the unseen world and other essays-第15节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　books；　and　continued　to　hold　a　precarious　position　until　after　the　time　of　the　Protestant　Reformation。　On　the　other　hand；　the　fourth　gospel；　which　was　quite　unknown　and　probably　did　not　exist　at　the　time　of　the　Quartodeciman　controversy　（A。　D。　168）；　was　accepted　with　little　hesitation；　and　at　the　beginning　of　the　third　century　is　mentioned　by　Irenaeus；　Clement；　and　Tertullian；　as　the　work　of　the　Apostle　John。　To　this　uncritical　spirit；　leading　to　the　neglect　of　such　books　as　failed　to　answer　the　dogmatic　requirements　of　the　Church；　may　probably　be　attributed　the　loss　of　so　many　of　the　earlier　gospels。　It　is　doubtless　for　this　reason　that　we　do　not　possess　the　Aramaean　original　of　the　〃Logia〃　of　Matthew；　or　the　〃Memorabilia〃　of　Mark；　the　companion　of　Peter；two　works　to　which　Papias　（A。　D。　120）　alludes　as　containing　authentic　reports　of　the　utterances　of　Jesus。

These　considerations　will；　we　believe；　sufficiently　explain　the　curious　circumstance　that；　while　we　know　the　Christ　of　dogma　so　intimately；　we　know　the　Jesus　of　history　so　slightly。　The　literature　of　early　Christianity　enables　us　to　trace　with　tolerable　completeness　the　progress　of　opinion　concerning　the　nature　of　Jesus；　from　the　time　of　Paul's　early　missions　to　the　time　of　the　Nicene　Council；　but　upon　the　actual　words　and　deeds　of　Jesus　it　throws　a　very　unsteady　light。　The　dogmatic　purpose　everywhere　obscures　the　historic　basis。

This　same　dogmatic　prepossession　which　has　rendered　the　data　for　a　biography　of　Jesus　so　scanty　and　untrustworthy；　has　also　until　comparatively　recent　times　prevented　any　unbiassed　critical　examination　of　such　data　as　we　actually　possess。　Previous　to　the　eighteenth　century　any　attempt　to　deal　with　the　life　of　Jesus　upon　purely　historical　methods　would　have　been　not　only　contemned　as　irrational；　but　stigmatized　as　impious。　And　even　in　the　eighteenth　century；　those　writers　who　had　become　wholly　emancipated　from　ecclesiastic　tradition　were　so　destitute　of　all　historic　sympathy　and　so　unskilled　in　scientific　methods　of　criticism；　that　they　utterly　failed　to　comprehend　the　requirements　of　the　problem。　Their　aims　were　in　the　main　polemic；　not　historical。　They　thought　more　of　overthrowing　current　dogmas　than　of　impartially　examining　the　earliest　Christian　literature　with　a　view　of　eliciting　its　historic　contents；　and；　accordingly；　they　accomplished　but　little。　Two　brilliant　exceptions　must；　however；　be　noticed。　Spinoza；　in　the　seventeenth　century；　and　Lessing；　in　the　eighteenth；　were　men　far　in　advance　of　their　age。　They　are　the　fathers　of　modern　historical　criticism；　and　to　Lessing　in　particular；　with　his　enormous　erudition　and　incomparable　sagacity；　belongs　the　honour　of　initiating　that　method　of　inquiry　which；　in　the　hands　of　the　so…called　Tubingen　School；　has　led　to　such　striking　and　valuable　conclusions　concerning；　the　age　and　character　of　all　the　New　Testament　literature。　But　it　was　long　before　any　one　could　be　found　fit　to　bend　the　bow　which　Lessing　and　Spinoza　had　wielded。　A　succession　of　able　scholarsSemler；　Eichhorn；　Paulus；　Schleiermacher　Bretschneider；　and　De　Wettewere　required　to　examine；　with　German　patience　and　accuracy；　the　details　of　the　subject；　and　to　propound　various　untenable　hypotheses；　before　such　a　work　could　be　performed　as　that　of　Strauss。　The　〃Life　of　Jesus；〃　published　by　Strauss　when　only　twenty…six　years　of　age；　is　one　of　the　monumental　works　of　the　nineteenth　century；　worthy　to　rank；　as　a　historical　effort；　along　with　such　books　as　Niebuhr's　〃History　of　Rome；〃　Wolf's　〃Prolegomena；〃　or　Bentley's　〃Dissertations　on　Phalaris。〃　It　instantly　superseded　and　rendered　antiquated　everything　which　had　preceded　it；　nor　has　any　work　on　early　Christianity　been　written　in　Germany　for　the　past　thirty　years　which　has　not　been　dominated　by　the　recollection　of　that　marvellous　book。　Nevertheless；　the　labours　of　another　generation　of　scholars　have　carried　our　knowledge　of　the　New　Testament　literature　far　beyond　the　point　which　it　had　reached　when　Strauss　first　wrote。　At　that　time　the　dates　of　but　few　of　the　New　Testament　writings　had　been　fixed　with　any　approach　to　certainty；　the　age　and　character　of　the　fourth　gospel；　the　genuineness　of　the　Pauline　epistles；　even　the　mutual　relations　of　the　three　synoptics；　were　still　undetermined；　and；　as　a　natural。　result　of　this　uncertainty；　the　progress　of　dogma　during　the　first　century　was　ill　understood。　At　the　present　day　it　is　impossible　to　read　the　early　work　of　Strauss　without　being　impressed　with　the　necessity　of　obtaining　positive　data　as　to　the　origin　and　dogmatic　character　of　the　New　Testament　writings；　before　attempting　to　reach　any　conclusions　as　to　the　probable　career　of　Jesus。　These　positive　data　we　owe　to　the　genius　and　diligence　of　the　Tubingen　School；　and；　above　all；　to　its　founder；　Ferdinand　Christian　Baur。　Beginning　with　the　epistles　of　Paul；　of　which　he　distinguished　four　as　genuine；　Baur　gradually　worked　his　way　through　the　entire　New　Testament　collection；　detectingwith　that　inspired　insight　which　only　unflinching　diligence　can　impart　to　original　geniusthe　age　at　which　each　book　was　written；　and　the　circumstances　which　called　it　forth。　To　give　any　account　of　Baur's　detailed　conclusions；　or　of　the　method　by　which　he　reached　them；　would　require　a　volume。　They　are　very　scantily　presented　in　Mr。　Mackay's　work　on　the　〃Tubingen　School　and　its　Antecedents；〃　to　which　we　may　refer　the　reader　desirous　of　further　information。　We　can　here　merely　say　that　twenty　years　of　energetic　controversy　have　only　served　to　establish　most　of　Baur's　leading　conclusions　more　firmly　than　ever。　The　priority　of　the　so…called　gospel　of　Matthew；　the　Pauline　purpose　of　〃Luke；〃　the　second　in　date　of　our　gospels；　the　derivative　and　second…hand　character　of　〃Mark；〃　and　the　unapostolic　origin　of　the　fourth　gospel；　are　points　which　may　for　the　future　be　regarded　as　wellnigh　established　by　circumstantial　evidence。　So　with　respect　to　the　pseudo…Pauline　epistles；　Baur's　work　was　done　so　thoroughly　that　the　only　question　still　left　open　for　much　discussion　is　that　concerning　the　date　and　authorship　of　the　first　and　second　〃Thessalonians；〃a　point　of　quite　inferior　importance；　so　far　as　our　present　subject　is　concerned。　Seldom　have　such　vast　results　been　achieved　by　the　labour　of　a　single　scholar。　Seldom　has　any　historical　critic　possessed　such　a　combination　of　analytic　and　of　co…ordinating　powers　as　Baur。　His　keen　criticism　and　his　wonderful　flashes　of　insight　exercise　upon　the　reader　a　truly　poetic　effect　like　that　which　is　felt　in　contemplating　the　marvels　of　physical　discovery。

The　comprehensive　labours　of　Baur　were　followed　up　by　Zeller's　able　work　on　the　〃Acts　of　the　Apostles；〃　in　which　that　book　was　shown　to　have　been　partly　founded　upon　documents　written　by　Luke；　or　some　other　companion　of　Paul；　and　expanded　and　modified　by　a　much　later　writer　with　the　purpose　of　covering　up　the　traces　of　the　early　schism　between　the　Pauline　and　the　Petrine　sections　of　the　Church。　Along　with　this；　Schwegler's　work　on　the　〃Post…Apostolic　Times〃　deserves　mention　as　clearing　up　many　obscure　points　relating　to　the　early　development　of　dogma。　Finally；　the　〃New　Life　of　Jesus；〃　by　Strauss；　adopting　and　utilizing　the　principal　discoveries　of　Baur　and　his　followers；　and　combining　all　into　one　grand　historical　picture；　worthily　completes　the　task　which　the　earlier　work　of　the　same　author　had　inaugurated。

The　reader　will　have　noticed　that；　with　the　exception　of　Spinoza；　every　one　of　the　names　above　cited　in　connection　with　the　literary　analysis　and　criticism　of　the　New　Testament　is　the　name　of　a　German。　Until　within　the　last　decade；　Germany　has　indeed　possessed　almost　an　absolute　monopoly　of　the　science　of　Biblical　criticism；　other　countries　having　remained　not　only　unfamiliar　with　its　methods；　but　even　grossly　ignorant　of　its　conspicuous　results；　save　when　some　German　treatise　of　more　than　ordinary　popularity　has　now　and　then　been　translated。　But　during　the　past　ten　years　France　has　entered　the　lists；　and　the　writings　of　Reville；　Reuss；　Nicolas；　D'Eichthal；　Scherer；　and　Colani　testify　to　the　rapidity　with　which　the　German　seed　has　fructified　upon　her　soil。＇18＇

＇18＇　But　now；　in　annexing　Alsace；　Germany　has　〃annexed〃　pretty　much　the　whole　of　this　department　of　French　scholarship；a　curious　incidental　consequence　of　the　late　war。


None　of　these　books；　however；　has　achieved　such　wide…spread　celebrity；　or　done　so　much　toward　interesting　the　general　public　in　this　class　of　historical　inquiries；　as　the　〃Life　of　Jesus；〃　by　Renan。　This　pre…eminence　of　fame　is　partly；　but　not　wholly；　deserved。　From　a　purely　literary　point　of　view；　Renan's　work　doubtless　merits　all　the　celebrity　it　has　gained。　Its　author　writes　a　style　such　as　is　perhaps　surpassed　by　that　of　no　other　living　Frenchman。　It　is　by　far　the　most　readable　book　which　has　ever　been　written　concerning　the　life　of　Jesus。　And　no　doubt　some　of　its　popularity　is　due　to　its　very　faults；　which；　from　a　critical　point　of　view；　are　neither　few　nor　small。　For　Renan　is　certainly　very　faulty；　as　a　historical　critic；　when　he　practically　ignores　the　extreme　meagreness　of　our　positive　knowledge　of　the　career　of　Jesus；　and　describes　scene　after　scene　in　his　life　as　minutely　and　with　as　much　confidence　as　if　he