of his character. Still there must have been a foundation of fact for such a superstructure; a great spirit to have commenced such a movement as the Christian; a great doctrine to have accomplished this, the most profound and wondrous revolution in human affairs. We must conclude that these writers would describe the main features of his life, and set down the great principles of his doctrine, its most salient points, and his most memorable sayings, such as were poured out in the highest moments of inspiration. If the teacher were true, these sayings would involve all the rest of his doctrine, which any man of simple character, religious heart, and mind free from prejudice, could unfold and develope still further. The condition and nature of the Christian records will not allow us to go farther than this, and be curious in particulars. Their legendary and mythical character does not warrant full confidence in their narrative. There are certain main features of doctrine in which the Evangelists and the Apostles all agree, though they differ in most other points.[1]
- ↑
The character of the record is such that I see not how any stress can be laid
on each particular action attributed to Jesus. That he lived a divine life,
suffered a violent death, taught and lived a most true and beautiful religion, this
seems the great fact about which a mass of truth and error has been collected.
That he should gather disciples, be opposed by the Priests and Pharisees, have
controversies with them—this lay in the nature of things. His loftiest sayings
seem to me the most likely to be genuine. The great stress laid on the Person
of Jesus by his followers, shows what the person must have been. They put the
Person before the thing, the fact above the Idea. But it is not about vulgar
men that such mythical stories are told. See Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1828;
Furness, Jesus and his Biographers; Strauss, Leben Jesu, 4th, ed. 1840;
English Tr. of Strauss, 1846; Hase, Leben Jesu, 3d ed. 1840; Theile, Zur
Biographie Jesu, 1837; Weisse, Evangelische Geschichte, 1838; Gfrörer,
Urchristenthum, &c., 1836; Hennel, Inquiry concerning the Origin of
Christianity, Lond. 1838; Harwood, German Anti-supematuralism, Lond. 1840.
See the voluminous replies to Strauss by Tholuck, Neander, Ebrard, Lange,
Harless, &c. &c. See the valuable paper of Dr. Kling on recent Apologetic
literature of the N. T. in Stud. und Krit. for Oct. 1846, p. 953, et seq.
Norton, ubi sup. Vol. II. p. cliv., considers it an “unquestionable fact, that the
words of our Saviour are not always reported with perfect correctness.” See too
p. clxii. cxciii., and Vol. I. p. lix. lxi. et seq.
See the recent works of Ewald, F. C. Baur, Köstlin, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Anger, Lekebusch, Luthardt, Meyer, Lechler, Hase, Ritschl, Volckmar, and Norton, on matters pertaining to this subject. Zeller's Theologische Jahrbücher (Tüb. 1842, et seq.), and Ewald's Jabrbücher der Biblischen Wissenschaft (Gött. 1849, et seq,), abound in valuable materials. The new edition of the Clementine Homilies, (Dressell, Gött. 1863), containing matter not published before, and the various books of Bunsen, Baur, Petermann, Cureton, and others, relating to the Ignatian writings, and the work ascribed to Hippolytus, with the controversial writings thereon, all throw light on the subjects of this chapter.
