"THE PRE-CHRISTIAN JESUS."

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 45, 22 February 1908, Page 13

"THE PRE-CHRISTIAN JESUS."

Mr. John Gammell, 8.A., of this city, author of more than one contribution to Biblical criticism, ha? published a pamphlet entitled "Tho New Testament Problem Solved, or Professor W. B. Smith on 'The Pre-Christian Jesus.' " Tho tract is substanoially the same as an address delivered by the author one Sunday evening a few weeks ago before the Unitarian Society of Wellington, and is an abstract, with comments, of the theory ot' a New Orleans university professor bf mathematics, which that gentleman has written in English but published only in German. Mr. Gammell is careful to say that neither the Unitarian body nor any part of it is to be identified with the theory; that "the book is a paradox in more than its title ;" that Professor Schmiedel, who has supplied the preface to the book, dissents entirely from the author's conclusions. Briefly, Professor Smith denies that there was ever an historic Christ or Jpsus. "Jesous ho Nazoraios" is not Jesus of Nazareth, but Jesus Nozri — Protector or Saviour. This is suggested m the Encyclopedia Biblica, but when Mr. Gammell first read it five years ago— "No," I said, "that is carlying scepticism too far; 1 refuse to admit that." But while not accepting it as established, he is now inclined to favour the view. Professor Smith boldly declares that there was no Nazareth in the time of Jesus. This, however, is easier asserted than proved. He holds that the namo of Chiist was used in exorcism before the Christian era. Some have endeavoured to derive Christianity from the ascetic Essen^s ; Professor Smith finds its oi'gin more probablo in the obscure Gnostic sect of the Naassenes, of whom we know little or nothing, save from an old papyrus used by exorcists. Mr. Gammell says he would almost have identified Christ with the Demiurge of Gnosticism had ho not already found him to be "the Adam Kadmon, or original Man, of the Jewish Platonists of Alexandria. " To our mind it needs a robust faith to harmonise so many theories. It would requiro a special stereoscope to make a single figure of the Smithian Oriental, and Grecian originals, and if they are accepted, "Adam Kadmon" must go. Is it not a little misleading io set forth Professor Smith's latest hypothesis — which takes so very much for granted — us "Tho New Testament Problem Solved?"