第10章

TheJesusofHistory。Anonymous。8vo。pp。London: Williams&Norgate，1869。 ViedeJesus，parErnestRenan。Paris，1867。(Thirteenthedition，revisedandpartlyrewritten。) Inrepublishingthisandthefollowingarticleon“TheChristofDogma，“Iamawarethattheydobutscantyjusticetotheirveryinterestingsubjects。Somuchgroundiscoveredthatitwouldbeimpossibletotreatitsatisfactorilyinapairofreview-articles；andinparticulartheviewsadoptedwithregardtotheNewTestamentliteratureareratherindicatedthanjustified。ThesedefectsIhopetoremedyinafutureworkon“JesusofNazareth，andtheFoundingofChristianity，“forwhichthepresentarticlesmustberegardedasfurnishingonlyafewintroductoryhints。Thisworkhasbeenforseveralyearsonmymind，butasitmaystillbelongbeforeIcanfindtheleisureneedfulforwritingitout，itseemedbesttorepublishthesepreliminarysketcheswhichhavebeensometimeoutofprint。Theprojectedwork，however，whilecoveringallthepointsheretreated，willhaveamuchwiderscope，dealingontheonehandwiththenaturalgenesisofthecomplexaggregateofbeliefsandaspirationsknownasChristianity，andontheotherhandwiththemetamorphoseswhicharebeingwroughtinthisaggregatebymodernknowledgeandmoderntheoriesoftheworld。 TheviewsadoptedinthepresentessayastothedateoftheSynopticGospelsmayseemover-conservativetothosewhoaccepttheably-arguedconclusionsof“SupernaturalReligion。“Quitepossiblyinamoredetaileddiscussionthesebriefly-indicateddatamayrequirerevision；butforthepresentitseemsbesttoletthearticlestandasitwaswritten。Theauthorof“SupernaturalReligion“wouldnodoubtadmitthat，evenifthesynopticgospelshadnotassumedtheirpresentformbeforetheendofthesecondcentury，neverthelessthebodyoftraditioncontainedinthemhadbeencommittedtowritingveryearlyinthatcentury。Somuchappearstobeprovedbytheveryvariationsoftextuponwhichhisargumentrelies。Andifthisbegranted，thevalueofthesynopticsasHISTORICALevidenceisnotmateriallyaltered。Withtheirvalueastestimonytoso-calledSUPERNATURALevents，thepresentessayisinnowayconcerned。 Ofallthegreatfoundersofreligions，Jesusisatoncethebestknownandtheleastknowntothemodernscholar。Fromthedogmaticpointofviewheisthebestknown，fromthehistoricpointofviewheistheleastknown。TheChristofdogmaisineverylineamentfamiliartousfromearlychildhood；butconcerningtheJesusofhistorywepossessbutfewfactsrestingupontrustworthyevidence，andinordertoformapictureofhimatonceconsistent，probable，anddistinctinitsoutlines，itisnecessarytoenteruponalonganddifficultinvestigation，inthecourseofwhichsomeofthemostdelicateapparatusofmoderncriticismisrequired。Thiscircumstanceissufficientlysingulartorequireespecialexplanation。ThecaseofSakyamuni，thefounderofBuddhism，whichmayperhapsbecitedasparallel，isinrealitywhollydifferent。NotonlydidSakyamunilivefivecenturiesearlierthanJesus，amongapeoplethathaveatnotimepossessedtheartofinsuringauthenticityintheirrecordsofevents，andatanerawhichisatbestbutdimlydiscernedthroughthemistsoffableandlegend，buttheworkwhichheachievedlieswhollyoutofthecourseofEuropeanhistory，anditisonlyinrecenttimesthathiscareerhaspresenteditselftousasaproblemneedingtobesolved。Jesus，ontheotherhand，appearedinanagewhichisfamiliarlyandinmanyrespectsminutelyknowntous，andamongapeoplewhosefortuneswecantracewithhistoriccertaintyforatleastsevencenturiesprevioustohisbirth；whilehislifeandachievementshaveprobablyhadalargershareindirectingtheentiresubsequentintellectualandmoraldevelopmentofEuropethanthoseofanyothermanwhohaseverlived。Nevertheless，thedetailsofhispersonalcareerareshroudedinanobscurityalmostasdenseasthatwhichenvelopsthelifeoftheremotefounderofBuddhism。 Thisphenomenon，however，appearslessstrangeandparadoxicalwhenwecometoexamineitmoreclosely。AlittlereflectionwilldisclosetousseveralgoodreasonswhythehistoricalrecordsofthelifeofJesusshouldbesoscantyastheyare。Inthefirstplace，theactivityofJesuswasprivateratherthanpublic。 Confinedwithinexceedinglynarrowlimits，bothofspaceandofduration，itmadenoimpressionwhateveruponthepoliticsortheliteratureofthetime。Hisnamedoesnotoccurinthepagesofanycontemporarywriter，Roman，Greek，orJewish。Doubtlessthecasewouldhavebeenwhollydifferent，hadhe，likeMohammed，livedtoaripeage，andhadtheexigenciesofhispeculiarpositionastheMessiahoftheJewishpeoplebroughthimintorelationswiththeEmpire；thoughwhether，insuchcase，thesuccessofhisgrandundertakingwouldhavebeenascompleteasithasactuallybeen，maywellbedoubted。 Secondly，Jesusdidnot，likeMohammedandPaul，leavebehindhimauthenticwritingswhichmightservetothrowlightuponhismentaldevelopmentaswellasupontheexternalfactsofhiscareer。WithouttheKoranandthefourgenuineEpistlesofPaul，weshouldbenearlyasmuchinthedarkconcerningthesegreatmenaswenowareconcerningthehistoricalJesus。Weshouldbecompelledtorely，intheonecase，upontheuntrustworthygossipofMussulmanchroniclers，andintheothercaseuponthegarbledstatementsofthe“ActsoftheApostles，“abookwrittenwithadistinctdogmaticpurpose，sixtyorseventyyearsaftertheoccurrenceoftheeventswhichitprofessestorecord。 Itistrue，manyofthewordsofJesus，preservedbyhearsaytraditionthroughthegenerationimmediatelysucceedinghisdeath，havecomedowntous，probablywithlittlealteration，inthepagesofthethreeearlierevangelists。Thesearepricelessdata，since，asweshallsee，theyarealmosttheonlymaterialsatourcommandforformingevenapartialconceptionofthecharacterofJesus’work。Nevertheless，evenherethecautiousinquirerhasonlytoooftentopauseinfaceofthedifficultyofdistinguishingtheauthenticutterancesofthegreatteacherfromthelaterinterpolationssuggestedbythedogmaticnecessitiesofthenarrators。BitterlymustthehistorianregretthatJesushadnophilosophicdisciple，likeXenophon，torecordhisMemorabilia。OfthevariouswritingsincludedintheNewTestament，theApocalypsealone(andpossiblytheEpistleofJude)isfromthepenofapersonalacquaintanceofJesus；andbesidesthis，thefourepistlesofPaul，totheGalatians，Corinthians，andRomans，makeupthesumofthewritingsfromwhichwemayexpectcontemporarytestimony。Yetfromtheseweobtainabsolutelynothingofthatforwhichweareseeking。ThebriefwritingsofPaulareoccupiedexclusivelywiththeinternalsignificanceofJesus’work。TheepistleofJude——ifitbereallywrittenbyJesus’brotherofthatname，whichisdoubtful——issolelyapolemicdirectedagainsttheinnovationsofPaul。AndtheApocalypse，theworkofthefieryandimaginativediscipleJohn，isconfinedtoapropheticdescriptionoftheMessiah’santicipatedreturn，andtellsusnothingconcerningthedeedsofthatMessiahwhileontheearth。 Herewetouchuponourthirdconsideration，——theconsiderationwhichbestenablesustoseewhythehistoricnoticesofJesusaresomeagre。Rightlyconsidered，thestatementwithwhichweopenedthisarticleisitsownexplanation。TheJesusofhistoryissolittleknownjustbecausetheChristofdogmaissowellknown。[16]Otherteachers——Paul，Mohammed，Sakyamuni——havecomemerelyaspreachersofrighteousness，speakinginthenameofgeneralprincipleswithwhichtheirownpersonalitieswerenotdirectlyimplicated。ButJesus，asweshallsee，beforethecloseofhislife，proclaimedhimselftobesomethingmorethanapreacherofrighteousness。Heannouncedhimself——andjustly，fromhisownpointofview——asthelong-expectedMessiahsentbyJehovahtoliberatetheJewishrace。Thusthesuccessofhisreligiousteachingsbecameatonceimplicatedwiththequestionofhispersonalnatureandcharacter。Afterthesuddenandviolentterminationofhiscareer，itimmediatelybecameall-importantwithhisfollowerstoprovethathewasreallytheMessiah，andtoinsistuponthecertaintyofhisspeedyreturntotheearth。Thusthefirstgenerationofdisciplesdogmatizedabouthim，insteadofnarratinghislife，——ataskwhichtothemwouldhaveseemedoflittleprofit。Forthemtheall-absorbingobjectofcontemplationwastheimmediatefutureratherthantheimmediatepast。AsalltheearlierChristianliteratureinformsus，fornearlyacenturyafterthedeathofJesus，hisfollowerslivedindailyanticipationofhistriumphantreturntotheearth。Theendofallthingsbeingsonearathand，noattemptwasmadetoinsureaccurateandcompletememoirsfortheuseofaposteritywhichwasdestined，inChristianimagination，nevertoarrive。ThefirstChristianswrotebutlittle；evenPapias，attheendofacentury，preferringsecond-handorthird-handoraltraditiontothewrittengospelswhichwerethenbeginningtocomeintocirculation。[17]MemoirsofthelifeandteachingsofJesuswerecalledforthbythenecessityofhavingawrittenstandardofdoctrinetowhichtoappealamidthegrowingdifferencesofopinionwhichdisturbedtheChurch。Thustheearliergospelsexhibit，thoughindifferentdegrees，theindicationsofamodifying，sometimesofanoverrulingdogmaticpurpose。Thereis，indeed，noconsciousviolationofhistorictruth，butfromthevariedmassofmaterialsuppliedbytradition，suchincidentsareselectedasarefittosupporttheviewsofthewritersconcerningthepersonalityofJesus。 Accordingly，whiletheearlygospelsthrowastronglightuponthestateofChristianopinionatthedateswhentheyweresuccessivelycomposed，theinformationwhichtheygiveconcerningJesushimselfis，forthatveryreason，oftenvague，uncritical，andcontradictory。Stillmoreisthistrueofthefourthgospel，writtenlateinthesecondcentury，inwhichhistorictraditionismouldedintheinterestsofdogmauntilitbecomesnolongerrecognizable，andintheplaceofthehumanMessiahoftheearlieraccounts，wehaveasemi-divineLogosorAeon，detachedfromGod，andincarnateforabriefseasoninthelikenessofman。 [16]“Wereinmalvergottertwordenist，derhatseineMensetheitunwiederbringlicheingebusst。“——Strauss，DeralteundderneueGlaube，p。76。 [17]“RogerwastheattendantofThomas[Becket]duringhissojournatPontigny。Wemighthaveexpectedhimtobeveryfullonthatpartofhishistory；but，writingdoubtlessmainlyforthemonksofPontigny，hesaysthatHEWILLNOTENLARGEUPONWHAT EVERYONEKNOWS，andcutsthatpartveryshort。“——Freeman，HistoricalEssays，1stseries，p。90。 Notonlywashistorysubordinatedtodogmabythewritersofthegospel-narratives，butinthemindsoftheFathersoftheChurchwhoassistedindeterminingwhatwritingsshouldbeconsideredcanonical，dogmaticprepossessionwentverymuchfurtherthancriticalacumen。Noristhisstrangewhenwereflectthatcriticaldiscriminationinquestionsofliteraryauthenticityisoneofthelatestacquisitionsofthecultivatedhumanmind。IntheearlyagesoftheChurchtheevidenceofthegenuinenessofanyliteraryproductionwasneverweighedcritically；writingscontainingdoctrinesacceptabletothemajorityofChristianswerequotedasauthoritativewhilewritingswhichsuppliednodogmaticwantwereoverlooked，orperhapscondemnedasapocryphal。AstrikinginstanceofthisisfurnishedbythefortunesoftheApocalypse。AlthoughperhapsthebestauthenticatedworkintheNewTestamentcollection，itsmillenariandoctrinescausedittobecomeunpopularastheChurchgraduallyceasedtolookforthespeedyreturnoftheMessiah，and，accordingly，asthecanonassumedadefiniteshape，itwasplacedamongthe“Antilegomena，“ordoubtfulbooks，andcontinuedtoholdaprecariouspositionuntilafterthetimeoftheProtestantReformation。Ontheotherhand，thefourthgospel，whichwasquiteunknownandprobablydidnotexistatthetimeoftheQuartodecimancontroversy(A。D。168)，wasacceptedwithlittlehesitation，andatthebeginningofthethirdcenturyismentionedbyIrenaeus，Clement，andTertullian，astheworkoftheApostleJohn。Tothisuncriticalspirit，leadingtotheneglectofsuchbooksasfailedtoanswerthedogmaticrequirementsoftheChurch，mayprobablybeattributedthelossofsomanyoftheearliergospels。ItisdoubtlessforthisreasonthatwedonotpossesstheAramaeanoriginalofthe“Logia“ofMatthew，orthe“Memorabilia“ofMark，thecompanionofPeter，——twoworkstowhichPapias(A。D。120)alludesascontainingauthenticreportsoftheutterancesofJesus。