is christianity indebted to heathen mythology?

8/2/2019 Is Christianity Indebted to Heathen Mythology?

1/23

l~('''Uln'''' ' ' ' ' ' ' ''' '' -' ''UI u....- ..,q1.~J"UI"""""' ' ' ' ' '- ' 'Uln..~ ') ~"'''A'= '''' ' '' ' '' ' '' ' '' 'UII'''-''''''''''''"U'" (fj~)' ,",..' .... I I . "_ . . . . . . . U " ' ' ' '' ' f f~,. It.~. - ~ ~~

T A n t i - R a t i o n a l i s t i c L e c t u r e s 1I DELIVERED AT I! BI EAST STREET M ISS ION HALL , AUCKLAND , ~I IR UND ER TH E A USPIC ES OF i~ THE AUCKLAND BROTHERHOOD . III=I~;=I 't By GEO. ALD.RIDGE, II Editor of "The Bible Standard." iI II PRICE THREEPENCE. II PR IN TED A ND PU BLISH ED B Y iIi ! PHIPPS & HALL , 31 H IGH STREET , II AUCKLAND . i~ ...:;..~" r;~~Jl ~'''' '"I1''' ' ' ' ''''''''''''''''''''''"''''''''''''''''-'''"1'41(~~)II''II'''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''"I'''u.........."~ f.~. "~ ('~ ' ..' ....U "' ''_. ' ' . ..' '"III''"J' ~.',III"_ ''' II......' II' '~}).

No. 3.

Is Christian ity Indebted toHeathen My thology?


2/23

No. 3.

Is Christianity Indebtedto Heathen Mythology?


3/23

.Is C llristian ity, Indebted to','. ,.Heathen' Mythology?MR . CH.AI~A~, LADIES AND GE :TTLEMEN, .

It was my endeavour at the first lecture to put before yousuch evidence as satisfied me concerning the historical existenceof the person whom we know as Jesus Christ. I brought thatevidence from sources that are easily investigated, and I madethe appeal to you that on the basis of Rationalism from theChristian standpoint we may believe that Ohristianity is. estab-lished in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, But I realisedthat iin order to impress this conclusion on the minds of thosewho attend here, it was necessary for me to go further, so onSunday Iast I endeavoured to put before you the evidence whichI think justifies the belief of Christians in the Virgin Birth ofour Lord Jesus Ohrist. The objection was made at the close ofthe first lecture; that if the evidence I had produced did go toestablish the historicity of Jesus Christ, it fell far short ofestablishing the extraordinary things that were said about. Hisbirth, His miracles, and His resurrection from the dead. .

Lbelieve in taking one step at a time, and the nearest first,and therefore, in my first lecture, Iput down a peg that I thinkwill stand, and whence we can proceed as from a point of cer-tainty, I am not aware that there is anything to remove theevidence produced in favour of the historicity of the personknown as Jesus Christ. On Sunday last I put before you theobjections which are raised against the Ohristian belief regard-ing the extraordinary manner in which Jesus Ohrist is said to

have entered into life on earth, and when I had examined theobjections, and tried to show how unworthy they are; I then

put, in the closing part of .my address, some positive evidence infavour of such a thing happening. I called attention to theproblems that are pressing for solution upon. every side, andcontended, .and still contend, that there is no solution to thesepressing problems, apart from the introduction of 'a new life.I am prepared to go the whole length of an argument on thatphase, which I think will bear .every possible strain that can be.put upon it. Only as there is 'a new life force injected into

43


4/23

humanity can there possibly be a complete solution for the illsthat oppress men from the physical, from the social, and fromthe spiritual side 1This afternoon I desire to carry the argument a little fur-ther, because the question concerning the Virgin Birth is onlyone of the many objections raised against the New Testamentteaching. At the present time there is being put before us theidea that Christianity, as we know it now, has come to us fromthe Old World imaginings that were born probably in the veryearly days of human history, and that have grown into storyform out of the original formless myths, and that at the timewhen Christianity was introduced it is said that, either by thedisciples directly, or by the unconscious cerebration of thepeople who were interested in the teaching these myths of oldentime were cast into the melting-pot and came out as the Chris-tian religion we have to-day. I think it is worthy of investiga-tion to find whether this is so or not. As I said last week, theman who opposes Christianity has no corner in assertions, there-fore it would. be quite a right thing for me to make assertionson the opposite side. But assertions, on whichever side theyare made, are of no value unless they are supported by somekind of proof. There must be something to justify them.When our friends affirm, from their side, that Christianity isindebted to heathen myths, there must be some proof advancedto warrant the statement, and if I, from my side, declare thatChristianity as a system has no relationship to heathen myths,you would naturally expect me to advance some evidence infavour of the position which I take. First of all I shall showyou some of the objections from the Rationalistic side, and thenI will try to put before you a line of testimony which I believeto be sound, concerning the origin of these so-called myths, andthe relation of these stories to New Testament Christianity.

Let me say that this present opposition is, to the presentgeneration, a comparatively new line of attack on Christianity.I believe that Christian people generally, and the man in thestreet do not know about this particular phase. It will probablycome to you as something new, and yet in the literature fromthe Rationalistic side it has been in existence for a long time ifnot prominently so. I have already pointed out that from theearliest centuries the opponents brought forward this kind ofobjection, and that it was met by the early believers, and solidlyand satisfactorily met-so satisfactorily that it practically diedout until comparatively recent years.

The earliest modern writer (of those with whose works Iam acquainted) in favour of the idea that Christianity is in-debted to heathen myths was a Frenchman named Dupuis, whowrote a very extensive work, in which he sought to establishthat Christianity arose out of solar myths, and that gradually,

44


5/23

"

1

by the Christian believers adopting the views that were currentamong the heathen of their time, the system called Christianitycame into being, and has existed from that time until the pre-sent century .

.Dr. Fraser in the Golden Bouqh ; preceding him, Dr.Tyler in Primitive Culture, and Max Muller in ComparativeMythology, and now Mr. Grant Allen in his Evolution of theIdea of a God, have probably done most to popularise this par-ticular phase of scientific study, and it is from their works thatRationalistic advocates are drawing the weapons with whichthey assail Christianity. Now we must be prepared for thisform of attack. We ought to say, "WeB, we will hear theevidence, and we will irivestigate, and see for ourselves whetheror not these things are as they are put before us." I am not ofopinion that Christians ought to keep their faith in some secretlocked-up part of their being where nobody can get at it-itought to be always ready for presentation. The Apostle Petersays that we ought to be ready at all times to give a reason forthe hope that is in us. We should always be ready to give ananswer, and the Apostle Paul has declared that we should" Prove all things," and " hold fast that which is good." Ibelieve that Christianity is a good thing, and I do not fear tostand before you to declare that it is a good thing, and I furtherbelieve that, being a good thing, it will bear every possible testthat may be brought to bear upon it, and so in the light of thismodern attack-this frontal attack upon Christianity, we oughtto be prepared to say, "Now, will Christianity bear thisstrain?" and set ourselves to investigate, holding, of course, inthe meantime that the faith in Christianity is not to be over-turned by assertions, but that it must be held until somethingeffective shall be produced to show that it is wrong.

I was told on Sunday last, and rightly told, that there aremen in the Church who are saying that Christianity is indebtedto heathen mythology, and I was asked to explain it. I knowperfectly well there are men in the Church who are affirmingthis. English writers of repute, American writers of repute,German writers of repute are to be found who assert thatChristianity is indebted to heathen myth, but I am not at allworried about that. I hold that a man's scholarship may bevery great indeed, and yet he may be very ignorant about theBible. I believe there is-if you rwill pardon the common ex-pression-" There is many an old woman" in the Church whoknows more about Bible truths than some of those who havemany letters after their name. Only as a man shows that hehas not only investigated the letter of the Word, but also theinternal evidence of its truth-that is, its divine purpose-onlyso is his testimony concerning it of real value. When you findsuch a man, then you will listen to him and be able, because of

45


6/23

the plainness and accessibility of the evidence, to arrive at someconclusion that will justify your view on whether he is right orwrong. Now the men who are in the Church (I think some ofthem ought to be out of it) who are teaching that the origin ofChristianity, or of some of its teachings, is to be found in myth-ology, are not agreed amongst themselves as to its source, noragreed as to the things which are said to have been originatedfrom heathen myths; indeed, there are three or four differenttheories which are mutually destructive. When you have anumber of theories set up to turn history into myth, which tendto oppose each other, there is always room for another hypothe-sis, and that is that the thing itself is true. Now, let me illus-trate that point as it concerns the Virgin Birth. There is thateminent man I cited last Sunday, Professor Harnack, who, incompany with another German, Professor Lobstein, has writtenconcerning the Virgin Birth, and they agree that it originatedby a line of Jewish myth, based upon the statement found inIsaiah: " Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son." Theysay that this idea arose entirely in Jewish circles, and could nothave arisen from any other source. Now another German comesalong-almost equally eminent, Professor Soltau-and he says:" This, at any rate, is clear, the belief in the Virgin Birth ofJesus Christ could not have originated in Palestine; indeed, itcould never have taken its rise in Jewish circles. Theidea that the Holy Spirit begat Jesus can have no other than anHellenic source." Here, you see, are two contradictory theories,each supported by eminent men. Professor Harnack says itarose on Jewish soil only and within Jewish circles only. Pro-fessor Soltau says" No, that is absurd; it could not have arisensave from Hellenic sources." Then he puts forward his view,and to that Harnack replies that " the idea of the birth fromthe Virgin as a heathen myth contradicts the earliest develop-ment of Christian tradition, which is free from heathen myths,so far as these had not already been received by wide circles ofJews, which in the case of that idea, is not demonstrable." Thatis, the idea that the Jews would receive it from heathen mythsis absolutely incredible. Thus these writers stand one againstanother, and now here is another, Professor Cheyne, and hesays: " The real origin is that from early pre-Christian days,from Babylonia, from Persia, from Phrygia, there has graduallyfiltered down a certain tradition 'which was taken hold of byChristians, and out of that there was developed the idea of theVirgin Birth." (I have cited these representative writers fromProfessor Orr's book on the Virgin Birth.) Now, we ask,which of these theories are we to adopt ~ Some will go after'one leader, and some after another. In the meantime I do notpropose to follow any of these gentlemen across the wildernessuntil I know something better about the journey they would

46


7/23

take us, and its destination. I believe there is room for anotherhypothesis, and that is, that the Bible story is true, and mean-while I am holding on to that.

Having referred already to the theories of the men whoare writing concerning the origin of Christianity from thestandpoint of these heathen myths, I take up once more thisbook of Vivian's. I refer to it because of its popularity, itswide circulation and the statement made that the Bishop ofLondon 'agrees" that it has done more to damage Christianitythan all the rest of sceptical books put together.", I take it,then, because of the claims that are made on its behalf to be arepresentative book, and because it is supposed to express thefreshest and most up-to-date opinions of Rationalists. Now Ifind Mr. Vivian saying, on this particular subject on which Iam addressing you this afternoon, that the Rationalist" deniesthe originality of Christianity," and contends that " It is acult which adopted, step by step, the miracles and the myths ofthe popular Gentile religions," and then he refers to the booksI have mentioned already, Dr. Fraser's Golden Bough andothers, and he says that we Christian apologists ought to readthem. Some of us are doing our best, but there are so manybooks to be read that I have to pick and choose. I like to readboth sides. When our Rationalist friends write against anyparticular teaching of ours, I read it, if possible, and when any-body writes on the other side, I like to read that too, and if someof these books tend, to make me wobble, then I read the Bible,and that stiffens my backbone, and puts me right again, Theseworks, written from the standpoint of comparative religion, arechiefly concerned in the collection of facts concerning the cus-toms, habits, myths of peoples through all time the wide worldover, and arrive at conclusions against Christianity by thecompilation and comparison of these things, and by emphasis-ing and 'impressing upon the minds of those who read, thesimilarities discoverable between them and Christian doctrinesand ritual. That is, their authors do not directly attack Chris-tianity=-they allow the compilations themselves, and the hypo-theses deduced to act against Christianity with the evidentdesire of weakening or overturning it. I read, so far as I can,on both sides, and form my own conclusion. I do not think theordinary reader is likely to be much attracted by Dr. Fraser'sbooks. The latest edition is certainly readable, but the man inthe street will not care much about it. To use Lincoln's words:< " For those who like that sort of thing, that's the sort of thingthey like." When the hypotheses are produced we can weighand consider them, and test to see if they are strong enough tooverthrow the views we hold.These men who are writing concerning mythology occupytwo different standpoints. They are not agreed as to the

47


8/23

origm of myths. Dr. Fraser may be looked upon now as theleader of one side, and Herbert Spencer and Mr. Grant AlIenmay be spoken of as the leaders on the other side. Some lookupon myths as arising from Animism. They consider that theevidence shows that men in the early times noted the sunshineand its effects, observed the gtowth of the trees, and the flowingof the water in the brooks, and the effects of storms, and sup-posed personalities behind them possessing powers whichenabled them to help man or to war against his interests, andtherefore these had to be placated by offerings and sacrifices.

But Mr. Grant Allen, following Mr. Spencer, adopts Euhe-merism, and says that myths arose out of the belief that menwere able, after death, to influence those who lived, and veryoften to influence them maliciously, and so the ghosts of deadmen had to be placated, and thus arose the idea of gods. Thereis a wide difference between the two views. Mr. Grant Allensays in Evolution of the Idea of a God: " In one word I believethat corpse worship is the protoplasm of religion, while admit-ting that folklore is the protoplasm of mythology, and of itsmore modern and philosophical offshoot, theology." Here,you see, he tries to build a little bridge over from the theoryof Euhemerism to the theory of Animism.

These are the views that are before us, and I would say:" Gentlemen, you had better agree about this matter, for thestarting-point is important, and when you come to a conclusionon that, we shall probably be able better to say whether or notyour later deductions are worthy of acceptance."

I pass from that, and now deal with the question as towhether or not heathen mythology ever influenced Christianity.Those who have read Hyslop's Two Babylons will know that aChristian writer of repute has shown that some forms of wor-ship in churches where they have ornate ceremonial, haveoriginated from the heathen rites connected with the myths ofolden times. There is no doubt about it. They were takenfrom the practices of the old pagans. When some of the earlymissionaries introduced Christianity into a pagan country, theyapparently acted on the principle of not opposing too stronglyexisting religions, and, to make it easier for the converts, tookover some of their practices. No doubt that was done, but,gentlemen, we can easily discriminate between the incidents anddoctrines taught in the New Testament and practices of thiskind which are found in churches even down to the presenttime. By writers of repute like Mr. Hyslop, we have beentaught to discriminate. When modern writers come along withtheir new discoveries, we remove from their presentation allthose things which relate to ritual and ceremonial, and simplydeal with incidents and doctrines as they are taught in the New

48


9/23

Testament, and see whether or not heathen myths have anybearing upon these.

I turn me now to Mr. Vivian again. He tells us on page36 that the marvellous tales in the Canonical Gospels have beenderived from " heathen legends-legends from which some ofthe more glaring absurdities and all that would mar the ethicalideals of the Christian religion were eclectically expunged."Well, they were pretty decent fellows if they took out some ofthe things that were inimical to the high morality and purity ofthe Christian faith, for in the original stories there are a goodmany.

But is it true that the stories of the Gospels arose out ofheathen myths ~ Is it true that these stories gradually grewand presently were fused together, and out of them came Chris-tianity ~ Why, the theory upon the face of it is absurd, be-cause, as Harnack tells you, the early Christian tradition in allits essential forms was in existence about the middle of the firstcentury. It was not in existence before that .. Paganism wasthere all around it at its origin, and for three or four centuriessurrounded it still. Christianity at its beginning was isolatedin the land of Palestine, and was just the same in its essentialfeatures as now, and when the Christian documents came, 25years later, they put that tradition into actual form as we haveit to-day. They tell us what Christianity was in those days, andChristianity of to-day is but the carrying forward of the ancientbelief. Heathen myths have not changed it from that timedown to the present; thus the element of time is wanting toeffect the change from heathen mythology to the form in whichwe have Christianity now. I find Mr. Vivian a little later,making this statement also: " It is just those very ideas of theVirgin Birth, resurrection and ascension appearing in the laterlegends which were nothing more nor less than solar myths"(he is referring to Buddhism). "In any case, whatever theirorigin, they were world-wide very many centuries before theChristian era." He is trying to show that Christianity is in-debted to Buddhism, and not Buddhism to Christianity; inother words, that the heathen myths that were held in commonin Europe and in India have been adopted into Christianity,and then he refers to Professor Rhys Davids, a high authorityon Buddhist writings, and gives a quotation from his introduc-tion to one of the Buddhist Suttas. Where Mr. Vivian makes aquotation, if I possibly can I verify it, and it was necessary todo so in this case, for in quoting Professor Davids he gives thepassage thus: " That while he ventures to disagree with writerswho argue that the resemblances in the Pali Pitakas and pas-sages in the New Testament indicate that the New Testament asthe later must be borrowed; he holds that the resemblance is duenot to any borrowing on the one side or the other, but solely to

49


10/23

the similarity of .the conditions under which the movementgrew." ,I took down the Buddhist Suttas and examined the pas-sage, and found that Mr. Vivian had left out a sentence that Ithink ought to be in it. Mr. Davids says: " There does not seemto me to be the slightest evidence of any historical connectionbetween them; and whenever the resemblance is a real one"(and this is omitted) (C and it often turn; oui to be really leastwhen it first seems to be greatest, and really greatest when itfirst seems least. It is due, not to any borrowing on the oneside or the other, but solely to the, similarity of the conditionsunder which the two movements grew." That is, in the viewof Professor Davids, the similarities between the two are not tobe taken as decisive; where the similarity seems to be greatest ithas often, upon investigation, proved to be least, and vice versa.He ends his introduction with some significant words (it seemsthat somebody had drawn the same conclusion as Mr. Vivian),and this moves him to say: " The reviewer has gone on to con-clude that the parallels I had thus adduced are an unanswerableindication of the obligations of the New Testament to Budd-hism. I must ask to be allowed to enter a protest against aninference which seems to me to be against the rules of soundhistorical criticism." ,.

Let me now turn to the question: " Is Christianity' deduc-ible from the solar myths ~" Let me explain. It is believedthat our early fathers looked upon the great facts of nature;they observed, for instance, at the vernal equinox, that when thesun crossed over the line there was a revivification of all nature;that the flowers sprang up and opened out, and life seemedeverywhere to be making itself manifest; and they said: " Thisis the birth of the sun," or "This is the resurrection of the sun."Then they observed, when the sun again crossed over the linethere came on a period when darkness seemed gradually to pre-vail, and there followed a period of comparative death. There wasno more flower or fruit, the leaves dropped from the trees, andthe whole earth seemed to be at rest, and as if it had died; andfrom these early observations we are told, the race in its child-hood gradually evolved the idea of a personality of a god whodied and rose again, and that gradually this view got hold of theminds of the people, and when it had sufficiently developed, itbecame adopted into the Christian faith and centred upon theperson of Jesus. Well, it has been very clearly shown by somewriters that it is possible to turn every historical individual intoa solar myth. In the later editions of Max Muller's Compara-tive Mythology you will find an amusing essay placed at thefront of it, .in which a sarcastic writer tried to show the folly ofthe solar myth theory when carried to its furthest results. Thewriter took the life and work of Professor Muller, and turned it

50


11/23

-into a fine solar myth, and shows that there never was any MaxMuller who lived in Oxford, or who married, or taught or wrote,or anything else. His whole story was only a solar myth! Oneof the latest of these myth parodies is by an American writeron Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation of Slaves. He showsthat there never was any Abraham Lincoln, or any Emancipa-tion of Slaves. "If the emancipator had been called JohnLincoln we might have believed it, but' Abraham' is too much,and we might have thought that the Emancipation of Slavesactually occurred. " There were two races, and out of the mythi-cal views held by these two peoples there has been evolved thepersonality of Abraham Lincoln. For see" Abraham" means"Free man" or "emancipator;" but they tacked on to" Abram" the " ham" which everyone knows is a symbol ofthe coloured race. The name of his vice-president was Hanni-bal Hamlin. Here again is the rise and growth of the myth." Ham," as you see, appears in the last name; for as the Ad- .ministration was to emancipate the sons of Ham, they tacked iton to the vice-president's name, and" Hannibal"-well, thatwas a mistake of the printer, who should have printed" Ham-mibal!" But examine the myth of the rebellion. There were,according to the history, 28 States engaged in that struggle.Examination will show that in the name Abraham Lincoln thereare 14 letters, and in Hammibal Hamlin there are 14 letters,giving the exact 28 States they represented. "That shows howthe myth creator worked mathematically." "Two thousandyears hence according the mythical theory," says the writer," it will be said, ' No man of culture can believe for a momentthere ever was any Lincoln or Hamlin, or that there was anywar with the South.' " A by no means unfair parody on theboasted modern scholarship.

The easiest ana readiest explanation is the best. We neednot go hunting for an erudite and bizarre explanation of athing if there is an easy and satisfactory explanation to hand.Suppose there was a fall of snow to-night. We go down thestreet and see a line of footprints. We say, naturally, " Some-body walked down the street after the snow fell. " A mancomes along and says " No; an aeroplane came along, and aiman hung down from the basket with his hands downwardswith a pair of boots on them, and he made the tracks.' , Youwant to get the readiest and easiest explanation that will dealwith all the facts, and you do not want to go hunting roundwith Frazer, Drews and Grant Allen for some distant explana-tion that is as far away and as bizarre as that just given. Now,my belief is, and I think the evidence warrants it, that theChristianity of the New Testament never arose out of the hea-then myths, for this significant reason, that wherever it camethe old pagan religion died out before it. If Christianity had

5 1


12/23

originated-was born from-these pagan myths, whether singlyor fused together (an impossible conception), it is certain thatpaganism would not have opposed it. But paganism did; itfought against it tooth and nail, and the Christians were every-where persecuted. They were sent to their death, they wereburnt at the stake, they were sent into the arena and cast to thelions-by what 1 By the power that represented paganism,and I am sure that no religion holding to myths that had givenbirth to Christianity would ever have opposed it.The next thing-wherever Christianity went it conquered.I mean by that, that paganism died out before it.Some of our friends talk about Mithraism as though theywere familiar with it. I am not, and do not think they are, be-cause there are existent no scriptures of Mithraism, but we doknow that the cult spread over the Roman Empire, and therewas a time when it seemed as if it must remain as the strongestreligious power in the empire; but it died out, and Christianitylived on and flourished. The gods in the Roman pantheon (itis said there were 30,000 of them) became as nothing. Up theNile there, where they worshipped the Old Gods of Egypt,Osiris, Horus and Amon Ra, little churches were built, and thepeople left their idolatry and worshipped where the Christiansmet. From Gaul to the Euphrates Christian churches flour-ished, and believers came into them and paganism died, becausethere was nobody to support it. I do not believe that Chris-tianity arose out of pagan myths and at the same time was themeans of putting it to death, as I do not believe paganism wouldhave passed out of Christianity if it had been born out ofpaganism.But there is one thing that is noteworthy in this particulardiscussion, and that is that the mythologists whose works I haveread, overlook a very important matter. I have here a trans-lation from Dupuis' work on the Connection of Christianitywith Solar Worship. Concerning the birth of Jesus Christ, hesays: "He was represented as being born as all the ancientheroes were represented as being born-from a virgin." Well,I told you last Sunday that that statement is not true; ancientheroes are not said to be born of virgins, but he says the beliefreally sprang out of a solar myth.

There is a certain time of the year when the sun enters intothe constellation of the Virgin; and if you are at all imagina-tive you will be able to construct a story which is something like, the story in the New Testament. So he says: " If our theoryon the mother of Christ, or on the famous celestial Virgin whogives Him birth, is true, it follows that the celestial Virginought everywhere to represent her" (that is, the mother ofJesus. And again he says: "We have seen that this son(Christ) was born on the same day on which was born, or con-

5 2


13/23

sidered to be born, the Sun." These allusions and comparisonsmay be quite satisfactory to some of you. I have heard themreferred to, and the statements received with applause. But itseems to me that there is room for a suggestive question. Gentle-men, where does that Constellation of the Virgin come from ~Mr.J. M. Robertson, in his Christianity and Mythology, tells us thatthe story of the wise man who came to the birth of Jesus issimply a development of part of the solar myth. There arethree stars in the Belt of Orion, and these three stars representthe three wise men, and that explains the story in the Gospels.But whence comes the idea of Orion and of his belt ~ In thisbook of Dupuis', from which I have just quoted, he over andover again refers to the constellations of the heavens, and he iscontinually alluding to the Sun and its relationship to them, andhe tells us that the stories of the New Testament are simplypersonifications of these constellation figures; but he does nottell us what we want to know-whence came these figures, Her-cules, and Virgin and Cassiopeia, and the rest of them I donot want you to tell me about the solar mythical theory untilyou can explain to me about the stars figures you use, becauseyou are only assuming. On your own showing your solar myththeory is valueless without the constellation figures. I want toknow where they came from, and then possibly I shall be ableto find what relationship exists between the heathen mythologyand the study of Christianity. So now will I turn you to anexamination of that phase of the subject, and I want you tofollow me very closely.

During the week, I was told 'by some of my friends who,were here last Sunday, that I made their heads ache by the massof matter I put before them. Possibly I shall make some ofyour heads ache now; but I want you to bear with me whilst Itry to give you my reasons for rejecting altogether the idea thatChristianity sprang from heathen myths. I have for many yearsgiven my leisure time-what little I have-to the study of astro-nomical 'tnatters, more especially as they pertain to the earliestknown centuries, and I tell you candidly that I do not find thatthose who are writing about solar and other myths have closelyexamined the important things I now wish to put before you.In connection with the study of astronomy there is a very re-markable thing that seems almost to defy explanation. If youexamine star charts, atlases, or star globes, you will see that notonly are the places of the stars marked on them, but that thereis designed upon them a remarkable series of figures. Some-times they are outlined, just as I have them here on the sheet;sometimes straight lines are drawn from star to star, and youare not able to just exactly follow the figure. The noteworthything is that the astronomers of to-day would rather be withoutthem, because they do not need them-indeed, it is inconceivable

5 3


14/23

that they were ever needed for astronomical purposes-but therethey remain still, and the astronomer cannot put them away.And so we speak of a star in " Orion," or of a star in the Bull,or in some other constellation, and in using the names we arereferring all the time to certain figures that have been attachedto the stars from the earliest known history of man. Now thesefigures, if they are put upon a sheet, as I have them here, ex-hibit a very' remarkable collection of strange things. How doesit come to pass that here there should be a large number ofsnakes that seem, as Sir John Herschell says, to be " sprawlingintermins bly over the heavens." How does it happen thathere should' be a horse, here a fish, here a bull, and here bears,and a lion, and strange composite creatures 1 They are hereupon this particular picture that has come down to us from theearliest known days. Here' are men, and women, and children,and eagles, and a crow, and snakes-all apparently interwoveninextricably together, and,' we ask, " Whence do they come?"The explanation for along time had been that they came out ofthe old stories originated amongst the early Greeks, and thatthey had simply transferred the ideas and persons of thosestories and fixed them in pictured images in the heavens. Forinstance, you may read about Perseus and his conquest over theGorgon. Here upon the chart is Perseus, with Medusas head.Did it arise out of the Grecian stories? They tell you aboutHercules and his twelve labours, and they picture him wearingthe lion's skin that he tore from the Nemean lion, and they willsay that the Greeks transferred him into the heavenly sphere,and here he is. Is that so-is it ~ About the year 270 B.C.there was a Greek poet, Aratus, who wrote a poem in which heembodied the teachings of an astronomer, Eudoxus, who pre-ceded him by nearly 200 years, that poem is quoted in the NewTestament. Paul in Acts XVII says, " As certain also of yourown poets have said, ' For we also are His offspring.' " Thephrase is believed to have been taken out of the poem of Aratusand that poem shows that this particular pictured sphere as awhole was in existence in the third century before Christ, be-cause Aratus simply cites those figures and tells of the positionof the stars in them, repeating the astronomy of Eudoxus. Butit is found that the pictured sphere represents an astronomicalperiod much earlier than even the days of Eudoxus. This hasled to further research and the latest discoveries made in thesoil of old Babylonia have brought to light large numbers oftablets and boundary stones, and all sorts of objects on whichthese star figures are engraved, and Mr. Robert Brown, Jr. hasissued two remarkable volumes entitled Primitive Constellations,in which he examines these and shows conclusively that thesphere did not originate from the Greeks, but in Babylonia, inthe very earliest known times, at least three thousand years B.C.

54


15/23

in the days.when Sargon ruled. He names these figures-Hercules, known as Sarru, the Great King; the Scorpion isthere as we have it now; the Virgin as we have it now, and in-deed, nearly all the figures are named on those old Babylonianstones and tablets dug up from the soil of ancient Accadia.Now that is the first step, and when I have got so far wereach the conclusion that the old Greeks did not originatethese stories, they are not Grecian myths transferred jn pictureform to the heavens, because these figures were in existencesome three thousand years before Christ in another part of theworld. Dr. Maunder, of the Greenwich Observatory, in severalof his writings has presented a very remarkable and illuminat-ing line of evidence which contributes to this subject. Forinstance he has asked the question, " Where was this particu-lar set of figures originated? Whence did it come1" He saysyou can find out in this way. Observe that this picture bookdoes not cover all the heavens. You can note,that the centre isthe North Pole, and you can note the limit of the SouthernStars that were taken into it and included in the forms ap-pearing in the picture. Those stars only come down to about40 deg. south latitude. Therefore the people who originatedthem must have lived in a corresponding latitude north. Thatlimits enquiry at once to a certain belt of land,' say from36-40 N., where they lived. But you can go further. Youcan note the animals pictured on the sphere. Hereare bears, and serpents, a lion, scorpion, crab, and youobserve there is no camel, no elephant, no hippopotamus, notiger, nor crocodile, and you are limited almost immediately toa narrow section of the earth's surface where certain animalswere domesticated. It shuts out Egypt and India, for the ani-mals indigenous .to those lands are not pictured, and probablythe presence of the lion shuts out Europe. From his examina-tion Dr. Maunder concludes that the location where the spherewas designed is that bounded by the Black Sea on the north, theMediterranean on the south, the Caspian on the east, and theAegean on the west. He goes further, and proceeds to showwhen this picture bookwas originated. He holds that it was alldesigned at once-the interdependence of the forms shows this.It would be impossible for a man to imagine a figure and say," There is a woman, or a scorpion," and then another man at alater time to add another figure, and for the whole to be gradu-ally designed. There was a complete picture from the begin-ning, for .the figures make up a perfected whole. It is furtheragreed by Proctor and Maunder that the intention of those whoframed the particular picture was to present a religious design.That was the object from the first. The method by which wasobtained the approximate date when this particular picture wasframed is thus presented. If the declinations of the stars on

55


16/23

the outer rim of this picture are noted, that, of course, makes acircle with the South Pole at the centre. When this circle wasmeasured, it was discovered that that circle does not have thepresent South Pole directly as its centre. That is suggestivebecause it tells that when the centre of that circle was the SouthPole is a period of about 3000 years before Christ. Let me heregive a necessary explanation.There is one motion of the earth on its journey round thesun, and. it is supposed to be rotating every day; but there isanother motion which is described as being like that of a top,which, when it begins to lose its momentum, sways round slowlyin a circle. That motion of the top is said to illustrate a motionwhich the earth makes once in about twenty-six thousand years.That means that the star that was the North Pole Star 5000years ago is not the North Pole Star to-day. We are now graduallyapproximating to a true line between the axis of the earth andour present North Star, and then the earth's axis will begin topoint away from it towards another star. Now, in the light ofthat fact, the particular circle I have indicated has been mea-sured, and it is found that the centre which was the South Polein those days gives the date as about 3000 years B.C., so that thisparticular picture was framed by the early forefathers of therace 5000 years ago or more, in the particular part of the worldI have mentioned-the neighbourhood of the Euphrates Valley-and when fashioned it was intended for religious purposes.Now, those things should be helpful. They were necessarystatements before going further.Now let us look at the picture itself. I could not talk toyou easily without it, so I had it hung up for you to see. I amsorry that it is not larger. I am afraid that some of you willnot be able to distinguish all the figures .. Those who examine the sphere know that there are 12 signson the ecliptic through which the sun moves once a year. Thatis, he takes his journey once a year through these 12 signs, andwe speak of "The sun in the Ram-or in the Bull.' , You knowthe old rhyme-" The Ram, the Bull, the heavenly Twins,And next the Crab, the Lion shines,The Virgin and the Scales;

The Scorpion, Archer and Sea Goat,The man that carries the Water-pot,And Fish with glittering tails."But in connection with those 12 main signs are three othersattendant upon them. These are called Decans.All the signs are interdependent, and a remarkable thingis that a closer examination shows that they lie in the picture inthree groups, with four main signs to each group. Each mainsign having three attendant signs, thus there are 48 figures in

5 6


17/23

all. Let me now invite attention to one of these groups. Istart at the picture of a woman who from earliest known timeshas been known by the title of " Virgin, Latin " Virgo," Greek" Parthenos," Hebrew " Bethulah." And it is said that thisis the earliest known allegorical representation of a pure woman.You may look in the heavens in vain to see her, but she is thereaccording to the imagination of the early fathers. In her righthand she holds a branch, in the left an ear of corn, which is bythe Latins called " Spica." Its name, according to the Arabs,is "AI Zimach." It is the old Hebrew word " Tsemecli,"meaning " a branch." The first decan, or companion sign, isa woman sitting and holding a child. All through the old-timestory, in Egypt and elsewhere, she is always represented as avirgin with a child, and the name of the child, " Coma," is saidto be from an old Hebrew word which signifies" desired." Thesecond decan is the " Centaur," half man and half horse, abeing of two natures. So we are following from the Virgin, toa Virgin with a child, and thence to a being of two natures.The Hebrew name of the Centaur is " Bezeh," or " Despised,"represented by the ancient Greeks as " Cheiron," who was awise teacher who sought to benefit humanity, and was slainwhen so engaged. He holds a spear directed to the heart of thevictim. The last constellation of this first group is the Har-vester, who is going forth with his sickle to reap. He willgather his wheat into his garner, and will burn up the chaff withun quenchable fire. Let me repeat this outline :-AVirgin witha branch; a woman (a virgin) with a child, whojs of twonatures, who is despised, and who is slain, and who eventuallybecomes the great Harvester.

Next in order is the picture of the Scales, a huge pair ofbalances, lying across the path of the Ecliptic. What does thatsignify? Look at the star names. In one the star " Zuben alGenubi," which signifies " the price deficient." In the other" Zuben al Shemali" -" the price that covers." What is theprice that covers? I pass down to the first decan and I findthe Cross-the Southern Cross in our sky. That is the pricethat covers. From that I go to the victim who is falling asdead, and from the Victim I pass to the next decan, which is the" Crown." From the Cross to the Crown. He who suffereddeath for man's sin is now become the possessor by divine graceof the Crown. He who tasted death for every man has the rightto wear the Crown over humanity to the honour and glory ofGod.

I pass now to the Scorpion, and I want you to observe thatevery figure in this group is represented as in conflict. ThisScorpion is reaching up to lay hold upon the balances. His tailis turned up to strike at the foot of the Serpent holder. Thefirst decan is a long, writhing Serpent, wrapped up inextricably

57


18/23

IM

with the figure of a man. The Serpent has its head lifted inorder to attain to the crown, but the Serpent holder in the nextdecan is struggling to prevent it from reaching the Crown. Thenext is a similar figure, Hercules, who holds in his left hand theapples from the Garden of Hesperides, and in his right a club.His foot is placed upon the head of the great Dragon, who windshis scaly folds about the path of the ecliptic. One great seriesof figures-the Scorpion with his tail uplifted to wound the footof Ophiuchus-Ophiuchus with his foot pressed upon the headof the Scorpion, and the idea is repeated by Hercules, whopresses his foot upon the head of the Dragon.I now pass to the figure of the Archer, who is a repetitionof the Centaur, but he, instead of being, as the former, despised,is a conqueror-he has an arrow directed towards the heart 'ofthe Scorpion. The string of the bow is drawn to its full ten-sion to his shoulder. The first decan from him carries us to thefigure of " Lyra," the constellation of a harp,' which is borneupwards on the neck of an eagle, and the name of its chief star,Vega, means " Praise." Thus, from the conquest by the Archerwe proceed to Praise, and thence to an Altar which burns witha flame downwards, which is provided for destruction, and fromthat we leap upward to view the great Dragon. From which-ever way you look, the attitude of the great Dragon is that it isfalling, and falling downwards towards the Altar below.

I have given you but one division of this wonderful picturebook, but is there not thus far clearly outlined that whichwe have read-more fully developed, more fuHy declared-inhistoric fact in the New Testament? Here upon the heavens3000 years before Christ-5000 years ago-were supposed to bepictured these figures. And the world's grey fathers, as theyimagined them, nailed them to the heavens by the glitteringstars, for their descendants to look upon and thus to rememberthe great truths handed down. Before writing came into being,these pictures were conceived and handed on, and the men' ofthose early days believed that they read in them the predestinedplan of God for man's salvation. Here is a wonderful thing.The figures have come down to us without change of anyimportance. .'In Egypt, in Mexico, in India the Sphere is found, and evenin South Africa, before the Boer War, some men were prospect-ing and came upon a hidden cave, and discovered a woodenbowl, and on the rim of that bowl were inscribed the main signsof the Zodiac. They have been known to the world's greyfathers from the earliest days. What do they mean ~ Yourwriters who deal with the myths, who speak so glibly of Perseusand Hercules, who talk of solar myths in the constellations andtheir relation to Jesus Christ, let them tell us whence came thesefigures which they employ, and then we can better deal, with

58


19/23

the solar myth theory. If I study them I seem to see that thosemen of the olden time had great truths taught them, and inorder that they might impress them upon their own minds andthe minds of their descendants, they imagined these signs, andthen used them as memory helps. As I speak to you now theconstellation of the Scorpion is climbing overhead. Who firstimagined that figure with uplifted tail ready to strike and withits great claws outstretched towards the Balance? You maygaze into the heavens and not see it, or anyone of these figures.They were imagined there, and when they saw those glitteringpoints of light thus associated, they were reminded of theglorious purposes of God originally made known. You knowthe 19th Psalm :-

" The heavens declare the glory of GodAnd the firmament sheweth His handywork.Day unto day uttereth speech,And night unto night sheweth knowledge.There 'is no speech nor language,Their voice cannot be heard.Their line is gone out through all the earthAnd their words to the end of the world."

There is no sound, no voice, no utterance; yet their wordshave gone to the ends of the earth. The heavens, then, arespeaking of the glory of God. It is said that means the glory ofGod in creation. But glory, His glory, takes in creation andredemption too, and those antediluvian fathers knew the mainpurposes of redemption" and, not to forget them, they put theminto picture form. And here is the document in which the storyof Life and of Kingdom glories, from its beginning to its close,is told. Can you otherwise explain it? Can anybody ? . Canany of these " mythical" gentlemen tell us about this matter ~When they write or talk, my mind comes back to this old-timepicture, and I ask, " Whence came it ~" Your heathen myths,of which so much is now made, are but broken and distortedforms of the original truths set forth in this. In. the passageof the centuries they have become defaced and worn, and havebeen changed from their true primitive teaching.

No! Christianity never came out of thcse defaced memo-ries, but is fastened by the indissoluble links of actual historicalfulfilment to this picture which the old-time men' fancied theysaw in the heavens, and which has been handed on to posterityas the finest heirloom they could bestow.

I think I have said enough; perhaps I have talked too long,but I have had so much to put in that I must be forgiven if Ihave trespassed upon your patience. Let me say that if thesethings are as I have now sketched, then remember we. havecome to one of the most remarkable manifestations of Divinegrace and wisdom that are possible for the human mind to con-

5 9


20/23

ceive. Paul, speaking to the people at Lystra, said: " God hathnot left Himself without a witness," and this testimony sup-ports him. Men early departed from the truth they had; theyleft the revelation of God, and wandered in darkness, and, asthey have done with all good gifts, defaced and degraded itfrom its original meaning, and this picture testifies againstthem. But now we have the Book of God with its story ofJesus Christ, and when we put that side by side with this wesee that the two fit together like the two parts of a tally stone.In the light of this investigation, we can be certain that Chris-tianity is not indebted to heathen myths, for they are but thefaint and marred remembrances of the great original revelation.Under the stress of these modern attacks upon the faith, I urgeyou to

" Wait, nor against the half-learned lesson fret,Nor chide at old belief, as if it erred;Because thou canst not reconcile as yetThe Worker and the Word."

QUESTIONS.Question: You would infer that the Antediluvians had an

inspiration from God to know the things which came to pass inthe days of Christianity ~Answer: No. I do not so limit it because the main teach-

ings which are contained in this chart are common, not only toChristianity, but to Judaism and to the original wide-world'known relationship of man to God as the creature to the Creator,so that when I speak of the parallels I refer to those truthswhich are not special to Christianity at the present time, butare common to that form of religious teaching, given at firstby God for the development of His purposes in redemption.

Qttestion: You stated that the animals depicted on thesheet could never have been depicted unless they had been seenby the early fathers. Were there any animals known like someof those on the sheet, as the centaurs ~

Answe1': No, I don't think so; but t.here are places on earthwhere men are known and where horses are known.

Q1testion: Was ever the Southern Cross visible from theMediterranean Sea ?

Answer : Yes. I spoke just now about the precession of theEquinoxes. When the star Thuban, in the Dragon, was thePole Star, the upper part of the Cross was visible, but let mesay that it is not given upon the earliest known chart-the Gre-

60


21/23

cian chart ~hat is kn~wn to us to-day-but eminent writers yearsago have included It, although not visible in their latitudes.About the time when ,Jesus Christ is said to have been crucifiedthe upper stars of the Southern Cross were visible at Jerusalem'but by the precession of the Equinoxes they have fallen out ofsight in those latitudes.

[The matter is important enough for me to subjoin the following:-Humboldt's Cosmos says: " The Southern Cross began to become invisiblein 52deg. 3Im.. north latitudo 2,900 before our era." At the time ofClaudius Ptolemaeus the beautiful star at the base of the Cross had stillan altitude of 6deg. 10m. at its meridian passage at Alexandria. "-G.A.]Q1lestion: Is is not a fact that closing of the eyes in prayer

has been handed down by the sun-worshippers-?Answer: I cannot tell you. I don't know; but it is a very

good thing, in order that you may have your attention drawnaside from everything else but the subject on which you areengaged.

Q1testion: The lecturer said that because the critics do notagree in their criticism, therefore he could not accept theircriticism.

Answer: Excuse me. What I said was that they do notagree as regarding the origin of myths.

Question: Yousaid you could not accept them because theycould not agree. If you do not accept the theory as to theorigin of myths, because the critics do not agree, why shouldwe accept Christianity, seeing that the people i n the Church donot agree?

Answer: I do not accept any part of the New Testamentbecause somebody else accepts it. In all my preaching I alwayssay, " Do not believe because I say it," and the advice I give Itake for myself and I do not believe anybody on Christianmatters because' they say it. I have a Bible of my own. I donot depend upon others, and if my conclusions do not agree withtheirs I cannot help it. I can only follow where the exact lan-guage of the Bible leads me, and I am sure I cannot, go wrongif I follow it. If I follow human opinions I will land myself ina swamp somewhere.

Question: Are there not a great many contradictions in theBible?

Answer: I would not like to say, right off, because I do notknow what you mean. A great many of the thi~gs which aresaid to be contradictions are not, .and those which appear tostand as contradictions are absolutely unimportant. They do

61


22/23

not affect a single doctrine in the Bible,' fT.mu.the. beginning tothe end. .ti 1 )91 .' _ .

. Q'l.lestion: There are 237 contradictjon.Pi~' {li~.Acts and i'nthe Pauline Epistles.. If the. Bible is divinely w~itten, why dothey exist?

Did you count those yourself ?I did not. . ,.How do you know they are there'-1 _Because Professor Harnaek points them out. He says that

in the Acts of the Apostles there are 23.7 contradictions.I do not believe it.Iam here to prove it:Start right away.Professor Harnack says there are 237.I do not care if Professor Harnack says there are 5,237, if

he does not prove it to my satisfaction. Are you referring' toHarnack's book Luke, the Physician? .Iam.Then I will take the Bible to show that Professor Harnack

brings forward things which are not contradictions, and. he doesso because he does not know the purpose of the Bible.

Will you say you are a better Hebrew and Greek scholarthan Harnack ?' .My dear friend, I am not a Hebrew scholar, I am not aGreek scholar, nor 'am I an English scholar: but when I say that

Professor Harnaek does not know the great purpose of theBible, I say that which I am perfectly well able to prove. .

[Note.-I did not remember that Harnack made such a statement.The book was used in a former lecture, but was not available when thelquestion was asked. An examination afterwards failed to find the state-ment made by the questioner.-G.A,]

Q1te~tion: You said that Rationalism was rampant at the be-ginning and also is going out, but was not heard tell of in themiddle. centuries ?

Answer: I do not remember saying that. .What I said Wasthat the same kind of objections were raised in the early cen-turies tha are now being' brought. They were brought byCelsus, Porphyry, and by the Jew' 'I'ripho, precisely similar tothose of the present.

Q1testion: Why did Rationalism die out in the middlecenturies?

Answer: If "it died out, I suppose they thought it was notgood enough. I am not bound to explain these things. Idonot want to know how Rationalism arose and how it died out. Iknow something of the history of Rationalism, but I am not par-

'62 .


23/23

ticularly interested in such questions. 1 the men of those dayschanged their opinions, it was because of powerful influences.For instance, into that England of ours in the 5th century andbefore, there came those stalwart men from the North lands,who populated large parts of England, and brought with themtheir gods Woden, and 'I'hor, and Baldur the Beautiful. Oneday there came into the court of Edwin of Northumbria a wan-dering monk, and he talked of a man who had been put to deathon a cross in Palestine, and who arose from the dead, and thoserough men who had worshipped gods, brave, stalwart like them-selves, listened while he told them of the Christ Child. One ofthem said: ' , We are like men sitting in the hall, and outside isthe darkness. A sparrow flits in at the window, crosses theroom, and goes out on the opposite side. So is our life. Itcomes in from the darkness, it goes out in the darkness. Ifthere is one who can tell us something of the beyond, then Ithink we should listen." And they did listen, and the godsWoden and Thor and Baldur the Beautiful faded out of the kenand worship of those forefathers of ours, and they took in theChrist from over the seas, and said: ' , We will have Him forour Leader and Guide, and we will render to Him our wor-ship;" and let me say that their honest, self-respecting choiceof the Christ of God (without pressure, not at the spear pointor the edge of the sword) to be their Saviour and Guide, has, asit seems to me, become the root whence came the strong clingingof our English folk to that story which is told in the Gospels.

6 3

is christianity indebted to heathen mythology?

Documents