diff options
Diffstat (limited to '45422-tei')
| -rw-r--r-- | 45422-tei/45422-tei.tei | 24642 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 45422-tei/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 97367 bytes |
2 files changed, 24642 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/45422-tei/45422-tei.tei b/45422-tei/45422-tei.tei new file mode 100644 index 0000000..30baa5b --- /dev/null +++ b/45422-tei/45422-tei.tei @@ -0,0 +1,24642 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> + +<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "http://www.gutenberg.org/tei/marcello/0.4/dtd/pgtei.dtd" [ + +<!ENTITY u5 "http://www.tei-c.org/Lite/"> + +]> + +<TEI.2 lang="en"> +<teiHeader> + <fileDesc> + <titleStmt> + <title>The Quest of the Historical Jesus</title> + <author><name reg="Schweitzer, Albert">Albert Schweitzer</name></author> + <respStmt><resp>Translated by</resp> <name>W. Montgomery</name></respStmt> + </titleStmt> + <editionStmt> + <edition n="2">Edition 2</edition> + </editionStmt> + <publicationStmt> + <publisher>Project Gutenberg</publisher> + <date>April 26, 2014</date> + <idno type="etext-no">45422</idno> + <availability> + <p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and + with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it + away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg + License online at www.gutenberg.org/license</p> + </availability> + </publicationStmt> + <sourceDesc> + <bibl> + Created electronically. + </bibl> + </sourceDesc> + </fileDesc> + <encodingDesc> + </encodingDesc> + <profileDesc> + <langUsage> + <language id="en"></language> + <language id="la"></language> + <language id="fr"></language> + <language id="de"></language> + </langUsage> + </profileDesc> + <revisionDesc> + <change> + <date value="2014-04-16">April 16, 2014</date> + <respStmt> + <name> + Produced by Charlene Taylor, Bryan Ness, David King, and the Online + Distributed Proofreading Team at <http://www.pgdp.net/>. + (This file was produced from images generously made available by + The Internet Archive/America Libraries.) + </name> + </respStmt> + <item>Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1</item> + </change> + </revisionDesc> +</teiHeader> + +<pgExtensions> + <pgStyleSheet> + .boxed { x-class: boxed } + .shaded { x-class: shaded } + .rules { x-class: rules; rules: all } + .indent { margin-left: 2 } + .bold { font-weight: bold } + .italic { font-style: italic } + .smallcaps { font-variant: small-caps } + </pgStyleSheet> + + <pgCharMap formats="txt.iso-8859-1"> + <char id="U0x2014"> + <charName>mdash</charName> + <desc>EM DASH</desc> + <mapping>--</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2003"> + <charName>emsp</charName> + <desc>EM SPACE</desc> + <mapping> </mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2026"> + <charName>hellip</charName> + <desc>HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS</desc> + <mapping>...</mapping> + </char> + </pgCharMap> +</pgExtensions> + +<text lang="en"> + <front> + <div> + <divGen type="pgheader" /> + </div> + <div> + <divGen type="encodingDesc" /> + </div> + + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <p rend="font-size: xx-large; text-align: center">The Quest of the Historical Jesus</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">A Critical Study of its Progress From Reimarus to Wrede</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">By</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">Albert Schweitzer</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">Privatdocent in New Testament Studies in the University of Strassburg</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">Translated By</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">W. Montgomery, B.A., B.D.</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">With a Preface by</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">F. C. Burkitt, M.A., D.D.</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">Norrisian Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Second English Edition</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">London</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">Adam and Charles Black</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">1911</p> + </div> + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <head>Contents</head> + <divGen type="toc" /> + </div> + + </front> +<body> + +<div> +<p rend='text-align: center'> +<figure url='images/cover.jpg' rend='width: 40%'> +<figDesc>Cover Art</figDesc> +</figure> +</p> +</div> + +<pb n='iv'/><anchor id='Pgiv'/> + +<div> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>First Edition published March 1910</hi> +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='v'/><anchor id='Pgv'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Preface</head> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>The book here translated is offered to the English-speaking public in the +belief that it sets before them, as no other book has ever done, the history +of the struggle which the best-equipped intellects of the modern world +have gone through in endeavouring to realise for themselves the historical +personality of our Lord.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Every one nowadays is aware that traditional Christian doctrine +about Jesus Christ is encompassed with difficulties, and that many of the +statements in the Gospels appear incredible in the light of modern views +of history and nature. But when the alternative of <q>Jesus or Christ</q> +is put forward, as it has been in a recent publication, or when we +are bidden to choose between the Jesus of history and the Christ of +dogma, few except professed students know what a protean and +kaleidoscopic figure the <q>Jesus of history</q> is. Like the Christ in the +Apocryphal Acts of John, He has appeared in different forms to +different minds. <q>We know Him right well,</q> says Professor Weinel.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Quoted by Dr. Inge in the Hibbert Journal for Jan. 1910, p. 438 (from <q>Jesus +or Christ,</q> p. 32).</hi></note> +What a claim!</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Among the many bold paradoxes enunciated in this history of the +Quest, there is one that meets us at the outset, about which a few words +may be said here, if only to encourage those to persevere to the end who +might otherwise be repelled halfway—the paradox that the greatest +attempts to write a Life of Jesus have been written with hate.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'><q>Quest,</q> p. 4.</hi></note> It +is in full accordance with this faith that Dr. Schweitzer gives, in paragraph +after paragraph, the undiluted expression of the views of men who +agree only in their unflinching desire to attain historical truth. We +are not accustomed to be so ruthless in England. We sometimes tend +to forget that the Gospel has moved the world, and we think our faith +and devotion to it so tender and delicate a thing that it will break, if it +be not handled with the utmost circumspection. So we become dominated +<pb n='vi'/><anchor id='Pgvi'/> +by phrases and afraid of them. Dr. Schweitzer is not afraid of phrases, +if only they have been beaten out by real contact with facts. And those +who read to the end will see that the crude sarcasm of Reimarus and +the unflinching scepticism of Bruno Bauer are not introduced merely to +shock and by way of contrast. Each in his own way made a real +contribution to our understanding of the greatest historical problem +in the history of our race. We see now that the object of attack +was not the historical Jesus after all, but a temporary idea of Him, +inadequate because it did not truly represent Him or the world in which +He lived. And by hearing the writers' characteristic phrases, uncompromising +as they may be, by looking at things for a moment from their +own point of view, different as it may be from ours, we are able to be +more just, not only to these men of a past age, but also to the great +Problem that occupied them, as it also occupies us.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>For, as Father Tyrrell has been pointing out in his last most +impressive message to us all, Christianity is at the Cross Roads. If +the Figure of our Lord is to mean anything for us we must realise it +for ourselves. Most English readers of the New Testament have been +too long content with the rough and ready Harmony of the Four +Gospels that they unconsciously construct. This kind of <q>Harmony</q> +is not a very convincing picture when looked into, if only because it +almost always conflicts with inconvenient statements of the Gospels +themselves, statements that have been omitted from the <q>Harmony</q>, +not on any reasoned theory, but simply from inadvertence or the difficulty +of fitting them in. We treat the Life of our Lord too much as it is +treated in the Liturgical <q>Gospels</q>, as a simple series of disconnected +anecdotes.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Dr. Schweitzer's book does not pretend to be an impartial survey. +He has his own solution of the problems, and it is not to be expected +that English students will endorse the whole of his view of the Gospel +History, any more than his German fellow-workers have done. But +valuable and suggestive as I believe his constructive work to be in its +main outlines, I venture to think his grasp of the nature and complexity +of the great Quest is even more remarkable, and his exposition of it +cannot fail to stimulate us in England. Whatever we may think of +Dr. Schweitzer's solution or that of his opponents, we too have to +reckon with the Son of Man who was expected to come before the apostles +had gone over the cities of Israel, the Son of Man who would come in +His Kingdom before some that heard our Lord speak should taste death, +the Son of Man who came to give His life a ransom for many, whom +<pb n='vii'/><anchor id='Pgvii'/> +they would see hereafter coming with the clouds of heaven. <q>Who is +this Son of Man?</q> Dr. Schweitzer's book is an attempt to give the +full historical value and the true historical setting to these fundamental +words of the Gospel of Jesus.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Our first duty, with the Gospel as with every other ancient document, +is to interpret it with reference to its own time. The true view of the +Gospel will be that which explains the course of events in the first +century and the second century, rather than that which seems to have +spiritual and imaginative value for the twentieth century. Yet I +cannot refrain from pointing out here one feature of the theory of +thoroughgoing eschatology, which may appeal to those who are accustomed +to the venerable forms of ancient Christian aspiration and worship. It +may well be that absolute truth cannot be embodied in human thought +and that its expression must always be clothed in symbols. It may be +that we have to translate the hopes and fears of our spiritual ancestors +into the language of our new world. We have to learn, as the Church +in the second century had to learn, that the End is not yet, that New +Jerusalem, like all other objects of sense, is an image of the truth rather +than the truth itself. But at least we are beginning to see that the +apocalyptic vision, the New Age which God is to bring in, is no mere +embroidery of Christianity, but the heart of its enthusiasm. And therefore +the expectations of vindication and judgment to come, the imagery +of the Messianic Feast, the <q>other-worldliness</q> against which so many +eloquent words were said in the nineteenth century, are not to be +regarded as regrettable accretions foisted on by superstition to the pure +morality of the original Gospel. These ideas are the Christian Hope, +to be allegorised and <q>spiritualised</q> by us for our own use whenever +necessary, but not to be given up so long as we remain Christians at all. +Books which teach us boldly to trust the evidence of our documents, and +to accept the eschatology of the Christian Gospel as being historically the +eschatology of Jesus, help us at the same time to retain a real meaning +and use for the ancient phrases of the Te Deum, and for the mediaeval +strain of <q>Jerusalem the Golden.</q></hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>F. C. Burkitt.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Cambridge, 1910.</hi> +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='001'/><anchor id='Pg001'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. The Problem</head> + +<p> +When, at some future day, our period of civilisation shall lie, closed +and completed, before the eyes of later generations, German theology +will stand out as a great, a unique phenomenon in the mental and +spiritual life of our time. For nowhere save in the German +temperament can there be found in the same perfection the living +complex of conditions and factors—of philosophic thought, +critical acumen, historical insight, and religious feeling—without +which no deep theology is possible. +</p> + +<p> +And the greatest achievement of German theology is the critical +investigation of the life of Jesus. What it has accomplished here +has laid down the conditions and determined the course of the +religious thinking of the future. +</p> + +<p> +In the history of doctrine its work has been negative; it has, +so to speak, cleared the site for a new edifice of religious thought. +In describing how the ideas of Jesus were taken possession of by +the Greek spirit, it was tracing the growth of that which must +necessarily become strange to us, and, as a matter of fact, has +become strange to us. +</p> + +<p> +Of its efforts to create a new dogmatic we scarcely need to +have the history written; it is alive within us. It is no doubt +interesting to trace how modern thoughts have found their way +into the ancient dogmatic system, there to combine with eternal +ideas to form new constructions; it is interesting to penetrate into +the mind of the thinker in which this process is at work; but the +real truth of that which here meets us as history we experience +within ourselves. As in the monad of Leibnitz the whole universe +is reflected, so we intuitively experience within us, even apart from +any clear historical knowledge, the successive stages of the progress +of modern dogma, from rationalism to Ritschl. This experience is +true knowledge, all the truer because we are conscious of the whole +<pb n='002'/><anchor id='Pg002'/> +as something indefinite, a slow and difficult movement towards a +goal which is still shrouded in obscurity. We have not yet arrived +at any reconciliation between history and modern thought—only +between half-way history and half-way thought. What the ultimate +goal towards which we are moving will be, what this something is +which shall bring new life and new regulative principles to coming +centuries, we do not know. We can only dimly divine that it will +be the mighty deed of some mighty original genius, whose truth and +rightness will be proved by the fact that we, working at our poor +half thing, will oppose him might and main—we who imagine we +long for nothing more eagerly than a genius powerful enough to +open up with authority a new path for the world, seeing that we +cannot succeed in moving it forward along the track which we +have so laboriously prepared. +</p> + +<p> +For this reason the history of the critical study of the life of +Jesus is of higher intrinsic value than the history of the study of +ancient dogma or of the attempts to create a new one. It has to +describe the most tremendous thing which the religious consciousness +has ever dared and done. In the study of the history of +dogma German theology settled its account with the past; in its +attempt to create a new dogmatic, it was endeavouring to keep a +place for the religious life in the thought of the present; in +the study of the life of Jesus it was working for the future—in +pure faith in the truth, not seeing whereunto it wrought. +</p> + +<p> +Moreover, we are here dealing with the most vital thing in the +world's history. There came a Man to rule over the world; He +ruled it for good and for ill, as history testifies; He destroyed the +world into which He was born; the spiritual life of our own time +seems like to perish at His hands, for He leads to battle against +our thought a host of dead ideas, a ghostly army upon which death +has no power, and Himself destroys again the truth and goodness +which His Spirit creates in us, so that it cannot rule the world. +That He continues, notwithstanding, to reign as the alone Great +and alone True in a world of which He denied the continuance, is +the prime example of that antithesis between spiritual and natural +truth which underlies all life and all events, and in Him emerges +into the field of history. +</p> + +<p> +It is only at first sight that the absolute indifference of early +Christianity towards the life of the historical Jesus is disconcerting. +When Paul, representing those who recognise the signs of the +times, did not desire to know Christ after the flesh, that was +the first expression of the impulse of self-preservation by which +Christianity continued to be guided for centuries. It felt that +with the introduction of the historic Jesus into its faith, there +would arise something new, something which had not been foreseen +in the thoughts of the Master Himself, and that thereby a contradiction +<pb n='003'/><anchor id='Pg003'/> +would be brought to light, the solution of which would +constitute one of the great problems of the world. +</p> + +<p> +Primitive Christianity was therefore right to live wholly in the +future with the Christ who was to come, and to preserve of the +historic Jesus only detached sayings, a few miracles, His death and +resurrection. By abolishing both the world and the historical +Jesus it escaped the inner division described above, and remained +consistent in its point of view. We, on our part, have reason to +be grateful to the early Christians that, in consequence of this +attitude they have handed down to us, not biographies of Jesus but +only Gospels, and that therefore we possess the Idea and the +Person with the minimum of historical and contemporary +limitations. +</p> + +<p> +But the world continued to exist, and its continuance brought +this one-sided view to an end. The supra-mundane Christ and +the historical Jesus of Nazareth had to be brought together into +a single personality at once historical and raised above time. +That was accomplished by Gnosticism and the Logos Christology. +Both, from opposite standpoints, because they were seeking the +same goal, agreed in sublimating the historical Jesus into the +supra-mundane Idea. The result of this development, which +followed on the discrediting of eschatology, was that the historical +Jesus was again introduced into the field of view of Christianity, +but in such a way that all justification for, and interest in, the +investigation of His life and historical personality were done +away with. +</p> + +<p> +Greek theology was as indifferent in regard to the historical +Jesus who lives concealed in the Gospels as was the early eschatological +theology. More than that, it was dangerous to Him; for it +created a new supernatural-historical Gospel, and we may consider +it fortunate that the Synoptics were already so firmly established +that the Fourth Gospel could not oust them; instead, the Church, +as though from the inner necessity of the antitheses which now +began to be a constructive element in her thought, was obliged +to set up two antithetic Gospels alongside of one another. +</p> + +<p> +When at Chalcedon the West overcame the East, its doctrine +of the two natures dissolved the unity of the Person, and thereby +cut off the last possibility of a return to the historical Jesus. The +self-contradiction was elevated into a law. But the Manhood was +so far admitted as to preserve, in appearance, the rights of history. +Thus by a deception the formula kept the Life prisoner and +prevented the leading spirits of the Reformation from grasping the +idea of a return to the historical Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +This dogma had first to be shattered before men could once more +go out in quest of the historical Jesus, before they could even grasp +the thought of His existence. That the historic Jesus is something +<pb n='004'/><anchor id='Pg004'/> +different from the Jesus Christ of the doctrine of the Two Natures +seems to us now self-evident. We can, at the present day, scarcely +imagine the long agony in which the historical view of the life of +Jesus came to birth. And even when He was once more recalled +to life, He was still, like Lazarus of old, bound hand and foot with +grave-clothes—the grave-clothes of the dogma of the Dual Nature. +Hase relates, in the preface to his first Life of Jesus (1829), that a +worthy old gentleman, hearing of his project, advised him to treat +in the first part of the human, in the second of the divine Nature. +There was a fine simplicity about that. But does not the simplicity +cover a presentiment of the revolution of thought for which the +historical method of study was preparing the way—a presentiment +which those who were engaged in the work did not share in the +same measure? It was fortunate that they did not; for otherwise +how could they have had the courage to go on? +</p> + +<p> +The historical investigation of the life of Jesus did not take its +rise from a purely historical interest; it turned to the Jesus of +history as an ally in the struggle against the tyranny of dogma. +Afterwards when it was freed from this πάθος it sought to present +the historic Jesus in a form intelligible to its own time. For Bahrdt +and Venturini He was the tool of a secret order. They wrote +under the impression of the immense influence exercised by the +Order of the Illuminati<note place='foot'>An order founded in 1776 by Professor Adam Weishaupt of Ingolstadt in +Bavaria. Its aim was the furtherance of rational religion as opposed to orthodox +dogma; its organisation was largely modelled on that of the Jesuits. At its most +flourishing period it numbered over 2000 members, including the rulers of several +German States.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></note> at the end of the eighteenth century. For +Reinhard, Hess, Paulus, and the rest of the rationalistic writers He +is the admirable revealer of true virtue, which is coincident with +right reason. Thus each successive epoch of theology found its +own thoughts in Jesus; that was, indeed, the only way in which it +could make Him live. +</p> + +<p> +But it was not only each epoch that found its reflection in Jesus; +each individual created Him in accordance with his own character. +There is no historical task which so reveals a man's true self as the +writing of a Life of Jesus. No vital force comes into the figure +unless a man breathes into it all the hate or all the love of which +he is capable. The stronger the love, or the stronger the hate, the +more life-like is the figure which is produced. For hate as well as +love can write a Life of Jesus, and the greatest of them are written +with hate: that of Reimarus, the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, and +that of David Friedrich Strauss. It was not so much hate of the +Person of Jesus as of the supernatural nimbus with which it was +so easy to surround Him, and with which He had in fact been +surrounded. They were eager to picture Him as truly and purely +human, to strip from Him the robes of splendour with which He +<pb n='005'/><anchor id='Pg005'/> +had been apparelled, and clothe Him once more with the coarse +garments in which He had walked in Galilee. +</p> + +<p> +And their hate sharpened their historical insight. They +advanced the study of the subject more than all the others put +together. But for the offence which they gave, the science of +historical theology would not have stood where it does to-day. <q>It +must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom +the offence cometh.</q> Reimarus evaded that woe by keeping the +offence to himself and preserving silence during his lifetime—his +work, <q>The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples,</q> was only published +after his death, by Lessing. But in the case of Strauss, who, as a +young man of twenty-seven, cast the offence openly in the face of +the world, the woe fulfilled itself. His <q>Life of Jesus</q> was his +ruin. But he did not cease to be proud of it in spite of all the +misfortune that it brought him. <q>I might well bear a grudge +against my book,</q> he writes twenty-five years later in the preface to +the <q>Conversations of Ulrich von Hutten,</q><note place='foot'>D. Fr. Strauss, <hi rend='italic'>Gespräche von Ulrich von Hutten</hi>. Leipzig, 1860.</note> <q>for it has done me +much evil (<q>And rightly so!</q> the pious will exclaim). It has +excluded me from public teaching in which I took pleasure and for +which I had perhaps some talent; it has torn me from natural +relationships and driven me into unnatural ones; it has made my +life a lonely one. And yet when I consider what it would have +meant if I had refused to utter the word which lay upon my soul, if +I had suppressed the doubts which were at work in my mind—then +I bless the book which has doubtless done me grievous harm +outwardly, but which preserved the inward health of my mind and +heart, and, I doubt not, has done the same for many others also.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Before him, Bahrdt had his career broken in consequence of +revealing his beliefs concerning the Life of Jesus; and after him, +Bruno Bauer. +</p> + +<p> +It was easy for them, resolved as they were to open the way +even with seeming blasphemy. But the others, those who tried +to bring Jesus to life at the call of love, found it a cruel task to +be honest. The critical study of the life of Jesus has been for +theology a school of honesty. The world had never seen before, +and will never see again, a struggle for truth so full of pain and +renunciation as that of which the Lives of Jesus of the last hundred +years contain the cryptic record. One must read the successive +Lives of Jesus with which Hase followed the course of the study +from the 'twenties to the 'seventies of the nineteenth century to get +an inkling of what it must have cost the men who lived through +that decisive period really to maintain that <q>courageous freedom +of investigation</q> which the great Jena professor, in the preface to +his first Life of Jesus, claims for his researches. One sees in him +the marks of the struggle with which he gives up, bit by bit, things +<pb n='006'/><anchor id='Pg006'/> +which, when he wrote that preface, he never dreamed he would +have to surrender. It was fortunate for these men that their +sympathies sometimes obscured their critical vision, so that, without +becoming insincere, they were able to take white clouds for distant +mountains. That was the kindly fate of Hase and Beyschlag. +</p> + +<p> +The personal character of the study is not only due, however, +to the fact that a personality can only be awakened to life by the +touch of a personality; it lies in the essential nature of the problem +itself. For the problem of the life of Jesus has no analogue in the +field of history. No historical school has ever laid down canons +for the investigation of this problem, no professional historian has +ever lent his aid to theology in dealing with it. Every ordinary +method of historical investigation proves inadequate to the complexity +of the conditions. The standards of ordinary historical +science are here inadequate, its methods not immediately applicable. +The historical study of the life of Jesus has had to create its own +methods for itself. In the constant succession of unsuccessful +attempts, five or six problems have emerged side by side which +together constitute the fundamental problem. There is, however, +no direct method of solving the problem in its complexity; all that +can be done is to experiment continuously, starting from definite +assumptions; and in this experimentation the guiding principle +must ultimately rest upon historical intuition. +</p> + +<p> +The cause of this lies in the nature of the sources of the life +of Jesus, and in the character of our knowledge of the contemporary +religious world of thought. It is not that the sources are in themselves +bad. When we have once made up our minds that we have +not the materials for a complete Life of Jesus, but only for a picture +of His public ministry, it must be admitted that there are few +characters of antiquity about whom we possess so much indubitably +historical information, of whom we have so many authentic discourses. +The position is much more favourable, for instance, than +in the case of Socrates; for he is pictured to us by literary men who +exercised their creative ability upon the portrait. Jesus stands +much more immediately before us, because He was depicted by +simple Christians without literary gift. +</p> + +<p> +But at this point there arises a twofold difficulty. There is +first the fact that what has just been said applies only to the first +three Gospels, while the fourth, as regards its character, historical +data, and discourse material, forms a world of its own. It is written +from the Greek standpoint, while the first three are written from the +Jewish. And even if one could get over this, and regard, as has +often been done, the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel as standing +in something of the same relation to one another as Xenophon +does to Plato as sources for the life of Socrates, yet the complete +irreconcilability of the historical data would compel the critical +<pb n='007'/><anchor id='Pg007'/> +investigator to decide from the first in favour of one source or the +other. Once more it is found true that <q>No man can serve two +masters.</q> This stringent dilemma was not recognised from the +beginning; its emergence is one of the results of the whole course +of experiment. +</p> + +<p> +The second difficulty regarding the sources is the want of any +thread of connexion in the material which they offer us. While +the Synoptics are only collections of anecdotes (in the best, historical +sense of the word), the Gospel of John—as stands on record in its +closing words—only professes to give a selection of the events and +discourses. +</p> + +<p> +From these materials we can only get a Life of Jesus with +yawning gaps. How are these gaps to be filled? At the worst +with phrases, at the best with historical imagination. There is +really no other means of arriving at the order and inner connexion +of the facts of the life of Jesus than the making and testing of +hypotheses. If the tradition preserved by the Synoptists really +includes all that happened during the time that Jesus was with His +disciples, the attempt to discover the connexion must succeed sooner +or later. It becomes more and more clear that this presupposition +is indispensable to the investigation. If it is merely a fortuitous +series of episodes that the Evangelists have handed down to us, we +may give up the attempt to arrive at a critical reconstruction of the +life of Jesus as hopeless. +</p> + +<p> +But it is not only the events which lack historical connexion; we +are without any indication of a thread of connexion in the actions +and discourses of Jesus, because the sources give no hint of the +character of His self-consciousness. They confine themselves to +outward facts. We only begin to understand these historically +when we can mentally place them in an intelligible connexion and +conceive them as the acts of a clearly defined personality. All +that we know of the development of Jesus and of His Messianic +self-consciousness has been arrived at by a series of working hypotheses. +Our conclusions can only be considered valid so long as +they are not found incompatible with the recorded facts as a whole. +</p> + +<p> +It may be maintained by the aid of arguments drawn from the +sources that the self-consciousness of Jesus underwent a development +during the course of His public ministry; it may, with equally +good grounds, be denied. For in both cases the arguments are +based upon little details in the narrative in regard to which we do +not know whether they are purely accidental, or whether they +belong to the essence of the facts. In each case, moreover, the +experimental working out of the hypothesis leads to a conclusion +which compels the rejection of some of the actual data of the +sources. Each view equally involves a violent treatment of the text. +</p> + +<p> +Furthermore, the sources exhibit, each within itself, a striking +<pb n='008'/><anchor id='Pg008'/> +contradiction. They assert that Jesus felt Himself to be the +Messiah; and yet from their presentation of His life it does not +appear that He ever publicly claimed to be so. They attribute to +Him, that is, an attitude which has absolutely no connexion with +the consciousness which they assume that He possessed. But once +admit that the outward acts are not the natural expression of the +self-consciousness and all exact historical knowledge is at an end; +we have to do with an isolated fact which is not referable to +any law. +</p> + +<p> +This being so, the only way of arriving at a conclusion of any +value is to experiment, to test, by working them out, the two +hypotheses—that Jesus felt Himself to be the Messiah, as the +sources assert, or that He did not feel Himself to be so, as His +conduct implies; or else to try to conjecture what kind of Messianic +consciousness His must have been, if it left His conduct and His +discourses unaffected. For one thing is certain: the whole account +of the last days at Jerusalem would be unintelligible, if we had to +suppose that the mass of the people had a shadow of a suspicion +that Jesus held Himself to be the Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +Again, whereas in general a personality is to some extent defined +by the world of thought which it shares with its contemporaries, in +the case of Jesus this source of information is as unsatisfactory as +the documents. +</p> + +<p> +What was the nature of the contemporary Jewish world of +thought? To that question no clear answer can be given. We do +not know whether the expectation of the Messiah was generally +current or whether it was the faith of a mere sect. With the +Mosaic religion as such it had nothing to do. There was no +organic connexion between the religion of legal observance and the +future hope. Further, if the eschatological hope was generally +current, was it the prophetic or the apocalyptic form of that hope? +We know the Messianic expectations of the prophets; we know the +apocalyptic picture as drawn by Daniel, and, following him, by +Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon before the coming of Jesus, and +by the Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch about the time of the +destruction of Jerusalem. But we do not know which was the +popular form; nor, supposing that both were combined into one +picture, what this picture really looked like. We know only the +form of eschatology which meets us in the Gospels and in the +Pauline epistles; that is to say, the form which it took in the +Christian community in consequence of the coming of Jesus. +And to combine these three—the prophetic, the Late-Jewish +apocalyptic, and the Christian—has not proved possible. +</p> + +<p> +Even supposing we could obtain more exact information regarding +the popular Messianic expectations at the time of Jesus, we +should still not know what form they assumed in the self-consciousness +<pb n='009'/><anchor id='Pg009'/> +of One who knew Himself to be the Messiah but held that the +time was not yet come for Him to reveal Himself as such. We +only know their aspect from without, as a waiting for the Messiah +and the Messianic Age; we have no clue to their aspect from +within as factors in the Messianic self-consciousness. We possess +no psychology of the Messiah. The Evangelists have nothing to +tell us about it, because Jesus told them nothing about it; the +sources for the contemporary spiritual life inform us only concerning +the eschatological expectation. For the form of the Messianic self-consciousness +of Jesus we have to fall back upon conjecture. +</p> + +<p> +Such is the character of the problem, and, as a consequence, +historical experiment must here take the place of historical research. +That being so, it is easy to understand that to take a survey of the +study of the life of Jesus is to be confronted, at first sight, with +a scene of the most boundless confusion. A series of experiments +are repeated with constantly varying modifications suggested by +the results furnished by the subsidiary sciences. Most of the +writers, however, have no suspicion that they are merely repeating +an experiment which has often been made before. Some of them +discover this in the course of their work to their own great astonishment—it +is so, for instance, with Wrede, who recognises that he +is working out, though doubtless with a clearer consciousness of +his aim, an idea of Bruno Bauer's.<note place='foot'>W. Wrede, <hi rend='italic'>Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien</hi>. (The Messianic Secret in +the Gospels.) Göttingen, 1901, pp. 280-282.</note> If old Reimarus were to come +back again, he might confidently give himself out to be the latest +of the moderns, for his work rests upon a recognition of the exclusive +importance of eschatology, such as only recurs again in +Johannes Weiss. +</p> + +<p> +Progress, too, is curiously fitful, with long intervals of marking +time between the advances. From Strauss down to the 'nineties +there was no real progress, if one takes into consideration only the +complete Lives of Jesus which appeared. But a number of separate +problems took a more clearly defined form, so that in the end the +general problem suddenly moved forward, as it seemed, with a jerk. +</p> + +<p> +There is really no common standard by which to judge the +works with which we have to do. It is not the most orderly +narratives, those which weave in conscientiously every detail of the +text, which have advanced the study of the subject, but precisely +the eccentric ones, those that take the greatest liberties with the +text. It is not by the mass of facts that a writer sets down alongside +of one another as possible—because he writes easily and +there is no one there to contradict him, and because facts on +paper do not come into collision so sharply as they do in reality—it +is not in that way that he shows his power of reconstructing +history, but by that which he recognises as impossible. The constructions +<pb n='010'/><anchor id='Pg010'/> +of Reimarus and Bruno Bauer have no solidity; they +are mere products of the imagination. But there is much more +historical power in their clear grasp of a single definite problem, +which has blinded them to all else, than there is in the circumstantial +works of Beyschlag and Bernard Weiss. +</p> + +<p> +But once one has accustomed oneself to look for certain definite +landmarks amid this apparent welter of confusion one begins +at last to discover in vague outline the course followed, and the +progress made, by the critical study of the life of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +It falls, immediately, into two periods, that before Strauss and +that after Strauss. The dominant interest in the first is the +question of miracle. What terms are possible between a historical +treatment and the acceptance of supernatural events? With the +advent of Strauss this problem found a solution, viz., that these +events have no rightful place in the history, but are simply mythical +elements in the sources. The way was thus thrown open. Meanwhile, +alongside of the problem of the supernatural, other problems +had been dimly apprehended. Reimarus had drawn attention to +the contemporary eschatological views; Hase, in his first Life of +Jesus (1829), had sought to trace a development in the self-consciousness +of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +But on this point a clear view was impossible, because all the +students of the subject were still basing their operations upon the +harmony of the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel; which means +that they had not so far felt the need of a historically intelligible +outline of the life of Jesus. Here, too, Strauss was the light-bringer. +But the transient illumination was destined to be +obscured by the Marcan hypothesis,<note place='foot'>In the author's usage <q>the Marcan hypothesis</q> means the theory that the Gospel +of Mark is not only the earliest and most valuable source for the facts, but differs +from the other Gospels in embodying a more or less clear and historically intelligible +view of the connexion of events. See Chaps. <ref target='Chapter_X'>X.</ref> and <ref target='Chapter_XIV'>XIV.</ref> below.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></note> which now came to the +front. The necessity of choosing between John and the Synoptists +was first fully established by the Tübingen school; and the right +relation of this question to the Marcan hypothesis was subsequently +shown by Holtzmann. +</p> + +<p> +While these discussions of the preliminary literary questions +were in progress the main historical problem of the life of Jesus +was slowly rising into view. The question began to be mooted: +what was the significance of eschatology for the mind of Jesus? +With this problem was associated, in virtue of an inner connexion +which was not at first suspected, the problem of the self-consciousness +of Jesus. At the beginning of the 'nineties it was generally +felt that, in the solution given to this dual problem, an in some +measure assured knowledge of the outward and inward course of +the life of Jesus had been reached. At this point Johannes +Weiss revived the comprehensive claim of Reimarus on behalf of +<pb n='011'/><anchor id='Pg011'/> +eschatology; and scarcely had criticism adjusted its attitude to +this question when Wrede renewed the attempt of Bauer and +Volkmar to eliminate altogether the Messianic element from the +life of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +We are now once more in the midst of a period of great +activity in the study of the subject. On the one side we are +offered a historical solution, on the other a literary. The question +at issue is: Is it possible to explain the contradiction between the +Messianic consciousness of Jesus and His non-Messianic discourses +and actions by means of a conception of His Messianic consciousness +which will make it appear that He could not have acted +otherwise than as the Evangelists describe; or must we endeavour to +explain the contradiction by taking the non-Messianic discourses and +actions as our fixed point, denying the reality of His Messianic self-consciousness +and regarding it as a later interpolation of the beliefs +of the Christian community into the life of Jesus? In the latter +case the Evangelists are supposed to have attributed these Messianic +claims to Jesus because the early Church held Him to be the +Messiah, but to have contradicted themselves by describing His +life as it actually was, viz., as the life of a prophet, not of one who +held Himself to be the Messiah. To put it briefly: Does the +difficulty of explaining the historical personality of Jesus lie in the +history itself, or only in the way in which it is represented in the +sources? +</p> + +<p> +This alternative will be discussed in all the critical studies of +the next few years. Once clearly posed it compels a decision. +But no one can really understand the problem who has not a clear +notion of the way in which it has shaped itself in the course of the +investigation; no one can justly criticise, or appraise the value of, +new contributions to the study of this subject unless he knows in +what forms they have been presented before. +</p> + +<p> +The history of the study of the life of Jesus has hitherto +received surprisingly little attention. Hase, in his Life of Jesus of +1829, briefly records the previous attempts to deal with the subject. +Friedrich von Ammon, himself one of the most distinguished +students in this department, in his <q>Progress of Christianity,</q><note place='foot'>Dr. Christoph Friedrich von Ammon, <hi rend='italic'>Fortbildung des Christentums</hi>, Leipzig, +1840, vol. iv. p. 156 ff.</note> gives +some information <q>regarding the most notable biographies of Jesus +of the last fifty years.</q> In the year 1865 Uhlhorn treated together +the Lives of Jesus of Renan, Schenkel, and Strauss; in 1876 Hase, +in his <q>History of Jesus,</q> gave the only complete literary history of +the subject;<note place='foot'>Hase, <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte Jesu</hi>, Leipzig, 1876, pp. 110-162. The second edition, +published in 1891, carries the survey no further than the first.</note> in 1892 Uhlhorn extended his former lecture to +include the works of Keim, Delff, Beyschlag, and Weiss;<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu in seinen neueren Darstellungen</hi>, 1892, five lectures.</note> in 1898 +<pb n='012'/><anchor id='Pg012'/> +Frantzen described, in a short essay, the progress of the study since +Strauss;<note place='foot'>W. Frantzen, <hi rend='italic'>Die <q>Leben-Jesu</q> Bewegung seit Strauss</hi>, Dorpat, 1898.</note> in 1899 and 1900 Baldensperger gave, in the <hi rend='italic'>Theologische +Rundschau</hi>, a survey of the most recent publications;<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Theol. Rundschau</hi>, ii. 59-67 (1899); iii. 9-19 (1900).</note> Weinel's +book, <q>Jesus in the Nineteenth Century,</q> naturally only gives an +analysis of a few classical works; Otto Schmiedel's lecture on the +<q>Main Problems of the Critical Study of the Life of Jesus</q> (1902) +merely sketches the history of the subject in broad outline.<note place='foot'>Von Soden's study, <hi rend='italic'>Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu</hi>, 1904, belongs here +only in a very limited sense, since it does not seek to show how the problems have +gradually emerged in the various Lives of Jesus.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Apart from scattered notices in histories of theology this is +practically all the literature of the subject. There is room for an +attempt to bring order into the chaos of the Lives of Jesus. Hase +made ingenious comparisons between them, but he was unable to +group them according to inner principles, or to judge them +justly. Weisse is for him a feebler descendant of Strauss, Bruno +Bauer is the victim of a fantastic imagination. It would indeed +have been difficult for Hase to discover in the works of his time +any principle of division. But now, when the literary and eschatological +methods of solution have led to complementary results, when +the post-Straussian period of investigation seems to have reached a +provisional close, and the goal to which it has been tending has +become clear, the time seems ripe for the attempt to trace +genetically in the successive works the shaping of the problem as +it now confronts us, and to give a systematic historical account +of the critical study of the life of Jesus. Our endeavour will be +to furnish a graphic description of all the attempts to deal with +the subject; and not to dismiss them with stock phrases or +traditional labels, but to show clearly what they really did to +advance the formulation of the problem, whether their contemporaries +recognised it or not. In accordance with this +principle many famous Lives of Jesus which have prolonged an +honoured existence through many successive editions, will make +but a poor figure, while others, which have received scant notice, +will appear great. Behind Success comes Truth, and her reward is +with her. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='013'/><anchor id='Pg013'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Hermann Samuel Reimarus</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger.</q> Noch ein Fragment des Wolfenbüttelschen +Ungenannten. Herausgegeben von Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Braunschweig, +1778, 276 pp. (The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples. A further +Instalment of the anonymous Wolfenbüttel Fragments. Published by Gotthold +Ephraim Lessing. Brunswick, 1778.) +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Johann Salomo Semler.</hi> Beantwortung der Fragmente eines Ungenannten insbesondere +vom Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger. (Reply to the anonymous +Fragments, especially to that entitled <q>The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples.</q>) +Halle, 1779, 432 pp. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Before Reimarus, no one had attempted to form a historical +conception of the life of Jesus. Luther had not so much as felt +that he cared to gain a clear idea of the order of the recorded +events. Speaking of the chronology of the cleansing of the +Temple, which in John falls at the beginning, in the Synoptists +near the close, of Jesus' public life, he remarks: <q>The Gospels follow +no order in recording the acts and miracles of Jesus, and the +matter is not, after all, of much importance. If a difficulty arises +in regard to the Holy Scripture and we cannot solve it, we must +just let it alone.</q> When the Lutheran theologians began to +consider the question of harmonising the events, things were still +worse. Osiander (1498-1552), in his <q>Harmony of the Gospels,</q> +maintained the principle that if an event is recorded more than +once in the Gospels, in different connexions, it happened more +than once and in different connexions. The daughter of Jairus was +therefore raised from the dead several times; on one occasion Jesus +allowed the devils whom He cast out of a single demoniac to enter +into a herd of swine, on another occasion, those whom He cast +out of two demoniacs; there were two cleansings of the Temple, +and so forth.<note place='foot'>Hase, <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte Jesu</hi>, 1876, pp. 112, 113.</note> The correct view of the Synoptic Gospels as being +interdependent was first formulated by Griesbach. +</p> + +<p> +The only Life of Jesus written prior to the time of Reimarus +which has any interest for us, was composed by a Jesuit in the +<pb n='014'/><anchor id='Pg014'/> +Persian language. The author was the Indian missionary +Hieronymus Xavier, nephew of Francis Xavier, and it was designed +for the use of Akbar, the Moghul Emperor, who, in the latter part +of the sixteenth century, had become the most powerful potentate +in Hindustan. In the seventeenth century the Persian text was +brought to Europe by a merchant, and was translated into Latin by +Louis de Dieu, a theologian of the Reformed Church, whose +intention in publishing it was to discredit Catholicism.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Historia Christi persice conscripta simulque multis modis contaminata a +Hieronymo Xavier, lat. reddita et animadd, notata a Ludovico de Dieu.</hi> Lugd. +1639.</note> It is a +skilful falsification of the life of Jesus in which the omissions, and +the additions taken from the Apocrypha, are inspired by the sole +purpose of presenting to the open-minded ruler a glorious Jesus, +in whom there should be nothing to offend him. +</p> + +<p> +Thus there had been nothing to prepare the world for a work +of such power as that of Reimarus. It is true, there had appeared +earlier, in 1768, a Life of Jesus by Johann Jakob Hess<note place='foot'>Johann Jakob Hess, <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu</hi>. (History of +the Last Three Years of the Life of Jesus.) 3 vols. 1768 ff.</note> (1741-1828), +written from the standpoint of the older rationalism, but it +retains so much supernaturalism and follows so much the lines of +a paraphrase of the Gospels, that there was nothing to indicate to +the world what a master-stroke the spirit of the time was preparing. +</p> + +<p> +Not much is known about Reimarus. For his contemporaries +he had no existence, and it was Strauss who first made his name +known in literature.<note place='foot'>D. F. Strauss, <hi rend='italic'>Hermann Samuel Reimarus und seine Schutzschrift für die +vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes</hi>. (Reimarus and his Apology for the Rational +Worshippers of God.) 1862.</note> He was born in Hamburg on the 22nd of +December, 1694, and spent his life there as a professor of Oriental +Languages. He died in 1768. Several of his writings appeared +during his lifetime, all of them asserting the claims of rational +religion as against the faith of the Church; one of them, for +example, being an essay on <q>The Leading Truths of Natural +Religion.</q> His <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>magnum opus</foreign>, however, which laid the historic +basis of his attacks, was only circulated, during his lifetime, among +his acquaintances, as an anonymous manuscript. In 1774 Lessing +began to publish the most important portions of it, and up to +1778 had published seven fragments, thereby involving himself in +a quarrel with Goetze, the Chief Pastor of Hamburg. The manuscript +of the whole, which runs to 4000 pages, is preserved in +the Hamburg municipal library. +</p> + +<p> +The following are the titles of Fragments which he published: +</p> + +<p> +The Toleration of the Deists. +</p> + +<p> +The Decrying of Reason in the Pulpit. +</p> + +<p> +The impossibility of a Revelation which all men should have +good grounds for believing. +</p> + +<pb n='015'/><anchor id='Pg015'/> + +<p> +The Passing of the Israelites through the Red Sea. +</p> + +<p> +Showing that the books of the Old Testament were not written +to reveal a Religion. +</p> + +<p> +Concerning the story of the Resurrection. +</p> + +<p> +The Aims of Jesus and His disciples. +</p> + +<p> +The monograph on the passing of the Israelites through the +Red Sea is one of the ablest, wittiest, and most acute which has +ever been written. It exposes all the impossibilities of the narrative +in the Priestly Codex, and all the inconsistencies which arise from +the combination of various sources; although Reimarus has not the +slightest inkling that the separation of these sources would afford +the real solution of the problem. +</p> + +<p> +To say that the fragment on <q>The Aims of Jesus and His +Disciples</q> is a magnificent piece of work is barely to do it justice. +This essay is not only one of the greatest events in the history of +criticism, it is also a masterpiece of general literature. The +language is as a rule crisp and terse, pointed and epigrammatic—the +language of a man who is not <q>engaged in literary composition</q> +but is wholly concerned with the facts. At times, however, it rises +to heights of passionate feeling, and then it is as though the fires +of a volcano were painting lurid pictures upon dark clouds. Seldom +has there been a hate so eloquent, so lofty a scorn; but then it is +seldom that a work has been written in the just consciousness of so +absolute a superiority to contemporary opinion. And withal, there +is dignity and serious purpose; Reimarus's work is no pamphlet. +</p> + +<p> +Lessing could not, of course, accept its standpoint. His idea +of revelation, and his conception of the Person of Jesus, were +much deeper than those of the Fragmentist. He was a thinker; +Reimarus only a historian. But this was the first time that a +really historical mind, thoroughly conversant with the sources, had +undertaken the criticism of the tradition. It was Lessing's greatness +that he grasped the significance of this criticism, and felt that it +must lead either to the destruction or to the re-casting of the idea +of revelation. He recognised that the introduction of the historical +element would transform and deepen rationalism. Convinced that +the fateful moment had arrived, he disregarded the scruples of +Reimarus's family and the objections of Nicolai and Mendelssohn, +and, though inwardly trembling for that which he himself held +sacred, he flung the torch with his own hand. +</p> + +<p> +Semler, at the close of his refutation of the fragment, ridicules +its editor in the following apologue. <q>A prisoner was once +brought before the Lord Mayor of London on a charge of arson. +He had been seen coming down from the upper story of the +burning house. <q>Yesterday,</q> so ran his defence, <q>about four +o'clock I went into my neighbour's store-room and saw there a +burning candle which the servants had carelessly forgotten. In +<pb n='016'/><anchor id='Pg016'/> +the course of the night it would have burned down, and set +fire to the stairs. To make sure that the fire should break out +in the day-time, I threw some straw upon it. The flames burst +out at the sky-light, the fire-engines came hurrying up, and the +fire, which in the night might have been dangerous, was promptly +extinguished.</q> <q>Why did you not yourself pick up the candle and +put it out?</q> asked the Lord Mayor. <q>If I had put out the candle +the servants would not have learned to be more careful; now that +there has been such a fuss about it, they will not be so careless +in future.</q> <q>Odd, very odd,</q> said the Lord Mayor, <q>he is not a +criminal, only a little weak in the head.</q> So he had him shut +up in the mad-house, and there he lies to this day.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The story is extraordinarily apposite—only that Lessing was +not mad; he knew quite well what he was doing. His object +was to show how an unseen enemy had pushed his parallels up +to the very walls, and to summon to the defence <q>some one who +should be as nearly the ideal defender of religion as the Fragmentist +was the ideal assailant.</q> Once, with prophetic insight into the +future, he says: <q>The Christian traditions must be explained by +the inner truth of Christianity, and no written traditions can give +it that inner truth, if it does not itself possess it.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Reimarus takes as his starting-point the question regarding +the content of the preaching of Jesus. <q>We are justified,</q> he says, +<q>in drawing an absolute distinction between the teaching of the +Apostles in their writings and what Jesus Himself in His own +lifetime proclaimed and taught.</q> What belongs to the preaching +of Jesus is clearly to be recognised. It is contained in two phrases +of identical meaning, <q>Repent, and believe the Gospel,</q> or, as it +is put elsewhere, <q>Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The Kingdom of Heaven must however be understood <q>according +to Jewish ways of thought.</q> Neither Jesus nor the +Baptist ever explain this expression; therefore they must have +been content to have it understood in its known and customary +sense. That means that Jesus took His stand within the Jewish +religion, and accepted its Messianic expectations without in any way +correcting them. If He gives a new development to this religion +it is only in so far that He proclaims as near at hand the realisation +of ideals and hopes which were alive in thousands of hearts. +</p> + +<p> +There was thus no need for detailed instruction regarding the +nature of the Kingdom of Heaven; the catechism and confession +of the Church at its commencement consisted of a single phrase. +Belief was not difficult: <q>they need only believe the Gospel, +namely that Jesus was about to bring in the Kingdom of God.</q><note place='foot'>The quotations inserted without special introduction are, of course, from +Reimarus. It is Dr. Schweitzer's method to lead up by a paragraph of exposition +to one of these characteristic phrases.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></note> +</p> + +<pb n='017'/><anchor id='Pg017'/> + +<p> +As there were many among the Jews who were already waiting +for the Kingdom of God, it was no wonder that in a few days, nay +in a few hours, some thousands believed, although they had been +told only that Jesus was the promised prophet. +</p> + +<p> +This was the sum total of what the disciples knew about the +Kingdom of God when they were sent out by their Master to +proclaim its coming. Their hearers would naturally think of the +customary meaning of the term and the hopes which attached +themselves to it. <q>The purpose of sending out such propagandists +could only be that the Jews who groaned under the Roman yoke +and had long cherished the hope of deliverance should be stirred +up all over Judaea and assemble themselves in their thousands.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Jesus must have known, too, that if the people believed His +messengers they would look about for an earthly deliverer and turn +to Him for this purpose. The Gospel, therefore, meant nothing +more or less to all who heard it than that, under the leadership of +Jesus, the Kingdom of Messiah was about to be brought in. For +them there was no difficulty in accepting the belief that He was +the Messiah, the Son of God, for this belief did not involve +anything metaphysical. The nation was the Son of God; the +kings of the covenant-people were Sons of God; the Messiah +was in a pre-eminent sense the Son of God. Thus even in His +Messianic claims Jesus remained <q>within the limits of humanity.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The fact that He did not need to explain to His contemporaries +what He meant by the Kingdom of God constitutes a difficulty for +us. The parables do not enlighten us, for they presuppose a +knowledge of the conception. <q>If we could not gather from the +writings of the Jews some further information as to what was understood +at that time by the Messiah and the Kingdom of God, these +points of primary importance would be very obscure and +incomprehensible.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>If, therefore, we desire to gain a historical understanding +of Jesus' teaching, we must leave behind what we learned in +our catechism regarding the metaphysical Divine Sonship, the +Trinity, and similar dogmatic conceptions, and go out into a wholly +Jewish world of thought. Only those who carry the teachings of +the catechism back into the preaching of the Jewish Messiah will +arrive at the idea that He was the founder of a new religion. To +all unprejudiced persons it is manifest that Jesus had not the +slightest intention of doing away with the Jewish religion and +putting another in its place.</q> +</p> + +<p> +From Matt. v. 18 it is evident that Jesus did not break with +the Law, but took His stand upon it unreservedly. If there was +anything at all new in His preaching, it was the righteousness which +was requisite for the Kingdom of God. The righteousness of the +Law will no longer suffice in the time of the coming Kingdom; a +<pb n='018'/><anchor id='Pg018'/> +new and deeper morality must come into being. This demand is +the only point in which the preaching of Jesus went beyond the +ideas of His contemporaries. But this new morality does not do +away with the Law, for He explains it as a fulfilment of the old +commandments. His followers, no doubt, broke with the Law +later on. They did so, however, not in pursuance of a command of +Jesus, but under the pressure of circumstances, at the time when +they were forced out of Judaism and obliged to found a new +religion. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus shared the Jewish racial exclusiveness wholly and unreservedly. +According to Matt. x. 5 He forbade His disciples to +declare to the Gentiles the coming of the Kingdom of God. +Evidently, therefore, His purpose did not embrace them. Had it +been otherwise, the hesitation of Peter in Acts x. and xi., and the +necessity of justifying the conversion of Cornelius, would be +incomprehensible. +</p> + +<p> +Baptism and the Lord's Supper are no evidence that Jesus intended +to found a new religion. In the first place the genuineness +of the command to baptize in Matt. xxviii. 19 is questionable, +not only as a saying ascribed to the risen Jesus, but also because it +is universalistic in outlook, and because it implies the doctrine of +the Trinity and, consequently, the metaphysical Divine Sonship of +Jesus. In this it is inconsistent with the earliest traditions regarding +the practice of baptism in the Christian community, for in the +earliest times, as we learn from the Acts and from Paul, it was the +custom to baptize, not in the name of the Trinity, but in the name +of Jesus, the Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +But, furthermore, it is questionable whether Baptism really goes +back to Jesus at all. He Himself baptized no one in His own +lifetime, and never commanded any of His converts to be baptized. +So we cannot be sure about the origin of Baptism, though we can +be sure of its meaning. Baptism in the name of Jesus signified +only that Jesus was the Messiah. <q>For the only change which the +teaching of Jesus made in their religion was that whereas they had +formerly believed in a Deliverer of Israel who was to come in the +future, they now believed in a Deliverer who was already present.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The <q>Lord's Supper,</q> again, was no new institution, but merely +an episode at the last Paschal Meal of the Kingdom which was +passing away, and was intended <q>as an anticipatory celebration of +the Passover of the New Kingdom.</q> A Lord's Supper in our sense, +<q>cut loose from the Passover,</q> would have been inconceivable to +Jesus, and not less so to His disciples. +</p> + +<p> +It is useless to appeal to the miracles, any more than to the +<q>Sacraments,</q> as evidence for the founding of a new religion. In +the first place, we have to remember what happens in the case of +miracles handed down by tradition. That Jesus effected cures, +<pb n='019'/><anchor id='Pg019'/> +which in the eyes of His contemporaries were miraculous, is not to +be denied. Their purpose was to prove Him to be the Messiah. +He forbade these miracles to be made known, even in cases where +they could not possibly be kept hidden, <q>with the sole purpose of +making people more eager to talk of them.</q> Other miracles, +however, have no basis in fact, but owe their place in the narrative +to the feeling that the miracle-stories of the Old Testament must be +repeated in the case of Jesus, but on a grander scale. He did +no really miraculous works; otherwise, the demands for a sign +would be incomprehensible. In Jerusalem when all the people +were looking eagerly for an overwhelming manifestation of His +Messiahship, what a tremendous effect a miracle would have produced! +If only a single miracle had been publicly, convincingly, +undeniably, performed by Jesus before all the people on one of the +great days of the Feast, such is human nature that all the people +would at once have flocked to His standard. +</p> + +<p> +For this popular uprising, however, He waited in vain. Twice +He believed that it was near at hand. The first time was when +He was sending out the disciples and said to them: <q>Ye shall not +have gone over the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes</q> +(Matt. x. 23). He thought that, at the preaching of the disciples, +the people would flock to Him from every quarter and immediately +proclaim Him Messiah; but His expectation was disappointed. +</p> + +<p> +The second time, He thought to bring about the decisive issue +in Jerusalem. He made His entry riding on an ass's colt, that the +Messianic prophecy of Zechariah might be fulfilled. And the +people actually did cry <q>Hosanna to the Son of David!</q> Relying +on the support of His followers He might now, He thought, +bid defiance to the authorities. In the temple He arrogates to +Himself supreme power, and in glowing words calls for an open +revolt against the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees, on the ground that +they have shut the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven and forbidden +others to go in. There is no doubt, now, that He will carry the +people with Him! Confident in the success of His cause, He closes +the great incendiary harangue in Matt. xxiii. with the words +<q>Truly from henceforth ye shall not see me again until ye shall +say Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord</q>; that is, +until they should hail Him as Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +But the people in Jerusalem refused to rise, as the Galilaeans +had refused at the time when the disciples were sent out to rouse +them. The Council prepared for vigorous action. The voluntary +concealment by which Jesus had thought to whet the eagerness of +the people became involuntary. Before His arrest He was overwhelmed +with dread, and on the cross He closed His life with the +words <q>My God! my God! why hast Thou forsaken me?</q> <q>This +avowal cannot, without violence, be interpreted otherwise than as +<pb n='020'/><anchor id='Pg020'/> +meaning that God had not aided Him in His aim and purpose as +He had hoped. That shows that it had not been His purpose to +suffer and die, but to establish an earthly kingdom and deliver the +Jews from political oppression—and in that God's help had failed +Him.</q> +</p> + +<p> +For the disciples this turn of affairs meant the destruction of +all the dreams for the sake of which they had followed Jesus. For +if they had given up anything on His account, it was only in order +to receive it again an hundredfold when they should openly take +their places in the eyes of all the world as the friends and ministers +of the Messiah, as the rulers of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus +never disabused them of this sensuous hope, but, on the contrary, +confirmed them in it. When He put an end to the quarrel about +pre-eminence, and when He answered the request of the sons of +Zebedee, He did not attack the assumption that there were to be +thrones and power, but only addressed Himself to the question how +men were in the present to establish their claims to that position +of authority. +</p> + +<p> +All this implies that the time of the fulfilment of these hopes +was not thought of by Jesus and His disciples as at all remote. In +Matt. xvi. 28, for example, He says: <q>Truly I say unto you +there are some standing here who shall not taste of death, till they +see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.</q> There is no +justification for twisting this about or explaining it away. It simply +means that Jesus promises the fulfilment of all Messianic hopes +before the end of the existing generation. +</p> + +<p> +Thus the disciples were prepared for anything rather than that +which actually happened. Jesus had never said a word to them +about His dying and rising again, otherwise they would not have +so played the coward at His death, nor have been so astonished +at His <q>resurrection.</q> The three or four sayings referring to these +events must therefore have been put into His mouth later, in +order to make it appear that He had foreseen these events in His +original plan. +</p> + +<p> +How, then, did they get over this apparently annihilating blow? +By falling back upon the second form of the Jewish Messianic hope. +Hitherto their thoughts, like those of their Master, had been dominated +by the political ideal of the prophets—the scion of David's +line who should appear as the political deliverer of the nation. But +alongside of that there existed another Messianic expectation which +transferred everything to the supernatural sphere. Appearing first +in Daniel, this expectation can still be traced in the Apocalypses, in +Justin's <q>Dialogue with Trypho,</q> and in certain Rabbinic sayings. +According to these—Reimarus makes use especially of the statements +of Trypho—the Messiah is to appear twice; once in human lowliness, +the second time upon the clouds of heaven. When the first +<pb n='021'/><anchor id='Pg021'/> +<foreign rend='italic'>systema</foreign>, as Reimarus calls it, was annihilated by the death of Jesus, +the disciples brought forward the second, and gathered followers +who shared their expectation of a second coming of Jesus the +Messiah. In order to get rid of the difficulty of the death of +Jesus, they gave it the significance of a spiritual redemption—which +had not previously entered their field of vision or that of +Jesus Himself. +</p> + +<p> +But this spiritual interpretation of His death would not have +helped them if they had not also invented the resurrection. +Immediately after the death of Jesus, indeed, such an idea was far +from their thoughts. They were in deadly fear and kept close +within doors. <q>Soon, however, one and another ventures to slip +out. They learn that no judicial search is being made for them.</q> +Then they consider what is to be done. They did not take kindly +to the idea of returning to their old haunts; on their journeyings +the companions of the Messiah had forgotten how to work. They +had seen that the preaching of the Kingdom of God will keep a +man. Even when they had been sent out without wallet or money +they had not lacked. The women who are mentioned in Luke +viii. 2, 3, had made it their business to make good provision for +the Messiah and His future ministers. +</p> + +<p> +Why not, then, continue this mode of life? They would surely +find a sufficient number of faithful souls who would join them in +directing their hopes towards a second coming of the Messiah, and +while awaiting the future glory, would share their possessions with +them. So they stole the body of Jesus and hid it, and proclaimed +to all the world that He would soon return. They prudently +waited, however, for fifty days before making this announcement, in +order that the body, if it should be found, might be unrecognisable. +</p> + +<p> +What was much in their favour was the complete disorganisation +of the Jewish state. Had there been an efficient police administration +the disciples would not have been able to plan this fraud and +organise their communistic fellowship. But, as it was, the new +society was not even subjected to any annoyance in consequence +of the remarkable death of a married couple who were buried from +the apostles' house, and the brotherhood was even allowed to +confiscate their property to its own uses. +</p> + +<p> +It appears, then, that the hope of the Parousia was the +fundamental thing in primitive Christianity, which was a product of +that hope much more than of the teaching of Jesus. Accordingly, +the main problem of primitive dogmatics was the delay of the +Parousia. Already in Paul's time the problem was pressing, and +he had to set to work in 2 Thessalonians to discover all possible +and impossible reasons why the Second Coming should be delayed. +Reimarus mercilessly exposes the position of the apostle, who was +obliged to fob people off somehow or other. The author of 2 Peter +<pb n='022'/><anchor id='Pg022'/> +has a much clearer notion of what he would be at, and undertakes +to restore the confidence of Christendom once for all with the +sophism of the thousand years which are in the sight of God as +one day, ignoring the fact that in the promise the reckoning was +by man's years, not by God's. <q>Nevertheless it served the turn +of the Apostles so well with those simple early Christians, that +after the first believers had been bemused with it, and the period +originally fixed had elapsed, the Christians of later generations, +including Fathers of the Church, could continue ever after to feed +themselves with empty hopes.</q> The saying of Christ about the +generation which should not die out before His return clearly +fixes this event at no very distant date. But since Jesus has not +yet appeared upon the clouds of heaven <q>these words must be +strained into meaning, not that generation, but the Jewish people. +Thus by exegetical art they are saved for ever, for the Jewish race +will never die out.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In general, however, <q>the theologians of the present day skim +lightly over the eschatological material in the Gospels because it +does not chime in with their views, and assign to the coming of +Christ upon the clouds quite a different purpose from that which +it bears in the teaching of Christ and His apostles.</q> Inasmuch +as the non-fulfilment of its eschatology is not admitted, our +Christianity rests upon a fraud. In view of this fact, what is the +evidential value of any miracle, even if it could be held to be +authentic? <q>No miracle would prove that two and two make five, +or that a circle has four angles; and no miracles, however numerous, +could remove a contradiction which lies on the surface of the +teachings and records of Christianity.</q> Nor is there any weight in +the appeal to the fulfilment of prophecy, for the cases in which +Matthew countersigns it with the words <q>that the Scripture might +be fulfilled</q> are all artificial and unreal; and for many incidents +the stage was set by Jesus, or His disciples, or the Evangelists, +with the deliberate purpose of presenting to the people a scene +from the fulfilment of prophecy. +</p> + +<p> +The sole argument which could save the credit of Christianity +would be a proof that the Parousia had really taken place at the +time for which it was announced; and obviously no such proof +can be produced. +</p> + +<p> +Such is Reimarus' reconstruction of the history. We can well +understand that his work must have given offence when it appeared, +for it is a polemic, not an objective historical study. But we have +no right simply to dismiss it in a word, as a Deistic production, +as Otto Schmiedel, for example, does;<note place='foot'>Otto Schmiedel, <hi rend='italic'>Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung</hi>. Tübingen, 1902.</note> it is time that Reimarus +came to his own, and that we should recognise a historical +performance of no mean order in this piece of Deistic polemics. +<pb n='023'/><anchor id='Pg023'/> +His work is perhaps the most splendid achievement in the whole +course of the historical investigation of the life of Jesus, for he was +the first to grasp the fact that the world of thought in which Jesus +moved was essentially eschatological. There is some justification +for the animosity which flames up in his writing. This historical +truth had taken possession of his mind with such overwhelming +force that he could no longer understand his contemporaries, +and could not away with their profession that their beliefs were, +as they professed to be, directly derived from the preaching of +Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +What added to the offence was that he saw the eschatology +in a wrong perspective. He held that the Messianic ideal which +dominated the preaching of Jesus was that of the political ruler, +the son of David. All his other mistakes are the consequence of +this fundamental error. It was, of course, a mere makeshift hypothesis +to derive the beginnings of Christianity from an imposture. Historical +science was not at that time sufficiently advanced to lead even the +man who had divined the fundamentally eschatological character +of the preaching of Jesus onward to the historical solution of the +problem; it needed more than a hundred and twenty years to fill +in the chasm which Reimarus had been forced to bridge with that +makeshift hypothesis of his. +</p> + +<p> +In the light of the clear perception of the elements of the +problem which Reimarus had attained, the whole movement of +theology, down to Johannes Weiss, appears retrograde. In all its +work the thesis is ignored or obscured that Jesus, as a historical +personality, is to be regarded, not as the founder of a new religion, +but as the final product of the eschatological and apocalyptic +thought of Late Judaism. Every sentence of Johannes Weiss's <hi rend='italic'>Die +Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes</hi> (1892) is a vindication, a rehabilitation, +of Reimarus as a historical thinker. +</p> + +<p> +Even so the traveller on the plain sees from afar the distant +range of mountains. Then he loses sight of them again. His +way winds slowly upwards through the valleys, drawing ever +nearer to the peaks, until at last, at a turn of the path, they stand +before him, not in the shapes which they had seemed to take from +the distant plain, but in their actual forms. Reimarus was the first, +after eighteen centuries of misconception, to have an inkling of +what eschatology really was. Then theology lost sight of it again, +and it was not until after the lapse of more than a hundred years +that it came in view of eschatology once more, now in its true form, +so far as that can be historically determined, and only after it had +been led astray, almost to the last, in all its historical researches by +the sole mistake of Reimarus—the assumption that the eschatology +was earthly and political in character. Thus theology shared at +least the error of the man whom it knew only as a Deist, not as an +<pb n='024'/><anchor id='Pg024'/> +historian, and whose true greatness was not recognised even by +Strauss, though he raised a literary monument to him. +</p> + +<p> +The solution offered by Reimarus may be wrong; the data of +observation from which he starts out are, beyond question, right, +because the primary datum of all is genuinely historical. He +recognised that two systems of Messianic expectation were present +side by side in Late Judaism. He endeavoured to bring them into +mutual relations in order to represent the actual movement of the +history. In so doing he made the mistake of placing them in +consecutive order, ascribing to Jesus the political Son-of-David +conception, and to the Apostles, after His death, the apocalyptic +system based on Daniel, instead of superimposing one upon the +other in such a way that the Messianic King might coincide with +the Son of Man, and the ancient prophetic conception might be +inscribed within the circumference of the Daniel-descended apocalyptic, +and raised along with it to the supersensuous plane. But +what matters the mistake in comparison with the fact that the +problem was really grasped? +</p> + +<p> +Reimarus felt that the absence in the preaching of Jesus of +any definition of the principal term (the Kingdom of God), in +conjunction with the great and rapid success of His preaching constituted +a problem, and he formulated the conception that Jesus +was not a religious founder and teacher, but purely a preacher. +</p> + +<p> +He brought the Synoptic and Johannine narratives into harmony +by practically leaving the latter out of account. The attitude of +Jesus towards the law, and the process by which the disciples came +to take up a freer attitude, was grasped and explained by him so +accurately that modern historical science does not need to add a +word, but would be well pleased if at least half the theologians of +the present day had got as far. +</p> + +<p> +Further, he recognised that primitive Christianity was not +something which grew, so to speak, out of the teaching of Jesus, +but that it came into being as a new creation, in consequence of +events and circumstances which added something to that preaching +which it did not previously contain; and that Baptism and the +Lord's Supper, in the historical sense of these terms, were not +instituted by Jesus, but created by the early Church on the basis of +certain historical assumptions. +</p> + +<p> +Again, Reimarus felt that the fact that the <q>event of Easter</q> +was first proclaimed at Pentecost constituted a problem, and he +sought a solution for it. He recognised, further, that the solution +of the problem of the life of Jesus calls for a combination of the +methods of historical and literary criticism. He felt that merely to +emphasise the part played by eschatology would not suffice, but +that it was necessary to assume a creative element in the tradition, +to which he ascribed the miracles, the stories which turn on the +<pb n='025'/><anchor id='Pg025'/> +fulfilment of Messianic prophecy, the universalistic traits and the +predictions of the passion and the resurrection. Like Wrede, too, +he feels that the prescription of silence in the case of miracles of +healing and of certain communications to the disciples constitutes a +problem which demands solution. +</p> + +<p> +Still more remarkable is his eye for exegetical detail. He has +an unfailing instinct for pregnant passages like Matt. x. 23, xvi. 28, +which are crucial for the interpretation of large masses of the +history. The fact is there are some who are historians by the grace +of God, who from their mother's womb have an instinctive feeling +for the real. They follow through all the intricacy and confusion +of reported fact the pathway of reality, like a stream which, despite +the rocks that encumber its course and the windings of its valley, +finds its way inevitably to the sea. No erudition can supply the +place of this historical instinct, but erudition sometimes serves a useful +purpose, inasmuch as it produces in its possessors the pleasing +belief that they are historians, and thus secures their services for the +cause of history. In truth they are at best merely doing the preliminary +spade-work of history, collecting for a future historian the +dry bones of fact, from which, with the aid of his natural gift, he can +recall the past to life. More often, however, the way in which erudition +seeks to serve history is by suppressing historical discoveries +as long as possible, and leading out into the field to oppose the one +true view an army of possibilities. By arraying these in support of +one another it finally imagines that it has created out of possibilities +a living reality. +</p> + +<p> +This obstructive erudition is the special prerogative of theology, +in which, even at the present day, a truly marvellous scholarship +often serves only to blind the eyes to elementary truths, and to +cause the artificial to be preferred to the natural. And this +happens not only with those who deliberately shut their minds +against new impressions, but also with those whose purpose is to +go forward, and to whom their contemporaries look up as leaders. +It was a typical illustration of this fact when Semler rose up and +slew Reimarus in the name of scientific theology.<note place='foot'>Döderlein also wrote a defence of Jesus against the Fragmentist: <hi rend='italic'>Fragmente +und Antifragmente</hi>. Nuremberg, 1778.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Reimarus had discredited progressive theology. Students—so +Semler tells us in his preface—became unsettled and sought other +callings. The great Halle theologian—born in 1725—the pioneer +of the historical view of the Canon, the precursor of Baur in the +reconstruction of primitive Christianity, was urged to do away with +the offence. As Origen of yore with Celsus, so Semler takes +Reimarus sentence by sentence, in such a way that if his work +were lost it could be recovered from the refutation. The fact was +that Semler had nothing in the nature of a complete or well-articulated +<pb n='026'/><anchor id='Pg026'/> +argument to oppose to him; therefore he inaugurated +in his reply the <q>Yes, but</q> theology, which thereafter, for more +than three generations, while it took, itself, the most various +modifications, imagined that it had finally got rid of Reimarus and +his discovery. +</p> + +<p> +Reimarus—so ran the watchword of the guerrilla warfare which +Semler waged against him—cannot be right, for he is one-sided. +Jesus and His disciples employed two methods of teaching: one +sensuous, pictorial, drawn from the sphere of Jewish ideas, by which +they adapted their meaning to the understanding of the multitude, +and endeavoured to raise them to a higher way of thinking; and +alongside of that a purely spiritual teaching which was independent +of that kind of imagery. Both methods of teaching continued to +be used side by side, because there were always contemporary +representatives of the two degrees of capability and the two kinds +of temperament. <q>This is historically so certain that the +Fragmentist's attack must inevitably be defeated at this point, +because he takes account only of the sensuous representation.</q> But +his attack was not defeated. What happened was that, owing to +the respect in which Semler was held, and the absolute incapacity +of contemporary theology to overtake the long stride forward made +by Reimarus, his work was neglected, and the stimulus which it was +capable of imparting failed to take effect. He had no predecessors; +neither had he any disciples. His work is one of those supremely +great works which pass and leave no trace, because they are +before their time; to which later generations pay a just tribute of +admiration, but owe no gratitude. Indeed it would be truer to say +that Reimarus hung a mill-stone about the neck of the rising +theological science of his time. He avenged himself on Semler by +shaking his faith in historical theology and even in the freedom of +science in general. By the end of the eighth decade of the century +the Halle professor was beginning to retrace his steps, was becoming +more and more disloyal to the cause which he had formerly served; +and he finally went so far as to give his approval to Wöllner's edict +for the regulation of religion (1788). His friends attributed this +change of front to senility—he died 1791. +</p> + +<p> +Thus the magnificent overture in which are announced all the +<foreign rend='italic'>motifs</foreign> of the future historical treatment of the life of Jesus breaks +off with a sudden discord, remains isolated and incomplete, and +leads to nothing further. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='027'/><anchor id='Pg027'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. The Lives Of Jesus Of The Earlier +Rationalism</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Johann Jakob Hess.</hi> Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu. (History of +the Last Three Years of the Life of Jesus.) 3 vols., 1400 pp. Leipzig-Zurich, +1768-1772; 3rd ed., 1774 ff.; 7th ed., 1823 ff. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Franz Volkmar Reinhard.</hi> Versuch über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der +christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf. (Essay upon the Plan +which the Founder of the Christian Religion adopted for the Benefit of Mankind.) +500 pp. 1781; 4th ed., 1798; 5th ed., 1830. Our account is based on the +4th ed. The 5th contains supplementary matter by Heubner. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ernst August Opitz.</hi> Preacher at Zscheppelin. Geschichte und Characterzüge +Jesu. (History of Jesus, with a Delineation of His Character.) Jena and +Leipzig, 1812. 488 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Johann Adolph Jakobi.</hi> Superintendent at Waltershausen. Die Geschichte Jesu +für denkende und gemütvolle Leser, 1816. (The History of Jesus for thoughtful +and sympathetic readers.) A second volume, containing the history of the +apostolic age, followed in 1818. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Johann Gottfried Herder.</hi> Vom Erlöser der Menschen. Nach unsern drei ersten +Evangelien. (The Redeemer of men, as portrayed in our first three Gospels.) +1796. Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland. Nach Johannes Evangelium. +(The Son of God, the Saviour of the World, as portrayed by John's Gospel.) +Accompanied by a rule for the harmonisation of our Gospels on the basis of +their origin and order. Riga, published by Hartknoch, 1797. See Herder's +complete works, ed. Suphan, vol. xix. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +That thorough-going theological rationalism which accepts only +so much of religion as can justify itself at the bar of reason, and +which conceives and represents the origin of religion in accordance +with this principle, was preceded by a rationalism less complete, as +yet not wholly dissociated from a simple-minded supernaturalism. +Its point of view is one at which it is almost impossible for the +modern man to place himself. Here, in a single consciousness, +orthodoxy and rationalism lie stratified in successive layers. Here, +to change the metaphor, rationalism surrounds religion without +touching it, and, like a lake surrounding some ancient castle, +mirrors its image with curious refractions. +</p> + +<p> +This half-developed rationalism was conscious of an impulse—it +is the first time in the history of theology that this impulse +<pb n='028'/><anchor id='Pg028'/> +manifests itself—to write the Life of Jesus; at first without any +suspicion whither this undertaking would lead it. No rude hands +were to be laid upon the doctrinal conception of Jesus; at least +these writers had no intention of laying hands upon it. Their +purpose was simply to gain a clearer view of the course of our +Lord's earthly and human life. The theologians who undertook +this task thought of themselves as merely writing an historical +supplement to the life of the God-Man Jesus. These <q>Lives</q> are, +therefore, composed according to the prescription of the <q>good +old gentleman</q> who in 1829 advised the young Hase to treat first +of the divine, and then of the human side of the life of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +The battle about miracle had not yet begun. But miracle no +longer plays a part of any importance; it is a firmly established +principle that the teaching of Jesus, and religion in general, hold +their place solely in virtue of their inner reasonableness, not by the +support of outward evidence. +</p> + +<p> +The only thing that is really rationalistic in these older works +is the treatment of the teaching of Jesus. Even those that retain +the largest share of supernaturalism are as completely undogmatic +as the more advanced in their reproduction of the discourses of the +Great Teacher. All of them make it a principle to lose no +opportunity of reducing the number of miracles; where they can +explain a miracle by natural causes, they do not hesitate for a +moment. But the deliberate rejection of all miracles, the elimination +of everything supernatural which intrudes itself into the life +of Jesus, is still to seek. That principle was first consistently +carried through by Paulus. With these earlier writers it depends +on the degree of enlightenment of the individual whether the +irreducible minimum of the supernatural is larger or smaller. +</p> + +<p> +Moreover, the period of this older rationalism, like every period +when human thought has been strong and vigorous, is wholly +unhistorical. What it is looking for is not the past, but itself in +the past. For it, the problem of the life of Jesus is solved the +moment it succeeds in bringing Jesus near to its own time, in +portraying Him as the great teacher of virtue, and showing that +His teaching is identical with the intellectual truth which rationalism +deifies. +</p> + +<p> +The temporal limits of this half-and-half rationalism are difficult +to define. For the historical study of the life of Jesus the first +landmark which it offers is the work of Hess, which appeared in +1768. But it held its ground for a long time side by side with +rationalism proper, which failed to drive it from the field. A +seventh edition of Hess's Life of Jesus appeared as late as 1823; +while a fifth edition of Reinhard's work saw the light in 1830. +And when Strauss struck the death-blow of out-and-out rationalism, +the half-and-half rationalism did not perish with it, but allied itself +<pb n='029'/><anchor id='Pg029'/> +with the neo-supernaturalism which Strauss's treatment of the life +of Jesus had called into being; and it still prolongs an obscure +existence in a certain section of conservative literature, though it +has lost its best characteristics, its simple-mindedness and honesty. +</p> + +<p> +These older rationalistic Lives of Jesus are, from the aesthetic +point of view, among the least pleasing of all theological productions. +The sentimentality of the portraiture is boundless. Boundless, +also, and still more objectionable, is the want of respect for the +language of Jesus. He must speak in a rational and modern +fashion, and accordingly all His utterances are reproduced in a style +of the most polite modernity. None of the speeches are allowed +to stand as they were spoken; they are taken to pieces, paraphrased, +and expanded, and sometimes, with the view of making them really +lively, they are recast in the mould of a freely invented dialogue. +In all these Lives of Jesus, not a single one of His sayings retains +its authentic form. +</p> + +<p> +And yet we must not be unjust to these writers. What they +aimed at was to bring Jesus near to their own time, and in so doing +they became the pioneers of the historical study of His life. The +defects of their work in regard to aesthetic feeling and historical grasp +are outweighed by the attractiveness of the purposeful, unprejudiced +thinking which here awakens, stretches itself, and begins to move +with freedom. +</p> + +<p> +Johann Jakob Hess was born in 1741 and died in 1828. After +working as a curate for seventeen years he became one of the +assistant clergy at the Frauminster at Zurich, and later <q>Antistes,</q> +president, of the cantonal synod. In this capacity he guided the +destinies of the Church in Zurich safely through the troublous times +of the Revolution. He was not a deep thinker, but was well read +and not without ability. As a man, he did splendid work. +</p> + +<p> +His Life of Jesus still keeps largely to the lines of a paraphrase +of the Gospels; indeed, he calls it a paraphrasing history. It is +based upon a harmonizing combination of the four Gospels. The +matter of the Synoptic narratives is, as in all the Lives of Jesus +prior to Strauss—with the sole exception of Herder's—fitted more +or less arbitrarily into the intervals between the Passovers in the +fourth Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +In regard to miracles, he admits that these are a stumbling-block. +But they are essential to the Gospel narrative and to revelation; +had Jesus been only a moral teacher and not the Son of God +they would not have been necessary. We must be careful, however, +not to prize miracles for their own sake, but to look primarily to +their ethical teaching. It was, he remarks, the mistake of the Jews +to regard all the acts of Jesus solely from the point of view of their +strange and miraculous character, and to forget their moral teaching; +whereas we, from distaste for miracle as such, run the risk of +<pb n='030'/><anchor id='Pg030'/> +excluding from the Gospel history events which are bound up with +the Gospel revelation. +</p> + +<p> +Above all, we must retain the supernatural birth and the +bodily resurrection, because on the former depends the sinlessness +of Jesus, on the latter the certainty of the general resurrection of +the dead. The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness was a +stratagem of Satan by which he hoped to discover <q>whether Jesus +of Nazareth was really so extraordinary a person that he would have +cause to fear Him.</q> The resurrection of Lazarus is authentic. +</p> + +<p> +But the Gospel narrative is rationalised whenever it can be done. +It was not the demons, but the Gadarene demoniacs themselves, +who rushed among the swine. Alarmed by their fury the whole +herd plunged over the precipice into the lake and were drowned; +while by this accommodation to the fixed idea of the demoniacs, +Jesus effected their cure. Perhaps, too, Hess conjectures, the Lord +desired to test the Gadarenes, and to see whether they would attach +greater importance to the good deed done to two of their number +than to the loss of their swine. This explanation, reinforced by +its moral, held its ground in theology for some sixty years and +passed over into a round dozen Lives of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +This plan of <q>presenting each occurrence in such a way that +what is valuable and instructive in it immediately strikes the eye</q> +is followed out by Hess so faithfully that all clearness of impression +is destroyed. The parables are barely recognisable, swathed, as +they are, in the mummy-wrappings of his paraphrase; and in most +cases their meaning is completely travestied by the ethical or +historical allusions which he finds in them. The parable of the +pounds is explained as referring to a man who went, like Archelaus, +to Rome to obtain the kingship, while his subjects intrigued behind +his back. +</p> + +<p> +Of the peculiar beauty of the speech of Jesus not a trace +remains. The parable of the Sower, for instance, begins: <q>A +countryman went to sow his field, which lay beside a country-road, +and was here and there rather rocky, and in some places weedy, but +in general was well cultivated, and had a good sort of soil.</q> The +beatitude upon the mourners appears in the following guise: +<q>Happy are they who amid the adversities of the present make the +best of things and submit themselves with patience; for such men, +if they do not see better times here, shall certainly elsewhere receive +comfort and consolation.</q> The question addressed by the Pharisees +to John the Baptist, and his answer, are given dialogue-wise, in +fustian of this kind:—<hi rend='italic'>The Pharisees</hi>: <q>We are directed to enquire of +you, in the name of our president, who you profess to be? As +people are at present expecting the Messiah, and seem not indisposed +to accept you in that capacity, we are the more anxious that you +should declare yourself with regard to your vocation and person.</q> +<pb n='031'/><anchor id='Pg031'/> +John: <q>The conclusion might have been drawn from my discourses +that I was not the Messiah. Why should people attribute such +lofty pretensions to me?</q> etc. In order to give the Gospels the +true literary flavour, a characterisation is tacked on to each of the +persons of the narrative. In the case of the disciples, for instance, +this runs: <q>They had sound common sense, but very limited insight; +the capacity to receive teaching, but an incapacity for reflective +thought; a knowledge of their own weakness, but a difficulty in +getting rid of old prejudices; sensibility to right feeling, but +weakness in following out a pre-determined moral plan.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The simplest occurrences give occasion for sentimental portraiture. +The saying <q>Except ye become as little children</q> is +introduced in the following fashion: <q>Jesus called a boy who was +standing near. The boy came. Jesus took his hand and told him +to stand beside Him, nearer than any of His disciples, so that he +had the foremost place among them. Then Jesus threw His arm +round the boy and pressed him tenderly to His breast. The +disciples looked on in astonishment, wondering what this meant. +Then He explained to them,</q> etc. In these expansions Hess does +not always escape the ludicrous. The saying of Jesus in John x. 9, +<q>I am the door,</q> takes on the following form: <q>No one, whether +he be sheep or shepherd, can come into the fold (if, that is to +say, he follows the right way) except in so far as he knows me and +is admitted by me, and included among the flock.</q> +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +Reinhard's work is on a distinctly higher level. The author +was born in 1753. In 1792, after he had worked for fourteen years +as Docent in Wittenberg, he was appointed Senior Court Chaplain +at Dresden. He died in 1812. +</p> + +<p> +<q>I am, as you know, a very prosaic person,</q> writes Reinhard +to a friend, and in these words he has given an admirable characterisation +of himself. The writers who chiefly appeal to him are the +ancient moralists; he acknowledges that he has learned more from +them than from a <q>collegium homileticum.</q> In his celebrated +<q>System of Christian Ethics</q> (5 vols., 1788-1815) he makes +copious use of them. His sermons—they fill thirty-five volumes, +and in their day were regarded as models—show some power and +depth of thought, but are all cast in the same mould. He seems +to have been haunted by a fear that it might some time befall him +to admit into his mind a thought which was mystical or visionary, +not justifiable by the laws of logic and the canons of the critical +reason. With all his philosophising and rationalising, however, +certain pillars of the supernaturalistic view of history remain for +him immovable. +</p> + +<p> +At first sight one might be inclined to suppose that he frankly +shared the belief in miracle. He mentions the raising of the +<pb n='032'/><anchor id='Pg032'/> +widow's son, and of Lazarus, and accepts as an authentic saying the +command of the risen Jesus to baptize all nations. But if we look +more closely, we find that he deliberately brings very few miracles +into his narrative, and the definition by which he disintegrates the +conception of miracle from within leaves no doubt as to his own +position. What he says is this: <q>All that which we call miraculous +and supernatural is to be understood as only relatively so, and +implies nothing further than an obvious exception to what can be +brought about by natural causes, so far as we know them and have +experience of their capacity. A cautious thinker will not venture +in any single instance to pronounce an event to be so extraordinary +that God could not have brought it about by the use of secondary +causes, but must have intervened directly.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The case stands similarly with regard to the divinity of Christ. +Reinhard assumes it, but his <q>Life</q> is not directed to prove it; it +leads only to the conclusion that the Founder of Christianity is to +be regarded as a wonderful <q>divine</q> teacher. In order to prove +His uniqueness, Reinhard has to show that His plan for the welfare +of mankind was something incomparably higher than anything +which hero or sage has ever striven for. Reinhard makes the first +attempt to give an account of the teaching of Jesus which should +be historical in the sense that all dogmatic considerations should +be excluded. <q>Above all things, let us collect and examine the +indications which we find in the writings of His companions +regarding the designs which He had in view.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The plan of Jesus shows its greatness above all in its universality. +Reinhard is well aware of the difficulty raised in this connexion by +those sayings which assert the prerogative of Israel, and he discusses +them at length. He finds the solution in the assumption that +Jesus in His own lifetime naturally confined Himself to working +among His own people, and was content to indicate the future +universal development of His plan. +</p> + +<p> +With the intention <q>of introducing a universal change, tending +to the benefit of the whole human race,</q> Jesus attaches His teaching +to the Jewish eschatology. It is only the form of His teaching, +however, which is affected by this, since He gives an entirely +different significance to the terms Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom +of God, referring them to a universal ethical reorganisation of +mankind. But His plan was entirely independent of politics. He +never based His claims upon His Davidic descent. This was, +indeed, the reason why He held aloof from His family. Even the +entry into Jerusalem had no Messianic significance. His plan was +so entirely non-political that He would, on the contrary, have +welcomed the severance of all connexion between the state and +religion, in order to avoid the risk of a conflict between these two +powers. Reinhard explains the voluntary death of Jesus as due to +<pb n='033'/><anchor id='Pg033'/> +this endeavour. <q>He quitted the stage of the world by so early +and shameful a death because He wished to destroy at once and +for ever the mistaken impression that He was aiming at the foundation +of an earthly kingdom, and to turn the thoughts, wishes, and +efforts of His disciples and companions into another channel.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In order to make the Kingdom of God a practical reality, it +was necessary for Him to dissociate it from all the forces of this +world, and to bring morality and religion into the closest connexion. +<q>The law of love was the indissoluble bond by which Jesus for +ever united morality with religion.</q> <q>Moral instruction was the +principal content and the very essence of all His discourses.</q> His +efforts <q>were directed to the establishment of a purely ethical +organisation.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It was important, therefore, to overthrow superstition and to +bring religion within the domain of reason. First of all the priesthood +must be deprived for ever of its influence. Then an improvement +of the social condition of mankind must be introduced, since +the level of morality depends upon social conditions. Jesus was +a social reformer. Through the attainment of <q>the highest +perfection of which Society is capable, universal peace</q> was +<q>gradually to be brought about.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But the point of primary importance for Him was the alliance +of religion with reason. Reason was to maintain its freedom by +the aid of religion, and religion was not to be withdrawn from the +critical judgment of reason: all things were to be tested, and only +the best retained. +</p> + +<p> +<q>From these data it is easy to determine the characteristics of +a religion which is to be the religion of all mankind: it must be +ethical, intelligible, and spiritual.</q> +</p> + +<p> +After the plan of Jesus has been expounded on these lines, +Reinhard shows, in the second part of his work, that, prior to Jesus, +no great man of antiquity had devised a plan of beneficence of a +scope commensurate with the whole human race. In the third +part the conclusion is drawn that Jesus is the uniquely divine +Teacher. +</p> + +<p> +But before the author can venture to draw this conclusion, he +feels it necessary first to show that the plan of Jesus was no chimera. +If we were obliged to admit its impracticability Jesus would have +to be ranked with the visionaries and enthusiasts; and these, +however noble and virtuous, can only injure the cause of rational +religion. <q>Visionary enthusiasm and enlightened reason—who that +knows anything of the human mind can conceive these two as +united in a single soul?</q> But Jesus was no visionary enthusiast. +<q>With what calmness, self-mastery, and cool determination does +He think out and pursue His divine purpose?</q> By the truths +which He revealed and declared to be divine communications He +<pb n='034'/><anchor id='Pg034'/> +did not desire to put pressure upon the human mind, but only to +guide it. <q>It would be impossible to show a more conscientious +respect and a more delicate consideration for the rights of human +reason than is shown by Jesus. He will conquer only by convincing.</q> +<q>He is willing to bear with contradiction, and condescends +to meet the most irrational objections and the most ill-natured misrepresentations +with the most incredible patience.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It was well for Reinhard that he had no suspicion how full of +enthusiasm Jesus was, and how He trod reason under His feet! +</p> + +<p> +But what kind of relation was there between this rational religion +taught by Jesus and the Christian theology which Reinhard accepted? +How does he harmonise the symbolical view of Baptism and the +Lord's Supper which he here expounds with ecclesiastical doctrine? +How does he pass from the conception of the divine teacher to +that of the Son of God? +</p> + +<p> +This is a question which he does not feel himself obliged to +answer. For him the one circle of thought revolves freely within +the other, but they never come into contact with each other. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +So far as concerns the presentation of the teaching, the Life of +Jesus by Opitz follows the same lines as that of Reinhard. It is +disfigured, however, by a number of lapses of taste, and by a crass +supernaturalism in the description of the miracles and experiences +of the Great Teacher. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +Jakobi writes <q>for thoughtful and sympathetic readers.</q> He +recognises that much of the miraculous is a later addition to the +facts, but he has a rooted distrust of thoroughgoing rationalism, +<q>whose would-be helpful explanations are often stranger than the +miracles themselves.</q> A certain amount of miracle must be +maintained, but not for the purpose of founding belief upon it: +<q>the miracles were not intended to authenticate the teaching of +Jesus, but to surround His life with a guard of honour.</q><note place='foot'>This is perhaps the place to mention the account of the life of Jesus which is +given in the first part of Plank's <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte des Christentums</hi>. Göttingen, 1818.</note> +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +Whether Herder, in his two Lives of Jesus, is to be classed with +the older rationalists is a question to which the answer must be +<q>Yes, and No,</q> as in the case of every attempt to classify those +men of lonely greatness who stand apart from their contemporaries, +but who nevertheless are not in all points in advance of them. +</p> + +<p> +Properly speaking, he has really nothing to do with the +rationalists, since he is distinguished from them by the depth of +his insight and his power of artistic apprehension, and he is far +from sharing their lack of taste. Further, his horizon embraces +problems of which rationalism, even in its developed form, never +<pb n='035'/><anchor id='Pg035'/> +came in sight. He recognises that all attempts to harmonise the +Synoptists with John are unavailing; a conclusion which he had +avowed earlier in his <q>Letters referring to the Study of Theology.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Briefe das Studium der Theologie betreffend</hi>, 1st ed., 1780-1781; 2nd ed., +1785-1786; <hi rend='italic'>Werke</hi>, ed. Suphan, vol. x.</note> +He grasps this incompatibility, it is true, rather by the aid of poetic, +than of critical insight. <q>Since they cannot be united,</q> he writes +in his <q>Life of Jesus according to John,</q> <q>they must be left +standing independently, each evangelist with his own special merit. +Man, Ox, Lion, and Eagle, they advance together, supporting +the throne of glory, but they refuse to coalesce into a single form, +to unite into a Diatessaron.</q> But to him belongs the honour of +being the first and the only scholar, prior to Strauss, to recognise that +the life of Jesus can be construed either according to the Synoptists, +or according to John, but that a Life of Jesus based on the four +Gospels is a monstrosity. In view of this intuitive historical +grasp, it is not surprising that the commentaries of the theologians +were an abomination to him. +</p> + +<p> +The fourth Gospel is, in his view, not a primitive historical +source, but a protest against the narrowness of the <q>Palestinian +Gospels.</q> It gives free play, as the circumstances of the time +demanded, to Greek ideas. <q>There was need, in addition to +those earlier, purely historical Gospels, of a Gospel at once +theological and historical, like that of John,</q> in which Jesus should +be presented, not as the Jewish Messiah, <q>but as the Saviour of +the World.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The additions and omissions of this Gospel are alike skilfully +planned. It retains only those miracles which are symbols of a +continuous permanent miracle, through which the Saviour of the +World works constantly, unintermittently, among men. The +Johannine miracles are not there for their own sakes. The cures +of demoniacs are not even represented among them. These had +no interest for the Graeco-Roman world, and the Evangelist was +unwilling <q>that this Palestinian superstition should become a +permanent feature of Christianity, to be a reproach of scoffers or a +belief of the foolish.</q> His recording of the raising of Lazarus is, +in spite of the silence of the Synoptists, easily explicable. The +latter could not yet tell the story <q>without exposing a family which +was still living near Jerusalem to the fury of that hatred which +had sworn with an oath to put Lazarus to death.</q> John, however, +could recount it without scruple, <q>for by this time Jerusalem was +probably in ruins, and the hospitable family of Bethany were +perhaps already with their Friend in the other world.</q> This most +naïve of explanations is reproduced in a whole series of Lives of +Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +In dealing with the Synoptists, Herder grasps the problem with +<pb n='036'/><anchor id='Pg036'/> +the same intuitive insight. Mark is no epitomist, but the creator of +the archetype of the Synoptic representation. <q>The Gospel of +Mark is not an epitome; it is an original Gospel. What the +others have, and he has not, has been added by them, not omitted +by him. Consequently Mark is a witness to an original, shorter +Gospel-scheme, to which the additional matter of the others ought +properly to be regarded as a supplement.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Mark is the <q>unornamented central column, or plain foundation +stone, on which the others rest.</q> The birth-stories of Matthew and +Luke are <q>a new growth to meet new needs.</q> The different +tendencies, also, point to a later period. Mark is still comparatively +friendly towards the Jews, because Christianity had not yet separated +itself from Judaism. Matthew is more hostile towards them +because his Gospel was written at a time when Christians had given +up the hope of maintaining amicable relations with the Jews and +were groaning under the pressure of persecution. It is for that +reason that the Jesus of the Matthaean discourses lays so much +stress upon His second coming, and presupposes the rejection of +the Jewish nation as something already in being, a sign of the +approaching end. +</p> + +<p> +Pure history, however, is as little to be looked for in the first +three Gospels as in the fourth. They are the sacred epic of Jesus +the Messiah, and model the history of their hero upon the prophetic +words of the Old Testament. In this view, also, Herder is a precursor +of Strauss. +</p> + +<p> +In essence, however, Herder represents a protest of art against +theology. The Gospels, if we are to find the life of Jesus in them, +must be read, not with pedantic learning, but with taste. From +this point of view, miracles cease to offend. Neither Old Testament +prophecies, nor predictions of Jesus, nor miracles, can be adduced +as evidence for the Gospel; the Gospel is its own evidence. +The miracles stand outside the possibility of proof, and belong to +mere <q>Church belief,</q> which ought to lose itself more and more in the +pure Gospel. Yet miracles, in a limited sense, are to be accepted +on the ground of the historic evidence. To refuse to admit this is +to be like the Indian king who denied the existence of ice because +he had never seen anything like it. Jesus, in order to help His +miracle-loving age, reconciled Himself to the necessity of performing +miracles. But, in any case, the reality of a miracle is of small +moment in comparison with its symbolic value. +</p> + +<p> +In this, therefore, Herder, though in his grasp of many problems +he was more than a generation in advance of his time, belongs to +the primitive rationalists. He allows the supernatural to intrude +into the events of the life of Jesus, and does not feel that the +adoption of the historical standpoint involves the necessity of doing +away with miracle. He contributed much to the clearing up of +<pb n='037'/><anchor id='Pg037'/> +ideas, but by evading the question of miracle he slurred over a +difficulty which needed to be faced and solved before it should +be possible to entertain the hope of forming a really historical conception +of the life of Jesus. In reading Herder one is apt to fancy +that it would be possible to pass straight on to Strauss. In reality, +it was necessary that a very prosaic spirit, Paulus, should intervene, +and should attack the question of miracle from a purely historical +standpoint, before Strauss could give expression to the ideas of +Herder in an effectual way, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> in such a way as to produce offence. +The fact is that in theology the most revolutionary ideas are +swallowed quite readily so long as they smooth their passage by a +few small concessions. It is only when a spicule of bone stands +out obstinately and causes choking that theology begins to take +note of dangerous ideas. Strauss is Herder with just that little +bone sticking out—the absolute denial of miracle on historical +grounds. That is to say, Strauss is a Herder who has behind +him the uncompromising rationalism of Paulus. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='038'/><anchor id='Pg038'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>IV. The Earliest Fictitious Lives Of Jesus</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Karl Friedrich Bahrdt.</hi> Briefe über die Bibel im Volkston. Eine Wochenschrift +von einem Prediger auf dem Lande. (Popular Letters about the Bible. A +weekly paper by a country clergyman.) J. Fr. Dost, Halle, 1782. 816 pp. +</p> + +<p> +Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. In Briefen an Wahrheit suchende Leser. +(An Explanation of the Plans and Aims of Jesus. In letters addressed to +readers who seek the truth.) 11 vols., embracing 3000 pp. August Mylius, +Berlin, 1784-1792. This work is a sequel to the Popular Letters about the Bible. +</p> + +<p> +Die sämtlichen Reden Jesu aus den Evangelisten ausgezogen. (The Whole of the +Discourses of Jesus, extracted from the Gospels.) Berlin, 1786. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Karl Heinrich Venturini.</hi> Natürliche Geschichte des grossen Propheten von +Nazareth. (A Non-supernatural History of the Great Prophet of Nazareth.) +Bethlehem (Copenhagen), 1st ed., 1800-1802; 2nd ed., 1806. 4 vols., +embracing 2700 pp. The work appeared anonymously. The description given +below is based on the 2nd ed., which shows dependence, in some of the +exegetical details, upon the then recently published commentaries of Paulus. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +It is strange to notice how often in the history of our subject a few +imperfectly equipped free-lances have attacked and attempted to +carry the decisive positions before the ordered ranks of professional +theology have pushed their advance to these decisive points. +</p> + +<p> +Thus, it was the fictitious <q>Lives</q> of Bahrdt and Venturini +which, at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth +centuries, first attempted to apply, with logical consistency, a non-supernatural +interpretation to the miracle stories of the Gospel. +Further, these writers were the first who, instead of contenting themselves +with the simple reproduction of the successive sections of the +Gospel narrative, endeavoured to grasp the inner connexion of cause +and effect in the events and experiences of the life of Jesus. Since +they found no such connexion indicated in the Gospels, they had to +supply it for themselves. The particular form which their explanation +takes—the hypothesis of a secret society of which Jesus is the +tool—is, it is true, rather a sorry makeshift. Yet, in a sense, these +Lives of Jesus, for all their colouring of fiction, are the first which +deserve the name. The rationalists, and even Paulus, confine +themselves to describing the teaching of Jesus; Bahrdt and Venturini +make a bold attempt to paint the portrait of Jesus Himself. It is +<pb n='039'/><anchor id='Pg039'/> +not surprising that their portraiture is at once crude and fantastic, +like the earliest attempts of art to represent the human figure in +living movement. +</p> + +<p> +Karl Friedrich Bahrdt was born in 1741 at Bischofswerda. +Endowed with brilliant abilities, he made, owing to a bad upbringing +and an undisciplined sensuous nature, a miserable failure. +After being first Catechist and afterwards Professor Extraordinary +of Sacred Philology at Leipzig, he was, in 1766, requested to resign +on account of scandalous life. After various adventures, and after +holding for a time a professorship at Giessen, he received under +Frederick's minister Zedlitz authorisation to lecture at Halle. +There he lectured to nearly nine hundred students who were +attracted by his inspiring eloquence. The government upheld him, +in spite of his serious failings, with the double motive of annoying +the faculty and maintaining the freedom of learning. After the +death of Frederick the Great, Bahrdt had to resign his post, +and took to keeping an inn at a vineyard near Halle. By ridiculing +Wöllner's edict (1788), he brought on himself a year of confinement +in a fortress. He died in disrepute, in 1792. +</p> + +<p> +Bahrdt had begun as an orthodox cleric. In Halle he gave up +his belief in revelation, and endeavoured to explain religion on the +ground of reason. To this period belong the <q>Popular Letters +about the Bible,</q> which were afterwards continued in the further +series, <q>An Explanation of the Plans and Aims of Jesus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +His treatment of the life of Jesus has been too severely censured. +The work is not without passages which show a real depth +of feeling, especially in the continually recurring explanations regarding +the relation of belief in miracle to true faith, in which the +actual description of the life of Jesus lies embedded. And the +remarks about the teaching of Jesus are not always commonplace. +But the paraphernalia of dialogues of portentous length make it, +as a whole, formless and inartistic. The introduction of a galaxy +of imaginary characters—Haram, Schimah, Avel, Limmah, and the +like—is nothing less than bewildering. +</p> + +<p> +Bahrdt finds the key to the explanation of the life of Jesus +in the appearance in the Gospel narrative of Nicodemus and Joseph +of Arimathea. They are not disciples of Jesus, but belong to the +upper classes; what rôle, then, can they have played in the life +of Jesus, and how came they to intercede on His behalf? They +were Essenes. This Order had secret members in all ranks of +society, even in the Sanhedrin. It had set itself the task of detaching +the nation from its sensuous Messianic hopes and leading it to a +higher knowledge of spiritual truths. It had the most widespread +ramifications, extending to Babylon and to Egypt. In order to +deliver the people from the limitations of the national faith, which +could only lead to disturbance and insurrection, they must find a +<pb n='040'/><anchor id='Pg040'/> +Messiah who would destroy these false Messianic expectations. +They were therefore on the look-out for a claimant of the Messiahship +whom they could make subservient to their aims. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus came under the notice of the Order immediately after +His birth. As a child He was watched over at every step by the +Brethren. At the feasts at Jerusalem Alexandrian Jews, secret +members of the Essene Order, put themselves into communication +with Him, explained to Him the falsity of the priests, inspired Him +with a horror of the bloody sacrifices of the Temple, and made him +acquainted with Socrates and Plato. This is set forth in dialogues +of a hundred pages long. At the story of the death of Socrates, the +boy bursts into a tempest of sobs which His friends are unable to +calm. He longs to emulate the martyr-death of the great Athenian. +</p> + +<p> +On the market-place at Nazareth a mysterious Persian gives +Him two sovereign remedies—one for affections of the eye, the +other for nervous disorders. +</p> + +<p> +His father does his best for Him, teaching Him, along with +His cousin John, afterwards the Baptist, about virtue and immortality. +A priest belonging to the Essene Order, who makes their +acquaintance disguised as a shepherd, and takes part in their conversations, +leads the lads deeper into the knowledge of wisdom. +At twelve years old, Jesus is already so far advanced that He argues +with the Scribes in the Temple concerning miracles, maintaining +the thesis that they are impossible. +</p> + +<p> +When they feel themselves ready to appear in public the two +cousins take counsel together how they can best help the people. +They agree to open the eyes of the people regarding the tyranny +and hypocrisy of the priests. Through Haram, a prominent +member of the Essene Order, Luke the physician is introduced to +Jesus and places all his science at His disposal. +</p> + +<p> +In order to produce any effect they were obliged to practise +accommodation to the superstitions of the people, and introduce +their wisdom to them under the garb of folly, in the hope that, +beguiled by its attractive exterior, the people would admit into +their minds the revelation of rational truth, and after a time be +able to emancipate themselves from superstition. Jesus, therefore, +sees Himself obliged to appear in the rôle of the Messiah of +popular expectation, and to make up His mind to work by means +of miracles and illusions. About this He felt the gravest scruples. +He was obliged, however, to obey the Order; and His scruples +were quieted by the reminder of the lofty end which was to be +reached by these means. At last, when it is pointed out to Him +that even Moses had followed the same plan, He submits to the +necessity. The influential Order undertakes the duty of stage-managing +the miracles, and that of maintaining His father. On +the reception of Jesus into the number of the Brethren of the First +<pb n='041'/><anchor id='Pg041'/> +Degree of the Order it is made known to Him that these Brethren +are bound to face death in the cause of the Order; but that the +Order, on its part, undertakes so to use the machinery and influence +at its disposal that the last extremity shall always be avoided and +the Brother mysteriously preserved from death. +</p> + +<p> +Then begins the cleverly staged drama by means of which the +people are to be converted to rational religion. The members of +the Order are divided into three classes: The Baptized, The +Disciples, The Chosen Ones. The Baptized receive only the +usual popular teaching; the Disciples are admitted to further +knowledge, but are not entrusted with the highest mysteries; the +Chosen Ones, who in the Gospels are also spoken of as <q>Angels,</q> +are admitted into all wisdom. As the Apostles were only members +of the Second Degree, they had not the smallest suspicion of the +secret machinery which was at work. Their part in the drama +of the Life of Jesus was that of zealous <q>supers.</q> The Gospels +which they composed therefore report, in perfect good faith, +miracles which were really clever illusions produced by the Essenes, +and they depict the life of Jesus only as seen by the populace +from the outside. +</p> + +<p> +It is therefore not always possible for us to discover how the +events which they record as miracles actually came about. But +whether they took place in one way or another—and as to this +we can sometimes get a clue from a hint in the text—it is certain +that in all cases the process was natural. With reference to the +feeding of the five thousand, Bahrdt remarks: <q>It is more reasonable +here to think of a thousand ways by which Jesus might have +had sufficient supplies of bread at hand, and by the distribution of +it have shamed the disciples' lack of courage, than to believe in a +miracle.</q> The explanation which he himself prefers is that the +Order had collected a great quantity of bread in a cave and +this was gradually handed out to Jesus, who stood at the concealed +entrance and took some every time the apostles were occupied in +distributing the former supply to the multitude. The walking on +the sea is to be explained by supposing that Jesus walked towards +the disciples over the surface of a great floating raft; while they, +not being able to see the raft, must needs suppose a miracle. +When Peter tried to walk on the water he failed miserably. The +miracles of healing are to be attributed to the art of Luke. He +also called the attention of Jesus to remarkable cases of apparent +death, which He then took in hand, and restored the apparently +dead to their sorrowing friends. In such cases, however, the +Lord never failed expressly to inform the disciples that the persons +were not really dead. They, however, did not permit this assurance +to deprive them of their faith in the miracle which they felt they +had themselves witnessed. +</p> + +<pb n='042'/><anchor id='Pg042'/> + +<p> +In teaching, Jesus had two methods: one, exoteric, simple, for +the world; the other, esoteric, mystic, for the initiate. <q>No +attentive reader of the Bible,</q> says Bahrdt, <q>can fail to notice +that Jesus made use of two different styles of speech. Sometimes +He spoke so plainly and in such universally intelligible language, +and declared truths so simple and so well adapted to the general +comprehension of mankind that even the simplest could follow +Him. At other times he spoke so mystically, so obscurely, and +in so veiled a fashion that words and thoughts alike baffled the +understandings of ordinary people, and even by more practised +minds were not to be grasped without close reflection, so that we +are told in John vi. 60 that <q>many of His disciples, when they +heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?</q> And +Jesus Himself did not deny it, but only told them that the reason +of their not understanding His sayings lay in their prejudices, which +made them interpret everything literally and materially, and overlook +the ethical meaning which underlay His figurative language.</q> +Most of these mystical discourses are to be found in John, who +seems to have preserved for us the greater part of the secret +teaching imparted to the initiate. The key to the understanding +of this esoteric teaching is to be found, therefore, in the prologue +to John's Gospel, and in the sayings about the new birth. <q>To be +born again</q> is identical with the degree of perfection which was +attained in the highest class of the Brotherhood. +</p> + +<p> +The members of the Order met on appointed days in caves +among the hills. When we are told in the Gospels that Jesus +went alone into a mountain to pray, this means that He repaired +to one of these secret gatherings, but the disciples, of course, knew +nothing about that. The Order had its hidden caves everywhere; +in Galilee as well as in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Only by sensuous means can sensuous ideas be overcome.</q> +The Jewish Messiah must die and rise again, in order that the +false conceptions of the Messiah which were cherished by the +multitude might be destroyed in the moment of their fulfilment—that +is, might be spiritualised. Nicodemus, Haram, and Luke met +in a cave in order to take counsel how they might bring about +the death of Jesus in a way favourable to their plans. Luke +guaranteed that by the aid of powerful drugs which he would give +Him the Lord should be enabled to endure the utmost pain and +suffering and yet resist death for a long time. Nicodemus undertook +so to work matters in the Sanhedrin that the execution should +follow immediately upon the sentence, and the crucified remain +only a short time upon the cross. At this moment Jesus rushed +into the cave. He had scarcely had time to replace the stone +which concealed the entrance, so closely had He been pursued +over the rocks by hired assassins. He Himself is firmly resolved +<pb n='043'/><anchor id='Pg043'/> +to die, but care must be taken that He shall not be simply +assassinated, or the whole plan fails. If He falls by the assassin's +knife, no resurrection will be possible. +</p> + +<p> +In the end, the piece is staged to perfection. Jesus provokes +the authorities by His triumphal Messianic entry. The unsuspected +Essenes in the council urge on His arrest and secure His +condemnation—though Pilate almost frustrates all their plans by +acquitting Him. Jesus, by uttering a loud cry and immediately +afterwards bowing His head, shows every appearance of a sudden +death. The centurion has been bribed not to allow any of His +bones to be broken. Then comes Joseph of Ramath, as Bahrdt +prefers to call Joseph of Arimathea, and removes the body to the +cave of the Essenes, where he immediately commences measures of +resuscitation. As Luke had prepared the body of the Messiah by +means of strengthening medicines to resist the fearful ill-usage +which He had gone through—the being dragged about and beaten +and finally crucified—these efforts were crowned with success. In +the cave the most strengthening nutriment was supplied to Him. +<q>Since the humours of the body were in a thoroughly healthy +condition, His wounds healed very readily, and by the third day +He was able to walk, in spite of the fact that the wounds made by +the nails were still open.</q> +</p> + +<p> +On the morning of the third day they forced away the stone +which closed the mouth of the grave. As Jesus was descending +the rocky slopes the watch awakened and took to flight in alarm. +One of the Essenes appeared, in the garb of an angel, to the +women and announced to them the resurrection of Jesus. Shortly +afterwards the Lord appeared to Mary. At the sound of His +voice she recognises Him. <q>Thereupon Jesus tells her that He +is going to His Father (to heaven—in the mystic sense of the +word—that is to say, to the Chosen Ones in their peaceful dwellings +of truth and blessedness—to the circle of His faithful friends, +among whom He continued to live, unseen by the world, but still +working for the advancement of His purpose). He bade her tell +His disciples that He was alive.</q> +</p> + +<p> +From His place of concealment He appeared several times to +His disciples. Finally He bade them meet Him at the Mount of +Olives, near Bethany, and there took leave of them. After exhorting +them, and embracing each of them in turn, He tore +Himself away from them and walked away up the mountain. +<q>There stood those poor men, amazed—beside themselves with +sorrow—and looked after Him as long as they could. But as He +mounted higher, He entered ever deeper into the cloud which lay +upon the hill-top, until finally He was no longer to be seen. The +cloud received Him out of their sight.</q> +</p> + +<p> +From the mountain He returned to the chief lodge of the +<pb n='044'/><anchor id='Pg044'/> +Brotherhood. Only at rare intervals did He again intervene in +active life—as on the occasion when He appeared to Paul upon +the road to Damascus. But, though unseen, He continued to +direct the destinies of the community until His death. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +Venturini's <q>Non-supernatural History of the Great Prophet of +Nazareth</q> is related to Bahrdt's work as the finished picture to the +sketch. +</p> + +<p> +Karl Heinrich Venturini was born at Brunswick in 1768. On +the completion of his theological studies he vainly endeavoured to +secure a post as Docent in the theological faculty at Helmstadt, or +as Librarian at Wolfenbüttel. +</p> + +<p> +His life was blameless and his personal piety beyond reproach, +but he was considered to be too free in his ideas. The Duke of +Brunswick was personally well disposed towards him, but did not +venture to give him a post on the teaching staff in face of the +opposition of the consistories. He was reduced to earning a bare +pittance by literary work, and finally in 1806 was thankful to +accept a small living in Hordorf near Brunswick. He then +abandoned theological writing and devoted his energies to recording +the events of contemporary history, of which he published a yearly +chronicle—a proceeding which under the Napoleonic <foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>régime</foreign> was +not always unattended with risk, as he more than once had occasion +to experience. He continued this undertaking till 1841. In 1849 +death released him from his tasks. +</p> + +<p> +Venturini's fundamental assumption is that it was impossible, +even for the noblest spirit of mankind, to make Himself understood +by the Judaism of His time except by clothing His spiritual teaching +in a sensuous garb calculated to please the oriental imagination, +<q>and, in general, by bringing His higher spiritual world into such +relations with the lower sensuous world of those whom He wished +to teach as was necessary to the accomplishment of His aims.</q> +<q>God's Messenger was morally bound to perform miracles for the +Jews. These miracles had an ethical purpose, and were especially +designed to counteract the impression made by the supposed miracles +of the deceivers of the people, and thus to hasten the overthrow of +the kingdom of Satan.</q> +</p> + +<p> +For modern medical science the miracles are not miraculous. +He never healed without medicaments and always carried His +<q>portable medicine chest</q> with Him. In the case of the Syro-phoenician +woman's daughter, for example, we can still detect in the +narrative a hint of the actual course of events. The mother +explains the case to Jesus. After enquiring where her dwelling was +he made a sign to John, and continued to hold her in conversation. +The disciple went to the daughter and gave her a sedative, and +when the mother returned she found her child cured. +</p> + +<pb n='045'/><anchor id='Pg045'/> + +<p> +The raisings from the dead were cases of coma. The nature-miracles +were due to a profound acquaintance with the powers of +Nature and the order of her processes. They involve fore-knowledge +rather than control. +</p> + +<p> +Many miracle stories rest on obvious misunderstandings. +Nothing could be simpler than the explanation of the miracle at +Cana. Jesus had brought with Him as a wedding-gift some jars of +good wine and had put them aside in another room. When the +wine was finished and His mother became anxious, He still allowed +the guests to wait a little, as the stone vessels for purification had not +yet been filled with water. When that had been done He ordered +the servants to pour out some of his wine, but to tell no one whence +it came. When John, as an old man, wrote his Gospel, he got all +this rather mixed up—had not indeed observed it very closely at +the time, <q>had perhaps been the least thing merry himself,</q> says +Venturini, and had believed in the miracle with the rest. Perhaps, +too, he had not ventured to ask Jesus for an explanation, for he +had only become His disciple a few days before. +</p> + +<p> +The members of the Essene Order had watched over the child +Jesus even in Egypt. As He grew older they took charge of His +education along with that of His cousin, John, and trained them +both for their work as deliverers of the people. Whereas the nation +as a whole looked to an insurrection as the means of its deliverance, +they knew that freedom could only be achieved by means of a +spiritual renewal. Once Jesus and John met a band of insurgents: +Jesus worked on them so powerfully by His fervid speech that they +recognised the impiousness of their purpose. One of them sprang +towards Him and laid down his arms; it was Simon, who afterwards +became His disciple. +</p> + +<p> +When Jesus was about thirty years old, and, owing to the deep +experiences of His inner life, had really far outgrown the aims of +the Essene Order, He entered upon His office by demanding +baptism from John. Just as this was taking place a thunderstorm +broke, and a dove, frightened by the lightning, fluttered round the +head of Jesus. Both Jesus and John took this as a sign that the +hour appointed by God had come. +</p> + +<p> +The temptations in the wilderness, and upon the pinnacle of +the Temple, were due to the machinations of the Pharisee Zadok, +who pretended to enter into the plans of Jesus and feigned admiration +for Him in order the more surely to entrap Him. It was +Zadok, too, who stirred up opposition to Him in the Sanhedrin. +</p> + +<p> +But Jesus did not succeed in destroying the old Messianic belief +with its earthly aims. The hatred of the leading circles against +Him grew, although He avoided everything <q>that could offend their +prejudices.</q> It was for this reason that He even forbade His +disciples to preach the Gospel beyond the borders of Jewish +<pb n='046'/><anchor id='Pg046'/> +territory. He paid the temple-tax, also, although he had no fixed +abode. When the collector went to Peter about it, the following +dialogue took place. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Tax-collector</hi> (<hi rend='italic'>drawing Peter aside</hi>). Tell me, Simon, does the +Rabbi pay the didrachma to the Temple treasury, or should we not +trouble Him about it? +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Peter.</hi> Why shouldn't He pay it? Why do you ask? +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Tax-collector.</hi> It's been owing from both of you since last +Nisan, as our books show. We did not like to remind your Master, +out of reverence. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Peter.</hi> I'll tell Him at once. He will certainly pay the tax. +You need have no fear about that. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Tax-collector.</hi> That's good. That will put everything straight, +and we shall have no trouble over our accounts. Good-bye! +</p> + +<p> +When Jesus hears of it He commands Peter to go and catch +a fish, and to take care, in removing the hook, not to tear its +mouth, that it may be fit for salting (!) In that case it will doubtless +be worth a <foreign rend='italic'>stater</foreign>. +</p> + +<p> +The time arrived when an important move must be made. In +full conclave of the Secret Society it was resolved that Jesus should +go up to Jerusalem and there publicly proclaim Himself as the +Messiah. Then He was to endeavour to disabuse the people of +their earthly Messianic expectations. +</p> + +<p> +The triumphal entry succeeded. The whole people hailed Him +with acclamations. But when He tried to substitute for their picture +of the Messiah one of a different character, and spoke of times of +severe trial which should come upon all, when He showed Himself +but seldom in the Temple, instead of taking His place at the head +of the people, they began to doubt Him. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus was suddenly arrested and put to death. Here, then, +the death is not, as in Bahrdt, a piece of play-acting, stage-managed +by the Secret Society. Jesus really expected to die, and only to +meet His disciples again in the eternal life of the other world. +But when He so soon gave up the ghost, Joseph of Arimathea was +moved by some vague premonition to hasten at once to Pontius +Pilate and make request for His body. He offers the Procurator +money. <hi rend='italic'>Pilate</hi> (<hi rend='italic'>sternly and emphatically</hi>): <q>Dost thou also mistake +me? Am I, then, such an insatiable miser? Still, thou art a +Jew—how could this people do me justice? Know, then, that a +Roman can honour true nobility wherever he may find it. (<hi rend='italic'>He sits +down and writes some words on a strip of parchment.</hi>) Give this to +the captain of the guard. Thou shall be permitted to remove the +body. I ask nothing for this. It is granted to thee freely.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>A tender embrace from his wife rewarded the noble deed of +the Roman, while Joseph left the Praetorium, and with Nicodemus, +who was impatiently awaiting him, hastened to Golgotha.</q> There +<pb n='047'/><anchor id='Pg047'/> +he received the body; he washed it, anointed it with spices, and +laid it on a bed of moss in the rock-hewn grave. From the blood +which was still flowing from the wound in the side, he ventured +to draw a hopeful augury, and sent word to the Essene Brethren. +They had a hold close by, and promised to watch over the body. +In the first four-and-twenty hours no movement of life showed +itself. Then came the earthquake. In the midst of the terrible +commotion a Brother, in the white robes of the Order, was making +his way to the grave by a secret path. When he, illumined by a flash +of lightning, suddenly appeared above the grave, and at the same +moment the earth shook violently, panic seized the watch, and they +fled. In the morning the Brother hears a sound from the grave: +Jesus is moving. The whole Order hastens to the spot, and Jesus +is removed to their Lodge. Two brethren remain at the grave—these +were the <q>angels</q> whom the women saw later. Jesus, in +the dress of a gardener, is afterwards recognised by Mary Magdalene. +Later, He comes out at intervals from the hiding-place, where He +is kept by the Brethren, and appears to the disciples. After forty +days He took His leave of them: His strength was exhausted. +The farewell scene gave rise to the mistaken impression of His +Ascension. +</p> + +<p> +From the historical point of view these lives are not such +contemptible performances as might be supposed. There is +much penetrating observation in them. Bahrdt and Venturini are +right in feeling that the connexion of events in the life of Jesus +has to be discovered; the Gospels give only a series of occurrences, +and offer no explanation why they happened just as they did. +And if, in making Jesus subservient to the plans of a secret society, +they represented Him as not acting with perfect freedom, but as +showing a certain passivity, this assumption of theirs was to be +brilliantly vindicated, a hundred years later, by the eschatological +school, which asserts the same remarkable passivity on the part of +Jesus, in that He allows His actions to be determined, not indeed +by a secret society, but by the eschatological plan of God. Bahrdt +and Venturini were the first to see that, of all Jesus' acts, His death +was most distinctively His own, because it was by this that He +purposed to found the kingdom. +</p> + +<p> +Venturini's <q>Non-supernatural History of the Great Prophet of +Nazareth</q> may almost be said to be reissued annually down to the +present day, for all the fictitious <q>Lives</q> go back directly or +indirectly to the type which he created. It is plagiarised more +freely than any other Life of Jesus, although practically unknown +by name. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='048'/><anchor id='Pg048'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>V. Fully Developed Rationalism—Paulus</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus.</hi> Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen +Geschichte des Urchristentums. Heidelberg, C. F. Winter. (The Life of Jesus +as the Basis of a purely Historical Account of Early Christianity.) 1828. +2 vols., 1192 pp. +</p> + +</quote> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<lg> +<l>Freut euch mit Gottesandacht, wenn es gewährt euch ist,</l> +<l>Dem, so kurz er war, weltumschaffenden Lebensgang</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Nach Jahrhunderten fern zu folgen,</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Denket, glaubet, folget des Vorbildes Spur!</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>(Closing words of vol. ii.)</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>(Rejoice with grateful devotion, if unto you 'tis permitted,</l> +<l>After the lapse of centuries, still to follow afar off</l> +<l>That Life which, short as it was, changed the course of the ages;</l> +<l>Think ye well, and believe; follow the path of our Pattern.)</l> +</lg> + +</quote> + +<p> +Paulus was not the mere dry-as-dust rationalist that he is usually +represented to have been, but a man of very versatile abilities. +His limitation was that, like Reinhard, he had an unconquerable +distrust of anything that went outside the boundaries of logical +thought. That was due in part to the experiences of his youth. +His father, a deacon in Leonberg, half-mystic, half-rationalist, had +secret difficulties about the doctrine of immortality, and made his +wife promise on her death-bed that, if it were possible, she would +appear to him after her death in bodily form. After she was dead +he thought he saw her raise herself to a sitting posture, and again +sink down. From that time onwards he firmly believed himself to +be in communication with departed spirits, and he became so +dominated by this idea that in 1771 he had to be removed from +his office. His children suffered sorely from a <foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>régime</foreign> of compulsory +spiritualism, which pressed hardest upon Heinrich Eberhard +Gottlob, born in 1761, who, for the sake of peace, was obliged to +pretend to his father that he was in communication with his +mother's spirit. +</p> + +<p> +He himself had inherited only the rationalistic side of his +father's temperament. As a student at the Tübingen Stift +(theological institute) he formed his views on the writings of +<pb n='049'/><anchor id='Pg049'/> +Semler and Michaelis. In 1789 he was called to Jena as +Professor of Oriental Languages, and succeeded in 1793 to the third +ordinary professorship of theology. The naturalistic interpretation +of miracles which he upheld in his commentary on the Synoptic +Gospels, published in 1800-1802, aroused the indignation of the +consistories of Meiningen and Eisenach. But their petition for his +removal from the professorship was unsuccessful, since Herder, who +was president of the consistorium, used his influence to protect +him. In 1799 Paulus, as Pro-rector, used his influence on behalf of +his colleague Fichte, who was attacked on the ground of atheism; +but in vain, owing to the passionate conduct of the accused. +</p> + +<p> +With Goethe, Schiller, and Wieland, Paulus and his wife, a +lively lady of some literary talents, stood in the most friendly +relations. +</p> + +<p> +When the Jena circle began to break up, he accepted, in 1803, +an invitation from the Elector of Bavaria, Maximilian Joseph II., +to go to Würzburg as Konsistorialrat and professor. There the +liberal minister, Montgelas, was desirous of establishing a university +founded on the principles of illuminism—Schelling, Hufeland, and +Schleiermacher were among those whom he contemplated appointing +as Docents. Here the Catholic theological students were obliged +to attend the lectures of the Protestant professor of theology, as +there were no Protestants to form an audience. His first course +was on <q>Encyclopädie</q> (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> introduction to the literature of +theology). +</p> + +<p> +The plan failed. Paulus resigned his professorship and became +in 1807 a member of the Bavarian educational council (<hi rend='italic'>Schulrat</hi>). +In this capacity he worked at the reorganisation of the Bavarian +school system at the time when Hegel was similarly engaged. He +gave four years to this task, which he felt to be laid upon him as +a duty. Then, in 1811, he went to Heidelberg as professor of +theology; and he remained there until his death, in 1851, at the +age of ninety. One of his last sayings, a few hours before he died, +was, <q>I am justified before God, through my desire to do right.</q> +His last words were, <q>There is another world.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The forty years of his Heidelberg period were remarkably +productive; there was no department of knowledge on which he +did not write. He expressed his views about homoeopathy, about +the freedom of the Press, about academic freedom, and about the +duelling nuisance. In 1831, he wrote upon the Jewish Question; +and there the veteran rationalist showed himself a bitter anti-Semite, +and brought upon himself the scorn of Heine. On politics +and constitutional questions he fought for his opinions so openly +and manfully that he had to be warned to be more discreet. +In philosophy he took an especially keen interest. When in Jena +he had, in conjunction with Schiller, busied himself in the study +<pb n='050'/><anchor id='Pg050'/> +of Kant. He did a particularly meritorious service in preparing +an edition of Spinoza's writings, with a biography of that thinker, +in 1803, at the time when neo-Spinozism was making its influence +felt in German philosophy. He constituted himself the special +guardian of philosophy, and the moment he detected the slightest +hint of mysticism, he sounded the alarm. His pet aversion was +Schelling, who was born fourteen years later than he, in the very +same house at Leonberg, and whom he had met as colleague at +Jena and at Würzburg. The works, avowed and anonymous, +which he directed against this <q>charlatan, juggler, swindler, and +obscurantist,</q> as he designated him, fill an entire library. +</p> + +<p> +In 1841, Schelling was called to the chair of philosophy in +Berlin, and in the winter of 1841-1842 he gave his lectures on +<q>The Philosophy of Revelation</q> which caused the Berlin +reactionaries to hail him as their great ally. The veteran +rationalist—he was eighty years old—was transported with rage. +He had had the lectures taken down for him, and he published +them with critical remarks under the title <q>The Philosophy of +Revelation at length Revealed, and set forth for General Examination, +by Dr. H. E. G. Paulus</q> (Darmstadt, 1842). Schelling was +furious, and dragged <q>the impudent scoundrel</q> into a court of +law on the charge of illicit publication. In Prussia the book was +suppressed. But the courts decided in favour of Paulus, who +coolly explained that <q>the philosophy of Schelling appeared to him +an insidious attack upon sound reason, the unmasking of which +by every possible means was a work of public utility, nay, even a +duty.</q> He also secured the result at which he aimed; Schelling +resigned his lectureship. +</p> + +<p> +In his last days the veteran rationalist was an isolated survival +from an earlier age into a period which no longer understood him. +The new men reproached him for standing in the old ways; he +accused them of a want of honesty. It was just in his immobility +and his one-sidedness that his significance lay. By his consistent +carrying through of the rationalistic explanation he performed a +service to theology more valuable than those who think themselves +so vastly his superiors are willing to acknowledge. +</p> + +<p> +His Life of Jesus is awkwardly arranged. The first part gives +a historical exposition of the Gospels, section by section. The +second part is a synopsis interspersed with supplementary matter. +There is no attempt to grasp the life of Jesus as a connected +whole. In that respect he is far inferior to Venturini. Strictly +regarded, his work is only a harmony of the gospels with explanatory +comments, the ground plan of which is taken from the Fourth +Gospel.<note place='foot'>A Life of Jesus which is completely dependent on the Commentaries of Paulus +is that of Greiling, superintendent at Aschersleben, <hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu von Nazareth +Ein religiöses Handbuch für Geist und Herz der Freunde Jesu unter den Gebildeten.</hi> +(The Life of Jesus of Nazareth, a religious Handbook for the Minds and Hearts of the +Friends of Jesus among the Cultured.) Halle, 1813.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='051'/><anchor id='Pg051'/> + +<p> +The main interest centres in the explanations of the miracles, +though the author, it must be admitted, endeavoured to guard +against this. <q>It is my chief desire,</q> he writes in his preface, <q>that +my views regarding the miracle stories should not be taken as by +any means the principal thing. How empty would devotion or +religion be if one's spiritual well-being depended on whether one +believed in miracles or no!</q> <q>The truly miraculous thing about +Jesus is Himself, the purity and serene holiness of His character, +which is, notwithstanding, genuinely human, and adapted to the +imitation and emulation of mankind.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The question of miracle is therefore a subsidiary question. +Two points of primary importance are certain from the outset: +(1) that unexplained alterations of the course of nature can neither +overthrow nor attest a spiritual truth, (2) that everything which +happens in nature emanates from the omnipotence of God. +</p> + +<p> +The Evangelists intended to relate miracles; of that there can +be no doubt. Nor can any one deny that in their time miracles +entered into the plan of God, in the sense that the minds of men +were to be astounded and subdued by inexplicable facts. This +effect, however, is past. In periods to which the miraculous makes +less appeal, in view of the advance in intellectual culture of the +nations which have been led to accept Christianity, the understanding +must be satisfied if the success of the cause is to be maintained. +</p> + +<p> +Since that which is produced by the laws of nature is really +produced by God, the Biblical miracles consist merely in the fact +that eyewitnesses report events of which they did not know the +secondary causes. Their knowledge of the laws of nature was +insufficient to enable them to understand what actually happened. +For one who has discovered the secondary causes, the fact remains, +as such, but not the miracle. +</p> + +<p> +The question of miracle, therefore, does not really exist, or +exists only for those <q>who are under the influence of the sceptical +delusion that it is possible really to think any kind of natural powers +as existing apart from God, or to think the Being of God apart from +the primal potentialities which unfold themselves in the never-ceasing +process of Becoming.</q> The difficulty arises from the +<q>original sin</q> of dissolving the inner unity of God and nature, +of denying the equivalence implied by Spinoza in his <q>Deus sive +Natura.</q> +</p> + +<p> +For the normal intelligence the only problem is to discover the +secondary causes of the <q>miracles</q> of Jesus. It is true there is +one miracle which Paulus retains—the miracle of the birth, or at +least the possibility of it; in the sense that it is through holy +<pb n='052'/><anchor id='Pg052'/> +inspiration that Mary receives the hope and the power of conceiving +her exalted Son, in whom the spirit of the Messiah takes up its +dwelling. Here he indirectly denies the natural generation, and +regards the conception as an act of the self-consciousness of the +mother. +</p> + +<p> +With the miracles of healing, however, the case is very simple. +Sometimes Jesus worked through His spiritual power upon the +nervous system of the sufferer; sometimes He used medicines known +to Him alone. The latter applies, for instance, to the cures of the +blind. The disciples, too, as appears from Mark vi. 7 and 13, were +not sent out without medicaments, for the oil with which they were +to anoint the sick was, of course, of a medicinal character; and the +casting out of evil spirits was effected partly by means of sedatives. +</p> + +<p> +Diet and after-treatment played a great part, though the +Evangelists say little about this because directions on these points +would not be given publicly. Thus, the saying, <q>This kind goeth +not out save by prayer and fasting,</q> is interpreted as an instruction +to the father as to the way in which he could make the sudden +cure of the epileptic into a permanent one, viz. by keeping him to +a strict diet and strengthening his character by devotional exercises. +</p> + +<p> +The nature miracles suggest their own explanation. The +walking on the water was an illusion of the disciples. Jesus walked +along the shore, and in the mist was taken for a ghost by the alarmed +and excited occupants of the boat. When Jesus called to them, +Peter threw himself into the water, and was drawn to shore by +Jesus just as he was sinking. Immediately after taking Jesus into +the boat they doubled a headland and drew clear of the storm centre; +they therefore supposed that He had calmed the sea by His command. +It was the same in the case where He was asleep during the storm. +When they waked Him He spoke to them about the wind and the +weather. At that moment they gained the shelter of a hill which +protected them from the wind that swept down the valley; and +they marvelled among themselves that even the winds and the sea +obeyed their Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +The feeding of the five thousand is explained in the following +way. When Jesus saw the multitude all hungered, He said to His +disciples, <q>We will set the rich people among them a good example, +that they may share their supplies with the others,</q> and he began +to distribute His own provisions, and those of the disciples, to the +people who were sitting near them. The example had its effect, +and soon there was plenty for every one. +</p> + +<p> +The explanation of the transfiguration is somewhat more +complicated. While Jesus was lingering with a few followers in +this mountainous district He had an interview upon a high +mountain at night with two dignified-looking men whom His three +companions took for Moses and Elias. These unknown persons, +<pb n='053'/><anchor id='Pg053'/> +as we learn from Luke ix. 31, informed Him of the fate which awaited +Him at Jerusalem. In the early morning, as the sun was rising, the +three disciples, only half awake, looked upwards from the hollow in +which they had been sleeping and saw Jesus with the two strangers +upon the higher part of the mountain, illuminated by the beams +of the rising sun, and heard them speak, now of the fate which +threatened Him in the capital, now of the duty of steadfastness +and the hopes attached thereto, and finally heard an exhortation +addressed to themselves, bidding them ever to hold Jesus to be +the beloved Son of the Deity, whom they must obey.... Their +drowsiness, and the clouds which in an autumnal sunrise float to +and fro over those mountains,<note place='foot'>Paulus prided himself on a very exact acquaintance with the physical and +geographical conditions of Palestine. He had a wide knowledge of the literature of +Eastern travel.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></note> left them no clear recollection of +what had happened. This only added to the wonder of the vague +undefined impression of having been in contact with apparitions +from a higher sphere. The three who had been with Him on the +mount never arrived at any more definite knowledge of the facts, +because Jesus forbade them to speak of what they had seen until +the end should come. +</p> + +<p> +In dealing with the raisings from the dead the author is in his +element. Here he is ready with the unfailing explanation taken +over from Bahrdt that they were only cases of coma. These +narratives should not be headed <q>raisings from the dead,</q> but +<q>deliverances from premature burial.</q> In Judaea, interment took +place three hours after death. How many seemingly dead people +may have returned to consciousness in their graves, and then have +perished miserably! Thus Jesus, owing to a presentiment suggested +to Him by the father's story, saves the daughter of Jairus from being +buried while in a cataleptic trance. A similar presentiment led +Him to remove the covering of the bier which He met at the gate +of Nain, and to discover traces of life in the widow's son. A +similar instinct moved Him to ask to be taken to the grave of +Lazarus. When the stone is rolled away He sees His friend standing +upright and calls to him joyfully, <q>Come forth!</q> +</p> + +<p> +The Jewish love of miracle <q>caused everything to be ascribed +immediately to the Deity, and secondary causes to be overlooked; +consequently no thought was unfortunately given to the question of +how to prevent these horrible cases of premature burial from taking +place!</q> But why does it not appear strange to Paulus that Jesus +did not enlighten His countrymen as to the criminal character of +over-hasty burial, instead of allowing even his closest followers to +believe in miracle? Here the hypothesis condemns itself, although +it has a foundation of fact, in so far as cases of premature burial are +abnormally frequent in the East. +</p> + +<pb n='054'/><anchor id='Pg054'/> + +<p> +The resurrection of Jesus must be brought under the same +category if we are to hold fast to the facts that the disciples saw +Him in His natural body with the print of the nails in His hands, +and that He took food in their presence. Death from crucifixion +was in fact due to a condition of rigor, which extended gradually +inwards. It was the slowest of all deaths. Josephus mentions in his +<hi rend='italic'>Contra Apionem</hi> that it was granted to him as a favour by Titus, at +Tekoa, that he might have three crucified men whom he knew taken +down from the cross. Two of them died, but one recovered. Jesus, +however, <q>died</q> surprisingly quickly. The loud cry which he uttered +immediately before His head sank shows that His strength was far +from being exhausted, and that what supervened was only a death-like +trance. In such trances the process of dying continues until +corruption sets in. <q>This alone proves that the process is complete +and that death has actually taken place.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In the case of Jesus, as in that of others, the vital spark +would have been gradually extinguished, had not Providence +mysteriously effected on behalf of its favourite that which in the +case of others was sometimes effected in more obvious ways by +human skill and care. The lance-thrust, which we are to think of +rather as a mere surface wound, served the purpose of a phlebotomy. +The cool grave and the aromatic unguents continued the process +of resuscitation, until finally the storm and the earthquake aroused +Jesus to full consciousness. Fortunately the earthquake also had +the effect of rolling away the stone from the mouth of the grave. +The Lord stripped off the grave-clothes and put on a gardener's +dress which He managed to procure. That was what made Mary, +as we are told in John xx. 15, take Him for the gardener. Through +the women, He sends a message to His disciples bidding them +meet Him in Galilee, and Himself sets out to go thither. At +Emmaus, as the dusk was falling, He met two of His followers, who +at first failed to recognise Him because His countenance was so +disfigured by His sufferings. But His manner of giving thanks at +the breaking of bread, and the nail-prints in His uplifted hands, +revealed to them who He was. From them He learns where His +disciples are, returns to Jerusalem, and appears unexpectedly among +them. This is the explanation of the apparent contradiction +between the message pointing to Galilee and the appearances in +Jerusalem. Thomas was not present at this first appearance, and +at a later interview was suffered to put his hand into the marks of +the wounds. It is a misunderstanding to see a reproach in the +words which Jesus addresses to him. What, then, is the meaning +of <q>Blessed are they that have not seen and have believed</q>? It +is a benediction upon Thomas for what he has done in the interests +of later generations. <q>Now,</q> Jesus says, <q>thou, Thomas, art +convinced because thou hast so unmistakably seen Me. It is +<pb n='055'/><anchor id='Pg055'/> +well for those who now or in the future shall not see Me; for +after this they can feel a firm conviction, because thou hast +convinced thyself so completely that to thee, whose hands have +touched Me, no possible doubt can remain of My corporeal reanimation.</q> +Had it not been for Thomas's peculiar mental +constitution we should not have known whether what was seen +was a phantom or a real appearance of the reanimated Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +In this way Jesus lived with them for forty days, spending part +of that time with them in Galilee. In consequence of the ill-treatment +which He had undergone, He was not capable of continuous +exertion. He lived quietly and gathered strength for the +brief moments in which He appeared among His own followers +and taught them. When He felt his end drawing near He returned +to Jerusalem. On the Mount of Olives, in the early sunlight, He +assembled His followers for the last time. He lifted up His hands +to bless them, and with hands still raised in benediction He moved +away from them. A cloud interposes itself between them and +Him, so that their eyes cannot follow Him. As he disappeared +there stood before them, clothed in white, the two dignified figures +whom the three disciples who were present at the transfiguration +had taken for Moses and Elias, but who were really among the +secret adherents of Jesus in Jerusalem. These men exhorted them +not to stand waiting there but to be up and doing. +</p> + +<p> +Where Jesus really died they never knew, and so they came to +describe His departure as an ascension. +</p> + +<p> +This Life of Jesus is not written without feeling. At times, in +moments of exaltation, the writer even dashes into verse. If only +the lack of all natural aesthetic feeling did not ruin everything! +Paulus constantly falls into a style that sets the teeth on edge. +The episode of the death of the Baptist is headed <q>Court-and-Priest +intrigues enhance themselves to a judicial murder.</q> Much +is spoiled by a kind of banality. Instead of <q>disciples,</q> he always +says <q>pupils,</q> instead of <q>faith,</q> <q>sincerity of conviction.</q> The +appeal which the father of the lunatic boy addresses to Jesus, <q>Lord, +I believe, help thou my unbelief,</q> runs <q>I am sincerely convinced; +help me, even if there is anything lacking in the sincerity of my +conviction.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The beautiful saying in the story of Martha and Mary, <q>One +thing is needful,</q> is interpreted as meaning that a single course +will be sufficient for the meal.<note place='foot'>This interpretation, it ought to be remarked, seems to be implied by the +ancient reading. <q>Few things are needful, or one,</q> given in the margin of the +Revised Version.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></note> The scene in the home at Bethany +rejoices in the heading, <q>Geniality of Jesus among sympathetic +friends in a hospitable family circle at Bethany. A Messiah with +no stiff solemnity about Him.</q> The following is the explanation +<pb n='056'/><anchor id='Pg056'/> +which Paulus discovers for the saying about the tribute-money: +<q>So long as you need the Romans to maintain some sort of order +among you,</q> says Jesus, <q>you must provide the means thereto. If +you were fit to be independent you would not need to serve any one +but God.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Among the historical problems, Paulus is especially interested +in the idea of the Messiahship, and in the motives of the betrayal. +His sixty-five pages on the history of the conception of the Messiah are +a real contribution to the subject. The Messianic idea, he explains, +goes back to the Davidic kingdom; the prophets raised it to a +higher religious plane; in the times of the Maccabees the ideal of +the kingly Messiah perished and its place was taken by that of +the super-earthly deliverer. The only mistake which Paulus makes +is in supposing that the post-Maccabean period went back to the +political ideal of the Davidic king. On the other hand, he rightly +interprets the death of Jesus as the deed by which He thought to +win the Messiahship proper to the Son of Man. +</p> + +<p> +With reference to the question of the High Priest at the trial, +he remarks that it does not refer to the metaphysical Divine Sonship, +but to the Messiahship in the ancient Jewish sense, and +accordingly Jesus answers by pointing to the coming of the Son of +Man. +</p> + +<p> +The importance of eschatology in the preaching of Jesus is +clearly recognised, but Paulus proceeds to nullify this recognition +by making the risen Lord cut short all the questions of the disciples +in regard to this subject with the admonition <q>that in whatever way +all this should come about, and whether soon or late, their business +was to see that they had done their own part.</q> +</p> + +<p> +How did Judas come to play the traitor? He believed in the +Messiahship of Jesus and wanted to force Him to declare Himself. +To bring about His arrest seemed to Judas the best means of +rousing the people to take His side openly. But the course of +events was too rapid for him. Owing to the Feast the news of the +arrest spread but slowly. In the night <q>when people were sleeping +off the effects of the Passover supper,</q> Jesus was condemned; in +the morning, before they were well awake, He was hurried away to +be crucified. Then Judas was overcome with despair, and went +and hanged himself. <q>Judas stands before us in the history of +the Passion as a warning example of those who allow their cleverness +to degenerate into cunning, and persuade themselves that it is +permissible to do evil that good may come—to seek good objects, +which they really value, by intrigue and chicanery. And the +underlying cause of their errors is that they have failed to overcome +their passionate desire for self-advancement.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Such was the consistently rationalistic Life of Jesus, which +evoked so much opposition at the time of its appearance, and +<pb n='057'/><anchor id='Pg057'/> +seven years later received its death-blow at the hands of Strauss. +The method is doomed to failure because the author only saves his +own sincerity at the expense of that of his characters. He makes +the disciples of Jesus see miracles where they could not possibly +have seen them; and makes Jesus Himself allow miracles to be +imagined where He must necessarily have protested against such a +delusion. His exegesis, too, is sometimes violent. But in this, +who has the right to judge him? If the theologians dragged him +before the Lord, He would command, as of old, <q>Let him that +is without sin among you cast the first stone at him,</q> and Paulus +would go forth unharmed. +</p> + +<p> +Moreover, a number of his explanations are right in principle. +The feeding of the multitudes and the walking on the sea must be +explained somehow or other as misunderstandings of something +that actually happened. And how many of Paulus' ideas are still +going about in all sorts of disguises, and crop up again and again +in commentaries and Lives of Jesus, especially in those of +the <q>anti-rationalists</q>! Nowadays it belongs to the complete +duty of the well-trained theologian to renounce the rationalists and +all their works; and yet how poor our time is in comparison with +theirs—how poor in strong men capable of loyalty to an ideal, how +poor, so far as theology is concerned, in simple commonplace +sincerity! +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='058'/><anchor id='Pg058'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>VI. The Last Phase Of Rationalism—Hase +And Schleiermacher</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Karl August Hase.</hi> Das Leben Jesu zunächst für akademische Studien. (The Life +of Jesus, primarily for the use of students.) 1829. 205 pp. This work +contains a bibliography of the earliest literature of the subject. 5th ed., 1865. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher.</hi> Das Leben Jesu. 1864. Edited by +Rütenik. The edition is based upon a student's note-book of a course of +lectures delivered in 1832. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>David Friedrich Strauss.</hi> Der Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte. +Eine Kritik des Schleiermacher'schen Lebens Jesu. (The Christ of Faith and +the Jesus of History. A criticism of Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus.) 1865. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +In their treatment of the life of Jesus, Hase and Schleiermacher +are in one respect still wholly dominated by rationalism. They +still cling to the rationalistic explanation of miracle; although they +have no longer the same ingenuous confidence in it as their +predecessors, and although at the decisive cases they are content +to leave a question-mark instead of offering a solution. They +might, in fact, be described as the sceptics of rationalism. In +another respect, however, they aim at something beyond the range +of rationalism, inasmuch as they endeavour to grasp the inner +connexion of the events of Jesus' ministry, which in Paulus had +entirely fallen out of sight. Their Lives of Jesus are transitional, in +the good sense of the word as well as in the bad. In respect of +progress, Hase shows himself the greater of the two. +</p> + +<p> +Scarcely thirteen years have elapsed since the death of the +great Jena professor, his Excellency von Hase, and already we +think of him as a man of the past. Theology has voted to inscribe +his name upon its records in letters of gold—and has passed on to +the order of the day. He was no pioneer like Baur, and he does +not meet the present age on the footing of a contemporary, offering +it problems raised by him and still unsolved. Even his <q>Church +History,</q> with its twelve editions, has already had its day, although +it is still the most brilliantly written work in this department, and +conceals beneath its elegance of form a massive erudition. He +<pb n='059'/><anchor id='Pg059'/> +was more than a theologian; he was one of the finest monuments +of German culture, the living embodiment of a period which +for us lies under the sunset glow of the past, in the land of +<q>once upon a time.</q> +</p> + +<p> +His path in life was unembarrassed; he knew toil, but not +disappointment. Born in 1800, he finished his studies at Tübingen, +where he qualified as a Privat-Docent in 1823. In 1824-1825 he +spent eleven months in the fortress of Hohenasperg, where he +was confined for taking the part of the Burschenschaften,<note place='foot'>Associations of students, at that time of a political character.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></note> and +had leisure for meditation and literary plans. In 1830 he went +to Jena, where, with a yearly visit to Italy to lay in a store of +sunshine and renewed strength, he worked until 1890. +</p> + +<p> +Not without a certain reverence does one take this little text-book +of 205 pages into one's hands. This is the first attempt by +a fully equipped scholar to reconstruct the life of Jesus on a purely +historical basis. There is more creative power in it than in almost +any of his later works. It manifests already the brilliant qualities +of style for which he was distinguished—clearness, terseness, +elegance. What a contrast with that of Bahrdt, Venturini, or +Paulus! +</p> + +<p> +And yet the keynote of the work is rationalistic, since Hase +has recourse to the rationalistic explanation of miracles wherever +that appears possible. He seeks to make the circumstances of the +baptism intelligible by supposing the appearance of a meteor. In +the story of the transfiguration, the fact which is to be retained is +that Jesus, in the company of two unknown persons, appeared to +the disciples in unaccustomed splendour. Their identification of +His companions as Moses and Elias is a conclusion which is not +confirmed by Jesus, and owing to the position of the eyewitnesses, +is not sufficiently guaranteed by their testimony. The abrupt +breaking off of the interview by the Master, and the injunction of +silence, point to some secret circumstance in His history. By this +hint Hase seems to leave room for the <q>secret society</q> of Bahrdt +and Venturini. +</p> + +<p> +He makes no difficulty about the explanation of the story of +the <foreign rend='italic'>stater</foreign>. It is only intended to show <q>how the Messiah avoided +offence in submitting Himself to the financial burdens of the +community.</q> In regard to the stilling of the storm, it seems +uncertain whether Jesus through His knowledge of nature was +enabled to predict the end of the storm or whether He brought it +about by the possession of power over nature. The <q>sceptic of +rationalism</q> thus leaves open the possibility of miracle. He +proceeds somewhat similarly in explaining the raisings from the +dead. They can be made intelligible by supposing that they +were cases of coma, but it is also possible to look upon them as +<pb n='060'/><anchor id='Pg060'/> +supernatural. For the two great Johannine miracles, the change of +the water into wine and the increase of the loaves, no naturalistic +explanation can be admitted. But how unsuccessful is his attempt +to make the increase of the bread intelligible! <q>Why should not +the bread have been increased?</q> he asks. <q>If nature every year +in the period between seed-time and harvest performs a similar +miracle, nature might also, by unknown laws, bring it about in +a moment.</q> Here crops up the dangerous anti-rationalistic +intellectual supernaturalism which sometimes brings Hase and +Schleiermacher very close to the frontiers of the territory occupied +by the disingenuous reactionaries. +</p> + +<p> +The crucial point is the explanation of the resurrection of Jesus. +A stringent proof that death had actually taken place cannot, +according to Hase, be given, since there is no evidence that +corruption had set in, and that is the only infallible sign of death. +It is possible, therefore, that the resurrection was only a return to +consciousness after a trance. But the direct impression made by +the sources points rather to a supernatural event. Either view is +compatible with the Christian faith. <q>Both the historically possible +views—either that the Creator gave new life to a body which was +really dead, or that the latent life reawakened in a body which +was only seemingly dead—recognise in the resurrection a manifest +proof of the care of Providence for the cause of Jesus, and are +therefore both to be recognised as Christian, whereas a third view—that +Jesus gave Himself up to his enemies in order to defeat +them by the bold stroke of a seeming death and a skilfully prepared +resurrection—is as contrary to historical criticism as to Christian +faith.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Hase, however, quietly lightens the difficulty of the miracle +question in a way which must not be overlooked. For the +rationalists all miracles stood on the same footing, and all must +equally be abolished by a naturalistic explanation. If we study +Hase carefully, we find that he accepts only the Johannine miracles +as authentic, whereas those of the Synoptists may be regarded as +resting upon a misunderstanding on the part of the authors, because +they are not reported at first hand, but from tradition. Thus the +discrimination of the two lines of Gospel tradition comes to the +aid of the anti-rationalists, and enables them to get rid of some of +the greatest difficulties. Half playfully, it might almost be said, +they sketch out the ideas of Strauss, without ever suspecting what +desperate earnest the game will become, if the authenticity of the +Fourth Gospel has to be given up. +</p> + +<p> +Hase surrenders the birth-story and the <q>legends of the +Childhood</q>—the expression is his own—almost without striking +a blow. The same fate befalls all the incidents in which angels +figure, and the miracles at the time of the death of Jesus. He +<pb n='061'/><anchor id='Pg061'/> +describes these as <q>mythical touches.</q> The ascension is merely +<q>a mythical version of His departure to the Father.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Hase's conception even of the non-miraculous portion of the +history of Jesus is not free from rationalistic traits. He indulges in +the following speculations with regard to the celibacy of the Lord. +<q>If the true grounds of the celibacy of Jesus do not lie hidden in +the special circumstances of His youth, the conjecture may be permitted +that He from whose religion was to go forth the ideal view +of marriage, so foreign to the ideas of antiquity, found in His own +time no heart worthy to enter into this covenant with Him.</q> It is +on rationalistic lines also that Hase explains the betrayal by Judas. +<q>A purely intellectual, worldly, and unscrupulous character, he +desired to compel the hesitating Messiah to found His Kingdom +upon popular violence.... It is possible that Judas in his +terrible blindness took that last word addressed to him by Jesus, +<q>What thou doest, do quickly,</q> as giving consent to his plan.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But Hase again rises superior to this rationalistic conception of +the history when he refuses to explain away the Jewish elements in +the plan and preaching of Jesus as due to mere accommodation, +and maintains the view that the Lord really, to a certain extent, +shared this Jewish system of ideas. According to Hase there are +two periods in the Messianic activity of Jesus. In the first He +accepted almost without reservation the popular ideas regarding +the Messianic age. In consequence, however, of His experience of +the practical results of these ideas, He was led to abandon this +error, and in the second period He developed His own distinctive +views. Here we meet for the first time the idea of two different +periods in the life of Jesus, which, especially through the influence +of Holtzmann and Keim, became the prevailing view, and down to +Johannes Weiss, determined the plan of all Lives of Jesus. Hase +created the modern historico-psychological picture of Jesus. The +introduction of this more penetrating psychology would alone suffice +to place him in advance of the rationalists. +</p> + +<p> +Another interesting point is the thorough way in which he +traces out the historical and literary consequences of this idea of +development. The apostles, he thinks, did not understand this +progress of thought on the part of Jesus, and did not distinguish +between the sayings of the first and second periods. They remained +wedded to the eschatological view. After the death of +Jesus this view prevailed so strongly in the primitive community of +disciples that they interpolated their expectations into the last discourses +of Jesus. According to Hase, the apocalyptic discourse in +Matt. xxiv. was originally only a prediction of the judgment upon and +destruction of Jerusalem, but this was obscured later by the influx +of the eschatological views of the apostolic community. Only John +remained free from this error. Therefore the non-eschatological +<pb n='062'/><anchor id='Pg062'/> +Fourth Gospel preserves in their pure form the ideas of Jesus in +His second period. +</p> + +<p> +Hase rightly observes that the Messiahship of Jesus plays next +to no part in His preaching, at any rate at first, and that, before +the incident at Caesarea Philippi, it was only in moments of +enthusiastic admiration, rather than with settled conviction, that +even the disciples looked on Him as the Messiah. This indication +of the central importance of the declaration of the Messiahship at +Caesarea Philippi is another sign-post pointing out the direction +which the future study of the life of Jesus was to follow. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus introduces us to quite a different +order of transitional ideas. Its value lies in the sphere of dogmatics, +not of history. Nowhere, indeed, is it so clear that the great +dialectician had not really a historical mind than precisely in his +treatment of the history of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +From the first it was no favourable star which presided over +this undertaking. It is true that in 1819 Schleiermacher was the +first theologian who had ever lectured upon this subject. But his +Life of Jesus did not appear until 1864. Its publication had been +so long delayed, partly because it had to be reconstructed from +students' note-books, partly because immediately after Schleiermacher, +in 1832, had delivered the course for the last time, it was +rendered obsolete by the work of Strauss. For the questions +raised by the latter's Life of Jesus, published in 1835, Schleiermacher +had no answer, and for the wounds which it made, no +healing. When, in 1864, Schleiermacher's work was brought forth +to view like an embalmed corse, Strauss accorded to the dead +work of the great theologian a dignified and striking funeral +oration. +</p> + +<p> +Schleiermacher is not in search of the historical Jesus, but of +the Jesus Christ of his own system of theology; that is to say, of +the historic figure which seems to him appropriate to the self-consciousness +of the Redeemer as he represents it. For him the +empirical has simply no existence. A natural psychology is +scarcely attempted. He comes to the facts with a ready-made +dialectic apparatus and sets his puppets in lively action. Schleiermacher's +dialectic is not a dialectic which generates reality, like +that of Hegel, of which Strauss availed himself, but merely a +dialectic of exposition. In this literary dialectic he is the greatest +master that ever lived. +</p> + +<p> +The limitations of the historical Jesus both in an upward and +downward direction are those only which apply equally to the +Jesus of dogma. The uniqueness of His Divine self-consciousness +is not to be tampered with. It is equally necessary to avoid +Ebionism which does away with the Divine in Him, and Docetism +<pb n='063'/><anchor id='Pg063'/> +which destroys His humanity. Schleiermacher loves to make his +hearers shudder by pointing out to them that the least false step +entails precipitation into one or other of these abysses; or at least +would entail it for any one who was not under the guidance +of his infallible dialectic. +</p> + +<p> +In the course of this dialectic treatment, all the historical +questions involved in the life of Jesus come into view one after +another, but none of them is posed or solved from the point of +view of the historian; they are <q>moments</q> in his argument. +</p> + +<p> +He is like a spider at work. The spider lets itself down from +aloft, and after making fast some supporting threads to points +below, it runs back to the centre and there keeps spinning away. +You look on fascinated, and before you know it, you are entangled +in the web. It is difficult even for a reader who is strong in the +consciousness of possessing a sounder grasp of the history than +Schleiermacher to avoid being caught in the toils of that magical +dialectic. +</p> + +<p> +And how loftily superior the dialectician is! Paulus had +shown that, in view of the use of the title Son of Man, the +Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus must be interpreted in +accordance with the passage in Daniel. On this Schleiermacher +remarks: <q>I have already said that it is inherently improbable that +such a predilection (<hi rend='italic'>sc.</hi> for the Book of Daniel) would have been +manifested by Christ, because the Book of Daniel does not belong +to the prophetic writings properly so-called, but to the third +division of the Old Testament literature.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In his estimate of the importance to be attached to the story +of the baptism, too, he falls behind the historical knowledge of his +day. <q>To lay such great stress upon the baptism,</q> he says, <q>leads +either to the Gnostic view that it was only there that the λόγος +united itself with Jesus, or to the rationalistic view that it was only +at the baptism that He became conscious of His vocation.</q> But +what does history care whether a view is gnostic or rationalistic if +only it is historical! +</p> + +<p> +This dialectic, so fatal often to sound historical views, might +have been expressly created to deal with the question of miracle. +Compared with Schleiermacher's discussions all that has been +written since upon this subject is mere honest—or dishonest—bungling. +Nothing new has been added to what he says, and no +one else has succeeded in saying it with the same amazing +subtlety. It is true, also, that no one else has shown the same +skill in concealing how much in the way of miracle he ultimately +retains and how much he rejects. His solution of the problem is, +in fact, not historical, but dialectical, an attempt to transcend the +necessity for a rationalistic explanation of miracle which does not +really succeed in getting rid of it. +</p> + +<pb n='064'/><anchor id='Pg064'/> + +<p> +Schleiermacher arranges the miracles in an ascending scale of +probability according to the degree in which they can be seen to +depend on the known influence of spirit upon organic matter. The +most easily explained are the miracles of healing <q>because we are +not without analogies to show that pathological conditions of a +purely functional nature can be removed by mental influence.</q> But +where, on the other hand, the effect produced by Christ lies outside +the sphere of human life, the difficulties involved become insoluble. +To get rid, in some measure, of these difficulties he makes use of +two expedients. In the first place, he admits that in particular +cases the rationalistic method may have a certain limited application; +in the second place he, like Hase, recognises a difference +between the miracle stories themselves, retaining the Johannine +miracles, but surrendering, more or less completely, the Synoptic +miracles as not resting on evidence of the same certainty and +exactness. +</p> + +<p> +That he is still largely under the sway of rationalism can be +seen in the fact that he admits on an equal footing, as conceptions +of the resurrection of Jesus, a return to consciousness from a +trance-state, or a supernatural restoration to life, thought of as a +resurrection. He goes so far as to say that the decision of this +question has very little interest for him. He fully accepts the +principle of Paulus that apart from corruption there is no certain +indication of death. +</p> + +<p> +<q>All that we can say on this point,</q> he concludes, <q>is that even +to those whose business it was to ensure the immediate death of +the crucified, in order that the bodies might at once be taken down, +Christ appeared to be really dead, and this, moreover, although it +was contrary to their expectations, for it was a subject of astonishment. +It is no use going any further into the matter, since nothing +can be ascertained in regard to it.</q> +</p> + +<p> +What is certain is that Jesus in His real body lived on for a +time among His followers; that the Fourth Gospel requires us to +believe. The reports of the resurrection are not based upon +<q>apparitions.</q> Schleiermacher's own opinion is what really +happened was reanimation after apparent death. <q>If Christ had +only eaten to show that He could eat, while He really had no +need of nourishment, it would have been a pretence—something +docetic. This gives us a clue to all the rest, teaching us to hold +firmly to the way in which Christ intends Himself to be represented, +and to put down all that is miraculous in the accounts of the +appearances to the prepossessions of the disciples.</q> +</p> + +<p> +When He revealed himself to Mary Magdalene He had no +certainty that He would frequently see her again. <q>He was +conscious that His present condition was that of genuine human +life, but He had no confidence in its continuance.</q> He bade His +<pb n='065'/><anchor id='Pg065'/> +disciples meet Him in Galilee because He could there enjoy greater +privacy and freedom from observation in His intercourse with +them. The difference between the present and the past was only +that He no longer showed Himself to the world. <q>It was possible +that a movement in favour of an earthly Messianic Kingdom might +break out, and we need only take this possibility into account in +order to explain completely why Jesus remained in such close +retirement.</q> <q>It was the premonition of the approaching end of +this second life which led Him to return from Galilee to Jerusalem.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Of the ascension he says: <q>Here, therefore, something happened, +but what was seen was incomplete, and has been conjecturally +supplemented.</q> The underlying rationalistic explanation shows +through! +</p> + +<p> +But if the condition in which Jesus lived on after His crucifixion +was <q>a condition of reanimation,</q> by what right does Schleiermacher +constantly speak of it as a <q>resurrection,</q> as if resurrection and +reanimation were synonymous terms? Further, is it really true +that faith has no interest whatever in the question whether it was +as risen from the dead, or merely as recovered from a state of +suspended animation, that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples? +In regard to this, it might seem, the rationalists were more straightforward. +</p> + +<p> +The moment one tries to take hold of this dialectic it breaks in +one's fingers. Schleiermacher would not indeed have ventured to +play so risky a game if he had not had a second position to retire +to, based on the distinction between the Synoptic and the Johannine +miracle stories. In this respect he simplified matters for himself, +as compared with the rationalists, even more than Hase. The +miracle at the baptism is only intelligible in the narrative of the +Fourth Gospel, where it is not a question of an external occurrence, +but of a purely subjective experience of John, with which we have +nothing to do. The Synoptic story of the temptation has no intelligible +meaning. <q>To change stones into bread, if there were +need for it, would not have been a sin.</q> <q>A leap from the +Temple could have had no attraction for any one.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The miracles of the birth and childhood are given up without +hesitation; they do not belong to the story of the life of Jesus; +and it is the same with the miracles at His death. One might +fancy it was Strauss speaking when Schleiermacher says: <q>If we +give due consideration to the fact that we have certainly found +in these for the most part simple narratives of the last moments +of Christ two incidents, such as the rending of the veil of the +Temple and the opening of the graves, in reference to which we +cannot possibly suppose that they are literal descriptions of actual +facts, then we are bound to ask the question whether the same +does not apply to many other points. Certainly the mention of +<pb n='066'/><anchor id='Pg066'/> +the sun's light failing and the consequent great darkness looks +very much as if it had been imported by poetic imagination into the +simple narrative.</q> +</p> + +<p> +A rebuke could have no possible effect upon the wind and sea. +Here we must suppose either an alteration of the facts or a +different causal connexion. +</p> + +<p> +In this way Schleiermacher—and it was for this reason that these +lectures on the life of Jesus became so celebrated—enabled +dogmatics, though not indeed history, to take a flying leap over the +miracle question. +</p> + +<p> +What is chiefly fatal to a sound historical view is his one-sided +preference for the Fourth Gospel. It is, according to him, only in +this Gospel that the consciousness of Jesus is truly reflected. In +this connexion he expressly remarks that of a progress in the teaching +of Jesus, and of any <q>development</q> in Him, there can be no +question. His development is the unimpeded organic unfolding of +the idea of the Divine Sonship. +</p> + +<p> +For the outline of the life of Jesus, also, the Fourth Gospel is +alone authoritative. <q>The Johannine representation of the way in +which the crisis of His fate was brought about is the only clear one.</q> +The same applies to the narrative of the resurrection in this Gospel. +<q>Accordingly, on this point also,</q> so he concludes his discussion, <q>I +take it as established that the Gospel of John is the narrative of an +eyewitness and forms an organic whole. The first three Gospels +are compilations formed out of various narratives which had arisen +independently; their discourses are composite structures, and their +presentation of the history is such that one can form no idea of the +grouping of events.</q> The <q>crowded days,</q> such as that of the +sermon on the mount and the day of the parables, exist only in the +imagination of the Evangelists. In reality there were no such days. +Luke is the only one of them who has some semblance of historical +order. His Gospel is compiled with much insight and critical tact +out of a number of independent documents, as Schleiermacher +believed himself to have shown convincingly in his critical study of +Luke's Gospel, published in 1817. +</p> + +<p> +It is only on the ground of such a valuation of the sources +that we can arrive at a just estimate of the different representations +of the locality of the life of Jesus. <q>The contradictions,</q> Schleiermacher +proceeds, <q>could not be explained if all our Gospels stood +equally close to Jesus. But if John stands closer than the others, +we may perhaps find the key in the fact that John, too, mentions it +as a prevailing opinion in Jerusalem that Jesus was a Galilaean, and +that Luke, when he has got to the end of the sections which show +skilful arrangement and are united by similarity of subject, gathers +all the rest into the framework of a journey to Jerusalem. Following +this analogy, and not remembering that Jesus had occasion to go +<pb n='067'/><anchor id='Pg067'/> +several times a year to Jerusalem, the other two gathered into one +mass all that happened there on various occasions. This could +only have been done by Hellenists.</q><note place='foot'>The ground of the inference is that, according to this theory, they did not +attach much importance to the keeping of the Feasts at Jerusalem. Dr. Schweitzer +reminds us in a footnote that a certain want of clearness is due to the fact of this +work having been compiled from lecture-notes.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Schleiermacher is quite insensible to the graphic realism of the +description of the last days at Jerusalem in Mark and Matthew, and +has no suspicion that if only a single one of the Jerusalem sayings +in the Synoptists is true Jesus had never before spoken in Jerusalem. +</p> + +<p> +The ground of Schleiermacher's antipathy to the Synoptists lies +deeper than a mere critical view as to their composition. The fact +is that their <q>picture of Christ</q> does not agree with that which he +wishes to insert into the history. When it serves his purpose, he +does not shrink from the most arbitrary violence. He abolishes the +scene in Gethsemane because he infers from the silence of John +that it cannot have taken place. <q>The other Evangelists,</q> he +explains, <q>give us an account of a sudden depression and deep +distress of spirit which fell upon Jesus, and which He admitted to +His disciples, and they tell us how He sought relief from it in +prayer, and afterwards recovered His serenity and resolution. John +passes over this in silence, and his narrative of what immediately +precedes is not consistent with it.</q> It is evidently a +symbolical story, as the thrice-repeated petition shows. <q>If they +speak of such a depression of spirit, they have given the story that +form in order that the example of Christ might be the more +applicable to others in similar circumstances.</q> +</p> + +<p> +On these premises it is possible to write a Life of Christ; it is +not possible to write a Life of Jesus. It is, therefore, not by +accident that Schleiermacher regularly speaks, not of Jesus, but of +Christ. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='068'/><anchor id='Pg068'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>VII. David Friedrich Strauss—The Man And His Fate</head> + +<p> +In order to understand Strauss one must love him. He was not +the greatest, and not the deepest, of theologians, but he was the +most absolutely sincere. His insight and his errors were alike the +insight and the errors of a prophet. And he had a prophet's fate. +Disappointment and suffering gave his life its consecration. It +unrolls itself before us like a tragedy, in which, in the end, the +gloom is lightened by the mild radiance which shines forth from +the nobility of the sufferer. +</p> + +<p> +Strauss was born in 1808 at Ludwigsburg. His father was a +merchant, whose business, however, was unsuccessful, so that his +means steadily declined. The boy took his ability from his mother, +a good, self-controlled, sensible, pious woman, to whom he raised a +monument in his <q>Memorial of a Good Mother</q> written in 1858, +to be given to his daughter on her confirmation-day. +</p> + +<p> +From 1821 to 1825 he was a pupil at the <q>lower seminary</q> at +Blaubeuren, along with Friedrich Vischer, Pfizer, Zimmermann, +Märklin, and Binder. Among their teachers was Ferdinand +Christian Baur, whom they were to meet with again at the +university. +</p> + +<p> +His first year at the university was uninteresting, as it was only +in the following year that the reorganisation of the theological +faculty took place, in consequence of the appointment of Baur. +The instruction in the philosophical faculty was almost equally +unsatisfactory, so that the friends would have gained little from the +two years of philosophical propaedeutic which formed part of the +course prescribed for theological students, if they had not combined +to prosecute their philosophical studies for themselves. The +writings of Hegel began to exercise a powerful influence upon them. +For the philosophical faculty, Hegel's philosophy was as yet non-existent. +</p> + +<p> +These student friends were much addicted to poetry. Two +<pb n='069'/><anchor id='Pg069'/> +journeys which Strauss made along with his fellow-student Binder +to Weinsberg to see Justinus Kerner made a deep impression upon +him. He had to make a deliberate effort to escape from the +dream-world of the <q>Prophetess of Prevorst.</q> Some years later, in +a Latin note to Binder, he speaks of Weinsberg as <q>Mecca nostra.</q><note place='foot'><p>See Theobald Ziegler, <q>Zur Biographie von David Friedrich Strauss</q> (Materials +for the Biography of D. F. S.), in the <hi rend='italic'>Deutsche Revue</hi>, May, June, July 1905. The +hitherto unpublished letters to Binder throw some light on the development of Strauss +during the formative years before the publication of the Life of Jesus. +</p> +<p> +Binder, later Director of the Board of Studies at Stuttgart, was the friend who +delivered the funeral allocution at the grave of Strauss. This last act of friendship +exposed him to enmity and calumny of all kinds. For the text of his short address, +see the <hi rend='italic'>Deutsche Revue</hi>, 1905, p. 107.</p></note> +</p> + +<p> +According to Vischer's picture of him, the tall stripling made an +impression of great charm, though he was rather shy except with +intimates. He attended lectures with pedantic regularity. +</p> + +<p> +Baur was at that time still immersed in the prolegomena to his +system; but Strauss already suspected the direction which the +thoughts of his young teacher were to take. +</p> + +<p> +When Strauss and his student friends entered on their duties as +clergymen, the others found great difficulty in bringing their +theological views into line with the popular beliefs which they were +expected to preach. Strauss alone remained free from inner +struggles. In a letter to Binder<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Deutsche Revue</hi>, May 1905, p. 199.</note> of the year 1831, he explains that +in his sermons—he was then assistant at Klein-Ingersheim near +Ludwigsburg—he did not use <q>representative notions</q> (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Vorstellungen</foreign>, +used as a philosophical technicality) such as that of the +Devil, which the people were already prepared to dispense with; +but others which still appeared to be indispensable, such as those +of an eschatological character, he merely endeavoured to present +in such a way that the <q>intellectual concept</q> (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Begriff</foreign>) which lay +behind, might so far as possible shine through. <q>When I consider,</q> +he continues, <q>how far even in intellectual preaching the +expression is inadequate to the true essence of the concept, it does +not seem to me to matter much if one goes even a step further. +I at least go about the matter without the least scruple, and cannot +ascribe this to a mere want of sincerity in myself.</q> +</p> + +<p> +That is Hegelian logic. +</p> + +<p> +After being for a short time Deputy-professor at Maulbronn, he +took his doctor's degree with a dissertation on the ἀποκατάστασις +πάντων (restoration of all things, Acts iii. 21). This work is lost. +From his letters it appears that he treated the subject chiefly from +the religious-historical point of view.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 201.</note> +</p> + +<p> +When Binder took his doctorate with a philosophical thesis on +the immortality of the soul, Strauss, in 1832, wrote to him expressing +the opinion that the belief in personal immortality could not properly +be regarded as a consequence of the Hegelian system, since according +<pb n='070'/><anchor id='Pg070'/> +to Hegel, it was not the subjective spirit of the individual person, +but only the objective Spirit, the self-realising Idea which constantly +embodies itself in new creations, to which immortality belongs.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Deutsche Revue</hi>, p. 203.</note> +</p> + +<p> +In October 1831 he went to Berlin to hear Hegel and +Schleiermacher. On the 14th of November Hegel, whom he +had visited shortly before, was carried off by cholera. Strauss +heard the news in Schleiermacher's house, from Schleiermacher +himself, and is said to have exclaimed, with a certain want of tact, +considering who his informant was: <q>And it was to hear him that +I came to Berlin!</q> +</p> + +<p> +There was no satisfactory basis for a relationship between +Schleiermacher and Strauss. They had nothing in common. +That did not prevent Strauss's Life of Jesus being sometimes +described by opponents of Schleiermacher as a product of the +latter's philosophy of religion. Indeed, as late as the 'sixties, +Tholuck thought it necessary to defend the memory of the great +theologian against this reproach. +</p> + +<p> +As a matter of fact, the plan of the Life of Jesus arose during +Strauss's intercourse with Vatke, to whom he felt himself strongly +drawn. Moreover, what was first sketched out was not primarily +the plan of a Life of Jesus, but that of a history of the ideas of +primitive Christianity, intended to serve as a standard by which +to judge ecclesiastical dogma. The Life of Jesus was originally +designed, it might almost be said, as a mere prologue to this work, +the plan of which was subsequently carried out under the title, +<q>Christian Theology in its Historical Development and in its +Antagonism with Modern Scientific Knowledge</q> (published in +1840-1841). +</p> + +<p> +When in the spring of 1832 he returned to Tübingen to take +up the position of <q>Repetent</q><note place='foot'>Assistant lecturer.</note> in the theological college (<hi rend='italic'>Stift</hi>), +these plans were laid on the shelf in consequence of his pre-occupation +with philosophy, and if things had gone according to +Strauss's wishes, they would perhaps never have come to fulfilment. +The <q>Repetents</q> had the right to lecture upon philosophy. +Strauss felt himself called upon to come forward as an apostle of +Hegel, and lectured upon Hegel's logic with tremendous success. +Zeller, who attended these lectures, records the unforgettable +impression which they made on him. Besides championing +Hegel, Strauss also lectured upon Plato, and upon the history of +modern philosophy. These were three happy semesters. +</p> + +<p> +<q>In my theology,</q> he writes in a letter of 1833,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>, June 1905, p. 343 ff.</note> <q>philosophy +occupies such a predominant position that my theological views +can only be worked out to completeness by means of a more +thorough study of philosophy, and this course of study I am now +<pb n='071'/><anchor id='Pg071'/> +going to prosecute uninterruptedly and without concerning myself +whether it leads me back to theology or not.</q> Further on he +says: <q>If I know myself rightly, my position in regard to theology +is that what interests me in theology causes offence, and what +does not cause offence is indifferent to me. For this reason I +have refrained from delivering lectures on theology.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The philosophical faculty was not altogether pleased at the +success of the apostle of Hegel, and wished to have the right of +the <q>Repetents</q> to lecture on philosophy curtailed. The latter, +however, took their stand upon the tradition. Strauss was desired +to intermit his lectures until the matter should be settled. He +would have liked best to end the situation by entering the philosophical +faculty. The other <q>Repetents,</q> however, begged him not +to do so, but to continue to champion their rights. It is possible +also that obstacles were placed in the way of his plan by the +philosophical faculty. However that may be, it was in any case +not carried through. Strauss was forced back upon theology. +</p> + +<p> +According to Hase,<note place='foot'>See Hase, <hi rend='italic'>Leben Jesu</hi>, 1876, p. 124. The <q>text-book</q> referred to is Hase's +first Life of Jesus.</note> Strauss began his studies for the Life of +Jesus by writing a detailed critical review of his (Hase's) text-book. +He sent this to Berlin to the <hi rend='italic'>Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik</hi>, +which, however, refused it. His resolve to publish first, instead of +the general work on the genesis of Christian doctrine, a critical +study on the life of Jesus was doubtless determined by Schleiermacher's +lectures on this subject. When in Berlin he had procured +a copy of a lecture note-book, and the reading of it incited him to +opposition. +</p> + +<p> +Considering its character, the work was rapidly produced. +He wrote it sitting at the window of the Repetents' room, which +looks out upon the gateway-arch. When its two volumes appeared +in 1835 the name of the author was wholly unknown, except +for some critical studies upon the Gospels. This book, into +which he had poured his youthful enthusiasm, rendered him +famous in a moment—and utterly destroyed his prospects. +Among his opponents the most prominent was Steudel, a member +of the theological faculty, who, as president of the <hi rend='italic'>Stift</hi>, made +representations against him to the Ministry, and succeeded in +securing his removal from the post of <q>Repetent.</q> The hopes +which Strauss had placed upon his friends were disappointed. +Only two or three at most dared to publish anything in his +defence. +</p> + +<p> +He first accepted a transfer to the post of Deputy-professor +at Ludwigsburg, but in less than a year he was glad to give it +up, and he then returned to Stuttgart. There he lived for +several years, busying himself in the preparation of new editions +<pb n='072'/><anchor id='Pg072'/> +of the Life of Jesus, and in writing answers to the attacks which +were made upon him. +</p> + +<p> +Towards the end of the 'thirties he became conscious of a +growing impulse towards more positive views. The criticisms +of his opponents had made some impression upon him. The +second volume of polemics was laid aside. In its place appeared +the third edition of the Life of Jesus, 1838-1839, containing a series +of amazing concessions. Strauss explains that in consequence of +reading de Wette's commentary and Neander's Life of Jesus he +had begun to feel some hesitation about his former doubts +regarding the genuineness and credibility of the Fourth Gospel. +The historic personality of Jesus again began to take on intelligible +outlines for him. These inconsistencies he removed in the next +edition, acknowledging that he did not know how he could so +have temporarily vacillated in his point of view. The matter +admits, however, of a psychological explanation. He longed for +peace, for he had suffered more than his enemies suspected or +his friends knew. The ban of the outlaw lay heavy upon his +soul. In this spirit he composed in 1839 the monologues +entitled <hi rend='italic'>Vergängliches und Bleibendes im Christentum</hi> (<q>Transient +and Permanent Elements in Christianity</q>), which appeared again +in the following year under the title <hi rend='italic'>Friedliche Blätter</hi> (<q>Leaves of +Peace</q>). +</p> + +<p> +For a moment it seemed as though his rehabilitation would +be accomplished. In January 1839 the noble-minded Hitzig succeeded +in getting him appointed to the vacant chair of dogmatics +in Zurich. But the orthodox and pietist parties protested so +vehemently that the Government was obliged to revoke the +appointment. Strauss was pensioned off, without ever entering +on his office. +</p> + +<p> +About that time his mother died. In 1841 he lost his father. +When the estate came to be settled up, it was found that his +affairs were in a less unsatisfactory condition than had been +feared. Strauss was secure against want. The success of his second +great work, his <q>Christian Theology</q> (published in 1840-41), +compensated him for his disappointment at Zurich. In conception +it is perhaps even greater than the Life of Jesus; and in depth +of thought it is to be classed with the most important contributions +to theology. In spite of that it never attracted so much +attention as the earlier work. Strauss continued to be known as +the author of the Life of Jesus. Any further ground of offence +which he might give was regarded as quite subsidiary. +</p> + +<p> +And the book contains matter for offence in no common +degree. The point to which Strauss applies his criticism is the +way in which the Christian theology which grew out of the +ideas of the ancient world has been brought into harmony with +<pb n='073'/><anchor id='Pg073'/> +the Christianity of rationalism and of speculative philosophy. +Either, to use his own expression, both are so finely pulverised +in the process—as in the case of Schleiermacher's combination +of Spinozism with Christianity—that it needs a sharp eye to +rediscover the elements of the mixture; or the two are shaken +together like water and oil, in which case the semblance of +combination is only maintained so long as the shaking continues. +For this crude procedure he desires to substitute a better method, +based upon a preliminary historical criticism of dogma, in order +that thought may no longer have to deal with the present form +of Church theology, but with the ideas which worked as living +forces in its formation. +</p> + +<p> +This is brilliantly worked out in detail. The result is not +a positive, but a negative Hegelian theology. Religion is not concerned +with supra-mundane beings and a divinely glorious future, +but with present spiritual realities which appear as <q>moments</q> +in the eternal being and becoming of Absolute Spirit. At +the end of the second volume, where battle is joined on the +issue of personal immortality, all these ideas play their part in +the struggle. Personal immortality is finally rejected in every form, +for the critical reasons which Strauss had already set forth in +the letters of 1832. Immortality is not something which stretches +out into the future, but simply and solely the present quality +of the spirit, its inner universality, its power of rising above +everything finite to the Idea. Here the thought of Hegel coincides +with that of Schleiermacher. <q>The saying of Schleiermacher, +<q>In the midst of finitude to be one with the Infinite, and to +be eternal in a moment,</q> is all that modern thought can say +about immortality.</q> But neither Schleiermacher nor Hegel was +willing to draw the natural inferences from their ultimate position, +or at least they did not give them any prominence. +</p> + +<p> +It is not the application of the mythological explanation to +the Gospel history which irrevocably divides Strauss from the +theologians, but the question of personal immortality. It would +be well for them if they had only to deal with the Strauss of the +Life of Jesus, and not with the thinker who posed this question +with inexorable trenchancy. They might then face the future +more calmly, relieved of the anxiety lest once more Hegel and +Schleiermacher might rise up in some pious but critical spirit, +not to speak smooth things, but to ask the ultimate questions, +and might force theology to fight its battle with Strauss all over +again. +</p> + +<p> +At the very time when Strauss was beginning to breathe freely +once more, had turned his back upon all attempts at compromise, +and reconciled himself to giving up teaching; and when, after +settling his father's affairs, he had the certainty of being secure +<pb n='074'/><anchor id='Pg074'/> +against penury; at that very time he sowed for himself the seeds of +a new, immitigable suffering by his marriage with Agnese Schebest, +the famous singer. +</p> + +<p> +They were not made for one another. He could not look +to her for any sympathy with his plans, and she on her part +was repelled by the pedantry of his disposition. Housekeeping +difficulties and the trials of a limited income added another +element of discord. They removed to Sontheim near Heilbronn +with the idea of learning to adapt themselves to one another +far from the distractions of the town; but that did not better +matters. They lived apart for a time, and after some years they +procured a divorce, custody of the children being assigned to the +father. The lady took up her residence in Stuttgart, and Strauss +paid her an allowance up to her death in 1870. +</p> + +<p> +What he suffered may be read between the lines in the passage +in <q>The Old Faith and the New</q> where he speaks of the +sacredness of marriage and the admissibility of divorce. The +wound bled inwardly. His mental powers were disabled. At +this time he wrote little. Only in the apologue <q>Julian the +Apostate, or the Romanticist on the throne of the Caesars</q>—that +brilliant satire upon Frederic William IV., written in 1847—is +there a flash of the old spirit. +</p> + +<p> +But in spite of his antipathy to the romantic disposition of +the King of Prussia he entered the lists in 1848 on behalf of +the efforts of the smaller German states to form a united Germany, +apart from Austria, under the hegemony of Prussia. He did +not suffer his political acumen to be blunted either by personal +antipathies or by particularism. The citizens of Ludwigsburg +wished to have him as their representative in the Frankfort +parliament, but the rural population, who were pietistic in +sympathies, defeated his candidature. Instead, his native town +sent him to the Würtemberg Chamber of Deputies. But here +his philistinism came to the fore again. The phrase-mongering +revolutionary party in the chamber disgusted him. He saw +himself more and more forced to the <q>right,</q> and was obliged +to act politically with men whose reactionary sympathies he was +far from sharing. His constituents, meanwhile, were thoroughly +discontented with his attitude. In the end the position became +intolerable. It was also painful to him to have to reside in +Stuttgart, where he could not avoid meeting the woman who +had brought so much misery into his life. Further—he himself +mentions this point in his memoirs—he had no practice in +speaking without manuscript, and cut a poor figure as a debater. +Then came the <q>Blum Case.</q> Robert Blum, a revolutionary, +had been shot by court martial in Vienna. The Würtemberg +Chamber desired to vote a public celebration of his funeral. +<pb n='075'/><anchor id='Pg075'/> +Strauss did not think there was any ground for making a hero +of this agitator, merely because he had been shot, and was not +inclined to blame the Austrian Government very severely for +meting out summary justice to a disturber of the peace. His +attitude brought on him a vote of censure from his constituents. +When, subsequently, the President of the Chamber called him +to order for asserting that a previous speaker had <q>concealed +by sleight of hand</q> (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>wegeskamotiert</foreign>, <q>juggled away</q>) an important +point in the debate, he refused to accept the vote of censure, +resigned his membership, and ceased to attend the diets. As +he himself put it, he <q>jumped out of the boat.</q> Then began +a period of restless wandering, during which he beguiled his +time with literary work. He wrote, <hi rend='italic'>inter alia</hi>, upon Lessing, +Hutten, and Reimarus, rediscovering the last-named for his fellow-countrymen. +</p> + +<p> +At the end of the 'sixties he returned once more to theology. +His <q>Life of Jesus adapted for the German People</q> appeared in +1864. In the preface he refers to Renan, and freely acknowledges +the great merits of his work. +</p> + +<p> +The Prusso-Austrian war placed him in a difficult position. +His historical insight made it impossible for him to share the +particularism of his friends; on the contrary, he recognised that +the way was now being prepared for the realisation of his dream +of 1848—an alliance of the smaller German States under the +hegemony of Prussia. As he made no secret of his opinions, he +had the bitter experience of receiving the cold shoulder from men +who had hitherto loyally stood by him. +</p> + +<p> +In the year 1870 it was granted to him to become the spokesman +of the German people; through a publication on Voltaire +which had appeared not long before he had become acquainted +with Renan. In a letter to Strauss, written after the first battles, +Renan made a passing allusion to these great events. Strauss +seized the opportunity to explain to him, in a vigorous <q>open +letter</q> of the 12th of August, Germany's reason and justification +for going to war. Receiving an answer from Renan, he then, in +a second letter, of the 29th of September, took occasion to defend +Germany's right to demand the cession of Alsace, not on the +ground of its having formerly been German territory, but for the +defence of her natural frontiers. The resounding echo evoked by +these words, inspired, as they were, by the enthusiasm of the +moment, compensated him for much of the obloquy which he had +had to bear. +</p> + +<p> +His last work, <q>The Old Faith and the New,</q> appeared in 1872. +Once more, as in the work on theology published in 1840-1841, he +puts to himself the question, What is there of permanence in this +artificial compound of theology and philosophy, faith and thought? +<pb n='076'/><anchor id='Pg076'/> +But he puts the question with a certain bitterness, and shows himself +too much under the influence of Darwinism, by which his mind +was at that time dominated. The Hegelian system of thought, +which served as a firm basis for the work of 1840, has fallen in +ruins. Strauss is alone with his own thoughts, endeavouring to +raise himself above the new scientific world-view. His powers of +thought, never, for all his critical acumen, strong on the creative +side, and now impaired by age, were unequal to the task. There +is no force and no greatness in the book. +</p> + +<p> +To the question, <q>Are we still Christians?</q> he answers, <q>No.</q> +But to his second question, <q>Have we still a religion?</q> he is +prepared to give an affirmative answer, if the assumption is granted +that the feeling of dependence, of self-surrender, of inner freedom, +which has sprung from the pantheistic world-view, can be called +religion. But instead of developing the idea of this deep inner +freedom, and presenting religion in the form in which he had +experienced it, he believes himself obliged to offer some new +construction based upon Darwinism, and sets himself to answer +the two questions, <q>How are we to understand the world?</q> and +<q>How are we to regulate our lives?</q>—the form of the latter is +somewhat lacking in distinction—in a quite impersonal way. It +is only the schoolmaster and pedant in him—who was always at +the elbow of the thinker even in his greatest works—that finds +expression here. +</p> + +<p> +It was a dead book, in spite of the many editions which it +went through, and the battle which raged over it was, like the +fiercest of the Homeric battles, a combat over the dead. +</p> + +<p> +The theologians declared Strauss bankrupt, and felt themselves +rich because they had made sure of not being ruined by a similar +unimaginative honesty. Friedrich Nietzsche, from the height of +his would-be Schopenhauerian pessimism, mocked at the fallen +hero. +</p> + +<p> +Before the year was out Strauss began to suffer from an internal +ulcer. For many months he bore his sufferings with quiet resignation +and inner serenity, until on the 8th of February 1874, in +his native town of Ludwigsburg, death set him free. +</p> + +<p> +A few weeks earlier, on the 29th of December 1873, his +sufferings and his thoughts received illuminating expression in the +following poignant verses:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<lg> +<l>Wem ich dieses klage,</l> +<l>Weiss, ich klage nicht;</l> +<l>Der ich dieses sage,</l> +<l>Fühlt, ich zage nicht.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Heute heisst's verglimmen,</l> +<l>Wie ein Licht verglimmt,</l> +<l>In die Luft verschwimmen,</l> +<l>Wie ein Ton verschwimmt.</l> +</lg> + +<pb n='077'/><anchor id='Pg077'/> + +<lg> +<l>Möge schwach wie immer,</l> +<l>Aber hell und rein,</l> +<l>Dieser letzte Schimmer</l> +<l>Dieser Ton nur sein.<note place='foot'><p>He to whom my plaint is<lb/> +Knows I shed no tear;<lb/> +She to whom I say this<lb/> +Feels I have no fear. +</p> +<p> +Time has come for fading,<lb/> +Like a glimmering ray,<lb/> +Or a sense-evading<lb/> +Strain that floats away. +</p> +<p> +May, though fainter, dimmer,<lb/> +Only, clear and pure,<lb/> +To the last the glimmer<lb/> +And the strain endure. +</p> +<p> +The persons alluded to in the first verse are his son, who, as a physician, +attended him in his illness, and to whom he was deeply attached, and a very old +friend to whom the verses were addressed.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></p></note></l> +</lg> + +</quote> + +<p> +He was buried on a stormy February day. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='078'/><anchor id='Pg078'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>VIII. Strauss's First <q>Life Of Jesus</q></head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<lg> +<l>First edition, 1835 and 1836. 2 vols. 1480 pp.</l> +<l>The second edition was unaltered.</l> +<l>Third edition, with alterations, 1838-1839.</l> +<l>Fourth edition, agreeing with the first, 1840.</l> +</lg> + +</quote> + +<p> +Considered as a literary work, Strauss's first Life of Jesus is one +of the most perfect things in the whole range of learned literature. +In over fourteen hundred pages he has not a superfluous phrase; +his analysis descends to the minutest details, but he does not lose +his way among them; the style is simple and picturesque, sometimes +ironical, but always dignified and distinguished. +</p> + +<p> +In regard to the application of the mythological explanation +to Holy Scripture, Strauss points out that De Wette, Eichhorn, +Gabler, and others of his predecessors had long ago freely applied +it to the Old Testament, and that various attempts had been made +to portray the life of Jesus in accordance with the critical assumptions +upon which his undertaking was based. He mentions +especially Usteri as one who had helped to prepare the way for +him. The distinction between Strauss and those who had preceded +him upon this path consists only in this, that prior to him +the conception of myth was neither truly grasped nor consistently +applied. Its application was confined to the account of Jesus' +coming into the world and of His departure from it, while the +real kernel of the evangelical tradition—the sections from the +Baptism to the Resurrection—was left outside the field of its +application. Myth formed, to use Strauss's illustration, the +lofty gateways at the entrance to, and at the exit from, the Gospel +history; between these two lofty gateways lay the narrow and +crooked streets of the naturalistic explanation. +</p> + +<p> +The principal obstacle, Strauss continues, which barred the way +to a comprehensive application of myth, consisted in the supposition +that two of our Gospels, Matthew and John, were reports of +eyewitnesses; and a further difficulty was the offence caused by +<pb n='079'/><anchor id='Pg079'/> +the word myth, owing to its associations with the heathen mythology. +But that any of our Evangelists was an eyewitness, or stood in +such relations with eyewitnesses as to make the intrusion of myth +unthinkable, is a thesis which there is no extant evidence sufficient +to prove. Even though the earthly life of the Lord falls within +historic times, and even if only a generation be assumed to have +elapsed between His death and the composition of the Gospels; +such a period would be sufficient to allow the historical material +to become intermixed with myth. No sooner is a great man dead +than legend is busy with his life. +</p> + +<p> +Then, too, the offence of the word myth disappears for any one +who has gained an insight into the essential character of religious +myth. It is nothing else than the clothing in historic form of +religious ideas, shaped by the unconsciously inventive power of +legend, and embodied in a historic personality. Even on a priori +grounds we are almost compelled to assume that the historic +Jesus will meet us in the garb of old Testament Messianic ideas +and primitive Christian expectations. +</p> + +<p> +The main distinction between Strauss and his predecessors +consisted in the fact that they asked themselves anxiously how +much of the historical life of Jesus would remain as a foundation +for religion if they dared to apply the conception of myth consistently, +while for him this question had no terrors. He claims in +his preface that he possessed one advantage over all the critical +and learned theologians of his time without which nothing can be +accomplished in the domain of history—the inner emancipation +of thought and feeling in regard to certain religious and dogmatic +prepossessions which he had early attained as a result of his +philosophic studies. Hegel's philosophy had set him free, giving +him a clear conception of the relationship of idea and reality, +leading him to a higher plane of Christological speculation, and +opening his eyes to the mystic interpenetration of finitude and +infinity, God and man. +</p> + +<p> +God-manhood, the highest idea conceived by human thought, +is actually realised in the historic personality of Jesus. But while +conventional thinking supposes that this phenomenal realisation +must be perfect, true thought, which has attained by genuine +critical reasoning to a higher freedom, knows that no idea can +realise itself perfectly on the historic plane, and that its truth does +not depend on the proof of its having received perfect external +representation, but that its perfection comes about through that +which the idea carries into history, or through the way in which +history is sublimated into idea. For this reason it is in the last +analysis indifferent to what extent God-manhood has been realised +in the person of Jesus; the important thing is that the idea is +now alive in the common consciousness of those who have been +<pb n='080'/><anchor id='Pg080'/> +prepared to receive it by its manifestation in sensible form, and of +whose thought and imagination that historical personality took +such complete possession, that for them the unity of Godhood and +manhood assumed in Him enters into the common consciousness, +and the <q>moments</q> which constitute the outward course of His +life reproduce themselves in them in a spiritual fashion. +</p> + +<p> +A purely historical presentation of the life of Jesus was in that +first period wholly impossible; what was operative was a creative +reminiscence acting under the impulse of the idea which the +personality of Jesus had called to life among mankind. And this +idea of God-manhood, the realisation of which in every personality +is the ultimate goal of humanity, is the eternal reality in the +Person of Jesus, which no criticism can destroy. +</p> + +<p> +However far criticism may go in proving the reaction of the +idea upon the presentment of the historical course of the life +of Jesus, the fact that Jesus represented that idea and called it +to life among mankind is something real, something that no +criticism can annul. It is alive thenceforward—to this day, and +for ever more. +</p> + +<p> +It is in this emancipation of spirit, and in the consciousness +that Jesus as the creator of the religion of humanity is beyond the +reach of criticism, that Strauss goes to work, and batters down the +rubble, assured that his pick can make no impression on the stone. +He sees evidence that the time has come for this undertaking in +the condition of exhaustion which characterised contemporary +theology. The supernaturalistic explanation of the events of the +life of Jesus had been followed by the rationalistic, the one making +everything supernatural, the other setting itself to make all the +events intelligible as natural occurrences. Each had said all that +it had to say. From their opposition now arises a new solution—the +mythological interpretation. This is a characteristic example +of the Hegelian method—the <emph>synthesis</emph> of a <emph>thesis</emph> represented by +the supernaturalistic explanation with an <emph>antithesis</emph> represented by +the rationalistic interpretation. +</p> + +<p> +Strauss's Life of Jesus is, therefore, like Schleiermacher's, the +product of antithetic conceptions. But whereas in the latter the +antitheses Docetism and Ebionism are simply limiting conceptions, +between which his view is statically suspended, the synthesis with +which Strauss operates represents a composition of forces, of +which his view is the dynamic resultant. The dialectic is in the +one case descriptive, in the other creative. This Hegelian dialectic +determines the method of the work. Each incident of the +life of Jesus is considered separately; first as supernaturally +explained, and then as rationalistically explained, and the one +explanation is refuted by the other. <q>By this means,</q> says +Strauss in his preface, <q>the incidental advantage is secured that +<pb n='081'/><anchor id='Pg081'/> +the work is fitted to serve as a repertory of the leading views and +discussions of all parts of the Gospel history.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In every case the whole range of representative opinions is +reviewed. Finally the forced interpretations necessitated by the +naturalistic explanation of the narrative under discussion drives +the reader back upon the supernaturalistic. That had been +recognised by Hase and Schleiermacher, and they had felt themselves +obliged to make a place for inexplicable supernatural +elements alongside of the historic elements of the life of Jesus. +Contemporaneously there had sprung up in all directions new +attempts to return by the aid of a mystical philosophy to the +supernaturalistic point of view of our forefathers. But in these +Strauss recognises only the last desperate efforts to make the past +present and to conceive the inconceivable; and in direct opposition +to the reactionary ineptitudes by means of which critical +theology was endeavouring to work its way out of rationalism, he +sets up the hypothesis that these inexplicable elements are +mythical. +</p> + +<p> +In the stories prior to the baptism, everything is myth. The +narratives are woven on the pattern of Old Testament prototypes, +with modifications due to Messianic or messianically interpreted +passages. Since Jesus and the Baptist came into contact with one +another later, it is felt necessary to represent their parents as +having been connected. The attempts to construct Davidic +genealogies for Jesus, show us that there was a period in the +formation of the Gospel History during which the Lord was simply +regarded as the son of Joseph and Mary, otherwise genealogical +studies of this kind would not have been undertaken. Even in +the story of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple, there is +scarcely more than a trace of historical material. +</p> + +<p> +In the narrative of the baptism we may take it as certainly unhistorical +that the Baptist received a revelation of the Messianic +dignity of Jesus, otherwise he could not later have come to doubt +this. Whether his message to Jesus is historical must be left an +open question; its possibility depends on whether the nature of +his confinement admitted of such communication with the outer +world. Might not a natural reluctance to allow the Baptist to +depart this life without at least a dawning recognition of the +Messiahship of Jesus have here led to the insertion of a legendary +trait into the tradition? If so, the historical residuum would be +that Jesus was for a time one of the adherents of the Baptist, and +was baptized by him, and that He soon afterwards appeared in +Galilee with the same message which John had proclaimed, and +even when He had outgrown his influence, never ceased to hold +John in high esteem, as is shown by the eulogy which He pronounced +upon him. But if the baptism of John was a baptism of +<pb n='082'/><anchor id='Pg082'/> +repentance with a view to <q>him who was to come,</q> Jesus cannot +have held Himself to be sinless when He submitted to it. Otherwise +we should have to suppose that He did it merely for appearance' +sake. Whether it was in the moment of the baptism that the +consciousness of His Messiahship dawned upon Him, we cannot +tell. This only is certain, that the conception of Jesus as having +been endowed with the Spirit at His baptism, was independent of, +and earlier than, that other conception which held Him to have +been supernaturally born of the Spirit. We have, therefore, in the +Synoptists several different strata of legend and narrative, which in +some cases intersect and in some are superimposed one upon the +other. +</p> + +<p> +The story of the temptation is equally unsatisfactory, whether it +be interpreted as supernatural, or as symbolical either of an inward +struggle or of external events (as for example in Venturini's interpretation +of it, where the part of the Tempter is played by a +Pharisee); it is simply primitive Christian legend, woven together +out of Old Testament suggestions. +</p> + +<p> +The call of the first disciples cannot have happened as it is +narrated, without their having known anything of Jesus beforehand; +the manner of the call is modelled upon the call of Elisha by +Elijah. The further legend attached to it—Peter's miraculous +draught of fishes—has arisen out of the saying about <q>fishers of +men,</q> and the same idea is reflected, at a different angle of +refraction, in John xxi. The mission of the seventy is unhistorical. +</p> + +<p> +Whether the cleansing of the temple is historical, or whether +it arose out of a Messianic application of the text, <q>My house shall +be called a house of prayer,</q> cannot be determined. The difficulty +of forming a clear idea of the circumstances is not easily to be +removed. How freely the historical material has been worked up, +is seen in the groups of stories which have grown out of a single +incident; as, for example, the anointing of Jesus at Bethany by an +unknown woman, out of which Luke has made an anointing by a +penitent sinner, and John an anointing by Mary of Bethany. +</p> + +<p> +As regards the healings, some of them are certainly historical, +but not in the form in which tradition has preserved them. The +recognition of Jesus as Messiah by the demons immediately +arouses suspicion. It is doubtless rather to be ascribed to the +tendency which grew up later to represent Him as receiving, in +His Messianic character, homage even from the world of evil spirits, +than to any advantage in respect of clearness of insight which +distinguished the mentally deranged, in comparison with their +contemporaries. The cure of the demoniac in the synagogue at +Capernaum may well be historical, but, in other cases, the procedure +is so often raised into the region of the miraculous that a +psychical influence of Jesus upon the sufferer no longer suffices +<pb n='083'/><anchor id='Pg083'/> +to explain it; the creative activity of legend must have come in to +confuse the account of what really happened. +</p> + +<p> +One cure has sometimes given rise to three or four narratives. +Sometimes we can still recognise the influences which have +contributed to mould a story. When, for example, the disciples +are unable to heal the lunatic boy during Jesus' absence on the +Mount of Transfiguration, we are reminded of 2 Kings iv., where +Elisha's servant Gehazi tries in vain to bring the dead boy to life +by using the staff of the prophet. The immediate healing of +leprosy has its prototype in the story of Naaman the Syrian. The +story of the ten lepers shows so clearly a didactic tendency that +its historic value is thereby rendered doubtful. +</p> + +<p> +The cures of blindness all go back to the case of the blind man +at Jericho. But who can say how far this is itself historical? The +cures of paralytics, too, belong rather to the equipment of the +Messiah than to history. The cures through touching clothes, and +the healings at a distance, have myth written on their foreheads. +The fact is, the Messiah must equal, nay, surpass, the deeds of the +prophets. That is why raisings from the dead figure among His +miracles. +</p> + +<p> +The nature miracles, over a collection of which Strauss puts +the heading <q>Sea-Stories and Fish-Stories,</q> have a much larger +admixture of the mythical. His opponents took him severely to +task for this irreverent superscription. +</p> + +<p> +The repetition of the story of the feeding of the multitude +arouses suspicion regarding the credibility of what is narrated, and +at once invalidates the hypothesis of the apostolic authorship of +the Gospel of Matthew. Moreover, the incident was so naturally +suggested by Old Testament examples that it would have been a +miracle if such a story had not found its way into the Life of Jesus. +An explanation on the analogy of an expedited process of nature, +is here, as in the case of the miracle at Cana also, to be absolutely +rejected. Strauss allows it to be laughed out of court. The +cursing of the fig-tree and its fulfilment go back in some way +or other to a parable of Jesus, which was afterwards made into +history. +</p> + +<p> +More important than the miracles heretofore mentioned are +those which have to do with Jesus Himself and mark the crises +of His history. The transfiguration had to find a place in the +life of Jesus, because of the shining of Moses' countenance. In +dealing with the narratives of the resurrection it is evident that we +must distinguish two different strata of legend, an older one, +represented by Matthew, which knew only of appearances in +Galilee, and a later, in which the Galilaean appearances are +excluded in favour of appearances in Jerusalem. In both cases, +however, the narratives are mythical. In any attempt to explain +<pb n='084'/><anchor id='Pg084'/> +them we are forced on one horn of the dilemma or the other—if +the resurrection was real, the death was not real, and vice versa. +That the ascension is a myth is self-evident. +</p> + +<p> +Such, and so radical, are the results at which Strauss's criticism +of the supernaturalistic and the rationalistic explanations of the +life of Jesus ultimately arrives. +</p> + +<p> +In reading Strauss's discussions one is not so much struck with +their radical character, because of the admirable dialectic skill with +which he shows the total impossibility of any explanation which +does not take account of myth. On the whole, the supernaturalistic +explanation, which at least represents the plain sense of the narratives, +comes off much better than the rationalistic, the artificiality +of which is everywhere remorselessly exposed. +</p> + +<p> +The sections which we have summarised are far from having +lost their significance at the present day. They marked out the +ground which is now occupied by modern critical study. And they +filled in the death-certificates of a whole series of explanations +which, at first sight, have all the air of being alive, but are not +really so. If these continue to haunt present-day theology, it is +only as ghosts, which can be put to flight by simply pronouncing +the name of David Friedrich Strauss, and which would long ago +have ceased to <q>walk,</q> if the theologians who regard Strauss's book +as obsolete would only take the trouble to read it. +</p> + +<p> +The results so far considered do not represent the elements +of the life of Jesus which Strauss was prepared to accept as +historical. He sought to make the boundaries of the mythical +embrace the widest possible area; and it is clear that he extended +them too far. +</p> + +<p> +For one thing, he overestimates the importance of the Old +Testament motives in reference to the creative activity of the +legend. He does not see that while in many cases he has shown +clearly enough the source of the <emph>form</emph> of the narrative in question, +this does not suffice to explain its <emph>origin</emph>. Doubtless, there is +mythical material in the story of the feeding of the multitude. +But the existence of the story is not explained by referring to the +manna in the desert, or the miraculous feeding of a multitude by +Elisha.<note place='foot'>2 Kings iv. 42-44.</note> The story in the Gospel has far too much individuality +for that, and stands, moreover, in much too closely articulated an +historical connexion. It must have as its basis some historical +fact. It is not a myth, though there is myth in it. Similarly with +the account of the transfiguration. The substratum of historical +fact in the life of Jesus is much more extensive than Strauss is +prepared to admit. Sometimes he fails to see the foundations, +because he proceeds like an explorer who, in working on the +ruins of an Assyrian city, should cover up the most valuable +<pb n='085'/><anchor id='Pg085'/> +evidence with the rubbish thrown out from another portion of the +excavations. +</p> + +<p> +Again, he sometimes rules out statements by assuming their +impossibility on purely dialectical grounds, or by playing off the +narratives one against another. The Baptist's message to Jesus +is a case in point. This is connected with the fact that he often +fails to realise the strong confirmation which the narratives derive +from their connexion with the preceding and following context. +</p> + +<p> +That, however, was only to be expected. Who ever discovered +a true principle without pressing its application too far? +</p> + +<p> +What really alarmed his contemporaries was not so much the +comprehensive application of the mythical theory, as the general +mining and sapping operations which they were obliged to see +brought to bear upon the Gospels. +</p> + +<p> +In section after section Strauss cross-examines the reports on +every point, down to the minutest detail, and then pronounces in +what proportion an alloy of myth enters into each of them. In +every case the decision is unfavourable to the Gospel of John. +Strauss was the first to take this view. It is true that, at the end +of the eighteenth century, many doubts as to the authenticity of +this Gospel had been expressed, and Bretschneider, the famous +General Superintendent at Gotha (1776-1848), had made a tentative +collection of them in his <hi rend='italic'>Probabilia</hi>.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Ioannis Apostoli indole et origine +eruditorum iudiciis modeste subjecit C. Th. Bretschneider.</hi> Leipzig, 1820.</note> The essay made some stir +at the time. But Schleiermacher threw the aegis of his authority +over the authenticity of the Gospel, and it was the favourite Gospel +of the rationalists because it contained fewer miracles than the +others. Bretschneider himself declared that he had been brought +to a better opinion through the controversy. +</p> + +<p> +After this episode the Johannine question had been shelved for +fifteen years. The excitement was, therefore, all the greater when +Strauss reopened the discussion. He was opposing a dogma of +critical theology, which, even at the present day, is wont to defend +its dogmas with a tenacity beyond that of the Church itself. +</p> + +<p> +The luminous haze of apparent circumstantiality which had +hitherto prevented men from recognising the true character of +this Gospel is completely dissipated. Strauss shows that the +Johannine representation of the life of Jesus is dominated by a +theory, and that its portraiture shows the further development of +the tendencies which are perceptible even in the Synoptists. He +shows this, for example, in the case of the Johannine narrative of +the baptism of Jesus, in which critics had hitherto seen the most +credible account of what occurred, pointing out that it is just in +this pseudo-simplicity that the process of bringing Jesus and the +Baptist into the closest possible relations reaches its limit. +<pb n='086'/><anchor id='Pg086'/> +Similarly, in regard to the call of the first disciples, it is, according +to Strauss, a later postulate that they came from the Baptist's +following and were brought by him to the Lord. Strauss does not +scruple even to assert that John introduces imaginary characters. +If this Gospel relates fewer miracles, the miracles which it retains +are proportionately greater; so great, indeed, that their absolutely +miraculous character is beyond the shadow of doubt; and, moreover, +a moral or symbolical significance is added. +</p> + +<p> +Here, therefore, it is no longer the unconscious action of legend +which selects, creates, or groups the incidents, but a clearly-determined +apologetic and dogmatic purpose. +</p> + +<p> +The question regarding the different representations of the +locality and chronology of the life of Jesus, had always been +decided, prior to Strauss, in favour of the Fourth Gospel. De +Wette makes it an argument against the genuineness of Matthew's +Gospel that it mistakenly confines the ministry of Jesus to Galilee. +Strauss refuses to decide the question by simply weighing the +chronological and geographical statements one against the other, +lest he should be as one-sided in his own way as the defenders of +the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel were in theirs. On this +point, he contents himself with remarking that if Jesus had really +taught in Jerusalem on several occasions, it is absolutely unintelligible +how all knowledge of this could have so completely +disappeared from the Synoptic tradition; for His going up to the +Passover at which He met His death is there represented as His +sole journey to Jerusalem. On the other hand, it is quite conceivable +that if Jesus had only once been in Jerusalem there would +be a tendency for legend gradually to make several journeys out of +this one, on the natural assumption that He regularly went up to +the Feasts, and that He would proclaim His Gospel not merely in +the remote province, but also in the capital. +</p> + +<p> +From the triumphal entry to the resurrection, the difference +between the Synoptic and Johannine narratives is so great that all +attempts to harmonise them are to be rejected. How are we to +reconcile the statement of the Synoptists that the ovation at the +triumphal entry was offered by Galilaeans who accompanied him, +with that of John, according to which it was offered by a multitude +from Jerusalem which came out to welcome Jesus—who, moreover, +according to John, was not coming from Galilee and Jericho—and +escorted Him into the city. To suppose that there were two +different triumphal entries is absurd. +</p> + +<p> +But the decision between John and the Synoptists is not based +solely upon their representation of the facts; the decisive consideration +is found in the ideas by which they are respectively dominated. +John represents a more advanced stage of the mythopoeic process, +inasmuch as he has substituted for the Jewish Messianic conception, +<pb n='087'/><anchor id='Pg087'/> +the Greek metaphysical conception of the Divine Sonship, +and, on the basis of his acquaintance with the Alexandrian Logos +doctrine, even makes Jesus apply to Himself the Greek speculative +conception of pre-existence. The writer is aware of an already +existing danger from the side of a Gnostic docetism, and has himself +an apologetic Christology to propound, thus fighting the +Gnostics as a Gnostic of another kind. That he is free from +eschatological conceptions is not, from the historical point of view, +an advantage, but very much the reverse. He is not unacquainted +with eschatology, but deliberately transforms it, endeavouring to +substitute for the expectation of the Second Coming of Christ, as +an external event of the future, the thought of His inward +presence. +</p> + +<p> +The most decisive evidence of all is found in the farewell +discourses and in the absence of all mention of the spiritual struggle +in Gethsemane. The intention here is to show that Jesus not only +had a foreknowledge of His death, but had long overcome it in +anticipation, and went to meet His tragic fate with perfect inward +serenity. That, however, is no historical narrative, but the final +stage of reverent idealisation. +</p> + +<p> +The question is decided. The Gospel of John is inferior to +the Synoptics as a historical source just in proportion as it is more +strongly dominated than they by theological and apologetic +interests. It is true that the assignment of the dominant motives +is for Strauss's criticism mainly a matter of conjecture. He cannot +define in detail the attitude and tendency of this Gospel, because +the development of dogma in the second century was still to a +great extent obscure. He himself admits that it was only subsequently, +through the labours of Baur, that the positions which he +had taken up in 1835 were rendered impregnable. And yet it is +true to say that Johannine study has added in principle nothing +new to what was said by Strauss. He recognised the decisive +point. With critical acumen he resigned the attempt to base a +decision on a comparison of the historical data, and allowed the +theological character of the two lines of tradition to determine the +question. Unless this is done the debate is endless, for an able +man who has sworn allegiance to John will always find a thousand +ways in which the Johannine data can be reconciled with those of +the Synoptists, and is finally prepared to stake his life upon the +exact point at which the missing account of the institution of the +Lord's Supper must be inserted into the narrative. +</p> + +<p> +This changed estimate of John carries with it a reversal of the +order in which the Gospels are supposed to have originated. +Instead of John, Luke, Matthew, we have Matthew, Luke, and John—the +first is last, and the last first. Strauss's unsophisticated instinct +freed Matthew from the humiliating vassalage to which +<pb n='088'/><anchor id='Pg088'/> +Schleiermacher's aesthetic had consigned him. The practice of +differentiating between John and the Synoptists, which in the hands +of Schleiermacher and Hase had been an elegant amusement, now +received unexpected support, and it at last became possible for the +study of the life of Jesus to go forward. +</p> + +<p> +But no sooner had Strauss opened up the way than he closed +it again, by refusing to admit the priority of Mark. His attitude +towards this Gospel at once provokes opposition. For him Mark is +an epitomising narrator, a mere satellite of Matthew with no independent +light. His terse and graphic style makes on Strauss an +impression of artificiality. He refuses to believe this Evangelist +when he says that on the first day at Capernaum <q>the whole +town</q> (Mark i. 33) came together before Peter's door, and that, +on other occasions (Mark iii. 20, vi. 31), the press was so +great that Jesus and His disciples had no leisure so much as to +eat. <q>All very improbable traits,</q> he remarks, <q>the absence of +which in Matthew is entirely to his advantage, for what else are +they than legendary exaggerations?</q> In this criticism he is at one +with Schleiermacher, who in his essay on Luke<note place='foot'>Dr. Fr. Schleiermacher, <hi rend='italic'>Über die Schriften des Lukas. Ein kritischer Versuch.</hi> +(The Writings of Luke. A critical essay.) C. Reimer, Berlin, 1817.</note> speaks of the +unreal vividness of Mark <q>which often gives his Gospel an almost +apocryphal aspect.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This prejudice against Mark has a twofold cause. In the first +place, this Gospel with its graphic details had rendered great service +to the rationalistic explanation of miracle. Its description of the +cure of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mark viii. 22-26)—whose eyes +Jesus first anointed with spittle, whereupon he at first saw things +dimly, and then, after he had felt the touch of the Lord's hand +upon his eyes a second time, saw more clearly—was a veritable +treasure-trove for rationalism. As Strauss is disposed to deal +much more peremptorily with the rationalists than with the supernaturalists, +he puts Mark upon his trial, as their accessory before +the fact, and pronounces upon him a judgment which is not +entirely unprejudiced. Moreover, it is not until the Gospels are +looked at from the point of view of the plan of the history and the +inner connexion of events that the superiority of Mark is clearly +realised. But this way of looking at the matter does not enter into +Strauss's purview. On the contrary, he denies that there is any +traceable connexion of events at all, and confines his attention +to determining the proportion of myth in the content of each +separate narrative. +</p> + +<p> +Of the Synoptic question he does not, strictly speaking, take +any account. That was partly due to the fact that when he wrote +it was in a thoroughly unsatisfactory position. There was a confused +welter of the most various hypotheses. The priority of Mark, +<pb n='089'/><anchor id='Pg089'/> +which had had earlier champions in Koppe,<note place='foot'>Koppe, <hi rend='italic'>Marcus non epitomator Matthäi</hi>, 1782.</note> Storr,<note place='foot'>Storr, <hi rend='italic'>De Fontibus Evangeliorum Mt. et Lc.</hi>, 1794.</note> Gratz,<note place='foot'>Gratz, <hi rend='italic'>Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der drei ersten Evangelien zu erklären</hi>, +1812.</note> and +Herder,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>V. sup.</hi> p. 35 f. For the earlier history of the question see F. C. Baur, <hi rend='italic'>Krit. +Untersuch. über die kanonischen Evangelien</hi>, Tübingen, 1847, pp. 1-76.</note> was now maintained by Credner and Lachmann, who saw +in Matthew a combination of the logia-document with Mark. The +<q>primitive Gospel</q> hypothesis of Eichhorn, according to which +the first three Gospels went back to a common source, not +identical with any of them, had become somewhat discredited. +There had been much discussion and various modifications of +Griesbach's <q>dependence theory,</q> according to which Mark was +pieced together out of Matthew and Luke, and Schleiermacher's +<hi rend='italic'>Diegesentheorie</hi>,<note place='foot'>So called because largely based on the reference in Luke i. 1, to the <q>many</q> +who had <q>taken in hand to draw up a narrative (δεήγησις).</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></note> which saw the primary material not in a gospel, but +in unconnected notes; from these, collections of narrative passages +were afterwards formed, which in the post-apostolic period coalesced +into continuous descriptions of the life of Jesus such as the three +which have been preserved in our Synoptic Gospels. +</p> + +<p> +In this matter Strauss is a sceptical eclectic. In the main he +may be said to combine Griesbach's theory of the secondary origin +of Mark with Schleiermacher's <hi rend='italic'>Diegesentheorie</hi>, the latter answering +to his method of treating the sections separately. But whereas +Schleiermacher had used the plan of John's Gospel as a framework +into which to fit the independent narratives, Strauss's rejection of +the Fourth Gospel left him without any means of connecting the +sections. He makes a point, indeed, of sharply emphasising this +want of connexion; and it was just this that made his work appear +so extreme. +</p> + +<p> +The Synoptic discourses, like the Johannine, are composite +structures, created by later tradition out of sayings which originally +belonged to different times and circumstances, arranged under +certain leading ideas so as to form connected discourses. The +sermon on the mount, the discourse at the sending forth of the +twelve, the great parable-discourse, the polemic against the +Pharisees, have all been gradually formed like geological deposits. +So far as the original juxtaposition may be supposed to have been +here and there preserved, Matthew is doubtless the most trustworthy +authority for it. <q>From the comparison which we have been +making,</q> says Strauss in one passage, <q>we can already see that the +hard grit of these sayings of Jesus (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>die körnigen Reden Jesu</foreign>) has +not indeed been dissolved by the flood of oral tradition, but they +have often been washed away from their original position and like +rolling pebbles (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Gerölle</foreign>) have been deposited in places to which +<pb n='090'/><anchor id='Pg090'/> +they do not properly belong.</q><note place='foot'>We take the translation of this striking image from Sanday's <q>Survey of the +Synoptic Question,</q> <hi rend='italic'>The Expositor</hi>, 4th ser. vol. 3, p. 307.</note> And, moreover, we find this distinction +between the first three Evangelists, viz. that Matthew is a +skilful collector who, while he is far from having been able always +to give the original connexion, has at least known how to bring +related passages aptly together, whereas in the other two many +fragmentary sayings have been left exactly where chance had +deposited them, which was generally in the interstices between the +larger masses of discourse. Luke, indeed, has in some cases made +an effort to give them an artistic setting, which is, however, by no +means a satisfactory substitute for the natural connexion. +</p> + +<p> +It is in his criticism of the parables that Strauss is most extreme. +He starts out from the assumption that they have mutually +influenced one another, and that those which may possibly be +genuine have only been preserved in a secondary form. In the +parable of the marriage supper of the king's son, for example, he +confidently assumes that the conduct of the invited guests, who +finally ill-treated and slew the messengers, and the question why +the guest is not wearing a wedding-garment are secondary features. +</p> + +<p> +How external he supposes the connexion of the narratives to be +is clear from the way in which he explains the juxtaposition of the +story of the transfiguration with the <q>discourse while descending +the mountain.</q> They have, he says, really nothing to do with one +another. The disciples on one occasion asked Jesus about the +coming of Elijah as forerunner; Elijah also appears in the story +of the transfiguration: accordingly tradition simply grouped the +transfiguration and the discourse together under the heading +<q>Elijah,</q> and, later on, manufactured a connexion between them. +</p> + +<p> +The tendency of the work to purely critical analysis, the +ostentatious avoidance of any positive expression of opinion, and +not least, the manner of regarding the Synoptists as mere bundles +of narratives and discourses, make it difficult—indeed, strictly +speaking, impossible—to determine Strauss's own distinctive conception +of the life of Jesus, to discover what he really thinks is +moving behind the curtain of myth. According to the view taken +in regard to this point his work becomes either a negative or a +positive life of Jesus. There are, for instance, a number of +incidental remarks which contain the suggestion of a positive +construction of the life of Jesus. If they were taken out of their +context and brought together they would yield a picture which +would have points of contact with the latest eschatological view. +Strauss, however, deliberately restricts his positive suggestions to +these few detached remarks. He follows out no line to its +conclusion. Each separate problem is indeed considered, and +light is thrown upon it from various quarters with much critical +<pb n='091'/><anchor id='Pg091'/> +skill. But he will not venture on a solution of any of them. +Sometimes, when he thinks he has gone too far in the way of +positive suggestion, he deliberately wipes it all out again with some +expression of scepticism. +</p> + +<p> +As to the duration of the ministry he will not even offer a vague +conjecture. As to the connexion of certain events, nothing can, +according to him, be known, since the Johannine outline cannot be +accepted and the Synoptists arrange everything with an eye to +analogies and association of ideas, though they flattered themselves +that they were giving a chronologically arranged narrative. From +the contents of the narratives, however, and from the monotonous +recurrence of certain formulae of connexion, it is evident that no +clear view of an organically connected whole can be assumed to be +present in their work. We have no fixed points to enable us to +reconstruct even in a measure the chronological order. +</p> + +<p> +Especially interesting is his discussion of the title <q>Son of Man.</q> +In the saying <q>the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath day</q> +(Matt. xii. 8), the expression might, according to Strauss, simply +denote <q>man.</q> In other passages one gets the impression that +Jesus spoke of the Son of Man as a supernatural person, quite +distinct from Himself, but identified with the Messiah. This is the +most natural explanation of the passage in Matt. x. 23, where he +promises the disciples, in sending them forth, that they shall not +have gone over the cities of Israel before the Son of Man shall +come. Here Jesus speaks of the Messiah as if He Himself were +his forerunner. These sayings would, therefore, fall in the first +period, before He knew Himself to be the Messiah. Strauss does +not suspect the significance of this incidental remark; it contains +the germ of the solution of the problem of the Son of Man on the +lines of Johannes Weiss. But immediately scepticism triumphs +again. How can we tell, asks Strauss, where the title Son of Man +is genuine in the sayings of Jesus, and where it has been inserted +without special significance, merely from habit? +</p> + +<p> +Not less insoluble, in his opinion, is the question regarding the +point of time at which Jesus claimed the Messianic dignity for +Himself. <q>Whereas in John,</q> Strauss remarks, <q>Jesus remains +constant in His avowal, his disciples and followers constant in their +conviction, that He is the Messiah; in the Synoptics, on the other +hand, there are, so to speak, relapses to be observed; so that, in +the case of the disciples and the people generally, the conviction +of Jesus' Messiahship expressed on earlier occasions, sometimes, in +the course of the narrative, disappears again and gives place to a +much lower view of Him; and even Jesus Himself, in comparison +with His earlier unambiguous declaration, is more reserved on later +occasions.</q> The account of the confession of the Messiahship at +Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus pronounces Peter blessed because of +<pb n='092'/><anchor id='Pg092'/> +his confession, and at the same time forbids the Twelve to speak +of it, is unintelligible, since according to this same Gospel His +Messiahship had been mooted by the disciples on several previous +occasions, and had been acknowledged by the demoniacs. The +Synoptists, therefore, contradict themselves. Then there are the +further cases in which Jesus forbids the making known of His +Messiahship, without any reason whatever. It would, no doubt, be +historically possible to assume that it only gradually dawned upon +Him that He was the Messiah—in any case not until after His +baptism by John, as otherwise He would have to be supposed to +have made a pretence upon that occasion—and that as often as +the thought that He might be the Messiah was aroused in others +by something that occurred, and was suggested to Him from without, +He was immediately alarmed at hearing spoken, aloud and definitely, +that which He Himself had scarcely dared to cherish as a possibility, +or in regard to which He had only lately attained to a clear +conviction. +</p> + +<p> +From these suggestions one thing is evident, namely, that for +Strauss the Messianic consciousness of Jesus was an historical fact, +and is not to be referred, as has sometimes been supposed, to myth. +To assert that Strauss dissolved the life of Jesus into myth is, in +fact, an absurdity which, however often it may be repeated by +people who have not read his book, or have read it only superficially, +does not become any the less absurd by repetition. +</p> + +<p> +To come to detail, Jesus thought of His Messiahship, according +to Strauss, in the form that He, although of human parentage, +should after His earthly life be taken up into heaven, and thence +should come again to bring in His Kingdom. <q>As, moreover, in +the higher Jewish theology, immediately after the time of Jesus, the +idea of the pre-existence of the Messiah was present, the conjecture +naturally suggests itself that it was also present at the time when +Jesus' thoughts were being formed, and that consequently, if He +once began to think of Himself as the Messiah, He might also have +referred to Himself this feature of the Messianic conception. +Whether Jesus had been initiated, as Paul was, into the wisdom of +the schools in such a way that He could draw this conception from +it, is no doubt open to question.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In his treatment of the eschatology Strauss makes a valiant +effort to escape from the dilemma <q><emph>either</emph> spiritual <emph>or</emph> political</q> in +regard to the Messianic plans of Jesus, and to make the eschatological +expectation intelligible as one which did not set its hopes +upon human aid, but on Divine intervention. This is one of the +most important contributions to a real understanding of the eschatological +problem. Sometimes one almost seems to be reading +Johannes Weiss; as, for example, when Strauss explains that Jesus +could promise His followers that they should sit on thrones without +<pb n='093'/><anchor id='Pg093'/> +thinking of a political revolution, because He expected a reversal +of present conditions to be brought about by God, and referred this +judicial authority and kingly rule to the time of the παλιγγενεσία. +<q>Jesus, therefore, certainly expected to restore the throne of David, +and, with His disciples, to rule over a people freed from political +bondage, but in this expectation He did not set His hopes on the +sword of human followers (Luke xxii. 38, Matt. xxvi. 52), but upon +the legions of angels which His heavenly Father could give Him +(Matt. xxvi. 53). When He speaks of the coming of His Messianic +glory, it is with angels and heavenly powers that He surrounds +Himself (Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv. 30 ff., xxv. 31). Before the majesty of +the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven the nations will +submit without striking a blow, and at the sound of the angel's +trumpet-blast will, with the dead who shall then arise, range +themselves before Him and His disciples for judgment. All this +Jesus did not purpose to bring about by any arbitrary action of +His own, but left it to His heavenly Father, who alone knew the +right moment for this catastrophic change (Mark xiii. 32), to give +Him the signal of its coming; and He did not waver in His faith +even when death came upon Him before its realisation. Any one +who shrinks from adopting this view of the Messianic background of +Jesus' plans, because he fears by so doing to make Jesus a visionary +enthusiast, must remember how exactly these hopes corresponded +to the long-cherished Messianic expectation of the Jews; and how +easily, on the supernaturalistic assumptions of the period and among +a people which preserved so strict an isolation as the Jews, an ideal +which was in itself fantastic, if it were the national ideal and had +some true and good features, could take possession of the mind +even of one who was not inclined to fanaticism.</q> +</p> + +<p> +One of the principal proofs that the preaching of Jesus was +eschatologically conditioned is the Last Supper. <q>When,</q> says +Strauss, <q>He concluded the celebration with the saying, <q>I will +not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new +with you in my Father's kingdom,</q> He would seem to have +expected that in the Messianic kingdom the Passover would be +celebrated with peculiar solemnity. Therefore, in assuring them +that they shall next partake of the Feast, not in the present age, but +in the new era, He evidently expects that within a year's time the +pre-Messianic dispensation will have come to an end and the +Messianic age will have begun.</q> But it must be admitted, Strauss +immediately adds, that the definite assurance which the Evangelists +put into His mouth may after all only have been in reality an +expression of pious hope. In a similar way he qualifies his other +statements regarding the eschatological ideas of Jesus by recalling +that we cannot determine the part which the expectations of +primitive Christianity may have had in moulding these sayings. +</p> + +<pb n='094'/><anchor id='Pg094'/> + +<p> +Thus, for example, the opinions which he expresses on the great +Parousia discourse in Matt. xxiv. are extremely cautious. The +detailed prophecies regarding the Second Coming which the +Synoptists put into the mouth of Jesus cannot be derived from +Jesus Himself. The question suggests itself, however, whether He +did not cherish the hope, and make the promise, that He would +one day appear in glory as the Messiah? <q>If in any period of +His life He held Himself to be the Messiah—and that there was a +period when He did so there can be no doubt—and if He described +Himself as the Son of Man, He must have expected the coming +in the clouds which Daniel had ascribed to the Son of Man; but +it may be questioned whether He thought of this as an exaltation +which should take place even in His lifetime, or as something +which was only to take place after His death. Utterances like +Matt. x. 23, xvi. 28 rather suggest the former, but the possibility +remains that later, when he had begun to feel that His death was +certain, his conception took the latter form, and that Matt. xxvi. 64 +was spoken with this in view.</q> Thus, even for Strauss, the problem of +the Son of Man is already the central problem in which are focused +all the questions regarding the Messiahship and eschatology. +</p> + +<p> +From all this it may be seen how strongly he had been +influenced by Reimarus, whom, indeed, he frequently mentions. +It would be still more evident if he had not obscured his historical +views by constantly bringing the mythological explanation into play. +</p> + +<p> +The thought of the supernatural realisation of the Kingdom +of God must also, according to Strauss, be the starting-point of any +attempt to understand Jesus' attitude towards the Law and the +Gentiles, so far as that is possible in view of the conflicting data. +The conservative passages must carry most weight. They need +not necessarily fall at the beginning of His ministry, because it is +questionable whether the hypothesis of a later period of increasing +liberality in regard to the law and the Gentiles can be made +probable. There would be more chance of proving that the +conservative sayings are the only authentic ones, for unless all the +indications are misleading the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>terminus a quo</foreign> for this change of +attitude is the death of Jesus. He no doubt looked forward to +the abolition of the Law and the removal of the barriers between +Jew and Gentile, but only in the future Kingdom. <q>If that be so,</q> +remarks Strauss, <q>the difference between the views of Jesus and of +Paul consisted only in this, that while Jesus expected these limitations +to fall away when, at His second coming, the earth should be +renewed, Paul believed himself justified in doing away with them +in consequence of the first coming of the Messiah, upon the still +unregenerated earth.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The eschatological passages are therefore the most authentic +of all. If there is anything historic about Jesus, it is His assertion +<pb n='095'/><anchor id='Pg095'/> +of the claim that in the coming kingdom He would be manifested +as the Son of Man. +</p> + +<p> +On the other hand, in the predictions of the passion and +resurrection we are on quite uncertain ground. The detailed +statements regarding the manner of the catastrophe place it beyond +doubt that we have here <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>vaticinia ex eventu</foreign>. Otherwise the despair +of the disciples when the events occurred could not be explained. +Yet it is possible that Jesus had a prevision of His death. Perhaps +the resolve to die was essential to His conception of the Messiahship +and He was not forced thereto by circumstances. This we +might be able to determine with certainty if we had more exact +information regarding the conception of the suffering Messiah in +contemporary Jewish theology; which is, however, not available. +We do not even know whether the conception had ever existed in +Judaism. <q>In the New Testament it almost looks as if no one +among the Jews had ever thought of a suffering or dying Messiah.</q> +The conception can, however, certainly be found in later passages +of Rabbinic literature. +</p> + +<p> +The question is therefore insoluble. We must be content to +work with possibilities. The result of a full discussion of the +resolve to suffer and the significance attached to the suffering is +summed up by Strauss in the following sentences. <q>In view of +these considerations it is possible that Jesus might, by a natural +process of thought, have come to see how greatly such a catastrophe +would contribute to the spiritual development of His disciples, and +in accordance with national conceptions, interpreted in the light of +some Old Testament passages, might have arrived at the idea of +an atoning power in His Messianic death. At the same time the +explicit utterance which the Synoptists attribute to Jesus describing +His death as an atoning sacrifice, might well belong rather to the +system of thought which grew up after the death of Jesus, and the +saying which the Fourth Gospel puts into His mouth regarding the +relation of His death to the coming of the Paraclete might seem +to be prophecy after the event. So that even in these sayings of +Jesus regarding the purpose of His death, it is necessary to +distinguish between the particular and the general.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Strauss's <q>Life of Jesus</q> has a different significance for modern +theology from that which it had for his contemporaries. For them +it was the work which made an end of miracle as a matter of +historical belief, and gave the mythological explanation its due. +</p> + +<p> +We, however, find in it also an historical aspect of a positive +character, inasmuch as the historic Personality which emerges from +the mist of myth is a Jewish claimant of the Messiahship, whose +world of thought is purely eschatological. Strauss is, therefore, no +mere destroyer of untenable solutions, but also the prophet of a +coming advance in knowledge. +</p> + +<pb n='096'/><anchor id='Pg096'/> + +<p> +It was, however, his own fault that his merit in this respect was +not recognised in the nineteenth century, because in his <q>Life of +Jesus for the German People</q> (1864), where he undertook to draw +a positive historic picture of Jesus, he renounced his better opinions +of 1835, eliminated eschatology, and, instead of the historic Jesus, +portrayed the Jesus of liberal theology. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='097'/><anchor id='Pg097'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>IX. Strauss's Opponents And Supporters</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>David Friedrich Strauss.</hi> Streitschriften zur Verteidigung meiner Schrift über das +Leben-Jesu und zur Charakteristik der gegenwärtigen Theologie. (Replies to +criticisms of my work on the Life of Jesus; with an estimate of present-day +theology.) Tübingen, 1837. +</p> + +<p> +Das Leben-Jesu, 3te verbesserte Auflage (3rd revised edition). 1838-1839, +Tübingen. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>August Tholuck.</hi> Die Glaubwürdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, zugleich eine +Kritik des Lebens Jesu von Strauss. (The Credibility of the Gospel History, +with an incidental criticism of Strauss's <q>Leben-Jesu.</q>) Hamburg, 1837. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Aug. Wilh. Neander.</hi> Das Leben Jesu-Christi. Hamburg, 1837. +</p> + +<p> +Dr. Neanders auf höhere Veranlassung abgefasstes Gutachten über das Buch des +Dr. Strauss' <q>Leben-Jesu</q> und das in Beziehung auf die Verbreitung desselben zu +beachtende Verfahren. (Dr. Neander's report, drawn up at the request of the +authorities, upon Dr. Strauss's <q>Leben-Jesu</q> and the measures to be adopted in +regard to its circulation.) 1836. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Leonhard Hug.</hi> Gutachten über das Leben-Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet von D. Fr. +Strauss. (Report on D. Fr. Strauss's critical work upon the Life of Jesus.) +Freiburg, 1840. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Christian Gottlob Wilke.</hi> Tradition und Mythe. Ein Beitrag zur historischen +Kritik der kanonischen Evangelien überhaupt, wie insbesondere zur Würdigung +des mythischen Idealismus im Leben-Jesu von Strauss. (Tradition and Myth. +A Contribution to the General Historical Criticism of the Gospels; with +special reference to the mythical idealism of Strauss's <q>Leben-Jesu.</q>) Leipzig, +1837. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>August Ebrard.</hi> Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte. (Scientific +Criticism of the Gospel History.) Frankfort, 1842. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Georg Heinr. Aug. Ewald.</hi> Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit. (History of +Christ and His Times.) 1855. Fifth volume of the <q>Geschichte des Volkes +Israel.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Christoph Friedrich von Ammon.</hi> Die Geschichte des Lebens Jesu mit steter +Rücksicht auf die vorhandenen Quellen. (History of the Life of Jesus with +constant reference to the extant sources.) 3 vols. 1842-1847. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Scarcely ever has a book let loose such a storm of controversy; +and scarcely ever has a controversy been so barren of immediate +result. The fertilising rain brought up a crop of toad-stools. Of +the forty or fifty essays on the subject which appeared in the next +<pb n='098'/><anchor id='Pg098'/> +five years, there are only four or five which are of any value, and +even of these the value is very small. +</p> + +<p> +Strauss's first idea was to deal with each of his opponents +separately, and he published in 1837 three successive <hi rend='italic'>Streitschriften</hi>.<note place='foot'>For general title see above. First part: <q>Herr Dr. Steudel, or the Self-deception +of the Intellectual Supernaturalism of our Time.</q> 182 pp. Second part: <q>Die +Herren Eschenmayer und Menzel.</q> 247 pp. Third part: <q><hi rend='italic'>Die evangelische Kirchenzeitung</hi>, +<hi rend='italic'>die Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik</hi> und <hi rend='italic'>Die theologischen Studien +und Kritiken</hi> in ihrer Stellung zu meiner Kritik des Lebens Jesu.</q> (The attitude taken +up by ... in regard to my critical Life of Jesus.) 179 pp. In the <hi rend='italic'>Studien und +Kritiken</hi> two reviews had appeared: a critical review by Dr. Ullmann (vol. for 1836, pp. +770-816) and that of Müller, written from the standpoint of the <q>common faith</q> (vol. +for 1836, pp. 816-890). In the <hi rend='italic'>Evangelische Kirchenzeitung</hi> the articles referred to are +the following: <hi rend='italic'>Vorwort</hi> (Editorial Survey), 1836, pp. 1-6, 9-14, 17-23, 25-31, 33-38, +41-45; <q>The Future of our Theology</q> (1836, pp. 281 ff.); <q>Thoughts suggested +by Dr. Strauss's essay on <q>The Relation of Theological Criticism and Speculation +to the Church</q></q> (1836, pp. 382 ff.); Strauss's essay had appeared in the <hi rend='italic'>Allgemeine +Kirchenzeitung</hi> for 1836, No. 39. <q><hi rend='italic'>Die kritische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu von +D. F. Strauss nach ihrem wissenschaftlichen Werte beleuchtet</hi></q> (An Inquiry into the +Scientific Value of D. F. Strauss's Critical Study of the Life of Jesus.) By Prof. Dr. +Harless. Erlangen, 1836.</note> +In the preface to the first of these he states that he +has kept silence for two years from a rooted objection to anything +in the nature of reply or counter-criticism, and because he had +little expectation of any good results from such controversy. These +essays are able, and are often written with biting scorn, especially +that directed against his inveterate enemy, Steudel of Tübingen, +the representative of intellectual supernaturalism, and that against +Eschenmayer, a pastor, also of Tübingen. To a work of the latter, +<q>The Iscariotism of our Days</q> (1835), he had referred in the +preface to the second volume of his Life of Jesus in the following +remark: <q>This offspring of the legitimate marriage between +theological ignorance and religious intolerance, blessed by a sleep-walking +philosophy, succeeds in making itself so completely +ridiculous that it renders any serious reply unnecessary.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But for all his sarcasm Strauss does not show himself an +adroit debater in this controversy, any more than in later times +in the Diet. +</p> + +<p> +It is indeed remarkable how unskilled in polemics is this man +who had produced a critical work of the first importance with +almost playful ease. If his opponents made no effort to understand +him rightly—and many of them certainly wrote without having +carefully studied the fourteen hundred pages of his two volumes—Strauss +on his part seemed to be stricken with a kind of uncertainty, +lost himself in a maze of detail, and failed to keep continually +re-formulating the main problems which he had set up for discussion, +and so compelling his adversaries to face them fairly. +</p> + +<p> +Of these problems there were three. The first was composed +of the related questions regarding miracle and myth; the second +concerned the connexion of the Christ of faith with the Jesus of +<pb n='099'/><anchor id='Pg099'/> +history; the third referred to the relation of the Gospel of John to +the Synoptists. +</p> + +<p> +It was the first that attracted most attention; more than half +the critics devoted themselves to it alone. Even so they failed to +get a thorough grasp of it. The only thing that they clearly see +is that Strauss altogether denies the miracles; the full scope of the +mythological explanation as applied to the traditional records of +the life of Jesus, and the extent of the historical material which +Strauss is prepared to accept, is still a riddle to them. That is in +some measure due, it must in fairness be said, to the arrangement +of Strauss's own work, in which the unconnected series of separate +investigations makes the subject unnecessarily difficult even for one +who wishes to do the author justice. +</p> + +<p> +The attitude towards miracle assumed in the anti-Strauss +literature shows how far the anti-rationalistic reaction had carried +professedly scientific theology in the direction of supernaturalism. +Some significant symptoms had begun to show themselves even +in Hase and Schleiermacher of a tendency towards the overcoming +of rationalism by a kind of intellectual gymnastic which ran some +risk of falling into insincerity. The essential character of this +new kind of historical theology first came to light when Strauss +put it to the question, and forced it to substitute a plain yes or no +for the ambiguous phrases with which this school had only too +quickly accustomed itself to evade the difficulties of the problem +of miracle. The mottoes with which this new school of theology +adorned the works which it sent forth against the untimely troubler +of their peace manifest its complete perplexity, and display the +coquettish resignation with which the sacred learning of the time +essayed to cover its nakedness, after it had succumbed to the +temptation of the serpent insincerity. Adolf Harless of Erlangen +chose the melancholy saying of Pascal: <q>Tout tourne bien pour +les élus, jusqu'aux obscurités de l'écriture, car ils les honorent à +cause des clartés divines qu'ils y voient; et tout tourne en mal +aux reprouvés, jusqu'aux clartés, car ils les blasphèment à cause des +obscurités qu'ils n'entendent pas.</q><note place='foot'><q>Everything turns to the advantage of the elect, even to the obscurities of +scripture, for they treat them with reverence because of its perspicuities; everything +turns to the disadvantage of the reprobate, even to the perspicuities of scripture, +for they blaspheme them because they cannot understand its obscurities.</q> For the +title of Harless's essay, see end of previous note.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Herr Wilhelm Hoffmann,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Das Leben-Jesu kritisch bearbeitet von Dr. D. F. Strauss. Geprüft für +Theologen und Nicht-Theologen</hi>, von Wilhelm Hoffmann. 1836. (Strauss's Critical +Study of the Life of Jesus examined for the Benefit of Theologians and non-Theologians.)</note> deacon at Winnenden, selected Bacon's +aphorism: <q>Animus ad amplitudinem mysteriorum pro modulo suo +dilatetur, non mysteria ad angustias animi constringantur.</q> (Let +the mind, so far as possible, be expanded to the greatness of the +mysteries, not the mysteries contracted to the compass of the mind.) +</p> + +<pb n='100'/><anchor id='Pg100'/> + +<p> +Professor Ernst Osiander,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Apologie des Lebens Jesu gegenüber dem neuesten Versuch, es in Mythen aufzulösen.</hi> +(Defence of the Life of Jesus against the latest attempt to resolve it into +myth.) By Joh. Ernst Osiander, Professor at the Evangelical Seminary at Maulbronn.</note> of the seminary at Maulbronn, +appeals to Cicero: <q>O magna vis veritatis, quae contra hominum +ingenia, calliditatem, sollertiam facillime se per ipsam defendit.</q> +(O mighty power of truth, which against all the ingenious devices, +the craft and subtlety, of men, easily defends itself by its own +strength!) +</p> + +<p> +Franz Baader, of Munich,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Über das Leben-Jesu von Strauss</hi>, von Franz Baader, 1836. Here may be +mentioned also the lectures which Krabbe (subsequently Professor at Rostock) +delivered against Strauss: <hi rend='italic'>Vorlesungen über das Leben-Jesu für Theologen und Nicht-Theologen</hi> +(Lectures on the Life of Jesus for Theologians and non-Theologians), +Hamburg, 1839. They are more tolerable to non-theologians than to theologians. +The author at a later period distinguished himself by the fanatical zeal with +which he urged on the deposition of his colleague, Michael Baumgarten, whose +<hi rend='italic'>Geschichte Jesu</hi>, published in 1859, though fully accepting the miracles, was weighed +in the balance by Krabbe and found light-weight by the Rostock standard.</note> ornaments his work with the reflection: +<q>Il faut que les hommes soient bien loin de toi, ô Vérité! puisque +tu supporte (<hi rend='italic'>sic!</hi>) leur ignorance, leurs erreurs, et leurs crimes.</q> +(Men must indeed be far from thee, O Truth, since thou art able +to bear with their ignorance, their errors, and their crimes!) +</p> + +<p> +Tholuck<note place='foot'>For the title, see head of chapter. Tholuck was born in 1799 at Breslau, and +became in 1826 Professor at Halle, where he worked until his death in 1877. +With the possible exception of Neander, he was the most distinguished representative +of the mediating theology. His piety was deep and his learning was wide, but his +judgment went astray in the effort to steer his freight of pietism safely between the +rocks of rationalism and the shoals of orthodoxy.</note> girds himself with the Catholic maxim of Vincent +of Lerins: <q>Teneamus quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus +creditum est.</q> (Let us hold that which has been believed always, +everywhere, by all.) +</p> + +<p> +The fear of Strauss had, indeed, a tendency to inspire Protestant +theologians with catholicising ideas. One of the most competent +reviewers of his book, Dr. Ullmann in the <hi rend='italic'>Studien und Kritiken</hi>, +had expressed the wish that it had been written in Latin to prevent +its doing harm among the people.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Stud. u. Krit.</hi>, 1836, p. 777. In his <q>Open letter to Dr. Ullmann,</q> Strauss +examines this suggestion in a serious and dignified fashion, and shows that nothing +would be gained by such expedients.—<hi rend='italic'>Streitschriften</hi>, 3rd pt., p. 129 ff.</note> An anonymous dialogue of the +period shows us the schoolmaster coming in distress to the clergyman. +He has allowed himself to be persuaded into reading the +book by his acquaintance the Major, and he is now anxious to +get rid of the doubts which it has aroused in him. When his cure +has been safely accomplished, the reverend gentleman dismisses +him with the following exhortation: <q>Now I hope that after the +experience which you have had you will for the future refrain from +reading books of this kind, which are not written for you, and of +which there is no necessity for you to take any notice; and for +the refutation of which, should that be needful, you have no +<pb n='101'/><anchor id='Pg101'/> +equipment. You may be quite sure that anything useful or +profitable for you which such books may contain will reach you +in due course through the proper channel and in the right way, +and, that being so, you are under no necessity to jeopardise any +part of your peace of mind.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Tholuck's work professedly aims only at presenting a <q>historical +argument for the credibility of the miracle stories of the Gospels.</q> +<q>Even if we admit,</q> he says in one place, <q>the scientific position +that no act can have proceeded from Christ which transcends the +laws of nature, there is still room for the mediating view of Christ's +miracle-working activity. This leads us to think of mysterious +powers of nature as operating in the history of Christ—powers +such as we have some partial knowledge of, as, for example, those +magnetic powers which have survived down to our own time, like +ghosts lingering on after the coming of day.</q> From the standpoint +of this spurious rationalism he proceeds to take Strauss to task +for rejecting the miracles. <q>Had this latest critic been able to +approach the Gospel miracles without prejudice, in the Spirit of +Augustine's declaration, <q>dandum est deo, eum aliquid facere posse +quod nos investigare non possumus,</q> he would certainly—since he +is a man who in addition to the acumen of the scholar possesses +sound common sense—have come to a different conclusion in regard +to these difficulties. As it is, however, he has approached the +Gospels with the conviction that miracles are impossible; and on +that assumption, it was certain before the argument began that +the Evangelists were either deceivers or deceived.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Neander, in his Life of Jesus,<note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu-Christi.</hi> Hamburg, 1837. Aug. Wilhelm Neander was born in +1789 at Göttingen, of Jewish parents, his real name being David Mendel. He was +baptized in 1806, studied theology, and in 1813 was appointed to a professorship in +Berlin, where he displayed a many-sided activity and exercised a beneficent influence. +He died in 1850. The best-known of his writings is the <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte der Pflanzung +und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel</hi> (History of the Propagation +and Administration of the Christian Church by the Apostles), Hamburg, 1832-1833, +of which a reprint appeared as late as 1890. Neander was a man not only of deep +piety, but also of great solidity of character. +</p> +<p> +Strauss, in his Life of Jesus of 1864, passes the following judgment upon Neander's +work: <q>A book such as in these circumstances Neander's Life of Jesus was bound +to be calls forth our sympathy; the author himself acknowledges in his preface that +it bears upon it only too clearly the marks of the time of crisis, division, pain, and +distress in which it was produced.</q> +</p> +<p> +Of the innumerable <q>positive</q> Lives of Jesus which appeared about the end of +the 'thirties we may mention that of Julius Hartmann (2 vols., 1837-1839). Among +the later Lives of Jesus of the mediating theology may be mentioned that of Theodore +Pressel of Tübingen, which was much read at the time of its appearance (1857, 592 pp.). +It aims primarily at edification. We may also mention the <hi rend='italic'>Leben des Herrn Jesu +Christi</hi> by Wil. Jak. Lichtenstein (Erlangen, 1856), which reflects the ideas of von +Hofmann.</p></note> handles the question with more +delicacy of touch, rather in the style of Schleiermacher. <q>Christ's +miracles,</q> he explains, <q>are to be understood as an influencing of +nature, human or material.</q> He does not, however, give so much +<pb n='102'/><anchor id='Pg102'/> +prominence as Schleiermacher had done to the difficulty involved in +the supposition of an influence exercised upon material nature. +He repeats Schleiermacher's assertions, but without the imposing +dialectic which in Schleiermacher's hands almost commands assent. +In regard to the miracle at Cana he remarks: <q>We cannot indeed +form any clear conception of an effect brought about by the introduction +of a higher creative principle into the natural order, since +we have no experience on which to base such a conception, but we +are by no means compelled to take this extreme view as to what +happened; we may quite well suppose that Christ by an immediate +influence upon the water communicated to it a higher potency +which enabled it to produce the effects of strong wine.</q> In the +case of all the miracles he makes a point of seeking not only the +explanation, but the higher symbolical significance. The miracle +of the fig-tree—which is <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>sui generis</foreign>—has only this symbolical significance, +seeing that it is not beneficent and creative but destructive. +<q>It can only be thought of as a vivid illustration of a prediction of +the Divine judgment, after the manner of the symbolic actions of +the Old Testament prophets.</q> +</p> + +<p> +With reference to the ascension and the resurrection he writes: +<q>Even though we can form no clear idea of the exact way in which +the exaltation of Christ from the earth took place—and indeed +there is much that is obscure in regard to the earthly life of Christ +after His resurrection—yet, in its place in the organic unity of the +Christian faith, it is as certain as the resurrection, which apart from +it cannot be recognised in its true significance.</q> +</p> + +<p> +That extract is typical of Neander's Life of Jesus, which in its +time was hailed as a great achievement, calculated to provide a +learned refutation of Strauss's criticism, and of which a seventh +edition appeared as late as 1872. The real piety of heart with +which it is imbued cannot conceal the fact that it is a patchwork of +unsatisfactory compromises. It is the child of despair, and has +perplexity for godfather. One cannot read it without pain. +</p> + +<p> +Neander, however, may fairly claim to be judged, not by this +work, but by his personal attitude in the Strauss controversy. And +here he appears as a magnanimous and dignified representative of +theological science. Immediately after the appearance of Strauss's +book, which, it was at once seen, would cause much offence, the +Prussian Government asked Neander to report upon it, with a view +to prohibiting the circulation, should there appear to be grounds for +doing so. He presented his report on the 15th of November 1835, +and, an inaccurate account of it having appeared in the <hi rend='italic'>Allgemeine +Zeitung</hi>, subsequently published it.<note place='foot'>For title see head of chapter.</note> In it he censures the work as +being written from a too purely rationalistic point of view, but +strongly urges the Government not to suppress it by an edict. He +<pb n='103'/><anchor id='Pg103'/> +describes it as <q>a book which, it must be admitted, constitutes a +danger to the sacred interests of the Church, but which follows the +method of endeavouring to produce a reasoned conviction by means +of argument. Hence any other method of dealing with it than by +meeting argument with argument will appear in the unfavourable +light of an arbitrary interference with the freedom of science.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In holding that scientific theology will be able by its own +strength to overthrow whatever in Strauss's Life of Jesus deserves to +be overthrown, Neander is at one with the anonymous writer of +<q>Aphorisms in Defence of Dr. Strauss and his Work,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Aphorismen zur Apologie des Dr. Strauss und seines Werkes.</hi> Grimma, 1838.</note> who consoles +himself with Goethe's saying— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<lg> +<l>Das Tüchtige, auch wenn es falsch ist,</l> +<l>Wirkt Tag für Tag, von Haus zu Haus;</l> +<l>Das Tüchtige, wenn's wahrhaftig ist,</l> +<l>Wirkt über alle Zeiten hinaus.<note place='foot'>From the <hi rend='italic'>Xame Xenien</hi>, p. 259 of Goethe's Works, ed. Hempel.</note></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>(Strive hard, and though your aim be wrong,</l> +<l>Your work shall live its little day;</l> +<l>Strive hard, and for the truth be strong,</l> +<l>Your work shall live and grow for aye.)</l> +</lg> + +</quote> + +<p> +<q>Dr. Strauss,</q> says this anonymous writer, <q>does not represent +the author's views, and he on his part cannot undertake to defend Dr. +Strauss's conclusions. But it is clear to him that Dr. Strauss's work +considered as a scientific production is more scientific than the +works opposed to it from the side of religion are religious. Otherwise +why are they so passionate, so apprehensive, so unjust?</q> +</p> + +<p> +This confidence in pure critical science was not shared by +Herr Privat-Docent Daniel Schenkel of Basle, afterwards Professor +at Heidelberg. In a dreary work dedicated to his Göttingen +teacher Lücke, on <q>Historical Science and the Church,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Die Wissenschaft und die Kirche. Zur Verständigung über die Straussische +Angelegenheit.</hi> (A contribution to the adjustment of opinion regarding the Strauss +affair.) By Daniel Schenkel, Licentiate in Theology and Privat-Docent of the +University of Basle, with a dedicatory letter to Herr Dr. Lücke, Konsistorialrat. +Basle, 1839.</note> he looks +for future salvation towards that middle region where faith and +science interpenetrate, and hails the new supernaturalism which +approximates to a scientific treatment of these subjects <q>as a hopeful +phenomenon.</q> He rejoices in the violent opposition at Zurich +which led to the cancelling of Strauss's appointment, regarding +it as likely to exercise an elevating influence. A similarly lofty +position is taken up by the anonymous author of <q>Dr. Strauss and +the Zurich Church,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Dr. Strauss und die Züricher Kirche. Eine Stimme aus Norddeutschland. Mit +einer Vorrede von Dr. W. M. L. de Wette.</hi> (A voice from North Germany. With +an introduction by Dr. W. M. L. de Wette.) Basle, 1839.</note> to which De Wette contributed a preface. +<pb n='104'/><anchor id='Pg104'/> +Though professing great esteem for Strauss, and admitting that from +the purely historical point of view he is in the right, the author feels +bound to congratulate the Zurichers on having refused to admit +him to the office of teacher. +</p> + +<p> +The pure rationalists found it much more difficult than did the +mediating theologians, whether of the older or younger school, to +adjust their attitude to the new solution of the miracle question. +Strauss himself had made it difficult for them by remorselessly +exposing the absurd and ridiculous aspects of their method, and +by refusing to recognise them as allies in the battle for truth, as +they really were. Paulus would have been justified in bearing him +a grudge. But the inner greatness of that man of hard exterior +comes out in the fact that he put his personal feelings in the background, +and when Strauss became the central figure in the battle for +the purity and freedom of historical science he ignored his attacks +on rationalism and came to his defence. In a very remarkable +letter to the Free Canton of Zurich, on <q>Freedom in Theological +Teaching and in the Choice of Teachers for Colleges,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Über theologische Lehrfreiheit und Lehrerwahl für Hochschulen.</hi> Zurich, 1839.</note> he urges the +council and the people to appoint Strauss because of the principle +at stake, and in order to avoid giving any encouragement to the +retrograde movement in historical science. It is as though he felt +that the end of rationalism had come, but that, in the person of +the enemy who had defeated it, the pure love of truth, which +was the only thing that really mattered, would triumph over all +the forces of reaction. +</p> + +<p> +It would not, however, be true to say that Strauss had beaten +rationalism from the field. In Ammon's famous Life of Jesus,<note place='foot'>For full title see head of chapter. Reference may also be made to the same +author's <hi rend='italic'>Fortbildung des Christentums zur Weltreligion</hi>. (Development of +Christianity into a World-religion.) Leipzig, 1833-1835. 4 vols. Ammon was born +in 1766 at Bayreuth; became Professor of theology at Erlangen in 1790; was +Professor in Göttingen from 1794 to 1804, and, after being back in Erlangen in the +meantime, became in 1813 Senior Court Chaplain and <q>Oberkonsistorialrat</q> at +Dresden, where he died in 1850. He was the most distinguished representative of +historico-critical rationalism.</note> in +which the author takes up a very respectful attitude towards +Strauss, there is a vigorous survival of a peculiar kind of +rationalism inspired by Kant. For Ammon, a miraculous event +can only exist when its natural causes have been discovered. <q>The +sacred history is subject to the same laws as all other narratives of +antiquity.</q> Lücke, in dealing with the raising of Lazarus, had +thrown out the question whether Biblical miracles could be thought +of historically at all, and in so doing supposed that he was putting +their absolute character on a firmer basis. <q>We,</q> says Ammon, +<q>give the opposite answer from that which is expected; only +historically conceivable miracles can be admitted.</q> He cannot +away with the constant confusion of faith and knowledge found in +<pb n='105'/><anchor id='Pg105'/> +so many writers <q>who swim in an ocean of ideas in which the +real and the illusory are as inseparable as salt and sea-water in +the actual ocean.</q> In every natural process, he explains, we have +to suppose, according to Kant, an interpenetration of natural and +supernatural. For that very reason the purely supernatural does +not exist for our experience. <q>It is no doubt certain,</q> so he lays +it down on the lines of Kant's <hi rend='italic'>Kritik der reinen Vernunft</hi>, <q>that +every act of causation which goes forth from God must be +immediate, universal, and eternal, because it is thought as an effect +of His will, which is exalted above space and time and interpenetrates +both of them, but without abolishing them, leaving them +undisturbed in their continuity and succession. For us men, therefore, +all action of God is mediate, because we are completely +surrounded by time and space, as the fish is by the sea or the bird +by the air, and apart from these relations we should be incapable +of apperception, and therefore of any real experience. As free +beings we can, indeed, think of miracle as immediately Divine, but +we cannot perceive it as such, because that would be impossible +without seeing God, which for wise reasons is forbidden to us.</q> <q>In +accordance with these principles, we shall hold it to be our duty in +what follows to call attention to the natural side even of the +miracles of Jesus, since apart from this no fact can become an +object of belief.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is only in this intelligible sense that the cures of Jesus are to +be thought of as <q>miracles.</q> The magnetic force, with which the +mediating theology makes play, is to be rejected. <q>The cure of +psychical diseases by the power of the word and of faith is the only +kind of cure in which the student of natural science can find any +basis for a conjecture regarding the way in which the cures of Jesus +were effected.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In the case of the other miracles Ammon assumes a kind of +Occasionalism, in the sense that it may have pleased the Divine +Providence <q>to fulfil in fact the confidently spoken promises of +Jesus, and in that way to confirm His personal authority, which was +necessary to the establishment of His doctrine of the Divine +salvation.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In most cases, however, he is content to repeat the rationalistic +explanation, and portrays a Jesus who makes use of medicines, +allows the demoniac himself to rush upon the herd of swine, helps +a leper, whom he sees to be suffering only from one of the milder +forms of the disease, to secure the public recognition of his being +legally clean, and who exerts himself to prevent by word and act +the premature burial of persons in a state of trance. The story of +the feeding of the multitude is based on some occasion when there +was <q>a bountiful display of hospitality, a generous sharing of +provisions, inspired by Jesus' prayer of thanksgiving and the +<pb n='106'/><anchor id='Pg106'/> +example which He set when the disciples were inclined selfishly +to hold back their own supply.</q> The story of the miracle at Cana +rests on a mere misunderstanding, those who report it not having +known that the wine which Jesus caused to be secretly brought +forth was the wedding-gift which he was presenting in the name of +the family. As a disciple of Kant, however, Ammon feels obliged +to refute the imputation that Jesus could have done anything to +promote excess, and calculates that the present of wine which Jesus +had intended to give the bridal pair may be estimated as equivalent +to not more than eighteen bottles.<note place='foot'>He is at one with Strauss in rejecting the explanation of this miracle on the +analogy of an expedited natural process, to which Hase had pointed, and which was first +suggested by Augustine in <hi rend='italic'>Tract viii. in Ioann.</hi>: <q>That Christ changed water into +wine is nothing wonderful to those who consider the works of God. What was +there done in the water-pots, God does yearly in the vine.</q> [Augustine's words are: +Miraculum quidem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quo de aqua vinum fecit, non est +mirum eis qui noverunt quia Deus fecit (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> that He who did it was God). Ipse enim +fecit vinum illo die ... in sex hydriis, qui omni anno facit hoc in vitibus.] +Nevertheless the poorest naturalistic explanation is at least better than the resignation +of Lücke, who is content to wait <q>until it please God through the further progress of +Christian thought and life to bring about the solution of this riddle in its natural and +historical aspects.</q> Lücke, <hi rend='italic'>Johannes-Kommentar</hi>, p. 474 ff.</note> He explains the walking on +the sea by claiming for Jesus an acquaintance with <q>the art of +treading water.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Only in regard to the explanation of the resurrection does +Ammon break away from rationalism. He decides that the reality +of the death of Jesus is historically proved. But he does not +venture to suppose a real reawakening to life, and remains at the standpoint +of Herder. +</p> + +<p> +But the way in which, in spite of the deeper view of the conception +of miracle which he owes to Kant, he constantly falls back +upon the most pedestrian naturalistic explanations, and his failure to +rid himself of the prejudice that an actual, even if not a miraculous +fact must underlie all the recorded miracles, is in itself sufficient to +prove that we have here to do with a mere revival of rationalism: +that is, with an untenable theory which Strauss's refutation of +Paulus had already relegated to the past. +</p> + +<p> +It was an easier task for pure supernaturalism than for pure +rationalism to come to terms with Strauss. For the former Strauss +was only the enemy of the mediating theology—there was nothing +to fear from him and much to gain. Accordingly Hengstenberg's +<hi rend='italic'>Evangelische Kirchenzeitung</hi> hailed Strauss's book as <q>one of the +most gratifying phenomena in the domain of recent theological +literature,</q> and praises the author for having carried out with +logical consistency the application of the mythical theory which +had formerly been restricted to the Old Testament and certain +parts only of the Gospel tradition. <q>All that Strauss has done +is to bring the spirit of the age to a clear consciousness of itself +and of the necessary consequences which flow from its essential +<pb n='107'/><anchor id='Pg107'/> +character. He has taught it how to get rid of foreign elements +which were still present in it, and which marked an imperfect stage +of its development.</q> +</p> + +<p> +He has been the most influential factor in the necessary process +of separation. There is no one with whom Hengstenberg feels +himself more in agreement than with the Tübingen scholar. Had +he not shown with the greatest precision how the results of the +Hegelian philosophy, one may say, of philosophy in general, reacted +upon Christian faith? <q>The relation of speculation to faith has +now come clearly to light.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>Two nations,</q> writes Hengstenberg in 1836, <q>are struggling +in the womb of our time, and two only. They will be ever more +definitely opposed to one another. Unbelief will more and more +cast off the elements of faith to which it still clings, and +faith will cast off its elements of unbelief. That will be an inestimable +advantage. Had the Time-spirit continued to make +concessions, concessions would constantly have been made to it +in return.</q> Therefore the man who <q>calmly and deliberately laid +hands upon the Lord's anointed, undeterred by the vision of the +millions who have bowed the knee, and still bow the knee, before +His appearing,</q> has in his own way done a service. +</p> + +<p> +Strauss on his part escaped with relief from the musty atmosphere +of the study—beloved by theology in carpet-slippers—to the +bracing air of Hengstenberg's <hi rend='italic'>Kirchenzeitung</hi>. In his <q>Replies</q> +he devotes to it some fifty-four pages. <q>I must admit,</q> he says, +<q>that it is a satisfaction to me to have to do with the <hi rend='italic'>Evangelische +Kirchenzeitung</hi>. In dealing with it one knows where one is and +what one has to expect. If Herr Hengstenberg condemns, he +knows why he condemns, and even one against whom he launches +his anathema must admit that the attitude becomes him. Any one +who, like the editor of the <hi rend='italic'>Evangelische Kirchenzeitung</hi>, has taken +upon him the yoke of confessional doctrine with all its implications, +has paid a price which entitles him to the privilege of condemning +those who differ from his opinions.</q><note place='foot'>Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg was born in 1802 at Fröndenberg in the +<q>county</q> (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Grafschaft</foreign>) of Mark, became Professor of Theology in Berlin in 1826, and +died there in 1869. He founded the <hi rend='italic'>Evangelische Kirchenzeitung</hi> in 1827.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Hengstenberg's only complaint against Strauss is that he does +not go far enough. He would have liked to force upon him the +rôle of the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, and considers that if Strauss +did not, like the latter, go so far as to suppose the apostles guilty +of deliberate deceit, that is not so much from any regard for the +historical kernel of Christianity as in order to mask his attack. +</p> + +<p> +Even in Catholic theology Strauss's work caused a great +sensation. Catholic theology in general did not at that time take +up an attitude of absolute isolation from Protestant scholarship; +<pb n='108'/><anchor id='Pg108'/> +it had adopted from the latter numerous rationalistic ideas, and +had been especially influenced by Schleiermacher. Thus, Catholic +scholars were almost prepared to regard Strauss as a common +enemy, against whom it was possible to make common cause with +Protestants. In 1837 Joseph Mack, one of the Professors of the +Catholic faculty at Tübingen, published his <q>Report on Herr Dr. +Strauss's Historical Study of the Life of Jesus.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Bericht über des Herrn Dr. Strauss' historische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu.</hi></note> In 1839 appeared +<q>Dr. Strauss's Life of Jesus, considered from the Catholic point of +view,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Dr. Strauss' Leben-Jesu aus dem Standpunkt des Catholicismus betrachtet.</hi></note> by Dr. Maurus Hagel, Professor of Theology at the Lyceum +at Dillingen; in 1840 that lover of hypotheses and doughty fighter, +Johann Leonhard Hug,<note place='foot'>Johann Leonhard Hug was born in 1765 at Constance, and had been since +1791 Professor of New Testament Theology at Freiburg, where he died in 1846. +He had a wide knowledge of his own department of theology, and his Introduction to +the New Testament Writings won him some reputation among Protestant theologians +also.</note> presented his report upon the work.<note place='foot'>Among the Catholic <q>Leben-Jesu,</q> of which the authors found their incentive +in the desire to oppose Strauss, the first place belongs to that of Kuhn of Tübingen. +Unfortunately only the first volume appeared (1838, 488 pp.). Here there is a +serious and scholarly attempt to grapple with the problems raised by Strauss. Of +less importance is the work of the same title in seven volumes, by the Munich Priest +and Professor of History, Nepomuk Sepp (1843-1846; 2nd ed. 1853-1862).</note> +</p> + +<p> +Even French Catholicism gave some attention to Strauss's work. +This marks an epoch—the introduction of the knowledge of +German critical theology into the intellectual world of the Latin +nations. In the <hi rend='italic'>Revue des deux mondes</hi> for December 1838, +Edgar Quinet gave a clear and accurate account of the influence +of the Hegelian philosophy upon the religious ideas of cultured +Germany.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Über das Leben-Jesu von Doctor Strauss.</hi> By Edgar Quinet. Translated from +the French by Georg Kleine. Published by J. Erdmann and C. C. Müller, 1839. +In 1840 Strauss's book was translated into French by M. Littré. It failed, however, +to exercise any influence upon French theology or literature. Strauss is one of those +German thinkers who always remain foreign and unintelligible to the French mind. +Could Renan have written his Life of Jesus as he did if he had had even a partial +understanding of Strauss?</note> In an eloquent peroration he lays bare the danger +which was menacing the Church from the nation of Strauss and +Hegel. His countrymen need not think that it could be charmed +away by some ingenious formula; a mighty effort of the Catholic +spirit was necessary, if it was to be successfully opposed. <q>A new +barbarian invasion was rolling up against sacred Rome. The +barbarians were streaming from every quarter of the horizon, +bringing their strange gods with them and preparing to beleaguer +the holy city. As, of yore, Leo went forth to meet Attila, so now +let the Papacy put on its purple and come forth, while yet there +is time, to wave back with an authoritative gesture the devastating +hordes into that moral wilderness which is their native home.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Quinet might have done better still if he had advised the Pope +to issue, as a counterblast to the unbelieving critical work of +<pb n='109'/><anchor id='Pg109'/> +Strauss, the Life of Jesus which had been <emph>revealed</emph> to the faith of +the blessed Anna Katharina Emmerich.<note place='foot'><p>Anna Katharina Emmerich was born in 1774 at Flamske near Coesfeld. Her +parents were peasants. In 1803 she took up her abode with the Augustinian nuns +of the convent of Agnetenberg at Dülmen. After the dissolution of the convent, +she lived in a single room in Dülmen itself. The <q>stigmata</q> showed themselves first +in 1812. She died on the 9th of February 1824. Brentano had been in her neighbourhood +since 1819. <hi rend='italic'>Das bittere Leiden unseres Herrn Jesu Christi</hi> (The Bitter +Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ) was issued by Brentano himself in 1834. The +<hi rend='italic'>Life of Jesus</hi> was published on the basis of notes left by him—he died in 1842—in +three volumes, 1858-1860, at Regensburg, under the sanction of the Bishop of +Limberg. +</p> +<p> +First volume.—From the death of St. Joseph to the end of the first year after the +Baptism of Jesus in Jordan. Communicated between May 1, 1821, and October 1, +1822. +</p> +<p> +Second volume.—From the beginning of the second year after the Baptism in +Jordan to the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem. Communicated between +October 1, 1822, and April 30, 1823. +</p> +<p> +Third volume.—From the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem to the +Mission of the Holy Spirit. Communicated between October 21, 1823, and January +8, 1824, and from July 29, 1820, to May 1821. +</p> +<p> +Both works have been frequently reissued, the <q>Bitter Sufferings</q> as late as +1894.</p></note> How thoroughly this +refuted Strauss can be seen from the fragment issued in 1834, +<q>The Bitter Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ,</q> where even the +age of Jesus on the day of His death is exactly given. On that +Maundy Thursday the 13th Nisan, it was exactly thirty-three years +and eighteen weeks less one day. The <q>pilgrim</q> Clement +Brentano would certainly have consented, had he been asked, to +allow his note-books to be used in the sacred cause, and to have +given to the world the Life of Jesus as it was revealed to him by +this visionary from the end of July 1820 day by day for three years, +instead of allowing this treasure to remain hidden for more than +twenty years longer. He himself ascribed to these visions the most +strictly historical character, and insisted on considering them not +merely as reflections on what had happened, but as the immediate +reflex of the facts themselves, so that the picture of the life of +Jesus is given in them as in a mirror. Hug, it may be mentioned, +in his lectures, called attention to the exact agreement of the topography +of the passion story in Katharina's vision with the description +of the locality in Josephus. If he had known her complete +Life of Jesus he would doubtless have expressed his admiration for +the way in which she harmonises John and the Synoptists; and +with justice, for the harmony is really ingenious and skilfully +planned. +</p> + +<p> +Apart from these merits, too, this Life of Jesus, written, it +should be observed, earlier than Strauss's, contains a wealth of +interesting information. John at first baptized at Aenon, but later +was directed to remove to Jericho. The baptisms took place in +<q>baptismal springs.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Peter owned three boats, of which one was fitted up especially +<pb n='110'/><anchor id='Pg110'/> +for the use of Jesus, and carried a complement of ten persons. +Forward and aft there were covered-in spaces where all kinds of +gear could be kept, and where also they could wash their feet; +along the sides of the boat were hung receptacles for the fish. +</p> + +<p> +When Judas Iscariot became a disciple of Jesus he was twenty-five +years old. He had black hair and a red beard, but could not +be called really ugly. He had had a stormy past. His mother +had been a dancing-woman, and Judas had been born out of +wedlock, his father being a military tribune in Damascus. As an +infant he had been exposed, but had been saved, and later had +been taken charge of by his uncle, a tanner at Iscariot. At the +time when he joined the company of Jesus' disciples he had +squandered all his possessions. The disciples at first liked him +well enough because of his readiness to make himself useful; he +even cleaned the shoes. +</p> + +<p> +The fish with the <foreign rend='italic'>stater</foreign> in its mouth was so large that it made +a full meal for the whole company. +</p> + +<p> +A work to which Jesus devoted special attention—though this +is not mentioned in the Gospels—was the reconciliation of unhappy +married couples. Another matter which is not mentioned in the +Gospels is the voyage of Jesus to Cyprus, upon which He entered +after a farewell meal with His disciples at the house of the +Canaanitish woman. This voyage took place during the war +between Herod and Aretas while the disciples were making their +missionary journey in Palestine. As they could not give an eyewitness +report of it they were silent; nor did they make any +mention of the feast to which the Proconsul at Salamis invited the +Saviour. In regard to another journey, also, which Jesus made to +the land of the wise men of the East, the <q>pilgrim's</q> oracle has +the advantage of knowing more than the Evangelists. +</p> + +<p> +In spite of these additional traits a certain monotony is caused +by the fact that the visionary, in order to fill in the tale of days in +the three years, makes the persons known to us from the Gospel +history meet with the Saviour on several occasions previous to the +meeting narrated in the Gospels. Here the artificial character of +the composition comes out too clearly, though in general a lively +imagination tends to conceal this. And yet these naïve embellishments +and inventions have something rather attractive about them; +one cannot handle the book without a certain reverence when one +thinks amid what pains these revelations were received. If +Brentano had published his notes at the time of the excitement +produced by Strauss's Life of Jesus, the work would have had a +tremendous success. As it was, when the first two volumes +appeared at the end of the 'fifties, there were sold in one year three +thousand and several hundred copies, without reckoning the French +edition which appeared contemporaneously. +</p> + +<pb n='111'/><anchor id='Pg111'/> + +<p> +In the end, however, all the efforts of the mediating theology, +of rationalism and supernaturalism, could do nothing to shake +Strauss's conclusion that it was all over with supernaturalism as a +factor to be reckoned with in the historical study of the Life of +Jesus, and that scientific theology, instead of turning back from +rationalism to supernaturalism, must move straight onward between +the two and seek out a new path for itself. The Hegelian method +had proved itself to be the logic of reality. With Strauss begins +the period of the non-miraculous view of the Life of Jesus; all +other views exhausted themselves in the struggle against him, and +subsequently abandoned position after position without waiting to +be attacked. The separation which Hengstenberg had hailed with +such rejoicing was really accomplished; but in the form that +supernaturalism practically separated itself from the serious study +of history. It is not possible to date the stages of this process. +After the first outburst of excitement everything seems to go on +as quietly as before; the only difference is that the question of +miracle constantly falls more and more into the background. In +the modern period of the study of the Life of Jesus, which begins +about the middle of the 'sixties, it has lost all importance. +</p> + +<p> +That does not mean that the problem of miracle is solved. +From the historical point of view it is really impossible to solve it, +since we are not able to reconstruct the process by which a series +of miracle stories arose, or a series of historical occurrences were +transformed into miracle stories, and these narratives must simply +be left with a question mark standing against them. What has +been gained is only that the exclusion of miracle from our view of +history has been universally recognised as a principle of criticism, +so that miracle no longer concerns the historian either positively +or negatively. Scientific theologians of the present day who +desire to show their <q>sensibility,</q> ask no more than that two or +three little miracles may be left to them—in the stories of the +childhood, perhaps, or in the narratives of the resurrection. And +these miracles are, moreover, so far scientific that they have at +least no relation to those in the text, but are merely spiritless, +miserable little toy-dogs of criticism, flea-bitten by rationalism, too +insignificant to do historical science any harm, especially as their +owners honestly pay the tax upon them by the way in which they +speak, write, and are silent about Strauss. +</p> + +<p> +But even that is better than the delusive fashion in which some +writers of the present day succeed in discussing the narratives of +the resurrection <q>as pure historians</q> without betraying by a single +word whether they themselves believe it to be possible or not. +But the reason modern theology can allow itself these liberties is +that the foundation laid by Strauss is unshakable. +</p> + +<p> +Compared with the problem of miracle, the question regarding +<pb n='112'/><anchor id='Pg112'/> +the mythical explanation of the history takes a very subordinate +place in the controversy. Few understood what Strauss's real +meaning was; the general impression was that he entirely dissolved +the life of Jesus into myth. +</p> + +<p> +There appeared, indeed, three satires ridiculing his method. +One showed how, for the historical science of the future, the life +of Luther would also become a mere myth,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Auszüge aus der Schrift <q>Das Leben Luthers kritisch bearbeitet.</q></hi> (Extracts +from a work entitled <q>A Critical Study of the Life of Luther.</q>) By Dr. Casuar +(<q>Cassowary</q>; Strauss = Ostrich). Mexico, 1836. Edited by Julius Ferdinand +Wurm.</note> the second treated the +life of Napoleon in the same way;<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Napoleons kritisch geprüft.</hi> (A Critical Examination of the Life of +Napoleon.) From the English, with some pertinent applications to Strauss's Life of +Jesus, 1836. [The English original referred to seems to have been Whateley's +<hi rend='italic'>Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte</hi>, published in 1819, and primarily +directed against Hume's <hi rend='italic'>Essay on Miracles</hi>.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi>]</note> in the third, Strauss himself +becomes a myth.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>La Vie de Strauss. Écrite en l'an 1839.</hi> Paris, 1839.</note> +</p> + +<p> +M. Eugène Mussard, <q>candidat au saint ministère,</q> made it +his business to set at rest the minds of the premier faculty at +Geneva by his thesis, <hi rend='italic'>Du système mythique appliqué à l'histoire de la +vie de Jésus</hi>, 1838, which bears the ingenious motto οὐ σεσοφισμένοις +μύθοις (not ... in cunningly devised myths, 2 Peter i. 16). He +certainly did not exaggerate the difficulties of his task, but complacently +followed up an <q>Exposition of the Mythical Theory,</q> +with a <q>Refutation of the Mythical Theory as applied to the +Life of Jesus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The only writer who really faced the problem in the form in +which it had been raised by Strauss was Wilke in his work +<q>Tradition and Myth.</q><note place='foot'><p>Ch. G. Wilke, <hi rend='italic'>Tradition und Mythe</hi>. A contribution to the historical criticism +of the Gospels in general, and in particular to the appreciation of the treatment +of myth and idealism in Strauss's <q>Life of Jesus.</q> Leipzig, 1837. +</p> +<p> +Christian Gottlob Wilke was born in 1786 at Werm, near Zeitz, studied theology +and became pastor of Hermannsdorf in the Erzgebirge. He resigned this office in +1837 in order to devote himself to his studies, perhaps also because he had become +conscious of an inner unrest. In 1845 he prepared the way for his conversion to +Catholicism by publishing a work entitled <q>Can a Protestant go over to the Roman +Church with a good conscience?</q> He took the decisive step in August 1846. +Later he removed to Würzburg. Subsequently he recast his famous <hi rend='italic'>Clavis Novi +Testamenti Philologica</hi>—which had appeared in 1840-1841—in the form of a lexicon +for Catholic students of theology. His <hi rend='italic'>Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments</hi>, +published in 1843-1844, appeared in 1853 as <hi rend='italic'>Biblische Hermeneutik nach katholischen +Grundsätzen</hi> (The Science of Biblical Interpretation according to Catholic principles). +He was engaged in recasting his Clavis when he died in 1854. +</p> +<p> +Of later works dealing with the question of myth, we may refer to Emanuel Marius, +<hi rend='italic'>Die Persönlichkeit Jesu mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Mythologien und Mysterien +der alten Völker</hi> (The Personality of Jesus, with special reference to the Mythologies +and Mysteries of Ancient Nations), Leipzig, 1879, 395 pp.; and Otto Frick, <hi rend='italic'>Mythus +und Evangelium</hi> (Myth and Gospel), Heilbronn, 1879, 44 pp.</p></note> He recognises that Strauss had given +an exceedingly valuable impulse towards the overcoming of +rationalism and supernaturalism and to the rejection of the abortive +<pb n='113'/><anchor id='Pg113'/> +mediating theology. <q>A keener criticism will only establish the +truth of the Gospel, putting what is tenable on a firmer basis, +sifting out what is untenable, and showing up in all its nakedness +the counterfeit theology of the new evangelicalism with its utter +lack of understanding and sincerity.</q> Again, <q>the approval which +Strauss has met with, and the excitement which he has aroused, +sufficiently show what an advantage rationalistic speculation +possesses over the theological second-childishness of the new +evangelicals.</q> The time has come for a rational mysticism, +which shall preserve undiminished the honesty of the old rationalism, +making no concessions to supernaturalism, but, on the other +hand, overcoming the <q>truculent rationalism of the Kantian +criticism</q> by means of a religious conception in which there is +more warmth and more pious feeling. +</p> + +<p> +This rational mysticism makes it a reproach against the +<q>mythical idealism</q> of Strauss that in it philosophy does violence +to history, and the historic Christ only retains His significance as +a mere ideal. A new examination of the sources is necessary to +decide upon the extent of the mythical element. +</p> + +<p> +The Gospel of Matthew cannot, Wilke agrees, have been the +work of an eyewitness. <q>The principal argument against its +authenticity is the absence of the characteristic marks of an eyewitness, +which must necessarily have been present in a gospel actually +composed by a disciple of the Lord, and which are not present +here. The narrative is lacking in precision, fragmentary and +legendary, tradition everywhere manifest in its very form.</q> There +are discrepancies in the legends of the first and second chapters, as +well as elsewhere, <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> the stories of the baptism, the temptation, +and the transfiguration. In other cases, where there is a basis of +historic fact, there is an admixture of legendary material, as in the +narratives of the death and resurrection of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +In the Gospel of Mark, Wilke recognises the pictorial vividness +of many of the descriptions, and conjectures that in some way or +other it goes back to the Petrine tradition. The author of the +Fourth Gospel is not an eyewitness; the κατά (according to) only +indicates the origin of the tradition; the author received it, +either directly or indirectly, from the Apostle, but he gave to it the +gnosticising dialectical form of the Alexandrian theology. +</p> + +<p> +As against the <hi rend='italic'>Diegesentheorie</hi><note place='foot'>See p. <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref> above.</note> Wilke defends the independence +and originality of the individual Gospels. <q>No one of the Evangelists +knew the writing of any of the others, each produced an independent +work drawn from a separate source.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In the remarks on points of detail in this work of Wilke's there +is evidence of a remarkable grasp of the critical data; we already +get a hint of the <q>mathematician</q> of the Synoptic problem, +<pb n='114'/><anchor id='Pg114'/> +who, two years later, was to work out convincingly the literary +argument for the priority of Mark. But the historian is quite +subordinated to the literary critic, and, when all is said, Wilke +takes up no clearly defined position in regard to Strauss's main +problem, as is evident from his seeking to retain, on more or less +plausible grounds, a whole series of miracles, among them the miracle +of Cana and the resurrection. +</p> + +<p> +For most thinkers of that period, however, the question <q>myth +or history</q> yielded in interest to the philosophical question of the +relation of the historical Jesus to the ideal Christ. That was the +second problem raised by Strauss. Some thought to refute him +by showing that his exposition of the relation of the Jesus of +history to the ideal Christ was not justified even from the point of +view of the Hegelian philosophy, arguing that the edifice which +he had raised was not in harmony with the ground-plan of the +Hegelian speculative system. He therefore felt it necessary, in +his reply to the review in the <hi rend='italic'>Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche +Kritik</hi>, to expound <q>the general relationship of the Hegelian +philosophy to theological criticism,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Streitschriften.</hi> Drittes Heft, pp. 55-126: <hi rend='italic'>Die Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche +Kritik</hi>: i. <hi rend='italic'>Allgemeines Verhältnis der Hegel'schen Philosophie zur theologischen +Kritik</hi>: ii. <hi rend='italic'>Hegels Ansicht über den historischen Wert der evangelischen Geschichte</hi> +(Hegel's View of the Historical Value of the Gospel History); iii. <hi rend='italic'>Verschiedene Richtungen +innerhalb der Hegel'schen Schule in Betreff der Christologie</hi> (Various Tendencies +within the Hegelian School in regard to Christology). 1837.</note> and to express in more +precise form the thoughts upon speculative and historical Christology +which he had suggested at the close of the second volume +of his <q>Life of Jesus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +He admits that Hegel's philosophy is ambiguous in this matter, +since it is not clear <q>whether the evangelical fact as such, not +indeed in its isolation, but together with the whole series of manifestations +of the idea (of God-manhood) in the history of the world, +is the truth; or whether the embodiment of the idea in that +single fact is only a formula of which consciousness makes use in +forming its concept.</q> The Hegelian <q>right,</q> he says, represented +by Marheineke and Göschel, emphasises the positive side of the +master's religious philosophy, implying that in Jesus the idea of God-manhood +was perfectly fulfilled and in a certain sense intelligibly +realised. <q>If these men,</q> Strauss explains, <q>appeal to Hegel and +declare that he would not have recognised my book as an expression +of his meaning, they say nothing which is not in accordance with +my own convictions. Hegel was personally no friend to historical +criticism. It annoyed him, as it annoyed Goethe, to see the historic +figures of antiquity, on which their thoughts were accustomed +lovingly to dwell, assailed by critical doubts. Even if it was in +some cases wreaths of mist which they took for pinnacles of rock, +they did not want to have this forced upon their attention, nor to +<pb n='115'/><anchor id='Pg115'/> +be disturbed in the illusion from which they were conscious of +receiving an elevating influence.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But though prepared to admit that he had added to the edifice +of Hegel's religious philosophy an annexe of historical criticism, +of which the master would hardly have approved, Strauss is convinced +that he is the only logical representative of Hegel's essential +view. <q>The question which can be decided from the standpoint of +the philosophy of religion is not whether what is narrated in the +Gospels actually happened or not, but whether in view of the truth +of certain conceptions it must necessarily have happened. And in +regard to this, what I assert is that from the general system of the +Hegelian philosophy it by no means necessarily follows that such +an event must have happened, but that from the standpoint of +the system the truth of that history from which actually the conception +arose is reduced to a matter of indifference; it may have +happened, but it may just as well not have happened, and the +task of deciding on this point may be calmly handed over to +historical criticism.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Strauss reminds us that, even according to Hegel, the belief in +Jesus as God-made-man is not immediately given with His appearing +in the world of sense, but only arose after His death and the +removal of His sensible presence. The master himself had acknowledged +the existence of mythical elements in the Life of Jesus; +in regard to miracle he had expressed the opinion that the true +miracle was <q>Spirit.</q> The conception of the resurrection and +ascension as outward facts of sense was not recognised by him +as true. +</p> + +<p> +Hegel's authority may, no doubt, fairly be appealed to by those +who believe, not only in an incarnation of God in a general sense, +<q>but also that this manifestation of God in flesh has taken place +in this man (Jesus) at this definite time and place.</q>... <q>In +making the assertion,</q> concludes Strauss, <q>that the truth of the +Gospel narrative cannot be proved, whether in whole or in part, +from philosophical considerations, but that the task of inquiring +into its truth must be left to historical criticism, I should like to +associate myself with the <q>left wing</q> of the Hegelian school, were +it not that the Hegelians prefer to exclude me altogether from their +borders, and to throw me into the arms of other systems of thought—only, +it must be admitted, to have me tossed back to them like +a ball.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In regard to the third problem which Strauss had offered for +discussion, the relation of the Synoptists to John, there was practically +no response. The only one of his critics who understood what +was at stake was Hengstenberg. He alone perceived the significance +of the fact that critical theology, having admitted mythical +elements first in the Old Testament, and then in the beginning and +<pb n='116'/><anchor id='Pg116'/> +end of the Gospel history, and having, in consequence of the latter +admission, felt obliged to give up the first three Gospels, retaining +only the fourth, was now being besieged by Strauss in its last +stronghold. <q>They withdrew,</q> says the <hi rend='italic'>Evangelische Kirchenzeitung</hi>, +<q>into the Gospel of John as into a fortress, and boasted that +they were safe there, though they could not suppress a secret +consciousness that they only held it at the enemy's pleasure; now +the enemy has appeared before it; he is using the same weapons +with which he was formerly victorious; the Gospel of John is in +as desperate case as formerly the Synoptists. The time has come +to make a bold resolve, a decisive choice; either they must give +up everything, or else they must successively re-occupy the more +advanced positions which at an earlier date they had successively +abandoned.</q> It would be impossible to give a more accurate +picture of the desperate position into which Hase and Schleiermacher +had brought the mediating theology by their ingenious +expedient of giving up the Synoptics in favour of the Gospel of +John. Before any danger threatened, they had abandoned the +outworks and withdrawn into the citadel, oblivious of the fact that +they thereby exposed themselves to the danger of having their own +guns turned upon them from the positions they had abandoned, +and being obliged to surrender without striking a blow the position +of which they had boasted as impregnable. It is impossible to +emphasise strongly enough the fact that it was not Strauss, but +Hase and Schleiermacher, who had brought the mediating +theology into this hopeless position, in which the fall of the Fourth +Gospel carried with it the surrender of the historical tradition as +a whole. +</p> + +<p> +But there is no position so desperate that theology cannot +find a way out of it. The mediating theologians simply +ignored the problem which Strauss had raised. As they had +been accustomed to do before, so they continued to do after, +taking the Gospel of John as the authentic framework, and +fitting into it the sections of the Synoptic narrative wherever +place could best be found for them. The difference between +the Johannine and Synoptic representations of Jesus' method +of teaching, says Neander, is only apparently irreconcilable, and +he calls out in support of this assertion all the reserves of old +worn-out expedients and artifices, among others the argument +that the Pauline Christology is only explicable as a combination +of the Synoptic and Johannine views. Other writers who +belong to the same apologetic school, such as Tholuck, Ebrard,<note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte.</hi> (Scientific Criticism of +the Gospel History.) August Ebrard. Frankfort, 1842; 3rd ed., 1868. +</p> +<p> +Johannes Heinrich Aug. Ebrard was born in 1818 at Erlangen, was, first, Professor +of Reformed Theology at Zurich and Erlangen, afterwards (1853) went to Speyer as +<q>Konsistorialrat,</q> but was unable to cope with the Liberal opposition there, and +returned in 1861 to Erlangen, where he died in 1888. +</p> +<p> +A characteristic example of Ebrard's way of treating the subject is his method of +meeting the objection that a fish with a piece of money in its jaws could not have +taken the hook. <q>The fish might very well,</q> he explains, <q>have thrown up the piece +of money from its belly into the opening of the jaws in the moment in which Peter +opened its mouth.</q> Upon this Strauss remarks: <q>The inventor of this argument +tosses it down before us as who should say, <q>I know very well it is bad, but it is +good enough for you, at any rate so long as the Church has livings to distribute +and we Konsistorialrats have to examine the theological candidates.</q></q> Strauss, +therefore, characterises Ebrard's Life of Jesus as <q>Orthodoxy restored on a basis +of impudence.</q> The pettifogging character of this work made a bad impression +even in Conservative quarters.</p></note> +<pb n='117'/><anchor id='Pg117'/> +Wieseler,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien.</hi> (Chronological Synopsis of the +four Gospels.) By Karl Georg Wieseler. Hamburg, 1843. Wieseler was born in +1813 at Altencelle (Hanover), and was Professor successively at Göttingen, Kiel, and +Greifswald. He died in 1883.</note> Lange,<note place='foot'>Johann Peter Lange, Pastor in Duisburg, afterwards Professor at Zurich in +place of Strauss. <hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu.</hi> 5 vols., 1844-1847.</note> and Ewald,<note place='foot'><p>Georg Heinrich August Ewald, <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte des Volkes Israel</hi>. (History of the People +of Israel.) 7 vols. Göttingen, 1843-1859; 3rd ed., 1864-1870. Fifth vol., <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte +Christus' und seiner Zeit</hi>. (History of Christ and His Times.) 1855; 2nd ed., 1857. +</p> +<p> +Ewald was born in 1803 at Göttingen, where in 1827 he was appointed Professor +of Oriental Languages. Having made a protest against the repeal of the fundamental +law of the Hanoverian Constitution he was removed from his office and went +to Tübingen, first as Professor of philology; in 1841 he was transferred to the +theological faculty. In 1848 he returned to Göttingen. When, in 1866, he refused +to take the oath of allegiance to the King of Prussia, he was compulsorily retired, +and, in consequence of imprudent expressions of opinion, was also deprived of +the right to lecture. The town of Hanover chose him as its representative in the +North German and in the German Reichstag, where he sat among the Guelph +opposition, in the middle of the centre party. He died in 1875 at Göttingen. His +contributions to New Testament studies were much inferior to his Oriental and Old +Testament researches. His Life of Jesus, in particular, is worthless, in spite of the +Old Testament and Oriental learning with which it was furnished forth. He lays +great stress upon making the genitive of <q>Christus</q> not <q>Christi,</q> but, according +to German inflection, <q>Christus'.</q></p></note> maintain the same point of view, +only that their defence is usually much less skilful. +</p> + +<p> +The only writer who really in some measure enters into the +difficulties is Ammon. He, indeed, is fully conscious of the +difference, and thinks we cannot rest content with merely recognising +it, but must find a solution, even if rather a forced one, <q>by +subordinating the indefinite chronological data of the Synoptists, of +whom, after all, only one was, or could have been, an eyewitness, +to the ordered narrative of John.</q> The fourth Evangelist makes so +brief a reference to the Galilaean period because it was in accordance +with his plan to give more prominence to the discourses of +Jesus in the Temple and His dialogues with the Scribes as compared +to the parables and teaching given to the people. The +cleansing of the Temple falls at the outset of Jesus' ministry; +Jesus begins His Messianic work in Jerusalem by this action of +making an end of the unseemly chaffering in the court of the +Temple. The question regarding the relative authenticity of the +reports is decisively settled by a comparison of the two accounts of +<pb n='118'/><anchor id='Pg118'/> +the triumphal entry, because there it is quite evident that <q>Matthew, +the chief authority among the Synoptists, adapts his narrative to +his special Jewish-Messianic standpoint.</q> According to Ammon's +rationalistic view, the work of Jesus consisted precisely in the +transformation of this Jewish-Messianic idea into the conception +of a <q>Saviour of the world.</q> In this lies the explanation of the +fate of Jesus: <q>The mass of the Jewish people were not prepared +to receive a Christ so spiritual as Jesus was, since they were not +ripe for so lofty a view of religion.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Ammon here turns his Kantian philosophy to account. It +serves especially to explain to him the consciousness of pre-existence +avowed by the Jesus of the Johannine narrative as +something purely human. We, too, he explains, can <q>after the +spirit</q> claim an ideal existence prior to the spatial creation without +indulging any delusion, and without, on the other hand, thinking +of a real existence. In this way Jesus is for Himself a Biblical +idea, with which He has become identified. <q>The purer and deeper +a man's self-consciousness is, the keener may his consciousness of +God become, until time disappears for him, and his partaking in +the Divine nature fills his whole soul.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But Ammon's support of the authenticity of John's Gospel is, +even from a purely literary point of view, not so unreserved as in +the case of the other opponents of Strauss. In the background +stands the hypothesis that our Gospel is only a working-over of the +authentic John, a suggestion in regard to which Ammon can claim +priority, since he had made it as early as 1811,<note place='foot'>Ammon, <hi rend='italic'>Johannem evangelii auctorem ab editore huius libri fuisse diversum</hi>, +Erlangen, 1811.</note> nine years before +the appearance of Bretschneider's <hi rend='italic'>Probabilia</hi>. Were it not for the +ingenuous fashion in which he works the Synoptic material into the +Johannine plan, we might class him with Alexander Schweizer and +Weisse, who in a similar way seek to meet the objections of Strauss +by an elaborate theory of editing.<note place='foot'>No value whatever can be ascribed to the Life of Jesus by Werner Hahn, +Berlin, 1844, 196 pp. The <q>didactic presentation of the history</q> which the author +offers is not designed to meet the demands of historical criticism. He finds in the +Gospels no bare history, but, above all, the inculcation of the principle of love. He +casts to the winds all attempt to draw the portrait of Jesus as a true historian, +being only concerned with its inner truth and <q>idealises artistically and scientifically</q> +the actual course of the outward life of Jesus. <q>It is never the business of a +history,</q> he explains, <q>to relate only the bare truth. It belongs to a mere planless +and aimless chronicle to relate everything that happened in such a way that its words +are a mere slavish reflection of the outward course of events.</q></note> +</p> + +<p> +The first stage of the discussion regarding the relation of John +to the Synoptists passed without result. The mediating theology +continued to hold its positions undisturbed—and, strangest of all, +Strauss himself was eager for a suspension of hostilities. +</p> + +<p> +It is as though history took the trouble to countersign the +<pb n='119'/><anchor id='Pg119'/> +genuineness of the great critical discoveries by letting the discoverers +themselves attempt to cancel them. As Kant disfigures +his critical idealism by making inconsistent additions in order to +refute a reviewer who had put him in the same category with +Berkeley, so Strauss inserts additions and retractations in the third +edition of his Life of Jesus in deference to the uncritical works of +Tholuck and Neander! Wilke, the only one of his critics from +whom he might have learned something, he ignores. <q>From the +lofty vantage ground of Tholuck's many-sided knowledge I have +sometimes, in spite of a slight tendency to vertigo, gained a +juster point of view from which to look at one matter or another,</q> +is the avowal which he makes in the preface to this ill-starred edition. +</p> + +<p> +It would, indeed, have done no harm if he had confined himself +to stating more exactly here and there the extent of the +mythical element, had increased the number of possible cures, had +inclined a little less to the negative side in examining the claims of +reported facts to rank as historical, and had been a little more +circumspect in pointing out the factors which produced the myths; +the serious thing was that he now began to hesitate in his denial +of the historical character of the Fourth Gospel—the very foundation +of his critical view. +</p> + +<p> +A renewed study of it, aided by De Wette's commentary and +Neander's Life of Jesus, had made him <q>doubtful about his doubts +regarding the genuineness and credibility of this Gospel.</q> <q>Not +that I am convinced of its genuineness,</q> he admits, <q>but I am no +longer convinced that it is not genuine.</q> +</p> + +<p> +He feels bound, therefore, to state whatever makes in its +favour, and to leave open a number of possibilities which formerly +he had not recognised. The adhesion of the first disciples may, +he now thinks, have happened essentially in the form in which +it is reported in the Fourth Gospel; in transferring the cleansing +of the Temple to the first period of Jesus' ministry, John may +be right as against the Synoptic tradition <q>which has no decisive +evidence in its favour</q>; in regard to the question whether Jesus +had been only once, or several times, in Jerusalem, his opinion +now is that <q>on this point the superior circumstantiality of the +Fourth Gospel cannot be contested.</q> +</p> + +<p> +As regards the prominence allowed to the eschatology also +all is toned down and softened. Everywhere feeble compromises! +But what led Strauss to place his foot upon this shelving path +was the essentially just perception that the Synoptists gave him no +clearly ordered plan to set against that of the Fourth Gospel; +consequently he felt obliged to make some concessions to its +strength in this respect. +</p> + +<p> +Yet he recognised almost immediately that the result was a +mere patchwork. Even in the summer of 1839 he complained +<pb n='120'/><anchor id='Pg120'/> +to Hase in conversation that he had been deafened by the clamour +of his opponents, and had conceded too much to them.<note place='foot'>Hase, <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte Jesu</hi>, 1876, p. 128.</note> In the +fourth edition he retracted all his concessions. <q>The Babel of +voices of opponents, critics, and supporters,</q> he says in his preface, +<q>to which I had felt it my duty to listen, had confused me in +regard to the idea of my work; in my diligent comparison of +various views I had lost sight of the thing itself. In this way +I was led to make alterations which, when I came to consider +the matter calmly, surprised myself; and in making which it +was obvious that I had done myself an injustice. In all these +passages the earlier text has been restored, and my work has +therefore consisted, it might be said, in removing from my good +sword the notches which had not so much been hewn in it by +the enemy as ground into it by myself.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Strauss's vacillation had, therefore, not even been of any +indirect advantage to him. Instead of endeavouring to find a +purposeful connexion in the Synoptic Gospels by means of which +he might test the plan of the Fourth Gospel, he simply restores +his former view unaltered, thereby showing that in the decisive +point it was incapable of development. In the very year in +which he prepared his improved edition, Weisse, in his <hi rend='italic'>Evangelische +Geschichte</hi>, had set up the hypothesis that Mark is the ground-document, +and had thus carried criticism past the <q>dead-point</q> +which Strauss had never been able to overcome. Upon Strauss, +however, the new suggestion made no impression. He does, it +is true, mention Weisse's book in the preface to his third edition, +and describes it as <q>in many respects a very satisfactory piece of +work.</q> It had appeared too late for him to make use of it in +his first volume; but he did not use it in his second volume either. +He had, indeed, a distinct antipathy to the Marcan hypothesis. +</p> + +<p> +It was unfortunate that in this controversy the highly important +suggestions in regard to various historical problems which had +been made incidentally in the course of Strauss's work were +never discussed at all. The impulse in the direction of progress +which might have been given by his treatment of the relation of +Jesus to the law, of the question regarding His particularism, of the +eschatological conception, the Son of Man, and the Messiahship +of Jesus, wholly failed to take effect, and it was only after long +and circuitous wanderings that theology again came in sight of +these problems from an equally favourable point of view. In +this respect Strauss shared the fate of Reimarus; the positive +solutions of which the outlines were visible behind their negative +criticism escaped observation in consequence of the offence caused +by the negative side of their work; and even the authors themselves +failed to realise their full significance. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='121'/><anchor id='Pg121'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Chapter_X'/> +<head>X. The Marcan Hypothesis</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Christian Hermann Weisse.</hi> Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch +bearbeitet. (A Critical and Philosophical Study of the Gospel History.) +2 vols. Leipzig, Breitkopf and Härtel, 1838. Vol. i. 614 pp. Vol. ii. 543 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Christian Gottlob Wilke.</hi> Der Urevangelist. (The Earliest Evangelist.) 1838. +Dresden and Leipzig. 694 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Christian Hermann Weisse.</hi> Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwärtigen Stadium. +(The Present Position of the Problem of the Gospels.) Leipzig, 1856. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The <q>Gospel History</q> of Weisse was written, like Strauss's Life of +Jesus, by a philosopher who had been driven out of philosophy and +forced back upon theology. Weisse was born in 1801 at Leipzig, +and became Professor Extraordinary of Philosophy in the university +there in 1828. In 1837, finding his advance to the Ordinary +Professorship barred by the Herbartians, he withdrew from +academic teaching and gave himself to the preparation of this +work, the plan of which he had had in mind for some time. +Having brought it to a satisfactory completion, he began again +in 1841 as a Privat-Docent in Philosophy, and became Ordinary +Professor in 1845. From 1848 onwards he lectured on Theology +also. His work on <q>Philosophical Dogmatics, or the Philosophy of +Christianity,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Philosophische Dogmatik oder Philosophie des Christentums.</hi> Leipzig, 1855-1862.</note> is well known. He died in 1866, of cholera. Lotze +and Lipsius were both much influenced by him. +</p> + +<p> +Weisse admired Strauss and hailed his Life of Jesus as a forward +step towards the reconciliation of religion and philosophy. He +expresses his gratitude to him for clearing the ground of the +primeval forest of theology, thus rendering it possible for him +(Weisse) to develop his views without wasting time upon polemics, +<q>since most of the views which have hitherto prevailed may be +regarded as having received the <foreign rend='italic'>coup de grâce</foreign> from Strauss.</q> He +is at one with Strauss also in his general view of the relations of +philosophy and religion, holding that it is only if philosophy, by +following its own path, attains independently to the conviction of +the truth of Christianity that its alliance with theology and religion +<pb n='122'/><anchor id='Pg122'/> +can be welcomed as advantageous.<note place='foot'>At the end of his preface he makes the striking remark: <q>I confess I cannot +conceive of any possible way by which Christianity can take on a form which will +make it once more the truth for our time, without having recourse to the aid of +philosophy; and I rejoice to believe that this opinion is shared by many of the +ablest and most respected of present-day theologians.</q></note> His work, therefore, like that +of Strauss, leads up finally to a philosophical exposition in which +he shows how for us the Jesus of history becomes the Christ of +faith.<note place='foot'>Vol. ii. pp. 438-543. <hi rend='italic'>Philosophische Schlussbetrachtung über die religiöse +Bedeutung der Persönlichkeit Christi und der evangelischen Überlieferung.</hi> (Concluding +Philosophical Estimate of the Significance of the Person of Christ and of +the Gospel Tradition.)</note> +</p> + +<p> +Weisse is the direct continuator of Strauss. Standing outside +the limitations of the Hegelian formulae, he begins at the point +where Strauss leaves off. His aim is to discover, if possible, some +thread of general connexion in the narratives of the Gospel +tradition, which, if present, would represent a historically certain +element in the Life of Jesus, and thus serve as a better standard +by which to determine the extent of myth than can possibly be +found in the subjective impression upon which Strauss relies. +Strauss, by way of gratitude, called him a dilettante. This was +most unjust, for if any one deserved to share Strauss's place of +honour, it was certainly Weisse. +</p> + +<p> +The idea that Mark's Gospel might be the earliest of the four, +first occurred to Weisse during the progress of his work. In March +1837, when he reviewed Tholuck's <q>Credibility of the Gospel +History,</q> he was as innocent of this discovery as Wilke was at +the same period. But when once he had observed that the +graphic details of Mark, which had hitherto been regarded as due +to an attempt to embellish an epitomising narrative, were too +insignificant to have been inserted with this purpose, it became +clear to him that only one other possibility remained open, viz., +that their absence in Matthew and Luke was due to omission. He +illustrates this from the description of the first day of Jesus' ministry +at Capernaum. <q>The relation of the first Evangelist to Mark,</q> +he avers, <q>in those portions of the Gospel which are common to +both is, with few exceptions, mainly that of an epitomiser.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The decisive argument for the priority of Mark is, even more +than his graphic detail, the composition and arrangement of the +whole. <q>It is true, the Gospel of Mark shows very distinct traces +of having arisen out of spoken discourses, which themselves were +by no means ordered and connected, but disconnected and fragmentary</q>—being, +he means, in its original form based on notes of +the incidents related by Peter. <q>It is not the work of an eyewitness, +nor even of one who had had an opportunity of questioning +eyewitnesses thoroughly and carefully; nor even of deriving +assistance from inquirers who, on their part, had made a connected +<pb n='123'/><anchor id='Pg123'/> +study of the subject, with a view to filling up the gaps and placing +each individual part in its right position, and so articulating +the whole into an organic unity which should be neither merely +inward, nor on the other hand merely external.</q> Nevertheless +the Evangelist was guided in his work by a just recollection of +the general course of the life of Jesus. <q>It is precisely in Mark,</q> +Weisse explains, <q>that a closer study unmistakably reveals that +the incidental remarks (referring for the most part to the way in +which the fame of Jesus gradually extended, the way the people +began to gather round Him and the sick to besiege Him), far from +shutting off and separating the different narratives, tend rather to +unite them with each other, and so give the impression not of a +series of anecdotes fortuitously thrown together, but of a connected +history. By means of these remarks, and by many other connecting +links which he works into the narration of the individual +stories, Mark has succeeded in conveying a vivid impression of +the stir which Jesus made in Galilee, and from Galilee to Jerusalem, +of the gradual gathering of the multitudes to Him, of the growing +intensity of loyalty in the inner circle of disciples, and as the +counterpart of all this, of the growing enmity of the Pharisees and +Scribes—an impression which mere isolated narratives, strung +together without any living connexion, would not have sufficed to +produce.</q> A connexion of this kind is less clearly present in the +other Synoptists, and is wholly lacking in John. The Fourth +Gospel, by itself, would give us a completely false conception of +the relation of Jesus to the people. From the content of its +narratives the reader would form the impression that the attitude +of the people towards Jesus was hostile from the very first, and +that it was only in isolated occasions, for a brief moment, that +Jesus by His miraculous acts inspired the people with astonishment +rather than admiration; that, surrounded by a little company of +disciples he contrived for a time to defy the enmity of the +multitude, and that, having repeatedly provoked it by intemperate +invective, he finally succumbed to it. +</p> + +<p> +The simplicity of the plan of Mark is, in Weisse's opinion, a +stronger argument for his priority than the most elaborate demonstration; +one only needs to compare it with the perverse +design of Luke, who makes Jesus undertake a journey through +Samaria. <q>How,</q> asks Weisse, <q>in the case of a writer who +does things of this kind can it be possible at this time of day +to speak seriously of historical exactitude in the use of his +sources?</q> +</p> + +<p> +To come down to detail, Weisse's argument for the priority +of Mark rests mainly on the following propositions:— +</p> + +<p> +1. In the first and third Gospels, traces of a common plan +are found only in those parts which they have in common +<pb n='124'/><anchor id='Pg124'/> +with Mark, not in those which are common to them, but +not to Mark also. +</p> + +<p> +2. In those parts which the three Gospels have in common, +the <q>agreement</q> of the other two is mediated through +Mark. +</p> + +<p> +3. In those sections which the First and Third Gospels have, +but Mark has not, the agreement consists in the language +and incidents, not in the order. Their common source, +therefore, the <q>Logia</q> of Matthew, did not contain any +type of tradition which gave an order of narration different +from that of Mark. +</p> + +<p> +4. The divergences of wording between the two other +Synoptists is in general greater in the parts where both +have drawn on the Logia document than where Mark is +their source. +</p> + +<p> +5. The first Evangelist reproduces this Logia-document more +faithfully than Luke does; but his Gospel seems to have +been of later origin. +</p> + +<p> +This historical argument for the priority of Mark was confirmed +in the year in which it appeared by Wilke's work, <q>The Earliest +Gospel,</q><note place='foot'><p>Christian Gottlob Wilke, formerly pastor of Hermannsdorf in the Erzgebirge. +<hi rend='italic'>Der Urevangelist, oder eine exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung des Verwandschaftsverhältnisses +der drei ersten Evangelien.</hi> (The Earliest Evangelist, a Critical and +Exegetical Inquiry into the Relationship of the First Three Gospels.) The subsequent +course of the discussion of the Marcan hypothesis was as follows:— +</p> +<p> +In answer to Wilke there appeared a work signed Philosophotos Aletheias, +<hi rend='italic'>Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser, und ihr Verhältnis zu einander</hi>. (The +Gospels, their Spirit, their Authors, and their relation to one another.) Leipzig, 1845, +440 pp. The author sees in Paul the evil genius of early Christianity, and thinks +that the work of scientific criticism must be directed to detecting and weeding out +the Pauline elements in the Gospels. Luke is in his opinion a party-writing, +biased by Paulinism; in fact Paul had a share in its preparation, and this is what +Paul alludes to when he speaks in Romans ii. 16, xi. 28, and xvi. 25 of <q>his</q> Gospel. +His hand is especially recognisable in chapters i.-iii., vii., ix., xi., xviii., xx., xxi., and +xxiv. Mark consists of extracts from Matthew and Luke; John presupposes the +other three. The Tübingen standpoint was set forth by Baur in his work, <hi rend='italic'>Kritische +Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien</hi>. (A Critical Examination of the +Canonical Gospels.) Tübingen, 1847, 622 pp. According to him Mark is based on +Matthew and Luke. At the same time, however, the irreconcilability of the Fourth +Gospel with the Synoptists is for the first time fully worked out, and the refutation +of its historical character is carried into detail. +</p> +<p> +The order Matthew, Mark, Luke is defended by Adolf Hilgenfeld in his work +<hi rend='italic'>Die Evangelien</hi>. Leipzig, 1854, 355 pp. +</p> +<p> +Karl Reinhold Köstlin's work, <hi rend='italic'>Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen +Evangelien</hi> (Origin and Composition of the Synoptic Gospels), is rendered nugatory +by obscurities and compromises. Stuttgart, 1853, 400 pp. The priority of Mark +is defended by Edward Reuss, <hi rend='italic'>Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments</hi> +(History of the Sacred Writings of the New Testament), 1842; H. Ewald, <hi rend='italic'>Die +drei ersten Evangelien</hi>, 1850; A. Ritschl, <hi rend='italic'>Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche</hi> +(Origin of the ancient Catholic Church), 1850; A. Réville, <hi rend='italic'>Études critiques sur +l'Évangile selon St. Matthieu</hi>, 1862. In 1863 the foundations of the Marcan +hypothesis were relaid, more firmly than before, by Holtzmann's work, <hi rend='italic'>Die +synoptischen Evangelien</hi>. Leipzig, 1863, 514 pp.</p></note> which treated the problem more from the literary side, +and, to take an illustration from astronomy, supplied the mathematical +confirmation of the hypothesis. +</p> + +<pb n='125'/><anchor id='Pg125'/> + +<p> +In regard to the Gospel of John, Weisse fully shared the +negative views of Strauss. What is the use, he asks, of keeping +on talking about the plan of this Gospel, seeing that no one has +yet succeeded in showing what that plan is? And for a very good +reason: there is none. One would never guess from the Gospel +of John that Jesus, until His departure from Galilee, had experienced +almost unbroken success. It is no good trying to explain the +want of plan by saying that John wrote with the purpose of +supplementing and correcting his predecessors, and that his +omissions and additions were determined by this purpose. Such +a purpose is betrayed by no single word in the whole Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +The want of plan lies in the very plan itself. <q>It is a fixed +idea, one may say, with the author of this Gospel, who had heard +that Jesus had fallen a victim in Jerusalem to the hatred of the +Jewish rulers, especially the Scribes, that he must represent Jesus +as engaged, from His first appearance onward, in an unceasing +struggle with <q>the Jews</q>—whereas we know that the mass of the +people, even to the last, in Jerusalem itself, were on the side of +Jesus; so much so, indeed, that His enemies were only able to get +Him into their power by means of a secret betrayal.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In regard to the graphic descriptions in John, of which so +much has been made, the case is no better. It is the graphic +detail of a writer who desires to work up a vivid picture, not the +natural touches of an eyewitness, and there are, moreover, actual +inconsistencies, as in the case of the healing at the pool of +Bethesda. The circumstantiality is due to the care of the author +not to assume an acquaintance, on the part of his readers, with +Jewish usages or the topography of Palestine. <q>A considerable +proportion of the details are of such a character as inevitably to +suggest that the narrator inserts them because of the trouble which +it has cost him to orientate himself in regard to the scene of the +action and the dramatis personae, his object being to spare his +readers a similar difficulty; though he does not always go about +it in the way best calculated to effect his purpose.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The impossibility also that the historic Jesus can have preached +the doctrine of the Johannine Christ, is as clear to Weisse as to +Strauss. <q>It is not so much a picture of Christ that John sets +forth, as a conception of Christ; his Christ does not speak <emph>in</emph> His +own Person, but <emph>of</emph> His own Person.</q> +</p> + +<p> +On the other hand, however, <q>the authority of the whole +Christian Church from the second century to the nineteenth</q> +carries too much weight with Weisse for him to venture altogether +to deny the Johannine origin of the Gospel; and he seeks a +<pb n='126'/><anchor id='Pg126'/> +middle path. He assumes that the didactic portions really, for the +most part, go back to John the Apostle. <q>John,</q> he explains, +<q>drawn on by the interest of a system of doctrine which had formed +itself in his mind, not so much as a direct reflex of the teaching +of his Master, as on the basis of suggestions offered by that +teaching in combination with a certain creative activity of his own, +endeavoured to find this system also in the teaching of his Master.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Accordingly, with this purpose, and originally for himself alone, +not with the object of communicating it to others, he made an +effort to exhibit, in the light of this system of thought, what his +memory still retained of the discourses of the Lord. <q>The +Johannine discourses, therefore, were recalled by a laborious effort +of memory on the part of the disciple. When he found that his +memory-image of his Master was threatening to dissolve into a +mist-wraith, he endeavoured to impress the picture more firmly in +his recollection, to connect and define its rapidly disappearing +features, reconstructing it by the aid of a theory evolved by +himself or drawn from elsewhere regarding the Person and work +of the Master.</q> For the portrait of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels +the mind of the disciples who describe Him is a neutral medium; +for the portrait in John it is a factor which contributes to the +production of the picture. The same portrait is outlined by the +apostle in the first epistle which bears his name. +</p> + +<p> +These tentative <q>essays,</q> not originally intended for publication, +came, after the death of the apostle, into the hands of his +adherents and disciples, and they chose the form of a complete +Life of Jesus as that in which to give them to the world. They, +therefore, added narrative portions, which they distributed here and +there among the speeches, often doing some violence to the latter +in the process. Such was the origin of the Fourth Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +Weisse is not blind to the fact that this hypothesis of a +Johannine basis in the Gospel is beset with the gravest—one might +almost say with insuperable—difficulties. Here is a man who was +an immediate disciple of the Lord, one who, in the Synoptic +Gospels, in Acts, and in the Pauline letters, appears in a character +which gives no hint of a coming spiritual metamorphosis, one, +moreover, who at a relatively late period, when it might well have +been supposed that his development was in all essentials closed +(at the time of Paul's visit to Jerusalem, which falls at least +fourteen years after Paul's conversion), was chosen, along with +James and Peter, and in contrast with the apostles of the Gentiles, +Paul and Barnabas, as an apostle of the Jews—<q>how is it possible,</q> +asks Weisse, <q>to explain and make it intelligible, that a man of these +antecedents displays in his thought and speech, in fact in his whole +mental attitude, a thoroughly Hellenistic stamp? How came he, +the beloved disciple, who, according to this very Gospel which +<pb n='127'/><anchor id='Pg127'/> +bears his name, was admitted more intimately than any other into +the confidence of Jesus, how came he to clothe his Master in this +foreign garb of Hellenistic speculation, and to attribute to Him +this alien manner of speech? But, however difficult the explanation +may be, whatever extreme of improbability may seem to us to be +involved in the assumption of the Johannine authorship of the +Epistle and of these essential elements of the Gospel, it is better +to assent to the improbability, to submit to the burden of being +forced to explain the inexplicable, than to set ourselves obstinately +against the weight of testimony, against the authority of the whole +Christian Church from the second century to the present day.</q> +</p> + +<p> +There could be no better argument against the genuineness of +the Fourth Gospel than just such a defence of its genuineness as +this. In this form the hypothesis may well be destined to lead a +harmless and never-ending life. What matters for the historical +study of the Life of Jesus is simply that the Fourth Gospel should +be ruled out. And that Weisse does so thoroughly that it is +impossible to imagine its being done more thoroughly. The +speeches, in spite of their apostolic authority, are unhistorical, and +need not be taken into account in describing Jesus' system of +thought. As for the unhappy redactor, who by adding the +narrative pictures created the Gospel, all possibility of his reports +being accurate is roundly denied, and as if that was not enough, +he must put up with being called a bungler into the bargain. <q>I +have, to tell the truth, no very high opinion of the literary art of +the editor of the Johannine Gospel-document,</q> says Weisse in his +<q>Problem of the Gospels</q> of 1856, which is the best commentary +upon his earlier work. +</p> + +<p> +His treatment of the Fourth Gospel reminds us of the story that +Frederic the Great once appointed an importunate office-seeker to +the post of <q>Privy Councillor for War,</q> on condition that he would +never presume to offer a syllable of advice! +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +The hypothesis which was brought forward about the same +time by Alexander Schweizer,<note place='foot'>Alexander Schweizer, <hi rend='italic'>Das Evangelium Johannis nach seinem inneren Werte +and seiner Bedeutung für das Leben Jesu kritisch untersucht</hi>. 1841. (A Critical +Examination of the Intrinsic Value of the Gospel of John and of its Importance as a +Source for the Life of Jesus.) Alexander Schweizer was born in 1808 at Murten, +was appointed Professor of Pastoral Theology at Zurich in 1835, and continued to +lecture there until his death in 1888, remaining loyal to the ideas of his teacher +Schleiermacher, though handling them with a certain freedom. His best-known +work is his <hi rend='italic'>Glaubenslehre</hi> (System of Doctrine), 2 vols., 1863-1872; 2nd ed., 1877.</note> with the intention of saving the +genuineness of the Gospel of John, did not make any real +contribution to the subject. The reading of the facts which form +his starting-point is almost the exact converse of that of Weisse, +since he regards, not the speeches, but certain parts of the narrative +as Johannine. That which it is possible, in his opinion, to refer +<pb n='128'/><anchor id='Pg128'/> +to the apostle is an account, not involving any miracles, of the +ministry of Jesus at Jerusalem, and the discourses which He +delivered there. The more or less miraculous events which occur +in the course of it—such as, that Jesus had seen Nathanael under +the fig-tree, knew the past life of the Samaritan woman, and healed +the sick man at the Pool of Bethesda—are of a simple character, +and contrast markedly with those which are represented to have +occurred in Galilee, where Jesus turned water into wine and fed a +multitude with a few crusts of bread. We must, therefore, suppose +that this short, authentic, spiritual Jerusalem-Gospel has had a +Galilaean Life of Jesus worked into it, and this explains the +inconsistencies of the representation and the oscillation between +a sensuous and a spiritual point of view. +</p> + +<p> +This distinction, however, cannot be made good. Schweizer +was obliged to ascribe the reports of a material resurrection to the +Galilaean source, whereas these, since they exclude the Galilaean +appearances of Jesus, must belong to the Jerusalem Gospel; and +accordingly, the whole distinction between a spiritual and material +Gospel falls to the ground. Thus this hypothesis at best preserves +the nominal authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, only to deprive it +immediately of all value as a historical source. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +Had Strauss calmly examined the bearing of Weisse's hypothesis, +he would have seen that it fully confirmed the line he had taken +in leaving the Fourth Gospel out of account, and he might have +been less unjust towards the hypothesis of the priority of Mark, +for which he cherished a blind hatred, because, in its fully developed +form, it first met him in conjunction with seemingly reactionary +tendencies towards the rehabilitation of John. He never in the +whole course of his life got rid of the prejudice that the recognition +of the priority of Mark was identical with a retrograde movement +towards an uncritical orthodoxy. +</p> + +<p> +This is certainly not true as regards Weisse. He is far from +having used Mark unreservedly as a historical source. On the +contrary, he says expressly that the picture which this Gospel gives +of Jesus is drawn by an imaginative disciple of the faith, filled with +the glory of his subject, whose enthusiasm is consequently sometimes +stronger than his judgment. Even in Mark the mythopoeic +tendency is already actively at work, so that often the task of +historical criticism is to explain how such myths could have been +accepted by a reporter who stands as near the facts as Mark does. +</p> + +<p> +Of the <foreign rend='italic'>miracula</foreign><note place='foot'>The German is <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Mirakeln</foreign>, the usual word being <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Wunder</foreign>, which, though +constantly used in the sense of actual <q>miracles,</q> has, from its obvious derivation, +a certain ambiguity.</note>—so Weisse denominates the <q>non-genuine</q> +miracles, in contradistinction to the <q>genuine</q>—the feeding of +<pb n='129'/><anchor id='Pg129'/> +the multitude is that which, above all others, cries aloud for an +explanation. Its historical strength lies in its being firmly interwoven +with the preceding and following context; and this applies +to both the Marcan narratives. It is therefore impossible to +regard the story, as Strauss proposes to do, as pure myth; it is +necessary to show how, growing out of some incident belonging +to that context, it assumed its present literary form. The authentic +saying about the leaven of the Pharisees, which, in Mark viii. 14 and +15, is connected with the two miracles of feeding the multitude, +gives ground for supposing that they rest upon a parabolic discourse +repeated on two occasions, in which Jesus spoke, perhaps +with allusion to the manna, of a miraculous food given through +Him. These discourses were later transformed by tradition into +an actual miraculous giving of food. Here, therefore, Weisse endeavours +to substitute for Strauss's <q>unhistorical</q> conception of +myth a different conception, which in each case seeks to discover a +sufficient historical cause. +</p> + +<p> +The miracles at the baptism of Jesus are based upon His +account of a vision which He experienced in that moment. The +present form of the story of the transfiguration has a twofold origin. +In the first place, it is partly based on a real experience shared by +the three disciples. That there is an historical fact here is evident +from the way in which it is connected with the context by a +definite indication of time. The six days of Mark ix. 2 cannot +really be connected, as Strauss would have us suppose, with Ex. +xxiv. 16;<note place='foot'><q>And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered +it six days.</q></note> the meaning is simply that between the previously +reported discourse of Jesus and the event described there was an +interval of six days. The three disciples had a waking, spiritual +vision, not a dream-vision, and what was revealed in this vision was +the Messiahship of Jesus. But at this point comes in the second, +the mythico-symbolical element. The disciples see Jesus accompanied, +according to the Jewish Messianic expectations, by those +whom the people thought of as His forerunners. He, however, +turns away from them, and Moses and Elias, for whom the disciples +were about to build tabernacles, for them to abide in, disappear. +The mythical element is a reflection of the teaching which Jesus +imparted to them on that occasion, in consequence of which there +dawned on them the spiritual <q>significance of those expectations +and predictions, which they were to recognise as no longer pointing +forward to a future fulfilment, but as already fulfilled.</q> The high +mountain upon which, according to Mark, the event took place is +not to be understood in a literal sense, but as symbolical of the +sublimity of the revelation; it is to be sought not on the map of +Palestine, but in the recesses of the spirit. +</p> + +<pb n='130'/><anchor id='Pg130'/> + +<p> +The most striking case of the formation of myth is the story of +the resurrection. Here, too, myth must have attached itself to an +historical fact. The fact in question is not, however, the empty +grave. This only came into the story later, when the Jews, in +order to counteract the Christian belief in the resurrection, had +spread abroad the report that the body had been stolen from +the grave. In consequence of this report the empty grave had +necessarily to be taken up into the story, the Christian account +now making use of the fact that the body of Jesus was not found +as a proof of His bodily resurrection. The emphasis laid on the +identity of the body which was buried with that which rose again, +of which the Fourth Evangelist makes so much, belongs to a time +when the Church had to oppose the Gnostic conception of a +spiritual, incorporeal immortality. The reaction against Gnosticism +is, as Weisse rightly remarks, one of the most potent factors +in the development of myth in the Gospel history. As an +additional instance of this he might have cited the anti-gnostic +form of the Johannine account of the baptism of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +What, then, is the historical fact in the resurrection? <q>The +historical fact,</q> replies Weisse, <q>is only the existence of a belief—not +the belief of the later Christian Church in the myth of the +bodily resurrection of the Lord—but the personal belief of the +Apostles and their companions in the miraculous presence of +the risen Christ in the visions and appearances which they experienced.</q> +<q>The question whether those extraordinary phenomena +which, soon after the death of the Lord, actually and undeniably +took place within the community of His disciples, rest upon fact +or illusion—that is, whether in them the departed spirit of the +Lord, of whose presence the disciples supposed themselves to be +conscious, was really present, or whether the phenomena were +produced by natural causes of a different kind, spiritual and +psychical, is a question which cannot be answered without going +beyond the confines of purely historical criticism.</q> The only thing +which is certain is <q>that the resurrection of Jesus is a fact which +belongs to the domain of the spiritual and psychic life, and which +is not related to outward corporeal existence in such a way that the +body which was laid in the grave could have shared therein.</q> When +the disciples of Jesus had their first vision of the glorified body of +their Lord, they were far from Jerusalem, far from the grave, and +had no thought of bringing that spiritual corporeity into any kind +of relation with the dead body of the Crucified. That the earliest +appearances took place in Galilee is indicated by the genuine +conclusion of Mark, according to which the angel charges the +women with the message that the disciples were to await Jesus +in Galilee. +</p> + +<p> +Strauss's conception of myth, which failed to give it any point +<pb n='131'/><anchor id='Pg131'/> +of vital connexion with the history, had not provided any escape +from the dilemma offered by the rationalistic and supernaturalistic +views of the resurrection. Weisse prepared a new historical basis +for a solution. He was the first to handle the problem from a +point of view which combined historical with psychological considerations, +and he is fully conscious of the novelty and the far-reaching +consequences of his attempt. Theological science did +not overtake him for sixty years; and though it did not for the +most part share his one-sidedness in recognising only the Galilaean +appearances, that does not count for much, since it was unable to +solve the problem of the double tradition regarding the appearances. +His discussion of the question is, both from the religious and from +the historical point of view, the most satisfying treatment of it +with which we are acquainted; the pompous and circumspect +utterances of the very latest theology in regard to the <q>empty +grave</q> look very poor in comparison. Weisse's psychology +requires only one correction—the insertion into it of the eschatological +premise. +</p> + +<p> +It is not only the admixture of myth, but the whole character +of the Marcan representation, which forbids us to use it without +reserve as a source for the life of Jesus. The inventor of the +Marcan hypothesis never wearies of repeating that even in the +Second Gospel it is only the main outline of the Life of Jesus, not +the way in which the various sections are joined together, which +is historical. He does not, therefore, venture to write a Life of +Jesus, but begins with a <q>General Sketch of the Gospel History</q> +in which he gives the main outlines of the Life of Jesus according +to Mark, and then proceeds to explain the incidents and discourses +in each several Gospel in the order in which they occur.<note place='foot'><p>We subjoin the titles of the divisions of this work, which are of some interest: +</p> +<p> +Vol. i. Book i. The Sources of the Gospel History.<lb/> +Vol. i. Book ii. The Legends of the Childhood.<lb/> +Vol. i. Book iii. General Sketch of the Gospel History.<lb/> +Vol. i. Book iv. The Incidents and Discourses according to Mark.<lb/> +Vol. ii. Book v. The Incidents and Discourses according to Matthew and Luke.<lb/> +Vol. ii. Book vi. The Incidents and Discourses according to John.<lb/> +Vol. ii. Book vii. The Resurrection and the Ascension.<lb/> +Vol. ii. Book viii. Concluding Philosophical Exposition of the Significance of +the Person of Christ and of the Gospel Tradition. +</p></note> +</p> + +<p> +He avoids the professedly historical forced interpretation of +detail, which later representatives of the Marcan hypothesis, Schenkel +in particular, employ in such distressing fashion that Wrede's book, +by making an end of this inquisitorial method of extracting the +Evangelist's testimony, may be said to have released the Marcan +hypothesis from the torture-chamber. Weisse is free from +these over-refinements. He refuses to divide the Galilaean +ministry of Jesus into a period of success and a period of failure +and gradual falling off of adherents, divided by the controversy +<pb n='132'/><anchor id='Pg132'/> +about legal purity in Mark vii.; he does not allow this episode to +counterbalance the general evidence that Jesus' public work was +accompanied by a constantly growing success. Nor does it occur +to him to conceive the sojourn of the Lord in Phoenician territory, +and His journey to the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi, as a +compulsory withdrawal from Galilee, an abandonment of His cause +in that district, and to head the chapter, as was usual in the second +period of the exegesis of Mark, <q>Flights and Retirements.</q> He is +content simply to state that Jesus once visited those regions, and +explicitly remarks that while the Synoptists speak of the Pharisees +and Scribes as working actively against Him, there is nowhere any +hint of a hostile movement on the part of the people, but that, on +the contrary, in spite of the Scribes and Pharisees the people are +always ready to approve Him and take His part; so much so that +His enemies can only hope to get Him into their power by a secret +betrayal. +</p> + +<p> +Weisse does not admit any failure in Jesus' work, nor that death +came upon Him from without as an inevitable necessity. He +cannot, therefore, regard the thought of suffering as forced upon +Jesus by outward events. Later interpreters of Mark have often +held that the essential thing in the Lord's resolve to die was that +by His voluntary acceptance of a fate which was more and +more clearly revealing itself as inevitable, He raised it into the +sphere of ethico-religious freedom: this was not Weisse's view. +Jesus, according to him, was not moved by any outward circumstances +when He set out for Jerusalem in order to die there. He +did it in obedience to a supra-rational higher necessity. We can +at most venture to conjecture that a cessation of His miracle-working +power, of which He had become aware, revealed to Him +that the hour appointed by God had come. He did, in fact, no +further miracle in Jerusalem. +</p> + +<p> +How far Isaiah liii. may have contributed to suggest the conception +of such a death being a necessary part of Messiah's work, +it is impossible to discover. In the popular expectation there was +no thought of the Messiah as suffering. The thought was conceived +by Jesus independently, through His deep and penetrating +spiritual insight. Without any external suggestion whatever He +announces to His disciples that He is to die at Jerusalem, and that +He is going thither with that end in view. He journeyed, not to +the Passover, but to His death. The fact that it took place at the +time of the Feast was, so far as Jesus was concerned, accidental. +The circumstances of His entry were such as to suggest anything +rather than the fulfilment of His predictions; but though the +jubilant multitude surrounded Him day by day, as with a wall of +defence, He did not let that make Him falter in His purpose; +rather He forced the authorities to arrest Him; He preserved silence +<pb n='133'/><anchor id='Pg133'/> +before Pilate with the deliberate purpose of rendering His death +inevitable. The theory of later defenders of the Marcan hypothesis +that Jesus, giving up His cause in Galilee for lost, went up to +Jerusalem to conquer or die, is foreign to Weisse's conception. In +his view, Jesus, breaking off His Galilaean work while the tide of +success was still flowing strongly, journeyed to Jerusalem, in the +scorn of consequence, with the sole purpose of dying there. +</p> + +<p> +It is true there are some premonitions of the later course of +Marcan exegesis. The Second Gospel mentions no Passover +journeys as falling in the course of the public ministry of Jesus; +consequently the most natural conclusion would be that no Passover +journeys fall within that period; that is, that Jesus' ministry +began after one Passover and closed with the next, thus lasting +less than a full year. Weisse thinks, however, that it is impossible +to understand the success of His teaching unless we assume a +ministry of several years, of more than three years, indeed. Mark +does not mention the Feasts simply because Jesus did not go up to +Jerusalem. <q>Intrinsic probability is, in our opinion, so strongly +in favour of a duration of a considerable number of years, that we +are at a loss to explain how it is that at least a few unprejudiced +investigators have not found in this a sufficient reason for departing +from the traditional opinion.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The account of the mission of the Twelve is also, on the +ground of <q>intrinsic probability,</q> explained in a way which is not +in accordance with the plain sense of the words. <q>We do not +think,</q> says Weisse, <q>that it is necessary to understand this in the +sense that He sent all the twelve out at one time, two and two, +remaining alone in the meantime; it is much more natural to +suppose that He only sent them out two at a time, keeping the +others about Him. The object of this mission was less the +immediate spreading abroad of His teaching than the preparation +of the disciples themselves for the independent activity which they +would have to exercise after His death.</q> These are, however, +the only serious liberties which he takes with the statements of +Mark. +</p> + +<p> +When did Jesus begin to think of Himself as the Messiah? +The baptism seems to have marked an epoch in regard to His +Messianic consciousness, but that does not mean that He had not +previously begun to have such thoughts about Himself. In any +case He did not on that occasion arrive all at once at that point +of His inward journey which He had reached at the time of His +first public appearance. We must assume a period of some duration +between the baptism and the beginning of His ministry—a +longer period than we should suppose from the Synoptists—during +which Jesus cast off the Messianic ideas of Judaism and attained +to a spiritual conception of the Messiahship. When He began to +<pb n='134'/><anchor id='Pg134'/> +teach, His <q>development</q> was already closed. Later interpreters +of Mark have generally differed from Weisse in assuming a development +in the thought of Jesus during His public ministry. +</p> + +<p> +His conception of the Messiahship was therefore fully formed +when He began to teach in Capernaum; but He did not allow the +people to see that He held Himself to be the Messiah until His +triumphal entry. It was in order to avoid declaring His Messiahship +that He kept away from Jerusalem. <q>It was only in Galilee and not +in the Jewish capital that an extended period of teaching and work +was possible for Him without being obliged to make an explicit +declaration whether He were the Messiah or no. In Jerusalem +itself the High Priests and Scribes would soon have put this +question to Him in such a way that He could not have avoided +answering it, whereas in Galilee He doubtless on more than one +occasion cut short such attempts to question Him too closely +by the incisiveness of His replies.</q> Like Strauss, Weisse recognises +that the key to the explanation of the Messianic consciousness +of Jesus lies in the self-designation <q>Son of Man.</q> +<q>We are most certainly justified,</q> he says, with almost prophetic +insight, in his <q>Problem of the Gospels,</q> published in 1856, <q>in +regarding the question, what sense the Divine Saviour desired to +attach to this predicate?—what, in fact, He intended to make +known about Himself by using the title Son of Man—as an +essential question for the right understanding of His teaching, and +not of His teaching only, but also of the very heart and inmost +essence of His personality.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But at this point Weisse lets in the cloven hoof of that fatal +method of interpretation, by the aid of which the defenders of the +Marcan hypothesis who succeeded him were to wage war, with a +kind of dull and dogged determination, against eschatology, in the +interests of an original and <q>spiritual</q> conception of the Messiahship +supposed to be held by Jesus. Under the obsession of the +fixed idea that it was their mission to defend the <q>originality</q> of +Jesus by ascribing to Him a modernising transformation and +spiritualisation of the eschatological system of ideas, the defenders +of the Marcan hypothesis have impeded the historical study of the +Life of Jesus to an almost unbelievable extent. +</p> + +<p> +The explanation of the name Son of Man had, Weisse explains, +hitherto oscillated between two extremes. Some had held +the expression to be, even in the mouth of Jesus, equivalent to +<q>man</q> in general, an interpretation which cannot be carried +through; others had connected it with the Son of Man in Daniel, +and supposed that in using the term Jesus was employing a Messianic +title understood by and current among the Jews. But how came +He to employ only this unusual periphrastic name for the Messiah? +Further, if this name were really a Messianic title, how could He +<pb n='135'/><anchor id='Pg135'/> +repeatedly have refused Messianic salutations, and not until the +triumphal entry suffered the people to hail Him as Messiah? +</p> + +<p> +The questions are rightly asked; it is therefore the more pity +that they are wrongly answered. It follows, Weisse says, from the +above considerations that Jesus did not assume an acquaintance on +the part of His hearers with the Old Testament Messianic significance +of the expression. <q>It was therefore incontestably the +intention of Jesus—and any one who considers it unworthy betrays +thereby his own want of insight—that the designation should have +something mysterious about it, something which would compel +His hearers to reflect upon His meaning.</q> The expression Son +of Man was calculated to lead them on to higher conceptions of +His nature and origin, and therefore sums up in itself the whole +spiritualisation of the Messiahship. +</p> + +<p> +Weisse, therefore, passionately rejects any suggestion, however +modest, that Jesus' self-designation, Son of Man, implies any +measure of acceptance of the Jewish apocalyptic system of ideas. +Ewald had furnished forth his Life of Jesus<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit.</hi> (History of Christ and His Times.) By +Heinrich Ewald, Göttingen, 1855, 450 pp.</note> with a wealth of Old +Testament learning, and had made some half-hearted attempts to +show the connexion of Jesus' system of thought with that of post-canonical +Judaism, but without taking the matter seriously and +without having any suspicion of the real character of the eschatology +of Jesus. But even these parade-ground tactics excite Weisse's +indignation; in his book, published in 1856, he reproaches Ewald +with failing to understand his task. +</p> + +<p> +The real duty of criticism is, according to Weisse, to show that +Jesus had no part in those fantastic errors which are falsely attributed +to Him when a literal Jewish interpretation is given to His +great sayings about the future of the Son of Man, and to remove +all the obstacles which seem to have prevented hitherto the +recognition of the novel character and special significance of the +expression, Son of Man, in the mouth of Him who, of His own +free choice, applied this name to Himself. <q>How long will it be,</q> +he cries, <q>before theology at last becomes aware of the deep importance +of its task? Historical criticism, exercised with all the +thoroughness and impartiality which alone can produce a genuine +conviction, must free the Master's own teaching from the imputation +that lies upon it—the imputation of sharing the errors and +false expectations in which, as we cannot deny, owing to imperfect +or mistaken understanding of the suggestions of the Master, the +Apostles, and with them the whole early Christian Church, became +involved.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This fundamental position determines the remainder of Weisse's +views. Jesus cannot have shared the Jewish particularism. He +<pb n='136'/><anchor id='Pg136'/> +did not hold the Law to be binding. It was for this reason that +He did not go up to the Feasts. He distinctly and repeatedly expressed +the conviction that His doctrine was destined for the whole +world. In speaking of the parousia of the Son of Man He was +using a figure—a figure which includes in a mysterious fashion all +His predictions of the future. He did not speak to His disciples +of His resurrection, His ascension, and His parousia as three +distinct acts, since the event to which He looked forward is not +identical with any of the three, but is composed of them all. The +resurrection is, at the same time, the ascension and parousia, and +in the parousia the resurrection and the ascension are also included. +<q>The one conclusion to which we believe we can point with +certainty is that Jesus spoke of the future of His work and His +teaching in a way that implied the consciousness of an influence to +be continued after His death, whether unbrokenly or intermittently, +and the consciousness that by this influence His work and teaching +would be preserved from destruction and the final victory assured +to it.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The personal presence of Jesus which the disciples experienced +after His death was in their view only a partial fulfilment of that +general promise. The parousia appeared to them as still awaiting +fulfilment. Thought of thus, as an isolated event, they could only +conceive it from the Jewish apocalyptic standpoint, and they finally +came to suppose that they had derived these fantastic ideas from +the Master Himself. +</p> + +<p> +In his determined opposition to the recognition of eschatology +in Strauss's first Life of Jesus, Weisse here lays down the lines +which were to be followed by the <q>liberal</q> Lives of Jesus of the +'sixties and following years, which only differ from him, not always +to their advantage, in their more elaborate interpretation of the +detail of Mark. The only work, therefore, which was a conscious +continuation of Strauss's, takes, in spite of its just appreciation of +the character of the sources, a wrong path, led astray by the +mistaken idea of the <q>originality</q> of Jesus, which it exalts into +a canon of historical criticism. Only after long and devious +wanderings did the study of the subject find the right road again. +The whole struggle over eschatology is nothing else than a gradual +elimination of Weisse's ideas. It was only with Johannes Weiss +that theology escaped from the influence of Christian Hermann +Weisse. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='137'/><anchor id='Pg137'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>XI. Bruno Bauer. The First Sceptical Life Of Jesus</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes. (Criticism of the Gospel History +of John.) Bremen, 1840. 435 pp. +</p> + +<p> +Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker. (Criticism of the Gospel +History of the Synoptics.) 3 vols., Leipzig, 1841-1842; vol. i. 416 pp.; vol. ii. +392 pp.; vol. iii. 341 pp. +</p> + +<p> +Kritik der Evangelien. (Criticism of the Gospels.) 2 vols., 1850-1851, Berlin. +</p> + +<p> +Kritik der Apostelgeschichte. (Criticism of Acts.) 1850. +</p> + +<p> +Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe. Berlin, 1850-1852. In three parts. +</p> + +<p> +Philo, Strauss, Renan und das Urchristentum. (P., S., R., and Primitive +Christianity.) Berlin, 1874. 155 pp. +</p> + +<p> +Christus und die Cäsaren. Der Ursprung des Christentums aus dem römischen +Griechentum. (The Origin of Christianity from Graeco-Roman Civilisation.) +Berlin, 1877. 387 pp. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Bruno Bauer was born in 1809 at Eisenberg, in the duchy of +Sachsen-Altenburg. In philosophy, he was at first associated +entirely with the Hegelian <q>right.</q> Like Strauss, he received a +strong impulse from Vatke. At this stage of his development he +reviewed, in 1835 and 1836, Strauss's Life of Jesus in the +<hi rend='italic'>Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik</hi>, and wrote in 1838 a +<q>Criticism of the History of Revelation.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Kritik der Geschichte der Offenbarung.</hi></note> +</p> + +<p> +In 1834 he had become Privat-Docent in Berlin, but in 1839 +he removed to Bonn. He was then in the midst of that intellectual +crisis of which the evidence appeared in his critical works on John +and the Synoptics. In August 1841 the Minister, Eichhorn, +requested the Faculties of the Prussian Universities to report on +the question whether Bauer should be allowed to retain the <foreign rend='italic'>venia +docendi</foreign>. Most of them returned an evasive answer, Königsberg +replied in the affirmative, and Bonn in the negative. In March +1842 Bauer was obliged to cease lecturing, and retired to Rixdorf +near Berlin. In the first heat of his furious indignation over +this treatment he wrote a work with the title <q>Christianity +<pb n='138'/><anchor id='Pg138'/> +Exposed,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Das entdeckte Christentum.</hi> See also <hi rend='italic'>Die gute Sache der Freiheit und meine +eigene Angelegenheit</hi>. (The Good Cause of Freedom, in Connexion with my own +Case.) Zurich, 1843.</note> which, however, was cancelled before publication at +Zurich in 1843. +</p> + +<p> +He then turned his attention to secular history and wrote +on the French Revolution, on Napoleon, on the Illuminism of the +Eighteenth Century, and on the party struggles in Germany during +the years 1842-1846. At the beginning of the 'fifties he returned +to theological subjects, but failed to exercise any influence. His +work was simply ignored. +</p> + +<p> +Radical though he was in spirit, Bauer found himself fighting, +at the end of the 'fifties and beginning of the 'sixties, in the ranks +of the Prussian Conservatives—we are reminded how Strauss in +the Würtemberg Chamber was similarly forced to side with the +reactionaries. He died in 1882. His was a pure, modest, and +lofty character. +</p> + +<p> +At the time of his removal from Berlin to Bonn he was just at +the end of the twenties, that critical age when pupils often +surprise their teachers, when men begin to find themselves and +show what they are, not merely what they have been taught. +</p> + +<p> +In approaching the investigation of the Gospel history, Bauer +saw, as he himself tells us, two ways open to him. He might +take as his starting-point the Jewish Messianic conception, and +endeavour to answer the question how the intuitive prophetic idea +of the Messiah became a fixed reflective conception. That was +the historical method; he chose, however, the other, the literary +method. This starts from the opposite side of the question, from +the end instead of the beginning of the Gospel history. Taking +first the Gospel of John, in which it is obvious that reflective +thought has fitted the life of the Jewish Messiah into the frame +of the Logos conception, he then, starting as it were from the +embouchure of the stream, works his way upwards to the high +ground in which the Gospel tradition takes its rise. The decision +in favour of the latter view determined the character of Bauer's +life-work; it was his task to follow out, to its ultimate consequences, +the literary solution of the problem of the life of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +How far this path would lead him he did not at first suspect. +But he did suspect how strong was the influence upon the formation +of history of a dominant idea which moulds and shapes it with a +definite artistic purpose. His interest was especially arrested by +Philo, who, without knowing or intending it, contributed to the +fulfilment of a higher task than that with which he was immediately +engaged. Bauer's view is that a speculative principle such as +Philo's, when it begins to take possession of men's minds, +influences them in the first glow of enthusiasm which it evokes +<pb n='139'/><anchor id='Pg139'/> +with such overmastering power that the just claims of that which +is actual and historical cannot always secure the attention which +is their due. In Philo's pupil, John, we must look, not for history, +but for art. +</p> + +<p> +The Fourth Gospel is in fact a work of art. This was now +for the first time appreciated by one who was himself an artist. +Schleiermacher, indeed, had at an earlier period taken up the +aesthetic standpoint in considering this Gospel. But he had used +it as an apologist, proceeding to exalt the artistic truth which he +rightly recognised into historic reality, and his critical sense failed +him, precisely because he was an aesthete and an apologist, when +he came to deal with the Fourth Gospel. Now, however, there +comes forward a true artist, who shows that the depth of religious +and intellectual insight which Tholuck and Neander, in opposing +Strauss, had urged on behalf of the Fourth Gospel, is—Christian +art. +</p> + +<p> +In Bauer, however, the aesthete is at the same time a critic. +Although much in the Fourth Gospel is finely <q>felt,</q> like the opening +scenes referring to the Baptist and to Jesus, which Bauer groups +together under the heading <q>The Circle of the Expectant,</q> yet +his art is by no means always perfect. The author who conceived +those discourses, of which the movement consists in a kind of +tautological return upon itself, and who makes the parables trail +out into dragging allegories, is no perfect artist. <q>The parable of +the Good Shepherd,</q> says Bauer, <q>is neither simple, nor natural, +nor a true parable, but a metaphor, which is, nevertheless, much +too elaborate for a metaphor, is not clearly conceived, and, finally, +in places shows much too clearly the skeleton of reflection over +which it is stretched.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Bauer treats, in his work of 1840,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes.</hi></note> the Fourth Gospel only. +The Synoptics he deals with only in a quite incidental fashion, +<q>as opposing armies make demonstrations in order to provoke the +enemy to a decisive conflict.</q> +</p> + +<p> +He breaks off at the beginning of the story of the passion, +because here it would be necessary to bring in the Synoptic +parallels. <q>From the distant heights on which the Synoptic forces +have taken up a menacing position, we must now draw them down +into the plain; now comes the pitched battle between them and +the Fourth Gospel, and the question regarding the historical character +of that which we have found to be the ultimate basis of the +last Gospel, can now at length be decided.</q> +</p> + +<p> +If, in the Gospel of John, no smallest particle could be found +which was unaffected by the creative reflection of the author, how +will it stand with the Synoptists? +</p> + +<p> +When Bauer broke off his work upon John in this abrupt way—for +<pb n='140'/><anchor id='Pg140'/> +he had not originally intended to conclude it at this point—how +far did he still retain a belief in the historical character of the +Synoptics? It looks as if he had intended to treat then as the +solid foundation, in contrast with the fantastic structure raised +upon it by the Fourth Gospel. But when he began to use his pick +upon the rock, it crumbled away. Instead of a difference of kind +he found only a difference of degree. The <q>Criticism of the +Gospel History of the Synoptists</q> of 1841 is built on the site which +Strauss had levelled. <q>The abiding influence of Strauss,</q> says +Bauer, <q>consists in the fact that he has removed from the path of +subsequent criticism the danger and trouble of a collision with the +earlier orthodox system.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Bauer finds his material laid ready to his hand by Weisse +and Wilke. Weisse had divined in Mark the source from which +criticism—becoming barren in the work of Strauss—might draw a +new spring of vigorous life; and Wilke, whom Bauer places above +Weisse, had raised this happy conjecture to the level of a +scientifically assured result. The Marcan hypothesis was no +longer on its trial. +</p> + +<p> +But its bearing upon the history of Jesus had still to be +determined. What position do Weisse and Wilke take up +towards the hypothesis of a tradition lying behind the Gospel +of Mark? If it be once admitted that the whole Gospel tradition, +so far as concerns its plan, goes back to a single writer, who +has created the connexion between the different events—for +neither Weisse nor Wilke regards the connexion of the sections +as historical—does not the possibility naturally suggest itself that +the narrative of the events themselves, not merely the connexion in +which they appear in Mark, is to be set down to the account of +the author of the Gospel? Weisse and Wilke had not suspected +how great a danger arises when, of the three witnesses who +represent the tradition, only one is allowed to stand, and the +tradition is recognised and allowed to exist in this one written +form only. The triple embankment held; will a single one +bear the strain? +</p> + +<p> +The following considerations have to be taken into account. +The criticism of the Fourth Gospel compels us to recognise that +a Gospel <emph>may</emph> have a purely literary origin. This discovery +dawned upon Bauer at a time when he was still disinclined to +accept Wilke's conclusions regarding Mark. But when he had +recognised the truth of the latter he felt compelled by the +combination of the two to accept the idea that Mark also might +be of purely literary origin. For Weisse and Wilke the Marcan +hypothesis had not implied this result, because they continued +to combine with it the wider hypothesis of a general tradition, +holding that Matthew and Luke used the collection of <q>Logia,</q> +<pb n='141'/><anchor id='Pg141'/> +and also owed part of their supplementary matter to a free +use of floating tradition, so that Mark, it might almost be said, +merely supplied them with the formative principle by means of +which they might order their material. +</p> + +<p> +But what if Papias's statement about the collection of <q>Logia</q> +were worthless, and could be shown to be so by the literary data? +In that case Matthew and Luke would be purely literary expansions +of Mark, and like him, purely literary inventions. +</p> + +<p> +In this connexion Bauer attaches decisive importance to +the phenomena of the birth-stories. If these had been derived +from tradition they could not differ from each other as they +do. If it is suggested that tradition had produced a large number +of independent, though mutually consistent, stories of the childhood, +out of which the Evangelists composed their opening narratives, +this also is found to be untenable, for these narratives are +not composite structures. The separate stories of which each +of these two histories of the childhood consists could not have +been formed independently of one another; none of them existed +by itself; each points to the others and is informed by a view +which implies the whole. The histories of the childhood are +therefore not literary versions of a tradition, but literary inventions. +</p> + +<p> +If we go on to examine the discourse and narrative material, +additional to that of Mark, which is found in Matthew and +Luke, a similar result appears. The same standpoint is regulative +throughout, showing that the additions do not consist of oral +or written traditional material which has been worked into the +Marcan plan, but of a literary development of certain fundamental +ideas and suggestions found in the first author. These developments, +as is shown by the accounts of the Sermon on the Mount +and the charge to the Twelve, are not carried as far in Luke +as in Matthew. The additional material in the latter seems +indeed to be worked up from suggestions in the former. Luke +thus forms the transition stage between Mark and Matthew. +The Marcan hypothesis, accordingly, now takes on the following +form. Our knowledge of the Gospel history does not rest upon +any basis of tradition, but only upon three literary works. Two +of these are not independent, being merely expansions of the +first, and the third, Matthew, is also dependent upon the second. +Consequently there is no tradition of the Gospel history, but only +a single <emph>literary source</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +But, if so, who is to assure us that this Gospel history, with +its assertion of the Messiahship of Jesus, was already a matter +of common knowledge before it was fixed in writing, and did +not first become known in a literary form? In the latter case, +one man would have created out of general ideas the definite +historical tradition in which these ideas are embodied. +<pb n='142'/><anchor id='Pg142'/> +The only thing that could be set against this literary +possibility, as a historical counter-possibility, would be a proof +that at the period when the Gospel history is supposed to take +place a Messianic expectation really existed among the Jews, so +that a man who claimed to be the Messiah and was recognised +as such, as Mark represents Jesus to have been, would be +historically conceivable. This presupposition had hitherto been +unanimously accepted by all writers, no matter how much opposed +in other respects. They were all satisfied <q>that before the appearance +of Jesus the expectation of a Messiah prevailed among +the Jews</q>; and were even able to explain its precise character. +</p> + +<p> +But where—apart from the Gospels—did they get their +information from? Where is the documentary evidence of the +Jewish Messianic doctrine on which that of the Gospels is +supposed to be based? Daniel was the last of the prophets. +Everything tends to suggest that the mysterious content of his +work remained without influence in the subsequent period. +Jewish literature ends with the Wisdom writings, in which there +is no mention of a Messiah. In the LXX there is no attempt +to translate in accordance with a preconceived picture of the +Messiah. In the Apocalypses, which are of small importance, +there is reference to a Messianic Kingdom; the Messiah Himself, +however, plays a quite subordinate part, and is, indeed, scarcely +mentioned. For Philo He has no existence; the Alexandrian +does not dream of connecting Him with his Logos speculation. +There remain, therefore, as witnesses for the Jewish Messianic +expectations in the time of Tiberius, only Mark and his imitators. +This evidence, however, is of such a character that in certain +points it contradicts itself. +</p> + +<p> +In the first place, if at the time when the Christian community +was forming its view of history and the religious ideas which we +find in the Gospels, the Jews had already possessed a doctrine +of the Messiah, there would have been already a fixed type of +interpretation of the Messianic passages in the Old Testament, +and it would have been impossible for the same passages to be +interpreted in a totally different way, as referring to Jesus and +His work, as we find them interpreted in the New Testament. +Next, consider the representation of the Baptist's work. We +should have expected him to connect his baptism with the +preaching of <q>Him who was to come</q>—if this were really the +Messiah—by baptizing in the name of this <q>Coming One.</q> He, +however, keeps them separate, baptizing in preparation for the +Kingdom, though referring in his discourses to <q>Him who was +to come.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The earliest Evangelist did not venture openly to carry back +into the history the idea that Jesus had claimed to be the +<pb n='143'/><anchor id='Pg143'/> +Messiah, because he was aware that in the time of Jesus no +general expectation of the Messiah had prevailed among the +people. When the disciples in Mark viii. 28 report the opinions +of the people concerning Jesus they cannot mention any who +hold Him to be the Messiah. Peter is the first to attain to the +recognition of His Messiahship. But as soon as the confession +is made the Evangelist makes Jesus forbid His disciples to tell +the people who He is. Why is the attribution of the Messiahship +to Jesus made in this surreptitious and inconsistent way? It +is because the writer who gave the history its form well knew +that no one had ever come forward publicly on Palestinian soil +to claim the Messiahship, or had been recognised by the people +as Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +The <q>reflective conception of the Messiah</q> was not, therefore, +taken over ready-made from Judaism; that dogma first arose +along with the Christian community, or rather the moment in +which it arose was the same in which the Christian community +had its birth. +</p> + +<p> +Moreover, how unhistorical, even on a priori grounds, is the +mechanical way in which Jesus at this first appearance at once +sets Himself up as the Messiah and says, <q>Behold I am He whom +ye have expected.</q> In essence, Bauer thinks, there is not so much +difference between Strauss and Hengstenberg. For Hengstenberg +the whole life of Jesus is the living embodiment of the Old Testament +picture of the Messiah; Strauss, a less reverent counterpart +of Hengstenberg, made the image of the Messiah into a mask which +Jesus Himself was obliged to assume, and which legend afterwards +substituted for His real features. +</p> + +<p> +<q>We save the honour of Jesus,</q> says Bauer, <q>when we restore +His Person to life from the state of inanition to which the apologists +have reduced it, and give it once more a living relation to history, +which it certainly possessed—that can no longer be denied. If a +conception was to become dominant which should unite heaven and +earth, God and man, nothing more and nothing less was necessary +as a preliminary condition, than that a Man should appear, the +very essence of whose consciousness should be the reconciliation +of these antitheses, and who should manifest this consciousness to +the world, and lead the religious mind to the sole point from which +its difficulties can be solved. Jesus accomplished this mighty +work, but not by prematurely pointing to His own Person. Instead +He gradually made known to the people the thoughts which filled +and entered into the very essence of His mind. It was only in this +indirect way that His Person—which He freely offered up in the +cause of His historical vocation and of the idea for which He lived—continued +to live on in so far as this idea was accepted. When, +in the belief of His followers, He rose again and lived on in the +<pb n='144'/><anchor id='Pg144'/> +Christian community, it was as the Son of God who had overcome +and reconciled the great antithesis. He was that in which alone +the religious consciousness found rest and peace, apart from which +there was nothing firm, trustworthy, and enduring.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>It was only now that the vague, ill-defined, prophetic representations +were focused into a point; were not only fulfilled, but +were also united together by a common bond which strengthened +and gave greater value to each of them. With His appearance +and the rise of belief in Him, a clear conception, a definite mental +picture of the Messiah became possible; and thus it was that a +Christology<note place='foot'>Here and elsewhere Bauer seems to use <q>Christologie</q> in the sense of +Messianic doctrine, rather than in the more general sense which is usual in theology.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></note> first arose.</q> +</p> + +<p> +While, therefore, at the close of Bauer's first work it might have +seemed that it was only the Gospel of John which he held to be a +literary creation, here the same thing is said of the original Gospel. +The only difference is that we find more primitive reflection in +the Synoptics, and later work in the representation given by the +Fourth Evangelist; the former is of a more practical character, the +latter more dogmatic. +</p> + +<p> +Nevertheless it is false to assert that according to Bauer the +earliest Evangelist invented the Gospel history and the personality +of Jesus. That is to carry back the ideas of a later period and +a further stage of development into the original form of his view. +At the moment when, having disposed of preliminaries, he enters +on his investigation, he still assumes that a great, a unique +Personality, who so impressed men by His character that it lived on +among them in an ideal form, had awakened into life the Messianic +idea; and that what the original Evangelist really did was to +portray the life of this Jesus—the Christ of the community which +He founded—in accordance with the Messianic view of Him, just +as the Fourth Evangelist portrayed it in accordance with the +presupposition that Jesus was the revealer of the Logos. It was +only in the course of his investigations that Bauer's opinion became +more radical. As he goes on, his writing becomes ill-tempered, and +takes the form of controversial dialogues with <q>the theologians,</q> +whom he apostrophises in a biting and injurious fashion, and whom +he continually reproaches with not daring, owing to their apologetic +prejudices, to see things as they really are, and with declining to +face the ultimate results of criticism from fear that the tradition +might suffer more loss of historic value than religion could bear. +In spite of this hatred of the theologians, which is pathological in +character, like his meaningless punctuation, his critical analyses +are always exceedingly acute. One has the impression of walking +alongside a man who is reasoning quite intelligently, but who talks +<pb n='145'/><anchor id='Pg145'/> +to himself as though possessed by a fixed idea. What if the whole +thing should turn out to be nothing but a literary invention—not +only the incidents and discourses, but even the Personality which +is assumed as the starting-point of the whole movement? What +if the Gospel history were only a late imaginary embodiment of +a set of exalted ideas, and these were the only historical reality +from first to last? This is the idea which obsesses his mind more +and more completely, and moves him to contemptuous laughter. +What, he mocks, will these apologists, who are so sure of everything, +do then with the shreds and tatters which will be all that +is left to them? +</p> + +<p> +But at the outset of his investigations Bauer was far from +holding such views. His purpose was really only to continue the +work of Strauss. The conception of myth and legend of which +the latter made use is, Bauer thinks, much too vague to explain +this deliberate <q>transformation</q> of a personality. In the place +of myth Bauer therefore sets <q>reflection.</q> The life which pulses +in the Gospel history is too vigorous to be explained as created by +legend; it is real <q>experience,</q> only not the experience of Jesus, +but of the Church. The representation of this experience of the +Church in the Life of a Person is not the work of a number of +persons, but of a single author. It is in this twofold aspect—as +the composition of one man, embodying the experience of many—that +the Gospel history is to be regarded. As religious art it has +a profound truth. When it is regarded from this point of view +the difficulties which are encountered in the endeavour to conceive +it as real immediately disappear. +</p> + +<p> +We must take as our point of departure the belief in the +sacrificial death and the resurrection of Jesus. Everything else +attaches itself to this as to its centre. When the need arose to fix +definitely the beginning of the manifestation of Jesus as the +Saviour—to determine the point of time at which the Lord issued +forth from obscurity—it was natural to connect this with the work +of the Baptist; and Jesus comes to his baptism. While this is +sufficient for the earliest Evangelist, Matthew and Luke feel it to +be necessary, in view of the important consequences involved in +the connexion of Jesus with the Baptist, to bring them into relation +once more by means of the question addressed by the Baptist to +Jesus, although this addition is quite inconsistent with the assumptions +of the earliest Evangelist. If he had conceived the story of +the baptism with the idea of introducing the Baptist again on a +later occasion, and this time, moreover, as a doubter, he would have +given it a different form. This is a just observation of Bauer's; +the story of the baptism with the miracle which took place at it, +and the Baptist's question, understood as implying a doubt of the +Messiahship of Jesus, mutually exclude one another. +</p> + +<pb n='146'/><anchor id='Pg146'/> + +<p> +The story of the temptation embodies an experience of the +early Church. This narrative represents her inner conflicts under +the form of a conflict of the Redeemer. On her march through +the wilderness of this world she has to fight with temptations of +the devil, and in the story composed by Mark and Luke, and +artistically finished by Matthew, she records a vow to build only on +the inner strength of her constitutive principle. In the sermon on +the mount also, Matthew has carried out with greater completeness +that which was more vaguely conceived by Luke. It is only when +we understand the words of Jesus as embodying experiences of the +early Church that their deeper sense becomes clear and what would +otherwise seem offensive disappears. The saying, <q>Let the dead +bury their dead,</q> would not have been fitting for Jesus to speak, +and had He been a real man, it could never have entered into His +mind to create so unreal and cruel a collision of duties; for no +command, Divine or human, could have sufficed to make it right +for a man to contravene the ethical obligations of family life. So +here again, the obvious conclusion is that the saying originated in +the early Church, and was intended to inculcate renunciation of +a world which was felt to belong to the kingdom of the dead, and +to illustrate this by an extreme example. +</p> + +<p> +The mission of the Twelve, too, is, as an historical occurrence, +simply inconceivable. It would have been different if Jesus had +given them a definite teaching, or form of belief, or positive +conception of any kind, to take with them as their message. But +how ill the charge to the Twelve fulfils its purpose as a discourse +of instruction! What the disciples needed to learn, namely, what +and how they were to teach, they are not told; and the discourse +which Matthew has composed, working on the basis of Luke, +implies quite a different set of circumstances. It is concerned with +the struggles of the Church with the world and the sufferings which +it must endure. This is the explanation of the references to suffering +which constantly recur in the discourses of Jesus, in spite of the +fact that His disciples were not enduring any sufferings, and that +the Evangelist cannot even make it conceivable as a possibility +that those before whose eyes Jesus holds up the way of the Cross +could ever come into such a position. The Twelve, at any rate, +had no sufferings to encounter during their mission, and if they +were merely being sent by Jesus into the surrounding districts they +were not very likely to meet with kings and rulers there. +</p> + +<p> +That it is a case of invented history is also shown by the fact +that nothing is said about the doings of the disciples, and they seem +to come back again immediately, though the earliest Evangelist, it +is true, to prevent this from being too apparent, inserts at this point +the story of the execution of the Baptist. +</p> + +<p> +All this is just and acute criticism. The charge to the Twelve +<pb n='147'/><anchor id='Pg147'/> +is not a discourse of instruction. What Jesus there sets before the +disciples they could not at that time have understood, and the +promises which He makes to them are not appropriate to their +circumstances. +</p> + +<p> +Many of the discourses are mere bundles of heterogeneous +sayings, though this is not so much the case in Mark as in the +others. He has not forgotten that effective polemic consists of +short, pointed, incisive arguments. The others, as advanced +theologians, are of opinion that it is fitting to indulge in arguments +which have nothing to do with the matter in hand, or only the +most distant connexion with it. They form the transition to the +discourses of the Fourth Gospel, which usually degenerate into an +aimless wrangle. In the same connexion it is rightly observed that +the discourses of Jesus do not advance from point to point by the +logical development of an idea, the thoughts are merely strung +together one after another, the only connexion, if connexion there +is, being due to a kind of conventional mould in which the +discourse is cast. +</p> + +<p> +The parables, Bauer continues, present difficulties no less great. +It is an ineptitude on the part of the apologists to suggest that +the parables are intended to make things clear. Jesus Himself +contradicts this view by saying bluntly and unambiguously to His +disciples that to them it was given to know the mysteries of the +Kingdom of God, but to the people all His teaching must be +spoken as parables, that <q>seeing they might see and not perceive, +and hearing they might hear and not understand.</q> The parables +were therefore intended only to exercise the intelligence of the +disciples; and so far from being understood by the people, mystified +and repelled them; as if it would not have been much better to +exercise the minds of the disciples in this way when He was alone +with them. The disciples, however, do not even understand the +simple parable of the Sower, but need to have it interpreted to +them, so that the Evangelist once more stultifies his own theory. +</p> + +<p> +Bruno Bauer is right in his observation that the parables offer +a serious problem, seeing that they were intended to conceal and +not to make plain, and that Jesus nevertheless taught only in +parables. The character of the difficulty, however, is such that +even literary criticism has no explanation ready. Bruno Bauer +admits that he does not know what was in the mind of the +Evangelist when he composed these parables, and thinks that he +had no very definite purpose, or at least that the suggestions which +were floating in his mind were not worked up into a clearly ordered +whole. +</p> + +<p> +Here, therefore, Bauer's method broke down. He did not, +however, allow this to shake his confidence in his reading of the +facts, and he continued to maintain it in the face of a new difficulty +<pb n='148'/><anchor id='Pg148'/> +which he himself brought clearly to light. Mark, according to him, +is an artistic unity, the offspring of a single mind. How then is it +to be explained that in addition to other less important doublets +it contains two accounts of the feeding of the multitude? Here +Bauer has recourse to the aid of Wilke, who distinguishes our +Mark from an Ur-Markus,<note place='foot'>We retain the German phrase, which has naturalised itself in Synoptic criticism +as the designation of an assumed primary gospel lying behind the canonical Mark.</note> and ascribes these doublets to later +interpolation. Later on he became more and more doubtful about +the artistic unity of Mark, despite the fact that this was the +fundamental assumption of his theory, and in the second edition of +his <q>Criticism of the Gospels,</q> of 1851, he carried through the +distinction between the canonical Mark and the Ur-Markus. +</p> + +<p> +But even supposing the assumption of a redaction were justified, +how could the redactor have conceived the idea of adding to the +first account of the feeding of the multitude a second which is +identical with it almost to the very wording? In any case, on what +principle can Mark be distinguished from Ur-Markus? There are +no fundamental differences to afford a ready criterion. The +distinction is purely one of subjective feeling, that is to say, it is +arbitrary. As soon as Bauer admits that the artistic unity of Mark, +on which he lays so much stress, has been tampered with, he +cannot maintain his position except by shutting his eyes to the fact +that it can only be a question of the weaving in of fragments of +tradition, not of the inventions of an imitator. But if he once +admits the presence of traditional materials, his whole theory of the +earliest Evangelist's having created the Gospel falls to the ground. +</p> + +<p> +For the moment he succeeds in laying the spectre again, and +continues to think of Mark as a work of art, in which the +interpolation alters nothing. +</p> + +<p> +Bauer discusses with great thoroughness those sayings of Jesus +in which He forbids those whom He had healed to noise abroad +their cure. In the form in which they appear these cannot, he +argues, be historical, for Jesus imposes this prohibition in some +cases where it is quite meaningless, since the healing had taken +place in the presence of a multitude. It must therefore be derived +from the Evangelist. Only when it is recognised as a free creation +can its meaning be discerned. It finds its explanation in the inconsistent +views regarding miracle which were held side by side in +the early Church. No doubt was felt that Jesus had performed +miracles, and by these miracles had given evidence of His Divine +mission. On the other hand, by the introduction of the Christian +principle, the Jewish demand for a sign had been so far limited, +and the other, the spiritual line of evidence, had become so +important, or at least so indispensable, that it was no longer possible +to build on the miracles only, or to regard Jesus merely as a +<pb n='149'/><anchor id='Pg149'/> +wonder-worker; so in some way or other the importance ascribed +to miracle must be reduced. In the graphic symbolism of the +Gospel history this antithesis takes the form that Jesus did miracles—there +was no getting away from that—but on the other hand +Himself declared that He did not wish to lay any stress upon such +acts. As there are times when miracles must hide their light under +a bushel, Jesus, on occasion, forbids that they should be made +known. The other Synoptists no longer understood this theory of +the first Evangelist, and introduced the prohibition in passages +where it was absurd. +</p> + +<p> +The way in which Jesus makes known His Messiahship is based +on another theory of the original Evangelist. The order of Mark +can give us no information regarding the chronology of the life of +Jesus, since this Gospel is anything rather than a chronicle. We +cannot even assert that there is a deliberate logic in the way in +which the sections are connected. But there is one fundamental +principle of arrangement which comes quite clearly to light, viz. +that it was only at Caesarea Philippi, in the closing period of His +life, that Jesus made Himself known as the Messiah, and that, +therefore, He was not previously held to be so either by His +disciples or by the people. This is clearly shown in the answers of +the disciples when Jesus asked them whom men took Him to be. +The implied course of events, however, is determined by art, not +history—as history it would be inconceivable. +</p> + +<p> +Could there indeed be a more absurd impossibility? <q>Jesus,</q> +says Bauer, <q>must perform these innumerable, these astounding +miracles because, according to the view which the Gospels represent, +He is the Messiah; He must perform them in order to prove Himself +to be the Messiah—and yet no one recognises Him as the +Messiah! That is the greatest miracle of all, that the people had +not long ago recognised the Messiah in this wonder-worker. Jesus +could only be held to be the Messiah in consequence of doing +miracles; but He only began to do miracles when, in the faith of +the early Church, He rose from the dead as Messiah, and the facts +that He rose as Messiah and that He did miracles, are one and the +same fact.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Mark, however, represents a Jesus who does miracles and who +nevertheless does not thereby reveal Himself to be the Messiah. +He was obliged so to represent Him, because he was conscious that +Jesus was not recognised and acknowledged as Messiah by the +people, nor even by His immediate followers, in the unhesitating +fashion in which those of later times imagined Him to have been +recognised. Mark's conception and representation of the matter +carried back into the past the later developments by which there +finally arose a Christian community for which Jesus had become +the Messiah. <q>Mark is also influenced by an artistic instinct which +<pb n='150'/><anchor id='Pg150'/> +leads him to develop the main interest, the origin of the faith, +gradually. It is only after the ministry of Jesus has extended over +a considerable period, and is, indeed, drawing towards its close, +that faith arises in the circle of the disciples; and it is only later +still, when, in the person of the blind man at Jericho, a prototype +of the great company of believers that was to be has hailed the +Lord with a Messianic salutation, that, at the triumphal entry into +Jerusalem, the faith of the people suddenly ripens and finds +expression.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is true, this artistic design is completely marred when Jesus +does miracles which must have made Him known to every child as +the Messiah. We cannot, therefore, blame Matthew very much if, +while he retains this plan in its external outlines in a kind of +mechanical way, he contradicts it somewhat awkwardly by making +Jesus at an earlier point clearly designate Himself as Messiah and +many recognise Him as such. And the Fourth Evangelist cannot +be said to be destroying any very wonderful work of art when he +gives the impression that from the very first any one who wished +could recognise Jesus as the Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +Mark himself does not keep strictly to his own plan. He +makes Jesus forbid His disciples to make known His Messiahship; +how then does the multitude at Jerusalem recognise it so suddenly, +after a single miracle which they had not even witnessed, and +which was in no way different from others which He had done +before? If that <q>chance multitude</q> in Jerusalem was capable +of such sudden enlightenment it must have fallen from heaven! +</p> + +<p> +The following remarks of Bauer, too, are nothing less than +classical. The incident at Caesarea Philippi is the central fact +of the Gospel history; it gives us a fixed point from which to group +and criticise the other statements of the Gospel. At the same +time it introduces a complication into the plan of the life of Jesus, +because it necessitates the carrying through of the theory—often +in the face of the text—that previously Jesus had never been +regarded as the Messiah; and lays upon us the necessity of showing +not only how Peter had come to recognise His Messiahship, but +also how He subsequently became Messiah for the multitude—if +indeed He ever did become Messiah for them. But the very +fact that it does introduce this complication is in itself a proof +that in this scene at Caesarea Philippi we have the one ray of +light which history sheds upon the life of Jesus. It is impossible +to explain how any one could come to reject the simple and natural +idea that Jesus claimed from the first to be the Messiah, if that +had been the fact, and accept this complicated representation in +its place. The latter, therefore, must be the original version. In +pointing this out, Bauer gave for the first time the real proof, from +internal evidence, of the priority of Mark. +</p> + +<pb n='151'/><anchor id='Pg151'/> + +<p> +The difficulty involved in the conception of miracle as a proof +of the Messiahship of Jesus is another discovery of Bauer's. Only +here, instead of probing the question to the bottom, he stops half-way. +How do we know, he should have gone on to ask, that the +Messiah was expected to appear as an earthly wonder-worker? +There is nothing to that effect in Jewish writings. And do not +the Gospels themselves prove that any one might do miracles +without suggesting to a single person the idea that he might be +the Messiah? Accordingly the only inference to be drawn from +the Marcan representation is that miracles were not among the +characteristic marks of the Messiah, and that it was only later, in +the Christian community, which made Jesus the miracle-worker +into Jesus the Messiah, that this connexion between miracles and +Messiahship was established. In dealing with the question of +the triumphal entry, too, Bauer halts half-way. Where do we +read that Jesus was hailed as Messiah upon that occasion? If +He had been taken by the people to be the Messiah, the controversy +in Jerusalem must have turned on this personal question; +but it did not even touch upon it, and the Sanhedrin never thinks +of setting up witnesses to Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. When +once Bauer had exposed the historical and literary impossibility +of Jesus' being hailed by the people as Messiah, he ought to have +gone on to draw the conclusion that Jesus did not, according to +Mark, make a Messianic entry into Jerusalem. +</p> + +<p> +It was, however, a remarkable achievement on Bauer's part +to have thus set forth clearly the historical difficulties of the life +of Jesus. One might suppose that between the work of Strauss +and that of Bauer there lay not five, but fifty years—the critical +work of a whole generation. +</p> + +<p> +The stereotyped character of the thrice-repeated prediction +of the passion, which, according to Bauer, betrays a certain poverty +and feebleness of imagination on the part of the earliest Evangelist, +shows clearly, he thinks, the unhistorical character of the utterance +recorded. The fact that the prediction occurs three times, its +definiteness increasing upon each occasion, proves its literary origin. +</p> + +<p> +It is the same with the transfiguration. The group in which +the heroic representatives of the Law and the Prophets stand as +supporters of the Saviour, was modelled by the earliest Evangelist. +In order to place it in the proper light and to give becoming +splendour to its great subject, he has introduced a number of traits +taken from the story of Moses. +</p> + +<p> +Bauer pitilessly exposes the difficulties of the journey of Jesus +from Galilee to Jerusalem, and exults over the perplexities of the +<q>apologists.</q> <q>The theologian,</q> he says, <q>must not boggle at +this journey, he must just believe it. He must in faith follow the +footsteps of his Lord! Through the midst of Galilee and Samaria—and +<pb n='152'/><anchor id='Pg152'/> +at the same time, for Matthew also claims a hearing, through +Judaea on the farther side of Jordan! I wish him <foreign rend='italic'>Bon voyage</foreign>!</q> +</p> + +<p> +The eschatological discourses are not history, but are merely +an expansion of those explanations of the sufferings of the Church +of which we have had a previous example in the charge to the +Twelve. An Evangelist who wrote before the destruction of +Jerusalem would have referred to the Temple, to Jerusalem, and +to the Jewish people, in a very different way. +</p> + +<p> +The story of Lazarus deserves special attention. Did not +Spinoza say that he would break his system in pieces if he could +be convinced of the reality of this event? This is the decisive +point for the question of the relation between the Synoptists and +John. Vain are all the efforts of the apologists to explain why +the Synoptists do not mention this miracle. The reason they +ignore it is that it originated after their time in the mind of the +Fourth Evangelist, and they were unacquainted with his Gospel. +And yet it is the most valuable of all, because it shows clearly +the concentric circles of progressive intensification by which the +development of the Gospel history proceeds. <q>The Fourth Gospel,</q> +remarks Bauer, <q>represents a dead man as having been restored +to life after having been four days under the power of death, and +having consequently become a prey to corruption; Luke represents +the young man at Nain as being restored to life when his body +was being carried to the grave; Mark, the earliest Evangelist, can +only tell us of the restoration of a dead person who had the +moment before succumbed to an illness. The theologians have +a great deal to say about the contrast between the canonical and +the apocryphal writings, but they might have found a similar +contrast even within the four Gospels, if the light had not been so +directly in their eyes.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The treachery of Judas, as described in the Gospels, is inexplicable. +</p> + +<p> +The Lord's Supper, considered as an historic scene, is revolting +and inconceivable. Jesus can no more have instituted it than He +can have uttered the saying, <q>Let the dead bury their dead.</q> In +both cases the objectionableness arises from the fact that a tenet +of the early Church has been cast into the form of an historical +saying of Jesus. A man who was present in person, corporeally +present, could not entertain the idea of offering others his flesh +and blood to eat. To demand from others that they should, while +he was actually present, imagine the bread and wine which they +were eating to be his body and blood, would be for an actual man +wholly impossible. It was only when Jesus' actual bodily presence +had been removed, and only when the Christian community had +existed for some time, that such a conception as is expressed in +that formula could have arisen. A point which clearly betrays the +<pb n='153'/><anchor id='Pg153'/> +later composition of the narrative is that the Lord does not turn +to the disciples sitting with Him at table and say, <q>This is my +blood which is shed for you,</q> but, since the words were invented +by the early Church, speaks of the <q>many</q> for whom He gives +Himself. The only historical fact is that the Jewish Passover was +gradually transformed by the Christian community into a feast +which had reference to Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +As regards the scene in Gethsemane, Mark, according to Bauer, +held it necessary that in the moment when the last conflict and +final catastrophe were coming upon Jesus, He should show clearly +by His actions that He met this fate of His own free will. The +reality of His choice could only be made clear by showing Him +first engaged in an inner struggle against the acceptance of His +vocation, before showing how He freely submitted to His fate. +</p> + +<p> +The last words ascribed to Jesus by Mark, <q>My God, my God, +why hast Thou forsaken me?</q> were written without thinking of the +inferences that might be drawn from them, merely with the purpose +of showing that even to the last moment of His passion Jesus +fulfilled the rôle of the Messiah, the picture of whose sufferings had +been revealed to the Psalmist so long beforehand by the Holy Spirit. +</p> + +<p> +It is scarcely necessary now, Bauer thinks, to go into the +contradictions in the story of the resurrection, for <q>the doughty +Reimarus, with his thorough-going honesty, has already fully +exposed them, and no one has refuted him.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The results of Bauer's analysis may be summed up as follows:— +</p> + +<p> +The Fourth Evangelist has betrayed the secret of the original +Gospel, namely, that it too can be explained on purely literary +grounds. Mark has <q>loosed us from the theological lie.</q> <q>Thanks +to the kindly fate,</q> cries Bauer, <q>which has preserved to us this +writing of Mark by which we have been delivered from the web of +deceit of this hellish pseudo-science!</q> +</p> + +<p> +In order to tear this web of falsehood the critic and historian +must, despite his repugnance, once more take up the pretended +arguments of the theologians in favour of the historicity of the +Gospel narratives and set them on their feet, only to knock them +down again. In the end Bauer's only feeling towards the theologians +was one of contempt. <q>The expression of his contempt,</q> +he declares, <q>is the last weapon which the critic, after refuting the +arguments of the theologians, has at his disposal for their discomfiture; +it is his right to use it; that puts the finishing touch upon +his task and points forward to the happy time when the arguments +of the theologians shall no more be heard of.</q> +</p> + +<p> +These outbreaks of bitterness are to be explained by the feeling +of repulsion which German apologetic theology inspired in every +genuinely honest and thoughtful man by the methods which it +adopted in opposing Strauss. Hence the fiendish joy with which +<pb n='154'/><anchor id='Pg154'/> +he snatches away the crutches of this pseudo-science, hurls them to +a distance, and makes merry over its helplessness. A furious hatred, +a fierce desire to strip the theologians absolutely bare, carried Bauer +much farther than his critical acumen would have led him in cold +blood. +</p> + +<p> +Bauer hated the theologians for still holding fast to the +barbarous conception that a great man had forced himself into a +stereotyped and unspiritual system, and in that way had set in +motion great ideas, whereas he held that that would have signified +the death of both the personality and the ideas; but this hatred is +only the surface symptom of another hatred, which goes deeper +than theology, going down, indeed, to the very depths of the +Christian conception of the world. Bruno Bauer hates not only the +theologians, but Christianity, and hates it because it expresses a +truth in a wrong way. It is a religion which has become petrified +in a transitional form. A religion which ought to have led on to +the true religion has usurped the place of the true religion, and in +this petrified form it holds prisoner all the real forces of religion. +</p> + +<p> +Religion is the victory over the world of the self-conscious ego. +It is only when the ego grasps itself in its antithesis to the world as +a whole, and is no longer content to play the part of a mere <q>walking +gentleman</q> in the world-drama, but faces the world with independence +and reserve, that the necessary conditions of universal religion +are present. These conditions came into being with the rise of the +Roman Empire, in which the individual suddenly found himself +helpless and unarmed in face of a world in which he could no +longer find free play for his activities, but must stand prepared at +any moment to be ground to powder by it. +</p> + +<p> +The self-conscious ego, recognising this position, found itself +faced by the necessity of breaking loose from the world and +standing alone, in order in this way to overcome the world. Victory +over the world by alienation from the world—these were the ideas +out of which Christianity was born. But it was not the true victory +over the world; Christianity remained at the stage of violent +opposition to the world. +</p> + +<p> +Miracle, to which the Christian religion has always appealed, +and to which it gives a quite fundamental importance, is the +appropriate symbol of this false victory over the world. There are +some wonderfully deep thoughts scattered through Bauer's critical +investigations. <q>Man's realisation of his personality,</q> he says, <q>is +the death of Nature, but in the sense that he can only bring about +this death by the knowledge of Nature and its laws, that is to +say from within, being himself essentially the annihilation and +negation of Nature.... Spirit honours and recognises the worth +of the very thing which it negates.... Spirit does not fume and +bluster, and rage and rave against Nature, as it is supposed to do +<pb n='155'/><anchor id='Pg155'/> +in miracle, for that would be the denial of its inner law, but quietly +works its way through the antithesis. In short the death of Nature +implied in the conscious realisation of personality is the resurrection +of Nature in a nobler form, not the maltreatment, mockery, +and insult to which it would be exposed by miracle.</q> Not only +miracle, however, but the portrait of Jesus Christ as drawn in the +Gospels, is a stereotyping of that false idea of victory over the world. +The Christ of the Gospel history, thought of as a really historic figure, +would be a figure at which humanity would shudder, a figure which +could only inspire dismay and horror. The historical Jesus, if He +really existed, can only have been One who reconciled in His own +consciousness the antithesis which obsessed the Jewish mind, +namely the separation between God and Man; He cannot in the +process of removing this antithesis have called into existence a new +principle of religious division and alienation; nor can He have +shown the way of escape, by the principle of inwardness, from the +bondage of the Law only to impose a new set of legal fetters. +</p> + +<p> +The Christ of the Gospel history, on the other hand, is Man +exalted by the religious consciousness to heaven, who, even +if He comes down to earth to do miracles, to teach, and to +suffer, is no longer true man. The Son of Man of religion, even +though His mission be to reconcile, is man as alienated from himself. +This Christ of the Gospel history, the ego exalted to heaven and +become God, overthrew antiquity, and conquered the world in the +sense that He exhausted it of all its vitality. This magnified ego +would have fulfilled its historical vocation if, by means of the terrible +disorganisation into which it threw the real spirit of mankind, it +had compelled the latter to come to a knowledge of itself, to become +self-conscious with a thoroughness and decisiveness which had not +been possible to the simple spirit of antiquity. It was disastrous +that the figure which stood for the first emancipation of the ego, +remained alive. That transformation of the human spirit which +was brought about by the encounter of the world-power of Rome +with philosophy was represented by the Gospels, under the influence +of the Old Testament, as realised in a single historic Personality; +and the strength of the spirit of mankind was swallowed up by the +omnipotence of the pure absolute ego, an ego which was alien +from actual humanity. The self-consciousness of humanity finds +itself reflected in the Gospels, a self, indeed, in alienation from +itself, and therefore a grotesque parody of itself, but, after all, in some +sense, itself; hence the magical charm which attracted mankind and +enchained it, and, so long as it had not truly found itself, urged it +to sacrifice everything to grasp the image of itself, to prefer it to all +other and all else, counting all, as the apostle says, but <q>dung</q> in +comparison with it. +</p> + +<p> +Even when the Roman world was no more, and a new world +<pb n='156'/><anchor id='Pg156'/> +had come into being, the Christ so created did not die. The magic +of His enchantment became only more terrible, and as new strength +came flooding into the old world, the time arrived when it was to +accomplish its greatest work of destruction. Spirit, in its abstraction, +became a vampire, the destroyer of the world. Sap and +strength, blood and life, it sucked, to the last drop, out of humanity. +Nature and art, family, nation, state, all were destroyed by it; and +in the ruins of the fallen world the ego, exhausted by its efforts, +remained the only surviving power. +</p> + +<p> +Having made a desert all about it, the ego could not immediately +create anew, out of the depths of its inner consciousness, +nature and art, nation and state; the awful process which now went +on, the only activity of which it was now capable, was the absorption +into itself of all that had hitherto had life in the world. The ego +was now everything; and yet it was a void. It had become the +universal power, and yet as it brooded over the ruins of the world +it was filled with horror at itself and with despair at all that it had +lost. The ego which had devoured all things and was still a void +now shuddered at itself. +</p> + +<p> +Under the oppression of this awful power the education of +mankind has been going on; under this grim task-master it has +been preparing for true freedom, preparing to rouse itself from the +depths of its distress, to escape from its opposition to itself and +cast out that alien ego which is wasting its substance. Odysseus +has now returned to his home, not by favour of the gods, not laid on +the shore in sleep, but awake, by his own thought and his own +strength. Perchance, as of yore, he will have need to fight with +the suitors who have devoured his substance and sought to rob +him of all he holds most dear. Odysseus must string the bow +once more. +</p> + +<p> +The baleful charm of the self-alienated ego is broken the moment +any one proves to the religious sense of mankind that the Jesus +Christ of the Gospels is its creation and ceases to exist as soon as +this is recognised. The formation of the Church and the arising +of the idea that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Messiah are not +two different things, they are one and the same thing, they coincide +and synchronise; but the idea was only the imaginative conception +of the Church, the first movement of its life, the religious expression +of its experience. +</p> + +<p> +The question which has so much exercised the minds of men—whether +Jesus was the historic Christ (= Messiah)—is answered +in the sense that everything that the historical Christ is, everything +that is said of Him, everything that is known of Him, belongs +to the world of imagination, that is, of the imagination of the +Christian community, and therefore has nothing to do with any +man who belongs to the real world. +</p> + +<pb n='157'/><anchor id='Pg157'/> + +<p> +The world is now free, and ripe for a higher religion in which +the ego will overcome nature, not by self-alienation, but by +penetrating it and ennobling it. To the theologian we may fling +as a gift the shreds of his former science, when we have torn it to +pieces; that will be something to occupy himself with, that time +may not hang heavy upon his hands in the new world whose +advent is steadily drawing nearer. +</p> + +<p> +Thus the task which Bauer had set himself at the beginning of +his criticism of the Gospel history, turned, before he had finished, +into something different. When he began, he thought to save the +honour of Jesus and to restore His Person from the state of +inanition to which the apologists had reduced it, and hoped by +furnishing a proof that the historical Jesus could not have been the +Jesus Christ of the Gospels, to bring Him into a living relation +with history. This task, however, was given up in favour of the +larger one of freeing the world from the domination of the Judaeo-Roman +idol, Jesus the Messiah, and in carrying out this endeavour +the thesis that Jesus Christ is a product of the imagination of the +early Church is formulated in such a way that the existence of a +historic Jesus becomes problematical, or, at any rate, quite +indifferent. +</p> + +<p> +At the end of his study of the Gospels, Bauer is inclined to +make the decision of the question whether there ever was a +historic Jesus depend on the result of a further investigation which +he proposed to make into the Pauline Epistles. It was not until +ten years later (1850-1851) that he accomplished this task,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe.</hi> (Criticism of the Pauline Epistles.) Berlin, +1850-1852.</note> and +applied the result in his new edition of the <q>Criticism of the +Gospel History.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs.</hi> (Criticism of the +Gospels and History of their Origin.) 2 vols., Berlin, 1850-1851.</note> The result is negative: there never was any +historical Jesus. While criticising the four great Pauline Epistles, +which the Tübingen school fondly imagined to be beyond the reach +of criticism, Bauer shows, however, his inability to lay a positive +historic foundation for his view of the origin of Christianity. The +transference of the Epistles to the second century is effected in +so arbitrary a fashion that it refutes itself. However, this work +professes to be only a preliminary study for a larger one in which +the new theory was to be fully worked out. This did not appear +until 1877; it was entitled <q>Christ and the Caesars; How +Christianity originated from Graeco-Roman Civilisation.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Christus und die Cäsaren. Der Ursprung des Christentums aus dem römischen +Griechentum.</hi> Berlin, 1877.</note> The +historical basis for his theory, which he here offers, is even more +unsatisfactory than that suggested in the preliminary work on the +Pauline Epistles. There is no longer any pretence of following +<pb n='158'/><anchor id='Pg158'/> +an historical method, the whole thing works out into an imaginary +picture of the life of Seneca. Nero's tutor had, Bauer thinks, +already in his inmost consciousness fully attained to inner +opposition to the world. There are expressions in his works +which, in their mystical emancipation from the world, prelude the +utterances of Paul. The same thoughts, since they belong not to +Seneca only, but to his time, are found also in the works of the +three poets of the Neronian period, Persius, Lucan, and Petronius. +Though they had but a feeble breath of the divine afflatus, they are +interesting witnesses to the spiritual condition of the time. They, +too, contributed to the making of Christianity. +</p> + +<p> +But Seneca, in spite of his inner alienation from the world, +remained in active relations with the world. He desired to found +a kingdom of virtue upon earth. At the courts of Claudius and +Nero he used the arts of intrigue to further his ends, and even +quietly approved deeds of violence which he thought likely to serve +his cause. Finally, he grasped at the supreme power; and paid +the supreme penalty. Stoicism had made an attempt to reform +the world, and had failed. The great thinkers began to despair +of exercising any influence upon history, the Senate was powerless, +all public bodies were deprived of their rights. Then a spirit of +resignation came over the world. The alienation from the world, +which in Seneca had still been only half serious, was come in +earnest. The time of Nero and Domitian was a great epoch in +that hidden spiritual history which goes silently forward side by +side with the noisy outward history of the world. When Stoicism, +in this development, had been deepened by the introduction of +neo-Platonic ideas, it was on its way to become the Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +But by itself it would not have given birth to that new thing. +It attached itself as a formative principle to Judaism, which was +then just breaking loose from the limitations of nationality. Bauer +points to Josephus as a type of this new Roman Judaism. This +<q>neo-Roman</q> lived in the conviction that his God, who had +withdrawn from His Temple, would take possession of the world, +and make the Roman Empire submit to His law. Josephus +realised in his life that for which the way had been spiritually +prepared by Philo. The latter did not merely effect a fusion of +Jewish ideas with Greek speculations; he took advantage of the +universal dominion established by the Romans to found upon it +his spiritual world. Bauer had already pictured him in this rôle +in his work <q>Philo, Strauss, and Renan, and Primitive Christianity.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Thus was the new religion formed. The spirit of it came +from the west, the outward frame was furnished by Judaism. The +new movement had two foci, Rome and Alexandria. Philo's +<q>Therapeutae</q> were real people; they were the forerunners of +Christianity. Under Trajan the new religion began to be known. +<pb n='159'/><anchor id='Pg159'/> +Pliny's letter asking for instructions as to how to deal with the +new movement is its certificate of birth—the original form of the +letter, it must be understood, not the present form, which has +undergone editing at the hands of Christians. +</p> + +<p> +The literary process by which the origin of the movement was +thrown back to an earlier date in history lasted about fifty years. +</p> + +<p> +When this latest work of Bauer's appeared he had long been +regarded by theologians as an extinct force; nay, more, had been +forgotten. And he had not even kept his promise. He had not +succeeded in showing what that higher form of victory over the +world was, which he declared superior to Christianity; and in +place of the personality of Jesus he had finally set up a hybrid +thing, laboriously compounded out of two personalities of so little +substance as those of Seneca and Josephus. That was the end of +his great undertaking. +</p> + +<p> +But it was a mistake to bury, along with the Bauer of the +second period, also the Bauer of the first period, the critic—for the +latter was not dead. It was, indeed, nothing less than a misfortune +that Strauss and Bauer appeared within so short a time of one +another. Bauer passed practically unnoticed, because every one +was preoccupied with Strauss. Another unfortunate thing was +that Bauer overthrew with his powerful criticism the hypothesis +which attributed real historical value to Mark, so that it lay for a +long time disregarded, and there ensued a barren period of twenty +years in the critical study of the Life of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +The only critic with whom Bauer can be compared is Reimarus. +Each exercised a terrifying and disabling influence upon his time. +No one else had been so keenly conscious as they of the extreme +complexity of the problem offered by the life of Jesus. In view of +this complexity they found themselves compelled to seek a solution +outside the confines of verifiable history. Reimarus, by finding +the basis of the story of Jesus in a deliberate imposture on the part +of the disciples; Bauer, by postulating an original Evangelist who +invented the history. On this ground it was just that they should +lose their case. But in dismissing the solutions which they offered, +their contemporaries also dismissed the problems which had +necessitated such solutions; they dismissed them because they +were as little able to grasp as to remove these difficulties. +</p> + +<p> +But the time is past for pronouncing judgment upon Lives of +Christ on the ground of the solutions which they offer. For us the +great men are not those who solved the problems, but those who +discovered them. Bauer's <q>Criticism of the Gospel History</q> is +worth a good dozen Lives of Jesus, because his work, as we are +only now coming to recognise, after half a century, is the ablest +and most complete collection of the difficulties of the Life of Jesus +which is anywhere to be found. +</p> + +<pb n='160'/><anchor id='Pg160'/> + +<p> +Unfortunately, by the independent, the too loftily independent +way in which he developed his ideas, he destroyed the possibility +of their influencing contemporary theology. The shaft which he +had driven into the mountain broke down behind him, so that it +needed the work of a whole generation to lay bare once more the +veins of ore which he had struck. His contemporaries could not +suspect that the abnormality of his solutions was due to the +intensity with which he grasped the problems as problems, and +that he had become blind to history by examining it too microscopically. +Thus for his contemporaries he was a mere eccentric. +</p> + +<p> +But his eccentricity concealed a penetrating insight. No one +else had as yet grasped with the same completeness the idea that +primitive Christianity and early Christianity were not merely the +direct outcome of the preaching of Jesus, not merely a teaching +put into practice, but more, much more, since to the experience +of which Jesus was the subject there allied itself the experience of +the world-soul at a time when its body—humanity under the +Roman Empire—lay in the throes of death. Since Paul, no one +had apprehended so powerfully the mystic idea of the super-sensible +σῶμα Χριστοῦ. Bauer transferred it to the historical plane +and found the <q>body of Christ</q> in the Roman Empire. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='161'/><anchor id='Pg161'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>XII. Further Imaginative Lives Of Jesus</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Charles Christian Hennell.</hi> Untersuchungen über den Ursprung des Christentums. +(An Inquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity.) 1840. With a preface by +David Friedrich Strauss. English edition, 1838. +</p> + +<p> +Wichtige Enthüllungen über die wirkliche Todesart Jesu. Nach einem alten zu +Alexandria gefundenen Manuskripte von einem Zeitgenossen Jesu aus dem +heiligen Orden der Essäer. (Important Disclosures concerning the Manner of +Jesus' Death. From an ancient MS. found at Alexandria, written by a contemporary +of Jesus belonging to the sacred Order of the Essenes.) 1849. 5th +ed., Leipzig. (Anonymous.) +</p> + +<p> +Historische Enthüllungen über die wirklichen Ereignisse der Geburt und Jugend Jesu. +Als Fortsetzung der zu Alexandria aufgefundenen alten Urkunden aus dem +Essäerorden. (Historical Disclosures concerning the real circumstances of the +Birth and Youth of Jesus. A Continuation of the ancient Essene MS. discovered +at Alexandria.) 1849. 2nd ed., Leipzig. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>August Friedrich Gfrörer.</hi> Kritische Geschichte des Urchristentums. (Critical +History of Primitive Christianity.) +</p> + +<p> +Vol. i. 1st ed., 1831; 2nd, 1835. Part i. 543 pp.; Part ii. 406 pp. +Vol. ii. 1838. Part i. 452 pp.; Part ii. 417 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Richard von der Alm.</hi> (Pseudonym of <hi rend='italic'>Friedrich Wilhelm Ghillany</hi>.) Theologische +Briefe an die Gebildeten der deutschen Nation, 1863. (Theological +Letters to the Cultured Classes of the German People, 1863.) Vol. i. 929 pp.; +Vol. ii. 656 pp.; Vol. iii. 802 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ludwig Noack.</hi> Die Geschichte Jesu auf Grund freier geschichtlicher Untersuchungen +über das Evangelium und die Evangelien. (The History of Jesus on +the Basis of a free Historical Inquiry regarding the Gospel and the Gospels.) +2nd ed., 1876, Mannheim. Book i. 251 pp.; Book ii. 187 pp.; Book iii. +386 pp.; Book iv. 285 pp. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Strauss can hardly be said to have done himself honour by contributing +a preface to the translation of Hennell's work, which is +nothing more than Venturini's <q>Non-miraculous History of the +Great Prophet of Nazareth</q> tricked out with a fantastic paraphernalia +of learning.<note place='foot'>Hennell, a London merchant, withdrew himself from his business pursuits for two +years in order to make the preparatory studies for this Life of Jesus. [He is best +known as a friend of George Eliot, who was greatly interested and influenced by the +<q>Inquiry.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi>] To the same category as Hennell's work belongs the +<hi rend='italic'>Wohlgeprüfte Darstellung des Lebens Jesu</hi> (An Account of the Life of Jesus based on +the closest Examination) of the Heidelberg mathematician, Karl von Langsdorf, +Mannheim, 1831. Supplement, with preface to a future second edition, 1833.</note> +</p> + +<p> +The two series of <q>Important Disclosures</q> also are really +<q>conveyed</q> with no particular ability from that classic romance of +<pb n='162'/><anchor id='Pg162'/> +the Life of Jesus, but that did not prevent their making something +of a sensation at the time when they appeared.<note place='foot'>Hase seems not to have recognised that the <q>Disclosures</q> were merely a +plagiarism from Venturini. He mentions them in connexion with Bruno Bauer and +appears to make him responsible for inspiring them; at least that is suggested by his +formula of transition when he says: <q>It was primarily to him that the frivolous +apocryphal hypotheses attached themselves.</q> This is quite inaccurate. The anonymous +epitomist of Venturini had nothing to do with Bauer, and had probably not +read a line of his work. Venturini, whom he had read, he does not name.</note> Jesus, according +to his narrative, was the son of a member of the Essene Order. +The child was watched over by the Order and prepared for His +future mission. He entered on His public ministry as a tool of the +Essenes, who after the crucifixion took Him down from the cross +and resuscitated Him. +</p> + +<p> +These <q>Disclosures</q> only preserve the more external features +of Venturini's representation. His Life of Jesus had been more +than a mere romance, it had been an imaginative solution of +problems which he had intuitively perceived. It may be regarded +as the Forerunner of rationalistic criticism. The problems which +Venturini had intuitively perceived were not solved either by +the rationalists, or by Strauss, or by Weisse. These writers +had not succeeded in providing that of which Venturini had +dreamed—a living purposeful connexion between the events of the +life of Jesus—or in explaining His Person and Work as having a +relation, either positive or negative, to the circumstances of Late +Judaism. Venturini's plan, however fantastic, connects the life of +Jesus with Jewish history and contemporary thought much more +closely than any other Life of Jesus, for that connexion is of course +vital to the plot of the romance. In Weisse's <q>Gospel History</q> +criticism had deliberately renounced the attempt to explain Jesus +directly from Judaism, finding itself unable to establish any connexion +between His teachings and contemporary Jewish ideas. +The way was therefore once more open to the imagination. +Accordingly several imaginative Lives preluded a new era in the study +of the subject, in so far as they endeavoured to understand Jesus on +the basis of purely Jewish ideas, in some cases as affirming these, +in others as opposing them in favour of a more spiritual conception. +In Gfrörer, Richard von der Alm, and Noack, begins the skirmishing +preparatory to the future battle over eschatology.<note place='foot'><p>One of the most ingenious of the followers of Venturini was the French Jew Salvator. +In his <hi rend='italic'>Jésus-Christ et sa doctrine</hi> (Paris, 2 vols., 1838), he seeks to prove that Jesus +was the last representative of a mysticism which, drawing its nutriment from the other +Oriental religions, was to be traced among the Jews from the time of Solomon onwards. +In Jesus this mysticism allied itself with Messianic enthusiasm. After He had lost consciousness +upon the cross He was succoured by Joseph of Arimathea and Pilate's wife, +contrary to His own expectation and purpose. He ended His days among the Essenes. +</p> +<p> +Salvator looks to a spiritualised mystical Mosaism as destined to be the successful +rival of Christianity.</p></note> +</p> + +<pb n='163'/><anchor id='Pg163'/> + +<p> +August Friedrich Gfrörer, born in 1803 at Calw, was <q>Repetent</q> +at the Tübingen theological seminary at the time when Strauss was +studying there. After being curate at the principal church in +Stuttgart for a year he gave up, in 1830, the clerical profession in +order to devote himself wholly to his clerical studies. +</p> + +<p> +By that time he had abandoned Christianity. In the preface to +the first edition of the first volume of his work, he describes +Christianity as a system which now only maintains itself by the +force of custom, after having commended itself to antiquity <q>by the +hope of the mystic Kingdom of the future world and having ruled the +middle ages by the fear of the same future.</q> By enunciating this +view he has made an end, he thinks, of all high-flying Hegelian +ideas, and being thus freed from all speculative prejudices he feels +himself in a position to approach his task from a purely historical +standpoint, with a view to showing how much of Christianity is the +creation of one exceptional Personality, and how much belongs to +the time in which it arose. In the first volume he describes how +the transformation of Jewish theology in Alexandria reacted upon +Palestinian theology, and how it came to its climax in Philo. The +great Alexandrian anticipated, according to Gfrörer, the ideas of +Paul. His <q>Therapeutae</q> are identical with the Essenes. At the +same period Judaea was kept in a ferment by a series of risings, to +all of which the incentive was found in Messianic expectations. +Then Jesus appeared. The three points to be investigated in +His history are: what end He had in view; why He died; and +what modifications His work underwent at the hands of the +Apostles. +</p> + +<p> +The second volume, entitled <q>The Sacred Legend,</q> does not, +however, carry out this plan. The works of Strauss and Weisse +necessitated a new method of treatment. The fame of Strauss's +achievement stirred Gfrörer to emulation, and Weisse, with his +priority of Mark and rejection of John, must be refuted. The +work is therefore almost a polemic against Weisse for his <q>want of +historic sense,</q> and ends in setting up views which had not entered +into Gfrörer's mind at the time when he wrote his first volume. +</p> + +<p> +The statements of Papias regarding the Synoptists, which Weisse +followed, are not deserving of credence. For a whole generation +and more the tradition about Jesus had passed from mouth to +mouth, and it had absorbed much that was legendary. Luke was +the first—as his preface shows—who checked that process, and +undertook to separate what was genuine from what was not. He +is the most trustworthy of the Evangelists, for he keeps closely to +his sources and adds nothing of his own, in contrast with Matthew +who, writing at a later date, used sources of less value and invented +matter of his own, which Gfrörer finds especially in the story of the +passion in this Gospel. The lateness of Matthew is also evident +<pb n='164'/><anchor id='Pg164'/> +from his tendency to carry over the Old Testament into the New. +In Luke, on the other hand, the sources are so conscientiously treated +that Gfrörer finds no difficulty in analysing the narrative into its +component parts, especially as he always has a purely instinctive +feeling <q>whenever a different wind begins to blow.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Both Gospels, however, were written long after the destruction +of the holy city, since they do not draw their material from the +Jerusalem tradition, but <q>from the Christian legends which had +grown up in the neighbourhood of the Sea of Tiberias,</q> and in +consequence <q>mistakenly transferred the scene of Jesus' ministry to +Galilee.</q> For this reason it is not surprising <q>that even down into +the second century many Christians had doubts about the truth of +the Synoptics and ventured to express their doubts.</q> Such doubts +only ceased when the Church became firmly established and began +to use its authority to suppress the objections of individuals. Mark +is the earliest witness to doubts within the primitive Christian +community regarding the credibility of his predecessors. Luke and +Matthew are for him not yet sacred books; he desires to reconcile +their inconsistencies, and at the same time to produce <q>a Gospel +composed of materials of which the authenticity could be maintained +even against the doubters.</q> For this reason he omits most of the +discourses, ignores the birth-story, and of the miracles retains only +those which were most deeply embedded in the tradition. His +Gospel was probably produced between 110 and 120. The <q>non-genuine</q> +conclusion was a later addition, but by the Evangelist +himself. Thus Mark proves that the Synoptists contain legendary +matter even though they are separated from the events +which they relate only by a generation and a half, or at most two +generations. To show that there is nothing strange in this, Gfrörer +gives a long catalogue of miracles found in historians who were +contemporaries of the events which they describe, and in some cases +were concerned in them—in this connexion Cortez affords him a +rich storehouse of material. On the other hand, all objections +against the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel collapse miserably. It +is true that, like the others, it offers no historically accurate report +of the discourses of Jesus. It pictures Him as the Logos-Christ and +makes Him speak in this character; which Jesus certainly did not +do. Inadvertently the author makes John the Baptist speak in the +same way. That does not matter, however, for the historical conditions +are rightly represented; rightly, because Jerusalem was the +scene of the greater part of the ministry, and the five Johannine +miracles are to be retained. The healing of the nobleman's son, +that of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, and that of the man +blind from birth happened just as they are told. The story of the +miracle at Cana rests on a misunderstanding, for the wine which +Jesus provided was really the wedding-gift which He had brought +<pb n='165'/><anchor id='Pg165'/> +with Him. In the raising of Lazarus a real case of apparent death +is combined with a polemical exaggeration of it, the restoration to +life becoming, in the course of controversy with the Jews, an actual +resurrection. Having thus won free, dragging John along with him, +from the toils of the Hegelian denial of miracle—only, it is true, by +the aid of Venturini—and being prepared to explain the feeding +of the multitude on the most commonplace rationalistic lines, he +may well boast that he has <q>driven the doubt concerning the +Fourth Gospel into a very small corner.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>The miserable era of negation,</q> cries Gfrörer, <q>is now at an +end; affirmation begins. We are ascending the eastern mountains +from which the pure airs of heaven breathe upon the spirit. Our +guide shall be historical mathematics, a science which is as yet +known to few, and has not been applied by any one to the New +Testament.</q> This <q>mathematic</q> of Gfrörer's consists in developing +his whole argument out of a single postulate. Let it be granted +to him that all other claimants of the Messiahship—Gfrörer, in +defiance of the evidence of Josephus, makes all the leaders of +revolt in Palestine claimants of the Messiahship—were put to death +by the Romans, whereas Jesus was crucified by His own people: +it follows that the Messiahship of Jesus was not political, but +spiritual. He had declared Himself to be in a certain sense the +longed-for Messiah, but in another sense He was not so. His +preaching moved in the sphere of Philonian ideas; although He +did not as yet explicitly apply the Logos doctrine, it was implicit in +His thought, so that the discourses of the Fourth Gospel have an +essential truth. All Messianic conceptions, the Kingdom of God, +the judgment, the future world, are sublimated into the spiritual +region. The resurrection of the dead becomes a present eternal +life. The saying in John v. 24, <q>He that heareth my word, and +believeth on Him that sent me, hath eternal life and cometh not +into judgment; but is passed from death into life,</q> is the only +authentic part of that discourse. The reference which follows to +the coming judgment and the resurrection of the dead is a Jewish +interpolation. Jesus did not believe that He Himself was to rise +from the dead. Nevertheless, the <q>resurrection</q> is historic; Joseph +of Arimathea, a member of the Essene Order, whose tool Jesus +unconsciously was, had bribed the Romans to make the crucifixion +of Jesus only a pretence, and to crucify two others with Him in +order to distract attention from Him. After He was taken down +from the cross, Joseph removed Him to a tomb of his own which +had been hewn out for the purpose in the neighbourhood of the +cross, and succeeded in resuscitating Him. The Christian Church +grew out of the Essene Order by giving a further development +to its ideas, and it is impossible to explain the organisation of the +Church without taking account of the regulations of the Order. +<pb n='166'/><anchor id='Pg166'/> +The work closes with a rhapsody on the Church and its development +into the Papal system. +</p> + +<p> +Gfrörer thus works into Venturini's plan a quantity of material +drawn from Philo. His first volume would have led one to expect +a more original and scientific result. But the author is one of +those <q>epileptics of criticism</q> for whom criticism is not a natural +and healthy means of arriving at a result, but who, in consequence +of the fits of criticism to which they are subject, and which they +even endeavour to intensify, fall into a condition of exhaustion, in +which the need for some fixed point becomes so imperative that +they create it for themselves by self-suggestion—as they previously +did their criticism—and then flatter themselves that they have +really found it. +</p> + +<p> +This need for a fixed point carried the former rival of Strauss +into Catholicism, for which his <q>General History of the Church</q> +(1841-1846) already shows a strong admiration. After the appearance +of this work Gfrörer became Professor of History in the +University of Freiburg. In 1848 he was active in the German Parliament +in endeavouring to promote a reunion of the Protestants +with the Catholics. In 1853 he went over to the Roman Church. +His family had already gone over, at Strassburg, during the revolutionary +period. In the conflict of the church with the Baden +Government he vehemently supported the claims of the Pope. He +died in 1861. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +Incomparably better and more thorough is the attempt to +write a Life of Jesus embodied in the <q>Theological Letters to the +Cultured Classes of the German Nation.</q> Their writer takes +Gfrörer's studies as his starting-point, but instead of spiritualising +unjustifiably he ventures to conceive the Jewish world of thought +in which Jesus lived in its simple realism. He was the first to +place the eschatology recognised by Strauss and Reimarus in an +historical setting—that of Venturini's plan—and to write a Life of +Jesus entirely governed by the idea of eschatology. +</p> + +<p> +The author, Friedrich Wilhelm Ghillany, was born in 1807 at +Erlangen. His first studies were in theology. His rationalistic +views, however, compelled him to abandon the clerical profession. +He became librarian at Nuremberg in 1841 and engaged in controversial +writing of an anti-orthodox character, but distinguished +himself also by historical work of outstanding merit. A year after +the publication of the <q>Theological Letters,</q> which he issued under +the pseudonym of Richard von der Alm, he published a collection +of <q>The Opinions of Heathen and Christian Writers of the first +Christian Centuries about Jesus Christ</q> (1864), a work which gives +evidence of a remarkable range of reading. In 1855 he removed +to Munich in the hope of obtaining a post in the diplomatic +<pb n='167'/><anchor id='Pg167'/> +service, but in spite of his solid acquirements he did not succeed. +No one would venture to appoint a man of such outspoken anti-ecclesiastical +views. He died in 1876. +</p> + +<p> +As regards the question of the sources, Ghillany occupies very +nearly the Tübingen standpoint, except that he holds Matthew to +be later than Luke, and Mark to be extracted, not from these +Gospels in their present form, but from their sources. John is not +authentic. +</p> + +<p> +The worship offered to Jesus after His death by the Christian +community is, according to Ghillany, not derived from pure +Judaism, but from a Judaism influenced by oriental religions. +The influence of the cult of Mithra, for example, is unmistakable. +In it, as in Christianity, we find the virgin-birth, the star, the wise +men, the cross, and the resurrection. Were it not for the human +sacrifice of the Mithra cult, the idea which is operative in the +Supper, of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the Son +of Man, would be inexplicable. +</p> + +<p> +The whole Eastern world was at that time impregnated with +Gnostic ideas, which centred in the revelation of the Divine in the +human. In this way there arose, for example, a Samaritan Gnosis, +independent of the Christian. Christianity itself is a species of +Gnosis. In any case the metaphysical conception of the Divine +Sonship of Jesus is of secondary origin. If He was in any sense +the Son of God for the disciples, they can only have thought of +this sonship in a Gnostic fashion, and supposed that the <q>highest +angel,</q> the Son of God, had taken up His abode in Him. +</p> + +<p> +John the Baptist had probably come forth from among the +Essenes, and he preached a spiritualised Kingdom of Heaven. +He held himself to be Elias. Jesus' aims were originally similar; +He came forward <q>in the cause of sound religious teaching for the +people.</q> He made no claim to Davidic descent; that is to be +credited to dogmatic theology. Similarly Papias is wrong in +ascribing to Jesus the crude eschatological expectations implied in +the saying about the miraculous vine in the Messianic Kingdom. +</p> + +<p> +It is certain, however, that Jesus held Himself to be Messiah +and expected the early coming of the Kingdom. His teaching is +Rabbinic; all His ideas have their source in contemporary +Judaism, whose world of thought we can reconstruct from the +Rabbinic writings; for even if these only became fixed at a later +period, the thoughts on which they are based were already current +in the time of Jesus. Another source of great importance is +Justin's <q>Dialogue with the Jew Trypho.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The starting-point in interpreting the teaching of Jesus is the +idea of repentance. In the tractate <q>Sanhedrin</q> we find: <q>The +set time of the Messiah is already here; His coming depends now +upon repentance and good works. Rabbi Eleazer says, <q>When the +<pb n='168'/><anchor id='Pg168'/> +Jews repent they shall be redeemed.</q></q> The Targum of Jonathan +observes, on Zech. x. 3, 4,<note place='foot'>The reference should be Micah iv. 8.—F. C. B.</note> <q>The Messiah is already born, but +remains in concealment because of the sins of the Hebrews.</q> We +find the same thoughts put into the mouth of Trypho in Justin. +In the same Targum of Jonathan, Isa. liii. is interpreted with +reference to the sufferings of the Messiah. Judaism, therefore, was +not unacquainted with the idea of a suffering Messiah. He was +not identified, however, with the heavenly Messiah of Daniel. The +Rabbis distinguished two Messiahs, one of Israel and one of Judah. +First the Messiah of the Kingdom of Israel, denominated the Son +of Joseph, was to come from Galilee to suffer death at the hands +of the Gentiles in order to make atonement for the sins of the +Hebrew nation. Only after that would the Messiah predicted by +Daniel, the son of David, of the tribe of Judah, appear in glory +upon the clouds of heaven. Finally, He also, after two-and-sixty +weeks of years, should be taken away, since the Messianic Kingdom, +even as conceived by Paul, was only a temporary supernatural condition +of the world. +</p> + +<p> +The Messianic expectation, being directed to supernatural +events, had no political character, and one who knew Himself to +be the Messiah could never dream of using earthly means for the +attainment of His ends; He would expect all things to be brought +about by the Divine intervention. In this respect Ghillany grasps +clearly the character of the eschatology of Jesus—more clearly +than any one had ever done before. +</p> + +<p> +The rôle of the Messiah, who prior to His supernatural manifestation +remains in concealment upon earth, is therefore passive. +He who is conscious of a Messianic vocation does not seek to +found a Kingdom among men. He waits with confidence. He +issues forth from His passivity with the sole purpose of making +atonement, by vicarious suffering, for the sins of the people, in +order that it may be possible for God to bring about the new condition +of things. If, in spite of the repentance of the people and +the occurrence of the signs which pointed to its being at hand, +the coming of the Kingdom should be delayed, the man who is +conscious of a Messianic vocation must, by His death, compel the +intervention of God. His vocation in this world is to die. +</p> + +<p> +Brought within the lines of these reflections the Life of Jesus +shapes itself as follows. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus was the tool of a mystical sect allied to the Essenes, the +head of which was doubtless that Joseph of Arimathea who makes +so sudden and striking an appearance in the Gospel narrative. +This party desired to bring about the coming of the Kingdom of +Heaven by mystical means, whereas the mass of the people, led +astray by the Pharisees, thought to force on its coming by means +<pb n='169'/><anchor id='Pg169'/> +of a rising. In the preacher of a spiritual Kingdom of Heaven, +who was resolved to go to death for His cause, the mystical party +discovered Messiah the son of Joseph, and they recognised that +His death was necessary to make possible the coming of the +heavenly Messiah predicted by Daniel. That Jesus Himself was +the Messiah of Daniel, that He would immediately rise again in +order to ascend to His heavenly throne, and would come thence +with the hosts of heaven to establish the Kingdom of Heaven, +these people did not themselves believe. But they encouraged Him +in this belief, thinking that He would hardly commit Himself to a +sacrificial death from which there was to be no resurrection. It was +left uncertain to His mind whether Jehovah would be content with +the repentance of the people, in so far as it had taken place, as +realising the necessary condition for the bringing in of the Kingdom +of Heaven, or whether an atonement by blood, offered by the death +of Messiah the son of Joseph, would be needful. It had been explained +to Him that when the calculated year of grace arrived, He +must go up to Jerusalem and endeavour to rouse the Jews to +Messianic enthusiasm in order to compel Jehovah to come to their +aid with His heavenly hosts. From the action of Jehovah it could +then be discovered whether the preaching of repentance and +baptism would suffice to make atonement for the people before +God or not. If Jehovah did not appear, a deeper atonement must +be made; Jesus must pay the penalty of death for the sins of the +Jews, but on the third day would rise again from the dead and +ascend to the throne of God and come again thence to found the +Kingdom of Heaven. <q>Any one can see,</q> concludes Ghillany, +<q>that our view affords a very natural explanation of the anxiety +of the disciples, the suspense of Jesus Himself, and the prayer, +<q>If it be possible let this cup pass from me.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>It was apparently only towards the close of His life that +Jesus revealed to the disciples the possibility that the Son of Man +might have to suffer and die before He could found the Messianic +Kingdom.</q> +</p> + +<p> +With this possibility before Him, He came to Jerusalem and +there awaited the Divine intervention. Meanwhile Joseph of +Arimathea lent his aid towards securing His condemnation in the +Sanhedrin. He must die on the day of the Passover; on the day +of the Preparation He must be at hand and ready in Jerusalem. +He held, with His disciples, a love-feast after the Essene custom, +not a Paschal meal, and in doing so associated thoughts of His +death with the breaking of bread and the pouring out of the wine. +<q>He did not lay upon His disciples any injunction to continue +the celebration of a feast of this kind until the time of His return, +because He thought of His resurrection and His heavenly glory as +about to take place after three days. But when His return was +<pb n='170'/><anchor id='Pg170'/> +delayed the early Christians attached these sayings of His about +the bread and wine to their Essene love-feast, and explained this +common meal of the community as a commemoration of the Last +Supper of Jesus and His disciples, a memorial Feast in honour of +their Saviour, the celebration of which must be continued until +His coming.</q> +</p> + +<p> +When the armed band came to arrest Him, Jesus surrendered +to His fate. Pilate almost set Him free, holding Him to be a +mere enthusiast who placed His hopes only in the Divine intervention. +Joseph of Arimathea, however, succeeded in averting +this danger. <q>Even on the cross Jesus seems to have continued +to hope for the Divine intervention, as is evidenced by the cry, +<q>My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me?</q></q> Joseph of +Arimathea provided for His burial. +</p> + +<p> +The belief in His resurrection rests upon the visions of the +disciples, which are to be explained by their intense desire for the +Parousia, of which He had given them the promise. After setting +their affairs in order in Galilee they returned at the Feast of +Pentecost to Jerusalem, which they had left in alarm, in order +there to await the Parousia in company with other Galilaean +believers. +</p> + +<p> +The confession of faith of the primitive Christian community +was the simplest conceivable: Jesus the Messiah had come, not +as a temporal conqueror, but as the Son of Man foretold by Daniel, +and had died for the sins of the people. In other respects they +were strict Jews, kept the Law, and were constantly in the Temple. +Only the community of goods and the brotherhood-meal are of +an Essene character. +</p> + +<p> +<q>The Christianity of the original community in Jerusalem was +thus a mixture of Zealotism and Mysticism which did not include +any wholly new element, and even in its conception of the +Messiah had nothing peculiar to itself except the belief that the +Son of Man predicted by Daniel had already come in the person +of Jesus of Nazareth ... that He was now enthroned at the +right hand of God, and would again appear as the expected Son +of Man upon the clouds of heaven according to Daniel's prophecy.</q> +Jesus, therefore, had triumphed over the mystical party who desired +to make use of Him in the character of Messiah the son of Joseph—their +Messiah, the heavenly Son of Man, had not come. Jesus, +in virtue of what He had done, had taken His place both in heaven +and in earth. +</p> + +<p> +How much of Venturini's plan is here retained? Only the +<q>mystical part</q> which serves the purpose of setting the action +of the drama in motion. All the rest of it, the rationalistic part, +has been transmuted into an historical conception. Miracle and +trickery, along with the stage-play resurrection, have been purged +<pb n='171'/><anchor id='Pg171'/> +away in the fires of Strauss's criticism. There remains only a +fundamental conception which has a certain greatness—a brotherhood +which looks for the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven +appoints one of its members to undergo as Messiah an atoning +death, that the coming of the Kingdom, for which the time is +at hand, may not be delayed. This brotherhood is the only +fictitious element in the whole construction—much as in the +primitive steam-engine the valves were still worked by hand while +the rest of the machinery was actuated by its own motive-power. +So in this Life of Jesus the motive-power is drawn entirely from +historical sources, and the want of an automatic starting arrangement +is a mere anachronism. Strike out the superfluous rôle of +Joseph of Arimathea, and the distinction of the two Messiahs, +which is not clear even in the Rabbis, and substitute the simple +hypothesis that Jesus, in the course of His Messianic vocation, +when He thinks the time for the coming of the Kingdom has +arrived, goes freely to Jerusalem, and, as it were, compels the +secular power to put Him to death, in order by this act of atonement +to win for the world the immediate coming of the Kingdom, +and for Himself the glory of the Son of Man—make these changes, +and you have a life of Jesus in which the motive-power is a purely +historical force. It is impossible to indicate briefly all the parts +of which the seemingly complicated, but in reality impressively +simple, mechanism of this Life of Jesus is composed. The conduct +of Jesus, alike in its resolution and in its hesitation, becomes clear, +and not less so that of the disciples. All far-fetched historical +ingenuity is dispensed with. Jesus acts <q>because His hour is +come.</q> This decisive placing of the Life of Jesus in the <q>last +time</q> (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 1 Peter i. 20 φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν χρόνων δἰ +ὑμᾶς) is an historical achievement without parallel. Not less so +is the placing of the thought of the passion in its proper eschatological +setting as an act of atonement. Where had the character +and origin of the primitive community ever been brought into +such clear connexion with the death of Jesus? Who had ever +before so earnestly considered the problem why the Christian community +arose in Jerusalem and not in Galilee? <q>But the solution +is too simple, and, moreover, is not founded on a severely scientific +chain of reasoning, but on historical intuition and experiment, the +simple experiment of introducing the Life of Jesus into the Jewish +eschatological world of thought</q>—so the theologians replied, or +so, at least, they might have replied if they had taken this curious +work seriously, if, indeed, they had read it at all. But how were +they to suspect that in a book which seemed to aim at founding a +new Deistic Church, and which went out with the Wolfenbüttel +Fragmentist into the desert of the most barren natural religion, a +valuable historical conception might be found? It is true that +<pb n='172'/><anchor id='Pg172'/> +no one suspected at that time that in the forgotten work of +Reimarus there lay a dangerous historical discovery, a kind of +explosive material such as can only be collected by those who +stand free from every responsibility towards historical Christianity, +who have abandoned every prejudice, in the good sense as well +as in the bad—and whose one desire in regard to the Gospel +history is to be <q>spirits that constantly deny.</q><note place='foot'><q>Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint.</q>—Mephistopheles in <hi rend='italic'>Faust</hi>.</note> Such thinkers, if +they have historical gifts, destroy artificial history in the cause of +true history and, willing evil, do good—if it be admitted that the +discovery of truth is good. If this negative work is a good thing, +the author of the <q>Letters to the German People</q> performed a distinguished +service, for his negation is radical. The new Church +which was to be founded on this historic overcoming of historic +Christianity was to combine <q>only what was according to reason +in Judaism and Christianity.</q> From Judaism it was to take the +belief in one sole, spiritual, perfect God; from Christianity the +requirement of brotherly love to all men. On the other hand, it +was to eliminate what was contrary to reason in each: from +Judaism the ritual system and the sacrifices; from Christianity +the deification of Jesus and the teaching of redemption through +His blood. How comes so completely unhistorical a temperament +to be combined with so historical an intellect? His Jesus, after +all, has no individuality; He is a mere eschatological machine. +</p> + +<p> +In accordance with the confession of faith of the new Church of +which Ghillany dreamed, the calendar of the Feasts is to be +transformed as follows:— +</p> + +<p> +1. Feast of the Deity, the first and second of January. +</p> + +<p> +2. Feast of the Dignity of Man and Brotherly Love, first and +second of April. +</p> + +<p> +3. Feast of the Divine Blessing in Nature, first and second of +July. +</p> + +<p> +4. Feast of Immortality, first and second of October. +</p> + +<p> +Apart from these eight Feast days, and the Sundays, all the +other days of the year are working days. +</p> + +<p> +From the order of divine service we may note the following: +<q>The sermon, which should begin with instruction and exhortation +and close with consolation and encouragement, must not last longer +than half an hour.</q> +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +The series of Lives of Jesus which combine criticism with fiction +is closed by Noack's Story of Jesus. A freethinker like Ghillany, +but lacking the financial independence which a kindly fate had +conferred upon the latter, Noack led a life which may properly +be described as a constant martyrdom, lightened only by his +intense love of theological studies, which nevertheless were +<pb n='173'/><anchor id='Pg173'/> +responsible for all his troubles. Born in 1819, of a clerical family +in Hesse, he became in 1842 Pastor's assistant and teacher of +religion at Worms in the Hessian Palatinate. The Darmstadt +reactionaries drove him out of this position in 1844 without his +having given any ground of offence. In 1849 he became +<q>Repetent</q> in Philosophy at the University of Giessen at a +salary of four hundred gulden. In 1855 he was promoted to +be Professor Extraordinary without having his salary raised. In +1870, at the age of 51, he was appointed assistant at the University +Library and received at the same time the title of Ordinary +Professor. He died in 1885. He was an extremely prolific +writer, always ingenious, and possessed of wide knowledge, but he +never did anything of real permanent value either in philosophy or +theology. He was not without critical acumen, but there was too +much of the poet in him; a critical discovery was an incitement +to an imaginative reconstruction of the history. In 1870-1871 +he published, after many preliminary studies, his chief work, <q>From +the Jordan Uplands to Golgotha; four books on the Gospel and +the Gospels.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Aus der Jordanwiege nach Golgatha; vier Bücher über das Evangelium und die +Evangelien.</hi></note> It passed unnoticed. Attributing its failure to the +excitement aroused by the war, which ousted all other interests, he +issued a revised edition in 1876 under the title <q>The History of +Jesus, on the Basis of Free Historical Inquiry concerning the Gospel +and the Gospels,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Die Geschichte Jesu auf Grund freier geschichtlicher Untersuchungen über das +Evangelium and die Evangelien.</hi></note> but with hardly greater success. +</p> + +<p> +And yet the fundamental critical ideas which can be detected +beneath this narrative, in spite of its having the form of fiction, +give this work a significance such as the contemporary Lives of +Jesus which won the applause of theologians did not possess. It is +the only Life of Jesus hitherto produced which is written consistently +from the Johannine point of view from beginning to end. +Strauss had not, after all, in Noack's opinion, conclusively +shown the absolute incompatibility of the Synoptics with the +Fourth Gospel; neither he nor any other critic had felt the full +difficulty of the question why the Fourth Evangelist should be at +pains to invent the numerous journeys to the Feasts, seeing +that the development of the Logos Christology did not necessarily +involve any alteration of the scene of the ministry; on the contrary, +it would, one might think, have been the first care of the +Evangelist to inweave his novel theory with the familiar tradition +in order to avoid discrediting his narrative in advance by his +innovations. Noack's conclusion is that the inconsistency is not due +to a single author; it is the result of a long process of redaction +in which various divergent tendencies have been at work. But +as the Fourth Gospel is not the logical terminus of the process of +<pb n='174'/><anchor id='Pg174'/> +alteration, the only alternative is to place it at the beginning. +What we have to seek in it is the original Gospel from which the +process of transforming the tradition started. +</p> + +<p> +There is also another line of argument based on the contradictions +in the Gospel tradition which leads to the hypothesis that we +have to do with redactions of the Gospels. Either Jesus was the +Jewish Messiah of the Synoptics, or a Son of God in the Greek, +spiritual sense, whose self-consciousness must be interpreted by +means of the Logos doctrine: He cannot have been both at the +same time. But it is inconceivable that a Jewish claimant of the +Messiahship would have been left unmolested up to the last, and +have had virtually to force the authorities to put him to death. +On the other hand, if He were a simple enthusiast claiming to be a +Son of God, a man who lived only for his own <q>self-consciousness,</q> +He might from the beginning have taken up this attitude without +being in any way molested, except by the scorn of men. In this +respect also, therefore, the primitive Gospel which we can recover +from John has the advantage. It was only later that this <q>Son of +God</q> became the Jewish Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +We arrive at the primitive Johannine writing when we cancel in +the Fourth Gospel all Jewish doctrine and all miracles.<note place='foot'>For Noack's reconstruction of it see Book iii. pp. 196-225.</note> Its date +is the year 60 and it was composed by—Judas, the beloved disciple. +This primitive Gospel received little modification and still shows +clearly <q>the wonderful reality of its history.</q> It aims only at +giving a section of Jesus' history, a representation of His attitude +of mind and spirit. With <q>simple ingenuousness</q> it gives, <q>along +with the kernel of the historical material of the Gospel, Jesus' +thoughts about His own Person in the mysterious oracular sayings +and deeply thoughtful and moving discourses by which the Nazarene +stirred rather than enlightened the world.</q> Events of a striking +character were, however, absent from it. The feeding of the multitude +was represented in it as effected by natural means. It was a +philanthropic feeding of a multitude which certainly did not number +thousands, the numbers are a later insertion; Jesus fed them with +bread and fish which He purchased from a <q>sutler-lad.</q> The +healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda was the +unmasking of a malingerer, whom the Lord exposed and ordered +to depart. As He had bidden him carry his bed, and it was on the +Sabbath, this brought Him into conflict with the authorities. His +only <q>acts</q> were acts of self-revelation—mystical sayings which He +threw out to the people. <q>The problem which meets us in His +history is in truth a psychological problem, how, namely, His +exalted view of Himself came to be accepted as the purest and +highest truth—in His lifetime, it is true, only by a limited circle +of disciples, but after His departure by a constantly growing +<pb n='175'/><anchor id='Pg175'/> +multitude of believing followers.</q> The gospel of the beloved +disciple Judas made its way quietly into the world, understood by +few, even as Jesus Himself had been understood by a few only. +</p> + +<p> +About ten years later, according to Noack, appeared the original +form of Luke, which we can reconstruct from what is known of +Marcion's Luke.<note place='foot'>For the reconstruction see Book iii. pp. 326-386.</note> This Evangelist is under Pauline influence, and +writes with an apologetic purpose. He desires to refute the calumny +that Jesus was <q>possessed of a devil,</q> and he does this by making +Him cast out devils. It was in this way that miracle forced itself +into the Gospel history. +</p> + +<p> +But this primitive Luke, as Noack reconstructs it by combining +the statements of the Fathers regarding Marcion's Gospel, knows +nothing of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem to die. This circumstance +is of capital importance to Noack, because in the course of his +attempt to bring the topography of the Fourth Gospel into harmony +with that of the Synoptics he had arrived at the remarkable result +that the Johannine Christ worked in Galilee, not in Judaea. On +the basis of the <hi rend='italic'>Onomasticon</hi> of Eusebius—which Noack, with +the aid of topographical traditions derived from the Crusaders and +statements of Mohammedan writers, interprets with a recklessness +which is nothing short of criminal—Cana and Bethany (Bethabara) +were not in the latitude of Jerusalem, but <q>near the head-waters of +the Jordan in the upper part of the Jordan valley before it flows +into the lake of Huleh. There, in Coele-Syria, on the southern +slope of Hermon, was the scene of John the Baptist's labours; +there Jesus began His ministry; thither He returned to die.</q> <q>It +is in the Galilaean district which forms the scene of the Song of +Solomon that the reader of this book must be prepared to find the +Golgotha of the cross.</q> That is the sentence with which Noack's +account of the Life of Jesus opens. This alludes to an idea which +had already been worked out in his <q>Studies on the Song of +Solomon,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Tharraqah und Sunamith.</hi> The Song of Solomon in its historical and topographical +setting. 1869.</note> namely, that the mountain country surrounding the +upper Jordan was the pre-exilic Judaea, and that the <q>city of +David</q> was situated there. The Jews on their return from exile +had at first endeavoured to rebuild that Coele-Syrian city of David +with the ruins of Solomon's Temple, but had been driven away +from it and had then taken the desperate resolution to build the +temple of Zerubbabel upon the high plateau lying far to the south +of ancient Israel. Ezra the Scribe interpolated the forgery on the +ground of which this site began to be accepted as the former city +of David. Under the Syrian oppression all remembrance of the +ancient city of David entirely disappeared. +</p> + +<p> +This fantastic edifice, in the construction of which the wildest +<pb n='176'/><anchor id='Pg176'/> +etymologies play a part, is founded on the just recognition that +a reconciliation of John with the Synoptists can only be effected by +transferring some of the Johannine localities to the North; but +this involves not only finding Bethany, Arimathea and the other +places, but even the scene of Jesus' death in this district. The +brook Kedron conveniently becomes the <q>brook of Cedars.</q> +</p> + +<p> +For fifty years the two earliest Evangelists, in spite of their +poverty of incident, sufficed for the needs of the Christians. The +<q>fire of Jesus</q> was fed chiefly by the Pauline Gospel. The +original form of the Gospel of Luke accordingly became the +starting-point of the next stage of development. Thus arose the +Gospel of Mark. Mark was not a native of Palestine, but a man +of Roman extraction living in Decapolis, who had not the slightest +knowledge of the localities in which the life of Jesus was really +passed. He undertook, about the year 130, <q>in the interest of +the new Christian settlement at Jerusalem in Hadrian's time, +deliberately and consciously to transform the original plan of the +Gospel history and to represent the Lord as crucified at Jerusalem.</q> +The man who from the year 132 onward, as Mark the Bishop, +preached the word of the Crucified to a Gentile Christian community +amid the ruins of the holy city, had previously, as Mark +the Evangelist, taken care that a prophet should not perish out of +Jerusalem. In composing his Gospel he made use, in addition +to Luke, of a traditional source which he found in Decapolis. He +deliberately omitted the frequent journeys to Jerusalem which were +still found in the original Luke, and inserted instead Jesus' journey +to His death. He it was, also, who made the Nazarite into the +Nazarene, laying the scene of Jesus' youth in Nazareth. To the +cures of demoniacs he added magical acts such as the feeding of +the multitude and the resurrection. +</p> + +<p> +In Matthew, who appeared about 135, legend and fiction riot +unchecked. In addition, Jewish parables and sayings are put into +the mouth of Jesus, whereas He really had nothing to do with the +Jewish world of ideas. For if anything is certain, it is that the +moral maxims of the latest Gospel are of a distinctively Jewish +origin. About the middle of the second century the originals of +John and Luke underwent redaction. The redaction of the Logos +Gospel was completed by the addition of the twenty-first chapter; +the last redaction of Luke was perhaps carried out by Justin +Martyr, fresh from completing his <q>Dialogue with Trypho</q>! Thus +John and Luke are, in this final form, which is full of contradictions, +the latest Gospels, and the saying is fulfilled about the first +being last, and the last first. +</p> + +<p> +Arbitrary as these suggestions are, there is nevertheless something +impressive in the attempt to explain the remarkable inconsistencies +which are found within the Gospel tradition by +<pb n='177'/><anchor id='Pg177'/> +considerations relating to its origin and development. Despite all +his far-fetched ideas, Noack really stands higher than some of his +contemporaries who showed more prudence in their theological +enterprises, and about that time were earning the applause of the +faculty, and quieting the minds of the laity, by performing once +more the old conjuring trick—assisted by some new feats of legerdemain—of +harmonising John with the Synoptists in such a way +as to produce a Life of Jesus which could be turned to the service +of ecclesiastical theology. +</p> + +<p> +The outline of the public Life of Jesus, as reconstructed by +Noack, is as follows. It lasted from early in the year 35 to the +14th Nisan of the year 37, and began in the moment when Jesus +revealed His consciousness of what He was. We do not know +how long previously He had cherished it in secret. It is certain +that the Baptist helped to bring about this revelation. This is the +only part which he plays in the Gospel of John. He was neither +a preacher of repentance, nor an Elias, nor the forerunner of +Jesus, nor a mere signpost pointing to the Messiah, such as the +secondary tradition makes him out to be. +</p> + +<p> +Similarly everything that is Messianic in the consciousness of +Jesus is secondary. The lines of His thought were guided by the +Greek ideas about sons of God, for the soil of northern Galilee +was saturated with these ideas. Other sources which contributed +something were the personification of the Divine Wisdom in the +<q>Wisdom Literature</q> and some of Philo's doctrines. Jesus +became the son of God in an ecstatic trance! Had not Philo +recognised ecstasy as the last and highest means of rising to union +with the Divine? +</p> + +<p> +Jesus' temperament, according to Noack, was pre-disposed to +ecstasy, since He was born out of wedlock. One who had this +burden upon His spirit may well have early taken refuge in His +own thoughts, above the clouds, in the presence of the God of +His fathers. Assailed in a thousand ways by the cruelty of the +world, it would seem to Him as though His Heavenly Father, +though unseen, was stretching out to Him the arms of consolation. +Imagination, which ever mercifully lightens for men the +yoke of misery, charmed the fatherless child out of His earthly +sufferings and put into His hand a coloured glass through which +He saw the world and life in a false light. Ecstatic enthusiasm +had carried Him up to the dizzy height of spiritual union with the +Father in Heaven. A hundred times He was cast down out of +His dreams into the hard world of reality, to experience once +more His earthly distresses, but ever anew He won His way by +fasting, vigil, and prayer to the starry heaven of ecstasy. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Jesus,</q> Noack explains, <q>had in thought projected Himself +beyond His earthly nativity and risen to the conception that His +<pb n='178'/><anchor id='Pg178'/> +ego had been in existence before this earthly body in which He +stood visibly upon the stage of the world. He felt that His ego +had had being and life before He became incarnate upon earth.... +This new conception of Himself, born of His solitary musings, +was incorporated into the very substance of His natural personal +ego. A new ego had superseded the old natural, corporeally conditioned +ego.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Ambition, too, came into play—the high ambition to do God +a service by the offering up of Himself. The passion of self-sacrifice +is characteristic of a consciousness such as this. According +to the document which underlies the Johannine Gospel it was +not in consequence of outward events that Jesus took His resolve +to die. <q>It was the later Gospel tradition which exhibited His fate +as an inevitable consequence of His conflict with a world impervious +to spiritual impression.</q> In the original Gospel that fate was +freely embraced from the outset as belonging to the vocation of +the Son of God. Only by the constant presence of the thought +of death could a life which for two years walked the razor edge of +such dizzy dreams have been preserved from falling. The conviction, +or perhaps rather the instinctive feeling, that the rôle of +a Son of God upon earth was not one to be maintained for decades +was the necessary counterpoise to the enthusiasm of Jesus' spirit. +From the first He was as much at home with the thought of death +as with His Heavenly Father. +</p> + +<p> +This Son of Man—according to Noack's interpretation the +title is equivalent to Son of Hope—requires of the multitude that +they shall take His lofty dream for solid reality. <q>He revealed His +message from heaven to the world at the Paschal Feast of the +year 35, by throwing out a challenge to the Sadducaean hierarchy +in Jerusalem.</q> In the time between John's removal from the +scene and John's death, there falls the visit of Jesus to Samaria +and a sojourn in the neighbourhood of His Galilaean home. At +the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem in the autumn of that year, +the healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda led to a +breach with the Sabbatic regulations of the Pharisees. Later on, +in consequence of His generous feeding of the multitude in the +Gaulonite table-land, there is an attempt to make Him into a +Messianic King; which He, however, repudiates. At the time of +the Passover in Galilee in the year 36, in the synagogue at +Capernaum, He tests the spiritual insight of those who may, He +hopes, be ripe for the higher teaching concerning the Son of God +made flesh, by the touchstone of His mystical words about the +bread of life. At the next Feast of Tabernacles, in the city of +Zion, He makes a last desperate attempt to move men's hearts +by the parable of the Good Shepherd who is ready to lay down +His life for His sheep, the people of Israel. +</p> + +<pb n='179'/><anchor id='Pg179'/> + +<p> +But His adversaries are remorseless; they wound Him to the +very depths of His spirit by bringing to Him the woman taken +in adultery, and asking Him what they are to do with her. When +this question was sprung upon Him, He saw in a moment the +public humiliation designed by His adversaries. All eyes were +turned upon Him, and for a few moments the embarrassment of +One who was usually so self-possessed was patent to all. He +stooped as though He desired to write with His finger upon the +ground. Was it shame at His dishonourable birth that compelled +Him thus to lower His gaze? But the painful silence of expectation +among the spectators did not last long. His adversaries +repeated their question, He raised His head and spoke the +undying words: <q>Let him that is without sin among you cast the +first stone at her.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Incensed by His constant references to His heavenly Sonship, +they endeavour at last to stone Him. He flees from the Temple +and takes refuge in the Jordan uplands. His purpose is, at the +next Passover, that of the year 37, here in the mountains which +were blessed as Joseph's portion, to offer His atoning death as +that of the true paschal lamb, and with this act to quit the stage +of the world's history. He remained in hiding in order to avoid +the risk of assassination by the emissaries of the Pharisees. In +Bethany He receives the mysterious visit of the Greeks, who +doubtless desired to tempt Him to raise the standard of revolt as +a claimant of the Messiahship, but He refuses to be shaken in His +determination to die. The washing of the disciples' feet signifies +their baptism with water, that they might thereafter receive the +baptism of the Holy Spirit. +</p> + +<p> +Judas, the disciple whom Jesus loved, who was a man of much +resource, helped Him to avoid being arrested as a disturber of +the peace by arranging that the <q>betrayal</q> should take place on +the evening before the Passover, in order that Jesus might die, as +He desired, on the day of the Passover. For this service of love +he was, in the secondary tradition, torn from the bosom of the +Lord and branded as a traitor. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='180'/><anchor id='Pg180'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>XIII. Renan</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ernest Renan.</hi> La Vie de Jésus. 1863. Paris, Michel Lévy Frères. 462 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>E. de Pressensé.</hi> Jésus-Christ, son temps, sa vie, son œuvre. Paris, 1865. 684 pp. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Ernest Renan was born in 1823 at Tréguier in Brittany. +Intended for the priesthood, he entered the seminary of St. Sulpice +in Paris, but there, in consequence of reading the German critical +theology, he began to doubt the truth of Christianity and of its +history. In October 1845, shortly before the time arrived for him +to be ordained a sub-deacon, he left the seminary and began to +work for his living as a private teacher. In 1849 he received a +government grant to enable him to make a journey to Italy for the +prosecution of his studies, the fruits of which appeared in his +<hi rend='italic'>Averroès et l'Averroïsme</hi> (Paris, 1852); in 1856 he was made a +member of the Académie des Inscriptions; in 1860 he received +from Napoléon III. the means to make a journey to Phoenicia and +Syria. After his return in 1862 he obtained the professorship of +Semitic Languages at the Collège de France. But the widespread +indignation aroused by his Life of Jesus, which appeared in +the following year, forced the Government to remove him from his +office. He refused a post as Librarian of the Imperial Library, and +lived in retirement until the Republic of 1871 restored him to his +professorship. In politics, as in religion, his position was somewhat +indefinite. In religion he was no longer a Catholic; avowed +free-thought was too plebeian for his taste, and in Protestantism +the multiplicity of sects repelled him. Similarly in politics, in the +period immediately following the fall of the Empire, he was in turn +Royalist, Republican, and Bonapartist. At bottom he was a +sceptic. He died in 1892, already half-forgotten by the public; +until his imposing funeral and interment in the Panthéon recalled +him to its memory. +</p> + +<p> +Like Strauss, Renan designed his Life of Jesus to form part of +a complete account of the history and dogma of the early Church. +His purpose, however, was purely historical; it was no part of his +<pb n='181'/><anchor id='Pg181'/> +project to set up, on the basis of the history, a new system of +dogma, as Strauss had desired to do. This plan was not only +conceived, but carried out. <hi rend='italic'>Les Apôtres</hi> appeared in 1866; +<hi rend='italic'>St. Paul</hi> in 1869; <hi rend='italic'>L'Anté-Christ</hi> in 1873; <hi rend='italic'>Les Évangiles</hi> in 1877; +<hi rend='italic'>L'Église chrétienne</hi> in 1879; <hi rend='italic'>Marc-Aurèle et la fin du monde +antique</hi> in 1881. Several of these works were more valuable than +the one which opened the series, but for the world Renan continued +to be the author of the <hi rend='italic'>Vie de Jésus</hi>, and of that alone. +</p> + +<p> +He planned the work at Gaza, and he dedicated it to his +sister Henriette, who died soon after, in Syria, and lies buried at +Byblus. +</p> + +<p> +This was the first Life of Jesus for the Catholic world, which +had scarcely been touched—the Latin peoples least of all—by the +two and a half generations of critical study which had been devoted +to the subject. It is true, Strauss's work had been translated into +French,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>La Vie de Jésus de D. Fr. Strauss.</hi> Traduite par M. Littré, 1840.</note> but it had made only a passing stir, and that only among +a little circle of intellectuals. Now came a writer with the +characteristic French mental accent, who gave to the Latin world in +a single book the result of the whole process of German criticism. +</p> + +<p> +But Renan's work marked an epoch, not for the Catholic world +only, but for general literature. He laid the problem which had +hitherto occupied only theologians before the whole cultured world. +And not as a problem, but as a question of which he, by means of +his historical science and aesthetic power of reviving the past, could +provide a solution. He offered his readers a Jesus who was alive, +whom he, with his artistic imagination, had met under the blue +heaven of Galilee, and whose lineaments his inspired pencil had +seized. Men's attention was arrested, and they thought to see Jesus, +because Renan had the skill to make them see blue skies, seas of +waving corn, distant mountains, gleaming lilies, in a landscape +with the Lake of Gennesareth for its centre, and to hear with him +in the whispering of the reeds the eternal melody of the Sermon +on the Mount. +</p> + +<p> +Yet the aesthetic feeling for nature which gave birth to this +Life of Jesus was, it must be confessed, neither pure nor profound. +It is a standing enigma why French art, which in painting grasps +nature with a directness and vigour, with an objectivity in the best +sense of the word, such as is scarcely to be found in the art of any +other nation, has in poetry treated it in a fashion which scarcely +ever goes beyond the lyrical and sentimental, the artificial, the +subjective, in the worst sense of the word. Renan is no exception +to this rule, any more than Lamartine or Pierre Loti. He looks at +the landscape with the eye of a decorative painter seeking a <foreign rend='italic'>motif</foreign> for +a lyrical composition upon which he is engaged. But that was not +noticed by the many, because they, after all, were accustomed to have +<pb n='182'/><anchor id='Pg182'/> +nature dressed up for them, and had had their taste so corrupted +by a certain kind of lyricism that they had lost the power of +distinguishing between truth and artificiality. Even those who +might have noticed it were so astonished and delighted at being +shown Jesus in the Galilaean landscape that they were content to +yield to the enchantment. +</p> + +<p> +Along with this artificial feeling for nature a good many other +things were accepted without question. There is scarcely any other +work on the subject which so abounds in lapses of taste—and those +of the most distressing kind—as Renan's <hi rend='italic'>Vie de Jésus</hi>. It is +Christian art in the worst sense of the term—the art of the wax +image. The gentle Jesus, the beautiful Mary, the fair Galilaeans +who formed the retinue of the <q>amiable carpenter,</q> might have been +taken over in a body from the shop-window of an ecclesiastical art +emporium in the Place St. Sulpice. Nevertheless, there is something +magical about the work. It offends and yet it attracts. It +will never be quite forgotten, nor is it ever likely to be surpassed in +its own line, for nature is not prodigal of masters of style, and rarely +is a book so directly born of enthusiasm as that which Renan +planned among the Galilaean hills. +</p> + +<p> +The essay on the sources of the Life of Jesus with which it +opens is itself a literary masterpiece. With a kind of effortless ease +he makes his readers acquainted with the criticism of Strauss, of +Baur, of Reuss, of Colani. He does not argue, but simply sets the +result vividly before the reader, who finds himself at once at home +in the new world of ideas. He avoids any hard or glaring effects; +by means of that skilful transition from point to point which +Wagner in one of his letters praises as the highest art, everything +is surrounded with atmosphere. But how much trickery and +illusion there is in this art! In a few strokes he indicates the +relation of John to the Synoptists; the dilemma is made clear, it +seems as if one horn or the other must be chosen. Then he begins +by artful touches to soften down the contrast. The discourses of +John are not authentic; the historical Jesus cannot have spoken +thus. But what about the statements of fact? Here Renan declares +himself convinced by the graphic presentment of the passion story. +Touches like <q>it was night,</q> <q>they had lighted a fire of coals,</q> +<q>the coat was without seam,</q> cannot have been invented. Therefore +the Gospel must in some way go back to the disciple whom +Jesus loved. It is possible, nay certain, that when as an old man +he read the other Gospels, he was displeased by certain inaccuracies, +and perhaps vexed that he was given so small a place in the +history. He began to dictate a number of things which he had +better means of knowing than the others; partly, too, with the +purpose of showing that in many cases where Peter only had been +mentioned he also had played a part, and indeed the principal part. +<pb n='183'/><anchor id='Pg183'/> +Sometimes his recollection was quite fresh, sometimes it had been +modified by time. When he wrote down the discourses, he had +forgotten the Lake of Gennesareth and the winsome words which +he had listened to upon its shores. He was now living in quite a +different world. The events of the year 70 destroyed his hopes +of the return of his Master. His Jewish prejudices fell away, +and as he was still young, he adapted himself to the syncretistic, +philosophic, gnostic environment amid which he found himself in +Ephesus. Thus even Jesus' world of thought took on a new shape +for him; although the discourses are perhaps rather to be referred +to his school than to himself. But, when all is said, John remains +the best biographer. Or, to put it more accurately, while all the +Gospels are biographies, they are legendary biographies, even +though they come down from the first century. Their texts need +interpretation, and the clue to the interpretation can be supplied +by aesthetic feeling. They must be subjected to a gentle pressure +to bring them together, and make them coalesce into a unity in +which all the data are happily combined. +</p> + +<p> +How this is to be done Renan shows later in his description of +the death of Jesus. <q>Suddenly,</q> he says, <q>Jesus gave a terrible +cry in which some thought they heard <q>Father, into thy hands I +commend my spirit,</q> but which others, whose thoughts were running +on the fulfilment of prophecy, reported as <q>It is finished.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +The authentic sayings of Jesus are more or less self-evidencing. +Coming in contact with one of them amid the welter of heterogeneous +traditions, you feel a thrill of recognition. They leap forth and +take their proper place, where their vivid power becomes apparent. +For one who writes the life of Jesus on His native soil, the Gospels +are not so much sources of information as incentives to revelation. +<q>I had,</q> Renan avows, <q>a fifth Gospel before my eyes, mutilated +in parts, but still legible, and taking it for my guide I saw behind +the narratives of Matthew and Mark, instead of an ideal Being of +whom it might be maintained that He had never existed, a glorious +human countenance full of life and movement.</q> It is this Jesus of +the fifth Gospel that he desires to portray. +</p> + +<p> +In looking at the picture, the reader must not allow the vexed +question of miracle to distract him and disturb the proper frame +of mind. The author refuses to assert either the possibility or the +impossibility of miracle, but speaks only as an historian. <q>We do +not say miracle is impossible, we say only that there has never been +a satisfactorily authenticated miracle.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In view of the method of treatment adopted by Renan there +can, of course, be no question of an historical plan. He brings in +each saying at the point where it seems most appropriate. None +of them is passed over, but none of them appears in its historical +setting. He shifts individual incidents hither and thither in the +<pb n='184'/><anchor id='Pg184'/> +most arbitrary fashion. For example, the coming of Jesus' mother +to seek Him (in the belief that He is beside Himself) must belong +to the later part of Jesus' life, since it is out of tone with the happy +innocence of the earlier period. Certain scenes are transposed +from the later period to the earlier, because they are not gloomy +enough for the later time. Others again are made the basis of an +unwarranted generalisation. It is not enough that Jesus once rode +upon an ass while the disciples in the intoxication of joy cast their +garments in the way; according to Renan, He constantly rode +about, even in Galilee, upon a mule, <q>that favourite riding-animal +of the East, which is so docile and sure-footed and whose great +dark eyes, shaded by long lashes, are full of gentleness.</q> Sometimes +the disciples surrounded Him with rustic pomp, using their +garments by way of carpeting. They laid them upon the mule +which carried Him, or spread them before Him on the way. +</p> + +<p> +Scenes of little significance are sometimes elaborately described +by Renan while more important ones are barely touched +on. <q>One day, indeed,</q> he remarks in describing the first visit to +Jerusalem, <q>anger seems to have, as the saying goes, overmastered +Him; He struck some of the miserable chafferers with the scourge, +and overthrew their tables.</q> Such is the incidental fashion in +which the cleansing of the temple was brought in. In this way it +is possible to smuggle in a miracle without giving any further +explanation of it. The miracle at Cana is brought, by means of +the following unobtrusive turn of phrase, into the account of the +period of success in Galilee. <q>One of His miracles was done by +Jesus for the sole purpose of increasing the happiness of a wedding-party +in a little country town.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This Life of Jesus is introduced by a kind of prelude. Jesus +had been living in Galilee before He came to the Baptist; when +He heard of the latter's success He went to him with His little +company of followers. They were both young, and Jesus became +the imitator of the Baptist. Fortunately the latter soon disappeared +from the scene, for his influence on Jesus was in some respects +injurious. The Galilaean teacher was on the verge of losing the +sunny religion which He had learned from His only teacher, the +glorious natural scenery which surrounded His home, and of +becoming a gloomy Jewish fanatic. But this influence fell away +from Him again; when He returned to Galilee He became Himself +once more. The only thing which He had gained from John was +some knowledge of the art of preaching. He had learned from +him how to influence masses of men. From that time forward +He preached with much more power and gained greater ascendancy +over the people. +</p> + +<p> +With the return to Galilee begins the first act of the piece. +The story of the rise of Christianity is a pastoral play. Bauer, in +<pb n='185'/><anchor id='Pg185'/> +his <q>Philo, Strauss, and Renan,</q> writes with biting sarcasm: +<q>Renan, who is at once the author of the play, the stage-manager, +and the director of the theatre, gives the signal to begin, and at a +sign from him the electric lights are put on full power, the Bengal +fires flare up, the footlights are turned higher, and while the flutes +and shawms of the orchestra strike up the overture, the people +enter and take their places among the bushes and by the shore of +the Lake.</q> And how confiding they were, this gentle and peaceful +company of Galilaean fisher folk! And He, the young carpenter, +conjured the Kingdom of Heaven down to earth for a year, by the +spell of the infinite tenderness which radiated from Him. A +company of men and women, all of the same youthful integrity and +simple innocence, became His followers and constantly repeated +<q>Thou art the Messiah.</q> By the women He was more beloved +than He Himself liked, but from His passion for the glory of His +Father He was content to attract these <q>fair creatures</q> (<foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>belles +créatures</foreign>) and suffered them to serve Him, and God through Him. +Three or four devoted Galilaean women constantly accompanied +Him and strove with one another for the pleasure (<foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>le plaisir</foreign>) of +listening to His teaching and attending to His comfort. Some of +them were wealthy and used their means to enable the <q>amiable</q> +(<foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>charmant</foreign>) prophet to live without needing to practise His handicraft. +The most devoted of all was Mary Magdalene, whose disordered +mind had been healed by the influence of the pure and +gracious beauty (<foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>par la beauté pure et douce</foreign>) of the young Rabbi. +</p> + +<p> +Thus He rode, on His long-eyelashed gentle mule, from village +to village, from town to town. The sweet theology of love (<foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>la +délicieuse théologie de l'amour</foreign>) won Him all hearts. His preaching +was gentle and mild (<foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>suave et douce</foreign>), full of nature and the +fragrance of the country. Wherever He went the people kept festival. +At marriages He was a welcome guest; to the feasts which He +gave He invited women who were sinners, and publicans like the +good Zacchaeus. +</p> + +<p> +<q>The Frenchman,</q> remarks Noack, <q>takes the mummied figure +of the Galilaean Rabbi, which criticism has exhumed, endows it +with life and energy, and brings Him upon the stage, first amid the +lustre of the earthly happiness which it was His pleasure to bestow, +and then in the moving aspect of one doomed to suffer.</q> +</p> + +<p> +When Jesus goes up to the Passover at the end of this first +year, He comes into conflict with the Rabbis of the capital. The +<q>winsome teacher, who offered forgiveness to all on the sole +condition of loving Him,</q> found in the capital people upon whom +His charm had no effect. When He returned to Galilee He had +entirely abandoned His Jewish beliefs, and a revolutionary ardour +glowed in His heart. The second act begins. <q>The action +becomes more serious and gloomy, and the pupil of Strauss turns +<pb n='186'/><anchor id='Pg186'/> +down the footlights of his stage.</q><note place='foot'>Bruno Bauer in <hi rend='italic'>Philo, Strauss, und Renan</hi>.</note> The erstwhile <q>winsome +moralist</q> has become a transcendental revolutionary. Up to this +point He had thought to bring about the triumph of the Kingdom +of God by natural means, by teaching and influencing men. The +Jewish eschatology stood vaguely in the background. Now it +becomes prominent. The tension set up between His purely +ethical ideas and these eschatological expectations gives His words +from this time forward a special force. The period of joyous +simplicity is past. +</p> + +<p> +Even the character of the hero loses its simplicity. In the +furtherance of His cause He becomes a wonder-worker. It is true +that even before He had sometimes practised innocent arts such as +Joan of Arc made use of later.<note place='foot'>Renan does not hesitate to apply this tasteless parallel.</note> He had, for instance, pretended +to know the unspoken thoughts of one whom He desired to win, +had reminded him, perhaps, of some experience of which he +cherished the memory. He allowed the people to believe that He +received knowledge of certain matters through a kind of revelation. +Finally, it came to be whispered that He had spoken with Moses +and Elias upon the mountains. But He now finds Himself +compelled to adopt in earnest the rôle which He had formerly +taken, as it were, in play. Against His will He is compelled to +found His work upon miracle. He must face the alternative of +either renouncing His mission or becoming a thaumaturge. He +consented, therefore, to play an active part in many miracles. In +this astute friends gave Him their aid. At Bethany something +happened which could be regarded as a raising of the dead. +Perhaps this miracle was arranged by Lazarus himself. When very +ill he had allowed himself to be wrapped in the cerements of the +dead and laid in the grave. His sisters sent for Jesus and brought +Him to the tomb. He desired to look once more upon His friend, +and when, overcome with grief, He cried his name aloud, +Lazarus came forth from the grave. Why should the brother and +sisters have hesitated to provide a miracle for the Master, in whose +miracle-working power they, indeed, believed? Where, then, was +Renan's allegiance to his <q>honoured master</q> Strauss, when he +thus enrolled himself among the rationalists? +</p> + +<p> +On these lines Jesus played His part for eighteen months, from +the Easter of 31 to the Feast of Tabernacles of 32. How great is +the change from the gentle teacher of the Sermon on the Mount! +His discourse takes on a certain hardness of tone. In the +synagogue at Capernaum He drives many from Him, offended by +the saying about eating and drinking His flesh and blood. The +<q>extreme materialism of the expression,</q> which in Him had always +been the natural counterpoise to the <q>extreme idealism of the +<pb n='187'/><anchor id='Pg187'/> +thought,</q> becomes more and more pronounced. His <q>Kingdom +of God</q> was indeed still essentially the kingdom of the poor, the +kingdom of the soul, the great spiritual kingdom; but He now +preached it as the kingdom of the apocalyptic writings. And yet +in the very moment when He seems to be staking everything upon +a supernatural fulfilment of His hopes, He provides with remarkable +prescience the basis of a permanent Church. He appoints +the Twelve Apostles and institutes the fellowship-meal. It is +certain, Renan thinks, that the <q>Supper</q> was not first instituted +on that last evening; even in the second Galilaean period He must +have practised with His followers the mystic rite of the Breaking of +Bread, which in some way symbolised His death. +</p> + +<p> +By the end of this period He had cast off all earthly ambitions. +Nothing of earth existed for Him any more. A strange longing +for persecution and martyrdom had taken possession of Him. +It was not, however, the resolve to offer an atonement for the sins +of His people which familiarised Him with the thought of death; +it was forced upon Him by the knowledge that He had entered +upon a path in which it was impossible for Him to sustain His rôle +for more than a few months, or perhaps even weeks. So He sets +out for Jerusalem, outwardly a hero, inwardly half in despair +because He has turned aside from His true path. The gentle, +faithful, long-eyelashed mule bears Him, amid the acclamations of +the multitude, through the gate of the capital. +</p> + +<p> +The third act begins: the stage is dark and becomes constantly +darker, until at last, through the darkness of the scene, there is +faintly visible only the figure of a woman—of her who in her deep +grief beside the grave was by her vision to call to life again Him +whom she loved. There was darkness, too, in the souls of the +disciples, and in that of the Master. The bitter jealousy between +Judas and John made one of them a traitor. As for Jesus, He +had His hour of gloom to fight through in Gethsemane. For a +moment His human nature awakened in Him; all that He thought +He had slain and put behind Him for ever rose up and confronted +Him as He knelt there upon the ground. <q>Did He remember +the clear brooks of Galilee at which He might have slaked His +thirst—the vine and the fig-tree beneath which He might have +rested—the maidens who would perhaps have been willing to love +Him? Did He regret His too exalted nature? Did He, a martyr +to His own greatness, weep that He had not remained the simple +carpenter of Nazareth? We do not know!</q> +</p> + +<p> +He is dead. Renan, as though he stood in Père Lachaise, +commissioned to pronounce the final allocution over a member +of the Academy, apostrophises Him thus: <q>Rest now, amid +Thy glory, noble pioneer. Thou conqueror of death, take the +sceptre of Thy Kingdom, into which so many centuries of Thy +<pb n='188'/><anchor id='Pg188'/> +worshippers shall follow Thee, by the highway which Thou hast +opened up.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The bell rings; the curtain begins to fall; the swing-seats tilt. +The epilogue is scarcely heard: <q>Jesus will never have a rival. +His religion will again and again renew itself; His story will call +forth endless tears: His sufferings will soften the hearts of the +best; every successive century will proclaim that among the sons +of men there hath not arisen a greater than Jesus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The book passed through eight editions in three months. The +writings of those who opposed it had an equal vogue. That of +Freppel had reached its twelfth edition in 1864.<note place='foot'><p>Charles Émile Freppel (Abbé), Professeur d'éloquence sacrée à la Sorbonne. +<hi rend='italic'>Examen critique de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan.</hi> Paris, 1864. 148 pp. +</p> +<p> +Henri Lasserre's pamphlet, <hi rend='italic'>L'Évangile selon Renan</hi> (The Gospel according to +Renan), reached its four-and-twentieth edition in the course of the same year.</p></note> Their name was +legion. Whatever wore a soutane and could wield a pen charged +against Renan, the bishops leading the van. The tone of these +attacks was not always very elevated, nor their logic very profound. +In most cases the writers were only concerned to defend the Deity +of Christ,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Lettre pastorale de Monseigneur l'Archevêque de Paris (Georges Darboy) sur la +divinité de Jésus-Christ, et mandement pour le carême de 1864.</hi></note> and the miracles, and are satisfied that they have done +so when they have pointed out some of the glaring inconsistencies +in Renan's work. Here and there, however, among these refutations +we catch the tone of a loftier ethical spirit which has +recognised the fundamental weakness of the work, the lack of any +definite ethical principles in the writer's outlook upon life.<note place='foot'>See, for example, Félix Antoine Philibert Dupanloup, Bishop of Orléans, +<hi rend='italic'>Avertissement à la jeunesse et aux pères de famille sur les attaques dirigées contre la +religion par quelques écrivains de nos jours.</hi> (Warning to the Young, and to Fathers +of Families, concerning some Attacks directed against Religion by some Writers of our +Time.) Paris, 1864. 141 pp.</note> There +were some indeed who were not content with a refutation; they +would gladly have seen active measures taken against Renan. One +of his most embittered adversaries, Amadée Nicolas,<note place='foot'>Amadée Nicolas, <hi rend='italic'>Renan et sa vie de Jésus sous les rapports moral, légal, et +littéraire. Appel à la raison et la conscience du monde civilisé.</hi> Paris-Marseille, +1864.</note> reckons up +in an appendix to his work the maximum penalties authorised by +the existing enactments against free-thought, and would welcome +the application of the law of the 25th of March 1822, according +to which five years' imprisonment could be imposed for the crime +of <q>insulting or making ridiculous a religion recognised by the +state.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Renan was defended by the <hi rend='italic'>Siècle</hi>, the <hi rend='italic'>Débats</hi>, at that time the +leading French newspaper, and the <hi rend='italic'>Temps</hi>, in which Scherer +published five articles upon the book. Even the <hi rend='italic'>Revue des deux +mondes</hi>, which had formerly raised a warning voice against Strauss, +allowed itself to go with the stream, and published in its August +<pb n='189'/><anchor id='Pg189'/> +number of 1863 a critical analysis by Havet<note place='foot'>Ernest Havet, Professeur au Collège de France, <hi rend='italic'>Jésus dans l'histoire</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>Examen +de la vie de Jésus par M. Renan.</hi> Extrait de la <hi rend='italic'>Revue des deux mondes</hi>. Paris, +1863. 71 pp.</note> who hailed Renan's work +as a great achievement, and criticised only the inconsistencies by +which he had endeavoured to soften down the radical character of +his undertaking. Later on the <hi rend='italic'>Revue</hi> changed its attitude and sided +with Renan's opponents. In the Protestant camp there was an +even keener sense of distaste than in the Catholic for the sentimental +gloss which Renan had spread over his work to make it +attractive to the multitude by its iridescent colours. In four +remarkable letters Athanase Coquerel the younger took the author to +task for this.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Zwei französische Stimmen über Renans Leben-Jesu, von Edmond Scherer und +Athanase Coquerel, d.J. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des französischen Protestantismus.</hi> +Regensburg, 1864. (Two French utterances in regard to Renan's Life of +Jesus, by Edmond Scherer and Athanase Coquerel the younger. A contribution +to the understanding of French Protestantism.)</note> From the standpoint of orthodox scholarship E. de +Pressensé condemned him;<note place='foot'>E. de Pressensé, <hi rend='italic'>L'École critique et Jésus-Christ, à propos de la vie de Jésus de +M. Renan</hi>.</note> and proceeded without loss of time +to refute him in a large-scale Life of Jesus.<note place='foot'>E. de Pressensé, <hi rend='italic'>Jésus-Christ, son temps, sa vie, son œuvre</hi>. Paris, 1865. 684 pp. +In general the plan of this work follows Renan's. He divides the Life of Jesus into +three periods: i. The Time of Public Favour; ii. The Period of Conflict; iii. The +Great Week. Death and Victory. By way of introduction there is a long essay on +the supernatural which sets forth the supernaturalistic views of the author.</note> He was answered +by Albert Réville,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>La Vie de Jésus de Renan devant les orthodoxes et devant la critique.</hi> 1864.</note> who claims recognition for Renan's services to +criticism. +</p> + +<p> +In general, however, the rising French school of critical theology +was disappointed in Renan. Their spokesman was Colani. +<q>This is not the Christ of history, the Christ of the Synoptics,</q> he +writes in 1864 in the <hi rend='italic'>Revue de théologie</hi>, <q>but the Christ of the +Fourth Gospel, though without His metaphysical halo, and painted +over with a brush which has been dipped in the melancholy blue +of modern poetry, in the rose of the eighteenth-century idyll, +and in the grey of a moral philosophy which seems to be derived +from La Rochefoucauld.</q> <q>In expressing this opinion,</q> he adds, <q>I +believe I am speaking in the name of those who belong to what +is known as the new Protestant theology, or the Strassburg school. +We opened M. Renan's book with sympathetic interest; we closed +it with deep disappointment.</q><note place='foot'>T. Colani, Pasteur, <q>Examen de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan,</q> <hi rend='italic'>Revue de +théologie</hi>. Issued separately, Strasbourg-Paris, 1864. 74 pp.</note> +</p> + +<p> +The Strassburg school had good cause to complain of Renan, +for he had trampled their growing crops. They had just begun to +arouse some interest, and slowly and surely to exercise an influence +upon the whole spiritual life of France. Sainte-Beuve had called +attention to the work of Reuss, Colani, Réville, and Scherer. +<pb n='190'/><anchor id='Pg190'/> +Others of the school were Michel Nicolas of Montauban and +Gustave d'Eichthal. Nefftzer, the editor of the <hi rend='italic'>Temps</hi>, who was +at the same time a prophet of coming political events, defended +their cause in the Parisian literary world. The <hi rend='italic'>Revue germanique</hi> +of that period, the influence of which upon French literature can +hardly be over-estimated, was their sworn ally. Then came Renan +and threw public opinion into a ferment of excitement. Everything +in the nature of criticism, and of progress in religious +thought, was associated with his name, and was thereby discredited. +By his untimely and over-easy popularisation of the ideas of the +critical school he ruined their quiet work. The excitement roused +by his book swept away all that had been done by those noble and +lofty spirits, who now found themselves involved in a struggle with +the outraged orthodoxy of Paris, and were hard put to it to defend +themselves. Even down to the present day Renan's work forms the +greatest hindrance to any serious advance in French religious thought. +</p> + +<p> +The excitement aroused upon the other side of the Rhine was +scarcely less than in Paris. Within a year there appeared five +different German translations, and many of the French criticisms +of Renan were also translated.<note place='foot'><p>Lasserre, <hi rend='italic'>Das Evangelium nach Renan</hi>. Munich, 1864. +</p> +<p> +Freppel, <hi rend='italic'>Kritische Beleuchtung der E. Renan'schen Schrift</hi>. Translated by +Kallmus. Vienna, 1864. +</p> +<p> +See also Lamy, Professor of the Theological Faculty of the Catholic University +of Louvain, <hi rend='italic'>Renans Leben-Jesu vor dem Richterstuhle der Kritik</hi>. (Renan's Life +of Jesus before the Judgment Seat of Criticism.) Translated by August Rohling, +Priest. Münster, 1864.</p></note> The German Catholic press was +wildly excited;<note place='foot'><p>Dr. Michelis, <hi rend='italic'>Renans Roman vom Leben Jesu</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>Eine deutsche Antwort auf eine +französische Blasphemie.</hi> (Renan's Romance on the Life of Jesus. A German +answer to a French blasphemy.) Münster, 1864. +</p> +<p> +Dr. Sebastian Brunner, <hi rend='italic'>Der Atheist Renan und sein Evangelium</hi>. (The Atheist +Renan and his Gospel.) Regensburg, 1864. +</p> +<p> +Albert Wiesinger, <hi rend='italic'>Aphorismen gegen Renans Leben-Jesu</hi>. Vienna, 1864. +</p> +<p> +Dr. Martin Deutlinger, <hi rend='italic'>Renan und das Wunder</hi>. (Renan and Miracle. A +contribution to Christian Apologetic.) Munich, 1864. 159 pp. +</p> +<p> +Dr. Daniel Bonifacius Haneberg, <hi rend='italic'>Ernest Renans Leben-Jesu</hi>. Regensburg, +1864.</p></note> the Protestant press was more restrained, more +inclined to give the author a fair hearing, and even ventured to +express admiration of the historical merits of his performance. +Beyschlag<note place='foot'>Willibald Beyschlag, Doctor and Professor of Theology, <hi rend='italic'>Über das Leben-Jesu +von Renan</hi>. A Lecture delivered at Halle, January 13, 1864. Berlin.</note> saw in Renan an advance upon Strauss, inasmuch as +for him the life of Jesus as narrated in the Gospels, while not, +indeed, in any sense supernatural, is nevertheless historical. For +a certain school of theology, therefore, Renan was a deliverer from +Strauss; they were especially grateful to him for his defence, +sophistical though it was, of the Fourth Gospel. Weizsäcker +expressed his admiration. Strauss, far from directing his <q>Life of +Jesus for the German People,</q> with which he was then occupied, +<pb n='191'/><anchor id='Pg191'/> +against the superficial and frivolous French treatment of the subject—as +has sometimes been alleged—hailed Renan in his preface as +a kindred spirit and ally, and <q>shook hands with him across the +Rhine.</q> Luthardt,<note place='foot'><p>Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Doctor and Professor of Theology, <hi rend='italic'>Die modernen +Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu</hi>. (Modern Presentations of the Life of Jesus.) A +discussion of the writings of Strauss, Renan, and Schenkel, and of the essays of +Coquerel the younger, Scherer, Colani, and Keim. A Lecture. Leipzig, 1864. +</p> +<p> +Of the remaining Protestant polemics we may name:— +</p> +<p> +Dr. Hermann Gerlach, <hi rend='italic'>Gegen Renans Leben-Jesu 1864</hi>. Berlin. +</p> +<p> +Br. Lehmann, <hi rend='italic'>Renan wider Renan</hi>. (Renan <hi rend='italic'>versus</hi> Renan.) A Lecture +addressed to cultured Germans. Zwickau, 1864. +</p> +<p> +Friedrich Baumer, <hi rend='italic'>Schwarz, Strauss, Renan</hi>. A Lecture. Leipzig, 1864. +</p> +<p> +John Cairns, D. D. (of Berwick). <hi rend='italic'>Falsche Christi und der wahre Christus, oder +Verteidigung der evangelischen Geschichte gegen Strauss und Renan.</hi> (False Christs +and the True, a Defence of the Gospel History against Strauss and Renan.) A +Lecture delivered before the Bible Society. Translated from the English. Hamburg, +1864. +</p> +<p> +Bernhard ter Haar, Doctor of Theology and Professor at Utrecht, <hi rend='italic'>Zehn Vorlesungen +über Renans Leben-Jesu</hi>. (Ten Lectures on Renan's Life of Jesus.) Translated by +H. Doermer. Gotha, 1864. +</p> +<p> +Paulus Cassel, Professor and Licentiate in Theology, <hi rend='italic'>Bericht über Renans +Leben-Jesu</hi>. (A Report upon Renan's Life of Jesus.) +</p> +<p> +J. J. van Oosterzee, Doctor and Professor of Theology at Utrecht, <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte oder +Roman? Das Leben-Jesu von Renan vorläufig beleuchtet.</hi> (History or Fiction? +A Preliminary Examination of Renan's Life of Jesus.) Hamburg, 1864.</p></note> however, remained inexorable. <q>What is +there lacking in Renan's work?</q> he asks. And he replies, <q>It lacks +conscience.</q> +</p> + +<p> +That is a just judgment. From this lack of conscience, +Renan has not been scrupulous where he ought to have been +so. There is a kind of insincerity in the book from beginning +to end. Renan professes to depict the Christ of the Fourth +Gospel, though he does not believe in the authenticity or the +miracles of that Gospel. He professes to write a scientific work, +and is always thinking of the great public and how to interest +it. He has thus fused together two works of disparate character. +The historian finds it hard to forgive him for not going more +deeply into the problem of the development in the thought of +Jesus, with which he was brought face to face by the emphasis +which he laid on eschatology, and for offering in place of a +solution the highly-coloured phrases of the novelist. +</p> + +<p> +Nevertheless, this work will always retain a certain interest, +both for Frenchmen and for Germans. The German is often +so completely fascinated by it as to lose his power of criticism, +because he finds in it German thought in a novel and piquant +form. Conversely the Frenchman discovers in it, behind the +familiar form, which is here handled in such a masterly fashion, +ideas belonging to a world which is foreign to him, ideas which +he can never completely assimilate, but which yet continually +attract him. In this double character of the work lies its imperishable +charm. +</p> + +<pb n='192'/><anchor id='Pg192'/> + +<p> +And its weakness? That it is written by one to whom the +New Testament was to the last something foreign, who had not +read it from his youth up in the mother-tongue, who was not +accustomed to breathe freely in its simple and pure world, but +must perfume it with sentimentality in order to feel himself at +home in it. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='193'/><anchor id='Pg193'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Chapter_XIV'/> +<head>XIV. The <q>Liberal</q> Lives Of Jesus</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>David Friedrich Strauss.</hi> Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet. (A +Life of Jesus for the German People.) Leipzig, 1864. 631 pp. +</p> + +<p> +Der Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte. Eine Kritik des Schleiermacher'schen +Lebens Jesu. (The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History, +a Criticism of Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus.) Berlin, 1865. 223 pp. +Appendix, pp. 224-240. +</p> + +<p> +Der Schenkel'sche Handel in Baden. (The Schenkel Affair in Baden.) A +corrected reprint from No. 441 of the <hi rend='italic'>National-Zeitung</hi>, of the 21st September +1864. +</p> + +<p> +Die Halben und die Ganzen. (The Half-way-ers and the Whole-way-ers.) 1865. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Daniel Schenkel.</hi> Das Charakterbild Jesu. (The Portrait of Jesus.) Wiesbaden, +1864 (ed. 1 and 2). 405 pp. Fourth edition, with a preface opposing Strauss's +<q>Der alte und der neue Glaube</q> (The Old Faith and the New), 1873. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Karl Heinrich Weizsäcker.</hi> Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, +ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung. (Studies in the Gospel History, +its Sources and the Progress of its Development.) Gotha, 1864. 580 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Heinrich Julius Holtzmann.</hi> Die synoptischen Evangelien. Ihr Ursprung und +geschichtlicher Charakter. (The Synoptic Gospels. Their Origin and Historical +Character.) Leipzig, 1863. 514 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Theodor Keim.</hi> Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara. (The History of Jesus of +Nazara.) 3 vols., Zurich; vol. i., 1867, 446 pp.; vol. ii., 1871, 616 pp.; vol. +iii., 1872, 667 pp. +</p> + +<p> +Die Geschichte Jesu. Zurich, 1872. 398 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Karl Hase.</hi> Geschichte Jesu. Nach akademischen Vorlesungen. (The History of +Jesus. Academic Lectures, revised.) Leipzig, 1876. 612 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Willibald Beyschlag.</hi> Das Leben Jesu. First Part: Preliminary Investigations, +1885, 450 pp. Second Part: Narrative, 1886, 495 pp.; 2nd ed., 1887-1888. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Bernhard Weiss.</hi> Das Leben Jesu. 1st ed., 2 vols., 1882; 2nd ed., 1884. First +vol., down to the Baptist's question, 556 pp. Second vol., 617 pp. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +<q>My hope is,</q> writes Strauss in concluding the preface of his new +Life of Jesus, <q>that I have written a book as thoroughly well +adapted for Germans as Renan's is for Frenchmen.</q> He was +mistaken; in spite of its title the book was not a book for the +people. It had nothing new to offer, and what it did offer was +not in a form calculated to become popular. It is true Strauss, +like Renan, was an artist, but he did not write, like an imaginative +novelist, with a constant eye to effect. His art was unpretentious, +<pb n='194'/><anchor id='Pg194'/> +even austere, appealing to the few, not to the many. The people +demand a complete and vivid picture. Renan had given them +a figure which was theatrical no doubt, but full of life and movement, +and they had been grateful to him for it. Strauss could not +do that. +</p> + +<p> +Even the arrangement of the work is thoroughly unfortunate. +In the first part, which bears the title <q>The Life of Jesus,</q> he +attempts to combine into a harmonious portrait such of the +historical data as have some claim to be considered historical; in +the second part he traces the <q>Origin and Growth of the Mythical +History of Jesus.</q> First, therefore, he tears down from the tree the +ivy and the rich growth of creepers, laying bare the worn and +corroded bark; then he fastens the faded growths to the stem +again, and describes the nature, origin, and characteristics of each +distinct species. +</p> + +<p> +How vastly different, how much more full of life, had been the +work of 1835! There Strauss had not divided the creepers from +the stem. The straining strength which upheld this wealth of +creepers was but vaguely suspected. Behind the billowy mists of +legend we caught from time to time a momentary glimpse of the +gigantic figure of Jesus, as though lit up by a lightning-flash. +It was no complete and harmonious picture, but it was full of +suggestions, rich in thoughts thrown out carelessly, rich in contradictions +even, out of which the imagination could create a +portrait of Jesus. It is just this wealth of suggestion that is +lacking in the second picture. Strauss is trying now to give a +definite portrait. In the inevitable process of harmonising and +modelling to scale he is obliged to reject the finest thoughts of the +previous work because they will not fit in exactly; some of them +are altered out of recognition, some are filed away. +</p> + +<p> +There is wanting, too, that perfect freshness as of the spring +which is only found when thoughts have but newly come into +flower. The writing is no longer spontaneous; one feels that +Strauss is setting forth thoughts which have ripened with his mind +and grown old with it, and now along with their definiteness of +form have taken on a certain stiffness. There are now no hinted +possibilities, full of promise, to dance gaily through the movement +of his dialectic; all is sober reason—a thought too sober. Renan +had one advantage over Strauss in that he wrote when the +material was fresh to him—one might almost say strange to him—and +was capable of calling up in him the response of vivid feeling. +</p> + +<p> +For a popular book, too, it lacks that living interplay of +reflection with narration without which the ordinary reader fails +to get a grip of the history. The first Life of Jesus had been rich +in this respect, since it had been steeped in the Hegelian theory +regarding the realisation of the Idea. In the meantime Strauss +<pb n='195'/><anchor id='Pg195'/> +had seen the Hegelian philosophy fall from its high estate, and +himself had found no way of reconciling history and idea, so that +his present Life of Jesus was a mere objective presentment of the +history. It was, therefore, not adapted to make any impression +upon the popular mind. +</p> + +<p> +In reality it is merely an exposition, in more or less popular +form, of the writer's estimate of what had been done in the study +of the subject during the past thirty years, and shows what he +had learnt and what he had failed to learn. +</p> + +<p> +As regards the Synoptic question he had learnt nothing. In +his opinion the criticism of the Gospels has <q>run to seed.</q> He treats +with a pitying contempt both the earlier and the more recent +defenders of the Marcan hypothesis. Weisse is a dilettante; +Wilke had failed to make any impression on him; Holtzmann's +work was as yet unknown to him. But in the following year he +discharged the vials of his wrath upon the man who had both +strengthened the foundations and put on the coping-stone of the +new hypothesis. <q>Our lions of St. Mark, older and younger,</q> he +says in the appendix to his criticism of Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus, +<q>may roar as loud as they like, so long as there are six solid reasons +against the priority of Mark to set against every one of their flimsy +arguments in its favour—and they themselves supply us with a store +of counter-arguments in the shape of admissions of later editing and +so forth. The whole theory appears to me a temporary aberration, +like the 'music of the future' or the anti-vaccination movement; +and I seriously believe that it is the same order of mind which, in +different circumstances, falls a victim to the one delusion or the +other.</q> But he must not be supposed, he says, to take the +critical mole-hills thrown up by Holtzmann for veritable mountains. +</p> + +<p> +Against such opponents he does not scruple to seek aid from +Schleiermacher, whose unbiased but decided opinion had ascribed +a tertiary character to Mark. Even Gfrörer's view that Mark +adapted his Gospel to the needs of the Church by leaving out +everything which was open to objection in Matthew and Luke, is +good enough to be brought to bear against the bat-eyed partisans of +Mark. F. C. Baur is reproached for having given too much weight +to the <q>tendency</q> theory in his criticism of the Gospels; and also +for having taken suggestions of Strauss's and worked them out, +supposing that he was offering something new when he was really +only amplifying. In the end he had only given a criticism of the +Gospels, not of the Gospel history. +</p> + +<p> +But this irritation against his old teacher is immediately allayed +when he comes to speak of the Fourth Gospel. Here the teacher +has carried to a successful issue the campaign which the pupil had +begun. Strauss feels compelled to <q>express his gratitude for the +work done by the Tübingen school on the Johannine question.</q> +<pb n='196'/><anchor id='Pg196'/> +He himself had only been able to deal with the negative side of +the question—to show that the Fourth Gospel was not an historical +source, but a theological invention; they had dealt with it positively, +and had assigned the document to its proper place in the evolution +of Christian thought. There is only one point with which he +quarrels. Baur had made the Fourth Gospel too completely +spiritual, <q>whereas the fact is,</q> says Strauss, <q>that it is the most +material of all.</q> It is true, Strauss explains, that the Evangelist +starts out to interpret miracle and eschatology symbolically; but +he halts half-way and falls back upon the miraculous, enhancing +the professed fact in proportion as he makes it spiritually more +significant. Beside the spiritual return of Jesus in the Paraclete +he places His return in a material body, bearing the marks of the +wounds; beside the inward present judgment, a future outward +judgment; and the fact that he sees the one in the other, finds +the one present and visible in the other, is just what constitutes the +mystical character of his Gospel. This mysticism attracts the +modern world. <q>The Johannine Christ, who in His descriptions +of Himself seems to be always out-doing Himself, is the counterpart +of the modern believer, who in order to remain a believer +must continually out-do himself; the Johannine miracles which +are always being interpreted spiritually, and at the same time +raised to a higher pitch of the miraculous, which are counted +and documented in every possible way, and yet must not be +considered the true ground of faith, are at once miracles and +no miracles. We must believe them, and yet can believe without +them; in short they exactly meet the taste of the present day, which +delights to involve itself in contradictions and is too lethargic and +wanting in courage for any clear insight or decided opinion on +religious matters.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Strictly speaking, however, the Strauss of the second Life of +Jesus has no right to criticise the Fourth Gospel for sublimating the +history, for he himself gives what is nothing else than a spiritualisation +of the Jesus of the Synoptics. And he does it in such an +arbitrary fashion that one is compelled to ask how far he does it +with a good conscience. A typical case is the exposition of Jesus' +answer to the Baptist's message. <q>Is it possible,</q> Jesus means, +<q>that you fail to find in Me the miracles which you expect from +the Messiah? And yet I daily open the eyes of the spiritually +blind and the ears of the spiritually deaf, make the lame walk erect +and vigorous, and even give new life to those who are morally dead. +Any one who understands how much greater these spiritual miracles +are, will not be offended at the absence of bodily miracles; only +such an one can receive, and is worthy of, the salvation which I +am bringing to mankind.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Here the fundamental weakness of his method is clearly shown. +<pb n='197'/><anchor id='Pg197'/> +The vaunted apparatus for the evaporation of the mythical does +not work quite satisfactorily. The ultimate product of this process +was expected to be a Jesus who should be essential man; the +actual product, however, is Jesus the historical man, a being whose +looks and sayings are strange and unfamiliar. Strauss is too +purely a critic, too little of the creative historian, to recognise this +strange being. That Jesus really lived in a world of Jewish ideas +and held Himself to be Messiah in the Jewish sense is for the +writer of the Life of Jesus an impossibility. The deposit which +resists the chemical process for the elimination of myth, he must +therefore break up with the hammer. +</p> + +<p> +How different from the Strauss of 1835! He had then recognised +eschatology as the most important element in Jesus' world of +thought, and in some incidental remarks had made striking applications +of it. He had, for example, proposed to regard the Last +Supper not as the institution of a feast for coming generations, but +as a Paschal meal, at which Jesus declared that He would next +partake of the Paschal bread and Paschal wine along with His +disciples in the heavenly kingdom. In the second Life of Jesus +this view is given up; Jesus did found a feast. <q>In order to give +a living centre of unity to the society which it was His purpose to +found, Jesus desired to institute this distribution of bread and wine +as a feast to be constantly repeated.</q> One might be reading +Renan. This change of attitude is typical of much else. +</p> + +<p> +Strauss is not in the least disquieted by finding himself at one +with Schleiermacher in these attempts to spiritualise. On the +contrary, he appeals to him. He shares, he says, Schleiermacher's +conviction <q>that the unique self-consciousness of Jesus did not +develop as a consequence of His conviction that He was the +Messiah; on the contrary, it was a consequence of His self-consciousness +that He arrived at the view that the Messianic +prophecies could point to no one but Himself.</q> The moment +eschatology entered into the consciousness of Jesus it came in +contact with a higher principle which over-mastered it and gradually +dissolved it. <q>Had Jesus applied the Messianic idea to Himself +before He had had a profound religious consciousness to which +to relate it, doubtless it would have taken possession of Him so +powerfully that He could never have escaped from its influence.</q> +We must suppose the ideality, the concentration upon that which +was inward, the determination to separate religion, on the one +hand, from politics, and on the other, from ritual, the serene +consciousness of being able to attain to peace with God and with +Himself by purely spiritual means—all this we must suppose to +have reached a certain ripeness, a certain security, in the mind of +Jesus, before He permitted Himself to entertain the thought of His +Messiahship, and this we may believe is the reason why He grasped +<pb n='198'/><anchor id='Pg198'/> +it in so independent and individual a fashion. In this, therefore, +Strauss has become the pupil of Weisse. +</p> + +<p> +Even in the Old Testament prophecies, he explains, we find +two conceptions, a more ideal and a more practical. Jesus holds +consistently to the first, He describes Himself as the Son of Man +because this designation <q>contains the suggestion of humility and +lowliness, of the human and natural.</q> At Jerusalem, Jesus, in +giving His interpretation of Psalm cx., <q>made merry over the +Davidic descent of the Messiah.</q> He desired <q>to be Messiah in +the sense of a patient teacher exercising a quiet influence.</q> As +the opposition of the people grew more intense, He took up some +of the features of Isaiah liii. into His conception of the Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +Of His resurrection, Jesus can only have spoken in a metaphorical +sense. It is hardly credible that one who was pure man +could have arrogated to himself the position of judge of the world. +Strauss would like best to ascribe all the eschatology to the distorting +medium of early Christianity, but he does not venture to carry +this through with logical consistency. He takes it as certain, +however, that Jesus, even though it sometimes seems as if He did +not expect the Kingdom to be realised in the present, but in a +future, world-era, and to be brought about by God in a supernatural +fashion, nevertheless sets about the establishment of the +Kingdom by purely spiritual influence. +</p> + +<p> +With this end in view He leaves Galilee, when He judges the +time to be ripe, in order to work on a larger scale. <q>In case of an +unfavourable issue, He reckons on the influence which a martyr-death +has never failed to exercise in giving momentum to a lofty +idea.</q> How far He had advanced, when He entered on the +fateful journey to Jerusalem, in shaping His plan, and especially +in organising the company of adherents who had gathered about +Him, it is impossible to determine with any exactness. He +permitted the triumphal entry because He did not desire to +decline the role of the Messiah in every aspect of it. +</p> + +<p> +Owing to this arbitrary spiritualisation of the Synoptic Jesus, +Strauss's picture is in essence much more unhistorical than Renan's. +The latter had not needed to deny that Jesus had done miracles, +and he had been able to suggest an explanation of how Jesus came +in the end to fall back upon the eschatological system of ideas. +But at what a price! By portraying Jesus as at variance with +Himself, a hero broken in spirit. This price is too high for +Strauss. Arbitrary as his treatment of history is, he never loses +the intuitive feeling that in Jesus' self-consciousness there is a +unique absence of struggle; that He does not bear the scars which +are found in those natures which win their way to freedom and +purity through strife and conflict, that in Him there is no trace of +the hardness, harshness, and gloom which cleave to such natures +<pb n='199'/><anchor id='Pg199'/> +throughout life, but that He <q>is manifestly a beautiful nature from +the first.</q> Thus, for all Strauss's awkward, arbitrary handling of +the history he is greater than the rival<note place='foot'>Strauss's second Life of Jesus appeared in French in 1864.</note> who could manufacture +history with such skill. +</p> + +<p> +Nevertheless, from the point of view of theological science, +this work marks a standstill. That was the net result of the thirty +years of critical study of the life of Jesus for the man who had +inaugurated it so impressively. This was the only fruit which +followed those blossoms so full of promise of the first Life of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +It is significant that in the same year there appeared Schleiermacher's +lectures on the Life of Jesus, which had not seen the +light for forty years, because, as Strauss himself remarked in his +criticism of the resurrected work, it had neither anodyne nor +dressing for the wounds which his first Life of Jesus had made.<note place='foot'><q>I can now say without incurring the reproach of self-glorification, and almost +without needing to fear contradiction, that if my Life of Jesus had not appeared in +the year after Schleiermacher's death, his would not have been withheld for so long. +Up to that time it would have been hailed by the theological world as a deliverer; +but for the wounds which my work inflicted on the theology of the day, it had neither +anodyne nor dressing; nay, it displayed the author as in a measure responsible for +the disaster, for the waters which he had admitted drop by drop were now, in defiance +of his prudent reservations, pouring in like a flood.</q>—From the Introduction to <hi rend='italic'>The +Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History</hi>, 1865.</note> +The wounds, however, had cicatrised in the meantime. It is true +Strauss is a just judge, and makes ample acknowledgment of the +greatness of Schleiermacher's achievement.<note place='foot'><q>Now that Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus at last lies before us in print, all +parties can gather about it in heartfelt rejoicing. The appearance of a work by +Schleiermacher is always an enrichment to literature. Any product of a mind like +his cannot fail to shed light and life on the minds of others. And of works of this +kind our theological literature has certainly in these days no superfluity. Where the +living are for the most part as it were dead, it is meet that the dead should arise and +bear witness. These lectures of Schleiermacher's, when compared with the work of +his pupils, show clearly that the great theologian has let fall upon them only his +mantle and not his spirit.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi></note> He blames Schleiermacher +for setting up his <q>presuppositions in regard to Christ</q> as +an historical canon, and considering it a proof that a statement is +unhistorical if it does not square with those presuppositions. But +does not the purely human, but to a certain extent unhistorical, +man, who is to be the ultimate product of the process of eliminating +myth, serve Strauss as his <q>theoretic Christ</q> who determines the +presentment of his historical Jesus? Does he not share with +Schleiermacher the erroneous, artificial, <q>double</q> construction of +the consciousness of Jesus? And what about their views of +Mark? What fundamental difference is there, when all is said, +between Schleiermacher's de-rationalised Life of Jesus and Strauss's? +Certainly this second Life of Jesus would not have frightened +Schleiermacher's away into hiding for thirty years. +</p> + +<p> +So Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus might now safely venture +<pb n='200'/><anchor id='Pg200'/> +forth into the light. There was no reason why it should feel itself +a stranger at this period, and it had no need to be ashamed of +itself. Its rationalistic birth-marks were concealed by its brilliant +dialectic.<note place='foot'>The lines of Schleiermacher's work were followed by Bunsen. His Life of Jesus +forms vol. ix. of his <hi rend='italic'>Bibelwerk</hi>. (Edited by Holtzmann, 1865.) He accepts the +Fourth Gospel as an historical source and treats the question of miracle as not yet +settled. Christian Karl Josias von Bunsen, born in 1791 at Korbach in Waldeck, +was Prussian ambassador at Rome, Berne, and London, and settled later in Heidelberg. +He was well read in theology and philology, and gradually came, in spite +of his friendly relations with Friedrich Wilhelm IV., to entertain more liberal views +on religion. The issue of his <hi rend='italic'>Bibelwerk für die Gemeinde</hi> was begun in 1858. He +died in 1860. (Best known in England as the Chevalier Bunsen.)</note> And the only real advance in the meantime was the +general recognition that the Life of Jesus was not to be interpreted +on rationalistic, but on historical lines. All other, more +definite, historical results had proved more or less illusory; there +is no vitality in them. The works of Renan, Strauss, Schenkel, +Weizsäcker, and Keim are in essence only different ways of +carrying out a single ground-plan. To read them one after +another is to be simply appalled at the stereotyped uniformity +of the world of thought in which they move. You feel that you +have read exactly the same thing in the others, almost in identical +phrases. To obtain the works of Schenkel and Weizsäcker +you only need to weaken down in Strauss the sharp discrimination +between John and the Synoptists so far as to allow of the +Fourth Gospel being used to some extent as an historical source +<q>in the higher sense,</q> and to put the hypothesis of the priority +of Mark in place of the Tübingen view adopted by Strauss. The +latter is an external operation and does not essentially modify the +view of the Life of Jesus, since by admitting the Johannine scheme +the Marcan plan is again disturbed, and Strauss's arbitrary +spiritualisation of the Synoptics comes to something not very +different from the acceptance of that <q>in a higher sense historical +Gospel</q> alongside of them. The whole discussion regarding the +sources is only loosely connected with the process of arriving at +the portrait of Jesus, since this portrait is fixed from the first, being +determined by the mental atmosphere and religious horizon of the +'sixties. They all portray the Jesus of liberal theology; the only +difference is that one is a little more conscientious in his colouring +than another, and one perhaps has a little more taste than another, +or is less concerned about the consequences. +</p> + +<p> +The desire to escape in some way from the alternative between +the Synoptists and John was native to the Marcan hypothesis. +Weisse had endeavoured to effect this by distinguishing between +the sources in the Fourth Gospel.<note place='foot'>Ch. H. Weisse, <hi rend='italic'>Die evangelische Geschichte</hi>, Leipzig, 1838. <hi rend='italic'>Die Evangelienfrage +in ihrem gegenwärtigen Stadium.</hi> (The Present Position of the Problem of the +Gospels.) Leipzig, 1856. He regarded the discourses as historical, the narrative +portions as of secondary origin. Alexander Schweizer, again, wished to distinguish +a Jerusalem source and a Galilaean source, the latter being unreliable. <hi rend='italic'>Das +Evangelium Johannis nach seinem inneren Werte und seiner Bedeutung für das Leben +Jesu</hi>, 1841. (The Gospel of John considered in Relation to its Intrinsic Value and its +Importance as a Source for the Life of Jesus.) See p. 127 f. Renan takes the +narrative portions as authentic and the discourses as secondary.</note> Schenkel and Weizsäcker are +<pb n='201'/><anchor id='Pg201'/> +more modest. They do not feel the need of any clear literary +view of the Fourth Gospel, of any critical discrimination between +original and secondary elements in it; they are content to use as +historical whatever their instinct leads them to accept. <q>Apart +from the fourth Gospel,</q> says Schenkel, <q>we should miss in the +portrait of the Redeemer the unfathomable depths and the +inaccessible heights.</q> <q>Jesus,</q> to quote his aphorism, <q>was not +always thus in reality, but He was so in truth.</q> Since when have +historians had the right to distinguish between reality and truth? +That was one of the bad habits which the author of this characterisation +of Jesus brought with him from his earlier dogmatic +training. +</p> + +<p> +Weizsäcker<note place='foot'>Karl Heinrich Weizsäcker was born in 1822 at Öhringen in Würtemberg. +He qualified as Privat-Docent in 1847 and, after acting in the meantime as Court-Chaplain +and Oberkonsistorialrat at Stuttgart, became in 1861 the successor of +Baur at Tübingen. He died in 1899.</note> expresses himself with more circumspection. <q>We +possess,</q> he says, <q>in the Fourth Gospel genuine apostolic +reminiscences as much as in any part of the first three Gospels; +but between the facts on which the reminiscences are based and +their reproduction in literary form there lies the development of +their possessor into a great mystic, and the influence of a philosophy +which here for the first time united itself in this way with the +Gospel; they need, therefore, to be critically examined; and the +historical truth of this gospel, great as it is, must not be measured +with a painful literality.</q> +</p> + +<p> +One wonders why both these writers appeal to Holtzmann, +seeing that they practically abandon the Marcan plan which he +had worked out at the end of his very thorough examination of +this Gospel. They do not accept as sufficient the controversy +regarding the ceremonial regulations in Mark vii. which, with the +rejection at Nazareth, constitute, in Holtzmann's view, the turning-point +of the Galilaean ministry, but find the cause of the change of +attitude on the part of the people rather in the Johannine discourse +about eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the Son of Man. +The section Mark x.-xv., which has a certain unity, they interpret +in the light of the Johannine tradition, finding in it traces of a +previous ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem and interweaving with it +the Johannine story of the Passion. According to Schenkel the +last visit to Jerusalem must have been of considerable duration. +When confronted with John, the admission may be wrung from the +Synoptists that Jesus did not travel straight through Jericho to the +capital, but worked first for a considerable time in Judaea. Strauss +<pb n='202'/><anchor id='Pg202'/> +tartly observes that he cannot see what the author of the +<q>characterisation</q> stood to gain by underwriting Holtzmann's +Marcan hypothesis.<note place='foot'>The works of a Dutch writer named Stricker, <hi rend='italic'>Jesus von Nazareth</hi> (1868), and +of the Englishman Sir Richard Hanson, <hi rend='italic'>The Jesus of History</hi> (1869), were based on +Mark without any reference to John.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Weizsäcker is still bolder in making interpolations from the +Johannine tradition. He places the cleansing of the Temple, in +contradiction to Mark, in the early period of Jesus' ministry, on the +ground that <q>it bears the character of a first appearance, a bold +deed with which to open His career.</q> He fails to observe, +however, that if this act really took place at this point of time, the +whole development of the life of Jesus which Holtzmann had so +ingeniously traced in Mark, is at once thrown into confusion. In +describing the last visit to Jerusalem, Weizsäcker is not content to +insert the Marcan stones into the Johannine cement; he goes +farther and expressly states that the great farewell discourses of +Jesus to His disciples agree with the Synoptic discourses to the +disciples spoken during the last days, however completely they of +all others bear the peculiar stamp of the Johannine diction. +</p> + +<p> +Thus in the second period of the Marcan hypothesis the same +spectacle meets us as in the earlier. The hypothesis has a literary +existence, indeed it is carried by Holtzmann to such a degree of +demonstration that it can no longer be called a mere hypothesis, +but it does not succeed in winning an assured position in the +critical study of the Life of Jesus. It is common-land not yet +taken into cultivation. +</p> + +<p> +That is due in no small measure to the fact that Holtzmann +did not work out the hypothesis from the historical side, but rather +on literary lines, recalling Wilke—as a kind of problem in Synoptic +arithmetic—and in his preface expresses dissent from the Tübingen +school, who desired to leave no alternative between John on the +one side and the Synoptics on the other, whereas he approves the +attempt to evade the dilemma in some way or other, and thinks +he can find in the didactic narrative of the Fourth Gospel the +traces of a development of Jesus similar to that portrayed in the +Synoptics, and has therefore no fundamental objection to the use +of John alongside of the Synoptics. In taking up this position, +however, he does not desire to be understood as meaning that <q>it +would be to the interests of science to throw Synoptic and Johannine +passages together indiscriminately and thus construct a life of +Jesus out of them.</q> <q>It would be much better first to reconstruct +separately the Synoptic and Johannine pictures of Christ, composing +each of its own distinctive material. It is only when this has been +done that it is possible to make a fruitful comparison of the two.</q> +Exactly the same position had been taken up sixty-seven years +<pb n='203'/><anchor id='Pg203'/> +before by Herder. In Holtzmann's case, however, the principle +was stated with so many qualifications that the adherents of his view +read into it the permission to combine, in a picture treated <q>in the +grand style,</q> Synoptic with Johannine passages. +</p> + +<p> +In addition to this, the plan which Holtzmann finally evolved +out of Mark was much too fine-drawn to bear the weight of the +remainder of the Synoptic material. He distinguishes seven stages +in the Galilaean ministry,<note place='foot'>1, Mark i.; 2, Mark ii. 1-iii. 6; 3, Mark iii. 7-19; 4, Mark iii. 19-iv. 34; +5, Mark iv. 35-vi. 6; 6, Mark vi. 7-vii. 37; 7, Mark viii. 1-ix. 50.</note> of which the really decisive one is the +sixth, in which Jesus leaves Galilee and goes northward, so that +Schenkel and Weizsäcker are justified in distinguishing practically +only two great Galilaean periods, the first of which—down to +the controversy about ceremonial purity—they distinguish as the +period of success, the second—down to the departure from Judaea—as +the period of decline. What attracted these writers to the +Marcan hypothesis was not so much the authentification which it +gave to the detail of Mark, though they were willing enough to +accept that, but the way in which this Gospel lent itself to the +a priori view of the course of the life of Jesus which they +unconsciously brought with them. They appealed to Holtzmann +because he showed such wonderful skill in extracting from the +Marcan narrative the view which commended itself to the spirit of +the age as manifested in the 'sixties. +</p> + +<p> +Holtzmann read into this Gospel that Jesus had endeavoured +in Galilee to found the Kingdom of God in an ideal sense; that +He concealed His consciousness of being the Messiah, which was +constantly growing more assured, until His followers should have +attained by inner enlightenment to a higher view of the Kingdom +of God and of the Messiah; that almost at the end of His +Galilaean ministry He declared Himself to them as the Messiah +at Caesarea Philippi; that on the same occasion He at once began +to picture to them a suffering Messiah, whose lineaments gradually +became more and more distinct in His mind amid the growing +opposition which He encountered, until finally, He communicated +to His disciples His decision to put the Messianic cause to the +test in the capital, and that they followed Him thither and saw +how His fate fulfilled itself. It was this fundamental view which +made the success of the hypothesis. Holtzmann, not less than his +followers, believed that he had discovered it in the Gospel itself, +although Strauss, the passionate opponent of the Marcan hypothesis, +took essentially the same view of the development of Jesus' thought. +But the way in which Holtzmann exhibited this characteristic +view of the 'sixties as arising naturally out of the detail of +Mark, was so perfect, so artistically charming, that this view +appeared henceforward to be inseparably bound up with the +<pb n='204'/><anchor id='Pg204'/> +Marcan tradition. Scarcely ever has a description of the life of +Jesus exercised so irresistible an influence as that short outline—it +embraces scarcely twenty pages—with which Holtzmann closes +his examination of the Synoptic Gospels. This chapter became +the creed and catechism of all who handled the subject during the +following decades. The treatment of the life of Jesus had to +follow the lines here laid down until the Marcan hypothesis was +delivered from its bondage to that a priori view of the development +of Jesus. Until then any one might appeal to the Marcan +hypothesis, meaning thereby only that general view of the inward +and outward course of development in the life of Jesus, and +might treat the remainder of the Synoptic material how he chose, +combining with it, at his pleasure, material drawn from John. +The victory, therefore, belonged, not to the Marcan hypothesis pure +and simple, but to the Marcan hypothesis as psychologically +interpreted by a liberal theology. +</p> + +<p> +The points of distinction between the Weissian and the new +interpretation are as follows:—Weisse is sceptical as regards the +detail; the new Marcan hypothesis ventures to base conclusions +even upon incidental remarks in the text. According to Weisse +there were not distinct periods of success and failure in the ministry +of Jesus; the new Marcan hypothesis confidently affirms this distinction, +and goes so far as to place the sojourn of Jesus in the parts +beyond Galilee under the heading <q>Flights and Retirements.</q><note place='foot'>Holtzmann, <hi rend='italic'>Kommentar zu den Synoptikern</hi>, 1889, p. 184. The form of the +expression (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Fluchtwege und Reisen</foreign>) is derived from Keim.</note> +The earlier Marcan hypothesis expressly denies that outward +circumstances influenced the resolve of Jesus to die; according to +the later, it was the opposition of the people, and the impossibility +of carrying out His mission on other lines which forced Him to +enter on the path of suffering.<note place='foot'><q>Thus the course of Jesus' life hastened forward to its tragic close, a close which +was foreseen and predicted by Jesus Himself with ever-growing clearness as the sole +possible close, but also that which alone was worthy of Himself, and which was +necessary as being foreseen and predetermined in the counsel of God. The hatred +of the Pharisees and the indifference of the people left from the first no other +prospect open. That hatred could not but be called forth in the fullest measure +by the ruthless severity with which Jesus exposed all that it was and implied—a +heart in which there was no room for love, a morality inwardly riddled with decay, +an outward show of virtue, a hypocritical arrogance. Between two such unyielding +opponents—a man who, to all appearance, aimed at using the Messianic expectations +of the people for his own ends, and a hierarchy as tenacious of its claims and as +sensitive to their infringement as any that has ever existed—it was certain that the +breach must soon become irreparable. It was easy to foresee, too, that even in +Galilee only a minority of the people would dare to face with Him the danger of +such a breach. There was only one thing that could have averted the death sentence +which had been early determined upon—a series of vigorous, unambiguous demonstrations +on the part of the people. In order to provoke such demonstrations Jesus +would have needed, if only for the moment, to take into His service the popular, +powerful, inflammatory Messianic ideas, or rather, would have needed to place Himself +at their service. His refusal to enter, by so much as a single step, upon this +course, which from any ordinary point of view of human policy would have been +legitimate, because the only practicable one, was the sole sufficient and all-explaining +cause of His destruction.</q>—Holtzmann, <hi rend='italic'>Die synoptischen Evangelien</hi>, 1863, pp. 485, +486.</note> The Jesus of Weisse's view has +<pb n='205'/><anchor id='Pg205'/> +completed His development at the time of His appearance; the +Jesus of the new interpretation of Mark continues to develop in +the course of His public ministry. +</p> + +<p> +There is complete agreement, however, in the rejection of +eschatology. For Holtzmann, Schenkel, and Weizsäcker, as for +Weisse, Jesus desires <q>to found an inward kingdom of repentance.</q><note place='foot'><q>Ein innerliches Reich der Sinnesänderung.</q> <q>Sinnesänderung</q> corresponds +more exactly than <q>repentance</q> to the Greek μετάνοια (change of mind, change of +attitude), but the <emph>phrase</emph> is no less elliptical in German than in English. The meaning +is doubtless <q>kingdom based upon repentance, consisting of those who have fulfilled +this condition.</q></note> +It was Israel's duty, according to Schenkel, to believe +in the presence of the Kingdom which Jesus proclaimed. John +the Baptist was unable to believe in it, and it was for this reason +that Jesus censured him—for it is in this sense that Schenkel +understands the saying about the greatest among those born of +women who is nevertheless the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. +<q>So near the light and yet shutting his eyes to its beams—is there +not some blame here, an undeniable lack of spiritual and moral +receptivity?</q> +</p> + +<p> +Jesus makes Messianic claims only in a spiritual sense. He +does not grasp at super-human glory; it is His purpose to bear +the sin of the whole people, and He undergoes baptism <q>as a +humble member of the national community.</q> +</p> + +<p> +His whole teaching consists, when once He Himself has +attained to clear consciousness of His vocation, in a constant +struggle to root out from the hearts of His disciples their theocratic +hopes and to effect a transformation of their traditional Messianic +ideas. When, on Simon's hailing Him as the Messiah, He declares +that flesh and blood has not revealed it to him, He means, according +to Schenkel, <q>that Simon has at this moment overcome the +false Messianic ideas, and has recognised in Him the ethical and +spiritual deliverer of Israel.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>That Jesus predicted a personal, bodily, Second Coming, in +the brightness of His heavenly splendour and surrounded by the +heavenly hosts, to establish an earthly kingdom, is not only not +proved, it is absolutely impossible.</q> His purpose is to establish a +community of which His disciples are to be the foundation, and by +means of this community to bring about the coming of the +Kingdom of God. He can, therefore, only have spoken of His +return as an impersonal return in the Spirit. The later exponents +of the Marcan view were no doubt generally inclined to regard the +return as personal and corporeal. For Schenkel, however, it is +historically certain that the real meaning of the eschatological +<pb n='206'/><anchor id='Pg206'/> +discourses is more faithfully preserved in the Fourth Gospel than +in the Synoptics. +</p> + +<p> +In his anxiety to eliminate any enthusiastic elements from the +representation of Jesus, he ends by drawing a bourgeois Messiah +whom he might have extracted from the old-fashioned rationalistic +work of the worthy Reinhard. He feels bound to save the credit +of Jesus by showing that the entry into Jerusalem was not intended +as a provocation to the government. <q>It is only by making this +supposition,</q> he explains, <q>that we avoid casting a slur upon the +character of Jesus. It was certainly a constant trait in His +character that He never unnecessarily exposed Himself to danger, +and never, except for the most pressing reasons, did He give +any support to the suspicions which were arising against Him; +He avoided provoking His opponents to drastic measures by +any overt act directed against them.</q> Even the cleansing of +the Temple was not an act of violence but merely an attempt +at reform. +</p> + +<p> +Schenkel is able to give these explanations because he knows +the most secret thoughts of Jesus and is therefore no longer bound +to the text. He knows, for example, that immediately after His +baptism He attained to the knowledge <q>that the way of the Law +was no longer the way of salvation for His people.</q> Jesus cannot +therefore have uttered the saying about the permanence of the +Law in Mark v. 18. In the controversies about the Sabbath <q>He +proclaims freedom of worship.</q> +</p> + +<p> +As time went on, He began to take the heathen world into +the scope of His purpose. <q>The hard saying addressed to the +Canaanite woman represents rather the proud and exclusive +spirit of Pharisaism than the spirit of Jesus.</q> It was a test of +faith, the success of which had a decisive influence upon Jesus' +attitude towards the heathen. Henceforth it is obvious that He +is favourably disposed towards them. He travels through Samaria +and establishes a community there. In Jerusalem He openly calls +the heathen to Him. At certain feasts which they had arranged +for that purpose, some of the leaders of the people set a trap for +Him, and betrayed Him into liberal sayings in regard to the Gentiles +which sealed His fate. +</p> + +<p> +This was the course of development of the Master, who, according +to Schenkel, <q>saw with a clear eye into the future history of the +world,</q> and knew that the fall of Jerusalem must take place in +order to close the theocratic era and give the Gentiles free access +to the universal community of Christians which He was to found. +<q>This period He described as the period of His coming, as in a +sense His Second Advent upon earth.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The same general procedure is followed by Weizsäcker in his +<q>Gospel History,</q> though his work is of a much higher quality +<pb n='207'/><anchor id='Pg207'/> +than Schenkel's. His account of the sources is one of the clearest +that has ever been written. In the description of the life of Jesus, +however, the unhesitating combination of material from the Fourth +Gospel with that of the Synoptics rather confuses the picture. +And whereas Renan only offers the results of the completed process, +Weizsäcker works out his, it might almost be said, under the eyes of +the reader, which makes the arbitrary character of the proceeding +only the more obvious. But in his attitude towards the sources +Weizsäcker is wholly free from the irresponsible caprice in which +Schenkel indulges. From time to time, too, he gives a hint of +unsolved problems in the background. For example, in treating +of the declaration of Jesus to His judges that He would come as +the Son of Man upon the clouds of heaven, he remarks how surprising +it is that Jesus could so often have used the designation +Son of Man on earlier occasions without being accused of claiming +the Messiahship. It is true that this is a mere scraping of the keel +upon a sandbank, by which the steersman does not allow himself to +be turned from his course, for Weizsäcker concludes that the name +Son of Man, in spite of its use in Daniel, <q>had not become a +generally current or really popular designation of the Messiah.</q> +But even this faint suspicion of the difficulty is a welcome sign. +Much emphasis, in fact, in practice rather too much emphasis, is +laid on the principle that in the great discourses of Jesus the +structure is not historical; they are only collections of sayings +formed to meet the needs of the Christian community in later +times. In this Weizsäcker is sometimes not less arbitrary than +Schenkel, who represents the Lord's Prayer as given by Jesus to +the disciples only in the last days at Jerusalem. It was an axiom +of the school that Jesus could not have delivered discourses such +as the Evangelists record. +</p> + +<p> +If Schenkel's picture of Jesus' character attracted much more +attention than Weizsäcker's work, that is mainly due to the art of +lively popular presentation by which it is distinguished. The +writer knows well how to keep the reader's interest awake by the +use of exciting headlines. Catchwords abound, and arrest the +ear, for they are the catchwords about which the religious controversies +of the time revolved. There is never far to look for the +moral of the history, and the Jesus here portrayed can be imagined +plunging into the midst of the debates in any ministerial conference. +The moralising, it must be admitted, sometimes becomes the +occasion of the feeblest ineptitudes. Jesus sent out His disciples +two and two; this is for Schenkel a marvellous exhibition of wisdom. +The Lord designed, thereby, to show that in His opinion <q>nothing +is more inimical to the interests of the Kingdom of God than individualism, +self-will, self-pleasing.</q> Schenkel entirely fails to +recognise the superb irony of the saying that in this life all that a +<pb n='208'/><anchor id='Pg208'/> +man gives up for the sake of the Kingdom of God is repaid a +hundredfold in persecutions, in order that in the Coming Age he +may receive eternal life as his reward. He interpreted it as +meaning that the sufferer shall be compensated by love; his +fellow-Christians will endeavour to make it up to him, and will +offer him their own possessions so freely that, in consequence of +this brotherly love, he will soon have, for the house which he has +lost, a hundred houses, for the lost sisters, brothers, and so forth, +a hundred sisters, a hundred brothers, a hundred fathers, a +hundred mothers, a hundred farms. Schenkel forgets to add that, +if this is to be the interpretation of the saying, the persecuted +man must also receive through this compensating love, a hundred +wives.<note place='foot'>Omitted in some of the best texts.—F. C. B.</note> +</p> + +<p> +This want of insight into the largeness, the startling originality, +the self-contradictoriness, and the terrible irony in the thought of +Jesus, is not a peculiarity of Schenkel's; it is characteristic of all the +liberal Lives of Jesus from Strauss's down to Oskar Holtzmann's.<note place='foot'>Oskar Holtzmann, <hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu</hi>, 1901.</note> +How could it be otherwise? They had to transpose a way of envisaging +the world which belonged to a hero and a dreamer to the +plane of thought of a rational bourgeois religion. But in Schenkel's +representation, with its popular appeal, this banality is particularly +obtrusive. +</p> + +<p> +In the end, however, what made the success of the book was +not its popular characteristics, whether good or bad, but the enmity +which it drew down upon the author. The Basle Privat-Docent +who, in his work of 1839, had congratulated the Zurichers on having +rejected Strauss, now, as Professor and Director of the Seminary at +Heidelberg, came very near being adjudged worthy of the martyr's +crown himself. He had been at Heidelberg since 1851, after +holding for a short time De Wette's chair at Basle. At his first +coming a mildly reactionary theology might have claimed him as +its own. He gave it a right to do so by the way in which he +worked against the philosopher, Kuno Fischer, in the Higher Consistory. +But in the struggles over the constitution of the Church +he changed his position. As a defender of the rights of the +laity he ranged himself on the more liberal side. After his +great victory in the General Synod of 1861, in which the new +constitution of the Church was established, he called a German +Protestant assembly at Frankfort, in order to set on foot a general +movement for Church reform. This assembly met in 1863, and +led to the formation of the Protestant Association. +</p> + +<p> +When the <hi rend='italic'>Charakterbild Jesu</hi> appeared, friend and foe were +alike surprised at the thoroughness with which Schenkel advocated +the more liberal views. <q>Schenkel's book,</q> complained Luthardt, +<pb n='209'/><anchor id='Pg209'/> +in a lecture at Leipzig,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu.</hi> (Modern Presentments of the Life +of Jesus.) A discussion of the works of Strauss, Renan, and Schenkel, and of the +Essays of Coquerel the younger, Scherer, Colani, and Keim. A lecture by Chr. +Ernest Luthardt, Leipzig. 1st and 2nd editions, 1864. Luthardt was born in 1823 +at Maroldsweisach in Lower Franconia, became Docent at Erlangen in 1851, was +called to Marburg as Professor Extraordinary in 1854, and to Leipzig as Ordinary +Professor in 1856. He died in 1902.</note> <q>has aroused a painful interest. We +had learnt to know him in many aspects; we were not prepared +for such an apostasy from his own past. How long is it since +he brought about the dismissal of Kuno Fischer from Heidelberg +because he saw in the pantheism of this philosopher a danger +to Church and State? It is still fresh in our memory that it was +he who in the year 1852 drew up the report of the Theological +Faculty of Heidelberg upon the ecclesiastical controversy raised by +Pastor Dülon at Bremen, in which he denied Dülon's Christianity +on the ground that he had assailed the doctrines of original sin, of +justification by faith, of a living and personal God, of the eternal +Divine Sonship of Christ, of the Kingdom of God, and of the +credibility of the holy Scriptures.</q> And now this same Schenkel +was misusing the Life of Jesus as a weapon in <q>party polemics</q>! +</p> + +<p> +The agitation against him was engineered from Berlin, where +his successful attack upon the illiberal constitution of the Church +had not been forgiven. One hundred and seventeen Baden clerics +signed a protest declaring the author unfitted to hold office as a +theological teacher in the Baden Church. Throughout the whole +of Germany the pastors agitated against him. It was especially +demanded that he should be immediately removed from his post +as Director of the Seminary. A counter-protest was issued by the +Durlach Conference in the July of 1864, in which Bluntschli and +Holtzmann vigorously defended him. The Ecclesiastical Council +supported him, and the storm gradually died away, especially +when Schenkel in two <q>Defences</q> skilfully softened down the +impression made by his work, and endeavoured to quiet the public +mind by pointing out that he had only attempted to set forth one +side of the truth.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Zur Orientierung über meine Schrift <q>Das Charakterbild Jesu.</q></hi> (Explanations +intended to place my work <q>A Picture of the Character of Jesus</q> in the proper light.) +1864. <hi rend='italic'>Die protestantische Freiheit in ihrem gegenwärtigen Kampfe mit der kirchlichen +Reaktion.</hi> (Protestant Freedom in its present Struggle with Ecclesiastical Reaction.) +1865.</note> +</p> + +<p> +The position of the prospective martyr was not rendered any +more easy by Strauss. In an appendix to his criticism of +Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus he settled accounts with his old +antagonist.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Der Schenkel'sche Handel in Baden.</hi> (The Schenkel Controversy in Baden.) +(A corrected reprint from number 441 of the <hi rend='italic'>National-Zeitung</hi> of September 21, 1864.) +An appendix to <hi rend='italic'>Der Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte</hi>. 1865.</note> He recognises no scientific value whatever in the +work. None of the ideas developed in it are new. One might +<pb n='210'/><anchor id='Pg210'/> +fairly say, he thinks, <q>that the conclusions which have given +offence had been carried down the Neckar from Tübingen to Heidelberg, +and had there been salvaged by Herr Schenkel—in a somewhat +sodden and deteriorated condition, it must be admitted—and +incorporated into the edifice which he was constructing.</q> Further, +Strauss censures the book for its want of frankness, its half-and-half +character, which manifests itself especially in the way in which the +author clings to orthodox phraseology. <q>Over and over again he +gives criticism with one hand all that it can possibly ask, and then +takes back with the other whatever the interests of faith seem to +demand; with the constant result that what is taken back is far +too much for criticism and not nearly enough for faith.</q> <q>In the +future,</q> he concludes, <q>it will be said of the seven hundred +Durlachers that they fought like paladins to prevent the enemy +from capturing a standard which was really nothing but a patched +dish-clout.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Schenkel died in 1885 after severe sufferings. As a critic he +lacked independence, and was, therefore, always inclined to compromises; +in controversy he was vehement. Though he did +nothing remarkable in theology, German Protestantism owes him +a vast debt for acting as its tribune in the 'sixties. +</p> + +<p> +That was the last time that any popular excitement was aroused +in connexion with the critical study of the life of Jesus; and it +was a mere storm in a tea-cup. Moreover, it was the man and not +his work that aroused the excitement. Henceforth public opinion +was almost entirely indifferent to anything which appeared in this +department. The great fundamental question whether historical +criticism was to be applied to the life of Jesus had been decided +in connexion with Strauss's first work on the subject. If here and +there indignation aroused by a Life of Jesus brought inconveniences +to the author and profit to the publisher, that was connected +in every case with purely external and incidental circumstances. +Public opinion was not disquieted for a moment by Volkmar and +Wrede, although they are much more extreme than Schenkel. +</p> + +<p> +Most of the Lives of Jesus which followed had, it is true, +nothing very exciting about them. They were mere variants of the +type established during the 'sixties, variants of which the minute +differences were only discernible by theologians, and which were +otherwise exactly alike in arrangement and result. As a contribution +to criticism, Keim's<note place='foot'><p>Theodor Keim, <hi rend='italic'>Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, in ihrer Verhaltung mit dem +Gesamtleben seines Volkes frei untersucht und ausführlich erzählt</hi>. (The History of +Jesus of Nazara in Relation to the General Life of His People, freely examined and +fully narrated.) 3 vols. Zurich, 1867-1872. Vol. i. The Day of Preparation; vol. ii. +The Year of Teaching in Galilee; vol. iii. The Death-Passover (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Todesostern</foreign>) in +Jerusalem. A short account in a more popular form appeared in 1872, <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte +Jesu nach den Ergebnissen heutiger Wissenschaft für weitere Kreise übersichtlich +erzählt</hi>. (The History of Jesus according to the Results of Present-day Criticism, +briefly narrated for the General Reader.) 2nd ed., 1875. +</p> +<p> +Karl Theodor Keim was born in 1825 at Stuttgart, was Repetent at Tübingen +from 1851 to 1855, and after he had been five years in the ministry, became Professor +at Zurich in 1860. In 1873 he accepted a call to Giessen, where he died in 1878.</p></note> <q>History of Jesus of Nazara</q> +<pb n='211'/><anchor id='Pg211'/> +was the most important Life of Jesus which appeared in a long +period. +</p> + +<p> +It is not of much consequence that he believes in the priority +of Matthew, since his presentment of the history follows the general +lines of the Marcan plan, which is preserved also in Matthew. He +gives it as his opinion that the life of Jesus is to be reconstructed +from the Synoptics, whether Matthew has the first place or Mark. +He sketches the development of Jesus in bold lines. As early +as his inaugural address at Zurich, delivered on the 17th of +December 1860, which, short as it was, made a powerful impression +upon Holtzmann as well as upon others, he had set up the thesis +that the Synoptics <q>artlessly, almost against their will, show us +unconsciously in incidental, unobtrusive traits the progressive development +of Jesus as youth and man.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Die menschliche Entwicklung Jesu Christi.</hi> See Holtzmann, <hi rend='italic'>Die synoptischen +Evangelien</hi>, 1863, pp. 7-9. This dissertation was followed by <hi rend='italic'>Der geschichtliche +Christus</hi>. 3rd ed., 1866.</note> His later works are the +development of this sketch. +</p> + +<p> +His grandiose style gave the keynote for the artistic treatment +of the portrait of Jesus in the 'sixties. His phrases and expressions +became classical. Every one follows him in speaking of the +<q>Galilaean spring-tide</q> in the ministry of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +On the Johannine question he takes up a clearly defined +position, denying the possibility of using the Fourth Gospel side by +side with the Synoptics as an historical source. He goes very far +in finding special significance in the details of the Synoptists, +especially when he is anxious to discover traces of want of success +in the second period of Jesus' ministry, since the plan of his Life +of Jesus depends on the sharp antithesis between the periods of +success and failure. The whole of the second half of the Galilaean +period consists for him in <q>flights and retirements.</q> <q>Beset by +constantly renewed alarms and hindrances, Jesus left the scene of +His earlier work, left His dwelling-place at Capernaum, and +accompanied only by a few faithful followers, in the end only by +the Twelve, sought in all directions for places of refuge for longer +or shorter periods, in order to avoid and elude His enemies.</q> +Keim frankly admits, indeed, that there is not a syllable in the +Gospels to suggest that these journeys are the journeys of a fugitive. +But instead of allowing that to shake his conviction, he abuses the +narrators and suggests that they desired to conceal the truth. +<q>These flights,</q> he says, <q>were no doubt inconvenient to the +Evangelists. Matthew is here the frankest, but in order to +restore the impression of Jesus' greatness he transfers to this +<pb n='212'/><anchor id='Pg212'/> +period the greatest miracles. The later Evangelists are almost +completely silent about these retirements, and leave us to suppose +that Jesus made His journeys to Caesarea Philippi and the +neighbourhood of Tyre and Sidon in the middle of winter from +mere pleasure in travel, or for the extension of the Gospel, and +that He made His last journey to Jerusalem without any external +necessity, entirely in consequence of His free decision, even +though the expectation of death which they ascribe to Him goes +far to counteract the impression of complete freedom.</q> Why do +they thus correct the history? <q>The motive was the same difficulty +which draws from us also the question, <q>Is it possible that Jesus +should flee?</q></q> Keim answers <q>Yes.</q> Here the liberal psychology +comes clearly to light. <q>Jesus fled,</q> he explains, <q>because He +desired to preserve Himself for God and man, to secure the continuance +of His ministry to Israel, to defeat as long as possible the dark +designs of His enemies, to carry His cause to Jerusalem, and there, +while acting, as it was His duty to do, with prudence and foresight +in his relations with men, to recognise clearly, by the Divine +silence or the Divine action, what the Divine purpose really was, +which could not be recognised in a moment. He acts like a man +who knows the duty both of examination and action, who knows +His own worth and what is due to Him and His obligations +towards God and man.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Geschichte Jesu.</hi> 2nd ed., 1875, pp. 228 and 229.</note> +</p> + +<p> +In regard to the question of eschatology, however, Keim does +justice to the texts.<note place='foot'>The ultimate reason why Keim deliberately gives such prominence to the +eschatology is that he holds to Matthew, and is therefore more under the direct +impression of the masses of discourse in this Gospel, charged, as they are, with +eschatological ideas, than those writers who find their primary authority in Mark, +where these discourses are lacking.</note> He admits that eschatology, <q>a Kingdom of +God clothed with material splendours,</q> forms an integral part of the +preaching of Jesus from the first; <q>that He never rejected it, and +therefore never by a so-called advance transformed the sensuous +Messianic idea into a purely spiritual one.</q> <q>Jesus does not +uproot from the minds of the sons of Zebedee their belief in the +thrones on His right hand and His left; He does not hesitate to +make His entry into Jerusalem in the character of the Messiah; +He acknowledges His Messiahship before the Council without +making any careful reservations; upon the cross His title is The +King of the Jews; He consoles Himself and His followers with the +thought of His return as an earthly ruler, and leaves with His +disciples, without making any attempt to check it, the belief, which +long survived, in a future establishment or restoration of the +Kingdom in an Israel delivered from bondage.</q> Keim remarks +with much justice <q>that Strauss had been wrong in rejecting his own +earlier and more correct formula,</q> which combined the eschatological +<pb n='213'/><anchor id='Pg213'/> +and spiritual elements as operating side by side in the plan of +Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +Keim, however, himself in the end allows the spiritual elements +practically to cancel the eschatological. He admits, it is true, +that the expression Son of Man which Jesus uses designated the +Messiah in the sense of Daniel's prophecy, but he thinks that +these pictorial representations in Daniel did not repel Jesus because +He interpreted them spiritually, and <q>intended to describe Himself +as belonging to mankind even in His Messianic office.</q> To solve +the difficulty Keim assumes a development. Jesus' consciousness +of His vocation had been strengthened both by success and by +disappointment. As time went on He preached the Kingdom not +as a future Kingdom, as at first, but as one which was present in +Him and with Him, and He declares His Messiahship more and +more openly before the world. He thinks of the Kingdom as +undergoing development, but not with an unlimited, infinite +horizon as the moderns suppose; the horizon is bounded by the +eschatology. <q>For however easy it may be to read modern ideas +into the parables of the draught of fishes, the mustard seed and +the leaven, which, taken by themselves, seem to suggest the +duration contemplated by the modern view, it is nevertheless +indubitable that Jesus, like Paul, by no means looks forward to +so protracted an earthly development; on the contrary, nothing +appears more clearly from the sources than that He thought of +its term as rapidly approaching, and of His victory as nigh at hand; +and looked to the last decisive events, even to the day of judgment, +as about to occur during the lifetime of the existing generation, +including Himself and His apostles.</q> <q>It was the overmastering +pressure of circumstances which held Him prisoner within the +limitations of this obsolete belief.</q> When His confidence in the +development of His Kingdom came into collision with barriers +which He could not pass, when His belief in the presence of the +Kingdom of God grew dim, the purely eschatological ideas won +the upper hand, <q>and if we may suppose that it was precisely this +thought of the imminent decisive action of God, taking possession +of His mind with renewed force at this point, which steeled His +human courage, and roused Him to a passion of self-sacrifice with +the hope of saving from the judgment whatever might still be saved, +we may welcome His adoption of these narrower ideas as in +accordance with the goodwill of God, which could only by this +means maintain the failing strength of its human instrument and +secure the spoils of the Divine warfare—the souls of men subdued +and conquered by Him.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The thought which had hovered before the mind of Renan, but +which in his hands had become only the motive of a romance—<foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>une +ficelle dé roman</foreign> as the French express it—was realised by +<pb n='214'/><anchor id='Pg214'/> +Keim. Nothing deeper or more beautiful has since been written +about the development of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +Less critical in character is Hase's <q>History of Jesus,</q><note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>Geschichte Jesu. Nach akademischen Vorlesungen von Dr. Karl Hase.</hi> 1876. +Special mention ought also to be made of the fine sketch of the Life of Jesus in +A. Hausrath's <hi rend='italic'>Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte</hi> (History of New Testament Times), +1st ed., Munich, 1868 ff.; 3rd ed., 1 vol., 1879, pp. 325-515; <hi rend='italic'>Die zeitgeschichtlichen +Beziehungen des Lebens Jesu</hi> (The Relations of the Life of Jesus to the History +of His time). +</p> +<p> +Adolf Hausrath was born at Karlsruhe. He was appointed Professor of +Theology at Heidelberg in 1867, and died in 1909.</p></note> which +superseded in 1876 the various editions of the Handbook on +the Life of Jesus which had first appeared in 1829. +</p> + +<p> +The question of the use of John's Gospel side by side with +the Synoptics he leaves in suspense, and speaks his last word +on the subject in the form of a parable. <q>If I may be allowed +to use an avowedly parabolic form of speech, the relation of Jesus +to the two streams of Gospel tradition may be illustrated as +follows. Once there appeared upon earth a heavenly Being. +According to His first three biographers He goes about more +or less incognito, in the long garment of a Rabbi, a forceful +popular figure, somewhat Judaic in speech, only occasionally, almost +unmarked by His biographers, pointing with a smile beyond this +brief interlude to His home. In the description left by His +favourite disciple, He has thrown off the <foreign rend='italic'>talar</foreign> of the Rabbi, +and stands before us in His native character, but in bitter and +angry strife with those who took offence at His magnificent +simplicity, and then later—it must be confessed, more attractively—in +deep emotion at parting with those whom, during His +pilgrimage on earth, He had made His friends, though they did +not rightly understand His strange, unearthly speech.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This is Hase's way, always to avoid a final decision. +The fifty years of critical study of the subject which he had +witnessed and taken part in had made him circumspect, sometimes +almost sceptical. But his notes of interrogation do not +represent a covert supernaturalism like those in the Life of Jesus +of 1829. Hase had been penetrated by the influence of Strauss +and had adopted from him the belief that the true life of Jesus +lies beyond the reach of criticism. <q>It is not my business,</q> he +says to his students in an introductory lecture, <q>to recoil in +horror from this or that thought, or to express it with embarrassment +as being dangerous; I would not forbid even the enthusiasm +of doubt and destruction which makes Strauss so strong and +Renan so seductive.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is left uncertain whether Jesus' consciousness of His +Messiahship reaches back to the days of His childhood, or +whether it arose in the ethical development of His ripening +manhood. The concealment of His Messianic claims is ascribed, +<pb n='215'/><anchor id='Pg215'/> +as by Schenkel and others, to paedagogic motives; it was necessary +that Jesus should first educate the people and the disciples up +to a higher ethical view of His office. In the stress which he +lays upon the eschatology Hase has points of affinity with Keim, +for whom he had prepared the way in his Life of Jesus of 1829, +in which he had been the first to assert a development in Jesus +in the course of which He at first fully shared the Jewish +eschatological views, but later advanced to a more spiritual conception. +In his Life of Jesus of 1876 he is prepared to make +the eschatology the dominant feature in the last period also, +and does not hesitate to represent Jesus as dying in the +enthusiastic expectation of returning upon the clouds of heaven. +He feels himself driven to this by the eschatological ideas in the +last discourses. <q>Jesus' clear and definite sayings,</q> he declares, +<q>with the whole context of the circumstances in which they +were spoken and understood, have been forcing me to this conclusion +for years past.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>That lofty Messianic dream must therefore continue to hold +its place, since Jesus, influenced as much by the idea of the +Messianic glories taken over from the beliefs of His people as +by His own religious exaltation, could not think of the victory +of His Kingdom except as closely connected with His own +personal action. But that was only a misunderstanding due +to the unconscious poesy of a high-ranging religious imagination, +the ethical meaning of which could only be realised by a long +historical development. Christ certainly came again as the +greatest power on earth, and His power, along with His word, +is constantly judging the world. He faced the sufferings which +lay immediately before Him with His eyes fixed upon this great +future.</q> +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +The chief excellence of Beyschlag's Life of Jesus consists +in its arrangement.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu</hi>, von Willibald Beyschlag: Pt. i. Preliminary Investigations, +1885, 450 pp.; pt. ii. Narrative, 1886, 495 pp. Joh. Heinr. Christoph Willibald +Beyschlag was born in 1823 at Frankfort-on-Main, and went to Halle as Professor +in 1860. His splendid eloquence made him one of the chief spokesmen of German +Protestantism. As a teacher he exercised a remarkable and salutary influence, +although his scientific works are too much under the dominance of an apologetic +of the heart. He died in 1900.</note> He first, in the volume of preliminary investigations, +discusses the problems, so that the narrative is +disencumbered of all explanations, and by virtue of the author's +admirable style becomes a pure work of art, which rivets the +interest of the reader and almost causes the want of a consistent +historical conception to be overlooked. The fact is, however, +that in regard to the two decisive questions Beyschlag is +deliberately inconsistent. Although he recognises that the Gospel +<pb n='216'/><anchor id='Pg216'/> +of John has not the character of an essentially historical source, +<q>being, rather, a brilliant subjective portrait,</q> <q>a didactic, quite +as much as an historical work,</q> he produces his Life of Jesus +by <q>combining and mortising together Synoptic and Johannine +elements.</q> The same uncertainty prevails in regard to the +recognition of the definitely eschatological character of Jesus' +system of ideas. Beyschlag gives a very large place to eschatology, +so that in order to combine the spiritual with the eschatological +view his Jesus has to pass through three stages of development. +In the first He preaches the Kingdom as something future, a +supernatural event which was to be looked forward to, much +as the Baptist preached it. Then the response which was called +forth on all hands by His preaching led Him to believe that the +Kingdom was in some sense already present, <q>that the Father, +while He delays the outward manifestation of the Kingdom, is +causing it to come even now in quiet and unnoticed ways by +a humble gradual growth, and the great thought of His parables, +which dominates the whole middle period of His public life, +the resemblance of the Kingdom to mustard seed or leaven, comes +to birth in His mind.</q> As His failure becomes more and more +certain, <q>the centre of gravity of His thought is shifted to the +world beyond the grave, and the picture of a glorious return to +conquer and to judge the world rises before Him.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The peculiar interweaving of Synoptic and Johannine ideas +leads to the result that, between the two, Beyschlag in the end +forms no clear conception of the eschatology, and makes Jesus +think in a half-Johannine, half-Synoptic fashion. <q>It is a consequence +of Jesus' profound conception of the Kingdom of God +as something essentially growing that He regards its final perfection +not as a state of rest, but rather as a living movement, as +a process of becoming, and since He regards this process as +a cosmic and supernatural process in which history finds its +consummation, and yet as arising entirely out of the ethical and +historical process, He combines elements from each into the same +prophetic conception.</q> An eschatology of this kind is not matter +for history. +</p> + +<p> +In the acceptance of the <q>miracles</q> Beyschlag goes to the +utmost limits allowed by criticism; in considering the possibility +of one or another of the recorded raisings from the dead he +even finds himself within the borders of rationalist territory. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +Whether Bernhard Weiss's<note place='foot'><p>Bernhard Weiss, <hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu</hi>. 2 vols. Berlin, 1882. See also <hi rend='italic'>Das Markusevangelium</hi>, +1872; <hi rend='italic'>Das Matthäusevangelium</hi>, 1876; and the <hi rend='italic'>Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen +Theologie</hi>, 5th ed., 1888. Bernhard Weiss was born in 1827 at Königsberg, +where he qualified as Privat-Docent in 1852. In 1863 he went as Ordinary Professor +to Kiel, and was called to Berlin in the same capacity in 1877. +</p> +<p> +Among the distinctly liberal Lives of Jesus of an earlier date, that of W. Krüger-Velthusen +(Elberfeld, 1872, 271 pp.) might be mentioned if it were not so entirely +uncritical. Although the author does not hold the Fourth Gospel to be apostolic +he has no hesitation in making use of it as an historical source. +</p> +<p> +There is more sentiment than science, too, in the work of M. G. Weitbrecht, +<hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien</hi>, 1881. +</p> +<p> +A weakness in the treatment of the Johannine question and a want of clearness +on some other points disfigures the three-volume Life of Jesus of the Paris professor, +E. Stapfer, which is otherwise marked by much acumen and real depth of feeling. +Vol. i. <hi rend='italic'>Jésus-Christ avant son ministère</hi> (Fischbacher, Paris, 1896); vol. ii. <hi rend='italic'>Jésus-Christ +pendant son ministère</hi> (1897); vol. iii. <hi rend='italic'>La Mort et la résurrection de Jésus-Christ</hi> +(1898). +</p> +<p> +F. Godet writes of <q>The Life of Jesus before His Public Appearance</q> (German +translation by M. Reineck, <hi rend='italic'>Leben Jesu vor seinem öffentlichen Auftreten</hi>. Hanover, +1897). +</p> +<p> +G. Längin founds his <hi rend='italic'>Der Christus der Geschichte und sein Christentum</hi> (The +Christ of History and His Christianity) on a purely Synoptic basis. 2 vols., 1897-1898. +</p> +<p> +The English <hi rend='italic'>Life of Jesus Christ</hi>, by James Stalker, D. D. (now Professor of +Church History in the United Free Church College, Aberdeen), passed through +numberless editions (German, 1898; Tübingen, 4th ed., 1901). +</p> +<p> +Very pithy and interesting is Dr. Percy Gardner's <hi rend='italic'>Exploratio Evangelica</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>A Brief +Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief.</hi> 1899; 2nd ed., 1907. +</p> +<p> +A work which is free from all compromise is H. Ziegler's <hi rend='italic'>Der geschichtliche +Christus</hi> (The Historical Christ). 1891. For this reason the five lectures, delivered +in Liegnitz, out of which it is composed, attracted such unfavourable attention that +the Ecclesiastical Council took proceedings against the author. (See the <hi rend='italic'>Christliche +Welt</hi>, 1891, pp. 563-568, 874-877.)</p></note> is to be numbered with the liberal +<pb n='217'/><anchor id='Pg217'/> +Lives of Jesus is a question to which we may answer <q>Yes; but +along with the faults of these it has some others in addition.</q> +Weiss shares with the authors of the liberal <q>Lives</q> the assumption +that Mark designed to set forth a definite <q>view of the +course of development of the public ministry of Jesus,</q> and on +the strength of that believes himself justified in giving a very +far-reaching significance to the details offered by this Evangelist. +The arbitrariness with which he carries out this theory is quite +as unbounded as Schenkel's, and in his fondness for the <q>argument +from silence</q> he even surpasses him. Although Mark never +allows a single word to escape him about the motives of the +northern journeys, Weiss is so clever at reading between the +lines that the motives are <q>quite sufficiently</q> clear to him. +The object of these journeys was, according to his explanation, +<q>that the people might have an opportunity, undistracted +by the immediate impression of His words and actions, to make +up their minds in regard to the questions which they had +put to Him so pressingly and inescapably in the last days +of His public ministry; they must themselves draw their own +conclusions alike from the declarations and from the conduct +of Jesus. Only by Jesus' removing Himself for a time from their +midst could they come to a clear decision as to their attitude +to Jesus.</q> This modern psychologising, however, is closely +combined with a dialectic which seeks to show that there is +no irreconcilable opposition between the belief in the Son of +<pb n='218'/><anchor id='Pg218'/> +God and Son of Man which the Church of Christ has always +confessed, and a critical investigation of the question how far +the details of His life have been accurately preserved by tradition, +and how they are to be historically interpreted. That means +that Weiss is going to cover up the difficulties and stumbling-blocks +with the mantle of Christian charity which he has woven +out of the most plausible of the traditional sophistries. As a +dialectical performance on these lines his Life of Jesus rivals in +importance any except Schleiermacher's. On points of detail there +are many interesting historical observations. When all is said, +one can only regret that so much knowledge and so much +ability have been expended in the service of so hopeless a +cause. +</p> + +<p> +What was the net result of these liberal Lives of Jesus? In the +first place the clearing up of the relation between John and the +Synoptics. That seems surprising, since the chief representatives of +this school, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Weizsäcker, and Hase, took up +a mediating position on this question, not to speak of Beyschlag +and Weiss, for whom the possibility of reconciliation between the +two lines of tradition is an accepted datum for ecclesiastical and +apologetic reasons. But the very attempt to hold the position made +clear its inherent untenability. The defence of the combination of +the two traditions exhausted itself in the efforts of these its critical +champions, just as the acceptance of the supernatural in history +exhausted itself in the—to judge from the approval of the many—victorious +struggle against Strauss. In the course of time +Weizsäcker, like Holtzmann,<note place='foot'><p>Holtzmann, <hi rend='italic'>Neutestamentliche Einleitung</hi>, 2nd ed., 1886. Weizsäcker declares +himself in the <hi rend='italic'>Theologische Literaturzeitung</hi> for 1882, No. 23, and <hi rend='italic'>Das apostolische +Zeitalter</hi>, 2nd ed., 1890. +</p> +<p> +Hase and Schenkel accepted this position in principle, but were careful to keep +open a line of retreat. +</p> +<p> +Towards the end of the 'seventies the rejection of the Fourth Gospel as an historical +source was almost universally recognised in the critical camp. It is taken for granted +in the Life of Jesus by Karl Wittichen (Jena, 1876, 397 pp.), which might be reckoned +one of the most clearly conceived works of this kind based on the Marcan hypothesis +if its arrangement were not so bad. It is partly in the form of a commentary, inasmuch +as the presentment of the life takes the form of a discussion of sixty-seven +sections. The detail is very interesting. It makes an impression of <foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>naïveté</foreign> when we +find a series of sections grouped under the title, <q>The establishment of <emph>Christianity</emph> +in Galilee.</q> No stress is laid on the significance of Jesus' journey to the north. +Wittichen, also, misled by Luke, asserts, just as Weisse had done, that Jesus had +worked in Judaea for some time prior to the triumphal entry.</p></note> advanced to the rejection of any +possibility of reconciliation, and gave up the Fourth Gospel as an +historical source. The second demand of Strauss's first Life of +Jesus was now—at last—conceded by scientific criticism. +</p> + +<p> +That does not mean, of course, that no further attempts at +reconciliation appeared thenceforward. Was ever a street so closed +by a cordon that one or two isolated individuals did not get +through? And to dodge through needs, after all, no special +<pb n='219'/><anchor id='Pg219'/> +intelligence, or special courage. Must we never speak of a victory +so long as a single enemy remains alive? Individual attempts to +combine John with the Synoptics which appeared after this decisive +point are in some cases deserving of special attention, as for +example, Wendt's<note place='foot'>H. H. Wendt, <hi rend='italic'>Die Lehre Jesu</hi>, vol. i. <hi rend='italic'>Die evangelischen Quellenberichte über +die Lehre Jesu.</hi> (The Record of the Teaching of Jesus in the Gospel Sources.) 354 pp. +Göttingen, 1886; vol. ii., 1890; Eng. trans., 1892. Second German edition in one +vol., 626 pp., 1901. See also the same writer's <hi rend='italic'>Das Johannesevangelium</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>Untersuchung +seiner Entstehung und seines geschichtlichen Wertes</hi>, 1900. (The Gospel of +John: an Investigation of its Origin and Historical Value.) Hans Heinrich Wendt was +born in 1853 at Hamburg, qualified as Privat-Docent in 1877 at Göttingen, was +subsequently Extraordinary Professor at Kiel and Heidelberg, and now works at +Jena.</note> acute study of the <q>Teaching of Jesus,</q> which +has all the importance of a full treatment of the <q>Life.</q> But the +very way in which Wendt grapples with his task shows that the +main issue is already decided. All he can do is to fight a skilful +and determined rearguard action. It is not the Fourth Gospel as +it stands, but only a <q>ground-document</q> on which it is based, which +he, in common with Weiss, Alexander Schweizer, and Renan, would +have to be recognised <q>alongside of the Gospel of Mark and the +Logia of Matthew as an historically trustworthy tradition regarding +the teaching of Jesus,</q> and which may be used along with those two +writings in forming a picture of the Life of Jesus. For Wendt there +is no longer any question of an interweaving and working up +together of the individual sections of John and the Synoptists. He +takes up much the same standpoint as Holtzmann occupied in 1863, +but he provides a much more comprehensive and well-tested basis +for it. +</p> + +<p> +In the end there is no such very great difference between Wendt +and the writers who had advanced to the conviction of the irreconcilability +of the two traditions. Wendt refuses to give up the +Fourth Gospel altogether; they, on their part, won only a half +victory because they did not as a matter of fact escape from the +Johannine interpretation of the Synoptics. By means of their +psychological interpretation of the first three Gospels they make for +themselves an ideal Fourth Gospel, in the interests of which they +reject the existing Fourth Gospel. They will hear nothing of +the spiritualised Johannine Christ, and refuse to acknowledge even +to themselves that they have only deposed Him in order to put in +His place a spiritualised Synoptic Jesus Christ, that is, a man who +claimed to be the Messiah, but in a spiritual sense. All the +development which they discover in Jesus is in the last analysis +only an evidence of the tension between the Synoptics, in their +natural literal sense, and the <q>Fourth Gospel</q> which is extracted +from them by an artificial interpretation. +</p> + +<p> +The fact is, the separation between the Synoptics and the +Fourth Gospel is only the first step to a larger result which +<pb n='220'/><anchor id='Pg220'/> +necessarily follows from it—the complete recognition of the fundamentally +eschatological character of the teaching and influence of +the Marcan and Matthaean Jesus. Inasmuch as they suppressed +this consequence, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Hase, and Weizsäcker, +even after their critical conversion, still lay under the spell of the +Fourth Gospel, of a modern, ideal Fourth Gospel. It is only when +the eschatological question is decided that the problem of the +relation of John to the Synoptics is finally laid to rest. The liberal +Lives of Jesus grasped their incompatibility only from a literary +point of view, not in its full historical significance. +</p> + +<p> +There is another result in the acceptance of which the critical +school had stopped half-way. If the Marcan plan be accepted, it +follows that, setting aside the references to the Son of Man in +Mark ii. 10 and 28, Jesus had never, previous to the incident at +Caesarea Philippi, given Himself out to be the Messiah or been +recognised as such. The perception of this fact marks one of the +greatest advances in the study of the subject. This result, once +accepted, ought necessarily to have suggested two questions: in +the first place, why Jesus down to that moment had made a secret +of His Messiahship even to His disciples; in the second place, +whether at any time, and, if so, when and how, the people were +made acquainted with His Messianic claims. As a fact, however, +by the application of that ill-starred psychologising both questions +were smothered; that is to say, a sham answer was given to them. +It was regarded as self-evident that Jesus had concealed His +Messiahship from His disciples for so long in order in the meantime +to bring them, without their being aware of it, to a higher +spiritual conception of the Messiah; it was regarded as equally +self-evident that in the last weeks the Messianic claims of Jesus could +no longer be hidden from the people, but that He did not openly +avow them, but merely allowed them to be divined, in order to lead +up the multitude to the recognition of the higher spiritual character +of the office which He claimed for Himself. These ingenious +psychologists never seemed to perceive that there is not a word of +all this in Mark; but that they had read it all into some of the most +contradictory and inexplicable facts in the Gospels, and had thus +created a Messiah who both wished to be Messiah and did not wish +it, and who in the end, so far as the people were concerned, both +was and was not the Messiah. Thus these writers had only +recognised the importance of the scene at Caesarea Philippi, they +had not ventured to attack the general problem of Jesus' attitude in +regard to the Messiahship, and had not reflected further on the +mutually contradictory facts that Jesus purposed to be the Messiah +and yet did not come forward publicly in that character. +</p> + +<p> +Thus they had side-tracked the study of the subject, and based +all their hopes of progress on an intensive exegesis of the detail of +<pb n='221'/><anchor id='Pg221'/> +Mark. They thought they had nothing to do but to occupy a +conquered territory, and never suspected that along the whole line +they had only won a half victory, never having thought out to the +end either the eschatological question or the fundamental historical +question of the attitude of Jesus to the Messiahship. +</p> + +<p> +They were not disquieted by the obstinate persistence of the +discussion on the eschatological question. They thought it was +merely a skirmish with a few unorganised guerrillas; in reality it was +the advance-guard of the army with which Reimarus was threatening +their flank, and which under the leadership of Johannes Weiss +was to bring them to so dangerous a pass. And while they were +endeavouring to avoid this turning movement they fell into the +ambush which Bruno Bauer had laid in their rear: Wrede held up +the Marcan hypothesis and demanded the pass-word for the theory +of the Messianic consciousness and claims of Jesus to which it +was acting as convoy. +</p> + +<p> +The eschatological and the literary school, finding themselves +thus opposed to a common enemy, naturally formed an alliance. +The object of their combined attack was not the Marcan outline +of the life of Jesus, which, in fact, they both accept, but the +modern <q>psychological</q> method of reading between the lines of +the Marcan narrative. Under the cross fire of these allies that +idea of development which had been the strongest entrenchment +of the liberal critical Lives of Jesus, and which they had been +desperately endeavouring to strengthen down to the very last, was +finally blown to atoms. +</p> + +<p> +But the striking thing about these liberal critical Lives of Jesus +was that they unconsciously prepared the way for a deeper historical +view which could not have been reached apart from them. A +deeper understanding of a subject is only brought to pass when a +theory is carried to its utmost limit and finally proves its own +inadequacy. +</p> + +<p> +There is this in common between rationalism and the liberal +critical method, that each had followed out a theory to its ultimate +consequences. The liberal critical school had carried to its limit +the explanation of the connexion of the actions of Jesus, and of +the events of His life, by a <q>natural</q> psychology; and the conclusions +to which they had been driven had prepared the way for +the recognition that the natural psychology is not here the historical +psychology, but that the latter must be deduced from certain historical +data. Thus through the meritorious and magnificently sincere +work of the liberal critical school the a priori <q>natural</q> psychology +gave way to the eschatological. That is the net result, from the +historical point of view, of the study of the life of Jesus in the post-Straussian +period. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='222'/><anchor id='Pg222'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>XV. The Eschatological Question</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Timothée Colani.</hi> Jésus-Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps. +Strassburg, 1864. 255 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gustav Volkmar.</hi> Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit, mit den beiden +ersten Erzählern. (Jesus the Nazarene and the Beginnings of Christianity, with +the two earliest narrators of His life.) Zurich, 1882. 403 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Wilhelm Weiffenbach.</hi> Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu. (Jesus' Conception of His +Second Coming.) 1873. 424 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>W. Baldensperger.</hi> Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen +seiner Zeit. (The Self-consciousness of Jesus in the Light of the Messianic +Hopes of His time.) Strassburg, 1888. 2nd ed., 1892, 282 pp.; 3rd ed. pt. i. +240 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Johannes Weiss.</hi> Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. (The Preaching of Jesus +concerning the Kingdom of God.) 1892. Göttingen. 67 pp. Second revised +and enlarged edition, 1900, 210 pp. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +So long as it was merely a question of establishing the distinctive +character of the thought of Jesus as compared with the ancient +prophetic and Danielic conceptions, and so long as the only +available storehouse of Rabbinic and Late-Jewish ideas was +Lightfoot's <hi rend='italic'>Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas</hi>,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Johannis Lightfooti, Doctoris Angli et Collegii S. Catharinae in Cantabrigiensi +Academia Praefecti, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Quatuor Evangelistas ... +nunc secundum in Germania junctim cum Indicibus locorum Scripturae rerumque +ac verborum necessariis editae e Museo Io. Benedicti Carpzovii. Lipsiae. Anno +MDCLXXXIV.</hi></note> +it was still possible to cherish the belief that the preaching of +Jesus could be conceived as something which was, in the last +analysis, independent of all contemporary ideas. But after the +studies of Hilgenfeld and Dillmann<note place='foot'>The pioneer works in the study of apocalyptic were Dillmann's <hi rend='italic'>Henoch</hi>, 1851; +and Hilgenfeld's <hi rend='italic'>Jüdische Apokalyptik</hi>, 1857.</note> had made known the Jewish +apocalyptic in its fundamental characteristics, and the Jewish +pseudepigrapha were no longer looked on as <q>forgeries,</q> but as +representative documents of the last stage of Jewish thought, the +necessity of taking account of them in interpreting the thought +of Jesus became more and more emphatic. Almost two decades +<pb n='223'/><anchor id='Pg223'/> +were to pass, however, before the full significance of this material was +realised. +</p> + +<p> +It might almost have seemed as if it was to meet this attack by +anticipation that Colani wrote in 1864 his work, <hi rend='italic'>Jésus-Christ et les +croyances messianiques de son temps</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +Timothée Colani was born in 1824 at Lemé (Aisne), studied +in Strassburg and became pastor there in 1851. In the year 1864 +he was appointed Professor of Pastoral Theology in Strassburg in +spite of some attempted opposition to the appointment on the +part of the orthodox party in Paris, which was then growing in +strength. The events of the year 1870 left him without a post. +As he had no prospect of being called to a pastorate in France, he +became a merchant. In consequence of some unfortunate business +operations he lost all his property. In 1875 he obtained a post +as librarian at the Sorbonne. He died in 1888. +</p> + +<p> +How far was Jesus a Jew? That was the starting-point of +Colani's study. According to him there was a complete lack of +homogeneity in the Messianic hopes cherished by the Jewish people +in the time of Jesus, since the prophetic conception, according +to which the Kingdom of the Messiah belonged to the present +world-order, and the apocalyptic, which transferred it to the future +age, had not yet been brought into any kind of unity. The general +expectation was focused rather upon the Forerunner than upon +the Messiah. Jesus Himself in the first period of His public +ministry, up to Mark viii., had never designated Himself as the +Messiah, for the expression Son of Man carried no Messianic +associations for the multitude. His fundamental thought was +that of perfect communion with God; only little by little, as the +success of the preaching of the Kingdom more and more impressed +His mind, did His consciousness take on a Messianic colouring. +In face of the undisciplined expectations of the people He +constantly repeats in His parables of the growth of the Kingdom, +the word <q>patience.</q> By revealing Himself as the Lord of this +spiritual kingdom He makes an end of the oscillation between the +sensuous and the spiritual in the current expectations of the future +blessedness. He points to mankind as a whole, not merely to the +chosen people, as the people of the Kingdom, and substitutes for +the apocalyptic catastrophe an organic development. By His interpretation +of Psalm cx., in Mark xii. 35-37, He makes known that +the Messiah has nothing whatever to do with the Davidic kingship. +It was only with difficulty that He came to resolve to accept the +title of Messiah; He knew what a weight of national prejudices +and national hopes hung upon it. +</p> + +<p> +But He is <q>Messiah the Son of Man</q>; He created this +expression in order thereby to make known His lowliness. In the +moment in which He accepted the office He registered the resolve +<pb n='224'/><anchor id='Pg224'/> +to suffer. His purpose is, to be the suffering, not the triumphant, +Messiah. It is to the influence which His Passion exercises upon +the souls of men that He looks for the firm establishment of His +Kingdom. +</p> + +<p> +This spiritual conception of the Kingdom cannot possibly be +combined with the thought of a glorious Second Coming, for if Jesus +had held this latter view He must necessarily have thought of the +present life as only a kind of prologue to that second existence. +Neither the Jewish, nor the Jewish-Christian eschatology as represented +in the eschatological discourses in the Gospels, can, therefore, +in Colani's opinion, belong to the preaching of Jesus. That He +should sometimes have made use of the imagery associated with +the Jewish expectations of the future is, of course, only natural. But +the eschatology occupies far too important a place in the tradition +of the preaching of Jesus to be explained as a mere symbolical +mode of expression. It forms a substantial element of that preaching. +A spiritualisation of it will not meet the case. Therefore, if the +conviction has been arrived at on other grounds that Jesus' preaching +did not follow the lines of Jewish eschatology, there is only one +possible way of dealing with it, and that is by excising it from the +text on critical grounds. +</p> + +<p> +The only element in the preaching of Jesus which can, in +Colani's opinion, be called in any sense <q>eschatological</q> was the +conviction that there would be a wide extension of the Gospel even +within the existing generation, that Gentiles should be admitted to +the Kingdom, and that in consequence of the general want of +receptivity towards the message of salvation, judgment should +come upon the nations. +</p> + +<p> +These views of Colani furnish him with a basis upon which to +decide on the genuineness or otherwise of the eschatological discourses. +Among the sayings put into the mouth of Jesus which +must be rejected as impossible are: the promise, in the discourse +at the sending forth of the Twelve, of the imminent coming of the +Son of Man, Matt. x. 23; the promise to the disciples that they +should sit upon twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel, Matt. +xix. 28; the saying about His return in Matt. xxiii. 39; the final +eschatological saying at the Last Supper, Matt. xxvi. 29, <q>the +Papias-like Chiliasm of which is unworthy of Jesus</q>; and the prediction +of His coming on the clouds of heaven with which He closes +His Messianic confession before the Council. The apocalyptic discourses +in Mark xiii., Matt. xxiv., and Luke xxi. are interpolated. +A Jewish-Christian apocalypse of the first century, probably composed +before the destruction of Jerusalem, has been interwoven +with a short exhortation which Jesus gave on the occasion when +He predicted the destruction of the temple. +</p> + +<p> +According to Colani, therefore, Jesus did not expect to come +<pb n='225'/><anchor id='Pg225'/> +again from Heaven to complete His work. It was completed by +His death, and the purpose of the coming of the Spirit was to +make manifest its completion. Strauss and Renan had entered +upon the path of explaining Jesus' preaching from the history +of the time by the assumption of an intermixture in it of Jewish +ideas, but it was now recognised <q>that this path is a cul-de-sac, +and that criticism must turn round and get out of it as quickly as +possible.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The new feature of Colani's view was not so much the uncompromising +rejection of eschatology as the clear recognition that its +rejection was not a matter to be disposed of in a phrase or two, +but necessitated a critical analysis of the text. +</p> + +<p> +The systematic investigation of the Synoptic apocalypse was a +contribution to criticism of the utmost importance. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +In the year 1882 Volkmar took up this attempt afresh, at least +in its main features.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit, mit den beiden ersten Erzählern</hi>, +von Gustav Volkmar, Zurich, 1882. To which must be added: <hi rend='italic'>Markus und die +Synopse der Evangelien, nach dem urkundlichen Text; und das Geschichtliche vom +Leben Jesu</hi>. (Mark and Synoptic Material in the Gospels, according to the original +text; and the historical elements in the Life of Jesus.) Zurich, 1869; 2nd edition, 1876, +738 pp. Volkmar was born in 1809, and was living at Fulda as a Gymnasium +(High School) teacher, when in 1852 he was arrested by the Hessian Government on +account of his political views, and subsequently deprived of his post. In 1853 he +went to Zurich, where a new prospect opened to him as a Docent in theology. He +died in 1893.</note> His construction rests upon two main points +of support; upon his view of the sources and his conception of +the eschatology of the time of Jesus. In his view the sole source +for the Life of Jesus is the Gospel of Mark, which was <q>probably +written exactly in the year 73,</q> five years after the Johannine +apocalypse. +</p> + +<p> +The other two of the first three Gospels belong to the second +century, and can only be used by way of supplement. Luke dates +from the beginning of the first decade of the century; while +Matthew is regarded by Volkmar, as by Wilke, as being a combination +of Mark and Luke, and is relegated to the end of this +first decade. The work is in his opinion a revision of the Gospel +tradition <q>in the spirit of that primitive Christianity which, while +constantly opposing the tendency of the apostle of the Gentiles to +make light of the Law, was nevertheless so far universalistic that, +starting from the old legal ground, it made the first steps towards +a catholic unity.</q> Once Matthew has been set aside in this way, +the literary elimination of the eschatology follows as a matter of +course; the much smaller element of discourse in Mark can offer no +serious resistance. +</p> + +<p> +As regards the Messianic expectations of the time, they were, in +Volkmar's opinion, such that Jesus could not possibly have come +<pb n='226'/><anchor id='Pg226'/> +forward with Messianic claims. The Messianic Son of Man, whose +aim was to found a super-earthly Kingdom, only arose in Judaism +under the influence of Christian dogma. The contemporaries of +Jesus knew only the political ideal of the Messianic King. And +woe to any one who conjured up these hopes! The Baptist had +done so by his too fervent preaching about repentance and the +Kingdom, and had been promptly put out of the way by the +Tetrarch. The version found even in Mark, which represents that +it was on Herodias' account, and at her daughter's petition, that +John was beheaded, is a later interpretation which, according to +Volkmar, is evidently false on chronological grounds, since the +Baptist was dead before Herod took Herodias as his wife. Had +Jesus desired the Messiahship, He could only have claimed it in +this political sense. The alternative is to suppose that He did not +desire it. +</p> + +<p> +Volkmar's contribution to the subject consists in the formulating +of this clean-cut alternative. Colani had indeed recognised the +alternative, but had not taken up a consistent attitude in regard to +it. Here, that way of escape from the difficulty is barred, which +suggests that Jesus set Himself up as Messiah, but in another than +the popular sense. What may be called Jesus' Messianic consciousness +consisted solely <q>in knowing Himself to be first-born among +many brethren, the Son of God after the Spirit, and consequently +feeling Himself enabled and impelled to bring about that regeneration +of His people which alone could make it worthy of deliverance.</q> +It is in any case clearly evident from Paul, from the Apocalypse, +and from Mark, <q>the three documentary witnesses emanating from +the circle of the followers of Jesus during the first century, that it +was only after His crucifixion that Jesus was hailed as the Christ; +never during His earthly life.</q> The elimination of the eschatology +thus leads also to the elimination of the Messiahship of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +If we are told in Mark viii. 29 that Simon Peter was the first +among men to hail Jesus as the Messiah, it is to be noticed, +Volkmar points out, that the Evangelist places this confession at a +time when Jesus' work was over and the thought of His Passion +first appears; and if we desire fully to understand the author's +purpose we must fix our attention on the Lord's command not to +make known His Messiahship until after His resurrection (Mark +viii. 30, ix. 9 and 10), which is a hint that we are to date Jesus' +Messiahship from His death. For Mark is no mere naïve chronicler, +but a conscious artist interpreting the history; sometimes, indeed, +a powerful epic writer in whose work the historical and the poetic +are intermingled. +</p> + +<p> +Thus the conclusion is that Mark, in agreement with Paul, +represents Jesus as becoming the Messiah only as a consequence +of His resurrection. He really appeared, and His first appearance +<pb n='227'/><anchor id='Pg227'/> +was to Peter. When Peter on that night of terror fled from +Jerusalem to take refuge in Galilee, Jesus, according to the mystic +prediction of Mark xiv. 28 and xvi. 7, went before him. <q>He was +constantly present to his spirit, until on the third day He manifested +Himself before his eyes, in the heavenly appearance which was also +vouchsafed to the last of the apostles 'as he was in the way'—and +Peter, enraptured, gave expression to the clear conviction +with which the whole life of Jesus had inspired him in the cry +'Thou art the Christ.'</q> +</p> + +<p> +The historical Jesus therefore founded a community of followers +without advancing any claims to the Messiahship. He desired +only to be a reformer, the spiritual deliverer of the people of God, to +realise upon earth the Kingdom of God which they were all seeking +in the beyond, and to extend the reign of God over all nations. +<q>The Kingdom of God is doubtless to win its final and decisive +victory by the almighty aid of God; our duty is to see to its +beginnings</q>—that is, according to Volkmar, the lesson which +Jesus teaches us in the parable of the Sower. The ethic of this +Kingdom was not yet confused by any eschatological ideas. +It was only when, as the years went on, the expectation of the +Parousia rose to a high pitch of intensity that <q>marriage and +the bringing up of children came to be regarded as superfluous, +and were consequently thought of as signs of an absorption in +earthly interests which was out of harmony with the near approach +to the goal of these hopes.</q> Jesus had renewed the foundations +on which <q>the family</q> was based and had made it, in turn, a +corner stone of the Kingdom of God, even as He had consecrated +the common meal by making it a love feast. +</p> + +<p> +In most things Jesus was conservative. The ritual worship of +the God of Israel remained for Him always a sacred thing. But +in spite of that He withdrew more and more from the synagogue, +the scene of His earliest preaching, and taught in the houses of +His disciples. <q>He had learned to fulfil the law as implicit in +one highest commandment and supreme principle, therefore 'in +spirit and in truth'; but He never, as appears from all the evidence, +declared it to be abolished.</q> <q>We may be equally certain, +however, that Jesus, while He asserted the abiding validity of the +Ten Commandments, never explicitly declared that of the Mosaic +Law as a whole. The absence of any such saying from the tradition +regarding Jesus made it possible for Paul to take his decisive step +forward.</q> +</p> + +<p> +As regards the Gospel discourses about the Parousia, it is easy +to recognise that, even in Mark, these <q>are one and all the work +of the narrator, whose purpose is edification. He connects his +work as closely as possible with the Apocalypse, which had appeared +some five years earlier, in order to emphasise, in contrast to it, the +<pb n='228'/><anchor id='Pg228'/> +higher truth.</q> Jesus' own hope, in all its clearness and complete +originality, is recorded in the parables of the seed growing secretly and +the grain of mustard seed, and in the saying about the immortality +of His words. Nothing beyond this is in any way certain, however +remarkable the saying in Mark ix. 1 may be, that the looked-for +consummation is to take place during the lifetime of the existing +generation. +</p> + +<p> +<q>It is only the fact that Mark is preceded by 'the book of +the Birth (and History) of Christ according to Matthew'—not +only in the Scriptures, but also in men's minds, which were +dominated by it as the <q>first Gospel</q>—which has caused it to +be taken as self-evident that Jesus, knowing Himself from the first +to be the Messiah, expected His Parousia solely from heaven, and +therefore with, or in, the clouds of heaven.... But since He +who was thought of as by birth the Son of God, is now thought +of as the Son of Man, born an Israelite, and becoming the Son of +God after the spirit only at His baptism, the hope that looks to +the clouds of heaven cannot be, or at least ought not to be, any +longer explained otherwise than as an enthusiastic dream.</q> +</p> + +<p> +If, even at the beginning of the 'eighties, a so extreme theory +on the other side could, without opposition, occupy all the points +of vantage, it is evident that the theory which gave eschatology its +due place was making but slow progress. It was not that any one +had been disputing the ground with it, but that all its operations +were characterised by a nervous timidity. And these hesitations +are not to be laid to the account of those who did not perceive the +approach of the decisive conflict, or refused to accept battle, like +the followers of Reuss, for instance, who were satisfied with the +hypothesis that thoughts about the Last Judgment had forced their +way into the authentic discourses of Jesus about the destruction of the +city;<note place='foot'>Kienlen, <q>Die eschatologische Rede Jesu Matt. xxiv. cum Parall.</q> (The +Eschatological Discourse of Jesus in Matt. xxiv. with the parallel passages), <hi rend='italic'>Jahrbuch +für die Theologie</hi>, 1869, pp. 706-709. Analysis of other attempts directed to the +same end in Weiffenbach, <hi rend='italic'>Der Wiederkunftsgedanke</hi>, p. 31 ff.</note> even those who like Weiffenbach are fully convinced that <q>the +eschatological question, and in particular the question of the Second +Coming, which in many quarters has up to the present been treated +as a <foreign rend='italic'>noli me tangere</foreign>, must sooner or later become the battle-ground +of the greatest and most decisive of theological controversies</q>—even +those who shared this conviction stopped half-way on the +road on which they had entered. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +Weiffenbach's<note place='foot'>Wilhelm Weiffenbach, Director of the Seminary for Theological Students at +Friedberg, was born in 1842 at Bornheim in Rhenish Hesse.</note> work, <q>Jesus' Conception of His Second Coming,</q> +published in 1873, sums up the results of the previous discussions +of the subject. He names as among those who ascribe the +<pb n='229'/><anchor id='Pg229'/> +expectation of the Parousia, in the sensuous form in which it meets +us in the documents, to a misunderstanding of the teaching of Jesus +on the part of the disciples and the writers who were dependent +upon them—Schleiermacher, Bleek, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Colani, +Baur, Hase, and Meyer. Among those who maintained that the +Parousia formed an integral part of Jesus' teaching, he cites Keim, +Weizsäcker, Strauss, and Renan. He considers that the readiest +way to advance the discussion will be by undertaking a critical +review of the attempt to analyse the great Synoptic discourse about +the future in which Colani had led the way. +</p> + +<p> +The question of the Parousia is like, Weiffenbach suggests, a +vessel which has become firmly wedged between rocks. Any +attempt to get it afloat again will be useless until a new channel +is found for it. His detailed discussions are devoted to endeavouring +to discover the relation between the declarations +regarding the Second Coming and the predictions of the Passion. +In the course of his analysis of the great prophetic discourse he +rejects the suggestion made by Weisse in his <hi rend='italic'>Evangelienfrage</hi> of +1856, that the eschatological character of the discourse results +from the way in which it is put together; that while the sayings +in their present mosaic-like combination certainly have a reference +to the last things, each of them individually in its original context +might well bear a natural sense. In Colani's hypothesis of +conflation the suggestion was to be rejected that it was not <q>Ur-Markus,</q> +but the author of the Synoptic apocalypse who was +responsible for the working in of the <q>Little Apocalypse.</q><note place='foot'>The English reader will find a constructive analysis of what is known as the +<q>Little Apocalypse</q> in <hi rend='italic'>Encyclopaedia Biblica</hi>, art. <q>Gospels,</q> col. 1857. It consists +of the verses Matt. xxiv. 6-8, 15-22, 29-31, 34, corresponding to Mark xiii. 7-9<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>, +14-20, 24-27, 30. According to the theory first sketched by Colani these verses +formed an independent Apocalypse which was embedded in the Gospel by the +Evangelist.—F. C. B.</note> It was +an unsatisfactory feature of Weizsäcker's position<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte</hi>, 1864, pp. 121-126.</note> that he insisted on +regarding the <q>Little Apocalypse</q> as Jewish, not Jewish-Christian; +Pfleiderer had distinguished sharply what belongs to the Evangelist +from the <q>Little Apocalypse,</q> and had sought to prove that the +purpose of the Evangelist in thus breaking up the latter and working +it into a discourse of Jesus was to tone down the eschatological +hopes expressed in the discourse, because they had remained +unfulfilled even at the fall of Jerusalem, and to retard the rapid +development of the apocalyptic process by inserting between its +successive phases passages from a different discourse.<note place='foot'><q>Über die Komposition der eschatologischen Rede Matt. xxiv. 4 ff.</q> (The +Composition of the Eschatological Discourse in Matt. xxiv. 4 ff.), <hi rend='italic'>Jahrbuch f. d. Theol.</hi> +vol. xiii., 1868, pp. 134-149.</note> Weiffenbach +carries this series of tentative suggestions to its logical conclusion, +advancing the view that the link of connexion between +<pb n='230'/><anchor id='Pg230'/> +the Jewish-Christian Apocalypse and the Gospel material in which +it is embedded is the thought of the Second Coming. This was +the thought which gave the impulse from without towards the transmutation +of Jewish into Jewish-Christian eschatology. Jesus must +have given expression to the thought of His near return; and +Jewish-Christianity subsequently painted it over with the colours +of Jewish eschatology. +</p> + +<p> +In developing this theory, Weiffenbach thought that he had +succeeded in solving the problem which had been first critically +formulated by Keim, who is constantly emphasising the idea that +the eschatological hopes of the disciples could not be explained +merely from their Judaic pre-suppositions, but that some incentive +to the formation of these hopes must be sought in the preaching +of Jesus; otherwise primitive Christianity and the life of Jesus +would stand side by side unconnected and unexplained, and in that +case we must give up all hope <q>of distinguishing the sure word of +the Lord from Israel's restless speculations about the future.</q> +</p> + +<p> +When the Jewish-Christian Apocalypse has been eliminated, +we arrive at a discourse, spoken on the Mount of Olives, in which +Jesus exhorted His disciples to watchfulness, in view of the near, +but nevertheless undefined, hour of the return of <q>the Master of +the House.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In this discourse, therefore, we have a standard by which +criticism may test all the eschatological sayings and discourses. +Weiffenbach has the merit of having gathered together all the +eschatological material of the Synoptics and examined it in the +light of a definite principle. In Colani the material was incomplete, +and instead of a critical principle he offered only an arbitrary +exegesis which permitted him, for example, to conceive the watchfulness +on which the eschatological parables constantly insist as +only a vivid expression for the sense of responsibility <q>which +weighs upon the life of man.</q> +</p> + +<p> +And yet the outcome of this attempt of Weiffenbach's, which +begins with so much real promise, is in the end wholly unsatisfactory. +The <q>authentic thought of the return</q> which he takes as his +standard has for its sole content the expectation of a visible +personal return in the near future <q>free from all more or less +fantastic apocalyptic and Jewish-Christian speculations about the +future.</q> That is to say, the whole of the eschatological discourses +of Jesus are to be judged by the standard of a colourless, unreal +figment of theology. Whatever cannot be squared with that is to +be declared spurious and cut away! Accordingly the eschatological +closing saying at the Last Supper is stigmatised as a <q>Chiliastic-Capernaitic</q><note place='foot'>By <q>Capernaitic</q> Weiffenbach apparently means literalistic; cf. John vi. 52 f.</note> +distortion of a <q>normal</q> promise of the Second +Coming; the idea of the παλιγγενεσία, Matt. xix. 28, is said to be +<pb n='231'/><anchor id='Pg231'/> +wholly foreign to Jesus' world of thought; it is impossible, too, +that Jesus can have thought of Himself as the Judge of the world, +for the Jewish and Jewish-Christian eschatology does not ascribe +the conduct of the Last Judgment to the Messiah; that is first +done by Gentile Christians, and especially by Paul. It was, +therefore, the later eschatology which set the Son of Man on the +throne of His glory and prepared <q>the twelve thrones of judgment +for the disciples.</q> The historian ought only to admit such of the +sayings about bearing rule in the Messianic Kingdom as can be +interpreted in a spiritual, non-sensuous fashion. +</p> + +<p> +In the end Weiffenbach's critical principle proves to be merely +a bludgeon with which he goes seal-hunting and clubs the defenceless +Synoptic sayings right and left. When his work is done you +see before you a desert island strewn with quivering corpses. +Nevertheless the slaughter was not aimless, or at least it was not +without result. +</p> + +<p> +In the first place, it did really appear, as a by-product of the +critical processes, that Jesus' discourses about the future had +nothing to do with an historical prevision of the destruction of +Jerusalem, whereas the supposition that they had, had hitherto +been taken as self-evident, the prediction of the destruction of +Jerusalem being regarded as the historic nucleus of Jesus' discourses +regarding the future, to which the idea of the Last Judgment had +subsequently attached itself. +</p> + +<p> +Here, then, we have the introduction of the converse opinion, +which was subsequently established as correct; namely, that Jesus +foresaw, indeed, the Last Judgment, but not the historical destruction +of Jerusalem. +</p> + +<p> +In the next place, in the course of his critical examination of +the eschatological material, Weiffenbach stumbles upon the discourse +at the sending forth of the Twelve in Matt. x., and finds himself face +to face with the fact that the discourse which he was expected +to regard as a discourse of instruction was really nothing of the kind, +but a collection of eschatological sayings. As he had taken over +along with the Marcan hypothesis the closely connected view of +the composite character of the Synoptic discourses, he does not +allow himself to be misled, but regards this inappropriate charge +to the Twelve as nothing else than an impossible anticipation and +a bold anachronism. He knows that he is at one in this +with Holtzmann, Colani, Bleek, Scholten, Meyer, and Keim, who +also made the discourse of instruction end at the point beyond +which they find it impossible to explain it, and regard the predictions +of persecution as only possible in the later period of the +life of Jesus. <q>For these predictions,</q> to express Weiffenbach's +view in the words of Keim, <q>are too much at variance with the +essentially gracious and happy mood which suggested the sending +<pb n='232'/><anchor id='Pg232'/> +forth of the disciples, and reflect instead the lurid gloom of the +fierce conflicts of the later period and the sadness of the farewell +discourses.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It was a good thing that Bruno Bauer did not hear this chorus. +If he had, he would have asked Weiffenbach and his allies +whether the poor fragment that remained after the critical dissection +of the <q>charge to the Twelve</q> was <q>a discourse of instruction,</q> +and if in view of these difficulties they could not realise why he had +refused, thirty years before, to believe in the <q>discourse of instruction.</q> +But Bruno Bauer heard nothing: and so their blissful +unconsciousness lasted for nearly a generation longer. +</p> + +<p> +The expectation of His Second Coming, repeatedly expressed +by Jesus towards the close of His life, is on this hypothesis authentic; +it was painted over by the primitive Christian community with the +colours of its own eschatology, in consequence of the delay of the +Parousia; and in view of the mission to the Gentiles a more cautious +conception of the nearness of the time commended itself; nay, when +Jerusalem had fallen and the <q>signs of the end</q> which had been +supposed to be discovered in the horrors of the years 68 and 69 +had passed without result, the return of Jesus was relegated to a +distant future by the aid of the doctrine that the Gospel must first +be preached to all the heathen. Thus the Parousia, which according +to the Jewish-Christian eschatology belonged to the present age, +was transferred to the future. <q>With this combination and making +coincident—they were not so at the first—of the Second Coming, the +end of the world, and the final Judgment, the idea of the Second +Coming reached the last and highest stage of its development.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Weiffenbach's view, as we have seen, empties Jesus' expectation +of His return of almost all its content, and to that is due the fact +that his investigation did not prove so useful as it might have done. +His purpose is, following suggestions thrown out by Schleiermacher +and Weisse, to prove the identity of the predictions of the Second +Coming and of the Resurrection, and he takes as his starting-point +the observation that the conduct of the disciples after the death +of Jesus forbids us to suppose that the Resurrection had been predicted +in clear and unambiguous sayings, and that, on the other +hand, the announcement of the Second Coming coincides in point +of time with the predictions of the Resurrection, and the predictions +both of the Second Coming and of the Resurrection stand in +organic connexion with the announcement of His approaching +death. The two are therefore identical. +</p> + +<p> +It was only after the death of their Master that the disciples +differentiated the thought of the Resurrection from that of the +Second Coming. The Resurrection did not bring them that which +the Second Coming had promised; but it produced the result that +the eschatological hopes, which Jesus had with difficulty succeeded +<pb n='233'/><anchor id='Pg233'/> +in damping, flamed up again in the hearts of His disciples. The +spiritual presence of the Deliverer who had manifested Himself to +them did not seem to them to be the fulfilment of the promise of +the Second Coming; but the expectation of the latter, being brought +into contact with the flame of eschatological hope with which their +hearts were a-fire, was fused, and cast into a form quite different +from that in which it had been derived from the words of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +That is all finely observed. For the first time it had +dawned upon historical criticism that the great question is that +concerning the identity or difference of the Parousia and the +Resurrection. But the man who had been the first to grasp that +thought, and who had undertaken his whole study with the special +purpose of working it out, was too much under the influence of the +spiritualised eschatology of Schleiermacher and Weisse to be able +to assign the right values in the solution of his equation. And, +withal, he is too much inclined to play the apologist as a subsidiary +rôle. He is not content merely to render the history intelligible; +he is, by his own confession, urged on by the hope that perhaps +a way may be found of causing that <q>error</q> of Jesus to disappear +and proving it to be an illusion due to the want of a sufficiently close +study of His discourses. But the historian simply must not be an +apologist; he must leave that to those who come after him and he +may do so with a quiet mind, for the apologists, as we learn from +the history of the Lives of Jesus, can get the better of any historical +result whatever. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary that +the historian should allow himself to be led astray by following an +apologetic will-o'-the-wisp. +</p> + +<p> +Technically regarded, the mistake on which Weiffenbach's investigation +made shipwreck was the failure to bring the Jewish +apocalyptic material into relation with the Synoptic data. If he +had done this, it would have been impossible for him to extract an +absolutely unreal and unhistorical conception of the Second Coming +out of the discourses of Jesus. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +The task which Weiffenbach had neglected remained undone—to +the detriment of theology—until Baldensperger<note place='foot'>Wilhelm Baldensperger, at present Professor at Giessen, was born in 1856 at +Mülhausen in Alsace.</note> repaired the +omission. His book, <q>The Self-consciousness of Jesus in the Light +of the Messianic Hopes of His Time,</q><note place='foot'><p>A new edition appeared in 1891. There is no fundamental alteration, but in +consequence of the polemic against opponents who had arisen in the meantime it +is fuller. The first part of a third edition appeared in 1903 under the title <hi rend='italic'>Die +messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums</hi>. +</p> +<p> +See also the interesting use made of Late-Jewish and Rabbinic ideas in Alfred +Edersheim's <hi rend='italic'>The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah</hi>, 2nd ed., London, 1884, 2 vols.</p></note> published in 1888, made its +impression by reason of the fullness of its material. Whereas +Colani and Volkmar had still been able to deny the existence of +<pb n='234'/><anchor id='Pg234'/> +a fully formed Messianic expectation in the time of Jesus, the +genesis of the expectation was now fully traced out, and it was +shown that the world of thought which meets us in Daniel had +won the victory, that the <q>Son of Man</q> Messiah of the Similitudes +of Enoch was the last product of the Messianic hope prior to the +time of Jesus; and that therefore the fully developed Danielic +scheme with its unbridgeable chasm between the present and the +future world furnished the outline within which all further and +more detailed traits were inserted. The honour of having effectively +pioneered the way for this discovery belongs to Schürer.<note place='foot'><p>Emil Schürer, <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi</hi>. (History +of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ.) 2nd ed., part second, 1886, pp. 417 ff. +Here is to be found also a bibliography of the older literature of the subject. 3rd ed., +1889, vol. ii. pp. 498 ff. +</p> +<p> +Emil Schürer was born at Augsburg in 1844, and from 1873 onwards was successively +Professor at Leipzig, Giessen, and Kiel, and is now (1909) at Göttingen. +</p> +<p> +The latest presentment of Jewish apocalyptic is <hi rend='italic'>Die jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel +bis Akiba</hi>, by Paul Volz, Pastor in Leonberg. Tübingen, 1903. 412 pp. The +material is very completely given. Unfortunately the author has chosen the systematic +method of treating his subject, instead of tracing the history of its development, +the only right way. As a consequence Jesus and Paul occupy far too little space +in this survey of Jewish apocalyptic. For a treatment of the origin of Jewish +eschatology from the point of view of the history of religion see Hugo Gressmann, +now Professor at Berlin, <hi rend='italic'>Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie</hi> (The +Origin of the Israelitish and Jewish Eschatology), Göttingen, 1905. 377 pp.</p></note> +Baldensperger adopts his ideas, but sets them forth in a much +more direct way, because he, in contrast with Schürer, gives no +<emph>system</emph> of Messianic expectation—and there never in reality was +a system—but is content to picture its many-sided growth. +</p> + +<p> +He does not, it is true, escape some minor inconsistencies. +For example, the idea of a <q>political Messiahship,</q> which is really +set aside by his historical treatment, crops up here and there, as +though the author had not entirely got rid of it himself. But +the impression made by the book as a whole was overpowering. +</p> + +<p> +Nevertheless this book does not exactly fulfil the promise of +its title, any more than Weiffenbach's. The reader expects that +now at last Jesus' sayings about Himself will be consistently explained +in the light of the Jewish Messianic ideas, but that is not +done. For Baldensperger, instead of tracing down and working +out the conception of the Kingdom of God held by Jesus as a +product of the Jewish eschatology, at least by way of trying whether +that method would suffice, takes it over direct from modern +historical theology. He assumes as self-evident that Jesus' conception +of the Kingdom of God had a double character, that the +eschatological and spiritual elements were equally represented in it +and mutually conditioned one another, and that Jesus therefore +began, in pursuance of this conception, to found a spiritual invisible +Kingdom, although He expected its fulfilment to be effected by +supernatural means. Consequently there must also have been a +<pb n='235'/><anchor id='Pg235'/> +duality in His religious consciousness, in which these two conceptions +had to be combined. Jesus' Messianic consciousness +sprang, according to Baldensperger, <q>from a religious root</q>; that +is to say, the Messianic consciousness was a special modification +of a self-consciousness in which a pure, spiritual, unique relation to +God was the fundamental element; and from this arises the +possibility of a spiritual transformation of the Jewish-Messianic self-consciousness. +In making these assumptions, Baldensperger does +not ask himself whether it is not possible that for Jesus the purely +Jewish consciousness of a transcendental Messiahship may itself +have been religious, nay even spiritual, just as well as the Messiahship +resting on a vague, indefinite, colourless sense of union with +God which modern theologians arbitrarily attribute to Him. +</p> + +<p> +Again, instead of arriving at the two conceptions, Kingdom of +God and Messianic consciousness, purely empirically, by an unbiased +comparison of the Synoptic passages with the Late-Jewish +conceptions, Baldensperger, in this following Holtzmann, brings +them into his theory in the dual form in which contemporary +theology, now becoming faintly tinged with eschatology, offered +them to him. Consequently, everything has to be adapted to this +duality. Jesus, for example, in applying to Himself the title Son +of Man, thinks not only of the transcendental significance which +it has in the Jewish apocalyptic, but gives it at the same time an +ethico-religious colouring. +</p> + +<p> +Finally, the duality is explained by an application of the genetic +method, in which the <q>course of the development of the self-consciousness +of Jesus</q> is traced out. The historical psychology +of the Marcan hypothesis here shows its power of adapting itself to +eschatology. From the first, to follow the course of Baldensperger's +exposition, the eschatological view influenced Jesus' expectation of +the Kingdom and His Messianic consciousness. In the wilderness, +after the dawn of His Messianic consciousness at His baptism, He +had rejected the ideal of the Messianic king of David's line and +put away all warlike thoughts. Then He began to found the +Kingdom of God by preaching. For a time the spiritualised idea +of the Kingdom was dominant in His mind, the Messianic eschatological +idea falling rather into the background. +</p> + +<p> +But His silence regarding His Messianic office was partly due +to paedagogic reasons, <q>since He desired to lead His hearers to a +more spiritual conception of the Kingdom and so to obviate a +possible political movement on their part and the consequent intervention +of the Roman government.</q> In addition to this He had +also personal reasons for not revealing Himself which only disappeared +in the moment when His death and Second Coming +became part of His plan; previous to that He did not know how +and when the Kingdom was to come. Prior to the confession at +<pb n='236'/><anchor id='Pg236'/> +Caesarea Philippi, the disciples <q>had only a faint and vague suspicion +of the Messianic dignity of their Master.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This was <q>rather the preparatory stage of His Messianic work.</q> +Objectively, it may be described <q>as the period of growing +emphasis upon the spiritual characteristics of the Kingdom, and of +resigned waiting and watching for its outward manifestation in +glory; subjectively, from the point of view of the self-consciousness +of Jesus, it may be characterised as the period of the struggle +between His religious conviction of His Messiahship and the +traditional rationalistic Messianic belief.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This first period opens out into a second in which He had +attained to perfect clearness of vision and complete inner harmony. +By the acceptance of the idea of suffering, Jesus' inner peace is enhanced +to the highest degree conceivable. <q>By throwing Himself +upon the thought of death He escaped the lingering uncertainty as +to when and how God would fulfil His promise....</q> <q>The +coming of the Kingdom was fixed down to the Second Coming +of the Messiah. Now He ventured to regard Himself as the +Son of Man who was to be the future Judge of the world, for +the suffering and dying Son of Man was closely associated with the +Son of Man surrounded by the host of heaven. Would the people +accept Him as Messiah? He now, in Jerusalem, put the question +to them in all its sharpness and burning actuality; and the people +were moved to enthusiasm. But so soon as they saw that He +whom they had hailed with such acclamation was neither able nor +willing to fulfil their ambitious dreams, a reaction set in.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Thus, according to Baldensperger, there was an interaction +between the historical and the psychological events. And that is +right!—if only the machinery were not so complicated, and a +<q>development</q> had not to be ground out of it at whatever cost. +But this, and the whole manner of treatment in the second part, +encumbered as it is with parenthetic qualifications, was rendered +inevitable by the adoption of the two aforesaid not purely historical +conceptions. Sometimes, too, one gets the impression that the +author felt that he owed it to the school to which he belonged to +advance no assertion without adding the limitations which scientifically +secure it against attack. Thus on every page he digs himself +into an entrenched position, with palisades of footnotes—in fact +the book actually ends with a footnote. But the conception which +underlay the whole was so full of vigour that in spite of the thoughts +not being always completely worked out, it produced a powerful +impression. Baldensperger had persuaded theology at least to +admit the hypothesis—whether it took up a positive or negative +position in regard to it—that Jesus possessed a fully-developed +eschatology. He thus provided a new basis for discussion and gave +an impulse to the study of the subject such as it had not received +<pb n='237'/><anchor id='Pg237'/> +since the 'sixties, at least not in the same degree of energy. +Perhaps the very limitations of the work, due as they were to its +introduction of modern ideas, rendered it better adapted to the +spirit of the age, and consequently more influential, than if it had +been characterised by that rigorous maintenance of a single point of +view which was abstractly requisite for the proper treatment of +the subject. It was precisely the rejection of this rigorous consistency +which enabled it to gain ground for the cause of +eschatology. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +But the consistent treatment from a single point of view was +bound to come; and it came four years later. In passing from +Weiffenbach and Baldensperger to Johannes Weiss<note place='foot'>Johannes Weiss, now Professor at Marburg, was born at Kiel in 1863.</note> the reader feels +like an explorer who after weary wanderings through billowy seas of +reed-grass at length reaches a wooded tract, and instead of swamp +feels firm ground beneath his feet, instead of yielding rushes sees +around him the steadfast trees. At last there is an end of <q>qualifying +clause</q> theology, of the <q>and yet,</q> the <q>on the other hand,</q> +the <q>notwithstanding</q>! The reader had to follow the others +step by step, making his way over every footbridge and gang-plank +which they laid down, following all the meanderings in which they +indulged, and must never let go their hands if he wished to come +safely through the labyrinth of spiritual and eschatological ideas +which they supposed to be found in the thought of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +In Weiss there are none of these devious paths: <q>behold the +land lies before thee.</q> +</p> + +<p> +His <q>Preaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God,</q><note place='foot'>It may be mentioned that this work had been preceded (in 1891) by two Leiden +prize dissertations, <hi rend='italic'>Über die Lehre vom Reich Gottes im Neuen Testament</hi> (Concerning +the Kingdom of God in the New Testament), one of them by Issel, the other, which +lays especially strong emphasis upon the eschatology, by Schmoller.</note> +published in 1892, has, on its own lines, an importance equal to +that of Strauss's first Life of Jesus. He lays down the third great +alternative which the study of the life of Jesus had to meet. The +first was laid down by Strauss: <emph>either</emph> purely historical <emph>or</emph> purely supernatural. +The second had been worked out by the Tübingen school +and Holtzmann: <emph>either</emph> Synoptic <emph>or</emph> Johannine. Now came the +third: <emph>either</emph> eschatological <emph>or</emph> non-eschatological! +</p> + +<p> +Progress always consists in taking one or other of two alternatives, +in abandoning the attempt to combine them. The pioneers of +progress have therefore always to reckon with the law of mental +inertia which manifests itself in the majority—who always go on +believing that it is possible to combine that which can no longer +be combined, and in fact claim it as a special merit that they, in +contrast with the <q>one-sided</q> writers, can do justice to the other side +of the question. One must just let them be, till their time is over, +<pb n='238'/><anchor id='Pg238'/> +and resign oneself not to see the end of it, since it is found by +experience that the complete victory of one of two historical +alternatives is a matter of two full theological generations. +</p> + +<p> +This remark is made in order to explain why the work of +Johannes Weiss did not immediately make an end of the mediating +views. Another reason perhaps was that, according to the usual +canons of theological authorship, the book was much too short—only +sixty-seven pages—and too simple to allow its full significance +to be realised. And yet it is precisely this simplicity which makes +it one of the most important works in historical theology. It +seems to break a spell. It closes one epoch and begins another. +</p> + +<p> +Weiffenbach had failed to solve the problem of the Second +Coming, Baldensperger that of the Messianic consciousness of +Jesus, because both of them allowed a false conception of the +Kingdom of God to keep its place among the data. The general +conception of the Kingdom was first rightly grasped by Johannes +Weiss. All modern ideas, he insists, even in their subtlest forms, +must be eliminated from it; when this is done, we arrive at a +Kingdom of God which is wholly future; as is indeed implied by +the petition in the Lord's prayer, <q>Thy Kingdom come.</q> Being +still to come, it is at present purely supra-mundane. It is present +only as a cloud may be said to be present which throws its shadow +upon the earth; its nearness, that is to say, is recognised by the +paralysis of the Kingdom of Satan. In the fact that Jesus casts +out the demons, the Pharisees are bidden to recognise, according to +Matt. xii. 25-28, that the Kingdom of God is already come upon +them. +</p> + +<p> +This is the only sense in which Jesus thinks of the Kingdom as +present. He does not <q>establish it,</q> He only proclaims its coming. +He exercises no <q>Messianic functions,</q> but waits, like others, for +God to bring about the coming of the Kingdom by supernatural +means. He does not even know the day and hour when this shall +come to pass. The missionary journey of the disciples was not +designed for the extension of the Kingdom of God, but only as a +means of rapidly and widely making known its nearness. But it +was not so near as Jesus thought. The impenitence and hardness +of heart of a great part of the people, and the implacable enmity +of His opponents, at length convinced Him that the establishment +of the Kingdom of God could not yet take place, that such +penitence as had been shown hitherto was not sufficient, and that +a mighty obstacle, the guilt of the people, must first be put away. +It becomes clear to Him that His own death must be the ransom-price. +He dies, not for the community of His followers only, but +for the nation; that is why He always speaks of His atoning death +as <q>for many,</q> not <q>for you.</q> After His death He would come +again in all the splendour and glory with which, since the days of +<pb n='239'/><anchor id='Pg239'/> +Daniel, men's imaginations had surrounded the Messiah, and He +was to come, moreover, within the lifetime of the generation to +which He had proclaimed the nearness of the Kingdom of God. +</p> + +<p> +The setting up of the Kingdom was to be preceded by the Day +of Judgment. In describing the Messianic glory Jesus makes use +of the traditional picture, but He does so with modesty, restraint, +and sobriety. Therein consists His greatness. +</p> + +<p> +With political expectations this Kingdom has nothing whatever +to do. <q>To hope for the Kingdom of God in the transcendental +sense which Jesus attaches to it, and to raise a revolution, are two +things as different as fire and water.</q> The transcendental character +of the expectation consists precisely in this, that the State and all +earthly institutions, conditions, and benefits, as belonging to the +present age, shall either not exist at all in the coming Kingdom, or +shall exist only in a sublimated form. Hence Jesus cannot preach +to men a special ethic of the Kingdom of God, but only an ethic +which in this world makes men free from the world and prepared +to enter unimpeded into the Kingdom. That is why His ethic is +of so completely negative a character; it is, in fact, not so much an +ethic as a penitential discipline. +</p> + +<p> +The ministry of Jesus is therefore not in principle different from +that of John the Baptist: there can be no question of a founding +and development of the Kingdom within the hearts of men. What +distinguishes the work of Jesus from that of the Baptist is only +His consciousness of being the Messiah. He awoke to this consciousness +at His baptism. But the Messiahship which He claims +is not a present office; its exercise belongs to the future. On +earth He is only a man, a prophet, as in the view implied in the +speeches in the Acts of the Apostles. <q>Son of Man</q> is therefore, +in the passages where it is authentic, a purely eschatological designation +of the Messiah, though we cannot tell whether His hearers +understood Him as speaking of Himself in His future rank and +dignity, or whether they thought of the Son of Man as a being +quite distinct from Himself, whose coming He was only proclaiming +in advance. +</p> + +<p> +<q>The sole object of this argument is to prove that the Messianic +self-consciousness of Jesus, as expressed in the title <q>Son of Man,</q> +shares in the transcendental apocalyptic character of Jesus' idea of +the Kingdom of God, and cannot be separated from that idea.</q> +The only partially correct evaluation of the factors in the problem +of the Life of Jesus which Baldensperger had taken over from +contemporary theology, and which had hitherto prevented historical +science from obtaining a solution of that problem, had now been +corrected from the history itself, and it was now only necessary +to insert the corrected data into the calculation. +</p> + +<p> +Here is the point at which it is fitting to recall Reimarus. He +<pb n='240'/><anchor id='Pg240'/> +was the first, and indeed, before Johannes Weiss, the only writer who +recognised and pointed out that the preaching of Jesus was purely +eschatological. It is true that his conception of the eschatology +was primitive, and that he applied it not as a constructive, but as a +destructive principle of criticism. But read his statement of the +problem <q>with the signs changed,</q> and with the necessary deduction +for the primitive character of the eschatology, and you have +the view of Weiss. +</p> + +<p> +Ghillany, too, has a claim to be remembered. When Weiss +asserts that the part played by Jesus was not the active rôle of +establishing the Kingdom, but the passive rôle of waiting for +the coming of the Kingdom; and that it was, in a sense, only by +the acceptance of His sufferings that He emerged from that +passivity; he is only asserting what Ghillany had maintained +thirty years before with the same arguments and with the same +decisiveness. But Weiss places the assertion on a scientifically +unassailable basis. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='241'/><anchor id='Pg241'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>XVI. The Struggle Against Eschatology</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Wilhelm Bousset.</hi> Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum. Ein religionsgeschichtlicher +Vergleich. (The Antithesis between Jesus' Preaching and Judaism. +A Religious-Historical Comparison.) Göttingen, 1892. 130 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Erich Haupt.</hi> Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien. +(The Eschatological Sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.) 1895. 167 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Paul Wernle.</hi> Die Anfänge unserer Religion. Tübingen-Leipzig, 1901; 2nd ed., +1904, 410 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Emil Schürer.</hi> Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein Jesu-Christi. 1903. Akademische +Festrede. (The Messianic Self-consciousness of Jesus Christ.) 24 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Wilhelm Brandt.</hi> Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums +auf Grund einer Kritik der Berichte über das Leiden und die Auferstehung Jesu. +(The Gospel History and the Origin of Christianity. Based upon a Critical +Study of the Narratives of the Sufferings and Resurrection of Jesus.) Leipzig, +1893. 591 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Adolf Jülicher.</hi> Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. (The Parables of Jesus.) Vol. i., 1888, +291 pp.; vol. ii., 1899, 643 pp. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +In this period the important books are short. The sixty-seven +pages of Johannes Weiss are answered by Bousset<note place='foot'>Wilhelm Bousset, now Professor in Göttingen, born 1865 at Lübeck</note> in a bare +hundred and thirty. People began to see that the elaborate Lives +of Jesus which had hitherto held the field, and enjoyed an +immortality of revised editions, only masked the fact that the +study of the subject was at a standstill; and that the tedious re-handling +of problems which had been solved so far as they were +capable of solution only served as an excuse for not grappling with +those which still remained unsolved. +</p> + +<p> +This conviction is expressed by Bousset at the beginning of +his work. The criticism of the sources, he says, is finished, and +its results may be regarded, so far as the Life of Jesus is concerned, +as provisionally complete. The separation between John and the +Synoptists has been secured. For the Synoptists, the two-document +hypothesis has been established, according to which the sources +are a primitive form of Mark, and a collection of <q>logia.</q> A +certain interest might still attach to the attempt to arrive at the +primitive kernel of Mark; but the attempt has a priori so little +<pb n='242'/><anchor id='Pg242'/> +prospect of success that it was almost a waste of time to continue +to work at it. It would be a much more important thing to get +rid of the feeling of uncertainty and artificiality in the Lives of +Jesus. What is now chiefly wanted, Bousset thinks, is <q>a firmly-drawn +and life-like portrait which, with a few bold strokes, should +bring out clearly the originality, the force, the personality of Jesus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is evident that the centre of the problem has now been +reached. That is why the writing becomes so terse. The masses +of thought can only be manœuvred here in a close formation such +as Weiss gives them. The loose order of discursive exegetical +discussions of separate passages is now no longer in place. The +first step towards further progress was the simple one of marshalling +the passages in such a way as to gain a single consistent impression +from them. +</p> + +<p> +In the first instance Bousset is as ready as Johannes Weiss to +admit the importance for the mind of Jesus of the eschatological +<q>then</q> and <q>now.</q> The realistic school, he thinks, are perfectly +right in endeavouring to relate Jesus, without apologetic or +theological inconsistencies, to the background of contemporary +ideas. Later, in 1901, he was to make it a reproach against +Harnack's <q>What is Christianity?</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Das Wesen des Christentums</hi>) +that it did not give sufficient importance to the background of +contemporary thought in its account of the preaching of Jesus.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Theol. Rundschau</hi> (1901), 4, pp. 89-103.</note> +</p> + +<p> +He goes on to ask, however, whether the first enthusiasm over +the discovery of this genuinely historical way of looking at things +should not be followed by some <q>second thoughts</q> of a deeper +character. Accepting the position laid down by Johannes Weiss, +we must ask, he thinks, whether this purely historical criticism, by +the exclusive emphasis which it has laid upon eschatology, has not +allowed the <q>essential originality and power of the personality of +Jesus to slip through its fingers,</q> and closed its grasp instead upon +contemporary conceptions and imaginations which are often of a +quite special character. +</p> + +<p> +The Late-Jewish eschatology was, according to Bousset, by no +means a homogeneous system of thought. Realistic and transcendental +elements stand side by side in it, unreconciled. The +genuine popular belief of Late Judaism still clung quite naively to +the earthly realistic hopes of former times, and had never been +able to rise to the purely transcendental regions which are the +characteristic habitat of apocalyptic. The rejection of the world +is never carried out consistently; something of the Jewish national +ideal always remains. And for this reason Late Judaism made no +progress towards the overcoming of particularism. +</p> + +<p> +Probably, Bousset holds, this Apocalyptic thought is not even +genuinely Jewish; as he ably argued in another work, there +<pb n='243'/><anchor id='Pg243'/> +was a considerable strain of Persian influence in it.<note place='foot'>W. Bousset, <hi rend='italic'>Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen +Herkunft und ihrer Bedeutung für das Neue Testament</hi>. (The Origin of Apocalyptic +as indicated by Comparative Religion, and its significance for the understanding of +the New Testament.) Berlin, 1903. 67 pp. See also W. Bousset, <hi rend='italic'>Die Religion des +Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter</hi>, 512 pp., 1902. For the assertion of +Parsic influences see also Stave, <hi rend='italic'>Der Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum</hi>. +Haarlem, 1898.</note> The dualism, +the transference to the transcendental region of the future hope, +the conception of the world which appears in Jewish apocalyptic, +are of Iranian rather than Jewish origin. +</p> + +<p> +Two thoughts are especially characteristic of Bousset's position; +first, that this transcendentalising of the future implied a spiritualisation +of it; secondly, that in post-exilic Judaism there was always +an undercurrent of a purer and more spontaneous piety, the +presence of which is especially to be traced in the Psalms. +</p> + +<p> +Into a dead world, where a kind of incubus seems to stifle all +naturalness and spontaneity, there comes a living Man. According +to the formulae of His preaching and the designations which He +applies to Himself, He seems at first sight to identify Himself +with this world rather than to oppose it. But these conceptions +and titles, especially the Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, +must be provisionally left in the background, since they, as being +conceptions taken over from the past, conceal rather than reveal +what is most essential in His personality. The primary need is to +discover, behind the phenomenal, the real character of the personality +and preaching of Jesus. The starting-point must therefore be the +simple fact that Jesus came as a living Man into a dead world. +He is living, because in contrast with His contemporaries He has +a living idea of God. His faith in the Fatherhood of God is +Jesus' most essential act. It signifies a breach with the transcendental +Jewish idea of God, and an unconscious inner negation +of the Jewish eschatology. Jesus, therefore, walks through a world +which denies His own eschatology like a man who has firm ground +under his feet. +</p> + +<p> +That which on a superficial view appears to be eschatological +preaching turns out to be essentially a renewal of the old prophetic +preaching with its positive ethical emphasis. Jesus is a manifestation +of that ancient spontaneous piety of which Bousset had shown +the existence in Late Judaism. +</p> + +<p> +The most characteristic thing in the character of Jesus, +according to Bousset, is His joy in life. It is true that if, in +endeavouring to understand Him, we take primitive Christianity +as our starting-point, we might conceive of this joy in life as the +complement of the eschatological mood, as the extreme expression +of indifference to the world, which can as well enjoy the world as +flee it. But the purely eschatological attitude, though it reappears +<pb n='244'/><anchor id='Pg244'/> +in early Christianity, does not give the right clue for the interpretation +of the character of Jesus as a whole. His joy in the world +was real, a genuine outcome of His new type of piety. It +prevented the eudaemonistic eschatological idea of reward, which +some think they find in Jesus' preaching, from ever really becoming +an element in it. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus is best understood by contrasting Him with the +Baptist. John was a preacher of repentance whose eyes were fixed +upon the future. Jesus did not allow the thought of the nearness +of the end to rob Him of His simplicity and spontaneity, and was +not crippled by the reflection that everything was transitory, +preparatory, a mere means to an end. His preaching of +repentance was not gloomy and forbidding; it was the proclamation +of a new righteousness, of which the watchword was, <q>Ye shall be +perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.</q> He desires to communicate +this personal piety by personal influence. In contrast +with the Baptist He never aims at influencing masses of men, but +rather avoids it. His work was accomplished mainly among little +groups and individuals. He left the task of carrying the Gospel +far and wide as a legacy to the community of His followers. The +mission of the Twelve, conceived as a mission for the rapid and +widespread extension of the Gospel, is not to be used to explain +Jesus' methods of teaching; the narrative of it rests on an <q>obscure +and unintelligible tradition.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This genuine joy in life was not unnoticed by the contemporaries +of Jesus who contrasted Him as <q>a gluttonous man +and a wine-bibber,</q> with the Baptist. They were vaguely +conscious that the whole life of Jesus was <q>sustained by the feeling +of an absolute antithesis between Himself and His times.</q> He +lived not in anxious expectation, but in cheerful gladness, because +by the native strength of His piety He had brought present and +future into one. Free from all extravagant Jewish delusions +about the future, He was not paralysed by the conditions which +must be fulfilled to make this future present. He has a peculiar +conviction of its coming which gives Him courage to <q>marry</q> the +present with the future. The present as contrasted with the +beyond is for Him no mere shadow, but truth and reality; life is +not for Him a mere illusion, but is charged with a real and +valuable meaning. His own time is the Messianic time, as His +answer to the Baptist's question shows. <q>And it is among the +most certain things in the Gospel that Jesus in His earthly life +acknowledged Himself as Messiah both to His disciples and to the +High-Priest, and made His entry into Jerusalem as such.</q> +</p> + +<p> +He can, therefore, fully recognise the worth of the present. It is +not true that He taught that this world's goods were in themselves +bad; what He said was only that they must not be put first. +<pb n='245'/><anchor id='Pg245'/> +Indeed He gives a new value to life by teaching that man cannot +be righteous in isolation, but only in the fellowship of love. And +as, moreover, the righteousness which He preaches is one of the +goods of the Kingdom of God, He cannot have thought of the +Kingdom as wholly transcendental. The Reign of God begins +for Him in the present era. His consciousness of being able to +cast out demons in the spirit of God because Satan's kingdom on +earth is at an end is only the supernaturalistic expression for +something of which He also possesses an ethical consciousness, +namely, that in the new social righteousness the Kingdom of God +is already present. +</p> + +<p> +This presence of the Kingdom was not, however, clearly +explained by Jesus, but was set forth in paradoxes and parables, +especially in the parables of Mark iv. When we find the +Evangelist, in immediate connexion with these parables, +asserting that the aim of the parables was to mystify and conceal, +we may conclude that the basis of this theory is the fact that these +parables concerning the presence of the Kingdom of God were not +understood. +</p> + +<p> +In effecting this tacit transformation Jesus is acting in accordance +with a tendency of the time. Apocalyptic is itself a spiritualisation +of the ancient Israelitish hopes of the future, and Jesus only +carries this process to its completion. He raises Late Judaism +above the limitations in which it was involved, separates out the +remnant of national, political, and sensuous ideas which still clung +to the expectation of the future in spite of its having been +spiritualised by apocalyptic, and breaks with the Jewish particularism, +though without providing a theoretical basis for this step. +</p> + +<p> +Thus, in spite of, nay even because of, His opposition to it, +Jesus was the fulfiller of Judaism. In Him were united the ancient +and vigorous prophetic religion and the impulse which Judaism itself +had begun to feel towards the spiritualisation of the future hope. +The transcendental and the actual meet in a unity which is full of +life and strength, creative not reflective, and therefore not needing +to set aside the ancient traditional ideas by didactic explanations, +but overcoming them almost unconsciously by the truth which +lies in this paradoxical union. The historical formula embodied in +Bousset's closing sentence runs thus: <q>The Gospel develops some +of the deeper-lying <foreign rend='italic'>motifs</foreign> of the Old Testament, but it protests +against the prevailing tendency of Judaism.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Such of the underlying assumptions of this construction as invite +challenge lie open to inspection, and do not need to be painfully +disentangled from a web of exegesis; that is one of the merits of +the book. The chief points to be queried are as follows:— +</p> + +<p> +Is it the case that the apocalypses mark the introduction of a +process of spiritualisation applied to the ancient Israelitish hopes? +<pb n='246'/><anchor id='Pg246'/> +A picture of the future is not spiritualised simply by being projected +upon the clouds. This elevation to the transcendental region +signifies, on the contrary, the transference to a place of safety of +the eudaemonistic aspirations which have not been fulfilled in the +present, and which are expected, by way of compensation, from +the other world. The apocalyptic conception is so far from being +a spiritualisation of the future expectations, that it represents on +the contrary the last desperate effort of a strongly eudaemonistic +popular religion to raise to heaven the earthly goods from which it +cannot make up its mind to part. +</p> + +<p> +Next we must ask: Is it really necessary to assume the +existence of so wide reaching a Persian influence in Jewish +eschatology? The Jewish dualism and the sublimation of its +hope have become historical just because, owing to the fate of the +nation, the religious life of the present and the fair future which +was logically bound up with it became more and more widely +separated, temporally and locally, until at last only its dualism and +the sublimation of its hope enabled the nation to survive its +disappointment. +</p> + +<p> +Again, is it historically permissible to treat the leading ideas of +the preaching of Jesus, which bear so clearly the marks of the +contemporary mould of thought, as of secondary importance for the +investigation, and to endeavour to trace Jesus' thoughts from +within outwards and not from without inwards? +</p> + +<p> +Further, is there really in Judaism no tendency towards the +overcoming of particularism? Has not its eschatology, as shaped +by the deutero-prophetic literature, a universalistic outlook? Did +Jesus overcome particularism in principle otherwise than it is overcome +in Jewish eschatology, that is to say, with reference to the +future? +</p> + +<p> +What is there to prove that Jesus' distinctive faith in the +Fatherhood of God ever existed independently, and not as +an alternative form of the historically-conditioned Messianic +consciousness? In other words, what is there to show that the +<q>religious attitude</q> of Jesus and His Messianic consciousness are +anything else than identical, temporally and conceptually, so that +the first must always be understood as conditioned by the second? +</p> + +<p> +Again, is the saying about the gluttonous man and wine-bibber +a sufficient basis for the contrast between Jesus and the Baptist? +Is not Jesus' preaching of repentance gloomy as well as the +Baptist's? Where do we read that He, in contrast with the +Baptist, avoided dealing with masses of men? Where did He +give <q>the community of His disciples</q> marching orders to go far +and wide in the sense required by Bousset's argument? Where +is there a word to tell us that He thought of His work among +individuals and little groups of men as the most important feature +<pb n='247'/><anchor id='Pg247'/> +of His ministry? Are we not told the exact contrary, that He +<q>taught</q> His disciples as little as He did the people? Is there +any justification for characterising the missionary journey of the +Twelve, just because it directly contradicts this view, as <q>an obscure +and unintelligible tradition?</q> +</p> + +<p> +Is it so certain that Jesus made a Messianic entry into +Jerusalem, and that, accordingly, He declared Himself to the +disciples and to the High Priest as Messiah in the present, and +not in a purely future sense? +</p> + +<p> +What are the sayings which justify us in making the attitude +of opposition which He took up towards the Rabbinic legalism +into a <q>sense of the absolute opposition between Himself and His +people</q>? The very <q>absolute,</q> with its ring of Schleiermacher, is +suspicious. +</p> + +<p> +All these, however, are subsidiary positions. The decisive point +is: Can Bousset make good the assertion that Jesus' joy in life was +a more or less unconscious inner protest against the purely +eschatological world-renouncing religious attitude, the primal +expression of that <q>absolute</q> antithesis to Judaism? Is it not +the case that His attitude towards earthly goods was wholly conditioned +by eschatology? That is to say, were not earthly goods +emptied of any essential value in such a way that joy in the world +and indifference to the world were simply the final expression of an +ironic attitude which had been sublimated into pure serenity. +That is the question upon the answer to which depends the +decision whether Bousset's position is tenable or not. +</p> + +<p> +It is not in fact tenable, for the opposite view has at its disposal +inexhaustible reserves of world-renouncing, world-contemning sayings, +and the few utterances which might possibly be interpreted +as expressing a purely positive joy in the world, desert and go +over to the enemy, because they textually and logically belong to +the other set of sayings. Finally, the promise of earthly happiness +as a reward, to which Bousset had denied a position in the teaching +of Jesus, also falls upon his rear, and that in the very moment +when he is seeking to prove from the saying, <q>Seek ye first the +Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall +be added unto you,</q> that for Jesus this world's goods are not in +themselves evil, but are only to be given a secondary place. +Here the eudaemonism is written on the forehead of the saying, +since the receiving of these things—we must remember, too, the +<q>hundredfold</q> in another passage—is future, not present, and will +only <q>come</q> at the same time as the Kingdom of God. All present +goods, on the other hand, serve only to support life and render +possible an undistracted attitude of waiting in pious hope for that +future, and therefore are not thought of as gains, but purely as +a gift of God, to be cheerfully and freely enjoyed as a foretaste +<pb n='248'/><anchor id='Pg248'/> +of those blessings which the elect are to enjoy in the future Divine +dispensation. +</p> + +<p> +The loss of this position decides the further point that if there +is any suggestion in the teaching of Jesus that the future Kingdom +of God is in some sense present, it is not to be understood as +implying an anti-eschatological acceptance of the world, but merely +as a phenomenon indicative of the extreme tension of the +eschatological consciousness, just in the same way as His joy in +the world. Bousset has a kind of indirect recognition of this in +his remark that the presence of the Kingdom of God is only +asserted by Jesus as a kind of paradox. If the assertion of its +presence indicated that acceptance of the world formed part +of Jesus' system of thought, it would be at variance with His +eschatology. But the paradoxical character of the assertion is due +precisely to the fact that His acceptance of the world is but the last +expression of the completeness with which He rejects it. +</p> + +<p> +But what do critical cavils matter in the case of a book of +which the force, the influence, the greatness, depends upon its +spirit? It is great because it recognises—what is so rarely +recognised in theological works—the point where the main issue +really lies; in the question, namely, whether Jesus preached and +worked as Messiah, or whether, as follows if a prominent place is +given to eschatology, as Colani had long ago recognised, His +career, historically regarded, was only the career of a prophet with +an undercurrent of Messianic consciousness. +</p> + +<p> +As a consequence of grasping the question in its full significance, +Bousset rejects all the little devices by which previous writers +had endeavoured to relate Jesus' ministry to His times, each one +prescribing at what point He was to connect Himself with it, and +of course proceeding in his book to represent Him as connecting +Himself with it in precisely that way. Bousset recognises that the +supreme importance of eschatology in the teaching of Jesus is not +to be got rid of by whittling away a little point here and there, and +rubbing it smooth with critical sandpaper until it is capable of +reflecting a different thought, but only by fully admitting it, while +at the same time counteracting it by asserting a mysterious element +of world-acceptance in the thought of Jesus, and conceiving His +whole teaching as a kind of alternating current between positive +and negative poles. +</p> + +<p> +This is the last possible sincere attempt to limit the exclusive +importance of eschatology in the preaching of Jesus, an attempt so +gallant, so brilliant, that its failure is almost tragic; one could have +wished success to the book, to which Carlyle might have stood +sponsor. That it is inspired by the spirit of Carlyle, that it +vindicates the original force of a great Personality against the +attempt to dissolve it into a congeries of contemporary conceptions, +<pb n='249'/><anchor id='Pg249'/> +therein lies at once its greatness and its weakness. Bousset +vindicates Jesus, not for history, but for Protestantism, by making +Him the heroic representative of a deeply religious acceptance +of the goods of life amid an apocalyptic world. His study +is not unhistorical, but supra-historical. The spirit of Jesus was in +fact world-accepting in the sense that through the experience +of centuries it advanced historically to the acceptance of the +world, since nothing can appear phenomenally which is not in +some sense ideally present from the first. But the teaching of the +historical Jesus was purely and exclusively world-renouncing. If, +therefore, the problem which Bousset has put on the blackboard +for the eschatological school to solve is to be successfully solved, +the solution is to be sought on other, more objectively historical, +lines. +</p> + +<p> +That the decision of the question whether Jesus' preaching of +the Kingdom of God is wholly eschatological or only partly +eschatological, is primarily to be sought in His ethical teaching, +is recognised by all the critics of Baldensperger and Weiss. They +differ only in the importance which they assign to eschatology. But +no other writer has grasped the problem as clearly as Bousset. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +The Parisian Ehrhardt emphasises eschatology very strongly +in his work <q>The Fundamental Character of the Preaching of Jesus +in Relation to the Messianic Hopes of His People and His own +Messianic Consciousness.</q><note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu im Verhältnis zu den messianischen +Hoffnungen seines Volkes und zu seinem eigenen Messiasbewusstsein.</hi> Freiburg, +1895, 119 pp. See also his inaugural dissertation of 1896, <hi rend='italic'>Le Principe de la morale +de Jésus</hi>. Paris, 1896. +</p> +<p> +A. K. Rogers, <hi rend='italic'>The Life and Teachings of Jesus; a Critical Analysis, etc.</hi> (London +and New York, 1894), regards Jesus' teaching as purely ethical, refusing to admit any +eschatology at all.</p></note> Nevertheless he asserts the presence +of a twofold ethic in Jesus' teaching: eschatology did not attempt +to evacuate everything else of all value, but allowed the natural +and ethical goods of this world to hold their place, as belonging to +a world of thought which resisted its encroachments. +</p> + +<p> +A much more negative attitude is taken up by Albert Réville +in his <hi rend='italic'>Jésus de Nazareth</hi>.<note place='foot'>Paris, 2 vols., 500 and 512 pp.</note> According to him both Apocalyptic +and Messianism are foreign bodies in the teaching of Jesus which +have been forced into it by the pressure of contemporary thought. +Jesus would never of His own motion have taken up the rôle of +Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +Wendt, too, in the second edition of his <hi rend='italic'>Lehre Jesu</hi>, which +appeared in 1903, held in the main to the fundamental idea of +the first, the 1890, edition; namely, that Jesus in view of His purely +religious relation to God could not do otherwise than transform, +from within outwards, the traditional conceptions, even though +<pb n='250'/><anchor id='Pg250'/> +they seem to be traceable in their actual contemporary form on +the surface of His teaching. He had already, in 1893, in the +<hi rend='italic'>Christliche Welt</hi> clearly expounded, and defended against Weiss, his +view of the Kingdom of God as already present for the thought +of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +The effect which Baldensperger and Weiss had upon Weiffenbach<note place='foot'>W. Weiffenbach, <hi rend='italic'>Die Frage der Wiederkunst Jesu</hi>. (The Question concerning +the Second Coming of Jesus.) Friedberg, 1901.</note> +was to cause him to bring out in full strength the apologetic +aspect which had been somewhat held in check in his work of +1873 by the thoroughness of his exegesis. The apocalyptic of +this younger school, which was no longer willing to believe that in +the mouth of Jesus the Parousia meant nothing more than an +issuing from death clothed with power, is on all grounds to be +rejected. It assumes, since this expectation was not fulfilled, an +error on the part of Jesus. It is better to rest content with not +being able to see quite clearly. +</p> + +<p> +Protected by a similar armour, the successive editions of +Bernhard Weiss's Life of Jesus went their way unmolested down +to 1902. +</p> + +<p> +Not with an apologetic purpose, but on the basis of an original +religious view, Titius, in his work on the New Testament doctrine +of blessedness, develops the teaching of Jesus concerning the +Kingdom of God as a present good.<note place='foot'>A. Titius, <hi rend='italic'>Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung +für die Gegenwart</hi>. I. Teil: <hi rend='italic'>Jesu Lehre vom Reich Gottes</hi>. (The New Testament +Doctrine of Blessedness and its Significance for the Present. Pt. I., Jesus' Doctrine +of the Kingdom of God.) Arthur Titius, now Professor at Kiel, was born in 1864 +at Sensburg.</note> +</p> + +<p> +In the same year, 1895, appeared E. Haupt's work on <q>The +Eschatological Sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien</hi>, 167 pp. +Erich Haupt, now Professor in Halle, was born in 1841 at Stralsund.</note> In +contradistinction to Bousset he takes as his starting-point the +eschatological passages, examining each separately and modulating +them back to the Johannine key. It is so delicately and ingeniously +done that the reading of the book is an aesthetic pleasure which +makes one in the end quite forget the apologetic <foreign rend='italic'>motif</foreign> in order to +surrender oneself completely to the author's mystical system of +religious thought. +</p> + +<p> +It is, indeed, not the least service of the eschatological school +that it compels modern theology, which is so much preoccupied +with history, to reveal what is its own as its own. Eschatology +makes it impossible to attribute modern ideas to Jesus and then +by way of <q>New Testament Theology</q> take them back from Him +as a loan, as even Ritschl not so long ago did with such <foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>naïveté</foreign>. +Johannes Weiss, in cutting himself loose, as an historian, from +Ritschl, and recognising that <q>the real roots of Ritschl's ideas +<pb n='251'/><anchor id='Pg251'/> +are to be found in Kant and the illuminist theology,</q><note place='foot'>Cf. the preface to the 2nd ed. of Joh. Weiss's <hi rend='italic'>Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche +Gottes</hi>. Göttingen, 1900.</note> introduced +the last decisive phase of the process of separation between +historical and <q>modern</q> theology. Before the advent of eschatology, +critical theology was, in the last resort, without a principle of +discrimination, since it possessed no reagent capable of infallibly +separating out modern ideas on the one hand and genuinely ancient +New Testament ideas on the other. The application of the +criterion has now begun. What will be the issue, the future +alone can show. +</p> + +<p> +But even now we can recognise that the separation was not +only of advantage to historical theology; for modern theology, the +manifestation of the modern spirit as it really is, was still more +important. Only when it became conscious of its own inmost +essence and of its right to exist, only when it freed itself from +its illegitimate historical justification, which, leaping over the +centuries, appealed directly to an historical exposition of the New +Testament, only then could it unfold its full wealth of ideas, which +had been hitherto root-bound by a false historicity. It was not by +chance that in Bousset's reply a certain affirmation of life, something +expressive of the genius of Protestantism, cries aloud as never before +in any theological work of this generation, or that in Haupt's work +German mysticism interweaves its mysterious harmonies with the +Johannine <foreign rend='italic'>motif</foreign>. The contribution of Protestantism to the interpretation +of the world had never been made so manifest in any +work prior to Weiss's. The modern spirit is here breaking in +wreaths of foam upon the sharp cliffs of the rock-bound eschatological +world-view of Jesus. To put it more prosaically, modern +theology is at last about to become sincere. But this is so far only +a prophecy of the future. +</p> + +<p> +If we are to speak of the present it must be fully admitted that +even historical science, when it desires to continue the history +of Christianity beyond the life of Jesus, cannot help protesting +against the one-sidedness of the eschatological world of thought of +the <q>Founder.</q> It finds itself obliged to distinguish in the thought +of Jesus <q>permanent elements and transitory elements</q> which, being +interpreted, means eschatological and not essentially eschatological +materials; otherwise it can get no farther. For if Jesus' world of +thought was wholly and exclusively eschatological, there can only +have arisen out of it, as Reimarus long ago maintained, an exclusively +eschatological primitive Christianity. But how a community +of that kind could give birth to the Greek non-eschatological +theology no Church history and no history of dogma has so far +shown. Instead of that they all—Harnack, with the most consummate +historical ability—lay down from the very first, alongside +<pb n='252'/><anchor id='Pg252'/> +of the main line intended for <q>contemporary views</q> traffic, a +relief line for the accommodation of through trains of <q>non-temporally +limited ideas</q>; and at the point where primitive Christian +eschatology becomes of less importance they switch off the train to +the relief line, after slipping the carriages which are not intended +to go beyond that station. +</p> + +<p> +This procedure has now been rendered impossible for them +by Weiss, who leaves no place in the teaching of Jesus for +anything but the single-line traffic of eschatology. If, during the +last fifteen years, any one had attempted to carry out in a work on +a large scale the plan of Strauss and Renan, linking up the history +of the life of Jesus with the history of early Christianity, and New +Testament theology with the early history of dogma, the immense +difficulties which Weiss had raised without suspecting it, in the +course of his sixty-seven pages, would have become clearly apparent. +The problem of the Hellenisation of Christianity took on quite a +new aspect when the trestle bridge of modern ideas connecting the +eschatological early Christianity with Greek theology broke down +under the weight of the newly-discovered material, and it became +necessary to seek within the history itself an explanation of the +way in which an exclusively eschatological system of ideas came +to admit Greek influences, and—what is much more difficult +to explain—how Hellenism, on its part, found any point of contact +with an eschatological sect. +</p> + +<p> +The new problem is as yet hardly recognised, much less grappled +with. The few who since Weiss's time have sought to pass over +from the life of Jesus to early Christianity, have acted like men +who find themselves on an ice-floe which is slowly dividing into +two pieces, and who leap from one to the other before the cleft +grows too wide. Harnack, in his <q>What is Christianity?</q> almost +entirely ignores the contemporary limitations of Jesus' teaching, +and starts out with a Gospel which carries him down without +difficulty to the year 1899. The anti-historical violence of this +procedure is, if possible, still more pronounced in Wernle. The +<q>Beginnings of our Religion</q><note place='foot'>Tübingen-Leipzig, 1901, 410 pp.; 2nd ed., 1904. Paul Wernle, now Professor +of Church History at Basle, was born in Zurich, 1872.</note> begins by putting the Jewish +eschatology in a convenient posture for the coming operation by +urging that the idea of the Messiah, since there was no appropriate +place for it in connexion with the Kingdom of God or the new +Earth, had become obsolete for the Jews themselves. +</p> + +<p> +The inadequateness of the Messianic idea for the purposes of +Jesus is therefore self-evident. <q>His whole life long</q>—as if we +knew any more of it than the few months of His public ministry!—<q>He +laboured to give a new and higher content to the Messianic +title which He had adopted.</q> In the course of this endeavour He +<pb n='253'/><anchor id='Pg253'/> +discarded <q>the Messiah of the Zealots</q>—by that is meant the +political non-transcendent Messianic ideal. As if we had any +knowledge of the existence of such an ideal in the time of Jesus! +The statements of Josephus suggest, and the conduct of Pilate at +the trial of Jesus confirms the conclusion, that in none of the risings +did a claimant of the Messiahship come forward, and this should +be proof enough that there did not exist at that time a political +eschatology alongside of the transcendental, and indeed it could +not on inner grounds subsist alongside of it. That was, after +all, the thing which Weiss had shown most clearly! +</p> + +<p> +Jesus, therefore, had dismissed the Messiah of the Zealots; He +had now to turn Himself into the <q>waiting</q> Messiah of the Rabbis. +Yet He does not altogether accept this rôle, for He works actively +as Messiah. His struggle with the Messianic conception could not +but end in transforming it. This transformed conception is introduced +by Jesus to the people at His entry into Jerusalem, since His +choice of the ass to bear Him inscribed as a motto, so to speak, +over the demonstration the prophecy of the Messiah who should +be a bringer of peace. A few days later He gives the Scribes to +understand by His enigmatic words with reference to Mark xii. 37, +that His Messiahship has nothing to do with Davidic descent and +all that that implied. +</p> + +<p> +The Kingdom of God was not, of course, for Him, according +to Wernle, a purely eschatological entity; He saw in many events +evidence that it had already dawned. Wernle's only real concession +to the eschatological school is the admission that the Kingdom +always remained for Jesus a supernatural entity. +</p> + +<p> +The belief in the presence of the Kingdom was, it seems, only +a phase in the development of Jesus. When confronted with +growing opposition He abandoned this belief again, and the super-earthly +future character of the Kingdom was all that remained. +At the end of His career Jesus establishes a connexion between +the Messianic conception, in its final transformation, and the +Kingdom, which had retained its eschatological character; He +goes to His death for the Messiahship in its new significance, but +He goes on believing in His speedy return as the Son of Man. +This expectation of His Parousia as Son of Man, which only emerges +immediately before His exit from the world—when it can no longer +embarrass the author in his account of the preaching of Jesus—is +the only point in which Jesus does not overcome the inadequacy of +the Messianic idea with which He had to deal. <q>At this point +the fantastic conception of Late Judaism, the magically transformed +world of the ancient popular belief, thrusts itself incongruously +into Jesus' great and simple consciousness of His vocation.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Thus Wernle takes with him only so much of Apocalyptic as he +can safely carry over into early Christianity. Once he has got +<pb n='254'/><anchor id='Pg254'/> +safely across, he drags the rest over after him. He shows that in +and with the titles and expressions borrowed from apocalyptic +thought, Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, which were all at +bottom so inappropriate to Jesus, early Christianity slipped in again +<q>either the old ideas or new ones misunderstood.</q> In pointing +this out he cannot refrain from the customary sigh of regret—these +apocalyptic titles and expressions <q>were from the first a misfortune +for the new religion.</q> One may well ask how Wernle has discovered +in the preaching of Jesus anything that can be called, +historically, a new religion, and what would have become of this +new religion apart from its apocalyptic hopes and its apocalyptic +dogma? We answer: without its intense eschatological hope the +Gospel would have perished from the earth, crushed by the weight +of historic catastrophes. But, as it was, by the mighty power of +evoking faith which lay in it, eschatology made good in the +darkest times Jesus' sayings about the imperishability of His +words, and died as soon as these sayings had brought forth new +life upon a new soil. Why then make such a complaint against it? +</p> + +<p> +The tragedy does not consist in the modification of primitive +Christianity by eschatology, but in the fate of eschatology itself, +which has preserved for us all that is most precious in Jesus, +but must itself wither, because He died upon the cross with a loud +cry, despairing of bringing in the new heaven and the new earth—that +is the real tragedy. And not a tragedy to be dismissed with +a theologian's sigh, but a liberating and life-giving influence, like +every great tragedy. For in its death-pangs eschatology bore to +the Greek genius a wonder-child, the mystic, sensuous, Early-Christian +doctrine of immortality, and consecrated Christianity as +the religion of immortality to take the place of the slowly dying +civilisation of the ancient world. +</p> + +<p> +But it is not only those who want to find a way from the +preaching of Jesus to early Christianity who are conscious of the +peculiar difficulties raised by the recognition of its purely Jewish +eschatological character, but also those who wish to reconstruct +the connexion backwards from Jesus to Judaism. For example, +Wellhausen and Schürer repudiate the results arrived at by the +eschatological school, which, on its part, bases itself upon their researches +into Late Judaism. Wellhausen, in his <q>Israelitish and +Jewish History,</q><note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte</hi>, 1st ed., 1894, pp. 163-168; 2nd +ed., 1895, pp. 198-204; 3rd ed., 1897; 4th ed., 1901, pp. 380-394. See also his +<hi rend='italic'>Skizzen</hi> (Sketches), pp. 6, 187 ff. +</p> +<p> +See also J. Wellhausen, <hi rend='italic'>Das Evangelium Marci</hi>, 1903, 2nd ed., 1909; <hi rend='italic'>Das Evangelium +Matthäi</hi>, 1904; <hi rend='italic'>Das Evangelium Lucae</hi>, 1904. +</p> +<p> +Julius Wellhausen, now Professor at Göttingen, was born in 1844 at Hameln.</p></note> gives a picture of Jesus which lifts Him out of +the Jewish frame altogether. The Kingdom which He desires to +found becomes a present spiritual entity. To the Jewish eschatology +<pb n='255'/><anchor id='Pg255'/> +His preaching stands in a quite external relation, for what was in +His mind was rather a fellowship of spiritual men engaged in seeking +a higher righteousness. He did not really desire to be the +Messiah, and in His inmost heart had renounced the hopes of His +people. If He called Himself Messiah, it was in view of a higher +Messianic ideal. For the people His acceptance of the Messiahship +denoted the supersession of their own very differently coloured +expectation. The transcendental events become immanent. In +regard to the apocalyptic Judgment of the World, he retains only +the sermon preserved by John about the inward and constant +process of separation. +</p> + +<p> +Although not to the same extent, Schürer also, in his view of +the teaching of Jesus, is strongly influenced by the Fourth Gospel. +In an inaugural discourse of 1903<note place='foot'><p>Emil Schürer, <hi rend='italic'>Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Christi</hi>. (The Messianic +Self-consciousness of Jesus Christ.) 1903, 24 pp. +</p> +<p> +According to J. Meinhold, too, in <hi rend='italic'>Jesus und das alte Testament</hi> (Jesus and the Old +Testament), 1896, Jesus did not purpose to be the Messiah of Israel.</p></note> he declares that in his opinion +there is a certain opposition between Judaism and the preaching of +Jesus, since the latter contains something absolutely new. His +Messiahship is only the temporally limited expression of a unique, +generally ethical, consciousness of being a child of God, which has +a certain analogy with the relation of all God's children to their +Heavenly Father. The reason for His reserve in regard to His +Messiahship was, according to Schürer, Jesus' fear of kindling +<q>political enthusiasm</q>; from the same motive He repudiates in +Mark xii. 37 all claim to be the Messiah of David's line. The +ideas of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God at least underwent +a transformation in His use of them. If in His earlier preaching +He only announces the Kingdom as something future, in His later +preaching He emphasises the thought that in its beginnings it is +already present. +</p> + +<p> +That it is precisely the representatives of the study of Late +Judaism who lift Jesus out of the Late-Jewish world of thought, is +not in itself a surprising phenomenon. It is only an expression of +the fact that here something new and creative enters into an uncreative +age, and of the clear consciousness that this Personality +cannot be resolved into a complex of contemporary ideas. The +problem of which they are conscious is the same as Bousset's. +But the question cannot be avoided whether the violent separation +of Jesus from Late Judaism is a real solution, or whether the very +essence of Jesus' creative power does not consist, not in taking out +one or other of the parts of the eschatological machinery, but in +doing what no one had previously done, namely, in setting the +whole machinery in motion by the application of an ethico-religious +motive power. To perceive the unsatisfactoriness of the transformation +hypothesis it is only necessary to think of all the +<pb n='256'/><anchor id='Pg256'/> +conditions which would have to be realised in order to make it +possible to trace, even in general outline, the evidence of such a +transformation in the Gospel narrative. +</p> + +<p> +All these solutions of the eschatological question start from the +teaching of Jesus, and it was, indeed, from this point of view that +Johannes Weiss had stated the problem. The final decision of the +question is not, however, to be found here, but in the examination +of the whole course of Jesus' life. On which of the two presuppositions, +the assumption that His life was completely dominated +by eschatology, or the assumption that He repudiated it, do we find +it easiest to understand the connexion of events in the life of +Jesus, His fate, and the emergence of the expectation of the +Parousia in the community of His disciples? +</p> + +<p> +The works which in the examination of the connexion of events +follow a critical procedure are few and far between. The average +<q>Life of Jesus</q> shows in this respect an inconceivable stupidity. +The first, after Bruno Bauer, to apply critical methods to this point +was Volkmar; between Volkmar and Wrede the only writer who +here showed himself critical, that is sceptical, was W. Brandt. +His work on the <q>Gospel History</q><note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums auf Grund +einer Kritik der Berichte über das Leiden und die Auferstehung Jesu.</hi> (The Gospel +History and the Origin of Christianity considered in the light of a critical investigation +of the Reports of the Suffering and Resurrection of Jesus.) By Dr. W. Brandt, Leipzig, +1893, 588 pp. +</p> +<p> +Wilhelm Brandt was born in 1855 of German parents in Amsterdam and became +a pastor of the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1891 he resigned this office and studied +in Strassburg and Berlin. In 1893 he was appointed to lecture in General History of +Religion as a member of the theological faculty of Amsterdam.</p></note> appeared in 1893, a year after +Johannes Weiss's work and in the same year as Bousset's reply. +In this book the question of the absolute, or only partial, +dominance of eschatology is answered on the ground of the general +course of Jesus' life. +</p> + +<p> +Brandt goes to work with a truly Cartesian scepticism. He +first examines all the possibilities that the reported event did not +happen in the way in which it is reported before he is satisfied that +it really did happen in that way. Before he can accept the statement +that Jesus died with a loud outcry, he has to satisfy his +critical conscience by the following consideration: <q>The statement +regarding this cry, is, so far as I can see, to be best explained by +supposing that it was really uttered.</q> The burial of Jesus owes its +acceptance as history to the following reflection. <q>We hold Joseph +of Arimathea to be an historical person; but the only reason which +the narrative has for preserving his name is that he buried Jesus. +Therefore the name guarantees the fact.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But the moment the slightest possibility presents itself that the +event happened in a different way, Brandt declines to be held by +any seductions of the text, and makes his own <q>probably</q> into an +<pb n='257'/><anchor id='Pg257'/> +historical fact. For instance, he thinks it unlikely that Peter was +the only one to smite with the sword; so the history is immediately +rectified by the phrase <q>that sword-stroke was doubtless not the +only one, other disciples also must have pressed to the front.</q> +That Jesus was first condemned by the Sanhedrin at a night-sitting, +and that Pilate in the morning confirmed the sentence, seems to +him on various grounds impossible. It is therefore decided that +we have here to do only with a combination devised by <q>a +Christian from among the Gentiles.</q> In this way the <q>must have +been's</q> and <q>may have been's</q> exercise a veritable reign of terror +throughout the book. +</p> +<p> +Yet that does not prevent the general contribution of the book +to criticism from being a very remarkable one. Especially in +regard to the trial of Jesus, it brings to light a whole series of +previously unsuspected problems. Brandt is the first writer since +Bauer who dares to assert that it is an historical absurdity to +suppose that Pilate, when the people demanded from him the +<emph>condemnation</emph> of Jesus, answered: <q>No, but I will <emph>release</emph> you another +instead of Him.</q> +</p> + +<p> +As his starting-point he takes the complete contrast between +the Johannine and Synoptic traditions, and the inherent impossibility +of the former is proved in detail. The Synoptic +tradition goes back to Mark alone. His Gospel is, as was also +held by Bruno Bauer, and afterwards by Wrede, a sufficient basis +for the whole tradition. But this Gospel is not a purely historical +source, it is also, and in a very much larger degree, poetic invention. +Of the real history of Jesus but little is preserved in the Gospels. +Many of the so-called sayings of the Lord are certainly to be +pronounced spurious, a few are probably to be recognised as +genuine. But the theory of the <q>poetic invention</q> of the earliest +Evangelist is not consistently carried out, because Brandt does not +take as his criterion, as Wrede did later, a definite principle on +which Mark is supposed to have constructed his Gospel, but decides +each case separately. Consequently the most important feature of +the work lies in the examination of detail. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus died and was believed to have risen again: this is the +only absolutely certain information that we have regarding His +<q>Life.</q> And accordingly this is the crucial instance for testing +the worth of the Gospel tradition. It is only on the basis of an +elaborate criticism of the accounts of the suffering and resurrection +of Jesus that Brandt undertakes to give a sketch of the life of +Jesus as it really was. +</p> + +<p> +What was, then, so far as appears from His life, Jesus' attitude +towards eschatology? It was, according to Brandt, a self-contradictory +attitude. <q>He believed in the near approach of the +Kingdom of God, and yet, as though its time were still far distant, +<pb n='258'/><anchor id='Pg258'/> +He undertakes the training of disciples. He was a teacher and +yet is said to have held Himself to be the Messiah.</q> The duality +lies not so much in the teaching itself; it is rather a cleavage +between His conviction and consciousness on the one hand, and +His public attitude on the other. +</p> + +<p> +To this observation we have to add a second, namely, that +Jesus cannot possibly during the last few days at Jerusalem have +come forward as Messiah. Critics, with the exception, of course, +of Bruno Bauer, had only cursorily touched on this question. The +course of events in the last few days in Jerusalem does not at all +suggest a Messianic claim on the part of Jesus, indeed it directly +contradicts it. Only imagine what would have happened if Jesus +had come before the people with such claims, or even if such +thoughts had been so much as attributed to Him! On the other +side, of course, we have the report of the Messianic entry, in which +Jesus not only accepted the homage offered to Him as Messiah, +but went out of His way to invite it; and the people must therefore +from that point onwards have regarded him as Messiah. In +consequence of this contradiction in the narrative, all Lives of +Jesus slur over the passage, and seem to represent that the people +sometimes suspected Jesus' Messiahship, sometimes did not suspect +it, or they adopt some other similar expedient. Brandt, however, +rigorously drew the logical inference. Since Jesus did not stand +and preach in the temple as Messiah, He cannot have entered +Jerusalem as Messiah. Therefore <q>the well-known Messianic +entry is not historical.</q> That is also implied by the manner of +His arrest. If Jesus had come forward as a Messianic claimant, +He would not simply have been arrested by the civil police; +Pilate would have had to suppress a revolt by military force. +</p> + +<p> +This admission implies the surrender of one of the most +cherished prejudices of the anti-eschatological school, namely, that +Jesus raised the thoughts of the people to a higher conception of +His Messiahship, and consequently to a spiritual view of the +Kingdom of God, or at least tried so to raise them. But we +cannot assume this to have been His intention, since He does not +allow the multitude to suspect His Messiahship. Thus the conception +of a <q>transformation</q> becomes untenable as a means of +reconciling eschatological and non-eschatological elements. And +as a matter of fact—that is the stroke of critical genius in the +book—Brandt lets the two go forward side by side without any +attempt at reconciliation; for the reconciliation which would be +possible if one had only to deal with the teaching of Jesus becomes +impossible when one has to take in His life as well. For Brandt +the life of Jesus is the life of a Galilaean teacher who, in consequence +of the eschatology with which the period was so fully +charged, was for a time and to a certain extent set at variance with +<pb n='259'/><anchor id='Pg259'/> +Himself and who met His fate for that reason. This conception is at +bottom identical with Renan's. But the stroke of genius in leaving +the gap between eschatological and non-eschatological elements +unbridged sets this work, as regards its critical foundation and +historical presentment, high above the smooth romance of the latter. +</p> + +<p> +The course of Jesus' life, according to Brandt, was therefore as +follows: Jesus was a teacher; not only so, but He took disciples in +order to train them to be teachers. <q>This is in itself sufficient to +show there was a period in His life in which His work was not +determined by the thought of the immediate nearness of the decisive +moment. He sought men, therefore, who might become His fellow-workers. +He began to train disciples who, if He did not Himself +live to see the Day of the Lord, would be able after His death to +carry on the work of educating the people along the lines which He +had laid down.</q> <q>Then there occurred in Judaea an event of which +the rumour spread like wildfire throughout Palestine. A prophet +arose—a thing which had not happened for centuries—a man who +came forward as an envoy of God; and this prophet proclaimed +the immediate coming of the reign of God: <q>Repent that ye may +escape the wrath of God.</q></q> The Baptist's great sermon on +repentance falls, according to Brandt, in the last period of the +life of Jesus. We must assume, he thinks, that before John came +forward in this dramatic fashion he had been a teacher, and at +that period of his life had numbered Jesus among his pupils. +Nevertheless his life previous to his public appearance must have +been a rather obscure one. When he suddenly launched out +into this eschatological preaching of repentance <q>he seemed like +an Elijah who had long ago been rapt away from the earth and +now appeared once more.</q> +</p> + +<p> +From this point onwards Jesus had to concentrate His activity, +for the time was short. If He desired to effect anything and +so far as possible to make the people, before the coming of the +end, obedient to the will of God, He must make Jerusalem the +starting-point of His work. <q>Only from this central position, and +only with the help of an authority which had at its disposal the +whole synagogal system, could He effect within a short time much, +perhaps all, of what was needful. So He determined on journeying +to Jerusalem with this end in view, and with the fixed resolve there +to carry into effect the will of God.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The journey to Jerusalem was not therefore a pilgrimage of +death. <q>So long as we are obliged to take the Gospels as a true +reflection of the history of Jesus we must recognise with Weizsäcker +that Jesus did not go to Jerusalem in order to be put to death +there, nor did He go to keep the Feast. Both suppositions are +excluded by the vigour of his action in Jerusalem, and the bright +colours of hope with which the picture of that period was painted +<pb n='260'/><anchor id='Pg260'/> +in the recollection of those who had witnessed it.</q> We cannot +therefore regard the predictions of the Passion as historical, or <q>at +most we might perhaps suppose that Jesus in the consciousness of +His innocence may have said to His disciples: 'If I should die, +may God for the sake of My blood be merciful to you and to the +people.'</q> +</p> + +<p> +He went to Jerusalem, then, to fulfil the will of God. <q>It was +God's will that the preaching by which alone the people could be +inwardly renewed and made into a real people of God should be +recognised and organised by the national and religious authorities. +To effect this through the existing authorities, or to realise it in +some other way, such was the task which Jesus felt Himself called +on to perform.</q> With his eyes upon this goal, behind which lay +the near approach of the Kingdom of God, He set His face towards +Jerusalem. +</p> + +<p> +<q>But nothing could be more natural than that out of the +belief that He was engaged in a work which God had willed, there +should arise an ever stronger belief in His personal vocation.</q> It +was thus that the Messianic consciousness entered into Jesus' +thoughts. His conviction of His vocation had nothing to do with +a political Messiahship, it was only gradually from the development +of events that He was able to draw the inference that He was +destined to the Messianic sovereignty, <q>it may have become more +and more clear to Him, but it did not become a matter of absolute +certainty.</q> It was only amid opposition, in deep dejection, in +consequence of a powerful inner reaction against circumstances, +that He came to recognise Himself with full conviction as the +anointed of God. +</p> + +<p> +When it began to be bruited about that He was the Messiah, +the rulers had Him arrested and handed Him over to the Procurator. +Judas the traitor <q>had only been a short time among His followers, +and only in those unquiet days at Jerusalem when the Master +had scarcely any opportunity for private intercourse with him and +for learning really to know him. He had not been with Jesus +during the Galilaean days, and Jesus was consequently nothing +more to him than the future ruler of the Kingdom of God.</q> +</p> + +<p> +After His death the disciples <q>could not, unless something +occurred to restore their faith, continue to believe in His Messiahship.</q> +Jesus had taken away with Him in His death the hopes which +they had set upon Him, especially as He had not foretold His death, +much less His resurrection. <q>At first, therefore, it would be all in +favour of His memory if the disciples remembered that He Himself +had never openly and definitely declared Himself to be the Messiah.</q> +They returned to Galilee. <q>Simon Peter, and perhaps the son of +Zebedee, who afterwards ranked along with him as a pillar of the +Church, resolved to continue that preparation for their work which +<pb n='261'/><anchor id='Pg261'/> +had been interrupted by their journey to Jerusalem. It seemed +to them that if they were once more on Galilaean soil the days which +they had spent in the inhospitable Jerusalem would cease to oppress +their spirits with the leaden weight of sorrowful recollection.... +One might almost say that they had to make up their minds to +give up Jesus the author of the attempt to take Jerusalem by storm; +but for Jesus the gracious gentle Galilaean teacher they kept a warm +place in their hearts.</q> So love watched over the dead until hope +was rekindled by the Old Testament promises and came to reawaken +Him. <q>The first who, in an enthusiastic vision, saw +this wish fulfilled was Simon Peter.</q> This <q>resurrection</q> has +nothing to do with the empty grave, which, like the whole narrative +of the Jerusalem appearances, only came into the tradition later. +The first appearances took place in Galilee. It was there that the +Church was founded. +</p> + +<p> +This attempt to grasp the connexion of events in the life of Jesus +from a purely historical point of view is one of the most important +that have ever been made in this department of study. If it had +been put in a purely constructive form, this criticism would have +made an impression unequalled by any other Life of Jesus since +Renan's. But in that case it would have lost that free play of +ideas which the critical recognition of the unbridged gap admits. +The eschatological question is not, it is true, decided by this investigation. +It shows the impossibility of the previous attempts +to establish a present Messiahship of Jesus, but it shows, too, that +the questions, which are really historical questions, concerning the +public attitude of Jesus, are far from being solved by asserting the +exclusively eschatological character of His preaching, but that new +difficulties are always presenting themselves. +</p> + +<p> +It was perhaps not so much through these general ethico-religious +historical discussions as in consequence of certain exegetical problems +which unexpectedly came to light that theologians became +conscious that the old conception of the teaching of Jesus was not +tenable, or was only tenable by violent means. On the assumption +of the modified eschatological character of His teaching, Jesus is +still a teacher; that is to say, He speaks in order to be understood, +in order to explain, and has no secrets. But if His teaching is +throughout eschatological, then He is a prophet, who points in +mysterious speech to a coming age, whose words conceal secrets +and offer enigmas, and are not intended to be understood always +and by everybody. Attention was now turned to a number of +passages in which the question arises whether Jesus had any secrets +to keep or not. +</p> + +<p> +This question presents itself in connexion with the very earliest +of the parables. In Mark iv. 11, 12 it is distinctly stated that the +parables spoken in the immediate context embody the mystery of the +<pb n='262'/><anchor id='Pg262'/> +Kingdom of God in an obscure and unintelligible form, in order that +those for whom it is not intended may hear without understanding. +But this is not borne out by the character of the parables themselves, +since <emph>we</emph> at least find in them the thought of the constant and +victorious development of the Kingdom from small beginnings to +its perfect development. After the passage had had to suffer +many things from constantly renewed attempts to weaken down +or explain away the statement, Jülicher, in his work upon the +Parables,<note place='foot'><p>Ad. Jülicher, <hi rend='italic'>Die Gleichnisreden Jesu</hi>. Vol. i., 1888. The substance of it had +already been published in a different form. Freiburg, 1886. +</p> +<p> +Adolf Jülicher, at present Professor in Marburg, was born in 1857 at Falkenberg.</p></note> released it from these tortures, left Jesus the parables +in their natural meaning, and put down this unintelligible saying +about the purpose of the parabolic form of discourse to the account +of the Evangelist. He would rather, to use his own expression, +remove a little stone from the masonry of tradition than a diamond +from the imperishable crown of honour which belongs to Jesus. +Yes, but, for all that, it is an arbitrary assumption which damages +the Marcan hypothesis more than will be readily admitted. What +was the reason, or what was the mistake which led the earliest +Evangelist to form so repellent a theory regarding the purpose of +the parables? Is the progressive exaggeration of the contrast +between veiled and open speech, to which Jülicher often appeals, +sufficient to account for it? How can the Evangelist have invented +such a theory, when he immediately proceeds to invalidate it by +the rationalising, rather commonplace explanation of the parable +of the Sower? +</p> + +<p> +Bernhard Weiss, not being so much under the influence of modern +theology as to feel bound to recognise the paedagogic purpose +in Jesus, gives the text its due, and admits that Jesus intended +to use the parabolic form of discourse as a means of separating +receptive from unreceptive hearers. He does not say, however, +what kind of secret, intelligible only to the predestined, was concealed +in these parables which seem clear as daylight. +</p> + +<p> +That was before Johannes Weiss had stated the eschatological +question. Bousset, in his criticism of the eschatological theory,<note place='foot'>W. Bousset, <hi rend='italic'>Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum</hi>. Göttingen, +1892.</note> +is obliged to fall back upon Jülicher's method in order to justify +the rationalising modern way of explaining these parables as pointing +to a Kingdom of God actually present. It is true Jülicher's +explanation of the way in which the theory arose does not satisfy +him; he prefers to assume that the basis of this false theory of +Mark's is to be found in the fact that the parables concerning the +presence of the Kingdom remained unintelligible to the contemporaries +of Jesus. But we may fairly ask that he should point +out the connecting link between that failure to understand and +<pb n='263'/><anchor id='Pg263'/> +the invention of a saying like this, which implies so very much +more! +</p> + +<p> +If there are no better grounds than that for calling in question +Mark's theory of the parables, then the parables of Mark iv., the +only ones from which it is possible to extract the admission of a +present Kingdom of God, remain what they were before, namely, +mysteries. +</p> + +<p> +The second volume of Jülicher's <q>Parables</q><note place='foot'><p>Ad. Jülicher, <hi rend='italic'>Die Gleichnisreden Jesu</hi>, 2nd pt. (Exposition of the Parables in +the first three Gospels.) Freiburg, 1899, 641 pp. +</p> +<p> +Chr. A. Bugge, <hi rend='italic'>Die Hauptparabeln Jesu</hi> (The most important Parables of Jesus), +German, from the Norwegian, Giessen, 1903, rightly remarks on the obscure and +inexplicable character of some of the parables, but makes no attempt to deal with it +from the historical point of view.</p></note> found the eschatological +question already in possession of the field. And, as a +matter of fact, Jülicher does abandon <q>the heretofore current +method of modernising the parables,</q> which finds in one after +another of them only its own favourite conception of the slow and +gradual development of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of +Heaven is for Jülicher a completely supernatural idea; it is to be +realised without human help and independently of the attitude of +men, by the sole power of God. The parables of the mustard +seed and the leaven are not intended to teach the disciples the +necessity and wisdom of a development occupying a considerable +time, but are designed to make clear and vivid to them the idea +that the period of perfecting and fulfilment will follow with super-earthly +necessity upon that of imperfection. +</p> + +<p> +But in general the new problem plays no very special part in +Jülicher's exposition. He takes up, it might almost be said, in +relation to the parables, too independent a position as a religious +thinker to care to understand them against the background of a +wholly different world-view, and does not hesitate to exclude from +the authentic discourses of Jesus whatever does not suit him. This +is the fate, for instance, of the parable of the wicked husbandmen +in Mark xii. He finds in it traits which read like <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>vaticinia ex eventu</foreign>, +and sees therefore in the whole thing only a prophetically expressed +<q>view of the history as it presented itself to an average man who +had been present at the crucifixion of Jesus and nevertheless +believed in Him as the Son of God.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But this absolute method of explanation, independent of any +traditional order of time or events, makes it impossible for the +author to draw from the parables any general system of teaching. +He makes no distinction between the Galilaean mystical parables +and the polemical, menacing Jerusalem parables. For instance, +he supposes the parable of the Sower, which according to Mark +was the very first of Jesus' parabolic discourses, to have been +spoken as the result of a melancholy review of a preceding period +<pb n='264'/><anchor id='Pg264'/> +of work, and as expressing the conviction, stamped upon His mind +by the facts, <q>that it was in accordance with higher laws that the +word of God should have to reckon with defeats as well as victories.</q> +Accordingly he adopts in the main the explanation which the +Evangelist gives in Mark iv. 13-20. The parable of the seed +growing secretly is turned to account in favour of the <q>present</q> +Kingdom of God. +</p> + +<p> +Jülicher has an incomparable power of striking fire out of every +one of the parables, but the flame is of a different colour from that +which it showed when Jesus pronounced the parables before the +enchanted multitude. The problem posed by Johannes Weiss in +connexion with the teaching of Jesus is treated by Jülicher only so +far as it has a direct interest for the creative independence of his +own religious thought. +</p> + +<p> +Alongside of the parabolic discourses of Mark iv. we have now +to place, as a newly discovered problem, the discourse at the sending +out of the Twelve in Matt. x. Up to the time of Johannes Weiss +it had been possible to rest content with transplanting the gloomy +sayings regarding persecutions to the last period of Jesus' life; but +now there was the further difficulty to be met that while so hasty +a proclamation of the Kingdom of God is quite reconcilable with +an exclusively eschatological character of the preaching of the +Kingdom, the moment this is at all minimised it becomes unintelligible, +not to mention the fact that in this case nothing can +be made of the saying about the immediate coming of the Son of +Man in Matt. x. 23. As though he felt the stern eye of old +Reimarus upon him, Bousset hastens in a footnote to throw overboard +the whole report of the mission of the Twelve as an <q>obscure +and unintelligible tradition.</q> Not content with that, he adds: +<q>Perhaps the whole narrative is merely an expansion of some +direction about missionising given by Jesus to the disciples in view +of a later time.</q> Before, it was only the discourse which was +unhistorical; now it is the whole account of the mission—at least +if we may assume that here, as is usual with theologians of all +times, the author's real opinion is expressed in the footnote, and +his most cherished opinion of all introduced with <q>perhaps.</q> +But how much historical material will remain to modern theologians +in the Gospels if they are forced to abandon it wholesale from their +objection to pure eschatology? If all the pronouncements of this +kind to which the representatives of the Marcan hypothesis have +committed themselves were collected together, they would make a +book which would be much more damaging even than that book of +Wrede's which dropped a bomb into their midst. +</p> + +<p> +A third problem is offered by the saying in Matt. xi. 12, about +<q>the violent</q> who, since the time of John the Baptist, <q>take the +Kingdom of Heaven by force,</q> which raises fresh difficulties for the +<pb n='265'/><anchor id='Pg265'/> +exegetical art. It is true that if art sufficed, we should not have +long to wait for the solution in this case. We should be asked to +content ourselves with one or other of the artificial solutions with +which exegetes have been accustomed from of old to find a way +round this difficulty. Usually the saying is claimed as supporting +the <q>presence</q> of the Kingdom. This is the line taken by Wendt, +Wernle, and Arnold Meyer.<note place='foot'>Arnold Meyer, <hi rend='italic'>Jesu Muttersprache</hi>, 1896. P. W. Schmidt, too, in his <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte +Jesu</hi> (Freiburg, 1899), defends the same interpretation, and seeks to explain this +obscure saying by the other about the <q>strait gate.</q></note> According to the last named it means: +<q>From the days of John the Baptist it has been possible to get +possession of the Kingdom of God; yea, the righteous are every +day earning it for their own.</q> But no explanation has heretofore +succeeded in making it in any degree intelligible how Jesus could +date the presence of the Kingdom from the Baptist, whom in the +same breath He places outside of the Kingdom, or why, in order +to express so simple an idea, He uses such entirely unnatural and +inappropriate expressions as <q>rape</q> and <q>wrest to themselves.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The full difficulties of the passage are first exhibited by +Johannes Weiss.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes</hi>, 2nd ed., 1900, p. 192 ff.</note> He restores it to its natural sense, according to +which it means that since that time the Kingdom suffers, or is +subjected to, violence, and in order to be able to understand it +literally he has to take it in a condemnatory sense. Following +Alexander Schweizer,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Stud. Krit.</hi>, 1836, pp. 90-122.</note> he sums up his interpretation in the following +sentence: Jesus describes, and in the form of the description shows +His condemnation of, a violent Zealotistic Messianic movement +which has been in progress since the days of the Baptist.<note place='foot'>See also <hi rend='italic'>Die Vorstellungen vom Messias und vom Gottesreich bei den Synoptikern</hi>. +(The Conceptions of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels.) +By Ludwig Paul. Bonn, 1895. 130 pp. This comprehensive study discusses all +the problems which are referred to below. Matt. xi. 12-14 is discussed under the +heading <q>The Hinderers of the Kingdom of God.</q></note> But this +explanation again makes Jesus express a very simple meaning in a +very obscure phrase. And what indication is there that the sense +is condemnatory? Where do we hear anything more about a +Zealotic Messianic movement, of which the Baptist formed the +starting-point? His preaching certainly offered no incentive to +such a movement, and Jesus' attitude towards the Baptist is elsewhere, +even in Jerusalem, entirely one of approval. Moreover, a +condemnatory saying of this kind would not have been closed with +the distinctive formula: <q>He that hath ears to hear let him hear</q> +(Matt. xi. 15), which elsewhere, cf. Mark iv. 9, indicates a mystery. +</p> + +<p> +We must, therefore, accept the conclusion that we really do not +understand the saying, that we <q>have not ears to hear it,</q> that we +do not know sufficiently well the essential character of the Kingdom +of God, to understand why Jesus describes the coming of the +<pb n='266'/><anchor id='Pg266'/> +Kingdom as a doing-violence-to-it, which has been in progress since +the days of the Baptist, especially as the hearers themselves do not +seem to have cared, or been able, to understand what was the +connexion of the coming with the violence; nor do we know why +He expects them to understand how the Baptist is identical with +Elias. +</p> + +<p> +But the problem which became most prominent of all the new +problems raised by eschatology, was the question concerning the +Son of Man. It had become a dogma of theology that Jesus used +the term Son of Man to veil His Messiahship; that is to say, +every theologian found in this term whatever meaning he attached +to the Messiahship of Jesus, the human, humble, ethical, unpolitical, +unapocalyptic, or whatever other character was held to +be appropriate to the orthodox <q>transformed</q> Messiahship. The +Danielic Son of Man entered into the conception only so far as it +could do so without endangering the other characteristics. Confronted +with the Similitudes of Enoch, theologians fell back upon +the expedient of assuming them to be spurious, or at least worked-over +in a Christian sense in the Son of Man passages, just as the +older history of dogma got rid of the Ignatian letters, of which it +could make nothing, by denying their genuineness. But once the +Jewish eschatology was seriously applied to the explanation of the +Son of Man conception, all was changed. A new dilemma presented +itself; either Jesus used the expression, and used it in a purely +Jewish apocalyptic sense, or He did not use it at all. +</p> + +<p> +Although Baldensperger did not state the dilemma in its full +trenchancy, Hilgenfeld thought it necessary to defend Jesus +against the suspicion of having borrowed His system of thought and +His self-designation from Jewish Apocalypses.<note place='foot'>A. Hilgenfeld, <hi rend='italic'>Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.</hi>, 1888, pp. 488-498; 1892, pp. 445-464.</note> Orello Cone, too, +will not admit that the expression Son of Man has only apocalyptic +suggestion in the mouth of Jesus, but will have it interpreted +according to Mark ii. 10 and 28, where His pure humanity is the +idea which is emphasised.<note place='foot'>Orello Cone, <q>Jesus' Self-designation in the Synoptic Gospels,</q> <hi rend='italic'>The New +World</hi>, 1893, pp. 492-518.</note> Oort holds, more logically, that Jesus +did not use it, but that the disciples took the expression from <q>the +Gospel</q> and put it into the mouth of Jesus.<note place='foot'>H. L. Oort, <hi rend='italic'>Die uitdrukking ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in het Nieuwe Testament</hi>. +(The Expression Son of Man in the New Testament.) Leyden, 1893.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Johannes Weiss formulated the problem clearly, and proposed +that, with the exception of the two passages where Son of Man +means man in general, only those should be recognised in which +the significance attached to the term in Daniel and the Apocalypses +is demanded by the context. By so doing he set theology a +problem calculated to keep it occupied for many years. Not many +indeed at first recognised the problem. Charles, however, meets it +<pb n='267'/><anchor id='Pg267'/> +in a bold fashion, proposing to regard the Son of Man, in Jesus' +usage of the title, as a conception in which the Messiah of the +Book of Enoch and the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah are united +into one.<note place='foot'>R. H. Charles, <q>The Son of Man,</q> <hi rend='italic'>Expos. Times</hi>, 1893.</note> Most writers, however, did not free themselves from +inconsistencies. They wanted at one and the same time to make +the apocalyptic element dominant in the expression, and to hold +that Jesus could not have taken the conception over unaltered, +but must have transformed it in some way. These inconsistencies +necessarily result from the assumption of Weiss's opponents that +Jesus intended to designate Himself as Messiah in the actual +present. For since the expression Son of Man has in itself only an +apocalyptic sense referring to the future, they had to invent another +sense applicable to the present, which Jesus might have inserted +into it. In all these learned discussions of the title Son of Man +this operation is assumed to have been performed. +</p> + +<p> +According to Bousset, Jesus created, and embodied in this term, +a new form of the Messianic ideal which united the super-earthly +with the human and lowly. In any case, he thinks, the term has +a meaning applicable in this present world. Jesus uses it at once +to conceal and to suggest His Messianic dignity. How conscious +Bousset, nevertheless, is of the difficulty is evident from the fact +that in discussing the meaning of the title he remarks that the +Messianic significance must have been of subordinate importance +in the estimation of Jesus, and cannot have formed the basis +of His actions, otherwise He would have laid more stress upon +it in His preaching. As if the term Son of Man had not meant for +His contemporaries all He needed to say! +</p> + +<p> +Bousset's essay on Jewish Apocalyptic,<note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Herkunft und ihrer +Bedeutung für das Neue Testament.</hi> (Jewish Apocalyptic in its religious-historical +origin and in its significance for the New Testament.) 1903. +</p> +<p> +On the eschatology of Jesus see also Schwartzkoppf, <hi rend='italic'>Die Weissagungen Jesu Christi +von seinen Tode, seiner Auferstehung und Wiederkunft und ihre Erfüllung</hi>. (The +Predictions of Jesus Christ concerning His Death, His Resurrection, and Second +Coming, and their Fulfilment.) 1895. +</p> +<p> +P. Wernle, <hi rend='italic'>Die Reichgotteshofnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei +Jesus</hi>. (The Hope of the Kingdom of God in the most ancient Christian Documents +and as held by Jesus.)</p></note> published in 1903, seeks +the solution in a rather different direction, by postponing, namely, to +the very last possible moment the adoption of this self-designation. +<q>In all probability Jesus in a few isolated sayings towards the close +of His life hit upon this title Son of Man as a means of expressing, +in the face of the thought of defeat and death, which forced itself +upon Him, His confidence in the abiding victory of His person and +His cause.</q> If this is so, the emphasis must be principally on the +triumphant apocalyptic aspects of the title. +</p> + +<p> +Even this belated adoption of the title Son of Man is more +<pb n='268'/><anchor id='Pg268'/> +than Brandt is willing to admit, and he holds it to be improbable +that Jesus used the expression at all. It would be more natural, +he thinks, to suppose that the Evangelist Mark introduced this +self-designation, as he introduced so much else, into the Gospel on +the ground of the figurative apocalyptic discourses in the Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +Just when ingenuity appeared to have exhausted itself in +attempts to solve the most difficult of the problems raised by the +eschatological school, the historical discussion suddenly seemed +about to be rendered objectless. Philology entered a <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>caveat</foreign>. In +1896 appeared Lietzmann's essay upon <q>The Son of Man,</q> which +consisted of an investigation of the linguistic basis of the enigmatic +self-designation. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='269'/><anchor id='Pg269'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>XVII. Questions Regarding The Aramaic Language, Rabbinic Parallels, And Buddhistic +Influence</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Arnold Meyer.</hi> Jesu Muttersprache. (The Mother Tongue of Jesus.) Leipzig, 1896. +166 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Hans Lietzmann.</hi> Der Menschensohn. Ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen +Theologie. (The Son of Man. A Contribution to New Testament Theology.) +Freiburg, 1896. 95 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>J. Wellhausen.</hi> Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte. (History of Israel and the +Jews.) 3rd ed., 1897; 4th ed., 1901. 394 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gustaf Dalman.</hi> Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinensischen Aramäisch. (Grammar of +Jewish-Palestinian Aramaic.) Leipzig, 1894. Die Worte Jesu. Mit Berücksichtigung +des nachkanonischen jüdischen Schrifttums und der aramäischen Sprache. +(The Sayings of Jesus considered in connexion with the post-canonical Jewish +writings and the Aramaic Language.) I. Introduction and certain leading +conceptions: with an appendix on Messianic texts. Leipzig, 1898. 309 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>A. Wünsche.</hi> Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und +Midrasch. (New Contributions to the Explanation of the Gospels, from Talmud +and Midrash.) Göttingen, 1878. 566 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ferdinand Weber.</hi> System der altsynagogalen palästinensischen Theologie. (System +of Theology of the Ancient Palestinian Synagogue.) Leipzig, 1880. 399 pp. +2nd ed., 1897. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Rudolf Seydel.</hi> Das Evangelium Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zur Buddha-Sage und +Buddha-Lehre. (The Gospel of Jesus in its relations to the Buddha-Legend and +the Teaching of Buddha.) Leipzig, 1882. 337 pp. Die Buddha-Legende und +das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien. Erneute Prüfung ihres gegenseitigen +Verhältnisses. (The Buddha-Legend and the Life of Jesus in the Gospels. A +New Examination of their Mutual Relations.) 2nd ed., 1897. 129 pp. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Only since the appearance of Dalman's Grammar of Jewish +Palestinian Aramaic in 1894 have we really known what was the +dialect in which the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount were +spoken. This work closes a discussion which had been proceeding +for centuries on a line parallel to that of theology proper, and +which, according to the clear description of Arnold Meyer, ran its +course somewhat as follows.<note place='foot'>Arnold Meyer, now Professor of New Testament Theology and Pastoral Theology +at Zurich, and formerly at Bonn, was born at Wesel in 1861.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='270'/><anchor id='Pg270'/> + +<p> +The question regarding the language spoken by Jesus had been +vigorously discussed in the sixteenth century. Up till that time no +one had known what to make of the tradition recorded by Eusebius +that the speech of the apostles had been <q>Syrian</q> since the +distinction between Syrian, Hebrew, and <q>Chaldee</q> was not understood +and all three designations were used indiscriminately. Light +was first thrown upon the question by Joseph Justus Scaliger +(† 1609). In the year 1555, Joh. Alb. Widmanstadt, Chancellor of +Ferdinand I., had published the Syriac translation of the Bible in +fulfilment of the wishes of an old scholar of Bologna, Theseus +Ambrosius, who had left him the manuscript as a sacred legacy. +He himself and his contemporaries believed that in this they had the +Gospel in the mother-tongue of Jesus, until Scaliger, in one of his +letters, gave a clear sketch of the Syrian dialects, distinguished Syriac +from Chaldee, and further drew a distinction between the Babylonian +Chaldee and Jewish Chaldee of the Targums, and in the +language of the Targums itself distinguished an earlier from a later +stratum. The apostles spoke, according to Scaliger, a Galilaean +dialect of Chaldaic, or according to the more correct nomenclature +introduced later, following a suggestion of Scaliger's, a dialect of +Aramaic, and, in addition to that, the Syriac of Antioch. Next, +Hugo Grotius put in a strong plea for a distinction between Jewish +and Antiochian Syriac. Into the confusion caused at that time +by the use of the term <q>Hebrew</q> some order was introduced +by the Leyden Calvinistic professor Claude Saumaise, who, writing +in French, emphasised the point that the New Testament, and the +Early Fathers, when they speak of Hebrew, mean Syriac, since +Hebrew had become completely unknown to the Jews of that +period. Brian Walton, the editor of the London polyglot, which +was completed in 1657, supposed that the dialect of Onkelos and +Jonathan was the language of Jesus, being under the impression +that both these Targums were written in the time of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +The growing knowledge of the distinction between Hebrew and +Aramaic did not prevent the Vienna Jesuit Inchofer († 1648) from +maintaining that Jesus spoke—Latin! The Lord cannot have used +any other language upon earth, since this is the language of the +saints in heaven. On the Protestant side, Vossius, opposing Richard +Simon, endeavoured to establish the thesis that Greek was the +language of Jesus, being partly inspired by the apologetic purpose +of preventing the authenticity of the discourses and sayings of +Jesus from being weakened by supposing them to have been +translated from Aramaic into Greek, but also rightly recognising +the importance which the Greek language must have assumed at +that time in northern Palestine, through which there passed such +important trade routes. +</p> + +<p> +This view was brought up again by the Neapolitan legal scholar, +<pb n='271'/><anchor id='Pg271'/> +Dominicus Diodati, in his book <hi rend='italic'>De Christo Graece loquente</hi>, +1767, who added some interesting material concerning the +importance of the Greek language at the period and in the native +district of Jesus. But five years later, in 1772, this view was +thoroughly refuted by Giambernardo de Rossi,<note place='foot'>Giambern. de Rossi, <hi rend='italic'>Dissertazione della lingua propria di Christo e degli Ebrei +nazionali della Palestina da' Tempi de' Maccabei in disamina del sentimento di un +recente scrittore Italiano</hi>. Parma, 1772.</note> who argued convincingly +that among a people so separate and so conservative +as the Jews the native language cannot possibly have been wholly +driven out. The apostles wrote Greek for the sake of foreign +readers. In the year 1792, Johann Adrian Bolten, <q>first +collegiate pastor at the principal church in Altona</q> († 1807), made +the first attempt to re-translate the sayings of Jesus into the +original tongue.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Der Bericht des Matthäus von Jesu dem Messias.</hi> (Matthew's account of Jesus +the Messiah.) Altona, 1792. According to Meyer, p. 105 ff., this was a very striking +performance.</note> +</p> + +<p> +The certainly original Greek of the Epistles and the Johannine +literature was a strong argument against the attempt to recognise +no language save Aramaic as known to Jesus and His disciples. +Paulus the rationalist, therefore, sought a middle path, and +explained that while the Aramaic dialect was indeed the native +language of Jesus, Greek had become so generally current among +the population of Galilee, and still more of Jerusalem, that the +founders of Christianity could use this language when they found +it needful to do so. His Catholic contemporary, Hug, came to a +similar conclusion. +</p> + +<p> +In the course of the nineteenth century Aramaic—known down +to the time of Michaelis as <q>Chaldee</q><note place='foot'>The name Chaldee was due to the mistaken belief that the language in which +parts of Daniel and Ezra were written was really the vernacular of Babylonia. That +vernacular, now known to us from cuneiform tablets and inscriptions, is a Semitic +language, but quite different from Aramaic.—F. C. B.</note>—was more thoroughly +studied. The various branches of this language and the history of +its progress became more or less clearly recognisable. Kautzsch's +grammar of Biblical Aramaic<note place='foot'>Emil Friedrich Kautzsch was born in 1841 at Plauen in Saxony, and studied in +Leipzig, where he became Privat-Docent in 1869. In 1872 he was called as +Professor to Basle, in 1880 to Tübingen, in 1888 to Halle.</note> (1884) and Dalman's<note place='foot'>Gustaf Dalman, Professor at Leipzig, was born in 1865 at Niesky. In addition +to the works of his named above, see also <hi rend='italic'>Der leidende und der sterbende Messias</hi> +(The Suffering and Dying Messiah), 1888; and <hi rend='italic'>Was sagt der Talmud über Jesum?</hi> +(What does the Talmud say about Jesus?), 1891.</note> work +embody the result of these studies. <q>The Aramaic language,</q> +explains Meyer, <q>is a branch of the North Semitic, the linguistic +stock to which also belong the Assyrio-Babylonian language in the +East, and the Canaanitish languages, including Hebrew, in the West, +while the South Semitic languages—the Arabic and Aethiopic—form +a group by themselves.</q> The users of these languages, the +<pb n='272'/><anchor id='Pg272'/> +Aramaeans, were seated in historic times between the Babylonians +and Canaanites, the area of their distribution extending from the +foot of Lebanon and Hermon in a north-easterly direction as far as +Mesopotamia, where <q>Aram of the two rivers</q> forms their +easternmost province. Their immigration into these regions +forms the third epoch of the Semitic migrations, which probably +lasted from 1600 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi> down to 600. +</p> + +<p> +The Aramaic states had no great stability. The most important +of them was the kingdom of Damascus, which at a certain period +was so dangerous an enemy to northern Israel. In the end, +however, the Aramaean dynasties were crushed, like the two +Israelitish kingdoms, between the upper and nether millstones of +Babylon and Egypt. In the time of the successors of Alexander, +there arose in these regions the Syrian kingdom; which in turn +gave place to the Roman power. +</p> + +<p> +But linguistically the Aramaeans conquered the whole of Western +Asia. In the course of the first millennium <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi> Aramaic became the +language of commerce and diplomacy, as Babylonian had been +during the second. It was only the rise of Greek as a universal +language which put a term to these conquests of the Aramaic. +</p> + +<p> +In the year 701 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi> Aramaic had not yet penetrated to Judaea. +When the <foreign rend='italic'>rabshakeh</foreign> (officer) sent by Sennacherib addressed the +envoys of Hezekiah in Hebrew, they begged him to speak Aramaic +in order that the men upon the wall might not understand.<note place='foot'>2 Kings xviii. 26 ff.</note> For +the post-exilic period the Aramaic edicts in the Book of Ezra and +inscriptions on Persian coins show that throughout wide districts +of the new empire Aramaic had made good its position as the +language of common intercourse. Its domain extended from the +Euxine southwards as far as Egypt, and even into Egypt itself. +Samaria and the Hauran adopted it. Only the Greek towns and +Phoenicia resisted. +</p> + +<p> +The influence of Aramaic upon Jewish literature begins to be +noticeable about the year 600. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, writing in +a foreign land in an Aramaic environment, are the first witnesses to +its supremacy. In the northern part of the country, owing to the +immigration of foreign colonists after the destruction of the +northern kingdom, it had already gained a hold upon the common +people. In the Book of Daniel, written in the year 167 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi>, the +Hebrew and Aramaic languages alternate. Perhaps, indeed, we +ought to assume an Aramaic ground-document as the basis of this +work. +</p> + +<p> +At what time Aramaic became the common popular speech in +the post-exilic community we cannot exactly discover. Under +Nehemiah <q>Judaean,</q> that is to say, Hebrew, was still spoken in +Jerusalem; in the time of the Maccabees Aramaic seems to have +<pb n='273'/><anchor id='Pg273'/> +wholly driven out the ancient national language. Evidence for +this is to be found in the occurrence of Aramaic passages in the +Talmud, from which it is evident that the Rabbis used this +language in the religious instruction of the people. The provision +that the text, after being read in Hebrew, should be interpreted to +the people, may quite well reach back into the time of Jesus. +The first evidence for the practice is in the Mishna, about +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 150. +</p> + +<p> +In the time of Jesus three languages met in Galilee—Hebrew, +Aramaic, and Greek. In what relation they stood to each other +we do not know, since Josephus, the only writer who could have +told us, fails us in this point, as he so often does elsewhere. He +informs us that when acting as an envoy of Titus he spoke to the +people of Jerusalem in the ancestral language, and the word he +uses is ἑβραΐζων. But the very thing we should like to know—whether, +namely, this language was Aramaic or Hebrew, he does +not tell us. We are left in the same uncertainty by the passage in +Acts (xxii. 2) which says that Paul spoke to the people Ἑβραΐδι +διαλέκτῳ, thereby gaining their attention, for there is no indication +whether the language was Aramaic or Hebrew. For the writers +of that period <q>Hebrew</q> simply means Jewish. +</p> + +<p> +We cannot, therefore, be sure in what relation the ancient +Hebrew sacred language and the Aramaic of ordinary intercourse +stood to one another as regards religious writings and religious +instruction. Did the ordinary man merely learn by heart a few +verses, prayers, and psalms? Or was Hebrew, as the language of the +cultus, also current in wider circles? +</p> + +<p> +Dalman gives a number of examples of works written in +Hebrew in the century which witnessed the birth of Christ: <q>A +Hebrew original,</q> he says, <q>must be assumed in the case of the +main part of the Aethiopic book of Enoch, the Assumption of +Moses, the Apocalypse of Baruch, Fourth Ezra, the Book of +Jubilees, and for the Jewish ground-document of the Testament +of the Twelve Patriarchs, of which M. Gaster has discovered a +Hebrew manuscript.</q> The first Book of Maccabees, too, seems +to him to go back to a Hebrew original. Nevertheless, he holds it +to be impossible that synagogue discourses intended for the people +can have been delivered in Hebrew, or that Jesus taught otherwise +than in Aramaic. +</p> + +<p> +Franz Delitzsch's view, on the other hand, is that Jesus and +the disciples taught in Hebrew; and that is the opinion of Resch +also. Adolf Neubauer,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Studia Biblica</hi> I. <hi rend='italic'>Essays in Biblical Archæology and Criticism and Kindred +Subjects by Members of the University of Oxford</hi>. Clarendon Press, 1885, pp. 39-74. +See Meyer, p. 29 ff.</note> Reader in Rabbinical Hebrew at Oxford, +attempted a compromise. It was certainly the case, he thought, +<pb n='274'/><anchor id='Pg274'/> +that in the time of Jesus Aramaic was spoken throughout +Palestine; but whereas in Galilee this language had an exclusive +dominance, and the knowledge of Hebrew was confined to texts +learned by heart, in Jerusalem Hebrew had renewed itself by the +adoption of Aramaic elements, and a kind of Neo-Hebraic +language had arisen. This solution at least testifies to the difficulty +of the question. The fact is that from the language of the New +Testament it is often difficult to make out whether the underlying +words are Hebrew or Aramaic. Thus, for instance, Dalman +remarks—with reference to the question whether the statement of +Papias refers to a Hebrew or an Aramaic <q>primitive Matthew</q>—that +it is difficult <q>to produce proof of an Aramaic as distinct from +a Hebrew source, because it is often the case in Biblical Hebrew, +and still more often in the idiom of the Mishna, that the same +expressions and forms of phrase are possible as in Aramaic.</q> +Delitzsch's<note place='foot'><p>Franz Delitzsch, <hi rend='italic'>Die Bücher des Neuen Testaments aus dem Griechischen ins +Hebräische übersetzt</hi>. 1877. (The Books of the N.T. translated from Greek into +Hebrew.) This work has been circulated by thousands among Jews throughout the +whole world. +</p> +<p> +Delitzsch was born in 1813 at Leipzig and became Privat-Docent there in 1842, +went to Rostock as Professor in 1846, to Erlangen in 1850, and returned in 1867 to +Leipzig. By conviction he was a strict Lutheran in theology. He was one of the +leading experts in Late-Jewish and Talmudic literature. He died in 1890.</p></note> <q>retranslation</q> of the New Testament into Hebrew +is therefore historically justified. +</p> + +<p> +But the question about the language of Jesus must not be +confused with the problem of the original language of the primitive +form of Matthew's Gospel. In reference to the latter, Dalman +thinks that the tradition of the Early Church regarding an earlier +Aramaic form of the Gospel must be considered as lacking confirmation. +<q>It is only in the case of Jesus' own words that an +Aramaic original form is undeniable, and it is only for these that Early +Church tradition asserted the existence of a Semitic documentary +source. It is, therefore, the right and duty of Biblical scholarship +to investigate the form which the sayings of Jesus must have +taken in the original and the sense which in this form they must +have conveyed to Jewish hearers.</q> +</p> + +<p> +That Jesus spoke Aramaic, Meyer has shown by collecting all +the Aramaic expressions which occur in His preaching.<note place='foot'>See Meyer, p. 47 ff.</note> He +considers the <q>Abba</q> in Gethsemane decisive, for this means +that Jesus prayed in Aramaic in His hour of bitterest need. Again +the cry from the cross was, according to Mark xv. 34, also Aramaic: +Ἑλωΐ, ἑλωΐ, λαμὰ σαβαχθανεὶ. The Old Testament was therefore +most familiar to Him in an Aramaic translation, otherwise this form +of the Psalm passage would not have come to His lips at the +moment of death. +</p> + +<p> +It is a quite independent question whether Jesus could speak, +<pb n='275'/><anchor id='Pg275'/> +or at least understand, Greek. According to Josephus the knowledge +of Greek in Palestine at that time, even among educated Jews, +can only have been of a quite elementary character. He himself +had to learn it laboriously in order to be able to write in it. His +<q>Jewish War</q> was first written in Aramaic for his fellow-countrymen; +the Greek edition was, by his own avowal, not intended +for them. In another passage, it is true, he seems to imply a +knowledge of, and interest in, foreign languages even among people +in humble life.<note place='foot'>See Meyer, p. 61 ff.</note> +</p> + +<p> +An analogy, which is in many respects very close, to the linguistic +conditions in Palestine was offered by Alsace under French rule +in the 'sixties of the nineteenth century. Here, too, three languages +met in the same district. The High-German of Luther's translation +of the Bible was the language of the Church, the Alemannic dialect +was the usual speech of the people, while French was the language +of culture and of government administration. This remarkable +analogy would be rather in favour—if analogy can be admitted +to have any weight in the question—of Delitzsch and Resch, +since the Biblical High-German, although never spoken in social +intercourse, strongly influenced the Alemannic dialect—although this +was, on the other hand, quite uninfluenced by Modern High-German—but +did not allow it to penetrate into Church or school, there +maintaining for itself an undivided sway. French made some +progress, but only in certain circles, and remained entirely excluded +from the religious sphere. The Alsatians of the poorer +classes who could at that time have repeated the Lord's Prayer or +the Beatitudes in French would not have been difficult to count. +The Lutheran translation still holds its own to some extent against +the French translation with the older generation of the Alsatian +community in Paris, which has in other respects become completely +French—so strong is the influence of a former ecclesiastical +language even among those who have left their native home. +There is one factor, however, which is not represented in the +analogy; the influence of the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, +who gathered to the Feasts at Jerusalem, upon the extension of +the Greek language in the mother-country. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus, then, spoke Galilaean Aramaic, which is known to us +as a separate dialect from writings of the fourth to the seventh +century. For the Judaean dialect we have more and earlier +evidence. We have literary monuments in it from the first to the +third century. <q>It is very probable,</q> Dalman thinks, <q>that the +popular dialect of Northern Palestine, after the final fall of the +Judaean centre of the Aramaic-Jewish culture, which followed on +the Bar-Cochba rising, spread over almost the whole of Palestine.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The retranslations into Aramaic are therefore justified. After +<pb n='276'/><anchor id='Pg276'/> +J. A. Bolten's attempt had remained for nearly a hundred years +the only one of its kind, the experiment has been renewed in our +own time by J. T. Marshall, E. Nestle, J. Wellhausen, Arnold Meyer, +and Gustaf Dalman; in the case of Marshall and Nestle with the +subsidiary purpose of endeavouring to prove the existence of an +Aramaic documentary source. These retranslations first attracted +their due meed of attention from theologians in connexion with +the Son-of-Man question. Rarely, if ever, have theologians experienced +such a surprise as was sprung upon them by Hans +Lietzmann's essay in 1896.<note place='foot'>Hans Lietzmann, now Professor in Jena, was born in 1875 at Düsseldorf. +Until his call to Jena he worked as a Privat-Docent at Bonn. He has done some +very meritorious work in the publication of Early Christian writings.</note> Jesus had never, so ran the thesis +of the Bonn candidate in theology, applied to Himself the title +Son of Man, because in the Aramaic the title did not exist, and on +linguistic grounds could not have existed. In the language which +He used, בן אנש was merely a periphrasis for <q>a man.</q> That Jesus +meant Himself when He spoke of the Son of Man, none of His +hearers could have suspected. +</p> + +<p> +Lietzmann had not been without predecessors.<note place='foot'>See Meyer, p. 141 ff.</note> Gilbert +Génébrard, who died Archbishop of Aix as long ago as 1597, had +emphasised the point that the term Son of Man should not be interpreted +with reference solely to Christ, but to the race of mankind. +Hugo Grotius maintained the same position even more emphatically. +With a quite modern one-sidedness, Paulus the rationalist maintained +in his commentaries and in his Life of Jesus that according to +Ezek. ii. 1 <q>Barnash</q> meant man in general. Jesus, he thought, +whenever He used the expression the Son of Man, pointed to +Himself and thus gave it the sense of <q>this man.</q> In taking this +line he gives up the general reference to mankind as a whole for +which Mark ii. 28 is generally cited as the classical passage. The +suggestion that the term Son of Man in its apocalyptic signification +was first attributed to Jesus at a later time and that the passages +where it occurs in this sense are therefore suspicious, was first put +forward by Fr. Aug. Fritzsche. He hoped in this way to get rid +of Matt. x. 23. De Lagarde, like Paulus, emphatically asserted that +Son of Man only meant man. But instead of the clumsy explanation +of the rationalist he gave another and a more pleasing +one, namely, that Jesus by choosing this title designed to ennoble +mankind. Wellhausen, in his <q>History of Israel and of the Jews</q> +(1894), remarked on it as strange that Jesus should have called +Himself <q>the Man.</q> B. D. Eerdmans, taking the apocalyptic +significance of the term as his starting-point, attempted to carry +out consistently the theory of the later interpolation of this title +into the sayings of Jesus.<note place='foot'><q>De Oorsprong van de uitdrukking 'Zoon des Menschen' als evangelische +Messiastitel,</q> <hi rend='italic'>Theol. Tijdschr.</hi>, 1894. (The Origin of the Expression <q>Son of Man</q> +as a Title of the Messiah in the Gospels.)</note> +</p> + +<pb n='277'/><anchor id='Pg277'/> + +<p> +Thus Lietzmann had predecessors; but they were not so in +any real sense. They had either started out from the Marcan +passage where the Son of Man is described as the Lord of the +Sabbath, and endeavoured arbitrarily to interpret all the Son-of-Man +passages in the same sense; or they assumed without +sufficient grounds that the title Son of Man was a later interpolation. +The new idea consisted in combining the two attempts, +and declaring the passages about the Son of Man to be linguistically +and historically impossible, seeing that, on linguistic grounds, +<q>son of man</q> means <q>man.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Arnold Meyer and Wellhausen expressed themselves in the +same sense as Lietzmann. The passages where Jesus uses the +expression in an unmistakably Messianic sense are, according to +them, to be put down to the account of Early Christian theology. +The only passages which in their opinion are historically tenable +are the two or three in which the expression denotes man in +general, or is equivalent to the simple <q>I.</q> These latter were felt +to be a difficulty by the Church when it came to think in Greek, +since this way of speaking of oneself was strange to them; consequently +the expression appeared to them deliberately enigmatic +and only capable of being interpreted in the sense which it bears +in Daniel. The Son-of-Man conception, argued Lietzmann, when +he again approached the question two years later, had arisen in a +Hellenistic environment,<note place='foot'>H. Lietzmann, <q>Zur Menschensohnfrage</q> (The Son-of-Man Problem), +<hi rend='italic'>Theol. Arb. des Rhein. wissenschaftl. Predigervereins</hi>, 1898.</note> on the basis of Dan. vii. 13; N. Schmidt,<note place='foot'>N. Schmidt, <q>Was בן נשא a Messianic title?</q> <hi rend='italic'>Journal of the Society for +Biblical Literature</hi>, xv., 1896.</note> +too, saw in the apocalyptic Bar-Nasha passages which follow the +revelation of the Messiahship at Caesarea Philippi an interpolation +from the later apocalyptic theology. On the other hand, P. Schmiedel +still wished to make it a Messianic designation, and to take it as +being historical in this sense even in passages in which the term man +<q>gave a possible sense.</q><note place='foot'>P. Schmiedel, <q>Der Name Menschensohn und das Messiasbewusstsein Jesu</q> +(The Designation Son of Man and the Messianic Consciousness of Jesus), 1898, <hi rend='italic'>Prot. +Monatsh.</hi> 2, pp. 252-267.</note> H. Gunkel thought that it was possible +to translate Bar-Nasha simply by <q>man,</q> and nevertheless hold +to the historicity of the expression as a self-designation of Jesus. +Jesus, he suggests, had borrowed this enigmatic term, which goes +back to Dan. vii. 13, from the mystical apocalyptic literature, +meaning thereby to indicate that He was the Man of God in +contrast to the Man of Sin.<note place='foot'>H. Gunkel, <hi rend='italic'>Z. w. Th.</hi>, 1899, 42, pp. 581-611.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Holtzmann felt a kind of relief in handing over to the philologists +the obstinate problem which since the time of Baldensperger and +<pb n='278'/><anchor id='Pg278'/> +Weiss had caused so much trouble to theologians, and wanted to +postpone the historical discussion until the Aramaic experts had +settled the linguistic question. That happened sooner than was +expected. In 1898 Dalman declared in his epoch-making work +(<hi rend='italic'>Die Worte Jesu</hi>) that he could not admit the linguistic objections +to the use of the expression Son of Man by Jesus. <q>Biblical +Aramaic,</q> he says, <q>does not differ in this respect from Hebrew. +The simple אנש and not בן אנש is the term for man.</q>... It was +only later that the Jewish-Galilaean dialect, like the Palestinian-Christian +dialect, used בן אנש for man, though in both idioms the +simple אנש occurs in the sense of <q>some one.</q> <q>In view of the +whole facts of the case,</q> he continues, <q>what has to be said is +that Jewish-Palestinian Aramaic of the earlier period used אנש +for <q>man,</q> and occasionally to designate a plurality of men makes +use of the expression בני אנשא. The singular בן אנש was not current, +and was only used in imitation of the Hebrew text of the Bible, where +בן אדם belongs to the poetic diction, and is, moreover, not of very +frequent occurrence.</q> <q>It is,</q> he says elsewhere, <q>by no means a +sign of a sound historical method, instead of working patiently +at the solution of the problem, to hasten like Oort and Lietzmann +to the conclusion that the absence of the expression in the New +Testament Epistles is a proof that Jesus did not use it either, but +that there was somewhere or other a Hellenistic community in the +Early Church which had a predilection for this name, and often +made Jesus speak of Himself in the Gospel narrative in the third +person, in order to find an opportunity of bringing it in.</q> +</p> + +<p> +So the oxen turned back with the ark into the land of the +Philistines. It was a case of returning to the starting-point and +deciding on historical grounds in what sense Jesus had used the +expression.<note place='foot'><p>For the last phase of the discussion we may name: +</p> +<p> +Wellhausen, <hi rend='italic'>Skizzen und Vorarbeiten</hi> (Sketches and Studies), 1899, pp. 187-215, +where he throws further light on Dalman's philological objections; and goes on to +deny Jesus' use of the expression. +</p> +<p> +W. Baldensperger, <q>Die neueste Forschung über den Menschensohn,</q> <hi rend='italic'>Theol. +Rundschau</hi>, 1900, 3, pp. 201-210, 243-255. +</p> +<p> +P. Fiebig, <hi rend='italic'>Der Menschensohn</hi>. Tübingen, 1901. +</p> +<p> +P. W. Schmiedel, <q>Die neueste Auffassung des Namens Menschensohn,</q> <hi rend='italic'>Prot. +Monatsh.</hi> 5, pp. 333-351, 1901. (The Latest View of the Designation Son +of Man.) +</p> +<p> +P. W. Schmidt, <hi rend='italic'>Die Geschichte Jesu</hi>, ii. (<hi rend='italic'>Erläuterungen</hi>—Explanations). +Tübingen, 1904, p. 157 ff.</p></note> But the possibilities were reduced by the way in which +Lietzmann had posed the problem, since the interpretations according +to which Jesus had used it in a veiled ethical Messianic sense, to +indicate the ethical and spiritual transformation of all the eschatological +conceptions, were now manifestly incapable of offering any +convincing argument against the radical denial of the use of the +expression. Baldensperger rightly remarked in a review of the +whole discussion that the question which was ultimately at stake in +<pb n='279'/><anchor id='Pg279'/> +the combat over the title Son of Man was the question whether +Jesus was the Messiah or no, and that Dalman, by his proof of its +linguistic possibility, had saved the Messiahship of Jesus.<note place='foot'>Dalman's reputation as an authority upon Jewish Aramaic is so deservedly high, +that it is necessary to point out that his solution did not, as Dr. Schweitzer seems to +say, entirely dispose of the linguistic difficulties raised by Lietzmann as to the meaning +and use of <foreign rend='italic'>barnâsh</foreign> and <foreign rend='italic'>barnâshâ</foreign> in Aramaic. The English reader will find the +linguistic facts well put in sections 4 and 32 of N. Schmidt's article <q>Son of Man</q> +in <hi rend='italic'>Encyclopædia Biblica</hi> (cols. 4708, 4723), or he may consult Prof. Bevan's review +of Dalman's <hi rend='italic'>Worte Jesu</hi> in the <hi rend='italic'>Critical Review</hi> for 1899, p. 148 ff. The main point +is that ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου are equally legitimate translations of +<foreign rend='italic'>barnâshâ</foreign>. Thus the contrast in the Greek between ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ +ἀνθρώπου in Mark ii. 27 and 28, or again in Mark viii. 36 and 38, disappears on +retranslation into the dialect spoken by Jesus. Whether this linguistic fact makes the +sayings in which ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου occurs unhistorical is a further question, upon +which scholars can take, and have taken, opposite opinions.—F. C. B.</note> +</p> + +<p> +But what kind of Messiahship? Is it any other kind than the +future Messiahship of the apocalyptic Son of Man which Johannes +Weiss had asserted? Did Jesus mean anything different by the +Son of Man from that which was meant by the apocalyptic writers? +To put it otherwise: behind the Son-of-Man problem there lies the +general question whether Jesus can have described Himself as a +present Messiah; for the fundamental difficulty is that He, a man +upon earth, should give Himself out to be the Son of Man, and at +the same time apparently give to that title a quite different sense +from that which it previously possessed. +</p> + +<p> +The champion of the linguistic possibility of this self-designation +made the last serious attempt to render the transformation of the +conception historically conceivable. He argues that Jesus cannot +have used it as a mere meaningless expression, a periphrasis for the +simple I.<note place='foot'>See <hi rend='italic'>Worte Jesu</hi>, 1898, p. 191 ff. (= E. T. p. 234 ff.).</note> On the other hand, the term cannot have been understood +by the disciples as an exalted title, or at least only in the +sense that the title indicative of exaltation is paradoxically connected +with the title indicative of humility. <q>We shall be justified +in saying, that, for the Synoptic Evangelists, <q>Man's Son</q> was no +title of honour for the Messiah, but—as it must necessarily appear +to a Hellenist—a veiling of His Messiahship under a name which +emphasises the humanity of its bearer.</q> For them it was not +the references to the sufferings of <q>Man's Son</q> that were +paradoxical, but the references to His exaltation: that <q>Man's +Son</q> should be put to death is not wonderful; what is wonderful +is His <q>coming again upon the clouds of heaven.</q> +</p> + +<p> +If Jesus called Himself the Son of Man, the only conclusion +which could be drawn by those that heard Him was, <q>that for +some reason or other He desired to describe Himself as a Man +<foreign rend='italic'>par excellence</foreign>.</q> There is no reason to think of the Heavenly Son +of Man of the Similitudes of Enoch and Fourth Ezra; that conception +could hardly be present to the minds of His auditors. +</p> + +<pb n='280'/><anchor id='Pg280'/> + +<p> +<q>How was one who was now walking upon earth, to come from +heaven? He would have needed first to be translated thither. +One who had died or been rapt away from earth might be +brought back to earth again in this way, or a being who had +never before been upon earth, might be conceived as descending +thither.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But if, on the one hand, the title Son of Man was not to +be understood apart from the reference to the passage in Daniel, +while on the other Jesus so designated Himself as a man actually +present upon earth, <q>what was really implied was that He was the +man in whom Daniel's vision of <q>one like unto a Son of Man</q> +was being fulfilled.</q> He could not certainly expect from His +hearers a complete understanding of the self-designation. <q>We +are doubtless justified in saying that in using it, He intentionally +offered them an enigma which challenged further reflection upon +His Person.</q> +</p> + +<p> +According to Peter's confession the name was intelligible to +the disciples as coming from Dan. vii. 13, and obviously indicating +Him who was destined to the sovereignty of the world. Jesus +calls Himself the Son of Man, <q>not as meaning the lowly one, +but as a scion of the human race with its human weakness, whom +nevertheless God will make Lord of the world; and it is very +probable that Jesus found the Son of Man of Dan. vii. in Ps. +viii. 5 ff. also.</q> Sayings regarding humiliation and suffering could +be attached to the title just as well as references to exaltation. +For since the <q>Child of Man</q> has placed Himself upon the +throne of God, He is in reality no longer a mere man, but ruler +over heaven and earth, <q>the Lord.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This attempt of Dalman's has the same significance in regard +to the question of the Messiahship as Bousset's had for the +ethical question. Just as in Bousset's view the Kingdom of God +was, in a paradoxical way, after all proclaimed as present, so +here the self-designation <q>Son of Man</q> is retained by a paradox as +conveying the sense of a present Messiahship. But the documents +do not give any support to this assumption; on the contrary +they contradict it at every point. According to Dalman it was not +the predictions of the passion of the Son of Man which sounded +paradoxical to the disciples, but the predictions of His exaltation. +But we are distinctly told that when He spoke of His passion +they did not understand the saying. The predictions of His +exaltation, however, they understood so well that without troubling +themselves further about the predictions of the sufferings, they +began to dispute who should be greatest in the Kingdom of +Heaven, and who should have his throne closest to the Son +of Man. And if it is once admitted that Jesus took the designation +from Daniel, what ground is there for asserting that the +<pb n='281'/><anchor id='Pg281'/> +purely eschatological transcendental significance which the term had +taken on in the Similitudes of Enoch and retains in Fourth Ezra +had no existence for Jesus? Thus, by a long round-about, criticism +has come back to Johannes Weiss.<note place='foot'><p>See the classical discussion in J. Weiss, <hi rend='italic'>Die Predigt Jesus vom Reiche Gottes</hi>, +1892, 1st ed., p. 52 ff. +</p> +<p> +In the second edition, of 1900, p. 160 ff., he allows himself to be led astray by +the <q>chiefest apostles</q> of modern theology to indulge in the subtleties of fine-spun +psychology, and explain Jesus' way of speaking of Himself in the third person as +the Son of Man as due to the <q>extreme modesty of Jesus,</q> a modesty which did +not forsake Him in the presence of His judges. This recent access of psychologising +exegesis has not conduced to clearness of presentation, and the preference for the +Lucan narrative does not so much contribute to throw light on the facts as to +discover in the thoughts of Jesus subtleties of which the historical Jesus never dreamt. +If the Lord always used the term Son of Man when speaking of His Messiahship, +the reason was that this was the only way in which He could speak of it at all, +since the Messiahship was not yet realised, but was only to be so at the appearing +of the Son of Man. For a consistent, purely historical, non-psychological exposition +of the Son-of-Man passages see Albert Schweitzer, <hi rend='italic'>Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis</hi>. +(The Secret of the Messiahship and the Passion.) A sketch of the Life +of Jesus. Tübingen, 1901.</p></note> His eschatological solution +of the Son-of-Man question—the elements of which are to be +found in Strauss's first Life of Jesus—is the only possible one. +Dalman expresses the same idea in the form of a question. <q>How +could one who was actually walking the earth come down from +heaven? He would have needed first to be translated thither. +One who had died or been rapt away from earth might possibly +be brought back to earth in this way.</q> Having reached this +point we have only to observe further that Jesus, from the +<q>confession of Peter</q> onwards, always speaks of the Son of Man +in connexion with death and resurrection. That is to say, that +once the disciples know in what relation He stands to the Son of +Man, He uses this title to suggest the manner of His return: as +the sequel to His death and resurrection He will return to the world +again as a superhuman Personality. Thus the purely transcendental +use of the term suggested by Dalman as a possibility turns out +to be the historical reality. +</p> + +<p> +Broadly speaking, therefore, the Son-of-Man problem is both +historically solvable and has been solved. The authentic passages +are those in which the expression is used in that apocalyptic sense +which goes back to Daniel. But we have to distinguish two different +uses of the term according to the degree of knowledge assumed +in the hearers. If the secret of Jesus is unknown to them, then +in that case they understand simply that Jesus is speaking of +the <q>Son of Man</q> and His coming without having any suspicion +that He and the Son of Man have any connexion. It would +be thus, for instance, when in sending out the disciples in Matt. +x. 23, He announced the imminence of the appearing of the +Son of Man; or when He pictured the judgment which the +Son of Man would hold (Matt. xxv. 31-46), if we may imagine +<pb n='282'/><anchor id='Pg282'/> +it to have been spoken to the people at Jerusalem. Or, on +the other hand, the secret is known to the hearers. In that +case they understand that the term Son of Man points to the +position to which He Himself is to be exalted when the present era +passes into the age to come. It was thus, no doubt, in the case of +the disciples at Caesarea Philippi, and of the High Priest to whom +Jesus, after answering his demand with the simple <q>Yea</q> (Mark +xiv. 62), goes on immediately to speak of the exaltation of the +Son of Man to the right hand of God, and of His coming upon +the clouds of heaven. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus did not, therefore, veil His Messiahship by using the +expression Son of Man, much less did He transform it, but He +used the expression to refer, in the only possible way, to His +Messianic office as destined to be realised at His <q>coming,</q> and +did so in such a manner that only the initiated understood that He +was speaking of His own coming, while others understood Him as +referring to the coming of a Son of Man who was other than Himself. +</p> + +<p> +The passages where the title has not this apocalyptic reference, +or where, previous to the incident at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus in +speaking to the disciples equates the Son of Man with His own +<q>ego,</q> are to be explained as of literary origin. This set of +secondary occurrences of the title has nothing to do with <q>Early +Church theology</q>; it is merely a question of phenomena of translation +and tradition. In the saying about the Sabbath in Mark +ii. 28, and perhaps also in the saying about the right to forgive +sins in Mark ii. 10, Son of Man doubtless stood in the original in +the general sense of <q>man,</q> but was later, certainly by our Evangelists, +understood as referring to Jesus as the Son of Man. In +other passages tradition, following the analogy of those passages in +which the title is authentic, put in place of the simple I—expressed +in the Aramaic by <q>the man</q>—the self-designation <q>Son of Man,</q> +as we can clearly show by comparing Matt. xvi. 13, <q>Who do men +say that the Son of Man is?</q> with Mark viii. 27, <q>Who do men +say that I am?</q> +</p> + +<p> +Three passages call for special discussion. In the statement +that a man may be forgiven for blasphemy against the Son of Man, +but not for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, in Matt. xii. 32, the +<q>Son of Man</q> may be authentic. But of course it would not, +even in that case, give any hint that <q>Son of Man designates the +Messiah in His humiliation</q> as Dalman wished to infer from the +passage, but would mean that Jesus was speaking of the Son of +Man, here as elsewhere, in the third person without reference to +Himself, and was thinking of a contemptuous denial of the Parousia +such as might have been uttered by a Sadducee. But if we take +into account the parallel in Mark iii. 28 and 29, where blasphemy +against the Holy Ghost is spoken of without any mention of +<pb n='283'/><anchor id='Pg283'/> +blasphemy against the Son of Man, it seems more natural to take +the mention of the Son of Man as a secondary interpolation, +derived from the same line of tradition, perhaps from the same +hand, as the <q>Son of Man</q> in the question to the disciples at +Caesarea Philippi. +</p> + +<p> +The two other sayings, the one about the Son of Man <q>who +hath not where to lay His head,</q> Matt. viii. 20, and that about the +Son of Man who must submit to the reproach of being a glutton +and a wine-bibber, Matt. xi. 19, belong together. If we assume +it to be possible, in conformity with the saying about the purpose of +the parables in Mark iv. 11 and 12, that Jesus sometimes spoke +words which He did not intend to be understood, we may—if we +are unwilling to accept the supposition of a later periphrasis for the +ego, which would certainly be the most natural explanation—recognise +in these sayings two obscure declarations regarding the +Son of Man. They would then be supposed to have meant in +the original form, which is no longer clearly recognisable, that the +Son of Man would in some way justify the conduct of Jesus of +Nazareth. But the way in which this idea is expressed was not +such as to make it easy for His hearers to identify Him with the +Son of Man. Moreover, it was for them a conception impossible +to realise, since Jesus was a natural, and the Son of Man a supernatural, +being; and the eschatological scheme of things had not +provided for a man who at the end of the existing era should hint +to others that at the great transformation of all things He would be +manifested as the Son of Man. This case presented itself only in +the course of history, and it created a preparatory stage of eschatology +which does not answer to any traditional scheme. +</p> + +<p> +That act of the self-consciousness of Jesus by which He recognised +Himself in His earthly existence as the future Messiah is the +act in which eschatology supremely affirms itself. At the same +time, since it brings, spiritually, that which is to come, into the +unaltered present, into the existing era, it is the end of eschatology. +For it is its <q>spiritualisation,</q> a spiritualisation of which the ultimate +consequence was to be that all its <q>supersensuous</q> elements were +to be realised only spiritually in the present earthly conditions, and +all that is affirmed as supersensuous in the transcendental sense +was to be regarded as only the ruined remains of an eschatological +world-view. The Messianic secret of Jesus is the basis of Christianity, +since it involves the de-nationalising and the spiritualisation of Jewish +eschatology. +</p> + +<p> +Yet more. It is the primal fact, the starting-point, of a process +which manifests itself, indeed, in Christianity, but cannot fully +work itself out even here, of a movement in the direction of +inwardness which brings all religious magnitudes into the one +indivisible spiritual present, and which Christian dogmatic has not +<pb n='284'/><anchor id='Pg284'/> +ventured to carry to its completion. The Messianic consciousness +of the uniquely great Man of Nazareth sets up a struggle between +the present and the beyond, and introduces that resolute absorption +of the beyond by the present, which in looking back we recognise +as the history of Christianity, and of which we are conscious in +ourselves as the essence of religious progress and experience—a +process of which the end is not yet in sight. +</p> + +<p> +In this sense Jesus did <q>accept the world</q> and did stand in +conflict with Judaism. Protestantism was a step—a step on which +hung weighty consequences—in the progress of that <q>acceptance +of the world</q> which was constantly developing itself from within. +By a mighty revolution which was in harmony with the spirit of +that great primal act of the consciousness of Jesus, though in +opposition to some of the most certain of His sayings, ethics +became world-accepting. But it will be a mightier revolution still +when the last remaining ruins of the supersensuous other-worldly +system of thought are swept away in order to clear the site for a +new spiritual, purely real and present world. All the inconsistent +compromises and constructions of modern theology are merely an +attempt to stave off the final expulsion of eschatology from religion, +an inevitable but a hopeless attempt. That proleptic Messianic +consciousness of Jesus, which was in reality the only possible +actualisation of the Messianic idea, carries these consequences +with it inexorably and unfailingly. At that last cry upon the cross +the whole eschatological supersensuous world fell in upon itself in +ruins, and there remained as a spiritual reality only that present +spiritual world, bound as it is to sense, which Jesus by His all-powerful +word had called into being within the world which He +contemned. That last cry, with its despairing abandonment of the +eschatological future, is His real acceptance of the world. The +<q>Son of Man</q> was buried in the ruins of the falling eschatological +world; there remained alive only Jesus <q>the Man.</q> Thus these +two Aramaic synonyms include in themselves, as in a symbol of +reality, all that was to come. +</p> + +<p> +If theology has found it so hard a task to arrive at an historical +comprehension of the secret of this self-designation, this is due to +the fact that the question is not a purely historical one. In this +word there lies the transformation of a whole system of thought, +the inexorable consequence of the elimination of eschatology from +religion. It was only in this future form, not as actual, that Jesus +spoke of His Messiahship. Modern theology keeps on endeavouring +to discover in the title of Son of Man, which is bound up with the +future, a humanised present Messiahship. It does so in the conviction +that the recognition of a purely future reference in the +Messianic consciousness of Jesus would lead in the last result to a +modification of the historic basis of our faith, which has itself become +<pb n='285'/><anchor id='Pg285'/> +historical, and therefore true and self-justifying. The recognition +of the claims of eschatology signifies for our dogmatic a burning of +the boats by which it felt itself able to return at any moment +from the time of Jesus direct to the present. +</p> + +<p> +One point that is worthy of notice in this connexion is the +trustworthiness of the tradition. The Evangelists, writing in Greek, +and the Greek-speaking Early Church, can hardly have retained an +understanding of the purely eschatological character of that self-designation +of Jesus. It had become for them merely an indirect +method of self-designation. And nevertheless the Evangelists, +especially Mark, record the sayings of Jesus in such a way that the +original significance and application of the designation in His +mouth is still clearly recognisable, and we are able to determine +with certainty the isolated cases in which this self-designation in +His discourses is of a secondary origin. +</p> + +<p> +Thus the use of the term Son of Man—which, if we admitted +the sweeping proposal of Lietzmann and Wellhausen to cancel it +everywhere as an interpolation of Greek Early Church theology, +would throw doubt on the whole of the Gospel tradition—becomes +a proof of the certainty and trustworthiness of that tradition. We +may, in fact, say that the progressive recognition of the eschatological +character of the teaching and action of Jesus carries with it +a progressive justification of the Gospel tradition. A series of +passages and discourses which had been endangered because from +the modern theological point of view which had been made the +criterion of the tradition they appeared to be without meaning, are +now secured. The stone which the critics rejected has become the +corner-stone of the tradition. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +If Aramaic scholarship appears in regard to the Son-of-Man +question among the opponents of the thorough-going eschatological +view, it takes no other position in connexion with the retranslations +and in the application of illustrative parallels from the Rabbinic +literature. +</p> + +<p> +In looking at the earlier works in this department, one is struck +with the smallness of the result in proportion to the labour expended. +The names that call for mention here are those of John +Lightfoot, Christian Schöttgen, Joh. Gerh. Meuschen, J. Jak. Wettstein, +F. Nork, Franz Delitzsch, Carl Siegfried, and A. Wünsche.<note place='foot'><p>See Dalman, p. 60 ff. +</p> +<p> +John Lightfoot, <hi rend='italic'>Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas</hi>. Edited +by J. B. Carpzov. Leipzig, 1684. +</p> +<p> +Christian Schöttgen, <hi rend='italic'>Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum +Testamentum</hi>. Dresden-Leipzig, 1733. +</p> +<p> +Joh. Gerh. Meuschen, <hi rend='italic'>Novum Testamentum ex Talmude et antiquitatibus +Hebraeorum illustratum</hi>. Leipzig, 1736. +</p> +<p> +J. Jakob. Wettstein, <hi rend='italic'>Novum Testamentum Graecum</hi>. Amsterdam, 1751 and 1752. +</p> +<p> +F. Nork, <hi rend='italic'>Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen</hi>, +Leipzig, 1839. +</p> +<p> +Franz Delitzsch, <q>Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae,</q> in the <hi rend='italic'>Luth. Zeitsch.</hi>, 1876-1878. +</p> +<p> +Carl Siegfried, <hi rend='italic'>Analecta Rabbinica</hi>, 1875; <q>Rabbin. Analekten,</q> <hi rend='italic'>Jahrb. f. prot. +Theol.</hi>, 1876. +</p> +<p> +A. Wünsche, <hi rend='italic'>Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und +Midrasch</hi>. (Contributions to the Exposition of the Gospels from Talmud and +Midrash.) Göttingen, 1878.</p></note> +But even a work like F. Weber's <hi rend='italic'>System der altsynagogalen +<pb n='286'/><anchor id='Pg286'/> +palästinensischen Theologie</hi>,<note place='foot'>Leipzig, 1880; 2nd ed., 1897.</note> which does not confine itself to single +sayings and thoughts, but aims at exhibiting the Rabbinic system +of thought as a whole, throws, in the main, but little light on the +thoughts of Jesus. The Rabbinic parables supply, according to +Jülicher, but little of value for the explanation of the parables of +Jesus.<note place='foot'>Cf. for what follows, Jülicher, <hi rend='italic'>Die Gleichnisreden Jesu</hi>, i., 1888, p. 164 ff.</note> In this method of discourse, Jesus is so pre-eminently +original, that any other productions of the Jewish parabolic +literature are like stunted undergrowth beside a great tree; though +that has not prevented His originality from being challenged in this +very department, both in earlier times and at the present. As +early as 1648, Robert Sheringham, of Cambridge,<note place='foot'>Robert Sheringham of Caius College, Cambridge, a royalist divine, published +an edition of the Talmudic tractate <hi rend='italic'>Yoma</hi>. London, 1648.—F. C. B.</note> suggested that the +parables in Matt. xx. 1 ff., xxv. 1 ff., and Luke xvi., were derived +from Talmudic sources, an opinion against which J. B. Carpzov, +the younger, raised a protest; in 1839, F. Nork asserted, in his +work on <q>Rabbinic Sources and Parallels for the New Testament +Writings,</q> that the best thoughts in the discourses of Jesus are to +be attributed to His Jewish teachers; in 1880 the Dutch Rabbi, +T. Tal, maintained the thesis that the parables of the New Testament +are all borrowed from the Talmud.<note place='foot'>T. Tal, <hi rend='italic'>Professor Oort und der Talmud</hi>, 1880. See upon this Van Manen, +<hi rend='italic'>Jahrb. f. prot. Theol.</hi>, 1884, p. 569. The best collection of Talmudic parables is, +according to Jülicher, that of Prof. Guis. Levi, translated by L. Seligman as <hi rend='italic'>Parabeln, +Legenden und Gedanken aus Talmud und Midrasch</hi>. Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1877.</note> Theories of this kind cannot +be refuted, because they lack the foundation necessary to any +theory which is to be capable of being rationally discussed—that of +plain common sense.<note place='foot'>The question may be said to have been provisionally settled by Paul Fiebig's +work, <hi rend='italic'>Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu</hi> (Ancient Jewish Parables and +the Parables of Jesus), Tübingen, 1904, in which he gives some fifty Late-Jewish +parables, and compares them with those of Jesus, the final result being to show more +clearly than ever the uniqueness and absoluteness of His creations.</note> +</p> + +<p> +We possess, however, really scientific attempts to define more +closely the thoughts of Jesus by the aid of the Rabbinic language +and Rabbinic ideas in the works of Arnold Meyer and Dalman. It +cannot indeed be said that the obscure sayings which form the +problem of present-day exegesis are in all cases made clearer by +them, much as we may admire the comprehensive knowledge of +<pb n='287'/><anchor id='Pg287'/> +these scholars. Sometimes, indeed, they become more obscure +than before. According to Meyer, for instance, the question of +Jesus whether His disciples can drink of His cup, and be baptized +with His baptism means, if put back into Aramaic, <q>Can you drink +as bitter a drink as I; can you eat as sharply salted meat as I?</q><note place='foot'>See the explanation by means of the Aramaic of a selection of the sayings of +Jesus in Meyer, pp. 72-90. A Judaism more under Parsee influence is assumed as +explaining the origin of Christianity by E. Böklen, <hi rend='italic'>Die Verwandschaft der jüdisch-christlichen +mit der parsischen Eschatologie</hi> (The Relation of Jewish-Christian to +Persian Eschatology), 1902, 510 ff.</note> +Nor does Dalman's Aramaic retranslation help us much with the +saying about the violent who take the Kingdom of Heaven by force. +According to him, it is not spoken of the faithful, but of the rulers +of this world, and refers to the epoch of the Divine rule which has +been introduced by the imprisonment of the Baptist. No one can +violently possess himself of the Divine reign, and Jesus can therefore +only mean that violence is done to it in the person of its subjects. +</p> + +<p> +On this it must be remarked, that if the saying really means +this, it is about as appropriate to its setting as a rock in the sky. +Jesus is not speaking of the imprisonment of the Baptist. By the +days of John the Baptist He means the time of his public ministry. +</p> + +<p> +It is equally open to question whether in putting that crucial +question regarding the Messiah in Mark xii. 37 He really intended +to show, as Dalman thinks, <q>that physical descent from David +was not of decisive importance—it did not belong to the essence +of the Messiahship.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But a point in regard to which Dalman's remarks are of great +value for the reconstruction of the life of Jesus is the entry into +Jerusalem. Dalman thinks that the simple <q>Hosanna, blessed be +he that cometh in the name of the Lord</q> (Mark xi. 9) was what the +people really shouted in acclamation, and that the additional words +in Mark and Matthew are simply an interpretative expansion. +This acclamation did not itself contain any Messianic reference. +This explains <q>why the entry into Jerusalem was not made a +count in the charge urged against Him before Pilate.</q> The events +of <q>Palm Sunday</q> only received their distinctively Messianic +colour later. It was not the Messiah, but the prophet and wonder-worker +of Galilee whom the people hailed with rejoicing and +accompanied with invocations of blessing.<note place='foot'>The same view is expressed by Wellhausen, <hi rend='italic'>Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte</hi>, +3rd ed., p. 381, note 2; and by Albert Schweitzer, <hi rend='italic'>Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis</hi>, +1901.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Generally speaking, the value of Dalman's work lies less in the +solutions which it offers than in the problems which it raises. By +its very thorough discussions it challenges historical theology to test +its most cherished assumptions regarding the teaching of Jesus, +and make sure whether they are really so certain and self-evident. +Thus, in opposition to Schürer, he denies that the thought of the +<pb n='288'/><anchor id='Pg288'/> +pre-existence in heaven of all the good things belonging to the +Kingdom of God was at all generally current in the Late-Jewish +world of ideas, and thinks that the occasional references<note place='foot'>See the Apocalypse of Baruch, and Fourth Ezra.</note> to a pre-existing +Jerusalem, which shall finally be brought down to the earth, +do not suffice to establish the theory. Similarly, he thinks it +doubtful whether Jesus used the terms <q>this world (age),</q> <q>the +world (age) to come</q> in the eschatological sense which is generally +attached to them, and doubts, on linguistic grounds, whether they +can have been used at all. Even the use of עלם or עולם for <q>world</q> +cannot be proved. In the pre-Christian period there is much +reason to doubt its occurrence, though in later Jewish literature it +is frequent. The expression ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ in Matt. xix. 28, is +specifically Greek and cannot be reproduced in either Hebrew or +Aramaic. It is very strange that the use which Jesus makes of <foreign rend='italic'>Amen</foreign> +is unknown in the whole of Jewish literature. According to the +proper idiom of the language <q>אמן is never used to emphasise one's +own speech, but always with reference to the speech, prayer, +benediction, oath, or curse of another.</q> Jesus, therefore, if He +used the expression in this sense, must have given it a new +meaning as a formula of asseveration, in place of the oath which +He forbade. +</p> + +<p> +All these acute observations are marked by the general tendency +which was observable in the interpretation of the term Son of Man, +that is, by the endeavour so to weaken down the eschatological +conceptions of the Kingdom and the Messiah, that the hypothesis +of a making-present and spiritualising of these conceptions in the +teaching of Jesus might appear inherently and linguistically possible +and natural. The polemic against the pre-existent realities of the +Kingdom of God is intended to show that for Jesus the Reign of God +is a present benefit, which can be sought after, given, possessed, and +taken. Even before the time of Jesus, according to Dalman, a +tendency had shown itself to lay less emphasis, in connexion with +the hope of the future, upon the national Jewish element. Jesus +forced this element still farther into the background, and gave a +more decided prominence to the purely religious element. <q>For +Him the reign of God was the Divine power, which from this time +onward was steadily to carry forward the renewal of the world, and +also the renewed world, into which men shall one day enter, which +even now offers itself, and therefore can be grasped and received +as a present good.</q> The supernatural coming of the Kingdom is +only the final stage of the coming which is now being inwardly +spiritually brought about by the preaching of Jesus. Though He +may perhaps have spoken of <q>this</q> world and the <q>world to come,</q> +these expressions had in His use of them no very special importance. +It is for Him less a question of an antithesis between <q>then</q> and +<pb n='289'/><anchor id='Pg289'/> +<q>now,</q> than of establishing a connexion between them by which +the transition from one to the other is to be effected. +</p> + +<p> +It is the same in regard to Jesus' consciousness of His Messiahship. +<q>In Jesus' view,</q> says Dalman, <q>the period before the +commencement of the Reign of God was organically connected +with the actual period of His Reign.</q> He was the Messiah +because He knew Himself to stand in a unique ethico-religious +relation to God. His Messiahship was not something wholly incomprehensible +to those about Him. If redemption was regarded +as being close at hand, the Messiah must be assumed to be in +some sense already present. Therefore Jesus is both directly and +indirectly spoken of as Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +Thus the most important work in the department of Aramaic +scholarship shows clearly the anti-eschatological tendency which +characterised it from the beginning. The work of Lietzmann, +Meyer, Wellhausen, and Dalman, forms a distinct episode in the +general resistance to eschatology. That Aramaic scholarship +should have taken up a hostile attitude towards the eschatological +system of thought of Jesus lies in the nature of things. The +thoughts which it takes as its standard of comparison were only +reduced to writing long after the period of Jesus, and, moreover, in +a lifeless and distorted form, at a time when the apocalyptic temper +no longer existed as the living counterpoise to the legal righteousness, +and this legal righteousness had allowed only so much of +Apocalyptic to survive as could be brought into direct connexion +with it. In fact, the distance between Jesus' world of thought and +this form of Judaism is as great as that which separates it from +modern ideas. Thus in Dalman modernising tendencies and +Aramaic scholarship were able to combine in conducting a criticism +of the eschatology in the teaching of Jesus in which the modern +man thought the thoughts and the expert in Aramaic formulated +and supported them, yet without being able in the end to make +any impression upon the well-rounded whole formed by Jesus' +eschatological preaching of the Kingdom. +</p> + +<p> +Whether Aramaic scholarship will contribute to the investigation +of the life and teaching of Jesus along other lines and in a direct +and positive fashion, only the future can show. But certainly if +theologians will give heed to the question-marks so acutely placed +by Dalman, and recognise it as one of their first duties to test +carefully whether a thought or a connexion of thought is linguistically +or inherently Greek, and only Greek, in character, they will derive +a notable advantage from what has already been done in the +department of Aramaic study. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +But if the service rendered by Aramaic studies has been hitherto +mainly indirect, no success whatever has attended, or seems likely +<pb n='290'/><anchor id='Pg290'/> +to attend, the attempt to apply Buddhist ideas to the explanation +of the thoughts of Jesus. It could only indeed appear to have +some prospect of success if we could make up our minds to follow +the example of the author of one of the most recent of fictitious +lives of Christ in putting Jesus to school to the Buddhist priests; +in which case the six years which Monsieur Nicolas Notowitsch +allots to this purpose, would certainly be none too much for the +completion of the course.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>La Vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ</hi>, par Nicolas Notowitsch. Paris, 1894.</note> If imagination boggles at this, there +remains no possibility of showing that Buddhist ideas exercised +any direct influence upon Jesus. That Buddhism may have had +some kind of influence upon Late Judaism and thus indirectly upon +Jesus is not inherently impossible, if we are prepared to recognise +Buddhistic influence on the Babylonian and Persian civilisations. +But it is unproved, unprovable, and unthinkable, that Jesus derived +the suggestion of the new and creative ideas which emerge in His +teaching from Buddhism. The most that can be done in this +direction is to point to certain analogies. For the parables of +Jesus, Buddhist parallels were suggested by Renan and Havet.<note place='foot'>See Jülicher, <hi rend='italic'>Gleichnisreden Jesu</hi>, i., 1888, p. 172 ff.</note> +</p> + +<p> +How little these analogies mean in the eyes of a cautious +observer is evident from the attitude which Max Müller took up +towards the question. <q>That there are startling coincidences +between Buddhism and Christianity,</q> he remarks in one passage,<note place='foot'>Max Müller, <hi rend='italic'>India, What can it teach us?</hi> London, 1883, p. 279.</note> +<q>cannot be denied; and it must likewise be admitted that +Buddhism existed at least four hundred years before Christianity. +I go even further and say that I should be extremely grateful +if anybody would point out to me the historical channels through +which Buddhism had influenced early Christianity. I have been +looking for such channels all my life, but hitherto I have found +none. What I have found is that for some of the most startling +coincidences there are historical antecedents on both sides; and +if we once know these antecedents the coincidences become far +less startling.</q> +</p> + +<p> +A year before Max Müller formulated his impression in these +terms, Rudolf Seydel<note place='foot'><p>Rudolf Seydel, Professor in the University of Leipzig, <hi rend='italic'>Das Evangelium von +Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zu Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre mit fortlaufender +Rücksicht auf andere Religionskreise</hi>. (The Gospel of Jesus in its relation to the +Buddha Legend and the Teaching of Buddha, with constant reference to other religious +groups.) Leipzig, 1882, p. 337. +</p> +<p> +Other works by the same author are <hi rend='italic'>Buddha und Christus</hi>. Deutsche Bücherei +No. 33, Breslau, Schottländer, 1884. +</p> +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien.</hi> 2nd ed. Weimar, +1897. (Edited by the son of the late author.) 129 pp. +</p> +<p> +See also on this question Van den Bergh van Eysinga, <hi rend='italic'>Indische Einflüsse auf +evangelische Erzählungen</hi>. Göttingen, 1904. 104 pp. +</p> +<p> +According to J. M. Robertson, <hi rend='italic'>Christianity and Mythology</hi> (London, 1900), the +Christ-Myth is merely a form of the Krishna-Myth. The whole Gospel tradition +is to be symbolically interpreted.</p></note> had endeavoured to explain the analogies +<pb n='291'/><anchor id='Pg291'/> +which had been noticed by supposing Christianity to have been +influenced by Buddhism. He distinguishes three distinct classes +of analogies: +</p> + +<p> +1. Those of which the points of resemblance can without +difficulty be explained as due to the influence of similar sources +and motives in the two cases. +</p> + +<p> +2. Those which show a so special and unexpected agreement +that it appears artificial to explain it from the action of similar +causes, and the dependence of one upon the other commends +itself as the most natural explanation. +</p> + +<p> +3. Those in which there exists a reason for the occurrence of +the idea only within the sphere of one of the two religions, or in +which at least it can very much more easily be conceived as originating +within the one than within the other, so that the inexplicability +of the phenomenon within the one domain gives ground for seeking +its source within the other. +</p> + +<p> +This last class demands a literary explanation of the analogy. +Seydel therefore postulates, alongside of primitive forms of Matthew +and Luke, a third source, <q>a poetic-apocalyptic Gospel of very early +date which fitted its Christian material into the frame of a +Buddhist type of Gospel, transforming, purifying, and ennobling +the material taken from the foreign but related literature by a kind +of rebirth inspired by the Christian Spirit.</q> Matthew and Luke, +especially Luke, follow this poetic Gospel up to the point where +historic sources become more abundant, and the primitive form of +Mark begins to dominate their narrative. But even in later parts +the influence of this poetical source, which as an independent +document was subsequently lost, continued to make itself felt. +</p> + +<p> +The strongest point of support for this hypothesis, if a mere +conjecture can be described as such, is found by Seydel in the +introductory narratives in Luke. Now it is not inherently impossible +that Buddhist legends, which in one form or another were +widely current in the East, may have contributed more or less to +the formation of the mythical preliminary history. Who knows the +laws of the formation of legend? Who can follow the course of the +wind which carries the seed over land and sea? But in general it +may be said that Seydel actually refutes the hypothesis which he is +defending. If the material which he brings forward is all that +there is to suggest a relation between Buddhism and Christianity, +we are justified in waiting until new discoveries are made in that +quarter before asserting the necessity of a Buddhist primitive +Gospel. That will not prevent a succession of theosophic Lives of +Jesus from finding their account in Seydel's classical work. Seydel +indeed delivered himself into their hands, because he did not +<pb n='292'/><anchor id='Pg292'/> +entirely avoid the rash assumption of theosophic <q>historical +science</q> that Jewish eschatology can be equated with Buddhistic. +</p> + +<p> +Eduard von Hartmann, in the second edition of his work, <q>The +Christianity of the New Testament,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments</hi>, 1905.</note> roundly asserts that there +can be no question of any relation of Jesus to Buddha, nor of any +indebtedness either in His teaching or in the later moulding of the +story of His life, but only of a parallel formation of myth. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='293'/><anchor id='Pg293'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>XVIII. The Position Of The Subject At The Close +Of The Nineteenth Century</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Oskar Holtzmann.</hi> Das Leben Jesu. Tübingen, 1901. 417 pp. +</p> + +<p> +Das Messianitätsbewusstsein Jesu und seine neueste Bestreitung. Vortrag. (The +Messianic Consciousness of Jesus and the most recent denial of it. A Lecture.) +1902. 26 pp. (Against Wrede.) +</p> + +<p> +War Jesus Ekstatiker? (Was Jesus an ecstatic?) Tübingen, 1903. 139 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Paul Wilhelm Schmidt.</hi> Die Geschichte Jesu. (The History of Jesus.) Freiburg. +1899. 175 pp. (4th impression.) +</p> + +<p> +Die Geschichte Jesu. Erläutert. Mit drei Karten von Prof. K. Furrer (Zürich). (The +History of Jesus. Preliminary Discussions. With three maps by Prof. K. Furrer +of Zurich.) Tübingen, 1904. 414 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Otto Schmiedel.</hi> Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. (The main +Problems in the Study of the Life of Jesus.) Tübingen, 1902. 71 pp. 2nd +ed., 1906. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Hermann Freiherr von Soden.</hi> Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu. (The +most important Questions about the Life of Jesus.) Vacation Lectures. Berlin, +1904. 111 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gustav Frenssen.</hi> Hilligenlei. Berlin, 1905, pp. 462-593: <q>Die Handschrift.</q> +(<q>The Manuscript</q>—in which a Life of Jesus, written by one of the characters +of the story, is given in full.) +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Otto Pfleiderer.</hi> Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichem +Zusammenhang beschrieben. (Primitive Christianity. Its Documents and +Doctrines in their Historical Context.) 2nd ed. Berlin, 1902. Vol. i., 696 pp. +</p> + +<p> +Die Entstehung des Urchristentums. (How Primitive Christianity arose.) Munich, +1905. 255 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Albert Kalthoff.</hi> Das Christus-Problem. Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie. +(The Christ-problem. The Ground-plan of a Social Theology.) Leipzig, 1902. +87 pp. +</p> + +<p> +Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beiträge zum Christus-Problem. (How +Christianity arose. New contributions to the Christ-problem.) Leipzig, 1904. +155 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Eduard von Hartmann.</hi> Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments. (The +Christianity of the New Testament.) 2nd revised edition of <q>Letters on the +Christian Religion.</q> Sachsa-in-the-Harz, 1905. 311 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>De Jonge.</hi> Jeschua. Der klassische jüdische Mann. Zerstörung des kirchlichen, +Enthüllung des jüdischen Jesus-Bildes. Berlin, 1904. 112 pp. (Jeshua. The +Classical Jewish Man. In which the Jewish picture of Jesus is unveiled, and +the ecclesiastical picture destroyed.) +</p> + +<pb n='294'/><anchor id='Pg294'/> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Wolfgang Kirchbach.</hi> Was lehrte Jesus? Zwei Urevangelien. (What was the +teaching of Jesus? Two Primitive Gospels.) Berlin, 1897. 248 pp. 2nd +revised and greatly enlarged edition, 1902, 339 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Albert Dulk.</hi> Der Irrgang des Lebens Jesu. In geschichtlicher Auffassung +dargestellt. (The Error of the Life of Jesus. An Historical View.) 1st +part, 1884, 395 pp.; 2nd part, 1885, 302 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Paul de Régla.</hi> Jesus von Nazareth. German by A. Just. Leipzig, 1894. 435 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ernest Bosc.</hi> La Vie ésotérique de Jésus de Nazareth et les origines orientales du +christianisme. (The secret Life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the Oriental Origins +of Christianity.) Paris, 1902. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The ideal Life of Jesus of the close of the nineteenth century +is the Life which Heinrich Julius Holtzmann did not write—but +which can be pieced together from his commentary on the +Synoptic Gospels and his New Testament Theology.<note place='foot'>Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, <hi rend='italic'>Handkommentar</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>Die Synoptiker.</hi> 1st ed., 1889; +3rd ed., 1901. <hi rend='italic'>Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie</hi>, 1896, vol. i.</note> It is ideal +because, for one thing, it is unwritten, and arises only in the +idea of the reader by the aid of his own imagination, and, for +another, because it is traced only in the most general outline. +What Holtzmann gives us is a sketch of the public ministry, a +critical examination of details, and a full account of the teaching +of Jesus. He provides, therefore, the plan and the prepared +building material, so that any one can carry out the construction +in his own way and on his own responsibility. The cement and +the mortar are not provided by Holtzmann; every one must +decide for himself how he will combine the teaching and the life, +and arrange the details within each. +</p> + +<p> +We may recall the fact that Weisse, too, the other founder of +the Marcan hypothesis, avoided writing a Life of Jesus, because +the difficulty of fitting the details into the ground-plan appeared +to him so great, not to say insuperable. It is just this modesty +which constitutes his greatness and Holtzmann's. Thus the +Marcan hypothesis ends, as it had begun, with a certain historical +scepticism.<note place='foot'><p>In the Catholic Church the study of the Life of Jesus has remained down to +the present day entirely free from scepticism. The reason of that is, that in principle +it has remained at a pre-Straussian standpoint, and does not venture upon an +unreserved application of historical considerations either to the miracle question +or to the Johannine question, and naturally therefore resigns the attempt to take +account of and explain the great historical problems. +</p> +<p> +We may name the following Lives of Jesus produced by German Catholic +writers:— +</p> +<p> +Joh. Nep. Sepp, <hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu Christi</hi>. Regensburg, 1843-1846. 7 vols., 2nd +ed., 1853-1862. +</p> +<p> +Peter Schegg, <hi rend='italic'>Sechs Bücher des Lebens Jesu</hi>. (The Life of Jesus in Six Books.) +Freiburg, 1874-1875. c. 1200 pp. +</p> +<p> +Joseph Grimm, <hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu</hi>. Würzburg, 2nd ed., 1890-1903. 6 vols. +</p> +<p> +Richard von Kralik, <hi rend='italic'>Jesu Leben und Werk</hi>. Kempten-Nürnberg, 1904. 481 pp. +</p> +<p> +W. Capitaine, <hi rend='italic'>Jesus von Nazareth</hi>. Regensburg, 1905. 192 pp. +</p> +<p> +How narrow are the limits within which the Catholic study of the life of Jesus +moves even when it aims at scientific treatment, is illustrated by Hermann Schell's +<hi rend='italic'>Christus</hi> (Mainz, 1903. 152 pp.). After reading the forty-two questions with +which he introduces his narrative one might suppose that the author was well +aware of the bearing of all the historical problems of the life of Jesus, and intended +to supply an answer to them. Instead of doing so, however, he adopts as the work +proceeds more and more the rôle of an apologist, not facing definitely either the +miracle question or the Johannine question, but gliding over the difficulties by the aid +of ingenious headings, so that in the end his book almost takes the form of an +explanatory text to the eighty-nine illustrations which adorn the book and make +it difficult to read. +</p> +<p> +In France, Renan's work gave the incentive to an extensive Catholic <q>Life-of-Jesus</q> +literature. We may name the following:— +</p> +<p> +Louis Veuillot, <hi rend='italic'>La Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ</hi>. Paris, 1864. 509 pp. +German by Waldeyer. Köln-Neuss, 1864. 573 pp. +</p> +<p> +H. Wallon, <hi rend='italic'>Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ</hi>. Paris, 1865. 355 pp. +</p> +<p> +A work which met with a particularly favourable reception was that of Père +Didon, the Dominican, <hi rend='italic'>Jésus-Christ</hi>, Paris, 1891, 2 vols., vol. i. 483 pp., vol. ii. +469 pp. The German translation is dated 1895. +</p> +<p> +In the same year there appeared a new edition of the <q>Bitter Sufferings of Our +Lord Jesus Christ</q> (see above, p. <ref target='Pg109'>109</ref> f.) by Katharina Emmerich; the cheap +popular edition of the translation of Renan's <q>Life of Jesus</q>; and the eighth +edition of Strauss's <q>Life of Jesus for the German People.</q> +</p> +<p> +We may quote from the ecclesiastical <hi rend='italic'>Approbation</hi> printed at the beginning of +Didon's Life of Jesus. <q>If the author sometimes seems to speak the language of his +opponents, it is at once evident that he has aimed at defeating them on their own +ground, and he is particularly successful in doing so when he confronts their irreligious +a priori theories with the positive arguments of history.</q> +</p> +<p> +As a matter of fact the work is skilfully written, but without a spark of understanding +of the historical questions. +</p> +<p> +All honour to Alfred Loisy! (<hi rend='italic'>Le Quatrième Évangile</hi>, Paris, 1903, 960 pp.), who +takes a clear view on the Johannine question, and denies the existence of a Johannine +historical tradition. But what that means for the Catholic camp may be recognised +from the excitement produced by the book and its express condemnation. See also +the same writer's <hi rend='italic'>L'Évangile et l'Église</hi> (German translation, Munich, 1904, 189 pp.), +in which Loisy here and there makes good historical points against Harnack's <q>What +is Christianity?</q></p></note> +</p> + +<pb n='295'/><anchor id='Pg295'/> + +<p> +The subordinates, it is true, do not allow themselves to be +disturbed by the change of attitude at head-quarters. They keep +busily at work. That is their right, and therein consists their +significance. By keeping on trying to take the positions, and +constantly failing, they furnish a practical proof that the plan +of operations worked out by the general staff is not capable of +being carried out, and show why it is so, and what kind of new +tactics will have to be evolved. +</p> + +<p> +The credit of having written a life of Christ which is strictly +scientific, in its own way very remarkable, and yet foredoomed +to failure, belongs to Oskar Holtzmann.<note place='foot'>Oskar Holtzmann, Professor of Theology at Giessen, was born in 1859 at +Stuttgart.</note> He has complete +confidence in the Marcan plan, and makes it his task to fit all +the sayings of Jesus into this framework, to show <q>what can +belong to each period of the preaching of Jesus, and what cannot.</q> +His method is to give free play to the magnetic power of the +most important passages in the Marcan text, making other sayings +of similar import detach themselves from their present connexion +and come and group themselves round the main passages. +</p> + +<pb n='296'/><anchor id='Pg296'/> + +<p> +For example, the controversy with the scribes at Jerusalem +regarding the charge of doing miracles by the help of Satan +(Mark iii. 22-30) belongs, according to Holtzmann, as regards +content and chronology, to the same period as the controversy, +in Mark vii., about the ordinances of men which results in Jesus +being <q>obliged to take to flight</q>; the woes pronounced upon +Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, which now follow on the +eulogy upon the Baptist (Matt. xi. 21-23), and are accordingly +represented as having been spoken at the time of the sending +forth of the Twelve, are drawn by the same kind of magnetic +force into the neighbourhood of Mark vii., and <q>express very +clearly the attitude of Jesus at the time of His withdrawal from +the scene of His earlier ministry.</q> The saying in Matt. vii. 6 +about not giving that which is holy to the dogs or casting +pearls before swine, does not belong to the Sermon on the +Mount, but to the time when Jesus, after Caesarea Philippi, +forbids the disciples to reveal the secret of His Messiahship to +the multitude; Jesus' action in cursing the fig-tree so that it +should henceforth bring no fruit to its owner, who was perhaps +a poor man, is to be brought into relation with the words +spoken on the evening before, with reference to the lavish +expenditure involved in His anointing, <q>The poor ye have always +with you,</q> the point being that Jesus now, <q>in the clear consciousness +of His approaching death, feels His own worth,</q> and dismisses +<q>the contingency of even the poor having to lose something for +His sake</q> with the words <q>it does not matter.</q><note place='foot'>This suggestion reminds us involuntarily of the old rationalistic Lives of Jesus, +which are distressed that Jesus should have injured the good people of the country +of the Gesarenes by sacrificing their swine in healing the demoniac. A good deal of +old rationalistic material crops up in the very latest Lives of Jesus, as cannot indeed +fail to be the case in view of the arbitrary interpretation of detail which is common to +both. According to Oskar Holtzmann the barren fig-tree has also a symbolical +meaning. <q>It is a pledge given by God to Jesus that His faith shall not be put to +shame in the great work of His life.</q></note> +</p> + +<p> +All these transpositions and new connexions mean, it is clear, +a great deal of internal and external violence to the text. +</p> + +<p> +A further service rendered by this very thorough work of Oskar +Holtzmann's, is that of showing how much reading between the +lines is necessary in order to construct a Life of Jesus on the basis +of the Marcan hypothesis in its modern interpretation. It is thus, +for instance, that the author must have acquired the knowledge +that the controversy about the ordinances of purification in +Mark vii. forced the people <q>to choose between the old and the +new religion</q>—in which case it is no wonder that many <q>turned +back from following Jesus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Where are we told that there was any question of an old and +a new <q>religion</q>? The disciples certainly did not think of things +in this way, as is shown by their conduct at the time of His death +<pb n='297'/><anchor id='Pg297'/> +and the discourses of Peter in Acts. Where do we read that the +people turned away from Jesus? In Mark vii. 17 and 24 all that +is said is, that Jesus left the people, and in Mark vii. 33 the same +multitude is still assembled when Jesus returns from the <q>banishment</q> +into which Holtzmann relegates Him. +</p> + +<p> +Oskar Holtzmann declares that we cannot tell what was the +size of the following which accompanied Jesus in His journey northwards, +and is inclined to assume that others besides the Twelve +shared His exile. The Evangelists, however, say clearly that it was +only the μαθηταί, that is, the Twelve, who were with Him. The +value which this special knowledge, independent of the text, has +for the author, becomes evident a little farther on. After Peter's +confession Jesus calls the <q>multitude</q> to Him (Mark viii. 34) and +speaks to them of His sufferings and of taking up the cross and +following Him. This <q>multitude</q> Holtzmann wants to make <q>the +whole company of Jesus' followers,</q> <q>to which belonged, not only +the Twelve whom Jesus had formerly sent out to preach, but +many others also.</q> The knowledge drawn from outside the text +is therefore required to solve a difficulty in the text. +</p> + +<p> +But how did His companions in exile, the remnant of the +previous multitude, themselves become a multitude, the same +multitude as before? Would it not be better to admit that we +do not know how, in a Gentile country, a multitude could suddenly +rise out of the ground as it were, continue with Him until Mark +ix. 30, and then disappear into the earth as suddenly as they +came, leaving Him to pursue His journey towards Galilee and +Jerusalem alone? +</p> + +<p> +Another thing which Oskar Holtzmann knows is that it required +a good deal of courage for Peter to hail Jesus as Messiah, since the +<q>exile wandering about with his small following in a Gentile +country</q> answered <q>so badly to the general picture which people +had formed of the coming of the Messiah.</q> He knows too, that +in the moment of Peter's confession, <q>Christianity was complete</q> in +the sense that <q>a community separate from Judaism and centring +about a new ideal, then arose.</q> This <q>community</q> frequently +appears from this point onwards. There is nothing about it in +the narratives, which know only the Twelve and the people. +</p> + +<p> +Oskar Holtzmann's knowledge even extends to dialogues which +are not reported in the Gospels. After the incident at Caesarea +Philippi, the minds of the disciples were, according to him, preoccupied +by two questions. <q>How did Jesus know that He was +the Messiah?</q> and <q>What will be the future fate of this Messiah?</q> +The Lord answered both questions. He spoke to them of His +baptism, and <q>doubtless in close connexion with that</q> He told +them the story of His temptation, during which He had laid down +the lines which He was determined to follow as Messiah. +</p> + +<pb n='298'/><anchor id='Pg298'/> + +<p> +Of the transfiguration, Oskar Holtzmann can state with confidence, +<q>that it merely represents the inner experience of the +disciples at the moment of Peter's confession.</q> How is it then +that Mark expressly dates that scene, placing it (ix. 2) six days +after the discourse of Jesus about taking up the cross and following +Him? The fact is that the time-indications of the text are treated +as non-existent whenever the Marcan hypothesis requires an order +determined by inner connexion. The statement of Luke that +the transfiguration took place eight days after, is dismissed in the +remark <q>the motive of this indication of time is doubtless to be +found in the use of the Gospel narratives for reading in public +worship; the idea was that the section about the transfiguration +should be read on the Sunday following that on which the confession +of Peter formed the lesson.</q> Where did Oskar Holtzmann +suddenly discover this information about the order of the <q>Sunday +lessons</q> at the time when Luke's Gospel was written? +</p> + +<p> +It was doubtless from the same private source of information +that the author derived his knowledge regarding the gradual +development of the thought of the Passion in the consciousness of +Jesus. <q>After the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi,</q> he +explains, <q>Jesus' death became for Him only the necessary point +of transition to the glory beyond. In the discourse of Jesus to +which the request of Salome gave occasion, the death of Jesus +already appears as the means of saving many from death, because +His death makes possible the coming of the Kingdom of God. +At the institution of the Supper, Jesus regards His imminent +death as the meritorious deed by which the blessings of the New +Covenant, the forgiveness of sins and victory over sin, are +permanently secured to His <q>community.</q> We see Jesus constantly +becoming more and more at home with the idea of His +death and constantly giving it a deeper interpretation.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Any one who is less skilled in reading the thoughts of Jesus, +and more simple and natural in his reading of the text of Mark, +cannot fail to observe that Jesus speaks in Mark x. 45 of His +death as an expiation, not as a means of saving others from death, +and that at the Lord's Supper there was no reference to His +<q>community,</q> but only to the inexplicable <q>many,</q> which is also +the word in Mark x. 45. We ought to admit freely that we do +not know what the thoughts of Jesus about His death were at the +time of the first prediction of the Passion after Peter's confession; +and to be on our guard against the <q>original sin</q> of theology, +that of exalting the argument from silence, when it happens to +be useful, to the rank of positive realities. +</p> + +<p> +Is there not a certain irony in the fact that the application of +<q>natural</q> psychology to the explanation of the thoughts of Jesus +compels the assumption of supra-historical private information +<pb n='299'/><anchor id='Pg299'/> +such as this? Bahrdt and Venturini hardly read more subjective +interpretations into the text than many modern Lives of Jesus; +and the hypothesis of the secret society, which after all did +recognise and do justice to the inexplicability from an external +standpoint of the relation of events and of the conduct of Jesus, +was in many respects more historical than the psychological links +of connexion which our modernising historians discover without +having any foundation for them in the text. +</p> + +<p> +In the end this supplementary knowledge destroys the historicity +of the simplest sections. Oskar Holtzmann ventures to conjecture +that the healing of the blind man at Jericho <q>is to be understood +as a symbolical representation of the conversion of Zacchaeus,</q> +which, of course, is found only in Luke. Here then the defender +of the Marcan hypothesis rejects the incident by which the Evangelist +explains the enthusiasm of the entry into Jerusalem, not to mention +that Luke tells us nothing whatever about a conversion of Zacchaeus, +but only that Jesus was invited to his house and graciously accepted +the invitation. +</p> + +<p> +It would be something if this almost Alexandrian symbolical +exegesis contributed in some way to the removal of difficulties and +to the solution of the main question, that, namely, of the present +or future Messiah, the present or future Kingdom. Oskar Holtzmann +lays great stress upon the eschatological character of the +preaching of Jesus regarding the Kingdom, and assumes that, at +least at the beginning, it would not have been natural for His +hearers to understand that Jesus, the herald of the Messiah, was +Himself the Messiah. Nevertheless, he is of opinion that, in a +certain sense, the presence of Jesus implied the presence of the +Kingdom, that Peter and the rest of the disciples, advancing +beyond the ideas of the multitude, recognised Him as Messiah, +that this recognition ought to have been possible for the people +also, and, in that case, would have been <q>the strongest incentive +to abandon evil ways,</q> and <q>that Jesus at the time of His entry +into Jerusalem seems to have felt that in Isa. lxii. 11<note place='foot'>Isaiah lxii. 11, <q>Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh.</q></note> there was +a direct command not to withhold the knowledge of His Messiahship +from the inhabitants of Jerusalem.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But if Jesus made a Messianic entry He must thereafter have +given Himself out as Messiah, and the whole controversy would +necessarily have turned upon this claim. This, however, was not +the case. According to Holtzmann, all that the hearers could +make out of that crucial question for the Messiahship in Mark +xii. 35-37 was only <q>that Jesus clearly showed from the Scriptures +that the Messiah was not in reality the son of David.</q><note place='foot'><q>For Jesus Himself,</q> Oskar Holtzmann argues, <q>this discovery</q>—he means +the antinomy which He had discovered in Psalm cx.—<q>disposed of a doubt which +had always haunted him. If He had really known Himself to be descended from +the Davidic line, He would certainly not have publicly suggested a doubt as to the +Davidic descent of the Messiah.</q></note> +</p> + +<pb n='300'/><anchor id='Pg300'/> + +<p> +But how was it that the Messianic enthusiasm on the part of +the people did not lead to a Messianic controversy, in spite of the +fact that Jesus <q>from the first came forward in Jerusalem as +Messiah</q>? This difficulty O. Holtzmann seems to be trying to +provide against when he remarks in a footnote: <q>We have no +evidence that Jesus, even during the last sojourn in Jerusalem, +was recognised as Messiah except by those who belonged to the +inner circle of disciples. The repetition by the children of the +acclamations of the disciples (Matt. xxi. 15 and 16) can hardly be +considered of much importance in this connexion.</q> According +to this, Jesus entered Jerusalem as Messiah, but except for the +disciples and a few children no one recognised His entry as having +a Messianic significance! But Mark states that many spread +their garments upon the way, and others plucked down branches +from the trees and strewed them in the way, and that those that +went before and those that followed after, cried <q>Hosanna!</q> The +Marcan narrative must therefore be kept out of sight for the +moment in order that the Life of Jesus as conceived by the +modern Marcan hypothesis may not be endangered. +</p> + +<p> +We should not, however, regard the evidence of supernatural +knowledge and the self-contradictions of this Life of Jesus as +a matter for censure, but rather as a proof of the merits of +O. Holtzmann's work.<note place='foot'>Oskar Holtzmann's work, <hi rend='italic'>War Jesus Ekstatiker?</hi> (Tübingen, 1903, 139 pp.) is +in reality a new reading of the life of Jesus. By emphasising the ecstatic element +he breaks with the <q>natural</q> conception of the life and teaching of Jesus; and, +in so far, approaches the eschatological view. But he gives a very wide significance +to the term ecstatic, subsuming under it, it might almost be said, all the eschatological +thoughts and utterances of Jesus. He explains, for instance, that <q>the conviction +of the approaching destruction of existing conditions is ecstatic.</q> At the same time, +the only purpose served by the hypothesis of ecstasy is to enable the author to +attribute to Jesus <q>The belief that in His own work the Kingdom of God was +already beginning, and the promise of the Kingdom to individuals; this can only +be considered ecstatic.</q> The opposites which Bousset brings together by the +conception of paradox are united by Holtzmann by means of the hypothesis of +ecstasy. That is, however, to play fast and loose with the meaning of <q>ecstasy.</q> +An ecstasy is, in the usual understanding of the word, an abnormal, transient +condition of excitement in which the subject's natural capacity for thought and +feeling, and therewith all impressions from without, are suspended, being superseded +by an intense mental excitation and activity. Jesus may possibly have been in an +ecstatic state at His baptism and at the transfiguration. What O. Holtzmann +represents as a kind of permanent ecstatic state is rather an eschatological fixed +idea. With eschatology, ecstasy has no essential connexion. It is possible to be +eschatologically minded without being an ecstatic, and vice versa. Philo attributes +a great importance to ecstasy in his religious life, but he was scarcely, if at all, +interested in eschatology.</note> He has written the last large-scale Life +of Jesus, the only one which the Marcan hypothesis has produced, +and aims at providing a scientific basis for the assumptions which +the general lines of that hypothesis compel him to make; and in +<pb n='301'/><anchor id='Pg301'/> +this process it becomes clearly apparent that the connexion of +events can only be carried through at the decisive passages by +violent treatment, or even by rejection of the Marcan text in the +interests of the Marcan hypothesis. +</p> + +<p> +These merits do not belong in the same measure to the other +modern Lives of Jesus, which follow more or less the same lines. +They are short sketches, in some cases based on lectures, and +their brevity makes them perhaps more lively and convincing than +Holtzmann's work; but they take for granted just what he felt it +necessary to prove. P. W. Schmidt's<note place='foot'>P. W. Schmidt, now Professor in Basle, was born in Berlin in 1845.</note> <hi rend='italic'>Geschichte Jesu</hi> (1899), +which as a work of literary art has few rivals among theological +works of recent years, confines itself to pure narrative. The +volume of prolegomena which appeared in 1904, and is intended +to exhibit the foundations of the narrative, treats of the sources, of +the Kingdom of God, of the Son of Man, and of the Law. It +makes the most of the weakening of the eschatological standpoint +which is manifested in the second edition of Johannes Weiss's +<q>Preaching of Jesus,</q> but it does not give sufficient prominence to +the difficulties of reconstructing the public ministry of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +Neither Otto Schmiedel's <q>The Principal Problems of the Study +of the Life of Jesus,</q> nor von Soden's <q>Vacation Lectures</q> on <q>The +Principal Questions in the Life of Jesus</q> fulfils the promise of its +title.<note place='foot'><p>Otto Schmiedel, Professor at the Gymnasium at Eisenach, <hi rend='italic'>Die Hauptprobleme +der Leben-Jesu-Forschung</hi>. Tübingen, 1902. 71 pp. Schmiedel was born in 1858. +</p> +<p> +Hermann Freiherr von Soden, <hi rend='italic'>Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu</hi>. Von +Soden, Professor in Berlin, and preacher at the Jerusalem Kirche, was born in 1852. +</p> +<p> +We may mention also the following works:— +</p> +<p> +Fritz Barth (born 1856, Professor at Bern), <hi rend='italic'>Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu</hi>. +1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed., 1903. +</p> +<p> +Friedrich Nippold's <hi rend='italic'>Der Entwicklungsgang des Lebens Jesu im Wortlaut der drei +ersten Evangelien</hi> (The Course of the Life of Jesus in the Words of the First Three +Evangelists) (Hamburg, 1895, 213 pp.) is only an arrangement of the sections. +</p> +<p> +Konrad Furrer's <hi rend='italic'>Vorträge über das Leben Jesu Christi</hi> (Lectures on the Life of +Jesus Christ) have a special charm by reason of the author's knowledge of the +country and the locality. Furrer, who was born in 1838, is Professor at Zurich. +</p> +<p> +Another work which should not be forgotten is R. Otto's <hi rend='italic'>Leben und Wirken Jesu +nach historisch-kritischer Auffassung</hi> (Life and Work of Jesus from the Point of View +of Historical Criticism). A Lecture. Göttingen, 1902. Rudolf Otto, born in 1869, +is Privat-Docent at Göttingen.</p></note> They both aim rather at solving new problems proposed by +themselves than at restating the old ones and adding new. They +hope to meet the views of Johannes Weiss by strongly emphasising +the eschatology, and think they can escape the critical scepticism +of writers like Volkmar and Brand by assuming an <q>Ur-Markus.</q> +Their view is, therefore, that with a few modifications dictated by +the eschatological and sceptical school, the traditional conception +of the Life of Jesus is still tenable, whereas it is just the a priori +presuppositions of this conception, hitherto held to be self-evident, +which constitute the main problems. +</p> + +<pb n='302'/><anchor id='Pg302'/> + +<p> +<q>It is self-evident,</q> says von Soden in one passage, <q>in view of +the inner connexion in which the Kingdom of God and the Messiah +stood in the thoughts of the people ... that in all classes the +question must have been discussed, so that Jesus could not +permanently have avoided their question, <q>What of the Messiah? +Art thou not He?</q></q> Where, in the Synoptics, is there a word +to show that this is <q>self-evident</q>? When the disciples in +Mark viii. tell Jesus <q>whom men held Him to be,</q> none of them +suggests that any one had been tempted to regard Him as the +Messiah. And that was shortly before Jesus set out for Jerusalem. +</p> + +<p> +From the day when the envoys of the Scribes from Jerusalem +first appeared in the north, the easily influenced Galilaean multitude +began, according to von Soden, <q>to waver.</q> How does he +know that the Galilaeans were easily influenced? How does he +know they <q>wavered</q>? The Gospels tell us neither one nor the +other. The demand for a sign was, to quote von Soden again, a +demand for a proof of His Messiahship. <q>Yet another indication,</q> +adds the author, <q>that later Christianity, in putting so high a value +on the miracles of Jesus as a proof of His Messiahship, departed +widely from the thoughts of Jesus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Before levelling reproaches of this kind against later Christianity, +it would be well to point to some passage of Mark or Matthew in +which there is mention of a demand for a sign as a proof of His +Messiahship. +</p> + +<p> +When the appearance of Jesus in the south—we are still +following von Soden—aroused the Messianic expectations of the +people, as they had formerly been aroused in His native country, +<q>they once more failed to understand the correction of them +which Jesus had made by the manner of His entry and His +conduct in Jerusalem.</q> They are unable to understand this +<q>transvaluation of values,</q> and as often as the impression made +by His personality suggested the thought that He was the Messiah, +they became doubtful again. Wherein consisted the correction of +the Messianic expectation given at the triumphal entry? Was it +that He rode upon an ass? Would it not be better if modern +historical theology, instead of always making the people <q>grow +doubtful,</q> were to grow a little doubtful of itself, and begin to look +for the evidence of that <q>transvaluation of values</q> which, according +to them, the contemporaries of Jesus were not able to follow? +</p> + +<p> +Von Soden also possesses special information about the +<q>peculiar history of the origin</q> of the Messianic consciousness of +Jesus. He knows that it was subsidiary to a primary general +religious consciousness of Sonship. The rise of this Messianic +consciousness implies, in its turn, the <q>transformation of the +conception of the Kingdom of God, and explains how in the mind +of Jesus this conception was both present and future.</q> The greatness +<pb n='303'/><anchor id='Pg303'/> +of Jesus is, he thinks, to be found in the fact that for Him +this Kingdom of God was only a <q>limiting conception</q>—the +ultimate goal of a gradual process of approximation. <q>To the +question whether it was to be realised here or in the beyond Jesus +would have answered, as He answered a similar question, <q>That, +no man knoweth; no, not the Son.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +As if He had not answered that question in the petition <q>Thy +Kingdom come</q>—supposing that such a question could ever have +occurred to a contemporary—in the sense that the Kingdom was to +pass from the beyond into the present! +</p> + +<p> +This modern historical theology will not allow Jesus to have +formed a <q>theory</q> to explain His thoughts about His passion. +<q>For Him the certainty was amply sufficient; <q>My death will effect +what My life has not been able to accomplish.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +Is there then no theory implied in the saying about the <q>ransom +for many,</q> and in that about <q>My blood which is shed for many +for the forgiveness of sins,</q> although Jesus does not explain it? +How does von Soden know what was <q>amply sufficient</q> for Jesus +or what was not? +</p> + +<p> +Otto Schmiedel goes so far as to deny that Jesus gave distinct +expression to an expectation of suffering; the most He can have +done—and this is only a <q>perhaps</q>—is to have hinted at it in His +discourses. +</p> + +<p> +In strong contrast with this confidence in committing themselves +to historical conjectures stands the scepticism with which +von Soden and Schmiedel approach the Gospels. <q>It is at once +evident,</q> says Schmiedel, <q>that the great groups of discourses in +Matthew, such as the Sermon on the Mount, the Seven Parables +of the Kingdom, and so forth, were not arranged in this order in +the source (the <hi rend='italic'>Logia</hi>), still less by Jesus Himself. The order is, +doubtless, due to the Evangelist. But what is the answer to the +question, <q>On what grounds is this <q>at once</q> clear?</q></q><note place='foot'>Schmiedel is not altogether right in making <q>the Heidelberg Professor Paulus</q> +follow the same lines as Reimarus, <q>except that his works, of 1804 and 1828, are less +malignant, but only the more dull for that.</q> In reality the deistic Life of Jesus by +Reimarus, and the rationalistic Life by Paulus have nothing in common. Paulus was +perhaps influenced by Venturini, but not by Reimarus. The assertion that Strauss +wrote his <q>Life of Jesus for the German people</q> because <q>Renan's fame gave him +no peace</q> is not justified, either by Strauss's character or by the circumstances in +which the second Life of Jesus was produced.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Von Soden's pronouncement is even more radical. <q>In the +composition of the discourses,</q> he says, <q>no regard is paid in +Matthew, any more than in John, to the supposed audience, or to +the point of time in the life of Jesus to which they are attributed.</q> +As early as the Sermon on the Mount we find references to persecutions, +and warnings against false prophets. Similarly, in the +charge to the Twelve, there are also warnings, which undoubtedly +<pb n='304'/><anchor id='Pg304'/> +belong to a later time. Intimate sayings, evidently intended for +the inner circle of disciples, have the widest publicity given to them. +</p> + +<p> +But why should whatever is incomprehensible to us be unhistorical? +Would it not be better simply to admit that we do +not understand certain connexions of ideas and turns of expression +in the discourses of Jesus? +</p> + +<p> +But instead even of making an analytical examination of the +apparent connexions, and stating them as problems, the discourses +of Jesus and the sections of the Gospels are tricked out with +ingenious headings which have nothing to do with them. Thus, +for instance, von Soden heads the Beatitudes (Matt. v. 3-12), +<q>What Jesus brings to men,</q> the following verses (Matt. v. 13-16), +<q>What He makes of men.</q> P. W. Schmidt, in his <q>History of +Jesus,</q> shows himself a past master in this art. <q>The rights of +the wife</q> is the title of the dialogue about divorce, as if the question +at stake had been for Jesus the equality of the sexes, and not +simply and solely the sanctity of marriage. <q>Sunshine for the +children</q> is his heading for the scene where Jesus takes the +children in His arms—as if the purpose of Jesus had been to +protest against severity in the upbringing of children. Again, he +brings together the stories of the man who must first bury his +father, of the rich young man, of the dispute about precedence, of +Zacchaeus, and others which have equally little connexion under +the heading <q>Discipline for Jesus' followers.</q> These often brilliant +creations of artificial connexions of thought give a curious attractiveness +to the works of Schmidt and von Soden. The latter's +survey of the Gospels is a really delightful performance. But this +kind of thing is not consistent with pure objective history. +</p> + +<p> +Disposing in this lofty fashion of the connexion of events, +Schmiedel and von Soden do not find it difficult to distinguish +between Mark and <q>Ur-Markus</q>; that is, to retain just so much of +the Gospel as will fit in to their construction. Schmiedel feels sure +that Mark was a skilful writer, and that the redactor was <q>a Christian +of Pauline sympathies.</q> According to <q>Ur-Markus,</q> to which +Mark iv. 33 belongs, the Lord speaks in parables in order that the +people may understand Him the better; <q>it was only by the redactor +that the Pauline theory about hardening their hearts (Rom. ix.-xi.) +was interpolated, in Mark iv. 10 ff., and the meaning of Mark iv. 33 +was thus obscured.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is high time that instead of merely asserting Pauline influences +in Mark some proof of the assertion should be given. What +kind of appearance would Mark have presented if it had really +passed through the hands of a Pauline Christian? +</p> + +<p> +Von Soden's analysis is no less confident. The three outstanding +miracles, the stilling of the storm, the casting out of the +legion of devils, the overcoming of death (Mark iv. 35-v. 43), the +<pb n='305'/><anchor id='Pg305'/> +romantically told story of the death of the Baptist (Mark vi. 17-29), +the story of the feeding of the multitudes in the desert, of Jesus' +walking on the water, and of the transfiguration upon an high +mountain, and the healing of the lunatic boy—all these are dashed +in with a broad brush, and offer many analogies to Old Testament +stories, and some suggestions of Pauline conceptions, and reflections +of experiences of individual believers and of the Christian community. +<q>All these passages were, doubtless, first written down by +the compiler of our Gospel.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But how can Schmiedel and von Soden fail to see that they +are heading straight for Bruno Bauer's position? They assert +that there is no distinction of principle between the way in which +the Johannine and the Synoptic discourses are composed: the +recognition of this was Bruno Bauer's starting-point. They propose +to find experiences of the Christian community and Pauline teaching +reflected in the Gospel of Mark; Bruno Bauer asserted the +same. The only difference is that he was consistent, and extended +his criticism to those portions of the Gospel which do not present +the stumbling-block of the supernatural. Why should these not +also contain the theology and the experiences of the community +transformed into history? Is it only because they remain within +the limits of the natural? +</p> + +<p> +The real difficulty consists in the fact that all the passages which +von Soden ascribes to the redactor stand, in spite of their mythical +colouring, in a closely-knit historical connexion; in fact, the +historical connexion is nowhere so close. How can any one cut +out the feeding of the multitudes and the transfiguration as narratives +of secondary origin without destroying the whole of the +historical fabric of the Gospel of Mark? Or was it the redactor +who created the plan of the Gospel of Mark, as von Soden seems +to imply?<note place='foot'><p>Von Soden gives on pp. 24 ff. the passages of Mark which he supposes to be +derived from the Petrine tradition in a different order from that in which they occur +in Mark, regrouping them freely. He puts together, for instance, Mark i. 16-20, +iii. 13-19, vi. 7-16, viii. 27-ix. 1, ix. 33-40, under the title <q>The formation and +training of the band of disciples.</q> He supposes Mark, the pupil of Peter, to have +grouped in this way by a kind of association of ideas <q>what he had heard Peter +relate in his missionary journeys, when writing it down after Peter's death, not connectedly, +but giving as much as he could remember of it</q>; this would be in accordance +with the statement of Papias that Mark wrote <q>not in order.</q> Papias's +statement, therefore, refers to an <q>Ur-Markus,</q> which he found lacking in historical +order. +</p> +<p> +But what are we to make of a representative of the early Church thus approaching +the Gospels with the demand for historical arrangement? And good, simple old +Papias, of all people! +</p> +<p> +But if the Marcan plan was not laid down in <q>Ur-Markus,</q> there is nothing for +it—since the plan was certainly not given in the collection of Logia—but to ascribe +it to the author of our Gospel of Mark, to the man, that is, who wrote down for the +first time these <q>Pauline conceptions,</q> those reflections of experiences of individual +believers and of the community, and inserted them into the Gospel. It is proposed, +then, to retain the outline which he has given of the life of Jesus, and reject at the +same time what he relates. That is to say, he is to be believed where it is convenient +to believe him, and silenced where it is inconvenient. No more complete refutation +of the Marcan hypothesis could possibly be given than this analysis, for it destroys +its very foundation, the confident acceptance of the historicity of the Marcan plan. +</p> +<p> +If there is to be an analysis of sources in Mark, then the Marcan plan must be +ascribed to <q>Ur-Markus,</q> otherwise the analysis renders the Markan hypothesis +historically useless. But if <q>Ur-Markus</q> is to be reconstructed on the basis of +assigning to it the Marcan plan, then we cannot separate the natural from the supernatural, +for the supernatural scenes, like the feeding of the multitude and the transfiguration, +are among the main features of the Marcan outline. +</p> +<p> +No hypothetical analysis of <q>Ur-Markus</q> has escaped this dilemma; what it +can effect by literary methods is historically useless, and what would be historically +useful cannot be attained nor <q>presented</q> by literary methods.</p></note> +</p> + +<pb n='306'/><anchor id='Pg306'/> + +<p> +But in that case how can a modern Life of Jesus be founded +on the Marcan plan? How much of Mark is, in the end, historical? +Why should not Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi have been +derived from the theology of the primitive Church, just as well as +the transfiguration? The only difference is that the incident at +Caesarea Philippi is more within the limits of the possible, whereas +the scene upon the mountain has a supernatural colouring. But is +the incident at Philippi so entirely natural? Whence does Peter +know that Jesus is the Messiah? +</p> + +<p> +This semi-scepticism is therefore quite unjustifiable, since in +Mark natural and supernatural both stand in an equally good +and close historical connexion. Either, then, one must be completely +sceptical like Bruno Bauer, and challenge without exception +all the facts and connexions of events asserted by Mark; or, if one +means to found an historical Life of Jesus upon Mark, one must take +the Gospel as a whole because of the plan which runs right through +it, accepting it as historical and then endeavouring to explain why +certain narratives, like the feeding of the multitude and the transfiguration, +are bathed in a supernatural light, and what is the +historical basis which underlies them. A division between the +natural and supernatural in Mark is purely arbitrary, because the +supernatural is an essential part of the history. The mere fact that +he has not adopted the mythical material of the childhood stories +and the post-resurrection scenes ought to have been accepted as +evidence that the supernatural material which he does embody +belongs to a category of its own and cannot be simply rejected +as due to the invention of the primitive Christian community. It +must belong in some way to the original tradition. +</p> + +<p> +Oskar Holtzmann realises that to a certain extent. According +to him Mark is a writer <q>who embodied the materials which he +received from the tradition more faithfully than discriminatingly.</q> +<q>That which was related as a symbol of inner events, he takes +as history—in the case, for example, of the temptation, the walking +on the sea, the transfiguration of Jesus.</q> <q>Again in other cases +he has made a remarkable occurrence into a supernatural miracle, +<pb n='307'/><anchor id='Pg307'/> +as in the case of the feeding of the multitude, where Jesus' +courageous love and ready organising skill overcame a momentary +difficulty, whereas the Evangelist represents it as an amazing +miracle of Divine omnipotence.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Oskar Holtzmann is thus more cautious than von Soden. He is +inclined to see in the material which he wishes to exclude from the +history, not so much inventions of the Church as mistaken shaping +of history by Mark, and in this way he gets back to genuine old-fashioned +rationalism. In the feeding of the multitude Jesus +showed <q>the confidence of a courageous housewife who knows +how to provide skilfully for a great crowd of children from small +resources.</q> Perhaps in a future work Oskar Holtzmann will be +less reserved, not for the sake of theology, but of national well-being, +and will inform his contemporaries what kind of domestic +economy it was which made it possible for the Lord to satisfy with +five loaves and two fishes several thousand hungry men. +</p> + +<p> +Modern historical theology, therefore, with its three-quarters +scepticism, is left at last with only a torn and tattered Gospel of +Mark in its hands. One would naturally suppose that these preliminary +operations upon the source would lead to the production +of a Life of Jesus of a similarly fragmentary character. Nothing +of the kind. The outline is still the same as in Schenkel's day, +and the confidence with which the construction is carried out is +not less complete. Only the catch-words with which the narrative +is enlivened have been changed, being now taken in part from +Nietzsche. The liberal Jesus has given place to the Germanic +Jesus. This is a figure which has as little to do with the Marcan +hypothesis as the <q>liberal</q> Jesus had which preceded it; otherwise +it could not so easily have survived the downfall of the Gospel +of Mark as an historical source. It is evident, therefore, that this +professedly historical Jesus is not a purely historical figure, but +one which has been artificially transplanted into history. As +formerly in Renan the romantic spirit created the personality of +Jesus in its own image, so at the present day the Germanic spirit +is making a Jesus after its own likeness. What is admitted as +historic is just what the Spirit of the time can take out of the records +in order to assimilate it to itself and bring out of it a living form. +</p> + +<p> +Frenssen betrays the secret of his teachers when in <hi rend='italic'>Hilligenlei</hi> +he confidently superscribes the narrative drawn from the <q>latest +critical investigations</q> with the title <q>The Life of the Saviour +portrayed according to German research as the basis for a spiritual +re-birth of the German nation.</q><note place='foot'><p>Von Soden, for instance, germanises Jesus when he writes, <q>and this nature +is sound to the core. In spite of its inwardness there is no trace of an exaggerated +sentimentality. In spite of all the intensity of prayer there is nothing of ecstasy or +vision. No apocalyptic dream-pictures find a lodging-place in His soul.</q> +</p> +<p> +Is a man who teaches a world-renouncing ethic which sometimes soars to the +dizzy heights such as that of Matt. xix. 12, according to our conceptions <q>sound to the +core</q>? And does not the life of Jesus present a number of occasions on which He +seems to have been in an ecstasy? +</p> +<p> +Thus, von Soden has not simply read his Jesus out of the texts, but has added +something of his own, and that something is Germanic in colouring.</p></note> +</p> + +<pb n='308'/><anchor id='Pg308'/> + +<p> +As a matter of fact the Life of Jesus of the <q>Manuscript</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> the MS. Life of Jesus written by Kai Jans, one of the characters of the +novel. The way in which the whole life-experience of this character prepares +him for the writing of the Life is strikingly—if not always acceptably—worked +out.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></note> is +unsatisfactory both scientifically and artistically, just because it aims +at being at once scientific and artistic. If only Frenssen, with +his strongly life-accepting instinct, which gives to his thinking, +at least in his earliest writings where he reveals himself without +artificiality, such a wonderful simplicity and force, had dared to +read his Jesus boldly from the original records, without following +modern historical theology in all its meanderings! He would have +been able to force his way through the underwood well enough +if only he had been content to break the branches that got in his +way, instead of always waiting until some one went in front to +disentwine them for him. The dependence to which he surrenders +himself is really distressing. In reading almost every +paragraph one can tell whether Kai Jans was looking, as he +wrote it, into Oskar Holtzmann or P. W. Schmidt or von Soden. +Frenssen resigns the dramatic scene of the healing of the blind +man at Jericho. Why? Because at this point he was listening +to Holtzmann, who proposes to regard the healing of the blind +man as only a symbolical representation of the <q>conversion of +Zacchaeus.</q> Frenssen's masters have robbed him of all creative +spontaneity. He does not permit himself to discover <foreign rend='italic'>motifs</foreign> for +himself, but confines himself to working over and treating in cruder +colours those which he finds in his teachers. +</p> + +<p> +And since he cannot veil his assumptions in the cautious, carefully +modulated language of the theologians, the faults of the +modern treatment of the life of Jesus appear in him exaggerated +an hundredfold. The violent dislocation of narratives from their +connexion, and the forcing upon them of a modern interpretation, +becomes a mania with the writer and a torture to the reader. +The range of knowledge not drawn from the text is infinitely +increased. Kai Jans sees Jesus after the temptation cowering +beneath the brow of the hill <q>a poor lonely man, torn by fearful +doubts, a man in the deepest distress.</q> He knows too that there +was often great danger that Jesus would <q>betray the 'Father in +heaven' and go back to His village to take up His handicraft +again, but now as a man with a torn and distracted soul and a +conscience tortured by the gnawings of remorse.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The pupil is not content, as his teachers had been, merely +to make the people sometimes believe in Jesus and sometimes doubt +<pb n='309'/><anchor id='Pg309'/> +Him; he makes the enthusiastic earthly Messianic belief of the +people <q>tug and tear</q> at Jesus Himself. Sometimes one is tempted +to ask whether the author in his zeal <q>to use conscientiously +the results of the whole range of scientific criticism</q> has not forgotten +the main thing, the study of the Gospels themselves. +</p> + +<p> +And is all this science supposed to be new?<note place='foot'>Frenssen's Kai Jans professes to have used the <q>results of the whole range +of critical investigation</q> in writing his work. Among the books which he enumerates +and recommends in the after-word, we miss the works of Strauss, Weisse, Keim, +Volkmar, and Brandt, and, generally speaking, the names of those who in the +past have done something really great and original. Of the moderns, Johannes Weiss +is lacking. Wrede is mentioned, but is virtually ignored. Pfleiderer's remarkable +and profound presentation of Jesus in the <hi rend='italic'>Urchristentum</hi> (E. T. <q>Primitive +Christianity,</q> vol. ii., 1909) is non-existent so far as he is concerned.</note> Is this picture +of Jesus really the outcome of the latest criticism? Has it not +been in existence since the beginning of the 'forties, since Weisse's +criticism of the Gospel history? Is it not in principle the same +as Renan's, only that Germanic lapses of taste here take the place +of Gallic, and <q>German art for German people,</q><note place='foot'><foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Heimatkunst</foreign>, the ideal that every production of German art should be racy +of the soil. It has its relative justification as a protest against the long subservience +of some departments of German art to French taste.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translator.</hi></note> here quite out +of place, has done its best to remove from the picture every trace +of fidelity? +</p> + +<p> +Kai Jans' <q>Manuscript</q> represents the limit of the process of +diminishing the personality of Jesus. Weisse left Him still some +greatness, something unexplained, and did not venture to apply to +everything the petty standards of inquisitive modern psychology. In +the 'sixties psychology became more confident and Jesus smaller; +at the close of the century the confidence of psychology is at its +greatest and the figure of Jesus at its smallest—so small, that +Frenssen ventures to let His life be projected and written by one +who is in the midst of a love affair! +</p> + +<p> +This human life of Jesus is to be <q>heart-stirring</q> from beginning +to end, and <q>in no respect to go beyond human standards</q>! And +this Jesus who <q>racks His brains and shapes His plans</q> is to +contribute to bring about a re-birth of the German people. How +could He? He is Himself only a phantom created by the +Germanic mind in pursuit of a religious will-o'-the-wisp. +</p> + +<p> +It is possible, however, to do injustice to Frenssen's presentation, +and to the whole of the confident, unconsciously modernising +criticism of which he here acts as the mouthpiece. These writers +have the great merit of having brought certain cultured circles +nearer to Jesus and made them more sympathetic towards Him. +Their fault lies in their confidence, which has blinded them to what +Jesus is and is not, what He can and cannot do, so that in the +end they fail to understand <q>the signs of the times</q> either as +historians or as men of the present. +</p> + +<pb n='310'/><anchor id='Pg310'/> + +<p> +If the Jesus who owes His birth to the Marcan hypothesis +and modern psychology were capable of regenerating the world +He would have done it long ago, for He is nearly sixty years old +and his latest portraits are much less life-like than those drawn by +Weisse, Schenkel, and Renan, or by Keim, the most brilliant +painter of them all. +</p> + +<p> +For the last ten years modern historical theology has more and +more adapted itself to the needs of the man in the street. More +and more, even in the best class of works, it makes use of attractive +head-lines as a means of presenting its results in a lively form to +the masses. Intoxicated with its own ingenuity in inventing these, +it becomes more and more confident in its cause, and has come to +believe that the world's salvation depends in no small measure upon +the spreading of its own <q>assured results</q> broad-cast among the +people. It is time that it should begin to doubt itself, to doubt its +<q>historical</q> Jesus, to doubt the confidence with which it has +looked to its own construction for the moral and religious regeneration +of our time. Its Jesus is not alive, however Germanic +they may make Him. +</p> + +<p> +It was no accident that the chief priest of <q>German art for +German people</q> found himself at one with the modern theologians +and offered them his alliance. Since the 'sixties the critical study +of the Life of Jesus in Germany has been unconsciously under the influence +of an imposing modern-religious nationalism in art. It has +been deflected by it as by an underground magnetic current. It +was in vain that a few purely historical investigators uplifted their +voices in protest. The process had to work itself out. For +historical criticism had become, in the hands of most of those who +practised it, a secret struggle to reconcile the Germanic religious +spirit with the Spirit of Jesus of Nazareth.<note place='foot'>The Jesus of H. S. Chamberlain's <hi rend='italic'>Worte Christi</hi>, 1901, 286 pp., is also +modern. But the modernity is not so obtrusive, because he describes only the +teaching of Jesus, not His life.</note> It was concerned for +the religious interests of the present. Therefore its error had a +kind of greatness, it was in fact the greatest thing about it; and +the severity with which the pure historian treats it is in proportion +to his respect for its spirit. For this German critical study of the +Life of Jesus is an essential part of German religion. As of old +Jacob wrestled with the angel, so German theology wrestles with +Jesus of Nazareth and will not let Him go until He bless it—that +is, until He will consent to serve it and will suffer Himself to be +drawn by the Germanic spirit into the midst of our time and our +civilisation. But when the day breaks, the wrestler must let Him +go. He will not cross the ford with us. Jesus of Nazareth will +not suffer Himself to be modernised. As an historic figure He +refuses to be detached from His own time. He has no answer +<pb n='311'/><anchor id='Pg311'/> +for the question, <q>Tell us Thy name in our speech and for our +day!</q> But He does bless those who have wrestled with Him, so +that, though they cannot take Him with them, yet, like men who +have seen God face to face and received strength in their souls, +they go on their way with renewed courage, ready to do battle with +the world and its powers. +</p> + +<p> +But the historic Jesus and the Germanic spirit cannot be +brought together except by an act of historic violence which in +the end injures both religion and history. A time will come when +our theology, with its pride in its historical character, will get rid of +its rationalistic bias. This bias leads it to project back into +history what belongs to our own time, the eager struggle of the +modern religious spirit with the Spirit of Jesus, and seek in history +justification and authority for its beginning. The consequence is +that it creates the historical Jesus in its own image, so that it is not +the modern spirit influenced by the Spirit of Jesus, but the Jesus +of Nazareth constructed by modern historical theology, that is set +to work upon our race. +</p> + +<p> +Therefore both the theology and its picture of Jesus are poor +and weak. Its Jesus, because He has been measured by the petty +standard of the modern man, at variance with himself, not to say +of the modern candidate in theology who has made shipwreck; +the theologians themselves, because instead of seeking, for themselves +and others, how they may best bring the Spirit of Jesus in +living power into our world, they keep continually forging new +portraits of the historical Jesus, and think they have accomplished +something great when they have drawn an Oh! of astonishment +from the multitude, such as the crowds of a great city emit on +catching sight of a new advertisement in coloured lights. +</p> + +<p> +Anyone who, admiring the force and authority of genuine +rationalism, has got rid of the naïve self-satisfaction of modern +theology, which is in essence only the degenerate offspring of +rationalism with a tincture of history, rejoices in the feebleness +and smallness of its professedly historical Jesus, rejoices in all those +who are beginning to doubt the truth of this portrait, rejoices in +the over-severity with which it is attacked, rejoices to take a share +in its destruction. +</p> + +<p> +Those who have begun to doubt are many, but most of them +only make known their doubts by their silence. There is one, +however, who has spoken out, and one of the greatest—Otto +Pfleiderer.<note place='foot'>Born in 1839 at Stettin. Studied at Tübingen, was appointed Professor in +1870 at Jena and in 1875 at Berlin. (Died 1908.)</note> +</p> + +<p> +In the first edition of his <hi rend='italic'>Urchristentum</hi>, published in 1887, he +still shared the current conceptions and constructions, except that +he held the credibility of Mark to be more affected than was +<pb n='312'/><anchor id='Pg312'/> +usually supposed by hypothetical Pauline influences. In the +second edition<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang +beschrieben.</hi> 2nd ed. Berlin, 1902. Vol. i. (696 pp.), 615 ff.: <hi rend='italic'>Die Predigt Jesu und +der Glaube der Urgemeinde</hi> (English Translation, <q>Primitive Christianity,</q> chap. +xvi.). Pfleiderer's latest views are set forth in his work, based on academic lectures, +<hi rend='italic'>Die Entstehung des Urchristentums</hi>. (How Christianity arose.) Munich, 1905. +255 pp.</note> his positive knowledge has been ground down in +the struggle with the sceptics—it is Brandt who has especially +affected him—and with the partisans of eschatology. This is the +first advance-guard action of modern theology coming into touch +with the troops of Reimarus and Bruno Bauer. +</p> + +<p> +Pfleiderer accepts the purely eschatological conception of the +Kingdom of God and holds also that the ethics of Jesus were +wholly conditioned by eschatology. But in regard to the question +of the Messiahship of Jesus he takes his stand with the sceptics. +He rejects the hypothesis of a Messiah who, as being a <q>spiritual +Messiah,</q> conceals His claim, but on the other hand, he cannot +accept the eschatological Son-of-Man Messiahship having reference +to the future, which the eschatological school finds in the utterances +of Jesus, since it implies prophecies of His suffering, death, and +resurrection which criticism cannot admit. <q>Instead of finding the +explanation of how the Messianic title arose in the reflections of +Jesus about the death which lay before Him,</q> he is inclined to +find it <q>rather in the reflection of the Christian community upon +the catastrophic death and exaltation of its Lord after this had +actually taken place.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Even the Marcan narrative is not history. The scepticism in +regard to the main source, with which writers like Oskar Holtzmann, +Schmiedel, and von Soden conduct a kind of intellectual +flirtation, is here erected into a principle. <q>It must be recognised,</q> +says Pfleiderer, <q>that in respect of the recasting of the history +under theological influences, the whole of our Gospels stand in +principle on the same footing. The distinction between Mark, +the other two Synoptists, and John is only relative—a distinction +of degree corresponding to different stages of theological reflection +and the development of the ecclesiastical consciousness.</q> If only +Bruno Bauer could have lived to see this triumph of his opinions! +</p> + +<p> +Pfleiderer, however, is conscious that scepticism, too, has its +difficulties. He wishes, indeed, to reject the confession of Jesus +before the Sanhedrin <q>because its historicity is not well established +(none of the disciples were present to hear it, and the apocalyptic +prophecy which is added, Mark xiv. 62, is certainly derived from +the ideas of the primitive Church)</q>; on the other hand, he is +inclined to admit as possibilities—though marking them with a +note of interrogation—that Jesus may have accepted the homage +of the Passover pilgrims, and that the controversy with the Scribes +<pb n='313'/><anchor id='Pg313'/> +about the Son of David had some kind of reference to Jesus +Himself. +</p> + +<p> +On the other hand, he takes it for granted that Jesus did not +prophesy His death, on the ground that the arrest, trial, and +betrayal must have lain outside all possibility of calculation even +for Him. All these, he thinks, came upon Jesus quite unexpectedly. +The only thing that He might have apprehended was <q>an attack +by hired assassins,</q> and it is to this that He refers in the saying +about the two swords in Luke xxii. 36 and 38, seeing that two +swords would have sufficed as a protection against such an attack +as that, though hardly for anything further. When, however, he +remarks in this connexion that <q>this has been constantly overlooked</q> +in the romances dealing with the Life of Jesus, he does injustice +to Bahrdt and Venturini, since according to them the chief concern +of the secret society in the later period of the life of Jesus +was to protect Jesus from the assassination with which He was +menaced, and to secure His formal arrest and trial by the +Sanhedrin. Their view of the historical situation is therefore +identical with Pfleiderer's, viz. that assassination was possible, +but that administrative action was unexpected and is inexplicable. +</p> + +<p> +But how is this Jesus to be connected with primitive Christianity? +How did the primitive Church's belief in the Messiahship of Jesus +arise? To that question Pfleiderer can give no other answer than +that of Volkmar and Brandt, that is to say, none. He laboriously +brings together wood, straw, and stubble, but where he gets the +fire from to kindle the whole into the ardent faith of primitive +Christianity he is unable to make clear. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +According to Albert Kalthoff,<note place='foot'><p>Albert Kalthoff, <hi rend='italic'>Das Christusproblem</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie.</hi> +(The Problem of the Christ: Ground-plan of a Social Theology.) Leipzig, 1902. +87 pp. +</p> +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beiträge zum Christusproblem.</hi> (How +Christianity arose.) Leipzig, 1904. 155 pp. +</p> +<p> +Albert Kalthoff was born in 1850 at Barmen, and is engaged in pastoral work +in Bremen.</p></note> the fire lighted itself—Christianity +arose—by spontaneous combustion, when the inflammable +material, religious and social, which had collected together in the +Roman Empire, came in contact with the Jewish Messianic +expectations. Jesus of Nazareth never existed; and even supposing +He had been one of the numerous Jewish Messiahs who were +put to death by crucifixion, He certainly did not found Christianity. +The story of Jesus which lies before us in the Gospels is in reality +only the story of the way in which the picture of Christ arose, that +is to say, the story of the growth of the Christian community. +There is therefore no problem of the Life of Jesus, but only a +problem of the Christ. +</p> + +<pb n='314'/><anchor id='Pg314'/> + +<p> +Kalthoff has not indeed always been so negative. When in +the year 1880 he gave a series of lectures on the Life of Jesus he +felt himself justified <q>in taking as his basis without further argument +the generally accepted results of modern theology.</q> Afterwards he +became so completely doubtful about the Christ after the flesh +whom he had at that time depicted before his hearers that he +wished to exclude Him even from the register of theological +literature, and omitted to enter these lectures in the list of his +writings, although they had appeared in print.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu.</hi> Lectures delivered before the Protestant Reform Society at +Berlin. Berlin, 1880. 173 pp.</note> +</p> + +<p> +His quarrel with the historical Jesus of modern theology was +that he could find no connecting link between the Life of Jesus +constructed by the latter and primitive Christianity. Modern +theology, he remarks in one passage, with great justice, finds itself +obliged to assume, at the point where the history of the Church +begins, <q>an immediate declension from, and falsification of, a pure +original principle,</q> and that in so doing <q>it is deserting the +recognised methods of historical science.</q> If then we cannot +trace the path from its beginning onwards, we had better try to +work backwards, endeavouring first to define in the theology of +the primitive Church the values which we shall look to find again +in the Life of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +In that he is right. Modern historical theology will not have +refuted him until it has explained how Christianity arose out of +the life of Jesus without calling in that theory of an initial <q>Fall</q> +of which Harnack, Wernle, and all the rest make use. Until this +modern theology has made it in some measure intelligible how, +under the influence of the Jewish Messiah-sect, in the twinkling +of an eye, in every direction at once, Graeco-Roman popular +Christianity arose; until at least it has described the popular +Christianity of the first three generations, it must concede to all +hypotheses which fairly face this problem and endeavour to solve +it their formal right of existence. +</p> + +<p> +The criticism which Kalthoff directs against the <q>positive</q> +accounts of the Life of Jesus is, in part, very much to the point. +<q>Jesus,</q> he says in one place, <q>has been made the receptacle +into which every theologian pours his own ideas.</q> He rightly +remarks that if we follow <q>the Christ</q> backwards from the Epistles +and Gospels of the New Testament right to the apocalyptic vision +of Daniel, we always find in Him superhuman traits alongside of +the human. <q>Never and nowhere,</q> he insists, <q>is He that which +critical theology has endeavoured to make out of Him, a purely +natural man, an indivisible historical unit.</q> <q>The title of 'Christ' +had been raised by the Messianic apocalyptic writings so completely +into the sphere of the heroic that it had become impossible to +<pb n='315'/><anchor id='Pg315'/> +apply it to a mere historical man.</q> Bruno Bauer had urged the +same considerations upon the theology of his time, declaring it to +be unthinkable that a man could have arisen among the Jews and +declared <q>I am the Messiah.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But the unfortunate thing is that Kalthoff has not worked +through Bruno Bauer's criticism, and does not appear to assume +it as a basis, but remains standing half-way instead of thinking the +questions through to the end as that keen critic did. According +to Kalthoff it would appear that, year in year out, there was a +constant succession of Messianic disturbances among the Jews +and of crucified claimants of the Messiahship. <q>There had been +many a 'Christ,'</q> he says in one place, <q>before there was any +question of a Jesus in connexion with this title.</q> +</p> + +<p> +How does Kalthoff know that? If he had fairly considered +and felt the force of Bruno Bauer's arguments, he would never +have ventured on this assertion; he would have learned that it is +not only historically unproved, but intrinsically impossible. +</p> + +<p> +But Kalthoff was in far too great a hurry to present to his +readers a description of the growth of Christianity, and therewith +of the picture of the Christ, to absorb thoroughly the criticism of +his great predecessor. He soon leads his reader away from the +high road of criticism into a morass of speculation, in order to +arrive by a short cut at Graeco-Roman primitive Christianity. +But the trouble is that while the guide walks lightly and safely, +the ordinary man, weighed down by the pressure of historical +considerations, sinks to rise no more. +</p> + +<p> +The conjectural argument which Kalthoff follows out is in +itself acute, and forms a suitable pendant to Bauer's reconstruction +of the course of events. Bauer proposed to derive +Christianity from the Graeco-Roman philosophy; Kalthoff, recognising +that the origin of popular Christianity constitutes the main +question, takes as his starting-point the social movements of the +time. +</p> + +<p> +In the Roman Empire, so runs his argument, among the +oppressed masses of the slaves and the populace, eruptive forces +were concentrated under high tension. A communistic movement +arose, to which the influence of the Jewish element in the +proletariat gave a Messianic-Apocalyptic colouring. The Jewish +synagogue influenced Roman social conditions so that <q>the crude +social ferment at work in the Roman Empire amalgamated itself +with the religious and philosophical forces of the time to form the +new Christian social movement.</q> Early Christian writers had +learned in the synagogue to construct <q>personifications.</q> The +whole Late-Jewish literature rests upon this principle. Thus <q>the +Christ</q> became the ideal hero of the Christian community, +<q>from the socio-religious standpoint the figure of Christ is the +<pb n='316'/><anchor id='Pg316'/> +sublimated religious expression for the sum of the social and ethical +forces which were at work at a certain period.</q> The Lord's Supper +was the memorial feast of this ideal hero. +</p> + +<p> +<q>As the Christ to whose Parousia the community looks +forward this Hero-god of the community bears within Himself the +capacity for expansion into the God of the universe, into the +Christ of the Church, who is identical in essential nature with God +the Father. Thus the belief in the Christ brought the Messianic +hope of the future into the minds of the masses, who had already +a certain organisation, and by directing their thoughts towards the +future it won all those who were sick of the past and despairing +about the present.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The death and resurrection of Jesus represent experiences of +the community. <q>For a Jew crucified under Pontius Pilate +there was certainly no resurrection. All that is possible is a +vague hypothesis of a vision lacking all historical reality, or an +escape into the vaguenesses of theological phraseology. But +for the Christian community the resurrection was something real, +a matter of fact. For the community as such was not annihilated +in that persecution: it drew from it, rather, new strength +and life.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But what about the foundations of this imposing structure? +</p> + +<p> +For what he has to tell us about the condition of the Roman +Empire and the social organisation of the proletariat in the time +of Trajan—for it was then that the Church first came out into the +light—we may leave the responsibility with Kalthoff. But we +must inquire more closely how he brings the Jewish apocalyptic +into contact with the Roman proletariat. +</p> + +<p> +Communism, he says, was common to both. It was the bond +which united the apocalyptic <q>other-worldliness</q> with reality. +The only difficulty is that Kalthoff omits to produce any proof +out of the Jewish apocalypses that communism was <q>the fundamental +economic idea of the apocalyptic writers.</q> He operates +from the first with a special preparation of apocalyptic thought, of a +socialistic or Hellenistic character. Messianism is supposed to +have taken its rise from the Deuteronomic reform as <q>a social +theory which strives to realise itself in practice.</q> The apocalyptic +of Daniel arose, according to him, under Platonic influence. <q>The +figure of the Messiah thus became a human figure; it lost its +specifically Jewish traits.</q> He is the heavenly proto-typal ideal +man. Along with this thought, and similarly derived from Plato, +the conception of immortality makes its appearance in apocalyptic.<note place='foot'>If Kalthoff would only have spoken of the conception of the resurrection +instead of the conception of immortality! Then his subjective knowledge would have +been more or less tolerable.</note> +This Platonic apocalyptic never had any existence, or at least, +<pb n='317'/><anchor id='Pg317'/> +to speak with the utmost possible caution, its existence must not +be asserted in the absence of all proof. +</p> + +<p> +But, supposing it were admitted that Jewish apocalyptic had +some affinity for the Hellenic world, that it was Platonic and +communistic, how are we to explain the fact that the Gospels, +which describe the genesis of Christ and Christianity, imply a +Galilaean and not a Roman environment? +</p> + +<p> +As a matter of fact, Kalthoff says, they do imply a +Roman environment. The scene of the Gospel history is laid in +Palestine, but it is drawn in Rome. The agrarian conditions +implied in the narratives and parables are Roman. A vineyard +with a wine-press of its own could only be found, according to +Kalthoff, on the large Roman estates. So, too, the legal conditions. +The right of the creditor to sell the debtor, with his wife +and children, is a feature of Roman, not of Jewish law. +</p> + +<p> +Peter everywhere symbolises the Church at Rome. The +confession of Peter had to be transferred to Caesarea Philippi +because this town, <q>as the seat of the Roman administration,</q> +symbolised for Palestine the political presence of Rome. +</p> + +<p> +The woman with the issue was perhaps Poppaea Sabina, the +wife of Nero, <q>who in view of her strong leaning towards Judaism +might well be described in the symbolical style of the apocalyptic +writings as the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' garment.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The story of the unfaithful steward alludes to Pope Callixtus, +who, when the slave of a Christian in high position, was condemned +to the mines for the crime of embezzlement; that of the woman +who was a sinner refers to Marcia, the powerful mistress of +Commodus, at whose intercession Callixtus was released, to be +advanced soon afterwards to the bishopric of Rome. <q>These two +narratives, therefore,</q> Kalthoff suggests, <q>which very clearly allude +to events well known at that time, and doubtless much discussed +in the Christian community, were admitted into the Gospel to +express the views of the Church regarding the life-story of a Roman +bishop which had run its course under the eyes of the community, +and thereby to give to the events themselves the Church's sanction +and interpretation.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Kalthoff does not, unfortunately, mention whether this is a case +of simple, ingenuous, or of conscious, didactic, Early Christian +imagination. +</p> + +<p> +That kind of criticism is a casting out of Satan by the aid of +Beelzebub. If he was going to invent on this scale, Kalthoff need +not have found any difficulty in accepting the figure of Jesus +evolved by modern theology. One feels annoyed with him because, +while his thesis is ingenious, and, as against <q>modern theology</q> +has a considerable measure of justification, he has worked it out +in so uninteresting a fashion. He has no one but himself to blame +<pb n='318'/><anchor id='Pg318'/> +for the fact that instead of leading to the right explanation, it only +introduced a wearisome and unproductive controversy.<note place='foot'><p>Against Kalthoff: Wilhelm Bousset, <hi rend='italic'>Was wissen wir von Jesus?</hi> (What do we +know about Jesus?) Lectures delivered before the Protestantenverein at Bremen. +Halle, 1904. 73 pp. In reply: Albert Kalthoff, <hi rend='italic'>Was wissen wir von Jesus?</hi> A +settlement of accounts with Professor Bousset. Berlin, 1904. 43 pp. +</p> +<p> +A sound historical position is set forth in the clear and trenchant lecture of +W. Kapp, <hi rend='italic'>Das Christus- und Christentumsproblem bei Kalthoff</hi>. (The problem of +the Christ and of Christianity as handled by Kalthoff.) Strassburg, 1905. 23 pp.</p></note> +</p> + +<p> +In the end there remains scarcely a shade of distinction +between Kalthoff and his opponents. They want to bring their +<q>historical Jesus</q> into the midst of our time. He wants to do +the same with his <q>Christ.</q> <q>A secularised Christ,</q> he says, <q>as +the type of the self-determined man who amid strife and suffering +carries through victoriously, and fully realises, His own personality +in order to give the infinite fullness of love which He bears within +Himself as a blessing to mankind—a Christ such as that can +awaken to new life the antique Christ-type of the Church. He +is no longer the Christ of the scholar, of the abstract theological +thinker with his scholastic rules and methods. He is the people's +Christ, the Christ of the ordinary man, the figure in which all those +powers of the human soul which are most natural and simple—and +therefore most exalted and divine—find an expression at once +sensible and spiritual.</q> But that is precisely the description of +the Jesus of modern historical theology; why, then, make this +long roundabout through scepticism? The Christ of Kalthoff is +nothing else than the Jesus of those whom he combats in such a +lofty fashion; the only difference is that he draws his figure of Christ +in red ink on blotting-paper, and because it is red in colour and +smudgy in outline, wants to make out that it is something new. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +It is on ethical grounds that Eduard von Hartmann<note place='foot'>Eduard von Hartmann, <hi rend='italic'>Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments</hi>. (The +Christianity of the N.T.) 2nd, revised and altered, edition of the <q>Letters on the +Christian Religion.</q> Sachsa-in-the-Harz, 1905. 311 pp.</note> refuses to +accept the Jesus of modern theology. He finds fault with it +because in its anxiety to retain a personality which would be of +value to religion it does not sufficiently distinguish between the +authentic and the <q>historical</q> Jesus. When criticism has removed +the paintings-over and retouchings to which this authentic portrait +of Jesus has been subjected, it reaches, according to him, an unrecognisable +painting below, in which it is impossible to discover +any clear likeness, least of all one of any religious use and value. +</p> + +<p> +Were it not for the tenacity and the simple fidelity of the +epic tradition, nothing whatever would have remained of the +historic Jesus. What has remained is merely of historical and +psychological interest. +</p> + +<p> +At His first appearance the historic Jesus was, according to +<pb n='319'/><anchor id='Pg319'/> +Eduard von Hartmann, almost <q>an impersonal being,</q> since He +regarded Himself so exclusively as the vehicle of His message that +His personality hardly came into the question. As time went +on, however, He developed a taste for glory and for wonderful +deeds, and fell at last into a condition of <q>abnormal exaltation of +personality.</q> In the end He declares Himself to His disciples +and before the council as Messiah. <q>When He felt His death +drawing nigh He struck the balance of His life, found His mission +a failure, His person and His cause abandoned by God, and died +with the unanswered question on His lips, <q>My God, why hast +thou forsaken me?</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +It is significant that Eduard von Hartmann has not fallen into +the mistake of Schopenhauer and many other philosophers, of +identifying the pessimism of Jesus with the Indian speculative +pessimism of Buddha. The pessimism of Jesus, he says, is not +metaphysical, it is <q>a pessimism of indignation,</q> born of the +intolerable social and political conditions of the time. Von +Hartmann also clearly recognises the significance of eschatology, +but he does not define its character quite correctly, since he bases +his impressions solely on the Talmud, hardly making any use of +the Old Testament, of Enoch, the Psalms of Solomon, Baruch, +or Fourth Ezra. He has an irritating way of still using the name +<q>Jehovah.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Like Reimarus—von Hartmann's positions are simply modernised +Reimarus—he is anxious to show that Christian theology has +lost the right <q>to treat the ideal Kingdom of God as belonging to +itself.</q> Jesus and His teaching, so far as they have been preserved, +belong to Judaism. His ethic is for us strange and full of stumbling-blocks. +He despises work, property, and the duties of family life. +His gospel is fundamentally plebeian, and completely excludes the +idea of any aristocracy except in so far as it consents to plebeianise +itself, and this is true not only as regards the aristocracy of rank, +property, and fortune, but also the aristocracy of intellect. Von +Hartmann cannot resist the temptation to accuse Jesus of <q>Semitic +harshness,</q> finding the evidence of this chiefly in Mark iv. 12, where +Jesus declares that the purpose of His parables was to obscure +His teaching and cause the hearts of the people to be hardened. +</p> + +<p> +His judgment upon Jesus is: <q>He had no genius, but a certain +talent which, in the complete absence of any sound education, +produced in general only moderate results, and was not sufficient +to preserve Him from numerous weaknesses and serious errors; at +heart a fanatic and a transcendental enthusiast, who in spite of an +inborn kindliness of disposition hates and despises the world and +everything it contains, and holds any interest in it to be injurious to +the sole true, transcendental interest; an amiable and modest +youth who, through a remarkable concatenation of circumstances +<pb n='320'/><anchor id='Pg320'/> +arrived at the idea, which was at that time epidemic,<note place='foot'>Eduard von Hartmann ought, therefore, to have given his assistance to the others +who have made this assertion in proving that there really existed Messianic claimants +before and at the time of Jesus.</note> that He was +Himself the expected Messiah, and in consequence of this met +His fate.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is to be regretted that a mind like Eduard von Hartmann's +should not have got beyond the externals of the history, and made +an effort to grasp the simple and impressive greatness of the figure +of Jesus in its eschatological setting; and that he should imagine +he has disposed of the strangeness which he finds in Jesus when +he has made it as small as possible. And yet in another respect +there is something satisfactory about his book. It is the open +struggle of the Germanic spirit with Jesus. In this battle the victory +will rest with true greatness. Others wanted to make peace before +the struggle, or thought that theologians could fight the battle +alone, and spare their contemporaries the doubts about the historical +Jesus through which it was necessary to pass in order to reach the +eternal Jesus—and to this end they kept preaching reconciliation +while fighting the battle. They could only preach it on a basis of +postulates, and postulates make poor preaching! Thus, Jülicher, +for example, in his latest sketches of the Life of Jesus<note place='foot'><p><q>Jesus,</q> by Jülicher, in <hi rend='italic'>Die Kultur der Gegenwart</hi>. (An encyclopaedic +publication which is appearing in parts.) Teubner, Berlin, 1905, pp. 40-69. +</p> +<p> +See also W. Bousset, <q>Jesus,</q> <hi rend='italic'>Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher</hi>. (A series of +religious-historical monographs.) Published by Schiele, Halle, 1904. +</p> +<p> +Here should be mentioned also the thoughtful book, following very much the lines +of Jülicher, by Eduard Grimm, entitled <hi rend='italic'>Die Ethik Jesu</hi>, Hamburg, 1903, 288 pp. +The author, born in 1848, is the chief pastor at the Nicolaikirche in Hamburg. +</p> +<p> +Another work which deserves mention is Arno Neumann, <hi rend='italic'>Jesu wie er +geschichtlich war</hi> (Jesus as he historically existed), Freiburg, 1904, 198 pp. (New +Paths to the Old God), a Life of Jesus distinguished by a lofty vein of natural poetry +and based upon solid theological knowledge. Arno Neumann is headmaster of a +school at Apolda.</p></note> distinguishes +between <q>Jewish and supra-Jewish</q> in Jesus, and holds that Jesus +transferred the ideal of the Kingdom of God <q>to the solid ground +of the present, bringing it into the course of historical events,</q> +and further <q>associated with the Kingdom of God</q> the idea of +development which was utterly opposed to all Jewish ideas about +the Kingdom. Jülicher also desires to raise <q>the strongest +protest against the poor little definition of His preaching which +makes it consist in nothing further than an announcement of the +nearness of the Kingdom, and an exhortation to the repentance +necessary as a condition for attaining the Kingdom.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But when has a protest against the pure truth of history ever +been of any avail? Why proclaim peace where there is no peace, +and attempt to put back the clock of time? Is it not enough that +Schleiermacher and Ritschl succeeded again and again in making +theology send on earth peace instead of a sword, and does not the +<pb n='321'/><anchor id='Pg321'/> +weakness of Christian thought as compared with the general culture +of our time result from the fact that it did not face the battle when +it ought to have faced it, but persisted in appealing to a court of +arbitration on which all the sciences were represented, but which +it had successfully bribed in advance? +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +Now there comes to join the philosophers a jurist. Herr +Doctor jur. De Jonge lends his aid to Eduard von Hartmann +in <q>destroying the ecclesiastical,</q> and <q>unveiling the Jewish picture +of Jesus.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Jeschua. Der klassische jüdische Mann. Zerstörung des kirchlichen, Enthüllung +des jüdischen Jesus-Bildes.</hi> Berlin, 1904, 112 pp. Earlier studies of the Life of Jesus +from the Jewish point of view had been less ambitious. Dr. Aug. Wünsche had written +in 1872 on <q>Jesus in His attitude towards women</q> from the Talmudic standpoint +(146 pp.), and had described Him from the same standpoint as a Jesus who rejoiced +in life, <hi rend='italic'>Der lebensfreudige Jesus der synoptischen Evangelien im Gegensatz zum +leidenden Messias der Kirche</hi>. Leipzig, 1876, 444 pp. The basis is so far correct, +that the eschatological, world-renouncing ethic which we find in Jesus was due to +temporary conditions and is therefore transitory, and had nothing whatever to do +with Judaism as such. The spirit of the Law is the opposite of world-renouncing. +But the Talmud, be its traditions never so trustworthy, could teach us little about Jesus +because it has preserved scarcely a trace of that eschatological phase of Jewish +religion and ethics.</note> +</p> + +<p> +De Jonge is a Jew by birth, baptized in 1889, who on the +22nd of November 1902 again separated himself from the Christian +communion and was desirous of being received back <q>with certain +evangelical reservations</q> into the Jewish community. In spite of +his faithful observance of the Law, this was refused. Now he is +waiting <q>until in the Synagogue of the twentieth century a freedom +of conscience is accorded to him equal to that which in the first +century was enjoyed by John, the beloved disciple of Jeschua of +Nazareth.</q> In the meantime he beguiles the period of waiting +by describing Jesus and His earliest followers in the character of +pattern Jews, and sets them to work in the interest of his <q>Jewish +views with evangelical reservations.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is the colourless, characterless Jesus of the Superintendents +and Konsistorialrats which especially arouses his enmity. With +this figure he contrasts his own Jesus, the man of holy anger, the +man of holy calm, the man of holy melancholy, the master of +dialectic, the imperious ruler, the man of high gifts and practical +ability, the man of inexorable consistency and reforming vigour. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus was, according to De Jonge, a pupil of Hillel. He +demanded voluntary poverty only in special cases, not as a general +principle. In the case of the rich young man, He knew <q>that the +property which he had inherited was derived in this particular case +from impure sources which must be cut off at once and for ever.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But how does De Jonge know that Jesus knew this? +</p> + +<p> +A writer who is attacking the common theological picture of +Jesus, and who displays in the process, as De Jonge does, not only +<pb n='322'/><anchor id='Pg322'/> +wit and address, but historical intuition, ought not to fall into the +error of the theology with which he is at feud; he ought to use +sober history as his weapon against the supplementary knowledge +which his opponents seem to find between the lines, instead of +meeting it with an esoteric historical knowledge of his own. +</p> + +<p> +De Jonge knows that Jesus possessed property inherited from +His father: <q>One proof may serve where many might be given—the +hasty flight into Egypt with his whole family to escape from +Herod, and the long sojourn in that country.</q> +</p> + +<p> +De Jonge knows—he is here, however, following the Gospel of +John, to which he everywhere gives the preference—that Jesus was +between forty and fifty years old at the time of His first coming +forward publicly. The statement in Luke iii. 23, that He was ὡσεί +thirty years old, can only mislead those who do not remember that +Luke was a portrait painter and only meant that <q>Jeschua, in +consequence of His glorious beauty and His ever-youthful appearance, +looked ten years younger than He really was.</q> +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +De Jonge knows also that Jesus, at the time when He first +emerged from obscurity, was a widower and had a little son—the +<q>lad</q> of John vi. 9, who had the five barley loaves and two fishes, +was in fact His son. This and many other things the author finds +in <q>the glorious John.</q> According to De Jonge too we ought to +think of Jesus as the aristocratic Jew, more accustomed to a dress +coat than to a workman's blouse, something of an expert, as +appears from some of the parables, in matters of the table, and +conning the menu with interest when He dined with <q>privy-finance-councillor</q> +Zacchaeus. +</p> + +<p> +But this is to modernise more distressingly than even the +theologians! +</p> + +<p> +De Jonge's one-sided preference for the Fourth Gospel is shared +by Kirchbach's book, <q>What did Jesus teach?</q><note place='foot'>Wolfgang Kirchbach, <hi rend='italic'>Was lehrte Jesus? Zwei Urevangelien</hi>. Berlin, 1897, +248 pp.; second greatly enlarged and improved edition, 1902, 339 pp. By the same +author, <hi rend='italic'>Das Buch Jesus</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>Die Urevangelien. Neu nachgewiesen, neu übersetzt, geordnet +und aus der Ursprache erklärt</hi>. (The Book of Jesus. The Primitive Gospels. Newly +traced, translated, arranged, and explained on the basis of the original.) Berlin, +1897.</note> but here everything, +instead of being judaised, is spiritualised. Kirchbach does +not seem to have been acquainted with Noack's <q>History of Jesus,</q> +otherwise he would hardly have ventured to repeat the same +experiment without the latter's touch of genius and with much less +skill and knowledge. +</p> + +<p> +The teaching of Jesus is interpreted on the lines of the Kantian +philosophy. The saying, <q>No man hath seen God at any time,</q> is +to be understood as if it were derived from the same system of +thought as the <q>Critique of Pure Reason.</q> Jesus always used the +<pb n='323'/><anchor id='Pg323'/> +words <q>death</q> and <q>life</q> in a purely metaphorical sense. Eternal +life is for Him not a life in another world, but in the present. He +speaks of Himself as the Son of God, not as the Jewish Messiah. +Son of Man is only the ethical explanation of Son of God. The +only reason why a Son-of-Man problem has arisen, is because +Matthew translated the ancient term Son of Man in the original +collection of Logia <q>with extreme literality.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The great discourse of Matt. xxiii. with its warnings and +threatenings is, according to Kirchbach, merely <q>a patriotic oration +in which Jesus gives expression in moving words to His opposition +to the Pharisees and His inborn love of His native land.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The teaching of Jesus is not ascetic, it closely resembles the +real teaching of Epicurus, <q>that is, the rejection of all false metaphysics, +and the resulting condition of blessedness, of <foreign rend='italic'>makaria</foreign>.</q> +The only purpose of the demand addressed to the rich young man +was to try him. <q>If the youth, instead of slinking away dejectedly +because he was called upon to sell all his goods, had replied, +confident in the possession of a rich fund of courage, energy, ability, +and knowledge, <q>Right gladly. It will not go to my heart to part +with my little bit of property; if I'm not to have it, why then I can +do without it,</q> the Rabbi would probably in that case not have +taken him at his word, but would have said, <q>Young man, I like +you. You have a good chance before you, you may do something +in the Kingdom of God, and in any case for My sake you may +attach yourself to Me by way of trial. We can talk about your +stocks and bonds later.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +Finally, Kirchbach succeeds, though only, it must be admitted, +by the aid of some rather awkward phraseology, in spiritualising +John vi. <q>It is not the body,</q> he explains, <q>of the long departed +thinker, who apparently attached no importance whatever to the +question of personal survival, that we, who understand Him in the +right Greek sense, <q>eat</q>; in the sense which He intended, we eat +and drink, and absorb into ourselves, His teaching, His spirit, His +sublime conception of life, by constantly recalling them in connexion +with the symbol of bread and flesh, the symbol of blood, the +symbol of water.</q><note place='foot'>Before him, Hugo Delff, in his <hi rend='italic'>History of the Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth</hi> (Leipzig, +1889, 428 pp.), had confined himself to the Fourth Gospel, and even within that +Gospel he drew some critical distinctions. His Jesus at first conceals His Messiahship +from the fear of arousing the political expectations of the people, and speaks to them +of the Son of Man in the third person. At His second visit to Jerusalem He breaks +with the rulers, is subsequently compelled, in consequence of the conflict over the +Sabbath, to leave Galilee, and then gives up His own people and turns to the heathen. +Delff explains the raising of Lazarus by supposing him to have been buried in a state +of trance.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Worthless as Kirchbach's Life of Jesus is from an historical point +of view, it is quite comprehensible as a phase in the struggle +between the modern view of the world and Jesus. The aim of the +<pb n='324'/><anchor id='Pg324'/> +work is to retain His significance for a metaphysical and non-ascetic +time; and since it is not possible to do this in the case of the +historical Jesus, the author denies His existence in favour of an +apocryphal Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +It is, in fact, the characteristic feature of the Life-of-Jesus +literature on the threshold of the new century even in the productions +of professedly historical and scientific theology, to subordinate +the historical interest to the interest of the general world-view. And +those who <q>wrest the Kingdom of Heaven</q> are beginning to wrest +Jesus Himself along with it. Men who have no qualifications for +the task, whose ignorance is nothing less than criminal, who loftily +anathematise scientific theology instead of making themselves in +some measure acquainted with the researches which it has carried +out, feel impelled to write a Life of Jesus, in order to set forth their +general religious view in a portrait of Jesus which has not the +faintest claim to be historical, and the most far-fetched of these +find favour, and are eagerly absorbed by the multitude. +</p> + +<p> +It would be something to be thankful for if all these Lives of +Jesus were based on as definite an idea and as acute historical +observation as we find in Albert Dulk's <q>The Error of the +Life of Jesus.</q><note place='foot'>Albert Dulk, <hi rend='italic'>Der Irrgang des Lebens Jesu</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>In geschichtlicher Aufassung +dargestellt. Erster Teil: Die historischen Wurzeln und die galiläische Blüte</hi>, 1884. +395 pp. <hi rend='italic'>Zweiter Teil: Der Messiaseinzug und die Erhebung ans Kreuz</hi>, 1885, 302 +pp. (The Error of the Life of Jesus. Historically apprehended and set forth. +Pt. i., The Historical Roots and the Galilaean Blossom. Pt. ii., The Messianic Entry +and the Crucifixion.) The course of Dulk's own life was somewhat erratic. Born +in 1819, he came prominently forward in the revolution of 1848, as a political +pamphleteer and agitator. Later, though almost without means, he undertook +long journeys, even to Sinai and to Lapland. Finally, he worked as a social +democratic reformer. He died in 1884.</note> In Dulk the story of the fate of Jesus is also the +story of the fate of religion. The Galilaean teacher, whose true +character was marked by deep religious inwardness, was doomed to +destruction from the moment when He set Himself upon the dizzy +heights of the divine sonship and the eschatological expectation. +He died in despair, having vainly expected, down to the very last, a +<q>telegram from heaven.</q> Religion as a whole can only avoid the +same fate by renouncing all transcendental elements. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +The vast numbers of imaginative Lives of Jesus shrink into +remarkably small compass on a close examination. When one +knows two or three of them, one knows them all. They have +scarcely altered since Venturini's time, except that some of the +cures performed by Jesus are handled in the modern Lives from the +point of view of the recent investigations in hypnotism and +suggestion.<note place='foot'>A scientific treatment of this subject is supplied by Fr. Nippold, <hi rend='italic'>Die +psychiatrische Seite der Heilstätigkeit Jesu</hi> (The Psychiatric Side of Jesus' Works of +Healing), 1889, in which a luminous review of the medical material is to be found. +See also Dr. K. Kunz, <hi rend='italic'>Christus medicus</hi>, Freiburg in Baden, 1905, 74 pp. The +scientific value of this work is, however, very much reduced by the fact that the +author has no acquaintance with the preliminary questions belonging to the sphere of +history and literature, and regards all the miracles of healing as actual events, +believing himself able to explain them from the medical point of view. The tendency +of the work is mainly apologetic.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='325'/><anchor id='Pg325'/> + +<p> +According to Paul de Régla<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Jesus von Nazareth. Described from the Scientific, Historical, and Social Point of +View.</hi> Translated from the French (into German) by A. Just. Leipzig, 1894. The +author, whose real name is P. A. Desjardin, is a practising physician. De Régla, +too, makes the Fourth Gospel the basis of his narrative.</note> Jesus was born out of wedlock. +Joseph, however, gave shelter and protection to the mother. De +Régla dwells on the beauty of the child. <q>His eyes were not +exceptionally large, but were well-opened, and were shaded by long, +silky, dark-brown eyelashes, and rather deep-set. They were of a +blue-grey colour, which changed with changing emotions, taking on +various shades, especially blue and brownish-grey.</q> +</p> + +<p> +He and His disciples were Essenes, as was also the Baptist. +That implies that He was no longer a Jew in the strict sense. His +preaching dealt with the rights of man, and put forward socialistic +and communistic demands: His religion in the pure consciousness +of communion with God. With eschatology He had nothing whatever +to do, it was first interpolated into His teaching by Matthew. +</p> + +<p> +The miracles are all to be explained by suggestion and +hypnotism. At the marriage at Cana, Jesus noticed that the guests +were taking too much, and therefore secretly bade the servants +pour out water instead of wine while He Himself said, <q>Drink, this +is better wine.</q> In this way He succeeded in suggesting to a part +of the company that they were really drinking wine. The +feeding of the multitude is explained by striking out a couple of +noughts from the numbers; the raising of Lazarus by supposing it a +case of premature burial. Jesus Himself when taken down from +the cross was not dead, and the Essenes succeeded in reanimating +Him. His work is inspired with hatred against Catholicism, but +with a real reverence for Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +Another mere variant of the plan of Venturini is the fictitious +Life of Jesus of Pierre Nahor.<note place='foot'>Pierre Nahor (Emilie Lerou), <hi rend='italic'>Jesus</hi>. Translated from the French by Walter +Bloch. Berlin, 1905. Its motto is: The figure of Jesus belongs, like all mysterious, +heroic, or mythical figures, to legend and poetry. In the introduction we find the +statement, <q>This book is a confession of faith.</q> The narrative is based on the +Fourth Gospel.</note> The sentimental descriptions of +nature and the long dialogues characteristic of the Lives of Jesus +of a hundred years ago are here again in full force. After John +had already begun to preach in the neighbourhood of the Dead +Sea, Jesus, in company with a distinguished Brahmin who possessed +property at Nazareth and had an influential following in Jerusalem, +made a journey to Egypt and was there indoctrinated into all kinds +of Egyptian, Essene, and Indian philosophy, thus giving the author, +<pb n='326'/><anchor id='Pg326'/> +or rather the authoress, an opportunity to develop her ideas on +the philosophy of religion in didactic dialogues. When He soon +afterwards begins to work in Galilee the young teacher is much +aided by the fact that, at the instance of His fellow-traveller, He +had acquired from Egyptian mendicants a practical acquaintance +with the secrets of hypnotism. By His skill He healed Mary of +Magdala, a distinguished courtesan of Tiberias. They had met +before at Alexandria. After being cured she left Tiberias and +went to live in a small house, inherited from her mother, at +Magdala. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus Himself never went to Tiberias, but the social world of +that place took an interest in Him, and often had itself rowed to +the beach when He was preaching. Rich and pious ladies used to +inquire of Him where He thought of preaching to the people on a +given day, and sent baskets of bread and dried fish to the spot +which He indicated, that the multitude might not suffer hunger. +This is the explanation of the stories about the feeding of the +multitudes; the people had no idea whence Jesus suddenly +obtained the supplies which He caused His disciples to distribute. +</p> + +<p> +When he became aware that the priests had resolved upon +His death, He made His friend Joseph of Arimathea, a leading +man among the Essenes, promise that he would take Him down +from the cross as soon as possible and lay Him in the grave without +other witnesses. Only Nicodemus was to be present. On the +cross He put Himself into a cataleptic trance; He was taken down +from the cross seemingly dead, and came to Himself again in the +grave. After appearing several times to His disciples he set out +for Nazareth and dragged His way painfully thither. With a last +effort He reaches the house of His mysterious old Indian teacher. +At the door He falls helpless, just as the morning dawns. The old +slave-woman recognises Him and carries Him into the house, +where He dies. <q>The serene solemn night withdrew and day +broke in blinding splendour behind Tiberias.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Nikolas Notowitsch<note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>La Vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ.</hi> Paris, 1894. 301 pp. German, under the +title <hi rend='italic'>Die Lücke im Leben Jesu</hi> (The Gap in the Life of Jesus). Stuttgart, 1894. 186 pp. +See Holtzmann in the <hi rend='italic'>Theol. Jahresbericht</hi>, xiv. p. 140. +</p> +<p> +In a certain limited sense the work of A. Lillie, <hi rend='italic'>The Influence of Buddhism on +Primitive Christianity</hi> (London, 1893), is to be numbered among the fictitious works +on the life of Jesus. The fictitious element consists in Jesus being made an Essene +by the writer, and Essenism equated with Buddhism. +</p> +<p> +Among <q>edifying</q> romances on the life of Jesus intended for family reading, +that of the English writer J. H. Ingraham, <hi rend='italic'>The Prince of the House of David</hi>, +has had a very long lease of life. It appeared in a German translation as early as +1858, and was reissued in 1906 (Brunswick). +</p> +<p> +A fictitious life of Jesus of wonderful beauty is Peter Rosegger's <hi rend='italic'>I.N.R.I. Frohe +Botschaft eines armen Sünders</hi> (The Glad Tidings of a poor Sinner). Leipzig, 6th-10th +thousand, 1906. 293 pp. +</p> +<p> +A feminine point of view reveals itself in C. Rauch's <hi rend='italic'>Jeschua ben Joseph</hi>. +Deichert, 1899.</p></note> finds in Luke i. 80 (<q>And the child grew +<pb n='327'/><anchor id='Pg327'/> +... and was in the deserts until the day of his shewing unto Israel</q>) +a <q>gap in the life of Jesus,</q> in spite of the fact that this passage +refers to the Baptist, and proposes to fill it by putting Jesus to +school with the Brahmins and Buddhists from His thirteenth to +His twenty-ninth year. As evidence for this he refers to statements +about Buddhist worship of a certain Issa which he professes to +have found in the monasteries of Little Thibet. The whole thing +is, as was shown by the experts, a barefaced swindle and an +impudent invention. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +To the fictitious Lives of Jesus belong also in the main the +theosophical <q>Lives,</q> which equally play fast and loose with the +history, though here with a view to proving that Jesus had absorbed +the Egyptian and Indian theosophy, and had been indoctrinated +with <q>occult science.</q> The theosophists, however, have the +advantage of escaping the dilemma between reanimation after a +trance and resurrection, since they are convinced that it was +possible for Jesus to reassume His body after He had really died. +But in the touching up and embellishment of the Gospel narratives +they out-do even the romancers. +</p> + +<p> +Ernest Bosc,<note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>La Vie ésotérique de Jésu-Christ et les origines orientales du christianisme.</hi> +Paris, 1902. 445 pp. +</p> +<p> +That Jesus was of Aryan race is argued by A. Müller, who assumes a Gaulish +immigration into Galilee. <hi rend='italic'>Jesus ein Arier.</hi> Leipzig, 1904. 74 pp.</p></note> writing as a theosophist, makes it the chief aim of +his work to describe the oriental origin of Christianity, and +ventures to assert that Jesus was not a Semite, but an Aryan. The +Fourth Gospel is, of course, the basis of his representation. He +does not hesitate, however, to appeal also to the anonymous +<q>Revelations</q> published in 1849, which are a mere plagiarism +from Venturini. +</p> + +<p> +A work which is written with some ability and with much +out-of-the-way learning is <q>Did Jesus live 100 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi>?</q><note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>Did Jesus live 100 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi>?</hi> London and Benares. Theosophical Publishing +Society, 1903. 440 pp. +</p> +<p> +A scientific discussion of the <q>Toledoth Jeshu,</q> with citations from the Talmudic +tradition concerning Jesus, is offered by S. Krauss, <hi rend='italic'>Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen +Quellen</hi>, 1902. 309 pp. According to him the <hi rend='italic'>Toledoth Jeshu</hi> was committed +to writing in the fifth century, and he is of opinion that the Jewish legend is only a +modified version of the Christian tradition.</p></note> The author +compares the Christian tradition with the Jewish, and finds in the +latter a reminiscence of a Jesus who lived in the time of Alexander +Jannaeus (104-76 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi>). This person was transferred by the +earliest Evangelist to the later period, the attempt being facilitated +by the fact that during the procuratorship of Pilate a false prophet +had attracted some attention. The author, however, only professes +to offer it as a hypothesis, and apologises in advance for the offence +which it is likely to cause. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='328'/><anchor id='Pg328'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>XIX. Thoroughgoing Scepticism And Thoroughgoing Eschatology</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>W. Wrede.</hi> Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum +Verständnis des Markusevangeliums. (The Messianic Secret in the Gospels. +Forming a contribution also to the understanding of the Gospel of Mark.) +Göttingen, 1901. 286 pp. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Albert Schweitzer.</hi> Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis. Eine Skizze des +Lebens Jesu. (The Secret of the Messiahship and the Passion. A Sketch of +the Life of Jesus.) Tübingen and Leipzig, 1901. 109 pp. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The coincidence between the work of Wrede<note place='foot'><p>William Wrede, born in 1859 at Bücken in Hanover, was Professor at Breslau. +(He died in 1907.) +</p> +<p> +Wrede names as his real predecessors on the same lines Bruno Bauer, Volkmar, +and the Dutch writer Hoekstra (<q>De Christologie van het canonieke Marcus-Evangelie, +vergeleken met die van de beide andere synoptische Evangelien,</q> <hi rend='italic'>Theol. +Tijdschrift</hi>, v., 1871). +</p> +<p> +In a certain limited degree the work of Ernest Havet (<hi rend='italic'>Le Christianisme et ses +origines</hi>) has a claim to be classed in the same category. His scepticism refers +principally to the entry into Jerusalem and the story of the passion.</p></note> and the <q>Sketch of +the Life of Jesus</q> is not more surprising in regard to the time of +their appearance than in regard to the character of their contents. +They appeared upon the self-same day, their titles are almost +identical, and their agreement in the criticism of the modern +historical conception of the life of Jesus extends sometimes to the +very phraseology. And yet they are written from quite different +standpoints, one from the point of view of literary criticism, the +other from that of the historical recognition of eschatology. It +seems to be the fate of the Marcan hypothesis that at the decisive +periods its problems should always be attacked simultaneously and +independently from the literary and the historical sides, and the +results declared in two different forms which corroborate each +other. So it was in the case of Weisse and Wilke; so it is again +now, when, retaining the assumption of the priority of Mark, the +historicity of the hitherto accepted view of the life of Jesus, based +upon the Marcan narrative, is called in question. +</p> + +<pb n='329'/><anchor id='Pg329'/> + +<p> +The meaning of that is that the literary and the eschatological +view, which have hitherto been marching parallel, on either flank, +to the advance of modern theology, have now united their forces, +brought theology to a halt, surrounded it, and compelled it to give +battle. +</p> + +<p> +That in the last three or four years so much has been written +in which this enveloping movement has been ignored does not alter +the real position of modern historical theology in the least. The +fact is deserving of notice that during this period the study of the +subject has not made a step in advance, but has kept moving to +and fro upon the old lines with wearisome iteration, and has +thrown itself with excessive zeal into the work of popularisation, +simply because it was incapable of advancing. +</p> + +<p> +And even if it professes gratitude to Wrede for the very +interesting historical point which he has brought into the discussion, +and is also willing to admit that thoroughgoing eschatology has +advanced the solution of many problems, these are mere demonstrations +which are quite inadequate to raise the blockade of modern +theology by the allied forces. Supposing that only a half—nay, only +a third—of the critical arguments which are common to Wrede and +the <q>Sketch of the Life of Jesus</q> are sound, then the modern +historical view of the history is wholly ruined. +</p> + +<p> +The reader of Wrede's book cannot help feeling that here no +quarter is given; and any one who goes carefully through the present +writer's <q>Sketch</q> must come to see that between the modern +historical and the eschatological Life of Jesus no compromise is +possible. +</p> + +<p> +Thoroughgoing scepticism and thoroughgoing eschatology may, +in their union, either destroy, or be destroyed by modern historical +theology; but they cannot combine with it and enable it to advance, +any more than they can be advanced by it. +</p> + +<p> +We are confronted with a decisive issue. As with Strauss's +<q>Life of Jesus,</q> so with the surprising agreement in the critical +basis of these two schools—we are not here considering the +respective solutions which they offer—there has entered into the +domain of the theology of the day a force with which it cannot +possibly ally itself. Its whole territory is threatened. It must +either reconquer it step by step or else surrender it. It has no +longer the right to advance a single assertion until it has taken up +a definite position in regard to the fundamental questions raised +by the new criticism. +</p> + +<p> +Modern historical theology is no doubt still far from recognising +this. It is warned that the dyke is letting in water and sends a +couple of masons to repair the leak; as if the leak did not mean +that the whole masonry is undermined, and must be rebuilt from +the foundation. +</p> + +<pb n='330'/><anchor id='Pg330'/> + +<p> +To vary the metaphor, theology comes home to find the broker's +marks on all the furniture and goes on as before quite comfortably, +ignoring the fact it will lose everything if it does not pay its debts. +</p> + +<p> +The critical objections which Wrede and the <q>Sketch</q> agree +in bringing against the modern treatment of the subject are as +follows. +</p> + +<p> +In order to find in Mark the Life of Jesus of which it is in +search, modern theology is obliged to read between the lines a whole +host of things, and those often the most important, and then to +foist them upon the text by means of psychological conjecture. It +is determined to find evidence in Mark of a development of Jesus, +a development of the disciples, and a development of the outer +circumstances; and professes in so doing to be only reproducing +the views and indications of the Evangelist. In reality, however, +there is not a word of all this in the Evangelist, and when his +interpreters are asked what are the hints and indications on which +they base their assertions they have nothing to offer save <foreign rend='italic'>argumenta +e silentio</foreign>. +</p> + +<p> +Mark knows nothing of any development in Jesus; he knows +nothing of any paedagogic considerations which are supposed to +have determined the conduct of Jesus towards the disciples and the +people; he knows nothing of any conflict in the mind of Jesus +between a spiritual and a popular, political Messianic ideal; he does +not know, either, that in this respect there was any difference +between the view of Jesus and that of the people; he knows nothing +of the idea that the use of the ass at the triumphal entry symbolised +a non-political Messiahship; he knows nothing of the idea that the +question about the Messiah's being the Son of David had something +to do with this alternative between political and non-political; +he does not know, either, that Jesus explained the secret of the +passion to the disciples, nor that they had any understanding of it; +he only knows that from first to last they were in all respects +equally wanting in understanding; he does not know that the first +period was a period of success and the second a period of failure; +he represents the Pharisees and Herodians as (from iii. 6 onwards) +resolved upon the death of Jesus, while the people, down to the +very last day when He preached in the temple, are enthusiastically +loyal to Him. +</p> + +<p> +All these things of which the Evangelist says nothing—and they +are the foundations of the modern view—should first be proved, if +proved they can be; they ought not to be simply read into the text +as something self-evident. For it is just those things which appear +so self-evident to the prevailing critical temper which are in reality +the least evident of all. +</p> + +<p> +Another hitherto self-evident point—the <q>historical kernel</q> +which it has been customary to extract from the narratives—must +<pb n='331'/><anchor id='Pg331'/> +be given up, until it is proved, if it is capable of proof, that we +can and ought to distinguish between the kernel and the husk. +We may take all that is reported as either historical or unhistorical, +but, in respect of the definite predictions of the passion, death, and +resurrection, we ought to give up taking the reference to the +passion as historical and letting the rest go; we may accept the +idea of the atoning death, or we may reject it, but we ought not +to ascribe to Jesus a feeble, anaemic version of this idea, while +setting down to the account of the Pauline theology the interpretation +of the passion which we actually find in Mark. +</p> + +<p> +Whatever the results obtained by the aid of the historical +kernel, the method pursued is the same; <q>it is detached from its +context and transformed into something different.</q> <q>It finally +comes to this,</q> says Wrede, <q>that each critic retains whatever +portion of the traditional sayings can be fitted into his construction +of the facts and his conception of historical possibility and rejects +the rest.</q> The psychological explanation of motive, and the +psychological connexion of the events and actions which such +critics have proposed to find in Mark, simply do not exist. That +being so, nothing is to be made out of his account by the application +of a priori psychology. A vast quantity of treasures of scholarship +and erudition, of art and artifice, which the Marcan hypothesis +has gathered into its storehouse in the two generations of its +existence to aid it in constructing its life of Jesus has become +worthless, and can be of no further service to true historical research. +Theology has been simplified. What would become of it if that +did not happen every hundred years or so? And the simplification +was badly needed, for no one since Strauss had cleared away +its impedimenta. +</p> + +<p> +Thoroughgoing scepticism and thoroughgoing eschatology, +between them, are compelling theology to read the Marcan text +again with simplicity of mind. The simplicity consists in +dispensing with the connecting links which it has been accustomed +to discover between the sections of the narrative (<emph>pericopes</emph>), in +looking at each one separately, and recognising that it is difficult to +pass from one to the other. +</p> + +<p> +The material with which it has hitherto been usual to solder the +sections together into a life of Jesus will not stand the temperature +test. Exposed to the cold air of critical scepticism it cracks; +when the furnace of eschatology is heated to a certain point the +solderings melt. In both cases the sections all fall apart. +</p> + +<p> +Formerly it was possible to book through-tickets at the +supplementary-psychological-knowledge office which enabled those +travelling in the interests of Life-of-Jesus construction to use +express trains, thus avoiding the inconvenience of having to stop +at every little station, change, and run the risk of missing their +<pb n='332'/><anchor id='Pg332'/> +connexion. This ticket office is now closed. There is a station +at the end of each section of the narrative, and the connexions are +not guaranteed. +</p> + +<p> +The fact is, it is not simply that there is no very obvious +psychological connexion between the sections; in almost every +case there is a positive break in the connexion. And there is a +great deal in the Marcan narrative which is inexplicable and even +self-contradictory. +</p> + +<p> +In their statement of the problems raised by this want of connexion +Wrede and the <q>Sketch</q> are in the most exact agreement. +That these difficulties are not artificially constructed has been +shown by our survey of the history of the attempts to write the Life +of Jesus, in the course of which these problems emerge one after +another, after Bruno Bauer had by anticipation grasped them +all in their complexity. +</p> + +<p> +How do the demoniacs know that Jesus is the Son of God? +Why does the blind man at Jericho address Him as the Son of +David, when no one else knows His Messianic dignity? How was +it that these occurrences did not give a new direction to the +thoughts of the people in regard to Jesus? How did the Messianic +entry come about? How was it possible without provoking the +interference of the Roman garrison of occupation? Why is it as +completely ignored in the subsequent controversies as if had never +taken place? Why was it not brought up at the trial of Jesus? +<q>The Messianic acclamation at the entry into Jerusalem,</q> says +Wrede, <q>is in Mark quite an isolated incident. It has no sequel, +neither is there any preparation for it beforehand.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Why does Jesus in Mark iv. 10-12 speak of the parabolic form +of discourse as designed to conceal the mystery of the Kingdom of +God, whereas the explanation which He proceeds to give to the +disciples has nothing mysterious about it? What is the mystery +of the Kingdom of God? Why does Jesus forbid His miracles to +be made known even in cases where there is no apparent purpose +for the prohibition? Why is His Messiahship a secret and yet no +secret, since it is known, not only to the disciples, but to the +demoniacs, the blind man at Jericho, the multitude at Jerusalem—which +must, as Bruno Bauer expresses it, <q>have fallen from +heaven</q>—and to the High Priest? +</p> + +<p> +Why does Jesus first reveal His Messiahship to the disciples at +Caesarea Philippi, not at the moment when He sends them forth to +preach? How does Peter know without having been told by +Jesus that the Messiahship belongs to his Master? Why +must it remain a secret until the <q>resurrection</q>? Why does +Jesus indicate His Messiahship only by the title Son of Man? And +why is it that this title is so far from prominent in primitive +Christian theology? +</p> + +<pb n='333'/><anchor id='Pg333'/> + +<p> +What is the meaning of the statement that Jesus at Jerusalem +discovered a difficulty in the fact that the Messiah was described +as at once David's son and David's Lord? How are we to explain +the fact that Jesus had to open the eyes of the people to the +greatness of the Baptist's office, subsequently to the mission of the +Twelve, and to enlighten the disciples themselves in regard to it +during the descent from the mount of transfiguration? Why should +this be described in Matt. xi. 14 and 15 as a mystery difficult to +grasp (<q>If ye can receive it</q> ... <q>He that hath ears to hear, +let him hear</q>)? What is the meaning of the saying that he that +is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than the Baptist? +Does the Baptist, then, not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? +How is the Kingdom of Heaven subjected to violence since the +days of the Baptist? Who are the violent? What is the Baptist +intended to understand from the answer of Jesus? +</p> + +<p> +What importance was attached to the miracles by Jesus Himself? +What office must they have caused the people to attribute +to Him? Why is the discourse at the sending out of the Twelve +filled with predictions of persecutions which experience had given +no reason to anticipate, and which did not, as a matter of fact, +occur? What is the meaning of the saying in Matt. x. 23 about +the imminent coming of the Son of Man, seeing that the disciples +after all returned to Jesus without its being fulfilled? Why does +Jesus leave the people just when His work among them is most +successful, and journey northwards? Why had He, immediately +after the sending forth of the Twelve, manifested a desire to +withdraw Himself from the multitude who were longing for +salvation? +</p> + +<p> +How does the multitude mentioned in Mark viii. 34 suddenly +appear at Caesarea Philippi? Why is its presence no longer +implied in Mark ix. 30? How could Jesus possibly have travelled +unrecognised through Galilee, and how could He have avoided +being thronged in Capernaum although He stayed at <q>the +house</q>? +</p> + +<p> +How came He so suddenly to speak to His disciples of His +suffering and dying and rising again, without, moreover, explaining +to them either the natural or the moral <q>wherefore</q>? <q>There is +no trace of any attempt on the part of Jesus,</q> says Wrede, <q>to +break this strange thought gradually to His disciples ... the +prediction is always flung down before the disciples without +preparation, it is, in fact, a characteristic feature of these sayings +that all attempt to aid the understanding of the disciples is +lacking.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Did Jesus journey to Jerusalem with the purpose of working +there, or of dying there? How comes it that in Mark x. 39, He +holds out to the sons of Zebedee the prospect of drinking His +<pb n='334'/><anchor id='Pg334'/> +cup and being baptized with His baptism? And how can He, +after speaking so decidedly of the necessity of His death, think +it possible in Gethsemane that the cup might yet pass from Him? +Who are the undefined <q>many,</q> for whom, according to Mark +x. 45 and xiv. 24, His death shall serve as a ransom?<note place='foot'>These and the following questions are raised more especially in the <hi rend='italic'>Sketch +of the Life of Jesus</hi>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +How came it that Jesus alone was arrested? Why were no +witnesses called at His trial to testify that He had given Himself +out to be the Messiah? How is it that on the morning after His +arrest the temper of the multitude seems to be completely changed, +so that no one stirs a finger to help Him? +</p> + +<p> +In what form does Jesus conceive the resurrection, which He +promises to His disciples, to be combined with the coming on the +clouds of heaven, to which He points His judge? In what relation +do these predictions stand to the prospect held out at the time of +the sending forth of the Twelve, but not realized, of the immediate +appearance of the Son of Man? +</p> + +<p> +What is the meaning of the further prediction on the way to +Gethsemane (Mark xiv. 28) that after His resurrection He will go +before the disciples into Galilee? How is the other version of this +saying (Mark xvi. 7) to be explained, according to which it means, +as spoken by the angel, that the disciples are to journey to Galilee +to have their first meeting with the risen Jesus there, whereas, on +the lips of Jesus, it betokened that, just as now as a sufferer He +was going before them from Galilee to Jerusalem, so, after His +resurrection, He would go before them from Jerusalem to Galilee? +And what was to happen there? +</p> + +<p> +These problems were covered up by the naturalistic psychology +as by a light snow-drift. The snow has melted, and they now stand +out from the narratives like black points of rock. It is no longer +allowable to avoid these questions, or to solve them, each by itself, +by softening them down and giving them an interpretation by +which the reported facts acquire a quite different significance from +that which they bear for the Evangelist. Either the Marcan text +as it stands is historical, and therefore to be retained, or it is not, +and then it should be given up. What is really unhistorical is any +softening down of the wording, and the meaning which it naturally +bears. +</p> + +<p> +The sceptical and eschatological schools, however, go still +farther in company. If the connexion in Mark is really no +connexion, it is important to try to discover whether any principle +can be discovered in this want of connexion. Can any order be +brought into the chaos? To this the answer is in the affirmative. +</p> + +<p> +The complete want of connexion, with all its self-contradictions, +is ultimately due to the fact that two representations of the life of +<pb n='335'/><anchor id='Pg335'/> +Jesus, or, to speak more accurately, of His public ministry, are here +crushed into one; a natural and a deliberately supernatural representation. +A dogmatic element has intruded itself into the +description of this Life—something which has no concern with the +events which form the outward course of that Life. This dogmatic +element is the Messianic secret of Jesus and all the secrets and +concealments which go along with it. +</p> + +<p> +Hence the irrational and self-contradictory features of the +presentation of Jesus, out of which a rational psychology can make +only something which is unhistorical and does violence to the text, +since it must necessarily get rid of the constant want of connexion +and self-contradiction which belongs to the essence of the narrative, +and portray a Jesus who was the Messiah, not one who at once +was and was not Messiah, as the Evangelist depicts Him. When +rational psychology conceives Him as one who was Messiah, but +not in the sense expected by the people, that is a concession to the +self-contradictions of the Marcan representation; which, however, +does justice neither to the text nor to the history which it records, +since the Gospel does not contain the faintest hint that the contradiction +was of this nature. +</p> + +<p> +Up to this point—up to the complete reconstruction of the +system which runs through the disconnectedness, and the tracing +back of the dogmatic element to the Messianic secret—there +extends a close agreement between thoroughgoing scepticism and +thoroughgoing eschatology. The critical arguments are identical, +the construction is analogous and based on the same principle. +The defenders of the modern psychological view cannot, therefore, +play off one school against the other, as one of them proposed to +do, but must deal with them both at once. They differ only when +they explain whence the system that runs through the disconnectedness +comes. Here the ways divide, as Bauer saw long ago. The +inconsistency between the public life of Jesus and His Messianic +claim lies either in the nature of the Jewish Messianic conception, +or in the representation of the Evangelist. There is, on the one +hand, the eschatological solution, which at one stroke raises the +Marcan account as it stands, with all its disconnectedness and inconsistencies, +into genuine history; and there is, on the other +hand, the literary solution, which regards the incongruous dogmatic +element as interpolated by the earliest Evangelist into the tradition +and therefore strikes out the Messianic claim altogether from the +historical Life of Jesus. <hi rend='italic'>Tertium non datur.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +But in some respects it really hardly matters which of the two +<q>solutions</q> one adopts. They are both merely wooden towers +erected upon the solid main building of the consentient critical +induction which offers the enigmas detailed above to modern +historical theology. It is interesting in this connexion that Wrede's +<pb n='336'/><anchor id='Pg336'/> +scepticism is just as constructive as the eschatological outline of +the Life of Jesus in the <q>Sketch.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Bruno Bauer chose the literary solution because he thought +that we had no evidence for an eschatological expectation existing +in the time of Christ. Wrede, though he follows Johannes Weiss +in assuming the existence of a Jewish eschatological Messianic +expectation, finds in the Gospel only the Christian conception of +the Messiah. <q>If Jesus,</q> he thinks, <q>really knew Himself to be +the Messiah and designated Himself as such, the genuine tradition +is so closely interwoven with later accretions that it is not easy to +recognise it.</q> In any case, Jesus cannot, according to Wrede, have +spoken of His Messianic Coming in the way which the Synoptists +report. The Messiahship of Jesus, as we find it in the Gospels, is a +product of Early Christian theology correcting history according to +its own conceptions. +</p> + +<p> +It is therefore necessary to distinguish in Mark between the +reported events which constitute the outward course of the history +of Jesus, and the dogmatic idea which claims to lay down the +lines of its inward course. The principle of division is found in +the contradictions. +</p> + +<p> +The recorded events form, according to Wrede, the following +picture. Jesus came forward as a teacher,<note place='foot'>It would perhaps be more historical to say <q>as a prophet.</q></note> first and principally in +Galilee. He was surrounded by a company of disciples, went +about with them, and gave them instruction. To some of them He +accorded a special confidence. A larger multitude sometimes +attached itself to Him, in addition to the disciples. He is fond +of discoursing in parables. Besides the teaching there are the +miracles. These make a stir, and He is thronged by the multitudes. +He gives special attention to the cases of demoniacs. He is in +such close touch with the people that He does not hesitate to +associate even with publicans and sinners. Towards the Law He +takes up an attitude of some freedom. He encounters the +opposition of the Pharisees and the Jewish authorities. They set +traps for Him and endeavour to bring about His fall. Finally they +succeed, when He ventures to show Himself not only on Judaean +soil, but in Jerusalem. He remains passive and is condemned to +death. The Roman administration supports the Jewish authorities. +</p> + +<p> +<q>The texture of the Marcan narrative as we know it,</q> continues +Wrede, <q>is not complete until to the warp of these general +historical notions there is added a strong weft of ideas of a +dogmatic character,</q> the substance of which is that <q>Jesus, the +bearer of a special office to which He was appointed by God,</q> +becomes <q>a higher, superhuman being.</q> If this is the case, +however, then the motives of His conduct are not derived from +human characteristics, human aims and necessities. <q>The one +<pb n='337'/><anchor id='Pg337'/> +motive which runs throughout is rather a Divine decree which lies +beyond human understanding. This He seeks to fulfil alike in His +actions and His sufferings. The teaching of Jesus is accordingly +supernatural.</q> On this assumption the want of understanding of +the disciples to whom He communicates, without commentary, +unconnected portions of this supernatural knowledge becomes +natural and explicable. The people are, moreover, essentially <q>non-receptive +of revelation.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>It is these <foreign rend='italic'>motifs</foreign> and not those which are inherently historical +which give movement and direction to the Marcan narrative. It is +they that give the general colour. On them naturally depends the +main interest, it is to them that the thought of the writer is really +directed. The consequence is that the general picture offered by +the Gospel is not an historical representation of the Life of Jesus. +Only some faded remnants of such an impression have been taken +over into a supra-historical religious view. In this sense the +Gospel of Mark belongs to the history of dogma.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The two conceptions of the Life of Jesus, the natural and the +supernatural, are brought, not without inconsistencies, into a kind +of harmony by means of the idea of intentional secrecy. The +Messiahship of Jesus is concealed in His life as in a closed dark +lantern, which, however, is not quite closed—otherwise one could +not see that it was there—and allows a few bright beams to +escape. +</p> + +<p> +The idea of a secret which must remain a secret until the +resurrection of Jesus could only arise at a time when nothing was +known of a Messianic claim of Jesus during His life upon earth: +that is to say, at a time when the Messiahship of Jesus was thought +of as beginning with the resurrection. But that is a weighty piece +of indirect historical evidence that Jesus did not really profess to be +the Messiah at all. +</p> + +<p> +The positive fact which is to be inferred from this is that the +appearances of the risen Jesus produced a sudden revolution in +His disciples' conception of Him. <q>The resurrection</q> is for +Wrede the real Messianic event in the Life of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +Who is responsible, then, for introducing this singular feature, +so destructive of the real historical connexion, into the life of +Jesus, which was in reality that of a teacher? It is quite impossible, +Wrede argues, that the idea of the Messianic secret is the +invention of Mark. <q>A thing like that is not done by a single +individual. It must, therefore, have been a view which was current +in certain circles, and was held by a considerable number, though +not necessarily perhaps by a very great number of persons. To +say this is not to deny that Mark had a share and perhaps a +considerable share in the creation of the view which he sets forth +... the <foreign rend='italic'>motifs</foreign> themselves are doubtless not, in part at least, +<pb n='338'/><anchor id='Pg338'/> +peculiar to the Evangelist, but the concrete embodiment of them is +certainly his own work; and to this extent we may speak of a +special Marcan point of view which manifests itself here and there. +Where the line is to be drawn between what is traditional and +what is individual cannot always be determined even by a careful +examination directed to this end. We must leave it commingled, +as we find it.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The Marcan narrative has therefore arisen from the impulse to +give a Messianic form to the earthly life of Jesus. This impulse +was, however, restrained by the impression and tradition of the +non-Messianic character of the life of Jesus, which were still strong +and vivid, and it was therefore not able wholly to recast the material, +but could only bore its way into it and force it apart, as the roots +of the bramble disintegrate a rock. In the Gospel literature which +arose on the basis of Mark the Messianic secret becomes gradually +of more subordinate importance and the life of Jesus more Messianic +in character, until in the Fourth Gospel He openly comes before +the people with Messianic claims. +</p> + +<p> +In estimating the value of this construction we must not attach +too much importance to its a priori assumptions and difficulties. +In this respect Wrede's position is much more precarious than that +of his precursor Bruno Bauer. According to the latter the interpolation +of the Messianic secret is the personal, absolutely original act of +the Evangelist. Wrede thinks of it as a collective act, representing +the new conception as moulded by the tradition before it was fixed +by the Evangelist. That is very much more difficult to carry +through. Tradition alters its materials in a different way from +that in which we find them altered in Mark. Tradition transforms +from without. Mark's way of drawing secret threads of a different +material through the texture of the tradition, without otherwise +altering it, is purely literary, and could only be the work of an +individual person. +</p> + +<p> +A creative tradition would have carried out the theory of the +Messianic secret in the life of Jesus much more boldly and logically, +that is to say, at once more arbitrarily and more consistently. +</p> + +<p> +The only alternative is to distinguish two stages of tradition +in early Christianity, a naive, freely-working, earlier stage, and a more +artificial later stage confined to a smaller circle of a more literary +character. Wrede does, as a matter of fact, propose to find in +Mark traces of a simpler and bolder transformation which, leaving +aside the Messianic secret, makes Jesus an openly-professed +Messiah, and is therefore of a distinct origin from the conception +of the secret Christ. To this tradition may belong, he thinks, +the entry into Jerusalem and the confession before the High +Priest, since these narratives <q>naively</q> imply an openly avowed +Messiahship. +</p> + +<pb n='339'/><anchor id='Pg339'/> + +<p> +The word <q>naively</q> is out of place here; a really naive +tradition which intended to represent the entry of Jesus as Messianic +would have done so in quite a different way from Mark, and would +not have stultified itself so curiously as we find done even +in Matthew, where the Galilaean Passover pilgrims, after the +<q>Messianic entry,</q> answer the question of the people of Jerusalem +as to who it was whom they were acclaiming, with the words <q>This +is the Prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee</q> (Matt. xxi. 11). +</p> + +<p> +The tradition, too, which makes Jesus acknowledge His +Messiahship before His judges is not <q>naive</q> in Wrede's sense, +for, if it were, it would not represent the High Priest's knowledge +of Jesus' Messiahship as something so extraordinary and peculiar +to himself that he can cite witnesses only for the saying about the +Temple, not with reference to Jesus' Messianic claim, and bases his +condemnation only on the fact that Jesus in answer to his question +acknowledges Himself as Messiah—and Jesus does so, it should +be remarked, as in other passages, with an appeal to a future +justification of His claim. The confession before the council is +therefore anything but a <q>naive representation of an openly +avowed Messiahship.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The Messianic statements in these two passages present precisely +the same remarkable character as in all the other cases to which +Wrede draws attention. We have not here to do with a different +tradition, with a clear Messianic light streaming in through the +window-pane, but, just as elsewhere, with the rays of a dark lantern. +The real point is that Wrede cannot bring these two passages +within the lines of the theory of secrecy, and practically admits this +by assuming the existence of a second and rather divergent line of +tradition. What concerns us is to note that this theory does not +suffice to explain the two facts in question, the knowledge of Jesus' +Messiahship shown by the Galilaean Passover pilgrims at the time +of the entry into Jerusalem, and the knowledge of the High Priest +at His trial. +</p> + +<p> +We can only touch on the question whether any one who wished +to date back in some way or other the Messiahship into the life of +Jesus could not have done it much more simply by making Jesus +give His closest followers some hints regarding it. Why does the +re-moulder of the history, instead of doing that, have recourse +to a supernatural knowledge on the part of the demoniacs and the +disciples? For Wrede rightly remarks, as Bruno Bauer and the +<q>Sketch</q> also do, that the incident of Caesarea Philippi, as represented +by Mark, involves a miracle, since Jesus does not, as is +generally supposed, reveal His Messiahship to Peter; it is Peter +who reveals it to Jesus (Mark viii. 29). This fact, however, makes +nonsense of the whole theory about the disciples' want of understanding. +It will not therefore fit into the concealment theory, +<pb n='340'/><anchor id='Pg340'/> +and Wrede, as a matter of fact, feels obliged to give up that theory +as regards this incident. <q>This scene,</q> he remarks, <q>can hardly +have been created by Mark himself.</q> It also, therefore, belongs to +another tradition. +</p> + +<p> +Here, then, is a third Messianic fact which cannot be brought +within the lines of Wrede's <q>literary</q> theory of the Messianic +secret. And these three facts are precisely the most important of +all: Peter's confession, the Entry into Jerusalem, and the High +Priest's knowledge of Jesus' Messiahship! In each case Wrede +finds himself obliged to refer these to tradition instead of to +the literary conception of Mark.<note place='foot'>The difficulties which the incident at Caesarea Philippi places in the way of +Wrede's construction may be realised by placing two of his statements side by side. +P. 101: <q>From this it is evident that this incident contains no element which cannot +be easily understood on the basis of Mark's ideas.</q> P. 238: <q>But in another aspect +this incident stands in direct contradiction to the Marcan view of the disciples. It is +inconsistent with their general <q>want of understanding,</q> and can therefore hardly +have been created by Mark himself.</q></note> This tradition undermines his +literary hypothesis, for the conception of a tradition always involves +the possibility of genuine historical elements. +</p> + +<p> +How greatly this inescapable intrusion of tradition weakens +the theory of the literary interpolation of the Messiahship into +the history, becomes evident when we consider the story of the +passion. The representation that Jesus was publicly put to death +as Messiah because He had publicly acknowledged Himself to be +so, must, like the High Priest's knowledge of His claim, be referred +to the other tradition which has nothing to do with the Messianic +secret, but boldly antedates the Messiahship without employing +any finesse of that kind. But that strongly tends to confirm the +historicity of this tradition, and throws the burden of proof upon +those who deny it. It is wholly independent of the hypothesis +of secrecy, and in fact directly opposed to it. If, on the other +hand, in spite of all the difficulties, the representation that +Jesus was condemned to death on account of His Messianic claims +is dragged by main force into the theory of secrecy, the question +arises: What interest had the persons who set up the literary theory +of secrecy, in representing Jesus as having been openly put to +death as Messiah and in consequence of His Messianic claims? +And the answer is: <q>None whatever: quite the contrary.</q> For in +doing so the theory of secrecy stultifies itself. As though one +were to develop a photographic plate with painful care and, just +when one had finished, fling open the shutters, so, on this hypothesis, +the natural Messianic light suddenly shines into the room which +ought to be lighted only by the rays of the dark lantern. +</p> + +<p> +Here, therefore, the theory of secrecy abandoned the method +which it had hitherto followed in regard to the traditional material. +For if Jesus was not condemned and crucified at Jerusalem as +<pb n='341'/><anchor id='Pg341'/> +Messiah, a tradition must have existed which preserved the truth +about the last conflicts, and the motives of the condemnation. This +is supposed to have been here completely set aside by the theory of +the secret Messiahship, which, instead of drawing its delicate threads +through the older tradition, has simply substituted its own representation +of events. But in that case why not do away with the +remainder of the public ministry? Why not at least get rid of the +public appearance at Jerusalem? How can the crudeness of +method shown in the case of the passion be harmonised with the +skilful conservatism towards the non-Messianic tradition which it +is obvious that the <q>Marcan circle</q> has scrupulously observed +elsewhere? +</p> + +<p> +If according to the original tradition, of which Wrede admits +the existence, Jesus went to Jerusalem not to die, but to work there, +the dogmatic view, according to which He went to Jerusalem to +die, must have struck out the whole account of His sojourn in +Jerusalem and His death, in order to put something else in its +place. What we now read in the Gospels concerning those last +days in Jerusalem cannot be derived from the original tradition, +for one who came to work, and, according to Wrede, <q>to work with +decisive effect,</q> would not have cast all His preaching into the +form of obscure parables of judgment and minatory discourses. +That is a style of speech which could be adopted only by one who +was determined to force his adversaries to put him to death. +Therefore the narrative of the last days of Jesus must be, from +beginning to end, a creation of the dogmatic idea. And, as a +matter of fact, Wrede, here in agreement with Weisse, <q>sees grounds +for asserting that the sojourn at Jerusalem is presented to us in the +Gospels in a very much abridged and weakened version.</q> That is a +euphemistic expression, for if it was really the dogmatic idea which +was responsible for representing Jesus as being condemned as +Messiah, it is not a mere case of <q>abridging and weakening down,</q> +but of displacing the tradition in favour of a new one. +</p> + +<p> +But if Jesus was not condemned as Messiah, on what grounds +was He condemned? And, again, what interest had those whose +concern was to make the Messiahship a secret of His earthly life, in +making Him die as Messiah, contrary to the received tradition? And +what interest could the tradition have had in falsifying history in +that way? Even admitting that the prediction of the passion to +the disciples is of a dogmatic character, and is to be regarded as a +creation of primitive Christian theology, the historic fact that He +died would have been a sufficient fulfilment of those sayings. +That He was publicly condemned and crucified as Messiah has +nothing to do with the fulfilment of those predictions, and goes far +beyond it. +</p> + +<p> +To take a more general point: what interest had primitive +<pb n='342'/><anchor id='Pg342'/> +theology in dating back the Messiahship of Jesus to the time of +His earthly ministry? None whatever. Paul shows us with what +complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded by +primitive Christianity. The discourses in Acts show an equal +indifference, since in them also Jesus first becomes the Messiah by +virtue of His exaltation. To date the Messiahship earlier was not +an undertaking which offered any advantage to primitive theology, +in fact it would only have raised difficulties for it, since it involved +the hypothesis of a dual Messiahship, one of earthly humiliation +and one of future glory. The fact is, if one reads through the +early literature one becomes aware that so long as theology had an +eschatological orientation and was dominated by the expectation of +the Parousia the question of how Jesus of Nazareth <q>had been</q> the +Messiah not only did not exist, but was impossible. Primitive +theology is simply a theology of the future, with no interest in +history! It was only with the decline of eschatological interest and +the change in the orientation of Christianity which was connected +therewith that an interest in the life of Jesus and the <q>historical +Messiahship</q> arose. +</p> + +<p> +That is to say, the Gnostics, who were the first to assert the +Messiahship of the historical Jesus, and who were obliged to +assert it precisely because they denied the eschatological +conceptions, forced this view upon the theology of the Early +Church, and compelled it to create in the Logos Christology an +un-Gnostic mould in which to cast the speculative conception of +the historical Messiahship of Jesus; and that is what we find in +the Fourth Gospel. Prior to the anti-Gnostic controversies we find +in the early Christian literature no conscious dating back of the +Messiahship of Jesus to His earthly life, and no theological interest +at work upon the dogmatic recasting of His history.<note place='foot'>The question of the attitude of pre-Origenic theology towards the historical +Jesus, and of the influence exercised by dogma upon the evangelical tradition regarding +Jesus in the course of the first two centuries, is certainly deserving of a detailed +examination.</note> It is therefore +difficult to suppose that the Messianic secret in Mark, that +is to say, in the very earliest tradition, was derived from +primitive theology. The assertion of the Messiahship of Jesus +was wholly independent of the latter. The instinct which led +Bruno Bauer to explain the Messianic secret as the literary +invention of Mark himself was therefore quite correct. Once +suppose that tradition and primitive theology have anything to do +with the matter, and the theory of the interpolation of the +Messiahship into the history becomes almost impossible to carry +through. But Wrede's greatness consists precisely in the fact that +he was compelled by his acute perception of the significance of +the critical data to set aside the purely literary version of the +hypothesis and make Mark, so to speak, the instrument of the +<pb n='343'/><anchor id='Pg343'/> +literary realisation of the ideas of a definite intellectual circle within +the sphere of primitive theology. +</p> + +<p> +The positive difficulty which confronts the sceptical theory is to +explain how the Messianic beliefs of the first generation arose, if +Jesus, throughout His life, was for all, even for the disciples, +merely a <q>teacher,</q> and gave even His intimates no hint of the +dignity which He claimed for Himself. It is difficult to eliminate +the Messiahship from the <q>Life of Jesus,</q> especially from the +narrative of the passion; it is more difficult still, as Keim saw +long ago, to bring it back again after its elimination from the +<q>Life</q> into the theology of the primitive Church. In Wrede's +acute and logical thinking this difficulty seems to leap to light. +</p> + +<p> +Since the Messianic secret in Mark is always connected with the +resurrection, the date at which the Messianic belief of the disciples +arose must be the resurrection of Jesus. <q>But the idea of dating +the Messiahship from the resurrection is certainly not a thought of +Jesus, but of the primitive Church. It presupposes the Church's +experience of the appearance of the risen Jesus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The psychologist will say that the <q>resurrection experiences,</q> +however they may be conceived, are only intelligible as based +upon the expectation of the resurrection, and this again as based on +references of Jesus to the resurrection. But leaving psychology +aside, let us accept the resurrection experiences of the disciples +as a pure psychological miracle. Even so, how can the +appearances of the risen Jesus have suggested to the disciples the +idea that Jesus, the crucified teacher, was the Messiah? Apart +from any expectations, how can this conclusion have resulted for +them from the mere <q>fact of the resurrection</q>? The fact of the +appearance did not by any means imply it. In certain circles, +indeed, according to Mark vi. 14-16, in the very highest quarters, +the resurrection of the Baptist was believed in; but that did not +make John the Baptist the Messiah. The inexplicable thing is that, +according to Wrede, the disciples began at once to assert confidently +and unanimously that He was the Messiah and would +before long appear in glory. +</p> + +<p> +But how did the appearance of the risen Jesus suddenly +become for them a proof of His Messiahship and the basis of their +eschatology? That Wrede fails to explain, and so makes this +<q>event</q> an <q>historical</q> miracle which in reality is harder to +believe than the supernatural event. +</p> + +<p> +Any one who holds <q>historical</q> miracles to be just as impossible +as any other kind, even when they occur in a critical and sceptical +work, will be forced to the conclusion that the Messianic +eschatological significance attached to the <q>resurrection experience</q> +by the disciples implies some kind of Messianic eschatological +references on the part of the historical Jesus which gave to the +<pb n='344'/><anchor id='Pg344'/> +<q>resurrection</q> its Messianic eschatological significance. Here +Wrede himself, though without admitting it, postulates some +Messianic hints on the part of Jesus, since he conceives the +judgment of the disciples upon the resurrection to have been not +analytical, but synthetic, inasmuch as they add something to it, +and that, indeed, the main thing, which was not implied in the +conception of the event as such. +</p> + +<p> +Here again the merit of Wrede's contribution to criticism +consists in the fact that he takes the position as it is and does not +try to improve it artificially. Bruno Bauer and others supposed that +the belief in the Messiahship of Jesus had slowly solidified out of a +kind of gaseous state, or had been forced into primitive theology +by the literary invention of Mark. Wrede, however, feels himself +obliged to base it upon an historical fact, and, moreover, the same +historical fact which is pointed to by the sayings in the Synoptics +and the Pauline theology. But in so doing he creates an almost +insurmountable difficulty for his hypothesis. +</p> + +<p> +We can only briefly refer to the question what form the accounts +of the resurrection must have taken if the historic fact which +underlay them was the first surprised apprehension and recognition +of the Messiahship of Jesus on the part of the disciples. The +Messianic teaching would necessarily in that case have been somehow +or other put into the mouth of the risen Jesus. It is, +however, completely absent, because it was already contained in +the teaching of Jesus during His earthly life. The theory of +Messianic secrecy must therefore have re-moulded not merely the +story of the passion, but also that of the resurrection, removing the +revelation of the Messiahship to the disciples from the latter in +order to insert it into the public ministry! +</p> + +<p> +Wrede, moreover, will only take account of the Marcan text as +it stands, not of the historical possibility that the <q>futuristic +Messiahship</q> which meets us in the mysterious utterances of Jesus +goes back in some form to a sound tradition. Further he does +not take the eschatological character of the teaching of Jesus into +his calculations, but works on the false assumption that he can +analyse the Marcan text in and by itself and so discover the +principle on which it is composed. He carries out experiments +on the law of crystallisation of the narrative material in this Gospel, +but instead of doing so in the natural and historical atmosphere he +does it in an atmosphere artificially neutralised, which contains no +trace of contemporary conceptions.<note place='foot'>Certain of the conceptions with which Wrede operates are simply not in +accordance with the text, because he gives them a different significance from that +which they have in the narrative. Thus, for example, he always takes the +<q>resurrection,</q> when it occurs in the mouth of Jesus, as a reference to that +resurrection which as an historical fact became a matter of apprehended experience +to the apostles. But Jesus speaks without any distinction of His resurrection and of +His Parousia. The conception of the resurrection, therefore, if one is to arrive at it +inductively from the Marcan text, is most closely bound up with the Parousia. The +Evangelist would thus seem to have made Jesus predict a different kind of resurrection +from that which actually happened. The resurrection, according to the Marcan +text, is an eschatological event, and has no reference whatever to Wrede's <q>historical +resurrection.</q> Further, if their resurrection experience was the first and fundamental +point in the Messianic enlightenment of the disciples, why did they only begin to +proclaim it some weeks later? This is a problem which was long ago recognised by +Reimarus, and which is not solved by merely assuming that the disciples were afraid.</note> Consequently the conclusion +<pb n='345'/><anchor id='Pg345'/> +based on the sum of his observations has in it something arbitrary. +Everything which conflicts with the rational construction of the +course of the history is referred directly to the theory of the +concealment of the Messianic secret. But in the carrying out of +that theory a number of self-contradictions, without which it could +not subsist, must be recognised and noted. +</p> + +<p> +Thus, for example, all the prohibitions,<note place='foot'>P. 33 ff. The prohibitions in Mark i. 43 and 44, v. 43, vii. 36, and viii. 26 +are put on the same footing with the really Messianic prohibitions in viii. 30 and ix. +9, with which may be associated also the imposition of silence upon the demoniacs +who recognise his Messiahship in Mark i. 34 and iii. 12.</note> whatever they may refer +to, even including the command not to make known His miracles, +are referred to the same category as the injunction not to reveal +the Messianic secret. But what justification is there for that? +It presupposes that according to Mark the miracles could be +taken as proofs of the Messiahship, an idea of which there is no +hint whatever in Mark. <q>The miracles,</q> Wrede argues, <q>are +certainly used by the earliest Christians as evidence of the nature +and significance of Christ.... I need hardly point to the fact +that Mark, not less than Matthew, Luke, and John, must have +held the opinion that the miracles of Jesus encountered a widespread +and ardent Messianic expectation.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In John this Messianic significance of the miracles is certainly +assumed; but then the really eschatological view of things has +here fallen into the background. It seems indeed as if genuine +eschatology excluded the Messianic interpretation of the miracles. +In Matthew the miracles of Jesus have nothing whatever to do +with the proof of the Messiahship, but, as is evident from the +saying about Chorazin and Bethsaida, Matt. xi. 20-24, are only +an exhibition of mercy intended to awaken repentance, or, according +to Matt. xii. 28, an indication of the nearness of the Kingdom +of God. They have as little to do with the Messianic office as in +the Acts of the Apostles.<note place='foot'>The narrative in Matt. xiv. 22-33, according to which the disciples, after seeing +Jesus walk upon the sea, hail Him on His coming into the boat as the Son of God, +and the description of the deeds of Jesus as <q>deeds of Christ,</q> in the introduction to +the Baptist's question in Matt. xi. 2, do not cancel the old theory even in Matthew, +because the Synoptists, differing therein from the fourth Evangelist, do not represent +the demand for a sign as a demand for a Messianic sign, nor the cures wrought by +Jesus as Messianic proofs of power. The action of the demons in crying out upon +Jesus as the Son of God betokens their recognition of Him; it has nothing to do +with the miracles of healing as such.</note> In Mark, from first to last, there is +<pb n='346'/><anchor id='Pg346'/> +not a single syllable to suggest that the miracles have a Messianic +significance. Even admitting the possibility that the <q>miracles of +Jesus encountered an ardent Messianic expectation,</q> that does not +necessarily imply a Messianic significance in them. To justify +that conclusion requires the pre-supposition that the Messiah was +expected to be some kind of an earthly man who should do +miracles. This is presupposed by Wrede, by Bruno Bauer, and +by modern theology in general, but it has not been proved, and it +is at variance with eschatology, which pictured the Messiah to +itself as a heavenly being in a world which was already being transformed +into something supra-mundane. +</p> + +<p> +The assumption that the clue to the explanation of the +command not to make known the miracles is to be found in the +necessity of guarding the secret of the Messiahship is, therefore, +not justified. The miracles are connected with the Kingdom and +the nearness of the Kingdom, not with the Messiah. But Wrede +is obliged to refer everything to the Messianic secret, because he +leaves the preaching of the Kingdom out of account. +</p> + +<p> +The same process is repeated in the discussion of the veiling +of the mystery of the Kingdom of God in the parables of Mark iv. +The mystery of the Kingdom is for Wrede the secret of Jesus' +Messiahship. <q>We have learned in the meantime,</q> he says, <q>that +one main element in this mystery is that Jesus is the Messiah, the +Son of God. If Jesus, according to Mark, conceals his Messiahship, +we are justified in interpreting the μυστήριον τῆς βασιλείας +τοῦ θεοῦ in the light of this fact.</q> +</p> + +<p> +That is one of the weakest points in Wrede's whole theory. +Where is there any hint of this in these parables? And why +should the secret of the Kingdom of God contain within it as one +of its principal features the secret of the Messiahship of Jesus? +</p> + +<p> +<q>Mark's account of Jesus' parabolic teaching,</q> he concludes, +<q>is completely unhistorical,</q> because it is directly opposed to the +essential nature of the parables. The ultimate reason, according +to Wrede, why this whole view of the parables arose, was simply +<q>because the general opinion was already in existence that Jesus +had revealed Himself to the disciples, but concealed Himself from +the multitude.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Instead of simply admitting that we are unable to discover +what the mystery of the Kingdom in Mark iv. is, any more than +we can understand why it must be veiled, and numbering it among +the unsolved problems of Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom, Wrede +forces this chapter inside the lines of his theory of the veiled +Messiahship. +</p> + +<p> +The desire of Jesus to be alone, too, and remain unrecognised +(Mark vii. 24 and ix. 30 ff.) is supposed to have some kind of +connexion with the veiling of the Messiahship. He even brings +<pb n='347'/><anchor id='Pg347'/> +the multitude, which in Mark x. 47 ff. rebukes the blind beggar at +Jericho who cried out to Jesus, into the service of his theory ... +on the ground that the beggar had addressed Him as Son of +David. But all the narrative says is that they told him to hold +his peace—to cease making an outcry—not that they did so +because of his addressing Jesus as <q>Son of David.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In an equally arbitrary fashion the surprising introduction of +the <q>multitude</q> in Mark viii. 34, after the incident of Caesarea +Philippi, is dragged into the theory of secrecy.<note place='foot'>For further examples of the pressing of the theory to its utmost limits, see +Wrede, p. 134 ff.</note> Wrede does not +feel the possibility or impossibility of the sudden appearance of +the multitude in this locality as an historical problem, any more +than he grasps the sudden withdrawal of Jesus from His public +ministry as primarily an historical question. Mark is for him a +writer who is to be judged from a pathological point of view, a +writer who, dominated by the fixed idea of introducing everywhere +the Messianic secret of Jesus, is always creating mysterious and +unintelligible situations, even when these do not directly serve the +interests of his theory, and who in some of his descriptions, writes +in a rather <q>fairy-tale</q> style. When all is said, his treatment of +the history scarcely differs from that of the fourth Evangelist. +</p> + +<p> +The absence of historical prepossessions which Wrede skilfully +assumes in his examination of the connexion in Mark is not really +complete. He is bound to refer everything inexplicable to the +principle of the concealment of the Messiahship, which is the only +principle that he recognises in the dogmatic stratum of the +narrative, and is consequently obliged to deny the historicity of +such passages, whereas in reality the veiling of the Messiahship is +only involved in a few places and is there indicated in clear and +simple words. He is unwilling to recognise that there is a second, +wider circle of mystery which has to do, not with Jesus' Messiahship, +but with His preaching of the Kingdom, with the mystery of the +Kingdom of God in the wider sense, and that within this second +circle there lie a number of historical problems, above all the +mission of the Twelve and the inexplicable abandonment of public +activity on the part of Jesus which followed soon afterwards. His +mistake consists in endeavouring by violent methods to subsume +the more general, the mystery of the Kingdom of God, under the +more special, the mystery of the Messiahship, instead of inserting +the latter as the smaller circle, within the wider, the secret of the +Kingdom of God. +</p> + +<p> +As he does not deal with the teaching of Jesus, he has no +occasion to take account of the secret of the Kingdom of God. +That is the more remarkable because corresponding to one +fundamental idea of the Messianic secret there is a parallel, +<pb n='348'/><anchor id='Pg348'/> +more general dogmatic conception in Jesus' preaching of the +Kingdom. For if Jesus in Matt. x. gives the disciples nothing to +take with them on their mission but predictions of suffering; if at +the very beginning of His ministry He closes the Beatitudes with +a blessing upon the persecuted; if in Mark viii. 34 ff. He warns the +people that they will have to choose between life and life, between +death and death; if, in short, from the first, He loses no opportunity +of preaching about suffering and following Him in His sufferings; +that is just as much a matter of dogma as His own sufferings and +predictions of sufferings. For in both cases the necessity of +suffering, the necessity of facing death, is not <q>a necessity of the +historical situation,</q> not a necessity which arises out of the circumstances; +it is an assertion put forth without empirical basis, a +prophecy of storm while the sky is blue, since neither Jesus nor +the people to whom He spoke were undergoing any persecution; +and when His fate overtook Him not even the disciples were +involved in it. It is distinctly remarkable that, except for a few +meagre references, the enigmatic character of Jesus' constant +predictions of suffering has not been discussed in the Life-of-Jesus +literature.<note place='foot'>It is always assumed as self-evident that Jesus is speaking of the sufferings and +persecutions which would take place after His death, or that the Evangelist, in +making Him speak in this way, is thinking of these later persecutions. There is no +hint of that in the text.</note> +</p> + +<p> +What has now to be done, therefore, is, in contradistinction to +Wrede, to make a critical examination of the dogmatic element in +the life of Jesus on the assumption that the atmosphere of the time +was saturated with eschatology, that is, to keep in even closer touch +with the facts than Wrede does, and moreover, to proceed, not +from the particular to the general, but from the general to the +particular, carefully considering whether the dogmatic element is +not precisely the historical element. For, after all, why should +not Jesus think in terms of doctrine, and make history in action, +just as well as a poor Evangelist can do it on paper, under the +pressure of the theological interests of the primitive community. +</p> + +<p> +Once again, however, we must repeat that the critical analysis +and the assertion of a system running through the disorder are the +same in the eschatological as in the sceptical hypothesis, only that +in the eschatological analysis a number of problems come more +clearly to light. The two constructions are related like the bones +and cartilage of the body. The general structure is the same, +only that in the case of the one a solid substance, lime, is +distributed even in the minutest portions, giving it firmness and +solidity, while in the other case this is lacking. This reinforcing +substance is the eschatological world-view. +</p> + +<p> +How is it to be explained that Wrede, in spite of the eschatological +school, in spite of Johannes Weiss, could, in critically +<pb n='349'/><anchor id='Pg349'/> +investigating the connecting principle of the life of Jesus, simply +leave eschatology out of account? The blame rests with the +eschatological school itself, for it applied the eschatological +explanation only to the preaching of Jesus, and not even to the +whole of this, but only to the Messianic secret, instead of using +it also to throw light upon the whole public work of Jesus, the +connexion and want of connexion between the events. It represented +Jesus as thinking and speaking eschatologically in some of +the most important passages of His teaching, but for the rest gave +as uneschatological a presentation of His life as modern historical +theology had done. The teaching of Jesus and the history of +Jesus were set in different keys. Instead of destroying the +modern-historical scheme of the life of Jesus, or subjecting it +to a rigorous examination, and thereby undertaking the performance +of a highly valuable service to criticism, the eschatological theory +confined itself within the limits of New Testament Theology, and +left it to Wrede to reveal one after another by a laborious purely +critical method the difficulties which from its point of view it +might have grasped historically at a single glance. It inevitably +follows that Wrede is unjust to Johannes Weiss and Johannes +Weiss towards Wrede.<note place='foot'>That the eschatological school showed a certain timidity in drawing the +consequences of its recognition of the character of the preaching of Jesus and +examining the tradition from the eschatological standpoint can be seen from Johannes +Weiss's work, <q>The Earliest Gospel</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Das älteste Evangelium</hi>), Göttingen, 1903, +414 pp. Ingenious and interesting as this work is in detail, one is surprised to +find the author of the <q>Preaching of Jesus</q> here endeavouring to distinguish +between Mark and <q>Ur-Markus,</q> to point to examples of Pauline influence, to +exhibit clearly the <q>tendencies</q> which guided, respectively, the original Evangelist +and the redactor—all this as if he did not possess in his eschatological view of the +preaching of Jesus a dominant conception which gives him a clue to quite a different +psychology from that which he actually applies. Against Wrede he brings forward +many arguments which are worthy of attention, but he can hardly be said to have +refuted him, because it is impossible for Weiss to treat the question in the exact +form in which it was raised by Wrede.</note> +</p> + +<p> +It is quite inexplicable that the eschatological school, with its +clear perception of the eschatological element in the preaching +of the Kingdom of God, did not also hit upon the thought of the +<q>dogmatic</q> element in the history of Jesus. Eschatology is simply +<q>dogmatic history</q>—history as moulded by theological beliefs—which +breaks in upon the natural course of history and abrogates. +it. Is it not even a priori the only conceivable view that the +conduct of one who looked forward to His Messianic <q>Parousia</q> +in the near future should be determined, not by the natural course +of events, but by that expectation? The chaotic confusion of the +narratives ought to have suggested the thought that the events +had been thrown into this confusion by the volcanic force of an +incalculable personality, not by some kind of carelessness or freak +of the tradition. +</p> + +<pb n='350'/><anchor id='Pg350'/> + +<p> +A very little consideration suffices to show that there is something +quite incomprehensible in the public ministry of Jesus taken +as a whole. According to Mark it lasted less than a year, for since +he speaks of only one Passover-journey we may conclude that no +other Passover fell within the period of Jesus' activity as a teacher. +If it is proposed to assume that He allowed a Passover to go by +without going up to Jerusalem, His adversaries, who took Him +to task about hand-washings and about rubbing the ears of corn +on the Sabbath, would certainly have made a most serious matter +of this, and we should have to suppose that the Evangelist for some +reason or other thought fit to suppress the fact. That is to say, +the burden of proof lies upon those who assert a longer duration +for the ministry of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +Until they have succeeded in proving it, we may assume +something like the following course of events. Jesus, in going up +to a Passover, came in contact with the movement initiated by John +the Baptist in Judaea, and, after the lapse of a little time—if we +bring into the reckoning the forty days' sojourn in the wilderness +mentioned in Mark i. 13, a few weeks later—appeared in Galilee +proclaiming the near approach of the Kingdom of God. According +to Mark He had known Himself since His baptism to be the +Messiah, but from the historical point of view that does not matter, +since history is concerned with the first announcement of the +Messiahship, not with inward psychological processes.<note place='foot'>Wrede certainly goes too far in asserting that even in Mark's version the +experience at the baptism is conceived as an open miracle, perceptible to others. +The way in which the revelations to the prophets are recounted in the Old Testament +does not make in favour of this. Otherwise we should have to suppose that the +Evangelist described the incident as a miracle which took place in the presence of +a multitude without perceiving that in this case the Messianic secret was a secret +no longer. If so, the story of the baptism stands on the same footing as the story +of the Messianic entry: it is a revelation of the Messiahship which has absolutely +no results.</note> +</p> + +<p> +This work of preaching the Kingdom was continued until the +sending forth of the Twelve; that is to say, at the most for a few +weeks. Perhaps in the saying <q>the harvest is great but the +labourers are few,</q> with which Jesus closes His work prior to +sending forth the disciples, there lies an allusion to the actual +state of the natural fields. The flocking of the people to Him after +the Mission of the Twelve, when a great multitude thronged about +Him for several days during His journey along the northern shore +of the lake, can be more naturally explained if the harvest had +just been brought in. +</p> + +<p> +However that may be, it is certain that Jesus, in the midst of +His initial success, left Galilee, journeyed northwards, and only +resumed His work as a teacher in Judaea on the way to Jerusalem! +Of His <q>public ministry,</q> therefore, a large section falls out, being +cancelled by a period of inexplicable concealment; it dwindles to +<pb n='351'/><anchor id='Pg351'/> +a few weeks of preaching here and there in Galilee and the few +days of His sojourn in Jerusalem.<note place='foot'>The statement of Mark that Jesus, coming out of the north, appeared for +a moment again in Decapolis and Capernaum, and then started off to the north +once more (Mark vii. 31-viii. 27), may here provisionally be left out of account since +it stands in relation with the twofold account of the feeding of the multitude. So +too the enigmatic appearance and disappearance of the people (Mark viii. 34-ix. 30) +may here be passed over. These statements make no difference to the fact that +Jesus really broke off his work in Galilee shortly after the Mission of the Twelve, +since they imply at most a quite transient contact with the people.</note> +</p> + +<p> +But in that case the public life of Jesus becomes practically +unintelligible. The explanation that His cause in Galilee was lost, +and that He was obliged to flee, has not the slightest foundation +in the text.<note place='foot'>On the theory of the successful and unsuccessful periods in the work of Jesus +see the <q>Sketch,</q> p. 3 ff., <q>The four Pre-suppositions of the Modern Historical +Solution.</q></note> That was recognised even by Keim, the inventor +of the successful and unsuccessful periods in the life of Jesus, +as is shown by his suggestion that the Evangelists had intentionally +removed the traces of failure from the decisive period which led +up to the northern journey. The controversy over the washing +of hands in Mark vii. 1-23, to which appeal is always made, is +really a defeat for the Pharisees. The theory of the <q>desertion +of the Galilaeans,</q> which appears with more or less artistic variations +in all modern Lives of Jesus, owes its existence not to any other +confirmatory fact, but simply to the circumstance that Mark makes +the simple statement: <q>And Jesus departed and went into the +region of Tyre</q> (vii. 24) without offering any explanation of this +decision. +</p> + +<p> +The only conclusion which the text warrants is that Mark +mentioned no reason because he knew of none. The decision +of Jesus did not rest upon the recorded facts, since it ignores these, +but upon considerations lying outside the history. His life at +this period was dominated by a <q>dogmatic idea</q> which rendered +Him indifferent to all else ... even to the happy and successful +work as a teacher which was opening before Him. How could +Jesus the <q>teacher</q> abandon at that moment a people so anxious +to learn and so eager for salvation? His action suggests a doubt +whether He really felt Himself to be a <q>teacher.</q> If all the +controversial discourses and sayings and answers to questions, +which were so to speak wrung from Him, were subtracted from +the sum of His utterances, how much of the didactic preaching +of Jesus would be left over? +</p> + +<p> +But even the supposed didactic preaching is not really that +of a <q>teacher,</q> since the purpose of His parables was, according +to Mark iv. 10-12, not to reveal, but to conceal, and of the +Kingdom of God He spoke only in parables (Mark iv. 34). +</p> + +<p> +Perhaps, however, we are not justified in extending the theory +<pb n='352'/><anchor id='Pg352'/> +of concealment, simply because it is mentioned in connexion with +the first parable, to all the parables which He ever spoke, for +it is never mentioned again. It could hardly indeed be applied +to the parables with a moral, like that, for instance, of the pearl +of great price. It is equally inapplicable to the parables of coming +judgment uttered at Jerusalem, in which He explicitly exhorts +the people to be prepared and watchful in view of the coming of +judgment and of the Kingdom. But here too it is deserving of +notice that Jesus, whenever He desires to make known anything +further concerning the Kingdom of God than just its near approach, +seems to be confined, as it were by a higher law, to the parabolic +form of discourse. It is as though, for reasons which we cannot +grasp, His teaching lay under certain limitations. It appears as +a kind of accessory aspect of His vocation. Thus it was possible +for Him to give up His work as a teacher even at the moment +when it promised the greatest success. +</p> + +<p> +Accordingly the fact of His always speaking in parables and +of His taking this inexplicable resolution both point back to a +mysterious pre-supposition which greatly reduces the importance of +Jesus' work as a teacher. +</p> + +<p> +One reason for this limitation is distinctly stated in Mark iv. +10-12, viz. predestination! Jesus knows that the truth which He +offers is exclusively for those who have been definitely chosen, that +the general and public announcement of His message could only +thwart the plans of God, since the chosen are already winning their +salvation from God. Only the phrase, <q>Repent for the Kingdom +of God is at hand</q> and its variants belong to the public preaching. +And this, therefore, is the only message which He commits to +His disciples when sending them forth. What this repentance, +supplementary to the law, the special ethic of the interval before +the coming of the Kingdom (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Interimsethik</foreign>) is, in its positive +acceptation, He explains in the Sermon on the Mount. But all +that goes beyond that simple phrase must be publicly presented +only in parables, in order that those only, who are shown to +possess predestination by having the initial knowledge which enables +them to understand the parables, may receive a more advanced +knowledge, which is imparted to them in a measure corresponding +to their original degree of knowledge: <q>Unto him that hath shall +be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even +that which he hath</q> (Mark iv. 24-25). +</p> + +<p> +The predestinarian view goes along with the eschatology. It is +pushed to its utmost consequences in the closing incident of the +parable of the marriage of the King's son (Matt. xxii. 1-14) where the +man who, in response to a publicly issued invitation, sits down at the +table of the King, but is recognised from his appearance as not called, +is thrown out into perdition. <q>Many are called but few are chosen.</q> +<pb n='353'/><anchor id='Pg353'/> +The ethical idea of salvation and the predestinarian limitation +of acceptance to the elect are constantly in conflict in the mind +of Jesus. In one case, however, He finds relief in the thought of +predestination. When the rich young man turned away, not having +strength to give up his possessions for the sake of following Jesus +as he had been commanded to do, Jesus and His disciples were +forced to draw the conclusion that he, like other rich men, was lost, +and could not enter into the Kingdom of God. But immediately +afterwards Jesus makes the suggestion, <q>With men it is impossible, +but not with God, for with God all things are possible</q> (Mark x. +17-27). That is, He will not give up the hope that the young +man, in spite of appearances, which are against him, will be found +to have belonged to the Kingdom of God, solely in virtue of the +secret all-powerful will of God. Of a <q>conversion</q> of the young +man there is no question. +</p> + +<p> +In the Beatitudes, on the other hand, the argument is reversed; +the predestination is inferred from its outward manifestation. It may +seem to us inconceivable, but they are really predestinarian in form. +Blessed are the poor in spirit! Blessed are the meek! Blessed +are the peacemakers!—that does not mean that by virtue of their +being poor in spirit, meek, peace-loving, they deserve the Kingdom. +Jesus does not intend the saying as an injunction or exhortation, +but as a simple statement of fact: in their being poor in spirit, in +their meekness, in their love of peace, it is made manifest that they +are predestined to the Kingdom. By the possession of these +qualities they are marked as belonging to it. In the case of others +(Matt. v. 10-12) the predestination to the Kingdom is made +manifest by the persecutions which befall them in this world. These +are the light of the world, which already shines among men for the +glory of God (Matt. v. 14-15). +</p> + +<p> +The kingdom cannot be <q>earned</q>; what happens is that men +are called to it, and show themselves to be called to it. On +careful examination it appears that the idea of reward in the sayings +of Jesus is not really an idea of reward, because it is relieved against +a background of predestination. For the present it is sufficient to +note the fact that the eschatologico-predestinarian view brings a +mysterious element of dogma not merely into the teaching, but also +into the public ministry of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +To take another point, what is the mystery of the Kingdom of +God? It must consist of something more than merely its near +approach, and something of extreme importance; otherwise Jesus +would be here indulging in mere mystery-mongering. The saying +about the candle which He puts upon the stand, in order that what +was hidden may be revealed to those who have ears to hear, implies +that He is making a tremendous revelation to those who understand +the parables about the growth of the seed. The mystery must +<pb n='354'/><anchor id='Pg354'/> +therefore contain the explanation why the Kingdom must now come, +and how men are to know how near it is. For the general fact +that it is very near had already been openly proclaimed both by +the Baptist and by Jesus. The mystery, therefore, must consist of +something more than that. +</p> + +<p> +In these parables it is not the idea of development, but of the +apparent absence of causation which occupies the foremost place. +The description aims at suggesting the question, how, and by what +power, incomparably great and glorious results can be infallibly +produced by an insignificant fact without human aid. A man +sowed seed. Much of it was lost, but the little that fell into good +ground brought forth a harvest—thirty, sixty, an hundredfold—which +left no trace of the loss in the sowing. How did that +come about? +</p> + +<p> +A man sows seed and does not trouble any further about it—cannot +indeed do anything to help it, but he knows that after a +definite time the glorious harvest which arises out of the seed will +stand before him. By what power is that effected? +</p> + +<p> +An extremely minute grain of mustard seed is planted in the +earth and there necessarily arises out of it a great bush, which +cannot certainly have been contained in the grain of seed. How +was that? +</p> + +<p> +What the parables emphasise is, therefore, so to speak, the +in itself negative, inadequate, character of the initial fact, upon +which, as by a miracle, there follows in the appointed time, +through the power of God, some great thing. They lay stress +not upon the natural, but upon the miraculous character of such +occurrences. +</p> + +<p> +But what is the initial fact of the parables? It is the sowing. +</p> + +<p> +It is not said that by the man who sows the seed Jesus means +Himself. The man has no importance. In the parable of the +mustard seed he is not even mentioned. All that is asserted is +that the initial fact is already present, as certainly present as the +time of the sowing is past at the moment when Jesus speaks. That +being so, the Kingdom of God must follow as certainly as harvest +follows seed-sowing. As a man believes in the harvest, without +being able to explain it, simply because the seed has been sown; +so with the same absolute confidence he may believe in the +Kingdom of God. +</p> + +<p> +And the initial fact which is symbolised? Jesus can only +mean a fact which was actually in existence—the movement of +repentance evoked by the Baptist and now intensified by His own +preaching. That necessarily involves the bringing in of the +Kingdom by the power of God; as man's sowing necessitates the +giving of the harvest by the same Infinite Power. Any one who +knows this sees with different eyes the corn growing in the fields +<pb n='355'/><anchor id='Pg355'/> +and the harvest ripening, for he sees the one fact in the other, and +awaits along with the earthly harvest the heavenly, the revelation +of the Kingdom of God. +</p> + +<p> +If we look into the thought more closely we see that the coming +of the Kingdom of God is not only symbolically or analogically, +but also really and temporally connected with the harvest. The +harvest ripening upon earth is the last! With it comes also the +Kingdom of God which brings in the new age. When the reapers +are sent into the fields, the Lord in Heaven will cause His harvest +to be reaped by the holy angels. +</p> + +<p> +If the three parables of Mark iv. contain the mystery of the +Kingdom of God, and are therefore capable of being summed up in +a single formula, this can be nothing else than the joyful exhortation: +<q>Ye who have eyes to see, read, in the harvest which is ripening +upon earth, what is being prepared in heaven!</q> The eager eschatological +hope was to regard the natural process as the last of its +kind, and to see in it a special significance in view of the event +of which it was to give the signal. +</p> + +<p> +The analogical and temporal parallelism becomes complete if +we assume that the movement initiated by the Baptist began in the +spring, and notice that Jesus, according to Matt. ix. 37 and 38, +before sending out the disciples to make a speedy proclamation +of the nearness of the Kingdom of God, uttered the remarkable +saying about the rich harvest. It seems like a final expression of +the thought contained in the parables about the seed and its +promise, and finds its most natural explanation in the supposition +that the harvest was actually at hand. +</p> + +<p> +Whatever may be thought of this attempt to divine historically +the secret of the Kingdom of God, there is one thing that cannot be +got away from, viz. that the initial fact to which Jesus points, under +the figure of the sowing, is somehow or other connected with the +eschatological preaching of repentance, which had been begun by +the Baptist. +</p> + +<p> +That may be the more confidently asserted because Jesus in +another mysterious saying describes the days of the Baptist as a +time which makes preparation for the coming of the Kingdom of +God. <q>From the days of John the Baptist,</q> He says in Matt. xi. +12, <q>even until now, the Kingdom of Heaven is subjected to +violence, and the violent wrest it to themselves.</q> The saying has +nothing to do with the entering of individuals into the Kingdom; +it simply asserts, that since the coming of the Baptist a certain +number of persons are engaged in forcing on and compelling the +coming of the Kingdom. Jesus' expectation of the Kingdom is an +expectation based upon a fact which exercises an active influence +upon the Kingdom of God. It was not He, and not the Baptist +who <q>were working at the coming of the Kingdom</q>; it is the host +<pb n='356'/><anchor id='Pg356'/> +of penitents which is wringing it from God, so that it may now +come at any moment. +</p> + +<p> +The eschatological insight of Johannes Weiss made an end of +the modern view that Jesus founded the Kingdom. It did away +with all activity, as exercised upon the Kingdom of God, and made +the part of Jesus purely a waiting one. Now the activity comes +back into the preaching of the Kingdom, but this time eschatologically +conditioned. The secret of the Kingdom of God which +Jesus unveils in the parables about confident expectation in +Mark iv., and declares in so many words in the eulogy on the +Baptist (Matt. xi.), amounts to this, that in the movement to which +the Baptist gave the first impulse, and which still continued, there +was an initial fact which was drawing after it the coming of the +Kingdom, in a fashion which was miraculous, unintelligible, but +unfailingly certain, since the sufficient cause for it lay in the power +and purpose of God. +</p> + +<p> +It should be observed that Jesus in these parables, as well as +in the related saying at the sending forth of the Twelve, uses the +formula, <q>He that hath ears to hear, let him hear</q> (Mark iv. 23 +and Matt. xi. 15), thereby signifying that in this utterance there +lies concealed a supernatural knowledge concerning the plans of +God, which only those who have ears to hear—that is, the foreordained—can +detect. For others these sayings are unintelligible. +</p> + +<p> +If this genuinely <q>historical</q> interpretation of the mystery of +the Kingdom of God is correct, Jesus must have expected the +coming of the Kingdom at harvest time. And that is just what He +did expect. It is for that reason that He sends out His disciples +to make known in Israel, as speedily as may be, what is about to +happen. That in this He is actuated by a dogmatic idea, becomes +clear when we notice that, according to Mark, the mission of the +Twelve followed immediately on the rejection at Nazareth. The +unreceptiveness of the Nazarenes had made no impression upon +Him; He was only astonished at their unbelief (Mark vi. 6). +This passage is often interpreted to mean that He was astonished +to find His miracle-working power fail Him. There is no hint of +that in the text. What He is astonished at is, that in His native +town there were so few believers, that is, elect, knowing as He does +that the Kingdom of God may appear at any moment. But that +fact makes no difference whatever to the nearness of the coming +of the Kingdom. +</p> + +<p> +The Evangelist, therefore, places the rejection at Nazareth and +the mission of the Twelve side by side, simply because he found +them in this temporal connexion in the tradition. If he had been +working by <q>association of ideas,</q> he would not have arrived at this +order. The want of connexion, the impossibility of applying any +natural explanation, is just what is historical, because the course of +<pb n='357'/><anchor id='Pg357'/> +the history was determined, not by outward events, but by the +decisions of Jesus, and these were determined by dogmatic, +eschatological considerations. +</p> + +<p> +To how great an extent this was the case in regard to the +mission of the Twelve is clearly seen from the <q>charge</q> which Jesus +gave them. He tells them in plain words (Matt. x. 23), that He +does not expect to see them back in the present age. The Parousia +of the Son of Man, which is logically and temporally identical with +the dawn of the Kingdom, will take place before they shall have +completed a hasty journey through the cities of Israel to announce +it. That the words mean this and nothing else, that they ought +not to be in any way weakened down, should be sufficiently evident. +This is the form in which Jesus reveals to them the secret of the +Kingdom of God. A few days later, He utters the saying about +the violent who, since the days of John the Baptist, are forcing on +the coming of the Kingdom. +</p> + +<p> +It is equally clear, and here the dogmatic considerations which +guided the resolutions of Jesus become still more prominent, that +this prediction was not fulfilled. The disciples returned to Him; +and the appearing of the Son of Man had not taken place. The +actual history disavowed the dogmatic history on which the action +of Jesus had been based. An event of supernatural history which +must take place, and must take place at that particular point of +time, failed to come about. That was for Jesus, who lived wholly +in the dogmatic history, the first <q>historical</q> occurrence, the +central event which closed the former period of His activity and +gave the coming period a new character. To this extent modern +theology is justified when it distinguishes two periods in the Life of +Jesus; an earlier, in which He is surrounded by the people, a later +in which He is <q>deserted</q> by them, and travels about with the +Twelve only. It is a sound observation that the two periods are +sharply distinguished by the attitude of Jesus. To explain this +difference of attitude, which they thought themselves bound to +account for on natural historical grounds, theologians of the modern +historical school invented the theory of growing opposition and +waning support. Weisse, no doubt, had expressed himself in direct +opposition to this theory.<note place='foot'>Weisse found that there was no hint in the sources of the desertion of the people, +since according to these, Jesus was opposed only by the Pharisees, not by the people. +The abandonment of the Galilaean work, and the departure to Jerusalem, must, he +thought, have been due to some unrecorded fact which revealed to Jesus that the +time had come to act in this way. Perhaps, he adds, it was the waning of Jesus' +miracle-working power which caused the change in His attitude, since it is remarkable +that He performed no further miracles during His sojourn at Jerusalem.</note> Keim, who gave it its place in theology, +was aware that in setting it up he was going against the plain sense +of the texts. Later writers lost this consciousness, just as in the +first and third Gospel the significance of the Messianic secret in +<pb n='358'/><anchor id='Pg358'/> +Mark gradually faded away; they imagined that they could find the +basis of fact for the theory in the texts, and did not realise that +they only believed in the desertion of the multitude and the +<q>flights and retirements</q> of Jesus because they could not otherwise +explain historically the alteration in His conduct, His withdrawal +from public work, and His resolve to die. +</p> + +<p> +The thoroughgoing eschatological school makes better work of +it. They recognise in the non-occurrence of the Parousia promised +in Matt. x. 23, the <q>historic fact,</q> in the estimation of Jesus, which +in some way determined the alteration in His plans, and His +attitude towards the multitude. +</p> + +<p> +The whole history of <q>Christianity</q> down to the present day, +that is to say, the real inner history of it, is based on the delay of +the Parousia, the non-occurrence of the Parousia, the abandonment +of eschatology, the progress and completion of the <q>de-eschatologising</q> +of religion which has been connected therewith. It should +be noted that the non-fulfilment of Matt. x. 23 is the first postponement +of the Parousia. We have therefore here the first significant +date in the <q>history of Christianity</q>; it gives to the work of Jesus +a new direction, otherwise inexplicable. +</p> + +<p> +Here we recognise also why the Marcan hypothesis, in constructing +its view of the Life of Jesus, found itself obliged to +have recourse more and more to the help of modern psychology, +and thus necessarily became more and more unhistorical. The +fact which alone makes possible an understanding of the whole, is +lacking in this Gospel. Without Matt. x. and xi. everything +remains enigmatic. For this reason Bruno Bauer and Wrede are +in their own way the only consistent representatives of the Marcan +hypothesis from the point of view of historical criticism, when they +arrive at the result that the Marcan account is inherently unintelligible. +Keim, with his strong sense of historical reality, rightly +felt that the plan of the Life of Jesus should not be constructed +exclusively on the basis of Mark. +</p> + +<p> +The recognition that Mark alone gives an inadequate basis, is +more important than any <q>Ur-Markus</q> theories, for which it is +impossible to discover a literary foundation, or find an historical use. +A simple induction from the <q>facts</q> takes us beyond Mark. In +the discourse-material of Matthew, which the modern-historical +school thought they could sift in here and there, wherever there +seemed to be room for it, there lie hidden certain facts—facts which +never happened but are all the more important for that. +</p> + +<p> +Why Mark describes the events and discourses in the neighbourhood +of the mission of the Twelve with such careful authentication +is a literary question which the historical study of the life of Jesus +may leave open; the more so since, even as a literary question, it +is insoluble. +</p> + +<pb n='359'/><anchor id='Pg359'/> + +<p> +The prediction of the Parousia of the Son of Man is not the +only one which remained unfulfilled. There is the prediction of +sufferings which is connected with it. To put it more accurately, +the prediction of the appearing of the Son of Man in Matt. x. 23 +runs up into a prediction of sufferings, which, working up to a +climax, forms the remainder of the discourse at the sending forth +of the disciples. This prediction of sufferings has as little to do +with objective history as the prediction of the Parousia. Consequently, +none of the Lives of Jesus, which follow the lines of a +natural psychology, from Weisse down to Oskar Holtzmann, can +make anything of it.<note place='foot'>The most logical attitude in regard to it is Bousset's, who proposes to treat +the mission and everything connected with it as a <q>confused and unintelligible</q> +tradition.</note> They either strike it out, or transfer it +to the last <q>gloomy epoch</q> of the life of Jesus, regard it as +an unintelligible anticipation, or put it down to the account of +<q>primitive theology,</q> which serves as a scrap-heap for everything +for which they cannot find a place in the <q>historical life +of Jesus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In the texts it is quite evident that Jesus is not speaking of +sufferings after His death, but of sufferings which will befall them +as soon as they have gone forth from Him. The death of Jesus is +not here pre-supposed, but only the Parousia of the Son of Man, +and it is implied that this will occur just after these sufferings and +bring them to a close. If the theology of the primitive Church +had remoulded the tradition, as is always being asserted, it would +have made Jesus give His followers directions for their conduct +after His death. That we do not find anything of this kind is +the best proof that there can be no question of a remoulding +of the Life of Jesus by primitive theology. How easy it would +have been for the Early Church to scatter here and there +through the discourses of Jesus directions which were only to +be applied after His death! But the simple fact is that it did +not do so. +</p> + +<p> +The sufferings of which the prospect is held out at the sending +forth are doubly, trebly, nay four times over, unhistorical. In the +first place—and this is the only point which modern historical +theology has noticed—because there is not a shadow of a +suggestion in the outward circumstances of anything which could +form a natural occasion for such predictions of, and exhortations +relating to, sufferings. In the second place—and this has been +overlooked by modern theology because it had already declared +them to be unhistorical in its own characteristic fashion, viz. by +striking them out—because they were not fulfilled. In the third +place—and this has not entered into the mind of modern theology +at all—because these sayings were spoken in the closest connexion +<pb n='360'/><anchor id='Pg360'/> +with the promise of the Parousia and are placed in the closest +connexion with that event. In the fourth place, because the +description of that which is to befall the disciples is quite without +any basis in experience. A time of general dissension will begin, +in which brothers will rise up against brothers, and fathers against +sons and children against their parents to cause them to be put +to death (Matt. x. 21). And the disciples <q>shall be hated of all +men for His name's sake.</q> Let them strive to hold out to the +<q>end,</q> that is, to the coming of the Son of Man, in order that they +may be saved (Matt. x. 22). +</p> + +<p> +But why should they suddenly be hated and persecuted for the +name of Jesus, seeing that this name played no part whatever in +their preaching? That is simply inconceivable. The relation of +Jesus to the Son of Man, the fact, that is to say, that it is He who +is to be manifested as Son of Man, must therefore in some way or +other become known in the interval; not, however, through the +disciples, but by some other means of revelation. A kind of supernatural +illumination will suddenly make known all that Jesus has +been keeping secret regarding the Kingdom of God and His +position in the Kingdom. This illumination will arise as suddenly +and without preparation as the spirit of strife. +</p> + +<p> +And as a matter of fact Jesus predicts to the disciples in the +same discourse that to their own surprise a supernatural wisdom +will suddenly speak from their lips, so that it will be not they but +the Spirit of God who will answer the great ones of the earth. As +the Spirit is for Jesus and early Christian theology something concrete +which is to descend upon the elect among mankind only in +consequence of a definite event—the outpouring of the Spirit which, +according to the prophecy of Joel, should precede the day of judgment—Jesus +must have anticipated that this would occur during +the absence of the disciples, in the midst of the time of strife and +confusion. +</p> + +<p> +To put it differently; the whole of the discourse at the sending +forth of the Twelve, taken in the clear sense of the words, is a prediction +of the events of the <q>time of the end,</q> events which are +immediately at hand, in which the supernatural eschatological +course of history will break through into the natural course. The +expectation of sufferings is therefore doctrinal and unhistorical, as +is, precisely in the same way, the expectation of the pouring forth +of the Spirit uttered at the same time. The Parousia of the Son of +Man is to be preceded according to the Messianic dogma by a +time of strife and confusion—as it were, the birth-throes of the +Messiah—and the outpouring of the Spirit. It should be noticed +that according to Joel iii. and iv. the outpouring of the Spirit, +along with the miraculous signs, forms the prelude to the judgment; +and also, that in the same context, Joel iii. 13, the judgment +<pb n='361'/><anchor id='Pg361'/> +is described as the harvest-day of God.<note place='foot'><p>Joel iii. 13, <q>Put in the sickle for the harvest is ripe!</q> In the Apocalypse of +John, too, the Last Judgment is described as the heavenly harvest: <q>Thrust in thy +sickle and reap; for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is +ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth +was reaped</q> (Rev. xiv. 15 and 16). +</p> +<p> +The most remarkable parallel to the discourse at the sending forth of the disciples +is offered by the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch: <q>Behold, the days come, when the time +of the world shall be ripe, and the harvest of the sowing of the good and of the evil +shall come, when the Almighty shall bring upon the earth and upon its inhabitants +and upon their rulers confusion of spirit and terror that makes the heart stand still; +and they shall hate one another and provoke one another to war; and the despised +shall have power over them of reputation, and the mean shall exalt themselves over +them that are highly esteemed. And the many shall be at the mercy of the few ... +and all who shall be saved and shall escape the before-mentioned (dangers) ... +shall be given into the hands of my servant, the Messiah.</q> (Cap. lxx. 2, 3, 9. +Following the translation of E. Kautzsch.) +</p> +<p> +The connexion between the ideas of harvest and of judgment was therefore one of +the stock features of the apocalyptic writings. And as the Apocalypse of Baruch +dates from the period about <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 70, it may be assumed that this association of ideas +was also current in the Jewish apocalyptic of the time of Jesus. Here is a basis for +understanding the secret of the Kingdom of God in the parables of sowing and +reaping historically and in accordance with the ideas of the time. What Jesus did +was to make known to those who understood Him that the coming earthly harvest was +the last, and was also the token of the coming heavenly harvest. The eschatological +interpretation is immensely strengthened by these parallels.</p></note> Here we have a remarkable +parallel to the saying about the harvest in Matt. ix. 38, which +forms the introduction to the discourse at the sending forth of the +disciples. +</p> + +<p> +There is only one point in which the predicted course of +eschatological events is incomplete: the appearance of Elias is +not mentioned. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus could not prophesy to the disciples the Parousia of the +Son of Man without pointing them, at the same time, to the pre-eschatological +events which must first occur. He must open to +them a part of the secret of the Kingdom of God, viz. the nearness +of the harvest, that they might not be taken by surprise and caused +to doubt by these events. +</p> + +<p> +Thus this discourse is historical as a whole and down to the +smallest detail precisely because, according to the view of modern +theology, it must be judged unhistorical. It is, in fact, full of +eschatological dogma. Jesus had no need to instruct the disciples +as to what they were to teach; for they had only to utter a cry. +But concerning the events which should supervene, it was necessary +that He should give them information. Therefore the discourse +does not consist of instruction, but of predictions of sufferings and +of the Parousia. +</p> + +<p> +That being so, we may judge with what right the modern +psychological theology dismisses the great Matthaean discourses +off-hand as mere <q>composite structures.</q> Just let any one try to +show how the Evangelist when he was racking his brains over the +task of making a <q>discourse at the sending forth of the disciples,</q> +<pb n='362'/><anchor id='Pg362'/> +half by the method of piecing it together out of traditional sayings +and <q>primitive theology,</q> and half by inventing it, lighted on +the curious idea of making Jesus speak entirely of inopportune +and unpractical matters; and of then going on to provide the +evidence that they never happened. +</p> + +<p> +The foretelling of the sufferings that belong to the eschatological +distress is part and parcel of the preaching of the approach +of the Kingdom of God, it embodies the secret of the Kingdom. +It is for that reason that the thought of suffering appears at the +end of the Beatitudes and in the closing petition of the Lord's +Prayer. For the πειρασμός which is there in view is not an +individual psychological temptation, but the general eschatological +time of tribulation, from which God is besought to exempt those +who pray so earnestly for the coming of the Kingdom, and not to +expose them to that tribulation by way of putting them to the test. +</p> + +<p> +There followed neither the sufferings, nor the outpouring of +the Spirit, nor the Parousia of the Son of Man. The disciples returned +safe and sound and full of a proud satisfaction; for one +promise had been realised—the power which had been given them +over the demons. +</p> + +<p> +But from the moment when they rejoined Him, all His thoughts +and efforts were devoted to getting rid of the people in order to be +alone with them (Mark vi. 30-33). Previously, during their absence, +He had, almost in open speech, taught the multitude concerning +the Baptist, concerning that which was to precede the coming of +the Kingdom, and concerning the judgment which should come +upon the impenitent, even upon whole towns of them (Matt. xi. +20-24), because, in spite of the miracles which they had witnessed, +they had not recognised the day of grace and diligently used it for +repentance. At the same time He had rejoiced before them over +all those whom God had enlightened that they might see what was +going forward; and had called them to His side (Matt. xi. 25-30). +</p> + +<p> +And now suddenly, the moment the disciples return, His one +thought is to get away from the people. They, however, follow +Him and overtake Him on the shores of the lake. He puts the +Jordan between Himself and them by crossing to Bethsaida. +They also come to Bethsaida. He returns to Capernaum. They +do the same. Since in Galilee it is impossible for Him to be alone, +and He absolutely must be alone, He <q>slips away</q> to the north. +Once more modern theology was right: He really does flee; not, +however, from hostile Scribes, but from the people, who dog His +footsteps in order to await in His company the appearing of the +Kingdom of God and of the Son of Man—to await it in vain.<note place='foot'>With what right does modern critical theology tear apart even the discourse in +Matt. xi. in order to make the <q>cry of jubilation</q> into the cry with which Jesus +saluted the return of His disciples, and to find lodgment for the woes upon Chorazin +and Bethsaida somewhere else in an appropriately gloomy context? Is not all this +apparently disconnected material held together by an inner bond of connexion—the +secret of the Kingdom of God which is imminently impending over Jesus and the +people? Or, is Jesus expected to preach like one who has a thesis to maintain and +seeks about for the most logical arrangement? Does not a certain lack of orderly +connexion belong to the very idea of prophetic speech?</note> +</p> + +<pb n='363'/><anchor id='Pg363'/> + +<p> +In Strauss's first Life of Jesus the question is thrown out +whether, in view of Matt. x. 23, Jesus did not think of His Parousia +as a transformation which should take place during His lifetime. +Ghillany bases his work on this possibility as on an established +historical fact. Dalman takes this hypothesis to be the necessary +correlative of the interpretation of the self-designation Son of Man +on the basis of Daniel and the Apocalypses. +</p> + +<p> +If Jesus, he argues, designated Himself in this futuristic sense +as the Son of Man who comes from Heaven, He must have assumed +that He would first be transported thither. <q>A man who had died +or been rapt away from the earth might perhaps be brought into +the world again in this way, or one who had never been on earth +might so descend thither.</q> But as this conception of transformation +and removal seems to Dalman untenable in the case of Jesus, +he treats it as a <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>reductio ad absurdum</foreign> of the eschatological interpretation +of the title. +</p> + +<p> +But why? If Jesus as a man walking in a natural body upon +earth, predicts to His disciples the Parousia of the Son of Man in +the immediate future, with the secret conviction that He Himself +was to be revealed as the Son of Man, He must have made +precisely this assumption that He would first be supernaturally +removed and transformed. He thought of Himself as any one +must who believes in the immediate coming of the last things, +as living in two different conditions: the present, and the future +condition into which He is to be transferred at the coming of +the new supernatural world. We learn later that the disciples +on the way up to Jerusalem were entirely possessed by the thought +of what they should be when this transformation took place. +They contend as to who shall have the highest position (Mark ix. +33); James and John wish Jesus to promise them in advance +the thrones on His right hand and on His left (Mark x. 35-37). +</p> + +<p> +He, moreover, does not rebuke them for indulging such thoughts, +but only tells them how much, in the present age, of service, +humiliation, and suffering is necessary to constitute a claim to +such places in the future age, and that it does not in the last +resort belong to Him to allot the places on His left and on His +right, but that they shall be given to those for whom they are +prepared; therefore, perhaps not to any of the disciples (Mark x. +40). At this point, therefore, the knowledge and will of Jesus +are thwarted and limited by the predestinarianism which is bound +up with eschatology. +</p> + +<pb n='364'/><anchor id='Pg364'/> + +<p> +It is quite mistaken, however, to speak as modern theology +does, of the <q>service</q> here required as belonging to the <q>new +ethic of the Kingdom of God.</q> There is for Jesus no ethic +of the Kingdom of God, for in the Kingdom of God all natural +relationships, even, for example, the distinction of sex (Mark xii. +25 and 26), are abolished. Temptation and sin no longer exist. +All is <q>reign,</q> a <q>reign</q> which has gradations—Jesus speaks of +the <q>least in the Kingdom of God</q>—according as it has been +determined in each individual case from all eternity, and according +as each by his self-humiliation and refusal to rule in the present +age has proved his fitness for bearing rule in the future Kingdom. +</p> + +<p> +For the loftier stations, however, it is necessary to have proved +oneself in persecution and suffering. Accordingly, Jesus asks the +sons of Zebedee whether, since they claim these thrones on His +right hand and on His left, they feel themselves strong enough +to drink of His cup and be baptized with His baptism (Mark x. +38). To serve, to humble oneself, to incur persecution and +death, belong to <q>the ethic of the interim</q> just as much as +does penitence. They are indeed only a higher form of penitence. +</p> + +<p> +A vivid eschatological expectation is therefore impossible to +conceive apart from the idea of a metamorphosis. The resurrection +is only a special case of this metamorphosis, the form in +which the new condition of things is realised in the case of those +who are already dead. The resurrection, the metamorphosis, and +the Parousia of the Son of Man take place simultaneously, and +are one and the same act.<note place='foot'>If, therefore, Jesus at a later point predicted to His disciples His resurrection, He +means by that, not a single isolated act, but a complex occurrence consisting of His +metamorphosis, translation to heaven, and Parousia as the Son of Man. And with +this is associated the general eschatological resurrection of the dead. It is, therefore, +one and the same thing whether He speaks of His resurrection or of His coming on +the clouds of heaven.</note> It is therefore quite indifferent +whether a man loses his life shortly before the Parousia in order +to <q>find his life,</q> if that is what is ordained for him; that +signifies only that he will undergo the eschatological metamorphosis +with the dead instead of with the living. +</p> + +<p> +The Pauline eschatology recognises both conceptions side by +side, in such a way, however, that the resurrection is subordinated +to the metamorphosis. <q>Behold, I shew you a mystery,</q> he says +in 1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.; <q>we shall not all sleep, but we shall all +be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the +last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be +raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The apostle himself desires to be one of those who live to +experience the metamorphosis and to be clothed with the heavenly +mode of existence (2 Cor. v. 1 ff.). The metamorphosis, however, +and the resurrection are, for those who are <q>in Christ,</q> connected +<pb n='365'/><anchor id='Pg365'/> +with a being caught up into the clouds of heaven (1 Thess. iv. +15 ff.). Therefore Paul also makes one and the same event of the +metamorphosis, resurrection, and translation. +</p> + +<p> +In seeking clues to the eschatology of Jesus, scholars have +passed over the eschatology which lies closest to it, that of Paul. +But why? Is it not identical with that of Jesus, at least in so +far that both are <q>Jewish eschatology</q>? Did not Reimarus long +ago declare that the eschatology of the primitive Christian community +was identical with the Jewish, and only went beyond it +in claiming a definite knowledge on a single point which was +unessential to the nature and course of the expected events, in +knowing, that is, who the Son of Man should be? That Christians +drew no distinction between their own eschatology and the Jewish +is evident from the whole character of the earlier apocalyptic +literature, and not least from the Apocalypse of John! After all, +what alteration did the belief that Jesus was the Son of Man +who was to be revealed make in the general scheme of the course +of apocalyptic events? +</p> + +<p> +From the Rabbinic literature little help is to be derived +towards the understanding of the world of thought in which +Jesus lived, and His view of His own Person. The latest +researches may be said to have made that clear. A few moral +maxims, a few halting parables—that is all that can be produced +in the way of parallels. Even the conception which is there +suggested of the hidden coming and work of the Messiah is +of little importance. We find the same ideas in the mouth of +Trypho in Justin's dialogue, and that makes their Jewish character +doubtful. That Jesus of Nazareth knew Himself to be the Son of +Man who was to be revealed is for us the great fact of His self-consciousness, +which is not to be further explained, whether there +had been any kind of preparation for it in contemporary theology +or not. +</p> + +<p> +The self-consciousness of Jesus cannot in fact be illustrated +or explained; all that can be explained is the eschatological view, +in which the Man who possessed that self-consciousness saw +reflected in advance the coming events, both those of a more +general character, and those which especially related to Himself.<note place='foot'>The title of Baldensperger's book, <hi rend='italic'>The Self-consciousness of Jesus in the +Light of the Messianic Hopes of His Time</hi>, really contains a promise which is +impossible of fulfilment. The contemporary <q>Messianic hopes</q> can only explain the +hopes of Jesus so far as they corresponded thereto, not His view of His own Person, +in which He is absolutely original.</note> +</p> + +<p> +The eschatology of Jesus can therefore only be interpreted +by the aid of the curiously intermittent Jewish apocalyptic literature +of the period between Daniel and the Bar-Cochba rising. What +else, indeed, are the Synoptic Gospels, the Pauline letters, the +Christian apocalypses than products of Jewish apocalyptic, belonging, +<pb n='366'/><anchor id='Pg366'/> +moreover, to its greatest and most flourishing period? Historically +regarded, the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul are simply the +culminating manifestations of Jewish apocalyptic thought. The +usual representation is the exact converse of the truth. Writers +describe Jewish eschatology in order to illustrate the ideas of +Jesus. But what is this <q>Jewish eschatology</q> after all? It is +an eschatology with a great gap in it, because the culminating +period, with the documents which relate to it, has been left out. +The true historian will describe the eschatology of the Baptist, +of Jesus, and of Paul in order to explain Jewish eschatology. It +is nothing less than a misfortune for the science of New Testament +Theology that no real attempt has hitherto been made to write +the history of Jewish eschatology as it really was; that is, with the +inclusion of the Baptist, of Jesus, and of Paul.<note place='foot'>Even Baldensperger's book, <hi rend='italic'>Die messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des +Judentums</hi> (1903), passes at a stride from the Psalms of Solomon to Fourth Ezra. +The coming volume is to deal with the eschatology of Jesus. That is a <q>theological,</q> +but not an historical division of the material. The second volume should properly +come in the middle of the first.</note> +</p> + +<p> +All this has had to be said in order to justify the apparently +self-evident assertion that Mark, Matthew, and Paul are the best +sources for the Jewish eschatology of the time of Jesus. They +represent a phase, which even in detail is self-explanatory, of that +Jewish apocalyptic hope which manifested itself from time to +time. We are, therefore, justified in first reconstructing the Jewish +apocalyptic of the time independently out of these documents, that +is to say, in bringing the details of the discourses of Jesus into +an eschatological system, and then on the basis of this system +endeavouring to explain the apparently disconnected events in +the history of His public life. +</p> + +<p> +The lines of connection which run backwards towards the +Psalms of Solomon, Enoch, and Daniel, and forwards towards +the apocalypses of Baruch and Enoch, are extremely important +for the understanding of certain general conceptions. On the +other hand, it is impossible to over-emphasise the uniqueness +of the point of view from which the eschatology of the time of +the Baptist, of Jesus, and of Paul presents itself to us. +</p> + +<p> +In the first place, men feel themselves so close to the coming +events that they only see what lies nearest to them, the imaginative +development of detail entirely ceases. In the second place, it +appears to us as though seen, so to speak, from within, passed +through the medium of powerful minds like those of the Baptist +and Jesus. That is why it is so great and simple. On the +other hand, a certain complication arises from the fact that it +now intersects actual history. All these are original features of +it, which are not found in the Jewish apocalyptic writings of the +preceding and following periods, and that is why these documents +<pb n='367'/><anchor id='Pg367'/> +give us so little help in regard to the characteristic detail of the +eschatology of Jesus and His contemporaries. +</p> + +<p> +A further point to be noticed is that the eschatology of the +time of Jesus shows the influence of the eschatology of the +ancient prophets in a way which is not paralleled either before +or after. Compare the Synoptic eschatology with that of the +Psalms of Solomon. In place of the legal righteousness, which, +since the return from the exile, had formed the link of connexion +between the present and the future, we find the prophetic ethic, +the demand for a general repentance, even in the case of the +Baptist. In the Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra we see, especially +in the theological character of the latter, the persistent traces +of this ethical deepening of apocalyptic. +</p> + +<p> +But even in individual conceptions the apocalyptic of the +Baptist, and of the period which he introduces, reaches back to +the eschatology of the prophetic writings. The pouring forth +of the spirit, and the figure of Elias, who comes again to earth, +play a great rôle in it. The difficulty is, indeed, consciously felt +of combining the two eschatologies, and bringing the prophetic +within the Danielic. How, it is asked, can the Son of David +be at the same time the Danielic Son-of-Man Messiah, at once +David's son and David's Lord? +</p> + +<p> +It is inadequate to speak of a synthesis of the two eschatologies. +What has happened is nothing less than the remoulding, the +elevation, of the Daniel-Enoch apocalyptic by the spirit and +conceptions belonging to the ancient prophetic hope. +</p> + +<p> +A great simplification and deepening of eschatology begins +to show itself even in the Psalms of Solomon. The conception of +righteousness which the writer applies is, in spite of its legal aspect, +of an ethical, prophetic character. It is an eschatology associated +with great historical events, the eschatology of a Pharisaism which +is fighting for a cause, and has therefore a certain inward greatness.<note place='foot'>The fact that in the Psalms of Solomon the Messiah is designated by the +ancient prophetic name of the Son of David is significant of the rising influence of the +ancient prophetic literature. This designation has nothing whatever to do with a +political ideal of a kingly Messiah. This Davidic King and his Kingdom are, in +their character and the manner of their coming, every whit as supernatural as the +Son of Man and His coming. The same historical fact was read into both Daniel +and the prophets.</note> +Between the Psalms of Solomon and the appearance of the Baptist +there lies the decadence of Pharisaism. At this point there +suddenly appears an eschatological movement detached from +Pharisaism, which was declining into an external legalism, a +movement resting on a basis of its own, and thoroughly penetrated +with the spirit of the ancient prophets. +</p> + +<p> +The ultimate <foreign rend='italic'>differentia</foreign> of this eschatology is that it was not, +like the other apocalyptic movements, called into existence by +<pb n='368'/><anchor id='Pg368'/> +historical events. The Apocalypse of Daniel was called forth by +the religious oppression of Antiochus;<note place='foot'>Enoch is an offshoot of the Danielic apocalyptic writings. The earliest portion, +the Apocalypse of the Ten Weeks, is independent of Daniel and of contemporary +origin. The Similitudes (capp. xxxvii.-lxix.), which, with their description of the +Judgment of the Son of Man, are so important in connexion with the thoughts of +Jesus, may be placed in 80-70 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi> They do not presuppose the taking of +Jerusalem by Pompey.</note> the Psalms of Solomon +by the civil strife at Jerusalem and the first appearance of the +Roman power under Pompey;<note place='foot'>The Psalms of Solomon are therefore a decade later than the Similitudes.</note> Fourth Ezra and Baruch by the +destruction of Jerusalem.<note place='foot'>The Apocalypse of Baruch seems to have been composed not very long after +the Fall of Jerusalem. Fourth Ezra is twenty to thirty years later.</note> The apocalyptic movement in the time +of Jesus is not connected with any historical event. It cannot be +said, as Bruno Bauer rightly perceived, that we know anything +about the Messianic expectations of the Jewish people at that +time.<note place='foot'>The Psalms of Solomon form the last document of Jewish eschatology before +the coming of the Baptist. For almost a hundred years, from 60 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi> until <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 30, +we have no information regarding eschatological movements! And do the Psalms +of Solomon really point to a deep eschatological movement at the time of the +taking of Jerusalem by Pompey? Hardly, I think. It is to be noticed in studying +the times of Jesus that the surrounding circumstances have no eschatological +character. The Fall of Jerusalem marks the next turning-point in the history of the +apocalyptic hope, as Baruch and Fourth Ezra show.</note> On the contrary, the indifference shown by the Roman +administration towards the movement proves that the Romans +knew nothing of a condition of great and general Messianic +excitement among the Jewish people. The conduct of the +Pharisaic party also, and the indifference of the great mass of +the people, show that there can have been no question at that +time of a national movement. What is really remarkable about +this wave of apocalyptic enthusiasm is the fact that it was called +forth not by external events, but solely by the appearance of two +great personalities, and subsides with their disappearance, without +leaving among the people generally any trace, except a feeling +of hatred towards the new sect. +</p> + +<p> +The Baptist and Jesus are not, therefore, borne upon the +current of a general eschatological movement. The period offers no +events calculated to give an impulse to eschatological enthusiasm. +They themselves set the times in motion by acting, by creating +eschatological facts. It is this mighty creative force which constitutes +the difficulty in grasping historically the eschatology of Jesus +and the Baptist. Instead of literary artifice speaking out of a +distant imaginary past, there now enter into the field of eschatology +men, living, acting men. It was the only time when that ever +happened in Jewish eschatology. +</p> + +<p> +There is silence all around. The Baptist appears, and cries: +<q>Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.</q> Soon after +that comes Jesus, and in the knowledge that He is the coming +<pb n='369'/><anchor id='Pg369'/> +Son of Man lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on +that last revolution which is to bring all ordinary history to a close. +It refuses to turn, and He throws Himself upon it. Then it does +turn; and crushes Him. Instead of bringing in the eschatological +conditions, He has destroyed them. The wheel rolls onward, and +the mangled body of the one immeasurably great Man, who was +strong enough to think of Himself as the spiritual ruler of mankind +and to bend history to His purpose, is hanging upon it still. That +is His victory and His reign. +</p> + +<p> +These considerations regarding the distinctive character of the +Synoptic eschatology were necessary in order to explain the +significance of the sending forth of the disciples and the discourse +which Jesus uttered upon that occasion. Jesus' purpose is to set +in motion the eschatological development of history, to let loose +the final woes, the confusion and strife, from which shall issue the +Parousia, and so to introduce the supra-mundane phase of the +eschatological drama. That is His task, for which He has authority +here below. That is why He says in the same discourse, <q>Think +not that I am come to send peace on the earth; I am not come +to send peace, but a sword</q> (Matt. x. 34). +</p> + +<p> +It was with a view to this initial movement that He chose His +disciples. They are not His helpers in the work of teaching; we +never see them in that capacity, and He did not prepare them to +carry on that work after His death. The very fact that He chooses +just twelve shows that it is a dogmatic idea which He has in mind. +He chooses them as those who are destined to hurl the firebrand +into the world, and are afterwards, as those who have been the +comrades of the unrecognised Messiah, before He came to His +Kingdom, to be His associates in ruling and judging it.<note place='foot'>Jesus promises them expressly that at the appearing of the Son of Man they +shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28). It +is to their part in the judgment that belong also the authority to bind and to loose +which He entrusts to them—first to Peter personally (Matt. xvi. 19) and afterwards +to all the Twelve (Matt. xviii. 18)—in such a way, too, that their present decisions +will be somehow or other binding at the Judgment. Or does the <q>upon earth</q> +refer only to the fact that the Messianic Last Judgment will be held on earth? <q>I +give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind +on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be +loosed in heaven</q> (Matt. xvi. 19). Why should these words not be historical? Is +it because in the same context Jesus speaks of the <q>church</q> which He will found +upon the Rock-disciple? But if one has once got a clear idea from Paul, a Clement, +the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Shepherd of Hermas, what the pre-existing +<q>church</q> was which was to appear in the last times, it will no longer appear +impossible that Jesus might have spoken of the church against which the gates of +hell shall not prevail. Of course, if the passage is given an uneschatological +reference to the Church as we know it, it loses all real meaning and becomes a +treasure-trove to the Roman Catholic exegete, and a terror to the Protestant.</note> +</p> + +<p> +But what was to be the fate of the future Son of Man during +the Messianic woes of the last times? It appears as if it was +appointed for Him to share the persecution and the suffering. He +<pb n='370'/><anchor id='Pg370'/> +says that those who shall be saved must take their cross and follow +Him (Matt. x. 38), that His followers must be willing to lose their +lives for His sake, and that only those who in this time of terror +confess their allegiance to Him, shall be confessed by Him before +His heavenly Father (Matt. x. 32). Similarly, in the last of the +Beatitudes, He had pronounced those blessed who were despised +and persecuted for His sake (Matt. v. 11, 12). As the future +bearer of the supreme rule He must go through the deepest +humiliation. There is danger that His followers may doubt Him. +Therefore, the last words of His message to the Baptist, just at the +time when He had sent forth the Twelve, is, <q>Blessed is he whosoever +shall not be offended in me</q> (Matt. xi. 6). +</p> + +<p> +If He makes a point of familiarising others with the thought +that in the time of tribulation they may even lose their lives, He +must have recognised that this possibility was still more strongly +present in His own case. It is possible that in the enigmatic +saying about the disciples fasting <q>when the bridegroom is taken +away from them</q> (Mark ii. 20), there is a hint of what Jesus +expected. In that case suffering, death, and resurrection must +have been closely united in the Messianic consciousness from the +first. So much, however, is certain, viz. that the thought of +suffering formed part, at the time of the sending forth the +disciples, of the mystery of the Kingdom of God and of the +Messiahship of Jesus, and that in the form that Jesus and all the +elect were to be brought low in the πειρασμός at the time of the +death-struggle against the evil world-power which would arise +against them; brought down, it might be, even to death. It +mattered as little in His own case as in that of others whether at +the time of the Parousia He should be one of those who should be +metamorphosed, or one who had died and risen again. The +question arises, however, how this self-consciousness of Jesus could +remain concealed. It is true the miracles had nothing to do with +the Messiahship, since no one expected the Messiah to come as an +earthly miracle-worker in the present age. On the contrary, it +would have been the greatest of miracles if any one had recognised +the Messiah in an earthly miracle-worker. How far the cries of +the demoniacs who addressed Him as Messiah were intelligible by +the people must remain an open question. What is clear is that +His Messiahship did not become known in this way even to His +disciples. +</p> + +<p> +And yet in all His speech and action the Messianic consciousness +shines forth. One might, indeed, speak of the acts of His +Messianic consciousness. The Beatitudes, nay, the whole of the +Sermon on the Mount, with the authoritative <q>I</q> for ever breaking +through, bear witness to the high dignity which He ascribed to +Himself. Did not this <q>I</q> set the people thinking? +</p> + +<pb n='371'/><anchor id='Pg371'/> + +<p> +What must they have thought when, at the close of this discourse, +He spoke of people who, at the Day of Judgment, would +call upon Him as Lord, and appeal to the works that they had done +in His name, and who yet were destined to be rejected because He +would not recognise them (Matt. vii. 21-23)? +</p> + +<p> +What must they have thought of Him when He pronounced +those blessed who were persecuted and despised for His sake +(Matt. v. 11, 12)? By what authority did this man forgive sins +(Mark ii. 5 ff.)? +</p> + +<p> +In the discourse at the sending forth of the disciples the <q>I</q> +is still more prominent. He demands of men that in the trials to +come they shall confess Him, that they shall love Him more than +father or mother, bear their cross after Him, and follow Him to +the death, since it is only for such that He can entreat His +Heavenly Father (Matt. x. 32 ff.). Admitting that the expression +<q>Heavenly Father</q> contained no riddle for the listening disciples, +since He had taught them to pray <q>Our Father which art in +Heaven,</q> we have still to ask who was He whose yea or nay should +prevail with God to determine the fate of men at the Judgment? +</p> + +<p> +And yet they found it hard, nay impossible, to think of Him +as Messiah. They guessed Him to be a prophet; some thought of +Elias, some of John the Baptist risen from the dead, as appears +clearly from the answer of the disciples at Caesarea Philippi.<note place='foot'>That he could be taken for the Baptist risen from the dead shows how short a +time before the death of the Baptist His ministry had begun. He only became +known, as the Baptist's question shows, at the time of the mission of the disciples; +Herod first heard of Him after the death of the Baptist. Had he known anything of +Jesus beforehand, it would have been impossible for him suddenly to identify Him +with the Baptist risen from the dead. This elementary consideration has been +overlooked in all calculations of the length of the public ministry of Jesus.</note> +The Messiah was a supernatural personality who was to appear in +the last times, and who was not expected upon earth before that. +</p> + +<p> +At this point a difficulty presents itself. How could Jesus be +Elias for the people? Did they not hold John the Baptist to be +Elias? Not in the least! Jesus was the first and the only person +who attributed this office to him. And, moreover, He declares it +to the people as something mysterious, difficult to understand—<q>If +ye can receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He +that hath ears to hear, let him hear</q> (Matt. xi. 14, 15). In +making this revelation He is communicating to them a piece of +supernatural knowledge, opening up a part of the mystery of the +Kingdom of God. Therefore He uses the same formula of +emphasis as when making known in parables the mystery of the +Kingdom of God (Mark iv.). +</p> + +<p> +The disciples were not with Him at this time, and therefore +did not learn what was the rôle of John the Baptist. When a +little later, in descending from the mount of transfiguration He +<pb n='372'/><anchor id='Pg372'/> +predicted to the three who formed the inner circle of His followers +the resurrection of the Son of Man, they came to Him with +difficulties about the rising from the dead—how could this be +possible when, according to the Pharisees and Scribes, Elias must +first come?—whereupon Jesus explains to them that the preacher +of repentance whom Herod had put to death had been Elias +(Mark ix. 11-13). +</p> + +<p> +Why did not the people take the Baptist to be Elias? In the +first place no doubt because he did not describe himself as such. +In the next place because he did no miracle! He was only a +natural man without any evidence of supernatural power, only a +prophet. In the third place, and that was the decisive point, he +had himself pointed forward to the coming of Elias. He who was +to come, he whom he preached, was not the Messiah, but Elias. +</p> + +<p> +He describes him, not as a supernatural personality, not as a +judge, not as one who will be manifested at the unveiling of the +heavenly world, but as one who in his work shall resemble himself, +only much greater—one who, like himself, baptizes, though with +the Holy Spirit. Had it ever been represented as the work of the +Messiah to baptize? +</p> + +<p> +Before the Last Judgment, so it was inferred from Joel, the +great outpouring of the Spirit was to take place; before the Last +Judgment, so taught Malachi, Elias was to come. Until these events +had occurred the manifestation of the Son of Man was not to be +looked for. Men's thoughts were fixed, therefore, not on the +Messiah, but upon Elias and the outpouring of the Spirit.<note place='foot'>That had been rightly remarked by Colani. Later, however, theology lost sight +of the fact because it did not know how to make any historical use of it.</note> The +Baptist in his preaching combines both ideas, and predicts the +coming of the Great One who shall <q>baptize with the Holy Spirit,</q> +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> who brings about the outpouring of the Spirit. His own +preaching was only designed to secure that at His coming that +Great One should find a community sanctified and prepared to +receive the Spirit. +</p> + +<p> +When he heard in the prison of one who did great wonders +and signs, he desired to learn with certainty whether this was <q>he +who was to come.</q> If this question is taken as referring to the +Messiahship the whole narrative loses its meaning, and it upsets +the theory of the Messianic secret, since in this case at least one +person had become aware, independently, of the office which +belonged to Jesus, not to mention all the ineptitudes involved in +making the Baptist here speak in doubt and confusion. Moreover, +on this false interpretation of the question the point of Jesus' +discourse is lost, for in this case it is not clear why He says to the +people afterwards, <q>If ye can receive it, John himself is Elias.</q> +This revelation presupposes that Jesus and the people, who had +<pb n='373'/><anchor id='Pg373'/> +heard the question which had been addressed to Him, also gave +it its only natural meaning, referring it to Jesus as the bearer of +the office of Elias. +</p> + +<p> +That even the first Evangelist gives the episode a Messianic +setting by introducing it with the words <q>When John heard in the +prison of the works of the Christ</q> does not alter the facts of the +body of the narrative. The sequel directly contradicts the +introduction. And this interpretation fully explains the evasive +answer of Jesus, in which exegesis has always recognised a certain +reserve without ever being able to make it intelligible why Jesus +did not simply send him the message, <q>Yes, I am he</q>—whereto, +however, according to modern theology, He would have needed to +add, <q>but another kind of Messiah from him whom you expect.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The fact was, the Baptist had put Him in an extremely difficult +position. He could not answer that He was Elias if He held +Himself to be the Messiah; on the other hand He could not, and +would not, disclose to him, and still less to the messengers and +the listening multitude, the secret of His Messiahship. Therefore +He sends this obscure message, which only contains a confirmation of +the facts which John had already heard and closes with a warning, +come what may, not to be offended in Him. Of this the Baptist +was to make what he could. +</p> + +<p> +It mattered, in fact, little how John understood the message. +The time was much more advanced than he supposed; the +hammer of the world's clock had risen to strike the last hour. +All that he needed to know was that he had no cause to doubt. +</p> + +<p> +In revealing to the people the true office of the Baptist, Jesus +unveiled to them almost the whole mystery of the Kingdom of +God, and nearly disclosed the secret of His Messiahship. For if +Elias was already present, was not the coming of the Kingdom +close at hand? And if John was Elias, who was Jesus?... +There could only be one answer: the Messiah. But this seemed +impossible, because Messiah was expected as a supernatural +personality. The eulogy on the Baptist is, historically regarded, +identical in content with the prediction of the Parousia in the +discourse at the sending forth of the disciples. For after the +coming of Elias there must follow immediately the judgment +and the other events belonging to the last time. Now we can +understand why in the enumeration of the events of the last +time in the discourse to the Twelve the coming of Elias is not +mentioned. +</p> + +<p> +We see here, too, how, in the thought of Jesus, Messianic +doctrine forces its way into history and simply abolishes the +historic aspect of the events. The Baptist had not held himself +to be Elias, the people had not thought of attributing this office to +him; the description of Elias did not fit him at all, since he had +<pb n='374'/><anchor id='Pg374'/> +done none of those things which Elias was to do: and yet Jesus +makes him Elias, simply because He expected His own manifestation +as Son of Man, and before that it was necessary that Elias +must first have come. And even when John was dead Jesus still +told the disciples that in him Elias had come, although the death +of Elias was not contemplated in the eschatological doctrine, and +was in fact unthinkable, But Jesus must somehow drag or force the +eschatological events into the framework of the actual occurrences. +</p> + +<p> +Thus the conception of the <q>dogmatic element</q> in the +narrative widens in an unsuspected fashion. And even what before +seemed natural becomes on a closer examination doctrinal. The +Baptist is made into Elias solely by the force of Jesus' Messianic +consciousness. +</p> + +<p> +A short time afterwards, immediately upon the return of the +disciples, He spoke and acted before their eyes in a way which +presupposed the Messianic secret. The people had been dogging +his steps; at a lonely spot on the shores of the lake they +surrounded Him, and He <q>taught them about many things</q> +(Mark vi. 30-34). The day was drawing to a close, but they held +closely to Him without troubling about food. In the evening, +before sending them away, He fed them. +</p> + +<p> +Weisse, long ago, had constantly emphasised the fact that the +feeding of the multitude was one of the greatest historical problems, +because this narrative, like that of the transfiguration, is very firmly +riveted to its historical setting and, therefore, imperatively demands +explanation. How is the historical element in it to be got at? +Certainly not by seeking to explain the apparently miraculous in +it on natural lines, by representing that at the bidding of Jesus +people brought out the baskets of provisions which they had been +concealing, and, thus importing into the tradition a natural fact +which, so far from being hinted at in the narrative, is actually +excluded by it. +</p> + +<p> +Our solution is that the whole is historical, except the closing +remark that they were all filled. Jesus distributed the provisions +which He and His disciples had with them among the multitude +so that each received a very little, after He had first offered thanks. +The significance lies in the giving of thanks and in the fact that +they had received from Him consecrated food. Because He is +the future Messiah, this meal becomes without their knowledge the +Messianic feast. With the morsel of bread which He gives His +disciples to distribute to the people He consecrates them as +partakers in the coming Messianic feast, and gives them the +guarantee that they, who had shared His table in the time of His +obscurity, would also share it in the time of His glory. In the +prayer He gave thanks not only for the food, but also for the +coming Kingdom and all its blessings. It is the counterpart of +<pb n='375'/><anchor id='Pg375'/> +the Lord's prayer, where He so strangely inserts the petition for +daily bread between the petitions for the coming of the Kingdom +and for deliverance from the πειρασμός. +</p> + +<p> +The feeding of the multitude was more than a love-feast, a +fellowship-meal. It was from the point of view of Jesus a sacrament +of salvation. +</p> + +<p> +We never realise sufficiently that in a period when the judgment +and the glory were expected as close at hand, one thought +arising out of this expectation must have acquired special +prominence—how, namely, in the present time a man could +obtain a guarantee of coming scatheless through the judgment, of +being saved and received into the Kingdom, of being signed and +sealed for deliverance amid the coming trial, as the Chosen People +in Egypt had a sign revealed to them from God by means of which +they might be manifest as those who were to be spared. But +once we do realise this, we can understand why the thought of +signing and sealing runs through the whole of the apocalyptic +literature. It is found as early as the ninth chapter of Ezekiel. +There, God is making preparation for judgment. The day of +visitation of the city is at hand. But first the Lord calls unto <q>the +man clothed with linen who had the writer's ink-horn by his side</q> +and said unto him, <q>Go through the midst of the city, through the +midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men +that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the +midst thereof.</q> Only after that does He give command to those +who are charged with the judgment to begin, adding, <q>But come +not near any man upon whom is the mark</q> (Ezek. ix. 4 and 6). +</p> + +<p> +In the fifteenth of the Psalms of Solomon,<note place='foot'>Psal. Sol. xv. 8.</note> the last eschatological +writing before the movement initiated by the Baptist, +it is expressly said in the description of the judgment that <q>the +saints of God bear a sign upon them which saves them.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In the Pauline theology very striking prominence is given to +the thought of being sealed unto salvation. The apostle is +conscious of bearing about with him in his body <q>the marks of +Jesus</q> (Gal. vi. 17), the <q>dying</q> of Jesus (2 Cor. iv. 10). This +sign is received in baptism, since it is a baptism <q>into the death +of Christ</q>; in this act the recipient is in a certain sense really +buried with Him, and thenceforth walks among men as one who +belongs, even here below, to risen humanity (Rom. vi. 1 ff.). +Baptism is the seal, the earnest of the spirit, the pledge of that +which is to come (2 Cor i. 22; Eph. i. 13, 14, iv. 30). +</p> + +<p> +This conception of baptism as a <q>salvation</q> in view of that +which was to come goes down through the whole of ancient +theology. Its preaching might really be summed up in the words, +<q>Keep your baptism holy and without blemish.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='376'/><anchor id='Pg376'/> + +<p> +In the Shepherd of Hermas even the spirits of the men of the +past must receive <q>the seal, which is the water</q> in order that +they may <q>bear the name of God upon them.</q> That is why the +tower is built over the water, and the stones which are brought up +out of the deep are rolled through the water (Vis. iii. and Sim. +ix. 16). +</p> + +<p> +In the Apocalypse of John the thought of the sealing stands +prominently in the foreground. The locusts receive power to +hurt those only who have not the seal of God on their foreheads +(Rev. ix. 4, 5). The beast (Rev. xiii. 16 ff.) compels men +to bear his mark; only those who will not accept it are to reign +with Christ (Rev. xx. 4). The chosen hundred and forty-four +thousand bear the name of God and the name of the Lamb upon +their foreheads (Rev. xiv. 1). +</p> + +<p> +<q>Assurance of salvation</q> in a time of eschatological expectation +demanded some kind of security for the future of which the +earnest could be possessed in the present. And with this the predestinarian +thought of election was in complete accord. If we find +the thought of being sealed unto salvation previously in the Psalms +of Solomon, and subsequently in the same signification in Paul, in +the Apocalypse of John, and down to the Shepherd of Hermas, it +may be assumed in advance that it will be found in some form or +other in the so strongly eschatological teaching of Jesus and the +Baptist. +</p> + +<p> +It may be said, indeed, to dominate completely the eschatological +preaching of the Baptist, for this preaching does not confine itself +to the declaration of the nearness of the Kingdom, and the demand +for repentance, but leads up to an act to which it gives a special +reference in relation to the forgiveness of sins and the outpouring +of the spirit. It is a mistake to regard baptism with water as a +<q>symbolic act</q> in the modern sense, and make the Baptist decry +his own wares by saying, <q>I baptize only with water, but the other +can baptize with the Holy Spirit.</q> He is not contrasting the two +baptisms, but connecting them—he who is baptized by him has the +certainty that he will share in the outpouring of the Spirit which +shall precede the judgment, and at the judgment shall receive +forgiveness of sins, as one who is signed with the mark of repentance. +The object of being baptized by him is to secure baptism +with the Spirit later. The forgiveness of sins associated with +baptism is proleptic; it is to be realised at the judgment. The +Baptist himself did not forgive sin.<note place='foot'>That the baptism of John was essentially an act which gave a claim to something +future may be seen from the fact that Jesus speaks of His sufferings and death +as a special baptism, and asks the sons of Zebedee whether they are willing, for the +sake of gaining the thrones on His right hand and His left, to undergo this baptism. +If the baptism of John had had no real sacramental significance it would be +unintelligible that Jesus should use this metaphor.</note> If he had done so, how could +<pb n='377'/><anchor id='Pg377'/> +such offence have been taken when Jesus claimed for Himself the +right to forgive sins in the present (Mark ii. 10). +</p> + +<p> +The baptism of John was therefore an eschatological sacrament +pointing forward to the pouring forth of the spirit and to the +judgment, a provision for <q>salvation.</q> Hence the wrath of the +Baptist when he saw Pharisees and Sadducees crowding to his +baptism: <q>Ye generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee +from the wrath to come? Bring forth now fruits meet for +repentance</q> (Matt. iii. 7, 8). By the reception of baptism, that is, +they are saved from the judgment. +</p> + +<p> +As a cleansing unto salvation it is a divine institution, a revealed +means of grace. That is why the question of Jesus, whether the +baptism of John was from heaven or from men, placed the Scribes +at Jerusalem in so awkward a dilemma (Mark xi. 30). +</p> + +<p> +The authority of Jesus, however, goes farther than that of the +Baptist. As the Messiah who is to come He can give even here +below to those who gather about Him a right to partake in the +Messianic feast, by this distribution of food to them; only, they +do not know what is happening to them and He cannot solve the +riddle for them. The supper at the Lake of Gennesareth was a +veiled eschatological sacrament. Neither the disciples nor the +multitude understood what was happening, since they did not know +who He was who thus made them His guests.<note place='foot'><p>The thought of the Messianic feast is found in Isaiah lv. 1 ff. and lxv. 12 ff. +It is very strongly marked in Isa. xxv. 6-8, a passage which perhaps dates from the +time of Alexander the Great, <q>and Jahweh of Hosts will prepare upon this mountain +for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things prepared +with marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. He shall destroy, in this mountain, +among all peoples, the veil which has veiled all peoples and the covering which has +covered all nations. He shall destroy death for ever, and the Lord Jahweh shall +wipe away the tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people shall disappear +from the earth.</q> (The German follows Kautzsch's translation.) +</p> +<p> +In Enoch xxiv. and xxv. the conception of the Messianic feast is connected with +that of the tree of life which shall offer its fruits to the elect upon the mountain of +the King. Similarly in the Testament of Levi, cap. xviii. 11. +</p> +<p> +The decisive passage is in Enoch lxii. 14. After the Parousia of the Son of Man, +and after the Judgment, the elect who have been saved <q>shall eat with the Son of +Man, shall sit down and rise up with Him to all eternity.</q> +</p> +<p> +Jesus' references to the Messianic feast are therefore not merely images, but point +to a reality. In Matt. viii. 11 and 12 He prophesies that many shall come from the +East and from the West to sit at meat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In Matt. +xxii. 1-14 the Messianic feast is pictured as a royal marriage, in Matt. xxv. 1-13 as a +marriage feast. +</p> +<p> +The Apocalypse is dominated by the thought of the feast in all its forms. In +Rev. ii. 7 it appears in connexion with the thought of the tree of life; in ii. 17 +it is pictured as a feeding with manna; in iii. 21 it is the feast which the Lord will +celebrate with His followers; in vii. 16, 17 there is an allusion to the Lamb who shall +feed His own so that they shall no more hunger or thirst; chapter xix. describes the +marriage feast of the Lamb. +</p> +<p> +The Messianic feast therefore played a dominant part in the conception of +blessedness from Enoch to the Apocalypse of John. From this we can estimate +what sacramental significance a guarantee of taking part in that feast must have had. +The meaning of the celebration was obvious in itself, and was made manifest in the +conduct of it. The sacramental effect was wholly independent of the apprehension +and comprehension of the recipient. Therefore, in this also the meal at the lake-side +was a true sacrament.</p></note> This meal must +<pb n='378'/><anchor id='Pg378'/> +have been transformed by tradition into a miracle, a result +which may have been in part due to the references to the wonders +of the Messianic feast which were doubtless contained in the +prayers, not to speak of the eschatological enthusiasm which then +prevailed universally. Did not the disciples believe that on the +same evening, when they had been commanded to take Jesus into +their ship at the mouth of the Jordan, to which point He had +walked along the shore—did they not believe that they saw Him +come walking towards them upon the waves of the sea? The +impulse to the introduction of the miraculous into the narrative +came from the unintelligible element with which the men who +surrounded Jesus were at this time confronted.<note place='foot'>Weisse rightly remarks that the task of the historian in dealing with Mark must +consist in explaining how such <q>myths</q> could be accepted by a chronicler who stood +so relatively near the events as our Mark does.</note> +</p> + +<p> +The Last Supper at Jerusalem had the same sacramental +significance as that at the lake. Towards the end of the meal +Jesus, after giving thanks, distributes the bread and wine. This +had as little to do with the satisfaction of hunger as the distribution +to the Galilaean believers. The act of Jesus is an end in itself, +and the significance of the celebration consists in the fact that it +is He Himself who makes the distribution. In Jerusalem, however, +they understood what was meant, and He explained it to them +explicitly by telling them that He would drink no more of the +fruit of the vine until He drank it new in the Kingdom of God. +The mysterious images which He used at the time of the distribution +concerning the atoning significance of His death do not +touch the essence of the celebration, they are only discourses +accompanying it. +</p> + +<p> +On this interpretation, therefore, we may think of Baptism and +the Lord's Supper as from the first eschatological sacraments in the +eschatological movement which later detached itself from Judaism +under the name of Christianity. That explains why we find them +both in Paul and in the earliest theology as sacramental acts, not +as symbolic ceremonies, and find them dominating the whole +Christian doctrine. Apart from the assumption of the eschatological +sacraments, we can only make the history of dogma begin +with a <q>fall</q> from the earlier purer theology into the sacramental +magical, without being able to adduce a single syllable in support +of the idea that after the death of Jesus Baptism and the Lord's +Supper existed even for an hour as symbolical actions—Paul, +indeed, makes this supposition wholly impossible. +</p> + +<p> +In any case the adoption of the baptism of John in Christian +practice cannot be explained except on the assumption that it was +<pb n='379'/><anchor id='Pg379'/> +the sacrament of the eschatological community, a revealed means +of securing <q>salvation</q> which was not altered in the slightest by the +Messiahship of Jesus. How else could we explain the fact that +baptism, without any commandment of Jesus, and without Jesus' +ever having baptized, was taken over, as a matter of course, into +Christianity, and was given a special reference to the receiving of +the Spirit? +</p> + +<p> +It is no use proposing to explain it as having been instituted +as a symbolical repetition of the baptism of Jesus, thought of as +<q>an anointing to the Messiahship.</q> There is not a single passage +in ancient theology to support such a theory. And we may point +also to the fact that Paul never refers to the baptism of Jesus in +explaining the character of Christian baptism, never, in fact, makes +any distinct reference to it. And how could baptism, if it had +been a symbolical repetition of the baptism of Jesus, ever have +acquired this magic-sacramental sense of <q>salvation</q>? +</p> + +<p> +Nothing shows more clearly than the dual character of ancient +baptism, which makes it the guarantee both of the reception of the +Spirit and of deliverance from the judgment, that it is nothing else +than the eschatological baptism of John with a single difference. +Baptism with water and baptism with the Spirit are now connected +not only logically, but also in point of time, seeing that since the day +of Pentecost the period of the outpouring of the Spirit is present. +The two portions of the eschatological sacrament which in the +Baptist's preaching were distinguished in point of time—because he +did not expect the outpouring of the Spirit until some future period—are +now brought together, since one eschatological condition—the +baptism with the Spirit—is now present. The <q>Christianising</q> +of baptism consisted in this and in nothing else; though Paul +carried it a stage farther when he formed the conception of +baptism as a mystic partaking in the death and resurrection of +Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +Thus the thoroughgoing eschatological interpretation of the +Life of Jesus puts into the hands of those who are reconstructing +the history of dogma in the earliest times an explanation of the +conception of the sacraments, of which they had been able hitherto +only to note the presence as an <hi rend='italic'>x</hi> of which the origin was undiscoverable, +and for which they possessed no equation by which +it could be evaluated. If Christianity as the religion of historically +revealed mysteries was able to lay hold upon Hellenism and overcome +it, the reason of this was that it was already in its purely +eschatological beginnings a religion of sacraments, a religion of +eschatological sacraments, since Jesus had recognised a Divine +institution in the baptism of John, and had Himself performed a +sacramental action in the distribution of food at the Lake of +Gennesareth and at the Last Supper. +</p> + +<pb n='380'/><anchor id='Pg380'/> + +<p> +This being so, the feeding of the multitude also belongs to the +dogmatic element in the history. But no one had previously +recognised it as what it really was, an indirect disclosure of the +Messianic secret, just as no one had understood the full significance +of Jesus' description of the Baptist as Elias. +</p> + +<p> +But how does Peter at Caesarea Philippi know the secret of his +Master? What he there declares is not a conviction which had +gradually dawned on him, and slowly grown through various stages +of probability and certainty. +</p> + +<p> +The real character of this incident has been interpreted with +remarkable penetration by Wrede. The incident itself, he says, is +to be understood in quite as supernatural a fashion in Mark as in +Matthew. But on the other hand one does not receive the +impression that the writer intends to represent the confession as a +merit or a discovery of Peter. <q>For according to the text of +Mark, Jesus shows no trace of joy or surprise at this confession. +His only answer consists of the command to say nothing about +His Messiahship.</q> Keim, whom Wrede quotes, had received a +similar impression from the Marcan account, and had supposed +that Jesus had actually found the confession of Peter inopportune. +</p> + +<p> +How is all this to be explained—the supernatural knowledge +of Peter and the rather curt fashion in which Jesus receives his +declaration? +</p> + +<p> +It might be worth while to put the story of the transfiguration +side by side with the incident at Caesarea Philippi, since there +the Divine Sonship of Jesus is <q>a second time</q> revealed to the +<q>three,</q> Peter, James, and John, and the revelation is made +supernaturally by a voice from heaven. It is rather striking that +Mark does not seem to be conscious that he is reporting something +which the disciples knew already. At the beginning of the actual +transfiguration Peter still addresses Jesus simply as Rabbi (Mark +ix. 5). And what does it mean when Jesus, during the descent +from the mountain, forbids them to speak to any man concerning +that which they have seen until after the resurrection of the Son of +Man? That would exclude even the other disciples who knew +only the secret of His Messiahship. But why should they not be +told of the Divine confirmation of that which Peter had declared +at Caesarea Philippi and Jesus had <q>admitted</q>? +</p> + +<p> +What has the transfiguration to do with the resurrection of the +dead? And why are the thoughts of the disciples suddenly busied, +not with what they have seen, not with the fact that the Son of +Man shall rise from the dead, but simply with the possibility of the +rising from the dead, the difficulty being that Elias was not yet +present? Those who see in the transfiguration a projection +backwards of the Pauline theology into the Gospel history do +not realise what are the principal points and difficulties of the +<pb n='381'/><anchor id='Pg381'/> +narrative. The problem lies in the conversation during the +descent. Against the Messiahship of Jesus, against His rising +from the dead, they have only one objection to suggest: Elias had +not yet come. +</p> + +<p> +We see here, in the first place, the importance of the revelation +which Jesus had made to the people in declaring to them the +secret that the Baptist is Elias. From the standpoint of the +eschatological expectation no one could recognise Elias in the +Baptist, unless he knew of the Messiahship of Jesus. And no one +could believe in the Messiahship and <q>resurrection</q> of Jesus, that +is, in His Parousia, without presupposing that Elias had in some +way or other already come. This was therefore the primary +difficulty of the disciples, the stumbling-block which Jesus must +remove for them by making the same revelation concerning the +Baptist to them as to the people. It is also once more abundantly +clear that expectation was directed at that time primarily to the +coming of Elias.<note place='foot'>It is to be noticed that the cry of Jesus from the cross, <q>Eli, Eli,</q> was +immediately interpreted by the bystanders as referring to Elias.</note> But since the whole eschatological movement +arose out of the Baptist's preaching, the natural conclusion is that +by <q>him who was to come after</q> and baptize with the Holy Spirit +John meant, not the Messiah, but Elias. +</p> + +<p> +But if the non-appearance of Elias was the primary difficulty +of the disciples in connexion with the Messiahship of Jesus and +all that it implied, why does it only strike the <q>three,</q> and moreover, +all three of them together, now, and not at Caesarea Philippi?<note place='foot'>From this difficulty we can see, too, how impossible it was for any of them to +have <q>arrived gradually at the knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus.</q></note> +How could Peter there have declared it and here be still labouring +with the rest over the difficulty which stood in the way of his own +declaration? To make the narrative coherent, the transfiguration, +as being a revelation of the Messiahship, ought to precede the +incident at Caesarea Philippi. Now let us look at the connexion +in which it actually occurs. It falls in that inexplicable section +Mark viii. 34-ix. 30 in which the multitude suddenly appears in +the company of Jesus who is sojourning in a Gentile district, only +to disappear again, equally enigmatically, afterwards, when He +sets out for Galilee, instead of accompanying Him back to their own +country. +</p> + +<p> +In this section everything points to the situation during the +days at Bethsaida after the return of the disciples from their +mission. Jesus is surrounded by the people, while what He desires +is to be alone with His immediate followers. The disciples make +use of the healing powers which He had bestowed upon them +when sending them forth, and have the experience of finding that +they are not in all cases adequate (Mark ix. 14-29). The +<pb n='382'/><anchor id='Pg382'/> +mountain to which He takes the <q>three</q> is not a mountain in the +north, or as some have suggested, an imaginary mountain of the +Evangelist, but the same to which Jesus went up to pray and to be +alone on the evening of the feeding of the multitude (Mark vi. 46 +and ix. 2). The house to which He goes after His return from +the transfiguration is therefore to be placed at Bethsaida. +</p> + +<p> +Another thing which points to a sojourn at Bethsaida after the +feeding of the multitude is the story of the healing of the blind +man at Bethsaida (Mark viii. 22-26). +</p> + +<p> +The circumstances, therefore, which we have to presuppose are +that Jesus is surrounded and thronged by the people at Bethsaida. +In order to be alone He once more puts the Jordan between Himself +and the multitude, and goes with the <q>three</q> to the mountain where +He had prayed after the feeding of the five thousand. This is the +only way in which we can understand how the people failed to follow +Him, and He was able really to carry out His plan. +</p> + +<p> +But how could this story be torn out of its natural context and +its scene removed to Caesarea Philippi, where it is both on external +and internal grounds impossible? What we need to notice is the +Marcan account of the events which followed the sending forth of +the disciples. We have two stories of the feeding of the multitude +with a crossing of the lake after each (Mark vi. 31-56, Mark viii. +1-22), two stories of Jesus going away towards the north with the +same motive, that of being alone and unrecognised. The first +time, after the controversy about the washing of hands, His course +is directed towards Tyre (Mark vii. 24-30), the second time, after +the demand for a sign, he goes into the district of Caesarea Philippi +(Mark viii. 27). The scene of the controversy about the washing +of hands is some locality in the plain of Gennesareth (Mark vi. +53 ff); Dalmanutha is named as the place where the sign was +demanded (Mark viii. 10 ff.). +</p> + +<p> +The most natural conclusion is to identify the two cases of +feeding the multitude, and the two journeys northwards. In that +case we should have in the section Mark vi. 31-ix. 30, two sets of +narratives worked into one another, both recounting how Jesus, +after the disciples came back to Him, went with them from +Capernaum to the northern shore of the lake, was there surprised +by the multitude, and after the meal which He gave them, crossed +the Jordan by boat to Bethsaida, stayed there for a while, and then +returned again by ship to the country of Gennesareth, and was +there again overtaken and surrounded by the people; then after +some controversial encounters with the Scribes, who at the report +of His miracles had come down from Jerusalem (Mark vii. 1), left +Galilee and again went northwards.<note place='foot'>For the hypothesis of the two sets of narratives which have been worked into +one another, see the <q>Sketch of the Life of Jesus,</q> 1901, p. 52 ff., <q>After the +Mission of the Disciples. Literary and historical problems.</q> A theory resting on +the same principle was lately worked out in detail by Johannes Weiss, <hi rend='italic'>Das älteste +Evangelium</hi> (The Earliest Gospel), 1903, p. 205 ff.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='383'/><anchor id='Pg383'/> + +<p> +The seams at the joining of the narratives can be recognised in +Mark vii. 31, where Jesus is suddenly transferred from the north to +Decapolis, and in the saying in Mark viii. 14 ff., which makes +explicit reference to the two miracles of feeding the multitude. +Whether the Evangelist himself worked these two sets of narratives +together, or whether he found them already united, cannot be +determined, and is not of any direct historical interest. The disorder +is in any case so complete that we cannot fully reconstruct +each of the separate sets of narratives. +</p> + +<p> +The external reasons why the narratives of Mark viii. 34-ix. 30, +of which the scene is on the northern shore of the lake, are placed +in this way after the incident of Caesarea Philippi are not difficult +to grasp. The section contains an impressive discourse to the +people on following Jesus in His sufferings, crucifixion, and death +(Mark viii. 34-ix. 1). For this reason the whole series of scenes is +attached to the revelation of the secret of the suffering of the Son +of Man; and the redactor did not stop to think how the people +could suddenly appear, and as suddenly disappear again. The +statement, too, <q>He called the people with the disciples</q> (Mark viii. +34), helped to mislead him into inserting the section at this point, +although this very remark points to the circumstances of the time +just after the return of the disciples, when Jesus was sometimes +alone with the disciples, and sometimes calls the eager multitude +about Him. +</p> + +<p> +The whole scene belongs, therefore, to the days which He spent +at Bethsaida, and originally followed immediately upon the crossing +of the lake, after the feeding of the multitude. It was after Jesus +had been six days surrounded by the people, not six days after the +revelation at Caesarea Philippi, that the <q>transfiguration</q> took place +(Mark ix. 2). On this assumption, all the difficulties of the incident +at Caesarea Philippi are cleared up in a moment; there is no +longer anything strange in the fact that Peter declares to Jesus who +He really is, while Jesus appears neither surprised nor especially +rejoiced at the insight of His disciple. The transfiguration had, in +fact, been the revelation of the secret of the Messiahship to the +three who constituted the inner circle of the disciples.<note place='foot'>It is typical of the constant agreement of the critical conclusions in thoroughgoing +scepticism and thoroughgoing eschatology that Wrede also observes: <q>The transfiguration +and Peter's confession are closely connected in content</q> (p. 123). He also +clearly perceives the inconsistency in the fact that Peter at Caesarea Philippi gives +evidence of possessing a knowledge which he and his fellow-disciples do not show +elsewhere (p. 119), but the fact that it is Peter, not Jesus, who reveals the Messianic +secret, constitutes a very serious difficulty for Wrede's reading of the facts, since this +assumes Jesus to have been the revealer of it.</note> And Jesus +had not Himself revealed it to them; what had happened was, that +<pb n='384'/><anchor id='Pg384'/> +in a state of rapture common to them all, in which they had seen +the Master in a glorious transfiguration, they had seen Him talking +with Moses and Elias and had heard a voice from heaven saying, +<q>This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.</q> +</p> + +<p> +We must always make a fresh effort to realise to ourselves, that +Jesus and His immediate followers were, at that time, in an +enthusiastic state of intense eschatological expectation. We must +picture them among the people, who were filled with penitence for +their sins, and with faith in the Kingdom, hourly expecting the +coming of the Kingdom, and the revelation of Jesus as the Son of +Man, seeing in the eager multitude itself a sign that their reckoning +of the time was correct; thus the psychological conditions were +present for a common ecstatic experience such as is described in the +account of the transfiguration. +</p> + +<p> +In this ecstasy the <q>three</q> heard the voice from heaven saying +who He was. Therefore, the Matthaean report, according to which +Jesus praises Simon <q>because flesh and blood have not revealed it +to him, but the Father who is in heaven,</q> is not really at variance +with the briefer Marcan account, since it rightly indicates the source +of Peter's knowledge. +</p> + +<p> +Nevertheless Jesus was astonished. For Peter here disregarded +the command given during the descent from the mount of transfiguration. +He had <q>betrayed</q> to the Twelve Jesus' consciousness +of His Messiahship. One receives the impression that Jesus did +not put the question to the disciples in order to reveal Himself to +them as Messiah, and that by the impulsive speech of Peter, upon +whose silence He had counted because of His command, and to +whom He had not specially addressed the question, He was forced +to take a different line of action in regard to the Twelve from what +He had intended. It is probable that He had never had the +intention of revealing the secret of His Messiahship to the disciples. +Otherwise He would not have kept it from them at the time of +their mission, when He did not expect them to return before the +Parousia. Even at the transfiguration the <q>three</q> do not learn it +from His lips, but in a state of ecstasy, an ecstasy which He shared +with them. At Caesarea Philippi it is not He, but Peter, who +reveals His Messiahship. We may say, therefore, that Jesus did +not voluntarily give up His Messianic secret; it was wrung from +Him by the pressure of events. +</p> + +<p> +However that may be, from Caesarea Philippi onwards it was +known to the other disciples through Peter; what Jesus Himself +revealed to them, was the secret of his sufferings. +</p> + +<p> +Pfleiderer and Wrede were quite right in pointing to the clear +and definite predictions of the suffering, death, and resurrection as +the historically inexplicable element in our reports, since the +necessity of Jesus' death, by which modern theology endeavours +<pb n='385'/><anchor id='Pg385'/> +to make His resolve and His predictions intelligible, is not a +necessity which arises out of the historical course of events. There +was not present any natural ground for such a resolve on the part +of Jesus. Had He returned to Galilee, He would immediately +have had the multitudes flocking after Him again. +</p> + +<p> +In order to make the historical possibility of the resolve to +suffer and the prediction of the sufferings in some measure +intelligible, modern theology has to ignore the prediction of the +resurrection which is bound up with them, for this is <q>dogmatic.</q> +That is, however, not permissible. We must, as Wrede insists, take +the words as they are, and must not even indulge in ingenious +explanations of the <q>three days.</q> Therefore, the resolve to suffer +and to die are dogmatic; therefore, according to him, they are unhistorical, +and only to be explained by a literary hypothesis. +</p> + +<p> +But the thoroughgoing eschatological school says they are +dogmatic, and therefore historical; because they find their +explanation in eschatological conceptions. +</p> + +<p> +Wrede held that the Messianic conception implied in the +Marcan narrative is not the Jewish Messianic conception, just +because of the thought of suffering and death which it involves. +No stress must be laid on the fact that in Fourth Ezra vii. 29 the +Christ dies and rises again, because His death takes place at the end +of the Messianic Kingdom.<note place='foot'><q>After these years shall my Son, the Christ, die, together with all who have the +breath of men. Then shall the Age be changed into the primeval silence; seven days, +as at the first beginning so that no man shall be left. After seven days shall the +Age, which now sleeps, awake, and perishability shall itself perish.</q></note> The Jewish Messiah is essentially a +glorious being who shall appear in the last time. True, but the +case in which the Messiah should be present, prior to the Parousia, +should cause the final tribulations to come upon the earth, and +should Himself undergo them, does not arise in the Jewish +eschatology as described from without. It first arises with the +self-consciousness of Jesus. Therefore, the Jewish conception of +the Messiah has no information to give us upon this point. +</p> + +<p> +In order to understand Jesus' resolve to suffer, we must first +recognise that the mystery of this suffering is involved in the mystery +of the Kingdom of God, since the Kingdom cannot come until the +πειρασμός has taken place. This certainty of suffering is quite +independent of the historic circumstances, as the beatitude on the +persecuted in the sermon on the mount, and the predictions in the +discourse at the sending forth of the Twelve, clearly show. Jesus' +prediction of His own sufferings at Caesarea Philippi is precisely as +unintelligible, precisely as dogmatic, and therefore precisely as +historical as the prediction to the disciples at the time of their +mission. The <q>must be</q> of the sufferings is the same—the coming +of the Kingdom, and of the Parousia, which are dependent upon +the πειρασμός having first taken place. +</p> + +<pb n='386'/><anchor id='Pg386'/> + +<p> +In the first period Jesus' thoughts concerning His own sufferings +were included in the more general thought of the sufferings which +formed part of the mystery of the Kingdom of God. The exhortations +to hold steadfastly to Him in the time of trial, and not to lose +faith in Him, certainly tended to suggest that He thought of +Himself as the central point amid these conflicts and confusions, +and reckoned on the possibility of His own death as much as on +that of others. Upon this point nothing more definite can be said, +since the mystery of Jesus' own sufferings does not detach itself +from the mystery of the sufferings connected with the Kingdom of +God until after the Messianic secret is made known at Caesarea +Philippi. What is certain is that, for Him, suffering was always +associated with the Messianic secret, since He placed His Parousia +at the end of the pre-Messianic tribulations in which He was to +have His part. +</p> + +<p> +The suffering, death, and resurrection of which the secret was +revealed at Caesarea Philippi are not therefore in themselves new +or surprising.<note place='foot'><p>Difficult problems are involved in the prediction of the resurrection in Mark xiv. +28. Jesus there promises His disciples that He will <q>go before them</q> into Galilee. +That cannot mean that He will go alone into Galilee before them, and that they +shall there meet with Him, their risen Master; what He contemplates is that He +shall return <emph>with</emph> them, at their head, from Jerusalem to Galilee. Was it that the +manifestation of the Son of Man and of the Judgment should take place there? So +much is clear: the saying, far from directing the disciples to go away to Galilee, +chains them to Jerusalem, there to await Him who should lead them home. It +should not therefore be claimed as supporting the tradition of the Galilaean +appearances. +</p> +<p> +We find it <q>corrected</q> by the saying of the <q>young man</q> at the grave, who +says to the women, <q>Go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into +Galilee. There shall ye see Him as He said unto you.</q> +</p> +<p> +Here then the idea of following in point of time is foisted upon the words <q>he +goeth before you,</q> whereas in the original the word has a purely local sense, +corresponding to the καὶ ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς ὁ Ιησοῦς in Mark x. 32. +</p> +<p> +But the correction is itself meaningless since the visions took place in Jerusalem. +We have therefore in this passage a more detailed indication of the way in which +Jesus thought of the events subsequent to His Resurrection. The interpretation of +this unfulfilled saying is, however, wholly impossible for us: it was not less so for the +earliest tradition, as is shown by the attempt to give it a meaning by the <q>correction.</q></p></note> The novelty lies in the form in which they are +conceived. The tribulation, so far as Jesus is concerned, is +now connected with an historic event: He will go to Jerusalem, there +to suffer death at the hands of the authorities. +</p> + +<p> +For the future, however, He no longer speaks of the general +tribulation which He is to bring upon the earth, nor of the sufferings +which await His followers, nor of the sufferings in which they must +rally round Him. In the predictions of the passion there is no +word of that; at Jerusalem there is no word of that. This thought +disappears once for all. +</p> + +<p> +In the secret of His passion which Jesus reveals to the disciples +at Caesarea Philippi the pre-Messianic tribulation is for others set +aside, abolished, concentrated upon Himself alone, and that in the +<pb n='387'/><anchor id='Pg387'/> +form that they are fulfilled in His own passion and death at Jerusalem. +That was the new conviction that had dawned upon Him. He +must suffer for others ... that the Kingdom might come. +</p> + +<p> +This change was due to the non-fulfilment of the promises made +in the discourse at the sending forth of the Twelve. He had +thought then to let loose the final tribulation and so compel the +coming of the Kingdom. And the cataclysm had not occurred. +He had expected it also after the return of the disciples. In +Bethsaida, in speaking to the multitude which He had consecrated +by the foretaste of the Messianic feast, as also to the disciples at +the time of their mission, He had turned their thoughts to things +to come and had adjured them to be prepared to suffer with Him, +to give up their lives, not to be ashamed of Him in His humiliation, +since otherwise the Son of Man would be ashamed of them when +He came in glory (Mark viii. 34-ix. 1).<note place='foot'>Here it is evident also from the form taken by the prophecy of the sufferings +that the section Mark viii. 34 ff. cannot possibly come after the revelation at Caesarea +Philippi, since in it, it is the thought of the general sufferings which is implied. For +the same reason the predictions of suffering and tribulation in the Synoptic +Apocalypse in Mark xiii. cannot be derived from Jesus.</note> +</p> + +<p> +In leaving Galilee He abandoned the hope that the final +tribulation would begin of itself. If it delays, that means that +there is still something to be done, and yet another of the violent +must lay violent hands upon the Kingdom of God. The movement +of repentance had not been sufficient. When, in accordance with +His commission, by sending forth the disciples with their message, +he hurled the fire-brand which should kindle the fiery trials of the +Last Time, the flame went out. He had not succeeded in sending +the sword on earth and stirring up the conflict. And until the +time of trial had come, the coming of the Kingdom and His own +manifestation as Son of Man were impossible. +</p> + +<p> +That meant—not that the Kingdom was not near at hand—but +that God had appointed otherwise in regard to the time of +trial. He had heard the Lord's Prayer in which Jesus and His +followers prayed for the coming of the Kingdom—and at the same +time, for deliverance from the πειρασμός. The time of trial was not +come; therefore God in His mercy and omnipotence had eliminated +it from the series of eschatological events, and appointed to Him +whose commission had been to bring it about, instead to accomplish +it in His own person. As He who was to rule over the members +of the Kingdom in the future age, He was appointed to serve them +in the present, to give His life for them, the many (Mark x. 45 and +xiv. 24), and to make in His own blood the atonement which they +would have had to render in the tribulation. +</p> + +<p> +The Kingdom could not come until the debt which weighed +upon the world was discharged. Until then, not only the now +living believers, but the chosen of all generations since the beginning +<pb n='388'/><anchor id='Pg388'/> +of the world wait for their manifestation in glory—Abraham, Isaac, +and Jacob and all the countless unknown who should come from +the East and from the West to sit at tables with them at the +Messianic feast (Matt. viii. 11). The enigmatic πολλοί for whom +Jesus dies are those predestined to the Kingdom, since His death +must at last compel the Coming of the Kingdom.<note place='foot'><p>Weisse and Bruno Bauer had long ago pointed out how curious it was that +Jesus in the sayings about His sufferings spoke of <q>many</q> instead of speaking of +<q>His own</q> or <q>the believers.</q> Weisse found in the words the thought that Jesus +died for the nation as a whole; Bruno Bauer that the <q>for many</q> in the words of +Jesus was derived from the view of the later theology of the Christian community. +This explanation is certainly wrong, for so soon as the words of Jesus come into any +kind of contact with early theology the <q>many</q> disappear to give place to the +<q>believers.</q> In the Pauline words of institution the form is: My body for you +(1 Cor. xi. 24). +</p> +<p> +Johannes Weiss follows in the footsteps of Weisse when he interprets the <q>many</q> +as the nation (<hi rend='italic'>Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes</hi>, 2nd ed., 1909, p. 201). He gives +however, quite a false turn to this interpretation by arguing that the <q>many</q> cannot +include the disciples, since they <q>who in faith and penitence have received the tidings of +the Kingdom of God no longer need a special means of deliverance such as this.</q> They +are the chosen, to them the Kingdom is assured. But a ransom, a special means of +salvation, is needful for the mass of the people, who in their blindness have incurred +the guilt of rejecting the Messiah. For this grave sin, which is, nevertheless, to some +extent excused as due to ignorance, there is a unique atoning sacrifice, the death of +the Messiah. +</p> +<p> +This theory is based on a distinction of which there is no hint in the teaching of +Jesus; and it takes no account of the predestinarianism which is an integral part of +eschatology, and which, in fact, dominated the thoughts of Jesus. The Lord is +conscious that He dies only for the elect. For others His death can avail nothing, +nor even their own repentance. Moreover, He does not die in order that this one +or that one may come into the Kingdom of God; He provides the atonement in +order that the Kingdom itself may come. Until the Kingdom comes even the elect +cannot possess it.</p></note> +</p> + +<p> +This thought Jesus found in the prophecies of Isaiah, which +spoke of the suffering Servant of the Lord. The mysterious description +of Him who in His humiliation was despised and misunderstood, +who, nevertheless bears the guilt of others and afterwards is made +manifest in what He has done for them, points, He feels, to Himself. +</p> + +<p> +And since He found it there set down that He must suffer +unrecognised, and that those for whom He suffered should doubt +Him, His suffering should, nay must, remain a mystery. In that +case those who doubted Him would not bring condemnation upon +themselves. He no longer needs to adjure them for their own +sakes to be faithful to Him and to stand by Him even amid +reproach and humiliation; He can calmly predict to His disciples +that they shall all be offended in Him and shall flee (Mark xiv. 26, +27); He can tell Peter, who boasts that he will die with Him, that +before the dawn he shall deny Him thrice (Mark xiv. 29-31); all +that is so set down in the Scripture. They must doubt Him. But +now they shall not lose their blessedness, for He bears all sins +and transgressions. That, too, is buried in the atonement which +He offers. +</p> + +<pb n='389'/><anchor id='Pg389'/> + +<p> +Therefore, also, there is no need for them to understand His +secret. He spoke of it to them without any explanation. It is +sufficient that they should know why He goes up to Jerusalem. +They, on their part, are thinking only of the coming transformation +of all things, as their conversation shows. The prospect which He +has opened up to them is clear enough; the only thing that they +do not understand is why He must first die at Jerusalem. The +first time that Peter ventured to speak to Him about it, He had +turned on him with cruel harshness, had almost cursed him (Mark viii. +32, 33); from that time forward they no longer dared to ask Him +anything about it. The new thought of His own passion has its +basis therefore in the authority with which Jesus was armed to +bring about the beginning of the final tribulation. Ethically +regarded, His taking the suffering upon Himself is an act of mercy +and compassion towards those who would otherwise have had to +bear these tribulations, and perhaps would not have stood the test. +Historically regarded, the thought of His sufferings involves the +same lofty treatment both of history and eschatology as was +manifested in the identification of the Baptist with Elias. For +now He identifies His condemnation and execution, which are +to take place on natural lines, with the predicted pre-Messianic +tribulations. This imperious forcing of eschatology into history is +also its destruction; its assertion and abandonment at the same +time. +</p> + +<p> +Towards Passover, therefore, Jesus sets out for Jerusalem, solely +in order to die there.<note place='foot'>One might use it as a principle of division by which to classify the lives of +Jesus, whether they make Him go to Jerusalem to work or to die. Here as in so +many other places Weisse's clearness of perception is surprising. Jesus' journey was +according to him a pilgrimage to death, not to the Passover.</note> <q>It is,</q> says Wrede, <q>beyond question the +opinion of Mark that Jesus went to Jerusalem because He had +decided to die; that is obvious even from the details of the story.</q> +It is therefore a mistake to speak of Jesus as <q>teaching</q> in +Jerusalem. He has no intention of doing so. As a prophet He +foretells in veiled parabolic form the offence which must come +(Mark xii. 1-12), exhorts men to watch for the Parousia, pictures +the nature of the judgment which the Son of Man shall hold, and, +for the rest, thinks only how He can so provoke the Pharisees and +the rulers that they will be compelled to get rid of Him. That is +why He violently cleanses the Temple, and attacks the Pharisees, +in the presence of the people, with passionate invective. +</p> + +<p> +From the revelation at Caesarea Philippi onward, all that +belongs to the history of Jesus, in the strict sense, are the events +which lead up to His death; or, to put it more accurately, the +events in which He Himself is the sole actor. The other things +which happen, the questions which are laid before Him for decision, +the episodic incidents which occur in those days, have nothing to +<pb n='390'/><anchor id='Pg390'/> +do with the real <q>Life of Jesus,</q> since they contribute nothing to +the decisive issue, but merely form the anecdotic fringes of the real +outward and inward event, the deliberate bringing down of death +upon Himself. +</p> + +<p> +It is in truth surprising that He succeeded in transforming into +history this resolve which had its roots in dogma, and really dying +alone. Is it not almost unintelligible that His disciples were not +involved in His fate? Not even the disciple who smote with the +sword was arrested along with Him (Mark xiv. 47); Peter, +recognised in the courtyard of the High Priest's house as one who +had been with Jesus the Nazarene, is allowed to go free. +</p> + +<p> +For a moment indeed, Jesus believes that the <q>three</q> are +destined to share His fate, not from any outward necessity, but +because they had professed themselves able to suffer the last +extremities with Him. The sons of Zebedee, when He asked them +whether, in order to sit at His right hand and His left, they are +prepared to drink His cup and be baptized with His baptism, had +declared that they were, and thereupon He had predicted that they +should do so (Mark x. 38, 39). Peter again had that very night, in +spite of the warning of Jesus, sworn that he would go even unto +death with Him (Mark xiv. 30, 31). Hence He is conscious of a +higher possibility that these three are to go through the trial with +Him. He takes them with Him to Gethsemane and bids them +remain near Him and watch with Him. And since they do not +perceive the danger of the hour, He adjures them to watch and pray. +They are to pray that they may not have to pass through the trial +(ἵνα μὴ ἔλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν) since, though the spirit is willing, the +flesh is weak. Amid His own sore distress He is anxious about +them and their capacity to share His trial as they had declared +their willingness to do.<note place='foot'><q>That ye enter not into temptation</q> is the content of the prayer that they are +to offer while watching with Him.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Here also it is once more made clear that for Jesus the necessity +of His death is grounded in dogma, not in external historical facts. +Above the dogmatic eschatological necessity, however, there stands +the omnipotence of God, which is bound by no limitations. As +Jesus in the Lord's Prayer had taught His followers to pray for +deliverance from the πειρασμός, and as in His fears for the three He +bids them pray for the same thing, so now He Himself prays for +deliverance, even in this last moment when He knows that the +armed band which is coming to arrest Him is already on the way. +Literal history does not exist for Him, only the will of God; and +this is exalted even above eschatological necessity. +</p> + +<p> +But how did this exact agreement between the fate of Jesus and +His predictions come about? Why did the authorities strike at +Him only, not at His whole following, not even at the disciples? +<pb n='391'/><anchor id='Pg391'/> +He was arrested and condemned on account of His Messianic +claims. But how did the High Priest know that Jesus claimed to +be the Messiah? And why does he put the accusation as a direct +question without calling witnesses in support of it? Why was the +attempt first made to bring up a saying about the Temple which +could be interpreted as blasphemy in order to condemn Him on +this ground (Mark xiv. 57-59)? Before that again, as is evident +from Mark's account, they had brought up a whole crowd of +witnesses in the hope of securing evidence sufficient to justify His +condemnation; and the attempt had not succeeded. +</p> + +<p> +It was only after all these attempts had failed that the High +Priest brought his accusation concerning the Messianic claim, and +he did so without citing the three necessary witnesses. Why so? +Because he had not got them. The condemnation of Jesus +depended on His own admission. That was why they had +endeavoured to convict Him upon other charges.<note place='foot'><p>As long ago as 1880, H. W. Bleby (<hi rend='italic'>The Trial of Jesus considered as a Judicial +Act</hi>) had emphasised this circumstance as significant. The injustice in the trial of +Jesus consisted, according to him, in the fact that He was condemned on His own +admission without any witnesses being called. Dalman, it is true, will not admit +that this technical error was very serious. +</p> +<p> +But the really important point is not whether the condemnation was legal or not; +it is the significant fact that the High Priest called no witnesses. Why did he not +call any? This question was obscured for Bleby and Dalman by other problems.</p></note> +</p> + +<p> +This wholly unintelligible feature of the trial confirms what is +evident also from the discourses and attitude of Jesus at Jerusalem, +viz. that He had not been held by the multitude to be the +Messiah, that the idea of His making such claims had not for a +moment occurred to them—lay in fact for them quite beyond the +range of possibility. Therefore He cannot have made a Messianic +entry. +</p> + +<p> +According to Havet, Brandt, Wellhausen, Dalman, and Wrede +the ovation at the entry had no Messianic character whatever. It +is wholly mistaken, as Wrede quite rightly remarks, to represent +matters as if the Messianic ovation was forced upon Jesus—that He +accepted it with inner repugnance and in silent passivity. For that +would involve the supposition that the people had for a moment +regarded Him as Messiah and then afterwards had shown themselves +as completely without any suspicion of His Messiahship as +though they had in the interval drunk of the waters of Lethe. The +exact opposite is true: Jesus Himself made the preparations for +the Messianic entry. Its Messianic features were due to His +arrangements. He made a point of riding upon the ass, not +because He was weary, but because He desired that the Messianic +prophecy of Zech. ix. 9 should be secretly fulfilled. +</p> + +<p> +The entry is therefore a Messianic act on the part of Jesus, an +action in which His consciousness of His office breaks through, as +it did at the sending forth of the disciples, in the explanation that +<pb n='392'/><anchor id='Pg392'/> +the Baptist was Elias, and in the feeding of the multitude. But +others can have had no suspicion of the Messianic significance +of that which was going on before their eyes. The entry into +Jerusalem was therefore Messianic for Jesus, but not Messianic for +the people. +</p> + +<p> +But what was He for the people? Here Wrede's theory that +He was a teacher again refutes itself. In the triumphal entry there +is more than the ovation offered to a teacher. The jubilations have +reference to <q>Him who is to come</q>; it is to Him that the +acclamations are offered and because of Him that the people +rejoice in the nearness of the Kingdom, as in Mark, the cries of +jubilation show; for here, as Dalman rightly remarks, there is +actually no mention of the Messiah. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus therefore made His entry into Jerusalem as the Prophet, +as Elias. That is confirmed by Matthew (xxi. 11), although Matthew +gives a Messianic colouring to the entry itself by bringing in the +acclamation in which He was designated the Son of David, just as, +conversely, he reports the Baptist's question rightly, and introduces +it wrongly, by making the Baptist hear of the <q>works of the +Christ.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Was Mark conscious, one wonders, that it was not a Messianic +entry that he was reporting? We do not know. It is not inherently +impossible that, as Wrede asserts, <q>he had no real view concerning +the historical life of Jesus,</q> did not know whether Jesus was +recognised as Messiah, and took no interest in the question from an +historical point of view. Fortunately for us! For that is why he +simply hands on tradition and does not write a Life of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +The Marcan hypothesis went astray in conceiving this Gospel +as a Life of Jesus written with either complete or partial historical +consciousness, and interpreting it on these lines, on the sole ground +that it only brings in the name Son of Man twice prior to the +incident at Caesarea Philippi. The Life of Jesus cannot be +arrived at by following the arrangement of a single Gospel, but +only on the basis of the tradition which is preserved more or less +faithfully in the earliest pair of Synoptic Gospels. +</p> + +<p> +Questions of literary priority, indeed literary questions in +general, have in the last resort, as Keim remarked long ago, +nothing to do with the gaining of a clear idea of the course of +events, since the Evangelists had not themselves a clear idea of it +before their minds; it can only be arrived at hypothetically by an +experimental reconstruction based on the necessary inner connexion +of the incidents. +</p> + +<p> +But who could possibly have had in early times a clear conception +of the Life of Jesus? Even its most critical moments were +totally unintelligible to the disciples who had themselves shared in +the experiences, and who were the only sources for the tradition. +</p> + +<pb n='393'/><anchor id='Pg393'/> + +<p> +They were simply swept through these events by the momentum of +the purpose of Jesus. That is why the tradition is incoherent. +The reality had been incoherent too, since it was only the secret +Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus which created alike the events +and their connexion. Every Life of Jesus remains therefore a +reconstruction on the basis of a more or less accurate insight into +the nature of the dynamic self-consciousness of Jesus which +created the history. +</p> + +<p> +The people, whatever Mark may have thought, did not offer +Jesus a Messianic ovation at all; it was He who, in the conviction +that they were wholly unable to recognise it, played with His +Messianic self-consciousness before their eyes, just as He did at +the time after the sending forth of the disciples, when, as now, +He thought the end at hand. It was in the same way, too, that +He closed the invective against the Pharisees with the words <q>I +say unto you, ye shall see me no more until ye shall say, Blessed +is he that cometh in the name of the Lord</q> (Matt. xxiii. 39). This +saying implies His Parousia. +</p> + +<p> +Similarly He is playing with His secret in that crucial question +regarding the Messiahship in Mark xii. 35-37. There is no +question of dissociating the Davidic Sonship from the Messiahship.<note place='foot'>That would have been to utter a heresy which would alone have sufficed to +secure His condemnation. It would certainly have been brought up as a charge +against Him.</note> +He asks only how can the Christ in virtue of His descent from +David be, as his son, inferior to David, and yet be addressed by +David in the Psalm as his Lord? The answer is; by reason of +the metamorphosis and Parousia in which natural relationships are +abolished and the scion of David's line who is the predestined +Son of Man shall take possession of His unique glory. +</p> + +<p> +Far from rejecting the Davidic Sonship in this saying, Jesus, on +the contrary, presupposes His possession of it. That raises the +question whether He did not really during His lifetime regard +Himself as a descendant of David and whether He was not +regarded as such. Paul, who otherwise shows no interest in the +earthly phase of the existence of the Lord, certainly implies +His descent from David. +</p> + +<p> +The blind man at Jericho, too, cries out to the Nazarene +prophet as <q>Son of David</q> (Mark x. 47). But in doing so he +does not mean to address Jesus as Messiah, for afterwards, when +he is brought to Him he simply calls Him <q>Rabbi</q> (Mark x. 51). +And the people thought nothing further about what he had said. +When the expectant people bid him keep silence they do not do so +because the expression Son of David offends them, but because his +clamour annoys them. Jesus, however, was struck by this cry, +stood still and caused him, as he was standing timidly behind the +<pb n='394'/><anchor id='Pg394'/> +eager multitude, to be brought to Him. It is possible, of course, +that this address is a mere mistake in the tradition, the same +tradition which unsuspectingly brought in the expression Son of +Man at the wrong place. +</p> + +<p> +So much, however, is certain: the people were not made aware of +the Messiahship of Jesus by the cry of the blind man any more than +by the outcries of the demoniacs. The entry into Jerusalem was +not a Messianic ovation. All that history is concerned with is +that this fact should be admitted on all hands. Except Jesus and +the disciples, therefore, no one knew the secret of His Messiahship +even in those days at Jerusalem. But the High Priest suddenly +showed himself in possession of it. How? Through the betrayal +of Judas. +</p> + +<p> +For a hundred and fifty years the question has been historically +discussed why Judas betrayed his Master. That the main +question for history was <emph>what he betrayed</emph> was suspected by few and +they touched on it only in a timid kind of way—indeed the problems +of the trial of Jesus may be said to have been non-existent for +criticism. +</p> + +<p> +The traitorous act of Judas cannot have consisted in informing +the Sanhedrin where Jesus was to be found at a suitable place for +an arrest. They could have had that information more cheaply by +causing Jesus to be watched by spies. But Mark expressly says +that Judas when he betrayed Jesus did not yet know of a favourable +opportunity for the arrest, but was seeking such an opportunity. +Mark xiv. 10, 11, <q>And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto +the chief priests, to betray him unto them. And when they heard +it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought +how he might conveniently betray him.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In the betrayal, therefore, there were two points, a more general +and a more special: the general fact by which he gave Jesus into +their power, and the undertaking to let them know of the next +opportunity when they could arrest Him quietly, without publicity. +The betrayal by which he brought his Master to death, in consequence +of which the rulers decided upon the arrest, knowing that +their cause was safe in any case, was the betrayal of the Messianic +secret. Jesus died because two of His disciples had broken His +command of silence: Peter when he made known the secret of +the Messiahship to the Twelve at Caesarea Philippi; Judas Iscariot +by communicating it to the High Priest. But the difficulty was +that Judas was the sole witness. Therefore the betrayal was +useless so far as the actual trial was concerned unless Jesus +admitted the charge. So they first tried to secure His condemnation +on other grounds, and only when these attempts broke down +did the High Priest put, in the form of a question, the charge in +support of which he could have brought no witnesses. +</p> + +<pb n='395'/><anchor id='Pg395'/> + +<p> +But Jesus immediately admitted it, and strengthened the +admission by an allusion to His Parousia in the near future as Son +of Man. +</p> + +<p> +The betrayal and the trial can only be rightly understood when +it is realised that the public knew nothing whatever of the secret +of the Messiahship.<note place='foot'>When it is assumed that the Messianic claims of Jesus were generally known +during those last days at Jerusalem there is a temptation to explain the absence of +witnesses in regard to them by supposing that they were too much a matter of +common knowledge to require evidence. But in that case why should the High +Priest not have fulfilled the prescribed formalities? Why make such efforts first to +establish a different charge? Thus the obscure and unintelligible procedure at the +trial of Jesus becomes in the end the clearest proof that the public knew nothing of +the Messiahship of Jesus.</note> +</p> + +<p> +It is the same in regard to the scene in the presence of Pilate. +The people on that morning knew nothing of the trial of Jesus, but +came to Pilate with the sole object of asking the release of a +prisoner, as was the custom at the feast (Mark xv. 6-8). The idea +then occurs to Pilate, who was just about to hand over, willingly +enough, this troublesome fellow and prophet to the priestly faction, +to play off the people against the priests and work on the multitude +to petition for the release of Jesus. In this way he would have +secured himself on both sides. He would have condemned Jesus +to please the priests, and after condemning Him would have released +Him to please the people. The priests are greatly embarrassed by +the presence of the multitude. They had done everything so quickly +and quietly that they might well have hoped to get Jesus crucified +before any one knew what was happening or had had time to +wonder at His non-appearance in the Temple. +</p> + +<p> +The priests therefore go among the people and induce them +not to agree to the Procurator's proposal. How? By telling them +why He was condemned, by revealing to them the Messianic secret. +That makes Him at once from a prophet worthy of honour into a +deluded enthusiast and blasphemer. That was the explanation of +the <q>fickleness</q> of the Jerusalem mob which is always so eloquently +described, without any evidence for it except this single inexplicable +case. +</p> + +<p> +At midday of the same day—it was the 14th Nisan, and in +the evening the Paschal lamb would be eaten—Jesus cried aloud +and expired. He had chosen to remain fully conscious to the last. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='396'/><anchor id='Pg396'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>XX. Results</head> + +<p> +Those who are fond of talking about negative theology can find +their account here. There is nothing more negative than the +result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the +Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who +founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give +His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is +a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, +and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb. +</p> + +<p> +This image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen +to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems +which came to the surface one after another, and in spite +of all the artifice, art, artificiality, and violence which was applied +to them, refused to be planed down to fit the design on which the +Jesus of the theology of the last hundred and thirty years had been +constructed, and were no sooner covered over than they appeared +again in a new form. The thoroughgoing sceptical and the +thoroughgoing eschatological school have only completed the work +of destruction by linking the problems into a system and so +making an end of the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Divide et impera</foreign> of modern theology, +which undertook to solve each of them separately, that is, in a +less difficult form. Henceforth it is no longer permissible to take +one problem out of the series and dispose of it by itself, since the +weight of the whole hangs upon each. +</p> + +<p> +Whatever the ultimate solution may be, the historical Jesus of +whom the criticism of the future, taking as its starting-point the +problems which have been recognised and admitted, will draw the +portrait, can never render modern theology the services which it +claimed from its own half-historical, half-modern, Jesus. He will +be a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on the +ground of a literary fiction of the earliest Evangelist, or on the +ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception. +</p> + +<p> +In either case, He will not be a Jesus Christ to whom the +<pb n='397'/><anchor id='Pg397'/> +religion of the present can ascribe, according to its long-cherished +custom, its own thoughts and ideas, as it did with the Jesus of its +own making. Nor will He be a figure which can be made by +a popular historical treatment so sympathetic and universally +intelligible to the multitude. The historical Jesus will be to our +time a stranger and an enigma. +</p> + +<p> +The study of the Life of Jesus has had a curious history. It +set out in quest of the historical Jesus, believing that when it had +found Him it could bring Him straight into our time as a Teacher +and Saviour. It loosed the bands by which He had been riveted +for centuries to the stony rocks of ecclesiastical doctrine, and +rejoiced to see life and movement coming into the figure once +more, and the historical Jesus advancing, as it seemed, to meet +it. But He does not stay; He passes by our time and +returns to His own. What surprised and dismayed the theology +of the last forty years was that, despite all forced and arbitrary +interpretations, it could not keep Him in our time, but had to let +Him go. He returned to His own time, not owing to the application +of any historical ingenuity, but by the same inevitable necessity +by which the liberated pendulum returns to its original position. +</p> + +<p> +The historical foundation of Christianity as built up by +rationalistic, by liberal, and by modern theology no longer exists; +but that does not mean that Christianity has lost its historical +foundation. The work which historical theology thought itself +bound to carry out, and which fell to pieces just as it was nearing +completion, was only the brick facing of the real immovable +historical foundation which is independent of any historical +confirmation or justification. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual +force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. +This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical +discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity. +</p> + +<p> +The mistake was to suppose that Jesus could come to mean +more to our time by entering into it as a man like ourselves. +That is not possible. First because such a Jesus never existed. +Secondly because, although historical knowledge can no doubt +introduce greater clearness into an existing spiritual life, it cannot +call spiritual life into existence. History can destroy the present; +it can reconcile the present with the past; can even to a certain +extent transport the present into the past; but to contribute to +the making of the present is not given unto it. +</p> + +<p> +But it is impossible to over-estimate the value of what German +research upon the Life of Jesus has accomplished. It is a +uniquely great expression of sincerity, one of the most significant +events in the whole mental and spiritual life of humanity. What +has been done for the religious life of the present and the +<pb n='398'/><anchor id='Pg398'/> +immediate future by scholars such as P. W. Schmidt, Bousset, +Jülicher, Weinel, Wernle—and their pupil Frenssen—and the others +who have been called to the task of bringing to the knowledge of +wider circles, in a form which is popular without being superficial, +the results of religious-historical study, only becomes evident when +one examines the literature and social culture of the Latin nations, +who have been scarcely if at all touched by the influence of these +thinkers. +</p> + +<p> +And yet the time of doubt was bound to come. We modern +theologians are too proud of our historical method, too proud +of our historical Jesus, too confident in our belief in the +spiritual gains which our historical theology can bring to the +world. The thought that we could build up by the increase +of historical knowledge a new and vigorous Christianity and set +free new spiritual forces, rules us like a fixed idea, and prevents +us from seeing that the task which we have grappled with +and in some measure discharged is only one of the intellectual +preliminaries of the great religious task. We thought that it +was for us to lead our time by a roundabout way through the +historical Jesus, as we understood Him, in order to bring it to +the Jesus who is a spiritual power in the present. This roundabout +way has now been closed by genuine history. +</p> + +<p> +There was a danger of our thrusting ourselves between men +and the Gospels, and refusing to leave the individual man alone +with the sayings of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +There was a danger that we should offer them a Jesus who was +too small, because we had forced Him into conformity with our +human standards and human psychology. To see that, one need +only read the Lives of Jesus written since the 'sixties, and notice +what they have made of the great imperious sayings of the Lord, +how they have weakened down His imperative world-contemning +demands upon individuals, that He might not come into conflict +with our ethical ideals, and might tune His denial of the world to +our acceptance of it. Many of the greatest sayings are found +lying in a corner like explosive shells from which the charges have +been removed. No small portion of elemental religious power +needed to be drawn off from His sayings to prevent them from +conflicting with our system of religious world-acceptance. We +have made Jesus hold another language with our time from that +which He really held. +</p> + +<p> +In the process we ourselves have been enfeebled, and have +robbed our own thoughts of their vigour in order to project them +back into history and make them speak to us out of the past. It +is nothing less than a misfortune for modern theology that it +mixes history with everything and ends by being proud of the skill +with which it finds its own thoughts—even to its beggarly pseudo-metaphysic +<pb n='399'/><anchor id='Pg399'/> +with which it has banished genuine speculative +metaphysic from the sphere of religion—in Jesus, and represents +Him as expressing them. It had almost deserved the reproach: +<q>he who putteth his hand to the plough, and looketh back, is not +fit for the Kingdom of God.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It was no small matter, therefore, that in the course of the +critical study of the Life of Jesus, after a resistance lasting for +two generations, during which first one expedient was tried and +then another, theology was forced by genuine history to begin to +doubt the artificial history with which it had thought to give new +life to our Christianity, and to yield to the facts, which, as Wrede +strikingly said, are sometimes the most radical critics of all. +History will force it to find a way to transcend history, and to +fight for the lordship and rule of Jesus over this world with weapons +tempered in a different forge. +</p> + +<p> +We are experiencing what Paul experienced. In the very +moment when we were coming nearer to the historical Jesus than +men had ever come before, and were already stretching out our +hands to draw Him into our own time, we have been obliged to +give up the attempt and acknowledge our failure in that paradoxical +saying: <q>If we have known Christ after the flesh yet henceforth +know we Him no more.</q> And further we must be prepared to +find that the historical knowledge of the personality and life of +Jesus will not be a help, but perhaps even an offence to religion. +</p> + +<p> +But the truth is, it is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus +as spiritually arisen within men, who is significant for our time and +can help it. Not the historical Jesus, but the spirit which goes +forth from Him and in the spirits of men strives for new influence +and rule, is that which overcomes the world. +</p> + +<p> +It is not given to history to disengage that which is abiding +and eternal in the being of Jesus from the historical forms in +which it worked itself out, and to introduce it into our world as a +living influence. It has toiled in vain at this undertaking. As a +water-plant is beautiful so long as it is growing in the water, but +once torn from its roots, withers and becomes unrecognisable, so it +is with the historical Jesus when He is wrenched loose from +the soil of eschatology, and the attempt is made to conceive Him +<q>historically</q> as a Being not subject to temporal conditions. The +abiding and eternal in Jesus is absolutely independent of historical +knowledge and can only be understood by contact with His spirit +which is still at work in the world. In proportion as we have +the Spirit of Jesus we have the true knowledge of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +Jesus as a concrete historical personality remains a stranger to +our time, but His spirit, which lies hidden in His words, is known +in simplicity, and its influence is direct. Every saying contains +in its own way the whole Jesus. The very strangeness and +<pb n='400'/><anchor id='Pg400'/> +unconditionedness in which He stands before us makes it easier +for individuals to find their own personal standpoint in regard +to Him. +</p> + +<p> +Men feared that to admit the claims of eschatology would +abolish the significance of His words for our time; and hence +there was a feverish eagerness to discover in them any elements +that might be considered not eschatologically conditioned. When +any sayings were found of which the wording did not absolutely +imply an eschatological connexion there was great jubilation—these +at least had been saved uninjured from the coming <foreign rend='italic'>débâcle</foreign>. +</p> + +<p> +But in reality that which is eternal in the words of Jesus is +due to the very fact that they are based on an eschatological world-view, +and contain the expression of a mind for which the contemporary +world with its historical and social circumstances no +longer had any existence. They are appropriate, therefore, to any +world, for in every world they raise the man who dares to meet +their challenge, and does not turn and twist them into meaninglessness, +above his world and his time, making him inwardly free, so +that he is fitted to be, in his own world and in his own time, a +simple channel of the power of Jesus. +</p> + +<p> +Modern Lives of Jesus are too general in their scope. They +aim at influencing, by giving a complete impression of the life of +Jesus, a whole community. But the historical Jesus, as He is +depicted in the Gospels, influenced individuals by the individual +word. They understood Him so far as it was necessary for them +to understand, without forming any conception of His life as a +whole, since this in its ultimate aims remained a mystery even for +the disciples. +</p> + +<p> +Because it is thus preoccupied with the general, the universal, +modern theology is determined to find its world-accepting ethic in +the teaching of Jesus. Therein lies its weakness. The world +affirms itself automatically; the modern spirit cannot but affirm it. +But why on that account abolish the conflict between modern life, +with the world-affirming spirit which inspires it as a whole, and +the world-negating spirit of Jesus? Why spare the spirit of the +individual man its appointed task of fighting its way through the +world-negation of Jesus, of contending with Him at every step over +the value of material and intellectual goods—a conflict in which it +may never rest? For the general, for the institutions of society, +the rule is: affirmation of the world, in conscious opposition to the +view of Jesus, on the ground that the world has affirmed itself! +This general affirmation of the world, however, if it is to be +Christian, must in the individual spirit be Christianised and transfigured +by the personal rejection of the world which is preached in +the sayings of Jesus. It is only by means of the tension thus set +up that religious energy can be communicated to our time. There +<pb n='401'/><anchor id='Pg401'/> +was a danger that modern theology, for the sake of peace, would +deny the world-negation in the sayings of Jesus, with which +Protestantism was out of sympathy, and thus unstring the bow and +make Protestantism a mere sociological instead of a religious force. +There was perhaps also a danger of inward insincerity, in the fact +that it refused to admit to itself and others that it maintained its +affirmation of the world in opposition to the sayings of Jesus, simply +because it could not do otherwise. +</p> + +<p> +For that reason it is a good thing that the true historical Jesus +should overthrow the modern Jesus, should rise up against the +modern spirit and send upon earth, not peace, but a sword. He +was not teacher, not a casuist; He was an imperious ruler. It was +because He was so in His inmost being that He could think of +Himself as the Son of Man. That was only the temporally +conditioned expression of the fact that He was an authoritative +ruler. The names in which men expressed their recognition of +Him as such, Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, have become for +us historical parables. We can find no designation which expresses +what He is for us. +</p> + +<p> +He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, +by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He +speaks to us the same word: <q>Follow thou me!</q> and sets us to +the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. +And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He +will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which +they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable +mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='403'/><anchor id='Pg403'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Index Of Authors And Works</head> + +<p> +(Including Reference To English Translations) +</p> + +<lg> +<l>Ammon, Christoph Friedrich von. Fortbildung des Christentums (Leipzig, 1840);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Geschichte des Lebens Jesu mit steter Rücksicht auf die vorhandenen Quellen (1842-1847), <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref>, <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg104'>104</ref> f., <ref target='Pg117'>117</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Anonymous Works—</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Leben Napoleons kritisch geprüft. Aus dem Englischen (see under Whateley) nebst einigen Nutzanwendungen auf das Leben-Jesu von Strauss (1836), <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Did Jesus live 100 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi>? (London and Benares, Theosophical Publishing Society, 1903), <ref target='Pg327'>327</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Dr. Strauss und die Züricher Kirche (Basle, 1839), <ref target='Pg103'>103</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Wichtige Enthüllungen über die wirkliche Todesart Jesu (5th ed., Leipzig, 1849);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 4'>Historische Enthüllungen über die wirklichen Ereignisse der Geburt und Jugend Jesu (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1849), <ref target='Pg161'>161</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Zwei Gespräche über die Ansicht des Herrn Dr. Strauss von der evangelischen Geschichte (Jena, 1839), <ref target='Pg100'>100</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Baader, Franz. Über das Leben-Jesu von Strauss (Munich, 1836), <ref target='Pg100'>100</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bahrdt, Karl Friedrich. Briefe über die Bibel im Volkston (1782);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu (1784-1792);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die sämtlichen Reden Jesu aus den Evangelien ausgezogen (1786), <ref target='Pg004'>4</ref>, <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref>, <ref target='Pg038'>38</ref>, <ref target='Pg039'>39</ref> f., <ref target='Pg046'>46</ref>, <ref target='Pg053'>53</ref>, <ref target='Pg059'>59</ref>, <ref target='Pg299'>299</ref>, <ref target='Pg313'>313</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Baldensperger, Wilhelm. Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit (Strassburg, 1888, 2nd ed. 1892, 3rd ed. pt. i. 1903), <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg233'>233-237</ref>, <ref target='Pg250'>250</ref>, <ref target='Pg266'>266</ref>, <ref target='Pg278'>278</ref> f., <ref target='Pg365'>365</ref>, <ref target='Pg366'>366</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Barth, Fritz. Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu (1st ed. 1899, 2nd ed. 1903), <ref target='Pg301'>301</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bauer, Bruno. Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes (Bremen, 1840);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (Leipzig, 1841-1842);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs (Berlin, 1850-1851);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Kritik der Apostelgeschichte (1850);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe (Berlin, 1850-1852);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Philo, Strauss, Renan und das Urchristentum (Berlin, 1874);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Christus und die Cäsaren (Berlin, 1877);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die gute Sache der Freiheit und meine eigene Angelegenheit (Zurich, 1843), <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref>, <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg010'>10</ref>, <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg137'>137-160</ref>, <ref target='Pg186'>186</ref> f., <ref target='Pg221'>221</ref>, <ref target='Pg231'>231</ref>, <ref target='Pg256'>256-258</ref>, <ref target='Pg305'>305</ref> f., <ref target='Pg312'>312</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315</ref>, <ref target='Pg328'>328</ref>, <ref target='Pg332'>332</ref>, <ref target='Pg335'>335</ref> f., <ref target='Pg338'>338</ref>, <ref target='Pg342'>342</ref>, <ref target='Pg346'>346</ref>, <ref target='Pg358'>358</ref>, <ref target='Pg368'>368</ref>, <ref target='Pg388'>388</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Baumer, Friedrich. Schwarz, Strauss, Renan (Leipzig, 1864), <ref target='Pg191'>191</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien (Tübingen, 1847), <ref target='Pg025'>25</ref>, <ref target='Pg058'>58</ref>, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref>, <ref target='Pg087'>87</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref>, <ref target='Pg124'>124</ref>, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref>, <ref target='Pg195'>195</ref>, <ref target='Pg201'>201</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bergh van Eysinga, Van den. Indische Einflüsse auf evangelische Erzählungen (Göttingen, 1904), <ref target='Pg290'>290</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bernhard ter Haar (Utrecht). Zehn Vorlesungen über Renans <q>Leben-Jesu</q> (German by H. Doermer, Gotha, 1864), <ref target='Pg191'>191</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Beyschlag, Willibald. Über das Leben-Jesu von Renan (Berlin, 1864);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Leben-Jesu (pt. i. 1885, pt. ii. 1886, 2nd ed. 1887-1888), <ref target='Pg006'>6</ref>, <ref target='Pg010'>10</ref>, <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref>, <ref target='Pg215'>215</ref> f., <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Binder, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref>, <ref target='Pg069'>69</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bleby, H. W. The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth considered as a Judicial Act (1880), <ref target='Pg391'>391</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bleek, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg231'>231</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='404'/><anchor id='Pg404'/> + +<lg> +<l>Böklen, E. Die Verwandtschaft der jüdisch-christlichen und der parsischen Eschatologie (1902), <ref target='Pg287'>287</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bolten, Johann Adrian. Der Bericht des Matthäus von Jesu dem Messias (Altona, 1792), <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref>, <ref target='Pg276'>276</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bosc, Ernest. La Vie ésotérique de Jésus de Nazareth et les origines orientales du christianisme (Paris, 1902), <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref>, <ref target='Pg327'>327</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bousset, Wilhelm. Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum. Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Vergleich (Göttingen, 1892);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Herkunft und ihrer Bedeutung für das Neue Testament (Berlin, 1903);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (1902);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Was wissen wir von Jesus? Vorträge im Protestantenverein zu Bremen (Halle, 1904);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Jesus (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher, herausgegeben von Schiele, Halle, 1904) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>Jesus</hi>, by J. P. Trevelyan, London, 1906), <ref target='Pg241'>241-249</ref>, <ref target='Pg255'>255</ref> f., <ref target='Pg262'>262</ref>, <ref target='Pg264'>264</ref>, <ref target='Pg267'>267</ref>, <ref target='Pg280'>280</ref>, <ref target='Pg300'>300</ref>, <ref target='Pg359'>359</ref>, <ref target='Pg398'>398</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Brandt, Wilhelm. Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums auf Grund einer Kritik der Berichte über das Leiden und die Auferstehung Jesu (Leipzig, 1893), <ref target='Pg241'>241</ref>, <ref target='Pg256'>256-261</ref>, <ref target='Pg267'>267</ref>, <ref target='Pg301'>301</ref>, <ref target='Pg309'>309</ref>, <ref target='Pg312'>312</ref>, <ref target='Pg313'>313</ref>, <ref target='Pg391'>391</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bretschneider, Karl Gottlob, <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>, <ref target='Pg118'>118</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Brunner, Sebastian. Der Atheist Renan und sein Evangelium (Regensburg, 1864), <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bugge, Chr. A. Die Hauptparabeln Jesu. (From the Norwegian) (Giessen, 1903), <ref target='Pg263'>263</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bunsen, Christian Karl Josias, Ritter von. Das Leben Jesu, vol. ix. of Bunsen's <q>Bibelwerk</q> (published by Holtzmann, 1865), <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cairns, John. Falsche Christi und der wahre Christus, oder Verteidigung der evangelischen Geschichte gegen Strauss und Renan. Aus dem Englischen übersetzt (Hamburg, 1864) (<hi rend='italic'>False Christ and the True</hi>, A sermon delivered before the National Bible Society of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1864), <ref target='Pg191'>191</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Capitaine, W. Jesus von Nazareth (Regensburg, 1905), <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cassel, Paulus. Bericht über Renans Leben-Jesu (Berlin, 1864), <ref target='Pg191'>191</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Casuar.</q> Das Leben Luthers kritisch bearbeitet. Herausgegeben von Jul. Ferd. Wurm (<q>Mexiko, 2836</q>), <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Chamberlain, H. S. Worte Christi (1901), <ref target='Pg310'>310</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Charles, R. H. <q>The Son of Man</q> (Expos. Times, 1893), <ref target='Pg267'>267</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Colani, Timothée. Examen de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan (Strassburg, 1864);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Jésus-Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps (Strassburg, 1864), <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref>, <ref target='Pg189'>189</ref>, <ref target='Pg209'>209</ref>, <ref target='Pg221'>221</ref> f., <ref target='Pg226'>226</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg233'>233</ref>, <ref target='Pg248'>248</ref>, <ref target='Pg372'>372</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cone, Orello. <q>Jesus' Self-designation in the Synoptic Gospels</q> (The New World, 1893), <ref target='Pg266'>266</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Coquerel, Athanase (jun.), <ref target='Pg189'>189</ref>, <ref target='Pg209'>209</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Credner, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dalman, Gustaf. Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinensischen Aramäisch (Leipzig, 1894);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Worte Jesu. Mit Berücksichtigung des nachkanonischen Schrifttums und der aramäischen Sprache, I. (Leipzig, 1898) (authorised English translation by D. M. Kay, <hi rend='italic'>The Words of Jesus</hi>, Edinburgh, 1902), <ref target='Pg269'>269</ref>, <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref>, <ref target='Pg273'>273-275</ref>, <ref target='Pg278'>278</ref>, <ref target='Pg279'>279-281</ref>, <ref target='Pg286'>286-289</ref>, <ref target='Pg363'>363</ref>, <ref target='Pg391'>391</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Darboy, Georges. Lettre pastorale de Monseigneur l'Archevêque de Paris sur la divinité de Jésus-Christ, et mandement pour le carême de 1864, <ref target='Pg188'>188</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Delff, Hugo. Geschichte des Rabbi Jesus von Nazareth (Leipzig, 1889), <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref>, <ref target='Pg323'>323</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Delitzsch, Franz, <ref target='Pg273'>273</ref>, <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Deutlinger, Martin. Renan und das Wunder. Ein Beitrag zur christlichen Apologetik (Munich, 1864), <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Didon, Le Père, de l'ordre des frères prêcheurs. Jésus Christ (Paris, 1891, 2 vols., German, 1895) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>Jesus Christ</hi>, 2 vols., 1891), <ref target='Pg295'>295</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dieu, Louis de, <ref target='Pg014'>14</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dillmann, <ref target='Pg223'>223</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Diodati, Dominicus, <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Döderlein. Fragmente und Antifragmente (Nuremberg, 1778), <ref target='Pg025'>25</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dulk, Albert. Der Irrgang des Lebens Jesu. In geschichtlicher Auffassung dargestellt (pt. i. 1884, pt. ii. 1885), <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref>, <ref target='Pg324'>324</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dupanloup, Félix Antoine Philibert, Évêque d'Orléans. Avertissement à la jeunesse et aux pères de famille sur les attaques dirigées contre la religion par quelques écrivains de nos jours (Paris, 1864), <ref target='Pg188'>188</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ebrard, August. Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte (Frankfort, 1842), <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg116'>116</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<pb n='405'/><anchor id='Pg405'/> + +<lg> +<l>Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London, 1st ed. 1883, 3rd ed. 1886, 2 vols.), <ref target='Pg233'>233</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eerdmanns, B. E. <q>De Oorsprong van de uitdrukking 'Zoon des Menschen' als evangelische Messiastitel</q> (Theol. Tijdschr., 1894), <ref target='Pg276'>276</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ehrhardt. Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu in Verhältnis zu den messianischen Hoffnungen seines Volkes und zu seinem eigenen Messiasbewusstsein (Freiburg, 1895);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Le Principe de la morale de Jésus (Paris, 1896), <ref target='Pg249'>249</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried, <ref target='Pg078'>78</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Emmerich, Anna Katharina. Das bittere Leiden unseres Herrn Jesu Christi. Herausgegeben von Brentano (1858-1860, new ed. 1895) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ</hi>, London, 1862);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Leben Jesu, 3 vols. (1858-1860), <ref target='Pg109'>109</ref> f., <ref target='Pg295'>295</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ewald, Georg Heinrich August. <q>Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit,</q> vol. v. of the <q>Geschichte des Volkes Israel</q> (Göttingen, 1855, 2nd ed. 1857), English translation of the <hi rend='italic'>Life of Jesus Christ</hi>, by Octavius Glover (London, 1865);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die drei ersten Evangelien (1850), <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg117'>117</ref>, <ref target='Pg124'>124</ref>, <ref target='Pg135'>135</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Fiebig, Paul. Der Menschensohn (Tübingen, 1901);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu (Tübingen, 1904), <ref target='Pg278'>278</ref>, <ref target='Pg286'>286</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Frantzen, Wilhelm. Die <q>Leben-Jesu-</q> Bewegung seit Strauss (Dorpat, 1898), <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Frenssen, Gustav. Hilligenlei (Berlin, 1905), pp. 462-593: <q>Die Handschrift</q> (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>Holy Land</hi>, by M. A. Hamilton, London, 1906), <ref target='Pg293'>293</ref>, <ref target='Pg307'>307-309</ref>, <ref target='Pg398'>398</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Freppel, Charles Emile. Examen critique de la vie de Jesus de M. Renan (Paris, 1864) (German by Kollmus, Vienna, 1864), <ref target='Pg188'>188</ref>, <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Frick, Otto. Mythus und Evangelium (Heilbronn, 1879), <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Furrer, Konrad. Vorträge über das Leben Jesu Christi (1902), <ref target='Pg301'>301</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gabler, <ref target='Pg078'>78</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gardner, P. Exploratio Evangelica. A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief (1899, 2nd ed. 1907), <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gerlach, Hermann. Gegen Renans Leben-Jesu 1864 (Berlin), <ref target='Pg191'>191</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gfrörer, August Friedrich. Kritische Geschichte des Urchristentums (vol. i. 1st ed. 1831, 2nd ed. 1835, vol. ii. 1838), <ref target='Pg161'>161</ref>, <ref target='Pg163'>163-166</ref>, <ref target='Pg195'>195</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ghillany, Friedrich Wilhelm (<q>Richard von der Alm</q>). Theologische Briefe an die Gebildeten der deutschen Nation (3 vols. 1863);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Urteile heidnischer und christlicher Schriftsteller der vier ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte über Jesus (1864), <ref target='Pg161'>161</ref>, <ref target='Pg166'>166-172</ref>, <ref target='Pg240'>240</ref>, <ref target='Pg363'>363</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Godet, F. Das Leben Jesu vor seinem öffentlichen Auftreten (German by M. Reineck, Hanover, 1897), <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gratz, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Greiling. Das Leben Jesu von Nazareth (1813), <ref target='Pg050'>50</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gressman, Hugo, <ref target='Pg234'>234</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Griesbach, Johann Jakob, <ref target='Pg013'>13</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Grimm, Eduard. Die Ethik Jesu (Hamburg, 1903), <ref target='Pg320'>320</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Grimm, Joseph. Das Leben Jesu (Würzburg, 6 vols., 2nd ed. 1890-1903), <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Grotius, Hugo, <ref target='Pg270'>270</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gunkel, Hermann, <ref target='Pg277'>277</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hagel, Maurus. Dr. Strauss' Leben-Jesu aus dens Standpunkt des Katholicismus betrachtet (1839), <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hahn, Werner. Leben-Jesu (Berlin, 1844), <ref target='Pg118'>118</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Haneberg, Daniel Bonifacius. Ernest Renans Leben-Jesu (Regensburg, 1864), <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hanson, Sir Richard. The Jesus of History (1869), <ref target='Pg202'>202</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Harless, Adolf. Die kritische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu von David Friedrich Strauss nach ihrem wissenschaftlichen Werte beleuchtet (Erlangen, 1836), <ref target='Pg098'>98</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Harnack, Adolf, <ref target='Pg242'>242</ref>, <ref target='Pg252'>252</ref>, <ref target='Pg314'>314</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hartmann, Eduard von. Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments, 2nd ed. of the <q>Briefe über die christliche Religion</q> (Sachsa-in-the-Harz, 1905), <ref target='Pg292'>292</ref>, <ref target='Pg318'>318-320</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hartmann, Julius. Leben Jesu (2 vols., 1837-1839), <ref target='Pg101'>101</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hase, Karl August von. Das Leben Jesu (1st ed. 1829);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Geschichte Jesu (Leipzig, 1876), <ref target='Pg004'>4</ref>, <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref>, <ref target='Pg010'>10</ref>, <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref>, <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg028'>28</ref>, <ref target='Pg058'>58</ref> f., <ref target='Pg065'>65</ref>, <ref target='Pg072'>72</ref>, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg088'>88</ref>, <ref target='Pg099'>99</ref>, <ref target='Pg106'>106</ref>, <ref target='Pg116'>116</ref>, <ref target='Pg120'>120</ref>, <ref target='Pg162'>162</ref>, <ref target='Pg193'>193</ref>, <ref target='Pg214'>214</ref> f., <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Haupt, Erich. Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien (1895), <ref target='Pg241'>241</ref>, <ref target='Pg250'>250</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hausrath, Adolf. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (1st ed., Munich, 1868 ff., 3rd ed., vol. i. 1879) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>A History of the +<pb n='406'/><anchor id='Pg406'/> +New Testament Times, The Time of Jesus</hi>, by C. T. Poynting and P. Quenzer, London, 1878), <ref target='Pg214'>214</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Havet, Ernest. Jésus dans l'histoire. Examen de la vie de Jésus par M. Renan. Extrait de la Revue des deux mondes (Paris, 1863);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Le Christianisme et ses origines, 3<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>me</hi> p<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>tie</hi>, Le Nouveau Testament (1884), <ref target='Pg189'>189</ref>, <ref target='Pg290'>290</ref>, <ref target='Pg328'>328</ref>, <ref target='Pg391'>391</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hegel, Georg Friedrich Wilhelm, <ref target='Pg049'>49</ref>, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref> f., <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref> f., <ref target='Pg107'>107</ref>, <ref target='Pg111'>111</ref>, <ref target='Pg114'>114</ref> f., <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg137'>137</ref>, <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref>, <ref target='Pg165'>165</ref>, <ref target='Pg194'>194</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm, <ref target='Pg106'>106</ref> f., <ref target='Pg111'>111</ref>, <ref target='Pg115'>115</ref>, <ref target='Pg143'>143</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hennell, Charles Christian. An Inquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity (London, 1838) (Untersuchungen über den Ursprung des Christentums. Vorrede von David Friedrich Strauss, 1840), <ref target='Pg161'>161</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Herder, Johann Gottfried. Vom Erlöser der Menschen. Nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien (1796);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland. Nach Johannes Evangelium (1797), <ref target='Pg027'>27</ref>, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref>, <ref target='Pg034'>34</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref>, <ref target='Pg203'>203</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hess, Johann Jakob. Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu (1768 ff.), <ref target='Pg004'>4</ref>, <ref target='Pg014'>14</ref>, <ref target='Pg027'>27-31</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hilgenfeld, Adolf, <ref target='Pg124'>124</ref>, <ref target='Pg222'>222</ref>, <ref target='Pg266'>266</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hoekstra. <q>De Christologie van het canonieke Marcus-Evangelie, vergeleken met die van de beide andere synoptische Evangelien</q> (Theol. Tijdschrift, v., 1871), <ref target='Pg328'>328</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hoffmann, Wilhelm. Das Leben-Jesu kritisch bearbeitet von Dr. David Fried. Strauss. Geprüft für Theologen und Nicht-Theologen (1836), <ref target='Pg099'>99</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, <ref target='Pg010'>10</ref>, <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref>, <ref target='Pg125'>125</ref>, <ref target='Pg195'>195</ref>, <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref>, <ref target='Pg202'>202-205</ref>, <ref target='Pg209'>209</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg231'>231</ref>, <ref target='Pg235'>235</ref>, <ref target='Pg237'>237</ref>, <ref target='Pg277'>277</ref>, <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Holtzmann, Oskar. Das Leben Jesu, (1901) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Life of Jesus</hi>, by J. T. Bealby and Maurice A. Canney, London, 1904);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Messianitätsbewusstsein Jesu und seine neueste Bestreitung. Vortrag (1902);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>War Jesus Ekstatiker? (Tübingen, 1903), <ref target='Pg208'>208</ref>, <ref target='Pg293'>293</ref>, <ref target='Pg295'>295-300</ref>, <ref target='Pg306'>306</ref> f., <ref target='Pg308'>308</ref>, <ref target='Pg312'>312</ref>, <ref target='Pg359'>359</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hug, Leonhard. Gutachten über das Leben-Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet von D. Fr. Strauss (Freiburg, 1840), <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg109'>109</ref>, <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ingraham, J. H. The Prince of the House of David (London, 1859) (Der Fürst aus Davids Hause, new ed., 1896, Brunswick), <ref target='Pg326'>326</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Inchofer, <ref target='Pg270'>270</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Issel, <ref target='Pg237'>237</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jacobi, Johann Adolf. Die Geschichte Jesu für denkende und gemütvolle Leser (1816), <ref target='Pg027'>27</ref>, <ref target='Pg034'>34</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jonge, De. Jeschua. Der klassische jüdische Mann. Zerstörung des kirchlichen, Enthüllung des jüdischen Jesus-Bildes (Berlin, 1904), <ref target='Pg293'>293</ref>, <ref target='Pg321'>321</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jülicher, Adolf. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (pt. i. 1888, pt. ii. 1899);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Kultur der Gegenwart (Teubner, Berlin, 1905), pp. <ref target='Pg040'>40-69</ref>;</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'><q>Jesus,</q> <ref target='Pg241'>241</ref>, <ref target='Pg262'>262-264</ref>, <ref target='Pg286'>286</ref>, <ref target='Pg290'>290</ref>, <ref target='Pg320'>320</ref>, <ref target='Pg398'>398</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kalthoff, Albert. Das Christus-Problem. Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie (Leipzig, 1902);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beiträge zum Christus-Problem (Leipzig, 1904) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Rise of Christianity</hi>, by Joseph M'Cabe, London, 1907);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Leben Jesu. Reden gehalten im prot. Reformverein zu Berlin (1880);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Was wissen wir von Jesus? Eine Abrechnung mit Professor Bousset in Göttingen (Berlin, 1904), <ref target='Pg293'>293</ref>, <ref target='Pg314'>314-318</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kant, Emmanuel, <ref target='Pg050'>50</ref>, <ref target='Pg105'>105</ref>, <ref target='Pg322'>322</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kapp, W. Das Christus-und Christentum-Problem bei Kalthoff (Strassburg, 1905), <ref target='Pg318'>318</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kautzsch, Emil Friedrich, <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Keim, Theodor. Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara (3 vols., Zurich, pt. i. 1867, pt. ii. 1871, pt. iii. 1872);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Geschichte Jesu. Nach den Ergebnissen heutiger Wissenschaft für weitere Kreise übersichtlich erzählt (Zurich, 1872) (English translation of the larger work, <hi rend='italic'>The History of Jesus of Nazara</hi>, by E. M. Geldart and A. Ransom, 6 vols., London, 1873-1883), <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref>, <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref>, <ref target='Pg193'>193</ref>, <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref>, <ref target='Pg209'>209</ref>, <ref target='Pg211'>211-214</ref>, <ref target='Pg231'>231</ref> f., <ref target='Pg310'>310</ref>, <ref target='Pg343'>343</ref>, <ref target='Pg351'>351</ref>, <ref target='Pg357'>357</ref>, <ref target='Pg380'>380</ref>, <ref target='Pg392'>392</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kienlen, <ref target='Pg228'>228</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kirchbach, Wolfgang. Was lehrte Jesus? (Berlin, 1897, 2nd ed. 1902);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Buch Jesus (Berlin, 1897), <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref>, <ref target='Pg322'>322-324</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Koppe, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Köstlin, Karl Reinhold, <ref target='Pg124'>124</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Krabbe. Vorlesungen über das Leben Jesu für Theologen und Nicht-Theologen (Hamburg, 1839), <ref target='Pg100'>100</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kralik, Richard von. Jesu Leben und Werk (Kempten-Nürnberg, 1904), <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Krauss, S. Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen (1902), <ref target='Pg327'>327</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='407'/><anchor id='Pg407'/> + +<lg> +<l>Krüger-Velthusen, W. Leben Jesu. (Elberfeld, 1872), <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kuhn, Johannes von. Leben Jesu (Tübingen, 1840), <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kunz, K. Christus medicus (Freiburg, 1905), <ref target='Pg325'>325</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lachmann, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lamy. Renans Leben-Jesu vor dem Richterstuhle der Kritik. Übersetzt von Aug. Rohling (Münster, 1864), <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lange, Johann Peter. Das Leben Jesu, 5 vols. (1844-1847) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Life of the Lord Jesus Christ</hi>, by Sophia Taylor, Edinburgh, 1864), <ref target='Pg117'>117</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Längin, G. Der Christus der Geschichte und sein Christentum (2 vols., 1897-1898), <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Langsdorf, Karl von. Wohlgeprüfte Darstellung des Lebens Jesu (Mannheim, 1831), <ref target='Pg162'>162</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lasserre, Henri. L'Évangile selon Renan (1864, 12 editions, German, Munich, 1864), <ref target='Pg188'>188</ref>, <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lehmann. Renan wider Renan (Zwickau, 1864), <ref target='Pg191'>191</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref>, <ref target='Pg014'>14-16</ref>, <ref target='Pg075'>75</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Levi, Giuseppe. Parabeln, Legenden und Gedanken aus Talmud und Midrasch (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877), <ref target='Pg286'>286</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lichtenstein, Wilhelm Jakob. Leben des Herrn Jesu Christi (Erlangen, 1856), <ref target='Pg101'>101</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lietzmann, Hans. Der Menschensohn (Freiburg, 1896);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Zur Menschensohnfrage (1898), <ref target='Pg265'>265</ref>, <ref target='Pg276'>276</ref> f., <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref>, <ref target='Pg289'>289</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas. Herausgegeben von J. B. Carpzov (Leipzig, 1684), <ref target='Pg222'>222</ref>, <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lillie, A. The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity (London, 1893), <ref target='Pg326'>326</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Littré, M., <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Loisy, Alfred. Le Quatrième Évangile (Paris, 1903);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Les Évangiles synoptiques, 2 vols. (Paris, 1907);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>L'Évangile et l'Église (Paris, 1903) (translated by C. Home, <hi rend='italic'>The Gospel and the Church</hi>, new ed. with a preface by G. Tyrrell, 1908), <ref target='Pg295'>295</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lücke, <ref target='Pg106'>106</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Luthardt, Christoph Ernst. Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu. Vortrag (Leipzig, 1864), <ref target='Pg191'>191</ref>, <ref target='Pg209'>209</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Luther, <ref target='Pg013'>13</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Mack, Joseph. Bericht über des Herrn Dr. Strauss' historische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu (1837), <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Manen, van, <ref target='Pg286'>286</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Marius, Emmanuel. Die Persönlichkeit Jesu mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Mythologien und Mysterien der alten Völker (Leipzig, 1879), <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Meinhold, J. Jesus und das Alte Testament (1896), <ref target='Pg255'>255</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Meuschen, Johann Gerhardt, <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Meyer, Arnold. Jesu Muttersprache (Leipzig, 1896), <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg231'>231</ref>, <ref target='Pg265'>265</ref>, <ref target='Pg269'>269</ref>, <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref>, <ref target='Pg274'>274</ref>, <ref target='Pg276'>276</ref>, <ref target='Pg286'>286</ref>, <ref target='Pg287'>287</ref>, <ref target='Pg289'>289</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Michaelis, <ref target='Pg049'>49</ref>, <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Michelis. Renans Roman vom Leben-Jesu (Münster, 1864), <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Müller, A. Jesus ein Arier (Leipzig, 1904), <ref target='Pg327'>327</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Müller, Max, <ref target='Pg290'>290</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Mussard, Eugène. Du système mythique appliqué à l'histoire de la vie de Jésus (1838), <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nahor, Pierre (Émilie Lerou), Jésus. (German by Walther Bloch, Berlin, 1905), <ref target='Pg325'>325</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Neander, August Wilhelm. Das Leben Jesu Christi (Hamburg, 1837) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Life of Jesus Christ</hi>, by J. M'Clintock and C. E. Blumenthal, London, 1851);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Gutachten über das Buch des Dr. Strauss', Leben-Jesu (1836), <ref target='Pg072'>72</ref>, <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg101'>101-103</ref>, <ref target='Pg116'>116</ref>, <ref target='Pg139'>139</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nestle, <ref target='Pg276'>276</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Neubauer, Adolf, <ref target='Pg273'>273</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Neumann, Arno. Jesus wie er geschichtlich war (Freiburg, 1904), <ref target='Pg320'>320</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nicolas, Amadée. Renan et sa vie de Jésus sous les rapports moral, légal et littéraire (Paris-Marseille, 1864), <ref target='Pg188'>188</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nippold, Friedrich. Der Entwicklungsgang des Lebens Jesu im Wortlaut der drei ersten Evangelien (Hamburg, 1895);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die psychiatrische Seite der Heilstätigkeit Jesu (1889), <ref target='Pg301'>301</ref>, <ref target='Pg324'>324</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Noack, Ludwig. Die Geschichte Jesu (2nd ed., Mannheim, 1876);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Aus der Jordanwiege nach Golgatha (1870-1871), <ref target='Pg161'>161</ref> f., <ref target='Pg172'>172-179</ref>, <ref target='Pg185'>185</ref>, <ref target='Pg322'>322</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nork, J., <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref>, <ref target='Pg286'>286</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Notowitsch, Nicolas. La Vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ (Paris, 1894) (German, Stuttgart, 1894), <ref target='Pg290'>290</ref>, <ref target='Pg326'>326</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Oort, H. L. Die Uitdrukking ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in het Nieuwe Testament (Leiden, 1893), <ref target='Pg266'>266</ref>, <ref target='Pg278'>278</ref>, <ref target='Pg286'>286</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Opitz, Ernst August. Geschichte und Characterzüge Jesu (1812), <ref target='Pg027'>27</ref>, <ref target='Pg034'>34</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='408'/><anchor id='Pg408'/> + +<lg> +<l>Osiander, Andreas, <ref target='Pg013'>13</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Osiander, Johann Ernst. Apologie des Lebens Jesu gegenüber dem neuesten Versuch, es in Mythen aufzulösen (1837), <ref target='Pg100'>100</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Osterzee, J. J. van (Utrecht). Geschichte oder Roman? Das Leben-Jesu von Ernest Renan vorläufig beleuchtet. (From the Dutch) (Hamburg, 1864), <ref target='Pg191'>191</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Otto, Rudolf. Leben und Wirken Jesu nach historisch-kritischer Auffassung. Vortrag (Göttingen, 1902), <ref target='Pg301'>301</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Paul, Ludwig. Die Vorstellung vom Messias und vom Gottesreich bei den Synoptikern (Bonn, 1895), <ref target='Pg265'>265</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Paulus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob. Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums (1828), <ref target='Pg004'>4</ref>, <ref target='Pg028'>28</ref>, <ref target='Pg037'>37</ref>, <ref target='Pg048'>48</ref> f., <ref target='Pg104'>104</ref>, <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref>, <ref target='Pg276'>276</ref>, <ref target='Pg303'>303</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pfleiderer, Otto. Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang beschrieben (2nd ed., Berlin, 1902, 2 vols.) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>Primitive Christianity</hi>, vols. i. and ii. (vol. i. of original), London, 1906, 1909);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Entstehung des Urchristentums (Munich, 1905) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>Christian Origins</hi>, by D. A. Huebsch, London, 1905), <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg293'>293</ref>, <ref target='Pg309'>309</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311-313</ref>, <ref target='Pg384'>384</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Plank. Geschichte des Christentums (Göttingen, 1818), <ref target='Pg034'>34</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pressel, Theodor. Leben Jesu Christi (1857), <ref target='Pg101'>101</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pressensé, Edmond Dehoult de. Jésus-Christ, son temps, sa vie, son œuvre (Paris, 1865) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>Jesus Christ, His Times, His Life, His Work</hi>, by A. Harwood, 3rd ed., London, 1869);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>L'École critique et Jésus-Christ, à propos de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref>, <ref target='Pg189'>189</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Quinet, Edgar, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rauch, C. Jeschua ben Joseph (Deichert, 1899), <ref target='Pg326'>326</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Régla, Paul de. Jesus von Nazareth, (German by A. Just, Leipzig, 1894), <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref>, <ref target='Pg325'>325</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Reimarus, Hermann Samuel. Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger (published by Lessing, Brunswick, 1778) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Object of Jesus and His disciples, as seen in the New Testament</hi>, edited by A. Voysey, 1879), <ref target='Pg004'>4</ref>, <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg010'>10</ref>, <ref target='Pg013'>13-26</ref>, <ref target='Pg075'>75</ref>, <ref target='Pg094'>94</ref>, <ref target='Pg107'>107</ref>, <ref target='Pg120'>120</ref>, <ref target='Pg159'>159</ref>, <ref target='Pg166'>166</ref>, <ref target='Pg172'>172</ref>, <ref target='Pg221'>221</ref>, <ref target='Pg239'>239</ref>, <ref target='Pg264'>264</ref>, <ref target='Pg303'>303</ref>, <ref target='Pg312'>312</ref>, <ref target='Pg319'>319</ref>, <ref target='Pg345'>345</ref>, <ref target='Pg365'>365</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Reinhard, Franz Volkmar. Versuch über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf (1798), <ref target='Pg004'>4</ref>, <ref target='Pg031'>31</ref> f., <ref target='Pg048'>48</ref>, <ref target='Pg206'>206</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Renan, Ernest. La Vie de Jésus (Paris, 1863), German, 1895 (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Life of Jesus</hi>, London, 1864; translated with an introduction by W. G. Hutchison, London, 1898), <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref>, <ref target='Pg075'>75</ref>, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg180'>180-192</ref>, <ref target='Pg193'>193</ref> f., <ref target='Pg197'>197</ref>, <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref>, <ref target='Pg207'>207</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref> f., <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg225'>225</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg252'>252</ref>, <ref target='Pg259'>259</ref>, <ref target='Pg290'>290</ref>, <ref target='Pg295'>295</ref>, <ref target='Pg303'>303</ref>, <ref target='Pg309'>309</ref>, <ref target='Pg310'>310</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Resch, <ref target='Pg273'>273</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Reuss, Eduard, <ref target='Pg124'>124</ref>, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref>, <ref target='Pg189'>189</ref>, <ref target='Pg228'>228</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Réville, Albert. La Vie de Jésus de Renan devant les orthodoxes et devant la critique (1864), <ref target='Pg125'>125</ref>, <ref target='Pg189'>189</ref>, <ref target='Pg249'>249</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ritschl, Albrecht, <ref target='Pg001'>1</ref>, <ref target='Pg124'>124</ref> f., <ref target='Pg250'>250</ref>, <ref target='Pg320'>320</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Robertson, J. M. Christianity and Mythology (London, 1900), <ref target='Pg290'>290</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rogers, A. K. The Life and Teachings of Jesus: a critical analysis, etc. (London and New York, 1894), <ref target='Pg249'>249</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rosegger, Peter. Frohe Botschaft eines armen Sünders (Leipzig, 1906), <ref target='Pg326'>326</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rossi, Giambernardo de. Dissertazione della lingua propria di Christo e degli Ebrei nazionali della Palestina da' tempi de' Maccabei in disamina del sentimento di un recente scrittore italiano (Parma, 1772), <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Salvator. Jésus-Christ et sa doctrine (Paris, 1838, 2 vols.), <ref target='Pg162'>162</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sanday, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Saumaise, Claude, <ref target='Pg270'>270</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scaliger, Justus, <ref target='Pg270'>270</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schegg, Peter. Sechs Bücher des Lebens Jesu (Freiburg, 1874-1875), <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schell, Hermann. Christus (Mainz, 1903), <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schenkel, Daniel. Das Charakterbild Jesu (Wiesbaden, 1st and 2nd ed. 1864, 4th ed. 1873) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>A Sketch of the Character of Jesus</hi>, London, 1869), <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref>, <ref target='Pg103'>103</ref>, <ref target='Pg131'>131</ref>, <ref target='Pg193'>193</ref>, <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref>, <ref target='Pg203'>203</ref>, <ref target='Pg205'>205-210</ref>, <ref target='Pg215'>215</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg310'>310</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scherer, Edmond, <ref target='Pg189'>189</ref>, <ref target='Pg191'>191</ref>, <ref target='Pg209'>209</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scherer, Edmond, und Athanase Coquerel (jun.). Zwei französische Stimmen über Renans Leben-Jesu (Regensburg, 1864), <ref target='Pg189'>189</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst Daniel. Das Leben Jesu (1864), <ref target='Pg049'>49</ref>, <ref target='Pg058'>58</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref> f., <ref target='Pg070'>70</ref>, <ref target='Pg073'>73</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>, <ref target='Pg088'>88</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref>, <ref target='Pg101'>101</ref> f., +<pb n='409'/><anchor id='Pg409'/> +<ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg116'>116</ref>, <ref target='Pg127'>127</ref>, <ref target='Pg139'>139</ref>, <ref target='Pg195'>195</ref>, <ref target='Pg197'>197</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg233'>233</ref>, <ref target='Pg320'>320</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schmiedel, Otto. Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen, 1902), <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg022'>22</ref>, <ref target='Pg293'>293</ref>, <ref target='Pg301'>301</ref>, <ref target='Pg303'>303</ref>, <ref target='Pg305'>305</ref>, <ref target='Pg312'>312</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schmiedel, P., <ref target='Pg277'>277</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schmidt, N. <q>Was בן נשא a Messianic Title?</q> (Journal of the Society for Biblical Literature, xv., 1896), <ref target='Pg277'>277</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schmidt, Paul Wilhelm. Die Geschichte Jesu, i. (Freiburg, 1899), ii. (Tübingen, 1904), <ref target='Pg265'>265</ref>, <ref target='Pg278'>278</ref>, <ref target='Pg293'>293</ref>, <ref target='Pg301'>301</ref>, <ref target='Pg304'>304</ref>, <ref target='Pg308'>308</ref>, <ref target='Pg398'>398</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schmoller. Über die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes im Neuen Testament, <ref target='Pg237'>237</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scholten, <ref target='Pg231'>231</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schöttgen, Christian, <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schürer, Emil. Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes ins Zeitalter Jesu Christi (2nd ed., 2nd pt., 1886) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>History of Jewish People in time of Jesus Christ</hi>, Edinburgh, 1885);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Christi (1903), <ref target='Pg234'>234</ref>, <ref target='Pg241'>241</ref>, <ref target='Pg254'>254</ref> f., <ref target='Pg287'>287</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schwartzkoppf. Die Weissagungen Jesu Christi von seinem Tode, seiner Auferstehung und Wiederkunft und ihre Erfüllung (1895), <ref target='Pg267'>267</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schweitzer, Albert. Das Messianitätsund Leidensgeheimnis. Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu (Tübingen, 1901), <ref target='Pg281'>281</ref>, <ref target='Pg287'>287</ref>, <ref target='Pg328'>328-330</ref>, <ref target='Pg332'>332</ref> f., <ref target='Pg336'>336</ref>, <ref target='Pg339'>339</ref> f., <ref target='Pg351'>351</ref>, <ref target='Pg382'>382</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Schweizer, Alexander, <ref target='Pg118'>118</ref>, <ref target='Pg127'>127</ref> f., <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref>, <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg265'>265</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Semler, Johann Salomo. Beantwortung der Fragmente eines Ungenannten, insbesondere vom Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger (Halle, 1779), <ref target='Pg013'>13</ref>, <ref target='Pg015'>15</ref>, <ref target='Pg025'>25</ref> f., <ref target='Pg049'>49</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sepp, Johann Nepomuk. Das Leben Jesu Christi (Regensburg, 7 vols., 1st ed. 1843-1846, 2nd ed. 1853-1862), <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Seydel, Rudolf. Das Evangelium Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zur Buddha-Saga und Buddha-Lehre (Leipzig, 1882);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien (2nd ed. 1897);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Buddha und Christus (Breslau, 1884), <ref target='Pg269'>269</ref>, <ref target='Pg290'>290-292</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Siegfried, Carl, <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Simon, Richard, <ref target='Pg270'>270</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Soden, Hermann Freiherr von. Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (Berlin, 1904), <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg293'>293</ref>, <ref target='Pg301'>301-308</ref>, <ref target='Pg312'>312</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Stalker, J. The Life of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1880) (German, Tübingen, 1898), <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Stapfer, E. La Vie de Jésus (pt. i. 1896, pt. ii. 1897, pt. iii. 1898) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>Jesus Christ before His Ministry</hi>, by L. S. Houghton, 1897, <hi rend='italic'>Jesus Christ during His Ministry</hi>, by L. S. Houghton, 1897), <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Stave, <ref target='Pg243'>243</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Storr, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Strauss, David Friedrich. Der Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte. Eine Kritik des Schleiermacher'schen Lebens Jesu (Berlin, 1865);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Leben Jesu (1st ed. 1835 and 1836, 2 vols., 3rd ed., revised, 1838 and 1839, 4th ed. 1840) (<hi rend='italic'>The Life of Jesus Critically Examined</hi>, translated from the 4th German ed. by George Eliot, London, 1846, 3rd ed. with a preface by Otto Pfleiderer, 1898);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet (Leipzig, 1864, 8th ed.) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>A New Life of Jesus</hi>, London, 1865), <ref target='Pg004'>4</ref>, <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref>, <ref target='Pg010'>10</ref>, <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref>, <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg014'>14</ref>, <ref target='Pg024'>24</ref>, <ref target='Pg028'>28</ref>, <ref target='Pg035'>35-37</ref>, <ref target='Pg058'>58</ref>, <ref target='Pg060'>60</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref>, <ref target='Pg065'>65</ref>, <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref> f., <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref> f., <ref target='Pg068'>68-121</ref>, <ref target='Pg125'>125</ref>, <ref target='Pg129'>129</ref> f., <ref target='Pg136'>136</ref>, <ref target='Pg138'>138</ref>, <ref target='Pg140'>140</ref>, <ref target='Pg145'>145</ref>, <ref target='Pg151'>151</ref>, <ref target='Pg153'>153</ref>, <ref target='Pg158'>158</ref>, <ref target='Pg159'>159</ref>, <ref target='Pg161'>161</ref>, <ref target='Pg162'>162</ref>, <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref>, <ref target='Pg166'>166</ref>, <ref target='Pg171'>171</ref>, <ref target='Pg173'>173</ref>, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref> f., <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref>, <ref target='Pg185'>185</ref>, <ref target='Pg188'>188</ref>, <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref>, <ref target='Pg193'>193-199</ref>, <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref>, <ref target='Pg201'>201</ref>, <ref target='Pg209'>209</ref> f., <ref target='Pg214'>214</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg221'>221</ref>, <ref target='Pg225'>225</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg237'>237</ref>, <ref target='Pg252'>252</ref>, <ref target='Pg281'>281</ref>, <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref>, <ref target='Pg303'>303</ref>, <ref target='Pg309'>309</ref>, <ref target='Pg329'>329</ref>, <ref target='Pg331'>331</ref>, <ref target='Pg363'>363</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Stricker. Jesus von Nazareth (1868), <ref target='Pg202'>202</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tal, T., <ref target='Pg286'>286</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tholuck, August. Die Glaubwürdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, zugleich eine Kritik des Lebens Jesu von Strauss (Hamburg, 1837) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Credibility of the Evangelical History, illustrated with reference to the <q>Leben-Jesu</q> of Dr. Strauss</hi>, London, 1844), <ref target='Pg070'>70</ref>, <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg100'>100</ref> f., <ref target='Pg116'>116</ref>, <ref target='Pg119'>119</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg139'>139</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Titius, Arthur, <ref target='Pg250'>250</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Uhlhorn, Johann Gerhard Wilhelm. Das Leben Jesu in seinen neueren Darstellungen. Vorträge (1892), <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref>, <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ullmann, <ref target='Pg100'>100</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Usteri, <ref target='Pg078'>78</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Venturini, Karl Heinrich. Natürliche Geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazareth (1st ed. 1800-1802, 2nd ed. 1806), <ref target='Pg004'>4</ref>, <ref target='Pg038'>38</ref>, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg045'>45</ref>, <ref target='Pg050'>50</ref>, <ref target='Pg059'>59</ref>, <ref target='Pg082'>82</ref>, <ref target='Pg162'>162</ref>, <ref target='Pg170'>170</ref>, <ref target='Pg299'>299</ref>, <ref target='Pg303'>303</ref>, <ref target='Pg313'>313</ref>, <ref target='Pg325'>325</ref>, <ref target='Pg327'>327</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Veuillot, Louis. La Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ (Paris, 1863), (German by Waldener, Köln-Neuss, 1864), <ref target='Pg295'>295</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='410'/><anchor id='Pg410'/> + +<lg> +<l>Volkmar, Gustav. Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit, mit den beiden ersten Erzählern (Zurich, 1882), <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref>, <ref target='Pg210'>210</ref>, <ref target='Pg225'>225-228</ref>, <ref target='Pg233'>233</ref>, <ref target='Pg256'>256</ref>, <ref target='Pg301'>301</ref>, <ref target='Pg309'>309</ref>, <ref target='Pg313'>313</ref>, <ref target='Pg328'>328</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Volz, Paul. Die jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (Tübingen, 1903), <ref target='Pg234'>234</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vossius, <ref target='Pg270'>270</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wallon, H. Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ (Paris, 1865), <ref target='Pg295'>295</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Walton, Brian, <ref target='Pg270'>270</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Weber, Ferdinand. System der altsynagogalen palästinensischen Theologie (Leipzig, 1880, 2nd ed. 1897), <ref target='Pg269'>269</ref>, <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Weiffenbach, Wilhelm. Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu (1873), <ref target='Pg222'>222</ref>, <ref target='Pg228'>228-233</ref>, <ref target='Pg237'>237</ref>, <ref target='Pg250'>250</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Weinel, Heinrich. Jesus im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (1904), <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg398'>398</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Weiss, Bernhard. Das Leben Jesu (1st ed. 2 vols. 1882, 2nd ed. 1884) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Life of Jesus</hi>, by J. W. Hope, Edinburgh, 1883), <ref target='Pg010'>10</ref>, <ref target='Pg193'>193</ref>, <ref target='Pg216'>216-218</ref>, <ref target='Pg250'>250</ref>, <ref target='Pg262'>262</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Weiss, Johannes. Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (1st ed. 1892, 2nd ed. 1900), <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg010'>10</ref>, <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref>, <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>, <ref target='Pg136'>136</ref>, <ref target='Pg221'>221</ref>, <ref target='Pg222'>222</ref>, <ref target='Pg237'>237-240</ref>, <ref target='Pg249'>249</ref> f., <ref target='Pg256'>256</ref>, <ref target='Pg262'>262</ref>, <ref target='Pg265'>265-267</ref>, <ref target='Pg278'>278</ref>, <ref target='Pg301'>301</ref>, <ref target='Pg309'>309</ref>, <ref target='Pg336'>336</ref>, <ref target='Pg349'>349</ref>, <ref target='Pg383'>383</ref>, <ref target='Pg388'>388</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Weisse, Christian Hermann. Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (2 vols., Leipzig, 1838);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwärtigen Stadium (Leipzig, 1856), <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg118'>118</ref>, <ref target='Pg120'>120</ref>, <ref target='Pg121'>121-136</ref>, <ref target='Pg140'>140</ref>, <ref target='Pg162'>162</ref>, <ref target='Pg195'>195</ref>, <ref target='Pg198'>198</ref>, <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref>, <ref target='Pg204'>204</ref> f., <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg232'>232</ref>, <ref target='Pg294'>294</ref>, <ref target='Pg309'>309</ref>, <ref target='Pg328'>328</ref>, <ref target='Pg341'>341</ref>, <ref target='Pg357'>357</ref>, <ref target='Pg374'>374</ref>, <ref target='Pg378'>378</ref>, <ref target='Pg389'>389</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Weitbrecht, M. G. Das Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien (1881), <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Weizsäcker, Karl Heinrich. Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung (Gotha, 1864), <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref>, <ref target='Pg193'>193</ref>, <ref target='Pg200'>200-202</ref>, <ref target='Pg205'>205</ref>, <ref target='Pg207'>207</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg259'>259</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wellhausen, Julius. Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (3rd ed. 1897, 4th ed. 1902);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Evangelium Marci (1903);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Evangelium Matthäi (1904);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Das Evangelium Lucae (1904);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Skizzen und Vorarbeiten (1899), <ref target='Pg254'>254</ref>, <ref target='Pg269'>269</ref>, <ref target='Pg276'>276</ref>, <ref target='Pg277'>277</ref>, <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref>, <ref target='Pg287'>287</ref>, <ref target='Pg289'>289</ref>, <ref target='Pg391'>391</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wendt, Hans Heinrich. Die Lehre Jesu (Göttingen, pt. i. 1886, pt. ii. 1890) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Teaching of Jesus</hi>, by J. Wilson, Edinburgh, 1892) (2nd German ed. 1902, 3rd ed. 1903), <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg249'>249</ref>, <ref target='Pg265'>265</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wernle, Paul. Die Anfänge unserer Religion (Tübingen-Leipzig, 1901, 2nd ed. 1904) (English translation, <hi rend='italic'>The Beginnings of Christianity</hi>, by G. A. Bienemann, London, 1903);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Die Reichgotteshoffnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus (1903), <ref target='Pg241'>241</ref>, <ref target='Pg252'>252-254</ref>, <ref target='Pg265'>265</ref>, <ref target='Pg267'>267</ref>, <ref target='Pg314'>314</ref>, <ref target='Pg398'>398</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de, <ref target='Pg072'>72</ref>, <ref target='Pg078'>78</ref>, <ref target='Pg086'>86</ref>, <ref target='Pg103'>103</ref>, <ref target='Pg119'>119</ref>, <ref target='Pg208'>208</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wettstein, Johann Jakob, <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Whateley, Richard. Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (London, 1819) (adapted as Das Leben Napoleons kritisch geprüft), <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wieseler, Karl Georg. Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien (Hamburg, 1843), <ref target='Pg117'>117</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wiesinger, Albert. Aphorismen gegen Renans Leben-Jesu (Vienna, 1864), <ref target='Pg117'>117</ref>, <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Widmanstadt, Joh. Alb., <ref target='Pg270'>270</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wilke, Christian Gottlob. Tradition und Mythe (Leipzig, 1837);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Der Urevangelist (Dresden and Leipzig, 1838), <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg112'>112-114</ref>, <ref target='Pg119'>119</ref>, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>, <ref target='Pg124'>124</ref>, <ref target='Pg140'>140</ref> f., <ref target='Pg148'>148</ref>, <ref target='Pg195'>195</ref>, <ref target='Pg202'>202</ref>, <ref target='Pg225'>225</ref>, <ref target='Pg328'>328</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wittichen, Karl. Leben Jesu (Jena, 1876), <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wrede, Wilhelm. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen, 1901), <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg011'>11</ref>, <ref target='Pg025'>25</ref>, <ref target='Pg131'>131</ref>, <ref target='Pg210'>210</ref>, <ref target='Pg221'>221</ref>, <ref target='Pg256'>256</ref>, <ref target='Pg257'>257</ref>, <ref target='Pg264'>264</ref>, <ref target='Pg309'>309</ref>, <ref target='Pg328'>328-349</ref>, <ref target='Pg350'>350</ref>, <ref target='Pg358'>358</ref>, <ref target='Pg380'>380</ref>, <ref target='Pg384'>384</ref> f., <ref target='Pg389'>389</ref>, <ref target='Pg391'>391</ref> f., <ref target='Pg399'>399</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wünsche, August. Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch (Göttingen, 1878);</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Jesus in seiner Stellung zu den Frauen (1876), <ref target='Pg269'>269</ref>, <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref> f.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Xavier, Hieronymus. Historia Christi persice conscripta (Lugd. 1639), <ref target='Pg014'>14</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ziegler, Heinrich. Der geschichtliche Christus (1891), <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ziegler, Theobald, <ref target='Pg069'>69</ref></l> +</lg> + +</div> + +</body> +<back rend="page-break-before: right"> + <div id="footnotes"> + <index index="toc" /> + <index index="pdf" /> + <head>Footnotes</head> + <divGen type="footnotes"/> + </div> + <div rend="page-break-before: right"> + <divGen type="pgfooter" /> + </div> +</back> +</text> +</TEI.2> diff --git a/45422-tei/images/cover.jpg b/45422-tei/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1a264b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/45422-tei/images/cover.jpg |
