TRIAL AND SO-CALLED "CRUCIFIXION"-ROMAN MODE OF GIBBETING-HELENA'S PILGRIMAGE TO JERUSALEM IN SEARCH OF NAILS-EXAMINATION OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVE-NO SUCH PLACE AS GOLGOTHA-THE GOSPEL OF PETER-MORE INSPIRED CONTRADICTIONS —UNNATURAL DARKNESS-ZODIACAL ORIGIN OF THE "CRUCIFIXION " LEGEND.

THE idea of redemption from sin by the sufferings and death of a divine incarnate Saviour was common among the ancients thousands of years before the time of Jesus, and was the crowning-point of the idea entertained by primitive man that the gods required a sacrifice from him to atone for sin or to avert calamity. The gods are represented in the Rig Veda sacrificing to Purushna. The same old story of the solar crucified god is to be traced as the basis of the legendary lives of all the saviours of mankindBacchus (identical with the Phoenician Ies and the Greek Dionysos), "the only begotten son " of Jupiter and Semele, "the sin-bearer," "redeemer," etc.; Hercules, son of Zeus; Apollo; Serapis; Mithras, of ancient Persia, called "The Logos"; Zoroaster; Hermes, etc. Attys was "the only begotten son and saviour" of the Phrygians, represented as a man nailed and sometimes tied to a tree or stake, at the foot of which was a lamb. Tammuz, or Adonis, the Syrian and Jewish Adonai, was another virgin-born god, who "suffered for mankind," as a "crucified saviour." Krishna, whose history so closely resembles that of the

Christian Jesus, came upon earth to "redeem mankind by his sufferings," and was "crucified." He is represented hanging on a cross to which he is transfixed by an arrow; and, again, with marks of nail-holes in feet and hands, and a hole in the side. In one of the representations of him. the emblem of a heart hangs from his shirtwhich reminds us of the Catholic devotion of the "Sacred Heart" - and on his head a yoni-linga. The plate shows Krishna attached to a yoni-linga.

Osiris and Horus were crucified as "saviours and "redeemers "; the sufferings, death, and

resurrection of Osiris forming the great mystery of the Egyptian religion. Prometheus, of Greece, was with chains nailed to the rocks on Mount Caucasus, "with arms extended," as a saviour; and the tragedy of the crucifixion was acted in Athens 500 years before the Christian era. The "incarnate god" and suffering saviour," Buddha, expired at the foot of the cross. Crucifixes displaying the god Indra are to be seen at the corners of the roads in Thibet.

66

The cross in connection with the gibbeting of Jesus was not known in the early ages of Christianism. The Greek word rendered "cross" in the N. T. ought to be rendered upright beam or gibbet. The idea of the cross as a Christian symbol originated with Constantine, as we have seen, who connected the emblem of the Roman crucified sun-god and the old phallic emblem, with the Christian Saviour of his newly-adopted religion; but it was not till after the Council of Constantinople (707) that the cross came into actual use as a Christian emblem.

ROMAN MODE OF GIBBETING.

There were two modes of hanging criminals adopted by the Romans, in both of which the criminal was bound with cords, and not nailed, as is commonly supposed. The nailed crucifixions are of Buddhist origin, and this shows where the Christian story has come from. In the general mode of gibbetingthe simpler of the twothe culprit was bound to an upright post or tree; in the other he was bound to two beams, as shown in the lower of the two plates, the arms being

Of

219

twisted backwards, behind the cross-beam. Notwithstanding this, Helena, the mother of Constantine, three centuries afterwards, made a journey from Rome to Jerusalem, to find the cross of Jesus, and the nails with which he was attached. course, she found them, as anyone else would, provided they were ready to pay the price. If the Matthew writer had lived, his prophetic ingenuity would no doubt have enabled him to find a passage in the O. T. predicting this pious excursion Helena's and her miraculous discovery.

of

Hanging on a tree or stake

The gibbet

punishment for malefactors in primitive times. was frequently called "the accursed tree." "He that is hanged on a tree is accursed of God" (Deut. xxi. 22 and Gal. iii. 13). If an artificial gibbet were made, it was T-shaped, but yet called "a tree." The expression is frequently used in the Roman Missal.

It is not improbable that the Talmud account is true, and that the man Joshua-ben-Pandera, called Jesus, was tried for sedition, convicted according to the Roman law, and gibbeted by the Roman soldiers in the usual manner, though Basilides (110-160) tells us that Simon of Cyrene was hung in his stead. It is also probable that he was cut down during the night, and taken away by friends, thus escaping the slow death by starvation and exposure usually resulting from this mode of execution. It is with no very great difficulty that we picture him, in those ignorant and credulous days, being laid in a tomb as dead, but only in a swooning or cataleptic condition, from which he subsequently recovered; after rising from the tomb being seen by some of his followers; and eventually disappearing into some quiet spot, where he may have ended his days unobserved, having received a shock sufficient to cure him of any further aspirations to Messiahship.

66

There is every reason to suppose that the story of the crucifixion, as given in the N. T., was an invention of the second century, inserted for the purpose of making Jesus a Saviour," like other Messiahs, and of giving a divine aspect to the gibbeting of a common malefactor. The statement that he was released by the Roman government, flogged, and handed over to the Jews, was a fabrication, for the purpose of making certain records of current events in the Hebrew Scriptures appear as prophecies, and in order to present him before the public as a valid Messiah, and not as a criminal. This view is corroborated by the discrepancies and contradictions to be found in the different Gospel accounts, and by the silence of contemporary history.

We will now examine the Gospel narrative. We are told that on the first day of the Feast of the Passover, and at night, Jesus was arrested, and brought before the Jewish. "Sanhedrim." Now, according to the "Mishna," no court of justice was permitted to sit on a Sabbath, a holiday, or a feast day, and not even on the day preceding such, or at night. The Feast of the Passover was the most sacred feast of the year, and, according to Exodus (xii. 16), was a “holy convocation," when "no manner of work was allowed to be done." Whoever the writer of this was, he was not a Jew, or he would hardly have written such nonsense. It was evidently inserted in order to fulfil a spurious

prophecy which the bibliomancer had at hand. We are then told that “false witnesses" were brought against him, and that Pilate "knew that for envy they had delivered him up" (Matt. xxxii. 11-14). Why should false witnesses be brought against a man concerning whom there was already ample evidence to convict? We have already seen him guilty of riotous conduct, disturbing law and order, blasphemy, etc. Did he not forbid to give tribute to Cæsar, and exorcise devils out of a poor lunatic, sending them into a herd of swine (about two hundred), who all rushed into the sea and were drowned? Supposing that such an absurd legend were true, by such a reckless action alone he rendered himself liable to be hung, for the punishment for robbery was hanging; and his action with regard to these pigs --for it is highly probable that he had not the means of paying for even one pig-amounted to robbery. Did he not boast that he was able to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days (the mystic and zodiacal three), and that he was the "Christ," and a "King" (Luke xxiii. 2), etc. each of which assertions was clear blasphemy, and was punishable by stoning to death? So that it is difficult to see where the extraordinary premonition of Pilate came in-that he knew that it was for envy they had delivered this culprit over to the law.

We are told, too, that his use of the word "temple" was allegorical, and that he was alluding to his body; but the John writer says "in secret spake he nothing," though nearly all his teaching was allegorical, and explained in secret to his disciples only. Both statements cannot be Which are we to believe? And, if he taught nothing in secret, why did he not point out to the Jews that by temple he meant his body?

true.

We are told that, when Pilate asked for the charge against the prisoner, the Jews answered: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him unto thee." Just imagine such a senseless answer being given when the charge against the prisoner was asked for by the magistrate, leaving out of consideration such an insolent answer from Jews, whom Pilate hated, and had in his power to punish. When Jesus was asked if he were the king of the Jews," he is said by "Matthew" and "Mark to have replied, "Thou sayest" (or "I am"), which was untrue; Pilate