writer reports a speech which he says Herod made at the opening of a
war with the Arabians. It is in the first person, and could naturally be
supposed by the reader to be intended for a true version of what Herod
said. In the "Antiquities," written some seventeen years later, the same
writer gives another report, also in the first person, of Herod's speech
on the same occasion. This second oration is twice as long as the first
and, though the general tenor of the two speeches is pretty much the
same, there is hardly any verbal identity, and a good deal of matter is
introduced into the one, which is absent from the other. Josephus prides
himself on his accuracy; people whose fathers might have heard Herod's
oration were his Contemporaries; and yet his historical sense is so
curiously undeveloped that he can, quite innocently, perpetrate an
obvious literary fabrication; for one of the two accounts must be
incorrect. Now, if I am asked whether I believe that Herod made some
particular statement on this occasion; whether, for example, he uttered
the pious aphorism, "Where God is, there is both multitude and courage,"
which is given in the "Antiquities," but not in the "Wars," I am
compelled to say I do not know. One of the two reports must be
erroneous, possibly both are: at any rate, I cannot tell how much of
either is true. And, if some fervent admirer of the Idumean should build
up a theory of Herod's piety upon Josephus's evidence that he propounded
the aphorism, is it a "mere evasion" to say, in reply, that the evidence
that he did utter it is worthless?
It appears again that, adopting the tactics of Conachar when brought
face to face with Hal o' the Wynd, I have been trying to get my
simple-minded adversary to follow me on a wild-goose chase through the
early history of Christianity, in the hope of escaping impending defeat
on the main issue. But I may be permitted to point out that there is an
alternative hypothesis which equally fits the facts; and that, after
all, there may have been method in the madness of my supposed panic.
For suppose it to be established that Gentile Christianity was a totally
different thing from the Nazarenism of Jesus and his immediate
disciples; suppose it to be demonstrable that, as early as the sixth
decade of our era at least, there were violent divergencies of opinion
among the followers of Jesus; suppose it to be hardly doubtful that the
Gospels and the Acts took their present shapes under the influence of
those divergencies; suppose that their authors, and those through whose
hands they passed, had notions of historical veracity not more eccentric
than those which Josephus occasionally displays: surely the chances that
the Gospels are altogether trustworthy records of the teachings of Jesus
become very slender. And, since the whole of the case of the other side
is based on the supposition that they are accurate records (especially
of speeches, about which ancient historians are so curiously loose), I
really do venture to submit that this part of my argument bears very
seriously on the main issue; and, as ratiocination, is sound to the
core.
Again, when I passed by the topic of the speeches of Jesus on the Cross,
it appears that I could have had no other motive than the dictates of my
native evasiveness. An ecclesiastical dignitary may have respectable
reasons for declining a fencing match "in sight of Gethsemane and
Calvary"; but an ecclesiastical "Infidel"! Never. It is obviously
impossible that, in the belief that "the greater includes the less," I,
having declared the Gospel evidence in general, as to the sayings of
Jesus, to be of questionable value, thought it needless to select for
illustration of my views, those particular instances which were likely
to be most offensive to persons of another way of thinking. But any
supposition that may have been entertained that the old familiar tones
of the ecclesiastical war-drum will tempt me to engage in such needless
discussion had better be renounced. I shall do nothing of the kind. Let
it suffice that I ask my readers to turn to the twenty-third chapter of
Luke (revised version), verse thirty-four, and he will find in the
margin
Some ancient authorities omit: And Jesus said, "Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do."
So that, even as late as the fourth century, there were ancient
authorities, indeed some of the most ancient and weightiest, who either
did not know of this utterance, so often quoted as characteristic of
Jesus, or did not believe it had been uttered.
Many years ago, I received an anonymous letter, which abused me heartily
for my want of moral courage in not speaking out. I thought that one of
the oddest charges an anonymous letter-writer could bring. But I am not
sure that the plentiful sowing of the pages of the article with which I
am dealing with accusations of evasion, may not seem odder to those who
consider that the main strength of the answers with which I have been
favoured (in this review and elsewhere) is devoted, not to anything in
the text of my first paper, but to a note which occurs at p. 84. In this
I say:
Dr. Wace tells us: "It may be asked how far we can rely on the
accounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on these subjects." And
he seems to think the question appropriately answered by the
assertion that it "ought to be regarded as settled by M. Renan's
practical surrender of the adverse case."
I requested Dr. Wace to point out the passages of M. Renan's works in
which, as he affirms, this "practical surrender" (not merely as to the
age and authorship of the Gospels, be it observed, but as to their
historical value) is made, and he has been so good as to do so. Now let
us consider the parts of Dr. Wace's citation from Renan which are
relevant to the issue:--
The author of this Gospel [Luke] is certainly the same as the
author of the Acts of the Apostles. Now the author of the Acts
seems to be a companion of St. Paul--a character which accords
completely with St. Luke. I know that more than one objection may
be opposed to this reasoning: but one thing, at all events, is
beyond doubt, namely, that the author of the third Gospel and of
the Acts is a man who belonged to the second apostolic generation;
and this suffices for our purpose.
This is a curious "practical surrender of the adverse case." M. Renan
thinks that there is no doubt that the author of the third Gospel is the
author of the Acts--a conclusion in which I suppose critics generally
agree. He goes on to remark that this person _seems_ to be a companion
of St. Paul, and adds that Luke was a companion of St. Paul. Then,
somewhat needlessly, M. Renan points out that there is more than one
objection to jumping, from such data as these, to the conclusion that
"Luke" is the writer of the third Gospel. And, finally, M. Renan is
content to reduce that which is "beyond doubt" to the fact that the
author of the two books is a man of the second apostolic generation.
Well, it seems to me that I could agree with all that M. Renan considers
"beyond doubt" here, without surrendering anything, either "practically"
or theoretically.
Dr. Wace (_Nineteenth Century_, March, p. 363) states that he derives
the above citation from the preface to the 15th edition of the "Vie de
Jésus." My copy of "Les Évangiles," dated 1877, contains a list of
Renan's "Oeuvres Complètes," at the head of which I find "Vie de
Jésus," 15° edition. It is, therefore, a later work than the edition of
the "Vie de Jésus" which Dr. Wace quotes. Now "Les Évangiles," as its
name implies, treats fully of the questions respecting the date and
authorship of the Gospels; and any one who desired, not merely to use M.
Renan's expressions for controversial purposes, but to give a fair
account of his views in their full significance, would, I think, refer
to the later source.
If this course had been taken, Dr. Wace might have found some as decided
expressions of opinion, in favour of Luke's authorship of the third
Gospel, as he has discovered in "The Apostles." I mention this
circumstance, because I desire to point out that, taking even the
strongest of Renan's statements, I am still at a loss to see how it
justifies that large sounding phrase, "practical surrender of the
adverse case." For, on p. 438 of "Les Évangiles," Renan speaks of the
way in which Luke's "excellent intentions" have led him to torture
history in the Acts; he declares Luke to be the founder of that "eternal
fiction which is called ecclesiastical history"; and, on the preceding
page, he talks of the "myth" of the Ascension--with its "_mise en scène
voulue_." At p. 435, I find "Luc, ou Fauteur quel qu'il soit du
troisième Évangile"; at p. 280, the accounts of the Passion, the death
and the resurrection of Jesus, are said to be "peu historiques"; at p.
283, "La valeur historique du troisième Évangile est sûrement moindre
que celles des deux premiers." A Pyrrhic sort of victory for orthodoxy,
this "surrender"!
And, all the while, the scientific student of theology knows that, the
more reason there may be to believe that Luke was the companion of Paul,
the more doubtful becomes his credibility, if he really wrote the Acts.
For, in that case, he could not fail to have been acquainted with Paul's
account of the Jerusalem conference, and he must have consciously
misrepresented it.
We may next turn to the essential part of Dr. Wace's citation
(_Nineteenth Century_, p. 365) touching the first Gospel:--
St. Matthew evidently deserves peculiar confidence for the
discourses. Here are the "oracles"--the very notes taken while the
memory of the instruction of Jesus was living and definite.
M. Renan here expresses the very general opinion as to the existence of
a collection of "logia," having a different origin from the text in
which they are embedded, in Matthew. "Notes" are somewhat suggestive of
a shorthand writer, but the suggestion is unintentional, for M. Renan
assumes that these "notes" were taken, not at the time of the delivery
of the "logia" but subsequently, while (as he assumes) the memory of
them was living and definite; so that, in this very citation, M. Renan
leaves open the question of the general historical value of the first
Gospel; while it is obvious that the accuracy of "notes" taken, not at
the time of delivery, but from memory, is a matter about which more than
one opinion may be fairly held. Moreover, Renan expressly calls
attention to the difficulty of distinguishing the authentic "logia" from
later additions of the same kind ("Les Évangiles," p. 201). The fact is,
there is no contradiction here to that opinion about the first Gospel
which is expressed in "Les Évangiles" (p. 175).
The text of the so-called Matthew supposes the pre-existence of
that of Mark, and does little more than complete it. He completes
it in two fashions--first, by the insertion of those long
discourses which gave their chief value to the Hebrew Gospels; then
by adding traditions of a more modern formation, results of
successive developments of the legend, and to which the Christian
consciousness already attached infinite value.
M. Renan goes on to suggest that besides "Mark," "Pseudo-Matthew" used
an Aramaic version of the Gospel, originally set forth in that dialect.
Finally, as to the second Gospel (_Nineteenth Century_, p. 365):--
He [Mark] is full of minute observations, proceeding, beyond doubt,
from an eye-witness. There is nothing to conflict with the
supposition that this eye-witness ... was the Apostle Peter
himself, as Papias has it.
Let us consider this citation by the light of "Les Évangiles":--
This work, although composed after the death of Peter, was, in a
sense, the work of Peter; it represents the way in which Peter was
accustomed to relate the life of Jesus (p. 116).
M. Renan goes on to say that, as an historical document, the Gospel of
Mark has a great superiority (p. 116); but Mark has a motive for
omitting the discourses, and he attaches a "puerile importance" to
miracles (p, 117). The Gospel of Mark is less a legend, than a biography
written with credulity (p. 118). It would be rash to say that Mark has
not been interpolated and retouched (p. 120).
If any one thinks that I have not been warranted in drawing a sharp
distinction between "scientific theologians" and "counsels for creeds";
or that my warning against the too ready acceptance of certain
declarations as to the state of biblical criticism was needless; or that
my anxiety as to the sense of the word "practical" was superfluous; let
him compare the statement that M. Renan has made a "practical surrender
of the adverse case" with the facts just set forth. For what is the
adverse case? The question, as Dr. Wace puts it, is "It may be asked how
far can we rely on the accounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on
these subjects." It will be obvious that M. Renan's statements amount to
an adverse answer--to a "practical" denial that any great reliance can
be placed on these accounts. He does not believe that Matthew, the
apostle, wrote the first Gospel; he does not profess to know who is
responsible for the collection of "logia," or how many of them are
authentic; though he calls the second Gospel the most historical, he
points out that it is written with credulity, and may have been
interpolated and retouched; and as to the author, "quid qu'il soit," of
the third Gospel, who is to "rely on the accounts" of a writer, who
deserves the cavalier treatment which "Luke" meets with at M. Renan's
hands?
I repeat what I have already more than once said, that the question of
the age and the authorship of the Gospels has not, in my judgment, the
importance which is so commonly assigned to it for the simple reason
that the reports even of eye-witnesses, would not suffice to justify
belief in a large and essential part of their contents; on the contrary,
these reports would discredit the witnesses. The Gadarene miracle, for
example, is so extremely improbable that the fact of its being reported
by three even independent, authorities could not justify belief in it,
unless we had the clearest evidence as to their capacity as observers
and as interpreters of their observations. But it is evident that the
three authorities are not independent; that they have simply adopted a
legend of which there were two versions; and instead of their proving
its truth, it suggests their superstitious credulity; so that if
"Matthew," "Mark," and "Luke" are really responsible for the Gospels, it
is not the better for the Gadarene story, but the worse for them.
A wonderful amount of controversial capital has been made out of my
assertion in the note to which I have referred, as an _obiter dictum_ of
no consequence to my argument, that if Renan's work[71] were non-extant,
the main results of biblical criticism, as set forth in the works of
Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, would not be sensibly
affected. I thought I had explained it satisfactorily already, but it
seems that my explanation has only exhibited still more of my native
perversity, so I ask for one more chance.
In the course of the historical development of any branch of science,
what is universally observed is this: that the men who make epochs, and
are the real architects of the fabric of exact knowledge, are those who
introduce fruitful ideas or methods. As a rule, the man who does this
pushes his idea, or his method, too far; or, if he does not, his school
is sure to do so; and those who follow have to reduce his work to its
proper value, and assign it its place in the whole. Not unfrequently,
they, in their turn, overdo the critical process, and, in trying to
eliminate error, throw away truth.
Thus, as I said, Linnæus, Buffon, Cuvier, Lamarck, really "set forth the
results" of a developing science, although they often heartily
contradict one another. Notwithstanding this circumstance, modern
classificatory method and nomenclature have largely grown out of the
work of Linnæus: the modern conception of biology, as a science, and of
its relation to climatology, geography, and geology, are, as largely,
rooted in the results of the labours of Buffon; comparative anatomy and
palæontology owe a vast debt to Cuvier's results; while invertebrate
zoology and the revival of the idea of evolution are intimately
dependent on the results of the work of Lamarck. In other words, the
main results of biology up to the early years of this century are to be
found in, or spring out of, the works of these men.
So, if I mistake not, Strauss, if he did not originate the idea of
taking the mythopoeic faculty into account in the development of the
Gospel narratives, and though he may have exaggerated the influence of
that faculty, obliged scientific theology, hereafter, to take that
element into serious consideration; so Baur, in giving prominence to the
cardinal fact of the divergence of the Nazarene and Pauline tendencies
in the primitive Church; so Reuss, in setting a marvellous example of
the cool and dispassionate application of the principles of scientific
criticism over the whole field of Scripture; so Volkmar, in his clear
and forcible statement of the Nazarene limitations of Jesus, contributed
results of permanent value in scientific theology. I took these names as
they occurred to me. Undoubtedly, I might have advantageously added to
them; perhaps, I might have made a better selection. But it really is
absurd to try to make out that I did not know that these writers widely
disagree; and I believe that no scientific theologian will deny that, in
principle, what I have said is perfectly correct. Ecclesiastical
advocates, of course, cannot be expected to take this view of the
matter. To them, these mere seekers after truth, in so far as their
results are unfavourable to the creed the clerics have to support, are
more or less "infidels," or favourers of "infidelity"; and the only
thing they care to see, or probably can see, is the fact that, in a
great many matters, the truth-seekers differ from one another, and
therefore can easily be exhibited to the public, as if they did nothing
else; as if any one who referred to their having, each and all,
contributed his share to the results of theological science, was merely
showing his ignorance; and as if a charge of inconsistency could be
based on the fact that he himself often disagrees with what they say. I
have never lent a shadow of foundation to the assumption that I am a
follower of either Strauss, or Baur, or Reuss, or Volkmar, or Renan; my
debt to these eminent men--so far my superiors in theological
knowledge--is, indeed, great; yet it is not for their opinions, but for
those I have been able to form for myself, by their help.
In _Agnosticism: a Rejoinder_, I have referred to the difficulties under
which those professors of the science of theology, whose tenure of their
posts depends on the results of their investigations, must labour; and,
in a note, I add--
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.
I did not write this paragraph without a knowledge that its sense would
be open to the kind of perversion which it has suffered; but, if that
was clear, the necessity for the statement was still clearer. It is my
deliberate opinion: I reiterate it; and I say that, in my judgment, it
is extremely inexpedient that any subject which calls itself a science
should be entrusted to teachers who are debarred from freely following
out scientific methods to their legitimate conclusions, whatever those
conclusions may be. If I may borrow a phrase paraded at the Church
Congress, I think it "ought to be unpleasant" for any man of science to
find himself in the position of such a teacher.
Human nature is not altered by seating it in a professorial chair, even
of theology. I have very little doubt that if, in the year 1859, the
tenure of my office had depended upon my adherence to the doctrines of
Cuvier, the objections to them set forth in the "Origin of Species"
would have had a halo of gravity about them that, being free to teach
what I pleased, I failed to discover. And, in making that statement, it
does not appear to me that I am confessing that I should have been
debarred by "selfish interests" from making candid inquiry, or that I
should have been biassed by "sordid motives." I hope that even such a
fragment of moral sense as may remain in an ecclesiastical "infidel"
might have got me through the difficulty; but it would be unworthy to
deny, or disguise, the fact that a very serious difficulty must have
been created for me by the nature of my tenure. And let it be observed
that the temptation, in my case, would have been far slighter than in
that of a professor of theology; whatever biological doctrine I had
repudiated, nobody I cared for would have thought the worse of me for so
doing. No scientific journals would have howled me down, as the
religious newspapers howled down my too honest friend, the late Bishop
of Natal; nor would my colleagues of the Royal Society have turned their
backs upon me, as his episcopal colleagues boycotted him.
I say these facts are obvious, and, that it is wholesome and needful
that they should be stated. It is in the interests of theology, if it be
a science, and it is in the interests of those teachers of theology who
desire to be something better than counsel for creeds, that it should be
taken to heart. The seeker after theological truth and that only, will
no more suppose that I have insulted him, than the prisoner who works in
fetters will try to pick a quarrel with me, if I suggest that he would
get on better if the fetters were knocked off; unless indeed, as it is
said does happen in the course of long captivities, that the victim at
length ceases to feel the weight of his chains, or even takes to hugging
them, as if they were honourable ornaments.
R. CLAY AND SONS, LTD., BREAD ST. HILL, E.C., AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.
* * * * *
[Footnote 1: The absence of any keel on the breast-bone and some other
osteological peculiarities, observed by Professor Marsh, however,
suggest that _Hesperornis_ may be a modification of a less specialised
group of birds than that to which these existing aquatic birds belong.]
[Footnote 2: A second specimen, discovered in 1877, and at present in
the Berlin museum, shows an excellently preserved skull with teeth: and
three digits, all terminated by claws, in the fore-limb. 1893.]
[Footnote 3: I use the word "type" because it is highly probable that
many forms of _Anchitherium_-like and _Hipparion_-like animals existed
in the Miocene and Pliocene epochs, just as many species of the horse
tribe exist now; and it is highly improbable that the particular species
of _Anchitherium_ or _Hipparion_, which happen to have been discovered,
should be precisely those which have formed part of the direct line of
the horse's pedigree.]
[Footnote 4: Since this lecture was delivered, Professor Marsh has
discovered a new genus of equine mammals (_Eohippus_) from the lowest
Eocene deposits of the West, which corresponds very nearly to this
description.--_American Journal of Science_, November, 1876.]
[Footnote 5: _The Limits of Philosophical Inquiry_, pp. 4 and 5.]
[Footnote 6: Hume's Essay, "Of the Academical or Sceptical Philosophy,"
in the _Inquiry concerning the Human Understanding_.--[Many critics of
this passage seem to forget that the subject-matter of Ethics and
Æsthetics consists of, matters of fact and existence.--1892.]]
[Footnote 7: Or, to speak more accurately, the physical state of which
volition is the expression.--[1892.]]
[Footnote 8: _Declaration on the Truth of Holy Scripture_, _The Times_,
18th December, 1891.]
[Footnote 9: _Declaration_, Article 10.]
[Footnote 10: Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi ecclesiæ Catholicæ
me commoveret auctoritas.--_Contra Epistolam Manichæi_ cap. v.]
[Footnote 11: _Hasisadra's Adventure._]
[Footnote 12: _The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of
Nature_ and _Mr. Gladstone and Genesis._]
[Footnote 13: _Agnosticism; The Value of Witness to the Miraculous;
Agnosticism: a Rejoinder; Agnosticism and Christianity; The Keepers of
the Herd of Swine_; and _Illustrations of Mr. Gladstone's Controversial
Methods_.]
[Footnote 14: I employ the words "Supernature" and "Supernatural" in
their popular senses. For myself, I am bound to say that the term
"Nature" covers the totality of that which is. The world of psychical
phenomena appears to me to be as much part of "Nature" as the world of
physical phenomena; and I am unable to perceive any justification for
cutting the Universe into two halves, one natural and one supernatural.]
[Footnote 15: My citations are made from Teulet's _Einhardi omnia quæ
extant opera_, Paris, 1840-1843, which contains a biography of the
author, a history of the text, with translations into French, and many
valuable annotations.]
[Footnote 16: At present included in the Duchies of Hesse-Darmstadt and
Baden.]