Название: The Christ Myth
Автор: Drews Arthur
Издательство: Public Domain
Жанр: Зарубежная классика
isbn:
isbn:
50
51
“Enc. Bibl.,” art. “Nazareth.”
52
“Since ha-nosrîm was a very usual term for guardians or protectors, it follows that when the term or its Greek equivalent hoi Nazoraioi was used the adoption of its well-known meaning was unavoidable. Even if the name was really derived from the village of Nazareth, no one would have thought of it. Every one would have unavoidably struck at once upon the current meaning. If a class of persons was called protectors, every one would understand that as meaning that they protected something. No one would hit upon it to derive their name from an otherwise unknown village named Protection” (Smith,
53
Cf. in this connection Smith,
54
Cf. Cumont,
55
Matt. ii. 25.
56
Zech. iii. 10.
57
Jeremias,
58
Robertson, “A Short History of Christianity,” 1902, 9
59
Gunkel,
60
61
Cf. Robertson,
62
Mark v. 27; Luke xxiv. 19; Acts xviii. 25, xxviii. 31.
63
Luke ix. 49, x. 17; Acts iii. 16; James v. 14
64
Cf. on whole subject Robertson,
65
Ch. vii. 29.
66
Isa. iii.
67
Ch. xii. 10
68
Ch. viii. 14.
69
70
Frazer, “The Golden Bough,” 1900, ii. 196
71
Frazer, “Adonis, Attis, Osiris,” 1908, 128
72
“The Golden Bough,” i., iii. 20
73
Verse 14.
74
75
1 Gen. xv. 17.
76
Ghillany,
77
J. M. Robertson, “Pagan Christs,” 140–148. It cannot be sufficiently insisted upon that it was only under Persian influence that Jahwe was separated from the Gods of the other Semitic races, from Baal, Melkart, Moloch, Chemosh, &c., with whom hitherto he had been almost completely identified; also that it was only through being worked upon by Hellenistic civilisation that he became that “unique” God, of whom we usually think on hearing the name. The idea of a special religious position of the Jewish people, the expression of which was Jahwe, above all belongs to those myths of religious history which one repeats to another without thought, but which science should finally put out of the way.
78
“Golden Bough,” iii. 138–146.
79
Movers,
80
VI. 47
81
Cf. Gunkel, “Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit,” 1895. 309
82
Ch. viii. 15. Cf. also vi. 8, 9.
83
“Abhandlungen d. Kgl. Ges. d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,” xxxiv.
84
Cf. also P. Wendland, “Ztschr. Hermes,” xxxiii., 1898, 175
85
In the same way the Phrygian Attis, whose name characterises him as himself the “father,” was also honoured as the “son,” beloved and spouse of Cybele, the mother Goddess. He thus varied between a Father God, the high King of Heaven, and the divine Son of that God.
86
Frazer,
87
Keim, “Geschichte Jesu,” 1873, 331 note.
88
Ghillany,
89
90
2 Sam. xxi. 9; cf. Lev. xxiii. 10–14.
91
“Hist.,” xviii. 7.
92
2 Kings iii. 27.
93
“Hist. Nat.,” xxxiv. 4, § 26.
94
Mentioned in Eusebius, “Praeparatio Evangelica,” i. 10. Cf. Movers,
95
“Der Mythus bei den Hebräern,” 1876, 109–113.
96
Cf. Ghillany,
97
Numb. xx. 22
98
Deut. xviii. 15.
99
Cf. Heb. v.
100
Diodorus Siculus, ii. 44.
101
Justin, “Dial. cum Tryphone,” cap. xc.
102
Schürer,
103
See above, page 40
104
Cf. Eisenmenger,
105
106
107
Kautzsch, “Pseudoepigraphen,” 500.
108
Winckler,