« The Return of the Seventies | Main | Easter »

Good Friday

21 Mar 2008 02:39 pm

EcceHomo.jpg

From The Everlasting Man:

In this story of Good Friday it is the best things in the world that are at their worst. That is what really shows us the world at its worst. It was, for instance, the priests of a true monotheism and the soldiers of an international civilization. Rome, the legend, founded upon fallen Troy and triumphant over fallen Carthage, had stood for a heroism which was the nearest that any pagan ever came to chivalry ... But in the lightning flash of this incident, we see great Rome, the imperial republic, going downward under her Lucretian doom. Scepticism has eaten away even the confident sanity of the conquerors of the world. He who is enthroned to say what is justice can only ask, 'What is truth?' So in that drama which decided the whole fate of antiquity, one of the central figures is fixed in what seems the reverse of his true role. Rome was almost another name for responsibility. Yet he stands forever as a sort of rocking statue of the irresponsible. Man could do no more. Even the practical had become the impracticable. Standing between the pillars of his own judgment-seat, a Roman had washed his hands of the world.

There too were the priests of that pure and original truth that was behind all the mythologies like the sky behind the clouds. It was the most important truth in the world; and even that could not save the world. Perhaps there is something overpowering in pure personal theism; like seeing the sun and moon and sky come together to form one staring face. Perhaps the truth is too tremendous when not broken by some intermediaries divine or human; perhaps it is merely too pure and far away.

Anyhow it could not save the world; it could not even convert the world. There were philosophers who held it in its highest and noblest form; but they not only could not convert the world, but they never tried. You could no more fight the jungle of popular mythology with a private opinion than you could clear away a forest with a pocket-knife. The Jewish priests had guarded it jealously in the good and the bad sense. They had kept it as a gigantic secret. As savage heroes might have kept the sun in a box, they kept the Everlasting in the tabernacle. They were proud that they alone could look upon the blinding sun of a single deity; and they did not know that they had themselves gone blind.

... And as it was with these powers that were good, or at least had once been good, so it was with the element which was perhaps the best, or which Christ himself seems certainly to have felt as the best. The poor to whom he preached the good news, the common people who heard him gladly, the populace that had made so many popular heroes and demigods in the old pagan world showed also the weaknesses that were dissolving the world. They suffered the evils often seen in the mob of the city, and especially the mob of the capital, during the decline of a society. The same thing that makes the rural population live on tradition makes the urban population live on rumor. just as its myths at the best had been irrational, so its likes and dislikes are easily changed by baseless assertion that is arbitrary without being authoritative ...

Some brigand or other was artificially turned into a picturesque and popular figure and run as a kind of candidate against Christ. In all this we recognize the urban population that we know, with its newspaper scares and scoops. But there was present in this ancient population an evil more peculiar to the ancient world. We have noted it already as the neglect of the individual, even of the individual voting the condemnation and still more of the individual condemned. It was the soul of the hive; a heathen thing. The cry of this spirit also was heard in that hour, "It is well that one man die for the people!" Yet this spirit in antiquity of devotion to the city and to the state had so been in itself and in its time a noble spirit. It had its poets and its martyrs; men still to be honored forever. It was failing through its weakness in not seeing the separate soul of a man, the shrine of all mysticism; but it was only failing as everything else was failing. The mob went along with the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the philosophers and the moralists. It went along with the imperial magistrates and the sacred priests, the scribes and the soldiers, that the one universal human spirit might suffer a universal condemnation; that there might be one deep, unanimous chorus of approval and harmony when Man was rejected of men.

Share This

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/20157

Comments (20)

St. Luke said it even better than Chesterton:


[33] And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
[34] Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
[35] And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
[36] And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,
[37] And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
[38] And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
[39] And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
[40] But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
[41] And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
[42] And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
[43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Ross,

Thank you for this post. And I thank you, Hector, for the addition.

It was the soul of the hive; a heathen thing.

Bravo, Chesterton. Exactly what we're up against with the radical Islamists and socialists. The individual is attempted to be swallowed in the all. Requiscat in pace Bill Buckley who said as much in God and Man at Yale,?i.

Peter, not to be unkind, but really -- aren't there more important things going on here, for Chesterton, and for us, than anything to do with radical Islamists and socialists? Good Friday is final and real; these things are ephemeral.

(for us, for Chesterton, and for Bill Buckley too)

Jesus is coming. Look busy.

The reasons why are important. The Sadducees and Pharisees were too concerned that he would upset
their ties to Rome. The other part of the mob,
the Sicari, thought he wasn't radical enough; offering a spiritual message, when they thought
a call to revolution was the only solution. We
know how well that approach worked with Bar Kochba
& Masada.

Marquis, I apologize for smuggling a mere political theme into this relgious discussion.

Yet, Chesterton in the Everlasting Man quote that Ross gives us does say that an individual man, Christ, was sacrificed according to the spirit of the heathen world for the sake of the collective populace, just as much modern mischief is achieved according to the spirit of the hive.

Well, as astoundingly bad prose goes, that passage takes some beating. Longwinded, intellectually dishonest and historically inaccurate. Sorry, but the glib rhetoric school of Christianity never has offered anything for serious thinkers.

The rest of the chapter that Ross quotes is also worth reading. I don't agree with everything Chesterton says, but in this chapter he is at his best (rhetorically, too, pace Voltaire).

Chesterton argues that the Passion narratives are unique, and have no parallels in any branch of literature. Which is true. If they are fictions, then they are fictions that surpass, by a long way, anything that the mind of man has been able to conceive before or since. One would have reason to believe that the fact that no other work of literature has been able to match the Gospels is because they aren't actually literature at all, they are history.

Moreover, he points out that equally unique is the figure of Jesus. No other religious leader- not Zoroaster, Muhammed, the Buddha, or the Hindu sages- claimed to be of one nature with God. The kind of people who claim to be divine are generally either kings, or charismatic political leaders, or megalomaniacs, or lunatics. But Jesus was assuredly none of the above. His combination of extreme meekness and humility with the most shocking metaphysical claims- to be God, no less- makes it very difficult to know what to make of Him, without accepting the premise that He was, in fact, who He said He was. As Chesterton says, a great man knows he isn't God, and the greater he is the better he knows it. Jesus, on the other hand, claimed he was God, and was assuredly a great man. The logical supposition is that he was not an imposter at all- that he was, in fact, God.

Hector, it might be simpler to suppose that Jesus as we know him is essentially a fiction, and that all Chesterton does in this passage is review a piece of popular fiction on a par with the usual offerings from gurus and their deluded followers. Furthermore, your claims about "being of one nature" do not derive from the words of Jesus - they are a much later theological formulation.

Salsa,

Ah, but that's the point. If the Gospels are like fictions, then they share nothing in common with other fiction. They don't really have predecessors, successors, or anything contemporaneous that compares. They 'read' very differently from other sacred texts or mythological writings- in a very stripped down, matter-of-fact style that we associate more with a historian's or reporter's account. This is nowhere more the case than in the Passion narratives. If they are fictions then how come that there is no other work of fiction in human history is at all similar?

And you appear to have missed the point in that the other 'gurus and their deluded followers' (by which i assume you mean Plato, Zoroaster, the Buddha, and men of that mold) were in no way similar to Jesus in their combining a humble nature with a claim to divinity.

Actually, narratives of suffering and redemption are not terribly unusual. As for their "different style", it's more likely that the authors just weren't very literate in Greek. Added to which, even if they were different, that, per se, proves nothing. It's fair to say that they do share a number of themes and stylistic points with a variety of Jewish religious texts. There is some borrowing from Greek thought (for example the infamous logos passage at the opening of John), and, in general, these stories are not really that different from the vast bulk of koine Greek writing. Sorry, but these are not unique texts in any real way. They tell a nice story, but hardly one that is unique, except to the believer and those who simply have not looked at the background.

There are things unusual with the Gospels. The sympathy shown toward the lower classes, the disabled, and a belief in loving your enemy are extremely rare or non-existent in most antiquity. The Greek, Roman, Chinese etc works I've tried are usually clear that

*Enemies might be respected, but love or sympathy is not a good idea.
*Those born disabled should preferrably die. (The Chinese had a more sympathetic view to the blind and the Stoics are a bit different too, but generally infanticide of impaired children was encouraged in the pre-Christian world)
*The poor are subservient and foolish beings, good treatment of them is mostly to avoid rebellion. (This is more true of classical civilization in the West than in Buddhism, Jainism, Moism, Taoism or Judaism)

These ideas were ingrained in pre-Christian culture enough they still largely survive albeit in altered forms. Abortion of the congenitally disabled is widespread. The poor are still often seen as basically fools who don't do what they should hence "What's the Matter with Kansas?", white-trash stereotypes, "welfare-queen" rhetoric, etc. And anyone, including Popes, who talks of loving or forgiving enemies of "insert your nation here" is generally labeled a crackpot.

Still the ideas are out there and I don't find them much in a pre-Christian or non-Christian context. Well exempting some forms of Buddhism and Jainism. Even then Buddhism is more about serenity than love and the congenitally disabled can be viewed as afflicted for immorality in past lives. Christopher Hitchens is quite clear in saying that loving or forgiving your enemies is an unjust and stupidly Christian idea he's not burdened with. Eugenics and Euthanasia has traditionally been more acceptable to non-Christians. A genuine concern for the poor does seem to exist outside of Christianity though.

Thomas R.,

Good summary. Just out of curiosity, what's your assessment of the moral codes of pre-Islamic (Zoroastrian/Magian) Persia. I'm curious because I've just started reading (for fun) some of the Persian religious texts. While obviously there is a great deal of difference in the underlying metaphysics, I have heard it said that the Jewish and Zoroastrain religions may have influenced each other somewhat during the period of the first Jewish Exile.

I used to have an Avesta site bookmarked or some such, but that's been some time.

Zoroastrianism is one of the more admirable pre-Christian religions, but I do seem to recall it having some unusual views of women. However it's not something I was ever as conversant in as I desired.

Yeah...it's interesting that it seems like the Zoroastrians one of the only non-Jewish religion that isn't abominated in the Bible (well perhaps the pagan Greeks are spoken of somewhat favorably in the Book of Acts). Viz. the somewhat sympathetic portrayal of Persians such as Cyrus the Great, Darius the Mede, Ahasuerus and of course the Magi.

In the case of the Old Testament this is partly, or largely, because the Persians were usually more religiously tolerant of Jews than the Greeks or Babylonians. They had some intolerant moments, mostly in a revivalist period in 3rd-4th c. AD, but generally it's true.

ualobg qfzn nghepwo volqxyjz dwcje ehum getihfzl

Cool site. Thanks.

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.