ARTICLE II.

MORE RECENT WORKS ON THE LIFE OF CHRIST.

BY CHARLES M. MEAD, M.A., BERLIN, PRUSSIA.

THE most noteworthy Lives of Jesus that have appeared during the last two or three years are those of Renan, Schenkel, and Schleiermacher, and the revised edition of Strauss's. The first of these has been so widely circulated, and has called forth so many criticisms, that it seems almost superfluous to add anything to what others have said. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness and of convenience of comparison, it may be well to take here a cursory view of the work.

If we compare Renan with Strauss, in reference to the general impression which their works are fitted to make, the former must be pronounced the least objectionable. He aims at a more positive result. He does not manifest such an utter lack of sense for the dignity of Christianity. There are parts of the book which, by the vividness which they impart to certain scenes in the life of Christ, must be called by every one exceedingly interesting and valuable. German critics usually call Renan's work less profound than that of Strauss; and so it is, if minuteness of discussion and criticism is made the test. But Strauss wrote for the scientific, Renan for the popular, reader. This gives Renan's work a perspicuity and attractiveness which by no means necessarily indicate lack of learning or of care. In one respect, certainly, Renan is superior to Strauss; we mean in his acquaintance with the genius, customs, and literature of the Jews. And this acquaintance has been skilfully used. In one particular, however, we may admit the charge to be well founded. While Strauss by one fundamental assumption, that of the unreality of the supernatural, and the consequent simple humanity of Christ, jus

tified his absolute rejection of the New Testament as a source of history, Renan, though starting with the same assumption, ascribes also a considerable degree of credi bility to the Gospels. Consequently he is obliged to resort to numerous, and often fanciful, conjectures, in order to make the two assumptions harmonize. His logic is less rigorous than that of Strauss, because his appreciation of Christianity and his regard for historic probability are greater. In short, he has not the courage to develop a fundamental error so fearlessly to its legitimate results.

As to the four Gospels, Renan's view is as follows: they are all, speaking in general terms, genuine and authentic; but we do not have them in their original form. For, at first the Christians had no scruples in making additions to and changes in the Gospels. "Each one wrote on the margin of his copy the sayings and parallel passages which he found elsewhere, and which pleased him." Not till after the middle of the second century did the Gospels receive their present form and authority. Mark is more authentic than Matthew, and Matthew more than Luke. John's Gospel is, as to the historical part, superior to either of the others; but the language there ascribed to Christ is in general not so authentic. Although the origin of this Gospel is a puzzling problem, it must be considered probable that John wrote the most of it, putting, unconsciously, his own later-learned philosophy into the mouth of Jesus. For "our recollections are formed like everything else; the ideal of a person whom we have known changes with ourselves." In general, of the fourth Gospel we may say that it contains "the reminiscences of an old man; sometimes marked by wonderful freshness, sometimes by strange errors." But all the Gospels are "partly legendary." This must be inferred from the fact that they are so "full of the miraculous and the supernatural." The problem, therefore, is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and construct an authentic life of Jesus. In order to do this, the chief thing needed is an "aesthetic sense"; "conjecture" must be

allowed to play freely. The deficiencies of the Gospels in pragmatic and chronological arrangement must be supplied by hypothesis.

Renan's general hypothesis respecting Jesus is, that he must at first have availed himself of moral aphorisms and customs which were current at his time, in impressing his views on the people; that then, having become more mature and self-possessed, he acquired a calm, poetic eloquence, holding himself aloof from controversy; that gradually he became more stimulated by his ideas respecting the kingdom of God, i.e. "the kingdom of the spirit," was roused by opposition, and at last dealt chiefly in polemics and invectives. "These," adds Renan, with great näivete, “are the periods which are clearly distinguishable in the Koran." With this plan before him, the writer has nothing to do but to compose the life, selecting now a passage from this place, now one from that, just according as it best serves to execute the plan, rejecting what does not suit it at all, as being legendary. As a security that his "artistic sense" does not mislead him, he can only say that, when one examines the Gospels carefully, "the real words of Jesus disclose themselves, so to speak, spontaneously." Let one example illustrate his principle and method: the narrative contained in Mark iii. 21, says Renan, belongs to the latter part of Christ's public life. But, one might object, it comes very early in the book; it seems to belong there; do you not know, besides, that, according to very many critics, it is in Mark especially that we may look for the most accurate historical sequence of events in the narratives? That proves nothing, would be the reply; my business is to bring order out of chaos, and to do that, this passage must be moved. But why just this passage? Because, according to the progress of development in Jesus' character, it could not be that in that early period, when he lived in Galilee, surrounded by such bewitching scenery, loved and followed by admiring disciples, waited on by women, who, to be sure, "loved him more

than his work," but towards whom he yet cherished "extraordinarily tender sentiments," it cannot be that in that first year, when he only preached the kingdom of the humble and lowly, in that year "when God veritably dwelt on earth," it cannot be that during that "idyllic" life he could have been accused of being beside himself. But why not? Because this could only happen after he had been in Jerusalem, when his fanatical tendencies had been developed; when he went so far as to disown family ties, to require absolute poverty and celibacy; when he fancied himself possessed of superhuman authority; when he had ceased "to find pleasure in living, loving, seeing, and feeling." But how do you know there was just such a development in Jesus' character, and that only late in life he proclaimed his "destructive principles "? Because this was the case with Mahomet, and must have been also with Jesus. But how do you know that Jesus' life must have presented the same phases as Mahomet's? My "aesthetic sense tells me so. But others hold different views; why must we trust your "sense" rather than theirs? Because "in order to write the history of a religion, it is necessary, first, that one should have once believed in it; secondly, that one should fully believe in it no longer."

This is no caricature. We are asked by Mons. Renan to trust implicitly to his a priori conceptions of what Jesus' character and life must have been, and that, too, for the very reason that he no longer believes in Christianity! The audacity of this claim would seem more amazing, did Renan not have the art of clothing the most surprising, and even offensive, sentiments in such a poetic gracefulness of style. Whatever may be thought of his taste in conceiving, he certainly has a rare skill in delineating. The title taken by the Dutch theologian Osterzee for his review of Renan's work, "History or Romance?" is a most fit one. If the novel is not a model one, the failure is due rather to the fundamental error of Renan's estimate of Christ than to his lack of genius and fancy.

A more serious question is that which relates to Renan's honesty. The most candid reader cannot deny that it is, at least, open to suspicion. Such contradictory representations as he gives of Christ's character certainly agree ill with his declared purpose to give a consistent picture. Jesus, we are told, was "sinless," and yet "not free from sin." He was "the greatest of moralists"; yet accepted the title "Son of David," only because "without it he could have hoped for no success." He is a man "who will never be surpassed"; yet he was a very ignorant man, having even no "clear idea of what it is that constitutes individuality." He is of such importance that "without him history is unintelligible"; yet his doctrines were "utopian and chimerical." He "attained the very summit of human greatness"; yet he was a fanatic, who "violated the sacred restraints of human nature, and even praised his followers for being bad sons and unpatriotic citizens, when they became such for his sake. He was "the creator of the eternal religion of humanity"; yet this creation was an accident, for had not John the Baptist been beheaded, he "would have continued to be only an unknown Jewish schismatic." These antitheses might be almost indefinitely multiplied. And no fewer quotations might be made, showing in what manner Renan, in his patronizing expla nations and defences of Jesus' conduct, contrives to damn with faint praise or with half-concealed irony. When he attempts to transfer his own pantheism to Jesus, we are reminded of his remark that our "ideal of a person changes with ourselves." The cavalier-like manner with which he sets aside the most prevalent beliefs respecting Christ and the sacred narratives as hardly worth noticing, may be cunning, but is not quite ingenuous; and, even with the greatest stretch of charity, one can hardly believe his enthu siasm to be sincere when he exclaims, in reference to Mary Magdalene's account of her visit at the tomb of Jesus: "Divine power of love! Holy moments in which the passion of a visionary woman gives to the world a risen God!"