he mists of the past, and his
history so obscured by legend, that it may be compared to footprints in
the sand. We know _some one_ has been there, but as to what manner of
man he may have been, we certainly know little as fact. The Gospels,
_the only records we have of him_,[508:1] have been proven, over and
over again, unhistorical and legendary; to state _anything as positive_
about the man is nothing more nor less than _assumption_; we can
therefore _conjecture_ only. Liberal writers philosophize and wax
eloquent to little purpose, when, after demolishing the historical
accuracy of the New Testament, they end their task by eulogizing the man
Jesus, claiming for him the _highest_ praise, and asserting that he was
the _best_ and _grandest_ of our race;[508:2] but this manner of
reasoning (undoubtedly consoling to many) _facts_ do not warrant. We may
consistently revere his name, and place it in the long list of the great
and noble, the reformers and religious teachers of the past, all of whom
have done their part in bringing about the freedom we now enjoy, but to
go beyond this, is, to our thinking, unwarranted.

If the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as related in the books of the New
Testament, be in part the story of a man who really lived and suffered,
that story has been so interwoven with images borrowed from myths of a
bygone age, as to conceal forever any fragments of history which may lie
beneath them. Gautama Buddha was undoubtedly an historical personage,
yet the Sun-god myth has been added to his history to such an extent
that we really know nothing positive about him. Alexander the Great was
an historical personage, yet his history is one mass of legends. So it
is with Julius Cesar, Cyrus, King of Persia, and scores of others. "The
story of Cyrus' perils in infancy belongs to _solar_ mythology as much
as the stories of the magic slipper, of Charlemagne and Barbarossa. His
grandfather, Astyages, is purely a mythical creation, his name being
identical with that of the night demon, Azidahaka, who appears in the
Shah-Nameh as the biting serpent."

The actual Jesus is inaccessible to scientific research. His image
cannot be recovered. He left no memorial in writing of himself; his
followers were illiterate; the mind of his age was confused. Paul
received only traditions of him, how definite we have no means of
knowing, apparently not significant enough to be treasured, nor
consistent enough to oppose a barrier to h