Legend
Jesus, and the Records of his Time
Sir,—In a pamphlet published by Dr. Peebles, entitled Christ the Corner Stone of Spiritualism, I find the following reference to myself:—
“Unlike many uncultured Spiritualists, Gerald Massey, the poet and the scholar, said, in his music-hall lecture, Boston, January 18th:—‘The question of the real personal existence of the man is settled for me by the references to Jesus in the Talmud, where we learn that he was with his teacher, Rabbi Joshua, in Egypt; and that he wrote a manuscript there which he brought into Palestine. This manuscript was well known to the rabbis, and I doubt not it contained the kernel of his teachings, fragments of which have floated down to us in the Gospels.’”
’Tis true that I made the statement, and now am desirous of withdrawing it as publicly as possible.
The truth is, that, like too many others, I took too much for granted. I could find no extraneous proofs of any other Jesus, and, therefore, accepted this one as better than none at all. I found that Epiphanius —who was vitally concerned to know the truth, and who wrote “against heresies” at the end of the fourth century, gave this as the genealogy of Jesus:—
The pedigree is from Panther, or Panthera, the father of Ben-Perachia’s pupil. Epiphanius then knew of no other person. Since that time I have put the facts together for myself. Very briefly they are these. The Jesus of the Talmud was the pupil of Jehoshua, son of Perachia, a Hebrew teacher, well known to history, who began to teach about 3606 (year of the world), or b.c. 154. This Kabbi was one of the Sanhedrim in the reign of Alexander Jannseus, who was King of the Jews b.c. 106. About this time there was a religious revolt, and some 50,000 Jews were put to death; others fled. It is known that Ben-Perachia sought safety with his pupil in Egypt. It is related in the Babylonish Gemara (Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 107, and Sota, fol. 47) that during the persecution of the Rabbis by King Alexander Jannaeus, Jehoshua, the son of Perachia, fled into Egypt, taking with him his pupil, Jesus, who was the son of Panthera, and that they both went to Alexandria, and were initiated into the Egyptian mysteries, or, as it was said, they became magicians: that is, magii.
I calculate from the data that Ben-Panthera was born about 120, and died about 70 b.c., at the age assigned to Jesus by Irenaeus, who affirms that “those who were conversant with John in Asia” to whom John himself “conveyed the information;” and “all the Elders” testified that Jesus was teaching from his fortieth to his fiftieth year of age.†
Here again it is Ben-Panthera to nothing, and he lived and died a incentury before the time assigned to the Jesus of the Evangelists, whose age ranges from thirty to thirty-three years.
Jesus, the son of Panthera, was born of Stada, not Mary. He went into Egypt, and on his return was charged with being a heretic and a sorcerer. He was tried as a magician and perverter of the Jews, and condemned to death. On the eve of the Passover he was stoned to death, and the body was hung on the “accursed tree,” outside the city of Lud or Lydda. ‡ This was the Jesus known as the “magician” to the Jew of Celsus. The Jews know nothing of any other.
Now the Apologists have of late years come to the conclusion that one era is wrongly dated by some four years. But if Jesus Ben-Panthera be the Jesus of the Gospels, then we are a whole century out of our reckoning. The only bridge across this chasm has been made by the assumption that the Jews, on their side of it, did wilfully fuse the two Jesuses into one, and the Christians did the same thing ignorantly. Epiphanius certainly identified the one with the other, and I was misled by the common custom of fusing and confusing the two together. But no Jewish tradition declares, and some of the most learned authorities have always denied their identity. Rabbi Jechiels, in his discussion with the convert Nicolas, says that which is related in the Talmud of Jesus and the Rabbi Joshua, son of Perachia, contains no reference to him whom Christians honour as a God, and he shows how irreconcilable are the dates, these being in themselves sufficient to prove that Ben-Pantbera was not the Christian Jesus, of whom the Jews had no knowledge whatever, except such as in later times they gathered from the Gospels. This is well witnessed by Origen, who tells the Jews and taunts them with the fact that they know nothing of Jesus of Nazareth except what they learned from the Christians. This is the exact echo of what they assert, so that the evidence is doubled. The Mishna was compiled by the Sea of Galilee, at Tiberias, on the spot—the very scene of the miracles and teachings; various Rabbins lived at the time whose words were written down in the Mishna, yet there is an absolute and utter silence respecting Jesus of Nazareth, His works, His words, His personal existence are as unknown to the Jewish Rabbins of the Mishna as they were to Philo. Therefore, the “question of the real personal existence of the man” is no longer settled for me by the references to Jesus in the Talmud. I now know that Jesus Ben-Panthera can no longer be fused and confused with him “whom Christians honour as a God.”
In passing, it would be interesting to ascertain from those mediums who are so familiar with Jesus, which it is who communicates with them? Is it Ben-Panthera, or was he ever known by the, name of Khunsu-Nefer-Hept? I am asking this seriously, as I have been struck with one or two things in the reports of mediumistic doings.
For example, it was lately announced that some “Oriental” (useful word that) control or materialisation gave the name of “Ahi.” And this was the special name of the Egyptian Messiah Horus, who was “Ahi,” the supporter and sustainer of his father—“Ahi” is Egyptian for “the supporter;” and, from the description, I thought it possible some spirit (elementary or not) had put in an Egyptian appearance! The writer spoke of some peculiar figures. In all cases these should be noted down. This is the resurrection day of Egypt, and, according to our theories, there is likely to be a response from the other side. I feared, however, to mention this lest a very thin partition might be perforated and a deluge let in. We don’t want the Past to be had for the asking. Another case:—The name given by one of Dr. Monck’s manifestations is the Mahoudi. This is Egyptian; it may have gone into Arabic, but is curiously Egyptian under the circumstances. The Egyptian, however, has no “d,” but with the “t” “ti ” is the plural terminal of Mahaut, and the Mahauti mean a clan, a company—as a group of courtiers or a family clan. Dr. Monck’s “Mahauti” appears to include a whole clan. Another instance occurs in the case of David Duguid’s hieroglyphs. Many of these are real. I don’t think any Egyptologist would make out a message, but this is the point. He is said to have formed them as fast as ordinary letters, which I should be unable to do with a lifetime of practice. So that my question may not be so remote as it seems.
It is but fair I should intimate to the “elementaries” that the means of proof, however little known and unexpected, are still extant on our side, how dumb Egypt has recovered its lost voice again.
Lastly. I do not suppose that The Spiritualist, or Spiritualism, penetrates far amongst the Hebrews. Yet we never know who is secretly listening, and I want to get at a good Talmudic Hebraist, and also at a pamphlet written by the Rabbi Salman Zevi,§ in which he went into the subject of the “Two Jesuses,” and furnished “Ten Reasons” why the Jesus of the Talmud was not the Jesus of the Gospels, who was claimed by the Christians as their God, and by the Gnostics as their Horus¶ Can any one help me?
[We do not intend to open these pages to any theological controversy, so writers on the other side of this interesting question are requested to confine themselves, as Mr. Massey has done, to alleged historical facts alone.— Ed.]
* Adv. Hoer. Lib. 3; Hoer. 68, 7.
† Irenaeus Against Heresies, B. 2, ch. Xxii. 5.)
‡ Bab Gemava to the Mishna of Tract. Sabbath, fol. 67, ib., fol. 104.
§ Eisenmenger: Neuentdektes Judenthum. Konigsberg, 1711. Vol. i., 231-7.
¶ Irenaeus Against Heresies.
Spiritualism in Hull
Sir,— I arrived here from Glasgow, after a tedious ride. My first inquiry, as soon as I had a chance of looking around, was naturally, were there any Spiritualists in Hull? and if so, where did they hide themselves from public gaze?
The first step in this direction was to go to the principal stationers in the town, to order The Spiritualist and Medium'' to be supplied to me during my stay. From the proprietor I ascertained that he supplied to order some forty of these papers to persons whom he supposed were Spiritualists, but he was not aware of any organised movement in the town.
Several attempts have been made at organisation in Hull, and in every instance have failed. Public speakers have been invited, but little or no good resulted from their presence, so far as can be ascertained. The expenses fell upon private individuals but ill-prepared to sustain the burthen.
Dr. Seaton was invited to aid the cause with his oratory and presence, and he cordially responded. The town was placarded, the lectures well advertised, but, notwithstanding all these efforts, the attendance at the lectures was meagre in the extreme, so much so that the last was delivered to a small audience of ten persons. But now the good doctor has ceased to lecture to, but occasionally at, Spiritualists, the result, as far as attendance is concerned, is much more pleasing. It is just seven weeks ago since that talented orator preached here in a Primitive Methodist Chapel, and hundreds were turned away from the door.
There are four circles in Hull. A “school” is held every Wednesday night, at Mr. Bland’s, 2, Caroline-street. The “school” is the only public form of meeting held here; strangers are invited to be present; members can bring friends; every member is a “teacher”; the subject of Spiritualism is discussed, and becomes “Christian,” “Progressive,” or “Scientific,” according to the standpoint of each “teacher.”
Mr. Bland has also a library of some forty volumes, which will make a handsome nucleus of a library, in the event of the formation of a society, which is contemplated. I may mention that Mr. Bland kindly gives up the use of his parlours for the use of the Spiritualists and their friends free of charge.
There are, I believe, two seances held weekly at a Mr. Parsons’, on Tuesdays and Fridays, to which strangers are admitted, when properly introduced. Every Sunday night a seance is held at Mr. Bland’s. On Sunday night last there were thirty-two persons present, too large a number to hold the usual seance, especially as the greater proportion were strangers. Mr. Bland occupied the evening with a pleasing lecture on his early experiences connected with Spiritualism; some of these experiences were very interesting, dating back some twenty-six years. He said, in the course of his lecture, that when his attention was called to “table-turning,” he thought he would see what could be done in that way himself, so he invited to his house a number of friends; some twenty-six people were present to witness the first experiment. The table used was a round-topped, three-legged, kitchen table. Six persons sat at the table, and the rest stood around anxiously watching for something to turn up—and something did—the table turned up: yes, it moved, and moved with a vengeance. All were astonished: it was very wonderful.
But table-turning soon lost its attractions, after learned men ex-<... continues on page 8-19 >
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 291, March 22, 1878, p. 142