the unseen world and other essays-第18章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
istorical value superior to that of the synoptics； believing it to have been written by an eyewitness of the events which it relates； and from this source； accordingly； he drew the larger share of his materials。 Now； if there is any one conclusion concerning the New Testament literature which must be regarded as incontrovertibly established by the labours of a whole generation of scholars； it is this； that the fourth gospel was utterly unknown until about A。 D。 170； that it was written by some one who possessed very little direct knowledge of Palestine； that its purpose was rather to expound a dogma than to give an accurate record of events； and that as a guide to the comprehension of the career of Jesus it is of far less value than the three synoptic gospels。 It is impossible； in a brief review like the present； to epitomize the evidence upon which this conclusion rests； which may more profitably be sought in the Rev。 J。 J。 Tayler's work on 〃The Fourth Gospel；〃 or in Davidson's 〃Introduction to the New Testament。〃 It must suffice to mention that this gospel is not cited by Papias； that Justin； Marcion； and Valentinus make no allusion to it； though； since it furnishes so much that is germane to their views； they would gladly have appealed to it； had it been in existence； when those views were as yet under discussion； and that； finally； in the great Quartodeciman controversy； A。 D。 168； the gospel is not only not mentioned； but the authority of John is cited by Polycarp in flat contradiction of the view afterwards taken by this evangelist。 Still more； the assumption of Renan led at once into complicated difficulties with reference to the Apocalypse。 The fourth gospel； if it does not unmistakably announce itself as the work of John； at least professes to be Johannine； and it cannot for a moment be supposed that such a book； making such claims； could have gained currency during John's lifetime without calling forth his indignant protest。 For； in reality； no book in the New Testament collection would so completely have shocked the prejudices of the Johannine party。 John's own views are well known to us from the Apocalypse。 John was the most enthusiastic of millenarians and the most narrow and rigid of Judaizers。 In his antagonism to the Pauline innovations he went farther than Peter himself。 Intense hatred of Paul and his followers appears in several passages of the Apocalypse； where they are stigmatized as 〃Nicolaitans；〃 〃deceivers of the people；〃 〃those who say they are apostles and are not；〃 〃eaters of meat offered to idols；〃 〃fornicators；〃 〃pretended Jews；〃 〃liars；〃 〃synagogue of Satan；〃 etc。 （Chap。 II。）。 On the other hand； the fourth gospel contains nothing millenarian or Judaical； it carries Pauline universalism to a far greater extent than Paul himself ventured to carry it； even condemning the Jews as children of darkness； and by implication contrasting them unfavourably with the Gentiles； and it contains a theory of the nature of Jesus which the Ebionitish Christians； to whom John belonged； rejected to the last。
In his present edition Renan admits the insuperable force of these objections； and abandons his theory of the apostolic origin of the fourth gospel。 And as this has necessitated the omission or alteration of all such passages as rested upon the authority of that gospel； the book is to a considerable extent rewritten； and the changes are such as greatly to increase its value as a history of Jesus。 Nevertheless； the author has so long been in the habit of shaping his conceptions of the career of Jesus by the aid of the fourth gospel； that it has become very difficult for him to pass freely to another point of view。 He still clings to the hypothesis that there is an element of historic tradition contained in the book； drawn from memorial writings which had perhaps been handed down from John； and which were inaccessible to the synoptists。 In a very interesting appendix； he collects the evidence in favour of this hypothesis； which indeed is not without plausibility； since there is every reason for supposing that the gospel was written at Ephesus； which a century before had been John's place of residence。 But even granting most of Renan's assumptions； it must still follow that the authority of this gospel is far inferior to that of the synoptics； and can in no case be very confidently appealed to。 The question is one of the first importance to the historian of early Christianity。 In inquiring into the life of Jesus； the very first thing to do is to establish firmly in the mind the true relations of the fourth gospel to the first three。 Until this has been done； no one is competent to write on the subject； and it is because he has done this so imperfectly； that Renan's work is； from a critical point of view； so imperfectly successful。
The anonymous work entitled 〃The Jesus of History；〃 which we have placed at the head of this article； is in every respect noteworthy as the first systematic attempt made in England to follow in the footsteps of German criticism in writing a life of Jesus。 We know of no good reason why the book should be published anonymously； for as a historical essay it possesses extraordinary merit； and does great credit not only to its author； but to English scholarship and acumen。＇19＇ It is not； indeed； a book calculated to captivate the imagination of the reading public。 Though written in a clear； forcible； and often elegant style； it possesses no such wonderful rhetorical charm as the work of Renan； and it will probably never find half a dozen readers where the 〃Vie de Jesus〃 has found a hundred。 But the success of a book of this sort is not to be measured by its rhetorical excellence； or by its adaptation to the literary tastes of an uncritical and uninstructed public； but rather by the amount of critical sagacity which it brings to bear upon the elucidation of the many difficult and disputed points in the subject of which it treats。 Measured by this standard； 〃The Jesus of History〃 must rank very high indeed。 To say that it throws more light upon the career of Jesus than any work which has ever before been written in English would be very inadequate praise； since the English language has been singularly deficient in this branch of historical literature。 We shall convey a more just idea of its merits if we say that it will bear comparison with anything which even Germany has produced； save only the works of Strauss； Baur； and Zeller。
＇19＇ 〃The Jesus of History〃 is now known to have been written by Sir Richard Hanson； Chief Justice of South Australia。
The fitness of our author for the task which he has undertaken is shown at the outset by his choice of materials。 In basing his conclusions almost exclusively upon the statements contained in the first gospel； he is upheld by every sound principle of criticism。 The times and places at which our three synoptic gospels were written have been； through the labours of the Tubingen critics； determined almost to a certainty。 Of the three； 〃Mark〃 is unquestionably the latest； with the exception of about twenty verses； it is entirely made up from 〃Matthew〃 and 〃Luke；〃 the diverse Petrine and Pauline tendencies of which it strives to neutralize in conformity to the conciliatory disposition of the Church at Rome； at the epoch at which this gospel was written； about A。 D。 130。 The third gospel was also written at Rome； some fifteen years earlier。 In the preface； its author describes it as a compilation from previously existing written materials。 Among these materials was certainly the first gospel； several passages of which are adopted word for word by the author of 〃Luke。〃 Yet the narrative varies materially from that of the first gospel in many essential points。 The arrangement of events is less natural； and； as in the 〃Acts of the Apostles；〃 by the same author； there is apparent throughout the design of suppressing the old discord between Paul and the Judaizing disciples； and of representing Christianity as essentially Pauline from the outset。 How far Paul was correct in his interpretation of the teachings of Jesus； it is difficult to decide。 It is； no doubt； possible that the first gospel may have lent to the words of Jesus an Ebionite colouring in some ins
