[64] I may perhaps return to the question of the authorship
of the Gospels. For the present I must content myself
with warning my readers against any reliance upon Dr.
Wace's statements as to the results arrived at by
modern criticism. They are as gravely as surprisingly
erroneous.
[65] The United States ought, perhaps, to be added, but
I am not sure.
[66] Imagine that all our chairs of astronomy had been
founded in the fourteenth century, and that their
incumbents were bound to sign Ptolemaic articles. In
that case, with every respect for the efforts of
persons thus hampered to attain and expound the truth,
I think men of common sense would go elsewhere to learn
astronomy. Zeller's _Vorträge und Abhandlungen_ were
published and came into my hands a quarter of a century
ago. The writer's rank, as a theologian to begin with,
and subsequently as a historian of Greek philosophy, is
of the highest. Among these essays are two--_Das
Urchirstenthum_ and _Die Tübinger historische
Schule_--which are likely to be of more use to those
who wish to know the real state of the case than all
that the official "apologists," with their one eye on
truth and the other on the tenets of their sect, have
written. For the opinion of a scientific theologian
about theologians of this stamp see pp. 225 and 227 of
the _Vorträge_.
[67] I suppose this is what Dr. Wace is thinking about when
he says that I allege that there "is no visible escape"
from the supposition of an _Ur-Marcus_ (p. 367). That a
"theologian of repute" should confound an indisputable
fact with one of the modes of explaining that fact is
not so singular as those who are unaccustomed to the
ways of theologians might imagine.
[68] Any examiner whose duty it has been to examine into a
case of "copying" will be particularly well prepared to
appreciate the force of the case stated in that most
excellent little book, _The Common Tradition of the
Synoptic Gospels_, by Dr. Abbott and Mr. Rushbrooke
(Macmillan, 1884). To those who have not passed through
such painful experiences I may recommend the brief
discussion of the genuineness of the "Casket Letters"
in my friend Mr. Skelton's interesting book, _Maitland
of Lethington_. The second edition of Holtzmann's
_Lehrbuch_, published in 1886, gives a remarkably fair
and full account of the present results of criticism.
At p. 366 he writes that the present burning question
is whether the "relatively primitive narrative and the
root of the other synoptic texts is contained in
Matthew or in Mark. It is only on this point that
properly-informed (_sachkundige_) critics differ," and
he decides in favour of Mark.
[69] Holtzmann (_Die synoptischen Evangelien_, 1863, p. 75),
following Ewald, argues that the "Source A" (= the
threefold tradition, more or less) contained something
that answered to the "Sermon on the Plain" immediately
after the words of our present Mark, "And he cometh
into a house" (iii. 19). But what conceivable motive
could "Mark" have for omitting it? Holtzmann has no
doubt, however, that the "Sermon on the Mount" is a
compilation, or, as he calls it in his
recently-published _Lehrbuch_ (p. 372), "an artificial
mosaic work."
[70] See Schürer, _Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes_,
Zweiter Thiel, p. 384.
[71] Spacious, because a young man could sit in it "on the
right side" (xv. 5), and therefore with plenty of room
to spare.
[72] King Herod had not the least difficulty in supposing
the resurrection of John the Baptist--"John, whom I
beheaded, he is risen" (Mark vi. 16).
[73] I am very sorry for the interpolated "in," because
citation ought to be accurate in small things as in
great. But what difference it makes whether one
"believes Jesus" or "believes in Jesus" much thought
has not enabled me to discover. If you "believe him"
you must believe him to be what he professed to
be--that is, "believe in him;" and if you "believe in
him" you must necessarily "believe him."
[74] True for Justin: but there is a school of theological
critics, who more or less question the historical
reality of Paul, and the genuineness of even the four
cardinal epistles.
[75] See _Dial. cum Tryphone_, §47 and §35. It is to be
understood that Justin does not arrange these
categories in order, as I have done.
[76] I guard myself against being supposed to affirm that
even the four cardinal epistles of Paul may not have
been seriously tampered with. See note 1, p. 287 above.
[77] Paul, in fact, is required to commit in Jerusalem, an act
of the same character as that which he brands as
"dissimulation" on the part of Peter in Antioch.
[78] All this was quite clearly pointed out by Ritschl nearly
forty years ago. See _Die Entstchung der
alt-katholischen Kirche_ (1850), p. 108.
[79] "If every one was baptized as soon as he acknowledged
Jesus to be the Messiah, the first Christians can have
been aware of no other essential differences from the
Jews."--Zeller, _Vorträge_ (1865), p. 26.
[80] Dr. Harnack, in the lately-published second edition of
his _Dogmengeschichte_, says (p. 39), "Jesus Christ
brought forward no new doctrine;" and again (p. 65),
"It is not difficult to set against every portion of
the utterances of Jesus an observation which deprives
him of originality." See also Zusatz 4, on the same
page.