Слике страница
PDF
ePub

indeed been cavilled at on some minor points; but even if the objections are admitted to be valid (as they are not), the unity of the grand residuum is fully sufficient for the purpose of our argument. If, therefore, the theory is correct that the Gospels consist of bundles of myths and legends, the fabrication of many persons, which have been inartificially put together by four compilers, the question urgently demands solution—how has the unity of this exquisite delineation, which has commanded the love, reverence, and adoration of the wisest and the best during a period of eighteen centuries, got into their pages?

To those who admit the general historical truthfulness of the Gospels (the argument does not require the admission of that of every minor detail) this question admits of a conclusive answer. The portraiture is there, because it is a delineation taken from the life. Let us now interrogate those who affirm that the Gospels are masses of myths and legends, how in conformity with their theory it must have originated? Only one answer is possible. Numbers of superstitious and credulous Christians during the course of the first century set themselves to the work of inventing a number of legendary stories, which were gradually attributed to Jesus, and took the place of the real facts of His earthly life. Out of a mass of materials of this kind the Evangelists, or those from whom they copied, during some period of the second century, composed the Gospels; and lo! out of this mass of legendary matter the harmonious unity of the fourfold delineation of the portraiture of Jesus originated, by the mere juxtaposition of the myths and legends which compose our Gospels! If this is the true account of the origin of the great portraiture, its creation constitutes as great a miracle as any recorded in their pages. It is as incredible as the theory that one of our greatest paintings has originated by the casual collection of the various figures which compose it, the works of various artists, by placing them side by side on the canvas.

But this is far from constituting the whole of the difficulty. As has been already observed, the theory which we are considering renders it necessary to assume that those who invented the myths and legends, and those who mistook them for facts, were to the last degree credulous, superstitious, and fanatical. Consequently, as the inventors of the legends must have been the real creators of the character, it follows that a number of persons thus intellectually and morally degraded must have fortuitously invented a number of legends of a lofty moral type, which, when placed side by side, have created a charac

ter so elevated and perfect, that so eminent a man as Mr. Mill has arrived at the conclusion, that Christianity has done well in making its Founder, rather than the author of nature, the centre of its worship. He has also declared in his posthumous Essays, that it is utterly incredible that either the moral teaching or the character of Jesus, as delineated in the Gospels, can have been the invention of His followers, or of the early Christians, or even of the Apostle Paul, on the ground that both are immeasurably above the moral atmosphere which they habitually breathed. In this opinion every person who considers the subject must concur.

Here, however, there is one consideration which Mr. Mill has evidently overlooked. He thinks it possible that the early followers of Jesus may have invented all the miracles which have been attributed to Him. If this is the case, supposing Him to have been a mere man, they must also have invented all the superhuman aspects of His character; yet not only are the narratives of miracles stamped with the same high moral ideal as His teaching, but the human and the superhuman aspects of His character are woven into an harmonious unity; and present not the smallest trace of diversity of authorship. Still more in those places of the Evangelists where a highly superhuman character is attributed to Jesus (as in Matt. xxv. 31-46), the elevation of His moral character stands out with pre-eminent brightness. If, therefore, it is inconceivable that the followers of Jesus can have invented His moral teaching, or the general aspects of His character, it is equally impossible that the other portions of the Divine delineation can have been their invention, for it is elevated equally high above their spiritual ken.

The above considerations, therefore, prove that every theory which is propounded to account for the miraculous narratives in the Gospels on the supposition that they are unhistorical, ought at the same time to afford an adequate explanation of the great portraiture which is delineated in their pages, because the one is made up of the same materials as the other. If, therefore, the legendary theory, and all its various modifications, utterly fail to account for the origin of the portraiture, it is impossible that they can be a true account of the origin of either the miraculous narratives, or of the superhuman aspects of our Lord's character, for both are indelibly stamped with the same elevated moral impress. It is needless to pursue the argument further, for the suggestion that the portraiture of the Jesus of the Evangelists has resulted from the fortuitous placing together of a number of

legends invented by a body of superstitious and credulous fanatics, is to offer an insult to our reason.

Only an imperfect outline of this mode of reasoning can be here given. It is, however, impossible to deny that it possesses great weight. If so, it has a most intimate bearing on the questions discussed by 'S. R.;' yet he has not once referred to it in his three volumes. This can only be attributed to one of two causes: either he is ignorant of its existence, and in that case his acquaintance with the literature of the subject must be imperfect, for the argument had been several years before the world when he published the two first volumes of his work; or he has found it more convenient to ignore it than to answer it. It is now pressed on the attention of both him and of his unbelieving friends.

The most elaborate portion of S. R.'s' work is that in which he has attempted to prove that the references alleged to have been made in the remains of the early Patristic and heretical literature now extant to the canonical Gospels, are wholly insufficient to establish the fact that any writer who flourished prior to the last thirty years of the second century has actually quoted any one of them. From this the inference is drawn that their authorship is involved in the deepest uncertainty; and that they came into existence only a short time prior to that date; and consequently that they are valueless as witnesses to events which happened a century and a quarter previously. To this investigation 'S. R.' has devoted more than half of his first, and the whole of his second volume. It may, therefore, be concluded that he considers this portion of his work as of pre-eminent importance, and that if he has succeeded in establishing his positions, he has dealt a mortal blow to the historical evidence of Christianity. In adopting this line of reasoning, he is simply following in the wake of a multitude of unbelieving critics. The object which they seek to effect is evident; they consider that if it can be shown that our canonical Gospels were composed at a comparatively late date by unknown authors, not only is their value as historical documents destroyed, but ample time is afforded for the growth of the mass of legendary matter, which they affirm to have been incorporated into their pages, and to have taken the place of the real facts of the life of the Founder of the Christian Church, respecting whom we now know little or nothing that is worthy of credit.

Into the details of this argument it is superfluous to enter. 'S. R.' may be left in the hands of Professors Lightfoot, Sanday, and others, who have unquestionably proved that

he has committed several considerable blunders, and drawn conclusions which his premisses will not justify. The argument itself consists of a vast amount of minute criticism of passages in the Patristic writings compared with others bearing a close resemblance to them in the Gospels. Three qualifications (which are united in few persons) are absolutely necessary for forming a judgment of any value on this species of reasoning: first, an intimate acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers; secondly, a mind which has received a special training in the principles of historical criticism; and, thirdly, a thoroughly impartial judgment. Now, it is fully admitted that there is great interest in these subjects from a critical, and even a theological point of view; but that a great question, such as the truth or falsehood of Christianity, can be dependent on a number of minute issues, of which the mental training of hardly one man in twenty thousand constitutes him a competent judge, is simply incredible. The following brief remarks will be devoted to show that, even if it be conceded, for the sake of argument, that 'S. R.' has proved everything which he has attempted to establish, he leaves the historical argument on which the truth of Christianity depends absolutely untouched.

What, then, viewing the question as a purely historic one, is the vital point in this controversy? It is not whether four individuals, called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, respecting whom our information is at best but scanty, composed our Gospels, some time between A.D. 60 and A.D. 90, but whether there is evidence that these Gospels, by whomsoever composed, are in all their great outlines accurate representations of the traditions of the primitive followers of Jesus-I say in their great outlines for as far as the present controversy is concerned it is unnecessary to maintain that they are so in all their minute details. The following, therefore, is the real point at issue in this controversy, viewed as one simply historical and divested of the theological questions which have been needlessly introduced into it :-Do or do not the Patristic writings afford satisfactory evidence that the traditions of the primitive followers of Jesus attributed to Him a superhuman character, and ascribe to Him a number of superhuman actions, similar in kind to those attributed to Him in our Gospels?

What light does the reasoning of 'S. R.' throw on this question? I. It makes it clear that if the alleged citations and references of the Fathers to the Synoptics do not so exactly agree with the corresponding passages in the Gospels as to amount to an actual demonstration that they were in posses

sion of one or more of them, yet their correspondence is so close as to render it highly probable that it was so. In proof of this the numerous references contained in the writings of Justin Martyr to our Lord's life and teaching may be referred to as a crucial example.

II. But on the following points his writings afford not merely probable, but demonstrative evidence. 1. That Justin was in possession of certain documents, which he designates as Memoirs of the Apostles and their Companions,' which, as far as their title is concerned, is a sufficiently accurate description of our present Gospels. 2. That in his day these were publicly read in the Christian assemblies. 3. That if these Memoirs of the Apostles and their Companions' were not our Gospels, Justin's references make it certain that their accounts of the actions and teaching of Jesus Christ so closely resembled those in the Synoptics that the difference between them in an historical point of view is unworthy of notice; that is to say, Justin's 'Memoirs' and our Gospels must have told substantially the same story in all its great outlines. 4. That any incidents connected with the actions and teaching of Jesus with which Justin was acquainted, and which he accepted as authoritative, other than those in our Gospels, were extremely few in number, and were of precisely the same type as those contained in them.

Let us appeal to facts. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that 'S. R.' has proved (which he has not) that Justin's 'Memoirs' were not our Gospels, what does the difference between the one and the other really amount to? Carefully counted, the references in his writings to events in our Lord's life and teaching are about two hundred in number. Of these about 196 agree substantially with the statements in our Gospels. Only about four differ from them, and these relate to matters perfectly immaterial. Without affirming that this computation is completely accurate, it is approximately so. Consequently, the incidents connected with our Lord's ministry, which Justin accepted as authentic, differed from those recorded in the Synoptics by the inconsiderable number of two per cent. It is marvellous, when we consider that Justin's historical recollections were separated from the close of our Lord's ministry by about the same interval of time which separates us from the death of the founder of Wesleyanism, that he should have preserved so few incidents respecting it which vary from those in our Gospels, rather than that those which he has referred to, should present the slight variations which they do. In Justin's time traditionary reminiscences

« ПретходнаНастави »