JESUS IN THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY- the 100 B.C. date

Some Theosophical leaders have taught that Jesus lived about 100 B.C., and that he was not crucified; they identify him with Jeschu Ben Pandera (the spelling varies, and will do so in this note) of Jewish tradition, who was stoned. This effectively undercuts orthodox Christianity - if there was no suffering “under Pontius Pilate”, then there was no conventional Atonement, and if the New Testament can be wrong on so important a matter as the date and manner of death of its main character then its reliability is low.

The 100 B.C. theory (the precise date is sometimes given differently) was introduced by H.P. Blavatsky in “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2 p. 201. She cites Eliphas Levi “La Science Des Esprits” (Paris, Germer Balliere, 1865, a publisher with offices in London and New York also.) Levi there printed the Jewish accounts. His book has not been translated, but it is in the S.P.R. Library. Although she did not always commit herself to the theory, H.P.B. did endorse it in several places, notably in 1887 in two articles “The Esoteric Character of the Gospels” and her response in French to the Abbe Roca’s “Esotericism of Christian Dogma”. Both are in Collected Writings Vol. 8 - see especially pages, 189, 224, 380-2 and 460-1. Among scholars she cited Gerald Massey in support, but added (p. 380) “Our Masters affirm the Statement.”

The anti-Semitic writer Nesta H. Webster “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements” (London, 1928), quoting this same article asks “Who were the Masters whose authority Madame Blavatsky here invokes? Clearly not the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood to whom she habitually refers by this term, and who can certainly not be suspected of affirming the authenticity of the Toldoth Yeshu. It is evident, then, that there were other “Masters” from whom Madame Blavatsky received this teaching, and that those other masters were Cabalists.” (p. 297-8) Webster had already quoted the same Levi book (Webster p. 68), whose subtitle read in part “Revelation du dogme secret des Kabbalistes”.

Now the connections between Eastern and Western occult inspirers of H.P.B. are interesting and important, but Mrs. Webster’s distinction does not immediately work. We do find the Eastern masters supporting the 100 B.C. theory, though the references are not as full as might be wished for such a significant matter. K.H. for example speaks of “John the Baptist having never heard of Jesus who is a spiritual abstraction and no living man of that epoch.” (M.L. Sinnett 3rd ed. p. 409). Earlier the man “Jeshu” is called “but a mortal like any of us, an adept more by his inherent purity and ignorance of real Evil that by what he had learned with his initiated Rabbis and the already (at that period) fast degenerating Egyptian hierophants and priests.” (p. 339)

In 1881, too, K.H. wrote footnotes to some Levi articles, and said of the doctrine of Jesus, both public and private, “But he preached it a century before his birth.” (Paradoxes of the Highest Science”).

Whether Levi himself subscribed to the theory, I do not know; despite two recent biographies in English, Levi remains obscure, and in other books, speaks derisively of the theory (but was that to avoid legal trouble?) I hope to discuss his links with H.P.B. in a separate paper. (A useful starting point is the biographical essay by Boris De Zirkoff in C.W. Vol. 1. p. 491-5.) The theory about Jesus became entangled, in France especially, with anticlericalism, politics, antisemitism and occult streams little known in the English world, or to Theosophists generally.

Among later Theosophists, G. de Purucker was firm in support of the theory. His comments in 1934 about the “Real Birth-Date of Jesus” are included in “Studies in Occult Philosophy” (1945) p. 426-8. “The Statement” he noted “is made from our esoteric records; but these esoteric records also are largely based on astronomical and genuinely astrological wisdom.” Each Messianic Cycle of about 2160 years had its own Messiah “and the Messiah of the present Messianic Cycle was the power, the influence, working through H.P.B.”

Annie Besant popularised the theory in her “Esoteric Christianity”, in the chapter on “The Historical Christ”. She says “The Child whose Jewish name has been turned into that of Jesus was born in Palestine B.C. 105, . . “ Eventually “the human body of Jesus paid the penalty for enshrining the glorious Presence of a Teacher more than man”, apparently a reference to stoning by other Jews. (4th ed. Adyar T.P.H. 1946 p. 96, 100–1). Mrs. Besant enjoyed the clairvoyant assistance of C.W. Leadbeater on this as on other matters, though as made clear above, this theory was not a later development of Theosophy, but entered early. Leadbeater characteristically quoted “Esoteric Christianity” in his book “The Christian Creed” 2nd ed. T.P.H. 1917 p.13–c4), in which also the theory of a greater Master Christ possessing Jesus is deployed. In expounding the credal statement “was crucified, dead and buried” he was obliged to explain it as allegory” (P. 81) while Pontius Pilate, historical though he was, is held to have got into the story by mistranslation (p. 80).

In the background for both these writers is clairvoyant research carried out at the turn of the century in cooperation with G.R.S. Mead, the Theosophical scholar with a special interest in Christian origins. A valuable description of this research was given by C. Jinarajadasa “Occult Investigations” (T.P.H. 1938) p. 34–40—it is of course only one chapter in the investigations that the two made, the most famous perhaps being in occult chemistry. Jinarajadasa points out of Mead “in the end he lost all faith in the veracity of the investigations.” (P. 40) This was after he had left the T.S. and had developed doubts about his colleagues in other respects.

Mead himself alluded guardedly to these experiments in his book “Did Jesus Live 100 Years B.C.? (T.P.H. 1903) which was a careful account of the Jewish and early Christian material relevant to the question. Speaking of the occult researchers with whom he worked he observes “Now, this handful of friends of mine who are endowed in this special fashion are unanimous in declaring that “Jeschu”, the historical Jesus, lived a century before the traditional date.” (p. l9) He gives the impression that there were several researchers, but I suspect it was mainly Leadbeater. Mead did not commit himself in the end of the book, and he made no appeal to the authority of the Masters.

Another Theosophist of the time, who did eventually claim a mahatmic source (D.K.) was Alice Bailey. She taught much that was congenial to the Theosophy of her day; sometimes cited Mrs. Besant; and was aware of the symbolical value of the life of Jesus, with the crucifixion for example, representing one initiation for disciples—but she apparently had no interest in the 100 B.C. theory and accepted the traditional date. And Rudolf Steiner directly— indeed forcefully, challenged the theory. Claiming his own occult lineage, and a capacity to read the Akashic Records, he dated the crucifixion as 3rd April A.D. 33. He identified Jeschu ben Pandira as a forerunner and herald of Jesus of Nazareth. Pandira had lived a century before him, and was a very important individuality, the current holder in fact of the rank of Bodhisattva in the Theosophical scheme—but not the same as Christ Jesus. For good measure Steiner added that Jeschu ben Pandira was again in incarnation, preparing for the new perception of the etheric Christ in the twentieth century. Thus the clairvoyance of Steiner and Leadbeater was in opposition.

Mr. Jinarajadasa remained interested in the 100 BC theory to the end of his life. Reviewing a work on biblical criticism in “The Theosophist” June 1950, (Martin Dibelius “From Tradition to Gospel”) he argued that the events had probably taken place very much earlier that at the period narrated. In the July 1950 issue, he returned to the theory, suggesting that the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in 1947, supported the belief that the Essenes had had a Messiah who had been killed 100 years before the crucifixion.

Mr. Jinarajadasa was the last Theosophical leader to take a personal interest in the theory, but it still surfaces, both in expositions of H.P.B.’s teachings, and of those of her successors. In “The Theosophist” April 1985, Miss Rosamunde Prior, exploring the meaning today of “Gospel Truth” (p. 252) notes; “Occult Tradition with regard to the life of Jesus states that he lived a hundred years before the received date and was murdered at Lydd (or Ludd) about 70 B.C.” The reference in the Fourth Gospel to the High Priest’s fear that the Romans would come and take away to refer to about 70 B.C. their place and nation, is said (Lydda incidentally was a town about 25 miles from Jerusalem, an administrative centre, and the site of an early Christian community mentioned in Acts of the Apostles.)

A somewhat severe judgment of the theory is found in Gregory Tillett’s biography of Leadbeater “The Elder Brother” (1982). “There is not a single reputable Biblical scholar, archaeologist or historian who supports this claim, and, on the basis of modern research, there is no reason to seriously question the traditional date for the birth of Jesus at about 5 B.C.” (p. 272). As we have seen, however, this theory was not invented by Leadbeater, and has been held by persons at an opposite pole to him in theosophical thought. It is true, so far as I am aware, that the theory has not found any definite takers among biblical scholars, though the sceptical Professor George Wells who doubts if Jesus existed, more than once alludes to Mead. Even Jewish reference works accept the conventional dating. So independent a scholar as Professor Morton Smith, whose “Jesus the Magician” (1978) is of great interest to the student, accepts the fact that Jesus was executed by Pilate. Noting “the confusion produced in rabbinic material by several factors.” he explains “First, the rabbis are generally ignorant of chronology and constantly guilty of absurd anachronisms. Second, they habitually refer to their enemies by abusive nicknames and puns, usually bad. Third, in the case of Jesus, particularly, this practice of concealed reference has been carried to the extreme by manuscript copyists to avoid censorship.” (p. 47)

However, it may be that biblical scholars are confused by the material through not realising esoteric levels to it that would make it much clearer. And the mainstream labours of biblical scholars who accept the usual date have not resulted in a generally convincing interpretation of Jesus. What we need of course is a re-examination of the evidence that updates the scholarship from Mead’s time to the present; and with all respect to those who stand by occult tradition, unless this is done the case for the theory will partly go by default. Indeed it becomes one person’s reading of the akashic records, or otherwise secret records, set against another. The theory is not crucial for a gnostic or esoteric interpretation of Jesus. If it became known to Jewish students of the Kabala, and thence was transmitted to Gentile students, and was passed by some Western occultists to their oriental colleagues, we can see how both H.P.B. and K.H. could have come to espouse it. But should we accept it today without more study? Too much rests upon it for it to be a passing reference in the teachings.

NOTES

1. Mr. Leslie Shepard, who edited the University Books edition of “Did Jesus live 100 Years B.C.?” tells me that he has Gerald Massey’s annotated copy of the Rev. S. Baring-Gould’s book “The Lost and Hostile Gospels: An Essay on the Toledoth Jeschu and the Petrine and Pauline Gospels of the First Three Centuries of which Fragments Remain.” (1874). This is probably Massey’s main source of Jewish accounts of Jesus. Was Baring Gould’s account known to
H.P.B.?

2. It is important to recognise that the “Toldoth Jeshu” was not a novelty in France when Levi wrote. It had been praised by Voltaire who died in 1778. See Schonfield (cited below) p. 21. 3. 

Among later writers who briefly mention Mead, see:
a) “Jesus of Nazareth his life, times and teaching” by Joseph Klausner, Ph.D. (Heidelberg) who published the Hebrew edition in Jerusalem in 1922. Translated by Canon Danby, London 1925.
Includes a section on Hebrew sources. Argues that Jesus is understandable in terms of the Palestinian Judaism of his day.

This shocked his fellow Zionists, and will also irritate those who insist on seeing Jesus as obtaining his teaching outside Palestine, and outside Judaism.

b) “According to the Hebrews, a new translation of the Jewish Life of Jesus (Toldoth Jeshu”), with an enquiry into the nature of its sources and special relationship to the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews” by Hugh J. Schonfield (London, Duckworth, 1937).

c) “Christian Origins in Jewish Tradition” by Ernst Bammel in New Testament Studies 13 (1967) p. 317–35. (I would welcome details of later articles in theological journals that review this material.
There is much solid work being done at present on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, but this often contains only passing references to the early Jewish traditions about Jesus.)

d) “Origen and the Jews, Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine” Nicholas R.M. De Lange. C.U.P. 1976 esp. p. 173.

4. The main text of this paper was included in my remarks to the T.S. conference “Rediscovering Gnosis: a renaissance in Christian thought?” in London on 16th June I was greatly interested that Nigel Blair, another speaker, independently raised the Steiner and Edgar Cayce teachings on the dating and background of Jesus.

A Theosophist would naturally write off Cayce’s revelations as trance fantasies, but if he did accurately foresee the finding of scrolls at Qumran, then perhaps he did have some clairvoyant capacity.

5. For Rudolf Steiner’s views, a starting point is “The Gospel of St. Matthew” 12 lectures given in Berne 1st-12th September 1910 4th ed. Rudolf Steiner Press 1965, especially lectures 4 & 5 and Appendix II “Jeschu ben Pandira” which cites Mead.

-Leslie Price

Theosophical History Magazine Vol. I, No. 3 (July 1985)