preliminary observations. The question before us is simply this, Are
the Gospels credible histories, in the sense that other writings of
the same description are? or are the larger portion of their contents
fictitious?
It should be observed that although these schools support their views
by an immense critical apparatus, the real σκάνδαλον [Greek: skandalon]
of the Gospels is the supernatural element which they contain. Apart
from this, their historical character would never have been questioned.
The theory that miracles are impossible underlies the entire mass of
these objections. But the question of the miraculous has been already
handled by another lecturer. I shall therefore only observe on it that
it forms no portion of a strictly historical inquiry. It appertains to
the abstract regions of thought. History has to deal with evidence, not
with abstract dogmas or philosophical questions. To begin an historical
inquiry with the assumption that miracles are impossible, and that any
event which involves the supernatural must be a fiction, is quietly to
assume the point at issue.
But as the Christian Church is an institution which actually exists,
and as its origin can be traced up to the times of Jesus Christ, and as
it is erected on the Gospels as its foundation, these schools are fully
aware that the question cannot be settled by the quiet assumption that
miracles are impossible. The case stands thus. The Christian Church
exists. It has had its origin in the events of past history. The Church
itself asserts now, and has asserted in all ages, that it is founded
on the historical truth of the divine person of Christ our Lord, as
He is depicted in the Gospels. If the Gospels are true, they give a
rational account of its origin, But those with whom I am reasoning deny
that they are a statement of historic facts, and consequently that they
are not the true account of it. But as the Church is an historic fact,
they are quite aware that any mere general assumption that miracles
are impossible is not sufficient. They find themselves, therefore,
compelled to do two things,--first, to invent a critical apparatus to
destroy the credibility of the Gospels; and, secondly, to propound a
theory which shall account for the origin of the Church on principles
purely human. The solution propounded is the mythical and Tübingen
theories.
This critical apparatus keeps two aims in view,--first, to prove the
existence of statements in the Gospels at variance with those of
contemporaneous history; secondly, to show that these narratives abound
with a multitude of contradictions. To effect this latter purpose,
every variation of statement is made to assume the character of a
contradiction. The extent to which this has been carried is scarcely
credible.
This process having as they hope destroyed the substance of the
Gospels, the next procedure is to invent a theory out of the
imagination as the account of the origin of Christianity, and to
propound it as true history.
At first sight it would appear to have been the easiest course to
assert that they are simple forgeries, in the same sense in which the
Donation of Constantine or the False Decretals are forgeries. But this
is what no unbeliever of the present day who regards his literary
reputation ventures to propound as the alternative to their historical
credibility. Why is the simple course abandoned, and an infinitely
complicated theory substituted in its place? The answer is that
their entire phenomena negative the supposition that they could have
originated in directly conscious fraud.
A more elaborate theory, therefore, has to be substituted for the
simple one. It must be observed that I can only speak of it in its
general aspect, for its modifications are extremely numerous, and
hardly any two writers can be found who take precisely the same view.
But the following may be stated as the principles which underlie these
systems of modern unbelief, throwing aside their minor details.
First. That miracles being impossible, no supernatural element whatever
enters into the character of the historical Jesus.
Second. That He was probably a very great man, though, whenever the
exigencies of the system require it, it is necessary to assume that He
was deeply implicated in the prejudices and superstitions of the age in
which He lived.
Third. That He probably believed Himself to be the Messiah expected by
His countrymen, though as to the precise nature of His Messianic claims
my opponents are not agreed.
Fourth. That He succeeded in inspiring a crowd of followers with an
enthusiastic attachment to Him.
Fifth. That they were honest people after their fashion; but were
impelled by an enthusiasm only equalled by their credulity.
Sixth. That they invented a multitude of fabulous stories, ascribed
them to Jesus, and in time mistook them for facts.
Seventh. That out of these and kindred elements, aided by a succession
of developments, the human Jesus was gradually metamorphosed, in the
course of the seventy years which followed the crucifixion, into the
Christ of the Synoptic Gospels, and in a hundred and thirty into that
of the Gospel of St. John.
Now, as these schools deny the existence of the supernatural, this
whole development must have been due to causes which are purely human;
in one word, to the laws which regulate the developments of the moral
and spiritual worlds. As those of the natural world have been effected
through the agency of natural laws, so the creation of the Jesus of the
Evangelists is due to laws which regulate with equal potency the action
of the mind. Both sets of laws are equally constant and invariable.
To examine the critical apparatus which has been applied to the Gospels
for the purpose of proving their unhistorical character, could only be
accomplished in a work of considerable length. I shall therefore only
make two observations on the principles adopted.
First. These schools assault the Gospels by charging them with
containing a multitude of inaccuracies, discrepancies, and
contradictions. While they do this they carefully keep in the
background the minute accuracies, agreements with contemporaneous
history, and plain indications of autoptic testimony with which they
abound. Such a line of conduct is the same thing as to place before
the Court which is to try the cause everything which an acute counsel
can adduce in opposition, and to suppress the whole evidence for the
defence.
Secondly. A great majority of these objections are founded on a view
of the Gospels which their writers expressly repudiate. It is taken
for granted that the Gospels are histories in the strictest sense of
that word. By a strict history I mean a narrative in which the events
are connected together in accordance with the sequences of time and
place. This is the arrangement which is generally adopted in modern
histories and biographies. But the Gospels expressly assert that they
belong to a different class of writings. They are not _histories_,
but _memoirs_. In a memoir, the arrangement of events in the strict
sequence of time and place is not the predominant idea. The Gospels are
not only memoirs, but memoirs of a peculiar character. They are details
of the actions and teachings of Jesus Christ written for the express
purpose of teaching the Christian religion. In works of this kind
the arrangement and grouping of events are formed on very different
principles from those adopted in the composition of pure histories.
As this is a most important point, I must adduce proof of it which is
beyond all contradiction. St. John's Gospel asserts, in as many words,
that it was the purpose of its author to write such a memoir, and not
a strict history. At chap. xx., ver. 30, 31, he says, "And many other
signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not
written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have
life through His name." Again, in the last verse of the Gospel it is
expressly stated that Jesus did many things which the writer has not
recorded.
The author therefore clearly asserts that he has made a selection of
certain events in the life of Jesus Christ, from a very much larger
number, with which he was acquainted, and that the principle which
guided him, both in the selection and arrangement, was a religious
one. "These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ,"
etc. It is impossible more distinctly to assert that the Gospel is a
religious memoir.
No less clear is the statement of St. Luke. He says "that he wrote
in order to the most excellent Theophilus, that he might know the
certainty of the things in which he had been instructed." The original
shows that the instruction was given with a definite religious purpose.
The Gospel is "a declaration of those things most surely believed
among Christians." In one word, the work is a memoir, and not a history.
If it be replied that Luke says that he wrote "in order," εν ταξει
[Greek: en taxei], I answer that there are other orderly arrangements
besides those of time and place; and that if a work is a religious
memoir, the arrangement would be regulated, though not exclusively, by
the reference of the facts to the religious end in view.
The assertions of the other two Gospels are not so express, but viewed
in connection with their contents they prove that they belong to the
same class of writings. Mark writes, "The beginning of the good news
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Here a religious purpose is asserted
to be the guiding principle of the work. Matthew, in accordance with
Hebrew phraseology, entitles his work "The book of the generation of
Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham." The whole contents
of the Gospel answer to this description. It was written to prove that
Jesus was the Messiah of prophecy according to the conceptions of
Jewish Christianity.
Such being the distinct assertions of the writers of the Gospels as
to the character of their works, it is absurd to criticize them as
one might be justly entitled to do if four Boswells had set forth
four lives of Dr. Johnson, the arrangement of which was professedly
regulated by the historical sequence. The writer of a religious memoir
is entitled to adopt a very different order of events in his narrative
from that which ought to be adopted by the writer of a history.
An illustration will make this matter plain. If I were to compose a
biography of Wesley, I should be bound to narrate the events in the
order of time, with a distinct specification of the order of place; but
if I were to compose a memoir for the purpose of teaching the doctrines
of Wesleyanism, I should follow a very different arrangement. Still
more remarkable would be the variation in the arrangement if I wrote
his memoir for the purpose of proving that Wesley never designed that
the Church which he founded should dissent from the Church of England.
Such being the character of the Gospels, objections which would be
serious as against regular histories are harmless against compositions
of this description. A large portion of their alleged discrepancies
arise from the different arrangement of the events narrated in them,
owing to the predominance in them of the religious idea.
Now observe that in compositions of this description it frequently
happens that the connecting links which would make events perfectly
harmonize together, are wanting, simply because the purpose of the
writer has not led him to record them. I adduce a single instance where
the connecting link has been accidentally preserved, and which at
once converts a narrative against which most serious objections might
have been alleged, into one of the strongest proofs of the historical
truthfulness of the Evangelists.
We all remember the account of the murder of John the Baptist. It is
told with all those minute and delicate touches which are the peculiar
indication of autoptic testimony. It places before our eyes the great
feast--the young lady dancing her lascivious dance--the words of
Herod's vow--the girl's going out with excitement to her mother--the
demand of the Baptist's head in a large dish--the sorrow and reluctant
consent of Herod--the mission of the executioner--the presentation of
the head to the girl, and by her to her mother. Everything betokens the
presence of an eye-witness.
The narrative is open to this obvious objection: How could the
disciples of Christ, mean and low as they were, procure so accurate
a description of an event which happened in the palace at the great
feast? There were neither newspapers nor reporters in those days.
But this is only the beginning of the difficulty. The authors of the
Gospels profess to give us the _ipsissima verba_ which were uttered
by Herod, in the retirement of his palace, when the reports brought
him of the fame of Jesus rendered him conscience-stricken. The words
are most remarkable, and leave no alternative between their being
the words of Herod or a forgery. "It is John," says he, "whom I
beheaded: he is risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do show
forth themselves in him." Our version spoils the force of the last
words--αἱ δυνάμεις ἐνεργοῦσιν ἐν αὐτῷ [Greek: hai dunameis energousin
en autô]--which, rendered literally, are, "The powers energize in
him." This is certainly a most singular expression, and one open to
a strong suspicion of forgery; for how could the followers of Jesus
have got hold of the very words of an utterance of Herod spoken in the
retirement of the palace?
But besides all this, the words αἱ δυνάμεις ἐνεργοῦσιν ἐν αὐτῷ [Greek:
hai dunameis energousin en autô] plainly imply that it was the general
idea that a large number of miracles had been wrought by our Lord.
My opponents suppose that the historic Jesus only attempted to work
miracles in a very few questionable cases, and that the multitude
of miracles which have been subsequently ascribed to Him are the
inventions of His deluded followers. Such are the difficulties. Now for
their solution.
It has been observed that the author of the Acts of the Apostles tells
us that among the teachers of the Church at Antioch during Paul's
sojourn there, was Manaen, who was a foster-brother of Herod the
Tetrarch. This is told us in a manner which is purely incidental, and
supplies us with a possible source from whence the information might
have been derived. Still it by no means follows that a man who had the
same wet-nurse as Herod was an inmate of his palace, or witnessed the
great feast.
But a passage of the most incidental character in St. Luke's Gospel
supplies us with the source of information which we want. In narrating
our Lord's last journey to Jerusalem, Luke tells us that He was
accompanied by the twelve apostles, and several women who ministered to
Him. Of these he designates three by name. One of these is described as
Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward.
Here then we have the very person we are in want of. Chuza's office
of ἐπίτροπος [Greek: epitropos], or steward, imposed on him the
duty of superintending the great feast. He therefore witnessed the
whole procedure, and his wife was in constant communication with the
disciples. His office must have brought him into daily communication
with his master. What more likely than when he waited on Herod for
his orders, he would ask him the news; and that he should report
to him the fame of the great teacher with whom his wife was in
attendance? He was therefore in the exact situation to have heard
Herod's conscience-stricken exclamation. The source of information is
before us. The incidental mention of Joanna and her husband affords
to this narrative an attestation such as few events in past history
possess. If this incident had been lost, the difficulty would have been
insuperable. The manner in which little circumstances dovetail into
one another in the Gospels is only consistent with their historical
character. It would be impossible if they were bundles of myths or
legends.
I adduce one instance of the manner in which the Gospels fulfil the
conditions of history, even where the absence of the connecting link
has occasioned serious difficulty. You all know that the want of any
reference in the Synoptics to the miracle of the resurrection of
Lazarus is the stronghold of those who deny its historical credibility.
In the absence of any direct information, we are driven for the
solution of the difficulty to the regions of conjecture.
Let us suppose, then, that the story is a myth. If so, it is obvious
that it is a very grand and perfect one. The inventor must have been a
man of the highest genius in his way. If a person wished to invent a
description of a resurrection, he would find it impossible, in the same
number of words, to surpass its perfection. If the author of St. John's
Gospel has failed to depict another resurrection in an equally graphic
manner, it was not for want of sufficient genius. Yet the Gospel
asserts the fact of another resurrection--that of Jesus Christ; but it
utters not one word descriptive of it. All that it says is that Mary
Magdalene came in the morning, and found the tomb empty.
I put it to your common sense to determine, on the sup position that
this Gospel was written by a partisan for the purpose of throwing a
halo of glory around the person of his Master, whether the author
of the resurrection of Lazarus would not have forged a still more
magnificent description of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. His
failure to do so is clearly not owing to lack of ability.
But how stands the case on the supposition that the Gospel is
historical? Everything is exactly as it should be. The Evangelist has
given his pictorial description of the resurrection of Lazarus, because
he witnessed it. He has not done so with respect to the resurrection of
Jesus Christ, because no human eye beheld it. The narrative therefore
fulfils the conditions of history, and breaks down under the tests
which belong to fiction.
The limits of a single lecture necessarily preclude me from entering on
any minor consideration.[106] I therefore proceed at once to address
myself to the demolition of the central position of my opponents,
that while the Gospels contain a few grains of historic truth, buried
beneath a multitude of fables, the greater portion of their contents
is a spontaneous growth which sprung up in the bosom of the Christian
society in the last seventy years of the first century; and that
by means of a number of mythical and legendary inventions, and a
succession of developments, a good and holy Jew, named Jesus, was
metamorphosed into the divine Christ of the Evangelists. In reasoning
on this point, I shall assume nothing but what is conceded by the
Schools in question.
What are the concessions which I ask as the foundations of my
reasoning? Very simple ones indeed, and such that no man can deny me.
First, that the Gospels exist; secondly, that the three first Gospels
were in existence about A.D. 100, and the fourth about 160; thirdly,
that in addition to the facts or fictions which make up our Gospels,
they contain the delineation of a great character--Jesus Christ.
On the existence of this character my argument is founded. I now
concentrate your attention on it, which I shall call for the future
the portraiture of Jesus Christ our Lord. I need not prove that it
exists in the Gospels, for the most ordinary reader perceives that it
is there. The question is, How did it get there? It is very easy to say
that the Gospels consist of a mass of fictions. But this is no account
of the origin of the portraiture. St. Paul's Cathedral undoubtedly
consists of an immense multitude of stones. But to say that a multitude
of quarrymen dug them, and that a multitude of masons arranged them
according to their spontaneous impulses, is no account of the origin of
that magnificent structure.
Let us carefully observe what this great portraiture of Jesus Christ,
as it is exhibited in the Gospels, consists of. It is the delineation
of a great moral and spiritual character dramatized over a wide sphere
of action. This portraiture is not the result of the artificial
delineation of a character such as we see very commonly presented to
us by historians, and of which we see very numerous examples in Lord
Macaulay's History of England. Such characters are the artificial
creations of the historian, and exhibit his view of what his heroes
actually were. But neither of the authors of the Gospels have once
attempted thus to delineate the character of his Master. But the
portraiture of Jesus Christ is delineated in the Gospels most clearly
and most distinctly. Of what materials then does it consist? Only one
answer can be returned. It is the combined result of all the facts, or,
as my opponents say, fictions, which compose the Gospels.
Now as the existence of this portraiture is not a theory, but a fact,
it is plain that it must be accounted for. The assumption that the
Gospels are historically true, and that their authors have truly
delineated the actions and sayings of one who had an historical
existence, is a rational account of its origin. But as these Schools
deny their historical character, they are bound to tell us how the
portraiture got there. The only answers which they propound are the
mythic and Tübingen theories.
According to these theories, a good and holy Jew, who had attracted
a crowd of enthusiastic and credulous followers, was gradually
metamorphosed by them into the divine Christ of the Evangelists.
The inventors of the character were impelled by purely spontaneous
instincts. They had no intention of conscious deception. They mistook
their Master for the Messiah. In the depths of their enthusiastic
credulity, they invented multitudes of fictions, and in time mistook
them for realities, and innocently ascribed them to Jesus. Development
succeeded development. The fruitful mind of the infant Church created
myth after myth. Party spirit raged. Compromise followed compromise.
Spontaneous impulse by the end of the century had created the materials
of our present Gospels. At last three unknown men appeared who arranged
these materials into their present form, and produced the Synoptics.
Sixty years later, another great unknown arose, whose character must
have been a compound of mysticism, enthusiasm, and imposture, and
produced the fourth Gospel, which he successfully palmed off on the
Church as the work of the Apostle John, some seventy or eighty years
after he was silent in the grave. Such is the alternative which modern
unbelief presents as a substitute for the historical reality of the
portraiture of Jesus Christ as we behold it in the Gospels.
One cannot help pausing to observe the kind of analogy which exists
between these theories and those of a certain class of philosophers who
attempt to prove that the moral and religious being whom we designate
man has been slowly developed out of the lower forms of life by causes
purely physical. Like as in the one case each development became an
improvement on its predecessor, so in the other the lower fabulous
creations must have died out, and the nobler ones prevailed, until at
last there emerged from them Christianity and the glorious Christ of
the Gospels. Physical philosophers, however, work at a great advantage
in developing an ape into a moral being, compared with the mythologists
who developed a Jew of the year 30 into a Christ. The one can draw
cheques to any extent on the bank of eternity. If a million of years
is not sufficient, a million of millions may be easily had. But in the
other case my opponents are limited by the stern conditions of history;
and the respective periods of seventy and one hundred and thirty years
are all that they venture even to demand.