[78] Professor Geikie, however, though a strong, is a fair and candid advocate. He says of Darwin"s theory, "That it may be possibly true, in some instances, may be readily granted." For Professor Geikie, then, it is not yet overthrown--still less a dream.
[79] I find, moreover, that I specially warned my readers against hasty judgment. After stating the facts of observation, I add, "I have, hitherto, said nothing about their meaning, as, in an inquiry so difficult and fraught with interest as this, it seems to me to be in the highest degree important to keep the questions of fact and the questions of interpretation well apart" (p. 210).
[80] See the _Official Report of the Church Congress held at Manchester_, October 1888, pp. 253, 254.
[81] [In this place and in the eleventh essay, there are references to the late Archbishop of York which are of no importance to my main argument, and which I have expunged because I desire to obliterate the traces of a temporary misunderstanding with a man of rare ability, candour, and wit, for whom I entertained a great liking and no less respect. I rejoice to think now of the (then) Bishop"s cordial hail the first time we met after our little skirmish, "Well, is it to be peace or war?" I replied, "A little of both." But there was only peace when we parted, and ever after.]
[82] 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 a.s.sertion that it "ought to be regarded as settled by M. Renan"s practical surrender of the adverse case." I thought I knew M. Renan"s works pretty well, but I have contrived to miss this "practical" (I wish Dr. Wace had defined the scope of that useful adjective) surrender. However, as Dr. Wace can find no difficulty in pointing out the pa.s.sage of M. Renan"s writings, by which he feels justified in making his statement, I shall wait for further enlightenment, contenting myself, for the present, with remarking that if M. Renan were to retract and do penance in Notre-Dame to-morrow for any contributions to Biblical criticism that may be specially his property, the main results of that criticism, as they are set forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, would not be sensibly affected.
[83] [See De Gobineau, _Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l"Asie Centrale_; and the recently published work of Mr. E. G. Browne, _The Episode of the Bab_.]
[84] Here, as always, the revised version is cited.
[85] Does any one really mean to say that there is any internal or external criterion by which the reader of a biblical statement, in which scientific matter is contained, is enabled to judge whether it is to be taken _au serieux_ or not? Is the account of the Deluge, accepted as true in the New Testament, less precise and specific than that of the call of Abraham, also accepted as true therein? By what mark does the story of the feeding with manna in the wilderness, which involves some very curious scientific problems, show that it is meant merely for edification, while the story of the inscription of the Law on stone by the hand of Jahveh is literally true? If the story of the Fall is not the true record of an historical occurrence, what becomes of Pauline theology? Yet the story of the Fall as directly conflicts with probability, and is as devoid of trustworthy evidence, as that of the Creation or that of the Deluge, with which it forms an harmoniously legendary series.
[86] See, for an admirable discussion of the whole subject, Dr. Abbott"s article on the Gospels in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_; and the remarkable monograph by Professor Volkmar, _Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit_ (1882). Whether we agree with the conclusions of these writers or not, the method of critical investigation which they adopt is unimpeachable.
[87] Notwithstanding the hard words shot at me from behind the hedge of anonymity by a writer in a recent number of the _Quarterly Review_, I repeat, without the slightest fear of refutation, that the four Gospels, as they have come to us, are the work of unknown writers.
[88] Their arguments, in the long run, are always reducible to one form.
Otherwise trustworthy witnesses affirm that such and such events took place. These events are inexplicable, except the agency of "spirits" is admitted. Therefore "spirits" were the cause of the phenomena.
And the heads of the reply are always the same. Remember Goethe"s aphorism: "Alles factische ist schon Theorie." Trustworthy witnesses are constantly deceived, or deceive themselves, in their interpretation of sensible phenomena. No one can prove that the sensible phenomena, in these cases, could be caused only by the agency of spirits: and there is abundant ground for believing that they may be produced in other ways. Therefore, the utmost that can be reasonably asked for, on the evidence as it stands, is suspension of judgment. And, on the necessity for even that suspension, reasonable men may differ, according to their views of probability.
[89] Yet I must somehow have laid hold of the pith of the matter, for, many years afterwards, when Dean Mansell"s Bampton lectures were published, it seemed to me I already knew all that this eminently agnostic thinker had to tell me.
[90] _Kritik der reinen Vernunft_. Edit. Hartenstein, p. 256.
[91] _Report of the Church Congress_, Manchester, 1888, p. 252.
[92] _Fortnightly Review_, Jan. 1889.
[93] My citations are made from Teulet"s _Einhardi omnia quae 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.
[94] At present included in the Duchies of Hesse-Darmstadt and Baden.
[95] This took place in the year 826 A.D. The relics were brought from Rome and deposited in the Church of St. Medardus at Soissons.
[96] Now included in Western Switzerland.
[97] Probably, according to Teulet, the present Sandhofer-fahrt, a little below the embouchure of the Neckar.
[98] The present Michilstadt, thirty miles N.E. of Heidelberg.
[99] In the Middle Ages one of the most favourite accusations against witches was that they committed just these enormities.
[100] It is pretty clear that Eginhard had his doubts about the deacon, whose pledges he qualifies as _sponsiones incertae_. But, to be sure, he wrote after events which fully justified scepticism.
[101] The words are _scrinia sine clave_, which seems to mean "having no key." But the circ.u.mstances forbid the idea of breaking open.
[102] Eginhard speaks with lofty contempt of the "vana ac superst.i.tiosa praesumptio" of the poor woman"s companions in trying to alleviate her sufferings with "herbs and frivolous incantations." Vain enough, no doubt, but the "mulierculae" might have returned the epithet "superst.i.tious" with interest.
[103] Of course there is nothing new in this argument; but it does not grow weaker by age. And the case of Eginhard is far more instructive than that of Augustine, because the former has so very frankly, though incidentally, revealed to us not only his own mental and moral habits, but those of the people about him.
[104] See 1 Cor. xii. 10-28; 2 Cor. vi. 12; Rom. xv. 19.
[105] _A Journal or Historical Account of the Life, Travels, Sufferings, and Christian Experiences, &c., of George Fox_. Ed. 1694, pp. 27, 28.
[106] 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.
[107] The United States ought, perhaps, to be added, but I am not sure.
[108] Imagine that all our chairs of Astronomy had been founded in the fourteenth century, and that their inc.u.mbents 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 _Vortrage 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 Urchristenthum_ and _Die Tubinger 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 _Vortrage_.
[109] 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.
[110] 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 pa.s.sed 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.
[111] 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."
[112] See Schurer, _Geschichte des judischen Volkes_, Zweiter Theil, p.
384.
[113] s.p.a.cious, because a young man could sit in it "on the right side"
(xv. 5), and therefore with plenty of room to spare.
[114] 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).
[115] 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."
[116] 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.
[117] See _Dial. c.u.m Tryphone_, -- 47 and -- 35. It is to be understood that Justin does not arrange these categories in order, as I have done.
[118] 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 116, p. 429 above.
[119] [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.]
[120] All this was quite clearly pointed out by Ritschl nearly forty years ago. See _Die Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_ (1850), p. 108.
[121] "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, _Vortrage_ (1865), p. 26.
[122] 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.
[123] The substance of a paragraph which precedes this has been transferred to the Prologue.