knowledge of idolatrous cults far and near, new and old; secondly, why they set so much store by them as the mythico-symbolic hypothesis presupposes that they did; and, thirdly, why, if they valued them so much, they were at pains to translate them into the utterly different and antagonistic518 form which they wear in the Gospels. In a word, why should such connoisseurs519 of paganism have disguised themselves as monotheistic and messianic Jews? Mr. Robertson tries to save his hypothesis by injecting a little dose of Judaism into his “Christists” and “Jesuists”; but anyone who has read Philo or Josephus or the Bible, not to mention the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr, will see at a glance that there is no room in history for such a hybrid520.
Methods of Robertson and Lorinser That Mr. Robertson should put his name to such works as Dr. Drews imitates and singles out for special praise is the more remarkable, because, in urging the independence of certain Hindoo cults against Christian missionaries who want to see in them mere reflections of Christianity, he shows himself both critical and wide-minded. These characteristics he displays in his refutation of the opinion of a certain Dr. Lorinser that the dialogue between Krishna and the warrior521 Arjuna, known as the Bhagavat G?ta and embodied522 in the old Hindoo Epic of the Mahabharata, “is a patchwork of Christian teaching.” Dr. Lorinser had adduced a chain of passages from this document which to his mind are echoes of the New Testament. Though many of these exhibit a striking conformity523 with aphorisms of the Gospels, we are nevertheless constrained524 to agree with Mr. Robertson’s criticism, which is as follows (p. 262):— [76]
The first comment that must occur to every instructed reader on perusing525 these and the other “parallels” advanced by Dr. Lorinser is, that on the one hand the parallels are very frequently such as could be made by the dozen between bodies of literature which have unquestionably never been brought in contact, so strained and far-fetched are they; and that, on the other hand, they are discounted by quite as striking parallels between New Testament texts and pre-Christian pagan writings.
Mr. Robertson then adduces a number of striking parallelisms between the New Testament and old Greek and Roman writers, and continues thus: “Such parallels as these, I repeat, could be multiplied to any extent from the Greek and Latin classics alone?…. But is it worth while to heap up the disproof of a thesis so manifestly idle?”
Dionysus and Jesus It occurs to ask whether it was not worth the while of Mr. Robertson to inquire whether the Evangelist could “unquestionably have been brought in contact” with the Dionysiac group of myths before he assumed so dogmatically, against students of such weight as Professor Percy Gardner and Dr. Estlin Carpenter, that the myth of Bacchus meeting with a couple of asses on his way to Dodona was the “Christist’s” model for the story of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass? Might he not have reflected that then, as now, there was no other way of entering Jerusalem unless you went on foot? And what has Jerusalem to do with Dodona? What has Bacchus’s choice of one ass to ride on in common with Matthew’s literary deformation526, according to which Jesus rode on two asses at once? Lastly, what had Bacchus to do with Jesus? Has the Latin wine-god a single trait in common with the Christian founder? Is it not [77]rather the case that any conscious or even unconscious assimilation of Bacchus myths conflicts with what Mr. Marett would call “the whole culture, the whole corporate soul-life” of the early Christian community, as the surviving documents picture it, and other evidence we have not? Yet Mr. Robertson deduces from such paltry “parallels” as the above the conclusion that Jesus, on whose real personality a score of early and independent literary sources converge527, never existed at all, and that he was a “composite myth.” There is no other example of an eclectic myth arbitrarily composed by connoisseurs out of a religious art and story not their own; still less of such a myth being humanized and accepted by the next generation as a Jewish Messiah.
In the same context (p. 264) Mr. Robertson remarks sensibly enough that “No great research or reflection is needed to make it clear that certain commonplaces of ethics528 as well as of theology are equally inevitable529 conclusions in all religious systems that rise above savagery530. Four hundred years before Jesus, Plato declared that it was very difficult for the rich to be good; does anyone believe that any thoughtful Jew needed Plato’s help to reach the same notion?”
I would ask, does anyone believe that a thoughtful Jew needed the stimulus531 of a statuette of Osiris in order that he should record, or, maybe, invent, the story of Jesus clearing the money-changers out of the temple with a scourge? Even admitting—what I am as little as anyone inclined to admit—that the Peter of the early Gospels is, as regards his personality and his actions, a fable532, a mere invention of a Jewish storyteller, need we suppose that the storyteller in [78]question depended for his inspiration on Janus? You might as well suppose that the authors of the Arabian Nights founded their stories on the myths of Greek and Roman gods. Again, the Jews were traditionally distributed into twelve tribes or clans533. Let us grant only for argument’s sake that the life of Jesus the Messiah as narrated in the first three Gospels is a romance, we yet must ask, Which is more probable, that the author of the romance assigned twelve apostles to Jesus because there were twelve tribes to whom the message of the impending Kingdom of God had to be carried, or because there are twelve signs in the Zodiac? He agrees (p. 347) that Luke’s story of the choice of the seventy disciples “visibly connects with the Jewish idea that there were seventy nations in the world.” Why, then, reject the view that Jesus chose twelve apostles because there were twelve tribes? Not at all. Having decided534 that Jesus was the Sun-God-Saviour Joshua, a pure figment of his brain, Mr. Robertson is ready to violate the canons of evidence he appeals to on p. 347, and will have it that in the Gospels the apostles are Zodiacal signs, and that their leader is Janus, the opener of the year. “The Zodiacal sign gives the clue” (p. 339), in his opinion, to this as to much else.
Dr. Lorinser Let us return to the case of Dr. Lorinser. “We are asked to believe that Brahmans expounding535 a highly-developed Pantheism went assiduously to the (unattainable) New Testament for the wording of a number of their propositions, pantheistic and other, while assimilating absolutely nothing of distinctively536 Christian doctrine537?…. Such a position is possible only to a mesmerized538 believer.” Surely one may exclaim of Mr. Robertson, De te fabula narratur, and rewrite [79]the above as follows: “We are asked to believe that ‘Christists,’ who were so far Jewish as to practise circumcision, to use the Hebrew Scriptures, to live in Jerusalem under the presidency539 and patronage540 of the Jewish High-priest, to foster and propagate Jewish monotheism, went assiduously to the (unattainable) rites, statuary, art, and beliefs of pagan India, Egypt, Ancient Babylon, Persia, etc., for all ‘the narrative myths’ (p. 263) of the story in which they narrated the history of their putative founder Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, while assimilating absolutely nothing of distinctively pagan doctrine.”
Dr. Lorinser, for urging a thesis infinitely541 less absurd, is denounced as “a mesmerized believer”; and on the next page Dr. Weber, who agrees with him, is rebuked542 for his “judicial blindness.” Yet in the same context we are told that “a crude and na?f system, like the Christism of the second gospel and the earlier form of the first, borrows inevitably from the more highly evolved systems with which it comes socially in contact, absorbing myth and mystery and dogma till it becomes as sophisticated as they.”
It is quite true, as Gibbon observed, that the na?f figure of Jesus, as presented in the Synoptic Gospels, was soon overlaid with that of the logos, and all sorts of Christological cobwebs were within a few generations spun543 around his head to the effacement544 both of the teacher and of what he taught. But in the earliest body of the evangelical tradition, as we can construct it from the first three Gospels, there is little or nothing that is not essentially545 Jewish and racy of the soil of Jud?a. The borrowings of Christianity from pagan neighbours began with the flocking into the new Messianic society of Gentile converts. The [80]earlier borrowings with which Messrs. Robertson and Drews fill their volumes are one and all “resemblances heedlessly abstracted from their context,” and are as far-fetched and as fanciful as the dreams of the adherents of the Banner of Israel, or as the cypher of the Bacon-Shakesperians, over which Mr. Robertson is prone546 to make merry. “Is it,” to use his own words, “worth while to heap up the disproof of a thesis so manifestly idle?” [81]
1 Page 20 of The Christ Myth, from a note added in the third edition. ↑
2 Op. cit. p. 214. ↑
3 The Christ Myth, p. 9. (Zu Robertson hat sie meines Wissens noch keiner Weise ernsthaft Stellung genommen, p. vii of German edition.) ↑
4 Christ Myth, p. 57. In the German text (first ed. 1909, p. 21) Mr. Robertson is the authority for this statement (so hat Robertson es sehr wahrscheinlich gemacht). ↑
5 Cp. Emile Durkheim, La Vie Religieuse, Paris, 1912, p. 121, to whom I owe much in the text. ↑
6 Such reduplications are common in Semitic languages, and in John xix, 23, 24, we have an exact analogy with this passage of Matthew. In Psalm205 xxii, 18, we read: “They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.” Here one and the same incident is contemplated547 in both halves of the verse, and it is but a single garment that is divided. Now see what John makes out of this verse, regarded as a prophecy of Jesus. He pretends that the soldiers took Jesus’s garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part, so fulfilling the words: “They parted my garments among them.” Next they took the coat without seam, and said to one another: “Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be.” The parallel with Matthew is exact. In each case what is mere rhetorical reduplication is interpreted of two distinct objects, and on this misinterpretation is based a fulfilment of prophecy, and out of it generated a new form of a story or a fresh story altogether. In defiance548 of the opinion of competent Hebraists, Mr. Robertson writes (p. 338) that “there is no other instance of such a peculiar tautology549 in the Old Testament.” On the contrary, the Old Testament teems550 with them. ↑
7 Christianity and Mythology, p. 286. ↑
8 Dr. Carpenter had objected that “It has first to be proved that Dionysos rode on two asses, as well as that Jesus is the Sun-God.” Mr. Robertson complacently answers (p. 453): “My references perfectly prove the currency of the myth in question”! ↑
9 The Witnesses, p. 55 (p. 75 of German edition). ↑
10 Why necessarily from Josephus? Were not other sources of recent Roman history available for Tacitus? Here peeps out Dr. Drews’s conviction that the whole of ancient literature lies before him, and that even Tacitus could have no other sources of information than Dr. Drews. ↑
11 On p. 299, Mary, mother of Joshua, does duty for Mary Magdalen. We there read as follows: “The friendship (of Jesus) with a ‘Mary’ points towards some old myth in which a Palestinian God, perhaps named Yeschu or Joshua, figures in the changing relations of lover and son towards a mythic Mary, a natural fluctuation551 in early theosophy.” Very “natural” indeed among the Jews, who punished even adultery with death! ↑
12 Needless to say, Dr. Frazer, as any scholar must, rejects the thesis of the unhistoricity of Jesus with derision. Mr. Robertson, in turn, imputes552 his rejection553 of it to timidity. “He (Frazer) has had some experience in arousing conservative resistance,” he writes in Christianity and Mythology, p. 111. He cannot realize that any learned man should differ from himself, except to curry554 favour with the orthodox, or from fear of them. ↑
13 I could have given Professor Smith a better tip. Philo composed a glossary555 of Biblical and other names with their meanings, which, though lost in Greek, survives in an old Armenian version. In this Essene is equated with “silence.” What a magnificent aid to Professor Smith’s faith! For if Essene meant “a silent one,” then the pre-Christian Nazarenes must surely have been an esoteric and secret sect. ↑
14 Of course, it is possible that Jesus, before he comes on the scene, at about the age of thirty, as a follower of John the Baptist, had been a member of the Essene sect, as the learned writer of the article on Jesus in the Jewish Encyclop?dia supposes. If such a sect of Nazor?i, as Epiphanius describes, ever really existed—and Epiphanius is an unreliable author—then Jesus may have been a member of it. But it is a long way from a may to a must. Even if it could be proved that Matthew had such a tradition when he wrote, the proof would not diminish one whit556 the absurdity of Professor Smith’s contention557 that he was a myth and a mere symbol of a God Joshua worshipped by pre-Christian Nazor?i. The Nazor?i of Epiphanius were a Christian sect, akin to, if not identical with, the Ebionites; and the hypothesis that they kept up among themselves a secret cult of a God Joshua is as senseless as it is baseless, and opposed to all we know of them. In what sense Matthew, that is to say the anonymous compiler of the first Gospel, understood nazor?us is clear to anyone who will take the trouble to read Matthew ii, 23. He understood by it “a man who lived in the village called Nazareth,” and that is the sense which Nazarene (used interchangeably with it) also bears in the Gospel. Mr. Smith scents558 enigmas559 everywhere. ↑
15 How treacherous560 the argumentum a silentio may be I can exemplify. My name and address were recently omitted for two years running from the Oxford directory, yet my house is not one of the smallest in the city. If any future publicist should pry561 into my life with the aid of this publication, he will certainly infer that I was not living in Oxford during those two years. And yet the Argument from Silence is only valid65 where we have a directory or gazetteer or carefully compiled list of names and addresses. ↑
16 See Luke x, 17–20. ↑
17 La Vie Religieuse, p. 134. ↑
18 In his De legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus et earum rationibus libri tres, printed at the Hague in 1686, but largely written twenty years earlier. ↑
19 The Christ Myth, 2nd ed., p. 18. ↑
20 It is possible, of course, that Jewish Messianic and apocalyptic lore in the first century B.C. had been more or less evolved through contact with the religion of Zoroaster; but this lore, as we meet with it in the Gospels, derives562 exclusively from Jewish sources, and was part of the common stock of popular Jewish aspirations. ↑
点击收听单词发音
1 par | |
n.标准,票面价值,平均数量;adj.票面的,平常的,标准的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 credulous | |
adj.轻信的,易信的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 pro | |
n.赞成,赞成的意见,赞成者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 profess | |
v.声称,冒称,以...为业,正式接受入教,表明信仰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 logic | |
n.逻辑(学);逻辑性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 treatise | |
n.专著;(专题)论文 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 narratives | |
记叙文( narrative的名词复数 ); 故事; 叙述; 叙述部分 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 narrative | |
n.叙述,故事;adj.叙事的,故事体的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 accomplished | |
adj.有才艺的;有造诣的;达到了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 paucity | |
n.小量,缺乏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 testament | |
n.遗嘱;证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 derive | |
v.取得;导出;引申;来自;源自;出自 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 credible | |
adj.可信任的,可靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 rite | |
n.典礼,惯例,习俗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 utterances | |
n.发声( utterance的名词复数 );说话方式;语调;言论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 ass | |
n.驴;傻瓜,蠢笨的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 aphorisms | |
格言,警句( aphorism的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 precepts | |
n.规诫,戒律,箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 virgin | |
n.处女,未婚女子;adj.未经使用的;未经开发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 upbraiding | |
adj.& n.谴责(的)v.责备,申斥,谴责( upbraid的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 beheld | |
v.看,注视( behold的过去式和过去分词 );瞧;看呀;(叙述中用于引出某人意外的出现)哎哟 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 fictitious | |
adj.虚构的,假设的;空头的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 nay | |
adv.不;n.反对票,投反对票者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 incarnate | |
adj.化身的,人体化的,肉色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 exalted | |
adj.(地位等)高的,崇高的;尊贵的,高尚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 prerogatives | |
n.权利( prerogative的名词复数 );特权;大主教法庭;总督委任组成的法庭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 faculty | |
n.才能;学院,系;(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 cult | |
n.异教,邪教;时尚,狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 adherents | |
n.支持者,拥护者( adherent的名词复数 );党羽;徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 creeds | |
(尤指宗教)信条,教条( creed的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 attested | |
adj.经检验证明无病的,经检验证明无菌的v.证明( attest的过去式和过去分词 );证实;声称…属实;使宣誓 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 attest | |
vt.证明,证实;表明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 antiquity | |
n.古老;高龄;古物,古迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 celebrities | |
n.(尤指娱乐界的)名人( celebrity的名词复数 );名流;名声;名誉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 herd | |
n.兽群,牧群;vt.使集中,把…赶在一起 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 canonical | |
n.权威的;典型的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 derivative | |
n.派(衍)生物;adj.非独创性的,模仿他人的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 Christians | |
n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 accredited | |
adj.可接受的;可信任的;公认的;质量合格的v.相信( accredit的过去式和过去分词 );委托;委任;把…归结于 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 embellish | |
v.装饰,布置;给…添加细节,润饰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 exacting | |
adj.苛求的,要求严格的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 apocryphal | |
adj.假冒的,虚假的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 apocrypha | |
n.伪经,伪书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 authenticity | |
n.真实性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 lore | |
n.传说;学问,经验,知识 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 brotherhood | |
n.兄弟般的关系,手中情谊 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 asceticism | |
n.禁欲主义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 ascetic | |
adj.禁欲的;严肃的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 disciple | |
n.信徒,门徒,追随者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 sage | |
n.圣人,哲人;adj.贤明的,明智的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 follower | |
n.跟随者;随员;门徒;信徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 ascended | |
v.上升,攀登( ascend的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 demon | |
n.魔鬼,恶魔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 demons | |
n.恶人( demon的名词复数 );恶魔;精力过人的人;邪念 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 meteoric | |
adj.流星的,转瞬即逝的,突然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 portent | |
n.预兆;恶兆;怪事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 portents | |
n.预兆( portent的名词复数 );征兆;怪事;奇物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 bristles | |
短而硬的毛发,刷子毛( bristle的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 akin | |
adj.同族的,类似的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 valid | |
adj.有确实根据的;有效的;正当的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 tithe | |
n.十分之一税;v.课什一税,缴什一税 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 deterred | |
v.阻止,制止( deter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 paradox | |
n.似乎矛盾却正确的说法;自相矛盾的人(物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 attainable | |
a.可达到的,可获得的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 muster | |
v.集合,收集,鼓起,激起;n.集合,检阅,集合人员,点名册 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 constructive | |
adj.建设的,建设性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 irreconcilable | |
adj.(指人)难和解的,势不两立的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 cogent | |
adj.强有力的,有说服力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 sweeping | |
adj.范围广大的,一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 epoch | |
n.(新)时代;历元 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 covertly | |
adv.偷偷摸摸地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 graphic | |
adj.生动的,形象的,绘画的,文字的,图表的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 mid | |
adj.中央的,中间的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 conspire | |
v.密谋,(事件等)巧合,共同导致 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 chimeras | |
n.(由几种动物的各部分构成的)假想的怪兽( chimera的名词复数 );不可能实现的想法;幻想;妄想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 legitimate | |
adj.合法的,合理的,合乎逻辑的;v.使合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 noted | |
adj.著名的,知名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 modifications | |
n.缓和( modification的名词复数 );限制;更改;改变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 picturesqueness | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 secondly | |
adv.第二,其次 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 specially | |
adv.特定地;特殊地;明确地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 repent | |
v.悔悟,悔改,忏悔,后悔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 apocalyptic | |
adj.预示灾祸的,启示的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 descend | |
vt./vi.传下来,下来,下降 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 nether | |
adj.下部的,下面的;n.阴间;下层社会 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 condemn | |
vt.谴责,指责;宣判(罪犯),判刑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 condemned | |
adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 penetrated | |
adj. 击穿的,鞭辟入里的 动词penetrate的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 transformation | |
n.变化;改造;转变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 excellence | |
n.优秀,杰出,(pl.)优点,美德 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 symbolize | |
vt.作为...的象征,用符号代表 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 humiliated | |
感到羞愧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 reign | |
n.统治时期,统治,支配,盛行;v.占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 yoke | |
n.轭;支配;v.给...上轭,连接,使成配偶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 transcending | |
超出或超越(经验、信念、描写能力等)的范围( transcend的现在分词 ); 优于或胜过… | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 renovate | |
vt.更新,革新,刷新 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 theocratic | |
adj.神权的,神权政治的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 liberated | |
a.无拘束的,放纵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 captivity | |
n.囚禁;被俘;束缚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 acclaimed | |
adj.受人欢迎的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 forfeiting | |
(因违反协议、犯规、受罚等)丧失,失去( forfeit的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 mingled | |
混合,混入( mingle的过去式和过去分词 ); 混进,与…交往[联系] | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 preclude | |
vt.阻止,排除,防止;妨碍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 acclaiming | |
向…欢呼( acclaim的现在分词 ); 向…喝彩; 称赞…; 欢呼或拥戴(某人)为… | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 imprisoned | |
下狱,监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 metaphor | |
n.隐喻,暗喻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 missionaries | |
n.传教士( missionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 anticipations | |
预期( anticipation的名词复数 ); 预测; (信托财产收益的)预支; 预期的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 missionary | |
adj.教会的,传教(士)的;n.传教士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 disciples | |
n.信徒( disciple的名词复数 );门徒;耶稣的信徒;(尤指)耶稣十二门徒之一 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 impending | |
a.imminent, about to come or happen | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 salvation | |
n.(尤指基督)救世,超度,拯救,解困 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 derived | |
vi.起源;由来;衍生;导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 overthrew | |
overthrow的过去式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 wilderness | |
n.杳无人烟的一片陆地、水等,荒漠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 feat | |
n.功绩;武艺,技艺;adj.灵巧的,漂亮的,合适的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 therapeutic | |
adj.治疗的,起治疗作用的;对身心健康有益的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 flouted | |
v.藐视,轻视( flout的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 pretensions | |
自称( pretension的名词复数 ); 自命不凡; 要求; 权力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 parables | |
n.(圣经中的)寓言故事( parable的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 parable | |
n.寓言,比喻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 usher | |
n.带位员,招待员;vt.引导,护送;vi.做招待,担任引座员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 miraculous | |
adj.像奇迹一样的,不可思议的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 putative | |
adj.假定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 naive | |
adj.幼稚的,轻信的;天真的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 naivest | |
naive(幼稚的)的最高级形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 insignificant | |
adj.无关紧要的,可忽略的,无意义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 cant | |
n.斜穿,黑话,猛扔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 demonstration | |
n.表明,示范,论证,示威 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 scatters | |
v.(使)散开, (使)分散,驱散( scatter的第三人称单数 );撒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 enthusiasts | |
n.热心人,热衷者( enthusiast的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 Forsaken | |
adj. 被遗忘的, 被抛弃的 动词forsake的过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 supplementary | |
adj.补充的,附加的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 reconstruction | |
n.重建,再现,复原 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 mythical | |
adj.神话的;虚构的;想像的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 purely | |
adv.纯粹地,完全地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 symbolical | |
a.象征性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 symbolic | |
adj.象征性的,符号的,象征主义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 gist | |
n.要旨;梗概 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 yarns | |
n.纱( yarn的名词复数 );纱线;奇闻漫谈;旅行轶事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 inquisitive | |
adj.求知欲强的,好奇的,好寻根究底的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 copious | |
adj.丰富的,大量的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 amenable | |
adj.经得起检验的;顺从的;对负有义务的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 revel | |
vi.狂欢作乐,陶醉;n.作乐,狂欢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 offhand | |
adj.临时,无准备的;随便,马虎的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 compilation | |
n.编译,编辑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 sifted | |
v.筛( sift的过去式和过去分词 );筛滤;细查;详审 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 sifting | |
n.筛,过滤v.筛( sift的现在分词 );筛滤;细查;详审 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 epic | |
n.史诗,叙事诗;adj.史诗般的,壮丽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 saga | |
n.(尤指中世纪北欧海盗的)故事,英雄传奇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 votaries | |
n.信徒( votary的名词复数 );追随者;(天主教)修士;修女 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 mythology | |
n.神话,神话学,神话集 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 invoked | |
v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 );行使(权利等);祈求救助;恳求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 invoke | |
v.求助于(神、法律);恳求,乞求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 wrack | |
v.折磨;n.海草 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 scattered | |
adj.分散的,稀疏的;散步的;疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 venerating | |
敬重(某人或某事物),崇敬( venerate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 humble | |
adj.谦卑的,恭顺的;地位低下的;v.降低,贬低 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 sublimity | |
崇高,庄严,气质高尚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 frailty | |
n.脆弱;意志薄弱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 infinities | |
n.无穷大( infinity的名词复数 );无限远的点;无法计算的量;无限大的量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 majesty | |
n.雄伟,壮丽,庄严,威严;最高权威,王权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 starry | |
adj.星光照耀的, 闪亮的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 majestic | |
adj.雄伟的,壮丽的,庄严的,威严的,崇高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 mighty | |
adj.强有力的;巨大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 rumble | |
n.隆隆声;吵嚷;v.隆隆响;低沉地说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 cowering | |
v.畏缩,抖缩( cower的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 savage | |
adj.野蛮的;凶恶的,残暴的;n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 awe | |
n.敬畏,惊惧;vt.使敬畏,使惊惧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 lapses | |
n.失误,过失( lapse的名词复数 );小毛病;行为失检;偏离正道v.退步( lapse的第三人称单数 );陷入;倒退;丧失 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 savages | |
未开化的人,野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 primitive | |
adj.原始的;简单的;n.原(始)人,原始事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 paltry | |
adj.无价值的,微不足道的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 rites | |
仪式,典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 brigands | |
n.土匪,强盗( brigand的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 grandeur | |
n.伟大,崇高,宏伟,庄严,豪华 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 relatively | |
adv.比较...地,相对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 scanty | |
adj.缺乏的,仅有的,节省的,狭小的,不够的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 cults | |
n.迷信( cult的名词复数 );狂热的崇拜;(有极端宗教信仰的)异教团体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 lizard | |
n.蜥蜴,壁虎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 obsolete | |
adj.已废弃的,过时的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 speculation | |
n.思索,沉思;猜测;投机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 cryptic | |
adj.秘密的,神秘的,含义模糊的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 insouciance | |
n.漠不关心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 superfluous | |
adj.过多的,过剩的,多余的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 discourse | |
n.论文,演说;谈话;话语;vi.讲述,著述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 extravagant | |
adj.奢侈的;过分的;(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 interpretations | |
n.解释( interpretation的名词复数 );表演;演绎;理解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 followers | |
追随者( follower的名词复数 ); 用户; 契据的附面; 从动件 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 psalm | |
n.赞美诗,圣诗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 psalms | |
n.赞美诗( psalm的名词复数 );圣诗;圣歌;(中的) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 symbolized | |
v.象征,作为…的象征( symbolize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 zoology | |
n.动物学,生态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 appellation | |
n.名称,称呼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 saviour | |
n.拯救者,救星 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 Vogue | |
n.时髦,时尚;adj.流行的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 asses | |
n. 驴,愚蠢的人,臀部 adv. (常用作后置)用于贬损或骂人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 marsh | |
n.沼泽,湿地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 transformations | |
n.变化( transformation的名词复数 );转换;转换;变换 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 sect | |
n.派别,宗教,学派,派系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 culled | |
v.挑选,剔除( cull的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 disdains | |
鄙视,轻蔑( disdain的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 coeval | |
adj.同时代的;n.同时代的人或事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 scrupled | |
v.感到于心不安,有顾忌( scruple的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 scruple | |
n./v.顾忌,迟疑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 exigencies | |
n.急切需要 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 paraphrase | |
vt.将…释义,改写;n.释义,意义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 authoritative | |
adj.有权威的,可相信的;命令式的;官方的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 transcribed | |
(用不同的录音手段)转录( transcribe的过去式和过去分词 ); 改编(乐曲)(以适应他种乐器或声部); 抄写; 用音标标出(声音) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 underlying | |
adj.在下面的,含蓄的,潜在的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 meek | |
adj.温顺的,逆来顺受的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 rhetoric | |
n.修辞学,浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 transcriber | |
抄写者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 perversity | |
n.任性;刚愎自用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 abhorrence | |
n.憎恶;可憎恶的事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 abhorred | |
v.憎恶( abhor的过去式和过去分词 );(厌恶地)回避;拒绝;淘汰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 deference | |
n.尊重,顺从;敬意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 oracle | |
n.神谕,神谕处,预言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 sanity | |
n.心智健全,神智正常,判断正确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 spacious | |
adj.广阔的,宽敞的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 astounding | |
adj.使人震惊的vt.使震惊,使大吃一惊astound的现在分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 morass | |
n.沼泽,困境 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 stimulating | |
adj.有启发性的,能激发人思考的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 constellation | |
n.星座n.灿烂的一群 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 milky | |
adj.牛奶的,多奶的;乳白色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 wholesale | |
n.批发;adv.以批发方式;vt.批发,成批出售 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 massacre | |
n.残杀,大屠杀;v.残杀,集体屠杀 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 pertinent | |
adj.恰当的;贴切的;中肯的;有关的;相干的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 centurion | |
n.古罗马的百人队长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 plunged | |
v.颠簸( plunge的过去式和过去分词 );暴跌;骤降;突降 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 mimic | |
v.模仿,戏弄;n.模仿他人言行的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 mimicking | |
v.(尤指为了逗乐而)模仿( mimic的现在分词 );酷似 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 conversed | |
v.交谈,谈话( converse的过去式 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 inscriptions | |
(作者)题词( inscription的名词复数 ); 献词; 碑文; 证劵持有人的登记 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 dense | |
a.密集的,稠密的,浓密的;密度大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 despoiled | |
v.掠夺,抢劫( despoil的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 inadequacy | |
n.无法胜任,信心不足 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 epithet | |
n.(用于褒贬人物等的)表述形容词,修饰语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 ransack | |
v.彻底搜索,洗劫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 paradoxes | |
n.似非而是的隽语,看似矛盾而实际却可能正确的说法( paradox的名词复数 );用于语言文学中的上述隽语;有矛盾特点的人[事物,情况] | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 polemics | |
n.辩论术,辩论法;争论( polemic的名词复数 );辩论;辩论术;辩论法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 repugnance | |
n.嫌恶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 ridicule | |
v.讥讽,挖苦;n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 hatred | |
n.憎恶,憎恨,仇恨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 loathing | |
n.厌恶,憎恨v.憎恨,厌恶( loathe的现在分词);极不喜欢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 nucleus | |
n.核,核心,原子核 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 philological | |
adj.语言学的,文献学的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 deity | |
n.神,神性;被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 gracefully | |
ad.大大方方地;优美地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 conjecture | |
n./v.推测,猜测 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
267 conjectured | |
推测,猜测,猜想( conjecture的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 conceals | |
v.隐藏,隐瞒,遮住( conceal的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 legendary | |
adj.传奇(中)的,闻名遐迩的;n.传奇(文学) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 saviours | |
n.救助者( saviour的名词复数 );救星;救世主;耶稣基督 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 prehistoric | |
adj.(有记载的)历史以前的,史前的,古老的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
272 revered | |
v.崇敬,尊崇,敬畏( revere的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 conjectures | |
推测,猜想( conjecture的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 secrecy | |
n.秘密,保密,隐蔽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 evade | |
vt.逃避,回避;避开,躲避 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 renounce | |
v.放弃;拒绝承认,宣布与…断绝关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 scriptures | |
经文,圣典( scripture的名词复数 ); 经典 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 scripture | |
n.经文,圣书,手稿;Scripture:(常用复数)《圣经》,《圣经》中的一段 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 mundane | |
adj.平凡的;尘世的;宇宙的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 zest | |
n.乐趣;滋味,风味;兴趣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 sects | |
n.宗派,教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 favourable | |
adj.赞成的,称赞的,有利的,良好的,顺利的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 instructor | |
n.指导者,教员,教练 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 nave | |
n.教堂的中部;本堂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 speculations | |
n.投机买卖( speculation的名词复数 );思考;投机活动;推断 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 perusal | |
n.细读,熟读;目测 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 Moslem | |
n.回教徒,穆罕默德信徒;adj.回教徒的,回教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 alludes | |
提及,暗指( allude的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 ascertained | |
v.弄清,确定,查明( ascertain的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 surmise | |
v./n.猜想,推测 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 elucidation | |
n.说明,阐明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 grandiose | |
adj.宏伟的,宏大的,堂皇的,铺张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 heralds | |
n.使者( herald的名词复数 );预报者;预兆;传令官v.预示( herald的第三人称单数 );宣布(好或重要) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 herald | |
vt.预示...的来临,预告,宣布,欢迎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 gloss | |
n.光泽,光滑;虚饰;注释;vt.加光泽于;掩饰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 albeit | |
conj.即使;纵使;虽然 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 exponent | |
n.倡导者,拥护者;代表人物;指数,幂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 plunges | |
n.跳进,投入vt.使投入,使插入,使陷入vi.投入,跳进,陷入v.颠簸( plunge的第三人称单数 );暴跌;骤降;突降 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 systematically | |
adv.有系统地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 systematic | |
adj.有系统的,有计划的,有方法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 fervent | |
adj.热的,热烈的,热情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
305 expounded | |
论述,详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
306 trite | |
adj.陈腐的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
307 etymology | |
n.语源;字源学 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
308 superstitious | |
adj.迷信的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
309 ministry | |
n.(政府的)部;牧师 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
310 repentance | |
n.懊悔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
311 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
312 purport | |
n.意义,要旨,大要;v.意味著,做为...要旨,要领是... | |
参考例句: |
|
|
313 attained | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
314 unnatural | |
adj.不自然的;反常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
315 recapitulates | |
n.总结,扼要重述( recapitulate的名词复数 )v.总结,扼要重述( recapitulate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
316 sojourn | |
v./n.旅居,寄居;逗留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
317 allusion | |
n.暗示,间接提示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
318 verges | |
边,边缘,界线( verge的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
319 hysterical | |
adj.情绪异常激动的,歇斯底里般的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
320 papyrus | |
n.古以纸草制成之纸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
321 hardy | |
adj.勇敢的,果断的,吃苦的;耐寒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
322 inscribed | |
v.写,刻( inscribe的过去式和过去分词 );内接 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
323 affected | |
adj.不自然的,假装的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
324 charlatan | |
n.骗子;江湖医生;假内行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
325 hymns | |
n.赞美诗,圣歌,颂歌( hymn的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
326 confirmation | |
n.证实,确认,批准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
327 gratuitous | |
adj.无偿的,免费的;无缘无故的,不必要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
328 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
329 guardian | |
n.监护人;守卫者,保护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
330 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
331 backwards | |
adv.往回地,向原处,倒,相反,前后倒置地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
332 gazetteer | |
n.地名索引 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
333 ordnance | |
n.大炮,军械 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
334 dweller | |
n.居住者,住客 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
335 anonymous | |
adj.无名的;匿名的;无特色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
336 garb | |
n.服装,装束 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
337 illustrating | |
给…加插图( illustrate的现在分词 ); 说明; 表明; (用示例、图画等)说明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
338 exonerate | |
v.免除责任,确定无罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
339 naturalist | |
n.博物学家(尤指直接观察动植物者) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
340 deliberately | |
adv.审慎地;蓄意地;故意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
341 humbly | |
adv. 恭顺地,谦卑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
342 inverse | |
adj.相反的,倒转的,反转的;n.相反之物;v.倒转 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
343 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
344 orientation | |
n.方向,目标;熟悉,适应,情况介绍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
345 imbibed | |
v.吸收( imbibe的过去式和过去分词 );喝;吸取;吸气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
346 emergence | |
n.浮现,显现,出现,(植物)突出体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
347 cardinal | |
n.(天主教的)红衣主教;adj.首要的,基本的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
348 wilful | |
adj.任性的,故意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
349 omissions | |
n.省略( omission的名词复数 );删节;遗漏;略去或漏掉的事(或人) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
350 reverence | |
n.敬畏,尊敬,尊严;Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称;v.尊敬,敬畏,崇敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
351 enumerate | |
v.列举,计算,枚举,数 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
352 martyr | |
n.烈士,殉难者;vt.杀害,折磨,牺牲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
353 extorts | |
v.敲诈( extort的第三人称单数 );曲解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
354 antagonist | |
n.敌人,对抗者,对手 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
355 gibe | |
n.讥笑;嘲弄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
356 tirades | |
激烈的长篇指责或演说( tirade的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
357 inevitably | |
adv.不可避免地;必然发生地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
358 crest | |
n.顶点;饰章;羽冠;vt.达到顶点;vi.形成浪尖 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
359 secular | |
n.牧师,凡人;adj.世俗的,现世的,不朽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
360 insistence | |
n.坚持;强调;坚决主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
361 meting | |
v.(对某人)施以,给予(处罚等)( mete的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
362 accretions | |
n.堆积( accretion的名词复数 );连生;添加生长;吸积 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
363 testimonies | |
(法庭上证人的)证词( testimony的名词复数 ); 证明,证据 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
364 miraculously | |
ad.奇迹般地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
365 ascent | |
n.(声望或地位)提高;上升,升高;登高 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
366 maiden | |
n.少女,处女;adj.未婚的,纯洁的,无经验的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
367 bowels | |
n.肠,内脏,内部;肠( bowel的名词复数 );内部,最深处 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
368 wrought | |
v.引起;以…原料制作;运转;adj.制造的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
369 relics | |
[pl.]n.遗物,遗迹,遗产;遗体,尸骸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
370 blasphemous | |
adj.亵渎神明的,不敬神的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
371 marvels | |
n.奇迹( marvel的名词复数 );令人惊奇的事物(或事例);不平凡的成果;成就v.惊奇,对…感到惊奇( marvel的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
372 prodigies | |
n.奇才,天才(尤指神童)( prodigy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
373 itinerary | |
n.行程表,旅行路线;旅行计划 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
374 thither | |
adv.向那里;adj.在那边的,对岸的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
375 uncertainty | |
n.易变,靠不住,不确知,不确定的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
376 chronological | |
adj.按年月顺序排列的,年代学的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
377 anachronistic | |
adj.时代错误的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
378 justify | |
vt.证明…正当(或有理),为…辩护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
379 Buddhism | |
n.佛教(教义) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
380 Founder | |
n.创始者,缔造者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
381 argot | |
n.隐语,黑话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
382 annually | |
adv.一年一次,每年 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
383 recurring | |
adj.往复的,再次发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
384 immediate | |
adj.立即的;直接的,最接近的;紧靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
385 commemorated | |
v.纪念,庆祝( commemorate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
386 analogue | |
n.类似物;同源语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
387 sundry | |
adj.各式各样的,种种的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
388 slain | |
杀死,宰杀,杀戮( slay的过去分词 ); (slay的过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
389 initiate | |
vt.开始,创始,发动;启蒙,使入门;引入 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
390 mythologies | |
神话学( mythology的名词复数 ); 神话(总称); 虚构的事实; 错误的观点 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
391 transcripts | |
n.抄本( transcript的名词复数 );转写本;文字本;副本 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
392 momentous | |
adj.重要的,重大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
393 Mediterranean | |
adj.地中海的;地中海沿岸的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
394 virtue | |
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
395 cohere | |
vt.附着,连贯,一致 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
396 frustrated | |
adj.挫败的,失意的,泄气的v.使不成功( frustrate的过去式和过去分词 );挫败;使受挫折;令人沮丧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
397 condemnation | |
n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
398 atrocities | |
n.邪恶,暴行( atrocity的名词复数 );滔天大罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
399 eloquent | |
adj.雄辩的,口才流利的;明白显示出的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
400 sporadically | |
adv.偶发地,零星地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
401 celebrated | |
adj.有名的,声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
402 mimicry | |
n.(生物)拟态,模仿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
403 fattened | |
v.喂肥( fatten的过去式和过去分词 );养肥(牲畜);使(钱)增多;使(公司)升值 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
404 plausibly | |
似真地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
405 syllable | |
n.音节;vt.分音节 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
406 compendium | |
n.简要,概略 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
407 analogous | |
adj.相似的;类似的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
408 slaying | |
杀戮。 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
409 envisage | |
v.想象,设想,展望,正视 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
410 aspirations | |
强烈的愿望( aspiration的名词复数 ); 志向; 发送气音; 发 h 音 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
411 divested | |
v.剥夺( divest的过去式和过去分词 );脱去(衣服);2。从…取去…;1。(给某人)脱衣服 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
412 royalty | |
n.皇家,皇族 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
413 enacted | |
制定(法律),通过(法案)( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
414 ridiculing | |
v.嘲笑,嘲弄,奚落( ridicule的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
415 diadem | |
n.王冠,冕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
416 mime | |
n.指手画脚,做手势,哑剧演员,哑剧;vi./vt.指手画脚的表演,用哑剧的形式表演 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
417 bodyguard | |
n.护卫,保镖 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
418 saluted | |
v.欢迎,致敬( salute的过去式和过去分词 );赞扬,赞颂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
419 commonwealth | |
n.共和国,联邦,共同体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
420 garrison | |
n.卫戍部队;驻地,卫戍区;vt.派(兵)驻防 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
421 calumnies | |
n.诬蔑,诽谤,中伤(的话)( calumny的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
422 reviling | |
v.辱骂,痛斥( revile的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
423 calumny | |
n.诽谤,污蔑,中伤 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
424 credence | |
n.信用,祭器台,供桌,凭证 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
425 triumphantly | |
ad.得意洋洋地;得胜地;成功地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
426 breach | |
n.违反,不履行;破裂;vt.冲破,攻破 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
427 zeal | |
n.热心,热情,热忱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
428 zealous | |
adj.狂热的,热心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
429 vehemently | |
adv. 热烈地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
430 theatricality | |
n.戏剧风格,不自然 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
431 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
432 primal | |
adj.原始的;最重要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
433 fungus | |
n.真菌,真菌类植物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
434 monstrous | |
adj.巨大的;恐怖的;可耻的,丢脸的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
435 machinery | |
n.(总称)机械,机器;机构 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
436 looms | |
n.织布机( loom的名词复数 )v.隐约出现,阴森地逼近( loom的第三人称单数 );隐约出现,阴森地逼近 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
437 philosophic | |
adj.哲学的,贤明的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
438 unintelligible | |
adj.无法了解的,难解的,莫明其妙的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
439 incessantly | |
ad.不停地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
440 anterior | |
adj.较早的;在前的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
441 precedents | |
引用单元; 范例( precedent的名词复数 ); 先前出现的事例; 前例; 先例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
442 begotten | |
v.为…之生父( beget的过去分词 );产生,引起 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
443 providence | |
n.深谋远虑,天道,天意;远见;节约;上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
444 complacently | |
adv. 满足地, 自满地, 沾沾自喜地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
445 domain | |
n.(活动等)领域,范围;领地,势力范围 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
446 profane | |
adj.亵神的,亵渎的;vt.亵渎,玷污 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
447 rigidly | |
adv.刻板地,僵化地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
448 cleansing | |
n. 净化(垃圾) adj. 清洁用的 动词cleanse的现在分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
449 scourge | |
n.灾难,祸害;v.蹂躏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
450 extorting | |
v.敲诈( extort的现在分词 );曲解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
451 propitiatory | |
adj.劝解的;抚慰的;谋求好感的;哄人息怒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
452 memoirs | |
n.回忆录;回忆录传( mem,自oir的名词复数) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
453 avenger | |
n. 复仇者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
454 reverenced | |
v.尊敬,崇敬( reverence的过去式和过去分词 );敬礼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
455 benign | |
adj.善良的,慈祥的;良性的,无危险的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
456 emblem | |
n.象征,标志;徽章 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
457 plentiful | |
adj.富裕的,丰富的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
458 rend | |
vt.把…撕开,割裂;把…揪下来,强行夺取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
459 fickle | |
adj.(爱情或友谊上)易变的,不坚定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
460 philologists | |
n.语文学( philology的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
461 slab | |
n.平板,厚的切片;v.切成厚板,以平板盖上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
462 binding | |
有约束力的,有效的,应遵守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
463 patchwork | |
n.混杂物;拼缝物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
464 grafted | |
移植( graft的过去式和过去分词 ); 嫁接; 使(思想、制度等)成为(…的一部份); 植根 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
465 revival | |
n.复兴,复苏,(精力、活力等的)重振 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
466 adoration | |
n.爱慕,崇拜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
467 aliases | |
n.别名,化名( alias的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
468 alias | |
n.化名;别名;adv.又名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
469 datum | |
n.资料;数据;已知数 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
470 fathom | |
v.领悟,彻底了解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
471 lurch | |
n.突然向前或旁边倒;v.蹒跚而行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
472 premises | |
n.建筑物,房屋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
473 consonant | |
n.辅音;adj.[音]符合的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
474 mythological | |
adj.神话的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
475 overthrow | |
v.推翻,打倒,颠覆;n.推翻,瓦解,颠覆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
476 languished | |
长期受苦( languish的过去式和过去分词 ); 受折磨; 变得(越来越)衰弱; 因渴望而变得憔悴或闷闷不乐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
477 terminology | |
n.术语;专有名词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
478 persuasive | |
adj.有说服力的,能说得使人相信的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
479 oratory | |
n.演讲术;词藻华丽的言辞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
480 competence | |
n.能力,胜任,称职 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
481 egregious | |
adj.非常的,过分的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
482 grovelling | |
adj.卑下的,奴颜婢膝的v.卑躬屈节,奴颜婢膝( grovel的现在分词 );趴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
483 superstitions | |
迷信,迷信行为( superstition的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
484 superstition | |
n.迷信,迷信行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
485 margin | |
n.页边空白;差额;余地,余裕;边,边缘 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
486 attests | |
v.证明( attest的第三人称单数 );证实;声称…属实;使宣誓 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
487 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
488 grotesquely | |
adv. 奇异地,荒诞地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
489 incompatible | |
adj.不相容的,不协调的,不相配的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
490 incompatibility | |
n.不兼容 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
491 Buddha | |
n.佛;佛像;佛陀 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
492 epithets | |
n.(表示性质、特征等的)词语( epithet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
493 atlas | |
n.地图册,图表集 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
494 mythologically | |
神话的; 虚构的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
495 equated | |
adj.换算的v.认为某事物(与另一事物)相等或相仿( equate的过去式和过去分词 );相当于;等于;把(一事物) 和(另一事物)等同看待 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
496 Oxford | |
n.牛津(英国城市) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
497 deriving | |
v.得到( derive的现在分词 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
498 mutual | |
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
499 affinity | |
n.亲和力,密切关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
500 corruption | |
n.腐败,堕落,贪污 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
501 inversely | |
adj.相反的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
502 perpetuate | |
v.使永存,使永记不忘 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
503 predecessor | |
n.前辈,前任 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
504 conjures | |
用魔术变出( conjure的第三人称单数 ); 祈求,恳求; 变戏法; (变魔术般地) 使…出现 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
505 Buddhist | |
adj./n.佛教的,佛教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
506 appellations | |
n.名称,称号( appellation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
507 narrated | |
v.故事( narrate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
508 propounded | |
v.提出(问题、计划等)供考虑[讨论],提议( propound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
509 humility | |
n.谦逊,谦恭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
510 isolated | |
adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
511 corporate | |
adj.共同的,全体的;公司的,企业的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
512 ethnic | |
adj.人种的,种族的,异教徒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
513 amass | |
vt.积累,积聚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
514 nascent | |
adj.初生的,发生中的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
515 saturated | |
a.饱和的,充满的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
516 second-hand | |
adj.用过的,旧的,二手的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
517 imbued | |
v.使(某人/某事)充满或激起(感情等)( imbue的过去式和过去分词 );使充满;灌输;激发(强烈感情或品质等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
518 antagonistic | |
adj.敌对的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
519 connoisseurs | |
n.鉴赏家,鉴定家,行家( connoisseur的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
520 hybrid | |
n.(动,植)杂种,混合物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
521 warrior | |
n.勇士,武士,斗士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
522 embodied | |
v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 );象征;包括;包含 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
523 conformity | |
n.一致,遵从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
524 constrained | |
adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
525 perusing | |
v.读(某篇文字)( peruse的现在分词 );(尤指)细阅;审阅;匆匆读或心不在焉地浏览(某篇文字) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
526 deformation | |
n.形状损坏;变形;畸形 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
527 converge | |
vi.会合;聚集,集中;(思想、观点等)趋近 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
528 ethics | |
n.伦理学;伦理观,道德标准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
529 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
530 savagery | |
n.野性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
531 stimulus | |
n.刺激,刺激物,促进因素,引起兴奋的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
532 fable | |
n.寓言;童话;神话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
533 clans | |
宗族( clan的名词复数 ); 氏族; 庞大的家族; 宗派 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
534 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
535 expounding | |
论述,详细讲解( expound的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
536 distinctively | |
adv.特殊地,区别地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
537 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
538 mesmerized | |
v.使入迷( mesmerize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
539 presidency | |
n.总统(校长,总经理)的职位(任期) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
540 patronage | |
n.赞助,支援,援助;光顾,捧场 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
541 infinitely | |
adv.无限地,无穷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
542 rebuked | |
责难或指责( rebuke的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
543 spun | |
v.纺,杜撰,急转身 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
544 effacement | |
n.抹消,抹杀 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
545 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
546 prone | |
adj.(to)易于…的,很可能…的;俯卧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
547 contemplated | |
adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
548 defiance | |
n.挑战,挑衅,蔑视,违抗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
549 tautology | |
n.无谓的重复;恒真命题 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
550 teems | |
v.充满( teem的第三人称单数 );到处都是;(指水、雨等)暴降;倾注 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
551 fluctuation | |
n.(物价的)波动,涨落;周期性变动;脉动 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
552 imputes | |
v.把(错误等)归咎于( impute的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
553 rejection | |
n.拒绝,被拒,抛弃,被弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
554 curry | |
n.咖哩粉,咖哩饭菜;v.用咖哩粉调味,用马栉梳,制革 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
555 glossary | |
n.注释词表;术语汇编 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
556 whit | |
n.一点,丝毫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
557 contention | |
n.争论,争辩,论战;论点,主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
558 scents | |
n.香水( scent的名词复数 );气味;(动物的)臭迹;(尤指狗的)嗅觉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
559 enigmas | |
n.难于理解的问题、人、物、情况等,奥秘( enigma的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
560 treacherous | |
adj.不可靠的,有暗藏的危险的;adj.背叛的,背信弃义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
561 pry | |
vi.窥(刺)探,打听;vt.撬动(开,起) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
562 derives | |
v.得到( derive的第三人称单数 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |