第11章

Theseconsiderationswill，webelieve，sufficientlyexplainthecuriouscircumstancethat，whileweknowtheChristofdogmasointimately，weknowtheJesusofhistorysoslightly。TheliteratureofearlyChristianityenablesustotracewithtolerablecompletenesstheprogressofopinionconcerningthenatureofJesus，fromthetimeofPaul’searlymissionstothetimeoftheNiceneCouncil；butupontheactualwordsanddeedsofJesusitthrowsaveryunsteadylight。Thedogmaticpurposeeverywhereobscuresthehistoricbasis。 ThissamedogmaticprepossessionwhichhasrenderedthedataforabiographyofJesussoscantyanduntrustworthy，hasalsountilcomparativelyrecenttimespreventedanyunbiassedcriticalexaminationofsuchdataasweactuallypossess。PrevioustotheeighteenthcenturyanyattempttodealwiththelifeofJesusuponpurelyhistoricalmethodswouldhavebeennotonlycontemnedasirrational，butstigmatizedasimpious。Andevenintheeighteenthcentury，thosewriterswhohadbecomewhollyemancipatedfromecclesiastictraditionweresodestituteofallhistoricsympathyandsounskilledinscientificmethodsofcriticism，thattheyutterlyfailedtocomprehendtherequirementsoftheproblem。Theiraimswereinthemainpolemic，nothistorical。TheythoughtmoreofoverthrowingcurrentdogmasthanofimpartiallyexaminingtheearliestChristianliteraturewithaviewofelicitingitshistoriccontents；and，accordingly，theyaccomplishedbutlittle。Twobrilliantexceptionsmust，however，benoticed。Spinoza，intheseventeenthcentury，andLessing，intheeighteenth，weremenfarinadvanceoftheirage。 Theyarethefathersofmodernhistoricalcriticism；andtoLessinginparticular，withhisenormouseruditionandincomparablesagacity，belongsthehonourofinitiatingthatmethodofinquirywhich，inthehandsoftheso-calledTubingenSchool，hasledtosuchstrikingandvaluableconclusionsconcerning，theageandcharacterofalltheNewTestamentliterature。ButitwaslongbeforeanyonecouldbefoundfittobendthebowwhichLessingandSpinozahadwielded。Asuccessionofablescholars——Semler，Eichhorn，Paulus，SchleiermacherBretschneider，andDeWette——wererequiredtoexamine，withGermanpatienceandaccuracy，thedetailsofthesubject，andtopropoundvariousuntenablehypotheses，beforesuchaworkcouldbeperformedasthatofStrauss。The“LifeofJesus，“publishedbyStrausswhenonlytwenty-sixyearsofage，isoneofthemonumentalworksofthenineteenthcentury，worthytorank，asahistoricaleffort，alongwithsuchbooksasNiebuhr’s“HistoryofRome，“Wolf’s“Prolegomena，“orBentley’s“DissertationsonPhalaris。“Itinstantlysupersededandrenderedantiquatedeverythingwhichhadprecededit；norhasanyworkonearlyChristianitybeenwritteninGermanyforthepastthirtyyearswhichhasnotbeendominatedbytherecollectionofthatmarvellousbook。Nevertheless，thelaboursofanothergenerationofscholarshavecarriedourknowledgeoftheNewTestamentliteraturefarbeyondthepointwhichithadreachedwhenStraussfirstwrote。AtthattimethedatesofbutfewoftheNewTestamentwritingshadbeenfixedwithanyapproachtocertainty； theageandcharacterofthefourthgospel，thegenuinenessofthePaulineepistles，eventhemutualrelationsofthethreesynoptics，werestillundetermined；and，asanatural。resultofthisuncertainty，theprogressofdogmaduringthefirstcenturywasillunderstood。AtthepresentdayitisimpossibletoreadtheearlyworkofStrausswithoutbeingimpressedwiththenecessityofobtainingpositivedataastotheoriginanddogmaticcharacteroftheNewTestamentwritings，beforeattemptingtoreachanyconclusionsastotheprobablecareerofJesus。ThesepositivedataweowetothegeniusanddiligenceoftheTubingenSchool，and，aboveall，toitsfounder，FerdinandChristianBaur。BeginningwiththeepistlesofPaul，ofwhichhedistinguishedfourasgenuine，BaurgraduallyworkedhiswaythroughtheentireNewTestamentcollection，detecting——withthatinspiredinsightwhichonlyunflinchingdiligencecanimparttooriginalgenius——theageatwhicheachbookwaswritten，andthecircumstanceswhichcalleditforth。TogiveanyaccountofBaur’sdetailedconclusions，orofthemethodbywhichhereachedthem，wouldrequireavolume。TheyareveryscantilypresentedinMr。Mackay’sworkonthe“TubingenSchoolanditsAntecedents，“ towhichwemayreferthereaderdesirousoffurtherinformation。 WecanheremerelysaythattwentyyearsofenergeticcontroversyhaveonlyservedtoestablishmostofBaur’sleadingconclusionsmorefirmlythanever。Thepriorityoftheso-calledgospelofMatthew，thePaulinepurposeof“Luke，“thesecondindateofourgospels，thederivativeandsecond-handcharacterof“Mark，“andtheunapostolicoriginofthefourthgospel，arepointswhichmayforthefutureberegardedaswellnighestablishedbycircumstantialevidence。Sowithrespecttothepseudo-Paulineepistles，Baur’sworkwasdonesothoroughlythattheonlyquestionstillleftopenformuchdiscussionisthatconcerningthedateandauthorshipofthefirstandsecond“Thessalonians，“——apointofquiteinferiorimportance，sofarasourpresentsubjectisconcerned。Seldomhavesuchvastresultsbeenachievedbythelabourofasinglescholar。Seldomhasanyhistoricalcriticpossessedsuchacombinationofanalyticandofco-ordinatingpowersasBaur。Hiskeencriticismandhiswonderfulflashesofinsightexerciseuponthereaderatrulypoeticeffectlikethatwhichisfeltincontemplatingthemarvelsofphysicaldiscovery。 ThecomprehensivelaboursofBaurwerefollowedupbyZeller’sableworkonthe“ActsoftheApostles，“inwhichthatbookwasshowntohavebeenpartlyfoundedupondocumentswrittenbyLuke，orsomeothercompanionofPaul，andexpandedandmodifiedbyamuchlaterwriterwiththepurposeofcoveringupthetracesoftheearlyschismbetweenthePaulineandthePetrinesectionsoftheChurch。Alongwiththis，Schwegler’sworkonthe“Post-ApostolicTimes“deservesmentionasclearingupmanyobscurepointsrelatingtotheearlydevelopmentofdogma。 Finally，the“NewLifeofJesus，“byStrauss，adoptingandutilizingtheprincipaldiscoveriesofBaurandhisfollowers，andcombiningallintoonegrandhistoricalpicture，worthilycompletesthetaskwhichtheearlierworkofthesameauthorhadinaugurated。 Thereaderwillhavenoticedthat，withtheexceptionofSpinoza，everyoneofthenamesabovecitedinconnectionwiththeliteraryanalysisandcriticismoftheNewTestamentisthenameofaGerman。Untilwithinthelastdecade，GermanyhasindeedpossessedalmostanabsolutemonopolyofthescienceofBiblicalcriticism；othercountrieshavingremainednotonlyunfamiliarwithitsmethods，butevengrosslyignorantofitsconspicuousresults，savewhensomeGermantreatiseofmorethanordinarypopularityhasnowandthenbeentranslated。ButduringthepasttenyearsFrancehasenteredthelists；andthewritingsofReville，Reuss，Nicolas，D’Eichthal，Scherer，andColanitestifytotherapiditywithwhichtheGermanseedhasfructifieduponhersoil。[18] [18]Butnow，inannexingAlsace，Germanyhas“annexed“prettymuchthewholeofthisdepartmentofFrenchscholarship，——acuriousincidentalconsequenceofthelatewar。 Noneofthesebooks，however，hasachievedsuchwide-spreadcelebrity，ordonesomuchtowardinterestingthegeneralpublicinthisclassofhistoricalinquiries，asthe“LifeofJesus，“byRenan。Thispre-eminenceoffameispartly，butnotwholly，deserved。Fromapurelyliterarypointofview，Renan’sworkdoubtlessmeritsallthecelebrityithasgained。ItsauthorwritesastylesuchasisperhapssurpassedbythatofnootherlivingFrenchman。ItisbyfarthemostreadablebookwhichhaseverbeenwrittenconcerningthelifeofJesus。Andnodoubtsomeofitspopularityisduetoitsveryfaults，which，fromacriticalpointofview，areneitherfewnorsmall。ForRenaniscertainlyveryfaulty，asahistoricalcritic，whenhepracticallyignorestheextrememeagrenessofourpositiveknowledgeofthecareerofJesus，anddescribessceneaftersceneinhislifeasminutelyandwithasmuchconfidenceasifhehadhimselfbeenpresenttowitnessitall。Againandagainthecriticalreaderfeelspromptedtoask，Howdoyouknowallthis？ orwhy，outoftwoorthreeconflictingaccounts，doyouquietlyadoptsomeparticularone，asifitssuperiorauthoritywereself-evident？Butintheeyeoftheuncriticalreader，thesedefectsareexcellences；foritisunpleasanttobekeptinignorancewhenweareseekingafterdefiniteknowledge，anditisdishearteningtoreadpageafterpageofanelaboratediscussionwhichendsinconvincingusthatdefiniteknowledgecannotbegained。 Inthethirteentheditionofthe“ViedeJesus，“Renanhascorrectedsomeofthemoststrikingerrorsoftheoriginalwork，andinparticularhas，withpraiseworthycandour，abandonedhisuntenablepositionwithregardtotheageandcharacterofthefourthgospel。Asiswellknown，Renan，inhisearliereditions，ascribedtothisgospelahistoricalvaluesuperiortothatofthesynoptics，believingittohavebeenwrittenbyaneyewitnessoftheeventswhichitrelates；andfromthissource，accordingly，hedrewthelargershareofhismaterials。Now，ifthereisanyoneconclusionconcerningtheNewTestamentliteraturewhichmustberegardedasincontrovertiblyestablishedbythelaboursofawholegenerationofscholars，itisthis，thatthefourthgospelwasutterlyunknownuntilaboutA。D。170，thatitwaswrittenbysomeonewhopossessedverylittledirectknowledgeofPalestine，thatitspurposewasrathertoexpoundadogmathantogiveanaccuraterecordofevents，andthatasaguidetothecomprehensionofthecareerofJesusitisoffarlessvaluethanthethreesynopticgospels。Itisimpossible，inabriefreviewlikethepresent，toepitomizetheevidenceuponwhichthisconclusionrests，whichmaymoreprofitablybesoughtintheRev。J。J。Tayler’sworkon“TheFourthGospel，“orinDavidson’s“IntroductiontotheNewTestament。“ItmustsufficetomentionthatthisgospelisnotcitedbyPapias；thatJustin，Marcion，andValentinusmakenoallusiontoit，though，sinceitfurnishessomuchthatisgermanetotheirviews，theywouldgladlyhaveappealedtoit，haditbeeninexistence，whenthoseviewswereasyetunderdiscussion；andthat，finally，inthegreatQuartodecimancontroversy，A。D。168，thegospelisnotonlynotmentioned，buttheauthorityofJohniscitedbyPolycarpinflatcontradictionoftheviewafterwardstakenbythisevangelist。Stillmore，theassumptionofRenanledatonceintocomplicateddifficultieswithreferencetotheApocalypse。 Thefourthgospel，ifitdoesnotunmistakablyannounceitselfastheworkofJohn，atleastprofessestobeJohannine；anditcannotforamomentbesupposedthatsuchabook，makingsuchclaims，couldhavegainedcurrencyduringJohn’slifetimewithoutcallingforthhisindignantprotest。For，inreality，nobookintheNewTestamentcollectionwouldsocompletelyhaveshockedtheprejudicesoftheJohannineparty。John’sownviewsarewellknowntousfromtheApocalypse。JohnwasthemostenthusiasticofmillenariansandthemostnarrowandrigidofJudaizers。InhisantagonismtothePaulineinnovationshewentfartherthanPeterhimself。IntensehatredofPaulandhisfollowersappearsinseveralpassagesoftheApocalypse，wheretheyarestigmatizedas“Nicolaitans，““deceiversofthepeople，““thosewhosaytheyareapostlesandarenot，““eatersofmeatofferedtoidols，“ “fornicators，““pretendedJews，““liars，““synagogueofSatan，“ etc。Ontheotherhand，thefourthgospelcontainsnothingmillenarianorJudaical；itcarriesPaulineuniversalismtoafargreaterextentthanPaulhimselfventuredtocarryit，evencondemningtheJewsaschildrenofdarkness，andbyimplicationcontrastingthemunfavourablywiththeGentiles；anditcontainsatheoryofthenatureofJesuswhichtheEbionitishChristians，towhomJohnbelonged，rejectedtothelast。