Edwin Landseer Lutyen

A painting depicting the collected works of Sir Edwin Lutyen, by Carl Lauben. It features all of Lutyen's major works, including, prominent in the centre, the unbuilt masterpiece the Liverpool Cathedral. 

There is possibly no other city on earth that can be said to be the product of a single creative mind to the same extent as New Delhi - the creation of Edwin Landseer Lutyen. He is often described as the greatest British architect of the modern era by those not infected by the democratic evils of modernism; he had a profound impact upon the building of the new capital of British India, New Delhi, throughout an extended period in the 1920s and 30s.

For a range of reasons, the British had found it prudent to move the capital of the Raj from Calcutta in 1911. They then set about constructing an entire new city among the previous six incarnations of the city of Delhi on the Jamuna River, and the task of designing it along with its grand imperial architecture fell to Lutyen. New Delhi today - where this author has recently arrived, his third visit - is still often referred to as "Lutyen's Delhi" and - leaving aside the appalling pollution and the even more appalling degradations of commerce, visual pollution on an epic scale - still largely conforms to Lutyen's grand vision. There is a large area of wide avenues and colonial buildings - deliberately contrasting to the tangled laneways of the old city - where nearly everything, from the broad sweep of the urban plan to the street lights, were designed by Sir Edwin "Ned" Lutyen. 

It is unfortunate that most of his grandest buildings in Delhi are now occupied by the various arms of the government of the Indian Republic, and so for security reasons are closed to the public. The great Viceroy's Residence, the 'Rashtrapati Bhavan' - now the residence of the President of India - and its vast formal gardens (designed by Lutyen), are only open to the public for several days in a year. Other nearby structures are occupied by the Indian Ministry of Defense and are permanently out of reach. When the author visited this area in recent days even the famous India Gate - a memorial the Britishers constructed to honour the Indian soldiers who had fought and died for the Empire in the Great War - was closed to public access with all approach roads manned by teams of heavily armed soldiers at road blocks. (You can stop and take photographs for two minutes and are then moved along.) 

It is difficult, therefore, to obtain a full appreciation of Sir Edwin's vision of the city in its totality, and especially difficult to obtain a proper sense of his genius for interior design. For, as well as grand architecture, Lutyen also designed furnishings, lighting and the other trappings of interiors, all the way down to the vegetable racks in the kitchens. His art and his vision was comprehensive and marked by a complete attention to detail. He was a style in and of himself. 

Happily, Lutyen's work is characterised by his rejection of modernism and his embrace of the classical. He is a shining light of sobriety and mathematical integrity in an age of dreadful buildings. His later buildings have a strongly neo-Romanesque solidity - a heaviness of the walls, small windows, domes, round arches. His work falls into two phases, the second of them entailing a detailed exploration of classical (Graceo-Roman, and especially Roman) themes. He devoted his life to the rediscovery of the classic. He loved the purity of the classical order and classical proportions. "When they are right," he wrote, "they are curiously lovely and unalterable like a plant form." Accordingly, modernist critics hated him. He defied the age of the "masses and the machine." Many older books on modern architecture routinely sneer at his work and wrongly dismiss it as "historical pastiche". 

It is an undeniably Imperial architecture that we find in Lutyen's Delhi. In the main structures he chose to build in the local red sandstone, the same stone from which the earlier monuments of the city, especially in its Moghul incarnation, are built - the Jama Masjid, the Red Fort, and so on - and this provides a strong sense of continuity and belonging - and yet in other respects his buildings speak of the British Empire's conscious sense of a reprise of Roman Imperial strength. Lutyen avoids the pointed arch and most other oriental motifs; his buildings are strongly and adamantly occidental: austerity, power, solidity, weight, permanence, endurance, immovability, masculinity. There is some irony in this. His buildings are about the eternal British Empire and of India's enduring place in the British dominions, the jewel in the British crown. 

Some of the author's photographs (on a day of heavy pollution):

* * *

LUTYEN & HEMINGWAY

Lutyen was a great punster with a warm wit. There are many wonderful stories about him. One of the best is as follows:

He was once employed by Ernest Hemingway to build a house in Hemingway's ancestral home of Ilkley, Yorkshire. When accompanying Hemingway around the unfinished building, Lutyen gestured to the place where a black marble staircase would be. Hemingway protested. "I don't want a black marble staircase!" he said. "I want an oak staircase!" Lutyen looked over his round eyeglasses and said, "What a pity." When the house was completed, however, there - sure enough - was a black marble staircase. Hemingway protested again. "I said I didn't want a black marble staircase!" he said. "I know," said Lutyen,"and I said, 'What a pity.'" 

* * * 

Below is a representative selection of some of the furniture designed by Lutyen. We can see, especially, his love of the circle (along with, by extension, the octagon) as the basic unit of classical (especially Roman) forms. 

Yours

Harper McAlpine Black

Kavanagh of Lucknow

Mr. Kavanagh, a clerk, volunteered last night to go out to Alum Bagh with plans and despatches from Sir James Outram; he disguised himself as a native, and reached the place safely. It was a splendid feat of gallantry and a most invaluable service. All the garrison were much delighted to hear that a flag had been hoisted at Alum Bagh, the signal of his having arrived.

- from The Seige of Lucknow, the diaries of Lady Julia Inglis

There were many instances of gallantry and heroics during the siege of Lucknow in 1857. The context, as is well-known, was the mutiny of Indian – largely Mahometan, but also Hindoo – troops against the Britishers, which led to a widespread uprising during which a compound of British citizens – soldiers, their wives and children - in the so-called ‘Residency’ in Lucknow were stranded and held under siege by a murderous mob for over eighteen months. Their situation was harrowing. Large numbers were killed, either by gunfire and artillery or by hunger and disease. They were surrounded on all sides and their enemy was literally tunneling underneath them. If the walls of the compound had been breached, everyone would certainly have been slaughtered. During this terrible ordeal many of the British, but also those Indian troops (Sepoys) who had remained staunch, and especially the Sikhs who stayed loyal throughout, displayed extraordinary bravery, as did those who endeavored to rescue them.

There are numerous accounts of the siege – it is one of the great dramas of British India. The best account by far is found in the diaries of Lady Julia Inglis, the wife of the officer Brigadier Inglis. She was present in the Residency compound, survived the ordeal and lived to publish her story in England many years later. The present writer was in Lucknow recently and visited the ruins of the Residency and read the diaries of Lady Inglis – vivid and detailed – during his visit. 

Modern Indian mythology knows the mutiny as the ‘First War of Independence’, but it was hardly that. The mutineers were unorganized. The rebellion descended into chaos. Mobs ransacked and looted throughout Lucknow and other cities, and there was no nationalist element to the violence – the rebels in Delhi were intent on re-establishing the Mughul Sultanate, not founding an independent Indian state. Certainly, the uprising was provoked by the gross mismanagement of the East India Company – although the spark that ignited it, as Lady Inglis notes, was a rumor that the British had laced the artillery of the new Enfield rifles with pig fat in order to deliberately offend and violate the Mahometans. 

It is clear, though, that the heroes of the day were the stoic British who displayed remarkable courage, nobility and chivalry in the face of swarming barbarity. The siege and the relief of Lucknow are great moments of British civilization. The British, let it be said (contrary to the popular post-colonial narratives of our benighted times), were one of the last people to maintain a cultivated chivalry, and the siege and relief of Lucknow represent compelling instances of it. If anyone doubts this, they should read the diaries of Lady Inglis, which can be found here. Dignity, nobility, courage, honesty, magnanimity, honour, integrity, virtue, decency, fearlessness, patience, valour, hardihood, strength, good humour - in the most appallingly dire and hopeless circumstances. 

The Relief of Lucknow

* * * 

The most unlikely hero of the siege was a wild Irishman by the name of Thomas Kavanagh. His exact origins are uncertain. He was possibly born in India, but in any case he certainly grew up there and so was fluent in Hindi and well-acquainted with local customs. He was one of that wayward class of British citizens who were not connected to the East India Company or the British government and so had no legitimate place in India – “uncovenented” as such people were called. He was a malcontent with a dull job in a clerical office and, by his own account, a wife and family that gave him no satisfaction in life. He was, in truth, an undistinguished character, a ratbag. When the Mutiny broke out in early 1857 he made his way to the Residency compound for shelter, as did other British citizens in fear of their lives (it being unclear what fate befell his family.) It was during the most desperate days of the siege, however, that he rose to the occasion and won himself a place in history.

At a certain point during the darkest days of the siege information reached the Residency that a relief force had managed to force its way to the outskirts of Lucknow, but there was no way to confirm this. Kavanagh then approached Major Outram, the officer in charge, and volunteered to attempt to reach the relief party, if indeed there was one. His proposal was that he disguise himself as a native and, along with his fluency in Hindi and knowledge of Hindoo and Mahometan ways, pass through the enemy lines. It was a mad plan. But it was the only plan they had. In a famous scene, therefore, Major Outram himself – much to the mirth of the other officers present - applied black boot polish to Mr. Kavanagh and helped him wrap a turban about his head. Kavanagh, readers must appreciate, was over six foot tall and had a shock of ginger Irish hair. He made a very unconvincing Indian. 

Nevertheless, he set off in the middle of the night, accompanied by a loyal Sepoy, and armed only with a pistol and two bullets. His journey that night is the stuff of legend. He was stopped several times by hostile forces and even, at one juncture, taken captive and interrogated. Remarkably, he convinced his captors that he was a Hindoo man returning to Lucknow from far away. Then, he became lost, had to swim across the Goomptee River holding his clothes above his head, ended in a swamp where he nearly drowned, until finally, by sheer accident, he stumbled into a camp of British soldiers under the leadership of Sir Colin Campbell at a place called Alum Bagh. This was the relief party of which Major Outram had received unconfirmed information. Kavanagh had managed to get through. It was a decisive moment. He carried dispatches from Major Outram and with these the relief party was able to assess the situation and plan a rescue for those stranded in the Residency. Kavanagh saved the day. 

Kavanagh of Lucknow

Later, Thomas Kavanagh was given a Victoria Cross for bravery – the first non-military person to ever receive that honor. But this honor aside, in the years that followed he returned to his clerical job and undistinguished life, finally leaving India and travelling to Gibraltar where he died and is buried.

* * * 

The author had the good fortune to spend a long warm morning exploring the ruins of the Residency in Lucknow recently. As Indian historical ruins are concerned, they are very well preserved - haunted by the ghosts of those who died during or endured the horrors of the Mutiny. Indeed, it should be said that the Residency is very tastefully presented with due respect to those who died there and without the imposition of Indian nationalist sentiment upon events. The Residency covers many acres and includes numerous buildings, most of them exactly as they were after the Mutiny. The church of St. Mary has been reduced to its foundations, but the cemetery at its side is well cared for. The mosque which was on the grounds of the Residency and which the British respected throughout the seige is not only still standing but is still occupied and in use. Some photographs follow:

Yours truly,

Harper McAlpine Black

The Labyrinth in Lucknow

While Benares, where the author has been for the last month, is a resoundingly Hindoo city, Lucknow, further to the north, is the premiere city of Shia Mahometans in India. The author journeyed there over the New Year. It was once the capital of the great fiefdom of the Nawab of Ood and has a distinctive culture celebrated for its fine manners and genteel ambience. Today, of course, it is a sprawling Indian mess but much of the old city, marked by various medieval gates, is still intact. In particular, the central mosques and the great centre of Shi'ite learning - the Imambara (theological college) - is especially well-preserved and an inspiring complex of architecture that is quite different to that of the (Sunni) Moghuls. The Nawabs of Ood were cultured and benevolent, if indulgent, men and embarked upon vast building projects, reputedly as a means of providing work for their hungry citizens during lean times. 

View from the roof of the Imambara

The truly unique feature of the Imambara (the big one, not the smaller complex further down the road, also called 'Imambara'), and reason enough to visit there, is in the ceiling of its main hall. The architect, Khifayatullah, has seen fit to build an elborate labyrinth (more correctly, it's a maze) into the upper levels of the building, supposedly to thwart would-be intruders. It is said that only he and the Nawab knew the path through it. Today it is open to the public, and the author spent several hours of a warm winter afternoon - New Year's Day - stumbling around in the tangle of halls and corridors and stairways that constitute the 'Bhul Bhulaiya' as it is known. 

During the daytime it is not impossibly difficult to navigate, since one can follow the light and keep taking paths back to the outside of the building, but during the night it would be diabolical. Many corridors lead to dead ends, but others lead to precipitous drops. As it is, the author found himself completely lost within a few turns and on several occasions had to return to the roof of the building to re-orient himself. As a labyrinth it is certainly effective and mysterious, even if on Friday afternoons - after the communal prayer, which is when the author was there - it is crowded with groups of teenagers squealing and giggling at the thrill of being lost. 

The following are some of the author's pictures of the labyrinth and should give readers a sense of the structure. There are, they say, some 500 doorways in the complex. The labyrinth works by offering stairwells up or down at strategic places. If you take the stairs up when you should have taken them down, you're lost. 

Ithyphallic Shiva - poster boy

Benares is replete with Shiva linga. The lingam of Shiva is everywhere in the city of Shiva. Pilgrims come in their thousands from throughout India to make pooja (prayers and offerings) at one or more of the lingam shrines, most notably at the Golden Temple, which is one of the twelve great lingams on the pilgrim circuit for devout Hindoos. 

The extraordinary thing about the Shiva lingam is that, while the symbol is essentially and quite obviously a stylized phallus (usually united with a yoni, the stylized female part), this fact is not at all obvious to the average Shaivite devotee. In fact, most Hindoos are taken aback and scandalized by the realisation that Europeans (and other non-Hindoos) see the lingam as a phallus and therefore see devotions to the lingam as a form of phallic worship. 

The fact that the lingam is phallic shaped does not even occur to the Hindoo, or if it does it does so via many filters of meaning and symbolism that remove it from any crudely sexual content. It is a remarkable phenomenon. Hindoo women may devote themselves to massaging the lingam of Shiva with lashings of cream and ghee, but it is only to outsiders that this seems like a blatently erotic act. The Hindoos theselves do not see it. Instead, for them, the symbol is encoded in a rich bed of mythology that mutes its phallic significance. For the Hindoo it is much more the 'pillar of light' of Shaivite cosmogony than an erect phallus (being gripped by a yoni.) The difference in what the tourist (outsider) sees in the temples of Benares and what the pilgrim Hindoo (participant) sees is truly striking. The Hindoo is genuinely offended if you remark upon the erotic nature of the lingam and yoni as symbols. He sees it, but he doesn't. And he resents having it pointed out. 

Even the ithyphallic iconography of Lord Shiva is filtered from its blatent meaning in the Hindoo mind. Shiva will be shown fully erect, with his erect phallus absolutely upright. The outsider sees the erect phallus as a signal to sexual action. He concludes that sexual potency is an attribute of Shiva. For the Hindoo, however, the ithyphallic Shiva signifies exactly the opposite to a liscentious deity. In the Hindoo view this iconography symbolizes Lord Shiva's complete yogic control over his sexual appetites. The phallus is erect, but intact, and his seed unspilled. It may seem paradoxical to the non-Hindoo, but here the Hindoo sees an erect phallus as a symbol of sexual continence and self-control. 

* * * 

The iconography of Lord Shiva is far more extensive. While there is an abundance of aniconic linga throughout Benares, other presentations of Shiva's iconography are less common. The most vivid representations to be found are in the souvenir stores that dot the crowded laneways near the Golden Temple. There, pilgrims stock up on objects of Shaivite devotionalism or "All your pooja supplies!" as the storefronts promise. These feature large full-colour wall posters of the god in all his glory, often surrounded by his family. Shiva kitsch - much loved by the Hindoo. Below are some of the posters available. Notes on the icongraphy will follow.  

Shiva and the Holy Family. 

The closed eye in the centre of Lord Shiva's forehead. Shiva as destroyer. When this eye opens, the cosmos will be destroyed. Shiva as consciousness - when the universe is destroyed, the destroyer still remains. Shiva is the consciousness that remains after the whole of creation has ended. 

The cobra around Lord Shiva's neck. The cobra is tame. Shiva has conquered his appetites and passions. He wears his passions as a necklace. 

The twin drum. Duality. 

Shiva is typically shown dressed as a mendicant and seated meditating. In one hand, the prayer beads. Perpetual mantra. 

The crescent moon. Shiva as god of time. 

The three lines of ash on the forehead - the three worlds (through which the axis of light extends). 

Yours,

Harper McAlpine Black

Discussions on the Jesus Myth Theory

BEING DISCUSSIONS ON THE THEORY THAT 

THE FIGURE OF JESUS IS NOT HISTORICAL BUT MYTHIC

Question: Why have you been involved in historical studies of early Christianity?

Answer: I lectured in Biblical Studies. It was in a secular university. But I was fortunate, because it was part of a broader Religious Studies program. So I could place those Biblical studies - historical, as you say, in a broader discussion. I could place them beside, contrast them to, religious perspectives. 

Question: You appeared in a video clip, which is on Youtube, with many thousands of views, in which you support the theory that Jesus was just a myth…

Answer: Years ago. Yes. It was a favor to a friend, to appear in his video and talk about it. It is an old clip now.

Question: But is it still your view? Or has your view changed?

Answer: It hasn’t changed, but at the same time that video only offers a fragment, a cross section, of my views on what is a complex issue. Like all snapshots it misrepresents. I try to offer nuanced views on that video, but it does not really come across.

Question: But you still support the theory that Jesus was a myth?

Answer: Considered as an historical question, I tend to take that view. Or rather, you might say I am firmly of that view. But there is much more to be said about it. We shouldn’t say that Jesus was “just” a myth. There is no “just” about it. But – to put it negatively – I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure. So the stories about him are essentially myths. It is a theory that has gained some traction in recent years - although not much in academia - and I happen to think - independently - that it best answers the evidence. But I could be wrong.

Question: So, you think there might have been an historical Jesus. Is that what you’re saying?

Answer: I’m saying that the polarity myth/history is a problem in itself. That is what I would like to be saying. Especially when dealing with religion. And certain religions in particular. As a historical matter, I think there might have been an historical Jesus, but I doubt it, and I don’t think there needs to have been in order to explain the historical record. Clearly, what we have in the record is a case of a myth being made into history. Not the other way around. Even if, somewhere, there was an historical germ: it was still largely a myth that was made into history. Not the other way around.

Question: Which is how it has usually been understood, yes?

Answer: Yes. It has always been assumed that there was an historical Jesus. And that over the course of time this historical kernel was amplified by mythology. This is an especially Protestant construction. There was the historical Jesus, but then the Church embroidered the whole thing with theology and myths. So the assumption has been that if we strip away the myths we will arrive at an authentic historical Jesus. It is a deeply Protestant project. But I think it is mistaken in its most basic assumption, its premise. Namely, there was an historical Jesus to start with.

Question: But Catholic historians share that assumption, don’t they?

Answer: They do. Of course. Because – and this is what makes it complex – it is not just a matter of history with which we are concerned here. It is a matter of dogma. The historicity of Christ is a dogma. And it is shared by all Christians, Catholic, Protestant, otherwise. It is a matter of the creeds. God became an historical man. Christianity is about a divine intervention into history. So – in any normative sense – Christians cannot think otherwise. It is a problem.

Question: What makes it a problem?

Answer: The problem is that historical research – godless, secular research – points to the conclusion that Christ was not a historical figure. Or he need not have been, anyway.

Question: Which is a controversial conclusion, isn’t it?

Answer: It is. Among Biblical scholars, it is definitely a minority view. It is regarded as a radical position. And widely rejected. In general, though, it is a controversial view because the historicity of Christ is a Christian dogma. And because even non-Christians share it as an assumption. It is only recently that a body of scholars and researchers, professional and amateur, have raised the serious possibility that Christ may not have been an historical figure. It is a shocking conclusion. It undermines the whole basis of Christianity – or at least, Christianity as an historical religion. For some people, though, that is a positive outcome. It is a theory promoted in anti-Christian circles. Anti-christian polemic. I am not attracted to it, as a theory, for any such reason. On the contrary.

Question: What do you mean?

Answer: I mean, I am not a vexatious researcher. Not an activist academic on an anti-religious crusade. I have only looked at it from a purely historical point of view. Other people – other proponents of the mythicist position – are atheists, or anti-Christian liberals. They have issues with Christianity. They set out to damage Christianity. I am not interested in that at all. I’m not an atheist and I’m not anti-Christian. But I do happen to conclude that, on the evidence, it is most likely that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth is mythic rather than historical. I might be wrong about that, but on the evidence I think it is the case.

Question: But other scholars – or most scholars – would say that the evidence confirms an historical Jesus, yes?

Answer: Yes. I think – it is arguable – that the evidence is best explained by assuming that the figure of Jesus is essentially mythic. Although, you know, finally I have to say I am agnostic about it, and I think everyone should be. Because we are discussing a local event 2000+ years ago in what was effectively a war zone. So what can we know for sure? I read the evidence one way. But it is, by the nature of things, impossible to be sure. That will always be the case. So we should always be prepared to change our views. I have a firm view, but I’m always prepared to change my views, because I could be wrong. Although dogma - Christian dogma - complicates even that. Christian dogma, Christian metaphysics, depends upon the Incarnation. It's a Christological issue. 

Question: Did your study of the problem of the historical Jesus fit comfortably with your other work and studies?

Answer: Not always. In Biblical Studies I determined to study the most extremely opposing possible positions. Ultra-traditional and ultra-radical. Personally, I saw it as a type of mental yoga. Stretching. On the other hand, my doctoral thesis concerned Plato's story of Atlantis. In that context I was always engaged with problems of myth and history, muthos and logos. It is an exactly related problem. I adopt Plato's rationalism, but also his play. Is Christianity the Noble Lie? I say that as a genuine question, from a Platonic platform, not as a swipe at Christianity.

Question: Not being anti-Christian. Is that one of the ways your views have changed?

Answer: No. No. I’ve never been anti-Christian. Although I have been, and still am, anti historical religion. I don’t subscribe to historical religion, in general. But that doesn’t mean I am anti-Christian, as such, except in as much as Christianity has a strong emphasis on historicity. But I do not have an anti-Christian agenda, whereas many people who propose the Jesus-as-myth theory do. They have a grievance with Christianity – usually in an American context – and they see the Jesus-as-myth theory as a way of damaging Christianity. I have never been party to that. Although, you know, we live in an era of deconstruction. We're not building anything. We are taking things apart. In my case, it is reluctant. 

Question: But your support for a Jesus-as-myth interpretation helps that causes, doesn’t it?

Answer: It does. Which is unfortunate. I regret that. I regret that holding that position – a historical position – gives succor to atheists and God-haters. The Jesus-as-myth community of scholars and researchers is populated by such people. Largely, I don’t have anything to do with them. I am intolerant of atheists. I’m not an atheist, and I think it is lame to conclude from an historical argument about Jesus of Nazareth that there is no God. That is another issue. As it happens, on the evidence, I think the Jesus story is essentially mythic. It is unfortunate that this grates against normative Christianity, and I regret the fact that it might undermine the faith of some people. Because, for some people, some Christians, their faith is built on an historical Jesus. I regret that my views on that topic might erode their faith, which I take to be sincere and honest. I respect religious faith. I have much less respect for skeptics and skepticism and especially activist atheism.

Question: You regret the impact of the theory, but you still subscribe to it?

Answer: As an historical problem, yes. I studied this problem for fifteen or more years, but it was in a secular context. I taught Biblical Studies in a secular context. I always respected the fact it was a secular context. And I saw it as part of my duty to learn the secular sciences, secular history. It was never my job to preach apologetics. I studied the historical problem, Was there a Jesus of Nazareth? I concluded that the figure we meet in the New Testament is most likely a mythical character and not historical. That is my honest estimation of the evidence.

Question: What evidence?

Answer: There is not much of it. There is a finite amount of textual and archeological evidence. You look over the evidence and then come to your conclusion. My conclusion is that the Jesus story was originally mythological, but it has been fixed to a history, made historical. That is a much better explanation of the facts than having it the other way around, namely that it was a history that became mythicized. It is one or the other. I cannot escape the conclusion that it was first myth and was then historicized.

Question: By whom? And why?

Answer: The short answer to that question must be – by the Romans. Why is a more complex question, but in part it must have been a deliberate creation – an outcome, in part, of Roman propaganda wars with Jewish rebels in the Jewish wars. This claim needs to be carefully argued, of course, but I think it is basically correct. In any case, it means that Christianity was – from the outset – inextricably Roman. I am led, in this regard, to very Catholic positions, in some ways.

Question: How? What do you mean?

Answer: The Protestant position is that Jesus the Galilean – his religion, his cult – was taken over by the Romans. You had a Judean/Galilean history and then it was hijacked by the Romans and thus the Roman Church. That is the Protestant position. My view is that Christianity was Roman from its inception. The Church was first. And first it was guardian of a mythology, and then this mythology was made into a history. It was made to fit into a history. By Romans. The Church is really a continuation of certain aspects of the Roman civil service – but that’s another matter. I don’t care to argue the details of it here.

Question: No? Why not?

Answer: Because we are discussing its implications, not the theory itself. Of course, it is a theory and only a theory. It might be wrong. I’m reasonably confident it is right. It is the best explanation of the evidence. It is historically cogent. But this is a very problematic fact for Christians, of course, because it is impossible for Christians to accept a merely mythic Jesus. There is the doctrine of the Incarnation. It is a dogma. It is theologically indispensable. Christians will rightly resist the theory with everything they have. They must. Although it is perhaps not as difficult for Catholics – and Orthodox – as for Protestants. Those whose faith is based in history, in the idea that Christianity is historical, will have greatest trouble accommodating such a theory.

Question: But I don’t see how Christianity could be the outcome of ‘Roman propaganda’ as you put it.

Answer: I don’t put it exactly like that. No. Christianity is the product of a mighty battle, a collision of civilizations, the acute focus of which were the Jewish Wars. These were terrible, epoch-making events. It was not a casual exercise by some Roman propagandist. I am not suggesting that. But the New Testament is Roman literature, all the same. And the image of Jesus as the peaceful Jew – the antithesis of the Jewish militant – is a Roman construction. It is all based around historical events, of course. Especially the destruction of the Temple. And there may be a germ of history in the person of Jesus. But the core is the Logos doctrine. It is largely taken from Philo Judaeus. And then in the gospels it becomes history. Especially the Gospel of Luke. You can see how it is historicized. It was myth first, history later. 

Question: A clash of civilisations?

Answer: Yes. We ned to expand the context, our view of the context. Think of the Trojan War. Europe clashes with Asia. And think of how that conflict created a type of cultural overflow in myth and literature. Think of its place in Western civilization. The inception of Christianity is the same. Second Temple Judaism. It is an historical watershed. It gives birth to Christianity. Somehow. It is a mysterious process. It gives birth to Christian sanctity. It is the same clash, really. Europe clashes with Asia. We can say what we like about the grubby facts of history but somehow, out of those ancient events, Christian sanctity was born. I believe in Christian sanctity. Christianity is a sacred religion. Christian sanctity is a reality. It is mysterious how such a sacred thing can be born from the sordid processes of human history. I might hold certain views about history, but I am still mystified.

Question: Surely the Romans were anti-Christian?

Yes. And there is a very obvious and dramatic way in which Christianity is anti-Roman. I am very aware of it. The Crucifixion. Surely the lesson of the crucifixion is that Roman power is impotent. You can take a man and torture him and crucify him, but Christ has a moral victory over Roman brutality. That is the great lesson of the Crucifixion. In an obvious way, this is anti-Roman. It undermines Roman power. Doesn’t it? So I admit that aspects of Christianity are certainly anti-Roman, deeply anti-Roman, and no doubt the Roman establishment was anti-Christian, up to a point. So it is a complex matter. I have ideas on it, that I have formed over years, but I won’t elaborate on it all now. I want to explore the question of what Christianity does if it settles on the fact that Christ was not a historical figure. Is that possible? Is it something that can even be thought? 

Question: So you also reject the reality of the miracles described in the Gospels?

Answer: They are a good example of how to read the Christian writings in context. The context is Second Temple Judaism. When Jesus "heals" people in the Gospels, what it is about is making such people ritually clean for the Temple. He "heals" Jewish exclusivism. The lame. The lepers. The defiled. He heals them. This is a metaphor for making them whole under the Law and suitable for the Temple. But in the Gospels these are presented as quasi-historical events. It's an extended metaphor - healing - but it is presented as quasi-historical events. I don't take them literally. It is a metaphor, and one of which the Romans would approve since Jesus breaks down Jewish exclusivity. I like the way these matters offer an arena in which to discuss important things. One cannot help but be a cultural Christian in some ways. 

Question: And the Resurrection?

The best way to look at early Christianity is as a continuation of pre-Christian religion. It is also a breach. For example, it claims historicity. This is perceived to make it superior to mere myth. Christian polemic draws the distinction between Christ - who was real - and, say, Apollo, who was just a myth. It is important in Christian identity visa vis its pagan environment. All the same, pagan themes are continued in Christianity. The resurrection is one of them. In Christianity, though, it is not a myth but an historical event. That claim to history is crucial to Christianity. So, if we determine that Christ was essentially mythical, and that what we have here is historical myth, then that presents a real problem for normative Christianity. It must.

Question: How could you have a Christianity without Jesus?

Answer: There is Jesus, and then there is Christ. The Christ. The Logos. There are the two natures of Christ. God and man. But, of course, they are utterly inseparable in any normative Christian theology. The Incarnation is a dogma of Christianity. I like to distinguish, though, between an historical Christianity – which is really only a recent thing – and a cosmic Christianity. You can distinguish between the cosmic Christ and the supposed historical man. It is the historical man that becomes problematic, because historically what you find is a mythology. It has no impact on Christ as Logos, as a metaphysical reality. And for most of history that is all that mattered to Christians. The obsession with the historical Jesus is a modern preoccupation. That fact then becomes interesting. The entire question of the historical Christ in relation to the cosmic Christ, and historical religion, becomes an acute issue.

Question: Why are you opposed to historical religion?

Answer: Historical religion is a hardening, a coarsening of the religious life. My ideas on this are based, mainly, in such writers as Mircea Eliade, and Henri Corbin. For both of them, they identify historicity as a symptom of spiritual decay. But of course some religions want to present themselves as historical. The Abrahamic religions, mainly. I tend to think that all historical religions rest upon shaky history, if you are thinking in hard-nosed secular terms. Was there a man named Moses? Was the parting of the Red Sea an historical event? Noah’s Ark? I think you need to understand those things as mythic, or not at all. Alternatively, you are left with fundamentalist literalism. Fundamentalism is historical. The fundamentalist has lost the mythic sense altogether. That represents a hardening of consciousness. And unintelligent religion.

Question: So you don’t think Moses was historical either?

Answer: Or Noah. Or Adam and Eve. Or the Buddha, for that matter. I have not studied it but I suspect that the Buddha is largely if not wholly a mythic figure. This is not such a great problem, not in Mahayana Buddhism anyway. But in Christianity the historical nature of Christ is a matter of dogma, so it is a profound problem. Buddhism could easily adjust to a non-historical Buddha. I’m inclined to adopt a general policy of doubt regarding historical claims. I don’t believe the historical claims of Moses, or even King David. Or the Buddha. Or Lao Tse either. Lao Tse is almost certainly mythical. But this does not present any real problem in Taoism. We’ve reached a certain impasse today whereby we can see that much of our history – especially the historical claims of religious figures – much of our history is fabricated, or at least mythological rather than solid fact. I think that situation extends into the roots of Christianity. You either understand it as mythic or you fail to understand it at all. I entertain some radical views on history.

Question: Such as what?

Answer: Such as, suspecting that the works of Aristotle are late Roman forgeries, and that in fact the Romans invented the figure of Aristotle. That is, admittedly, a speculative conclusion, but I put it out as a possibility. I think Aristotle is probably a Roman phony. It is one of my crank ideas.

Question: The Romans again?

Answer: Indeed. Two great Roman projects – Aristotle and Jesus. The extent to which our civilization is Roman. Roman power. I see Roman power as adamantine. A force of nature. It completely shaped the world. And history. Don’t underestimate just how fantastically literate were the Romans. And their genius was in ‘foreign’ projects – the acquisition of Greek philosophy in Aristotle and the acquisition of Jewish sanctity in Christianity. The Romans are a special case. But, in general, I think most of our religious figures – and some of our philosophical ones – are creations, fictions, myths. Most of our religious heroes, in fact.

Question: Muhammad? Is Muhammad an historical figure?

Answer: Most likely, in his case. But not necessarily. And if so, then he is a shadowy Dark Age warlord. The historical Muhammad. He is, in any case, very, very different to the Muhammad constructed in the Hadith literature and in Islamic piety. There is no historical basis for the conventional image and hagiography of the Prophet. That is all a pious fiction. So the question becomes, what do we do about that? Now that our religions stand naked in the cold light of history, what do we make of them? That is the problem. Atheism is not a legitimate answer. It is a betrayal of the human state. I do not want to offer any ammunition to atheism. But historical religion is unsustainable. As I say, this is an especially acute problem for Christianity. I am sensitive to that problem. I take no pleasure in it. But it cannot be avoided all the same. The abyss is real. You can’t skirt around it. You can only confront it.

Question: But at least, for Muslims, Muhammad is – you say – an historical figure.

Answer: Most likely so. In the case of Muhammad the weight of probabilities favors historicity. Yes. But at the same time, most of the record of early Islam is fabrication. For example, the Prophet’s mosque. All the hadith about the Prophet’s mosque. The institution of the mosque comes much later, in fact. So the Prophet’s mosque was not historical. It is mythic. In any case, what are we to do with a story like the Night Journey, on the mythical beast, the buraq? How is that to be understood? Literally? As history? Or as myth? The Islamic construction of Muhammad is mythic even if, in his case, there was likely an historical figure upon whom it was based.

Question: The Koran?

Answer: The Angel Jibreel put it in the heart of the Prophet Muhammad in a cave one night in Ramadan. Are we to believe that as history? Or as myth? If we say it is “true” – what do we mean, exactly? What mode of truth, exactly? No doubt the text of the Koran has a human history and it is at odds with its sacred history. Muslims are not ready to face that fact. The simplistic binary myth/history is inadequate in religion.

Question: Are Christians ready to do away with the historical Jesus?

Answer: No. Not at all. But there it is, all the same. When the Protestant iconoclasts set out on the quest for the historical Jesus, they have to pursue it wherever the evidence may take them. I happen to think that the evidence leads to a shocking conclusion. In the past it was not such a problem for Christians. Not in the same way as now. That is interesting in itself. It was not such an acute problem in previous eras.

Question: Why not?

Answer: Because the spiritual reality of Christ completely overwhelmed the historical facts. History was dwarfed by a metaphysical sense of Christ as Logos. The sense of (Godless) history develops with modernity. You can see it in depictions of the Crucifixion, for example. In the early icons Christ on the cross is a metaphysical deity. Only after the Renaissance, with humanism, Christ becomes an historical person on the cross, suffering as a real man. There is a shift into history. It becomes an event in history rather than an event in eternity. That is the difference. A cosmic Christ lives in eternity. He is born in eternity. He dies in eternity. He is resurrected in eternity. It is an eternal, timeless story. But as soon as you place it in time you enter historical consciousness. That is where we are today. And now we can see the threads of the history, because we have lost sight of eternity. The net result of this is that we need a much more sophisticated doctrine of the Incarnation.

Question: And yet, you say, somebody – the Romans – historicized the Christ myth in the first century. Isn’t that what you are saying?

Answer: Yes. Because the Romans had a foreshadowing of that modern historical perspective. And Christianity had to define itself contra the mythic religions of the pagans. So it takes an historical form. The Romans were busy creators of historical myths. They readily turned myths into history. They were expert at it. And, we might say, that historical consciousness was subsumed – drawn into – a sacred perspective in Christianity. There are many ways we might think about it. It is a very complex thing. What is the relation between myth and history? That is a complex question. The skeptic, the atheist, thinks that Christianity was an historical fraud. That view is based on a simplistic binary scheme whereby myth and history are opposites, like lies and truth. We need other, more sophisticated models in order to think constructively about these things. Because something is a “myth” doesn’t make it a lie. The myth is a different mode of truth. If you are insensitive to myth then you are not likely to understand much about religion. Many religions are inherently mythic.

Question: Such as what?

Answer: Types of Hinduism, say. Or the Australian aborigines. If the scholars prove, from the archeological record, that there was no Giant Rainbow Serpent or Dreamtime, the Australian aborigines are not going to go through a spiritual crisis about it. It does not depend upon history. But Christianity does. And yet, I'm afraid, our history is radically different to the official version, or the received version. So what do we do about that? Let us just suppose that the Jesus-myth position is correct. What do we do then? I'm not a Christian and so it is not my place to think it through for Christianity. But it is a problem in contemporary religion. It is a possibility that Christians ought to address. The issue always takes us back to the myth/history dynamic in religion. The problem lies with the doctrine of the Incarnation. We need a non-historical mode of thinking about it. 

Question: Is this what you taught in Biblical Studies?

Answer: No. I offered a wide range of viewpoints to students. Including ultra-conservative. The Jesus-as-myth theory was only offered as one possibility. I never used my university position as a soap-box to promote my own views. I am opposed to activist academics who do that. But the mythicist position is a legitimate one and it ought to be offered to students, especially in a secular university. 

Question: Are some Christian denominations better poised to deal with it as a possibility than others? You mentioned Catholics...

Answer: Yes. Traditional Christianity is better placed to deal with it. The Catholics. The Orhodox. Whereas the historical Christ is much more important in Protestantism. So it is a problem for Protestants - just as the issue - the Jesus quest, as they call it - arises out of Protestantism. Rather than finding the Galilean peasant carpenter that we thought we'd find, we find an early Christianity that is much more Roman, much more based in tradition and myth, theological from the outset.

* * * 

This post marks the untimely death, from cancer, of D. M. Murdock, a well-known popularizer of the Jesus Myth theory. Since the present author is known to entertain similar views on that subject, he publishes the above discussion in order to clarify his position on a controversial topic. 

Yours,

Harper McAlpine Black