صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

connection of the events cannot be continued on positive grounds, and partly, because the time of the miraculous feeding is even in St John uncertain, on account of the vagueness of expression in v. 1 and vi. 4.1 Whether anything relates to the beginning or to the end of the public ministry of Jesus, is sufficiently evident, partly, from the position in the Gospels, partly also, from the internal character of the narratives; but to connect precisely and chronologically all the single events which are recorded of our Redeemer, as also his discourses, this, the form of narrative adopted by the Evangelists, who are generally vague in point of time and place, does not allow. We receive, therefore, the Gospel history as it is delivered to us, following the chronological progress as far as the clearness of the Evangelists permits us to trace it, but never endeavouring to obtain it forcibly and determinately wherever it is not definitely stated. According to the synopsis of De Wette and Lücke, which we have laid down as the basis in the course of our exposition, we shall here treat first of the history of the infancy of Jesus and of his baptism, and afterwards the representation of his sufferings, resurrection, and ascension (combining these latter incidents with the description of St John); but in treating the intervening mass of Evangelical records, we shall follow St Matthew. Those portions which are found only in St Mark and St Luke, or which belong to one of them, we shall interweave with the narrative of St Matthew wherever it will appear to us most practicable. The editors, indeed, of the Synopsis have so treated this section as to repeat the entire substance three times, according to the order of St Matthew, St Mark, and St Luke. A threefold exegetical examination of this portion would certainly afford no small advantage; but such an enterprise would require too much time.

§ 8. ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL-HISTORY.

The description given of the origin of the Gospels from single

1 This too is the opinion of Lücke, as expressed in his Comment. über den Johannes, vol. i. p. 526. "How a chronological arrangement can be effected between those portions of the events rendered prominent by John, and that related by the three first evangelists in the (middle) period indicated, is an an unsolved problem of historical criticism." (Comp. in the same place the remarks, p. 614, 615.)

essays, the authors of which we are unable to name, further the character of the Gospel-history itself, in consequence of which, through a large portion of it, no chronological order of the events can be effected, and, finally, the express discrepancies which we find in many of the events, but especially in the discourses; all this seems to endanger the authenticity of the Gospel-history, particularly in such events as were beyond the experience of any of the writers, as for example, the history of the infancy of Jesus. The Gospels, accordingly, seem to acquire the appearance of an unarranged aggregate of insulated vague memoirs, which neither harmonise exactly with one another, nor are very closely connected even in separate Evangelists. The ancients feared a complete destruction of the sacred character of the Gospel-history as a consequence of such a conception as prevails in modern criticism. Assuming a literal inspiration' of the sacred writers, men endeavoured to establish a harmony by force, and to smooth down all discrepancies of words or things; but owing to the structure of the Gospels this proceeding necessarily led to the greatest caprice. Wherever a difference became apparent in the events, as well as in the discourses, the event or discourse had to be doubled, sometimes to be tripled. Hence, by laying down the rule that the Gospel-history must agree in all things external and non-essential, weapons were placed in the hands of the enemies of the Word of God; the evident disagreement has been used by men as a ground for denying the divine character of the Scriptures. Therefore, the right way

1 I distinguish the literal from the verbal inspiration, and maintain the latter whilst I deny the former. The distinction is, in my opinion, based not so much upon the contrast of essence and form (for the form too is in one sense essential), as upon the essential and the unessential form. The question, however, where does that which is essential in the form separate from the essential itself, or what is word, and what is letter? will, with reference to a given passage, never be so answered as to satisfy all parties, because the individual turn of mind exercises too great an influence upon each man's view. On the whole, however, all those who agree in principle, will likewise be able to agree in this canon. The form of the Scripture, if connected with the quintessence of the doctrine, must be considered as essential, hence it has reference likewise to the inspiration; and only where such a connection has no existence, must the form be considered as unessential. Comp. moreover Tholuck's excellent Treatise on the Contradictions of the Gospels, contained in his work: "Glaubwürdigkeit der Evang. Geschichte gegen Strauss," (Hamb. 1837. p. 429, sqq.) which preserves indeed properly the via media.

here is to keep to the truth, plainly to acknowledge the evident fact of discrepancies in the Gospel-history, and seek to reconcile these, only where a simple method, neither artificial nor constrained, offers itself. The external harmony of the Gospel-history can as little be deemed a proof of its divinity, as would be the case when speaking of the formations of nature. As, in the latter, exact regularity is combined with the greatest degree of freedom, so in the Gospel-history perfect harmony in all that is essential is found with the highest degree of freedom in the treatment of whatever is unessential.' The authenticity of the Gospel-history rests safest only upon the identity of the element of life in which each Evangelist separately moved, and to which the whole new community belonged, of which the Evangelists only were members; this element of life was the Spirit "which leadeth into all truth." But this Spirit that animated the Evangelists and the whole host of the Apostles, neither exempted them from the ordinary means of historical research, such as from the use of family records or narratives of single events, nor did it remove their peculiarities and use them as instruments without sympathy; on the contrary, it transformed their individual capacities and powers, and bestowed on them an infallible sagacity to separate all things erroneous from matters of faith and from essential points of record, so as to perceive with precision all that was real and suitable, and to connect it by a profounder principle of arrangement. If the Evangelists, therefore, sometimes put together the constituent parts of our Lord's discourses differently from what they were when first delivered, still the meaning of them was not altered, although modified. As the living word (which the Lord himself was) operated on the Evangelists, and animated them, it produced in each of them a new spiritual whole, in which the dismembered parts reappear in harmonious connection.

This view taken of the Scripture, of its essential unity, and of its unessential disparity, withdraws us as much from the superstitious worship of the dead letter, as it leads us to the inquiry into the living spirit; but it keeps itself aloof from that empty spirituality which imagines itself able to dispense with

1 A literal agreement of the Gospels would have afforded to the enemies of truth an opportunity to accuse the authors of a fraudulent propagation; such as it is, it appears divine and human at one and the same time.

the external word, and which thus runs the risk of interpreting its empty dreams as essential ideas of truth. Although, therefore, Providence has willed that external marks should not be wanting to prove the authenticity of the Gospels, yet He has not granted us demonstratively to prove the authenticity of the events recorded in the Gospels. Points have been left to excite doubt and suspicion, and through them it is that it accomplishes a part of its destination; since the Christ written, as well as the Christ personally ministering on earth, is set for the fall of many, (Luke ii. 34). With every reader of the Gospel history, therefore, susceptibility of the spirit of truth is presupposed. Wherever this exists, the Gospel-history becomes established in its peculiar character, and with triumphant power. For although it partakes of an historical and biographical character, yet in its treatment of its subject it is not, any more than the subject itself, to be compared with other works of the kind. The Evangelists write with a child-like innocence and frankness, and at the same time with a sublime simplicity of heart, so as to form a combination not to be found under other circumstances. Their individuality remains entirely in the background; they record without reflection, without any breaking forth in terms of praise, or blame, or admiration, even when describing the most sublime occurrences. They appear to be absorbed, as it were, in the contemplation of the great picture which had been displayed before them, and, forgetting themselves, they re-produce the phenomenon in its pure state of truth. The Gospel-history, therefore, bears witness of itself and of its authenticity, in no other manner than does the Lord himself. He has no other witness but himself and the Father, (John viii. 18). In this manner (as in holy writ in general) the Gospel-history testifies of itself, by the Spirit of God dwelling within it. Whosoever is of the truth heareth his voice.

It is only where this Spirit of God has not as yet manifested his power, that the notion may spring up, that the history of Christ is parallel with all other biographies of great men, and that whatever is marvellous in it, as well as in the former, must be regarded as a fable. The want of internal individual experience of the regenerating power of Christ-the want of the testimony of the Holy Ghost, which alone vouchsafes the certainty of the divinity of the Scriptures, has ever formed a stumbling-block in the way of belief in the wondrous garment enveloping the per

son of our Lord. In ancient times this stumbling-block assumed the form of a hostile position against the church; it was reserved for modern times only to behold it playing antics, under the guise of advance in Christian science. This took place first in the so-called natural exposition, whose doom, however, has been proclaimed long ago by its own innate unnaturalness; it requires, therefore, no further refutation. Next, especially from the time of Gabler, in the form of the mythical exposition, which, since Strauss has carried it to its extreme, is hastening to self-destruction. The inapplicability of the mythical exposition to the life of Jesus, follows irrefutably: firstly, From the early date of the sources, namely, of the four canonical Gospels, the authenticity and age of which may be proved satisfactorily on external and internal grounds. So long as the eye-witnesses of the wondrous events of the life of Jesus lived, mythos could have nothing to do with it; there could be no formation of undesigned poetical tales, but only productions of enthusiasm and of fraud. Secondly, The inapplicability of the mythical exposition to the gospel, follows from the acknowledged authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Epistles of St Paul, as also of many other main writings of the New Testament. Down to the present time no one has ventured as yet to deny the authenticity of the main Epistles of St Paul and St John, and yet they quite contain the view of the person of Christ which forms the foundation of the four Gospels; hence it appears as being the very first Christian view. If the mythical exposition is to be maintained, nothing remains but to declare the Apostle Paul to be either an enthusiast, or an impostor; thirdly, The origin of the Christian Church, the continuity of consciousness in her, the purity of spirit that was in her particularly powerful and active, especially during the first centuries, nowise permits us to think of a mere beautiful imagination as the ultimate ground of these phenomena. That a church should have been formed of Jews and Gentiles, who worshipped a crucified Son of God, is, according to the mythical conception of the life of Jesus, a far greater wonder than all those that are thereby to give way; the fact of the Christian church becomes intelligible only from the statements made by the Evangelists. As, moreover, there was no chasm in the consciousness of the church, which now began to spread all over the world, and as an unheard-of spirit of moral purity animated her, especially during the earliest period, no room appears to be left for the

« السابقةمتابعة »