Certainly not in the way assumed by Drews and Robertson, In view of what we know of the dates and diffusion14 of the Gospels, of their literary connections with one another, and of the reappearance of their chief person? dramatis in the Pauline letters, such a hypothesis [82]is of course wildly improbable, yet not utterly15 absurd. We have to assume in the writer a knowledge of the Messianic movement among the Jews, a familiarity with their demonological beliefs and practices, with their sects16, and so forth18; and it is all readily assumable. In the Greek novel of Chariton we have an example of such an historical romance, the scene being laid in Syracuse and Asia Minor19 shortly after the close of the Peloponnesian war. But such romances are not cult20 documents of a parabolic or allegorical kind, as the Gospels are supposed by these writers to be. They do not bring a divine being down from Olympus, and pretend all through that he was a man who was born, lived, and died on the cross in a particular place and at a particular date. We have no other example of documents whose authors, by way of honouring a God up in heaven who never made any epiphany on earth nor ever underwent incarnation, made a man of him, and concocted22 an elaborate earthly record of him. Why did they do it? What was the object of the “Jesuists” and “Christists” in hoaxing23 their own and all subsequent generations and in building up a lasting24 cult and Church on what they knew were fables25?
whose hypothesis is self-destructive, In the Homeric hymns26 and other religious documents not only of the Greeks, but of the Hindoos, we have no doubt histories of the gods written by their votaries27; but in these hymns they put down what they believed, they did not of set design falsify the legend of the god, and describe his birth and parentage, when they knew he never had any; his ministrations and teaching career, when he never ministered or taught; his persecution28 by enemies and his death, when he was never persecuted29 and [83]never died. Or are we to suppose that all these things were related in the Sun-god Joshua legend? No, reply Messrs. Drews and Robertson. For the stories told in the Gospels are all modelled on pagan or astral myths; the persons who move in their pages are the gods and demigods of Egyptian, Greek, Latin, Hindoo legends. Clearly the Saviour-God Joshua had no legend or story of his own, or it would not be necessary to pad him out with the furniture and appurtenances of Osiris, Dionysus, Serapis, ?sculapius, and who knows what other gods besides. And—strangest feature of all—it is Jews, men circumcised, propagandists of Jewish monotheism, who, in the interests of “a Judaic cult” (p. 348), go rummaging30 in all the dustbins of paganism, in order to construct a legend or allegory of their god. Why could they not rest content with him as they found him in their ancient tradition?
and irreconcilable31 with ascertained32 history of Judaism The Gospels, like any other ancient document, have to be accounted for. They did not engender33 themselves, like a mushroom, nor drop out of heaven ready written. I have admitted as possible, though wild and extravagant34, the hypothesis of their being a Messianic romance, which subsequently came to be mistaken for sober history; and there are of course plenty of legendary35 incidents in their pages. But such a hypothesis need not be discussed. It is not that of these three authors, and would not suit them. They insist on seeing in them so many manifestoes of the secret sect17 of Jews who worshipped a god Joshua. For Dr. Drews and Mr. Robertson the Gospels describe a “Jesuine” mystery play evolved “from a Palestinian rite4 of human sacrifice in which the annual victim was ‘Jesus the Son of the Father.’?” There is [84]no trace in Jewish antiquity37 of any such rite in epochs which even remotely preceded Christianity, nor is the survival of such a rite of human sacrifice even thinkable in Jerusalem, where the “Christists” laid their plot. And why should they eke39 out their plot with a thousand scraps40 of pagan mythology41?
Prof. Smith’s hypothesis of a mythical42 Jesus mythically43 humanized in a monotheistic propaganda, I was taught in my childhood to venerate44 the Gospels; but I never knew before what really wonderful documents they are. Let us, however, turn to Professor W. B. Smith, who does not pile on paganism so profusely45 as his friends, nor exactly insist on a pagan basis for the Gospels. His hypothesis in brief is identical with theirs, for he insists that Jesus the man never existed at all. Jesus is, in Professor Smith’s phrase, “a humanized God”; in the diction of Messrs. Drews and Robertson, a myth. Professor Smith allows (Ecce Deus, p. 78) that the mere46 “fact that a myth, or several myths, may be found associated with the name of an individual by no means relegates47 that individual into the class of the unhistorical.” That is good sense, and so is the admission which follows, that “we may often explain the legends from the presence of the historical personality, independently known to be historic.” But in regard to Jesus alone among the figures of the past he, like his friends, rules out both considerations. The common starting-point of all three writers is that the earliest Gospel narratives48 do not “describe any human character at all; on the contrary, the individuality in question is distinctly divine and not human, in the earliest portrayal49. As time goes on it is true that certain human elements do creep in, particularly in Luke and John?…. In Mark there is really no man at all; the Jesus is God, or at least essentially50 divine, [85]throughout. He wears only a transparent51 garment of flesh. Mark historizes only.”
lacks all confirmation52, defies the texts, How is it, we ask, that humanity has pored over the Synoptic Gospels for nearly two thousand years, and discerned in them the portraiture53 at least of a man of flesh and blood, who can be imaged as such in statuary and painting? Even if it were conceded, as I said above, that the Gospel representation of Jesus is an imaginary portrait, like that of William Tell or John Inglesant, still, who, that is not mad, will deny that there exist in it multiple human traits, fictions may be of a novelist, yet indisputably there? Mr. Smith’s hardy54 denial of them can only lead his readers to suspect him of paradox55. Moreover, the champions of traditional orthodoxy have had in the past every reason to side with Professor Smith in his attempted elimination56 of all human traits and characteristics. Yet in recent years they have been constrained57 to admit that in Luke and John the human elements, far from creeping in, show signs of creeping out. “The received notion,” adds Professor Smith, “that in the early Marcan narratives the Jesus is distinctly human, and that the process of deification is fulfilled in John, is precisely58 the reverse of the truth.” Once more we rub our eyes. In Mark Jesus is little more than that most familiar of old Jewish figures, an earthly herald59 of the imminent60 kingdom of heaven; late and little by little he is recognized by his followers61 as himself the Messiah whose advent62 he formerly63 heralded64. As yet he is neither divine nor the incarnation of a pre-existent quasi-divine Logos or angel. In John, on the other hand, Jesus has emerged from the purely65 Jewish phase of being Messiah, or servant of God (which is [86]all that Lord or Son of God1 implies in Mark’s opening verses). He has become the eternal Logos or Reason, essentially divine and from the beginning with God. and rests on an obsolete66 and absurd allegorization of themHere obviously we are well on our way to a deification of Jesus and an elimination of human traits; and the writer is so conscious of this that he goes out of his way to call our attention to the fact that Jesus was after all a man of flesh and blood, with human parents and real brethren who disbelieved in him. He was evidently conscious that the superimposition on the man Jesus of the Logos scheme, and the reflection back into the human life of Jesus of the heavenly r?le which Paul ascribed to him qua raised by the Spirit from the dead, was already influencing certain believers (called Docetes) to believe that his human life and actions were illusions, seen and heard indeed, as we see and hear a man speak and act in a dream, but not objective and real. To guard against this John proclaims that he was made flesh. Nevertheless, he goes half way with the Docetes in that he rewrites all the conversations of Jesus, abolishes the homely68 parable69, and substitutes his own theosophic lucubrations. He also emphasizes the miraculous70 aspect of Jesus, inventing new miracles more grandiose71 than any in previous gospels, but of a kind, as he imagines, to symbolize72 his conceptions of sin and death. He is careful to eliminate the demonological stories. They were as much of a stumbling-block to John as we have seen them to be [87]to Mr. W. B. Smith. We must, therefore, perforce accuse the latter of putting a hypothesis that from the outset is a paradox. The documents contradict him on every page.
Why should the robber chief Joshua have been selected as prototype of Jesus? A thesis that begins by flying in the face of the documents demands paradoxical arguments for its support; and the pages of all three writers teem73 with them. Of a Jesus that is God from the first it is perhaps natural to ask—anyhow our authors have asked it of themselves—which God was he? And the accident of his bearing the name Jesus—he might just as well have been called Jacob or Sadoc or Manasseh, or what not—suggests Joshua to them, for Joshua is the Hebrew name which in the LXX was Grecized as Iesouē, and later as Iesous. That in the Old Testament74 Joshua is depicted75 as a cut-throat and leader of brigands76, very remote in his principles and practice from the Jesus of the Gospels, counts for nothing. The late Dr. Winckler, who saw sun and moon myths rising like exhalations all around him wherever he looked in ancient history and mythology,2 has suggested that Joseph was originally a solar hero. Ergo, Joshua was one too. Ergo, there was a Hebrew secret society in Jerusalem in the period B.C. 150–A.D. 50 [88]who worshipped the Sun-God-Saviour Joshua. Ergo, the Gospels are a sustained parable of this Sun-god. Thus are empty, wild, and unsubstantiated hypotheses piled one on top of the other, like Pelion on Ossa. Not a scintilla77 of evidence is adduced for any one of them. First one is advanced, and its truth assumed. The next is propped78 on it, et sic ad infinitum.
Why make him the central figure of a monotheistic cult? What, asks Professor Smith (Ecce Deus, p. 67), was the active principle of Christianity? What its germ? “The monotheistic impulse,” he answers, “the instinct for unity79 that lies at the heart of all grand philosophy and all noble religion.” Again, p. 45: “What was the essence of this originally secret Jesus cult, that was expressed in such guarded parabolic terms as made it unintelligible80 to the multitude?… It was a protest against idolatry; it was a Crusade for monotheism.”
The earliest Christianity was no monotheistic propaganda This is, no doubt, true of Christianity when we pass outside the Gospels. It is only not true of them, because on their every page Jewish monotheism is presupposed. Why are no warnings against polytheism put into the mouth of Jesus? Why is not a single precept81 of the Sermon on the Mount directed against idolatry? Surely because we are moving in a Jewish atmosphere in which such warnings were unnecessary. The horizon is purely Jewish, either of Jerusalem as we know it in the pages of Josephus or of certain Galilean circles in which even a knowledge of Greek seems not to have existed before the third century. The very proximity82 of Greek cities there seems to have confirmed the Jewish peasant of that region in his preference of Aramaic idiom, just as the native of Bohemia to-day turns his back on [89]you if you address him in the detested83 German tongue.
Robertson and Drews allow the Jesuists to have been mainly Jewish in cult and feeling Messrs. Robertson and Drews concede that the original stock of Christianity was Jewish. Thus we read in Christianity and Mythology (p. 415) that the Lord’s Prayer derives84 “from pre-Christian38 Jewish lore85, and, like parts of the Sermon (on the Mount), from an actually current Jewish document.” The same writer admits (p. 338) the existence of “Judaic sections of the early Church.” When he talks (p. 337) of the tale of the anointing of Jesus in Matthew xxvi, 6–13, and parallel passages, being “in all probability a late addendum” to the “primitive gospel” of Bernhard Weiss’s theory, “made after the movement had become pronouncedly Gentile,” he presupposes that, to start with anyhow, the movement was mainly Jewish. He admits that in the first six paragraphs of the early Christian document entitled the Didaché we have a purely Jewish teaching document, “which the Jesuist sect adopted in the first or second century.” He cannot furthermore contest the fact that the Jesuists “took over the Jewish Scriptures as their sacred book; that they inherited the Jewish passover and the Paschal lamb, which is still slain86 in Eastern churches; that the leaders of the secret sect in Jerusalem upheld the Jewish rite of circumcision against Paul.”3 All this is inconceivable if the society was not in the main and originally one of Hebrews. When he goes on to argue that the Gospels are the manifesto36 of a cult of an old Sun-god [90]Joshua, son of a mythic Miriam, he at least admits that the early “Christists” selected from ancient Jewish superstition87, and not from pagan myth, the central figure of their cult, and that they chose for their deity88 a successor and satellite of Moses with a Hebrew lady for his mother. We may take it for granted, then, that the parent society out of which the Christian Church arose was profoundly and radically89 Jewish; and Mr. Robertson frankly90 admits as much when he affirms that “it was a Judaic cult that preached circumcision,” and that “its apostles with whom Paul was in contact were of a Judaizing description.” Here is common ground between myself and him.
If so, how could they devote themselves to pagan mystery plays? What I want to know is how it came about that a society of which Jerusalem was the focus, and of which the nucleus91 and propagandists were Jews and Judaizers, could have been given over to the cult of a solar god, and how they could celebrate mystery plays and dramas in honour of that god; how they can have manufactured that god into “a composite myth” (p. 336), and constructed in his honour a religious system that was “a patchwork92 of a hundred suggestions drawn93 from pagan art and ritual usage.” For such, we are told (p. 305), was “the Christian system.”
Robertson admits that Jews could never borrow from pagan rituals in that age We are far better acquainted with Jewish belief and ritual during the period B.C. 400–A.D. 100 than we are with that of the pagans. The content of the Greek mysteries is an enigma94 to our best Hellenists; we know next to nothing of the inside of Mithraism; for the oriental cults95 of the late Roman republic and early empire we are lamentably96 deficient97 in writings that might exhibit to us the arcana of their worship and the texture98 of their beliefs. Not so with Judaism. [91]Here we have the prophets, old and late; for the two centuries B.C. we have the apocrypha99, including the Maccabean books; we have the so-called Books of Enoch, of Jubilees100, of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Fourth Ezra, Baruch, Sirach, and many others. We have the voluminous works of Philo and Josephus for the first century of our era; we have the Babylonian and other Talmuds preserving to us a wealth of Jewish tradition and teaching of the first and second centuries. Here let Mr. Robertson speak. As regards the Lord’s Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount, he insists (p. 415 foll.) that they were inspired by parallel passages in the Talmud and the Apocrypha, and he argues with perfect good sense for the priority of the Talmud in these words: “It is hardly necessary to remark here that the Talmudic parallels to any part of the Sermon on the Mount cannot conceivably have been borrowed from the Christian gospels; they would as soon have borrowed from the rituals of the pagans.”
Yet affirms that Christists, indistinguishable from Jews, did so borrow wholesale101 And yet he asks us to believe that a nucleus of Jews, hidden in Jerusalem, the heart of Judaism, a sect whose apostles were Judaizers and vehement102 defenders103 of circumcision—all this he admits—were, as late as the last half of the first century, maintaining among themselves in secret a highly eclectic pagan cult; that they evolved “a gospel myth from scenes in pagan art” (p. 327); that they took a sort of modern arch?ological interest in pagan art and sculpture, and derived104 thence most of their literary motifs105; that the figure of Jesus is an alloy106 of Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis, Krishna, ?sculapius, and fifty other ancient gods and demigods, with the all-important “Sun-God-Saviour Joshua, son of Miriam”; that the story of Peter rests on “a pagan basis of myth” (p. 340); [92]that Maria is the true and original form of the Hebrew Miriam, and is the same name as Myrrha and Moira (μο?ρα), etc., etc.
The central idea of a God Joshua a figment of Robertson’s fancy Such are the mutually destructive arguments on the strength of which we are to adopt his thesis of the unhistoricity of Jesus. His books, like those of Dr. Drews, are a welter of contradictory107 statements, unreconciled and irreconcilable. Nevertheless, they reiterate108 them in volume after volume, like orthodox Christians109 reiterating110 articles of faith and dogmas too sacred to be discussed. Who ever heard before them of a Jewish cult of a Sun-God-Saviour Joshua? Such a cult must have been long extinct when the book of Joshua was written. Who ever heard of this Sun-god having for his mother a Miriam, until Mr. Robertson discovered a late Persian gloss111 to the effect that Joshua, son of Nun112, had a mother of the name? Even if this tradition were not so utterly worthless as it is, it would prove nothing about the Sun-god. On the basis of such gratuitous113 fancies we are asked to dismiss Jesus as a myth. It does not even explain the birth legends of the ChristiansIt does not even help us to understand how the myths of the Virgin114 Birth arose. Since when, I would like to know, did we need such evidence against that legend? If I thought that the rebuttal of it depended on such evidence, I should be inclined to become a good Papist and embrace it. It is enough for me to have ascertained, by a comparison of texts and by a study of early Christian documents, that it is a late accretion115 on the traditions of Jesus of Nazareth. That is the real evidence, if any be wanted, against it. Mr. Robertson admits that the first two chapters of Luke which are supposed—perhaps wrongly—to embody116 this legend are “a late fabulous117 introduction.” Again he writes (p. 189): [93]“Only the late Third Gospel tells the story (of Luke i and ii); the narrative (of the Birth) in Matthew, added late as it was to the original composition, which obviously began at what is now the third chapter, has no hint of the taxing.”
Evidence of the Protevangelion This is good sense, and I am indebted to him for pointing out that so loosely was the myth compacted that in the Protevangelion (c. 17) the statement is that it was decreed “that all should be enrolled118 who were in Bethlehem of Jud?a,” not all Jews over the entire world.
Robertson assumes the antiquity of the legend merely to suit his theory Surely all this implies that the legend of the miraculous birth was no part of the earliest tradition about Jesus. Nevertheless, it is so important for Mr. Robertson’s thesis (that Jesus was a mythical personage) that he should from the first have had a mythical mother, that he insists on treating the whole of Christian tradition, early or late, as a solid block, and argues steadily119 that the Virgin Birth legend was an integral part of it from the beginning. Jesus was a myth; as such he must have had a myth for a mother. Now a virgin mother is half-way to being a mythical one. Therefore Mary was a virgin, and must from the beginning have been regarded as such by the “Christists.” Such are the steps of his reasoning.
The “Christists” at once extravagantly120 pagan and extravagantly monotheist and Jewish I have adduced in the preceding pages a selection of the mythological121 equations of Mr. Robertson and Dr. Drews in order that my readers may realize how faint a resemblance between stories justifies122, in their minds, a derivation or borrowing of one from the other. Nor do they ever ask themselves how Jewish “Christists” were likely to come in contact with out-of-the-way legends of Bacchus or Dionysus, of Hermes, [94]of old Pelasgic deities123, of Cybele and Attis and Isis, Osiris and Horus, of Helena Dendrites, of Krishna, of Janus, of sundry124 ancient vegetation-gods (for they are up to the newest lights), of Apollonius of Tyana, of ?sculapius, of Herakles and Oceanus, of Saoshyant and other old Persian gods and heroes, of Buddha125 and his kith and kin21, of the Eleusinian and other ancient mysteries. Prick126 them with a pin, and out gushes127 this lore in a copious128 flood; and every item of it is supposed to have filled the heads of the polymath authors of the Christian Gospels. Every syllable129 of these Gospels, every character in them, is symbolic130 of one or another of these gods and heroes. Hear, O Israel: “Christians borrowed myths of all kinds from Paganism” (Christianity and Mythology, p. xii). And we are pompously131 assured (p. xxii, op. cit.) that this new “mythic” system is, “in general, more ‘positive,’ more inductive, less à priori, more obedient to scientific canons, than that of the previous critics known to me [i.e., to Mr. Robertson] who have reached similar anti-traditional results. It substitutes an anthropological132 basis, in terms of the concrete phenomena133 of mythology, for a pseudo-philosophical presupposition.” Heaven help the new science of anthropology134!
A receipt for the concoction135 of a gospel And what end, we may ask, had the “Jesuists” and “Christists” (to use Mr. Robertson’s jargon) in view, when they dressed up all this tagrag and bobtail of pagan myth, art, and ritual, and disguised it under the form of a tale of Messianic Judaism? For that and nothing else is, on this theory, the basis and essence of the Gospels. Was it their aim to honour paganism or to honour Jewish monotheism, when they concocted a “Christ cult” which is “a synthesis of the two most [95]popular pagan myth-motives,4 with some Judaic elements as nucleus and some explicit136 ethical137 teaching superadded” (p. 34). We must perforce suppose that the Gospels were a covert138 tribute to the worth and value of Pagan mythology and religious dramas, to pagan art and statuary. If we adopt the mythico-symbolical method, they can have been nothing else. Its sponsors might surely condescend139 to explain the alchemy by which the ascertained rites67 and beliefs of early Christians were distilled141 from these antecedents. The effect and the cause are so entirely142 disparate, so devoid143 of any organic connection, that we would fain see the evolution worked out a little more clearly. At one end of it we have a hurly-burly of pagan myths, at the other an army of Christian apologists inveighing144 against everything pagan and martyred for doing so, all within a space of sixty or seventy years. I only hope the orthodox will be gratified to learn that their Scriptures are a thousandfold more wonderful and unique than they appeared to be when they were merely inspired by the Holy Spirit. For verbal inspiration is not, as regards its miraculous quality, in the same field with mythico-symbolism. Verily we have discovered a new literary genus, unexampled in the history of mankind. You rake together a thousand irrelevant145 thrums of mythology, picked up at random146 from every age, race, and clime; you get a “Christist” to throw them into a sack and shake them up; you open it, and out come the Gospels. In all the annals of the Bacon-Shakesperians we have seen nothing like it. [96]
1 In Mark xv, 39, the utterance147 of the heathen centurion148, “truly this man was a Son of God,” can obviously not have been inspired by messianic conceptions; it can have meant no more than that he was more than human, as Damis realized his master Apollonius to be on more than one occasion. Nor can Mark have intended to attribute Jewish conceptions to a pagan soldier. ↑
2 For example, he gravely asserts (Die Weltanschauung des alten Orients, Leipzig, 1904, p. 41) that Saul’s melancholy149 is explicable as a myth of the monthly eclipsing of the moon’s light! Perhaps Hamlet’s melancholy was of the same mythic origin. A map of the stars is Winckler’s, no less than Jensen’s, guide to all mythologies150. But, to do him justice, Winckler never fell into the last absurdity151 of supposing that Jews at the beginning of our era were engaged in a secret cult of a Sun-god named Joshua; on the contrary, he declares (op. cit., p. 96), that, just in proportion as we descend140 the course of time, we approach an age in which the heroes of earlier myth are brought down to the level of earth. This humanization of the Joshua myth was, he held, complete when the book of Joshua was compiled. ↑
3 Cp. p. 342: “In all his allusions152 to the movement of his day he (Paul) is dealing153 with Judaizing apostles who preached circumcision.” And p. 348: “Paul’s Cephas is simply one of the apostles of a Judaic cult that preaches circumcision.” ↑
4 To wit, of a Sun-god, who is also Mithras and Osiris, and of a Vegetation-god annually154 slain on the sacred tree. We are gravely informed that “not till Dr. Frazer had done his work was the psychology155 of the process ascertained.” Dr. Frazer must be blushing at this tribute to his psychological insight. ↑
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
artifice
|
|
| n.妙计，高明的手段；狡诈，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
scriptures
|
|
| 经文，圣典( scripture的名词复数 )； 经典 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
writ
|
|
| n.命令状，书面命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
rite
|
|
| n.典礼，惯例，习俗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
purported
|
|
| adj.传说的，谣传的v.声称是…，（装得）像是…的样子( purport的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
apocalyptic
|
|
| adj.预示灾祸的，启示的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
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： |
|
|
|
|
9
rife
|
|
| adj.(指坏事情)充斥的，流行的，普遍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
skilfully
|
|
| adv. (美skillfully)熟练地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
itinerary
|
|
| n.行程表，旅行路线；旅行计划 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
clement
|
|
| adj.仁慈的；温和的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
diffusion
|
|
| n.流布；普及；散漫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
sects
|
|
| n.宗派，教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
sect
|
|
| n.派别，宗教，学派，派系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
cult
|
|
| n.异教，邪教；时尚，狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
kin
|
|
| n.家族，亲属，血缘关系；adj.亲属关系的，同类的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
concocted
|
|
| v.将（尤指通常不相配合的）成分混合成某物( concoct的过去式和过去分词 )；调制；编造；捏造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
hoaxing
|
|
| v.开玩笑骗某人，戏弄某人( hoax的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
24
lasting
|
|
| adj.永久的，永恒的；vbl.持续，维持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
fables
|
|
| n.寓言( fable的名词复数 )；神话，传说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
hymns
|
|
| n.赞美诗，圣歌，颂歌( hymn的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
votaries
|
|
| n.信徒( votary的名词复数 )；追随者；（天主教）修士；修女 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
28
persecution
|
|
| n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
persecuted
|
|
| （尤指宗教或政治信仰的）迫害(~sb. for sth.)( persecute的过去式和过去分词 )； 烦扰，困扰或骚扰某人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
rummaging
|
|
| 翻找，搜寻( rummage的现在分词 )； 海关检查 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
irreconcilable
|
|
| adj.（指人）难和解的，势不两立的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
ascertained
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
engender
|
|
| v.产生，引起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
legendary
|
|
| adj.传奇（中）的，闻名遐迩的；n.传奇（文学） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
manifesto
|
|
| n.宣言，声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
eke
|
|
| v.勉强度日，节约使用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
scraps
|
|
| 油渣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
mythology
|
|
| n.神话，神话学，神话集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
mythical
|
|
| adj.神话的；虚构的；想像的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
mythically
|
|
| adv.想像地，虚构地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
44
venerate
|
|
| v.尊敬，崇敬，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
profusely
|
|
| ad.abundantly | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
relegates
|
|
| v.使降级( relegate的第三人称单数 )；使降职；转移；把…归类 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
narratives
|
|
| 记叙文( narrative的名词复数 )； 故事； 叙述； 叙述部分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
portrayal
|
|
| n.饰演；描画 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
transparent
|
|
| adj.明显的，无疑的；透明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
portraiture
|
|
| n.肖像画法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
hardy
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，果断的，吃苦的；耐寒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
paradox
|
|
| n.似乎矛盾却正确的说法；自相矛盾的人(物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
elimination
|
|
| n.排除，消除，消灭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
herald
|
|
| vt.预示...的来临，预告，宣布，欢迎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
imminent
|
|
| adj.即将发生的，临近的，逼近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
advent
|
|
| n.(重要事件等的)到来，来临 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
heralded
|
|
| v.预示( herald的过去式和过去分词 )；宣布（好或重要） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
obsolete
|
|
| adj.已废弃的，过时的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
rites
|
|
| 仪式，典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
homely
|
|
| adj.家常的，简朴的；不漂亮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
parable
|
|
| n.寓言，比喻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
miraculous
|
|
| adj.像奇迹一样的，不可思议的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
grandiose
|
|
| adj.宏伟的，宏大的，堂皇的，铺张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
symbolize
|
|
| vt.作为...的象征，用符号代表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
teem
|
|
| vi.(with)充满，多产 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
depicted
|
|
| 描绘，描画( depict的过去式和过去分词 )； 描述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
brigands
|
|
| n.土匪，强盗( brigand的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
scintilla
|
|
| n.极少，微粒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
propped
|
|
| 支撑，支持，维持( prop的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
unintelligible
|
|
| adj.无法了解的，难解的，莫明其妙的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
precept
|
|
| n.戒律；格言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
proximity
|
|
| n.接近，邻近 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
detested
|
|
| v.憎恶，嫌恶，痛恨( detest的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
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： |
|
|
|
|
85
lore
|
|
| n.传说；学问，经验，知识 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
slain
|
|
| 杀死，宰杀，杀戮( slay的过去分词 )； (slay的过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
deity
|
|
| n.神，神性；被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
radically
|
|
| ad.根本地，本质地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
nucleus
|
|
| n.核，核心，原子核 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
patchwork
|
|
| n.混杂物；拼缝物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
enigma
|
|
| n.谜，谜一样的人或事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
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： |
|
|
|
|
96
lamentably
|
|
| adv.哀伤地，拙劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
deficient
|
|
| adj.不足的，不充份的，有缺陷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
texture
|
|
| n.(织物)质地；(材料)构造；结构；肌理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
apocrypha
|
|
| n.伪经，伪书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
jubilees
|
|
| n.周年纪念( jubilee的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
101
wholesale
|
|
| n.批发；adv.以批发方式；vt.批发，成批出售 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
vehement
|
|
| adj.感情强烈的；热烈的；(人)有强烈感情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
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： |
|
|
|
|
105
motifs
|
|
| n. （文艺作品等的）主题( motif的名词复数 )；中心思想；基本模式；基本图案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
alloy
|
|
| n.合金，(金属的)成色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
contradictory
|
|
| adj.反驳的，反对的，抗辩的；n.正反对，矛盾对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
reiterate
|
|
| v.重申，反复地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
reiterating
|
|
| 反复地说，重申( reiterate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
gloss
|
|
| n.光泽，光滑；虚饰；注释；vt.加光泽于；掩饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
nun
|
|
| n.修女，尼姑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
virgin
|
|
| n.处女，未婚女子；adj.未经使用的；未经开发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
accretion
|
|
| n.自然的增长，增加物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
embody
|
|
| vt.具体表达，使具体化；包含，收录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
fabulous
|
|
| adj.极好的；极为巨大的；寓言中的，传说中的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
enrolled
|
|
| adj.入学登记了的v.[亦作enrol]( enroll的过去式和过去分词 )；登记，招收，使入伍（或入会、入学等），参加，成为成员；记入名册；卷起，包起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
extravagantly
|
|
| adv.挥霍无度地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
mythological
|
|
| adj.神话的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
justifies
|
|
| 证明…有理( justify的第三人称单数 )； 为…辩护； 对…作出解释； 为…辩解（或辩护） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
deities
|
|
| n.神，女神( deity的名词复数 )；神祗；神灵；神明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
sundry
|
|
| adj.各式各样的，种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
Buddha
|
|
| n.佛；佛像；佛陀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
prick
|
|
| v.刺伤，刺痛，刺孔；n.刺伤，刺痛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
gushes
|
|
| n.涌出，迸发( gush的名词复数 )v.喷，涌( gush的第三人称单数 )；滔滔不绝地说话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
copious
|
|
| adj.丰富的，大量的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
syllable
|
|
| n.音节；vt.分音节 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
symbolic
|
|
| adj.象征性的，符号的，象征主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
pompously
|
|
| adv.傲慢地，盛大壮观地；大模大样 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
anthropological
|
|
| adj.人类学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
anthropology
|
|
| n.人类学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
concoction
|
|
| n.调配(物)；谎言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
ethical
|
|
| adj.伦理的，道德的，合乎道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
covert
|
|
| adj.隐藏的；暗地里的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
condescend
|
|
| v.俯就，屈尊；堕落，丢丑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
descend
|
|
| vt./vi.传下来，下来，下降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
distilled
|
|
| adj.由蒸馏得来的v.蒸馏( distil的过去式和过去分词 )；从…提取精华 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
devoid
|
|
| adj.全无的，缺乏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
inveighing
|
|
| v.猛烈抨击，痛骂，谩骂( inveigh的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
irrelevant
|
|
| adj.不恰当的，无关系的，不相干的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
random
|
|
| adj.随机的；任意的；n.偶然的(或随便的)行动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
utterance
|
|
| n.用言语表达，话语，言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
centurion
|
|
| n.古罗马的百人队长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
melancholy
|
|
| n.忧郁，愁思；adj.令人感伤（沮丧）的，忧郁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
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： |
|
|
|
|
151
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
allusions
|
|
| 暗指，间接提到( allusion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
psychology
|
|
| n.心理，心理学，心理状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |