the unseen world and other essays-第16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！


　Jesus；　and　describes　scene　after　scene　in　his　life　as　minutely　and　with　as　much　confidence　as　if　he　had　himself　been　present　to　witness　it　all。　Again　and　again　the　critical　reader　feels　prompted　to　ask；　How　do　you　know　all　this？　or　why；　out　of　two　or　three　conflicting　accounts；　do　you　quietly　adopt　some　particular　one；　as　if　its　superior　authority　were　self…evident？　But　in　the　eye　of　the　uncritical　reader；　these　defects　are　excellences；　for　it　is　unpleasant　to　be　kept　in　ignorance　when　we　are　seeking　after　definite　knowledge；　and　it　is　disheartening　to　read　page　after　page　of　an　elaborate　discussion　which　ends　in　convincing　us　that　definite　knowledge　cannot　be　gained。

In　the　thirteenth　edition　of　the　〃Vie　de　Jesus；〃　Renan　has　corrected　some　of　the　most　striking　errors　of　the　original　work；　and　in　particular　has；　with　praiseworthy　candour；　abandoned　his　untenable　position　with　regard　to　the　age　and　character　of　the　fourth　gospel。　As　is　well　known；　Renan；　in　his　earlier　editions；　ascribed　to　this　gospel　a　historical　value　superior　to　that　of　the　synoptics；　believing　it　to　have　been　written　by　an　eyewitness　of　the　events　which　it　relates；　and　from　this　source；　accordingly；　he　drew　the　larger　share　of　his　materials。　Now；　if　there　is　any　one　conclusion　concerning　the　New　Testament　literature　which　must　be　regarded　as　incontrovertibly　established　by　the　labours　of　a　whole　generation　of　scholars；　it　is　this；　that　the　fourth　gospel　was　utterly　unknown　until　about　A。　D。　170；　that　it　was　written　by　some　one　who　possessed　very　little　direct　knowledge　of　Palestine；　that　its　purpose　was　rather　to　expound　a　dogma　than　to　give　an　accurate　record　of　events；　and　that　as　a　guide　to　the　comprehension　of　the　career　of　Jesus　it　is　of　far　less　value　than　the　three　synoptic　gospels。　It　is　impossible；　in　a　brief　review　like　the　present；　to　epitomize　the　evidence　upon　which　this　conclusion　rests；　which　may　more　profitably　be　sought　in　the　Rev。　J。　J。　Tayler's　work　on　〃The　Fourth　Gospel；〃　or　in　Davidson's　〃Introduction　to　the　New　Testament。〃　It　must　suffice　to　mention　that　this　gospel　is　not　cited　by　Papias；　that　Justin；　Marcion；　and　Valentinus　make　no　allusion　to　it；　though；　since　it　furnishes　so　much　that　is　germane　to　their　views；　they　would　gladly　have　appealed　to　it；　had　it　been　in　existence；　when　those　views　were　as　yet　under　discussion；　and　that；　finally；　in　the　great　Quartodeciman　controversy；　A。　D。　168；　the　gospel　is　not　only　not　mentioned；　but　the　authority　of　John　is　cited　by　Polycarp　in　flat　contradiction　of　the　view　afterwards　taken　by　this　evangelist。　Still　more；　the　assumption　of　Renan　led　at　once　into　complicated　difficulties　with　reference　to　the　Apocalypse。　The　fourth　gospel；　if　it　does　not　unmistakably　announce　itself　as　the　work　of　John；　at　least　professes　to　be　Johannine；　and　it　cannot　for　a　moment　be　supposed　that　such　a　book；　making　such　claims；　could　have　gained　currency　during　John's　lifetime　without　calling　forth　his　indignant　protest。　For；　in　reality；　no　book　in　the　New　Testament　collection　would　so　completely　have　shocked　the　prejudices　of　the　Johannine　party。　John's　own　views　are　well　known　to　us　from　the　Apocalypse。　John　was　the　most　enthusiastic　of　millenarians　and　the　most　narrow　and　rigid　of　Judaizers。　In　his　antagonism　to　the　Pauline　innovations　he　went　farther　than　Peter　himself。　Intense　hatred　of　Paul　and　his　followers　appears　in　several　passages　of　the　Apocalypse；　where　they　are　stigmatized　as　〃Nicolaitans；〃　〃deceivers　of　the　people；〃　〃those　who　say　they　are　apostles　and　are　not；〃　〃eaters　of　meat　offered　to　idols；〃　〃fornicators；〃　〃pretended　Jews；〃　〃liars；〃　〃synagogue　of　Satan；〃　etc。　（Chap。　II。）。　On　the　other　hand；　the　fourth　gospel　contains　nothing　millenarian　or　Judaical；　it　carries　Pauline　universalism　to　a　far　greater　extent　than　Paul　himself　ventured　to　carry　it；　even　condemning　the　Jews　as　children　of　darkness；　and　by　implication　contrasting　them　unfavourably　with　the　Gentiles；　and　it　contains　a　theory　of　the　nature　of　Jesus　which　the　Ebionitish　Christians；　to　whom　John　belonged；　rejected　to　the　last。

In　his　present　edition　Renan　admits　the　insuperable　force　of　these　objections；　and　abandons　his　theory　of　the　apostolic　origin　of　the　fourth　gospel。　And　as　this　has　necessitated　the　omission　or　alteration　of　all　such　passages　as　rested　upon　the　authority　of　that　gospel；　the　book　is　to　a　considerable　extent　rewritten；　and　the　changes　are　such　as　greatly　to　increase　its　value　as　a　history　of　Jesus。　Nevertheless；　the　author　has　so　long　been　in　the　habit　of　shaping　his　conceptions　of　the　career　of　Jesus　by　the　aid　of　the　fourth　gospel；　that　it　has　become　very　difficult　for　him　to　pass　freely　to　another　point　of　view。　He　still　clings　to　the　hypothesis　that　there　is　an　element　of　historic　tradition　contained　in　the　book；　drawn　from　memorial　writings　which　had　perhaps　been　handed　down　from　John；　and　which　were　inaccessible　to　the　synoptists。　In　a　very　interesting　appendix；　he　collects　the　evidence　in　favour　of　this　hypothesis；　which　indeed　is　not　without　plausibility；　since　there　is　every　reason　for　supposing　that　the　gospel　was　written　at　Ephesus；　which　a　century　before　had　been　John's　place　of　residence。　But　even　granting　most　of　Renan's　assumptions；　it　must　still　follow　that　the　authority　of　this　gospel　is　far　inferior　to　that　of　the　synoptics；　and　can　in　no　case　be　very　confidently　appealed　to。　The　question　is　one　of　the　first　importance　to　the　historian　of　early　Christianity。　In　inquiring　into　the　life　of　Jesus；　the　very　first　thing　to　do　is　to　establish　firmly　in　the　mind　the　true　relations　of　the　fourth　gospel　to　the　first　three。　Until　this　has　been　done；　no　one　is　competent　to　write　on　the　subject；　and　it　is　because　he　has　done　this　so　imperfectly；　that　Renan's　work　is；　from　a　critical　point　of　view；　so　imperfectly　successful。

The　anonymous　work　entitled　〃The　Jesus　of　History；〃　which　we　have　placed　at　the　head　of　this　article；　is　in　every　respect　noteworthy　as　the　first　systematic　attempt　made　in　England　to　follow　in　the　footsteps　of　German　criticism　in　writing　a　life　of　Jesus。　We　know　of　no　good　reason　why　the　book　should　be　published　anonymously；　for　as　a　historical　essay　it　possesses　extraordinary　merit；　and　does　great　credit　not　only　to　its　author；　but　to　English　scholarship　and　acumen。＇19＇　It　is　not；　indeed；　a　book　calculated　to　captivate　the　imagination　of　the　reading　public。　Though　written　in　a　clear；　forcible；　and　often　elegant　style；　it　possesses　no　such　wonderful　rhetorical　charm　as　the　work　of　Renan；　and　it　will　probably　never　find　half　a　dozen　readers　where　the　〃Vie　de　Jesus〃　has　found　a　hundred。　But　the　success　of　a　book　of　this　sort　is　not　to　be　measured　by　its　rhetorical　excellence；　or　by　its　adaptation　to　the　literary　tastes　of　an　uncritical　and　uninstructed　public；　but　rather　by　the　amount　of　critical　sagacity　which　it　brings　to　bear　upon　the　elucidation　of　the　many　difficult　and　disputed　points　in　the　subject　of　which　it　treats。　Measured　by　this　standard；　〃The　Jesus　of　History〃　must　rank　very　high　indeed。　To　say　that　it　throws　more　light　upon　the　career　of　Jesus　than　any　work　which　has　ever　before　been　written　in　English　would　be　very　inadequate　praise；　since　the　English　language　has　been　singularly　deficient　in　this　branch　of　historical　literature。　We　shall　convey　a　more　just　idea　of　its　merits　if　we　say　that　it　will　bear　comparison　with　anything　which　even　Germany　has　produced；　save　only　the　works　of　Strauss；　Baur；　and　Zeller。

＇19＇　〃The　Jesus　of　History〃　is　now　known　to　have　been　written　by　Sir　Richard　Hanson；　Chief　Justice　of　South　Australia。


The　fitness　of　our　author　for　the　task　which　he　has　undertaken　is　shown　at　the　outset　by　his　choice　of　materials。　In　basing　his　conclusions　almost　exclusively　upon　the　statements　contained　in　the　first　gospel；　he　is　upheld　by　every　sound　principle　of　criticism。　The　times　and　places　at　which　our　three　synoptic　gospels　were　written　have　been；　through　the　labours　of　the　Tubingen　critics；　determined　almost　to　a　certainty。　Of　the　three；　〃Mark〃　is　unquestionably　the　latest；　with　the　exception　of　about　twenty　verses；　it　is　entirely　made　up　from　〃Matthew〃　and　〃Luke；〃　the　diverse　Petrine　and　Pauline　tendencies　of　which　it　strives　to　neutralize　in　conformity　to　the　conciliatory　disposition　of　the　Church　at　Rome；　at　the　epoch　at　which　this　gospel　was　written；　about　A。　D。　130。　The　third　gospel　was　also　written　at　Rome；　some　fifteen　years　earlier。　In　the　preface；　its　author　describes　it　as　a　compilation　from　previously　existing　written　materials。　Among　these　materials　was　certainly　the　first　gospel；　several　passages　of　which　are　adopted　word　for　word　by　the　author　of　〃Luke。〃　Yet　the　narrative　varies　materially　from　that　of　the　first　gospel　in　many　essential　points。　The　arrangement　of　events　is　less　natural；　and；　as　in　the　〃Acts　of　the　Apostles；〃　by　the　same　author；　there　is　apparent　throughout　the　design　of　suppressing　the　old　discord　between　Paul　and　the　Judaizing　disciples；　and　of　representing　Christianity　as　essentially　Pauline　from　the　outset。　How　far　Paul　was　correct　in　his　interpretation　of　the　teachings　of　Jesus；　it　is　difficult　to　decide。　It　is；　no　doubt；　possible　that　the　first　gospel　may　have　lent　to　the　words　of　Jesus　an　Ebionite　colouring　in　some　ins