Huxley has chosen to leave entirely on one side--whether, namely,
allowing for the utmost uncertainty on other points of the
criticism to which he appeals, there is any reasonable doubt that
the Lord's Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount afford a true account
of our Lord's essential belief and cardinal teaching (p. 355).
I certainly was not aware that I had evaded the questions here stated;
indeed I should say that I have indicated my reply to them pretty
clearly; but, as Dr. Wace wants a plainer answer, he shall certainly be
gratified. If, as Dr. Wace declares it is, his "whole case is involved
in" the argument as stated in the latter of these two extracts, so much
the worse for his whole case. For I am of opinion that there is the
gravest reason for doubting whether the "Sermon on the Mount" was ever
preached, and whether the so-called "Lord's Prayer" was ever prayed, by
Jesus of Nazareth. My reasons for this opinion are, among Others,
these:--There is now no doubt that the three Synoptic Gospels, so far
from being the work of three independent writers, are closely
inter-dependent,[40] and that in one of two ways. Either all three
contain, as their foundation, versions, to a large extent verbally
identical, of one and the same tradition; or two of them are thus
closely dependent on the third; and the opinion of the majority of the
best critics has of late years more and more converged towards the
conviction that our canonical second gospel (the so-called "Mark's"
Gospel) is that which most closely represents the primitive groundwork
of the three.[41] That I take to be one of the most valuable results of
New Testament criticism, of immeasurably greater importance than the
discussion about dates and authorship.
But if, as I believe to be the case, beyond any rational doubt or
dispute, the second gospel is the nearest extant representative of the
oldest tradition, whether written or oral, how comes it that it contains
neither the "Sermon on the Mount" nor the "Lord's Prayer," those typical
embodiments, according to Dr. Wace, of the "essential belief and
cardinal teaching" of Jesus? Not only does "Mark's" gospel fail to
contain the "Sermon on the Mount," or anything but a very few of the
sayings contained in that collection; but, at the point of the history
of Jesus where the "Sermon" occurs in "Matthew," there is in "Mark" an
apparently unbroken narrative from the calling of James and John to the
healing of Simon's wife's mother. Thus the oldest tradition not only
ignores the "Sermon on the Mount," but, by implication, raises a
probability against its being delivered when and where the later
"Matthew" inserts it in his compilation.
And still more weighty is the fact that the third gospel, the author of
which tells us that he wrote after "many" others had "taken in hand" the
same enterprise; who should therefore have known the first gospel (if
it existed), and was bound to pay to it the deference due to the work of
an apostolic eye-witness (if he had any reason for thinking it was
so)--this writer, who exhibits far more literary competence than the
other two, ignores any "Sermon on the Mount," such as that reported by
"Matthew," just as much as the oldest authority does. Yet "Luke" has a
great many passages identical, or parallel, with those in "Matthew's"
"Sermon on the Mount," which are, for the most part, scattered about in
a totally different connection.
Interposed, however, between the nomination of the Apostles and a visit
to Capernaum; occupying, therefore, a place which answers to that of the
"Sermon on the Mount," in the first gospel, there is, in the third
gospel a discourse which is as closely similar to the "Sermon on the
Mount," in some particulars, as it is widely unlike it in others.
This discourse is said to have been delivered in a "plain" or "level
place" (Luke vi. 17), and by way of distinction we may call it the
"Sermon on the Plain."
I see no reason to doubt that the two Evangelists are dealing, to a
considerable extent, with the same traditional material; and a
comparison of the two "Sermons" suggests very strongly that "Luke's"
version is the earlier. The correspondences between the two forbid the
notion that they are independent. They both begin with a series of
blessings, some of which are almost verbally identical. In the middle of
each (Luke vi. 27-38, Matt. v. 43-48) there is a striking exposition of
the ethical spirit of the command given in Leviticus xix. 18. And each
ends with a passage containing the declaration that a tree is to be
known by its fruit, and the parable of the house built on the sand. But
while there are only 29 verses in the "Sermon on the Plain," there are
107 in the "Sermon on the Mount"; the excess in length of the latter
being chiefly due to the long interpolations, one of 30 verses before,
and one of 34 verses after, the middlemost parallelism with Luke. Under
these circumstances it is quite impossible to admit that there is more
probability that "Matthew's" version of the Sermon is historically
accurate, than there is that Luke's version is so; and they cannot both
be accurate.
"Luke" either knew the collection of loosely-connected and aphoristic
utterances which appear under the name of the "Sermon on the Mount" in
"Matthew"; or he did not. If he did not, he must have been ignorant of
the existence of such a document as our canonical "Matthew," a fact
which does not make for the genuineness, or the authority, of that book.
If he did, he has shown that he does not care for its authority on a
matter of fact of no small importance; and that does not permit us to
conceive that he believes the first gospel to be the work of an
authority to whom he ought to defer, let alone that of an apostolic
eye-witness.
The tradition of the Church about the second gospel, which I believe to
be quite worthless, but which is all the evidence there is for "Mark's"
authorship, would have us believe that "Mark" was little more than the
mouthpiece of the apostle Peter. Consequently, we are to suppose that
Peter either did not know, or did not care very much for, that account
of the "essential belief and cardinal teaching" of Jesus which is
contained in the Sermon on the Mount: and, certainly, he could not have
shared Dr. Wace's view of its importance[42]
I thought that all fairly attentive and intelligent students of the
gospels, to say nothing of theologians of reputation, knew these things.
But how can any one who does know them have the conscience to ask
whether there is "any reasonable doubt" that the Sermon on the Mount
was preached by Jesus of Nazareth? If conjecture is permissible, where
nothing else is possible, the most probable conjecture seems to be that
"Matthew," having a _cento_ of sayings attributed--rightly or wrongly it
is impossible to say--to Jesus among his materials, thought they were,
or might be, records of a continuous discourse, and put them in at the
place he thought likeliest. Ancient historians of the highest character
saw no harm in composing long speeches which never were spoken, and
putting them into the mouths of statesmen and warriors; and I presume
that whoever is represented by "Matthew" would have been grievously
astonished to find that any one objected to his following the example of
the best models accessible to him.
So with the "Lord's Prayer." Absent in our representative of the oldest
tradition appears in both "Matthew" and "Luke." There is reason to
believe that every pious Jew, at the commencement of our era, prayed
three times a day, according to a formula which is embodied in the
present "Schmone-Esre" [43] of the Jewish prayer-book. Jesus, who was
assuredly, in all respects, a pious Jew, whatever else he may have been,
doubtless did the same. Whether he modified the current formula, or
whether the so-called "Lord's Prayer" is the prayer substituted for the
"Schmone-Esre" in the congregations of the Gentiles, is a question which
can hardly be answered.
In a subsequent passage of Dr. Wace's article (p. 356) he adds to the
list of the verities which he imagines to be unassailable, "The Story of
the Passion." I am not quite sure what he means by this. I am not aware
that any one (with the exception of certain ancient heretics) has
propounded doubts as to the reality of the crucifixion; and certainly I
have no inclination to argue about the precise accuracy of every detail
of that pathetic story of suffering and wrong. But, if Dr. Wace means,
as I suppose he does, that that which, according to the orthodox view,
happened after the crucifixion, and which is, in a dogmatic sense, the
most important part of the story, is founded on solid historical proofs,
I must beg leave to express a diametrically opposite conviction.
What do we find when the accounts of the events in question, contained
in the three Synoptic gospels, are compared together? In the oldest,
there is a simple, straightforward statement which, for anything that I
have to urge to the contrary, may be exactly true. In the other two,
there is, round this possible and probable nucleus, a mass of accretions
of the most questionable character.
The cruelty of death by crucifixion depended very much upon its
lingering character. If there were a support for the weight of the body,
as not unfrequently was the practice, the pain during the first hours of
the infliction was not, necessarily, extreme; nor need any serious
physical symptoms, at once, arise from the wounds made by the nails in
the hands and feet, supposing they were nailed, which was not invariably
the case. When exhaustion set in, and hunger, thirst, and nervous
irritation had done their work, the agony of the sufferer must have been
terrible; and the more terrible that, in the absence of any effectual
disturbance of the machinery of physical life, it might be prolonged for
many hours, or even days. Temperate, strong men, such as were the
ordinary Galilean peasants, might live for several days on the cross. It
is necessary to bear these facts in mind when we read the account
contained in the fifteenth chapter of the second gospel.
Jesus was crucified at the third hour (xv. 25), and the narrative seems
to imply that he died immediately after the ninth hour (_v._ 34). In
this case, he would have been crucified only six hours; and the time
spent on the cross cannot have been much longer, because Joseph of
Arimathæa must have gone to Pilate, made his preparations, and deposited
the body in the rock-cut tomb before sunset, which, at that time of the
year, was about the twelfth hour. That any one should die after only six
hours' crucifixion could not have been at all in accordance with
Pilate's large experience of the effects of that method of punishment.
It, therefore, quite agrees with what might be expected, that Pilate
"marvelled if he were already dead" and required to be satisfied on this
point by the testimony of the Roman officer who was in command of the
execution party. Those who have paid attention to the extraordinarily
difficult question, What are the indisputable signs of death?--will be
able to estimate the value of the opinion of a rough soldier on such a
subject, even if his report to the Procurator were in no wise affected
by the fact that the friend of Jesus, who anxiously awaited his answer,
was a man of influence and of wealth.
The inanimate body, wrapped in linen, was deposited in a spacious,[44]
cool rock chamber, the entrance of which was closed, not by a
well-fitting door, but by a stone rolled against the opening, which
would of course allow free passage of air. A little more than thirty-six
hours afterwards (Friday, 6 P.M., to Sunday, 6 A.M., or a little after)
three women visit the tomb and find it empty. And they are told by a
young man "arrayed in a white robe" that Jesus is gone to his native
country of Galilee, and that the disciples and Peter will find him
there.
Thus it stands, plainly recorded, in the oldest tradition that, for any
evidence to the contrary, the sepulchre may have been emptied at any
time during the Friday or Saturday nights. If it is said that no Jew
would have violated the Sabbath by taking the former course, it is to be
recollected that Joseph of Arimathæa might well be familiar with that
wise and liberal interpretation of the fourth commandment, which
permitted works of mercy to men--nay, even the drawing of an ox or an
ass out of a pit--on the Sabbath. At any rate, the Saturday night was
free to the most scrupulous of observers of the Law.
These are the facts of the case as stated by the oldest extant narrative
of them. I do not see why any one should have a word to say against the
inherent probability of that narrative; and, for my part, I am quite
ready to accept it as an historical fact, that so much and no more is
positively known of the end of Jesus of Nazareth. On what grounds can a
reasonable man be asked to believe any more? So far as the narrative in
the first gospel, on the one hand, and those in the third gospel and the
Acts, on the other, go beyond what is stated in the second gospel, they
are hopelessly discrepant with one another. And this is the more
significant because the pregnant phrase "some doubted," in the first
gospel, is ignored in the third.
But it is said that we have the witness Paul speaking to us directly in
the Epistles. There is little doubt that we have, and a very singular
witness he is. According to his own showing, Paul, in the vigour of his
manhood, with every means of becoming acquainted, at first hand, with
the evidence of eye-witnesses, not merely refused to credit them, but
"persecuted the Church of God and made havoc of it." The reasoning of
Stephen fell dead upon the acute intellect of this zealot for the
traditions of his fathers: his eyes were blind to the ecstatic
illumination of the martyr's countenance "as it had been the face of an
angel;" and when, at the words "Behold, I see the heavens opened and
the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God," the murderous mob
rushed upon and stoned the rapt disciple of Jesus, Paul ostentatiously
made himself their official accomplice.
Yet this strange man, because he has a vision one day, at once, and with
equally headlong zeal, flies to the opposite pole of opinion. And he is
most careful to tell us that he abstained from any re-examination of the
facts.
Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up
to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me; but I went away
into Arabia. (Galatians i. 16, 17.)
I do not presume to quarrel with Paul's procedure. If it satisfied him,
that was his affair; and, if it satisfies any one else, I am not called
upon to dispute the right of that person to be satisfied. But I
certainly have the right to say that it would not satisfy me in like
case; that I should be very much ashamed to pretend that it could, or
ought to, satisfy me; and that I can entertain but a very low estimate
of the value of the evidence of people who are to be satisfied in this
fashion, when questions of objective fact, in which their faith is
interested, are concerned. So that when I am called upon to believe a
great deal more than the oldest gospel tells me about the final events
of the history of Jesus on the authority of Paul (1 Corinthians xv. 5-8)
I must pause. Did he think it, at any subsequent time, worth while "To
confer with flesh and blood," or, in modern phrase, to re-examine the
facts for himself? or was he ready to accept anything that fitted in
with his preconceived ideas? Does he mean, when he speaks of all the
appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion as if they were of the same
kind, that they were all visions, like the manifestation to himself?
And, finally, how is this account to be reconciled with those in the
first and third gospels--which, as we have seen, disagree with one
another?
Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, I am afraid that, so
far as I am concerned, Paul's testimony cannot be seriously regarded,
except as it may afford evidence of the state of traditional opinion at
the time at which he wrote, say between 55 and 60 A.D.; that is, more
than twenty years after the event; a period much more than sufficient
for the development of any amount of mythology about matters of which
nothing was really known. A few years later, among the contemporaries
and neighbours of the Jews, and, if the most probable interpretation of
the Apocalypse can be trusted, among the followers of Jesus also, it was
fully believed, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that the
Emperor Nero was not really dead, but that he was hidden away somewhere
in the East, and would speedily come again at the head of a great army,
to be revenged upon his enemies.[45]
Thus, I conceive that I have shown cause for the opinion that Dr. Wace's
challenge touching the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and the
Passion was more valorous than discreet. After all this discussion, I am
still at the agnostic point. Tell me, first, what Jesus can be proved to
have been, said, and done, and I will say whether I believe him, or in
him,[46] or not. As Dr. Wace admits that I have dissipated his lingering
shade of unbelief about the bedevilment of the Gadarene pigs, he might
have done something to help mine. Instead of that, he manifests a total
want of conception of the nature of the obstacles which impede the
conversion of his "infidels."
The truth I believe to be, that the difficulties in the way of arriving
at a sure conclusion as to these matters, from the Sermon on the Mount,
the Lord's Prayer, or any other data offered by the Synoptic gospels
(and _a fortiori_ from the fourth gospel), are insuperable. Every one of
these records is coloured by the prepossessions of those among whom the
primitive traditions arose, and of those by whom they were collected and
edited: and the difficulty of making allowance for these prepossessions
is enhanced by our ignorance of the exact dates at which the documents
were first put together; of the extent to which they have been
subsequently worked over and interpolated; and of the historical sense,
or want of sense, and the dogmatic tendencies of their compilers and
editors. Let us see if there is any other road which will take us into
something better than negation.
There is a widespread notion that the "primitive Church," while under
the guidance of the Apostles and their immediate successors, was a sort
of dogmatic dovecot, pervaded by the most loving unity and doctrinal
harmony. Protestants, especially, are fond of attributing to themselves
the merit of being nearer "the Church of the Apostles" than their
neighbours; and they are the less to be excused for their strange
delusion because they are great readers of the documents which prove the
exact contrary. The fact is that, in the course of the first three
centuries of its existence, the Church rapidly underwent a process of
evolution of the most remarkable character, the final stage of which is
far more different from the first than Anglicanism is from Quakerism.
The key to the comprehension of the problem of the origin of that which
is now called "Christianity," and its relation to Jesus of Nazareth,
lies here. Nor can we arrive at any sound conclusion as to what it is
probable that Jesus actually said and did, without being clear on this
head. By far the most important and subsequently influential steps in
the evolution of Christianity took place in the course of the century,
more or less, which followed upon the crucifixion. It is almost the
darkest period of Church history, but, most fortunately, the beginning
and the end of the period are brightly illuminated by the contemporary
evidence of two writers of whose historical existence there is no
doubt,[47] and against the genuineness of whose most important works
there is no widely admitted objection. These are Justin, the philosopher
and martyr, and Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. I shall call upon
these witnesses only to testify to the condition of opinion among those
who called themselves disciples of Jesus in their time.
Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, which was written somewhere
about the middle of the second century, enumerates certain categories of
persons who, in his opinion, will, or will not, be saved.[48] These
are:--
1. Orthodox Jews who refuse to believe that Jesus is the Christ. _Not
Saved._
2. Jews who observe the Law; believe Jesus to be the Christ; but who
insist on the observance of the Law by Gentile converts. _Not Saved._
3. Jews who observe the Law; believe Jesus to be the Christ, and hold
that Gentile converts need not observe the Law. _Saved_ (in Justin's
opinion; but some of his fellow-Christians think the contrary).
4. Gentile converts to the belief in Jesus as the Christ, who observe
the Law. _Saved_ (possibly).
5. Gentile believers in Jesus as the Christ, who do not observe the Law
themselves (except so far as the refusal of idol sacrifices), but do not
consider those who do observe it heretics. _Saved_ (this is Justin's own
view).
6. Gentile believers who do not observe the Law, except in refusing
idol sacrifices, and hold those who do observe it to be heretics.
_Saved._
7. Gentiles who believe Jesus to be the Christ and call themselves
Christians, but who eat meats sacrificed to idols. _Not Saved._
8. Gentiles who disbelieve in Jesus as the Christ. _Not Saved._
Justin does not consider Christians who believe in the natural birth of
Jesus, of whom he implies that there is a respectable minority, to be
heretics, though he himself strongly holds the preternatural birth of
Jesus and his pre-existence as the "Logos" or "Word." He conceives the
Logos to be a second God, inferior to the first, unknowable God, with
respect to whom Justin, like Philo, is a complete agnostic. The Holy
Spirit is not regarded by Justin as a separate personality, and is often
mixed up with the "Logos." The doctrine of the natural immortality of
the soul is, for Justin, a heresy; and he is as a believer in the
resurrection of the body, as in the speedy Second Coming establishment
of the millennium.
This pillar of the Church in the middle of the second century--a
much-travelled native of Samaria--was certainly well acquainted with
Rome, probably with Alexandria; and it is likely that he knew the state
of opinion throughout the length and breadth of the Christian world as
well as any man of his time. If the various categories above enumerated
are arranged in a series thus:--
_Justin's Christianity_
_______________|_______________
| |
_Orthodox_ _Judæo-_ _Idolothytic_ _Paganism_
_Judaism_ _Christianity_ _Christianity_
_____|_______
| |
I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.
it is obvious that they form a gradational series from orthodox Judaism,
on the extreme left, to Paganism, whether philosophic or popular, on the
extreme right; and it will further be observed that, while Justin's
conception of Christianity is very broad, he rigorously excludes two
classes of persons who, in his time, called themselves Christians;
namely, those who insist on circumcision and other observances of the
Law on the part of Gentile converts: that is to say, the strict
Judæo-Christians (II.): and, on the other hand, those who assert the
lawfulness of eating meat offered to idols--whether they are Gnostic or
not (VII.). These last I have called "idolothytic" Christians, because I
cannot devise a better name, not because it is strictly defensible
etymologically.
At the present moment, I do not suppose there is an English missionary
in any heathen land who would trouble himself whether the materials of
his dinner had been previously offered to idols or not. On the other
hand I suppose there is no Protestant sect within the pale of orthodoxy,
to say nothing of the Roman and Greek Churches, which would hesitate to
declare the practice of circumcision and the observance of the Jewish
Sabbath and dietary rules, shockingly heretical.
Modern Christianity has, in fact, not only shifted far to the right of
Justin's position, but it is of much narrower compass.
_Justin_
_____________|___________________
| |
_Judæo-_ _Modern_ _Paganism_
_Christianity_ _Christianity_
_Judaism_ _____|______ _____|__________
| | | |
I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.